Corpus-Paul

[Ray Pickett <rpickett AT unidial.com>]

Mark D. Nanos wrote:

> 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?

Mark raises some good questions about the circularity of scholarly
arguments regarding chronology and development. What I recall to be the
crux of the argument for placing 1 Thess. early is the presumed
evolution of his eschatology from a fervent conviction that the parousia
is imminent in that letter to a realization that it may lie more in the
distant horizon in other letters. If that is an accurate representation
of the argument, then Paul's admonitions concerning marriage in the
latter 1 Cor., which also seem to assume an imminent end (cf.
7:20,24,26,31), throw this reasoning into question. In short, I take
Mark's point that different people and/or circumstances better account
for difference in language and perspective than developmental theories.

I don't have any grand theory to offer regarding the situation which
evoked Paul's graphic depiction of the parousia in 1 Thess. It does
appear that Paul was responding to queries about what people in the
community who had died and thus needs to provide some explanation about
the resurrection. What I don't understand is why he talks about parousia
in 1 Thess and resurrection body in 1 Cor (which, again, also has a tone
of imminence), except for the fact that the thrust of his entire
argument in 1 Cor is emphasizing the importance of what one does in the
body (situation). I must confess that I am intriqued but not completely
convinced by the arguments of Georgi and Koester that Paul's discussion
of the parousia has an imperial context and may reference the ceremonies
of the ruler cult. Surely Paul's citation of "peace and security" in 5:3
is an allusion to the Roman Pax. It's not clear to me how Paul is
actually envisioning the parousia. I would be grateful for illumination
on this.

But I have digressed from the point I did want to make, namely that if
one suspends the developmental theories and brackets out the issue of
escatology (and grants that how Paul deals with it is profoundly shaped
by situation), it is amazing how much Galatians and 1 Thess. have in
common. Both letters are addressed to Gentile congregations who have
turned to God from idols (1 Thess. 1:9; Gal. 4:8-10). Both refer to
situations of persecution or suffering (1 Thess. 1:6; 3:3-4; Gal. 3:4 -
Paul uses pasxw - in both contexts I assume he is referring to the price
paid for being a Christian in a pagan context). Both letters use pistis
language (though Thess. doesn't use dik language). Both give a great
deal of emphasis to the Spirit (1 Thess. 1:5; 4:8; 5:19; Gal. 3:5; 4:6;
5:5, 16ff.). Both use familial language, emphasize the importance of
love for one another, and provide vice/virtue lists which underline the
control of the passions as a primary issue. This is just a cursory
comparison that could be further elaborated upon I think. Although these
letters have very different "feels', it strikes me that the ethos they
each describe are very similar (both offer glimpses of Pauline
Christianity in a pagan context), and the sense of what Christian praxis
might be is not all that different. These common elements often get
obscured by devolopmental thoeries.

Enough for one post. I too would be interested in hearing what Mark is
doing with Galatians.

Ray Pickett 

  


> Perhaps in Thessalonika, at the time that Paul is respon ding, 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
> 
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to corpus-paul as: rpickett AT unidial.com
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to $subst('Email.Unsub')