Corpus-Paul

["Mark D. Nanos" <nanos AT gvi.net>]

Anders wrote:
[snip]>BUt the question I am asking falls more into the arena of the
ideological
>texture of a text, than the question you ask, which falls into the social
>cultural texture of a text (terms taken from Vernon Robbins Tapestry of
>Early Christian Discourse). This arena of interpretation asks questions
>like my own location to the text, my subjectivity (do I like Paul?, what is
>my pre-understanding of the text?). It also raises the issue of the
>reception history of the text, an issue you brought up in your comments
>about the picture of Paul presented by the majority of Christian exegetes
>which has made Paul very hard to understand for Jewish interpreters (by the
>way, I understand your work to involve presenting a picture of Paul which
>is cleansed from much of this later dogmatic Christian framework).

Dear Anders,
I appreciate the concern with ideological texture of a text, and accept
Robbins' definition, and think that this is very important for the
interpreter. But if I understand how Robbins is using this method, then one
still begins with trying to establish the social and cultural location of
the implied author, and of oneself, before engaging in a judgment (p. 111
in Exploring the Texture of Texts). One must judge the person whom one
reads first within their own context, including ideologically, and then the
reader must qualify their reaction within their own context, including
ideologically, to the degree that one is able, that is.
>
>But the ideological texture also involves asking questions about the power
>relations established in the text.  The typical question here is "who
>benefits from this"?  Yonder Gillihan raised this issue in his response to
>me:
>
>"Is it easier to put aside Paul's claims if we can write him off
>as "not nice", just as we might ignore some modern preacher's sermon?
>What would be the theological benefit of reconstructing his personality as
>"nice"?
>
>It is the power relations establiblished in Paul's text which has made me a
>little uncomfortable the last year.  When Paul makes his rhetorical
>dissociations (Perelman), dividing the world into two opposing halves like
>justification by faith or by work, he leaves no middle ground.  And most of
>the followers of Jesus at the time might have wanted some kind of
>compromise solution.  Or when he claims that he is the true prophet of God
>and that rival claims of other "christian" prophets are not true,
>indirectly associating them with non-God (Cf 1 Cor 15:34).  Or when he
>claims that if someone does not recognize this [i.e. that his prohibition
>for women not to speak in church is inspired by God] then they will not be
>recognized [by God at the judgment] 1 Cor 14:38. In such cases I have come
>to feel uncomfortable with the authority claims Paul makes for himself.  Is
>he mis-using his apostolic authority?  Or is he legitimately using his
>power to quench opposition?

You make a good point. I would still want to qualify the approach however,
by noting that each of these ostensible attitudes or statements are
delivered in a particular context, and not one in which a balanced view,
such as is the ideal in a university, for example, is available for review,
at least not in the moment of the comment itself. And that we too read this
in a cultural and ideological context. Because of the nature of rhetoric
and the implied rhetorical situations we are limited severely in our
portrait. That is not to say that no ideological judgment is valid, but
just how difficult it is to make a qualified one.

I think that your first example is weak, between justification by faith or
work without middle ground; in context as I understand it, this is not
quite the abstract bifurcation it is taken to be. That others might want a
compromise solution does not penetrate the question of Paul's character on
the topic of good and nice. It is arguably for their interests that Paul's
takes the position he does, as a parent must for their child. From my
perspective, in evaluating this parent, I think they have behaved good and
nice by making the hard decision in some cases, while the child and peers
might think otherwise. All judgments of this characteristic of oneself are
contextual. And this point stands without considering the differences in
cultural terms (such as more agonistic expression of beliefs and
affections, or pre-and post-enlightened views of the other) between Paul's
world and our own, a divide of which you are aware.

Your second, on 15:34, I am not certain is a criticism of other prophets,
or anyone within this coalition of believers in Christ. Without really
trying to attend to the passage itself (or your next example either), my
comments below would still apply to the qualification for analysis I think.
Your final questions are good, and should be asked.

As a young business owner and former counter-cultural want-to-be-hippie (a
bit too young for the real thing anyway) I will never forget the
ideological anguish of the first time many years ago I had to fire an
employee. Pertinently enough, one of my self-probing questions was, would
it be right (including for me: good and nice) to let my business suffer
because of this persons non-performance, or worse, so that all of the other
employees and their families suffered , as well as my own (and myself). And
what responsibility did I have to my clients, or suppliers, to run a good
and nice company in terms of their concerns, although not perhaps in terms
that this employee might consider themselves to jeopardize--if they even
thought in such terms--at the time of their dismissal? If one only knew or
met this former employee and got only their story, well, I would probably
not come out very good or nice on this score. But even some of my own
employees might judge me other than good or nice in this instance. But
would they judge me right or wrong? Protective of their interests, or only
my own? What if you only caught my ultimatums at the end, and not the many
comments and actions that were good and nice to this person before
concluding that this is the right course? What if you only caught my
comments made with careful legal ramifications in mind, and not those I
would like to express if no such consequences had to be considered? (that
is, if I suspected that someone else would later read my mail, to put it in
our context) Or what if you only caught my final comment, after all others
had been exhausted, appealing to my own opinion as the final authority in
"my" company? Or what if they did not catch my (good and nice) comments
during this dismissal handled in private, but just assumed them to be
otherwise? Sometimes self-interest or even its denial involves the denial
of the interests of "certain" others, and is anything but good and nice.
Ask anyone who has suffered from the procrastination or compromises of
another in order to avoid making a decision that might make them appear
less than good or nice.

My point is, not that we cannot render a judgment of Paul, but that we only
have a very small slice of his life to evaluate, and we must be very
careful to put as much "flesh" on it as possible before we do. He was not
writing for all humankind (in the first instance), but for his minority
subgroup in terms of the larger pagan society as well as the larger Jewish
communities, although themselves minority groups (probably) in the
locations to which he wrote. And was not, for Paul, the performance of
these communities on behalf of all humankind in the end after all?
>
>As biblical interpreters we have been used to asking historical and
>theological questions. We have not been used to ask ideological questions.
>Some of us are still uncomfortable asking such questions.

I appreciate your point, and it is dear to my own project of interpreting
Paul. I would think that we are all comfortable with ideological questions
(i.e. criticisms) about the other, it is the ones about ourselves that are
frightening. I am still having trouble with the judgments of Paul which you
are making, or rather, on the grounds for them. Nice cannot stand alone,
but the question is rather: Nice to whom? That is, for example, if Paul
believed he was engaged in the restoration of Israel, would it be nice to
Israelites to compromise the principles that which he believed necessary to
bring this about? But your question concerns style as well, I think, and as
noted above, I think this too must be contextually evaluated from a very
small sample of evidence that may be taken in more than one way. And it
"must" be run through the best cross-cultural evaluation we can mount. I
think it would be easier (obviously not easy) to evaluate Paul's implied
approaches to accomplish the implied objectives in the implied situations
he faced, then to conclude his niceness, even on ideological grounds, with
the limited resources upon which such a judgment would have to be made.

Regards,
Mark Nanos

St. Andrews
and Kansas City, Missouri