Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: Gal 2:17

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: John Lupia <JLupia2 AT excite.com>
  • To: Corpus-paul <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: Gal 2:17
  • Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2001 16:00:52 -0700 (PDT)


Jeffrey Gibson wrote:

Shades of what E. P. Sanders and others demonstrated was the "lutheran
stereotype" of first century Judaism!  I wonder if you have evidence to back
up this claim about Judaism and justification?


Dear Jeffrey:

Before I begin I would like to thank Richard Fellows for his very kind note.
Since I am reviewing several manuscripts it has kept me at bay as a lurker
here for some time.

Now, regarding Gal. 2,17 this issue has already been taken up many times in
the literature as well as in discussions on the Corpus-Paulinum List with
Mark D. Nanos and Rick Carr.

http://franklin.oit.unc.edu/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?visit=corpus-paul&id=161571778
http://franklin.oit.unc.edu/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?visit=corpus-paul&id=161571908
http://franklin.oit.unc.edu/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?visit=corpus-paul&id=161571971

The issue within the infant Church is circumscribed and assigned to sometime
during the 19 years between AD 41 - 62 following the publication and
circulation of The Gospel According to Luke (my view is very different than
Lindsey) and when James was stoned to death by Ananus the Younger (cf.
Josephus, Ant.20.9.1§200).

Your response, Jeffrey, is tripartite and so I will do my best to address
each part separately as follows:

PART 1

"LUTHERANISM IN GAL. 2,17?"

I am not a Lutheran but a Roman Catholic. I was cognizant of the Lutheran
doctrine as I was writing my response to Billy LeJeune, our fine list
member's query on Gal. 2,17, originally posted on 9 Oct, but wished to avoid
sectarianism in my posting. Now that you have brought up the subject I will
refer you to the Roman Catholic doctrine on Justification found in The
Catechism of the Catholic Church, nos. 402, 617, 654, 1987, 1989-92, 1994,
1996, 1266, 2001, 2018. The main section consists in nos. 1987-2029.

Eight of these Catechism numbers refer to the essential Catholic doctrine on
justification as follows:

402 All human persons are sinners under the law born as such being
offspring of Adam (cf. Rom. 5,12, 18-19).

This was a Second Temple Jewish teaching deduced from what was taught by St.
Paul, if this method is accepted as valid. The Pauline doctrine regarding
justification is an expansion on this teaching.

617 Christ's sacrifice is "the source of eternal salvation" ((cf. Heb. 5,9)

654 Through Christ's death we are freed from sin; through his Resurrection
we are given a new life in God's grace, "so that as Christ was raised from
the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in a newness of
life." ((Rom. 6,4; cf. 4,25). Justification consists in both victory over
death caused by sin and a new participation in grace (Eph. 2,4-5; 1 Peter
1,3). It makes us brethren in Christ, as Jesus himself called his disciples
after his Resurrection: "Go and tell my brethren." (Mt 28,10; Jn 20,17).

1987 The grace of the Holy Spirit has the power to justify us, that is, to
cleanse us from our sins and to communicate to us "the righteousness of God
through faith in Jesus Christ" and through Baptism (Rom. 3,22; cf. 6,3-4;
and Rom. 6,8-11).

1988 Through the power of the Holy Spirit we take part in Christ's Passion
by dying to sin, and in his Resurrection by being born to a new life; we are
members of his Body which is the Church, branches grafted onto the vine
which is himself (cf. 1 Cor. 12; Jn 15,1-4).

1989 The first work of grace of the Holy Spirit is conversion, effecting
justification in accordance with Jesus' proclamation at the beginning of the
Gospel: "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." (Mt 4,17)

1992 Justification has been merited for us by the Passion of Christ who
offered himself on the cross as a living victim, holy and pleasing to God,
and whose blood has become the instrument of atonement for the sins of all
men. Justification is conferred in Baptism, the sacrament of faith. It
conforms us to the righteousness of God, who makes us inwardly just by the
power of his mercy. Its purpose is the glory of God and of Christ, and of
the gift of eternal life. (cf. Rom. 3,21-26).

1995 The Holy Spirit is the master of the interior life. By giving birth to
the inner man, justification entails sanctification of his whole being (cf.
Rom. 6,19,22; 7,22; Eph. 3,16)

Hence, the Roman Catholic teaching on justification is largely lifted out of
the Pauline corpus, predominantly from Romans. It entails acknowledgment of
our sinful state, repentance, and conversion. Faith is the essential
response that eminates from Baptism and which unites us to the salvific
merits of Jesus Christ with whom we share in his justification and attain
salvation.


PART 2

"E. P.. SANDERS VIEW"

Regarding your reference to E. P. Sanders I assume you mean Jesus and
Judaism (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985). In that work his chapter: "State of
the Question" (23-58) surveys and critiques 20th cent. scholarship on the
question. Or else you might have meant E. P. Sanders, The question of
uniqueness in the teaching of Jesus (London, 1990); Paul (Oxford, 1991); or
The historical figure of Jesus (NY ,1993). John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew
(1. 3) points out that Sanders is writing post Bornkamm and was also like
him highly influenced by Luther and Heidegger. Meier then classifies
Sanders as a post liberal Protestant scholar (1.5).

Two earlier works by Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism (Philadelphia:
Fortress, 1977), updated in Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People
(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983), Meier points out (1.15 note 7, 104 note 25)
that Sanders position is closely allied to George Foot Moore, Judaism in the
First Centuries of the Christian Era (2 vols; NY: Schocken, 1971, original
copyright 1927, 1930). This view Sanders maintains in Judaism: Practice and
Belief. 63 BCE-66 CE (London: SCM; Philadelphia: Trinity, 1992).

Meier then points out that these older views of 1st cent. Judaism have been
balanced out by two eminent Jewish scholars: Jacob Neusner, First Century
Judaism in Crisis (1975); Judaism in the Beginning of Christianity
(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984); The Academy and traditions of Jewish
learning (NY, 1993); The aggadic role in halakhic discourse (MD, 2001); and
by the works of Geza Vermes, Jesus the Jew (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1973);
Jesus and the world of Judaism (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984); The Religion
of Jesus the Jew (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993); The changing faces of Jesus
(NY, 2001).

As Meier aptly points out (1.15, note 7) the views of Sanders, Neusner and
Vermes hardly coincide and their three positions have resulted in current
debates, which I construe your response an example of its ongoing nature.

Regardless, Meier maps out the survey of this debate with Sanders debating
Neusner in Jewish Law from Jesus to the Mishna. Five Studies (London: SCM;
Philadelphia: Trinity, 1990); and Vermes review of Sanders' Jewish Law from
Jesus to the Mishna. Five Studies in London Times Lit. Supp. Jan. 11, 1991,
p.19. Meier's also points out James D. G. Dunn's essay that critiques
Sanders, "Pharisees, Sinners and Jesus," in The Social World of Formative
Christianity and Judaism (Howard Clark Kee Festschrift, Jacob Neusner, et
al. eds., Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988).

Obviously, grappling with basic Jewish thought in Second Temple Judaism is
far from over as I understand it and as your question about evidence shows
it to be a continued open question. Now it would seem unimaginable that in
light of the aforementioned survey that my response would bring this issue
to a close. That three or four camps of thought already exist on this
subject leads anyone to suppose that no matter what one says it could never
satisfy all views simultaneously, which is evidenced by your question to
begin with. Whatever I already said will never satisfy the academic
community as a whole since divisions already exist. Adding to this by
"evidence" will only show my view as being aligned with one of the four
schools of thought if we identify them as Sanders, Neusner, Vermes and Dunn.
However, I will venture here in agreement with Meier (1.172) and Morna
Hooker about our full knowledge of what Judaism at the time of Jesus was
like, when he says, "But if we were to wait until we possessed a fullness of
knowledge that excluded later revisions, we would postpone all NT
scholarship until the parousia."

The question that arises from Gal. 2,17 surrounds critical core issues
including dietary laws. Sanders, Jewish Law from Jesus to the Mishna. Five
Studies (London: SCM; Philadelphia: Trinity, 1990) 28, aligned with Moore's
"orthodoxy" finds the declaration of all foods being clean (Mc 7,15) is too
revolutionary to have come from Jesus. I completely disagree with Sanders
on this issue. Here he is aligned with Norman Perrin, Rediscovering the
Teaching of Jesus, 39-43, employing the criterion of discontinuity, a view I
reject for a number of reasons. The basis for Acts 10,11-16; 11,5-11 is the
teaching found in the Marcan text. This was not, IMHO, a key issue until
the AD 40's. To some extent I agree with Richard Anderson, Evangelical
Quarterly, 69:3, (1997), 195-215 "The Lucan Jesus does not abrogate the
dietary purity law. Mark, writing later, places the abrogation of the
dietary purity law in his gospel to have Jesus provide authority for the
table fellowship with Gentiles." I would rather put it that the doctrine on
dietary laws soon became an issue sometime post AD 41 after Luke's Gospel
was in circulation and a wide number of Gentiles converted to Christianity.
Meier points out (3.251) that during Jesus' lifetime he never sent his
disciples out on a formal mission to the Gentiles, and the Gospels do not
reflect a teaching separated from Israel pursuing a predominantly Gentile
mission throughout time. On the subject of Gentiles Sanders also rejects
Joachim Jeremias, Jesus' Promise (57-62) which claims that 1st cent. Jews
had a negative view of Gentiles. Meier discusses this (2.374 note 96)
pointing out Ben F. Meyer, "A Caricature of Joachim Jeremias and His
Scholarly Work," JBL 110 (1991) 451-62, and Sanders reply in "Defending the
Indefensible," JBL (463-77). Nine years earlier both Meyer and Sanders were
co-editors for Jewish and Christian Self-Definition. Volume 3:
Self-Definition in the Greco-Roman World. The lines of divergence being
more pronounced between the two in the past decade.

Sanders also holds that the kingdom is not actualized here and now in the
present but awaits a future eschatological event. In this he agrees with
Jeremias, The Parable of Jesus, 117, who is echoed by C. H. Dodd, The
Parables of the Kingdom, 87. I touched on this issue in my postings on
Corpus-Paulinum back in July in my discussions with Mark Nanos and Rick Carr
cited above. Meier discusses this in Sanders' thought taken largely from
Jesus and Judaism, 61-76, 106-113, 134, 153-55, and Jewish Law, 82 (2.398,
404, 413, 431, 451, 455 note 5, 457 note 17, 465 note 52, 473-4 note 97, 499
note 198, 502 note 210, 503 note 211(on the 2 days of fasting in the
Didache), 505 note 222).

Sanders' thought regarding the class of "sinners" is contained in Jesus and
Judaism (174-211). Meier's critique is excellent here (2.149, 212 note 154,
215 note 172). My posting touched on the essential thread of Meier's
argument which is a view that I maintain. Meier hits the issue (2.1035-7
note 317) concerning Jesus' table fellowship is drawn largely from the
Gospels. His discussion of Sanders addresses the early Church's intolerance
for religiously offensive behaviors led to a denial of fellowship citing
four tracts from 1 & 2 Corinthians. Meier never directly addresses the
critical text of Gal. 2, 14-17


PART 3

"JUDAISM AND JUSTIFICATION"

The evidence you require of me to substantiate this claim is found within
the NT largely already cited above.

The crux of the issue in Gal. 2,14-17 surrounds three key issues in 1st
cent. Judaism

(1) Jews separated themselves from Gentiles for purity purposes.

(2) The essentially in character of late antique, medieval and contemporary
Jewish orthodoxy of kashrut teachings are not so very different than 1st
cent. Judaism.

(3) Jewish dietary laws impose specific restrictions on food consumption.

(4) Justification is gained through following Jewish precepts. This notion
is encapulized in the vignette of the Parable of the Pharisee and the tax
collector (Luc 18,9-14). The Pharisee's response vv. 11-12 shows the
mentality prevalent at the time.

I hope this helps.

Cordially,
john


John N. Lupia
501 North Avenue B-1
Elizabeth, New Jersey 07208-1731 USA
JLupia2 AT excite.com
http;//groups.yahoo.com/group/Roman-Catholic-News
<>< ~~~ <>< ~~~ <>< ~~~ ><> ~~~ ><> ~~~ ><>
"during this important time, as the eve of the new millennium approaches . .
. unity among all Christians of the various confessions will increase until
they reach full communion." John Paul II, Tertio Millennio Adveniente, 16





_______________________________________________________
Send a cool gift with your E-Card
http://www.bluemountain.com/giftcenter/






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page