Ted Hoffman

Roland Barthes, A Lover’s Discourse

A Review of Gunther Bornkamm’s Paul
(Harper and Row, 1971)

Introduction

The laconic title Bornkamm’s book belies the magnitude of the task involved in unraveling a mercurial and enigmatic character like Paul. Bornkamm states that it would be naïve to think the book gives a simple and complete resume of Paul and his theology.
Nevertheless, he attempts exactly that in 259 pages that comprise the book.
It is very well written in an artistic language with a critical tone maintained throughout. The presentation is split in two parts with the first part outlining Paul’s life and work and the second part explaining his theology and gospel.

Borkkamm draws ideas from the works of R. Bultmann, E. Kasemann, Weiss, E. Schweizer, F. Hanh, Dibelius and W. Kramer and largely relies on his own interpretation of Pauline epistles and Acts and the interplay between them. The book has a scant bibliography with no footnotes and the reader is left to evaluate Bornkamm’s arguments largely on their own merit.

The demands the book makes on the reader are not heavy because it is designed for both the layman and scholar. Those seeking a thorough exposition of Pauline theology with respect to his peculiar phraseology and rich Christology will find bits and pieces to chew but will ultimately be left wishing for more when Bornkamm arrives at the concluding paragraphs and pleads that Paul and his theology are too “obscure and perplexing� to explain conclusively.

Like Barthes’ lover at work, the figure of Paul emerges from Bornkamm’s book: an ordinary man caught in a momentous situation. An overzealous Pharisee driven by his own momentum into the backwater of the unreal, exiled from gregarity where he emerges like one untimely born. Locked in conflict with himself and with fellow men, he finds comfort in a gospel of the cross. His discourse takes the form of letters to his young, fragile, conflicted congregations scattered over the Roman Empire. Nourishing letters to exhort and guide his nascent flock as shrewd, unscrupulous “apostles� and enthusiasts crouch and circle round his young converts like vultures.

For good reasons, which he states, Bornkamm is clearly wary of Acts and mostly treats it suspiciously every time he references it. Because Pauline epistles are silent on several matters about Paul’s life, Bornkamm relies on Acts to supplement the epistles. Repeatedly, he cautions the reader against uncritical harmonization of the letters with Acts. However, without any clear methodology to distinguish the products of the author of Acts’ creative efforts and authentic reporting, against his best intentions, Bornkamm approach ultimately suffers ad hocness as his presumptions sit in judgment in areas where the texts are silent or in conflict. Bornkamm’s effort is nevertheless edifying and rewarding to any reader because he manages to draw out Paul from his chequered spiritual journey and obscure theology to present him as a man who struggled with his limitations in a dynamic and religiously competitive environment. A man whose greatness and limitations go hand in hand and whose rough edges, Bornkamm writes, “leave no place for clichés for the traditional picture of the ‘saint’�. (p.239)

Primary Sources

Bornkamm regards only seven letters as genuinely Pauline: 1 Thessalonians (AD. 50), 1st and 2 Corinthians (AD. 54/55), Galatians (AD. 54), Phillipians(AD. 54), Philemon (AD. 54) and Romans. He regards the Pastoral Epistles (1 and 2 Timothy and Titus) as Deutero-Pauline (i.e. composed under Paul’s name) alongside Collosians, Ephesians and 2 Thessalonians (he finds the expression “forgeries� too derogatory an expression to use in describing these latter texts).
He provides the reasons for rejecting the Deutero-Pauline letters as authentic. Pastoral epistles, he argues, provide events in Paul’s life that “cannot be verified from the rest of the (undisputed) letters: post-apostolic ordering of the Church; the characteristics of the heresy; vocabulary and theological evidence� (p.242)
Ephesians is dropped because the name is not attested by textual evidence and it lacks a relationship to any Church. In addition, it is not a letter but more of a theological treatise (and writing theological treatises was not Paul’s style). There are theological conflicts with Paul, for example, the portrayal of the Church as a cosmic body with Christ as the “head� - an idea Bornkamm’ argues was influenced by Gnosticism.
Colossians, he argues, possesses differences in conceptions of Christology, of the Church, of baptism, the apostolic office and eschatology. With respect to 2 Thessalonians, (which is supposed to be dependent on 1 Thessalonians) Bornkamm argues:
(p.243)
He enumerates problems with 1 and 2 Corinthian’s authenticity, Phillipians and Romans. Notable are his reasons for regarding Romans 1:13 as pre-Pauline credo. He argues that the passage uses participles, which is characteristic of propositions in primitive Christian confessions, and the synthetic parallelism. Another reason is the “according to the flesh – according to the spirit� Christological scheme which is found in non-Pauline sources like 1 Tim 3:16, 1 Pet. 3:18, Eph. 18:2; Ign. Try. 9, Sm.1:1. An additionaal reason is the motif of Jesus as son of David, which is found nowhere else in Paul. Bornkamm also adds in this list the un-Pauline turns of phrase like “designated as…�; “Son of God in power�; “spirit of holiness�. “Since [his] resurrection from the dead�
In support of this last argument, Bornkamm writes:
(p. 248)
Bornkamm considers Romans 1:16 primitive because it is formulated on soteriological terms, which is unlike the purely Christological credo. These terms include expressions like “the power of God or salvation for everyone who has faith�; “God’s righteousness through faith for faith�; “he who through faith is righteous shall live�. In addition, we find no honorific Christological titles like Son of god, Kyrios (Greek term for “Lord�), and the title Christ is not used.

Acts of the Apostles
Besides the genuine epistles, Bornkamm uses Acts of the Apostles as a source of Paul’s life. He regards the author of Luke and Paul as being the same person. He argues that the differences in Pauline epistles and Acts is because Acts was written when the controversies and views of the earlier period testified by Paul’s letters were alien to the age of Acts. At the time Acts was written, Bornkamm explains, an accurate memory of those controversies had faded, some of the traditions had been suppressed and the church faced new questions, new challenges, new views and new tasks. The ground on which Luke stood, Bornkamm writes, was prepared by Paul and the tensions that prepared that ground had dissipated by the time Luke wrote.
Bornkamm smoothens the differences between Acts and Pauline epistles by arguing that the conflicts arise naturally as a result of the “noise� introduced by having two people trying to say the same thing. He writes: “When two people say the same thing, it ceases to be the same thing� (p. xvi). He uses the metaphor of a river and its tributaries to illustrate his point:
“What emerges from comparison between Acts and the authentic Pauline epistles is like a river which has not only deposited much during its course, but also been replenished by new sources and tributaries�.(ibid)
In a manner that departs from his vigilant approach, Bornkamm uses the texts he has judged as inauthentic, as reliable sources of information. He uses Philemon 24; Col. 4:14 and 2 Tim 4:11 to conclude that Luke accompanied Paul on journeys and further, he uses them to declares Luke as an eyewitness to Paul’s life.
This approach is objectionable because it is ad hoc and is contrary to source-critical methods. There is much to be said about the impropriety of this pick-and-choose methodology but first, let us focus our attention on Bornkamm’s groundwork.
There are several speeches in Acts and stereotyped formulas relating to the growth and relationships between churches. These twenty four speeches, which make up a third of Acts, Bornkamm argues, “are not transcripts or excerpts from speeches actually delivered, but are compositions by the author of Acts. He is not interested in characterizing the various speakers as individuals: Paul, Peter and others.� (p.xvii)

Luke’s Agenda
Luke’s agenda, alongside presenting his idealized view of the Church, entailed portraying Paul as Judaistic and treating Paul as not worthy to bear the title “apostle�. Instead of being treated as an apostle, Paul is presented as the missionary sent to the Gentiles by the twelve. It is apparent that Luke wrote Acts in a background where the battle between Jews and Christians over the validity of the law had been settled and the law had come to be accepted as a common dispensation to all, as opposed to the earlier particularism that it was subjected to. Bornkamm writes:
(p.xviii)

The picture of Paul as one exhibiting Judaistic tendencies conflicts directly with what we find in Paul’s epistles like Galatians and Romans where we find him clashing with Judaizers or the “enthusiasts� and is contrary to Paul’s “message of the cross� which was central to his theology.
Bornkamm writes that we find obvious traces of “legendary embellishment, of the overriding interests of the book, and of the literary artistry of the author�
Acts, unlike Luke was a pioneering work because the former appears to have had literary predecessors and the author mentioned as much. Bornkamm agrees with Vernon Robbins, Burton Mack, Earl Doherty and Martin Dibelius that there is no reason to believe that there is a written source behind the “we passages� in Acts . He agrees with Robbins and Dibelius that “parallels in other ancient historians show that the change in person was a favorite history device, to add vividness� (p.xx)

As far as dating is concerned, Bornkamm’s start of Pauline chronology is guided by Acts 18:12 which mentions the governor L. Junius Gallio who was a brother of Seneca’s. He relies on an inscription found at Delphi to date the period of J. Gallio’s office as proconsul of Achaia to the spring of AD 51 and 52. He dates all subsequent epistolary events dating backward or forward from this point. He dates Acts to the nineties and all synoptics post 70AD.

Paul's Origins
Bornkamm places Paul’s birth in Tarsus from a Jewish family living in the Diaspora. Tarsus was a flourishing Hellenistic city and was renowned as a center of Greek culture, oftentimes treated similarly to Athens by Strabo for example. Luke’s attempts to link Paul to Jerusalem and paint Paul as an out-and-out Jew are neatly brushed off by Bornkamm because if Paul was such a strict Jew, “Paul would certainly have mentioned Jerusalem in his account of himself in Phillipians 3:5� (p. 3.)
The socio-political setting from which Paul emerged had, among other things, the allowance for Jews to acquire Roman citizenship (civis Romanus) the Roman name “Saul� (Acts 13:9) marked out Paul as a Roman citizen. Toleration, dispersion and privileged status contributed to the increase of the number of Jews in the heathen diaspora. The strong consciousness about the Jew’s place in history (from Isa. 42:6, etc) brought an awareness of mission which was typical of Diaspora Judaism (p.7).
Philo (De Vita Mosis II, 20) and Josephus (Contra Apionem II 39) indicate that Jewish law attracted the attention of Greeks, barbarians and people from all places and ilk. Pagan writers like Seutonius, Seneca, Strabo and Dio Cassius also confirm this attraction though with disgust at the seductiveness of the Jewish mission. Mystery cults and doctrines flourished and everywhere “a process was afoot of syncretizing the old religions with new ones steaming especially from the east, and the odder and vaguer, the greater the attraction.� (ibid)

Bornkamm explains that Hellenistic Judaism, which was practiced in the Diaspora, was marked by a number of changes: the temple had been superseded by the synagogue, sacrifice was overridden by exposition of the Torah and the priests were replaced by lawyers and scribes. In a sense, Diaspora synagogue was fairly liberal in its mission with respect to observance of the Sabbath, dietary laws, circumcision of the proselytes.
When Paul comes in the scene, he is a strict Pharisee, that is, one who is strictly orthodox both in thought and manner of mission. Bornkamm states that Pharisaim was a greatly esteemed movement that survived the Jewish war and upon the reconstruction of Judaism, was the sole authority and served as the seedbed of Talmudic Judaism (p.11).
On account of Paul’s passionate devotion to the law (Phil 3:6), Bornkamm allows for the possibility that Paul may have been a student of Gamaliel (Acts 22:3) who was a renowned teacher of the law (Acts 22:3).
We can be certain of Paul’s Pharisaic background from the defense he mounts when his Judaizing opponents in Galatia challenge him based on his background. In Gal 5:11, he says: “But if I, brethren, still preach circumcision, why am I still persecuted?� Whilst an Orthodox Jew, Paul was zealous in persecuting the Hellenistic Church (which was in Damascus) and that is why, upon his conversion, his opponents exploited his former activities against him.

Struggle and Conflict
There was strife in the early Christian communities from which Paul emerged. Acts 6:1-6 talks of the clashes between the “Hellenists� and the “Hebrews� who were both Christians of Jewish descent; the former, who came from the Diaspora spoke Greek and the latter group, which lived in Palestine, spoke Aramaic.
Bornkamm writes that the Hellenists were persecuted because they were regarded as revolutionary in the eyes of the rest of the Church and conflicted with Jewish law and called into question the chosen people’s hallowed traditions, the temple worship and their exclusive claim to Christianity. Acts contradicts itself when it claims that with the exception of the twelve, the whole of Jerusalem Chrurch was persecuted and scattered Acts 8:1, yet in later accounts, it portrays the Jerusalem Church was intact. Bornkamm argues that it was only the non-Hellenistic part of the mother Church that was left unmolested.
He observes:
(p.15)
Bornkamm observes that Luke’s picture (that Paul persecuted the Church widely) is contradicted by Paul’s words (Gal 1:22) that he was unknown to the Churches in Judaea, and therefore, before that, to the Churches in Jerusalem because they only knew Paul when he had changed from the antagonist (Saul) to the successful missionary to Syria and Cilicia (p.15). Paul nowhere speaks of persecutions in Jerusalem and on account of the people’s inability to recognize him (Gal 1:22), it is not possible for him to have been present at the stoning of Stephen (Acts 7:58; 8:1).
Bornkamm rules out the Journey to Damascus as a historical because it would have been impossible for the high priest, who according to Luke, sent Paul to go to Damascus to drag the Christians in bonds before the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem, because:
(p.16)
Bornkamm traces Paul’s struggles with Judaizing opponents and his efforts to present himself as independent of “the twelve� in Jerusalem. His quest for independence is captured in Gal 1:1, 1:11 “Paul an apostle – not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the father, who raised him from the dead…� Paul took the appearance of the risen Christ as the only source and legitimation of his call and proclamation. This constituted a substitution of the primitive church’s tradition about Jesus, with his own vision of Christ, Bornkamm observes.
Once more Bornkamm abandons the skepticism with which he handles the journey to Damascus and writes that the fact that the vision that Paul had on that journey (a vision he links to 1 Cor. 15:8; 9:1) “was the occasion of the Paul’s conversion and call, is not in dispute� (p.21)
This means that Bornkamm believes that Paul undertook a journey to Damascus and that the Author of Acts made up Paul’s reason’s for going there. This appears like pick-and-choose methodology since Bornkamm does not provide any reason to believe that Paul undertook any journey to Damascus other than the fact that he himself chooses to believe that. Under the book’s chapter on Paul’s persecution, conversion and call, Bornkamm shares with the reader another conflict between Paul and Acts. This time it is between Galatians 1 and Acts 9:23 with Acts indicating that Paul’s missionary work originated from Jerusalem, contrary to Galatians.
Bornkamm takes us through Paul’s missionary activities from Damascus, to Arabia (the Gentile district east of Jordan and south east of Damascus as in Gal 1:17) and Petra where he came in conflict with the Nabatean King Aretas (2 Cor 11:32). Bornkamm assumes that this was Aretas IV (9 B.C.-A.D.40) – this date however, is supported by no clear evidence.

More Acts-Paul Collissions
Regarding the apostolic assembly in Jerusalem, Bornkamm argues that Acts is of little value as a source of information on the status of the Church because he sees the picture presented in Acts as based on Luke’s own idealized view of the Church. He advises that Galatians 2 furnishes us with a trustworthy account of the assembly.
Acts, states Bornkamm, was meant to elevate Petrine Christianity at the expense of the Church at Antioch (led by Paul and Barnabas). He states that the portrayal by Acts of Paul and Barnabas as emissaries acting under the authority of the Jerusalem assembly is impossible to harmonize with the authentic account given on Galatians 2. Paul’s terse “we to the Gentiles and they to the Jews� in Gal 2:9 exposes the schism between them in terms of their parallel missions. Paul was not ready to concede any authority to the Jerusalem assembly and always asserted his independence. He refers to the apostolic Church in Jerusalem in vague terms like “those of repute� “who were reputed to be pillars� (Gal. 2.2, 6, 9) and at other times refuses to recognize them as a formally constituted authority when he writes “What they were makes no difference to me.� (Gal. 2:6.)

Bornkamm writes:
(p.41)
Regarding the accounts of Paul’s first journey to Cyprus and Asia Minor and the conflict at Antioch, Bornkamm finds faults with Acts as a putative source and repeatedly, Acts conflicts with Pauline epistles.
Bornkamm states that the speeches and incidents in Acts are “obviously legendary including the vivid description of the excration of a Jewish sorcerer Bar-Jesus(Elymas), a court magician of the Roman Govenor in Cyprus, Sergius Paulus� (p.44)
Severally, Bornkamm chooses when to believe Luke and when to ignore Luke without recourse to any clear criteria though he maintains that “only in a very degree can we recognize the Paul in Acts as the Paul of the epistles� (ibid). Yet, at other times he refers to Acts as “primary source� of Paul’s activities. (p.62)
And when Paul says something Bornkamm is uncomfortable with, he dismisses it as inauthentic without offering any supportive arguments. For example, he writes regarding 2 Phil. 6:11 that this was a hymn “not composed by Paul himself but taken from the hymnody of the early church� Where is the evidence for this claim? Bornkamm provides none.

The Nascent Church and Pesky “Enthusiasts�
In the seventh chapter, Bornkamm takes us through the development of the first Church in Greece, Phillipi, Thessalonica and Athens and shares with us another theological conflict between Luke and Paul. In Rom. 1:20, Paul says that all men are guilty in God’s sight because God had revealed himself to all men through all things. Luke has Paul in the speech on the Aeropagus (Acts 17:30) stating that God only overlooked deeds done during the times of ignorance. In addition, Acts 17 speaks nothing of a Christ crucified – a stumbling block to Jews and folly to the Gentiles; something Bornkamm regards as too great an omission to be made by Paul.

Bornkamm states that “The two pictures cannot be reconciled� p.66.
In Corinth, the young Church had split up between the time of Paul’s departure from Corinth and the writing of 1 Corinthians. The splinter groups had slogans that we find in “I belong to Paul, I to Apollos, I to Cephas, I to Christ� (1 Cor. 12). Besides this split, Paul also had to contend with “enthusiasts� who called themselves “apostles� and “servants of Christ� (2 Cor. 11:5, 2; 12:11). Paul dealt with them by challenging them, urging reconciliation, sometimes abasing himself (2 Cor. 12:9) and avoiding overvaluing or elevating himself “What is Apollos, what is Paul? Servants through whom you believed� 1 Cor 3:5). He also sent Titus to put the Church in order.
Acts 19 contains accounts of the events in Ephesus where Paul allegedly won over the members of the sect of John the Baptist which elicited a riot by the servants of Demetrius. Bornkamm is skeptical on relying on Acts 19 because he finds the triumphal picture of the riot typical of Luke’s narrative style and view of history and because Paul’s epistles give a very different picture.
Bornkamm then outlines Paul’s activities in Rome, where the nascent Church comprised gentile Christians. Romans is a letter that is throughout polemical but also tells a lot about Paul’s own life, his conversion and call and the battles he fought. Bornkamm calls it Paul’s greatest letter; his testament. Beyond Roman’s, Paul went to Jerusalem and from that point on, Bornkamm depends on Acts regarding the rest of Paul’s final journey to Jerusalem, imprisonment and death. Bornkamm regards the itinerary of Paul’s journey provided by Luke as “bearing the marks of a worked-up itinerary� he writes regarding one of the scenes:
(p. 98)
Once more, the reader encounters uncritical acceptance from Bornkamm when he writes regarding Acts 6 and 8: “There can be no doubt that this is based on sound tradition in spite of having been artistically shaped by Luke in order to follow� he adds: “According to the account given in Acts, which is perfectly trustworthy…� (p. 99).

In p.102, Bornkamm writes: (p.104). He also argues that the Paul in them is the Lukan Paul and out of character. He believes that on the voyage from Palestine to Italy, Luke “drew on a piece of writing already in existence and originally having nothing to do with Paul, and filled it out after the fashion employed elsewhere in secular Hellenistic travels and short-stories� (p.104)
The manner of Paul’s death is uncertain and Bornkamm suggests that “Paul probably suffered martyrdom at the hands of Nero, likely from the beginning of the sixties� He infers this from 2 Tim. 4:6. Another source he relies on for Paul’s death is 1 Clement which is equally vague. Bornkamm tries to link this with Romans 15:24 and finally concedes: “Paul’s fortunes in his last years are obscure. “ (p.106)

The last part of the book delves into Paul’s theology and Paul’s understanding of how salvation was to be attained and doctrinal beliefs. Bornkamm’s interpretation of Pauline Christology is confined to a historicist framework that treats a historical Jesus as an axiom. Paul’s saving event was in the gospel of justification by faith alone, which Paul believed the Church stood or fell by it (this is different from James for example, who believed that faith alone was not enough but faith and work). Because of the importance of faith to him, Paul saw Abraham as the prototype of the true believer.
Also outlined is the sacramental rituals and their significance, Paul’s eschatology and ethics, Christology, beliefs regarding the parousia, marriage, the archotons and so on.
In the appendix pages, Bornkamm covers the authentic and inauthentic Pauline letters and Paul’s Christology and justification.

Bornkamm’s Paul is a great book but as we have seen, its main shortcoming is the occasional adhocness that intrudes upon critical evaluation of the sources.

Julian

What kind of index does the book have? Would it be useful for reference?

Julian

Toto

Paul: A Critical Life is searchable on Amazon. You can see the extensive index to scripture, Jewish writings, classical writings, and topics in general.

Chris Weimer

Nice review Ted. Maybe now I will get around to reviewing Bornkamm's Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew.

Ted Hoffman

It just has scriptural (OT and NT) references.
The extra canonical books he mentions in the Bibliography are around 5. Including Josephus, Esdras, Contra Apionem and Clement. It is very primitive.
Thanks Toto - I understand PAUL was not Bornkamm's best.

Ted Hoffman

Its now published at IIDB. I think I am on my way to joining the rank and file of serious infidels like Richard Carrier.