How do you read Paul?

[Joel]

This question is simple enough, but has the potential to grow exponentially in depth. How do you read the epistles of the apostle Paul? There has been a long tradition since the Reformation that we read Paul in the light of Augustine. But, that just doesn't seem to fit.

I sincerely believe that we have to read Paul within his cultural context. We need to know how his conversion affected his theology. You can't just read Paul in a vacuum.

So, all of that is to say: Who was Saul/Paul of Taurus?

[Clint_johnston23]

I agree with that. Paul is a fascinating figure, especially when read through the society of the time. I think he could be a bit dogmatic at times, but it makes sense given his training.

[J-Dog]

Well, I'm no biblical scholar, but as an avid reader I think it's important to read everything within the cultural context of the author. Language and writing is the filter through which we can see the thoughts of the author, and in this case presumably the thoughts of God. As our culture diverges more and more from the cultural tendencies of the author, the potential for misinterpretation grows, so understanding the cultural setting is vital to understanding the text itself.

[ZBsmaster]

I read them as the personal letters that they were--specifically, concerning the advice he gave individuals that we so insistently apply across the board without consideration for anything.

[Joel]

Now, the big question becomes: Can you read individual letters in a vacuum? For instance, does Romans stand alone? Or, do you need to consider letters like Galatians as further context? We don't do this very often is purely literary analysis, but we tend to know a lot more about the authors themselves.

[ZBsmaster]

You should concentrate upon the intended audience, more than you would the author.
The letter that I write to Texas will not be the letter I send to Sparta.

[Joel]

I'll contend that we have to consider both equally. The fact that you have been raised in American culture will affect both letters in means of both the idioms and analogies you draw. But, you are correct, your audience does play a role in the letter you write...

[ZBsmaster]

Hopefully, as a considerate writer, I won't include idioms and other culture-specific references in my letters to foreign peoples.

Which may, in fact, be one of the differences between those two letters.

[Iceman]

That's right...me again...bumping another thread :O

From what I've read here most people on FYG are of the opinion that we read the epistles in their cultural context. I agree.

What I don't agree with is that these letters do not interelate with each others. Whilst all the audiences are having different issues addressed with them, they are all the same, or similar culture (thanks to the Diaspera and Hellenization). The Gentiles and the Jews.

The fact that Paul's letters all address different things, which give an overall, and rounded view of what Paul believed himself. All contribute to what is called Pauline Theology.

As far as Paul being dogmatic, I don't see it. As far as the christians of the day were concered Paul was far too liberal, often demanding he add more rules and regulations to Christianity. It's a theme we see him battle constantly in his epistles.

I think a good question to add would be "How much official study do you think you need to do, before you can read Paul?"
I think the answer is a lot. Reading Paul is not as simple as knowing the specifics of certain greek words, and how people of the day would understand it. Paul uses a highly advanced form of prose, often incorporating different forms of rhetoric, prosopopoeia, and crossing both hellenized and oriental epistolary tradition, making his own set of rules.

[quintis]

How do I read Paul?
As the ramblings of a mad man.

He claimed to have been stoned and left to die, yet the next day he had traveled to another city. Did he have Wolverine's advanced healing powers or what?

[Iceman]

That's curious.

Is it common for 'raving madmen' to apply such intelligent, well thought-out, and comprehensive letters forward?

I think if we were to apply Ockham's razor to your claim we'd find it could, instead of the mutant x gene be:

a. Hyperbole
b. Rhetoric
or c (and my personal inclination) a lack of understanding, and interest in, Pauline theology and epistles. Instead jumping to a biased conclusion which is based on a not so subtle disdain for Christianity.

But I don't think you'll find any scripture of Paul's that legitimately supports your claim.

But it does beg the question, why do you care? Who was it that made you so angry towards Christians?

[ZBsmaster]

Charles Manson comes to mind. Have you ever read his works? And, for that matter, what's so well thought-out about Paul's letters? Anyone can write the things in the bible; it's not exactly high prose.

[Iceman]

Well, it is quite impressive prose.

It contains finely flowing rhetoric. Hints of aristitallian virtue ethics. Cultural references and even puns.

[ZBsmaster]

So does Dr. Seuss.

Where's the "how do you read "Fox in Socks" thread?

[Iceman]

I can only presume you're saying that you're able to read a two-thousand year old document in another language without the aid of study.

[flibbertygibbit]

iceman, i wouldnt take anything ZBs says too seriously. hes basically playing with you and nothing you say will really sway him to your side. we've been trying for years and nothings really changed.

you make a very valid point, and there is a lot of rhetoric and interesting elements in pauls letters (he was an educated man after all so its not really that suprising). personally when i read paul, or anything in the bible for that matter, i read it both in and out of context (ie twice: how does this fit into the times, and how does this work for me? etc).

[ZBsmaster]

Bah, I changed from Christsexual to awesome all on my own.

[Iceman]

Yes zeddy, you're very special, and everyone is always talking about you.

I agree with you fibberty that we need to be able to make practical modern applications from the bible.

I think though that if we do read Paul out of context we can find ourselves in a lot of trouble regarding what it actually means to be Christian. For example I've heard Romans used a lot to try and demonstrate that Paul struggled with sinning like the rest of us, when the intent of the passage is something utterly alien to that.

[ZBsmaster]

Haha, there he goes again.

This is like some show where a new kid comes to school and acts all cool to impress the regulars.

Though I'm not sure where you pulled "zeddy" from. Most of the passing trolls come up with more clever titles like "zBSmaster".

Boisterous hubris is cruise control for cool, kids.

[J-Dog]

Zeddy? I like it.

You're both arguing about the bible, so stop pretending to be cool.





I <3 you, Zeddy-Bear

[ZBsmaster]

I rest upon the fact that Jude can attest to my awesomeness.

[flibbertygibbit]

I <3 you, Zeddy-Bear

i lolled.

[Panic Button]

I think though that if we do read Paul out of context we can find ourselves in a lot of trouble regarding what it actually means to be Christian. For example I've heard Romans used a lot to try and demonstrate that Paul struggled with sinning like the rest of us, when the intent of the passage is something utterly alien to that.

It does always bother me when people take the words of the Bible out of context (the over-quoted verse about homosexuality in Leviticus is what specifically comes to mind), so I agree. Trying to take practical applications and apply them to your own life is a pretty sketchy thing to do when you're not acknowledging the context of what you're reading.

[PippinTook]

I think it definitely goes both ways. Conservatives want it to be interpreted literally (meaning adhere to every instruction to the letter) and the liberals want it to be interpreted in context, if at all (meaning it was nice for the folks back then, but doesn't do much for us now). I tend to be more conservative about it, but I'm not planning on covering my head and I'm not expecting to be put to death if I'm rude to my parents.

[ZBsmaster]

So, guys, how do you all read Homer's Odyssey? Do you think that we should respect the sacred cows of the gods, or should we eat them to prevent starvation? Do you think it was Odysseus' fault that his men died, since he was the one who camped on the island in the first place?
What about Macbeth? Why limmit the centering of your modern lives to a single ancient text?

[Panic Button]

Personally, I see the Bible as more than just a literary work, as crazy and Christsexual as that makes me.

Besides, I analyzed Macbeth to DEATH (dumb joke is dumb) in high school with my final research paper. I'm cool with sticking with the Bible at the moment.

[Iceman]

I think it definitely goes both ways. Conservatives want it to be interpreted literally (meaning adhere to every instruction to the letter) and the liberals want it to be interpreted in context, if at all (meaning it was nice for the folks back then, but doesn't do much for us now). I tend to be more conservative about it, but I'm not planning on covering my head and I'm not expecting to be put to death if I'm rude to my parents.

hehe, I usually lose out here because I definately fall into both, or neither catagory.

I'm usually called a liberal, as per the above description. But I believe in a living God, with whom we have a relationship, and do have ongoing devotionals with, interact with and can experience. As well as having many set black and white ideas about the bible.

So to many liberals I'm a fundamentalist, or conservative. Despite my adeherance to academic theology and interpretation. Just can't win

[J-Dog]

we never can...

I've decided for the immediate future to approach religion wholly subjectively: nothing has meaning unless it was meaningful to me, all beliefs are based on my own unbiased perception[I realize this is probably an oxymoron]. I'm just going to trust that, assuming God/gods give a damn, I will end up discovering whatever it is they want me to discover. And if I don't, then I had fun looking.

This requires absolute self-honesty, or it will end badly.

[Iceman]

Actually I really like that approach. That's where I was a few years ago. You're right though, it ended badly

The hardest parts is maintaing a completely neutral subjectivity. Which I've come to believe is impossible. Even though we think we're 'free' or 'unbiased' We are inherently programmed by our up bringing to cling to certain cultural or social values. Often those need to be addressed, broken down, and reexamined in order to take on board and evaluate someone elses opinion.

It can be very confronting. But kudos and good luck.

[quintis]

That's curious.

Is it common for 'raving madmen' to apply such intelligent, well thought-out, and comprehensive letters forward?

http://www.cracked.com/article_16559_7- ... nsane.html

I think if we were to apply Ockham's razor to your claim we'd find it could, instead of the mutant x gene be:

a. Hyperbole
b. Rhetoric
or c (and my personal inclination) a lack of understanding, and interest in, Pauline theology and epistles. Instead jumping to a biased conclusion which is based on a not so subtle disdain for Christianity.

Hyperbole and rhetoric are used for some grand purpose, to achieve greater effect. What's the purpose of using hyperbole or rhetoric in this case?

[Iceman]

Name the example

[quintis]

Care to elaborate, please?

[markteen]

There's a great deal we can learn about culture and society at the time of Paul, but everything that he wrote can easily be applied to our moral lives today. It's MEANT to be applied to our lives today. They're all examples of how the Christian lifestyle should be lived. . .he wrote those things to churches of the time, but it is how churches and the individuals within should function. That never changes.