jetucker said
Tzohorayim tovim,

 

This is my first post as a blog member! It concerns a topic I spend a lot of time thinking about; one of which I have yet to conjure a narrative that captures both the theological AND historical implications of the topic. 

Namely, the critique of the New Perspective’s supersessionism. 

The New Perspective and Paul Within Judaism movements differ radically in their starting points and conclusions, but why? Why did Nanos and Soulen start where they did (in terms of their views of Jesus’s and Paul’s relationships to the Tanakh, Oral Torah, and Second Temple Judaism) and draw the conclusions they have when Wright and Dunn started with the same scriptures yet came up with a narrative that still maintains economic (if not punitive) supersessionism? 

I know Nanos isn’t a Christian, and thus lacks the theological connection to the “solution” the Paul Within Judaism narrative seeks to “provide” to the problem of anti-Judaistic readings/understandings of the gospels and other writings, but most of the other New and “Radical New” Perspective folks are Christians. Soulen (and Phelan, it appears) is more than willing to call out (meekly) the New Perspective for its historical, methodological, and theological flaws… and remain a devout Christian. Why has the New Perspective remained so strong in the field despite its supersessionism? Supersessionism couched by softer language is still super problematic, isn’t it?

  

צָהֳרַ֫יִם טוֹבִים גַּם לְךָ — even though it is now night in Israel (nearly 10pm) and it’s our Memorial Day (a sad day on all accounts). I’m happy to see that you wrote tzohorayim, as most Israelis incorrectly say tsaharayim, as if the chataf-kamats had no influence on the first kamats in the word! Very nice!

I really need to read up on the New Perspective on Paul and how it differs from the Old Perspective. Personally, I think that one aspect of the early teachings of The Way (that is, הַדֶּ֫רֶךְ or ἡ ὁδός, what I believe was the original name of the Christian movement) is that they spiritualized things that Jews took as natural. For example, there was a temple in Jerusalem, whereas the body of believers became the “true temple of God,” and there was also a heavenly temple on which the earthly temple was patterned. The earthly kingdom of David became a spiritual kingdom of the Messiah. The priesthood of the Levites became a priesthood of believers towards the outside world. In this way, the Law took only spiritual elements (see the Letter of Barnabas), and Christianity replaced Judaism in all spiritual senses (according to them).

This idea also influences where I think that the Christian name came from. The verb לִנְצֹר means “to keep,” as a synonym of the better-known לִשְׁמֹר. Christians thought of themselves as Keepers of the Way (נֹצְרֵי הַדֶּ֫רֶךְ), which eventually became simply Keepers (נֹצְרִים). Because of the prophecy of “The Branch” both from Isaiah 11 and from Zechariah 6 (if I recall correctly), they also took on the name נְצָרִים Branches—not to mention the statement recorded from Jesus saying “I am the vine, and you are the branches.”