Month: August 2014

Jens Schröter on the Areopagus Speech and Not Reducing Historicity to Facticity

Posted by

0

Before turning to things German, let me begin this post by saying happy anniversary to my wife Ingie!

Whereas my posts from January 13, February 17, and March 17 dealt with Jens Schröter’s theoretical reflections on historiography, this post, like my posts from May 19 and July 7th, will focus more specifically on Jens Schröter’s perspectives on the historical value of Acts in From Jesus to the New Testament, which will presumably inform his forthcoming HNT commentary on Acts. Needless to say, I would be delighted if these posts would initiate/provoke a more substantive response to Schröter’s treatment of this topic by one (or several) of the many Acts specialists in the blogging community!

As usual I will begin with the English translation so that the (selective) grammatical commentary directly follows the German text.

Translation

From Jesus to the New Testament ( p. 46): “This is not, of course, to claim that Paul actually delivered or would have delivered a speech such as that in Acts 17. In the sense of the aforementioned Thucydidean principle, the Areopagus speech can, however, be viewed as a composition that reproduces the ξύμπασα γνώμη of how Paul, according to the view of Luke, could have spoken in such a situation. Its programmatic character is emphasized thereby not only through the location, but also through its position at the center of the independent mission of Paul within the book of Acts. The Areopagus speech thus shows itself to be a configuration of the historian Luke, who links the activity of Paul with its historical consequences – the hardening of Judaism and the emergence of the Gentile-Christian church. Only on this foundation can the Lukan Paul and the Paul of the Letters be placed in relation to each other in a meaningful manner. The assessment that Paul, if he gave the speeches [correction: speech] reported by Luke at all, did not, in any case, give them [correction: it] in this way, would, by contrast, be a truncated understanding of historical reference – as would the opposite attempt, which is undoubtedly more difficult to carry out, to prove the actuality of the speech. Both models reduce historicity to facticity and thereby remain behind the aforementioned methodology-of-history insights.”

Von Jesus zum Neuen Testament (pp. 51-52): “Damit ist selbstverständlich nicht behauptet, dass Paulus eine Rede wie diejenige aus Apg 17 tatsächlich gehalten hat oder gehalten haben würde. Die Areopagrede kann jedoch im Sinne des oben genannten thukydideischen Prinzips als eine Komposition angesehen werden, die die ξύμπασα γνώμη dessen wiedergibt, wie Paulus nach Auffassung des Lukas in einer derartigen Situation geredet haben könnte. Ihr programatischer Charakter wird dabei nicht nur durch den Ort, sondern auch durch ihre Stellung im Zentrum der selbständigen Mission des Paulus innerhalb der Apostelgeschichte hervorgehoben. Die Areopagrede erweisst sich somit als eine Gestaltung des Historikers Lukas, der das Wirken des Paulus mit seinen geschichtlichen Konsequenzen – der Verstocken des Judentums und der Entstehung der heiden-christlichen Kirche – verknüpft. Erst auf dieser Grundlage können der lukanische Paulus und derjenige der Briefe sinnvoll miteinander in Beziehung gesetzt werden. Die Feststellung, Paulus habe die von Lukas berichtete Rede wenn überhaupt, dann jedenfalls nicht so gehalten, wäre dagegen ein verkürztes Verständnis von historischer Referenz – genauso wie der entgegengesetzte, zweifellos schwieriger durchzuführende Versuch, die Tatsächlichkeit der Rede zu erweisen. Beide Modele reduzieren Historizität auf Faktizität und bleiben damit hinter den oben genannten geschichtsmethodologischen Einsichten zurück.”

Grammatical Analysis

Rather than offering a selective grammatical analysis of the entire passage, I will skip over the first part and comment on the last part of the passage as a model sentence.

Die Feststellung (the assessment) is the subject. habe is subjunctive, which signals that Paulus habe … gehalten conveys what someone might say as their assessment or claim. Die … Rede is the direct object of “habe … gehalten”. It is singular and therefore should have been translated as “speech” rather than “speeches”(mea culpa). It is modified by the past participle (berichtete/reported), which is modified by von Lukas/“by Luke”. Wenn überhaupt [gehalten] = if at all, i.e., if [he delivered/gave the speech reported by Luke] at all. dann = then. jedenfalls = “in any case” or “at any rate”. “habe … nicht so gehalten” = delivered/gave [the speech/it] not in this way, which becomes “he did not give it [not: them!] in this way”. Die Feststellung + Paulus habe … gehalten (i.e., the content/expression of the assessment voiced by another) is the subject of wäre = “would be”. dagegen = by contrast. ein … Verständnis … is the predicate. The past participle verkürztes is easy enough to understand but difficult to translate: I opted for “truncated”. The adjective + noun historischer Referenz is dependent on von/“of” and is dative since von takes the dative. genauso wie = just as. der … Versuch/”the attempt” is the subject, which is complemented by the infinitive zu erweisen (the attempt to show/prove/demonstrate). erweisen takes the direct object die Tatsächlichkeit, which is modified by the genitive der Rede (“the actuality of the speech”). der Versuch is modified by“entgegengesetzte” and “zweifellos schwieriger durchzuführende”. As often, I retained the first modifier with the noun (the opposite attempt) and transformed the second into a clause (which is undoubtedly more difficult to carry out). I think that entgegengesetzte is the past participle of entgegensetzen, but I forget how to describe the grammar of durchzuführende. Beide Modelle is the subject of reduzieren (which picks up verkürzte in terms of content) and Historizität is the direct object. One reduces something to (zu) something else (here: Faktizität), which is dative because it is governed by “zu”. Beide Modelle is also the subject of zurückbleiben/“remain behind or fall behind”, which becomes bleiben … zurück. damit has the force of “with this”, but I often translate it with “thus”. Hinter/”behind” takes the dative object den … Einsichten/”the insights”, which is modified by the participle oben genannten (above mentioned = aforementioned) and the adjective geschichtsmethodisch, which I rendered as “methodology-of-history” rather than “historical methodological” (or the like) in order to make clear that these models are being criticized from the perspective of a certain approach to doing history.

Substantive Analysis

What I like about this point is that it shows how Schröter attempts to relate his theoretical reflections to the interpretation and evaluation of a classic issue, namely the relevance of the areopagus speech for thinking about Luke as an ancient historian. I think Schröter is probably right to argue against reducing historicity to facticity, which is not to say that questions about the facticity of a given event are unimportant.

Facebook Page: To receive notifications of future blog posts, please subscribe to this blog and/or like my facebook page here.

For a complete list of my blog posts, please see here.

For tips on how to use this blog, please see here.

For two interviews with me about the Baylor-Mohr Siebeck Series, see Clifford Kvidahl and Michael Hölscher.

German Mondays: Thank you for making it to the end of this blog post! In an effort to provide a sense of regularity and predictability for this blog’s readership, I plan on writing a new post each Monday. So hopefully I will ‘see’ you again in a week’s time. Best, Wayne.

 

Benjamin Schliesser on the Cosmic Interpretation of pistis in Gal 3.23, 25

Posted by

1

This post falls under one of my favorite categories on this blog, namely “German scholars”. The purpose of this category is to introduce German scholars and their research to the English-speaking world. Each post will consist of (I) my translation of a short passage from a publication submitted by the German author her/himself and (II) some biographical-bibliographical information about the scholar in question. For further information on this category, see here. For my other “German scholars” posts, see here.

Today’s “German scholar” is Dr. Benjamin Schliesser of the University of Zürich. His chosen excerpt, which comes from his 2011 book Was ist Glaube? Paulinische Perspektiven, suggests, in the context of debates about the interpretation of pistis Christou, that pistis should be understood in a comprehensive “cosmic” sense in Gal 3.23, 25, a viewpoint that has been developed previously by Ernst Lohmeyer and one that is discussed as a “third” view in the second edition of Udo Schnelle’s book on Paul (Paulus. Leben und Denken. 2nd Edition. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2014, p. 572).

As usual I will begin with the English translation so that the selective grammatical commentary can directly follow the German version.

I. Translation

English Translation (wmc): Paul evidently understands pistis here [in Gal 3.23, 25] as a powerful eschatological event that marks a turn of the times and opposes the supremacy of the law that was  previously in force in order to supplant this once and for all. Faith and Law come upon the stage as personified entities at a certain point in time of the salvation-historical drama. They possess a cosmic dimension that determines the reality as a whole and yet simultaneously a personal dimension that determines the entire person. Through the revelation of faith God has radically transformed the reality of the world and placed it under a new light. From this results the designations with which pistis has been understood [in scholarship]: “eschatological event of salvation” (F. Neugebauer), “divine event-reality”, “transubjective entity” (H. Binder), or “transindividual overall phenomenon” (P. Stuhlmacher).

Was ist Glaube (p. 36): Offensichtlich versteht Paulus die pistis hier [in Gal 3,23.25] als machtvolles eschatologisches Geschehen, das eine Zeitenwende markiert und der bis dato geltenden Vormachtstellung des Gesetzes entgegentritt, um dieses ein für alle Mal abzulösen. Glaube und Gesetz treten als personifizierte Größen zu einem bestimmten Zeitpunkt des heilsgeschichtlichen Dramas auf die Bühne. Ihnen ist eine kosmische Dimension eigen, die die Wirklichkeit als Ganze bestimmt, zugleich aber eine personale Dimension, die den ganzen Menschen bestimmt. Durch die Offenbarung des Glaubens hat Gott die Weltwirklichkeit radikal verwandelt und unter ein neues Licht gestellt. Daraus ergeben sich die Bezeichnungen, mit denen die pistis [in der Forschung] versehen wurde: «eschatologisches Heilsereignis» (F. Neugebauer), «göttliche Geschehenswirklichkeit», «transsubjektive Größe» (H. Binder) oder «überindividuelles Gesamtphänomen» (P. Stuhlmacher).

Selective grammatical analysis: For me it is often difficult to decide whether to translate offensichtlich as “apparently” or as “evidently”. I have chosen the latter, which implies a somewhat stronger claim. Previously I had never encountered the phrase bis dato, which appears to have the force of “hitherto”, “previously” or “to date”. The translation of gelten is often tricky; solutions I have adopted include “in force”, “in effect”, and “valid”. For the translation of ablösen I opted for “supplant” rather than “replace” or “supersede”. Rather that using the phrase “come onto the scene” I decided to retain the literal force of treten … auf der Bühne and translate the phrase as “come upon the stage”. Ihnen … eigen is not easy, but I think that “they possess (or they have)” captures the general sense. I often translate bestimmen as “specifies” but “determines” seemed better here. The strong verb “transformed” seemed to better capture the sense of verwandelt than “changed”. Daraus ergeben sich could be translated as “from this arises/results” or perhaps more freely as “This gives rise to…”. For eschatologisches Heilsereignis I waffled between “eschatological salvation event”, “eschatological event of salvation” and “eschatological salvific event”. It is hard to capture Geschehenswirklichkeit, and there is presumably a better solution than “event reality”.

II. Biographical-Bibliographical Information

Before coming to the University of Zürich, Benjamin Schliesser studied Protestant theology in Tübingen (Germany), Glasgow (Scotland), and Pasadena (USA). He completed his PhD in 2006 with a dissertation on the Pauline understanding of faith (see here). He has been Oberassistent (Senior Research Assistant) for Prof. Jörg Frey since 2010 and, in addition, for Prof. Samuel Vollenweider since 2011. He is currently working toward the completion of his habilitation on the “phenomenon of doubt in early Christianity”.
A selection of his most important publications can be found at his University of Zürich homepage (see here). Readers will also want to consult his academia.edu page, which contains some of his research, including a valuable article on recent Theologies of Paul (Becker, Dunn, Schnelle, Wolter).

Facebook Page: To receive notifications of future blog posts, please subscribe to this blog and/or like my facebook page here.

For a complete list of my blog posts, please see here.

For tips on how to use this blog, please see here.

For two interviews with me about the Baylor-Mohr Siebeck Series, see Clifford Kvidahl and Michael Hölscher.

German Mondays: Thank you for making it to the end of this blog post! In an effort to provide a sense of regularity and predictability for this blog’s readership, I plan on writing a new post each Monday. So hopefully I will ‘see’ you again in a week’s time. Best, Wayne.