Corpus-Paul

[Loren Rosson <rossoiii AT yahoo.com>]

Bob Tannehill wrote:

>>I am completing an article on issues suggested
>>by the differing interpretations of 1 Cor by
>>Richard Horsley and Neil Elliott, on the hand,
>>(a "political" interpretation), and Elisabeth
>>Schuessler Fiorenza and Ann Wire, on the other
>>hand (a "feminist" interpretation)... The two
>>interpretations differ significantly in their
>>evaluation of Paul. I am interested in any comments
>>from members of the group about strengths and
>>weaknesses of these two positions.

Despite some commonalities shared by Horsley/Elliott
and Schussler-Fiorenza/Wire, each pair, indeed, has a
different "thrust" of interpretation, which in no
small part hinges on Paul's rhetoric and how it's
evaluated. The following citations from
Schussler-Fiorenza may be illustrative:

"Horsley's reading of the rhetorics of Paul...is very
perceptive and persuasive. However, even if one agrees
with it, one must point out that his analysis eschews
asking the critical questions as to the ideological
underpinnings of Paul's arguments...He does not always
point out how Paul's rhetoric seeks to maintain his
own authority by engaging the rhetorics of 'othering',
censure, vituperation, exclusion, villification, and
even violence toward the community. Hence Paul's
politics of meaning often seems not very different
from the hegemonic discourses of domination and
empire, albeit it does not (yet) have the
underpinnings of state power." (Essay in "Paul and
Politics", p. 50)

In other words, even where Paul's intent is to
liberate he may speak in a way that denigrates.
Frankly, I don't necessarily see a problem with that,
though it can admittedly lead to some interpretive
problems. Schussler-Fiorenza goes on to say that
"wherever Paul's rhetoric vilifies and belittles
people, we must resist his rhetoric rather than
valorize it" (ibid, p. 51). Mark Nanos would probably
agree, as evidenced in his response to Bob:

[Mark]
>Where Paul's voice is liberating, it should
>be trumpeted. Where it is not,
>it should be criticized. But first it should be
>discovered, as far as possible, as Paul's voice
>and not ours! As Paul's wisdom or error, and not
>our own merely parading in disguise.

There is certainly the omnipresent danger of finding
Paul's rhetoric too attractive, identifying too
uncritically with it, which in turn leads to
misconstruing the very nature of the Pauline
controversies themselves. (Mark has written much on
this subject with respect to Galatians.) But I think
we should be equally on guard against a
hyper-sensitivity to "hostile rhetoric". In some
contexts diatribes (even villifying ones) may be
recognized as appropriate, while in others not so
appropriate. The key is to understand the "reasons
behind the rhetoric" as best we can, before making
such assessments.

So, in terms of Bob's initial inquiry about "the
strengths and weaknesses of the two positions" -- and
especially in terms of assessing the voice of Paul --
I lean much more closely to Horsely and Elliott, while
still keeping an eye on the cautious measures
commendably advocated by Schussler-Fiorenza.

Loren Rosson III
Nashua NH
rossoiii AT yahoo.com

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 
a year!  http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/