Historicity, Hermeneutics, His Origins
A discussion based on Roetzel, Calvin J. Paul: The Man and the Myth. Edinburgh:
T&T Clark, 1999. 8-44.
 |
| image of Paul the Apostle www.irishtimes.com |
Our aim is to
draw an authentic account of Early Paul motivated by an interest to perceive
the mind of the author (Paul) in his letters. In the second testament
literature Paul the apostle stands as the only author who can be studied with
certainty. But the data are not as accessible as it is the case with other
literature. “There are more gaps than text, more questions than answers, more
imponderables than certainties”[1]
about Paul says Calvin J. Roetzel, an acclaimed Pauline research scholar of the
present times. The case of Paul is quite puzzling and difficult as we have more
forceful account of the person, mission and details of his origins from the
secondary sources – Acts, Deutero-Paulines and Deutero-canonicals - than some scattered
references in his letters. The danger of mixing up resources is ever present. Take
for example, Paul nowhere [in his letters] names a single miracle that he
performed, other writers, such Luke in Acts, have dared to describe these in
vivid detail. Similarly Luke advances the view that Paul was a Roman Citizen,
that he spent his formative years in Jerusalem studying under the great rabbi
Gamaliel II but evidences are insufficient to draw home a conclusion. While in
his letters Paul makes a roundabout justification of his apostleship, the
Deutero-Paulines acclaim him as chief among the apostles.
In Roetzel, we
find a careful biographer who would weave the information in the order of
hermeneutical importance[2] with
an extensive access to recent scholarship on Paul to present to us a more
authentic account of the origins, historical setting, and the worldview of
Paul.
Origins:
Jewish or Hellenistic Setting
Traditionally we
narrow down Paul’s learning and growth to a Jewish setting but for his birth in
a Hellenistic world. His letters portray him as more than mere native of a
Hellenistic world. The question then is to find first, whether he grew up in
the Hellenistic environment in contrast to the information given in Acts 22,3
“I am a Jew, born in Tarsus in Cilicia, but brought up in this city [Jerusalem]
at the feet of Gamaliel”.
Scholars like W.
C. Van Unnik (1910-1978) and Martin Hengel (1926-2009) affirm that Paul was
profoundly influenced by Jerusalem than Tarsus, but do not agree on the medium
of his communication while the former insists on Aramaic the latter stresses
upon Greek. Hengel gained support from Adolf Deissmann (1866-1937). Deissmann
argues that Paul was a Septuagint Jew. Hence it would be simplistic to push Tarsus
completely to the background. Haenchen (1894-1975) on the other hand, notes the
argument of Van Unnik does not stand a close scrutiny: Paul states that he was
‘unknown by sight to the churches in Judea’ Gal. 1.22. Moreover Jerusalem is central importance to
Lucan corpus. The information serves more for the development of Lucan theology
than as a historical data about Paul. Finally there is no evidence in his
letters that Paul knew or spoke Aramaic. Paul then was more a Jew brought in a
Hellenistic setting than non-Hellenistic Jewish background. The argument gains
more support as the city of Jerusalem, though was no stranger to Hellenism, but
does not explain his familiarity with Septuagint, Stoicism, his acquaintance
with literary styles unlike the hypothesis that he might have been Diaspora Jew,
born and brought up in a Hellenistic setting.
The question
about the city of his birth is not free from dispute. Was Paul a citizen of
Tarsus? Most probably the information is authentic. Although we rely on Luke’s
Acts for the information as it is validated by the thorough Hellenistic
influence and its disinterest to Lucan theology.
Diaspora
Jew: Life, Politics and Worship
Tarsus, the city
of Paul’s origin gained importance for commerce, culture and literature since
the ancient period in the Mediterranean world. It has always been the envy of
different kingdoms hence an uninterrupted inflow of people of varied cultures
and religions. Historical evidences thus affirm that it was a loci vibrant
cosmopolitan culture. The city turned into a centre for the study of philosophy
equal in par with Athens and Alexandria with the Hellenistic presence. This
continued in the Roman Period. Such a cosmopolitan and erudite culture shaped
Paul’s thinking. Roetzel writes,
Here [Tarsus] Paul learned Greek as his first
language, received his education, and was influenced by Hellenistic rhetoric
and Stoic philosophy. Here he also learned a Jewish religion that was
profoundly affected by this rich cultural environment. This great cultural
heritage that joined Hellenistic and Jewish influences ideally equipped Paul to
translate a gospel that was fundamentally Jewish for the Hellenistic world.[3]
Scholars
have no clue as to the purpose of the migration of Paul’s ancestors to a Hellenistic
world. Though some lay it on the force by Roman rulers, it does not stand the
history of Diaspora Jews before the Roman period. Hence Paul, Nils Dahl would
note, lived in a Jewish community involved with and influenced by the dominant
Hellenistic culture. The interactive Jewish presence in the Hellenistic world
is evident from the Greek translation of Hebrew Scriptures and its importance
in the life of Diaspora Jews in the Mediterranean world. Septuagint was more an
adaptation of the religion to the new milieu than mere translation: ‘It gives
us a window onto the Jewish community in Tarsus and insight into Paul’. [4]
Despite
healthy adaptation of the religion to the culture, there was always a cautious
resistance to preserve the identity and purity of the religion. Hence we also
find similar tension of exclusion and inclusion in Pauline rhetoric: Rom. 9-11
Paul argues for the Gentiles but would never cut off Israel. Diaspora Jews also
felt their minority status and were conscious of their vulnerability. Though
Paul also had been influenced by Greek thought - The radical monotheism of Paul
(that we all have one God/Father) arises from his influence of Greek
philosophical monotheism that was universalistic and cosmopolitan - yet he would always fight the popular
religions of the day.
 |
| Icon of Paul from Orthodox church |
Identity: Roman
Citizen, Pharisee, and Persecutor of the Church
After
this brief analysis of the historical setting, we work on the identity of Early
Paul. Who was Paul? Generally we know him to be a passionate Jew, Pharisee ‘as
to the law a Pharisee’ Phil. 3,5; a Roman citizen ‘is it legal for you to flog
a Roman citizen who is uncondemned’ Acts 22,25; a persecutor of the church ‘
you have heard, no doubt, of my earlier life in Judaism. I was violently
persecuting the church of God and was trying to destroy it’ Gal. 1,13; and tent
maker 1Cor. 4,12. These descriptions though are derived from accounts of his
life by him or by his disciples, not all are hermeneutically accurate in the
literal sense. Nonetheless each one hint at a specific characteristic and
function of Paul in his milieu.
Historicity
of Paul’s Roman citizenship is highly disputed. We learn about it from the
Lucan presentation of Paul. While some scholars like C. Bradford Welles, A. N.
Sherwin-White, and Hengel accept it, they are based on unvalidated Jerome
tradition. Hence does not stand the criticism. Other scholars W.W. Tarn, E.R.
Goodenough, Vicor Teherikover, Stegemann, Conzelmann, Haenchen and Koester are
skeptical about the historical accuracy of Paul’s citizenship. They place four
major arguments to defend their position. First, the granting of citizenship to
Jews in the first century was rare. It was availed only by wealthy and
influential people. Though we imagine Paul to belong to an affluent section
hence acquired citizenship, he makes no mention neither does it get validated.
We are actually forced to think otherwise. He makes note about his necessity to
work (1Cor. 4,12) and his habit of work. It is highly probable therefore that
he hails from a working class family and acquired a skill as an artisan. There
is a hint about the type of his labour ‘and because he was of the same trade,
he stayed with them and they were working, for by trade they were
tent-makers’Acts 18.3. It is authentic and proving then that Paul would not
have gained the privilege of Roman citizenship.
Second,
one of the conditions of citizenship was participation in civic cult.
Historians were quick to the names of the persons who deserted their fathers
traditions to become Roman citizens. They make no mention of Paul. Moreover
with all the rearing in Judaic tradition and scripture and repeated claim his
blamelessness (Phil. 3,5), Paul could not have been a Roman citizen. Third, in
his letters there is no hint about his citizenship. Omissions, in closely
related narratives on citizenship
(Phil. 13.20) and Rome (Letter to
Romans), strengthens our skepticism about his Roman citizenship. It is further
puzzling how he endured sufferings to the point of death (2Cor. 1,8-9f) without
a mention of his citizenship unlike the Lucan accounts in Acts.
Fourth
it is evident that Paul’s Roman citizenship is directly related to Lucan
theological interest. Conzelmann, Koester, Dibelius, Haenchen and Stegemann
show that it served more Lucan apologetic interest to defend the innocence of
early Christians. While we cannot be certain that he was not a citizen argument
weigh against his Roman citizenship. During the Roman period Jews enjoyed the
privilege to practice their religion and to manage their affairs. They had
their own administrative and juridical organization called Politeuma. Mary
Smallwood argues that it is possible that the reference to his citizenship may
be indicating his membership in a Politeuma. She is supported y Applebaum.
Further this fact connotes that Paul does not belong to an upper class society.
From
the evidences of his membership in the Politeuma, we can imagine his active
participation in the Diaspora Judaism: life, politics, worship and governance.
He makes an unusual claim about his uprightness and dutifulness in Phil. 3,5-6 ‘circumcised
the eighth day, of the nation of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin,
a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the Law, a Pharisee; as to
zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to the righteousness which is in the
Law, found blameless’. We must understand what he means by the phrase ‘a
Pharisee’. Pharisaism is very weak in the Diaspora. In the first century
‘Pharisaism’ enjoyed a variety of connotations. More than referring to
individuals, it meant a take on Jewish religion opposed to cultic priests. It
was a way of life/thought pattern within Judaism. So it is probable that Paul’s
comment that he was ‘a Pharisee’ might be an indicator of his inclination
towards pharisaic interpretation of scripture and tradition (religious
practices) – theological background - gained from his parents and Jewish
teachers in the Diaspora. This is further strengthened by our disapproval of
Paul’s learning under Gamaliel the hinge which holds the conviction that he
might have been a Pharisee in the real sense of the term. Further this gives a
hint at the sort of persecution he inflicted upon the church (Messianists) who
seemed to invite confusion in the communities. Unlike the dramatic persecution portrayed
by Acts, Paul might have been opposing the emerging schism within Judaism for
political and religious concerns. Romans opposed Messianists for the unrest
induced by them. Moreover they were breaking the boundaries of Judaism in a
time, when gentiles were overpowering them. However we find no consensus as to
the nature and motivations of Paul’s persecution of the church. We are sure
however, it never involved capital punishment.
Conclusion
Who
is early Paul? He grew up in a strongly Hellenized Jewish setting probably in
Tarsus. His learning, thinking and literary style happened within the Greek
thought. He was a citizen of Politeuma, inclined to interpret religion as a
Pharisee. Initially he had shown his disapproval of rising schism (Messianists)
within Judaism. The data gives us the context that encompasses his writing –
setting the ground to know the mind of the author.
[1] Calvin J.
Roetzel, Paul: The Man and the Myth (Edinburgh:
T&T Clark, 1999) 2.
[2] Roetzel writes, “Of primary
importance in our study are the seven undisputed letters of Paul (I Thess., I
Cor., 2 Cor., Gal., Phil., Philem., and Rom); of lesser but still valued
significance for this study is Acts. Wherever disagreements occur in these two
bodies of material, we shall give credence more readily to Paul’s own words.”
For a comparison of the information about Paul from Acts and his undisputed
Letters see Roeltzel, 10.
[3] Roetzel, 14.
[4] For further information on the
adaptation of Hebrew Scriptures for the new milieu in the Septuagint see
Roetzel, 17-18.
No comments:
Post a Comment