Abhr. Malherbe - Pauline writers in Hellenistic context

[ficino]

I never heard of Abraham Malherbe until seeing this review of a two-volume collection of many of his papers on the NT:

http://www.bmcreview.org/2015/02/20150229.html

Does anyone know his work? He maintains - and to the reviewer, shows convincingly - that the Pauline epistles are to be understood in the tradition of 'paraenesis,' i.e. moral exhortation, well known from the Cynics and other Hellenistic philosophers. He gives us NT writers writing to an audience familiar with post-Socratic philosophical traditions.

Is Malherbe just a guy doing "white people" scholarship, or does he make an important contribution?

[DCHindley]

I never heard of Abraham Malherbe until seeing this review of a two-volume collection of many of his papers on the NT:

http://www.bmcreview.org/2015/02/20150229.html

Does anyone know his work? He maintains - and to the reviewer, shows convincingly - that the Pauline epistles are to be understood in the tradition of 'paraenesis,' i.e. moral exhortation, well known from the Cynics and other Hellenistic philosophers. He gives us NT writers writing to an audience familiar with post-Socratic philosophical traditions.

Is Malherbe just a guy doing "white people" scholarship, or does he make an important contribution?

Well, there is a web page sponsored by the Church of Christ, of which Malherbe was a member for many years (despite many of those who belong to this denomination thinking he was too modernist in POV), which covers many issues that define "who he is."

http://www.christianchronicle.org/artic ... m-malherbe

FWIW, technically "paraenesis" is the Greek rhetorical term for "warning of impending evil." Latin equivalent is admonitio, and sapienta.

See http://rhetoric.byu.edu/

BYU, for being solidly Mormon in POV, has some very fine scholars as professors. Their Rhetoric web page above, by Gideon Burton, is IMHO top notch.

DCH

[Leucius Charinus]

He maintains - and to the reviewer, shows convincingly - that the Pauline epistles are to be understood in the tradition of 'paraenesis,' i.e. moral exhortation, well known from the Cynics and other Hellenistic philosophers. He gives us NT writers writing to an audience familiar with post-Socratic philosophical traditions.

FWIW, technically "paraenesis" is the Greek rhetorical term for "warning of impending evil." Latin equivalent is admonitio, and sapienta.

Coincidentally I have been reading an example of paraenesis found in the Nag Hammadi codices.
An Exploration of Valentinian Paraenesis: Rethinking Gnostic Ethics in the "Interpretation of Knowledge" (NHC XI,1) by Philip L. Tite
Article Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4495089

Interesting review thanks ficino.





LC

[DCHindley]

Does the term "paraenesis" have a different meaning in Biblical Studies than it does in rhetoric?

Biblical critics, especially one of faith, seem to find ethical/moral value in just about every statement in the NT.

DCH

[ficino]

As I implied in the OP, 'paraenesis' is a term of art for a kind of moralizing exhortation, beloved of both philosophical and rhetorical authors. A good example is Isocrates' Ad Demonicum, c. 373 BCE (considered spurious by some but generally accepted as authentic). Earlier poetry, e.g. of Theognis, had many paraenetic elements, but usually a paraenesis is in prose. It is not to be confused with 'protreptic,' which is a discourse designed to turn towards (προτρέπω) philosophy.

[neilgodfrey]

The reviewer is Troels Engberg-Pedersen who is a major light in Pauline studies himself. I loved the way he respectfully treats M's essays even though they take a quite different perspective from his own. Malherbe is always a worthy read. A much cited work is Paul and the popular philosophers. Check out http://bookzz.org/book/2333427/24a96c

[DCHindley]

According to Perseus:

παραίνεσις, εως, ἡ,
A. exhortation, address, A.Eu.707, Hdt.9.44, Th.2.45, etc.; π. ποιήσασθαι ib.88: c. gen. pers., advice or counsel given by a person, Hdt.5.11, 51: c. gen. rei, advice given for, of, or towards a thing, “αἱ π. τῶν ξυναλλαγῶν” Th.4.59; ἐπὶ γνώμης παραινέσει to recommend an opinion, Id.1.92; cf. “παράκλησις” 11.

I can see how the author(s) of the letters had been attempting to counsel his/their readers regarding the most practical paths to take when confronted with various circumstances. That being said, I would still have to quibble as to the exact argumentative strategies being employed.

To me, the basic argument of the original author(s) of the letters was that because gentiles faithful to the Judean God (as members of the households of Judean princes) believed in God's promise of a fruitful land for his "seed" to inherit in the same manner as Abraham had, they can be confident that they too will inherit with the physical sons, without having to physically become Judeans via circumcision.

To the interpolator(s), (a) member of a Christ cultus derived from radicalized gentiles who had once become Jews to follow Jesus' teachings of a coming new messiah led age but subsequently rejected that expression of faith to create a much transformed one, the argument was that Jesus had become a vicarious sacrifice that ended the Judean sacrificial system and by extension its law.

They were both arguing basically the same thing - that gentiles did not need to physically become Judeans via circumcision, only they were going at it from completely different, and essentially incompatible, angles. This was their common ground, and this alone. I think that after the Judean war, when the Herodian households were suddenly fairly powerless, the interpolator(s) decided to try to recruit remnants of the Pauline congregations on this basis. Of course he or they had to figure out how to meld together the two systems, so there will have to be some editing of what was retained of the original author's or authors' words.

The Christological statements currently found in the letters are simply not coherent enough to tell their own story. The theme of faith of Abraham justifying gentiles before the Judean God, including a lot of advice as to how they could express their fidelity to that God without upturning the social order, is in fact quite coherently stated throughout the major letters to churches (Romans and Galatians especially).

To use the christological statements as the basis for reconstructing the "author's" argumentative strategy is like mixing apples and oranges (although I once has a karate instructor who advocated eating them together to settle the stomach).

DCH