Hultin’s thesis turns on the reference to salt in Colossians (commanded) and the word eutrapelia in Ephesians (condemned) refer to the same thing - witty speech.
A few very quick reflections:
First, and obviously, they are different words and so there is not an absolute contradiction.
Secondly, though salt had a usual first century meaning (humour) - it also has a strong Biblical usage that does not mean humour (e.g. the OT reference to the covenant; Matthew 5:13 - You are the salt of the earth). Hultin may deal with this in his book, but I think this is a potential problem for his thesis.
In the question time following his paper, a couple of other interesting suggestions were made:
a. The context can affect the meaning of a word - not to change it totally but still significantly. So, the word eutrapelia follows some fairly negative words - filthiness, foolish talk. There is no real indication that the third word in the series is any different.
b. It could be (and I think this might be the most likely) that when Paul says
verse 3 ‘But sexual immorality and all impurity or covetousness must not even be named among you’ and then continues in verse 4 ‘Let there be no filthiness nor foolish talk nor eutrapelia, which are out of place, but instead let there be thanksgiving’ we are to connect the two. That is, these evil things (sexual immorality, impurity, covetousness) should not appear in our speech - even through the otherwise good speech-form of wit. In other words it is not wit per se that he is condemning but what we might describe as double-entendre. I think that is possible in the Greek and fits the context.
That would mean, of course, that the ESV (‘crude joking’) is a fairly good translation! Our humour - in and of itself a good / neutral thing - must not be used in an inappropriate manner.
Showing posts with label Paul. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Paul. Show all posts
Tuesday, 8 September 2009
Obscene Speech in Paul II
i. If Hultin is right why would the author of Ephesians [i.e. Paul!] have forbidden something that was universally have been understood positively?
ii. Does this not create a contradiction between Colossians and Ephesians - with one commending witty speech and one condemning it?
Hultin argues that Ephesians has a concept of ‘sacred speech’ similar to the OT. So, like the camp or the temple in the OT were holy and so, for example, the latrine had to be kept outside the camp. In a similar way, Hultin argues, believers are themselves a sacred space and so their speech had to be above reproach. At one point he says: ‘What better than the mouth […] to inculcate a sense of omni-presence of God and the connection to the holy body of Christ’.
In other words, according to Hultin, Colossians commends charming, witty speech to win the outsider while Ephesians commends totally different, holy speech that will convict outsiders of their sin. We might say that Col commends evangelism while Eph commends the testimony of a holy life.
Obviously there is a tension here between the two letters - which is not a problem for Hultin who holds them to be written by different people. Do we then have to believe that Paul contradicts himself? I don’t think so!
ii. Does this not create a contradiction between Colossians and Ephesians - with one commending witty speech and one condemning it?
Hultin argues that Ephesians has a concept of ‘sacred speech’ similar to the OT. So, like the camp or the temple in the OT were holy and so, for example, the latrine had to be kept outside the camp. In a similar way, Hultin argues, believers are themselves a sacred space and so their speech had to be above reproach. At one point he says: ‘What better than the mouth […] to inculcate a sense of omni-presence of God and the connection to the holy body of Christ’.
In other words, according to Hultin, Colossians commends charming, witty speech to win the outsider while Ephesians commends totally different, holy speech that will convict outsiders of their sin. We might say that Col commends evangelism while Eph commends the testimony of a holy life.
Obviously there is a tension here between the two letters - which is not a problem for Hultin who holds them to be written by different people. Do we then have to believe that Paul contradicts himself? I don’t think so!
Obscene Speech in Paul I
Last weekend I attended the British New Testament Society Conference in Aberdeen. This is an annual meeting for people researching, teaching or studying the New Testament at university level.
There were a mixture of plenary sessions and seminars. Some of the papers, if I am honest, were a little on the obscure side! However, some were excellent including one by Dr Jeremy Hultin of Yale entitled ‘Watch Your Mouth: What the prohibitions of foul language tell us about Colossians and Ephesians’.
Colossians and Ephesians both have verses concerning language. However, there are interesting differences between the two letters. Below are some quick recollections from his talk. If you want to investigate further you could check out his book The Ethics of Obscene Speech in Early Christianity and its Environment. [Please note though that he is coming from a more critical position i.e. he does not hold that Paul wrote Colossians or Ephesians and would not hold to an evangelical view of Scripture].
Colossians 3:8 But now you must put them all away: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and obscene talk from your mouth. […] 4:6 Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how you ought to answer each person.
Hultin made some interesting points here. He argued that the word translated by the ESV as ‘obscene talk’ (aischrologian) does not have any kind of sexual reference (as many swear words in English have) but should be understood as abusive, unkind speech. Secondly, he argued that the references in 4:6 to grace and salt would have been understood by first century readers as a reference to charming (the reference to grace) and witty (the reference to salt) speech. ‘Salt’, Hultin shows, is often used in 1st C texts as a synonym for ‘humour’ or wit.
Ephesians 5:3-4 But sexual immorality and all impurity or covetousness must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints. 4 Let there be no filthiness nor foolish talk nor crude joking, which are out of place, but instead let there be thanksgiving.
The word translated ‘crude joking’ in the ESV (eutrapelia) is often rendered in this negative way by English Bibles. However, Hultin argues (convincingly) that this word would actually have been understood positively in the first century. So, doctors were urged to speak in this way to their patients to make them feel at ease; similarly lawyers with their clients and generals with their troops. Hultin argues that the word should be rendered ‘wit’. It is an ease of speech that was neutral or positive.
Now, there are two issues here:
i. If Hultin is right, why would the author of Ephesians [i.e. Paul!] have forbidden something that was universally have been understood positively?
ii. Does this not create a contradiction between Colossians and Ephesians - with one commending witty speech and one condemning it?
I think there are good answers to both and will post on them shortly.
There were a mixture of plenary sessions and seminars. Some of the papers, if I am honest, were a little on the obscure side! However, some were excellent including one by Dr Jeremy Hultin of Yale entitled ‘Watch Your Mouth: What the prohibitions of foul language tell us about Colossians and Ephesians’.
Colossians and Ephesians both have verses concerning language. However, there are interesting differences between the two letters. Below are some quick recollections from his talk. If you want to investigate further you could check out his book The Ethics of Obscene Speech in Early Christianity and its Environment. [Please note though that he is coming from a more critical position i.e. he does not hold that Paul wrote Colossians or Ephesians and would not hold to an evangelical view of Scripture].
Colossians 3:8 But now you must put them all away: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and obscene talk from your mouth. […] 4:6 Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how you ought to answer each person.
Hultin made some interesting points here. He argued that the word translated by the ESV as ‘obscene talk’ (aischrologian) does not have any kind of sexual reference (as many swear words in English have) but should be understood as abusive, unkind speech. Secondly, he argued that the references in 4:6 to grace and salt would have been understood by first century readers as a reference to charming (the reference to grace) and witty (the reference to salt) speech. ‘Salt’, Hultin shows, is often used in 1st C texts as a synonym for ‘humour’ or wit.
Ephesians 5:3-4 But sexual immorality and all impurity or covetousness must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints. 4 Let there be no filthiness nor foolish talk nor crude joking, which are out of place, but instead let there be thanksgiving.
The word translated ‘crude joking’ in the ESV (eutrapelia) is often rendered in this negative way by English Bibles. However, Hultin argues (convincingly) that this word would actually have been understood positively in the first century. So, doctors were urged to speak in this way to their patients to make them feel at ease; similarly lawyers with their clients and generals with their troops. Hultin argues that the word should be rendered ‘wit’. It is an ease of speech that was neutral or positive.
Now, there are two issues here:
i. If Hultin is right, why would the author of Ephesians [i.e. Paul!] have forbidden something that was universally have been understood positively?
ii. Does this not create a contradiction between Colossians and Ephesians - with one commending witty speech and one condemning it?
I think there are good answers to both and will post on them shortly.
Tuesday, 30 December 2008
Childs on Canon - the purpose of his book
Childs begins his book by surveying recent Pauline scholarship and how rarely (if ever) the subject of canon is ever raised. This is understandable from the perspective that sees ‘canon’ a later construct used by the church to signify a set of writings as authoritative. Of what consuequence could their decision have for the task of understanding Paul.
However, as Childs points out to speak of a Pauline theology is to presuppose a Pauline corpus. Once we begin to speak in these terms we have started using canonical language. To speak of ‘a “Pauline corpus” is to enter into
‘the arena of how the historical letters were received, treasured, and shaped, which is of course a canonical question. Can one really search for a Pauline theology when the voices of those are missing who preserved his letters explicitly for an ongoing theological function within the early communities of Christian faith?' (p.3)
As such:
'The purpose of this monograph is therefore to explore the exegetical and hermeneutical implications of canon for understanding within the context of the church' (p3.)
In other words this is primarily a book about how the concept of the canon informs our reading of Paul.
However, as Childs points out to speak of a Pauline theology is to presuppose a Pauline corpus. Once we begin to speak in these terms we have started using canonical language. To speak of ‘a “Pauline corpus” is to enter into
‘the arena of how the historical letters were received, treasured, and shaped, which is of course a canonical question. Can one really search for a Pauline theology when the voices of those are missing who preserved his letters explicitly for an ongoing theological function within the early communities of Christian faith?' (p.3)
As such:
'The purpose of this monograph is therefore to explore the exegetical and hermeneutical implications of canon for understanding within the context of the church' (p3.)
In other words this is primarily a book about how the concept of the canon informs our reading of Paul.
Friday, 7 November 2008
Hays on Paul and the OT 2
One of the questions we ended with in the last post was how we can tell if Paul was alluding to an OT passage. Recognising that absolute certainty is impossible, and that discerning echoes of the OT is 'less a matter of method than sensibility', Hays lists seven tests that may help identify echoes of the OT in Paul (the NT in general).
1. Availability. Was the proposed source or echo available to the author and/or original readers? The answer to this one will inevitability be yes - given that Paul and his readers shared a very high view of (what is now known as) the OT.
2. Volume. The volume of an echo is determined primarily by the degree of explicit repetition of words or syntactical patterns, but other factors may also be relevant: how distinctive or prominent is the precursor text within Scripture, and how much rhetorical stress does the echo receive in Paul's discourse?
3. Recurrence. How often does Paul elsewhere cite or allude to the same scriptural passage?
4. Thematic Coherence. How well does the alleged echo fit into the line of argument that Paul is developing?
5. Historical Plausibility. Could Paul have intended the alleged meaning effect? Could his readers have understood it?
6. History of Interpretation. Have other readers, both critical and pre-critical, heard the same echoes?
7. Satisfaction. With or without clear confirmation from the other criteria listed here, does the proposed reading make sense? Does it illuminate the surrounding discourse? Does it produce for the reader a satisfying account of the effect of the intertextual relation?
The second question I raised in the last post about how much exegetical weight we should give to the allusion or echo if we think it is there is more difficult. Perhaps - though not directly related - the next post will give some answers.
1. Availability. Was the proposed source or echo available to the author and/or original readers? The answer to this one will inevitability be yes - given that Paul and his readers shared a very high view of (what is now known as) the OT.
2. Volume. The volume of an echo is determined primarily by the degree of explicit repetition of words or syntactical patterns, but other factors may also be relevant: how distinctive or prominent is the precursor text within Scripture, and how much rhetorical stress does the echo receive in Paul's discourse?
3. Recurrence. How often does Paul elsewhere cite or allude to the same scriptural passage?
4. Thematic Coherence. How well does the alleged echo fit into the line of argument that Paul is developing?
5. Historical Plausibility. Could Paul have intended the alleged meaning effect? Could his readers have understood it?
6. History of Interpretation. Have other readers, both critical and pre-critical, heard the same echoes?
7. Satisfaction. With or without clear confirmation from the other criteria listed here, does the proposed reading make sense? Does it illuminate the surrounding discourse? Does it produce for the reader a satisfying account of the effect of the intertextual relation?
The second question I raised in the last post about how much exegetical weight we should give to the allusion or echo if we think it is there is more difficult. Perhaps - though not directly related - the next post will give some answers.
Richard Hays on Paul on the OT
Richard Hays has written a very significant book on Paul’s use of Scripture. In it he argus that Paul will often allude to the OT without formally quoting it.
CH Dodd proposed something similar when he spoke of how when a NT writer does make a formal quotation of the OT they often had the total context of the OT passage in view. However, Hays goes further and argues that we cannot adequately understand Paul ‘unless we seek to situate his discourse appropriately with what Hollander calls the “cave of resonant signification” that enveloped him: Scripture’. That is unless you read Paul as someone who was saturated in the OT, you will never understand him.
To take a couple of examples, when Paul says in Romans 2:6 that God will ‘render to every man according to his works’ he does not (despite the punctuation of most English versions) actually signal that he is quoting from the OT, but his words are lifted exactly from Ps 61:13 or Proverbs 24:12. That is an easy example as he is referring to a whole phrase.
Sometimes, however, he will allude to an OT passage with just a word or part of a phrase.
To take an example. In Phil. 1:19 Paul says:
for I know that through your prayers and the help of the Spirit of Jesus Christ this will turn out for my deliverance
Very few commentators pick up on the fact that the last part of the statement is an almost verbatim quotation of the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the OT) of Job 13:16. This raises two very important questions:
i. How do we know if Paul is actually alluding deliberately to an OT passage?
ii. If he is alluding to it, how much exegetical weight should we give this fact?
CH Dodd proposed something similar when he spoke of how when a NT writer does make a formal quotation of the OT they often had the total context of the OT passage in view. However, Hays goes further and argues that we cannot adequately understand Paul ‘unless we seek to situate his discourse appropriately with what Hollander calls the “cave of resonant signification” that enveloped him: Scripture’. That is unless you read Paul as someone who was saturated in the OT, you will never understand him.
To take a couple of examples, when Paul says in Romans 2:6 that God will ‘render to every man according to his works’ he does not (despite the punctuation of most English versions) actually signal that he is quoting from the OT, but his words are lifted exactly from Ps 61:13 or Proverbs 24:12. That is an easy example as he is referring to a whole phrase.
Sometimes, however, he will allude to an OT passage with just a word or part of a phrase.
To take an example. In Phil. 1:19 Paul says:
for I know that through your prayers and the help of the Spirit of Jesus Christ this will turn out for my deliverance
Very few commentators pick up on the fact that the last part of the statement is an almost verbatim quotation of the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the OT) of Job 13:16. This raises two very important questions:
i. How do we know if Paul is actually alluding deliberately to an OT passage?
ii. If he is alluding to it, how much exegetical weight should we give this fact?
Monday, 24 March 2008
Paul
About a year ago I was asked to review a play on the Apostle Paul. My review never made it to publication so I thought I would put it up here:
Paul
Written by Howard Benton.
Directed by Wesley Enoch.
I was not sure what to expect as I waited for Paul to begin. On the one hand a sign had warned me that the play contained blasphemy and might lead to offence. On the other, as I read the program notes my interest was raised. They displayed a level of sophistication that isn’t often present in contemporary examinations of Christian subjects. So, one of the articles on faith eschewed the usual ‘blind leap in the dark’ line and discussed how faith ‘engages the whole person – their emotions (trust, hope, peace), their intellect (belief), and their will (faithfulness, fidelity)’. Even more encouraging was the comment that ‘[g]enuine faith […] requires not only intellectual integrity, but psychological integrity’. The director himself commented that this play was not ‘about disproving the validity of the Bible and its stories’ but rather ‘an investigation and reiteration of the power of faith’.
The play starts with Paul and Peter in prison in Rome the night before their executions (tradition has them both dying in Rome). Sharing a cell together they have the opportunity to reflect on the last 30 or so years via a series of flashbacks – starting with Paul’s conversion on the road to Damascus. Some of the play’s portrayals are both accurate and moving. So, when the converted Paul first shares the Lord’s Supper with Barnabas, the scene is presented very sensitively and it was easy to imagine it happening this way. Later we see Paul boldly and engagingly witnessing to his gaoler – again something we could easily imagine. Paul’s interaction with the squabbling Corinthians is amusing and the play manages to do what countless preachers have failed, namely to situate 1 Corinthians 13 in its proper context!
However (you knew there would be a ‘however’!), it is the portrayal of events surrounding Paul’s behaviour that the play really shows its hand. As much as the liner notes might argue that the play is not concerned to question the validity of the Bible, a central claim of the play is that Jesus did not rise from the dead. The play recognises that if Jesus did not rise from the dead, an explanation needs to be given for the amazing spread of Christianity. This is disclosed at the end of the play as Peter tearfully reveals that he, James and Jesus – who had survived the crucifixion – had staged the Damascus Road encounter to stop Saul from persecuting the Church. James, Peter and Jesus later continue the deception by commissioning Paul to preach to the Gentiles – with the proviso that he send money back the Jerusalem church. What they didn't count on was both the extent to which Paul would embrace this new understanding of Jesus' resurrection and Paul's ability as a persuader. Even Peter himself, is, amazingly, convinced by Paul's message. This all comes out as Peter faces his execution. 'I lived with two Yeshuas', he sobs, 'the one I knew and the one you preached'. Paul refuses to believe Peter and the play ends with him again persuading a now seemingly demented Peter to chant 'Christ is risen' over and over and over gain.
And so ultimately the play is disappointing. Not only do we have this unbelievable Damascus Road fake, and the tired old 'Jesus-was-married-to-Mary-Magdalene
-but-the-truth-never-came-out-because-she-was-a-prostitute' line, but more fundamentally there is a failure to understand the importance of the resurrection to Christianity. At one point as Peter is confessing his deception, Paul effectively quotes 1 Corinthians 15:19 'If in this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied' and so we might as well 'eat and drink, for tomorrow we die'. The play thus does recognise that the resurrection is the key to Paul's understanding of Jesus but rejects it. Peter immediately rails against Paul, 'You're always so harsh!' Here is the key to the play: Paul was wrong – the resurrection does not matter. In fact at the end of his introductory article in the program notes, Brenton makes it clear that his view:
is that Jesus will never return and there is no God. But if Paul had not believed and had not written to the Corinthians and the Romans we would all be immeasurably impoverished. He was profoundly wrong but also mysteriously right.
In other words, as with Jesus, it is Paul's ethical teaching that matters. And yet there is a stronger conviction running through the play. There is no ambiguity with respect to the resurrection – no ‘it might be true or not but that’s not the point’ - no, the resurrection is rejected out of hand. Even though Paul’s ignorance might not affect his message, we are under no illusion that Paul was wrong – plain and simple.
Ultimately, then, the play raises this question of historical fact that it is not equipped to answer. It recognises that the phenomenal spread of Christianity needs and explanation but can only imagine an implausible fake combined with the force and persuasiveness of Paul's preaching. Interestingly, the description we have of Paul by the Corinthians is that ‘in person he is unimpressive and his speaking amount[ed] to nothing’ (2 Cor 10:10). Hopefully, this play will force people to look more closely at the Paul of the New Testament. It does capture some of the features that make him so intriguing but, in comparison to the presentation in the New Testament, misses the depth, power and historically-rooted nature of his theology. Really everything stands or falls with the historical resurrection of Christ. A claim that the play raises but dismisses and so, sadly, finally misses the point of Paul altogether.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
