Corpus-Paul

[Loren Rosson <rossoiii AT yahoo.com>]

List members,

Yesterday I wrote up a favorite pick list for
Galatians/Romans books on my blog, which Mark Nanos
recommended I post to the list. I was inspired to do
this on account of these letters being perhaps the
most "worked to death" of all the biblical books. What
if an alien from another planet needed to understand
Galatians and Romans in historical context? Which four
or five commentators/scholars would be the ones to
recommend?
  
These would be my recommendations for our alien
visitor, in descending order of preference:

1. Philip Esler. Galatians, 1998. Conflict and
Identity in Romans, 2003.

2. Mark Nanos. The Irony of Galatians, 2002. The
Mystery of Romans, 1996.

3. Francis Watson. Paul, Judaism, and the Gentiles: A
Sociological Approach, 1986.

4. James D.G. Dunn. Jesus, Paul, and the Law: Studies
in Mark and Galatians, 1990. Romans, 1988.
 
I explain below the highlights of my four choices,
comparing how key themes (law, salvation-history,
Antioch incident, apostolic decree, etc) are treated.
I would be interested in seeing other pick lists. (Jim
West has made plain elsewhere that he thinks my
choices leave much to be desired.)


1. PHILIP ESLER. Galatians, 1998. Conflict and
Identity in Romans, 2003.

Esler wins the top slot hands down. His approach uses
all the best tools to make sense of Paul's polemic in
an honor-shame world. He’s as "new perspective" as
they come, but doesn’t jump through exegetical hoops
in order to make Paul sound as Jewish-friendly as
possible. Paul could be seriously offensive -- and
anti-Judean in the extreme -- when defending the
rights of his Gentile converts. He was on a scriptural
battleground, engaged in fiercely competitive
interpretations of God's will. There's no place for
systematic theology or benign literary approaches
here.

Esler accounts for the differences between Galatians
and Romans in terms of Paul's willingness to adopt a
more positive (and hopefully more successful) approach
to the problem of ethnic rivalry. Thus, while in the
first letter Abraham was the heir of uncircumcised
Gentiles (Gal 3:6-9), in the next he became the heir
of both the uncircumcised and circumcised (Rom
4:1-17). Where the Torah had been an active agent in
consigning Israel to sin (Gal 3:19-24), it was now
holy (Rom 7:12) and either passive in relation to sin
(Rom 7:7-13) or free of its taint altogether (Rom
7:14-25). And instead of advancing the supersessionist
claim that the Christian movement has supplanted
Israel (Gal 6:16), Paul now insisted that the promises
to Israel were still being fulfilled, but in an
unexpected way (Rom 9:1-11:32), with the result that
the pagan nations had become a means to an end. Most
importantly, Romans concludes positively by enjoining
Judeans and Gentiles to "welcome the other" and
respect one another's different practices (Rom
14:1-15:6). 

But if Paul became more sensitive to his fellow
Judeans, his essential doctrine remained the same, as
agonistic and sectarian as before: the Torah was
obsolete; the spirit offered access to the best the
law promised but never delivered. The age of the
covenant -- a period of gloom and doom -- was
finished; the new covenant had dawned. As a Pharisee
Paul had fulfilled the Torah adequately; nothing was
more glorious than the Israelite covenant. But as a
Christ-believer, he looked back on this covenant-era
as a dark age, and at Abraham as a lone faith-figure
who anticipated better things to come.

Here are the key points of Esler's work.

The Battleground of Ethnic Identity: Galatians and
Romans deal with ethnic identity issues, the former
diminishing Judean identity; the latter maintaining
positive differences among Judeans and Greeks. Romans
is carefully addressed to "the Judean and the Greek"
every step of the way, putting each group on the same
salvific plane, but in different ways. 

The Law: The law is entirely obsolete with regards to
salvation. Christians have access to best which the
law promised but never delivered, by a different
route: the spirit. 

Salvation History -- Abraham an Exception to the Rule:
Christ is the end of the law, not the climax of it.
There is no salvation history in Paul’s thought.
Abraham is an exception to the rule in a faithless
era, who anticipated the faith-righteousness of later
Christians. Pagans are his legitimate heirs, because
God calls whomever he wishes. He hates Israel (for
now) as he hated Esau, just as he showers favor on the
pagans as he did to Jacob. The law is finished because
Moses anticipated that it would be a dead-end project.
It may as well be distant as the heavens and the
abyss, for Christ (not the commandment) is nearby, on
lips and in hearts of believers. This, however, is all
a mysterious means to Israel’s end. Gentiles are
actually worthless in and of themselves, dependent
upon the root of Abraham and the coparticipation of
faithful Judeans. Judeans who don’t persist in
unbelief will be regrafted back into the olive tree --
supported by the lone but formidable faith-patriarch,
Abraham. 

Justification: Righteousness is equivalent to
privileged identity, “life”, or “blessing”, used only
in contexts where ethnic issues are at stake. It is
not a covenantal or forensic term. The righteous are
not judged on the last day; they are simply waived
through. 

Paul’s Relationship to Jerusalem: Paul was hostile to
the pillars, especially after Antioch. He was a
sectarian apostle. 

What was Antioch about? It was about circumcision, not
food laws. And it was about lying and backbiting, not
mere “hypocrisy”. The pillars were saying that
Gentiles had to become proselytes in order to share
table-fellowship. This means that James had revoked
the agreement reached earlier (in an honor-shame
context he was under no obligation to keep his word to
a rival like Paul anyway) by sending a group of
delegates to break off the mixed fellowship. The best
Paul could do was accuse Peter of hypocrisy, since he
would have made a fool of himself if he had accused
Peter of the simple truth -- that the pillars had lied
and broken their promise, a promise naturally
meaningless unaccompanied by an oath. 

Is Luke’s Apostolic Decree historical? No. Luke wanted
to present Paul as being reconciled to the other
apostles and on friendly terms. So he inserted the
four requirements of the apostolic decree in order to
portray a compromise.


2. MARK NANOS. The Irony of Galatians, 2002. The
Mystery of Romans, 1996.

Nanos sits opposite Esler in almost every way. His
Paul is Jewish-friendly to the core, much maligned and
misunderstood. He didn't oppose the law, and he never
gave up on the priority of Israel. But this isn't wild
revisionism. Nanos' readings owe to careful and
insightful considerations of Paul’s rhetoric. In many
ways Mystery of Romans is one of those books you read
and say, "It's so obvious. Why didn't we ever see this
before?" How indeed can the weak in faith of Rom 14-15
possibly refer to Christians? And Irony of Galatians
is one of those studies best illustrating the
principle, "People don't always mean what they say." I
often say that Mystery of Romans points to what's been
under our noses for a long time, while Irony of
Galatians digs up what's been under Paul's rhetoric
for a long time. 

Nanos' Paul has immediate relevance in the
post-Holocaust age: we can warm to a figure who was
doing away with discrimination and anti-semitism more
than anything else. But again, it would be a mistake
to dismiss Nanos as "just another Lloyd Gaston or John
Gager", both of whom distort Paul for
politically-correct consumption. Nanos respects the
text, and shows every sign of trying to understand
Paul on his own terms. Rom 11 may offer the reader
some surprises, but there are no two-path plans of
salvation here.

Nanos sees non-Christian Judeans in the background of
Paul's polemic, in Galatians as much as Romans. The
Galatian influencers took an understandable position
for being outside the Christ-movement. As far as they
were concerned, the new age hadn't dawned yet, and so
Gentiles should be treated as usual and encouraged to
get circumcised. Paul's point, made with exasperation,
is that his converts should know better than this,
that Christ's death inaugurated the new age and made
conversion to Judaism unnecessary. Paul wasn't in
dispute with Christian Judeans -- far less the
pillars, who fully agreed with him. 

Here are the key points of Nanos' work.

Irony and Mystery: In Galatians Paul is impatient with
his Gentile converts for considering becoming
proselytes, and so launches a preemptive strike
against the Judean outsiders who have been influencing
his converts in this way. The irony is that Paul
doesn’t have anything against the Torah at all; most
of it remains in force. In Romans he is troubled by
anti-semitism and addresses the Gentile faction
throughout, making clear that Israel has first dibs.
The mystery is that Paul is concerned about the fate
of non-Christian Israel more than anything else, even
through the Gentile mission.

The Law: The law is still in force with regards to
salvation. Parts of it are optional for Gentiles,
though they must abide by minimal Judean standards set
forth in the apostolic decree, especially when in the
company of other Judeans.

Salvation History -- The Priority of Israel: Christ is
the goal of the law, not the end of it. Israel is
always God’s priority. Through the Gentile mission
Israel’s universal hopes are being fulfilled. The
olive tree shows that the fate of Israel precedes and
supports the fate of the nations. Israel hasn’t
fallen, only stumbled. Her division has initiated
Gentile salvation, which in turn will -- in the
process -- end that division. Israel is in the process
of being divided so that she may be restored.

The Weak in Faith of Rom 14-15: These are Judeans who
do not have faith in Christ. They are not Christian
Judeans who are supposedly weak for believing in the
importance of Torah-observances -- about which Paul
says “everyone should be convinced in their own minds
what is right”. Rather, if these Judeans accepted that
God raised Jesus from the dead they would become
strong in faith, just as Abraham became strong in
faith for believing God would give life to Sarah’s
dead womb (Rom 4:18-25).

Paul’s Relationship to Jerusalem: Paul was on friendly
terms with the pillars, who agreed with him about how
the Gentile mission should be implemented. 

What was Antioch about? It was about circumcision, not
food laws. And it was about hypocrisy, not heresy. The
circumcision faction was a group of non-Christian
outsiders who accompanied the Christian delegates sent
by James, outsiders who naturally believed that
Gentiles should become proselytes before sharing
table-fellowship with Judeans. When Peter deviated out
of anxiety of this faction, masking his true beliefs,
Paul called him a hypocrite. Peter hadn’t changed his
beliefs -- far less switched sides or allegiances --
which would have been heresy rather than hypocrisy. He
covered up his beliefs for expedient social reasons,
compromising in order to get along with outsiders. 

Is Luke’s Apostolic Decree historical? Yes. It stands
somewhere between requirements for resident aliens and
God-fearers, developed as the basis for minimal
Gentile requirements. Paul and James (and Peter) were
on the same page, insisting that while pagans need not
be circumcised, they were not free to "Gentilize" with
abandon.


3. FRANCIS WATSON. Paul, Judaism, and the Gentiles: A
Sociological Approach, 1986.

Watson’s book remains one of the most lethal critiques
of the Lutheran approach. Amazingly, the author has
washed his hands clean of it -- and of the "new
perspective" entirely. In an essay, "Not the New
Perspective", he critiques his earlier position and
advises us to shelve Stendahl and Sanders in the
archives. (For whatever reason, Watson has forsaken
historical and sociological approaches to the bible in
favor of theological and literary ones.) Let’s say
rather, “Not the New Watson”! The Old Watson remains
quite useful. His sociological approach coincided with
James Dunn's own work on the social function of the
law. But Watson came to different conclusions. His
Paul is aggressively sectarian, advocating complete
separation from the synagogues. In many ways the 80’s
contrast between Watson and Dunn foreshadowed the
later contrast between Esler and Nanos.

Watson’s thesis -- that Paul was trying to eradicate
Judean identity and heritage -- remains useful in
interpreting Galatians, though it breaks down when
applied to Romans. Still, there is helpful commentary
in the Romans section. A superb case is mounted for
the Genesis account behind Rom 7:7-13, the point being
that Judean behavior under the Torah is parallel with
Adam's under the commandment in Eden. And Rom 7:14-25
teases out further implications, in terms of the
futility and despair resulting from Judean attempts to
follow Torah -- not a timeless observation (since it
contradicts Paul’s actual experience as a Pharisee
(Philip 3:4b-6)), but a hindsight one, seen backwards
from the perspective of faith, understood for the
first time.

Watson’s view that Romans is addressed exclusively to
Judeans (save in Rom 11:13-32) is extreme, but serves
as a balance against what has since become a strong
trend in the opposite direction. Esler would see what
should be obvious: that the letter gives careful
attention to both "the Judean and the Greek", and that
far from trying to persuade Judeans to abandon their
heritage, Paul wanted them to maintain it.

Here are the key points of Watson's work.

Separation from the Synagogues: Galatians and Romans
insist that the church should be a sect outside
Judaism, not a reform movement within. In Galatians
Paul tells his Gentile converts to avoid Judean
practices at all costs. In Romans, he addresses the
Judean group (save in Rom 11:13-32) in trying to
persuade them to abandon the synagogue and join the
Gentile community (Rom 14-15 presupposes two different
congregations separated by mutual hostility). 

The Law: The law is relevant only in a sectarian
sense. The Torah belongs to the Judean community which
Christians should have nothing to do with. Christians
do, however, possess insight into the “true” meaning
of the Torah.

Salvation History -- God’s Inconsistent Consistency:
Christ is the end of the law as practiced by the
Judean community. God is perfectly consistent with his
scriptural character in rejecting Judeans and calling
Gentiles by law-free righteousness. He is
inconsistently consistent, however, in planning to
save all Israel despite this.

Sin and the Law: Rom 7 is neither introspective nor
autobiographical; it proves exegetically that sin used
the law to its advantage (with the example of Adam),
and that it succeeded from that point on in
reproducing itself within the human host.

Paul’s Relationship to Jerusalem: Paul was hostile to
the pillars, especially after Antioch. He was a
sectarian apostle. 

What was Antioch about? It was about food laws, and
the Torah in general, after testing a loose agreement
reached in Jerusalem. Paul exaggerates the extent to
which his understanding of the Gentile mission had
been accepted by the pillars. James soon didn’t like
the way things were going, and so sent a group of
delegates to Antioch in order to remove Judeans from
impure table-fellowship and compel Gentiles to adopt
the Torah.

Is Luke’s Apostolic Decree historical? No. Luke
presents Paul as one of the “men from James”, sent to
impose food laws. Acts is only reliable to the extent
that men from James were sent to impose food laws on
the Antiochene Christians.


4. JAMES D.G. DUNN. Jesus, Paul, and the Law: Studies
in Mark and Galatians, 1990. Romans, 1988.

Dunn was the first "new perspective" advocate to
engage in comprehensive work on Galatians and Romans.
Sitting somewhere between Esler/Watson on the one hand
and Nanos on the other, Dunn thinks Paul both affirmed
and opposed Judaism. Above all, he affirmed the
covenant and claimed the Torah should be fulfilled. He
only opposed the way the covenant confined the scope
of salvation to Judeans. His problem wasn’t with the
law, only with the works of the law, since those
particular observances (like circumcision, food laws,
sabbath) confined the grace of God to the chosen
people. In effect, they served as covenant badges
signaling Israel’s favored status. Faith-righteousness
did away with them and opened salvation to Gentiles on
an equal basis. Liberated from a nationalist spin --
minus its "works" -- the Torah was to be fulfilled. 

Dunn is right about the meaning of works, but Paul
contrasted faith-law as much as he did faith-works.
Paul says he destroyed the law in its entirety, and in
a context like Rom 5-8 works are nowhere in view. It
was virtuously impossible to attack works without
bringing down the whole law in the process. One
represented the other, and stark alternatives are in
any case what to expect with contesting faiths in an
agonistic culture. For Paul the choice was law or
Christ; the works contrast supplemented as a
corollary.

Here are the key points of Dunn's work.

Reform Movement within Judaism: Galatians and Romans
assume the church should continue as a reform movement
within Judaism, insisting on fulfillment of the Torah
freed from a nationalist perspective. 

The Law: The law is still in force, but without racial
boasting and ceremonial works. The spirit allows
fulfillment of the law apart from works, or apart from
the Jewish monopoly on God’s favor. 

Salvation History -- The Butterfly vs. the Olive Tree:
Christ is not the end of the law, rather, the end of
one stage of it and the beginning of another stage.
The role of the Torah as a badge of privileged
election is over, paving the way for a new era in
which the law can be fulfilled by everyone on an equal
basis. Israel has only been temporarily set aside,
until the Gentile mission is complete. Paul doesn’t
advocate continuity by transformation, as when "a
caterpillar becomes a butterfly and the empty shell of
the caterpillar is all that is left of the old stage
of existence". He believes in continuity by extension,
as when "wild branches are grafted into an olive tree
so that both old and new are part of the larger
whole".

Paul’s Relationship to Jerusalem: Paul acknowledged
the authority of the pillars at an early stage, but
after Antioch he became an independent missionary. He
still, however, saw his work as falling within
Judaism. 

What was Antioch about? It was about food laws, not
circumcision. The question of circumcision had already
been settled. James was now calling for a more
scrupulous observance of dietary laws, especially with
regard to ritual purity and tithing. 

Is Luke’s Apostolic Decree historical? Yes and no. The
Jerusalem Council settled only the circumcision issue,
which is why food became a problem at Antioch. The
apostolic decree was a later development, an
accommodation between Judean and Gentile believers
once the Gentile mission had been established, perhaps
by the late 50s.


Loren Rosson III
Nashua NH
http://lorenrosson.blogspot.com/

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