Hagner on Nanos on Hagner

My friend Pat McCullough indicated in the comments of a previous post that he wished that I would get beyond the polemic in Mark Nanos' critique of Hagner's Chapter in Jewish Believers in Jesus. This is something that I want to do, but I will have to leave it aside for another time.

The reason for this is that Pat has brought it to my attention, via a very helpful post on his blog, that Nanos' critique and Hagner's response at SBL were recorded and made available online for free at TorahResource.com (right-click and save "Part 2"). Thus, I find it quite appropriate to allow Hagner to speak for himself (as Pat has done on his own blog) before delving into this any deeper.

Before I do that, however, I feel compelled to highlight some things that Nanos did not vocalize at SBL that he did in his written critique. Two which caused me the greatest alarm were left out by Nanos completely: his attack of Hagner's usage of definitive language (e.g., "clearly") and his demeaning comparison of Hagner to his own students. My primary problem, however, with Nanos' critique in my previous post was that he did not seem to read or fully understand Hagner's third footnote, in which Hagner explicitly explains his usage of the terms "Judaism" and "Christianity."

Putting these observations to one side, let us now read a transcript of Hagner's response to Nanos' critique (helpfully provided by Pat):

I thank the chair for the privilege of having a few minutes to respond even though I'm not on the program. My good friend, Mark–my former good friend, Mark [laughter], is as usual always interesting, always stimulating, but, at least for me, not always persuasive. He accuses me of prejudging the issues and I have to say that I think Mark has at least as much of an a priori as I have. And I think he has more of an a priori than I have, if that's okay. Mark tends to dismiss my view as the "traditional view." I'd like to say that because an interpretation is "traditional" does not mean it is necessarily true, but it also does not mean it is necessarily false. I think it's interesting to ponder the fact that so many have understood Paul in the traditional way. It doesn't mean it's right; it’s just an interesting observation.

Next, I'd like to say that the challenge for both of us is to make some coherent sense not just of a few texts, but of all of the texts… together. And I think that leads us to the necessity of affirming tensions, nuances, subtleties, things that you tend to refer to as "contradictions," I'm afraid. It's also not a matter of either/or; it's a matter of both/and. It’s not whether Paul is a Jew or a Christian. He is both: a Jew and a Christian. But these subtleties, I think, sometimes seem to escape Mark. Somehow Mark has missed my affirmation that Paul is a Jew… that Paul is a Jewish believer in Jesus, that Paul has not changed his religion, that Paul upholds the righteousness of the law, but with a new dynamic, in a new way. I emphatically deny something that he has in his written statement, namely (this is a quote from him), he says that I think Paul "is engaged in a new religion that stands against his former religion" [pg 15]. No, no, no! I do not think that. Not at all. It's the absolute opposite of what I think, in fact. Paul is affirming the true Judaism in his own mind.

Mark wants to push me into a simple "discontinuity" between Paul and Judaism in contrast to his simple "continuity." But again, the issue is not that easy. We have to deal with both/and, both continuity and discontinuity in this matter. Mark's view is just a little too simplistic for me. Galatians 1:13, Paul speaks of his Ἰουδαϊσμός as something of the past and I don't think I can read it in the way Mark does, just moving from one form of Judaism to another. The Ἰουδαϊσμός is behind him, I think. And his Philippians 3:4 and following, Paul counts his Jewish pedigree, including his blamelessness as a Pharisee as worthless. What matters is Χριστὸς.

And it's ludicrous, by the way, I think, Mark, to say that he would have to include his apostleship in that list [see pg 8]. That's not giving him a fair chance to say what he means to say, what he wants to say. Because Paul doesn't use the word "Christian" does not mean that he can't be described or shouldn't be described as a Christian. I fail to see how Mark can deny my two non-negotiables. Are these two statements really questionable on a reading of the authentic Pauline letters? First, that Christians are no longer under the law. Second, that righteousness remains for Paul an indispensable priority. Can we really challenge either of those statements on the basis of the Pauline letters? I don't think so. Mark's Paul, for me, is not the Paul of the letters. I would ask him to make better sense of the texts than I have. And I think so far, he hasn't. Thank you.

Hagner highlights some important things in his response. He emphasizes his position that Paul was both a Jew and a Christian (as defined in f.n. 3!). Hagner points out very clearly that Nanos is guilty of pushing Paul into (full) continuity with first-century Judaism when the texts (Gal 1.13; Phil 3.4) point a different direction. Lastly, Hagner reaffirms that in his opinion Paul does not believe that believers in Jesus are "under the Law," which nevertheless does not eradicate the pursuit of righteousness by these same believers.

In my next post on this topic I hope to deal in more depth with three issues: 1) Hagner's language about his past and present that Nanos claims is contradictory; 2) Nanos' highly idiosyncratic reading of Phil 3.4-7; and 3) The value of using "Christian" to describe the religious experience of Paul or his ideas. While attempting to understand these three issues will not put this debate to rest, I do believe that doing so will bring the discontinuity between Hagner and Nanos into even sharper focus (as if that were necessary!).


Paul as a Jewish Believer
Nanos on Hagner

Nanos on Hagner

Mark Nanos prepared a paper entitled "Have Paul and His Communities Left Judaism for Christianity?" A Review of the Paul-Related Chapters in Jewish Believers in Jesus and Jewish Christianity Revisited" for an SBL session called "Jewish Christianity Consultation," which took place on November 19, 2007. I will only interact with the section in which he critiques the work of Donald Hagner (3-16). If you would like to view the entire document, it is available at his website in pdf format.

I have re-written this sentence several times because I cannot, for the life, of me decide where to begin. I guess I'll start by giving my overall impression of Nanos' critique. First, the tone in the paper is highly polemical, and that is putting it nicely. At every turn he fails to give Hagner the benefit of the doubt and when Nanos finally does attempt to read Hagner faithfully, he resorts to saying that Hagner is reading his own ideology into the text (e.g., "Hagner's Saul turned into Hagner's Paul" [4]). Second, Nanos appears to have a basic misunderstanding of Hagner's choice of terminology regarding Judaism and Christianity (we will explore this in more detail below). And third, Nanos strikes a low blow toward the end of his critique by implying that what Hagner cannot do he (Nanos) requires of his students (15-16).

Now before I continue I should be completely honest for the sake of full disclosure. First, I am a proponent, generally, of the traditional perspective on Paul. While my understanding of Judaism on the whole may be influenced by Sanders, his research (and that of others) has not convinced me to abandon what appears to be the plain meaning of Paul's letters. Second, Dr. Hagner is my mentor at Fuller; thus, my opinion of Nanos' attack on his essay will be, obviously, biased. Those two disclaimers aside, I will try to offer an honest assessment of Nanos' paper.

Beginning with the unnecessary polemic. If this paper felt as pointed as it did when I read it, I can only imagine how it must have sounded as Nanos read it with Hagner sitting in the room. I am reminded of the impression I was left with after the pistis christou session on the Friday of SBL; why is civility so hard to come by these days? Here's a good example of what I am talking about: when is it ever appropriate to assume you have access to the private thoughts and motivations of others? Nanos writes:

I submit that the frame for viewing Paul is already constrained to viewing him only from the perspective, concerns, and answers of a later time, and that the essay has been written to confirm the views of those who already share Hagner's point of view on Paul. (4)

Not only has Nanos attempted to think Hagner's thoughts after him, he has accused him of eisegesis! Nanos might as well call Karl Barth a Pelagian or Stevie Ray Vaughan a hack! Nanos continues: "this essay is not so much an historical as an ideological exercise" (4). I find this to be amazing. I am tempted to assume why Nanos felt compelled to characterize Hagner in this manner, but to do so would not be civil.

Perhaps a little fairness could have helped Nanos' critique come across much better. For example, he chastises Hagner's use of "clear(ly) and obvious(ly)" (5), while a quick word search in the pdf reveals that Nanos uses this same sort of terminology himself ("certainly not" [8-9]; Nanos claims that "Hagner's arguments continue to make clear" the presumption that "Christ-believing Judaism" is a new religion [7]; "it is clear" that offering a counter-reading to Hagner is pointless [11]; and the list grows longer if you consider the material not dealing with Hagner in the paper)! I wonder how many usages of "certainly," "clearly," and the like one would find in other works by Nanos? Also, since when has using confident language as a rhetorical device not been utilized? If Nanos has a problem with this in general then he should have stated his case generally, but since he has a problem with Hagner using this sort of language, perhaps he should have avoided it himself!

Other examples of the unnecessary polemics in this paper could be given but I must move on to Nanos' largest misunderstanding of Hagner which colors the entire paper. A quote from the last paragraph of the section critiquing Hagner will illustrate this beautifully:

While Paul got by without using the term Christian, Hagner does not do so. He probably should not. Based on what Hagner communicates about Paul, it would not be useful to avoid such terminology, or deny that his Paul has moved from one religion to another. (16)

I find this fascinating. Hagner explains his usage of the anachronistic terms "Christianity" and "Judaism" in the third footnote of his essay:

The use of the terms "Judaism" and "Christianity" in reference to the first century is nowadays regarded as problematic. Neither term means what it will come to mean in the centuries following the time of Paul. Judaism is in a highly formative stage in the first two centuries (especially before the destruction of Jerusalem in 70). Similarly, first-century Christianity is not what it will become in the second century. But this terminological debate anticipates the discussion that follows. We will continue to use the terms for the sake of convenience. (n.3 97)

Thus, it appears that Nanos makes a false assumption about Hagner's usage of this terminology. By "Judaism" Hagner does not have in mind rabbinic Judaism and by "Christianity" Hagner does not have in mind the more organized and separated Church of the second century and beyond. Instead, it appears to me that Hagner uses the terms to discuss Paul's pre-Christ religious experience and thought, "Judaism," and his post-Christ religious experience and thought, "Christianity." Had Hagner not clearly stated what he meant by these terms, then Nanos' misunderstanding would have been valid and his critique would have hit home with me. However, since Hagner did explain his usage, Nanos' critique comes across as stretching for anything about which to complain.

Perhaps behind both scholars on this point is their understanding of Paul's conversion/call. Using the terms highlights the discontinuity between Paul's past and present, while not using them (or using "Judaisms" instead) highlights the continuity. However, unfairly assuming that Hagner meant something that he clearly did not and then basing most of his critiques against the essay on this assumption was simply bad methodology on Nanos' part.

Lastly, in a moment that was at least underhanded and at most holier-than-thou, Nanos writes the following:

This essay exemplifies why I do not permit my students to use the terms Christian or Christianity when discussing Paul and his communities: much more than terminology is at issue; rather, it is the way that terminology reveals and limits our conceptualization of reality. Regardless of any new information that will be introduced to them, the way that they have learned from childhood to perceive and thus describe the world into which to fit this new information will inhibit them from thinking about these new things in new ways, including ways that just might challenge and alter what they think they know to be absolute, un-interpreted, non-negotiable truth, instead of being merely one among the many interpretations available for conceptualizing the meaning of this information. In my view, we should seek to limit neither the answers, nor the questions to be posed. As important as terminology is, it is less important than how it either limits or advances the ability to conceptualize and describe the maps upon which we plot the information at issue.

Wow. Nanos overtly states here that Hagner does what he does not allow his students to do! Again, had Nanos had a problem with Hagner's usage of this language perhaps he should have read footnote three more closely! Even if Hagner had not included the footnote, comparing an established scholar who is internationally respected to one's students is both uncalled for and insulting.

There is so much more that I could say in regard to Nanos' paper, and perhaps I will when I return from Christmas vacation, but for now this will have to do.


Paul as a Jewish Believer
Hagner on Nanos on Hagner

Paul as a Jewish Believer

I finished reading Donald Hagner's article in Jewish Believers in Jesus: The Early Centuries ("Paul as a Jewish Believer--According to His Letters" [96-120]) and I thought that I would share a summary and analysis of it here. Sometime soon, hopefully later today, I'll post my thoughts about Mark Nanos' slashing critique of Hagner's essay that was presented at this year's SBL.

To begin with, it would be good to underscore Hagner's methodology in this essay. Basically what he is doing is trying to uncover the continuity or discontinuity that Paul's post-Christ religious experience has with regard to his Jewish past. In order to do this Hagner utilizes material almost exclusively from Paul's undisputed letters (he does include a few references to the disputed letters both parenthetically and in footnotes). Also, Hagner pays careful attention to the scholarship regarding this issue, both the writings from Jewish and gentile scholars.

The thesis of the essay appears to be that while there is much continuity between Paul's pre-Christ Judaism and his post-Christ religious experience, there is also much discontuity; and the latter should not be ignored because of the former.

In the first section ("The Changing Understanding of Paul"), Hagner gives a nice overview of scholarship on the Jewishness of Paul, paying special and close attention to Jewish works, the Hellenistic Judaism/Palestinian Judaism distinction, and the New Perspective on Paul. His grasp of the development of this issue is impressive, both in its breadth and depth.

The second section ("Studies in Continuity and Discontinuity"), which comprises the bulk of the essay, is a detailed examination of the connectedness of Paul's thought and experience had with first-century Judaism. In most instances Hagner assumes the traditional interpretations while nuancing them when needed as a result of new findings or historical developments. For example, Hagner argues that Paul was not merely called to be a missionary to the gentiles, but that Paul's post-Christ experience "involves a dramatic enough shift that conversion is also an appropriate word" (102). He does not summarily dismiss the notion of Paul's call with regard to his conversion, he simply qualifies it.

Hagner continues in this section by arguing that Paul's soteriology has changed (102-114). Perhaps the best passage in the entire essay is found in sub-section 2.2.1, "Paul and the law," where Hagner highlights the fact that Paul can make both negative and positive statements concerning the law. Hagner's conclusion regarding this seeming problem is fascinating: "If we take the negative statements regarding the law as referring to the commandments, it is possible to take the positive statements as referring simply to the righteousness that is the goal of the law" (108). In other words, according to Hagner, Paul can speak of believers in Christ not being under the law, while the original intent of the law, righteousness, is spoken of positively.

This may lead one to think that Paul (and Hagner!) thinks that right living is no longer that important for the believer in Christ. Hagner argues exactly the opposite in sub-section 2.2.3, "The ongoing importance of righteousness for Paul." Hagner encapsulates his position well in the following sentence: "The paradox can be summed up by saying that those who are free from the law are now in a position to, and called to, pursue a righteousness that remarkably corresponds to the goal of the law" (111). In so doing, Hagner preserves for Paul freedom from the law, as is certainly espoused in his letters, while also accentuating Paul's clear concern for ethical living.

The third and final section ("Old and New in Paul") is the conclusion to the essay. In it Hagner states the following:

Furthermore, the old and the new are not present in an equal balance. We do not have a situation in which a variety of new perspectives are added to the staple of old things that constitute Judaism, causing only minor readjustments. On the contrary, the new that comes is an eschatological turning point in the ages, of such great consequence that we must be prepared for dramatic shifts. (118)

These two sentences describe Hagner's basic position quite well -- while there is "old" present in Paul, the "new" is so important that something different is created that is colored by what came before, not vice versa.

As already mentioned, Hagner presents his readers with traditional understandings of Paul in this essay. However, he does not do so without regard to new developments in the study of Paul and Judaism or the repugnant history of violence against Jews, especially in the twentieth century. As important as these two things are (and they are very important indeed!), Hagner does not allow them to control his reading of Paul. Instead, he attempts to read Paul faithfully while softening some of previous scholarship's rough edges where needed. In my estimation, Hagner's essay is convincing and even-handed.

I was left wanting in a specific area; I wish there had been more interaction with the texts of Second-Temple Judaism. Hagner is not to blame here, however, since this sort of essay cannot possibly cover all the bases. There are several places where the reader is left wanting to actually read what Jews of this period thought about these various issues. But again, this perceived deficiency in Hagner's essay has more to do with its scope than with its actual content, as the subtitle of the essay makes clear -- "According to Paul's Letters." In almost every instance of this phenomenon, however, the reader is pointed to more complete treatments of the issues in other works by Hagner or others. Thus, while every "i" could not be dotted and "t" crossed in this one essay, Hagner responsibly gives the reader ample opportunity to discover more on his/her own.

In my opinion, the greatest strength of Hagner's essay is the large amount of material quoted from Paul's letters themselves. Perhaps this is not necessarily a strength of Hagner's essay but of the traditional reading of Paul in general. In the work of a New Perspectivist, there are often many terms and phrases which are not taken to mean what they plainly seem to mean (e.g., "my own righteousness" in Phil 3.9 not pointing to a righteousness that Paul at least had a part in obtaining, but instead to some sort of national righteousness). Thus, when one is reading Dunn, Wright, etc and has the New Testament in hand, it is often difficult to see how they have arrived at the positions for which they argue so strongly. In Hagner's essay, however, Paul is often allowed to speak in his own voice and his words are allowed to carry what appear to be their plain meanings.


Nanos on Hagner
Hagner on Nanos on Hagner

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.