Comments on: Paul Was Not a Christian: The Original Message of a Misunderstood Apostle http://www.thepaulpage.com/paul-was-not-a-christian-the-original-message-of-a-misunderstood-apostle/ Fri, 27 Aug 2010 23:33:12 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Michael Peterson http://www.thepaulpage.com/paul-was-not-a-christian-the-original-message-of-a-misunderstood-apostle/comment-page-1/#comment-108 Michael Peterson Fri, 27 Nov 2009 00:48:47 +0000 http://www.thepaulpage.com/?p=307#comment-108 Great review. I'm very new to the New Perspective but I have been studying Biblical Hebrew and the Hebrew Bible very closely for the last 5 years. On my own, I came to the view that the Judaism(s) of Jesus' day were not legalistic and so when I ran across the New Perspective writings I was blown away. As I read your review, I had to wonder why to be "ethnocentric" is inherently bad. Can't one be proud of one's ethnicity and use the lens of one's culture to gain insight? Finally, reflecting on David J. Bolten's comment, I would extend his remarks by noting David Klinghoffer's book (an observant, orthodox Jew) "Why the Jews Rejected Jesus". Peace, Great review. I’m very new to the New Perspective but I have been studying Biblical Hebrew and the Hebrew Bible very closely for the last 5 years. On my own, I came to the view that the Judaism(s) of Jesus’ day were not legalistic and so when I ran across the New Perspective writings I was blown away.

As I read your review, I had to wonder why to be “ethnocentric” is inherently bad. Can’t one be proud of one’s ethnicity and use the lens of one’s culture to gain insight?

Finally, reflecting on David J. Bolten’s comment, I would extend his remarks by noting David Klinghoffer’s book (an observant, orthodox Jew) “Why the Jews Rejected Jesus”.

Peace,

]]> By: John Ford http://www.thepaulpage.com/paul-was-not-a-christian-the-original-message-of-a-misunderstood-apostle/comment-page-1/#comment-100 John Ford Sun, 22 Nov 2009 02:06:37 +0000 http://www.thepaulpage.com/?p=307#comment-100 Mark - a well written and comprehensive review. I have trouble with understanding Paul, and I guess I'm not alone, and Eisenbaum’s appraisal will help in unravelling that understanding. John Ford Mark – a well written and comprehensive review. I have trouble with understanding Paul, and I guess I’m not alone, and Eisenbaum’s appraisal will help in unravelling that understanding.

John Ford

]]> By: David Bolton http://www.thepaulpage.com/paul-was-not-a-christian-the-original-message-of-a-misunderstood-apostle/comment-page-1/#comment-74 David Bolton Tue, 10 Nov 2009 18:28:49 +0000 http://www.thepaulpage.com/?p=307#comment-74 Many thanks for the great review Mark (and for mentioning our Leuven project!). The big issue for the radical new perspective is the relevance of Christ for Jews. Nowhere in Paul do I find that Christ is only for the Gentiles. The discontinuity in Paul vis-a-vis common Judaism is his intense Christ devotion and his placing of Christ above the Torah in terms of universal salvation (a salvation that includes the redemption of Jews and even all Israel in its final mysterious outworking). The radical perspective wants to keep Paul's Christ as a subset of Torah - he is the one who enables the Gentiles to keep their reduced part of it. This, I believe, when taken in an absolute sense, is a misreading of Paul. Torah does indeed play an ongoing role for Paul, both for messianic Jews like him (who I think did continue to keep it in a Christocentric way) and for the Gentiles in terms of their ongoing sanctification. In this Eisenbaum and Nanos etc. (and before them W.D. Davies) are doing Pauline studies a great favour. But contrary to the radical new perspective, Torah was always a subset of Christ's lordship, and not the reverse. Paul is interested in bringing the Jewish Messiah to the Gentiles (and of course to Jews he meets along the way), and not the Torah per se. David J. Bolton (phd cand.) K.U. Leuven, Belgium Many thanks for the great review Mark (and for mentioning our Leuven project!).
The big issue for the radical new perspective is the relevance of Christ for Jews. Nowhere in Paul do I find that Christ is only for the Gentiles. The discontinuity in Paul vis-a-vis common Judaism is his intense Christ devotion and his placing of Christ above the Torah in terms of universal salvation (a salvation that includes the redemption of Jews and even all Israel in its final mysterious outworking). The radical perspective wants to keep Paul’s Christ as a subset of Torah – he is the one who enables the Gentiles to keep their reduced part of it. This, I believe, when taken in an absolute sense, is a misreading of Paul.

Torah does indeed play an ongoing role for Paul, both for messianic Jews like him (who I think did continue to keep it in a Christocentric way) and for the Gentiles in terms of their ongoing sanctification. In this Eisenbaum and Nanos etc. (and before them W.D. Davies) are doing Pauline studies a great favour. But contrary to the radical new perspective, Torah was always a subset of Christ’s lordship, and not the reverse. Paul is interested in bringing the Jewish Messiah to the Gentiles (and of course to Jews he meets along the way), and not the Torah per se.

David J. Bolton (phd cand.)
K.U. Leuven, Belgium

]]> By: Latest Updates Archive | The Paul Page http://www.thepaulpage.com/paul-was-not-a-christian-the-original-message-of-a-misunderstood-apostle/comment-page-1/#comment-54 Latest Updates Archive | The Paul Page Tue, 03 Nov 2009 04:22:32 +0000 http://www.thepaulpage.com/?p=307#comment-54 [...] Added a review of Paul Was Not a Christian: The Original Message of a Misunderstood Apostle by Pamela Eisenbaum, as well as a link to an interview of her regarding her new [...] [...] Added a review of Paul Was Not a Christian: The Original Message of a Misunderstood Apostle by Pamela Eisenbaum, as well as a link to an interview of her regarding her new [...]

]]>