James The Least

Thomas L. Brodie's "The Birthing of the New Testament" (or via: amazon.co.uk) (2006) spends a couple of provocative chapters exploring the possibility that the Pauline epistles, far from being topical and autobiographical letters dashed off to quell church disputes, are highly literary rhetorical pieces with heavy reliance on Old Testament passages, simultaneously pretending to not be. This possibility, of course, does not bode well for orthodoxy, since if it can be demonstrated that the epistles are, like the gospels, little more than OT midrash in new dress, conceived as literary exegesis rather than actual letters to early churches, then the whole history of Paul and the pre-70 Jerusalem Church is in trouble. And of course that includes the infamous "James, the brother of the Lord" passage.

I'll summarize his case against the spontaneity of Galatians as succinctly as possible.

First, Brodie discusses Paul's use of Genesis 17 in Galatians 3, stating that "Galatians confirms ... that for Paul, the sustained use of the Torah and its narrative constitutes a first principle." This isn't controversial, since Paul quotes directly from Genesis. But by "first principle," Brodie means that Paul's use of Genesis is the actual reason for the letter: "It is not simply a question ... of using the OT as some form of adjunct -- for instance, to buttress, to explain, to demonstrate, or to indicate continuity. Rather, the OT text is at the heart of the Pauline epistle; it is constitutive."

Brodie quotes Carol Stockhausen on this point: "It is remarkable, but not coincidental, how much of the key vocabulary of Galatians is to be found in the story of Abraham, and precisely as key terms in the older story ... these terms represent Paul's theological concepts and these issues are historical for him because they are the key terms and ideas in Abraham's story."

"What is essential," continues Brodie, "is that, because Paul's relationship to Scripture is dialectical, the detection of his dependence is often not easy, and the criteria for establishing it differ from the criteria deployed in dealing with other kinds of relationships."

So, the reason for Paul's letters is to perform dialectic rhetoric against OT passages, and prove the superiority of Christ theology. The business about hanging out with James and Peter is providing local color, verisimilitude to make the reader think they are reading an incidental letter.

Brodie continues by demonstrating that Galatians 1 can be read as midrash on Jeremiah 1:

"The role of Jeremiah in the new covenant (Jer. 31:33-34) is present in 2 Corinthians, but there is a further, noteworthy use of Jeremiah in Galatians. It is as though the sovereignty of God's word in the life of Jeremiah provides broad inspiration for Paul's emphasis on his own supreme freedom under God. His call to preach, for instance, adapts that of Jeremiah."

Jeremiah 1:4-5
a) The word of God came to me, saying
b) Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you came from your mother I consecrated you
c) I appointed you as a prophet to the nations

Galatians 1:14-15
a) But when it pleased god
b) who chose me from my mother's womb and called me by his grace
c) that I might evangelize among the nations

"When the prophetic book goes on to portray Jeremiah's apparently lone stand against corruption (1:8, 11-14) Galatians goes on to tell of Paul's lone stand against similar hypocrisy (Gal 2:11-14)."

Then, Brodie turns to the similarity of the diatribes in Jeremiah 5 ("stupid and thoughtless people") to Galatians 3 ("mindless Galatians").

Confronting the Mindless: Jeremiah 5:21-25 vs. Galatians 3:1-5

Jeremiah 5:21-25
a) Now listen to this, stupid and thoughtless people
b) ...they have eyes and do not see, they have ears and do not hear
c) Do you not fear me, says the Lord, or tremble before me?
d) ...but this people has a hearingless senseless heart
e) They have turned aside and gone away
f) They do not say in their hearts, "Let us fear the Lord our God"
g) Who gives the rain in its season, autumn rain, spring rain,
h) and keeps for us the weeks appointed for the harvest
i) your lawlessness have turned those away
j) and your sins have kept the good things from you

Galatians 3:1-5
a) O mindless Galatians
b) Who has put a spell on you? Before whose eyes Jesus Christ was depicted as crucified
c) This alone I wish to learn from you: did you receive the spirit by the works of law, or by hearing with faith?
d) Are you so mindless?
e) Having begun with the spirit, are you now ending with the flesh?
f) Did you experience so many things in vain? ... if it really is in vain
g) Does he who supplies the spirit to you
h) and works miracles among you
i) do so by works of the law
j) or by hearing with faith?

"The account of Paul's confrontation with Peter (Gal 2:11-14) is a further example of an apparently spontaneous text which turns out to be 'saturated with scriptural echoes, allusions, and concepts', and an analysis of the surrounding text -- all of Galatians 1-2 -- shows a pervasive presence of Scripture" (Ciampa 1998).

Brodie summarizes:

"The basic conclusion concerning Galatians is ... while engaging a specific audience, Paul is also engaging specific writings. Furthermore, it often appears difficult or even impossible to distinguish what is historical from what is scriptural.

"The overall impression, from Romans to Jude, is that as a whole the New Testament epistles involve deliberate reworkings of the older Scriptures. They are not just occasional documents. In a basic, constitutive way, their nature is scriptural -- literary, in the most serious sense."

Interesting, no? Tomorrow I'll explore Brodie's theory that 1 Corinthians is a rewrite of Daniel and Tobit.

Duvduv

Unless I am mistaken, scholars pretty much focus on literature and language in their acceptance of a Paul and his authorship of the epistles, and seem religiously resistant to examining context and content which could stare them in the face, such as the sermon here in Galatians interrupted by what seems to be an interpolation of incoherent autobiographical information, lending support to the view that there are at least two authors involved. And even suggesting that in fact one layer of the epistle originally had nothing to do with a Christ theology at all.

It seems to come through in a letter like the one to Titus as well.

And if that were so, then not only is the historical Jesus in doubt, but so is the notion of a historical Paul who authored any letters as a mythist, since how could there be mythist epistles if in fact they are combining of epistles including writings having nothing to do with the Christ with interpolation from Byzantian Christian writers in early stages before there was a uniform hierarchy proscribing dogma.

thief of fire

I'd say the repetition of concepts inescapable to a jewish mind of that time. Paul tells them they have strayed from the path and should return.

James The Least

Except he doesn't say that. He says they have strayed from the path and should accept Christ crucified. Hardly indicative of a Jewish mind of the time, since we can only document the alleged existence of <12 Jewish Christians in the first century. Out of an estimated Jewish population of several million.

"Paul presents an essentially different type of religiousness from any found in Palestinian Jewish literature." - E.P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, emphasis his

thief of fire

So how is he getting it from the hebrew bible then?
On the one hand you point out that there are similarities and suggest this is a midrsah then when I point out the similarities are very general ones you piont out that he is actually introducing something new, something not in the jewish mind or scriptures. :huh:

James The Least

Like I said, and more important Brodie said, he uses the Scripture dialectically. Where does he say they need to return to the Torah?

thief of fire

Nowhere. Where did I say it said that? :huh:

PhilosopherJay

Hi Duvduv,

It does seem to me too that we are dealing with layers here by several writers that have concealed or canceled words and sentences, and substituted and added their own words and sentences. All the so-called authentic letters seem schizophrenic for this reason. It is as if a point is being made, but the point is lost at the crucial moment because something else is substituted that has nothing to do with the original argument.

Given the size of the Pauline corpus, it would be amazing if 100% of it had nothing to do with the gospels. In fact 99% has nothing to do with the gospels and the 1% that appears to is probably by chance or deliberate distortion.

The idea that the epistles should be read as essentially rhetorical Midrash rather than real letters describing actual situations seems quite sensible to me.

I would advise those holding an historical Jesus position to stop cherry-picking phrases and odd, out of context, sentences, and to try to establish some historical reliability for "Acts of the Apostles." The diddling with the TF, oral narration, Aramaic expressions, and Paul's epistles isn't going to convince anybody who knows anything about these subjects. The "Acts of the Apostles" as history may be a tough sell, but it is the only card worth playing.


Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Vorkosigan

I'm wondering how this could be used to check Detering's Marcionite recension of the Pauline epistles....