Less a reinvention as a furthering development, not yet completed
Recommend to potential buyers:
yes
Full review
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)
Examining the texts of many scholarly interpreters of the past century (and some older ones), Gager explains the traditional view of Paul to be one in which Paul is seen as being anti-Israel or anti-Judaism (to varying degrees, depending upon interpreter); Paul converted from Judaism to Christianity as a separate and superior religion; Paul, being a superior student and careful follower of the Torah, thoroughly knew the Judaism against which he preached; and Paul believed that God had rejected Israel and Judaism in favour of the new Christianity. Some interpreters go even further with Paul’s anti-Judaic rhetoric.
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 framwork 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)
That Paul’s intentions and writings have been misinterpreted comes as no surprise to Gager, for ‘such misreadings had already arisen within Paul’s lifetime, ...he was fully aware of them, ...and his letters were intended to counter and correct them.’ (Gager, p. 70) Paul’s argumentation involves rhetorical styles and devices unfamiliar to many later scholars, even those working within the original language (for one can never fully recover the ‘flavour’ of the original cultural context). Likewise, building upon earlier misinterpretations by Christian leaders, the misinterpretations became part of the unquestioned assumptions -- the details might be argued, but not the framework for analysis.
--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?
More details
How easy was it to read / get information from
Evaluate this review
How helpful would this review be to someone making a buying decision? Rating guidelines
This product has not yet been reviewed. 
