Erhalten Sie Zugang zu diesem und mehr als 300000 Büchern ab EUR 5,99 monatlich.
- Herausgeber: Narr Francke Attempto Verlag
- Kategorie: Religion und Spiritualität
- Serie: NET – Neutestamentliche Entwürfe zur Theologie
- Sprache: Englisch
- Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2018
This exciting new interpretation of Pauls Letter to the Romans approaches Pauls most famous letter from one of the newest scholarly positions within Pauline Studies: The Radical New Perspective on Paul (also known as Paul within Judaism). As a point of departure, the author takes Pauls self-designation in 11:13 as apostle to the gentiles as so determining for Pauls mission that the audience of the letter is perceived to be exclusively gentile. The study finds confirmation of this reading-strategy in the letters construction of the interlocutor from chapter 2 onwards. Even in 2:17, where Paul describes the interlocutor as someone who calls himself a Jew, it requests to perceive this person as a gentile who presents himself as a Jew and not an ethnic Jew. If the interlocutor is perceived in this way throughout the letter, the dialogue between Paul and the interlocutor can be perceived as a continuous, unified and developing dialogue. In this way, this interpretation of Romans sketches out a position against a more disparate and fragmentary interpretation of Romans.
Sie lesen das E-Book in den Legimi-Apps auf:
Seitenzahl: 796
Das E-Book (TTS) können Sie hören im Abo „Legimi Premium” in Legimi-Apps auf:
Ähnliche
Jacob P. B. Mortensen
Paul Among the Gentiles: A ‘Radical’ Reading of Romans
Narr Francke Attempto Verlag Tübingen
© 2018 • Narr Francke Attempto Verlag GmbH + Co. KG Dischingerweg 5 • D-72070 Tübingen www.narr.de • [email protected]
Das Werk einschließlich aller seiner Teile ist urheberrechtlich geschützt. Jede Verwertung außerhalb der engen Grenzen des Urheberrechtsgesetzes ist ohne Zustimmung des Verlages unzulässig und strafbar. Das gilt insbesondere für Vervielfältigungen, Übersetzungen, Mikroverfilmungen und die Einspeicherung und Verarbeitung in elektronischen Systemen.
ePub-ISBN 978-3-7720-0075-1
Inhalt
For Sofie
Geleitwort aus dem Kreis der Herausgeberinnen und Herausgeber
Die Reihe ‘Neutestamentliche Entwürfe zur Theologie’ (kurz: NET) wurde zu Beginn des neuen Jahrtausends durch François Vouga, Oda Wischmeyer und Hanna Zapp begründet. Die beiden ersten Bände wurden 2001 publiziert. Im Laufe der etwa 17-jährigen Geschichte der Reihe, in der etwa 25 Bände erschienen sind, wurde der Kreis der Herausgeberinnen und Herausgeber erweitert und verändert – er besteht nun aus: Eve-Marie Becker (Aarhus), Jens Herzer (Leipzig), Friedrich Wilhelm Horn (Mainz), Oda Wischmeyer (Erlangen) und Hanna Zapp (Darmstadt).
In der Reihe NET sind bisher vor allem Monographien – teils auf Dissertationen zurückgehend – und Anthologien – teils auf Tagungen basierend – erschienen. Die Reihe steht laut Verlagsbeschreibung u. a. ‘für den Dialog zwischen neutestamentlicher Wissenschaft und theologischer Dogmatik, Ethik und praktischer Theologie’ sowie ‘für den Brückenschlag zur Text-, Literatur- und Sprachwissenschaft’. Gerade die Reflexion der interdisziplinären Aufgaben und Qualitäten neutestamentlicher Exegese für die Theologie, aber auch benachbarte geisteswissenschaftliche Disziplinen, prägt das Reihenprofil von NET 1 bis in die Gegenwart.
Wir freuen uns, dass der Reihe NET gleichsam zum Erreichen ihrer Volljährigkeit, also zum bevorstehenden 18. Geburtstag, eine weitere Brückenfunktion zukommen kann: So gewinnt sie mit der ersten in englischer Sprache verfassten Monographie von Jacob P. B. Mortensen (Aarhus) eine internationale Profilierung hinzu. Der Brückenschlag von deutschsprachiger zu anglo-amerikanisch geprägter Exegese kann aber nicht allein sprachlich gelingen, sondern erfordert auch intellektuelle Vermittlungsarbeit. Mortensens Arbeit zum Römerbrief: ‘Paul Among the Gentiles: A ‘Radical‘ Reading of Romans’ zeigt schon in ihrem Titel an, dass hinter der exegetischen Analyse des Römerbriefs eine konzise These, ein Forschungsdiskurs steht, der zunächst weitgehend anglo-amerikanisch generiert ist. Mortensens Monographie verleugnet ihre Prägung durch die ‘radical perspective on Paul’ nicht, geht aber sprachlich und sachlich weitere, ihre eigenen Schritte: So wird die ‘radical perspective’ immer auch in den Grenzen ihrer Interpretationsspielräume beschrieben – dazu verhilft nicht zuletzt der produktive Verweis auf deutschsprachige Forschungstradition und -literatur.
Weitere englischsprachige Arbeiten für NET sind derzeit in Planung. Wir danken dem Verlag für die Öffnung der Sprachgrenzen und dem ersten Autor – sowie den dann folgenden Autorinnen und Autoren – dafür, ihre Arbeiten der Reihe ‘Neutestamentliche Entwürfe zur Theologie’ im Wissen um die großen Anstrengungen und Chancen, die jeder Brückenschlag erfordert und bietet, anzuvertrauen.
Eve-Marie Becker
Jerusalem und Aarhus im Dezember 2017
Preface
This study began life as a doctoral thesis at Aarhus University in 2011. The present reorganized and rewritten product was part of my dissertation of 2014, ‘Paul, Paulitics and προσωποποιία.’ In the meantime, parts of the dissertation were expanded, and other parts entirely omitted, for example, the analysis of Giorgio Agamben’s interpretation of Romans.
In my time as a doctoral student, the Department of Biblical Studies at Aarhus University gave me a home and an eminently congenial place to work. My colleagues provided stimulus, discussion, criticism, and sympathy. I was outstandingly fortunate to have Professor Eve-Marie Becker and Professor Svend Andersen as my doctoral supervisors. I would like to express my deepest gratitude to them both for giving me the opportunity to realize this project. I also wish to express my gratitude to Professor Hermut Löhr (Münster), Dr. Ward Blanton (Kent), and Associate Professor Kasper Bro Larsen (Aarhus) who were my examiners. They honoured me with the care and attentiveness they gave to my dissertation. Their suggestions were welcome improvements that are reflected in the present work. Their enthusiasm for my work was deeply gratifying.
I would like to thank the editors of the NET (‘Neutestamentliche Entwürfe zur Theologie’) for accepting my manuscript for the series, and the Narr Francke Attempto Verlag, especially Isabel Johe and Valeska Lembke, and Vanessa Weihgold for helping me through the publication process. I also want to thank Aarhus University Research Foundation (AUFF) for finansial aid in the publication process. I also want to thank Michaela Scioscia for proofreading the manuscript.
It goes without saying that a project such as the one whose fruits are represented here requires the energy and commitment of more than just one person. I am indebted and grateful to the following people without whom this work would not have materialized: Mom, Dad, Julie, Markus, Frederik, Kristin, Rasmus, Malene, Silas, Henning, Rie, Caro, Lotte, Lars Nørgaard, Kristian Mejrup, Hans Christiansen and Mads Dambæk. I also want to thank everyone who read parts of, or the entire manuscript, and helped improve it: Jon Stewart, Tyler Smith, Silas Mortensen, Lars Östman, Lone Fatum, Dale Martin and Eve-Marie Becker.
I especially wish to thank Eve-Marie Becker for her mentorship, counsel, and for her intellectual grit and creativity. Her competence as a scholar and supervisor are exceeded only by her generosity as a friend. She supported me and believed in this project from its tiny inception to the final refinements. I will continue to learn from her for years to come.
Lastly and most importantly, I wish to thank my family for their love and support. Jonathan and Sarah, I love you. Sofie, this book is in many ways yours as much as it is mine. I dedicate it to you, since I could not have done this without you, and I would not want it in any other way. I love you.
Jacob P. B. Mortensen
Frederiksberg, December, 2017
Introduction
This book is the record of an encounter with one of the most remarkable texts in the canon of Western literature, Paul’s letter to the Romans. From the early beginnings of Christian exegesis, Paul’s letter to the Romans was regarded as the defining element for an understanding of Paul as a person, his work, and his theology. Augustine of Hippo (354–430 CE) took Romans as the point of departure for his personal experience of conversion, and established the conversion story of Romans 7 as a paradigm for all believers to imitate. Martin Luther (1483–1546) looked to Romans (and Galatians) as a bulwark against the Catholic Church, with his proclamation of justification by faith. The post-World War II New Testament scholar, Günther Bornkamm (1905–1990), argued that Romans represents Paul’s spiritual testament. In present-day New Testament exegesis, Romans stands as the heart and highlight of the Pauline letters – the prime gem in the Pauline canon.
Despite the value ascribed to Paul’s letter to the Romans, there have been major differences in the perceptions and interpretations of the text. For many years, the core of the text was thought to be 3:21–26, with its message of justification by faith, for all humanity, Jews and Gentiles alike. Also, many scholars focused on chapters 1 to 8, and perceived these chapters as concerned with justification (1–4) and sanctification (5–8). However, especially beginning with the work initiated by Johannes Munck (1904–1965) and Krister Stendahl (1921–2008), there followed a concern with the incorporation of chapters 9 to 11 into the overall understanding of Romans. With the advent of the ‘New Perspective’ on Paul – in the wake of scholars such as E.P. Sanders (* 1937), James Dunn (* 1939), Gerd Theissen (* 1943), Hans Dieter Betz (* 1931) and Heikki Räisänen (* 1941) – attention was broadened to the paraenetic part of the letter (chapters 12–15). The latest development in the interpretation of the letter comes from the ‘Radical New Perspective’ on Paul or ‘Paul within Judaism’, and includes scholars such as John Gager (* 1937), Mark D. Nanos (* 1954), Paula Fredriksen (* 1951), Magnus Zetterholm (*1958), Caroline Johnson Hodge, and Pamela Eisenbaum. Despite the fact that this group of scholars disagrees on several specific issues concerning the letter, they agree on Paul’s position as being ‘within Judaism’, and on his focus being exclusively on Gentiles.
In 1977 (and again in 1991), Karl P. Donfried edited a collection of essays under the title of The Romans Debate. This collection of essays proved to be seminal, because it gathered the most important contributions by some of the most influential scholars concerning the background, situation, and purpose of Romans. The scholars represented by the collection of essays provide various interpretations of the situation in the Roman assembly, and the purpose and meaning of the letter. Despite the differences in opinion about almost everything related to the letter, a consensus still seemed to grow from the first to the second edition of the book. In the introduction to the second edition, Karl Donfried explained the kind of consensus, from this point of view, that had been reached: Romans was addressed to the Christian community in Rome, and this community found itself in a particular historical situation, which influenced the perception of the letter.1 However, another and more important question also emerged from the discussion: How did the various parts of the letter contribute to the perception of the situation behind the letter, and the overall purpose of the letter – in short: What was the meaning of Romans, when all the parts were taken into account?
Scholars have struggled to answer the foregoing questions ever since, and there are often as many answers as there are scholars. Frequently, scholars work more concentratedly on the parts of the letter that they find most interesting, and touch on the question of the letter’s overall meaning and coherence only in passing. This approach may seem more manageable, since Romans has many profound and difficult passages. Nevertheless, in this monograph I wish to present my own interpretation of the entire letter. I suggest solutions to various problems that have emerged from readings by proponents of both the new and the radical new perspectives on Paul. As will become clear, my interpretation is inspired from the radical new perspective on Paul, but I do not consider my views to be part of the radical new perspective, as such.
I take a rather simple premise as my starting point: As should most ancient letters and books, Paul’s letter should be read from beginning to end. This assumption may seem self-evident, but it certainly is not. Several scholars have suggested reading Romans either from behind or from some hidden inner logic. If, as I propose here, we read Romans from beginning to end, we must be able to explain and evaluate the significance of every part of the letter to the progression and development of the discourse, and for its contribution to the meaning and purpose of the entire letter. Hence, the various parts build up to a climactic ending in the body of the letter. In this book, I argue that such a consecutive, successive, or straightforward reading of Romans – indeed, a coherent reading – is not only sensible and consistent with Paul’s situation, but also provides a logical, scholarly approach.
I argue that the first of the main parts of the letter (chapters 2–11) is the staging of a conversation between two persons, Paul and an interlocutor. If the introduction and staging of the interlocutor are to be perceived as parts of an ongoing dialogue, the epistolary persona should be relevant to the purpose of the letter. Hence, the two persons conversing must discuss something relevant to a) the interlocutor b) the group the person represents among the addressees and c) the purpose of the letter. Thus, the dialogue represents the historical situation in which it seeks to intervene, and it has indispensable value in terms of the purpose of the letter. From such a reading it follows that the final part of the letter should be seen as the natural and logical climax of the discourse and, hence, the most significant part for determining its purpose. Such a reading contrasts with interpretations of Romans that take 3:21–26 as the heart of the letter, and give less weight to the following 13 chapters.
As a minor qualification to the above-stated approach, it may not be necessary to look for a single purpose of the letter. Scholars have not been slow to realize that Paul presents himself more comprehensively in Romans than in his other letters. This has to do with the fact that he is addressing an assembly that he had not founded himself, and that was largely unknown to him personally (cf. Rom 15:20). Therefore, Paul’s self-presentation is considered one purpose of the letter. However, the specific and topical material in the final part of the letter, directed to the addressees in Rome, suggests that this could be the main purpose of the letter. With such an understanding of Romans, Paul may have wanted to intervene in Roman affairs, while introducing himself as apostle to the Gentiles, even if he had not founded the assembly himself. This would make Romans a real letter, which intervenes in an actual historical situation with an actual historical purpose, instead of being conceived as a theological will or tractate.
Despite the numerous suggested purposes of Romans, considering the various parts as contributing elements of a logical whole, and as equally important to the development of the argument or rhetorical strategy of the text, is crucial to an understanding of this letter. Therefore, I emphasize the overall purpose of the letter as defining the meaning of the letter. Hence, the preceding parts of the letter must be understood in such a way that they support the conclusion. One of the main questions that must be answered to reach this understanding concerns the identity of the interlocutor from chapter 2 onwards, and his relation to the circumstances behind the letter. With regard to these points, I combine two approaches: First, I rigorously address the text-internal information Paul provides about the interlocutor, the addressees, and Paul’s self-perception as apostle to the Gentiles. I will address these matters, first, in the introductory chapters on author and addressees, and also in the chapter on προσωποποιία. Secondly, I try to calibrate the text-internal findings to the general outlook of the radical new perspective’s emphasis on Gentiles as the exclusive objects of Paul’s missionary endeavour. What follows from this is that the conflict between the ‘strong’ and the ‘weak’ in the Roman assembly must be read against the background of a conflict between two Gentile groups. I intend to demonstrate that this is indeed how we should understand the situation described by Paul. Hence, I provide a reading of Romans from a general outlook (inspired by the radical new perspective) on Paul’s missionary activity as exclusively directed towards Gentiles, and combine this with the text-internal information of the letter concerning the interlocutor, addressees, and author.
An important disclosure must be made and emphasized in the current delicate discussion of positions and viewpoints. I am not attempting a specific historical reconstruction of the Roman assembly. I do not go into detail about the possible presence of Jews in Rome at the time of the letter, or the effect of Claudius’s edict. I am concerned simply with the text-internal information of the letter, and combine this with a reading of Romans, set against the background of the new perspective and the radical new perspective on Paul.
This book intends to offer an interpretation of the unity, coherence, and progression of the epistolary discourse on the surface level of the letter. Many scholars have provided impressive and intriguing interpretations of Romans, but few have managed to link together all the separate parts of Romans as a coherent whole. Two important examples of such work, by which I have been very influenced, deserve mention here. One is Troels Engberg-Pedersen’s Paul and the Stoics (2000). Throughout the chapters on Romans, Engberg-Pedersen strives to incorporate all the different parts of Romans into one coherent and unified whole. However, he succeeds only by assuming that the letter has an internal logic. Hence, Engberg-Pedersen’s interpretation does not unfold, from the beginning to the end of the letter, as a natural and logical development of the rhetorical strategy of the letter. Stanley Stowers’ work (A Rereading of Romans, 1994) does accomplish this. However, Stowers wavers on the identity of the interlocutor in chapter 2 of Romans, and finds two separate interlocutors in chapter 2. Hence, Stowers does proceed on the surface level of the letter from beginning to end, but switches the identity of the interlocutor from chapter to chapter, making the dialogue in the letter somewhat difficult to follow. In this book, I have tried to provide a simpler and more consistent interpretation, which proceeds from beginning to end, sticks to one interlocutor throughout chapters 2 to 11, and attempts to incorporate all the different parts of Romans into one coherent and unified whole. I hope and intend that the reading of Romans proposed here will be useful, and prompt fruitful, scholarly debates within Pauline circles.
1 The State of the Research – the radical new perspective
Introduction
My intent with this chapter is to consider a few representative positions of scholars who either explicitly or implicitly have worked to push the new perspective on Paul further.1 It almost goes without saying that the ‘radical’ new perspective on Paul extends and further elaborates on the ‘new’ perspective on Paul.2 However, as this ongoing process of refinement continues, the necessity of drawing further conclusions and mapping out new positions develop. Consequently, many of the scholars calling themselves ‘radicals’ find it necessary to bespeak the emergence of a new paradigm.3 Although I find the defining of a new paradigm questionable at this point, this introductory chapter serves the purpose of mapping out those fundamental paths that may have the potential to make the new perspective on Paul implode, and dissolve into something ‘radically’ other.
History of research
To my knowledge, only two scholars have tried to explain the development from the new perspective to the radical new perspective. The first scholar is John Gager, with his book, Reinventing Paul (2000), the second is Magnus Zetterholm, with his book, Approaches to Paul (2009). Both scholars describe themselves as belonging to the newest development in Pauline studies. Gager presents himself as part of the ‘New Views of Paul’, as differentiated from ‘The Traditional View of Paul’ (Gager 2000, v). When Gager wrote his book, the new perspective was still thriving, and many scholars connected to the impetus from this kind of research. In the years following the publication of his book, the radical perspective materialized more and more, and scholars began to distance themselves more specifically from the new perspective and, instead, to speak of a radical new perspective. So even if Gager fits best within the radical perspective, he ‘merely’ presents himself as a scholar holding the ‘New Views of Paul’.
Gager and Zetterholm stage the history of research on Paul in the same way: They present the research on Paul as moving from a ‘traditional’ view to a ‘New Perspective’, or even ‘Beyond the New Perspective’. Gager labels the ‘old’ view from which he distances himself ‘The Traditional View’. He organizes his study thematically, under headings such as, ‘Paul Converted from Judaism to Christianity’, ‘Paul Preached against the Law and Israel’, and ‘Generalizing and Universalizing’. Hence, Gager mentions few scholars, and he describes the ‘traditional’ view (i.e. all scholarship before his own) in broader terms, as though they all agreed on the points he presents. Zetterholm sets about his task slightly differently. He reviews the actual work of many different scholars and their specific books under three headings: ‘The Formation of the Standard View of Paul’, ‘Toward a New Perspective on Paul’, and ‘Beyond the New Perspective’. So the ways in which Gager and Zetterholm planned their presentations are similar: From something ‘old’, ‘traditional’, or ‘standard’, to something ‘new’ or ‘beyond the new’. But Gager approached this task from a thematic perspective, whereas Zetterholm approached it from the perspective of individual scholars.
The one thing lacking in both Gager’s and Zetterholm’s presentations is a critical view of their own radical positions or perspectives. This may be too much to ask of a scholar deeply involved in developing a new position. However, some sort of critical evaluation still needs to be presented. The only one of which I am aware is Terence L. Donaldson’s, in a book edited by Mark Nanos and Magnus Zetterholm, Paul within Judaism (2015).1 There is another critique, by Alexander Wedderburn, but this is more a critique of the new, rather than the radical new, perspective. However, I present some of the objections raised by Donaldson and Wedderburn, after a presentation of the ‘radicals’, and I also present some critical remarks of my own.
Scholarly predecessors to the radical perspective
Franz Mussner, Krister Stendahl, John Gager
Franz Mussner was a Catholic New Testament scholar teaching at the University of Trier and Regensburg from 1952/53 to 1981. During the course of his teaching he came to the conclusion that a proper perception of Judaism was a key to understanding the New Testament texts. He also actively engaged in Jewish-Christian dialogues in the years following the Second World War. Franz Mussner is a predecessor to the radical perspective, arguing for a Sonderweg interpretation of Rom 11:25–27. Some scholars argue that the Sonderweg interpretation may also be designated a ‘two covenant’ theology.1 The reason for this is to be found in the emphasis on the continued legitimacy of Israel’s covenant with God after the coming of Christ, and, hence, a positive evaluation of Judaism. Rom 11:25–27 states that ‘a hardening has come upon part of Israel, until the fullness of Gentiles has come in, and then [or in that way] all Israel will be saved. As it is written: Out of Zion will come the deliverer’. The Sonderweg interpretation more specifically argues that Israel will not be saved until the Second Coming of Christ. When Israel observes the Messiah descending to earth and hears the gospel proclaimed, she will respond to Christ and be converted.
Some scholars confuse the precise meaning of the Sonderweg by viewing the term as encompassing almost any distinction between the salvation of Israel and the salvation of believers in Christ.2 But there are at least two approaches to God’s salvation of Israel. The ‘two covenant’ solution maintains that Israel’s salvation bypasses Christ altogether. Scholars such as Krister Stendahl, John Gager, and Lloyd Gaston may be said to adopt this position.3 The other position works with a narrower definition of the Sonderweg solution, and argues that Jews will be saved through faith in Christ. However, this faith is engendered by the Second Coming of Christ, when he preaches the gospel to Israel on the final day. According to this interpretation, those who believe in Christ are saved in the ‘regular way’ (by believing in Christ), whereas Israel will be saved through a ‘special way’, a Sonderweg. Franz Mussner argues for this specific interpretation. Mussner also argues from the ‘conversion’ of Paul as a parallel to the conversion of Israel:4 Just as Paul became a Christian when Christ revealed himself to him on the road to Damascus, so all Israel will be saved when Christ reveals himself to Israel as the Messiah in his Second Coming on the final day. By arguing in this way, Mussner’s perception of Paul may be said to represent a ‘traditional’ Christian (Catholic) perception of Paul, but he has incorporated into this perception a positive presentation of Judaism and the salvation of Israel. Additionally, his post-Holocaust interest in Jewish–Christian dialogue may be said to be present in his interpretation of Paul, since Israel holds a special position, and has its own path to salvation. His idea that Israel holds a special position with regard to salvation, in Rom 9 to 11, makes it a predecessor to the radical perspective.
Although Krister Stendahl is often connected with the ‘two covenant’ solution, and therefore may be considered a predecessor to the radical perspective, the scholarly evidence is rather meagre. However, his background story may confirm his proclivity for a ‘two covenant’ solution. He was ordained in the Church of Sweden in 1944 as a Lutheran minister, and served as a parish priest and chaplain in Uppsala. In 1954 he received a doctorate at Uppsala University, and in that same year he went to Harvard Divinity School as a professor of New Testament studies. He returned to Sweden to serve as the Bishop of Stockholm from 1984 to 1988, but in the early 1990s he was a professor at Brandeis University. At Brandeis he helped to inaugurate a programme intended to enhance shared values among students of many religious backgrounds. From 1994 and onwards he became co-director of the Center for Religious Pluralism at the Shalom-Hartman Institute in Jerusalem. In his later years he did extensive work to promote interfaith relations, especially between Jews and Christians.
In his Final Account (1995), Stendahl writes that Paul does not conceive of Israel’s salvation with reference to Christ; when Paul writes that ‘all Israel will be saved’, he does not say, ‘Israel will accept Jesus Christ’.5 This point of Stendahl’s is rather convoluted, but it may be said to support a ‘two covenant’ interpretation. It may also be said to reflect a respect for Israel’s religio-ideological position, and their religious peculiarity. John Gager’s work is more outspoken in its support of a ‘two covenant’ solution.6 Gager maintains that the Jews will continue to be the people of God after the coming of Christ, and that Christ is the saviour exclusively of the Gentiles, not the Jews. Israel stands in a covenant relationship with God and enjoys a right standing with God because of God’s covenant faithfulness to them, as promised by the (Mosaic) law. Gager endorses E.P. Sanders’ concept of ‘covenantal nomism’,7 and he advocates an entirely positive picture of Judaism. This leads Gager to state that Paul never urged the Jews to accept Christ as their Messiah, nor did he condemn them for refusing to do so. And because Israel has been in a right standing with God since long before the Gentiles came into view, Gager reverses the meaning of the Sonderweg interpretation. According to Gager, Israel’s salvation was never in doubt. What Paul taught and preached was instead a ‘special way’ to salvation for Gentiles through Christ.8 The ‘original’ way was Israel’s remaining within its covenant relationship with God.
Lloyd Gaston
Lloyd Gaston is a predecessor of the radical new perspective on hermeneutical and theological grounds, rather than on historical ones. In his book, Paul and the Torah (1987), he opens his introduction presenting his novel take on Paul’s letters. First, he explains that his writing is part of (but not only) a ‘theology after Auschwitz’.1 According to Gaston, the insights from the Holocaust must result in a complete reversal of Christian theology, but not in a revision of the biblical texts. For one thing, this means that New Testament scholarship should expose underlying anti-Semitic currents, but it also means that New Testament scholarship may acquire new perspectives on Paul by being in contact with modern, post-Holocaust Judaism. By way of a ‘hermeneutic of experimentation’,2 Gaston invites scholars to address traditional problems of interpreting Paul from an entirely different angle than the usual one. Thus, instead of perceiving Paul as having assailed the foundations of Judaism, Gaston finds in Paul various statements concerning God’s continual election of, and love for Israel. He explains about the beginning of his project on Paul, that he ‘expected to find anti-Judaism particularly in Paul’.3 However, by way of his ‘hermeneutic of experimentation’, he realized that the Christian church did not replace Israel as God’s chosen people. To the contrary, Paul often identifies an ongoing covenant relationship between God and Israel: ‘Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law’ (Rom 3:31). Paul makes a similar statement elsewhere: ‘I ask, then, has God rejected his people? By no means!’ (Rom 11:1).
There are two access points to Gaston’s ‘opposite’ conclusions. The first concerns his positioning of Paul within Second Temple Judaism. In this regard, Gaston continues the work of E.P. Sanders. He writes: ‘… I shall assume that Paul understood ’covenantal nomism” very well indeed and that he is to be interpreted within the context of early Judaism …’4 However, the other approach to Gaston’s conclusions about Paul concerns Paul’s audience. The reason that Paul did not write in an anti-Semitic vein was because he did not write about Judaism for Jews; he wrote about Judaism for Gentiles. Because Paul really understood the concepts of covenant and commandment from within Judaism he could present Judaism in a different way to outsiders of Judaism. When summarizing the conclusions of his book, Gaston provides six headings, four of which concern Gentiles. Hence, four of the conclusions of Gaston’s work may be summarized as ‘Gentiles as Addressees’, ‘The Gentile Predicament’, ‘Gentiles and the Law’, ‘Israel and the Gentiles’.
Stanley Stowers
Many scholars consider Stanley Stowers’ book on Romans, A Rereading of Romans (1994), the most significant contribution to the discussion of Romans since E.P. Sanders’ Paul and Palestinian Judaism (1977).1 Indeed, Stowers embarks on a complete rereading of Romans, even if some parts of the letter receive more attention than others.2 Stowers continuously positions his own reading in opposition or as a challenge to what he designates a ‘traditional’ (Augustinian–Lutheran–Christian) interpretation of Romans. He does that in order to present a more ‘correct’ historical understanding of Romans. According to Stowers, Paul was not preoccupied with questions of human sinfulness and salvation, nor was the Judaism of his time. In this regard, Stowers’ rereading of Romans depends on, and further elaborates on, the new perspective on Paul and Krister Stendahl’s approach: He rejects Augustinian (and subsequent Western) readings of Paul; he emphasizes the ethnic rather than the individual aspects of Paul’s soteriology; and he conceives of the salvation of Jews and Gentiles as a ‘two covenant’ solution. Additionally, much of what Stowers argues may be found in Lloyd Gaston’s interpretations, even though Stowers does not seem to buy into Gaston’s hermeneutical and theological agendas.
A complete interpretation of Stowers is far too complex to summarize adequately. Nevertheless, almost every part of Stowers’ rereading is relevant to the radical perspective on Paul. In order to mediate this problem, I will highlight some key points that indicate how Stowers may be said to be a predecessor to the radical perspective. First, Stowers constructs the audience throughout the letter as Gentile. He meticulously distinguishes between the ‘implied audience’ and the ‘real audience’ of Romans. He claims that we cannot know anything about the ‘real’ audience’ of Romans. But it is obvious from the letter that Paul constructs the ‘implied audience’ as purely and distinctively Gentile. Hence, there is no ‘universal’ address in Paul’s gospel, but (merely) an address from a Jewish apostle to Gentiles interested in Judaism, about a Jewish way of living. Secondly, Stowers treats key passages of Romans as examples of the diatribe style or ‘speech-in-character’ (προσωποποιία). The obvious speech-in-character passage is 7:7–25, but Stowers also identifies the figure of προσωποποιία in 2:1–16, where Paul addresses a boastful Gentile. Stowers also identifies speech-in-character in 2:17–4:21, but here it concerns Paul’s address to a Jewish teacher of Gentiles. It is important to Stowers that this teacher does not represent all Jews, but only a hypothetical Jewish teacher with whom Paul would compete for righteous Gentiles. Hence, there is no criticism of Judaism from Paul, merely a discussion with a(nother) teacher of Gentiles.
Apart from the first-century-relevant rhetorical point concerning the use of προσωποποιία, Stowers notes the cultural ideal of ‘self-control’ (ἐγκράτεια) in this ancient society. According to Stowers, the ideal of self-control is crucial for understanding Romans. This aspect refers to the social background and status of the Gentiles Paul addressed, and their interest in his message. Jews at the time of Paul considered themselves a people characterized by an extraordinary degree of self-restraint, because they had the (Mosaic) law as a means of attaining this goal. And since self-control was such a widely distributed cultural ideal, non-Jews took an interest in Paul’s Jewish message. Thus, Stowers notes that Gentiles may have found it opportune to achieve self-control by way of the (Mosaic) law, and in this way improve their upward social mobility.
The third aspect of Stowers’ interpretation leads to the final key point. If Gentiles in Rome capitalized on the (Mosaic) law in order to boost their upward social mobility, they went too far in their dealings with historical-ethnic Jews.3 According to Stowers, this is why Paul turns to the relationship between Israel and the Gentiles in Romans 9 to 11. Even if God showed mercy to the Gentiles, adopted them as sons, and grafted them onto the stock of Israel, they should not boast in front of their Jewish brothers. The gospel is to the Jew, first, and then also to the Gentile. God never abandoned his covenant with Israel, and that is why Jews and Gentiles have separate but related paths in God’s overall design. In short, Stowers follows Krister Stendahl and Lloyd Gaston with a ‘two covenant’ solution.
The ‘actual’ radicals
Even though I present the radical new perspective as a uniform perspective, such a presentation is misleading. This should be stated explicitly. There are, indeed, rather different scholarly views that aim to move beyond the new perspective. Nevertheless, I find it appropriate to group together those whose scholarly views present themselves as radical and new.1 Beyond their own declaration, there is a didactic point to presenting them together.2 The scholars who ascribe to the radical perspective present considerable diversity with respect to particular details of the interpretation of Paul. However, because of the paradigmatic feature around which these scholars’ research converges, many of them ascribe to the ‘Paul within Judaism’ perspective. Hence, from a didactic and a content-oriented perspective, it makes sense to present them together under an umbrella term, such as ‘the radical perspective’.
The reason for designating the perspective under discussion ‘the radical perspective’ is because their scholarship is mainly indebted to the insights of scholars associated with the new perspective on Paul. These representatives include Krister Stendahl, E.P. Sanders, James D.G. Dunn, G.F. Moore, and W.D. Davies, to name just a few. But another inflow of inspiration follows from the Sonderweg or ‘two covenant’ solution as presented by Lloyd Gaston, John Gager, and possibly Stanley Stowers. However, not all the radicals advocate a ‘two covenant’ solution. Nevertheless, they all operate with a positive picture of Judaism. They all reject the ‘traditional’ Christian characterization of Judaism as ‘works-righteousness’. Furthermore, they all agree that Paul did not create a new religion (Christianity), because he found something fundamentally ‘wrong’ with Judaism. Paul did not create a new religion, and he did not become a ‘Law-free’ apostle.3 Another point pertains to the observation that Paul (and the other apostles) endeavoured to engender a specifically Jewish ‘sect’ or ‘coalition’ or ‘reform movement’. Paul and the other apostles managed minor subgroups of Judaism living a Jewish way of life developed for and by Jews, despite the fact that those who joined these subgroups were, and remained, non-Jews. This meant a Jewish way of life (without being actually Jewish) for Gentiles. The fact that these members remained non-Jews concerns the point that Paul addressed Gentiles, and told them to remain Gentiles. These Gentiles should follow the (Mosaic) law (evident in Paul’s admonitions throughout his letters), but they should not become Jews. That is, these Gentiles should not complete the rite of ethnic conversion signified by circumcision, but they should still somehow conform to the (Mosaic) law and its principles. This point is worth dwelling on, because there is a major difference between upholding the behavioural guidelines operative within Jewish communities, and undergoing an ethnic identity transformation from non-Jew to Jew by way of circumcision. To compare: You may behave like a Catholic (or Jew) without actually being a Catholic (or Jew). And, acting like a Catholic (or Jew) does not actually make you a Catholic (or Jew), even if you present yourself as a ‘better’ Catholic (or Jew) than other Catholics (or Jews), and the whole point is to present the Catholic (or Jewish) way of life as the ‘right one’.
A final point to iterate, concerning the radical new perspective, is the relation of the radical to the new perspective on Paul. According to the radicals, the new perspective is not new enough. The new perspective is still too beholden to traditional (Protestant) theological positions. According to the radicals, new questions regarding Paul should be asked, other courses should be pursued to answer these questions, and the consistency of the answers to these questions remain too related to traditional Christian theologies.4 Hence, in search of a more appropriate paradigm for pursuing research about Paul, they radicalize the new perspective on Paul, in a search for a Paul within Judaism.
Mark Nanos
Mark Nanos’s work significantly challenges traditional scholarly work on Paul. I specify ‘traditional’, because Nanos did not receive formal doctoral training before writing his first book on Paul. Besides, he worked from an outspoken Jewish perspective, rather than from an ‘objective’ academic one.1 This may mean that he sees things more clearly than traditionally trained scholars, but it may also mean that he misinterprets fundamental Pauline truisms. However, if Nanos’s analyses of Romans and Galatians are correct, his work demands a complete rethinking of these letters, and of our perception of Paul’s missionary work.
In his book, The Mystery of Romans (1996), Nanos addresses three things (primarily): First, he discusses who the ‘weak’ and the ‘strong’ in Rome were (cf. Rom 14:1–15:6).2 Second, he discusses what the ‘mystery’ of Rom 11:25–27 was.3 Third, he discusses who the governing authorities to which Paul refers in Rom 13:1–7 were.4 In each of the three cases, Nanos flips the traditional discussion on its head, and surprises with innovative solutions. According to Nanos, the ‘weak’ of Rom 14:1–15:6 were not Christ-believing Jews. Nanos argues that the ‘weak in faith’ is a respectful reference to the Jews in Rome who did not believe that Christ was the Messiah.5 Paul refers to them as ‘weak’ because they have not yet recognized Jesus as the Messiah, and they do not recognize righteous Gentiles to be co-participants in divine blessing. The mystery of Romans 11 does not concern God’s hidden plan of salvation, but concerns the jealousy of Jews observing Paul’s missionary success with the Gentiles. These non-Christ-believing Jews recognized the eschatological ingathering of the nations, and became jealous, because these other wanted to participate in Israel’s calling to be a light to the nations. Finally, the authorities who should be respected are not Roman imperial powers, but synagogue leaders (Rom 13:1–7). Nanos gathers together these conclusions in the major claim of his book: under the synagogue authority, Christian Gentiles in Rome developed a subgroup identity born of ethnic superiority and Christ-believing Gentile exclusivism.6 Hence, the Jewish ethnocentrism that James Dunn argues is the object of Paul’s criticism of Judaism7 is turned on its head by Nanos, and instead concerns Christ-believing Gentiles’ ethnocentrism and exclusive position, vis-à-vis the Jews before God.
Nanos’s interpretation presents a Paul who worked within Jewish communities as a law-observant Jew. Paul addressed his message to Gentiles, because of his commission to the Gentiles as apostle, because of God’s work through Christ. But Nanos holds that Paul did not break with the basic conceptions that characterized Judaism in the first century CE. Paul neither created a new religion nor became a law-free apostle. On the contrary, Paul firmly believed that the (Mosaic) law represents God’s gift to Israel, and that a Jew observes the law as a response to God’s mercy. Thus, Nanos’s thinking clearly converges with Sanders’ interpretation and presentation of ‘covenantal nomism’. Nanos also presents such a Jewish Paul that he rejects a ‘two covenant’ solution. Because Paul was so Jewish, and because Paul believed that Christ was the awaited Jewish Messiah, Jews and Gentiles come together in the Jewish salvation through the Messiah. However, Jews remain within the covenant relationship with God, which the Messiah comes to reaffirm. Gentiles do not become Jews, and they do not become part of Israel’s covenant, but they are still saved because of the Jewish Messiah. Hence, Mark Nanos’s interpretation presents a Paul who is thoroughly Jewish, and there is no sign in it of Christianity.
Paula Fredriksen1
Paula Fredriksen is primarily known for two things in her scholarly work: her work on the problem of the historical Jesus,2 and her work on Augustine.3 In her work on Augustine, she has given voice to a ‘softer’ and more ‘enlightened’ version of Augustine’s relationship to the Jews.4 According to Fredriksen, Augustine was not anti-Judaistic,5 but should be positioned cautiously within a proper and nuanced discussion between Christian theologians of the church, and his Manichean opponents. In her work on the historical Jesus, Fredriksen worked to contextualize Jesus in Second Temple Judaism as an apocalyptic prophet,6 instead of framing him as a Christian saviour. In one of her articles, she states: ‘Jesus was a Jew of his time rather than a left-leaning liberal of ours’.7
In Fredriksen’s work on both the historical Jesus and on Augustine, she has focused specifically on anti-Jewish elements and how to avoid those in contemporary scholarship.8 Even though the main aspect of her research does not concern Paul, Fredriksen has managed to calibrate her scholarly work about Jesus and Augustine to the field of Pauline studies, since it also concerns early or formative Christianity. The consequence of this is that the positions expressed in her work on the historical Jesus and Augustine also becomes valid in relation to ‘Paul the Jew’. Paul was and remained a Jew. He did not ‘create’ a new religion (Christianity), and he did not criticize Judaism from a position ‘outside’ Judaism. In her article ‘Judaism, The Circumcision of Gentiles, and Apocalyptic Hope: Another Look at Galatians 1 and 2’, Fredriksen considers the Galatian controversy in the history of Pauline interpretation:
Paul’s position in this controversy – that salvation in Christ is through ‘grace’ and not through ‘the works of the law’ – has served for centuries as the fundamental statement of the difference between Christianity and Judaism. … Our [theological] interpretive context for Galatians is the birth of Christianity; theirs [Paul and his Jewish co-workers] was scriptural – that is Jewish – hopes and expectations in the face of the approaching End of Days.
Fredriksen’s intent is to work more historically than theologically: She wants to determine what Judaism was at the time of Jesus and Paul, so that she can understand Jesus and Paul from their background in Second Temple Judaism.
One of the advantages of Fredriksen’s work for the radical perspective is her focus on the eschatological situation of Paul and his congregations. By drawing on the idiom of Jewish restoration theology concerning the return from Babylon and the experience of redemption from sin, evil, and exile, Fredriksen establishes a plausible social and religious context for Paul’s mission and work. The Jews at the time of Paul who participated in this restoration movement were expecting the twelve tribes to be restored, the people to be gathered back to the Land, the Temple and Jerusalem to be restored and made splendid, the Davidic monarchy to be restored, and God’s kingdom to be established.9 And in this splendid restoration, Fredriksen identifies a certain part to be played by the Gentiles. For one thing, the Gentile nations will be destroyed, defeated, or in some way subjugated to Israel. But another stream within the restoration thinking concerns the eschatological inclusion of Gentiles. Within this stream of restoration theology, the Gentiles participate in Israel’s redemption. They stream to Jerusalem and worship the God of Jacob together with Israel (cf. Isa 2:2–4; Mic 4:1ff.). On God’s mountain, the Gentiles will eat together with Israel (Isa 25:6), and as the Jews leave the lands of their dispersion, Gentiles will accompany them (Zech 8:23). According to Fredriksen, it is crucial that these Gentiles remain Gentiles and do not undergo conversion and circumcision. They are to be saved as Gentiles, and do not, eschatologically, become Jews. These Gentiles, then, were the ones to whom Paul addressed his gospel, and who made up his eschatological congregations.
Runar Thorsteinsson
Runar Thorsteinsson is an Icelandic scholar who earned his PhD in Sweden in 2003, and subsequently did scholarly work in Lund, Linköping, and Copenhagen. Thorsteinsson does not explicitly associate himself with the radical perspective. However, his contribution to the study of Romans reaches beyond his main thesis and central topic, Paul’s interlocutor in Romans 2. In many ways, Thorsteinsson’s book is a narrow study of a minor part of Romans. Nevertheless, Thorsteinsson manages to contextualize Paul’s letter within ancient epistolography, and draw valuable parallels, especially to Cicero and Seneca.1 In extension of the contextualization of Romans in ancient epistolography, Thorsteinsson focuses meticulously on the implied audience (as differentiated from the real audience) of Romans as Gentile. Thorsteinsson has no doubts that Paul envisaged the implied audience as Gentile, whether or not there were actually any Jews in the ‘real’ Roman congregation.
The main thrust of Thorsteinsson’s argument revolves around the interpretation of Paul’s statement in 2:17: ‘But if you call yourself a Jew’ (Εἰ δὲ σὺ Ἰουδαῖος ἐπονομάζῃ). Thorsteinsson convincingly bridges between the identity of the interlocutor in 2:1 and the stereotypical description of Gentiles in 1:18–32 by way of his discussion of Διὸ. But the major point he intends to prove is that the identity of the interlocutor remains the same from 1:18 to 2:16, and then further on, in 2:17ff. He convincingly proves the progressive unity of 2:1–16 as addressed to a Gentile, and the next step concerns the move to 2:17ff., where the identity of the interlocutor must be attached to a Gentile who wants to, or has, converted to Judaism (a God-fearer or a proselyte). The possibility of this reading comes down to the interpretation of the expression ‘if you call yourself a Jew’, and the meaning of the verb ἐπονομάζῃ (2:17). There is plenty of evidence for taking the verb to mean falsely calling oneself something which one is not. Thus, the deciding factor for or against this interpretation of the identity of the interlocutor as a Jew or a Gentile must rest upon his characterization in the remaining discourse of Romans. Thorsteinsson provides a few pointers in this direction, but merely as an outlook or perspective. In a review of Thorsteinsson’s book, Stanley Stowers concludes with these words: ‘I admit that 2:17 is ambiguous and there is an argument that should be entertained for a Gentile who wants to be a Jew’.2
Caroline Johnson Hodge
Caroline Johnson Hodge is a self-declared radical. In the conclusion of her book If Sons, Then Heirs (2007) she writes:
Like others in the ‘radical’ new perspective, my reading of Paul insists on viewing him as a first-century Jew and thus opens the possibility that he had no critique of Judaism but remained fully faithful to the God of Israel and this God’s plan for the salvation of all peoples. Daniel Boyarin has characterized the Gaston/Gager approach, which my interpretation largely supports…1
What Johnson Hodge presents here is the positive evaluation of Judaism at the time of Paul, of Paul as a faithful Jew in service of the God of Israel, and of the ‘two covenant’ solution as proposed by Lloyd Gaston and John Gager. By confirming these propositions she falls within the main area of the radical perspective. However, her work does not seem to reveal any preoccupation with ideological or interfaith interests.
In her book, Johnson Hodge scrutinizes the perception of the identity of Paul’s addressees from ancient ideological and socio-historical perspectives. Her main hypothesis is that Paul uses the discourse of kinship and ethnicity to construct a myth of origins for Gentile followers of Christ.2 In socio-historical terms, she presents the (possible) core ideology of Paul’s message concerning the new-found identity of his Gentile addressees: Paul relies on the logic of patrilineal descent to create a new lineage for Gentiles as descendants of Abraham through Christ. The identity of the Gentiles relates to, but does not become one with, a Jewish identity. However, ‘being-in-Christ’ is not ethnically neutral, according to Johnson Hodge; it falls under the umbrella of Jewishness. But Gentiles-in-Christ do not become Jews, since Paul continuously calls them Gentiles throughout his letters. Consequently, Johnson Hodge argues that these Gentiles-in-Christ have a mixed or ‘hybrid’ identity, not completely other, but also not identical to their previous status. The reason for this not-ethnically-neutral identity is that Johnson Hodge believes that for Paul, ‘ethnic identity is inextricable from a people’s standing before God’.3 Israel stood as a nation (a collective whole) before God, and so do the Gentiles.
The merits of Johnson Hodge’s interpretation of Paul concern a major point in the reconstruction of Paul’s thought-world: a lucid description of the identity or self-understanding of Paul’s Gentile addressees. Furthermore, Johnson Hodge provides the flip side of the coin – the ideology supporting Paul’s construction of this Gentile identity: the ideology of patrilineal descent. These two elements comprise the received and ascribed identity of Paul’s addressees. Johnson Hodge also provides valuable exegetical interpretations of core passages of Paul’s letters. Specifically, her interpretation of Romans 8, which also furnishes the title of her book, is splendid.
Pamela Eisenbaum
Pamela Eisenbaum presents herself as a Jewish New Testament scholar.1 She studied Theology at Harvard Divinity School and obtained her PhD from Columbia University. In her book, Paul was not a Christian (2009), she clearly declares her alignment with the radical new perspective, and she states her indebtedness to the work of John Gager, Lloyd Gaston, Krister Stendahl, and Stanley Stowers.2 In her book, she argues that Paul may be better understood from a Jewish perspective of covenant theology than from a later Christian perspective. By stating this, she extends and further develops the work of E.P. Sanders and other new perspective scholars. Eisenbaum claims that Paul was not a Christian, because he did not found a new religion in opposition to Judaism. She repudiates the Reformation perception of Paul (justification by faith for all believers) and instead proposes a ‘two way’ solution in Paul.3 Paul ‘lived and died a Jew’ (5), because he was ‘unambiguously Jewish – ethnically, culturally, religiously, morally, and theologically’ (9). Paul did not leave Judaism, but believed that Israel or the Jews are God’s people, and are justified beforehand by living within the covenant relation with God. Israel does not need Christ, because she is already justified by God. The God who justifies Israel called Paul to be apostle to the Gentiles. By being apostle to the Gentiles, Paul brings the Gentiles into the household or family of God, through Christ. Eisenbaum also emphasizes this point: Paul’s mission was limited exclusively to Gentiles. The Torah works for the Jews, and atonement works well within the system of Judaism. But because Gentiles are not part of God’s covenant with Israel and, therefore, do not have the Torah, they need Christ, who expiated their sins for them. She states, ‘To put it boldly, Jesus saves, but he only saves Gentiles’.4 And she further explains, ‘What the Torah does for Jews, Jesus does for Gentiles’.5
Critical evaluation of the radical perspective: T.L. Donaldson and A. Wedderburn
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.
