Corpus-Paul

[Bob Tannehill <BTannehill AT mtso.edu>]

The message from Loren Rosson helps to sharpen some of the issues I have
been dealing with, including the characteristically sharp language quoted
from Schuessler Fiorenza, with her reference to Paul's "rhetorics of
'othering' . . . vituperation," etc. As a result, she suggests, Paul's
rhetoic can be classified as part of the "hegemonic discourses of
domination." 

I think Loren correctly suggests that such judgments are heavily dependent
on our understanding of context. As Loren says,
 "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."

People with strong commitments, including those with counter-cultural
commitments (such as a commitment to liberation), often use strong language.
Our evaluation of such language depends on our understanding of its purpose
and of the power relations involved. If we can assume that Paul was firmly
in control in Corinth, so that whatever he said would be decisive, then his
strong language would be a language of domination. If Paul didn't have that
kind of control, the impact of his language would be different. (By the time
of 2 Cor, at least, Paul appears not to be in control.)

However, our reconstructions of contexts--so determinative for making these
sorts of judgments--are not likely to be final. They remain tentative. The
detailed interpretation of 1 Corinthians by Ann Wire, in her book The
Corinthian Women Prophets, contains a fair amount of speculation, but her
basic idea remains a possibility. If one takes 1 Cor 11:2-16 as an important
clue to the Corinthian situation, rather than a side remark about an obscure
problem, one could arrive at Wire's view that the women prophets were more
important in Corinth than we have realized, and Paul is repeatedly
confronting their views and seeking to correct them as he deals with issues
in his letter. Here we have one understanding of the context of Paul's
rhetoric. It would make a difference in our evaluation of what Paul is
doing, particularly if we are sensitive to the ways people in power (mostly
men in our history) maintain their power.  

There are points to be made against Wire, but they don't destroy her whole
case. My concern is not to prove Wire right or wrong. I want us to be aware
that our understanding of the impact of Paul's words--their purpose or
likely effect--depends on an uncertain context. Similarly, our use of Paul's
words today should be preceded by theological and ethical reflection on our
purpose and the likely effect in the particular context in which we are
speaking, because his words can be used for good or ill.
                                        Robert Tannehill