Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: Sanders and the "New" Perspective

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Karl P. Donfried" <kdonfrie AT email.smith.edu>
  • To: Corpus-paul <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: Sanders and the "New" Perspective
  • Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2001 13:15:20 -0400


Dear Mark,

First let me apologize in advance for any delays in responding but we
are at our vacation home, in the midst of a storm with concomitant phone
line disruptions.

I am grateful for the Elliott and Pate references which I will be glad
to learn from. This is exactly the kind of suggestion that I was
looking for.

What got me started on this issue of the “deeds of the law” was reading
a quite competent assessment of justification by Paul O’Callaghan, FIDES
CHRISTI: The Justification Debate (1997). There he, dependent on
Sanders, seems not to appreciated the difference between the thought of
the Qumran yahad and other forms of Judaism present in Palestine at that
time, and this is especially the case of his treatment of miqsat ma‘ase
hatora.

Leaving aside for the moment the issue of the Reformation interpretation
or that of the new perspective, let me begin with this concern. In Paul
we have a phrase (“deeds of the law”), presumably deeds prescribed by
the Mosaic law. This anarthrous slogan like phrase is not found in the
TANAK, nor does it occur in later rabbinic literature, but it is used in
the Qumran literature. Now what is particularly striking is not so much
that the phrase is used some seven times but that it is used in a
context that speaks of the law in its relation to righteousness. In
4QMMT C 30-31 we read “in your deed you may be reckoned as righteous.”
This would suggest to m:

1. Paul seems to know whereof he was speaking when he took issue with
some form of contemporary Judaism (probably Qumran) over works-righteousness.

2. That Dunn is wrong when he understands this Qumran language as simply
“defining a boundary which marks out those of faith/faithfulness from
others” [NTS 43 (1997) 151].

3. That Paul rejects one way of being reckoned as righteous for another.

4. While there are a remarkable set of parallels between Paul and the
DSS, suggesting that in some way he was influenced by this world of
thought, often positively, Paul excludes from HIS idea of justification
(i.e., being rightwised), all need to observe the Mosaic law: “No human
being will be justified before him through deeds prescribed by the law”
(Rom 3:20). Paul’s bold addition to Ps 142:2, “deeds prescribed by the
law,” is a rejection of the works righteousness found in Qumran.

Reactions from all would be most appreciated.

Thanks,
Karl


"Mark D. Nanos" wrote:
>
> on 7/26/01 8:42 AM, Karl P. Donfried at kdonfrie AT email.smith.edu wrote:
>
> > First, allow me to repeat my question whether there are major criticisms
> > of “the new perspective” on Paul (i.e. Sanders, Dunn) out there in
> > addition to Neusner and Fitzmyer. That would be helpful to know. Can
> > anyone cite such literature? Thanks in advance
>
> Karl,
> Below your comments I offer a few comments and biblio. you seem to be
> searching for in support of the view you express.
>
> Bibl. (for views that fail to convince me)
> You no doubt know Westerholm's Israel's Law and the Church's Faith, as well
> as several books by Thielman that offer direct challenges to Sanders, et al.
> More recent are:
> Mark A. Elliott, The Survivors of Israel: A Reconsideration of the Theology
> of Pre-Christian Judaism, Eerdmans.
> C. Marvin Pate, The Reverse of the Curse, Mohr Siebeck.
> >
> > Second, I do have difficulty in accepting the positions of Sanders and
> > Dunn in these matters given the texts from the DDS, which I consider to
> > be a primary witness to a form of Second Temple Judaism than the far
> > later, often Talmudic texts, that Sanders employs. There is the
> > disturbing fact that Sanders section on “The Dead Sea Scrolls” follows
> > his discussion of the “Tannaitic Literature” thus suggesting that this
> > considerably later material predates the Dead Sea Scrolls. This
> > problematic portrayal of late Second Century Judaism is concisely
> > summarized by Joseph Fitzmyer: “What a picture of first-century
> > ‘Palestinian Judaism’ emerges!”
>
> Valid point, a methodological problem in Sander's early work. One should be
> very careful with sources.
> >
> > Third, I find it likely that the Pauline phrase “works of the law”
> > (e¶rga no/mou) can best be understood in light of the parallel phrase in
> > 4QMMT. It has been correctly stated that this Pauline phrase has no
> > parallel in the Jewish Bible. Close, but not exact, is the use of the
> > noun hCom (“deed”) in Ex 18:20: “teach them the statutes and
> > instructions and make known to them the way they are to go and the deed
> > they are to do.” Referring to similar ideas, Num 15:39 and Deut 16:12,
> > 30:8 use alternative terms, twwxm (“commandments”) and Myqwj (“laws”).
> > However, the parallel phrase to Paul’s e¶rga no/mou is found in the
> > Qumran texts. In 4QMMT C27 one reads hrwtj yCom txqm (“some deeds of
> > the law”), in 4QMMT C 30-31 the emphasis falls on the correct practice
> > of these deeds (“in your deed (KtwCob) you may be reckoned as
> > righteous”) and in 1QS 5:21 and 6:18 one finds the phrase hrwtb wyCom
> > (“his deeds in the law”). It is not unimportant to recognize that the
> > yahad does not use the typical Pharisaic language, twqlj or twwxm, yet
> > appears to be fully aware of this terminology in creating the clever
> > turn of phrase, twqlj yCrd, “seekers of smooth things” (4Q 169:3-4). Of
> > course, the scrolls there are other variations of the theme hrwt twCol.
>
> The same care needs to be taken with the use of these sources.
>
> But the salient question is whether these uses, or Paul's, have anything to
> do with "individual human effort" in the traditional interpretive sense,
> that is, to cause a transformation of identity. I think not.
>
> In the DSS (and Biblical) examples you mention (and I believe for Paul),
> this language has to do with the behavior appropriate for those already
> identified in a way that obliges them to observe this behavior, however
> translated. That is a very different matter. It has nothing to do with a
> contrast of grace and works, or law and faith, or any such pairs of supposed
> opposites. Both are in fact in play. Because of grace, you do works; because
> of faith you observe law, etc. It is the appropriate response of grateful
> people/groups who agree to be identified in such as way as to be obliged
> (i.e., covenant people). It is not the way that they become such
> people/groups. And that is the categorical matter that I believe Sanders et
> al have finally begun to get a handle on with respect to "common" Jewish
> language usage, regardless of the inconsistent application of these insights
> when turning to Paul's language usage.
>
> >
> > Fourth, it is necessary to more sharply distinguish the different
> > tendencies in Second Temple Judaism as does Shemaryahu Talmon.
> > Shemaryahu Talmon, who prefers to call the group reflected in the
> > scrolls by their own self-description, viz., as the Community of the
> > Renewed Covenant or, simply as the ya-had understands this Community of
> > the Renewed Covenant as a "third- or second-century crystallization of a
> > major socio-religious movement which arose in the early post-exilic
> > Judaism…. The development of the movement runs parallel to that of the
> > competing ratio-nalist stream which first surfaces in the book of Ezra,
> > and especially in the book of Nehemiah, and will ultimately crystallize
> > in Rabbinic or normative Judaism." And, he adds, that the "yahad's
> > final dissent from the emerging brand of Pharisaic Judaism at the turn
> > of the era constitutes the climax of the lengthy confrontation of these
> > two streams." One might well question the so-called “new perspective’s”
> > view of the diversity of Second Temple JudaismS.
>
> Sharpening must continue, but I do not see that this one interpretative
> observation holds the kind of weight you seem to indicate. Do you doubt that
> there was enormous diversity among and between the different Jewish people
> and groups of Judea, Galilee, Syria, Asia Minor, Egypt, Greece, Italy, etc.?
> If so, then you would be go in a different direction than Neusner, whom you
> noted to be challenging Sanders (actually on a very different matter), for
> Neusner goes so far as to propose so much diversity that we should refer to
> Judaisms.
>
> Am I missing your point on any of these areas? If so, please explain.
>
> Regards,
> Mark
> --
> Mark D. Nanos, Ph.D.
> 313 NE Landings Dr.
> Lee's Summit, MO 64064
> USA
> nanosmd AT home.com
>
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to corpus-paul as: kdonfrie AT smith.edu
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to $subst('Email.Unsub')

--


Karl P. Donfried
Elizabeth A. Woodson Professor
of Religion and Biblical Literature
Neilson Library A10
Smith College
Northampton, MA 01063

kdonfrie AT smith.edu
413 585-3669 (phone)
413 256-6202 (fax)




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page