The Earliest Written Example of Interpreting a Pauline Letter

Those of us who find ourselves struggling to draw out the meaning of Paul’s letters may be encouraged to know that the problem of interpreting Paul was an early one. Those familiar with the New Testament likely know the reference in 2 Peter to the challenge of understanding Paul’s letters (2 Pet 3:15-16). But there is an earlier recorded instance of Pauline interpretation. It is found in 1 Cor 5:9-12 where Paul himself realized that he needed to interpret and clarify what he had written previously to the Corinthians:

I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral persons—not at all meaning the immoral of this world, or the greedy and robbers, or idolaters, since you would then need to go out of the world. But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother or sister who is sexually immoral or greedy, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or robber. Do not even eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging those outside? Is it not those inside that you are to judge? (NRSV)

Margaret M. Mitchell (Dean of the University of Chicago Divinity School), in her Paul, the Corinthians, and the Birth of Christian Hermeneutics (Cambridge University Press, 2010), provides a spectacular reading of this passage within the context of ancient approaches to interpreting texts (see esp. pp. 18-33). Mitchell notes a variety of techniques that Paul used in interpreting his earlier letter, and makes a strong case that Paul’s approach to interpretation followed standard topoi of ancient rhetorical discourse about how to interpret written texts whose meaning may be in question. Drawing on Cicero’s discussions of interpretatio scripti Mitchell suggests that Paul used several common topics, including literal reading, together with an appeal to the intent of the lawgiver (which in this case was Paul).  

Regardless of where Paul learned the techniques, it is clear that Paul addressed three things as he interpreted what he had written earlier: which specific persons were the focus of the prohibition (“not the immoral of this world” but “anyone who bears the name of brother or sister”); what he meant by “not to associate” (he expanded this to include not even eating with such a one); and what the unacceptable behavior was (he expanded the scope to include other attitudes and practices such as being a reviler or a drunkard).

Notice that, though Paul gave a literal interpretation (i.e. according to the letter), he also ruled out certain overly literal readings as being impossible. According to v. 11, Paul noted that if his readers took his earlier statement too literally, then they would have had to go out of the world entirely—a literal impossibility. Further, his rhetorical questions in v. 13 suggest that he expected they already knew that Paul was not one to judge those outside of the faith community. Thus, Paul wanted the Corinthians to interpret what he said in accordance with his intent as the original writer.

In this instance of interpretation, of course, Paul had a significant advantage over us and any other later readers: he himself was the original writer and so he could easily access what the original writer meant to convey. Our task is much harder, but we can be encouraged to know two things:

First, interpretation is inherent in the act of reading. To read is to interpret. Needing to interpret does not necessarily represent a failure in us or in the original text. Interpret, we must.

Second, the difficult process of attending to the spectrum from literal meaning (the letter) to intended meaning (the spirit of the text) is modeled for us by Paul. When we wrestle through this process, we are in the company of great writers and readers of all ages.

Is More Theological Research Really Needed?

Do we really need more research in Bible and theology?

This is a question that those of us in the academic world find ourselves asking from time to time. Well, at least I know that I ask it of myself. Our students (or families or churches) may ask it as well when they hear about the kind of research and writing we biblical studies faculty do. I found a good angle from which to approach this question in Avery Dulles, The Craft of Theology: From Symbol to System (Dublin: Gill and Macmillan, 1992). Dulles provides a compelling case for the ongoing need for more theological research and development, giving both a theological answer and a practical one. He writes,

“Systematization in theology can never be complete, for the true object of theology is the unfathomable mystery of God, attained by tacit rather than explicit awareness. Every theological system is deficient, but some systems are superior to others, especially for making the faith intelligible to a given cultural group at a given period of history.” (10)

Dulles’ comment is an important reminder to me of two important ideas. First, further theological research is a theological necessity: our theology can never exhaust the depths of God, and therefore the subject matter of our discipline is one which is inexhaustible. As a result, theology will always be a work in progress; we will never fully arrive at the final word on God, God’s world, and God’s work in the world.

Second, a practical consideration: time and history never stand still, and new times and new cultural contexts raise new questions that call for fresh and compelling formulations—formulations which of necessity must go beyond the explanations and theological formulae of earlier generations. Thus, Dulles reminds us of the importance of ongoing, careful, and critical work in the field of theology, and, for me, in the sub-discipline of biblical studies. Rather than simply forwarding on the systematized answers of the past, there is a pressing need for a continual process of revisiting and revising our theology, to strive toward a theological system that is (if not complete) at least well-suited for our own particular place and time.

Dulles elaborates on this second point about the need for fresh theology in changing times:

“The questions confronting the present-day theologian arise from apparent gaps or contradictions in the normative sources, or from the deficiencies perceived in past theological syntheses, or from objections arising out of contemporary experience or knowledge. Theology, then, can never be static. It must deal with new questions put to the Church by the course of events and by the circumstances of life in the world. Continual creativity is needed to implant the faith in new cultures and to keep the teaching of the Church abreast of the growth of secular knowledge. New questions demand new answers, but the answers of theology must always grow out of the Church’s heritage of faith.” (11)

With that last sentence Dulles thus brings into view the dynamic tension that exists between tradition and faithful innovation—a tension that Jewish and Christian people of faith have wrestled with for centuries. And of course, this "dynamic tension" would make a great research topic in its own right.

Gary Anderson on the Jewish Sources of Christian Charity

Old Testament professor (and my former professor), Gary Anderson, currently Hesburgh Professor of Catholic Theology at the University of Notre Dame, has the cover essay on the latest issue of Commonweal (Sept. 27, 2013: pp. 13-17). His essay, “The Current of Creation: The Jewish Sources of Christian Charity,” is adapted from portions of his latest book, Charity: The Place of the Poor in the Biblical Tradition (Yale, 2013).

For those of us in biblical studies, the essay in an exemplary piece in terms of moving deftly through the history of interpretation of a biblical concept, and also connecting it with contemporary perspectives on that issue. In the present case, the issue at hand is the Jewish and Christian notion of charity, and Gary ranges from Proverbs, to Ben Sira, to Rabbi Gamaliel, to John Chrysostom, to Basil in order to provide an explanation for how a particular view of the importance of charity developed within Christian circles, when it failed to do so in “pagan” circles in antiquity.

Gary also moves easily to the present day and considers charitable acts of Bill and Melinda Gates as compared with those of Mother Teresa. In the end, Gary concludes that Jewish and Christian charity is ultimately a practice which makes a statement about the way the world is; the practice of acts of charity affirms this world as God’s world. Distancing the biblical and early Christian concept from that of contemporary prosperity theology, Gary concludes: “The important point was not so much what they would gain from charity but what acts of charity say about the character of the world God has created” (17).

NOTE: For those attending the annual meeting of the Societyof Biblical Literature in November, an entire session has been dedicated to a review of Gary’s book on 11/25/2013 from 9:00 AM to 11:30 AM (Convention Center 321)

N. T. Wright on Paul and the Faithfulness of God - Interview

Click here to view the video on youtube

A few weeks ago, N. T. Wright sat down with Michael Bird to discuss his forthcoming book, Paul and the Faithfulness of God. In this 24-minute segment Wright discusses how the book came about, how it is structured, and what he believes are its main contributions to the field of pauline studies. Well worth watching for anyone wanting to become better acquainted with Wright's approach to situating Paul within his Jewish and Greco-Roman contexts.

For a concise (and I think correct!) statement about why the study of Paul is significant beyond the world of biblical studies or Christian theology, watch the 45-second segment starting at the 7 minute mark on how Paul ranks with the greatest intellectuals of history.

N. T. Wright’s "Paul and the Faithfulness of God"- Sample Chapter and Table of Contents now available

Pauline scholars and biblical studies students will be pleased to see that Fortress Press has now posted the Table of Contents, Preface, and Chapter 1 for N. T. Wright’s forthcoming Paul and the Faithfulness of God (click here). Thanks to Pamela Johnson of Fortress Press for alerting us!

The 13-page preface and 72-page chapter 1 should give all of us some good material to consider while we await the entire 1696-page volume due out on November 1.

A note to graduate students taking my Spring 2014 Paul and Early Judaism seminar: you can get a good sense for some of the topics we will cover by checking out this preview. Wright’s volume will be one of the main texts for our class.

A useful study aid for biblical languages and research languages

Having only recently entered the world of “apps”—forced there by being the parent of middle schoolers—I was pleased to come across a free app that has been extremely helpful in enabling me to maintain and enhance my facility in both ancient and modern languages. The program is called Anki and it can run on a desktop, laptop, or smartphone, and can sync automatically across as many platforms as you use.

Anki is essentially a flash-card program based on two key elements: active recall testing and spaced repetition. The combination of these two elements results in a learning and review process that is much more efficient and effective than anything I have used in the past (namely, printed vocabulary lists and real, live flashcards). Check out the website for the technical details of the algorithm used to optimize memory and retention. In short, based on feedback you provide Anki about how easy or how hard it was to recall the meaning of a certain term, Anki optimizes the interval for the next time you need to recall the item.

While Anki enables you to create your own deck of flashcards, there are also hundreds of shared decks that others have created and made available for download. Thus, for example, for enhancing my working knowledge of theological German, I have been working with a list of 500 German Theological Vocabulary Words based on the books by H.J. Siliakus and Helmut Zeifle. In terms of biblical languageas, there are dozens of Greek and Hebrew decks keyed to various textbooks, as well as to certain classes or special topics (genres, books of the Bible, etc.). For students working on their biblical language skills or their reading ability in French or German, Anki seems to be an ideal tool to supplement undergraduate or graduate classes or independent study using other books or resources.

Just a note on cost: the program download and the app for android are free, but there is a cost for the iPhone app (to cover the costs of developing and maintaining the software).

I am aware that there are other flash-card programs out there, and probably many other apps that are helpful for language study. Do you have an app or program you have found helpful for acquiring or maintaining biblical languages or research languages? What has worked (or not worked) for you?

Whale Carcasses, Ghosts, and Biblical Studies

I recently had the good fortune to be able to reread Moby-Dick for the first time since high school. Among other things, I was struck by a short chapter deep in the heart of the book in which Melville describes the disposal of a whale carcass after it has been processed by the crew of a whaling ship. The carcass, it turns out, has a very interesting afterlife as it continues floating at sea, clouded over with “sea-vultures” and “air-sharks” all arrayed in fine back and white suits for a “doleful and most mocking funeral.” Melville goes on to explain how the sight of the vast body, with clouds of birds over it and water splashing up next to it, may later be observed from a distance by another ship. To the untrained eye, from a great distance, such an observation may lead to a misinformed entry in the ship’s log—one that may affect boats and travelers for many years to come. Melville, or rather, Ishmael, explains:

     Nor is this the end. Desecrated as the body is, a vengeful ghost survives and hovers over it to scare. Espied by some timid man-of-war or blundering discovery-vessel from afar, when the distance obscuring the swarming fowls, nevertheless still shows the white mass floating in the sun, and the white spray heaving high against it; straightway the whale's unharming corpse, with trembling fingers is set down in the log—shoals, rocks, and breakers hereabouts: beware! And for years afterwards, perhaps, ships shun the place; leaping over it as silly sheep leap over a vacuum, because their leader originally leaped there when a stick was held. There's your law of precedents; there's your utility of traditions; there's the story of your obstinate survival of old beliefs never bottomed on the earth, and now not even hovering in the air! There's orthodoxy!  

     Thus, while in life the great whale's body may have been a real terror to his foes, in his death his ghost becomes a powerless panic to a world.

     Are you a believer in ghosts, my friend? There are other ghosts than the Cock-Lane one, and far deeper men than Doctor Johnson who believe in them. (Excerpted from Herman Melville, Moby-Dick, [Penguin Classics edition] pp. 336-337.)

For those of us in the field of biblical studies, or even religious studies more generally, Melville’s question is apt, and we would certainly be keen to echo it with our students. Many of us have seen the ways that incomplete or inadequate understandings of observed phenomena—or phenomena that others have observed—give birth to complicated systems of belief which, over time, gain the status of being “right thinking.” Yet when these are not based on a foundation of adequate critical reflection and careful thinking, a whole mountain of doctrine may be formed which later generations accept merely due to its longevity. For each new generation in its own time and place, there are some beliefs, values, and practices which need to be revisited both in terms of their origins and their current significance. Surely this is the responsibility of all educated people of faith, but especially those called to serve in the academy.

But Melville's question, “Are you a believer in ghosts, my friend?” is surely a double-edged sword. The one edge reminds us to  bring a critical eye to the ideas that we receive as part of our religious and cultural heritage. The other edge of this sword, however, reminds us to bring a critical eye to the accepted wisdom of our own scholarly discipline. As many others have pointed out, the field of biblical studies is one where theories and ideas of influential scholars can come to be too easily accepted as true by students and later generations of scholars. (As but one example consider the unfortunate characterizations of early Judaism prominent in some New Testament scholarshp of the 19^th and  early 20^th centuries). It takes careful thought, significant time, and, above all, intellectual courage to revisit the primary sources and the original phenomena that have lead to the development of a particular theory. And it takes more work in addition to articulate a different, more compelling view of the actual phenomena. But this is work that must be done if we are to exorcise the ghosts and not leave ships' logs full of false warnings for future generations.

Whether we work in the church or in the academy, those of us called to an intellectual vocation should work, among other things, against the “obstinate survival of old beliefs never bottomed out on the earth.” Far better—for us and our students—to face reality honestly and openly, allowing our minds to grapple with the world as it is, even as we attempt to do so with an awarenes of the context of our own tradition.