From Solution to Plight

It has been a while since my last post, but today we get into one of the early works that set the point of departure for interpretations of Paul.  E.P. Sanders published Paul and Palestinian Judaism in 1977, and then Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People in 1983.  These works constitute Sanders view of Paul and his relationship to Judaism.  Paul and Palestinian Judaism begins with a detailed look at the state of Pauline scholarship and its traditional view.

Sanders argues that the traditional view has seen Paul as arguing from ‘plight to solution.’  According to Sanders, and in agreement with Stendahl, Paul had need for salvation before his Damascus road experience.  Paul had no trouble living according to the Torah.  Paul’s later understanding of God sending Jesus as Savior of the world leads Paul to look for a reason for God’s sending Christ.  Sanders argues counter to the traditional perspective, seeing Paul’s thought as leading from ‘solution to plight.’

After working through Jewish literature and laying out the groundwork of Palestinian Judaism, Sanders turns to Paul’s religious understanding.  Sanders argues that Paul has a different religious understanding than what one finds in the Jewish literature.  Although, Paul still holds many views in common with Judaism, Paul alters ‘justification’.  Zetterholm notes the differences, stating

“‘Justification’ in Jewish thinking means that the individual who lives according to the Torah retains his or her status as a member of the covenant with God.  But with Paul ‘justification’ simply means being saved through Christ, which in turn means that the believer surrenders to the supremacy of Christ.  ‘Justification’…is only related to the issue of how to become a member of the religion, not how to remain in the system” (106).

Thus, for Sanders the relation of Paul to Judaism is not along the lines of the Torah being evil, or represents self-righteousness but that Judaism is simply not Christianity.  In Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People, Sanders more fully develops this understanding of Paul.  Sanders leaves the opposition of Christianity and Judaism but develops the difference around God’s choice to save through faith in Jesus, rather than through the Torah.

Paul and Palestinian Judaism and Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People are both worth reading, although they are not easy reads.  I found the Paul: A Very Short Introduction, by Sanders as well, to be a helpful introduction to his main points.  I suggest reading the short introduction if you want Sanders line of argument without wading through Jewish literature and scholarly polemics in great length.

"Toward a New Perspective on Paul"

Before, we look at the main New Perspective writers; there is a preliminary scholar that should be discussed.  Kister Stendahl, in the 60’s was already looking critically at the interpretation of Paul.  Specifically, Stendahl noted that the problems Luther dealt with where not the primary issues for Paul.  Paul was interested in the relation of Jews and non-Jews.  For Stendahl the contrast is not “Christianity” and “Judaism” but “the law” and “the gospel.”

This shifts the way Paul’s conversion has been traditionally read.  Paul conversion was not from “Judaism” to “Christianity.”  Paul’s changed outlook was more in line with the calling of prophets, such as Isaiah and Jeremiah.  As Zetterholm notes “According to Stendahl, Paul serves the same God as before, admittedly in a different way, but still directly linked to what was already part of Jewish tradition” (99).  Paul’s theology then is understood as being in line with his own calling to be an apostle to the non-Jew.

“Justification,” for Stendahl is a part of the relation of Jew and Gentile, in Romans and Galatians.  “Justification” should be placed along side the center of the letter, mainly Romans 9-11.  This section deals with the God’s plan for final salvation and the relation of Paul’s ministry to the Gentiles, as a part of that plan.  Stendahl argues that God’s salvation plan anticipates the “no” of the Jews and opens to the Gentiles.  Salvation is for the Jews, as well, according to Stendahl, and he argues against a contradiction between salvation offered to Jews and non-Jews.  “Justification” then fits within this overall idea of God’s “victory” and “salvation” and that God’s righteousness will set everything right (99).

Stendahl’s writing points towards many of the ideas of recent scholarship and it is the overwhelming dominance of the traditional view, at the time, that made Stendahl’s ideas hard for many to understand.  It will be a short move from Stendahl to the next several scholars.

Normative theology, meet Biblical Studies

The last two posts have been some background for our discussion of the New Perspective on Paul as well as, areas of study that have moved beyond the NPP.  We have seen that several influences have led to the “traditional” or “standard” Lutheran view of Paul.  These influences come from Luther, Augustine, and other theologians and philosophers, like Hegel, as well.

The mixture of ideas created a view of Judaism as rejected by God and inferior to Christianity.  This way of thinking was widely assumed in the Post-Enlightenment period.  The theological assumptions remain intact, as the next group of scholars reconstructs history in light of theology.

Bultmann can be seen as the main influence for this final step of paradigm formation.  It is not Bultmann’s understanding of Paul but his marriage of Biblical Studies and Theology.  Bultmann was both an academic scholar and theologian, using each field to enlighten the other.

Ernst Kasemann was one of Bultmann’s disciples, although he broke from Bultmann’s interpretation, was influenced by his teacher.  Kasemann wanted to “build a bridge between the historical Jesus and the gospel of the early church” (78).  Kasemann saw Paul’s doctrine of justification coming from the teachings of Jesus.  It is this interconnected notion of the gospel of Jesus and justification that constitutes the issue for Kasemann. 

“The principle problem of Israel is not sin, Kasemann claims, but ‘pious works’…According to the doctrine of justification by faith, salvation is only possible for the lost and the damned - the ungodly – while the ‘good’ and the ‘pious’ imagine they can escape the impending judgment by means of their deeds” (80).  Kasemann’s view clearly rests on Reformation theology.  Even as we get into the New Perspective scholars, normative Christian theology will not change drastically.  Zetterholm sees this, the arguments over normative theology as the reason for so much of the debate amongst scholars and theologians.  The connection between normative theology and Biblical Studies, put forth by people like Bultmann and Kasemann, sets the tone for the next group of scholars and goes unquestioned until we look at those who have taken Paul beyond the New Perspective.

Zetterholm part 2

Yesterday, I introduced the book I will be going through this week and next week, “Approaches to Paul” by Zetterholm. In the last post, the foundation of the “traditional” view was laid. Today, we move into the theological explorations that marked the difference between Judaism and Christianity. This next step is, as Zetterholm points out, a construction of Christian theologians.

After working through the ancient sources that led to Christianities separation/distancing from Judaism, Zetterholm turns to Augustine, who will pave the way from Luther’s doctrine of grace. It is in response to Pelagius that Augustine developed his theology of sin and grace. Augustine emphasized the divine aspect of redemption against a human action. Divine intervention was necessary for both the ability and will to perform good deeds. As Zetterholm summarizes, “No human effort to please God is possible, which in the long run means that God decides who is to be saved and who is predestined to perdition” (59).

Luther would then start with the divine intervention, leaving the human action of good deeds to be result of grace. Righteousness is accessed through faith alone, a complete reversal of the Occamistic theology of the time (Which maintained that good deeds where met with grace leading to salvation). This left the Law in a very specific place, mainly for certain people at a certain time. Zetterholm points out,

“With Luther, the Law thus represents something good, in fact, the will of God, but its fulfillment is at the same time something unattainable. Anyone who imagines that he or she by means of the law can attain a relation to God is guilty of the of the most fundamental sin of all- self-righteousness- based on the false assumption that God can be pleased through human effort. For such a person, the law does not lead to grace and forgiveness, but to punishment and damnation” (61).

This theological formation with the Hegelian evolutionary process puts Judaism in a terrible place. Luther’s theology meant a complete rejection of Judaism. Zetterholm stress that Luther was not reading Paul for historical reconstruction, but to address theological issues. Luther’s formulation was a Christian theological construction. It will be the later Biblical scholars that apply this reading to their reconstructions of Paul. In the next couple of days, we will look at Zetterholm’s third chapter, “The Formation of a Standard View.”