Blamelessness? -- Part III-B

To continue a series that was rudely interrupted by a TV program about Paul and "submission" in Ephesians 5, I want to continue my investigation of the use of ἄμεμπτος (amemptos) in the literature from around the NT period. In my last post on this topic I turned my attention to the LXX and HB; now we will look into blamelessness in the Apocrypha.

There is a telling passage in Esther (Greek) 16.12-15a which will shed light on our study. In the second letter from Artaxerxes we find in the Additions to Esther, the king writes:

But, unable to restrain his [i.e., Haman’s] arrogance, he undertook to deprive us [i.e., the Persians] of our kingdom and our life, and with intricate craft and deceit asked for the destruction of Mordecai, our savior and perpetual benefactor, and of Esther, the blameless partner of our kingdom, together with their whole nation. He thought that by these methods he would catch us undefended and would transfer the kingdom of the Persians to the Macedonians. But we find that the Jews, who were consigned to annihilation by this thrice-accursed man, are not evildoers, but are governed by most righteous laws.

The king, in an effort to undermine the malignant works of Haman, sends this letter abroad to prevent the execution of the Jews in Persia, which he had ordered earlier (13.1-7). He does so, of course, because his chosen queen, Esther, reveals her "Jewish" identity to him (7.3-6). Because of this revelation, the king can label two "Jews," Mordecai and Esther, with laudatory titles, including that of ἄμεμπτος (amemptos) for Esther (16.13). This change of heart also causes Artaxerxes to value Esther’s people and their Law differently. Now he can see the intrinsic value of their laws (16.15), which he had earlier found to be "perversely" followed and "strange" (13.5). The truly amazing thing is that this conversion of opinion occurred partly because of the blamelessness of his queen, Esther. Thus, ἄμεμπτος (amemptos) was a quality of character that Esther possessed, probably indicating her innocence.

In Wisdom 10.5 the following is found concerning Abraham: "Wisdom also...recognized the righteous man and presented him blameless before God." This passage resonates with Genesis 17.1 in the LXX where ἄμεμπτος (amemptos) is also associated with Abraham. The connection in Wisdom 10.5 with righteousness leads me to think that this notion of blamelessness had morality in view, not sinlessness but certainly living appropriately "before God." However, it is hard to miss the sacrificial tone of this passage: "presented him...before God." Importantly though, blamelessness is a character trait possessed by Abraham here.

There are two more interesting passages that use ἄμεμπτος (amemptos) that are of special interest. In Esther (Greek) 13:4, the intentions of Artaxerxes and his court to unify the kingdom are considered blameless or honorable ("the unifying of the kingdom that we honorably intend cannot be brought about") and in Wisdom 10:15 those following Moses through the wilderness are identified as “a holy people and blameless race.” Thus, it appears that ἄμεμπτος (amemptos) was flexible enough to describe not only individual and their intentions, but also groupings of people, including entire nations.

When Phil 3.6 is viewed in light of this evidence, Paul seems to be saying that he too possessed this characteristic of blamelessness before his encounter with Christ. That this characteristic has something to do with morality with regard to the Law seems evident, especially in light of his usage in close relation to righteousness, as in Widsom 10.5. It appears that ἄμεμπτος (amemptos) had this meaning in the LXX (where Job and Abram possessed this same characteristic) and the Apocrypha as well. However, we cannot jump onto this bandwagon fully yet because we have not examined all the extant evidence.


Check out more posts by me on this topic!

Mysteries of the Bible -- Paul the Apostle: Part 3

I recently watched the Biography Channel's program entitled, "Mysteries of the Bible: Paul the Apostle." It is part of a larger series, which can be purchased for 52.46 USD from Biogrpahy's online shop. Earlier today I posted about the first two segments of the show and then the last three. Now I will offer a few critiques of the program and discuss how this video may be useful in pedagogical settings.

First, as has been so popular a subject in the biblio-blogosphere as of late, the writers of the program consistently chose to use "conversion" language and the anachronistic term "Christianity" in regard to Paul's personal religious experience and thought as well as the gospel he preached. While I feel that the conversion language seems to aptly describe the experience Paul personally had (cf. Gal 1:13-14, Phil 3:7), to say that he converted to "Christianity" is another issue altogether. As is widely understood and accepted, the term "Christianity" had not been coined when Paul was preaching and it is often attested that the believers in Jesus were still under the umbrella of Judaism.

So you may be wondering how I can affirm the conversion language but deny the usage of "Christian." The way things shake out (in my head at least!) is that Paul had distanced himself from the practices of Judaism (Gal 1:13 "my previous way of life in Ioudaismō") and that he only practiced the law when it was expedient (1 Corinthians 9:19-23). Unless you define Ioudaismos strictly by ethnicity (which it clearly was not merely an ethnic descriptor), it seems more than probable that Paul in some ways broke away from his previous religious practices. Therefore, basically I think that the editors of the show didn't utilize enough care when using conversion language and the term "Christian."

Second, constantly throughout the show Acts was set up as a straw man for Paul's letters or some new theory to easily blow over. Generally, the "history" of Acts is presented first, then something contradictory for Paul's letters, and often another theory that disagreed with both. While this has certainly become the norm in scholarship, i.e., to doubt Acts, usually this repudiation includes at least a brief discussion of why Acts' "history" is not to be fully trusted. The program fails to do this, at least in any memorable way.

In the very first segment another problem arises, which will be my last criticism. The narrator briefly describes the events leading up to Paul's entrance onto the scene. He includes Jesus' death, the disciple's devotion to Jesus, and the "Jews" anger at the Christians for praising a condemned blasphemer. There is a glaring omission however: the resurrection! Even if one wants to rationalize it away, the resurrection still must be mentioned since it was on the lips of the earliest believers in Jesus constantly!

Overall, though, the program is quite good at introducing the main themes of Paul's life and many of the problems in trying to understand his life historically. This video would come in handy for educating people in churches or synagogues, universities, or seminaries. Perhaps one of the best features for the teacher is that the video would reveal some things that students may find objectionable (e.g., discrepancies between Acts and Galatians). In so doing the teacher is not the bearer of the bad news and perhaps will not simply be tuned out or reacted against, both of which are often the case when the teacher is the one offering the hard-to-swallow pill.

The classes for which the video would be most useful would be introductory courses on Paul's letters or theology, surveys of the NT or the second half of it, or even Christianity 101 type courses. The video is entertaining enough to keep attention, short enough to not bore, and informative enough to give the teacher many good jumping-off points. Many props to the Biography Channel for providing such a useful tool!


Mysteries of the Bible - Paul the Apostle: Part 1
Mysteries of the Bible - Paul the Apostle: Part 2

Mysteries of the Bible -- Paul the Apostle: Part 2

I recently watched the Biography Channel's program entitled, "Mysteries of the Bible: Paul the Apostle." It is part of a larger series, which can be purchased for 52.46 USD from Biogrpahy's online shop. Earlier today I posted about the first two segments of the show and now I will summarize the last three "Acts."

Act III, "The Mysteries of Tarsus," takes up the story of Paul after he has gone to Jerusalem and then on to Tarsus, his hometown, in Cicilia. As has been the case thus far, the program initially follows Acts and then compares Acts with Paul's letters, which confirm that he did indeed go to Cicilia and that he spent fourteen years there. Then a major question is posed: Were Paul's views shaped in Cicilia and how? It does seem that Paul's views were a little idiosyncratic, according to the program, because the believers in Jerusalem remained part of "Judaism" by upholding circumcision and the Law more generally while Paul's message was more universal, accepting everyone.

Wayne Meeks then tells the viewer about the city of Tarsus: it was a metropolitan port city in which many ideas were exchanged as often as goods. Of particular note is that Tarsus was known for "secret wisdom," as evidenced by the presence of the Mithras cult. A prayer to Mithras is then quoted for the viewer, presumably to show the similarity between the language of Paul and that of the cult: "Spirit of spirit, if it be your will, give me over to immortal birth so that I may be born again and the sacred spirit may breathe in me." Two divergent opinions are then revealed: Meeks does not think that the Mithras cult had that big of an influence on Paul but Rev. Robert Morris (click and scroll to the bottom for his bio), of Interweave, said that Paul's beliefs are "very, very friendly and compatible with the mystery cult language." Whatever the case, Paul's message was powerful and he "converted" many.

The fourth segment, entitled "New Clues, Ancient World," begins with a statement concerning Paul's motivation for his evangelistic efforts: he believed that Jesus was coming back during his own lifetime and that judgment would follow, thus he tried to "save" as many as he could. Morris claims that Paul went to cities because there were Jews in cities and Christianity was still viewed as being within Judaism. Paul seems to have greatly succeeded at gaining "converts" through his staunch determination.

However, some scholars are challenging Paul's tenacity as the reason for his success, including Susan Alcock, previously from the University of Michigan, now part of the faculty at Brown. She claims that by examining surface artifacts from the Roman Empire one can see that the countryside was being deserted as people migrated to the cities. Only one reason is given for this migration: imperial estates swallowing up the smaller farms and homes outside of the cities. Therefore, Paul's universal message, in which everyone was accepted, "must have touched many broken hearts."

The last act, Act V: "The Enigma of the End," deals with the uncertainty surrounding Paul's demise. After recapping the Acts account, several explanations are given concerning the silence of Acts with regard to Paul's death. Morris states that perhaps Acts was written as a trial brief for Paul to take to Rome with him and Meeks claims, instead, that the point of Acts was not to narrate Paul's life but to demonstrate the spread of the gospel, which the ending of Acts accomplishes.

A third option is also given, this time by Paul Maier of Western Michigan University. He points out that since one of the earliest Christian witnesses outside the Bible, Clement of Rome, indicated that Paul made it all the way to Spain, perhaps Paul was acquitted of his "crimes" and released. The program then continues with some speculative history: Since it is generally accepted that Paul was beheaded by Roman authorities, there has to be some reason for his second trial. This reason is found in the fire of 64 CE which for which Nero blamed the Christians. Many were tortured and killed at this time and Paul would have likely been among the first, since he was such an influential leader.

The program nears its end with the statement that within three hundred years of Paul's death his "fugitive faith" became the official religion of Rome. Thus, Paul stands as one of the most important people for the history of the Western world. Morris wraps up the show nicely:

Paul has a vision, that we're made in the image of God and that we can be that way with the help of God, with the help of the grace of God. That vision of human potential has been a recurrent inspiration to people all throughout Western history and is one of the great visions on the planet.

Mysteries of the Bible - Paul the Apostle: Part 1

Mysteries of the Bible -- Paul the Apostle: Part 1

I recently watched the Biography Channel's program entitled, "Mysteries of the Bible: Paul the Apostle." It is part of a larger series, which can be purchased for 52.46 USD from Biogrpahy's online shop. There are seven volumes in the series:

• Volume 1: Abraham: One Man, One God; Herod the Great; The 10 Commandments; Bonus Documentary
• Volume 2: Jacob’s Ladder; Joseph: Master of Dreams; Cain and Abel; Queen Esther: Far Away and Long Ago
• Volume 3: King Solomon; King David: Poet Warrior; The Last Revolt; Archenemy: The Philistines
• Volume 4: Jesus: Holy Child; The Execution of Jesus; Bonus Documentary
• Volume 5: The Lost Years of Jesus; The Last Supper; Paul the Apostle
• Volume 6: The Bible’s Greatest Secrets; Biblical Angels; Heaven and Hell; Apocalypse: The Puzzle of Revelation
• Volume 7: Magic and Miracles; Prophets: Soul Catchers; Bonus Documentary

Regarding "Paul the Apostle," here is the little blurb from Biograhpy's site:

Follows Saint Paul's journeys to explore his stunning transformation from Christianity's bitterest foe to its strongest advocate. Paul's conversion on the road to Damascus determined the future of the Christian movement and the Western world.

The program is actually pretty good. I was expecting it to be either hokey or so secularized that nothing resembling the records of Paul's life in the Bible would be seen. However, it was neither. Instead it presented a fairly balanced and some-what thorough overview of Paul's life. I do wish that they would have had more time to discuss Paul's teachings, but, alas, this program was intended to fit into a sixty minute time slot.

The program has five segments or "Acts." Act I is called "Road to Damascus." In this segment it is stated that "Jesus had been crucified for blasphemy" and that his followers were worshiping him after his death. No mention is made of the resurrection. It is mentioned, however, that "the Jews" were angry that a criminal who had been executed was being praised; among these Jews was Paul. On his way to bring to justice "Christians" in Damascus, Paul experienced something amazing, what the show calls one of "history's turning points."

At this point in the program I thought that I was simply going to be presented with an explanation of the account in Acts of Paul's life. In my notes I wrote, "Assumes Acts' authenticity," to which I later added, "at first." The "at first" was necessary because next the viewer hears from Robert M. Price, who was then from Drew University but is now at Johnnie Coleman Theological Seminary. He states that we have little "reliable evidence" about Paul's "conversion," that Paul's letters don't mention it explicitly, and that the supposed account in Gal 1 is at best ambiguous. However, 2 Cor 12.2 and The Apocalypse of Paul are then brought forward as possible witnesses to visionary experiences that may have had a major impact on Paul's move from persecutor to promoter of belief in Christ. The program presents the event of Paul's "conversion" as murky but its "result is not in doubt."

Act II is called "The Hidden Years" and deals with Paul's experiences directly after his "conversion." The program pits the Acts account, in which Paul returns to Jerusalem after a short time in Damascus, with Galatians, in which Paul goes to Arabia for an extended period of time. While the former account is not explicitly denied, the latter position is the the only one that is talked about with any sort of depth.

The viewer learns about the kingdom of the Nabateans and their capital, Petra, where Paul may have gone after his "conversion." Wayne Meeks, from Yale University, then says Arabia was "where he [Paul] first tried his hand at this new mission he saw himself called to." In an effort to find evidence to support Paul's evangelistic endeavors in Arabia, the viewer is read 2 Cor 11.32, where King Aretas chases Paul out of Damascus. This "Aretas" from the Bible matches evidence outside the Bible of a Aretas IV who ruled the Nabatean kingdom during the first century. Meeks then wraps up this section nicely by stating that Paul "already stirred up trouble," which would continue to be a defining characteristic of his ministry for the rest of his life.

The next post (which I hope to write later today) will cover the third, fourth, and fifth acts. A third post will include a critique of the program and will discuss its usefulness in teaching courses on Paul.

Blamelessness? -- Part II

This is the second post in response to a question from my friend Garrett in the comments to a previous post. In this series I hope to gain a better understanding of what Paul meant by "blameless" in Philippians 3.6. In this post (Part II) I will give a truncated view of how I understand the immediate context -- specifically Phil 3.2-11 -- of Paul's usage of this word.

This sub-unit begins with Paul warning the Philippian church of an impending threat that is not yet present. The usage of blepete here seems to indicate this point. A translation of "look out for" or the likes would be better than "beware of," since "look out for" better captures the meaning of the imperative of the verb for "to see."

This threat seems to be Jewish in nature, whether from Jewish Christians or non-Christian Jews, and so Paul decides to engage this impending threat on its own terms. In vv. 4-6 Paul lays out his impeccable Jewish heritage and his personal achievements in his particular brand of Jewish religion. It is also clear that Paul is comparing his resume with those who represent this impending threat (3.4b "If anyone else has reason to be confident in the flesh, I have more").

All of these things, these privileges (circumcision, Israelite, Benjamite, Hebrew) and achievements (Pharisee, zealous, blameless), do not mean anything to Paul in light of the new life he has found in Christ (3.7). The things that were once gains to him (i.e., his Jewish past) are now all one big loss. As a matter of fact, Paul considers all things loss, so much so that he is willing to call all that is not Christ skubalon (3.8 "dung," "refuse," "rubbish," "crap").

Next is one of the most hotly debated passages in Philippians: (3.9 "...not having my own righteousness which is from the Law, but that which is through the faithfulness of Christ, the righteousness which is from God on the basis of faith"). It appears here that Paul is saying that in the past he thought he had his own righteousness from the Law but that through the faithfulness of Christ (or faith in Christ, a huge issue another day!) he now has a righteousness which is not his own, but is in fact from God.

In the verses that follow (10-11), Paul talks about three sorts of knowledge which are the results of the righteousness that is from God: knowing Christ, knowing the power of his resurrection, and knowing the partnership of his agonies, being conformed to his death. These phrases all have a participatory tinge to them, a tinge that should be understood clearly as a subsequent reality to being brought into proper relationship with God (v.9).

To sum up: Paul thought that some sort of a Jewish threat was on its way to Philippi and he wanted to warn the church about it. Paul seemed to know that these enemies would use their Jewishness to their advantage, so Paul compares his Jewishness to theirs; and Paul finds his to be better than theirs. All of this is in the past, however, because Paul has encountered something better -- Jesus -- and has a better righteousness -- that which is from God.

With regard to the word "blameless," a question comes to my mind: How could Paul be comparing himself with those who comprise this impending threat with the word "blameless"? Paul seems to say that while his enemies have x, y, and z, he has 2x, 2y, and 2z. But how can being blameless be a comparison? Was Paul saying that he was more blameless than they were? That does not seem possible; one is either blameless or they are not. Right?

What is going on then? Perhaps the solution is found in the full phrase: "according to righteousness which is in the Law, having become blameless." It appears that Paul is comparing his pre-Christian standing with respect to the Law to that of his opponents; and Paul seems to say that he was in better standing than they were. Also, this state of blamelessness appears to be something that occurred through a process ("having become blameless" aorist/middle/participle), perhaps through repentance and sacrifice (which we'll talk about in more detail in the next post).

The problem, however, is that his opponents would have been able to say this same thing had they also repented and made sacrifice, two quite common practices among Jews of this period (especially very religious Jews). Thus, is Paul saying that he had less need to repent and make sacrifices than these enemies? Or is that conclusion reading way too much into this text? I am not finished thinking about this question by any means, but this conclusion seems to fit with the comparative nature of the rest of the list in vv. 5-6. Paul was more blameless than they before his encounter with Christ, i.e., he had less need to become blameless again and again through repentance and sacrifice.

I guess it is also possible that Paul was trying to indicate that they were not blameless in accordance to the Law and that he was. This would mean that he always took great care to take care of every sin, not matter how minute. Thus, the comparison would be that Paul took more care in making atonement for his sin than they did, meaning that they had blemishes still on their record. I suppose that this reconstruction also preserves the comparative nature of the section.

We will have to leave any final thoughts to later, when we have completed more work on this subject. However, the important thing to remember as we continue is that in this passage Paul obviously compares his pre-Christian standing to that of his enemies.

In the next post we will examine how the notion of blamelessness was understood during this period. To do so we will look at some texts from the Hebrew Bible, the LXX, the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, and the Mishnah, as well as some relevant data concerning the Greco-Roman understanding of this idea.


Blamelessness? -- Part I
Blamelessness? -- Part III A

Blamelessness? -- Part I

In response to my friend Garrett, who asked me to share some of my research into what Paul meant by the word "blameless" in Philippians 3.6, I'll start a series of posts in which I will explore some of the things that have been haunting my waking and sleeping hours lately (and those of my wife too!).

To begin I should better frame the question that I have been exploring. I'll talk about how I became interested in this subject, the work of some scholars in relation to this issue, and then, finally, I will pose the question as I see it.

Upon coming to Fuller I basically had two research interests: ethics and eschatology in Philippians and Paul's view of the Law. My mentor, Donald Hagner, advised me against the former because it could have proven to be too large for a dissertation and, instead, urged me toward the latter. I couldn't have been happier because my reading for the previous two years had been almost solely devoted to Paul and the Law. As is well known, there is a major divide in the study of Paul and the Law -- there are the traditional interpreters (TPP) and those who have been labeled "The New Perspective on Paul" (NPP).

The TPP basically posits that Paul stood against a legalistic form of Judaism, which had even infiltrated the Church through Jewish-Christian missionaries. Thus, Paul countered this works-based salvation of his opponents with insisting that salvation came through faith in Christ alone.

Many scholars (most famously E.P. Sanders, James Dunn, and N.T. Wright; though many of their predecessors anticipated their work) found this interpretation unsatisfactory. Their primary complaint was that the TPP was not reading Paul correctly because they did not have a proper, fair, and complete understanding of first-century Judaism. If we only mirror-read Paul's letters to gain an understanding of what he was countering, then we could, conceivably, conjure up a picture of a legalistic Judaism. However, according to the NPP, first-century Judaism was not legalistic, it was nomistic (Law-centered). The Law, however, only found meaning in the context of the covenant, which was graciously bestowed upon Israel by God. The phrase that Sanders coined for this idea was "covenantal nomism."

Thus, Paul was not opposing a legalistic Judaism, he was, according to the NPP, opposing Jewish-Christian missionaries who were imposing their ethnic badges (circumcision, Sabbath, food laws) on Gentile coverts. Paul's problem was that salvation was not ethnically-based, it was based, instead, on faith in/of Christ.

So we get two very different pictures of Paul's view of the Law between the TPP and the NPP. The same is true when we talk about Paul's pre-Christian self-evaluation. The TPP argues that Paul was plagued by his conscience because of sin in his life and found a salve for this frustration on the Damascus road. As a proof-text the TPP scholars point to Romans 7 where it appears that Paul himself reveals his pre-Christian views on his personal sin, namely covetousness. (It should be duly noted that many TPP scholars either no longer hold to this view exactly or have nuanced it in response to the NPP.)

The NPP, lead by Krister Stendahl (see especially his article entitled "The Apostle Paul and the Introspective Conscience of the West"), could not see how this reading of Romans 7 matched up with a fair reading of Philippians 3, in which Paul states that he was blameless under the Law. Thus, to compensate for this problem, much of the NPP has espoused a view that Romans 7 must not refer to Paul himself; perhaps he was utilizing a "paradigmatic I" or the section should be taken as hypothetical or something of that sort. Either way, the NPP has allowed Philippians 3 to control the reading of Romans 7. It is also important to note here that Stendahl saw in much of biblical scholarship the influence of Martin Luther, who was clearly self-dissatisfied before his "tower experience." Consequently, it has become ever-so popular for the NPP to accuse the TPP of reading Paul through Luther's glasses.

So this leads, finally, to the question at hand. What did Paul mean when he said that "according to righteousness under the Law," he was "blameless"? To put it slightly differently, has the NPP utilized and understood Philippians 3 correctly or is the TPP's view correct? Also, what impact does understanding "blameless" in Philippians 3.6 have on one's interpretation of Romans 7? Lastly, at the end of the study, has the NPP been fair in accusing the TPP of offering Lutheran readings?

Since I'm a NT student trained in the historical-critical method, I will proceed in Part II of this series by examining the immediate context of Philippians 3.6 and in Part III I'll muse on what sort of ideas about blamelessness may have been in play during Paul's time.

Blamelessness? -- Part II
Blamelessness? -- Part III A

Response to James Tabor

I recently read "Where Did Paul Get His Authority & Teachings?" on James Tabor's Jesus Dynasty Blog and was disappointed that there was nowhere to leave a comment concerning his thesis. So I decided to respond to it here, on my own blog.

Tabor basically argues that in 1 Cor 15 Paul discusses having received the gospel and that most interpreters get it wrong by assuming that there is some form of oral tradition underlying the phrase "received" in this particular context. He admits that the word normally carries that connotation but that the interpretation of 1 Cor 15 is to be understood in light of Gal 1:12 where Paul denies the human origins of his gospel. From this exegetical strategy, Tabor can claim that Paul is not interested in the historical Jesus and is only interested in the "fantasy" (his word) Christ that Paul himself has created. The following quote elucidates his thesis well:

If Paul is right, then so be it. But if he is wrong, then what a left turn was taken away from the historical Jesus. I say reader beware.

I believe that Tabor's exegesis does not fully take into account the context of the two passages he relies upon and I believe that he has certainly stretched too far in an effort to dismiss Paul, his letters, and his theology. (There is more to his argument, specifically 1 Cor 11:23 and 1 Thes 4:15, both of which I may return to in the future sometime.)

The way that I have always understood the apparent "conflict" between Gal 1:12 and 1 Cor 15:3 is that in each Paul is driven by different motivations and, therefore, Paul highlights different aspects of his reception of the gospel in each context.

In Gal 1 Paul is clearly defending his apostolic authority over against his enemies. To do so he found it rhetorically effective to highlight that it was directly through Jesus that he received a revelation of Jesus Christ. In other words, Paul was arguing that he did not make up what he preached and that it was not of human origins, but that instead it was impressed upon him by divine means. I imagine that Tabor would generally agree with me up to this point.

The difference, however, I have with Tabor is that the phrase "through a revelation of Jesus Christ" (Gal 1:12) could refer not to the passing of information but to the manifestation of the Savior himself. In other words, Christ did not reveal facts to Paul per se, instead Jesus was the revelation itself (James Dunn, Galatians, 53-54). Paul is not arguing that the pedigree of his message is what gives him authority; no, it is the content of his message (Jesus Christ) that gives his apostleship its authority. Dunn (54) and David Garland (1 Corinthians, 683-84) both argue that what Paul received on the road to Damascus was not a litany of facts about Jesus' life, but instead the proper interpretation of these facts.

Further, these facts likely did not come to Paul via the pillars in Jerusalem directly, as Tabor claims is the common opinion of "conservative Christians." In Gal 1:17 Paul explicitly denies the Jerusalem connection, instead revealing that he spent his formative years as a young Christ-follower in Arabia and Damascus. It was not until three years had passed that Paul's first post-Damascus contact with Peter and James occurred (Gal 1:18-19) and Paul would not go back to visit Jerusalem for some fourteen years (Gal 2:1), thus revealing the weakness of the connection between Paul and the pillars of Jerusalem. However, 1 Cor 15:3 leaves one with the impression that Paul is talking about oral tradition, human oral tradition. There are several reasons for this:

1. Paul establishes the human link in the first part of v. 3 by indicating that it was he who passed this knowledge to the Corinthians, thus in the second part of v.3 it is hard to imagine that he has suddenly switched to a divine passing on of tradition;
   
2. In this passage Paul is arguing for the validity of the resurrection and, thus, it would be important for him to highlight as many human connections to those who saw Jesus physically resurrected as possible (1 Cor 15:5-8) -- which would seem to necessitate some contact with these people (and/or their associates) for them to have told Paul of their interaction with the physically-resurrected Jesus; and
   
3. The content of the message that Paul received, as revealed in 1 Cor 15, is a matter of facts -- Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, was buried, was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and he appeared to many, including Peter, James, quite a few others, and (last of all) to Paul (vv.3-8) -- and seems to be the very sort of thing that scholars like Gerhardsson (in The Reliability of the Gospel Tradition) claim was passed on in the early church, aka the kerygma.

Moreover, Tabor reveals his hand in the last paragraph of his blog entry by indicating that Paul's gospel and that of the eyewitnesses of Jesus (as preserved in the canonical Gospels presumably) are different in substance. This can easily be dismissed by looking at the content of Gal 2:2-10. Paul travels to Jerusalem because of a revelation and presents those of reputation there his gospel. Those of reputation saw that Paul had been entrusted with the gospel and had been given grace and, thus, James, Peter, and John gave Paul and Barnabas the stamp of approval. They added nothing to Paul's preaching of the gospel and only asked that Paul be conscious of the poor.

It appears that the content of the gospel, aka the kerygma, of the pillars and Paul was remarkably the same, even if their application of it was different at times (Gal 2:11-21). If so, then reader of Paul has no need to beware.

Pattern of Religion or Theology or Something Else?

I have been reading Laato's Paul and Judaism: An Anthropological Approach and I have encountered something odd...at least to me. It seems to be implied that one can read the Pauline Epistles in two basic ways: to find a pattern of religion or to uncover theology. I fear that both of these endeavors may be suspect.

First, finding a pattern of religion seems a nebulous idea at best. What is one looking for? How a religion determines who is saved, "in," and/or part of the community? How one, to use Sanders' terminology, "gets in" and "stays in" a religion? How one goes about doing a religion (think rites and the like)? Or how a group is self-defined? All of these things seem somewhat foreign to what we have in Paul. Finding the "religion" that Paul espoused has proven to be quite difficult. The primary problem, as I see it, is that the scholar would bring his or her definition of what constitutes a religion to the Pauline texts. Then the texts would be fit into this pattern and the parts that did not fit would be explained away or ignored. This simply does not let the biblical text speak for itself.

Second, finding theology in Paul's Letters has a similar problem. How one defines "theology" will have a major impact on what sort of "theology" is found in Paul. If by theology "God-talk" is intended, that can be found all throughout Paul's correspondence. If one by theology is referring to the traditional categories of systematics (christology, soteriology, pneumatology, etc), then they too may be found to some extent in Paul. In either case though the exegete is placing a matrix on top of the biblical text and only reading what fits inside, thus, again, marginalizing what does not fit.

So is there a solution? Not that I am one hundred percent sold on this and not that I pretend in anyway to know more than anyone else, but it seems that dealing with Paul's actual words themselves first may be beneficial. To put it another way, a better question to ask might have to do with Paul's terminology. The reason for this is that the limited number of documents that we have and the occasionality of these documents prevent the discovery of a sure and certain Pauline religion and/or theology. Why? Because there is much that he may have left unsaid. This could be because it was considered a given or common sense. It could be that the pressing issues of the letters (the threat of the "Judaizers," the delayed Parousia, etc) caused Paul to focus more narrowly only upon what was at hand. The differing purposes of the letters themselves make discovering a unifying theology and/or religion nearly impossible. Thus, the evidence we have is not the sort that will make manifest definitive ideas about religion and theology. To make it do so is a major disservice to it.

Instead it would be helpful to see a center or gravity in Paul's terminology in a given document (and perhaps in all of the Pauline corpus). How could we go about this endeavor? Perhaps statistical/grammatical/structural analysis may point us to primary phrases, words, and thought-blocks used by Paul. Perhaps rhetorical analysis could reveal points of emphasis for Paul through the examination of his argumentation. Perhaps a historically-rooted reader-response analysis could indicate the central points of contact with the "original" audience that may have been effective (though I admit that trying to determine the nature of the "original" audience is quite difficult and speculative). But in the background of these approaches would have to exist conscientious and careful historical/sociological analysis that would ensure that anachronism could be avoided.

Why would this terminology-focused study be useful? Primarily because it would allow Paul's texts to speak on their own. It would hopefully eliminate the damaging process of forcing Paul's words, thoughts, and ideas into modern molds. And it could be multi-disciplinary, thus promoting cross-pollination in NT studies and the interpretation of Scripture in community.

Judging Readings...

Tomorrow at Fuller Gordon Fee will be answering some questions about NT exegesis during an informal lunch session with students. He is an authority on the subject since he has been exegeting the NT for nearly his entire life and has written and/or contributed material to several books on the subject, including a book entitled, New Testament Exegesis, go figure! I was asked by one of the coordinators of the event to provide some questions prior to the luncheon so that Dr. Fee could begin thinking about the subjects. Others presented questions as well. Mine were focused on the problem of the "new methods" of biblical interpretation, specifically on the multiplicity of readings that are now considered valid (especially in reader-response and ideological criticism).

In other words, in our culture today, if you can think it up and apply it to some part of the NT, then you will be applauded for breaking the mold and being creative. But shouldn't there be a way to judge the value of these different readings? An example of what I am talking about can be found in Amy-Jill Levine's new book entitled A Misunderstood Jew: The Church and the Scandal of the Jewish Jesus. To highlight my point, here is a quote from page 89 (of the uncorrected proof):

The same book, the same words, can take on profoundly different meanings and make profoundly different impressions. That such alternative readings exist is the result of the way all people make sense of the world they encounter. Each reader and community of readers brings to a text different presuppositions and experiences, and each will emphasize different parts of the text.

Toward the end of the chapter (page 117) that contains the above quote, which happens to be about anti-Judaism and the NT, Levine again highlights my point:

Words--inevitably--mean different things to different readers. We need to imagine how our words sound to different ears.

I find these quotes at first quite appealing, mainly because we experience this sort of thing every day. A very crude example could be the usage of the notorious n-word. The word has virtually no meaning from some mouths but elicits hatred and violence from the mouth of others. But this example, and most of the examples from our daily experience, have something in common: The speaker/writer and the hearer/reader can quickly understand one another's context and thus the intended usage of the word. In other words, Levine is right, we need to watch our words, they can and do mean different things to different people.

But when applied to an unchanging document, how valid is it to say that we each get to read it the way we want to? Further still, how fair is it to get mad at Paul for not using the sort of speech and rhetoric used in the postmodern academy? The answer to the first question is that it is not valid and the answer to the second is that it is not fair.

Though Levine and almost every other proponent of the "new methods" dismiss (no matter how they qualify it) historical inquiry (unless it highlights one of their points of course!), the test for the validity of a reading has to be the plausibility of its connection to the original text. Though the words "meaning" and "intent" are slippery, they come into play here. For instance, if someone reads Paul in an overtly unsympathetic light, accusing him of Antisemitism, sexism, and homophobia, then they should be aware that they are more than likely placing a matrix on Paul that is anachronistic. And anachronism should be the bane of all intellectual endeavor, especially in dealing with ancient documents! Simply because a text can be read a certain way (I have in mind an article on the internet that I read which viewed a gospel text from the perspective of a homosexual African-American woman) does not make that reading of any value for understanding the text itself! The reading may be helpful in understanding how it is heard by a particular person or sub-group, but it in no way gets us any closer to understanding what it is that a NT text is getting at or intending.

Thus, the only way to see the validity of a reading that seeks to explain a NT text is by the careful and tedious work of historical analysis. I am aware that a historian, no matter how adept, is not capable of total objectivity. We all come to the text with presuppositions. But if we are aware of these and make them known from the start, then we can keep them in check and have others make sure that we do the same. This is how a community of interpreters should work. All interpreting and all guiding and correcting one another. So if someone claims that, as a Jewish feminist NT scholar, Paul it is anti-Judaic when he describes Jesus as the end or fulfillment of the law, we can examine the texts at hand and uncover some of Paul's situation, which can and should shed much light on the issue.

The basic disagreement between the "old methods" and the "new methods" is the location of meaning. Is it in the words themselves or is it in the hearing of the words or is it in the interaction of the words on the hearer or is it simply non-existent? I would argue that words have meaning, as long as we understand the context in which they are spoken/written. For instance, the following question would have been nonsensical prior to 1972: Who is Deep Throat? One might have been able to determine what each of the words meant on their own, but as to their relationship to each other, that would have likely been a mystery. After the Watergate scandal hit all the papers and news broadcasts in the U.S. and around the world, the question began to be understandable. Therefore, meaning is dependent not only on the words themselves, but their relationship to one another and the context in which they were composed.

The problem, of course, with the NT is that we are separated from the composition of the documents by more than nineteen hundred years. In other words, the contexts for the words found in the NT are often hard to determine. This does not mean, however, that the historical endeavor should be disregarded (as is so often asserted by the proponents of the "new methods") but that much work and creative energy needs to be poured into the process.

Working at this historical task together, we can begin to understand more and more about the texts of the NT and we can begin to judge with some confidence the validity of the multiple readings which are lauded today.