Corpus-Paul

[Loren Rosson <rossoiii AT yahoo.com>]

I had cited Paul:

>"What once had glory has lost its glory
> because of the greater glory".

Mark suggested:

>I would suggest, perhaps, "lost its luster
>when compared to the arrival of
>the awaited glory," to make your point.
>And yet, Paul still upholds that it
>is "the glory" and still the basis of that
>which is of value to those Christ-believing
>non-Jews to whom he writes, who now share
>in "it," not something else. They have
>joined with Israelites (although not
>Israelites) in being recipients of that
>very same treasure, so it is not in any
>way emptied (lost), but realized "also"
>by themselves.

Mark continued:

>I do not think that Abraham's faith
>(or righteousness) was different from
>other heroes of faith for Paul. Rather,
>the emphasis arises from the argument
>he was engaged in -- to explain how his
>non-Israelite addressees could be members of
>Abraham's family (covenant) without
>becoming members of Israel's (additional
>covenant)...

It seems that one of the chief questions facing
Pauline exegetes these days is not so much whether the
New Perspective is passe, but rather if every bit of
Paul's thought on the law can be exhausted by New
Perspective issues, especially in contexts like Philip
3, II Cor 3, Rom 5-8, etc. Esler's book drove this
point home to me like no other.

Francis Watson also wrote a fine essay (in 2001),
called "Not the New Perspective", in which he went so
far as to retract his own NP agenda advanced in 1986
(in an interesting book called "Paul, Judaism, and the
Gentiles: A Sociological Approach"). The essay is
here:

http://www.abdn.ac.uk/divinity/staff/watsonart.shtml

In some ways I think Watson overreacts against Sanders
and the NP, but he does score valid points. Grace and
law are probably more interdependent in Judaic thought
than Sanders allows. Some of Watson's ideas are close
to those advanced by Philip Esler in the book we've
been discussing in these threads. Yes, Paul was
concerned with the scope of God's salvation; God is
the God of Gentiles as much as Judeans (Rom 3:28-30),
so that "everyone" may be saved (Rom 10:5-13). And yet
"Paul's statements about the scope of divine saving
action do not by any means exhaust what he has to say
about its content. Paul does not confine himself to
the point that through Christ God has brought Gentiles
within the scope of his covenant people." (Watson,
above article)  Nowhere is this more true than in Rom
5-8, where I see Paul transcending NP issues and
showing himself perfectly capable of speaking of the
law in a phenomenological sense -- even if from a
hindsight (non-autobiographical) perspective. In spite
of what people like Dunn tell us, Paul does not say
that believers die to "a way of the law", or "the law
as a badge of Israel's election". Judeans die to the
law as an entire system of commandments, no less than
pagans die to ungodliness and lawlessness.

Watson and Esler, in different ways, teach us that
Paul's inclusive ("New Perspective") agenda relates
to, and cannot always be distinguished from, his
broader agenda about the new age which renders almost
everything about the past meaningless. The message of
Rom 10:5-13 is not simply that Christ is the "end" of
the law so that Greeks may be justified on an equal
basis with the Judean people -- though this is true.
The point is also that "the law itself declares its
own project a dead-end" (Watson, ibid). The Torah,
according to Paul, teaches that Israelites who follow
the commandments will find life, while simultaneously
teaching that this path actually goes nowhere. Esler
concludes that in Rom 10:5-8 "we see Paul blatantly
seeking to tear the Mosaic law from its place at the
heart of one of the most moving passages of the OT and
replace it with the message of Christ; this attempt to
suppress Israelite identity and promote the identity
of the Christ-movement would have been bitterly
resented and resisted, indeed laughed to scorn, by
Israelites who came to hear of it." (Conflict and
Identity, p 287) We're a long way from the Paul who
merely had the best interests of Gentiles at heart in
light of what Christ's death accomplished "for them".
Christ's death goes well beyond working wonders "for
them"; it pulls the rug out from under Israel.

The point of the texts you and I were discussing,
Mark, would be similar. I agree that Rom 4:1-17
"explains how Paul's non-Israelite addressees could be
members of Abraham's family", as you put it. But it
doesn't stop there, as if Paul were implying that
Gentiles were saved as non-proselytes while Judeans
went on being saved according to the Torah in addition
to Christ-faith. Judeans may uphold the Torah (3:31),
but it counts nothing under the umbrella of
justification -- anymore than Abraham's circumcision
did (which simply ratified his faith-righteousness for
identity purposes). Moreover, Paul's aggressive
revisionism implies (so Esler) that Abraham was the
only one in Israel's history who had the particular
measure of faith-righteousness shared by contemporary
Christ-believers (4:18-25). If Greeks give up more by
relinquishing their freedoms in the presence of
unbelieving Israel (14:1-15:13; cf 11:18-21), then
Judeans give up the most in terms of their own
doctrine and heritage (3:21-4:25; 9:6-10:21)!

I would be interested in hearing any further reactions
to Esler's book and Watson's article. Surely the
latter is wrong to say "No" altogether to the New
Perspective (he admits he wanted to change the title
to "Beyond the New Perspective"). Many contributions
of the NP will stand the test of time. But I can't
help but lament, along with Watson, that "progress in
some respects has been accompanied by regress in
others", and "new insight has brought new blindness".
What do you think, Mark? 

=====
Loren Rosson III
Nashua NH
rossoiii AT yahoo.com

"In the natural sciences a person is remembered for his best idea; in the 
social sciences he is remembered for his worst."

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com