A Prolegomenon to the Study of Paul by Patrick Hart A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Religious Studies University of Alberta © Patrick Hart, 2018 ABSTRACT The apostle Paul’s significance to both early Christian history and Christian theology is undisputed. Indeed, Paul is second to none but Jesus in this regard—or as Adolf Deissmann puts it, “[f]rom the broadest historical standpoint Jesus appears as the One, and Paul as the first after the One.” Yet despite the small mountain of books on Paul, there seemingly remains a persistent failure to generate a cogent and compelling understanding of his thought. Granted, this concern is decidedly more acute in Pauline scholarship than it is among everyday readers of the New Testament. But Paul’s eminence in Christian history and theology ought to dictate otherwise. Indeed, given his ubiquitous significance in Christianity, all readers of Paul would do well to reflect not only upon the multifarious Pauls that we encounter, but even more important, the various considerations that condition any understanding of him, regardless of whether one views him as an impenetrable figure. Occasioned by this concern, this study is intended to serve as a type of prolegomenon to the study of Paul. Specifically, this study examines foundational assumptions that ground each and every reading or interpretation of the famous apostle to the gentiles. Such an examination touches on several topics, invoking issues pertaining to truth, hermeneutics, canonicity, historiography, pseudonymity, literary genres, and authority. Moreover, this study is guided by an underlying thesis, namely, that every encounter with the Paul of the New Testament is conditioned by a kind of pre-understanding of Paul (or a proto-Paulusbild), which filters and interprets the Pauline data. Indeed, it is this pre-understanding of Paul that fundamentally determines how we use the New Testament data in the course of constructing our understandings of Paul. Thus, our pre-understandings of Paul are integrally linked to what this study refers to as “Pauline Archimedean points”—fixed points of reference that establish the measure for ii constructing any interpretation of Paul. Building on this premise, this study aims to interrogate the assorted issues that relate to and inform the formation of these Pauline Archimedean points. In doing so, my underlying goal is relatively modest: to urge Pauline scholars, and for that matter Pauline readers of any persuasion, to engage in a modicum of self-reflection over the “positive prejudices” that shape all of our efforts to comprehend or reconstruct Paul. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS My wife has repeatedly needled me about how disturbingly long my time in graduate studies has been. That needling is justified. But regardless of how long it has taken, I know that I never would have made it two this point if I had not happened to come across two brilliant professors and kind individuals as an undergraduate student. The first of these is Dr. Willi Braun, who I first encountered in an “Introduction to the New Testament” course. Dr. Braun instilled in me a way of thinking and inquiring about the New Testament (and religion in general) that was entirely new to me. That class led to further courses with Dr. Braun, who for years has allowed me to benefit from his wisdom, kindness, and congenial yet rigorous scholarly “attitude.” I am tremendously fortunate to have had such an outstanding supervisor and intellectual mentor, and am indebted to him in a way that can never be repaid. A second pivotal figure for me has been Dr. Robert Burch, who I first encountered in his (famous) “Existentialism” course. Over the years, I’ve gained a greater appreciation for how much the material in that course continues to resonate in my thinking. But beyond that, this course introduced me to the matchless oratory skills of Dr. Burch, a living and breathing rosetta stone for continental philosophy. Having been acquainted with him now for some time, I also feel confident in saying that his intellectual prowess and penchant for incisive criticism have, unlike his hockey skills, only grown over the years. In addition to these two, I would also like to thank Dr. Lorne Zelyck for serving on my supervisory committee, and for his valuable criticisms and insights. While I know that our conceptual matrices very much differ, I am exceedingly grateful for his input, and am truly fortunate to have had him as a supervisory committee member. iv I also must extend my deepest thanks to those involved in my examination committees: at my candidacy examination, Dr. Francis Landy (chair), Dr. John Kitchen, and Dr. Jeffrey Dudiak, and at my thesis examination, Dr. Ryan Dunch (chair), Dr. William Arnal, Dr. Zeba Crook, and Dr. John Harris. There are many others who have in some manner or another helped me or influenced me along my long academic journey in religious studies at the University of Alberta. In particular, I am grateful to Dr. Wayne Litke, Dr. Charles Barbour, and again, Dr. Francis Landy. I am also grateful to Barb Baker, Janey Kennedy, and Nicola DiNicola for their administrative help, and to David Sulz for his always cheerful assistance in research-related matters (in spite of our more competitive relationship as hockey adversaries). Outside of the field of religious studies, I must thank Dr. Paul Paton, who has provided consistent academic encouragement over the years, and sound career-related advice at critical junctures. I am also thankful to everyone at Jackie Handerek & Forester, particularly the partners, John Jackie, David Handerek, and Jeff Forester, who permitted me to pursue doctoral studies during my employment. I am tremendously fortunate to have had such wonderful peers throughout my time as a doctoral student: Dr. Peter Sabo, Kristian Klippenstein, Dr. Ian Wilson, Dr. Clayton Bench, Rev. Rick Van Manen, Allan Wright, John Parish, and Michael Gillingham are all wonderful colleagues. I also owe very special thanks to Dr. Mark Wheller and Dr. Glen Fairen, whose own doctoral interests intersected at certain points with mine, resulting in much productive discussion (perhaps more for me than them). I am also grateful for their willingness to review drafts of my work and provide helpful comments and editorial suggestions along the way. v Outside of academia, I am lucky to have so many great friends who are in one way or another also owed much thanks. While I cannot name them all, I would be remiss if I did not make mention of three individuals: Preston Norris, Jason Norris, and Everett Norris. The contents of this thesis are in no small part rooted in the countless discussions that we have had over the years on topics relating to religion, philosophy, early Christianity, and especially Paul. Last, but not least, I owe an immense amount of gratitude to my parents, brothers, and other family who have supported me throughout my lengthy academic journey. I am especially thankful to our children, Kylan, Logan, and Rory, for all the (usually) wonderful distractions that they provide. Above all, I cannot thank my wife Angela enough. She has exhibited unending patience and support throughout the many years of my life as a student. I love you. And don’t worry: I am pretty, pretty, sure that I will not be pursuing another degree. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................... ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................................ iv TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................................... vii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ..................................................................................................... ix INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................... 1 The Familiar Paul? ................................................................................................................... 1 Mapping the Study .................................................................................................................. 13 CHAPTER 1 ................................................................................................................................ 17 “IN A MIRROR DIMLY” ......................................................................................................... 17 “Our Knowledge is Imperfect…”: The Historical Paul, the Real Paul, and Paulusbilder17 “…For Now We See in a Mirror Dimly”: (Self) Reflections on the Study of Paul ........... 26 CHAPTER 2 ................................................................................................................................ 37 CANONS AND COLLECTIONS: CONSIDERATIONS ON THE FORMATION OF A NORMATIVE PAULINE ARCHIVE ...................................................................................... 37 The Paul of Canon .................................................................................................................. 37 The Concept of Canon ............................................................................................................ 40 The Formation of a Pauline Canon ....................................................................................... 44 The Snowball Theory ...........................................................................................................