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: "Mark D. Nanos" <nanosmd AT home.com>
  • To: Corpus-paul <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: Sanders and the "New" Perspective
  • Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 10:52:23 -0500


[I had written]
> “But why would he do so in a letter to faraway Galatia, or Rome, to
> where the
> texts with such language were sent, and moreover, to non-Jews who could
> hardly be expected to know about these rare sectarian documents? Would
> Jewish people in those locations either have those kinds of views, or would
> they have any idea what Paul was writing about?”
>
[to which Karl Donfried responds:]
> Your first question is one of great importance. I assume that the “some
> who trouble” (Gal 1:7) are possibly conservative Jewish Christians from
> Jerusalem who have moved into the Galatian territory to challenge Paul.
> That makes sense of all the “slipped in” language in Jerusalem and that
> of James in Antioch in Paul’s argument. I should further think that
> these folk come from the Mount Zion area where we know there was a
> former Essene quarter. We frequently say that the earliest “Christians”
> were Jews, but of what sort? Who are the priests in Acts 6:7? Hardly
> Sadduceans; probably Essene. Where did Peter and James live? Probably
> in this section of Jerusalem.

Dear Karl,
Your reply brings to the surface what I was trying to clarify: that the
issue of interpretation involves determination of the "usage" of language,
and that this necessitates the hypothesizing of a context for the original
users of that language, both writer and addressees. Of course you know this
as well as do I, and thus you write, "I assume...possibly...that makes
sense"; then again, "should further think...probably." I am not seeking to
address the details to which you appeal, or fault you for recognizing that
these are hypotheses from which you work. There is no other choice for the
later reader. But since I disagree with the situational details you list
(e.g., I do not believe the situation in Galatia involves anyone from
outside of there, except Paul; there is certainly no explicit comment in
Galatians to suggest any persons from Jerusalem or anywhere else are
involved in Galatia, or that this was a concern of Jerusalem
Christ-believers anyway), what "makes sense" to me is different.

I simply want to continue to raise the awareness that apart from a certain
construction an interpreter will not arrive at a certain conclusion. In this
case the way that you make sense of works of law in the following paragraph
is linked to the construction of the situation in the above one. It cannot
be otherwise. But that is one of the reasons why it is so difficult to
challenge an interpretation that has long-standing, such as the traditional
interpretation of Paul's use of "works of law," albeit with a new source
upon which to appeal. What seems so self-evident to those who hold the
traditional view is actually the result of many interpretive decisions, and
each of those must be challenged if one seeks to undermine the conclusions
which continue to be perpetuated. I don't believe that the so-called new
perspective has successfully completed that project, but it did make a
start.

I see no concern with deed's righteousness in the way you do in either Paul
or the Jerusalem Christ-believers. I see no context for them taking it in
the way that later interpreters, asking different questions of the text,
have understood it.

I do not believe this means we cannot advance the discussion. But we must
attend to every detail of the construction of the context and of the usage
of the language upon which are conclusions are based.

[snip]
>
> So much of the Qumran stuff – the use of the Gen 15 Abraham material,
> the Habakkuk citation, the curse of the law, righteousness, deeds of the
> law, etc. suggest that Paul is both reacting against this kind of deeds
> righteousness both as found in the yahad but also as transmitted by the
> very earliest “Christians” in Jerusalem who moved in and from that orbit.

I still do not know of any usage of works of law in Paul that has to do with
works-righteousness, or of anyone with whom he was in dialogue who was
concerned with that question for the gentiles whom Paul addressed. I do not
know that the Christ-believers in Jerusalem were concerned about it in the
sense of human effort either; why would they be, they are righteoused by the
grace of God, just as are the gentiles in question?

It seems to me that the people concerned with works-righteousness populate
later historical times, and engage other's claiming to have the right
approach to Christ. The discussions involve inter-Christian disputes about
orthodoxy and heresy. The language they find in Paul's text seems to fit
their later concerns, and away the interpretation goes...

Take care,
Mark
--
Mark D. Nanos, Ph.D.
313 NE Landings Dr.
Lee's Summit, MO 64064
USA
nanosmd AT home.com






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page