Corpus-Paul

["moon-ryul jung" <moon AT saint.soongsil.ac.kr>]

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