The Apostle Paul’s use of Analogy
The Jewish historian Hyam Maccoby argues in his book “The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity” that Paul could not have been a trained Pharisee. He argues this through multiple lines of evidence, but one line of evidence that was interesting to me was that Paul did not reason carefully on many occasions. Maccoby thinks this indicates that Paul didn’t have Pharisaic training. One example he cites is the passage Romans 7:1-6.
1Do you not know, brothers—for I am speaking to men who know the law—that the law has authority over a man only as long as he lives? 2For example, by law a married woman is bound to her husband as long as he is alive, but if her husband dies, she is released from the law of marriage. 3So then, if she marries another man while her husband is still alive, she is called an adulteress. But if her husband dies, she is released from that law and is not an adulteress, even though she marries another man.
4So, my brothers, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit to God. 5For when we were controlled by the sinful nature,[a] the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in our bodies, so that we bore fruit for death. 6But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.
Here Paul is making the analogy that when a husband dies; the wife is free to remarry. This is to illustrate how Christians are free from the law and can now be the bride of Christ. On one side of the analogy, we have a woman/bride, a deceased husband, a new bridegroom. On the other side we have the Christian (who died and was raised with Christ), the Torah, and Christ (who died and was raised).
But for the analogy to work, he needs to keep straight who is the widow and who is the deceased. In his illustration it was the husband’s death that made the wife free. But the Christian is the “Bride” and the Torah is supposed to correspond to the husband. The one who is free to remarry in the first scenario is the one who didn’t die. The Torah is the only thing in the second analogy that didn’t die. But he isn’t making a point about the Torah being free to take a new groom. In order for the analogy to hold the law has to be what died, not the bride and/or the groom.
Apparently Paul is introducing the idea that our own death frees us from the law. But if that is the case, why isn’t he talking about the freedom of the dead husband? Shouldn’t Paul have talked about how the husband is now free from the wife to make the analogy work? Of course, freedom usually entails the power to do something. Either to do what is desired or what we should be done. Power and freedom are not properties normally associated with the dead. (Of course zombie weddings probably would not be common experiences for Paul’s readers, so the correct illustration would have been difficult.)
This apparently confused analogy leads to several questions. If God were to inspire a collection of books, wouldn’t he want them to reflect his nature? If there is a God, I would expect his intellect would be much greater than ours, and he could certainly guide his servants to make clear arguments and analogies. Why shouldn’t flawed analogies and arguments disqualify Paul’s writings as scripture?
4So, my brothers, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit to God. 5For when we were controlled by the sinful nature,[a] the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in our bodies, so that we bore fruit for death. 6But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.
Here Paul is making the analogy that when a husband dies; the wife is free to remarry. This is to illustrate how Christians are free from the law and can now be the bride of Christ. On one side of the analogy, we have a woman/bride, a deceased husband, a new bridegroom. On the other side we have the Christian (who died and was raised with Christ), the Torah, and Christ (who died and was raised).
But for the analogy to work, he needs to keep straight who is the widow and who is the deceased. In his illustration it was the husband’s death that made the wife free. But the Christian is the “Bride” and the Torah is supposed to correspond to the husband. The one who is free to remarry in the first scenario is the one who didn’t die. The Torah is the only thing in the second analogy that didn’t die. But he isn’t making a point about the Torah being free to take a new groom. In order for the analogy to hold the law has to be what died, not the bride and/or the groom.
Apparently Paul is introducing the idea that our own death frees us from the law. But if that is the case, why isn’t he talking about the freedom of the dead husband? Shouldn’t Paul have talked about how the husband is now free from the wife to make the analogy work? Of course, freedom usually entails the power to do something. Either to do what is desired or what we should be done. Power and freedom are not properties normally associated with the dead. (Of course zombie weddings probably would not be common experiences for Paul’s readers, so the correct illustration would have been difficult.)
This apparently confused analogy leads to several questions. If God were to inspire a collection of books, wouldn’t he want them to reflect his nature? If there is a God, I would expect his intellect would be much greater than ours, and he could certainly guide his servants to make clear arguments and analogies. Why shouldn’t flawed analogies and arguments disqualify Paul’s writings as scripture?
19 comments:
How does Hyam Maccoby determine just how Pharisees would have used analogies? What other Pharisee writers does he study to prove that point?
Keep in mind that it makes very little difference to me whether or not Paul was a Pharisee. I am mostly interested why an apparently bad analogy would be canonized as scripture and deemed worth for “teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.” But anyway, I’ll quote from Maccoby:
From footnote 3 of Chapter 7.
It may be said that we do not know what Pharisaism was like in Paul's day, since all the Pharisee or rabbinical writings come from a later period (for this agnostic view see Sandmel, 1970, pp14-15, and 44-6). As against this, see Vermes (1983), showing the folly of ignoring the rabbinical data relevant to the time of Jesus and Paul on purist grounds. The agnostic view at least acknowledges that Paul shows little sign of Pharisaism in the rabbinical sense, but seeks to substitute the view that Paul was a Pharisee in some other (unprovable) sense. The real point of this argument is that, if we cannot prove whether Paul was a Pharisee or not from the evidence of his writings, we must fall back on his own assertion that he was one. This is at least an advance on the dogmatic view that Paul’s writings show him to be a typical rabbi.
For examples of rabbinic thought he cites a qual va-homer arguments typified by Numbers 12:14. He references Guggenheimer “Logical Problems in Jewish Tradition”(1967) for a discussion. He references the Mishnah (Bava Qamma 2:5). Regarding Paul’s reference to “A curse is on everyone who hangs on a gibbet” Gal 3:13, he references Tosefta, Sanhedrin 9:5.
In fact, the Rabbinic tradition Maccoby relies on comes hundreds of years after the fall of Jersualem and profound theological and societal shifts among the Jewish people and sects. That puts them also hundreds of years after Paul's letters. Moreover, the Talmud is a completey different genre of literature than Paul's letters. It is a kind of formalized argument edited and amassed over decades, with Rabbis formally responding to other Rabbis and arguments. Paul's letters are mainly to gentiles, highly occasional, and of the genre of hellenistic letter writing. Furthermore, Paul's letters were written decades after his conversion to Christianity.
When it comes to beliefs (instead of how he uses analogies) Paul shows the influence of some of what we think we know about Pharisees of the first century. He affirms resurrection, the use of Jewish "traditions" rather than only the Torah, his obsession with the law, and a high place for eschatology. Most important though, we have Paul's first hand declaration that he was a Pharisee. A statement rendered all the more credible by the fact that Paul had opponents eager to cast doubt on his integrity and mission. But there seems to have been no doubt about this claim.
Which is why, in a nutshell, Maccoby's theory has not swayed the scholary consensus to the contrary.
Dagoods, I hope you are reading this post of Bills. Isn't Romans 7:1-6 one of your favorites? :)
From a Biblical standpoint, Pauls acts of persecuting Christians did seem more consistent with being a Saducee than a Pharisee. He even would have needed the permission of a Saducee to arrest Christians since the High Priest was a Saducee (which letters of authority he claimed to get before his trip to Damascus). Acts 5:17 shows the Saducees throwing the apostles into prison. Acts 5:33-39 shows Gamaliel, Sauls teacher, arguing successfully for the apostles release.
This, however, is a side issue to Bill's post. The Romans passage doesn't work. Maccoby does rightly point out some problems. To add to what Bill has quoted: "The only term in the comparison that is not mentioned as having died is the Torah; yet this is the only thing that would make the comparison valid."
You seem to me to be taking Paul's analogy too literally. Surely when he talks about "you are become dead to the law by the body of christ" he doesn't mean actual death but becoming a "born-again" christian. It is your "old self" that has died. And when you have reached that state you are able to abide by the spirit of the law rather than the letter, which is what the pharisees do. Your "new self" is free of the constraints of the old self. In the paragraphs that follow, as I read them anyway, he makes the perfectly good point that a moral person does good because he recognises what is good, not because he is following a written commandment. The same argument is useful to us secularists to counter religious ideas of what is ethical.
Yet Luke also shows Jesus engaging with Pharisees in bitter disagreements. Sometimes your biggest enemy is the ideological opponent with whom you have the most common. Why accept Acts as authentic but Luke as not? Other than for the sake of your argument, that is.
And Paul doesn't seem influenced by any Saudducee ideas of which I am aware. He does seem influenced, however, by beliefs attributed to the Pharisees (and denied by the Sadducees) as I showed above.
Besides, there simply were not that many Sadducees. The Pharisees were the biggest sect with the most influence. And while there is evidence of Pharisees acting outside of Jerusalem to further their religious cause, there is less so for Sadducees.
And as N.T. Wright showed in What Saint Paul Really Said, there were Pharisees and there were Pharisees.
I'm hearing little but wishful thinking on this one.
Layman,
I really didn’t lay out much of the evidence Maccoby utilized. I didn’t really plan on doing that here. I think that there are facts that are difficult to explain on the hypothesis that Paul was a Pharisee. There are also facts that are difficult to explain on the hypothesis that Paul wasn’t a Pharisee. I think the best way to assess the evidence is to lay out all the evidence and combine it utilizing Bayes’ Theorem. But I doubt people would be interested in that. If you want me to present the evidence for Maccoby’s view, I could do a post sometime next week. Again, if the evidence indicates that Paul probably was a Pharisee that is fine with me.
With regard to paul’s (not the apostle’s) comments. He is echoing some of Maccoby’s analysis. Maccoby does use the New Testament as history. He thinks that there is a core historical truth. He also examines the motives of the authors. Maccoby thinks that in the earliest gospel Mark, the exchanges between Jesus and rabbi’s were portrayed as more friendly. He claims later gospels downplayed cordiality of the exchanges since Christians were being confronted by rabbis for their “unorthodox” beliefs. So Maccoby is basing some of his analysis on the perceived motives of the authors and trying to infer how their bias affects their reporting. Again, I really am not doing justice to his points here.
As for the Sadducee influence, Maccoby claims that Pharisees didn’t have a police force. The Sadducees and the High Priest were sanctioned by the Romans would. If Paul was persecuting Christians as part of an armed religious group, that group would most likely have been the Sadducees.
George,
Paul may be stating some noble ideas, but the points do not follow from his analogy. I am not taking his points literally, but at least there should be some truth in the first illustration that clarifies the second. But the truths pointed out in the second don’t seem to be in the first illustration. How does one’s (spiritual) death and resurrection relate to the wife becoming free after her husband’s death? In the first case, the one who remains alive is free. In the second case the one who dies becomes free. How does his first illustration make the second case more clear? What good did the illustration do?
If you are going to lay out Maccoby's arguments, be sure to lay out specifically what evidence he is using. Like I said, one big weakeness is that he's trying to discuss just what a Pharisee would argue from stuff that was not written by Pharisees and was written hundreds of years later in a completely different genre.
And if you take the gospels seriously, you'll see that the Jewish authorities were made up of Sadduccees and Pharisees. And if you take Luke-Acts seriously, you'll see that there were Pharisees very opposed to Jesus and others who converted to Christianity.
When assessing sources hundreds of years later written by someone other than who you claim to be studying and and weighing it against a first hand claim -- that could have been challenged quite easily -- by someone writing in a completely different genre, it's not even a close call.
Layman writes 'How does Hyam Maccoby determine just how Pharisees would have used analogies? What other Pharisee writers does he study to prove that point?'
The sames ones as Wright uses. One weakness of Wright's approachs is that one big weakeness is that he's trying to discuss just what a Pharisee would argue from stuff that was not written by Pharisees and was written hundreds of years later in a completely different genre.
Perhaps you could name the sources Wright uses which were written by Pharisees and are in the same genre as Paul's letters to gentiles.
Layman,
"I'm hearing little but wishful thinking on this one."
Nah. :) It doesn't really matter to me whether Paul was a Pharisee or not. I think some of Maccobys' hypothesis is interesting, I don't find it very compelling...I find him a wee bit speculative. I shouldn't have gone there as I think it's a side issue to Bills post. So I herewith desist and get back to the core subject.
Bill said: "Keep in mind it makes very little difference to me whether or not Paul was a Pharisee. I am mostly interested why an apparently bad analogy would be canonized..."
Layman, not sure of your views on scriptural inerrancy...but since this is a blog addressing evangelical Christianity whos' adherents generally believe in Bible inerrancy, I can see Bills point.
paul,
Yeah, I was thinking of some of our previous discussions in this thread.
I agree with Layman and you that Maccoby seemed to stretch his speculations. However, as Steven Carr points accurately points out, we have a dearth of information for various religious sects and the society of First Century Palestine, so to some extent we are all left with a tendency to speculate.
Hence the fun in the study. And the reason we have—what, 22? Solutions to the Synoptic problem alone.
I don’t get too excited as to whether Paul was a Pharisee or not, except in one area. I find it remarkable that a Pharisee would go to a Sadducee High Priest for permission to go out-country to persecute Christians. (Acts 9:1-2) The resolution of “just because” seems a bit contrived, and I think it is an example (among many) of the author of Acts creating a story, and not recounting history. But I have beaten that horse dead.
Here’s another analogy of Paul’s that seems to jump all over the place: Is the wisdom of the world a good thing or a bad thing?
In I Cor. 1, Paul reports that God made the wisdom of the world to be foolish. (vs. 20 See also 3:19) The thoughts of a worldly wisdom are futile (3:20)
In 1 Cor. 2, Paul emphasizes that he speaks with the wisdom of God, not the foolish wisdom of the rulers of the age. (vs. 2:6-7) Wisdom that, if the rulers of the age knew, they would not have crucified Christ. (vs. 8)
But wait, what is the wisdom that Paul preaches? “Christ crucified.” (1:23)
So we have the wisdom of the world (bad) which generated Christ killed (good). If the world had used Godly wisdom (good) they would not have killed Christ (VERY bad!)
Instead, Paul preaches Christ crucified (good wisdom) that was brought about by the rulers of the age (bad wisdom.)
Too bad the rulers did not have good wisdom (Christ crucified) in which case they would have Crucified Christ. Sadly they had bad wisdom, in which case they crucified Christ.
The foolish futile thoughts killed Christ. Which was good. But shouldn’t have been used.
I know someone reading this will claim it was God making the best of a bad situation. Not what I am talking about. What we have is Paul uncertain how to blame the bad wisdom for good results, and he ends up jumping all over the place.
Bil Curry responded to my comment: "Paul may be stating some noble ideas, but the points do not follow from his analogy." ... "How does one’s (spiritual) death and resurrection relate to the wife becoming free after her husband’s death?"
It doesn't. The analogy is: Wife/Husband corresponds to New self/Old self. It is the old carnal self (=Husband) that dies, releasing the new spiritual self (=Wife) from bondage to the letter of the law.
That's how I read it anyway. the translation could be a lot better.
Steven,
To which of Wright's arguments are you referring? I was just rechecking The Resurrection of the Son of God and did not see much based on the Talmud extrapolated back into the first century. Is there something specific therein that you would like me to address?
If you are referring to What Saint Paul Really Said, same questions. It has been a long time since I read that one. What I remember as being one of his points is that the Pharisees were not just one monolithic belief system, but had its more and less rigorous members.
Bill,
I was doing a little reading in and about the Talmud over the weekend and was amused to see that according to the Talmud, the Pharisees/Rabbis ran everything, so Paul would have had to have been a Pharisee to do what he did. Obviously not the case, eh?
It is the gospels and Josephus that are probably more accurate. The Pharisees had the popularity of the people and lots of respect. The Sadducees had more formal power, but even shared that with the Pharisees (as in the Sanhedrin). I believe it was Josephus that discusses how the Sanhedrin would give in officially to demands made by the Pharisees. All of which would be consistent with Acts' account of Paul obtaining the blessing of a Sadducee to persecute Jewish Christians.
Layman, do you have cite where Josephus talks of the Sanhedrin giving in to the demands of the Pharisees? That would be very interesting in the question of Paul going to the high priest for a letter to persecute Christians. Thanks
I've been reading several different books on Jewish beliefs in the last few days. I'll try and track it down by this weekend.
In Resurrection of the Body in Early Judaism and Early Christianity, Claudia Setzer states "[Josephus] follows with a description of the Sadducees, who reject any idea of an afterlife and any exra-Scriptural law, and 'must submit to the Pharsees, since otherwise the masses would not tolerate them' (Ant. 18.17)." Page 26.
Layman,
Sorry, I didn't see your comment until now. I'll be traveling until next week and I don't have access to many references. Your characterization of the politics of the time may be more accurate that of Maccoby, I don't really know. I'll look at it more when I get back.
The basis of Paul's line of argument from chapter 5 of Romans on is that we are united with Christ in HIS death and resurrection. HE died to the law and therefore we died with HIM. Jesus is the bridegroom in the analogy and WE are the bride. HIS death, and then ours by union with HIM releases us from the Law. None of these analogies are intended to be perfect in each of their details...no analogy is.
Post a Comment