|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Making sense of St Paul
|
mark_in_manchester
not waving, but...
# 15978
|
Posted
Hi folks
I've been reading what for me has been a hugely helpful book, and I thought it might be a good thing to pop up on here and recommend it to others. The book is one of OUP's 'Very Short Introduction' series, this one on Paul by E.P.Sanders.
Why am I finding it useful? Well, for all my Christian life I have had the distinct feeling that theories of the atonement / my salvation, which I ought to be feeling 'good newsy' about, were somehow intended for someone else. Specifically, someone who was a 1st century Jew. By which I mean that when I read Paul I imagine him talking to me, and when he starts getting all into Abraham and being washed in the blood, it leaves me feeling a bit like I am meant to be finding it all a lot more coherent and relevant to my salvation that in fact I am. And this can leave me questioning whether I have misunderstood the Good News altogether, and whether indeed I am saved.
Sanders does something interesting by putting the other side of the conversation which might precede Paul's letters, starting with Galatians. To precis things immensely, it goes a bit like 'hey Paul, you're underselling the whole foreskin thing immensely with these 'converts' of yours, and it isn't going to go well for them. Sort it out soon'.
So Paul responds with a whole pile of arguments based on the OT which are aimed at them and couched in terms they have used in their accusation - not at me. Sander's goes so far as to imply that Paul is proof-texting to a Jewish audience to support a position which is based more on revelation rather than solidly (and, most importantly for me, universally) on the arguments he is advancing.
Well, I'm 2/3 of the way there and getting a lot out of this.
I am finding this liberating - though I guess it may be risky putting it up here since it may be academically-surpassed, or discredited!
cheers
Mark
--------------------
"We are punished by our sins, not for them" - Elbert Hubbard
(so good, I wanted to see it after my posts and not only after those of shipmate JBohn from whom I stole it)
Posts: 1596 | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
The biggest issue with the Epistles (not just the Pauline ones) is that they are one half of a conversation. They are written to particular congregations in response to particular issues that they have either asked advice about, or have been reported to Paul (or whoever) and he has decided he needs to address the problem. Romans may be an exception to this.
Being only half of the conversation, the problem with interpreting them and applying them is always going to be one of context - what was the other half of the conversation? I think that is always going to be ultimately unknown, although we can make some educated guesses. I don't know the particular book, but if I've understood your synopsis that is what Sanders tries to do. It is certainly what the introduction to every commentary I've read on the Epistles tries to do. As I don't know the book, I can't comment on whether Sanders does a good job on this.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
I find it much easier to read Paul with a simple mantra in mind: "he's a bit daft sometimes".
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Nobody understands all of Paul. And there's nothing wrong with saying about a passage, "Okay, I don't get what he's on about here," and pushing it off to the side of your plate to deal with later (if ever). Take the bits that speak to you now and make use of them. The rest is likely to come to pop up years later, piece by piece, as an "Oh, I get it now" moment--or at least that's how it's working for me. Usually it's some connection I couldn't have imagined at an earlier point in my life, and just had to wait for.
As for theories of the atonement, I think it was Lewis, as usual, who said that what saves us is the Atonement itself and not theories about it. What Christ did saves us; whether we grasp and appreciate any of the explanations is a much more minor issue. Grab what's helpful, leave the rest aside.
I find that what is most useful to me changes over time. At the moment I'm getting a lot of mileage out of Christ-the-Victor-over-death-and-evil. The washing-with-blood thing you mention is also helpful to me when my OCD tendencies are trapping me in a cycle of feeling guilty and contaminated.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Sarah G
Shipmate
# 11669
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mark_in_manchester:
Hi folks
I've been reading what for me has been a hugely helpful book, and I thought it might be a good thing to pop up on here and recommend it to others.
<snip>
I am finding this liberating - though I guess it may be risky putting it up here since it may be academically-surpassed, or discredited!
cheers
Mark
Welcome to the Third Quest.
You Get It.
Sanders made this massive impact with “Paul and Palestinian Judaism”, explaining Paul's writings in their Jewish context. This somewhat challenged the idea of the Bible as falling from heaven, leather-bound and complete with maps, atlases, and a page to record your family history
His idea that understanding the Jewish background was essential to understanding the text makes what Paul has to say so much more sensible and clear. Ultimately, Paul is not talking to you or me. He's writing pastoral letters to his churches. He does, masterfully, analyse how Judaism has been proved right in Jesus. Paul lived, and died, a Jew, and Sanders' genius was to understand that. However there is more to be said on this than Sanders does.
You seem to feel Sanders insights concern you about your salvation. None of this changes the game- following Jesus. The language may have changed, but the basics remain in place.
Think of it like being a bit short sighted and looking at a beautiful view. Then you put your glasses on. What you were looking at hasn't changed, but you see it a lot better.
Posts: 514 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mark_in_manchester
not waving, but...
# 15978
|
Posted
quote:
Welcome to the Third Quest.
I'm an Orc, level 10 ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
I can't summarise this book - I'm too much of an amateur. I'm left with a funny sense of kinship with Paul - possessing a conviction based on conversion / revelation that this is true and landing on ways of thinking about it which initially lead somewhere solid before becoming unwieldy and having to be abandoned for another go. Paul's conviction / ego was a bit more able for this kind of thing than that of a normal person - each time the slippery soap jumps through _my_ fingers, it takes me a gloomy few months before I can bear to grope around in the slimy water and see if it is still there at all.
--------------------
"We are punished by our sins, not for them" - Elbert Hubbard
(so good, I wanted to see it after my posts and not only after those of shipmate JBohn from whom I stole it)
Posts: 1596 | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sipech
Shipmate
# 16870
|
Posted
If it's any help, when I started looking at the new perspective on Paul a few years ago, I also started with Sanders' Very Short Introduction.
This was followed up with: - What Saint Paul Really Said by Tom Wright
- Paul: Fresh Perspectives by N.T. Wright
- The Future of Justification by John Piper (as a counterpoint)
- Justification by Tom Wright
- Justification - Five Views with contributions from Michael Horton (Traditional Reformed), Michael Bird (Progressive Reformed), James Dunn (New Perspective), Veli-Matti Karkkainen (Deification), Gerald O’Collins & Oliver Rafferty (Catholic)
This was then finished with Wright's magnum opus, Paul and the Faithfulness of God. In this last volume, he seems to have gone beyond the New Perspective, but doesn't reject it. It tries to put Paul into his multi-dimensional context, with his Jewish identity, his Roman citizenship and as a philosopher in the Hellenic tradition.
I'm sure there's plenty of other good books, but if you want to follow up on Sanders, then those are my suggestions. I understand that Michael Bird has also spearheaded a multi-author response to Wright's biggest tome, which is either out now or coming soon. I think the working title was God and the Faithfulness of Paul.
--------------------
I try to be self-deprecating; I'm just not very good at it.
Twitter: http://twitter.com/TheAlethiophile
Posts: 3791 | From: On the corporate ladder | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sarah G
Shipmate
# 11669
|
Posted
1) On the Damascus road, Paul suddenly realised that the thing he had spent his whole life hoping for had happened- the arrival of God's Kingdom. But it wasn't the military victory classical Judaism expected. So he spends a large part of his letters explaining how Jesus' crucifixion was that victory, how the OT had already described it, and what it meant to be a citizen of this new nation. Grasp that, and Paul suddenly seems to make sense.
2) On the OP, a critique of Sanders might be:
a) A misunderstanding of how 'religion' functioned within C1 Mediterranean society and Paul's letters.
b) Importing C20 Christian approaches to religion into C1 Judaism/Christianity, particularly where 'salvation' is concerned.
c) Not seeing that conversion figured little in most C1 religions.
d) Screening out eschatology in Paul, who saw Jesus as inaugurating God's Kingdom.
3) Sipech's list is interesting- N.T.Wright is absolutely the one to read. I'd strongly suggest working through the Christian Origins series in order if stamina allows (deffo 2,3,4). And that's where Piper's book disappointed- he didn't seem to grasp at all the sort of argument NTW was making.
Posts: 514 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
