Corpus-Paul

["Michael Thompson" <mbt2 AT cam.ac.uk>]

"Jeffrey B. Gibson" <jgibson000 AT mailhost.chi.ameritech.net> wrote: 

> I'd also be interested in seeing responses on [the new perspective on
Paul] beyond what I have to
> suggest:
> 
> Besides almost anything by Ed Sanders there's
> 
> James D.G. Dunn, "The New Perspective on Paul,"  Bulletin of the John
Ryland's Library
> 65 (1982-83) 95-122.
> 
> N.T. Wright, _What Saint Paul Really Said_
> 
> Philip A. Cunningham, _Jewish Apostle to the Gentiles: Paul as He Saw
Himself_
> 
> Ben Witherington, _The Paul Quest_.
> 
> R. Gundry,  "Grace, Works, and Staying Saved in Paul," Biblica 66 (1985)
1-38.
> 
> On the old(er) interpretation, A. Schweitzer's work on Paul is invaluable.

I think Gundry actually reflects the old perspective, but my memory is
terrible. 

The New Perspective as I understand it presupposes a 'new' perspective on
Judaism (although cf G F Moore and others before Sanders) that (rightly)
sees it as a religion of grace, and not as a religion teaching that one
earns acceptance with God. A new perspective reading typically emphasizes
that in Galatians Paul is dealing with the issue of whether Gentiles need to
become Jews in order to be Christians. His contrast between works of the law
and faith is not a contrast between doing and believing as basic principles,
but specifically between practices that mark one out as a Jew (Dunn:
'boundary markers') and faith _in Christ_. Paul's judaizing opponents would
certainly have said they advocated circumcision, food laws and sabbaths
because of their faith, but for Paul, the only faith that counted was a
recognition of God's gift of righteousness in Christ. To insist on Jewish
particulars plus faith in Jesus was _in effect_ to seek to be justified by
works instead of by faith.

Paul's fundamental problem with Judaism was that the Jews were not
recognizing Jesus as the Messiah. If conservative Jewish Christians had not
insisted on circumcision as a prerequisite to being a part of the people of
God, and if non-Christian Jews had not continued to rely on the Law (which
Paul saw now as temporary) instead of turning to Christ, I doubt that he
would ever have written anything negative about the Law. One of the essay
questions we often set our students here is, 'Would Paul have circumcised
his son (if he had one)?'

One benefit of the new perspective reading is that unlikely interpretations
of texts that don't fit the old dichotomy of doing vs believing (e.g. the
judgement in Rom 2 as hypothetical since it is based on works) can now be
seen clearly to be erroneous. For Paul, what mattered was 'faith _working_
through love', and his theology can be seen by its Jewish roots to fit more
neatly alongside Jesus' insistence that a tree is known by its fruit, and
James' insistence on a faith that works (ch 2). How precisely James 2 and
Paul relate is, of course, another discussion altogether.      
  
Another person advocating a 'new perspective' slant is Bruce Longenecker
(_The Triumph of Abraham's God_; T&T Clark, 1998).

Let the fur fly!

Mike Thompson

============================================================================

Michael B Thompson                          Telephone (0)1223-741066(study)
Ridley Hall                                           (0)1223-741077 (home)
Cambridge, UK  CB3 9HG                                (0)1223-741081 (fax)
                         http://www.ridley.cam.ac.uk