The Pauline Corpus and the BEST
The present state of Pauline Studies is fragmentary, manifesting a lack of consensus on how to synthesize, or even organize, Pauline biography and theology.
Important developments on particular questions of exegesis, method, history, and theology have effectively demolished the earlier appearance of consensus centered on the hegemony of Bultmann’s reading.
The Bible in its Tradition is extremely well adapted to take advantage of this situation because of its multiform system of notes. Various hypotheses can be presented without necessarily adjudicating among them. On the other hand, a clear tendency in contemporary research in a particular direction deserves attention as well.
I offer the following observations as a springboard for discussion:
Authorship and Intertextuality

While the basic division of the corpus into disputed and undisputed letters has not changed significantly in the past decades, the actual treatment of the letters has undergone a great deal of change.

The lack of evidence for the attribution of a document to an author who has recently died (rather than a figure of a distant century) calls into question the whole edifice of pseudepigraphy.

Scholars are more willing to accept secretary and co-authorship proposals as reflected in ancient epistolary practice.

Scholars are more aware that the standard arguments (vocabulary, situation, style, theology—especially using statistics)—pre-judge the very questions they are meant to answer.

Scholars are more likely to compare individual letters (at least in theory) across the “authenticity divide.” Indeed, examination of the intertextuality of all of the letters among themselves is a worthy exercise.

Contemporary literary criticism is wary of attempts to access the mind of the author so that the whole enterprise of adjudicating authenticity is called into question.
Unity and Situation
 Scholars generally are less likely to develop elaborate partition theories (à la
Schmithals), so that for example it is no longer necessary to discuss the partition of 1 Corinthians. The presumption of unity is given greater weight as an argument
(on account of hypothetical parsimony, Ockham’s razor).

Scholars outside of the German zone of influence are more likely to accept the unity of Philippians.

2 Corinthians remains the basic question here with some Anglo-Saxon authors even arguing for its unity.

Scholars show greater hesitancy in applying source-criticism to the letters.

Chronology and Development

There are two competing schemata for approaching the issue of dating (absolute chronology): the older Acts-based schemata and the Letters-based schemata introduced by Knox. The newer system has gained the field of those who write chronologies. This does not mean that there is consensus on dating, but rather that there is growing consensus on method.

The sequence of letters (relative chronology) is divided into the older Acts-based chronological system (and proximity to regions addressed) and newer developmental schemata (beginning with Lightfoot).

The precise problems are the locations of Galatians, Philippians, Philemon, and hypothetical letter fragments (in particular, 2 Corinthians 10-13).
Opponents and Reconstruction
 Elaborate reconstruction of opponents (à la Schmithals) is no longer possible. In particular, no one now speaks of Judaizers in Corinth or Gnostics anywhere.
 Methodologically Furnish’ proposals in favor of methodological strictness have gained ground (in practice) even if few would follow the canons (and results) of
Furnish’ student, Sumney.

Scholars are more cautious in reconstructing the concrete situations for the letters, in particular avoiding mirror-reading and putting greater emphasis on Paul’s literary creativity and/or versatility.

Contemporary literary criticism is wary of elaborate reconstruction of the situations of the letters, more likely to speak of the implied audience.
Rhetoric and Culture
 Use of the rhetorical handbooks in analyzing Paul’s arguments is now accepted.
Differences of opinion remain on precisely how to use them. In particular, the handbooks themselves exhort practitioners not to follow the rules slavishly.

Stylistic comparison with ancient epistolography is also accepted.

Scholars have a growing awareness of the need for cross-cultural analysis. Naïve demythologization is completely out of fashion.

The facile oppositions of Judaism/Hellenism and Judaism/Christianity are no longer tenable. Hybridization (à la Post-Colonialism) is a better model for
Judaism/Hellenism and sectarianism (a sociological model) is more useful for
Judaism/Christianity.

Scholars are using a greater range of cultural artifacts to understand first-century
Mediterranean cultures (à la New Historicism).

Interpreting Paul’s letters as a response to Roman imperialism is fashionable, although it has not (yet?) proven its utility.
 Metaphysics is no longer considered irrelevant for understanding Paul’s letters, insofar as Paul obviously does not share Nominalist, Cartesian, or Kantian presuppositions.

Coherence and Contingency
 Systemization of Paul’s thought has simply failed. The current trends in scholarship emphasize the contingency and diversity of Paul’s arguments.
 No one really wants to claim that Paul is incoherent but Räisäinnen has demolished the possibility of locating coherence at the level of surface logic.
The Romans Debate

Fewer and fewer scholars understand Romans as an abstract treatise; more and more scholars read Romans as Paul’s response to the situation of Christians in
Rome as he embarks for Jerusalem with the collection.

Scholars tend to read chapters 9-11 as the climax of chapters 1-8, rather than as a more or less irrelevant appendix.

A growing number of scholars value the differences between Galatians and
Romans.
The New Perspective and Judaism

Paul’s letters are now read (outside of Germany) in the context of Second-Temple
Jewish eschatology.
 Galatians is no longer the exclusive lens for understanding Paul’s letters.
Galatians is recognized as an intra-Christian debate rather than as a debate with non-Christian Jews.

Recognition of practical issues and debates is indispensable.

Facile caricatures of Second-Temple Judaism are no longer possible.
The New Perspective and Participationist Eschatology

After Sanders and Stendahl, scholars (outside of Germany) recognize the cogency of Schweitzer’s orientation of understanding Paul’s thought in terms of substantial reception of the Spirit and union with Christ.

Even the Calvinist rear-guard attempt to defend Reformation formulae accepts the importance of “being-in-Christ.”