2024.09.06 |  Matthew T. Sharp. Divination and Philosophy in the Letters of Paul. Edinburgh Studies in Religion in Antiquity. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2023.

Review by Joshua W. Jipp, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.

This revised doctoral thesis, completed at the University of Edinburgh, takes as its starting point the question: “if Paul claims to convey the words and will of a deity, how does he believe he has received such knowledge?” (p. 1). While there is an abundance of studies devoted to aspects of this question (e.g., Paul and healing, Paul and prophecy, Paul and religious experience, Paul and signs and wonders, Paul and glossolalia), “Pauline scholarship has so far lacked an adequate analytical category through which to account for all of these methods of divine communication in Paul’s historical context” (p. 2). Sharp proposes, then, to engage in a careful examination of Paul’s letters through the ancient category of “divination” – that is, “the reception and interpretation of knowledge that is believed to have a divine, or superhuman, source” (p. 2). Paul does not use this category himself, but the scholarly use of divination to make sense of Paul’s religious knowledge, Sharp proposes, will enable scholars “to bring together a collection of related practices and ideas in Paul’s letters that existing scholarly categories usually keep apart” (p. 25).

In Chapter 1 (“The Mechanics of Divination”), Sharp outlines different practices of ancient divination through a detailed discussion of Cicero’s “On Divination” and Plutarch’s Delphic dialogues. Whereas the primary means of communicating with the gods were through intermediary deities (or daimons), through the innate capacity of the soul, and through dreams, visions, and oracles, Sharp demonstrates that Paul is insistent that the primary way that God is revealed is through the Spirit of the risen Messiah (e.g., Rom. 8:14–17; 1 Cor. 2:6–16; 12:4–11). 

In Chapter 2 (“Visions”), Sharp discusses the differences between dreams and visions and their relationship to actual human experience. Paul bases the authority of his apostolic call, of course, to a revelatory encounter with the risen Jesus (Gal. 1:10–17; also 1 Cor. 9:1). Similar to other ancient claims to have had an epiphanic encounter, Paul believes that his commission is based on his personal epiphany. 

In Chapter 3 (“Speech”), Sharp looks at Paul’s prophetic speech or speech that takes place “in the Spirit.” In a few passages, Paul speaks of himself or those in Christ praying, prophesying, sharing commands of the Lord, and giving predictions by means of Spirit-inspired-prophetic-speech (e.g., Rom. 8:15; 8:26; Gal. 4:6; 1 Cor. 12–14; 1 Thess. 4:13–18).

In Chapter 4 (“Texts”), Sharp notes how Paul positions himself as an authoritative interpreter of Jewish sacred texts. Paul engages in prosopological exegesis, for example, as he identifies the speaker of Psalm 68:10 LXX (in Rom. 15:3) as the Messiah; he interprets the history of Israel as set forth in the Pentateuch as providing a list of omens (1 Cor. 10–13); and he practices allegorical exegesis upon the stories of Sarah and Hagar (Gal. 4:21–31). In this way, Paul is similar to other ancient figures who treat their sacred texts as repositories of past, present, and future divine knowledge. 

In Chapter 5 (“Signs”), Sharp turns to an examination of how abnormal occurrences were used to interpret the work of the gods in antiquity. Paul, of course, shows no interest in the examination of the entrails of animals or the flight patterns of birds, but he does refer to “signs and wonders” (e.g., Rom. 15:19; 2 Cor. 12:12; Gal. 3:1–5) as providing confirmation of his gospel proclamation and apostleship. 

The strength of Sharp’s monograph, in my view, consists in providing a robust but succinct study of both Greco-Roman and Pauline views related to how the gods (or God) were perceived to interact and communicate with humanity – all in one 200-page book. Scholars and teachers will profit from the data Sharp has collected. Whether Sharp is interested in making a stronger argument or thesis from the data, however, I struggled to discern. While he states that his comparative approach will allow us to “bring together a collection of related practices and ideas in Paul’s letters that existing scholarly categories usually keep apart” (p. 25), I confess that by the end of the book I was uncertain of what the actual benefit was in terms of advancing my understanding of the topic. 

Joshua W. Jipp
Trinity Evangelical Divinity School