I'm reading the new book by Magnus Zetterholm Approaches to Paul: A Student's Guide to Recent Scholarship. It is an excellent summary of the dominant approaches to Paul today. I highly recommend it. Zetterholm identifies three approaches that are currently found in Pauline studies, especially with respect to Paul's relationship to Judaism as: (1) traditional, Reformational perspective; (2) the New Perspective; and (3) the "radical new perspective".
One question that comes immediately to mind however is where does Catholic scholarship fit within the discussion? Zetterholm doesn’t deal with Catholic scholarship. He does deal with a Catholic perspective only to the extent that he provides a historical overview of the church’s interpretation of Paul and Judaism before the Reformation. (ch 2) But after the Reformation and the introduction of Lutheran readings with the stress on “justification by faith”, Zetterholm doesn’t deal with the continuing Catholic tradition.
Would then the Catholic tradition represent a fourth approach in addition to the three Zetterholm identifies? Or does modern Catholic scholarship merely reflect the dominant categories and questions? If the New Perspective is largely a critique of Lutheranism, what is its relationship to Catholic scholarship? I would assume that Sander’s new view of Judaism has some influence on Catholic scholars, but wouldn’t his critique of the Lutheran Paul have been largely relevant to Catholic scholarship?
I suppose one way to look at this from Zetterholm's perspective is that insofar as Catholic scholarship’s questions are primarily related to dogmatic questions of Christian theology and insofar as each shares the fundamental historic assumption of mutual exclusivity of Judaism and Christianity, Catholic tradition can fall under Zetterholm's “traditional” perspective. No matter that it is not “Lutheran”, its concern is the same as Lutheranism: to relate doctrine and the theology of Paul. Catholic scholarship, in other words, would come to very different conclusions than Lutheran scholarship, but they would be addressing the very same questions.
However, there is a problem isn't there with referring to these very divergent traditions with the one category: the “traditional Paul”. To begin with Baur, as Zetterholm does, is to begin with Protestant scholarship, to the exclusion of the earlier and ongoing Catholic tradition. What would my Catholic friends say to this? Is there something unique about a Catholic approach to Paul? If so, what?
Perhaps our friends Michael and Brant over at Singing in the Reign/The Sacred Page can respond.
One question that comes immediately to mind however is where does Catholic scholarship fit within the discussion? Zetterholm doesn’t deal with Catholic scholarship. He does deal with a Catholic perspective only to the extent that he provides a historical overview of the church’s interpretation of Paul and Judaism before the Reformation. (ch 2) But after the Reformation and the introduction of Lutheran readings with the stress on “justification by faith”, Zetterholm doesn’t deal with the continuing Catholic tradition.
Would then the Catholic tradition represent a fourth approach in addition to the three Zetterholm identifies? Or does modern Catholic scholarship merely reflect the dominant categories and questions? If the New Perspective is largely a critique of Lutheranism, what is its relationship to Catholic scholarship? I would assume that Sander’s new view of Judaism has some influence on Catholic scholars, but wouldn’t his critique of the Lutheran Paul have been largely relevant to Catholic scholarship?
I suppose one way to look at this from Zetterholm's perspective is that insofar as Catholic scholarship’s questions are primarily related to dogmatic questions of Christian theology and insofar as each shares the fundamental historic assumption of mutual exclusivity of Judaism and Christianity, Catholic tradition can fall under Zetterholm's “traditional” perspective. No matter that it is not “Lutheran”, its concern is the same as Lutheranism: to relate doctrine and the theology of Paul. Catholic scholarship, in other words, would come to very different conclusions than Lutheran scholarship, but they would be addressing the very same questions.
However, there is a problem isn't there with referring to these very divergent traditions with the one category: the “traditional Paul”. To begin with Baur, as Zetterholm does, is to begin with Protestant scholarship, to the exclusion of the earlier and ongoing Catholic tradition. What would my Catholic friends say to this? Is there something unique about a Catholic approach to Paul? If so, what?
Perhaps our friends Michael and Brant over at Singing in the Reign/The Sacred Page can respond.
