Corpus-Paul

[Bob Tannehill <BTannehill AT mtso.edu>]

To Kathy Ehrensperger:
        Yes, I, too, am concerned with different 'maps' of interpretation of
Paul. I am not so sure, however, that Schuessler Fiorenza's interpretation
arises from filling gaps in our knowledge mainly from Hellenism rather than
Judaism. At least, this did not seem to me to be a key factor in my review
of her work. Rather, her carefully developed hermeneutic, which includes a
hermeneutic of suspicion with regard to a biblical author like Paul, and an
imaginative reconstruction of a community of equals in the early church,
which Paul did not always support, shapes her interpretation. 

I am inclined to think, as you suggest, that understanding Paul's gospel in
contrast to Roman imperial propaganda does open "liberationist potential" in
a positive way. That is, in this context Paul's gospel does stand for
liberation, and this is an important addition to the more negative views of
Paul in some feminist interpretation. In general, the two approaches are not
incompatible (although they may conflict in detail), and this is reason to
pay attention to both. This means, as Mark  Nanos indicates in his comments,
that Paul is an "impure" figure with respect to liberation: fundamentally
proclaiming it but not always supporting it in the life of the congregation.
But when we realize the difficult issues that Paul faced in a congregation
like the one in Corinth, we have no reason to think that we would have done
better. 

As to my essay, it will appear in a collection entitled The Meanings We
Choose: Hermeneutical Ethics, Indeterminacy, and the Conflict of
Interpretations, ed. Charles H. Cosgrove (Sheffield Academic Press). Since
essays are not due until March, 2002, the volume will probably not appear
until 2003. By that time you will probably have reached your own
conclusions, and you will probably be able to go into the issues more deeply
than I have.

In response to Mark, I agree that understanding Paul in his historical
context is an important task. It is not just an antiquarian task, for it can
open insights that would otherwise be hidden. It is my impression, however,
from looking at recent work on 1 Cor that it is unlikely that one
reconstruction of the "rhetorical situation" (that is, the situation that
Paul was responding to, or thought he was responding to) will be able to
eliminate other possibilities, since much depends on the particular way that
the interpreter fills gaps and draws connections while examining the
evidence. As a result, reconstructions should be recognized as
tentative--more tentative than their creators usually admit. 
                                        Robert Tannehill