paula fredriksen history and systematics
TRANSCRIPT
TH
RE
E
HistoricalIntegrity,Interpretive
Freedom:The
Philosopher’sPauland
theProblem
ofAnachronism
PA
UL
AF
RE
DR
IKS
EN
In1583,M
atteoR
iccientered
China.
Trained
inphilology,
philosophy,and
rhetoricby
Jesuitsin
Rom
e,giftedatlanguages, R
icciw
asuniquely
suitedto
hism
ission:to
bringthe
heathenC
hineseinto
theC
hurch.O
ncehe
finallyheld
inhis
handsthe
religiousliterature
ofthisforeign
culture,how
ever,he
made
asurprising
discovery.R
iccisaw
(thoughthe
Chinese
hadnot)
thatthe
ancientscriptures
ofB
uddhismand
Taoism
revealedthe
clearim
printofthe
Christian
Trinity.
Ithought
ofMatteo
Riccias
Im
adem
yw
aythrough
ProfessorB
adiou’sessay
onPauland
universalism.
Postm
odernParis
isno
lessfar
fromPaul’s
Mediterranean
thanR
enaissanceR
ome
was
fromM
ingdynasty
China.
And
Badiou’s
senseofdiscovery
andrecognition
when
readingthe
Paulineepistles,
which
hecom
municates
with
excitementand
convictionin
hisbook, echoes
what
Iim
aginew
ouldhave
beenM
atteo’sexperience
of Taoist
Trinitarian
ism.Such
recognitionopens
interpretivepossibilities
andcloses
culturalgaps.A
ndindeed,in
thetitle
ofhisopening
chapter,B
adiouproclaim
sthe
erasureprecisely
ofthisgap
between
Parisand
Philippi,between
thepresent
andthe
past.“Paul,”states
thatchapter’stitle,is
“ourcontem
porary.”Such
aposition
isa
hardsellto
historians.(W
eare
“theheathen”
inm
yanalogy.)
Itis
truethat,
likephilosophers,
historianslook
form
eaningin
texts(as
alsoin
otherkinds
ofdata).
And
itis
truethat,
likephilosophers,
historiansthrough
theirinterpretations
ofthosedata
seekto
generatem
eaning,
torender
theevidence
intelligible.B
utthefram
eofreference
forhistorical
interpretationis
notand
cannotbe
thepresent.
Todo
historyrequires
acknowledging
differencebetw
eenus
andthe
objectsof our
inquiry.Historical interpretation
proceedsby
acceding
62
PA
UL
AF
RE
DR
IICS
EN
HIS
TO
RIC
AL
INT
EG
RIT
Y,
INT
ER
PR
ET
IVE
FR
EE
DO
M63
tothe
priorityofthe
ancientcontext.
Our
frame
ofreference
isthe
past.In
ourparticular
instance,thism
orning, forexample,
my
questionis
not,What
doesPaulm
ean?thatis,to
us.Rather, Iask,W
hat didPaulm
ean?thatis,to
hisfirst-century
contemporaries—
sympathizers, adm
irers, opponents,enemies.
They, notwe,w
erethe
audienceofhis
message.H
ew
asobliged
tobe
intelligiblenotto
usbutto
them.
This
intelligibilitycan
bealarm
inglyelusive.C
onsistencydoes
notrankam
ongPaul’s
strongsuits.
Infairness,
thisim
pressionm
aybe
dueto
thenature
ofour
evidence.W
ehave
onlyseven
authenticletters
composed,
itseem
s,fifteen
totw
entyyears
afterPaul
joinedthis
newm
essianicm
ovem
ent.They
arereal letters
addressedto
particularcom
munities, occasioned
byspecific
incidents:our
graspof
theircontext
isoften
conjectural.The
textsof these
lettershave
certainlyaltered
overtim
e.Thanks
togenerations
ofcopyists,w
eno
longerhave
theletters
asthey
leftPaul’s
mouth.
And
theliterary
integrityof
individualletters
isuncertain.
Scholarshave
arguedthat
ourpresent
versionsof
Philippians,2
Corinthians,
andR
omans
repre
sentvarious
epistlesedited
together.A
llthis
means
that,in
terms
ofPaul’s
“thought,”coherence
oftenhas
tobe
distilledor
imposed.
The
deutero-Pauline
letters,also
preservedin
theN
ewT
estament
col
lection,m
akethis
same
pointfrom
adifferent
direction:2
Thessalonians,
Ephesians,
Colossians,
iand
2T
imothy,
andT
ituscam
efrom
otherC
hris
tiansin
thegeneration
following
Paul’sw
hosaw
themselves
assusnding
ina
traditionthat
hehad
established.T
heyaccordingly
authorizedtheir
own
statements
byw
ritingin
hisnam
e.The
positionstaken
bythis
secondgroup
ofauthors
varysignificantly
among
themselves
anddiffer
markedly
fromsom
eof
Paul’s.T
hatPaul
was
sow
idelyinterpreted
bythose
who
stoodso
closeto
himshould
cautionus
aboutthe
difficultiesof
construinghis
thought.Put
succinctly,often
Paulshoots
fromthe
lip.H
ow,
then,shall
we
defineand
identifyPaul’s
ideason
universalism?
And
howshallw
eunderstand
them?
Inlightof the
messiness
oftheprim
aryevidence,Ipropose
thatwe
approachthis
questionobliquely.B
eforeturning
toPaul
himself,
let’ssee
what
happenedto
himonce
hestrayed
among
thephilosophers—
notm
odernones
butancient
ones.I
will
beginthis
investigationnot
with
Paul,then,
butw
ithtw
oofhis
greatestancient
interpreters.E
achof
theselater
readersof
Paulexpended
greateffort
torender
Paula
coherentuniversalist,
andthey
worked
phil
osophicallyno
lessthan
exegeticallyin
orderto
dothis.
These
two
laterreaders
disagreedsharply
with
eachother,
eventhough
theyconstructed
theirresnective
positionsby
annealto
preciselythe
same
nasse
sin
Piil.
According
toO
rigenofA
lexandria(187—
254C
E),our
firstinterpreter,Paul’s
message
was
thatall
would
besaved.
According
toA
ugustineof
Hippo
(354—
430
CE
),oursecond
interpreter,Paul’s
message
was
thatall
shouldbe
damned.
According
toO
rigen,everyrational
beinghas
freew
ill; accordingto
Augustine,
humanity
canonly
sin.A
ccordingto
bothO
rigenand
Au
gustine,G
od’stw
ogreat characteristics
arejustice
andm
ercy.B
utO
rigen’sG
odexpresses
theseattributes
simultaneously:
heis
bothjust
andm
erciful.
Augustine’s
God
expressesthese
attributesserially
andselectively:
heis
eitherjust
orm
erciful.For
Augustine,
evenbabies,
ifunbaptized,
goto
hell.For
Origen,
evenSatan
will
atlast
attainredem
ption,for
God
wants
nothingless.
Paul’sdiscussion
inR
omans
9clinches
bothargum
ents, forboth
men.
Let’ssee
what
eachof
themhad
toshape
inPaul
inorder
toget
where
hew
antedto
go. What
thesetw
ogreat
Christian
theologiansreject
orfinesse,
Iw
illargue,
canprovide
usw
itha
glimpse
ofw
hatour
mid-first-century
itinerantJew
ishvisionary
was
actuallytalking
about.B
ut first,alittle
more
context.B
othO
rigenand
Augustine
were
drivento
Paulnot onlybecause
ofPaul’sprom
inencein
thecanon, but also
becauseof Paul’s
prominence
with
theiropposition.
Other
Christian
churcheshad
formulated
theirtheologies
throughstrong
misreadings
ofthe
apostle.A
sO
rigenm
akeshis
constructiveargum
ents, then,hedoes
soagainst the
chal
lengeofV
alentinianG
nosticsand
thefollow
ersof M
arcion.A
ndat A
ugustine’s
backstand
theM
anichees.T
hesethree
hereticalcomm
unities, thoughdistinct, shared
severalpointsof principle.
They
allrepudiated
thegod
oftheO
ldT
estament
asw
ellas
hisbook.T
heyrepudiated
matter
andflesh
ashis
particularm
edium. T
heyread
thecharged
pairsofPauline
rhetoric—flesh
andspirit, circum
cisionand
bap
tism, law
andgospel,Jew
andgentile—
aspolar opposites,and
theyconstructed
theirown
visionofC
hristianityuniquely
aroundw
hat theysaw
asthe
positivepole. T
heyheld
that Christhad
not actuallyhad
afleshly
body, butthat hehad
appeared,asPaul proclaim
ed,“inthe
likenessofm
an”and
“inthe
formofa
slave”(Phil
2:6).And
theyheld, accordingly,thatas
Christw
asnot raised
ina
fleshlybody,neither w
ouldthe
redeemed
believerbe. Instead,salvationm
eantredem
ptionfromthe
material cosm
os,thisw
orldofflesh.The
individual soul,fallen
intothis
loweruniverse,w
ouldslip
backupthrough
them
aterial cosmos
of thelow
ergodto
therealm
of spiritandlife
andlight,the
kingdomofC
hrist’sfather. Flesh
would
remain
where
it belonged,inthe
realmbelow
them
oon.As
Paul hadsaid, “Flesh
andblood
cannotinherit
thekingdom
ofGod,
norcan
O.a
norc
hililn
nut
nn
tl,n(-,
Cnr
ir.cn\
Anil
urh
nA
,pre
th
‘nrp
rlP
64
PA
UL
AF
RE
DR
LIC
SE
NH
LS
TO
RIC
AL
INT
EG
RIT
Y,
INT
ER
PR
ET
IVE
FR
EE
DO
M6
Those
“spiritualm
en”(pneum
atikoi)or
“perfectmen”
(teleioi)to
whom
Pauldisclosed
“secretand
hiddenw
isdom”
(iCor
2:6—7).U
nspiritualm
en(“soul
ish,”psychikoi)cannotunderstand
aspiritualm
essage(v.
14
).People,inshort,
were
savedin
accordancew
iththeir
intrinsicnature.W
ill was
moot.
We
come,
then,to
Origen.
Inhis
greatw
orkof
systematic
theology,the
PenA
rchônor
On
FirstPrinciples,
Origen
presenteda
vastvision
of“true”
Christianity,
coordinating,in
fourbooks,
hisunderstanding
ofGod
(Book
I),thecosm
os(B
ookII),free
will(B
ookIII),and
scripture(B
ookIV
).T
hroughallegorical
interpretation,spiritualunderstanding,
statedO
rigen,the
Jewish
Bible
couldbe
revealedto
bea
bookofC
hristianw
itness:its
godis
thefather
ofC
hrist.O
bscurepassages
ofscripture,
whether
inthe
Old
Testam
entorin
theN
ew,w
ereplaced
thereby
divineprovidence
inorder
tostim
ulatediligent
believersto
seekout
thehidden
wisdom
oflectio
divina.T
hisw
asso
becausethe
natureand
structureofscripture,O
rigenexplained,
recapitulatedthatofthe
time-bound
human
being.“Forjustasm
anconsists
ofbody,soulandspirit,”
hesays, “so
inthe
same
way
dothe
scriptures,which
havebeen
preparedby
God
form
an’ssalvation”
(IV.2.4).T
hebody
ofthetext
correspondsto
itssim
plenarrative,and
perhapsto
itshistoricalm
eaning.Theeye
offleshcan
seethis
level,the
uneducatedcan
understandit.T
hesoulof
thetext
isthose
teachingsthat
edifyone’s
own
soul.B
utthespiritofthe
textis
itsdeepest
orhighest
significance.T
hism
eaningcan
beunderstood
onlyw
ithm
entaleffort,the
strivingofthe
mind;
anditis
onthis
levelofspiritualm
eaningthat
theexegete
attainsan
understandingofthe
mind
ofGod.
Inthis
schema
aselsew
here,O
rigenasserts
thepriority
ofspirit
overm
atter.Its
priorityis
ontological,and
thereforem
oralas
well:
spiritis
“good.”A
san
ancientthinker,andspecifically
asa
Middle
Platonist,Origen
couldhardly
havethought
otherwise.
The
ultimate
sourceof
everything,how
ever, ispurelyspirit,G
odhim
self.O
rigenidentifies
thisgod
asT
rinity:Father,
Son,and
Holy
Spirit.Again,as
am
ember
ofthethird-century
“trueC
hurch,”he
couldhardly
dootherw
ise.Despite
thisthree-ness,how
ever,theC
hristiangod
exhibitsthe
characteristicsofthe
highgod
ofpaganpaideia:
heis
self-existing,where
everythingelse
iscontingent.
He
isperfect, w
hichm
eanshe
ischangeless.A
ndhe
isabsolutely
withoutany
kindof body.
Only
God
isasom
aton(I.i.6).
Everything
thatis
not-godhas
bodyof som
esort.
Given
thisgod’s
radicalchangelessness,
howcan
hebe
a“creator”?
On
genansw
ersingeniously
with
hisdoctrine
ofdouble
creation.B
eforetim
eexisted—
which
isto
say,beforem
atterexisted—
God
presidedover
auniverse
ofeternallygenerated
rational beings.These
rationalbeings, sincenot-god,did
hiv
eh
-bp
,ki,t
h,’,rw
,r’(,,
P,,,,1,,-
,(‘,-
,,-“,,,-m
-it,,.,l“
“1l,-..4
,,”
hereserves
asa
principleof
individuation:in
thespiritual,
eternalrealm
,it
distinguishesone
rationalbeingfrom
another.T
hesebeings
were
“made”
inthe
image
ofGod”
throughG
od’sperfect im
age,hisSon.The
meaning
of thisdivine
image
of theD
ivineIm
ageis
spiritualand
moral.T
hesecreatures
hadan
absolutelyunim
pededcapacity
tochoose
between
goodand
evil.Put differently—
andin
theidiom
ofGreek
moralphilosophy
ratherthanin
thebiblical
idiomofO
rigen’stheology—
freew
illisconstitutive
ofrationalbeing.
Again,only
God
is,bynature,changeless. N
ot-god,sincecontingent,w
illhave
aninnate
tendencyto
change.Sinceitis
innate,this
tendencyis
notcul
pable.Butin
thew
orldbefore
time, this
naturaltendency
hadconsequences.
Toexplain
howw
egot
froma
timeless
spiritualcreation
toeverything
else, Origen
evokesthe
ideaofsouls
(ortheir
love)“cooling.”
(This
idearefers
psyche“soul”
topsychesthai,
“tocool,”
Plato’sfam
ousw
ordplayin
theT
ime
aus.)O
rigenexplains
thatallbut
oneofthese
rationalbeingsw
averedin
itsaffectionate
concentrationon
theirM
aker.T
hatone
more
constantbeing,
throughthe
freeexercise
ofits
own
will,
lovedG
odw
ithsuch
ardorthat
itfused
with
its“object,”
theL
ogos(11.6.3):the
soulof Jesus
thusm
ergedw
iththe
godheadof C
hrist.A
lltheother
rationalbeingsslipped
away—
some,like
Satan,tothe
maxim
umdegree
imaginable. B
utthisslippage,since
“natural,”w
asnot
culpable:G
odcould
notw
ithjustice
“punish”his
creaturesfor
notbeing
him,or
forbeingnot-him
.W
hatwas
culpable, however,w
asthatthese
rational beingsfailed
tobrake
theirdecline, to
move
theirwill in
ordertoarrest
theirturn
fromG
od.D
ifferentbeings“stopped”
atvarious“distances”
fromG
od. Then
God, both
justandm
erciful, “acted”to
affect theirredem
ption:outof absolutely
nothing,hecalled
matter
intobeing
(11.1.1—
4).
“Now
sincethe
world
isso
veryvaried
andcom
prisesso
greatadiversity
ofrational beings,”observes
Origen,“w
hatelsecan
we
assignto
thecause
ofits existence
exceptthediversity
inthe
fallof thosew
hodeclined
fromunity
indissim
ilarw
ays?”(II.i.i).
The
diversityof circum
stancesand
ofm
aterialbodies
expressesthe
diversityof
moral
responsesthat
thesesouls
made
totheir
declinefrom
God
andthe
good.God
inhis
mercy
andjustice,in
otherw
ords, arrangedthe
wonderfully
plasticm
ediumofm
atter, or“flesh,”
toac
comm
odateall
thesedifferent
ethicallevels
ofaccom
plishment
orfailure.
God
placesthe
rationalbeing
intoa
particularhistorical
material
bodyin
orderto
assistit
onits
way
backto
God.
Theentire
materialuniverse, in
otherwords, isa
temporary
andproviden
tial order,aschoolforsouls.A
ndevery
soulbeganlife
inexactly
thesam
ew
ay:Jesus’soul,your
soul,my
soul, Satan’ssoul,the
soulsofthe
sunand
them
oon2nd
th.t
irc
All
ofo
ijr-liff’rp
nt
kincknfh
od
iesrepister
them
oraltrajectory
66P
AU
LA
PR
ED
RIK
SE
NH
IST
OR
ICA
LIN
TE
GR
ITY
,IN
TE
RP
RE
TIV
E1L
L*
ofourfreely
willed
decisions.If
allsoulshad
notbegun
froma
conditionof
exactequality,God
would
notbejust,w
hetheras
creatoror
asjudge.G
odin
hism
ercyand
justiceplaced
thesoul
ofeachfallen
rationalbe
inginto
preciselythe
sortofm
aterialcircumstance
thatitneeded
inorder
tofreely
chooseto
dothe
rightthing,andeventually
(re)turntow
ardG
od.God
ispatient and
infinitelyresourceful.H
isprovidence
microm
anagesthe
mate
rialuniverse;
hehas
allthetim
ein
thew
orld.(A
ndsince
rationalbeingsare
eternal,sodo
they.)Them
aterialbody,inotherw
ords,isa
temporary
andp
ropaedeutic
device.Once
everyrationalbeing
hasfinally
learnedw
hatitneeds
tolearn
inorder
tofreely
chooseto
loveG
od,m
atterw
illsink
backinto
thenothing
whence
itcame.E
thnicity,gender,socialstation:allthecontingencies
ofhistoricalexistencedrop
away
atredemption
(ci.Gal
3:28).The“saints”
will
risein
their“spiritualbodies.”
EvenSatan
andhis
minions
will
come
round:anything
elsew
ouldrepresent
afailure
onG
od’spart.
But
God
cannotfail.
And
heloves
allhiscreatures
equally.God
throws
noone
away.
Toprove
thereasonableness
ofall
thesepropositions—
thatthe
Bible
must
beunderstood
spiritually;that
thesoul
hasa
longhistory
ofethical
choicesbefore
itappearsin
ahistorical,fleshly
body;thatGod
providentiallycares
forall
hiscreatures;
thatifG
odis
just(and
heis),then
thechoice
ofthe
will
must
befree—
Origen,
inB
ookIII,
turnsparticularly
toPaul.
“Letus
seehow
Paulreasons
with
usas
beingm
enof free
willand
ourselvesre
sponsiblefor
ourdestruction
orsalvation”
(1II.i.6).O
rigenthen
attendsto
Rom
ans9.
There
Paulrefers
tothree
biblicalpassages
notoriouslyhard
toreconcile
with
astrong
ideaof
moral
freedom:
thehardening
ofPharaoh’sheart,
thechoice
ofJacobover
Esau,and
God’s
forming
personsas
apotter
forms
claypots,
some
asvessels
ofhonor
andsom
eas
vesselsof
dishonor.“T
hesepassages,”
Origen
observes,“are
inthem
selvessufficient
todisturb
ordinarypeople
with
thethought
thatm
anis
nota
freeagent,
butthat
itis
God
who
savesand
who
destroysw
homever
hew
ill”(111.1.7).
First,to
Pharaoh.O
bviouslyhe
didnot
sinby
nature,because
thenG
odw
ouldnot
haveneeded
toharden
hisheartto
ensurehis
disobedience.God’s
hardeningPharaoh
provesjust
theopposite:
thatit
was
within
Pharaoh’spow
erto
chooseto
obey.Sow
hydoes
agood
andjust
God
intervenein
Ph
araoh’s
decisionby
“hardening”him
(111.1.9—10)?
Thephrase,explains
Origen,
isa
scripturalfaconde
parler.Justas
akind
masterw
illsayto
hisservantw
hohas
beenspoiled
throughthe
master’s
forbearance,“It
was
Iw
hom
adeyou
wicked,”
or“Iam
toblam
eforthese
offenses,”so
theB
iblespeaks
ofPharaoh’sheartbeing
hardened:thefleshly
levelof theE
xodusstory
presentsG
od’sfo
r.,,
...
D..,
__I.......
theperspective
of eternity—G
od“allow
s”Pharaoh
hisfreedom
becaus.e?i
raohis
free.A
ndG
od,m
asterof
providence,also
knows
thatby
Phara
s
obstinacyother souls becam
eobedient (like
thoseof the
Egyptians
who
choe
toleave
Egypt w
ithM
oses). Finally, God
alsoknow
show
, throughplagues
and
thedrow
ningin
thesea, “he
isleading
evenPharaoh”
(111.1.14).
But
God
works
with
Pharaoh
well
beyondthe
bordersof
theE
xodus
story.“G
oddeals
with
soulsnot
inview
of thefifty
yearsof
ourlife
here,”
saysO
rigen, “butin
viewof the
endlessw
orld.H
ehas
made
ourintellectual
natureim
mortal
andakin
tohim
self,and
therational
soulis
notshut
out
fromhealing, as
if thislife
were
all”(111.1.13). B
ehindthese
biblical episodes,
as behindthis
lifeitself, stands
theendless
shiningplain
of Origen’s
cosmol
ogyand
soteriology.A
ndbehind
bothof these
standsO
rigen’sethics
(ifwe
want to
lookat this
philosophically)or
ratherhis
comm
itment to
thegod
of
theB
ible(if w
ew
antto
lookat this
religiously):G
odis
bothjust and
merci
ful. He
lovesall his
creatures. He
wants
all hiscreatures
toturn
backto
him,
andhe
arrangesm
atter, thushistory, to
facilitatehis
purpose:the
education
of therational
soulto
freelychose
theG
ood.
Origen’s
cosmology
nullifiesthe
needfor
theodicy.In
lightof
eternity,
thereis no
evil, onlyvarious
learningsituations. T
husany
difficultyw
ithjacob
andE
saudisappears:
“Thereasons
why
Jacobw
asloved
andE
sauhated,”
he
explains,“lie
with
Jacobbefore
hecam
einto
thebody
andw
ithE
saubefore
heentered
Rebecca’s
wom
b”(111.1.22). (“H
ate”of course
isanother
scriptural
faconde
parler.)H
umans
donot exhaust the
categoryof intelligent life. People,
stars,and
demons
alsom
akethem
selves,through
theiruncoerced
choices,
intovessels
ofhonor
ordishonor.
But
God
himself
isthe
impartial
loverof
souls, swaying
consideratescales. T
heim
ageof the
potter, fromthe
prophets
viaR
omans, is
actuallya
statement of G
od’sscrupulous
fairness. “Everysoul
inG
od’shands,”
urgesO
rigen, “isof one
nature, andall rational beings
come,
if I may
sayso, from
onelum
p,”the
phurama
of Rom
ans9
:21.
Origen
was
bornin
187in
Alexandria.
He
diedin
Caesarea
in25
4,
a
belatedvictim
of theD
ecianpersecution. H
islanguage
was
Greek, his
philo
sophicaleducation
superlative.It
helped,of
course,that
hew
asa
genius.
Trained
inrhetoric
andphilology, he
worked
with
rabbison
theH
ebrewtext
behindthe
Septuagint.’H
ew
ascom
fortablew
ithinterpretive
ambiguitie5
frequentlyproffering
multiple
opinionson
non-doctrinal issuesand
inviting
hishearer
tochoose
whichever
onestruck
heras
more
reasonable.H
ew
as
alay
teacherand
acharism
aticlifelong
celibate.(Indeed,
sountroubled
was
hisasceticism
that two
posthumous
rumors
aroseto
account forit, one
thatby
rirnc
[Eninhaniusi, the
other, bythe
knife
68P
AU
LA
FR
EO
RIK
SE
NH
IST
OR
ICA
LIN
TE
GR
ITY
,IN
TE
RP
RE
TIV
EF
RE
ED
OM
69
[Eusebius,on
Mt
19
:12
].)2H
iscircum
stancesand
histem
peramentcould
nothave
beenm
oredifferent
fromA
ugustine’s.I
will
spendless
time
onA
ugustinebecause
histheology
isso
much
more
familiar.
Origen’s
representsthe
roadnot
taken.W
estilllive
with
theconsequences
ofAugustine’s
theology,and
ofAugustine’s
Paul.A
ugustinew
asN
orthA
frican,bornin
354, wellafterthe
imperialization
oftheC
hristiandenom
inationfavored
byC
onstantine.His
onlylanguage
was
Latin.A
ugustinecould
notread
Greek,and
sohe
was
limited
toscripture
intranslation
notonlyforthe
Old
Testam
entbutalsoforthe
New
.His
knowledge
ofGreek
philosophyand
of therich
traditionofG
reekpatristic
comm
entary,O
rigen’sincluded,
was
alsolim
itedto
what
hecould
getin
translation.3
Ithelped,ofcourse,
thathe
toow
asa
genius,although
(toquote
Gibbon)
“hislearning
istoo
oftenborrow
ed,hisargum
entstoo
oftenhis
own.”
But,
more
tothe
point,A
ugustinew
asnot
alay
professor.H
ew
asa
bishopofthe
imperialchurch.
This
meant
thathe
hadpolitical
andin
stitutional
incentivesto
beclearer
ondoctrine
thanO
rigenthe
laypersonever
hadto
be.Foronething,by
Augustine’s
day,doctrinetranslated
sociallyinto
policy.By
thefourth
century,hereticsw
erepersecuted
bythe
Christian
state.A
ugustinew
asone
ofthetheological
architectsofthis
policyofcoercion.4
Finally,Augustine
came
ofagetheologically
justasthe
stormclouds
oftheO
rigenistcontroversy,turbulentandhighly
charged,gatheredand
blackenedthe
ecclesiasticallandscape
ofthe
West.5
Theories
of thesoul’s
preexistencesuddenly
seemed
uncomfortably
closeto
dualistheresy.And
assouls
became
more
incarnate,sotoo
didhistory.E
ternityfellaw
ayas
them
eaningfularenaofG
od’ssaving
actionshifted
tothis
world.T
hefaithfulrecited
creedsassert
ingtheirbeliefin
theresurrection,notof the
body,butoftheflesh.The
eternalfires
ofhellburned
tooattractively
tobe
renouncedor
explainedaw
ay.And
nobodyw
antedSatan
tobe
saved.D
ifferentcontext,
differentinterpreter,
differenttem
perament,
differenttheology—
andaccordingly,a
differentPaul.Betw
een392
and396,A
ugustineproduced
asteady
streamof com
mentaries,shortthink
pieces,andessays
onPaul’s
epistles.H
ereturned
repeatedly,especially
toR
omans,
ashe
triedto
findhis
feet.Finally,inthe
months
beforehe
wrote
hisearly
masterw
ork,TheC
onfessions,Augustine
arrivedata
readingofR
omans
9from
which
henever
wandered.6
He
won
thew
arofexegesisagainstM
anichees,againstDonatists,
andagainst
thephilosophical
theologyof
hisow
nconversion
elevenyears
before.The
queengam
bitinthis
match
was
thefreedom
ofthew
ill,C
ontemplating
thefigure
ofPharaoh,
Augustine
concludedthat
God
cnl
hir-1
enP
hrnh’
b,rt
I’,p
,-,i
icp
G-,-i
ir,t
h,
I-,in
r,
1..--,
C,-,r
1,;.
sins.So
toow
iththe
electionofJacob
overE
sau:G
oddid
chooseJacob
andreject
Esau
beforeeither
was
born—and
beforeeither
haddone
anythinggood
orevil.
(ForA
ugustine,the
soulbegins
itslife
with
andin
thefleshly
body.)W
hythen
were
Pharaoh
andE
saurejected?
“Isthere
injusticew
ithG
od?G
odforbid”
(Rom
9:1
4; ad
Simpl.
1.2
.16
). Butthen
howdid
God
judgebetw
eenthem
?A
nswered
Augustine:
God
onlyknow
s.Piety
demands
thatthe
believerassert
thatG
odm
usthave
hadgood
reason,but
thosereasons
areknow
nonly
tohim
:they
areoccultissim
i,“m
osthidden.”A
equitateoc
cultissima
etabhum
anissensibus
remotissim
aiudicat:
“He
judgesby
astan
dardof justice
most
hiddenand
distantfrom
human
measure”
(adSim
pi.1.2
.16). W
ecan
neverknow
why
God
doesw
hathe
does.N
otthat
God
needdo
anything,A
ugustineinsists.
After
thesin
ofA
dam,the
entirespecies
became
arnassa
lutior
tnassaperditionis
orm
assapeccati.
All
theseim
agesrefer
toPaul’s
phurama
inR
omans
9:2
1,
theclay
fromw
hichthe
divinepotter
shapeshis
pots.A
fterA
dam,
saysA
ugustine,all hum
anityisliterally
alum
pofsin.C
ondemnation
isall anyone
deserves.G
odin
hisjustice
leavesm
ostpeople
inthat
condition,and
theyhave
noright to
complain,since
theyw
ere“in
Adam
.”“W
hoare
you,0m
an,toan
swer
backto
God?”
But
inhis
graciousm
ercy,G
odm
ysteriouslydoes
electa
fewto
salvation.W
hy?O
nw
hatgrounds?
Augustine
againansw
ersw
ithPaul: W
hohas
known
them
indofG
od,orw
hohas
beenhis
councilor?H
isjudgm
entsare
unsearchable,hisw
ayspast
findingout
(Rorn
ii:;
adSim
pi.1.2
.22).
Hum
ansshould
begrateful
thatG
odhas,
forsom
em
ysteriouslychosen
individuals,relaxed
hisrighteous
wrath.
ForbothO
rigenand
Augustine,then,the
clayofR
omans
9isan
image
ofthe
equalityofallsouls.B
utOrigen’s
soulsare
all equalinnature,w
hichm
eansthat they
allhavefree
will.
Further,in
emphasizing
thatG
odw
orksthis
clay,O
rigenreiterates
throughR
omans
9thatG
odis,so
tospeak,the
parentof thesouls.
He
loveshis
creation.U
ltimately
hew
illensure
thatall
areredeem
ed.A
ugustine’ssouls,by
contrast,areallequal
insin. H
ispotter
isa
judge,and
aseem
inglyarbitrary
oneat that.
(Pietydem
andsthat w
ecensor
thethought.)
How
cana
justgodcondem
nm
enw
hocannothelp
butsin?O
nthis
ques
tionA
ugustineexpends
enormous
forensicfinesse.M
ancannot
helpbut
sin,but
thatdoes
notm
eanthat
hisw
illis
notfree.
Itis
simply
divided,lacking
willpow
er,in
punishment
forthe
sinof
Adam
.B
utnothing
outsidethe
will
forcesthe
willto
sin:thew
ill,uncoerced,sinsbecause
itchoosesto
sin.It cannot
chooseother,but
itschoice
isstill,in
thissense, free
(adSim
pi.1.2
.21).
Augustine
projectsthis
understandingofthe
dividedw
illback
ontohis
-,
“1”,,ç
,,.,,,,.,i,-
70
PA
UL
AF
RE
DR
IKS
EN
HIS
TO
RIC
AL
INT
EG
RIT
Y,
INT
ER
PR
ET
IVE
FR
EE
DO
M71
butableonly
todo
evil, delightinginw
ardlyin
thelaw
ofGod
but captiveout
wardly
tothe
lawofsin—
hadbeen
understoodto
bea
rhetoricalpresentationcalled
prosopopeia,“speakingin
character.”7
With
akind
ofrhetoricalventriloquism
,Paulthrows
hisvoice
intothatofthe
sinnerw
hois
notyet“inC
hrist.”9
ButA
ugustineeventually
insiststhatPaulhere
speaksofa
man
who
isalready
“inC
hrist,”undergrace,because
onlysuch
am
ancould
rejoicein
God’s
law,if
onlyinw
ardly.D
espitethe
receptionof grace,this
man
isstilla
sinner.So
saidA
ugustinein
396.Decades
afterhe
made
thisargum
ent,facingoffagainstthe
Pelagiansin
the420s,A
ugustinew
illlater
insistthat theIof
Rom
ans7
was
noneother
thanPaul
himself(depraed.sanct.
1.4.8). Thanks
toL
uther,this
readingstill
hassom
ecachet:
Badiou
proclaims
thatPaul
ishere
“manifestly
speakingabout
himself,
almost
inthe
styleofA
ugustine’sC
onfessions”(p.
8i).Paul
himself,
I’dw
ager,w
oulddisagree.
(Icertainly
do.)A
fterall,as
hew
rotein
Philippians,“Ifanym
anthinks
thathehas
reasonfor
confidencein
theflesh,Ihave
more:circum
cisedon
theeighth
day,ofthepeople
ofIsrael,ofthe
tribeofB
enjamin,a
Hebrew
bornofH
ebrews,as
tothe
lawa
Pharisee,astozeala
persecutorofthecom
munity,as
torighteousness
underthe
lawblam
eless”
(Phil3:4—
6).Ifideologicalconsistencyis
notPaul’s
strongsuit,neither
isanguished
introspection.He
isno
Origenist,and
noA
ugustinianeither.9
Iexam
ineboth
Origen
andA
ugustineon
Paulat
suchlength
tom
akem
ypoint
aboutphilosophical
interpretationand
anachronism.
We
haveseen
howboth
theologiansinterpreted
Paulwithin
theirrespective
systems.
Their
relianceon
philosophy,theintellectual
framew
orkoftheir
theologies,helped
eachofthem
toproduce
am
oreconsistent
apostle.W
hatcould
notbe
accomm
odatedto
theirrespective
models
throughreinterpretation
theyeither
dropor
ignore.B
adiou,ofcourse,thoughcom
mitted
toa
verydiffer
entphilosophicalframew
ork,performs
similarly.A
llthreeappropriate
fromPaul
what
eachfinds
usable.A
llthree
translatevia
reinterpretationw
hatcan
beused
inservice
ofarticulatingthe
newer
system(O
rigenistuniversalsalvation,A
ugustinianuniversalcondem
nation,orB
adiou’suniversalpost-
Marxism
).A
ndallthree
insistthat
itisthe
apostle,not
they,who
speaks.O
urthree
differentreaders
dropdifferent
things.B
utw
hatall
threedrop
isPaul’s
apocalyptic.O
rigen’seternity
isso
vastthatevenhis
visionof
theE
ndlasts
forever.T
hesw
eepof
eschatologicalexcitem
entin
thefinale
ofPaul’s
letterto
theR
omans
isto
thetem
poof
thePen
Archôn
what
theSeventh
Symphony
isto
Bolero.
Augustine
de-eschatologizesPaulin
anotherw
ay.His
theologyis
ostend
1,1
,,nt,,,.,,-
,1,,.,1
I,,;,.
viewa
partofw
hoyou
are,notjustsom
ethinginto
which
you’vebeen
temporarily
dipped.)’°B
utby
relocatingthe
hermeneutical
centerof gravity
inR
omans
from11—
15(the
letter’seschatologicalfinale)
toR
omans
,A
ugustineretrained
ourw
ayoflooking
atPaul.H
isPaulspeaks
ofexistentialconflict,not
of cosmic
redemption.
ForA
ugustine,the
secondcom
ingof
Christ
inhis
resurrectedbody
hasalready
occurred,at
Pentecost,w
iththe
establishm
entof hisbody,the
Church.
Augustine,
thefourth-century
bishopofthe
imperial
Church,
isnot
stayingup
lateat
nightw
aitingfor
Jesusto
come
back;neither,
consequently,is
hisPaul.
Badiou
de-eschatologizesPaulby
concentratingso
resolutelyon
theresu
rrection
asa
contextiess“event.”
It’sjustthere, punctiliar,isolated,dom
inatingeverything.
An
event(as
theolder
Germ
antheologians
usedto
say)in
thehistory
ofconsciousness.ButC
hrist’sresurrection
isnotthat forthe
historicalPaul.
Paulw
asa
mid-first-century
visionaryJew
,not
anearly-tw
enty-firstcentury
postmodern
Parisian.T
hesignificance
ofC
hrist’sresurrection
forPaulis
thatitindicates
what
time
itis
onG
od’sclock.
It’sthe
endofhistory,
andthe
houroftheestablishm
entofGod’s
kingdom.T
heform
ofthisw
orldis
passingaw
ay(iC
or7:3
1).Salvation
isnearer
tous
thatwhen
we
firstbelieved;the
nightisfargone,theday
isathand(R
om13:11—
12). Christisthe
firstfruitsof
thegeneralresurrection
(iCor
15:2
0).H
isrising
means
thatthetransform
ationof history
isim
minent
(1T
hess4:13—
17).Further,thegod
who
willbring
aboutthat
transformation
isan
ethnicgod,the
godofJew
ishscripture,
thegod
ofA
braham,Isaac,and
Jacob.Gentiles
may
havebeen
addedin,but
it’sthe
godof Israelw
hohas
doneallthe
heavylifting,justas
hehad
promised
the(Jew
ish) patriarchs(R
om‘5). Paul’s
universalismis
bothheavily
mythologicaland
specificallyethnic.
Millenarian
movem
entsalw
ayssucceed
astheir
major
prophecyfails.
Thekingdom
ofG
odarrived
neitherin
Jesus’lifetim
e,nor
inPaul’s—
norin
Mark’s,
norin
thelifetim
eofJohn
ofPatm
os.G
rasshas
grown
throughA
kiva’scheekbones,and
stilltheM
essiahhas
notcome,or
come
again.That
issim
plyan
observation.B
utitneed
notrepresent
atheological
problem.
Theological
readingsof
foundationalreligious
textsare
intrinsicallyanachronistic.T
heircategories
ofmeaning
come
fromoutside
andw
ellafterthe
categoriesnative
tothe
authorsof
thefoundational
texts.To
readsuch
textstheologically
means
toread
themphilosophically
(theologyis
asubset
of philosophy)and
thussystem
atically(hence
the—
logyof these
endeavors).B
adiougives
usa
post-Lacanian
example
ofsucha
systematic
andsystem
atizingproject:
God
may
bem
issing,butnothing
elseis.System
aticreread
r,a,c
hw
thpc,
,,ncip
nt
T’w
,k-h
tn1r,c
,1-,1
)tv
tcth
t,1
r,P
,,i1’c
1ttr
72
.P
AU
LA
1R
ED
RIK
SE
NH
IST
OR
ICA
LIN
TE
GR
ITY
,IN
TE
RP
RE
TIV
EF
RE
ED
OM
73
retain—or,
rather,obtain—
contemporary
meaning.
There
isno
dishonorin
this.Itis
theology’sproject.
But
inview
ofits
inevitableanachronism
—its
falsenessto
them
essiness,
theopacity,
thestubborn
independence,the
sheerotherness
ofthe
pastthat
isthe
contextof
foundationaltexts,
suchas
Paul’s—such
aread
ingcan
onlybe
falseto
theoriginal
author.Iwish
thatpractitionersofsuch
projectsw
ouldsay, “IinterpretPaulthis
way,this
isw
hatPaulmeans
tom
e,”a
hermeneutical
claim,
ratherthan
“thisis
what
Paulm
eans,”a
historicalclaim
.A
sa
historicalclaim
,such
assertionscan
onlybe
anachronistic;and
ananachronistic
historicalclaim
canonly
befalse,
whatever
ideologicalm
eritit
might
otherwise
display.“T
hehistorian
meets
thegap
between
himself
andothers
atits
most
sharpand
uncomprom
ising,”Peter
Brow
nonce
observed.“The
deadare
irreducible.”
They
arecertainly
freedofany
obligationto
make
senseto
us.If
we
ashistorians
seekto
understandhow
peoplein
thedistant
pastm
adesense
toeach
other,then
we
haveto
work
hardto
reconstructtheir
world,
notto
projectupon
themconcerns
fromours.
The
ancientdead
standw
iththeir
backstow
ardus, their
facesturned
totheir
own
generation.The
deadare
not ourcontem
poraries,andifw
ethink
theyare,w
eare
not listeningto
them,but
talkingto
ourselves.’2
Iam
making
anepistem
ologicalclaim
here,nam
ely,that
onlya
his
toricalinterpretation
ofsuch
textscan
giveus
atleast
anapproxim
ationof
what
theancient
subjectthought.
Ancient
humans,
liketheir
modern
counterparts,are
gloriouslyinconsistent
intellectuallyand
morally,
andaffected
bytheir
imm
ediatesocial
andcultural
environment
inw
aysthat
areboth
profoundand,
occasionally,obvious.
Forthis
reason,I
thinkthat
anyapplication
ofany
systematic
orsystem
atizinginterpretive
theoryw
illdistort
thelived
messiness
thatthe
primary
evidenceattests
to.“M
ethodology”
isno
lessdistorting
tohistorical
reconstructionthan
istheology
(or,in
Badiou’s
case,atheology).O
rigen’sPaul
tellsus
notaboutPaulbut
aboutO
rigen;A
ugustine’sPaul,
aboutA
ugustine.T
hus,torespond
finallyto
Ba
diou’scharacterization
ofPaulposedin
hisfirstchapterheading—
Paul:O
urC
ontemporary—
Iw
ouldhave
tosay,Y
es. Badiou’s
Paulisour
contemporary.
And
thatis
preciselyhow
we
knowthat
Badiou,in
givingus
hisfresh
reading
oftheapostle’s
letters,haspresented
usnot
with
astudy
of Pauland
hisconcerns,butw
ithan
obliqueself-portrait,and
aninvestigation
ofconcernsand
ideasthat
areirreducibly
Badiou’s.
Notes
1.See
N.
deLange,
Origen
andthe
Jews
(Cam
bridge,1976).
2.E
usebius,E
cclesiasticalH
istoryvi.8;
Epiphanius,
Panarion
64.3.11—12; see
dis
cussionin
H.
Chadw
ick,E
arlyC
hristianT
houghtand
theC
lassicalT
radition(O
xford,1966),
67f.3.
He
feltthe
lackofthe
comm
entariesm
oreacutely
andasked
Jerome
tostop
botheringw
ithhis
biblicaltranslations
andto
concentrateinstead
onpatristic
writ
ings,most
especiallyO
rigen’s;Ep.
28.2
.2.
4.See
J.J.O
’Donnell,
Augustine:
AN
ewB
iography(N
ewY
ork,200
5),
chap.8,
“The
Augustinian
Putsch
inA
frica.”5.
Elizabeth
A.
Clark,
TheO
rigenistC
ontroversy(P
rinceton,N
.J.,1992),
15
9—
25
0.
6.T
hatis,
throughthe
argument
of hisessay
onR
omans
9in
thead
Sinipli
cianum,
written
in396, shortly
beforethe
Confessions.
Fora
reviewof
howhe
getsto
hisnew
position,see
P. Fredriksen,
“Beyond
theB
ody/SoulD
ichotomy,”
Recherches
augustiniennes2
3(1988):
87—114.
7.The
classicstudy
isW
.K
umm
el,R
ömer
7und
dosB
uddes
Menschen
EmN
euenT
estament
(19
29
;Munich
197
4);
seetoo
E.P. Sanders,
Paul,
theLaw
,and
theJew
ishPeople
(Philadelphia,
1983).For
thew
ayA
ugustine’slater
readingaffected
Rom
ans7, see
P.Fredriksen,
“Pauland
Augustine:
Conversion
Narratives,
Orthodox
Traditions,
andthe
Retrospective
Self,”Journal
of Theological
Studies
37(1
986):
3—34.
8.I
owe
thishappy
phrasingto
Professor
Andrew
Jacobs.9.
K.
Stendahi,
“Pauland
theIntrospective
Conscience
ofthe
West,”
inP
aulam
ongthe
Jews
andG
entiles(P
hiladelphia,1976).
10.For
hism
ostprogram
matic
statement
ofthis
conviction,de
civitateD
ei22.4
—5;
17,wom
enw
illbe
raisedin
theirfem
alebodies;
19,fatpeople
will
not
beraised
inan
overweight
body;and
20,
amputees
will
havelim
bsrestored.
11.R
eligionand
Societyin
theA
geofS.A
ugustine(L
ondon,1
97
2),
zof.12.
Forthe
way
suchthinking
affectsthe
questfor
thehistorical
Jesus,seeP. F
redriksen, Jesus
of Nazareth,
King
of theJew
s(N
ewY
ork,5999),
261—70.