Putting Paul in His (Historical) Place

[Scrawly]

Paula Fredriksen wrote a book entitled: Paul: The Pagans' Apostle. Her book was reviewed by James Crossley, Margaret Mitchell, and Matthew
Novenson. Paula's rejoinder to their review(s) is found here.

Please read Paula's response to Matthew Novenson, beginning on page 15. Share your thoughts once you finish. Thank you.

[tabibito]

It is an excellent write-up. Of particular note (p16):

I knew something that Paul evidently did not know,
namely, 31 They
thought that their god was the only god. This was the premier
Jewish theological idea, after all. It set Jews apart from
everyone else. Indeed, it defined them. Or so, for a long
time, I thought. [/quote]

Therein is a truth that is seldom spoken.

[mikewhitney]

I don't find Fredriksen's response as an accurate view on Paul inasmuch as I was able to discern it while skimming through various points she was making.

First, her mention of 1 Cor 8:5 (104 or pdf page 16) neglects that Paul has said, in the same verse, "there are many things called 'gods'." Thus, Paul already dispels the sense that this is any true deity apart from God, as revealed among the Jews. One can readily find that a creature, Satan, has been identified as 'god of this world.' But this designation as 'god' is not identifiable (within Paul's writing) as anything of true deity -- just as something sort of 'spiritual' that influences people. By 'spiritual', I would say that Satan doesn't seem to be represented in general as being seen visibly day-to-day.

Fredriksen may be right about 'ancient' Jews not perceiving monotheism -- but this depends on what we mean by 'ancient.' Clues about the Jewish God as the only true God could be obtained from the incident of Elijah confronting the Baal worshipers (1 Kings 18:33ff). I think there would be better evidence too.

It is an okay observation to note, to some degree, that the Roman population held that their 'gods' were true deity. We see this, for example, in Paul's shipwreck situation. We also see where silversmiths were upset at the threat that idol worship in Ephesus could be threatened; the silversmiths were concerned about loss of income if idols weren't selling well. (Acts 19:28)

[tabibito]

"there are many things called 'gods'."

So - Paul called himself an "apostle" and not an apostle?
κλητος αποστολος Romans 1:1; 1 Cor 1:1
The Christians at Corinth and Rome are called "saints," and not saints? Romans 1:7; 1 Cor 1:2

Or should the translation be considered just a bit deficient?

"There are many that are called gods, as there are indeed many gods" might be better read sans the lens of monotheistic presupposition.

[mikewhitney]

The very use of κλητος seems to be a term used to convey a new attribute about someone -- in the two cases you have given.

But 1 Cor 8:5 doesn't use κλητος. So we have a different discussion here.

I'm not a Greek scholar but the use of lego sounds more like a claim that these are gods rather than the assertion of fact

Verse 4 already said "there is no other God but one." I am unsure how this (and the whole context of 1 Cor 8) leaves it unclear that monotheism is essentially described here.

[tabibito]

And verse 6 says "yet to us (there is only) one god" In combination, the whole is not saying that the total number of gods is one. It is saying (and as was held to be true in first century Israel) that a particular god is the only god that Paul (and Christians generally) acknowledges.
(2 Thess 2:4) the beast opposes everything that is called (λεγομενον) god.
Most commonly, λεγομεν~, when used in roughly similar contexts, singles something out as a particular member of a class, as in μεσιας ερχεται ο λεγομενος χριστος "the messiah, he that is called Christ, comes" (John 4:25) The messiah is not a "so called" Christ. A man called Jesus ... anointed my eyes (John 9:11) The feast of unleavened bread, called Passover, was near (Luke 22:1). In such circumstances, a good interpretation for λεγομεν~ would be "known as." "Many are known as gods" is neutral, and allows for the rest of the context to be more properly interpreted.

[mikewhitney]

More details would have to be fleshed out to make an argument that Paul (and proper Christian doctrine) was not monotheistic. Paul has argued there is only one God so as to show that there was no problem eating of food sacrificed to idols -- this seems to rely on the sense (and an ensuing argument) that any other claims to deity are false. If these claims to deity were valid, then the Gentiles would be participating in the empowerment of these other supposed gods.

Part of the logic is that idols are not anything real (i.e, not anything in the world) and are only so-called gods. (verses 4-5)

Then it would seem that verse 6 is saying more to the idea "yet, as is known to us, there is one God." It is nonsensical then to find that God has made all things (v6) but that the audience (and Paul) also thought there were other gods. This would mean that God created deities equal to himself.

I just think there are many elements of passages like 1 Cor 8 which have to be counteracted to say that Paul wasn't monotheistic.

[tabibito]

Yes - an idol is nothing. Many things are declared "nothing" without the implication that they do not exist. Fredriksen's case is solid enough. Even in the ante-Nicene fathers' writings, pagan gods are not declared to be imaginary: they are declared unworthy of consideration.

[mikewhitney]

Yes - an idol is nothing. Many things are declared "nothing" without the implication that they do not exist. Fredriksen's case is solid enough. Even in the ante-Nicene fathers' writings, pagan gods are not declared to be imaginary: they are declared unworthy of consideration.

Does she then say that the Jewish God created these pagan gods equal to Himself? Or are these gods only of something of limited influence, as of any creatures, such as that of Satan? Are these influences understood by Paul to be misinterpreted by people to be gods? Are we to gain insight about monotheism from scripture ... and do we thus have more knowledge from Paul's writings than Paul had himself? Or are you a polytheist with the sense that all these gods are co-equal with God or that God subdued these other gods?

Note that I would not see error in saying that there were creatures (roughly to be called spiritual beings) who had some limited abilities to make people think there were gods. But Paul's holding to this idea would not make him polytheistic.

[tabibito]

No - Paul's assent to the existence of other gods, deeming them unworthy of notice, and adhering to only one particular god would make him henotheistic, not polytheistic. Nor does henotheism of and by itself indicate that the god that the adherent chooses is considered by that adherent to be either inferior or superior to other gods. But, context shows that Paul considered his god to be the "all-highest," so in his particular case, he considers all other gods thoroughly inferior to the one to whom he gives allegiance, YHWH, triune - Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

[mikewhitney]

Fredriksen may have a reasonable explanation for the origins of some heresies when she notes (106 or pdf page 18):
But such issues are not the birth of Christianity. These are just issues in the middle of Christianity that had to be resolved. The distinguishing of Christianity from Judaism simply was a result of incompatibilities due to some among the Jew who didn't approve of the Messianic followers and some over Messianic follower who rejected Jews.

I don't agree with the sense that the prophesied events were delayed (over against the point on 107 or pdf page 19). But that discussion is for another day. Nor would I agree with her ideas on Rom 11:25-26.

She says (on 108, 20) she says:
I think the mention of Rom 11:25-26 sought to push this fulfillment way to the future, but other than the difference on this, I would agree that that the Messianic followers represented the fulfillment of promises to Israel which also was to benefit Gentiles. (It is a truth that Gentiles had perceived their acceptance of the Messiah as their joining into the Jewish culture -- but understood in light of the Messianic message.)

Most of her discussion on 108 (pdf 20) is a bit of an exaggeration of the problems of understanding Paul. A big problem, as I brought out in an earlier post, is trying to say Paul was henotheistic or polytheistic when the context likely expresses monotheism.

Her ideas on the features of the kingdom of God are sort of correct but these features can be found in the context of the first century. Such fulfillment just doesn't fit her vision of how things should have been fulfilled. I indeed see that the Kingdom of God applies to reign over the nations but not necessarily in the visible reign that she seems to anticipate.

She ends the response by improperly highlighting heretical views (diverting from the broad Christian community) which promoted anti-Jewish standpoints. The problem is that Christianity isn't defined by the heresies.
Still, I might have a degree of commonality with Fredriksen by noting that the second century writers had forgotten much of the Jewish context (primarily eschatological) surrounding the message and arrival of the Messiah. Also, we could find many Greco-Roman philosophical and cultural concepts that have distorted elements of the doctrine. However, the essential message has survived.

It helps to have some different perspectives introduced into the discussions on the New Testament, so it is useful that Fredriksen has discussed such issues.

[tabibito]

Seems OK to me - there wouldn't be many saying that Post-Nicene Christianity didn't
radically diverge from Paul's Christianity - which he himself termed a sect of the Jews.

(I will admit though, that the wording is a bit unfortunate. Paul was not a
post Nicene Christian; nor for that matter were the ante-Nicene fathers.)

[mikewhitney]

Seems OK to me - there wouldn't be many saying that Post-Nicene Christianity didn't
radically diverge from Paul's Christianity - which he himself termed a sect of the Jews.

(I will admit though, that the wording is a bit unfortunate. Paul was not a
post Nicene Christian; nor for that matter were the ante-Nicene fathers.)

I'm not sure how Fredricksen envisions the gospel in such fashion.

I don't think that any Jews in the first century anticipated that the Messiah would die on the cross and be raised from the dead. Then, the people would need to repent for forgiveness of sin which came through the sacrifice of God's only begotten son, who was God incarnate.

Maybe some details of the kingdom could fit loosely into the imaginations of the Jews -- except that they would expect to see Jesus physically leading them against the Roman Empire.

What is the concept of the gospel that Fredriksen envisions here?

[tabibito]

I'm not sure how Fredricksen envisions the gospel in such fashion.

I don't think that any Jews in the first century anticipated that the Messiah would die on the cross and be raised from the dead. Then, the people would need to repent for forgiveness of sin which came through the sacrifice of God's only begotten son, who was God incarnate.

Maybe some details of the kingdom could fit loosely into the imaginations of the Jews -- except that they would expect to see Jesus physically leading them against the Roman Empire.

What is the concept of the gospel that Fredriksen envisions here?

It seems, from the content of pp 107-108, that Fredriksen's opinion is; Paul's gospel had Jesus returning, sometime in the near future, to take up the role of messiah as it had been envisaged by the Jews, with whistles and bells. So far, so good. As a broad overview, she cites enough to see where she's coming from, and it's a good broad-brush-strokes assessment. However, some of the finer detail presented needs tweaking, methinks. She hasn't dug deep enough into the Kingdom of Heaven story, seeing it too much as imminent, not enough as immanent.

[tabibito]

And then there's "Paul: The Pagans' Apostle" p4

I'll be looking very carefully at that one.