Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Neil Elliott, Liberating Paul

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Neil Elliott" <elliott AT igc.org>
  • To: corpus-paul
  • Subject: Neil Elliott, Liberating Paul
  • Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1999 10:22:26


PART I, on "Liberating Paul," 1 Cor 14, Rom 13

First, an apology for "lurking." Thanks to Jeffrey Gibson for alerting me
to the discussion, and to Jeffrey Krantz for initiating a discussion of my
1994 "Liberating Paul."

Jeffrey K. rightly calls attention to two vulnerabilities in LP (there are
more). One is the issue of "crying interpolation" with difficult texts in
the Pauline corpus. I plead guilty--with extenuating circumstances:

(1) I didn't try in LP to raise new arguments for interpolations, indeed I
sought to tighten the standards somewhat (p. 26). (Philip Payne HAS
produced significant arguments for interpolation at 1 Cor. 14 in a series
of recent articles in NTS.)

(2) My purpose there (pp. 25-31) was to get those of us who consider
interpolations or pseudepigrapha a serious possibility to own up to the
consequences: pseudepigrapha quite likely constitute a deliberate effort to
reshape Paul's legacy. So--IF we "cry interpolation," let's have the
courage of our own convictions.

The second vulnerability in LP is the mighty shrug over Rom 13 at the end
of my book--as disappointing to me as to Krantz and others! I simply DON'T
know how to explain the text satisfactorily on the basis of historical
circumstances, but also DON'T want to see it wielded as an
empire-legitimizing weapon (here the KAIROS documents from the 1980s are
decisive). The "shrug" is also a dare, i.e., how dare anyone think such a
text COULD legitimize some of the state-sponsored outrages of the 20th
century?

Since LP I've published an article on Rom 13 in Horsley's PAUL AND EMPIRE
(1997). There I proposed: (1) (with Kaesemann, E. Bammel, others) the
arguments Paul uses--commonplaces in hellenistic Jewish political thought,
based (so J. Dickson, here) ultimately in the Prophets--are inconsistent
with Paul's thought more broadly AND unrelated to Paul's purpose here. That
is, whatever Paul is trying to do, it's not to create a "Christian theology
of the state."

(2) Paul's tag line concerning "fear" and "honor" is peculiar; so is the
tension between submitting to the authorities out of "conscience" AND out
of "fear." Roman and Jewish political texts from Paul's own time are very
clear in distinguishing these motives: That is, SOME (the ruling class,
"Romans") gladly consent to imperial rule; OTHERS (the mobs, Jews, etc.)
must be coerced by threat of force, i.e. by "fear." I find very
illuminating (as mentioned in LP) Goodspeed's discussion of a section of
Philo's "On Dreams," where Philo says, rather duplicitously, "yes we honor
our rulers--and avoid them like wild beasts in the marketplace." The larger
discussion distinguishes the "opportune time," when the overlord is weak
enough that people (Jews) can be frank about their political commitments,
from "inopportune frankness," the catastrophic mistake of broadcasting
"true" Jewish politics, i.e. God is sovereign alone, at a time when the
overlords are powerful enough to give injury. Goodspeed says Philo simply
lets us see the political knife edge any Jew (I'd add, any provincial)
under Roman rule was required to walk. (For more extensive discussion one
can hardly improve on Frantz Fanon's "Wretched of the Earth.")

One other contribution I want to return to in another post, which responds
more closely to our discussion here.




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page