Читать книгу Paul Among the Gentiles: A "Radical" Reading of Romans - Jacob P. B. Mortensen - Страница 19

T.L. Donaldson is Professor of New Testament Studies at the University of Toronto, and has written extensively on Paul from a ‘new perspective’ standpoint. In a 2015 article, ‘Paul within Judaism: A Critical Evaluation from a ’New Perspective” Perspective’, Donaldson presented some critical remarks concerning the radical perspective. This article serves as the final outlook or perspective in a presentation of the radical perspective, or the ‘Paul within Judaism’ perspective. Donaldson begins by stating that he actually considers the attempt to situate Paul ‘within Judaism’ as correct. The picture of Paul as an apostle to the Gentiles fits quite well Donaldson’s perception of Paul as concerned with locating his own Judaism within the wider world. And he also considers the terminological aspect important. It does make a difference if we call Paul’s addressees ‘Christians’ or ‘Christ-believing Gentiles’, and if we translate ἐκκλησία as ‘church’ instead of ‘assembly’. However, Donaldson also sees several difficulties with the ‘Paul within Judaism’ project. First, Donaldson addresses some problems with perceiving Jewish eschatological expectations (restoration theology) as the framework of Paul’s mission. According to Donaldson, there was a widespread (albeit not universal) expectation that non-Jews would share in the benefits of Israel’s end-time redemption. However, these Gentile ‘end-time pilgrims’ were not necessarily expected to be categorically differentiated from Jews with respect to Torah observance. Donaldson points out that the contemporary material is ambiguous, and that it does not follow in a simple and straightforward way that, just because there were Jewish expectations of Gentiles joining Israel, that these would remain Gentiles, and not become circumcised and law-abiding Gentiles/proselytes.1 It is not unequivocally apparent that the ancient Jewish authors who wrote on these matters took any great interest in that specific topic. And Donaldson concludes on this observation that it seems odd – if the ancient authors’ attitude was indifferent – that they would infer that non-Jews who had turned to the God of Israel would be forbidden to learn God’s ways as set out in the Torah.

Donaldson turns to another difficulty. This pertains to the question of the logic and sequence of the eschatological events of the end times. According to Donaldson, all material points in the direction of the restoration of Israel bringing about a change of heart among the Gentiles (e.g. Tob 14:6; 1 En. 90:30–38; Zech 8:20–23; Sib. Or. 3:702–723; Philo Mos. 2.43–44). The inclusion of the Gentiles comes about as a result of the restoration of Israel. However, Donaldson briefly describes the sequence of events as presented by Paul in Rom 11. From this short presentation, it seems as though Paul reverses the logic of the eschatological events in other contemporary Jewish literature: not until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in does the salvation of Israel occur.2 If Donaldson is correct in this description of Paul’s presentation of the sequence of events in the end times, it goes against the logic and sequence presented in the traditional restoration theology at the time of Paul (e.g. Tobith, 1 Enoch, Zecharia, Sibylline Oracles and Philo). However, Donaldson also concedes that there are places where Paul seems to describe the blessings enjoyed by non-Jewish Christ-believers as derived from blessings that belong, in the first instance, to Jewish Christ-believers (Rom 15:25–27; Rom 11:17–21; Gal 3:13–14). And he also concedes that Paul sees the existence of a Jewish ‘remnant’ as an opportunity to derive his mission to the Gentiles from Jewish patterns of restoration thought. To this critique from Donaldson should be added an answer that Paul was not the first person involved in the Jesus movement. Peter and James were there before Paul. And they did not perceive the consequences of the life, death, and resurrection of Christ in any way having to do with the Gentiles. Paul was probably the first to see this. Consequently, there may be an implied Jewish answer to Donaldson’s criticism of the logic and sequence of events as presented in contemporary restoration theology and in Rom 11, and his criticism should not be considered severe.

Donaldson points out a final difficulty with the radical perspective, which concerns the identity of the members of Paul’s assemblies. According to Donaldson, the ‘radicals’ argue that the Christ-believing Gentiles should not become Jews by way of circumcision. But they are still considered Abraham’s seed (cf. Gal 3:29; Rom 4:13–18). According to Donaldson, these two identities are irreconcilable, since ‘seed’ was used specifically with reference to Jews, in contrast to Gentiles.3 Thus, Donaldson maintains a contrast between two mutually exclusive alternatives. And he further asks for evidence that argues that Paul would combine these two mutually exclusive alternatives. However, to this critique from Donaldson should be added the answer that Paul actually made that exact argument in Gal 3 (by citation in v. 8) and, differently, in Romans 3 to 4. And Paul also argued that the Gentiles were the seed of Abraham because they were ‘in Christ’, who is ‘the seed’ of Abraham that was promised (Gal 3:16; Gal 3:1–4:7, 28). So even if Donaldson’s criticism is worth considering, it does not really question the radical perspective.

Alexander Wedderburn also criticizes the radical perspective’s proposals. In a 2004 article, Wedderburn asks whether we should start speaking of a ‘newer perspective on Paul’ (‘einer neueren Paulusperspektive’) led by John Gager (and others), as in certain works, Gager and his gang move beyond (‘hinaus geht’) what Sanders proposed in Paul and Palestinian Judaism.4 Wedderburn explains that Gager (and others) present a two-covenant solution, with salvation for Jews through the ‘traditional’ covenant between God and Israel, and salvation for Gentiles in Christ. He also notes that Gager (and others) discount Paul’s criticism of the (Mosaic) law as relevant to Jews, and that Paul’s criticism of the law merely applies to Gentiles wanting to come under the law. In the article, Wedderburn sets out to identify difficulties in the new perspective, and how the ‘newer perspective’ addresses these difficulties. Finally, he presents his own considerations concerning this constellation.

Wedderburn turns to the radical perspective by explaining John Gager’s position. Gager maintains that Paul still considered the Jews committed or obligated to the (Mosaic) law after the coming of Christ. Paul did not change his attitude to Israel’s (or his own) obligation to the law; he changed his perception of the Gentiles’ obligation to the (Mosaic) law. So Paul’s criticism of the (Mosaic) law did not concern Israel (and himself). It merely concerned the Gentiles’ relation to the (Mosaic) law. This also has consequences for justification: The Jews may safely stick to the Torah, whereas Gentiles are incorporated to Israel through faith in Christ. Both will end up the same place, they merely take different roads.5

After outlining Gager’s position, Wedderburn turns to some critical remarks. First, he points out that Paul’s mission strategy (1 Cor 9:19–23) of becoming all things to all people does not fit with being a loyal and law-abiding Jew. It is untrustworthy of Paul to claim to be a law-abiding Jew, if he can be all things to all people and, thereby, not follow the (Mosaic) law. If you abide by the law, you abide to the law, and do not change sides (like a chameleon).6 This holds for Paul, and for all other Jews. And this brings Wedderburn to the next difficulty: Paul was not merely apostle to the Gentiles, since Aquila (Acts 18:2), Crispus (1 Cor 1:14) and several of the addressees in Rom 16 were Jews. And Wedderburn considers it unconvincing that Jews and Gentiles in the same assembly would live by different rules – some law-abiding, and some not.7 Furthermore, if Jews and Gentiles lived different lives within the same assembly, they would have no concrete expression of faith in common.

Wedderburn asks whether Paul spoke meaningfully, or merely gave hints about the (Mosaic) law, if he addressed his gospel exclusively to Gentiles. He asks whether Christ-believing Jews could obtain justification through the law. If Christ-believing Jews could obtain justification through the law, would it then imply that Christ died in vain (for Jews)? And if that was the case, why would Gentiles not also seek to obtain justification through the law as proselytes? And if proselytes could obtain justification through the law, then why does Paul state that no law could bring life (Gal 3:21)? Wedderburn concludes that only because the law is inadequate for both Jews and Gentiles does Gal 3:21 make sense. He further explains that there are both strengths and weaknesses in the traditional perspective, the new perspective, and the radical perspective. And in some cases, the arguments of the traditional perspective are stronger, and in other cases they are not.8 Even though Wedderburn’s remarks are weighty, they may be fully countered by within the radical perspective. I will address them below, and in subsequent chapters.