Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Neil Elliot, "Liberating Paul"

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Jeffrey Krantz <jkrantz AT optonline.net>
  • To: Corpus-paul <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Neil Elliot, "Liberating Paul"
  • Date: Sat, 03 Jul 1999 17:56:57 -0400


As a newcomer to the list, I've been plowing through the archives when I
can, so as to avoid bringing up exhausted topics. (I hope I'm not doing
that now!)

I was glad, though, to see Neil Elliot's book, "Liberating Paul," in at
least one of the suggested lists for summer reading. Having just
finished it, I'd love to hear some of the list subscribers' evaluations.

Though I was uncomfortable at times with the ease with which Elliot
cried "interpolation" about texts whose origin is still a matter of
debate (even though I'm comfortable with most of those conclusions, I
don't think they can be taken as "fact" that easily.) I was captivated
by most of his arguments. I was, however, a bit disappointed in his
approach to Romans 13:1-7. Having pointed out over and over again
through his book that Paul had definitely suffered at the hands of the
authorities for "doing good," I still had difficulty imagining Paul
suggesting sincerely that "Do you wish to have no fear of the authority?
Then do what is good, and you will receive its approval." (13:3b)

I have wondered about an alternative.

Jon Peter back on June 7 (in the archives) wrote that he treats certain
passages that seem to be sure contradictions of Paul's thinking as
"pseudo-remonstration." That is, purposeful misleading of his
adversaries by inclusion of texts he obviously doesn't believe, and
marking of these passages by coded redundancies. (My apologies if I've
misunderstood.) This idea is similar to one put forward by two authors
(I regret that I'll be unable to cite the sources until I can get to the
GTS library later this week...) that I Cor. 14:33b-35 is in fact Paul's
re-iteration of something said *by the Corinthians* not by Paul, and
that verse 36 begins his contradiction of the practice of silencing the
women. (I promise I'll look those two articles up ASAP, as I need them
for my class, anyways...)

Has anyone thought that Paul might be about something similar here?

If what Elliot has suggested as the motive for ch's 1-2 (the
condemnation of the imperial cult, not gentile culture in general) is
valid, (and how could Paul suggest subjection to such an unholy
authority?) then could not 13:7 be the beginning of a veiled, minimal
sort of concession to authority (given the instability and vulnerability
of the community) that contradicts the first six verses of the chapter?
"Give only taxes and revenue to those to whom it is due. Keep respect
and honor for those worthy of it..." After all, in the following verses
Paul goes on to suggest another authority, that of the law, summed up in
love for one another. Following this he reminds his readers not to
engage in licentiousness and debauchery, the very faults he cites in the
first two chapters.

So, two different questions, I suppose. First, reactions to Elliot's
stirring book.

Second, Romans 13:1-7?

Thanks for your thoughts.

--
Jeffrey H. Krantz
Church of the Advent, Westbury, NY
Mercer School of Theology, Garden City, NY
Homepage http://www.agapenetwork.org






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page