Comments on: Reflections on Sanders’ Paul and Palestinian Judaism http://www.sakeoftruth.com/2009/10/reflections-on-sanders-paul-and-palestinian-judaism/ Biblical Studies, Exegesis, Theology, etc. by Josh Mann Thu, 08 Dec 2011 17:58:19 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: More Reflections on Paul and Palestinian Judaism | for the Sake of Truth http://www.sakeoftruth.com/2009/10/reflections-on-sanders-paul-and-palestinian-judaism/comment-page-1/#comment-502 More Reflections on Paul and Palestinian Judaism | for the Sake of Truth Mon, 12 Oct 2009 16:57:05 +0000 http://www.sakeoftruth.com/?p=740#comment-502 [...] Fox furthered the discussion a bit with a comment on the previous post, so I thought I’d continue with another excerpt from my reflection on Sanders which lines up [...] [...] Fox furthered the discussion a bit with a comment on the previous post, so I thought I’d continue with another excerpt from my reflection on Sanders which lines up [...]

]]> By: Josh Mann http://www.sakeoftruth.com/2009/10/reflections-on-sanders-paul-and-palestinian-judaism/comment-page-1/#comment-501 Josh Mann Mon, 12 Oct 2009 16:17:49 +0000 http://www.sakeoftruth.com/?p=740#comment-501 Great thoughts, Mike. I agree that the HB does not promote hard legalism. Also, I, too, find Paul's background interesting. I think it is highly relevant to consider his writings in understanding Judaism not least because he was associated with the Pharisees. As I understand it, there just aren't many sources from the pre-70 period from a Pharisaic or Sadducean perspective. Great thoughts, Mike. I agree that the HB does not promote hard legalism. Also, I, too, find Paul’s background interesting. I think it is highly relevant to consider his writings in understanding Judaism not least because he was associated with the Pharisees. As I understand it, there just aren’t many sources from the pre-70 period from a Pharisaic or Sadducean perspective.

]]> By: rmichaelfox@sbcglobal.net http://www.sakeoftruth.com/2009/10/reflections-on-sanders-paul-and-palestinian-judaism/comment-page-1/#comment-491 rmichaelfox@sbcglobal.net Mon, 12 Oct 2009 00:09:32 +0000 http://www.sakeoftruth.com/?p=740#comment-491 josh, you mentioned that one must also consider "the perspective of the new testament writings." i think one of sander's goals in that book, though, is to clarify exactly what the NT is saying. another goal is to pinpoint which judaism paul might be addressing in any given letter. i think sanders would have agreed that the NT portrays judaism(s), but his questions investigate which one(s) and in what ways. after reading sanders's book the first time, i was surprised that his take on covenantal nomism is basically how i read the hebrew bible. that is, i read it as though God establishes covenant relationships, and the laws and expectations are essentially covenant stipulations more than anything else, but also boundary markers and cultural identifiers. in other words, i don't believe the israelites in the HB worked their way to God or perceived themselves as working for salvation. instead, law and works were ways of keeping/breaking covenant faithfulness. i wish more NT types like sanders (or wright, dunn, or even piper for that matter) would demonstrate a basic familiarity (or even concern) with the ANE background for and relational nature of covenant in the HB. it would solve a lot of their problems. but alas, bultmann prevails in that we don't seem too interested jewish backgrounds of the NT. so, although i have sympathy for his take on covenantal nomism, i would probably have to disagree with his theory that it was a very late development in jewish thought (if i've read him correctly on that point). he makes a good point, though, that apparently the pharisees were the most hardline (and possibly unique) about law-keeping and salvation. it is equally interesting that paul's former association with judaism was apparently with the pharisaic variety. still, yes, he needed to weigh in many more jewish sources. but, his book is massive and he was breaking new ground - he simply could not cover everything. it's just as important to follow the conversations on early judaism and the NT since sanders. i think the legacy of his work lies ultimately in the fact that up-and-comers like myself weren't given a monolithic take on early judaism. good post, good stuff for conversation mike josh,

you mentioned that one must also consider “the perspective of the new testament writings.” i think one of sander’s goals in that book, though, is to clarify exactly what the NT is saying. another goal is to pinpoint which judaism paul might be addressing in any given letter. i think sanders would have agreed that the NT portrays judaism(s), but his questions investigate which one(s) and in what ways.

after reading sanders’s book the first time, i was surprised that his take on covenantal nomism is basically how i read the hebrew bible. that is, i read it as though God establishes covenant relationships, and the laws and expectations are essentially covenant stipulations more than anything else, but also boundary markers and cultural identifiers. in other words, i don’t believe the israelites in the HB worked their way to God or perceived themselves as working for salvation. instead, law and works were ways of keeping/breaking covenant faithfulness. i wish more NT types like sanders (or wright, dunn, or even piper for that matter) would demonstrate a basic familiarity (or even concern) with the ANE background for and relational nature of covenant in the HB. it would solve a lot of their problems. but alas, bultmann prevails in that we don’t seem too interested jewish backgrounds of the NT.

so, although i have sympathy for his take on covenantal nomism, i would probably have to disagree with his theory that it was a very late development in jewish thought (if i’ve read him correctly on that point). he makes a good point, though, that apparently the pharisees were the most hardline (and possibly unique) about law-keeping and salvation. it is equally interesting that paul’s former association with judaism was apparently with the pharisaic variety.

still, yes, he needed to weigh in many more jewish sources. but, his book is massive and he was breaking new ground – he simply could not cover everything. it’s just as important to follow the conversations on early judaism and the NT since sanders. i think the legacy of his work lies ultimately in the fact that up-and-comers like myself weren’t given a monolithic take on early judaism.

good post, good stuff for conversation

mike

]]>