Corpus-Paul

["Mark D. Nanos" <nanos AT gvi.net>]

On 4/2/99 John C. Hurd responded to an earlier post of Frank Hughes in the
following way, so that all of Hughes' comments precede those of Hurd, and
are not responses. Sorry I have lost the subject heading and cannot access
the server for some reason, so I have retitled. I am avoiding as much as
possible the question of the interpretation of Galatians active in this
discussion, to focus on the question of the sequence of Paul's letters,
especially 1 Thessonians. Actually, the question that has engaged me is the
characterization of the "early-Paul" by which the sequential place of 1
Thess. is determined. Not that I would not like to discuss Galatians (it is
actually the letter I am presently working on, and the interpretation
thereof for the characterization of the "early-Paul" that set me to
wondering), but as you will see, the point is complicated enough. If your
understanding of Galatians (which I do not share) as the basis for your
sequential location of 1 Thess. is necessary to discuss, then we can come
back to it. I am assuming that Acts is not considered reliable for this
discussion, and thus regarding it as irrelevant. In other words, the logic
of the sequence must be demonstrated from within Paul's letters alone.

        Frank Hughes wrote:
>My own ideas about Paul are that it is difficult and probably
misleading to think of Paul in terms of straight-line development.
        John Hurd wrote:
Yes.  Paul does not grow his theology from first principles, but instead
develops theological solutions to the problems which arise in the course
of his ministry.  That is why it is so important to be clear about the
sequence of events in his life.

Frank and John:
That Paul's thinking, actions and communications developed over the course
of his life in a variety of directions seems to me to be beyond dispute (I
am less certain about dismissing the prior place of first principles,
especially if defined inclusive of those Scriptural and revelatory
principles which shaped Paul's thought as he interpreted the world of his
experience; did he face experiences with a blank slate?).

But their remains a question of how and whether the different facets we
encounter in his various extent letters, or in other possible "evidence"
such as Acts (however regarded), show development or not, and in which
direction(s). As for being "clear," the many different sequences offered
for Paul's letters seem to make that anything but. Where does the sequence
come from? If reasoning on the basis of theological development thought to
be witnessed within them, this assumes we know which way development must
have run, and thus a circular course is set for how to read the letters
having begun with the letters, but without mention of such sequence
explicitly within them. But if one reads the letters differently, or
understands Paul's development along a different line (e.g., as Luke may
have), then a different sequence will be imagined, and again, a circular
conclusion reached when the letter's are interpreted. The reason for
mentioning this and suggesting the problematic presuppositions that may be
concealed in the reasoning above will be articulated in the specifics
below. But here I would like to note that one can write very differently at
the same time (essentially) when addressing different people or situations,
without any sequential development implied. An analogous example would be
how one might deal with two different children on the same evening, one a
bookworm whom one urges to get a social life like their sibling, the other
a socialite whom one urges to take some time to read a book like their
sibling. Perhaps the next night one delivers a similar message in reverse
order, or on some other topic one deems the present concern. (This example
could be pushed further, e.g., maybe writing a letter this same night to a
friend; calling a parent, writing a brief for work the next day, talking to
a car salesperson or other sales representative who calls at home; each
demonstrating a different style and aspect of one's personality and
communicative range). This need not indicate development sequentially, nor
even inconsistency, although it could indicate either or both.

The implication to draw here is that without certainty about the date of
the letters (and consistently accepting the present state of scholarly
skepticism, if accepted, regarding the details of Acts), how can one know,
given the different places, people, and situations addressed--however
independent of Paul's involvement may be the case at the time--that we are
witnessing "development" in any way, straight-line or otherwise?

Perhaps in Thessalonika, at the time that Paul is responding, the
circumstances simply do not run along a line that makes the language that
is witnessed in letters for other times and situations appropriate, or
salient. For example, could it not be argued that the lack of "DIK
(righteousness)" based language and less dependence upon Scripture
quotation indicate a later date for 1 Thess., or at least not an earlier
one? Why? Maybe because either the later, or just "this" community was less
intimately connected to communal concerns with identity or behavior in
"Jewish" terms. This might be because there are more gentiles, or because
they are functioning more independently of other interest groups or
communities, or that these issues have been more sufficiently addressed
than was the case among earlier or just other communities, so that those
addressed are more secure in these matters. Or maybe Paul developed less
Jewish language or ways for dealing with less Jewish groups and situations.
Maybe the situation in Thessalonika "in this case" did not require it, even
if at other times or in other cases it may have, whatever the reason might
have been. In any case, absence of or lesser indications of the
articulation of Jewish communal identity and behavioral concerns, or less
expression in "interested" Jewish language seem to me not to be an
indication for an earlier date, but for a different situation addressed; or
perhaps even a later one. It could indicate a more mature or sophisticated
Paul (e.g., in the sense of argumentative strategy, or ability to establish
a more secure communal identity), or just a different side of him and his
range of argumentative abilities. It could even argue for a more
"sectarian" and "gentilized" Paul (if Paul at all) at a later date, less
concerned with the earlier issues that preoccupied him during his time as a
"reformer" seeking to work the problems out within Jewish patterns of
thought and language, to which the "earlier" policy of justification by
faith bears witness.

        Frank Hughes wrote:
>I look on 1 Thessalonians as the last and only remnant of "the early
Paul," i.e., the Paul before the Jerusalem Conference and
>Galatians.

Frank:
If I reach ahead to what I take to be your (shared) understanding of Paul's
language of justification as largely social, as dealing with the equal
status of Jew and gentile in Christ, with which I agree, the following
questions arise. Where does the model for the "early Paul," presumed to be
less concerned or articulate on the policy issue of justifying of Jew and
gentile equally in Christ within this movement, which this text now
ostensibly fits, come from? How long was it before he ever went to this
city in Greece, or wrote to them thereafter? What makes it clear that he
begins with less involvement with Jewish communities and their concerns at
first, and then moves back into this kind of exegence or communicative
context later? (if only Galatians, then I will engage you there, for I do
not believe it supports this move).

In other words, How do you know he is moving from less involvement with
matters of how Jews and gentiles are equally justified within these new
communities to more concern? Would it not be logical to imagine just the
opposite? It would seem that the introduction of the first gentiles as full
members without completing the ritual process of proselyte conversion
within a larger Jewish context would already involve both a justification
for arriving at this "innovative" position, and an argument to defend it in
anticipation of some resistance (having been a persecutor himself, it is
difficult to imagine that he was proceeding to introduce such an innovation
naively; here the "still" of Gal. 5:11 begs for discussion. If he was
involved in converting gentiles to proselytes prior to his faith in Christ,
then this would indicate a high awareness of the innovative character of
this approach from the start, and likely the need to understand and defend
this policy from the start. By the way, I think this may indicate the cause
of his earlier persecution of this movement was over just this innovation
prior to Paul's involvement, and thus that the policy of "justification by
faith" for gentiles precedes Paul, if you will. But if this reference
indicates that he was involved in converting gentiles to proselytes in his
early practice after becoming a Christ believer, then what kind of theology
and language would one expect in his earliest letters?!).

[snip; as the next issues of use of Galatians begin a whole new set of
problems]

        Frank Hughes wrote:
>So, anyway, 1 Thess is important because it is the only witness to the
pre-Galatians Paul, who is very likely pre-justification by faith as
well.

Frank:
This is an example of the circle of which I initially wrote; and in at
least two ways. One, knowing the direction of Paul's development based upon
a reading of another undated letter; moreover, not written to the same
community (in case of Galatians not even sure exactly to whom or where,
much less when!). Note too that it is not as clear as assumed (in fact, I
do not think it is the case) that Galatians deals with a problem in Galatia
that has anything to do with people or policies in Jerusalem (Jerusalem is
not mentioned in the occasional material of the letter, only in examples
from elsewhere and an allegory, and the reasons for this are arguable).

Two, knowing a pre-justification by faith Paul thereby, in a letter written
to Thessalonika--a place he may not have even visited until after many
years of mission work among other communities with significant Jewish
communities (e.g., Antioch)--when it would seem logical to assume the
social connections that would cause the need for such a programmatic view
of how gentiles fit into settings involving Jewish interest groups (i.e.,
justification by faith) would have needed to be considered and articulated
already before he had ever arrived there. For example, it seems to me that
Paul's experiences at Syrian Antioch, though mentioned in Galatians, would
precede his travels to, or at least letter(s) to Thessalonika. And in
Antioch the tensions which result in justification by faith being
thought-out and articulated, whether exactly reiterated in Gal. 2:14-21 or
not, are very real. For the kind of fellowship to have taken place issues
of identity and relative status would have to be addressed. But if one
might argue that the incident in Antioch or Paul's work there, however long
that may have been, was after Thessalonika, what about the Jerusalem
meeting of Gal. 2:1-10? (I do not assume any correspondence with Acts 15).
Was not justification by faith for Jew and gentile the matter about which
they met? Was not a non-Jewish Titus present for their social interaction,
thus bringing up the issues that justification by faith ("the gospel which
I preach among gentiles"/"the gospel to the foreskinned" coupled with
Titus's non-circumcision) addresses?--"that the truth of the gospel might
be preserved for you." And was not this, and Paul's fourteen (plus?) years
in Arabia, Damascus, Syria and Cilicia, all prior to arriving at or writing
to Thessalonika?

Sorry for the length taken to state these problems; I hope they are clear,
Mark Nanos