In this chapter on Paul's letter to the church at Rome, Ehrman does a good job of presenting the main issues related to the interpretation of this letter. Erhman does not address the whole issue of the relationship between the Jewish Law and justification by faith in Jesus, because he already covered that topic in his discussion of Galatians. If you are interested in knowing more on the topic of the role of the Jewish Law in the letter to the Romans, I have posted on Course Documents a study on the topic of the Law and Romans that I wrote a few years ago.
Ehrman does a nice job of laying out the theme of this letter, as found in 1:16-17, which is that the "gospel" is the power of God to salvation for all who have faith in Jesus. Paul uses the word "gospel" to refer to the message of the salvation that is available by faith to all who believe in what God has done in the death and resurrection of Jesus. This is explained on pages 253-254. While many scholars through the ages have assumed that Paul's letter to the Romans was written solely for the purpose of stating his mature theological views, that is not necessarily the only reason. There are two other issues worthy of consideration. The first is that Paul is unknown to the Christians of Rome, except by reputation. Just in case Paul's reputation in Rome is based on reports spread by people who either misunderstand Paul's teachings, or intentionally misrepresented him, he wants to set the record straight for the Christian in Rome on what he believes regarding the basic truths of Christianity. Not only that, but also his style of writing makes it clear that he is attempting to persuade the reader to adopt and accept his interpretation of Christianity. He wants the Christians in Rome to look favorably upon him when he arrives there (which is why he is sending this letter ahead of him), in hopes they might also be persuaded to offer him money to finance his planned missionary journey to Spain (15:24). As best we know, Paul never got the opportunity to go to Spain.
Paul wrote Romans while he was in Corinth preparing to embark for Jerusalem with his collection of money from the churches in Greece (Paul uses the names of the Greek provinces of Macedonia and Achaia (15:26). As we learn from Acts, Paul is arrested when he arrives in Jerusalem and is eventually taken to Rome.
While there have been a variety of explanations for what Paul was hoping to accomplish in writing Romans, there are 2 popular theories of the last century, the first being the traditional Protestant idea of Romans as a comprehensive theological treatise on the significance of the death and resurrection of Jesus and how that brings eternal life to humanity. The second popular theory is the one that Ehrman presents, that Paul is introducing himself to the Christians in Rome in hopes of receiving a favorable reception when he arrives there (this theory enjoys widespread support among historical critical scholars). Another theory that gets less attention is the idea that Paul had in mind when writing Romans the question of what kind of reception he would get from the church in Jerusalem, especially as they are still very Jewish and the Christians who will be accompanying Paul on the trip to Jerusalem are Greek converts from paganism. So Paul writes about how Jesus is savior of both (but most scholars think it would be odd for Paul to write to Rome about an issue that concerns Jerusalem without stating it explicitly). Another minor theory is the view that the discussion of moral issues in chapters 12-15 indicates that Paul knows much of what is going on in the church in Rome and has taken it upon himself to offer his solution to their divisions in hope that things will be smoothed over before he arrives in Rome. But this interpretation has not found many supporters as most interpreters believe that chapters 12-15 are intended to provide a general application of the truths expressed in chapters 1-8, and show how the implications of salvation-through-Jesus for living the Christian life in-power-of-the-Holy-Spirit (as in Chap 8), and what it should look like when it is lived out in a community of Christians who come from different backgrounds.
A peculiarity of Romans worth noting is the fact that 3 chapters smack in the middle of the letter to the Romans (chapters 9, 10 & 11) are directly concerned with the fate of Jewish people who have not accepted Jesus as the Jewish Messiah. This makes me think that since we know there was a large group of Jews living in Rome, and if they were the original converts to Christianity in Rome, it may be of great interest to the church leaders in Rome in knowing where Paul, the great evangelist to the non-Jews and pagans, stands on the issue of the role of Jewish people in God's plan for the salvation of humanity, since Paul does not publicly seem concerned about the eternal fate of his Jewish brethren. Paul's answer in chapter's 9, 10 & 11 is that it is his hope that the Jewish people will see all the converts from paganism embracing the fruits of the promises to Abraham coming to reality in salvation-through-Jesus and Not want to miss out on what God is doing in bringing the promises made to his chosen people to their ultimate fulfillment.
If I am correct in my reading of the intent of chapters 9, 10 & 11, then it would make sense why we see so much talk about "justification by faith" in Galatians and Romans, but not the other letters. If my theory is correct, it would seem that the whole business of "justification by faith" is primarily related to the relationship of Christian believers to the Jewish Law. Paul wants to explain how people who were born pagan can claim to inherit the benefits of the promises God made to the Jewish people if they do not adopt a Jewish lifestyle (meaning, following the Jewish Law). Jesus' death and resurrection is the reason. In Romans 1-8, Paul lays down the logic for this belief. There is no reason for Paul to discuss justification by faith with the Corinthians since rather than talking them out of the Jewish Law, his main challenge is talking them into adopting Jewish morality in place of pagan hedonism. Therefore, in my opinion, the topic of "justification by faith" is primarily the way Paul explains the change in the purpose and role of the Jewish Law for godly living in light of Jesus' death and resurrection. As a Christian, the Jewish Law tells how to live a moral and virtuous life, but there is nothing in it that can of its own put a person in a right relationship with God. In Paul's mind, only Jesus can do that based on what he has already done in his death and resurrection, and what Jesus will complete when he returns for the final salvation of believers and final judgment of unbelievers.
On pages 254-259, Ehrman discusses what he calls two different models for salvation that Paul employs in Romans. The one that Ehrman calls the "judicial model" is the one that is most often spoken of in discussions of Paul's interpretation of the death of Jesus. The judicial model focuses on what Jesus did on the cross as paying the penalty for human sinfulness to appease a righteous God. But Ehrman also highlights what he calls the "participatory model." In this model the main impact of Jesus' death is to free humanity from bondage to sin, perceived as a spiritual force that enslaves humanity. That probably strikes you as an odd way to look at sin, but it would seem to be a fair explanation for what Paul is speaking of when he says that all humanity is enslaved to sin (6:17).
My take on this is that while Ehrman uses these labels to explain what Paul is doing in Romans chapters 1-4 and chapters 6-8, I personally see the distinction more in terms of how the death of Jesus affects the salvific possibilities for humanity (chaps 1-3) and what it looks like and feels like when a person becomes a Christian believer and experiences the benefits of that death and resurrection for her or himself (chaps 6-8). Another way of stating it would be to call it the objective and subjective sides of human salvation. On the one hand there is what Jesus did on the cross, and on the other hand, that event has no saving value until it is experienced personally by a human being.
Chapter 8 in Romans is really a model for what Christian life ought to look like, but that assumes that the Holy Spirit has taken over the dominant role in a believer's life, and the Law is irrelevant, because the Holy Spirit (in Paul's opinion) is capable of empowering the believer to live a righteous life, precisely what the Jewish Law was incapable of accomplishing.
Ehrman provides a nice summary of Paul's argument in Romans, and in what he presents on pages 259-261, he is simply repeating the widely accepted views of modern biblical scholarship.
Friday, July 8, 2011
Ehrman, Chapter 15, Galatians, Philippians, Philemon
Ehrman's choice of these three letters of the Apostle Paul as the topic of this chapter might seem like an odd collection. The only thing they have in common is that they are the three shorter letters of Paul that are considered "undisputed" by historical critical scholars. All of the other shorter letters attributed to Paul (Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians) are considered "Deutero-Pauline"by Ehrman and many other historical critical scholars. "Deutero-Pauline" may best be described as written by disciples of Paul in Paul's name, presumably well after Paul's death (but more on this in the next Blog entry).
The letters to Timothy and Titus (often called "Pastorals" by scholars since they address pastoral concerns within the churches about whom these letters are written) are believed to be written long after the time of Paul, according to historical critical scholars, usually being placed at the end of the first century. Conservative scholars who believe that Paul actually wrote the letters to Timothy and Titus often postulate that they were written during a time of freedom for Paul after the imprisonment mentioned at the end of Acts, and before and during a second imprisonment in Rome that actually led to his death. This is because there is no indication in Paul's other letters that Timothy and Titus were ever placed in charge of a geographically clustered group of churches in the time frame covered in the book of Acts. Both the setting and the issues are very different in the letters to Timothy and Titus than what we find in any of the other letters of Paul, leading most scholars (liberal and conservative) to recognize that a much different setting lies behind these letters.
The letter to the Hebrews was once believed to have been written by Paul, due to the mention of Timothy and Italy at the end of the letter (Hebrews 13:23-24). But today, few conservative scholars still believe that Paul might have written this letter. Most scholars believe it is truly anonymous, but this has not stopped scholars from concocting theories of authorship. My favorite is that it was written by Paul's colleague in ministry, Apollos, mentioned in 1 Corinthians, for reasons I will mention in a later Blog entry on Hebrews.
Galatians is unique in the situation that has occasioned the writing of this letter. We are not even sure exactly where these Galatians churches were located. Galatia refers to a large Roman province, not a city. We do not know if they were located in the southern part of the province of Galatia (see Figure 15.1 on page 235) which would be the Galatian churches mentioned in Acts (green shaded area), or northern Galatia (shaded in lavender) of which we know nothing, except what we know from this letter, if the letter was actually written to churches in northern Galatia. I prefer the southern Galatia theory, simply because we do know Paul evangelized in this area from what is written in Acts.
The unique situation about the letter to the Galatians is that from Paul's information, he has been led to believe that some of the Christian believers in these churches that he had established have been persuaded by other Christian missionaries to adopt a Jewish lifestyle. They were persuaded to do so my some evangelizing missionaries who believed that Christian converts from paganism still had to live the Jewish lifestyle, because that is the way the Jerusalem Christians live, who live that way because Jesus lived the Jewish lifestyle.
Paul is positively incensed and furious that these believers he converted from paganism are falling prey to a different version of Christianity than what he preached to them. That is why Paul spends the first two chapters giving us some autobiographical information about his beginnings in ministry. The point being that the Apostles in Jerusalem endorsed his version of Christianity, which is that you can claim Jesus as your savior even if you do not live a Jewish lifestyle. And now, many years later, Paul is confronting the fact that Christian missionaries (maybe from Jerusalem) have gone to his churches in Galatia and taught the believers in Galatia that their salvation cannot be assured unless they adopt the Jewish lifestyle.
Be sure to read Ehrman's discussion of Galatians carefully as he does a fine job of explaining the main theological issue, which is the relationship of the Jewish Law and Justification by faith (pages 234-241). The same theological issue comes up again in Paul's letter to the Romans, but Ehrman does not take the time to explain it there, since he already covered the topic in his discussion of Galatians.
While it is sometimes hard to follow Paul's logic in Galatians chapters 3 & 4, these chapters are theologically important for the development of Christian religious ideas. Paul ask his readers, what was the point of Jesus' sacrificial death on the cross if you still have to keep the Jewish Law to get right with God? In Paul's mind (and what he believes the risen Jesus personally told him) is that Jesus' death on the cross not only ended the need for ritual sacrifices in the Jewish temple, but also ended the need to keep the other ritualistic parts of the Jewish Law (circumcision, kosher rules, festivals & ceremonies, etc). Paul makes it very clear that in his mind that people get right with God (are "justified") by faith in Jesus, because of what God has done in Jesus' sacrificial death on the cross, which is validated by his resurrection from the dead. Paul finds this whole business in Galatia so unsettling that he rants that he wishes the teachers in Galatia proposing the necessity of male circumcision for all Christians would not only take off their own foreskins, but with a slip of the knife cut too deep and cut off the whole tip (see Galatians 5:12), thereby receiving their just desserts.
PHILIPPIANS is a letter that is the difference between night and day compared to Galatians. In Galatians, Paul is seriously worried that he might lose control of what is being taught in those churches. In Philippians we have a letter written to a congregation (or cluster of house churches) that have always been a source of joy for Paul. We do find some concerns expressed in chapter 3 and warnings about false teachers, but there is no indication that Paul is worried these Christians in the city of Philippi might desert his teaching for another version of Christianity.
It is quite clear that Paul is imprisoned under Roman guard as he writes this letter. It may be house arrest, but Paul is still confined and limited, even if he is not being mistreated or deprived of food. He obviously is able to receive visitors and able to dictate letters. Traditionally this has been understood to have been in Rome, because of the mention of greetings from the Christian believers who are part of "Caesar's household." For reasons of the logistics of travel implied in the letter, some scholars have proposed that maybe the incarceration was in Ephesus, also because the concerns mentioned in Philippians seem to fit better with the (reconstructed) time frame of Paul's work in and around Ephesus. But the mention of "Caesar's household" (4:22) and the mention of the "imperial guard" (in 1:13) would lend credibility to the theory that Philippians was written while Paul was incarcerated in Rome, during the imprisonment mentioned at the end of Acts.
The immediate occasion of this letter would seem to be that the Christian believers in Philippi (whose congregations were established by Paul) have heard that the courier they sent with money for Paul (Epaphroditus by name) became ill and nearly died. By the time Paul is aware of their concerns about Epaphroditus, Epaphroditus' health is much improved and Paul proposes to send him back to Philippi bearing this letter.
In this letter Paul covers a variety of topics, all of which are loosely connected. Even though Paul does not know how his imprisonment will turn out (either release or death), he has lost no opportunity to tell anyone willing to listen - about Jesus as their savior (1:12-14). Paul also thanks the Philippian Christians for the money they sent by way of Epaphroditus (4:10-20). This is important for Paul since in that day and time, there is no guarantee that captors would feed their prisoners. Often the prisoners would have to rely on the generosity of others, most often family. In Paul's case, his church family. Paul says he hopes also to send Timothy their way to check on how things are going in the churches back in Philippi, if his situation looks like he will be allowed to live (2:19).
In chapter 3, it would appear that Paul is worried about false teachers with a Jewish background and a Jewish lifestyle agenda, but these are just warnings about the possibilities of such teachers visiting them. In chapter 2, the section on Christ's humility would seem to be related to some reported discord between two influential women in the congregation(s), Euodia and Syntyche (see 4:2). In any church situation, when influential people disagree, others begin choosing sides and that only makes matters worse. Paul states that they are important workers in the cause of Christ and harmony between them is essential to the well being of the church(es) in Philippi.
The primary purpose of the letter to the Philippians is to encourage and confirm in the faith a group of Christians that has always been both loyal and helpful to Paul, and a model of Christianity for other churches. Paul encourages them to continue in what he had taught them by affirming how much joy Paul has experienced in knowing of their continued faithfulness to Jesus Christ.
Traditionally, PHILEMON was always connected with Colossians, because both letters mention the names of Mark, Aristarchus, Demas and Luke as people with whom Paul has contact while in prison at the time he is dictating these letters, and also both mention Archippus as being on the receiving end of the letter. That being the case, traditionally scholars have placed Philemon and Colossians as being written together and delivered to churches close to each other by the same courier. However, for reasons that Ehrman discusses in chapter 17, many modern historical critical scholars believe Paul did not himself write Colossians, for reasons that Ehrman states in his discussion of Colossians (pages 369-272).
The whole gist of Philemon is that a runaway slave (by the name of Onesimus) who was owned by a man named Philemon (who was converted to Christianity by Paul), that this Onesimus had second thoughts about running away and comes to Paul in prison (either to seek Paul's advice or to ask Paul to smooth the way for his return to Onesimus without receiving brutal punishment). During this time, Paul also converts Onesimus to Christianity. And then, being sufficiently impressed with the usefulness of Onesimus (of course it is a play on words since the name of Onesimus is also the adjective in Greek meaning "useful"), Paul writes this letter letter to Philemon, properly buttering him up to both welcome Onesimus back as a brother in Christ, but also to make him available to Paul to assist Paul in his work as a Christian missionary.
An interesting point that Ehrman makes in his discussion on Philemon is to question the traditional interpretation that Paul is asking Philemon to give Onesimus his freedom from slavery. Rather, thinks Ehrman, all Paul is asking for is that Philemon approve of Onesimus working for Paul, either on loan or signing his ownership over to Paul. I am not sure if I agree with Ehrman, but he does have a point that no where does Paul actually request that Onesimus be released from his slave status. Whereas, Paul certainly makes it very clear he would find Onesimus very useful for his work. Most modern scholars have assumed that implicit in Paul's request for the use of Onesimus is that Onesimus be freed from his slave bondage.
The letters to Timothy and Titus (often called "Pastorals" by scholars since they address pastoral concerns within the churches about whom these letters are written) are believed to be written long after the time of Paul, according to historical critical scholars, usually being placed at the end of the first century. Conservative scholars who believe that Paul actually wrote the letters to Timothy and Titus often postulate that they were written during a time of freedom for Paul after the imprisonment mentioned at the end of Acts, and before and during a second imprisonment in Rome that actually led to his death. This is because there is no indication in Paul's other letters that Timothy and Titus were ever placed in charge of a geographically clustered group of churches in the time frame covered in the book of Acts. Both the setting and the issues are very different in the letters to Timothy and Titus than what we find in any of the other letters of Paul, leading most scholars (liberal and conservative) to recognize that a much different setting lies behind these letters.
The letter to the Hebrews was once believed to have been written by Paul, due to the mention of Timothy and Italy at the end of the letter (Hebrews 13:23-24). But today, few conservative scholars still believe that Paul might have written this letter. Most scholars believe it is truly anonymous, but this has not stopped scholars from concocting theories of authorship. My favorite is that it was written by Paul's colleague in ministry, Apollos, mentioned in 1 Corinthians, for reasons I will mention in a later Blog entry on Hebrews.
Galatians is unique in the situation that has occasioned the writing of this letter. We are not even sure exactly where these Galatians churches were located. Galatia refers to a large Roman province, not a city. We do not know if they were located in the southern part of the province of Galatia (see Figure 15.1 on page 235) which would be the Galatian churches mentioned in Acts (green shaded area), or northern Galatia (shaded in lavender) of which we know nothing, except what we know from this letter, if the letter was actually written to churches in northern Galatia. I prefer the southern Galatia theory, simply because we do know Paul evangelized in this area from what is written in Acts.
The unique situation about the letter to the Galatians is that from Paul's information, he has been led to believe that some of the Christian believers in these churches that he had established have been persuaded by other Christian missionaries to adopt a Jewish lifestyle. They were persuaded to do so my some evangelizing missionaries who believed that Christian converts from paganism still had to live the Jewish lifestyle, because that is the way the Jerusalem Christians live, who live that way because Jesus lived the Jewish lifestyle.
Paul is positively incensed and furious that these believers he converted from paganism are falling prey to a different version of Christianity than what he preached to them. That is why Paul spends the first two chapters giving us some autobiographical information about his beginnings in ministry. The point being that the Apostles in Jerusalem endorsed his version of Christianity, which is that you can claim Jesus as your savior even if you do not live a Jewish lifestyle. And now, many years later, Paul is confronting the fact that Christian missionaries (maybe from Jerusalem) have gone to his churches in Galatia and taught the believers in Galatia that their salvation cannot be assured unless they adopt the Jewish lifestyle.
Be sure to read Ehrman's discussion of Galatians carefully as he does a fine job of explaining the main theological issue, which is the relationship of the Jewish Law and Justification by faith (pages 234-241). The same theological issue comes up again in Paul's letter to the Romans, but Ehrman does not take the time to explain it there, since he already covered the topic in his discussion of Galatians.
While it is sometimes hard to follow Paul's logic in Galatians chapters 3 & 4, these chapters are theologically important for the development of Christian religious ideas. Paul ask his readers, what was the point of Jesus' sacrificial death on the cross if you still have to keep the Jewish Law to get right with God? In Paul's mind (and what he believes the risen Jesus personally told him) is that Jesus' death on the cross not only ended the need for ritual sacrifices in the Jewish temple, but also ended the need to keep the other ritualistic parts of the Jewish Law (circumcision, kosher rules, festivals & ceremonies, etc). Paul makes it very clear that in his mind that people get right with God (are "justified") by faith in Jesus, because of what God has done in Jesus' sacrificial death on the cross, which is validated by his resurrection from the dead. Paul finds this whole business in Galatia so unsettling that he rants that he wishes the teachers in Galatia proposing the necessity of male circumcision for all Christians would not only take off their own foreskins, but with a slip of the knife cut too deep and cut off the whole tip (see Galatians 5:12), thereby receiving their just desserts.
PHILIPPIANS is a letter that is the difference between night and day compared to Galatians. In Galatians, Paul is seriously worried that he might lose control of what is being taught in those churches. In Philippians we have a letter written to a congregation (or cluster of house churches) that have always been a source of joy for Paul. We do find some concerns expressed in chapter 3 and warnings about false teachers, but there is no indication that Paul is worried these Christians in the city of Philippi might desert his teaching for another version of Christianity.
It is quite clear that Paul is imprisoned under Roman guard as he writes this letter. It may be house arrest, but Paul is still confined and limited, even if he is not being mistreated or deprived of food. He obviously is able to receive visitors and able to dictate letters. Traditionally this has been understood to have been in Rome, because of the mention of greetings from the Christian believers who are part of "Caesar's household." For reasons of the logistics of travel implied in the letter, some scholars have proposed that maybe the incarceration was in Ephesus, also because the concerns mentioned in Philippians seem to fit better with the (reconstructed) time frame of Paul's work in and around Ephesus. But the mention of "Caesar's household" (4:22) and the mention of the "imperial guard" (in 1:13) would lend credibility to the theory that Philippians was written while Paul was incarcerated in Rome, during the imprisonment mentioned at the end of Acts.
The immediate occasion of this letter would seem to be that the Christian believers in Philippi (whose congregations were established by Paul) have heard that the courier they sent with money for Paul (Epaphroditus by name) became ill and nearly died. By the time Paul is aware of their concerns about Epaphroditus, Epaphroditus' health is much improved and Paul proposes to send him back to Philippi bearing this letter.
In this letter Paul covers a variety of topics, all of which are loosely connected. Even though Paul does not know how his imprisonment will turn out (either release or death), he has lost no opportunity to tell anyone willing to listen - about Jesus as their savior (1:12-14). Paul also thanks the Philippian Christians for the money they sent by way of Epaphroditus (4:10-20). This is important for Paul since in that day and time, there is no guarantee that captors would feed their prisoners. Often the prisoners would have to rely on the generosity of others, most often family. In Paul's case, his church family. Paul says he hopes also to send Timothy their way to check on how things are going in the churches back in Philippi, if his situation looks like he will be allowed to live (2:19).
In chapter 3, it would appear that Paul is worried about false teachers with a Jewish background and a Jewish lifestyle agenda, but these are just warnings about the possibilities of such teachers visiting them. In chapter 2, the section on Christ's humility would seem to be related to some reported discord between two influential women in the congregation(s), Euodia and Syntyche (see 4:2). In any church situation, when influential people disagree, others begin choosing sides and that only makes matters worse. Paul states that they are important workers in the cause of Christ and harmony between them is essential to the well being of the church(es) in Philippi.
The primary purpose of the letter to the Philippians is to encourage and confirm in the faith a group of Christians that has always been both loyal and helpful to Paul, and a model of Christianity for other churches. Paul encourages them to continue in what he had taught them by affirming how much joy Paul has experienced in knowing of their continued faithfulness to Jesus Christ.
Traditionally, PHILEMON was always connected with Colossians, because both letters mention the names of Mark, Aristarchus, Demas and Luke as people with whom Paul has contact while in prison at the time he is dictating these letters, and also both mention Archippus as being on the receiving end of the letter. That being the case, traditionally scholars have placed Philemon and Colossians as being written together and delivered to churches close to each other by the same courier. However, for reasons that Ehrman discusses in chapter 17, many modern historical critical scholars believe Paul did not himself write Colossians, for reasons that Ehrman states in his discussion of Colossians (pages 369-272).
The whole gist of Philemon is that a runaway slave (by the name of Onesimus) who was owned by a man named Philemon (who was converted to Christianity by Paul), that this Onesimus had second thoughts about running away and comes to Paul in prison (either to seek Paul's advice or to ask Paul to smooth the way for his return to Onesimus without receiving brutal punishment). During this time, Paul also converts Onesimus to Christianity. And then, being sufficiently impressed with the usefulness of Onesimus (of course it is a play on words since the name of Onesimus is also the adjective in Greek meaning "useful"), Paul writes this letter letter to Philemon, properly buttering him up to both welcome Onesimus back as a brother in Christ, but also to make him available to Paul to assist Paul in his work as a Christian missionary.
An interesting point that Ehrman makes in his discussion on Philemon is to question the traditional interpretation that Paul is asking Philemon to give Onesimus his freedom from slavery. Rather, thinks Ehrman, all Paul is asking for is that Philemon approve of Onesimus working for Paul, either on loan or signing his ownership over to Paul. I am not sure if I agree with Ehrman, but he does have a point that no where does Paul actually request that Onesimus be released from his slave status. Whereas, Paul certainly makes it very clear he would find Onesimus very useful for his work. Most modern scholars have assumed that implicit in Paul's request for the use of Onesimus is that Onesimus be freed from his slave bondage.
Ehrman, Chapter 14, 1 & 2 Corinthians
Paul's letters to the church at Corinth permit us an interesting look behind the scenes in what may have been going on in that church(es?). We don't really know for sure if the "church in Corinth" was a single congregation or a federation of house churches. It is easy to read Paul's letters as to one congregation, but the scope his intended recipients may not be so limited as just being to one house-church, since he addresses his letters to all the Christian believers in a particular city.
We know that what we call 1 Corinthians is not Paul first letter to this church, because he writes in 1 Corinthians 5:9, "I wrote you in my letter." Therefore 1 Corinthians is probably Paul's second letter to the church at Corinth.
Many historical critical scholars believe that 1 Corinthians especially gives us a glimpse of what may have been going on (or going wrong) in the Corinthian church as Paul deals with specific issues that have been brought to his attention. It would seem that Paul's sources of information are two. The first is "Chloe's people" (1 Cor. 1:11) who bring a report about different factions in the church engaged in jostling for positions of influence. The second source is the letter brought by Stephanas, Fortunatus and Achaicus (1 Cor. 16:15), who also will bring Paul's reply back to Corinth. The following statements are examples of why scholars believe Paul is responding to the verbal and written information he has received about problems among the Christians in Corinth. "It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you" (1 Cor. 5:1); Now concerning matters about which you wrote (1 Cor 7:1). "Now concerning food offered to idols" (1 Cor. 8:1). You get the idea. So what we have in 1 Corinthians is one side of a conversation and scholars love to speculate about what the other half of this conversation might have been, and what did these erroneous Corinthians actually believe?
Ehrman mentions most of the conclusions about the situation in Corinth referred to in 1 Corinthians, for which there is a broad consensus among historical critical scholars. The rule of thumb is this: if Paul says "don't do that" he probably believes there are people in that church doing what he condemns. Now that might be a weak foundation for a historical reconstruction of the situation in Corinth, since we have only one side of it, but that is all we have to go on, and modern scholars won't let that slow them down. The most used verse for this process is 1 Cor. 1:26. "Not many of you were wise by human standards," translated: a few were well educated, but most had no formal education. "Not many were powerful," a few were influential in the city, but most not at all. "Not many were of noble birth," translated, a few belonged to the upper class, but most were of the working or servant class.
Using this type of reasoning many scholars speculate that the problems with the Lord's Supper (mentioned in 1 Cor. 11:17-22) might have a sociological dimension to it - in that the wealthy upper class are coming early hogging the food and drink (which they provide out of their abundance) but fail to leave enough food for the servant class Christians to eat who can't come until their work is done. This is just an example of the ways that scholars try to reconstruct what was going wrong in the Corinthian church and make sense of why does Paul say what he says? Ehrman goes into more detail on this on page 218.
I believe that Ehrman gets to the crux of the problem in Corinth on pages 219 to 220 (bottom to top). That problem is the sense of personal exaltation on the part of the Corinthian believers, supposing they share in the glories of Christ's resurrection in this life. I suspect this feeling was energized by ecstatic experiences of the Holy Spirit, since Paul speaks in similar terms about the proper role of the gifts of the Holy Spirit, since some of the Corinthian believers seem to think that speaking in tongues makes them better Christians than those who don't speak in tongues (1 Cor 14:13-19).
This mindset among the Corinthian believers is also evident in the discussions about "power" and "wisdom" in that Paul seems to think these people are focusing on worldly power and wisdom and not spiritual power and wisdom, or if they do, they have completely misunderstood power and wisdom from a Christian perspective, as if the Corinthians see it as an endowment that commends them highly, whereas Paul sees power and wisdom as what God has done in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ for the salvation of the world, that makes no logical sense by worldly standards (see Ehrman, page 223, bot.)
Of course the answer that Paul gives to this situation is that these people need a healthy dose of humility and recognition that in this life - Christians should aspire to imitate the suffering Christ, so that in the next life they can enjoy the blessings of the glorious Christ. This is evident in the number of times that Paul refers to the importance of knowing "Christ crucified" (1 Cor. 1:18, 1:23, 2:2).
Overall I would say that Ehrman's take on 1 Corinthians is mainstream historical critical scholarship. He seems to emphasize the apocalyptic dimension of Paul's religious thinking more than most scholars. But that only stands to reason since Ehrman is of the opinion that apocalyptic expectations were the driving force in much of early Christianity, and especially so with Paul and Jesus.
Concerning 2 Corinthians, we face a whole new set of issues and problems. One major issue is whether this letter is all one letter or two or more letters jammed together (see especially Box 14.3 on page 229). Most conservative scholars believe the letter is all part of the same piece, but that Paul stopped dictating and then picked it up again later, thereby creating a sense of lost continuity. What seems most obvious is a distinct break between chapters 9 and 10. Chapters 10-13 go off in a very different direction than Chapters 1-9, and the tone in chapters 10-13 is markedly strained by comparison with the more collegial tone of chapters 1-6 especially. As Ehrman says on pages 228-229, it makes most sense to place 2 Cor. 10-13 as the "tearful" or "painful" letter that followed the painful visit mentioned in 2 Cor. 2:1-4. Therefore, 2 Cor 1-7 was written after 2 Cor 10-13 by this reconstruction of events. I notice that Ehrman places "Paul's second visit," the "painful" visit, before the arrival of the super-apostles. Whereas other scholars would locate the second visit (the painful visit) and after the arrival of the super apostles in the chronology of events.
The main problem addressed in 2 Corinthians is the emphasis of these super-apostles (see 2 Cor. 12:11) on worldly standards of oratorical skills. Paul as a preacher does not measure up by comparison (2 Cor. 10:10). But these super-apostles come bearing great qualifications (so they believe, see 2 Cor. 11:21-23). But Paul see qualifications for ministry as being what one is willing to suffer and endure for promoting the cause of Christ, and pulpit prima donas are not seeking to glorify Christ but only bring glory to themselves. One of the principles implicit in Paul's reasoning in 2 Cor 10-13 is that God can only use people effectively who have little confidence in their own abilities, but boundless confidence in the power of God to work through them.
Following this line of reconstruction, we find in 2 Cor 1-7 that the Corinthian Christians are properly humbled and reaffirm their confidence in Paul as their primary teacher in all things Christian. But problems do not disappear in the Corinthian church, less than 40 years later the bishop of Rome, Clement, is writing to the church in Corinth reminding them of all the truths that Paul had written to them previously.
A NOTE on 2 Cor. 8-9. This may be two separate pieces of instruction about a collection for the poor Christians in Jerusalem. Apparently, Paul was eager to take up a substantial monetary collection for the poor Christians in Jerusalem and then personally accompany this money to Jerusalem as an act of Christian solidarity, hopefully cementing a bond between the Jerusalem church (of whom the majority were converts from Judaism) and the churches that Paul had established (of whom the majority were converts from paganism). Paul even uses reference to the generosity of the poor Christians in Macedonia (Thessalonica and Philippi) to spur on the Corinthians to be generous in their contributions (2 Cor 8:2). And then using the ploy of saying to the Corinthians that he had been bragging to the Macedonians about the Corinthians' generosity to spur them to give more so they don't embarrass themselves (2 Cor. 9:2). We know that the destination of this collection is Jerusalem from what Paul says about the collection in 1 Corinthians 16:1-4.
It would seem that the story in Acts about Paul's arrest in Jerusalem would have taken place on the visit to Jerusalem intended to deliver this offering to the Christians there. Acts does not mention the offering, but it does find mention several times in Paul's letters.
We know that what we call 1 Corinthians is not Paul first letter to this church, because he writes in 1 Corinthians 5:9, "I wrote you in my letter." Therefore 1 Corinthians is probably Paul's second letter to the church at Corinth.
Many historical critical scholars believe that 1 Corinthians especially gives us a glimpse of what may have been going on (or going wrong) in the Corinthian church as Paul deals with specific issues that have been brought to his attention. It would seem that Paul's sources of information are two. The first is "Chloe's people" (1 Cor. 1:11) who bring a report about different factions in the church engaged in jostling for positions of influence. The second source is the letter brought by Stephanas, Fortunatus and Achaicus (1 Cor. 16:15), who also will bring Paul's reply back to Corinth. The following statements are examples of why scholars believe Paul is responding to the verbal and written information he has received about problems among the Christians in Corinth. "It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you" (1 Cor. 5:1); Now concerning matters about which you wrote (1 Cor 7:1). "Now concerning food offered to idols" (1 Cor. 8:1). You get the idea. So what we have in 1 Corinthians is one side of a conversation and scholars love to speculate about what the other half of this conversation might have been, and what did these erroneous Corinthians actually believe?
Ehrman mentions most of the conclusions about the situation in Corinth referred to in 1 Corinthians, for which there is a broad consensus among historical critical scholars. The rule of thumb is this: if Paul says "don't do that" he probably believes there are people in that church doing what he condemns. Now that might be a weak foundation for a historical reconstruction of the situation in Corinth, since we have only one side of it, but that is all we have to go on, and modern scholars won't let that slow them down. The most used verse for this process is 1 Cor. 1:26. "Not many of you were wise by human standards," translated: a few were well educated, but most had no formal education. "Not many were powerful," a few were influential in the city, but most not at all. "Not many were of noble birth," translated, a few belonged to the upper class, but most were of the working or servant class.
Using this type of reasoning many scholars speculate that the problems with the Lord's Supper (mentioned in 1 Cor. 11:17-22) might have a sociological dimension to it - in that the wealthy upper class are coming early hogging the food and drink (which they provide out of their abundance) but fail to leave enough food for the servant class Christians to eat who can't come until their work is done. This is just an example of the ways that scholars try to reconstruct what was going wrong in the Corinthian church and make sense of why does Paul say what he says? Ehrman goes into more detail on this on page 218.
I believe that Ehrman gets to the crux of the problem in Corinth on pages 219 to 220 (bottom to top). That problem is the sense of personal exaltation on the part of the Corinthian believers, supposing they share in the glories of Christ's resurrection in this life. I suspect this feeling was energized by ecstatic experiences of the Holy Spirit, since Paul speaks in similar terms about the proper role of the gifts of the Holy Spirit, since some of the Corinthian believers seem to think that speaking in tongues makes them better Christians than those who don't speak in tongues (1 Cor 14:13-19).
This mindset among the Corinthian believers is also evident in the discussions about "power" and "wisdom" in that Paul seems to think these people are focusing on worldly power and wisdom and not spiritual power and wisdom, or if they do, they have completely misunderstood power and wisdom from a Christian perspective, as if the Corinthians see it as an endowment that commends them highly, whereas Paul sees power and wisdom as what God has done in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ for the salvation of the world, that makes no logical sense by worldly standards (see Ehrman, page 223, bot.)
Of course the answer that Paul gives to this situation is that these people need a healthy dose of humility and recognition that in this life - Christians should aspire to imitate the suffering Christ, so that in the next life they can enjoy the blessings of the glorious Christ. This is evident in the number of times that Paul refers to the importance of knowing "Christ crucified" (1 Cor. 1:18, 1:23, 2:2).
Overall I would say that Ehrman's take on 1 Corinthians is mainstream historical critical scholarship. He seems to emphasize the apocalyptic dimension of Paul's religious thinking more than most scholars. But that only stands to reason since Ehrman is of the opinion that apocalyptic expectations were the driving force in much of early Christianity, and especially so with Paul and Jesus.
Concerning 2 Corinthians, we face a whole new set of issues and problems. One major issue is whether this letter is all one letter or two or more letters jammed together (see especially Box 14.3 on page 229). Most conservative scholars believe the letter is all part of the same piece, but that Paul stopped dictating and then picked it up again later, thereby creating a sense of lost continuity. What seems most obvious is a distinct break between chapters 9 and 10. Chapters 10-13 go off in a very different direction than Chapters 1-9, and the tone in chapters 10-13 is markedly strained by comparison with the more collegial tone of chapters 1-6 especially. As Ehrman says on pages 228-229, it makes most sense to place 2 Cor. 10-13 as the "tearful" or "painful" letter that followed the painful visit mentioned in 2 Cor. 2:1-4. Therefore, 2 Cor 1-7 was written after 2 Cor 10-13 by this reconstruction of events. I notice that Ehrman places "Paul's second visit," the "painful" visit, before the arrival of the super-apostles. Whereas other scholars would locate the second visit (the painful visit) and after the arrival of the super apostles in the chronology of events.
The main problem addressed in 2 Corinthians is the emphasis of these super-apostles (see 2 Cor. 12:11) on worldly standards of oratorical skills. Paul as a preacher does not measure up by comparison (2 Cor. 10:10). But these super-apostles come bearing great qualifications (so they believe, see 2 Cor. 11:21-23). But Paul see qualifications for ministry as being what one is willing to suffer and endure for promoting the cause of Christ, and pulpit prima donas are not seeking to glorify Christ but only bring glory to themselves. One of the principles implicit in Paul's reasoning in 2 Cor 10-13 is that God can only use people effectively who have little confidence in their own abilities, but boundless confidence in the power of God to work through them.
Following this line of reconstruction, we find in 2 Cor 1-7 that the Corinthian Christians are properly humbled and reaffirm their confidence in Paul as their primary teacher in all things Christian. But problems do not disappear in the Corinthian church, less than 40 years later the bishop of Rome, Clement, is writing to the church in Corinth reminding them of all the truths that Paul had written to them previously.
A NOTE on 2 Cor. 8-9. This may be two separate pieces of instruction about a collection for the poor Christians in Jerusalem. Apparently, Paul was eager to take up a substantial monetary collection for the poor Christians in Jerusalem and then personally accompany this money to Jerusalem as an act of Christian solidarity, hopefully cementing a bond between the Jerusalem church (of whom the majority were converts from Judaism) and the churches that Paul had established (of whom the majority were converts from paganism). Paul even uses reference to the generosity of the poor Christians in Macedonia (Thessalonica and Philippi) to spur on the Corinthians to be generous in their contributions (2 Cor 8:2). And then using the ploy of saying to the Corinthians that he had been bragging to the Macedonians about the Corinthians' generosity to spur them to give more so they don't embarrass themselves (2 Cor. 9:2). We know that the destination of this collection is Jerusalem from what Paul says about the collection in 1 Corinthians 16:1-4.
It would seem that the story in Acts about Paul's arrest in Jerusalem would have taken place on the visit to Jerusalem intended to deliver this offering to the Christians there. Acts does not mention the offering, but it does find mention several times in Paul's letters.
Thursday, July 7, 2011
Ehrman, Chapter 13, 1 Thessalonians
In 1 Thessalonians we have the oldest surviving Christian document. The original no longer exists (the oldest existing copy was probably made 300 years after Paul first wrote the letter). However, no one questions the authenticity of this letter or the fact that it was probably written about 49-50 CE. This letter provides us with a snapshot of Paul's evangelistic missionary work in the city of Thessalonica.
Scholars debate how long Paul went about his missionary work in Thessalonica before being forced to leave town. Some say several weeks, others say a number of months. Which ever it was, it would seem clear that Paul felt it necessary to leave town before his work there was complete in establishing a group of Christians as a solid local house-church. Even though Paul lists two co-writers (Timothy and Silvanus, who most scholars believe is the same as the Silas mentioned elsewhere), every scholar I know of assumes Paul dictated the entire letter himself (we know from Romans 16:22 that Paul dictated his letters, since the scribe inserts himself into the final greetings). The mention of Timothy and Silvanus does indicate the fact that Paul always had co-workers with him and he was not a lone ranger evangelist. Paul does not mention if there would have been others in the entourage, but there may well have been volunteer personal assistants.
Ehrman is quite sure that Paul mainly used his place of business as the locus of his evangelizing. Ehrman does not consider the Acts of the Apostles historically accurate. However, I think there may be merit in the model that Luke attributes to Paul in Acts - in which he preaches in a synagogue hoping to convert a few Jewish people and especially hoping to convert the non-Jews who attend synagogue services that Acts refers to as "God-fearers." These are people who are impressed by Jewish morality and monotheism, but not willing to undergo circumcision or follow the Kosher dietary rules. Such people would seem to be ideal candidates for Paul's message of receiving the blessings of the Jewish God without living like a Jew. The only requirement is recognizing this Jesus as the Jewish Messiah. Another tactic of Paul's from Acts that makes good sense to me is Paul's practice in Acts of converting a wealthy individual who would provide both a place to stay for Paul and especially a place to gather people for meetings instructing them on the ways of Christianity. Only a wealthy person's home would afford sufficient room to gather more than a dozen people comfortably.
Ehrman does a fine job of explaining the content of Paul's message that he would have preached to the Thessalonians (page 205-207). And Ehrman also does a good job of explaining the circumstances of the letter and the main issue that had occasioned the letter (the death of some Christian believers) (pages 210-213), so there is no need for me to duplicate that. As Ehrman mentions in Box 13.1 (page209), private voluntary associations were a common means of socializing in the Greco-Roman world (which would include all the areas evangelized by Paul) and it is likely that many early Christians understood their participation in a Christian house-church as being within that socio-religious model of a voluntary association. However, for the Christians, their affiliation with other Christians may have taken on a more significant role in their lives if these Christians were ostracized by friends and family for adopting this strange new religion. Other Christians may often have been the only real friends they had. Indeed, the importance of "fellowship" among many early Christians may be due to the fact that their local fellow Christian believers may have served as a surrogate family, since joining a strange religious group could easily lead to loss of job, being disowned by one's family, and being socially ostracized. Thus the significance of calling other Christians brother or sister, or referring to a church as the "household of God" (Ephesians 2:19). In other words, the close camaraderie of early Christians may be as much from emotional necessity as a way of living out the faith.
Scholars debate how long Paul went about his missionary work in Thessalonica before being forced to leave town. Some say several weeks, others say a number of months. Which ever it was, it would seem clear that Paul felt it necessary to leave town before his work there was complete in establishing a group of Christians as a solid local house-church. Even though Paul lists two co-writers (Timothy and Silvanus, who most scholars believe is the same as the Silas mentioned elsewhere), every scholar I know of assumes Paul dictated the entire letter himself (we know from Romans 16:22 that Paul dictated his letters, since the scribe inserts himself into the final greetings). The mention of Timothy and Silvanus does indicate the fact that Paul always had co-workers with him and he was not a lone ranger evangelist. Paul does not mention if there would have been others in the entourage, but there may well have been volunteer personal assistants.
Ehrman is quite sure that Paul mainly used his place of business as the locus of his evangelizing. Ehrman does not consider the Acts of the Apostles historically accurate. However, I think there may be merit in the model that Luke attributes to Paul in Acts - in which he preaches in a synagogue hoping to convert a few Jewish people and especially hoping to convert the non-Jews who attend synagogue services that Acts refers to as "God-fearers." These are people who are impressed by Jewish morality and monotheism, but not willing to undergo circumcision or follow the Kosher dietary rules. Such people would seem to be ideal candidates for Paul's message of receiving the blessings of the Jewish God without living like a Jew. The only requirement is recognizing this Jesus as the Jewish Messiah. Another tactic of Paul's from Acts that makes good sense to me is Paul's practice in Acts of converting a wealthy individual who would provide both a place to stay for Paul and especially a place to gather people for meetings instructing them on the ways of Christianity. Only a wealthy person's home would afford sufficient room to gather more than a dozen people comfortably.
Ehrman does a fine job of explaining the content of Paul's message that he would have preached to the Thessalonians (page 205-207). And Ehrman also does a good job of explaining the circumstances of the letter and the main issue that had occasioned the letter (the death of some Christian believers) (pages 210-213), so there is no need for me to duplicate that. As Ehrman mentions in Box 13.1 (page209), private voluntary associations were a common means of socializing in the Greco-Roman world (which would include all the areas evangelized by Paul) and it is likely that many early Christians understood their participation in a Christian house-church as being within that socio-religious model of a voluntary association. However, for the Christians, their affiliation with other Christians may have taken on a more significant role in their lives if these Christians were ostracized by friends and family for adopting this strange new religion. Other Christians may often have been the only real friends they had. Indeed, the importance of "fellowship" among many early Christians may be due to the fact that their local fellow Christian believers may have served as a surrogate family, since joining a strange religious group could easily lead to loss of job, being disowned by one's family, and being socially ostracized. Thus the significance of calling other Christians brother or sister, or referring to a church as the "household of God" (Ephesians 2:19). In other words, the close camaraderie of early Christians may be as much from emotional necessity as a way of living out the faith.
Ehrman, Chapter 12, Paul the Apostle
In this chapter Ehrman gives, what I think is, a very good overall introduction to the man and mission of the Apostle Paul, according to the current standards of historical critical biblical scholarship. The Greek word that is translated disciple (mathetes, pronounced mah-thay-tays) means learner. The word Apostle is the Greek word meaning someone "who is sent out" (on a mission to deliver information). In the Gospels the followers of Jesus were learners (Greek has a different word for student so I won't use that word here). After the resurrection, many of the followers believed they had been "sent out" by the risen Jesus to spread the message of salvation through Jesus. Therefore, they are called Apostles. In the books of Acts, it seems that only the original "12" (with Matthias replacing Judas) could be counted as "Apostles" because they had been with Jesus during his earthly ministry (see Acts 1:21-22). But PAUL has a much different view of what constitutes an apostle.
Paul finds his validation for considering himself an apostle of Jesus in the fact that he had seen the risen Jesus, and he had received his mission directly from the risen Jesus. Especially to the point is 1 Corinthians 9:1 where Paul defends his status as an apostle with: "Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen the Lord?" Then in Galatians Paul defends his version of the message of salvation in Jesus by indicating he received it directly from the risen Jesus (Gal. 1:16-17 & 2:2), and implies that he did not seek an endorsement from the apostles in Jerusalem for validation, but rather only wants their endorsement as confirmation of Christian unity. Paul's mission is to the non-Jews, to the "uncircumcised" as he puts it (see Gal. 2:7-8). But the novelty of Paul's mission is his insistence that converted pagans do not have to adopt a Jewish lifestyle in order to be Christian believers.
If the Cornelius story in Acts 10 is historically true, it was probably seen by the church leaders in Jerusalem as an exception to the rule. We find in Acts that Paul was charged (by detractors) with teaching that Christians born Jewish no longer have to keep the Jewish Law. It would seem that there is good reason to believe there is strong historical basis for this. Paul says: "I have become all things to all people that I might by all means save some" (1 Corinthians 9:22). In the passage this is taken from it is clear Paul set aside the kosher lifestyle while among pagans in order to convert them. In Galatians Paul accuses Peter of hypocrisy because while in Antioch he eats with converts from paganism until the arrival from Jerusalem of representatives of James. Then Peter and the others who were born Jewish reverted to their kosher exclusivism (see Galatians 2:11-14). (This James is not Zebedee but the James whom Paul refers to as "the Lord's brother" and who clearly preferred that all Christians follow the Jewish Law). There is no indication whether Peter accepted Paul rebuke at this time and upholds Paul's view. By inference Peter would have later fraternized with converts from paganism because he travels extensively in areas in which the majority of Christians were converts from paganism (see 1 Corinthians 1:12 & 9:5; the fact that Peter's name [Cephas] is mentioned in the same verse [Corinthians 1:12] as the other apostles who had influenced the Corinthian church seems to imply that Peter must have spent enough time in Corinth to garner a local following).
Paul seems to have had an easier time overcoming the exclusivistic tenets of his Jewish upbringing than did James (the Lord's brother). They were both Pharisees before becoming Christians. But James does not seem to have had any desire to break free from the Jewish lifestyle. Peter (it would appear) eventually does break free from the Jewish lifestyle).
What Ehrman says about the division of the letters attributed to Paul into the three groups (on page 182) is in line with modern scholarship. I personally believe such scholars tend to be unnecessarily skeptical about the letters placed in the category "Deutero-Pauline" meaning written by a disciple of Paul (see Box 12.1 on page 182). In my mind they could easily have been written by Paul. The letters written to Timothy and Titus are noticeably different from the other letters, and their authenticity has been questioned since the 1700's. However, many conservative scholars still consider them authentically Pauline, but no historical critical scholars believe Paul wrote them. As we will find out in subsequent weeks, some scholars even believe some of the undisputed letters may be composite letters, made up of pieces of various letters Paul wrote to a particular church.
On pages 184-186 Ehrman engages in an exercise popular among historical critical scholars which is demonstrating how the Paul in Acts teaches a Christianity very different from that in Paul's letters. I personally believe Ehrman over dramatizes the differences and discrepancies, but there is no doubt that the emphasis of Paul in Acts and Paul in his letters is quite different. What is really most noticeable to me is the lack of any reference in Acts to the major themes of Paul's letters, especially the doctrine of justification by faith, the expectation that Jesus may return in the near future, and also any discussion of the Jewish Law in light of the coming of Jesus.
The discussion of Paul's letters as "occasional" (see pages 186-188) is very instructive. Modern Christians often like to read the Bible to know what to believe and do not always take into account the circumstances in which a particular writing was originally composed. This makes a big difference in understanding the point of Paul's letters. With the possible exception of Romans, Paul's letters were written to address specific issues at specific churches. This is quite distinct from other New Testament letters like 1 Peter, James and 1 John, which are largely religious tracts, promoting certain teachings on various topics that apply equally well to all Christians. As we shall see, for the most part, Paul's letters are written to address specific problems that have arisen in a particular church.
Ehrman's discussion of Paul as a Pharisee (see pages 189-191) is very instructive on the Jewish background from which Paul emerges. Even though Paul says he counts it all rubbish (Philippians 3:8), the depth of his education in biblical studies and his ability to reason in a manner showing intellectual astuteness must certainly be a credit to his training as a Pharisee.
Paul's conversion has been a topic of intense debate in the last three decades of the 20th century. Ehrman points out that the once popular notion that Paul was a guilt ridden legalist before his conversion is clearly contradicted by what he says of his life as a Pharisee in Philippians 3:4-6 (see page 191). And even the common assumption, based on Acts 9, that this conversion was a single dramatic event taking place in a very short time span is questionable, because this interpretation may not be supported by the letters of Paul himself. In Galatians 1:17 we find there is a three year period after his conversion that Paul does not account for, but says he spent it in Arabia doing we know not what. This would seem to be prior to any effort on his part as an evangelist. This would also seem to contradict what we find in Acts 9:19-22, where Paul immediately becomes the evangelist. But Acts omits the three years before he goes to Jerusalem for the first time as a Christian (Acts 9:26). But it may also be that the author of Acts did not know of the three years between the time of his conversion and his next trip to Jerusalem.
The picture of Paul's conversion gets even more complicated when we consider how Paul worked out its implications for his own views on religion. It was not a case that he decided to become a Christian and some nice evangelist told him everything he needed to know about Christianity. Christian doctrine as we know it today had largely not yet been developed. Indeed, it is fair to say that Christian doctrine as we know it today is mightily dependent upon the writings of this Paul. So, Paul was working from his own religious experience and his understanding of Judaism, and in the process of trying to make sense of how this Jesus could be the Jewish messiah - Paul arrived at a means of interpreting the Jewish scriptures in light of the coming of Jesus and establishing the significance of Jesus' death and resurrection. It might seem obvious to us how this works, we read it in the New Testament. But before Paul there is little evidence of any sustained thought by anyone on the implications of Jesus as the Jewish messiah. Paul's letters may represent the first efforts of a Christian to try to think this through, and the only letter that can at all be said to represent a systematic consideration of this topic was one of his last letters, Romans. So, as Paul wrote his letters, Paul was theologizing as needed to address the questions and concerns that popped up along the way.
Ehrman's summary of the important points of Paul's re-evaluation of the Jewish faith based on the coming of Jesus as the Jewish messiah is very well written (see pages 193-196). What is provided in these pages is really good background information to have for reading Paul's letters, because without understanding Paul's post-conversion re-evaluation of Judaism, there is much in his letters that will be overlooked or seem puzzling. You may find it useful to return to these pages in the future when reading Paul's letters and the passages that touch on these topics.
Paul finds his validation for considering himself an apostle of Jesus in the fact that he had seen the risen Jesus, and he had received his mission directly from the risen Jesus. Especially to the point is 1 Corinthians 9:1 where Paul defends his status as an apostle with: "Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen the Lord?" Then in Galatians Paul defends his version of the message of salvation in Jesus by indicating he received it directly from the risen Jesus (Gal. 1:16-17 & 2:2), and implies that he did not seek an endorsement from the apostles in Jerusalem for validation, but rather only wants their endorsement as confirmation of Christian unity. Paul's mission is to the non-Jews, to the "uncircumcised" as he puts it (see Gal. 2:7-8). But the novelty of Paul's mission is his insistence that converted pagans do not have to adopt a Jewish lifestyle in order to be Christian believers.
If the Cornelius story in Acts 10 is historically true, it was probably seen by the church leaders in Jerusalem as an exception to the rule. We find in Acts that Paul was charged (by detractors) with teaching that Christians born Jewish no longer have to keep the Jewish Law. It would seem that there is good reason to believe there is strong historical basis for this. Paul says: "I have become all things to all people that I might by all means save some" (1 Corinthians 9:22). In the passage this is taken from it is clear Paul set aside the kosher lifestyle while among pagans in order to convert them. In Galatians Paul accuses Peter of hypocrisy because while in Antioch he eats with converts from paganism until the arrival from Jerusalem of representatives of James. Then Peter and the others who were born Jewish reverted to their kosher exclusivism (see Galatians 2:11-14). (This James is not Zebedee but the James whom Paul refers to as "the Lord's brother" and who clearly preferred that all Christians follow the Jewish Law). There is no indication whether Peter accepted Paul rebuke at this time and upholds Paul's view. By inference Peter would have later fraternized with converts from paganism because he travels extensively in areas in which the majority of Christians were converts from paganism (see 1 Corinthians 1:12 & 9:5; the fact that Peter's name [Cephas] is mentioned in the same verse [Corinthians 1:12] as the other apostles who had influenced the Corinthian church seems to imply that Peter must have spent enough time in Corinth to garner a local following).
Paul seems to have had an easier time overcoming the exclusivistic tenets of his Jewish upbringing than did James (the Lord's brother). They were both Pharisees before becoming Christians. But James does not seem to have had any desire to break free from the Jewish lifestyle. Peter (it would appear) eventually does break free from the Jewish lifestyle).
What Ehrman says about the division of the letters attributed to Paul into the three groups (on page 182) is in line with modern scholarship. I personally believe such scholars tend to be unnecessarily skeptical about the letters placed in the category "Deutero-Pauline" meaning written by a disciple of Paul (see Box 12.1 on page 182). In my mind they could easily have been written by Paul. The letters written to Timothy and Titus are noticeably different from the other letters, and their authenticity has been questioned since the 1700's. However, many conservative scholars still consider them authentically Pauline, but no historical critical scholars believe Paul wrote them. As we will find out in subsequent weeks, some scholars even believe some of the undisputed letters may be composite letters, made up of pieces of various letters Paul wrote to a particular church.
On pages 184-186 Ehrman engages in an exercise popular among historical critical scholars which is demonstrating how the Paul in Acts teaches a Christianity very different from that in Paul's letters. I personally believe Ehrman over dramatizes the differences and discrepancies, but there is no doubt that the emphasis of Paul in Acts and Paul in his letters is quite different. What is really most noticeable to me is the lack of any reference in Acts to the major themes of Paul's letters, especially the doctrine of justification by faith, the expectation that Jesus may return in the near future, and also any discussion of the Jewish Law in light of the coming of Jesus.
The discussion of Paul's letters as "occasional" (see pages 186-188) is very instructive. Modern Christians often like to read the Bible to know what to believe and do not always take into account the circumstances in which a particular writing was originally composed. This makes a big difference in understanding the point of Paul's letters. With the possible exception of Romans, Paul's letters were written to address specific issues at specific churches. This is quite distinct from other New Testament letters like 1 Peter, James and 1 John, which are largely religious tracts, promoting certain teachings on various topics that apply equally well to all Christians. As we shall see, for the most part, Paul's letters are written to address specific problems that have arisen in a particular church.
Ehrman's discussion of Paul as a Pharisee (see pages 189-191) is very instructive on the Jewish background from which Paul emerges. Even though Paul says he counts it all rubbish (Philippians 3:8), the depth of his education in biblical studies and his ability to reason in a manner showing intellectual astuteness must certainly be a credit to his training as a Pharisee.
Paul's conversion has been a topic of intense debate in the last three decades of the 20th century. Ehrman points out that the once popular notion that Paul was a guilt ridden legalist before his conversion is clearly contradicted by what he says of his life as a Pharisee in Philippians 3:4-6 (see page 191). And even the common assumption, based on Acts 9, that this conversion was a single dramatic event taking place in a very short time span is questionable, because this interpretation may not be supported by the letters of Paul himself. In Galatians 1:17 we find there is a three year period after his conversion that Paul does not account for, but says he spent it in Arabia doing we know not what. This would seem to be prior to any effort on his part as an evangelist. This would also seem to contradict what we find in Acts 9:19-22, where Paul immediately becomes the evangelist. But Acts omits the three years before he goes to Jerusalem for the first time as a Christian (Acts 9:26). But it may also be that the author of Acts did not know of the three years between the time of his conversion and his next trip to Jerusalem.
The picture of Paul's conversion gets even more complicated when we consider how Paul worked out its implications for his own views on religion. It was not a case that he decided to become a Christian and some nice evangelist told him everything he needed to know about Christianity. Christian doctrine as we know it today had largely not yet been developed. Indeed, it is fair to say that Christian doctrine as we know it today is mightily dependent upon the writings of this Paul. So, Paul was working from his own religious experience and his understanding of Judaism, and in the process of trying to make sense of how this Jesus could be the Jewish messiah - Paul arrived at a means of interpreting the Jewish scriptures in light of the coming of Jesus and establishing the significance of Jesus' death and resurrection. It might seem obvious to us how this works, we read it in the New Testament. But before Paul there is little evidence of any sustained thought by anyone on the implications of Jesus as the Jewish messiah. Paul's letters may represent the first efforts of a Christian to try to think this through, and the only letter that can at all be said to represent a systematic consideration of this topic was one of his last letters, Romans. So, as Paul wrote his letters, Paul was theologizing as needed to address the questions and concerns that popped up along the way.
Ehrman's summary of the important points of Paul's re-evaluation of the Jewish faith based on the coming of Jesus as the Jewish messiah is very well written (see pages 193-196). What is provided in these pages is really good background information to have for reading Paul's letters, because without understanding Paul's post-conversion re-evaluation of Judaism, there is much in his letters that will be overlooked or seem puzzling. You may find it useful to return to these pages in the future when reading Paul's letters and the passages that touch on these topics.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)