The
History of the Interpretation of the Apostle Paul
By
Dr. Peter M. Head [Web Page]
LECTURE
EIGHT:
Responses to New Perspective on Paul
I. Introduction
a) Immense variety and amount of material
being produced.
b) Plenty of important areas not covered in
this lecture! E.g. (in no particular order):
i) Socio-historical
explorations (e.g. G. Theissen; W. Meeks, First
Urban Christians)
ii)
Sociologically-informed approaches (e.g. P. Esler, Context Group etc.)
iii) SBL Pauline
Theology Group
iv) Jewish approaches
(e.g. Segal, Paul the Convert;
Boyarin)
v) N.T. Wright, Climax of Covenant (NT Theology
Project).
vi) Feminist and other
ideological readings (e.g. Fiorenza, Searching
the Scriptures)
vii) Rhetorical
approaches (e.g. Betz on Galatians;
cf. P. Kern)
viii) Narrative-critical
approaches (e.g. N. Peterson, R. Hays)
c) Lack of up-to-date interpretive surveys of
scholarship.
II. Some Reactions to Sanders
These illustrate that while Sanders’ version of Judaism is largely accepted (at least to a degree); his own solutions in relation to Paul’s theology have not been so widely accepted. Note also the way in which the issues and vocabulary introduced by Sanders become the focal points for ongoing discussion.
a) M.D. Hooker, ‘Paul and “Covenantal
Nomism”’, Paul and Paulinism: Essays in
honour of C. K. Barrett (ed. M.D. Hooker & S.G. Wilson; London: SPCK,
1982).
i. Why oppose cov. nom.
with part. esch.?
ii. Is ‘covenantal
nomism’ appropriate for Paul?
i. Considering polemic against Law, Paul ‘clearly
cannot be maintaining covenantal nomism’ (cf. Gal 3: ‘the Law cannot be
the proper response of man to God’s gracious act in Christ’.
ii. Paul does assume there is an appropriate
response to God’s salvation in Christ: response, imperatives, law of Christ
(Gal 6.2), fulfilling the law (Rom 13.8-10), obedience of faith (Rom 1.5): ‘In
many ways, the pattern which Sanders insists is the basis of Palestinian
Judaism fits exactly the Pauline pattern of Christian experience: God’s saving
grace evokes man’s answering obedience’.
iii. Future reward / punishment dependent
upon deeds (Rom 2.1-16; 14.10-12; 1 Cor 3.10-15; 4.1-5; 2 Cor 5.10): need
holiness, Spirit
iv. What about ‘covenantal’? Not frequently
used by Paul; but is used in Gal 3 & 4 re Abrahamic promise. ‘covenantal
promises’ very appropriate for Paul’s view of Abrahamic covenant (but language
mostly controlled by contrast with Sinai)
iii. ‘ It is not the “pattern of religion”, then,
that separates Paul from Judaism, but the pieces which make up the pattern.’
iv. Need to work on
links between various elements in Paul's thought
b) R.H. Gundry, 'Grace,
Works, and Staying Saved in Paul' Biblica
66(1985), pp. 1-38.
i. Galatians is about
'staying in' (and that is 'by faith')
ii. good works as
evidential, not instrumental
c) F. Thielman, From Plight to Solution: A Jewish Framework
for Understanding Paul's View of the Law in Galatians and Romans (NTS LXI;
Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1989).
III. J.D.G. Dunn and the New Perspective
Manson Memorial Lecture
(4.11.1982): ‘The New Perspective on Paul’ BJRL
65(1983), 95-122.
Romans (Word Commentary; 2 vols; 1988)
Jesus, Paul and the Law: Studies in Mark and Galatians (London: SPCK, 1990).
Theology of Galatians (Cambridge, 1993).
Commentaries:
Galatians (1993), Colossians and Philemon (1996), Acts
Theology of Paul the Apostle (1998)
i) "works of
law" as boundary markers (nationalistism/confidence)
ii) importance of
Antioch incident in historical development of Paul's theology
iii) curse of law and inclusion
of Gentiles
iv) pistis christou as 'faith in Christ'
v) Adam (Romans; Phil 2;
no pre-existence christology)
vi) Romans as template
for Pauline theology
IV. No New Perspective
a) Commentaries: e.g. J.A. Fitzmyer, Romans (1993); D.J. Moo, Romans (1996):
'Paul criticizes Jews for thinking that the Mosaic covenant is adequate without that perfection in "works" without which any system of law must fail to bring one into relationship with God.'
b) Martin Hengel & Roland Deines, ‘E.P.
Sanders’ “Common Judaism”, Jesus, and the Pharisees’, Journal of Theological Studies 46(1995), pp. 1-70.
a. Sanders’ quest for the basic pattern of
Jewish religion is equivalent to ‘lowest-common-denominator’ Judaism (Sanders’
own term in his preface to the German translation of PPJ in 1985), or “common Judaism” as he later came to call it. But
this, and the focus on getting in and staying in is hardly an adequate
description of a religion:
‘No religion, certainly not its active and
especially successful representatives (here the problem of the Pharisees comes
up) can rest content with such a minimal goal, which indeed amounts to nothing
more than the maintenance of the status quo. Rather, a pattern of religion must
be described primarily according to what
it wants, why it wants it, and with what means it seeks to achieve
this. Therefore what Sanders relates is more a picture of Judaism as it appears
to the outside observer, the non-Jew, whether ancient or modern.’
b. Sanders’ fails to ascribe any positive will to this pattern of
religion (prejudice against Pharisaism).
Cf. Riches: ‘there seems
to be a strange reluctance on Sanders’ part to give full recognition to Jewish
delight in doing the law. (p. 137f).
c) M. Hengel (with R. Deines), The Pre-Christian Paul (London: SCM, 1991)
a. Historical discussion and terminology, but
‘the aim of this investigation is nevertheless ultimately a theological one. My
concern is for a better understanding of the apostle’s doctrine of
justification, which nowadays is often misinterpreted and disputed, against the
background of his own career and his encounter with the risen Christ which
changed this radically.’
b. ‘That Paul was able to teach to the Gentile
Christian community that he founded the meaning of God’s radical grace – ‘But
if it is by grace, then it does not rest on deeds done, or grace would cease to
be grace’ (Rom. 11.6) – is connected with his special past.’
c. ‘In this dispute within Christianity, which
runs through the whole of church history down to the present day and in which
all too often the law triumphed over the gospel and works over grace, if we are
still concerned with the Christian truth we have to make a decision: in the end
one cannot really mediate between Augustine and Pelagius, Luther and Erasmus,
Jansen and Molina.’
d. ‘For the most part Pauline theology rests
on the radical reversal of former values and aims which came about through the
encounter with the crucified and risen Jesus of Nazareth. The Jewish teacher
becomes the missionary to the Gentiles; the “zeal for the law” is replaced by
the proclamation of the gospel without the law; justification of the righteous
on the basis of their “works of the law” is replaced by justification of the
“godless” through faith alone; the free will is replaced by the faith which is
given by grace alone as the creation of the word; and hatred of the crucified
and accursed pseudo-messiah is replaced by a theology of the cross which
grounds the salvation of all men and women in the representative accursed death
of the messiah on the cross.
‘Although people
nowadays are fond of asserting otherwise, no one understood the real essence of
Pauline theology, the salvation given sola
gratia, by faith alone, better than Augustine and Martin Luther. Despite
this rigorous reversal of all previous values and ideals (Phil 3.7-11), Pauline
theology – and therefore also Christian theology – remains very closely bound
up with Jewish theology. Its individual elements and thought-structure derive
almost exclusively from Judaism. This revolutionary change becomes visible
precisely in the fact that its previous theological views remain present even
in their critical reversal as a negative foil, and help to determine the
location of the new position.’
d) M. Hengel & A. M. Schwemer, Paul Between Damascus and Antioch
(London: SCM, 1997).
a. Essential thrust is that Paul’s theology
was from a very early stage based on fixed principles, one of which was ‘the
justification of the sinner by grace alone’ (e.g. p. 98f).
b. Conclusion is a chronological comparison
between Paul and Luther!
e) F. Avemarie, Tora und Leben: Untersuchungen zur
Heilsbedeutung der Tora in der frühen rabbinischen Literatur (TSAJ 55;
Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1996). Also 'Erwählung und Vergeltung.
Zur optionalen Struktur rabbinischer Soteriologie' NTS 45(1999), 108-126.
f) D.A. Carson, P.T. O’Brien
& M.A. Seifrid, Justification and Variegated Nomism
Cambridge PhD Seminar: Justification
and Variegated Nomism
The
History of the Interpretation of the Apostle Paul
By
Dr. Peter M. Head [Web Page]