Corpus-Paul

["Mark D. Nanos" <nanos AT gvi.net>]

Moon wrote to Kishore:
...>Now quite unexpectedly (at least to me), Mark claims that Paul did NOT
>criticise Judaism. He seems to say that what Paul criticised (both in
>Galatian and Romans) was Jewish position that Gentiles should pass
>through the proselyte conversion process, i.e. should become Jew
>(in addition to faith in Christ), in order to fully enter the convenant
>with God. This was a sort of in-house debate. In this debate, Paul
>said something which might have been considered severe criticism on
>Judaism and the Law (especially to those who overheard the debate).
>
>As far as I understand, the position of Mark is unique. I guess that
>he was able to come up with such a unique and unheard of position on
>"Paul and the Law" because he is a Jewish person who study Paul (as
>he alluded in one of his posts responding to my post). I want to learn
>from Mark, because he says something I have never heard. I think
>it would be amazing if he could explain all the negative statements of
>Paul
>on Judaism and the Law, but still could say that Paul did not criticise
>Judaism and the Law.

Dear Moon,
I have been out for the past week. I just want to say that I thought your
reply to Kishore was a nice way to explain the context of our discussion.
While much remains to be done, I hope you will find my Mystery of Romans
gets at least some of the work started. But yes, I am convinced that Paul
remained Jewish in identity and behavior in Torah-based terms "common" (per
Sanders) to his time by those who were concerned with the faithful practice
of Torah, whatever that may have meant to the various active groups. I see
this explicit and implicit in his rhetoric and in the continued desire of
his gentile "converts" to understand their own identity positively in
Jewish communal terms, or otherwise growing resentful when they failed to
be accepted on these terms because of following the teachings of Paul and
others that marginalized themselves (as righteous gentiles and not
proselytes). And it is implied even in the Jewish communities' continued
concern with Paul witnessed by repeated disciplinary actions (he continues
to hold himself accountable to other "traditional" interpretations of the
Torah even though he disagrees with some of these now in view of the change
in times).

In simple terms, I think that certain views of an interpreter like Dunn
(who is far from the most glaring example of this) continue to engage
interpreters in an anachronistic assumption (which is judgmental of Jewish
identity and behavior as well) that invests Paul with the views of
"Paulinism," the so-called "Law-free" Paul (e.g., that Jewish identity and
Torah-observance is somehow antithetical to the ideal life of a "righteous
one," i.e., necessarily "weakening" or preventing it, thus prohibiting the
ideal of "freedom"). Did Paul really believe there was something
detrimental to belief in the Jewish Messiah or the resultant lifestyle that
was inherent in being or behaving Jewishly? This kind of view is often
articulated on his behalf (see my discussion of "Luther's trap" in Mystery
of Romans). Such a view limits Paul's historical voice as a Jewish person
from the possibility of representing a Jewish conviction on behalf of
Israel first, and also, equally, of the nations, as expected upon the
arrival (dawning) of the end of the ages (understood in Jewish terms of his
time). Within a Jewish communal setting being Jewish and Law-observant
affords a privileged status in "human" or social terms, but the policy
toward the gentiles of Paul and others within this coalition does not allow
the gentiles to gain this identity on the Jewish community's traditional
terms (i.e., by the inclusive policy of proselyte conversion). Explaining
why this is so, and how these gentiles are to go forward therefore (knowing
they are also equal as children of Abraham, of God, and behaving thus, but
on the other hand, that they are not superior), is what occupies much of
Galatians and Romans.

In other words, since I take "freedom" to be a Jewish and Torah value, I do
not understand the view that "freedom from Law" is something to be desired,
and I react to this assumption in a way that perhaps the Christian
interpreter might not stop to consider. I know this view of a Law-free Paul
may be based on what many Christian interpreters think about Jewish
identity and behavior. Thus the new-perspective exegesis has not caught up
with itself when it comes to Paul, and he seems often out of place or worse
on the map of first-century Judaisms now being drawn. Most Jewish
interpreters have accepted this to represent the historical voice of Paul
(how many Jewish interpreters have actually engaged in exegesis of Paul's
texts before they portray him?). But the question for me is, is this what
Paul thought about Jewish identity or behavior, or what his (primarily)
gentile and Christian interpreters have thought.

When I look at the text to see if this is what Paul wants freedom from, I
do not see it, but something quite different. I see that he wants these
gentiles to be free of the traditional and normative way of gaining
identity as the righteous ones because he believes God has acted
miraculously to already give them this identity. This is no statement about
whether Jewish people are still identified this way (I think it is implied
that they are and will continue to be, i.e., that Paul would circumcise his
son if he had one, a way of maintaining ascribed identity for Jewish
families), but only whether, within this coalition, proselyte conversion
continues (acquired identity for members of the other nations to negotiate
identity as "righteous ones" by becoming Israelites). If Paul did not have
or maintain the value of his identity in Jewish terms, in fact rather
devaluing and opposing it, then I am unable to understand why these
gentiles who believe in Christ to whom he writes in Galatians, converts of
Paul after all, still want it! Can you?

And I cannot understand the implied premise of his rhetoric, for example,
in Gal. 5:3. Paul would have to observe the whole Law in order to expect
this dissuasive point framed for gentile believers in Christ to have any
teeth. He says that proselyte identity involves them necessarily in
Torah-observance, but interpreters assume this does not apply to Paul!
Would not the addressees simply reply: "What's the big deal Paul? We just
want what you have: Jewish identity without Torah-obligation!"? Perhaps
someone can explain this, for it appears to be overlooked in the current
treatments.

I think that Paul is maintaining Jewish values, although his opinion on
what is appropriate on this particular matter for gentiles because of his
faith in Christ "at the current time" is a matter of opinion on which most
if not all Jewish people have come to disagree, although at that time it
was not yet so. I thus separate what I take to be a Christian ideology
(Paulinism) from what I take to be the historical Paul's ideology, and I
continue to believe he represents a valid (if radical and controversial and
dangerous, etc.) Jewish voice of his time, perhaps helpful for both Jewish
and Christian readers in ways not before considered, and a surprisingly
useful voice for Jewish-Christian relations, where the interpretation of
his voice had provided quite a different influence in the past. I think
this Paul might challenge Christian interpreters to rethink Jewish people
and behavior as well as their own relationship to these in the working out
of their faith and practice. And I think this Paul challenges the Jewish
interpreter as well, for he is not so easy to dismiss as a "Christian."
Perhaps this Paul represents some values, especially for how we view and
interact with the "other," that we all need reminding of. What do you think?

Paul's failure to define the boundaries of this coalition in clear
ethnocentric terms (i.e. e.g., circumcised or foreskinned, for an
uncastrated male must be one or the other), such as are drawn in the
ethnocentric terms of proselyte conversion to become Jewish on the one
hand, or so-called Paulinism on the other (preferring to remain free of
Jewish identity), Paul appears both idealistic and easily misunderstood.
For when, in this age, at least, differences remain (e.g., Jew or gentile,
slave or free, male and female), so too do status distinctions, and thus
discrimination results, or counter-discrimination. This is why, I believe,
he called his audiences to live enabled by the Spirit, i.e., above the
distinctions of this age, according to the way of the age to come, even
though the distinctions of this age themselves remained. This seems to me
much like the call of Israel's prophets, which may at times involve a
criticism, of say, the relative value of the sacrificial system to make
their point (but they are not against it per se!). For Paul, I believe,
this implies no contrast with the way of the Torah, but qualification for
both the one (Jew) privileged to be under Torah, and the one (gentile) not
under it, so that they regard each other as equally "righteous ones" now in
view of Christ, a way of life to which the Torah actually calls Israel, and
indirectly, through Israel, all of the created order, that is, in the age
to come (so e.g. I take Rom. 3:29-31). Paul believed the time for Israel
announcing this good news to all of the nations had begun (cf. Rom. 9--11).

Regards,
Mark Nanos

Businessman, author, postgraduate student
University of St Andrews
and Kansas City, Missouri