Taubes' Paul ... and mine: 1
I can see how Taubes has little choice in his milieu but to read Paul as a traitor. But I cannot read Paul as anything but a faithful Judean embracing a new situation. This has much to do, in my opinion, with the fact that Paul's language is not so strong as its polemical appropriation and translation by later Christians. For Paul there is no negation of Torah. But there is by the same right no aberrant extension of Torah to contexts in which it is not rightly the consequences of God's relationship. What Taubes had to resolve using Hegelian sublation, in order to avoid the straight destructive transgression of the law, is not in fact a necessary reading of Paul. It need not be resolved, because the situation that caused the reading can be negotiated out of the problem altogether. The Christian polemical reading of Paul as having been a Jew, and converting to Christ, is false.