Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: Evidence for an interpretation

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Jill and Dale Walker <jilldale AT rcnchicago.com>
  • To: "Corpus-paul" <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: Evidence for an interpretation
  • Date: Sun, 09 Sep 2001 23:39:28 -0500

I find Bob's questions interesting to chew on.

One thing I like in arguments are historical comparisons. I like to
see that whatever someone is proposing as an interpretation of ancient
phenomena is feasible within antiquity. Most anything can be possible in
theory, but I rather like to see that something was actual.

In terms of attributing motives to texts, that's one thing I like about reading
the ancient rhetorical handbooks and speeches. We get lots of tips about
what actually motivated people in the ancient world. So, when Paul talks
about what is beneficial, we know he's invoking very common language
of persuasion. To my modern ears, his words sounded reasonable, but armed with
rhetorical knowledge, they are not simply reasonable but an undeniable
element of persuasive shorthand deeply imbedded in his culture.

When Paul concedes his rhetorical inadequacy, knowledge of ancient rhetoric
makes me read that differently. It is a commonplace rhetorical device used to
express the modest ethos. Knowledge of rhetoric has added insight into Paul's
motives. (The irony that suffuses 2 Cor 10-13 adds other layers to these
words, and one's final verdict about Paul's motives may end up quite
different, but one still analyzes Paul's motives via rhetoric and ends up in
a different place than the person who fails to recognize the cultural
commonplace at work.)

Ancient philosophy also added to the language of human motivation, and
now I think of Paul's discourse about things that don't matter. Now we move
into the realm where some ancients tried to alter commonplace attitudes
about human motives by redifining normal features of human experience
(wealth, pain).

And speaking of normal human experience, how about jealousy. In the minds
of classical people, that was a HUGE motivation, influencing countless human
deeds. Modern interpreters dismiss its invocation in Acts, and if we wish to use
the interpretive categories of the modern (or post-modern) worlds, so be it.
But historically we cannot dismiss the persuasive quality of jealousy in the minds
of early Chrisitans and their contemporaries.

And if we keep thinking about love, ambition, honor, we know that we
speak of important motives that had peculiarly cultural nuances.

Is my list sufficienly pedantic to make the simple point that zeroing in on
the motives behind or expressed in ancient texts is part of what I for one
consider to be historical investigation? And it was particularly my reading
of ancient rhetoric that made me realize that.

Dale Walker




At 05:35 PM 9/4/01 -0700, you wrote:
>Dear list members
>
>In scholarly discussions, what are the criteria for evidence to support an
>interpretation?
>
>or a related question
>
>Where does one draw the line between inferring a motive from the text and
>reading a motive into the text?
>
>I don't know if these are good questions but maybe they will generate a
>reference that I can look into.
>
>Thanks
>
>Bob
>
>mailto::BobMacDonald AT home.com
>+ + + Victoria, B.C., Canada + + +
>
>Catch the foxes for us,
>   the little foxes that make havoc of the vineyards,
>for our vineyards are in flower.   (Song 2.15)
>http://members.home.net/bobmacdonald/homepage.htm
>
>
>---
>You are currently subscribed to corpus-paul as: jilldale AT rcnchicago.com
>To unsubscribe send a blank email to $subst('Email.Unsub')
>




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.