Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: beginner's guide to 'new perspective' - some qns

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "moon-ryul jung" <moon AT saint.soongsil.ac.kr>
  • To: corpus-paul
  • Subject: Re: beginner's guide to 'new perspective' - some qns
  • Date: Wed, 19 May 1999 20:17:58


Dear Jonathan,
as another person who has a great interest in the issues related to the
"new
perspective", let me share what I have understood so far, so that more
learned than me might correct me if I got wrong. Please also refer to the
past postings
on "Jews-Gentile Relations" and related topics exchanged between Mark Nanos
and
Moon-Ryul Jung (me).

On 05/19/99, "Jonathan Ryder <jpr1001 AT cam.ac.uk>" wrote:
> Dear C-P,
>
> Following my earlier request ...
>
> First, thanks to Jeffrey, Mark and Mike for their responses.
>
> I've just read some of Dunn's earlier article which is useful as it starts
> with
> Sanders, putting him in context, and then goes on to detail his own new
> take on Paul
> as a result. I now have some initial questions which I'd be grateful if
> C-Pers could
> comment on.
>
> Dunn characterises Sander's work (chiefly PPJ) as a new perspective on
> Judaism (as
> mentioned as the 'presupposition' of the NP by Mike Thompson) and that
> Sanders
> himself, and those initially responding to/running with Sanders, comes up
> with very
> much an old perspective picture of Paul. Before turning to Paul himself,
> has anyone
> seriously contested Sanders NP on Judaism (ie provided a real alternative),
> whether
> from within Pauline studies or wider afield or can we say this is an
> 'assured result'?

I will let others comment on this question.

>
> Dunn proceeds with 'an exegesis and description of Paul's theology from this
> perspective'. Chiefly, he reassesses justification as (Jewish) covenant
> language -
> speaking of God's recognition/acknowledgement that someone is in the
> covenant rather
> than initiation or transfer terminology. Does Dunn hold the court here?

Your summary here of the new perspective is somewhat confusing. It's basic
tennet is:
Judaism (as found in the literature) did not teach that one needed
to observe the law to "get in" the covenant; rather, observing the law
was a requirement for "staying in" the covenant which they entered
by the grace of God. Paul did not think differently in this regard.
This perspective invalidates the traditional Protestant interpretation,
which basically claims that Paul opposed legalism, i.e. salvation based on
one's merit.

In the case of Jews, however, it is practically meaningless to talk
about a sharp distinction between getting in and staying in. They were
"born in the covenant" so to speak. But in the case of Gentiles, some
Jews required Gentiles to accept the law of Moses to become a full
member of the people of God.

When Paul argued "man is justified not by the works of Law, but by faith
in/of Christ", he meant that
Gentiles do not need to accept the Law of Moses,
typically
circumcision, eating regulations, etc, in order
to become members of the people of God (i.e.
to be "righteoused"/ to be a descendant of Abraham).

So, the language of justification IS considered transfer terminology. Paul
was only saying that the law of Moses was not required for this transfer.
He argued in by refering to Abraham, who did not have the law. But his
opposition to
the Law as an entrance requirement was not because Judaism taught
merit-based salvation, in contrast to the "old perspective". It was
because God is God of Gentiles as well and they did not need to become
Jews,
i.e. proselyte Jews, to enter the covenant with God. That is why the
language of "righteoused" is considered to have to do with the
"Jews-Gentile social relations", not with the question "how can a person be
saved?"

Why, then, did Paul opposed to proselytization so strongly? Here Sanders
and
Dunn have different answers. Sanders thinks that it was simply because the
new
age had dawned through Christ and the way of Jews was obsoblete. In sum,
Paul
was againt the way of Judaism because it was not "Christianity", which he
was convinced was the new way of God. Sanders does not find any specific
faults with the Law of Moses or Judaism. It was a legitimate and noble
pattern of religion.

Dunn, however, thinks that, though Judaism of Paul's time was not religion
of merit-based salvation, its adherence to identity marks, e.g.
circumcision,
eating regulation, etc made unable to see the new way. Mark Nanos thinks
that
Dunn did not overcome the old perspective completely and re-vived it
through the backdoor. I refer to Mark's posts.

Cheers!

Moon-ryul Jung
Assistant Professor
Dept of Computer Science
Soongsil University, Seoul, Korea






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page