Nielsen’s Nook

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.

Out of the brief second section of Osborne’s article on interpreting Paul there are nuggets of insights into Paul’s world. The letters of the Apostle Paul generally follow the traditional bounds of “Hellenistic letters”; however, Paul “felt less bound” to these structures, mixing several forms to accomplish his literary task.¹

Osborne incorporates nine types of Hellenistic letters into his catalog of letters with which Paul was likely familiar: ²

1. Letters of friendship (cf. 2 Cor 1:16; 5:3; Phil 1:7–8)
2. Family letters
3. Letters of praise and blame (1 Cor 11; Rev 2–3)
4. Exhortatory or paraenetic letters (1 Thess 1-5; the Pastorals)
5. Letters of mediation or recommendation (Phil 2:19-30, Philemon)
6. Juridical or forensic letters (1 Cor 9:3-12; 2 Cor 1:8-2:13)
7. Private or documentary letters
8. Official letters
9. Literary letters

---

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), 391.
² ibid.

The introduction and first section of Osborne’s article in the IVP Dictionary of Paul and His Letters is concerned with “recent hermeneutical issues.” It is where Osborne defines foundational trajectories that will carry and influence the more practical sections of the article the follow. The scope of my interaction here is not to critique each of his interactions with the variety of interpretive traditions Osborne critiques, but to identify and briefly reflect upon some of the foundational elements of Osborne’s own thinking that seem to rise to the surface as he considers these other interpretive traditions. Osborne begins:

Classical hermeneutics has always identified the goal of interpretation as ascertaining the author’s intended meaning. Even in the Middle Ages, with the “four-fold sense” (literal, allegorical, tropological/moral, anagogical), scholars felt they were drawing out the meaning of the text (the “literal sense” on which the other senses were based). Recently, however, this approach has come under increasing attack, as attention has shifted from the author to the text (semiotic theory) and then to the reader (postmodern theories) as the locus of meaning.¹

Classical hermeneutics (CH) is a term that this writer wishes would be defined rather than assumed. From this opening paragraph, CH is clearer only by way of remotion. It is not obvious whether it includes the hermeneutic of the Middle Ages, which employed the so-called ‘four-fold sense’. However, CH is apparently other than (and over against?) the traditions Osborne considers in this section on “recent hermeneutical issues.”

I am encouraged to see Protestants considering interpretive traditions that precede the Reformation. However, it does not seem clear that Reformers saw their own hermeneutical methods as antithetical to the medieval tradition’s many senses of scripture. Nevertheless, the abuses of fanciful interpretations were surely something reformers sought to avoid.

Calvin may provide an interesting addition here. One of the greatest differences this writer sees between Calvin and his own Presbyterian and Reformed heritage is the interaction and employment of the patristics. Gamble observes that while Calvin rejects the allegory of Augustine, Origen, Jerome and other patristics, “he also maintained that there were many senses of Scripture.”²

At this point, I believe we have only clarified a bit of the scope Osborne may have had in mind with CH. If as Protestants the rubric of classical hermeneutic is going to truly be classical, i.e., connected to Christian interpretation throughout history, then it would seem to be necessary to make room for Calvin and Luther. Calvin rejects allegory while Luther employs it; both adhere to a multi-sense meaning of scripture.

If what is meant by classical hermeneutics is narrowly the notion that only the grammatical historical approach has been recognized by the church as legitimate, then we find that such a narrow scope on the definition becomes problematic. For such a narrow definition, seems to cut out those reformers who most certainly held that the meaning of the text was much larger than the so called “literal sense.” Luther, being an Augustinian monk, is known for his allegorical interpretations of scripture.

If the narrow scope is more representative of Osborne’s view then “classical hermeneutics” seems to not be so classical at all. It would not seem to account for patristic, medieval, or Reformation hermeneutics that all hold that the meaning of the text is multidimensional in its meaning.

---

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), 388.
² Richard C. Gamble, “Brevitas et Facilitas: Toward an Understanding of Calvin’s Hermeneutic,” Westminster Theological Journal 47, no. Spring (1985): 4.

Osborne, Grant R. “Hermeneutics/Interpreting Paul.” In Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, ed. Gerald F. Hawthorne, Ralph P. Martin and Daniel G. Reid, 388-396. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1993.

I have some time off from preaching for a while, so I am diving into Paul, especially the book of Romans after spending much time in Genesis, Deuteronomy and the Psalms.� In trying to understand how first century apocalyptic elements may have featured in Paul’s writing, I came across this article by Osborne.� I found it engaging and insightful, while at the same time troublesome, such that I felt the need to work out some of the reflections I had here.� Perhaps readers of the Nook will have irenic insight for me also.

Osborne’s article, after brief introduction, falls plainly into three sections.� First, he addresses recent hermeneutical issues, establishing so called “Classical Hermeneutics” over against various interpretive theories and hermeneutical frameworks.� Second, the article briefly considers the rubric and specifics of the forms Paul uses in his epistolary writing.� Finally, Osborne marches through territory he names “Special Issues.”� Here Osborne touches on rhetorical criticism, Paul’s use of liturgical material, social codes impacting Paul, the center of Pauline theology, Paul’s theological development, Paul and sociology, narrative criticism, and the contextualization of the Pauline corpus.

In the coming posts, I will lay out some of the high points Osborne makes and attempt to interact meaningfully with them.