It seems that for most of the history of Christianity, the Apostle Paul has been presented as the man (not necessarily even Jewish, but rather Roman) who brought the ‘new’ religion of Christianity to the world. As part of this perspective, Paul has been interpreted as Hellenistic, as anti-Torah and in many ways even seriously anti-Semitic (see my article on 1 Thess 2:14-16 for example - at circumcisedheart.info).
However, through all this history, there appears to always have been some scholars who have considered that the Apostle Paul was Torah observant and a true lover of Torah, Israel and the Jewish people.
It seems undeniable, simply by looking through the hundreds of books written on the Apostle Paul, that he can be read both ways.
What is interesting as well though is that most recent biblical and predominately Christian scholarship is now arguing that Paul was very much Torah observant and Hebraic not Hellenistic. The ‘New Perspective’ on Paul was the beginning of this acknowledgment (for example, authors like James D Dunn). It has been taken much further by the impressive scholarship of the Jewish theologian Prof. Mark Nanos.
At the same time there are still many who argue for an anti-Torah Paul. For example, in the just released book and impressive book ‘Kosher Jesus’, Rabbi Shmuley Boteach takes this position.
I have already addressed this issue at some length in my article ‘The Apostle Paul: Disciple or Fraud’.
The fact that Paul appears to be such a chameleon is certainly a dilemma worthy of reflection.
Is it because
- Paul was confused;
- Paul was really a Hellenist and needed to appear to be Hebraic at times (i.e. a fraud);
- of all the deliberate redactions by Hellenistic translators, etc., and the false interpretations due to the Hellenistic mindset most read him with?
- Or something else, even some combinations of these possibilities?
I believe there is another possible factor as well - if his approach, while that of a Torah observant Jew, was one where he did not believe the Gentiles needed to become Jews then both 'sides' (the Hellenistic camp and the Hebraic camp) are likely to misread him in some ways. Especially, if they expect him to be either pushing Jewish proselytization for all or alternatively rejection of Jewishness and Torah for all.
I believe that his 'new', nuanced approach has been misinterpreted by most, for most of the last 1900 plus years. The many deliberate redactions and interpolations that have been introduced to his epistles and the NT as a whole, also exacerbate thos mis-interpretation issue and make it very difficult for most to 'read' him right.
I start with the premise that he was a Torah observant Jew; that he did have a revelation from Yeshua; and then try to 'read' him with a Hebraic mindset and in the correct historical context. While I would also like to believe his autographs (original writings) were ‘inspired’ by the Almighty, I have found that most of my arguments have support from some recent biblical and Jewish scholarship which has not begun with these premises.
I have now developed and detailed an understanding of the revelation that the Apostle Paul was presenting to the Gentile world. I have tentatively labeled it the ‘Tripartite Salvation Paradigm’.
My document is still in draft form though already some 25 pages and over 18,000 words of explanation. I hope to publish it shortly. If this premise resonates with you at all I would welcome some constructive feedback?
Paul
Feb 2012
Mr. Nanos. I find your insights into who the real Apostle Paul was very intriguing! I was raised as most other "christians" in that I was taught dispensational futurist doctrine. I was an orthodox christian for over 30 years. About 5 years ago, I began to search for answers to many of the question I had always had concerning eschatology and other doctrines I had been taught. I found those answers when I finally allowed scripture to speak to me without passing everything through my dispensational futurist lens. I became a full preterist at that time because I believe it provides more answers and it's historical/grammatical hermeneutic is more honest than orthodox christianity's which uses a literal hermeneutic in most cases. If you're familiar with full preterism, I'm sure thatyou realize that there are as many different doctrinal beliefs even amongst them as there is in orthodox christianity. One such full preterism interpretation of scripture sees the NT as being the fulfillment of everything that God promised the Jews. Jesus came to specifically save the Jews, not people 2000 years later! They see the word "Gentile" in the NT as referrring to the lost tribes of Israel which were scattered about the various "nations" surrounding the nation we know today as Israel. This definition of "Gentile" has become a major debate among full preterists. This raises many questions which many full preterists do not want to address because of their orthodox christian pre-suppositions regarding salvation and the fulfillment of the new covenant. My journey over the past yar has lead me to finding answers to many of the questions I always had about the bible and the NT specifically. I no longer believe that the bible teaches the doctrine of the trinity. Jesus was NOT God, but the Son of God. He always deferred to his Father! I also no longer believe that Jesus is God, or that he is the ONLY way to God. He have 2 commandments....to LOVE God and LOVE your neighbor. These two principles are petty common among all religions, and I believe that is reall what God is all about! I no longer look to or follow ANY religion as I believe that EVERY religion does more to divide mankind than to unite him. I have become a Deist, just as was most of our founding fathers. There are many Deists out there, and I see it as gaining popularity, especially among young people who aren't afraid to use reason, logic, and common sense to understand God and His relationship to the universe and to mankind. I would be interetsed in yoru feedback about the understanding that "Gentile" in scripture refers specifically to the lost tribes of Israel and not to the pagan nations. AAnd also what you think about my position on Deism. I see you are a Jewish theologian? I find it interesting that you would even be interested in the Apostle Paul. Thank you for your feedback sir.
ReplyDeleteRegards,
Dale