Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Judaism is Trash? Not!

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Christopher R. Hutson" <crhutson AT salisbury.net>
  • To: Corpus-paul <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Judaism is Trash? Not!
  • Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 14:35:56 -0400


Eric Zuesse,

I have no comment on the debate about Rom 13:1-7, but I am disheartened,
indeed very sad, that you could say such things as you do in your post of
May 19:

> Galatians 1:13 and Philippians 3:6-8 make clear that, at the time when Paul
> was writing the letters by which we now know him, he was no longer a Jew.

Well, certainly, ethnically, he could not be anything other than a Jew,
could he? Nor could he somehow ignore all the influence of his heritage,
could he? So doesn't it make sense to try to understand the Jewish
categories Paul used in the historical and cultural contexts in which he
used them? He didn't convert to worship a new God, did he? In fact,
Stendahl years ago took pains to show that Paul doesn't even describe his
experience as "conversion" but as "calling." (See Stendahl, Paul Among Jews
and Gentiles).

If you mean that, religiously, he was no longer a Jew, I think you are
oversimplifying. The whole issue turns on who or what group or tradition
represents God's Israel most authentically. It isn't a matter of being
either a Jew or something else. It's a matter of what does it mean to be an
Israelite. I think Paul certainly did consider himself an Israelite. What
he came to reject was a particular perspective on Israel represented in the
"traditions of the fathers" (Gal 1:14). I think by that he means the oral
traditions of the Pharisees. He came to reject those traditions, but he did
not reject the God of Abraham, nor Torah. Rather, he learned to read Torah
through a new interpretive lens, namely, the messiahship of Jesus of
Nazareth. Messiah is, of course, a Jewish category, which Paul used quite
deliberately.

> In
> fact, Philippians 3:6 says that Judaism is why he had persecuted the
> followers of Jesus,

No, he says "zeal" was his motivation. You need to read the books of
Maccabees and think more deeply about how "zeal" functioned as a religious
buzz word within Second Temple Judaism. What did it mean for a Pharisee in
Paul's day?


> and 3:8 asserts that Judaism is trash.

This comes across as highly anti-Semitic. If you don't mean it that way,
then you should think about rephrasing your statement. In my opinion, Paul
would be appalled at the way you interpret his words.

Further, this is a sloppy reading of the Greek text. Paul does NOT say
"Judaism is trash." The antecedent of hATINA (neuter, plural) in 3: 7 is
not JUDAISMOS (masc., sing.). Read the context more carefully to follow the
argument. Not only that, but Paul has come to think of PANTA as rubbish.
Surely it is a misreading here to think simply of Judaism in place of PANTA.


> And Galatians
> 1:13-14 likewise says that it was Paul's Judaism that had caused him to
> persecute the followers of Jesus.

Again, no. Paul offers his persecution of the church as evidence of his
zeal, but his motive is NOT "Judaism." Again, his motive was that he was a
"zealot for the traditions of the fathers." Again, you must investigate
carefully what this means in the context of first-century Jewish
religio-political debates.


> I Thessalonians 2:14-16 (which my book
> will argue is, indeed, authentic) also presents the charge that Jews
> persecute Christians.

This is a sloppy reading of the text. Paul is making an analogy between the
experience of the gentile Thessalonian Christians who suffered persecution
from other gentiles and the Jewish Christians of Judea who suffered
persecution from other Jews. To say that "Jews persecuted Christians" is to
ignore the fact that the ones being persecuted were also Jews.


> For these and other reasons, I do not accept the "New
> Perspective" view that Paul was a Jew at the time when he was writing the
> letters by which we know him (or should be trying to know him).

I have no confidence that you have understood the "New Perspective on Paul."
I don't think the Jewishness of Paul is the issue. Surely the "old
perspective" recognizes Paul's Jewishness. It is hardly a new idea to
suggest that we shouuld understand Paul in his Jewish context. Rather, the
"New Perspective," as I understand it, has to do with whether one reads Paul
through a Reformation lens of "faith vs. works." That interpretive lens
seems to have served out its usefulness, and it seems more useful now to
take a fresh stab and understanding Paul's words in categories that made
sense in a first-century context. The issue is not (abstractly) "faith vs.
works" but (more concretely) "the faith of Christ vs. works of Torah." My
understanding of "New Perspective" scholars is that they are trying to read
phrases like "faith of Christ" and "works of Torah" in their first-century
contexts. What did such phrases mean in the context of Second-Temple
Judaism?

So, before you dismiss the so-called "New Perspective," I hope you will at
least try to explain more carefully what the scholars are talking about.
And I hope you will be more careful and precise about what Paul says. Maybe
you were writing in haste or trying to be provocative, but please consider
the how your summaries of Paul's ideas come across as dismissive, even
derogatory of the Jewish faith that is, after all, the cradle of Christian
faith.

XPIC

___________________________
Christopher R. Hutson
Hood Theological Seminary
800 West Thomas Street
Salisbury, NC 28144
(704) 216-5889
crhutson AT salisbury.net
___________________________


---
[This E-mail scanned for viruses by Internet Of Salisbury, Inc.]




  • Judaism is Trash? Not!, Christopher R. Hutson, 05/21/2002

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page