Customer Reviews

Reinventing Paul

5 star:		(0)
4 star:		(4)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

"Reinventing Paul" is John Gager's attempt to solve one of the most vexing problems of New Testament scholarship: Saint Paul's seeming anti-Judaism, if not outright anti-Semitism. The view that Paul (and God!) turned against his own people had been considered self-evident to a long line of scholars and theologians stretching back at least to St. Augustine. But the history of the 20th century, soaked copiously with the blood of innocent Jews, made many New Testament scholars hope that a less Jew-hating Paul could be salvaged from Paul's writing.

Gager reviews the roots of traditional view of Paul -- the "obvious" view discerned by the casual modern reader of the New Testament. Saul/Paul in this view is an observant Jew who is converted to Christianity by a miraculous experience of the Risen Christ, and who then proceeds to condemn his own people based on their "rejection" of Jesus as the promised Messiah. Gager re-examines this view in the light of new scholarship and new attitudes since the Shoah. How can Paul, he asks, "convert" to a faith that does not yet exist? Paul's conversion is an event that is "read back" into his story based on the post-70 CE split of Judaism and Christianity. Paul, whose Damascus Road experience dates to the years immediately following Christ's crucifixion in 30 CE, would not have thought of his experience as a conversion *from* Judaism, but at most from one expression of Judaism to another.

But what of Paul's seeming citations against Jews and Judaism? Gager's thesis is that Paul's enemies were not Christ-denying Jews, but Christ-*affirming* Jews within the Jesus movement. To Paul, these Jewish-born Christians misunderstood the meaning of Christ's death, which to Paul was the way that God extended salvation from the Jews to the Gentiles. Read in this light, a citation like "The Jew has no advantage and circumcision is of no value" (Romans 3:1) does not signal God's rejection of Jews, but that Gentiles need not become Jews to gain salvation.

Gager's thesis is sound and based on a sensible reading of the New Testament. However, Gager works too hard to show how much better his thesis is than that of his predecessors. The book is also much too long, repeating the same points ad nauseum. In spite of these faults, I found "Reinventing Paul" to be a valuable contribution that makes Paul's thinking not only tolerable but even laudatory.

Gager's text, "Reinventing Paul" is perhaps mislabeled, as he does less re-inventing than "recovering." With the sort of exasperation characteristic of E.P. Sanders' in "Paul and Palestinian Judaism" Gager dismantles, by way of a thorough review of recent Pauline scholarship, the age-old distortions of Paul and first century Judaism that have plagued Christianity from the outset.

His dismay is easily understood as he makes plain the way that Paul, the "Apostle to the Gentiles" was forced into the role of "Paul, critic of all that is Jewish." (my phrase) Indeed, the only regret that I had as I read his book was that he seemed unaware of the groundbreaking work of Mark Nanos' "The Mystery of Romans." Nanos' work would only have bolstered Gager's conclusions, but from a Jewish perspective.

It is no longer excusable for Christian students of the New Testament to set Paul up as an opponent of the "straw man" of Pharisaic Judaism created in the late 19th century and utterly discredited by Sanders, George Foote Moore, and Charlotte Klein. In concise form, Gager has catalogued the breaches in the dam of tradition that will, one hopes, lead to its imminent collapse. The hope, however, falters briefly when one reads critiques of Gager's book that seek to cite brief passages from Romans or Galatians once again as support for Paul's rejection of the meaningfulness of Torah for Jews of his day. Still the misrepresentations of the Judaism of that day raise their misshapen heads to perpetuate the abuses of the past.

His analysis of Romans and Galatians, while hardly exhaustive, give us an exciting taste of the benefits of real rhetorical analysis of Paul's letters, without weighing the reader down with excessive jargon. Perhaps the most wonderful bits of the whole book are the footnotes, which lead the reader from his tight digest to a variety of authors whose works explore the questions in much greater detail.

One hopes that Gager's text will become a staple in the teaching establishments of the Church. It would be a shame if any student graduated from a seminary in the next ten years without having read it.

Gager could perhaps be starting a quest similar in intent if not in form to that of the Jesus Seminar, namely, the search for the 'real' Paul, or at least the 'real meaning' of Paul. Paul has been reinterpreted and recast in many ways over the past 2000 years, for denominational and sociological reasons. To build upon Schweitzer's observations about the changing images of Jesus, just as each age reinterprets Jesus to, in one way or another, recast Jesus in the image of that age, so too does Paul undergo a similar change. What Gager is doing, however, is not merely reinterpreting the meaning of Paul -- he is offering a new way of asking the interpretative questions, offering a paradigm shift that casts doubts upon traditional interpretations and offers a new way of thinking about the texts. Once we begin to question not just specific texts or issues within that paradigm, but the paradigm itself, nothing in the old model makes sense. (Gager, p. 145)

The Traditional View
Gager specifically does not want to start a 'Quest for the Historical Paul' a la the Jesus Seminar model, but does feel that re-examination is necessary to shift emphasis away from traditionally-held views of Paul. Even if such a search for the 'real' Paul is not undertaken, due to the lack of 'reality' in such a search, this does not mean that there are not bad interpretations, even wrong ones when it comes to examining Pauline literature for intent, background, and context. (Gager, pp. vii-viii)

Traditionally, Paul is turned into a sort of universal preacher; the particular advice and conversations he has in his letters to specific communities made into universally applicable principles and precepts. Gager disputes the authority of each of these assumptions, and puts forward arguments against each of these assumptions within the framework of his new paradigm.

The New View
Gager sees the fundamental mis-understanding of Paul (a mis-understanding of centuries-long standing) to be primarily focussed upon the context of audience of Paul. Working from scholars who in various ways began to challenge basic assumptions (albeit, incompletely, Gager would argue) such as Kirster Stendahl, Lloyd Gaston, and E.P. Sanders, Gager sets up criteria which must be kept in mind when examining any passage or writing of Paul's. These include the realisation that Paul remained a Jew throughout his life, adhering to the context of traditional Jewish thought; Paul's 'conversion' was not from one religion to another (for, arguably, Christianity as a separate religion could be said not to have existed at this point) but rather a transformation of thought fully within the framework of the same religion (namely, Judaism); and primarily, that Paul must be seen as the apostle to the Gentiles, with specific intent to speak to the Gentiles in a way that would make sense to them. Paul was not concerned with Jews or Jewish-Jesus movement people (except insofar as they impacted and/or interfered with his own ministries). Even when Paul speaks in the synagogues, this speaking was primarily intended for the Gentile audience. Gentiles frequented synagogues throughout the Greco-Roman world. (Gager, p. 51)

This argues against the universality of Paul's messages as is held in the traditional view. If one takes the context of speaking to Jews, or of speaking to all of humanity which includes Jews, out of the paradigm, and concentrates on the message for Gentiles, and read as such, many (but not all) of Paul's apparent contradictions fall away. Likewise, a Paul who is seen to have remained completely within the framework of Judaism, with honour and respect for the Torah as it applies to the Jews, can be seen as less the fountainhead of Christian anti-Judaism. Christian readers no longer feel compelled to insulate Paul from Judaism, while Jewish readers no longer strive to protect Judaism from Paul. (Gager, p. 57)

A Lingering Doubt
Gager claims a certain theological purity -- my fundamental concern is historical and that my primary goal is to get it right, Gager claims. (Gager, p. 18) He claims that he doesn't have the specific intent of proving any particular denominational or theological viewpoint correct. This may or may not be correct. Clearly as Gager speaks of the reasons why a reinterpretation of Paul might be needed -- the Nazi Holocaust, together with the founding of the state of Israel, account for the possibility of reading Paul in a new way -- he has an agenda which is he is trying to promote, however subtle that promotion may be. This is, of course, an agenda which would be welcomed at this seminary, with its strong emphasis on Jewish-Christian dialogue and relationship.

But is this reinterpretation really a reinvention? Is this so much a radical shift of paradigm (as Gager likes to think it is), or more of a logical next-step in the progression of modern studies as the underlying assumptions of most everything (from physics to medicine to history to mathematics to art and music and much more) have come under scrutiny in the modern (and, as some like to say, post-modern) era? While Gager's insights and analyses are welcome, perhaps they are not quite the sound-barrier-breaking ideas that he wishes they were.

And what of the traditional views? Even if thoroughly discounted and discredited in Gager's paradigm, we again run into a similar as the Jesus Seminar and its critics. How can we state the Holy Spirit has had charge of the image of Jesus through two millenniums, and thus it is the traditional Jesus who is most 'real', but, on the other hand, the traditional Paul cannot be most 'real'? Where was the Holy Spirit in this regard? Can the Holy Spirit only take charge of one?

John Gager's book "Reinventing Paul" is a long overdue summation of the latest insights into Paul's beliefs and his mission to the Gentiles. Gager and the others are helping to clear away 2,000 years of Christian perversion of Paul's thinking and activity. Here Gager shows that Paul was very much a Jew and remained anchored within the Jewish tradition. He did not repudiate the law of Moses, he did not argue that God had rejected Israel, his enemies were not Jews outside his movement, but opponents within, and he did not expect Jews to abandon the Law and find salvation through Jesus the Christ.

Gager goes to great lengths to show that the debate over circumcision, or whether Gentiles needed to "become" Jewish and themselves followers of the Law, was at the center of the great controversy. Ultimately, of course, Paul said, "No." Paul believed that a spiritual Christ had arrived and could be experienced through faith as the End Time was near. This has happened as a result of God's promise to Abraham that the Gentiles will also be saved. Faith in Christ is the Gentile's way to salvation, while the Jews retain their Law and covenant with God. Paul's doctrine, in other words, is one of inclusion, not exclusion.

Gager does a solid job of proving his points and his reinventing of Paul is long overdue, but the author leaves a few loose ends. He does not go into Paul's vision of the Son and what implications this has for Christianity. If Paul held that the saving experience is "faith" in God's righteousness and justice as manifest through a spiritual Christ, and that Jews can be saved even without the belief in Christ, what does this say of the Christian belief that a living Jesus walked the earth and performed a redemptive act to save mankind? Paul obviously never believed in it! Yet, Gager is silent on these issues. A sound book, in other words, as far as it goes, but it answers only half the questions concerning Paul and his vision. But, this is an important book that needs to be read.

John Gager's book, Reinventing Paul, has a provocative thesis: the Gospel preached by the Apostle Paul declared faith in Jesus Christ as the way to salvation for the Gentiles, but continued obedience to the Law as the way to salvation for the Jews. Gager rejects what he calls the "traditional" view of Paul's Gospel, which he titles the "rejection/replacement" theory, in which God has rejected Israel and replaced it with Christianity. Gager builds his case primarily from Paul's letters to the Galatians and the Romans, two works that have been the basis for the so-called "rejection/replacement" theory. He posits that these two letters, and all of Paul's missionary work, was directed solely to Gentiles, and as such all the arguments about the importance of faith in Christ and the impotence of the Law for salvation are only applicable to Gentiles. Jews, on the other hand, are still bound to the Law for salvation, which God has not abandoned.

Whereas there are a number of aspects of Gager's argument to admire - such as his emphasis on Paul's self-understanding that he never left Judaism as well as his condemnation of anti-Semitism that has resulted within Christianity due partially to a distorted view of Paul's theology - his arguments in the end are woefully flawed.

First, in order to advance his theory, Gager must marginalize some inconvenient facts. In the book of Acts, Paul is clearly shown to start his missionary work in various cities by first preaching in the synagogues (Acts 9:20, 13:5, 13:14, 14:1, 17:2, 17:10, 18:4, 18:19, 19:8). Gager tries to advance the theory that Paul only preached to Gentiles attending the synagogue, yet Acts explicitly contradicts this claim (Acts 18:4). Apparently realizing that Acts paints a clear picture of Paul preaching to the Jews, Gager tries to marginalize it by questioning the author's motives and dating it very late ("ca 120 C.E."), thus making its author uninformed about the "real" Paul. However, Paul himself claims that he not only tried to win Gentiles to his Gospel, but also that he "became as a Jew, in order to win Jews" (1 Cor. 9:20). Since much of Gager's argument is based on the theory that Paul only preached to the Gentiles, and that his message of salvation in Christ was never directed to the Jews, this statement of Paul's, along with the evidence found in Acts, goes a long way towards deflating Gager's main argument.

Furthermore, Gager goes to great lengths to emphasize that Paul's audience in both Galatians and Romans was only Gentiles, leading to the contention that all the arguments contained therein are completely irrelevant to the Jews. Certainly, this does not logically follow, but also Paul himself contradicts this thesis. For example, in the first two chapters of Romans, Paul three times specifically states that his arguments apply for "the Jew first and also to the Greek" (Romans 1:16, 2:9, 2:10). In other words, although his letter is directed primarily to Gentiles, it applies to both Jews and Gentiles.

Gager wishes to have a strict line of demarcation between Jews and Gentiles in Paul's thought, but he himself confuses the issue often by seemingly forgetting that Paul himself was a Jew who found faith in Jesus Christ as the way to salvation! How can Gager consider Paul, who proclaims his Jewishness strongly in his letters (cf. Rom 11:1, Phil 3:5), now a Gentile? This simply does not add up if Gager's strict delineation between Jew and Gentile in Paul's thought is true, but it is perfectly consistent if Paul saw one way to salvation - faith in Christ - for both Jews and Gentiles.

There are many other weaknesses in Gager's arguments, but ultimately it is clear that his overall thesis - that Paul's Gospel proclaimed the Jews are saved by the Law, not by faith in Christ - is not consistent with the evidence. His legitimate antipathy towards anti-Semitism leads him to eisegesis: he reads into the text his theory so that he might combat anti-Semitism better. A noble goal, but one that should be based on the actual facts, not a "reinvention" of them.

The author's goal of this books is to challenge the assumption of the traditional view of Paul and present a new view(s). There are 5 chapters in this book:

* The Traditional View of Paul
* New Views of Paul
* The Letter to the Galatians
* The Letter to the Romans
* Loose Ends

In my opinion, the author makes some serious errors right from the beginning. First, it seems he is operating on the assumption that Paul wrote Galatians and Romans. While it is true that Paul is the human author, we must remember that the words are inspired by the Holy Spirit. So it isn't really Paul writing what he thinks, rather it is God telling us what He wants us to know about the Jews and the Gentiles and salvation.

Second, the author focuses on and compares Galatians and Romans. When trying to understand the meaning of a particular portion of Scripture you must compare it with all other Scripture of the same topic. The author does not do this, rather limits his use of Scripture to attempt to prove what he thinks and wants to accomplish with his book.

It seemed to me the real purpose of this book was to simply publish something. Often times academic institutions strongly encourage the faculty to produce something. It looks as though this book is an example of that mentality.

Much of the book is simply quoting what other people have already wrote. In fact, there are over 400 footnotes that take up over thirty pages in the back.

Overall, in my opinion, this book is totally worthless and filled with nonsensical ideas. To give an example, Gager says of himself on page 151 that he is "a non-believing 'Christian'". I am not sure what that means, but I am certain he will figure out what it means someday.

Skip this book!

John Gager and his colleagues have done a service in removing the image of Paul being the father of anti-semitism, and helps foster improved Jewish-Christian relations. However, he misses the major theme in Paul's letters - the centrality of Christ and the cross in his theology of the Word.

Gager proposes the two-way theory, that the law is the means of salvation for the Jews, and Christ is the way of salvation for Gentiles. However, he is quite selective in his use of quotations, and ignores the 2000-year history of the expectancy of Israel for the Messiah. Paul and the Gospel writers assert that Jesus is the Messiah, that salvation for both Jew and Greek is Jesus Christ [Galatians 3:26-29, Romans 10:10-12, 10:17].

What I find most troubling is that Gager is reading the Holy Bible to make a socio-political statement, rather than reading the Bible for inspiration and spirituality. Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, recommends we read the Bible with the hermeneutics of faith. The Gospel brings the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes in Jesus Christ.
But then, perhaps that is to be expected, as he styles himself a non-believing Christian. Gager missing this central point leaves one questioning his every statement.