Daniel Patte

Salvation by Entering into a Story

pp. 138-139, Patte's descriptions of "rhetorical situation" as literary construct are full of postmodern gobbledygook and self-contradicting. If Paul's citing of his mission to Spain is only a literary construct and "should not be construed as means of accessing historical reality", then did Paul really intend on a mission to Spain, or did that appeal for support (p. 138, quoting Jewett) make him a scammer?

Right off the bat, in his "inclusive" interpretation show more of 1:1a (p. 154), Patte severely reads into the text. It seems that when he says all interpretations involve choices made by the interpreters, Patte's choices are distinctly exclusive, meaning that other possible options can be disregarded in pursuit of his own meaning of the text. Of course, such exegetical fallacy would not be acknowledged when everyone is entitled to one's version of truth.

Again, in his muddled explanation (P. 156) of Paul evoking the "gospel of Caesar" when he refers to the gospel of God, Patte ignores the text in v.2 where Paul makes references to "promised beforehand", "his prophets", "in the Scriptures", all grounded in the OT traditions. Such biased and truncated reading of the text is irresponsible.

See the interpretive jujitsu Patte attempts with 1:15; (pp. 170-171). First, a somewhat twisted translation is offered, then empties the "gospel" of contents (Patte's characteristic postmodern "story" is always just that, always fluffy airy and fuzzy, in the midair and never hitting the ground), finally ventures to read into the text by referring to Paul preaching involves "restoring to memory" a "story".
This is further confirmed by Patte's definition of "The Gospel" (p. 173), where the evermore muddled "story of God" is nothing more than a Kumbaya.

To Patte, making textual or hermeneutical choices is about pick'n choose - picking some but leaving behind other textual evidence, rather than judiciously selecting the most probable.

As it comes to his third interpretation, one that Patte entitles "Realized-Apocalyptic/Messianic Vision" (note that every word in this title is imbued with Patte's own slant), Patte the postmodernist goes Eastern. There are so many exegetical misconstruals that their proper rebuttals go beyond this review. A casual read of how he explains Paul's indebtedness (p. 382) will suffice. The reasoning given and reading into the text is ludicrous and juvenile.

One only needs to see Patte's injecting the meaning "seeing" to the word πιστεύω (p. 254) and knows where he'd lead from there. His understanding of the gospel (p. 280) is downright heretic. show less