Audience competance and Paul's intentions

How do we determine whether Paul is intentionally alluding to various scriptures (and or Jewish interpretive traditions of these) where some (or many) scholars believe he is?

It is often thought that an awareness of the scripture knowledge of the specific audiences to which Paul writes (including 2nd Temple Jewish literature and interpretive traditions) will assist us in establishing this, but I have some doubts. The general line of thought is as follows: if the recipients of a particular letter are unlikely to detect and/or understand a particular "allusion" to scripture within the letter because they are not sufficiently familiar with the scripture alluded to, then it is unlikely that Paul intended such an "allusion".

Apart from the difficulty in establishing the general amount and nature of scripture knowledge and the amount and nature of scriptural knowledge in specific churches, this line of thought rests on the twin premises that Paul is sensitive to the scripture knowledge of his audiences and so places constraints on his references to them (including "allusions") in his writing. As far as I know these are assumptions lacking explicit evidence in his writings (Could 1 Peter 3.15-16 refer at least in part to scriptural allusions?). Furthermore, what amount of scripture knowledge did Paul feel constrained to, and how would we determine this? Did he know, assume, or expect that there would be those present at readings of his letters with adequate scripture knowledge (perhaps the 'informed' or 'competent audience' in Chris Stanley's terminology) who could point out or explain references to the scriptures?

Contextual Exegesis

Following on from our previous post on “Contextual Hermeneutics” I have found two posts that also deal with this issue. Nijay Gupta writes on A Couple of Disturbing Trends in Pauline Scholarship. This is followed by Matthew Montonini’s post Were Paul's Audiences Scripturally Illiterate?

Both posts propose issues that I’d like to discuss further. Gupta suggests “What we do know is that the encoded/implied reader was quite savvy with Scripture.” While Matthew outlines the position of Chris Stanley in his book Arguing with Scripture: The Rhetoric of Quotations in the Letters of Paul (T & T Clark, 2004). Stanley offers three different proposed audiences:

(a) The 'informed audience' - 'a person who knows the original context of every one of Paul's quotations and is willing to engage in critical dialogue with Paul about his handling of the biblical text' (68).

(b) The 'competent audience' - the 'hypothetical person who knows just enough of the Jewish Scriptures to grasp the point of Paul's quotations in their current rhetorical context' (68).

(c) The 'minimal audience' - '...people in this category were aware of the high degree of respect given to the Scriptures in Christian circles. As a result, they would have been inclined to take seriously any argument that claimed to be grounded in the biblical text. But their ability to follow the argument of a passage laced with quotations would have been limited' (69).

Both posts deal with the question we raised in our first post on Contextual Hermeneutics. How much background information can we assume in any of Paul’s churches? Views that suggest an “informed” or “competent” audience appear to be more assumption than demonstration. More discussion needs to take place on factors that could determine what the audiences capabilities were.

Instead of discussing the broad outlines of each view, let us take the specific example of the Thessalonian community. How plausible is it, that a congregation established a few months ago would be either an “informed audience” or a “competent audience”? Thus, for a specific example I alluded to, 1 Thess 4:4 and the understanding of skeuos is still relevant. Would Paul have expected his readers to pick up on the supposed allusion to 1 Sam 21:5, as commentators have?[1] Or would Paul be working with a more rabbinic background understanding?[2] Or did Paul simply choose a word that was multifaceted?

In this case, it seems more likely to me, that the Thessalonian church would be classified as a “minimal audience”. It appears a priori implausible to suggest that recent Gentile converts were “savvy with scripture”. I’m quite happy to concede that the Thessalonians were a ‘minimal audience’ with a respect for the Scriptures. I’m even happy to concur with the notion of formal scripture readings in the community, and leaders in the community reading the LXX. But this would definitely not amount to the audience being informed or competent in the Scriptures. Not after such a short time.

Thinking wider therefore, what we probably have reflected before us in the Pauline churches are various stages of these three categories. Perhaps some in the Galatian churches would have been “informed” community members. It seems likely that Rome would have had a competent audience, if not an informed one.

But can we suppose any at Thessalonica? I’m not convinced.

[1] Fee, God’s Empowering Presence, pg. 51 n.59

[2] Malherbe, The Letters to the Thessalonians, pg. 227

Judeans in 1 Thess 2:14?

Phil Harland discusses and recommends Steve Mason’s new article: Steve Mason, “Jews, Judaeans, Judaizing, Judaism: Problems of Categorization in Ancient History,” Journal for the Study of Judaism 38 (2007) 457-512. [I can't get my hands on that article, so am trusting Harland's reading]. According to Harland, “Mason convincingly argues that Ioudaioi (traditionally translated “Jews”) and related terms should be understood in terms of ethnic groupings in antiquity. For the Hellenistic and Roman periods (at least until the third century CE) we should be speaking of “Judeans”, not “Jews”, and of “Judean customs” or practices, not “Judaism”.”

In light of this discussion, can this affect our understanding of 1 Thess 2:14-16?

For you, brothers and sisters, became imitators of the churches of God in Christ Jesus that are in Judea, for you suffered the same things from your own compatriots as they did from those Judeans, 15 who killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove us out; they displease God and oppose everyone 16 by hindering us from speaking to the Gentiles so that they may be saved. Thus they have constantly been filling up the measure of their sins; but God’s wrath has overtaken them at last.

This surely softens the blow of what many have seen as problematic. But does it capture the essence of what Paul was suggesting? Given the contrast with “Gentiles” it does appear to make more sense of the passage, since Paul is not suggesting that all Gentiles have refused his message, and therefore he is not suggesting that all Judeans were involved in the death of Jesus.

Is this plausible? Any objections?

Contextual Hermeneutics: 1 Thessalonians 4:4 as a Test Case

Scholars often debate the finer points of interpretation based on various backgrounds or nuances to specific words, phrases or ideas. In 1 Thessalonians 4:4 we are presented with a verse that causes much distress to the interpreter for precisely this reason. The background context will determine how one understands this verse. The passage in context reads:

For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you abstain from fornication; 4 that each one of you know how to acquire/control your own vessel/organ/wife in holiness and honour, 5 not with lustful passion, like the Gentiles who do not know God; 6 that no one wrong or exploit a brother or sister in this matter, because the Lord is an avenger in all these things, just as we have already told you beforehand and solemnly warned you. 7 For God did not call us to impurity but in holiness.

The key words are that of skeuos (vessell/organ/body/wife) and ktasthai (acquire/control). How one interprets or understands these words depends very much on the probable backgrounds to which interpreters appeal. Given that Paul is writing to a mainly Gentile audience, a roman background is possible. But Paul is a Jew, well versed is the writings and thought-world of Judaism. So interpreting this against a Jewish back-drop seems equally possible. Enter here the problem of “background information of the early Christians.”

How much background information can we assume in any of Paul’s churches? This has to be one of the most perplexing issues in NT scholarship. We have literally no information from them, or about them, to determine their own background understanding. The audience in all of Paul’s letters remains practically anonymous to us.[1] Thus, how is one to determine the concrete meaning of a phrase, such as the one above? For example, J. E. Smith’s article “1 Thessalonians 4:4: Breaking the Impasse” spends forty pages analysing three distinctive interpretations.[2] This study is exhaustive in its attempt to investigate these options thoroughly. But again the problem persists as to whether or not we allow Paul’s understanding to dominate our interpretation, or whether we allow the audiences assumed understanding or limited knowledge to affect the way we interpret scripture. Illustrative of this is Wanamaker’s comment:

The Thessalonians did not know Hebrew and therefore Paul could not rely on them to make the kind of connections made by Maurer and others in arriving at this interpretation.[3]

So my question is: Do we sometimes over interpret scripture? Looking for every possible allusion and echo to the Hebrew narrative [or elsewhere], when it is highly unlikely that the audiences would even be aware of such scriptures and allusions? Is much of the research we acquire, a bit of a waste? Any ideas?

[1] M. Bockmuehl, Seeing the Word (Baker, 2006) pgs. 68ff. considers possible “implied readers” which may offer some assistance to this problem. However, it will not solve the specifics of this problematic feature of our discipline.

[2] Jay E. Smith, “1 Thessalonians 4:4: Breaking the Impasse” Bulletin for Biblical Research 11.1 (2001) 65-105.

[3] C. Wanamaker, The Epistles to the Thessalonians, pg. 152

Restoring what was Taken

Well, my study of Thessalonians may now resume, with my books being happily replaced by someone in my Church being frustrated that I could no longer continue with my series on Thessalonians due to my car being stolen with my laptop and all my commentaries and books on Thessalonians inside! God's people are so good, and gracious!

I'm hoping to explore 1 Thess 2:13-16, that tricky little piece which some have assumed and argued is an interpolation. I'm also wanting to explore further the view that 1 Thess 5:14ff. is addressed to the leaders. I'm trying to get my paws on a copy of Jeff Weima's book: Neglected Endings: The Significance of Pauline Letter Closings. Incidently, Weima is writing the Baker commentary on Thessalonians which should be quite good. I'm also looking forward to finishing Fee's tome, which I only got half way through!

As you can see, my summer reading will consist of books on the epistles of Peter. I'm hoping to plough through Green, Jobes and McKnight (or Michael's) and then move on to Davids, Bauckham and Neyrey (perhaps adding Reese) on 2 Peter. This is for a series we're doing at Primal. Should be good, and informative. Hopefully, Thessalonians won't distract me further [nor will Michael Pahl, who's posts on Thessalonians were the first to entice me to survey and study, briefly, these letters!].

Anyway, back to studying...

It's All about Q...

And all this for Q...

Well, almost. There seems to be a bit of a "Q" fe(a)st on at the moment, so I'll just recap for those not familiar with the discussion. "Q" is short for the German word, quelle, which means "source". I'm not sure who coined the term [somebody in the blogosphere should know], but it's been around for some time now. Basically, "Q" is the designation for material common to Matt and Lukas, but not found in Mark. It is a hypothetical source/(document?) that is postulated to account for corresponding material in Luke and Matt's gospel. An easier solution to the problem is to say that Luke used Matt, that's my view, but much scholarship today still feels the need for "Q" and so the investigation continues.

Mark Goodacre alerts us to some of the discussion going down in his post: Christmas without Q. I must plead guilty to not fully understanding all the techinical issues involved, and I am "Q" sceptic because I just can't see how or why we need to postulate a hypothetical document, when a real one [Matt] exists which explains most, but probably not all, of the difficulties in our problem. Inference to the best explanation leads me to accept Markan priority, although there were times when I favoured the Griesbach Hypothesis and still think about it, and that Luke used both Matt and Mark [cf. Luke 1:1-4].

I am particularly sceptical about much of Q scholarship, and find myself echoing a quiet AMEN when I read Meier's causcious advice:

The affirmation of Q’s existence come close to exhausting my ability to believe in hypothetical entities. I find myself increasingly sceptical as more refined and detailed theories about Q’s extent, wording, community, geographical setting, stages of tradition and redaction, and coherent theology are proposed. I cannot help thinking that biblical scholarship would be greatly advanced if every morning all exegetes would repeat as a mantra: “Q is a hypothetical document whose exact extension, working, originating community, strata, and stages of redaction cannot be known.” This daily devotion might save us flights of fancy that are destined, in my view, to end in scepticism.

J. P. Meier, A Marginal Jew II, pg. 178

So, if you're interested, get reading as this is a fascinating, though technical at times, area of research into the gospels and early Christianity.

News

Unfortunately, my car was stolen last week. Along with it, my laptop and every commentary on Thessalonians that I own [Malherbe, Witherington, Green, Best, Bruce], along with Fee's Pauline Christology and God's Empowering Presence, so I'm taking some time out to sort things out, and catch up on all the work that's now behind... All I can hope for is one educated thief! Bless them LORD!

Hope to return to the blogosphere soon...

Fee vs. Pahl on “The word of the Lord”

Gordon Fee in his massive tome, Pauline Christology, [reviewed by Tilling] suggests that the complex phrase “the word of the Lord” (1 Thess 1:8 and 4:15) refers in 1:8 to the gospel and in 4:15 to “that which is spoken by (or about) the Lord Jesus.” Fee writes:

For Paul, “the word of the Lord” is now that which is spoken by (or about) the Lord Jesus. Indeed, it seems most likely that in the first passage here (1:8), where the phrase is articular, Paul intends it to stand for the gospel; that is, it is the “word” about the Lord. The second passage (4:15), however, is most likely a reflection of the usage in the Septuagint, and thus it refers to a word that Christ himself has spoken (either, most likely, in the Jesus tradition that has come down to Paul, or as a prophetic word that Paul has received from Christ). [1]

Fee does not elaborate further on the reasons for his decision, which is a pity, because Michael Pahl has offered substantive reasons for taking 4:15 as reference to the gospel. See his the making of a dissertation. Fee only references Hurtado’s treatment in Lord Jesus Christ.[2] Hurtado does not develop his view that this is “a saying of the exalted Jesus, probably delivered initially through a Christian prophet.” But merely points back to the treatment of E. Best in his commentary on Thessalonians.[3] Thus, it will be fascinating to see how Michael’s dissertation, now defended, is received by scholarship.

I for one am particularly sympathetic and open to Pahl’s detailed analysis, and wish to read more of his argument. Especially on Pauline epistemology. But that’s for another day…

[1] G. Fee, Pauline Christology, pg. 45

[2] L. Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ, pg. 150-1 as well as Donfried, Shorter Pauline Letters, pgs 39-40 who thinks that this refers to a prophetic oracle.

[3] Best, The First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians, pg. 189-194.

Monotheism - Again

The discussion about Monotheism continues, with Chris Tilling helping us along. In the comments to Chris' post, I asked: isn't Paul's "monotheism" more about loyalty to YHWH than a statement about the philosophical nature of GOD? Chris agrees with my position. Being the curious person that I am, I had a quick look at Thiselton's massive contribution where he writes:

Only God is God. Nevertheless, the fact that kyrios-cults do really exist means that habituated patterns of loyalty and devotion long practiced by new converts before their conversion cannot simply be brushed aside as no longer affecting their lives and attitudes in the present. At an existential and psychological level they still leave their mark. Indeed, this may mean even more. Not only do they return a subjective influence; they may also constitute objective forces of evil which bring destruction, disintergration, and pain. Unless we adopt a partition theory between 8:1-13 and 10:14-22, Paul appears to associate them with demonic forces.

[Thiselton, 1 Corinthians, pg. 633]

This seems to offer the best understanding of 1 Cor 8:6. Therefore, it appears that Paul is mocking the existence of "so-called gods" [Thiselton's translation]. These forces may be subjective or objective, but they do not assume Paul's definition of who God is or what God does. These are "so-called gods" which Paul then describes as demons later in 1 Cor 10. Thus, I'm not sure that we can confidently call Paul a polytheist.

Besides, this issue surely has more to do with loyalty and devotion than it has to do with ontological issues. There has to be a stable definition of what constitutes GOD, for there to be discussion about how many or who this GOD supposedly is. Bauckham's categories of Creator and Sovereign appear to appropriate the evidence well. Surely Paul did not believe in other creators or other sovereigns? Surely only YHWH was the Creator and Sovereign, and in that identity they [the early Christians] included Jesus. For all other gods, they were atheists - denying them loyalty and ontological status.

Exegetical Dictionary of the NT

Well, it's nearing that wonderful time of the year when I can begin hinting to my wife what presents should find there way underneath the tree... Or, whatever we decide to put up this year. As this will be our first Christmas as a married couple, my wife is looking to spoil me and so is asking for suggestions. So here's where I need some help.... I'm thinking of the Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament.

The English translation of the three-volume Exegetisches Worterbuch zum Neuen Testament, this monumental work by an ecumenical group of scholars is first of all a complete English dictionary of New Testament Greek. Going beyond that, however EDNT also serves as a guide to the usage of every New Testament word in its various contexts, and it makes a significant contribution to New Testament exegesis and theology. EDNT's thorough, lengthy discussions of more significant words and its grouping of words related by root and meaning (with alphabetical cross-references) distinguish it from simpler Greek-English lexicons. Advancing the discussion of the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, EDNT summarizes more recent treatments of numerous questions in New Testament study and takes into consideration newer viewpoints of linguistics.

Is this really as helpful as it claims? I've got Bauer's, Liddell/Scott's, and the abbreviated TDNT. And I'm not sure whether I should upgrade my software package (I'm currently working with Logos) or get hard copies... Obviously, the electronic version is cheaper. Any advice from those who use these tools? Or should I just get some more commentaries/books that will incorporate this?