Nielsen’s Nook

Nielsen’s Nook
Nielsen’s Nook
Contemplative, reflective, and irenic we pray.
Print Print

Grant Osborne on Interpreting Paul, Part 4

Will Nielsen
July 10th, 2007
Tags: • • • • • •

The third and last section of Osborne’s article, “Special Issues” moves to consider the following elements:

  1. Paul’s use of Hellenistic forms of rhetoric
  2. Liturgical elements in Paul
  3. Virtue and vice lists in Paul
  4. The center of Paul’s theology
  5. Theological development in Paul
  6. Sociological factors in Paul
  7. Paul’s relation to the narrative
  8. Contextualization of Paul

In order to not get too bogged down in the details here, this writer will interact with some of the themes that runs through out these sections. In the section ‘The Center of Paul’s Theology” Osborne asks this question:

Since the Pauline letters are occasional in nature, and since Paul failed to develop his thought systematically, is it possible to conceive of a Pauline “theology” in the broad sense or of a “center” in the narrow sense?1

With the controversy that has surrounded the Apostle Paul since his calling by Christ Jesus into the Apostolic office, there is much to be said here. Osborne informs us that most interpreters have sought to seek a balance. Since there is no overwhelming consensus on what that center is, many have sought to articulate a “cluster of themes rather than a single idea or controlling principle.” 2 Osborne offers this solution to the dilemma:

The way out of the maze is to utilize the techniques of biblical theology, especially those of the analytical method. A “bottom-up” approach will follow the themes as they develop from one Pauline letter to another, allowing them to decide their own direction. 3

So far so good. However, we suggest one qualification which we will seek to understand via considering more of Osborne’s thoughts in this article.

Personally, “analytic method” is not a term that we would expect to see in apposition to “biblical theology.” Perhaps, because Osborne does not define the nuance he is presenting in the term “analytic method” we may find through other writings that he is concerned with the qualification that we make here. How does one implement biblical theology and have any assurance that the venues one explores in Paul are not rabbit trails but actually the main ideological thoroughfare Paul travels?

If the concept of scriptura ex scriptura explicanda est (roughly, scripture from scripture is explicated) still holds then we are bound to employ both a bottom up, inductive, biblical theological approach to the texts in concert with a top down, systematic, deductive fashion those scriptures outside of Paul, particularly those that can bring perspicuity to some of the unclear statements he has written. So the qualification would be that mere biblical theology will not provide the resolution that some offer as over against a merely systemic approach.

If we would understand scripture that it might be the explanation of scripture, then it would seem employing such circumspect studies of sociology contemporaneous with the texts being studied, understanding Paul’s use of narrative and rhetoric, and his theological development is necessary for understanding Paul on his own terms. Osborne rightly advocates the tempered use of some of these elements directing the reader towards a more balanced reading of Paul.

1 Grant R. Osborne, “Hermeneutics/Interpreting Paul,” in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, ed. Gerald F. Hawthorne, Ralph P. Martin, and Daniel G. Reid (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1993), 393.
2 ibid.
3 ibid.

2 Responses to “Grant Osborne on Interpreting Paul, Part 4”

Sounds like an interesting article. I think I would answer Osborne’s question, “is it possible to conceive of a Pauline “theology” in the broad sense or of a “center” in the narrow sense?” with a “no”. In fact, I think this entire idea of finding a “center” as a chasing after the wind. Even aside from the occasional nature of Paul’s writings - let’s pretend that he sat down and wrote a systematic theology text - I don’t see why we should expect to find a single center.

It seems that often when theologians say they’ve found a “center”, they really mean “obsession”. Suddenly, they find the center-obsession in every nook and cranny of the author’s text(s), in every other sentence, lurking behind every other topic they discuss, and driving their very reason/occasion for writing.

In a sense, they do the same thing done for centuries with the Gospels and Jesus: finding what they think Jesus was “all about” and interpreting almost every one of his acts and words through that lens.

In other words, Paul liked to talk about a lot of stuff. He talked about some things more than others, as is done in the Bible in its individual books and as a whole. But one “center” alone? No way.

So a “cluster of themes” may be a better approach - but what discomforts him about having a cluster? What is so “maze”-y about that? Does he think theologians come up with too many differing clusters?

Left by Eric H. on July 21st, 2007

Eric,

It is good to hear from you, friend.

It is difficult for me to say what Osborne would say, but I’ll tell you what I might extrapolate from the article. He seems to be supportive of the idea of clusters of themes, seeing it as an advance over a pauline center. One thing that does seem to raise a question for me in this article is the comment that Osborne makes (above) regarding the apparent disagreement on these centers of pauline thought.

Osborne seems to suggest that if these scholars will only engage in biblical theology - especially of the “analytic method” then the difficulties are resolved. I find it hard to believe that those he is interacting with (E. Käsemann, J.C. Beker, and E.P. Sanders) would think themselves as not having engaged in biblical theology.

The emphasis of the “analytic method” is a personal preference that is unsupported in his argument and begs the question - at least in my mind. Scripture is definitely perspicuous, as we confess. But the doctrine of perspicuity is not rooted in our methods and minds but in the God who determined to reveal something of himself to us. Scripture is perspicuous about the things God intended to communicate about himself and the cloudiness seems to come when we take those things clearly communicated and feel the need to extrapolate the Bible into places and shapes it was never intended to go. The notion of “analytic method” raises this concern for me here. We’ve made the labyrinth and we continue making labyrinths, all the while God is calling us to wonder and awe. I am comfortable saying there are things in Paul I do not understand. I think I have the Apostle Peter as precedent for that (2 Peter 3:16). I am not saying we should dismiss scholarly inquiries, but sometimes the analytic traditions of hermeneutics and philosophy seem to lose sight of the creatureliness of their proponents.

Left by Will Nielsen on July 22nd, 2007

Something to say?

View blog authority