GrayPilgrim
February 11th 2003, 02:11 PM
My readings in the New Perspective on Paul are limited. However, it has been my opinion that most advocates (following Sanders, Dunn and Wright) have simplified Second Temple Judaism too much to fit their theories. For instance Sanders had to label 1 Enoch "defective" (E.P. Sanders Paul and Palestinian Judaism Fortress: Minneapolis, 1977, 423). It seems that rather than seeing 1 Enoch as a defective representative of Second Temple Judaism, rather the onus is on him to show why his theory of everything is accurate.
Boccacini in his book Beyond the Essene Hypothesis has well argued for a more variegated view of Judaism during the Second Temple Period (Samaritanism, Hellenistic, Zadokite and Enochic). What I find interesting about this theory is that the Pharisees and Saducess came through the Zadokitic Judaism and were the direct descendent of Rabbinic Judaism. Boccacini then argues that Christianity is a descendent of the Enochic tradtion. This is how Boccacini avers the different conceptions of how to read the Bible and the role of Tradition developed.
While one may not accept all of Boccacini's system, I think he points to a very important thing that many with in the New Perspective have ignored, Second Temple Judaism was more complex than they have allowed for in their conceptions.
To quote D.A. Caron in Justification and Variegated Nomism p. 5
It is not that the new perspective has not taught us anything helpful or enduring. Rather, the straightjecket imposed on the apostle Paul by appealing to a highly unified vision of the first-century "pattern of religion" was really like will begin to find itself unbuckled.
So what am I asking? Is the "new perspective" not really too specific ain identifying one strand of Judaism and elevating it to the level of normative Judasim?
Boccacini in his book Beyond the Essene Hypothesis has well argued for a more variegated view of Judaism during the Second Temple Period (Samaritanism, Hellenistic, Zadokite and Enochic). What I find interesting about this theory is that the Pharisees and Saducess came through the Zadokitic Judaism and were the direct descendent of Rabbinic Judaism. Boccacini then argues that Christianity is a descendent of the Enochic tradtion. This is how Boccacini avers the different conceptions of how to read the Bible and the role of Tradition developed.
While one may not accept all of Boccacini's system, I think he points to a very important thing that many with in the New Perspective have ignored, Second Temple Judaism was more complex than they have allowed for in their conceptions.
To quote D.A. Caron in Justification and Variegated Nomism p. 5
It is not that the new perspective has not taught us anything helpful or enduring. Rather, the straightjecket imposed on the apostle Paul by appealing to a highly unified vision of the first-century "pattern of religion" was really like will begin to find itself unbuckled.
So what am I asking? Is the "new perspective" not really too specific ain identifying one strand of Judaism and elevating it to the level of normative Judasim?