Corpus-Paul

["David Amador" <TheVoidBoy AT sprynet.com>]

Jerry Sumney writes:

>I do not see this as a criticism of the historical method.  This is simply
>recognizing what it was designed to do.

True.  The question is, why is this the dominant paradigm of biblical
studies?  I do not fault the pursuit per se, but within the larger context
of academic constraints and discursive practices.

>I would hope that this is the
>first task of rhetorical criticism as well.

Why?  I, on the other hand, "hope" not.

>move to "its impact on us"
>launches one into a broader arena within the topic of hermeneutics.

Historians love to make the distinction between historical criticism and
hermeneutics, overlooking the hermeneutic of their own pursuit.  This is a
red herring, and it lies at the heart of a dominant apologetic strategy of
historians - first quasi-positivist history, then impact.  The result of
this stragtegy is at least two fold: 1) it tries to circumvent criticism
that historians are interested interpreters, not "objective" scientists, and
that their studies have an impact broader than the topic upon which they
focus; 2) it undermines any claim to relevancy they might make with respect
to their efforts.  One never does history for history sake, but always for
the sake of something.  But the defense of history as an "objective"
discussion of the reconstruction of "events" is self-defeating - history is
claimed to be done for history's sake, hence irrelevant to the interpreter
or his/her audience.

>That  is an interesting topic, but one which should not be completely
identified
>with the task of understanding an ancient author.


And why should I care about understanding an ancient author?  Where does
your hermeneutic lie: on the author, on the audience, on the context of
production, on the context of performance, on the materiality of the
letter's communicative medium?

We must never forget - we are talking about the bible.  And we are talking
about Paul.  We are focusing on both of these items because they are
incredibly important.  The way we choose to talk about them results in
tremendous effects of power and control.

Let's at least begin to talk about method, and show our cards.  Historical
criticism is the dominant paradigm that has determined the way we approach
Paul.  Rhetorical criticism, when not practiced under this paradigm, has
some interesting other ways by which we can approach Paul.  The two do not
necessarily conflict, but can.  And the way the can highlights the power
systems at work in controlling Paul.

-David