Apostle Paul: His Life and Theology

Originally published as Paulus: Leben und Denken

© 2003 by Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin / New York. All rights reserved.

English translation © 2005 by Baker Publishing Group

Published by Baker Academic

a division of Baker Publishing Group

P.O. Box 6287, Grand Rapids, MI 49516-6287

www.bakeracademic.com

The publication of this work was supported by a grant from the Goethe-Institut.

Ebook edition created 2014

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means—for example, electronic, photocopy, recording—without the prior written permission of the publisher. The only exception is brief quotations in printed reviews.

ISBN 978-1-4412-4200-6

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data is on file at the Library of Congress, Washington, DC.

Unless otherwise noted, Scripture quotations are from the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) of the Bible, copyright © 1989 by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the USA. Used by permission.

Contents

Cover

Title Page

Copyright Page

Translator’s Preface

Preface to the German Edition

Abbreviations

Part One: The Course of Paul’s Life and the Development of His Thought

1. Prologue: Paul as Challenge and Provocation

1.1 Approaching Paul

1.2 Reflections on Historiography

1.3 Methodological Handle: Meaning Formation in Continuity and Change

2. Sources and Chronology for Paul’s Life and Work: Definite and Hypothetical

2.1 Absolute Chronology

2.2 Relative Chronology

3. The Pre-Christian Paul: Open-Minded Religious Zealot

3.1 Background and Social Status

3.2 Paul: Pharisee in the Diaspora

3.3 The Religious and Cultural Background of Paul’s Thought

3.4 The Persecutor of the Earliest Churches

4. The Call to Be Apostle to the Gentiles: The New Horizon

4.1 The Reports about the Damascus Event

4.2 Significance of the Damascus Event

5. The Christian Paul: A Volcano Begins to Rumble

5.1 Rehearsal and Coaching: Paul and Early Christian Tradition

5.2 Paul’s Bible

5.3 First Steps as a Missionary

5.4 Paul as Missionary of the Antioch Church

6. The Apostolic Council and the Incident at Antioch: The Problems Remain Unresolved

6.1 The Apostolic Council

6.2 The Antioch Incident

7. Paul’s Independent Mission: The Volcano Erupts

7.1 Presuppositions of the Pauline Mission

7.2 Beginnings of the Independent Mission

7.3 The Pauline School and the Structure of Paul’s Work with the Churches

7.4 The Self-Understanding of the Apostle to the Gentiles

7.5 The Development of Early Christianity as an Independent Movement

8. Paul and the Thessalonians: Consolation and Confidence

8.1 Prehistory and Initial Preaching

8.2 The Theology of 1 Thessalonians

8.3 The Ethic of 1 Thessalonians

8.4 First Thessalonians as a Document of Early Pauline Theology

9. First Corinthians: High and True Wisdom

9.1 Conflict in Corinth

9.2 The Wisdom of the World and the Foolishness of the Cross

9.3 The Power of the Spirit and the Purity of the Community

9.4 Freedom and Obligation in Christ

9.5 The Power of the Spirit and Building Up the Church

9.6 The Resurrection of the Dead

9.7 The Cross, Justification, and the Law

10. Second Corinthians: Peace and War

10.1 The Events between 1 and 2 Corinthians

10.2 The Unity of 2 Corinthians

10.3 Paul’s Life as Apostolic Existence

10.4 The Glory of the New Covenant

10.5 The Message of Reconciliation

10.6 The Fool’s Speech

11. Paul and the Galatians: Discovery in Conflict

11.1 Prehistory

11.2 The Galatian Crisis

11.3 The Doctrine of the Law and of Justification in Galatians

11.4 The Ethic of Galatians: Freedom Active in Love

11.5 Inclusive and Exclusive Doctrine of Justification in Paul

12. Paul and the Church in Rome: High-Level Encounter

12.1 The History and Structure of the Roman Church

12.2 The Letter to the Romans as a Contextualized Document

12.3 The Gospel of Jesus Christ

12.4 Knowledge of God among Jews and Gentiles

12.5 The Righteousness of God

12.6 Paul and the Old Testament

12.7 The Presence of Salvation: Baptism and Righteousness

12.8 Sin, Law, and Freedom in the Spirit

12.9 Paul and Israel

12.10 The Shape of the New Life

13. Paul in Rome: The Old Man and His Work

13.1 Prehistory: Paul en Route to Rome

13.2 Philippians

13.3 The Letter to Philemon

13.4 Paul the Martyr

Part Two: The Basic Structures of Pauline Thought

14. The Presence of Salvation: The Center of Pauline Theology

15. Theology: The God Who Acts

15.1 The One God Who Creates and Concludes

15.2 God as the Father of Jesus Christ

15.3 God as the One Who Elects, Calls, and Rejects

15.4 The Gospel as God’s Eschatological Good News of Salvation

15.5 The Newness and Attractiveness of the Pauline Talk of God

16. Christology: The Lord Who Is Present

16.1 Transformation and Participation as the Basic Modes of Pauline Christology

16.2 Jesus Christ as Crucified and Risen

16.3 Jesus Christ as Savior and Liberator

16.4 Jesus as Messiah, Lord, and Son

16.5 The Substitutionary Death of Jesus Christ for Us

16.6 The Death of Jesus Christ as Atoning Event

16.7 Jesus Christ as Reconciler

16.8 Jesus Christ as God’s Righteousness/Justice

16.9 God, Jesus of Nazareth, and Early Christology

17. Soteriology: The Transfer Has Begun

17.1 New Being as Participation in Christ

17.2 The New Time between the Times

18. Pneumatology: The Spirit Moves and Works

18.1 The Spirit as the Connectional Principle of Pauline Thought

18.2 The Gifts and Present Acts of the Spirit

18.3 Father, Son, and Holy Spirit

19. Anthropology: The Struggle for the Self

19.1 Human Being and Corporeality: σῶμα and σάρξ

19.2 Sin and Death

19.3 The Law

19.4 Faith as the New Qualification of the Self

19.5 Centers of the Human Self

19.6 The New Freedom

20. Ethics: The New Being as Meaning Formation

20.1 Life within the Sphere of Christ: Correspondence as Basic Ethical Category

20.2 The New Being in Practice

21. Ecclesiology: The Church as a Demanding and Attracting Fellowship

21.1 Primary Vocabulary and Foundational Metaphors of Pauline Ecclesiology

21.2 Structures and Tasks in the Church

21.3 The Church as the Realm of Freedom from Sin

22. Eschatology: Expectation and Memory

22.1 The Future in the Present

22.2 The Course of the Final Events and Life after Death

22.3 The Destiny of Israel

22.4 Eschatology as Time Construal

23. Epilogue: Pauline Thought as Enduring Meaning Formation

Selected Bibliography

I. Texts

II. Lexica, Dictionaries, Concordances, Reference Works

III. Commentaries, Monographs, Essays, Articles

Index of Subjects

Index of Greek Words and Phrases

Index of Modern Authors

Index of Ancient Sources

Notes

Back Cover

Translator’s Preface

In recent years Udo Schnelle has perhaps become best known for his works on the Gospel and Letters of John.[1] Udo Schnelle’s doctoral dissertation, however, was a study of Paul’s theology of baptism, Gerechtigkeit und Christusgegenwart: Vorpaulinische und paulinische Tauftheologie (Göttinger Theologische Arbeiten 24; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983); and he has never ceased to be interested in the life, letters, and theology of Paul, as attested by his numerous articles listed in the bibliography of this book and by the extensive section on Paul in his introduction to the New Testament, The History and Theology of the New Testament Writings (trans. M. Eugene Boring; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998). Now he has brought together his work on Paul in a comprehensive study that will take its place among the standard works in the field. In my judgment, it is the best single volume on Paul’s life and work, providing to students and teachers at all levels a thorough survey of all major issues, integrating a careful and judicious engagement with the vast primary and secondary literature and his own balanced interpretation. I am thus very pleased to facilitate its use in the English-speaking world.

At the author’s and the publisher’s request, I have augmented the bibliography with English books and articles, mostly listing books and articles comparable to the ample German bibliography already present, for the benefit of students who do not read German. I have also complied with the author’s and publisher’s request that I occasionally provide translator’s notes on the German text reflecting the European context with which the reader might not be familiar. In both cases, I have kept my own contributions to a minimum.

A valuable aspect of the volume is its extensive use of primary sources from the Hellenistic world. After the death of Georg Strecker, Schnelle assumed the editorship of the Neuer Wettstein: Texte zum Neuen Testament aus Griechentum und Hellenismus (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1996). His citation of such texts as are found there and insight into their relevance for New Testament interpretation greatly enrich this study of Paul. Except where otherwise indicated, translations of Aelius Aristides, Apostolic Fathers, Apuleius, Cicero, Dio Chrysostom, Diogenes Laertius, Epictetus, Euripedes, Eusebius, Homer, Iamblichus, Josephus, Lucian, Menander, Musonius Rufus, Ovid, Philostratus, Plato (Gorgias, Resp.), Plutarch, Quintilian, Res gestae divi Augusti, Seneca, Sophocles, Suetonius, Tacitus, and Xenophon are from the Loeb Classical Library editions listed in the bibliography.

This translation has been read by the author, Udo Schnelle, and by James Ernest, Joe Carey, and Paul Peterson for Baker Academic, all of whom have made helpful suggestions for which I hereby express my heartfelt thanks.

Preface to the German Edition

The goal of this book is to present a comprehensive introduction to the life and thought of the apostle Paul. It is intended as a textbook that takes a didactic perspective on the material as a whole and documents all important positions in Pauline research. At the same time, it is an independent contribution to the ongoing debate, outlining my own position on disputed points.

Since each section can be read as an independent unit, intended to be understandable on its own, some overlapping and repetition were unavoidable. I have attempted to reduce these to a minimum, although experience has taught that textbooks are usually not read straight through—and thus some repetition is in fact necessary and helpful.

I here express my gratitude to Dr. Michael Labahn and Dr. Manfred Lang, my coworkers at the University of Halle-Wittenberg, for their continuing expert advice as well as for their help in correcting the proofs. I am grateful to Dr. Claus-Jürgen Thornton not only for his customary good care regarding publication details but also for his discussions regarding the contents of this book.

Halle, November 2002

Udo Schnelle

Abbreviations

General Abbreviations

Primary Sources

Old Testament Pseudepigrapha

Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Texts

Philo

Josephus

Mishnah, Talmud, and Related Literature

Apostolic Fathers

New Testament Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha

Other Early Christian Writers

Augustine

Eusebius

Justin

Classical Authors

Apuleius

Aristotle

Cicero

Demosthenes

Dio Cassius

Dio Chrysostom

Epictetus

Herodotus

Homer

Iamblichus

Livy

Lucretius

Menander

Musonius Rufus

Philostratus

Plato

Pliny the Younger

Plutarch

Quintilian

Seneca

Sextus Empiricus

Strabo

Suetonius

Tacitus

Xenophon

Secondary Sources

1

Prologue

Paul as Challenge and Provocation

1.1 Approaching Paul

Paul’s life was the life of a traveler. Like no other before or after him, he bridged different continents, cultures, and religions and created a new continuing reality: Christianity as a world religion.[1] As the first Christian to really break through established boundaries, Paul set forth the meaning of the new being in Christ (ἐν Χριστῷ) and lived it out within the horizon of the Lord’s parousia. This is the bond that unites him with Christians of every generation. Thus, to enter into his world of thought always means to trace out the contours of his faith. What missionary is there, what preacher, what man entrusted with the cure of souls, who can be compared with him, whether in the greatness of the task he accomplished, or in the holy energy with which he carried it out?[2]

Such a person could not remain uncontroversial. Even in New Testament times, his subtle thought processes already caused difficulties (cf. 2 Pet. 3:15–16). While in the course of church history Paul has served as the guarantor of the theology of some (Augustine, Martin Luther, Karl Barth) and a powerful source of theological renewal and church reform, others have seen in the apostle to the Gentiles only an inferior disciple who dissolved into theology Jesus’ original teaching about God and thus falsified it. H. J. Schoeps finds it thought-provoking that the Christian church has received a completely distorted view of the Jewish law at the hands of a diaspora Jew who had become alienated from the faith-ideas of his fathers.[3] Joseph Klausner states, "First, Paul, in spite of all his desire for authority and all the ridicule and hatred which he directed toward those who did not acknowledge his particular gospel or his authority as an apostle, did not have what may be called genuine sovereignty."[4]

1.2 Reflections on Historiography

What is the best approach to this multifaceted personality? Is it at all possible to obtain an adequate grasp of the life and thought of Paul? How should a presentation of his life and thought be structured? Dealing with these issues requires hermeneutical and methodological reflections on two levels: (1) What epistemological theories are involved in the writing of history as such?[5] (2) What special problems arise in dealing with Paul?

How History Is Made and Written

At the center of recent discussion of historical theory stands the question of how historical reports and their incorporation into the thought world of the historian/exegete relate to each other.[6] The classical ideal of historicism, namely, to present nothing more or less than what actually happened,[7] has proven to be an ideological postulate in several regards.[8] As the present passes into the past, it irrevocably loses its character as reality. For this reason alone it is not possible to recall the past without rupture into the present. The temporal interval signifies a fading away in every regard; it disallows historical knowledge in the sense of a comprehensive restoration of what once happened.[9] All one can do is declare in the present one’s own interpretation of the past. The past is available to us exclusively in the mode of the present, again only in interpreted and selected form.[10] Only that is relevant from the past which is no longer merely past but influences world formation and world interpretation in the present.[11] The true temporal plane on which the historian/exegete lives is always the present,[12] within which he or she is inextricably intertwined, so that present understanding of past events is always decisively stamped by the historian’s own cultural standards. The historian/exegete’s social setting, its traditions, its political and religious values necessarily affect what he or she says in the present about the past.[13] Moreover, the very conditions of understanding, especially reason and the particular context, are subject to a process of continuing transformation, inasmuch as historical knowledge is determined by each period of intellectual history and its constantly changing goals and guidelines for obtaining knowledge.[14] Insight into the historicality of the knowing subject calls for reflection on his or her role in the act of understanding, for the knowing subject does not stand above history but is entirely involved in it. Therefore, if one wants to describe historical understanding, it is altogether inappropriate to contrast objectivity and subjectivity.[15] The use of such terminology serves rather as a literary strategy of declaring one’s own position as positive and neutral in order to discredit other interpretations as subjective and ideological.[16] The object known cannot be separated from the knowing subject, for the act of knowing also always effects a change in the object that is known. The awareness of reality attained in the act of knowing and the past reality itself are not related as original and copy.[17] One should thus speak not of the objectivity of historical arguments but of their plausibility and appropriateness to their subject matter.[18] After all, reports introduced into historical arguments as facts are as a rule themselves already interpretations of past events. The past event itself is not available to us but only the various understandings of the past event, mediated to us by various interpreters. History is not reconstructed but unavoidably and necessarily constructed. The common perception that things need only be reported or re-constructed suggests a knowledge of the original events that does not exist in the manner presupposed by this terminology. Nor is history simply identical with the past; rather, it always represents only a stance in the present from which one can view the past. Thus within the realm of historical constructions, there are no facts in the objective sense; interpretations are built on interpretations.[19] Hence the truth of the statement Events are not [in themselves] history; they become history.[20]

In addition to these epistemological insights, we now come to reflections on the philosophy of language. History is always mediated to us in linguistic form; history exists only to the extent that it is expressed in language. Historical reports become history only through the semantically organized construction of the historian/exegete. In this process, language functions not only to describe the object of thought accepted as reality; language also determines and places its stamp on all perceptions that are organized as history.[21] For human beings, there is no path from language to an independent, extralinguistic reality, for reality is present to us only in and through language.[22] History is thus available only as memory—mediated and formed by language. And again, language itself is culturally conditioned and subject to constant social transformation,[23] so it is not surprising that historical events are construed and evaluated differently in situations shaped by different cultures and values. Language is much more than a mere reflection of reality, for it regulates and places its own stamp on the appropriation of reality and thereby also on our pictures of what is real. At the same time, language is not the reality itself, for language too first comes into being in the course of human history and in the personal history of every human being within the framework of his or her biological and cultural development. In this process, language is decisively influenced by the varieties of human cultures and individual lives.[24] This constant process of change to which language is subject can only be explained in relation to the different social contexts by which it is conditioned;[25] that is, the connection between the signifier and the signified must be maintained if one does not want to surrender reality itself.

History as Meaning Formation

History is thus always a selective system by means of which the interpreter orders and interprets not merely the past but especially his or her own world. The linguistic construction of past events always therefore takes place as a meaning-creating process that confers meaning on both past and present; such constructions provide the sense-making capacity that facilitates the individual’s orientation within the complex framework of life.[26] Historical interpretation means the creation of a coherent framework of meaning; facts only become what they are for us by the creation of such a historical narrative framework.[27] In this process historical reports must be made accessible to the present and expressed in language, so that in the presentation/narration of history, facts and fiction[28]—traditional data and the creative-fictive work of an author—necessarily combine.[29] As historical reports are combined, historical gaps must be filled in; reports from the past and their interpretation in the present flow together to produce something new.[30] Interpretation inserts the past event into a structure that it did not previously have.[31] There are only potential facts, for experience and interpretation are necessary to grasp the meaning potential of an event.[32] Bare facts must have a meaning attached to them, and the structure of this interpretation constitutes the understanding of facts.[33] It is the fictional element that first opens up access to the past, for it makes possible the unavoidable rewriting of the presupposed events. The figurative, symbolic level is indispensable for historical work, for it develops the prefigured plan of interpretation that shapes the present’s appropriation and interpretation of the past. The fundamental principle is that history originates only after the event on which it is based has been discerned as relevant for the present, so that necessarily history cannot have the same claim to reality as the events themselves on which it is based.[34] This means that any outline of the history of the life and thought of Paul must always be only an approach to the past events themselves, an approach that must be aware of its theoretical presuppositions regarding the writing of history, its own constructive character, and the problems inherent in its task.

Paul as Maker of History and Meaning

What particular problems does Paul present to the writer of history? In the first place, one must reflect on the fact that Paul himself does all that has just been described: by narrating and interpreting the event of Jesus Christ in a particular way, he himself writes history and constructs a new religious world.[35] His interpretation allows a uniquely effective power to emerge, because its multifaceted nature allows it to proceed in several directions, uniting with other elements: the story of Jesus, Judaism, and Hellenism. This capacity for inclusion grew out of the apostle’s own life journey, so that in Paul’s case one must think of the relation of biography and theology in a particular way. In Paul, biography and theology congeal into a tensive unity, for Paul is the only man of Primitive-Christian times whom we really know.[36] Of the ten New Testament documents whose authors are known, seven come from Paul. His letters from ca. 50–61 CE provide insight into his theological thought[37] but also illuminate his personal feelings. Extensive sections are charged with emotion and let Paul the human being come before our mind’s eye with all his strengths and weaknesses. At the same time, the course of Paul’s life prior to his emergence as a Pharisee zealous for the ancestral traditions lies more or less in the dark. The Christian socialization of the apostle, his activity as a missionary for the Antioch church, and his independent mission prior to the composition of 1 Thessalonians can be glimpsed only as fragments. Nonetheless, this phase is of preeminent importance for understanding the apostle’s personality, for his fundamental convictions were formed during this period. The different sources that provide the bases for constructing the individual phases of Paul’s work and thought make it difficult to relate his biography and his theology to each other in a way that accounts for the data.

Furthermore, there are gaps in phases of Paul’s life as documented by his letters. Since they were part of a comprehensive communications network between the apostle, his coworkers, and particular congregations, the letters were written not as world literature but to resolve urgent congregational problems. We do not know what Paul did and taught in the churches beyond what is contained in these letters. Within the framework of debates with congregations and opponents, as a rule we have only Paul’s own position; divergent views are unknown or can only be surmised hypothetically. On the one hand, Paul’s letters present us with an inexhaustible source of material for reflection on the apostle, reflection that has continued for almost two thousand years, with no end in sight; on the other hand, they are only historical and theological snapshots.

Finally, the Pauline letters present numerous questions regarding content:[38] What is their determinative theme? What are Paul’s fundamental theological affirmations? What caused him to carry out a mission to almost the whole world (from the perspective of that time)? Was he aware that his work essentially called for the establishment of early Christianity[39] as an independent movement? Is it possible to locate the center of Paul’s theological thinking, from which his thought may be grasped as a whole? Can pointed statements conditioned by particular situations be distinguished from, and meaningfully coordinated with, his fundamental theological principles? Does Paul’s thought represent a comprehensive system free of contradictions? In tracing out the path of Paul’s life and thought, is it better to grasp the material by a chronological or a thematic handle?

1.3 Methodological Handle: Meaning Formation in Continuity and Change

Human existence and action are characterized by their capacity for meaning.[40] No form of human life can be defined without reference to meaning. It makes sense to understand meaning as the fundamental category of human existence.[41] The insights of cultural anthropology regarding the ability of human beings to transcend both themselves and the life world of their society and culture indicate this.[42] Moreover, human beings are always born into a world of meaning.[43] The drive to make sense of things is an unavoidable part of human life, for the human life world must be thought about, disclosed, and appropriated in some meaningful way—only thus are human life and action possible in this world.[44] As a form of meaning formation, every religion is such a process of disclosure and appropriation, including early Christianity and the theologies developed within it. Concretely, this process of disclosure and appropriation takes place as the formation of meaning, and Pauline theology is the result of a historical project of meaning formation in which Paul invested his whole life, a theology that already exercised its distinctive effect within the apostle’s own lifetime. The three components of experience, interpretation, and orientation constitute historical meaning.[45] The meaningfulness of an event cannot be derived from its facticity alone; it still needs the experience of a particular person or persons before its meaning potential can be actualized.

Paul develops his experience of the resurrected Jesus Christ on the Damascus road into a new interpretation of God, world, and human existence, one that leads to a radically changed orientation to life.[46] The disclosure of God and the world that occurred in the light of the Damascus event generates an interpretation and an orientation within which the interpreted perceptions can be applied to an intentional guide for action.[47] In order to come to terms with the world, the world must be interpreted. The fundamental constructive character of the historical formation of meaning is obvious in the case of Paul, for he confers new dimensions on the Christ event (the Jesus-Christ-history) (cf. 1 Cor. 11:23b–25; 15:3b–5), in that, as minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, he universalizes it and installs it into history through his successful mission. What is fundamental in the narration of any event[48] is also the case with Paul: he necessarily tells of the destiny of Jesus Christ in a selective manner and from a particular perspective; the beginning point and the course of the narration of the Jesus-Christ-history is qualified by its end point. Paul narrates not the story of Jesus but the event of Jesus Christ,[49] for throughout he presupposes the unity of the earthly Jesus and the crucified and risen one, which comprehends both the preexistence of Christ and his parousia.[50]

The quality of Pauline theology as meaning formation is seen in its capacity for incorporation and combination. Historical meaning must fulfill the condition of the genetic capacity to incorporate and combine disparate elements in which subjective constructions proceed on the basis of given data in interpretive interaction with the human past and that develop in relation both to the given data and to the needs of the subjects determined by them.[51] Pauline theology manifests this inclusive capacity to incorporate and combine in regard to the Jesus-Christ-history and its first interpretations in early Christianity but also in regard to the Old Testament, to contemporary Judaism, and to Hellenism, the prevailing cultural power of the time. This capacity for inclusion grew out of Paul’s background and the course of his life but also from the plausibility of his interpretation of the Jesus-Christ-history and his ability to create something new in response to historical challenges. Paul succeeded in translating his religious experiences into a multilayered system of thought and to differentiate it further in response to new historical challenges. The task of a presentation of Paul’s life and thought must therefore be to interpret this process in its temporal and material dimensions. Meaning formation itself is always a historical process and only possible when there is a relevance of the past-made-present for the problems of orienting oneself in the present.[52] Thus the task is to work out answers to the basic questions: How did Pauline theology develop as an act of historical meaning formation? What gives this theology its persuasive power for a particular view of the world and for practical action within this world?

Meaning Formation and the Formation of Identity

Meaning formation is always bound up with the projection of one’s own sense of identity;[53] meaning formation functions successfully only when it projects a convincing sense of identity. Identity, in turn, develops as a constant interaction between the experience of differentiation and the positive determination of the self.[54] Identity can never be grasped as a static entity,[55] for it is part of an ongoing process of reformation, since, as unity and selfhood of the subject, identity is conceivable only as a synthesis of different, heterogeneous elements that must be brought into relationship with each other.[56] The process of identity formation is determined by three equal factors: (1) the perceiving of one’s difference from the surrounding world, (2) the encountering of boundaries set by one’s inner self and by the world external to one’s own experience, and (3) the positive perception of one’s self. So also collective identities are formed by the processing of differentiating experiences and feelings of commonality.[57] Group identity is more than the sum of the identities of its members, for the new collective identity reacts with and affects the process of identity formation of the individual. At the same time, the interaction of the new group with its external world is of decisive significance, for identity is always an ascribed, imputed entity. The external perspective can evoke positive or negative reactions, which in turn have an effect on the internal perspective, that is, the self-perception of the group and its sense of self-worth. Moreover, collective identities are unstable compounds that always live from the continuing identification of the members with the new group.[58] Symbols play a decisive role in this process, for it is only with their help that collective identity can be created and maintained.[59] Universes of meaning must be able to articulate themselves in the world of secular reality and maintain their contents in a way that can be communicated. To a considerable degree this happens through symbols, which function in the life world as signs that open up new symbolic universes,[60] forming bridges of meaning from one province of reality . . . into another.[61] Particularly in the processing of the large transcendent elements[62] such as sickness, crises, and death, symbols play a fundamental role, for they belong to another level of reality and are themselves bearers of that reality and thus can establish communication with that realm. Symbols are a central category for the communication of religious meaning. Identity formation is thus always integrated into a complex process of interaction between the individual or collective subject, its experience of differentiation and boundaries, and its perception of self and nonself.

The respective determinations of identity are necessarily achieved through universes of meaning or symbolic universes, the interpretative models that as social constructions stand ready to facilitate the experience of reality in a meaningful way.[63] Symbolic universes are objectified as signs and symbols and thus represent reality in a communicable form. Among other things, symbolic universes legitimize social structures, institutions, and roles; that is, they explain and provide the basis for things as they are.[64] In addition, symbolic universes integrate these roles into a meaningful whole within which individual persons or groups can act. Just as human beings always unite different roles in themselves and belong to different groups, so they also always live in different symbolic universes at the same time. Family, race, education, friendships, school, education, work represent different levels of symbolic universes given by society; individual human beings locate themselves and live out their lives within these pre-given categories. For the most part, hierarchies are formed within this natural multiplicity of symbolic universes; the final hierarchical level must then serve as the overarching legitimation and integration of all the partial systems. This highest level can be called the symbolic universe[65] or the worldview.[66] It confers a unifying meaningful sense on the individual meaning systems and, seen from the point of view of the sociology of knowledge, arises like all meaning systems in the process of social construction, objectification, and legitimization. Even these highest universes of meaning, the symbolic universes, can enter into competition with each other. For the most part, particular groups that bear and are borne by their respective symbolic universes will attempt to negate other symbolic universes by assimilating and integrating them into their own symbolic universe, by ignoring them, or by actively opposing them.

The Limits of Constructivism

The approach to these issues from the point of view of the sociology of knowledge proceeds from the presupposition that theological statements too are always interwoven into a social context that conditions both their origin and their later understanding. This does not mean, however, adopting the ideological presuppositions of radical constructivism now prevailing in various sociological and philosophical models.[67] In this view, reality as a whole, including religion, is exclusively a matter of human construction; we generate the world in which we live by living in it.[68] The theoreticians of constructivism must accept that their theories themselves are a construction. Epistemologically, the constructivists are obviously under the same suspicion that they themselves have postulated.[69] Everyday life, in particular, is only possible when one accepts it without question as a given reality. Reflection and construction are always secondary acts; the methods and results of interpretations of reality cannot claim to grasp reality as a whole, or even that they themselves are that reality. The absolutism of radical constructivism proposes an intellectual negation of the biological and cultural presuppositions of every individual human life and disdains the world of human experience.[70] It is precisely on the sociological plane that experience in the human life world is to be taken seriously, experiences that point to a level of reality that is to be named God. After all, every construction must be based on something previously given, so that the acceptance of transcendent elements is unavoidable. The methodological necessity of construction must therefore be affirmed and at the same time sharply distinguished and separated from the ontological implications of radical constructivism.

Religion simply constitutes the symbolic universe as such,[71] since, far more than law, philosophy, or political ideologies, it claims to represent reality as such, which transcends all other realities: God, or The Holy. As the all-encompassing reality within which every human life is lived, religion presents a symbolic universe that, especially by means of symbols, integrates both individuals and groups into the wholeness of the universe, interprets the phenomena of life, offers guidelines for how to live one’s life, and ultimately opens up perspectives beyond death.[72]

The Pauline symbolic universe represents an independent model within the variety of symbolic universes already present not only in Judaism and the Roman Hellenistic world but also within early Christianity. The Pauline gospel to the Gentiles is the erection of a new symbolic universe offering a new identity not dependent on other such offers. Obviously, the possibility of a new identity set forth by Paul was very attractive to both Jews and Gentiles, as documented by its uniquely successful history. At the same time, conflicts were unavoidable, for the Pauline concept of identity was in competition with several others within early Christianity and its social context. Paul had to struggle especially with the particular concepts of identity present in Judaism and certain groups of Jewish Christians. Also, the classical identity concepts prevalent in the Greco-Roman world were not untouched by Paul’s message.

Criteria for an Interpretation of Paul

The considerations discussed above lead to seven methodological requirements necessary for a valid interpretation of Pauline thought that does justice to its complexity:

(1) We must construct a delineation of Paul’s life and thought chronologically, since his thought cannot be separated from his life. Because here origin, development, and theology all condition each other,[73] it is amiss to attempt to grasp Pauline theology only in terms of the history of ideas. In Paul’s case, issues of origin and background already have theological status, and the course of his life and the development of his thought were stamped even more by historical events, some of which were uniquely his own; these events fundamentally affected his thoughts, feelings, and actions. Therefore the first order of business is to focus on Paul’s intellectual and spiritual homeland and the path that led to his being called as an apostle of Jesus Christ. This, however, is only a first step in the direction of the Pauline thought represented in his letters. The dark years between Damascus (33 CE) and 1 Thessalonians (50 CE) must be illuminated. It was in this period that Paul made fundamental decisions. A chronological outline thus makes it necessary to determine the number and order of authentic Pauline letters. It makes a serious difference whether we read Colossians and 2 Thessalonians as authentic documents representing Paul’s theology[74] or whether we adopt the consensus of scholarship, according to which only seven letters are considered to be authentically Pauline (1 Thessalonians, 1–2 Corinthians, Galatians, Romans, Philippians, Philemon).[75] The chronological location of Galatians plays a key role in the issue of the relative order of the letters.[76] For evaluating the place of the doctrine of justification in Paul’s thought, it is of considerable significance whether one dates Galatians after 1 Thessalonians but before the Corinthians letters, or directly prior to Romans.

It is false to object against this approach that the whole presentation of Paul’s theology is based on a chronology for the letters that in the final analysis is only hypothetical. There is no way to avoid positing some chronology, since Paul’s letters were in fact written in some chronological order and thus were composed in different situations. Whoever abandons the attempt to base a chronology on the best available evidence will either tacitly presuppose some such chronology or else proceed as though all the letters were written at the same time from the same situation.

By respecting the letters as individual documents, a chronological approach—in contrast to a purely thematic outline—takes seriously the fact that each one was embedded in, and affected by, its own situation. We can understand neither the extant letters nor Pauline theology as a whole apart from their particular historical setting. This applies to Romans also, which is embedded in a complex theological and political situation and is not simply the Pauline theology as such[77] but Pauline theology in the year 56 CE as set forth for the Roman church.[78] The apostle’s theology cannot be delineated in the timeless form of a doctrinal system of central theological concepts; rather, we must give it its rightful place by carefully attending to its historical development and the basic theological affirmations that bore it along. We can understand Paul’s theology in a nuanced way only when we see his ideas in the concrete context of each individual letter. Only in this way can we attend to both continuity and change as we trace the course of his thought.

(2) Only the textual data of the individual letters can decide whether and to what extent we should regard their theological views as constant basic principles or as contingent modifications conditioned by the situation. Among the constant basic principles are the ideas on the basis of which Paul structures his thought, ideas that are load pillars of his thought structure, ideas that determine it throughout. Modifications is a neutral term, referring to changes that we can document by comparing texts.[79] Rather than generalize here about how to interpret these changes, we will treat them in the exegesis of particular texts, whether as applications purely dependent on the situation; as the deepening, clarification, variation, or logical development of previous statements; as the revision of prior standpoints; or as completely new ideas. These possibilities do not necessarily represent alternatives, since some statements are conditioned by their situation and the thinking through or revision of previous statements and the formation of completely new theologoumena are by no means mutually exclusive.[80] Not all of Paul’s statements must be coherent in themselves; breaks and tensions within one’s thought are indications of living convictions of faith and the active reception of tradition. Moreover, Paul continued to work on individual themes and attained new levels of intellectual penetration and presentation. And finally, the extant letters allow us to see clearly how complex and, to some extent, tension-filled the personality of the apostle is, from both personal and theological points of view.[81] At the same time we must remember that the letters by no means constitute a complete compendium of Pauline doctrine. Paul did not always have to say everything; for the most part, we do not know what he proclaimed and taught in his churches when present in person, whether in their founding period or during later visits. Thus we should only speak of modifications when substantial changes can be documented in the same theme in the course of several letters.

(3) The unique historical and theological situation of Paul must be perceived and evaluated in all its complexity and uniqueness. The apostle found himself in a unique situation of upheaval and deep-rooted change. He saw himself confronted with problems that at their core have not yet been resolved: How is God’s first revelation to be related to the second? Why does the first covenant continue without qualification (cf. Rom. 9:4–5) when only the second covenant saves? What criteria must be fulfilled in order to belong to the elect people of God and at the same time maintain continuity with the people of God of the first covenant? What is the significance of the law/Torah for faith in Christ? In what relation do believers in Christ stand to empirical Israel? Must theological affirmations be changed because of the delay of the parousia? In view of these problems, instability and unresolved tensions in Pauline thought not only are to be expected but, in view of the subject matter, are absolutely unavoidable, for these are questions that in the final analysis only God can answer. Therefore tensions and contradictions in Pauline thought should not be denied on overriding theological or ideological grounds but accepted and interpreted. Paul does not comply with the wish for consistent unity and systemization,[82] for neither the ideal of Paul the thinker nor the thesis that Paul is a mere practitioner[83] deficient in theory corresponds to the historical truth. It is rather a matter of ascertaining the abiding deep insight, the determining structure, and the inner logic of Pauline thought and distinguishing them from his applications based on these guidelines but shaped by the actual situations.

(4) A plausible portrayal of Paul must be integrable into the history of early Christianity and able to explain the apostle’s effects on both his opponents and his disciples. The success of the Pauline Gentile mission essentially determined the history of early Christianity and in turn evoked reactions that had no small influence on Paul’s own thought. The constantly strained relations between Paul and early Christianity, the apostolic council, the incident in Antioch, and the demand of radical Jewish Christians that Gentile Christians be circumcised mark only four stations in a complex interaction between the successful new Paul and his supporters and/or opponents. Both Jews and Jewish Christians opposed Paul. Galatians shows how bitterly the disputes were carried on and how strongly they affected Paul’s thinking. The opposing front became ever larger and stronger near the end of Paul’s ministry, and this must have had a basis in the theological thinking of the apostle himself. Jews regarded him as an apostate, and radical Jewish Christians as a falsifier. That is, they perceived Pauline theology as hostile to Jewish or strict Jewish Christian self-understanding and not integrable into them. But Paul not only polarized; he also fascinated. Like no other theologian of early Christianity, he was able to gain coworkers, both men and women, in the service of his evangelistic mission. Not only that; he also triggered a literary tradition without parallel; not only the deutero-Paulines (Colossians, Ephesians, 2 Thessalonians, 1–2 Timothy, Titus) but also Acts must be read as attempts to extend Paul’s writings and theology into changed times.[84] Along with all their contemporizing of Paul in their own independent manner, Paul’s students not only adopted and developed secondary themes of the apostle’s own thought; the way they appropriated Paul’s thought also allows us to make inferences regarding Paul himself. What his students adopted and developed may well have been central and important for Paul himself.

(5) The inner logic of Pauline thought and its effects stand in a causal relationship with the concept of identity advocated by Paul. As the direct expression of his symbolic world, the Pauline construction of a Christian identity is a key to the understanding of Pauline theology and the history of early Christianity. What interpretative model did Paul use on the Jesus-Christ-history in order to reveal its universal significance? Which symbols does he take up in order to facilitate the communication of the symbolic world? How did he succeed in implanting his symbolic universe in the meaning universes that already existed, in stabilizing threatened congregations, and in all the while advancing his evangelistic mission?

(6) If Pauline theology is understood as historical meaning formation, then it becomes clear, from insights derived from the related theory of history, that to pose such alternatives as external or internal perspective, theological or history-of-religions approach, confessional or nonconfessional is inappropriate.[85] These alternatives do not exist; what always does exist is the standpoint of the interpreter, which postulates them in order thereby to provide a foil for his or her own worldview. The past world emerges in the act of interpretation. All we can ever do is set forth our own present interpretation of the past, so that alternative category pairs such as subjective or objective lose their significance; all we have are arguments that may be deemed appropriate or inappropriate, adequate or inadequate. Given these presuppositions, no way of coming at the subject may be ruled out in advance; all realms of historical life are to be taken into account. All aspects of a cultural world must be inspected: psychological, sociological, linguistic, religious, theological. So also it is inappropriate to set up content and function as contrasting alternatives, for the functional description of a religion cannot be formulated apart from its contents and experience; contents, experiences, and functions constantly interact.[86]

(7) The previous discussion makes it clear that a historically and theologically appropriate interpretation of Paul must be multifactorial. Paul cannot be explained monocausally but must always be seen simultaneously as rooted in the Old Testament