Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T01:40:37.872Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Did Paul Advocate Separation from the Synagogue? A Reaction to Francis Watson: Paul, Judaism and the Gentiles: A Sociological Approach

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 February 2009

W. S. Campbell
W. S. Campbell
Affiliation:
Westhill CollegeWeoley Park Road Selly Oak Birmingham B29 6LL
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

A Major watershed in the interpretation of Paul is generally acknowledged as having emerged with the publication of E. P. Sanders' Paul and Palestinian Judaism (SCM, 1977). His attack on the misrepresentation of Judaism contained in much of this century's scholarship (particularly the Lutheran) has received widespread support. Scholars are now beginning to produce Pauline studies in the post-Sanders mould. H. Räisänen is one such, and the present study by Francis Watson, Paul, Judaism and the Gentiles: A Sociological Approach (CUP, 1986), follows in like vein. Sanders' thesis is essentially that Paul opposes Judaism not because of any inherent errors such as ‘self-righteousness’ or ‘legalism’, but simply because it is not Christianity. Watson's study attempts to give a historical and sociological grounding for this viewpoint (p. 67).

Type
Research Article
Information
Scottish Journal of Theology , Volume 42 , Issue 4 , November 1989 , pp. 457 - 467
Copyright
Copyright © Scottish Journal of Theology Ltd 1989

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See Dunn, J. D. G., ‘The New Perspective on Paul’, BJRL, 35 (1983), pp. 95–122.Google Scholar

2 Räisänen, H., Paul and the Law (WUNT 29, Mohr, Tübingen, 1983).Google Scholar It is not suggested that there is a consensus on these issues; for an alternative approach see Hübner, H., Law in Paul's Thought, T. & T. Clark, Edinburgh, 1984.Google Scholar

3 Op. cit. p. 552.

4 Cf. Rohrbaugh, Richard L., ‘“Social Location of Thought” as a Heuristic Construct in New Testament Study’, Journal for the Study of the New Testament, 30, June 1987, pp. 103–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

5 Cf. Watson op. cit. pp. 109f. and Räisänen op. cit. p. 101.

6 Watson has failed to take account of Stower's, S. study The Diatribe and Paul's Letter to the Romans (SBLDS 57, Chicago, 1981).Google Scholar Cf. also by the same author, ‘Paul's Dialogue with a Fellow Jew in Romans 3.1–9’, The Catholic Biblical Quarterly, 46, 1984, pp. 714f.Google Scholar

7 Cf. Beker, J. C., Paul the Apostle: The Triumph of God in Life and Thought, Philadelphia, 1980Google Scholar, especially ch. 8, ‘Paul's Apocalytic Theology’ (pp. 135f.).

8 Cf. Hultgren, J., Paul's Gospel and Mission, Fortress, Philadelphia, 1985.Google Scholar

9 Cf. Gaston's summary conclusion ‘Retrospect’ in the volume of essays, Anti-Judaism in Early Christianity, Vol. 2: Separation and Polemic, ed. by Wilson, S. G., Wilfred Laurier University Press, Waterloo, 1986, pp. 163f.Google Scholar

10 Cf. S. G. Wilson, ‘Marcion and the Jews’ op. cit. pp. 45–47.

11 Watson gives an excellent critique of the view that salvation occurs solely through God's grace which he holds to be ‘a deep misunderstanding of Paul’, op. cit. pp. 120f.

12 Cf. Dunn in n.l above and also ‘Works of the Law and the Curse of the Law’, New Testament Studies, 31, 1985, pp. 523–542CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and H. Räisänen's response in the same issue ‘Galatians 2.16 and Paul's Break with Judaism’ (pp. 543–553).

13 Cf. Käsemann, , Commenting on Romans, SCM, 1980, pp. 282f.Google Scholar For a more recent and more positive view of the law in Paul see Badenas, Robert, Christ the End of the Law, JSNTS, 10, Sheffield University, 1985.Google Scholar

14 Wayne Meeks' significant study, The First Urban Christians: The Social World of the Apostle Paul, Yale University Press, New Haven, 1983, does not provide a clear answer to this issue. Meeks addressed the question whether sectarian analysis would fit a Pauline church at the SNTS meeting in Paris 1978, but concluded that the evidence is ambiguous.

15 Cf. Sanders, , Paul, the Law and the Jewish People, Philadelphia, 1983, pp. 171f.Google Scholar

16 Op. cit. p. 210.

17 Op. cit. pp. 172f.

18 Cf. the preface to the fourth edition of Paul and Rabbinic Judaism, Fortress, 1980, p. xxxiii.

19 Cf. my article, ‘Romans III as a Key to the Structure and Thought of the Letter’, Novum Testamentum, 23, (1981) pp. 22–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

20 Holmberg, B., Paul and Power, Coniectanea Biblica, NT Series 11, Lund, 1978.Google Scholar

21 Cf. Christian Tolerance: God's Message to the Modern Church, Westminster Press, 1978, pp. 62f.Google Scholar; also ‘The Reduction and Use of an Early Christian Confession in Rom. 1.3–4,’ in The Living Text: Essays in Honour of E. W. Sanders, ed. Groh, D. E. and Jewett, R., University Press of America, 1985, pp. 99f.Google Scholar

22 Cf. Fraikin, D., ‘The Rhetorical Function of the Jews in Romans’, in Anti-Judaism in Early Christianity, Vol. I — Paul and the Gospels ed. Richardson, P. (see n. 9 above) pp. 103–104.Google Scholar

23 Cf. Fraikin, op. cit. pp. 105–6.