• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BAPTIST PROFESSORS OF RELIGION TAKE IT OR LEAVE IT?:AN EXAMINATION OF WHICH RITUAL TRADITIONS FROM JUDAISM PAUL KEPT,WHICH ONES HE DISCARDED, AND WHYPRESENTATED DURING THENEW TESTAMENT I SECTIONBY THOMAS J. WHITLEY26 MAY 2009
 
 Thirty years ago E. P. Sanders helped launch a new chapter in thestudy of Pauline theology, particularly concerning Paul's relationship with Judaism. Sanders, and an increasing number of scholars after him, rightlyinsists that Paul's own experience and subsequent writings do not permit thetraditional, straightforward conclusion that Paul rejected the Judaisms of hisday. More precisely, while Paul did reject certain traditions and teachings of  Judaism; he retained others. This paper examines two specific ritualtraditions; one retained, one rejected, so as to examine both sides of theissue. After Paul's Damascus Road experience, Paul clearly upholds thetradition that women must be veiled for prayer (1 Cor. 11) and clearly rejectsthe ritual tradition of circumcision for Gentiles who come to God throughfaith in Jesus and the breaking of table-fellowship that resulted in Antioch(Gal.). This paper builds off the understanding that Paul did not fully reject Judaism, as theories about him converting from
 
 Judaism to Christianitypurport, but rather reevaluated it in light of a transformation. Further, thispaper argues that Paul's reorientation of his understanding of the past andthe future becomes apparent when examining his preservation and rejectionof ritual traditions from Judaism. This paper holds that Paul chose to keepand discard ritual traditions from Judaism as a direct result of his belief thatGentiles were now eligible for inclusion in the gospel he was preaching. Thisview is at odds with the common interpretation of Sanders’ idea of 
 
covenantal nomism,
1
which asserts that the issue is not “getting in,” but“staying in.” It is not, however, completely at odds with Sanders, as I willshow later. Further, Paul's experience at Antioch of Jewish and Gentilebelievers eating together was the impetus for defining just what Paul'stransformation and reorientation would look like. It was from this event andPaul's subsequent insistence that Gentiles be included in the gospel, that hedecided which traditions to jettison, so as to open the door wider forGentiles, and which traditions to preserve.It is certainly no secret that the most prevalent interpretation of Paul’srelationship with Judaism is that he broke completely with the religion of hisformer life. The new perspective on Paul, especially as carried out by JamesDunn, effectively shattered this misconception. Dunn’s work, self-admittedly,relied heavily on the work of Sanders who essentially gave us a newperspective on Second Temple Judaism. Sanders, Dunn, and many othershave shown that Paul was much more a product of the Judaisms of his daythan had previously been acknowledged, but they have left room for error onthe other end of the spectrum; namely, by opening up the door to the viewthat Paul was simply a product of Second Temple Judaism; nothing more,nothing less. This view is misguided because it does not acknowledge theareas that Paul broke with Judaism including, but certainly not limited to, the
1
Sanders defines “covenantal nomism” in
Paul and Palestinian Judaism
as “is the viewthat one’s place in God’s plan is established on the basis of the covenant and that thecovenant requires as the proper response of man his obedience to its commandments, whileproviding means of atonement for transgression” (E. P. Sanders,
Paul and Palestinian Judaism
(Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977), 420.).
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...