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.