My Paul is More within Judaism Than Thou
One of the most denigrating things you can say to a New Testament scholar is to call them a “theologian.”
As if to say, “I do history, comparative religion, and textual archaeology, but what YOU do is theology. I study Paul as a figure within history or within the Jewish religion, while YOU impose your theological ideas onto him.” There is a kind of rhetoric that “my” reconstructiction of Paul is more historical, more authentically Jewish, and shawn of theological baggage compared to everyone else.
At one level, theological assumptions do permeate the discussion of Paul. For instance, the school of scholars who make up “the apocalyptic Paul” sound very much like the Swiss theologian Karl Barth to my ears. Similarly, Douglas Campbell’s work is very much a Torrancian project spliced with a few other theological motifs. Catholic exegesis of Paul’s letters can often sound like Aquinas trying to read Luther on Paul. I wouldn’t deny that there are genuine insights to be made from Barthian and Catholic interpreters of Paul, insights into Paul, but everyone projects as much as reads Paul.
Yet any claim to study Paul as purely a historical phenomenon, exclusively as a figure within the religion of Judaism, is probably lacking self-criticism in some regards.
Alas, most interpretive paradigms for understanding Paul, whether Catholic, Reformed, New Perspective, Radical Paul, or Paul within Judaism, are freighted with theological baggage, carry certain assumptions, or promote particular agendas.
To read further, consider joining the “Aviary” by taking out a paid subscription, only $7 per month or $75 per year, supports me in my ministry and scholarship, and gets you 3-4 posts per week on biblical studies, Christianity and gender relationships, cultural commentary, book reviews, previews of my forthcoming books, and some cool videos.