Apostle Paul

His Life and Theology

Schnelle, Udo, Boring, M. Eugene

• Publisher: Baker Academic
• Year: 2013
• ISBN:
  9781441242006
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Biblical Biography

Paul's writings are centrally important not only for the establishment of the Christian faith but also for the whole history of Western culture. Senior New Testament scholar Udo Schnelle offers a comprehensive introduction to the life and thought of Paul that combines historical and theological analysis. The work was translated into clear, fluent English from the original German--with additional English-language bibliographical reference materials--by leading American scholar M. Eugene Boring. First released in hardcover to strong acclaim, the book is now available in paperback. It is essential reading for professors, students, clergy, and others with a scholarly interest in Paul.

1

Prologue

Paul as Challenge and Provocation

1.1 Approaching Paul

Paul’s life was the life of a traveler. Like no other before or after him, he bridged different continents, cultures, and religions and created a new continuing reality: Christianity as a world religion.[1] As the first Christian to really break through established boundaries, Paul set forth the meaning of the new being in Christ (ἐν Χριστῷ) and lived it out within the horizon of the Lord’s parousia. This is the bond that unites him with Christians of every generation. Thus, to enter into his world of thought always means to trace out the contours of his faith. “What missionary is there, what preacher, what man entrusted with the cure of souls, who can be compared with him, whether in the greatness of the task he accomplished, or in the holy energy with which he carried it out?”[2]

Such a person could not remain uncontroversial. Even in New Testament times, his subtle thought processes already caused difficulties (cf. 2 Pet. 3:15–16). While in the course of church history Paul has served as the guarantor of the theology of some (Augustine, Martin Luther, Karl Barth) and a powerful source of theological renewal and church reform, others have seen in the apostle to the Gentiles only an inferior disciple who dissolved into theology Jesus’ original teaching about God and thus falsified it. H. J. Schoeps finds it thought-provoking “that the Christian church has received a completely distorted view of the Jewish law at the hands of a diaspora Jew who had become alienated from the faith-ideas of his fathers.”[3] Joseph Klausner states, “First, Paul, in spite of all his desire for authority and all the ridicule and hatred which he directed toward those who did not acknowledge his particular gospel or his authority as an apostle, did not have what may be called genuine sovereignty.”[4]

1.2 Reflections on Historiography

What is the best approach to this multifaceted personality? Is it at all possible to obtain an adequate grasp of the life and thought of Paul? How should a presentation of his life and thought be structured? Dealing with these issues requires hermeneutical and methodological reflections on two levels: (1) What epistemological theories are involved in the writing of history as such?[5] (2) What special problems arise in dealing with Paul?

How History Is Made and Written

At the center of recent discussion of historical theory stands the question of how historical reports and their incorporation into the thought world of the historian/exegete relate to each other.[6] The classical ideal of historicism, namely, to present nothing more or less than “what actually happened,”[7] has proven to be an ideological postulate in several regards.[8] As the present passes into the past, it irrevocably loses its character as reality. For this reason alone it is not possible to recall the past without rupture into the present. The temporal interval signifies a fading away in every regard; it disallows historical knowledge in the sense of a comprehensive restoration of what once happened.[9] All one can do is declare in the present one’s own interpretation of the past. The past is available to us exclusively in the mode of the present, again only in interpreted and selected form.[10] Only that is relevant from the past which is no longer merely past but influences world formation and world interpretation in the present.[11] The true temporal plane on which the historian/exegete lives is always the present,[12] within which he or she is inextricably intertwined, so that present understanding of past events is always decisively stamped by the historian’s own cultural standards. The historian/exegete’s social setting, its traditions, its political and religious values necessarily affect what he or she says in the present about the past.[13] Moreover, the very conditions of understanding, especially reason and the particular context, are subject to a process of continuing transformation, inasmuch as historical knowledge is determined by each period of intellectual history and its constantly changing goals and guidelines for obtaining knowledge.[14] Insight into the historicality of the knowing subject calls for reflection on his or her role in the act of understanding, for the knowing subject does not stand above history but is entirely involved in it. Therefore, if one wants to describe historical understanding, it is altogether inappropriate to contrast “objectivity” and “subjectivity.”[15] The use of such terminology serves rather as a literary strategy of declaring one’s own position as positive and neutral in order to discredit other interpretations as subjective and ideological.[16] The object known cannot be separated from the knowing subject, for the act of knowing also always effects a change in the object that is known. The awareness of reality attained in the act of knowing and the past reality itself are not related as original and copy.[17] One should thus speak not of the “objectivity” of historical arguments but of their plausibility and appropriateness to their subject matter.[18] After all, reports introduced into historical arguments as “facts” are as a rule themselves already interpretations of past events. The past event itself is not available to us but only the various understandings of the past event, mediated to us by various interpreters. History is not reconstructed but unavoidably and necessarily constructed. The common perception that things need only be “reported” or “re-constructed” suggests a knowledge of the original events that does not exist in the manner presupposed by this terminology. Nor is history simply identical with the past; rather, it always represents only a stance in the present from which one can view the past. Thus within the realm of historical constructions, there are no “facts” in the “objective” sense; interpretations are built on interpretations.[19] Hence the truth of the statement “Events are not [in themselves] history; they become history.”[20]

In addition to these epistemological insights, we now come to reflections on the philosophy of language. History is always mediated to us in linguistic form; history exists only to the extent that it is expressed in language. Historical reports become history only through the semantically organized construction of the historian/exegete. In this process, language functions not only to describe the object of thought accepted as reality; language also determines and places its stamp on all perceptions that are organized as history.[21] For human beings, there is no path from language to an independent, extralinguistic reality, for reality is present to us only in and through language.[22] History is thus available only as memory—mediated and formed by language. And again, language itself is culturally conditioned and subject to constant social transformation,[23] so it is not surprising that historical events are construed and evaluated differently in situations shaped by different cultures and values. Language is much more than a mere reflection of reality, for it regulates and places its own stamp on the appropriation of reality and thereby also on our pictures of what is real. At the same time, language is not the reality itself, for language too first comes into being in the course of human history and in the personal history of every human being within the framework of his or her biological and cultural development. In this process, language is decisively influenced by the varieties of human cultures and individual lives.[24] This constant process of change to which language is subject can only be explained in relation to the different social contexts by which it is conditioned;[25] that is, the connection between the signifier and the signified must be maintained if one does not want to surrender reality itself.

History as Meaning Formation

History is thus always a selective system by means of which the interpreter orders and interprets not merely the past but especially his or her own world. The linguistic construction of past events always therefore takes place as a meaning-creating process that confers meaning on both past and present; such constructions provide the sense-making capacity that facilitates the individual’s orientation within the complex framework of life.[26] Historical interpretation means the creation of a coherent framework of meaning; facts only become what they are for us by the creation of such a historical narrative framework.[27] In this process historical reports must be made accessible to the present and expressed in language, so that in the presentation/narration of history, “facts” and “fiction”[28]—traditional data and the creative-fictive work of an author—necessarily combine.[29] As historical reports are combined, historical gaps must be filled in; reports from the past and their interpretation in the present flow together to produce something new.[30] Interpretation inserts the past event into a structure that it did not previously have.[31] There are only potential facts, for experience and interpretation are necessary to grasp the meaning potential of an event.[32] “Bare” facts must have a meaning attached to them, and the structure of this interpretation constitutes the understanding of facts.[33] It is the fictional element that first opens up access to the past, for it makes possible the unavoidable rewriting of the presupposed events. The figurative, symbolic level is indispensable for historical work, for it develops the prefigured plan of interpretation that shapes the present’s appropriation and interpretation of the past. The fundamental principle is that history originates only after the event on which it is based has been discerned as relevant for the present, so that necessarily history cannot have the same claim to reality as the events themselves on which it is based.[34] This means that any outline of the history of the life and thought of Paul must always be only an approach to the past events themselves, an approach that must be aware of its theoretical presuppositions regarding the writing of history, its own constructive character, and the problems inherent in its task.

Paul as Maker of History and Meaning

What particular problems does Paul present to the writer of history? In the first place, one must reflect on the fact that Paul himself does all that has just been described: by narrating and interpreting the event of Jesus Christ in a particular way, he himself writes history and constructs a new religious world.[35] His interpretation allows a uniquely effective power to emerge, because its multifaceted nature allows it to proceed in several directions, uniting with other elements: the story of Jesus, Judaism, and Hellenism. This capacity for inclusion grew out of the apostle’s own life journey, so that in Paul’s case one must think of the relation of biography and theology in a particular way. In Paul, biography and theology congeal into a tensive unity, for “Paul is the only man of Primitive-Christian times whom we really know.”[36] Of the ten New Testament documents whose authors are known, seven come from Paul. His letters from ca. 50–61 CE provide insight into his theological thought[37] but also illuminate his personal feelings. Extensive sections are charged with emotion and let Paul the human being come before our mind’s eye with all his strengths and weaknesses. At the same time, the course of Paul’s life prior to his emergence as a Pharisee zealous for the ancestral traditions lies more or less in the dark. The Christian socialization of the apostle, his activity as a missionary for the Antioch church, and his independent mission prior to the composition of 1 Thessalonians can be glimpsed only as fragments. Nonetheless, this phase is of preeminent importance for understanding the apostle’s personality, for his fundamental convictions were formed during this period. The different sources that provide the bases for constructing the individual phases of Paul’s work and thought make it difficult to relate his biography and his theology to each other in a way that accounts for the data.

Furthermore, there are gaps in phases of Paul’s life as documented by his letters. Since they were part of a comprehensive communications network between the apostle, his coworkers, and particular congregations, the letters were written not as world literature but to resolve urgent congregational problems. We do not know what Paul did and taught in the churches beyond what is contained in these letters. Within the framework of debates with congregations and opponents, as a rule we have only Paul’s own position; divergent views are unknown or can only be surmised hypothetically. On the one hand, Paul’s letters present us with an inexhaustible source of material for reflection on the apostle, reflection that has continued for almost two thousand years, with no end in sight; on the other hand, they are only historical and theological snapshots.

Finally, the Pauline letters present numerous questions regarding content:[38] What is their determinative theme? What are Paul’s fundamental theological affirmations? What caused him to carry out a mission to almost the whole world (from the perspective of that time)? Was he aware that his work essentially called for the establishment of early Christianity[39] as an independent movement? Is it possible to locate the center of Paul’s theological thinking, from which his thought may be grasped as a whole? Can pointed statements conditioned by particular situations be distinguished from, and meaningfully coordinated with, his fundamental theological principles? Does Paul’s thought represent a comprehensive system free of contradictions? In tracing out the path of Paul’s life and thought, is it better to grasp the material by a chronological or a thematic “handle”?

1.3 Methodological “Handle”: Meaning Formation in Continuity and Change

Human existence and action are characterized by their capacity for meaning.[40] No form of human life can be defined “without reference to meaning. It makes sense to understand meaning as the fundamental category of human existence.”[41] The insights of cultural anthropology regarding the ability of human beings to transcend both themselves and the life world of their society and culture indicate this.[42] Moreover, human beings are always born into a world of meaning.[43] The drive to make sense of things is an unavoidable part of human life, for the human life world must be thought about, disclosed, and appropriated in some meaningful way—only thus are human life and ac...