Abortion and the Apostolate: A Study in Pauline Conversion, Rhetoric, and Scholarship 9781463203771, 1463203772

Citation preview

Abortion and the Apostolate

Gorgias Biblical Studies

42

In this series Gorgias publishes monographs on the history, theology, redaction and literary criticism of the biblical texts. Gorgias particularly welcomes proposals from younger scholars whose dissertations have made an important contribution to the field of Biblical Studies. Studies of language and linguistics, the archaeology and cultures of the Ancient Near East, Judaism and religion in general each have their own series and will not be included in this series.

Abortion and the Apostolate

A Study in Pauline Conversion, Rhetoric, and Scholarship

Matthew W. Mitchell

9

34 2014

Gorgias Press LLC, 954 River Road, Piscataway, NJ, 08854, USA www.gorgiaspress.com Copyright © 2014 by Gorgias Press LLC

All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright Conventions. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning or otherwise without the prior written permission of Gorgias Press LLC. 2014

‫ܘ‬

9

ISBN 978-1-4632-0377-1

ISSN 1935-6870

Reprinted from the 2009 Gorgias Press edition.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A Cataloging-in-Publication record is available from the Library of Congress. Printed in the United States of America

TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents ....................................................................................v
 Preface.......................................................................................................ix
 Acknowledgments...................................................................................xi
 Abbreviations..........................................................................................xv
 Introduction ..............................................................................................1
 Approaching Paul, his Conversion, and Pauline Scholarship ..............................................................................1
 New Perspectives and Old Methods............................................1
 Sanders and Räisänen .....................................................................6
 “Two-Covenant” New Perspectivists: Lloyd Gaston and John G. Gager.......................................................................10
 James D. G. Dunn ........................................................................15
 Summary .........................................................................................19
 1
 Rhetorical Criticism and Paul........................................................21
 1) Paul the Letter-writer and Greco-Roman.............................22
 Rhetorician .....................................................................................23
 2) The New Rhetoric ....................................................................33
 Overview: Rhetoric, Paul the “Converted” Apostle, and the Gentile Mission..............................................................38
 2
 Galatians 1:15-17, Conversion, and the Gentiles.......................45
 “Damascus”: its Connection to Paul’s Mission and Theology ................................................................................46
 Is Paul’s Account in Galatians Reliable? Call or Conversion?...........................................................................52
 Paul’s conversion, and the meaning(s) of Gal. 1:15.................56
 Summary: The reliability of Gal. 1:15-17, Paul’s “Call/‘Conversion,’” and the Gentile mission.................66





3
 Galatians 1-2: Apostleship & Authority in Conflict ..................73
 Conversion, Apostleship, and Vision in Galatians 1:15-17 ....73
 v

vi

4


5


6


7


ABORTION AND THE APOSTOLATE The Meaning of “Apostle” ..........................................................75
 Scholarly Rhetoric on Damascus, Apostolicity, and the Gentile Mission.....................................................................85
 Brief Excursus: Paul’s logic, authority and the “other”apostles in Galatians 1-2 ........................................90
 Contextualizing 1 Corinthians 15:8 ..............................................97
 “Abortion” in the Ancient Mediterranean ................................97
 “Abortion” in Biblical Tradition and Beyond: Reading Exodus 21:22 ......................................................................100
 Summary: “Abortion” in Biblical, Jewish, and Christian Tradition ..............................................................................111
 The Exposure of Infants and Abortion: Philo and Exodus 21:22 .....................................................................................113
 Metaphorical Use ........................................................................123
 Excursus: Gnostic Imagery and “Abortion” Metaphors ......124
 Irenaeus, Hippolytus, and Tertullian........................................126
 Paul The Abortion ........................................................................133
 Conflict and 1 Corinthians 15 ...................................................133
 ἔκτρωμα in the Bible and New Testament scholarship.......138
 Previous Interpretations of ἔκτρωμα in 1 Cor. 15:8 ............141
 The Context and Intertext .........................................................145
 Pauline and Prophetic Parallels .................................................150
 Reading 1 Corinthians 15...........................................................154
 Paul the Abortion from the Apostolate...................................156
 Conclusion....................................................................................159
 F. C. Baur, Conflict, and the Rhetoric of Reputation .............163
 F. C. Baur: Work and Reputation .............................................165
 Baur’s Paul ....................................................................................168
 Pauline and Petrine Christianity................................................171
 A brief Rezeptionsgeschichte of Baur’s views................................173
 The New Rhetoric: Reputation and “Just Reading” the Text.......................................................................................183
 Conclusion: Scholarly Rhetoric...................................................191
 Universality and the Gentile Mission .......................................191
 The Gentile Mission and Conversion: Pragmatic Readings, Baur, Donaldson ................................................................201
 Donaldson and Baur on Persecution and the Gentile Mission.................................................................................204


TABLE OF CONTENTS

vii

Conclusion: Baur’s Legacy, the Gentile Mission and Scholarly Rhetoric ..............................................................209
 Paul’s Apostolic Rejection and Biblical Scholarship..............213
 Closing Thoughts On Method..................................................216
 Bibliography ..........................................................................................221
 Index ......................................................................................................243


PREFACE This book’s title promises a discussion of the apostolate and abortion, a pairing of topics that may strike some as unusual at a first glance. The logic behind placing these terms together is, however, relatively straightforward, deriving from a key passage in the Pauline correspondence in which Paul describes his experience of the resurrected Christ and his status as an apostle. The subjects of this book, Paul’s sense of his mission as the “apostle of the Gentiles,” and its connection to his so-called “conversion” have preoccupied biblical scholars since the pioneering work of the Tübingen critic F. C. Baur in the 1830s. This attention is unsurprising since Paul’s decision to preach to non-Jews is often credited with the eventual transformation of Christianity from a Jewish sect into a separate religion. As Paul’s conversion and his sense of the apostolate are often viewed as key for understanding the development of his mission to the Gentiles, attention to any of these topics necessitates a discussion of the others. Much of this study is therefore an in-depth analysis of two passages (Galatians 1:15-17 and 1 Corinthians 15:3-8) in which Paul discusses the experience we call his “conversion.” Specifically, this book argues that it is the rejection of Paul’s claims to be an apostle in the same sense as the other apostles that underlies his “mission to the Gentiles.” This argument is advanced through a careful analysis of Paul’s references to his “conversion” in Galatians 1:15-17 and 1 Corinthians 15:8, paying particular attention to Paul’s evocative use of the language of abortion in the latter passage. The contextualization of this curious self-description in 1 Corinthians 15:8 draws upon a growing body of work concerning areas of ancient life that continue to fascinate and perplex us in modern times; abortion and the exposure of infants.

ix

x

ABORTION AND THE APOSTOLATE

Given that the conclusions of this work resonate with strands of New Testament scholarship dating back to the origins of the discipline itself, I also address issues pertaining to the history of the discipline and the rhetorical practices of scholars such as myself who are obliged to work within an established scholarly tradition. My hope is that readers who are interested in theoretical and methodological questions, including how biblical scholarship understands its own history, will find material of interest here. This book is thus primarily addressed to three related, but distinct audiences: Pauline specialists, the broader community of biblical scholars, and classicists and ancient historians of the ancient Mediterranean. Naturally, I also hope that scholars from any field with interests in rhetoric, Paul, or the topic of abortion will find this book useful.

Matthew W. Mitchell Buffalo, New York

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS There are many people who should be thanked in terms of making any book possible, so I apologize for not naming everybody who deserves to be named. My teachers and mentors from both my undergraduate and graduate studies need to be thanked for their inspiration and advice, especially Terry Donaldson, David Jobling, John Porter, Mike DeRoche, Vaso Limberis, Tamar Kamionkowski, and Laura Levitt. Several colleagues in the Canadian Society of Biblical Studies should be thanked for their feedback on components of this project in various venues, especially Carleton University’s Stephen G. Wilson, who took the time to read a manuscript draft in its entirety, a task for which a scholar of his stature would receive no benefit other than my gratitude and this brief mention. Much of the writing of this book took place in Halifax, Nova Scotia, and I am grateful for the support of many of my former colleagues at Dalhousie University: Terry Woo, Andrew Fenton, Letitia Meynell, and Perwaiz Hayat. Most recently, I have found an extremely supportive environment in my new home in the Religious Studies Department at Canisus College, and while I thank the faculty members in their entirety as a group, our wonderful secretary, Marilyn Tokarczyk, deserves to be thanked by name. Lastly, and most importantly, the opportunities to complete this book are in large measure attributible to my family: Karen, Archie, Becky, Pat, Terry, and Lesley. This book is dedicated to my wife Suzanne Matheson and our son James, who together have brought me not only so much joy, but have allowed me to maintain a sense of proper perspective; the completion of this project coinciding with that most important of long-term projects, becoming a parent.

xi

xii

ABORTION AND THE APOSTOLATE

Formal Acknowledgments Of relevance to the topics explored here is a book by Erkki Koskenniemi, The Exposure of Infants among Jews and Christians in Antiquity, Social World of Biblical Antiquity, 2nd series, 4 (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2009), the chapter outline of which was graciously provided to me by the author. I regret that delays in its projected publication date (originally projected for 2007) hindered me from incorporating it into my study. This work is primarily based upon a 2005 doctoral dissertation, completed under the direction of Dr. Vasiliki Limberis, and some of the material has also appeared in various scholarly venues (i.e., in print, in colloquiums, and at professional association meetings). Although I have also indicated details in the chapters themselves where relevant, material from the following publications and presentations has been incorporated into the present work. Portions of Chapter 1 were originally presented as: “Is Saul of Tarsus Among the Rhetoricians?: Education and Persuasiveness in the Pauline Corpus” (paper presented at the annual meeting of the Canadian Society of Biblical Studies, London, Ont.: May 31, 2005).

The discussion in Chapter 4 was first made public in a colloquium setting: “The Bible and Abortion in Antiquity: Ancient Reflections on the Modern Culture Wars.” Gender and Women’s Studies Programme Lecture Series (Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, November 16, 2006).

Chapter 5 of the present work contains previously published work: “Reexamining the ‘Aborted Apostle’: An Exploration of Paul’s Self-Description in 1 Cor.15.8.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 25.4 (2003): 469-85.

Portions of the research in Chapter 6 have appeared as oral presentations and in published form: “F. C. Baur and Christian Origins: Pauline scholarship and universalism in the 20th Century” (paper presented at the an-

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS nual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. November 19, 2005). “Of Low Estimation and Pervasive Influence: F. C. Baur and Pauline Studies” (Job Candidate Talk/Lounge Seminar Paper. Department of Religion, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey. January 12, 2006). “Scholars of Repute,” in Wesley J. Bergen and Armin Siedlecki (eds.), Voyages in Uncharted Waters: Essays on the Theory and Practice of Biblical Interpretation in Honour of David Jobling (Hebrew Bible Monographs, 13; Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2006), 63-78.

xiii

ABBREVIATIONS AAR AB ABD ANF BDB BDF

BETL BFCT BHS BibInt BJRL BTB BZ BZNW CBQ CCL CP CQ CR

American Academy of Religion Anchor Bible. Anchor Bible Dictionary. ed. David Noel Freedman. New York: Doubleday, 1992. The Ante-Nicene fathers: Translations of the writings of the fathers down to A.D. 325. ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. New York: Scribner’s, 1925. Francis Brown, S. R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs. A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1907. Reprint, 1951. F. Blass and A. Debrunner. Translated and Revised by Robert W. Funk. A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium Beiträge zur Forderung christlicher Theologie Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. Edited by K. Elliger and W. Rudolph. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1983. Biblical Interpretation Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library of Manchester Biblical Theology Bulletin Biblische Zeitschrift Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche Catholic Biblical Quarterly Corpus Christianorum, Series Latina Classical Philology Classical Quarterly Classical Review xv

xvi EncJud ESCJ ET HTR ICC Int JBL JECS JJS JSNT JSNTSup JSP JTS JTSA KEK LCL LSJ LXX

MT n(n). NHL NIGTC NJPS NovT NovTSup NRSV NT

ABORTION AND THE APOSTOLATE Encyclopaedia Judaica. 16 vols. Jerusalem: MacMillan, 1971-1972. Studies in Christianity and Judaism / Études sur le christianisme et le judaïsme English Translation Harvard Theological Review The International Critical Commentary Interpretation Journal of Biblical Literature Journal of Early Christian Studies Journal of Jewish Studies Journal for the Study of the New Testament Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha Journal of Theological Studies Journal of Theology for Southern Africa Kritisch-Exegetischer Kommentar über das Neue Testament. ed. H. A. W. Meyer. Loeb Classical Library H. G. Liddell, R. Scott, and H. S. Jones. A GreekEnglish Lexicon. 9th ed with revised supplement. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968. Septuagint (Greek Old Testament). In this work references are to Septuaginta: Id est Vetus Testamentum graece iuxta LXX interpretes. Edited by Alfred Rahlfs. 2 vols. in 1. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1979. Masoretic Text note(s) The Nag Hammadi Library in English. ed. James M. Robinson. Revised 3rd edition. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1990. The New International Greek Testament Commentary Tanakh: The Holy Scriptures. The New JPS Translation according to the Traditional Hebrew Text. 2nd edition. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1999. Novum Testamentum Supplements to Novum Testamentum New Revised Standard Version New Testament

ABBREVIATIONS NTS OBO OCT POxy RAC RB RBL Rel SBL SBLDS SBLSP SBLTT SC SJOT SJT SNTSMS SP SR ST Str-B SwJT TAPA TDNT TJT TynBul TZ VC VT VTSup WBC WMANT WUNT ZAW

xvii

New Testament Studies Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis Oxford Classical Texts The Oxyrhynchus Papyri. London: Egyptian Exploration Fund, 1889- . Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum. ed. T. Kluser, et al. Stuttgart: A. Hiersemann, 1950- . Revue Biblique Review of Biblical Literature Religion Society of Biblical Literature Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers Society of Biblical Literature Texts and Translations Sources chrétiennes Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament Scottish Journal of Theology Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series Sacra Pagina Studies in Religion/Sciences religieuses Studia Theologica Hermann L. Strack and Paul Billerbeck. Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch. 6 vols. Munich: C. H. Beck, 1922-1961. Southwestern Journal of Theology Transactions of the American Philological Association Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. ed. G. Kittel. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964. Toronto Journal of Theology Tyndale Bulletin Theologische Zeitschrift Vigiliae christianae Vetus Testamentum Supplements to Vetus Testamentum Word Biblical Commentary Wissenschaftliche Mongraphien zum Alten und Neuen Testament Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft

xviii ZNW

ABORTION AND THE APOSTOLATE Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche

INTRODUCTION A PPROACHING P AUL , HIS C ONVERSION , P AULINE S CHOLARSHIP

AND

N ew Perspectives and Old Methods Pauline studies, like biblical scholarship in general, has several issues with which to contend.1 Some of these are seemingly perennial issues (e.g., Paul and the Law), while others are more wideranging, concerning the very frameworks within which we should read Paul’s letters or the methods that are best employed in interpreting them. The present work is not solely a contribution to these methodological or theoretical debates, however, and from a certain perspective may itself be viewed as quite traditional in its approach and orientation. That being said, issues of method will never be far from the discussion. In brief, my aim is to argue for a specific interpretation of what “Paul meant” in Galatians 1:15-17 and 1 Corinthians 15:8, two specific passages in which he describes himself and his vision of the risen Christ (his so-called “conversion”), and in doing so make a contribution to the scholarly debate on the “origins” of Paul’s Gentile mission. This primary aim is not my only goal, however. In the process of arguing for a particular reading of these passages, I will also examine some of the workings of the rhetoric of Pauline scholarship. This secondary emphasis will

General background can be found in James D. G. Dunn, “The Pauline Letters,” in The Cambridge Companion to Biblical Interpretation, ed. John Barton (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 276-89; and Dunn, (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to St. Paul (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003). 1

1

2

ABORTION AND THE APOSTOLATE

be of almost equal importance, and will be the focus of the latter chapters, as my presentation of Paul’s “conversion” or “call” makes reference to Ferdinand Christian Baur’s nineteenth-century proposal that the issues discussed within the Pauline corpus reflect a basic underlying rift between Paul and the “Jerusalem” apostles.2 This work falls into two sections. The first contains an examination of Paul’s “conversion passages” in Galatians 1:15-17 and 1 Corinthians 15:8, with a detailed discussion of the possible meanings of the former, and an extended effort to situate the latter’s seemingly unusual wording in its cultural context. The second section involves an examination of F. C. Baur’s presentation of Paul, and a study of the reception of Baur’s views among biblical scholars throughout the years following his scholarly activity, informed in large part (though not exclusively) by the theories of argumentation found in Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca’s New Rhetoric.3 My first claim is that components of Baur’s work support my proposal concerning Paul’s Gentile mission and his experience of “apostolic rejection,” and that this proposal has much to commend it as an explanation of a perennial scholarly puzzle. My second claim is methodological and far more sweeping, as I demonstrate that scholarly writings about Paul and his modern interpreters are themselves exercises in argumentation, and thus are not to be accepted uncritically, or without close attention to the rhetorical practices they utilize. The connection between these two claims is relatively straightforward, inasmuch as any advocacy of “conflict” in connection with Paul’s letters almost inevitably brings to mind Baur’s work. These two aims are, in short, the relatively clear path along which this study will proceed. There are a few side-paths and obstacles to navigate while traveling down this main road, however. First, Baur’s thesis has had a rather complicated Rezeptionsgeschichte

By “make reference” I mean that I am not attempting to “prove Baur was right.” Many of the particulars of his theories have been rightly rejected. 3 The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation (tran. John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver; Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1969). 2

INTRODUCTION

3

in biblical scholarship, and while it has received a large amount of criticism, often dismissive in tone, its influence can still be discerned in many strands of Pauline scholarship. This influence will require some discussion and reconfiguration, given both its prevalence and its complexity. A second obstacle is methodological, wholly practical, and of ever-increasing relevance in biblical studies, regardless of one’s position on the various theoretical debates within the field. The bibliography on Paul is daunting, to say the least, and at times simply overwhelming, as anyone from beginning student to seasoned scholar can readily acknowledge. Yet simply recognizing the overabundance of relevant material does not mean that one is therefore excused from interacting with it as best one is able. This has led, as specialists will doubtless expect, to a large amount of citation and some fairly detailed discussions of scholarly views on a number of points, including the obligatory discussion of the New Perspective in this Introduction. However, as I suspect that overly extensive citation can in itself be an obstacle (and occasionally a manner of avoiding pointed argumentation), I have also attempted to be as concise as possible in navigating between only citing the relevant material and simply compiling yet another massive bibliography comprised of items of which specialists are already aware. To cite simply one example, although I am interested in Paul’s references to his conversion, I have not provided a summary of every relevant study of “conversion” in the 20th century (e.g., from Nock to Segal), since one may readily encounter these sorts of summaries in a variety of places.4 This issue of navigating through an immense bibliography becomes more

4

Arthur Darby Nock, Conversion: the Old and New in Religion from Alexander the Great to Augustine of Hippo (London and New York: Oxford University Press, 1933); Alan F. Segal, Paul the Convert: The Apostolate and Apostasy of Saul the Pharisee (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1990). See Larry W. Hurtado, “Convert, Apostate or Apostle to the Nations: The ‘Conversion’ of Paul in Recent Scholarship,” SR 22 (1993): 273-84, 279-84; and the material discussed in Zeba A. Crook, Patronage, Loyalty, and Conversion in the Ancient Mediterranean, BZNW, 130 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2004), 37-54.

4

ABORTION AND THE APOSTOLATE

urgent in the analysis of what Paul meant in 1 Corinthians 15. Sketching out as full a context as possible for Paul’s description of himself in 1 Corinthians 15.8 as an ἔκτρωμα (“abortion/miscarriage”), a term I will place great emphasis upon in my interpretation of Paul’s conversion, requires a brief detour into some of the many wider issues surrounding “abortion” in the Jewish and Christian traditions, simply to make my interpretation both more comprehensible in its own cultural context and more persuasive to modern scholars. I hope, however, that any scholars interested in this topic in its own right will also find this discussion worthwhile. Undertaking any study of what “Paul meant” makes a great many assumptions about both the act of interpretation and the ability of the interpreter to read an ancient text, and I have not ignored the ongoing critical debates in contemporary biblical studies, even when they are not always openly discussed.5 I have assumed, however, that proposing an interpretation that is admittedly conjectural in places may also shed light upon theoretical issues, even if only in passing, and that one should not dwell exclusively on theory to the exclusion of interaction with the text of Paul’s letters. Yet approaching a point at which even such a carefully circumscribed and qualified interpretation becomes meaningful first requires dealing with a large number of issues and problems, many of them methodological in orientation. One domain assumption, to which I foresee no objections, is that although interpretation of Paul’s letters may be possible, it is certainly not simple. Despite the occasional wistful voice to the contrary, Paul’s writings cannot simply be approached as “any other” first-century Greek text, however desirable that may seem in the abstract for the historian of Christianity.6 Certain texts, Paul’s

5 Ben Witherington, III, “Contemporary Perspectives on Paul,” in The Cambridge Companion to St. Paul, 256-69. More generally, see Aichele et al., The Postmodern Bible (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1995). 6 Such a desire is often expressed by scholars in the field of Christian Origins, although it betrays an assumption about the ease in interpreting

INTRODUCTION

5

writings among them, carry so much cultural baggage (i.e., a tremendous body of traditional interpretation, an active influence in our present cultural systems, and diverse groups of people battling over or against that influence) that such presuppositionless readings are impossible, even if one grants the questionable premise that they are desirable. Most observers would claim that there have been major upheavals within biblical studies over the past thirty years, and although I agree with this assessment, I am not entirely convinced that it is always as dramatic as is sometimes claimed, at least not in the study of Paul. Pauline studies, with only a few notable exceptions, has not been subjected to nearly as much in the way of “postmodern” criticism as one finds with biblical narrative.7 Although there is a methodological pluralism to Pauline scholarship; exemplified by sociological studies,8 rhetorical

“any other” Greco-Roman text that classicists would find bewildering. The problems in dealing with a text traditionally believed to be sacred or divinely inspired are perhaps unique only in the sense that they are different. The assumption that it is especially difficult is merely an expression of scholarly vanity over one’s own chosen turf. 7 Exceptions are Elizabeth Castelli’s Imitating Paul: A Discourse of Power, Literary Currents in Biblical Interpretation (Louisville, Kentucky: 1991), a reading showcased in the discussion of rhetorical criticism in Aichele et al., The Postmodern Bible, 149-86, and aspects of Daniel Boyarin’s A Radical Jew: Paul and the Politics of Identity, Contraversions: Critical Studies in Jewish Literature, Culture, and Society, 1 (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1994). Stephen D. Moore (God’s Beauty Parlor: and other queer spaces in and around the Bible, Contraversions [Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2001]) deals in some detail with Paul, but focuses almost exclusively on Rom. 1:26-27. 8 See, for example, Wayne A. Meeks, The First Urban Christians: The Social World of the Apostle Paul (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1983). See also the work of Bruce Malina, “The Individual and the Community—Personality in the Social World of Early Christianity,” BTB 9 (1979): 126-38; “‘Religion’ in the World of Paul,” BTB 16 (1986): 92101; “Dealing with Biblical (Mediterranean) Characters: A Guide for U.S. Consumers,” BTB 19 (1989): 127-41; “Is There a Circum-Mediterranean Person? Looking for Stereotypes,” BTB 22 (1992): 66-87 and most fully in

6

ABORTION AND THE APOSTOLATE

analyses,9 and interest in women in the early church,10 much of this material remains almost entirely historical in its orientation. This continued historical emphasis in Pauline studies may be influenced by the marked lack of such interest in traditional theologicallyoriented Pauline scholarship, with its tendency to favor discussions of Paul’s “doctrines” of the “flesh,” “spirit,” “sin,” and the like, or his “views” about the “Jews” or the “law.”11 As mentioned above, and as will be repeatedly stressed below, there is far less methodological change than one would at first imagine in the majority of Pauline scholarship. This is especially the case even with respect to the often referenced (and now decades-old) “New Perspective,” and the names associated with it, most prominently James D. G. Dunn and E. P. Sanders. Sanders and Räisänen: Coherent or Inconsistent, but no new method One likely does not need to rehearse E. P. Sanders’ contributions to Pauline scholarship or the rise of the New Perspective at this point in time.12 Sanders’s chief contribution, should one accept his

Malina and John J. Pilch, Social-Science Commentary on the Letters of Paul (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2006). 9 Stanley Stowers is only one scholar to examine Paul’s rhetoric. See A Rereading of Romans: Justice, Jews, and Gentiles (New Haven & London: Yale University Press, 1994), and the discussion in the next chapter. 10 Antoinette Clark Wire, The Corinthian Women Prophets: A Reconstruction through Paul’s Rhetoric (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1990; reprint, 1995). See 1-11, and the corresponding notes and bibliography on 270-2 nn. 1-25. 11 Recently, e..g., A. Andrew Das, Paul and the Jews (Library of Pauline Studies; Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2003) provides a nice overview of recent Pauline work, with little hint any of methodological confusion. 12 The account is told in many places. See James D. G. Dunn, “Introduction,” in The Cambridge Companion to Paul, 1-15; Das, Paul and the Jews, 1-16, and the material cited there. See also Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977); and Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983).

INTRODUCTION

7

conclusions in whole or in part, is his providing overwhelming evidence of a misguided understanding of first-century Judaism operating throughout Pauline and biblical studies. His work, though pivotal in the study of Paul’s thought, is not really of a methodologically different type from most previous biblical scholarship, although it is often more cogently argued and exhaustively documented. Sanders’ approach, while certainly signaling the beginning of a “new” paradigm or perspective, is carried out entirely within the context of traditional historicalcritical scholarship, closely studying the “texts” of Judaism topically, and asserting that scholars have simply misread and misinterpreted what they say, not that what they or Paul say is unclear or incoherent. To cite another example, the work of Heikki Räisänen, who famously argued that Paul is inconsistent as a thinker, is simply a different development of this approach. Neither of these positions, however, is a departure from the premise that Paul’s letters can be used to understand Paul’s thoughts on certain subjects, whether his view of the Law or the issues faced by the communities in Corinth or Rome. At a first glance Räisänen certainly sounds quite radical in his view of Paul: Indeed, more than one scholar has declared that Paul’s theology of the law is just a lot of nonsense, if interpreted in any of the standard ways rather than in the particular (idiosyncratic) fashion proposed by the writer in question! 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).13

However, Räisänen’s notion of Paul’s inconsistency is largely explained by reference to the concrete challenges Paul experienced in his daily activity, the adjustments and developments he was forced to make as a result of these experiences, and his own lack of

13

Räisänen, The Torah and Christ: Essays in German and English on the Problem of the Law in Early Christianity (Helsinki, 1986), 59-60.

8

ABORTION AND THE APOSTOLATE

consciousness about being inconsistent.14 For Räisänen, however, this state is a natural, very human state of affairs given Paul’s situation, and thus Paul’s being inconsistent is in no way construed in terms of Paul being incomprehensible to the modern scholar. Räisänen’s position is that if one takes into account, as a good historical scholar, the full context of Paul’s writing, it makes perfect sense (i.e., is completely, and consistently, “understandable”) that Paul would be inconsistent on some issues. Paul’s not seeming logically consistent on an issue is thus explained by the simple recognition that Paul could be inconsistent. This approach, like that of Sanders, is not especially “new” except in the details of its conclusions. Räisänen’s approach is extremely traditional inasmuch as he simply assumes that the modern interpreter is entirely right when he or she senses that something does not logically cohere in Paul’s statements. The key hermeneutical misstep for the modern reader, according to Räisänen, stems from the assumption that Paul must be a profound thinker, and that his inconsistency only appears as such because of the inability of the exegete to comprehend Paul’s profundity.15 Räisänen simply asserts that the modern reader who senses this inconsistency ought to face his or her recognition squarely, and the bracketing out of assumptions about Paul’s profundity seems to be Räisänen’s principal theoretical concern. There is nothing radically “new” methodologically or theoretically in the call to cast aside

Ibid., 58-60. “Does anyone ever consciously hold mutually contradictory convictions? The question is not what Paul could hold together in his mind, but what can be held together logically” (The Torah and Christ, 59). See also the comments of Watson, Paul, Judaism and the Gentiles, 18, and Schweitzer, who wrote that “he is a logical thinker”once one recognizes the role of eschatology in his thought (The Mysticism of Paul the Apostle, 139). 15 This contrasts to Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle, §1.4 (19-23), §14.1 (339). For Dunn “it is simply a matter of respect for our subject matter and for the sheer stature of the man that we should assume an essential coherence to his thought and praxis, unless proved otherwise” (The Theology of Paul the Apostle, 23). Dunn never says what would constitute such proof. 14

INTRODUCTION

9

one’s presuppositions, nor in the call to apply Occam’s razor and opt for the simplest solution at hand. Most intriguingly, despite the consistent association of the origins of the “New Perspective” with Christian scholarship’s attempts to view Judaism in a more sympathetic light,16 there is markedly little interest in the anti-Jewish biases or presuppositions of other scholars in the work of Sanders himself. There is no metacriticism in the writings of Sanders, and very little interest in the agendas or prejudices of other scholars.17 While Sanders has occasion to remark throughout Paul and Palestinian Judaism on the possible reasons for scholarly misrepresentation of Judaism, he has prefaced his tome with a disclaimer that such misrepresentation is anything but a scholarly misstep based upon a lack of rigor. Indeed, Sanders’s own stated disinterest in the possibly anti-Jewish biases of the scholars he takes issue with is instructive on this point. Once the question of polemics in connection with Rabbinic Judaism is raised, the reader may wonder whether or not the topic is anti-Semitism. It is not. A Jewish scholar of my acquaintance offered to tell me which of the older generation of scholars whose views I criticize were in fact anti-Semites, but I declined to find out. As I see it, the view which is here under attack is held because it is thought to correspond to the evidence, and I attack it because I think it does not. The history of the relationship between scholarly representations of Judaism and anti-Semitism is quite complex, but the present work is not a contribution to unravelling it. The charges of misunderstanding should be read as simply that and no more.18

Sanders stresses that his work is about scholarly misreadings of Jewish religious literature, not scholars who are predisposed to evaluate Judaism and its religious writings negatively. One might

Donaldson, Paul and the Gentiles, 8; Lloyd Gaston, Paul and the Torah (Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 1987), 1-15. 17 This claim is not completely true, however, as we will see in Chapter 6. 18 Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, xiii. 16

10

ABORTION AND THE APOSTOLATE

find his position as stated above overly sanguine, since it would be hard to imagine Sanders’s own work making the impact it did without some greater awareness, one might be tempted to say guilt, in light of the Holocaust on the part of the Christian scholarly community.19 Intermittently in Paul and Palestinian Judaism, Sanders does take note of the apparent biases of certain scholarly work, but only in passing, and it is important to observe that despite the “newness” of the perspective he offers, the method he utilizes is itself not new, it merely claims to be more accurate. “Two-Covenant” N ew Perspectivists: Lloyd Gaston and John G. Gager The work of John Gager and Lloyd Gaston may be treated together, since they are often taken to be the most vocal proponents of the “Two-Covenant” hypothesis (or “two-track,” or “Sonderweg,” approach)20, and are also classified alongside Sanders as New Perspectivists.21 In short, their view not only assumes the stance of much of the New Perspective, but goes further in seeking to answer the vexing question of why Paul seems to mix affirmations of the status of Israel and the Law’s importance and value with what appear to be denigrations of their soteriological roles. The position is rather simply described as follows, although it is naturally much more complicated in its details, and differs

Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle, §14.1 (338). See the recent study of Terence L. Donaldson, “Jewish Christianity, Israel’s Stumbling and the Sonderweg Reading of Paul,” JSNT 29.1 (2006):27-54, 28. 21 Gager, Reinventing Paul; The Origins of Anti-Semitism: Attitudes Towards Judaism in Pagan and Christian Antiquity (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1983); Gaston, Paul and the Torah. See also Donaldson, “The Sonderweg Reading of Paul,”; Das, Paul and the Jews, 96-109. As Donaldson notes, the work of other scholars like Stanley Stowers and Mark Nanos has often been associated with this view, although Nanos himself would certainly disagree, as I will discuss below. My own initial views of Nanos’s perspective would have equally made this equation, although subsequent discussion with Nanos himself has caused me to see the need for greater nuance. 19 20

INTRODUCTION

11

slightly in each scholar’s articulation. Before Sanders, scholars assumed that Paul’s language about the law was simply an accurate description of the (inferior to Christian) Jewish religious practices of his time. Paul’s language, in short, needed no explaining except for his occasionally puzzling affirmations of the Law. Post-Sanders, scholars now know that Judaism was not as it has been portrayed, and it is therefore Paul’s negative language that needs explaining, since Paul would surely not have misrepresented or misunderstood Judaism.22 The “Two-Covenant” hypothesis accepts Sanders’s work on Judaism, but not his view of Paul, deeming it still too wedded to the “old” perspective. Gager summarizes tersely: “What is so intriguing about Sanders’s work is that he comes so close to a radical break with the traditional view, yet misses it by a mile.”23 This approach explains the problem by emphasizing that Paul’s writings were directed solely towards a Gentile audience, so that his statements are explained by asserting that there is no problem or conflict between Christ and the Law. Rather, there are twocovenants (or paths to salvation): the Law for Israel, and Christ for the Gentiles. Everything Paul says is directed towards a Gentile rather than a Jewish audience, “and need not at all imply anything negative about Israel and the Torah.”24 Paul’s disputes are not about “the importance of Torah in the life of a Jew but about how Gentiles ought to relate to the law.”25 There is simply “no evidence from Paul’s own hand that he ever preached to Jews, in synagogues or anywhere else.”26 It is only “when we lose sight of the immediate settings of Paul’s letters and assume—with all

Sanders, of course, elegantly summarizes his view of the problem by stating that the only “fault” with the Law in Paul’s mind is that salvation comes from Christ. Paul’s exclusivist soteriology simply has no place for the Law, and it is thus of secondary importance and adiaphoron. 23 Gager, Reinventing Paul, 49. 24 Gaston, Paul and the Torah, 34. See also Gager, Reinventing Paul, 5960. 25 Gaston, Paul and the Torah, 137. 26 Gaston, Paul and the Torah, 135. See Gager, Reinventing Paul, 44. 22

12

ABORTION AND THE APOSTOLATE

subsequent readers—that his audience and opponents were Jews” that the two thousand year history of misreading Paul’s statements about the Law can be explained.27 The seeming simplicity of this view, and its affirmation of two religious traditions in place of scholarly denigration,28 makes it an appealing proposal. It has not, however, been without its critics, despite Gager’s claim that it is “the only historically defensible” reading of Paul.29 One criticism is surely because, as Gager allows, it is “highly presumptuous, even arrogant in its insistence that twenty centuries and most readers of Paul have been utterly mistaken.”30 In addition, however, most scholars simply do not see the theory as being anchored in the Pauline corpus. As Terence Donaldson observes with respect to Gaston’s work, “to maintain such a position, against the current of both Pauline scholarship and of the prima facie sense of Paul’s letters themselves, requires considerable ingenuity and resolve.”31 This sense that the TwoCovenant theory defies Paul’s own words is its most common criticism,32 and although it is perhaps too easy an observation to make, one also notes how Gaston’s conclusions mesh rather too comfortably with a certain modern Christian perspective, allowing a contemporary Christian reader of Paul to answer accusations of Christianity’s almost genetic historical predisposition to anti-

Gager, Reinventing Paul, 75. Gager states “we are left with two basic affirmations: one, God’s unshakable commitment to Israel and to the holiness of the law (=Judaism); and, two, the redemption of the Gentiles through Jesus Christ (=Christianity)” (Reinventing Paul, 152). 29 Gager, Reinventing Paul, 18. 30 Ibid., 18. 31 Donaldson, Paul and the Gentiles, 231. See also “The Sonderweg Reading of Paul”; and Das, Paul and the Jews, 100-9. 32 C. Marvin Pate, The Reverse of the Curse: Paul, Wisdom, and the Law, WUNT, 2/114 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000), 421: “Such exegetical legerdemain, however, is easily refuted by Romans alone.” See Dunn, Theology of Paul the Apostle, §19.6 (528, 528 n. 138.) 27 28

INTRODUCTION

13

Semitism, such as those raised by Rosemary Radford Ruether.33 Gaston has the methodological honesty to lay these theological concerns clearly before his reader: Just as important as Auschwitz as a context for Christian theology is the refounding of the State of Israel. Very central is the recognition that Judaism is a living reality and that the covenant between God and Israel continues. Such a recognition is even more important than the Auschwitz context for how Christians do theology, and it can also open exegetical eyes and make it possible to see texts in a new way and perhaps understand them better, once traditional antiJewish blinders have been removed.34 A Christian church with an antisemitic New Testament is abominable, but a Christian church without a New Testament is inconceivable.35

Gaston’s clever “abominable-inconceivable” statement skirts the question of whether the Christian church is “conceivable” with an antisemitic New Testament. One would tend to assume it is “conceivable,” even if, as Gaston would argue, it is a serious misunderstanding.36 As for Gager, in contrast, he has carefully guarded himself against any charges of theological bias, since he is a self-described “non-believing ‘Christian’”37 and has “no particular religious or theological view to defend.”38 It is, of course, open to

Rosemary Radford Ruether, Faith and Fratricide: The Theological Roots of Anti-Semitism (Minneapolis: Seabury Press, 1974). See Gaston, Paul and the Torah, 15-34; Donaldson, “The Sonderweg Reading of Paul,” 28-29. 34 Gaston, Paul and the Torah, 2. Cf. Gager, Reinventing Paul, 150. 35 Gaston, Paul and the Torah, 15. 36 Donaldson’s comments are also to the point: “If Paul’s position were as Gaston describes it, so that most of his troubles with Jewish and Christian opponents were based on a misunderstanding, he would have had plenty of opportunity in the argument to make himself clear” (Paul and the Gentiles, 233). 37 Gager, Reinventing Paul, 151. 38 Ibid., 17. 33

14

ABORTION AND THE APOSTOLATE

debate whether these disclaimers do anything but raise suspicions rather than dismiss them. More problematic for Gager’s reading of Paul is his high estimation of the value of “rhetorical criticism” for recovering the meaning of Paul’s letters, particularly when coupled with his claims about the persistent misreading of Paul by almost all subsequent Christian commentators. Gager describes the renewed interest in Greco-Roman rhetoric among New Testament scholars as “one of the most important (re-) discoveries in recent years.”39 I will discuss rhetorical criticism in the next chapter, but Gager’s comments prompt at least one immediate observation. How is it that Paul could have been so radically misread by the Christian community of the second, third and fourth centuries, given that so many Christian patristic authors were themselves trained rhetoricians in what was then a living milieu, not a scholarly reconstruction twenty centuries later? Now ancient commentators often did observe different rhetorical traits of Paul’s writing than moderns, but Gager asserts that the complete misunderstanding of Paul had set in by the time of Acts.40 If this is the case, then it is a misunderstanding that has little relationship to rhetorical practice, and once again is solely a matter of seeing Paul as addressing himself exclusively to Gentiles. Even the rhetorical critics Gager cites as support are rather tentative about the “two ways” approach to reading Paul, and less than certain about the exclusively Gentile audience necessary for such an approach.41 However, as with Sanders and Räisänen, Gaston and Gager are carrying out a very traditional scholarly project, at least in terms of method. In line with Sanders, but going down a slightly different path, they assert

Ibid., 70. See 70-75, 147-8. Ibid., 69-70. 41 Ibid., 59-60. Most notably Gager discusses Stanley Stowers, whose own comments are somewhat guarded in contrast to Gager. See Donaldson, “The Sonderweg Reading of Paul,” 36-40. In terms of Paul’s audience, Gaston has elsewhere (“Romans in Context: The Conversation Revisited,” in Pauline Conversations in Context, 125-41) asserted a “spectrum of people” as the audience for Romans (a slight concession), although its concern is still asserting the “election of Gentile Christians” on the basis of “the prior election of Israel” (“Romans in Context,” 133, 140). 39 40

INTRODUCTION

15

that Paul has been continually misread almost from the very beginning. Although they allow more room for external considerations such as the weight of traditional interpretations, they make much the same claims concerning the very viability of the project of attempting to understand Paul’s words in their own light, merely claiming in their turn to do an even better job of it than Sanders. James D. G. Dunn Among the “New Perspectivists,” James D. G. Dunn is by far the most prolific. Seyoon Kim describes him as “the most tireless, if not the most prominent”42 scholar of the New Perspective, while his dual status as the inventor of the school’s title and its chief proponent gives extra weight to his scholarly stature. Dunn’s work, as with all New Perspectivists, accepts as its point of departure the work of Sanders. Dunn makes an effort not only to understand and clarify more fully Paul’s beliefs about the Law, Gentiles, and the like, but also to discover their point of origin. Sanders’s position, that Paul’s language concerning these topics derived from his fundamental conviction that salvation was through Christ rather than a dissatisfaction with his religious background or a theologizing of his inability to achieve perfect obedience to the Law ( the so-called “from solution to plight” model), is summed up in his much-quoted phrase “this is what Paul finds wrong with Judaism: it is not Christianity.”43 Dunn articulates the origin, development, and implications of this view of Paul, arguing that Paul’s “conversion” experience was foundational for his decision to preach to the

Kim, Paul and the New Perspective, 1. Cf. Frank J. Matera: “While several scholars have taken up the challenge presented by the new perspective, none has been more prolific and instrumental in developing its implications for studying Paul and Galatians than James Dunn” (“Galatians in Perspective: Cutting a New Path through Old Territory,” Int 54 (2000): 233-45, 234). 43 Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, 552. The italics belong to Sanders. 42

16

ABORTION AND THE APOSTOLATE

Gentiles.44 Paul developed, or was forced to articulate more clearly, his doctrine of justification only after the “Antioch incident,” at a later stage in his activity as apostle to the Gentiles.45 As the “Damascus experience”46 was the call to preach to the Gentiles, and the incidents that directly led to the composition of Galatians led in turn to the (full) development of the doctrine of justification by faith, the epistle to the Galatians is, in Dunn’s view, an expression of Paul’s esprit de l’escalier.47 It was only in light of both Damascus and Antioch that Paul came to actively understand and publicly argue that the ἔργα νόμου (the “works of the law”), the external marks of covenant such as circumcision, were merely “ethnic boundary markers” and thus an obstacle to the Gentile believers in Christ to whom he was now dedicated. Paul’s polemic against the “works of the law” is therefore not an attack on the Law or Judaism as a legalistic system, since this view of Judaism has been properly dismissed by Sanders. Rather, it is an attack upon the external sociological and ethnic characteristics of that covenant, such as circumcision, and the “misuse” of the Law. The nationalist / ethnic characteristics of the covenant were, according to Dunn, given undue emphasis since the Hasmonean period,48 and Paul

Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle, §14 (334-89). Supposedly the conflict over the issue of the circumcision of Gentile believers, a controversy that prompted the writing of Galatians and is perhaps echoed, in muted tones, in Acts 15. See Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle, §14.5 (359-66). 46 Here and throughout, I will use the word “Damascus” as a blanket term to describe Paul’s coming to believe in Jesus. I do not imply that it necessarily occurred “on the road to Damascus,” although that is not improbable. This usage of “Damascus” is almost a scholarly convention in Pauline studies. 47 Dunn, The Theology of Paul’s Letter to the Galatians, 72-73. “The Antioch incident marks the beginning of the explicitly distinctive features of Paul’s theology” (72). “The challenge which he addresses in Galatians is the challenge he failed to meet at Antioch—how can Christian Jews compel the Gentiles to judaize (2.14)? Galatians is what he should have said to Peter at Antioch had time and sufficient reflection allowed it” (73). 48 Dunn, Theology of Paul the Apostle, §14.4. “The Maccabean crisis reinforced both Israel’s sense of distinctiveness and the focus on 44 45

INTRODUCTION

17

came to see that “as God’s choice of Israel drew the corollary that God’s saving righteousness was restricted to Israel, so the law’s role in defining Israel’s holiness to God became also its role in separating Israel from the nations.”49 “By ‘works of the law’ Paul had in mind that obedience to precepts of the law which was deemed still necessary for believing Jews, particularly at the point where it meant treating believing Gentiles as outside the community of salvation.”50 The law, understood “in terms of faith rather than in terms of works,” can “continue to serve in a positive role.”51 Because of Dunn’s stature and prolific output, his views have received a large amount of criticism,52 as has the New Perspective more generally.53 Dunn’s critics fall over a wide spectrum, but they disagree with his distinction between the Law and its supposed misuse or misinterpretation,54 his perceived ambiguity concerning

particular laws as make-or-break issues in defining and defending Israel’s set-apartness.” (357) 49 Ibid., §14.4 (355). 50 Dunn, “Noch Einmal ‘Works of the Law’,” 290. 51 Dunn, Jesus, Paul and the Law, 224. 52 Most targeted is Kim, Paul and the New Perspective. From within the New Perspective, Gager (Reinventing Paul) has called Dunn’s work “a giant step backwards” in that it resembles the “older” view too closely (49). On Dunn’s opus Theology of Paul the Apostle see the review essays of R. Barry Matlock, “Sins of the Flesh and Suspicious Minds: Dunn’s New Theology of Paul,” JSNT 72 (1998): 67-90; Douglas A. Campbell, “The ΔΙΑΘΗΚΗ from Durham: Professor Dunn’s The Theology of Paul the Apostle,” JSNT 72 (1998): 91-111; and Dunn’s reply “Whatever Happened to Exegesis? In Response to the Reviews by R. B. Matlock and D. A. Campbell,” JSNT 72 (1998): 113-20. 53 On the New Perspective in general, see Kim The Origin of Paul’s Gospel; Paul and the New Perspective; Mark A. Seifred, “Blind Alleys in the Controversy Over the Paul of History,” TynBul 45 (1994): 73-95; Pate, The Reverse of the Curse; Charles H. Talbert, “Paul, Judaism, and the Revisionists,” CBQ 63 (2001): 1-22. On Räisänen, see T. E. Van Spanje, Inconsistency in Paul? A Critique of the Work of Heikki Räisänen (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999 [ET of Dutch original, 1996]). 54 Pate, The Reverse of the Curse, 195-6, 209-11. He notes that “the phrase ‘works of the law,’ in both Second Temple Judaism and in Paul,

18

ABORTION AND THE APOSTOLATE

precisely how much of Paul’s theology originated from Damascus,55 and his alleged overemphasis on Paul’s continuity with Judaism in regards to the law’s “true” meaning.56 This latter criticism is particularly telling, as Dunn seems to be receiving criticism from both sides; New Perspectivists who find him too traditional, and non-New Perspectivists who find him a convenient target for the whole approach. However, both groups of Dunn critics center on his interpretation of the “works of the law” and the implications of it for assessing Paul’s continuity with Judaism. To cite one example, Daniel Boyarin, despite following Dunn’s understanding of Paul very closely and believing him to have understood Paul extremely well, comes to almost an opposite evaluation of Paul’s continuity with Judaism, commenting that: If the only value and promise afforded the Jews, even in Romans 11, is that in the end they will see the error of their

consistently refers to the whole Torah, not just the identity markers” (411). Kim, Paul and the New Perspective, 2-4, 57-60. 55 Kim, Paul and the New Perspective, 1-84 (Chapter 1 one is entitled “Paul’s Conversion/Call, James D. G. Dunn, and the New Perspective on Paul”). “Dunn’s zeal for seeing the Damascus event only in terms of Paul’s apostolic call to the gentiles leads Dunn also to advance quite unrealistic and incredible arguments against those who see Paul’s new insights into soteriology and into the problem of the law as essential parts of the Damascus revelation” (22). 56 Matlock observes that “an Israel that understood the law as enjoining its separate existence would seem to have understood it rather well. Just how is observing the law a ‘misunderstanding’ of it?… And how, then, has Paul criticized Judaism ‘as it really was’, as Dunn would have him do, and not from a point of view already crucially ‘outside’?” (“Sins of the Flesh and Suspicious Minds,” 76). Further, Matlock notes that, in contrast to the dispute over “works of the law” as “really” a dispute over ethnic boundary markers, a Jewish contemporary of Paul’s “one expects, will regard the dispute as being about ‘God’s will’ or some such” (Ibid., 80). Campbell finds “at the end of the day a rather traditional conditional reading of Paul’s gospel still nevertheless emerged” (“The ΔΙΑΘΗΚΗ from Durham,” 91).

INTRODUCTION

19

ways, one cannot claim that there is a role for Jewish existence in Paul… This salvation, however, is precisely for those Jews a bitter gospel, not a sweet one, because it is conditional precisely on abandoning that which we hold so dearly, our separate cultural, religious identity, our own fleshy and historical practice, our existence according to the flesh, our Law, our difference.57

Once again, though, whatever objections are raised, the approach one finds in Dunn is in many respects extremely traditional, and at times almost reactionary. Dunn pointedly rejects critical theory’s “suspicion” of Paul,58 expresses reservations about rhetorical criticism,59 and completely dismisses allegations of inconsistency on Paul’s part.60 As to the question of the Gentile mission, Dunn’s presentation implies the traditional understanding of a universalism (Christ) breaking down mere social and ethnic conventions (Torah) as barriers to salvation,61 although he would likely protest this assessment. Regardless of the specifics of his view, Dunn’s approach is also new in terms of “perspective” rather than in terms of method. Summary This brief survey has perhaps not clarified matters beyond sketching out more clearly that the relatively unchallenged tendency to view Paul’s letters as sources for Paul’s thought (whether inconsistent or profound) is unchanged by the New Perspective. Perhaps there is simply no other way to approach Paul’s letters than through attempting to reconstruct “properly” the situation behind each individual letter.62 That this might entail the modern reader

Boyarin, A Radical Jew, 151-2 (italics mine). This rejection is pointedly taken up by Matlock, “Sins of the Flesh and Suspicious Minds.” Dunn responds that Matlock does not clearly spell out “the meaning or perspective” of what he means by “suspicion” (“Whatever Happened to Exegesis?” 113). 59 Dunn, The Theology of the Apostle Paul, §1.2 (10-12). 60 Ibid., §1.3 (13-19), §1.4 (19-23). 61 Ibid., 720-1, 734-5. 62 Das, Paul and the Jews, 13. 57 58

20

ABORTION AND THE APOSTOLATE

having to relearn their usual notions of “audience” and very manner of reading does not change the basic goal of this project.63 Or perhaps predictions about the radical shifts “new” critical and theoretical perspectives would bring to bear upon biblical studies have simply not made their fullest impact on the Pauline corpus. However, given that we have already encountered some rather bold claims within the New Perspective for the results of rhetorical criticism in the work of John Gager, alongside fairly terse dismissals from James Dunn, and given that rhetorical considerations will loom large throughout this work, the subject of rhetoric will be the focus of Chapter 1.

63

Stowers, A Rereading of Romans, 16-22.

1 RHETORICAL CRITICISM AND PAUL

“For men of quick intellect and glowing temperament find it easier to become eloquent by reading and listening to eloquent speakers than by following rules for eloquence”—(Augustine, Doctr.chr., 4.4).∗

Some scholars, while not necessarily ignoring the theological import of Paul’s epistles so central to both the New Perspectivists and their opponents, see the texts of Paul’s letters primarily as examples of Greco-Roman rhetorical and epistolary practice. The governing logic of this approach is straightforward: whatever knowledge can be achieved in regards to Paul’s views on various topics, assuming that such a goal can be achieved with the available material, must take into account the literary practices of the period, or else one will misconstrue Paul’s intended meaning and the range of possible meanings that his contemporaries would have applied to the same text.64 This view has the advantage of attempting to deal with ques-

∗

Portions of this chapter have been presented in a slightly compressed format as: “Is Saul of Tarsus Among the Rhetoricians?: Education and Persuasiveness in the Pauline Corpus” (paper presented at the annual meeting of the Canadian Society of Biblical Studies, London, Ont.: May 31, 2005). I would like to thank Zeba Crook and Robert Jewett for their comments and questions. In A Rereading of Romans, Stowers explicitly argues that Romans is now read in “ways that differ fundamentally from ways that readers in Paul’s own time could have read it” (1). The bibliography is too massive to list in an exhaustive manner, but see Benjamin Fiore, “Rhetoric and 64

21

22

ABORTION AND THE APOSTOLATE

tions of a literary nature and the form in which Paul’s writings were composed rather than treating them as theological source-books, although it is often in pursuit of the same goals as those found in the systematic studies of “what Paul meant” when he mentioned “Gentiles,” “Israel,” “sin” or the “Law.” Scholars making use of rhetorical criticism begin from the premise that Paul’s letters are exercises in persuasion rather than being merely communicative or “religious” in nature.65 This methodological orientation differentiates itself slightly from other “historical-critical” approaches, most particularly source-criticism, and is rather broad in its range of applications. Some confusion occurs, however, since when one talks about “rhetorical” criticism of the writings of Paul, one might be referring to one of two quite distinct approaches.

1) P AUL

THE

L ETTER - WRITER

AND

G RECO -R OMAN

Rhetorical Criticism,” ABD 5:710-19; Martin Warner, ed., The Bible as Rhetoric: Studies in Biblical Persuasion and Credibility (London and New York: Routledge, 1990); Carl Joachim Classen, “Paulus und die antike Rhetorik,” ZNW 82 (1991): 1-33; D. F. Watson and A. J. Hauser, Rhetorical Criticism of the Bible: A Comprehensive Bibliography with Notes on History and Method (Leiden: Brill, 1994); R. Dean Anderson, Ancient Rhetorical Theory and Paul, rev. ed. (Leuven: Peeters, 1998); Stanley E. Porter “Paul of Tarsus and His Letters,” in Handbook of Classical Rhetoric in the Hellenistic Period, 330 B.C.A.D. 400, ed. Stanley E. Porter (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 533-85; Stanley E. Porter and Thomas H. Olbricht, eds., Rhetoric and the New Testament: Essays from the 1992 Heidelberg Conference, JSNTSup, 90 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993); Rhetoric, Scripture and Theology: Essays from the 1994 Pretoria Conference, JSNTSup, 131 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996); The Rhetorical Analysis of Scripture: Essays from the 1995 London Conference, JSNTSup, 146 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997); Aichele et al., The Postmodern Bible, 149-86; Wire,“Appendix 1: Rhetorical Criticism,” in The Corinthian Women Prophets, 197-201. 65 As most introductory textbooks note, the Greco-Roman letter was a substitute for personal presence. See John Ziesler, Pauline Christianity, rev. ed. (Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 1992), 3; Harry Gamble, “Letters in the New Testament and in the Greco-Roman World,” in The Biblical World: Volume 1, ed. John Barton (London and New York: Routledge, 2002), 188-204.

RHETORICAL CRITICISM AND PAUL

23

R HETORICIAN Since Paul is an ancient letter-writer, and thus literate, he must have had some form of education in order to be able to write his letters. As formal education in the first-century Roman context would usually have entailed some form of rhetorical training, comparisons with Greco-Roman rhetorical theory and epistolographic practices are thus viewed as the most adequate avenues to understand Paul’s letters.66 “Greco-Roman” rhetoric, encompassing the art of public oratory as theorized in Aristotle, Quintilian and Cicero and practiced throughout the Roman world has thus become an extremely popular area of research for New Testament scholars. This emphasis has been noticeable since Hans Dieter Betz “introduced or rather claimed to introduce into New Testament Studies” the use of “classical rhetoric and epistolography for the exegesis of Paul’s letters”67 in his commentary on Galatians.68 The subsequent work of classicists such as George A. Kennedy, despite disagreeing with Betz on particular points of interpretation, confirmed the validity of this line of approach to Paul’s letters in the eyes of many.69

66 Stowers takes particular note of the importance of the device of προσωποποιία, a device in which the author assumes the voice of several different figures in an imaginary dialogue (A Rereading of Romans, 1621), and “one of the elementary exercises closely related to learning prose and poetic composition” (“Romans 7.7-25 as a Speech-in-Character (προσωποποιία),” 182). 67 Carl Joachim Classen, Rhetorical Criticism of the New Testament, WUNT, 128 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000; reprint, Boston and Leiden: Brill, 2002), 2. See also 1-28 and the literature cited throughout; reprinted as “St. Paul’s Epistles and Ancient Greek and Roman Rhetoric,” in Mark D. Nanos (ed.), The Galatians Debate: Contemporary Issues in Rhetorical and Historical Interpretation (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2002). See also his “Paulus und die antike Rhetorik,” 13. 68 Hans D. Betz, “The Literary Composition and Function of Paul’s Letter to the Galatians,” NTS 21 (1975): 352-79 (reprinted in Nanos, ed., The Galatians Debate); Galatians: A Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Churches in Galatia, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979). 69 New Testament Interpretation through Rhetorical Criticism (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1984). Kennedy’s earlier work had

24

ABORTION AND THE APOSTOLATE

On the surface this would seem to be a reasonable assumption, and hardly an approach that could be objected to by scholars concerned with the historical realia of Paul’s writings, or with his thought. Who, after all, would object that understanding the literary milieu from which these writings arose is not desirable or necessary? In practice however, there are such widely divergent and mutually contradictory views of Paul’s rhetorical sophistication and adherence to classical rhetorical guidelines, that one wonders whether scholars are even examining the same corpus or speaking of the same author. These differences are far more extreme than simple technical disputes over rhetorical topoi, the genre of rhetoric employed, or the subdivision of an epistle into its rhetorical components, and thus are not to be viewed as the result of expected disputes among scholars. Jerome Murphy-O’Connor, in his fullscale study of Paul writes glowingly about Paul’s stylistic prowess. His vigorous style was reinforced by the careful presentation expected of a well-trained writer. G. A. Kennedy’s assertion that Paul was ‘thoroughly at home in the Greek idiom of his time and in the conventions of the Greek epistles’ is borne out by the evidence of rhetorical arrangement, not only in the organization of whole letters, but also in the parts of 1 Corinthians when he is dealing with different subjects. Manifestly he was so well trained that his skill was no longer conscious but instinctive.70

Yet if one compares the assessment of John Barclay, whose comments on Paul occur in the context of a study of the Mediterranean

involved research into the history of Roman rhetoric, see A History of Roman Rhetoric, 300 B.C.-A.D. 300 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1972). Kennedy sees Galatians as deliberative rhetoric (a species of rhetoric concerned with promoting a certain action or decision), while Betz understands it to be judicial (a species dedicated to settling the particulars of events, usually in the past, as in a court of law). Both of these are drawn from Aristotle’s Rhetoric, in which all speeches are one of three types: judicial, deliberative, or epideictic. Nanos, however, characterizes Galatians as “ironic rebuke” (Irony of Galatians). 70 Jerome Murphy-O’Connor, Paul: A Critical Life (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996), 50 (italics mine).

RHETORICAL CRITICISM AND PAUL

25

Jewish communities during the Greco-Roman period, published the same year as Murphy-O’Connor’s volume, the opposite conclusion is presented in a similarly confident tone. Paul’s education may only be guessed at from the cultural level of his letters and from his autobiographical statements, but the two match each other reasonably well. His letters are written in good, but not polished Greek prose, argumentatively effective but not stylistically grand. He does not give the impression of one who has undergone the literary and rhetorical training which was characteristic of the gymnasium. It seems he had no more than a rudimentary knowledge of Greek literature… While his letters sometimes display popular styles of debate (e.g. diatribe in Romans, and ironic comparison in 2 Cor 1013), they rarely if ever employ the stylized techniques of a trained orator.71

Thus, even if one is concerned with the Greco-Roman rhetorical tradition, Paul’s relationship to it is largely an open question. The divergent views of Barclay and Murphy-O’Connor seem to be ir-

71 John M.G. Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora: From Alexander to Trajan, 323 BCE-117 CE (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996), 383 (italics mine). See also his related, earlier study, “Paul Among Diaspora Jews: Anomaly or Apostate?,” JSNT 60 (1995): 89-120, 105. Barclay asserts that Paul’s level of philosophical sophistication is also rather low. “Compared to Aristeas, Aristobulus and the Alexandrian tradition which reaches its peak in Philo, Paul’s theology is crude in philosophical terms” (106). See also Saldarini, Pharisees, Scribes and Sadducees, 134-43. Saldarini says Paul wrote “Fundamentally good, but not highly literate Greek” (141). Stowers (“Romans 7.7-25 as a Speech-in-Character (προσωποποιία)”) states that “Paul’s Greek educational level is roughly equivalent to that of someone who had primary instruction with a grammaticus or a ‘teacher of letters’ and then had studied letter writing and some elementary rhetorical exercises” (181). Becker (Paul: Apostle to the Gentiles, 52-56) finds Paul “neither linguistically uneven nor harsh” with “apparent” schooling (53); Roetzel (Paul: The Man and the Myth, 22-24) similarly ranks his schooling as “formal but not gymnasium” with “basic literary skills” (23). BDF describes his writing as achieving a “good, sometimes even elegant, style of vulgar Greek”( §3).

26

ABORTION AND THE APOSTOLATE

reconcilable. Either Paul is a well trained rhetorician, or he is not. Barclay’s assessment that although his writings are “argumentatively effective,” they are quite evidently not the work of someone who is so well trained that he instinctually makes unerring use of rhetorical categories is as confident in tone as Murphy-O’Connor’s presentation of the opposite conclusion. Yet even more curiously, these two views are often reconciled in a surprisingly straightforward, if wholly mistaken fashion. Paul, should he lack rhetorical polish as Barclay seems to think, is all the more a rhetorical genius in the eyes of some critics for being effective though unpolished. Steven J. Kraftchick puts it thus: His pragmatic ability suggests to me that, while Paul was rhetorically attuned and effective, he was probably not formally trained as a rhetorician and certainly did not use set patterns of ēthos and pathos argumentation or follow “customary” rhetorical standards of argumentation to structure his letter. His was a rhetoric born of aptitude rather than training. In this regard, he is closer to Cicero’s ideal orator than to Quintilian’s trained students.72

72 Steven J. Kraftchick, “Πάθη in Paul: The Emotional Logic of ‘Original Argumentation,’” in Paul and Pathos, ed. Thomas H. Olbricht and Jerry L. Sumney, SBL Symposium Series (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2001), 39-68, 68. His distinction between Cicero and Quintilian seems itself a trifle contrived, if not simply mistaken. Quintilian’s desire for the early training of students is rooted in the curiously modernsounding assumption that differences in erudition are less often the result of differences in aptitude than of opportunity for training (Inst. 1.Pr.26-27, 1.1.1-3; ET: The Institutio Oratoria of Quintilian, trans. H. E. Butler, LCL, [Cambridge, Massachusetts: 1920; reprint,1980]). “There will be a corresponding variation in actual accomplishment: but that there are any who gain nothing from education, I absolutely deny” (Inst. 1.1.3). He does preface this view, however, by saying that “without natural gifts technical rules are useless. Consequently the student who is devoid of talent will derive no more profit from this work than barren soil from a treatise on agriculture” (Inst. 1.Pr.26). Cicero and Augustine show a preference for the Wunderkind type of student (Doctr. chr. 4.4: “anyone who cannot learn this art quickly can never thoroughly learn it at all”), who certainly re-

RHETORICAL CRITICISM AND PAUL

27

Kraftchick’s solution is intriguing, if not for the reason intended. A far easier solution to the problem, as suggested by Carl J. Classen, may simply be that there is a “difference between rhetoric and epistolography.”73 Nonetheless Classen himself also adds: Anyone who could write Greek as effectively as Paul did must have read a good many works written in Greek, thus imbibing applied rhetoric from others, even if he never heard of any rules of rhetorical theory; so that even if one could prove that Paul was not familiar with the rhetorical theory of the Greeks, it could hardly be denied that he knew it in its applied form.

Similarly, Classen adds, Paul must have “undoubtedly” noticed the rhetorical characteristics of the Old Testament.74 Despite finding a reasonable explanation of the difficulty surrounding Paul’s acquaintance with rhetorical theory, Classen is unable to resist offering observations about Paul’s education similar to Kraftchick’s. Leaving aside the question of Paul’s erudition for a moment, a point upon which rhetorical critics seem unable to agree despite the emphatic “undoubtedly”s and “manifestly”s throughout the literature, one wonders further about the supposedly “revolutionary” nature of rhetorical criticism and its promise, according to scholars like Stowers, to demonstrate the implausibility of many current readings of Paul. One notes first that concern with the literary form and setting of the text is itself a question that has occupied biblical scholarship since the nineteenth century. Concerns with Gattung, as

quires less effort from the instructor. Cicero’s ideal orator is as welltrained as Quintilian’s, he merely affects a plain style at times (De or. 19.69-90; ET: Orator, trans. H. M. Hubbell, LCL [Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1939; reprint,1962]). 73 Classen further notes that “most ancient handbooks of rhetoric do not deal with letters, and where they do, they are content with a few remarks mostly on matters of style. Manuals on letter-writing on the other hand differ substantially from handbooks on rhetoric in content and structure” (Rhetorical Criticism of the New Testament, 6). 74 Ibid., 6. See also Classen’s earlier comments that “sind Rhetorik und Epistolographie nach antikem Verständnis zwei verschiedene Dinge” (“Paulus und die antike Rhetorik,” 13, 13 n. 38).

28

ABORTION AND THE APOSTOLATE

defined largely by its Sitz im Leben, are far from novel approaches.75 Naturally, these typically “form-critical” phrases are not used, particularly since most biblical scholars trace the modern interest in rhetorical criticism to James Muilenburg’s SBL presidential address “Form Criticism and Beyond.”76 The coining of new terminology is

75 Klaus Koch, The Growth of the Biblical Method: The Form-Critical Tradition (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1969). In NT studies Formgeschichte is usually associated with Martin Dibelius, (From Tradition to Gospel [trans. Bertram Lee Woolf; New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1935]), and in Hebrew Bible with Hermann Gunkel (Genesis, tran. Mark Biddle, Mercer Library of Biblical Studies (Macon, Georgia: Mercer University Press, 1997]). The principal difference, of course, is that formcritics often work with selected pericopes of narrative, distinguished chiefly by their genre (e.g., legend, saga, myth, pronouncement story, miracle story, ) while rhetorical critics work with the “text as a whole,” and often with non-narrative materials like prophetic books, epistles, speeches and the like. The emphasis on Sitz im Leben was also due to a low estimation of the influence of individual authors in shaping the Gospels or the narratives of the Hebrew Bible. Dibelius observes that “the personal peculiarities of the composer or narrator have little significance; much greater importance attaches to the form in which the tradition is cast by practical necessities, by usage, or by origin” (From Tradition to Gospel, 1). The estimation of Paul’s individual genius discussed above shows a marked difference in emphasis, if not the complete reorientation claimed, although the division of texts into “rhetorical units” bears more than a passing resemblance to form-criticism’s selection of pericopes. 76 James Muilenburg, “Form Criticism and Beyond,” JBL 88 (1969): 1-18. Aichele et. al. note the same parallel. “If rhetorical situation corresponds to the familiar Sitz im Leben in form-criticism, this new step [rhetorical genre] corresponds to the determination of the literary form (Gattung, genre). But, from the point of view of rhetorical criticism, formcriticism has erred by reducing the life-setting to generic historical contexts, to typical social conventions, and by treating the text as an aesthetic object, as a stock literary device available for use in such typical situations” (The Postmodern Bible, 152). The distinction is overstated though, since the effectiveness of Greco-Roman rhetoric depended heavily on the notion of “typical social situations.” Such fully developed reference works like those Menander of Laodicea were organized entirely along these lines. See Menander Rhetor, ed. and trans. D.A. Russell and N. G. Wilson; OCT; (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1981).

RHETORICAL CRITICISM AND PAUL

29

not by itself a sign of methodological reorientation, however. The different emphases of rhetorical criticism, at least as practiced by scholars like Betz, Kennedy, and Stowers do not fundamentally alter the practice of biblical scholarship as an attempt to understand how the text in question would have been read by its “original” audience. While at times this approach can create new insights,77 it may be asking too much of Greco-Roman rhetorical theory to answer all the questions posed by scholars,78 nor is it always desirable to perform minute analyses at the expense of larger issues. Perhaps it is no wonder that Dunn dismisses this line of inquiry tersely: “it seems to me fairly pointless to argue about whether Paul’s letters are ‘epideictic’ or ‘deliberative’ or something else.” 79 The sheer diversity of views as to Paul’s educational level, and its relationship to his rhetorical polish, is almost bewildering and makes one increasingly skeptical of the larger claims made. That is, how is the reader expected to carefully analyze disputations about where a narratio or proem begins or ends,80 when Paul (and his audience) may not have heard of either, whether as theory or ap-

77 Stowers (A Rereading of Romans, 6-16) in particular notes how early Christian commentators may have read Romans with different understandings of sentence terminations and section breaks, especially given the freedom of a text with little or no punctuation in contrast to modern scholarly critical editions. 78 One need only compare Gager’s enthusiastic endorsements. 79 Theology of Paul the Apostle, 12. This view may be apt, especially given the common assumption that Paul would have freely adapted whatever genre he employed. Cf. the comments of Michael D. Goulder, “Appendix 5: New Critical Approaches,” in Paul and the Competing Mission in Corinth, 268-73. 80 Much is made of the division of a speech into its constituent elements, which for Aristotle is fourfold: 1) proem 2) prothesis 3) pistis 4) epilogos (Rhet. 3.13-19). For Cicero it is fivefold: 1) exordium [proem] 2) narratio [diegesis] 3) partitio/ divisio 4) confirmatio 5) refutio 6) peroratio [epilogos], although it was expanded to six or seven parts with the addition of the partitio/ divisio before the confirmatio. Aristotle’s division is much more basic, each speech only has “to state the case” and “to prove it” (3.13). There is “really” only the prothesis and the pistis in any persuasive speech.

30

ABORTION AND THE APOSTOLATE

plied technique? This question is not irrelevant, for although it is clear that “persuasiveness” is not solely the purview of the welleducated, the claim is that the technical aspects of Greco-Roman rhetoric are directly applicable to Paul, not that they merely confirm that he was a persuasive writer,81 particularly since his persuasiveness is simply assumed by some commentators or stated as a fact beyond dispute. The reader is caught up in a rather vicious circle by much of this material. Because of the status of Paul’s writings as “Scripture” for many readers, there is a very strong disinclination to view Paul’s letters as somehow “lesser” in terms of literary value or worth, or to imply that Paul is perhaps “unlettered,” or worse, only “mediocre” in terms of his educational background. That scholars who admit this hypothetical possibility then often assert that Paul’s “natural” ability makes him even more ideal as a rhetorician has a very strong touch of non-rhetorical irony to it. The notion of a “natural” speaker certainly occurs in the writings of Cicero and Augustine, and one can also profitably compare Augustine’s comments about the preferability of students who learn quickly and naturally. These references should be taken with a grain of salt, however, given their sources. That such ideas are found in the writings of highly trained orators is perhaps a warning that it is merely a rhetorical trope itself. That is to say, the expressed preference for natural ability over artificial learning is not a reference to reality, but merely a reference to an idealized notion of genius. For Augustine,

Classen notes that the question of whether Greco-Roman rhetorical principles aid the modern interpreter in reading Paul, who may reflect broader cultural practices and not active training or conscious use of such principles, and Paul’s actual dependence upon such material, “mir geht es um die zweite Frage” (“Paulus und die antike Rhetorik,” 2 n. 6). This distinction is rarely made, however, even by Classen himself as noted above. Kraftchick follows Classen’s distinction, but references to “Paul’s genius” (“Πάθη in Paul,” 41) strike me as appeals to πάθη on the part of the scholar investigating Paul’s appeals to πάθη. 81

RHETORICAL CRITICISM AND PAUL

31

Paul was not guided by “rules of eloquence,” his “eloquence”82 was the natural product of his wisdom (Doctr. chr. 4.11). Similarly, the assumption that even if Paul is not well educated or well-read, he is nonetheless a genius should give the modern reader pause, as should equally extraordinary claims of Paul’s erudition. Heikki Räisänen would doubtless see these efforts as misguided assertions of Paul’s profundity, and this instinct would seem to be at least partly confirmed by how closely Augustine’s assertions about Paul’s innate, untrained eloquence resemble Classen and Kraftchick’s statements. One also suspects, however, that the views expressed on this subject are not solely based on observations about Paul, but also reflect differing contemporary estimations of the “real value” of formal education. A less-than well educated Paul held to be an extraordinary rhetorician in spite of a lack of formal schooling dovetails rather too comfortably with American anti-intellectualism, and transforms Paul into something like a character out of Good Will Hunting.83 As for Murphy-O’Connor’s estimation of Paul as having been an eager pupil in both Tarsus and Jerusalem, his reconstruction has been similarly critiqued in detail by Canadian scholar Zeba A. Crook for its unconscious modernizing of Paul, although it reflects a different valorizing of formal education than the presentation of Paul as a “natural” rhetor. Of note in Murphy-O’Connor’s depiction of Paul is how thoroughly modern and Western Paul sounds. Here is a Paul who left home after high school to pursue graduate studies, who

82 The biblical writers’ eloquence is “peculiarly their own,” according to Augustine, at least compared with “heathen orators and poets” (Doctr. chr. 4.9). 83 Good Will Hunting (Miramax, 1997). One of the themes the movie sets up is the clear threat posed by its titular “natural genius,” who is firmly working class, to the false posturing and egotism in elite American universities. Needless to say, the natural genius shows up the overeducated. As someone originally from a less than sophisticated rural area, I have some empathy with this sentiment, although I am wary of applying it to Paul.

32

ABORTION AND THE APOSTOLATE would have felt restricted by the lack of opportunities afforded him in Tarsus, who repressed and channelled emotions, and who felt God was beyond rebuke (despite the fact that at least some expressions of Jewish piety, Amos, Job, and the writers of the Psalms, felt no such sense of restriction). Murphy OConnor’s unselfconscious use of psychoanalysis to work in reverse from Paul’s rage against early Christians to an earlier trauma and repressed emotions clearly implies his position that Paul was no different from modern people.84

Of course, Crook further observes, “‘graduate studies’ is not Murphy-O’Connor’s term, but it is essentially what he implies.”85 Despite claims concerning the importance of rhetorical criticism, it has, it seems, led scholars down paths previously trodden. Paul’s erudition or lack thereof are decided on grounds quite remote from the linguistic register of his letters, often through vague reference to the emotional power of his writing or, more often, the simple assertion of his persuasiveness. One thus cannot help but regard the presence of terms like “manifestly” or “obviously” in descriptions of Paul’s rhetorical training, or lack of training, with suspicion. Rhetorical criticism, at least in reference to the Greco-Roman tradition, has provided a different set of tools with which to approach the text, but it is questionable whether its results are as revolutionary as is occasionally claimed. A chief example is Stanley Stowers. Although his analysis of Rom. 7 is informative and allows for a greater understanding of the rhetorical device employed (“speech-in-character”) and its history of interpretation, it had long been argued by a number of scholars that the “I” in Rom. 7 is not to be understood as an autobiographical statement from Paul himself. This conclusion may not have been universally accepted, given the weight of the reading given this passage by Augustine, nor has

84 Zeba A. Crook, Patronage, Loyalty, and Conversion in the Ancient Mediterranean, BZNW, 130 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2004), 36. Dr. Crook kindly allowed me access to an advance draft of this study while it was in still in press. 85 Ibid., 36 n. 47. Crook also specifically criticizes MurphyO’Connor’s notion that Paul was a bereaved widower based on 1 Cor. 7:8.

RHETORICAL CRITICISM AND PAUL

33

it necessarily stopped scholars from reading it within an introspective framework. But although the technique employed is clearer, and Stowers has incorporated the views of non-Augustinian readings (like those of Jerome and Origen), the understanding of the text is in some respects little changed since Werner Kümmel’s work in the 1920s.86

2) T HE N EW R HETORIC There is, however, an interest in “rhetorical” criticism that does not limit itself to the historical context of Paul’s writings or GrecoRoman rhetorical practice. Sometimes this approach is associated with the “New Rhetoric,” a theoretical approach to argumentation aligned with critical theoretical perspectives in which classical definitions and categories, though important, are not determinative.87 Paul’s letters, from this approach, are merely one aspect of his attempts to persuade or control a whole range of social dynamics among the recipients of his letters,88 or are one component of his efforts to assert a form of personal power and control over his audience, including his unintended modern readership.89 Such an

86 Kümmel, Römer 7 und die Bekehrung des Paulus (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1929). See the discussion in Donaldson, Paul and the Gentiles, 14, 311 nn. 45-49. Donaldson observes that this position among modern scholars goes back even further to William Wrede. 87 Chaim Perelman and L. Olbrechts-Tyteca, The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation, trans. John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1969). “The object of the theory of argumentation is the study of the discursive techniques allowing us to induce or to increase the mind’s adherence to the theses presented for its assent” (4). This definition suspends judgment concerning evaluation of the theses in question. Cf. Nanos, Irony of Galatians, 49-72; and the discussion in Chapter 6. 88 Antoinette Clark Wire, The Corinthian Women Prophets: A Reconstruction through Paul’s Rhetoric (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995). See also Aichele et al., The Postmodern Bible, 140-86; Castelli, Imitating Paul. 89 Sandra Hack Polaski, Paul and the Discourse of Power, Gender, Culture, Theory, 8, The Biblical Seminar, 62 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999).

34

ABORTION AND THE APOSTOLATE

approach notes that while the notion that persuasion within the context of a social relationship adheres to formal rules is overly simplistic, the implicit assumption of many scholars of the “rightness” or “correctness” of Paul’s views, aims, or methods is as much an obstacle as rarified notions of formalized rhetorical practice.90 The New Rhetoric’s own guarded attitude towards the role of “truth” claims in argumentation,91 combined with studies of Paul’s letters that question the naturalness of the “particular set of power relations”92 articulated in those writings, allow a slightly different view of Paul to emerge. One significant example of this approach is Antoinette Clark Wire’s study of the women prophets in Corinth.93 Wire engages openly and skillfully with the analytical tools derived from Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca’s New Rhetoric, attempting to overcome the basic obstacle that assumptions of Paul’s authority poses for modern readers attempting to reconstruct his audience and interlocutors.94 Yet this study is ultimately concerned with a historical reconstruction of one very particular component of Paul’s original audience. Although not as directly associated with the New Rhetoric, Elizabeth Castelli’s work in Imitating Paul (highlighted in The Postmodern Bible) falls into a similar category. Castelli focuses solely on Paul’s use of the classical trope of mimesis95 as filtered through the

90 See Matlock’s remarks about James Dunn’ s qualified endorsement of a hermeneutics of personal involvement (cf. Theology of Paul the Apostle, 8). Matlock writes that “the only ‘reaction’ evident in Dunn is against a ‘Lutheran’ reading of ‘justification by faith’ and against certain forms of evangelicalism—but never against Paul” (“Sins of the Flesh and Suspicious Minds,” 70 n. 9). 91 Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca, The New Rhetoric, “§16. Facts and Truths,” 67-70. 92 Castelli, Imitating Paul, 15. 93 Wire, The Corinthian Women Prophets, 1-11. 94 Ibid., 9-11. 95 Cf. Aichele et al., The Postmodern Bible, 139-44. Castelli’s work appears in the chapter on “Poststructuralist Criticism.” A more traditional approach to Paul’s presentation of himself as a “model” for his audience

RHETORICAL CRITICISM AND PAUL

35

theoretical lens of French theorist Michel Foucault, offers an example of the broadening application of the term rhetoric to “refer to the general rhetoricity of the text itself, its perspectival nature, its political tone.”96 Although she concentrates on a “traditional” Greco-Roman trope, the exhortation to imitation, her description of Paul’s rhetoric and its effects upon his audience stands in stark contrast to the tone of portraits like that of Murphy-O’Connor. Paul’s discourse of mimesis uses rhetoric to rationalize and shore up a particular set of social relations or power relations within the early Christian movement. His use of the notion of mimesis, with all its nuances, reinforces both Paul’s own privileged position and the power relations of the early Christian communities as somehow “natural.”97 [The ideology of mimesis] constructs the early communities within a hierarchical economy of sameness which both appropriates the members of the early communities and reinscribes Paul’s privileged position as natural…[the social effect of Paul’s rhetoric can be seen] as a reinscription of imposed power relations as natural within the emerging social formation of early Christianity.98

The end result of this maneuvering is a silencing of any objections to the view that “in short, there is Paul’s truth, or there is no truth.”99 Castelli’s study attempts to “take seriously the ideological dimensions of Paul’s writings” and the elision of “claims to truth with truth itself” in the study of Paul.100 One cannot doubt, given the perspectives reviewed above, that biblical scholars often make claims about Paul and his letters that cannot always be supported in a straightforward manner. Nor can one doubt that many scholars

can be seen in Brian Dodd, Paul's Paradigmatic ‘I’: Personal Example as Literary Strategy, JSNTSup, 177 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999). 96 Castelli, Imitating Paul, 54. 97 Ibid., 116. 98 Ibid., 117. 99 Ibid., 129. 100 Ibid., 15.

36

ABORTION AND THE APOSTOLATE

show a propensity to favor or privilege Paul’s views, and Castelli is far less willing than most to accept simply his claims to being a “mediating figure through whom the community might gain access to salvation.”101 Also, Castelli’s understanding of the mechanisms through which authority is configured in Paul’s letters is sophisticated and reflects a very comprehensive theoretical understanding of the difficulty in studying the relationship between discourse and power, even giving due attention to the danger of anachronism.102 The real difficulties with Castelli’s study stem not so much from its methodological orientation as from the impressions given by her conclusions. Castelli is well aware that her approach does not address questions of what Paul meant or intended to mean when he wrote,103 and that her line of inquiry looks at Paul’s writings as more than a “historical artifact” and that one needs to “think beyond the first century.”104 She has also made a case for the significance of mimesis in the “larger textual world” from which Paul’s texts are drawn, but the delineation of that larger textual world is precisely the problem. Despite her own warnings, it seems that she often makes claims of intentionality on Paul’s behalf. Paul “attempts to persuade,” Paul “asserts a claim to pastoral power,” Paul “attributes superior value to the superordinate figure,” and it is “Paul’s pastoral power” that he uses with “explicit objectives.”105 Now these descriptions of the discourse in Paul’s letters and its objectives sound very much like claims of intentionality, whether or not one refers to them as such. They also sound very much like historical claims about Paul’s audience and early

101 Ibid., 96. One need only compare the tepid comments on Castelli’s work of Witherington, III, “Contemporary Perspectives on Paul,” 262. 102 “There exists a danger in appropriating these notions from Foucault’s studies, in that he is dealing specifically with a modern configuration of power and institutions. It is not self-evident that such categories transfer usefully to the context of the Hellenistic and Roman world” (Ibid., 45-46). 103 Ibid., 120-1. This question is “irrelevant” to her study (121). 104 Ibid., 119, 121. 105 Ibid., 122-3.

RHETORICAL CRITICISM AND PAUL

37

Christianity, which is the second problem with Castelli’s adherence to her model. One could reasonably propose that Paul’s writings are a contribution “to the broader Western enactment of sameness and resistance to difference,”106 or that they are a “continuouslyproducing source of meanings as timely and urgent now as at first writing.”107 But claiming that early Christianity “consciously articulated a new truth,”108 seems to be as strictly historicist an assertion as can be made. Similarly, to employ Foucault’s notion of pastoral power requires an institution, in this case the ekklêsia, which does not yet exist. Now Castelli claims a unified ekklêsia is an “emerging and singular ideal in New Testament texts,”109 just as a unified Christianity itself exists, even if only in “nascent gestures” in Paul’s writings.110 The historical element, combined with her fluctuation between “later” Christianity, “early” Christianity, and “Christianity,” despite claims that this style is an attempt to create an “image of diffusion and variety,”111 gives one the impression of a much more monolithic institutionalization than is imaginable in discussing Paul.

Ibid., 127. Ibid., 121. 108 Ibid., 46. 109 Ibid., 50. Cf. The more precise location of this ideal in Aichele et al., The Postmodern Bible, 142: “Foucault has studied institutions such as hospitals and prisons, but for the study of the New Testament the pertinent institution is the ekklesia, the church (Castelli, 1991a: 48). Although it appears that no unified institution bearing that name existed in the period with which we are concerned, the image of a unified institution is present nonetheless as a nascent ideal in certain New Testament texts (notably, the Pastoral Epistles).” The Postmodern Bible’s page referencing would be more accurate if it indicated p. 50 in Castelli’s work, given the nearverbatim reproduction of this paragraph from that page. The “ideal” is nascent now, not Paul’s “gestures”, and the original text holds the lack of a unified institution as an “established” datum of scholarship rather than an appearance, but the passage appears to have been reproduced with virtually no changes. 110 Castelli, Imitating Paul, 55. 111 Ibid. 106 107

38

ABORTION AND THE APOSTOLATE

This “image of diffusion” creates further problems, such as the observation that Paul uses his “privileged” status. For a modern Christian, Paul’s voice is “privileged” in a very different manner than would have possible for an “early” Christian, and, despite the scholarly tendency to label other voices as simply Paul’s “opponents,”112 that very labeling makes it hard to imagine any presentation of Paul that viewed his privileged claims as uncontested within his own writings. For whom is the decision between “Paul’s truth or no truth”? For whom is his position privileged? Perhaps for modern Christians, but certainly not “early” Christians.113 Paul only occupies a “privileged” position for those who accept his claims, which may include many modern scholars, but certainly does not include all early Christians. Castelli’s study, despite her taking a more critical attitude to the current effects of Pauline discourse, in the end perhaps still gives Paul’s claims entirely too much credit.114

O VERVIEW : R HETORIC , P AUL THE “C ONVERTED ” A POSTLE , AND THE G ENTILE M ISSION There is much more cross-pollination at play among the various methods discussed than is apparent at a first glance, particularly if one understands “rhetoric” as a reference to a wide range of discursive practices, encompassing various forms of “power” and persuasion. This understanding allows approaches to the Pauline writings like Imitating Paul to be extremely important, even when flawed in their particulars. Although my interest is also ultimately in the historical question of Paul’s conversion and his mission to the

Aichele et al., The Postmodern Bible, 143. Castelli poses a set of complicated questions concerning whether there was “an inherent reason why the early Christian movements needed to develop ultimately into a singular, unitary, and monolithic utopian picture of singular salvation? Is this drive toward a unitary, transcendent ideological focus coterminous with the Christian message in particular?” (Imitating Paul, 130). One might be tempted to respond with a simple “yes.” Paul’s belief in the imminent return of Jesus certainly would create such a focus, at least for early Pauline Christianity. 114 A basic barrier for all Pauline scholars, according to Wire. 112 113

RHETORICAL CRITICISM AND PAUL

39

Gentiles, the advantages of employing a broader approach to the text outweigh any concerns for methodological purity. The formal categories of Paul’s rhetoric, after all, matter less than the insight into his correspondence as an argument for his version of the “truth,” a version that often makes extraordinary claims concerning Paul himself, as the self-proclaimed “apostle of the Gentiles.” The emphasis of this more eclectic method is not entirely a recent creation of critical theory, although its results may differ quite radically from earlier scholarship. Long before Castelli or The Postmodern Bible, Pauline scholars noted that Paul often seems concerned with issues of power and “authority,” in particular his understanding of his personal authority as an apostle.115 The notion of what exactly this authority is, its acquisition, its representation in his writings, and what it implies in the context of his apostolic claims are all hotly debated topics, but all are associated with this central concern for “apostolic authority.”116 Despite the great variety of related issues, few scholars would contest the centrality of the concern over authority and apostolicity in the Pauline corpus as

K. H. Rengstorf, Apostleship, trans. J.R. Coates, Kittel Bible Key Words, 6 (London: Adam and Charles Black, 1952). See Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle, 21-23, 571-80. In his preface he notes that the choice of his title was a reflection of the importance of this topic. “Paul himself had one title which he prized above all others and which indeed he insisted on as his most regular self-designation when introducing himself to the recipients of his letters. That was ‘apostle.’ The term was also distinctive within Christianity, and sufficiently well known beyond. And thus the matter was resolved. Only one title would do: The Theology of Paul the Apostle” (xvii). J. Beker writes “Paul’s claim to be an apostle is so important to him because it authorizes him to be an authentic, Christ-appointed interpreter of the gospel” (Paul the Apostle: The Triumph of God in Life and Thought [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980], 5). 116 Most concentrated is John Howard Schütz, Paul and the Anatomy of Apostolic Authority, SNTSMS, 26 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975). Schütz’s approach makes use of sociological theory, in particular Max Weber’s notion of charisma (a spontaneity ultimately subject to Veralltäglichung, routinization), to analyze the concept of “apostolic authority” in Paul’s letters. He thus carefully distinguishes between “power” and “authority,” with the former being the “interpretation” of the latter. 115

40

ABORTION AND THE APOSTOLATE

a whole,117 whether one was inclined to view Paul’s notions or claims sympathetically,118 with reservation, or even with suspicion.119 Many of the attempts at persuasion in Paul’s writings seem to rely explicitly upon this authority, or are attempts to emphasize (some would say force) its recognition. One may well ask precisely how this issue of apostolic authority bears upon the question of the Gentile mission, despite Paul’s designation of himself as “apostle” to the Gentiles. Of particular concern is the practical consideration of space, since, as James Dunn observes, “to tackle the subject properly would require analysis of more or less everything Paul wrote.”120 One response is simply that Paul himself clearly indicates a connection between his becoming an apostle and his mission to the Gentiles (Gal. 1:15-17), while a second rationale could be sought in the similar, if not identical focus of much recent scholarship.121

117 Beker states that “he has an acute sense of authority and of territorial rights over his mission field” ((Paul the Apostle, 4). See Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle, §21.1, §21.2 (565-80). On “apostleship,” see K. H. Rengstorf, “ἀποστέλλω / ἀπόστολος,” TDNT 1:398-447; cf. also the one-volume earlier ET, Apostleship; J. Andrew Kirk, “Apostleship Since Rengstorf: Towards a Synthesis,” NTS 21 (1975): 249-64; Schuyler Brown, “Apostleship in the New Testament as an Historical and Theological Problem,” NTS 30 (1984): 474-80; Ernest Best, “Paul’s Apostolic Authority—?” JSNT 27 (1986): 3-25; Jerry W. McCant, “Paul’s Thorn of Rejected Apostleship,” NTS 34 (1988): 550-72; See also Crook, Patronage, Loyalty, and Conversion, 222-4, 222 n. 29, and the literature cited there. 118 Schütz, Paul and the Anatomy of Apostolic Authority. Dunn states that “we have to recognize a significant degree of restraint in Paul’s exercise of authority” (The Theology of Paul the Apostle, 575). 119 Castelli, Imitating Paul; Cf. Wire, The Corinthian Women Prophets, 11. 120 Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle, 572. 121 Watson, Paul, Judaism and the Gentiles; Donaldson, Paul and Gentiles; Kim, Paul and the New Perspective. There has also been more general interest in the possible phenomenon of Jewish proselytizing activity during this period, often used to contextualize, prove, or disprove conjectures surrounding Paul’s activity. See Scot McKnight, A Light Among the Gentiles: Jewish Missionary Activity in the Second Temple Period (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991); Martin Goodman, Mission and Conversion: Proselytizing in the Religious

RHETORICAL CRITICISM AND PAUL

41

There is agreement that Paul understood his call as a commission to bring a law-free gospel to the Gentiles, but there is no consensus as to whether Paul’s view of the law derived from his conversion experience and thereafter remained constant or developed out of his conflicts with other missionaries.122

As Terence Donaldson notes, in the “traditional” view of Paul, Paul’s interest in a Gentile mission was viewed as “axiomatic.”123 Nineteenth-century scholars like F. C. Baur simply saw such an interest as a natural expression of a universalist Christianity overcoming the confines of a particularist Judaism. The “New Perspective,” and the accompanying change in scholarly perceptions about Judaism no longer leave this interpretation as a live option,124 and as Donaldson notes there is now a need to explain Paul’s convictions concerning the Gentiles.125 Donaldson’s attempt, however, like the efforts of many other scholars working in dialogue with the New Perspective, expends a great amount of exegetical energy upon the whole of Paul’s corpus, giving special attention to Romans. This emphasis is understandable, given the prominence of this epistle within Paul’s writing, but it also bears the potential to broaden the discussion beyond what is manageable, or even desirable. Generalizing Dunn’s statements on Paul’s apostolic self-conception, one could also potentially mine

History of the Roman Empire (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994); Jostein Ådna, Hans Kvalbein, eds., The Mission of the Early Church to Jews and Gentiles, WUNT, 127 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000). 122 William S. Campbell, review of Jouette M. Bassler, Navigating Paul: An Introduction to Key Theological Concepts (RBL 08/2007: www.bookreviews.org). 123 Donaldson, Paul and the Gentiles, 4. 124 Alan F. Segal, “Universalism in Judaism and Christianity,” in Paul in His Hellenistic Context, 1-29. 125 Donaldson, Paul and the Gentiles. See also “Israelite, Convert, Apostle to the Gentiles: The Origin of Paul’s Gentile Mission,” in Longenecker, The Road from Damascus, 62-84. Donaldson’s solution, in brief, is that Paul preached full conversion to Judaism, including circumcision, before Damascus. That is, he had a prior interest in preaching to Gentiles, and Christ replaced Torah as the central component of this preaching.

42

ABORTION AND THE APOSTOLATE

every verse Paul wrote in investigating the topic of the Gentile mission as well, particularly given how intertwined it is with other issues.126 A strangely similar methodological warning comes from Francis Watson, who provides a theory concerning the origin of Paul’s conception of the Law by reference to the Gentile mission. Watson explicitly connects Paul’s view of the Law to the Gentile mission, and feels that the one explains the other. If we are to understand Paul’s view of the law and of Judaism correctly, our starting-point should not be the complex theoretical discussion of the law found in his letters, but the situation in the early church underlying these discussions. It is obvious that there is a close link between Paul’s statements about the law and the mission to the Gentiles, and this suggests that the origins of the former are to be found in the origins of the latter.127

Watson, however, wants to shift towards an entirely sociological view of Paul’s writings in this study as a way out of the theoretical and exegetical morass discussed above, beginning where Donaldson’s study aims to end.128 I, on the other hand, prefer to begin by limiting the amount of textual material under focused consideration. Following Dunn’s cautionary statements about examining every statement of Paul’s, I will defer to the similarly reasonable assessment of Albert Schweit-

126 One could expand Dunn’s observation to just about any facet of Pauline scholarship, such as the Law, faith, works of the Law, and so on. His warning is intriguing, especially in light of his own rather prolific scholarly activity. 127 Watson, Paul, Judaism and the Gentiles, 23 (italics mine). 128 That is, one seeks to explain Paul’s views on the Law through the Gentile mission, while the other seeks to explain the Gentile mission itself. Watson makes use of sociological models patterned on the stages of development from a “reform movement into sect” (Ibid., 19), and the ideological defense of its separateness from the parent community. He sees three ways in which the latter occurs: denunciation of the sect’s opponents, antithesis (the perceived gulf between the sect and their opponents), and the self-legitimating reinterpretation of the whole community’s religious traditions (39-40).

RHETORICAL CRITICISM AND PAUL

43

zer. Schweitzer noted with his usual critical acumen many years ago, in reference to Paul’s nineteenth-century interpreters, that merely finding a place to file each and every verse of Paul’s does not by itself explain anything.129 John Gager similarly notes that the selection of any passage from the Pauline corpus as a starting point for analysis is fraught with difficulty, even though it is a necessity of interpretation, and that what requires explanation is “why particular beginning points are consistently preferred over others.”130 First, in investigating Paul’s presentation of himself as apostle to the Gentiles, one notes that Paul speaks explicitly of his call or appointment as an “apostle” only in a very limited number of verses (Gal. 1; 1 Cor. 9:1; 15), commonly referred to as his “conversion.”131 The close relationship between references to Paul’s vision of the risen Jesus, with its implicit and explicit comparisons to the experiences of the “other” apostles, and his notion of apostolic status intimately connects Paul’s “conversion” with his understanding of being an apostle.132 The close association between

Schweitzer, Paul and His Interpreters: A Critical History, trans. William Montgomery (London: Adam and Charles Black, 1912; reprint,1948). “In these [nineteenth century] works the Apostle’s statements are quoted one after another, and developed in his own words. The authors think they have discharged their task when they have so arranged the course of the investigation that all important passages can be respectably housed” (36-37, italics mine). 130 Gager, The Origins of Anti-Semitism, 204-5. Daniel Boyarin has called this the “one of the sharpest and clearest expositions of a simple hermeneutical principle I have ever seen” (A Radical Jew, 6). Similarly, Castelli’s Imitating Paul has a sharpened textual focus with a clear point of departure that allows her argument to develop more fully. 131 Alan F. Segal, Paul the Convert: The Apostolate and Apostasy of Saul the Pharisee (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1990); Larry W. Hurtado, “Convert, Apostate or Apostle to the Nations: The ‘Conversion’ of Paul in Recent Scholarship,” SR 22 (1993): 273-84, 279-84. See also Crook, Patronage, Loyalty, and Conversion for a a perspective in sharp antithesis to Segal. 132 Despite the cautious tone of some recent scholarship, the use of the term “conversion” still occurs among scholars in reference to Paul. Beginning with Krister Stendahl’s Paul Among Jews and Gentiles and Other Essays (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976), the recognition of Paul’s use of 129

44

ABORTION AND THE APOSTOLATE

Paul’s conversion and his claims to apostolic status renders interpretations of those claims difficult, filtered as they are through many other issues, but as will be discussed in the next chapter, many scholars find a “close link” between Paul’s claim to be an apostle, his mission to the Gentiles, and the Damascus experience. At a first glance this would seem to add yet one more element to Watson’s already ambitious aim at explaining his attitude to the Law, but given that there are far fewer references to the “Damascus event” within the Pauline corpus, it seems preferable, if not also more sensible, to start there rather than with the Law. As analysis of Gal. 1:15-17 will demonstrate, Paul himself is eager to stress the centrality of Damascus in describing the origin of his mission to the Gentiles, and whatever “apostolic authority” may have meant for Paul, it also finds its origin at Damascus.

“prophetic call” language has replaced some of the talk of “conversion.” See Pieter F. Craffert, “Paul’s Damascus Experience as Reflected in Galatians 1: Call or Conversion?” Scriptura 29 (1989): 36-47. Hurtado, “The ‘conversion of Paul,” 274-6; Bruce Corley, “Interpreting Paul’s Conversion—Then and Now,” in The Road from Damascus, 1-17.

2 GALATIANS 1:15-17, CONVERSION, AND THE GENTILES “when he who had set me apart from my mother’s womb, and called me through his χάρις… revealed his Son to me”

Scholarly discussion of Galatians 1-2 revolves chiefly around three issues: Paul’s representation of his conversion/call experience, the relation of this experience to his Gentile mission (Gal 1:15-17), and the understanding of Paul’s “apostolic” status that this passage implies, in particular the issue of this status in comparison to the “other” apostles. These three topics are intertwined closely with other standard points of debate, especially the identity of Paul’s opponents, and are in large measure the most crucial factors at play in assessing the most likely candidates for that role (or roles). In examining these issues, however, one must keep two important matters in mind. The scholarly opinions concerning the meaning of the passage and its implications are quite varied and numerous, and their sheer volume (as well as keeping them straight) provides its own challenge. The second matter is inherently more difficult, inasmuch as it deals less with scholarly views and more with scholarly tendencies. It is not, however, intangible, or so subtle and nuanced a tendency as to be unremarkable or to pass unnoticed, forming a crucial part of the scholarly understanding of Gal. 1:15-17. As discussed earlier, scholarly discussions of Paul are rarely, if ever, devoid of other agendas or interests. Nor do they often diverge from one another as much as is claimed, especially with respect to carrying these external agendas or concerns. Whether Gaston’s consciously theologically motivated “two-covenant” reading, or Castelli’s critical questions about the relationship between monolithic, hegemonic ideologies and Christianity itself, scholars are rarely concerned solely with issues located uniquely in Paul’s writings. In and of itself, there is nothing unusual in this concern. However, I also ob45

46

ABORTION AND THE APOSTOLATE

served above that Castelli’s work followed a peculiar tendency, given her generally critical stance, to give some of Paul’s claims too much credence, all while being extremely critical of others.133 This tendency is not an isolated one, and perhaps given some of the views discussed above should hardly come as a surprise, yet there is nonetheless something curious about the precise pattern of this tendency to combine critical perspectives with credulity. During the discussion below one will see that, regardless of the specific views proposed concerning the origins of Paul’s Gentile mission, most scholars find it difficult to rely too heavily or obviously upon Paul’s statement in Galatians 1:15-17. Although Paul explicitly connects his mission to the Gentiles with his apokalypsis of Jesus, scholars nonetheless strive to find an additional element (a mysterious “something else”) that helps to explain Paul’s Gentile mission. Simultaneously, and it is the simultaneity that makes this tendency curious, many of the same scholars give Paul’s descriptions of his apostolic status or his interactions with the “other” apostles the benefit of the doubt. That is not to say that they view his statements on the latter “uncritically,” accepting Paul’s word on every detail or adhering to the text as simply representing “the truth” of the situation, but they do accept Paul’s general stance and understanding as more or less correct. This scholarly tendency to emphasize the trustworthiness of one component of the first two chapters of Galatians while downplaying another is an underlying theme of the discussion below.

“D AMASCUS ”: ITS C ONNECTION AND T HEOLOGY

TO

P AUL ’ S M ISSION

When searching for the origins of Paul’s convictions about God’s plan for the Gentiles, his perception of his own role in that plan, and thus the origins of his theology of the law vis-à-vis the Gentiles, scholars often look to “Damascus” as a defining moment,134

Cf. the comments on this tension in Wire, The Corinthian Women Prophets, 10. 134 Christian Dietzfelbinger, Die Berufung des Paulus als Urpsprung seiner Theologie, WMANT, 58 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag); Lon133

GALATIANS 1:15-17

47

even though Paul speaks about his “conversion” in a very small number of passages: 1 Corinthians 9 and 15, Galatians 1, and Philippians 3.135 Two of these are rather indirect references, merely affirming the experience or the change it wrought and not dwelling upon any particular details. In the passage in Philippians, Paul writes about his lie prior to the Damascus experience in order to contrast it with his post-Damascus life, as well as scoring rhetorical points about his “blameless” (ἄµεµπτος) behavior with respect to keeping the Law. “If anyone else has reason to be confident in the

genecker, ed., The Road from Damascus, cf., “The Impact of Paul’s Conversion on His Understanding of Jesus: A Realized Hope, a New Commitment, and a Developed Proclamation,” in Studies in Paul, Exegetical and Theological, NTM, 2 (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2004), 1-27; Seyoon Kim, Paul and the New Perspective: Second Thoughts on the Origin of Paul’s Gospel (Grand Rapids and Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2002), 1-84; and earlier The Origin of Paul’s Gospel, WUNT, 2/4 (Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1981). 135 Schütz describes them as “functionally, at least” (Paul and the Anatomy of Apostolic Authority, 133 n. 1) the same vision. Knox only finds three references to Paul’s conversion in his letters; Galatians 1 and the two references in 1 Corinthians (Chapters, 113-19). Some scholars add the experiences described in 2 Corinthians 12 (see the discussion in William Baird, “Vision, Revelation, and Ministry: Reflections on 2 Cor 12:1-5 and Gal 1:11-17,” JBL 104 (1985): 651-62). Alan Segal adds Romans 10:2-4 and 2 Corinthians 3-5 (Paul the Convert, 12-14). Similarly, Dietzfelbinger adds the reference to the “knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ” from 2 Cor. 4:6 (Die Berufung des Paulus, 49-51), as does Karl Olav Sandnes, Paul—One of the Prophets? A Contribution to the Apostle’s SelfUnderstanding, WUNT, 2/43 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1991), 131-45 and, much earlier, Hans Joachim Schoeps, Paul: The Theology of the Apostle in the Light of Jewish Religious History, rev. and trans. Harold Knight (London: Lutterworth Press, 1961), 54; cf. Kim, Paul and the New Perspective, 165-213. Dietzfelbinger admits this view “ist umstritten” and discusses the likely allusion to Genesis 1 and “die Erschaffung des Lichtes” (Die Berufung des Paulus, 49-50), while arguing for its inclusion. All of these are suggestions that require extensive argumentation, however, and it seems best for the moment to stay with the generally acknowledged references. See also Gager, “Some Notes on Paul’s Conversion,” NTS 27 (1981): 697-704, 698.

48

ABORTION AND THE APOSTOLATE

flesh, I have more… Yet whatever gains I had, these I have come to regard as loss because of Christ” (Phil. 3:4, 7). He makes no mention of the experience itself, only the “before” and “after” perceptions he has of his life in light of that experience, giving “an impression” of a dramatic shift.136 “Before” Paul was full of zeal for the Law; “after” he regards “all [prior] things” as “σκύβαλα” (Phil. 3:8). Similarly, 1 Corinthians 9:1 merely asserts, in a strophic set of rhetorical questions, that Paul has “seen Jesus, our Lord”: Οὐκ εἰμὶ ἐλεύθερος; Οὐκ εἰμὶ ἀπόστολος; Οὐχὶ Ἰησοῦν τὸν κύριον ἡμῶν ἑώρακα;

This passage is likely also a reference to Paul’s Damascusexperience. Unlike the reference in Philippians, Paul explicitly refers to the experience of “seeing” Jesus. As with the passage in Philippians, however, Paul’s concern is less with describing the event itself than its effects. Paul asserts that he “saw” Jesus, and this assertion is demonstrated by his freedom and status as an apostle.137 His claims to being “free” and “an apostle” rely upon his having “seen” Jesus, and his “proof” of having seen Jesus is precisely that freedom which he proclaims he now has. His utterances are all presented as mutually intertwined, inclusive statements. Once again, however, Paul presents the results of his experience (apostolic freedom and thus authority) without mentioning the experience itself in any detail. Paul’s self-description in 1 Corinthians 15:8 is a much different matter. This text explicitly refers to Paul seeing the risen Jesus in connection with other Resurrection appearances, as well as his previous activity as a persecutor of the Jesus-movement, and will therefore require its own separate, detailed analysis before discuss-

Longenecker, “The Impact of Paul’s Conversion,” 9-10. One should not place too much weight upon it, but note the use of the “emphatic” οὐχί. 136 137

GALATIANS 1:15-17

49

ing it in connection with Galatians 1.138 One or two observations can be made here, however. 1 Corinthians 15 makes reference to “appearances” of Jesus: “to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers and sisters at one time… then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles” (1 Cor. 15:5-7, NRSV). Paul’s own experience is an addendum to this list of prior witnesses, and although he is at pains to parallel his experience with these others, he admits that he is “the least of the apostles” and that his experience thus stands apart from those of the other apostles. This presentation stands in contrast to Galatians 1, where Paul does not represent his revelation as one of a larger group of shared experiences, nor does he differentiate his experience from the other apostles as being “last of all” (1 Cor. 15:8).139 Rather, he asserts that his experiences stand apart from any human element (Gal. 1:1, 11-12) or considerations (Gal. 1:10); he claims not to have consulted with James or Peter for three years (1:17-18), and to have been “unknown by sight to the churches in Judea” (1:22) for some time after his visit to Jerusalem. Given this relative paucity of references, much scholarly attention has been focused upon these two descriptions (Gal. 1:15-17, 1 Cor. 15:8) of his “revelation” of the risen Christ. In Galatians, the letter’s harsh tone and style have served to intensify this interest. As one scholar has put it, his “rather sensational portrayal” and “the dramatic picture” it creates of a “spectacle” that “excites the

1 Cor. 15:8 will be the subject of an upcoming chapter. Bringing these two passages together for comparison or contrast, however, is quite common in Pauline studies. William Baird, “What is the Kerygma? A Study of I Cor 15 3-8 and Gal 1 11-17,” JBL 76 (1957): 181-91; Jack T. Sanders, “Paul’s ‘Autobiographical’ Statements in Galatians 1-2,” JBL 85 (1966): 335-43; Kim, The Origin of Paul’s Gospel, 68-69; Michael Winger, “Tradition, Revelation and Gospel: A Study in Galatians,” JSNT 53 (1994): 65-86, 66-67, 84-86; Johan S. Vos, “Paul’s Argumentation in Galatians 1-2,” HTR 87 (1994): 1-16, 15; reprinted in Nanos, The Galatians Debate. Schütz notes that “Although it is more customary to stress the differences, the similarities between Gal. I and I Cor. 15: 3ff. are rather striking” (Paul and the Anatomy of Apostolic Authority, 135). 139 Kim, The Origin of Paul’s Gospel, 104. 138

50

ABORTION AND THE APOSTOLATE

imagination” has given rise to much scholarly conjecture.140 Also emphasizing this element of drama in the language of Galatians, James Dunn describes the tone of the letter leading up to Paul’s description of the Damascus experience as abrupt and impolite, “one of the fiercest and most polemical writings in the Bible,” noting its pointed omission of standard epistolary courtesies, while J. Louis Martyn describes it as “his most hot-tempered letter.”141 But when God, who had set me apart before I was born and called me through his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son to me, so that I might proclaim him among the Gentiles, I did not confer with any human being, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were already apostles before me, but I went away at once into Arabia, and afterwards I returned to Damascus (Gal. 1:15-17, NRSV). ὅτε δὲ εὐδόκησεν ὁ ἀφορίσας με ἐκ κοιλίας μητρός μου καὶ καλέσας διὰ τῆς χάριτος αὐτοῦ ἀποκαλύψαι τὸν ὑιὸν αὐτοῦ ἐν ἐμοὶ ἵ να εὐαγγελίζωμαι αὐτὸν ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν.

Several issues find their center within this short passage. Those scholars probing the origins of Paul’s “gospel” and his convictions about the Gentiles focus their energies upon the phrase ἵνα εὐαγγελίζωμαι αὐτὸν ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν, and the precise meaning of ἵνα. Now should ἵνα be taken as denoting intentionality or purpose, then it would seem that Paul makes his vision of the risen

D. J. Verseput, “Paul’s Gentile Mission and the Jewish Christian Community: A Study of the Narrative in Galatians 1 and 2,” NTS 39 (1993): 36-58, 36.; Cf. the essays in Mark Nanos (ed.), The Galatians Debate: Contemporary Issues in Rhetorical and Historical Interpretation (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2002). 141 Dunn, The Theology of Paul’s Letter to the Galatians, 1, 21. J. Louis Martyn, “A Law-Observant Mission to Gentiles: The Background of Galatians,” SJT 38 (1985): 307-24, 309; reprinted in Nanos, The Galatians Debate. 140

GALATIANS 1:15-17

51

Christ concomitant with his mission to the Gentiles.142 He saw God’s Son precisely “in order that” he might preach him to the Gentiles.143 Reading thus, Paul seems to associate his “Damascus” experience with his mission to the Gentiles in a very clear, virtually indisputable manner.144 Despite this seemingly clear association, however, many scholars see Paul’s mission to the Gentiles as a later, if still Damascus-dependent, development. This view goes

The distinction between pure final and object clauses in Greek is rather small. Final clauses express “purpose or motive,” while object clauses follow verbs of “striving” (Goodwin and Gulick, Greek Grammar [New Rochelle, New York: Aristide D. Caratzas, 1930; reprint,1992], §1371-1388). This distinction is very subtle in Classical Greek, and in the later koiné becomes even more obscured (BDF §369; Robertson, Grammar, 991-4). 143 Gaston, Paul and the Torah, 70. Gaston views the ἵνα as confirmation that Paul never preached to Jews, but was solely concerned with the Gentiles (Paul and the Torah, 70, 135). He does, however, have more to say on the issue of Paul’s conversion/call. 144 Most scholars recognize this association, even if, as will be discussed, they do not themselves accept it. See Schoeps, Paul, 64-65; F. F. Bruce, Paul: Apostle of the Heart Set Free (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977); in British editions entitled Paul: Apostle of the Free Spirit (Exeter: Paternoster, 1977), 75; Kim, The Origin of Paul’s Gospel; Paul and the New Perspective; Eung Chun Park, Either Jew or Gentile: Paul’s Unfolding Theology of Inclusivity (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2003), 28-29. This understanding has a long history: F. Godet, Introduction to the New Testament: I. The Epistles of St. Paul, trans. William Affleck (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1894), 65-128; see also Jacques Dupont, “The Conversion of Paul, and its Influence on His Understanding of Salvation by Faith,” in Apostolic History and the Gospel: Biblical and Historical Essays presented to F. F. Bruce on his 60th Birthday, ed. W. Ward Gasque and Ralph P. Martin (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970), 17694; Beker, Paul the Apostle, 6-8; Martin Hengel and Anna Maria Schwemer, Paul Between Damascus and Antioch: The Unknown Years, trans. John Bowden (Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 1997), 47, 91-105 (although Paul “rethinks” the status of the Law, the process starts with Damascus). See also the summary “The Attitude of Paul to the Law in the Unknown Years between Damascus and Antioch,” in Paul and the Mosaic Law, ed. James Dunn (Grand Rapids and Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2001), 25-51. 142

52

ABORTION AND THE APOSTOLATE

back to the beginning of modern Pauline scholarship, when F. C. Baur noted that although the revelation and call “were to his mind” the same event, they were nevertheless distinct.145 That is to say, Paul’s words in Gal. 1:15-17 are not merely taken at face value, and although I am not suggesting that scholars should begin by simply accepting Paul’s statement, this scholarly reticence displays certain assumptions about Gal. 1:15-17.

I S P AUL ’ S A CCOUNT IN G ALATIANS R ELIABLE ? C ALL OR C ONVERSION ? It has thus become something of a necessity when discussing this passage for scholars to reiterate that Paul’s interest in presenting his encounter with the risen Jesus is not biographical, but rather that he is also, or solely, concerned with “die Rechtfertigung seines apostolischen Anspruchs.”146 Even should one admit a “biographi-

145 The Church History of the First Three Centuries, 2 vols., 3rd ed., trans. Allan Menzies (London and Edinburgh: Williams and Norgate, 1878), 1:46-47. See also Paul the Apostle of Jesus Christ, His Life and Works, His Epistles and Teachings: A Contribution to a Critical History of Primitive Christianity, 2 vols., 2nd ed., trans. Eduard Zeller, rev. Allen Menzies (London and lineEdinburgh: Williams and Norgate, 1876; reprint, 2 vols. in 1, Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2003). Cf. J.B. Lightfoot, St. Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians: A Revised Text with Introduction, Notes, and Dissertations, 9th ed. (London and New York: Macmillan, 1887), 82-83. Cf. also, Hurtado, “The ‘conversion’ of Paul,” 277; Donaldson, Paul and the Gentiles (see all the material cited 360 n. 3); Johannes Munck, Paul and the Salvation of Mankind (London: SCM, 1959); Beker, Paul the Apostle; Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism; Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People; Becker feels it is “inferred” from his vision of Jesus, but his understanding “transforms” (Paul: Apostle to the Gentiles, 75-76); Nicholas Taylor, Paul, Antioch and Jerusalem: A Study in Relationships and Authority in Earliest Christianity, JSNTSup, 66 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992), 72-73, 84-85. “Paul’s apostolic formation was the product of his association with the church at Antioch, and was subsequently transformed into the apostolic self-conception reflected in his letters” (85). 146 Dietzfelbinger, Die Berufung des Paulus, 97. This is an issue we will return to below. See Stendahl, “Call Rather than Conversion,” in Paul

GALATIANS 1:15-17

53

cal” component to this passage,147 that component has been largely, if not completely, shaped and reworked by concerns that have little if anything to do with “accuracy” in the modern sense of biography.148 Equally, scholars have debated using the term “conversion” in reference to this experience, given that the language of Galatians 1:15-17 also betrays the influence of prophetic texts such as Jeremiah 1:5. Paul’s concerns to present himself as an apostle, the reasoning goes, would outweigh any desire, ability or opportunity he may have had to represent his experience in a manner that would satisfy modern scholars, even granting momentarily the “clearly anachronistic” use of the term autobiography in reference to Paul.149 Moreover, and perhaps most troubling for scholars investigating these problems, is the doubt expressed by Paula

among Jews and Gentiles, 7-27; and the survey of recent materials in Longeneck, “The Impact of Paul’s Conversion.” 147 Bruce, “Further Thoughts on Paul’s Autobiography: Galatians 1:11-2:14,” in Jesus und Paulus: Festschrift für Werner Georg Kümmel zum 70. Geburtstag, 2nd ed., ed. E. Earle Ellis and Erich Gräßer (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978), 21-29. Although Bruce admits the language is “markedly defensive” (21), he feels that Paul “supplies us with valuable biographical information” (22) in this passage. 148 George Lyons, Pauline Autobiography: Toward a New Understanding, SBLDS, 73 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985), 170-6; B. D. Gaventa, “Galatians 1 and 2: Autobiography as Paradigm,” NovT 28 (1986): 309-26. Gaventa argues that the use of autobiographical sketches in GrecoRoman material belongs to the larger tradition of mimetic exhortation, while Lyons notes that Galatians closely resembles “the practice of autobiography in antiquity,” as Paul serves as “a paradigm of the gospel” (“Galatians 1 and 2,” 170-1). See also Nicholas H. Taylor, “Paul’s Apostolic Legitimacy: Autobiographical Reconstruction in Gal. 1:11-2:14,” JTSA 83 (1993): 65-77; Paul E. Koptak, “Rhetorical Identification in Paul’s Autobiographical Narrative Galatians 1.13-2.14,” JSNT 40 (1990): 97-115; reprinted in Nanos, The Galatians Debate. Koptak uses Kenneth Burke’s model of “identification” rather than the model of mimesis that Gaventa finds instructive. 149 Stephen E. Fowl, “Who’s Characterizing Whom and the Difference This Makes: Locating and Centering Paul,” in SBL Seminar Papers, 1993, SBLSP, 32 (Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1993), 537-53, especially 538 n. 7 and the literature cited there.

54

ABORTION AND THE APOSTOLATE

Fredriksen concerning the reliability of “conversion accounts” as a genre. Fredriksen claims that the conversion account is both anachronistic and apologetic: apologetic personally and publicly, for the convert must explain himself to himself and to his audience (his new group; his old group; an opposing group); anachronistic, because the account rendered in the conversion narrative is so shaped by later concerns. The conversion account, never disinterested, is a condensed, or disguised, description of the convert’s present, which he legitimates through his retrospective creation of a past and a self.150

Even if Paul had wanted to give an account of his conversion qua conversion, allowing for a moment the use of the term, even then such an account would only be reliable as a guide to what Paul thought about this experience at the time when he wrote Galatians. That is to say, even if this was a “conversion,” and even if his description of it were a “conversion account,” that account would tell us virtually nothing about either Paul’s pre-conversion views, or the conversion itself.151 Rather, as Alan Segal puts it: “the accounts of Paul’s and other ancient conversions, even the first-person accounts, are retrospective retelling of events, greatly enhanced by group norms learned and appropriated in the years prior to the writing.” Terence Donaldson similarly notes that even modern “statements such as ‘God said to me, “Quit your job and go to seminary”’ usually function as a form of theological shorthand for

150 Paula Fredriksen, “Paul and Augustine: Conversion Narratives, Orthodox Traditions, and the Retrospective Self,” JTS 37 (1986): 3-34, 33. See also Gaventa, From Darkness to Light: Aspects of Conversion in the New Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986), 1-51, 146-52. Gaventa comments that “there is no explanation of Paul’s thinking, no description of an event. Instead we find a sharp contrast between past and present” (From Darkness to Light, 37). She remains more optimistic than Fredriksen about the serviceability of this passage for studying Paul’s conversion, however. 151 Gager also cautions that readers should not “take his retrospective remarks about his conscious attitudes as the sole basis for a definitive interpretation of his conversion” (“Some Notes,” 699).

GALATIANS 1:15-17

55

more complex—and verbally less explicit—processes.”152 This parallels Frediksen’s view, and although it potentially leaves little in Paul’s description that is serviceable for the historian, it serves as a warning against overly optimistic reconstructions.153 As with Alan Segal’s work, however, Frediksen’s use of comparative evidence from later studies of “conversion” has been criticized,154 although Segal’s emphasis upon “the extraordinary change in his religious commitment” has also been lauded as a corrective to a one-sided

152 Segal, Paul the Convert, 29. Donaldson, “The Origin of Paul’s Gentile Mission,” 63. See also Craffert, “Paul’s Damascus Experience,” 42-45. 153 It is not that this cautionary note was new to Pauline scholarship with Fredriksen’s work. J. Sanders had cautioned in 1966 that Gal. 1-2 “may not be reliable” (“Paul’s Autobiographical Statements,” 336) as a guide to Paul’s life or its chronology. “Paul forces certain events in his own past to support a particular theological point… Thus the writings of Paul reject the question frequently brought them by the exegete concerning the historical” (“Paul’s Autobiographical Statements,” 342-3). Similarly, should the claims often made by scholars about the technical rhetorical structure of the passage be taken seriously, (cf. Vos, “Paul’s Argumentation in Galatians 1-2”) this would give one even more reason to find its reliability suspect. But see Hurtado, “The ‘conversion’ of Paul,” 280-1. Craffert feels that Fredriksen’s scholarship serves as additional confirmation that Gal. 1 is best termed a conversion narrative rather than a “call”(“Paul’s Damascus Experience”). He unfortunately refers to Paula Fredriksen as “he” throughout this article, however! 154 Crook, Patronage, Loyalty, and Conversion. Crook’s argument is not that the use of the term “conversion” is itself the problem, but the importing of modern notions and associations (e.g., Segal, Craffert) that the term evokes (Patronage, Loyalty, and Conversion, 16-17). Chief among these anachronistic errors is the use of individualistic language derived from modern psychology, particularly the notion of an introspective self whose “religion” is primarily an individualistic, emotional construct, even when such studies are concerned with the social aspects of conversion. “Paul’s call leads him into a new understanding of loyalty to his patron; conversion and loyalty are here bound up together. Paul’s having been called does not mean he was not converted, because in the system of patronage and benefaction, being called by a patron, whether human or divine, generally leads to a new expression of loyalty and client status, hence a new understanding of conversion” (Patronage, Loyalty, and Conversion, 238).

56

ABORTION AND THE APOSTOLATE

emphasis upon Paul’s post-conversion views as existing in complete continuity with his pre-Damascus world-view.155 The discontinuity would seem to be present even if, as Craffert and Fredriksen note, the language of extraordinary change is typical of postconversion accounts of conversion, and being formulaic, not entirely reliable.156

P AUL ’ S CONVERSION , 1:15

AND THE MEANING ( S ) OF

G AL .

It would seem that for many scholars investigating Paul’s “conversion,” there is significant doubt about the reliability of Gal. 1:15-17, regardless of whether or not it is considered primarily as a conversion account or a claim to apostolic status via a prophetic call. Yet even at a much more basic level of interpretation, there are difficulties for the reader of Gal. 1:15 seeking to understand Paul’s description of the Damascus event and its possible effects upon his Gentile mission. For example, it has been suggested that the standard translations of this passage, and thus all the interpretations built upon them, are simply wrong. A short article published in 1985 by J. Peter Bercovitz proposes a novel translation of the temporal portions of the phrase ὅτε δὲ εὐδόκησεν ὁ ἀφορίσας με ἐκ κοιλίας μητρός μου καὶ καλέσας διὰ τῆς χάριτος αὐτοῦ ἀποκαλύψαι τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ ἐν ἐμοί, ἵνα εὐαγγελίζωμαι αὐτὸν ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν. Bercovitz notes that the use of aorist participles ἀφορίσας and καλέσας could indicate that this passage is not about a conversion to belief in Jesus at all, but that “Paul was already a believer when Christ appeared to him.”157 Bercovitz’s

Hurtado, “The ‘conversion’ of Paul,” 284. Crook describes such language as a notably modern understanding of conversion, “which our culture tends to see as personal, introspective, individualistic, and emotionally tumultuous” (Patronage, Loyalty, and Conversion, 16), in contrast to the Greco-Roman world’s understanding. 156 Gaventa, From Darkness to Light, 36-38. Cf., Longenecker, The Impact of Paul’s Conversion”; Kim, Paul and the New Perspective, 101-127. 157 J. Peter Bercovitz, “Καλεῖν (“To Call”) in Gal 1:15: Evidence that Paul Was Already a Believer When Christ Appeared to Him?” Proceedings: 155

GALATIANS 1:15-17

57

suggestion, though itself problematic, illustrates the difficulties interpreters have with Paul’s words in Gal. 1:15-17 and further illuminates some of the issues mentioned above concerning scholarly views of the passage’s reliability. Despite its appearance in a regional publication, Bercovitz’s proposal drew some attention in the pages of the Journal of Biblical Literature from no less a Pauline luminary than John Knox, as well as in Knox’s updated Chapters in a Life of Paul.158 Bercovitz suggests that καλεῖν has a technical meaning in Paul’s letters, meaning “the effectual call to belief” and that the use of aorist participles in this verse (ἀφορίσας and καλέσας) implies action antecedent to the main verb.159 He acknowledges that the aorist participle does not always carry this meaning, but states that “it is difficult to see how else ἀφορίσας could be taken, and this construction is at least plausible in the case of καλέσας.”160 Bercovitz argues that this construction could mean that Paul’s description of himself in Gal. 1:15-17 is thus not a description of his conversion alone, but is also a description of a completely separate experience that led him to preach to the Gentiles. Reading the participle as antecedent allows for the possibility of a period of time between Paul’s becoming a believer in Jesus (καλέσας) and his ἀποκάλυψις of Jesus, which would then be a separate and distinct event. Bercovitz’s translation would thus stand as a confirmation for those scholars seeking an additional event or incident to explain Paul’s Gentile mission.161

Eastern Great Lakes and Midwest Biblical Societies 5 (1985): 28-38, 28. Bercovitz terms this suggestion a Swiftian “modest proposal” (28). 158 John Knox, “On the Meaning of Galatians 1:15,” JBL 106 (1987): 301-4.; Chapters in a Life of Paul (Revised ed.; Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1987), 55-56 n. 2. 159 Bercovitz, “Καλεῖν in Gal 1:15,” 29. 160 Ibid., 30. This use would be normal for the aorist in Classical Greek (Goodwin and Gulick, §1289), except when “the action of the verb and of the participle is practically one” (Goodwin and Gulick, §1291). 161 See J. Louis Martyn, Galatians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB, 33A (New York: Doubleday, 1997). Martyn’s free translation reads: “God had in fact singled me out even before I was born,

58

ABORTION AND THE APOSTOLATE

As Knox further observes in his response to Bercovitz, it is merely a habit of interpreters to think of the experience Paul describes in Gal. 1:15 as the beginning of Paul’s life “as a believer in Christ.” The lack of recognition “that he never refers to it as such”162 thus makes a suggestion such as that of Bercovitz seem all the more unusual at a first reading, although there may be reasons to consider it. The standard readings of Galatians 1:15-17 differ widely as to the purpose and reliability of Paul’s self-description, and whether or not to refer to it as a “conversion” or “call,”163 but most assume that Paul is referring to the Damascus-event as his conversion to belief in Jesus. As Alan Segal notes: Whenever Paul relates his conversion he also reveals a central aspect of its meaning for him. Not only is his new self entirely dependent on his conversion, his mission comes directly from his conversion as well… Paul’s conversion prompts his mission and derives its authority directly from God’s revelation (apokalypsis) of his son to him. The Greek version is even more compelling than the English, for the mission follows as a purpose clause (hina) on the revelation: “for the exact purpose that I might preach him among the gentiles.” But Paul does not say explicitly that his gentile mission came immediately after his conversion.164

As mentioned above, Segal’s view that modern studies of conversion are helpful rather than an obstacle to understanding Paul have made him subject to criticism in some quarters.165 But his interpretation of this passage is very telling. His reading seems, at first glance, to take Paul’s words rather literally.166 Segal dwells for a

and had called me in his grace. So when it pleased him …” (4). This translation leaves open the reading Bercovitz suggests. 162 Knox, “On the Meaning of Gal 1:15,” 301. 163 Stendahl, Paul Among Jews and Gentiles; Craffert, “Paul’s Damascus Experience.” 164 Segal, Paul the Convert, 13. 165 See Hurtado, “The ‘conversion’ of Paul,” 283-4. 166 Many scholars admit this is the meaning of the phrase. See Kim, The Origin of Paul’s Gospel; Paul and the New Perspective. See also Donaldson,

GALATIANS 1:15-17

59

moment upon the precise meaning of ἵνα, but then immediately admits that Paul does not in fact relate his mission to Damascus so clearly. However, despite this “first-impulse” reading, his immediate admission that Paul does not “explicitly” relate his mission to the gentiles to his conversion experience, even as he toys with the notion, clearly displays an unresolved tension, and also provides fuel for Bercovitz’s suggestion. At a first glance then, Bercovitz seems to be proposing an extremely novel reading that resolves a longstanding problem for Pauline scholars. Scholars offer many competing descriptions of this passage: Paul may be using his Damascus experience to defend his status as an apostle equal to the other apostles,167 he may be defending “his” gospel as he preached it to the Galatians, or he may be attempting to achieve some combination of these options simultaneously.168 In so doing he may also, as Fredriksen, Craffert, and Segal note, be presenting a description that is mostly the result of retrospection and hindsight. But the assumption that he is referring to one event only in Gal. 1:15, the “Damascus” event, is strangely not seen as an issue and is accepted almost without question.169 At

“Zealot and Convert: The Origin of Paul’s Christ-Torah Antithesis,” CBQ 51 (1989): 655-82; Paul and the Gentiles. See also Fabian E. Udoh, “Paul’s Views on the Law: Questions About Origin (Gal. 1:6-2:21; Phil. 3:2-11),” NovT 42 (2000): 214-37. Schweitzer had also observed long ago that this view of Gal. 1:15, though standard, “is not really a necessary inference” (Mysticism, 181). 167 Dunn, The Theology of Paul’s Letter to the Galatians, 22. 168 Schütz, Paul and the Anatomy of Apostolic Authority, 133-5. Schütz notes that Paul’s thought here and in 1 Cor. 15 “involves a radical identification of the gospel and the apostolic agent” (Paul and the Anatomy of Apostolic Authority, 135). That is, content, message, and messenger are all identified to some extent. Dunn also notes that Paul is more concerned with the threat to his gospel than himself (The Theology of Paul’s Letter to the Galatians, 25). 169 Edward De Witt Burton, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians, ICC (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, repr. 1964), 48-50; Heinrich Schlier, Der Brief an die Galater, 12th ed., KEK, (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1962), 52-54; Donald Guthrie, ed., Galatians, Century Bible (London: Nelson, 1969), 68-69; F. F. Bruce, The Epistle of Paul to

60

ABORTION AND THE APOSTOLATE

this point, then, it would seem that Bercovitz is proposing an extraordinarily innovative reading. Closer examination reveals something else, however. What makes reference to the example of Segal particularly apt is that Segal’s own study of Paul seems to assume the origin of Paul’s Gentile mission lies not in the conversion/call-event per se, despite being “prompted” by it, but in his conversion into a Gentile Christian community. Segal explicitly claims that “Paul came from a Pharisaic community and entered a Gentile one.”170 Segal, however, also seems to indicate that Paul’s mission to the Gentiles only arose after a period of unsuccessful preaching among Jewish communities.171 There are criticisms to be made of both suggestions. As Larry Hurtado notes, the first alternative depends upon a notion of a community whose existence is debated, “overlooking that there is no evidence of such gentile Christianity before Paul,”172 and, as

the Galatians: A Commentary on the Greek Text, NIGTC, (Exeter: Paternoster Press, 1982), 92-93; Ronald Y. K. Fung, The Epistle to the Galatians (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1988, reprint,1989), 63-64; Frank J. Matera, Galatians, SP, 9 (Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1992), 57-61; Betz, Galatians, 64-65; Gerhard Ebeling, The Truth of the Gospel: An Exposition of Galatians, trans. David Green (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985), 168. 170 Segal, Paul the Convert, 26. Segal elsewhere speaks of Paul’s “fourteen-year sojourn among gentile Christians” (Paul the Convert, 205). 171 Segal claims that “Paul’s description of himself as the apostle to the gentiles could easily have been the result of his experience of success among gentiles and his rejection among Jews. Evidently there was a period of time when Paul tried less successfully to convince his Jewish brothers” (Ibid., 8). This point of view has been most strongly expressed by Watson, although it also has earlier proponents, and as Schweitzer observed, it agrees with the presentation of Acts even if it is not easily derived from Paul’s writings (Mysticism, 181-2). Watson expressly views Gal. 1:16 as a “later” reflection, and claims that Paul’s Jewish mission “met with so little success that he became convinced that they were subject to divine hardening, and that he was called to preach to the Gentiles instead” (Paul, Judaism and the Gentiles, 30, 175). 172 Hurtado, “The ‘conversion’ of Paul,” 283, 283 n. 41. See also Hans Conzelmann, “Hellenistic Christianity Before Paul,” in History of Primitive Christianity, trans. John E. Steely (Nashville and New York: Ab-

GALATIANS 1:15-17

61

Terence Donaldson observes, even if one allows the possibility of such a community for argument’s sake, it does not then answer the question as to why Paul would “have come to a reassessment of his former convictions concerning the law,” since he could have merely joined a Law-observant Jewish form of Christianity, as it likely formed a majority among the early Christians.173 While one can and should make these criticisms, one should not, however, lose sight of what Segal’s suggestions imply when taken as a whole, particularly given his guarded statement about Paul’s mission coming “directly” from his conversion. Segal’s view first assumes that Galatians 1:15 is referring to a singular event that precipitates Paul’s mission to the Gentiles, but then virtually in the same breath proffers several other avenues of inquiry on the unstated assumption that there must have been some other event, experience, or process that led Paul to undertake his Gentile mission. That the particulars of Segal’s suggestions are problematic is almost beside the point. Of interest here is the ambiguity he expresses concerning the need for an additional explanation in the first place. This brings us back to the seeming novelty of Bercovitz’s suggestion. John Knox’s response to Bercovitz noted (in line with F. C. Baur) that “although it is not improbable” that there was an interval between Paul’s call and his mission work, it remains “unlikely

ingdon Press, 1973), 68-77; Martyn, “A Law Observant Mission to Gentiles.” Roetzel also believes that “there was a gentile mission before Paul (Paul: The Man and the Myth, 46). Paula Fredriksen believes that there was a “law-free” Gentile mission. See “Judaism, the Circumcision of Gentiles, and Apocalyptic Hope: Another Look at Galatians 1 and 2,” JTS 42 (1991):532-64; reprinted in Nanos, The Galatians Debate, 558. So too does Dietzfelbinger who asserts Paul only persecuted such non-Law abiding Christians (Die Berufung des Paulus, 144). 173 Donaldson, Paul and the Gentiles, 268. For the full discussion, see 267-9. Donaldson himself believes that Paul proselytized Gentiles as a Pharisee, based on the reference to “preaching circumcision” in Gal. 5:11, and that his interest in Gentiles was therefore antecedent to Damascus.

62

ABORTION AND THE APOSTOLATE

that Paul was clearly aware of any interval.”174 Bercovitz’s suggestion, however, has the appeal of finding an additional element or interval within the text itself. There are certainly minor technical objections to the details of his view, but to dwell too long on these objections ignores that the issue Bercovitz raises is not simply a grammatical one.175 It seems likely, however, that Bercovitz is simply over-reading two quite different uses of the aorist: one (ἀφορίσας) is temporal, and the other (καλέσας) reflects the type of action.176 The solution also lies beyond syntax, however, as Paul is only aware of being “set apart” and “called” because God re-

Knox, “On the Meaning of Gal 1:15,” 304. Knox elsewhere notes that “the interval between the conversion and the consciousness of apostleship must in any case have been short” (Chapters, 56 n. 2). 175 Although the participle ἀφορίσας must precede the action of the main verb (“who had set me apart”), it does not follow that καλέσας also does. The ἀφορίσας also has the phrase ἐκ κοιλίας μητρός μου to give the reader a strong hint as to its temporal setting (i.e., since before Paul was born, which obviously precedes Damascus), a setting that also precedes καλέσας, however one understands its relationship to εὐδόκησεν. Equally unlikely is the theory that Paul is making an allusion to his Pharisaic origins with this participle. See J. W. Doeve, “Paulus der Pharisäer und Galater i 13-15,” NovT 6 (1963): 170-81. The three steps involved (1. That “Pharisee” derives from #rp; 2. #rp is equivalent to the Greek ἀφορίζειν; 3. Paul’s audience would be aware of both steps 1 and 2) to make the pun work require too much from the reader. Thus Bruce: “[The reference to #rp,] even if it was present to Paul’s own mind, would not have been appreciated by his readers” (Galatians: A Commentary on the Greek Text, 92). 176 That is, as the reference works duly note, “the aorist participle in certain constructions (generally with a verb in the aorist) does not denote time past with reference to the leading verb, but expresses time coincident with that of the verb when the action of the verb and participle is practically one” (Goodwin and Gulick, §1291). This may not quite be the situation here, although it is an extension of the participle’s more general function as denoting circumstances of manner (Goodwin and Gulick, §1566). The use of all aorists, though, (εὐδόκησεν, ἀφορίσας, καλέσας, and ἀποκαλύψαι) may have affected Paul’s choice of tense. The element of manner for a verb like καλέω would also tend to favor an aorist (Goodwin and Gulick, §1524). 174

GALATIANS 1:15-17

63

vealed Jesus to him at Damascus.177 Thus, to clarify Bercovitz’s suggestion in terms of sequence, the participles in this passage establish two claims:

1). God set him apart from before his birth 2). God called him through his grace These two claims may be the same event, or two different ways of stating it. They may be two aspects of the same event, or, as Bercovitz suggests, they may be two quite separate events. But regardless, the main verbal phrase is εὐδόκησεν ἀποκαλύψαι τὸν υἱὸν. When he “was pleased (was willing, ready, consented) to reveal his son.”178 Now grammatically, one could read as Bercovitz does, with the participles temporally preceding the action of the main verb. But Paul’s own sense that he was set apart from before he was born could only have been conceptualized after the apokalypsis of Jesus, and one could argue that this is also likely the case with his realization that he had been called. That is, Paul’s conceptualizing of the event must necessarily run “backwards” to the syntax.179 The actual thought expressed, in terms of its real sequence, is that “after God revealed his son to me, I realized then that I had been set apart from before I was born.” Were one to insert the phrase “called through his grace” into that sequence as Bercovitz suggests, Paul’s thought is that “after God revealed his son to me, and having at a prior point become a believer, I realized then that I had been set apart from before I was born.” It is doubtful that this nu-

177 Cf. Barclay, “Paul’s Story: Theology as Testimony,” in Bruce W. Longenecker (ed.), Narrative Dynamics in Paul: A Critical Assessment, (Louisville and London: Westminster John Knox, 2002), 133-56, 140, 140 n. 22. 178 See LSJ, εὐδοκέω for its various meanings. The aorist infinitive here must be one of manner, defining the nature of the action as a singular, even abrupt, one-time occurrence. Kim sees this choice of verb as an allusion to Isaiah 42:1 (Paul and the New Perspective, 101-3). 179 Bercovitz (“Καλεῖν in Gal 1:15”) sees the order of events as: a) God singles Paul out for his purpose from birth; b) Paul becomes a believer; c) God reveals his son to Paul; and d) Paul is commissioned as an apostle (29). Cf. Barclay, “Paul’s Story.”

64

ABORTION AND THE APOSTOLATE

anced sequence can really be derived from Gal. 1:15. More likely is that, despite the “linking of the two participles with a single article”180 (ὁ ἀφορίσας καὶ καλέσας, as opposed, one imagines, to ὁ ἀφορίσας καὶ ὁ καλέσας), the καὶ καλέσας simply serves to clarify and emphasize the agency of God as the one who chose, called and revealed, as well as reiterating Paul’s claim in Gal. 1:1 that his experience and status do not have a human origin.181 Unpacking the phrase with appropriate emphasis would run more as follows: “When it pleased him, that is, the one who set me aside from before I was born, and who also, I needn’t remind you, is the one who called me through his grace (no mere ἄνθρωπος!), he revealed his son to me.” Finally, and most problematic for Bercovitz’s reading, Paul would presumably have used the present καλῶν had he really meant the reader to hear what Bercovitz suggests readers

Bercovitz, “Καλεῖν in Gal 1:15,” 30. Crook’s discussion of the manuscript evidence for and against reading ὁ θεὸς is misguided in its notion of an implicit or explicit “instigator” (Patronage, Loyalty, and Conversion, 229 n. 39). There is no other candidate but “God” for the subject of the sentence, particularly given the phrase τὸν ὑιὸν αὐτοῦ in 1:16, and the manuscripts that make this plain are merely making explicit the obvious rather than clarifying the implicit. Thus Bruce, Galatians: A Commentary on the Greek Text, 92. Cf. Matera, Galatians, 59; and even earlier Lightfoot, who describe this “as a gloss, though a correct one” (Epistle to the Galatians, 82). See also Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 3rd ed. (London and New York: United Bible Societies, 1971). Metzger notes that despite being voted to the text by the majority on the basis of “external” evidence,[ὁ θεὸς] “has every appearance of being a scribal gloss” (A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 590), and there is no reason for its deletion were it original. See also Burton: “Of the three antecedents here named the first and second, expressed by ἀφορίσας and καλέσας are associated together grammatically, the participles being under one article and joined by καὶ. But it is the second and third that are most closely associated in time, ἀφορίσας being dated from his birth, while the events denoted by καλέσας and ἀποκαλύψαι, as the usage of the word καλέω shows, are elements or immediate antecedents of the conversionexperience” (Galatians, 49). See also Koptak, “Rhetorical Identification in Gal. 1.13-2.14,” 101. 180 181

GALATIANS 1:15-17

65

usually see in the text, at least had Paul followed such a strict adherence to temporal distinctions. Despite the relationship between the participle and the main verb, it is hard to imagine the present participle in place of the aorist, were it to have been used, as not being understood as indicating an ongoing, present action (“the one who calls/is calling”). One could also observe that Bercovitz’s suggestion of an interval or break between Paul’s “call” and his “conversion” is a little too reminiscent of the portrait in Acts 9, where Paul’s encounter with Jesus does not itself involve a commission to preach to the Gentiles, although the reader is tipped off before Paul to this plan in the Lord’s exchange with Ananias (Acts 9:13-16). This is noteworthy only because of Bercovitz’s claims that Gal. 1:15 is often read “through Acts-colored glasses” and that his suggestion is an attempt to remove this lens.182 As we have seen, this decision to divide Paul’s entry into the Christian faith from his call to preach the gospel to the Gentiles is not uncommon in scholarship, whether it is solely in terms of Paul’s thought processes if not in his experiences. As discussed above with the example of Segal, even when a fairly straightforward reading of the passage is at first attempted, additional explanations are still thought to be required. It is worth noting, however, that Bercovitz’s novel reading is only novel in that he associates the call to preach with Damascus directly and relegates Paul’s conversion to belief in Jesus to some earlier, unknown development of some sort. Normally the pattern among those who divide these events into two stages is to associate “Damascus” with a conversion to belief in Jesus, and the call to preach as a later, unknown development of some sort. This search for what I referred to initially as a mysterious “something else” is present throughout the scholarly literature, although it reappears in different guises. Bercovitz merely finds a place for it within Paul’s account of Damascus.183

Bercovitz, “Καλεῖν in Gal 1:15,” 28. Murphy-O’Connor agrees with Bercovitz that there may be a “logical priority,” if not a temporal interval (Paul: A Critical Life, 80). Unfortunately his argument against Bercovitz assumes Paul’s denial of in182 183

66

ABORTION AND THE APOSTOLATE

Nonetheless, as mentioned above, Bercovitz’s suggestion, especially when taken in conjunction with Segal’s views, highlights several widespread assumptions among interpreters. That there is a relationship between Paul’s Gentile mission and his apokalypsis of Jesus, at least as Paul presents it in Gal. 1:15-17, seems almost universally held. What is not so clear is whether the one is the direct cause of the other, an extension of it, or merely forms part of a larger apologia concerning his apostolic status. Despite the immediacy implied by the ἵνα clause, and Paul’s speaking “as if the call and commission were part of the one conversion experience,”184 “most scholars are less willing to take Paul’s words here at face value.”185 While Bercovitz’s suggestion is itself unlikely, it stands in continuity with the scholarly search for a “something else” beyond Damascus (in his case, “before”) to explain Paul’s mission.

S UMMARY : T HE RELIABILITY OF G AL . 1:15-17, P AUL ’ S “C ALL /‘C ONVERSION ,’” AND THE G ENTILE MISSION Discussions of Gal. 1:15-17 as a “call to preach” or a “conversion experience” coalesce around four main points that are widely accepted as forming the principal caveats in approaching Paul’s statements in this passage and its relation to his Gentile mission: 1). Paul’s account in Gal. 1:15-17 is colored by later events. This view is shared by almost all scholars to some extent, although some, like Fredriksen, view this element as determinative.

struction in Christianity in Gal. 1:11-12 to be a statement of simple fact, ignoring the rhetorical and polemical context. 184 Bruce, Apostle of the Heart Set Free, 75. Bruce writes of Paul’s theology that “it was all implicit” (80) in the Damascus experience. Fung, The Epistle to the Galatians, 71-72. 185 Crook, Patronage, Loyalty, and Conversion, 219. Crook’s comments on Bruce’s statement are very much to the point. Paul speaks “as if” this were the case, emphasizing the suspicion of Paul’s wording that characterizes the scholarship of scholars like J. Sanders and Fredriksen.

GALATIANS 1:15-17

67

2). Paul’s mission to the Gentiles is somehow associated with his call/conversion, at least as he presents it in Gal. 1:15-17. Some scholars, like F. F. Bruce, Seyoon Kim and to a certain extent James Dunn, view this association as quite direct.186 That is, for Paul the Damascus experience was itself the start and point of origin for his Gentile mission, if not his theologizing of this mission. 3). N onetheless there remains a significant number of scholars, the majority in fact, who see an additional experience and/or interval between the two, sometimes in the same breath as they strongly emphasize a point of view similar to #2. Others, like Donaldson, have at least seen the need for additional explanation and discussion, if not a separate event or interval of time, to account for how Paul’s views on the Gentiles developed as they did.187 This difference of opinion hinges largely on one’s point of

The difference between these scholars is that Kim sees Paul’s theological convictions as arising directly from this experience, while Dunn views the theological convictions as arising from later reflection and experience, particularly in light of the Antioch incident. See “The Incident at Antioch (Gal 2:11-18), in The Galatians Debate, 199-234. This incident made clear “for the first time” (“The Incident at Antioch,” 230) what his view of justification meant. Kim follows his former teacher Bruce on viewing Paul’s theology as an articulation of a theology contained in nuce within the Damascus experience, noting that a process of theological reflection obviously “could not be completed instantly,” but that “the main lines of Paul’s theology originated from the Damascus revelation” (Paul and the New Perspective, 4-5). Bruce and Kim are proponents of a direct connection between Damascus and the content of Paul’s thought. Dunn manages once again to straddle two positions by separating the “call” from its fully-fleshed out articulation, while still maintaining the primacy of the Damascus experience. 187 Donaldson succinctly observes that “a perceived call to a Gentile mission could not have been Paul’s starting point. There must have been a first stage in which a Christ-centered mission to the Gentiles made sense before there could be a second-stage perception that he himself was called to play a central role in such a mission” (Paul and the Gentiles, 250). He thus 186

68

ABORTION AND THE APOSTOLATE

view concerning Paul’s reliability (point #1), as, in F. C. Baur’s words, “the revelation in which God revealed his Son in him, and the call which he then received to preach the Gospel among the Gentiles, were to his mind one and the same spiritual act.”188 The question is not whether or not Paul presents these as the same act, as he certainly does, but whether scholars believe his statements to be reliable. 4). Paul’s precise wording does not provide as much help as one would like, hardly surprising if one has decided that his account is unreliable. Even a minute examination of the syntax of Gal. 1:15-17 leaves one’s options unchanged, as the reading advocated by Bercovitz critiqued above does not substantively change the view that “something else” is required beyond “Damascus” to explain Paul’s Gentile mission.189 The “something else” that is sought is not entirely mysterious, although it is necessarily conjectural. Given the prevalence of the assumption that there are additional elements behind Paul’s Gentile mission, scholars have proposed several plausible suggestions:190

summarily dismisses readings of Gal. 1:15-17 that simply restate Paul’s wording. 188 Baur, Church History, 1:46-47. 189 With the exceptions of Bruce, Kim, and possibly Dunn. 190 Cf. the discussions by Donaldson. Paul and the Gentiles, 263-72; “The Origin of Paul’s Gentile Mission.”

GALATIANS 1:15-17

69

1) an unstated period of reflection after Damascus, ranging from a few months to a few years, depending upon one’s reading of Paul’s chronology in Gal. 1:17-2:1. 191 2) an unsuccessful mission to the Jewish community. Paul’s lack of success among Jews, as indicated partly by the pattern of preaching evidenced in Acts, compelled him to seek out Gentile converts. This is sometimes connected with theories concerning the origins of a “Law-free” mission, and Paul’s statements about Israel’s “stumbling” leading to salvation for the Gentiles (Rom. 11:11-12). As described by Francis Watson: “Paul first preached to the Gentiles as a response to the failure of their preaching among the Jews,” and the Law was abandoned “to make it easier for Gentiles to become Christians.” 192 3) an additional revelation. 193

Thus Taylor, Paul, Antioch and Jerusalem. Lloyd Gaston sees the ἵνα as indicating that Paul’s immediate call was to the Gentiles only, but he feels that Paul’s apokalypsis was the result of careful reflection and study. “If I had to imagine an appropriate setting for Paul’s revelation and commissioning (Gal 1:15-16), it would not be the fireworks of the Lucan accounts but rather Paul all alone late at night pondering the texts of the second Servant song (Isa 49:1-6)” (Paul and the Torah, 77). This sounds like a rather “scholarly” image of Paul, laboring under his desk lamp while mulling over notions of Gentile salvation. Dunn’s understanding of Paul’s developing theology and its articulation falls under this category as well as into the category of a more immediate connection. Cf. W. D. Davies, Paul and Rabbinic Judaism: Some Rabbinic Elements in Pauline Theology (London: SPCK, 1955; reprint, New York: Harper & Row, 1967), 67-68. 192 Watson, Paul, Judaism and the Gentiles, 31, 34. Cf. Segal, Paul the Convert, 8. Watson’s work is the most thoroughgoing implementation of this theory. See Donaldson, “‘Riches for the Gentiles’ (Rom. 11:12): Israel’s Rejection and Paul’s Gentile Mission,” JBL 112 (1993): 81-98, 88, 88 n. 29 for a short summary and history of this view. Cf. also Davies, Paul and Rabbinic Judaism, 68-69. 193 Thus Bercovitz, “Καλεῖν in Gal 1:15.” 191

70

ABORTION AND THE APOSTOLATE

4) a prior concern with the Gentiles, reconfigured by Damascus. 194 This view is often connected with theories about Second Temple theologies of Gentile inclusion (eschatological or otherwise), acceptance of Gentile converts, or possible Jewish missions to the Gentiles. 195 Bercovitz, to his credit, attempts to find an anchor for these views within the text of Gal. 1:15-17 itself, proposing that the interval or

See Donaldson, “Riches for the Gentiles”; Paul and the Gentiles, 263-307; “The Origins of Paul’s Gentile Mission,” 69-70. Kim has also critiqued Donaldson’s view (Paul and the New Perspective, 35-39). 195 See Donaldson, “Proselytes or ‘Righteous Gentiles’? The Status of Gentiles in Eschatological Pilgrimage Patterns of Thought,” JSP 7 (1990): 3-27. As mentioned above in passing, the very existence of such activity is debated. There are also additional problems to do with defining “Jewishness” in this period, so that defining “conversion,” as opposed to “adherence,” can become a problematic enterprise. See Emil Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, 175 B.C.-A.D. 135, 3 vols., ed., trans., rev., Geza Vermes, Fergus Millar, and Martin Goodman (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1973-1987), 3:150-76; Shaye Cohen, “Crossing the Boundary and Becoming a Jew,” HTR 82 (1989): 13-33; Ross S. Kraemer, “The Meaning of the Term ‘Jew’ in Greco-Roman Inscriptions,” HTR 82 (1989): 35-53; McKnight, A Light Among the Gentiles; Goodman, Mission and Conversion; James Carleton Paget, “Jewish Proselytism at the Time of Christian Origins: Chimera or Reality?” JSNT 62 (1996): 65-103; David Rokéah, “Ancient Jewish Proselytism in Theory and Practice,” TZ 52 (1996): 206-24; “A Pre-Christian Jewish Mission?” in The Mission of the Early Church to Jews and Gentiles, ed. Ådna and Kvalbein, 211-50. Compare the earlier views of Schoeps, Paul, 219-29. The consensus view now seems to be that although there were varying degrees of openness to Gentile proselytes on both an abstract theological level and a practical level, this openness should not be confused with large-scale, organized missions like we seem to find in the early Jesus movement. Donaldson makes much of Paul’s denial that he is still “preaching circumcision” (Gal. 5:11). That is, he once preached “circumcision” (meaning “Gentile conversion to Judaism”), but does so no more. (See Paul and the Gentiles, 278-84; “The Origin of Paul’s Gentile Mission,” 81-83). Donaldson, however, readily admits the standard view on a comparative lack of Jewish missionary activity (Paul and the Gentiles, 275-7). Donaldson’s view is also not without its predecessors. See Schoeps, Paul, 64 n. 2. 194

GALATIANS 1:15-17

71

additional element most scholars assume must be there is, in fact, there. For the moment, however, the focus on Gal. 1:15-17 has indicated merely that Paul’s connection of his Gentile mission with Damascus is often not taken at face value. This is not, however, so obvious in dealing with his “apostolic” claims.

3 GALATIANS 1-2: APOSTLESHIP & AUTHORITY IN CONFLICT C ONVERSION , A POSTLESHIP , G ALATIANS 1:15-17

AND

V ISION

IN

In addition to the above discussion of Damascus and its relationship to Paul’s Gentile mission, and ignoring the tangle of theories surrounding the precise identities of Paul’s “opponents” and his audience, there is another widely recognized feature of this passage. Among scholarly discussions of Gal. 1:15-17, as Zeba Crook notes, it is widely accepted “that Paul establishes some sort of relationship between this vision and his status as apostle.”196 Crook further observes that “of course there is a relationship between Paul’s apostleship and the vision, but no one attempts to get behind that relationship, preferring instead simply to draw the reader’s attention to the fact that one exists.”197 The dispute in which Paul is involved in Galatians is often seen to be concerned with defending both his euangelion and his status as an apostle.198 Scholars have long commented on the centrality of these two concerns, noting that the circumstances and purpose of this letter “appear with great clearness,”199 and that it expresses a “unity of purpose” that gives rise to its “sustained severity.”200 Some scholars have stressed the importance of “the gos-

Crook, Patronage, Loyalty, and Conversion, 206. Ibid., 215. 198 Dunn, Theology of Galatians, 7; Matera, Galatians, 1-6; Betz, Galatians, 64-66; 199 Burton, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians, ICC (Edinburgh:T&T Clark, repr. 1964), liii. 200 Lightfoot, Epistle to the Galatians, 63-64. 196 197

73

74

ABORTION AND THE APOSTOLATE

pel” in this dispute;201 others the recognition of his apostolic status.202 Most, however, suggest a combination of the two.203 Lightfoot comments that the “Galatian apostasy” has a “double aspect,” denying Paul’s “authority” and what he terms “the doctrine of grace.”204 More recently, Becker argues that Paul’s message is more important than his calling, but that he is concerned with both, while Beker feels the two are correlated, but he thinks Paul defends being an apostle chiefly in order to defend the gospel. The “gospel” thus also refers to both the content and the act of preaching.205 Part of the problem with understanding what precisely Paul may be doing in the passage is the lack of clarity over what a phrase like “apostolic status” really means when applied to Paul’s letters. This difficulty aside, most scholars nonetheless think that “apostolicity” is one of the chief issues in Galatians 1-2, and throughout the letter.206 “The letter itself furnishes evidence, which is confirmed by 1 and 2 Corinthians, that the apostolic office or function was clearly recognized as one of great importance in the Christian community, and that the question who could legitimately claim it was one on which there was a sharp difference of opinion”207 Paul

Becker, Paul: Apostle to the Gentiles, 69-72; Beker, Paul the Apostle, 710, 46-47; Bernard Lategan, “Is Paul Defending his Apostleship in Galatians?: the Function of Galatians 1.11-12 and 2.19-20 in the Development of Paul’s Argument,” NTS 34.3 (1988):411-30. 202 Baur, Church History, 1:63; Paul, 1:266; Dunn, Theology of Galatians, 22. Cf. again Lategan, “Is Paul Defending His Apostleship?.” 203 Knox, Chapters, 98-100.; Dunn, Theology of Galatians, 25. 204 Lightfoot, Galatians, 63. 205 Beker, Paul the Apostle, 122. 206 Best, “Paul’s Apostolic Authority—?,” 3: “It has become axiomatic to treat certain actions of Paul as the exercise of apostolic authority.” See Dietzfelbinger, Die Berufung des Paulus, 97; Ulrich Luck, “Die Bekehrung des Paulus und das Paulinische Evangelium: Zur Frage der Evidenz in Botschaft und Theologie des Apostels,” ZNW 76 (1985): 187208, 191. See also Nanos (ed.), The Galatians Debate. 207 Burton, Galatians, liv. 201

GALATIANS 1-2

75

is thus “in a fierce struggle to preserve his own apostolic credentials” and “the gospel that he preached.”208 Dunn summarizes thus: In sum, then, Paul held a high ideal of apostolic authority, as a specific commissioning by the risen Christ to preach the gospel and found churches. In practice, however, the exercise of that authority was always conditioned: it was always subordinate to the gospel; it worked within its churches as one of many ministries (albeit the most important) to build up the full range of responsible ministry within these churches; it was adaptable to circumstance and to Christian liberty, and not determined simply by precedent or convention; it stayed within the limits of its commissioning; and it mirrored the character of its message as the proclamation of the crucified one.209

T HE M EANING

OF

“A POSTLE ”

Now given that Paul seems to insist upon being an apostle, “from Galatians onward,” a natural question concerns what he thought this implied. Dunn observes that “to tackle the subject [of apostolic authority] properly would require analysis of more or less everything Paul wrote,” which clearly falls outside the scope of this study.210 However, the general scholarly consensus holds that the term ἀπόστολος (“emissary, envoy”211) becomes important in the formation of “second generation” Christianity’s attempt to legitimate an “evolving faith and practice.”212 The New Testament itself

208

73, 64..

Longenecker, “Galatians,” In Cambridge Companion to St. Paul, 64-

Theology of Paul the Apostle, 580. Ibid., 571-2. 211 These terms have the limited advantage of keeping the etymological (Latin mittere and French envoyer) connection between ἀποστέλλειν and ἀπόστολος somewhat in mind. I am unsure how many native English speakers would note a connection between two English nouns and their Romance roots, while a Greek speaker would almost certainly have heard a very clear connection between apostolos and apostellein. 212 Brown, “Apostleship in the New Testament,” 476. 209 210

76

ABORTION AND THE APOSTOLATE

clearly “has no uniform conception of apostle.”213 Acts, for example, seems quite at odds with Paul’s writings, referring to the group of “twelve” apostles (Acts 1:1-2, 21-26) as being virtually synonymous with followers chosen by Jesus during his earthly ministry (“He called his disciples and chose twelve of them, whom he also named apostles” Luke 6:13, NRSV), while Paul is referred to only in passing as an “apostle” alongside Barnabas (Acts 14:4, 14).214 Scholars often assume that there are at least two or three distinct meanings of the term, in both the New Testament as a whole and possibly even within Paul’s writings. An apostle in Classical Greek is someone “sent” or commissioned for an errand or mission, and in the New Testament is also defined as one who “saw the Lord and was commissioned directly by him.”215 An apostle is also, possibly, one who is a witness to the Resurrection (although this meaning may overlap with the category of those “commissioned” by Jesus). Whichever of these meanings are employed, they presumably give the title “apostle” a large measure of authority, an authority which Paul claims for himself.216 It seems clear that Paul’s notion and understanding of apostolicity differs somewhat from that of Luke-Acts, in which the connection to the Twelve disciples seems so central. Such differences may be further indication that the term was in a state of change and evolution.217 Now we have no detailed statement from Paul as to what he thinks being an apostle means, or a detailed

Kirk, “Apostleship since Rengstorf,” 254. Knox, Chapters, 27, 40, 117. Knox notes that Paul is “in status inferior to the Twelve” and is “ordained to the apostleship” (Chapters, 27, italics his). 215 Knox, Chapters, 117. Knox refers to these as “loose” and “higher” meanings. More generally, an apostle is someone who travels. “The very word apostle suggests, among other things, the traveller” (40). 216 Beker states that it is a “claim to absolute authority,” and “a unique phenomenon in the church” constituting a “truth claim about the essence of the gospel” (Paul the Apostle, 4, 126). Roetzel writes that Paul attempted to “subvert the exclusive claims” of the other apostles (Paul: The Man and the Myth, 49). 217 Dunn, Theology of Galatians, 22. 213 214

GALATIANS 1-2

77

summary of what it implies for his status before the communities to which he writes, but we do have his drawing a connection between “seeing Jesus” (1 Cor. 9:1; 15; Gal. 1) and being an apostle, most explicitly in the rhetorical question “am I not an apostle, have I not seen Jesus our Lord?” (1 Cor. 9:1). Paul also terms himself elsewhere ἐθνῶν ἀπόστολος (Rom. 11:13), and in another discussion of his “seeing” of Jesus relates this experience to his Gentile mission (Gal. 1:15-17).218 Now while it may be pedantic to observe that being an ἀπόστολος must require being “sent” somewhere by someone, generally, one would assume, for a specific purpose, combining these notions does not require much of a logical leap, and most scholars implicitly seem to equate both as prerequisites of being an apostle, in Paul’s usage as well as in later Christian usage. That is, there is a transformation of an “apostle” (one sent) into an “Apostle” (one sent by the [risen] Christ). Donaldson, rightly, does not see a problem. As for Paul’s personal role, it is not difficult to understand why he would think of himself as an apostle. The concept of apostleship—a status grounded in an encounter with the risen Lord, a role centered on the proclamation of the kerygma— was a fully established part of the movement into which he converted (I Cor 15:7; Gal I:17). It is not surprising that he would have perceived his own experience of the risen Christ as grounds for an apostolic role on equal terms with those who were apostles before him.219

Now, whatever the term ἀπόστολος may have “originally” meant, and despite the incredible amount of material generated on the topic of the word’s exact history and meaning, it seems safe to say

218 As has often been observed, one can translate as either “the apostle of the Gentiles” or “an apostle,” the lack of article in the Greek notwithstanding. It matters little, since there is no way of knowing what sort of emphasis Paul or his readers would have find in this phrase. Donaldson states: “While he insists on equality of status, he insists just as firmly on uniqueness of role: he is apostle to the Gentiles” (Paul and the Gentiles, 258). 219 Paul and the Gentiles, 258.

78

ABORTION AND THE APOSTOLATE

that Paul thinks it a title important enough to emphasize as belonging fully to him (Rom. 1:1-6; 11:13-14; 1 Cor. 1:1; 4:9; 9:1-5; 15:7-9; 2 Cor. 1:1; 11:5; 12:11-13; Gal. 1:1-2, 18-19; 2:8; 1 Thess 2:7), particularly in Galatians 1-2.220 The sub-themes that scholars emphasize indicate a belief that Paul seeks to lay claim to this title to justify his mission, his “gospel,”221 and above all his independence.222 [Paul] views the apostolate as a unique institution, an institution that is restricted to a limited time and number. It is limited to those who witnessed the resurrection and who were the first to receive a missionary mandate from the risen Lord during

Betz, Galatians, 74-75; more generally, K. H. Rengstorf, “ἀποστέλλω / ἀπόστολος”; Apostleship; J. Andrew Kirk, “Apostleship Since Rengstorf”; Walter Schmithals, The Office of Apostle in the Early Church, trans. John E. Steely (Nashville and New York: Abingdon Press, 1969); Schuyler Brown, “Apostleship in the New Testament”; Schütz, Paul and the Anatomy of Apostolic Authority; Best, “Paul’s Apostolic Authority—?”; Jerry W. McCant, “Paul’s Thorn of Rejected Apostleship.” See also Taylor, “Appendix: The Nature of Primitive Christian Apostleship,” in Paul, Antioch and Jerusalem, 277-8; and the discussion and literature cited above. 221 Schmithals: “In Galatia as well as in Corinth people were denying his right to be called an apostle and were seeking thereby to brand his message as unapostolic and therefore reprehensible. For the sake of his message Paul is compelled to defend his apostolic rights” (The Office of Apostle, 21). Cf. Gager, Reinventing Paul, 158 n. 14; Beker: “Paul’s claim to be an apostle is so important to him because it authorizes him to be an authentic, Christ-appointed interpreter of the gospel” (Paul the Apostle, 5). 222 Verseput: “It is thus, once again, not the issue of instruction or even authority which propels the narrative, but the question of independence from a community, namely the Christian community of the circumcision” (“Paul’s Gentile Mission and the Jewish Christian Community,” 43). Elsewhere he takes up the question of whether his “gospel” can be confirmed apart from his apostolic authority (44-51), although this level of nuance makes no difference to my study. These are all intimately connected if not synonymous with one another, since an affirmation of Paul’s independence also reaffirms the reliability of his message, while an affirmation of his apostolic authority reinforces both his teaching and his independent status. 220

GALATIANS 1-2

79

the short period in which resurrection appearances took place.223 The claim of apostleship presupposes, first, immediate dependence on God and Christ alone. The apostolic office does not come out of the church and also has no succession in the church, because that would do away with the immediate link between the person and God or Christ as sender. This unquestionable special position is matched by independence vis-à-vis the church.224

Paul certainly seems to have viewed being an apostle as important, and scholars almost universally agree that this concern is central in Gal. 1:15-17, but as long as our focus remains on this passage, and given the discussion above, it seems difficult to imagine why scholars should take his view on this matter any more seriously than scholars of his “conversion” and its relationship to the Gentile mission. For example, Becker’s claim that dependence on the church “would do away with the immediate link between the person and God or Christ as sender” ignores the very simple observation that such an “immediate link” is only present to Paul. As for his audience, they, and we, simply have Paul’s claim that he has such authority, a claim that, as is often noted, was clearly contested.225 When Paul uses the term [apostle] of himself it is in contexts where there have been those who have said that he was not an

Beker, Paul the Apostle, 124. Cf. Roetzel, Paul: The Man and the Myth, 46-68, esp. 47-48. Kirk comments: “Paul’s important position lies solely and exclusively in the fact that he was the first person specifically called by the risen Lord to be an apostle to the Gentiles” (“Apostleship since Rengstorf,” 263). 224 Becker, Paul: Apostle to the Gentiles, 80. See also 79-81. Cf. H. Alan Brehm, “Paul’s Relationship with the Jerusalem Apostles in Galatians 1 and 2,” SwJT 37 (1994):11-16. Brehm claims this relationship is one “of deference in the context of independence” (11). Baird: “Paul refuses to found his ministry on private, ecstatic religion… Gal 1:11-17, of course, does present a religious experience that is basic to Paul’s apostolic authority” (“Visions, Revelation and Ministry,” 661). 225 Schoeps, Paul, 70-74. 223

80

ABORTION AND THE APOSTOLATE apostle or contexts in which he stresses the weakness of those who are leading Christians or contexts in which there is some connection with either the truth or the proclamation of the gospel.226

As discussed above, Paul’s presentation of his call/conversion in Gal. 1:15-17 is viewed as suspect, at least in part because it is written to defend his apostolic status (and thus his “gospel” to the Gentiles).227 However, even in admitting this point, some scholars try simultaneously to defend Paul against interpretations that would make too much of it. The autobiographical narrative [in Galatians] is about Paul’s authority, and to deny this is to overlook the conditions in which he wrote the letter. At the same time Paul’s assertion of his apostolic authority is not an end in itself but a prerequisite to his influencing the conduct of the Galatian Christians in the direction of his interpretation of the gospel… His autobiographical account accordingly aims to demonstrate an apostolic authority which he had exercised independently of any human authority, and specifically the Jerusalem church and its leadership, from the moment of his conversion to Christianity.228

What does combining this notion of Galatians 1 as a defense of Paul’s apostolic status with the previous discussion of his call “in order” that he preach to the Gentiles imply for the overall meaning

Best, “Paul’s Apostolic Authority—?,” 11. Gaventa, “Galatians 1 and 2”; Dietzfelbinger, Die Berufung des Paulus; Sanders, “Paul’s Autobiographical Statements”; Barclay, “Paul’s Story”; the literature cited above, and the entirety of Nanos, The Galatians Debate. Even Crook, for whom Paul’s conversion was “the result of a divine patron making a benefaction to a human in and through a vision and calling,” sees his presentation as marked by the tropes of a stylized “rhetoric of patronage and benefaction. They include the call of the patron, the philosopher and philosophy as patron, prayer, praise, and proselytism, patronal synkrisis, and finally the term χάρις” (Patronage, Loyalty, and Conversion, 340). 228 Taylor, “Paul’s Apostolic Legitimacy,” 70. 226 227

GALATIANS 1-2

81

of the passage? In part, certainly, that question can only be answered by reference to the meanings attached to the differing notions of apostolicity that one encounters in the scholarly literature. Schütz’s large-scale study of Paul’s concept of apostolic authority asserts that for Paul, apostolic “legitimacy” is grounded in both a call to preach the gospel, and the reception of a resurrection vision. His authority, however, comes from his call to preach, and this authority extends as the apostle in turn becomes a norm for other Christians.229 A contrasting, and less benign view, would be that of Elizabeth Castelli, who has noted that Paul’s language in many places often implies that he alone has access to such authority. For Castelli, Paul’s mimetic language is basically a bid to assert control over his audience. Despite her comparatively negative assessment of Paul’s discourse, as mentioned at the close, Castelli’s work still seems to assume that Paul’s claims have something to commend them. She critiques their exclusionary tone and the devices he employs, but by this very critique she implies that his tone is to be taken seriously and must be countered with a similar solemnity.230 We thus have a curious state of affairs in scholarly discussion of Gal. 1:15-17. As noted above, most scholars understand Damascus and the call to preach to the Gentiles as related, but not identical events, Paul’s testimony notwithstanding. This observation is not an objection to the scholarly consensus, as it does seem that Paul has both of these elements in mind when he refers to being an apostle in Gal. 1-2. The curiosity lies in the fact that so many scholars accept or reaffirm many of Paul’s notions in relationship to “apostolicity” so readily, especially given the reticence of these same scholars to locate the origin of Paul’s Gentile mission solely at Damascus, in

Schütz, Anatomy of Apostolic Authority, 226, 281. Carroll’s criticisms of The Postmodern Bible are applicable here as well. Missing “is the usual poststructuralist high elevation of playfulness and irony as ways of reading texts” (“Poststructuralist approaches,” 59). The very seriousness of the tone gives credibility to the claims being criticized. Stephen Moore, in such works as God’s Beauty Parlor, does approach something like playfulness, but it is a notable exception. 229 230

82

ABORTION AND THE APOSTOLATE

spite of his language in Gal. 1:15-17. That is, if Paul indeed means, in one way or another, that he is “one sent” by God/Jesus, specifically “one sent” in order to preach to the Gentiles, why is it that scholars find it so difficult to take him at his word on one point, but not the other? Galatians itself seems to have been written to defend Paul’s apostolic status, and as one scholar has observed, its “very existence” proves that Paul’s authority was being challenged in Galatia. Yet scholars continue to take Paul’s presentation rather literally, at least in comparison to their search for additional elements to add to Damascus.231 Somewhat unsurprisingly, James Dunn provides a template for straddling more than one scholarly position on this issue. The complicated element in reconstructions of Paul’s defense of his apostolic authority tends to center on the vexing questions of the precise identity of Paul’s opponents, and the relationship between those opponents and the “Jerusalem apostles” (that is, James and Peter).232 This relationship has been seen since the inception of modern Pauline scholarship, especially the work of F. C. Baur and J. B. Lightfoot, as varying between amicable and strained.233 Dunn combines a very nuanced analysis of Paul’s relationship with James and Peter, as well as his Galatian rivals, opponents, and allies, with what amounts to a wholesale and rather uncritical endorsement of Paul’s position. As Dunn quite plausibly reconstructs the two possible options of the attack that Paul was facing, it seems that his enemies “maintained either that Paul’s apostleship had come through human channels… or possibly that it lacked any human

231 Polaski, Paul and the Discourse of Power, 74-75. From another point of view, however, they do not take his view on this matter literally either. Indeed, the tendency among scholars is to defend Paul from charges of making these claims out of some exaggerated sense of self-importance, or to strengthen his claims of independence. 232 See Nanos, The Irony of Galatians: Paul’s Letter in First-Century Context (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002); Robert Jewett, “The Agitators and the Galatian Congregation,” in Nanos, The Galatians Debate, 334-47. 233 This debate will be discussed more fully in chapters to come, but see Lightfoot, “Paul and the Three,” in Epistle to the Galatians, 292-374.

GALATIANS 1-2

83

recognition at all.”234 These options are both standard scholarly fare, although Dunn’s succinctness is unfortunately rarer. Dunn then astutely notes that Paul’s extensive denial of any “human authority” in his apostolic commissioning/call provides a strong indication as to which human authority is really important. As Paul makes clear in 1:16-21, it is really “Jerusalem” (i.e., the church associated with Peter and James), that is so powerful and prominent that his extended claim of autonomous commissioning “amounts to an acknowledgment that if any human authority was of relevance on this issue it had to be Jerusalem.”235 Thus far Dunn has read Paul’s discussion and the context in Galatia very carefully. Paul’s extended rejection of human authority and his emphasis on being called solely through an apokalypsis of Jesus and the charis of God betray a concern about a specific human authority. The interpretive move that follows next, in which Dunn is once again far from alone, is far less a critical statement than a rather bold assertion: “Paul’s arguments and the evident success of his mission to date seem to have won the day.”236 Dunn does not openly state how one could reasonably know that Paul’s position won out. Certainly, Christianity’s development into a primarily Gentile movement which does not adhere to “the Law” makes Paul’s writings retrospectively appear to be on the winning side. This is simply not the same, however, as assuming that Paul himself and his views “won the day.” Now, one could perhaps argue that the preservation of the text of the Galatians letter indicated that this was the case, since one would scarcely expect its preservation had Paul not “won the day,”237 but Dunn’s reasoning is more in line with his underlying

Dunn, Theology of Galatians, 22. Ibid., 24. See Theology of Paul the Apostle, 573-4; “The Incident at Antioch,” 201-3. See Matera, Galatians, 87-91, and the bibliography cited there. 236 Dunn, Theology of Galatians, 24-25. 237 Dunn makes this point in a footnote. See The Theology of Paul the Apostle, 577 n. 61. See also Schweitzer, Mysticism, 51. Dunn does, however, 234 235

84

ABORTION AND THE APOSTOLATE

“sympathy” for Paul and his hostility to “unsympathetic” readings. Paul can be portrayed in many ways, but he must be portrayed positively.238 In his discussion of Paul’s apostolic argumentation he notes that “such evidence is, of course, open to different readings. Graham Shaw finds Paul’s attempt to exercise authority blatantly manipulative and even ‘vindictive’—demonstrating how far an unsympathetic reading or hermeneutic of suspicion can go.”239 This stands in continuity with Dunn’s cautionary remark on interpreting Galatians: “it would be a mistake, however, to interpret this issue as primarily one of Paul’s personal status. For it is equally clear that Paul defended his apostolic authority primarily as a way of defending his understanding of the gospel.”240 A scholar of James Dunn’s stature should know that such claims of clarity within Paul’s writings are themselves liable to be viewed with the much-dreaded “suspicion” he condemns. The example detailed above concerning Paul’s description of his apostolic call to Gentile mission in Gal. 1:15-17 is a case in point. Nothing is clearer than Paul’s ready association of his mission with his call/conversion, and yet, for most scholars (including to a certain extent Dunn himself, at least as regards theologizing of such a mission), such a conclusion is untenable. Dunn’s protests would also seem to indicate that, whatever clarity is claimed, Paul’s investment in his personal status is an issue. Yet Dunn’s warning against such “mistakes” is, one suspects, much sharper than would be likely were his criticisms directed against those scholars questioning Paul’s state of mind as it pertains solely to his call/conversion.

use this argument as proof of Paul as a persuader of “great forcefulness” and “great effectiveness.” See Theology of Paul the Apostle, 11. 238 Matlock, “Sins of the Flesh and Suspicious Minds,” 70 n. 9. 239 Theology of Paul the Apostle, 575. Unsurprisingly, given this view of Dunn’s towards any so-called rhetoric of suspicion, Castelli’s name does not appear in the index of modern authors. One could profitably compare Knox’s softening of Paul’s egoism, and his reference to the “the debt we owe to Paul” that excuses his tone. See Knox, Chapters, 99. 240 Dunn, Theology of Galatians, 25 (italics mine).

GALATIANS 1-2

85

S CHOLARLY R HETORIC ON D AMASCUS , A POSTOLICITY , AND THE G ENTILE M ISSION The above discussion is intended to illustrate what I referred to as scholarly “views” and “tendencies” on Damascus and its connection with Paul’s Gentile mission and his apostolicity in Gal. 1:1517. The consensus “view” can be summarized rather simply, extending Crook’s observation cited above, that:

there is a connection between Paul’s Gentile mission, his apostolic status, and “Damascus.” Paul clearly connects his Gentile mission to Damascus, but an additional explanation, most scholars feel, is still required. Paul’s claim to apostolicity also seems to be under some form of attack or criticism, precipitating his harsh language and his emphasis on his commissioning through a direct apokalypsis of Jesus. However, not only did Paul’s views eventually win out, his claims to apostolicity without the involvement of any human element are not egoistic or even prideful, although the semblance of that tone is present because of his spirited defense of his “gospel” and mission. I have no quarrel with the consensus “view” on any particular point. That is to say, despite Paul’s clearly connecting Damascus with his Gentile mission, at the very least more explanation seems to be required (although it is always possible that the something more is simply Paul neglecting to mention hearing the words: “go and preach to the Gentiles”). Similarly, Paul certainly seems to be eager to present himself as an “apostle,” and to locate his “apostolic commissioning” at Damascus as well. My misgiving is more with the scholarly tendency to simply affirm or accept his claims to apostolicity, particularly given the far more critical attitude displayed towards the connection between the Gentile mission and Damascus. There are some scholars who display reservations about Paul’s apostolic claims, or at least their effects, but it is a decidedly minority viewpoint.241 One is tempted to view this scholarly ten-

241 Castelli, Imitating Paul. As I have repeatedly noted, however, despite a negative assessment of their impact, Castelli does not treat Paul’s

86

ABORTION AND THE APOSTOLATE

dency, at least in part, as a rhetorical reading of Paul in its own right, particularly given the hostility of scholars like Dunn towards suspicious or “unsympathetic” readings of Paul. Dunn himself does not voice such opposition towards those who seek additional elements behind the Gentile mission, merely those who cast some doubt upon Paul’s motivations for his apostolic claims.242 That is to say, for some scholars, Paul’s apostolic claims are treated as statements of fact, despite his continual need to defend them. Scholars

claims as lightly as one might sometimes wish. There may be the occasional scholarly, and in far more cases “popular” (one might say pseudoscholarly in some instances) attempts to portray Paul in a completely negative light, as Nietzsche’s “dysangelist” (The Antichrist, §42) For example, there is Hyam Maccoby, The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity (New York: Harper Collins, 1987) who claims that Paul is himself a Gentile. Hugh J. Schonfield’s tremendous body of work, to cite only one popular example, aims to show how Christianity went awry from the beginning: The Passover Plot (New York: Bantam, 1967), in which Jesus fakes his death. Similarly, Those Incredible Christians (New York: Bantam, 1968) and The Essene Odyssey: The Mystery of the True Teacher and the Essene Impact on the Shaping of Human Destiny (Element Books, 1998), and too many others to mention. Schonfield portrays an early Christianity in which the more legitimate message of Jewish Christianity loses out to a form of GrecoRoman paganism. In The Jew of Tarsus: An Unorthodox Portrait of Paul (London: MacDonald, 1946), he presents Paul as a psychologically unstable individual who believed himself to be the messiah, thus prompting his persecution of the early Church. There are also “credentialed” scholars like Barbara Thiering who have “discovered” references to Paul and Jesus in the Qumran literature (Jesus and the Riddle of the Dead Sea Scrolls [New York: Harper Collins, 1992]). Without being totally dismissive, in my view these sorts of efforts fail chiefly because of their very earnestness to “set aright” the perceived errors of the past. There is certainly nothing to explicitly rule out these interpretations, although from the standpoint of historical reconstruction, one would hope for at least some clearer positive evidence. 242 Dunn, Theology of Paul the Apostle, 353-4. Despite the extensive attacks on Dunn in his own “traditional” presentation of Paul, Kim (Paul and the New Perspective) continually stresses how Dunn’s view is in many ways more compatible with his own than with the New Perspective, merely that Dunn himself fails to see or acknowledge it.

GALATIANS 1-2

87

may find that “it is not difficult to understand why he would think of himself as an apostle,” but it is rarely so clearly spelled out that it would be equally easy to understand why his claims meet with resistance.243 After all, as shown above, scholars themselves display a large amount of skepticism towards Gal. 1:15-17 when it is his “conversion” or the origin of the Gentile mission they are examining, and the amount of energy expended upon “what Paul means” by claiming to be an apostle stands in contrast to the amount expended upon whether his claims should be taken so seriously, even by his own perceived understanding, given that one of the focal passages has been deemed to be so unreliable in other respects. Additionally, were one to view all of this rhetorically, modern rhetorical theory such as that of Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca would note that the acceptance of any given “fact” is never such a straightforward matter. Indeed, from this point of view the mere existence of opposition to Paul’s claims in Galatia should be sufficient to dispel his claims as being statements of fact. Normally, there are thus two ways in which an event can lose the status of fact: either doubts may have been raised within the audience to which it was presented, or the audience may have been expanded through the addition of new members who are recognized as having the ability to judge the event and who will not grant that a fact is involved.244

After all, if the “mere questioning of a statement is thus sufficient to destroy its privileged status,” then Paul’s claims are in no way privileged in their original context, since they were obviously being questioned, seemingly frequently, by his original audience.245 Yet, as was the case with Castelli’s study, implicit and explicit considerations from later periods seem to be playing a rather large role in affirming the reliability of Paul’s apostolic commissioning in Gal. 1:15-17.

Donaldson, Paul and the Gentiles, 258. Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca, The New Rhetoric, 67. 245 Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca, The New Rhetoric, 68. 243 244

88

ABORTION AND THE APOSTOLATE

We are now in a position to examine the details of the reading I am proposing. Many scholars admit that Paul presents Damascus as the source of his Gentile mission, and as the source of his apostolic commissioning. All throughout the above discussion of Gal. 1:15-17 I have made reference to the scholarly search for the “something else” that lies behind Paul’s Gentile mission and the various theories concerning this additional element. My own view is that scholars are right to connect these two aspects of Damascus (apostolic commissioning and Paul’s Gentile mission), but they have failed to explore that connection in any meaningful way.246 It may seem that we may never “uncover what precisely the relationship was between Paul’s conversion experience and his mission to the Gentiles,” since every suggestion “can be supported and contradicted by Pauline data.”247 However, the tendency of many scholars to view Paul’s apostolic claims sympathetically has, I would argue, created a blind spot on this issue. Paul presents the Gentile mission and his apostolicity not just as two aspects of the same experience, but, as the ἵνα indicates, the apokalypsis of Jesus is the immediate cause of the Gentile mission. Perhaps, taking Paul at his word, the solution to the Gentile mission is to be found in his experience of the risen Jesus, if not precisely in the way he presents it. That is, it is curious that for all the references to Paul’s apostolicity being challenged, and a history of interpretation that affirms that Gal. 1:15-17 is a description meant to establish that Paul’s apostolic call as an event “that owes absolutely nothing to upbringing, human development, or cultural tradition,”248 nobody has drawn a causal link between this claim of “unique” apostolic status meeting resistance, and Paul’s mission to the Gentiles, which he presents as his personal mission field (Gal. 2:7-9). That is to say, if Watson’s theory that Paul turned to the Gentiles after an unsuccessful initial Jewish mission, despite finding its share of criticism, has been viewed as a plausible option, one

Cf. again the comments of Crook, Patronage, Loyalty, and Conversion, 206, 215, 219-27. 247 Ibid., 227. 248 Barclay, “Paul’s Story,” 139. 246

GALATIANS 1-2

89

could well ask why the suggestion has not been more often made that Paul’s “turn to the Gentiles” (if it was a turn and not a straight path) could not just as easily have been the result of a much more concrete obstacle that seems to be such a central issue in Galatians: the rejection of his apostolic commissioning and status as equivalent to that of the “other” apostles. This would explain Paul’s vehement insistence on a uniqueness of status, his equally vehement insistence that his status is not derived from any merely human experiences, and his territoriality over his perceived mission field. This suggestion would also explain the back and forth claims about “having” recognition from Jerusalem, but not needing it far more simply than suggestions of misunderstanding and selective disclosure.249 Now such proposals are simply not possible to prove in a final, definitive manner. Indeed, the sheer volume of material I have cited already speaks to such an inability among biblical scholars, and I would find it distasteful to even pretend otherwise. Yet there are several points that speak in favor of this proposal, although it will require additional exploration. First, it accounts for some crucial statements of Paul’s concerning his conversion. Second, it does not require a full study of the entire Pauline corpus. If Paul, when he speaks explicitly about Damascus as his moment of apostolic commissioning, hints or alludes to such a rejection, such an explanation should be seen as more plausible. It also bears noting that such a proposal, at least in the form I am presenting, can not account in one fell swoop for many things: the issue of the status of the Law, the origins of Paul’s convictions about the Law, and the question of whether or not Paul’s Gentile mission was completely unprecedented. Nor do we need to identify the “opponents” of Paul, or provide a full psychological discussion, as Taylor does (with a similar sort of view).

Cf. Howard, Crisis in Galatia, 20-45. Howard claims that Paul was not fully forthcoming with the pillars of the Jerusalem church in his earliest contact, and at the time of writing Galatians had “just recently disclosed” his non-circumcision mission to Jerusalem (21). 249

90

ABORTION AND THE APOSTOLATE Paul’s egocentric and individualist portrayal of his own apostleship stems not from his Damascus road experience, but from the isolation which resulted from Antioch incident. The self-sufficient and independent concept of apostleship provides compensation at the theological level for Paul’s loss of dyadic identity and apostolic commission, previously derived from the church at Antioch.250

Indeed, all that I am claiming to establish definitively is that when Paul presents his readers with a description of his call/conversion as a sign of apostolicity, one will be able to find clear indications of rejection by “others” of his apostolic status. 1 Cor. 15.8 makes such a reference in a rather explicit and crude manner, and will be explored fully in the next two chapters, while the scholarly consensus on Galatians clearly supports the notion that some such challenge lies in its background. John M. G. Barclay, despite sketching out an extremely minimalist estimate of what can be reconstructed from Paul’s letters, sees the issue of Paul’s “credentials as an apostle” as one of the few “certain or virtually certain” results of careful analysis of Galatians.251 So far, my analysis of Gal. 1:15-17 has, at a minimum, reaffirmed Paul’s concern to connect his apostolic call to the Gentiles directly with his Damascus experience, as well as exploring the scholarly consensus that finds such a stylized presentation somewhat lacking as an explanation.

B RIEF E XCURSUS : P AUL ’ S LOGIC , AUTHORITY AND THE “ OTHER ” APOSTLES IN G ALATIANS 1-2 In Galatians 1 Paul asserts the divine origin of his gospel and his mission among the Gentiles (1:11-12, 15-17). In discussing Bercovitz’s interpretation above, I gave a rather free rendering of Gal. 1:15-17 designed to accentuate this element: “When it pleased him, that is, the one who set me aside from before I was born, and who also, I needn’t remind you, is the one who called me through his

Taylor, Paul, Antioch and Jerusalem, 277. See “Mirror-Reading a Polemical Letter: Galatians as a Test Case,” in The Galatians Debate, 367-82, 380. 250 251

GALATIANS 1-2

91

grace (no mere ἄνθρωπος!), he revealed his son to me.” In Galatians 2 it becomes apparent that one cause of the controversy is the dispute over the practices of “circumcision,” and eating with Gentiles.252 Paul outlines his position, and the basic agreement of James and Peter with him, in spite of relating a confrontational episode between himself and Peter. Leaving aside the details of the passage (which can be surveyed in the various commentaries), it is rarely remarked how unusual the logic Paul employs to defend his position is, although given the discussion above this lack of attention to Paul’s somewhat indefensible position should perhaps come as no surprise. Paul has just finished asserting that “even if we or an angel from heaven” (1:8) should proclaim a different gospel, then his audience should ignore that gospel. Despite Paul’s extended emphasis upon the divine origins of his own message, he is so concerned with what he perceives to be a change in orientation among his audience, that he does not mind relativizing his own future authority! Does he really mean to say that “even if I myself should, at some point, tell you something contrary to what I first told you, ignore me!” or “even if an ἄγγελος ἐξ οὐρανοῦ tells you the same, ignore him!”? Dunn notes that this demonstrates Paul’s desire to place his apostleship in the service of the gospel , since apostolic authority “was conditional upon the gospel and subject to the norm of the gospel.”253 But this is a curious fashion in which to construct a defense of one’s authority, asserting that even Paul himself cannot change the message he has preached, nor presumably, can an additional apoka-

252 The one is an issue in Galatia, the other, apparently, the source of his dispute with Peter at Antioch. There are still attempts to connect this material meaningfully to Acts. See Hervé Ponsot, “Peut-On Encore Parler de «Concile» de Jérusalem? À Propos d’Ac 15 et de la Chronologie Paulinienne,” RB 109 (2002): 556-86. On Galatians, see Dunn, “The Incident at Antioch”; Philip F. Esler, “Making and Breaking an Agreement Mediterranean Style: A New Reading of Galatians 2:1-14”; Mark D. Nanos, “What Was as Stake in Peter’s “Eating with Gentiles” at Antioch?”; A. E. Harvey, “The Opposition to Paul”; all in Nanos, The Galatians Debate, 199333. 253 Theology of Paul the Apostle, 572, and more fully 572-4.

92

ABORTION AND THE APOSTOLATE

lypsis itself. Noting how neither Paul nor the appearance of a heavenly messenger can alter what he has proclaimed should give one pause, given how Paul has staked much of his own authority upon claims of a direct revelation from God. Paul however, also claims for himself in Gal. 2:1-10 exactly the sort of human authorization that he denies, albeit in an indirect and ambiguous way.254 In relating his trip to Jerusalem in Galatians 2 he does not refer to other “apostles,” as he did in Gal. 1:18, but only to the “acknowledged leaders” (Gal. 2:2, 6, NRSV), or οἱ δοκοῦντες. Those “reputed/seeming” to be leaders, at least according to Paul’s presentation, clearly recognized and endorsed Paul’s mission as equal to Peter’s. They saw “that I had been entrusted with the gospel for the uncircumcised (τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τῆς ἀκροβυστίας), just as (καθὼς) Peter had been entrusted with the gospel for the circumcised” (2:7). Paul thus makes clear that these other “reputable” persons themselves recognize Paul’s claims, despite Paul’s disavowal of the importance of human authorities. Paul does finally use the term “apostle” in reference to Peter in chapter 2, but only in the context of a comparison between his mission and Peter’s. Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along with me. I went up in response to a revelation. Then I laid before them (though only in a private meeting with the acknowledged leaders) the gospel that I proclaim among the Gentiles, in order to make sure that I was not running, or had not run, in vain… And from those who were supposed to be acknowledged leaders (what they actually were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)—those leaders contributed nothing to me. On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel for the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel for the circumcised (for he who worked through Peter making him an apostle to the circumcised also worked through me in sending me to the Gentiles), and when James and Cephas and John, who were acknowledged pillars, recognized the grace that had

254

Cf. once again Howard, Crisis in Galatia.

GALATIANS 1-2

93

been given to me, they gave to Barnabas and me the right hand of fellowship, agreeing that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the uncircumcised. (Gal. 2:1-2, 6-9, NRSV)

This recognition of Paul’s mission is bracketed, of course, by Paul’s claims that such recognition does not matter (1:1-18; 2:6, 9). His avowal of independence, and the relegation of “human authority” to non-consideration, are both in the background of Paul’s claim in 2:6-10 that those leaders, or “reputed” leaders, whose opinion should not matter, supported his mission.255 After all, Paul has told his audience that “what they were makes no difference to me” (2:6), since it only matters that it was “he who worked through Peter” that had also commissioned Paul to preach to the Gentiles (2:8). Now it is hardly surprising that Paul’s presentation of this issue has been carefully explored by scholars seeking to understand precisely “what happened,” particularly in light of similar-sounding material from Acts. This despite Paul’s assertion that it was a private meeting (κατ᾽ ἰδίαν -Gal. 2:2). But on a broader scale this is a simply a continuation of establishing “priority” and “authorization” for Paul’s apostolic call to preach to the Gentiles, a process begun in Gal 1:15-17. Paul, at least according to Paul, was called to his mission before having any contact with the other apostles, and that God’s intentions that were made clear at Damascus had been there from before Paul’s birth. Although most scholars rightly view the phrase ἀφορίσας ἐκ τῆς κοιλίας μητρός μου as stylized lan-

The continual use of the ambiguous δοκέω is undoubtedly meant to leave their status an open question. His dismissive tone in 2:6 (“from those ‘thought to be something special’—whatever they were, it matters not to me” [ἀπὸ δὲ τῶν δοκούντων εἶναί τι, — ὁποῖοί ποτε ἦσαν οὐδέν μοι διαφέρει] should remove any doubt that this is somehow unintentional or an unintended meaning. See Nikolaus Walter, “Paul and the Opponents of the Christ-Gospel in Galatia,” in The Galatians Debate, 362-6, 364; Betz, Galatians, 92-95 (although he places more weight upon the ποτε ἦσαν). 255

94

ABORTION AND THE APOSTOLATE

guage, filled with allusions to either Jer. 1,256 Isa. 49,257 or both,258 it is also a claim of priority and authorization.259 God’s plan for Paul preceded everything else; just as Paul’s Gentile mission preceded his meeting the other apostles, before which even the churches in Judea ἐδόξαζον ἐν ἐμοὶ τὸν θεὸν (1:24). Not that it matters at all, according to Paul (2:6), but the “other apostles” approved of him and his mission, before any incidents at Antioch or in Galatia. Now as Dunn observes, it seems that Paul protests too much the irrelevance of the Jerusalem apostles’ recognition of his gospel, and that perhaps some human recognition of his gospel does matter, at least as far as the Galatians were concerned. From the point of view of the Galatians, the implied sequence seems to have been:

256 Beker, Paul the Apostle, 10; Roetzel, Paul: The Man and the Myth, 49 (although also Isa 49 [115-18], if primarily Jer [116], and even Isa 2:2-4; 60:11 [63]). See also Roetzel, Paul: A Jew on the Margins (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2003), 12. 257 Becker, Paul: Apostle to the Gentiles, 73; Dietzfelbinger, Die Berufung des Paulus, 61 (but also Jer 49:6; cf. 61 n. 76: “nicht mit Jer 1, 5”). 258 Stendahl, Paul Among Jews and Gentiles, 7-8; Murphy-O’Connor, Paul: A Critical Life, 80; see more generally Sandnes, Paul—One of the Prophets?, 5-14; Fung, The Epistle to the Galatians, 63; Bruce, Galatians: A Commentary on the Greek Text, 92 259 Polaski claims such “echoes” would perhaps have functioned as “comforting rather than shocking, beckoning rather than distancing uses of Scripture” (Paul and the Discourse of Power, 79). Sandnes argues that the primary function of any such allusion would be to strengthen Paul’s claims. “It is the conviction of the present writer that declaring the prophetic element in Paul’s presentation of the Damascus revelation as in some way accidental is to deprive it of its deepest significance. It is by recalling the tradition of the biblical prophets that Paul is able to lay a legitimate foundation for his apostolate” (Paul—One of the Prophets?, 242).

GALATIANS 1-2

95

1). Paul preached his gospel. 2). There was then a dispute about the observance of food laws and circumcision. 3). There was some concern expressed either about Paul being “an apostle,” or if he was such, an apostle “from human hands.” This stands in contrast to the rather complicated sequence that Paul sets out: 1). God selected me before I was born, much like Isaiah or Jeremiah. 2). God revealed his son to me, so that I might preach him to the Gentiles. 3). I had no contact with Jerusalem for three years, then a brief visit with Peter and James. 4). I was unknown, but celebrated among the churches of Judea, and after fourteen years I went to Jerusalem. But not for any reason of authorization or status, but because of another apokalypsis . 5). I chose to “lay before them the gospel” to ensure its acceptability, and they recognized my gospel as legitimate, although it doesn’t matter what they think. 6). “A ntioch incident,” at which I made my views clear to Peter, and he was clearly in the wrong. 7). Problems in the Galatian church. Nonetheless, in Paul’s presentation of his conversion in Gal. 1:1517 (which presents this apokalypsis as the immediate reason for the Gentile mission), the question of authorization and priority of authorization is extremely important to Paul, particularly as it pertains to his status vis-à-vis the other apostles. In 1 Cor. 15, in his other discussion of his call to be an apostle, even when he does not (or cannot!) claim a temporal or sequential priority for himself, the

96

ABORTION AND THE APOSTOLATE

issue of his apostolic status also seems to be lying near to the surface of his discourse.

4 CONTEXTUALIZING 1 CORINTHIANS 15:8 “Last of all, as if to an ‘abortion’… ”

“A BORTION ”

IN THE

A NCIENT M EDITERRANEAN ∗

1 Corinthians chapter 15 has long been another focal text for the study of Paul’s conversion. As with Galatians 1-2, scholars frequently view this passage as, among other things, a paired attempt to exercise apostolic authority in order to shore up the precise message of the gospel that he preached.260 Fueling scholarly interest are several elements, not least among them Paul’s curious selfdescription in 1 Cor. 15:8. This self-description is far from the only reason for this attention, however. Paul’s unusual wording in this verse falls before an extended discussion of resurrection and the “resurrection-body,” and mention of his own vision of the risen Christ falls immediately after a recitation of the resurrection ap-

Portions of the research underlying this chapter have been presented in colloquium settings, most importantly in Dalhousie University’s Gender and Women’s Studies Programme Lecture Series (“The Bible and Abortion in Antiquity: Ancient Reflections on the Modern Culture Wars” [Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, November 16, 2006]). I am grateful to Dr. Jennifer Bain, GWST coordinator, and the students of my Women and Religion seminar from that semester.

∗

260 James D. G. Dunn, 1 Corinthians (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995, reprint 1999), 90-111.

97

98

ABORTION AND THE APOSTOLATE

pearances of Jesus.261 Given that the standard dating views these verses as the earliest writings on these topics, the importance of the entire passage for biblical scholars can scarcely be overemphasized, making this chapter among the most intensively studied in the Pauline corpus. “From it we gain insight into some of the earliest Christian tradition, Paul’s own reckoning of his apostolic status, a Corinthian ‘problem’ and Paul’s method of theological argument.”262 For I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to all the brothers and sisters at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. (1 Cor. 15:3-8, NRSV)

What I referred to above as a curious choice of words is not, however, apparent to the casual reader of the NRSV. The English phrase “untimely born” is a misleading translation, and although no translation is without a certain loss of precision, in this case it also masks one of the principal difficulties in this passage. In an extremely odd turn of phrase, Paul uses the Greek word ἔκτρωμα (“miscarriage, abortion”) to describe himself, his relationship to the other apostles, and his experience of the risen Christ. I have argued elsewhere that this unusual choice of words is influenced by the same concern that permeates the early chapters of Galatians and Paul’s presentation of Damascus found there: how does Paul’s apostolic commissioning compare to that of the “other apostles”? I will present the same argument here that Paul’s use of the word ἔκτρωμα points to a rejection of his apostolic status as equal to

Dunn asserts the centrality of these verses: “Not least of 1 Corinthians’ riches is the fact that it includes 15.3-8” (Ibid., 102). 262 John Howard Schütz, “Apostolic Authority and the Control of Tradition: 1 Cor. XV,” NTS 15 (1969): 439-57, 439. 261

CONTEXTUALIZING 1 CORINTHIANS 15:8

99

that of the “other apostles,” an interpretation that I feel has fewer problems than previous scholarly suggestions.263 Normally, readers might now expect an exhaustive review of the word’s occurrences, their contexts, and previous interpretations. I will meet those expectations, but only in the next chapter. Before studying the term ἔκτρωμα in 1 Cor. 15:8 and reviewing the history of scholarly interpretations, however, I will first discuss a broad a range of materials from the ancient world on the topic of abortion, in order to present my interpretation against as fully developed a context as is possible. This survey will also go some way to providing additional evidence that my interpretation is plausible, although there are arguably no exact parallels to Paul’s self-description. Although we may seem to be diverging quite a long ways from Paul in this chapter, I will plead for some indulgence. A note of methodological caution is also required. The material discussed below ranges from Classical Greece, through the Hellenistic period, and into the Roman era (including some patristic writers), the so-called “Greco-Roman” period in its broadest sense. Geographically the range is equally wide, from Alexandria to Athens, Rome to Gaul. Objections may well be raised about drawing comparisons from evidence ranging over such wide expanses of time and space. Despite a widely acknowledged cultural continuity, it may be argued that it is absurd to disregard the differences in social institutions and daily life in such varied times and locations (I myself am usually one of those suspicious of reliance on a singular, universalized notion of “the culture” of the ancient Mediterranean). This reasonable objection would be misguided in this case, however. My discussion will focus on “abortion” and the related practice of infant exposure, and despite the differing places and times surveyed, some relatively constant attitudes to these practices are found to prevail. Additionally, the associations I will be discussing are not dependent upon any one source in particular, but are to be understood cumulatively. As will be seen, Greek and Roman

263 See my “Reexamining the ‘Aborted Apostle’: An Exploration of Paul’s Self-Description in 1 Cor. 15.8,” JSNT 25 (2003): 469-85, much of which is incorporated into Chapter 5.

100

ABORTION AND THE APOSTOLATE

sources (and unsurprisingly, modern scholars) are sharply divided on both the morality and prevalence of these practices, yet they also demonstrate a surprising amount of agreement on the attitudes reflected in the ancient sources across various times and regions.264 “A bortion” in Biblical Tradition and Beyond: Reading Exodus 21:22 265 Although it does not use any of the terms usually associated with miscarriage or abortion (e.g, ἔκτρωμα, ἀµβλωθρίδιον, lpn), Exodus 21:22 has been the focus of many studies and is often cited in discussions of the history of attitudes towards abortion in both Judaism and Christianity.266 Scholarly attention has focused on questions concerning the redaction of the so-called “Book of the

Similarly, although the genre of such material is taken into account it is not viewed as determinative. A Roman historian may or may not find Tacitus or Livy more “reliable” than Plautus, given the purpose of the latter was primarily “entertainment.” That being said, such fictionalization and exaggeration of social and cultural mores, though not terribly accurate in the sense a modern pollster or demographer would demand, depended upon audience recognition of the activities condemned or satirized. 265 I only became aware of the following scholarly study recently, although it does not alter my discussion here. Roxane Humbert-Droz, L’Exégèse d’Exode 21,22-25: Les pères de l’Eglise et l’avortement (Mémoire en langue littérature latines; Neuchatel, février 2004, ). 266 “Abortion,” EncJud 2:98-101; “Abtreibung,” RAC 1:55-60; “Abortion in Antiquity,” ABD (1992) 1:31-32; Konstantinos Kapparis, Abortion in the Ancient World (London: Duckworth, 2002), 47-51; John M. Riddle, Eve’s herbs : a history of contraception and abortion (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1997), 70-73; Contraception and Abortion from the Ancient World to the Renaissance (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press,1992), 20-23; David M. Feldman, Birth Control in Jewish Law: Marital Relations, Contraception, and Abortion as set forth in the classic texts of Jewish Law (New York: New York University Press, 1968), 251-67; M. Stol, Birth in Babylonia and the Bible: Its Mediterranean Setting, Cuneiform Monographs, 14 (Groningen: Styx Publications, 2000), 39-48; and Humbert-Droz, L’Exégèse d’Exode 21,22-25. 264

CONTEXTUALIZING 1 CORINTHIANS 15:8

101

Covenant” into its current Pentateuchal form,267 the issue of potentially parallel Ancient Near Eastern legal practices (particularly regarding the ius talionis),268 and the more straightforward (if equally difficult) philological confusion surrounding the meaning of the present MT.269 In the BHS Exodus 21:22 reads as follows: hydly w)cyw hrh h#) wpgnw My#n) wcny- ykw Nws3) hyhy )lw .Myllpb Ntnw h#)h l(b wyl( ty#y r#)k #n(y #wn( The problems facing scholars are many: the obscure nature of the word Nws), the question of whether it applies to the woman or child,270 the unexpected plural forms in the phrase hydly w)cy where one would expect the singular, and finally, the meaning of

Shalom M. Paul, Studies in the Book of the Covenant in the Light of Cuneiform and Biblical Law, VTSup, 18 (Leiden: Brill, 1970), 70-77; Samuel E. Loewenstamm, “Exodus XXI 22-25,” VT 27 (1977): 352-60; Cees Houtman, “Eine schwangere Frau als Opfer eines Handgemenges (Exodus 21,22-25): Ein Fall von stellvertretender Talion im Bundesbuch?” in Studies in the Book of Exodus: Redaction—Reception—Interpretation, ed. Marc Vervenne, BETL, 126 (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1996), 381-97; Riddle, Eve’s Herbs, 70-71; William H.C. Propp, Exodus 19-40: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB, 2A (Garden City: Doubleday, 1992), 221-30. 268 Bernard S. Jackson, “The Problem of Exod. XXI 22-5 (IUS TALIONIS),” VT 23 (1973): 273-304; Raymond Westbrook, “Lex Talionis and Exodus 21, 22-25,” RB 93 (1986): 52-69. More generally, Tångberg, “Die Bewertung des ungeborenen Lebens”; Propp, Exodus 19-40, 225-32; Stol, Birth in Babylonia and the Bible, 39-42; Humbert-Droz, L’Exégèse d’Exode 21,22-25, 28-36. 269 Stanley Isser, “Two Traditions: The Law of Exodus 21:22-23 Revisited,” CBQ 52 (1990): 30-45; Nina L. Collins, “Notes on the Text of Exodus XXI 22,” VT 43 (1993): 289-301. This problem has a history of scholarship reaching back well over a century earlier. See K. Budde, “Bermerkungen zum Bundesbuch,” ZAW 11 (1891): 99-114. 270 Adrian Schenker, “Drei Mosaiksteinchen: »Königreich von Priestern«, »Und ihre Kinder gehen Weg«, »Wir tun und wir hören« (Exodus 19,6; 21,22; 24,7),” in Studies in the Book of Exodus: Redaction—Reception— Interpretation, 367-80, 374.; Propp, Exodus 19-40, 222. 267

102

ABORTION AND THE APOSTOLATE

Myllpb. In modern English versions the issue of the plural is usually solved by simply translating as if it were singular.271 As for the exact nuance of Nws), a word which appears in only two other passages in the Bible (always of Benjamin in Gen. 42:4, 38; 44:29), it tends to be rendered with a general term like “damage” or “harm,” while Myllpb is understood to refer to some form of judicial figure or activity. When people who are fighting injure a pregnant woman so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no further harm follows, the one responsible shall be fined what the woman’s husband demands, paying as much as the judges determine. (NRSV) When men fight, and one of them pushes a pregnant woman and a miscarriage results, but no other damage ensues, the one responsible shall be fined according as the woman’s husband may exact from him, the payment to be based on reckoning. (NJPS)

The NJPS translation committee, perhaps hedging its bets, footnotes the option “as the judges determine,” which certainly does not seem to be the same as “based on reckoning,” although both would fit within the meanings of the root llp. However, both the NRSV and the NJPS have made a number of other decisions as to the meaning of passage as a whole. The number of men fighting is not stated, but the assumption seems to be that one man only is ultimately responsible, regardless of how many combatants there were. Since a fine is paid for “no further” damage (beyond the damage of the miscarriage itself, one presumes), there is no issue about precisely to whom the Nws) occurs.272 The meaning of the passage is simply that if a pregnant woman miscarries because of accidental involvement in a fight, the guilty party is fined unless something more severe happens to the woman, such as her dying.273

271

Houtman, “Exodus 21,22-25,” 387; Propp, Exodus 19-40, 223-5. See Collins, “The Text of Exodus XXI 22,” 290-6. 273 Paul, Studies in the Book of the Covenant, 71-3. 272

CONTEXTUALIZING 1 CORINTHIANS 15:8

103

Resolving problems in this manner is only available to members of a translation committee. Other proposed options involve identifying some previously unrecognized technical meaning for troublesome terms like Nws),274 applying them to the fetus and not the mother,275 or simply resorting to emendations to clean up the currently difficult MT.276 Solving these Masoretic difficulties is not my concern here, but these various studies make clear that problems with the passage go back to our ancient sources and interpreters. The broadest proposal for emendation, that of Collins, leans heavily upon the testimony of the LXX.277 This is significant, and the LXX receives similar attention in the near contemporary study

Westbrook, “Lex Talionis and Exodus 21, 22-25.” Westbrook proposes that Nws) refers to cases without anybody legally at fault, while llp refers to cases where an individual is clearly responsible. Loewenstamm claims that the “extremely limited occurrence of the noun tends to show that its use was restricted to a certain Hebrew dialect and that the law of the pregnant woman comes from the same surroundings as the passages dealing with Jacob’s opposition to Benjamin’s journey.” Myllp “is a hapax legomenon apparently belonging to the same dialect” (“Exodus XXI 22-25,” 358). For a review including the evidence of the versions see Houtman, “Exodus 21,22-25,” 385-7; Humbert-Droz, L’Exégèse d’Exode 21,22-25, 28-36. 275 Jackson, “Exodus XXI 22-25,” 292-4. 276 Budde, “Bemerkungen”; Collins, “The Text of Exodus XXI 22”; Loewenstamm, “Exodus XXI 22-25,” 360. For a review of opinions see Houtman, “Exodus 21,22-25,” 382-4. 277 Specifically three emendations: 1) puzzling plurals made singular 2) negative turned into personal pronoun ()l to wl) 3) re-pointing the infinitive absolute as a noun. Collins gives the following text: wyl( ty#y #n(y r#)b #nw( Nws) hyhy wlw hdly )cyw h#) l(b Which would roughly translate as “And if her child comes out, and there is a serious-injury to him, there will be a fine on whoever is to be punished; the woman’s husband shall assign it upon him” (Collins, “The Text of Exodus XXI 22,” 301). In the nineteenth century, Budde proposed simply emending Myllpb to Mylpnb: “Das soll er geben für die Fehlgeburt” (Budde, “Bemerkungen,” 107-8). Cf. Houtman, “Exodus 21,22-25,” 386. 274

104

ABORTION AND THE APOSTOLATE

of Stanley Isser. Isser sees the differences between the LXX and the MT as not only textual in nature, but as ultimately representing “two separate legal traditions concerning the law of Exod 21:2223.”278 In contrast to the MT, the LXX is much more precise in its wording. ἐὰν δὲ μάχωνται δύο ἄνδρες καὶ πατάξωσιν γυναῖκα ἐν γαστρὶ ἔχουσαν, καὶ ἐξέλθῃ τὸ παιδίον αὐτῆς μὴ ἐξεικονισμένον, ἐπιζήμιον ζημιωθήσεται⋅ καθότι ἂν ἐπιβάλῃ ὀ ἀνὴρ τῆς γυναικός δώσει μετὰ ἀξιώματος ἐὰν δὲ ἐξεικονισμένον ἦν, δώσει ψυχὴν ἀντὶ ψυχῆς. If two men fight, and they should strike a woman who is pregnant, and her child should come out unformed (μὴ ἐξεικονισμένον), he will be fined a penalty. He will pay what is appropriate (μετὰ ἀξιώματος), in the manner (καθότι) that the woman’s husband should levy upon (ἐπιβάλῃ) him. If it was fully formed (ἐξεικονισμένον ἦν), he will pay life for life. (Exod. 21:22-23)

The LXX is dealing with an almost completely different scenario than that envisioned by the NRSV or NJPS, and despite some odd phrasing is comparatively clear in its meaning. The number of men is two, and the concern is ultimately for the harm done to the fetus, not the woman, who one presumes escapes relatively unscathed in this scenario. The concern in the tradition represented by the LXX links the severity of the punishment to the question of whether or not the fetus was far enough along in the pregnancy to be considered viable. This is certainly the meaning Philo of Alexandria attaches to this passage in Book 3 of De specialibus legibus, in which he is clearly analyzing a text in the tradition of our LXX:

Isser, “Exodus 21:22-23,” 31; Cf. Feldman, Birth Control in Jewish Law, 257-9; Riddle, Contraception and Abortion, 20-23; Stol, Birth in Babylonia and the Bible, 43-44; Kapparis, Abortion in the Ancient World, 47. I am not interested in whether these are actually “Palestinian” or “Alexandrian” traditions. 278

CONTEXTUALIZING 1 CORINTHIANS 15:8

105

ἐὰν δὲ συμπλακεὶς γυναικί τις ἐγκύω πληγὴν ἐμορφήσῃ κατὰ τὴν γαστέρα, ἡ δὲ ἀμβλώσῃ, ἐὰν μὲν ἄπλαστον καὶ ἀδιατύπωτον τὸ ἀμβλωθὲν τύχῃ, ζημιούσθω, καὶ διὰ τὴν ὕ βριν καὶ ὅ τι ἐμποδὼν ἐγένετο τῇ φύσει ζῳογονῆσαι τὸ κάλλιστον τεχνιτευούσῃ καὶ δημιουργούσῃ ζῳον, ἄνθρωπον⋅ εἰ δὲ ἤδη μεμορφωμένον, ἁπάντων μελῶν τὰς οἰκείους τάξεις καὶ ποιότητας ἀπειληφότων, θνῃσκέτω. τὸ γὰρ τοιοῦτον ἄνθρωπός ἐστιν…279 But if any one has a contest with a woman who is pregnant, and strike her a blow on her belly, and she miscarry, if the child which was conceived within her is still unfashioned and unformed, he shall be punished by a fine, both for the assault which he committed and also because he has prevented nature, who was fashioning and preparing that most excellent of all creatures, a human being, from bringing him into existence. But if the child which was conceived had assumed a distinct shape in all its parts, having received all its proper connective and distinctive qualities, he shall die; for such creature as that is a man… (Spec. 3.108-109)280

There are few ambiguities in Philo’s discussion. Philo elaborates on the biblical law, describing the difference between a “formed” and “unformed” fetus and giving a detailed explanation of how one is differentiated from the other. A “formed” fetus not only has “all his limbs” (ἁπάντων μελῶν), but his limbs “already” (thus the perfect participle ἀπειληφότων) “have their proper arrangement

Greek text from Philonis Alexandrini: Operae quae supersunt, 6 vols., ed. L. Cohn, P. Wendland, and S. Reiter (Berlin: Reimerus 1896-1915), vol. 5: 180-1. See also the French translation with Greek text and commentary, Les Œuvres de Philon d’Alexandrie: De Specialibus Legibus III et IV, ed., trans., André Mosès (Paris: Cerf, 1970), 128-9; see Humbert-Droz, L’Exégèse d’Exode 21,22-25, 38-40. 280 ET by C. D. Yonge, The Works of Philo (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1993), 605. 279

106

ABORTION AND THE APOSTOLATE

and qualities” (τὰς οἰκείους τάξεις καὶ ποιότητας281). Causing this type of fetus to miscarry brings a severe penalty, because, as Philo adds with an explanatory note (γὰρ), “such is a person,”282 and not a mere ἔκτρωμα or ἀμβλωθρίδιον that can be compensated for with money.283 Philo’s concern to distinguish between a lateterm fetus and an early-term fetus has many parallels in GrecoRoman tradition and later Christian writers. Philo’s exegesis is, as it happens, merely one voice in a much larger debate concerning the status of the fetus. It may be an exaggeration or simplification to say that “Aristotle is responsible for the distinction between formed and unformed fetus,” while in contrast the Stoics argued that the fetus “became a living being only at birth.”284 Yet these represented the two extremes of the divergent views among the ancients concerning the status of the fetus, so that Philo, as it happens, is standing firmly in the classical tradition going back to Aristotle.285 “The line between lawful and unlawful abortion will be marked by the fact of having sensation and being alive” (Pol.

“Tous ses membres fussent en place avec leurs caractéristiques propres” (Mosès, De Specialibus Legibus III et IV, 129). 282 At the risk of anachronism, I have rendered ἄνθρωπος as “person,” since the language of “personhood” has more resonance today than that of “being human.” 283 The alternate verbs for abortion and their related noun forms used by Philo in this passage are derived from ἀμβλίσκω / ἀμβλόω. They are simply synonyms for ἔκτρωμα / ἐκτιτρώσκω, cf. LSJ and the discussion of Leg 1.76. in Chapter 5. 284 Sheila K. Dickison, “Abortion in Antiquity,” Arethusa 6 (1973):159-66, 165. See also Anthony Preus, “Biomedical Techniques for Influencing Human Reproduction in the Fourth Century B.C.,” Arethusa 8 (1975): 237-63, 251-6. The reference is to Aristotle’s De animalibus historiae 7.583b10. Aristotle distinguishes between “effluxes” [ἐκρύσεις], which occur in the first week, and “abortions” [ἐκτρωσμοὶ], which refer to the first forty days (Aristotle: History of Animals Books VII-X, trans. D. M. Balme, LCL, 439 [Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, repr. 1991], 434-7). Cf. Aristotle’s De animalibus historiae 7.583b10. 285 Kapparis, Abortion in the Ancient World, 33-52. Stol, Birth in Babylonia and the Bible, 17-26. 281

CONTEXTUALIZING 1 CORINTHIANS 15:8

107

7.14.10 [1335b]).286 David Frankfurter also notes continuity between early Greek purity laws and much later Mishnaic material concerning this distinction, observing that “the pollution occasioned through contact with a miscarried fetus depends on its stage of development, bringing birth impurity if undeveloped and death impurity if limbs are visible.”287 Kapparis summarizes: We can safely conclude that in the classical period learned persons, namely doctors, philosophers and those with an interest in the matters expounded here, were predominantly gradualists. The achievement of Hippocratic medicine in describing more accurately than ever before the stages of development of the human embryo altered perceptions and made people think that birth, important as it was, need not be the starting point of someone’s life as an individual, and that human life begins before birth, while the embryo is growing in the womb.288

The precise point at which this development of the fetus in the period “before birth” reaches completion is itself, of course, equally subject to debate.289 Even later readers of the LXX (and the translations based upon it) did not view the text of Exodus as de-

ET in Aristotle: The Politics, trans. H. Rackham, LCL, 264 (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1932), 625. Αἴσθησις serves to signal the beginnings of “life” here. 287 “Fetus Magic and Sorcery Fears in Roman Egypt,” GRBS 46 (2006):37-62, 49 n. 24. 288 Kapparis, Abortion in the Ancient World, 51. 289 This debate goes back to the Presocratic period (Kapparis, Abortion in the Ancient World, 52), and was subject to various medical and metaphysical speculation. The development of the fetus and the various theories of ensoulment in Late Antique philosophical debates are discussed in Clemens Scholten, “Welche Seele hat der Embryo? Johannes Philoponos und die antike Embryologie,” VC 59 (2005):377-411, 397-409; cf. MarieHelene Congourdeau, “Genèse d’un regard chrétien sur l’embryon,” in Véronique Dasen (ed.), Naissance et petite enfance dans l’Antiquité: Actes du colloque de Fribourg, 28 novembre-1er décembre 2001, OBO, 203 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht ; Fribourg: Academic Press, 2004), 349-62. 286

108

ABORTION AND THE APOSTOLATE

terminative, or speak with a single voice. The Didache and the Epistle of Barnabas simply condemn abortion,290 while the Cappadocian Basil of Caesarea states that the distinction between formed and unformed amounts to “hair-splitting”: A woman who deliberately destroys a foetus is answerable for murder. And any fine distinction [ἀκριβολογία] as to its being completely formed [ἐκμεμορφωμένου] or unformed [ἀνεξεικονίστου] is not admissible among us. For in this case not only the child which is about to be born is vindicated, but also she herself who plotted against herself, since women usually die from such attempts (ep. 188.2).291

This contrasts slightly to some of the Latin Fathers, such as Tertullian’s earlier reading of the passage (“Ex eo igitur fetus in utero homo, a quo forma completa est” [An. 37.2]),292 as well as Augustine’s view that this passage’s distinction between an “infans deformatus” and “formatus” implies that Moses did not “reckon” the unformed fetus to be human, and thus did not want to acknowledge its destruction as falling under the law of homicide. “Quod

290 “Thou shalt not procure abortion, nor commit infanticide [οὐ φονεύσεις τέκνον ἐν φθορᾷ, οὐδὲ γεννηθὲν ἀποκτενεις]” (Did. 2.2 // Ep. Barn. 19.5). 291 ET in Saint Basil: The Letters in Four Volumes, trans. Roy J. Deferrari, LCL (New York: Putnam’s, 1930), 3:20-21. Aristotle notes the dangers involved in later-stage abortions in Historia Animalium, stating that “women suffer most during the fourth month and the eighth, and if they abort at the fourth of eighth month they too perish as a rule, so that not only do the eight-month children [τὰ ὀκτάμηνα] not live but in their destruction the mothers are at risk [διαφθειρομένων αἱ τίκτουσαι κινδυνεύσιν]” (HA 7.584b.15-20, Aristotle: History of Animals Books VIIX, 444-5). 292 “The embryo therefore becomes a human being in the womb from the moment that its form is completed.” ET in ANF 3:217. J.H. Waszink (De Anima: Edited with Introduction and Commentary [Amsterdam: Meulenhoff, 1947]) comments that Tertullian is dependent on the LXX rendering of Exodus here, as he believes this view is in contradiction with Tertullian’s earlier statements (425-6). See Humbert-Droz, L’Exégèse d’Exode 21,22-25, 40-41.

CONTEXTUALIZING 1 CORINTHIANS 15:8

109

uero non formatum puerperium noluit ad homicidium pertinere, profecto nec hominem deputauit quod tale in utero geritur.” (Quaest. Hept.: Quaestionum Exodi. 80).293 Rabbinic tradition chose the “Stoic” option, also present in the first-century as represented by the MT, affirming that the child is part of the mother’s body until after she gives birth.294 Josephus possibly bears witness to this range of interpretation, since despite his mention of a total ban on abortion and his claims that Jewish law requires it to be treated as murder (Ag. Ap. 2.202), he also discusses the law of Exodus 21:22 in line with the MT tradition (Ant. 4.278), citing payment of a fine as recompensing the loss of a potential member of the community. The Law orders all the offspring to be brought up, and forbids women either to cause abortion or to make away with the foetus [μήτ᾽ ἀμβλοῦν τὸ σπαρὲν μήτε διαφθείρειν]; a woman convicted of this is regarded as an infanticide [ἀλλ᾽ ἠν φανείν τεκνοκτόνος ἀν εἴη], because she destroys a soul and diminishes the race (Ag. Ap. 2.202).295 He that kicketh a woman with child, if the woman miscarry, shall be fined by the judges for having, by the destruction of the fruit of her womb, diminished the population, and a further sum shall be presented by him to the woman’s husband. If

Latin text from Aurelii Augustini Opera Pars V, CCL, 33 (Brepols: Turnholt, 1958), 111. The lex talionis reading “dabit animam pro anima” in Latin allows Augustine a chance to discuss the issue of “formation” and “animation/ensoulment.” See Humbert-Droz, L’Exégèse d’Exode 21,22-25, 54-56. Cf. Stol, Birth in Babylonia and the Bible, 43; Scholten, “Welche Seele hat der Embryo?”; Congourdeau, “Genèse d’un regard chrétien sur l’embryon.” 294 Isser, “Exodus 21:22-23,” 32-38; EncJud 2: 299-100; Feldman, Birth Control in Jewish Law, 251-94. 295 Greek text and ET in Josephus I: The Life, Against Apion, trans. H. St. J. Thackeray, LCL, 186 (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1926, repr. 1966), 372-5. 293

110

ABORTION AND THE APOSTOLATE she die of the blow, he also shall die, and law claiming as its due the sacrifice of life for life (Ant. 4.278).296

The Mishnah thus famously makes use of the view that it is separation from the mother’s body that is legally significant in one of its tractates, providing the basis for the rabbinic discusssions: dlyl h#qm )yh# h#)h ;hy(mb dlwh-t) Nyktxm ,Myrb) Myrb) wtw) Ny)ycwmw ;wyyxl Nymdwq hyyx# ynpm *#pn ynpm #pn Nyxwd Ny)# ;wb Ny(gwn Ny) ;wbwr )cy If a woman suffer hard labour in travail, the child must be cut up in her womb and brought out piece-meal, for her life takes precedence over its life; for if the greater part has [already] come forth, it must not be touched, for the [claim of one] life can not supersede [that of another] life (m. Ohal. 7.6).297

Philo (possibly) preserves this view for us as well, or at least intimates that birth indicates an even clearer and more indisputable entry into the world of life and personhood: But when the children are brought forth and are separated from that which is produced with them, and are set free and placed by themselves, they then become real living creatures, deficient in nothing which can contribute to the perfection of human nature, so that then, beyond all question, he who slays an infant is a homicide, and the law shows its indignation at such an action; not being guided by the age but by the species

296 Greek text and ET in Josephus VI: Jewish Antiquities, Books IV-VI, trans. H. St. J. Thackeray, Ralph Marcus, LCL, 490 (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1930), 608-11. Josephus, however, seems to understand the text as supporting the payment of two fines, one assessed by the judges and the other paid to the woman’s husband. 297 Text and ET from Philip Blackman, Mishnayoth, 7 vols (New York: Judaica Press, 1963-4), 6:233.

CONTEXTUALIZING 1 CORINTHIANS 15:8

111

of the creature in whom its ordinances are violated (Spec. 3.118).

Summary: “A bortion” in Biblical, Jewish, and Christian Tradition There are several issues above that could be examined in greater detail, but the relationship and distinction between the permissibility of abortion and the debates concerning the “status” of the fetus needs to remain both clear and simultaneously muddy. Although later Jewish tradition extends a full acceptance for “therapeutic” abortion, rabbinic tradition is divided about the “personhood” or “ensoulment” of the fetus. This issue does not require a consensus, since most rabbinic discussions center on the technical legality of abortion, not the “status” of the fetus. Abortion may be permissible or allowable, and yet not desirable. Similarly, abortion in Christian texts is not permissible, even when it is deemed less of a wrong when it concerns the earlier, “unformed” fetus.298 As David Frankfurter summarizes, notions of ensoulment and personhood do not map neatly upon the restrictions placed upon abortion. “Earliest Christian prohibitions on abortion, for example, derive from Jewish tradition and serve sexual-moral boundaries more than a clear conceptualization of fetal souls.”299 Similarly, Marguerite Hirt comments in her discussion on the “rights” of the child in the context of the Roman Empire, that “la plupart des droits et avantages garantis à l’enfant in utero sont function de la condition sociale et juridique de ses parents au moment de sa naissance, ainsi que de la légitimité de leur union.”300

See Humbert-Droz, L’Exégèse d’Exode 21,22-25, 65-67; Feldman, Birth Control in Jewish Law, 255-62; Stol, Birth in Babylonia and the Bible, 4548; Kapparis, Abortion in the Ancient World, 49-52; Riddle, Contraception and Abortion, 111-2. 299 “Fetus Magic and Sorcery Fears in Roman Egypt,” GRBS 46 (2006):37-62, 49 no. 23. 300 Marguerite Hirt, “La legislation romaine et les droits de l’enfant,” in Naissance et petite enfance dans l’Antiquité, 281-91, 284; Kapparis, Abortion in the Ancient World, 167-94. 298

112

ABORTION AND THE APOSTOLATE

This would certainly help to explain the assumption in the (male) Roman sources that abortion is an action often undertaken to prevent the discovery of a child conceived through adultery, and can in and of itself be considered evidence of such activity.301 Thus, legal discussions and metaphysical speculations about “the child” may not, in the end, be about “the child” in the way in which we moderns might think in many of the ancient contexts. “Generally speaking, abortion [in Jewish law] is rejected; but an embryo is during its first forty days not considered ‘a soul’ and abortion can be permitted. This seems to have been the common attitude in Antiquity.”302 In this regard, Kapparis argues, in contrast to some earlier scholarly views, that “abortion was not illegal in any part of the GraecoRoman world before the third century AD.”303

There are several examples of this attitude towards abortion, although it may reflect male anxieties and fears rather than reality. E.g., Tacitus describes abortion as a sign of infidelity. “Nero, for his part, announced by edict that Octavia had seduced the prefect in the hope of gaining the co-operation of his squadron; that, conscious of her infidelities, she had procured abortion [abactos partus conscienta libidinum]” (Annales 14.63, ET from Tacitus V: Annals 13-16, trans. John Jackson, LCL, 322 [Cambridge, Mass.: 1981], 5: 208-13). Plutarch describes a successful hiding of an indiscretion, partly through the toughness one would expect from a Spartan woman. “A girl had secret relations with a man, and, after bringing on an abortion [Κρύφα τις διαπαρθενευθεῖσα καὶ διαφθείρασα τὸ βρέφος οὕτως], she bore up so bravely, not uttering a single sound, that her delivery took place without the knowledge of her father and others who were near” (Moralia 242.26, ET from Plutarch’s Moralia Volume III, trans. Frank Cole Babbitt, LCL, 245 [Cambridge, Mass.: 1931, repr. 1968], 3:468-9). In this vein (which may again reflect “attitudes” rather than reality), Clement of Alexandria decries “ces femmes, qui pour cacher leur inconduite [πορνείας ἐπικαλύμματι] usent de drogues abortives qui expulsent une matière absolument morte [φθορὰν φθορίοις], font avorter en même temps [ἐξαμβλίσκουσιν ἁμα] que le fœtus leurs sentiments humains” (Paed. 2.10 (96.1), text and translation in Clément d’Alexandrie: Le Pédagogue, Livre II, trans. Claude Mondésert, ed. Henri-Irénée Marrou, SC, 108 [Paris: Cerf, 1965], 184-5). 302 Stol, Birth in Babylonia and the Bible, 46 (italics mine). 303 Kapparis, Abortion in the Ancient World, 176. 301

CONTEXTUALIZING 1 CORINTHIANS 15:8

113

The fact that the law allowed abortion is consistent with the religious, political, ethical and philosophical beliefs of the ancient world. It is also consistent with the ambiguity and uncertainty over the status of the unborn that characterizes most of the medical and philosophical literature from the GraecoRoman antiquity. The change of heart in the imperial era was not a result of greater certainty over the biological facts concerning the status of the foetus, or even a greater ethical conviction concerning the wrongs of induced abortion, since these issues continued to be very contentious in the following centuries.304

This background does not yet allow us contextualize Paul’s selfdescription, nor indeed to fully understand “abortion in antiquity” and the range of attitudes displayed. However, the above discussion concerning abortion allows us to see that Jewish (and earlier biblical) attitudes recognizably fit, as we might expect, within a wider cultural context beyond the Jewish community. This, however, raises additional questions about another form of family planning often discussed in connection with abortion in antiquity that continues to intrigue modern scholars; the exposure of newborn infants. The Exposure of Infants and Abortion: Philo and Exodus 21:22 The practice of infant exposure in Antiquity is famous enough, although its extent remains unclear and is subject to debate.305

Kapparis, Abortion in the Ancient World, 194. There is a large bibliography on this subject, of which the following is by no means comprehensive. See La Rue Van Hook, “The Exposure of Infants at Athens,” TAPA 51 (1920): 134-45; H. Bolkestein, “The Exposure of Infants at Athens and the ἐγχυτρίστριαι,” CP 17 (1921): 222-39; P. A. Brunt, “Reproductivity in Ancient Italy,” ch. 11 in Italian Manpower, 225 B.C.-A.D. 14 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1971), 131-55, 146-55; Donald Engels, “The Problem of Female Infanticide in the Greco-Roman World,” CP 75 (1980): 112-20; “The Use of Historical Demography in Ancient History,” CQ 34 (1984): 386-93; Mark Golden, 304 305

114

ABORTION AND THE APOSTOLATE

Some scholars argue it was “widespread”306 reaching rates of exposure (for females at least) as high as 10% “or more,”307 while others assert that it was far more common in literature and myth than reality and was thus only “of negligible importance in Greek and Roman society.”308 Despite scholarly studies concerning the possibility of “infant abandonment and infanticide” or the like, agreement about the process through which such decisions were made is not forthcoming,309 and it has even been claimed, most famously by John Boswell, even widespread “abandonment” does not equate with “infanticide” in either the ancient sources or in practice, for

“Demography and the Exposure of Ancient Girls at Athens,” Phoenix 35 (1981): 316-31; Children and Childhood in Classical Athens (Baltimore and London: John Hopkins University Press, 1990), 82-95; William V. Harris, “The Theoretical Possibility of Extensive Infanticide in the GraecoRoman World,” CQ 32 (1982): 114-6; “Child Exposure in the Roman Empire,” JRS 84 (1994):1-22; Richard Harrow Feen, “Abortion and Exposure in Ancient Greece: Assessing the Status of the Fetus and ‘Newborn’ from Classical Sources,” in Abortion and the Status of the Fetus (ed. Bondeson, Engelhardt, Spicker, and Winship; Philosophy and Medicine 13; Boston and Dordrecht: 1983, repr. 1984), 283-300; Cynthia Patterson, “‘Not Worth the Rearing’: The Causes of Infant Exposure in Ancient Greece,” TAPA 115 (1985): 103-23; Sarah B. Pomeroy, “Infanticide in Hellenistic Greece,” in Images of Women in Antiquity, ed. Averil Cameron and Amélie Kuhrt, rev. ed. (London: Routledge, 1993), 207-19; Simon Mays, “Infanticide in Roman Britain,” Antiquity 67 (1993): 883-8; the edited volume Naissance et petite enfance dans l’Antiquité; and more generally Ruth Oldenziel, “The Historiography of Infanticide in Antiquity: A Literature Stillborn,” in Sexual Asymmetry: Studies in Ancient Society (Amsterdam: Gieben, 1987), 87-107. 306 Harris, “Child-Exposure in the Roman Empire,” 1. 307 Golden, “The Exposure of Girls at Athens,” 330. On the relative prevalence in the Roman period see also Brunt, Italian Manpower, 149-50. 308 Engels, “The Problem of Female Infanticide ,” 112. 309 Brent D. Shaw, “Raising and Killling Children: Two Roman Myths,” Mnemosyne 54 (2001):31-77. Shaw does not dispute the practice of “infanticide or infant exposure” (57), simply the reconstructions of modern scholars concerning the existence of a formal “tollere liberum ceremony” 34-56), and the Romans themselves concerning the reality of the patria potestas (57-77).

CONTEXTUALIZING 1 CORINTHIANS 15:8

115

the simple reason that most children were recovered or claimed by somebody else. 310 Despite Boswell’s work, the tendency to refer to these two practices as more or less identical continues in the literature (“the practice of the exposure of infants, sometimes called infanticide”311), although some greater caution is now displayed concerning the terminology and possible survival rates. One example is the shift in emphasis in William Harris’s earlier references to exposure and infanticide as related (“the exposure of infants, very often resulting in death”),312 to still related but not synonymous (“the exposure of infants, very often but by no means always resulting in death, was widespread in many parts of the Roman Empire”),313 since he accepts the possibility that some exposed children also likely served as a source of slaves.314 However, the broadest consensus view would seem to indicate that exposure of deformed or unhealthy infants was considered a “routine” or “normal” practice throughout this period,315 while physically healthy children who

John Boswell, The Kindness of Strangers: The Abandonment of Children in Western Europe from Late Antiquity to the Renaissance (University of Chicago Press, 1988, repr. 1998). 311 Golden, “Did the Ancients Care When their Children Died?” GR 35.2 (1988):154-63, 157. 312 Harris, “Graeco-Roman Infanticide,” 114. 313 Harris, “Child-Exposure in the Roman Empire,” 1. 314 Harris, “Demography, Geography and the Sources of Roman Slaves,” JRS 89 (1999):62-75, 62, 72-74. 315 Patterson, “Not Worth the Rearing,” 113; Brunt, Italian Manpower, 149. See also Golden, “The Exposure of Girls at Athens,” 316. The ancient sources describe both the practice and its purpose in descriptive and idealized form. Aristotle writes “As to exposing or rearing the children born [περὶ δὲ ἀποθέσεως καὶ τροφῆς], let there be a law that no deformed child shall be reared [ἔστω νόμος μηδὲν περπηρωμένον τρέφειν]” (Pol. 7.14.10, Aristotle: The Politics, 623-5). According to Plutarch, the Spartans had a pit called the ἀποθέται into which deformed infants were cast immediately after a public inspection. “Offspring was not reared [τρέφειν] at the will of the father, but was taken and carried by him to a place called Lesche, where the elders of the tribes officially examined the infant, and it was well-built and sturdy [εὐπαγὲς εἴη καὶ 310

116

ABORTION AND THE APOSTOLATE

would have been considered illegitimate were “also clearly at risk.”316 Although the scholarly consensus is in favor of acknowledging the practice, few modern scholars have been able to avoid conflating exposure with infanticide to some degree (finding Boswell’s work overly optimistic concerning survival rates), although for the Greco-Roman world “exposure, it should be emphasized, does not equal ‘child-murder’ in either language or practice.”317 Most notable and striking is a relative lack of references to exposure as murder, as Golden describes: Greeks of the classical period did not speak of “infanticide” but of “exposure,” “abandonment.” Refusing to rear a child was described by ektithemi (especially), apotithemi, ekballo, and their cognates… More explicit words such as paidoktoneo (Eur. HF 1280), paidoktonos (Soph. Ant. 1305, Eur. HF 835), paidoletor (Aesch. Sept. 726, Eur. Rhes. 550, Med. 1393), paidoleteira (Eur. Med. 849), paidophonos (Il. 24.506, Hdt. 7.190, Eur. Med. 1407, HF 1201), teknoktonos (Eur. HF 1155) are reserved for the killing of older children. This is generally so in later Greek as well.318

ῥωμαλέον], they ordered the father to rear it, and assigned it one of the nine thousand lots of land; but if it was ill-born and deformed [ἀγεννὲς καὶ ἄμορφον], they sent it to the so-called Apothetae, a chasm-like place at the foot of Mount Taÿgetus, in the conviction that the life of that which nature had not well equipped at the very beginning for health and strength, was of no advantage either to itself or the state” (Lycurgus 16.1-2, ET in Plutarch’s Lives in Eleven Volumes, trans. Bernadotte Perrin, LCL [Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1948], 1:254-5). According to this presentation, in Athens it seemed that it was the father’s prerogative to raise his child or not, whereas in Sparta it was a community decision. How historically reliable these descriptions are is, naturally, an open question. See also Kapparis, Abortion in the Ancient World, 154-62; cf. Riddle, Contraception and Abortion, 10-14. 316 Patterson, “Not Worth the Rearing,” 115. 317 Patterson, “Not Worth the Rearing,” 104. 318 Golden, “Demography and the Exposure of Girls at Athens,” 330-1.

CONTEXTUALIZING 1 CORINTHIANS 15:8

117

Furthering Golden’s observations on the terminology of exposure, Cynthia Patterson argues that a difference of social category lay behind the terminological distinction between a pais or a teknon (both members of the family), and a mere brephos “who had as yet no place within the family unit,” noting that: “Greek terminology suggests a view of exposure of the newborn as essentially distinct and different from the killing or harming of a child who is a recognized member of the family.”319 As we will see below, postClassical exceptions such as Philo of Alexandria use the language of child-murder “for its shock value,”320 and to drive home a point with added rhetorical force against the practice. Some scholars describe this as a clear indication that, in light of comparative anthropological studies of infanticide, “childexposure” was viewed as more closely aligned with “familyplanning” and “abortion” than with “killing.”321 Child-exposure, in this view (contra Boswell), was a form of family-planning, safer than other methods, requiring “no special knowledge or method” to employ,322 and having the additional advantage of sex-selection. Thus the famous POxy 744, a letter that contains the following advice from an absent husband to an expectant wife: “if it is a male let it be, if a female expose it [ἔκβαλε].”323 As has been argued by some scholars, despite jarring our sensibilities, the practice of infant exposure is perhaps not as alien to our culture as our initial emotional reaction may indicate. Indeed, it is perhaps a natural exten-

319 320

331.

Patterson, “Not Worth the Rearing,” 105-7. Golden, “Demography and the Exposure of Girls at Athens,”

321 I will argue below that Philo scholars like Adele Reinhartz thus misread slightly by viewing this transition as an “a fortiori argument” (Ibid., 45). Although he makes use of such logic, Philo is likely making a connection that would have been understandable to a Hellenistic audience. Cf. Reinhartz, “Philo’s Exposition of the Law and Social History: Methodological Considerations,” SBLSP (1993): 6-21, 11-12, 17-18. 322 Preus, “Biomedical Techniques for Influencing Reproduction,” 256. 323 This interpretation has also been challenged. See Stephanie West, “Whose Baby? A Note on P. OXY. 744,” ZPE 121 (1998):167-72.

118

ABORTION AND THE APOSTOLATE

sion of aborting an unwanted fetus, and certainly far safer in the last trimester. Thus, evolutionary biologist Sarah Blaffer Hrdy’s Mother Nature devotes an entire chapter to this issue, noting that “biologically, there is no set point where life begins,” and that “the transition between fetus and personhood” has always been ambiguous.324 Similarly, a recent study of infanticide in Early Modern Tuscany by Gregory Hanlon argues that precisely such a distinction noted by Hrdy is at play: Infanticide is murder, of course, but people did not consider this murder to be a crime… Like abortion, which has replaced it today, most people could live with it as an unpleasant fact of life. Girls appear to have been the chief victims of the practice.325

This distinction had been earlier argued for among the ancients by Sarah Pomeroy. To the Greeks and Romans abortion was the same as late contraception… To press this line of reasoning one step further— infanticide is simply late abortion. In antiquity it was certainly preferable to late abortion from the standpoint of the mother’s health. Infanticide is thus a form of family planning.326

324 Mother Nature: Maternal Instincts and how they Shape the Human Species (New York: Ballantine, 2000, repr. of Mother Nature: a History of Mothers, Infants, and Natural Selection [New York : Pantheon Books, 1999]), 457, 472-3. See 452-74. 325 Gregory M. Hanlon, “L'infanticidio dei coppie sposati nella Toscana rurale, secoli XVI-XVIII,” Quaderni Storici 2003, Volume 2: 45398. The ET (“’Hope was a little girl’: Infanticide by married couples in Early Modern Tuscany”) is my point of reference here. “Hope was a little girl,” 23. 326 Pomeroy, “Infanticide in Hellenistic Greece,” 207 (italics mine). Aristotle notes in Historia Animalium that “women suffer most during the fourth month and the eighth, and if they abort at the fourth of eighth month they too perish as a rule, so that not only do the eight-month children [τὰ ὀκτάμηνα, literally “eight-monthers”] not live but in their destruction the mothers are at risk [διαφθειρομένων αἱ τίκτουσαι

CONTEXTUALIZING 1 CORINTHIANS 15:8

119

More recently, David Frankfurter has maintained this view in a later context with regards to Roman Egypt, in terms of the variety of manners in which fetuses were treated. The key factor in the domestic and entombed fetal burials just mentioned, for example, emerges in the “preaccepted” status: that they were clearly desired children (and certainly well beyond fourteen weeks). They were not simply brephê. For a fetus to gain such a “preaccepted” status involved personal, familial, and cultural or ceremonial recognition of the woman as pregnant and the fetus as a relatively separate being: not a child but still of a status distinct from the mother… By this process of recognition, miscarriage or neo-natal death becomes the death of some construction of an individual, who must then be mourned and perhaps even safeguarded through a mortuary passage. Without that status there is no recognizable being; and so the death can be insignificant—even with a newborn. Paypyri recording miscarriages give special attention to the health or death of the mother, while no funeral is reported for the fetus (βρέφος)—even, in those cases, for a desired baby.327

This view would also explain the connection between abortion and exposure in our ancient sources, and may also explain the Roman association of abortion with adultery or illegitimacy of some sort, since it was not concern for the child that is at issue, but the need to conceal the pregnancy that would lead one to risk an abortion rather than exposing the infant.328 The real threshold of acceptance in this view is the decision to rear the infant, which has led scholars to note that such practices do not reflect upon the affection or care given to children that have entered fully into the family.329 The is-

κινδυνεύσιν]” (HA 7.584b.15-20, Aristotle: History of Animals Books VIIX, 444-5). Early abortions are thus preferable for the woman’s health, as was exposure. 327 “Fetus Magic and Sorcery Fears,” 48-49. 328 Kapparis, Abortion in the Ancient World, 160-1. 329 Golden, “Did the Ancients Care When their Children Died,” 158.

120

ABORTION AND THE APOSTOLATE

sue of whether or not that “entry” was formally demarcated by a ceremonial or ritual act (e.g., amphidromia, the dekatê, or the tollere, or presumably the “8th day” act of circumcision-naming) is unimportant.330 Hanlon, however, notes baptism as a point at which keeping the child became more or less finalized in Early Modern Tuscany, so that “it looks like the infanticide of legitimate infants at birth before their baptism was a routine response to hard times in Early Modern Tuscany, and no doubt elsewhere.”331 If this account is accurate, it not only would explain the tendency of both ancients (like Aristotle) and thus modern scholars to treat exposure alongside abortion in discussions of family planning, but it also provides a readier understanding of the logic followed by Philo in the passage discussed above. Philo extends his analysis of Exodus 21 into a full-scale condemnation of the practice of exposing or abandoning newborn infants (Spec. 3.110-118). He states that Moses forbade the practice of exposure “indirectly,” or “implicitly” (δι᾽ ὑπονοιῶν) by making the distinction between a formed and unformed fetus in Exod. 21:22 (Spec. 3.117). Philo takes this admittedly tacit condemnation with some seriousness and dwells at length on how repugnant the practice is,332 deeming it worse than murdering an adult, who may at least have done something to merit violence being done to them (Spec. 3.119).333 This philonic passage

330 Once again, cf. the skepticism of Shaw, “Raising and Killing Children,” and the bibliography discussed there. 331 Hanlon, “Hope was a little girl,” 22 (italics mine). Cross-culturally, in Mother Nature, Hrdy argues that the onset of lactation provides an additional biological bond that helps cement the child’s place as a full-fledged member of the family at around the same time. Practically, a week to ten days would also allow one a better chance of “accepting” an infant more likely to survive, since many infants presumably would have died as neonates. 332 Philo dwells at some length on details clearly meant to horrify his audience. He describes unwanted newborns being smothered and drowned (Spec. 3.114), or exposed infants being consumed by wild beasts and birds of prey (Spec. 3.115). 333 See Adele Reinhartz, “Philo on Infanticide,” SPhilo 4 (1992): 4258.

CONTEXTUALIZING 1 CORINTHIANS 15:8

121

in particular has raised the question of, whatever the case in the broader Greco-Roman context may have been, to what extent Philo’s own community may have participated.334 Therefore, Moses has utterly prohibited the exposure of children, by a tacit prohibition, when he condemns to death, as I have said before, those who are the causes of a miscarriage to a woman whose child conceived within her is already formed. And yet those persons who have investigated the secrets of natural philosophy say that those children which are still within the belly, and while they are still contained in the womb, are a part of their mothers; and the most highly esteemed of the physicians who have examined into the formation of man, scrutinising both what is easily seen and what is kept concealed with great care, by means of anatomy, in order that, if there should be any need of their attention to any case, nothing may be disregarded through ignorance and so become the cause of serious mischief, agree with them and say the same thing. (Spec. 3.117)

In contrast to portraying this exposition as an idiosyncrasy of Philo’s, a flight of fancy, or an exegetical move born out of desperation to align his views on infant-exposure with the authority of Moses, we can actually see a logically connected progression. Although Golden noted the polemical context in which Philo terms the practice murder, and despite perhaps representing a minority viewpoint on this matter, just as with his distinction between early and late-term fetuses Philo is not alone in the ancient world in condemning the practice of child-exposure, and even less so in connecting it with abortion/miscarriage.335 For my purposes it does not matter if his criticism is directed solely towards other Jews or is a

334 Reinhartz, “Philo on Infanticide”; Daniel R. Schwartz, “Did the Jews Practice Infant Exposure and Infanticide in Antiquity?” SPhil 16 (2004):61-95; Maren R. Niehoff, Response to Daniel S. Schwartz,” SPhil 17 (2005):99-101. 335 A. Cameron, “The Exposure of Children and Greek Ethics,” CR 46 (1932): 105-14.

122

ABORTION AND THE APOSTOLATE

tirade against a non-Jewish activity, since the question here is why he attempts to derive such condemnation from Exod. 21:22 in the first place.336 The answer may simply be that Philo was making a connection that his Greco-Roman contemporaries, Jewish or Gentile, would have understood quite clearly. Philo begins his invective by referring to the activity as βρεφῶν ἔκθεσις (Spec. 3.110), its common name, before describing it more harshly as ἀνδροφονία and τεκνοκτονία (Spec. 3.112). To quote Patterson (pace Pomeroy and Frankfurter) once again: “Greek terminology suggests a view of exposure of the newborn as essentially distinct and different from the killing or harming of a child who is a recognized member of the family,”337 and in this context Philo moves by degrees towards describing it as murder. Thus, when Philo introduces the Stoic (and eventually rabbinic) notion that the child is part of the mother’s body until birth, he is drawing a circle around his condemnation of βρεφῶν ἔκθεσις, which is wrong because a “formed” fetus is a person. But barring one’s acceptance of that point, even the “most highly esteemed” andres physikoi who have “examined into the formation of man” are in agreement about birth marking a point at which a child is truly a person and not part of their mother’s body, thus βρεφῶν ἔκθεσις is still wrong, “beyond all question” [ἀνενδοιάστως]! But when the children are brought forth and are separated from that which is produced with them, and are set free and placed by themselves, they then become real living creatures, deficient in nothing which can contribute to the perfection of human nature, so that then, beyond all question, he who slays an infant is a homicide, and the law shows its indignation at such an action; not being guided by the age but by the species of the creature in whom its ordinances are violated (Spec. 3.118)338

Reinhartz, “Philo on Infanticide,” 42-44, 54-58. Patterson, “Not Worth the Rearing,” 107. 338 Cf. again, Aristotle’s De animalibus historiae 7.583b10; Kapparis, Abortion in the Ancient World, 154, 161, 195-199 336 337

CONTEXTUALIZING 1 CORINTHIANS 15:8

123

Finally, as Patrick Gray’s study of the Apocalypse of Peter makes clear, even later Christian writings that condemn both “abortion” and “infanticide” explicitly make a distinction between them in their specific condemnations (Did. 2.2; Ep. Barn. 19.5; cf. φονεῖς τέκνων, Did. 5.2; Ep. Barn. 20.2), and in the Apocalypse of Peter both abortion and infanticide (“infanticide by exposure,” in Gray’s words) are separated in terms of their punishments from those guilty of simply “fornication and murder.”339 M etaphorical Use What has all of this to do with Paul calling himself an ἔκτρωμα? The proposal that I will make in the next chapter, that Paul refers to a rejection of his apostolic claims when he terms himself an ἔκτρωμα, gains some added plausibility from in light of GrecoRoman attitudes concerning child-exposure and abortion. Whether it was prompted by the unusual nature of Paul’s apokalypsis or something else, the cultural acceptance of the notion that an unwanted brephos without appropriate status conferred upon it could be disposed of, whether in the womb or not, gives excellent sense in Paul’s context. The question, of course, is whether or not such a metaphorical use would have made any sense in Paul’s context. For exposure at least, we have an extremely famous example of metaphorical use. The cultural attitudes discussed above certainly lie in the background of a passage in Plato’s Theaetetus, where the choice of whether “to rear or to expose” a child is used as a metaphor for the abandonment or rejection of a poorly conceived idea: “But, perhaps, you [Theaetetus] think that any offspring of yours ought to be cared for and not put away [τρέφειν καὶ μὴ ἀποτιθέναι]; or will you bear to see it examined and not

339 “Social Rhetoric of the Apocalypse of Peter,” 317-20. Cf. Frankfurter, “Fetus Magic and Sorcery Fears,” 51 n. 27.

124

ABORTION AND THE APOSTOLATE get angry if it is taken away from you, though it is your firstborn?”340

Excursus: Gnostic Imagery and “Abortion” Metaphors One can find examples of the metaphorical use of the image of an abortion/miscarriage in sources from antiquity that nicely parallel the meaning I will argue for Paul’s use of the term. The problem with these parallels is that they derive from a later period, and in some cases may be derivative of or dependent upon Paul’s usage.341 Thus I am not prepared to place too much argumentative weight upon these parallels. In the Nag Hammadi materials,342 The Hypostasis of the Archons contains a response to a query concerning the origin of “the Authorities” likening Sophia/Pistis’s creation to an abortion/miscarriage. And the great angel Eleleth, understanding, spoke to me: “Within limitless realms dwells incorruptibility. Sophia, who is called Pistis, wanted to create something, alone without her consort; and her product was a celestial thing. A veil exists between the world above and the realms that are below; and shadow came into being beneath the veil; and that shadow became matter; and that shadow was projected apart. And what she

340 Theaetetus 161a, ET in Plato II: Theaetetus, Sophist, trans. H. N. Fowler, LCL (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1932), 74-75. The metaphor of exposure is derived from Socrates seeing himself as an intellectual “midwife” helping to bring forth ideas. See Theaetetus 160e-161a. 341 Elaine H. Pagels, “‘The Mystery of the Resurrection’: A Gnostic Reading of 1 Corinthians 15,” JBL 93.2 (1974):276-88. Other studies include: Paula Frediksen, “Hysteria and the Gnostic Myths of Creation,” VC 33 (1979):287-90; Pheme Perkins, “Ireneus and the Gnostics: Rhetoric and Composition in Adversus Haereses Book One, VC 30 (1976):193200; and “On the Origin of the World (CG II,5): A Gnostic Physics,” VC 34.1 (1980):36-46. 342 Page references are to revised edition of The Nag Hammadi Library in English, ed. James M. Robinson, 3rd ed. (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1990).

CONTEXTUALIZING 1 CORINTHIANS 15:8

125

had created became a product in the matter, like an aborted fetus.” (NHL: 167)

On the Origin of the World uses this metaphor of a conception gone wrong in an even more detailed manner, using the image of both the miscarriage itself and the afterbirth involved in bringing it forth. Then the shadow perceived that there was something mightier than it, and felt envy; and when it had become pregnant of its own accord, suddenly it engendered jealousy. Since that day, the principle of jealousy amongst all the eternal realms and their worlds has been apparent. Now as for that jealousy, it was found to be an abortion without any spirit in it. Like a shadow it came into existence in a vast watery substance. Then the bile that had come into being out of the shadow was thrown into a part of chaos. Since that day, a watery substance has been apparent. And what sank within it flowed away, being visible in chaos: as with a woman giving birth to a child – all her superfluities flow out; just so, matter came into being out of shadow and was projected apart… And when these things had come to pass, then Pistis came and appeared over the matter of chaos, which had been expelled like an aborted fetus – since there was no spirit in it. (NHL: 172-3)343

Later on in the same text, the simile is repeated in the description of the creation of Adam: “And when they had finished Adam, they abandoned him as an inanimate vessel, since he had taken form like an abortion, in that no spirit was in him” (NHL: 182). The minor differences between these texts do not change the basic elements of the metaphor employed. The abortion/miscarriage’s formlessness, a sign of its lack of development in “real” references, refers here to its lack of “spirit” and incompatibility with the Aeons because of the solitary nature of Sophia’s conception. Its being “cast off” either because of its undesirability, or because of her desire to conceal it from the Aeons, possibly draws upon the attitudes to-

343 Earlier editions of NHL translate “miscarriage,” rather than “aborted fetus.”

126

ABORTION AND THE APOSTOLATE

wards exposing/aborting a child that is illegitimate or deformed discussed above. The Apocryphon of John also describes Sophia’s failed attempt create something on her own. Although the word abortion/miscarriage does not appear, the key elements remain, including her casting away of what she has produced. She [Sophia] wanted to bring forth a likeness out of herself without the consent of the Spirit, —he had not approved— and without her consort and without his consideration. And though the person of her maleness had not approved, and she had not found her agreement, and she had thought without the consent of the Spirit and the knowledge of her agreement, (yet) she brought forth. And because of the invincible power which is in her, her thought did not remain idle and something came out of her which was imperfect and different from her appearance, because she had created it without her consort… She cast it away from her, outside that place, that no one of the immortal ones might see it, for she had created it in ignorance. (NHL: 110)

Irenaeus, Hippolytus, and Tertullian There are many variants on this Gnostic myth, derived as it is from both Nag Hammadi materials and patristic attacks upon Gnosticism although it “occurs primarily within the system designated Valentinian.”344 In some accounts it is “Sophia’s errant thought that separates from her,” and the description above is not applied to Sophia herself. Rather “it is Sophia’s aborted, formless offspring, the ἔκτρωμα, that is cast out of the Pleroma and ultimately becomes the demiurge.”345 The constant element within this variation

344 Deidre J. Good, “Sophia in Valentinianism,” The Second Century 4 (1984): 193-201, 193. 345 James E. Goehring, “A Classical Influence on the Gnostic Sophia Myth,” VC 35 (1981): 16-23, 17. Cf. Good, “Sophia in Valentinianism,” 194-5. See also George W. MacRae, “The Jewish Background of the Gnostic Sophia Myth,” NovT 12 (1970): 86-101; G. C. Stead, “The Valentinian Myth of Sophia,” JTS 20 (1969): 75-104.

CONTEXTUALIZING 1 CORINTHIANS 15:8

127

is that “Sophia’s error is the origin of the present world of deficiency.”346 Irenaeus uses the Greek phrase ἄμορφος καὶ ἀνείδος, ὡσπερ ἔκτρωμα in describing the Gnostic story of the separation of “Sophia” from the “Pleroma,” an act that leads eventually to the creation of the material world. For she [Sophia/Achamoth] was excluded from light and the Pleroma, and was without form or figure, like an untimely birth, because she had received nothing [from a male parent]. But the Christ dwelling on high took pity upon her; and having extended himself through and beyond Stauros, he imparted a figure to her, but merely as respected substance, and not so as to convey intelligence. (Haer. 1.4.1)347

Irenaeus is describing the Gnostic understanding of the origin of the spiritual and material universes, the latter arising from the excluded Sophia’s “passions” (i.e., grief and fear), feelings that are “associated with ignorance,” the chief opponent of the Gnostics. There remains, nonetheless, the desire to return to the Pleroma from which she was separated (Haer. 1.1.1-5). Irenaeus’s use of the words ἄμορφος καὶ ἀνείδος, ὡσπερ ἔκτρωμα brings to mind not only 1Cor. 15.8, but the tradition discussed above concerning the distinction between a late-term “formed” and an early-term “unformed” fetus. In addition to Irenaeus’s detailed attacks upon Gnosticism referenced above, the heresiologist Hippolytus provides another antagonistic Christian reference to the Sophia myth in his Refutation of all Heresies, a cosmology he attributes to Valentinus.348

Alastair H. B. Logan, Gnostic Truth and Christian Heresy: A Study in the History of Gnosticism (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996), 117. 347 ET from ANF 1:321 (italics mine). Note the translation of ἔκτρωμα by “untimely” yet again, doubtless influenced by the traditional reading of 1 Cor. 15:8. 348 Greek text from Hippolytus: Refutatio Omnium Haersium, ed. Miroslav Marcovich, Patrische, Texte und Studien, 25 (Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1986), 238-41. ET from ANF 5:86-87. 346

128

ABORTION AND THE APOSTOLATE She wished to emulate the Father, and to produce (offspring) of herself without a marital partner, that she might achieve a work in no wise inferior to (that of) the Father… Sophia, therefore, prepared to project that only which she was capable (of projecting), viz., a formless and undigested substance [οὐσίαν ἄμορφον καὶ ἀκατασκεύαστον]. (Ref. Haer. 6.30.8-9)

After this event, the “Aeons” become fearful about the prospects of “formless and incomplete progenies of the Aeons [ἄμορφα καὶ ἀτελῆ τῶν αἰώνων τὰ γεννήματα]” being allowed to arise (Ref. Haer. 6.31.1). However, pity is taken upon Sophia “for she continued weeping and bewailing on account of the abortion produced by her— for so they term it [ἐπὶ τῷ γεγεννημένῳ ὑπ᾽ αὐτῆς ἐκτρώματι—οὑτω γὰρ αὐτὸ καλοῦσιν]” (Ref. Haer. 6.31.2). The decision is then made to set aright the problem of “the abortion [διόρθωσιν τοῦ ἐκτρώματος]” (Ref. Haer. 6.31.2-3). Immediately this abortion of Sophia, (which was) shapeless, (and) born of herself only [τὸ ἔκρωμα τὸ ἄμορφον τοῦτο τῆς Σοφίας μονογενὲς], and generated without conjugal intercourse [καὶ δίχα συζύγου γεγεννημένον], separates from the entire of the Aeons, lest the perfect Aeons, beholding this (abortion), should be disturbed by reason of its shapelessness [διὰ τὴν ἀμορφίαν]. In order, then, that the shapelessness of the abortion [τοῦ ἐκτρώματος ἡ ἀμορφία] might not at all manifest itself to the perfect Aeons, the Father also again projects additionally one Aeon, viz., Staurus. (Ref. Haer. 6.31.4- 5)

These texts, however, may simply be latching upon Paul’s terminology. Elaine Pagels notes: It is this kerygma, then, that Paul describes in 1 Cor 15: 1-6 as that which he himself received from apostolic tradition, and as that which he preached to them “first of all:” it is this which he says they “received,” by which they “are saved.” Yet Paul goes on to explain in 15:8-10 that besides this apostolic tradition of the psychic kerygma, he also received a revelation: “Last of all he was revealed to me, as a kind of abortion” (hōsperei tō ektrōmati). The Valentinians interpret this passage as a symbolic description of the pneumatic revelation.

CONTEXTUALIZING 1 CORINTHIANS 15:8

129

They say that in 15:8 Paul reveals how the savior appeared to Sophia, “when she was outside the pleroma [i.e., to the pneumatic who is still in an “unformed” state] as ‘a kind of abortion.’” Everyone who is of the pneumatic elect undergoes the same experience. Basilides says that the entire elect remained for a time in “formlessness, like an abortion;” Theodotus explains that “as long as we were children only of the female, as of a shameful syzygy, we were incomplete, infants, mindless, weak, unformed, brought forth like abortions.”349

It should be noted that these texts do not, however, indicate that Paul’s metaphor was meaningless in its cultural context, and that all of the associations discussed above may have been at play for an ancient reader. The last primary text on the story of Sophia and her miscarriage that I will mention here in this regard is Tertullian’s Adversus Valentinianos 9.1-10.5.350 As with Hippolytus, Tertullian’s focus is on the Valentinian version of the story, and the same principal elements are recognizable immediately. Tertullian claims there are two versions of the story among the Valentinians (Adv. Val. 11.2), the first emphasizing the jealousy Sophia feels for Nous (Adv. Val. 9.1-4). In the second version he recounts, Tertullian describes Sophia’s attempt to create on her own (Adv. Val. 10.1-2), but the result is something “informem et inspeciatam,” because “Sophia n’avait rien saisi” (Adv. Val. 10.5).351 Tertullian most clearly made the connection between the Gnostic cosmology and Greco-Roman attitudes towards abortion, pregnancy, and infant exposure. He explicitly draws the connection between Sophia’s attempt to conceive on her own with the infidelity of a spouse, and the “putting away” of an illegitimate child, even referencing in passing that such themes are a mainstay of the Greco-Roman theater, in which birth through infidelity results in

Pagels, “The Mystery of the Resurrection,” 280. Latin text and French translation from Tertullian. Contre Les Valentiniens: Tome I. Introduction, Text Critique, Traduction, trans., ed. JeanClaude Fredouille, SC, 280 (Paris: Cerf, 1980), 98-105. 351 Cf. Irenaeus’s “διὰ τὸ μηδὲν κατειληφέναι” (Adv. Haer. 1.4.1), and the recurring phrase “because there was no spirit in it.” 349 350

130

ABORTION AND THE APOSTOLATE

exposure. “Vbi enim iam tragoediae atque comoediae, a quibus forma mutuaretur exponendi quod citra pudorem erat natum?” (“For where, then, would there be tragedies and comedies, from which to borrow the model of exposing what has been born in the absence of modesty [citra pudorem]?”—Adv. Val. 10.2). Despite Tertullian’s condescending reference to the stage, the associations he makes are telling.352 Despite the differences of detail, there are common elements between these various texts concerning the “Sophia myth.” The mistake made by Sophia in trying to create something on her own (“Sophia’s act of hybris”353), and the role that negative emotions such as grief and envy play, either as causes or products in her attempt to procreate are constant themes. Her shame over what she has done, her desire to hide it, and the “casting down” of her creation from the presence of the Aeons are all recurring elements.354 Here, however, I am interested in the metaphorical use of the term abortion/miscarriage, and its applicability to 1 Cor. 15.8. On this account, it does not much matter who is referred to, since the implications and imagery surrounding the metaphor itself varies little. Given the brief discussion of Greco-Roman attitudes towards abortion and the related practice of infant exposure (ἔκθεσις/ἐκβάλλω) above, it seems likely that the Gnostic texts are merely extending these attitudes and this metaphor to the cosmological realm. When the texts state that Sophia brings forth a miscarriage, and describes it as something that is “unformed,” in the background lies not only the cultural acceptance of the exposure of a deformed child, but also the understanding of the difference between a fetus that was beginning to take a recognizable human form and an early-term miscarriage. The ultimate motivation behind these Gnostic references is to convey certain spiritual and religious teachings. The lesson intended in these texts is rela-

352 On the relationship between the stage and reality, see also Cameron, “The Exposure of Children and Greek Ethics,” 105-6. 353 Goehring, “A Classical Influence on the Gnostic Sophia Myth,” 16-17. 354 Johannes Schneider (“ἔκτρωμα,” TDNT 2:465-7) states that in the Apocalypse of Peter “ἐκτιτρώσκειν is used in the sense ‘to cast’” (467).

CONTEXTUALIZING 1 CORINTHIANS 15:8

131

tively clear. Sophia and her efforts to create are hubristic, and thus the value of her creation is clearly minimal. One conclusion that might be drawn from these passages is that belief in Sophia is misguided and thus to be avoided, since it is a belief in a false, hubristic power whose attempts to create miscarry. These references also seem to play up the physically revolting aspects of the image, perhaps to drive home Gnostic disdain for the physical world. For us, the puzzling aspect of the texts discussed above is the seeming comfort with which these ancient texts refer to abortion, miscarriage, and child-exposure, even when they are questioning the practice. This level of comfort, in which Plato can use the metaphor of child-exposure in discussing the rejection of poorly conceived thoughts and the Gnostics the language of abortion and miscarriage to describe spiritual realities, is alien to contemporary sensibilities. In present-day American culture, abortion is a divisive and sensitive cultural and political issue best avoided in polite conversation, miscarriages are often dealt with privately, and they are certainly not appropriate for descriptive metaphors. However, given this seeming level of comfort, perhaps scholars should see Paul’s self-description in 1 Cor. 15:8 as less surprising and idiosyncratic. Later references, like Eusebius of Caesarea’s fourth-century reference to Christians who hide their faith during times of persecution as children “aborted” from a virgin mother (οὓς ὡς νεκροὺς ἐξέστρωσε, HE 5.1.45), would simply seem to draw upon the same set of cultural associations.355 At the very least, the above survey should indicate that when the New Testament scholar finds that the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament states that Irenaeus and Hippolytus “define” ἔκτρωμα as “unformed,” it is not presenting the reader puzzling over Paul’s use of the term with anything like an adequate context for interpretation. But we will now turn to 1 Cor. 15:8 itself, and the meaning of ἔκτρωμα in its Pauline context.

355

Schneider, “ἔκτρωμα,” TDNT 2:467.

5 PAUL THE ABORTION “…he appeared also to me”

C ONFLICT

AND

1 C ORINTHIANS 15 ∗

As mentioned earlier in our discussion of Gal. 1:15-17, and as will be seen below, 1 Corinthians 15 is often referred to in analyses of Galatians 1 and 2. One can observe some of the same issues addressed in discussions of 1 Corinthians 15 and the early chapters of Galatians. In particular, the debate over whether Paul is defending himself, his message, or his status, dominates much of the discussion of 1 Corinthians 15.356 This view has not changed substantially among scholars for many decades, as shown by William Walker’s words in 1969: Whenever Paul refers to his own experience of “seeing” the Lord, he is attempting to legitimize either his own credentials as an apostle (I Cor 9 1; II Cor 12 1) or the validity of his par-

Some of the material in this chapter has appeared previously in both publication and at scholarly conferences: “Reexamining the ‘Aborted Apostle’: An Exploration of Paul’s Self-Description in 1 Cor. 15.8.” JSNT 25.4 (2003): 469-485; and as “An Aborted Apostle: An Exploration of the Meaning of ektrôma in Paul’s Self-Description,” (paper presented at the annual meeting of the Canadian Society of Biblical Studies. Toronto, Ont., May 27, 2002). ∗

356 Joseph Plevnik, “Paul’s Appeals to His Damascus Experience and I Cor. 15:5-7: Are They Legitimations?” TJT 4 (1988): 101-11.

133

134

ABORTION AND THE APOSTOLATE ticular version of the Christian gospel (Gal 1 12, 16). The passage now under consideration [1 Cor. 15] is no exception.357

The extended discussion of “the resurrection” in 1 Corinthians 15, not found elsewhere, is often viewed as the key element in Paul’s exposition of the “gospel.”358 The resurrection is the “fundamental doctrine,”359 “an essential part of every known kind of Christian preaching,”360 and the “bedrock on which the common faith of the first Christians was built.”361 Thus for Paul it presumably was the “central presupposition of his conversion experience.”362 In this passage Paul certainly seems to be clarifying some misconceptions concerning the resurrection, whether it be a misunderstanding of the resurrection, an overzealous understanding of the nearness of the parousia, or a denial of resurrection altogether. These various options, in a similar fashion to some of the issues surrounding Galatians 1-2, are enmeshed in the attempted reconstruction of both Paul’s opponents and the position against which he seems to be arguing, and are thus exceedingly complex.363

357 William O. Walker, “Postcrucifixion Appearances and Christian Origins,” JBL 88 (1969): 157-65, 162. 358 Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle, 236-40. 359 Robertson and Plummer, 1 Corinthians, 340. 360 C. K. Barrett, A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians (London: Adam & Charles Black, 1968), 341. 361 Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle, 236. 362 Ibid., 239. 363 For a review of positions, see Gerhard Barth, “Zur Frage nach der in1 Korinther 15 bekämpften Auferstehungsleugnung,” ZNW 83 (1992): 187-201, 187-90. The positions have not changed in many decades. See H. W. Boers, “Apocalyptic Eschatology in I Corinthians 15: An Essay in Contemporary Interpretation,” Int 21 (1967): 50-65; Jack H. Wilson, “The Corinthians Who Say There Is No Resurrection of the Dead,” ZNW 59 (1968): 90-107. See also Dunn, 1 Corinthians, 84-7. More recent rhetorical studies have not substantially altered these options. Duane F. Watson, for example, restates the understanding that Paul wants “the audience to adhere to the traditional understanding of the bodily resurrection” (“Paul’s Rhetorical Strategy in 1 Corinthians 15,” in Porter and Olbricht, Rhetoric

PAUL THE ABORTION

135

John Gunther cautioned similarly in his study of Paul’s opponents that the “detection of opposing viewpoints is admittedly a hazardous undertaking, as Paul did not intend to present them clearly or plausibly, much less perpetuate memory of them.”364 Decades earlier Johannes Munck proffered a more severe warning about making “controversy” the decisive factor in studying Paul, or by studying Paul solely through reconstruction of the identity of his opponents. The tendency to find controversy everywhere in his letters is so marked that even the most innocent remarks are interpreted as controversial… but as sources they [controversial texts] cannot have the value of uncontroversial texts; and this is especially so when we know nothing through other channels about those other people in relation to whom one’s attitude has to be defined… an exposition of Paul that is based essentially on his encounters with his opponents in his letters becomes unsafe in its methods and can never produce certain or even probable conclusions.365

The sheer number of proposals that have been made over the years makes plain the difficulties scholars have encountered in attempting to detect opposing viewpoints. For example, in his summary of scholarly opinion on Paul’s opposition in 2 Corinthians, Gunther enumerates some fourteen different proposals, ranging from “pneumatic-libertine Gnostics” to “Judaizers,” “Palestinian Jewish Christian Gnostics,” and “non-Judaizing Jewish Christians.”366 In the

and the New Testament, 231-49, 248), although he does so through an analysis of the chapter as deliberative rhetoric. 364 John J. Gunther, St. Paul’s Opponents and Their Background: A Study of Apocalyptic and Jewish Sectarian Teachings, NovTSup, 35 (Leiden: Brill, 1973), 14. 365 Munck, Paul and the Salvation of Mankind, 56. See also Barclay, “Mirror-Reading a Polemical Letter.” 366 Gunther, St. Paul’s Opponents and Their Background, 1. At times Gunther’s list of scholarly proposals resembles the introduction of the players by Polonius in Shakespeare’s Hamlet, in which a handful of various adjectives and genres are merely recombined: “The best actors in the world,

136

ABORTION AND THE APOSTOLATE

case of Galatians Gunther has a mere eight proposals, but even this comparatively short list serves to provide a cautionary note. Despite such misgivings there are some indications of the issues faced by Paul in the opening chapter of 1 Corinthians. 1 Corinthians begins with Paul’s concern that “there should be no schisms among you” (καὶ μὴ ἐν ὑμῖν σχίσματα — 1 Cor. 1:10), and proceeds into a description of “four (potential) leaders of divisive groups.”367 For it has been reported to me by Chloe’s people that there are quarrels [ἔριδες] among you, my brothers and sisters. What I mean is that each of you says, “I belong to Paul,” or “I belong to Apollos,” or I belong to Cephas,” or “I belong to Christ.” (1 Cor 1:11-12, NRSV)368

either for tragedy, comedy, history, pastoral, pastoral-comical, historicalpastoral, tragical-historical, tragical-comical-historical-pastoral, scene individable, or poem unlimited: Seneca cannot be too heavy, nor Plautus too light” (Hamlet Act 2, Scene 2). I do not intend this comparison to be completely facetious, as it speaks to the somewhat limited choice of terminology available to scholars attempting to reconstruct Paul’s opponents. The terms “Jewish,” “Judaizing,” “Gnostic,” “Christian,”and “Hellenistic” are sometimes of limited precision. 367 C. K. Barrett, “Sectarian Diversity at Corinth,” in Paul and the Corinthians: Studies on a Community in Conflict. Essays in Honour of Margaret Thrall, ed. Trevor J. Burke and J. Keith Elliott, NovTSup, 109 (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2003), 287-302, 289. 368 Barrett notes that ἐγὼ δὲ Χριστοῦ is not mentioned by Clement of Rome (1 Clem. 47.3, ET in The Apostolic Fathers: Volume 1, trans. Kirsopp Lake, LCL [Cambridge, Mass.: 1912; reprint, 1975]), and suggests that there were perhaps only three groups in the original text. The phrase is in all the Greek manuscript evidence, however (“Sectarian Diversity at Corinth,” 289 n. 3). See also the comments of Michael D. Goulder, that there were suggestions of “only three groups; and from the beginning of modern scholarship it has been argued that were only two groups” (“ΣΟΦΙΑ in 1 Corinthians,” NTS 37 (1991): 516-34, 516). The argument first appeared in F. C. Baur’s “Die Christuspartei in der korinthischen Gemeinde, der Gegensatz des petrinischen und paulinischen Christentums in der ältesten Kirche, der Apostel Petrus in Rom,” in Historische-

PAUL THE ABORTION

137

These divisions, it may be argued, do not automatically transfer to the entirety of the letter, but they certainly seem to have been among the reasons for its composition. However, Paul also seems to be defending himself rather than the unity of the Corinthian ekklêsia at other points in the letter. Paul asks “Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?” (1 Cor. 9:1), and then launches into a spirited “defense to those who would examine me” (῾Η ἐμὴ ἀπολογία τοῖς ἐμὲ ἀνακρίνουσιν —1 Cor. 9:3). His “apologia” takes up most of chapter 9, and revolves around his ability to invoke the “rights” (ἐξουσία) of an apostle, such as the right to financial support (1 Cor. 9:13-14), even though he has not made use of them (1 Cor. 9:12, 15-18). In part, Paul is using himself as an example: he has refrained from making full use of his apostolic rights, and he has been urging restraint among the Corinthians. That is, “just because you can eat meat offered to idols, show some restraint for the sake of fellow believers who might have some misgivings (1 Cor. 8:4-13), as I show restraint in regards to my apostolic rights, although let none doubt that I could make use of them in just the way that Peter does (1 Cor. 9:1-7, 15-18).”369 The emphasis upon Paul’s being an apostle is not without precedent then, when it appears in chapter 15. In this passage he compares himself, as in chapter 9, to the “other apostles.” Yet in this case the stress is slightly different, perhaps because Paul is making use of traditional material that is not his own. This observation does not explain his reference to himself as an ἔκτρωμα in 1 Cor. 15:8, however.

kritische Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament, edited by Klaus Scholder, 1146. Vol.1 of Ausgewählte Werke in Einzelausgaben. Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt: Friedrich Frommann Verlag (Günther Holzberg), 1963-1970. First published in Tübinger Zeitschrift für Theologie 4 (1831): 61-206. 369 Thus some commentators claim that Paul is not defending his apostolic freedom, but uses his exercise of such freedom as an argument in itself. See Wendell Willis, “An Apostolic Apologia? The Form and Function of 1 Corinthians 9,” JSNT 24 (1985): 33-48.

138

ABORTION AND THE APOSTOLATE

ἜΚΤΡΩΜΑ IN THE B IBLE AND SCHOLARSHIP

N EW T ESTAMENT

The history of scholarship on 1 Cor. 15:8 has provided a variety of options as to how one should understand Paul’s self-description in 1 Cor. 15:8, and, more significantly, how to place the meaning of ἔκτρωμα within broader theories concerning Paul’s selfunderstanding. The lexical range of the term, despite its rarity in the biblical text, does not present as large a problem for interpreters as Paul’s unusual use of it.370 There have been many previous studies of this term, frequently exhaustive ones, and its semantic range seems well established and is not itself a vexed question, at least as regards its extra-biblical usage.371 The verb from which ἔκτρωμα is derived is ἐκτιτρώσκειν, meaning “to abort.”372 As previous studies have noted, this verb is well attested in Classical and Hellenistic literature and papyri, particularly in medical

370 Johannes Schneider, “ἔκτρωμα,” TDNT 2:465-7. Schneider notes 3 other biblical occurrences, all in the LXX (Num. 12:12; Job 3:16; and Eccl. 6:3). 371 For previous discussions and reviews of the evidence, see Schneider, “ἔκτρωμα”; Robertson and Plummer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the First Epistle of St Paul to the Corinthians, ICC (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1916), 339-40; Munck, “Paulus Tanquam Abortivus,” in New Testament Essays: Studies in Memory of Thomas Walter Manson, 18931958, sponsored by friends and colleagues, ed. A. J. B. Higgins (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1959), 180-93; Thorleif Boman, “Paulus Abortivus (1 Kor. 15,8),” ST 18 (1964): 46-50; Barrett, First Epistle to the Corinthians, 344; Hanz Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians: A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975), 259; George W. E. Nickelsburg, “An ἔκτρωμα, Though Appointed from the Womb: Paul’s Apostolic Self-Description in 1 Corinthians 15 and Galatians 1,” HTR 79 (1986): 198-205; M. Schaefer, “Paulus, »Fehlgeburt« oder »unvernünftiges Kind«? Ein Interpretationsvorchlag zu 1 Kor. 15,8,” ZNW 85 (1994): 207-17; Harm W. Hollander and Gijsbert E. Van der Hout, “Paul Calling Himself an Abortion: 1 Cor 15:8 Within the Context of 1 Cor 15:8-10,” NovT 38 (1996): 224-36; Mitchell, “Reexamining the Aborted Apostle,” 470-6. 372 LSJ, 522.

PAUL THE ABORTION

139

works.373 Goodspeed’s collection of papyri, to note one of the most frequently cited examples, includes a papyrus that discusses a pregnant woman’s miscarriage on account of violence: τὴν μὲν Ταὴσιν βαρέαν οὖσαν ἐκ τῶν πληγῶν αὐτῶν ἐχέστρωσεν τὸ βρέφος.374 It bears repeating that all the reviews of the extrabiblical uses of this term and related terms do not vary in their understanding of semantic range or meanings in most (i.e., nonPauline) contexts,375 such as in the works of Hippocrates, Diodorus Siculus, and Aristotle.376 The only occurrence of the term in Philo, always an important source for the lexical range of terms in “Jewish” Greek, is found in Legum allegoriae 1.76. This occurrence does not qualify as an independent witness to extra-biblical usage, however, as it draws explicitly on the biblical story of Miriam in Numbers 12.377

One of the more recent studies, that of Hollander and Van der Hout, notes that neither the verb or related nouns seem to be used in anything like a metaphorical sense in the non-Jewish literature (“Paul Calling Himself an Abortion,” 228). Whether or not the Jewish literature reflects such usage remains to be seen. Jerome seems to be in no doubt as to the meaning of the word rendering it by the Latin “abortivus” (1 Cor. 15:7-8: “Deinde visus est Iacobo, deinde apostolis omnibus; novissime autem omnium, tamquam abortivo, visus est et mihi”). Jerome obviously does not feel the need to distinguish between the closely related terms εἶτα and ἔπειτα. 374 Edgar J. Goodspeed, ed., Greek Papyri from the Cairo Museum: Together with Papyri of Roman Egypt from American Collections (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1902), §15 (21). 375 One should remain aware that methodologically speaking, establishing the exact nuances of verbal forms and various related nouns are quite separate studies, since there is no inherent need for a word’s metaphorical use to employ both a noun and its related verbs in the same manner. For the sake of brevity, however, one must truncate the analysis here slightly, a forgivable omission given the tendency of the debate’s most vexing problems to center upon the biblical evidence. 376 Diodorus Siculus 3.64.4, 4.2. 3; Aristotle, Hist. An 7.4, 9.3. For a complete listing, see Schneider, “ἔκτρωμα,” 465 and passim. 377 “But, though in travail, it [the foolish mind] never brings to the birth, for the soul of the worthless man has not by nature the power to 373

140

ABORTION AND THE APOSTOLATE

The LXX only notes three occurrences of this term, although it appears in certain other ancient Greek versions, notably in Psalm 58. Num. 12:12 contains Aaron’s desire that Miriam not become “ὡσεὶ ἴσον θανὰτῳ, ὡσεὶ ἔκτρωμα.” As Hollander and Van der Hout note, this implies the LXX providing a double rendering for the Hebrew.378 “Let her not be as one dead, who, when he comes forth from the womb of his mother, his flesh is halfconsumed.”379 The Hebrew merely says “as one dead” (tmk), although the following phrase explains the specifics of the “dead one” Aaron is pleading for Miriam not to be made to resemble. In this instance the term ἔκτρωμα serves to clarify and explain the Hebrew underlying the LXX more fully. The appearance of the term in Job 3:16 and Eccl. 6:3-5 serves in both instances as a point of comparison between an ἔκτρωμα and a person who is alive. Job asks, “Why was I not born ἢ ὥσπερ ἔκτρωμα ἐκπορευόμενον ἐκ μήτρας μητρὸς, like an infant that never sees the light?” The Hebrew text is Nwm+ lpnk, literally a “hidden” or buried miscarriage. Ecclesiastes 6:3 has the same word, lpn, underlying the LXX’s use of ἔκτρωμα in the phrase lpnh wnmm bw+ ytrm). Both of these occurrences are strikingly similar, although Job’s is cast in the impassioned and heartfelt first person voice rather than from the cooler perspective of an observer of the misfortunes of life. The ἔκτρωμα, whom presumably no one would ever have cause to envy, occupies an enviable posi-

bring forth any offspring. What it seems to produce turn out to be wretched abortions and miscarriages [ἀμβλωθρίδια εὑρίσκεται ἐκτρώματα], devouring half of its flesh, an evil tantamount to the death of the soul. Accordingly Aaron, the sacred word, begs of Moses, the beloved of God, to heal the change in Miriam, that her soul may not be in travail with evils; and so he says ‘Let her not become as one dead, as an abortion [ὡς ἔκτρωμα] coming forth from the womb of a mother; consuming half of her flesh’”(Leg. 1.76; ET from Philo: Works, trans. F. H. Colson and G. H. Whitaker, LCL [Cambridge and London: Harvard University Press, 1929], 1:197). 378 Hollander and Van der Hout, “Paul Calling Himself an Abortion,” 229. 379wr#b ycx lk)yw wm) Mxrm wt)cb r#) tmk yht )n-l)

PAUL THE ABORTION

141

tion in comparison to the wretchedness that besets Job and, for Qoholeth, the man who fails to enjoy the good things of life (hbw+h-Nm (b#t-)l w#pnw, “who does not sate himself from the good”), though he has lived many years. The only other possible “biblical” uses of the term are in Ps. 58:9 (LXX Psalm 57) in the versions of Aquila, Theodotion, and Symmachus. Once again, ἔκτρωμα renders the Hebrew lpn.380 In Psalm 58 the term is used in a wish for the wicked to be as a miscarriage that “beholds not the light (#m# wzx-lb t#) lpn),”381 a wish that is particularly apt in a poetic sense since the writer claims earlier in the psalm that they (the My(#r) are wicked from the time they are in the womb (Ps. 58:4: Mxrm and N+bm). Following Hollander and Van der Hout’s recent study one might also include Isa. 14:19 in Symmachus, who either misreads rcn for lpn in the phrase b(tn rcnk, “like a rejected shoot/branch,” or else is relying upon an unknown traditional interpretation concerning the king of Babylon’s fall. The LXX renders this phrase as ὡς νεκρός, thus providing little in the way of assistance, although this occurrence bears some similarity to the literary context in Ps. 58:9, referring to a state that one desires for one’s enemies. The only observation to be derived from the Greek versions seems to be that ἔκτρωμα generally corresponds to the Hebrew lpn, which also refers to an aborted or miscarried fetus. Previous Interpretations of ἔκτρωµα in 1 Cor. 15:8 None of this evidence discussed above is new, and each previous study of Paul’s use of the term has reaffirmed the meaning of the word in the Greek literature prior to Paul, particularly in the Classical and Hellenistic writings. The proper application of this data to

380 This simple equation of ἔκτρωμα with lpn is the terse assessment of Strack and Billerbeck as well. See Str-B 3:471. 381 The LXX’s Ps. 57:9 (MT 58:9) reads ἐπέσε πῦρ, καὶ οὐκ εἶδον τὸν ἥλιον, evidently reading something very much like the present MT (#$)' lpanf, although #) is usually feminine it is not exclusively so, see BDB, 77) but perhaps merely misconstruing the meaning of the consonants.

142

ABORTION AND THE APOSTOLATE

Paul remains unclear, however. The biblical uses are cited more often as background for Paul’s than the extra-biblical, but what exactly this background implies about Paul’s usage is debatable. The two solutions Johannes Munck proposed in 1959 have been little altered over the years. If one assumes Paul is referring to his former role as a persecutor of the church then “ὡσπερεὶ τῷ ἐκτρώματι must be taken as expressing that Paul is the most wretched of men.” The only other proposal Munck sees as worthy of “serious” consideration is to understand the “significance of ἔ., as something embryonic, that needs to be formed.”382 The most recent exhaustive study, that of Hollander and Van der Hout, in line with one of these two options Munck outlines, claims a specifically Jewish use of the word, stating that: In summary: in the LXX and in the versions of A, S, and T, the term ἔκτρωμα is used almost exclusively in a figurative sense. The figures are always similes. Both these features are also characteristic of the apostle Paul’s use of the term in 1 Cor 15:8. It seems therefore justified to suppose that Paul (like Philo) knew the image of “a miscarriage” from the Hellenistic Jewish tradition, reflected in the Greek OT. In the LXX and the A, S, and T passages, where the term ἔκτρωμα is used, it refers to people who are in a deplorable position and whose lives are miserable and worthless.383

This relatively recent study by Hollander and Van der Hout relies heavily upon what they term a distinctly Jewish “figurative” use of the word ἔκτρωμα. This distinctive usage is debatable in the examples they cite from the biblical text, and it becomes even more suspect when summoned as evidence to explain its meaning in 1 Cor. 15:8. In Job and Ecclesiastes, certainly, the term is used in expressions of despair that express something akin to the English

Munck, “Paulus Tanquam Abortivus,” 190. Unfortunately, both these meanings that Munck proposes suffer from the same problem of meager attestation that plagues many proposals. 383 Hollander and Van der Hout, “Paul Calling Himself an Abortion,” 231. 382

PAUL THE ABORTION

143

expression “I wish I were never born.” “Better to have been an abortion/miscarriage than live this life.” These uses are not so much expressions of “wretchedness” as hyperbole-laden comparisons with something that is not alive and never even had the opportunity, or misfortune, to experience the injustices and miseries of life. These occurrences are more or less poetic equivalents to Jesus’ statement to Peter in Mark 14:21 (Matt. 26:24) about the betrayer of the Son of Man, that “it would have been better for that one not to have been born.” The term ἔκτρωμα refers not to people who are in deplorable circumstances in these instances, but rather serves as a point of comparison and contrast. Job does not say “I am so wretched, I am a miscarriage,” but rather “why was I not born as a miscarriage, if only I had been I would not be wretched now.” In the other passages in question ἔκτρωμα means very much the same thing as in Job and Ecclesiastes, except that the wish is directed towards someone else as a term of contempt (“May God make you wish you were never born”) rather than as an expression of pity. As mentioned above, the use in Ps. 58:9 is partly based upon the literary motif within the psalm that designates the “wicked” as being liars even in the womb, so that wishing for their mother to abort or miscarry gains a certain “poetic” justice. This verse is a far cry from a distinctively “Jewish figurative” usage.384 Only the occurrence in Num. 12:12 stands apart from these uses, with ἔκτρωμα serving as a graphic description of what exactly the effect upon Miriam’s skin will be of the affliction that God has cast upon her. One might question whether the example of Miriam is the same manner of simile as the other occurrences in the Greek versions, since within the context of the passage she faces a very real chance of dying and having her flesh eaten away, so that the simile’s aptness is not explained as its referring to a state of wretchedness but to a very real threat. At any rate, these occurrences do

Thus the suggestion that the LXX uses ἔκτρωμα to indicate a “peculiar nuance of the idea of death in the midst of life itself, or life in the midst of death” (Schütz, “Apostolic Authority and Tradition,” 455), has nothing to commend it. 384

144

ABORTION AND THE APOSTOLATE

not really help with Paul’s use of the term, since the word’s concrete meaning, a fetus from a pregnancy not brought to term, while providing the very force behind the similes employed, remains difficult to explain in 1 Cor. 15:8. To explain Paul’s use of the term as meaning merely “of wretched birth” or “monstrous” certainly fits 1 Cor. 15:8, but in light of the Greek Bible it is problematic. The point of using the ἔκτρωμα as an object of comparison, even in these passages where it functions somewhat figuratively, remains the fact that it was aborted or was stillborn, a point which Hollander and Van der Hout, as well as the majority of commentators, do not adequately discuss. One could, of course, argue, that it is still applied to living people and thus could have been extended in its use by Paul. However, to attribute a “special” use to Paul merely evades the problem of the idiosyncrasy of his use. Using a “special” use as an explanation for his use not fitting the pattern of the evidence originally amassed in order to explain his usage seems, at the very least, a troubling approach.385 The difficulty one encounters in examining these interpretations is that none of them convincingly demonstrates the manner in which one should properly apply the evidence at hand when one reads Paul. Nor do these solutions resolve the difference between the basic lexical meaning of the word, its use in similes in the Greek Versions, and the meaning that its Pauline occurrence seems to demand. Neither do the uses of the word after Paul, particularly in Christian writings, tell us anything about what Paul meant, but only what later authors thought he meant. These may be precisely the same, but the comfort with which these interpretations glide over Paul’s choice of words should caution one against too easy an acceptance of later readings.386 One should also read cautiously

385 Nickelsburg writes that “it is perhaps simplest to explain the term as Paul”s own invention” (“Ἔκτρωμα,” 205). 386 One case in point is Ignatius of Antioch’s letter to the Romans, where he humbly describes himself in words borrowed from 1 Cor. 15 as “least of them [bishops] and an ἔκτρωμα” (Rom. 9). This use only informs us of the less than complimentary nature of this self-description, at least in Ignatius’ reading of Paul, an understanding that could be arrived at

PAUL THE ABORTION

145

when one’s interpretation can so easily fall back upon a contemporary English translation that betrays none of the difficulties in the Greek. The NRSV rendering “untimely born” ends up making a great deal of sense in the context, but it is simply not what Paul says.387 If ἔκτρωμα means, however unlikely it seems, “one of monstrous birth” or one who is in a “wretched state,” then the problem is resolved. Paul is either being humble, or else he is using a term of derision that his opponents have used against him. These interpretations have both had their supporters, although the evidence for these meanings is far from conclusive, as already discussed.

T HE C ONTEXT

AND I NTERTEXT

Paul writes ἔσχατον δὲ πάντων ὡσπερεὶ τῷ ἐκτρώματι ὤφθη κἀμοί. The phrasing seems, beginning with the word e1sxaton, to be “directly related to the preceding words” since Paul’s use of ἔσχατον draws a close to his recitation of the Resurrection appearances.388 “He appeared to Cephas, then (εἶτα) the Twelve,

without reference to Ignatius, who is obviously parroting Paul’s phrase and thus provides limited insight into Paul’s use. For a fuller discussion, see my “In the Footsteps of Paul: Scriptural and Apostolic Authority in Ignatius of Antioch,” JECS 14.1 (2006):27-45. Relevant also here is Patrick Gray’s study of the Apocalypse of Peter (“Abortion, Infanticide, and the Social Rhetoric of the Apocalypse of Peter,” JECS 9 (2001): 313-37), wherein aborted fetuses play a role in the otherworldly torments suffered by those guilty of abortion and infanticide. Unfortunately, the text, presumably composed in Greek, is only fragmentary apart from its Ethiopic version (321 n. 6). One of these fragments does contain the Greek phrase ἄωροι ἐτίκτοντο (321), strikingly similar to the NRSV rendering of 1 Cor. 15:8. The Didache and the Epistle of Barnabas (Did. 2.2 and Barn. 19.5) contain a wholly different phrase: οὐ φονεύσις τέκνον ἐν φθορᾷ. 387 As Munck discusses, the Latin fathers likely introduced this rendering through reading Paul as saying he had come to believe in Christ “extra tempus” (“Paulus Tanquam Abortivus,” 190). 388 Schneider, “ἔκτρωμα,” 466. See Joost Smit Sibinga, “1 Cor. 15:8/9 and Other Divisions in 1 Cor. 15:1-11,” NovT 39 (1997): 54-9. Although not “redactional” in orientation, this article argues that the rea-

146

ABORTION AND THE APOSTOLATE

then (ἔπειτα) he appeared to more than five hundred… then (ἔπειτα) to James, then (εἶτα) to all the apostles, last of all (ἔσχατον δὲ πάντων) to me” (1 Cor. 15:5-8). Commentators have often noted that Paul is perhaps reciting a traditional creed or παράδοσις about the death and resurrection of Christ.389 Certainly the phrasing παρέδωκα γὰρ ὑμῖν ἐν πρώτοις, ὅ καὶ παρέλαβον in 1 Cor. 15:3 sounds like the phrasing associated with the passing along of a formulaic saying, and the recitation of the appearances certainly seem to fall into this category. After reciting this material, Paul then places himself into the list: “‘Last of all,’ he appeared to me.” Indeed, the only manner in which the structure could be made more plain would have been to have a phrase like πρώτιστον before the appearance to Cephas to balance Paul’s ἔσχατον.390 These observations help to establish certain sequences within the passage. “First” Paul received, “then” he transmitted. Christ appeared to Cephas, “then” the Twelve, and “last of all” to Paul. Yet the problem of the ἔκτρωμα remains. How does the risen Christ appearing last of all to Paul make Paul an ἔκτρωμα? Whether a “miscarriage” (implying accident or happenstance), or an abortion (implying a deliberate action to end the pregnancy),

sons for “a division” between verses 7 and 8 are “sound,” although Sibinga sees no need for a for a major break such as a new paragraph (57). 389 Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, 249-54. Conzelmann discusses the “Christ formula” (251) and the possible origins of its current formulation. Any differences concerning hypothetical previous forms of the creed, and the manner in which the text came to stand as it now does, are tangential to this discussion. The important point is that Paul is handling traditional formulas before his self-presentation in verse 8. See John Kloppenborg, “An Analysis of the Pre-Pauline Formula 1 Cor 15:3b-5 in Light of Some Recent Literature,” CBQ 40 (1978): 351-67; Jerome Murphy-O’Connor, “Tradition and Redaction in 1 Cor 15:3-7,” CBQ 43 (1981): 582-9; and more broadly, although now somewhat dated, Franz Mußner, “«Schichten» in der paulinischen Theologie dargetan an 1 Kor 15,” BZ 9 (1965): 59-70. My concern, however, is with Paul’s presentation of this material, whatever its hypothetical previous forms. 390 The reason for no phrase like πρώτιστον is likely, however, to be attributable to the theory that Paul is tacking on his own vision after reciting the traditional material.

PAUL THE ABORTION

147

how does being “last of all” qualify one to use this term of selfdescription? A miscarriage or an abortion is something that arrives before its appointed time, not after, and certainly not lastly. There are several suggestions available in the scholarly literature on the topic of the basic sequential problem in the metaphor Paul is employing, although they do not substantially alter the seeming lack of fit between the appropriateness of his word choice and the meaning that the context demands. Scholars discuss whether or not this self-description relates to the previous statements (i.e., his listing of the Resurrection appearances), or whether it is in reference to something else: be it an oblique scriptural reference, a reference to Paul’s own monstrous birth as a persecutor of the early church, or finally, a reference to an embryonic, unformed state of being.391 The reference to Paul’s persecution of the Church as the reason his being an ἔκτρωμα relies upon the explanatory Εγὼ γὰρ εἰμι ὁ ἐλάχιστος τῶν ἀποστόλῶν in v. 9. Yet, as discussed above, the presence of the word ἔσχατον suggests the phrase is intended to logically follow the preceding phrases. The only suggestions that really resolve the problem of the illogicality of Paul’s use of the term ἔκτρωμα are the proposals to read the term as meaning “one of monstrous birth,” “one who is in a most deplorable situation,”392 or “as Paul’s own invention,”393 an admission of the difficulties in adhering to any of the proposed explanations. These suggestions, as critiqued above, do not so much resolve the problem, as deny that there is an interpretative crux at all. Should Paul mean by his use of ἔκτρωμα merely that he is one of monstrous birth and/or one who is undeserving of the revelation of the risen Christ, then the sequential problem disappears and Paul is really stating what he clearly says in verse 9, that he is “unfit to be called an apostle” because of his previous persecution of the Church. Hollander and Van der Hout, for example, have proffered

391 392

236. 393

Nickelsburg, “Ἔκτρωμα,” 205. Hollander and Van der Hout, “Paul Calling Himself an Abortion,” Nickelsburg, “Ἔκτρωμα,” 205.

148

ABORTION AND THE APOSTOLATE

the suggestion that ἔκτρωμα means a monstrous or hideous birth, and thus that Paul merely means that as a former persecutor of the Church Paul felt that he was the most worthless man on earth, but in spite of his insufficiency he was appointed by God to be his apostle. Paul wanted his readers to know that his apostolate had its origin in an act of God’s grace: he did not deserve it, nor did he ask for it, for in his own eyes he was no more than “a miscarriage.”394

If one carefully reviews the studies cited above, one should note that there are two different analyses taking place simultaneously in these discussions of 1 Cor. 15:8, often without sufficient attention being paid to distinguishing between them. First, the study of the various meanings of ἔκτρωμα in different contexts, extra-biblical, biblical, and post-biblical in an attempt to isolate a meaning that is applicable to the Pauline usage. Second is the attempt to understand how Paul means to apply this term to himself, that is, in what way does Paul consider himself an ἔκτρωμα? The mingling of these two different questions has helped to create a body of somewhat confused literature, where a large number of studies have given rise to rather limited exegetical gains. Thus, Paul’s use of ἔκτρωμα could mean a person who is physically deformed,395 one who is (spiritually) immature,396 one who is in a wretched state,397 one who stubbornly resists his calling,398 or some combination of these options.399 Each of these explanations can be made to fit into

394

236.

Hollander and Van der Hout, “Paul Calling Himself an Abortion,”

Thus Barrett. So Munck, Boman, Nickelsburg. 397 Munck (who holds two options as equally viable), Hollander and Van der Hout. 398 Thus Schaefer. 399 Robertson and Plummer, for example, note that Paul is probably referring to the violent nature of his conversion, but that it may also be an insult hurled against him by his opponents (1 Corinthians, 339). Conzelmann largely confines the discussion of the options to the footnotes since the “sense is clarified by vv 9-11” (1 Corinthians, 259). 395 396

PAUL THE ABORTION

149

the context, but with all the massive energy expended on lexical studies there is very little evidence that one could deem as conclusive and very few suggestions that even substantially alter interpretation of the passage. Klaus Haacker, to mention another recent proposal, thinks 1 Cor. 15:8 could be a reference to Paul’s being a Benjaminite (and thus Gen. 35:16-21), a possibility that at the very least would need some additional argumentation.400 One could also mention the suggestion that Paul is using an insult hurled against him by his opponents, and that he is effectively turning a derogatory term into a point of pride.401 However, as Boman pointed out many years ago in his study of the ἔκτρωμα, while there is some contemporary evidence of the Latin term abortivus (any Greek evidence is much later) being applied to dwarves, or people of abnormally short stature, the term “ist objectiv, sachlich, nicht beleidigend”402 and thus seems unlikely to have been used as a term of insult against Paul, however similar his name to the Latin paulus (little).403 The suggestion that ἔκτρωμα means merely one “in a wretched state” on the basis of biblical usage is, as criticized in detail above, difficult to apply neatly to the Pauline usage. Other suggestions, such as ἔκτρωμα referring to

“Paul’s Life,” in The Cambridge Companion to St. Paul, 19-33, 21. This view is still held by certain Pauline scholars such as James Dunn. See “Who did Paul Think He Was? A Study of Jewish-Christian Identity,” NTS 45 (1999): 174-93. Dunn notes that Paul’s use of an opponent’s “jibe” illustrates the point that “identity is in at least some degree a social construct” (176). Dunn’s point seems a bit of a truism, and does not really rely upon this illustration to substantiate it. 402 Boman, “Paulus Abortivus,” 48. 403 Paul’s reference to the taunting of his opponents in 2 Cor. 10:10 serves as a key parallel text for this interpretation. Later references to Paul’s appearance seem to have expanded, and by the time of the Acta Pauli et Theclae he is described in rather great detail as short and a trifle unusual looking: ἄνδρα μικρὸν τῇ μεγέθει, ψιλὸν τῇ κεγαλῇ, ἀγκύλον ταῖς κνήμαις, εὐεκτικόν σύνοφρυν, μικρῶς ἐπίρινον (3). This expansion may have nothing to do with 1 Cor. 15:8, however, and be solely the result of 2 Cor. 10:10. 400 401

150

ABORTION AND THE APOSTOLATE

Paul’s stubbornness,404 must rely upon finding allusions or references in Paul’s writing that are far from evident.405 In each and every instance, however, despite the ambiguity surrounding the “meaning” of ἔκτρωμα there is little dispute as to what the phrase or the passage as a whole means. All commentators seem to agree that Paul is humbly describing himself as an unfit recipient of a revelation of the risen Christ, especially in light of his past persecution of the “church of God.” This unanimity of interpretation, particularly when based upon such varied philological conclusions, calls for closer examination. Also, in line with the observations I developed in earlier chapters, one could suggest that such unanimity says more about the pious image commentators have of a humble, introspective Paul describing his past with obvious regret than it says about the passage in question.406

P AULINE

AND

P ROPHETIC P ARALLELS

There have been several biblical texts that have been suggested as providing parallel evidence for various interpretations of 1 Cor. 15:8: Gal. 1:15;407 Isaiah 49;408 and Hos. 13:13.409 All of these sug-

Markus Schaefer straddles the position between the meanings “embryonic” and Paul’s being “unvernünftig” noting that before Damascus “ist er zum einen gleichsam geistlich noch ungeboren (nicht: tot). Durch seine Verfolgertätigkeit droht er zum anderen seiner Berufung entgegenzuwirken und daher als »Totgeburt« zu sterben. Unter beiden Gesichtspunkten ist er ein ἔκτρωμα” (“Paulus, »Fehlgeburt« oder »unvernünftiges Kind«?,” 217). 405 Schaefer writes that Paul “spielt in 1 Kor 15,8 auf Hos 13,13 an, ohne genau zu zitieren” (Ibid., 216). Since Schaefer seems to be the only commentator to have noticed this reference of Paul’s, one can only observe that Paul’s subtlety in this case was certainly lost on most of his readers. 406 As mentioned earlier, this sort of image is precisely the kind critiqued by Stendahl for its emphasis on Paul’s troubled conscience (Paul Among Jews and Gentiles), and Crook for its heavy-handed psychologizing (Patronage, Loyalty, and Conversion). 407 Nickelsburg, “Ἔκτρωμα”. 404

PAUL THE ABORTION

151

gestions make reference to the womb and to the unborn child. As I have noted earlier, it has long been a standard observation to link Paul’s description of himself in Gal. 1:15-17, referring to his being set apart “before I was born,” with certain prophetic texts where the prophet describes himself as being called from before his birth. Now the word of the LORD came to me saying, “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations.” (Jer. 1:4-5, NRSV)

Listen to me, O coastlands, pay attention, you peoples from far away! The LORD called me before I was born, while I was in my mother’s womb he named me… And now the LORD says, who formed me in the womb to be his servant. (Isa. 49:1, 5, NRSV) As discussed above these two passages certainly resonate with Paul’s language in Gal. 1:15, utilizing the trope that God’s purpose for his messenger or prophet is established well prior to his birth.410 Many interpretations of the ἔκτρωμα rely upon one or all of these texts, particularly Gal. 1:15, as providing “extra” context to 1 Cor.

This suggestion can be found in several places. Segal, for one, suggests it as a possibility (Paul the Convert, 70). 409 As noted above, this suggestion has Schaefer (“Paulus, »Fehlgeburt« oder »unvernünftiges Kind«?”) as its chief proponent. 410 This may have originally had something to do with the mystery surrounding conception itself, which partly explains Yhwh’s frequently miraculous role in aiding procreation in the Bible. This attitude was not limited to ancient Israel (see K. Arvid Tångberg, “Die Bewertung des ungeborenen Lebens im alten Israel und im alten Orient,” SJOT 1 (1987): 51-65). Compare the speech in 2 Maccabees 7:20-23, in which a mother declares of her martyred children: “I do not know how you came into being in my womb [εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἐφάνητε κοιλίαν]. It was not I who gave you breath and life” (2 Macc. 7:22, NRSV). This mystery is enough in itself to contribute to the hope for a restoration of “breath and life” from God in the case of those, like her children, who die διὰ τοὺς αὐτοῦ νόμους (2 Macc. 7:23). 408

152

ABORTION AND THE APOSTOLATE

15:8.411 This line of reasoning has some merit to it, as referred to briefly in the previous chapter, as both Gal. 1 and 1 Cor. 15 provide an opportunity to view the manner in which Paul describes his own status and authority as an apostle, and both make explicit that Paul believes his commissioning to be solely rooted in God’s direct revelation of Christ to him and that he is “sent neither by human commission nor from human authorities” (Gal. 1:1). Additionally, both make reference to Paul’s call from God in terms of its timing. Gal. 1:15 states, “When he who had set me apart before I was born (ὁ ἀφορίσας με ἐκ κοιλἰας μητρός—from my mother’s womb),” describing God’s intention to call Paul preceding both any knowledge on Paul’s part of his real mission in life, as well as his very birth. 1 Cor. 15:8, on the other hand, describes Paul’s viewing of the risen Christ “last of all” from among all the apostles. Thus, both passages presumably describe Paul’s commissioning in terms of its unusual timing. However, despite his mention of his past persecution of the church (1 Cor. 15:9; Gal. 1:13) in both passages, the real parallel between the two passages seems to be more a matter of Paul’s language surrounding the source of his apostolic authority (i.e., ultimately God’s apokalypsis at Damascus and not humans) than a parallel metaphor describing his being called “from the womb.” The problem with this type of procedure is that Gal. 1:15 is a self-description that, while undoubtedly drawing upon the language of either Isaiah 49, Jeremiah 3, or possibly both, does not neatly work as a parallel to 1 Cor. 15:8.412 In much the same manner that

411 The actual process that leads to this connection seems to proceed from the ἔκτρωμα to Paul’s direct mention of the womb Gal. 1:15, with the prophetic texts that are widely agreed to form the backdrop of Gal. 1:15 then entering into the discussions of 1 Cor. 15:8. The LXX text of Isaiah 53 may lie behind the phrase ὑπὲρ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν in 15:3 (Kloppenborg, “Pre-Pauline Formula in 1 Cor 15:3b-5,” 354-5), but this would be part of the traditional formulation that Paul is repeating and would not necessarily give any insight into Paul’s view of himself. 412 See the discussion above. See also Munck, Paul and the Salvation of Mankind, 24-30. Munck states that this language indicates that such “calls” are without preparation and inescapable. “They have no previous his-

PAUL THE ABORTION

153

the other biblical occurrences of ἔκτρωμα, as discussed above, are far from being authoritative in helping to determine the meaning of Paul’s use of the word, merely tracking down another Pauline reference to “the womb” does not provide an adequate parallel. The only other explicit NT reference to God’s mission for a person preceding their birth, excepting the obvious example of the birth of Jesus, is the narrative of John the Baptist’s joy at the impending birth of Jesus, when ἐσκίρτησεν τὸ βρέφος ἐν τῇ κοιλίᾳ of Elisabeth (Luke 1:41).413 The birth narrative of John is in a line with the various miraculous birth stories throughout the Bible, all of which serve as proofs of Yhwh’s fecundity and power.414 This story may have some relationship with Paul’s self-description in Gal. 1:15,415 but there seems to be no similar literary motif or metaphor involving abortions or miscarriages attested in the Bible any more than there is a distinctively Jewish figurative usage, despite Paul’s apparent use of “prophetic call” language.

tory—the prophet and the call appear at the same time, and that is the starting-point of everything that happens” (29). 413 The stories of Jesus’ birth fall into the much broader category, as does the story of John the Baptist, of miraculous births by God’s intervention. The story of John is cited here because of the infant’s activity in the womb, but obviously a rather more extensive study of both the NT adaptation of the literary motif of miraculous births and of Paul’s use of birth-related language could be undertaken. For Paul’s use of birth-related imagery, see David J. Williams, who provides a list of Pauline metaphors of childbirth and abortion, the sole example of the latter being 1 Cor. 15:8 (Paul’s Metaphors: Their Context and Character [Peabody: Massachusetts: Hendrickson, 1999], 56-58). 414 Among the most famous examples would be the births of Isaac (Gen. 21) and Samuel (1 Sam. 1), although other births are credited to Yhwh (e.g., Gen. 4:1; Judg. 13). 415 Donald H. Akenson suggests that John’s birth narrative owes its origins to Paul’s self-description in Gal. 1:15 (Saint Saul: A Skeleton Key to the Historical Jesus [New York: Oxford University Press, 2000], 217), although he suggests no reason why it may not more simply have its origins in the various birth stories throughout the Bible.

154

ABORTION AND THE APOSTOLATE

R EADING 1 C ORINTHIANS 15 One could, however, propose a way of interpreting the word ἔκτρωμα that relies chiefly upon the passage in which it currently stands, and that, despite its simplicity, may have some merit, especially in light of our survey in Chapter 4. First, however, one must divest oneself of the habit of reading Paul’s description of his persecution of the church as a humble, self-deprecating description that serves to demonstrate “Grace” as the “absolute factor”416 in his apostolic calling. Simply put, when Paul states that “I am the least of the apostles, unfit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God” (15:9), he is not referring to “God’s Grace.” As was the case in Gal. 1-2, throughout this passage and the letter Paul sees fit to defend his status as apostle, and continually reiterates that he is called as an apostle by God alone, that he receives his commission directly from Christ and that he is answerable to God alone: Paul, called to be an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God… (1 Cor. 1:1) For Christ did not send me to baptize but to proclaim the gospel… (1 Cor. 1:17) I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not thereby acquitted. It is the Lord who judges me. (1 Cor. 4:4) Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? (1 Cor. 9:1) But by the grace of God I am what I am… (1 Cor. 15:10) Paul, an apostle—sent neither by human commission nor from human authorities, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead. (Gal. 1:1) The gospel that was proclaimed by me is not of human origin; for I did not receive it from a human source, nor was I taught

416

Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, 260.

PAUL THE ABORTION

155

it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ. (Gal. 1:11-12)417

These utterances of Paul’s stressing his status as an apostle are closely connected in many cases to self-comparisons with “other” apostles, and assertions that his status is not to be considered any lower than theirs. The extended attack that Paul makes on the “super-apostles” in Second Corinthians (2 Cor. 11:5, τῶν ὑπερλίαν ἀποστολῶν) is an additional case in point, where Paul claims to be “not in the least inferior” (i.e., probably equal if not superior) to these “boasters” who are better deserving of the title ψευδαπόστολοι than of “apostle” (2 Cor. 11:13). Paul’s utterances in 1 Cor. 9:1 (“Am I not an apostle?”) have been answered affirmatively, if largely by himself and chiefly indirectly. That Paul is defending his own status and authority in all these instances seems to encounter little doubt among commentators, despite disagreement about his opponents, and the implications and methods of his defense of his “apostolate.” Certain scholars have argued that Paul, particularly in 2 Corinthians 11 and 12, makes use of contemporary conventions of rhetoric, inasmuch as his discussions of “boasting” in these chapters are meant to make use of a “subtle and forceful parody”418 of the boasts of his opponents. This approach, wherein Paul uses selfdeprecation (a form of “inverted boasting”419) to present “a radically different conception of apostolic authority through his irony”420 has some merit to it, and one could conceivably apply this view to 1 Cor. 15:8, arriving at an interpretation that would understand Paul’s comparison of himself in 1 Cor. 15:8 to an abortion as a similar type of “self-deprecation (εἰρωνεία)” that served to

417 Galatians is replete with such language, cf. also Gal. 1:15-17; 2:2, 20 and my earlier discussion. 418 Christopher Forbes, “Comparison, Self-Praise and Irony: Paul’s Boasting and the Conventions of Hellenistic Rhetoric,” NTS 32 (1986): 130, 2. 419 Ibid., 11. 420 Ibid., 20.

156

ABORTION AND THE APOSTOLATE

“shame his opponents into a recognition of their foolishness.”421 This view has some support in the text, as the vast majority of Paul’s self-deprecations are located in passages where Paul’s larger focus seems to be defending his status and authority. Although I have expressed some reservations in previous chapters concerning the application of Greco-Roman rhetorical categories to Paul, I do not want to dismiss it out of hand in this particular instance. Reading 1 Cor. 15:8 in this manner is difficult, however, as it is hard to imagine an eironic sense to the word ἔκτρωμα given the lack of evidence. It is far more likely that Paul’s reference to being an “abortion” (reading ἔκτρωμα in its normal sense) refers simply to his place among the apostles. That is, he portrays himself as something that is cast aside (hidden away) or rejected in the manner of an aborted/miscarried fetus, most likely with respect to his claims to equal authority with the other apostles. The continual references he makes to his receiving his authority from God are likely to be not solely rhetorical devices, but to reflect an actual sense of himself as singled out among the apostles for persecution.422

P AUL

THE

A BORTION

FROM THE

A POSTOLATE

Paul is describing himself as “the abortion” from among the apostles, that is, one who has been cast aside and rejected in the same manner as an aborted fetus.423 The ἔκτρωμα does not refer to a vague sense of his “wretched state” but to his feeling singled out

Ibid., 21-22. Alan Segal comments on 1 Cor. 15:9, saying that Paul “opposes Paul the persecutor to Paul the persecuted teacher” (Paul the Convert,117). Paul’s contrast, although it is rhetorically useful, accurately reflect his perception of the situation in which he finds himself, if not the situation itself, and is therefore not to be regarded as a mere literary device. 423 Gray notes that there was some overlap between abortion, infanticide, and child exposure in the minds of many ancient authors. At any rate, unwanted children were often abandoned at trash heaps (“Social Rhetoric of the Apocalypse of Peter,” 320 n. 28). Obviously it is impossible to know what Paul had in mind, but the general sense of “unwanted” or “rejected” seems to provide the most reliable sense within the attested range of the word. 421 422

PAUL THE ABORTION

157

from the other apostles.424 This use is certainly figurative but does not contain the problem of relating the word to the timing of Paul’s call, or to some otherwise unknown meaning or metaphor given that the word’s basic meaning fits well with this interpretation. Paul is “an abortion” from the apostolate, and thus needs to defend his apostolic commission. Although it is set, like many of Paul’s self-deprecatory comments, in the context of a defense of his status as an apostle, it would be a mistake to read this statement as an inverted form of boasting or as a mere rhetorical device. That Paul’s self-deprecations are employed in passages that serve to defend his apostolic authority does not necessitate reading them solely as cleverly devised boasts. Paul is making a virtue out of necessity by stressing that his distinctness as an apostle is at least partly the consequence of being the direct recipient of divine commission, so that his separateness from the other apostles is, while inarguable, not without its reasons or its merits. Interpreting 1 Cor. 15:8 in this manner does not necessarily imply a reference to some conflict between Paul and the “other” apostles or negative actions on their part towards him, but it does imply that Paul’s unusual apostolic commissioning was well enough known that he needs to continually attempt to explain and defend it. The connection with Paul’s persecution of the church does not provide as adequate an explanation for Paul’s use of ἔκτρωμα as relating it to his place among the apostles, although strictly speaking this interpretation suggests that the phrase ὡσπερεὶ τῷ ἐκτρώματι belongs neither to the preceding list of resurrection appearances, nor to Paul’s reference to past persecution of the church in 15:9. In another sense the phrase belongs to both of them, since Paul’s unusual encounter with the risen Christ and his

424 Similar in sense to some proposals concerning 2 Corinthians, in particular the proposal about the Paul’s puzzling reference to a “thorn in the flesh” (2 Cor. 12:6-10), which has also been suggested to refer to the rejection of “the legitimacy of Paul’s apostolate” (McCant, “Paul’s Thorn of Rejected Apostleship,” 572). I am not necessarily advocating this interpretation, but it is strikingly similar to the one I am proposing for 1 Cor. 15:8.

158

ABORTION AND THE APOSTOLATE

past antagonism towards the church both contribute to his current status among the apostles. The reference Paul makes at 1 Cor. 15:11 (“whether then it was I or ‘they’”) suggests some latitude remains for Paul’s acknowledgment of the “others” and their authority, not unlike Gal. 1-2. Should there remain some doubt as to Paul himself, Paul’s teaching concerning the Resurrection is in complete agreement with what the “they” (presumably other apostles) teach. This reference is almost an admission of Paul’s difficulties, since he does emphasize the continuity between his teaching regarding the Resurrection with that of the other apostles to shore up the reliability of the teaching.425 There is no need to search for an otherwise unknown figurative use of ἔκτρωμα to explain a fairly straightforward, if a trifle unusual and crude, simile. It would also be a mistake to theologize this short reference into a sermon-like statement on God’s bountiful grace towards an unworthy wretch, particularly when another equally plausible, less theologically and lexicallyburdensome explanation is available.426 That being said, the attractiveness of a suggestion is not in and of itself a reason to accept it. I have critiqued the lack of any firm evidence in the other suggestions available, and the question remains to the reader whether or not any better evidence was marshaled in support of my own understanding by the broader survey of attitudes towards abortion and exposure in Chapter 4, in contrast to the usual focus upon biblical materials found in the proposals discussed in this chapter.

Just as his “gospel” was recognized in Gal. 2 by the “pillars,” although it needs no such recognition. In Galatians Paul claims that the view of the “other apostles” does not matter, while in 1 Corinthians he claims that neither their opinion nor his matter, since they are teaching the same, independently verifiable gospel. The end result in either case is that what Paul is saying can be relied upon! 426 The argument thus far appears in my “Reexamining the Aborted Apostle.” 425

PAUL THE ABORTION

159

C ONCLUSION At the end of the previous chapter, I noted that the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament states that Irenaeus and Hippolytus “define” ἔκτρωμα as “unformed,” assuming far too much originality on their part. As with Hollander and Van der Hout’s claim that the LXX, Paul, and Philo made use of a “distinctively Jewish” metaphor involving “abortion,” TDNT also misses the broader background that lies behind all of these uses of the term. In each and every instance, intentional abortion and the related practice of child-exposure deal with the rejection of an unwanted pregnancy or child. The Gnostic texts’ assertion of the “casting down” of Sophia’s progeny because of its “formlessness” simply combines the notion of aborting a fetus and the practice of not raising a deformed, unhealthy child. None of these references provide perfect parallels to Paul’s reference to himself as “the abortion” from among the apostles. Nonetheless, my proposal that Paul refers to a rejection of his apostolicity becomes not only possible, but increasingly plausible in light of a wider range of Greek, Roman, and Hellenistic materials including Jewish and Christian sources. Paul’s description of himself as an abortion reflects the unusual nature of his experience of the risen Jesus, and the subsequent rejection of the claim to apostolicity he feels Damascus gives him. Paul’s own view is that although he may be the “least” of the apostles, inferior in the eyes of some, he is still an apostle. Nonetheless he admits that his apokalypsis was “as if” to an abortion, acknowledging that there is doubt in some quarters. I have thus far presented Gal. 1:15-17 as an attempt by Paul to link his Gentile mission to Damascus, examining the various permutations of scholarly theories at some length. In addition to locating the origins of his Gentile mission at Damascus, Gal. 1-2 also emphasized the independence of Paul’s commissioning by the risen Christ, and the acknowledgment of his mission by the other apostles as reflecting an authentic apokalypsis of Jesus. The reference to this experience in 1 Corinthians seems not to center so much upon his mission’s origins as upon the kerygma, although the issue of authenticity seems very near the surface. 1 Cor. 15:8 describes how he is “least of the apostles” to whom Christ appeared “last of all,” yet his message simply reflects the same message that all apostles preach. Although the focus of 1 Corinthians 15 is the resurrection and not Paul’s mission in and of itself, 1 Corinthians 9 makes clear that Paul’s status as an apostle has also been challenged. In Gal.

160

ABORTION AND THE APOSTOLATE

1:15-17 Paul’s reference to Damascus as the source of his mission and his gospel denies any substantive difference between Paul’s vision and the other resurrection appearances, while 1 Cor. 15:8 asserts a unanimity of message, despite clearly acknowledged differences between Paul and other apostles. Paul argues that the difference is not such that one should see it as reflecting a difference in the authenticity of their experience of Jesus, although he admits in 1 Cor. 15:8 that some have expressed their doubts. I referred earlier to Johannes Munck’s words of criticism concerning the use of “controversial” passages as the sole passages through which to interpret Paul. Although it may seem that I have ignored this advice and have centered my discussion upon a point of contention, it is noteworthy that it was my initial focus upon Paul’s presentation of his conversion that has revealed such controversy. I have not provided any extended discussion in this chapter as to the source of this controversy, merely pointing to its existence and arguing for a more thoroughgoing acknowledgment of its presence through Paul’s self-description in 1 Cor. 15:8. Given the evidence I have presented, it seems that the controversy is over Paul’s status as compared to the other apostles. Moreover, we have in both Galatians 1-2 and 1 Corinthians 15 a clear concern on Paul’s part to display the independent integrity of his experience as compared to the experiences of others, as well as his basic agreement with the other apostles. These observations are not especially original or groundbreaking, certainly, but they nevertheless must be clearly recognized. Paul refers to Damascus when defending both his mission and his status as an apostle. The latter in particular is the object of serious attack, acknowledged by Paul very explicitly in his reference to himself as an ἔκτρωμα. In terms of Paul’s mission, one can now begin to ask about the theories surrounding its origins, and how the material I have discussed thus far can proffer an explanation. At the end of my discussion of Galatians 1:15-17, I briefly touched upon the relationship between Paul and the other apostles in Galatians 1-2. In the last two chapters I have presented extensive materials to suggest that the Damascus experience as recounted in 1 Cor. 15:8 contains a reference to rejection of his claims to equal status as an apostle. Should my analysis of these two passages be correct, Paul not only locates the origins of his Gentile mission in the Damascus

PAUL THE ABORTION

161

experience, but also describes how his claim to equality with the other apostles, based upon this experience, has met with resistance. These conclusions are in and of themselves scarcely novel, but I believe that the evidence I have presented places these views in a new light. Paul grounds his Gentile mission in the apostolicity-granting event of Damascus, claiming equality with the other apostles and simultaneously acknowledging that his unusual experience is unacceptable in some circles. Fitting this understanding into an explanatory framework requires relating these twin aspects of Damascus to one another more clearly. Paul’s insistence upon the Gentile mission field is not grounded solely in his experience of the risen Jesus, but also upon the rejection of his claims to this experience. That is to say that for Paul, “Damascus” refers to a single event which comprises his call to preach to the Gentiles and the rejection of his apostolic claims. They are two sides of the same coin—the “Damascus event.” In the next chapter I will turn to one of the oldest established scholarly theories to speak of the sort of clear distinction between Paul and the other apostles that I am advocating can be found in Paul’s references to Damascus, that of F. C. Baur. Baur (and many since) felt that most of the opposition Paul counters in his writings stems from the criticism that his apostolic status is somehow lesser or inferior to that of Peter and the other apostles. I will explore the reception that Baur’s views have encountered among biblical scholars, as well as the reservations expressed concerning his methodology and conclusions. This study will sketch out as broad a scholarly context as is possible for the reading of Paul’s conversion I have just advocated, and deal directly with what may be some less than favorable associations that arise from my use of conflict or opposition as an important consideration in interpreting Paul’s references to his conversion. One of these likely associations is with F. C. Baur, whose reputation among biblical scholars occupies a curious space, as his views and legacy are discussed with a fairly consistent mix of reverence and dismissal. This odd tone is puzzling, until one realizes that even those scholars who are most dismissive of Baur’s conclusion often occupy what amounts to the same scholarly terrain.

6 F. C. BAUR, CONFLICT, AND THE RHETORIC OF REPUTATION∗ “There is virtually nothing, it seems, that I have said which is not either asserted or denied at some point in the Pauline scholarship.”427 In considering the logic of an argument our attention is directed away from the fact that the argument is what the person constructing the argument wants to be true… In theory an argument would not depend for its validity on the person who advanced it: it would be the same argument no matter who worked it out.

Material from this chapter has appeared in various incarnations in published form and at professional association meetings, thus there are too many people to thank properly in terms of comments and criticisms. I will thank Barry Matlock, however, for his enthusiastic response to some of this material, especially given that his own work subsequently influenced it, and Cornel West for his very kind words of encouragement. In chronological order, this research has appeared as: “F. C. Baur and Christian Origins: Pauline scholarship and universalism in the 20th Century” (paper presented at the annual meeting of the SBL. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. November 19, 2005); “Of Low Estimation and Pervasive Influence: F. C. Baur and Pauline Studies” (Job Candidate Talk/Lounge Seminar Paper. Department of Religion, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey. January 12, 2006). A related essay based on research from this chapter was published as “Scholars of Repute,” in Wesley J. Bergen and Armin Siedlecki (eds.), Voyages in Uncharted Waters: Essays on the Theory and Practice of Biblical Interpretation in Honour of David Jobling, Hebrew Bible Monographs, 13 (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2006), 63-78. ∗

427

Boyarin, A Radical Jew, 11.

163

164

ABORTION AND THE APOSTOLATE But nobody quite believes this: there is always some glimpse of relation to a personality.428

T HE N EW R HETORIC , THE POSTMODERN

S CHOLARLY R HETORIC ,

AND

In Chapter 1 I briefly discussed Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca’s study of argumentation, The New Rhetoric. This work was an attempt to study “argumentation” in a broader sense, not simply the exploration of the categories of Greco-Roman rhetoric that serves to define “rhetorical criticism” as practiced by many New Testament scholars. Despite being published in the 1960s, the more recent connection between it and postmodern approaches is understandable.429 Statements like “the object of the theory of argumentation is the study of the discursive techniques allowing us to induce or to increase the mind’s adherence to the theses presented for its assent,” are clear attempts to block out the study of argumentation as a path to “truth,” even if the language is not entirely what we would now recognize as postmodern.430 However, given that the focus on the structure of argumentation corresponds roughly with the broader shift in interest during the 1970s from structuralism to poststructuralism, the inclusion of the New Rhetoric among a postmodern handbook in biblical interpretation merits little comment.431 Aside from the applicability of this theory to the biblical text, though, I find myself increasingly concerned with the additional question as to what this theory means for the argumentation one also finds within Pauline scholarship. That is, rather than responding to a call for “coming to terms with the rhetoric of religion”432

Northrop Frye, Words with Power: Being a Second Study of the Bible and Literature (Toronto: Penguin, 1990), 12 (italics mine). 429 Aichele, et al., Postmodern Bible, 149-86. 430 Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca, New Rhetoric, 4 431 By this assessment, I mean that thorough analysis of the structure of argumentation inevitably causes it to appear “structured” (and thus even “constructed”), at which point the idea that “the structure” is somehow natural or intrinsic becomes less tenable. 432 Aichele, et al., Postmodern Bible, 171. 428

F. C. BAUR AND THE RHETORIC OF REPUTATION

165

or even the “rhetoric of Paul,” I am motivated also to come to terms with the rhetoric of scholarship.433 More specifically, I am curious as to the way in which Pauline scholars discuss themselves and what they do. It is for this reason, in addition to the particulars of his reading of Paul’s letters, that F. C. Baur, his reputation, his work, and what that they reveal about the use of “reputation” in Pauline scholarship’s representation of its past merits close attention. Professional biblical scholars are trained to cite authorities, and we spend large amounts of time reading studies invoking names that are instantly recognizable to most members of our scholarly guild (e.g., Wellhausen, Gunkel, Albright) and names that resonate within our particular sub-field (e.g., Baur, Munck, Schweitzer, Sanders, Dunn, Gager). We are also trained in the careful periodization and subdivision of our discipline, and, more importantly, in certain tellings of its past (whether conscious or unconscious). For Pauline scholars, few figures loom larger in this story than F. C. Baur, or have a more prominent reputation, and although the New Rhetoric does not list “appeal to reputation” as a rhetorical term, belonging to a subset of other categories, its use is so prevalent that it deserves exploration.434 F. C. Baur: W ork and Reputation Bruce N. Kaye wrote in 1984 that “in recent years there has been something of a growing interest in the work and contribution of Ferdinand Christian Baur.”435 This claim is all the more striking, bracketed as it is with Kaye’s further observation about a revived interest in Baur being heavily qualified by the statement that “Baur’s reputation in English scholarship, however, is not high

433 Cf. the approach in Matlock, “Biblical Criticism and the Rhetoric of Inquiry,” BibInt 5 (1997): 133-59. 434 Depending on its use, reputation would fall under the sections on “Interaction of Act and Person” and “Argument From Authority” (Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca, The New Rhetoric, 296-310). 435 “Lightfoot and Baur on Early Christianity,” NovT 26 (1984): 193224, 193.

166

ABORTION AND THE APOSTOLATE

now nor has it ever really been.”436 One hesitates to say that there is a reassessment of the Tübingen school and Ferdinand Christian Baur taking place in New Testament scholarship, although there has been a growing body of publications over the last thirty years. The notion of a “reassessment” would imply an increase in scholarly activity and attention following a long period of neglect.437 No period of neglect exists because there has simply never been a period

Kaye, “Lightfoot and Baur,” 193 (italics mine). A more accurate description might be a lessening of neglect, at least towards Baur. F. C. Baur was described in the 1960s as “one of the most neglected” of scholars and theologians (Peter C. Hodgson, The Formation of Historical Theology: A Study of Ferdinand Christian Baur, ed. Jarislov Pelikan, Makers of Modern Theology [New York: Harper & Row, 1966], 6). For a brief biography, see Horton Harris, The Tübingen School: A Historical and Theological Investigation of the School of F. C. Baur (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1990. Reprint; 1975 The Tübingen School. Oxford: Clarendon Press), 11-54. Harris claims in his introduction that there was nothing published of note on Baur for one hundred years (vi). However, the 1960s did see publication of his collected works in German (Ausgewählte Werke in Einzelausgaben [Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt: Friedrich Frommann Verlag, 19631970]). The neglect seems linguistic in part. Harris’s claim is accurate as regards English scholarship, following R. P. Dunn, “The Tübingen Historical School.” Bibliotheca Sacra 19.73 (1862):75-105; and Robert W. Mackay, The Tübingen School and its Antecedents: A Review of the History and Present Condition of Modern Theology (Edinburgh: Williams and Norgate, 1863). German language scholars like Ulrich Köpf (“Baur, Ferdinand,” in RGG’s 4th Edition [1998-2006], 1:1183-1185; “Theologisches Wissenschaft und Frömmigkeit im Konflikt: Ferdinand Christian Baur und seine Schüler.” Berichte zur Wissenschaftsgeschichte 11 [1988]:169-177) have more of a legacy to work through (e.g., Wolfgang Geiger, Spekulation und Kritik: Die Geschichtstheologie Ferdinand Christian Baurs [München:Kaiser-Verlag, 1964]; Otto Pfleiderer, The Development of Theology in Germany since Kant and its Progress in Great Britain since 1825, 3rd ed., Library of Philosophy, trans. J. Frederick Smith [New York: Macmillan, 1923, repr., 1909; 1st ed., 1890], 22433, 284-99). Most notable for recent English-language scholarship is the Hendrickson reprint of the nineteenth century ET of Baur’s Paulus in 2003, after a period of almost one hundred and thirty years. See also Hans Rollmann, “From Baur to Wrede: the Quest for a Historical Method,” SR 17 (1988): 443-54. 436 437

F. C. BAUR AND THE RHETORIC OF REPUTATION

167

in which the ideas of the Tübingen School, often considered as synonymous with the creation of modern New Testament scholarship, did not play an important role. It is a commonplace observation that many of the presuppositions of this nineteenth-century school, considered so radical in its own day, have become not only widely accepted among scholars but are foundational to the very practice of historical criticism itself. Standard discussions of the “history of biblical criticism” thus never fail to mention the Tübingen School, touching briefly upon the work of Ferdinand Christian Baur as one of the most important episodes in the development of historical criticism of the New Testament.438 No single event ever changed the course of Biblical scholarship as much as the appearance of the Tübingen School. All New Testament criticism and, derivatively, much Old Testament criticism from the mid-nineteenth century onwards finds its origin, consciously or unconsciously, in this school.439

This episode is, however, usually collapsed into generalized statements concerning the Tübingen school, often being passed over in favor of a discussion of the impact of Strauss’s Jesus as the moment in which the “higher criticism” first made itself felt publicly.440 Ultimately more important for the history of New Testament scholarship than Strauss’s Jesus, however, was F. C. Baur’s 2 volume life’s work: Paul: The Apostle of Jesus Christ.441 Baur’s fame rests in large part upon this work, in which he argues in detail for his theory that the relations between Paul and the

438 William Baird, History of New Testament Research: Volume One: From Deism to Tübingen (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1992). On the Tübingen School, see 244-94, on Baur in particular, 258-69. See also Schweitzer, Paul and His Interpreters, 12-21. 439 Harris, The Tübingen School, 1. 440 On the relationship between Baur and Strauss, see Harris, The Tübingen School, 27-36; Kaye, “Lightfoot and Baur,” 197. 441 For a brief description of the genesis of Paul, beginning with his 1831 article “Die Christuspartei” through the book’s 1st edition in 1845 and ongoing revisions until Baur’s stroke, see Hodgson, The Formation of Historical Theology, 204 n. 15; Harris, The Tübingen School, 195-8.

168

ABORTION AND THE APOSTOLATE

other apostles were less than harmonious, and that the later emergence of a form of Jewish Christianity with a clearly expressed antipathy towards Paul had its origins in this early disharmony. My above survey of Paul’s references to his apostolic commission and the Damascus event above makes clear that many scholars since find indications that a dividing line is being drawn between Paul and the other apostles in the reception of his apostolic claims, a distinction that echoes Baur’s. Baur’s Paul Holding a view that echoes one of Baur’s is hardly surprising. Many of the views expressed by Baur in his Paul have become mainstay assumptions in Pauline scholarship. The position that Acts should be treated as historically inferior when it diverges from Paul’s letters was a view that Baur himself was among the first scholars to hold and argue for in some detail.442 Baur also argued against accepting the traditional attributions of Pauline authorship for many New Testament writings. Although the skepticism that Baur also held towards this question of “authentic” Pauline authorship (attributing only Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, and Galatians to Paul himself) has failed to find much scholarly support in all its particulars, his emphasis upon the tendency of Acts to present harmony where there was discord, if not outright conflict, is widely accepted, as is his rejection of Pauline authorship for the Pastorals.443 Also, in contrast to the tenets of early twentieth century form-criticism and its emphasis on Sitz im Leben’s determinative role in shaping the contours of a story, but similar to more recent discussions in biblical scholarship, Baur often attributed this divergent “tendency” of Acts to authorial freedom and creativity. In Paul, Baur thus often observes that in reading Acts one must take into account the author’s theological and ecclesiological agenda. For Baur, this agenda dictates that Peter and Paul must be made to resemble each other as closely as possible in both activity

The first half of vol. 1 of his Paul is dedicated to this perspective. Introductory college textbooks on Paul’s letters now simply assume the Pastorals to be inauthentic as a matter of course. 442 443

F. C. BAUR AND THE RHETORIC OF REPUTATION

169

and theology. Baur does not, however, deny that there is a historical core to some of the traditions in Acts. Rather, what he denies is that the author of Acts has always preserved it in a form serviceable for the modern historian. The evidence of the author’s creative hand is so striking that the critical modern reader is often left with an inability to read back through the author’s literary creation to the historical kernel that may lie within it. Baur continually notes how “a writer like the author of the Acts of the Apostles, cannot deny himself the right to use even traditional material in a free and independent manner.”444 The author of Acts gives “many proofs of the free manner in which he handles historical materials.”445 “The free treatment of the author” is even found in his handling of “minor circumstances.”446 Episodes like the conversion of Cornelius in Acts 10:1-48 “cannot be look upon as the casual product of mythical tradition, but as a free composition.”447 “In the whole account [of Paul’s first journey] the apologetic tendency and the literary freedom of the author of the Acts of the Apostles are shown in a manner which places its historical contents in a very questionable aspect.”448 One of the most important examples of the author’s tendency to reshape the materials at his disposal is the Pauline ministry’s close connection with Jewish Christianity in Acts. For example, on the role of Ananias (Acts 9:10-19) Baur comments that it is easy “to imagine that there was a particular interest at work in thus representing the Apostle Paul as from the beginning in close connection with a man who stood in such good repute with the Judaising party which was always so suspicious of the Apostle.”449 Even more significantly, Peter (not Paul!), is the recipient of a vision that legitimates a mission to the Gentiles, a mission free of the Jewish dietary restrictions (Acts 10:1-11:18). Peter is the self-proclaimed “one through whom the Gentiles” would hear the gospel (Acts

Baur, Paul, 1:38 (italics mine). Ibid., 1:65 (italics mine). 446 Ibid., 1:67 (italics mine). 447 Ibid., 1:83 (italics mine). 448 Ibid., 1:94-95 (italics mine). 449 Ibid., 1:77-78. 444 445

170

ABORTION AND THE APOSTOLATE

15:6-11). According to Baur this emphasis is proof of a selfconscious effort by the author of Acts to “procure every possible guarantee for his Apostle,” Paul. The authority of Paul, according to the nature of the circumstances under which the Acts of the Apostles was composed, can be legitimatized in no better manner than by the authority of Peter. If we can look to a precedent that Peter also saw a really divine vision in which he received an important charge, a charge which concerned a no less weighty matter than the adoption of the Gentiles into the Messianic kingdom, what objection can be taken to the vision which was the cause of Paul’s being called to the office of an Apostle among the Gentiles?450

Baur notes that no matter how little or how much claim such a story may have to being historical, “it suits the apologetic tendency with which the Acts of the Apostles is written.” That is, by presenting Paul’s mission as parallel to Peter’s, and as simply an extension of it, the author places Paul’s work beyond reproach. Paul must be represented as entering on his apostolic work among the Gentiles under the shield of the Apostle Peter, who himself converted the first Gentile, and the heavenly appearance on which alone Paul grounds the proof of his apostolic calling, becomes legitimized in the most authentic manner, by a similar vision to that sent to the Apostle Peter.451 This paralleling works both ways, however, as Paul’s “speeches” in Acts are less “Pauline” than they are configured to match the speeches of Peter and the other apostles.452 In Baur’s view, Acts is a work in which details are fitted into a deliberate framework, and which often provides us only with “intentional deviations from historical truth.”453 Acts is simply not to be trusted as a historical guide, although its tendencies provide an important clue about the issues facing the early church at the time of its com-

Ibid., 1:81. Ibid., 1:87. 452 Ibid., 1:105. 453 Ibid., 1:109. 450 451

F. C. BAUR AND THE RHETORIC OF REPUTATION

171

position. As the “intentional deviations” in Acts have as their chief purpose the virtual equating of Peter and Paul in terms of theology and activity, Baur’s suspicions were that such an obvious and identifiable agenda could have only been conceived to mask an important distinction of some sort between Peter and Paul. Pauline and Petrine Christianity Baur asserted that the Antioch incident, as well as the numerous differing opinions expressed concerning the status of the Law and the Gentiles throughout the New Testament, were best explained as the result of two factions within early Christianity: one Pauline and the other Petrine. The latter directed its efforts towards the Jews, and the former towards the Gentiles. The singular ekklêsia portrayed in Acts was an attempt to hide the differences between the two community’s within the early Jesus-movement, a sort of retrospective rapprochement after the heat of conflict in the earlier period had passed. Acts came from a period that was embarrassed that “there were two Gospels, a Gospel of the circumcision and a Gospel of the uncircumcision, a mission to the Jews and a mission to the Gentiles.”454 The early chapters of Galatians, with Paul’s discussion of a peculiar mission field for “his gospel” provides the best example of this early rift between two different types of Christianity, each associated with and later symbolized by the contrasting figures of Peter and Paul. The apostolic sphere of operation therefore became divided into two parts; there was an εὐαγγέλιον τῆς περιτομῆς, and an εὐαγγέλιον τῆς ἀκροβυστίας; an ἀποστολὴ εἰς τὴν περιτομὴν, and an ἀποστολὴ εἰς τὰ ἔθνη: in one the Mosaic law had force, in the other it had none, and these two systems simply co-existed without being in any way harmonised.455

454 455

Baur, Church History, 1:53. Baur, Paul, 1:130.

172

ABORTION AND THE APOSTOLATE

Aside from Paul’s own account in Galatians 1-2 and Baur’s close examination of the book of Acts, this view was developed through a careful study of the letters to the church at Corinth originally published in 1831.456 As Gerd Luedemann notes, it was in this lengthy article on 1 and 2 Corinthians that Baur became the first scholar to propose that a rift between Pauline Christianity and “Jewish Christianity” was key for understanding the history of the church in the first two centuries of the Common Era. In the context of a study of the Corinthian letters Baur came to the conclusion that the relationship between Gentile Christians and Jewish Christians had not been so harmonious as had been commonly supposed. Rather, the existence of the Corinthian parties reflect a conflict between the older apostles and Paul. The Christ party and the Cephas party, which together formed one group, stood in opposition to the Pauline party. They place Paul’s authority in question by explaining that their own leader, Peter, was superior to Paul in that he had actually seen Jesus.457

Baur’s view that Paul’s authority is being called into question, especially in Galatia and Corinth is still well within the mainstream of scholarship, as my discussion in previous chapters indicates. Indeed, as far as my own analysis of Paul’s conversion/call passages (1 Cor. 15:8; Gal. 1:15-17) is concerned, Baur’s proposal that Paul’s apostolicity is under attack, given that “had been called to be an Apostle in a perfectly unusual and peculiar manner,” still seems extremely plausible to many scholars.458 Similarly, his emphasis upon the centrality of the Antioch incident seems also to have been

Baur, “Die Christuspartei.” See also Paul, 1:268-320. Gerd Luedemann, Opposition to Paul in Jewish Christianity, trans. M. Eugene Boring (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989), 1. ET of Paulus der Heidenapostel vol. 2: Antipaulinismus im frühen Christentum (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983). 458 Baur, Paul, 1:277. 456 457

F. C. BAUR AND THE RHETORIC OF REPUTATION

173

supported by a large body of subsequent scholarship.459 Why then, one might ask, when taken in combination with Baur’s views on Acts and his nuanced discussion of its author’s ideological agenda, has Baur’s understanding often been dismissed in virtually the same breath as acknowledgments of its influence?460 A brief Rezeptionsgeschichte of Baur’s views As far as the late nineteenth century reception of Baur is concerned, one would be tempted to say quite simply that some of Baur’s views were too “radical” to be received positively. His rejection of the historical reliability of much of the New Testament, his skepticism towards “supernaturalism,” and his attack upon scholarly credulity regarding “miracles” certainly earned him detractors, some of whom openly regarded him as an enemy of the Christian faith. Baur continually cautioned that the historian should not “give unqualified assent to every miracle which is related in the New Testament,” since doing so constitutes an “evasion of the critical questions which as historians they should have investigated.” For a critical historian even the question of whether or not miracles are possible is “quite superfluous.”461 However, there are also “radical” views of judgement concerning the reliability of extra-biblical materials that are problematic in hindsight. Baur famously rejected the authenticity of the Ignatian corpus,462 and relied heavily upon the Pseudo-Clementine material as a reliable gauge of the hostility between Jewish Petrine Christianity and Gentile Paulinism, often cit-

459 See my discussion, and Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle, §14.5 (359-66). 460 One need only read the “blurbs” on the back cover of the recent Hendrickson reprint by Dunn, Nanos and other scholars to verify this pattern. 461 Baur, Paul, 1:99, unnumbered footnote. As Kaye observes, Stephen Neill often strikes this tone in reference to Baur and the Tübingen School (The Interpretation of the New Testament, 1861-1961 [London: Oxford University Press, 1964]). For a brief discussion, see also Luedemann, Opposition to Paul in Jewish Christianity, 220-1 n. 56. 462 See Kaye, “Lightfoot and Baur,” 199, 214-7.

174

ABORTION AND THE APOSTOLATE

ing it in the same breath as Paul’s epistles and using it almost as a parallel source from the viewpoint of Paul’s opponents.463 Die paulinischen Briefe an die Korinthier und Galater auf der einen und die Clementinen auf der anderen Seite bezeichnen uns die äußersten Puncte, an welchen die in der ältesten Kirche gegen den Apostel Paulus erhoben Polemik, der Gegensatz des paulinischen und petrinischen Christenthums, fixirt werden kann.464

Unfortunately, Baur’s bold claim that the Pseudo-Clementine material could be used as a guide to Jewish Christian hostility to Paul has to deal with a chronological gap of “at least 120 years,” a gap that few Pauline scholars since are willing to bridge in as straightforward a fashion.465 Similarly, his views concerning the authenticity of the letters of Ignatius have been rejected almost universally. Lastly and perhaps most importantly within German language scholarship, his views of the opposition Paul faced in Corinth were

The Pseudo-Clementine literature (the Recognitions and the Homilies) is written in the guise of Clement of Rome, and contain the experiences of “Clement” and Peter. Peter’s ongoing conflict with Simon Magus is believed to be a veiled reference to Paul. For an ET of both the Recognitions and the Homilies see ANF 8:69-346. 464 Baur, “Die Christuspartei,” 76 (136). The collected works contains two forms of pagination. The former number indicates the page number in the collected works, the latter that of the original publication. See also Paul, 1:88-91. 465 Luedemann, Opposition to Paul in Jewish Christianity, 2. Hans Joachim Schoeps has dealt with this material, though largely with its redaction and its serviceability for uncovering traces of the Jewish Christian Ebionites. See Luedemann, Opposition to Paul in Jewish Christianity, 21-23; F. Stanley Jones, An Ancient Jewish Christian Source on the History of Christianity: PseudoClementine Recognitions 1.27-71, SBLTT, 37 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995, repr. 1998),17-20. On J. Louis Martyn’s views connecting this material to the Johannine literature, and Luedemann’s own contribution see Jones, 25-31. Jones notably shares Baur’s view in the end, albeit much more guardedly, that the Pseudo-Clementines represent a type of Jewish Christianity that stands “in some sort of direct genetic relationship” to the earliest form (165). 463

F. C. BAUR AND THE RHETORIC OF REPUTATION

175

subjected to substantial criticism early in the twentieth century.466 Holding minority viewpoints is not, however, the biggest obstacle for Baur in contemporary biblical scholarship, especially in the English-speaking world. Baur is often accused of Hegelianism, and throughout much twentieth century scholarship this criticism has often been repeated. “Accused” is the correct term, as the notion of an author’s Hegelianism appears to be the scholarly equivalent of a technical disqualification.467 Even for those scholars who surround this description with laudatory comments, this failing of Baur’s is reason enough to ignore his conclusions. William F. Albright, the most influential American biblical scholar of the twentieth century, described him as “an ardent Hegelian,” and argued that this approach undermined the entirety of his work as a historian. “Owing to the artificial and unilinear character of Baur’s reconstruction and to the extreme lateness of his dates, his position is no longer held by any scholar of repute.” His contribution rests in identifying critical issues, as the problems he formulated “remain in the foreground,” even as his conclusions and reconstructions are outside the realm of reputable scholarly discourse.468 Scholars undertaking to defend Baur or

D. W. Lütgert, Freiheitspredigt und Schwarmgeister in Korinth: Ein Beitrag zur Charakteristik der Christuspartei, BFCT, 12.3 (Gütersloh: Bertelsmann, 1908). 467 Note the comment of Mark Nanos on the Hendrickson reprint of Paul, which represents this view as received wisdom. “Baur’s application of Hegel’s dialectical theories to the writings of Paul profoundly shaped the discourse of his mid-nineteenth century German contemporaries.” Similarly, William Renay Wilson II passes off as common knowledge the fact that “it is no secret that G. W. F Hegel’s dialectical philosophy of history provided F. C. Baur with an artificial and synthetic template for reconstructing early Christian origins” (review of John Painter, Just James: The Brother of Jesus in History and Tradition, RBL 12 [www.bookreviews.org] (2004). 468 From the Stone Age to Christianity: Monotheism and the Historical Process, nd 2 ed. (Garden City, New York: Doubleday Anchor Books, 1957), 87-88 (italics mine). Albright gives a similar description of Julius Wellhausen (8889). 466

176

ABORTION AND THE APOSTOLATE

deal with his views seriously are thus forced to address this concern, which originated within Baur’s own lifetime and to which he himself devoted some energy refuting.469 In his study of Baur, Hodgson is at pains to argue that Baur’s work on Paul started “well before Baur first read Hegel,”470 and he devotes a large amount of space to defending and examining Baur’s view of history and his method historical writing.471 Harris takes the opposite view in his study from a decade later, confidently asserting that: Baur did not deny he was a Hegelian; he merely asserted that he refused to be labelled as an adherent of any philosophical system. Against the whole tenor of Baur’s utterances during these years [1833-47], no isolated statements of Baur himself or opinions of his later interpreters can overthrow the Hegelian testimony which breathes through so many passages where the dogmatic content of the Christian faith is under discussion.472

More recent Pauline scholarship has shown the same range of opinion. Daniel Boyarin refers to Baur as “the consummate Hegelian,”473 while Gerd Luedemann is at his most vociferous in Baur’s defense, stating that although one often reads that Baur’s writing “were nothing else than a prejudiced reconstruction on the basis of Hegel’s philosophy,” such “accusations” are made by those scholars who are “not in a position” to make them. The sketch offered above of how Baur really came to his conclusions [through a study of the Corinthian letters] may be sufficient to refute these allegations, which only prove that Baur’s exegetical works are unknown territory to a sector of the pre-

469

57.

Luedemann, Opposition to Paul in Jewish Christianity, 219-21 nn. 53-

Hodgson, The Formation of Historical Theology, 22 n. 85. Ibid., 268-81. 472 Harris, The Tübingen School, 156. 473 Boyarin, A Radical Jew, 11. 470 471

F. C. BAUR AND THE RHETORIC OF REPUTATION

177

sent generation of scholars… most of Baur’s detailed analyses referred to above have nothing to do with a preconceived theory.474

Similarly, Hans Rollmann comments that “contrary to the allegations of many of Baur’s critics, the Tübingen theologian emphasized that historical research was based not on a philosophical prejudging of history but on a ‘reasoning consideration’ of the data.”475 However, the most longstanding criticism directed against Baur is the accusation of “oversimplifying.”476 This criticism is often couched in the same language as the attacks upon Baur for his Hegelianism, and may be viewed as simply a broader application of the crux of that accusation: Baur’s commitment to a certain philosophical approach and certain theoretical frameworks predetermined his results. A principal example of this criticism can be found in one of the most important mid-twentieth century scholars of Paul, Johannes Munck. Writing from what Gerd Luedemann aptly terms a “kind of love-hate relationship with regard to the Tübingen school,” Munck directed a good portion of his Paul and the Salvation of Mankind specifically against Baur and what he perceived to be his negative influence upon twentieth century Pauline scholarship. Munck aimed to be “the ultimate refutation of Baur,”477 and he argued that Baur’s portrait erred in its understanding of “conflict” within Paul’s writings, as well as in its assumption of a single source for that conflict.478

474

mine).

Luedemann, Opposition to Paul in Jewish Christianity, 6-7 (italics

Rollmann, “From Baur to Wrede,” 445. Luedemann and Rollmann reflect more positive views of Baur, perhaps owing to their being more conversant with his status in the German scholarly tradition. Rollmann’s study aptly notes that Baur was equally opposed to excessively rationalistic approaches as he was to those simply relying upon the supernatural. For example, see Baur, Paul, 1:23-28. 476 See Schoeps, Paul, 63-64. 477 Luedemann, Opposition to Paul in Jewish Christianity, 25. See especially chapter 4 of Munck, Paul and the Salvation of Mankind, 69-86. 478 Munck attempted to make clear “that the first letter to the church in Corinth does not speak of factions among the Christians there, but that the texts that have hitherto been used as evidence for that assumption 475

178

ABORTION AND THE APOSTOLATE The immense simplification that Baur’s theory brings with it by finding everywhere in all Pauline texts the same contrast between the apostle and Jewish Christianity (as a rule its chief leaders in person) has ever since lain like a load on the exposition of the Pauline letters. Instead of a richly faceted historical reality, there has been found a colourless homogeneity, caused by making inferences everywhere from a one-sided interpretation of early Christianity. The picture of Baur that at any rate the author of this book has received by reports and accounts that were sympathetic towards Baur was that of a systematic theologian, who by virtue of his philosophical efforts for co-ordination turned a living history into a rationalized and dead abstraction.479

This criticism of Munck’s has itself become part of a routinized and reified argument against Baur. For both Munck and Albright, Baur’s philosophical views forced him to oversimplify the evidence and to force the texts into a preconceived framework. Harris’s study of the Tübingen School closes off its evaluation of Baur’s scholarship with this condemnation: Thus in order to strengthen his case for the historical framework which he had adduced, Baur simply grasped at every straw he could find. The date and authorship of each New Testament book was then determined according to how it fitted into this historical framework (the tendency approach). “Fitted” is the wrong word. Baur forced the books into the framework by manipulating the facts and distorting the evidence, by emphasizing the details which harmonized with his view while omitting everything which did not.480

mention only disunity and bickering” (Paul and the Salvation of Mankind, 135-6). Baur exaggerated the mere “bickering” of a “church without factions” (the title of Munck’s 5th chapter) into sectarian rivalry. 479 Munck, Paul and the Salvation of Mankind, 70 (italics mine). 480 Harris, The Tübingen School, 258. I am not sure that any scholar can fail to be guilty of emphasizing what helps their argument while omitting what does not.

F. C. BAUR AND THE RHETORIC OF REPUTATION

179

Thus, one finds that a contemporary scholar like Mark Nanos can similarly proffer his recent Irony of Galatians as a non-Baur interpretation, inasmuch as it does not impose “some other larger construction, for example, the Pauline versus Petrine hypothesis of Christian origins or the conspiracy theories closely related to this.”481 Nanos’s rough equating of Baur’s work with conspiracy theories is presumably meant to indicate the extent to which evidence is manipulated and manufactured in such works, although its rhetorical force depends more upon a general attitude towards Baur than it does serious interaction with his work. Unfortunately, the more balanced judgements of historians of nineteenth-century biblical criticism like Hans Rollmann have not affected biblical scholars’ own views on the matter. Baur and Schwegler cannot rightly be accused, as they often were, of a naïve apriorism. Speculative historiography was after all intended as a corrective that sought to bring objectivity to a discipline in which the naïve realism of Enlightenment histori-

481 Nanos, The Irony of Galatians, 23 (italics mine). The full text reads that “it is prudent to limit them [hypotheses], at least at first, to those that grow out a close analysis of the rhetoric of the letter itself, rather than imposing some other larger construction, for example, the Pauline versus Petrine hypothesis of Christian origins or the conspiracy theories closely related to this, in which bands of Paul’s opponents from Jerusalem to Antioch are thought to dog Paul’s trail to undo his work… it is wise to first listen closely to the rhetoric of the letter written by Paul to these people, whoever they are.” Nanos is making a rhetorical ploy here common to biblical scholars, claiming to be led by simply reading “the text” first and foremost. No scholarly work, his own included (as he is well aware), can claim to be the sole interpretation that does not “impose” something upon the text. In a similarly accusatory tone, Dieter Mitternacht attacks the introduction of “extratextual presuppositions about an anti-Pauline opposition” into discussions of Galatians, a fault originating with Baur (“Foolish Galatians?—A Recipient-Oriented Assessment of Paul’s Letter,” in Nanos, The Galatians Debate, 408-33, 416). A scholar’s assertion that he or she alone is not forcing the evidence, as other scholars do, is simply a rhetorical trope.

180

ABORTION AND THE APOSTOLATE ography was held responsible for the unbridled subjectivism of its fanciful exegesis.482

Baur has had some defenders among biblical scholars, however, most notably Michael D. Goulder. Goulder has explicitly claimed that Baur’s view of early Christianity is quite simply the correct one, and he has devoted some attention and a great many articles to updating and expanding it as a way of explaining the entirety of the New Testament.483 Along the way, however, Goulder has expanded the stamp of Pauline authenticity to epistles completely dismissed by Baur and most scholars since such as Ephesians and Colossians, as well as attempting to incorporate later materials into this paradigm.484 The problems with Goulder’s updating of Baur do not end with his somewhat more conservative views on authorship or broader application of this model, however. Considered on its own merits, Goulder’s support can charitably be described as something of a mixed blessing for one’s reputation among the community of biblical scholars. Given the “essentially negative reputation” Goulder himself has as “a maverick, an enfant terrible, even a member of the ‘lunatic fringe’ of Biblical Studies,” it is an open question whether or not his enthusiastic embrace merely underscores the relative marginality of Baur’s position in English language scholar-

Rollmann, “From Baur to Wrede,” 446-7. Most accessibly in St. Paul Versus St. Peter: A Tale of Two Missions (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1994); and most fully in Paul and the Competing Mission in Corinth (Library of Pauline Studies; Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2001). See also “Visions and Revelations of the Lord (2 Corinthians 12:1-10),” in Paul and the Corinthians: Studies on a Community in Conflict. Essays in Honour of Margaret Thrall, ed. Trevor J. Burke and J. Keith Elliott, NovTSup, 109 (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2003), 303-12; “A Poor Man’s Christology,” NTS 45 (1999): 332-48; “Libertines? (1 Cor. 5-6),” NovT 41 (1999): 334-48; “A Pauline in a Jacobite Church,” in The Four Gospels 1992, Festschrift Frans Neirynck, BETL, 100 (Louvain : Peeters, 1992), 859-75; “ΣΟΦΙΑ in 1 Corinthians”; “Those Outside (Mark 4.1012),” NovT 33 (1991): 289-301. 484 “The Visionaries of Laodicea,” JSNT 43 (1991): 15-39. On second century materials, see “Ignatius’ Docetists,” VC 53 (1999):16-30; A Tale of Two Missions, 181-9 and passim. 482 483

F. C. BAUR AND THE RHETORIC OF REPUTATION

181

ship.485 Also, much like Baur and more deservedly, Goulder’s entire body of work also suffers from the criticism that he oversimplifies complicated matters in search of a singular theory that explains everything. When combined with the bias against Baur’s own perceived attempts to force everything into a single model, Goulder’s work runs the risk of merely serving as further confirmation of the inadequacy of Baur’s hypothesis and methods.486 Goulder’s series of studies on the Book of Psalms, for example, bear an almost uncanny resemblance to his work on the New Testament in terms of the emphasis he places upon an explanatory model.487 His work on the Psalms is based on the theory that “long sequences of psalms reflect the course of liturgy in national festivals at various times in the northern and southern states.”488 In and of itself, there is nothing remarkable or particularly unusual about this theory, but it bears a strong similarity to the “lectionary theory” that Goulder first developed in the 1970s as an explanation for the Gospels.489 That is, if the Psalms were shaped by ritual and liturgical use in ancient Israel and Judah, we need only uncover the proper settings to explain the pattern (i.e., the “book” divisions, groupings of psalms and their headings and superscriptions) of the

485 Mark S. Goodacre, Goulder and the Gospels: An Examination of a New Paradigm, JSNTSup, 133 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996), 28. For a discussion of Tale of Two Missions, see 33-37. 486 Including tendency criticism, A Tale of Two Missions, x. Cf. again the short dismissal of methodological concerns in “Appendix 5: New Critical Approaches,” in Paul and the Competing Mission in Corinth, 268-73. 487 The Psalms of the Sons of Korah, JSOTSup, 20 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1982); The Prayers of David (Psalms 51-72): Studies in the Psalter, II, JSOTSup, 102 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990); The Psalms of Asaph and the Pentateuch: Studies in the Psalter, III, JSOTSup, 233 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996); The Psalms of the Return (Book V, Psalms 107-150): Studies in the Psalter, IV, JSOTSup, 258 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998). 488 James L. Mays, review of The Psalms of the Sons of Korah, JBL 104 (1985): 318-99, 318. 489 Primarily in his books Midrash and Lection in Matthew (London: SPCK, 1974); The Evangelists’ Calendar (London: SPCK, 1978); and in slightly altered form in Luke—A New Paradigm, 2 vols., JSNTSup, 20 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989). See Goodacre, Goulder and the Gospels, 19-21.

182

ABORTION AND THE APOSTOLATE

present Psalter. If the New Testament documents were shaped by their use in worship and preaching of the early church, once again, we need only uncover the patterns derived from the Old Testament texts or “key liturgical occasions in the Jewish festal year” to explain the structure of selected New Testament passages.490 Thus it should occasion no surprise to find that his somewhat idiosyncratic application of the Two Missions theory similarly seeks “a single unitary hypothesis, one overarching theory,” and that in his opinion the Two Mission theory “is a master-key to open every lock.”491 Goulder’s application of this hypothesis in Tale of Two Missions is also aimed at a general audience, so its lack detailed argumentation is difficult to engage with or criticize.492 Paul and the Competing Mission in Corinth, although more detailed, when combined with the attitudes discussed above will still likely be seen as a confirmation of prevalent attitudes rather than a rebuttal.493 Although I have not discussed him as fully, much the same could be said for Gerd Luedemann’s reputation. Similarly to Goulder, Luedemann has renounced Christian belief on the basis of his scholarly inquiries.

490 Goodacre, Goulder and the Gospels, 20. Goodacre notes that Goulder altered his theory in Luke—A New Paradigm a decade after first exploring it: the theory that “the Synoptics, especially Luke, are organized on the basis of an annual cycle of readings from the Old Testament which are fulfilled in sequence, week by week, is now shelved” (20). The correspondence to the Jewish festal calendar remains, however. 491 Goulder, Tale of Two Missions, 157. Goulder has a fondness for this approach of explaining the whole through a single component. Similarly, 1 Cor. 4:6 “is the key to understanding the Letter” (“ΣΟΦΙΑ in 1 Corinthians,” 519). Goulder’s tendency to explain ever more material through his models can be seen clearly in his admittedly bold and ambitious claim to open the way to an understanding of the making of the Pentateuch through the Psalter’s Asaphic psalms. See The Psalms of the Sons of Asaph and The Pentateuch, 328-41. 492 See J. K. Elliot, review of Tale of Two Missions, NovT 40 (1998): 295-8. 493 Cf. Douglas A. Campbell, “Apostolic Competition at Corinth? (Review of Michael D. Goulder’s Paul and the Competing Mission at Corinth)” Journal of Beliefs and Values 23.2 (2002): 229-231.

F. C. BAUR AND THE RHETORIC OF REPUTATION

183

Although the situation is different from that of Goulder’s own resignation from the Anglican priesthood, the impression one receives of Baur’s most vocal champions is that of a rather troublesome, contrarian lot of unbelievers.494 This association remains even if, as Douglas Campbell notes in discussing Goulder’s work, the basic premise of Paul being faced by conflict of some sort is ultimately one of the only serviceable scenarios for interpretation of Paul’s letters at all. “Paul usually writes in response to some sort of opposition, an intruding third party, and it is difficult to make sense of his texts and arguments in detail outside of this paradigm; one that we owe ultimately to Baur.”495

T HE N EW R HETORIC : R EPUTATION R EADING ” THE T EXT

AND

“J UST

According to the Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca’s presentation, objections to the arguments of others often take the form of a denial of the “existence of a connecting link” in a previous argument by affirming an improper association of “separate and independent elements.” Breaking apart these connecting argumentative links is easier in the historical study of something like Christian Origins in some senses, given the hypothetical nature of the historical proposals being made. In this context, one need only think of scholarly denials of the weight Baur places upon the Pseudo-Clementines, or his dismissal of the Ignatian corpus.496 Examples can be multiplied even in the case of a single Pauline letter such as 2 Corinthians, by reference to varying uses of redaction criticism and theories of interpolation that “break” the connections between the chapters of the received text, so that in the end one may well be reading a “different” text from that of another scholar.

Some of the furor over subsequent restrictions placed upon him within the Theology Faculty of Göttingen can be reviewed in Luedemman et al., Rel 32 (2002): 87-142. 495 Douglas A. Campbell, “Apostolic Competition at Corinth?,” 231. 496 Harris, The Tübingen School, 256-9, 261-2. 494

184

ABORTION AND THE APOSTOLATE

Argumentation also involves the use of what Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca refer to as “dissociation.”497 Dissociation differs from the “breaking of connecting links” in that it brings about a “change in the conceptual data” used in argumentation.498 That is, argumentation involving the use of paired terms in which one term is implicitly or explicitly given greater value, while the other term is associated with a stance or viewpoint against which one is arguing, “term I” and “term II” in their description.499 Dissociation is “the other major technique [next to association] used in all argumentation. Dissociative techniques aim at a disjuncture between a ‘reality,’ which is to be valued as a result of the argument, and a given ‘appearance’ which is to be devalued or decentered.”500 The paired terms used in dissociative arguments (e.g., means/end, individual/group, letter/spirit, appearance/reality, theory/practice, etc.) are often reversible, and can themselves in turn be rejected as (in another dissociative pairing) being only “verbal” and not “real.” The connections between the New Rhetoric and deconstruction/post-structuralism are at this point even clearer. If Jacques Derrida’s work deals in “the inadequacies of binary thinking” and offers a “novel critique of the frameworks in which critics traditionally operate,”501 the New Rhetoric offers a study of the structures of argumentation and binary thinking that, having focused on rhetorical process rather than “truth,” implicitly call into question the truth claims made through that process.502 Deconstruction, after all, points out the “arbitrary preference for one term of a binary opposition over the other—absence over presence, clarity

Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca, The New Rhetoric, 411-59; cf. Wire, The Corinthian Women Prophets, 12-23. 498 Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca, The New Rhetoric, 411. 499 Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca, The New Rhetoric, 420-6. 500 Aichele et al., Postmodern Bible, 155 501 Yvonne Sherwood, The Prostitute and the Prophet: Hosea’s Marriage in Literary-Theoretical Perspective, JSOTSup, 212, Gender, Culture, Theory, 2 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996), 189. 502 Once the seams of production are made visible in an argument or theory, claims to absolute certainty become rather less convincing. 497

F. C. BAUR AND THE RHETORIC OF REPUTATION

185

over obscurity, etc.,”503 the very binaries most often encountered in the rhetorical use of dissociation. Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca give two examples particularly pertinent to Pauline scholarship’s rhetorical practice: “individual” paired with “universal,” and “abstract” paired with “concrete.” Now some of this language is perhaps inevitable in many instances of scholarly discourse, and it will certainly come as little surprise to Pauline scholars to hear that the terms “universal” and “particular” are commonly employed in their field.504 The issue of abstract/concrete terminology is more easily assessed, although I do not think the full extent of its use or its implications has been acknowledged. A scholarly monograph is an extended attempt at persuasion, and in biblical scholarship that follows historical-critical principles it is commonly accepted that an “abstract” notion or portrait is deemed less likely to be “historical.” Thus it should perhaps come as no surprise that Baur’s opponents and critics represent his work as based upon abstraction and idealized philosophical speculation, while his supporters argue that his views were based upon careful sifting of the evidence and close interaction with the primary sources, these methods being highly valued among textually oriented scholars. Although I suspect that Baur did some of both, I raise the point because it is such an extremely telling initial response for a biblical scholar to assert that someone they disagree with is simply not reading carefully (or widely) enough. Thus, from the perspective of argumentation, Luedemann and Goulder’s defenses of Baur’s views seem simply like rhetorical reflexes; automatic, but ultimately also rather weak and uninspired. Luedemann’s characterization of Baur’s critics as “not having read him” is simply a reversal of the argument against Baur’s work, while Goulder’s claim that exegesis trumps all else simply reaffirms the unquestioned tru-

503 David Jobling, 1 Samuel, Berit Olam: Studies in Hebrew Narrative and Poetry (Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1998), 11. 504 Contemporary Pauline scholars often assert that the post-Sanders “New Perspective” in Pauline Studies is an attempt to do away with Christianity’s traditional reading of Paul through a “universalistic paradigm” (Donaldson, Paul and the Gentiles, 4).

186

ABORTION AND THE APOSTOLATE

ism that the more careful reading and argumentation should win out.505 Because of Hegel, Baur did not read Paul carefully, because you have read (or heard!) that Baur was a Hegelian, you have not read Baur carefully! The answer is, one presumes, simply to read more carefully, or more widely. This, in spite of the fact that none of us has time to “read” everything, least of all to read everything as carefully as we would like. Biblical scholarship is largely a matter of reading, though, so the criticism that one’s opponent is not reading carefully or widely is often rhetorically effective, even though all of us could be criticized for not having read more.506 The notion that all that lies between two separate interpretations of a text (be it Paul or Baur) is that one of us has read more carefully or widely than the other is rhetorically reassuring, so long as we feel ourselves to be the ones with the depth and breadth of learning. On this note, then, Goulder’s inclusion of a one-sentence summary of Hegel’s view of history in his refutation of the charges of Baur’s Hegelianism is equally telling. Now I have, as it happens, never read Hegel at all, so perhaps I am not in a position to judge this summary. I have been assured by scholarly colleagues, however, that Hegel’s view of history is slightly more involved than “a complex statement, tricked out with impressive-sounding Greek assonance, of the truism that history advances with swings of the pendulum.”507 I mention this not because I am proud of not having read Hegel, nor to dispute the accuracy of Goulder’s summary, but because I do not feel that assessing “Baur” is likely to be aided by my reading Hegel, and Goulder’s reference simply demonstrates the reliance upon summarization that we must resort to in discussing previous scholarship. It also demonstrates that it is not simply a matter of “reading” for oneself. The summary that Harris provides of Baur and the Tübingen School, to serve as an important example, demonstrates an intimate acquaintance with Baur’s own writings that few scholars could rival. Whatever are Harris’s interpreta-

505 506

are not. 507

Goulder, Paul and the Competing Mission in Corinth, 5-13. As Qoholeth was well aware (Eccl. 12:12), even if biblical scholars Goulder, Paul and the Competing Mission in Corinth, 12.

F. C. BAUR AND THE RHETORIC OF REPUTATION

187

tive shortcomings or idiosyncrasies in terms of evaluating Baur as someone who “rejected the idea of a transcendent personal God” and thus simply assumed that “the New Testament writings are not trustworthy historical documents,”508 they are certainly not based on an inadequate knowledge of the primary materials, or on not having “read” Baur closely enough.

A NOTHER R ECENT E XAMPLE : R EPUTATION R EADING THE T EXT

AND

Scholarly argumentation is highly structured and formalized. We biblical scholars are often merely “tweaking” or modestly redefining the interpretations of previous scholars, or objecting to someone’s misrepresentation of someone else’s reading of Paul (this is hardly a trade secret, I should think). Yet the slippage between the reputation of the scholar in question and the evaluation of their work via simply claiming to read the text remains strangely unnoticed. Another telling example of this standard structure can be seen in an exchange between Ben Meyer and E. P. Sanders in the early 1990s.509 This exchange discusses E. P. Sanders and his, in Meyer’s view, erroneous use of Joachim Jeremias as a foil for his own scholarship. A large component of this debate putatively centers on Jeremias’s acquaintance (or non-acquaintance according to Sanders) with rabbinic literature, with Meyer asserting that Sanders had mounted an “increasingly reckless campaign of misrepresentation” against Jeremias, in part through willfully misreading “some texts in Jeremias.”510 There is hardly anything in contemporary New Testament scholarship that I regret and deplore more than Sanders’s misguided campaign against Jeremias, who was not a selfpromoter and never paraded his knowledge, who was neither a

Harris, The Tübingen School, 255-6. Ben F. Meyer, “A Caricature of Joachim Jeremias and his Scholarly Work,” JBL 110.3 (1991): 451-62; E.P. Sanders, “Defending the Indefensible,” JBL 110.3 (1991): 463-77. 510 Meyer, “A Caricature of Joachim Jeremias,” 451, 460. 508 509

188

ABORTION AND THE APOSTOLATE fraud nor a simpleton nor an anti-Semite, but a great scholar and a great human being.511

As noted earlier, Sanders claimed in Paul and Palestinian Judaism not to be interested in scholarly bias, but only in what the texts themselves said.512 He reasserts that position here (now naming Samuel Sandmel as the “Jewish scholar” referenced in this earlier work), and stresses that he is not accusing Jeremias of “anti-Semitism,” merely of not having been as widely read in rabbinic material as is often believed.513 Although he notes the circularity of this form of argumentation and accusation, the debate for Sanders is still based on the textual evidence.514 This approach stands in contrast to more recent studies that acknowledge the very issues this style of argumentation claims to avoid,515 but there is little point to my way of thinking in arguing that such battles are really “about” Jeremias or his knowledge of rabbinic literature. In evaluating his work, modern issues (the Holocaust, anti-Judaism, anti-Semitism, the history of Christian triumphalism) are now so closely intertwined for scholars that separating them away, as Sanders claims to do (failing, in Meyer’s view) in favor of what “the texts” or “the evidence” really meant seems incredibly simplistic. It is precisely because of these other associations that Meyer so stridently wishes to defend the reputation of Jeremias, notwithstanding Sanders’ denials that these other issues are not his concern. This above discussion is not meant to indicate that scholars should avoid reading carefully (as I hope the close attention to 1 Cor 15:8 and Gal. 1:15-17 indicates) or widely, nor that scholars should stop (or are capable of stopping) from using this sort of language.516 Rather, the above survey should be taken only as a plea

Ibid., 461. Paul and Palestinian Judaism, xiii. 513 Sanders, “Defending the Indefensible,” 475-6. 514 Ibid., 463 n.1. 515 Cf. the approach of Tania Oldenhage, Parables for Our Time: Rereading New Testament Scholarship after the Holocaust, AAR Cultural Criticism Series (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002), esp. 39-69 on Jeremias. 516 E.g., Gager, Reinventing Paul, 18-19. 511 512

F. C. BAUR AND THE RHETORIC OF REPUTATION

189

for thoughtless and unconscious deployment of this sort of argumentative language to cease, and for scholars to display greater selfawareness. Critical self-awareness may now seem to be de rigeur in scholarly circles when speaking about interpreting the biblical text, but it is equally crucial in evaluating scholarly reputation and the summaries of previous scholarship. Sanders himself notes: Generalizations have their place and scholars often need them. When faced with the vast and difficult rabbinic literature, most Christian scholars who need a generalization look to the work an “expert,” such as Jeremias.517

I will now nonetheless affirm that it is my reading of the references to Paul’s conversion in Galatians and 1 Corinthians that has led to an assertion of opposition (if not outright hostility) to Paul’s apostolic claims in these passages. Despite there being compelling evidence “in the text itself” and in the views of many scholars, however, it is wise to be fully aware of the implications and associations such an interpretation will inevitably conjure for many people.

517

Sanders, “Defending the Indefensible,” 471.

7 CONCLUSION: SCHOLARLY RHETORIC U NIVERSALITY

AND THE

G ENTILE M ISSION

Of greater relevance for the study of Paul than the dissociative pairing of “abstract” with “concrete” is the other pairing referred to by Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca that I cited above as relevant: “individual” and “universal.” In regards to this sort of language, a recurrent criticism of Baur’s work that one often encounters has to do with its evaluative statements concerning Judaism and Christianity.518 There is no doubt that for Baur, Christianity represented a higher form of religious consciousness than Judaism, and his writings are replete with statements that Christianity broke “the bounds of national Judaism” to become a “new enfranchised form of religious thought and life.”519 In the figure of Jesus himself, Baur argued, there were two elements, the “moral universal” of an “unconfined humanity,”and the “narrowing influence of the Jewish national Messianic idea.”520 This description of two elements in conflict is often cited as proof of Baur’s Hegelianism, yet its actual use in Baur’s exegesis often reflects issues of meaning for a practicing Christian in light of modern historical criticism. At a stroke, this notion of a conflict between a “nationalistic” or merely “ethnic” religious element provided a convenient foil for those elements within the Pauline corpus that are uncomfortable or that strike one as primitive. Any “inferior” elements we find in Paul’s writings can safely be attributed to the influence of Jewish nationalism, thereby allowing the perceived “universalistic” message to be preserved

Boyarin, A Radical Jew, 11-12. Baur, Paul 1:3. 520 Baur, Church History, 1:49-50. 518 519

191

192

ABORTION AND THE APOSTOLATE

intact. Paul’s reference to not wishing to know Christ κατὰ σάρκα is, for Baur, a reference to not wishing to know “the Christ or Messiah of Judaism” which “the peculiar prejudices and material inclinations of my nation presented to me.”521 Even the eschatological context of the early church is attributed by Baur to this “narrow” Jewish nationalism. Needless to say, this understanding effectively downplays any emphasis on Paul’s eschatological fervor. It is a thing of course that even so eminent a mind as Paul’s is subject to a certain limitation. It is nothing but what we had to expect that besides all the splendid gifts that distinguished him we should find also a certain onesidedness, a consciousness in some ways borné, a national particularism, which go to make up this definite individual character which we have before us… it could not be denied that thoughts and views of Judaism were still discernible, circumscribing his sphere of vision, directing his attention too exclusively to the future, and causing him to overleap moments, which, from a freer and more universal standpoint, could not have been left unnoticed. Then his expectation of the parousia—here we see how his mind was influenced by the not very enlightened national expectations that were current at the time… 522

Many Pauline scholars laboring with the heritage of a postHolocaust Christianity find such clear statements of Christian triumphalism distasteful. Combined with what might now be termed an “orientalist” assumption of the superiority of Hellenistic culture over that of the “Hebrew” and Baur’s clear preference for what he termed the “Christian” side in its struggle with Judaism, such views of the early church’s relationship to its Jewish roots have become uncomfortable for many scholars.523 Yet in many ways, Baur’s views seem oddly familiar.524

Baur, Paul, 1:283. Ibid., 2:281-2. 523 Dunn, Theology of Paul the Apostle, §14.1 (334-40, 337). See also Gaston, Paul and the Torah. 524 See the comments in Boyarin, A Radical Jew, 52-54. 521 522

CONCLUSION: SCHOLARLY RHETORIC

193

Despite Munck’s quite negative assessment of Baur’s work, his criticism assumed a central component of Baur’s view to be correct. Chiefly, Munck shared an understanding of the contrast Baur makes between “universalist” (= good) religion and “exclusivist” (= bad) religion. The English title of his work, Paul and the Salvation of Mankind, reflects this concern for the universal. Where Baur drew a distinction between these two elements in the person of Jesus himself, and subsequently within the differing emphases of the factions within the early church, Munck simply asserted that “universalism” was the message of the early church in its entirety, among both Petrine and Pauline groups, and that this message was synonymous with the teaching of Jesus himself. Baur, Munck claims, asserts that Paul “rediscovered” the “universalism and freedom that Jesus represented.”525 This understanding, unfortunately, assumes that the earliest followers of Jesus completely misunderstood him, and “retained nothing of his life and teaching, but continued to have a Jewish point of view.”526 Leaving aside Munck’s understanding of Baur, who seemed to find a conflict both in the figure of Jesus himself and in Paul’s writings between universalism and particularism, Munck shares Baur’s schema in its most important facets. Universalism is (unsurprisingly) good, particularism is bad. For Munck, particularism equals “Judaism,” and, in his context even more significantly, Catholicism. “The primitive Church and Paul were universalistic as Jesus was, whereas the later Catholic Church lost that universalism. It no longer divided the race into Israel and the Gentiles, but turned with its message to the Gentiles.”527 For Munck, Jesus’ concern with Israel was “apparent particularism” that was in reality an “expression of his universalism.”528 The only substantive difference between Baur and Munck is the extent to which Jesus and the early church preached the principle of universalism,

Munck, Paul and the Salvation of Mankind, 72. Ibid., 71. 527 Ibid (italics mine). 528 Ibid., 271. 525 526

194

ABORTION AND THE APOSTOLATE

so that in Munck’s understanding Acts does not need to gloss over any major divisions, because there were none.529 Now as has often been noted, with the rise of the New Perspective on Paul the foil of “Jewish particularism” as a counterweight to Paul’s universalism has come under fire.530 Terence Donaldson even describes this shift away from explaining the entirety of Paul’s thought through the assumption that “Paul’s basic concern is with humankind, generically considered” as the central, defining force within the “New Perspective” on Paul.531 Simultaneously, acknowledgment of the Protestant (especially Lutheran) bias of New Testament scholarship has made claims such as Munck’s about Catholicism, roughly lumped into the same category as exclusivist Judaism, virtually disappear from scholarly writing. Yet the notion of Paul representing a “universalist” project has nonetheless remained a staple of Pauline scholarship, finding deep resonance in the one of the most sympathetic pre-Sanders portrayals of Judaism: that of W. D. Davies.532 Despite the effort made by Davies to emphasize the Jewish elements in Paul, he makes reference to a Jewish “particularism or narrow nationalism” that resulted in “an almost complete absence of any expression of universalism.”533 Christ was a revelation “apart from the Law” in which the “national principle had been transcended,”534 while Paul faced a conflict between the “claims of nationalism” and “those of Christ.”535 George Howard similarly commented many years later that “unlike before, when Gentiles were admitted on the basis of Judaism, Paul’s mission was

529 Ibid., 245-6. Munck even finds room to explain the two mission fields, a division which was not really concerned with the distinction between Jew and Gentile but merely reflected a “matter of geographical demarcation” (237). 530 See also the discussion in Donaldson, Paul and the Gentiles, 3-22. 531 Donaldson, Paul and the Gentiles, 22. See also Segal, “Universalism in Judaism and Christianity.” 532 See Davies, Paul and Rabbinic Judaism, 58-85. 533 Ibid., 62. 534 Ibid., 67. 535 Ibid., 85.

CONCLUSION: SCHOLARLY RHETORIC

195

to place the gospel forever out of the realm of Jewish nationalism.”536 James Dunn’s New Perspectivist work, as I discussed earlier, similarly makes the phrase “works of the law” reflect a misunderstanding of the Law against which Paul argues.537 In sum, then, the “works” which Paul consistently warns against were, in his view, Israel’s misunderstanding of what her covenant law required. That misunderstanding focused most sharply on Jewish attempts to maintain their covenant distinctiveness from Gentiles and on Christian Jews’ attempts to require Christian Gentiles to adopt such covenant distinctives. Furthermore, that misunderstanding meant a misunderstanding of God and of God’s promised (covenanted) intention to bless also the nations.538

Despite Dunn’s claim that Baur’s understanding of universal versus particular is to be dismissed, his own analysis requires one to accept the premise that Paul understood the covenant correctly, that is in a universalistic sense, and argued against those who misunderstood it as merely a national or ethnic boundary marker.539 Dunn’s critics have asked repeatedly what precisely the difference is between Dunn’s understanding of Paul and the “traditional” one.540 To assert that the “real” meaning of the covenant and of the Jewish scriptures is not election, but universalism, may sound enlightened to some, but it is hardly a statement without its own rather telling presuppositions.541 Surely one could imagine an understanding of the Jewish scriptures that was universalistic, but did not necessitate a complete

536 George Howard, Paul: Crisis in Galatia. A Study in Early Christian Theology, SNTSMS, 35 (Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 1979), 45. 537 Dunn, Theology of Paul the Apostle, §14.4-6 (354-71). 538 Ibid., 366. 539 Ibid., §20.1 (534-6). 540 Boyarin, A Radical Jew, 52-56; Gager, Reinventing Paul, 30-31; Kim, Paul and the New Perspective. 541 Cf. Donaldson’s discussion of a “rejection of Jewish particularism” vs. a “revision of Jewish universalism,” Paul and the Gentiles, 26-27.

196

ABORTION AND THE APOSTOLATE

abandonment or rejection of the Law. After all, it hardly sounds more positive to present Paul as opposing a religious viewpoint that was not merely spiritually inferior, but was also intellectually incapable of understanding its own scriptures properly. This view, of course, grants the assumption that Paul’s critique, at least as Dunn presents it, even makes sense. Although I have already cited it once, it is worth repeating the simple question Barry Matlock addresses to Dunn’s presentation of Paul: “An Israel that understood the law as enjoining its separate existence would seem to have understood it rather well. Just how is observing the law a ‘misunderstanding’ of it?”542 Mark Nanos has recently argued in a similar vein that Paul’s statements about circumcision and the Law are not really applicable to Jews or Judaism, being concerned with Gentiles alone, and are thus not to be read as criticisms or attacks upon Jewish rituals and religious practice. “Paul’s rhetoric does not concern itself with opposing Jewish practices but only with proselyte conversion for Christ-believing Gentiles.” “In Galatians then, Paul does not express an opinion about the value of Jewish practices for Jewish people, not even proselytes.”543 Baur himself dealt with an approach similar to this, observing that Paul felt no need to persuade Jews to give up Jewish practices, as they were now adiaphora, and that everyone should remain as they were when called to faith in Christ (1 Cor. 7:18-20). But Baur argued that this approach was not merely an attack upon the misuse of an external ritual, but an irrevocable change around its significance and meaning. “Any one may see that if circumcision is no longer made necessary to salvation, its merely outward retention can have no value, and sooner or later must end, even for the Jews themselves,”544 especially as “cir-

Matlock, “Sins of the Flesh and Suspicious Minds,” 76. Nanos, The Irony of Galatians, 82, 85. See also “The Inter- and Intra-Jewish Political Context of Paul’s Letter to the Galatians,” in The Galatians Debate, 396-407. For his reading of Romans, see Mystery of Romans: The Jewish Context of Paul’s Letter (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996). 544 Baur, Paul, 1:209, unnumbered footnote. 542 543

CONCLUSION: SCHOLARLY RHETORIC

197

cumcision included all Judaism itself.”545 On this point, Baur understands the role of circumcision better than many modern commentators: “As soon as circumcision was no longer of value as the specific characteristic of Judaism, the essential difference between Jew and Gentile was removed, and with it the absolute importance of Judaism.”546 In a very similar turn of phrase to Baur, Daniel Boyarin notes that “if the only value and promise afforded the Jews, even in Romans 11, is that in the end they will see the error of their ways, one cannot claim that there is a role for Jewish existence in Paul.”547 In contrast, Nanos views Paul’s statements on the Law and circumcision to be read as something other than attacks upon Jewish practices, given their continued relevance for Jewish believers. However, this interpretation succeeds only by ignoring that such a reading still makes Jewish practices count for little when compared to Christ, at least insofar as Gentile believers are concerned.548 An imprint of this concern with Paul’s universalism can also be found upon the “Two-Covenant” approach of Lloyd Gaston and John Gager, an approach that, like Dunn’s, is far closer to Baur than is generally admitted. I have also discussed this approach in detail above, and need only make a few additional comments here. By far the most obvious similarity between the “Two Mission” (as Goulder terms Baur’s theory) and the Two-Covenant theories is

Ibid., 1:125. Ibid., 1:206. 547 Boyarin, A Radical Jew, 151 (italics mine). Once again, as Schweitzer and more recently Donaldson have noted, Paul himself likely had little notion of a continued existence of any sort for either Jews or Gentiles. 548 A point that Nanos has stressed to me is that Torah observance in his reading is not an adiaphoron, at least for Jews. It remains “foundational for Jews so that they continue to be observed for Christ-believing Jews on principle, since they are Jews. But non-Jews in Christ are not to become Jews, that is, undertake proselyte conversion, and thus are not or to become under Torah in the way Jews are” (personal correspondence). I would like to express my gratitude to Mark for clarifying this matter, although I am not the only person to read him (mistakenly perhaps) as a sort of “Two Covenant” advocate. See Donaldson, “The Sonderweg Reading of Paul,” 28 n.3. 545 546

198

ABORTION AND THE APOSTOLATE

the weight that both approaches place upon a simple division of labor between Paul and the other apostles. Most particularly, Paul’s own assertion in Galatians1-2 that he was entrusted with the mission to the Gentiles is taken with full seriousness. Paul is the ἐθνῶν ἀπσόστολος, his concern was not with preaching to Jews at all, and since he was not concerned with Judaism at all, his seemingly negative language about the Law has been misread. It is this latter point on which the difference hinges. For Baur, there is no question that Paul’s mission is to the Gentiles, but this Gentile mission occurs because Paul understands better than Peter and the other apostles the significance and meaning of Jesus. Baur writes that the peculiar inward process through which the belief in Jesus, as the Messiah, had arisen in him, made his conception of the Son of God, which he now recognized Jesus as being, one of far wider meaning than that of the other disciples… Everything that was national and Jewish in the Messianic idea (and this had been modified in the consciousness of the other apostles only by their changing the form of it and referring to the second coming of Jesus) was at once removed from the consciousness of our apostle…549

Rather than claiming that Paul’s gospel is strictly for the Gentiles because the Jews are already on the path to salvation, Baur claims that Paul’s thought allowed “a far wider meaning” to develop into a far wider mission-field. Paul’s superior insight was not available to the other apostles, and as they were concerned almost solely with other Jews the issues of Law and circumcision were simply not sources of conflict. For Baur though, Paul’s negative language about the Law and the works of the Law is precisely what it seems, even though he admits that Paul is likely driven to overly strong statements in the face of opposition.550 However, the difference between Baur and the Two-Covenant / Sonderweg approach of Gaston and Gager is minimal if one understands the desired end to be some form of universalism. There is little separating the claim

549 550

Baur, Paul, 2:124-5 (italics mine). Ibid., 2:286-7.

CONCLUSION: SCHOLARLY RHETORIC

199

that the “true” Gospel of Jesus is meant for everyone and only Paul understood this, and that Paul’s Gospel of Jesus is meant for everyone except the Jews (in Two Covenant language, “everyone else” since the Jews already have the Torah). Baur presented a Paul who rediscovered the universalism of Jesus, Munck claimed that Paul merely represented the universalism the entire early church shared, while Dunn simply claims that Paul’s universal message is a more accurate understanding of the message of the Old Testament than the one prevalent at Paul’s time. When one finds then that Gaston and Gager, and to some extent Nanos, present a Paul who understands that the Law need not concern Gentiles, in the name of universal salvation (i.e., extending salvation to the Gentiles), one starts to feel that these attempts not to portray “Judaism” or “the Law” in a negative light are really attempts to explain away Paul’s negative statements about the Law. Gaston and Gager have simply added affirmations of the Law and Judaism to Baur’s claims about Paul and the significance of Jesus, and despite Gager’s protestations to the contrary, portraying such a complete theological separation between Jesus and the Law cannot help but add to the notion that Christianity and Judaism are different entities from the very beginning, at least in Paul’s mind. As E. P. Sanders makes clear in his presentation of Paul, however, it is possible to read Paul as equally particularist. Even though he offers “universal” salvation, it is accessible only through Christ. Like Baur, Sanders viewed the irreconcilable gap that Paul created between his type of Jesus-belief and Judaism, as an inevitable if unintended result of his theology.551 One could compare the more recent comments of Eung Chun Park as an intriguing mixture of Baur and the Two-Covenant approach, arguing for a development in Paul’s thought so that Paul “presents himself as an innovative Jewish theologian who calls for a radical change in Jewish self-identity. With the coming of Christ there is no longer any salvific relevance for the ethnic boundary of the Jews as the

551 See Paul and Palestinian Judaism, 550-2; Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People, 46.

200

ABORTION AND THE APOSTOLATE

covenant people.”552 That is to say, presumably, that Paul innovatively moved beyond the narrow ethnic boundaries of Judaism. To argue that Paul may have been eschatological in his outlook and thus not concerned with all the implications of his language does not substantially alter the basic scholarly premises concerning his “innovation.” None of these materials offers substantial improvement upon (or even significant change to) the reasons Baur gave for Paul’s Gentile mission. Indeed, all these scholars speak with one voice about the origins of Paul’s Gentile mission: Paul felt himself called to preach to the Gentiles because he felt God’s message in Christ, in some sense, to be a universal message. The message of God in Christ does not depend upon narrow ethnic nationalism (Baur553), nor upon a misunderstanding and restriction of the covenant and its promises to one ethnic group (Dunn). Indeed, the gospel of Christ as preached by Paul may be intended for Gentiles alone (Gaston and Gager, perhaps Nanos), or at the very least solves a pressing Jewish theological problem concerning the inclusion of Gentiles in God’s plan for salvation (Boyarin). However, Baur also clearly argues that “the apostle Paul could not take up the position of Christian universalism, in which the opposition of heathenism was done away, without renouncing the absolute importance of Judaism.”554 The exact processes and experiences by which Paul arrives at his conclusions concerning his role as apostle to the Gentiles is obviously a matter of speculation and disagreement, but there is really very little disagreement about his role among scholars, only some of its implications.

552 Either Jew or Gentile: Paul’s Unfolding Theology of Inclusivity (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2003), 53. His study is unfortunately surveyoriented and of limited use for my purposes, although my ongoing argument about the rather limited difference among these various views finds some confirmation in his book. 553 This view is to some extent that of Bruce and Kim, as well as most “traditional” scholars. Cf. the “post-new perspective” view of Talbert, “Paul, Judaism, and the Revisionists” and the “newer perspective” of Das, Paul and the Jews. 554 Baur, Paul, 2:281 n. 1.

CONCLUSION: SCHOLARLY RHETORIC

201

T HE G ENTILE M ISSION AND C ONVERSION : P RAGMATIC R EADINGS , B AUR , D ONALDSON There are only a handful of remaining scholarly views concerning Paul’s mission that are less obviously rooted in concerns for universal salvation, although they in some cases simply operate with this as an assumption. Michael Goulder’s updating of Baur’s theory understands Paul’s mission and its separation from Petrine Christianity to be based upon theological divisions between Paul and Peter.555 Goulder simply emphasizes the antithetical understanding of truth on both sides that led to such animosity. Paul’s message is universal only in an extremely particularist sense—he is right, Peter and everyone else is wrong, and the “right” message is naturally for everyone.556 Paul’s message does not necessitate following the laws surrounding circumcision or food because his theology and soteriology does not require it, and his occasionally equivocating language is merely strategic planning on Paul’s part, and as Paul is “light on his feet,” “a wise pastor,” and a σοφὸς ἀρχιτέκτων, we should expect him to use ambiguous language when it suits his purposes.557 The theory advanced by Francis Watson, that Paul’s mission to the Gentiles occurred because of the resistance Paul met among the Jews, makes explicit reference to Baur, and on the surface seems to borrow quite heavily from Baur’s work. Watson’s presentation falls slightly outside the parameters of the standard “universalist” explanation for Paul’s mission. His thesis is pragmatic, asserting that following the failure of Paul’s Jewish mission and the decision to turn to the Gentiles, the Law was deemed to be an obstacle to Gentile involvement. There is little need in pointing out the connections with Baur’s work, as Watson himself makes clear

555 On Baur’s article “Die Christuspartei,” Goulder notes that Baur’s understanding of the parties at Corinth had both “innate plausibility” and “obvious truth” (“ΣΟΦΙΑ in 1 Corinthians,” 527). Goulder thinks these theological views can be systematically reconstructed from the text of the letters themselves. 556 This understanding compares to that of E. P. Sanders. 557 Tale of Two Missions, 82; “ΣΟΦΙΑ in 1 Corinthians,” 534.

202

ABORTION AND THE APOSTOLATE

that he feels Baur’s work alone stands apart from the Lutheran orientation of most Pauline scholarship, and thus has important affinities with his own approach.558 Paul’s interest in the Gentiles is not motivated by a concern for universal salvation, however, but simply as a substitute for a failed Jewish mission.559 “Faced with the problem of Jewish failure to believe their gospel, Paul and his colleagues turned to the Gentiles, who did believe it.”560 Baur himself specifically examined something very similar to Watson’s thesis and saw things slightly differently. In his view, the rapid influx of Gentiles caused the problem of the Law to be felt the more keenly. Rather than being jettisoned in order to facilitate Gentile interest, the issue of the Law was only raised and made pressing in light of existing Gentile involvement (a reversal of Watson’s understanding). On this point, certainly, the evidence of a writing like Galatians seems to imply that Gentiles did not necessarily view adherence to the Law as an obstacle or a barrier to their participation. Indeed, rather than being a barrier, the evidence of Galatians would seem to indicate that there was some attraction in the community to aspects of Jewish religious life like circumcision.561 Certainly for modern scholars this may seem unusual, but our context is different.562 Concerning the Jewish rejection/Law as an obstacle theory, Baur notes that the author of Acts “states that the Apostle everywhere preached the Gospel first of all to the Jews,

Watson, Paul, Judaism and the Gentiles, 10-13, 20-1. Ibid., 31-32. 560 Ibid., 31. 561 This evidence continues on into a later period, as we see with the Ignatian corpus. Cf. Michele Murray, Playing A Jewish Game: Gentile Christian Judaizing in the First and Second Centuries CE, ESCJ, 13 (Waterloo, Ont.: Wilfred Laurier University Press, 2004), 1-41. Murray thinks “circumcision” may be a term of broader reference, and that Paul’s Galatian rivals were Gentile Judaizers (34-36), but the point regarding “the Law as an obstacle” is the same. 562 Not to belabor an extremely obvious point, but if one is attracted to belief in a Jewish messiah, proclaimed by the Jewish Scriptures, it seems a small step to thinking that if one is admitting the authority of those same Scriptures, perhaps observing the Law is in order. 558 559

CONCLUSION: SCHOLARLY RHETORIC

203

and only when the Jews, as everywhere happened, rejected him and his Gospel, turned to the Gentiles.”563 He then observes that the logic of this presentation would seem to indicate that “if the Jews had not assumed this hostile attitude,” Paul would have remained “an Apostle of the Jews.”564 Baur views this notion of the “accidental” circumstance of “the opposition of the Jews” as a ground for Paul’s Gentile mission as “an unworthy reason for his ἀποστολὴ εἰς τὰ ἔθνη.”565 Either he was convinced, that it was decidedly the will of God that the Gospel should be preached to the Gentiles, or not. If he really had this conviction, he could not have possibly allowed the actual success of his Gentile apostleship to depend upon whether certain Jews bore themselves in a hostile manner towards him.566

However, for some reason the author of Acts felt the need to justify Paul’s Gentile mission “by the antagonism of the Jews.”567 The sheer repetitiveness of this scenario, with Paul again and again preaching to the Jews unsuccessfully only to turn to the Gentiles, seems designed to blame the Pauline tradition’s movement away from Judaism on Jewish hostility. But the more earnestly the author of the Acts of the Apostles repeats that the Gospel is to be preached to the Gentiles, wholly owing to the Jews’ own fault, and in consequence of their unbelief—and the more evidently he subordinates this statement to his special design—the less it is to be mistaken that he unites with this statement an apologetic aim in respect to the Apostle Paul as an Apostle to the Gentiles, and the more unavoidable is the supposition that the author was in-

Baur, Paul, 1:333. Ibid., 1:335. 565 Ibid., 1:335-6. 566 Ibid., 1:336. 567 Ibid., 1:338. 563 564

204

ABORTION AND THE APOSTOLATE duced to take this course by regard to certain outward circumstances.568

Thus, the strongest criticism that Baur makes of the idea that a turn to the Gentiles followed a failed Jewish mission is that he finds such a portrait as bearing too close a resemblance to the portrait drawn in Acts.569 Given his overall evaluation of the historical reliability of Acts his rejection of this view comes as no surprise, although even within this portrait of Baur’s one can see further signs of the rift between Gentile Paulinism and Judaism (if not Jewish Petrinism), as well as an attempt to assign blame ex post facto.

D ONALDSON AND B AUR G ENTILE M ISSION

ON

P ERSECUTION

AND THE

In discussing the reasons behind the persecutions both perpetrated and experienced by Paul as they are presented in Acts, Baur also notes that the author of Acts presents Paul as far more “Law observant” than he seems in his epistles. That is, once again the notion that Paul is closely aligned with the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem and continually attempting to preach to Jews has little to do with Paul, and everything to do with the author of Acts. On this point, however, Acts has betrayed a very clear difference between the types of Christians who experience persecution (basically Paul and “Hellenists”) and those who do not, even though Acts itself presents mere faith in Jesus as reason enough for Jewish hostility. “The faith in Jesus as the Messiah cannot have been the origin of this hatred,” Baur observes, since it would “have been shown in the same manner against the Jewish Christians who lived together with the Jews in Jerusalem.” The lack of hostility directed towards the latter group thus poses a puzzling question as to what was so different about Paul. The conclusion left is that “it can only be explained by his teaching of the law.” Yet the exclusivity with which Acts presents “the hatred of the Jews” remains puzzling, especially

Ibid., 1:345. Cf. the similar comments on such a theory in Davies, Paul and Rabbinic Judaism, 69. 568 569

CONCLUSION: SCHOLARLY RHETORIC

205

if the other Apostles were indeed “completely in accord with him on the subject of circumcision.”570 But if, as we may assume from the epistle to the Galatians, the elder Apostles did not agree with him on this point, if they, like the Jewish Christians generally, rather adhered more closely to the necessity of circumcision, then we must naturally suppose that the Apostle was held as an enemy on account of his doctrine of freedom from the law, not only by the Jews, but by the Jewish Christians also.571 It is therefore only the author of the Acts of the Apostles who wishes to represent the Apostle as a faithful adherent to and observer of the Mosaic law, and also here and everywhere (especially in xxviii. 17) to place completely in the background, or rather entirely to ignore, the real difference between him and the Jewish Christian party, and, in one word, who is desirous to represent the Apostle to the Gentiles at any cost as an Apostle to the Jews, which he certainly never was, nor, according to his own express declaration, ever would be.572

The logic at work in these observations of Baur’s seems a far cry from the accusation that he arrived at his conclusions solely through the use of Hegelian categories.573 Rather, he observes that the hostility Paul encounters in Acts seems to be without adequate reason, at least as the author of Acts presents Paul. Baur then locates the

Baur, Paul, 1:206-7. Ibid., 1:207 (italics mine). 572 Ibid., 1:210-11 (italics mine). 573 The very structure of Paul gives the lie to this notion. Volume 1 critiques Acts in detail, and then examines each of the four epistles Baur viewed as authentic in the order in which he believed them to have been written. Volume 2 examines the remaining epistles, and only at that point discusses Paul’s “doctrinal system.” Although Baur was more interested than a textual critic like Lightfoot in a “synthetic and analytical” approach, they “share a great deal more in their approach” (Kaye, “Lightfoot and Baur,” 199, 214). One need only compare the structure of a book like Dunn’s Theology of Paul the Apostle to see a truly systematic “doctrinal” approach. 570 571

206

ABORTION AND THE APOSTOLATE

hostility towards the Christian community in a Jewish “zeal” for the law, and argues that this would naturally be directed towards “the Hellenists” in Acts as well as Paul, for whom the Law is relegated to a subsidiary role, although not towards the Jewish Christians. Although Watson himself rightly sees Paul’s language about the Law as an attempt to legitimate a separation between a growing Gentile church and Judaism, his “rejection” theory fails to be adequately grounded upon Paul’s own letters, in the end being dependent almost solely upon 1 Cor. 9:20 and 2 Cor. 11: 24.574 One can see many points of agreement between Baur and more recent scholarship on the relationship between Paul’s preDamascus hostility and his mission. As E. P. Sanders and Terence Donaldson have observed, the persecution of the early Christian community could not have been motivated by the mere proclamation of a messiah, even a crucified one.575 Donaldson clearly acknowledges a similarity to Baur in his approach to the question of Paul’s Gentile mission,576 at least in terms of Paul’s own preDamascus persecution of the Christian community being rooted in the antithetical relationship between the message of Christ and the Law that in turn led to Paul’s own experiences of persecution. “His persecution of the church was based (at least in part) on a perception that the Christ of the kerygma represented a rival to the Torah, the one functioning (at least implicitly) as a replacement for the other as the boundary marker of the people of God.”577

Watson, Paul, Judaism and the Gentiles, 28-29. Cf. the comments in Donaldson, Paul and the Gentiles, 269-72. As Donaldson notes, this “solid ground” that Watson claims for his thesis crumbles under close examination, although both authors make much of Gal. 5:11. 575 Sanders, Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People, 204-5 n. 77; Donaldson, Paul and the Gentiles, 286-8. 576 Donaldson, Paul and the Gentiles, 289-92. 577 Ibid., 284. But cf. the view of Sanders that “if he were so zealous as to persecute the church, he may well have thought that those who were not properly Jewish would be damned, but the solution to such a plight would be simply to become properly Jewish” (Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, 443). That is to say, persecution may not have been entirely motivated by a perceived antithesis. Alternately, Dietzfelbinger claims that it 574

CONCLUSION: SCHOLARLY RHETORIC

207

The unique aspect of Donaldson’s approach is that the key to Paul’s Gentile mission is found in Paul’s possible pre-Damascus activity as a preacher of circumcision to Gentiles, based in large part upon Gal. 5:11’s εἰ περιτομὴν ἔτι κηρύσσω.578 Paul’s interest in Gentiles was part of his pre-Damascus worldview, with one particular avenue of salvation (the Law) simply being exchanged for another (Christ). At this point the New Perspective meets the “old,” inasmuch as in this scenario “Paul’s law-free gospel—his Christ-Torah antithesis—goes back in all its essential elements to the experience of his conversion.”579 Donaldson does not locate Paul’s mission in universalistic notions as such, and he shares the views of Baur, Watson, Sanders, and Goulder that it is plausible that Paul “understood the message about Christ to represent a different, and therefore rival, way of determining the constitution of the people of salvation.”580 As for the relationship between Paul’s activity as a persecutor, Damascus, and his Gentile mission, Donaldson notes that it is “difficult to imagine these three moments not being linked.”581 Donaldson echoes both Baur and E. P. Sanders very closely at many points, and there is much to commend his interpretation of Paul’s concern for Gentiles being rooted in his pre-Damascus activity “preaching circumcision.” His view is not that of an unqualified universalist, inasmuch as he parallels E. P. Sanders in viewing Paul as simply having replaced one exclusive form of soteriology with another, rather than being motivated by a generic concern for humanity. Donaldson echoes Baur very closely when discussing the implications of Paul’s persecution of the early church. That is to say that Donaldson does not spell out whether or not Paul was the

was only one group of Christians whom Paul persecuted strictly on account of their attitude towards the Law. “Paulus hat nicht die Christen überhaupt, sondern gesetzkritische Christen verfolgt” (Die Berufung des Paulus, 144). 578 Donaldson, Paul and the Gentiles, 275-84. 579 Ibid., 289. 580 Ibid., 286. 581 Ibid., 295.

208

ABORTION AND THE APOSTOLATE

first to preach to the Gentiles or the first to proclaim a Law-free form of Gentile mission. His characterization of this persecuting activity as a manifestation of zeal indicates that it resulted not simply from some general and indeterminate antipathy, but more precisely because he perceived the Christian movement as posing a threat to the Torah and thus to the community shaped by its Torah adherence… his objection to the Christian message had to do not simply with the Torah-laxity of some of its adherents, nor with the message of a crucified Messiah itself.582

Rather, Donaldson continues, it is because “he perceived the Christ of the kerygma as representing a rival to the Torah with respect to its role of determining membership in God’s covenant people.”583 This point is important, since if Paul was the first for a Law-free Gentile mission, or even for a Gentile mission period, then Donaldson’s definition has only led us back to Baur’s view that only Paul, both pre-Damascus and as an apostle, clearly understood the implications of Christ in terms of his meaning for the Law. Donaldson states: “While the rivalry between the two remained implicit in the early days of the movement—many of the early Christians happily combining the two or at least unaware of any essential tension between them—Paul from his vantage point was able to perceive things more clearly.”584

This view is identical with Baur’s, except for the New Perspectivist analysis that occurs when Donaldson discusses Paul’s language about “two conflicting definitions” of Israel (the Torah-based differentiation between Jew and Gentile has no validity “in Christ,” and yet continues to be operational). “The impossibility of the enterprise [of maintaining these two understandings of “Israel”] is clearer in retrospect—and probably was clearer in the perception

Ibid., 296. Ibid. 584 Ibid., 296-7 (italics mine). 582 583

CONCLUSION: SCHOLARLY RHETORIC

209

of Paul’s opponents, both inside and outside the church—than it was to Paul himself.”585 Donaldson thus indicates that, prior to Damascus, Paul understood Christ and Torah to be in conflict, even if the Christians themselves did not. However, after Damascus, Paul himself fails to see the implications of that conflict clearly anymore, even though other members of the Christian community apparently find it in his preaching. One wonders at Paul’s astonishingly short memory and limited grasp of the implications of his preaching that the law is an adiaphoron, particularly given his pre-Damascus understanding that Christ and Torah stood in an antithetical relationship. Baur’s analysis on this point remains more satisfying, as it at least allows Paul’s own sense of a “Christ-Torah antithesis” to be maintained both before and after Damascus, and allows the Jewish Christian community to be left as the sole group with the dubious distinction of not “clearly perceiving” the antithesis between the Christ of the kerygma and the Law, at least in the eyes of modern scholars.

C ONCLUSION : B AUR ’ S L EGACY , THE G ENTILE M ISSION AND S CHOLARLY R HETORIC At this point it should be sufficiently clear that I consider Baur’s negative reputation among biblical scholars to be largely undeserved. Not only is it difficult to find dependency upon Hegel in the pages of Paul, many of Baur’s observations are perceptive and grounded upon careful and thoughtful reading of the text. Moreover, much of his analysis remains not only compelling in its own right, but quite consonant with the views of contemporary scholars representing both the so-called “Old” and “New Perspectives.” Indeed, on many points Baur’s views are only marginally distinguishable from those of recent scholars, even in areas such as his much criticized emphasis on “universalism” in Paul.586 The differences are in large part a matter of emphasis, and in the case of the most recent body of scholarship, the much changed

585 586

Ibid., 305 (italics mine). Whatever this term might be taken to mean at this point.

210

ABORTION AND THE APOSTOLATE

appreciation of the value of Jewish life and thought among scholars of early Christianity. This latter emphasis is certainly preferable in our present context and is far easier for us to read than Baur’s continual references to an ideologically narrow, nationalistic, and ethnic religiosity. Yet the preferability of more recent scholarship’s evaluation of Judaism does not tell us much about whether or not other aspects of Baur’s reconstruction have any merit to them, although there is an implicit endorsement in their persistence in recent scholarship. Oddly enough, I consider the element I have pointed out above as the most consistent theme in Baur and all subsequent Pauline scholarship, the use of terms like “universalism” as if they are self-explanatory, as the most damaging aspect of Baur’s legacy. It is the most damaging because it is the most persistent. Not only does it go almost unrecognized, at times it is present in the work of scholars who claim to be advocating something entirely different. The problems with presenting Paul as a generic universalist are many, but chief among them is the implicit assumption that such an approach actually accounts for anything. Indeed, the universalist emphasis in the end is simply an assertion that Paul realized Christ was of salvific importance for all humanity, and thus that he must preach Christ to all people.587 It is unlikely that many scholars would feel comfortable with accounting for Paul’s Gentile mission with so simple a presentation, or with all that this phrasing implies. The shadow side of this concern for universalism presents itself even more clearly in its particularist formulation, in which Paul’s belief in the universal applicability of the message of salvation through Christ displaces his belief that salvation comes through the Law. This approach leads to a discussion of Paul’s persecuting zeal and his understanding of the relationship between the Law and Christ, wherein either Paul or the early Christians seem rather unable to see the full ramifications of Paul’s teaching. In Baur’s case, it is not Paul himself who suffers from this myopia,

587 Barring, of course, Two Covenant views and their lack of comment on Paul feeling no need to condemn Peter’s mission to the circumcised.

CONCLUSION: SCHOLARLY RHETORIC

211

but that is only a minor difference. In my view, however, to even begin to explore the connection between the pre-Damascus Paul’s zeal and the post-Damascus Paul’s mission brings the issue of his attitude towards the Law too much into play if one is interested in discussing his conversion. Although I have often made reference to this issue, it not only opens up too many lines of inquiry to explore adequately, but is, I feel, not precisely the same issue. Thus, although I do not think that Paul’s attitude towards the Law is without relevance to the issue of his mission, one can, as Watson attempted many years ago, sketch out a probable immediate cause for Paul’s mission without getting entangled in the many issues surrounding Paul’s writings on the Law. Baur’s understanding of Acts as an attempt to align Peter and Paul along the lines of a conciliar church certainly seems accurate in its general outline, and such a portrait does seem to have been informed by a later period in the history of the church. Also, in very general terms, Baur’s reconstruction of the church’s formation through the negotiation of the conflicting demands of Paulinism and Jewish Christianity has been taken over by most scholars in one form or another. To cite only one example, although Baur’s name does not appear in the index, Brown and Meier’s study of the early church in Antioch and Rome sketches out a similar pattern, albeit with differences in tone and emphasis.588 The understanding that a distinction is made, at least by Paul, about his being entrusted with a “special” apostolic mission to the Gentiles also seems to be a sound evaluation of the material, and also represents standard scholarly opinion. The final important point on which there is little serious debate is that Paul encounters opposition in some quarters from people who seem to question the authenticity of his apostolic status, and hence his message and mission. This latter point has led to the sometimes torturous scholarly speculation concerning the precise identity of Paul’s opponents.

588 Raymond E. Brown and John P. Meier, Antioch & Rome: New Testament Cradles of Catholic Christianity (New York and Ramsey: Paulist Press, 1983).

212

ABORTION AND THE APOSTOLATE

Baur’s postulation of a rift between the largely Gentile, Pauline group and the Jewish Petrine group did not actually assume that Paul and Peter were necessarily personally opposed to one another, contrary to the impression one often receives from other scholars. Indeed, in Corinth the opposition to Paul bore no real connection to Peter in Baur’s view. Peter himself had no share in the party which went by his name in Corinth, as it must be concluded, from what we have already seen, that Peter was never in Corinth at all; but it may well be supposed that the false Apostles who went about calling themselves by the name of Peter, eventually extended their travels to Corinth.589

Baur does note that “the ὑπερλίαν ἀπόστολοι may have been the opponents of the Apostle themselves, those who are afterwards called ψευδαπόστολοι,” or they may have been the “Apostles themselves whose disciples and delegates the ψευδαπόστολοι claimed to be,” as they “without doubt stood in some connexion with the Jewish Apostles of Palestine.”590 But the notion that Paul’s opposition bore “some” connection to the Palestinian apostles is a far cry from assuming the sort of organized rivalry of which Goulder writes, or of which Baur is often accused. In this present work I have argued, aside from my attempt to demonstrate the serviceability of Baur’s work in general, that Baur’s identification of a division between the figures of Peter and Paul is a plausible and responsible conclusion, as is his assessment of the sort of opposition Paul’s claims to apostolicity encounters. In my discussion of Paul’s references to Damascus, I similarly argued that Paul suffers in comparison to the other apostles, as well as presenting evidence that he specifically refers to rejection of his apostolic status and its connection to Damascus. I proposed that Paul, by grounding his Gentile mission in his experience of the risen Jesus, thereby equally grounds it also upon the rejection of his claims to truly be an apostle of Jesus. In light of my own analysis, then, taken in conjunction

589 590

Baur, Paul, 1:277. Ibid., 1:288.

CONCLUSION: SCHOLARLY RHETORIC

213

with the ongoing scholarly fascination with Baur’s notion of a rift between Petrine and Pauline Christianity, I feel I have added an important component to current understandings of both Paul’s “conversion” and his Gentile mission. Paul’s claim to be “especially” called to the Gentiles is, at least partly, grounded upon his experience of the rejection of his claims to have actually encountered Jesus. Although I have already presented a good deal of evidence for this proposal throughout previous chapters, and have also presented a review of various scholarly opinions, it is still necessary to place all the material amassed thus far into broader perspective in order to understand its implications for Pauline scholarship.

P AUL ’ S A POSTOLIC R EJECTION S CHOLARSHIP

AND

B IBLICAL

One of my minor themes throughout this study has been the overstatement of the differing range of scholarly opinion and the ongoing exaggeration of methodological shifts in Pauline scholarship. It should thus occasion little or no surprise to find that many of F. C. Baur’s views and judgements are only slightly modified by more recent scholars. Baur’s observation that Acts perhaps indicates an openness to a Gentile mission and an accompanying liberal attitude towards the Law among the “Hellenists,” has spurred scholars to look for a connection between Paul’s views and such Greekspeaking Jewish groups as the Hellenists,591 generating a seemingly inexhaustible amount of scholarly activity without any clear resolution. In my presentation even the crucial point on which Baur’s entire understanding (and reputation) rests, the fundament rift between Petrinism and Paulinism, has a great deal more in common with recent approaches like the Two-Covenant readings of Paul than is apparent at a superficial glance. One might well ask, then, if my above discussion is to be taken seriously, what is there left for me to say concerning Paul’s mission?

591 See Martin Hengel, “Die Ursprünge der christlichen Mission,” NTS 18 (1971): 15-38; Dietzfelbinger, Die Berufung des Paulus, 137-47; Donaldson, Paul and the Gentiles, 275-8.

214

ABORTION AND THE APOSTOLATE

Regardless of whether or not one works within a New Perspective framework or not, it seems that there are in the end only two possible avenues of explanation for Paul’s mission to the Gentiles, beyond Paul’s statement that God called him through an apokalypsis of the risen Jesus. One approach is to assume that Paul is chiefly motivated by his concern for the soteriological “truth” of his gospel based upon his experience of the risen Christ, a truth that can be both “universal” and particularist. In its particularist form this understanding would mean that Paul is convinced that salvation comes only through Christ, and that his message is thus universally applicable. Varying formulations are possible, such as the notion that Paul’s perception of being called to the Gentiles was a means of extending Israel’s faith universally, or the Old Perspective view that this call was a transcending of Jewish nationalism in favor of a message for all. This latter explanation equally relies upon Paul’s theological views and rhetorical emphases becoming reorganized following his conversion. Although there is often room for speculation about his pre-Damascus views or activity among the Gentiles, the possible connections to his persecution of the church, and the potential amount of development (or lack thereof) in his theology, all these reconstructions remain within the broad framework of Paul’s motivation being rooted in his soteriology. The second approach is to argue that Paul’s Gentile mission is motivated solely by pragmatic concerns. Thus a lack of success among the Jewish communities he first preached to and a corresponding measure of success among the Gentiles is in and of itself enough to account for Paul’s emphasis upon himself as the ἐθνῶν ἀπόστολος. My own suggestion falls more into this category, although I have attempted to locate it more firmly in Paul’s writings than the other “pragmatic” explanations, which have been notoriously short on evidence. None of the “pragmatic” options have much to say, at least on the surface, about Paul’s attitude towards the Law. However, as I mentioned, such concerns are probably

CONCLUSION: SCHOLARLY RHETORIC

215

best viewed as separate issues though they may well be closely related. The issue of Paul’s apostleship continues to provide many scholarly puzzles, many of them likely not solvable,592 but that Paul places great emphasis upon it seems as uncontroversial a starting point as one can find. By arguing that the rejection of Paul’s apostolic status is the origin point for his Gentile mission, I have proposed an explanation that accounts for the intertwining of Damascus, his Gentile mission, and the opposition he appears to be countering in both Galatians 1-2 and 1 Corinthians. I do not deny that this reading of the evidence has implications for the broader understanding of the Pauline materials, but my initial proposal must first be allowed to stand or fall on its own merits. I have made ongoing reference to some of the methodological debates within biblical scholarship, noting that I believed there to be more continuity within the field than is often admitted. I do not want to lose sight, however of the specifics of my contribution to the speculation surrounding the origin of Paul’s mission to the Gentiles. Although reconstructing the exact settings in which Paul wrote is nearly impossible, since the identity of his opponents and the exact nature of their opposition is ever elusive, I believe I have made as strong a case as the evidence allows. I have no way of “proving” with any finality that Paul’s experience of “apostolic rejection” led to his claims to be in charge of a specifically Gentile mission field, but I do think that the evidence concerning “Damascus” can be read that way with fewer difficulties than the other suggestions available. Paul’s use of prophetic call language in Galatians, and his invocation of “miscarriage” language in 1 Corinthians, although strange to moderns, can both be adequately explained through this approach. Baur’s sense of a division between Paul and the other apostles may not have taken the exact form he proposed, or have been as thoroughgoing and systematic as he outlined, but my analysis of Paul’s references to Damascus suggests that he was at least on the right track.

592 William O. Walker, “Galatians 2:8 and the Question of Paul’s Apostleship,” JBL 123 (2004): 323-7.

216

ABORTION AND THE APOSTOLATE

It may be suggested that I have read too much into these verses, although given the amount of scholarly attention given to these verses already, I think that I have been comparatively cautious in my reading of them. I have not argued that Paul faced ongoing systematic, organized opposition, or that Peter and James themselves were hostile towards him personally or without fail, simply that Paul experienced opposition to the claims he derived from Damascus, specifically his claim to be an apostle like “the other” apostles. It would certainly have been an easier argument to make if Paul had simply listed, in addition to his claim that he was called to preach through an apokalypsis of Jesus, all of the specific conditions surrounding his mission. Then again, as J. Sanders might caution, we would probably have done well not to trust his words too readily in all details were that the case.593

C LOSING T HOUGHTS O N M ETHOD Although it formed part of the background argument for my own suggestion, my study of F. C. Baur and his reputation also provided many insights in its own right. The attack upon his work in his own lifetime was in part because of his “radical skepticism,” and his discrediting the unified view of the church as presented in Acts. Much of the criticism now is based upon the assertion that there was even more diversity in early Christianity than Baur allowed for in his work. This criticism is valid enough, but given how very radical his work was in its own day, it seems somewhat uninspired to attack it for “not going far enough” (a criticism I recall as graduateseminar catchphrase that always seemed to sound profound). In a period in which Darwin was first becoming a household name, and biblical scholars were threatened with dismissal from their academic posts for questioning Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, Baur’s work stands out as remarkably bold, even if it occasionally led to mistakes. Indeed, if we bookend Baur’s work with that of E. P. Sanders and the New Perspectivists, many currents of Pauline scholarship such as the explanations for Paul’s Gentile mission

593

Sanders, “Paul’s Autobiographical Statements.”

CONCLUSION: SCHOLARLY RHETORIC

217

seem to have stood in a kind of scholarly stasis for well over a century. Indeed, in my opinion the element which is the most problematic in Baur’s work is the one which is the most consistently repeated by biblical scholars; his emphasis on Paul’s universalism. Lest my cautious phrasing be misleading, I will elaborate. The continual, rhetoricized emphasis on the “universal/particular” dichotomy has been a far more pernicious element of Pauline scholarship than any influence putatively derived from Hegel. Despite warnings having been raised by some scholars,594 and the previously discussed scholarly warnings about Baur’s use of such language, the practice remains quite prevalent. Gager’s most recent work, to cite one example, receives a rebuttal based in large part upon these very grounds.595 Even some recent contributions to Pauline studies which are theoretically engaged and quite nuanced, such as that of Buell and Johnson Hodge, bear this out more than they are aware.596 Buell and Johnson Hodge argue that readings of Paul that operate with overly simple notions of race and ethnicity, readings that tend to argue that Paul’s writings attempt to transcend such fixed particularities, are themselves dangerous. By “interpreting Christian universalism as non-ethnic” scholars enable “Christian anti-Judaism by defining a positive attribute of Christianity (universalism) at the expense of Judaism. Judaism is portrayed as everything Christianity is not: legalistic, ethnic, particular, limited, and so on.”597 Buell and Johnson Hodge close their piece with a note of optimism. Their closing words argue that, in contrast to many Pauline scholars’ theory of identity as fixed, a “complex, dynamic understanding of collective identity… sharpens our choices

594 Anders Runesson, “Particularistic Judaism and Universalistic Christianity? Some Critical Remarks on Terminology and Theology,” ST 54 (2000): 55-75. 595 Lisa Wang, “Jesus as Messiah in Galatians and Romans: A Response to John Gager’s Reinventing Paul,” TJT 19 (2003): 173-82. 596 Denise Kimber Buell and Caroline Johnson Hodge, “The Politics of Interpretation: The Rhetoric of Race and Ethnicity in Paul,” JBL 123 (2004): 235-51. Cf. the similarly themed but broader, Buell, “Race and Universalism in Early Christianity,” JECS 10.4 (2002):429-68. 597 Buell and Johnson Hodge, “The Politics of Interpretation,” 237.

218

ABORTION AND THE APOSTOLATE

for the struggles of the present to create a more just world for all.”598 This closing note of optimism draws upon the rhetoric of the universal itself, however. The rhetorical implication that a more just world “for all” is a worthy goal is likely to encounter little opposition, but surely this type of statement is slightly hyperbolized. Can anybody really mean “for all” without qualification? This article itself simply inverts the universal/particular dichotomy; scholars who operate with fixed notions of identity and characterize Judaism as particularist, are actually operating out of an overly particularized location themselves (white academia, usually male and often Protestant) of which they have been unconscious. Scholars who operate with a more fluid notion of identity are more liable to “reimagine and envision communities in which differences are neither erased nor hierarchically ranked.”599 They are, that is to say, more universally oriented. However, the point of Buell and Johnson Hodge’s discussion is somewhat different, as their concern is not so much with Paul’s “universalism” as with its interplay with categories like ethnicity.600 That is not to say that such a reading is without merit, or that this article is not an exciting theoretical contribution to Pauline studies. By emphasizing this point, I am merely pointing out that breaking away from this “universalist” argumentation is extremely difficult. If Perelman and Olbrecht-Tyteca’s New Rhetoric is correct on this point, such language is virtually an inevitable part of argumentation. Moreover, biblical scholars are expected to disagree, and to present the reader with different interpretive options. The more closely our views resemble one another, the sharper the distinction needs to be made for “the reader.” Since most of our publishing activity is intended for the consumption of other specialists, subtle distinctions can (or must) be exaggerated for argumentative purposes. If, as I have detailed, many of the basic parameters within which we work

Ibid., 251. Ibid. 600 In rather sharp contrast to Runesson, for whom ethnicity is an important component of the categories he proposes as alternatives to “universal” and “particular.” 598 599

CONCLUSION: SCHOLARLY RHETORIC

219

have indeed changed so little since Baur’s time, it perhaps should come as no surprise to find even more precisely delineated positions, and more sharply contrasted choices. Nonetheless, I feel that the untroubled reliance upon the universalist/particularist dichotomy has been damaging, and although replacing it may not be feasible, a more guarded and conscious awareness of its deployment is in order. For this reason, despite the relatively traditional orientation of this work, and in spite of my lengthy defense of and reliance upon Baur, I see no alternative for biblical scholars but to continue to engage in the ongoing theoretical debates in the field. At a bare minimum, the increased emphasis upon the often silent agendas and issues at play within scholarship gives scholars a vocabulary with which to talk about aspects of their work that otherwise would remain invisible, at least to themselves. My emphasis upon Baur’s legacy and the ongoing scholarly appeals to “universalism” within Pauline studies is in part an effort to make obvious rhetorical practices and views we share in, not to suggest that I have a means for overcoming them. There is no “going back” to the kind of scholarship that Baur embodied, no matter how compelling some of his observations, nor can one continue to read Paul as if “Jew” and “Greek” are categories that are, or ever were, sharply defined with obvious characteristics and clear boundaries demarcating them. That being said, an embracing of contemporary theoretical insights should not entail an uncritical rejection of all previous scholarship, particularly when previous scholarship has shaped the parameters of the discipline within which we now labor. Part of an increased scholarly self-awareness must surely include an awareness of the relative continuity within the field we inhabit, even when we have aggressively staked out our particular corner to cultivate with methods, theories, and questions that earlier generations of scholars could not have anticipated.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Ådna, Jostein., and Hans Kvalbein, eds. The Mission of the Early Church to Jews and Gentiles. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament, 127. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000. Aichele, George, et. al. The Postmodern Bible. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1995. Akenson, Donald H. Saint Saul: A Skeleton Key to the Historical Jesus. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000. Albright, William Foxwell. From the Stone Age to Christianity: Monotheism and the Historical Process. 2nd edition. Garden City, New York: Doubleday Anchor Books, 1957. Anderson, R. Dean. Ancient Rhetorical Theory and Paul. Revised edition. Leuven: Peeters, 1998. Baird, William. History of New Testament Research. Volume One: From Deism to Tübingen. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1992. ———. “Vision, Revelation, and Ministry: Reflections on 2 Cor 12:1-5 and Gal 1:11-17.” Journal of Biblical Literature 104 (1985): 651-62. ———. “What is the Kerygma? A Study of I Cor 15 3-8 and Gal 1 11-17.” Journal of Biblical Literature 76 (1957): 181-91. Barclay, John M.G. “Paul’s Story: Theology as Testimony.” In Narrative Dynamics in Paul: A Critical Assessment, edited by Bruce W. Longenecker, 133-56. Louisville and London: Westminster John Knox, 2002. ———. “Mirror-Reading a Polemical Letter: Galatians as a Test Case.” In The Galatians Debate: Contemporary Issues in Rhetorical and Historical Interpretation, edited by Mark Nanos, 367-82. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2002. First published in Journal for the Study of the New Testament 31 (1987): 73-93. ———. Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora: From Alexander to Trajan, 323 BCE-117 CE. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996.

221

222

ABORTION AND THE APOSTOLATE

Barth, Gerhard. “Zur Frage nach der in1 Korinther 15 bekämpften Auferstehungsleugnung.” Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche 83 (1992): 187-201. ———. “Paul Among Diaspora Jews: Anomaly or Apostate?” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 60 (1995): 89-120. Barret, C. K. “Sectarian Diversity at Corinth.” In Paul and the Corinthians: Studies on a Community in Conflict. Essays in Honour of Margaret Thrall, ed. Trevor J. Burke and J. Keith Elliott, 287-302. Supplements to Novum Testamentum, 109. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2003. ———. A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians. London: Adam & Charles Black, 1968. Barton, John., ed. The Cambridge Companion to Biblical Interpretation. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1998. Baur, Ferdinand Christian. The Church History of the First Three Centuries. 3rd edition. Translated by Allan Menzies. 2 vols. London and Edinburgh: Williams and Norgate, 1878. ———. Paul the Apostle of Jesus Christ, His Life and Works, His Epistles and His Teachings: A Contribution to a Critical History of Primitive Christianity. 2nd Edition. Translated by Eduard Zeller. Revised by Allen Menzies. 2 vols. London and Edinburgh: Williams and Norgate, 1876. Reprint (2 vols. in 1), Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2003. ———. “Die Christuspartei in der korinthischen Gemeinde, der Gegensatz des petrinischen und paulinischen Christentums in der ältesten Kirche, der Apostel Petrus in Rom.” In Historischekritische Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament, edited by Klaus Scholder, 1-146. Vol.1 of Ausgewählte Werke in Einzelausgaben. Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt: Friedrich Frommann Verlag (Günther Holzberg), 1963-1970. First published in Tübinger Zeitschrift für Theologie 4 (1831): 61-206. Becker, Jürgen. Paul: Apostle to the Gentiles. Translated by O. C. Dean, Jr. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1993. Beker, J. Christiaan. Paul the Apostle: The Triumph of God in Life and Thought. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980. Bercovitz, J. Peter. “Καλεῖν (“To Call”) in Gal 1:15: Evidence that Paul Was Already a Believer When Christ Appeared to Him?” Proceedings: Eastern Great Lakes and Midwest Biblical Societies 5 (1985): 28-38.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

223

Best, Ernest. “Paul’s Apostolic Authority—?” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 27 (1986): 3-25. Betz, Hans Dieter. Galatians: A Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Churches in Galatia. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979. ———. “The Literary Composition and Function of Paul’s Letter to the Galatians.” New Testament Studies 21 (1975): 352-79. Blass, F., and A. Debrunner. A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Translated and Revised by Robert W. Funk. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961. Boers, “Apocalyptic Eschatology in I Corinthians 15: An Essay in Contemporary Interpretation.” Interpretation 21 (1967): 50-65. Bolkestein, H. “The Exposure of Infants at Athens and the ἐγχυτρίστριαι.” Classical Philology 17 (1921): 222-39. Boman, Thorleif. “Paulus Abortivus (1 Kor. 15,8).” Studia Theologica 18 (1964): 46-50. Boyarin, Daniel. A Radical Jew: Paul and the Politics of Identity. Contraversions: Critical Studies in Jewish Literature, Culture, and Society, 1. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1994. Brehm, H. Alan. “Paul’s Relationship with the Jerusalem Apostles in Galatians 1 and 2.” Southwestern Journal of Theology 37 (1994):11-16. Brown, Francis, S. R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs. A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1907. Reprint, 1951. Brown, Raymond E. “Not Jewish Christianity and Gentile Christianity but Types of Jewish/ Gentile Christianity.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 45 (1983): 74-79. Brown, Raymond E. and John P. Meier. Antioch & Rome: New Testament Cradles of Catholic Christianity. New York and Ramsey: Paulist Press, 1983. Brown, Schuyler. “Apostleship in the New Testament as an Historical and Theological Problem.” New Testament Studies 30 (1984): 474-80. Bruce, Frederick Fyvie. The Epistle of Paul to the Galatians: A Commentary on the Greek Text. New International Greek Testament Commentary. Exeter: Paternoster Press, 1982. ———. “Further Thoughts on Paul’s Autobiography. Galatians 1:11-2:14.” In Jesus und Paulus: Festschrift für Werner Georg Kümmel zum 70. Geburtstag, 2nd ed., edited by E. Earle Ellis and

224

ABORTION AND THE APOSTOLATE

Erich Gräßer, 21-29. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978. ———. Paul: Apostle of the Heart Set Free. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977. = Paul: Apostle of the Free Spirit. Exeter: Paternoster, 1977. Brunt, P. A. Italian Manpower, 225 B.C.-A.D. 14. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1971. Budde, K. “Bermerkungen zum Bundesbuch.” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 11 (1891): 99-114. Buell, Denise Kimber, and Caroline Johnson Hodge. “The Politics of Interpretation: The Rhetoric of Race and Ethnicity in Paul.” Journal of Biblical Literature 123 (2004): 235-51. Burton, Edward De Witt. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians. The International Critical Commentary. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1920. Cameron, A. “The Exposure of Children and Greek Ethics.” Classical Review 46 (1932): 105-14. Campbell, Douglas A. “The ΔΙΑΘΗΚΗ from Durham: Professor Dunn’s The Theology of Paul the Apostle.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 72 (1998): 91-111. Campbell, William S. Review of Jouette M. Bassler, Navigating Paul: An Introduction to Key Theological Concepts (RBL 08/2007: www.bookreviews.org) Carroll, Robert P. “Poststructuralist approaches. New Historicism and Modernism.” In The Cambridge Companion to Biblical Interpretation, edited by John Barton, 50-66. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 1998. Castelli, Elizabeth. Imitating Paul: A Discourse of Power. Literary Currents in Biblical Interpretation. Louisville, Kentucky: 1991. Classen, Carl Joachim. Rhetorical Criticism of the New Testament. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament, 128. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000. Boston and Leiden: Brill, 2002 ———. “Paulus und die antike Rhetorik.” Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche 82 (1991): 133. Cohen, Shaye. “Crossing the Boundary and Becoming a Jew.” Harvard Theological Review 82 (1989): 13-33. Collins, Nina L. “Notes on the Text of Exodus XXI 22.” Vetus Testamentum 43 (1993): 289-301.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

225

Colson, F. H., and G. H. Whitaker, trans. Philo: Works. 10 vols. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge and London: Harvard University Press, 1929. Conzelmann, Hans. 1 Corinthians: A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975. ———. History of Primitive Christianity. Translated by John E. Steely. Nashville and New York: Abingdon Press, 1973. Corley, Bruce. “Interpreting Paul’s Conversion—Then and Now.” In The Road from Damascus, edited by Richard N. Longenecker, 1-17. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997. Craffert, Pieter F. “Paul’s Damascus Experience as Reflected in Galatians 1: Call or Conversion?” Scriptura 29 (1989): 36-47. Crook, Zeba A. Patronage, Loyalty, and Conversion in the Ancient Mediterranean. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft, 130. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2004. Davies, W. D. Paul and Rabbinic Judaism: Some Rabbinic Elements in Pauline Theology. London: SPCK, 1955. Reprint, New York: Harper & Row, 1967. Dibelius, Martin. From Tradition to Gospel. 2nd edition. Translated by Bertram Lee Woolf. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1935. Dickison, Sheila K. “Abortion in Antiquity.” Arethusa 6 (1973):15966. Dietzfelbinger, Christian. Die Berufung des Paulus als Urpsprung seiner Theologie. Wissenschaftliche Mongraphien zum Alten und Neuen Testament, 58. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. Doeve, J. W. “Paulus der Pharisäer und Galater i 13-15.” Novum Testamentum 6 (1963): 170-81. Donaldson, Terence L. “Jewish Christianity, Israel’s Stumbling and the Sonderweg Reading of Paul.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 29.1 (2006):27-54. ———Paul and the Gentiles: Remapping the Apostle’s Convictional World. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1997. ———. “Israelite, Convert, Apostle to the Gentiles: The Origin of Paul’s Gentile Mission.” In The Road from Damascus, edited by Richard N. Longenecker, 62-84. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997. ———. “‘Riches for the Gentiles’ (Rom 11:12): Israel’s Rejection and Paul’s Gentile Mission.” Journal of Biblical Literature 112 (1993): 81-98.

226

ABORTION AND THE APOSTOLATE

———. “Proselytes or ‘Righteous Gentiles’? The Status of Gentiles in Eschatological Pilgrimage Patterns of Thought.” Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 7 (1990): 3-27. ———. “Zealot and Convert: The Origin of Paul’s Christ-Torah Antithesis.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 51 (1989): 655-82. Dunn, James. “Noch eimal ‘Works of the Law’: The Dialogue Continues.” In Fair Play: Diversity and Conflicts in Early Christianity. Essays in Honour of Heikki Räisänen, edited by Ismo Dunderberg, Christopher Tuckett, and Kari Syreeni, 273-90. Supplements to Novum Testamentum, 103. Leiden: Brill, 2002. ———. “The Incident at Antioch (Gal 2:11-18).” In The Galatians Debate: Contemporary Issues in Rhetorical and Historical Interpretation, edited by Mark Nanos, 199-234. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2002. First published in Journal for the Study of the New Testament 18 (1983): 3-57. ———. “Who did Paul Think He Was? A Study of JewishChristian Identity.” New Testament Studies 45 (1999): 174-93. ———. 1 Corinthians. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995, reprinted 1999. ———. “The Pauline Letters.” In The Cambridge Companion to Biblical Interpretation, edited by John Barton, 276-89. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 1998. ———. Whatever Happened to Exegesis? In Response to the Reviews by R. B. Matlock and D. A. Campell.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 72 (1998): 113-20. ———. The Theology of Paul the Apostle. Grand Rapids and Cambridge: Eerdmans, 1998. ———. “Paul and Justification by Faith.” In The Road from Damascus, edited by Richard N. Longenecker, 85-101. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997. ———. The Theology of Paul’s Letter to the Galatians. New Testament Theology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993. ———. ed. Jews and Christians: The Parting of the Ways, A.D. 70 to 135. Grand Rapids and Cambridge: Eerdmans, 1992. ———. The Parting of the Ways between Christianity and Judaism. Philadelphia: Trinity Press, 1991. ———. Jesus, Paul and the Law: Studies in Mark and Galatians. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1990. ———. Romans 1-8. WBC 38A. Waco: Word Books, 1988. ———. Romans 9-16. WBC 38B. Waco: Word Books, 1988.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

227

———. “The New Perspective on Paul.” Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library of Manchester 65 (1983): 95-122. Dupont, Jacques. “The Conversion of Paul, and its Influence on His Understanding of Salvation by Faith.” In Apostolic History and the Gospel: Biblical and Historical Essays presented to F. F. Bruce on his 60th Birthday, edited by W. Ward Gasque and Ralph P. Martin, 176-94. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970. Ebeling, Gerhard. The Truth of the Gospel: An Exposition of Galatians. Translated by David Green. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985. Elliot, J. K. Review of Tale of Two Missions, by Michael D. Goulder. Novum Testamentum 40 (1998): 295-8. Engels, Donald. “The Use of Historical Demography in Ancient History.” Classical Quarterly 34 (1984): 386-93. ———. “The Problem of Infanticide in the Greco-Roman World.” Classical Philology 75 (1980): 112-20. Forbes, Christopher. “Comparison, Self-Praise and Irony: Paul’s Boasting and the Conventions of Hellenistic Rhetoric.” New Testament Studies 32 (1986): 1-30. Fowl, Stephen E. “Who’s Characterizing Whom and the Difference This Makes: Locating and Centering Paul.” Pages 537-53 in Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers, 1993. Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers 32. Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1993. Fredriksen, Paula. “Judaism, the Circumcision of Gentiles, and Apocalyptic Hope: Another Look at Galatians 1 and 2.” Journal of Theological Studies 42 (1991): 532-64. ———. “Paul and Augustine: Conversion Narratives, Orthodox Traditions, and the Retrospective Self.” Journal of Theological Studies 37 (1986): 3-34. Freedman, David Noel, ed. Anchor Bible Dictionary. 6 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1992. Fung, Ronald Y. K. The Epistle to the Galatians. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1988. Reprint, 1989. Gager, John. Reinventing Paul. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000. ———. The Origins of Anti-Semitism: Attitudes Towards Judaism in Pagan and Christian Antiquity. New York; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1983. ———. “Some Notes on Paul’s Conversion.” New Testament Studies 27 (1981): 697-704.

228

ABORTION AND THE APOSTOLATE

Gamble, Harry. “Letters in the New Testament and in the GrecoRoman World.” In The Biblical World: Volume 1, edited by John Barton, 188-204. London and New York: Routledge, 2002. Gaston, Lloyd. “Romans in Context: The Conversation Revisited.” In Pauline Conversations in Context: Essays in Honor of Calvin Roetzel, edited by Janice Capel Anderson, Philip Sellew and Claudia Setzer, 125-41. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series, 221. Sheffield: Continuum, 2002. ———. Paul and the Torah. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 1987. Gaventa, B. D. “Is Galatians Just a ‘Guy Thing’? A Theological Reflection.” Interpretation 54 (2000): 267-78. ———. “Galatians 1 and 2: Autobiography as Paradigm.” Novum Testamentum 28 (1986): 309-26. ———. From Darkness to Light: Aspects of Conversion in the New Testament. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986. Godet, F. Introduction to the New Testament I: The Epistles of St. Paul. Translated by William Affleck. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1894. Goehring, James E. “A Classical Influence on the Gnostic Sophia Myth.” Vigiliae Christianae 35 (1981): 16-23. Golden, Mark. Children and Childhood in Classical Athens. Baltimore and London: John Hopkins University Press, 1990. ———. “Demography and the Exposure of Ancient Girls at Athens.” Phoenix 35 (1981): 316-31. Good, Deidre J. “Sophia in Valentinianism.” The Second Century 4 (1984): 193-201. Goodacre, Mark S. Goulder and the Gospels: An Examination of a New Paradigm. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series, 133. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996. Goodman, Martin. Mission and Conversion: Proselytizing in the Religious History of the Roman Empire. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994. Goodspeed, Edgar J., ed. Greek Papyri from the Cairo Museum: Together with Papyri of Roman Egypt from American Collections. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1902. Goodwin, William Watson and Gulick, Charles Burton. Greek Grammar. New Rochelle, New York: Aristide D. Caratzas, 1930. Reprinted 1992. Goulder, Michael D. “Visions and Revelations of the Lord (2 Corinthians 12:1-10).” In Paul and the Corinthians: Studies on a Com-

BIBLIOGRAPHY

229

munity in Conflict. Essays in Honour of Margaret Thrall. Edited by Trevor J. Burke and J. Keith Elliott, 303-12. Supplements to Novum Testamentum, 109. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2003. ———. “A Poor Man’s Christology.” New Testament Studies 45 (1999): 332-48. ———. “Libertines? (1 Cor. 5-6).” Novum Testamentum 41 (1999): 334-48. ———. The Psalms of the Return (Book V, Psalms 107-150): Studies in the Psalter, IV. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series, 258. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998. ———. The Psalms of Asaph and the Pentateuch: Studies in the Psalter, III. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series, 233. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996. ———. “2 Cor 6:14-7:1 as an Integral Part of 2 Corinthians.” Novum Testamentum 36 (1994): 47-57. ———. St. Paul Versus St. Peter: A Tale of Two Missions. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1994. American edition, 1995. ———. “Silas in Thessalonica.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 48 (1992): 87-106. ———. “Exegesis of Gen. 1-3 in the New Testament.” Journal of Jewish Studies 43 (1992): 226-9. ———. “A Pauline in a Jacobite Church.” In The Four Gospels 1992. Festschrift Frans Neirynck, 859-75. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium, 100. Louvain : Peeters, 1992. ———. “The Visionaries of Laodicea.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 43 (1991): 15-39. ———. “Those Outside (Mark 4.10-12).” Novum Testamentum 33 (1991): 289-301 ———. “ΣΟΦΙΑ in 1 Corinthians.” New Testament Studies 37 (1991): 516-34. ———. The Prayers of David (Psalms 51-72): Studies in the Psalter, II. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series, 102. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990. ———. Luke—A New Paradigm, 2 vols. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series, 20. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989.

230

ABORTION AND THE APOSTOLATE

———. The Psalms of the Sons of Korah. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series, 20. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1982. ———. The Evangelists’ Calendar. London: SPCK, 1978. ———. Midrash and Lection in Matthew. London: SPCK, 1974. Gray, Patrick. “Abortion, Infanticide, and the Social Rhetoric of the Apocalypse of Peter.” Journal of Early Christian Studies 9 (2001): 313-37. Gunkel, Hermann. Genesis. Translated by Mark Biddle. Mercer Library of Biblical Studies. Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1997. Gunther, John J. St. Paul’s Opponents and Their Background: A Study of Apocalyptic and Jewish Sectarian Teachings. Supplements to Novum Testamentum, 35. Leiden: Brill, 1973. Guthrie, Donald., ed. Galatians. Century Bible; London: Nelson, 1969. Harris, Horton. The Tübingen School. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1975. Harris, William V. “The Theoretical Possibility of Extensive Infanticide in the Graeco-Roman World.” Classical Quarterly 32 (1982): 114-6. Hengel, Martin and Schwemer, Anna Maria. “The Attitude of Paul to the Law in the Unknown Years between Damascus and Antioch.” In Paul and the Mosaic Law, edited by James D. G. Dunn, 25-51. Grand Rapids and Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2001. ———. Paul Between Damascus and Antioch: The Unknown Years. Translated by John Bowden. Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 1997. ———. “Die Ursprünge der christlichen Mission.” New Testament Studies 18 (1971): 15-38. Hodgson, Peter C. The Formation of Historical Theology: A Study of Ferdinand Christian Baur. Makers of Modern Theology. New York: Harper & Row, 1966. Hollander, Harm W.; Van der Hout, Gijsbert E. “Paul Calling Himself an Abortion: 1 Cor 15:8 Within the Context of 1 Cor 15:8-10.” Novum Testamentum 38 (1996): 224-36. Houtman, Cees. “Eine schwangere Frau als Opfer eines Handgemenges (Exodus 21,22-25): Ein Fall von stellvertretender Talion im Bundesbuch?.” In Studies in the Book of Exodus: Redaction—Reception—Interpretation, edited by Marc Vervenne, 381-

BIBLIOGRAPHY

231

97. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium, 126. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1996. Howard, George. Paul: Crisis in Galatia. A Study in Early Christian Theology. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series, 35. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 1979. Humbert-Droz, L’Exégèse d’Exode 21,22-25: Les pères de l’Eglise et l’avortement (Mémoire en langue littérature latines; Neuchatel, février 2004, available ). Hurtado, Larry W. “Convert, Apostate or Apostle to the Nations: The ‘Conversion’ of Paul in Recent Scholarship.” Studies in Religion/Sciences Religieuses 22 (1993): 273-84. Isser, Stanley. “Two Traditions: The Law of Exodus 21:22-23 Revisited.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 52 (1990): 30-45. Jackson, Bernard S. “The Problem of Exod. XXI 22-5 (IUS TALIONIS).” Vetus Testamentum 23 (1973): 273-304. Jewett, Robert. “The Agitators and the Galatian Congregation.” In The Galatians Debate: Contemporary Issues in Rhetorical and Historical Interpretation, edited by Mark Nanos, 334-47. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2002. First published in New Testament Studies 17 (1970-1971): 198-212. Jones, F. Stanley. An Ancient Jewish Christian Source on the History of Christianity: Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions 1.27-71. Society of Biblical Literature Texts and Translations, 37. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995. Reprint, 1998. Kaye, Bruce N. “Lightfoot and Baur on Early Christianity.” Novum Testamentum 26 (1984): 193-224. Kennedy, George A. New Testament Interpretation through Rhetorical Criticism. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1984. ———. A History of Roman Rhetoric, 300 B.C.-A.D. 300. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1972. Kim, Seyoon. Paul and the New Perspective: Second Thoughts On the Origin of Paul’s Gospel. Grand Rapids and Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2002. ———. The Origin of Paul’s Gospel. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament, Second Series, 4. Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1981.

232

ABORTION AND THE APOSTOLATE

Kittel, G., and G. Friedrich, eds. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Translated by G. W. Bromiley. 10 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964–1976. Kloppenborg, John. “An Analysis of the Pre-Pauline Formula 1 Cor 15:3b-5 in Light of Some Recent Literature.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 40 (1978): 351-67. Knox, John. “On the Meaning of Galatians 1:15.” Journal of Biblical Literature 106 (1987): 301-4. ———. Chapters in a Life of Paul. Revised ed.; Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1987. Koch, Klaus. The Growth of the Biblical Method: The Form-Critical Tradition. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1969. Kraemer, Ross S. “The Meaning of the Term ‘Jew’ in GrecoRoman Inscriptions.” Harvard Theological Review 82 (1989): 3553. Kraftchick, Steven J. “Πάθη in Paul: The Emotional Logic of ‘Original Argumentation.’” In Paul and Pathos, edited by Thomas H. Olbricht and Jerry L. Sumney, 39-68. SBL Symposium Series. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2001. Koptak, Paul E. “Rhetorical Identification in Paul’s Autobiographical Narrative Galatians 1.13-2.14.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 40 (1990): 97-115. Lake, Kirsopp, trans. The Apostolic Fathers. 2 vols. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, Mass.: 1912. Reprint, 1975. Liddell, H. G.; R. Scott; and H. S. Jones. A Greek-English Lexicon. 9th ed with revised supplement. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968. Loewenstamm, Samuel E. “Exodus XXI 22-25.” Vetus Testamentum 27 (1977): 352-60. Logan, Alastair H. B. Gnostic Truth and Christian Heresy: A Study in the History of Gnosticism. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996. Luck, Ulrich. “Die Bekehrung des Paulus und das Paulinische Evangelium: Zur Frage der Evidenz in Botschaft und Theologie des Apostels.” Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche 76 (1985): 187-208. Luedemann, Gerd. Opposition to Paul in Jewish Christianity. Translated by M. Eugene Boring. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989. ET of Paulus der Heidenapostel vol. 2: Antipaulinismus im frühen Christentum. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

233

Lyons, George. Pauline Autobiography: Toward a New Understanding. Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series, 73. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985. Maccoby, Hyam. The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity. New York: Harper Collins, 1987. MacRae, George W. “The Jewish Background of the Gnostic Sophia Myth.” Novum Testamentum 12 (1970): 86-101. Malina, Bruce J. “Is There a Circum-Mediterranean Person? Looking for Stereotypes.” Biblical Theology Bulletin 22 (1992): 6687. ———. “Dealing with Biblical (Mediterranean) Characters: A Guide for U.S. Consumers.” Biblical Theology Bulletin 19 (1989): 127-41. ———. “‘Religion’ in the World of Paul.” Biblical Theology Bulletin 16 (1986): 92-101. ———. “The Individual and the Community—Personality in the Social World of Early Christianity.” Biblical Theology Bulletin 9 (1979): 126-38. Martin, Dale B. “Paul and the Judaism/Hellenism Dichotomy: Toward a Social History of the Question.” In Paul Beyond the Judaism/Hellenism Divide, edited by Troels Engberg-Pedersen, 29-61. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001. Martyn, J. Louis. Galatians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible, 33A. New York: Doubleday, 1997. ———. “A Law-Observant Mission to Gentiles: The Background of Galatians.” Scottish Journal of Theology 38 (1985): 307-24. Matera, Frank J. “Galatians in Perspective: Cutting a New Path through Old Territory.” Interpretation 54 (2000): 233-45. Matlock, R. Barry. “Sins of the Flesh and Suspicious Minds: Dunn’s New Theology of Paul.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 72 (1998): 67-90. ———. “Biblical Criticism and the Rhetoric of Inquiry.” Biblical Interpretation 5 (1997): 133-59. Mays, James L. Review of The Psalms of the Sons of Korah, by Michael D. Goulder. Journal of Biblical Literature 104 (1985): 318-99. Mays, Simon. “Infanticide in Roman Britain.” Antiquity 67 (1993): 883-8. McCant, Jerry W. “Paul’s Thorn of Rejected Apostleship.” New Testament Studies 34 (1988): 550-72.

234

ABORTION AND THE APOSTOLATE

McKnight, Scot. A Light Among the Gentiles: Jewish Missionary Activity in the Second Temple Period. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991. Meeks, Wayne A. The First Urban Christians: The Social World of the Apostle Paul. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1983. Menander of Laodicea. Menander Rhetor. Translated and edited by D.A. Russell and N. G. Wilson. Oxford Classical Texts. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1981. Metzger, Bruce M. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. 3rd edition. London and New York: United Bible Societies, 1971. Meyer, Ben F. “A Caricature of Joachim Jeremias and his Scholarly Work.” Journal of Biblical Literature 110 (1991): 451-62. Mitchell, Matthew W. “Reexamining the ‘Aborted Apostle’: An Exploration of Paul’s Self-Description in 1 Cor. 15.8.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 25 (2003): 469-85. Mitternacht, Dieter. “Foolish Galatians?—A Recipient-Oriented Assessment of Paul’s Letter.” In The Galatians Debate: Contemporary Issues in Rhetorical and Historical Interpretation, edited by Mark Nanos, 408-33. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2002. Moore, Stephen D. God’s Beauty Parlor: and other queer spaces in and around the Bible. Contraversions. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2001. ———. Poststructuralism and the New Testament: Derrida and Foucault at the Foot of the Cross. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1994. ———. Mark and Luke in Poststructuralist Perspectives: Jesus Begins to Write. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1992. ———. Literary Criticism and the Gospels: The Theoretical Challenge. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1989. Muilenburg, James. “Form Criticism and Beyond.” Journal of Biblical Literature 88 (1969): 1-18. Munck, Johannes. “Paulus Tanquam Abortivus.” In New Testament Essays: Studies in Memory of Thomas Walter Manson, 1893-1958, sponsored by friends and colleagues, edited by A. J. B. Higgins, 18093. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1959. ———. Paul and the Salvation of Mankind. Translated by Frank Clarke. London: SCM Press, 1959. ET of Paulus und die Heilsgeschichte. Copenhagen, 1954. Murphy-O’Connor, Jerome. Paul: A Critical Life. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

235

———. “Tradition and Redaction in 1 Cor 15:3-7.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 43 (1981): 582-9. Murray, Michele. Playing A Jewish Game: Gentile Christian Judaizing in the First and Second Centuries CE. Studies in Christianity and Judaism/Études sur le christianisme et le judaïsme, 13. Wilfred Laurier University Press, 2004. Mußner, Franz. “«Schichten» in der paulinischen Theologie dargetan an 1 Kor 15.” Biblische Zeitschrift 9 (1965): 59-70 Nanos, Mark D, ed. The Galatians Debate: Contemporary Issues in Rhetorical and Historical Interpretation. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2002. ———. The Irony of Galatians: Paul’s Letter in First-Century Context. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002. Neill, Stephen. The Interpretation of the New Testament, 1861-1961. London: Oxford University Press, 1964. Neusner, Jacob. The Rabbinic Traditions about the Pharisees before 70. 3 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1971. Nickelsburg, George W. E. “An Ἔκτρωμα, Though Appointed from the Womb: Paul’s Apostolic Self-Description in 1 Corinthians 15 and Galatians 1.” Harvard Theological Review 79 (1986): 198-205. Overman, J. Andew. “Kata Nomon Pharisaios: A Short History of Paul’s Pharisaism.” In Pauline Conversations in Context: Essays in Honor of Calvin Roetzel, edited by Janice Capel Anderson, Philip Sellew and Claudia Setzer, 180-93. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series, 221. Sheffield: Continuum, 2002. Paget, James Carleton. “Jewish Proselytism at the Time of Christian Origins: Chimera or Reality?” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 62 (1996): 65-103. Park, Eung Chun. Either Jew or Gentile: Paul’s Unfolding Theology of Inclusivity. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2003. Pate, C. Marvin.The Reverse of the Curse: Paul, Wisdom, and the Law. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament, Second Series, 114. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000. Patterson, Cynthia. “‘Not Worth the Rearing’: The Causes of Infant Exposure in Ancient Greece.” Transactions of the American Philological Association 115 (1985): 103-23.

236

ABORTION AND THE APOSTOLATE

Paul, Shalom M. Studies in the Book of the Covenant in the Light of Cuneiform and Biblical Law. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum, 18. Leiden: Brill, 1970. Perelman, Chaim and L. Olbrechts-Tyteca The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation. Translated by John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1969. Pfleiderer, Otto. Paulinism: A Contribution to the History of Primitive Christian Theology. Translated by Edward Peters. 2 vols. London and Edinburgh: Williams and Norgate, 1877. Philo of Alexandria. Philo: Works. 10 vols. Translated by F. H. Colson and G. H. Whitaker. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge and London: Harvard University Press, 1929. Plaq, C. Israels Weg zum Heil: Eine Untersuchung zu Römer 9 bis 11. Stuttgart: Calwer, 1969. Plevnik, Joseph. “Paul’s Appeals to His Damascus Experience and I Cor. 15:5-7: Are They Legitimations?” Toronto Journal of Theology 4 (1988): 101-11. Polaski, Sandra Hack. Paul and the Discourse of Power. Gender, Culture, Theory 8. The Biblical Seminar 62. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999. Pomeroy, Sarah B. “Infanticide in Hellenistic Greece.” In Images of Women in Antiquity, edited by Averil Cameron and Amélie Kuhrt, 207-19. Rev. ed. London: Routledge, 1993. Ponsot, Hervé, O. P. “Peut-On Encore Parler de «Concile» de Jérusalem? À Propos d’Ac 15 et de la Chronologie Paulinienne.” Revue Biblique 109 (2002): 556-86. Porter, Stanley E., and Thomas H. Olbricht, ed. The Rhetorical Analysis of Scripture: Essays from the 1995 London Conference. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series, 146. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997. ———. Rhetoric, Scripture and Theology: Essays from the 1994 Pretoria Conference. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series, 131. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996. ———. Rhetoric and the New Testament: Essays from the 1992 Heidelberg Conference. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series, 90. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993. Preus, Anthony. “Biomedical Techniques for Influencing Human Reproduction in the Fourth Century B.C..” Arethusa 8 (1975): 237-63.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

237

Quintilian. The Instutio Oratoria of Quintilian in Four Volumes. Loeb Classical Library. Translated by H. E. Butler. Cambridge, Massachusetts: 1920. Reprint, 1980. Räisänen, Heikki. Challenges to Biblical Interpretation: Collected Essays 1991-2001. Biblical Interpretation Series. Leiden: Brill, 2001. ———. Jesus, Paul and Torah: Collected Essays. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series, 43. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992. ———. The Torah and Christ: Essays in German and English on the Problem of the Law in Early Christianity. Helsinki, 1986. ———. “Paul’s Theological Difficulties with the Law.” In Studia Biblica 1978 III: Papers on Paul and other New Testament Authors. Sixth International Congress on Biblical Studies, Oxford 3-7 April 1978, edited by E. A. Livingstone, 301-20. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series, 3. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1980. Reinhartz, Adele. “Philo on Infanticide.” Studia Philonica 4 (1992): 42-58. Rengstorf, K. H. Apostleship. Bible Key Words From Gerhard Kittel’s Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament. Vol. 6. Translated by J. R. Coates. London: Adam and Charles Black, 1952. Riesner, Rainer. “A Pre-Christian Jewish Mission?” In The Mission of the Early Church to Jews and Gentiles, edited by Jostein Ådna and Hans Kvalbein, 211-50. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament, 127. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000. Roberts, Alexander, and James Donaldson, eds. The Ante-Nicene fathers: Translations of the writings of the fathers down to A.D. 325. New York: Scribner’s, 1925. Robertson, A. T. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research. 3rd edition. New York: Hodder & Stoughton, 1919. Robertson, Archibald; Plummer, Alfred. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the First Epistle of St Paul to the Corinthians. The International Critical Commentary. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1916. Robinson, James M, ed. The Nag Hammadi Library in English. Revised 3rd edition. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1990. Roetzel, Calvin J. Paul: A Jew on the Margins. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2003.

238

ABORTION AND THE APOSTOLATE

———. Paul: The Man and the Myth. Studies on Personalities of the New Testament. University of South Carolina Press, 1998. Rokéah, David. “Ancient Jewish Proselytism in Theory and Practice.” Theologische Zeitschrift 52 (1996): 206-24. Rollmann, Hans. “From Baur to Wrede: the Quest for a Historical Method.” Studies in Religion/Sciences Religieuses 17 (1988): 44354. Ruether, Rosemary Radford. Faith and Fratricide: The Theological Roots of Anti-Semitism. Minneapolis: Seabury Press, 1974. Runesson, Anders. “Particularistic Judaism and Universalistic Christianity? Some Critical Remarks on Terminology and Theology.” Studia Theologica 54 (2000): 55-75. Saldarini, Anthony J. Pharisees, Scribes and Sadducees in Palestinian Society: A Sociological Approach. Grand Rapids and Cambridge: Eerdmans, 1988. Reprint, 2001. Sanders, E. P. Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983. ———. Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977. Sanders, Jack T. “Paul’s ‘Autobiographical’ Statements in Galatians 1-2.” Journal of Biblical Literature 85 (1966): 335-43. Sandnes, Karl Olav. Paul—One of the Prophets? A Contribution to the Apostle’s Self-Understanding. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament, Second Series, 43. Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen, 1991. Schaefer, M. “Paulus, »Fehlgeburt« oder »unvernünftiges Kind«? Ein Interpretationsvorchlag zu 1 Kor. 15,8.” Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche 85 (1994): 207-17. Schenker, Adrian. “Drei Mosaiksteinchen: »Königreich von Priestern«, »Und ihre Kinder gehen Weg«, »Wir tun und wir hören« (Exodus 19,6; 21,22; 24,7).” In Studies in the Book of Exodus: Redaction—Reception—Interpretation, edited by Marc Vervenne, 367-80. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium, 126. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1996. Schlier, Heinrich. Der Brief an die Galater. 12th edition. KritischExegetischer Kommentar über das Neue Testament. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1962. Schmithals, Walter. The Office of Apostle in the Early Church. Translated by John E. Steely. Nashville and New York: Abingdon

BIBLIOGRAPHY

239

Press, 1969. ET of Das Kirchliche Apostelamt. Eine historische Untersuchung. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1961. Schoeps, Hans Joachim. Paul: The Theology of the Apostle in the Light of Jewish Religious History. Revised and Translated by Harold Knight. London: Lutterworth Press, 1961. ET of Paulus: Die Theologie des Apostels im Lichte der jüdischen Religionsgeschichte. J. C. B. Mohr, 1959. Schonfield, Hugh J. The Essene Odyssey: The Mystery of the True Teacher and the Essene Impact on the Shaping of Human Destiny. Element Books, 1998. ———. Those Incredible Christians. New York: Bantam, 1968. ———. The Passover Plot. New York: Bantam, 1967. ———. The Jew of Tarsus: An Unorthodox Portrait of Paul. London: MacDonald, 1946. Schürer, Emil. The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, 175 B.C.-A.D. 135. Edited, Translated, and Revised by Geza Vermes, Fergus Millar, and Martin Goodman. 3 vols. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1973-1987. Schütz, John Howard. Paul and the Anatomy of Apostolic Authority. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series, 26. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975. ———. “Apostolic Authority and the Control of Tradition: 1 Cor. XV.” New Testament Studies 15 (1969): 439-57. Schweitzer, Albert. The Mysticism of Paul the Apostle. 2nd edition. Translated by William Montgomery. New York: Seabury Press, 1968. Reprint, 1956. ET of Die Mystik des Apostels Paulus. Tübingen: 1931. ———. Paul and His Interpreters: A Critical History. Translated by William Montgomery. London: Adam and Charles Black, 1912. Reprint, 1948. Seifred, Mark A. “Blind Alleys in the Controversy Over the Paul of History.” Tyndale Bulletin 45 (1994): 73-95. Segal, Alan F. “Universalism in Judaism and Christianity.” In Paul in His Hellenistic Context, edited by Troels Engberg-Pedersen, 1-29. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995. ———. Paul the Convert: The Apostolate and Apostasy of Saul the Pharisee. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1990. Sibinga, Joost Smit. “1 Cor. 15:8/9 and Other Divisions in 1 Cor. 15:1-11.” Novum Testamentum 39 (1997): 54-9.

240

ABORTION AND THE APOSTOLATE

Stead, G. C. “The Valentinian Myth of Sophia.” Journal of Theological Studies 20 (1969): 75-104. Stendahl, Krister. Paul Among Jews and Gentiles and Other Essays. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976. Stowers, Stanley. “Apostrophe, ΠΡΟΣΩΠΟΠΟΙΙΑ and Paul’s Rhetorical Education.” In Early Christianity and Classical Culture: Comparative Studies in Honor of Abraham J. Malherbe, edited by John T. Fitzgerald, Thomas H. Olbricht, and L. Michael White, 351-69. Supplements to Novum Testamentum, 110. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2003. ———. “Romans 7.7-25 as a Speech-in-Character (προσωποποιία).” In Paul in His Hellenistic Context, edited by Troels Engberg-Pedersen, 181-202. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995. ———. A Rereading of Romans: Justice, Jews, and Gentiles. New Haven & London: Yale University Press, 1994. ———. The Diatribe and Paul’s Letter to the Romans. Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series, 57. Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1981. Strack, Hermann L. and Paul Billerbeck. Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch. 6 vols. Munich: C. H. Beck, 1922-1961. Sumney, Jerry L. ‘Servants of Satan’, ‘False Brothers’ and Other Opponents of Paul. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series, 188. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999. Talbert, Charles H.“Paul, Judaism, and the Revisionists.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 63 (2001): 1-22. Tångberg, K. Arvid. “Die Bewertung des ungeborenen Lebens im alten Israel und im alten Orient.” Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 1 (1987): 51-65. Taylor, Nicholas H. “Conflicting Bases of Identity in Early Christianity: The Example of Paul.” In Handbook of Early Christianity: Social Science Approaches, edited by Anthony J. Blasi, Jean Duhaime, and Paule-André Turcotte, 577-97. Walnut Creek and Oxford: Altamira Press, 2002. ———. “Paul’s Apostolic Legitimacy: Autobiographical Reconstruction in Gal. 1:11-2:14.” Journal of Theology for Southern Africa 83 (1993): 65-77. ———. Paul, Antioch and Jerusalem: A Study in Relationships and Authority in Earliest Christianity. Journal for the Study of the

BIBLIOGRAPHY

241

New Testament Supplement Series, 66. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992. Thiering, Barbara. Jesus and the Riddle of the Dead Sea Scrolls. New York: Harper Collins, 1992. Udoh, Fabian E. “Paul’s Views on the Law: Questions About Origin (Gal. 1:6-2:21; Phil. 3:2-11).” Novum Testamentum 42 (2000): 214-37. Van Hook, La Rue. “The Exposure of Infants at Athens.” Transactions of the American Philological Association 51 (1920): 134-45. Van Spanje, T. E. Inconsistency in Paul? A Critique of the Work of Heikki Räisänen. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999. Verseput, D. J. “Paul’s Gentile Mission and the Jewish Christian Community: A Study of the Narrative in Galatians 1 and 2.” New Testament Studies 39 (1993): 36-58. Vos, Johan S. “Paul’s Argumentation in Galatians 1-2.” Harvard Theological Review 87 (1994): 1-16. Walker, William O. “Galatians 2:8 and the Question of Paul’s Apostleship.” Journal of Biblical Literature 123 (2004): 323-7. ———. “Postcrucifixion Appearances and Christian Origins.” Journal of Biblical Literature 88 (1969): 157-65. Wang, Lisa. “Jesus as Messiah in Galatians and Romans: A Response to John Gager’s Reinventing Paul.” Toronto Journal of Theology 19 (2003): 173-82. Warner, Martin., ed. The Bible as Rhetoric: Studies in Biblical Persuasion and Credibility. London and New York: Routledge, 1990. Watson, Duane F. “Paul’s Rhetorical Strategy in 1 Corinthians 15.” In Rhetoric and the New Testament: Essays from the 1992 Heidelberg Conference, edited by Stanley E. Porter and Thomas H. Olbricht, 231-49. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series, 90. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993, 231-49, Watson, Francis. Paul, Judaism and the Gentiles: A Sociological Approach. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series, 56. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986. Wehr, Lothar. Petrus und Paulus—Kontrahenten und Partner: Die Beiden Apostel im Spiegel des Neuen Testaments, der Apostolischen Väter und früher Zeugnisse ihrer Verehrung. Münster: Aschendorff, 1996. Westbrook, Raymond. “Lex Talionis and Exodus 21, 22-25.” Revue Biblique 93 (1986): 52-69. Williams, David J. Paul’s Metaphors: Their Context and Character. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1999.

242

ABORTION AND THE APOSTOLATE

Willis, Wendell. “An Apostolic Apologia? The Form and Function of 1 Corinthians 9.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 24 (1985): 33-48. Wilson, Jack H. “The Corinthians Who Say There Is No Resurrection of the Dead.” Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche 59 (1968): 90-107. Winger, Michael. “Tradition, Revelation and Gospel: A Study in Galatians.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 53 (1994): 65-86. Wire, Antoinette Clark. The Corinthian Women Prophets: A Reconstruction through Paul’s Rhetoric. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990. Reprint, 1995. Ziesler, John. Pauline Christianity. Revised edition. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 1992.

INDEX Bercovitz, J. P., 56, 57, 58, 59, 61, 63, 64, 65, 66, 68, 69, 70, 90, 222 conversion, i, v, vi, 1, 2, 3, 15, 18, 32, 38, 40, 41, 43, 44, 45, 47, 48, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 60, 62, 64, 65, 66, 67, 70, 73, 79, 80, 84, 87, 88, 89, 90, 95, 97, 134, 148, 150, 160, 161, 169, 172, 189, 196, 197, 201, 207, 211, 213, 214, 225, 227, 228, 231 Damascus. See conversion Donaldson, Terence, vi, xv, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 33, 40, 41, 42, 52, 54, 55, 58, 61, 67, 68, 69, 70, 77, 87, 185, 194, 195, 197, 201, 204, 206, 207, 208, 209, 213, 225, 237 Dunn, James, v, 1, 6, 8, 10, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 29, 34, 39, 40, 41, 42, 50, 51, 59, 67, 68, 69, 73, 74, 75, 76, 82, 83, 84, 86, 91, 94, 97, 98, 134, 149, 165, 166, 173, 192, 195, 197, 199, 224, 226, 230, 233 exposure, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 130, 131, 156, 158, 159 Exposure of Infants, vi, xii, 113, 223, 241

abandonment, 114, 116, 123, 196 abortion, i, vi, xii, 4, 97, 98, 99, 100, 104, 106, 107, 108, 109, 111, 112, 113, 114, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 128, 129, 130, 131, 133, 138, 139, 140, 142, 143, 145, 146, 147, 148, 153, 155, 156, 158, 159, 225, 230 Apostle, v, vi, xii, 3, 5, 8, 10, 12, 16, 17, 19, 25, 29, 34, 38, 39, 40, 41, 43, 47, 51, 52, 66, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 83, 84, 86, 91, 94, 99, 133, 134, 138, 158, 167, 169, 170, 172, 173, 192, 195, 202, 203, 205, 212, 222, 224, 225, 226, 231, 234, 238, 239 Baur, F. C., vi, vii, xii, xiii, 2, 41, 52, 61, 68, 74, 82, 136, 161, 163, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 183, 185, 186, 191, 192, 193, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 215, 216, 217, 219, 222, 230, 231, 238

243

244

ABORTION AND THE APOSTOLATE

Gager, John, v, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 17, 20, 29, 43, 47, 54, 78, 165, 188, 195, 197, 198, 199, 217, 227, 241 Gaston, Lloyd, v, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 45, 51, 69, 192, 197, 198, 199, 228 Gentile mission, v, 1, 2, 19, 40, 41, 42, 45, 46, 56, 57, 60, 61, 66, 67, 68, 71, 73, 77, 79, 81, 84, 85, 88, 89, 94, 95, 159, 160, 161, 198, 200, 203, 206, 207, 208, 210, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216 Gentiles, v, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 22, 25, 33, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 45, 46, 50, 51, 52, 53, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 65, 67, 68, 69, 70, 74, 77, 79, 80, 81, 82, 85, 87, 88, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 150, 161, 169, 170, 171, 185, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 211, 213, 214, 215, 221, 222, 225, 226, 227, 233, 234, 237, 240, See Gentile Mission Goulder, Michael, 29, 136, 180, 181, 182, 185, 186, 197, 201, 207, 212, 227, 228, 233 Greco-Roman rhetoric. See rhetoric infant exposure, 99, 113, 114, 117, 129, 130 infanticide, 108, 109, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 120, 123, 145, 156 Josephus, 109, 110

Kim, Seyoon, 15, 17, 18, 40, 47, 49, 51, 56, 58, 63, 67, 68, 70, 86, 195, 200, 231 miscarriage, 4, 98, 100, 102, 119, 121, 124, 125, 126, 129, 130, 131, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 146, 148, 215, See abortion Munck, Johannes, 135 Nanos, Mark, 10, 23, 24, 33, 49, 50, 53, 61, 74, 80, 82, 91, 173, 175, 179, 196, 197, 199, 221, 226, 231, 234, 235 New Perspective, 3, 6, 9, 10, 15, 17, 18, 19, 40, 41, 47, 51, 56, 58, 63, 67, 70, 86, 185, 194, 195, 207, 214, 227, 231 New Perspectivists, v, 10, 15, 18, 21, 216, See New Perspective New Rhetoric, v, vi, 2, 33, 34, 87, 164, 165, 183, 184, 218, 236 Philo, vi, 25, 104, 105, 106, 110, 113, 117, 120, 121, 122, 139, 140, 142, 159, 225, 236, 237 Räisänen, Heikki, v, 6, 7, 8, 14, 17, 31, 226, 237, 241 Rhetoric, i, v, vi, vii, 1, 6, 14, 20, 21, 23, 24, 26, 27, 28, 30, 33, 34, 35, 38, 80, 84, 85, 123, 124, 134, 135, 145, 155, 156, 163, 164, 165, 179, 184, 191, 196, 209, 217, 218, 224, 227, 230, 231, 233, 236, 241, 242 Rhetorical Criticism, v, 21, 22, 23, 27, 224, 231, See rhetoric Sanders, E. P., v, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16, 52, 165, 185, 187, 188, 189, 194, 199, 201, 206, 207, 216

INDEX Segal, Alan, 3, 41, 43, 47, 54, 55, 58, 59, 60, 65, 66, 69, 151, 156, 194, 239 Sonderweg, 10, 12, 13, 14, 197, 198, 225, See Two-Covenant Stowers, Stanley, 6, 10, 14, 20, 21, 23, 25, 27, 29, 32, 240 Two-Covenant, v, 10, 11, 12, 197, 198, 199, 213

245 Watson, Francis, 42, 44, 69, 88, 201, 202, 207, 211, 241 ἔκτρωμα, vi, 4, 98, 99, 100, 106, 123, 126, 127, 130, 131, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 156, 157, 159, 160, See abortion