Paul and His Recent Interpreters, NTW, Part 2 (Gupta)

Last updated on: May 6, 2016 at 12:53 pm by Nijay Gupta

Paul and His Recent Interpreters, NTW, Part 2 (Gupta) 2016-05-06T12:53:09-08:00 Nijay Gupta

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Wright PRI Here we launch into a discussion of NT Wright’s new Paul and His Recent Interpreters.

In chapter one, Wright commences by “setting the stage” of the discussion of Paul with a focus on the last century or so. He notes the formative influence of FC Baur (19th century) and the early 20th century debates about how Jewish Paul was in his upbringing, education, and thought. I particularly appreciated, in this chapter, his interest in the question of whether or not modern concerns should influence our readings of Paul. As always, Wright encourages a nuanced methodology that engages in the fourfold task of “history, content (in Paul’s case, ‘theology’), exegesis and application” (6).

In the second chapter, Wright turns to how theologies of Paul have developed, so naturally he takes a strong interest in the Reformation readings. He acknowledges that there was an obsession in that time period with the afterlife. Why?

Luther, Calvin, and their sixteenth-century colleagues, understandably granted the age in which they lived, were dominated in their approach to soteriology by the questions bequeathed to all Europe by the later mediaeval period, with its often short and brutal human life. What will happen to me after I die? (31)

In his comparison of Luther vs. Calvin on Paul, Wright is quite blunt in his assertion that Calvin did much better, esp with regards to allowing Christians to make sense of and find (positive) value in the OT Law (32). The next key figure that Wright highlights in this chapter is Albert Schweitzer. Wright sees the contributions of Schweitzer as a major step forward in Pauline scholarship as the Jewishness of Paul is recognized and affirmed by Schweitzer (see 34-35), despite the awkwardness of Schweitzer’s language of “Christ-mysticism” (35). Wright goes as far as to compare the thinking of Calvin and Schweitzer, finding them almost two peas in the same theological pod (See 37)! Along these lines Wright strongly affirms Schweitzer’s emphasis on being-in-Christ:

Schweitzer’s massive reinterpretation of Paul also did its best to reframe the questions that had to be asked, away from the narrow focus of ‘how can I find a gracious God’, or even ‘how can I go to heaven’, and on to the questions of what exactly ‘being in Christ’ might mean, and its consequences, and the question of how the early Christian ‘apocalyptic’ perspective can be retrieved, granted that even Paul’s successors found that task impossible. (38)

Unfortunately, as Wright argues, Schweitzer’s contributions were not taken very seriously at the time and Bultmann came to dominate the academic landscape. As for Bultmann, Wright gives extended attention to his work on Paul. Wright laments that Bultmann did not give much interest to Israel. In summary, Wright comments that “Bultmann’s Paul is an ancient version of a Lutheran existentialist, with little relation to Israel’s scriptures or to the world of contemporary Judaism, drawing instead on gnostic categories to construct a challenge, a daily summons, to live by faith in a world of apparent chaos” (43). Looking ahead, Wright claims that the NPP depended on a kind of return to Schweitzer and a rejection of Bultmann (see 44).

In the remaining pages of the second chapter, Wright gives brief comments on other key interpreters “pre-Sanders” including Bornkamm, Culmann, and Kaesemann. Here Wright challenges the way Kaesemann used the language of “apocalyptic,” signaling rather that it served as a “heuristic device” for the German theologian rather than a historically accurate interpretation of apocalyptic thought (see 56). But Wright commends Kaesemann for affirming Paul as a Jewish thinker (56). Wright continues on after Kaesemann to briefly survey the contributions of Ulrich Wilckens, Cranfield, and Ridderbos.

Summary

This was a fun and fascinating chapter – again, this kind of work (history of scholarship in its context) is a speciality for Wright, and even if one disagrees here and there with an assessment, his understanding of movements, currents, and trends (and why they happened) is undeniably breathtaking. After I read this chapter, I was convinced that this book belongs on par with Wright’s New Testament and the People of God and should be standard graduate reading for students of Paul.

Next up: the emergence of the “New Perspective on Paul”…

Uncategorized

Previous Post

May 5, 2016

"Did Paul Take Up the Great Commission" (Gupta)

Next Post

May 6, 2016 Craig Keener's "Impossible Love" (Gupta)

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category (Mis)Understanding Philippians 10 Things I Can't Live Without 2023 New Books 30 OT HB Scholars to Read and Follow 5 Books Series 50-2-Follow Academia Christian Theologians to Read and Follow Cruciform Scripture: Contributor Reflections Crux Sola TV Editors Behind Great Books in NT Studies Education Gendering the Holy Spirit Gupta FB Live Lectures In Faith and Doubt In Their Own Words Living the King Jesus Gospel My Top 6 OT Commentaries New Testament Resource Guide New Word Biblical Themes Nijay's A Very Library Christmas Shopping Guide Notes from an Editor Notes on New Books NTRG OT in the NT Paul Seminary Now The Bible in God's World The Word Felt Among Us SPENCER Translating Philippians Uncategorized Why I Use Accordance Women in Ministry

Select a Month March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 May 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz