There is an odd situation in academic circles at the moment
concerning Pauline Chronology. The discussion centers around the use of Acts to
construct Paul’s life as opposed to the data found in his letters. The reality
is that the vast majority of that data is found in Galatians 1-2, but there are
a few other moments found in other letters which are tangentially relevant (2
Cor. 11:32-33; 1 Cor. 15:8; 1 Thess. 2:16; 2 Cor. 12:2; Phil. 4:15; 1 Cor.
16:6). Further, these points are not just in tension between Acts and Paul,
also, they are then triangulated with Roman history. The challenges with this
is well known and there is no reason to go into depth on the topic here. What
is interesting is where these
discussions are happening. 3 decades ago, this was a widely discussed topic in
academic circles.[1] Now, very
few studies are being presented that seriously discuss Pauline Chronology.[2] What is interesting is not that this
topic has largely fallen off the discussion in academic settings, but that it
persists so aggressively in educational settings. While very few are discussing
Pauline chronology in an academic context, there is very rarely an introduction
to Paul or the New Testament that does not have this as one of its anchors to
the class. I, myself, was asked to do a thorough study in a doctoral class
which was an overview of New Testament interpretative techniques. Why this
disconnect? It is not as if the topic has come to scholarly consensus – indeed,
if one places Bo Reicke against John Knox, then one will find next to no
scholarly agreement.[3] Further, it
is not as if topics which have no clear solution – which this does not – are
forgotten in scholarship. Consider, for example, how many books are still being
written on the synoptic problem or the historical Jesus – simply because there
is no clear solution does not stop this from being discussed. Further, why, if
this is so frequently cited in educational settings, is it so rare in academic publications?
I argue that the reason is the goal of studies. Work son Paul are primarily
interested in meaning and social setting. Unfortunately, chronology, being a
modern reconstruction putting Acts and Paul together and then mapping it onto
Roman history is not primarily about that. Instead, this is used for two
possible reasons – apologetics about the inspiration of scripture (in the quest
to try and show that there are no historical impossibilities in scripture) or
as a case study for why books should be studied on their own – why it is that
it is so frequently used in educational settings. The one thing that it is not
used for, is to show the meaning of the text. If that is the case, then should
we not be more proactive in ceasing from making this as crucial an educational
piece? Should we not always focus on meaning rather than apologetics?
First, a few notes should be mentioned about the challenges
of any Pauline chronology. Doing this is an incredibly difficult task. Further,
the problem of Acts looms large – there is no way to get around it. The modern
discussion of the chronology of Paul attempts to reconstruct the historical
Paul in order to shed light on both the meaning of his letters and the book of
Acts. This study of the modern reconstruction of the chronology of Paul is
beset by challenges. First, the relationship between Acts and the biographical
details of Paul’s letters need to be addressed. The two resources need to be
collated and harmonized or prioritized in some systematic way. Second, a modern
reader must use the details of Roman history that are known and apply those to
the harmony earlier constructed. Third, one must measure and evaluate the
sources of information presented in the study on historical grounds. To do
that, one must recognize the rhetorical nature of the texts considered, as well
as the modern challenges to authorship. While there are very different
reconstructions of the life of Paul, one aspect cannot be avoided even by the
most traditional scholars who value the historical approach of both Acts and
Paul as well as the more reductive scholars who reject Acts and only build the
chronology on Paul’s “firm” letters – any chronology of Paul is a modern reconstruction. Those who want to
use all sources and value them unavoidably judge and deemphasize some over
against others, and those who try to avoid Acts unavoidably continue to use it
given its importance as the only narrative of Paul’s life from the first
century. The reason for this is that any chronology is a harmonization in some
sense based upon the dictum of John Knox: “The conventional chronology of
Paul’s life is arrived at by harmonizing Paul’s
intervals with Luke’s incidents.”[4]
The relationship between Paul and Acts can be characterized
in basically three options:
1.
The book of Acts and Paul have no tensions which
can be explained simply by proper interpretation.[5]
2.
Acts is valuable and should be used at all
points where it does not contradict a specific piece of evidence from Paul.[6]
3.
Acts can be used, but only when Paul
deliberately agrees with it – at all other times it is suspect and needs to be
carefully analyzed.[7]
All of these positions have one major feature in common.
They all prioritize Paul’s letters as historically accurate. They argue that
while cultural memory can shift over time, Paul writing about himself must be
accurate.[8]
This makes the conversation less about the dichotomy between Paul and Acts and instead far more about the way in which
Acts can helpfully or harmfully supplement Paul. One should note that an odd
element of this study is that next to no one questions Paul’s versions of
events – apparently Paul is always accurate and therefore any question needs to
challenge Acts rather than Paul. This is a very strange position given how occasional
Paul’s letters are – especially Paul’s letter to the Galatians.
The largest critique of the current study is the major gap
that lies on one side of the data. It is universally held that Acts is a
rhetorical narrative that at the very least emphasizes and includes certain
data rather than other pieces of data to further its goals. Therefore, the data
presented in Acts is looked at and interpreted rather skeptically. It is
surprising, therefore, that the same is not true for Paul’s account of what
happened. While it is certainly true that Luke-Acts has theological interests
for a particular situation, it is hard to believe that Acts is as specific of a rhetorical situation as
Galatians is. Why is Galatians – and particularly the trips to Jerusalem not
looked at from the same rhetorical critical angle? It seems that the interest
of many scholars to try and avoid some of Luke’s theological interests upon
Paul’s work have caused them to uncritically read Paul’s letters. If both Paul
and Acts were seen as interpretative challenges which could have some
flexibility, perhaps there could be a far more productive study than simply
prioritizing one over against the other.
The second critique is less how the chronologies are
reconstructed as to how they are used. The goal of the study of the New
Testament should be the enlightenment of the meaning of the text. As it stands,
too much of the conversation is simply about the historical reconstruction of
Paul’s life. The problem is that this is not a study of the New Testament – it
is a study behind the New Testament.
It is certain that Paul led an interesting life and the more we can know about
it, the better we can understand his work. However, it is striking how
infrequently such is done in this study. With the exception of the Pauline
collection, very little of the analyses overviewed here focus on interpreting
Paul’s letters very carefully. They are very quick to show how this study
enlightens us to the redactional themes that Luke-Acts is presenting, so why
not Paul as well? How would this help us understand passages such as 2 Cor. 11 (is
Paul really a poor speaker as he suggests, or is a tremendous speaker as Acts
suggests and he is being sarcastic)? Is there much more that can be said? Does
Paul’s personal narrative really help us understand his letters?
The answer, of course, to this is that the study of Pauline
Chronology – as Knox points out – is not about either Acts or Paul. It is in
trying to combine them. People have all kinds of issues where they do this,
even if they claim they are not. For example, the “conflict-resolution” between
Paul and the Jerusalem Apostles is often described. It should be noted that
neither Acts nor Paul ever discuss this. Paul discusses conflict with no
suggestion it is ever resolved whereas Acts does not present any substantive
conflict in any measure. However, most all scholars will look to some kind of
way that the two made peace (usually with the Jerusalem council – particularly
for those who think that Paul has presented the Antioch incident out of order
in Galatians 2 and that the Jerusalem council occurred after the fact). What
should be noted, however, is that in an attempt to try and explain a
phenomenon, we are not studying either
text. We are reconstructing a social situation we aren’t sure even
happened.
This leads us to the question as to why we use this study in
our classes. I, myself, have for several years in my Introduction to the New
Testament used Paul’s “conversion/call” experience as a case study for
discussion – comparing Acts 9 and Galatians 1-2. Why is it that this is done so
frequently in class, but not in our scholarship? If it is heuristically
valuable for our students, then why not for ourselves? I argue that the
solution should be twofold. The reason we use it for our students is because we
want them to watch out lest they start conflating the two accounts without
thinking about it. A comparative study of Paul shows us we should be careful to
do that. The same could be said about the Gospels or any other book of the New
Testament. We want them to see the theology of any particular book before doing
any comparing and contrasting with other books. We fear that students will
naturally harmonize passages and we want to illustrate why this is such a bad
idea. Acts 9/Gal 1 is a fun way to do this. However, are we so different now?
We should be honest that very few scholars of Paul avoid psychoanalyzing him.
The New Perspective is sure that he was a pious Jew who simply received a call
to go to the Gentiles. The neo-Lutheran perspective is sure that he saw a
failure in the system of the law that most Jews could not see and therefore
found a radically new solution. Both of these are trying to present something of
Paul’s psyche. Neither of these positions are about the text – they are about
the historical Paul. If we are going to play this game, we need to be honest
about what we are doing. We are all conflating the two accounts and are trying
to reconstruct a historical Paul. Second, we need to focus far less on Paul’s
psyche and far more on his letters (or, for that matter Acts’s themes). We should
focus on meaning as expressed in the text. Worrying about the psyche of someone
we have never met is always going to be very speculative and will simply get in
the way of meaning. The more we can focus on texts, the better. The more we do
focus on psychologies of authors and, what’s more, chronologies based on
precious few data points, the more we confuse our students and ourselves from
our primary task of learning how to critical readers of the New Testament.
[1] The best
studies on the topic are: Jewett, Robert A
Chronology of Paul’s Life, Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979; Knox, John Chapters in a Life of Paul revised
edition, edited by Douglas R.A. Hare, Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1987;
and Luedemann, Gerd Paul Apostle to the
Gentiles: Studies in Chronology trans. F. Stanley Jones, Philadelphia:
Fortress Press, 1984.
[2] The one
recent exception which I am aware of is the following study: Tatum, Gregory New Chapters in the Life of Paul: The
Relative Chronology of His Career, Washington, D.C.: Catholic Biblical
Association of America, 2006.
[3] Reicke, Bo Re-examining Paul’s Letters: The History of
the Pauline Correspondence edited by David P. Moessner and Ingalisa Reicke,
Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2001.
[4] John Knox, Chapters in a Life of Paul revised
edition, edited by Douglas R.A. Hare (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press,
1987), 32.
[5] In this camp
stands Reicke. Consider his view that the two accounts of the Apostolic council
“basically agree” with no further conversation on the topic, Reicke, Re-examining, 17.
[6] This might
be the “traditional” view as might be found in George Ogg The Chronology of the Life of Paul (London: Epworth Press, 1968).
[7] For this
view see Jewett, Knox, and Luedemann.
[8] The only
author closest to suggesting that Paul may not have presented something
historically is Luedemann who does not actually argue that Paul has made a
mistake, but that we have made a mistake in assuming that Paul’s account of the
Antioch incident necessarily chronologically followed his second visit to
Jerusalem – Luedemann, Paul the Apostle, 23.
