What do you think?
Rate this book
Paul Among Jews and Gentiles
A sharp challenge to traditional ways of understanding Paul is sounded in this book by a distinguished interpreter of the New Testament. Krister Stendahl proposes-in the key title essay-new ways of exploring Paul's speech: Paul must be heard as one who speaks of his call rather than conversion, of justification rather than forgiveness, or weakness rather than sin, of love rather than integrity, and in unique rather than universal language. The title essay is complemented by the landmark paper, "Paul and the Introspective Conscience of the West," and by two seminal explorations of Pauline issues, "Judgement and Mercy" and "Glossolalia-The New Testament Evidence." The book concludes with Stendahl's pointed reply to the eminent scholar Ernst Kasemann who has taken issue with the author's revolutionary interpretations. This volume provides convincingly new ways for viewing Paul, the most formative of Christian teachers.
128 pages, Kindle Edition
First published August 1, 1976
26 people are currently reading
185 people want to read
About the author
Krister Stendahl
39 books11 followersKrister Stendahl was a Swedish theologian and New Testament scholar, Emeritus Bishop of Stockholm (Lutheran); Professor Emeritus, Harvard Divinity School. Stendahl is perhaps most famous for his publication of the article "The Apostle Paul and the Introspective Conscience of the West."
Stendahl received his doctorate in New Testament studies from Uppsala University with his dissertation The school of St. Matthew and its use of the Old Testament (1954). He was later Professor at the Divinity School at Harvard University, where he also served as dean, before being elected Bishop of Stockholm in 1984. Stendahl was the second director of the Center for Religious Pluralism at the Shalom Hartman Institute in Jerusalem. After retiring in 1989, he returned to the United States, and was Mellon Professor of Divinity Emeritus at the Harvard Divinity School. He also taught at Brandeis University. Bishop Stendahl was an honorary fellow of the Graduate Theological Foundation. (from Wikipedia)
Stendahl received his doctorate in New Testament studies from Uppsala University with his dissertation The school of St. Matthew and its use of the Old Testament (1954). He was later Professor at the Divinity School at Harvard University, where he also served as dean, before being elected Bishop of Stockholm in 1984. Stendahl was the second director of the Center for Religious Pluralism at the Shalom Hartman Institute in Jerusalem. After retiring in 1989, he returned to the United States, and was Mellon Professor of Divinity Emeritus at the Harvard Divinity School. He also taught at Brandeis University. Bishop Stendahl was an honorary fellow of the Graduate Theological Foundation. (from Wikipedia)
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews
July 5, 2024
If there were more stars, I would give them. It took me years to find this book, and what a delight it is! As it happens, I began it when I was reading proof of a chapter in my translation of my late Doktorvater's next-to-last book: Gerhard Lohfink, "The Light of Faith and Reason." The chapter is "Was Paul Anti-Jewish?" and the answer, of course, is NO. What is remarkable is that, without having (so far as I know) ever having seen Stendahl's book, he makes almost exactly the same argument, stressing the point that was his lifelong theme, that Jesus' whole life and mission were about creating community -- and that Paul was not "converted," but was called, as a Jew, to help Gentiles find their way into the community of Jesus' followers. Lohfink published a book making that same point at about the time Stendahl was giving these lectures in America, but knew nothing about them. At that time he was studying for his doctorate and focusing on the Lukan corpus for his dissertation. I don't know that he ever read Stendahl, and what a shame that is! They would most certainly have hit it off -- and I feel sure they have found each other in heaven. (Interesting to note that they were especially critical of the same authors: Käsemann especially.)
Stendahl's wit, too, is a delight. This book should be required reading around the world. Truly.
Stendahl's wit, too, is a delight. This book should be required reading around the world. Truly.
July 11, 2017
Krister Stendhahl's marvelous little book is one that readers of St. Paul all need to be aware of. The title "Paul Among Jews and Gentiles" indicates exactly what the book's important thesis is: that Paul's central concern is the relationship between Jew and Gentile within the context of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, specifically how through the life, death, and resurrection of this man Jesus the entire human race as well as the entirety of the creation can be reconciled to the God of Israel.
Now, to the outsider this might sound like normal biblical jargon. But to those of us who are invested in or who take an interest in the Christian theological tradition, it is a profound clue to understanding Christianity's first great theologian. You see, the problem is that Paul has been viewed too often through a particularly Western lens that is actually quite foreign to the Apostle. This lens Stendhahl calls "the introspective consciousness of the West", a tendency to view Paul as a person whose primary question was "How can I be saved?" or "How can an unholy sinner like me stand before a righteous God?". This view started with St. Augustine, who saw in St. Paul an answer to the questions of justification that so vexed him in his dramatic faith struggles in the 4th Century but continued through the gloomy penitential world of Medieval Catholicism and reached its crescendo in Martin Luther (who was by no order of coincidence himself an Augustinian monk before becoming the reformer we all know and love). Since Augustine and his focus on the condition of the inner self, Paul has been read as a person struggling with the gloomy condition of the self before a righteous God.
The only problem with this take on Paul is that historically speaking, these most certainly were not the questions Paul was grappling with. Let us take for example, justification by faith. This idea set forth in Paul was the incentive for Luther to develop his idea of Paul as railing against works-righteousness of the Jews and the Judaizers. But again, this was more reflecting of Luther than it was of Paul. Luther lived in the gloomy world of Late Medieval Catholicism, in which a great deal of focus was put on gathering enough righteousness to enter heaven. Often this included consistent penance, indulgences to the church, excruciating time in purgatory, etc. And when Luther read this idea of Paul's that one was not justified by works of the law but by faith, he read in that a gleeful answer to the excesses of that late medieval world. But as fascinating a theological effect as this had on Luther, it's certainly not what Paul meant. Paul was not a person struggling in his letters to the specific early churches in Rome and Galatia with problems of "works-righteousness". He was struggling against the idea, quite prevalent in the Apostolic church, that Gentile Christians had to become circumcised and obey traditions of the Jewish law in order to become proper Christians. His fury at Peter, Barnabas, and the Judaizers in Galatians was not anger at works-righteousness but anger at how the Judaizers were denying equal status to Gentile Christians simply because certain optional ceremonies of the Jewish law had not been kept. In Romans, any time that he mentions justification by faith, he mentions something about Jewish and Gentile Christians alike all being part of the same covenant family by their faith . Justification by faith is not a doctrine lodged in the context of the debates of the 16th century between Roman Catholicism and the Reformers, nor is it even a doctrine about how a person attains salvation, it is a statement about how one is a part of God's covenant community.
The problem is often that because St. Paul's writings are in The Bible, devout Christians tend to read it without any context (which is something that the traditions of Early Christianity were careful not to do) and thus don't take the birds' eye view required to really understand what the saint is saying. Just because St. Paul's justification by faith doesn't apply to the introspective conditions of the human soul as Augustine thought or the question of how one is saved like Luther thought doesn't mean that the doctrine is completely irrelevant. It simply means that we have to place it in its proper context in order to grasp the full meaning of it.
As other reviewers pointed out, Stendahl doesn't give as full an elaboration as he could of. That would have to wait. Thankfully, N.T. Wright's scholarly work on Paul has completed the process, giving us a really amazing birds' eye perspective on Paul that really pulls out the great themes of Paul's thought, as a first-century man dealing with the question of Jews and Gentiles and the whole creation's redemption through the God of Israel, the perspective that is historically conscious but universally important, something I think the Apostle would approve of today.
Another note: I loved how Stendahl showed how this "New perspective on Paul" (later to become an actual scholarly movement loathed by the Neo-Reformed at The Gospel Coalition) can shine a light on the relationship between Christians and Jews. The out-of-context readings of Paul previously mentioned seems to have produced a complete caricature of Judaism within the Christian faith: as a complete "works-based" faith without need for grace. While Paul does launch critiques on Israel for its "stumbling" in thinking that justification (knowing one is part of the faith community) is based on works as opposed to faith, this old reading of Paul has created a terribly uninformed anti-Judaism (if not anti-Semitism) within the Christian church: something that I think future Jewish-Christian dialogue could strive to heal.
Now, to the outsider this might sound like normal biblical jargon. But to those of us who are invested in or who take an interest in the Christian theological tradition, it is a profound clue to understanding Christianity's first great theologian. You see, the problem is that Paul has been viewed too often through a particularly Western lens that is actually quite foreign to the Apostle. This lens Stendhahl calls "the introspective consciousness of the West", a tendency to view Paul as a person whose primary question was "How can I be saved?" or "How can an unholy sinner like me stand before a righteous God?". This view started with St. Augustine, who saw in St. Paul an answer to the questions of justification that so vexed him in his dramatic faith struggles in the 4th Century but continued through the gloomy penitential world of Medieval Catholicism and reached its crescendo in Martin Luther (who was by no order of coincidence himself an Augustinian monk before becoming the reformer we all know and love). Since Augustine and his focus on the condition of the inner self, Paul has been read as a person struggling with the gloomy condition of the self before a righteous God.
The only problem with this take on Paul is that historically speaking, these most certainly were not the questions Paul was grappling with. Let us take for example, justification by faith. This idea set forth in Paul was the incentive for Luther to develop his idea of Paul as railing against works-righteousness of the Jews and the Judaizers. But again, this was more reflecting of Luther than it was of Paul. Luther lived in the gloomy world of Late Medieval Catholicism, in which a great deal of focus was put on gathering enough righteousness to enter heaven. Often this included consistent penance, indulgences to the church, excruciating time in purgatory, etc. And when Luther read this idea of Paul's that one was not justified by works of the law but by faith, he read in that a gleeful answer to the excesses of that late medieval world. But as fascinating a theological effect as this had on Luther, it's certainly not what Paul meant. Paul was not a person struggling in his letters to the specific early churches in Rome and Galatia with problems of "works-righteousness". He was struggling against the idea, quite prevalent in the Apostolic church, that Gentile Christians had to become circumcised and obey traditions of the Jewish law in order to become proper Christians. His fury at Peter, Barnabas, and the Judaizers in Galatians was not anger at works-righteousness but anger at how the Judaizers were denying equal status to Gentile Christians simply because certain optional ceremonies of the Jewish law had not been kept. In Romans, any time that he mentions justification by faith, he mentions something about Jewish and Gentile Christians alike all being part of the same covenant family by their faith . Justification by faith is not a doctrine lodged in the context of the debates of the 16th century between Roman Catholicism and the Reformers, nor is it even a doctrine about how a person attains salvation, it is a statement about how one is a part of God's covenant community.
The problem is often that because St. Paul's writings are in The Bible, devout Christians tend to read it without any context (which is something that the traditions of Early Christianity were careful not to do) and thus don't take the birds' eye view required to really understand what the saint is saying. Just because St. Paul's justification by faith doesn't apply to the introspective conditions of the human soul as Augustine thought or the question of how one is saved like Luther thought doesn't mean that the doctrine is completely irrelevant. It simply means that we have to place it in its proper context in order to grasp the full meaning of it.
As other reviewers pointed out, Stendahl doesn't give as full an elaboration as he could of. That would have to wait. Thankfully, N.T. Wright's scholarly work on Paul has completed the process, giving us a really amazing birds' eye perspective on Paul that really pulls out the great themes of Paul's thought, as a first-century man dealing with the question of Jews and Gentiles and the whole creation's redemption through the God of Israel, the perspective that is historically conscious but universally important, something I think the Apostle would approve of today.
Another note: I loved how Stendahl showed how this "New perspective on Paul" (later to become an actual scholarly movement loathed by the Neo-Reformed at The Gospel Coalition) can shine a light on the relationship between Christians and Jews. The out-of-context readings of Paul previously mentioned seems to have produced a complete caricature of Judaism within the Christian faith: as a complete "works-based" faith without need for grace. While Paul does launch critiques on Israel for its "stumbling" in thinking that justification (knowing one is part of the faith community) is based on works as opposed to faith, this old reading of Paul has created a terribly uninformed anti-Judaism (if not anti-Semitism) within the Christian church: something that I think future Jewish-Christian dialogue could strive to heal.
February 10, 2012
Awesome little book about Paul, the apostle. This book is yet another proof that you cannot judge an author (and his writings) outside the context of their life. Stendahl discusses the specific perspective of Paul in some of his writings, which is critical to understand their meaning. There is debate among religions over the concept of justification (faith vs. works) largely due to the writings of Paul. This book adds clarity to that concept as well as the role of Jews in the early Christian church. I also enjoyed Stendahl's occasional jab. I plan on reading this book again.
August 26, 2019
Reread this 15 years after graduating seminary. It was an impossible read for me then, this time it was difficult, but understandable. If anything, this book really brings home the notion that Paul was writing to a specific group at a specific time for specific reasons and that we have a hard time hearing his original message thanks to centuries of layers put upon the original writers from various theologians
January 27, 2013
I love it when anybody strips away the long centuries of Roman Catholicism, Lutheranism and Evangelicalism in an attempt to get at the real (Saint) Paul and his thought.
Ultimately this book was inconclusive and a tad dry, but I've benefited from his idea that Paul did not major on us constantly battling with sin and guilt which is a preoccupation if what the author calls the "introspective conscience of the west".
Ultimately this book was inconclusive and a tad dry, but I've benefited from his idea that Paul did not major on us constantly battling with sin and guilt which is a preoccupation if what the author calls the "introspective conscience of the west".
November 23, 2013
Ако трябва да опиша книгата накратко - "Новата преспектива върху Павел преди новата перспектива." Първата глава е въведение представящо основната идея на автора - Павел пише не толкова от гледната точка на човек, който желае да представи пътят на спасение само чрез вяра (класическа протестантска опция) колкото с желание да покаже единството на евреите и езичниците в Христос. Втора глава съдържа няколко от основните опорни точки - срещата на Павел с Христос по пътя към Дамаск не трябва да се вижда толкова като обръщение колкото като призив, подобен на призива на пророците; посланието към галатяните не следва да се чете през традиционния поглед на Лутер като човек измъчван от съвестта си, който открива спасение не чрез собствени усилия, а чрез Божията благодат и свободен дар, а много повече като призив за единство на евреи и езичници в Христос без необходимост да им бъдат наложени делата по закона; Павел не е интроспективен, вглеждащ се в себе си (западен) персонаж, който намира мир едва в Христос - нищо в НЗ не показва, че преди да намери Христос той е бил измъчван от съвестта си и дори след това той все още може да гледа на стария си живот като "по правдата от закона непорочен". Отдавна не съм срещал толкова интересни идеи и егзегетика събрани на толкова малко място - при това съвсем разбираемо написани. Третата глава не ме впечатли особено. Четвъртата е доста интересно представяне на страданието във връзка с апостолското служение и неговото прилоение към нашият християнски живот и (не)разбиране. Петата глава е посветена на любовта в мисленето на Павел. Стендал разглежда няколко посоки, в които можем да четем класическиата 1 Кор. 13. От една страна това е доста ясното виждане, че за християнина е решаваюо не само какво прави, но и мотивите, които стоят зад тези действия. От друга страна любовта не може да бъде виждана единствено като чувство. На трето място авторт завърта цялото послание и начинът, по който Павел решава проблемите в църквата около неговият принцип за любовта. От това той извежда едно определение за любовта като стремеж във всички, което върши християнинът да изгражда другите и единството в църквата. Пречупена през тази идея разборът на посланието тече по доста интересен начин. Накрая Стендал извежда един принцип, който дава името на цялото есе - "Любов вместо интегритет." Това означава, че християнинът понякога трябва да е готов да не заюитава това, което смята за най-правилно заради слабите, които нямат това разбиране, или дори да е готов да прекрачи някое "църковно табу" - точно както добрият самарянин загърбва аксиоматичната вражда с евреите, за да помогне на наранения човек. Последната глава поредставя уникалното място на Павел в света на новозаветното християнство - с неговата уникална сила, богословски усет и специфични слабости.
Освен това книгата съдържа няколко допълнителни есета, вк��. най-известното произведение на Стендал "Павел и интроспективната западна съвест," която отново извежда на преден план идеи характерни за новата перспектива. То посочва, че традиционното разбиране са Павел воюващ срещу спасение чрез дела и противопоставящ на това вярата може да се окаже напълно погрешно. Преди всичко самите евреи (тогава и сега) много добре са разбирали, че спасение чрез дела е невъзможно и са имали много точно чувство за Божията благодат - осъзнаване, което стои в сърцевината на новият прочит на Римляни и Галатяни на автори като Е.П. Сандърс, Н Т Райт и Д. Дън. Обвиснението на Павел срещу еврите тогава не е, че те желаят да се спасят чрез дела, а че самото притежаване на закона сне ги прави по-добри от езичниците и те са също толкова виновни и се нуждаят от прощение т.е. те се спасяват по съвсем същия начин както езичниците. На второ място Стендал отново се връща към въпросът за Павел като човек, който НЕ Е преследван от нечиста съвест нито прединито след срещата си с Христос - с Филипяни е класически текст. Трето, авторът показва, че Павел не е интроспективният западен тип християнин, толкова характерен за протестантисте, задаващ си въпроса "Как да намеря милостив Бог" доакто непрестанно е измъчван от нечиста съвест заради греховете си. Според него това течение започва с "Изповеди" на Августин - твърдение интересно, макар и доста спорно. Четвърто, Павел не разглежда въпроса "какво става със закона след идването на месията" сам по себе си. Той наистина присъства, но в контекста на по-широката рамка на "Какво е мястото на езичниците и евреите в Божия план и в църквата?" Така центърът на посланиеот към имляните не е гл. 3-5, а много повече 9-11.
Освен това книгата съдържа няколко допълнителни есета, вк��. най-известното произведение на Стендал "Павел и интроспективната западна съвест," която отново извежда на преден план идеи характерни за новата перспектива. То посочва, че традиционното разбиране са Павел воюващ срещу спасение чрез дела и противопоставящ на това вярата може да се окаже напълно погрешно. Преди всичко самите евреи (тогава и сега) много добре са разбирали, че спасение чрез дела е невъзможно и са имали много точно чувство за Божията благодат - осъзнаване, което стои в сърцевината на новият прочит на Римляни и Галатяни на автори като Е.П. Сандърс, Н Т Райт и Д. Дън. Обвиснението на Павел срещу еврите тогава не е, че те желаят да се спасят чрез дела, а че самото притежаване на закона сне ги прави по-добри от езичниците и те са също толкова виновни и се нуждаят от прощение т.е. те се спасяват по съвсем същия начин както езичниците. На второ място Стендал отново се връща към въпросът за Павел като човек, който НЕ Е преследван от нечиста съвест нито прединито след срещата си с Христос - с Филипяни е класически текст. Трето, авторът показва, че Павел не е интроспективният западен тип християнин, толкова характерен за протестантисте, задаващ си въпроса "Как да намеря милостив Бог" доакто непрестанно е измъчван от нечиста съвест заради греховете си. Според него това течение започва с "Изповеди" на Августин - твърдение интересно, макар и доста спорно. Четвърто, Павел не разглежда въпроса "какво става със закона след идването на месията" сам по себе си. Той наистина присъства, но в контекста на по-широката рамка на "Какво е мястото на езичниците и евреите в Божия план и в църквата?" Така центърът на посланиеот към имляните не е гл. 3-5, а много повече 9-11.
December 12, 2014
Stendahl's work will always be known more for launching the "New Perspective" movement than for the many nuances of his exegesis, and because of this his "opponents" may never give some of his thinking a fair shake, but the work is brief, readable, and well argued. I do not agree with much of the finer points of the argument, as I believe Stendahl was pleading his case more than doing exegesis, but he should be commended for attempting to place Paul in his Jewish context and engaging his subject with great theological creativity. He is quite right about his approach to "weakness" in Paul's writing, and I enjoyed his comparison of Paul's calling and that of the prophets.
However, his need to argue against "pshychologizing" Paul moves him too far away from Paul's quite present care to see all guilty people be saved. He is right that Paul has the inclusion of the Gentiles into the people of God closely in view, but this does not mean that this is all that justification means. Also, although many of the finer points of his argument about Paul's calling are well made, I find the traditional view that Paul went through a full conversion to be more in keeping with the fuller evidence of his writing. Despite my few disagreements, this is one of the key texts in the history of Pauline interpretation.
However, his need to argue against "pshychologizing" Paul moves him too far away from Paul's quite present care to see all guilty people be saved. He is right that Paul has the inclusion of the Gentiles into the people of God closely in view, but this does not mean that this is all that justification means. Also, although many of the finer points of his argument about Paul's calling are well made, I find the traditional view that Paul went through a full conversion to be more in keeping with the fuller evidence of his writing. Despite my few disagreements, this is one of the key texts in the history of Pauline interpretation.
August 20, 2013
Stendahl's book helped to pave the way for new perspectives on Paul, as it questioned many of the traditional readings of Paul deeply influenced by Augustine and Luther, particularly rejecting that Paul was concerned with the problem of introspective conscience. Instead, he was among the first to frame that Paul's major concern, with the doctrine of justification, was explaining the relationship between Jews and Gentiles.
As such, Stendahl's book underpins those works on Paul which have been deeply influential on my in the last seven years. So, reading this book at this time was more confirmation of already held ideas, but it was still a joy to read.
Primarily a joy because Stendahl is such a good writer and a joyful, playful, generous personality comes through in his writing.
As such, Stendahl's book underpins those works on Paul which have been deeply influential on my in the last seven years. So, reading this book at this time was more confirmation of already held ideas, but it was still a joy to read.
Primarily a joy because Stendahl is such a good writer and a joyful, playful, generous personality comes through in his writing.
June 21, 2009
Good little book. The most significant part of it (for me) was that he outlined clearly and concisely Glossolalia (speaking in tongues) from a Biblical perspective.
March 1, 2014
Excellent in so many more ways than one!!! Highly Recommended!!!
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews