Research projects
Project:
New perspectives on Paul and the Jews: A critical investigation into the significance of the Letters of Paul in light of the historical parting of the ways between Judaism and Christianity with particular attention paid to 2 Cor 3:6.7-18 in light of Jewish-Christian dialogue
Nathan Emmanuel
Email: emmanuel.nathan@theo.kuleuven.be
Research unit: Biblical studies
Bolton David
Email: david.bolton@theo.kuleuven.be
Research unit: Biblical studies
Vollmer Thomas
Email: Thomas.Vollmer@student.kuleuven.be
Research unit: Biblical studies
Description:
In the context of an earlier research program funded by the Fund for Scientific Research Flanders (FWO) we studied the alleged anti-Jewish elements in the New Testament, esp. in the gospel of John, with special attention for the implications for Jewish-Christian dialogue. This intradisciplinary research resulted in publications which are presently being discussed in international academic circles (e.g., Anti-Judaism and the Fourth Gospel, Bieringer & Pollefeyt, 2001), both in the context of exegesis and Jewish-Christian dialogue. The intended project is a logical continuation of our earlier research in so far as we shall concentrate on the role of the theology of Paul in the process of early Christian self-definition in relation to contemporary Judaism. The research gives special attention to 2 Cor 3:6.7-18, a text which has not played an important role in the context of research on Paul’s relationship to the Jewish people (cf. Duff, 2004). The research question of this project is whether 2 Cor 3:6.7-18 is a witness to the antithesis which Paul allegedly developed with regard to contemporary Judaism as has been assumed traditionally in exegesis. The answer to this question has significant implications concerning the crucial question for Jewish-Christian dialogue, namely whether Paul became the founder of Christianity in this process of separation while Jesus had stayed completely within the boundaries of Judaism. The innovative nature of this project is to be found in the critical rejection of the prevalent paradigm which dissolves the tension between Paul and Judaism by understanding Paul exclusively as being in harmony with his Jewish background (much of the so-called “New Perspective”). In the alternative position which our research shall develop it is, however, not our intention to support reactionary tendencies which deconstruct the “New Perspective” in order to simply reaffirm Christian identity against Judaism (cf. Gundry, 2005).
In Christian history and theology, the letters of Paul have long been read as an expression of the differences between Jewish and Christian identities. The heritage of the centuries old Christian perception of the Jew as the ‘unsaved other’ had destructive consequences for the Jewish people, frequently not without support from this traditional reading of the letters of Paul. One of the key questions for relevant scientific research in this area is whether the traditional understanding of the process of separation of Judaism and Christianity has exegetical, moral and theological support from Paul. In historical perspective it was above all the traditional Lutheran doctrine of justification which determined the way scholars interpreted Paul’s understanding of the relation between Judaism and Christianity. Justification means in this context that human persons are not saved by their own merits, but exclusively by God’s grace made available by Christ’s merits in his death on the cross. Paul’s emphasis on justification by grace alone was seen as a reaction against Judaism. Luther rejected the Roman church of his time because in his conviction she promised salvation on the basis of works, i.e., precisely for the same reason for which Paul had rejected Judaism. Judaism is here understood and rejected as a legalistic religion which makes salvation dependent on human merits. In light of the dramatic events of the twentieth century, and esp. of the Shoah, this theology of justification came under pressure. Dunn, one of the leading scholars in the field, points out how this post-Shoah perspective made possible new developments in the field of New Testament exegesis and theology: “Post-Holocaust theology could no longer stomach the denigration of historic Judaism” (Dunn, 1998, p. 338).
In Pauline studies the most important developments happened in the context of the so-called “New Perspective” (Sanders, 1977; Dunn, 1983; cf. Stendahl, 1963) which cleared the Judaism contemporary to Paul of the accusation that it was a religion based on works-righteousness. Sanders introduced the term covenantal nomism into the debate to summarize his understanding of Judaism as a religion based on the grace of the covenant, seeing works of the law as signs of loyalty and gratitude. He stressed that Judaism like Christianity was based on God’s unmerited grace. Sanders’ study caused a major shift in Pauline studies because of the “sharp contrast he drew between his restatement of Palestinian Judaism and the traditional reconstructions of Judaism within Christian theology” (Dunn, 1998, p. 5). This implied a totally new understanding of the relationship between Paul and Judaism. According to Sanders the major difference between Judaism and Pauline Christianity is not the antithesis law and grace, but the (more fundamental) difference between covenantal grace (Judaism) and the grace of the new creation in Christ (Christianity). Thus for Paul it would not be enough for Christ to undo the consequences of human sin by renewing the covenant. Rather the whole creation needs to be renewed. According to Paul this more fundamental goal can only be realized through the death and resurrection of Christ and through dying and rising with Christ (“participatory union”, Sanders, 1977, pp. 513-514). Dunn took “New Perspective” theology a step further by replacing the antithesis law and grace which was traditionally seen in Paul’s theology by the antithesis between national (exclusive) and universal (inclusive). Dunn is convinced that in the theology of Paul the renewal of the covenant of Judaism in Christ takes the central position. Through the Messianic gift of the Spirit, the national borders of Israel are opened for the nations. “It is the law understood in terms of works, as a Jewish prerogative and national monopoly, to which he [Paul] takes exception. (…) It is works which betoken racial prerogative to which he objects” (Dunn, 1990, 200). According to Dunn, the conflict concerning the works of the law has to be understood as a clash between ‘Pauline’ and ‘Jewish’ Christianity. Because of the intra-Christian nature of the conflict, Paul can hardly be accused of an anti-Jewish attitude.
The “New Perspective” which was developed by authors such as Sanders and Dunn in order to free the relationship between Paul and Judaism from the stereotypical, potentially anti-Jewish patterns was, however, put under critique from two very different sides. Some authors try to undo the “New Perspective” completely at the risk of reintroducing the sharp opposition between Judaism and Christianity. Gundry, for instance, tries to undermine the shift which Sanders caused in Pauline research by claiming that it is irrelevant whether Judaism at Paul’s time taught works-righteousness or not. According to him the only thing that counts is whether Paul understood (and rejected) the Judaism of his time as a religion which taught works-righteousness (Gundry, 2005, p. 223). At the other end of the spectrum, some authors come to the conclusion that even the shift brought about in the work of Sanders and of Dunn does ultimately not transcend the anti-Jewish character of the theology of Paul. According to them, the “New Perspective” runs the risk of introducing new, potentially anti-Jewish patterns into the relationship between Judaism and Christianity. They accuse Sanders of replacing works-righteousness by an exclusive christomonism and Dunn of replacing works-righteousness by national exclusivism. The “New Perspective” is critiqued for presenting Judaism as a religion which lacks the Spirit and which is unfaithful to its divine mission for the nations. Nanos points out that the supposed intra-Christian character of the conflict is in no way able to dispel its anti-Jewishness: the same things for which Paul reproaches Jewish Christians ultimately also concern Judaism itself (Nanos, 2005).
In our analysis the fundamental problem in this discussion is the question of continuity and discontinuity between Judaism and Christianity and its assumed implications for Jewish-Christian dialogue. We also noted that it is commonly assumed that continuity is automatically favorable for the dialogue and discontinuity is automatically an obstacle for dialogue. While the traditional approach to Pauline studies emphasized strong discontinuity and had anti-Jewish implications, the “New Perspective” was commonly perceived as the rediscovery of continuity between (Palestinian) Judaism and (early) Christianity. The “New Perspective” is usually seen as a constructive contribution to Jewish-Christian relations by those who experience the post-Shoah rapprochement of Jews and Christians as something positive. It was, however, criticized and rejected by those who see the rapprochement only as a threat to the Christian (and particularly Protestant) identity. In this project we shall demonstrate – against authors who reproach Sanders for putting too much emphasis on continuity between Judaism and Christianity – how Sanders in fact recognizes a new and more fundamental discontinuity which brings to light in a new way the difference between Judaism and Christianity by understanding salvation in Christ not only as a new covenant but in the first place as a new creation.
The project will focus attention on a dimension of Sanders’ New Perspective that has often gone unnoticed, namely that Sanders does not eliminate the discontinuity between Judaism and Christianity, but merely displaces it, when he asserts that Paul sees salvation happening not so much through a new covenant but through a new creation. The project will research into both the exegetical and theological legitimacy of this position as well as to its implications for Jewish-Christian dialogue. The project will thus be marked by two different movements. On one end the project will return to Paul’s texts and examine the question of how his theology relates to the Judaism of his time and, on the other, reflect upon the theological consequences of the expected exegetical and theological findings for Jewish-Christian dialogue in which the discovery of elements of discontinuity will not be automatically understood as an obstacle to dialogue while, at the same time, elements of continuity will not automatically be viewed as a stimulus.
The exegetical research on Paul’s texts will result in a critical questioning of the methodology on which the New Perspective is based. Concretely put, the criticism can be formulated against Sanders that in Paul and Palestinian Judaism he paid too little attention to a careful exegetical investigation of Paul’s own texts and that in Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People he concentrates too much on the Letters to the Galatians and the Romans. 2 Cor 3:7-18, the central text for Paul’s covenant theology, is only mentioned by Sanders in passing (p. 514). It is especially surprising that Sanders, who subjects Paul’s covenant theology to his new creation theology, does not find it necessary to examine more closely the key text that places his theory into question. The project expressly opts for a thorough exegetical investigation of 2 Cor 3:7-18 as a ‘litmus test’ in order to critically examine the new discontinuity within the theology of grace according to Sanders’ position. 2 Cor 3:7-18 has in the past thirty years played almost no role in the debate concerning the New Perspective (with the exception of the work of Christiansen, 1995; Dunn, 1996; Duff, 2004). One of the most important reasons for this is the fact that 2 Corinthians has traditionally never been central to the discussion on justification and that 2 Cor 3:7-18 is fraught with numerous exegetical problems. In 2 Cor 3, however, Paul speaks about a ‘new covenant’ and about a ‘new creation’ (2 Cor 5:17). In 2 Cor 3 Jesus is a ‘new Moses’ and not a ‘new Adam’ (Rom 5:12-21; 2 Cor 5:14-17). The question arises how in the theology of 2 Cor, and in the theology of Paul in general, the basic theological categories of ‘new creation’ and ‘new covenant’ relate to one another. Is Sanders correct (1997) when he asserts that ‘new creation’ is the central concept for Paul and that ‘new covenant’ is secondary to this? What if the ‘new covenant’ does not occupy such a marginal place in Paul’s theology and what would be the consequences of this? Is it possible that ‘new covenant’ is the central concept or that ‘new covenant’ and ‘new creation’ are closely connected to one another and, if so, in what way? The central question of the research project is thus: what is the place that is given in the theology of Paul (particularly 2 Cor 3) to the concept ‘new covenant’ and how, from this angle, must the New Perspective then be re-evaluated? The consequences of this exegetical investigation for the relationship between Judaism and Christianity are of extreme importance. If it should emerge that in Paul ‘new creation’ is the central category and that the concept of ‘new covenant’ must then be read in light of that, then Sanders’ theory on the discontinuity between Judaism and Christianity holds true and Christianity is radically new with regard to Judaism. If it should appear that the Pauline category of ‘new covenant’ is the central category, then there is more continuity between Judaism and Christianity, certainly in the case of a so-called ‘one covenant theology’ (Dunn, 1996), less so in the instance of a two-covenant theology (Korn and Pawlikowski, 2005).
The project elicits two different lines of approach, namely, on the one hand, research into the inception- and effective-history of the New Perspective, its critical evaluation in light of theories concerning the relation between Judaism and Christianity, and the development of our own position in the debate; on the other, a critical exegetical investigation into the significance of the concept of ‘new covenant’ in 2 Cor 3:6,7-18 and in the theology of the Letters of Paul in general. These two lines of research will be carried out in parallel by two researchers in discussion with one another and the whole research team. The configuration of a promoter specialised in exegesis and a co-promoter specialised in Jewish-Christian dialogue ensures for the unity and cohesion of the project (analogous to the project on John and the Jews). The project’s phases are structured in such a way that at the end two doctoral dissertations can be submitted, one thesis on the new perspective from the angle of Jewish-Christian relations and the other on the ‘new covenant’ in 2 Cor 3. We plan to conduct the research in four phases, each lasting roughly one year. In the first phase the first line of research will concentrate on a thorough overview of the literature by the forerunners and initiators of the New Perspective. Attention shall be paid to the inception history and the historical significance of the revolution that the New Perspective caused in Pauline studies and, more broadly, in Jewish Christian dialogue. The second line of research in the first phase shall form a status quaestionis of research on 2 Cor 3:6,7-18 with attention to the grammatical-philological, form-critical, literary-critical and religionsgeschictliche aspects. The second phase of research focuses on the uncovering of the underlying structures in the debate. The intention is to systematically bring to light what kinds of different, and often conflicting, exegetical and theological presuppositions and deciding elements are at work in the discussion concerning the New Perspective (first line of research). Added to this, special attention will be given to the role that 2 Cor has actually (or has not) played in the development of the New Perspective (second line of research). The interaction between both lines of research is thus of great importance since this will make clear whether, if so how the results of the exegetical research fit into the discussion on the New Perspective. The third phase focuses on the implications that the different views bring to bear with respect to Jewish-Christian dialogue in general and the issue of dis/continuity between Judaism and Christianity in particular. This stage will bring clarity to what the different scholarly positions in the debate on the New Perspective portend for the historical, theological and contemporary relationship between Jews and Christians (first line of research) and will also bring to light how Paul’s concept of ‘new covenant’ is used to legitimate very differing theological positions in Jewish-Christian dialogue (second line of research). Here it will be extremely important to place the results of the research on the New Perspective and those on 2 Cor 3 alongside one another in order to see how 2 Cor 3 actually functions in the New Perspective. Finally, in the fourth phase we conclude by developing our own view on the basis of the exegetical findings, knowledge of the underlying structures, and the theological implications of the different positions. Our refinement of the New Perspective will be inspired by our own exegetical position with respect to 2 Cor 3:6,7-18. We will also devote attention to the hermeneutical processing of this refinement of the New Perspective with an eye towards Christian theology and Jewish-Christian dialogue. Besides the two doctorates, this project – analogous to the project on John and Jews – will also result in an international experts seminar (third year) and a whole series of international publications, among which a new reference work (Anti-Judaism and the Theology of Paul cf. Anti-Judaism and the Fourth Gospel, Bieringer and Pollefeyt, 2001) will be delivered onto the international scene presenting the most current state of affairs and our position.
