The New Perspective on Paul Re-visited: James D.G. Dunn Conducted a Doctoral Seminar in Antwerp

On Monday, 12 December 2011, under the auspices of the Universitair Centrum Sint-Ignatius Antwerpen and in cooperation with the University of Antwerp, Philosophy Department; Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Faculty of Theology and Religious Studies, Research Unit Biblical Studies; Université Catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Faculty of Theology; and Faculty of Protestant Theology, Brussels, Prof. James D.G. Dunn, emeritus professor and member of the British Academy, led a doctoral seminar on Paul. In the first part of this seminar, Prof. Dunn offered a brief review of his famous “New Perspective on Paul”, followed then, in the second part, by a session of questions and answers.

From the beginning Prof. Dunn set the terms of the discussion by quoting Rom 3,28 and Gal 2,16 and by asserting the centrality of ‘justification by faith’ to Paul’s thought. The traditional view of this matter was comprised in three dimensions: a) the individual coming to faith and finding peace with God (e.g. Augustine, Luther, Bultmann); b) the opinion that Paul constructs an argument against the belief that one can secure God’s blessing through good works (e.g. pastoral circles); c) the idea that for Paul the Gospel stands in antithesis to the Law and this being the reason why he rejects Judaism and the Law. Taking into account the traditional view, Prof. Dunn singled out a few aspects which arose from dealing with this view. First of all, it seems that the expression “the righteousness of God” (Rom 1,16-17) was often misunderstood due to the Platonic framework of interpretation. The Hebrew construction has a relational connotation in the Old Testament and can be better translated into English as “vindication, redemption by God??.” On this account, it points out to God’s commitment which He took by Himself towards the whole creation and especially to Israel. A remarkable parallel is to be found in 1 QS 11,11-15, where one can notice the dependence on “the righteousness of God” for salvation. Secondly, it was E. P. Sanders who, in his Paul and Palestinian Judaism (1977), challenged the traditional Christian perspective on Judaism as false or biased. For him, everything starts with the recognition of the divine initiative. The Law is given to the covenantal people and it is the answer of Israel to God’s saving grace. In this last regard, the Law shows them how they should live and not how to become the people of God. Thirdly, Prof. Dunn mentioned K. Stendahl’s work, Paul among Jews and Gentiles (1976), and his conviction that Paul’s preaching did not develop out of relief from a bad conscience. Conversely, Paul’s content of the Gospel draws more on his conversion, on his seeing of the Lord Jesus Christ (cf. 1 Cor 9,1ff). Justification by faith is Paul’s response to the question of how can the Gentiles share in God’s saving righteousness. Going a step further, Prof. Dunn proposed “The New Perspective on Paul” (1982). In his judgment, Paul reacts against the Jewish belief that Gentiles as such were outside the covenant or were seen as sinners (cf. Gal 2,15; Ac 10,11-15.28). Furthermore, the Law is the paidagogos (cf. Gal 3,19-25; Eph 2,14-15) and its mission was to protect/guard Israel. When Paul writes “works of law” in Gal 2,16 he has in mind circumcision and the laws of clean and unclean which become boundary markers in Peter’s understanding. For Prof. Dunn, Lev 18,5 has the meaning of “by doing these things, this is the way you should live.” It is about covenantal nomism. In the same vein, Prof. Dunn asserted that Paul has his own version of covenantal nomism. Although Paul speaks about “justification by faith not by the works” (Gal 2,16; cf. Rom 3,28) he holds as well the “judgment according to works” (cf. Rom 2,6-11; 2 Cor 5,10). Prof. Dunn’s conclusion was that a solution which keeps both aspects together will resolve the problems between the old and the new perspective on Paul, between Catholics and Protestants, and perhaps between Eastern and Western Christianity.

The second part of the seminar turned into a lively dialogue with unexpected questions and unexpected answers. Among the first issues raised by the audience was the one concerned with the idea of salvation for non-Jews. This idea, already present in the Old Testament, might have been lost along the way and Paul seems to have been the one to recover it. Prof. Dunn replied that according to Galatians 3 there were three strands in the Abrahamic promise: the seed, the land, and the blessing of all the nations in Abraham. Paul builds upon the third strand of the promise and sees the Gospel as the covenantal grace of God to save the Gentiles. Another issue questioned the place of the new perspective on Paul in current scholarly research. In response, Prof. Dunn humorously quoted S. Gathercole who said that the new perspective on Paul was in fact the old perspective of his generation. Additionally, Prof. Dunn remarked that the merit of the new perspective was to draw attention to some missing or neglected elements and dimensions of the debate and to bring a balance between the covenant and the Law. One of the participants was preoccupied with the loss of interest in Paul from the side of the Rabbinic Judaism and with the broad perspective of the Second Temple Judaism. This time Prof. Dunn stressed the fact that Paul is for him an authentic voice of the Second Temple Judaism and that the rabbis considered Paul as a traitor. He also stated that the rabbis cut themselves off from the broad perspective of the Second Temple Judaism regarding Israel’s blessing to the nations. Lastly, the question of who would Paul have liked to be received a very short and comprehensive answer: a man in Christ. As the time allotted for the seminar quickly elapsed, Prof. Dunn brought the seminar to its end by thanking the organizers and the participants and by declaring himself happy with the discussions that followed his presentation.

Teodor Brasoveanu

Stage property maker or a tent-maker?

Many readers of the NT - when asked about the profession of Paul - would certainly answer that he was a tent maker. The Acts of the Apostles (18:3) describe the occupation of Paul as σκηνοποιός. The Vulgate does not translate this word, just offers a partial transliteration (σκηνο - sceno) and partial translation (ποιός - factor) into scenofactor. The vast majority of the English translations render this word as tent-maker. Tent-making is supposed to be the craftsmanship that Paul shared with Priscilla and Aquilla.

The word σκηνοποιός is a hapax legomenon in the entire New Testament. Also in the contemporary extra-biblical writings it does not appear frequently. However, the 2nd century CE author, Julius Pollux noted that σκηνοποιός and μηχανοποιός are similar occupations linked with the theater and making the properties of the stage (Onomasticon). In Comedia Adespota the word σκηνοποιός means exactly “a stage property maker.”

The tension between these two translations of σκηνοποιός is visible when comparing various editions of Bauer's Dictionary. The fifth German edition (1958) prefers a maker of stage properties. The sixth edition, revised by Kurt and Barbara Aland, tends to translate σκηνοποιός as tentmaker. The third English edition (2001), redacted by Frederick Danker, supports the stage-related translation.

We support the translation of σκηνοποιός into modern English as maker of stage properties. One of the question could be: is it necessary to presuppose what Paul's occupation was to interpret his letters?

Paul’s Jewish Matrix

To mark the ‘Year of St Paul’ in 2009, the Cardinal Bea Centre for Judaic Studies of the Pontifical Gregorian University, in collaboration with the Pontifical Biblical Institute, the Centre for the Study of Christianity of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, the Catholic University of Leuven and the Papal Basilica of St Paul Outside the Walls, organized an international symposium on the subject of ‘Paul in his Jewish Matrix’. This was held in Rome from 20 to 22 May, 2009, and was attended by scholars from Italy, Israel, the United States and Belgium, both Jews and Christians. The present volume is a collection of most of the papers and lectures presented at the symposium.
-- Thomas G. Casey and Justin Taylor, “Editors’ Foreword,” Paul’s Jewish Matrix, Bible in Dialogue 2 (Rome: Gregorian & Biblical Press, 2011) 9.

Emmanuel Nathan and Reimund Bieringer, “Paul, Moses and the Veil: Paul’s Perspective on Judaism in Light of 2 Corinthians 3,” Paul’s Jewish Matrix, ed. Thomas G. Casey and Justin Taylor Bible in Dialogue 2, (Rome: Gregorian & Biblical Press, 2011) 201-228.

The first part of this essay, “On Paul’s use of καταργέω and τέλος" in 2 Cor 3:7, 11, 13 and 14,” is by Emmanuel Nathan (201-219) and the second part, dealing with the “Glory and the Veil,” is written by Reimund Bieringer (219-228).
In order to clarify the exceptionally difficult and controversial text found in 2 Cor 3:7-18, Nathan enters into a detailed discussion of καταργέω and τέλος to a large extent in response to Hans Windisch’s influential commentary of 1924. A review of the complex exegetical decisions allows him to repudiate Windisch’s position that 2 Cor 3:7-18 offers a negative assessment of Judaism. Yet at the same time Nathan offers a word of caution that the sheer ambiguity of καταργέω and τέλος, together with locating their referents, contributes to the uncertainty of what exactly Paul means. Even though Paul can, and should, be appreciated within his Jewish matrix, he believes that this ambiguity has helped to contribute to the later understanding of the old covenant that is abolished.
In the second part of this essay, Bieringer argues that the main theological concept in 2 Cor 3:7-18 is δόξα, and concludes that in this context it intends to communicate the nature of the deity in its manifestation. Even though Paul in 2 Cor 3:7-18 does not speak about Judaism explicitly, the implications for the Jewish matrix of Paul’s ‘post-Damascus view of Judaism’ become manifest especially insofar as the continuity between the old and new covenant is considerably more evident in this text than has been hitherto recognized by many interpreters. The antithetical terminology is evident throughout the passage and, even though it is not consistent with the emphases of the entire text, great care must be taken not to actualize the dangerous potential that a possible misreading of such antithetical language carries with it.

-- From the introductory essay by Karl P. Donfried, “Paul’s Jewish Matrix: The Scope and Nature of the Contributions,” Paul’s Jewish Matrix, ed. Thomas G. Casey and Justin Taylor Bible in Dialogue 2, (Rome: Gregorian & Biblical Press, 2011) 24-27.

The book is available on the page of the publisher.

Paul as an Anomalous Diaspora Jew? (Lucky 1000 Competition)

We invite your comments concerning the following thesis of John Barclay (“Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora: From Alexander to Trajan (323 BCE – 117 CE)”, Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996, pp. 393-395):

“In his conceptuality Paul is most at home among the particularistic and least accommodated segments of the Diaspora; yet in his utilization of these concepts, and in his social practice, he shatters the ethnic mould in which that ideology was formed. He shows little inclination to forge any form of synthesis with his cultural environment, yet he employs the language of a culturally antagonistic Judaism to establish a new social reality which transgresses the boundaries of the Diaspora synagogues. By an extraordinary transference of ideology, Paul deracinates the most culturally conservative forms of Judaism in the Diaspora and uses them in the service of his largely Gentile communities. It is hardly surprising that this anomalous Jew should meet both puzzled and hostile reactions in Diaspora synagogues. However scriptural he claimed his theology to be, and however much it was couched in traditional Jewish terminology , Paul’s assimilating practices and his lax (or at least inconsistent) observance of the law earned him suspicion, opposition and even punishment in the synagogue. … The very fact that Paul could speak so persuasively in the traditional Jewish idiom, made him all the more insidious a foe to those who judged his teaching subversive. The majority of Paul’s Jewish contemporaries (both Christian and non-Christian) found his mutation of the Jewish tradition incomprehensible or unattractive. The majority of his Gentile converts, and most subsequent readers of his letters, could only see their distance from, not their common destiny with, Jews. Thus, most unwittingly, Paul fostered the fateful division between Christianity and Judaism.”

Lucky 1000 Competition!

Since we are fast approaching 1000 visitors (!) we are organizing a small competition.
Here are the details:

1) Anyone can participate.

2) To *win* a participant has to:
a) comment on the post "Paul as an anomalous Jew"
b) be visitor number 1000
c) leave behind his or her name and email address so we can identify the winner

3) The *prize* is (drum roll please) a book and the privilege of participating in this unique biblical blog hosted by students at Leuven!

Interested? Then post your comment today!