Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Musings on Pauline studies in general...

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Steve Black <sblack AT axionet.com>
  • To: "Corpus-paul" <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Musings on Pauline studies in general...
  • Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 12:28:13 -0700


I think it was Mary Daly who said something like, "Who the hell cares what Paul thought?"

It seems to me that at the core of a great deal of Pauline studies lies the following phenomenon. We create a "Paul" based on the texts available, and then defend this creation's plausibility against other rival (and often equally plausible) creations. (It would be interesting to draw up a taxonomy of "Paul's" under discussion in modern research. There is the Anti-Semitic Paul, the revolutionary Paul, the conservative Paul, the liberal Paul, the feminist Paul, the patriarchal Paul, etc etc etc etc etc.) I suspect that there is (as there usually is...) an "agenda" lurking behind this all. It seems (to over simplify in order to make a point) that Paul might(for example) "represent" the church. If someone feels a strong degree of loyalty to this historical institution, than the portrayal of Paul will by and large be positive. If on the other hand one does not feel such a loyalty, or even feels suspicion or animosity towards the church, then Paul will come out looking quite negative. (Of course Paul might "represent" ["represent" might not be quite the right word...] a host of thing other than the church - this was intended merely as an example to illustrate my point).

This dynamic (that being the significance of the historian relative to her/his history) has been discussed at length in Historical Jesus studies, but I am not aware (and perhaps this merely reflects my own ignorance...) any such dynamic being discussed at length when it comes to Paul.

Pauline studies are important in tracing the development of many significant strands of thought and belief. In focusing on the original (reconstructed) Paul it seems that this isn't of prime importance to modern research. If it were, then the history of interpretation would be more highly valued. This is especially true where the reconstructed Paul differs greatly from the one presented by tradition and in the history of interpretation. Proving the tradition and the history of interpretation "got it wrong" does little to trace the actual historical development of ideas/beliefs. What seems to be happening is more that a "corrective" to tradition and the history of interpretation is being offered.

This is all done in the name of "history for history's sake", which I think provides a nice "cover". I wonder if the logic behind this really holds up. I first of all wonder if we really do validate present thought/action/belief by a warrant in the past. What is really accomplished by "vindicating" (or "condemning") Paul? Does Xnty stand or fall? Does western civilization? In other words, what the point?

Or as Mary Daly so "eloquently" put it, "Who the hell cares what Paul
thought?"


(I ask this "honestly", as one who is passionately interested in Pauline studies).

--
Steve Black
Vancouver School of Theology
Vancouver, BC
---

Once in a while you can get shown the light
in the strangest of places if you look at it right...

-Robert Hunter From SCARLET BEGONIAS




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page