Philippians 3.8 is one of my favorite verses in all of the Bible - "What is more, I consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them rubbish, that I may gain Christ..." In this context Paul is arguing that he, like the "dogs" mentioned in v. 2, has an impeccable Jewish background, both in things that he was born into and things that he himself achieved. However, all that was to his profit, i.e., his Jewish background, he now considers loss (v. 7). Then he widens the scope in v. 8 to include "everything" under this category of "loss." Why? Because in comparison with knowing Christ Jesus as his Lord everything in Paul's world was rubbish, skubala, which is perhaps better translated as "crap" or even a more crass word (v. 8).
This verse (actually this entire passage - Phil 3.2-11) is central to understanding many things about Paul, at least as far as we are able. These verses shed light on Paul's back story, his post-Christ understanding of his pre-Christ self, his thoughts on how knowing Christ changed him, and what he believes the goals of his life in Christ are. These are all highly important things to keep in mind when attempting to articulate anything about Paul's theology. Perhaps the most influential one is that knowing Christ changed everything for Paul.
It should be noted and noted well that Paul does not claim in this passage that he was unhappy with his pre-Christ life when he was living it. Paul was not some sort of troubled soul prior to experiencing Christ, who found an answer in Christ to life's problems and was given psychological solice from his guilt-ridden existence (this point was famously made by Krister Stendahl in "The Apostle Paul and the Introspective Conscience of the West"). Instead Paul was happy expressing his love for God the way that he was taught, in the traditions of his fathers (Gal 1.14).
Then Christ was revealed to him (Gal 1.16), which relativized Paul's entire existence. Nothing that had seemed important before had the same weight anymore. What had been the center of Paul's life, the Law, now had its role usurped, replaced by Jesus Christ his Lord. It is my further contention that Paul's subsequent view of the Law and its place completely changed because of his encounter with Christ. Though Paul thought that the Law was still good, useful, and spiritual (Rom 7.12, 14), it now served a new purpose - to point people to the new reality that has been opened by Christ Jesus (Gal 3.24). Furthermore, the Law has not been superseded or nullified; not at all! It is fulfilled in those who believe (Rom 3.31), presumably through the power of the Spirit (Rom 8.4).
For Paul the Law's role and purpose was relavitized by Christ. Therefore, all of Paul's statements about the Law should always be read keeping this relatvitizing power of Christ in mind. Paul does not seem to have a problem with the Law per se, he seems to have a problem with people, even Christ-followers, who want to place it along side Christ at the center. If rightness with God could be attained in anyway outside of Christ, then Jesus' death was in vain (Gal 2.21). Thus, even though the religion that Paul practiced pre-Christ had a healthy dose of grace (cf. Sanders' covental nomism), compared to knowing Jesus it all took on new meaning (Phil 3.8).
I won't pretend that these thoughts are entirely original or that they will settle the debate on this issue. However, I do believe that Phil 3 should elicit much more attention than it actually receives. Perhaps the key that unlocks the Paul-and-the-Law safe is found there, namely the relavitizing power of Christ.
Showing posts with label paul and the law. Show all posts
Showing posts with label paul and the law. Show all posts
Thursday, June 05, 2008
Sunday, December 30, 2007
Hagner on Nanos on Hagner
My friend Pat McCullough indicated in the comments of a previous post that he wished that I would get beyond the polemic in Mark Nanos' critique of Hagner's Chapter in Jewish Believers in Jesus. This is something that I want to do, but I will have to leave it aside for another time.
The reason for this is that Pat has brought it to my attention, via a very helpful post on his blog, that Nanos' critique and Hagner's response at SBL were recorded and made available online for free at TorahResource.com (right-click and save "Part 2"). Thus, I find it quite appropriate to allow Hagner to speak for himself (as Pat has done on his own blog) before delving into this any deeper.
Before I do that, however, I feel compelled to highlight some things that Nanos did not vocalize at SBL that he did in his written critique. Two which caused me the greatest alarm were left out by Nanos completely: his attack of Hagner's usage of definitive language (e.g., "clearly") and his demeaning comparison of Hagner to his own students. My primary problem, however, with Nanos' critique in my previous post was that he did not seem to read or fully understand Hagner's third footnote, in which Hagner explicitly explains his usage of the terms "Judaism" and "Christianity."
Putting these observations to one side, let us now read a transcript of Hagner's response to Nanos' critique (helpfully provided by Pat):
Hagner highlights some important things in his response. He emphasizes his position that Paul was both a Jew and a Christian (as defined in f.n. 3!). Hagner points out very clearly that Nanos is guilty of pushing Paul into (full) continuity with first-century Judaism when the texts (Gal 1.13; Phil 3.4) point a different direction. Lastly, Hagner reaffirms that in his opinion Paul does not believe that believers in Jesus are "under the Law," which nevertheless does not eradicate the pursuit of righteousness by these same believers.
In my next post on this topic I hope to deal in more depth with three issues: 1) Hagner's language about his past and present that Nanos claims is contradictory; 2) Nanos' highly idiosyncratic reading of Phil 3.4-7; and 3) The value of using "Christian" to describe the religious experience of Paul or his ideas. While attempting to understand these three issues will not put this debate to rest, I do believe that doing so will bring the discontinuity between Hagner and Nanos into even sharper focus (as if that were necessary!).
Paul as a Jewish Believer
Nanos on Hagner
The reason for this is that Pat has brought it to my attention, via a very helpful post on his blog, that Nanos' critique and Hagner's response at SBL were recorded and made available online for free at TorahResource.com (right-click and save "Part 2"). Thus, I find it quite appropriate to allow Hagner to speak for himself (as Pat has done on his own blog) before delving into this any deeper.
Before I do that, however, I feel compelled to highlight some things that Nanos did not vocalize at SBL that he did in his written critique. Two which caused me the greatest alarm were left out by Nanos completely: his attack of Hagner's usage of definitive language (e.g., "clearly") and his demeaning comparison of Hagner to his own students. My primary problem, however, with Nanos' critique in my previous post was that he did not seem to read or fully understand Hagner's third footnote, in which Hagner explicitly explains his usage of the terms "Judaism" and "Christianity."
Putting these observations to one side, let us now read a transcript of Hagner's response to Nanos' critique (helpfully provided by Pat):
I thank the chair for the privilege of having a few minutes to respond even though I'm not on the program. My good friend, Mark–my former good friend, Mark [laughter], is as usual always interesting, always stimulating, but, at least for me, not always persuasive. He accuses me of prejudging the issues and I have to say that I think Mark has at least as much of an a priori as I have. And I think he has more of an a priori than I have, if that's okay. Mark tends to dismiss my view as the "traditional view." I'd like to say that because an interpretation is "traditional" does not mean it is necessarily true, but it also does not mean it is necessarily false. I think it's interesting to ponder the fact that so many have understood Paul in the traditional way. It doesn't mean it's right; it’s just an interesting observation.
Next, I'd like to say that the challenge for both of us is to make some coherent sense not just of a few texts, but of all of the texts… together. And I think that leads us to the necessity of affirming tensions, nuances, subtleties, things that you tend to refer to as "contradictions," I'm afraid. It's also not a matter of either/or; it's a matter of both/and. It’s not whether Paul is a Jew or a Christian. He is both: a Jew and a Christian. But these subtleties, I think, sometimes seem to escape Mark. Somehow Mark has missed my affirmation that Paul is a Jew… that Paul is a Jewish believer in Jesus, that Paul has not changed his religion, that Paul upholds the righteousness of the law, but with a new dynamic, in a new way. I emphatically deny something that he has in his written statement, namely (this is a quote from him), he says that I think Paul "is engaged in a new religion that stands against his former religion" [pg 15]. No, no, no! I do not think that. Not at all. It's the absolute opposite of what I think, in fact. Paul is affirming the true Judaism in his own mind.
Mark wants to push me into a simple "discontinuity" between Paul and Judaism in contrast to his simple "continuity." But again, the issue is not that easy. We have to deal with both/and, both continuity and discontinuity in this matter. Mark's view is just a little too simplistic for me. Galatians 1:13, Paul speaks of his Ἰουδαϊσμός as something of the past and I don't think I can read it in the way Mark does, just moving from one form of Judaism to another. The Ἰουδαϊσμός is behind him, I think. And his Philippians 3:4 and following, Paul counts his Jewish pedigree, including his blamelessness as a Pharisee as worthless. What matters is Χριστὸς.And it's ludicrous, by the way, I think, Mark, to say that he would have to include his apostleship in that list [see pg 8]. That's not giving him a fair chance to say what he means to say, what he wants to say. Because Paul doesn't use the word "Christian" does not mean that he can't be described or shouldn't be described as a Christian. I fail to see how Mark can deny my two non-negotiables. Are these two statements really questionable on a reading of the authentic Pauline letters? First, that Christians are no longer under the law. Second, that righteousness remains for Paul an indispensable priority. Can we really challenge either of those statements on the basis of the Pauline letters? I don't think so. Mark's Paul, for me, is not the Paul of the letters. I would ask him to make better sense of the texts than I have. And I think so far, he hasn't. Thank you.
Hagner highlights some important things in his response. He emphasizes his position that Paul was both a Jew and a Christian (as defined in f.n. 3!). Hagner points out very clearly that Nanos is guilty of pushing Paul into (full) continuity with first-century Judaism when the texts (Gal 1.13; Phil 3.4) point a different direction. Lastly, Hagner reaffirms that in his opinion Paul does not believe that believers in Jesus are "under the Law," which nevertheless does not eradicate the pursuit of righteousness by these same believers.
In my next post on this topic I hope to deal in more depth with three issues: 1) Hagner's language about his past and present that Nanos claims is contradictory; 2) Nanos' highly idiosyncratic reading of Phil 3.4-7; and 3) The value of using "Christian" to describe the religious experience of Paul or his ideas. While attempting to understand these three issues will not put this debate to rest, I do believe that doing so will bring the discontinuity between Hagner and Nanos into even sharper focus (as if that were necessary!).
Paul as a Jewish Believer
Nanos on Hagner
Thursday, December 20, 2007
Nanos on Hagner
Mark Nanos prepared a paper entitled "Have Paul and His Communities Left Judaism for Christianity?" A Review of the Paul-Related Chapters in Jewish Believers in Jesus and Jewish Christianity Revisited" for an SBL session called "Jewish Christianity Consultation," which took place on November 19, 2007. I will only interact with the section in which he critiques the work of Donald Hagner (3-16). If you would like to view the entire document, it is available at his website in pdf format.
I have re-written this sentence several times because I cannot, for the life, of me decide where to begin. I guess I'll start by giving my overall impression of Nanos' critique. First, the tone in the paper is highly polemical, and that is putting it nicely. At every turn he fails to give Hagner the benefit of the doubt and when Nanos finally does attempt to read Hagner faithfully, he resorts to saying that Hagner is reading his own ideology into the text (e.g., "Hagner's Saul turned into Hagner's Paul" [4]). Second, Nanos appears to have a basic misunderstanding of Hagner's choice of terminology regarding Judaism and Christianity (we will explore this in more detail below). And third, Nanos strikes a low blow toward the end of his critique by implying that what Hagner cannot do he (Nanos) requires of his students (15-16).
Now before I continue I should be completely honest for the sake of full disclosure. First, I am a proponent, generally, of the traditional perspective on Paul. While my understanding of Judaism on the whole may be influenced by Sanders, his research (and that of others) has not convinced me to abandon what appears to be the plain meaning of Paul's letters. Second, Dr. Hagner is my mentor at Fuller; thus, my opinion of Nanos' attack on his essay will be, obviously, biased. Those two disclaimers aside, I will try to offer an honest assessment of Nanos' paper.
Beginning with the unnecessary polemic. If this paper felt as pointed as it did when I read it, I can only imagine how it must have sounded as Nanos read it with Hagner sitting in the room. I am reminded of the impression I was left with after the pistis christou session on the Friday of SBL; why is civility so hard to come by these days? Here's a good example of what I am talking about: when is it ever appropriate to assume you have access to the private thoughts and motivations of others? Nanos writes:
Not only has Nanos attempted to think Hagner's thoughts after him, he has accused him of eisegesis! Nanos might as well call Karl Barth a Pelagian or Stevie Ray Vaughan a hack! Nanos continues: "this essay is not so much an historical as an ideological exercise" (4). I find this to be amazing. I am tempted to assume why Nanos felt compelled to characterize Hagner in this manner, but to do so would not be civil.
Perhaps a little fairness could have helped Nanos' critique come across much better. For example, he chastises Hagner's use of "clear(ly) and obvious(ly)" (5), while a quick word search in the pdf reveals that Nanos uses this same sort of terminology himself ("certainly not" [8-9]; Nanos claims that "Hagner's arguments continue to make clear" the presumption that "Christ-believing Judaism" is a new religion [7]; "it is clear" that offering a counter-reading to Hagner is pointless [11]; and the list grows longer if you consider the material not dealing with Hagner in the paper)! I wonder how many usages of "certainly," "clearly," and the like one would find in other works by Nanos? Also, since when has using confident language as a rhetorical device not been utilized? If Nanos has a problem with this in general then he should have stated his case generally, but since he has a problem with Hagner using this sort of language, perhaps he should have avoided it himself!
Other examples of the unnecessary polemics in this paper could be given but I must move on to Nanos' largest misunderstanding of Hagner which colors the entire paper. A quote from the last paragraph of the section critiquing Hagner will illustrate this beautifully:
I find this fascinating. Hagner explains his usage of the anachronistic terms "Christianity" and "Judaism" in the third footnote of his essay:
Thus, it appears that Nanos makes a false assumption about Hagner's usage of this terminology. By "Judaism" Hagner does not have in mind rabbinic Judaism and by "Christianity" Hagner does not have in mind the more organized and separated Church of the second century and beyond. Instead, it appears to me that Hagner uses the terms to discuss Paul's pre-Christ religious experience and thought, "Judaism," and his post-Christ religious experience and thought, "Christianity." Had Hagner not clearly stated what he meant by these terms, then Nanos' misunderstanding would have been valid and his critique would have hit home with me. However, since Hagner did explain his usage, Nanos' critique comes across as stretching for anything about which to complain.
Perhaps behind both scholars on this point is their understanding of Paul's conversion/call. Using the terms highlights the discontinuity between Paul's past and present, while not using them (or using "Judaisms" instead) highlights the continuity. However, unfairly assuming that Hagner meant something that he clearly did not and then basing most of his critiques against the essay on this assumption was simply bad methodology on Nanos' part.
Lastly, in a moment that was at least underhanded and at most holier-than-thou, Nanos writes the following:
Wow. Nanos overtly states here that Hagner does what he does not allow his students to do! Again, had Nanos had a problem with Hagner's usage of this language perhaps he should have read footnote three more closely! Even if Hagner had not included the footnote, comparing an established scholar who is internationally respected to one's students is both uncalled for and insulting.
There is so much more that I could say in regard to Nanos' paper, and perhaps I will when I return from Christmas vacation, but for now this will have to do.
Paul as a Jewish Believer
Hagner on Nanos on Hagner
I have re-written this sentence several times because I cannot, for the life, of me decide where to begin. I guess I'll start by giving my overall impression of Nanos' critique. First, the tone in the paper is highly polemical, and that is putting it nicely. At every turn he fails to give Hagner the benefit of the doubt and when Nanos finally does attempt to read Hagner faithfully, he resorts to saying that Hagner is reading his own ideology into the text (e.g., "Hagner's Saul turned into Hagner's Paul" [4]). Second, Nanos appears to have a basic misunderstanding of Hagner's choice of terminology regarding Judaism and Christianity (we will explore this in more detail below). And third, Nanos strikes a low blow toward the end of his critique by implying that what Hagner cannot do he (Nanos) requires of his students (15-16).
Now before I continue I should be completely honest for the sake of full disclosure. First, I am a proponent, generally, of the traditional perspective on Paul. While my understanding of Judaism on the whole may be influenced by Sanders, his research (and that of others) has not convinced me to abandon what appears to be the plain meaning of Paul's letters. Second, Dr. Hagner is my mentor at Fuller; thus, my opinion of Nanos' attack on his essay will be, obviously, biased. Those two disclaimers aside, I will try to offer an honest assessment of Nanos' paper.
Beginning with the unnecessary polemic. If this paper felt as pointed as it did when I read it, I can only imagine how it must have sounded as Nanos read it with Hagner sitting in the room. I am reminded of the impression I was left with after the pistis christou session on the Friday of SBL; why is civility so hard to come by these days? Here's a good example of what I am talking about: when is it ever appropriate to assume you have access to the private thoughts and motivations of others? Nanos writes:
I submit that the frame for viewing Paul is already constrained to viewing him only from the perspective, concerns, and answers of a later time, and that the essay has been written to confirm the views of those who already share Hagner's point of view on Paul. (4)
Not only has Nanos attempted to think Hagner's thoughts after him, he has accused him of eisegesis! Nanos might as well call Karl Barth a Pelagian or Stevie Ray Vaughan a hack! Nanos continues: "this essay is not so much an historical as an ideological exercise" (4). I find this to be amazing. I am tempted to assume why Nanos felt compelled to characterize Hagner in this manner, but to do so would not be civil.
Perhaps a little fairness could have helped Nanos' critique come across much better. For example, he chastises Hagner's use of "clear(ly) and obvious(ly)" (5), while a quick word search in the pdf reveals that Nanos uses this same sort of terminology himself ("certainly not" [8-9]; Nanos claims that "Hagner's arguments continue to make clear" the presumption that "Christ-believing Judaism" is a new religion [7]; "it is clear" that offering a counter-reading to Hagner is pointless [11]; and the list grows longer if you consider the material not dealing with Hagner in the paper)! I wonder how many usages of "certainly," "clearly," and the like one would find in other works by Nanos? Also, since when has using confident language as a rhetorical device not been utilized? If Nanos has a problem with this in general then he should have stated his case generally, but since he has a problem with Hagner using this sort of language, perhaps he should have avoided it himself!
Other examples of the unnecessary polemics in this paper could be given but I must move on to Nanos' largest misunderstanding of Hagner which colors the entire paper. A quote from the last paragraph of the section critiquing Hagner will illustrate this beautifully:
While Paul got by without using the term Christian, Hagner does not do so. He probably should not. Based on what Hagner communicates about Paul, it would not be useful to avoid such terminology, or deny that his Paul has moved from one religion to another. (16)
I find this fascinating. Hagner explains his usage of the anachronistic terms "Christianity" and "Judaism" in the third footnote of his essay:
The use of the terms "Judaism" and "Christianity" in reference to the first century is nowadays regarded as problematic. Neither term means what it will come to mean in the centuries following the time of Paul. Judaism is in a highly formative stage in the first two centuries (especially before the destruction of Jerusalem in 70). Similarly, first-century Christianity is not what it will become in the second century. But this terminological debate anticipates the discussion that follows. We will continue to use the terms for the sake of convenience. (n.3 97)
Thus, it appears that Nanos makes a false assumption about Hagner's usage of this terminology. By "Judaism" Hagner does not have in mind rabbinic Judaism and by "Christianity" Hagner does not have in mind the more organized and separated Church of the second century and beyond. Instead, it appears to me that Hagner uses the terms to discuss Paul's pre-Christ religious experience and thought, "Judaism," and his post-Christ religious experience and thought, "Christianity." Had Hagner not clearly stated what he meant by these terms, then Nanos' misunderstanding would have been valid and his critique would have hit home with me. However, since Hagner did explain his usage, Nanos' critique comes across as stretching for anything about which to complain.
Perhaps behind both scholars on this point is their understanding of Paul's conversion/call. Using the terms highlights the discontinuity between Paul's past and present, while not using them (or using "Judaisms" instead) highlights the continuity. However, unfairly assuming that Hagner meant something that he clearly did not and then basing most of his critiques against the essay on this assumption was simply bad methodology on Nanos' part.
Lastly, in a moment that was at least underhanded and at most holier-than-thou, Nanos writes the following:
This essay exemplifies why I do not permit my students to use the terms Christian or Christianity when discussing Paul and his communities: much more than terminology is at issue; rather, it is the way that terminology reveals and limits our conceptualization of reality. Regardless of any new information that will be introduced to them, the way that they have learned from childhood to perceive and thus describe the world into which to fit this new information will inhibit them from thinking about these new things in new ways, including ways that just might challenge and alter what they think they know to be absolute, un-interpreted, non-negotiable truth, instead of being merely one among the many interpretations available for conceptualizing the meaning of this information. In my view, we should seek to limit neither the answers, nor the questions to be posed. As important as terminology is, it is less important than how it either limits or advances the ability to conceptualize and describe the maps upon which we plot the information at issue.
Wow. Nanos overtly states here that Hagner does what he does not allow his students to do! Again, had Nanos had a problem with Hagner's usage of this language perhaps he should have read footnote three more closely! Even if Hagner had not included the footnote, comparing an established scholar who is internationally respected to one's students is both uncalled for and insulting.
There is so much more that I could say in regard to Nanos' paper, and perhaps I will when I return from Christmas vacation, but for now this will have to do.
Paul as a Jewish Believer
Hagner on Nanos on Hagner
Paul as a Jewish Believer
I finished reading Donald Hagner's article in Jewish Believers in Jesus: The Early Centuries ("Paul as a Jewish Believer--According to His Letters" [96-120]) and I thought that I would share a summary and analysis of it here. Sometime soon, hopefully later today, I'll post my thoughts about Mark Nanos' slashing critique of Hagner's essay that was presented at this year's SBL.
To begin with, it would be good to underscore Hagner's methodology in this essay. Basically what he is doing is trying to uncover the continuity or discontinuity that Paul's post-Christ religious experience has with regard to his Jewish past. In order to do this Hagner utilizes material almost exclusively from Paul's undisputed letters (he does include a few references to the disputed letters both parenthetically and in footnotes). Also, Hagner pays careful attention to the scholarship regarding this issue, both the writings from Jewish and gentile scholars.
The thesis of the essay appears to be that while there is much continuity between Paul's pre-Christ Judaism and his post-Christ religious experience, there is also much discontuity; and the latter should not be ignored because of the former.
In the first section ("The Changing Understanding of Paul"), Hagner gives a nice overview of scholarship on the Jewishness of Paul, paying special and close attention to Jewish works, the Hellenistic Judaism/Palestinian Judaism distinction, and the New Perspective on Paul. His grasp of the development of this issue is impressive, both in its breadth and depth.
The second section ("Studies in Continuity and Discontinuity"), which comprises the bulk of the essay, is a detailed examination of the connectedness of Paul's thought and experience had with first-century Judaism. In most instances Hagner assumes the traditional interpretations while nuancing them when needed as a result of new findings or historical developments. For example, Hagner argues that Paul was not merely called to be a missionary to the gentiles, but that Paul's post-Christ experience "involves a dramatic enough shift that conversion is also an appropriate word" (102). He does not summarily dismiss the notion of Paul's call with regard to his conversion, he simply qualifies it.
Hagner continues in this section by arguing that Paul's soteriology has changed (102-114). Perhaps the best passage in the entire essay is found in sub-section 2.2.1, "Paul and the law," where Hagner highlights the fact that Paul can make both negative and positive statements concerning the law. Hagner's conclusion regarding this seeming problem is fascinating: "If we take the negative statements regarding the law as referring to the commandments, it is possible to take the positive statements as referring simply to the righteousness that is the goal of the law" (108). In other words, according to Hagner, Paul can speak of believers in Christ not being under the law, while the original intent of the law, righteousness, is spoken of positively.
This may lead one to think that Paul (and Hagner!) thinks that right living is no longer that important for the believer in Christ. Hagner argues exactly the opposite in sub-section 2.2.3, "The ongoing importance of righteousness for Paul." Hagner encapsulates his position well in the following sentence: "The paradox can be summed up by saying that those who are free from the law are now in a position to, and called to, pursue a righteousness that remarkably corresponds to the goal of the law" (111). In so doing, Hagner preserves for Paul freedom from the law, as is certainly espoused in his letters, while also accentuating Paul's clear concern for ethical living.
The third and final section ("Old and New in Paul") is the conclusion to the essay. In it Hagner states the following:
These two sentences describe Hagner's basic position quite well -- while there is "old" present in Paul, the "new" is so important that something different is created that is colored by what came before, not vice versa.
As already mentioned, Hagner presents his readers with traditional understandings of Paul in this essay. However, he does not do so without regard to new developments in the study of Paul and Judaism or the repugnant history of violence against Jews, especially in the twentieth century. As important as these two things are (and they are very important indeed!), Hagner does not allow them to control his reading of Paul. Instead, he attempts to read Paul faithfully while softening some of previous scholarship's rough edges where needed. In my estimation, Hagner's essay is convincing and even-handed.
I was left wanting in a specific area; I wish there had been more interaction with the texts of Second-Temple Judaism. Hagner is not to blame here, however, since this sort of essay cannot possibly cover all the bases. There are several places where the reader is left wanting to actually read what Jews of this period thought about these various issues. But again, this perceived deficiency in Hagner's essay has more to do with its scope than with its actual content, as the subtitle of the essay makes clear -- "According to Paul's Letters." In almost every instance of this phenomenon, however, the reader is pointed to more complete treatments of the issues in other works by Hagner or others. Thus, while every "i" could not be dotted and "t" crossed in this one essay, Hagner responsibly gives the reader ample opportunity to discover more on his/her own.
In my opinion, the greatest strength of Hagner's essay is the large amount of material quoted from Paul's letters themselves. Perhaps this is not necessarily a strength of Hagner's essay but of the traditional reading of Paul in general. In the work of a New Perspectivist, there are often many terms and phrases which are not taken to mean what they plainly seem to mean (e.g., "my own righteousness" in Phil 3.9 not pointing to a righteousness that Paul at least had a part in obtaining, but instead to some sort of national righteousness). Thus, when one is reading Dunn, Wright, etc and has the New Testament in hand, it is often difficult to see how they have arrived at the positions for which they argue so strongly. In Hagner's essay, however, Paul is often allowed to speak in his own voice and his words are allowed to carry what appear to be their plain meanings.
Nanos on Hagner
Hagner on Nanos on Hagner
To begin with, it would be good to underscore Hagner's methodology in this essay. Basically what he is doing is trying to uncover the continuity or discontinuity that Paul's post-Christ religious experience has with regard to his Jewish past. In order to do this Hagner utilizes material almost exclusively from Paul's undisputed letters (he does include a few references to the disputed letters both parenthetically and in footnotes). Also, Hagner pays careful attention to the scholarship regarding this issue, both the writings from Jewish and gentile scholars.
The thesis of the essay appears to be that while there is much continuity between Paul's pre-Christ Judaism and his post-Christ religious experience, there is also much discontuity; and the latter should not be ignored because of the former.
In the first section ("The Changing Understanding of Paul"), Hagner gives a nice overview of scholarship on the Jewishness of Paul, paying special and close attention to Jewish works, the Hellenistic Judaism/Palestinian Judaism distinction, and the New Perspective on Paul. His grasp of the development of this issue is impressive, both in its breadth and depth.
The second section ("Studies in Continuity and Discontinuity"), which comprises the bulk of the essay, is a detailed examination of the connectedness of Paul's thought and experience had with first-century Judaism. In most instances Hagner assumes the traditional interpretations while nuancing them when needed as a result of new findings or historical developments. For example, Hagner argues that Paul was not merely called to be a missionary to the gentiles, but that Paul's post-Christ experience "involves a dramatic enough shift that conversion is also an appropriate word" (102). He does not summarily dismiss the notion of Paul's call with regard to his conversion, he simply qualifies it.
Hagner continues in this section by arguing that Paul's soteriology has changed (102-114). Perhaps the best passage in the entire essay is found in sub-section 2.2.1, "Paul and the law," where Hagner highlights the fact that Paul can make both negative and positive statements concerning the law. Hagner's conclusion regarding this seeming problem is fascinating: "If we take the negative statements regarding the law as referring to the commandments, it is possible to take the positive statements as referring simply to the righteousness that is the goal of the law" (108). In other words, according to Hagner, Paul can speak of believers in Christ not being under the law, while the original intent of the law, righteousness, is spoken of positively.
This may lead one to think that Paul (and Hagner!) thinks that right living is no longer that important for the believer in Christ. Hagner argues exactly the opposite in sub-section 2.2.3, "The ongoing importance of righteousness for Paul." Hagner encapsulates his position well in the following sentence: "The paradox can be summed up by saying that those who are free from the law are now in a position to, and called to, pursue a righteousness that remarkably corresponds to the goal of the law" (111). In so doing, Hagner preserves for Paul freedom from the law, as is certainly espoused in his letters, while also accentuating Paul's clear concern for ethical living.
The third and final section ("Old and New in Paul") is the conclusion to the essay. In it Hagner states the following:
Furthermore, the old and the new are not present in an equal balance. We do not have a situation in which a variety of new perspectives are added to the staple of old things that constitute Judaism, causing only minor readjustments. On the contrary, the new that comes is an eschatological turning point in the ages, of such great consequence that we must be prepared for dramatic shifts. (118)
These two sentences describe Hagner's basic position quite well -- while there is "old" present in Paul, the "new" is so important that something different is created that is colored by what came before, not vice versa.
As already mentioned, Hagner presents his readers with traditional understandings of Paul in this essay. However, he does not do so without regard to new developments in the study of Paul and Judaism or the repugnant history of violence against Jews, especially in the twentieth century. As important as these two things are (and they are very important indeed!), Hagner does not allow them to control his reading of Paul. Instead, he attempts to read Paul faithfully while softening some of previous scholarship's rough edges where needed. In my estimation, Hagner's essay is convincing and even-handed.
I was left wanting in a specific area; I wish there had been more interaction with the texts of Second-Temple Judaism. Hagner is not to blame here, however, since this sort of essay cannot possibly cover all the bases. There are several places where the reader is left wanting to actually read what Jews of this period thought about these various issues. But again, this perceived deficiency in Hagner's essay has more to do with its scope than with its actual content, as the subtitle of the essay makes clear -- "According to Paul's Letters." In almost every instance of this phenomenon, however, the reader is pointed to more complete treatments of the issues in other works by Hagner or others. Thus, while every "i" could not be dotted and "t" crossed in this one essay, Hagner responsibly gives the reader ample opportunity to discover more on his/her own.
In my opinion, the greatest strength of Hagner's essay is the large amount of material quoted from Paul's letters themselves. Perhaps this is not necessarily a strength of Hagner's essay but of the traditional reading of Paul in general. In the work of a New Perspectivist, there are often many terms and phrases which are not taken to mean what they plainly seem to mean (e.g., "my own righteousness" in Phil 3.9 not pointing to a righteousness that Paul at least had a part in obtaining, but instead to some sort of national righteousness). Thus, when one is reading Dunn, Wright, etc and has the New Testament in hand, it is often difficult to see how they have arrived at the positions for which they argue so strongly. In Hagner's essay, however, Paul is often allowed to speak in his own voice and his words are allowed to carry what appear to be their plain meanings.
Nanos on Hagner
Hagner on Nanos on Hagner
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
