How ought knowledge of the historical and cultural context be applied to Paul’s thought, especially as exemplified in 1 Corinthians? Since H.-D. Betz's 1979 commentary on Galatians, Paul’s epistles have been read in the light of the alleged influence of the various streams of First Century Greco-Roman culture. The tendency is to read for (and emphasize) similarity with the background and not to notice difference. It is frequently assumed that Paul is a creature of his times, incapable of challenging the mores and fashions of his day; or, perhaps, of producing from a synthesis of various strands of thought something novel. So it is suggested that Paul uses conventional Greco-Roman rhetoric (so Betz); or apes Platonic thinking about hierarchies (so Castelli); or imports a particular local ideology of the body (so Martin). While in general, the investigation of the conditions for the production of any text is to be applauded, this strategy risks becoming blind to the originality of Paul and the uniqueness of his message; and of a perhaps arbitrary selectivity over which elements of Greco-Roman culture are to be applied in each case.
So, the question is: (humanly speaking) is Paul a genius who come up with something new, or merely a product of his times? To what degree ought we to see his thought as ground-breaking?
9 comments:
Hmmm...a bit too abstract for me! Can you give me a concrete example (from 1 Corinthians say) of how the different approaches work out?
While understanding the philo-historical (made-up word) context in which Paul wrote is really interesting, don't you think that whether Paul is an original genius or not is irrelevant? Irrelevant in the sense that it has little bearing on whether what Paul said is inspired by God.
It seems I need to learn more about Betz, Castelli, and Martin beforing making an informed decision. Rereading 1 Corinthians and Galatians, I don't seek your point right off. I must concur, it is too abstract.
From what I know, Paul knew to Tanakh from memory. That's impressive, I don't even know Jude from memory. I cannot justify Paul as a product of the times. With the knowledge of the Law and the Prophets, his transition into the new covenant is profound by both Jew and Gentile. Paul must bring the Gentile into a Jewish "cohesion" by relating through the customs and traditions of the land. In Acts 17, Paul talks about an altar to an "unknown god" in athens. If he could not relate in the fashion of the day, then no conversions outside of judaism could come about.
is Paul a genius who come up with something new, or merely a product of his times?
After some further consideration, I'm quite convinced the answer is "yes". As Newton said "If I have seen further, it is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants"
Ignoring questions of divine inspiration, Pauls special genius was in redefining this distinctively semitic faith in a way that opened it up to the civilized world.
We see that fusion of cultures all through the NT epistles - his outstanding knowledge of the TANAKH (as tex said), but also a deep appreciation of hellenistic culture. So, without embarrassment, Paul refers to Greek poems to back up a theological point. Or he appeals to athenian idols to create an evangelistic opportunity.
I dont think we need to choose between the options of "genius" and "product of his times"...
Michael,
One of the two best lessons I've learnt about dealing with Jewish and Greco-Roman backgrounds are:
1. Beware of parrallelomania (ala Betz)
2. Analogy does not mean genealogy.
PS we met at MTC last August when I was doing a research visit - red head chap from Queensland.
I know it's an obvious point, but I think the contrast is false: "is Paul a genius who came up with something new, or merely a product of his times?" All geniuses are products of their times, even though genius itself is irreducible to cultural determinants. For me, the uniqueness of Paul's message is in no way undermined by the existence of Jewish and Greco-Roman influences.
Hi Michael Bird - yes I remember meeting you.
Ben, again well said: I guess I was trying to highlight a problem for me in NT studies (one of several) which so focuses it seems to me on the context that Paul the individual fades into the background. So: how to relate the two properly/accurately?
Borg: welcome!
And I don't think it is an irrelevant question because the inspiration of the Bible by God does not mean the normal human means of text production are dispensed with: including the presence of cultural influences and the education of the author in greco-roman rhetoric (putatively)... That's how God does it...
Hello Michael. Thanks for the welcome!
I can see a parallel with how some folks take evolution - (i)the act of creating is somehow manifested in the process of evolution. In the same way, I take it you say that (ii)God uses the social, philosophical and historic goings to speak to humans. However, in (i) the question of whether God created or even how best to deal with creation cannot by hypothesis be answered by examining evolutionary processes. So, in (ii) it doesn't seem that questions of eternal significance seem to answered in this investigation.
I'm sorry if that sounds disrespectful - I don't want to "dis" this project - I think it's very interesting. I'm merely musing...
Hi Borg. I wonder if you are presupposing a stark contrast between human historicity and "questions of eternal significance". It seems to me that we need to resist exactly this contrast if we are to take seriously God's self-revelation in Jesus. God's eternal being is not located somewhere above this world, but it is an event that takes place in the history of the man Jesus.
And this means that we should think about "questions of eternal significance" not by turning away from ordinary human history, but by turning towards history, i.e., the history of one particular Jewish man.
I think it's also best to approach the Bible in the same way: the Bible's message has "eternal significance" not in spite of its ordinary historicity, but precisely by virtue of its thoroughgoing historicity. If the biblical texts were somehow removed from the normal processes of social and cultural conditioning, then these texts would no longer be witnesses to God, i.e., to the God who happens in human history.
Anyway, my point in all this is that historical-critical approaches to the Bible are not only valid and important, but are theologically necessary if we are to be faithful to the Bible itself. At least that's how I see it....
Post a Comment