Inconsistency in Paul? A Critique of the Work of Heikki Räisänen (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament, 2. Reihe)

T. E. VAN SPANJE

Inconsistency in Paul?

Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2. Reihe 110

Mohr Siebeck

Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum N euen Testament . 2. Reihe Herausgegeben ven Martin HengeJ und Otfried Hefius

110

T. E. van Spanje

Inconsistency in Paul? A Critique of the Work of Heikki Raisanen

Mohr Siebeck

T. E. VAN SrANJE, born 1961; 1987 Master of Theology; 1987-88 vicar; 1988-93 fully ordained minister in the Reformed congregation of Herkingen; 1993-95 ordained minister in the Reformed congregation of Ridderkerk-Slikkerveer; since 1995 missionworker on behalfofthe Reformed Mission League in the Netherlands Reformed Church: 1996 Doctor of Theology; since 1996 Lecturer in New Testament and Greek at St. Paul's United Theological College, Limuru. Kenya; since 1997 Head of Biblical Studies Department SPUTC.

Die Delltsche Bibliothek - CIP-Einheitsallfnahme Spanje, Tellnis Erik van: Inconsistency in Paul? : a critique of the work of Heikki Raislinen I T. E. van Spanje. - Tiibingen : Mohr Siebeck. 1999 (WissenschaftJiche Untersuchungcn zum Neuen Testament: Reihe 2: 110) Einheitssacht.: [nconsistentie bij Paulus? <eng/.> [SBN 3-16-[47188-1

© 1996 Uitgeversmaatschappij J.H. Kok B.V., Kampen, The Netherlands. Title of the original edition: T.E. van Spanje: lnconsistentie bij Pall/lis? Een conji-ontatie met het werk van Heikki RciisQllen. © 1999 by J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), P.O. Box 2040,0-72010 Tiibingen.

This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, in any form (beyond that permitted by copyright law) without the publisher's written permission. This applies particularly to reproductions, translations. microfilms and storage and processing in electronic systems. The book was printed by Druck Partner Riibelmann GmbH in Hemsbach on non-aging paper from Papierfabrik Schleipen and bound by Heinr. Koch in Tiibingen. Printed in Germany. ISSN 0340-9570

To the Senate of the Reformed Theological University of Kampen (Broederweg), the Netherlands, as a token of gratitude for the degree of Doctor of Theology

Preface On 18 December 1996 I had the privilege of defending the Dutch version, Inconsistentie bij Paulus? Een confrontatie met het werk van Heikki Rl'iisl'inen, of this present volume, as my doctoral thesis. After the pUblication of the Dutch version in which an English summary had been included, it appeared that some colleagues in the English-speaking world were interested in reading the entire study. I also learned that my thesis dealt with an increasingly important debate in contemporary New Testament studies, especially within international New Testament scholarship. In sum, I felt I might serve many others by an English translation so that more people could read it. At the same time, an English translation might perhaps facilitate the discussion with my Finnish interlocutor, Professor Heikki Raisanen. The fact that I am working within an English-speaking setting further stimulated this project. It was, however, not my intention to offer an English translation which would be as literal as possible. My main aim was, by interacting with Heikki Raisfulen, to point out clearly my own view on the question of whether Paul's letters are consistent rather than to give a very literal translation of the Dutch version. Before starting the project, I had to decide how to deal with the overwhelming amount of literature which had been published on Paul's letters during the years after I finished work on the Dutch version of my thesis (September 1996). For a proper update of my thesis, all those studies on Paul were, of course, not to be ignored. Yet I decided to confine myself only to the most important and relevant publications such as J.D.G. Dunn's extensive and impressive The Theology of Paul the Apostle, published in 1998. Since Dunn has embraced E.P. Sanders' view on Judaism, his recent magnum opus on Paul undoubtedly represents a very influential mainstream within contemporary Pauline scholarship. I also found some other relevant literature published in 1996 or earlier of which I had been unaware before. Again I followed the same procedure as for the Dutch version: I selected only those pUblications which were in my view

VIII

Preface

really relevant to the topic of my research. It also happened that some publications which I did not find it worthwhile to refer to in my Dutch version I now believed should be mentioned due to some minor shifts in contemporary research on Paul's letters. I also had to decide whether the quotations in German should be translated as well. After due consideration I decided not to translate them since German is so widely used within New Testament scholarship. After the completion and the defence of my Dutch version I did some further research on Paul's letters, especially on his view of the law, fascinated as I was (and still am) by these earliest documents of the New Testament. During the past few years I did not feel I had to revise my interpretation of Paul. On the contrary, I am still convinced that there appears to be a consistency in Paul's letters to a great extent. Consequently the overall thrust of the English translation is basically similar to that of the Dutch edition. Yet there are a few minor modifications to the Dutch version. Firstly, as pointed out above, I tried to update my translation of the Dutch version by incorporating some of the most important recent studies. Secondly, I also added some other material in support of my own interpretation of Paul. Thirdly, at some points I believed that some further clarifications might be useful, mainly in order to avoid possible misunderstandings. Finally, I offer a considerable number of quotations in the first part of this volume, since this is intended to be an accurate description of Heikki Riiisanen's view on Paul. To increase the clarity of the presentation I now decided to offer the lengthy quotations in separate paragraphs. Before the publication of the Dutch Edition, Heikki Raisanen was unfortunately not able to comment on my manuscript. After its publication, however, he read my study and commented on my own very different understanding of Paul. We corresponded several times bye-mail, and we both agreed that it would be inappropriate to publish or quote from our private correspondence. I am very grateful for the time he gave to entering into discussion with me. I would like to extend my gratitude to Dr. Peter W. Ensor, Dr. Charles S. Morrice, Dr. R. Dean Anderson Jr., and especially to Dr. David Marshall. They read some parts of my translation or even the study as a whole, and kindly made suggestions to improve its English style. I am equally grateful for their critical remarks. I am also grateful to Professor Jakob van Bruggen who was my supervisor during my ThD studies. His guidance and directions were very helpful, and I very much enjoyed being one of his students for a couple of years. I would also like to thank the

Preface

IX

publisher of the Dutch version, Kok-Kampen (the Netherlands), for giving permission to publish this translation. I am also grateful to the editors Professor Martin Hengel and Professor Otfried Hofius for their willingness to include this present study in their WUNT Series. I would also like to thank the staff of J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck) in Tiibingen. It was a pleasure to work with them and to experience their efficiency. The Dutch version was dedicated to my wife. Without her moral support neither the Dutch nor the English Edition would ever have been published. To honour the Reformed University in Kampen (Broederweg) for awarding me the degree of doctor theologiae I strongly felt it to be appropriate to dedicate the present volume to the Senate of this University. T.E. van Spanje St. Paul's United Theological College Limuru (Kenya), July 1999

Table of Contents Preface ........................................................................................................... VII Abbreviations .............................................................................................. XVII

Chapter 1: Introduction: Heikki Raisanen ............................................... 1 1.1 Inconsistency....... ......................... ..... .... ......... .............. ... .... .... ........ ........ 1 1.1.1 Paul's view of the law ........................................................................ 5 1.1.2 Paul's view ofIsrael ........................................................................... 7 1.2 Complexity ............................................................................................... 8 1.3 Tradition, experience, and interpretation ...... ................. ... ... ... ................ 11 1.4 Riiisiinen: A New Testament scholar with a history-of-religions perspective ............................................................................................. J I 1.5 The aim and plan of this study ................................................................ 12

Part A: Analytical Description Chapter 2: Inconsistencies in Paul's View of the Law ........................ 17 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6

The Jewish Torah also concerns the Gentiles .................. ,....................... Reduction of the Torah to the moral law ................................................. Has the law been abolished? ................................................................... Can the law be fulfilled? ........................................................................ Is the law of divine origin? ..................................................................... Has sin as a concrete reality existed since Adam's fall or since the introduction of the law at Sinai? ............................................................. 2.7 Can fulfilment of the law give life? ........................................................

17 19 20 25 28 29 31

Chapter 3: Explanation for the Inconsistencies in Paul's View of the Law .................................................................................... 33 3.1 Explanations rejected by Riiislinen .......................................................... 33 3.1.1 Harmonization .................................................................................. 34 3.1.2 Dialectic and paradoxes .................................................................... 35

XII

Contents

3.1.3 A sophisticated version of the dialectical approach .......................... 3.1.4 Interpolations .................................................................................... 3.1.5 Development theory .......................................................................... 3.2 R1iis1inen' s explanation for the inconsistencies ....................................... 3.2.1 Theological and historical explanation ............................................. 3.2.2 Theological explanation: a soteriological apriori ............................ 3.2.2.1 Why does the Jewish Torah also concern the Gentiles? .............. 3.2.2.2 Why is the law reduced to a moral law? ..................................... 3 .2.2.3 Why is it impossible to give an unequivocal answer to the question of whether, for Paul, the law has been abolished? ........ 3.2.2.4 Why does Paul say at one time that the law can be fulfilled, and at another time that the law cannot be fulfilled? .................. 3.2.2.5 Why is Paul's view of the origin of the law inconsistent? ........... 3.2.2.6 Why does Paul say at one time that sin has existed as a concrete reality since Adam's fall, and at another time that it has existed as a concrete reality since the introduction of the law on Sinai? .............................................................................. 3.2.2.7 Why is Paul inconsistent concerning the question of whether fulfilment of the law gives life? ..................................................

36 37 37 39 39 40 40 41 41 42 44

45 47

Chapter 4: The Antithesis between Works of Law and Faith in Christ .................................................................................. 49 4.1 The antithesis ......................................................................................... 4.2 A complexity of questions concerning this antithesis .............................. 4.2.1 Caricature of ludaism ....................................................................... Excursus: E.P. Sanders .......................................................................... 4.2.2 The caricature cannot justifiably be traced back to Paul ................... 4.2.3 Paul still gives a caricature of ludaism ............................................. 4.2.4 Paul does not argue consistently about the antithesis between works of law and faith in Christ .......................................................

49 50 52 53 59 62 67

Chapter 5: Historical Explanation for the Inconsistencies Relating to the Torah and Paul's Antithesis ..................................... 69 5.1 The historical explanation is a hypothesis .............................................. 5.2 Too complex for dialectic. Still a development.. ..................................... 5.3 Development in Paul: contact with the Hellenists; experiences during his missionary work, and his conflict with the Judaizers ........................ 5.3.1 The Hellenists ................................................................................... 5.3.1.1 Location of the Hellenists ........................................................... 5.3.1.2 The Hellenists' view of the Torah ...............................................

70 71 73 74 76 77

Contents

XIII

5.3.1.3 Paul's joining of the Hellenists ................................................... 5.3.2 Conflict with the Judaizers ............................................................... 5.3.3 Paul's dilemma ................................................................................. 5.4 Seyoon Kim's criticism and Raisanen's response ................................... 5.4.1 Oall:11-17 ...................................................................................... 5.4.2 PhiI3:2-11 ..................... : .................................................................

80 81 85 87 87 88

Chapter 6: Inconsistencies in Paul's View ofIsrael: Romans 9-11 .......................................................................... 91 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5

Inconsistencies again .............................................................................. 91 Raisanen's method. Indications of inconsistencies .................................. 93 First inconsistency: divine predestination and human responsibility ....... 95 Second inconsistency: rejection and election .......................................... 97 Inconsistencies with reference to a comparison between Rom 9-11 and Paul's earlier letters ......................................................................... 99 6.5.1 Who hardens? Ood or an anti-divine power (2 Cor 4), and is this hardening of a permanent or temporary nature (2 Cor 3)? ................. 99 6.5.2 Is the Jews' unbeliefa stimulus (Rom 1 I) or a hindrance (I Thess 2) to Paul's preaching of the Gospel to the Gentiles? ....... 100 6.5.3 The olive tree allegory does not fit in the letter to the Oalatians ..... 101 6.5.4 Is Paul an apostle to Israel or to the Gentiles (Oal 1-2 and 1 Thess 2)? ....................................................................... 101 6.5.5 Nowhere in his letters, except in Rom I I, does Paul speak of a miraculous eschatological salvation ofIsrael.. ................................ 101 6.5.6 In Rom 9-11 the thoughts of 'justification by faith' and 'being-in-Christ' are absent ............................................................ 102

Chapter 7: Explanation for the Inconsistencies Concerning Israel ....................................................................................... 103 7.1 Explanations rejected by Rliislinen ........................................................ 7.1.1 Successive phases in God's sovereign plan ..................................... 7.1.2 Rom 11 is of less interest................... ........... ..... ............ ............ ..... 7.1.3 Rom 9 is a mere preparation for Rom 11.......... .............. ................. 7.1.4 A development from Paul's earlier letters to his letter to the Romans .......................................................................................... 7.1.5 Paul's insights were changing while he was writing the letter to the Romans ..................................................................................... 7.1.6 Rom 9 and Rom 11 are two different strategies to reach the same goal ....................................................................................... 7. 1.7 Dialectical concept and paradoxes ..................................................

103 103 104 104 104 105 105 105

XIV

Contents

7.2 Raisiinen's explanation: due to a new experience, Paul is wrestling with a theological problem, namely: how can two different soteriologies be maintained simultaneously? ........................................ 7.3 A remarkable parallel between Raisanen's Markan and PauIine studies .................................................................................................. 7.4 Tradition, experience and interpretation ............................................... Excursus: 'Symbolic universe' and 'legitimation' ................................... 7.5 Christomonism ..................................................................................... 7.6 Summarizing overview .........................................................................

106 109 113 114 117 118

Chapter 8: Theological Consequences .................................................. 120 8.1 Paul's theology is not consistent.. ......................................................... 8.2 All other early Christian theologians are more consistent than Paul ..... 8.3 Paul's theology displays no continuity with the Old Testament or Iudaism ................................................................................................ 8.4 Paul unjustly supports a separation between Iudaism and Christianity ........................................................................................... 8.5 We have to abandon the Lutheran interpretation ofPauI.. ..................... 8.6 Paul and Raisanen himself.. ..................................................................

120 122 124 129 134 134

Part B: Critical Review Chapter 9: Position-finding: Raisanen's Position within Contemporary New Testament Research ........................ 139 9.1 W. Wrede's influence on Raisanen (diachronic position-finding) ......... 9.1.1 Wrede's influence on Raisanen's historical explanation for the origin of the inconsistencies ...... .......... .......................... .......... ....... 9.1.2 Wrede's influence on Riiisanen's view of the Theology of the New Testament ............................................................................... 9.1.3 Wrede's influence is more profound than Riiisanen is aware of. ..... 9.2 Raisanen's position within contemporary New Testament research (synchronic position-finding) ............................................................... 9.3 Conclusion with reference to a position-finding of Riiisiinen.. ..............

140 140 142 144 145 149

Chapter 10: Towards a Critique ............................................................. 151 10.1 Raisanen evokes many responses ........................................................ 10.2 Is a critique of Ra is an en justified? The nature of the inconsistencies and the way they function .................................................................. 10.2.1 The nature of the inconsistencies .................................................. 10.2.2 The way Riiisiinen's inconsistencies function ...............................

151 153 154 157

Contents

10.2.3 A critique is necessary .................................................................. 10.3 Method for a critique .......................................................................... 10.3.1 Fair play ....................................................................................... 10.3.2 A critique by using hermeneutical techniques ............................... 10.4 Summarizing remarks .........................................................................

xv 157 158 158 158 160

Chapter 11: Paul as a Pastor ................................................................... 162 11.1 Description ......................................................................................... 11.2 Critique of Raisanen .............. ... ....... .......... ...... ..................... .............. 11.2.1 General.................... ......................... ...................... ..... ................. 11.2.2 Illustrations ................................................................................... 11.2.2.1 Paul as a pastor encouraging the Thessalonians in I Thess 2: 14-16 .................................................................... 11.2.2.2 Paul as a pastor seeking unity among the Romans in Rom 11:11-14 ....................................................................... 11.2.2.3 Paul as a pastor exhorting the Corinthians in 1 Cor 7: 19 ......... 11.2.2.4 Paul as a pastor warning 'puffed up' and self-assured Christians Uudgment according to deeds) .............................. I 1.3 Conclusion: Paul is a consistent pastor... ..................... ....... ...... .... ......

162 167 167 172 173 176 179 180 189

Chapter 12: Paul as a Rhetor .................................................................. 190 12.1 Description ......................................................................................... 12.1.1 Renewed attention to rhetorical aspects in Paul ............................ 12.1.2 Rhetoric in terms of argumentative strategy...... ......... .......... ......... 12.2 Critique of Raisanen ........................................................................... 12.2.1 General ......................................................................................... 12.2.2 Illustrations ................................................................................... 12.2.2.1 By means of a rhetorical strategy, Paul tries to pers!lade the Galatians that they should not put themselves under the law (GaI3:1-14) .............................................................. Excursus: criticism of J.D.G. Dunn's exegesis of Gal 3:10-14 .......... 12.2.2.2 In comparison with the promise, the divine law is inferior (Gal 3:15-20) ........................................................................ 12.2.2.2.1 The rhetor Paul persuades by means of an invalid 'argumentum ad hominem' (Gal 3:15-18) ....................... 12.2.2.2.2 The rhetor Paul persuades by means of a valid 'argumentum ad hominem' (Gal 3:19-20) ....................... 12.3 Conclusion: some 'inconsistencies' do not exist.. ...............................

190 191 194 197 197 200

200 206 208 208 210 214

XVI

Contents

Chapter 13: Paul as a Theologian ......................................................... 215 13.1 Description ......................................................................................... 13.2 Critique of Raisanen ........................................................................... 13 .2.1 General ......................................................................................... 13.2.2 Illustrations ................................................................................... 13.2.2.1 The fragmentary structure in Romans 7 .................................. 13.2.2.1.1 Romans 7:1-6. A link in Paul's train of thought ............... 13.2.2.1.2 Romans 7:7-12. A fragment with a characteristic theological context .......................................................... Excursus: the relation between law and sin ill Rdisdnen 's work ........ 13.2.2.2 Romans 2. A fragment within Romans 1: 18-3:20 ................... Excursus: criticism of Sanders and of Rdisdnen 's historical explanation ...................................................................... 13.2.2.3 vOflo~ always has a theological context which determines its meaning ............................................................................ 13.3 Conclusions ........................................................................................

215 216 216 218 218 219 223 228 231 236 240 247

Chapter 14: Evaluation and Conclusions ............................................. 249 Bibliography .................................................................................................. 255 Index of Authors ............................................................................................ 267 Index of Passages .......................................................................................... 271 Index of Subjects and Names ......................................................................... 279

Abbreviations ANRW

BDR

Bib BJRL BZ CBQ EvT HR HTR JAAR JBL JPT JSNT NorJ NovT NTS SEA S.IT

ST TC TD TLZ TTh

TZ

WTJ WZNT ZNW ZTK

H. Temporini - W. I-laase (Ed.), Aufstieg und Niedergang romischen Well. Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel neueren Forschung. Berlin-New York. F. Blass - A. Debrunner - F. Rehkopf, Grammatik neutestamentlichen Griechisch. Biblica Bulletin of the John Rylands Library Biblische Zeitschrift The Catholic Biblical Quarterly Evangelische Theologie History of Religions Harvard Theological Review Journal of the American Academy of Religion Journal of Biblical Literature H. Raisanen, Jesus, Paul and Torah Journalfor the Study of the New Testament Nordisk Judaistik Novum Testamentum New Teslament Studies Svensk Exegetisk Arsbok Scottish Journal of Theology Studia Theologica H. Rllisanen, The Torah and Christ Theology Digest Theologische Literaturzeitung Tijdschrift voor Theologie Theologische Zeitschrift Westminster Theological Journal W. Bauer, Griechisch-deutsches Worterbuch zu den Schriften Neuen Testaments und der fruhchristlichen Literatur. Zeitschrift fur die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft Zeilschriftfur Theologie und Kirche

der der des

des

Chapter 1

Introduction: Heikki Raisanen 1.1 Inconsistency It has frequently been argued in theological literature and especially in New Testament research that Paul's statements are not consistent or that they display a certain amount of inconsistency. In 1907, W. Wrede wrote about Paul: Man kann leicht sehen, daB seine Gedankeng!lnge etwas sehr Elastisches haben. Gewisse unverrUckbare Hauptlinien sind vorhanden, im Ubrigen bewegt sich das Denken von Brief zu Brief, ja von Kapitel zu Kapitel recht sorglos und frei, ganz unbekUmmert urn die logische Ubereinstimmung des Einzelnen. Die Gesichtspunkte und BegrUndungen wechseln, sie durchkreuzen einander, ohne daB Paulus es merkt. Es ist daher gar keine Kunst, WidersprUche bei ihm aufzust5bern, selbst in Hauptgedanken. 1

With reference to Rom 9-11, J. Parkes stated in 1936: Difficult as it is 10 penetrate into the contradictions of PauIine thought, it is better to Iry to do so than to attempt to make a logical and consistent whole of his teaching, if logic and consistency really lack:2

In a completely different context (the dispute between Peter and Paul, Gal 2: 11-14), P. Gaechter argued in 1958: Paulus war nicht der Mann ruhigen, diskursiven Denkens, der zu seinen SchluBfolgerungen [lber die Stufen logischer Entfaltung der Prllmissen gelangle und dabei seinen Gegenstand sorglich nach aIlen Seiten hin zu beleuchten strebte, wie etwa Thomas von Aquin oder Suarez. Seine Art war intuitiv; er drang zum Wesen seines Gegenstandes vor, ohne sich der logischen Deduktion bewuBt zu werden, und das jeweils nur unter dem Gesichtswinkel, der ihn im Moment gerade interessierte. Anderes daran, was unter andern RUcksichten ebenso wichtig war, wurde zwar nicht verneint, aber auch nicht berUcksichtigt. Wie er dachte, so schrieb er, daher die Einseitigkeit in seinen Briefen 3

Paulus 48-9. Jesus, Paul and the Jews 140. 3 Pell'us und seine Zeit. Neuleslamentliche Studien 217. I

2

2

Chapter 1

In his study on Paul (1976), M. Grant stated: For Paul's mind, despite its great strength, remained undisciplined, paying scant attention to the niceties of rational coherence. The Letters are vividly varied and lively, but unrounded, unarranged and muddled, making their points not by any orderly procedure but by a series of hammer-blow contrasts and antitheses. Paul is far too impulsive and enthusiastic to standardize his terms or arrange his material. He is often ambiguous - with results that have reverberated down the centuries. And he commits flagrant se!f-contradictions4, which caused Augustine 5, among many others, the deepest anxiety.6

Many more quotations could be given to show that a number of interpreters argue that Paul's statements are inconsistent. What does one mean by the term 'inconsistency'? This term could be defined as the impossibility of harmonizing Paul's statements on the same topic in a logical way. Instead of inconsistencies, we can also speak of contradictions. 7 In the second half of this century, the New Testament scholar Heikki Riiisiinen8 has intensively studied the question of whether and to what extent Paul is a consistent writer. This Finnish scholar also claims that Paul's statements are far from consistent. 9 Although many interpreters regard Paul's thoughts as inconsistent (see quotations above), there are, as far as I can see, very few interpreters who have pointed out inconsistency in Paul in such a systematic way as R1lisanen has done. In comparison with others, the research done by R1lis1lnen is characterized by the fact that he not only concentrates on the inconsistent way Paul writes and thinks, but also labels the different inconsistencies and gives a systematic overview of them. He offers such an overview in, for example, his article 'Paul's Theological Difficulties with the Law', published in the collection The Torah and Christ. IO Almost the same overview, although a much more extensive one along with a lot of comments, is offered in his Paul and the

My italics. Grant refers to Augustine's Confessions 7:21. 6 Saint Paul 6. In his Paul and the Law 11-2 note 72, H. Raisanen also refers to this study by Grant. Yet he mistakenly refers to the wrong page in Saint Paul. 7 In section 10.2, the term inconsistency in connection with Raisanen will be further defined. 8 Heikki Raisanen (born in 1941) became Doctor of Theology in 1969 having written his thesis Die Muller Jesu im Neuen Testament. From 1975, he has been Professor in New Testament Exegesis at the University of Helsinki, while he has been Research Professor at the Finnish Academy from 1984 until 1994. In 1990, he received an honorary degree of Doctor of Divinity from the Universily of Edinburgh. 9 ..... the complexity (for me, inconsistency) is there", 'Experience' 19. 10 The Torah and Christ 3-24. For the overview, see 'Difficulties' 8-9. 4

5

Introduction: Heikki Rtiistinen

Law. 11 Raisanen himself admits that his research is characterized by labelling the different inconsistencies and by giving an overview of them. Few if any of what I have called contradictions in Paul's view were discovered by me for the first time (although in some cases it was only afterwards that I found out that I had predecessors). What makes my book l2 different is, I believe, the cumulative 13 effect, along with my refusal to accept a 'dialectical' 14 explanation. IS

Although he emphatically rejects a dialectical explanation for Paul's inconsistency, such a refusal is not characteristic only of Raisanen's research, since there are other New Testament scholars who have also refused to accept the same dialectical explanation. 16 The most significant characteristic of his research is, however, the 'cumulative' aspect: Raisanen enumerates several inconsistencies in Paul so that one inconsistency intensifies the other. He not only talks about inconsistency as such, but about inconsistencies (in plural). These inconsistencies are, in fact, nothing else than contradictions. Therefore, in his publications he refers to these inconsistencies as "anomalies", "tensions" or "(self-)contradictions". In R1i.isanen's view, Paul argues inconsistently especially with reference to two theological themes, namely (1) in the theme of the law (or Torah); and (2) in the theme of Israel. Here a number of publications by R1i.isanen will be mentioned where his treatment of the inconsistencies can be found. Subsequently, these inconsistencies will be briefly described in sections 1.1.1 and 1.1.2. (1) The theme of the law Here we must mention at least two important publications by R1i.isanen. In the first place there is his article 'Paul's Theological Difficulties with the Law', included in the collection The Torah and Christ. Originally, this article was presented as a lecture at the "Sixth International Congress on Biblical Studies" in Oxford in 1978. In this article, R1iisanen, as far as the inconsistencies within the theme of the law are concerned, pointed out the main lines for another publication, namely his Palll and the Law (1983,

Paul 16-161. Here the reference is to Paul and the Law. My italics. Tn The Torah and Christ 60, in which the same article from Jesus. Paul and Torah was published earlier, the same word is italicized by Rl!isanen himself. " This dialectical explanation will come up for discussion in section 3.1.2. IS Jesus, Paul and Torah 18. Here it concerns the article 'Paul's Call Experience and his Later View of the Law' published in the collection Jesus, Paul and Torah 15-47. 16 See section 3.1. It

12

13

4

Chapter 1

second Edition in 1987).17 In his Preface to Paul and the Law, Riiisiinen writes that in 1974 his study of Hans-Joachim Schoeps' Paulus drew his attention to a " ... whole set of problems I had been happily unaware of'. IS The problems related to Paul's discussion of the law have not given him rest ever since. In the same Preface, he also writes that the publication by E.P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, has profoundly influenced him, and that " ... the publication of Sanders's illuminating work was like a gift from heaven for my own quest".19 After reading this last study, Riiisanen had a fruitful correspondence with Sanders, who read a major part of Paul and the Law before its publication and made suggestions. In 1982, R1i.isanen rounded off his further study in Cambridge and Tlibingen with his Paul and the Law which is definitely his most important publication, and which has been both praised and criticized. In 'Paul's Theological Difficulties with the Law' and in Paul and the Law, it is unequivocally stated that Paul did not succeed in making theological statements on the law in a consistent way. Besides these two publications, Riiisiinen has written much more on the problem of inconsistency in Paul, mainly with reference to the response to his Paul and the Law. Yet, the basic thoughts have already been laid down in the two publications mentioned above. Therefore, when discussing the theme of the law in this study, both the article and the book mentioned above will be our primary sources. All other publications which are important for our discussion of the law will be referred to as necessary, and will be reviewed in a later stage of this study. (2) The theme of Israel Two important articles by Raisanen on this theme must be mentioned. In the first place there is 'Romer 9-11: Analyse eines geistigen Ringens', published in the monumental work Aufstieg und Niedergang der romischen Welt in 1987. In the second place, the article 'Paul, God, and Israel: Romans 9-11 in Recent Research', which was published in 1988, must be mentioned. These two articles have caused much less response than, for example, Paul and the Law. In this study, therefore, more attention will be paid to the inconsistencies within the theme of the law

'7 Also with reference to 'Difficulties', Rllisllnen says: " ... which summarize some of the main arguments of the book in a preliminary form", The Torah and Christ iii. By "the book" is meant Paul and the Law. ,sPall/v. 19 Palllv.

Introduction: Heikki Riiisdnen

than to the inconsistencies within the theme of Israel as detected by Riiisanen. Both themes will now be briefly described. 1.1.1 Paul's view a/the law The inconsistencies which Raisanen detects within Paul's view of the law will be briefly described in a concise overview without details in order to get an impression of the whole issue. During the course of this study these inconsistencies will be further elaborated and described. 2D Riiisiinen mentions altogether seven inconsistencies. The first two inconsistencies concern the fact that Paul does not unequivocalJy define the term nomos (as far as Paul offers a definition of nomos 21 ). Paul's view of the law "oscillates" in two different ways: 1. There is a strange "oscillation" in Paul when it comes to the question: who is under the curse of the law?22 Is it only the Jews, or also the Gentiles? Although the law is connected first and foremost with the Jews and not with the Gentiles, Paul claims that the Gentiles are also under the curse of the law. One cannot avoid noticing 'a strange oscillation of the concept of law in Paul' - an oscillation between the notion of a historical and particularist Torah and that of a general universal force. 23

There is in Paul a so-calJed 'chronological', 'historical' or 'particularist' use of the law, which means a use of the law merely in connection with the Jews. But there is also a 'universal' use of the law in Paul, which means, in this context, a use of the law in connection with the Gentiles. According to Riiisanen, both uses exclude each other. 2. Paul does not make a clear distinction between the ritual and the moral law. 24 He gives the impression of discussing only the moral law, while the law also has certain ritual contents. In Paul, therefore, the meaning of the law oscillates so that there is a "looseness of speech"25. 3. There is no clarity in Paul on the question of whether the law has been abrogated. 26 "Thus we find two conflicting lines of thought in Paul's 20 See chapter 2. In 'Paul's Theological Difficulties with the Law' 8-9, the inconsistencies are concisely mentioned and very briefly discussed. In Paul and the Law 16-161, however, the inconsistencies are indicated and discussed in detail. 21 See Paul 16-8. 22 See Paul 18-23. This inconsistency is not mentioned in so many words in 'Difficulties'. 23 Pau121. 2. See Paul 23-8. 25 The term is from P. Gardner. See Paul 28. 26 See Paul 42-83.

6

Chapter J

theology of the law. Paul asserts both the abolition of the law and also its permanently normative character",27 4. Nobody can fulfil the law since otherwise Christ would have died in vain. Yet, Christians and even non-Christian Gentiles are said to fulfil the law. 28 "Paul's mind is divided".29 5. According to Gal 3: 15-20, the law is not of divine origin. This is the opposite of what is stated in Rom 7 and 8. 30 6. On the one hand the power of sin in the world is due to Adam's fall (Rom 5), while on the other hand this power is due to the law (Rom 7). According to Rom 7, sin was dead before the introduction of the law, whereas according to Rom 5, sin was already a power and a concrete reality since Adam.31 7. The law has been given in order to give life (Rom 7:10), while the same law has never had life-giving power (2 Cor 3, Rom 8:3, and Gal 3:21).32 In this connection, one of the problems is that the law was only a temporary additi{)n to God's 'testament' (Gal 3:I5ff), while a dramatic act on God's part was still needed to liberate men from its curse (Gal 3:13).33 These seven inconsistencies are immanent within Paul's own thoughts. If we pay attention not only to the logic of Paul's statements but also to their premises, then three other difficulties can be indicated34 : 1. In comparison with the Jewish methods of interpreting the Old Testament, Paul distorts the exegesis of some Old Testament passages. This problem, which is not separately discussed in Paul and the Law, does not bear on the central concerns of this study' and therefore will not receive any further treatment. 2. The statement that the law engenders and increases sin is, at least, problematic. 35 This will be discussed in connection with inconsistency 6 (see above). 3. Why should someone fulfil the entire law and why is the possibility of repentance excluded? These questions are related to another question, namely: how should we interpret the Jewish religion in Paul's t~e? Paul 69. Paul 94-1 19. Paul 107. 30 Paul 128-33. Yet, this inconsistency is not mentioned in 'Difficulties', 31 Paul 140-50. npaul150--4. J3 See 'Difficulties' 9, In Paul 150--4, this difficulty is labelled as the problem of socalled theodicy. 3' See 'Difficulties' 9. 3S Paul 140-50. 27

21 29

Introduction: Heikki Rdisdnen

7

E.P. Sanders in particular has sparked off this discussion by his Paul and Palestinian Judaism. This set of problems will not be discussed now, because this is only an overview. Besides, questions on the understanding of the Jewish religion in Paul's day do not constitute an inconsistency as such. We shall return to this set of problems in section 4.2.1. 1.1.2 Paul's view of Israel Raisanen has also done some research on Rom 9-11. In these three chapters, Paul discusses problems related to Israel. Although there are many themes discussed in Rom 9-11, Raisanen writes: Wlihrend alle diese Themen wenigstens in Ans1!.tzen in den betreffenden Kapiteln vorhanden sind, herrscht heute groJle EinmUtigkeit dartlber, daJl die Behandlung des Problems der Treue Gottes in bezug auf seine VerheiBungen an Israel das eigentliche Anliegen des Apostels ist. 36

The expositions by Paul in Rom 9-11 arouse many questions, such as: Wie hat sich Paulus die Art der anvisierten Rettung vorgestellt? Hat er gar an einen 'Sonderweg' gedacht, so daB Israel das eschatoJogische Heil erreichen wird, ohne zum Glauben an Jesus Christus zu kommen? Wie verhillt sich die Zusage einer sicheren Rettung ganz Israels zu frUheren Aussagen tlber Israel in I Thess oder Gal? Hat sich die Theologie des Paulus etwa nach der Abfassung des Galaterbriefes erheblich entwickelt, oder hat sie gar gewechseIt? Wenn aber Rom 11 eine neue Entwicklungsstufe darstellt, was ist dann mit Rom 9? Viele Exegeten, die die Entwicklungshypothese nicht teilen, meinen, daJl Rom 9 und Rom I I sich widersprechen. 37

With regard to Rom 9-11, Riiisanen scrutinizes Paul's view of the salvation of Israel. lm Brennpunkt wird die Frage nach der Kohilrenz bzw. Widersprtlchlichkeit seiner Ausfiihrungen stehen, sowohl mit RUcksicht auf das gegenseitige Verhliltnis von Rtlm 9 und 11 als auch auf das Verhll.Itnis von Rom 9-11 zum tlbrigen Romerbrief und zu anderen Paulusbriefen, wo von Israel die Rede ist. 38

As in section 1.1.1, again a brief overview of the inconsistencies will be offered first. During the course of this study, the indicated inconsistencies will be further elaborated. 39 With reference to Rom 9-11, Riiisanen refers to two kinds of inconsistencies. The first kind consists of two, while the second kind consists of six inconsistencies. The first kind is related to the three chapters Rom 9-11:

36 37

'Analyse' 2893. 'Analyse' 2893.

3. 'Analyse' 2894. 39

See chapter 6.

Chapter'

1. Rom 9:6-29 and Rom 9:30-10:21 are two sections which cannot be harmonized with each other in a 10gicaCmanner; there is a disharmony between divine predestination and human responsibility.4o 2. On the one hand the empirical Israel is not elected but hardened and damned (Rom 9:6-29), whereas on the other hand the empirical Israel will be saved because of God's loyalty to his own promises and to the election of his people (Rom 11 :11-36). This inconsistency is more important than the previous one. 41 If Paul's other letters are compared with Rom 9-11, the following six inconsistencies can also be noted: 1. In Rom 9-11, Israel is being hardened by God, whereas in 2 Cor 4, the hardening is traced back to an anti-divine power, while there is also a difference concerning the period of hardening (2 Cor 3).42 2. There is a tension between Rom 11 and 1 Thess 2:14-16. In the latter passage, the unbelief of the Jews is not a stimulus, as in Rom 11, but a hindrance to preaching to the Gentiles. 43 3. The comparison of Israel to the olive tree in Rom 11 does not fit in the letter to the Galatians. 44 4. In Rom 11:11-14, Paul gives the impression of presenting himself as an apostle to Israel. This conflicts with Gal 1:15-16. 45 5. Paul talks about a miraculous and eschatological salvation of Israel only in Rom 11.46 6. We find neither the well-known thought of 'justification by faith', nor the thought of 'being-in-Christ' in Rom 9-11.47

1.2 Complexity Already on the first page of the Introduction to Paul and the Law, Raisanen writes that he wants to shed some small light upon Paul's view of the law. He does not only, therefore, merely sum up the several 40 'Israel' 181-6; 'Analyse' 2909-11. 41 "For the topic of this essay, the relationship between divine hardening and man's disobedience is of less interest '" The crucial question is the treatment of Jsrael ...", 'Israel' 192; compare 'Analyse' 2930ff. '2 'Analyse' 2923-4. ') 'Analyse' 2924--5. 44 'Analyse' 2925-6. "'Israel' 187-8; 'Analyse' 2913-4. 16 'Analyse' 2926-7 . • 7 'Analyse' 2927-9

Introduction: Heikki Riiisanen

9

inconsistencies relatingto Paul's view of the law as such, but he also tries to explain them, at the same time rejecting many explanations, including a number of common ones. A striking characteristic of his research is the fact4 8 that he also tries to fit his explanation of Paul's inconsistencies into a historical framework. Here the illustration of two concentric circles can be helpful. The interior circle stands for Raisanen's theological explanation for Paul's inconsistencies, and the exterior circle stands for his historical explanation. Riiisanen tries to give the theological explanation on the basis of the text itself, and this explanation can be briefly described by saying that since, for Paul, Christ is the only way to salvation, all other ways, such as, for example, the law, cannot, a priori, be a· way to salvation. The historical explanation, into which the theological explanation has to fit (in concentric circles), has to do with Paul's missionary activities and his contact with the Hellenistic congregation in Antioch. Paul gave up the requirement of circumcision for the Gentiles, an attitude which he would have adopted from the Hellenistic congregation in Antioch. Riiisanen does not claim that his historical explanation is the only right one; it remains just a hypothesis. Although already W. Wrede alluded to such a historical explanation, the hypothesis offered by Riiisanen is original in the sense that he has elaborated the . explanation proposed by Wrede in much greater detaiP9 There is still another fact which makes the whole issue complex, namely the new perspective on Jewish religion in Paul's day. E.P. Sanders thinks he has proved by his Paul and Palestinian Judaism that, according to Judaism, the law was never a way to salvation. In this volume, Sanders introduces the term 'covenantal nomism' as a description of the function of the law within Judaism. In short, Sanders believes that, by obeying the law, the Jew expressed the desire to remain within the covenant; to be obedient to the law would, therefore, not be a means to earning salvation. If Sanders is right, his view would imply that Paul ascribes a function to the law which the law never possessed, namely providing a way to salvation. In other words, Paul's antithesis between works of law (as a way to salvation) and faith in Christ is based on a caricature of Judaism. In Paul and the Law, Raisiinen devotes an entire chapter to this antithesis (chapter 5). But basically, this chapter deals with a separate kind of problem, not directly related to the inconsistencies as indicated by Raisanen (chapters 1-4). Riiisanen himself also admits this: The chapter on 'the antithesis between works of law and faith in Christ' in my Paul and the Law was by far the most difficult one to write. It is, moreover, of less 48 49

Besides the cumulative aspect of his Paul and the Law (see above). See chapters 5 and 9.

10

Chapter 1

significance for my understanding of Paul's 'theological difficulties' with the law than are chapters 1-4. These chapters deal with problems immanent in Paul's view. Chapter 5 tries to isolate a different kind of problem: a problematic presupposition in Paul's argument,50

Briefly, the relation between Paul's inconsistencies and Sanders' view can be described as followS 51 : since Paul assumes that Christ is the only way to salvation - for Paul a basic premise which is important within the inconsistencies (see chapter 3) - he has made a caricature of the ludaism of his day by making the law a way to salvation. Because of the fact that there is a relation, although merely in the sense of a "problematic presupposition", between Paul's inconsistencies and the above set of problems concerning Iudaism, some attention must be paid to this set of problems in this study. 52 This results in a complex picture. For the sake of clarity, therefore, we continuously have to concentrate on and to distinguish between four different issues: 1. The inconsistencies in Paul as detected by Raisiinen; 2. Raisanen's theological explanation for these inconsistencies; 3. The new perspective on the Judaism of Paul's day as introduced by Sanders in connection with Paul's antithesis between works of law and faith in Christ; 4. Raisiinen's proposed hypothesis as a possible historical explanation. During this study attention must be paid to each of these issues. 53 We must also have a close look at the different relations between these four issues. Further, it is quite obvious that the new perspective on ludaism will have far-reaching implications for our interpretation of Paul, since many exegetes still assume that ludaism displays a certain kind of 'legalism' (the law is a way to salvation). Raisiinen does not refrain from drawing far-reaching conclusions from that new perspective on Iudaism for his interpretation of Paul. 54 When we try to survey the inconsistencies concerning the law, we are confronted, as already mentioned, with a complexity. Whoever studies Raisanen will also find that it is not easy to follow this Finnish scholar. Often in his articles so many aspects of his research come up for discussion that it is sometimes hard to understand how things are related 'Experience' 33. See also Paul xxvIII note 70. See also sections 4.2 (beginning) and 4.2.3. See chapter 4. 53 The inconsistencies will be discussed in chapter 2, the theological explanation in chapter 3, the antithesis between works of law and faith in Christ in chapter 4, and the historical explanation in chapter 5. 54 See, e.g., chapter 4 below. 50 51

52

Introduction: Heikki Raisanen

11

to each other. 55 In this respect, the illustration of two concentric circles might elucidate this complexity.

1.3 Tradition, experience, and interpretation 56

When Riiisiinen discusses the inconsistencies within the theme of Israel, problems are less complex. Within this theme Ra.isa.nen is also rather original. For having again rejected many explanations for the inconsistencies within the theme of Israel, he tries to find the explanation by means of sociology. In his Beyond New Testament Theology, Riiisanen discusses the question of how new experiences are interpreted. 57 By means of the insights of P.L. Berger and T. Luckrnann, Ra.isiinen argues that there is a dialectical interaction between tradition, experience, and interpretation in the sense that tradition is being interpreted anew by new experiences. Paul's inconsistent theological interpretations in Rom 9-11 are explicable, according to Ra.isa.nen, by means of this dialectical interaction. With reference to his extensive Mark research (see, e.g., Die Parabeltheorie im Markusevangelium (1973) and The 'Messianic Secret' in Mark (1990), which is a translation and a revision of Das 'Messiasgeheimnis' im Markusevangelium, 1976), Raisiinen has found a parallel between the origin of the inconsistencies in Mark and that of those in Paul as found in Rom 9-11. The explanation for the inconsistencies in Rom 9-11 is, therefore, of a psychological-sociological nature, and not so much a theological explanation. Consequently, this explanation is more or less hypothetical.

1.4 Riiisiinen: A New Testament scholar with a history-oJ-religions perspective

It has to be admitted that Raisiinen is a scholar of high academic standards. His large number of publications is impressive. He even has the intention of writing a Theology of the New Testament, which is, of course, no 55 For instance, the end of section IV of the article '''Righteousness by Works": An Early Catholic Doctrine? Thoughts on I Clement' is not intelligible without more study, because many aspects of R1iisanen's thought are brought together here (,Righteousness' 220). Similarly, in the article 'Der Bruch des Paulus mit Israels Bund' so many insights of Raisanen are combined, that it is not advisable to read this article without studying some of his other articles first. 56 See 'Israel' 192-{5 and 'Analyse' 2930-6. 57

Beyond 122-34.

12

Chapter I

sinecure. In his Beyond New Testament Theology, he points out the main lines for such a Theology.s8 In each area, it is characteristic of his work that he tries to integrate new insights into his research, such as Sanders' view of ludaism. This makes Raisanen what I would call an 'up-to-date' New Testament scholar. Another characteristic is his history-of-religions perspective. In his Preface to Paul and the Law, he says in plain terms: "I make no secret of the fact that, as a scholar, I prefer a history-oJ-religions perspective to a pronouncedly theological one".59 Raisanen mentions the term "fair comparison" between different theological authors many times. Since we have to respect, of course, a fair comparison, we are not allowed, according to Raisanen, to synthesize Paul into a set of consistent statements beforehand. "Fair comparison, or fairness to the others, is one of the reasons why one should not try excessively hard to synthetize Paul's thought into a consistent whole".6o This comparison-of-religions approach explains, as far as I can see, why Raisanen has no presuppositional problems at all with indicating inconsistencies in Paul. This approach also explains why Raisanen takes into account also non-canonical books in his forthcoming Theology of the New Testament. As it already appears from the Bibliography of this study, he also pays a lot of attention to the study of Islam, and he compares the (Old and) New Testament(s) with the Koran without any reservation. 61

1.5 The aim and plan of this study Aim The aim of this study is in the first place to offer a description of Raisanen's work with regard to both the inconsistencies in Paul detected by him and all the matters related to them. In any case, it is not the aim of this study to offer a summary of Raisanen's work. The offered description is rather an analysis of Raisanen's view. Therefore, I hope that this study will be a kind of guide for everyone who wants to study Raisanen's view of Paul's theology in so far as the law and Israel are concerned. Subsequently, after this description, a review will be offered. This study, therefore, falls into two parts: (A) An analytical description 62 ; and (B) A S8 See also his 'Die frilhchristliche Gedankenwelt. Eine religionswissenschafiliche Alternative zur "neutestamentlichen Theologie'" and 'New Testament Theology?'. S9 Paul xv. 60 Paul xv. 61 See, e.g., his The Idea of Divine Hardening. 62 Chapters 2-8.

Introduction: Heikki Raisanen

13

critical review 63 . In this way, Rliisanen's thesis that Paul is an inconsistent writer will be assessed. A major problem in the descriptive part of this study is that Rliislinen has written a large number of books and articles which at first sight seem to have nothing to do with each other. Yet, many of his publications are linked up with each other, and many of his articles are the components of Paul and the Law. One of the consequences is that we have to hark back in the descriptive part to different works. In this way, at the same time, an attempt will be made to elucidate the relations between the different articles and books. I have to confine myself drastically, of course, to a discussion of only those works of Riiisanen which are relevant to the topic of this study. Plan Starting with the different issues of the complexity to be examined, in the following chapters the order of these issues will be followed as much as possible. By these means, it will be possible to get a good and clear picture of Rliislinen' s work. Firstly, the different inconsistencies within the theme of the law will be described as accurately as possible, and in this same context, there will also be given some exegetical material (chapter 2). Subsequently, Riiislinen's theological explanation for these inconsistencies will be described (chapter 3). Also some attention will be paid to Paul's antithesis between works of law and faith in Christ, and to the new view of the ludaism of Paul's day (chapter 4). Riiisanen's interesting historical hypothesis will also be described (chapter 5). In the following chapter, the different inconsistencies within the theme of Israel will be described (chapter 6), along with Riiisiinen's explanation for these (chapter 7). It will then be useful to devote a separate chapter to Riiisanen's own statements of the implications of his view (chapter 8). After we have carefully listened in the first part of this study to what Riiislinen has to say, in the second part we shall be in discussion with him, in the course of which the inconsistencies as indicated by Riiisiinen will be scrutinized, and his proposed exegetical material will be assessed for its validity. We shall use, of course, the large number of responses to Paul and the Law. In the course of this second part, after a critique of Rliisanen's work, we shall try to progress towards a balanced view by answering the question of to what extent Paul is a consistent writer.

63

Chapters 9-13.

14

Chapter I

In addition, the following remarks are relevant: a. If there is a translation or a later edition of a certain article, then this will be used in this study, because Raisanen has sometimes changed or added something in such translations or later editions. 64 The Bibliography indicates which article can be found in which collection, and also how, if necessary, an article or book has been abbreviated. The collection Jesus, Paul and Torah is of a later date than the collection The Torah and Christ. Therefore, most quotations will be from the former collection. b. In this study, Raisanen's research on Mark (Die Parabellheorie im Markusevangelium and The 'Messianic Secret' in Mark) will not be discussed in detail. Nevertheless a few remarks which occur in his Mark research are important for the topic of this study. Where necessary, we shall refer to such sections in his Mark research. This also applies to the rest of Raisanen' s work. c. The starting point for this study is the second Edition of Paul and the Law. An important Preface has been added to this second Edition. d. Although the quotations will not be from all of Rais an en's works, for the sake of completeness there is a list of all his publications in the Bibliography of this study.65 A comparison between this list and the pUblications referred to in this study shows which of his publications are of less or even of no interest for this study. e. There are also some articles in one of the Scandinavian languages. These articles are not referred to in this study. His most important articles, as far as I can see, have been published in German or, even more often, in English.

64 In the Preface to the collection Jesus, Paul and Torah 9, he says: "As indicated, some of the essays have been slightly revised". GS This list has been compiled after a correspondence between Rliisanen and myself. Rliisanen is, however, a productive writer, so that the Bibliography will probably no longer be complete at the time of the publication of this study. In ANRW II 26.2 (1995), the article 'Urchristliche Religion: Orientierungssysteme im Umbruch. Methodologische Uberlegungen zu einer religionswissenschaftlichen Alternative zur "Neutestamentlichen Theologie'" is announced (this article wiII be published in ANRW Il26.4).

Part A

Analytical Description

Chapter 2

Inconsistencies in Paul's View of the Law In this chapter the inconsistencies which Raisanen detects in Paul's view of the law will be further described. We shall follow the same order as pointed out in section 1.1.1. The exegetical material presented by Raisanen will be reproduced as much as possible. l Raisanen does not want to make in advance a distinction between different meanings which could be ascribed to the term nomos. Raisanen's main reason for this is the fact that Paul himself nowhere makes such a distinction in so many words. When he describes the inconsistencies in Paul's view of the law, he says: The following analysis starts from the observation that Paul at least argues as if the nomos were an undivided whole, firmly connected with Moses and Sinai. If, nevertheless, he makes statements about the nomos which are difficult to apply to the Mosaic law, we wiII have to ask whether Paul is conscious of this difficulty and, if not, why does the concept of nomos osciIIate?2

2.1 The Jewish Torah also concerns the Gentiles 3 Raisanen asserts: "If nomos denotes the Mosaic law of Sinai, it by definition concerns the Jews, but not the Gentiles".4 Nevertheless, Paul many times connects the law with the Gentiles. This appears from the letter to the Galatians, according to Raisanen, in the following five places: a. The first example is Gal 3:10-14. At first sight, it seems that ~j.liiC; and ';j.lWV (verse 13) refer to Paul and other Jewish Christians, for only they were under the law before becoming Christians. Raisanen, however, states that ,l.,IfPWj.lEV (verse 14) must also refer to the Gentile Christians, in this case to the Galatians themselves. Yet, it would be very strange ifthere were a contrast between verse 13 and verse 14. Since Paul refers in verse See especially Paul and the Law. Paul IS. 3 Paul 18-23. 4 Paul 18. I

2

18

Chapter 2

14, in any case, to the Gentile Christians also, in verse 13 he must be referring to this same group. Before their salvation in Christ, the Galatians also were under the curse of the law. "Strange as it may appear, the conclusion is hard to avoid that even the Gentiles were, in Paul's mind when dictating this passage, under the curse of the law".5 But this is in contrast with Paul's assumption in 1 Cor 9:21 and Rom 2:12, because in both of these places Paul says that the Gentiles were previously not under the law. b. The second example given by Raisanen is Gal 3:23-26. Again, we are inclined to assume that in these verses Paul is thinking of the Jewish Christians. It is quite obvious, however, that verse 26 again refers to the Galatians themselves. Verses 25 and 26 are closely linked up by the word . yap (verse 26). In verse 26, Paul addresses the Galatians directly. As a consequence, verses 23-25 also must concern the Gentiles who were previously under the law. c. The third example is Gal 4:5-6. It is clear that in verse 6 Paul again addresses the Galatians directly, and that verses 5-6 are closely linked up with each other. This implies that verse 5 also concerns the Gentiles, and that they also were previously under the law. d. The fourth example is Gal 5:1. Christ has set 'us' (Paul and the other Jewish Christians) free, and therefore 'you' (Galatians) have to stand firm, and not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery. e. The last example given by Raisiinen is Gal 4:1-11. Again, the same occurs here, although in a reverse order. In these verses the Galatians' preChristian pagan existence is compared with that of Jews under the law. According to Paul, both situations are identical. In verse 3, Paul is talking about the a,oLXElo: (this term probably means cosmic astral powers), to which Paul himself also was once subjugated. There is the danger that the Galatians, after becoming Christians, may turn back to these a,olXElo:, whose slaves they had been previously (verse 9). This turning back is, in Paul's view, identical with a return to the observance of the Jewish law, such as the observance of days, months, seasons, and years (verse 10). Paul intends to associate the Galatians' turning to the Torah with their pre-Christian pagan existence (which may have been characterized by subjugation to astral 'elements' of the world). Thus the Torah comes to look like a 'universally enslaving power'.6

Raisiinen concludes: "Apparently without noticing it, Paul is thus tacitly operating with a double concept of 'law'''.? On the one hand, Paul is , Paul 20. Paul 22. Paul 21.

6 7

Inconsistencies in Paul's View of the Law

19

thinking of nomos as the law given at Sinai, while, on the other hand, Paul makes nomos into a kind of general term, so that the Gentiles also are included. "Paul is simultaneously thinking of something that concerns all men, not just the Jews".8 In view of Gal 3.23 ff. nomos cannot be understood simply as a 'historically limited phenomenon'. It is, rather, a 'qualifying concept' ... This 'qualifying' concept of law, besides being difficult in itself ... , flatly contradicts the ideas set forth in 3.15-20, for in this passage the whole emphasis is placed on the fact that the law arrived late on the scene. The chronological and the universal argument exclude each other. 9

2.2 Reduction of the Torah to the morallaw 1o Although it is, according to Raisiinen, somewhat anachronistic terminologyll, one could distinguish between, on the one hand, the socalled cultic, ritual or ceremonial aspects of the law, and, on the other hand, the moral aspects of the law. The cultic aspects of the law concern all those laws which refer to the distinction between Jews and Gentiles, for example, circumcision, observance of the sabbath, and purity of food laws. The moral aspects of the law concern all those laws which govern relations between people. Raisiinen states that Paul himself nowhere explicitly makes such a distinction. 12 "Should he nevertheless make the distinction implicitly, this would bring him into an implicit contradiction with his own notions".13 When Raisiinen studies Paul's statements within this context, he concludes that Paul actually uses such a distinction, although implicitly, and that, thereby, at the same time Paul reduces the law to a mere moral law. Raisiinen gives three examples: a. The first example is Rom 2:12-16. In this passage, Paul talks about the Torah. In verse 14a, Paul asserts that the Gentiles, although they do not possess the law, nevertheless fulfil its requirements by nature. But, in Raisanen's view, it is impossible that the Gentiles fulfil what is required by the law in the way Paul wants us to believe. The Gentiles can fulfil only the ethical commandments, but not the entire law as such. Although s Paul 22. 9 Paul 21-2. 10 This inconsistency is mentioned in 'Difficulties', but not further elaborated. See Paul 23-8 for such a further elaboration. 11 See Pall123 note 47. 12 HUbner, however, assumes that in the letter to the Romans, Paul consciously makes this distinction. Raisanen refers to Hlibner, Das Gesetz be; Paulus 77-80 (second Edition). I3Pa1l125.

20

Chapter 2

Paul talks in the passage about the Torah, he reduces it to its moral aspects. b. The second example is Gal 5:14. Paul is saying here that the whole law (6 y&p 1I&.c; vOflOC;) is fulfilled in one word, namely in the commandment to love one's neighbour. Riiisfulen finds this reduction of the law to its moral aspects very strange, because in the same letter, Paul prohibits obedience to other commandments of the Torah, for example, circumcision, which are not connected by Paul with the commandment to love one's neighbour. c. The third example is Rom 13:8-10. Again, Paul summarizes the whole law in the commandment to love one's neighbour. But then, Paul does not answer the question of how the ritual commandments can be fulfilled by the commandment to love one's neighbour. "Instead of making distinctions Paul seems simply to ignore the ritual part of the Torah as a non-entity" .14 In Rom 2:12-16, Gal 5:14, and Rom 13:8-10, the law is reduced to a mere moral law, namely the commandment to love one's neighbour. It is only by tacitly reducing the Torah to a moral law that Paul can think of the

Christians ... as fulfilling the Torah ... If the 'just requirement of the law' is fulfilled in the life of Christians, nomos cannot really mean the Torah in its totality. I find this very lack of explicitness significant. Paul conveys, after all, the impression of operating with one concept of law only, and I would assume that he is not conscious of his actual oscillation.t 5

Riiisfulen concludes: "Paul speaks of the 'law' in general, without hinting at any differentiation within it; still, in actual fact he seems to reduce it to a moral imperative".16

2.3 Has the law been abolished?17

In 1978 Riiisiinen stated: Paul has two sets of statements concerning the validity of the law for Christians. According to one set the law has been abrogated once and for all. According to the other the law is still in force, and what it requires is charismatically fulfilled by Christians. 18

14 IS 16

Paul 27. Paul 28. Paul 26.

17 This is the first inconsistency which is elaborated in 'Difficulties' 10-3. Apparently, this inconsistency is the first one which is of interest for Raisanen. This also appears from the number of pages devoted to this inconsistency in Paul 42-83. 18 'Difficulties' J o.

Inconsistencies in Paul's View o/the Law

21

Within this context he refers to WeiB' argument that there are two conflicting thoughts in Paul regarding the question of whether the law has been abolished. 19 When we try to describe these two thoughts in Paul, as seen by Raisanen, then we get the following survey: A) On the one hand, we find quite often in Paul, according to Riiisanen, the assertion that the law has been abolished. Riiisanen describes this assertion by the term 'radical' .20 He thinks he has found a considerable number of statements in Paul's letters which betray this radical thought: a. Gal 2: 15-21, especially verse 19a, says that the Christian has died through the law to the law. This section is mentioned only in 'Paul's Theological Difficulties with the Law', but is not further elaborated. In Paul and the Law, only verse 18 is mentioned in particular. Using metaphorical language, Paul says in this verse that he is not allowed to rebuild the law after tearing it down first. If Paul were to rebuild the law to restore it to its former state, then the tearing down of the law would have been senseless. b. Gal 3: I 5-25. Raisanen emphasizes this section, especially the thought that the law had been given for just a certain period of time (verse 19). c. Rom 7:1-6. In this passage, using an allegory, Paul compares the relation between husband and wife with the relation between the Christian and the law. After the husband has died, the wife is free to marry again. In the same way, Christ has died, and therefore the Christian is free from the law. In other words, the law has been abolished. d. Rom 14:14, 20. There is no longer any need for a Christian to observe certain laws on clean and unclean food. " ... a statement so sweeping in its implications would be very surprising in the mouth of one who considered the Torah as valid as ever".21 e. Rom 6: 14 .... ov yap E(HE uno VO\1-ov: because you are not under law. f. 1 Cor 10:23 and 6:12. I1av"C(X (\1-01.) E~Eonv: all things are lawful (for me). "It would seem, then, that in his actual teaching Paul ignored the Torah - the ritual and moral side alike".22 g. Paul does not use the law as a foundation for his ethics. Riiisiinen refers to such places as Rom 12:1-2, Phi! 1:10 and 4:8.

Rliisanen refers to J. WeiB, Das Urchristentum. See 'Difficulties' 13. H ••• a radical critique of the Torah ... this radical line of thought cannot be explained away". Paul 50 (my italics). 21 Paul4S. 22Pau149. 19

20

22

Chapter 2

B) On the other hand, we find quite often in Paul, according to Raisanen, the assertion that the law is still in Jorce. 23 Raisanen describes this assertion by the term 'conservative' .24 Paul is thus not a consistent antinomist. The requirements of the law have to be fulfilled, and the law provides guidelines for a Christian's daily life. In this connection, Raisanen refers to three places, namely Gal 5:14 (0 y&.p i1ii~ vOflOC; EV EVL AOYU) i1EilA"PW1:IlL, namely in the commandment to love one's neighbour); Rom 8:4 (LVeL 1:0 liLKIlLWflll 1:0U vOflOU i1Allpw81j EV ~flLV), and Rom 13:810 (1TA"pwflll OUV vOflOU ~ aYlXilll, verse lOb). "These texts are not at all adequately dealt with by those who find only the idea of the abrogation of the law in Paul".25 In this same connection, we can also mention Rom 3 :31 (aU&. VOflOV lO1:lXv0fJ.Ev) and 1 Cor 7:19 (1:"PTJOLC; EV1:0AWV). Riiisanen states against Kasemann that Rom 8:4 and Rom 13:8-10 are not mere fragments of certain Jewish-Christian traditions which have been taken up by Paul, but that they reflect Paul's own intentions.2 6 This third inconsistency would, at least partly, cease to exist ifvoflOC; in Rom 3:27 as well as in Rom 8:2 meant the Torah in the literal sense, as many think (see below). If this is really the case, which Raisanen denies, then both verses would possibly prove that Paul did not abolish the law, because, in both verses, the old and new situations (the time before Paul met Christ and the time after he met Christ) are being described, and, according to both verses, nomos plays a role in both situations. But does nomos in both verses indeed mean the Torah? In two articles Raisanen discusses the exegetical problems of Rom 3:27 and 8:2, namely 'The "Law" of Faith and the Spirit' and 'Paul's Word-Play on vo,.!Oc;: A Linguistic Study'. What is the precise meaning of VOIJ.OC; in Rom 3:27 as well as in Rom 8:2? In Rom 3:27 it concerns mainly the expression VOIJ.OC; i1L(J1:EW~, and in Rom 8:2 the expression VOflOC; !OU i1VEUfleL1:0C; -rfic; (wiic; (therefore the title of the article 'The "Law" of Faith and the Spirit'). In the exegetical article 'The "Law" of Faith and the Spirit', Raisanen refuses to accept the literal meaning of VOjlOc;. In doing so, he disagrees with many other exegetes, such as Fuchs, Schlier, Friedrich, Schmidt, Lohse, Hahn, van der OstenSacken, and Hubner.2'

2J

See Paul 62-73. a series of 'conservative' ones ... ", Paul 63 (my italics). 'Difficulties' 12. 'Difficulties' 12. See Raisanen's article.

2' " ... 25 26

27

Inconsistencies in Paul's View of the Law

23

In his discussion of Rom 3:27, Raisanen starts with Friedrich's view, which links verse 27 with verse 21. Raisanen, however, does not see a parallel between verse 21 and verse 27, but between verse 27 and verse 28, as the use of yocp shows (beginning of verse 28). Then we get the following survey: 1. VOIlO~ TTLatEw~ (verse 27) runs parallel with o~K(noua9(l:L TTLatEL &V9pWTTOV (verse 28). 2. v6llo~ tWV EPYWV (verse 27) runs, thus, parallel with the opposite of O~K(ILOua9c!L TTLatEL liv9pWTTOV xwpt~ EPYWV VOIlOU (verse 28). In this way, v6llo~ has a non-literal meaning. In the light of v. 28, then, it seems that each vo~o~ in v.27 means an 'order'. VO~O~ 1T(01:EW~ is the order of salvation, founded on faith; VO~O~ tWV fPYWV is the order that was built on works of the law. 28

Thus, one of the implications is that we have to assume that Paul is 'playing' with the term vOIl0 See section 6.3. 26 'Analyse' 2934.

108

Chapter 7

apart from Christ, so that his tradition is reinterpreted in the light of his experience into one soteriology (interpretation). But due to the fact that the old tradition and the new experience are mutually exclusive, Paul is wrestling with an insoluble dilemma27, and it is therefore inevitable that his theology (interpretation) becomes inconsistent. 28 For Rrusanen to maintain this explanation, he has to overlook the fact that the term ~ua·t11P~OV (Rom 11 :25) belongs to the standard vocabulary of apocalyptic. 29 Because, when relating Paul's problems to Paul's personal experience, and when stating that in Rom 9-11 Paul tries to find a solution for the dilemma described above in terms of his own insights, logically speaking Riiisanen excludes every kind of revelation: Paul's interpretation is his own human interpretation which has not been received by means ofrevelation. We have already seen that in the article 'Romer 911: Analyse eines geistigen Ringens' Riiisiinen does not ascribe the apocalyptic sense to the term ~uat~p~ov any more. 3D He himself, however, also concedes that his explanation has to ignore the 'apocalyptic nature' of ~uat~p~ov. When coming to his own conclusion, he says: The revelation vocabulary of 11 :25-26 notwithstanding"Jl, Paul is wrestling with a burning personal problem, attempting to 'square the circle,' trying different solutions. 32

Riiisiinen even goes one step further. In Rom 9-11 it seems as if Paul tries to give both a justification of and an account for God's treatment ofIsrael. However, according to Riiisanen, in Rom 9-11 Paul tries to justify himself rather than God. 33 In Rom 9-11, Paul attempts to find an answer to the 27 "Er ringt mit einem ewigen religills-theologischen Problem: mil dem Konflikt zwischen hei/iger Tradition und neuen Erfahrungen. Paulus hatte 'in Christus' Neues erlebt. Er wollte seine Tradition im Lichte seiner neuen Erlebnisse und Erfahrungen neu interpretieren. Es war aber nicht mllglich, sowohl der alten Tradition als ouch den neuen Erfahrungen ... gleichermallen gerecht zu werden. Mit beiden waren n!!mlich absolute AutoritatsansprUche verbunden ... Er ringt mit seiner Tradition und mit seinen Erfahrungen", 'Analyse' 2935. 28 "Paul experienced new things and tried to reinterpret his tradition in the light of his experience. In his case, this could only result in violence against the tradition. It was not possible to invest Jesus Christ with exclusive soteriological significance without at the same time in effect breaking with the classical covenantal nomism. Paul will have it both ways, and this brings him into an insoluble self-contradiction as regards Israel", 'Israel' 196. 29 See section 6.4 above. 30 See section 6.4. This was a difference between 'Israel' and 'Analyse'. 31 My italics. 32 'Israel' 196. 33 "Paul is in effect concerned to justify his own activity as a preacher of the gospel", 'Israel' 196. "Zutiefst geht es urn die Rechtfertigung der Mission des Paulus selbst", 'Analyse' 2936.

Explanation/or the Inconsistencies Concerning Israel

109

burning question why Israel has rejected Paul's message about Christ. Israel's rejection of his message could, of course, threaten its credibility. The answers in Rom 9-11 not only give comfort and encouragement to Paul in the face of this rejection34, but they also seek to inspire confidence in him on the part of his readers, and Paul desperately needed such confidence during his stay in Rome as a kind of intermediate station during his journey to Spain. 35

7.3 A remarkable parallel between Raisanen 's Markan and Pauline studies Although it would be very interesting to study Riiisanen's research on Mark, this is not within the scope of this study. Yet it is worthwhile to look briefly at his research on Mark, because there appears to be a remarkable parallel between his research on Mark and his research on PauL Raisanen himself refers to this parallel (see below). Our concern here is mainly with his The 'Messianic Secret' in Mark. 36 This volume is a

" With reference to this aspect, Rllis!lnen has again found some parallels with the Koran. See Hardening 19ff, 26ff, 40, and 43. 3S See Rom 15:24, 28. 36 I want to mention here three characteristic aspects of Rllis!lnen's study. (I) Many interpreters believe that Wrede asserted that the so-called 'Messianic Secret' (,Messiasgeheimnis') was Mark's own invention. However, this is, according to Rllisllnen, "an astonishingly widespread and persistent misunderstanding", Secret 44. Wrede, as a matter of fact, asserted that this was not Mark's own invention; if this were really the case, then Mark would have elaborated it in his Gospel more consistently. But because of the fact that some inconsistencies as regards this idea can be detected within the Gospel according to Mark, the Messianic Secret is, for Wrede, not Mark's own concept. (2) According to Rllisllnen, Mk 4:10-12 is not Markan material. At this point, with reference to Mk 4:10-12, Rilisiinen argues in the same manner as Wrede does in connection with the Messianic Secret: "If it were Mark's own creation, one would have expected him to apply his maxim somewhat more consistently", Secret 136. See also Rllis!lnen's Die Parabeltheorie im Markusevangelium. (3) An important difference between RlIisanen and Wrede is that R!lisllnen asserts that the Messianic Secret is Mark's own creation. According to R!lis!lnen, it may be that in his Gospel Mark was in discussion with the so-called source Q, in which, for example, the soteriology relating to Jesus' sufferings, death aod resurrection did not occur, while at the same time Mark tries to defend his own Hellenistic theology which originated after the first Easter and which is characterized by a liberal attitude as expressed, for example, in a spiritualizing interpretation of the law. The Messianic Secret is introduced at all those places where Mark's Hellenistic theology differs from the theology of Q: Jesus knew in advance what significance would be ascribed to his sufferings, death and resurrection. " ... Mark tries to reject the claims of people like the bearers of the Q-tradition who appealed to the authority of the historical Jesus. Mark defends (unjustifiably at the historical level) his

110

Chapter 7

translation of Das 'Messiasgeheimnis' im Markusevangelium. Ein redaktionskritischer Versuch. In the Preface to the English translation, Raisiinen says that in comparison with the original German Edition this translation is almost a new product with some new insights.37 In the time between the publication of the German Edition (1976) and the English translation (1990), Raisanen gained much experience from his study of Paul's contradictions (Paul and the Law was published for the first time in 1983; 'Romer 9-11: Analyse eines geistigen Ringens' was published in 1987, and 'Paul, God, and Israel: Romans 9-11 in Recent Research' in 1988). It could be expected, therefore, that Raisiinen makes use of this experience of studying Paul's inconsistencies in his study of Mark38 , because in Mark also there are, according to Rtiisanen, some inconsistencies. For Raisanen .Mk 4 (verse 33 and 3439) is especially problematic. Following J. Lambrecht, Raisanen speaks of an "innerMarkan tension".4o In The 'Messianic Secret' in Mark we come across several ideas which are relevant to this study, such as Riiisiinen's important presupposition that he does not fmd it necessary to assume beforehand that a document is a unity or a consistent whole, irrespective of whether it concerns Mark or Paul. In The 'Messianic Secret' in Mark Raisiinen explicitly discusses in a few words the problem of unity within .Mk 4.41 These words are Hellenistic viewpoint by showing that the disputed points go back to Jesus himself', Secret 254. 37 u ••• the English version may almost be regarded as a new product", Secret xiii. 38 "One reason for the partial shift in my perspective is the experience of studying Paul in the meantime. Discovering tensions and contradictions in Paul's thought makes one wary of using similar features as source-critical criteria in the study of Mark", Secret xiii. 39 Even though they immediately strike us as disjunctive, we have to pay equal attention to these two verses, which are, according to R:!is:!nen, from Mark himself. "But he would simply have been gUilty of a contradiction in which he was by no means alone in the thought world of his time" (Secret 114). In this connection, RlIisllnen refers to Rom 9-11, the Koran, and the Old Testament. See Secret 113--4 . • 0 Secret 108. 41 In Die Parabeltheorie im Markusevangelium, R!lislinen divides Mk 4 (U a gold mine for literary-critical analyses", Secret 28) into many different parts. He comes to the conclusion that there is no unity within Mk 4, since there are, according to Rllisllnen, several levels within Mk 4 which each originated in a different period. Even though Mark has constructed all these different levels into one whole, its unity thus appears to be very artificial. A comparison between Paul and Mark may not seem relevant to my study, because there are, in Raisllnen's view, several 'levels' in Mark, whereas we do not find similar levels in Paul. Yet I make a comparison between Rllisanen's Pauline studies and his Markan studies, because he himself does the same (see the text), namely with reference to Mk 4:33-34 (thUS not with reference to the different levels in Mark as described in Die Parabeltheorie im Markusevangelium).

Explanation/or the Inconsistencies Concerning Israel

III

interesting, because he himself makes a comparison between the problem of unity in Mark and in Paul. Raisanen starts with the problem of unity within Mark. He says: The basic methodological problem, in any case, is this: should we first interpret individual sayings and sentences according to their internal logic in their immediate context? Or should we rather start with Mark's total view and try. from the start, to make individual passages fit this overall view?42

Raisanen chooses the first method. 43 Subsequently, he makes a comparison with his Pauline studies. With reference to Gal 3:19, he argues that Paul asserts that it was not God himself, but the angels who gave the law. Should we then interpret the sentence in the 'natural' sense, accepting that Paul, for whatever reasons (e.g. polemical), contradicts himself?44 Or should we rather start from the assumption that a thinker of Paul's stature must be consistent, and try to figure out a reading of Gal 3.19 which preserves his consistency?45

Raisanen states that if it is legitimate to start from the assumption that there could be some possible inconsistencies in Paul, then it is equally legitimate to start from the same assumption with regard to Mark. It is thus important for this study to come to the conclusion that we find the following methodological approach or presupposition in Riiisanen's research, namely: Riiisanen does not want to start a priori with Paul's "total view" (or with Mark's "total view"), within which Paul's different statements (or Mark's) have to be fitted. The main point now is that Raistinen explains the origin of the inconsistencies in Mark and those in Paul in the same way.46 With reference to a study by J. Lambrecht who argues that Mk 4 is entirely Markan, Raisanen says: "Lambrecht's comments on internal tensions in Mark (not known to me until quite recently) constitute a striking paraZlel47

Secret 30. At another place in Secret, Rllisanen repeats the same by asking: " ... should we begin our exegesis from the immediate context of a statement or from what we perceive to be Mark's overall view?", Secret 88. Here Rl!.isanen again chooses the former. 44 In a note, RlIislinen says: "To be sure, some of Paul's inconsistencies may result precisely from the clash between more traditional ways of thought and more 'original' ones in his mind", Secret 32 note 114. 45 Secret 31. 46 Rliisllnen believes that the contradictions in Mark have to be explained in a way similar to the way in which he tries to explain many inconsistencies in Paul. He says that, even though, for example, V. Taylor and O. Cullmann have asserted many things with reference to the contradictions in Mark, they have not offered an explanation. "Above all, the tension between hiddenness and openness, which is characteristic of Mark's presentation, remains unexplained", Secret 52. 47 MyitaIics. 42 43

112

Chapter 7

to my own observations on Pauf'.48 For Lambrecht argues that Mk 4:33 expresses Mark's spontaneous view, whereas Mark corrects himself in Mk 4:34 (by keeping in mind Mk 4:10-12).49 ... this view provides a striking parallel50 to my own perception of Paul's problems Ca spontaneous view vs. a theological theory) e.g. in Rom 2. Moreover, when Paul grapples with problems reminiscent ofMk 4.11f. he certainly gives the impression of correcting himself, or at least proposing divergent solutions to the dilemma of Israel's unbelief, in subsequent chapters (though not verses): divine hardening once and for all in Rom 9 51 , human free will and culpability in Rom 10, temporary divine hardening for a purpose in Rom 11. If Paul is capable of placing divergent solutions to a problem side by side, it is certainly not impossible that Mark may have done the same. 52

In The 'Messianic Secret' in Mark Raisanen argues the same with reference to Rom 2. First he quotes from his Paul and the Law: "Paul's theological theory pushes him in his thinking about the law into a direction in which he would apparently not go spontaneously".53 Subsequently, he continues by saying: "The spontaneous view is that the law can be fulfilled (Rom 2.14.; 2.26f.; Phil 3.4-6); the theological theory is that it cannot (the thrust of Rom 1_3)".54 In short, the inconsistencies in Mk 4 and those in Paul (concerning the law as well as Israel) originated in a similar way: both Mark and Paul make spontaneous remarks first, and subsequently, they correct them. Although Raisanen himself does not mention it in so many words in his The 'Messianic Secret' in Mark, in my view there are some other similarities between Raisanen's explanation for the origin of the inconsistencies in Paul and his explanation for the origin of the inconsistencies in Mark, because he interprets Mk 4 in terms of Mark's mission experience. 55 "1 suggest that the mission experience of Mark's congregation provides a key to the puzzles of the chapter".56 According to Raisanen, Mark has to demonstrate two things in Mk 4: (1) he wants to 4B 49

Secret 33. "Mark the redactor who wrote v. 33 immediately corrects himself in v. 34!", Secret

108.

My italics. As we have already seen in the previous section, RlIisli.nen regards the idea of election in Rom 9 as a kind of third soteriology of Paul as a result of the discussion with Jewish 'covenantal nomism'. Rllis!lnen again argues the same in Secret: the statements in Rom 9:6ff constitute "the less happy by-product of a despairing confrontation", Secret 33 note 120; in this connection R!lisllnen refers to the article' Analyse'. 52 Secret 108-9. S3 Paul 118. Compare also Paul 106-8 and Secret 33 note 120. 54 Secret 33 note 120. 55 See Secret 137-42. 56 Secret 138. so

SI

Explanationfor the Inconsistencies Concerning Israel

113

represent Jesus as an excellent preacher who is an example to everyone who is working as a missionary; and (2) he wants to comfort the congregation by explaining the reason why not everybody is willing to accept the Christian message. These two aspects are placed by Mark entirely within the context of the mission experiences of the first congregation. With reference to these remarks, there are indeed two other similarities between Raisanen's explanation for the origin of the inconsistencies in Paul and his explanation for the origin of the inconsistencies in Mark. These two similarities are related to the above "striking parallel". As we have already seen in chapter 5, Raisanen looks for the historical explanation for Paul's inconsistencies concerning the law by considering his mission experiences, namely his encounter with the Hellenists in Antioch, the dropping of the circumcision demand for the Gentiles and his conflict with the Iudaizers to whom he had to render an account of his liberal actions during his missionary activities. The second similarity between his two explanations lies in the triad 'tradition, experience and interpretation'. These three terms have already been mentioned above. Although Raisanen himself does not say it in so many words, a similar process occurs in Mark: due to various mission experiences Mark has re-interpreted (Mk 4:34) a 'tradition' (we may perhaps think of the parable of the seed along with its explanation), which results in various contradictions. For Riiisanen, this triad constitutes the essence of his explanation for the origin of Paul's inconsistencies (concerning both the law and Israel). Therefore, it is useful to listen to Raisanen once again in order to grasp fully what precisely he means by this triad.

7.4 Tradition, experience and interpretation In the volume Beyond New Testament Theology and in the article 'The Law as a Theme of "New Testament Theology'''57, Raisiinen introduces the triad 'tradition, experience and interpretation'. 58 It is evident that by using these terms, he distances himself from the so-called dialectical theology which pays scarcely any attention, or even no attention at all, to experience as such. S9 Raisanen is pleading that attention should again be 57 This article has been included in the collection Jesus. Paul and Torah, and can be regarded as a sequel to his Beyond New Testament Theology. 58 See also his 'Die frllhchristliche Gedankenwelt' 260ff. 59 See Beyond 122-4. That is why Riiisllnen appreciates H.J. Holtzmann: ..... Holtzmann's starting-point, his interpretation of, say, Paul's views of the law as a set of

114

Chapter 7

paid to the experiences of New Testament writers. Here we enter a field which, in my view, is not characteristic of New Testament scholarship, or even of theology as such, since Riiisiinen makes a connection between theology and sociology by explaining a theological development by means of a sociological construction. 6o This sociological construction has been introduced especially by P.L. Berger (and T. Luckmann). Because Riiisiinen makes use of this construction, we have to pay some attention to it also. Excursus: 'Symbolic universe' and 'legitimation' The sociologist P.L. Berger tries to explain the development of a theology by means of the idea ofa 'symbolic universe'. A symbolic universe can be defined as 'a system of shared meaning that enables us to live together as group', involving 'in particular the fundamental perceptions that ground the community'S existence and that therefore do not need debate or justification,.61 The terms 'symbolic universe' and 'tradition' overlap each other. and they have almost the same meaning. The idea of 'symbolic universe' points to the fact that an individual interprets the experienced surrounding world through what has been learned from the community to which that individual belongs. Berger, therefore, wants to make a clear distinction between tradition ('symbolic universe'), experience and interpretation. One of the consequences of this sociological approach is the view that every experience is already determined in advance by the tradition ('symbolic universe'). A community. then, provides its members with a framework into which the experience of the individual is integrated from the start. The process of learning the language of the group in particular is a process which prepares the individual to perceive the world in a certain way. His experiences are not 'bare' ones, but laden with interpretations. 62 To put it more strongly, every theological statement is an interpretation preceded by an experience which in its turn is determined by the tradition ('symbolic universe,).63 In sum. secondary theories to Paul's underlying fundamental experience. is one of those fruitful liberal insights that were largely lost in the upsurge of dialectical theology and still yearn for rediscovery". 'Theme' 265. 60 "Another factor capable of changing traditional pictures of the law is the use of sociology of knowledge in biblical scholarship". 'Theme' 267. 61 Beyond 130, RlIisllnen quotes L.T. Johnson. The Writings o/the New Testament. An Interpretation. London 1986, 13 (he fails to quote precisely; this makes no difference for the contents. however). '''Symbolic universe' denotes a body of theoretical tradition which integrates different provinces of meaning and encompasses the institutional order in a symbolic totality .__ 'Symbolic' denotes reference to realities other than those of everyday experience ...... 'Theme' 267-8 note 5. See also R!lis!lnen's 'Die frilhchristliche Gedankenwelt' 262. 62 Beyond 130. 63 "Yet theoretical assertions are no more than reflection caused by fundamental experiences. 'At the heart of the religious phenomenon is prereflective. pretheoreticaI

Explanation for the Inconsistencies Concerning Israel

115

.. , the dialectical interaction between tradition (symbolic universe), experience and interpretation governs the way in which the world is perceived and interpreted by groups and individuals. 64

In the article 'The Law as a Theme of "New Testament Theology"', RlIis~nen uses the term legitimation. P.F. Esler defmes this idea as "the collection of ways in which an institution is explained and justified to its members".65 It is important to note here the specific function of 'symbolic universe' in connection with the idea of 'legitimation'. This can be described as follows: a 'symbolic universe' can be represented by someone in such a manner that he tries to legitimate a certain change (e.g., a change of a theological idea) with the intention of giving the impression that this change embraces not a new idea, but rather is a genuine part of the community's tradition.

Riiisanen applies the above sociological concept to the inconsistencies in Paul. He believes that the origin of the inconsistencies can be traced back to Paul's will to legitimate certain changes, for instance, the dropping of the circumcision demandfor the Gentiles. 66 Precisely the tension between a novel liberal practice (which signals an actual break with the sacred tradition or the old symbolic universe) and a verbally conservative ideology (which stresses continuity with the old) leads, not just Luke, but even Paul into difficulty.67

In Paul and the Law, Raisanen terms this process "secondary rationalization"; but by this term he means in effect the same as what sociologists mean by 'legitimation' .68 A theologian (e.g., Paul) does not

experience"', Beyond 124. (R~is!inen quotes P.L. Berger, The Heretical Imperative. Contemporary Possibilities of Religiou.r Affirmation. New York 1979. He refers to p. 34, but this has to be p. 36) 64 Beyond 131. My italics. G5 Quoted according to RlIisllnen, 'Theme' 267. By means of the idea of 'legitimation' Esler tries to explain the problem of the law in Luke. See 'Theme' 267 for references to the relevant literature. It is not possible here to describe the way in which Esler gives such an explanation. 66 "Matthew, Mark, John or Paul can be seen engaged in legitimating steps taken in their communities", 'Theme' 268. R~isllnen even argues that the entire theology of the New Testament can be explained and has to be explained in this way. "The rise and development of early Christian thought has to be described as an interplay between tradition, experience and interpretation", Beyond 121. Compare also his 'The New Testament in Theology' 135ffand 'Die frUhchristliche Gedankenwelt' 260ff. 67 'Theme' 268. 68 "Instead of 'legitimation', I have spoken of 'secondary rationalization' (Paul and the Law, p. 201) which may be seen as a form of legitimation", 'Theme' 268 note 2. "We find Paul struggling with the problem that a divine institution has been abolished through what God has done in Christ", Paul 264-5. At the same time, R1iisllnen raps Paul over the knuckles by saying: "Paul himself did not realize that Scripture was not on his side. We may be expected to realize and to admit that Scripture and tradition are not always on our side ... ", Paul 269.

116

Chapter 7

necessarily need to be aware of the fact that he is in such a process of legitimation. On the contrary, it often happens that the new and the old are half-consciously assimilated. Attributes of the old law are self-evidently applied to the new ethos that has in fact replaced the old, but the phenomenon is never admitted, let alone analysed. The new is spoken of as if it were identical with the 01d. 69

We are now able to see clearly an important similarity between Riiisiinen's explanation for Paul's inconsistencies concerning the law and his explanation for Paul's inconsistencies concerning Israel. Riiisiinen explains the origin of these inconsistencies partly70 in a sociological way: (1) there is a Jewish tradition or 'symbolic universe' in Paul; (2) Paul has experienced new things, by which (3) he comes to new interpretations7!; yet, (4) he tries to represent these new interpretations as if they belong to the old 'symbolic universe': legitimation. If we apply this to the origin of the inconsistencies concerning the law, then we get the following picture. 72 (1) Paul starts with the Jewish view of the law in terms of Sanders' 'covenantal nomism' ('symbolic universe'); but (2) due to several experiences such as his Damascus Road experience, his persecution of the Hellenists, his subsequent joining of this group in Antioch, his missionary work among the Gentiles and his conflict with the Judaizers (experiences), (3) Paul comes to new interpretations concerning the law (interpretations); (4) Paul, however, tries to prevent a structural conflict with the Judaizers, and therefore he represents these new interpretations in such a manner that these new interpretations seem to be completely in agreement with the old Jewish convictions (legitimation). The same approach can also be applied to the origin of the inconsistencies concerning Israe[73: (1) Paul starts with the Jewish soteriology ('covenantal nomism') by stating that Israel will be saved only if they stay within the covenant ('symbolic universe'); but (2) due to his conviction that there is no salvation apart from Christ (experience), Paul argues that (3) Israel has never been elected (interpretation); (4) Paul, however, does not want to be suspected of arguing that God is no longer loyal to his 69 'Theme' 268. "Hard pressed berween the claims of sacred tradition and the vision triggered by new experiences (which had already initiated the formation process of a new tradition) he tried to do justice to both". Paul xxv!. See also 'Experience' 20. 70 There is more to come. See section 7.5. 71 With regard to the inconsistencies concerning the law, Rllis!lnen says: "Paul drastically reinterprets his old Jewish symbolic universe in the light of his new experiences", 'Theme' 271. 72 See 'Theme' 271. 73 Compare R!lisllnen's article 'Romans 9-11 and the "History of Early Christian Religion'" 754ff.

Explanationfor the Inconsistencies Concerning Israel

117

promises to Israel; therefore, he reveals the f.LUaT~plov that all Israel will be saved (legitimation). Yet, by making this last step (legitimation) concerning both the law and Israel, Paul ends up in several inconsistencies. To put it differently, Paul does not want to admit that a real break has taken place with the old Jewish 'symbolic universe', and in each case he tries to reconcile two different views which are, in fact, incompatible with each other. 74 We have seen the same explanation by Riiisiinen already in section 7.2; but this time he has described it by means of a sociological construction.

7.5 Christomonism

Rliisanen also offers another explanation for Paul's inconsistencies concerning Israel. This explanation moves, however, at a completely different level. It is instructive to look again at the article 'Zum Verstiindnis von Rom 3,1-8'. As already mentioned before 75 , according to Riiisanen, Paul addresses himself to the set of problems concerning Israel in Rom 3:1-8. The question in Rom 3:1 prompts Paul to think through all the questions on the continuity of salvation history. Paul, however, gets entangled in these questions. According to Riiisanen, these questions ought not to be addressed at this place (in Rom 3) within the letter to the Romans. This is precisely the reason why Paul has to interrupt the thread of his treatise after verse 8, and has to start his treatise all over again in verse 9. Taking up again in Rom 3:9 the question posed in Rom 3:1, he now formulates his question more clearly, namely in connection with his soteriology. Within the framework of Rom 1:18-3:20, Paul is compelled to answer his question by a firm 'no': lTaVTWC; (Rom 3:9). We shall listen to Riiisanen's own words, because, in my view, he makes a very important remark. With reference to this firm 'no' in verse 9, he says:

ou

So Mtte Paulus auch schon auf die Frage von V.I antworten kOnnen, wenn die Frage dort nicht mehrdeutig gewesen ware. Die Beschneidung nOtzt zwar soteriologisch 74 With regard to the inconsistencies concerning the law, Rliis1!nen says: "In trying to do justice both to his old symbolic world and to his new experience 'in Christ' (interpreted in a particular way), Paul lands in a situation of 'conflicting convictions', hard pressed between the old and the new". R1!isllnen continues: "Apart from passages which deal explicitly with the law, the tension is palpable in the tortured section Romans 9-11. Paul's legitimating techniques include his appeal to OT texts and figures as witnesses for his stance (whereby he often freely changes the wording of the texts) as well as his affirmation that it is he, rather than his opponents, who really does justice to the law", 'Theme' 27J. 75 See sections 6.1 and 6.4.

118

Chapter 7

nichts, doch im Blick auf die Heilsgeschichte ist sie auch nicht belanglos. Allerdings: Der soteriologische Christomonismus 76 des Palllus verbirgt in sich ein heilsgeschichtliches Dilemma77 , das sich in 3, Hf andeutungsweise bekundet. 78

This dilemma is, for Raisiinen, insoluble.7 9 Paul, however, cuts the Gordian knot in Rom 11 :25ff. 80 It is important, in Raisiinen's opinion, to assert that Paul's soteriological christomonism is the underlying reason for his wrestling in Rom 9-11. In a certain sense, this is thus a theological explanation which is similar to the theological explanation described in section 3.2 above, for we have seen in section 3.2 that one of the keyverses is Gal 2:21. Paul argues "backwards": from Christ's death to interpretations of the law. Basically the same picture emerges in Rom 911: Christ fulfils such an important role in Paul's thought that he ends up in all kinds of inconsistencies. In my opinion, it is not too much to assert that, for Riiisanen, Paul's christomonism81 is, theologically speaking, the reason for all his inconsistencies concerning both the law and Israel.

7.6 Summarizing overview We conclude this chapter by bringing together in a summarizing overview the most important ideas in our study of Raisiinen's work up to this point. In previous chapters, we have already described and analysed the whole set of problems in this study by using the illustration of a centre with two concentric circles. 82 This illustration can be further specified and completed now. In the centre are Paul's inconsistencies (chapters 2 and 6) together with his well-known antithesis (chapter 4). The field between the first (inner) concentric circle and the centre constitutes Riiisanen's theological explanation (sections 3.2 and 7.5); it appears that Paul's christomonism is its central idea. The field between the second (outer) circle and the first (inner) circle constitutes Raisanen's historical 76 In, for example, 'Analyse' 2933, Rllisilnen speaks of christo-centrism ("christozentrische Anschauung"). 77 My italics. 78 'Verstandnis' 200-1. 79 Raisanen writes: "Das heilsgeschichtliche Dilemma des Apostels ist in der Tat unlosbar. Paulus hatte 'a problem of conflicting convictions which can be better asserted than explained: salvation is by faith; God's promise to Israel is irrevocable"', 'Verst!lndnis' 202. The quotation is from Sanders, Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People 198. 80 "In Rom 11,25ff zerschneidet Paulus den gordischen Knoten mit Gewalt", 'Verstandnis' 202. 81 Or christocentrism, in case one prefers this term. 82 See section 1.2, section 3.2.1, and the introduction to chapter 5.

Explanation/or the Inconsistencies Concerning Israel

119

explanation (chapter 5 and sections 7.2 -7.4); Riiisanen's view of both the Hellenists (their liberal attitude towards the law) and Paul's mission experiences constitutes the central factor within this historical explanation, while the triad 'tradition (or 'symbolic universe'), experience and interpretation' is a useful sociological concept (along with the idea of 'legitimation') to clarify this historical explanation. The explanation in terms of this triad described in this chapter 7 is thus placed within Riiisanen's historical explanation; this is legitimate, since Raisanen himself has also connected this triad with his hypothesis described in chapter 5 of this study. 83 Even though the inconsistencies, the antithesis between works of law and faith in Christ, and the suggested hypothesis or historical explanation are, of course, closely related to each other, these three parts are, for Raisanen, still independent of each other. In other words, even if his hypothesis and Sanders' new view of ludaism were to appear to be wrong, in which case the antithesis would be interpreted differently, then the inconsistencies in Paul would still remain. The final remark concerns Raisanen's theological explanation for the inconsistencies. Raisanen regards Paul's christomonism (or -centrism) as the central reason. Gal 2:21 fulfils an important role within this theological explanation. Because Raisanen's historical explanation is of a merely hypothetical nature, and because his theological explanation is deduced from the text itself, whereby the latter explanation is not of a hypothetical nature, his theological explanation must be viewed as the most important one; for Raisanen, this theological explanation is, as it were, the nub of Paul's inconsistent theology. As far as I can see, our description of Raisanen's work, in so far as it is relevant to the scope of this study, is complete apart from one single aspect: what are the theological consequences of all the issues described in the first seven chapters of this study? This question will be answered in the next and last chapter of part A. We shall describe, however, only those aspects which are in Raisanen's own view the consequences of the previous issues. 84

See, e.g., 'Theme' 271. I repeat that in part A, I merely offer a description of Rdisdnen 's views; my own comments and insights will be given in part B. 83

84

Chapter 8

Theological Consequences This chapter will describe the theological consequences of the problems identified by Raisiinen which we have been considering in the previous chapters. We could mention many aspects but shall confine ourselves to the most important consequences.

8.1 Paul's theology is not consistent Having carefully listened to Raisanen in his description of Paul's theology concerning the law and Israel, it will be clear by now that Riiisiinen does not regard Paul as a consistent theologian. On the contrary, as we saw in chapter 7 of this study, Raisanen believes that Paul is constantly driven into two divergent directions with regard to his view of the law as well as of Israel. On the one hand, he wants to maintain the old 'tradition', whereas on the other hand, due to a 'new experience', he comes to a renewed 'interpretation' of the tradition so that his reinterpretation conflicts with the old tradition. "He is tom into two directions, and he is incapable of resolving the tension in terms of theological thought".) Therefore, Paul's theology is not consistent. Raisanen distances himself from all those interpreters who call Paul the pre-eminent theologian within Christianity.2 It is a fundamental mistake of much Pauline exegesis in this century to have portrayed Paul as the 'prince of thinkers' and the Christian 'theologian par excellence' .3

In the article 'Paul's Theological Difficulties with the Law', which with hindsight appears to be a blue-print of Riiisanen's view of Paul's theology

264. After studying Rom 9-11, HUbner calls Paul a "Denker ersten Ranges", Gottes Jch

1 Paul 2

und Israel 122. 3 Paul 266--7. Compare the beginning of section 3.1 above.

Theological Consequences

121

concerning the laW', Riiisanen states that, in fact, Paul does not offer solutions as regards the law. He even argues that Paul himself is the problem in the sense that, on the theological level, Paul evokes questions rather than answers them. S ... one thing seems clear: Paul the theologian is a less coherent and less convincing thinker than is commonly assumed. By way of intuition Paul seems to have arrived at profound insights, but he did not succeed in giving any clear theoretical account of them. His was a very vivid mind and a very sharp intellect; of that there is no doubt. But he was too much under the influence of the overwhelming experience of the Spirit, which was so characteristic of the life of the new Christian communities, to be able to give room for calm reflection. 6

It is evident that such an assessment of Paul's theology has evoked severe

criticism. Kim, for example, accuses Riiisiinen of having made Paul into a "fool"7, while Hubner says that, by such an assessment, Riiisiinen has made Paul's theology into "letztlich nichtssagende Gedankensplitter"8. Riiisiinen rejects such accusations by arguing that Paul was just a human being, and that therefore inconsistencies may be expected. 9 The occurrences of these inconsistencies, however, do not imply for Riiisanen that one cannot respect Paul any more. ID

4 Already in 'Difficulties', the inconsistencies in Paul. concerning the law are mentioned together with the hypothesis described in chapter 5 above. S " ••• I wish to argue that Paul's thought is the real problem, rather than being the obvious solution to theological problems concerning the law. Paul had vast difficulties with the law, not on the existential level in his pre-Christian life, as older generations of interpreters used to think, but as a Christian, on the theoretical theological level", 'Difficulties' 3. 6 'Difficulties' 22-3. 7 Kim, The Origin oJ Paul's Gospel 356. 8 HUbner, TLZ 110 (1985) 896. 9 With regard to the inconsistencies in Paul, R!!is1inen says: "It only makes him a human being, who suddenly appears in a movingly human light", 'Experience' 20. See also The Torah and Christ 62 note 2. " ... I do not think that inconsistency is a wicked thing; it is simply human", Marcion, Muhammad and the Mahatma 17. 10 At the beginning of his study of Paul's theology concerning the law, R!!isanen says: "Should Paul turn out to be a less consistent theologian than many have imagined, this need not a priori diminish his grandeur as a teacher in his own time and milieu", Paul 15. In the article 'Der Bruch des Paulus mit Israels Bund', Raisllnen makes a positive statement on Paul. "Doch es muB Paulus als Verdienst angerechnet werden, daB er sich kOhn darauf einlieB, Antworten auf Fragen zu suchen, deren sich wenige Christen zu seiner Zeit Uberhaupt bewuBt waren", 'Bruch' 170. Rllis1inen adds to this in a note: "Dieses Verdienst habe ich in der ersten Auflage von 'Paul and tbe Law' (1983) nicht gen(lgend betont ... ", 'Bruch' 170 note 28.

122

Chapter 8

8.2 All other early Christian theologians are more consistent than Paul In Paul and the Law, Raisanen compares Paul's theology concerning the

law with other New Testament writers and a few early Christian authors. 1I Raisanen tries to discover analogies between Paul's inconsistent theology and the theology of others within early Christianity. He comes to the conclusion that these analogies hardly exist: in comparison with other theologies, Paul's theology is particularly inconsistent. In sum, I am not able to find in the relevant literature any conception of the law which involves such inconsistencies or such arbitrariness as does Paul's. While most of the conceptions surveyed above are not free from problems either, all of them appear more consistent and less problematic than Paul's. The common view that Paul is the thinker in early Christianity is, I must conclude, misleading. 12

Raisanen makes the same point earlier in 'Paul's Theological Difficulties with the Law' . 13 Why, then, does Raisanen hold that, in comparison with other theologies, Paul's is the most inconsistent? The answer is that the divine origin of (some parts of) the law is denied in some other theologies, whereas Paul believes that the whole law is of divine origin.I4 We can understand why Raisanen holds this view, because, as we have seen in chapter 7, he argues that Paul tries to reconcile the renewed 'interpretation' (after a new 'experience') with the 'tradition' - which is for Raisanen impossible. In Raisanen's view, therefore, Paul should have given up the 'tradition', for example the belief that the law is of divine origin, in favour of his renewed 'interpretation', for example, all his negative statements on the law. IS In short, for Raisanen, Paul ought to have made distinctions within the law, and consequently Paul ought to have ascribed a human origin to some parts of the law as was indeed done by some other early Christian writers who therefore, in comparison with

See Paul 28-41, 83-93,119-27,154-61,191-8, and 203-28. Paul 228. "Indeed, it seems to me that almost any early Christian conception of the law is more consistent, more intelligible and more arguable than Paul's - whether you take Matthew or Luke, Hebrews or James, Marcion or Justin. Surely this would apply also to the theology of Paul's Judaizing opponents, if only their arguments were known to us", 'Difficulties' 23. 14 "Paul did (at times even passionately) cling to the traditional idea that the law was all divine; this is why he was caught up in so many inconsistencies in trying to relate the new experience to the authoritative tradition", Paul 266. 15 "While his life was totally oriented to the new powerful experience of Christ, he was bound to pay lip service (surely never realized as such by himself) to the tradition in order not to undercut the unity of the divine purpose and will", Paul 266. 11

12

13

Theological Consequences

123

Paul, developed a more consistent theology of the law. 16 Riiisiinen gives two examples of theologians in the second century who both made several critical distinctions within the law and ascribed a human origin instead of a divine origin to some parts of the law, and who therefore argued more consistently.17 In the first place, Raisanen mentions the Valentinian Gnostic PtoZemy.18 According to his gnostic scheme, some parts of the law' were introduced by inferior deities or by men, while many ritual commandments should be interpreted in terms of an allegory. In Riiisiinen's opinion, the positive thing about Ptolemy's theology is that he ascribes different origins to the conflicting parts of the law. 19 That is why Ptolemy is able to differentiate between different parts of the law, and consequently he is able to interpret each single part of the law in its own way. Where Paul strives after a global solution (on the conscious level of his reasoning), Ptolemy examines the contents of the law concretely on point after point; inescapably the result then must be a differentiated view about the law. 20

Even though Ptolemy is forced to give up the unity of God due to his distinctions, his theology does not have inconsistencies like Paul's.21 In the second place, Riiisanen mentions the so-called Kerygmata Petrou. This differentiated view of the law also makes, in intellectual terms, more sense than Paul's vague suggestion of the angelic origin of the law in Gal 3.19 ... In sum, the solution proposed by KP is one of the clearest in the period surveyed. 22

16 "The only reasonable way to cope with the Torah theologically (if you are not an orthodox Jew or a Fundamentalist Christian) is to admit that it was not a direct divine revelation to Moses. It consists of a long series of human attempts to respond appropriately to what God was believed to have done. Its commandments are therefore historically conditioned. From such a critical point of view one is enabled to make distinctions within the Torah and give some parts more importance than others. But this was not the starting point of Paul (or of Jesus, or of any Christian of the first generations); only later was the idea that parts of the law are human intimated by people like Ptolemy or, above all, the Jewish Christians behind Kerygmata Petrou", Paul 266. 17 " ... who had the freedom and courage to introduce critical distinctions, refusing to regard the total OT legislation as God-given", Paul 228. See also 'Theme' 273-6. 18 "Probably the most lucid solution to the problems of the law in early Christianity in terms of rational thought was suggested by the Valentinian Gnostic Ptolemy in his letter to Flora", Paul 224. I' See 'Freedom' 47-8.

20

Paul 225-6.

"The price he has to pay is, of course, that the unity of God is lost ... Unlike more 'orthodox' writers, however, Ptolemy manages to avoid self-contradictions in God's revealed will ... In purely intellectual terms his account of the law is consistent and clear and far more impressive than Paul's", Paul 226. 21

22

Paul 227.

124

Chapter 8

At the same time, one of the consequences is that, for Raisanen, Paul has no decisive authority within Christianity. This is emphatically stated in the article "'Righteousness by Works": An Early Catholic Doctrine? Thoughts on 1 Clement' .23 "It is worth asking the question whether it is Paul who provides problematic answers rather than everyone else".24 We have also seen that some of Paul's statements on the law, i.e. his negative statements, are the results of his conflict with the Judaizers.25 Many of Paul's statements are therefore, for Raisanen, context-bound rather than timeless sayings. 26 "One wonders again how much point there really is in making a time-bound idea of Paul ... the universal remedy".27

8.3 Paul's theology displays no continuity with the Old Testament or Judaism We learned in chapter 7 that, according to Raisiinen, Paul seeks to prevent every conflict with the Judaizers by identifying his 'interpretation' with the old 'tradition' (the process of 'legitimation'). But, as we also saw in chapter 7, Raisiinen believes that Paul's theology differs de facto from Judaism (Old Testament) in many important aspects, although, of course, Paul himself would never have been willing to admit it. One of the consequences is thus that Raisiinen does not see any continuity between Judaism (Old Testament 28) and Paul's theology. This applies to his theology of both the law and Israel. In his Preface to Paul and the Law, Raisiinen mentions in this connection both themes. In this Preface to the second Edition of 1987, he quotes a sentence from his own Paul and the Law (1983). Raisanen describes the problem of inconsistencies concerning the law as follows: " ... we find Paul struggling with the problem that a See section 8.4 below. 'Righteousness' 220. 25 See chapter 5 above. "The negative statements about the law are to be understood as radicalizations emanating from a situation of conflict", 'Righteousness' 220. 26 " ... there is a problem in using such one-off, context-bound sayings as timeless norms ... ", 'Righteousness' 220. 27 'Righteousness' 221. The original German Edition says: "Man fragt sich wieder, wie sinnvoll es eigentlich ist, eine zeitgebundene schwMrmerische Vorstellung des Paulus ... zum Kriterium alles Milglichen zu macben", 'Werkgerechtigkeit' 328-9 (in The Torah and Christ). " ... it seems to be impossible to make Paul's tbeology the norm with which one can measure everything else in the world of early Christianity (not to speak of Judaism!)", 'Difficulties' 23. 28 In this connection, Raisllnen does not make a distinction between Judaism and the Old Testament. When he talks about Judaism, he means, in my view, nothing else than 'the theology of the Old Testament'. 23

24

Theological Consequences

125

divine institution has been abolished through what God has done in Christ".29 Riiisiinen goes on to say: When writing the sentence in question I had the Torah in mind. But one should also reflect on Israel's election and God's covenant with the patriarchs and the people. Paul's theology implies that God's salvific acts of old are invalid or insufficient which causes Paul to try insisting on continuity as well. 30

Yet, for Riiisiinen, there is no such continuity, but there is, as a matter of fact, a real "break". Here we deal with an important issue. By arguing that there is no continuity with Iudaism (Old Testament) in Paul, Riiisiinen rejects the classical interpretation that the theology of the Old Testament is in line with Paul's theology. Similarly, he rejects all those modem theories which try to construct a so-called 'Biblical Theology' (a theology which tries to harmonize the theology of the Old Testament with the theology of the New Testament), for example, the theory of the idea of the so-called 'Zion Torah' as defended by H. Gese and P. Stuhlmacher. 31 At different places and in several articles, Riiisiinen underlines the break between Paul's theology and the theology of ludaism. An important article is, for example, 'Galatians 2.16 and Paul's Break with ludaism', Paul xxiv; compare Paul 264-5. Paul xxIv. 31 See Rliislinen's article 'Zion Torah and Biblical Theology: Thoughts on a TUbingen Theory'. To demonstrate that this theory indeed presumes the idea of 'Biblical Theology', I make the following remarks concerning the theory of the so-called 'Zion Torah'. Rllisllnen argues that because the law is a delicate issue for every 'Biblical Theology', a solution has to be found to the problem that the Torah functions in the Old Testament in a completely different way than, for instance, in Paul. In order to solve this problem, H. Gese (and in his footsteps P. Stuhlmacher) introduced the theory ofthe 50called 'Zion Torah' in 1983. According to this theory, in the time of the Old Testament people were longing to receive the so-called eschatological Zion Torah which would have the same content as the Torah introduced on Sinai, but which would not be identical to it. That new Torah would then not be introduced on Sinai, but on Zion, and it would be addressed to all nations. According to Gese and Stuhlmacher, both Rom 3:27 and Rom 8:2 concern this 'Zion Torah'. Raisllnen, however, says that such an exegesis does not sufficiently take into account the syntactic structure of these two verses (see also Rliisilnen's articles 'The "Law" of Faith and the Spirit' and 'Paul's Word-Play on v6fiO~: A Linguistic Study'). Subsequently, Riiis!lnen also believes that Gese and Stuhlmacher interpret the Old Testament texts on the law by using the New Testament very artificially. "In summary, there is no documentary evidence for an expectation of future changes to the law or an evolution of the law. Instead, a change in the human heart, which would make possible a new kind of obedience towards God's law, was the object of a lively hope in the exilic and post-exilic periods", 'Zion Torah', 241. RlIisllnen concludes: "The attempt to erect a biblical theology along tradition-historical lines is not to be rejected out of hand. But the attempt discussed here fails because of its tendency to want to demonstrate at all costs a continuity between OT and NT statements ... The possibility ofa real break in the tradition has to be taken seriously", 'Zion Torah' 251. 29

30

126

Chapler8

published for the first time in 1985, and therefore after the first Edition of his Paul and the Law in 1983. In this article, Riiisanen comments on the interpretation of J.D.G. Dunn who argues that there is still in some way or another a continuity between Judaism and Paul.32 Dunn concentrates mainly on Gal 2:16. In short, Dunn argues that in Gal 2:16 Paul refers to circumcision and food laws, and that in this verse Paul merely takes a stand " ... against the too narrow understanding of God's covenant promise and of the law in nationalistic and racial terms".33 In other words, in Dunn's view, Paul does not attack the law as such in Gal 2:16, but only a misuse of the law. 34 It would be interesting to describe Dunn's arguments for such an exegesis in more detail; our concern now, however, is to describe Riiisanen's response to Dunn's interpretation. 35 Riiisanen believes that TTlOtLC; in Gal 2:16 does not only denote 'confidence', but also 'faith' - and that the latter was indeed something new for the Jews. Similarly, the term OLKOCLouo9OCL has become, according to Riiisanen, a so-called 'transfer-term'36 in Paul. Furthermore, the verb ETTL01:EUocq.l.EV (aorist) designates the fact that if one wants to become a Christian, a completely new step has to be taken. Although Raisanen concurs with Dunn as regards his view of Judaism that it has to be interpreted in terms of 'covenantal nomism', and although he states just like Dunn that the expression EPYWV VOiJ.OU (Gal 2:16) denotes at least circumcision and food laws, Riiisiinen believes in contrast to Dunn that there is a discontinuity with Judaism in Paul. 37 Faith in Jesus implied a new step for a Jew 38 who had also to be baptized and to be converted. This inescapably implied a break with his past.3 9 In summary, I think that Dunn comes close to describing Paul's position as Paul himself wished it to be understood (emphasizing continuity). On the other hand, See J.D.G. Dunn, 'The New Perspective on Paul', BJRL 65 (l983) 95-122. 'The New Perspective on Paul' 12l. R!lis!lnen responds by saying: "Dunn thus presents a new version of an old thesis: what Paul attacks is not the law as such or as a whole, but just the law as viewed in some particular perspective, a particular attitude to the Jaw, or some specific (mis-) understanding of it", 'Break' 114. 35 See 'Break' 115-21 in particular. ]6 See 'Break' 115ff. 37 "I think, however, that Paul's critique of the law is much more radical than Dunn allows and that we should not shrink from speaking of his 'break' with Judaism", 'Break' 114--5. ]8 "Faith in Jesus involved quite a new step for a Jew", 'Break' 124. 39 Rilisilnen concurs with D. Riddle who wrote about Paul in 1943: "Always regarding himself as a faithful and loyal Jew, his definitions of values were so different from those of his contemporaries that, notwithstanding his own position within Judaism, he was, from any point of view other than his own, at best a poor Jew and at worst a renegade", quoted according to Rllisilnen, 'Break' 125. 32

33

34

Theological Consequences

127

Sanders is correct when he points out what Paul's position amounted to de facto. Paul's attack on covenantal nomism ... signals such a degree of discontinuity or such a change of values that it is hardly too much to speak ofa break. 40

What was, in fact, the reason for this break? Raisanen believes it was because of Paul's exclusive Christological claims41, although Paul was not the first one who introduced these exclusive Christological claims.42 "The break with Judaism became logically inevitable at the very moment when the claim was raised that faith in Jesus is the only way to salvation".43 For R!lisanen, Christianity displayed, in any case after Paul, a new kind of particularism, namely: extra ecclesiam Christianam nulla salus. 44 The second article which is important in this connection is 'Der Bruch des Paulus mit Israels Bund'45, which clearly shows Raisanen's own position. His position is between Sanders and Dunn, although Riiisanen's position scarcely differs from Sanders'.46 Sanders' interpretations are more extreme, for he argues that Paul deliberately broke with Judaism. Riiisanen, however, believes that Paul unconsciously broke with Judaism. 47 At the other side of this spectrum stands Dunn who believes that although Judaism at the time of Paul can be interpreted in terms of 'covenantal nomism', Paul did not break with Judaism at all, neither consciously nor unconsciously. In the article mentioned above, Raisanen again argues that on the one hand, Paul wants to cling to the tradition of Judaism (continuity), but that on the other hand, Paul goes his own way. This results in conflicting ideas as, for example, in Rom 9-11. In these chapters, Paul tries " ... sowohl seiner Tradition als auch seinem neucn Glauben treu zu sein. Dabei ger!lt er sowohl gedanklich als auch emotional in eine Klemme".48 If it is required that a Jew also has to be converted in order to be able to remain in God's people, then such a requirement inevitably implies that the old covenant is not sufficient any more. 'Break' 125. See also sections 3.2 and 7.5 above. it was not he who first came forward with exclusive christological claims", 'Break' 125. 43 'Break' 125. 44 See 'Break' 126. 1S As far as I know, there is no English translation of this article. 46 See also section 9.2 below. 47 As far as [ can see, this is the only important difference between Sanders and Rllisllnen. Therefore [ have used the word 'scarcely' in the text. While interpreting Paul, Raisllnen continuously follows Sanders. He is not only influenced by Sanders as far as his interpretation of Paul is concerned, but he is also inspired by Sanders. It regularly appears that Rllisanen is guided and stimulated to do more research by Sanders' insights. Rllis!!nen calls Sanders' Paul and Palestinian Judaism even " ... a gift from heaven for my own quest", Paul v. 48 'Bruch' 166. 40

41

42 " ...

128

Chapter 8

Ein Jude muJlte sich bekehren, urn gerettet werden zu k6nnen. Wer eine solche Position einnahm, gait den meisten als Apostat, der mit der heiligen Tradition gebrochen hatte. AlIerdings drangen die meisten von diesen Tendenzen nicht erst mit Paulus in die Jesusbewegung ein ... Von der Stun de an (wann immer das war), aIs man glaubte, daB das HeiI nur in Namen Jesu zuglinglich war, war der Bruch mit dem Glauben Israels eine unvermeidliche Folge - frUher oder spliter. Wenn niemand, der Gottes neues Heilsangebot nicht annimmt, gerettet werden kann, wird zumindest indirekt vorausgesetzt, daB Gottes altes Angebot nicht mehr gilt oder nicht mehr genUgt. Durch seine bloBe Existenz beseitigt der neue Bund den frUheren ... Also enthielt die Botschaft der neuen Bewegung von all em Anfang an - vielleicht sogar von Johannes dem Tilufer an - eine Spannung zwischen zwei Anschauungen vom Heil. In den paulinischen Briefen kommt diese Spannung nur deutlicher als bisher zurn Ausdruck.49

In this way, Paul contributed to the fact that the separation between Christianity and Judaism became a fact all the sooner, because Paul made a contrast between grace and works 50, whereas in Judaism, these two belonged together. 51 Wegen seiner exklusiv christozentrischen Soteriologie braucht Paulus eine Dogmatik, aus der die menschlichen Werke ganzlich ausgeschlossen werden, wenn vom Heil die Rede ist. 52

The consequence is that Paul constructed a completely new theology in comparison with Judaism. Apart from the fact that this new theology has immanent difficulties 53 (inconsistencies), it also causes a break with Judaism. Paul himself, however, is not responsible for this break. Das Problem steckt in den Grundlagen des Christentums selbst; es geht urn den Widerspruch zwischen behaupteter Kontinuitilt und faktischer (erhebJicher) Diskontinuitilt. Wenn der Glaube an Jesus Christus unentbehrlich ist, gilt der Sinaibund faktisch nicht mehr. 54

Christian theology has often argued that there is a continuity between the Old Testament and Paul. Yet Raisanen can in no way agree with such an interpretation. Man so lite eingestehen, daB zwischen dem Glauben Israels und Paulus -ein Bruch besteht. Aus diesem Tatbestand entstehen filr eine heils- bzw. offenbarungsgeschichtlich orientierte 'Biblische Theologie' graB ere Schwierigkeiten als man im allgemeinen einsieht. 55

'Bruch' 169. See chapter 4 above. 51 See, e.g_, the excursus on E.P. Sanders in chapter 4 above. 52 'Broch' 170-1. 53 "._. immanente Schwierigkeiten ... ", 'Bruch' 171. 54 'Broch' 171. 55 'Bruch' 171.

49

50

Theological Consequences

129

Finally, we again return to the article 'Zum Verstandnis von Rom 3,1-8'. There is an important passage in this article under the theme "Das wame Problem hinter Rom 3,1-8".56 As we have already learned, Raisanen believes that Paul alludes in Rom 3:1-8 to the problems in Rom 9-11.57 Attempting to trace the real problem behind Rom 3:1-8 (and thus also behind Rom 9-11), Raisanen says: "Es liegt in seinem tatsachlichen Bruch mit lsraels Bund".s8 If for Paul faith in Christ is the only means of obtaining salvation, then this implies, logically speaking, that the old covenant is not in force any more in the sense of a "Heilssetzung". "Daraus entsteht eine heilsgeschichtliche Aporie ersten Ranges".s9 Paul's soteriology implies that the Jew also has to be converted. Deshalb ist das paulinische Gleichnis vom Olbaum vom Gesichtspunkt des nichtchristlichen Juden irreftlhrend. Der Baum, in den die Heiden 'eingepfropft' wurden, war nicht der alte, sondern sozusagen ein dritter Baum. Wer dem Sinaibund treu bleiben wo lIte, machte sich in den Augen des Paulus letztlich an a.m01:(O: (Rom 3,3) und a.O.Klo: (Rom 3,5) schuldig. 60

Taking into account the above, we conclude that, according to Raisanen, one of the consequences of Paul's theology is the fact that there is no continuity between Judaism (Old Testament) and Paul's theology, although Paul himself wants to give the impression that this continuity still remains.

8.4 Paul unjustly supports a separation between Judaism and Christianity

Although it is different from the previous one, it is necessary to mention the following closely related consequence, namely: according to Rliisanen, one should not separate Judaism and Christianity from each other. Raisanen says that this has been done quite often on the basis of Paul's theology. The fact that the two have been separated is, for Raisanen, understandable, because if one starts from Paul's assumption that Christ is the only way to salvation (the exclusive soteriological claim, christomonism or -centrism61 ), then all other answers are inadequate; in addition to this, Paul conveys a distorted picture of Judaism (see below).62 'Verstl!ndnis' 201-2. See sections 6.1 and 6.4 above. 58 'Verstlindnis' 20 l. 59 'Verst!!ndnis' 201. 60 'Verstl!ndnis' 202. Compare also section 6.5.3 above. 61 See sections 3.2 and 7.5. 62 See the excursus on E.P. Sanders in chapter 4. Originally the 'works of law' designated, according to Rl!is!!nen, nothing other than the ritual practices of the Jew 56

57

130

Chapler8

Yet, however understandable it may be, this separation is unjust. In any case, within the history of Christianity, there has never been a wellbalanced discussion of the law. Paul did not develop a well-balanced view of the law (inconsistencies!), while many others within Christianity separated Judaism and Christianity from each other precisely on the basis of Paul's theology. Raisanen develops the above line of argument as early as his article 'Paul's Theological Difficulties with the Law'.63 The same issue is discussed in Paul and the Law: In his attempt to tell what the law is all about Paul gets involved in selfcontradictions. What is worse, he conveys a distorted picture of the Jewish religion which has, contrary to Paul's intentions to be sure, had a share in the tragic history of the Jews at the mercy of Christians. 64

This last aspect is, however, not further elaborated in Paul and the Law. In the last section of his article 'Legalism and Salvation by the Law. Paul's Portrayal of the Jewish Religion as a Historical and Theological Problem', Raisanen makes some important remarks in this connection. Paul's failure to give a correct picture of Judaism is not merely of antiquarian interest. The recognition of this failure will have significant consequences for Christian theology. Christian theologians engaged in a dialogue with Iudaism ought to realize that Paul's theology presents, above all, a dilemma for the Christian side. What magnificent theological structures have been built precisely on this misrepresentation! If all this light is darkness, how great is the darkness. No discussion of Christianity's relation to the parent religion should be based on an uncritical acceptance of Paul's statements concerning Iudaism. No one would deny that Paul made a tremendous contribution toward the later separation of Christianity from Iudaism. This is often praised as his greatest deed. Without wishing to debate whether the separation was in itself good or bad (one may, after all, do the right thing for the wrong reasons) 1 would emphasize that its theological grounds were doubtful. No wonder that the majority of the Jews rejected Paul's message ... His teaching of salvation has been considered the 'centre of Scripture'. This will not do ... 65

It is also illuminating to listen in this same connection to what Raisanen is saying in "'Righteousness by Works": An Early Catholic Doctrine?

Thoughts on 1 Clement'.66 Among other issues, he discusses the two (circumcision, food laws) which, however, became a hindrance for the Gentiles to join the Christian congregation. Yet Paul has made a contrast between works of law and grace, whereas these two belonged together according to common Judaism. See also 'Freedom' 46. 63 'Difficulties' 23-4. "Here a tremendous hermeneutical challenge faces Christian theology", 'Difficulties' 24. 64 Paul 268. 6l 'Legalism' 53-4. 66 This article is a translation of '''Werkgerechtigkeit'' - eine "frllhkatholische" Lehre? Uberlegungen zum 1. Klemensbrief (in The Torah and Christ):The English translation has been included in the collection Jesus, Paul and Torah.

Theological Consequences

131

following problems in this article. In the first place, he asks himself whether the soteriology within Early Catholicism, of which I Clement is a representative, can be characterized by the term 'righteousness by works'6?, since it is the communis opinio that Clement of Rome is a legalist. 68 In the second place, Riiisanen discusses in this article a problem of a heilsgeschichtlich nature: if Paul talks about genuine faith in connection with, for example, Abraham, why in that case had Christ still to come?69 Both problems are related to each other, but here we shall pay attention mainly to Riiisiinen's answer(s) to the former question. Riiisanen tries to exonerate Clement of Rome from legalism by emphasizing the fact that 1 Clement is concerned with a concrete paraenesis concerning mutual relations within the Corinthian congregationJo Because Clement's letter mainly deals with a paraenesis, it seems as if it is concerned with legalism.?l There is thus a strong emphasis on morality, but there is little sign of 'moralism' and none at all of casuistry and the like; it is completely misleading to speak in this context of such things as anthropocentric piety or the decisive soteriological significance of meritorious works. 72

According to Riiisanen, Clement's soteriology is completely theocentricJ3 He says: "It is evident that Christ could be completely removed from Clement's theology without any change to its basic structure"J4 With reference to this observation, which Riiisanen believes is, as such, correct, .. it is a very common view that those writings that are often called 'early catholic' (whether this precise term is used or not) are characterized by a particular soteriological viewpoint: the key terms here are righteousness by works, justification by works, piety through good deeds, religion of merit and the like. The Pauline doctrine of sola gratia is obscured", 'Righteousness' 203. Rliisanen mentions R. Bultmann as a representative of this common view. 68 ..... a legalist as he is often made to appear by modem exegetes", The Torah and Christ iv. 69 Raisllnen asks: " ... if saving faith was accessible to an Abraham or a David (Romans 4), what was Christ really needed for?", The Torah and Christ iv. 70 "Now it is essential tIlat serious account should be taken of the fact that 1 Clement represents a very concrete paraenesis, the aim of which was the restoration of unity and peace in the Corinthian congregation", 'Righteousness' 205. "A firm result of this enquiry is that Clement's 'Jewish' theology does not represent any 'righteousness through works"', 'Righteousness' 221-2. "'Justification by works' - an 'early catholic' doctrine? No! ... As far as J Clement and the literature of the NT are concerned ... , the theory of justification by works is fundamentally wrong", 'Righteousness' 224. 71 .. It is not the purpose of the letter to instil faith in the readers. Clement is writing to Christians about the Christian way of living in community ...", 'Righteousness' 206. 72 'Righteousness' 211. 73 "Clement's 'soteriology' is completely theocentric ... ", 'Righteousness' 215. 74 'Righteousness' 215.

l32

Chapter 8

many interpreters come to the conclusion that Clement is a legalist. Riiisiinen, however, questions whether such a conclusion is justified. In this connection he makes, in my view, remarks which are very important for this study, for he says that the above argument is, in fact, a non sequitur. Two things must be distinguished at all costs: (1) the significance ascribed to Christ, and (2) the role given to human works and achievements. The answer to one of these questions cannot automatically be deduced from the answer to the other. It is simply not viable to assume that any theology that does not have the work of Christ at its centre must necessarily represent legalism, piety through merit and so forth whether the subject is OT religion, Judaism or even, for example, Indian Bhakti piety.75

Riiisiinen concurs with von Harnack by arguing that Clement's theology is basically Jewish. This does not, however, mean that salvation is earned 'through obedience'. Both Clement and normal Judaism present obedience as the human response to the goodness which God has shown to humanity.1 6

For Riiisiinen, Paul's theology" ... does not deviate from common Jewish theology such as Clement's to the extent that one might at first expect"77, because the basic structure of both theologies (Paul's and Jewish) is similar: both theologies have an indicative, and on its basis an imperative. 78 Only the content of the indicative of each theology is different, which results in a break (see previous section)79: the indicative in Paul is God's eschatological action in Christ, whereas the indicative in common Judaism is God's loyalty to his covenant or the Creator's benevolence to his creation (as in Clement).8o "The statement that 'on this point Paul is a perfect example of the view which is characteristic of first-

75 'Righteousness' 215 (my italics). The original German Edition has: "Es geht einfach nicht an, davon auszugehen, daIl jede Theologie, die nicht das Werk Christi zum Mittelpunkt hat, eo ipso Legalismus, VerdienstfrClmmigkeit usw. reprllsentiert ... ", 'Werkgerechtigkeit' 322 (collection The Torah and Christ). 76 'Righteousness' 217. 77 'Righteousness' 218. My italics. 78 "In general the basic structure is the same in both (indicative - imperative)", 'Righteousness' 218. In another connection Raisllnen says: "The Christian scheme was not dissimilar: one had to be baptized and to live in accordance with one's call. Actually, in Paul's day it was 'Christianity' (to use an anachronistic term) which demanded a Jew to do something novel as one had to 'seek' (a new kind of) righteousness (Gal. 2.17!) and accept baptism. One had to convert and that required a conscious human decision", 'Experience' 34. 79 See' Righteousness' 219. BO See section 4.2.1 above.

Theological Consequences

133

century Judaism' is correct".81 Therefore, for Raisanen, one should not separate Christianity from Judaism, although Paul himself has given occasion for this by representing a caricature of Judaism. If the discussion above is correct, ludaism was never to a great extent a religion of 'righteousness through works'. The works required by the law were evidences of obedience towards God. This is the case for Judaism, for Jesus, for Matthew and for Clement. 82

By such a statement, both the common classical difference between Judaism and Christianity and the uniqueness of Christianity itself as interpreted by Paul are, of course, minimized to a great extent. 83

81 'Righteousness' 219. Rl1is!lnen concurs with Sanders. He refers to E.P. Sanders, Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People 106. 82 'Righteousness' 223-4. 83 R1!is1!nen even believes that Christianity can never be viewed as an absolute authority, not even, for example, with regard to Islam. Thus he here displays a great or even extreme tolerance, whereby he abandons the uniqueness of Christianity, which is no longer understood as having decisive authority. In this connection, we meet Rl1is1!nen's noble attempt in Beyond: quoting H. KUng, he believes that a fair description of the history of early Christianity and a fair comparison between Christianity and other religions could contribute to peace in the world. "'These days, nobody would seriously dispute the fact that peace in the world very much depends on peace among the various religions.' Therefore it is an important task even with regard to world peace to study the rise of Christianity and also to make it understandable to representatives of other traditions", Beyond 96. This great tolerance has, of course, also to do with the fact that Paul's theology, which has had a profound influence on Christianity, is inconsistent for RlIisllnen. Compare also his 'Coexistence and Conflict'. "Paradoxically, then, strictly monotheist polemic against the others' 'idolatry' can be seen as an expression of one's own 'idolatry' in a metaphorical sense", 'Coexistence and Conflict' 176. Again with reference to Kllng, R!lis1inen argues that a necessary precondition for peace in the world is " ... a readiness for critical self-examination on the part of the religions. In this process it is helpful to remember that in earliest Christianity there were - along with tbe polemics - also some attempts toward peaceful coexistence witb adherents of traditional cults", 'Coexistence and Conflict' 176-7. See also his Marcion, Muhammad and the Mohatma 1-16, 33-48, and 189-203 (Chapter 12: Conclusion: The Pluralist Imperative). "Could it not be the ultimate goal of the dialogue that Christians should become better - more humane - Christians, Muslims better Muslims, Hindus better Hindus, humanists better humanists, and so on? And should not each try to help the other to reach this goal?", Marcion, Muhammad and the Mahatma 203.

134

Chapter 8

8.5 We have to abandon the Lutheran interpretation of Paul84 It will now be clear that Riiisiinen rejects the classical Lutheran

interpretation of Paul. ss Being influenced by Luther, Bultrnann, for example, labelled every expression of legalistic piety as humanity's basic sin. 86 Raisiinen, however, believes that Paul's warnings against legalism are based on a caricature of Judaism. 87 With regard to this, Riiisiinen makes an important remark in his Paul and the Law. He believes that a comparison of the Qumran documents with Paul shows that the confession of human sinfulness and insufficiency also occurs in the Qumran documents, although a verse like Gal 3: I 0 has no real parallel in Qumran. ss However, in Raisanen's view, Gal 3:10 is merely, for Paul, part of his tortuous theory, whereas the sense of human sinfulness and insufficiency in the Qumran documents are "reached empirically"89. Riiisiinen adds to this: Both Qumran and Paul dwell on other people's (the outsiders') sinfulness, but Paul leaves it at that. It is the people of Qumran alone who confess their own sinfulness before God! It is a correct observation that Luther's insight, reached via introspection, of man's radical corruption is more reminiscent of Qumran than of Paul!90 .

8.6 Paul and Riiisiinen himself Finally, we want to describe the theological consequences for Riiisiinen himself. In other words, what position concerning soterioiogy, for example, does he himself take after studying Paul's theology?9J In his Preface to the first Edition of Paul and the Law of 1983 (also published in the second Edition of 1987), Riiisiinen says that previously he interpreted

84 See also section 2.4 (under A) and section 5.1 (in a note under the first explanation rejected by R!lis!!.nen) above. 85 " ••• the classical Lutheran understanding of Paul is a misunderstanding", 'Break' 114. See also section 8.6. 86 "As a result of Luther's influence, R. Bultmann described legal piety as an expression of humanity's basic sin - a form of universal human egotism", 'Freedom' 43. 87 See chapter 4 above. 88 See Paul 121-2. 8. Paul 122. 90 Paul 122. 91 I leave out of consideration here Ri!is!lnen's publications on Islam and on the relation between Islam and Christianity - that would require a separate study. I only consider RlIisllnen's study of Paul.

Theological Consequences

135

Paul's theology from a Lutheran point ofview. 92 But, as we have already seen in the previous section, he has abandoned this view. Moreover, Raisanen believes that within early Christianity, "troublesome answers"93 were given to the question why God gave the law in the first place when we are also free from that same law. The problematic nature of these answers should prevent a Christian theologian today from absolutizing hislher own christological tradition ... The effect on history of Christian freedom in relationship to the Jews is not a happy one. One claimed the Jewish bible and demonized the Jews who could not accept the Christian concept of freedom from the law. 94

With regard to the discussion between Christianity and Judaism, Rllisanen regards the assertion that Christ 'fulfilled' the old as dangerous. 95 In sum, Rtiistinen himself cannot support a separation between Judaism and Christianity. Further, in the article '''Righteousness by Works": An Early Catholic Doctrine? Thoughts on 1 Clement', Raisanen gives the impression that he is in sympathy with Judaism as described by Sanders and as detected in I Clement by Raisanen. Especially with respect to the conclusion of this article, he gives the impression that he is in full sympathy with Clement of Rome 96 : People are not 'thrown back upon their own strength' but are challenged to turn to their merciful father and creator, who has called them in Jesus Christ, who forgives them and expects them to walk gratefully, worthy of their calling with God's help in good works. Or, as Clement expressed it in his thoroughly paraenetic writing (16.17): we who were led under the gracious yoke of Christ must live according to his example. 97

In my opinion, during his study of Paul, Rtiistinen's personal position changed radically and profoundly, entirely drifting away from his Lutheran roots.

92 " •.. I long held a rather standard Lutheran view of the matter", Preface to Paul and the Law (1983) ...... I have my roots in a church alleged to be the most Lutheran in the world ... ", 'Difficulties' 23. See also Paul268. 93 'Freedom' 48. 94 'Freedom' 48. 95 "The most dangerous thing was perhaps the assertion that Christ 'fulfilled' the old", 'Freedom' 48. 96 I get this same impression all the more when considering Raisilnen's very positive utterances on Clement of Rome. He believes, for instance, that in general scholars apply far too rigid standards to our assessment of Clement ("... poor Clement ... ", 'Righteousness' 213). Similarly, " ... the Bible is interpreted more realistically by him than by Paul ... ", 'Righteousness' 216. 97 'Righteousness' 224.

136

Chapter 8

Conclusion ofpart A: New Testament scholars stand at a crossroads It is evident that Raisanen's interpretation has far-reaching consequences. He believes that we should not refrain from describing these consequences, and, further, we should not attempt to deny the existence of inconsistencies in Paul out of anxiety over these consequences. On the contrary, he believes that we should deal with these inconsistencies fairly, and that we should also face these 'negative results' in a fair way.98 We must not attempt to defend old confessional traditions, but rather we should challenge the world with our new insights, providing people with a fair comparison between the world's different religions. In short, Riiisanen prompts us to make a choice. In his own words: Biblical scholars wiII soon find themselves at a crossroads. Will they remain guardians of cherished confessional traditions, anxious to provide modern man with whatever normative guidance they still manage to squeeze out of the sacred texts? Or will they follow those pioneering theologians and others congenial to them on their novel paths, fearlessly reflecting on the biblical material from a truly ecumenical, global point of view?99

,. See Beyond 97 and 100. " Beyond 141. With this somewhat challenging question RlI.is!lnen ends his Beyond New Testament Theology. In his article 'The New Testament in Theology', he repeats his statement that the New Testament (and the entire Bible) shows immense internal contradictions (pp. 124-5) so that we cannot appeal to the New Testament (or to the Bible) (p. 135).

PartB

Critical Review

/

Chapter 9

Position-finding: Raisanen's Position within Contemporary New Testament Research In part A of this study we have offered an analytical description of Rilisiinen's study of Paul, especially of his study of Paul's view of the law. This description was, however, quite an isolated one in the sense that we have described Raislinen' s view without really taking into account his position within the field of New Testament research. In the description in the previous part some other interpreters, who are in some way or another closely related to RiiiSiinen, have of course been mentioned. l Yet such a reference to other scholars in part A was merely intended to enable us to offer as much as possible an objective description of Rliislinen's work, and when other scholars were mentioned, we still refrained from giving a critical review. In part B, however, such a critical review of Raisiinen's work will be offered. 2 This will give us at the same time the opportunity to place him within the context of other interpreters, since such a positionfinding will to some degree already imply a critical review, as will appear in this chapter. In short, we want first to answer the following question: what is Riiisanen's position within contemporary research? This question will be answered in two ways. Firstly, we want to try to find Riiisanen's position from a diachronic point of view. In other words, we want to go back to the past. The question is thus whether we are able to find one or more New Testament scholars who have influenced Riiisanen to a greater or lesser extent. Is it possible to trace such a way back (from Riiisanen to the past)? To put it differently, is Riiisanen's view, as described in part A, really original? Subsequently, we shall try to find his position from a synchronic point of view. In other words, we remain in the present. Now the question is thus: where should we place Rilislinen within the field of contemporary New Testament research, especially with regard to the extensive research which has been carried out on Paul's view of the law? 1 See, for example, the excursus on E.P. Sanders in chapter 4. W. Wrede has already been mentioned a few times, for example, in chapter 7, while I.D.G. Dunn has also been mentioned in section 8.3. 2 See section 1.5 for the aim and plan of this study.

140

Chapter 9

9.1 W Wrede's influence on Rtiistinen (diachronic position-finding) After reading part A of this study, we may feel it necessary to mention here E.P. Sanders. His influence on Raisanen is indeed undeniable, even to such an extent that Raisiinen says that he is inspired by him.3 Sanders, however, will not be mentioned until section 9.2, because he plays an important role in modern New Testament scholarship. In this section we want to go back even further, for it is, in my view, evident that Raisiinen is influenced to a great extent by William Wrede. 4 This influence can be detected in many ways. Riiisiinen himself also regularly admits that he is profoundly influenced by Wrede. 9.1.1 Wrede's influence on Rtiistinen's historical explanation for the origin of the inconsistencies Wrede's influence on Raisanen appears in the first place from Raisiinen's hypothesis concerning his historical explanation for the origin of Paul's inconsistencies. s With regard to this historical explanation, Raisanen says: "This reconstruction is, of course, no more than a hypothesis ... In an embryonic form it can be found in Wrede's book on Paul".6 In his Preface to Paul and the Law (second Edition) also, Raisanen says that Paul developed his theology of the law, especially the idea of 'justification by faith alone'7, during and after his conflict with the conservative Christians (Judaizers), and that this hypothesis already occurs in Wrede's work.s Riiisiinen also refers to Wrede in other articles. 9 We indeed find in 3 See section 8.3. It also appeared in chapter 4 that the correction, suggested by Sanders, of the common representation of ludaism constitutes a substantial part of Rliisanen's view of Paul's antithesis between works of law and faith in Christ. 4 See Wrede's very well-known Paulus. S We have seen this to a certain extent in section 5.2. 6 'Difficulties' 22. RlI.islinen refers to W. Wrede, Paulus 72ff, 84. 7 See chapter 4 above. a "The hypothesis that Paul's view of the law developed essentially in the course of his conflict with more conservative Christians, long ago suggested by William Wrede, is the one alternative that remained after a process of elimination. It was not my aim to construct a new hypothesis about the origin of Paul's view ... I found that Wrede's explanation (which he had indicated very briefly) stood the test best. All r could do was to try to add some flesh unto its bones", Paul (1987) xxI. • I mention here only two articles. In 'Paul's Call Experience and his Later View of the Law', RlI.isll.nen says that there is the following possibility: "Paul came to perceive the contrast between ludaism as an achievement religion and Christianity as a religion of grace, which is correct. The contrast was not yet clear to him at the time of his call, but developed gradually. This would, roughly, seem to be the view of Wrede, Strecker and Schulz", 'Experience' 45 ...... the view that 'justification by faith' is a late and secondary doctrine in Paul (defended by Wrede, Schweitzer, Strecker, Stendahl and Schade) ... ",

Position-finding

141

Wrede's work the assertion that the doctrine of 'justification by faith' in Paul gradually came into existence over a certain period of time due to his conflict with the ludaizers. In order to see clearly the nature of the similarity between Wrede and Raisanen a lengthy quotation from Wrede's book on Paul will be given here, in which he discusses Paul's doctrine of 'justification by faith'. Die Reformation hat uns gewohnt, diese Lehre als den Zentralpunkt bei Paulus zu betrachten. Sie ist es aber nicht ... sie tritt OberalI nur da auf, wo es sich urn den Streit gegen das Judentum handelt. Damit ist aber auch die wirkliche Bedeutung dieser Lehre bezeichnet: sie ist die Kampfeslehre des Paulus, nur aus seinem Lebenskampfe, seiner Auseinandersetzung mit dem Judentum und Iudenchristentum verstilndlich und nur flIr diese gedacht ... Als Missionar konnte Paulus nicht dui den, daB man die jOdische Lebenssitte, die Beschneidung mit allem ZubehOr, zu einer Bedingung flIr das Christentum der Heiden machte. Dann konnte sie aber auch kein notwendiges Merkmal des Christentums filr den Iuden sein. Sie war hochstens Privatsache des Einzelnen. Der Streit urn diese Dinge bedeutete aber flIr den Apostel die Notigung, die Bedingung flIr den Eintritt ins Christentum positiv zu bestimmen. Da ware nun vielleicht zu erwarten, er hiltte den Gegensatz gebildet: nicht die jUdischen Riten sind notwendig, sondem nur die Moral des Gesetzes. Allein dam it h!itte er den springenden Punkt nicht getroffen. Was aus dem Heiden einen Christen machte, war nicht die Moral, und no ch weniger war sie es, die den Iuden vom Christen unterschied. Das wahre Unterscheidungsmerkmal war einzig der Glauhe an Jesus Christus. Da haben wir den Ursprung der Formel: nicht das Gesetz mit seinen Werken. sondern der Glaube. Es war hiernach Paulus das Thema gestellt, die lJberflOssigkeit, vielleicht Schildlichkeit der mosaischen Zeremonien, andererseits die Notwendigkeit und Genugsamkeit des Glaubens an Christus zu beweisen. Das Negative war dabei die Hauptsache. Aber Paulus greift nun keineswegs nur die jlidischen Satzungen an, sondern das ganze Gesetz. Es gilt in villlig umfassendem Sinne: 'Christus ist des Gesetzes Ende'lO. Und das ist zunachst das Riltselhafte. Weshalb werden die Moralgebote denn nicht ausgenommen? Wie kann ihnen der Glaube an Christus entgegen sein? Freilich Paulus meint ja niemals, daB der Inhalt der sittlichen Vorschriften, etwa der zehn Gebote, falsch seL Aber er vemeint doch das Recht des Gesetzes, ihre Erfllllung zu fordern; er erklart jedes 'du sollst' filr aufgehoben, und auch das ist riltselhaft genug. Paulus sah sich der jOdischen Religion gegenOber.11

The doctrine of 'justification by faith' in Paul thus originated, for Wrede, during his conflict with others. Athene sprang gewappnet in voller Kraft aus dem Haupte des Zeus hervor. So ist die Theologie des Paulus nicht entstanden. Sie ist gewachsen und geworden, und wir 'Experience' 41. It indeed appears that Rilisiinen thinks along similar lines. After saying in 'Paul's Conversion and the Development of His View of the Law' that "Some scholars have held that Paul first adopted a more ordinary Hellenistic Jewish Christian attitude toward the law and that his attitude developed in a more radical direction only a good deal later" (,Conversion' 404), be again refers in a note to Wrede (Paulus 84), among others (,Conversion' 416 note 6). 10 'rEAO, yi%p VOflOU XPlO-rO" Rom 10:4. 11 Paulus 72-3.

142

Chapter 9

begreifen sie wie alles GeschichtIiche nur in dem MaBe wirklich, als wir in ihr Werden hineinsehen. \2

And a few pages further Wrede writes: ... diese Lehre entsprang zun!lchst den Bedllrfnissen der paulinischen Heidenmission. Sie lieferte die theoretische StUtze fUr die Emanzipation von den jildischen Satzungen. Die Praxis war hier die Mutter der Theorie, nicht umgekehrt, wenn auch die Praxis bereits eine Entwertung der Satzungen voraussetzt. 13

Wrede also points to the possibility that the HeIlenists influenced Paul,l4 The above clearly demonstrates that Riiisanen's hypothesis is influenced by Wrede to a great extent. 9.1.2 Wrede's influence on Rtiistinen's view of the Theology of the New Testament

In his Beyond New Testament Theology, Riiisiinen outlines the framework within which a Theology of the New Testament should be constructed. ls In this connection, Riiisiinen calls attention not only to J.P. Gabler 16 , but also Paulus 79. See also section 5.2 above. Paulus 84. "Mitgewirkt hat wahrscheinlich aber auch das Vorbild, das die freier gerichtete jUdische Propaganda der Diaspora gab", Paulus 42. As far as I can see, RlIisllnen does not refer to this place in Wrede's work. Wrede's influence is perhaps more profound than RlIisllnen would be willing to admit. See also the main text below. 15 In the first two parts of Beyond New Testament Theology Rilisllnen gives a very clear and excellent historical overview of what he regards as the most important Theologies of the New Testament published from approximately the beginning of the ninetieth century until approximately the eighties of the twentieth century. In the third part (91-141) he gives the framework of such a new Theology. RlIisanen gives his own summary of this framework in his article 'The Law as a Theme of "New Testament Theology'" 252-3 (collection Jesus, Paul and Torah). This article can be regarded as a sequel to Beyond New Testament Theology. See also his 'Die frilhchristliche Gedankenwelt. Eine religionswissenschaftliche Alternative zur "neute~tamentlichen Theologie"', and 'New Testament Theology?'. 16 RlIis!lnen refers to the inaugural address by J.P. Gabler in 1787 (I). "Gabler demanded that 'biblical' and 'dogmatic' theology be clearly distinguished from each other", Beyond 3. According to RlIisllnen, Biblical Theology in the sense ofthe Theology of the Old and New Testaments served for a long time before Gabler to support ecclesiastical dogmatic Theology (the texts were used as 'dicta probantia' or 'dicta classica'). For Gabler, however, Biblical Theology ought to be completely independent of dogmatic Theology. "The Bible is a document of religion, not of theology", Beyond 3. Biblical Theology is, therefore, of a historical nature, while dogmatic Theology is the product of ecclesiastical theologians. "Gabler's address displays a clear realization that the contents of the Bible are not simply identical with the doctrine of the church", Beyond 4. "Exegesis does not need dogmatics. By contrast, dogmatics is dependent on 'pure' biblical theology", Beyond 5. Gabler thus envisaged a certain kind of dualism between a historical theology in the sense of a description of the Theology of the Old and New Testaments on the one hand, and a normative Theology in the sense of an 12 13

14

Position-finding

143

to Wrede l7 in particular. It appears from his Beyond New Testament Theology that he takes up many of Wrede's insights and positions. IS He believes that no one in the twentieth century has ever written a Theology as envisaged by Wrede l9 , i.e. a Theology which merely describes the history of early Christianity without any dogmatic interpretations, while at a later stage within such a Theology a synthesis is made between that historical description and dogmatics. 2o Such a Theology will thus be of a religionsgeschichtlich nature2l with the consequence that we do not have

ecclesiastical dogmatic Theology on the other. "Gabler's question about the relationship between historical and systematical-normative 'biblical theology' has proved crucial. Often the distinction has been made in principle, and historical study of the Bible has been pursued, yet a normative element has intruded into the historical work", Beyond 30. 17 Rliislinen refers to Wrede's 'The Task and Method of So-called New Testament Theology' (1897), Beyond 13. 18 For instance, he adopts Wrede's position on giving up the boundaries ofthe canon. "Wrede stresses that the boundaries of the canon must not have any significance at all in New Testament theology", Beyond 13. In full agreement with Gabler and Wrede, Raisanen says: "The New Testament is a document, not of theology, but of religion", Beyond 14. For this reason it is preferable to label such a new Theology of the New Testament by Rilisanen as "early Christian history of religion" or "the history of early Christian religion and theology", Beyond 16. Although the above remarks are not characteristic of Wrede, Rliislinen indeed connects these remarks with him. 19 "1 for one am convinced that Gabler's concern, as radicalized in different ways by Strauss and Wrede, needs to be revived", Beyond xvii. "Our century has not produced the history of early Christian religion and theology which was envisaged by Wrede as early as 1897", Beyond 89 ...... Wrede's vision still awaits its realization", Beyond 90. Compare also 'Romans 9-11 and the "History of Early Christian Religion'" 743 note 6, where R!lisanen refers to H.M. Teeple. 20 "Wrede separated the historical work from the theological task. He did not argue that an actualizing theological interpretation of the New Testament was completely unjustified, but he wanted to leave it to systematic theologians. Another possibility would have been a clear distinction in the biblical scholar's agenda between a historical and an actualizing stage, i.e. a return to Gabler's programme. However, no theology of the New Testament or a corresponding synthesis has been written from either this point of view or from that ofWrede", Beyond 74. 21 "In this process, both one's own tradition and those of others have to be understood with empathy. Fair play ... is a necessary requirement in the study of religions today ... Any rival systems (Judaism, Stoicism, mystery religions, Gnosticism), as well as any Christian interpretations that compete with each other, must be understood on their own terms. They are to be compared, and the comparison must be fair", Beyond 99. "The strengths and weaknesses of each position have to be considered in their own right rather than from the scholar's confessional point of view", Beyond 100. "In summary, it may be more suitable to characterize the project described as a phenomenology of early Christian religious thought than as its history", Beyond 118. In a certain sense Rais!lnen becomes thus a historian of religions. I believe that in this sense also he reckons his work to be closely related to Wrede's. See Beyond 13.

144

Chapter 9

to conceal the 'negative' results of such a Theology, since it no longer primarily serves the interests of ecclesiastical preaching. 22 Weak arguments or inconsistent23 reasoning in the ideological struggle are to be noted, on whichever side they may occur. In this regard a societally and globally orientated exegesis will be notably different from a church-orientated one. 24

9.1.3 Wrede's influence is more profound than Raisanen is aware of Wrede's influence on Riiisiinen is more profound than Riiisiinen himself indicates. This appears in the first place from the similarity between Wrede's study of Mark and Riiisanen's study of Paul, for Wrede has tried to explain the internal contradictions in Mark. Riiisiinen writes: Within the context of an historical interpretation, one can make more or less wellfounded conjectures as to why Jesus might possibly have wished to avoid publicity. But one cannot in this context answer Wrede's question of how the tension between hiddenness and openness, and the particular features in connection with the secret, are to be explained. 25

Riiisiinen has done precisely the same with regard to the inconsistencies in Paul, because he has tried to explain them. Subsequently, we can also mention Wrede's view of the Lutheran interpretation of Paul, for Wrede also believes that this interpretation of Paul is wrong. 26 Furthermore, Wrede's assertion that the representation of Judaism as a religion without grace is a mere caricature clearly indicates the similarity between Riiisanen's work and Wrede's.27 Another salient detail is that, clarifying 22 "If we stop artificially maintaining the bond between exegesis and preaching, there is no reason why there should be a problem in presenting 'negative' results", Beyond 97. "What exegesis can do instead is to provide sober information on the background, rise and early history of Christianity ...", Beyond 98. Compare also his article 'Liberating Exegesis?' . 23 My italics. 24 Beyond lOO. See also 'The New Testament in Theology', where Raisllnen argues in favour ofa historical approach to the New Testament. 25 Secret 54. 26 See, for example, Wrede's Paulus 72. He also says: '''Ich habe Lust an deinem Gesetze', war vielfach einer Stimmung gewichen, die das Gesetz als Druck und B(lrde empfand. So kann auch Paulus niederdr(lckende Erfahrungen bei seinem Heiligungsstreben sehr wohl gemacht haben, und insofem kann auch Erlebtes in seiner Schilderung stecken ... Die Wahrheit ist: die Seelenkampfe Luthers haben fUr dies Bild des Paulus Modell gestanden", Paulus 83. In full agreement with Wrede, Raislinen believes that we ought to interpret Paul's theology by using another hermeneutic concept than the Lutheran one. 27 "Die Auffassung der j(ldischen Religion ist hierbei ein wenig karrikierend. Denn auch sie kannte die Gnade und konnte sie sogar betonen", Paulus 74. Many years before Sanders' view was introduced within New Testament scholarship Wrede already expressed himself in a similar way.

Position-jinding

145

the fact that Paul ascribed a soteriological significance to circumcision, Raisanen gives the same example as Wrede does in his discussion of 'Der Kampfum das Werk'.28 In sum, Wrede has influenced Riiisiinen to a great extent.

9.2 RCiistinen 's position within contemporalY New Testament research (synchronic position-finding) In order to find Raislinen's position from a synchronic point of view, we shall first give a very brief overview of several recent New Testament studies of Paul's view of the law. There is, however, a tremendous amount of literature on this topic, and many studies have been published on merely single aspects of Paul's view of the law, such as law and ethics29 , law and Christ30 , law and sin3l , law and Spirit32, Christ as the end of the law33 , the fulfilment of the law 34 , and justification 35 • Because of this tremendous amount of literature, we shall mention here merely a few interpreters who, in my opinion, have set a trend within contemporary New Testament research. 36 In order to find Raisiinen's position among contemporary New Testament interpreters, in the overview below we shall put merely one decisive question to each of the interpreters considered: does the Jewish Torah really have a soteriological function?37 Applying this standard, we 28 Rllis!inen gives this example in Paul 263 note 172 and in 'Legalism' 52-3. Compare Wrede who approaches it from the lewish point of view: "Wie ware es, wenn bei uns eine kirchliche Gruppe die Taufe filr entbehrlich, ja filr ein Hemmnis des Evangeliums erklarte?", Paulus 41. 29 E.g., I.W. Drane, 'Tradition, Law and Ethics in Pauline Theology', NovT 16 (1974) 167-78. 30 E.g., C.H. Dodd, 'ENNOMOE XPIETOY', Studio Paulina. Haarlem 1953,96-110. 31 E.g., H. Weder, 'Gesetz und SUnde. Gedanken zu einem qualitativen Sprung im Denken des Paulus', NTS 31 (1985) 357-76. 32 E.g., H.D. Betz, 'Geist, Freiheit und Gesetz. Die Botschaft des Paulus an die Gemeinden in Galatien', ZTK 71 (1974) 78-93. 33 E.g., R. Badenas, Christ the End of the Law. Romans 10.4 in Pauline Perspective. Sheffield 1985. 34 E.g., E.P. Sanders, 'On the Question of Fulfilling the Law in Paul and Rabbinic Judaism', in: E. Bammei, C.K. Barrett and W.O. Oavies (Ed.), Donum Gentilicium. Oxford 1978, 103-26. 3S E.g., K. Kertelge, "Rechtfertigung" bei Paulus. Studien zur Struktur und zum Bedeutungsgehalt des paulinischen Rechtfertigungsbegriffs. MUnster 21971. 36 Beyond all doubt, U. Wilckens as well as H. HUbner have also set a trend by their development theory. I return to both these interpreters in the next chapter. 37 Of course, I could have made use of some other question, such as that of the continuity between the Old and New Testaments. This would have meant for my position-fmding of Ounn, for example, that he would have had to have been placed not

146

Chapter 9

can distinguish between two groups of interpreters, namely one group which is very distant from Raisiinen (group A), and another group which is closely related to him (group B).38

Group A R. Bultmann (together with his followers) is a New Testament interpreter who, according to the above criterion, is very distant from Riiisiinen. Influenced by W. Bousset39 and F. Weber4°, Bultmann regards Judaism as an expression of legalism. In chapter 4 of this study it clearly appeared that Riiisiinen, being influenced by Sanders' 'covenantal nomism', exonerates Judaism from every kind of legalism. According to Bultmann, however, Paul warns against legalism which is even rooted in anthropology, and for Bultmann the epya. VOflOU are not able to justify man ... weil das Bemiihen des Mensehen, dureh Erfiillung des Gesetzes sein Heil zu gewinnen, ihn nur in die SUnde hineinfilhrt, ja im Grunde selber sellon die Silnde ist. 41

The contrast with Riiisiinen is huge, especially because Riiisanen places the antithesis between works of law and faith in Christ within the context of the question of whether the Gentiles are allowed to belong to the people of God (see below). There is also quite a distance between Riiisiinen and C.E.B. Cranfield, for the latter refuses to accept Sanders' view of Judaism. Cranfield asserts that there is no ab rogatio legis in Paul, because Paul merely abrogated a legalistic misuse of the law. 42 Riiisiinen on the other hand asserts that Paul indeed abrogated the law, and that Paul not only acted against a legalistic misuse of the law, but also against the law per se. 43 Within New Testament research the interpretation of Rom 3:27; 8:2, and Gal 6:2 appears to be problematic. F. Hahn in particular has set a trend here. 44 He believes that VOflOC; in the texts above has to be interpreted in group B but in group A. In my opinion, however, there are many similarities between Dunn and Raisfulen, and the question of 'continuity' would not have sufficiently highlighted them. 38 I briefly point out several interpreters here. There is, of course, a lot more to say about them. I am merely interested in finding Rtiistinen 's position. 39 See W. Bousset - H. Gressmann, Die Religion des Judentums im sptithellenistisehen Zeitalter. TUbingen 1966. 40 See F. Weber, Jiidische Theologie au! Grund des Talmud und venvandter Sehriften. Leipzig 2 1897. Ca book I have been unable to see) 4\ Theologie des Neuen Testaments 264-5. 42 See his commentary on the letter to the Romans, Romans 851-61. 43 See Paul 42ff. .. See F. Hahn, 'Das Gesetzesverst!!ndnis im RBmer- und Galaterbrief, ZNW 67 (1976) 29-63.

Position-finding

147

literally, and therefore VOj.LOC; refers to the Torah. Consequently, there is a continuity with the Old Testament, and there is no abrogatio legis. Due to the Christ event, we have to interpret the law in a different way than before, namely by connecting the law with love as the summary of the law. He suggests that we should assume an interpretatio Christiana of the Torah. Raisanen, however, differs with Hahn on all these aspects. Another name which can be mentioned here is A. van Dulmen. 45 According to her the law had, for the Jews, a soteriological function, while Christ is the end of this soteriological way (law). Christians fulfil the law, which remains an expression of God's will. Raisanen disagrees with van DUlmen. P. Stuhlmacher46 has tried to set a trend in a completely different direction. He believes that we are living now in a time characterized by the words in Jer 31 :31 ff. There is complete freedom from the law of Moses. He especially emphasizes the love commandment. Now we have the 'law of Christ' (Gal 6:2), which coincides with the so-called eschatological Zion Torah. This Zion Torah was promised already in the Old Testament, and is introduced in the New Testament by Jesus himself. 47 In this way, Stuhlmacher tries to maintain a unity between the Old and New Testaments. 48 Group B Group B describes those who are close to Raisanen, again according to the above criterion. Here E.P. Sanders, .lD.G. Dunn, and Raisanen can be bracketed together, since there are three Significant similarities between these three interpreters. (1) They all deny that Judaism is characterized by legalism. Thus Paul does not attack a kind of legalism. The epylX vOj.LOU have no legalistic significance. (2) Consequently, the Lutheran interpretation of Paul is no longer really relevant. (3) An important similarity is the fact that the discussion of Paul's view of the law moves in a different direction. Bultmann states that the epyoc

4S 46

See her Die Theologie des Gesetzes bei Paulus. Stuttgart 1968. P. Stuh1macher, 'Das Gesetz aIs Thema biblischer Theologie', ZrK 75 (1978) 251-

80. 47 See also section 8.3 above, together with R!tisl!nen's criticism. 48 Compare his Biblische Theologie des Nellen Testaments. H. Hubner has also published a Theology of the New Testament under the same title (the third volume was publis~ed ~ 19~5). ~hi~ ti:le itself !nd~c.a~es ~~t thc:se two interpreters emphatically

148

Chapter 9

VOIlOU are a priori unable to justify; Cranfield 49 asserts that the Epya vOlloU do not justify because man is unable to do those works; Sanders, Dunn, and Raisanen, however, connect Paul's soteriology with the question of the incorporation of the Gentiles into the people of God, since the Epya VOlloU constitute a hindrance between the Jews and the Gentiles. Here the focus is on the relation between Gentiles and Jews. In my opinion, this trend is becoming increasingly influential, and this group is getting more and more followers. E.P. Sanders has set a popular trend with his new view of Judaism as 'covenantal nomism'.so His influence can also be traced in several commentaries. Sl For Sanders, Paul regarded Judaism as 'covenantal nomism', and Paul acted against Judaism both because of his Christological exclusivism and because of his endeavour to incorporate the Gentiles into the people of God. According to Sanders Paul caused a break with Judaism. Here there is, however, a difference between him and Raisanen, for in contrast to the latter, Sanders believes that Paul intentionally caused a break with Judaism. For Raisanen, it was only because of Paul's exclusive soteriological claim (i.e. Christ as the only way to salvation) that this actual break de facto came about. In this sense (Paul's intentional break with Judaism), Sanders is more extreme than Raisanen. 52 In fact, this is the only important difference between Sanders and Raisanen. Another difference related to the previous one is that, in contrast to Sanders, Raisanen believes that Paul indeed presents a caricature of Judaism (in Raisanen's view, the law in Paul received a soteriological function due to his exclusive soteriological claim mentioned above 53 ). In this last sense, Sanders is less extreme than Raisanen. 54 Finally, Sanders also believes that Paul argued inconsistently (although there is also some "coherence").55

49 See, for example, Romans 197-8. Compare also U. Wilckens, 'Was heiBt bei Paulus: "Aus Werken des Gesetzes wird kein Mensch gerecht"?', in: Rechtfertigung als Freiheit 77-109. so E.P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism. See also his Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People. 51 For instance, J. Ziesler's commentary on the letter to the Romans, Paul's Letter to the Romans. Philadelphia 1989. 52 See also section 8.3 above. 53 See section 4.2.3. 54 Compare Paul 187-8. SS Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People 144-8. I have, however, the impression that RlIisllnen wants to see little difference between himself and Sanders. See, for example, Paul xxIII note 46. And when RliiSllnen criticizes Sanders, he does so very carefuIly and even with a sense ofsyrnpathy. See, for example, 'Bruch' 171.

Position-finding

149

J.D.G. Dunn 56 has taken up Sanders' view (Judaism is no legalism) and has tried to incorporate it in his work. In contrast with the interpretation of Bultrnann, for example, Dunn believes that Paul has a rather positive attitude towards the law, and Paul's criticism of the law is not a criticism of the law per se. At the same time Dunn also criticizes Sanders' view by arguing that Paul did react against those who tried to maintain the law, because Dunn believes that Paul means by Epya vOfl.OU circumcision, food laws, and the observance of certain days: these are precisely all those characteristics which constituted a distinction between the Jews and other people. In other words, Dunn calls attention to "the social function of the law". The ~pya: VOfl.OU merely function, in Dunn's view, as "identity and boundary markers". Therefore, Paul does not warn against legalism, but rather against nationalism. In contrast to Raisiinen, Dunn believes that Paul did not present a caricature of Judaism (the law with a soteriological function), that Paul is not inconsistent, and that there is after all still a continuity with Judaism. Thus, with regard to these three aspects, Dunn is less extreme than Raisanen. 57

9.3 Conclusion with reference to a position-finding of Riiisanen A position-finding from a diachronic point of view shows that Raisanen merely extends Wrede's line of thought. It is justified to assert at least that he has elaborated in extenso several insights which already occur in Wrede's book on Paul in nuce. Therefore, Raisiinen is less original than it seems at first sight. A position-finding from a synchronic point of view shows that Raisanen is quite an extreme interpreter in contemporary New Testament research on Paul's view of the law. This is mainly due to the fact that he follows in Sanders' tracks, whose insights turned out to be a stimulus to abandon the Lutheran interpretation of Paul. As a result, there has been a tremendous shift within the discussion of the law in Paul. Riiisanen

S6 See J.D.G. Dunn, 'The New Perspective on Paul', BJRL 65 (1983) 95-122, and his 'Works of the Law and the Curse of the Law (Galatians 3.10-14)" NTS 31 (1985) 52342. See, more recently, his The Theology of Paul the Apostle. Edinburgh 1998. Compare also R.B. Matlock, 'Sins of the Flesh and Suspicious Minds: Dunn's New Theology of Paul', JSNT 72 (1998) 67-90; D.A. Campbell, 'The IlIA0HKH from Durham: Professor Dunn's The Theology of Palllthe Apostle', JSNT 72 (1998) 91-111, and I.D.G. Dunn, 'Whatever Happened to Exegesis? In Response to the Reviews by R.B. Matlock and D.A. Campbell', JSNT72 (1998) 113-20. 57 Compare also section 8.3 above.

150

Chapter 9

himself is also very much influenced by this shift, willingly accepting the results of this new perspective.

Chapter 10

Towards a Critique 10.1 Raisanen evokes many responses In the previous chapter, we came to the conclusion that Riiisanen's position in contemporary research is rather extreme. This extreme position is, apart from other reasons, due to his view of Judaism (Sanders), and his position is all the more extreme because of the fact that he detects inconsistencies everywhere in Paul. As could be expected, Riiisiinen has evoked many responses. It happens quite often that interpreters with extreme positions evoke many responses, positive as well as negative. The number of responses evoked by Riiisanen would have been much fewer if he had 'solved' the inconsistencies by using the possibility of interpolations as, for example, O'Neill has done. l Yet, a very remarkable2 feature in Riiisiinen's work is that he does not make use a/such an option3, with the result that the tensions between the two opposite statements within each inconsistency remain. This last aspect along with Riiisanen's I See section 3.1.4 above. 2 In contemporary New Testament scbolarship it is common to regard a verse, or some verses, as an interpolation. 3 A verse such as 1 Cor 15:56 is quite important for answering the question when, for Paul, sin came into the world. R!lisanen believes that the so-called "causative interpretation" applies to this verse. See Paul 141, 148. Therefore, this verse emphasizes the inconsistency described in section 2.6 above. Raisanen could have mitigated this inconsistency by asserting that I Cor 15:56 is an interpolation (I.W. Straatman suggested as early as 1865 that one should consider this verse as such. See F. W. Horn, 'I Korinther 15,56 - ein exegetischer Stachel', ZNW 82 (1991) 88-105. Also Horn suggests that one should regard I Cor 15:56 as an interpolation. The opposite has been asserted by T. Sliding, '''Die Kraft der SUnde ist das Gesetz" (lKor 15,56). Anmerkungen zum Hintergrund und zur Pointe einer gesetzeskritischen Sentenz des Apostels Paulus', ZNW 83 (1992) 74-84). Raisanen, however, maintains that I Cor 15:56 is an authentic Pauline verse. See Paul 143. Without discussing here in detail the question of whether I Cor 15:56 should be regarded as an interpolation or not, I merely conclude that (a) R!lis!lnen does not choose this option, and (b) I concur with him in this respect, mainly because the 'interpolation theory' cannot refer to even one single manuscript which does not have I Cor 15:56. Rliisanen's statement that "The assumption of a gloss, however, makes the verse even more difficult to understand" (Paul 143) is thus correct.

152

Chapter 10

extreme position are, in my opinion, the reasons why he has evoked so many responses (see below). Both his advocates and his opponents say that Riiisanen's work is a challenge to all other interpreters ofPau1. 4 For an enumeration of reviews I refer to the second Edition of Paul and the Law xl note 2, where Raisanen himself offers an overview of many reviews of the first Edition of his Paul and the Law. The reviews to be found in this overview are mainly brief, while three rather more extensive reviews are referred to, namely those of A.I.M. Wedderburn5, l. Thuren 6, and S. Kim 7 . After the publication of the second Edition of Paul and the Law, the discussion continued, and there have been other interpreters who responded to Riiisanen's view, mainly in a critical way, such as S. Westerholm8, l.A.D. Weima9, C.E.B. Cranfield lo, and R.B. Sloan ll . In the literature of New Testament research, Riiisanen is regularly referred tol2, and it is to be expected that, after the publication of his Theology of the 4 R.B. Hays has written a rather critical review of Paul and the Law. He talks about Rliislinen's "provocative position", JAAR 53 (1985) 513-5 (the quotation is on p. 515). M.A. Getty, on the other hand, has more or less welcomed Paul and the Law. But even she says that Raisllnen has represented Paul's view of the law in a "provocative way", CBQ 47 (\ 985) 561-3 (the quotation is on p. 563). , A.J.M. Wedderbum, 'Paul and the Law', SJT 38 (1985) 613-22. Wedderbum's review is mainly positive. "Professor R!Usllnen has done us the service of presenting us with a work which fearlessly subjects Paul's arguments to a penetrating and sustained scrutiny and comes up with an analysis which I find for the most part convincing and which puts its finger on a great many points in Paul's teaching on the law of which I had been uneasily half-aware for some time", 'Paul and the Law' 621. 6 J. Thun!n, 'Paulus och Torah', in: S. Hidal et al. (Ed.), Judendom och kristendom under defiirsta arhundradena. Oslo 1986, 165-92. (an article I have been unable to see) • 7 S. Kim, The Origin of Paul's Gospel. Tilbingen 21984, 345-58 (in the Postscript to his dissertation). Kim is very critical. B S. Westerholm, Israel's Law and the Church's Faith. Paul and. His Recent Interpreters. Grand Rapids 1988, 93-101 (these pages give a very brief summary of Rliisanen's Paul and the Law) and 105-222 (in this part, Westerholm discusses RlIisllnen, among others). 9 J.A.D. Weima, 'The Function of the Law in Relation to Sin: An Evaluation of the View of H. Raisllnen', NovT32 (1990) 219-35. 10 C.E.B. Cranfield, 'Giving a Dog a Bad Name. A Note on H. RlIisllnen's Paul and the Law', JSNT38 (1990) 77-85. 11 R.B. Sloan, 'Paul and the Law: Why the Law cannot save', NovT 33 (1991) 35-60. Sloan discusses several aspects in Rllisllnen's work. 12 J.D.G. Dunn accuses Rllislinen of having a "pedantic" mind, The Theology of Paul the Apostle 100 note 95, and p. 157 note 149, and he often regards Rllisllnen's exegesis as too "atomistic", The Theology of Paul the Apostle 19 note 55, and p. 159 note 160. N.T. Wright also criticizes some of RlIisanen's interpretations. See N.T. Wright, The Climax of the Covenant. Christ and the Law in Pauline Theology. Edinburgh 1991. Compare R~isanen's review in SJT 4701994) 117-9.

Towards a Critique

153

New Testament l3 , the discussion of the inconsistencies in Paul, especially concerning the law, will attract much attention within New Testament scholarship. Yet, as far as I can see, there has been nobody yet who has challenged Rrusanen in an extensive and systematic way, since most interpreters have discussed either merely a single aspect of Raisanen's work or Raisanen's work among other interpreters. The question of whether Paul is consistent, however, deserves a thorough and wellbalanced answer. 14

10.2 Is a critique of RCiisanenjustified? The nature of the inconsistencies and the way they function

The question is to be asked whether it is indeed necessary to come to a critique of Raisanen's work. Is his work indeed justly criticized so frequently? Is there any good reason why we should feel challenged by him? According to common sense everything has to be consistentlS; but could inconsistencies perhaps also constitute a kind of positive quality, on the aesthetic level, for example? In other words, we first of all have to give a further characterization of the inconsistencies detected by Riiisanen from which it will appear sufficiently that a critique of Raisanen's work is indeed necessary. In order to give such a characterization, we look first at

13 See section 1.4 above. 14 J.C. Beker believes that Paul argues consistently. " ... I propose a method, which attempts to maintain both the coherence or inner consistency of Paul's thought and the contingency of its various expressions", 'Paul's Theology: Consistent or Inconsistent?' 367. See also his 'Recasting Pauline Theology. The Coherence-Contingency Scheme as Interpretive Model', in: J.M. Bassler (Ed.), Pauline Theology. Volume I: Thessalonians, Philippians, Ga/alians, Philemon. Minneapolis 1991, 15-24, and his Paul the Apostle. Edinburgh 1989. Compare also N.T. Wright, 'Putting Paul Together Again. Toward a Synthesis of Pauline Theology Cl and 2 Thessalonians, PhiIippians, and Philemon)' in the same volume, pp. 183-211 especially pp. 186-90 (with thanks to T.R. Schreiner, Bethel Theological Seminary, St. Paul, USA, who assisted me in locating Wright's article in 1995). C. Heil, Die Ablehnung der Speisegebote durch Paulus 296-8 gives a brief overview of different opinions concerning the question of whether Paul is consistent. Compare also D.A. Campbell, 'The LlIA0HKH from Durham: Professor Dunn's The Theology of Paul the Apostle', JSNT 72 (1998) 94ff. 15 Rl1isanen refers (see Beyond 138) to W. Pannenberg, Theology and the Philosophy of Science. Philadelphia-London 1976. The question of whether a religion has to be consistent is already a dogmatic or philosophical issue. Therefore, I leave this question undiscussed. My only concern is to inquire into the nature of the inconsistencies detected by Raisl1nen and to investigate whether Rllisanen's conclusions are justified within New Testament scholarship.

154

Chapter 10

the nature of these inconsistencies, and subsequently at the way they function in Raisanen's view. 10.2.1 The nature of the inconsistencies

The term 'inconsistency' as such has a very general meaning with different nuances. In fact, it is a sort of collective term, and therefore its meaning is rather vague. The term 'inconsistency' is easily associated with terms such as dissimilarity, disharmony, ambiguity, and discrepancy. It is far from easy to characterize the precise nature of the inconsistencies detected by Raisanen. One thing is, however, evident: we are concerned here with theological inconsistencies. 16 For Raisanen, Paul makes different statements which are, theologically speaking, incompatible. 17 Now the question is: what is the nature of these theological inconsistencies? Here I want to make a heuristic comparison with a group of interpreters not yet mentioned in the previous chapter, namely those interpreters who defend the so-called development theOlY. According to this theory, a certain process of development can be detected in Paul's letters regarding his view of the law. Paul's letters would be examples of several stages within this process of development. ls A well-known defender of this 16 There are also some other kinds of inconsistencies, such as stylistic inconsistencies (for instance, if one believes that Luke's birth narratives are very Hebraic) and historical inconsistencies (if there are two conflicting reports of one and the same occasion). The distinction between theological, stylistic, and historical inconsistencies is borrowed from D. Wenham, 'Source Criticism', in: I.H. Marshall (Ed.), New Testament Interpretation 145. 17 In his research on Mark also he is concerned with theological inconsistencies. See section 7.3 above. " See section 3.1.5 above. There are, however, also interpreters who believe that there is no dfNelopment in Paul. See, for example, F. Hahn, 'Gibt es eine Entwicklung in den Aussagen Uber die Rechtfertigung bei Paulus?', EvT 53 (1993) 342-66 (especially pp. 365-6). See also C.G. Kruse, Paul, the Law and Justification 33-5. "Damit widersprechen wir entschieden der heute von manchen Exegeten in und auBerhalb Deutschlands vertretenen Anschauung, daB der Apostel wesentliche Bestandteile seines Iheologischen Denkens, wie seine Lehre vom Gesetz, das die vll11ige SUndenverfallenheit des 'natUrlichen Menschen' aufdeckt und ihn ganz von Gottes Gnade abh!ingig rnacht, und der daraus resultierenden Rechtfertigung des SUnders allein aus Glauben ohne 'Werke des Gesetzes', auf Grund der unerfreulichen Vorgange in Galatien erst ab dem Galaterbrief in einer 'Spatphase' entwickelt habe, wahrend in der 'FrUhphase' von Paulus 'die ... Tora mehr im Sinne eines "Adiaphorons'" behandelt word en sei", M. Hengel and A.M. Schwemer, Paulus zwischen Damaskus und Antioc/iien 28. "Wenn J. Becker glaubt, daB 'zur Beschreibung der spezifisch antiochenischen Theologie begrUndete Vermutungen mllglich sind, jedoch nicht mehr', so wUrden wir selbst dies bezweifeln. BegrUndete Vermutungen sind vielmehr liber die Theologie des Pall Ius in jenen flIr ihn entscheiclenden Jahren zwischen 33 und 49 n.Chr. rnoglich. Das Ergebnis unserer Studie laBt sich hier in einem fast banal klingenden Satz zusammenfassen: Seine Theologie, die uns in den Briefen zwischen ca. 50-56/7 (oder 60) begegnet, hat sich

Towards a Critique

155

theory is H. Huhner. As far as I can see, he was the only New Testament scholar in the seventies who wrote a monograph on the law in Paul. 19 HUbner also comes to the conclusion that certain theological inconsistencies can be detected in Paul's view of the law. He explains these inconsistencies by indicating a certain development in Paul: in the letter to the Galatians Paul had a negative view of the law, whereas in the letter to the Romans Paul had a somewhat more balanced view of the law. 2o In the same connection, we can also mention U. Wilckens. 21 He also assumes a development in Paul. 22 Wilckens strongly emphasizes the context of a statement on the law. Such an emphasis is inherent' in the development theory itself. Yet there is still a difference between Hubner and Wilckens: the former believes that there is a substantial development in Paul's thinking, i.e. a development from one letter to another, whereas the latter tries to detect similarities within this development, so that Wilckens is, in fact, less extreme than Hubner (in my view, 'development' in Wilckens can be interpreted in terms of 'growth', while the same term in HUbner can be interpreted in terms of 'transformation'2J). If we leave out of consideration this difference between Wilckens and Huhner, then we can conclude that the development theory is very popular. 24 Adherents of the development theory try to explain the inconsistencies consistently, i. e. along the lines of a development.

bereits in dieser vorausgehenden Epoche ausgebildet. Die entscheidenden Entwicklungen seines Denkens standen dabei sehr viel mehr am Anfang als gegen Ende seiner Wirksamkeit", Paulus zwischen Damaskus und Antiochien 460-1. 19 H. HUbner, Das Gesetz bei Paulus. Gottingen 1978,3 1982. 10 See also section 3.1.5 above. 21 U. Wilckens, 'Zur Entwicklung des pauIinischen Gesetzesverst~ndnisses', NTS 28 (1982) 154-90. See also his commentary on the letter to the Romans. 22 " ••. die Moglichkeit einer Entwicklung im Denken des Paulus", 'Entwicklung' 154. See also his article 'Statements on the development of Paul's view of the Law'. 13 However, growth and transformation are closely linked. 24 See, for example, G. LUdemann, Paulus, der Heidenapostel 1. Studien zur Chronologie. G1lttingen 1980; I.W. Drane, Paul, Libertine or Legalist? A Study in the Theology of the Major Pauline Epistles. London 1975; K. Kertelge, Grundthemen paulinischer Theologie. Freiburg-Base1-Wien 1991. See also M. Hengel and A.M. Schwemer. Paulus zwischen Damaskus lInd Antiochien 28 note 102. With reference to Paul's letters, Kertelge says: "In ihrer Unterschiedenheit und biographisch geschichtlichen Folge werden sie zu Zeugnissen eines theologischen Prozesses, der die Theologie des Paulus nicht von vornherein als ein fertiges System, wohl aber als eine spannungsvolle organische Einheit begreifen laBt", Grllndthemen 10. HUbner's Theology (see previous chapter) will undoubtedly have a profound influence on New Testament scholarship, because Hubner combines two popular trends, namely the idea of continuity between the Old and New Testaments, and the development theory.

Db

Chapter LU

With reference to this comparison with the development theory, the main point now is that this development theory is always concerned with a diachronic inconsistency concerning a theological issue, in this case the law. To put it differently, the inconsistency is connected with a longitudinal section (through time) within Paul's letters (from one letter to another). This is completely different from Riiisiinen's view. As we have seen in chapters 3 and 5, he tries to explain the origin of the inconsistencies in a theological way (considering Paul's Christology) and in terms of history (of religion) (Paul's contact with the Hellenists and his conflict with the Judaizers). Due to both his contact with the Hellenists and the conflict with the Judaizers, there is, in Rilisiinen's opinion also, a development in Paul. But this development was complete already before Paul wrote his letters. 25 The main difference from the adherents of the development theory is, however, the fact that, for RCiisanen, the mutually exclusive aspects of the development were not replaced by each other, but they remained side by side, so that Rtiistinen detects inconsistencies even within one and the same letter. In this respect, Rilisiinen goes a step further than the adherents of the development theory. In his view, the inconsistencies not only emerge when making a longitudinal section through Paul's letters, but also (or, above all) when making a synchronic cross-section within one and the same letter. The two mutually exclusive parts of an inconsistency exist Simultaneously. Therefore, the inconsistency interpreted by Rilisiinen is 'harder', and in a certain sense the aspect of time is no longer relevant since there is no longer a possible chronological development from one letter to another which could explain the inconsistency. The nature of the inconsistencies in Riiisanen's view is already partly characterized when he emphatically says that his theological and historical explanations leave the inconsistencies in principle unchanged. 26 The inconsistency remains, and it is, as it were, immovable; it becomes neither less emphatic nor mitigated by any explanation whatsoever. 27 Just as 1 is not the same as 2, and black is not the same as white, so the two parts of an inconsistency exclude each other (mutual exclusivism). Thus, the conclusion is justified that 'inconsistent' in Riiisanen's work means non-logical, and that his inconsistencies are of a

25 26

27

See section 5.3.2 above. See, for example, section 7.6 above. Compare also section 5.3.3.

Towards a Critique

157

logica[28 nature in the strict sense of the word. Thus, the term 'inconsistency' in Riiisiinen's work is definitely not vague. 10.2.2 The way Rtiistinen 's inconsistencies function The fact that Riiisanen goes a step further than the adherents of the development theory, so that his inconsistencies are of a logical nature, does not yet really challenge us to come to a critique of his work. First the question is to be asked what significance we should ascribe to an inconsistency. Is, for example, someone's credibility at stake because of an inconsistency? Here we can make a comparison with a medical doctor. Suppose that during his consulting-hours a medical doctor prescribes two different kinds of medicines which have opposite effects. One could regard this as a logical inconsistency (although, in fact, this is not a logical inconsistency, because for each case there can be given a historical context29 ; see below). Such an 'inconsistency' as such is not yet a reason to mistrust such a medical doctor or to refrain from consulting him, because everybody will tacitly assume that during his consulting-hours this medical doctor has prescribed two different medicines to two different patients. In this study, it will also be demonstrated that Riiisanen assesses Paul in the same way as someone assesses the medical doctor above without taking into account the different patients. In short, Riiisanen has isolated the inconsistencies from their context, and they function in his work completely independently of the context (see under section 10.3). Or, to put it more briefly, he considers the inconsistencies per se. In that case, someone's credibility is indeed at stake, as Riiisiinen himself also admits.30

10.2.3 A critique is necessary Riiisiinen goes a step further than the adherents of the development theory by indicating logical inconsistencies, and subsequently he considers these inconsistencies per se. On the basis of such a consideration, Riiisiinen 28 Consistency and logic are two terms which are closely linked. W. Hodges gives a definition of the term (in)consistent in his Logic: u ••. a set of beliefs is called consistent if these beliefs could all be true together in some possible situation. The set of beliefs is called inconsistent if there is no possible situation in which all the beliefs are true", Logic 13. Hodges gives an illustration of an inconsistent statement: "It would be wrong to censor violent programmes on television, because people's behaviour isn't really affected by what they see on the screen. All the same it would be a good idea to have more programmes showing the good sides of our national way of life, because it would straighten out some of the people who are always knocking our country", Logic 13-4. If one programme has (no) influence, then this must also apply to another one. 29 See Hodges' definition. )0 See Paul xv!. Rl1isanen fully agrees with F. Watson who asserts that the normative value of Paul's theology should not be "assumed", but instead "discussed".

158

Chapter 10

comes to the conclusion that Paul is hardly credible any more, and consequently that he is no longer a decisive authority.3l This conclusion, however, is unjustified, because the premise of the 'context' is not taken into account. Such a conclusion is altogether too premature; it both constitutes a challenge and asks for a critique. In this study the reason for a critique is thus not in the first place Rilisiinen's conclusion as such, but instead the way in which he comes to his conclusion, namely by considering the inconsistencies per se. 32

10.3 Method for a critique How are we going to enter into discussion with Riiisiinen, and how will the critique be conducted? 10.3.1 Fair play Riiisiinen regards "fair play" as most essential, and he strongly disapproves a lack of it. To give just one example, Kim has accused Riiisiinen of the fact that Paul's inconsistencies are just problems in Raisanen's own mind. 33 Raisiinen responds in his Preface to the second Edition of Paul and the Law as follows: " ... the occasional allegation that the problems I see in Paul's theology are just problems in my own mind is extremely unfair".34 When concentrating in this study on the inconsistencies themselves detected by Riiisanen and described in chapters 2 and 6 in part A, without from the outset discussing his theological and hypothetical historical explanation in detail, we meet Raisanen's demand for "fair play" and so do him full justice. 35 10.3.2 A critique by using hermeneutical techniques The main question is how we should discuss the inconsistencies. At this point we have to make a choice which, of course, depends on what has previously been said. As we have seen, Riiisiinen considers the See also sections 8.1 and 8.2 above. One may ask here whether by this I concur with HUbner, because he does take into account the context to a great extent. The continuation of this study must show whether my criticism of Raisfulen will also apply to HUbner. In any case, this study is not meant to be a critique of HUbner as well. 33 See Kim, The Origin of Paul's Gospel 346. 34 Paul xl!. Another example can be found in this same Preface: "Nor is it fair to assert that my whole book is essentially based on 'the traditional hypothesis of a misunderstanding' ... ", Paul xxvI note 60. 3S In section 7.6 we saw that the inconsistencies are an independent whole. 3\

32

Towards a Critique

159

inconsistencies per se. In other words, in my view, Raisanen does not take into account some hermeneutical techniques. G. Bouwman's criticism is therefore correct: "R. is geen fundamentalist. Integendeel ... Maar zijn wijze van redeneren is vaak verwant met het fundamentalistische uitgangspunt: er staat wat er staat".36 Indeed, Riiisiinen has an eye only for what has been written, and not (or, at least not sufficiently or incorrectly) for the reason why Paul has written something, nor for the specific way in which Paul has formulated his views. Therefore, in the subsequent chapters, Riiisanen's view will be countered with the help of several hermeneutical techniques. 37 Thus it wiII be a matter of interpretation. 38 The disadvantage of this approach is that not all the inconsistencies described in part A will be equally discussed. There are, however, two main advantages in such an approach. In the first place, this study will have a surplus value, because if one is not interested in part A, then part B may still be advantageous to the reader. 39 And, in the second place, we shall have a clearly structured starting-point for coming to a critique of Riiisanen's work. Now it may perhaps seem that, by using hermeneutical tools, the inconsistencies will be deliberately explained away. Such a use of hermeneutics is indeed possible. H.S. Versnel makes important remarks with regard to inconsistencies in, for example, a religion. 4o He indeed points to the possibility that all kinds of inconsistencies can be

36 G. Bouwman, TTh 24 (1984) 415. A translation of Bouwman's criticism runs as follows: R. is not a fundamentalist. On the contrary ... But his way of arguing is often akin to the fundamentalist starting-point: what has been written, that has been written. 37 By hermeneutics is meant here the whole complex of rules for interpreting a text; thus, we are not concerned here with the kind of hermeneutics which deals with possible rules on how to apply the text to the situation of today. See my article 'Contextualization: Hermeneutical Remarks', BJRL 80.1 (1998) 197-217. 38 Raisanen writes: "The amount of exegetical ingenuity needed by those who plead for consistency is noteworthy. In order to get a consistent Paul, interpreters often put forward a whole series of strained interpretations", Marcion, Muhammad and the Mahatma 17. For me, however, in this study the question is not an exegetical one (let alone a matter for exegetical ingenuity). It is more important that we investigate whether our, or in this case, Rliisllnen's hermeneutical techniques are indeed justified because it is precisely the exegete's hermeneutical approach to the texts which will eventually determine the outcome of his exegetical endeavours. 39 I hope that, in this way, this study will become of importance not only as regards the history of New Testament scholarship, but also as regards the hermeneutics of the New Testament. 40 See his Introduction to Inconsistencies in Greek and Roman Religion I. Ter Unus. Isis, Dionysos, Hermes. Three Studies in Henotheism. Leiden J 990, 1-38.

lOV

l-napler lU

deliberately explained away by using hermeneutical concepts.41 Such a hermeneutical concept ... amounts to completely 'ignoring one of the conflicting elements or the contradiction itself ... A very common variant in situations when two 'realities' threaten to collide is the mechanism of winking at either side, just allowing a place on the retina to one reality at a time. This enables the subject to keep the two apart and thus to prevent collisions without abandoning one or the other. More often than not, reflective adaptations in the henneneutic system are only a last refuge following a long period of peaceful slumber in the anus ofparadox. 42

It is advisable to heed these warnings and to be aware of the existence of such a danger. However, a misuse of hermeneutics does not rule out its

proper use - especially when the texts themselves require a specific hermeneutical technique. Many aspects which at first sight seem to be inconsistent within their historical texts become transparent43 by further research and exegesis. 44

10.4 Summarizing remarks First of all, attention will be paid to the reason why Paul made his statements; thus, the historical context will be discussed (paul as a pastor, chapter 11). Subsequently, attention will be paid to the way in which Paul expresses his thoughts (Paul as a rhetor, chapter 12, and Paul as a theologian, chapter 13). In each chapter a description will be given first (what, for example, does the expression 'Paul as a pastor' mean?), and subsequently the critique of Raisiinen will be indicated. The methodological question remains regarding which concept (Paul as a pastor, Paul as a rhetar, or Paul as a theologian) one should use to interpret each text. However, as we shall see in the following chapters, the text itselfwill decide which concept(s) we should use. For the remainder of this study, the problem of the law will be emphasized more than any other problem, since Rrusanen has written most on this topic as far as his Pauline studies are concerned. The theme of 11 ..... the inconsistency is explained away by developing new hermeneutic systems. The best known instance can be found in the various divergent solutions to explain the so-called 'Parousieverz6gerung' in the New Testament", Inconsistencies 6. 42 Inconsistencies 7-8. 43 What I mean by 'becoming transparent' and 'making the inconsistencies transparent' (expressions which I shall use often) is that my hermeneutical approach allows the inconsistencies to be viewed in a completely different light and to be properly understood. 44 Of course, there is always also the possibility that there is no inconsistency at all, because the texts are not read properly. See especially chapter 12.

Towards a Critique

161

'Israel' will be less discussed. This theme has merely been mentioned in part A for the sake of completeness, and for the sake of clarity concerning Raisanen's exp lanati on. 45

45

See section 6.1.

Chapter 11

Paul as a Pastor 11.1 Description It is evident that Paul was a missionary: he was called to be sent to 'the

Gentiles, kings, and the people ofIsrael' (Acts 9:15; see also Acts 26:1218; compare Acts 13:46-47)1 in order that they would hear the Gospel from Paul himself. During his missionary journeys, Paul founded congregations. However, because he was constantly on the move he was not able to take care of these congregations in person. After he had left a congregation, sometimes some questions from the congregation reached him (for instance, a written question, 1 Cor 7:1), or some news about the congregation (1 Cor 1:11; 5:1; 11:18; 2 Cor 7:7; Gal 1:6; Eph 1:15; Phi] 1:3-5, compare also Phil 1:27 and 2:25; Col 1:3-4; 1 Thess 3:6, and 2 Thess 3:11). Due to his absence (being a missionary Paul was constantly travelling) Paul responded, for instance, by means of a letter to the congregation (see also I Cor 5:9 and 2 Cor 2:4; compare also Col 4:16: the letter EK L\.IXOOLKeLlXC;). Questions from and news about a congregation are thus the immediate reasons for writing his letters. These questions from and news about a congregation on the one hand, and Paul's absence on the other hand, form the historical context of his letters to the congregations. 2 Each of these letters is thus addressed to a specific congregation with its specific and characteristic circumstances. This is the reason for the specific nature of Paul's letters3 : they deal with the concrete 1 See also my remarks in section 11.2.2.2 with reference to the question of whether Paul was also an apostle to the Jews. 2 I confine myselfto Paul's letters to the congregations. 3 In 1911 A. Deissmann properly framed this specific, i.e. pas/oral, nature of Paul's letters by making a distinction between "Briefe" and "Episte1n": "Der Brief dient der Zwiesprache getrennter Menschen. Er ist ein Ich, das zu einem Du spricht. Individuell und personlich, nur flir den Adressaten oder die Adressaten bestimmt, ist er auf die Offenllichkeit nicht berechnet, ja durch Sitte und Recht VOT der Offentlichkeit a1s Geheimnis geschUtzt ... Er geht nur den an, der ihn geschriebeo hat, und den, der ihn offnen solI ... ", Pau!us 6. It is completely different with an "EpisteI": "Sie ist eine

Paul as a Pastor

163

circumstances of the congregations. In other words, his letters are ad hoc documents and occasional writings: by means of his letters, Paul wants to influence and to change those concrete circumstances. 4 To put it more precisely, by means of his letters, Paul wants to influence the members of the congregation on the spot. For instance, he wants to change their minds, or he wants to correct their lifestyle. For that purpose he uses exhortations (1 Thess 4:1-12; sometimes also addressed to people mentioned by name as in Phil 4:2), consolations (l Thess 4:13-18), warnings (Gal 1:8), encouragements (Phil 1:6), corrections, for instance, by means of teaching Cl Cor 15: 12ft), etc. Because they discuss these concete circumstances, his letters are variegated, just like daily life itself, and they constitute, as it were, pastoral care from a distance (compare 1 Cor 5:3; 11 :34; 2 Cor 10:11; 13:10; Col 2:5, and 2 Thess 2:5, 15). In this sense, all Paul's letters

literarische Kunstform ... Die Epistel teilt mit dem Briefe nur die ilu13ere briefliche Form; irn (Ibrigen ist sie das Gegenteil des wirklichen Briefes. Sie will eine Cffentlichkeit oder gar die Offentlichkeit interessieren und beeinflussen ... 1st der Brief ein Geheirnnis, so ist die Epistel Marktware. Nicht auf einem einzigen Papyrusblatt geht sie in die Frernde wie der Brief, sondem von vomherein wird sie von den Sklaven des gro13stlidtischen BUcherhilndlers vervielfllltigt; sie soli in Alexandrien, in Ephesus, Athen, Rom gekauft, gelesen und besprochen werden", Paulus 6. Deissmann characterizes Paul's letters as "Briefe". With reference to Paul's letters, it is evident for Deissmann, " ... da13 diese Texte aus einer bestimmten, unwiederholbaren brieflichen Situation herausgeboren sind und, bloB auf diese Einzelsituation berechnet, nicht Produkte der literarischen Kunst, sondern des realen Lebens sind, Dokurnente der urapostolischen vertrauten Seelsorge von Mensch zu Mensch, Reliquien der Missionsarbeit des Apostels an seinen Gemcinden, 'Uberreste' im Sinne der geschichtsmethodologischen technischen Sprache. Paulus hat diese Bliltter geschrieben oder, in vielen Fllllen, einem Genossen in die Feder gesprochen irn Sturm und Drang seines an tiefaufwiihlenden Erlebnissen reichen Wanderlebens; er hat sie dann durch zuverlilssige Boten in einem einzigen Exemplar an den Ort ihrer Bestimmung (Iberbringen lassen, Ubers Meer und (Ibers Land, von Ephesus nach Korinth, von Korinth nach Rom und nach Ephesus, ohne da13 die gro13e Welt und auch die Christenheit im ganzen sofort etwas von der Existenz dieser Bliltter gewuBt Mtte", Paulus 8. "Immer handelt es sich urn seelische und urn Gemeindeprobleme in einer bestimmten eigenartigen Lage ... Paulus will trllsten, ermahnen, strafen, stilrken; er verteidigt sich gegen seine Gegner, erledigt Zweifelsfragen, spricht von seinen Erlebnissen und Absichten, fUgt GrUJ3e und GruJ3bestellungen hinzu, meist ohne ilngstliche Disposition, ungezwungen vom einen zum anderen Ubergehend, ja oft Uberspringend, und die liingeren Briefe zeigen deutlich den oft jllhen Wechsel der Stimrnung wahrend des Diktates", Paullls 9. Compare also K.P. Donfried, 'False Presuppositions in the Study of Romans', CBQ 36 (1974) 352. In spite of the fact that his distinction between "Briefe" and "Episteln" can be justifiably criticized (see, for example, R.D. Anderson, Ancient Rhetorical Theory and Paul 93-7), Deissmann has rightly indicated the pastoral nature of Paul's letters. Compare also S.K. Stowers, Leller Writing in Greco-Roman Antiquity 17-20, and D.E. Aune, The New Testament in Its Literary Environment 158ff. 4 See W.W. Klein et al., Introduction to Biblical Interpretation 352ff.

can be labelled as 'pastoral letters'. It is therefore, without any further clarification, evident that Paul wrote his letters as a pastor. 5 This applies, in my view, to the letter to the Romans as well. Although we touch here a very complex issue, the least we can say is that in his letter to the Romans 'the pastor Paul' wants to establish mutual acceptance 6 , namely either between the Gentile Christians and the Jewish Christians, or between the Gentile Christians and the Jews7, for we cannot 5 K. Kertelge makes some remarks worthy of consideration in connection with this pastoral aspect: "Oer Apostel geht auf seine Weise - mit den ihm gegebenen 'Moglichkeiten' - auf die wechselnden Situationen und Anfragen ein. So erlangen seine Briefe und seine Theologie einen fundamental pastoralen Grundzug. In seiner Theologie sind auf besondere Weise der Uberlieferte Glaube und die Erfordernisse der 'Praxis' miteinander vermittelt. Paulus selbst steht in der Praxis der missionarischen VerkUndigung des Evangeliums und ist so in einem guten Sinne Theologe aus 'praktischer Notwendigkeit"', Grundthemen 7-8. 6 Perhaps it is even possible to argue that in the letter to the Romans, the 'pastor Paul' tries to establish mutual confidence in a double sense, namely between himself and the congregation also, for Paul plans to travel from Rome to Spain, and in this respect, he seeks the support of the Roman congregation (Rom 15:19-24). Thus, this congregation will function as a kind of base for Paul when travelling to Spain. See Klijn, De wordingsgeschiedenis van het Nieuwe Testament 91. However, the fact that Paul does not explicitly mention such a purpose (self-introduction) conflicts with this interpretation. If one concurs with J. van Bruggen that in Rom 16 Paul's colleagues are mentioned, then this purpose of the letter to the Romans (self-introduction) is no longer relevant. See J. van Bruggen, Het Raadsel van Romeinen 16. De apostel Paulus en het ontstaan van de kerk te Rome. Groningen 1970. 1 If Paul is trying to establish mutual confidence between the Gentile Christians and the Jewish Christians, then there must have been an internal conflict within the Roman congregation. This congregation consisted in any case of Gentile Christians (Rom 11:17), while the enumeration of Jewish names in Rom 16:3ffpoints to the presence of Jewish Christians. See KUmmel, Einleilung in das Neue Testament 271, who gives some reasons in support of the assertion that the Roman congregation consisted of Gentile Christians and Jewish Christians. We should not rule out the possibility that Rom 14 refers to a conflict between Gentile Christians and Jewish Christians (Rom 14:5 betrays a Jewish law). In my view, there are two reasons which point to the fact that in the letter to the Romans Paul tries to establish mutual acceptance between these two groups within the congregation: (1) Klijn concludes from the enumeration of Jewish names in Rom 16 that Paul wants to demonstrate here the actual possibility that Gentile Christians and Jewish Christians can indeed live together peacefully. See Klijn, De wordingsgeschiedenis van het Nieuwe Testament 95. (2) Van Bruggen (see his Het Raadsel van Romeinen 16. De apostel Paultls en het ol1tstaan van de kerk le Rome 17-8, especially also notes 22 and 23) points out astutely that Paul's way of greeting in Rom 16 is a "gersoleerd verschijnsel" (isolated feature) in comparison with his other letters, for here Paul greets some addressees indirectly. If we take into account the fact that greetings as such imply mutual acceptance (see van Bruggen), then, in my view, in Rom 16, Paul would be encouraging the Gentile Christians and the Jewish Christians to accept each other. Moreover, we should not forget that Paul's pastoral care for the unity of the congregation is also evident in other places Cl Cor I: I Off; 3: 1-8; 12: 13).

Paul as a Pastor

165

deny the fact that Paul emphatically stresses unity within the Roman congregation (for instance, Rom 14:1-6; 15:7, 10; 16:17).8 A theological There are, however, also indications (see the next note) that in his letter Paul discusses a certain conflict between Gentile Christians and Jews. Rom 9-11 does not concern Jewish Christians, but Jews: Paul talks about Jews to non-Jews (see, for example, 11 :25-32). In tbat case, in his letter, Paul would be discussing the relation between the Church and the synagogue. There is no need to answer here the question of the precise nature of this conflict; it is sufficient for this study merely to conclude that there was indeed a certain conflict in Rome, and that Paul as a pastor is discussing a concrete situation in Rome. , The hypothesis that the disunity within the Roman congregation has much to do with the abrogation of Claudius , decree in 54 (see Suetonius, Vita Claudii 25 according to Klijn, De wordingsgeschiedenis van het Nieuwe Testament 88ff, and KUmmel, Einleitung in das Neue Testament 269) is very interesting and worthy of consideration. A possible historical reconstruction of the conflict in the Roman congregation could be as follows: (a) In A.D. 49, Claudius issued a decree expelling all the Jews from Rome because they kept rioting at the instigation of a certain Chrestus. Although 'Chrestus' could be a mis-spelling of 'Christus' in Suetonius (see Wilckens, Der Brief an die Romer. Rom 1-5 35 note 89), this name cannot possibly refer here to Jesus Christ (see J. van Bruggen, De Oorsprong van de Kerk te Rome 20ff). (b) The moment of the first preaching of the Gospel in Rome must be dated in any case before A.D. 5617 (date of writing of the letter to the Romans in Corinth. See Klijn, De wordingsgeschiedenis van het Nieuwe Testament 92. Compare KUmmel, Einleitung in das Nelle Testament 272). The precise moment must have been some considerable time before A.D. 5617, because it took some time, of course, before the first news about the Roman congregation reached Paul, and also Paul must have had some time to write his letter. It is likely that the Gospel reached Rome around A.D. 54 (or earlier). (c) Claudius' decree was abrogated not later than the beginning of Nero's reign in A.D. 54. From that moment, the Jews were allowed to return back to Rome. At that very moment, the conflict could have originated, namely between the returning Jews and the congregation (consisting of Gentile Christians) which had been established meanwhile. There was not yet, however, a permanent confrontation between the Church and the synagogue (as appears from Acts 28:17-28). This non-permanent nature must he presumed, hecause otherwise the writing of the letter to the Romans would have made no sense at all. (d) In A.D. 5617, Paul wrote his letter to the Romans during his stay in Corinth. This moment is very probable, because in the period between A.D. 54 (origin of the conflict) and A.D. 5617, the conflict had some time to develop further, and within this same period one thing after another reached Paul's ears. (e) Acts 28: Paul's arrival in Rome. Now, however, a permanent confrontation does come about, Acts 28:24-28. In sum, from a historical point of view, a strong case can be made that in his letter to the Romans Paul tries to establish unity between the returning Jews and the Roman congregation (Gentile Christians) which has been established meanwhile. Paul- is asking the Gentile Christians to accept the returning Jews. This possible historical reconstruction is supported by other observations: (1) Only in the letter to the Romans does Paul use the term OUYYEV~, (9:3; 16:7, 11, 21), especially in chapter 16. It is likely that Paul wants to show that Jews (OUYYEVELavEpw9fivaL OEi: Ef!npocr9Ev toO toG Xp LcrTOG, 'Cva Ko~(crT]tal EKaoToc; ta OLa TOO ow~aToc; npoc; Ii E1Tpa~ev. e'CTE ocya90v E'CTe <j>auAov, ~~~atoc;

Daily life is connected here with judgment according to deeds (Ko~CcrTJTal EKacrtOC; Ta OLa toO crw~atoc; npoc; Ii Enpc£~Ev). The judgment concerns ocya90v as well as <jlaOAov. Judgment according to deeds functions as a warning concerning the daily life (ethics) of the believers who are

that the Corinthians risk their salvation if they continue their bad behaviour (cf. Gal 5.2 I b)", Paul 185, 70 Compare Hays: "The rhetoric of this passage treats the readers as participants already in a new life. The statement that evildoers will not inherit God's kingdom is set forward not as a threat to the Corinthian community but rather as an invitation to them to claim their own baptismal identity as a sanctified people under the lordship of Christ, no longer living under the power of sin", The Moral Vision of the New Testament 41. My italics, 71 See R Garrison, The Graeco-Roman Context of Early Christian Literature 95104. 72 See Barret!, A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians 218.

186

Chapter 11

reconciled to God by grace 73 while at the same time there is also a haughty self-assured attitude (roUt; EV npoowml) KauXWIJ.EvOUC; 5:12).74 It is also possible, however, that there are different fronts within one and

the same letter, so that within the same letter not only the antithesis between works of law and faith in Christ occurs, but also the warning of judgment according to deeds. This concerns the remaining texts, namely: Rom 2:6,12-13,16; 14:10-12; Gal 5:19-21, and 6:7-10. Rom 2:6, 12-13, 16 Rom 2:1-16 is directed to the Jews. Paul states that, for God, the gift of the Torah does not make any difference: the Torah does not imply a distinction in terms of salvation history, and consequently it is no proof that the Jews are privileged above the Gentiles (see below). In verse 6 (Ot; a.noowoEl EKa.O"t(l) Ka"ta "ta Epya aU"tou) Paul quotes Ps 61:13 (LXX). This verse does not concern justification by works, since the EPYOC are not contrasted here with faith but with opinion. To put it differently, the Epya do not refer here to merits, but to what they have done. God will not judge the people in verse 1 according to their own judgment or what they think of themselves, but according to what they have actually done. As it appears from verse 12, God makes no distinction between the possession of the law and the non-possession of the law. The law as such is no use, and it does not make the Jew more important than the Gentile. In verse 13 Paul wants to represent the Jews as sinners: the gift of the Torah as such does not amount to anything; what matters is whether one does the law. The contrast here is: ol ttKpoa·wL v6floU - ol nOLTj"taL v6flOU. The Jew also commits sin (verse 1), and even though he possesses the law, he is not better off than anyone else. 75 The Jew has to give up all haughty selfassurance. God will judge everybody, including the Gentiles (2:16); for God, there is no distinction between Jew and Gentile (compare 2:11). 73 I would like to emphasize that Paul's warnings do not imply that Christians cannot be certain of their salvation. Their salvation, however, will only be received through and after God's judgment according to deeds. 74 See also Lietzmann, An die Korinther J-II 121ff. 7l Wilckens rightly states in his excursus 'Das Gericht nach den Werken II (Theologische Interpretation), in his commentary on the letter to the Romans: "Nicht weil der Jude das Gesetz zu erflillen trachtet, sondern weil er SUnde tut wie der Heide (2,1), konfrontiert Paulus ihn mit dem Gericht nach den Werken. Das paulinische Evangelium ist in seinem Kern keineswegs Werk-feindlich. Der Glaube, den Paulus verkllndigt und zu dem eT TUft, enthalt keineswegs eine ursprUngliche, tiefwirksame Vemeinung aller Aktivitat des Menschen, dem Guten in der Welt Bahn zu brechen und dem Bllsen zu wehren", Der Brief an die Romer. Rom 1-5 145. See also section 13.2.2.2.

Paul as a Pas/or

187

Rom 14:10-12

Paul calls for tolerance in order that one will not discriminate against another (compare 14:3-4). The warning of judgment according to deeds is placed within this context (TTlXV"tE~ yocp 1Tcr:pcm"tl1oofiE9cr: 'e.:) p~ficr:n "toil 9Eoil 14:10). By pointing to this judgment, Paul as a pastor wants to improve the unity of the congregation76 ; in other words, Paul is saying: do not judge someone else, because each of us will stand before God's judgment seat personally to give an account of himself to God (/ipcr: [ouv] EKcr:O"tOe; rillwv 1TEPL Ecr:u"toil AOYOV OWOH ["te.:) 9Ee.:)] 14:12). Gal 5:19-21 In Gal 5:1-12, Paul discusses Christian freedom. Yet this freedom should

not be misused (5:13). Paul clarifies this idea by means of the antithesis between flesh and Spirit (5:16).77 The two expressions"toc epycr: "tile; Ocr:PKOC; (5:19) and b Kcr:p1Toe; "toil 1TVEUfiCl"tOC; (5:22) constitute an antithesis. The warning in verse 21 that sinners will not inherit the Kingdom of God reinforces the call in verse 16 (1TvEuficr:n 1TEPL1Tcr:"tEL"tE Kcr:L E1TL9ufilcr:V Ocr:PKOC; ou fin "tEAEOll"tE)· Thus the warning is again meant here to stress the importance of a Christian lifestyle (ethics)J8 It is striking that the passage 16-26 ends with fin YLVWIlE9cr: KEVOOO~OL (5:26); apparently, there is a relation between works of the flesh and self-exaltation. 79 Gal 6:7-10

After exhorting the Galatians to support each other (6: 1-6), Paul warns of judgment according to deeds (8 yocp eocv 01TElPll /iv9pul1ToC;, "toil"to Kcr:L 76 "Beide, der 'Schwache' wie der 'Starke', werden im nahen Gericht Gott Rechenschaft abzulegen haben, und zwar nicht nur Uber ihre jeweils unterschiedliche Lebenspraxis, Uber die eben nur Gott und nicht die Christen gegeneinander zu entscheiden haben, sondern vor allem wird die Rechenschaft das Verhalten zueinander betreffen", Wilckens, Der Brief an die Romer. Rom 12-1685-6 (my italics). See also section 11.1. 77 This antithesis between flesh and Spirit helps us to understand why Paul gives many exhortations whereas at the same time he believes that Christians do not seem to have the ability to resist sin (compare Rom 7). Only in so far as Christians are led by the Spirit are they indeed in a position to live in accordance with Paul's exhortations. Compare H. Ridderbos, Paulus 298-9 and 301. 78 This way of life implies that one is willing to be led by the Spirit. See H. Schlier, Der Brief an die Galater 255. 79 "For Paul, as R. Jewett wisely points out, flesh 'is not rooted in sensuality but rather in religious rebellion in the form of self-righteousness which was in his terms a "boasting in one's own flesh'" ... ", F.F. Bruce, The Epistle /0 the Galatians 250. And besides, the Judaizers laid all kinds of legal obligations on Christians, which could indeed result in self-exaltation.

9EPLOEL 6:7). Again, Paul is here encouraging a Christian lifestyle by saying: 1:0 oE Ka.i..ov 1TOLOilv1:EC; ~~ EYKaKw~Ev (6:9).80 It is striking that, within the context of this passage, the phrase EV 1TVEU~a1:L 1TpaOnltoc; (6:1) and the word KauX1lf.La (6:4) are mentioned; there ought to be no place for any haughty self-assurance. Ifwe consider this list of texts, then we come to the conclusion that Paul's warnings of judgment according to deeds are directed to haughty selfassured Christians, and in this same connection ethical issues appear to be important. In this regard, Paul is consistent. sl Such warnings do not deny the fact that the Christian is saved by grace alone. It is necessary, however, to stay within this grace by (works of) faith. 82 When talking at one moment about justification by faith and at another moment about judgment according to deeds (in terms of warnings), Paul is looking at the congregation each time from a different point of view. It just depends on the issues against which Paul as a pastor has to warn at any particular moment. S) We do insufficient justice to Paul as a pastor ifwe read the antithesis (between works of law and faith in Christ) and judgment according to deeds simultaneously, or if we unjustifiably interpret them as two mutually convertible ideas as if justification by works of law were identical with Paul's warnings against antinomianism (in terms of ethics). This is, however, precisely the weakness in Riiisanen's approach to the Pauline texts. S4 80 See Bruce, The Epistle to the Galatians 265, and Schlier, Der Brief an die Galater 277-8. 81 Watson writes: " ... Paul's warnings of judgment to come are consistently directed at those who are 'puffed up', guilty of presumption, living in a state of illusion", 'Justified' 216. My italics. 82 With his warning of the final judgment, Paul does not want to lead his readers into despair, but to repentance in order that their lifestyle may be according to Christian standards. Even though there is no need for his readers to rely upon their own righteousness in the final judgment, yet their faith must appear from their deeds. Watson: " ... while the message of the coming judgment is aimed particularly at those who are 'puffed up', there is at the same time the assurance that for those who are living in penitent faith the judgment will hold no terrors", 'Justified' 217. See also Hays, The Moral Vision of the New Testament 39ff. "To both commend 'good works' and rail against 'works of the law' was no inconsistency for Paul", Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle 365. 83 Watson: "It is that the community is being seen each time in a different place and must therefore be addressed in a different way", 'Justified' 219. 84 Watson puts it very well: "Wherever the gospel is misused to provide a basis for security, the message of judgment must be preached. Yet after the word of judgment there comes to expression once again, and often in direct sequence, the whole gospel, full assurance: God is faithful, he will bring it to pass. That can and must be said to him who has been shaken, after it has been said to him who is secure that everything can be

Paul as a Pastor

189

11.3 Conclusion: Paul is a consistent pastor If we take into account Paul's pastoral characteristics, then we are in a better position both to understand his statements and to give a proper interpretation of the texts. If we read all Paul's statements simultaneously, then indeed inconsistencies will inevitably arise. But such a simultaneity is, in point of fact, hermeneutically speaking, unjustified, since Paul is a pastor. Attention to 'Paul as a pastor' makes some inconsistencies completely transparent, and consequently demonstrates that Paul is a consistent pastor who encourages, unites, exhorts, and warns Christians who need one or more of those forms of pastoral advice in their respective concrete situations.

lost ... Yet each of these words, the word of judgment as well as the word of assurance, is unconditionally valid in its own situation ... This does not mean, however, that Paul's teaching is a chaos of contradictory assertions without any unity. To be sure, Paul's theology is not a system whose unity can be set out in a sequence of logically interrelated propositions. But such a concept of Paul's theology is false. The antithetical moments of the apostolic porainesis are not to be understood as the paragraphs of a timeless body of doctrine which mutually qualifY each other but as the stations of a way along which I am led by the one God ... The two messages are not addressed equally to Christians as believers", 'Justified' 219-20. My italics.

Chapter 12

PauI as a Rhetor In the previous chapter we paid attention to Paul as a pastor. We looked at the reasons why Paul wrote his letters by considering their historical context. In this chapter we shall take a detailed look at the way in which Paul wrote his letters by considering their composition. In other words, in this chapter we want to consider Paul as a rhetor. Thus we shall look at Paul from another hermeneutical point of view so that, again, we may hopefully get a clearer picture of Paul's letters. 1 As we have already seen in the previous chapter, Paul wants to change the situation on the spot. In doing so, Paul as a rhetor makes use of a particular way of arguing in order to influence his readers. This will be demonstrated in this chapter.

12.1 Description In order to come to a clear understanding of my own definition of 'Paul as a rhetor', we must briefly look at the contemporary debate on this topic. Subsequently we shall briefly try to assess the results of this debate in order to give a description of 'Paul as a rhetor' which is workable for this study.

1 It strikes me that within New Testament scholarship attention is often paid either to 'Paul as a pastor' or to 'Paul as a rhetor' rather than to both Paul as a pastor and Paul as a rhetor. Thus there is a real danger of believing that we can have an overall picture of Paul if we consider him as a pastor alone. To put it differently, attention to 'Paul as a pastor' can easily detract attention from 'Paul as a rhetor'. An interpreter such as, for example, Deissmann, who rightly characterizes Paul's letters as occasional ad hoc letters (see previous chapter), hardly pays attention to the rhetorical aspects of Paul's letters. The converse situation is, as far as I can see, less serious, since interpreters who study Paul's letters from a rhetorical point of view do sometimes pay some attention to the historical situation of his letters (see, for example, Schlueter; previous chapter), although here also there is the danger of a one-sided interpretation (attention only to 'Paul as a rhetor'). In my critique of Rais!lnen it is important to pay attention to both aspects.

Paul as a Rhetor

191

12.1.1 Renewed attention to rhetorical aspects in Paul

Rhetorical aspects in Paul have been in vogue for quite a few years. H.D. Betz2 claims to be one of the first interpreters to study Paul from a rhetorical point of view. 3 Although others before him did the same, for example, C.G. Wilke (in 1843)4, J. WeiB (in 1897)\ and C. Starcke (in 1911)6, but also Melanchthon and Augustine7 , it must be admitted that Betz has stimulated research into rhetoric. In any case, especially in the last few years, the study of rhetorical aspects of Paul has been very popular.s There are many rhetorical studies within New Testament scholarship.9 In short, by making use of rhetorical rules the debate on 2 H.D. Betz, 'The Literary Composition and Function of Paul's Letter to the Galatians', NTS 21 (1975) 353-79. See also his commentary Galatians. A Commentary on Paul's Letter to the Churches in Galatia. Philadelphia 1979,21984 (there is also a German translation of this commentary). J "In the process of my studies I also found that the letter to the Galatians can be analysed according to Graeco-Roman rhetoric and epistolography. Apparently, this has never been realized before ... ", 'Composition' 353. 4 C.G. Wilke, Die neutestamentliche Rhetorik: Ein Seitenstuck zur Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Sprachidioms. Dresden-Leipzig 1843. S J. WeiB, 'Beitrage zur Paulinischen Rbetorik', in: Theologische Studien. Herrn. Wirkl. Oberkonsistorialrath Professor D. Bernhard WeifJ zu seinem 70. Geburtstage dargebracht. G5ttingen 1897. E. Norden, however, explains Paul's rhetorical figures by attributing them to 'Asianism' rather than to a knowledge of school rhetoric. See his Die antike Kunstprosa: Vom vi Jahrhundert v. Chr. bis in die Zeil der Renaissance. Darmstadt 1898, J 1958. 6 Betz himself 'Composition' 357 note 7 refers to C. Starcke; he also refers to J.B. Lightfoot (1865), 'Composition' 353. 7 See C.J. Classen, 'Paulus und die antike Rhetorik', ZNW 82 (1991) 1-33. In this article, Classen refers to Augustine and Melanchthon, who even compares Paul with Demosthenes and Cicero. Both Augustine and Melanchthon have, according to Classen, more of an eye for rhetorical figures of speech than for the overall rhetorical structure (see Classen's article for references). In his article, Classen deals with Melanchthon (see also note 109 of his article). In my view, this is an excellent article because it not only contains instructive overviews, but is also well-balanced. 8 Much literature could be mentioned here. I merely mention the following examples,: N. Elliott, The Rhetoric of Romans. Argumentative Constraint and Strategy and Paul's Dialogue with Judaism. Sheffield 1990; D.F. Watson (Ed.), Persuasive Artistry. Studies in New Testament Rhetoric in Honor of George A. Kennedy. Sheffield 1991; D.A. Campbell, The Rhetoric of Righteousness in Romans 3.21-26. Sheffield 1992; S.E. Porter and T.H. Olbricht (Ed.), Rhetoric and the New Testament. Essays from the 1992 Heidelberg Conference. Sheffield 1993. This last collection offers many different kinds of data on rhetoric in the New Testament. See especially D.F. Watson and A.J. Hauser, Rhetorical Criticism of the Bible: A Comprehensive Bibliography with Notes on History and Method. Leiden 1994. 9 I limit myself to the research on rhetoric in Paul. See for other studies, for example, the article by Classen (pp. 27-8 note 92) who gives an overview of a number of recent studies in which some other parts of the New Testament are also interpreted from a

192

Chapter 12

rhetoric tries to shed some fresh light on Paul's way of arguing in order to gain proper insight into the way in which he tries to persuade his readers.IO As far as I can see, there are two different approaches within contemporary research 11: CA) Firstly, there is an approach within rhetorical research on Paul's letters which makes a comparison with ancient rhetoric, sometimes with an emphasis on the rhetorical structure of a letter. In other words, a comparison is made between Paul's letters, which are considered in each case as a whole, and ancient letters. In this way, an attempt is made to classify Paul's letters in terms of a specific rhetorical genre. Mostly, three already established rhetorical genres are presumed, namely the so-called judicial genre, the deliberative genre, and the epideictic genre. 12 Within this approach, all kinds of handbooks on ancient rhetoric are regularly used. 13 Several interpreters belong to this approach,. for example,

rhetorical point of view. See also the article by W. WuelIner, 'Where Is Rhetorical Criticism Taking Us?', CBQ 49 (1987) 448-63. In this article, Wuellner cites much literature, makes a few instructive introductory remarks for those who want to study rhetoric in the New Testament, and offers a brief review of the method used by O.A. Kennedy. 10 "Rhetoric is that quality in discourse by which a speaker or writer seeks to accomplish his purposes", O.A. Kennedy, New Testament interpretation through Rhetorical Criticism 3. I t It is, of course, impossible to make a cast-iron division here. Sometimes a study of genres also occurs within approacb B, and similarly sometimes a study of figures of speech also occurs within approach A. The discussion on these two different approaches is ongoing. See also R.D. Anderson, Ancient Rhetorical Theory and Paul. Anderson is in favour of a clear separation of these two approaches. He also offers clear overviews of research on rhetorical aspects in Paul. 12 "The species is judicial when the author is seeking to persuade the audience to make a judgment about events occurring in the past; it is deliberative when he seeks to persuade them to take some action in the future; it is epideictic when he seeks to persuade them to hold or reaffirm some point of view in the present, as when he celebrates or denounces some person or some quality ... In judicial the basic argument involves the question of truth or justice; in deliberative, the question of self-interest and future benefits; in epideictic. a change of attitude or deepening of values such as the honorable and the good, or in a Christian context, belief and faith. The three species have both positive and negative forms: prosecution and defense (or apology); exhortation and dissuasion; encomium and invective", O.A. Kennedy, New Testament interpretation through Rhetorical Criticism 19-20. 13 Such as H. Lausberg, Handbuch der literarischen Rhetorik. Eine Grundlegung der Literaturwissenschafl. Stuttgart 3 1990, and his Elemente der literarischen Rhetorik. Eine Einfiihrung fur Studierende der klassischen, romanischen, englischen und deutschen Philologie. MUnchen 3 1967. See now H. Lausberg, Handbook of Literary Rhetoric: A Foundation for Literary Study. Leiden-Boston-KtHn 1998.

Paul as a Rhetor

193

H.D. Betz l4, G.A. KennedylS, and J. Smit 16. With reference to the letter to the Galatians 17 , these three interpreters believe that it belongs to a specific rhetorical genre. Kennedy18 and Smit 19 believe that it belongs to the deliberative genre, whereas Betz20 believes that the same letter belongs to the judicial genre (apologetic rhetoric). With regard to the letter to the Romans, W. WueIlner21 follows the same procedure as Betz with regard to the letter to the Galatians, for according to Wuellner the letter to the Romans belongs to the epideictic genre. (B) Secondly, there is an approach which considers Paul's letters from a rhetorical point of view without paying much attention to the parallels in antiquity; attention is mainly paid to rhetorical figures of speech and methods of argumentation. In other words, less attention is paid to the overall structure of Paul's letters. The concern here is with the elucidation of Paul's way of arguing. 22 Interpreters with this approach are, for example, F. Siegert23 , J.D. Moores 24, and I.A. Crafton2S .

14 Betz is convinced that Paul's letter to the Galatians can be compared with GraecoRoman rhetoric, 'Composition' 353. IS G.A. Kennedy, New Testament Interpretation through Rhetorical Criticism. Chapel Hill-London 1984. However, compare also R.D. Anderson, Ancient Rhetorical Theory and Paul 23-6. 16 J. Smit, 'The Letter of Paul to the Galatians: A Deliberative Speech', NTS 35 (1989) 1-26. 17 In this chapter I shall confine myself to Gal 3. 18 New Testament Interpretation through Rhetorical Criticism 144-52. 19 'The Letter of Paul to the Galatians: A Deliberative Speech' 23-4. 20 According to Betz, the letter to the Galatians is an apologetic letter and thus an example of so-called 'judicial rhetoric' (defence before a court). Betz assumes a certain structure in the letter to the Galatians (prescriptum - exordium - narratio - propositio probatio - paraenesis - postscriptum). 21 W. Wuellner, 'Paul's Rhetoric of Argumentation in Romans: An Alternative to the Donfried-Karris Debate over Romans', CBQ 38 (1976) 330-51. 22 Sometimes use is made here of the handbook by Ch. Perelman - 1. OlbrechtsTyteca, The New Rhetoric. A Treatise on Argumentation. Notre Dame 1971. 23 Siegert comments on a part of the letter to the Romans by making use of this 'New Rhetoric'. See F. Siegert, Argumentation bei Paulus. Gezeigt an Rom 9-JJ. Tlibingen 1985. 24 J.D. Moores, Wrestling with rationality in Paul. Romans 1-8 in a new perspective. Cambridge 1995. Moores merely discusses one rhetorical figure of speech (or method of argumentation) in Paul, namely the so-called "enthymeme" (a syllogism with one premise). His study is of little interest for this research, because he mainly concentrates on texts other than those which are discussed in this study. 2S J.A. Crafton, 'Paul's Rhetorical Vision and the Purpose of Romans: Toward a New Understanding', NovT 32 (1990) 317-39. Crafton does pay attention, however, to the letter as a whole. He further elaborates Wuellner's view and connects questions of introduction with rhetoric.

cnapler 1£

The brief overview above gives an impression of what these interpreters attempt to do. They not only pay attention to the different parts of Paul's letters, but they also try to indicate the function of each part according to the method of reasoning used. Sometimes a comparison with (parts of) other ancient letters is referred to, such as within approach A.26 Rhetorical research does not merely confine itself to, for example, the empirical observation that the last part of a letter is a specific kind of conclusion; at the same time, it also tries to define the function of such a conclusion. 12.1.2 Rhetoric in terms of argumentative strategy With reference to the overview above and the discussion on the two different approaches, three critical remarks may be made. They concern the approach described under A in particular. (l) When detecting a number of rhetorical aspects, must we really conclude instantly that we are dealing with a specific rhetorical genre? The approach described under A often appears to be rather artificial, for in describing the specific structure of a letter, structures are borrowed from handbooks on ancient rhetoric, whereas concrete analogous structures among other ancient letters can hardly be found. F. Vouga has written a very brief article in which he tries to support Kennedy's view of the letter to the Galatians by indicating a parallel between this letter and a speech by Demosthenes (IIEPI TRE EIPHNH1:).27 With reference to this parallel, Vouga concludes: "Die Parallele des Aufbaus mit Gal ist kein endgiiltiger Beweis, aber do ch ein wichtiges Argument ftir die deliberative Interpretation des Briefes".28 Even though this speech could be an important parallel in support of Kennedy's view, it constitues in no way an "endgiiltiger Beweis". One parallel is no basis for a conclusion such as Kennedy's. As yet, there is insufficient material to conclude that the letter to the Galatians should be classified in terms of a specific rhetorical genre. 29

26 K. Berger, 'Apostelbrief und apostolische Rede / Zum Formular frUhchristlicher Briefe', ZNW 65 (1974) 190-231 even goes a step further. Comparing Paul's letters with other letters, he comes to the following conclusion: n ••• die Briefe seien nicht als gewlihnliche Gelegenheitsschreiben betrachtet word en, sondem als Dokumente von Aposteln (Offenbarungsmittlem), denen eo ipso das Gebot einer (auch lokal sich ausbreitenden) Publikation und Weitertradierung anhafiete", p. 216 of the article mentioned above. His article, which was published in 1974, is still worth reading. 27 F. Vouga, 'Zur rhetorischen Gattung des Galaterbriefes', ZNW 79 (\988) 291-2. 2' 'Zur rhelorischen Gattung des Galaterbriefes' 292. 29 Anderson has demonstrated that ancient letters cannot simply be classified in terms of one of the three established rhetorical genres (see his Ancient Rhetorical Theory and PaIl182-90, 100, 103, 106-9, and with reference to the letter to the Galatians: 165-7).

Paul as a Rhetor

195

(2) It goes without saying that Paul's letters consist of different parts. This is evident and needs no further demonstration. Betz, however, mainly concentrates on the mutual dependence of these different parts. But then, in that case, there is the danger of not paying enough attention to a part as such. We also have to study each single part carefully. (3) C.J. Classen rightly states that there is also the rule of dissimulatio artis within rhetoric, ... die Forderung also, die Beachtung der praecepta nicht sptirbar werden zu lassen, so daB die deutlich erkennbare Verwendung der Regeln als Zeichen roangelnder Erfahrung oder FlIhigkeit wirken mul3, jedenfalls im Bereich der dispositio und elocutio ... 30

Thus, within rhetoric, strict schemes and rules do not exist beforehand. This modifies, for example, the approach of Betz, who tries to interpret the texts within the framework of such strict rules. Despite these three critical remarks, the overview above leads us to the conclusion that there is much rhetorical material, indeed rhetoric, in Paul. But now the question is how to describe Paul's rhetoric. On the one hand, this study is not primarily concerned with rhetoric in Paul. It is, therefore, inappropriate to get involved in the above discussion on the two different approaches. On the other hand, contemporary rhetorical research cannot be ignored, since there is simply too much rhetorical material in Paul. Therefore, for my research, it is most appropriate to work with the following 'minimal' description of 'Paul as a rhetor " a description with which everyone will surely agree: Paul tries to persuade and to affect his readers by means of certain argumentative strategies. This minimal description does not decide which approach (see above) is preferable to the other; the text itself must determine such a choice. In any case, the exegete must have an eye for the rhetorical aspects of a text (approach B). But, in my view, the possiblity must also always be left open that Paul makes use of common ancient rhetorical rules, whether they are known to us or not (approach A), without necessarily stating that Paul uses them deliberately.31 We have to be well aware of ancient rhetorical rules.32 The One of his conclusions is that it is unlikely that Paul consciously made use of ancient rhetorical theory (251, 255, and 318). 30 'Paulus und die antike Rhetorik' 31. 31 Classen rightly remarks: " ... Wer Griechisch schrieb, konnte auch Griechisch lesen und kam dadurch, wenn aucb vielleicht nur indirekt und unbewuBt, mit den Regeln der Rhetorik in Bertihrung", 'Paulus und die antike Rhetorik' 4. In this way approach A is modified, because it is not necessary to assume that Paul deliberately made use of such common rules. See also Anderson, Ancient Rhetorical Theory and Paul 255-6. 32 Classen: " ... Das Instrumentarium der griechisch-romischen Rhetorik kann mit Gewinn zur Analyse jedes geschriebenen oder gesprochenen Textes verwendet werden",

exegete must thus not only concentrate on questions of introduction (,Paul as a pastor'), but he must also try to trace, analyse, and clarify Paul's argumentative strategy. He must also listen to Paul on the level of reasoning. In other words, he also has to give an answer to the question in what ways Paul tries to persuade his readers in his letters. Wichtig ist, die einzelnen Abschnitte eines Werkes und deren Funktion, vor allem aber die Auswahl, SchlUssigkeit und Abfolge der Argumente zu erklllren, denn optimum interpretandi genus est O[KOVO~((t.v orationis oSlendere. 33

These last words in italics constitute a workable hermeneutical rule which takes sufficient account of 'Paul as a rhetor'. Thus, we do not start from the assumption that there is a specific rhetorical concept which precedes the exegesis 34, but the extent to which Paul makes use of rhetoric must appear from the concrete exegesis itself. It has to be admitted that 'Paulus und die antike Rhetorik' 2-3. See also K. Berger: "Kenntnis der antiken Rhetorik lehrt den Exegeten, Fonnen als Trllger theologischer Gehalte zu begreifen, sie lehrt ihn, den Aufbau sprachlicher Gebilde auf eine Weise zu erfassen, die zur Zeit der Abfassung der Texte selbst praktiziert wurde. So erkennen wir, daB Formen eine Geschichte haben und daB selbst der Sprachgebrauch und die Begriffe eines Autors nur zusammen mit den Formen beurteilt werden kllnnen", Exegese des Neuen Testaments 53. 33 Classen, 'Paulus und die antike Rhetorik' 23. With this rule, Classen follows Melanchthon. Concurring with Classen, I do not yet express an opinion on Melanchthon's thought that ancient rhetoric was not a strict system. Melanchthon not only made use of different aspects of rhetoric, " ... sondem ergllnzt und erweitert sie, soweit es ihm hilfreich und nUtzlich erscheint", p. 26. He made use of rhetoric in order to understand the text. "Dabei geht es ihm einerseits urn eine klare Denkweise, das schlUssige und konsequente Argumentieren, zum anderen um die klare Ausdrucksweise, die dem Gegenstand angemessen ist und auf das Publikum zu wirken vermag", p. 27. I leave these issues concerning Melanchthon. His henneneutical rule as described in the text, however, is very useful. One of the consequences of Melanchthon's view is, according to Classen, "... daB die Exegese vom einzelnen literarischen Coder subliterarischen) Werk auszugehen hat, von dessen Gattung, Autor, Zeit und Adressaten usw., weiter dem Aufbau, der Argumentation, den sprachlichen Ausdrucksmitteln, und sie gilt es im Licht der Theorie zu untersuchen, in ihrer Funktion zu bestimmen und wenn mllglich einander zuzuordnen, urn auf diese Weise die Intention des Ganzen zu ennitteln ... ", p. 27. All the quotations above are from Classen's article mentioned above. 34 "In WirkIichkeit gehen seine Sprache und 'BiIdungselemente' nicht lIber das hinaus, was er innerhalb der griechischsprechenden Synagogen und im Gesprllch mit gebildeten Nichtjuden, dem der Missionar nicht aus dem Wege ging, gelernt haben konnte ... Aber es ist ja das AufflUJige bei Paulus und dem ganzen Urchristentum, daJl wir eine tiefergehende, schulmllBige philosophisch-rhetorische Bildung und einen entsprechenden Stil, wie wir sie bei Philo, Justus von Tiberias oder Josephus antreffen, kaum fmden. Lukas und der Auctor ad Hebraeos sind hier Ausnahmen ... Die Bedeutung der antiken Schulrhetorik fUr Paulus wird heute, einem Modetrend folgend, sem Ubertrieben", M. Hengel and A.M. Schwemer, Paulus zwischen Damaskus und Antiochien 266-7. See also p. 7 of this same volume.

Paul as a Rhetor

197

'rhetoric' is used here in rather general terms. Yet it seems to me that this term, as described above, clearly indicates how the approach to Paul's letters in this chapter differs from that adopted in chapter 11 above.

12.2 Critique of Riiisiinen As in the previous chapter, first some general remarks are made, and subsequently some concrete illustrations of our critique of Riiisiinen are given. 12.2.1 General G. Bouwman's criticism again applies here: "R. is geen fundamentalist. Integendeel .,. Maar zijn wijze van redeneren is vaak verwant met het fundamentalistische uitgangspunt: er staat wat er staat".35 It will be demonstrated in this chapter also that Riiisiinen jumps far too rapidly to all kinds of theological implications of the texts instead of accurately studying Paul's method of reasoning. Two factors indicate that Riiisanen's interpretation does not sufficiently take into account rhetorical aspects in Paul. (1) When he is confronted with these aspects, he totally rejects the existence of rhetoric in Paul. (2) Raisanen continuously interprets Paul's statements in logical terms, which conflicts with common principles of rhetoric. (1) Riiisiinen totally rejects the existence of rhetoric in Paul

In his Paul and the Law Riiisiinen responds to Betz's view. 36 He admits that his own view is incompatible with a rhetorical analysis of Paul's texts. 37 Betz's analyses leave for Riiisiinen, however, a "rather strained impression". On the whole I suspect that Betz's cardinal mistake consists in comparing Galatians mainly to text-books of the rhetoricians rather than to actual 'apologetic letters' or the like. 38

3l G. Bouwman, TTh 24 (1984) 415. The same criticism by Bouwman (with my translation) has already been mentioned in section 10.3.2. 36 Paul 267 note 17. 37 "No doubt my assessment of Paul's thought also runs counter to attempts to interpret his letters as carefully planned rhetorical products which follow the set rules of the time (even though good rhetoric does not, of course, in itself guarantee good logic)", Paul 267 note 17. 38 Paul 267 note 17.

198

Chapter 12

With regard to this aspect, Raisanen is indeed right. 39 However, even though Betz can rightly be criticized on some points40, there is too much rhetorical material in Paul to deny him the predicate 'rhetor' in the sense described above (section 12.1.2). Moreover, Riiisanen's objection is met by considering Paul's manner of reasoning by the hermeneutical rule as given in section 12.1.2 (optimum interpretandi genus est OlKOVOf.1l«V orationis ostendere).

(2) RCiisanen continuously interprets Paul's statements in logical terms Rhetoric in the sense described above is used by an author in order to persuade his readers. For this purpose he may, for example, use an argumentum ex concessis, which means that one admits something merely for the sake of gaining confidence in one's own opinion. Or, for example, he may start with a general common opinion in order to persuade his readers. Logic, on the other hand, moves on a completely different leveL41 If it is justified to consider Paul from a rhetorical point of view, as will be demonstrated in this chapter, then we should not only impose logical rules on Paul. Rhetoric is not the same as logic. 42 K. Berger rightly states: Man darf daher keine falsehen Erwartungen an die Exaktheit der paulinisehen Sehlllsse herantragen. Paulus will nieht theoretiseh belehren, sondem die Praxis beeinfJussen ... Denn das einzige Kriterium der Rhetorik ist die Wirkung: Bestatigung oder Verandemng von Verhalten und Einstellung ... Wenn die Argumentationen des Paulus uns heute erreiehen, kann dieses nicht von der Logik abMngig gemacht

39 See my first critical remark in section 12.1.2. 40 See, for example, C.!. Classen, 'Paulus und die antike Rhetorik' 9 note 21. Here Classen enumerates a number of reviews of Betz's work . • 1 "Paulinische Argumentation, namentIieh solche in Verbindung mit Sehriftbeweisen (z.B. R!5m IO,5-1I), vermag redlich urteilende Leser heute oft nicht mehr zu iiberzeugen. Dadurch entstehen haufig systematische Schwierigkeiten. Doeh damit tragen wir ein falsehes Exaktheitsideal an das rhetorisehe SchlieBverfahren heran. Denn anders als Descartes kann Paulus nicht von wahren und ersten Satzen ausgehen, die in sich selbst evident sind. Es handelt sich nieht urn ein deduktives Aussagesystem, und es gibt kein unabhlingiges Kriterium. Vielmehr n!5tigt uns die pauIinisehe Rhetorik, Text und Leser zusammenzusehen: Paulus argumentiert nieht mit wahren Siitzen, sondem mit geltenden Meinungen, mit Ansichten, die nur auf 'sozialer GewiJ3heit' (1. Kopperschmidt) beruhen. Ahnlich wie Seneca liefert Paulus oft nicht-formale Beweise, Zeugnisse eines konkreten Denkens, das auf Praxis und lebendige Anschauung gerichtet ist: Die Uberzeugungskraft dieser Beweise ist nicht unabhlingig von seinen H6rern zu bestimmen, sie ist nur durch deren Homologie (Obereinstimmung mit ihm) erweisbar", K. Berger, Exegese des Neuen Testaments 88-9. '2 This is also seen by Wrede. According to him Paul perhaps has, in modern understanding, a very illogical train of thought; but this is not the case in Paul's own view. "Man kann bei ihm geradezu von einer eigenen Logik sprechen, die von der unsern wesentlich abweieht", Paulus 50.

Paul as a Rhetor

199

werden, sondern nur auf einer Reihe vorgiingiger Einverstiindnisse beruhen, die 'Kommunikation' erst moglich machen. 43

In rhetoric, the use of logic can even cause the opposite effect, namely

suspicion instead of credibility.44 We have seen in chapter 10 that the inconsistencies in Paul which Riiisanen detects are of a logical nature, for he continuously interprets Paul's statements in terms of logic. 45 But if a certain amount of rhetoric appears to exist in the texts (see section 12.2.2), then Riiisanen's assessment of Paul's texts as if they can only be interpreted in terms of logic is definitely incorrect. 46 In short, when we consider Paul from a hermeneutical point of view in terms of rhetoric, we get a completely different picture of his logical contradictions. At the same time, we also' find a way out of the impasse of certain logical contradictions. 47

K. Berger, Exegese des Neuen Testaments 89. Although I do not agree with Betz's approach (see my critical remarks in section 12.1.2), in connection with rhetoric he makes correct remarks concerning the relation between rhetoric and logic. "In fact, for the rhetoricians of Paul's time there could be nothing more boring than a perfect product of rhetorical technology. Therefore, the appearance of an argument as a 'dead' system of inescapable and pre-fonned syllogisms had to be avoided; instead, the arguments were to be presented in a 'lively' way. Quintilian's advice is to achieve 'diversity by a thousand figures', Paradoxically, extremely perfected logic was thought to create suspicion and boredom, not credibility, while a carefully prepared mixture of some logic, some emotional appeal, some wisdom, some beauty, and some entertainment was thought to conform to human nature and to the ways in which human beings accept arguments as true. GaL iii and iv are such a 'mixture''', 'Composition' 369 (my italics). Riiis!inen assesses Paul's statements on the basis of criteria derived from "extremely perfected logic". 4l It is also very popular to apply the so-called dialectical concept to the texts (see section 3.1.2). But, in actual fact, both dialectic and logic move along similar lines. 46 This is, however, also admitted by Raisiinen himself (in his response to Betz): " ... good rhetoric does not, of course, in itself guarantee good logic ... ", Paul 267 note 17. Yet he does not see that Paul can also be considered from a rhetorical point of view other than that adopted by Betz. 47 The study of rhetoric is, in my view, also useful in another way. When detecting inconsistencies in Paul, the reader often believes himself to be compelled to make a choice between two options. On the one hand he can interpret Paul either within a certain logical system, as, for example, R:lis!inen does, or within a certain kind of dialectical concept, which has, in fact, the same presumptions as a logical system. On the other hand he can make use of Text Criticism (read: interpolations). Raisanen does not make use of this latter option (see section 10.1). Ifwe do not want to make use of logic and dialectic, there is no need to feel compelled to make use of this latter option. Rhetoric rises above this dilemma. As we shall see in section 12.2.2, we do not follow Rliisanen, and yet, at the same time, we fully respect the texts. 43

44

200

Chapter 12

12.2.2 Illustrations Galatians 3 is a very suitable chapter for considering Paul from a rhetorical point of view. We shall limit ourselves to the discussion of Gal 3, especially Gal 3:1-20. With reference to Gal 3, Raisiinen has indicated at least two important inconsistencies. 48 It is thus worthwhile to look at this chapter in detail. Yet even if the exegesis below is not right in all its details. il will be demonstrated that Paul tries to persuade his readers in Gal 3 by means of a rhetorical strategy. In this way his 'inconsistencies' will be understood quite differently. 12.2.2.1 By means of a rhetorical strategy, Paul tries to persuade the Galalians that they should not put themselves under the law (Gal 3:1-14) According to Raisiinen Paul says in verse 13 (on the analogy of verse 14) that the Gentiles were under the curse of the law before they were redeemed by Christ. This is, for Raisiinen, an inconsistent statement, because the Torah concerns in the first place the Jews, but not the Gentiles. 49 However, such an 'inconsistency' does not exist; it merely looks as ifit exists. This is not seen that easily, unless we try to follow the argumentative strategy (rhetoric) by which Paul tries to persuade his readers. 50 Before doing this we must in the first place defme the fronl against which Paul is writing. It is evident that Paul has in mind the Judaizers who are active among the Galatians (Gentile Christians). According to the Judaizers, the Galatians must be circumcised (Gal 5:3), and they must See sections 2.1 and 2.5 above. See section 2.1. so A worthwhile article, to which my interpretation is heavily indebted, is: C.D. Stanley, "'Under a Curse": A Fresh Reading of Galatians 3.10-14', NTS 36 (1990) 481511. Stanley believes that Gal 3 concerns rhetoric iI la Kennedy, except that Stanley is not so strict as Kennedy (no schemes). Stanley also tries to follow Paul's way of reasoning. " ... every theological affirmation has a vital role to play in the step-by-step unfolding of a concrete strategy of persuasion designed to influence the behaviour of Paul's Galatian readers in a particular direction ... In fact, it is the contention of the present study that a proper understanding of Gal 3.10-13 can only be achieved when every statement, every clause, even every word is examined with a view to detennining how each part leads the reader forward in linear fashion through a series of significant moments of understanding toward a hoped-for change in ideas, values and/or behaviour", pp. 486-7 of the article mentioned above. Compare also N. Bonneau, 'The Logic 0.£ Paul's Argument on the Curse of the Law in Galatians 3:10-14'; F.F. Bruce, 'The Curse of the Law'; T.L. Donaldson, 'The "Curse of the Law" and the Inclusion of the Gentiles: Galatians 3.13-14', and D. GarIington, 'Role Reversal and Paul's Use of Scripture in Galatians 3.10-13'. 48

49

Paul as a Rhetor

201

observe certain days and months, etc. (Gal 4:10) in order to be able to belong to the 'sons of Abraham' (Gal 3:7). Paul wants both to undermine the Judaizers' arguments and to persuade the Gaiatians that they should not accept the Judaizers' view. If we listen carefully to Paul, we see that he does not want to persuade the Judaizers (his actual opponents), but the Christian Gaiatians whom he is addressing here. Once again Paul does not offer an abstract 'theology of the law and the Christians', but he writes as a pastor to these specific Christians. Yet the question is how Paul tries to persuade the originally Gentile Galatians. To put it differently, in what way is Paul a rhetor here? Let us first try to detect the structural outline of Gal 3:1-14. 51 These verses concern the superiority of faith to the law, for Paul asserts that one is a son of Abraham only by faith (verse 7). This is the central thought. On the other hand, the Judaizers believe that observance of the law must be added to faith. In Gal 3:1-14, Paul uses two arguments in order to dispute this view of the Judaizers. The first is mentioned in verses 2-5 where Paul is claiming that the Holy Spirit can only be received by faith, and this claim is confirmed by the Galatians' own experience (verse 2). Therefore there is nothing to be gained by adding the law (against the Judaizers).52 The second argument is mentioned in verses 6-14. This passage, however, falls into three parts in which Paul gives an answer to the question of how the Gentiles, such as the Galatians, can receive the Holy SpiritS) without the law. These three parts are as follows: (a) in verses 6-9 Paul argues that the Gentiles also receive the Holy Spirit by faith; (b) in verses 10-12 Paul argues that the Holy Spirit cannot be given to the Gentiles by means of conversion to Judaism, i.e. by obedience to the Torah, because in that case they will be confronted with the curse of the law; and (c) in verses 13-14 Paul argues that the promise to the Gentiles is only fulfilled by Christ's death. In this second argument, which thus falls into three parts, the Old Testament is quoted a few times (for example, in verse 10: Deut 27:26; in verse lIb: Hab 2:4, and in verse 12b: Lev 18:5). These two arguments are, however, closely related to each other as appears both from the word Kcc9wc; (verse 6) and from verse 14, which clearly refers back to the beginning of the chapter (compare verse 2 with verse 14). In verse 14, See also H.-J. Eckstein, VerheifJung und Gesetz 82ff. "Aufgrund von Erfahrung und Einsicht milssen die Galater besU!tigen, daB sie den Geist - und mit ihm die Rechtfertigung im G1auben (2,16) und das neue Leben fUr Gott (2,19f.) - allein aus der Glauben wirkenden Verkilndigung des Gekreuzigten empfangen haben und keinesfalls auf der Grundlage der Toraobservanz", Eckstein, VerheifJung und Geselz 93. 53 For the parallel between justification and the reception of the Holy Spirit see the exegesis below with reference to verses 11-12. 5]

52

202

Chapter 11

Paul believes he has demonstrated against the Iudaizers that Gentile Christians also, such as the Galatians, have re~eived the Holy Spirit without the law. In order to come to a critique of Raisanen, we concentrate on verses 10-13. Verse 10 is a problematic verse; it seems to be a non sequitur, for verse lOa states that if we do the law, we are under the curse of the law, whereas verse lOb states that if we fail 10 do the law, we are under the curse of the law. How should we explain (or solve) this apparent contradiction?S4 It is common to assume here that no one is able to obey the law. In that case, Paul's train of thought would be as follows: everyone who does not completely obey the law is cursed, and no one is able to obey the law (assumption), and therefore everyone is cursed. Riiisanen also interprets this verse in this way.55 In any case, in my view, Paul's readers would have noticed the contradiction in verse 10. 56 Probably they would have expected in verse lOb a statement concerning what will happen to those who do the law. Paul, however, does not fulfil these expectations. In other words, verse lOb does not give an actual description of someone who does the law. What, then, is the function of verse lOb? In my view, Ihis verse indicates what could happen 10 someone who fails to do the law. The use of ccroL (verse lOa) is already an indication in favour of such an 54 E.P. Sanders asserts that it is here merely a matter of terminology: Paul was looking for a verse which connects the curse with the law, and the only such passage in the LXX is Deut 27:26. See E.P. Sanders, Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People 20ff. T.R. Schreiner questions Sanders' interpretation. "Clearly, Paul selects OT texts because they contain terms which are relevant to the subject at hand, but the selection of texts with such terms does not prove that only the relevant terms are exegetically significant in the OT citation", 'Paul and Perfect Obedience to the Law: An Evaluation of the View of E.P. Sanders' 256 (see also p. 258 of this article). 55 Paul 94. Sanders, however, denies that in this verse Paul presupposes the view that the law cannot be fulfilled. See his Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People 17-23. See also Schreiner, 'Paul and Perfect Obedience to the Law: An Evaluation of the View of E.P. Sanders' 253-60. Bruce, however, writes: "More particularly it may be asked: does liability to the curse, according to Paul, arise for all who rely on legal works for justification (a) simply because no one keeps everything prescribed in the Law or (b) because the mere seeking of justification by the Law is misguided, even if one attains full marks in law-keeping? Probably the latter of these two alternatives represents Paul's thinking", 'The Curse of the Law' 29. See also his The Epistle to the Galatians 157-6J. "Auch im Galaterbrief ... wird die MOglichkeit, durch den v6flO~ die 5LK!tLoaUVTJ zu gewinnen, prinzipiell als irreal ausgeschlossen ... ", Eckstein, VerheifJung und Gesetz 130. 56 Thus, I consider Paul's texts from a reader's point of view in order to find out whether Paul tries to affect his readers in some way or another in terms of rhetoric. If this is indeed the case, then we also have to answer the question what kind of effect Paul tries to achieve.

Paul as a Rhelor

203

interpretation, similarly the expression uno Ka"tocpav (verse lOa), since in verse lOb the term ETrLKa"tocpa"to~ is used; or, to put it differently, the situation described in verse lOb has not yet become a reality for the people of verse lOa. Thus, to paraphrase Paul, in verse 10 he wants to say: 'if you want to participate in Abraham's 'blessing' by means of Torahobservance, then you will be threatened with the curse of the law'. This interpretation is also supported by Paul's use of threatening language in verse lOb. By means of the word mxc; Paul indicates the extent of the curse of the law; again to paraphrase Paul: 'you will definitely find yourself in such a terrible situation; nobody will escape from it'; and by means of the words mXOLV and nOLTjoa.L Paul indicates the conditions of the law; to paraphrase Paul once again: 'you have to do not only some parts of the law, but rather the entire law, and merely a good intention to do the law is not enough; you really have to do the law'. Such an exegesis fits very well in its context, and it also has the great advantage that one does not need to assume that nobody can fulfil the law (although this assumption as such may be true). To summarize the above, in verse 10 Paul wants to warn the Galatians: 'Gentile Christians, you should not follow the Judaizers' prescriptions, because if you do so, the curse of the law will hang over your head'. Within Paul's argumentative strategy, verse 10 functions thus as a threatY Paul is here really a rhetor who tries to affect his readers, in this case by inducing a sense offear by means of his rhetorical strategy. In verses 11-12 Paul moves in another direction as appears already to a certain extent from the particle oE in verse 1]. In verse 10 Paul referred to the curse, while in verses 11-12 life is the central issue. By means of the words EV vOflu.> Paul expresses the thought that the law itselfis not able to justify anyone. S8 The reason for the impossibility of being justified by the law is thus not human inability to fulfil the law, but instead the law itself. Verse 12 functions as a premise of the syllogism in verse 11a: verse lIb is 57 Stanley rightly says in his article mentioned above (p. 501): "At bottom, v. 10 can be said to function as a kind of 'threat', intended to induce the Galatians to reconsider their contemplated course of action by pointing out its possible negative consequences and so inducing a sense of fear regarding its outcome". 58 One of the objections here could be that it is Paul's intention to demonstrate that observance of the law does not result in the reception of the Holy Spirit (Gal 3:14). However, compare for the parallel between justification and the reception of the Holy Spirit the article by S.K. WiUiams, •Justification and the Spirit in Galatians', JSNT 29 (1987) 91-100. On p. 97 Williams says: " ... at several points in the argument of Galatians 3 Paul so parallels or intertwines the categories of being justified and receiving the Spirit that we can draw this conclusion: the experience of the Spirit and the status of justification are, for the apostle, inconceivable apart from each other. Each implies the other. Those persons upon whom God bestows the Spirit are justified; the persons whom . .. "

204

Chapter 12

the s-o-called major premise (the one who is righteous by faith shall live; quotation from Hab 2:4), while verse 12 is the so-called minor premise (the law has nothing to do with faith; verse 12 is concerned with the contrast between 1TL01:EWC; and 1TO~~OIXC;); this latter premise takes its credibility and authority from the quotation from Lev 18:5. Thus, Paul's argument is as follows 59 : (A) The one who is righteous by faith shal1live 11 b, major premise; (B) The law has nothing to do with faith 12, minor premise; (C) Ergo: No one is justified (= receives life) by law Ila; this conclusion is even evident (OfiAOV).

When we try to follow and analyse Paul's argumentative strategy in this way, then it appears that his rhetoric is indeed very convincing, because the one who wants to observe the law, as the Judaizers demand, will be confronted with two things: in verse 10 the negative potentiality of the law, namely the Curse as a result of non-fulfilment of the law, is affirmed, while in verses 11-12 its positive potentiality, namely life as a result of the fulfilment of the law (observance of the law as the Judaizers demand) is denied; in the former case the Galatians are being threatened with the curse of the law, while in the latter case they are being discouraged, since the way of the law leads to a dead end. 6o Both threat and discouragement are effects which a rhetor can have in mind when speaking (writing) to his listeners (readers). Thus there appears to be a considerable amount of rhetoric (in the sense described in section 12.1.2) in the verses discussed here. S9 Stanley astutely points out that such an argument is only convincing if the readers are already convinced of the fact that righteousness comes onLy through faith (verse llb, the major premise), for the two quotations from Hab 2:4 and Lev 18:5 could be turned to exactly the opposite conclusion, in which case Paul's argument, with the necessary modifications, would be, for Stanley, something like this: "That no one is justified by faith is evident, because 'The one who does these things will live by them.' But faith is not grounded in the law; rather (it says), 'The one who is righteous by faith will live"', p. 504 note 63 of the article mentioned above. Yet, we may assume that the Galatians were already convinced of the fact that righteousness comes only through faith, because the letter to the Galatians is, to be sure, not the first time that the Galatians have listened to the Gospel. See Oall:6. The only thing the Galatians need to become convinced of is the fact that observance of the law is of no use (against the Judaizers). 60 Stanley: "The obvious conclusion is that the Galatians have absolutely nothing to gain and everything to lose from pursuing the way of Torah. Why would anyone want to embark upon such a path?", p. 505 of the article mentioned above.

Paul as a Metor

205

The curse in verse 13 recalls, of course, the curse in verse 10 (Kccra.pOCV 3:10 and Koc-.apocc; 3:13). Verse 13 is concerned with the question of how the Gentile Christians (Galatians) can be redeemed from the negative aspect (the curse) of the law in connection with the observance of the law (verse 10). They will be redeemed from that curse only by Christ's death. Even if the Galatians fall back into such an observance of the law, there is yet no need for them to be afraid that the curse of the law (verse lOb) will become effective in their own lives. In fact, verse 13 does the same as verses 10-12: Where vv. 10-12 had argued against the Gentiles pursuing the way of Torah on the basis of 'first principles', including the potentially disastrous consequences of that course of action, vv. 13-14 now move to make the same point by a consideration of the present status of salvation history. For Gentile believers to turn to Torahobservance as a means of guaranteeing their participation in the 'blessing of Abraham', says Paul, represents an attempt to turn back the clock on what God has already done on their behalf in the redeeming death of Jesus Christ. 61

Paul reaches the conclusion (again to paraphrase him): 'God has justified you in Christ by faith, and your experience of the Holy Spirit confirms it'. Now we come to a direct critique of Raisanen. The question is, who is meant by ~J.L&c; and ~J.Lwv in verse 13?62 Many exegetes believe that Paul has here in mind Jewish Christians (exclusive reading).63 Others, including Raisiinen himself64, believe that Paul is thinking here of both Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians (inclusive reading).6s As we have seen, Raisanen detects an inconsistency at this point. 66 But by considering Paul's thoughts in Gal 3 from a rhetorical point of view, and by analysing his argumentative strategy, as has been done above, we have shown that in verse 13 Paul clearly has in mind first and foremost the Gentile Christians. 67 This is not seen by Raisiinen. Eventually he indeed comes to the conclusion that verse 13 concerns the Gentile Christians also, but he comes to this conclusion via verse 14: because verse 14 concerns the Gentile Christians, as Raisiinen argues, verse 13 also must concern the same group. Yet such reasoning is unnecessary, because in verse 13 Paul Stanley, '''Under a Curse": A Fresh Reading of Galatians 3.10-14' 507. See also C.G. Kruse, Paul, the Law and Justification 86-9. 63 E.g., Betz, Galatians 148, and Donaldson, 'The "Curse of the Law" and the Inclusion of the Gentiles: Galatians 3.13-14' 97ff. 64 See Paul18ff. 65 E.g., Bruce, The Epistle to the Galatians 166-7, and Eckstein, VerheifJung und Gesetz 151ff. 66 See section 2.1 above. 67 Paul's words apply, of course, to the Jewish Christians also. 61

62

206

Chapter 12

has in mind first and foremost the Gentiles. This is only seen if we consider Paul as a rhetor; Raisanen fails to do this, so that he once again immediately assesses and explains Paul's statements on the theological level. Because he has no eye for the above rhetorical aspects, Rtiistinen himself creates an inconsistency, for he himself immediately connects nomos with the Jewish Christians, whereas in the letter to the Galatians the whole issue is, in fact, that the Gentiles (the Galatians) are putting themselves under the nomos (of course, only if the temptations of the Judaizers are successful). Raisanen is right, of course, that nomos in normal circumstances (without the Judaizers) has to do first and foremost with the Jews; but he fails to see that, in the letter to the Galatians, it is in actual fact the Gentiles who might put themselves under the nomos. In sum, Paul does not connect nomos with the Gentiles here, as Raisanen argues, but the Gentiles themselves (the Galatians) make such a connection, that is if they allow the Judaizers to tempt them successfuUy.68 The originally Gentile Galatians should not regard themselves as Jews who have to fulfil the law. 69 Excursus: criticism ofJ.D.G. Dunn's exegesis of Gal 3:10-14 Having considered Gal 3:1-14 from a rhetorical point of view, and having gained' insight into the intention of this passage, we are also able to give some critical remarks on the interpretation of another prominent scholar, namely I.O.G. Ounn.7° He believes that by epyo: VOIlOU Paul means the characteristic Jewish laws, such as circumcision, food laws, and the observance of certain days, etc. (see Gal 4:10). According to him, these laws have a sociological function, for they clearly mark the distinction between Jews and other nations (Jewish laws as so-called "identity and boundary markers,,).71 Ounn 68 S. Westerholm also detects a problem here, and he also believes that Paul puts the Gentiles under the law. In this connection, he speaks of an "unconscious generalization" by Paul. See his Israel's Law and the Church's Faith 192-5. Westerholm also, who wants to adhere to the Lutheran tradition (" ... students who want to understand Paul but feel they have nothing to learn from a Martin Luther should consider a career in metallurgy. Exegesis is learned from the masters", p. 173), overlooks the possibility of the kind of exegesis suggested here. It is a pity, however, that this possibility is overlooked so often. See also the final observations in Stanley's article. 69 It is striking that Raisanen connects this inconsistency (the connection between the Gentiles and the Torah) almost entirely with the letter to the Galatians (see section 2.1); already this makes one suspicious. Perhaps it could be that my remarks in the text also apply mutatis mutandis to the other texts in the letter to the Galatians which are mentioned by Raisanen. In this chapter, however, I limit myself to Gal 3. 70 J.O.G. Ounn, 'Works of the Law and the Curse of the Law (Galatians 3.10-14)', NTS 31 (1985) 523-42. Compare also Riiisllnen's criticism, for example, Paul xxx. See also J.O.G. Ounn, The Epistle /0 the Galatians 168ff. 71 " ... the phrase "Ii EPYO: "o0 VOiJ.OU belongs to a complex of ideas in which the social function of the law is prominent", 'Works of the Law and the Curse of the Law (Galatians 3.10-14)' 531. See also his The Theology of Paul the Apostle 153,361-2, and 366. See for critical notes on Ounn's view, for example, T.R. Schreiner, "'Works of

Paul as a Rhetor

207

believes that his view is also applicable to Gal 3:10-14. Although Dunn's exegesis is very attractive in its simplicity72, it can be criticized in many ways: (I) In the letter to the Galatians, Paul does not talk about Jewish food laws (compare 2:12), whereas these laws were, at least for the Jews, very important as "identity markers".13 (2) According to Dunn, Paul means by aaoL ... E~ ~PYWIl V0).10U (verse 10) the Jews. 74 Here Dunn overlooks two things: (a) Paul wants to persuade the Galatians who were, in fact, Gentile Christians, that there is no need for them to put themselves under the law; thus, Paul does not talk in the first place about the Jews; and (b) it is important to emphasize BaoL: whoever, regardless of whether they be Jews or non-Jews. (3) In order to be able to maintain his own view, Dunn has to identify Ell vO).1C¥ (verse 11) with E~ epywv vOl'ou (verse 10).15 In spite of Dunn's reference to the parallel between Gal 2:16 and GaI3:11, such an identification is far from convincing, because of the simple fact that the words in verse 11 are not identical with those in verse 10. My own exegesis does more justice to the literal text. Moreover, Dunn overlooks the fact that verses 11 and 12 belong together (see my own exegesis). (4) Once more, Dunn has to interpret v0).10' (verse 12) as meaning t~ epywv vO).1ou. (5) Dunn sees the following contrasts: (a) 'law' - 'faith' (verse ll); and (b) 'faith' 'by the law' (more precise: EV au"to~