Paul and the Dynamics of Power: Communication and Interaction in the Early Christ-Movement 9780567661067, 9780567043740

Citation preview

To Bill

This page intentionally left blank

PREFACE A study is the responsibility of the author. This, of course, also applies to this book. But it is at the same time not merely the fruit of a single mind, but of a long journey which included numerous conversations with many people in a variety of contexts; academic and non-academic. Some of these conversation partners get mentioned in the text or in footnotes, many not. Some contributed with their questions and critique to the clarification of chapters which in draft form were given as papers at conferences: Chapter 3 at BNTC 2002 in Cambridge, Chapter 4 at SBL International 2004 in Groningen, Chapter 7 at SBL International 2006 in Edinburgh, Chapter 8 at SBL International 2003 in Cambridge, Chapter 9 at the SBL Annual Meeting 2006 in Washington DC. Partners in the academic conversation concerning interpretation have enriched my thinking about Paul and issues of power by their learned and thought-provoking writings and lectures, students in Switzerland and Wales with their questions kept reminding me that answers are the beginning of new questions. Colleagues in the Department of Theology and Religious Studies at the University of Wales Lampeter and, during study leave from August to December 2006, at the Center for Theological Inquiry, Princeton Seminary and Princeton University, shared of their time and insights in discussing aspects of my work, and provided me with the context of a community of scholars so important for any academic work. But there were many people outside the academy who decisively shaped more than my thinking and writing about power. There were these lovely and awful 13- to 16-year-old teenagers in classrooms who did not know about theories of power but about the power of action, interaction, and true communication. There were the members of the Swiss Reformed congregation I had the privilege to serve for 16 years, who invited and appreciated female leadership in their congregation. In celebrating and mourning, in struggles and reconciliation with and amongst them I learned much about the always present dynamics of power. And my three children, Rahel, Joachim and Aurelia, taught me about the fragile balance of trust and the treasure of mutuality inherent even in asymmetrical relationships. I could not have written this book without having been involved in all these conversations, without having been part of all these networks, without the treasure of all these shared experiences. I am most grateful for all those who travelled with me on this journey. Most of all I could not

xii

Preface

have written this book without the support, patience and encouragement of Bill. Kathy Ehrensperger Lampeter, February 2007

ABBREVIATIONS BAGD

BDF

Bib BibInt BR BTB BWANT BZ CBQ EvT ExpTim FRLANT HTR IBS ICC Int JAC JBL JBV JFSR JR JSNT JSNTSup JSOT JSOTSup JSP JSPSup JTS LSJ

W. Bauer, W. F. Arndt, F. W. Gingrich, F. W. Danker, A GreekEnglish Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2nd edn 1958). Friedrich Blass, A. Debrunner and Robert W. Funk, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1961) Biblica Biblical Interpretation: A Journal of Contemporary Approaches Bible Review Biblical Theology Bulletin Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament Biblische Zeitschrift Catholic Biblical Quarterly Evangelische Theologie Expository Times Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments Harvard Theological Review Irish Biblical Studies International Critical Commentary Interpretation Jahrbuch für Antike und Christentum Journal of Biblical Literature Journal of Beliefs and Values Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion Journal of Religion Journal for the Study of the New Testament Journal for the Study of the New Testament, Supplement Series Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Supplement Series Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha, Supplement Series Journal of Theological Studies H. G. Liddell, Robert Scott and H. Stuart Jones, Greek–English Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 9th edn, 1968)

xiv JSR KuI LTQ LXX NKJ NovT NovTSup NRSV NTS PT RB RSV RV

SBL SBLASP SBLDS SBLSP SBLSS Scr ScrB SJOT SJT SNTSMS SNTU THAT

TynBul TZ WBC WW WUNT ZNT ZNW

Abbreviations Journal of Scriptural Reasoning Kirche und Israel Lexington Theological Quarterly Septuagint New King James Bible Novum Testamentum Novum Testamentum, Supplements New Revised Standard Version New Testament Studies Political Theology Revue Biblique Revised Standard Version Revised Version Society of Biblical Literature SBL Abstracts and Seminar Papers SBL Dissertation Series SBL Seminar Papers SBL Semeia Studies Scripture Scripture Bulletin Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament Scottish Journal of Theology Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series Studien zum Neuen Testament und seiner Umwelt Ernst Jenni and Claus Westermann (eds.) Theologisches Handwörterbuch zum Alten Testament (Munich: Chr. Kaiser 1971–76). Tyndale Bulletin Theologische Zeitschrift World Biblical Commentary Word and World Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament Zeitschrift für Neues Testament Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft

Chapter 1

READING THE PAULINE LETTERS: PRESUPPOSITIONS AND CONTEXTS Paul was power conscious. This is hardly a matter of controversial debate. It is perceived as almost self-evident that Paul had something to do with power and was not naïve concerning it. In recent scholarly debate controversy has arisen when it comes to the evaluation of what is perceived as fact in different readings. Paul’s use of power is positively acknowledged when he is attributed the role of the first Christian theologian and church leader who provided the basis for the subsequent development of Christian doctrine as well as the organization of what emerged as the Christian Church, thus legitimizing among other things, strictly hierarchical structures and the exercise of domination and control by church authorities for what was perceived as the benefit of the entire community and the salvation of the faithful. Paul’s use of power and claims to authority are challenged by others who see in his letters – which provided the foundations for both Christian doctrine and church life – the roots for the importation of the use of power by establishing hierarchical structures and dominating patterns of authority into a previously egalitarian movement. I am oversimplifying the positions but these ‘extremes’ at both ends of the spectrum indicate that there is more at stake in the debate about Paul and power than mere academic insights.1 It is a debate which is embedded in, and has a major impact upon, the life of churches and their respective political, social and economic contexts, both in the past and in the present. It is not a purely theological debate, although there are significant theological dimensions to it. But it is also not a purely sociological debate, although it has significant sociological dimensions. It is a debate which is influenced by and which has influenced issues concerning civil rights, women’s roles in church and society, and church order, as well as issues in relation to other faiths.

1.

If such exist at all. Cf. Bourdieu 2000: 81–2, also 128–63.

2

Paul and the Dynamics of Power 1.1 Earlier Studies on Paul and Power

Significant studies on Paul and power have been informed by debates and theories of power which have emerged in sociology, political science and philosophy because it has been recognized that the tools provided by such theories might contribute in new ways to an analysis of power in the Pauline discourse. John H.Schütz in his Paul and the Anatomy of Apostolic Authority to my knowledge provided the first book-length study informed by sociological theories of power. He critically interacted with Weber’s and others’ theories and proposed a model of power for an analysis of Paul’s claims of apostolic authority which he describes as follows ‘Power is the source of authority and authority is a version of power as it interprets power and makes it accessible … Legitimacy on the other hand, is a formalization of authority in those circumstances where the shape and texture of the social aggregate allows or demands such formalization.’2 It was Schütz’ intention to follow up Käsemann’s perception of Paul’s letters as ‘… constantly seeking to establish a basis for authority’3 and provide an analysis of the structure of that authority.4 Schütz tried to come to an understanding of Paul’s perception of authority ‘by locating it within the larger framework of order’5 as expressed in theological vocabulary. Guided by Weber’s distinction between charismatic, traditional and legal authority he views both Paul and his communities as sharing in the same charismatic experiences, and thus in principle in the same authority in Christ. He concludes ‘Where they stand “in” the gospel they stand in the same power as he does and their authority is the same as his.’6 Bengt Holmberg’s study Paul and Power also presupposed Weber’s theories, but in distinction from Schütz he emphasized the entirely social nature of authority which he perceived as ‘a social phenomenon, not a theological interpretation of social phenomena’.7 Holmberg views Paul as an apostle who acknowledged that he was part of, and dependent on a movement, but nevertheless claimed specific power and control over his communities. Thus in relation to other apostles, Holmberg perceives Paul as both viewing himself and also being accepted by others as equal with regard to power and authority,8 whereas in relation to his communities he views him as promoting an asymmetrical hierarchy in a static sense.9 More recently Cynthia Briggs Kittredge in her analysis, Community and Authority: The Rhetoric of Obedience in the Pauline Tradition, has focused on the implications of the discourse of obedience, presupposing that the Pauline discourse was primarily informed by the obedience discourse of the 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

Schütz 1975:21. Quote in Schütz 1975: ix. Schütz 1975: ix. Schütz 1975: ix. Schütz 1975: 282. Holmberg 1978: 204. Holmberg 1978: 194–201. Holmberg 1978: 116, 158.

Reading the Pauline Letters

3

dominating Graeco-Roman imperial elite culture.10 Sandra Hack Polaski’s study, Paul and the Discourse of Power, is informed by Michel Foucault’s perception of power as an often hidden but all-pervasive discourse of power exercised over others. She pays particular attention to the discourse of grace in the Pauline letters as a form of such a hidden discourse of power claims.11 These book-length studies from different perspectives contribute valuable insights into the discourse of power in the Pauline letters. They each focus on particular aspects of that discourse (Polaski, Kittredge), and interpret it from particular hermeneutical presuppositions (Kittredge), or through the lens of one particular theory of power (Schütz, Holmberg, Polaski). These studies have contributed to the recognition that the Pauline discourse of power is not uniform. Depending on the perspective chosen, different aspects of the Pauline claim to, and exercise of, power are highlighted – all of which have had a major influence in the course of the history of interpretation. The approach advocated in this study builds on these studies, and is informed by insights they provide. But it presupposes a perspective which differs in a number of ways from these. Issues raised by contemporary sociological, philosophical and political theories will be taken into account, in that the Pauline discourse will be read in concert with such theories. But I do not rely on one particular theory or model and then read the Pauline discourse through the lens of this theory or model. To read the Pauline discourse in concert with, and informed by, contemporary theories of power is a fruitful move but one which also needs to be approached with caution. Since contemporary theories of power are based on data gained through analyses of modern Western societies and/or through the perspective of such, their appropriateness for an analysis of communities of the first century CE can only be limited. The necessary data cannot be gained by sociological methodology as applied in the research of contemporary societies, but only from fragmentary literary and archaeological sources. This further limits the possibility of attaining direct sociological insights. Nevertheless contemporary theories can provide an illuminating perspective and shed light on aspects of the fragmentary discourse of the Pauline epistolary conversation which would otherwise go unnoticed.

1.2 Hermeneutical Presuppositions of this Study My proposal to read the ‘fragmentary discourse of the Pauline epistolary conversation’ in light of contemporary theories of power reveals that I have already made a decision concerning the hermeneutical presuppositions of my reading: ‘Fragmentary’ indicates that the letters are seen as only part of something else; ‘discourse’ indicates that the contents are influenced by specific choices and interests; ‘Pauline’ indicates that this is seen as a label which 10. 11.

Kittredge 1998: 37–51. Polaski 1999: 104–23.

4

Paul and the Dynamics of Power

might comprise more than one person; ‘conversation’ indicates that the letters are not seen as a means in themselves or perceived as theological essays. In agreement with most of contemporary Pauline scholarship, I perceive claims to objective readings, and to the reduction of texts to one correct meaning, as a concept of the past. I have previously argued that interpretation should rather be seen as a process of negotiating meaning in and for specific contexts, with a conscious appreciation and open conversation about each interpretation’s hermeneutical presuppositions.12

1.2.1 The Cultural Embeddedness – Judaism and its Scriptures Thus, the reading of a text, particularly one like the Pauline letters, which emerges from a context and time not our own, requires a framework of reference and understanding which precedes this very same reading. Since the reading of a biblical text in a scholarly setting is preceded by an act of translation, the reader is in a situation which has been described as follows: ‘If in order to translate one must make a series of hypotheses about the deep sense and the purposes of a text, then translation is a certain form of interpretation.’13 This insight leads Eco to the conclusion that ‘a translation is made possible by a previous interpretation of a text.’14 In light of this any reading of the Pauline letters is seen as informed by some pre-reconstruction of a framework within which the letters are seen to be located. This framework – or what Eco describes as ‘Mutmassung über die beschriebene mögliche Welt’ is itself influenced by the perspective of the interpreter, that is his/her context and choices concerning the hermeneutical presuppositions that have been made prior to reading, interpreting and translating a text.15 Hermeneutical presuppositions are constructed and construct a framework of interpretation which influences the choices necessarily made in the process of translation. This consequently implies that translation is as much a process of negotiation as is the process of interpretation.16 Texts such as the New Testament writings and the Pauline letters in particular, which are written in Greek, give rise to the question of what should be considered the relevant cultural context in which these texts are embedded and with which they resonate. Since Greek in this case is not the language of a particular people or of a particular geographic region, these parameters cannot contribute to guide an informed hermeneutical choice. Greek culture

12. Cf. Ehrensperger 2004a: 5–26; Patte/Grenholm 2000b. 13. Eco 2004: 123, cf. the German version ‘Der Übersetzer muss den Satz zunächst auf Basis einer Mutmassung über die darin beschriebene mögliche Welt umformulieren, erst dann kann er sich entscheiden, ihn zu übersetzen’ (2003: 289). 14. Eco 2004: 124. 15. Cf. Patte/Grenholm 2000b: 34–44; also Bourdieu 2000: 138–42. 16. Cf. Eco 2003: 11–12; concerning interpretation as negotiation see Derrida 2002:12.

Reading the Pauline Letters

5

in its various forms and combinations – Graeco-Roman, or Hellenistic – has been proposed as the most likely context for the Pauline letters and thus many interpretations presuppose a Graeco-Roman framework for translating and interpreting them, including the traces of the power discourse found within them.17 This is one hermeneutical choice based primarily on an interpretation of the use of the Greek language as an indication of a primary enculturation in that respective cultural world. But there is a question which is often overlooked when enculturation of the Pauline letters in the Graeco-Roman is advocated: who is enculturated? The addressees or the sender(s), or both? To put it in the discourse of translation – is the use of Greek here target- or source-oriented or both?18 In some literary approaches it has been argued that this question is obsolete or must remain undecided, and so the issue is not what the sender(s)/author(s) intention was and thus what symbolic universe they are embedded in, but rather what the addressees might have heard and understood. Although I consider it important to pay specific attention to reception history and the history of the effects that a text which was and is perceived as authoritative by a community of faith may have had, I cannot see how the questions of authorial intention and an author’s cultural embeddedness can be rendered obsolete.19 I am aware of the limitations of the quest for authorial intention, and I am certainly not promoting a quest for a so-called real Paul, but to perceive the reception of a text as the most, or even only, appropriate and accessible way of interpretation20 means to hand it over to the interpretation of the victorious of history, that is to the dominating voices, thereby silencing alternative voices of interpretation of the past (again) and possible alternative interpretations for the present.21 To refrain from promoting a quest for the real Paul does not imply that historical research and reconstruction are considered irrelevant for the interpretation of the Pauline letters. Although the contemporary discourse of historicity and the viability of historical reconstruction cannot be dealt with here, I am of the opinion that the Pauline letters are documents which relate to some reality outside themselves. Although they are only accessible as texts for contemporary readers, they are texts which contain traces of the lives and thoughts of real people. Thus despite not being representations of 17. Kittredge 1998: 37–51; Castelli 1991: 59–87. 18. Cf. Eco 2004: 81–103 and 2003: 190–251. 19. As Eco emphasizes concerning translation ‘… to respect what the author said means to remain faithful to the original text … the concept of faithfulness depends on the belief that translation is a form of interpretation and that translators must aim at rendering, not necessarily the intention of the author … but the intention of the text …’ (2004: 5). 20. For an informed and differentiated example of a literary approach see Powell 2001. 21. This would mean ignoring the fact that due to the continuing dominance of Graeco-Roman patterns of thinking in Western culture these continued to be the dominant voices even in contemporary Pauline interpretation. For more details see Ehrensperger 2004: 43–120.

6

Paul and the Dynamics of Power

pure historical facts they relate to and reflect upon a life beyond themselves. Traces of this life, which is the life of real people at a particular time and in a particular place, are stored in the archives of the traces of those who lived before us. The difficulties in finding such archives or getting access to them does not excuse the exegete from trying to reconstruct a framework of understanding for his/her interpretation informed by such traces of the past.22 Thus a reconstruction of the possible world within which a text emerged, although it can never be anything other than a (re-)construction, must be informed by as much historical (social, cultural, literary, archaeological, linguistic, etc.) knowledge as possible. One significant aspect of such historical and cultural knowledge has, so far in my view, not been seriously recognized in New Testament interpretation in general, and in the interpretation of the Pauline letters in particular. It is hardly contested that the historical context which the early Christ-followers inhabited was first-century Judaism and that Israel’s Scriptures were the Scriptures by which they lived, and which they quoted and interpreted. But the theological significance of this is only slowly being recognized. The fact that the Christ-movement in its beginnings was fully part of the community of the Jewish people and the Jewish faith23 is more than merely a statement about origins or roots. To acknowledge the embeddedness of the early Christ-movement within and as part of Judaism implies that the question of primary enculturation must be taken more seriously. The use of the Greek language, for instance, is then not such a clear indication for an enculturation of the early Christ-movement in the GraecoRoman ‘world’/symbolic universe as has been suggested.24 It is far from selfevident that the Pauline letters should be read with the presupposition that they are embedded primarily in the Graeco-Roman world. Again in applying translation discourse,25 the question of the source of the Pauline discourse needs to be considered afresh when, what Rolf Rendtorff has recently argued, is taken seriously: For them [the first generation of Christians] the ‘Scripture’ is their Bible, the use of which they take for granted, requiring no justification … Right through to the time of

22. Cf. Strecker who in his stimulating essay concludes ‘Die Geschichtsschreibung stellt keinen Spiegel in die Vergangenheit bereit, sie ist vielmehr eine Praxis der je spezifischen Aneignung bestimmter Bruchstücke der Vergangenheit mittels planvoller Inszenierung derselben. Diese Inszenierung vollzieht sich indes nicht im grenzenlos offenen Raum literarischer Freiheit und Phantasie, sie vollzieht sich unter Massgabe bestimmter Regeln … mit denen sich die Historiographie zugleich an einen bestimmten Ort und Diskurs bindet, nämlich den der Wissenschaft … Durch diese Bindung setzt sich die Geschichtswissenschaft von der literarischen fiktion ab. Hinzu kommt, dass sie im Kontrast zur literarischen fiktion beständig auf die im geschichtlichen Archiv gespeicherten Spuren der Toten verwiesen bleibt’ (2005b: 125). 23. Cf. Rendtorff 2005: 742. 24. See e.g. Engberg-Pedersen 2000, and Harrison 2003: 211–88. 25. Cf. Eco 2003: 190–231, 2004: 81–103.

Reading the Pauline Letters

7

Christian origins, including the period of the emerging New Testament, there is thus only one Bible: Israel’s Bible. Its authority as Holy Scripture is undisputed among all Jews, including those that formed a group of their own as disciples of Jesus.26

It follows from this that a perspective which holds that the primary ‘world’ of Paul and for the other first Christ-followers was the Scriptures, including their interpretation within the Jewish world, that is, in conversation with their fellow Jews, is a viable, even necessary, option.27 The information, that Paul was a Pharisee which we get from Philippians 3, facilitates a more precise notion of the world in which he lived and to which he related. It is unlikely that he got this Pharisaic education anywhere other than in Jerusalem,28 which means that he ‘may have been exposed to the pluriform influence of traditions circulating in Jerusalemite circles’.29 Hogeterp thus concludes that Paul did have strong connections to Palestinian Jewish culture and ‘It is therefore inadequate to suppose that Hellenistic Diaspora Judaism constitutes the predominant background to Paul’s previous Jewish life.’30 The frequent references to the Scriptures in the Pauline letters thus are more than mere proof-texts or ornaments to an argument previously made; they constitute the world in which he lived and thought. The reading put forward in this study is informed by Rendtorff’s approach which advocates that ‘… Christian theology does not begin with the message of the New Testament.’31 I thus will attempt a reading of the Pauline discourse taking into account that the Scriptures are Israel’s Scriptures and that they are the symbolic universe which shaped the social world in which Paul and his colleagues in the apostolate lived and from which they argued.32 This is perceived as the ‘source’ of his writing and even though the source might resonate differently with the ‘target’ audience, this does not invalidate the

26. Rendtorff 2005: 742–43. 27. On the difficulties some German Greek philologists found in trying to understand Paul with their ‘Greek ear’ see Taubes 2004: 3–5. 28. Murphy-O’Connor 1996: 52–70; Ehrensperger 2004a: 125–32. For a useful discussion of Paul’s Pharisaism see Overman 2002: 180–93, 29. Hogeterp 2006: 235. On the implications this may have had for his relation to women generally and female leaders in the movement in particular see Ilan 2006: 73–110. 30. Hogeterp 2006: 235. 31. Rendtorff 2005: 749. The primary significance of the Old Testament for understanding the New Testament was already recognized and advocated by the Swiss Reformer Heinrich Bullinger (1504–1575). He consistently applied these insights in his writings, preaching and lectures. His contribution is only now being fully appreciated for its difference from Luther and Calvin. Cf. Opitz 2004. 32. Cf. also Crüsemann who emphasizes that ‘… es gilt wahr-und ernst zu nehmen, wie sehr Paulus von seinen alttestmentlichen Grundlagen, also von seiner Bibel aus denkt, die er die Schrift nennt. Nicht nur alle seine Begriffe kommen daher, sondern alle, wirklich alle seine Aussagen selbst, die Inhalte, die er mitzuteilen hat. Bei fast jedem Schritt seiner Gedankenführung weist er ausdrücklich darauf hin. Die Lehre des Paulus ist Schriftauslegung’ (2003a: 70). A good example of such an approach in relation to Ephesians is Kreizer 2005; cf. also Campbell 2007.

8

Paul and the Dynamics of Power

‘source’.33 It rather requires that a reading which takes the non-Christian reading of the Scriptures seriously should be part of, or even the starting point for a reading of the Pauline letters. The reading of the traces of the dynamics of power found in the Pauline letters proposed here is informed by this presupposition: the people who lived with the Scriptures formulated their self-understanding in conversation with them and perceived them as the authority for all aspects of life and faith; and this is the context and source within which the Pauline letters are also embedded.34 The issue gets more difficult when it comes to the target or audience of the letters, that is, the addressees. As gentiles in Christ their primary socialization most likely took place mainly within the Graeco-Roman cultural, political and religious world. 35 The degree of their acquaintance with the Jewish scriptural and cultural world can only be a matter of informed guess work.36 Even if some of the gentile Christ-followers had previously been well acquainted with the Scriptures and Jewish tradition this was most likely not the case for all of them. The proclamation of the message of the gospel to gentiles thus involved a process of transmission from one cultural context to another (even if there was some overlap between them).37 It is not difficult to envisage that in this transmission process between source and target something may have been lost or may have been heard differently by the addressees, ‘lost in translation’ so to say.38 In this study I will focus primarily on the aspect of the source in this process of transmission, that is the authors’ embeddedness. 39 But further research into the process of transmission of the message of the gospel between different cultures is required.40 The presupposition of Paul’s embeddedness in a ‘world’ which was shaped by the Jewish Scriptures and traditions is combined here with the view that this tradition was not merely a religious

33. See Horsley who notes that ‘As becomes unavoidably evident in the Corinthian correspondence … Paul did not share much of a common cultural heritage with his audience’ (2000: 84). 34. In this respect my approach could be called a ‘canonical approach’ to Paul (informed by Rendtorff), reading Paul in the light of the Hebrew Scriptures rather than in the light of later New Testament traditions. 35. The recognition of this most likely informed Baur in his perception of Paul as the one who ‘translated’ the message of the gospel into ‘Hellensim’, and thereby liberated the gospel from the constraints of Jewish particularism to its universal truth. Cf. Campbell 2006: 15–17. 36. Cf. Stanley 2003: 38–61. 37. Cf. Ehrensperger 2004a: 83–92. Cf. also Eco 2004: 82. 38. See Eco 2004: 32–61 and 2003: 111–63. The implications for the Western church of Augustine’s lack of knowledge of Hebrew together with only a little knowledge of Greek have not been fully researched (see Eco 2003: 14). Another significant aspect in this respect is the fact that the literature of Jews and the early Christ-followers was not embedded in the upper strata of society. Cf Heszer 2005: 12–13. 39. This does not mean to return to a reading which perceives the letters as theological treatises. 40. On basic incompatibilities between Roman and Jewish perceptions of dependency and domination see Baltrusch 2002: 141.

Reading the Pauline Letters

9

belief system but encompassed all dimensions of life. The fact that in ancient societies a separate concept of ‘religion’ did not exist is taken into account, thus political as well as economic factors and the ‘religious’ dimension are seen as inseparably intertwined.41 Political and economic factors thus are seen as having significantly influenced the early Christ-movement.42

1.2.2 The Social, Political, and ‘Religious’ Context – The Roman Empire Jews, including Christ-followers, whether they lived in the Roman province of Judaea, provinces in its immediate neighbourhood, or elsewhere around the Mediterranean basin, lived under the conditions set by Roman imperial rule. Although the relationship between Jews and Rome had not been one of tension or antagonism from the beginning, and Jewish leaders did not actually challenge, but to some extent had even invited, indirect Roman rule over Judaea in 63 BCE, the situation was entirely different in the middle of the first century. Roman–Jewish relations had deteriorated rapidly and radically in the decades following the installation of direct Roman rule in 6 CE.43 E. Baltrusch in his convincing analysis of Roman–Jewish relations maintains that the Roman and Jewish understanding of ruling and being ruled proved to be different not only in that Roman imperial ideology perceived provinces and their population as inferior to Rome in a general sense but also in relation to the implications of what each perceived as religious autonomy. From a Jewish perspective, religious and some kind of political autonomy even under foreign rule were inseparable.44 But such a perception was inconceivable from the perspective of Roman rule. To be under the rule and domination of Rome implied more than to be willing to pay tribute.45 All aspects of life, including cult/religious practice had to be controlled. Thus in Rome’s perception there could be no aspect of life which was free from their dominating control and influence, not even when so-called religious freedom was granted to subordinate peoples. Their perception of religious freedom, or what sometimes is acclaimed as the religious tolerance of Rome, was far from what the Jews understood by it or what might be a contemporary understanding. Rome’s religious tolerance was very limited, in that it was limited to cults which were compatible with the cult system of Rome. Cults thus were a crucial element which served to integrate provinces into the empire. Rome was tolerant only inasmuch as its interests and the unity and homogeneity of the empire were not at risk.46 Judaism, with its exclusive loyalty to the one 41. See Stegemann 2003: 43–69. 42. Cf. e.g. Freyne 2002a: 37–51. Also Stegemann/Stegemann 1999: 15–52. 43. Baltrusch 2002: 137–41. 44. Baltrusch 2002: 48. 45. On the economic realities of Rome’s rule as a potential source of conflict see Freyne 2002: 136–52. 46. Baltrusch maintains that this actually means that Rome could not accept religious pluralism proper at all (2002: 118).

10

Paul and the Dynamics of Power

and only God of Israel and the identity-shaping dimension this loyalty had for their way of life, was actually incompatible with these goals of Roman imperial policy.47 This was recognized very early on by Cicero who already in 53 BCE in his Pro Flacco claimed that Jewish cult and practice stood in contrast to the splendour of the empire, the dignity of its name and the order of its ancestors.48 Cicero was well aware that the religio of the Jews encompassed political dimensions which were incompatible with the interests of the empire. This basic incompatibility was to lead to increasing tensions in Judaea but also occasionally between Jewish communities elsewhere and imperial authorities. Tension did not constantly burst into open conflict but it certainly produced a kind of constantly pervasive insecurity and ambiguity in Roman–Jewish relations. Since the early Christ-movement, including Paul, his colleagues and communities, were part of the Jewish communities throughout the empire, these tensions must have had some effect on them as well. In addition to the general incompatibility of Judaism with imperial ideology, the Christmovement followed one who had died on a Roman cross, that is, they specifically related to a Galilean who had been executed in a clash with Roman imperial power. Thus the context of the Roman Empire far from providing the mere background of the events resulting in the emergence of the early Christ-movement, is the ever-present foreground the early Christfollowers and the Jewish communities had to relate to and with which they had to interact. The political dimension inherent in the Pauline letters has caught the attention of a number of scholars (R. Horsley, N. Elliott, earlier also D. Georgi).49 One of the first to draw attention to this dimension in the Pauline discourse was the Jewish philosopher Jacob Taubes whose lectures on Romans in Heidelberg in 1987 were published posthumously in German in 1993. He maintained that the opening verses of Romans ‘is a political declaration of war’ and ‘… in this sense the Epistle to the Romans is a political declaration of war on the Caesar.’50 Even if I were to evaluate the Pauline language and discourse more moderately, I consider the political and religious dimensions as inevitably intertwined in the message of the gospel inasmuch as this was the case in Roman society. In the context of an empire which was organized as a strictly hierarchical, autocratic structure, 47. Baltrusch notes that not only did such tolerance not exist in the Roman empire, but it was also foreign to Hellenism, as only what was the same was assimilated into the Hellenistic pantheon. What was different could not be integrated, ‘… der jüdische Monotheismus war nicht nur inhaltlich völlig anders als der hellenistische Polytheismus, er war vor allem in besonderer Weise politisch und gewiss nicht in den hellenistichen Götterhimmel integrierbar.’ (2002: 57). 48. ‘Sua cuique civitati religio, Laeli, est, nostra nobis. Stantibus Hierosolymis pacatisque Iudaeis tamen istorum religio sacrorum a splendore huius imperi, gravitate nominis nostri, maiorum institutis abhorrebat’ Flac 69. 49. Horsley 1997, 2000a, 2000b, 2004a, 2004b, Elliott 1995, 2000, 2005b; Georgi 1991, 1997. 50. Taubes 2004: 16.

Reading the Pauline Letters

11

a structure embodied by the absolute ruler who claimed and was hailed to be ‘the Father of the Fatherland’, Saviour, Peacemaker etc., the mere claim to call no one ‘father’ except God, and to proclaim another Saviour or a peace other than the peace and justice of Rome was an act of resistance to the dominant and dominating imperial order.51 It is presupposed in this study that the imperial context had a significant impact on the dynamics of power to which the Pauline letters bear witness. Still part of Judaism, with their specific witness to Christ crucified, the Christ-following communities formed a sub-group52 which proclaimed a message which implicitly challenged Roman imperial power. Inasmuch as these groups were also living in the context of Graeco-Roman society they were influenced by aspects of this. But to acknowledge such influence is not the same as to propose that they shared these aspects. I have already mentioned the issue of the use of the Greek language. In a similar vein one needs to ask whether the use of titles and terms clearly resonating with Roman imperial propaganda indicates a sharing in the values promoted by Rome or rather denotes that they serve a very different purpose. A similar issue arises when Paul’s literacy and rhetorical skills are evaluated. Do they indicate, as they would if he were part of Roman society, that he was a member of the upper strata of this society, the 3 per cent of the entire population of the empire which formed the elite?53 This is very unlikely since most of the Jewish intellectual elite were not land-owners (which was the decisive criterion in antiquity by which membership in the upper classes was determined) but usually had to work to make a living, in a variety of professions.54 Thus unlike Graeco-Roman literature, ancient Jewish literary sources, ‘do not reflect the upper-class view only but were more variegated in their perspective’ as Heszer notes.55 Presupposing that the Pauline letters, and in fact all New Testament writings fall into the category of ‘ancient Jewish literary sources’ they do not reflect an elite perspective but most likely indicate a lower-class perspective, that is the perspective of people who lived not only economically but also ideologically at the margins of the empire.

1.3 The Focus of this Study The all-pervasive patriarchal domination pattern of societies in antiquity is another issue which is critically discussed, particularly in gender-sensitive 51. Cf. also Carter 2006: 83–99. 52. Cf. Nanos 1996: 13–20; Esler 2003: 117–28; Campbell 2006: 5–10. 53. Carter 2006: 10. 54. Cf. Heszer 2005: 13. 55. Heszer 2005: 13. She moreover notes that ‘This literature was formulated, transmitted, and edited by the intellectual elite of ancient Jewish society, that is, by priests, scribes, and rabbis. In contrast to Graeco-Roman literary sources, whose authors were all members of the upper strata of society, the Jewish intellectual elite did not necessarily belong to that group, however’ (2005: 12).

12

Paul and the Dynamics of Power

approaches. I have argued elsewhere that this is the given structure of these societies, and that Paul and the entire early Christ-movement were children of their time even in this respect. However, the sometimes explicit, and more often implicit, patriarchal perspective on gender relations (as e.g. in 1 Cor. 11.2-16) should not obscure the reading of other parts of the letters which clearly call for ways of life which differ radically from the values promoted in the dominant society (as e.g. Rom. 14.1–15.13).56 As Luzia Sutter Rehmann notes ‘Much more is involved now than the “question about women” in Paul, more than a critical deconstruction of androcentric writings, more than the contribution made by the female point of view.’57 Moreover, more research on the implications of androcentric perceptions and structures on different class levels is needed since they certainly differed to a significant extent. Also to be noted is the fact that the ideological underpinnings of this androcentrism were not identical in each society.58 Power issues in the Pauline letters are all-pervasive including, but by no means limited to, ‘women’s issues’. Thus although the focus of this study of the Pauline letters is not particularly on the implications of the dynamics of power for women, I presuppose that, except where explicitly stated otherwise, women are always present as active members of the movement. Thus, for example, the frequent address a0de/lfoi is taken as referring to both women and men. I am aware that this presupposition has similarities with the claim that ‘women’ were/are included in patriarchal language, but there are sufficient explicit references in the letters themselves to the presence and role of women in the Christ-movement, to substantiate the presupposition of them being present and addressed even when not explicitly mentioned. The dynamics of power is also not limited to the use of particular terms such as e0cousi/a, dunami/v or a0rxh/. Whereas each of these terms refers to aspects of a power discourse in specific ways and contexts, the dynamics of power of which traces can be found in the Pauline letters, are not restricted to the occurrence of explicit power terminology. These terms in themselves oscillate between a wide range of meanings, not all of which neatly fit into categories of power. In a number of chapters I will deal with aspects of the ‘power’ terminology as relevant in its specific textual and/or historical context, but I will not deal with terminological issues as such, since a thorough analysis of this terminology would require a study in its own right.59 This study does not provide a detailed terminological analysis of Greek words usually perceived as fitting into the category of ‘power’. My particular interest lies rather with what I would call ‘the network of power’, that is, with aspects of group dynamics within the early Christ-movement in the context of Judaism under the conditions of the empire as outlined above. 56. For a more detailed discussion of this see Ehrensperger 2004a: 27–42. 57. Sutter Rehmann 2000: 5. 58. Artistotle’s perception of women differs radically from e.g. the Genesis narrative, (Politica 1254b.12), cf. Ehrensperger 2004a: 93–4. 59. Some aspects of ‘power’- terminology have been dealt with in studies such as Krug 2001; Horsley 2000b, 2004a, and 2004b.

Reading the Pauline Letters

13

The wide field of literature of Second Temple Judaism would most likely provide significant insights into the study of the dynamics of power in the Pauline letters. But this is a major research project which cannot be undertaken within the space of this monograph. I will thus focus on the scriptural dimension of the Pauline embeddedness, being aware that there is a field of research out there. This study does not deal with a theology of power since its focus is not on the power of God (although it will touch upon the dynamics of power in relation to the divine where this is an issue in the Pauline letters). Nor does this study address the big issue of the relationship between Church and state or civic powers. The passage which is perceived as explicitly and in many interpretations as paradigmatically dealing with this relationship, Rom. 13.1-7, is, in my view, limited, contextual advice given under specific circumstances. It serves a particular function under the circumstances then prevailing which do not allow us to neatly universalize them into something like ‘Paul’s rule concerning the Christians relationship to the state’.60 As an attempt to understand some of the power dynamics within the early Christmovement, and how the early Christ-followers related to the Empire, this passage is only of limited significance. This is not to deny the fact that the early Christ-movement did live under the conditions set by Roman imperial power and society and that this had a decisive influence on the power dynamics within the movement generally, not only when the relationship between Christ-followers and Empire authorities is explicitly addressed. As mentioned above (1.2.2), this is one of the presuppositions which guide this research. This study does not seek to extract an ethics of power from the Pauline letters; or to develop a contemporary ethics of power in light of the Pauline letters. Rather it seeks to listen into the conversation of early Christ-followers, trying to hear what they say about, and how they deal with, issues of power within their movement, embedded in the Scriptures and informed by traditions about Christ. This listening is informed by contemporary issues of power which are a matter of concern in churches and societies today. It is driven by the hope that aspects of the early Christ-followers’ conversation, without providing direct guidance, may stimulate and illuminate contemporary conversations and thus contribute to the finding of ways to negotiate the dynamics of power in contemporary churches and societies so that they contribute to the life and well-being of all their members.

60.

Cf. Stubbs 2004, also Elliott 2005b and Horrell 2005: 252–57.

14

Paul and the Dynamics of Power 1.4 Plan of the Book

The second chapter provides an overview of key aspects of the contemporary debate on power. In view of its relevance for the study of the Pauline letters, particular interest will be paid to the focus on the differentiation of power as power-over, power-to and power-with. The most significant dimension of this debate is seen in the contribution of scholars such as Hannah Arendt, who challenge the perception of power as exclusively dominating and controlling, that is, as something which is always asymmetrical, and thus limits the options and possibilities of action of others. Although her provocative approach to power as communicative action was widely dismissed as idealistic, her stress on positive and empowering aspects of power has had a lasting impact in various more recent approaches. Thus it is widely acknowledged that the perception of power exclusively as power exercised over others is only one dimension of power, and other aspects are significant when social interactions are analysed. This is perceived as being of great importance for a reading of the traces of the power dynamics in the Pauline letters. Chapter 3 focuses on how this dynamics of power was exercised within the various communities/e0kklesi/ai of the early Christ-movement. Particular attention will be paid to the different ways apostles and co-workers in Christ relate to each other on the one hand, and to the communities on the other, in order to create and sustain a network of communities. The letters are seen as one medium through which this network was maintained despite the distances between the communities and the travelling agents, and it will be discussed if and how the exercise of power between all those involved in this movement was possible even at a distance. The relationships between the members as communities of siblings is another focus of attention in this chapter. This needs to be differentiated from the specific patterns of relationships between those travelling between the communities – mainly, but not exclusively, apostles – and the communities themselves. In Chapter 4 it will be demonstrated through an analysis of the discourse of grace that the issue of power exercised through it is not inextricably connected with some inherent or disguised form of control, or power-over, but rather with the notion of concrete activity on behalf of others, that is, with something that resonates with Hannah Arendt’s notion of power emerging in communicative action for the enhancement of the life of all involved in the process. Chapters 5 and 6 address issues of the Pauline perception of the function of apostleship within the movement. It will be argued that although this understanding implies claims of specific authority and leadership functions, these are not restricted to Paul himself, but are regarded as characteristic for all who are perceived by the e0kklesi/ai, and others in similar functions, as apostles. In situations where Paul sees his own apostleship challenged, he strongly emphasizes the radically alternative perception of values within the realm of Christ, as distinct from the value system of Roman society and the empire. Moreover, the function of apostleship is clearly seen as being limited in various ways, in that it is serving a specific purpose which has to be exercised

Reading the Pauline Letters

15

entirely within the parameters of the values of the kingdom, and with the recognition that not even the strongest leadership claims could have ignored the all-pervasive constraints put upon them by the empire. In Chapters 7 and 8, aspects of the transformative dimension of power will be at the centre of attention, focusing on the role of Paul as one who aims at socializing a group into a value system which for them is very new, that is the value system of the kingdom/Christ, embedded in the Scriptures and Jewish tradition. He is thereby seen in the role of a teacher, who does exercise power, who does claim to maintain boundaries of ethical orientation, and who seeks consciously to shape their identity. In good teaching practice he tries/claims to embody the message he proclaims and the guidance he teaches as a trustworthy messenger of the gospel, thus presenting himself as an example from which the communities may learn to live in Christ. Chapter 9 argues that the aim of this teaching of Christ is to guide these new, primarily gentile, Christfollowers into an ‘attitude’ of hearing and responding to the call of God by embracing/embodying the ‘way’ within and through all aspects of their lives. Thus the aim of the guidance provided is transformative, being rooted in a previously established relationship based on trust. The power operative in this guidance can only be operative inasmuch as the basis of the relationship is not in any way in doubt, that is, as long as trust is maintained between all involved in the relationship. Chapter 10 concludes by emphasizing that the exercise of even transformative power can only be effective if it is based on trust, and thus operates in conformity to the message proclaimed. The exercise of power in the form of control or domination, in the vein of oppression and with the help of force, is a contradiction in the context of this movement. This is not to claim that such exercise was impossible, and that Paul and other apostles, or leaders and followers of Christ generally were not prone to dominating and controlling tendencies – the exercise of power is always dangerous. But being prone to a tendency and the perception of the dominating and controlling exercise of power as not only appropriate, but also legitimate, in light of the Christ-event are two different things. Moreover, it should be remembered that there were no ways and means by which anybody in the early Christ-movement could have enforced power claims by force or violence. Rather, as I hope to have demonstrated by the end of this study, the exercise of power within the early Christ-movement was guided by the Scriptures and the Christ-event. It was exercised in various forms, asymmetrical in certain contexts, and involved in boundary setting in others, but overall aimed at empowering one another for a way of life in response-ability to the call of God.

Chapter 2

CONCEPTS

OF

POWER

IN

CONTEMPORARY THEORY

The purpose of this chapter is to sketch out aspects of the contemporary discussion of ‘power’ in political and social theory as the contemporary context and background for this analysis of the dynamics of power in the Pauline letters. However, the intention is not to apply one particular model to the Pauline discourse and interpret from this perspective. Rather, the aim is to gain some insight into the issues that are at stake in the contemporary debate on power, and then embark on a reading of the Pauline discourse in light of and in conversation with these. The term ‘power’ is frequently used in everyday language where it seems to cause few problems for an understanding. It appears to be clear and obvious what is meant by it, although the valuation that often goes with the use of the term ‘power’ or related terminology can differ widely. Perceptions of power range from viewing it as the ultimate evil, to something neutral or something to be positively appreciated. It is thus not much of a surprise that upon reflection, what ‘power’ actually is, is far from clear. This becomes evident when political, philosophical and social-scientific analyses of power are studied. It emerges that it is a highly contested and vividly debated concept/issue not only in recent political and social theory but also within a long history in political and philosophical discourses in Western tradition.1 Historical/diachronic studies, such as those by Michel Foucault, have contributed significantly to the insight into the diversity of the perceptions of ‘power’ and their cultural and historical contexts. 2 Inasmuch as such historical studies are necessary and valuable contributions to the debate on ‘power’, they also demonstrate that conclusions from perceptions of the discourse of power in societies and among groups in previous centuries are to be treated with caution. The data available is limited as is the perception of the researcher.3 Thus, this study 1. My study will focus on this tradition. It takes into account the most recent debates within the academic discourse in this tradition and is thus a particular and limited perspective. 2. Cf. e.g. Foucault 1972, 1979. 3. Foucault himself was aware of such limitations: ‘It is true that we have to give up hope of ever acceding to a point of view that could give access to a complete and definitive knowledge of what may constitute our historical limits. And from this point of view the theoretical and practical experience that we have our limits and the possibility of moving beyond them is always limited and determined; thus we are always in the position of beginning

Concepts of Power in Contemporary Theory

17

will not provide a historical account of power relations in the first century CE but will present a reading of a first-century discourse, the Pauline letters, in the light of and in conversation with contemporary theories of power. This chapter will thus give an overview of issues raised in contemporary debates on power relevant to this comparative exercise.

2.1 Definitions of Power It cannot be ignored that the recent debates on ‘power’ are still shaped or at least influenced by the thought and writings of Max Weber. Although his definition of power is far from being uncontested, no contemporary approach can ignore Weber’s contribution. Debates evolve in agreement, variation or differentiation from Weber’s classical definition of power as ‘… the probability that one actor within a social relationship will be in a position to carry out his own will despite resistance, regardless of the basis on which this probability rests.’4 Although Weber asserts that domination is a specific application of power he nevertheless perceives domination to be one of the most important elements of social interaction. This perception of power as ‘power-over’ has been differentiated and challenged from numerous perspectives in the last three decades. I will return to this debate later in the chapter. Other scholars perceive power as a capacity or ability to do something, to have an effect on something – ‘power-to’ achieve what an individual or a group set out to do. This aspect was particularly highlighted in the last century by Hannah Arendt who defined power as ‘the human ability not just to act but to act in concert.’5 This view is supported by taking etymological aspects into account as has been highlighted by Peter Morriss in the introduction to the second edition of his philosophical analysis of power.6 He directs the reader’s attention to the differences in meaning of terms in other languages which in English would be rendered by the term ‘power’. This is taken as an indication that ‘power’ actually is not perceived as being one-dimensional. It is something which seems to be experienced differently according to diverse cultural, contextual and situational locations. Thus, Morriss notes that in Russian ‘vlast’ clearly indicates power as ‘power-over’, and has an inherently dominating meaning,

again’ (Foucault 1984a: 47). He also explicitly stated that his model of an analysis of power aimed at an analysis of twentieth-century Western societies. He notes in a late interview that his analysis of power ‘can in no way … be equated with a general analytics of every possible power relation’ (Foucault 1984b: 380). A similar awareness and restriction can be found in Bourdieu 2000: 94–127. 4. Weber 1957: 152. Or as he put it earlier in the same work: ‘Power means every chance within a social relationship to assert one’s will even against opposition’ Weber 1925: 16. 5. Arendt 1970: 44. 6. Morriss 2002: xiv–xvii.

18

Paul and the Dynamics of Power

whereas the German ‘Macht’, the French ‘pouvoir’, and the Italian ‘potere’ are derived either from the verb ‘vermögen’ (Macht), or the Latin ‘potere’, ‘potestas’ which all refer to the concept of being able to do or achieve something, to have an effect on someone. The issue of power-over or domination is a possible secondary meaning which these terms can carry but which need not necessarily and always be the case. A similar ambiguity seems to be carried by the English term ‘power’, which is also related to the Latin word-stem ‘pot’.7 Morriss views these language-related differences as clear indications that a perception of power in any possible context as always carrying the meaning of power-over or of domination cannot be maintained.8 Nevertheless, a definition of power solely as ‘the ability to act in concert’, thus distinguishing power from authority, strength, force and violence, has been criticized as too limited a perception as well, as it excludes any strategic aspects from an analysis of ‘power’ referring them to these other categories.9 Habermas and others emphasize that the strategic – or power-over – aspect of power cannot be excluded from a definition and critical discussion of power since thereby the dimension which is most troublesome, and which studies of power are often most interested in, would not be addressed at all. Thus concepts which try to account for both dimensions of power in various combinations have been developed10 alongside concepts which adhere to the view that power-over and power-to refer to completely different meanings of the term ‘power’ and that they therefore cannot possibly be subsumed under one and the same definition or theory.11 This first brief overview of the main contested aspects of the contemporary power debate demonstrates that there is more going on in this debate than a mere discussion about the proper definition of a word. Nevertheless, there is one aspect on which most participants in the debate seem to be more or less in agreement: it is barely contested that to speak of power implies a reference to social relations and to social interaction. Power is perceived as relational in that it significantly influences, or emerges out of, interactions among agents. It exists only in its exercise.12 This applies to perceptions of power as power-over as well to perceptions of power as power-to. Moreover, there is some sort of agreement that the discourse of power in societies is not confined to the political sphere but is present wherever 7. See Morriss 2002: xv–xvii, also 8–12. Cf also Pitkin who notes the etymological relation of the English term ‘power’ with the French ‘pouvoir’ and the Latin ‘potere’ ‘… power is a something … which makes or renders somebody able to do, capable of doing something. Power is capacity, potential, ability, or wherewithal’ (1972: 276). 8. Cf. Morriss 2002: xv–xvi. He notes ‘… the locution of “power over” has a specific use of its own; it is not the general, and certainly not the main way we talk of power.’ (2002: 33).There are other aspects which support these linguistic indications which will be discussed later in this chapter. 9. See Habermas’s distinguished critique of Arendt. (Habermas 1986: 3–24). 10. Allen 1999a and Lukes 2005. 11. So Pitkin 1972 and Wartenberg 1990: 10–21. 12. Allen 2002: 142.

Concepts of Power in Contemporary Theory

19

humans interact.13 The distinction Hannah Arendt tried to draw between public and private does not hold, as particularly Michel Foucault in his many writings on power, and feminist theorists also have demonstrated. The feminist perception of ‘the private as the political’ and the Foucaultian ‘politics of everyday life’ can hardly be ignored in the analyses of power.14 The fact that the field of the definition of power is highly contested and that it is impossible to achieve agreement in this, points to an aspect which impacts on any definition and discussion of power. When thinking about concepts of power it has to be taken into account that no one approach is neutral or objective. Thus any study of power has to ask itself what is the motive and interest for focusing on this topic in the first place. Whatever conceptions of power we are dealing with, and in whatever way we are engaging in such a project – it cannot but be shaped by contexts and relations which are influenced by power.15 Although it is beyond dispute that power can be exercised in a dominating way (as defined by Weber) it has been demonstrated, particularly by feminist theorists, that this is too narrow and negative an approach to the issue of power since it does not allow for thinking about power in positive terms for example, as empowerment. Without denying the presence and impact of power as domination,16 I will thus focus specifically on theories of power which take the dimension of empowerment into account in order to analyse whether and how these could resonate with the Pauline letters. It is not easy to be aware of or to clarify all of the motives which drive one as a scholar to embark on a specific journey of research. But there is one area I think I am quite clear about: major strands of Christian tradition exercised power in the form of domination and control over people – using the writings of the apostle Paul in support of such claims.17 On the other hand, in reading Pauline letters people throughout the centuries have also 13. Foucault maintains that ‘Power is employed and exercised through a net-like organization. And not only do individuals circulate between its threads; they are always in the position of simultaneously undergoing and exercising power ….’ (1980: 234). 14. See Allen 1999a: 48. 15. Thus E. Said has emphasized that ‘… it is sensible to begin by asking the beginning questions, why imagine power in the first place, and what is the relationship between one’s motive for imagining power and the power one ends up with’ (quote in Allen 1999b: 1).The necessity of such critical reflection has been particulary emphasized by Pierre Bourdieu throughout his work, cf. e.g. Bourdieu 1990: 43–50. See also Lücking 2002: 3. And Allen comments on Foucault ‘… Foucault’s call for the end of man is best understood as the call for a critique of critique, and thus as the revelation that human subjects are always embedded in contingently emergent (and thus transformable) linguistic, historical, and cultural conditions’ (2003: 193). 16. I am inspired here by Amy Allen who notes that ‘Feminists need a conception of power that will illuminate the interplay between domination and empowerment …’ (1999b: 26). Such a concept I believe would prove illuminating for an analysis of the Pauline discourse as well. 17. Sandra Hack Polaski (1999), Cynthia Briggs Kittredge (1998) and Elizabeth Castelli (1991) have contributed excellent analyses of such aspects of specific readings of the Pauline tradition.

20

Paul and the Dynamics of Power

felt empowered for life rather than dominated and restricted. It is with this ‘alternative’ reading tradition in mind, that I wish to embark on this project.

2.2 ‘Power-over’ or Strategic Power In the wake of Max Weber’s writings about power, theories of power in the social sciences focused significantly on power as power-over someone – and more specifically on power as domination. Weber certainly contributed decisively to the recognition of the significance of power as an aspect of social interaction in society, in his perception of domination as constituting a special case of power which nevertheless ‘is one of the most important elements of social action’.18 This thread of argumentation has been taken up by scholars such as Steven Lukes who with his study Power: A Radical View (1974) triggered a wide and ongoing debate.19 Lukes defined power as follows: ‘A exercises power over B when A affects B in a manner contrary to B’s interests.’20 In his comments in the second edition Lukes’ concedes that in Power: A Radical View he had exclusively addressed issues related to a concept of power as domination and to the question how the agents in a superior position secure the compliance of the subordinates. Whereas the earlier discussion perceived of power almost exclusively as power-over and equated this with domination, the following discussion demonstrated the need for more differentiation in the debate. Thus Lukes, in the new chapters of the second edition, concedes that domination is one specific aspect of power – and even only one specific aspect of power-over. He now describes power as an ‘agent’s ability to bring about significant effects, specifically in furthering their own interests and/or affecting the interests of others, whether positively or negatively’.21 Domination, then, is perceived as the ability of an agent to limit the options and choices of others. The means to achieve such domination is through the exercise of force, coercion, or by securing the compliance of the subordinates.22 Lukes maintains that this last aspect drives Foucault’s massive and influential work. Foucault’s approach is thus located within the powerover paradigm. In contrast with other approaches, Foucault does not view power as something which is in the possession of some and thus can be exercised over others. He maintains that ‘power … is not that which makes a difference between those who exclusively possess and retain it, and those who do not have it and submit to it. Power must be analysed as something which circulates, or rather as something which only functions in the form of

18. 19. 20. 21. 22.

Weber now in Lukes 1986: 28. This led to the publication of an amended second edition in 2005. Lukes 2005: 30. Lukes 2005: 65. Lukes 2005: 85, also Wartenberg 1990: 93–96.

Concepts of Power in Contemporary Theory

21

a chain.’23 Foucault thus overcomes to some extent the dualistic perception of power as simply creating dominating and dominated agents in that he describes power as a network of interaction within which individuals are ‘vehicles of power, not its points of application’.24 His aim is to discover how within this network subjects are actually constituted through many diverse energies, forces, desires, influences – and in turn contribute as active agents to the constitution of subjects.25 Thus power is not merely exercised by a state or institutionalized authority but is seen as a mobile set of force relations that are permeating societies as a whole. Foucault thus emphasizes that power is an unavoidable element of social life which has to be accounted for in any analysis of groups and their interaction within societies as well as of societies as a whole. He also warns against visions which depict ideal social interactions as interaction from which power is absent. Such visions are at best mere illusions and at their worst they are dangerous as they ignore decisive factors of social interaction by submerging them into the unnoticed. The problem is not the presence of power as such but rather the hindrance of a free flow of power among its various agents. As long as this flow of power is guaranteed within a group or society and power relations remain variable and unstable and thus mutable, even asymmetry is not a problem. But states of domination are established when the relations of power are fixed in such a way that they are perpetually asymmetrical and the margin of liberty is extremely limited.26 Foucault’s approach is significant to this study since he is one of the theorists who raised fundamental criticisms against an understanding of power which presupposes as the paradigmatic model, the relation of a powerful agent who imposes his will on a powerless subordinate. His emphasis on the all-pervasiveness of power and the differentiated perception of asymmetry and hierarchy in social relations deserves further consideration in our reading of the Pauline discourse.27 But his perception still operates within the constraints of a paradigm of power as power-over, as strategic – as a means by which agents try to determine the choices, behaviour or options of others, even though this is not necessarily pursued by means of coercion or even violence but through the compliance of willing subjects. Foucault thus does not perceive of power as something bad, but always as something dangerous since it can easily turn into domination.28 In viewing power solely in strategic terms Foucault’s approach does not allow for a perception of power which has positive and empowering impacts on social relationships. This is one of the major critiques of Foucault’s stance which has been raised 23. Foucault in Lukes 1986: 233–34. 24. Foucault in Lukes 1986: 234. 25. Foucault 1986: 233. 26. Foucault 1988: 3. 27. Cf. Chapter 3. 28. Foucault 1988: 18, also Allen 2002: 142; Wartenberg 1990: 213. On a reading of the Pauline discourse from within a Foucaultian framework see the significant study by Polaski 1999.

22

Paul and the Dynamics of Power

by feminist theorists. His approach does not help to analyse or explain power which arises from solidarity, or power arising from the consensus of a group of people to act together. It also does not account for what has been called ‘transformative power’.

2.3 ‘Power-to’ or Communicative Power The perception of power as power-over and thus inherently dominating or at least dangerous has been challenged particularly by Hannah Arendt as it conceives of power as an entirely negative, even repressive force. Arendt maintains that the logical consequence of a definition of power as powerover – or, in her perception, according to a command–obedience model – is that violence is the ultimate form that power can take. Violence then is a particular way through which power can be exercised. This reduces power to domination in various forms which in her view have nothing to do with power at all. She distinguishes between power, strength, force, authority and violence,29 and notes that ‘power is indeed of the essence of all government, but violence is not.’30 Violence is instrumental, a means to achieve an end, power is not. She even maintains that ‘power and violence are opposites; where the one rules absolutely, the other is absent.’31 It is violence which always invokes a command–obedience structure whereas power is neither command or rule but collaboration and action, it is ‘… the human ability not just to act but to act in concert. Power is never the property of an individual; it belongs to a group and remains in existence only so long as the group keeps together.’32 Power cannot be fully realized where violence reigns. She emphasizes that ‘Power is actualized only where word and deed have not parted company, where words are not empty and deeds are not brutal, where words are not used to veil intentions but to disclose realities, and deeds are not used to violate and destroy but to establish relations and create new realities.’33 In addition to distinguishing power from violence etc., Arendt shares with Foucault and others the view that power is not something one can possess, not something that some have which can be stored and then applied over others, and which others do not have. She stresses that power exists only in its actualization; it ‘is always … a power potential and not an unchangeable, measurable, and reliable entity like force or strength’; it ‘springs up between men when they act together and vanishes the moment when they disperse’.34

29. Arendt 1970: 44–7. 30. Arendt 1970: 51. 31. Arendt 1970: 56. This is a conceptual distinction and Arendt is well aware that ‘in the real world’ power and violence are more often than not inextricably intertwined. 32. Arendt 1970: 44. 33. Arendt 1958: 200. 34. Arendt 1958: 200.

Concepts of Power in Contemporary Theory

23

Thus power derives from reciprocal collective action, that is, it is inherently intertwined with action which takes places within a web of relationships with other actors, and its main purpose is to establish and maintain this web of relationship.35 She states that action ‘is never possible in isolation; to be isolated is to be deprived of the capacity to act’.36 Other aspects of Hannah Arendt’s political thinking have to be mentioned here briefly as her conception of power is closely related to these. To perceive of power as a collective, relational phenomenon for Arendt implies the plurality of human beings. If we were all the same, communication and action in concert would be superfluous. Relationality and group solidarity do not rest on some shared identity in the sense of inherent sameness, such as a same essence, a same experience of oppression or possession etc. She states that ‘Plurality is the condition of human action because we are all the same, that is, human, in such a way that nobody is ever the same as anyone else who ever lived, lives, or will live.’37 This should not be understood as a promotion of individualism or existentialism as Arendt clearly rejects ‘all notions of man creating himself’ since they ‘have in common a rebellion against the very factuality of the human condition – nothing is more obvious than that man … does not owe his existence to himself.’38 But she maintains that the very fact that human beings do communicate and act in concert indicates that the presupposition of sameness or a shared ontological identity is flawed. Nevertheless, she does not advocate the entire abandonment of the notion of commonality, acknowledging that communication and action in concert would be impossible if we were all radically different. Arendt advocates a perception of a dialectical relationship between equality and distinction, commonality and difference. Although she emphasizes difference in her writings she does not give up the notion of identity categories entirely. But in ascribing some validity to group identities she warns against taking these as fixed, natural or even historically determined. She maintains that identities should be perceived as webs constructed out of fabrics of differences and distinction. It is circumstances rather than ontological essentials which drive 35. Cf. Allen 2002: 137. 36. Arendt 1958: 188. 37. Arendt 1958: 8. She further notes ‘Human plurality, the basic condition of both action and speech, has the twofold character of equality and distinction. If men were not equal, they could neither understand each other and those who came before them nor plan for the future and foresee the needs of those who will come after them. If men were not distinguished, each human being distinguished from any other who is, was, or will be, they need neither speech nor action to make themselves understood’ (1958: 175–76). 38. Arendt 1970: 13. She emphasizes that ‘… the idea of man creating himself is strictly in the tradition of Hegelian and Marxian thinking … According to Hegel man “produces” himself through thought, whereas for Marx, who turned Hegel’s “idealism” upside down, it was labor … that fulfilled this function’ (1970: 12–13). See also her earlier comment ‘… nobody is the author or producer of his own life story … the stories, the results of actions and speech, reveal an agent, but this agent is not an author or producer. Somebody began it and is its subject in the twofold sense of the word, namely its actor and sufferer, but nobody is its author’ (1958: 184).

24

Paul and the Dynamics of Power

people to perceive of certain facts and experiences as forming something like a common identity.39 Plurality and difference are at the heart of Arendt’s perception of power as communicative action, as a function of consent. As Habermas notes: ‘Every interaction unifies multiple perspectives of perception and action of those present, who as individuals occupy an inconvertible standpoint.’40 For Arendt such communicative power is inherently positive as it is the medium through which the space of a shared life-world is actually created. To act together thus does not rely on an essentialist and thus exclusionary definition of group identity.41 The power of solidarity grows out of an interplay between identity and non-identity, between equality and distinction. It emerges not out of a pre-existing, exclusionary unity but out of decisions and promises by people through which they mutually commit themselves to act in concert. Power in Arendt’s perception is inherently related to communities who commit themselves to act together by way of promise and contract. In such binding commitment, structures are generated which enable a community to continue to generate power over time. To sustain a ‘powerful’ community it is crucial that its members continue to engage in promise-making, promise-keeping and forgiveness. The continuing existence of a community which emerged through power-in-action is an indication that they are ‘in the process of foundation, of constituting a stable worldly structure to house, as it were, their combined power of action’.42 Such binding commitment resulting in the formation of a community cannot be static but must be subject to ongoing revision and negotiation otherwise the power emerging from it is transformed into something else. Hannah Arendt limited this discourse of power to the sphere of the public political arena. She did not perceive power, as did Foucault, as permeating the fields of economy, work, family, education etc. This is one of the many critiques which have been raised against her approach. Nevertheless, she has drawn attention to a dimension of power as a positive aspect of human interaction and various theorists have followed that thread and developed it in critical discussions of Hannah Arendt’s work.

2.4 Strategic and Communicative Concepts of Power in Critical Discussion 2.4.1 Critiques of Arendt: Habermas and Feminist Theories The main critique which has been raised against Arendt’s perception of power (apart from the critique raised against the limitation of her concept to the 39. On this see also Allen 1999b: 105-07 and her reference to Arendt 1968:18 and 1963: 171. 40. Habermas 1986: 78. 41. Cf. here Esler’s discussion of F. Barth and others on whether identity is an ontological or constructed entity (2003: 19–53); also Campbell 2006: 2–6, 94–96. 42. Arendt 1968:176.

Concepts of Power in Contemporary Theory

25

public (political) realm)43 is that she excludes any strategic aspect from it in claiming that ‘strategic action is instrumental as well as violent, and that action of this type falls outside the domain of the political.’44 As such strategic action has nothing to do with power as she defines it. Habermas appreciates that over against a tradition of political theory which identified power with the potential for successful strategic action, Arendt maintained that ‘strategic contests for political power neither call forth nor maintain those institutions in which that power is anchored. Political institutions live not from force but from recognition.’45 But Habermas maintains that to perceive of power exclusively in terms of communication is too limited a perception. As an analytical tool it is not adequate enough to account for ways and means by which groups pursue certain aims and achieve certain goals. Social interaction is not exclusively communicative and consent is not merely a means in and by itself. Habermas thus stresses that strategic action alongside communicative action is not only another form of social interaction and cannot be equated with violence or domination, but also that inherent in communicative action are specific goals or purposes. The purpose of achieving consent in an ideal speech-act situation which is free of domination and where everyone involved can freely speak and his/her voice is heard, is to achieve certain aims, to come to an agreement about certain issues. Communicative action is not a means in itself but always strategic, according to Habermas. Habermas’s critique of Arendt in this respect has been widely recognized, also by feminist theorists, although his perception of an ideal speech-act which would allow validity for political decisions only when a consensus is achieved in ‘communication free from domination’ has triggered critical and ongoing debate in turn (on which I cannot elaborate here).46 Others have drawn attention to the fact that Arendt’s concept of power does not account for the many forms of power which do not fall into the other analytical categories of Arendt’s approach, that is, violence, strength, force or authority. Forms of power exercised in and through economic factors or in family relations, in relations between men and women do not fit into Arendt’s categorization of power. In that sense Arendt depicts too rosy a picture of power.

43. Cf. Habermas who maintains that ‘Arendt’s concept of communicatively generated power can become a sharp instrument only if we extricate it from the clamps of an Artistotelian theory of action. In separating praxis from the unpolitical activities of working and labouring on the one side and of thinking on the other, Arendt traces back political power exclusively to praxis, to speaking and acting together as individuals’ (1986: 83). 44. Habermas 1986: 84. 45. Habermas 1986: 85. 46. See e.g. Boschki who draws attention to the implications of Habermas’s perception of discourses of mutual understanding in his concept of the ‘ideal speech-act’ aiming at consent in the overcoming of difference. Boschki maintains that this implies that consent is achieved only at the expense of obliterating differences, which comes close to advocating sameness as a presupposition of community. Over against this Boschki (and Arendt) emphasize that alterity/plurality is the presupposition of relationships (2003: 320).

26

Paul and the Dynamics of Power

Despite such critique, feminist theorists such as Amy Allen have drawn significantly on Hannah Arendt’s concept of power in their search for a concept of power beyond a command–obedience, domination–subordination model. This search is motivated by the fact that in traditional concepts of power the relationship between men and women leads to a perception of women’s role in patriarchal societies as powerless victims of domination. In contrast to this, Allen views Arendt’s concept of power as enabling a perception of power which takes into account that people, even though in a situation of subordination are not just mere powerless victims but in many circumstances are able to form communities and act in concert, which is a form of power in action. Arendt’s approach takes into account that groups can be formed, and the mere fact of doing this can be an act of mutual empowerment despite and within a situation of domination.47 Out of such empowering group formation the power to act in solidarity can emerge. Moreover, Arendt’s emphasis on plurality as the presupposition of communicative power and action provides a basis for thinking about mutuality and solidarity beyond the constraints of a concept of identity as sameness. As Allen states ‘… Arendt makes possible a politics of shared differences’.48 Despite the significance of Arendt’s approach for thinking about power in positive terms and for developing a perception of power as empowerment, it is in and by itself too limited. The same applies to perceptions of power which perceive it exclusively in negative terms as a means to constrain the choices of others. Habermas and Allen, from differing perspectives, thus call for a perception of power which takes both the communicative as well as the strategic aspect into account. Allen thus develops a concept of power which integrates aspects of Foucault’s as well as Arendt’s approach, distinguishing three forms of power: power-over, power-to and power-with. These hardly ever occur in ‘pure’ form or are clearly separable from each other. They are, more often than not in real-life circumstances, inherently intertwined.49 I will deal with this aspect below (2.4.3) but will now turn to one particular aspect of power-over – or strategic power – which has been highlighted by Thomas Wartenberg in his study The Forms of Power: From Domination to Transformation.50

47. On the power of subordinate groups in the context of domination see Scott 1990: 108–35. Elliott 2004: 118. 48. Cf. Allen 1999b: 109. This is significant not only for a gender discourse but also for other aspects of social relations such as ethnicity, inter-faith relations etc. 49. This is something that Arendt is well aware of since she states after her definitions of the various categories which she differentiates from power ‘It is perhaps superfluous to add that these distinctions, though by no means arbitrary, hardly ever correspond to watertight compartments in the real world, from which they are drawn’ (1970: 46). 50. Wartenberg 1990.

Concepts of Power in Contemporary Theory

27

2.4.2 Transformative Power Wartenberg’s intention is to develop a ‘social-field theory of power-over’, rather than a general theory of power. He thereby recognizes that it is impossible to subsume all aspects and forms of power under one category or even deal with them in one theory. He maintains that Hannah Arendt’s critique of perceptions of power as power-over does not recognize that not all forms of power-over amount to the domination of the subordinate. As the title of his study already indicates, his perception differs significantly from other theories of power which focus on power-over or strategic power in that he maintains that power-over is not inherently ‘bad’ and its exercise need not necessarily lead to domination or oppression.51 He sees a power relationship (in the sense of power-over) emerging when ‘… an agent who exercises power over another agent does so by affecting the circumstances within which the agent acts and makes choices.’52 Wartenberg maintains that this need not be to the disadvantage of the one over whom power is exercised, it can also be to his/her benefit. Parenting is mentioned as one example of a power-relationship where it is presupposed that children need the guidance of and restrictions by parents as it is assumed that they are not yet fully capable of judging what is best for themselves. Such a relationship is called ‘paternalistic’ and is distinguished by Wartenberg from another form of positive power-over which he calls ‘transformative’.53 Whilst Wartenberg acknowledges that under certain circumstances a paternalistic relationship might be exercised to the benefit of the dependent agent, he maintains that ‘… paternalistic relations have an inherent drive for stability’, whilst ‘transformative ones are inherently dynamic’.54 As distinct from paternalistic power, the aim of transformative power is to render itself obsolete by means of empowering the subordinate. Despite this distinction, Wartenberg’s concept of ‘transformative power’ relies significantly on perceptions of parenting, in particular on re-evaluations of ‘mothering’ as emphasized by feminist theorists. Women as primary caretakers of children are ascribed a specific type of power in society despite general male domination. It has been maintained by feminist theorists that

51. Wartenberg maintains that ‘… the repeated use of power is not itself sufficient to characterize a situation as one in which domination exists; the power must be systematically used by one agent to the detriment of the other agent’ (1990: 119). 52. Wartenberg 1990:88. Wartenberg further differentiates specific uses of power by means of force relying on the physical ability of an agent to enforce his will upon another or keep another from doing what he/she wants and coercion which results in domination. (1990: 93–96). I will not discuss this aspect of Wartenberg’s approach here as it is similar to power-over theories mentioned above in 2.2. 53. Wartenberg 1990: 183–84. 54. Wartenberg 1990: 193. He elaborates further ‘One of the primary characteristics of the transformative use of power is that it seeks its own elimination. One of the problematic features of paternalism is that it has a tendency to keep the subordinate agent in a state of dependency on the dominant, paternalistic agent’ (1990: 193).

28

Paul and the Dynamics of Power

‘… women have a different model of power than men, one in which one’s person’s possession of power does not exist through the diminishing of someone else’s’.55 The mother–child relationship is perceived as paradigmatic for a relationship in which power-over is exercised to empower and transform the other, that is, to enhance the capabilities of the child so he/she can grow into an adult. The aim of such a relationship must be to ‘… bring about a situation in which it will no longer be necessary’.56 To use power in a transformative way implies that it has to bring about its own dissolution and provide the basis for a relationship between equals. ‘The task of such power is fulfilled when the grounds for its existence are no longer there.’57 Wartenberg appreciates that the feminist emphasis of the social role of mothering (which is not restricted to women)58 as one which involves the exercise of power has highlighted an aspect which has not been sufficiently recognized in previous theories of power: its successful exercise means that it renders itself obsolete. Inherent in this is the recognition of the temporal dimension of power. Similar to Arendt and others, Wartenberg notes that power is inherently dynamic and constituted, reconstituted and thus altered continuously by social agents. This means that power relations never remain the same over time – but are always open to change.59 Wartenberg perceives transformative power as ‘a complex mixing of power-over and power-to’.60 Inasmuch as the focus on the significance of nurturing and caretaking in a theory of power has lead to insights which previously have gone unnoticed, one has to be cautious not to fall into the trap of idealizing ‘mothering’ as the ‘good’ way of exercising power. One such trap could be to view ‘mothering’ as typically female and using it to define female identity in an essentialist way. I have written about the problems of such a perception of women’s identity elsewhere.61 Idealizing mothering also does not take into account that caretaking values can serve as a means to stabilize and maintain dominating power structures in the wider society in healing the wounds of those who suffer under unjust domination. ‘Mothering’, ‘caretaking’ and ‘nurturing’ can only escape this trap if they are acknowledged as values beyond the private realm, as relevant factors in the public sphere as well.62 Moreover, it has to be recognized that ‘mothering’ is not always exercised to the benefit of the child. The power in nurturing and caretaking relationships can be consciously or unconsciously misused by the stronger agent, leaving the child or dependant scarred for life.63 55. Wartenberg 1990: 189. 56. Wartenberg 1990: 191. 57. Wartenberg 1990: 191. 58. Cf. Paul as a good example of this, see 7.4 below. 59. Wartenberg 1990: 164 and 175. 60. Wartenberg 1990: 190. 61. Cf Ehrensperger 2004a: 97–110. 62. Ruddick 1983: 220–26. 63. This is not the place to elaborate on this in detail but the literature on narcisstic and other forms of the misuse of power in parenting relationships is vast. Cf. e.g. Wartenberg’s reference to psychoanalysis 1990: 199–201.

Concepts of Power in Contemporary Theory

29

Despite these dangers, the attention feminist theorists have drawn to power relations which are shaped by nurturing and caretaking rather than domination is significant not only for analyses of family relationships but for analysing other social interactions as well. In learning–teaching settings for instance, the aspect of nurturing and thereby transformative power plays an important role.64 Wartenberg maintains that the aspect of power highlighted by feminist theories gains support and more clarity in applying it to teacher– student relationships. He chooses to analyse Plato’s narrative of Socrates’ relationship with young Athenian ‘students’. The relationship between Socrates and his students is not depicted as one among equals but, as distinct from a parent–child relationship, the students choose to enter and maintain the relationship with the teacher. Socrates here has no coercive power to enforce the continuation of the relationship, he cannot resort to physical means to get the students to continue the discourse. For the relationship to exist the free consent of the ‘weaker’ interlocutor is indispensable. If the relationship were enforced, its basis would be eroded. For transformative power to be power at all, to have an effect on the ‘weaker’ agent at all, trust is constitutive of its very existence. Trust must be seen as absolutely essential to the establishment and continuation of a truly empowering relation.65 To trust someone truly implies to entrust oneself to the other, to place oneself in a vulnerable position and trust that the other will not take advantage of the situation. As long as the ‘weaker’ agent cannot be sure of the intentions of the ‘stronger’ agent a transformative power relationship cannot emerge. Trust and thus openness cannot be enforced. They stand in utmost contrast to any form of force or domination. Transformative power relies on consent and trust. Even the parent–child relationship, although this is not a chosen relationship on the part of the child, cannot be transformative if it is not based on trust.66 The very basis of transformative power is trust. As soon as the dominant agent loses sight of the goal of a transformative powerrelationship, that is, its own eventual transcendence, and tries to maintain it as an end in itself, it easily turns into a dominating rather than empowering relationship. This is not to say that the maintenance of a relationship is not a laudable goal, 67 but the hierarchy of a transformative power relationship, the balance of equality and difference has to be renegotiated, and the character of the relationship changes once the ‘weaker’ agent is empowered to be an equal partner within the relationship, whereupon the relationship changes from one of power-over and power-to to a relationship of power-to and power-with.

64. Wartenberg 1990: 200. 65. Cf.Wartenberg 1990: 211. 66. Cf. e.g. Erikson 1968: 96–107. 67. As noted above, for Arendt power emerges from acting in concert and only in acting in concert is there power. The purpose of power and acting in concert is the maintenance of the relationship/group; Arendt 1958: 199–207. Also Wartenberg 1990: 213.

30

Paul and the Dynamics of Power

2.4.3 Power-to and Power-with – a Feminist Conception of Power One of the most interesting feminist approaches to power is that developed by feminist theorist Amy Allen. She maintains that, despite their apparent differences, aspects of Michel Foucault’s and Hannah Arendt’s approaches can mutually supplement each other and contribute to thinking about power in a way beyond the communicative–strategic dichotomy. She argues that Arendt’s account must be complemented with one that pays sufficient attention to the dimension of strategic interaction, since her analysis is not helpful when it comes to theorizing about systems and structures of domination. Foucault’s account needs to be supplemented with the communicative dimension, since his perception, in Allen’s view, does not ‘… offer an adequate account of the conditions that make individual and collective resistance to and transformation of power/knowledge systems possible’.68 Allen is looking for a concept of power from a feminist perspective which allows for theorizing about masculine domination, women’s empowerment and resistance in solidarity and coalition building. Although she takes Wartenberg’s analysis of ‘transformative power’ as a specific use of power-over fully into account, and relies on it to some extent, she maintains that other forms of power have to be taken into account if interactions and actions of non-dominating groups are analysed. In addition to power-over as dominating power, power-over as transformative power, and communicative power, she thus proposes to define ‘power-to’ as ‘the ability of an individual actor to attain an end or series of ends’.69 This renders ‘powerto’ and empowerment almost synonyms. She distinguishes these from ‘powerwith’ which she defines as ‘the ability of a collectivity to act together for the attainment of an agreed-upon end or series of ends’.70 Although I find Allen’s definition of power-to as synonymous with empowerment less than convincing – as it does not account for Wartenberg’s persuasive definition of transformative power which has an empowering dimension71 – I find her analysis helpful in that power is neither reduced to domination nor to acting in concert. Allen’s perception allows us to take various aspects of the power discourse into account without claiming to give an all-encompassing definition. Like Arendt, Habermas, Wartenberg et al. she is aware that the different aspects of power are mere analytical tools which are not just interrelated in practice but also conceptually. She thus does not talk of ‘distinct types’ of power but ‘rather they represent analytically distinguishable features of a situation’.72 68. Allen 2002: 144. But Allen acknowledges that Foucault, in his later work, saw that ‘Perhaps epistemes of power’ knowledge regimes … contain within themselves resources that enable their own critique and transformation which once again suggest that they are not completely closed in as much as they point beyond themselves’ Allen 2003: 194. 69. Allen 1999a: 126. 70. Allen 1999a: 126–27. 71. For Allen’s critical discussion of aspects of Wartenberg’s approach see Allen (1999: 123–25). 72. Allen 1999a: 129.

Concepts of Power in Contemporary Theory

31

Thus power-to is inherent to both power-over as well as power-with. In order to exercise power-over someone an agent has to be able to act in such a way that an effect is achieved. And in order to exercise power-with a group has to exercise power-to, that is, strategic power, in order to achieve what they have agreed upon.73 2.4.4 Asymmetry and Hierarchy in Power Relations One aspect in this overview of contemporary power theories needs to be specifically mentioned here for its significance in relation to the discussion of aspects of the Pauline discourse of power: the issue of equality and asymmetry in power relations. As noted above, not all power-over relations are perceived to be necessarily exercised to the disadvantage of the weaker agent. It is obvious that even in a transformative power relation in which the subordinate is genuinely supported, and thus empowered to transcend the relationship, this relationship is asymmetrical, since asymmetrical interactions are involved. The exchange between those involved is not reciprocal, or symmetrical, but ‘uneven’. The fact that such a relationship is asymmetrical does not render it inherently dominating. Thus we can establish that asymmetry in a relation cannot be perceived as being identical with domination. Whilst the asymmetry is obvious in a power-over relation, a question arises when it comes to power-with relations, power relations which are more of a communicative kind. Are such relations necessarily relationships of equals? Given that not all social interactions are driven by economic interests (although certainly not exempt from being influenced by economic as well as other contextual factors), it is not feasible to perceive of them in terms of reciprocal gift exchange, by which equality in terms of economic value, would be established or maintained.74 Also sameness cannot be a presupposition for communicative actions. Hannah Arendt does not presuppose any kind of sameness or symmetry for achieving consent through communicative action. Allen perceives this to be a strength of Arendt’s approach as it allows for a perception of communication and even solidarity in diversity. As mentioned above, for Arendt difference and plurality are the presupposition for communication. She shares this perception with philosophers such as Emmanuel Levinas and Jacques Derrida. Levinas throughout his philosophical work has emphasized that the ‘other’ in his/her difference is the presupposition of communication and relation. He expresses it thus: ‘The relation with the other does not nullify separation. It does not 73. Allen 1999a: 128. Similar insights concerning empowering interactions of solidarity have been noted by Scott in his analysis of forms of power in subordinate groups in the context of societies. He notes notions of mutuality and solidarity within such subordinate groups as strategies of hidden resistance and survival in contexts which for them are otherwise humiliating and destructive (1990: 118–19). 74. Although valuable insights have been made by Bourdieu’s analyses of human society I do not think that his ‘economic perception’ of human interaction is sufficient to analyse and explain all forms of social interaction. See e.g. Bourdieu 1992: 66–89.

32

Paul and the Dynamics of Power

arise within a totality, nor does it establish a totality, integrating me and the other.’ ‘… the relation between me and the other commences in the inequality of terms, transcendent to one another, where the alterity does not determine the other …’75 Levinas can even state that ‘The Other qua Other is situated in a dimension of height and of abasement – glorious abasement. He has the face of the poor, the stranger, the widow, and the orphan, and at the same time, of the master called to invest and justify my freedom.’76 What Levinas formulates here indicates that this asymmetry is perceived as not being fixed or static but flexible, the other is ‘situated in a dimension of height and abasement’. But it implies that relations which acknowledge difference, which welcome plurality and refuse any totalizing tendencies are asymmetrical.77 Levinas does not see this as being in opposition to a notion of equality. He sees equality as being produced where ‘the other commands the same and reveals himself to the same in responsibility … it cannot be detached from the welcoming of the face …’.78 But equality should not be confused with reciprocity or symmetry. Asymmetry, in Levinas’s perception, does not stand in contradiction to equality. Derrida also has emphasized in Politics of Friendship that there is a first dimension in the relationship to the other which means that he/she calls me into responsibility to which I am obligated to respond. He can even formulate that the principle of responsibility ‘governs me’, clearly alluding to ‘power-over’ language although referring to a relation between friends. Thus, asymmetry is seen as inherent to every relationship since I am called to provide care and help for this concrete human being without considering what he/she could do or give me in turn.79 Derrida perceived human relations as inherently asymmetrical, something he did not consider to be problematic as such. When speaking about hierarchy he maintains that ‘I am for a certain type of hierarchization, for differentiation, for qualitative difference … when I insist on the necessity of non-hierarchical structure or the necessity of an unstable hierarchy, I do not think that there are non-hierarchical structures … The erasure of certain coded hierarchies always gives rise to a more subtle, more symbolic hierarchy, the code of which still remains in formation. I do not believe in the erasure of hierarchy. What I am opposed to is always a certain stabilizing or stabilized coding of hierarchy.’80 The point Derrida is making here is that it is not hierarchical structures as such which are the cause of problems as it would be naïve to perceive the erasure of hierarchies in social relations and institutions as even an option. The issue Derrida addresses here is the stabilized encoding of hierarchies which lead to lasting appropriations of power. Over against such stabilized hierarchies

75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80.

Levinas 1992: 251. Levinas 1992: 251. Levinas 1992: 216. Levinas 1992: 214. Cf. Honneth 1995: 303–13. Derrida 2002: 21.

Concepts of Power in Contemporary Theory

33

he maintains the necessity to call such stabilizations into question again and again – that is to deconstruct stabilized power structures again and again.81 Foucault also mentions the issue of asymmetry which he sees inherent to power relations. The problem arises not in this fact as such but rather when asymmetrical power relations are fixed thus perpetuating specific hierarchies and limiting the free flow of power. Where this happens domination is established, even institutionalized.82 Along with Wartenberg’s perception of transformative power as a specific form of power-over goes an asymmetrical dimension which is not perceived as being problematic on the condition that it is not misused – whereupon it would be turned into a dominating, even exploiting relationship with a dependant. Also, the asymmetry is not seen to be problematic as long as the goal of the exercise of transformative power – to render itself obsolete – is not lost sight of. He elaborates on Arendt’s communicative approach and maintains that it could be taken as indicating that communicative power which results from consent implies that a group agrees amongst themselves to create some sort of social hierarchy in order to organize and structure their common life. He maintains that ‘… the power that an agent has in such a hierarchy is not a form of domination at all, but rather an artefact of social life in that it is a means for enabling agents who desire to cooperate with one another to have an effective means of making group decisions … the establishment of a social hierarchy can serve the function of enabling group actions to take place.’83 Asymmetry and hierarchy are perceived to be inherent aspects of power relations by the scholars referred to in the above paragraphs. This is not viewed as problematic in itself. It is described as either a necessary or unavoidable aspect of human relations. I am aware of other perceptions of human relations – which emphasize that equality should be a goal which should be aimed at and that hierarchies in particular are inherently dominating. In my view equality and asymmetry are not essentially in contradiction with one another. Rather I think that recognizing the value of difference, and thus of asymmetries in human relations, can contribute to the awareness of problematic, even dangerous, static tendencies which may lead to the exercise of dominating power in relationships. The recognition of the existence of asymmetries can, moreover, contribute to the attribution of due respect to the other who is and remains different, and thus relate to him/her as an equal.

81. Derrida further elaborates that ‘Deconstruction is undoubtedly anarchic; it would be in principle, if such a thing could be said. It puts into question the arche¯, the beginning and the commandment, but the anarchism of deconstruction must constitute [composer] an authority with the necessity of hierarchy’ 2002: 21–22. 82. Cf. Foucault 1988: 3–4. 83. Wartenberg 1990: 41–42.

34

Paul and the Dynamics of Power 2.5 Conclusion

This chapter has given an overview of aspects of the contemporary debate on power, with particular emphasis on issues which I consider relevant in relation to a reading of the Pauline discourse of power in light of this particular debate. The discussion between theorists of strategic and communicative forms of power have demonstrated that this is not an either/ or question since the dimension of domination can only be accounted for through a concept of strategic power or power-over, whereas the power of solidarity and empowerment can better be analysed with the help of a concept which draws on insights from Hannah Arendt. The focus on the particular aspect of transformative power is an interesting variation of the power-over concept. Feminist approaches have emphasized the intertwined dimension of power-over, power-to and power-with. All of these concepts have been developed from within contemporary Western societies as conceptual tools for analyses of contemporary twentieth- to twenty-first-century societies. This puts a question mark against their usefulness for an analysis of a discourse of power not of a contemporary society but of letters which reflect only in fragmentary form social interactions of small groups in the first century CE in the Roman Empire. But a contemporary reading of these letters and the traces of the discourse of power that might be discovered in them is necessarily influenced by the contemporary social context and power relations as well as contemporary debates about power theories. Whatever reading we propose, it is influenced in one way or another by such debates. In trying to discover traces of the Pauline power discourse I will thus take aspects of the contemporary debate into account and read Paul in light of these. The approaches described above give some indication as to where my sympathies lie. Although I am in agreement with Foucault’s view that power is not always negative but always potentially dangerous, I consider it of utmost significance to read the Pauline letters in the light of approaches which take positive, that is communicative, transforming and empowering dimensions of power into account.

Chapter 3

THE EXERCISE OF POWER – NETWORKING IN THE EARLY CHRIST-MOVEMENT It is most intriguing how the image of Paul as an independent hero fighting against all odds for his law-free gentile mission could ever have emerged. Whatever approach one favours in reading his letters, there is no indication that their author tried to promote such an image. Had he done so, how could it be explained that except for one letter, Romans, he always mentions other people as co-senders and at the conclusion of most letters he is not the only person to send greetings to the addressees. From the additional characterization of these co-senders it can be concluded that they are members of the Christ-movement. Often there is also a hint or clear indication concerning the function or task of these senders within the movement. Although he mentions himself first, and his name consistently appears throughout all the undisputed letters at the beginning of the letter, it is obvious that Paul does not claim to address the recipients as a lonely voice but makes it clear from the beginning that what he is writing is the product of a group of at least two members of the Christ-movement, and thus a corporate enterprise. But it is not only the opening and closing of the ‘Pauline’ letters that provide clear information of Paul as being part of a group closely working together; there are numerous indications throughout these letters which demonstrate that Paul was part of a significant network of people which formed the Christ-movement, a fact he apparently had no intention of hiding. There are 57 named people mentioned as in some way related to Paul in his letters1 and of these Ollrog in his 1979 monograph found a significant number who are described as fellow-workers (sunergoi/) in Christ.2 These are only the ones mentioned by name – which do not include all the brothers and sisters, apostles, co-workers and colleagues etc., who are mentioned in a more general way.3 This significant number of people explicitly mentioned in the letters as working together with Paul, with one another, with and within the Christ-following communities alone demonstrates that the image 1. 2. 3.

Lietart Peerbolte 2003: 228–30. Ollrog 1979: 68–72. See Ollrog 1979: 62.

36

Paul and the Dynamics of Power

of the lonely hero of emergent Christianity is flawed, and its roots must lie somewhere other than in the letters since these present a very different image. From the opening and closing and from the people mentioned by name in the body of the letters, the image of a man emerges who is part of a network of people, closely related and in contact with others, interacting and communicating within this network. Most significantly, this network had not been initiated by Paul himself4 but was joined by him at an early stage, as is evident from his first visit to Jerusalem (cf. Gal. 1.18-19), and early references to his proclamation of the gospel (Gal. 1.23). From the very beginning of Paul’s participation in it, it is obvious that ‘… the Pauline mission was an activity not of a single man, but of a group of people.’ 5 The image of the lonely hero must have developed elsewhere. Perhaps it was nurtured by the ideals particularly prominent in the German ‘Bildungsbürgertum’ of the late eighteenth and nineteenth century, which maintained that a man should aim at becoming a ‘Persönlichkeit’. In addition to being well educated this included the ideal of being independent, that is, not being influenced by anybody or anything. The image of Paul depicted by F. C. Baur and others at the time has some similarities with this ideal. He emerges as the ‘Persönlichkeit’ who liberated Christianity from nationalism and particularism in order to reveal its true self-understanding as the universal religion of a law-free gospel.6 The notions of the independent theologian and his proclamation of a so-called law-free gospel in which differences between people are obliterated and all are the same in Christ go hand in hand. But not only does the presence of the co-workers, whether named or not, provide evidence that Paul did not perceive himself as working independently and as a single apostle, but there are also numerous passages in the letters which demonstrate the dynamic and constant interaction between the groups and individual members of the Christ-movement with Paul as part of their mutual communicative interaction.7 As a network of groups and individuals power issues were operative between and amongst them of necessity.8 Moreover as a network which emerged in Jerusalem, and expanded north and westwards, not only was power an issue in relation to group dynamics but power issues related to the socio-political influence of Roman imperial rule also had a significant impact on the context of this messianic movement, that is Judaism in Palestine and in the Diaspora, as it had also on the movement directly.

4. Which is evident from the fact that he claims that he had persecuted the church of God (Gal. 1.13), and then mentions those ‘who were apostles before me’ (Gal. 1.17). 5. Lietart Peerbolte 2003: 232. Cf also Ellis who notes ‘… the picture that emerges is that of a missionary with a large number of associates. Indeed Paul is scarcely ever found without companions’ (1978: 5). 6. See Ehrensperger 2004a: 28–31. A similar image is still widely present, as e.g. Dunn who describes Paul as ‘the first and greatest Christian theologian’ (2005: ix). 7. On networks see Stark 1996: 61–71. 8. See Chapter 2 above.

The Exercise of Power

37

In this chapter I intend to analyse the structural dimension9 of the dynamics of power amongst those involved in the movement as it can be discerned from the ‘Pauline’ letters. I take the fact that his name is mentioned first as an indication that Paul is the main author of the undisputed letters. I therefore assume that his perspective significantly shaped the depiction of the interaction between himself and others. But it will be taken into account that despite this he never depicts himself as an independent individual but is consistent in making clear that in his self-perception he sees himself as part of a movement. For instance, he acknowledges that others were apostles before him without any apologetic tone (Gal. 1.17). This awareness cannot be ignored in an analysis of the dynamics of power as reflected in the Pauline letters. Although he does claim a specific function or role within the movement this role is not unique and there is no exclusivity to this claim. He is an apostle with other apostles, a worker and servant of Christ together with other servants and co-workers of Christ, part of a movement which does not consist of individual members but of a network of communities in Christ. This is not to claim that the relationships within this movement are all the same and that all of these members are of equal standing.10 The terminology used in relation to members of the movement in itself indicates to some extent that differences in their relationships with one another did exist. There are apostles, co-workers, diakonoi, douloi, siblings and children, and it is obvious that although some of these terms refer to all members of the movement, such as those expressed by sibling terminology, others only refer to specific groups of members singled out within the movement.11 Although I do not presuppose a scenario where specific functions have been established in institutionalized, static hierarchies, I do not envisage that the dynamics of power within the movement was always balanced or level or exercised between equals. In addition, it has to be taken into account that the dynamics of power at work even within this network of Christ-following groups was not exempt from the influence of Roman imperial rule, with its pervasive control and dominating ethos.12

3.1 The Circle of Apostles and Paul There are a significant number of people, named and unnamed, whom Paul refers to as apostles. The way he refers to these suggests that he viewed them as being involved in some form of activity essentially the same as his own. I will deal with issues concerning definitions of apostleship later,13 but for

9. I will elaborate on aspects of ‘content’ in Chapters 4–9. 10. On the asymmetry of power in the Pauline communities see e.g. Holmberg 1978: 193. On issues of asymmetry in power relations see 2.4.4 above. 11. On this see 3.2 below. 12. Cf. Carter 2006: 24–26. 13. See Chapters 5 and 6.

38

Paul and the Dynamics of Power

now it is more significant to take into account that Paul refers to certain members of the Christ-movement with the same ‘title’ he uses when referring to himself in relation to aspects of his work. This seems to indicate that he is referring to a specific group within the movement which is recognized as having leadership functions.14

3.1.1 Apostles and Their Relationship According to 1 Thessalonians Being aware that familiarity with the title of apostle derives primarily from Paul’s use of it in the opening of his letters, it comes somewhat as a surprise that what is perceived as the first or at least the earliest known letter of Paul significantly is not a letter of Paul, but a letter of Paul, Silvanus and Timothy, as the letter opening clearly states. There can be no doubt that this indicates that the first ‘Christian’ document demonstrates the corporate dimension of the movement. Paul, the first time his name is mentioned, does not appear on his own; there is also no claim that he should be singled out, related to differently, or that his voice is of greater importance than those of the two other men mentioned in the opening of the letter.15 Nor is there any indication in this opening verse as to how the three relate to each other except that all of them are mentioned as the ones who address the recipients/audience of this letter. Not much imagination is required to conclude from this that this is a corporate letter, sent from one small group to another group.16 Nothing in the verse indicates that the three should not all be regarded as the authors and senders of this letter.17 Thus Paul appears on the scene of history as part of a team. The three men are not further described or qualified here – only later in the letter do we find references to what they did when they were with the group addressed. Any further qualification of the three apparently is not of importance at this point. This can be read as indicating that there were no problems concerning the relationship between the authors/senders and the addressees. The letter continues pleasantly with an expression of thankfulness and some allusions to what had happened when the authors were with the addressees. As would be expected from a letter written by

14. Cf. Schütz who says ‘Paul’s sense of what it means to be an apostle is etched sharply enough in his letters to make it clear that apostles are something special. He belongs to a group of apostles, however ill-defined that group may be …’ (1975: 34). 15. The corporate dimension of the authorship of Paul’s letters is strongly emphasized by Kittredge 2003. Cf. also Byrskog 1996: 236; Börschel 2001: 128. 16. Cf. Byrskog who maintains that ‘1 Thessalonians, it appears, is a collective letter reflecting Paul’s close relation to and equal standing with his associates’ (1996: 238). Also Jones ‘… the plural in 1 Thessalonians was probably a way of avoiding an authoritarian impression, even perhaps a way of signaling the importance of mutuality’ (2005: xix). 17. Contra Donfried who argues that ‘… Paul is writing this letter in the presence of Silvanus and Timothy …’ (2002: 212), whereas Byrskog argues that ‘Paul’s inclusion of co-senders in the pre-scripts reflects in all likelihood more than merely a desire to mention certain associates’ (1996: 235).

The Exercise of Power

39

three people, when reference is made to the authors themselves, the first person plural is used. Whether this first person plural actually refers to the three men mentioned in the opening verse of the letter or should rather be taken as a pluralis literalis is debated among Pauline scholars.18 The plural is used consistently throughout 1 Thessalonians, with the first person singular occurring only three times (2.18; 3.5; 5.27) along with clear indications that Paul is referring to himself (and only one passage using the third person singular to refer to one of the men mentioned in the opening verse, Timothy [3.2 and 3.6]), hence I cannot see how the first person plural could not refer to all of the three, Paul, Silvanus and Timothy as authors as well as senders of the letter.19 This perception is supported in my view by later references in the letter, reminding the addressees of their initial response to the message, which also sheds light on the relationship of the three with the e0kklhsi/a of the Thessalonians. It is significant first, that the gospel is qualified as to\ eu0agge/lion h9mw=n, denoting its corporate dimension.20 In addition, the three are identified as the founders of this e0kklhsi/a – ‘for our gospel came to you’ (1.5), ‘we had courage in our God to declare to you the gospel of God’ (2.2). As founders they remind the addressees that ‘we have been approved by God to be entrusted with the gospel’ (2.4), and that ‘we might have made demands as apostles of Christ’ (2.7). Thus the three present themselves as apostles and nowhere in the letter is there a hint that this or its correlate of viewing them as equals was problematic.21 They are corporately referred to as involved in this founding activity in being gentle as a nurse, in sharing and preaching the gospel of God and in exhortation, encouragement, and admonition (2.7-12). The activity of all three is presented as the same; it thus comes as no surprise that they are all referred to as apostles (2.7), and the metaphors of a nurse (2.7) and father (2.11) of the e0kklhsi/a of the Thessalonians apply to all three of them. In contrast with 1 Corinthians, Paul here does not claim to be in a unique relation to the e0kklhsi/a of the Thessalonians, and although he is

18. See Byrskog 1996: 230–36. 19. Cf. Byrskog 1996: 236–38, also Lietart Peerbolte 2003: 178; Haufe 1999: 25; Cousar 2001: 199; for a thorough overview on the discussion see Börschel 2001: 125–36. 20. Dickson refers to 1 Thess. 1.5 and the plural here ‘… thus describing the cosignatures [Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy – 1:1] … and perhaps others, as heralds in the recent evangelization of Thessalonica’( 2003:91). 21. See Frey who notes ‘The co-workers and co-senders, who had been working with him in the city are included in those statements which mention their welcoming in Thessalonica (1Thess. 1.9; 2.1). They most likely are also included when Paul refers to “our proclamation of the gospel (1 Thess. 5.24)”.’ My translation of the German: ‘Die Mitarbeiter und Mitabsender, die mit ihm in der Stadt gewirkt haben, sind … in diesen Formulierungen eingeschlossen, wenn von ihrer Aufnahme in Thessaloniki (1 Thess. 1.9; 2.1) die Rede ist. Sie dürften daher auch eingeschlossen sein, wenn Paulus von “unserer Evangeliumsverkündigung” (1 Thess. 5.24) spricht’ (2005: 200). Cf. also Börschel 2001: 128.

40

Paul and the Dynamics of Power

one of the founders, they have more than one father!22 Thus, according to 1 Thessalonians, the proclamation of the gospel and the founding of an e0kklhsi/a of God in Christ is a collective activity and the relation of those involved in this founding activity is based on equality. Throughout this letter hardly any indication can be discovered which would refer to hierarchical dimensions in the relationship between Paul, Timothy and Silvanus. The first person singular passages, which clearly imply Paul as the referent, mention aspects which he could only say of himself – he had longed to visit the Thessalonians several times, he could not bear it any longer not to know what was happening in Thessalonica and he is concerned that the letter be read to all Christ-followers in Thessalonica.23 Except for 1 Thess. 3.5, these passages do not single out Paul for hierarchical reasons but because he specifically is concerned about them. The switch from the plural e0pe/myamen in 3.2 to the singular e1pemya in 3.5 could be read as a reference to some kind of asymmetry in the relation between Paul and Timothy. The argument in favour of perceiving this as an indication of a hierarchical dimension between the two derives from reading the plural in 3.2 as a rhetorical plural – in that Paul must be talking here only about himself – he alone sent Timothy since there was nobody with him in Athens.24 But this can only be concluded by reading into 1 Thessalonians parts of Luke’s narrative in Acts, not from the text of 1 Thessalonians itself. 1 Thessalonians does not give sufficient information to allow a reconstruction of the situation in Athens. Grammatically both, the real as well as the rhetorical plural, are viable readings; the decision for one or the other thus derives in both cases from an informed reconstruction of the situation based on particular hermeneutical presuppositions. It is more feasible to argue for a rhetorical plural if Paul is perceived more as an exceptional figure in the early Christ-movement striving for an independent, so-called law-free, mission to the gentiles than when he is perceived as one of many who are collectively involved in this movement. Admittedly passages such as 1 Cor. 4.17 guide the reader to perceive Paul’s and Timothy’s relationship as asymmetrical since there it is clearly Paul who sends Timothy to Corinth and who, moreover, calls him ‘his beloved and faithful child in the Lord’ (mou te/knon a0gaphto\n kai\ pisto\n e0n kuri/w)? . I am not proposing to argue that there was no asymmetry between Paul and other members of the movement who were involved in missionary activity.25 But I hold that each passage should be read in its own right within 22. This indicates that Paul’s use of the father metaphor is contextual and it is difficult in my view to maintain that this metaphor is an indication for Paul’s use of authority in the vein of the Roman pater familias. See more on this in Chapter 7. 23. Börschel argues ‘The singular refers only to Paul, whereas the plural refers to both, Paul and the co-senders, which proves to be the simplest and most obvious explanation.’ My translation of the German: ‘Der Singular bezieht sich nur auf Paulus, der Plural umfasst dagegen Paulus und die Mitabsender, was sich als die einfachste und naheliegendste Erklärung erweist’ (2001: 127). 24. Donfried 2002: 210–12. 25. See 3.3 below.

The Exercise of Power

41

the context of the particular letter and a reconstruction should primarily be based on the information and rhetorical strategy of that letter. The asymmetry in the relationship between Paul and Timothy does not come over as clearly in 1 Thessalonians as it does in 1 Corinthians, and there is no indication whatsoever of any asymmetry in the relationship between Paul and Silvanus.26 The least which can be argued is that hierarchy between the three founders of the e0kklhsi/a of the Thessalonians was not a matter of debate at the time this letter was written. An image of the founding activity of apostles in the early Christ-movement thus emerges here which depicts those involved as being part of a corporate activity in which asymmetries in their relationship is not an issue. They seem to cooperate well and in harmony thus empowering through their cooperative work the community which acknowledges them as their apostles. Their relationship to the e0kklhsi/a of the Thessalonians is a hierarchical one, but as apostles, that is, as founders of that community, they are equals. If this were the only letter which mentions Paul’s name he would most likely be perceived as someone who, as part of a team, proclaims the good news of God through Christ and, based on this proclamation, establishes e0kklhsi/ai, that is, groups of people who respond positively to this proclamation and who, based on this, form a community of Christ-followers.

3.1.2 Apostles and Power Dynamics According to Galatians 1.13–2.14 An apparently different picture emerges from the letter to the Galatians. In a situation of conflict with the e0kklhsi/ai of the Galatians Paul recounts in 1.13–2.14 aspects of a situation of conflict between himself and other apostles. This narrative is read by many commentators as a defence of Paul’s independence from other apostles, and particularly from those in Jerusalem. Paul supposedly emphasized his independence in support of his claim of power and authority over against the e0kklhsi/ai of the Galatians, in opposition to authority claims by other leading members of the Christ-movement.27 Holmberg even maintains that ‘When he (Paul) wants to prove the truth of his “gospel”, which does not require circumcision of Gentiles, he has to prove the independence of his apostolate and show that he is not subordinate to the church in Jerusalem or inferior to its foremost apostle, Cephas.’28 Holmberg draws attention to the fact that issues of relationship, communication and theology were inseparably intertwined in Galatians 1 and 2. But in my view it is not his independence from the other apostles and the e0kklhsi/a in Jerusalem which Paul emphasizes here nor a so-called law-free gospel. It is evident that in Gal. 1.13–2.14 Paul is talking about the relationship between himself and other apostles. The fact that he has already emphasized 26. 27. 28.

On this see also Börschel 2001: 128–30. See e.g. Campbell 2006: 46–47. Holmberg 1978: 29.

42

Paul and the Dynamics of Power

in the letter opening that he is ‘an apostle not from men nor through man but through Jesus Christ’ (1.1) and again that he did not receive the gospel from men but ‘through a revelation of Jesus Christ’ (1.12), combined with telling the Galatians that ‘I did not confer with flesh and blood, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me …’ (1.16b-17a) have been and are read as emphases of Paul’s independence from any other members of the Christ-movement. The one emphasis that is clear from these verses is that Paul maintains that he has received the call to proclaim the gospel by a revelation of Christ. But in emphasizing this pointedly and strongly he also shows that he accepts without any reservations that there were apostles before him (which he also states in 1 Cor. 15.8), and that Jerusalem was of crucial significance for the Christ-movement. Otherwise why would he mention that he did not go up to Jerusalem after his call? And that he eventually did go there, before going up there again with Barnabas and Titus? To mention Jerusalem indicates that the centrality of Jerusalem was not a matter of debate for Paul. After all he did go up to meet Cephas to learn something about the movement through him (and probably also James). This suggests that Paul does not hide the fact that he was the last to have seen Christ resurrected (1 Cor. 15.8), and although he was not commissioned by those who were apostles before him, he needed to learn from them.29 Whatever else Paul tells us here, apart from the emphasis on the revelatory character of the gospel he proclaimed, is an indication that he did not live and travel on his own during all the years until he went up to Jerusalem with Barnabas and Titus. He was hardly on his own in Arabia and Damascus (Gal. 1.17; 2 Cor. 11.32),30 and the fact that he is part of the group which meets with the pillars here, shows that he must have lived and worked for some time in the community at Antioch. Lietart Peerbolte notes that ‘… some time after his call Paul indeed became involved … in the Christian community of Antioch. He gradually achieved such a prominent position within this community, that he was sent out together with Barnabas.’31 The meeting of the Antioch apostles and the Jerusalem pillars does not seem to have been initiated by Paul and he does not claim leadership of the group, but only that he decided to join the group due to a revelation. Lietart Peerbolte even maintains that ‘… Paul went to Jerusalem as an envoy of the congregation of Antioch.’32 Moreover, the fact that the group from Antioch travels to Jerusalem and not vice versa demonstrates that there were hierarchical issues involved in the relationship between the two communities, with Jerusalem acknowledged as the centre of the movement, but ‘... their shared confession raised the need

29. Cf. Dunn 2002: 202. 30. As W. S. Campbell notes ‘… according to the account in Acts, Paul was assisted in his interpretation of the revelation by the Christ-followers in Damascus’ (2006: 34). 31. Lietart Peerbolte 2003: 190. Cf also Dunn 2002: 203 and Schütz 1975: 137. 32. Lietart Peerbolte 2003: 191.

The Exercise of Power

43

… to establish common ground’.33 Schütz moreover has drawn attention to the fact that the meeting between the group from Antioch and the pillars in Jerusalem was a formal negotiation between the two communities, and was not set up to accommodate anything that was personally related to Paul.34 Paul does not deny this in his report. He travels to Jerusalem as part of a group from Antioch to clarify issues at stake with the pillars of the movement in Jerusalem. The issues could apparently not be decided by Antioch alone, they needed to consult and get an agreement with the Jerusalem pillars. The issue was whether the inclusion of gentiles as gentiles in the movement was recognized as a valid consequence of the proclamation of the gospel. Had the Jerusalem pillars not recognized this, the movement could not have sustained its unity. Thus Antioch was not independent from Jerusalem, and although there is no indication in Paul’s account that the Jerusalem community or her pillars could exercise power over the Antioch group in terms of commanding them, their relationship was to some extent asymmetrical.35 The fact that the Christmovement originated from Jerusalem and that the pillars were part of it prior to the emergence of a community in Antioch seems to give Jerusalem some primary significance for the entire movement. Paul does not depict a scenario which denies this; his emphasis on being called and commissioned by God, not by humans, stresses that he like the other apostles is commissioned by God, that is, his apostleship is equal to the apostleship of others. But this is not an emphasis on independence from or superiority over other apostles,36 but rather on interdependence for mutual recognition within the apostolic group. He does not depict himself as an independent apostle, but as part of a group which consults with another group to achieve agreement. He tries to demonstrate that he is one of them (i.e. the group of apostles), rather than that he differs from them in claiming some outstanding qualities which would separate him from the other apostles. The emphasis on his own divine call to proclaim the gospel to the gentiles seems to serve to demonstrate that the leaders of both groups have come to the mutual recognition that their respective callings have rendered them equals. As W. S. Campbell emphasizes The fact that Paul, in the very passage in Galatians used by many to establish his own complete independence of all human agency, acknowledges that he visited Jerusalem

33. Lietart Peerbolte 2003: 192. Lietart Peerbolte holds the view that Paul did not travel to Jerusalem for fourteen years, because he was not independent but in fact was part of the Christ-following group in Antioch. Since he was embedded there there was no need for him to go to Jerusalem. Some scholars regard Antioch as falling within the boundaries of an enlarged Eretz Israel. This had significant implications for the perception of the realm of influence of Jerusalem and living according to the Torah, which seems to have differed to some degree, depending on whether one lived in Eretz Israel or in the Diaspora. See Bockmuehl 2003: 61–70. 34. Schütz 1975: 138. 35. Cf. Koptak 2002:163 and Dunn 2002: 203. 36. Cf. Koptak 2002: 163.

44

Paul and the Dynamics of Power and spoke to Peter and others, is proof that Paul himself realized the need for mutual recognition.37

Thus although Paul in 2.7-8 stresses his own commissioning to preach the gospel to the Gentiles, to assert their agreement, not just Paul and Peter shake hands, but all of them, James, Cephas and John on the one side and Barnabas and Paul on the other, confirming that they perceive each other as being entrusted with the gospel – proclaimed to Jews and gentiles respectively.38 The narrative in no way emphasizes Paul’s independence from Jerusalem or Antioch, but serves the purpose of demonstrating that the Antioch group needed the recognition of Jerusalem in order that they all could recognize each other as engaged in a cooperative interdependent movement. And Paul maintains that at this meeting he who until now seems to have acted in the role of the ‘junior partner’ (probably of Barnabas)39 received proper recognition by those ‘who were apostles before him’ – and from now on was recognized as equal. The recognition of Paul’s apostleship and the recognition of his commission to ‘bring about the obedience of faith for the sake of his name among all the (gentile) nations’ (Rom. 1.5) are inseparably intertwined. This is the powerful point Paul makes here. But to stress mutual recognition is fundamentally different from arguing for independence.40 The subsequent ‘incident at Antioch’ has been read as a confirmation of Paul’s independence claims, since there Paul apparently emerges from the conflict as the only Jewish Christ-follower who does not share the other Jewish Christ-followers’ view of table-fellowship with gentile members of the movement (Gal. 2.13). It has been argued that this dispute ended in a split of the movement, Paul travelling from then on independently from Antioch and without Barnabas. But Paul himself does not give any reasons for not travelling with Barnabas any longer, we only know something about this from Acts (15.36-40). The only indication that something did change in the relationship of Paul with Antioch is the fact that he never mentions the city again. This seems to be past history for Paul, not relevant for his actual work with the communities known through his letters. But although he disagreed with Peter and Barnabas at the Antioch incident, when he mentions them again in 1 Corinthians (1.12; 3.22; 9.5-6) the tone is not at all negative and it could not be guessed from this that there were any problems between these apostles. Paul does not relate the problems he is discussing in 1 Corinthians to any activities of these apostles but merely mentions them either because their name is claimed by a particular group (1.12), or because they are mentioned as examples of how they differed in dealing with matters related to hospitality for apostles. Thus there is no 37. Campbell 2006: 35. 38. Koptak notes that ‘The major implication of Paul’s statement is that there is a basic relationship of equality between himself and the Jerusalem apostles in the sight of God’ (2002: 165). 39. Öhler 2003: 72. 40. Contra Holmberg 1978: 29.

The Exercise of Power

45

indication of a power struggle between these apostles. Paul mentions them as colleagues involved in various ways with the same task.41 Even the fact that Cephas, Apollos and Barnabas have apparently been to Corinth is not seen as causing a problem for Paul. He acknowledges their work in Corinth as valuable and does not see this as interference with his apostleship or his special relationship with the Corinthians! The problems in this community do not emerge from disputes among the apostles but from misconceptions by the Corinthian community which they subsequently come to identify with one particular apostle, as e.g. Apollos. But in Paul’s view, this is the responsibility of the Corinthians, not of the respective apostles. Thus from Paul’s account in Gal. 2.11-14 and from the fact that he subsequently mentions particularly Cephas and Barnabas in an at least neutral way, it does not follow that the Antioch incident marks a decisive split in the early Christ-movement.42 It was a conflict within the movement, in the course of which Paul probably did ‘lose’. But a conflict need not necessarily result in a split, even if the disagreement on the issue cannot be solved. Paul seems to have been in continuous contact with the ‘others’ of the conflict, and he does not in any way indicate that he had a negative view of them, or had problems in accepting their equal standing with him as apostles. They are and remain apostles on equal standing with him and he clearly regards them as being involved in the same work of proclaiming the gospel as he is, as part of the one Christ-movement. Again, I cannot find any indication for independence claims or claims to superiority over against other apostles by Paul.43 The same image emerges concerning Paul’s perception of the relation to Jerusalem. Paul gives ample evidence that he perceives this relationship as highly significant not only for himself but for all the e0kklhsi/ai tou= qeou=. The collection project gives ample evidence to show that he did not perceive himself as an independent or superior apostle, and that he did not perceive independence as a goal to be aimed at, either for himself or for his communities. His emphasis is on being recognized as an apostle among other apostles, that is, on the mutual recognition of each other’s work in a community of equals.

41. Öhler sees the fact the Paul mentions Barnabas and Peter in relation to financial issues as proof that he perceived them as being equal to him. (2003: 14–15). 42. For more detail on this see Campbell 2006: 38–53. Cf. also Schütz who maintains that ‘… he went to Jerusalem from Antioch as a proponent of the unity of the Church … It is doubtful that he left Antioch less convinced of this necessity’ (1975: 249–50). 43. As Campbell proposes ‘The Galatian passage could also be construed as Paul’s argument that he was a participant in a movement where even those who differed from him, even those whom he had never met, still acknowledged the grace of God in him, rather than a claim to be an entirely independent, and hence a solitary colossus’ (2006: 35).

46

Paul and the Dynamics of Power 3.2 Paul and Co-workers in Christ

Inasmuch as Paul first appears on the scene of history, as a member of a team, as a co-worker within the early Christ-movement, he continues to be a member of a team when he emerges as one of the prominent members of this movement.44 The fact that Paul and the co-senders of the letters refer to a significant number of members of the movement by name indicates that a specific relationship must have existed between those mentioned and Paul. This relationship is not always further clarified by an explanation such as ‘my kinsmen and fellow prisoners’ (Rom. 16.7), leaving later audiences, unfamiliar with the situation in a particular community with little with which to reconstruct a scenario of the network of the early Christ-movement. But through some explanatory additions or qualifying terms at least some traces are left in the letters which render a reconstruction of aspects of the interaction between these people possible. Various terms are used, apart from ‘apostles’, to refer to others involved in the work of the movement, such as a0delfo/v, dia/konov, dou=lov, koinwno/v, kopiw=ntev, leitourgo/v, oi0kono/mov, suggenh/v, sunaixma/lwtov, su/ndoulov, sunergo/v, sustratiw/thv, te/knon, u9phre/thv. Most of these terms are not used when the communities as such are addressed or referred to, but only when particular members who were involved in some specific task within the movement are mentioned, sent greetings, or admonished. The occurrence of these terms indicates a conscious use which implies that Paul and the co-senders differentiated between Christfollowers as members of a particular e0kklhsi/a, and Christ-followers who were working for the movement in a specific function.45 How far and in what sense this differentiating terminology is an indication also of a hierarchical dimension in the relationship between those who are referred to with these specific terms and the communities of Christ-followers will need to be further investigated. I will come to this later in section 3.3. The significant number of people mentioned by these terms clearly demonstrates that Paul was not working independently, or on his own within this movement. The fact that in all except one of the undisputed letters one or more co-senders are mentioned, clearly substantiates this observation. Paul continued to work together with others even when his cooperation with Barnabas apparently did not continue.46 But it is not easy to discern the nature of the relationship between these people and Paul. None of the terms gives clear or unambiguous indications.

44. Cf. Ollrog 1979: 61. 45. I am following Dickson’s research in this who in relation to different tasks within the movement maintains that ‘For Paul, the heralding of the gospel was of central importance for his conception of the mission duty of both himself and his colleagues. When one turns to the apostle’s descriptions of his converts’ relation to this language, however, an entirely different picture emerges’ (2003: 131). 46. Cf. Lietart Peerbolte 2003: 228–33.

The Exercise of Power

47

3.2.1 Sunergoi/ – Terminology and Identity Issues The term sunergo/v, ‘a distinctive and unique Pauline expression’,47 and the one most frequently used by Paul after the term a0delfo/v, has often been read as referring to co-workers, that is assistants, of Paul. But this term in itself does not indicate, as Lietart Peerbolte claims, that ‘Paul was supported in his proclamation of the gospel by a certain group of co-workers, “fellow workers” (sunergoi/) in Christ.’48 Wolf-Henning Ollrog in his monograph Paulus und seine Mitarbeiter49 has convincingly demonstrated that the term is not used to refer to Paul’s co-workers but denotes colleagues of Paul who are engaged in the same work as Paul, that is the work of God through Christ. They may or may not have supported Paul directly or indirectly, but they may equally well have been working independently of Paul. The stress is on the e1rgon they all are involved in, not the sun- with Paul.50 As Ollrog in his detailed analysis clearly demonstrates, the sunergo/v is perceived as someone who like Paul has been commissioned by God to be involved in the work of Christ (e1rgon Xristou=). The sunergo/v is not commissioned by Paul, as is evident, for example, from 1 Thess. 3.2 – it is God who commissions Timothy to be a sunergo/v involved in the same work as Paul.51 It should thus come as no surprise that a variety of people who are performing a multiplicity of tasks within the movement can be called sunergoi/. Apollos is a sunergo/v, as is Paul himself (1 Cor. 3.9); unnamed people in Corinth are called sunergoi/ and the community is urged to be subject to them (1 Cor. 16.16); Prisca and Aquila are sunergoi/ who risked their lives for Paul (Rom. 16.3).52 Moreover, the term is not used exclusively on its own, but is sometimes combined with a parallel characterization such as dia/konov or a0delfo/v, which obviates its being perceived as designating a specific function within the movement. Although some people are recognized as having a special bond with Paul through addition of the possessive pronoun mou= or h9mw=n to sunergo/v, the common ground which unites them all is the work of the gospel, which of course should lead to their cooperation, and in that sense they are fellow – or co-workers; but they are co-workers not of each other, nor of Paul, but of Christ. For Paul is certainly not the centre of this work, nor is he the lord who has his helpers or co-workers gathering around him to lend him a hand. A sunergo/v is a co-worker because he/she is involved in the work of the proclamation of the gospel as is Paul. Thus, Ollrog stresses that the term sunergo/v is ‘an exceedingly pertinent title …

47. Jewett 2006: 957. 48. Lietart Peerbolte 2003: 228. Lietart Peerbolte is aware of Ollrog’s work and takes it into account but still somehow perceives Paul to be the centre of their common e1rgon which is exactly the perception Ollrog challenges. 49. Ollrog 1979. 50. For a discussion of the sun- see Ollrog 1979: 70. 51. Timothy here is explicitly called sunergo\n qeou= ! 52. See Jewett’s comprehensive discussion of Prisca and Aquila (2006: 954–59).

48

Paul and the Dynamics of Power

Paul, distinct from many of his interpreters – did not perceive of himself as providing in his person the centre which guaranteed unity, he did not render himself the bond which embraced all his co-workers but for him the task was the exclusively constitutive element.’53 The noun therefore stresses the cooperative rather than the hierarchical dimension of the relationship between those designated as sunergoi/ and Paul, who is one amongst them. But Lietart Peerbolte in his identification of the group working closely together with Paul, views in the first instance those designated as sunergoi/ as those who provide assistance and support for Paul, adding a number of other designations to that list. Although he does not perceive the sunergoi/ as being in a hierarchical relationship with Paul, he continues to describe their significance as assistants (sunergoi/) of Paul in his missionary work, a function the sunergoi/ explicitly did not have in Ollrog’s view!54 Ollrog himself identifies a group of close co-workers in the work of the gospel (not of Paul) – ‘der engste Kreis’ – encompassing only Barnabas, Silvanus and Timothy.55 He further identifies a group of independent co-workers, Apollos, Prisca and Aquila, and Titus and then a number of envoys of the communities who were sent to assist Paul for some limited time.56 The problem seems to arise from the varied use of the term sunergo/v by Paul himself. Although sunergo/v is not the ‘technical’ term used to refer to those closely working with Paul, he himself sometimes also calls one of this circle a sunergo/v. Without denying the existence of some sort of ‘inner circle’, Ollrog has demonstrated convincingly that the term sunergo/v cannot serve as the basis for an image of the group of people working closely and travelling with Paul.57 3.2.2 A0delfo/v/A0delfh/ – Terminology and Identity Issues Another term Paul uses frequently, a0delfo/v/a0delfh/ is used significantly for both Christ-followers in general, that is all the members of the movement,

53. ‘ein höchst sachlicher Titel, … Paulus hielt – anders als manche seiner Interpreten – nicht sich selbst für den die Einheit gewährleistenden Mittelpunkt, machte seine Person nicht zum umschliessenden Band in der Vielzahl seiner Mitarbeiterschar, sondern das Konstitutivum war für ihn allein das Werk.’ My translation of the German. Ollrog 1979: 72. 54. Cf. Lietart Peerbolte 2003:231 and Ollrog who states ‘The co-workers of Paul were thus not assistants of the apostle whom he involved in support of his personal needs.’ My translation of the German: ‘Die Mitarbeiter des Paulus waren also nicht “Gehilfen” des Apostels, die er für‚ persönliche Dienstleistungen’ herangezogen hätte’ (1979: 72). 55. Ollrog 1979: 94. 56. Ollrog 1979: 93–108. It is only fair to note in respect of Lietart Peerbolte that there is a lack of clarity not only in Lietart Peerbolte’s characterization but also in that of Ollrog. 57. Contra Lietart Peerbolte 2003: 231. Also Reinbold views the term as referring to Paul’s close circle of co-workers (1999: 213–224).

The Exercise of Power

49

and also for members who have been commissioned, called, or sent on a specific task in the service of the gospel. Along with other family metaphors, these are undoubtedly very significant for an understanding of the traces of the dynamics of power in the communities the Pauline letters address.58 But concerning the use of sibling metaphors in relation to the group of close coworkers around Paul, Aasgaard has demonstrated that only limited insights can be gained. Since the metaphors are used generally to address or refer to Christ-followers, it is difficult to discern exactly what Paul might have in mind when a particular member of the movement is called my/our brother/ sister. Aasgaard sees in these cases an emphasis on the emotional aspect of the relationship which should also ‘… further the sense of solidarity between Paul, the person named, and the addressees.’59 In some instances there seems to be a tendency to indicate equality in the relationship as in Phil.2.1930 where Epaphroditus as distinct from Timothy is called brother; to call Timothy a son seems to point to the hierarchy in his relationship with Paul.60 Sometimes the metaphor clearly designates a person very close to Paul, as in 1 Thess. 3.2 in relation to Timothy again but this time emphasizing another aspect of the relationship. But also an otherwise unknown person can be called a0delfh/, as is Apphia in Phlm. 2. Aasgaard concludes that although the sibling metaphor in these specific passages does not refer to the specific tasks of these persons, ‘Paul employs it to assign to them a particular status and authority.’61 The sibling status is taken as an indication that these persons are in a ‘particular role as missionary co-workers’.62 Being called ‘sibling’ can thus indicate that, in a certain sense, one is closely participating in Paul’s proclamation of the gospel. Whilst I am not entirely convinced that the specific use of the sibling metaphor allows such clear conclusions as Aasgaard maintains, I think there is much to be said for the argument that by its use Paul marks out a kind of hierarchy between these people and the communities addressed. These ‘special siblings’ are, at least when mentioned in a letter, singled out as ‘authorities’ over against a community. This does not bestow on them a specific office, or a permanent function of authority within the movement, but it seems to attribute to them a specific role for a specific task. Thus the specific use of sibling language provides some indication as to the relationship of those within that network of which Paul and they also were a part: there were a) those who did work in a specific way within the movement and b) those who were members of the movement in a particular community. The relationship between them seems to have been, at least in certain instances, asymmetrical. But from the use of the sibling language it is hard to get any further indication of the relationship between the members of this sibling special group, and between them and Paul.

58. 59. 60. 61. 62.

Cf. 3.3.2 and Chapter 7 below. Aasgaard 2004: 297. Aasgaard 2004: 298–99. Aasgaard 2004: 297. Aasgaard 2004: 298.

50

Paul and the Dynamics of Power

3.2.3 Co-Senders of the Pauline Letters Thus there is no one term designating this particular group of assistants in a close association with Paul. One criterion for recognition of a closer relationship with Paul may be found in the names of co-senders of the letters. Since they are mentioned individually, they must at least have been present when Paul was dictating a particular letter, and Paul must have perceived them as either close or significant enough to mention them. The man mentioned most frequently as being with Paul is Timothy. He is the co-sender of four of the Pauline letters (2 Cor. 1.1; Phil. 1.1; 1 Thess. 1.1; Phlm. 1), and most likely, as argued above, the co-author of at least one of these, namely 1 Thessalonians. He is characterized as o9 a0delfo/v twice (2 Cor. 1.1 and Phlm. 1). Some interpreters (and English translations) skip over the definite article here and read it as equivalent to the personal pronoun my/our/your. But Aasgaard maintains that the definite article indicates a use of the sibling metaphor ‘in a more absolute sense’.63 He notes that whenever the sibling metaphor refers to a co-sender of a letter the definite article is used. Those siblings are not mentioned as siblings of Paul or the community addressed but they are ‘siblings in their own right’, ‘they stand out as siblings per se’.64 The sibling metaphor does not function as a title or reference to an office since ‘Paul appears to allot to them a particular position of authority vis-à-vis the addressees, but also to an extent vis-à-vis himself.’65 Timothy is also called an apostle (1 Thess. 2.6); he together with Paul and Silvanus has preached the gospel in Corinth (2 Cor. 1.19), which renders him equal to Paul. As ‘the brother’, apostle and preacher of the gospel, and co-author of a letter Timothy appears to be perceived as equal to Paul. On the other hand he is sent by Paul to visit the Thessalonian e0kklhsi/a, to strengthen and encourage them (1 Thess. 3.2), to visit the Corinthians, to remind them of the ways in Christ Paul teaches everywhere in every church (1 Cor. 4.17), and to visit the Philippians so that Paul may be encouraged (Phil. 2.19). Moreover Paul calls him his beloved and faithful child (1 Cor. 4.17), he is like his son (Phil. 2.22), his sunergo/v (Rom. 16.21), and one who does the work of the Lord as Paul himself (1 Cor. 16.10). These references suggest that Timothy is in some way subordinate to Paul as he is sent to represent him, and to remind the Corinthians of Paul’s teaching (although Paul in 2 Cor. 1.19 acknowledges that Timothy proclaimed the gospel to them on equal standing with Paul). A mixed image of Timothy’s and Paul’s relationship emerges from these scattered references, and it is obvious that although Timothy is in some sense perceived as an equal by Paul, and trusted entirely, there is yet a hierarchical imbalance between them in that it is always Paul who sends or entrusts Timothy with an important task, never the other way round.66 63. 64. 65. 66.

Aasgaard 2004: 297. Aasgaard 2004: 297. Aasgaard 2004: 297. Cf. Aasgaard 2004: 298, also Börschel 2001: 130.

The Exercise of Power

51

The co-sender of 1 Corinthians, Sosthenes, is only mentioned once, but except for his description as o9 a0delfo/v there is no indication here which would allow any conclusion regarding his relationship to Paul. In Galatians Paul mentions an undefined group of ‘all the brethren who are with me’ (‘oi9 su\n e0moi\ pa\ntev a0delfoi/’ [Gal.1.2]), again without any further indication as to who they are, except that they are Christ-followers and that they must have supported Paul in what he was writing to the Galatians (otherwise why would he have mentioned them). Silvanus is one of the three authors and senders of 1 Thessalonians. He moreover is involved in proclaiming the gospel, that is, in founding communities as we learn in 1 Thess. 2.6 and 2 Cor. 1.19. Although we do not learn anything more about him, these few notices indicate that he was perceived by Paul as an apostle equal to himself. The fact that Paul does not mention him more often in his letters could indicate that he was an apostle working in his own mission field some time after having been involved in establishing the communities in Thessalonica and Corinth.67

3.2.4 Letter Endings and Paul’s Assistants Further indications as to who was part of a close circle of co-workers around Paul can be found at the end of the letters, among those who send greetings. Aquila and Prisca are mentioned twice, in 1 Cor. 16.19 and in Rom. 16.3. In 1 Corinthians they send greetings together with the e0kklhsi/a in their house, so they must have had the space to host a group of Christ-followers for their meetings. Greetings are sent to them in Rome by Paul, and he mentions especially that he owes them his life. He thus hints at his indebtedness to them. This and the fact that he calls them sunergoi/ suggests they are equivalent in status, and certainly not subordinate to Paul. In Philemon Paul has five people with him who send their greetings to the addressees Philemon, Apphia and Archippus: but all we learn about them is that one, Epaphras, is imprisoned with Paul, and the others, Mark, Aristarchus, Demas and Luke are sunergoi/ of Paul. In Romans the Jewish Christ-followers Lucius, Jason and Sosipater, greet the e0kklhsi/a there, as well as three people obviously supporting Paul, that is Tertius the scribe, Gaius and Erastus who have the means to somehow host Paul and ‘the brother’ Quartus. It is virtually impossible to discern from these brief notes what the nature of the relationship between these ‘greeters’ and Paul actually was. All that these names clearly indicate is that Paul did not work on his own; he did work within a network of people, and he did rely on them – in one instance with his life (Rom. 16. 4), in others as hosts (Rom. 16.2), on others as ‘a means of communication’, that is, as transmitters of messages (1 Cor. 1.11; Phil. 2.23) and in other ways that can only be guessed at.

67.

Cf. Ollrog 1979: 17–20; Reinbold 2000: 219–20.

52

Paul and the Dynamics of Power

3.2.5 Others Greeted in the Pauline Letters Another group which needs to be considered are those people whom Paul and the senders specifically greet or address within the e0kklhsi/a to which a letter is sent. In most letters these greetings are formulated in a general way, with the exception of Romans 16. Although there we find a significant list of Christ-followers whom Paul knows, only a few of these are described in a way which would allow some clear conclusions concerning their relationship with Paul. Phoebe is described as a great supporter of Paul. Andronicus and Junia were in prison with Paul and are apostles like Paul himself, qualifications which most likely render them equals with Paul. Urbanus is a sunergo/v, as are Tryphanea, Tryphosa and Persis, which does not show conclusively whether they were perceived by Paul to be his helpers or whether the term refers to the fact that they were involved in the same kind of work as Paul was.68 Paul views Rufus’s mother as also his own, which could indicate a hierarchical relationship.69 In Philippians Euodia and Synthyche are described as workers in the gospel with Paul, Clement and other sunergoi/. In the same letter we encounter Epaphroditus who on the one hand is sent back to Philippi by Paul after having brought him gifts (Phil. 2.25; 4.18) but in the very same verse (2.25) Paul also calls him ‘my brother and fellow worker and fellow soldier, and your apostle and minister to my need’ (to\n a0delfo\n kai\ sunergo\n kai\ sustratiw/thn mou u9mw=n de\ a0po/stolon kai\ leitourgon\ th=v xrei/av mou). Does Paul mean Epaphroditus is both an apostle, and also someone being sent by him to the Philippians? I do not see why a0po/stolov here should be translated differently, (e.g. as messenger [RSV]) from other passages merely on the grounds that the term here is further qualified by u9mw=n.70 Another person of significance is Titus. He travels to Jerusalem together with Barnabas and Paul as the paradigmatic gentile in Christ (Gal. 2.1, 3). But then he is only ever mentioned again in 2 Corinthians. Paul had hoped to meet him in Troas, but since he is unable to find him, he is unable to stay and continue to work for the gospel there since ‘my mind could not rest’ (2 Cor. 2.13)! Whether it is Titus himself that is the cause for concern or what Paul expected to hear from him concerning the Corinthians is not quite clear. Travelling to Macedonia he is highly relieved to meet Titus (7.6) and receive news of the e0kklhsi/a in Corinth. Through Titus he receives comfort and joy with regard to the Corinthians. Since Titus’s visit to Corinth had confirmed and strengthened the good relationship between the group around Paul and the community, Paul urges/encourages Titus to complete what he had begun (8.6), that is apparently to complete the task he had been involved in concerning the collection. Paul stresses that Titus actually did not need much encouragement but was himself eager to travel back to Corinth ‘going to you of his own accord’ (8.17). Paul mentions one or two other ‘brothers’ who 68. 69. 70.

See discussion 3.2.1 above. On the role of the mother see 7.4–7.6 below. See the discussion Chapter 5 below.

The Exercise of Power

53

will travel with Titus only to emphasize again how close Titus is to him as he is ‘my partner and a co-worker for you’ (my translation) (‘koinwno\v e0mo\v kai\ e0iv u9ma=v sunergo/v’ [8.23]). This is a very emotional description of what seems to be a close personal relationship, which is signalled also by the first mentioning of Titus as the gentile in Christ who was in Jerusalem with Paul and Barnabas (Gal. 2.1). But he is not mentioned elsewhere in the undisputed Pauline letters, which leaves us somehow puzzled. Somebody so important to Paul is only mentioned in two letters, but once as a highly significant brother to Paul. Two conclusions can be drawn from this: either Titus is an intimate brother Paul trusts so entirely that he is travelling on behalf of Paul, not as an independent apostle but in Paul’s name, and thus most of the time not travelling with him or staying in a particular city – or Paul’s seemingly emotional description of his relationship with Titus is purely functional in that he emphasizes it over against the Corinthians in a situation of conflict to stress how important they actually are for him. From the people named, addressed, mentioned, sent, greeted by Paul in his letters, only Timothy emerges as constantly working together with Paul in a team. The others, as far as their relation with Paul can be discerned, are either mentioned only in relation to one particular community, one particular project, or for a limited time. Paul never seems to be on his own in his work, but there seems to be no major group working and travelling with him over any length of time. The circle of his particular co-workers is ‘on the move’. This makes it difficult to establish the dynamics of power between these people and Paul. It is obvious that some are in certain respects subordinate to Paul since he sends them, and they represent him. With others their status in relation to Paul is not so clearly identifiable: is Epaphroditus subordinate because he is sent back to Philippi by Paul, or equal because he is an apostle? Is Phoebe equal to Paul because she is a diakonos, or is she superior to him because she supported him significantly, or is she subordinate to him because she is his envoy to Rome?71

3.2.6 Moved by Christ – Leadership on the Move The image of the group of people involved in the proclamation/work of the gospel emerging from the Pauline letters is very divergent. Although Paul is very much part of a network, and working in a team, no constant group around him can be identified. The fact that he sends Timothy and Titus on his behalf demonstrates that there were levels of hierarchies amongst those involved in this teamwork, and that Paul was by some accepted as a leader with special authority over against other members of this team. But the extent of this authority seems to have been limited in time and extent and there are no traces in his letters to indicate that Paul was especially concerned about this. He appears as one of many engaged in the work of the gospel 71.

Cf Jewett 2006: 941–48.

54

Paul and the Dynamics of Power

and his primary concern seems to be that this work be done. The image of the network of co-workers within the Christ-movement that emerges is that of a group within which hierarchies did exist, but these seem to have been neither static nor ‘high’, but rather flexible and flat. No titles or ‘offices’ were established at that time in the movement. Thus the power dynamics within this special group, the communities, and someone like Paul, who as an apostle was part of a (maybe the only) specifically labelled group, seems to have been a very flexible one.72 The group of ‘special workers’ in the proclamation of the gospel seems to have formed and reformed according to the needs of the work which had to be done.73 Thus someone could be an apostle and at the same time be sent by Paul, as Timothy apparently was. Somebody could work with Paul in relation to a particular project – like Titus or possibly Phoebe, others are there with him in a particular place and at a particular time like Prisca and Aquila. An image of a group emerges which is on the move, and within which the power dynamics is not static but fluid, being negotiated between those who are involved in leadership tasks according to whatever served to further the cause of the gospel. This image resonates in some ways with Hannah Arendt’s ‘ideal’ of free communication which leads to action.74 The characteristics found thus far concerning co-workers in Christ do not show any evidence of women being excluded from these particular groups.75 Although the names of women mentioned as part of the leadership groups are fewer than the names of men, where they are mentioned, there is no trace of any difference in their status due to their gender. Thus, most prominently, Phoebe is in a leadership role of an e0kklhsi/a, most likely in a position of social superiority to Paul, which renders him dependent on her.76 She probably performs a specific function as a transmitter of a letter, which included the role of transmitter of the message itself (Rom. 16.1-2).. Others, such as Junia, are recognized as being an apostle; she had been in prison, and she is explicitly mentioned as having joined the movement before Paul (Rom. 16.7).77 Prisca is a co-worker (Rom. 16.3) and together with Aquila hosts an e0kklhsi/a in their house (1 Cor. 16.19), Mary is greeted as one who had worked hard among them (e0kopi/asen ei0v u9ma=v [Rom. 16.6]). According to Jewett the use of the term kopia/w is an indication by which Paul also refers to colleagues who were either missionaries or local leaders of an e0kklhsi/a.78 Thus Mary as well as Tryphaina and Tryphosa, and Persis (Rom. 16.12) are recognized as leaders within the early Christ-movement and Paul shared 72. Aasgaard concludes from the fact that no consistent pattern in the use of these designations in the Pauline letters emerges that it is not possible to come to any conclusion ‘… as concerns their function as signals of power relations’ (2004: 187). 73. Cf. Aasgaard 2004: 287. 74. Arendt 1970: 44. See also 2.3 above. 75. Detailed analyses of women’s leadership roles have been provided by Schüssler Fiorenza 1986, Ross Kraemer 1992: 136–38, 174–76, 65–86 and Macdonald 2003: 162–68. 76. On the role of Phoebe see Jewett 2006: 941–48. 77. See the comprehensive and detailed study by Epp 2005. 78. Jewett 2006: 961.

The Exercise of Power

55

in this acceptance and appreciation without any reservations.79 Thus there are no indications that leadership roles, that is, the exercise of power-over in asymmetrical relationships to communities by women was a cause of concern or problematic within the group of those who were commissioned, recognized and accepted as being entrusted with special tasks within the movement, whether in a local e0kklhsi/a or as itinerant sunergoi/.

3.3 0Ekklhsi/ai, Paul and the Pauline Circle Whereas the relationship between Paul and other apostles, and Paul and the close circle of people working with him, and the implications of power therein, can only be derived indirectly from his letters, the relationship between Paul and his e0kklhsi/ai (and the community in Rome) is more or less openly reflected in his letters as all except one (Philemon) are addressed directly to such an e0kklhsi/a. The letters themselves witness to a process of networking via ongoing communication between the Christ-following groups. This communication process was not limited to letters but the letters were part of it. They particularly witness to a communication process between groups which were involved in spreading the good news of Christ (‘heralds of the gospel’) and groups which gathered in a particular place in response to this (e0kklhsi/ai). The groups which formed as a result of the activity of the ‘heralds of the gospel’ could in some sense be described as the result of communicative action. At the heart of their origin was a successful act of communication, which led to the formation of a group of people who mutually committed themselves to act in concert. Thus the creation of Christ-following groups could be described, in Arendt’s terminology, as the creation of the space of a shared life-world.80 The e0kklhsi/ai from the nations were formed as groups in cities of the Roman Empire where as followers of Christ crucified they began to live their lives ‘in Christ’, distinct from their previous lives ‘according to this world’ (Rom. 12.2). These groups were formed at the margins of Roman elite society and as such they witness to the emergence of a perception of the world which radically differed from the public discourse of Roman imperial ideology and life. The letters can thus be read as providing guidance into an alternative, in Scott’s terminology, hidden transcript of power.81

3.3.1 Letter Writing and Ongoing Communication The communication process which was initiated by the personal presence of Paul, and the group that was with him, was maintained, during the absence 79. 80. 81.

Cf. also Carter 2006: 20–22. See 2.3 above. Scott 1990: 1–16.

56

Paul and the Dynamics of Power

of the apostle either by Christ-followers who were closely working together with Paul (1 Thess. 3.2; 2 Cor. 7.7; 8.6), other apostles (1 Cor. 3.6), or letters (2 Cor. 7.8), and sometimes a combination of these (Rom. 16.1-2). The letters are a means to continue a conversation already initiated over a certain distance. This means that these letters are only a fragment of the communication not the communication between Paul and the communities.82 They are a substitute for oral communication, that is, in the first instance they have an inter-communicative function. As part of an oral communication they support the purpose of maintaining the relationship between senders and recipients, and keeping their conversation going whilst not being able to meet face to face. They are thus substitutes for face-to-face encounters between people who had already met or, in the case of Romans, intended to do so. They address real people, in specific contexts, communicating issues arising from that relationship. Letter writing is not a one-way process as is evident from 2 Corinthians, since it is the only written form of communication which allows for dialogue and mutuality. Thus the mere fact that Paul and a group around him send or reply to a letter to an e0kklhsi/a indicates that their primary purpose is not to establish the authority of Paul but rather that both parties of the conversation are interested in maintaining their relationship and in continuing their conversation. It is a relationship between groups not individuals, as is evidenced in the mention of a group of senders, if not coauthors, in the opening of all letters except Romans. In my view, this indicates also that the process of communication is a process between groups not between individuals even though Paul, as the one always mentioned first, in most cases seems to be the one primarily responsible for the content. As Eve-Marie Becker notes: ‘Wenn Paulus an eine plurale Adressatenschaft schreibt und zugleich Co-Sender nennt, rückt er selbst aus der für Briefe üblichen “Einsamkeit des schreibenden Ichs” heraus und präsentiert sich den Adressaten als Briefeschreiber, der selbst in einem Dialog steht.’83 The opening section is the opening of the communication process with the addressees, and stresses at the same time that the senders are involved in an inter-communicative process themselves.84 The letters witness to a networking process between small groups which again in turn form small networks amongst themselves. Taking into account that the founding of a community was the result of a corporate activity it should not come as a surprise that the communication process at a distance via letters was maintained by a group rather than Paul alone, as other ways of communicating – for example, via visitors to the communities and community delegates visiting the ‘founding groups’, demonstrate (e.g. 1 Cor. 1.11). But except in 1 Thessalonians, there are no indications in the letters

82. See Funk 1981: 61–63. 83. Becker 2002: 152. Irene Taatz in her analysis of early Jewish letters notes that the significant number of ‘Gemeindebriefe’ (community letters) all mention a group of senders in their opening section (1991: 104–05). 84. Becker 2002: 154.

The Exercise of Power

57

which would allow us to discern the voice of these co-senders as co-authors.85 To perceive them as merely a support group backing up what Paul wanted to say in the letter does not account for the more likely scenario that those who were with Paul also were in conversation about ‘theological’ issues in relation to the movement. As Byrskog notes ‘The message brought out had probably been the object of considerable collective thinking and reasoning.’86 Thus the content of the letters can be perceived as the expression of a conversation of Paul and a group that is with him who negotiate the meaning of the Christevent in relation to the concrete contexts of everyday life in the communities, rather than the result of the thoughts of one man alone.87 As noted above, the groups which ‘herald the gospel’, that is, apostles, and other co-workers in Christ, relate to each other on various levels, some as equals (leading apostles), others in various degrees of hierarchies. The corporate dimension of the Pauline letter thus indicates that there were hierarchies not only between Paul and his ‘assistants’ but also between the entire group involved in ‘heralding’ the gospel on one side and the communities addressed on the other.88

3.3.2 0Ekklhsi/ai as Communities of Siblings However, the most frequently used term to address the letter recipients, a0delfoi/, a0delfh/ a designation also used sometimes for those involved in ‘heralding the gospel’,89 seems to direct the perception of the relationship between addressees and senders towards a relationship of equals.90 As this seemingly contradicts what has been demonstrated a few lines above, a closer look at the sibling metaphors in relation to the communities is necessary here. The frequency of the a0delfoi/ address does offer a vantage point from which to gain some insights into the relationship between Paul, the Pauline circle, and the addressees.91 Family terminology in the Pauline letters, and sibling language in particular, has been the focus of significant research for some time now. A

85. The ‘we’ passages in 2 Corinthians do not provide decisive evidence to coauthorship. 86. Byrskog 1996: 249. 87. Cf. Campbell 2006: 159–71. 88. Cf. Dickson’s perception that ‘Paul usually portrayed believers as passive in relation to the preaching of the gospel’ overstates the case in my view, since the hearing of the gospel requires a response, i.e. to start living in accordance with it. This is not a ‘passive’ but a very active response. (See Chapter 9 below.) But Dickson’s distinction between the role of the ‘heralds’ and the communities nevertheless is helpful (2003: 131–32; 176–77). 89. See 3.2 above. 90. See also Holmberg who notes that ‘The leaders and the congregation are related to each other in a context of love and co-operation , and stand in a relation of mutual, but not symmetric dependence on each other’ (1978: 118). 91. Aasgaard 2004: 267.

58

Paul and the Dynamics of Power

major difficulty concerning the sibling language is how to understand the metaphor. Earlier research has read it as a reference to emphasize the equality within the movement, as a reference to a brotherhood of equals, which later deteriorated into a patriarchal institution formed hierarchically according to the Roman elite household. This perception has come under critique from various directions and it has been demonstrated that the issues of equality and hierarchy are more complex than a deterioration model allows for.92 But the significance of the family as the basic social unit of societies in antiquity has generally been acknowledged in contemporary research.93 The issue of siblingship is usually addressed in the context of analyses of family structures, presupposing that Paul’s metaphorical use derives primarily from these. Insights from cultural anthropology into kinship relations in the contemporary Mediterranean world have been perceived as providing appropriate theoretical background for analysing Paul’s use of kinship language. But although it is certainly significant to clearly distinguish contemporary Western perceptions of family from those of people living around the Mediterranean basin in the first century CE, it is doubtful whether it is methodologically appropriate to subsume the entire Mediterranean basin under one particular pattern and to draw parallels from contemporary Mediterranean societies directly to societies of the first century. Such hermeneutical presuppositions contribute in my view to generalizations despite their attempt to explicitly avoid this.94 Parallel and sometimes combined with this generalizing tendency concerning Mediterranean societies, can be found a perceived separation between private and public, that is between family life and politics. Despite noticing the differences between contemporary and first-century family structures, the family is nevertheless portrayed as somehow the unit which provides ‘the haven in a heartless world’95 thus presuming a ‘politics-free’ private zone into which members of families could retreat. Inherent to such a perception is a stress on the emotional closeness between the family members, and between siblings in particular.96 Several caveats need to be raised here: (a) Although the emotional dimension of family bonds in first-century societies should not be denied there are other aspects which are probably more significant in evaluating Paul’s metaphorical use of sibling language. Without denying the significance of the family unit in societies in antiquity, 92. Cf. Sandnes’ critique of Schäfer’s and Schüssler Fiorenza’s reconstructions. (1997: 150–51). A number of recent articles and studies propose alternatives, e.g. Bartchy 1999 and 2003; Horrell 2001; Elliott J. H. 2003; Aasgaard 2004; Gerber 2005. 93. See references in Aasgard 2004: 34 94. See e.g. Bartchy 1999: 68 and Bossman 1996: 164 both basing their argumentation on Malina 1983. 95. So the title of a chapter in Aasgaard 2004: 34. 96. See e.g. Aasgaard who maintains that ‘… they were expected to observe the family cult together, inter alia as a sign of family solidarity. More important was the social security that siblings could render. Perhaps most important, however, was the emotional and social backing siblings could offer one another’ (2004: 59). Also Bartchy 1999: 69.

The Exercise of Power

59

the perception of a division between public and private in antiquity has been challenged, for example, by Sandnes who, in my view rightly stresses that this perception of separate spheres cannot be maintained as there is ample evidence that ‘In antiquity social harmony was associated with people worshipping the same gods … the fundamental assumption that the household is a city-state in microcosm means that domestic worship is seen in a political perspective’97 thus ‘the domestic, political and cultic sphere are not separated; on the contrary they are dependent on each other.’98 It is thus questionable whether the family could actually provide a safe haven in a dangerous world, since the political was an all-pervasive dimension of Graeco-Roman society.99 (b) Since literary evidence of aspects of family life mirrors the life of the elite, that is between 3 to 7 per cent of the population,100 it is difficult to reconstruct an image of the family structures of the 93–97 per cent of the rest of the population, of which a high percentage was enslaved and thus not in a situation to form family bonds independent from their masters. Archaeological research in Galilee and research into the economic situation there indicate that it was often impossible for most families to provide that support and shelter in a dangerous world, which was promoted by the elite as an ideal.101 Economics rather than emotions probably shaped kinship relationships to a significant extent. Thus an analysis of first-century Graeco-Roman sources can provide only very limited insights which may helpfully contribute to an understanding of Paul’s prominent use of the sibling metaphor, since the early Christ-movement was certainly not an elite phenomenon but was rooted in the 93–97 per cent of the majority population of the Roman Empire which lived at the margins or below subsistence level.102 With elite descriptions of family life proving to be only of very limited help to gain insights into a probable background for Paul’s use of sibling language, another source could be its metaphorical use in relation to institutions of Roman society. But the results are not of great value since sibling language is only occasionally used metaphorically in Graeco-Roman sources.103 A more fruitful source can be found in Paul’s primary context, Judaism. Metaphorical use of sibling language was most prominent in the Scriptures and is evidenced throughout the Second Temple period. The Scriptures often use the term x), translated as a0delfo/v in the LXX, for kinfolk and fellow 97. Sandnes 1997: 155. 98. Sandnes 1997: 156. 99. Incidents in elite families make this at least doubtful – despite the ideology promoted by Augustus. Cf Tac. Ann. 111.24.. 100. Carter 2006: 10; Stegemann/Stegemann 1999:77. 101. See e.g. Stegemann/Stegemann 1999: 99–136; Horsley 1995. 102. Carter 2006: 100–18; Stegemann/Stegemann 1999: 47–52 and 79–95. This is additional indication that the discourse of the Christ-movement was rather one of resistance to than one of conformity with the public Roman discourse. Cf Scott 1990: 27–28, also Elliott 2004: 117–22. 103. See the excellent discussion in Aasgaard 2004: 107–16.

60

Paul and the Dynamics of Power

Israelites.104 Deuteronomy in particular depicts Israel as a people of brothers (Deut. 3.18; 15.3; 23.19; 24.7).105 This tradition is found in later Jewish literature and continued throughout the first century.106 Horrell notes that ‘… in its varied contexts, it reflects the existence of, or desire for, a siblinglike bond between the speaker and addressee(s).’107 Horrell cannot find indications of hierarchy or superiority in the use of the terminology itself. The Scriptures and Jewish tradition thus provide insight into a well-established metaphorical use of sibling language at Paul’s time. And since Paul was embedded in this tradition I cannot see any reasonable arguments against reading Paul’s use of sibling metaphors primarily from within this particular context. This does not rule out the fact that pervasive aspects of GraecoRoman society did have an impact on Paul’s use of the metaphor or, to an even greater extent, on the addressees’ reception, but I think these should be perceived as secondary impacts and probably include problems of ‘cultural translation’,108 rather than the basis of Paul’s use of sibling language. Thus, as in its Jewish context, the sibling metaphor primarily refers to the special bond between those called brothers and sisters, though not merely as part of a family but rather as part of a people. Thus a0delfo/v/a0delfh/ is an identity designation with an emphasis on the way those who are part of this group of siblings should relate to each other in everyday life.109 The use of the sibling metaphor throughout the letters in addressing the members of the e0kklhsi/ai indicates that Paul and the co-senders stressed from the very beginning that they were all bound together in a relationship which is or should be characterized by mutual responsibility and solidarity. The roots of this characterization probably lay not so much in actual kinship allusions but in those allusions Paul and the co-senders had inherited from the Scriptures of Israel. People who are associated with the one God of Israel are called brothers and sisters. And those who are now called through Christ are thus brothers and sisters too.110 Thus the sibling address in the letter openings as well as in the letters generally indicates the efforts of Paul and his co-senders to ensure that those who formed an e0kklhsi/a related to each other as befitted the people of God. In emphasizing this aspect Paul includes himself as one of the siblings in Christ but he apparently does not restrict his own

104. Horrell 2001: 296. 105. See also Exod. 2.11; 32.27; Ps. 22.23; Prov. 17.17; 18.24; Jer. 22.18; Zech. 11.12. Cf. Perlitt 1994: 50–73. 106. The sibling metaphor is even more frequent in e.g. 1 Esdras, 1 and 2 Maccabees and Tobit. For a more detailed discussion see Aasgaard 2004: 113. 107. Horrell 2001: 296–97, see also his critique of Bartchy 1999 who does not take this into account. 108. Research into ‘cultural translation’ concerning the Pauline letters and their reception by a primarily gentile audience would most likely prove illuminating not only with regard to the sibling metaphor but also for other aspects of the letters. 109. See Horrell 2001: 300. I will deal with this aspect below especially Chapter 9. 110. Significantly Paul uses the sibling metaphor when referring to his non-Christfollowing fellow Jews (Rom. 9.4).

The Exercise of Power

61

role to that of a brother (e.g. 2 Cor. 10.8; 13.10). He claims for himself, as for other particular members of the movement, a special role which included claims of authority and power over them. Thus Paul’s and to some extent the co-senders’ self-perception seem to oscillate between equality as brother, and authority as apostles, emphasizing one or the other aspect according to the state of the relationship with their communities.111

3.4 Conclusion: Sunergoi/ and 0Ekklhsi/ai – Asymmetrical Relationships At various points the contents of the letter clarify that the senders see themselves in a position to give the addressees some advice, to encourage and to admonish them; thus they perceive the relationship between themselves and the addressees as somehow asymmetrical. They send the letters from the position of the subject-who-knows and Paul invites the members of his congregations to follow his example and advice. Although the language he uses is not one of command-obedience, he does appeal (Phlm. 10; Rom. 12.1) to them, he compares himself to a father, or a mother (1 Cor. 3.2), to a planter, and layer of the foundation (1 Cor. 3.5-15), he asks them to imitate him(1 Thess. 1.6; Phil. 3.17; 1 Cor. 4.16) and tells them to keep on doing ‘what you have learned and received and heard and seen in me’ (Phil. 4.9). He writes to them concerning issues on which previously they had asked his advice, giving them guidance (1 Corinthians 7 and 12), warns them against boasting (Rom. 11.20), commends his co-workers to them, and asks them to be subordinate to the house of Stephanas (1 Cor. 16.15).112 These are all clear indications of hierarchically structured relationships. Paul and the group around him claim authority and exercise power over them with the means at their disposal. But even when Paul is clearly the one person addressing the community, he does so not on the basis of some personal advantage or privileged status, or on the basis of institutional power or a fixed hierarchical structure, or of any force to back him, but mainly because of his temporal primacy as the one through whom they had first learnt of the gospel (2 Cor. 10.14) and become members of the movement. Those who became siblings in Christ joined the movement on a voluntary basis, that is, because they heard the message of the gospel and by the Spirit were moved to act accordingly and thus form an e0kklhsi/a where they lived. The basis of the relationship between Paul and the communities is thus one of trust.113 Paul and the communities are in an asymmetrical relationship, and Paul does claim power over them, but as a relationship based on trust there is an aspect inherent in it which in my view resonates with what Wartenberg described as transformative power. The purpose of the power exercised is to render itself obsolete. Thus although Paul does refer to himself as an authority to be listened to, the sibling address may indicate 111. See Chapters 7–9 below. 112. I will deal with these issues separately in the following chapters. 113. See 10.1 below.

62

Paul and the Dynamics of Power

that it is actually Paul’s particular aim to empower the communities in such a way that they learn to live their lives according to the gospel. Hence his references to his authority as an apostle living in conformity to the gospel and his capacity to embody it.114 Thus the power-over operative between Paul and the communities is aimed at rendering itself obsolete, in that their asymmetrical relationship will be transformed and Paul should eventually become one among many siblings. This perception of Paul’s differentiated use of power resonates with transformative and communicative aspects of power highlighted by Arendt, Wartenberg and Allen. The power operative on a social level among the members of the network of leaders, between this network and the communities, and within the communities varies in a differentiated way according to the respective relationship, as power-over, power-to and power-with. Following from this, the issue which needs to be addressed is how this differentiated handling of issues of power related to, and was intertwined with, the ideological ‘underpinning’ of the movement, that is, with the theologizing within the Christ-movement of which the Pauline letters are the earliest available sources. This is the focus of the following chapters.

114. Schütz, 1975: 107; see Chapters 6 and 8 below.

Chapter 4

POWER

IN

ACTION – THE DYNAMICS

OF

GRACE

4.1 The Power of the ‘Grace and Works of the Law’ – Dichotomy in Pauline Interpretation The topos of grace is perceived to be a if not the centrepiece of Paul’s theologizing. Given the significance attributed to this topos one would expect that it significantly influenced not only the theologizing but also the social interactions within the early Christ-movement. As such the topos of grace and the dynamics of power must have been in some sense related to each other.1 Grace certainly was attributed a powerful position within Christian theology and it is often referred to as parallel to or even synonymous with other important Pauline terms for the core of his message. Rudolf Bultmann states that ‘just as “righteousness by faith” can designate the content of the gospel … in the same way the content and significance of the message and the character of Christian existence can be denoted by the simple term “grace”’.2 In traditional Pauline scholarship there is an agreement that ‘for Paul grace is not simply or primarily a divine attribute; the point is not that God is, by nature, “gracious”. Rather, God’s grace is a specific event, the act of God in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.’3 There can be no doubt that this is an important aspect of Paul’s references to grace but it is nevertheless a very restricted perception, which is focused on God acting in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and coloured by specific hermeneutical (theological) presuppositions. This renders the Pauline discourse of grace a timeless construct rather than a term related to specific problems in specific contexts.4 The most prominent theologians of grace Augustine, Martin Luther and Karl Barth interpreted Romans and the letter’s language of grace ‘against the cultural backdrop of their own times’5 reading issues most relevant for their contemporary discussions back into Paul.6 ‘Grace and

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

As Polaski has convincingly demonstrated (1999: 105–07). Bultmann 1952: 283. Polaski 1999: 106. Cf. Ehrensperger 2004a: 133–36. Harrison 2003: 213.

64

Paul and the Dynamics of Power

works’, ‘law and gospel’, ‘justification by faith and works righteousness’ are the major pairs of contrast and opposition which were claimed to represent the core of Paul’s theology and as such were prevalent predominantly in the Protestant theology which came to flourish in the nineteenth century in particular.7 In conjunction with the perception of the Pauline discourse as decisively shaped by oppositional thinking,8 anti-Judaism was and is regarded as inherent in it. ‘Grace’ is viewed as the more mature and pure form of faith or spirituality, whereas the notion of ‘doing the works of the law’ (e1rga no/mou) is seen as evidence that Judaism is a religion of works righteousness seeking redemption through humanity’s own achievement. It is claimed that in Christianity this inferior type of religion has been overcome.9 The discourse of grace is perceived to be a clear indication that Paul opposed Judaism as a religion of works righteousness. Such interpretations are based on presuppositions which perceive of grace as a theological concept entirely Christian in essence. But such readings hardly account for the variety and diversity of Paul’s use of the term, nor do they take seriously the diversity of the contexts and the width of the semantic field enhanced by the term, and its embeddedness in first-century Judaism. Recent research shows a renewed interest in the topic of grace, highlighting aspects of Graeco-Roman political, social10 and linguistic11 contexts, or analysing it from postcolonial,12 feminist and postmodern perspectives.13 It is obvious that this term and its semantic field figure quite prominently in the Pauline letters, although not as frequently as might be expected given the significance attributed to it.14 In two of his most important letters Paul frequently uses the language of grace in its wider semantic field – that is in Romans and in 2 Corinthians. James R. Harrison, in his thorough study, Paul’s Language of Grace in its Graeco-Roman Context proposes the view that in Romans Paul sums up his gospel using the terminology of grace, stating that ‘charis is undoubtedly Paul’s preferred leitmotiv for any fullorbed description of divine benefice.’15 In 2 Corinthians the emphasis is more on the believer’s gracious interaction as the appropriate response to this grace of God, particularly chapters 8–9, which strongly emphasize this aspect in Paul’s promotion of the ‘collection’, which he took up from his gentile congregations for the poor Jewish Christ-followers in Jerusalem. 6. Even if E. P. Sanders’s analysis of first-century Judaism needs refinement, there is no going back behind his deconstruction of the Lutheran antithesis of law over against gospel as a retrojection of the antagonism of Luther’s own time. 7. See Heschel 1998:106–26. 8. Castelli 1994: 272–300; also to some extent Boyarin 1994: 181. 9. On these significant aspects of the history of interpretation see Campbell 2006: 16–17. 10. Joubert 2000. 11. Harrison 2003: 211–13. 12. Tamez 1993. 13. Polaski 1999: 23-50. 14. Cf. Beker 1980: 265–66. 15. Harrison 2003: 212.

Power in Action

65

4.2 Grace and Power or Grace as Power Moreover, a close relation between Paul’s references to his authority as an apostle and the discourse of grace can be observed. As mentioned above, in church traditions Paul has been perceived as the authority figure of the early church and thus as the model which should be imitated for leadership as well as for life in Christ.16 He is perceived as the theologian who speaks and writes with unquestionable authority. The image of this traditional Paul had an impact not only, but also especially, in church history, an influence – to say the least – which was not favourable to women (not to mention Jews). The close relation of authority claims and the discourse of grace in certain passages have given rise to the question of whether there is actually a ‘hidden discourse of power’ in the sense of domination inherent in Paul’s ‘discourse of grace’.17 Whether Paul had or merely claimed during his lifetime this form of authority, which was attributed to him in later church history is one question18 – and whether there is a dominating and hierarchical tendency in his language of grace is another though, in my view, a closely related one. These are issues most prominently raised in feminist approaches to Paul, since the issues of power and authority are broadly discussed not only in feminist theology but also in feminist discourse generally. In some of these approaches Paul is perceived as the apostle who reintroduced patterns of hierarchy and domination into an originally egalitarian Jesus movement of equals.19 Frequently the analysis of the Pauline discourse of grace is based on traditional readings which view it primarily theologically. This is the case in Sandra Hack Polaski’s thorough analysis of the relation of Paul’s use of power and the discourse of grace in his letters. She presupposes a traditional perception of Paul’s language of grace, that is, she perceives it primarily as a theological discourse.20 Accordingly, grace in Paul’s letters is (exclusively) the act of God in the death and resurrection of Christ. This act of grace has not only an impact on individual believers but also cosmic implications as it marks a new age.21 Such a perception starts with a Christian theological interpretation of the terminology found in the Pauline letters, presupposing that its use there differs essentially, and should therefore be analysed separately from, the common use of the word in Graeco-Roman and/or Jewish discourse. The term xa/riv is examined from a position that presupposes a fully developed Christian theology.22 This is in itself a valuable approach to the study of grace. But it is a study which should be located in the realm of a history of interpretation and of reception history since it 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 213–14. 21. 22.

See Chapter 8 below. Polaski 1999: 104–23. This issue will be addressed in Chapter 5 below. Cf. e.g. Schüssler Fiorenza 1999: 147–73. Polaski relies heavily upon Bultmann 1952: 288–92, and Conzelmann 1969: Polaski 1999: 106–07. On this see the creative analysis of Crook 2004: 136–40.

66

Paul and the Dynamics of Power

critically addresses issues which emerge as effects of perceptions of grace in later historical, political and church contexts which differ significantly from the context of the first century. To presuppose such theological perceptions of grace as reflected in any document of the early Christ-movement, and in the Pauline letters in particular, is a rather anachronistic presupposition since the earliest Christ-followers were involved in an open and ongoing process of negotiating the implications of the Christ-event for their lives. As a consequence of a reading of the term within a context of a fully developed Christian theology, the term ‘grace’ seems to refer to some wellknown entity thereby ‘… lending to the illusion that its meaning is selfevident.’23 But this term has been filled with such specific theological overtones in post-Reformation and modern theologies that its use as a translation of xa/riv obscures rather than illuminates the Pauline discourse of grace. Although Polaski is not dealing with the theological dichotomy of grace as opposed to works of the law, she perceives the concept of grace as a (Christian) theological concept which is directly linked to a discourse of power. To speak/write of God’s grace is another way in which Paul speaks of God’s power thereby implying a highly asymmetrical divine–human relationship, an asymmetry which impacts directly on human relationships not least within the Christ-following communities. As grace (God’s saving act in Christ) is an absolutely unmerited gift of God, He is seen as being in an omnipotent position over against which humans are powerless.24 Thus the claim of being commissioned by divine grace thus is seen as bearing an inherent claim to almost absolute power which is not far from a claim to legitimate domination. The perception of ‘grace’ in highly theological categories and the emphasis on the asymmetry of power which this constitutes has, if not an explicit, then certainly an implicit impact on the perception of Paul’s ‘use’ of the language of grace. It seems almost inevitable to perceive of this discourse, if viewed this way, as one which supports the establishment of not merely hierarchical but also dominating social structures in the early Christ-movement. To approach the language and discourse of grace in Paul’s letters from such a particular theological perspective means to apply a specific hermeneutical pattern of interpretation to the texts. Thus one particular meaning of xa/riv (God’s saving act in Christ) is universalized and applied as a hermeneutical key to all occurrences of the term and discourse in the Pauline letters without taking into account any contextual differentiation within the letters and within the Jewish and Graeco-Roman worlds. Particularly with regard to theological interpretations, such universalizing tendencies have been critically challenged in recent Pauline scholarship.25 Although Polaski’s approach differs from many others in a positive way,26 the 23. Crook 2004: 147. 24. Polaski 1999: 107. 25. For an overview see Ehrensperger 2004a: 123–60. 26. I have profited particularly from her application of a perception of the relational aspect of power to Paul’s letters.

Power in Action

67

divergent connotations and implications of the discourse of xa/riv, which are related to the particularity of each letter in its context, and to the embeddedness of the discourse in its wider cultural context, are underestimated, because of her reliance on traditional theological (universalizing) Pauline interpretation of this discourse. Presupposing that xa/rivwas primarily not a Christian theological term but a common word used in various ways and contexts in the Graeco-Roman world,27 as well as serving to translate a number of terms of the Hebrew Bible and of the symbolic universe of Second Temple Judaism, I consider it appropriate to begin an analysis of the language of grace/xa/riv in Paul not from a theological standpoint but from the ‘everyday situational side’ – that is with an analysis of the living out of grace in the concrete interaction of groups of Christ-followers. The letter in which Paul elaborates in some detail on this is 2 Corinthians, particularly chapters 8–9. Such an approach seems not only appropriate to the terminology of xa/riv,28 but it is also consistent with feminist methodology which emphasizes the necessity of rooting theological reflection in concrete life and even of the priority of concrete life-experience over theological reflection. Rather than first analysing what seems to be a systematic theological concept of grace (in Romans) which then as a second step also has ethical and practical implications, I will first analyse the example of a concrete living out of grace and then investigate the implications this might have for theological reflection and insights on grace and aspects of power thereby involved.

4.3 Grace in Action – the Collection Project (2 Corinthians 8-9) In 2 Cor. 8.4 and 8.6 Paul speaks of the very real project of collecting money for the poor saints in Jerusalem using the term xa/riv. Bearing in mind the highly theologically laden debates about ‘pure grace’ and ‘works righteousness’ this seems a rather unexpected use of the term.29 The term occurs 10 times in these chapters (7 times in chapter 8 alone), applied in such a variety of ways that it seems impossible to determine its meaning in a precise lexicographical way. This difficulty is reflected in the divergent translations of the term in these chapters particularly in German Bible translations. In the latter, when the term refers to, or is related to, God or Jesus Christ (2 Cor. 8.1; 8.9; 9.14) it is translated as Gnade, but when it refers to the concrete project of the collection, that is, to the interaction between Christ-believers, it is translated as Wohltat, that is beneficial work, or Liebeswerk, a work of love (2 Cor.

27. Cf. Turner 1995: 157. 28. As Beker comments that ‘If we exclude the non-theological references … and the use of the term in the salutations, the greetings … and the references to Paul’s apostolic office … and to the collection … we discover that the specific theological “weight” of the term occurs quite infrequently’ (1980: 265–66). 29. Noted e.g. by Beker 1980: 265.

68

Paul and the Dynamics of Power

8.4-7)! Thus, the theologically heavily laden word is avoided when the Greek word is used by Paul to speak of human action! In English translations things are not so clear-cut along theological lines – the NRSV translates xa/riv as ‘grace’ in relation to God whereas in relation to humans it translates it as ‘generous acts’, and in 8.9 it is also translated as the ‘generous act’ of our Lord Jesus Christ. The RSV uses ‘grace’ and ‘gracious work’, a practice also followed by the ESV in translating xa/riv by ‘grace’ and ‘gracious acts’ – so the word-stem at least remains visible. The German translations in particular indicate that something which for Paul can be described with one and the same term, is split into two or more different terms in the translations. This is not unusual since to translate from one language into another always means more than simply to replace words by other words – it is building bridges between different worlds, or as Umberto Eco has formulated, it is a matter of negotiation. Thus in many instances it is necessary not to translate lexicographically but in relation to the literary as well as cultural context of a term.30 But to translate the very same Greek word xa/riv with the specific differences which are found in some translations, indicates more than the difficulty of building bridges and negotiating meaning between different worlds. It is significant that when related to the divine realm – the term used in the translations is the theologically highly esteemed word ‘grace’ whereas when applied to the human sphere a variety of other terms is used. In my view this clearly indicates the tendency in New Testament scholarship to spiritualize and theologize xa/riv. This seems to coincide with theological tendencies to distance ‘grace’ as much as possible from any trace of action and works at the expense of the possibly more encompassing meaning which the word may denote in the Pauline usage. The translations thus most likely reflect a generalized conception of grace resulting from the theological debate in which grace and works, justification by faith and works of the law are perceived as opposed concepts. But, as a matter of fact, Paul does not distinguish here between a xa/riv that is related to the divine and a xa/riv that is related to humans. The same term is even used to refer to something that involves exclusively human interactions. If it is not assumed that Paul was lacking vocabulary, then it is most likely that he deliberately used the same word for the issues he is referring to. This can be taken as an indication that in these chapters the xa/riv of God and the xa/riv of Christ-followers are perceived not as something completely different, but rather Paul seems to refer to some aspect which is common to both the divine and the human realm. In some instances these realms are even depicted as closely related to each other, if not inseparable (2 Cor. 8.1 and 4). The writers of 2 Corinthians also did not seem to hesitate to use the term xa/riv in close relation to human action as e1rgon a0gaqo/n – doing good works. In 2 Cor. 9.8 xa/riv and e1rgon a0gaqo/n are mentioned in the same verse not as opposing principles but as closely related to each other! The xa/riv with which God provides the Corinthians 30.

Cf. Eco 2004: 9–31. Also Ehrensperger 2004a: 57–58.

Power in Action

69

in abundance should overflow and emerge in good works over against others; here for the ‘poor saints’ in Jerusalem. Xa/riv thus manifests itself in e1rgon a0gaqo/n!31 This is not so surprising when it is taken into account that clearly when Paul speaks of the xa/riv which the Macedonians have done (2 Cor. 8.1-2) and which the Corinthians ought to do (2 Cor. 8.7-8) he refers to something very concrete, that is the giving of money. There is a flow of something from God called xa/riv, which evokes in people the desire to do something as a response to it, and to pass something on to others who are in need of it. That which is passed on to others is not merely spiritual – or maybe one should rather say the spiritual is concrete in as much as it is spiritual. The concrete action of the believers on behalf of others is the visible sign of xa/riv, it is the living out of xa/riv. A form of xa/riv which is only present in a divine– human relation or just in the spirit seems inconceivable. The flow of xa/riv also does not consist in some intimate relationship of giving and receiving between God and believers. The xa/riv flowing from God is intended not just to affect humans but to have an effect on them.32 The effect should not consist in returning what has been received to the giver, this is not a reciprocal interaction in the vein of gift exchange as between patron and client.33 The effect intended/expected consists in passing on what has been received as a xa/riv. It emerges that xa/riv is something that becomes actualized in concrete human action, in the establishment of a concrete network of mutual support. The xa/riv which flows to the others is intended to have an impact on its receivers, evoking a response, thus rendering the human network initiated by God’s xa/riv a real network rather than a one-way imposition, or a relationship merely between two parties involved. What is described here – in a rather abstract way – is the establishing of a network of open mutuality; of giving and receiving consisting of, not solely but not distinct from, a concrete means of life, a network which apparently has been initiated by God.34 Mutuality has to be distinguished from reciprocity35 as it emphasizes that the relationship and the exchange therein should promote the well-being of all those involved. Reciprocity does not necessarily involve the promotion of the well-being of all those involved in a relational network. Meggitt notes that ‘… “vertical reciprocity” (that which occurs between individuals of different economic status such as for example, patronage) is, by its nature, 31. Which is obscured by the NRSV’s and the RSV’s translation of xa/riv here as ‘blessing’. 32. On affect and effect see Morriss 2002: 5–7. 33. Cf. Mauss 1966: 4–5; Bourdieu 2002: 191–202 and Saller 1982: 69–78; also Freyne 2002: 39–40. 34. Cf. also Chapter 9 below. 35. Although the Oxford English Dictionary assumes that mutuality and reciprocity are synonymous terms, within reciprocity there is an expectation and obligation to reciprocate, whereas in mutuality there is a relationship of trust in which giving does not presuppose an equivalent return. E.g. a baby’s smile represents the mutuality between parent and child.

70

Paul and the Dynamics of Power

thoroughly inequitable.’36 Patronage makes lower-ranked clients dependent on elite patrons not for the well-being of the client but for the enhancement of the status and power of the patron.37 Paul here emphasizes that where grace is involved, even though initiated by God, this is not a one-way process but intrinsic to it is a mutual concern for each other and for the well-being of all involved in the network of the Christ-movement. This emphasis is an indication of the radical difference between the values promoted within this movement and the values of the patronage system of Roman society. Moreover it needs to be noted that although Paul is trying to persuade the Corinthians to act and live according to the xa/riv they have received, he does not refer to himself here as the one who received xa/riv or as the example who should be imitated as he does in other situations.38 He is trying to persuade the Corinthians, that is, there is a power issue operative between himself and them, in that he clearly wishes that they act in accordance with the stance he holds. But, significantly, he does not refer to some special power, i.e. e0cousi/a, or authority he supposedly has, to legitimize his request. Nor does he refer to a divine revelation or the ‘the grace given to him’39 he rather refers to another group of Christ-followers, those from Macedonia, as the examples to be imitated, thus inviting the Corinthians to join in this action of xa/riv. It is evident that xa/riv in 2 Corinthians 8 and 9 is referring to something concrete which is enacted between people. Since this seems to be something different from the xa/riv which is referred to in relation to God, scholars have solved the problem by proposing to differentiate between a theological and non-theological use of the term in the Pauline letters.40 Thereby the theological concept of grace was created. Some of the problems which arise from such a narrowing conceptual perception concerning power claims as claims of domination have already been mentioned.41 Thus, if the meaning of xa/riv is not divided along theological and nontheological lines and, as demonstrated, does have a very concrete dimension of social activity inherent to it, what then is it that can be spoken of in such a variety of ways while using the same Greek term? And what significance has all this for a perception of the power dynamics inherent in the actions and interactions referred to by the term xa/riv? Since the Pauline discourse is perceived as being firmly embedded within the world of the Scriptures and Jewish tradition it is to this that I will now turn.

36. Meggitt 1998: 158. 37. Such ‘acts maintained not transformed political, economic, and societal inequality and privilege’ Carter 2006: 9. 38. Cf. Chapter 8 below. 39. As in Rom. 12.3 and 15.15. 40. Thus also Beker who is of the view that Paul gives the term its pivotal significance in that it ‘underscores the character of the Christ-event as a radically new gift that negates the old order. It signifies the complete reversal from life under the wrath of God and the power of sin to the new life of freedom and open access to God’ (1980: 264). 41. See 4.2 above.

Power in Action

71

4.4 The Power of Grace According to the Scriptures 4.4.1 Xa/riv and the Nh/ dsx Debate In various recent scholarly approaches42 it has been argued that the term xa/riv as it is used in the Pauline letters is best understood in relation to its Graeco-Roman context. James R. Harrison, for instance, argues that Paul deliberately chose to use the word xa/riv as a keyword for his message to the gentiles because by the first century ‘charis had become the fundamental leitmotiv of the Hellenistic reciprocity system.’43 The language of grace was most prominently used in the benefaction system of the Roman Empire with the gods and Caesars at the top of the pyramid, bestowing their inferiors with xa/ritev (charities) and being thanked for these through reciprocal cultic obligation.44 Whereas I do not doubt that this omnipresent system and its linguistic expressions must have had some impact on Paul’s use of language, and the addressees’ reception of the letter content, I doubt whether his choice of this particular term xa/riv was exclusively or even most prominently rooted in this Graeco-Roman context. The language of grace existed in the Scriptures before it became a leitmotiv in a different sense in the benefaction system of the first-century Roman Empire. There is a discourse of grace in the Scriptures and Jewish tradition which most likely informed Paul’s discourse of grace probably on a much deeper level than the one he learned about in the public sphere of the empire. This is not to deny Hellenistic influence on his way of reasoning but his basic pattern and the primary relation is to the faith tradition of his ancestors rather than to Greek philosophy or Roman politics.45 This has a significant impact on the perception of the power issues involved in the Pauline use of the language of xa/riv. It is advantageous, at this point, to discuss the ongoing debate on the background of Paul’s use of the terminology of grace. For a number of reasons, recent approaches allow only for a limited impact of scriptural or first-century Jewish tradition on Paul’s use of the term. Thus Crook notes the different structures of Jewish and Graeco-Roman societies as follows: … pre-common-era Palestine did not have a patron-client or a benefactor-client social structure. While the Greeks and Romans had a clearly demarcated social institution of patronage and benefaction, and a fairly broad vocabulary to go with it, Israelite society lacked both. Therefore it would be difficult to claim that Jews thought of their

42. Joubert 2000; Harrison 2003; Crook 2004. 43. Harrison 2003:63 44. Harrison 2003: 211. The context of the Graeco-Roman benefaction system of patrons and clients as the actual context of Paul’s use of xa/riv terminology is also strongly emphasized by Crook 2004: 132–50. 45. This even applies to Philo who despite being deeply influenced by Platonism nevertheless adhered to the primacy of the tradition of his ancestors. Cf. Ehrensperger 2004a: 84–92 and 125–32, also Elliott 2002: 36–41.

72

Paul and the Dynamics of Power God as a patron or a benefactor since they lacked any social model and vocabulary which might serve as a metaphor.46

But Crook nevertheless contends that all this suddenly changed with the encounter of Judaism with Hellenism, whereupon the language and imagery of patronage and benefaction was not only introduced into the structure of Jewish society, but was also used by Jews in relation to their interactions with their God. This seems to be an assertion based on the anachronistic presumption that upon the arrival of a distinct and foreign framework of thinking about, and acting in relation to, the Divine realm the Jews suddenly changed to this new mode, abandoning particular and differing traditions long held and cherished at the expense of something else! This seems particularly strange since, as Crook acknowledges, the Jewish tradition provided its members with a pattern of interaction between God and humans as well as within society which differed fundamentally from the patronage–benefaction pattern. Crook maintains that by the time of the emergence of the early Christ-movement their use of language and cultural embeddedness was predominantly rooted in GraecoRoman perceptions, which included the use of the term xa/riv. What reasons would a society have to change its functioning pattern of social interactions and interactions with the Divine except under pressure or threat of violence?47 Thus although it is conceivable that a small elite group of Jewish society did accommodate to some extent to Graeco-Roman patterns of social interactions, this is inconceivable for the majority of the population, in Palestine as well as in the Diaspora.48 Harrison’s brief overview of the influence of the Scriptures is limited to the Septuagint and the occurrence of the term xa/riv there.49 It is lexicographically right to state that xa/riv in the LXX is used to translate the relatively rare Hebrew word Nh which in the Scriptures mainly denotes a unilateral, undeserved and unexpected favour of a superior. From this Harrison concludes that Paul in choosing to use the term xa/riv wanted to emphasize the unilateral and undeserved favour of God. This contradicted the perception of xa/riv in the Graeco-Roman reciprocity system within which the distribution of xa/ritev always was bound to an expected return of the favour in some form – for example, in the form of political or military loyalty. In using this term, Harrison notes, Paul alluded to something his converts were familiar with – but thus subverted the Graeco-Roman understanding of xa/riv via the understanding of xa/riv as Nh. Harrison convincingly argues that Paul’s language of grace subtly undermines the social expectations aroused by the Graeco-Roman reciprocity system … Paul’s language of grace also provides a 46. Crook 2004: 79. 47. Cf. Baltrusch 2002: 145–47; Stegemann/Stegemann 1999: 128–36. 48. Cf. Stegemann/Stegemann 1999: 133–35. But see also Ilan who argues that the Hasmonaean Queen Shelomzion strongly promoted the Pharisaic movement (2006: 43–60). On the creative but nevertheless entirely Jewish interaction with Hellenistic influence cf. also Gruen 1998: 188 and Ehrensperger 2004a: 83–92. 49. Harrison 2003: 106–10.

Power in Action

73

new vision of social relationships within the body of Christ, partially inverting the hierarchical structure of Graeco-Roman society that was promoted by the reciprocity system.50

It may well be that the Pauline discourse of grace could have resonated in the target audience’s ears in the way described by Harrison. But whether they would have concluded from hearing allusions to this familiar reciprocity system that the Pauline use of xa/riv actually implied an inversion of that same system is in my view at least doubtful, since this presupposes that they had some knowledge of the dimension of undeserved favour of the Hebrew term Nh. I am even less convinced that this reciprocity structure of the Roman patronage system was the primary root of the source, that is, of Paul’s use of the terminology. Moreover, in Harrison’s approach the content of this xa/riv is perceived, as in most New Testament scholarship,51 exclusively as the salvific act of Christ, a perception which christologizes the term without any further explanation.52 The Christ-event seems to occur as an event which has no historical or social or theological context, an act of God out of nowhere! I mentioned above that I perceive such a perception as problematic since the meaning of xa/riv then is reduced to a unique, unrepeatable act of God in Christ’s death and resurrection. Whereas I am favourably disposed to a reading of the discourse of xa/riv in Paul as a subversive discourse, since it fits into a perception of the early Christ-movement as living in some way a hidden transcript of resistance,53 I am not convinced that this hidden discourse of another ‘world’ is as much embedded and informed by Graeco-Roman values, even in an inverted form, as Harrison argues. I thus propose a reading which takes into account that the senders’ symbolic universe and their life-world is to a much greater extent embedded in, and shaped by, the Scriptures than the excellent monographs of Harrison, Joubert and Crook allow for. This is not to deny that the death and resurrection of Christ is central in Paul’s discourse of grace as it is in his theologizing as a whole, but even these events happened in a specific context, that is, the cultural and social world of the Jewish people under the conditions of the Roman Empire. Moreover the cross and resurrection were not significant as isolated events, but as part of the events of Jesus’ life as a whole.54 In emphasizing this we locate the Christ-event and Paul’s language of xa/riv primarily in a specific symbolic universe – the world of Israel and the Scriptures.55 This has, as will be demonstrated, implications for the perception of the power dynamics inherent in the xa/riv discourse as well. 50. Harrison 2003: 322–23. 51. As mentioned in 4.2 above. 52. So also Beker 1980: 264–65. 53. Scott 1990: 1–16; Harrison 2003: 322. 54. Cf. Brondos who emphasizes ‘His death must not be seen in isolation from his ministry’ (2006: 45). 55. This is not to deny that there is some Graeco-Roman influence on Paul, the question is what shapes his social context and symbolic universe primarily. It is a question which in modern times has been raised by Franz Rosenzweig, see Ehrensperger 2004a: 65–92.

74

Paul and the Dynamics of Power

It is thus significant to note then that the semantic field of xa/riv in the Scriptures encompassed more than just one lexicographical translation – as is presumed when rendering xa/rivas the precise translation of Nh. If in the Hebrew Bible the words Nh, dsx, hbh), Mmixr, are perceived as closely related to each other and sometimes – depending on the context, are even interchangeable56 – it is impossible to reduce the translation of one word – Nh – to one single meaning. This is supported by the observation that there was an increasing tendency among first-century Jewish writers, writing in Greek, to exchange e1leov (mercy) and xa/riv (grace), using them interchangeably, in their description of God’s favour towards humans – that is, of his dsx or Nh.57 Also the fact that the LXX translates the active cognates of Nx such as Nwnx (gracious) and Nnx, (to be gracious, to be merciful) with e1leov rather than cognates of xa/riv should be taken as an indication of the fluidity and close relation of these terms to others such as dsx etc. The LXX does not give sufficient evidence of the clear distinction between the terms in question as proposed by Harrison and others. An analysis of Paul’s use of the term xa/riv in his discourse of grace in my view thus cannot be restricted to the GraecoRoman context of benefaction language58 but has to take into account the wider range of the semantic field of the terminology of the Hebrew Scriptures, including other cultural and social aspects, as the basis of a first-century Jewish understanding of the discourse. However, I will limit the analysis to aspects of the terminology of the Hebrew Scriptures (as the implications of other cultural, social and sociological aspects would be beyond the particular scope of this study). To take the wider range of meaning of the terminology of the Hebrew Scriptures into account is not only linguistically significant but has, moreover, profound implications for a perception of the power dynamics in the Pauline discourse of grace. If, in a lexicographically narrowed perspective, Nx in its dimension of stressing the unilateral aspect of a favour, is viewed as the only adequate term behind Paul’s use of xa/riv, the theological tendency is promoted to emphasize uniquely the aspect of God’s unilateral, unconditioned and unmerited favour which does not presuppose any specific tie or bond.

56. Cf. Clark 1993. Also Harrison notes the relatedness of these terms! (2003: 106). 57. These aspects are described by Flack 1960: 137–54. Also in later Old Testament writings such as Esther and Sirach dsx is translated as xa/riv, cf. Esth. 2.9, 2.17; Sir. 29.2128; 17.22; 40.17. Cf. also Harrison 2003: 286. See also Glueck who notes that the authors of the Targum, Peshitta and LXX did not find a sharp difference between Nh and dsx for in some instances the same Aramaic, Syriac or Greek word was used to render both Nh and dsh (1967: 20). 58. Crook’s analysis which contributes significantly to a more concrete understanding of the discourse of grace tends to see this discourse too narrowly as having affinities with the patronage and benefaction system of Graeco-Roman society. Although he is aware of the difference between a Jewish perception of the divine–human relationship he finds a ‘… sort of pan-Mediterranean framework for understanding and expressing the relationship between humans and their gods’ (2004: 195). The possibility of other than Graeco-Roman cultural influences, which contributed to this perception is not taken adequately into account.

Power in Action

75

An image of God is promoted as a detached being acting like an arbitrary, unpredictable and unreliable tyrant. The implications for the emerging image of messengers commissioned by this God are obvious. The messengers seem then to be legitimately claiming and exercising power-over others in a way which sees no problem in dominating and controlling them. But if the dynamic of translation as negotiation of which the LXX gives evidence59 is taken into account, it is entirely justifiable in an analysis of the Pauline discourse of xa/riv to perceive it as embedded in, and resonating with, aspects of the wider terminology of grace in the Scriptures.

4.4.2 The Covenantal Dimension of Nh/ dsx Whilst I cannot give a detailed analysis of the terminology of grace covering the entire range of the Scriptures, it is important to note that the discourse encompasses not merely one but a range of terms, including hbh) and sxd, tm), which relate to each other and which in different contexts emphasize divergent aspects of human relationships or of the relationship between God and his people. All of these terms in some way or other denote aspects of a relationship be it between humans, or between God and humans. When applied to God the terms indicate the priority of God’s unmerited initiative in establishing a bond between himself and humans, particularly with his people Israel. This relationship is founded exclusively on deep divine love, a love that anticipates any favourable act of God towards his people. This love leads to a self-commitment of God in his tyrb (covenant) with Israel. The language of grace thus ought to be perceived in this context as covenantal language. The only term, Nh, which does not presuppose any previous tie between the parties involved is significantly only rarely used of God, but primarily of people. As Gordon R. Clark has noted ‘The covenant in which he formulates this relationship expresses his loving commitment to them – a commitment that persists even in the face of their unfaithfulness.’60 Moreover, Clark demonstrates, while the term is used ‘… with both humans and God as agent, the patient is always human but never divine.’61 The term, when applied to God, thus clearly expresses that God’s favourable actions towards his people are in no way dependent on human initiative or involve a notion of reciprocity. Nevertheless, dsx is something which is part of a deep and enduring commitment, when applied to a relationship between humans as well as between God and humans. Thus, although the relationship is initiated exclusively by God and his dsx is given to his people unconditionally, the relationship is not unilateral. God’s initiative has an effect on those at the receiving end, it provokes a reaction, that is, a response.62 59. Which may well be an indication for the fluidity of translations in a predominantly oral culture. See Chapter 7 below. 60. Clark 1993: 131. 61. Clark 1993: 259. 62. See Chapter 9 below.

76

Paul and the Dynamics of Power

This is only a short overview of some of the relevant structural aspects of dsx. It is necessary briefly to pay attention to the content of dsx relevant to this chapter: dsx implies a favourable attitude towards the other which inherently leads to activities which are beneficial for him/her. It is thus not merely something or some sentiment one has in one’s mind or feels in one’s heart but it is an attitude leading to an action in favour of the other. It is ‘a beneficent action performed in the context of a deep and enduring commitment between two persons or parties by one who is able to render assistance to the needy party who, in the circumstances, is unable to help him- or herself.’63 What this actually and in specific circumstances implies is left open almost without limits. Although dsx can be used to express aspects of human relationships it is significantly a term which is used as characteristic of God. It is rooted in his love and leads to deliverance, forgiveness, and life in abundance. As Snaith states ‘Actually, God’s ahabah (love) for Israel is the very basis and the only cause of the existence of the covenant between God and Israel. Ahabah is the cause of the covenant; chesed is the means of its continuance …’64 God’s overflowing favour, that is, his dsx to his people is thus primarily and foremost, an activity not an attitude. It is something which emerges within a relationship and which evokes a reaction, a response by the recipients. But this reaction is not necessarily, and as is presupposed in the benefaction system, something which has to be equivalent to the gift. It is also not something which is expected by the giver to enhance his own status and power. It is rather supposed to be a response which implies an affirmation of the relationship and which is appropriate to it in its emphasis on mutuality. The overflowing positive attention or favour received cannot but emerge in an overflowing gracious activity on the part of the receivers. This is not the same as giving something back to the giver in order to secure his abundant favour, or share in his power-over others. In the Scriptures it is, for example, the doing of justice (Mic. 6.8 ; Isa. 58.6-14) within the community or towards outsiders ( Deut. 24.17-18), as well as activities of dsx towards others (Hos. 6.6) which are perceived as adequate responses to the giver, that is God. The response consists in specific forms of social interaction, for example, in human solidarity, justice and mutuality. Thus, though God’s dsx and Nx (and other related terms) are unconditional, they are not unilateral, being dispersed regardless of any reaction. These are relational terms, including even the term Nx, since to give something to someone is a relational action, aimed at having some sort of impact on the receiver. The semantic field of the Hebrew words which I consider to be behind Paul’s use of the language of xa/riv demonstrates that relationality and mutuality are inherent to the acts and attitudes described by it. There is no unilateralism nor is there any indication of power in a dominating sense 63. 64.

Clark 1993: 267. Snaith 1944: 95.

Power in Action

77

involved here. Power is involved in as much as the semantic field of Nh/dsx indicates that the actions and attitudes which are exercised have a positive, favourable and life-supporting impact on the receivers. Through Nh/dsx something happens which has an effect, something which ‘makes a difference’ in the lives of people. The terminology of Nh/dsx refers to a significant aspect of a positive, life-enhancing discourse of power, to a dimension of a discourse of empowerment. In my view these important aspects of the Nh/dsx terminology of the Hebrew Scriptures had a major impact on Paul’s language of xa/riv. I doubt if he actually opted for the Greek word xa/riv rather than the LXX e1leov, as Harrison contends, because he tried to avoid any idea of mutuality attached to dsx in the Hebrew Scriptures. This seems to be a rather lexicographically narrow argument and in fact does not do justice to the breadth of meaning the terminology of Nh/dsx embraces.65 Perceived from this perspective, it is not just by mere accident that Paul again and again in the paraenetical sections of his letters as for example in Rom. 13.8-10, refers to the doing of the commandments of the Torah as the adequate response to God’s overflowing grace and mercy. It is the response that has been regarded as adequate in the symbolic universe and social world of a small people who lived at the margins of imperial powers and tried to live their lives according to standards which differed from the common patterns of dominating hierarchical and exploitive power. As such, a hidden transcript of resistance to dominating powers is inherent in the symbolic universe and social world of this people.66 This pattern of life according to the abundant gifts of God had a long tradition reflected in the Scriptures of Israel (e.g. Ps. 33.5; Hos. 6.6; Mic. 6.8). Paul’s use and understanding of xa/riv as the description of supportive action is rooted in and informed by this tradition, (thus sharing in the Jewish hidden transcript of an alternative to a dominating exercise of power).67 The Pauline discourse should thus primarily be interpreted from within the context of first-century Judaism, and only in a step following on from this should the question be addressed whether and how the Pauline discourse of grace resonates with, or inverts the Graeco-Roman patronage and benefaction discourse. It cannot be ruled out, as mentioned above, that the gentile audience of the Pauline letters did hear certain themes and a certain terminology as resonating with the benefaction discourse with which they were familiar and with which they had to cope.68 In the process of transmission a scenario can be envisaged in which this reception in conjunction with other dimensions which are inherently challenging the 65. Cf. Harrison 2003: 106 and 158. 66. Which as Baltrusch demonstrates lead to the clash with Rome’s imperial power claims (2002: 149–57). 67. As Rock notes ‘It is therefore plausible to see Paul’s use of the motifs of grace and peace as a distinct socio-linguistic pattern of the hidden transcript of a subordinated community that expresses its hopes and desires in its public transcript’ (2007: 192MS). 68. Cf. also Horsley 2000a: 82–87.

78

Paul and the Dynamics of Power

imperial system of domination and violence, such as the proclamation of one crucified as saviour, became particularly important.69 But it is a reception which did not leave a remarkable trace in the reception history of the Pauline letters, rather the discourse of grace was read in support of specific authority claims of leaders in positions of domination and control. The reading proposed here renders such an interpretation of the Pauline discourse of grace rather anachronistic and to perceive it as a discourse of hidden domination or as an indication for a fundamental break with Judaism means to read the Pauline discourse of grace as applying hermeneutical presuppositions of a fully developed Christian theology of grace to the firstcentury discourse. 4.5 Conclusion: Grace as Mutual Empowerment The starting point for the analysis of Paul’s language of xa/riv in this chapter was the example of the discourse of xa/riv in the collection project. It has been demonstrated that for Paul xa/riv/grace here is not something merely spiritual or merely a theological concept. Rather, the spiritual and material aspects form an inseparable entity through which the well-being of others, in this case of the Jewish Christ-followers in Jerusalem, is supported. This support significantly involves material help rather than being merely spiritual. This ‘materialistic’ perception of grace certainly had analogies in the GraecoRoman understanding of xa/riv – but, as I have demonstrated, it can also be argued that Paul’s understanding of xa/riv is primarily informed by and rooted in the scriptural sense of Nh/dsx. This does not imply that this material dimension is not also inherent to the scriptural discourse of Nh/dsx but, as a significant dimension of the covenant discourse, its focus is primarily relational.70 The discourse of xa/riv is thus primarily not a theological or christological discourse but is material and relational. Theological and, in Paul’s case christological, aspects are inherent in this discourse but these aspects are shaped according to scriptural implications of the Nh/dsx discourse rather than by the Graeco-Roman value system. To perceive the discourse of xa/riv as relational implies that power is implicit in this discourse as Sandra Hack Polaski has rightly emphasized. But the power involved in this discourse must be perceived as being of a different kind than that of the dominating hierarchical power of the GraecoRoman patronage/benefaction system. Paul’s scripturally rooted discourse of xa/riv implies more than a mere reversal of the dominating imperial power 69. Cf. Chapters 6 and 9 below. 70. This has significance in various ways. In this scriptural perspective, as e.g. in Isa. 25.6-8, spiritual well-being and life in abundance are closely intertwined and a binary hierarchal opposition between the two aspects cannot be discovered. The material is in no way inferior to the spiritual aspect as a separation of these dimensions does not even seem to be imaginable. It emerges from this that a dualism in the sense of a binary opposition between a spiritual and material dimension cannot be found in Paul’s discourse of grace.

Power in Action

79

discourse. A reversal of an existing structure does not change anything as structures of domination and subordination are merely turned upside down. This only leads to the establishment of new structures of domination and subordination, the only change effected is the exchange of the people in the dominating positions.71 Thus an interpretation of the Pauline discourse which views him simply as inverting existing power structures actually confirms that it inevitably contributed to the establishment of structures of domination and static hierarchies in church and society very much like those of the Roman Empire.72 The reading offered here perceives the Pauline discourse and the discourse of xa/riv in particular, as clearly distinct from Roman imperial power but, rather than inverting structures of domination, Paul is seen as arguing for an alternative approach. What Paul tries to clarify for the Corinthians in 2 Corinthians 8 and 9 is that the abundance of xa/riv which they had been granted has made them rich not merely for themselves, and not merely spiritually, but that this is something which, in response to the giver, ought to be passed on, in this case in material form, to others. Moreover, this wealth which they have received does not render them patrons who are superior to those in need in Jerusalem. Their generosity will not enhance their status or power-over other Christfollowers. The ‘poor saints’ in Jerusalem will not be bound as clients in a relationship which is dominated by reciprocity. The xa/riv received by God does not establish a hierarchical structure of domination and subordination among the different Christ-following groups. Their thankfulness should rather overflow and contribute to the network of mutual material, as well as spiritual, empowerment and support, to a network of horizontal solidarity among all Christ-followers initiated by God’s grace through Christ.73 I am not denying any hierarchical tendencies within the early Christ-movement as well as in Jewish society of that period but these hierarchies seem to have resembled more ‘flexible’ hierarchies as described by Derrida than the static hierarchies of the Roman Empire which soon began to be replicated within the structures of the churches. Paul’s discourse of xa/riv is a discourse of power in that xa/riv is something by which people have a positive effect on each other. But it is a discourse originating in and patterned upon the grace of the God of Israel – not of any patron of the Graeco-Roman benefaction system. God is not perceived as a patron, not even as an ‘alternative patron’ who would replace all other patrons. Within the narrative of the Scriptures God does not fit any human description or analogy. Thus the purpose of the giving of xa/ritev is not to increase the power over the recipients. Abundant grace in its material and spiritual dimension is overflowing from God not in order to establish and maintain a position of domination and control of the giver over the recipients 71. Cf Georgi 1997: 148–57. 72. As Schüssler Fiorenza in her critique of the mere reversing of power structures as in fact establishing old power structures in a new way has clearly demonstrated ( 2000: 40–57; 50). 73. On flexible hierarchies see Derrida 2002: 20–21.

80

Paul and the Dynamics of Power

but to promote the empowerment and the well-being of the recipients. And although the flow of grace is solely rooted in God, the relationship initiated by Him is not unilateral. The adequate response to this abundance consists in a life lived out of grace, a passing on of the material and spiritual gift, again, not in order to establish a reversed structure of domination but to actively promote the empowerment and well-being of others in a network of mutual empowerment. This perspective on Paul’s discourse of grace which started with an example drawn from the concrete life of Christ-followers has lead to the discovery in Paul’s discourse of grace of a subversive discourse of power but not of domination, nor of the inversion of domination but an alternative discourse of mutual empowerment firmly rooted in the Scriptures of Israel. Xa/riv is whatever contributes to the empowerment of people to live their lives as envisioned in the promises of old, confirmed by God in the resurrection of Christ.

88

Paul and the Dynamics of Power

by God for a specic purpose is called not on the basis of any merit or quality inherent in him/her but because of Gods xa/riv. 26 This certainly also applies to Paul, but it is not limited to Paul, and not specically related to the fact that he had opposed the Christ-movement earlier in his life. All the apostles were called and entrusted with a specic task within the movement, and thus had to be rendered t for purpose. Nowhere is this questioned in the Pauline letters, but rather it is acknowledged where it comes explicitly to the fore (Gal. 2.7-8). Thus Pauls emphasis on the close link between xa/riv and a0 postolh/ should not be read as an emphasis on his unique apostleship, or a unique act of forgiveness, but rather that he too, like the other apostles, has 27 been looked upon favourably by God in being commissioned by him. All that Paul emphasizes then is that he has been specically commissioned to ei0 v u9pakoh \n pi/stewv e 0n pa = sin toi = v e1qnesin (to bring about obedience of faith among all the gentiles [Rom. 1.5]), that is, Paul perceives his apostleship as related to a specic task which has clear limitations, geographically and otherwise. In 15.19 he states that he has fullled the gospel of Christ from Jerusalem and as far round as Illyricum and he holds that there is no longer any room in these regions (15.23) for him and his apostolic call. This is an indication that in claiming to be an apostle, Paul, even in emphasizing the dimension of xa/riv in and with it, does not claim authority generally, everywhere and in any circumstance but in a very specic and clearly limited way for a specic purpose. 28 xa/riv and a 0 postolh/ so closely, Here it is important to note that in linking Paul indicates that he perceives the specic and thus limited task with which he has been commissioned in his call as a gift from God, a favour from God he is blessed with. In explicitly linking this xa/riv with his commissioning to bring about obedience of faith among all the gentiles he also makes it evident that he did not receive this xa/riv as a personal favour which he could enjoy for himself. It is rather something which is inherently relational in that only in responding to the call by acting upon it, and doing what this xa/riv encompassed, is Paul true to his a 0postolh/. Although Paul and his colleagues do not apply prophetic language directly to themselves and their tasks within 29 the movement, the allusions to prophetic topics can hardly be ignored. In parallel to the communal dimension in the prophetic commissioning this communal aspect is also inherent in Pauls and his colleagues perception of a0 postolh/. It is also signicant to note that Paul at some point writes that he cannot do other than proclaim the gospel this xa/riv which is given to him is by no means something merely enjoyable Paul perceives it as leaving him no choice to reject his call. It is an experience similar to what is expressed in the 26. hesed . 27. 28. 29.

Israel as the prototype of all the called, is called not because of merit but of Gods See 3.1.2 above, also Jewett 2006: 638. See also 2.4.2. I will elaborate on this in more detail later in Chapter 7. See 5.2 above.

The Grace and Burden of Apostleship

89

call narratives of Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel. 30 It could thus be perceived as anachronistic to regard such a compelling experience as a gift, a xa/riv, a divine favour at all. This sounds more like the voluntary submission to a superior who actually does not leave the other a real alternative since the inequality in power could force the other into submission by coercion or violence irrespective of his/her consent. To call such a voluntary submission xa/riv then would have ironic if not cynical overtones. One could also hear this commissioning resonate with the honour of a superior shedding his glory on his servants or subordinates in a patronclient relationship/society. If the power of God is perceived in the categories of a power system which is based on force, domination and violence as was the case in the Roman Empire and its system of patronage, then it would actually be rather strange to talk of his commissioning as a xa/riv. But it is not anachronistic to view it as such if it is seen in the context presupposed in this study which implies that the claim of the sovereignty of the God of Israel challenges the sovereignty of any other power or ruler. Thus, inherent in being commissioned by him is the rejection of being commissioned 31 by anybody else, to listen to him means to listen to no one else. Thus there is sound logic in the perception of Paul: to be commissioned by God to a specic task even if this is experienced as leaving the receiver of the call with no alternative except a positive response is actually a mere xa/riv. The specic task has to do with Gods redeeming activity on behalf of his people and the nations and is thus freeing the one who is called from all bondage to human oppressive domination. (Paul reminding his converts that they are called reminds them that they are freed from prior bondage to rulers of this world this is certainly perceived as a xa/riv given to them!) The close link between xa/riv and a 0postolh/ is also illuminating for a reading of Rom. 12.3 - dia \ th = v xa/ritov th = v doqei/shv moi (for the grace given to me) . It is likely that the reference to xa/riv here too is a reference to Pauls commissioning, to his specic a 0postolh/ rather than to salvation in Christ or justication by faith. It emerges that the apostle feels the need to explain, again, why he perceives himself as being entitled to write and provide ethical guidance to the Christ-followers in Rome. A reference to salvation in Christ to support an authority claim over against them would seem to overstate the case here. 32 But a repeat of the reference to his function in the Christ-movement, to his role of e0qnw= n a 0po/stolov (Rom. 11.13) , as the 33 reason for providing them with ethical guidance seems quite appropriate. I also cannot nd any indication that he has to defend himself here over against anybody (opponents etc.) but rather that he seems to see a necessity to explain

30. See Isa. 6.1-13; Jer. 1.4-10; Ezek. 2.1-8. 31. See Plietzsch 2005a: 31-49. 32. Contra Polaski 1999: 110-111. 33. The dia/ followed by the accusative implies the reason why something happens, exists, results and thus has explanatory connotations (BAGD 181 referred to in Jewett 2006: 906).

90

Paul and the Dynamics of Power

this because it does not follow a normal pattern. To be commissioned to be an apostle seems to imply to be a founder of Christ-following communities with a policy of non-interference (Rom. 15.20). Paul explains at various points in Romans that he is aware that he does something which is not selfevident, but which in his perception nevertheless is in accordance with his commissioning and means not going beyond previously agreed boundaries (2 Cor. 10.13-16) . This reading of the phrase in Rom. 12.3 is supported by the parallel kata \ th \n xa/rin th \n doqei= san h 9mi= n (according to the grace given to us) in 12.6 which clearly refers to divergent gifts/functions that each member of the community has received rather than to a theological or christological doctrine or some quality unique to Paul. 34 And in 15.15-16 the link between xa/riv and a 0postolh/ is even explicit in that Paul explains that the grace given to him by God is to be an agent of Christ Jesus among the gentiles (my translation), ( dia \th \n xa/rin th \n doqei= sa/n moi u9po \tou =qeou=ei0 v to \ei]nai/ me leitourgo \n Xristou =Ih0sou =ei0v ta \e1qnh).35 Through reference to xa/riv he thus refers to his a 0 postolh/ which he outlined at the beginning of the letter (1.1-5) and which he interprets as encompassing some sort of relationship with the Christ-followers in Rome (1.6). 36 But he carefully tries to avoid claiming too much, as he is well aware that this is not one of his communities (Rom 1.12) and his role therefore is different from that within the groups he founded. 5.4 Pauls Perception of

Xa/riv in Relation to A0 postolh/

The interpretation of Gal. 1.15-16, 2.16 and Rom. 1.5, 12.3, 6 and 15.15-16 supports insights gained already in our analysis of the discourse of grace in 2 Corinthians 89. In these passages the reference to xa/riv is not so much a christological reference to salvation in Christ but it refers rather to the concrete commissioning to a specic task. Xa/riv here is thus used by Paul to indicate that he perceives his work among the nations, his task, difcult as it is, as a favour God has shown him, rather than as a burden put upon him. His function to be an apostle to the nations is interpreted by Paul as something he is thankful for on the one hand, but also as something he did not choose to do. His apostleship does not depend on any human power, nor his own accomplishment, but only on God. This is a bold and humble statement at the same time. He claims to be commissioned by the God of Israel and at the same time he is merely a tool for Gods purpose. It is a self-perception he 37 shares with prophets and other servants of the Lord. In its humbleness it 34. Dunn 1988: 720. 35. For a discussion of the use of the term leitourgo/v see Jewett 2006: 90607. 36. Jewett 2006: 738. 37. Cf. Schtz who notes that Paul should consistently conclude that all apostles manifest grace (1975: 148).

The Grace and Burden of Apostleship

91

also encompasses hidden resistance to any other dependencies on any other powers. In the context of the Roman Empire this could be described as a hidden claim to an alternative leadership in a movement whose narrative, focused around one crucied, was a hidden transcript of resistance against the powers and rulers of this world. Paul thus, when he speaks of the grace given to him, does refer to his leadership role in that movement, but he thereby emphasizes precisely that this means he is entrusted with one particular function among others in the movement. This is not denying that in it there is no power issue in relation to this perception of xa/riv and a 0postolh/. Paul does perceive himself and his colleagues as empowered to take on leadership roles within the Christmovement. This is a claim to power in the sense of exercising power-over the communities but keeping in mind that the message encompasses the proclamation of Christ crucied and resonates with prophetic topics, the apostles exercise of power must be analysed in light of this. Self-enhancement through such an understanding of power then seems contradictory to the content of the message itself. 38 Despite its boldness it is primarily a functional and, in some instances, merely an explanatory claim (Rom. 12.3) rather than a claim to some absolute authority via Christology. 39 Thus xa/riv and a 0postolh/ are intrinsically linked yet not because of the soteriolocial or christological content Paul attributes to xa/riv but because this is how Paul perceives the service he is called to do as a gift of God. Moreover, it is a task not voluntarily chosen by Paul and his colleagues, 40 and this aspect resonates with the portrayal of prophets in the Scriptures. To investigate prophetic tradition for further indications which might resonate with aspects of Pauls perception of apostleship and his self-perception as the least of the apostles (1 Cor. 15.9) thus seems an obvious and promising step. 5.5 Authority and Power in Prophetic and Apostolic Sending Having elaborated the perception of apostleship as a xa/riv, a further issue in need of clarication is where the concept of the apostolate originated and what it actually encompassed in Pauls time. Often its prophetic dimension is doubted because the term a 0po/stolov cannot be found in prophetic literature, or the corresponding Hebrew nomen tyl# $as a title referring to a prophet. The function of an envoy ( tyl# $) of a community, group or person is only evidenced in rst-century Judaism after 70 CE . Thus it has been concluded by some scholars that the roots of the apostolate in the 38. See Chapter 6 below. 39. Bockmuehl notes that Paul never bases authority claims on divine revelation (1990: 227). 40. Jer 1.6-8; Isa 6.5; Ezek. 2.33.3; also the call and commissioning of Moses Ex 3.114.17.

Chapter 3

THE EXERCISE OF POWER – NETWORKING IN THE EARLY CHRIST-MOVEMENT It is most intriguing how the image of Paul as an independent hero fighting against all odds for his law-free gentile mission could ever have emerged. Whatever approach one favours in reading his letters, there is no indication that their author tried to promote such an image. Had he done so, how could it be explained that except for one letter, Romans, he always mentions other people as co-senders and at the conclusion of most letters he is not the only person to send greetings to the addressees. From the additional characterization of these co-senders it can be concluded that they are members of the Christ-movement. Often there is also a hint or clear indication concerning the function or task of these senders within the movement. Although he mentions himself first, and his name consistently appears throughout all the undisputed letters at the beginning of the letter, it is obvious that Paul does not claim to address the recipients as a lonely voice but makes it clear from the beginning that what he is writing is the product of a group of at least two members of the Christ-movement, and thus a corporate enterprise. But it is not only the opening and closing of the ‘Pauline’ letters that provide clear information of Paul as being part of a group closely working together; there are numerous indications throughout these letters which demonstrate that Paul was part of a significant network of people which formed the Christ-movement, a fact he apparently had no intention of hiding. There are 57 named people mentioned as in some way related to Paul in his letters1 and of these Ollrog in his 1979 monograph found a significant number who are described as fellow-workers (sunergoi/) in Christ.2 These are only the ones mentioned by name – which do not include all the brothers and sisters, apostles, co-workers and colleagues etc., who are mentioned in a more general way.3 This significant number of people explicitly mentioned in the letters as working together with Paul, with one another, with and within the Christ-following communities alone demonstrates that the image 1. 2. 3.

Lietart Peerbolte 2003: 228–30. Ollrog 1979: 68–72. See Ollrog 1979: 62.

36

Paul and the Dynamics of Power

of the lonely hero of emergent Christianity is flawed, and its roots must lie somewhere other than in the letters since these present a very different image. From the opening and closing and from the people mentioned by name in the body of the letters, the image of a man emerges who is part of a network of people, closely related and in contact with others, interacting and communicating within this network. Most significantly, this network had not been initiated by Paul himself4 but was joined by him at an early stage, as is evident from his first visit to Jerusalem (cf. Gal. 1.18-19), and early references to his proclamation of the gospel (Gal. 1.23). From the very beginning of Paul’s participation in it, it is obvious that ‘… the Pauline mission was an activity not of a single man, but of a group of people.’ 5 The image of the lonely hero must have developed elsewhere. Perhaps it was nurtured by the ideals particularly prominent in the German ‘Bildungsbürgertum’ of the late eighteenth and nineteenth century, which maintained that a man should aim at becoming a ‘Persönlichkeit’. In addition to being well educated this included the ideal of being independent, that is, not being influenced by anybody or anything. The image of Paul depicted by F. C. Baur and others at the time has some similarities with this ideal. He emerges as the ‘Persönlichkeit’ who liberated Christianity from nationalism and particularism in order to reveal its true self-understanding as the universal religion of a law-free gospel.6 The notions of the independent theologian and his proclamation of a so-called law-free gospel in which differences between people are obliterated and all are the same in Christ go hand in hand. But not only does the presence of the co-workers, whether named or not, provide evidence that Paul did not perceive himself as working independently and as a single apostle, but there are also numerous passages in the letters which demonstrate the dynamic and constant interaction between the groups and individual members of the Christ-movement with Paul as part of their mutual communicative interaction.7 As a network of groups and individuals power issues were operative between and amongst them of necessity.8 Moreover as a network which emerged in Jerusalem, and expanded north and westwards, not only was power an issue in relation to group dynamics but power issues related to the socio-political influence of Roman imperial rule also had a significant impact on the context of this messianic movement, that is Judaism in Palestine and in the Diaspora, as it had also on the movement directly.

4. Which is evident from the fact that he claims that he had persecuted the church of God (Gal. 1.13), and then mentions those ‘who were apostles before me’ (Gal. 1.17). 5. Lietart Peerbolte 2003: 232. Cf also Ellis who notes ‘… the picture that emerges is that of a missionary with a large number of associates. Indeed Paul is scarcely ever found without companions’ (1978: 5). 6. See Ehrensperger 2004a: 28–31. A similar image is still widely present, as e.g. Dunn who describes Paul as ‘the first and greatest Christian theologian’ (2005: ix). 7. On networks see Stark 1996: 61–71. 8. See Chapter 2 above.

The Exercise of Power

37

In this chapter I intend to analyse the structural dimension9 of the dynamics of power amongst those involved in the movement as it can be discerned from the ‘Pauline’ letters. I take the fact that his name is mentioned first as an indication that Paul is the main author of the undisputed letters. I therefore assume that his perspective significantly shaped the depiction of the interaction between himself and others. But it will be taken into account that despite this he never depicts himself as an independent individual but is consistent in making clear that in his self-perception he sees himself as part of a movement. For instance, he acknowledges that others were apostles before him without any apologetic tone (Gal. 1.17). This awareness cannot be ignored in an analysis of the dynamics of power as reflected in the Pauline letters. Although he does claim a specific function or role within the movement this role is not unique and there is no exclusivity to this claim. He is an apostle with other apostles, a worker and servant of Christ together with other servants and co-workers of Christ, part of a movement which does not consist of individual members but of a network of communities in Christ. This is not to claim that the relationships within this movement are all the same and that all of these members are of equal standing.10 The terminology used in relation to members of the movement in itself indicates to some extent that differences in their relationships with one another did exist. There are apostles, co-workers, diakonoi, douloi, siblings and children, and it is obvious that although some of these terms refer to all members of the movement, such as those expressed by sibling terminology, others only refer to specific groups of members singled out within the movement.11 Although I do not presuppose a scenario where specific functions have been established in institutionalized, static hierarchies, I do not envisage that the dynamics of power within the movement was always balanced or level or exercised between equals. In addition, it has to be taken into account that the dynamics of power at work even within this network of Christ-following groups was not exempt from the influence of Roman imperial rule, with its pervasive control and dominating ethos.12

3.1 The Circle of Apostles and Paul There are a significant number of people, named and unnamed, whom Paul refers to as apostles. The way he refers to these suggests that he viewed them as being involved in some form of activity essentially the same as his own. I will deal with issues concerning definitions of apostleship later,13 but for

9. I will elaborate on aspects of ‘content’ in Chapters 4–9. 10. On the asymmetry of power in the Pauline communities see e.g. Holmberg 1978: 193. On issues of asymmetry in power relations see 2.4.4 above. 11. On this see 3.2 below. 12. Cf. Carter 2006: 24–26. 13. See Chapters 5 and 6.

38

Paul and the Dynamics of Power

now it is more significant to take into account that Paul refers to certain members of the Christ-movement with the same ‘title’ he uses when referring to himself in relation to aspects of his work. This seems to indicate that he is referring to a specific group within the movement which is recognized as having leadership functions.14

3.1.1 Apostles and Their Relationship According to 1 Thessalonians Being aware that familiarity with the title of apostle derives primarily from Paul’s use of it in the opening of his letters, it comes somewhat as a surprise that what is perceived as the first or at least the earliest known letter of Paul significantly is not a letter of Paul, but a letter of Paul, Silvanus and Timothy, as the letter opening clearly states. There can be no doubt that this indicates that the first ‘Christian’ document demonstrates the corporate dimension of the movement. Paul, the first time his name is mentioned, does not appear on his own; there is also no claim that he should be singled out, related to differently, or that his voice is of greater importance than those of the two other men mentioned in the opening of the letter.15 Nor is there any indication in this opening verse as to how the three relate to each other except that all of them are mentioned as the ones who address the recipients/audience of this letter. Not much imagination is required to conclude from this that this is a corporate letter, sent from one small group to another group.16 Nothing in the verse indicates that the three should not all be regarded as the authors and senders of this letter.17 Thus Paul appears on the scene of history as part of a team. The three men are not further described or qualified here – only later in the letter do we find references to what they did when they were with the group addressed. Any further qualification of the three apparently is not of importance at this point. This can be read as indicating that there were no problems concerning the relationship between the authors/senders and the addressees. The letter continues pleasantly with an expression of thankfulness and some allusions to what had happened when the authors were with the addressees. As would be expected from a letter written by

14. Cf. Schütz who says ‘Paul’s sense of what it means to be an apostle is etched sharply enough in his letters to make it clear that apostles are something special. He belongs to a group of apostles, however ill-defined that group may be …’ (1975: 34). 15. The corporate dimension of the authorship of Paul’s letters is strongly emphasized by Kittredge 2003. Cf. also Byrskog 1996: 236; Börschel 2001: 128. 16. Cf. Byrskog who maintains that ‘1 Thessalonians, it appears, is a collective letter reflecting Paul’s close relation to and equal standing with his associates’ (1996: 238). Also Jones ‘… the plural in 1 Thessalonians was probably a way of avoiding an authoritarian impression, even perhaps a way of signaling the importance of mutuality’ (2005: xix). 17. Contra Donfried who argues that ‘… Paul is writing this letter in the presence of Silvanus and Timothy …’ (2002: 212), whereas Byrskog argues that ‘Paul’s inclusion of co-senders in the pre-scripts reflects in all likelihood more than merely a desire to mention certain associates’ (1996: 235).

The Exercise of Power

39

three people, when reference is made to the authors themselves, the first person plural is used. Whether this first person plural actually refers to the three men mentioned in the opening verse of the letter or should rather be taken as a pluralis literalis is debated among Pauline scholars.18 The plural is used consistently throughout 1 Thessalonians, with the first person singular occurring only three times (2.18; 3.5; 5.27) along with clear indications that Paul is referring to himself (and only one passage using the third person singular to refer to one of the men mentioned in the opening verse, Timothy [3.2 and 3.6]), hence I cannot see how the first person plural could not refer to all of the three, Paul, Silvanus and Timothy as authors as well as senders of the letter.19 This perception is supported in my view by later references in the letter, reminding the addressees of their initial response to the message, which also sheds light on the relationship of the three with the e0kklhsi/a of the Thessalonians. It is significant first, that the gospel is qualified as to\ eu0agge/lion h9mw=n, denoting its corporate dimension.20 In addition, the three are identified as the founders of this e0kklhsi/a – ‘for our gospel came to you’ (1.5), ‘we had courage in our God to declare to you the gospel of God’ (2.2). As founders they remind the addressees that ‘we have been approved by God to be entrusted with the gospel’ (2.4), and that ‘we might have made demands as apostles of Christ’ (2.7). Thus the three present themselves as apostles and nowhere in the letter is there a hint that this or its correlate of viewing them as equals was problematic.21 They are corporately referred to as involved in this founding activity in being gentle as a nurse, in sharing and preaching the gospel of God and in exhortation, encouragement, and admonition (2.7-12). The activity of all three is presented as the same; it thus comes as no surprise that they are all referred to as apostles (2.7), and the metaphors of a nurse (2.7) and father (2.11) of the e0kklhsi/a of the Thessalonians apply to all three of them. In contrast with 1 Corinthians, Paul here does not claim to be in a unique relation to the e0kklhsi/a of the Thessalonians, and although he is

18. See Byrskog 1996: 230–36. 19. Cf. Byrskog 1996: 236–38, also Lietart Peerbolte 2003: 178; Haufe 1999: 25; Cousar 2001: 199; for a thorough overview on the discussion see Börschel 2001: 125–36. 20. Dickson refers to 1 Thess. 1.5 and the plural here ‘… thus describing the cosignatures [Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy – 1:1] … and perhaps others, as heralds in the recent evangelization of Thessalonica’( 2003:91). 21. See Frey who notes ‘The co-workers and co-senders, who had been working with him in the city are included in those statements which mention their welcoming in Thessalonica (1Thess. 1.9; 2.1). They most likely are also included when Paul refers to “our proclamation of the gospel (1 Thess. 5.24)”.’ My translation of the German: ‘Die Mitarbeiter und Mitabsender, die mit ihm in der Stadt gewirkt haben, sind … in diesen Formulierungen eingeschlossen, wenn von ihrer Aufnahme in Thessaloniki (1 Thess. 1.9; 2.1) die Rede ist. Sie dürften daher auch eingeschlossen sein, wenn Paulus von “unserer Evangeliumsverkündigung” (1 Thess. 5.24) spricht’ (2005: 200). Cf. also Börschel 2001: 128.

40

Paul and the Dynamics of Power

one of the founders, they have more than one father!22 Thus, according to 1 Thessalonians, the proclamation of the gospel and the founding of an e0kklhsi/a of God in Christ is a collective activity and the relation of those involved in this founding activity is based on equality. Throughout this letter hardly any indication can be discovered which would refer to hierarchical dimensions in the relationship between Paul, Timothy and Silvanus. The first person singular passages, which clearly imply Paul as the referent, mention aspects which he could only say of himself – he had longed to visit the Thessalonians several times, he could not bear it any longer not to know what was happening in Thessalonica and he is concerned that the letter be read to all Christ-followers in Thessalonica.23 Except for 1 Thess. 3.5, these passages do not single out Paul for hierarchical reasons but because he specifically is concerned about them. The switch from the plural e0pe/myamen in 3.2 to the singular e1pemya in 3.5 could be read as a reference to some kind of asymmetry in the relation between Paul and Timothy. The argument in favour of perceiving this as an indication of a hierarchical dimension between the two derives from reading the plural in 3.2 as a rhetorical plural – in that Paul must be talking here only about himself – he alone sent Timothy since there was nobody with him in Athens.24 But this can only be concluded by reading into 1 Thessalonians parts of Luke’s narrative in Acts, not from the text of 1 Thessalonians itself. 1 Thessalonians does not give sufficient information to allow a reconstruction of the situation in Athens. Grammatically both, the real as well as the rhetorical plural, are viable readings; the decision for one or the other thus derives in both cases from an informed reconstruction of the situation based on particular hermeneutical presuppositions. It is more feasible to argue for a rhetorical plural if Paul is perceived more as an exceptional figure in the early Christ-movement striving for an independent, so-called law-free, mission to the gentiles than when he is perceived as one of many who are collectively involved in this movement. Admittedly passages such as 1 Cor. 4.17 guide the reader to perceive Paul’s and Timothy’s relationship as asymmetrical since there it is clearly Paul who sends Timothy to Corinth and who, moreover, calls him ‘his beloved and faithful child in the Lord’ (mou te/knon a0gaphto\n kai\ pisto\n e0n kuri/w)? . I am not proposing to argue that there was no asymmetry between Paul and other members of the movement who were involved in missionary activity.25 But I hold that each passage should be read in its own right within 22. This indicates that Paul’s use of the father metaphor is contextual and it is difficult in my view to maintain that this metaphor is an indication for Paul’s use of authority in the vein of the Roman pater familias. See more on this in Chapter 7. 23. Börschel argues ‘The singular refers only to Paul, whereas the plural refers to both, Paul and the co-senders, which proves to be the simplest and most obvious explanation.’ My translation of the German: ‘Der Singular bezieht sich nur auf Paulus, der Plural umfasst dagegen Paulus und die Mitabsender, was sich als die einfachste und naheliegendste Erklärung erweist’ (2001: 127). 24. Donfried 2002: 210–12. 25. See 3.3 below.

Chapter 6

POWER IN WEAKNESS – THE DISCOURSE OF CONFRONTATION AND CONFLICT In certain, although not in all, situations where Paul is engaged in controversies with communities he had founded he emphasizes notions of weakness, even suffering, to clarify his perception of the issues involved and/or to challenge those who differ from his views. It has been argued that this can be seen as either an indication for the inversion of power structures within, and typical of, the Christ-movement or as a hidden but nevertheless strong claim to authority or even domination on Paul’s part. To seek support for authority claims via an emphasis on weakness and suffering could be seen as anachronistic in the Hellenistic and Roman world where such experiences gave rise to contempt and intimidation rather than recognition and respect.1 Although the notion of care for the weak is also emphasized in Graeco-Roman ethics, to relate authority claims to weakness and suffering seems at least paradoxical if not foolish from the perspective of a society which was saturated with values of strength and competitive dominating power.2 A different perception of weakness and suffering is found in Jewish tradition where Israel’s God is witnessed to as the one who hears and responds to those deprived of the opportunity to live their own lives and suffering under oppressive powers. A strong notion of God’s specific care and intervention for the weak, poor and downtrodden is thus found in the Scriptures (e.g. Pss. 9.18; 12.5; 14.6; 22.26; 113.7; 140.12). This is combined with the emphasis that, in the realm of this God, social interaction cannot but orient itself on this compassionate care as evidenced in the consistently repeated stress on the necessity to give protection to widows, orphans and strangers (e.g. Deut. 14.29; 16.11-14; 24.17-22; 26.12). The narrative of Judith is only one example of the bias towards the weak as depicted in the character of the weak widow Judith, who seeks refuge for her people in praying to the ‘God of the lowly, helper of the oppressed, upholder of the weak, protector of the forsaken, saviour of those without hope’ (Jdt. 9.11). This has implications for the understanding of leadership roles as, for

1. 2.

Krug 2001: 61; Glancy 2004: 111–12. Carter 2006: 8–10; Bartchy 2005: 54–55.

Power in Weakness

99

example, the ideal king who is described in Psalm 72 as one who ‘… delivers the needy when he calls, the poor and him who have no helper. He has pity on the weak and the needy, and saves the lives of the needy. From oppression and violence he redeems their life; and precious is their blood in his sight’ (72.12-14). This tradition finds expression also in literature of the Second Temple period as 1QH XII5–XIII4 demonstrates. The psalm formulates two dimensions of the divine intervention on behalf of the weak and suffering: the experience of care and empowerment that constitutes the restoration of life is a blessing for the weak and at the same time witnesses to God’s power and glory.3 This does not mean that weakness or suffering are perceived as positive values or virtues which the faithful should try to achieve. Although it is far from being a praise or glorification of weakness and suffering, it nevertheless demonstrates that in the context of Jewish tradition, as evidenced in the Scriptures and other Jewish literature, weakness and suffering were not reasons for contempt and denial of human dignity. Rather, those witnesses are being entrusted to God’s, and thus to his people’s, special care not as an act of charity but as the correlative of God’s justice.4 Thus to discover in Paul and the Pauline circle references to weakness and suffering in relation to their understanding of apostleship should come as no surprise. It is, however, necessary to analyse some of the relevant passages in the letters in order to evaluate what implications this stance may have for the Pauline perception of apostolic authority. It also has to be noted that the emphasis on weakness and suffering is only one emphasis among others to which Paul and the co-senders refer when clarifying their understanding of apostleship. It receives special emphasis particularly in contexts of disagreement (1 and 2 Corinthians), but not exclusively (1 Thessalonians). It is neither unique to Paul nor is it the only way he relates to conversation partners in situations of disagreement. For instance, in Galatians he does not refer to weakness or suffering but rather uses what in contemporary discourse is called ‘strong language’ in relation to the community and even stronger in relation to those outside whom he argues against.5 Thus the discourse of weakness and suffering, although important, is not the sole means by which Paul interacts with others in situations of disagreement. As with other issues, the context and the particular concerns under debate play a decisive role in Paul’s choices of forms of argumentation in each particular instance. Being aware of this, I will focus on some of the passages where Paul deems it appropriate to emphasize weakness and suffering in support of his argument, relating them explicitly to power and claims of authority.

3. See Krug 2001:113. 4. This impinges also on the image of the exemplary leader of the scriptural narrative concerning Moses. I will come back to the significance of this in relation to Paul cf. 6.5 below. 5. Nanos 2002a: 32–61.

100

Paul and the Dynamics of Power 6.1 Troublesome Beginnings – 1 Thessalonians

The first indication that the hearing and responding to the word of the gospel might be accompanied by problems designated as qli/yiv is given in a letter which exhibits no signs of a context of conflict. The relationship between the founding apostles Paul, Silvanus and Timothy (1.1)6 and this community seems to be unproblematic as far as authority and specific issues of community life are concerned. In mentioning the initial encounter between them and this e0kklhsi/a’s positive response to these apostles’ message under difficult circumstances, the authors’ intention lies more likely in empowering the Thessalonian Christ-followers rather than in hinting at actual intra-group problems. The troubles the apostles themselves had experienced just before coming to Thessalonica (1 Thess. 2.2) are mentioned only after an extensive appraisal of the community’s positive response to the gospel, despite troubles, ‘for you received the word in much affliction with joy inspired by the Holy Spirit’ (1.6). The founding apostles appreciate this welcoming attitude of the Thessalonians so much that they view them as exemplary Christ-followers from whom other e0kklhsi/ai can learn. It is the response of a group of people to the message of the gospel in difficult circumstances which is perceived by the authors of this letter as providing an appropriate example for other e0kklhsi/ai concerning how to live in Christ. Although it is mentioned that in their joyful response they did actually become imitators of the three apostles and of Christ himself, the emphasis in this opening passage of the letter is on the community’s inspired reaction rather than on the apostles’ or even Christ’s example. It is the dimension of responding to the gospel in and despite qli/yiv (affliction) which obviously is the aspect that renders them examples for others, as indicated by 1 Thess. 2.2. Here the apostles more specifically mention that they had already suffered and been treated shamefully at Philippi (propaqo/ntev kai\ u9brisqe/ntev … e0n Fili/ppoiv), not to emphasize their authority over against the community but rather to emphasize the commonality between the group in Thessalonica and the group of apostles. The experience of qli/yiv seems to provide a strengthening bond which binds them all together because it is perceived as an experience which provides a close bond to Christ himself. Thus affliction, suffering and being in Christ, are presented as closely connected with each other, and as affecting the members of the movement whether as Christ-followers of a recently called e0kklhsi/a or as Christ-followers who are called to the task of apostleship.7 But as important as this dimension of suffering is, it is significant that neither in 1.4-10 nor in 2.1-2 are suffering and life in Christ or the gift of apostleship presented or perceived as being identical. It is not the ‘afflictions’ which are the decisive characteristic of life in Christ but the ‘welcoming’, and the turning ‘to God from idols to serve the living and true God’ (1.9),8 6. For the issue of the plural of authorship see 3.2 above. 7. Cf. Sumney 1999: 81. 8. For a slightly different view see Sumney who maintains ‘Here and later in Paul apostolic suffering exemplifies the nature of Christian existence’ (1999: 80).

Power in Weakness

101

and it is not the suffering which is the decisive characteristic of apostleship but the ‘courage in our God to declare the gospel of God’ (2.2).9 Thus these passages of 1 Thessalonians, although demonstrating some relation between life in Christ and suffering, nevertheless give no indication that the two are perceived as identical. Also no indication can be found that apostolic authority and suffering are connected in a paradoxical way, so that suffering is a sign of authority. These actually are dimensions of life in Christ, but they are separate, distinct dimensions of this life in Christ, and of apostleship in particular.10

6.2 A Letter of Passionate Concern – 2 Corinthians In 2 Corinthians the combination of references to weakness and suffering, and emphasis on apostolic authority is found most frequently in chapters 10–13. Before delving into a more detailed analysis of the weakness/suffering discourse in these chapters, a note on significant issues is due in relation to the letter as whole. Whether this letter is perceived as one, or as a combination of two, or more letters,11 there is no doubt that a passionate ‘atmosphere’ runs through it as in no other Pauline letter. None of the other letters shows such a frequent use of terminology which directs the attention of the audience to emotions in relation to difficulties, or to use the letter’s terminology, to qli/yiv (affliction [2 Cor. 1.4-8]). In no other letter are words related to parakalei=n used more often. It is only in the opening verses of this letter that God is qualified as o9 path\r tw=n oi0ktirmw=n and as qeo\v pa/shv paraklh/sewv (‘the Father of mercies and God of all comfort’ [1.3]). In no other letter does Paul emphasize weakness in relation to himself more often than here, but also nowhere else does he use the word e0cousi/a in relation to his apostolic function (10.8; 13.10). Moreover, in no other letter does Paul tell the audience more about himself and about difficulties with which he was or still is struggling than here (1.8-11; 2.13). These characteristics would need to be analysed in more detail but, for the purpose of this study, it is sufficient to note that these terminological and narrative peculiarities point towards a context, whether on the part of the senders or the addressees or both, where the senders, and Paul in particular, deemed it necessary to address difficulties in mentioning ‘afflictions’, even serious suffering, in quite a personal and passionate/emotional way. Whether this is a mere rhetorical strategy on Paul’s part to impose or maintain his dominating and controlling power over the addressees, or whether this indicates a true concern on the senders’ part for 9. Cf Krug 2001: 131–32. 10. Krug 2001: 144. 11. For the purpose of this study I will take the letter as one document and will not address issues related to partition theories, as none of these have proved convincing to the extent that the debate would be settled. Thus recent interpretations which read the letter as one document have produced valuable insights which I deem to be at least as viable as those readings proposed by partition theories, e.g. Lim 2006.

102

Paul and the Dynamics of Power

the growth and well-being of the addressees within a web of trustworthy relationships cannot be assessed in terms of historical factuality. To me the frequency of this terminology of concern, comfort and of troubles combined with the personal narratives, as well as the very concrete concern for the collection for the ‘poor saints’ in Jerusalem, point towards actual concern for the ‘assembly of God in Corinth’ rather than a merely rhetorical strategy.

6.3 The Signs of an Apostle – Disputed It is in this letter of passionate concern that Paul’s most extensive elaboration of his perception of what constitutes true apostleship is found. The intensity and extent of this development is in itself an indication of the seriousness it had in Paul’s view.12 Although there are passages in other letters where apostleship, weakness and suffering are mentioned in relation to each other,13 there is no other letter which addresses this issue at such length and with such serious emphasis. This in itself indicates that there is ‘something going on’ here that is specific to the situation to which the letter is speaking. But it indicates in addition that the issue is perceived as being of utmost significance in relation not just to an understanding of apostleship but also to an understanding of the gospel itself. It is obvious that most of the argumentation in 2 Corinthians (particularly 1.5-11; 3.1-2; 4.7-15, 10-13) is a reaction against charges or criticisms brought against Paul and his claim of apostleship.14 Thus the most explicit statements of Paul concerning his understanding of apostleship – not only his own but of apostleship as such – are ‘triggered’ by fellow Christ-followers and apostles who had a different perception of what constituted true apostleship. Jerry Sumney has demonstrated convincingly what the elements were that constitute this ‘different’ perception of apostleship. From an analysis of the relevant passages in chapters 1–7 he concludes that in these opponents’ perception ‘apostles must present evidence of their status’ in the form of letters of recommendation, they should be characterized by ‘strong presence’, and ‘they also interpret receiving pay from churches as evidence of apostolic status.’15 By setting up their perception of what constitutes proper apostleship they render competitive comparison and evaluation as ‘part of the proper apostolic manner of life’.16 Moreover, from his analysis of chapters 10-13 Sumney concludes that here the dominant issues raised are the appropriate way of life for apostles, proper manifestations of the spirit in apostles, and again, pay for apostles.17 He emphasizes ‘These opponents believe that

12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17.

Cf.Schütz 1975: 165. 1 Thess. 1.6-7; 2.2. Schütz 1975: 166; Sumney 1999: 82 and references there. Also Lim 2006. Sumney 1999: 85. Sumney 1999: 101. Sumney 1999: 128.

Power in Weakness

103

apostles, as superiors, should assume authority over churches and demand special rights. This apostolic superiority includes having forceful personalities and glorious lives.’18 The virtues and values designated as characteristics of proper apostleship have close similarities to virtues and values of the dominant Graeco-Roman cultural milieu. Competitive comparisons of credentials, virtues and achievements aiming at surpassing/beating others who were, in the main, perceived as competitors were part of the ideals promoted in male elite education. Boys were socialized into a society in which the striving for honour and the maintenance of high social status could only be successful if one became a winner and thus gained domination over co-competitors.19 Those who challenged Paul’s understanding of apostleship most likely shaped their perception according to models and values prevalent in the Hellenistic and Roman cultural milieu.20 Apart from the fact that access to leadership roles was constrained to the wise, well-born and powerful,21 the characteristics of good leadership were good standing, honour, rhetorical eloquence in the assembly and, not least of all, not having to perform manual labour but benefiting from the work of others.22 These privileges were reserved for the few, thus the only way for lower-class members to get a share in the power of such ‘strong men’ was to acknowledge a patronage relationship with one of these aristocrats.23 Patron–client relationships, as Roman society as a whole, were structured in a static hierarchy within which upward mobility was almost impossible, and in which establishing oneself in a position at the top of the pyramid was a matter of constant competition for positions of domination and subordination. Leaders are thus men who prove that they are competitive and strong enough to dominate and keep others subordinate to them. Those who challenged Paul’s apostolic authority seem to have had an understanding of leadership oriented on this pattern. In comparison Paul did not live up to the standards of a proper apostle within the movement. He is charged with being of weak appearance when present personally; inconsistency in being bold only when absent (2 Cor. 10.10); unable to deliver skilled rhetorical speeches (11.6a); working with his own hands to make a living (11.7); and also carrying the marks of physical abuse and humiliation on his body (11.24-25).24 All of these negative characteristics of which Paul is accused serve the purpose of de-legitimizing his apostolic claim, that is, the claim of being sent to proclaim the gospel, since apparently there are no signs of the 18. Sumney 1999: 128; cf. also Sumney 2005: 49. 19. Bartchy 2005: 49–60, also Campbell 2006: 166–67. With the establishment of the principate these values were embodied by the emperor as the ‘Father of the Fatherland’. See Carter 2006: 4. 20. Sumney 2005: 49. 21. Clarke 1993: 39. 22. Carter 2006: 9. 23. See Clarke 1993: 92. 24. Sumney 1999: 85; Schütz 1975: 166. On the significance of physical degradation see Glancy 2004: 128–29.

104

Paul and the Dynamics of Power

Spirit being present in him.25 Such de-legitimizing strategies were not entirely new having already been raised against prophets who were accused of being false prophets by challenging their claims to being called and sent by God.26 These challenges seem to be primarily attacking Paul as a person and at first sight it seems that Paul actually does primarily react on this personal level.27 He takes up the challenge, enters the arena of competitive boasting and acknowledges his personal weakness, even his having been humiliated. He thus relates directly to the charges against him, but rather than defending himself through denying them, or calling into question the legitimacy of these categories, he takes them as the common ground between himself and those challenging him. He thus agrees that the way of life of apostles, the manifestation of the Spirit in apostles and the pay for apostles are relevant issues in this debate. But he shifts or ‘deconstructs’ the challengers’ criteria of evaluation in relativizing some (boasting, e.g. 2 Cor. 10.13, 17) and radicalizing others (weakness, e.g. 12.9-10, suffering, e.g. 1.5-8) in recognizing their particular value in light of the Scriptures and the Christ-event.

6.4 Suffering, Weakness and Power – Related but not Identical It is significant to note that already at the very beginning of this letter, in 1. 4-10, characteristics of life in Christ for Paul, the Pauline circle, and the Corinthians, are described in terms of suffering and comfort (paqh/mata, qli/yiv, para/klhsiv). Paul begins his address concerning the challenges he is confronted with, with a clear reminder of this dimension of life in Christ. Significantly, he tells the Corinthians of troubles he had (recently) encountered, troubles he describes as a confrontation of life and death. Although it is beyond the scope of this study to analyse all the passages of 2 Corinthians relevant to the issue of weakness and power, it is significant to note that here in the letter-opening, themes which are relevant for the entire letter are mentioned in their relation to each other. In the thanksgiving part of the letter opening the senders mention God’s oi0ktirmo/v and para/klhsiv (1.3), qualities which are frequently attributed to God in the Scriptures (e.g. Ps. 103.8; Isa. 40.1).28 These indicate that it was only due to the compassion and comfort of God that the difficulties Paul (and probably Timothy) had to cope with (1.4) could be endured and 25. Cf. Beker who notes that ‘He is charged with lack of personal presence; spiritual greatness, and effectiveness, thereby demonstrating that he is not qualified to be an apostle’ (1980: 295). 26. See Sandnes who notes in relation to Zech. 2.12-15; 6.15 that ‘the basic criterion for distinguishing beween false and true prophecy is whether a prophet was sent or not … denying someone’s being sent, is a biblical pattern of denying the legitimacy of a prophet’ (1991: 67). 27. So e.g. Schütz who is of the view that ‘The issue in II Cor 2:14-7:4 and 10-13 is personal in a way and to a degree it has not been heretofore’ (1975: 168). 28. See Rendtorff 2005: 623–27, also 618–21.

Power in Weakness

105

overcome. In 1.5 these difficulties are actually moved into close proximity to Christ’s sufferings, and likewise also the comfort received. The comfort Paul had experienced in suffering is what will be beneficial for the Corinthians, since it enables him to share the comfort he has received and to comfort them in turn in their difficulties. There are two points which require close attention here: (1) Paul does not say that he ‘shares’ in some kind of mystical union in the suffering of Christ, as this would imply a sharing in events which had happened in the past. He also does not claim that his sufferings are identical with Christ’s, but he perceives his difficult experiences as in relation to Christ’s, thus setting them in a specific context. He does not suffer for the sake of suffering but because of his work for the gospel, that is, his participation in the Christ-movement.29 (2) Paul does not refer to suffering and comfort as if they were identical. Suffering is not comforting. But in, and despite of, his suffering Paul experienced the comforting power of God. Suffering and comfort are here experienced in relation to each other but this does not render them identical. In the brief narrative section about the afflictions experienced in Asia suffering (1.8-9) and deliverance from death (1.10) again are not depicted as one and the same but as two distinct experiences. Paul feared for his life and was delivered by ‘God who raises the dead’ (1.9). Also the (retrospective) insight that, there, at the margins of life, where he saw himself in the realm of death, the only reliable trust he could have was trust in God, is not some kind of strength derived from suffering but trust in the midst of and despite the experience of suffering.30 Suffering and trust are not identical but separate, distinguishable experiences. Thus these opening verses of the letter provide clear indications of the letter’s main theme, suffering and comfort, but there is no indication for a supposed identification/sameness between weakness and suffering and deliverance and comfort. The themes of weakness, suffering, death, and deliverance, comfort, and life in Christ permeate the entire letter. Paul refers to himself and other apostles31 as ‘earthen vessels’ who embody suffering of various kinds and in various ways, and thereby embody the death and life of Jesus,32 but yet live by the power of God (4.7). The power of God manifests itself in a twofold way, in the endurance in and deliverance from suffering (4.8-9), and in the 29. I am indebted here to the stimulating study of Brondos 2006: 172–74. 30. Krug draws attention here to the significance of examples/paradigms from the Scriptures/LXX where experiences of suffering are frequently seen as confrontations with death, as e.g. Pss. 18.5; 30.4; 116.3; Jon. 2.3; Sir. 51.6. (2001: 187). 31. Including other apostles here is not an argument for the literal plural, but indicates that Paul does not refer to characteristics of an apostle exclusively, meaning that in all this he is a unique exemplar of apostle, but rather that this is his perception of apostleship, a perception which applies to all apostles in the movement. See chapter 3.1 above. 32. On the embodiment of suffering see Lim 2006: 223, also Glancy who maintains that ‘Because New Testament scholars have not acknowledged that relationships of power were embodied, they have not appreciated the centrality of Paul’s body to the superapostles’ campaign against him’ (2004: 128).

106

Paul and the Dynamics of Power

life of the e0kklhsi/a (4.12).33 The emphasis here is on the power of God at work in the experiences of the apostle as well as in those of the community. Again, there is no identification of suffering with power or with life. To be ‘afflicted’ is not the same as ‘not to be crushed’, ‘to be persecuted’ is not the same as ‘not to be forsaken’, ‘to be struck down’ is not identical with ‘not being destroyed’, the death of Jesus is not identical with the life of Jesus.

6.5 Entering the Ring of Competition – ‘For When I am Weak I am Strong’ The recognition of the difference between suffering and weakness, and power and life, gained in the analysis of 1.4-10 and 4.7-12 has a bearing on the interpretation of the passage in 2 Cor. 12.9-10 where power and weakness are referred to as closely intertwined. Paul’s key formulation of the relation between weakness and power is undoubtedly found in 2 Cor. 12.10b ‘for when I am weak I am strong’ (o3tan ga\r a0sqenw= to/te dunato/v ei0mi). It is a peak formulation after an extensive elaboration in chapters 10–12.9 of how and why he perceives as evidence to the contrary what the challengers see as signs witnessing against his apostolic authority. At the very beginning of these chapters, in 10.1, he refers to the ‘meekness and gentleness of Christ’ thereby indicating that he sees what follows in continuity not only with early Christ tradition but probably with Jesus himself. Yet despite this emphasis on ‘the meekness and gentleness of Christ’ as the paradigm to follow, Paul does not refer exclusively to the aspect of weakness and suffering in support of his claim to apostleship.34 Although he does refer to charges of weakness raised against him he also claims here that specific legitimization (e0cousi/a) is given (e1dwken) to him by God, a task he characterizes in prophetic terms as ‘for building up, not for destroying’ (10.8). Nothing indicates that this e0cousi/a is relativized by, or identical with, weakness.35 It may not be purely accidental that in the passage immediately following Paul does not refer to weakness or suffering, but actually agrees with the challengers’ assessment that ‘the letters are weighty and strong’ (ai9 e0pistolai\ … barei=ai kai i0sxurai/ [10.10]) and adds that he wishes to act accordingly, which implies with due weight and strength, upon his next visit to the Corinthians. He continues in this rather ‘strong vein’ when he emphasizes that ‘I think I am not in the least inferior to these superlative apostles’ (Logi/zomai ga\r mhde\n u9sterhke/nai tw=n u9perli/an a0posto/lwn [11.5]), maintaining that ‘Even if I am unskilled in speaking, I am not in knowledge’ (ei0 de\ kai\ i0diw/thv tw=? lo/gw=?, a0ll’ ou0 th=? gnw/sei, [11.6]). This is clearly claiming that he has strength and power. The difference between him and the challengers lies in the criteria by which they evaluate strength 33. Cf. Krug 2001: 237. 34. Krug has drawn attention to this, emphasizing that despite the stress on weakness and suffering as aspects of true apostleship these are not the only signs or ways and means by which this manifests itself (2001: 258). 35. Cf. Krug 2001: 259.

Power in Weakness

107

and power, and following from that, what constitutes true apostleship. Paul explicitly rejects one of the skills held in highest regard as a sign of strong leadership in Greek and Roman elite society, that is rhetoric, as a category relevant in relation to apostolic authority.36 But he does not reject the notion of strength and power as such since at the same time he emphasizes that he is ‘not unskilled in knowledge’.37 What follows is not a gentle but rather a direct attack on the challengers calling them names which are most likely not meant to flatter them (11.1215). Although he unwittingly enters the ring of competition of comparison in boasting, he does actually enter it, and the first reference to weakness in these chapters is in a comparative sentence, comparing his understanding of apostleship (which he is about to outline) polemically with the behaviour of the challengers. It is in comparison with the lording of a master over a slave, of a predator benefiting from his prey, or of someone humiliating others in using violence against him/her, that Paul concedes his weakness (11.20-21). Thus in this verse it is not weakness as such which is perceived as the characteristic of Paul’s understanding of apostleship but it is only in comparison with what he characterizes as the ‘superapostles’ violent domination of others that he views himself as weak. Bartchy comments on these verses: ‘we have Paul’s clear and sardonic reverse description of the “weakness” of which he was being accused. If acting with “strength” has the results he observes … he wants nothing to do with it.’38 But in relation to the superapostles’ apparent stress on Jewish identity he deems himself far from being weak but emphasizes that he is on equal terms with them in that he maintains that this is his own unalterable identity which he cherishes (11.22). As a servant of Christ he even claims superiority, only to subvert the standards of boasting in enumerating the numerous ways in which he suffered (11.23b-27). In the context of what he deems a ‘foolish’ competition in boasting he thus considers the only appropriate aspect to be ‘thrown into the ring’ is to ‘boast of the things that show my weakness’ (11.30). Thus in the passage immediately preceding 12.9-10 an accumulated focus on weakness and suffering can be found, mentioning the catalogue of hardships (11.23-28), the note on his escape from Damascus (11.32-33), and, possibly, a visionary ascent to heaven (12.24).39 Paul then mentions the ‘thorn in the flesh’ (sko/loy th=? sarki/ [12.7]) which, 36. Cf. Judge who maintains that Paul’s attitude stood ‘in violent reaction to much that was central to the classical way of life’ (1972: 36). 37. This could be an indication of Paul’s perception of his education, but this is an issue which cannot be dealt with within the scope of this study. On the significance of literacy in Jewish society in particular see Goodman 2007a: 79–90. 38. Bartchy 2005: 59. 39. Whether this is a failed ‘ascent with nothing to share’ as Lim (2006: 226–30) has argued in his thesis and thus an another example of weakness, or whether Paul rather stresses that he only wants to refer to credentials which others have access to by seeing or hearing, he certainly maintains that visions of whatever quality cannot serve as criteria for evaluating apostleship. This reference to visible or audible ‘things’/realities resembles some later rabbinic notions, cf. Wildavsky 1984: 12.

108

Paul and the Dynamics of Power

whatever the precise condition is signified by it, is perceived as hindering him in a serious way. This ‘thorn’ is not something Paul experienced in a positive way otherwise he would not have prayed for relief, even deliverance from it. He describes it as something that causes serious problems for him, so serious that he perceives it as an adversary angel, an upsetting messenger sent to cause him trouble. Only after he has begged three times to be delivered from this ‘angelic thorn’, does he receive confirmation that God has heard his plea. The reply seems ambiguous at least, since Paul’s ‘wish’ is rejected.40 He does not get any relief but has to live with this thorn. But at the same time he receives confirmation that this does not mean that God’s grace has abandoned him, on the contrary, he is told that God’s grace is sufficient for him (a0rkei= soi h9 xa/riv mou h9 ga\r du/namiv e0n a0sqenei/a? telei=tai [12.9b]). The active form of the Greek a0rke/w refers to the objectively existing abundance of something.41 This is thus a statement about the abundance of divine grace in Paul’s life despite the presence of this ‘thorn in the flesh’. Thus what could be perceived as a sign of lack of God’s grace and compassion, and what at least raises doubts in Paul’s apostolic commissioning and authority, is claimed to be an indication for the validation of power. Translations which render ‘telei=tai’ as ‘made perfect’ are missing the point here. I am of the view that rather than referring to some perfection of power in weakness the intention here is to maintain that power only accomplishes what it set out to accomplish through weakness. The e0n is taken here not as modal but rather as instrumental.42 Power is not weakness, and weakness is not power, but power accomplishes, that is, has an effect through weakness. The boasting of Paul is a boasting of his weakness, nothing else. Paul boasts in his weakness, acknowledging it for what it is – a thorn in the flesh, and insults, hardships and persecutions are what they are, causing suffering and bringing Paul to the brink of death. He is at peace (12.10) with his weakness not because he realizes that weakness is actually not weakness but power, but because through weakness the power of God in Christ is manifested. Again, it needs to be emphasized that God’s power is not weakness, but in and despite weakness God’s power is experienced as being present (e0piskhnw/sh? [12.9]), and having an effect.43 The last part of v. 10 ‘for when I am weak then I am strong’ (‘o3tan ga\r a0sqenw= to/te dunato/v ei0mi’) –, when read in this context then can hardly refer to some paradoxical identification of weakness and power but rather repeats in an abbreviated summary form what has been explained in the verses before: that despite and through the apostle’s weakness God’s power

40. Similarly Moses’ wish in Deut. 3.24-27, on this also 10.3.2 below. 41. I am informed here by Krug who refers to secular Greek use as e.g. Plutarch (Cim. 2.3) ‘a0rkei= ga\r h9 th=v mnh/mhv xa/riv’. For a similar use in Jewish tradition cf. 1 Kgdms 8.27 (LXX); Test Job XXIV.6 ; especially the formulation in PsSol. ‘e0n tw=? enisxu=sai/ se th\n yuxh/n mou a0rke/sei moi to\ doqe/n (16.12-13). 42. Contra Käsemann who argues that weakness is the ‘Offenbarungsart der Kraft’ (1942: 54). 43. Cf. 2 Cor. 12.12.

Power in Weakness

109

manifests itself.44 Paul claims that his activity has had and still has some effect among the Corinthians, by emphasizing that ‘the signs of a true apostle were performed among you in all patience, with signs and wonders and mighty works’ (12.12). These effects were not due to some mysterious power inherent in Paul’s weakness. But due to Paul’s weakness they cannot be anything other than an indication of God’s power at work among the Corinthians. Thus the Corinthians do not owe their coming to faith and their growth in Christ to Paul or any other apostle but only to God.45 Paul does claim a leadership role as an apostle over against the Corinthians but does so in relativizing the significance of precisely this role. It is not due to his or other leaders’ power that the Corinthians have responded to the gospel, nor is it due to his or other leaders’ power that they mature into a way of life according to the call of God through Christ.46 This relativization of the significance of a leader resonates with Jewish traditions which consistently depict leaders not in the vein of the strong and infallible hero but as ambiguous human beings who are weak, have doubts, struggle, fail, but nevertheless sometimes succeed in their Godassigned tasks.47 The fulfilment of their task is never perceived as being due to their own achievements or strengths but due to God’s power, thus relativizing any human efforts.48 It has been argued that weakness functions as a presupposition for the revelation of God’s power, that only in and through weakness could God’s power manifest itself.49 Although I appreciate and agree with much of Krug’s thorough analysis of and differentiation between weakness and power, to render weakness as somehow a presupposition for the manifestation of God’s power is problematic in my view. In the Scriptures God is depicted as being biased towards those in need of care and protection and there is a specific 44. Krug refers to a most illuminating example in Philo’s Vit. Mos. 1.69 where an almost identical formulation in relation to the narrative of the burning bush can be found as the people are told to\ a0sqenh\v u9mw=n du/nami/v e0stin. Krug elaborates that although very closely related here as in Paul, power and weakness are not identical since ‘auf der Bildebene entspricht dem schwachen Volk der “sehr schwache” (I.65) Dornstrauch, und der Engel, der den Busch vor dem Verbrennen bewahrt (I.66f) wird auf der Sachebene zu der Kraft des Volkes. Dynamis (als göttlicher Beistand) und Astheina (als Notlage des Volkes) sind … auch bei Philo nicht nur unterschieden, sondern die Kraft ist auch empirisch erfahrbar, sei es als Schutz vor dem Verbrennen, sei es als Hilfe Gottes bei dem Auszug aus Ägypten. Die Kraft wirkt also unter der Bedingung der Schwachheit, nicht als Schwachheit’ (2001: 288). See also Bartchy 2005: 49. 45. Cf. 1 Cor. 3.1-9. 46. Bartchy has drawn attention to the radical counter-cultural dimension this socialization into the Christ-movement had for former gentiles. (2005:57). Cf. also chapter 9. 47. Cf. Rendtorff 2005: 552–56. 48. This is not to say that human agency is rendered obsolete but it is only relevant in relation to God’s power. See e.g. Campbell 2006: 147–48. 49. Krug argues that ‘The weakness of the apostle is so to say the condition for the presence of the power of Christ, in that, it is only under the condition of human weakness that it is evident beyond doubt that power experienced is actually the power of Christ’ (2001: 287).

110

Paul and the Dynamics of Power

relation between God and human weakness and suffering. But to render weakness a presupposition for the revelation of God’s power is a too static and conceptual perception of the relation between the two aspects. Weakness is then seen as a function which serves the manifestation of God’s power. An inextricable link between weakness and God’s power is thus established and weakness is functionalized to become a vehicle of something else. This is a problematic way of arguing as it comes close to implying that where there is weakness there is God’s power or that God’s power can only be present in weakness. A condition is thereby laid upon God’s presence and power, and weakness is also not taken seriously for what it is. The scriptural narratives tell another story. They tell of experiences of deliverance, survival and empowerment through and despite experiences of weakness and suffering, contrary to what would be expected in such situations. Blessings, hope and life experienced in the midst, despite, and through weakness and suffering could thus be nothing else than effects and signs of the power of God.50 But again, it must be clearly noted that this is far from saying that weakness and suffering are identical with or a paradoxical form of life and hope, or even of God’s life-giving and comforting power. Neither the Scriptures nor Paul and the Pauline circle glorify weakness and suffering. Weakness and suffering are not special virtues or values, not even in Christ. They are what they are, weakness and suffering, ‘an angel from satan’, with life-threatening even life-destroying potential. Paul’s acceptance of weaknesses, insults, hardships, persecutions and calamities, even his glad boasting (12.9b-10a), do not change this. It is only in relation to Christ, u9pe\r Xristou= , that Paul comes to accept all these hardships. This does not render these experiences positive or enjoyable. But his activity has some effect despite his weakness and he recognizes that his weakness is not hindering the proclamation of, and positive response to, the gospel. Thus despite his weakness he is able (dunato/v) to fulfil his call as an apostle to the gentiles. The issue is the same when Paul reminds the Corinthians of Christ’s suffering in 2 Cor. 13.4. There is no indication that there is power inherent in this suffering, rather Paul emphasizes that Christ was ‘crucified in weakness’. The allusion to the inherent rejection of the power claims and value system of the dominating Roman imperial elite can hardly be ignored here.51 Yet the power of Christ is not his weakness but the power by which God raised him to life. The difference between the two is clearly indicated by the tense of the two verbs used (past and present), in that it is obvious that crucifixion and weakness are located in the past – he was crucified in weakness (e0staurw/qh e0c a0sqenei/av) – whereas the power of God and the life of Christ are present realities - he ‘lives by the power of God’ (zh?= e0k duna/mewv qeou=).52 Crucifixion

50. Thus some Psalms bless God for his compassion and care for the poor, the weak, and the suffering, which is also a way of proclaiming God’s name and glory as the God of life and empowerment for life. See e.g. 1 Sam. 2.1-6 (Hannah’s Song); also above 6.3. 51. Cf. Bartchy 2005: 56. 52. Cf. Krug 2001: 295, also 315.

Power in Weakness

111

and weakness are related to past events whereas life by the power of God is clearly referring to the present. In response to the request for some evidence that Christ is speaking through him, Paul consequently does not refer to Christ’s weakness (in the past), but to his powerful presence here and now, among the Corinthians. Moreover, when Paul at the very beginning of the letter refers to his own suffering as ‘sharing abundantly in Christ’s suffering’ (2 Cor. 1.5) this, rather than being an allusion to a mystical union, indicates that Paul sees his life in the context of and in relation to the one he is called to follow. Under the conditions in which the Christ-followers live at the time of Paul,53 suffering is inevitably part of the ‘way of life’ in Christ. Those who committed themselves to follow one who as a consequence of his life and teaching had been killed on a Roman cross can hardly have been ignorant concerning the possible consequences this had for their own lives. Paul certainly was aware of these and reminds the Corinthians of the inevitable link between being a follower of Christ and the risk of suffering.54 But again it has to be emphasized that accepting suffering as a consequence of a choice made in joining ‘the way of Christ’ is not the same as promoting suffering for suffering’s sake as a virtue or value in Christ. Nevertheless, Paul’s emphasis on weakness and suffering in the ministry and as part of the way of life in Christ under present circumstances has significant consequences for what he perceives to be an understanding of apostolic authority and leadership within this movement.

6.6 Weak Apostles but Powerful Leaders? The Power of Gentleness and Humbleness It has to be acknowledged that weakness can be understood in different ways and may have had different effects (on Paul himself – as well as on subsequent Christian tradition). The claim ‘I am nothing’ can be a powerful claim to divinely mediated authority which thus becomes authoritative and non-negotiable. This is the case in subsequent history often when Paul’s formulations were used in support of absolute authority and power claims in church and civic hierarchies. But this is only one way of interpreting Paul’s arguments concerning apostolic weakness. Given the fact that any leadership roles in this early Christ-movement were far from being firmly established and thus Paul’s and other leaders’ leadership roles were at least a matter of negotiation – the stance of Paul and the emphasis on weakness could also be read not as a claim to power and control in the vein of the dominating cultural value system – but as an 53. Cf. Baltrusch 2003: 149–57. 54. Cf. Brondos who notes: ‘While no doubt distinguishing themselves from Jesus the historical person, they realized that their own commitment to obeying God and attaining God’s kingdom inevitably brought the same consequences’ (2006: 170) and continues ‘… they suffer as Christ did for the same gospel’ (2006: 172).

112

Paul and the Dynamics of Power

emphasis that even the function of an apostle was only of relative significance in relation to the significance of God through Christ. When read in this vein, the Pauline emphasis on attitudes and values which stand in stark contrast to the Roman elite value system promotes a kind of authority which is different from the exercise of leadership and authority within the realm of the dominating Roman power. Paul then promotes a kind of leadership and exercise of authority which is oriented on the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ and embedded in Jewish scriptural traditions of authority and leadership. With regard to the first this includes early traditions of Jesus’ teaching as well as about his life. Although there is only occasional evidence of Paul’s and the Pauline circle’s knowledge of such traditions, there can be no doubt that they were aware of them. The fact that hardly any explicit references to such traditions can be found in the Pauline letters, rather than being an indication that Paul and the Pauline circle did not know of such traditions or considered them irrelevant, could indicate on the contrary that they presupposed that these were known in the communities from previous teaching visits.55 But even without many explicit references to the teachings of Jesus (1 Cor. 7.10; 9.14; 11.23), references such as ‘ou0x o3ti kurieu/omen u9mw=n th=v pi/stewv’ (‘not that we lord it over your faith’ 2 Cor. 1.24) resonate with gospel traditions such as in Mt. 20.25-26a ‘… you know that the rulers of the nations lord it over them and their great men exercise authority over them. It shall not be so among you.’ The continuation of these verses ‘ but whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be your slave’ (20.26b-27)56 fits quite well with Paul’s perception of characteristics of the life of apostles (1 Cor. 3.5; 2 Cor. 4.5; Gal. 1.10; Gal. 5.13; Phil. 1.1) as well as with his self-perception as ‘the least of the apostles’ (o9 e0la/xistov tw=n a0posto/lwn [1 Cor. 15.9]). References in Paul to the inevitability of suffering as followers of Christ resonate with sayings such as ‘ If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me’ (Mk 8.34 par. Mt. 10.38; Lk. 9.23). Paul’s stress on gentleness and humility not only of Christ as in 2 Cor. 10.1 but also on these as attitudes through which Christ-followers should relate to each other (as in Gal. 6.1; 5.23; 1 Cor. 4.21) resonates with traditions such as ‘take my yoke upon you, and learn from me; for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls’, in Mt. 11.29.57 Since allusions and echoes, even direct references to such values are found throughout the Pauline letters it seems very unlikely that these did not influence the Pauline perception of leadership and the respective exercise of authority. These values differed radically from the values promoted in and by the dominating elite culture, rendering problems and conflicts almost inevitable 55. 56. 57. 3.12.

Contra Bultmann 1952: 188–89. Par. Mk 10.42. See also Mt. 21.5 and the respective prophetic traditions in Zeph. 9.9 and also

Power in Weakness

113

when the movement spread into the Graeco-Roman non-Jewish world. This seems even more inevitable when it is considered that the movement’s origins witness precisely to what seemed to be a lethal outcome of such a conflict (certainly from the perspective of the dominating Roman order) in proclaiming one executed on a Roman cross as Lord and Messiah.58 The fact is that these early Jesus traditions (admittedly transmitted in written form later than Paul) clearly emphasize that, within the realm of the kingdom of God, leadership and the exercise of authority ought to be of a radically different kind than that promoted and exercised in the dominating Roman imperial order. Such traditions support a reading of the Pauline discourse of weakness and suffering as referring to and resonating with the same alternative understanding of authority and leadership. These traditions are embedded in Jewish scriptural traditions which hardly depict any of their leaders as blameless, strong heroes but which mostly transmit traditions which depict them in quite ambiguous ways. The narratives of Moses, the greatest of all leaders, are paradigmatic in this respect. Moses is an ambiguous character. He does not embrace the call of God willingly, he does not always set his trust in God; he is weak, has doubts, sins, and does not enter the promised land. Olson notes that … leaders like Moses derive, on one hand, boldness, strength, and authority from their claims of relationship and connection to God. On the other hand in their relationship to God and in the face of realities of human communities, leaders like Moses come to know their own human limits, their frailty, their potential to misjudge God’s will and purpose, their need for the assistance of others, and their susceptibility to God’s judgment and critique as much as God’s affirmation and support.59

Thus the traditions in which the Pauline discourse is seen to be embedded in the reading advocated here, are traditions which nurture a perception of authority and leadership which differs radically and fundamentally from the value and virtue system of the Graeco-Roman world. Informed by and embedded in these traditions, in his claim to authority and a significant leadership role, Paul thus most likely shaped his understanding of these according to such traditions. He not only did so verbally, although this is the medium through which he obviously could argue very convincingly, and thus appear strong, but he also embodied his conviction and traditions within his entire way of life. To be a leader and exercise authority in this tradition could not possibly mean to dominate and control others. Domination and control of this kind stand in inherent opposition to the values of the kingdom of God. Power and authority must thus be exercised in a way which differs from the ways of this world (Rom. 12.1-2). It implies a relating to others in weaker positions in ways which support them in their lives; is attentive and 58. In relation to non-Christ-following Jewish society the issue is more complicated, but I cannot deal with this within the scope of this study. But see e.g. Campbell 2006: 37–38, Elliott 2005. 59. Olson 2005: 18, also 1994: 157–59.

114

Paul and the Dynamics of Power

responsive to their needs, and which empowers them for life. In his attempt to proclaim/translate the message of the gospel to gentiles who had been socialized into the value system of the Graeco-Roman world, even if they found themselves at the bottom of the social hierarchy of this system, Paul must have encountered problems in their understanding of his gospel.60 It is of little surprise that these former pagans, who, through Christ, had turned away from idolatry to the living God of Israel and thus now were gentile people of God, were struggling to grasp the implications of their ‘new way of life’ – and Paul was struggling with them. As Bartchy pointedly has noted: Resocialization into ‘new creation’ values so that one actually treats others well, especially one’s social inferiors according to ‘old creation’ standards, required enormous gifts of persuasion and a transformed style of leadership. Paul sought with all that was in him to be that kind of persuasive leader.61

6.7 Conclusion Paul’s strong reaction to the challenge of his authority as an apostle is an indication of how seriously he viewed it. But his main concern was not on the personal level, however troubling he may have found such a challenge; it was rather with the wider dimension this challenge had for an understanding of life in Christ as such. The values of the dominant Roman elite society introduced by others and which, according to Paul’s references, were willingly embraced by at least some Corinthians, were competitive values which stood in radical opposition to the values and the way of life in Christ. Paul reacts so passionately not because of a personal ‘insult’ but because the following of leaders who perceive authority in the vein of domination and control is a threat to the gospel as such. The conflict is centred around patterns of leadership in a movement which orients its way of life on Christ so that the limits of tolerance of diversity are overstretched when patterns of domination establish themselves within this movement. Paul’s emphasis on weakness and suffering need not be seen as a hidden or disguised power claim but rather as the only way and means by which he is able to remind the Corinthians of the radical alternative of the way of life in Christ and its liberating and empowering power not for a privileged elite only but for all. This may provide some explanation for the passionate language and atmosphere one encounters throughout this letter. It is not because Paul is challenged personally and the fact that this hurt him in a personal way but because the kind of leadership obviously promoted by the ‘superapostles’ stands in stark contrast to what life in Christ is all about. The defence and claim of apostleship found in the Corinthian correspondence has a personal dimension only in so far as that to follow Christ is a commitment

60. 61.

Horsley 2000a: 84–5. Bartchy 2005: 57.

Power in Weakness

115

to a way of life not to an intellectual or religious confession in a modern post-Enlightenment sense. Thus if Paul, as well as all the other apostles and leaders of the movement, did not embody the message they proclaimed with their entire lives, the message could not be trustworthy. Only apostles who were willing to ‘take up the cross’ and risk their own lives for the sake of life; who were willing to be prau+v and tapeino/v (2 Cor. 10.1); who were willing to become a1timoi (1 Cor. 4.10); accepted the risk of being beaten up and humiliated in their male honour (2 Cor. 11.23-25);62 in the context of a society which was dominated by cultural values and social codes which advocated aggressive, competitive and dominating behaviour of men in an all-pervasive quest and defence of honour, could be trustworthy messengers of the gospel of the kingdom of God.63 Thus Paul’s explicit stress on what, in the perception of the ‘superapostles’ disqualified him as an apostle, that is, his stress on the afflictions he had encountered, the ‘catalogue of hardships’, and even his ‘boasting of beatings’ are presented as clear ‘embodied’ indications that he is a trustworthy apostle of Christ.64 In the context in which Paul and these early Christ-followers lived, the endurance of suffering and acceptance of weakness were ways to live in accordance with, and remain faithful to, the gospel.65 And this is of prime significance for the Pauline perception of power and authority. Nevertheless, nowhere in the Pauline letters are suffering and weakness perceived as essential to faith in Christ in an ontological sense. The cross of Christ was a Roman cross, thus the actual historical context of his suffering and death cannot be ignored. When Paul maintains that to remain true to faith in Christ implies the acceptance of suffering and weakness, this context of what for many was perceived as a life-threatening dominating power needs to be considered as well. To live under the conditions of sin, that is, in an unbearable situation where the imposition of imperial power structures permeated all aspects of life so that no one could escape this influence, thus ‘all are under sin’ (Rom. 3.9c), left members of an occupied province like Judaea with few options. One could collaborate with the imperial power and thus collaborate with the power of sin, one could submit and be driven into poverty or even slavery due to the heavy tax imposed on any agricultural production or one could react violently in joining armed resistance groups. Arrangements with the imperial power of Rome were extremely difficult for 62. Cf. Glancy 2006: 24–29. 63. For more on the socialization of boys in Graeco-Roman society see Bartchy 2005: 54–55. 64. As Glancy notes ‘Paul does not present insignia of humiliation as emblems of valor, but neither does he acknowledge that those who flogged him have mastered him. His resistance to definition by those who whipped him is an implicit criticism of the Corinthians, who have, Paul alleges, been mastered by the superapostles’ (2004: 131). On the humiliation of physical punishment see also Hezser 2005: 202–08. 65. And as such, endurance and acceptance of weakness and suffering were aspects of a hidden transcript of a challenge to the dominating power discourse. Cf. also BaumannMartin 2004: 276–78.

116

Paul and the Dynamics of Power

the Jews, thus these three options were not realistic options for living, and collaboration opened some restricted possibilities but primarily for a small minority, i.e. the upper class.66 A Jewish messianic movement like the early Christ-movement which witnessed to one crucified by Rome as resurrected by God, and thereby implicitly proclaimed that a kingdom other than the kingdom of the Caesars was in the process of dawning, was an implicit threat to Roman imperial order. To remain faithful to God who resurrected Christ crucified, thereby confirming his promises of life and justice, rendered Christ-followers not prone to persecution but vulnerable to all sorts of trouble. Thus suffering and weakness were a consequence of life lived by faith in God through Christ, but not the essence nor the goal of this way of life. Paul and the other apostles perceive themselves as being called to proclaim the gospel of God through Christ – a gospel of the dawning of the kingdom of God, who is the God of hope and life. Power and authority exercised in communities of this movement were perceived by Paul and others as requiring to be lived and exercised according to the core values of this kingdom.

66. See Baltrusch’s thorough analysis of Jewish–Roman relations, especially chapter VI (2003: 125–47).

Chapter 7

POWER

IN INTERACTION – PAUL AND THE EDUCATION

DISCOURSE

OF

In various situations when Paul insists on his authority as a guide within his communities he does so in referring to father (or mother) images. The father image has been taken as an indication that inherent to the apostle’s claim is his tendency to establish control and domination over his converts in analogy to the role of the pater familias in Roman society.1 Along with this perception goes an understanding of the role of the father in Roman patriarchal society in which his power not only extends to the entire household (domus) or clan, but is a lifelong power in that members of the extended family were subject to the authority (potestas) of the pater during his entire lifetime. Even adult freeborn children could not act in their own right since the power of their father over them did not cease with them becoming adults.2 They were like slaves on the estate of the pater familias until he died. He retained absolute power (patria potestas) over property and family members, which included strict authority and sexual domination – and he even held the power of life and death over newborn children. Although it has been argued that this aspect of the power of the pater familias should not be overemphasized, it cannot be ignored that this power was certainly exercised in Roman society in relation to the acceptance of a newborn child into the family. If the father did not literally embrace the newborn he/she was doomed to die or be raised in slavery.3 Although Plutarch admonishes fathers not to be harsh (De Lib. 13/E), and the pater familias has duties and responsibilities over against the extended household (domus), the patria potestas is a form of ultimate

1. See White 2003: 457–87. 2. A son’s share of the inheritance was managed by the father unless he decided otherwise or the property was transferred to the son upon the father’s death. 3. See Joubert 1995: 214–15. White 2003: 458; Ovid, Metam. 8.675–679; also Tuor-Kurth 2005: 94–95; W. Stegemann 1980; Stegemann/Stegemann 1999:134, 204. It is significant in this respect that it was noted as a remarkable custom by several authors in antiquity that the Jews raised all their children. Diodorus Siculus 40.3, 40.8, Tacitus, Hist. 5.5.3. Cf. also Jewish arguments against infanticide Philo, Spec. Leg. 4.110–119, Josephus, Apion 2.202, Syb. Or. 3.762, 765.

118

Paul and the Dynamics of Power

dominating power.4 If Paul actually did claim authority in the vein of the Roman pater familias or alluded to it metaphorically, this would mean that he did indeed raise a strong claim to dominating power and authority. This would entail the claim of a permanent superior position over his communities, combined with a claim of total control and the requirement of absolute obedience to him.5 Although the existence of hierarchical dimensions in the relationship between Paul and his communities cannot be disputed, it is significant to note that he rarely addresses them as his children, but mostly as his brothers (which included sisters).6 When addressing them as children it is in contexts where he is in disagreement with their behaviour or when he emphasizes their relationship with the God of Israel through which they are now His children, children of the promise, or children of Abraham. And his references to himself as father (or mother) are rather rare as well. So it seems that he himself did not perceive this term as being of major significance when claiming authority in his communities7 (emphasis on his apostleship is of much more importance to him in this respect). This is interesting to note at the outset since one might expect that if Paul wanted to claim power over his communities he would do so by referring to the strongest possible role models or images available to him in his context. In a society influenced to a significant extent by a power role ascribed to the pater this would come as no little surprise. The fact that he does not frequently use this terminology indicates, in my view, that something different from a claim of power in the vein of the pater familias is going on in Paul’s use of father/mother imagery. The thesis I propose here is that it is more probable that the father/mother discourse of Jewish tradition is resonating with his reference to himself as father or mother rather than the role and status of the pater familias of Roman society. But this discourse is a twofold one in the Second Temple 4. Note that earliest references to the term ‘familia’ indicate that this did not refer to ‘family’ in the modern sense but rather to possessions – which most likely included slaves, the Latin word for a slave being famulus. Cf. White 2003: 478. This is not to deny that sources also witness to the loving and caring bond between parents and children in Roman society. Cf. also Rawson 2003. 5. Cf e.g. Joubert who contends that ‘His authority as their pater familias was beyond dispute … Clearly he was of the opinion that the effective management of the Corinthian household, which entailed total obedience to his instructions and teaching could facilitate the realization of his own honour in the eyes of his heavenly patrons’ (1995: 222). But note that White draws attention to the distinction of the Roman concept of the pater familias from Greek society ‘ The pater familias was a product of Roman social and cultural construction.’ It cannot be found in a similar way in Greece. He notes that there is no Greek word for familia – it is referred to as oi}kov thus not distinguishing between familia and domus. There is also no exact Greek word for pater familias. Nevertheless White maintains that the concept most likely was in existence in Greek cities under Roman rule, particularly in Roman colonies such as Corinth, Thessaloniki and Phillippi (2003: 464). 6. I agree with Aasgaard that the dominance of male sibling language is not an indication for the exclusion of female members of the Christ-movement. See 2004: 7–8. 7. Contra Joubert 1995: 216–17; Burke 2003b: 95–114.

Power in Interaction – Paul and the Discourse of Education

119

period, and earlier, in that it not only refers to the familial bonds between parents and children but also to the discourse of learning and teaching in Jewish tradition and society. The father/mother terminology of Paul is only one among a number of pointers towards such a discourse, and there are still other aspects which direct our attention to indications for an educational relationship between apostles and communities in the Pauline letters.

7.1 The Ethos of Education in Jewish Tradition Philo8 and Josephus both emphasize the significance and quality of education in Jewish tradition several times, Josephus even claiming that all Jewish boys get schooling from the age of five.9 Whether both first-century writers’ accounts are entirely historically accurate is a matter of debate. Possibly they serve rather apologetic functions over against their Graeco-Roman environment, and testify to an emergent ideal rather than existing universal practice. But the fact that they both praise Jewish education as a significant part of their tradition demonstrates that it was perceived as something which was important to the Jewish tradition of their time and that some sort of education, whether oral or literal, was widespread among their contemporaries.10 Synagogues of the Second Temple period, emerging both in Judaea and the Diaspora, most likely contributed to and were sites of a broadening education. This process had its roots in a long tradition of learning and teaching in Judaism. It was not confined to, or ever identified with, the literacy level of the people. David M.Carr has recently convincingly argued that literacy was not the key element in education in antique cultures, but that education rather was a process characterized by oral memorization which was supported to a wider or lesser extent by written texts.11 Thus the literacy level cannot be taken as the sole indicator of whether people had some education, or even of the level of their education.12 Thus the question whether people could read or write is not of primary significance when assessing the importance of education in ancient Israelite and early Jewish society.

8. ‘Since the Jews consider their laws to be divine revelation and are instructed in them from their earliest youth, they bear the image of the law on their souls’ Leg. Gai. 31.210. 9. Josephus emphasized that all children should be taught letters and ‘learn both the laws and deeds of their forefathers, in order that they may imitate the latter, and, being grounded in the former, may neither transgress nor have any excuse for being ignorant of them’ Apion 2.204 (transl. Thackeray 1976): 375. 10. Carr 2005: 247. Cf. Runesson 2003: 67. 11. Carr 2005: 111–73. 12. As Crenshaw maintains ‘In the ancient Near East education preceded literacy …’ (1998: 279).

120

Paul and the Dynamics of Power

7.2 Aspects of the Teaching and Learning Discourse in the Scriptures There is wide scholarly consensus that wisdom literature such as Proverbs, Job and Ecclesiastes witnesses to some sort of a curriculum of early Israelite education since it corresponds to similar material in Sumerian and Egyptian collections which obviously served educational purposes. These collections clearly indicate the primarily oral character of the learning and teaching process since it is emphasized that the student is admonished to ‘Incline your ear and hear my words, and set your heart/mind on my knowledge; for it will be pleasant if you keep them with your belly, if all are established on your lips’ (Prov. 22.17-18).13 This kind of teaching most likely did not encompass a broader population but rather was confined to an elite in pre-Hellenistic Israelite society.14 Although somehow associated with the court or temple, the setting of such learning and teaching more likely was the family or a familyrelated group, an apprenticeship-like setting rather than a school, a kind of small-group setting and experience of sons being taught by their fathers and mothers. Thus father/mother and teacher most probably were one and the same person and only occasionally would children be sent specifically to another family for learning purposes. The references to father/mother in the proverbs thus refer primarily to their roles as teachers rather than indicating merely family relations.15 Although the father is most prominently mentioned in this role, it is quite remarkable that certain key sayings refer to both father and mother; thus Prov. 1.8 admonishes: ‘Hear, my son, your father’s instruction and do not reject your mother’s teaching’, and again 6.20: ‘My son, keep your father’s commandment and do not forsake not your mother’s teaching’. The admonition to learn wisdom is frequently accompanied by the emphasis that: ‘A wise son makes a glad father, but a foolish son is a sorrow to his mother’ (Prov.10.1); or ‘Let your father and mother be glad; let her who bore you rejoice’ (Prov. 23.25); or a warning such as ‘the eye that mocks a father and scorns to obey a mother will be pecked out by the ravens of the valley and eaten by the vultures’ (Prov. 30.17). This indicates that the concern for learning and teaching was a matter which was associated with both parents.16 The significance of the female voice and character concerning education in the book of Proverbs is highlighted by the fact that the book is actually framed by the ‘teaching of the mother’ in that the opening of the teaching section refers to the ‘teaching of the mother’ (1.8) and the concluding section is in praise of the woman who could well be seen as the embodiment of the teaching, that is wisdom herself (Prov. 31.10-31). The 13. Following Carr 2005: 126–27. 14. It is unclear when and how widespread such text-supported education began but Carr maintains that ‘Given parallels in other cultures it is likely that such education was part of Israelite urbanization. As soon as Israel started to take on the greater hierarchy of a citystate system, it would have developed … an oral-written process of enculturation that helped socialize and set apart a priestly and royal scribal elite’ (2005: 131). 15. On this also Crenshaw 1998: 188, 209 16. Also Prov.10.1; 15.20; 17.25; 29.15.

Power in Interaction – Paul and the Discourse of Education

121

praise is preceded by the mother teaching her son, the king (Prov. 31.1).17 It has been noticed that such maternal instruction is unique in the Scriptures and throughout the Ancient Near East, and this is clear evidence of a strong tradition within the Scriptures of a teaching and learning discourse with both father and mother involved in the teaching of their children whereby they passed on their skills – in the case of writing and reading, their literacy, to their sons and daughters.18 The emphasis on educating the elite youth in pre-Hellenistic Israel seems to have become a target of some criticism by prophets. Although traces of a possible traditional ‘wisdom’ education can be found, for example, in Isa. 28.9-13, other passages, such as Isa. 5.21-24 and 29.14 indicate a rather critical attitude towards traditional wisdom as taught in circles around the court and temple.19 But this criticism does not lead to a renunciation of education as such but rather it seems to have initiated an alternative form of education. Other passages in Isaiah suggest that the prophet tried to pass on his ‘teaching’ to students so it may not be lost for future generations, thus offering an alternative to the teaching of the elite which the prophet perceived to be distorted. The directions given in Isa. 8.16 (‘Wrap up the instruction, seal the teaching among my students’20 hrwt Mwtx hrw(t rwc yIdmlb) instructs hearers to keep the prophetic message using clear teaching and learning terminology. Although ‘wrap up’ and ‘seal’ could refer to the process of ‘keeping in your heart’, that is, an oral learning process, it could also be an early indication of a process of written transmission of the prophetic message.21 The two, the oral and written dimension need not be mutually exclusive as often the oral learning process was supported by some written texts – certainly at a later period. The fact that the words of the prophet were transmitted to later generations is proof that a written transmission eventually did emerge. Jeremiah 36 is one of the key texts which in narrative form refers to aspects of the oral–written character of learning, teaching and transmitting of tradition – in Jeremiah’s case again it is a teaching critical of the established elite. It is interesting to note that Jeremiah 36 envisions a world ‘where figures like prophets could hold entire texts in their minds and hearts which they then orally communicated to other Israelites’.22 17. Emphasis is added by the fact that the content of teaching, wisdom, is undoubtedly depicted as a female character (Prov. 8.22-31). I am indebted here to Christine Yoder who brought this strong female dimension in Proverbs to my attention. Cf. her forthcoming commentary. 18. Carr 2005: 130–31. It is thus possible that the commandment to honour father and mother reflects on the role of both parents in the teaching of their children/students, as Crenshaw maintains (1998: 189). I am not aware of literary evidence of the teaching of daughters but the teaching role of mothers necessarily required that some daughters were taught in the same vein as sons. 19. Cf. Carr 2005: 143 and also Fishbane 1985: 33. 20. Translation Carr 2005: 143. 21. See also Byrskog 1994: 39–42. 22. Carr 2005: 149, see there more examples of the prophetic transmission process (143–51).

122

Paul and the Dynamics of Power

A narrative which indicates that the relationship between a prophet and his followers could well have been a kind of teacher–student relationship, is the Elijah–Elisha tradition.23 When Elijah is taken up in a chariot of fire and ‘ascended in a whirlwind into heaven, Elisha kept watching and crying out, “My Father, my father! The chariots of Israel and its horsemen!” (2 Kgs 2.12). Byrskog draws attention to this and interprets it as an indication of its being linked to the identification of father and teacher in the Ancient Near East. The significance of Elisha calling Elijah ‘my father’ is supported by the fact that Josephus depicts Elisha as the disciple (maqhth/v) of Eljiah.24 This perception of the relationship of Elijah and Elisha is further emphasized in later rabbinic tradition, as it is regarded as a paradigmatic teacher–student relationship.25 Teaching and learning are not only significant themes in relation to texts of Scripture which are associated with the elites of Israelite society, or a critique of these. Education emerges as a key element in the self-understanding of the people Israel and her relationship to God particularly since the post-exilic period. A key passage, Deut. 6.4-25, witnesses to the central theme of Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic reconstruction of Israel’s history – the passing on of the tradition to further generations through enculturating the children into this tradition. The people of Israel are first called to respond to God’s call in loving God with all their ‘heart’ and to keep his commandments in their ‘hearts’; moreover, they should be open to their children’s questions concerning these words because in answering them they become socialized into this very same tradition. This emphasis on teaching and learning emerges over and over again throughout the whole of the book of Deuteronomy (e.g. Deut. 11.18-21), with a particular focus on the teachings and commandments of Deuteronomy itself. Thus Deut. 5.1 calls on ‘all Israel’ to hear, to learn and to observe these. Again the emphasis on ‘hearing’ and ‘doing, observing’ can be found – an indication that the learning envisaged is an oral process and, what is even more significant for our study, Deuteronomy in distinction from wisdom literature, clearly presents the vision of an enculturation/education of all (male) Israelites through this constant learning/teaching process.26 This teaching and learning process is envisaged as a process of constant recitation: ‘Teach them to your children, reciting them when you are at home and when you are away, when you lie down and when you rise’ (Deut. 11.19 NRSV adapted).27 Since children and adults in these kind of societies shared almost all aspects of everyday life, the constant recitation meant that children were enculturated through hearing whereas adults kept these words in their hearts 23. See Byrskog 1994: 36–38. 24. Ant. 8.354 and Ant. 9.28. 25. B. Ber. 7b, b. Sanh. 68a, Mek. on 12.1, 13.19. See Byrskog 1994:38. On the significance of father and mother in relation to education in Jewish tradition see also Patterson 2005: 20–23. 26. Cf. Carr 2005: 134–43. The text also contains references to this characteristic in the Deuteronomic historical reconstruction.

Power in Interaction – Paul and the Discourse of Education

123

through repeating them. In hearing and reciting the words heard, and in observing the guidance for life the people are being taught ‘the way of the Lord’, that is, how to live their lives in relation to the one God who has called them. Israel is called to ‘hear’ and to ‘learn’ and to ‘obey’ the statutes and commandments of the Lord (Deut. 5.1). Thus education actually was enculturation into the way of the Lord, that is, into a life that was shaped by this particular relationship. In that sense it was actually an identity-forming process. It involved oral and literal transmission of traditions, and one major purpose of writing down these traditions was to preserve them as a means to support this education process.28 Carr maintains that this educational context was the primary focus of the literary transmission of traditions in the Ancient Near East, including Israel, where texts were transmitted as ‘biblical’ texts ‘when they were used to educate and enculturate young Israelite elites, a usage relatively consistent with later Jewish educational use of the Bible. From the earliest period of their use as Scripture such (proto) biblical texts served as authoritative reference texts for use in education …’29

7.3 Traces of the Teaching and Learning Discourse in Second Temple Judaism Whatever the exact process of their emergence, it is evident that by the time of the Second Temple, written traditions, that is, the Torah and the prophets played a significant role in Jewish life in Palestine as well as throughout the Diaspora. This set of Scriptures served as the focus of a Jewish educationenculturation system which aimed at educating more than an elite, in fact the entire (male) population. As Carr, in my view convincingly, demonstrates, it was a ‘system’ which is developed parallel to, and informed by, but mainly in resistance over against, the dominating Hellenistic influence of the period.30 Indication of this process can be found in inter-testamental literature as 27. Cf. Claussen 2003:149. 28. Carr 2005:160. 29. Carr 2005:112. Carr develops an interesting and in many aspects convincing model for reconstructing the emergence of what became the Scriptures as a process of oralwritten transmission which began prior to the Exile. The Exile is perceived as a decisive period of reconfiguring old traditions which had been preserved through memorization and thus became the groundwork for future Israelite education, with a focus on the priestly dimension as priests played a decisive role in the post-exilic period. But distinct from other parts of the Persian empire, the priestly material did not replace but was set alongside nonpriestly traditions (2005: 161–73). 30. Carr maintains that ‘Partly in resistance to the power of Hellenistic culture, Judaism develops its own indigeneous educational system, a system supported by (purportedly) pre-Hellenistic Hebrew texts but aimed, like Hellenistic education – at education of more than a social elite’ (2005: 202 ). On the role of the Scriptures he proposes the thesis that ‘the Jewish Hebrew Scriptures were defined and functioned within the regional empire of the Hasmoneans as part of a project of specifically Hebrew (and non-Greek) educationenculturation to create a “Jewish” identity’ (2005: 262).

124

Paul and the Dynamics of Power

well as in references to synagogues in literature and inscriptions. Although some of the inter-testamental literature most likely still reflects a situation of education on a limited scale – closely related to the temple and priests, it is significant to note that the language used refers to the teacher–student relationship similar to that found in the Scriptures. Thus 1 En. 81 presupposes a narrative world in which a father teaches his children in a combination of oral and written instruction. A similar setting is presupposed in the Epistle of Enoch (1 En. 92.1), and a narrative of a fatherly teaching setting concludes the book of Enoch (1 En. 108).31 Other examples of fathers passing on their teaching to their children/students can be found in the pseudepigraphic genre of Testaments, where the final teaching of an Israelite patriarch is presented, as e.g. in the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, Abraham or Moses. The Testament of Levi includes the following teaching ‘Listen to the word of Levi, your father, and pay heed to the instruction of God’s friend. I am instructing you, my children, and I reveal truth to you, my beloved ones …’ (T. Levi 83–90).32 A similar emphasis on the passing on of tradition by teacherfathers to their student-sons can be found in the book of Jubilees. Whereas this literature does not reflect actual traditions which can be traced to these ancient patriarchal figures, they do provide us with some insight into their respective contexts and what was considered a narrative world which was plausible for the contemporaries of these writings. Of primary significance for our purpose is the consistent depiction of an educational situation where a father-teacher instructs and transmits traditions to his student-children. Thus the perception of the father as teacher and of the teacher as father emerges as a commonplace of ancient Israelite society reflected in the Hebrew Scriptures as well as in later literature of the Second Temple period.33 This, alongside clear indications of the high value and significance which is attributed to education throughout the Jewish literature of these periods, demonstrates that a specific Jewish discourse and tradition of education beyond a small elite was well established as common practice at Paul’s time. These literary indications are supported by references to the growing significance of synagogues in Palestine as well as elsewhere in the Roman Empire. Jews were known to assemble, whether in specific buildings, in private houses, or open spaces.34 These assembly sites were known as ‘houses of prayer’, schools, sabbatheioi or synagogues and according to Josephus were recognized and had gained some sort of protection by the Roman 31. Schams 1998: 92–98. 32. Carr 2005: 205. 33. Another interesting example in this context is the prominence of the ‘Righteous Teacher’ found in the Qumran literature. I cannot elaborate on this here but see Newsom 1990: 373–82. Also Carr 2005: 215–39. 34. Claussen proposes to perceive most Diaspora synagogues as being meeting places in private houses in the context of large families (2003: 161). 35. See the reference to a decree Josephus attributes to Augustus which states that ‘Jews should be allowed to send it [the sacred money] to Jerusalem, and the property of anyone who stole their sacred books or their sacred money from the sabbatheion or from an ark should be forfeited by Rome’ (cited in Sanders 1999: 6).

Power in Interaction – Paul and the Discourse of Education

125

authorities.35 It is well documented that the synagogues were sites of weekly Sabbath gatherings and a major focus of these gatherings was the public reading and study not of Greek texts but of the Hebrew Torah.36 Almost all Second Temple sources which mention synagogues refer to the public reading of the Torah as a central activity, whatever other functions the synagogues served. A. Runesson indicates that this public reading may have had its origins in the Persian period under Ezra and Nehemiah37 and Claussen maintains that the educational tasks which originally were taken care of within the family were partially taken over by synagogue communities.38 Since synagogues prior to the destruction of the Second Temple were not part of a centralized organization but were local affairs which were organized by a local community and were the meeting place of this entire community, and thus not controlled by a particular group, it should come as no surprise that there are references to different forms and functions which synagogues may have served.39 But the references to public Torah reading and studying are so widespread and consistent that there can be hardly any doubt that this was the central focus throughout. This was a unique practice in the context of the ancient world which has no parallels in the pagan environment.40 It is an indication that a significant part of these communities must have got some education through these readings and studies of Torah, if we take into account, as mentioned above, that education should not be equated with literacy. As Levine notes ‘… the Torah reading (and the reading from the Prophets) served as a springboard for further instruction and edification.’ Philo’s claim that every seventh day thousands of philosophical schools opened their doors and Jews would learn and study their sacred texts there almost all day, are most likely exaggerated even for the Alexandrian situation, and most certainly for other places, yet it can hardly be ignored that in many places ‘… Sabbath morning worship developed into a serious learning session.’41 New Testament passages are no doubt witness to this practice as well. A significant part of the Jewish population then can be perceived as having had some knowledge of their own identity-shaping tradition. To learn and teach the words of God to their children is not a mere addition to ‘the way of the Lord’ but a core focus, as emphasized in Deuteronomy in particular, as for example: ‘He said to them: Set your hearts on all the words which I testify among you today, which you shall command your children to be careful to observe – all the words of this law. For it is not a futile thing for you, because it is your life, and by this word you shall prolong your days in the land which you cross over the Jordan to possess’ (Deut. 32.46-47 NKJ). Thus the discourse of education is of primary significance in Jewish tradition and parents/teachers play a key role in the transmission of the tradition to the next generation. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41.

Carr 2005: 245. Runesson 2003: 67. Claussen 2003: 150. See Sanders 1999: 12. Levine 2005: 151. Levine 2005: 155–57.

126

Paul and the Dynamics of Power

Although we must be careful not to confuse ancient educational with contemporary educational ideals, one element can confidently be identified as being shared by both. Although a teacher–student relationship is asymmetrical and of a hierarchical structure whether in ancient or contemporary contexts, inherent in such a relationship is its temporal limitation. The aim of the educational relationship is to render itself obsolete, that is, to pass on the content of the teaching in such a way that upon successful completion the role of the teacher is to render him/herself superfluous. Thus, although the teaching methods as mentioned in the Scriptures42 were certainly very different from contemporary ideals and educational insights, the structure and purpose of the educational relationship is nevertheless transformative rather than static. Moreover, in contrast to the role and power of the pater familias, parents did not have the right over life and death of their children irrespective of their behaviour as Deut. 21.18-21 indicates. The educational discourse in Second Temple Judaism and the respective role of the father/mother/teacher in this tradition thus differs significantly from the role of the pater familias of Roman society. Despite noticeable Hellenistic influence in the shaping of the Jewish educational agenda, it can be asserted that the focus of this agenda was to provide an alternative to Hellenistic education/enculturation. To propose that the role of father/teacher must have been identical across these cultural divergences thus seems rather strange. If the father/teacher is attributed a key role in the transmission of an alternative educational agenda then surely the role and image of this proponent of this tradition must be clearly distinguishable from the ideals of fathers and leaders of the culture which it opposed. In the following analysis of relevant passages of the Pauline letters it is presupposed that Paul is a member of the adherents and promoters of this alternative, the Jewish education/enculturation process. I will investigate whether and to what extent traces of an educational discourse can be found in the Pauline letters and what implications this has for a perception of the power dynamics between Paul and his communities.

7.4 Paul – a Father/Mother of his Communities As noted above, the parent–children terminology, and the father terminology in particular, are rarely used for describing the relationship between the apostle and his communities.43 Whereas when he is mentioning God, he frequently refers to Him as path\r h(mw~n (Rom. 1.7; 1 Cor. 1.3; 2 Cor. 1.2 etc.), and sometimes to the communities as te/kna qeou~ (Rom. 8.16; 9.3; 2

42. See e.g. Prov. 29.15 also Sir. 30.1-2. 43. Contra Burke who claims that ‘“Father” is Paul’s preferred self-designation …’ (2003b: 108). Rather, as noted above, sibling language is preferred by Paul when speaking directly to his communities, indicating that although in an asymmetrical relationship with them, he sees himself rather as one within a group of siblings, as Aasgaard clearly demonstrates (2004: 285–303).

Power in Interaction – Paul and the Discourse of Education

127

Cor. 6.18) or u#ioi qeou~ (Rom. 8.14; Gal. 3.26; 4.6), there are actually only two passages where Paul refers to an e0kklhsi/a as ‘his children’ (te&kna mou) and by implication to himself as their father (u9mav e0ge/nnhsa), that is, in 1 Cor. 4.15, or in Gal 4.19 as their mother who is suffering birth-pangs(w)di/nw). He mentions that he exhorted them like a father exhorts his children in 1 Thess. 2.11 and was like a nurse to them in 1 Thess. 2.7. But even there it is obvious that Paul uses this terminology metaphorically.44 Other passages where Paul uses parent–children vocabulary are clearly metaphorical; thus in 2 Cor. 6.13 he writes ‘I speak to you as to children’ (w9v te/knoiv le/gw ) and in 2 Cor. 12.14 he speaks in more general terms about his decision not to burden the Corinthians using parental vocabulary.45 The metaphorical nature of the terminology is obvious here – thus Paul does not identify himself as being their father but is quite clear that his relationship to the communities, here to the Corinthians, can be described in parental terms, which does not imply that he perceives himself to be literally their ‘father’. The distinction between essence and image is clearly maintained by Paul when applying it in relation to his communities.46 He is speaking more directly when talking about his relationship to a particular member of the movement, as, for example, in 1 Cor. 4.17 and Philm. 10, where he directly refers to Timothy and Onesimus respectively as ‘his child’. In other passages he maintains the distinction, as, for example, in Phil. 2.22, where he refers to Timothy as having served with him in the gospel ‘w9v patri\ te/knon’. Various reasons may have led to Paul’s careful metaphorical use of father language: he uses father terminology frequently when talking about God.47 In this he is consistent with a tradition later passed on in the Gospel of Matthew (Mt. 23.8-10) which cautions against using the titles rabbi, father or teacher for anyone within the Christmovement as within the movement there is only one father, God, and only one rabbi and teacher, Christ, whereas the members should call themselves siblings.48 The exclusive use of father language in relation to God could be an indication of a subversive discourse in the Pauline letters, in conjunction with other terms such as ku/riov, dikaiosu/nh, ei)rh/nh, etc.49 In contrast to ‘this world’, that is, Graeco-Roman society, as adopted children of the promise they call only one their father, He who is also the father of Christ Jesus (Rom. 8.15-16). Paul seems to be aware of the power of this term in its GraecoRoman context and he seems to be very cautious of what associations this 44. Cf. Gaventa 2004: 87; Williams 2003; and also the excellent study by Gerber 2005. 45. Cf. Gaventa 2004:90. Also Aasgaard 2004:288. 46. Similarly in 1 Thess. 2.7-12; see below. 47. Which is rooted in scriptural images of God as father, and also mother. See Rendtorff 2005: 618–21. Alexander draws attention to the significance of the teaching dimension in the perception of God in Jewish tradition, ‘To adhere to the words of the shema is not only to follow God’s teaching, but also to imitate God as a teacher’ (2001: 6). 48. Cf. Duling 1995: 164–66. 49. Cf. Georgi 1991 and 1997; Elliott 2000 and 2005; Horsley 2000a; Ehrensperger 2004a: 154–59. Also Bartchy 2003.

128

Paul and the Dynamics of Power

might trigger, particularly associations which were informed by the image of the pater familias of Roman society. Another indication of Paul’s caution, and consistency with Jewish tradition, in relation to the use of the father metaphor is the fact that in passages where he does actually use it, maternal images are found in close proximity.50 Thus 1 Cor. 4.15 resonates with Paul’s earlier statement that he could not talk to them w9v pneumatikoi~v a0ll0 w9v sarki&noiv w9v nhpi&oiv e0n Xristw=?. Ga&la u9ma~v e0po&tisa ou0 brw~ma ou!pw ga&r e)du&nasqe (‘as spiritual people but rather as people of the flesh, as infants in Christ. I fed you with milk, not solid food, for you were not ready for solid food’ [1 Cor. 3.1b-2] NRSV). The ‘mother/nurturing’ image here even precedes the father image. It could be argued that the parental images here frame the arguments put forward in chapters 3 and 4. Whether this is so or not, it is interesting to note that Paul does not hesitate to use maternal and paternal language alongside each other.51 In a society primarily structured according to the dominating power of the father/pater, maternal and nurturing imagery does not provide the strongest support for establishing dominating power over rebellious ‘children’! Thus rather than being indications for dominating power or even force which Paul wishes to exercise over his communities, the father and mother images with which Paul refers to his relationship with his communities might rather resonate with an educational discourse in his letters.

7.5 Parental Images in 1 Corinthians Recent interpreters have noted Paul’s use of father language in 1 Cor. 4.1421, and perceive it either as an indication that through it, Paul appeals either to his close, loving and intimate relationship, and emphasizes his care for the Corinthians,52 or to his authority, as the pater familias of the e0kklhsi/a.53 Some interpreters also mention the educational dimension of the father image, but according to my knowledge, this is not considered significant for the interpretation of this passage or generally of the image of Paul and his theologizing. This is surprising given the high significance of learning and teaching in Jewish tradition. The fact that in 4.14 Paul seems almost to feel a need to apologize or at least to clarify his clear tone in the previous passage has been interpreted as an indication that he wants to emphasize the in-group dimension of his letter

50. See above for the involvement of both parents in educating their children as emphasized in Jewish tradition. 51. Gaventa has drawn attention to the fact that maternal language occurs more frequently in the Pauline letters than paternal terminology; 1996. 52. Thiselton 2000: 369. 53. Cf. Joubert 1995: 213–19. See also White who describes Paul as a spiritual pater familias or more appropriately according to his analysis as a broker for God, the heavenly patron in his role as pater familias. (2003: 470).

Power in Interaction – Paul and the Discourse of Education

129

over against the ‘outside’ world (ko/smov)54 as to ‘shame’ them would rather distance them from him and his advice and teaching.55 I cannot elaborate on this aspect here, but the use of the term nouqetw~n indicates that what Paul has written so far in the letter is part of a discourse which aims at the growth and maturity of the e0kklhsi/a.56 The emphasis on the procreation/begetting dimension of fatherhood here has been taken as a reason for limiting the metaphor to the foundational activity of Paul in Corinth.57 The context of this metaphor certainly encourages such a reading as the images of ‘head gardener’ and ‘master builder’ and ‘layer of foundation’ direct the hearer/ reader’s attention towards Paul’s initial foundational activity in Corinth. Although there are later rabbinic traditions which compare someone to a father who converts a gentile to the ways of the Torah,58 I think it is more significant that the immediate as well as the wider context of the ‘father’ metaphor resonates as much with a teaching and learning discourse as with a foundational discourse. In 4.16 Paul encourages (parakalw~) them to imitate him and goes on to elaborate about the purpose of Timothy’s visit: he shall remind them of the ways of Christ as he teaches them in all the e0kklhsi/ai (o4v u(ma=v a)namnh/sei ta\v o(dou/v mou ta\v e)n Xristw?~ I)hsou~ kaqw\v pantaxou~ e)n pa/sh? e)kklesi/a? dida/skw). The three key terms Paul uses here, a)namnh/sei, o3doi and didaskei/n, are terms which in Jewish tradition have specific meanings in relation to teaching and learning. To ‘remind’ them, resonates with the repeated and frequent exhortation of the Scriptures to remember the deeds and words of God on behalf of his people, to remember his guidance through the Torah.59 The things Timothy is sent to remind them of are ‘the ways of Christ’ Paul had taught them. ‘o3dov’ seems to have become an early ‘label’ for the Christ-movement (Acts 9.2; 19.23; 22.4 etc.) but also resonates with the widespread terminology of ‘walking in the ways of the Lord’ in the Scriptures, as, for example, Exod. 18.20 ‘teach them the statutes and instructions and make known to them the way they are to go and the things they are to do’; Ps. 25.4 ‘Make me to know your ways, O LORD’ Deut. 26.17; ‘Today you have obtained the LORD’s agreement: to be your God; and for you to walk in his ways …’ Deut. 28.9; ‘The LORD will establish you as his holy people, as he has sworn to you, if you keep the commandments of the LORD your God and walk in his ways’ (NRSV). This is what Paul had been doing when he was with them – he emphasizes here that ‘dida/skein ta\v o(dou/v ta\v e)n Xristw?~ Ih)sou=’ (teaching the ways of Christ) is actually what he does everywhere in 54. Cf. 1 Cor .1.21; 2.12; 4.9, 13 – as references to a different value system opposed to the value system of those in Christ. 55. On this see Gerber 2005:273. 56. See 1 Cor. 2.6; 14.20 57. Gerber 2005:270. 58. b. Sanh 19b; 99b; GenR 84[53b]. Cf. also Barth 2000: 327–31. 59. Cf. e.g. Exod. 12.14; 13.3; 17.4; 20.4; 32.12; Deut. 5.5; 7.18; 8.2, 18; 32.7 and numerous other passages in the Old Testament. The LXX translates the Hebrew rtz root conistently with terms containing the root mnh. On the significance of rtz in Jewish tradition see Yerushalmi 1982.

130

Paul and the Dynamics of Power

every e0kklhsi/a. This is straightforward teaching language. And since from what he has heard about them from the people of Chloe makes him think that they have not really understood his teachings, or have already forgotten significant aspects of it, he perceives it necessary to send them a ‘reminder’ not just by sending them a letter (as with Romans, cf. Rom. 15.15). To find the father imagery in such close relation and proximity to this teaching language could be mere coincidence. But it should be taken into account that at the beginning of this passage in chapter 3 Paul uses the maternal image of feeding a small child with milk, a stage the Corinthians should have grown out of by now as Paul had expected them to be able to digest solid food – that is to understand the ‘ways of the Lord’ as mature adults.60 This is a further indication that the background of Paul’s writing here is a Jewish educational setting. Philo among others has used the same images of mild and solid food as practices of teaching which should guide the student to maturity.61 The allusion to a mother’s activity in the upbringing of a child here is thus an educational metaphor used by Paul to contrast his expectations of the Corinthians with what he perceives as a failure of growth in Christ on their part. I therefore do not see that Paul uses maternal imagery to appeal more to the long-term dimension of his relationship with the Corinthians or to a more intimate, gentle and feminine dimension of the relationship with them.62 The maternal image serves the same educational purpose as the paternal image, and should not be read as a reference to a more emotional or intimate dimension of the relationship than the reference to the father. We should be careful not to read into these images idealized and over-emotionalized family images of nineteenth-century bourgeois societies of Western Europe. Keeping scriptural images of fathers and mothers and their roles in mind, it is worth noting that the mother is depicted as part of the educational process – not merely of primary education but as ‘instructing’ and ‘teaching’ her children, very similar to the task of fathers.63 And in the same vein mothers are to be respected and honoured. Thus the maternal image here is rather part of the educational discourse which can be found throughout chapters 3 and 4. Thiselton, moreover, notes that Paul in chapter 2 speaks of te/leiov in the sense of a mature, grown-up, adult (2.6), which is a further indication that the parental images which follow in chapters 3 and 4 should not be read as isolated metaphors but in their immediate as well as wider context within the letter. It emerges then that these not very frequent parental images can be seen as part of a discourse which can be found throughout the letter to the Corinthians – a teaching and learning discourse – indications of which can also be found in terms other than just the father/mother metaphors.

60. 61. 62. 63.

See also Moses’ complaint in Num. 11.10-15. Omn. Prob. Lib. 160, Congr. 15–19. So Gaventa 1996: 89. Exod. 20:12; Sir 3.2-16. See also 7.2 and 7.3 above.

Power in Interaction – Paul and the Discourse of Education

131

In the context of wisdom language in chapters 1 and 2, which in itself is an indication for an educational situation,64 some specific terms implying a teaching/learning discourse can be noted. In the scriptural reference of 2.9 God is referred to in the vein of a teacher, and in 2.11-13 Paul mentions knowledge and understanding as necessary dimensions of faith whereas the Spirit serves in a teaching role (e)n didaktoi~v pneu/matov [2.13]). In 2.16 he confirms that no one can teach (sumbiba/sei) God. His and Apollos’ way of dealing with differences serves as an example by which they shall learn (ma/qhte, 4.6). There are a number of other passages in 1 Corinthians where an educational discourse can be discerned. The frequent question ‘do you not know?’ (ou)k oi!date e.g. 1 Cor. 6.2; 6.3; 6.9; 6.15; 6.16; 6.19) or the assertion ‘I do not want you to be unaware’ NRSV (ou) qe/lw ga\r u(ma=v a)gnoei~n [1 Cor. 10.1]) , later followed by the note that the example from Scripture referred to ‘had been written down for our instruction’ (e0gra/fh de\ pro\v nouqesi/an h(mw~n [10.11b]), are further indications that to learn about certain things, that is to be enculturated into the scripturally and Christ-shaped symbolic universe and way of life is vital for being part of the Christ-movement.65 There are passages in other letters which reveal an inherent educational agenda on Paul’s part, including the primary significance and role of the Scriptures of Israel in this – for example, Rom. 15.4 ‘For whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction, that by steadfastness and by encouragement of the scriptures we might have hope’ (o#sa ga\r proegra/fh ei0v th\n h(mete/ran didaskali/an e)gra/fh i#na dia\ th~v u(pomonh~v kai\ dia\ th~v paraklh/sewv tw~n grafw~n th\n e)lpi/da e!xwmen).66 This cannot be dealt with in detail here as an analysis of the particular role of the Scriptures in the educational discourse of the early Christ-movement is beyond the scope of my study. I will now turn to the other letter where parental language is explicitly used in relation to a community: 1 Thessalonians.67

7.6 Parental Images in 1 Thessalonians In 1 Thessalonians a pairing of parental terminology similar to the one found in 1 Corinthians occurs. In 1 Thess. 2.7 the metaphor of a wet-nurse is used, followed in 2.11 by a reference comparing the apostles’ role to that of fathers. There has been much debate as to what the authors, Paul, Silvanus and Timothy, actually may have meant by tro/fov. I cannot elaborate on this in detail, it is sufficient for the purpose of this study to note that 64. See 7.2 above. 65. I perceive Paul’s frequent use of parakalei/n to be an indication of the educational discourse as well, as I cannot see why it should not be translated as ‘encourage’ in most instances – parallel to paraklh/siv – which is mostly rendered ‘encouragement’ in the NRSV. I will deal with this aspect later in Chapter 9. 66. The frequent o2uk oi2date in Romans 6–7 is another indication of this. 67. References of parental language in relation to a co-worker cannot be addressed here.

132

Paul and the Dynamics of Power

obviously the authors use a maternal image to refer to their earliest activity in Thessaloniki. In a similar way to 1 Cor. 3.1-2, the image refers to the feeding of small children with milk at an early stage in their life as distinct from ‘solid food’ – although this distinction is not made here, as the authors use the image only to refer positively to the building up of their relationship with the Christ-group at Thessaloniki. In conjunction with this, the term nh/pioi, which is clearly related to Paul and the other apostles, has given rise to puzzlement as well.68 But Paul mentions in 1 Corinthians that he has ‘become all things to all people’( 9.22), which from an educational perspective can be taken as a reference to good teaching practice in that students are addressed in a form and on a level to which they can relate and thus understand. So the authors here could well be referring to their earliest teaching practice, emphasizing by the term nh/pioi that their teaching ‘method’ was appropriate to the Thessalonians’ ‘beginners’ stage.69 Again, if the maternal image here resonates with the teaching/learning discourse of Jewish tradition this is not so much an allusion to specific emotional bonding between a small child and his mother but rather to the teaching task of a mother and the appropriateness of this teaching. Where the mother is mentioned the father is not far away! The language used to refer to the father’s activity in 2.11-12 is explicit rather than metaphorical teaching terminology. The authors here remind the Thessalonians that they had encouraged, advised and pleaded with them to lead a way of life worthy of God who had called them into his kingdom and glory (2.12). This is the task of both father and mother according to Jewish tradition, and the authors depict an image of their activity which strongly resembles this traditional task. There are a number of other passages in which teaching/learning language is clearly present. Immediately after the parental image in 1 Thess. 2.7-12 the authors praise the Thessalonians in 2.13 that they have received the word of God which they have heard (paralabo/ntev lo/gon a0koh~v) . They further acknowledge the successful learning process in mentioning that the Thessalonians have become imitators of the e0kklhsi/ai in Judaea (mimhtai\ e0genh/qhte a0delfoi/ tw=n e0kklesiw~n tou~ qeou~ tw~n ou0sw~n e)n th~| Ioudai/a)? whereas the Corinthians still needed Paul’s encouragement to become imitators of him ( mimhtai/ mou gi/nesqe [1.Cor 4.17]). Imitation is part of the educational process in both instances – this was considered to be a significant part of educational processes generally in antiquity, and in Jewish education in particular.70 Allusions to a teaching/learning dimension in the apostles’ relationship with the Thessalonians can be found, as in 1 Corinthians, throughout the letter. They frequently encourage them (parakalei/n), show their joy and 68. That apostles should have referred to themselves – even metaphorically – as infants seems inconceivable and the textual variant here – h1pioi – encourages the tendency to bypass the difficulty in translating the term as ‘gentle’. Thus the apostles are ‘gentle’ rather than have become ‘infants among them’! Cf. NRSV, RSV, NKJ. 69. The conscious renunciation of them coming with ‘weight’ (e0n ba/rei) supports the alternative, transforming aspect of the exercise of power-over in the Christ-movement. 70. I will deal with this aspect in more detail in Chapter 8.

Power in Interaction – Paul and the Discourse of Education

133

call them their glory (2.19 xara/, do/ca), as, for example, in Prov. 23.24-25 where joy and delight are the fruit of good parental teaching.71 The authors positively note the Thessalonians’ learning progress in that they also serve as ‘an example to all the believers in Macedonia and in Achaia’ (tu/pon pa~sin toi~v pisteu/ousin e)n th~| Makedoni/a| kai\ e)n th~| A)xai=a| [1 Thess. 1.7]). They do not need to say anything more to them in that respect as in their view they already have acquired a solid understanding of the implication of ‘being in Christ’ and therefore are able to serve as an example of successful enculturation into the Christ-movement for others. It is obvious that the apostles support and welcome their growth in faith, and thus appreciate that eventually the asymmetry between them will change, as in any healthy and successful educational setting, from a strictly hierarchical towards a more egalitarian sibling relationship. This is not to say that the hierarchy will eventually disappear entirely, as good teachers will be appreciated beyond the actual teaching/learning setting, but the power exercised by the teacher over his students will then most likely be transformed into power-to or powerwith.72 Of particular interest is chapter 4 where the authors specifically remind and encourage the Thessalonians to adhere to the teachings which they have been taught (1 Thess. 4.1-2), but not taught only by them – they in a unique way call them qeodi/daktoi (4.9). It has been noted that this is a compound word not found elsewhere in koine Greek in the first century and thus most likely was created by the authors.73 Nevertheless, it is not as absolutely new as has been perceived, as S. Witmer has demonstrated in a recent article.74 Based on research by Emanuel Tov on translation tendencies in the LXX who found that in a significant number of compound words the sequence of the Hebrew word is reversed in the Greek translation,75 Witmer argues that the word qeodi/daktoi (taught by God) can easily be related to Isa. 54.13 (‘all your children shall be taught by the Lord …’ NRSV). This resonance with Isa. 54.13 has been noted by a number of interpreters but been downplayed as of less or no significance.76 Although the LXX has didaktou\v qeou~ for the Hebrew hwhy ydwml Tov’s findings suggest that without pressing the issue too much it can be maintained that Paul and his co-authors, whatever version they had memorized, may well have had this passage from Isaiah in mind. Given the prominence of Isaiah for Paul’s (and possibly the co-authors’) way of thinking and arguing,77 this seems a very likely explanation for the so-called neologism. The fact that didakto/v cannot be found frequently 71. Prov. 10.1; 15.20; 29.17. 72. See Chapter 2 above. 73. See Witmer 2006: 240–41. 74. Witmer 2006. 75. Tov 1977: 199. 76. Best 1986 and Gaventa 1998 note the allusion but perceive the language difference as an argument against its relevance for an understanding of the Pauline term. Cf. Witmer 2006: 246. 77. Cf. Wagner 2002.

134

Paul and the Dynamics of Power

in the Pauline letters cannot be raised against its obvious relation to LXX language here. The presence of a teaching–learning discourse here and earlier in the letter actually supports the interpretation proposed by Witmer. The fact that Paul and the co-authors call the Thessalonians qeodi/daktoi here is an indication that they actually do perceive them as involved in the process of ‘being taught’, that is, their enculturation into Christ is perceived as involving teaching. Thus the authors encourage them to increase in learning in the ways they had taught them (4.1), to grow into a holy people, and to especially grow in love for one another! (1 Thess. 4.10). To refer to them as qeodi/daktoi, thereby alluding to Isaiah 54, may have further implications for understanding Paul’s and the Pauline circle’s perception of their communities. Since Isaiah 54 is a vision of life and hope for God’s people it may be argued that through this term Paul and his co-authors relate these communities from among the nations to this prophetic eschatological hope.78 Through Christ their identity is transformed from worshippers of idols (1 Thess. 1.9), to servants of the living God, and they are incorporated through Christ into the Jewish symbolic universe and a way of life shaped by the Scriptures.79 Once this is successfully achieved, Paul’s and the other apostles’ roles as their teachers and the power-over that goes with this, becomes superfluous.

7.7 Paul the Teacher and Transformative Power Since it is most likely that the majority of the Christ-group in Corinth (1 Cor. 12.2) as well as in Thessaloniki (1 Thess.1.9) were gentiles, to find such clear indications of a teaching and learning discourse here should not come as a surprise. A teaching/learning relationship is not an egalitarian relationship. It has been noted that Paul emphasizes his role and power as a teacher in using parental language metaphorically. He perceives himself as teaching his e0kklhsi/ai ‘the ways of Christ’, he is their guide and teacher into a way of life in Christ. As such, he is, to use Foucaultian language, ‘the subject who knows’, and he claims a position which is superior to them, in that he claims to know more about the ‘ways of the Lord’ than they do. Along with this claim of superior knowledge goes a claim of power over the communities. These people from other nations had not known ‘the ways of the Lord’ before; they had not been socialized into a Jewish symbolic universe and way of life from an early age as Jews would most likely have been.80 Although they may have gained some knowledge of the Jewish way of life, and the Scriptures, if they were former sympathizers (God-fearers) related to synagogue communities,

78. Cf. the vocabulary of calling/kalei/n in 1 Corinthians. 79. I agree with Witmer in his emphasis on the identity-shaping dimension of the neologism but I think he overstates the case in that this identity is not absolutely new, but new in the sense of transformed yet clearly related to the existing symbolic universe of Judaism. 80. See above in 7.3.

Power in Interaction – Paul and the Discourse of Education

135

they previously had been primarily socialized and enculturated in the ‘ways of the world’ and its ethos.81 Thus to join the Christ-movement for gentiles meant to join a symbolic universe which had emerged as a perception of the ‘world’ distinct from the dominating ‘world’ of the Roman Empire.82 Since ‘to be in Christ’ could not be separated from knowledge of the Scriptures of Israel (as otherwise the language of fulfilment/confirmation of the promises made to the fathers would not make sense) – these new ‘siblings in Christ’ needed to acquire knowledge via teaching and learning in order that they could be enculturated into the Christ-movement. This would not be an easy task given that the Christ-movement as part of Judaism shared the latter’s alternative ethos and values as distinct from many of those of the dominating GraecoRoman society.83 As Bartchy notes ‘Resocialization into “new creation” values … required enormous gifts of persuasion and a transformed style of leadership.’84 In relation to the Corinthians Paul does claim a leadership role of a clearly asymmetrical and hierachical structure, and co-authors likewise in relation to the Thessalonians. But although Paul does not call himself a teacher, the use of parental images in his writings and references to himself, and other apostles working with him, certainly point towards an understanding of aspects of his selfunderstanding, and that of other apostles, as being teachers. Certainly later traditions did not hesitate to perceive him as such – as 1 Tim. 2.7 shows – there Paul calls himself a teacher of the nations.

7.8 Conclusion Paul expects the Corinthians to accept his teaching and in that sense respect his authority. But the purpose of this asymmetry in the relationship, the purpose of Paul’s power claim is not to establish a permanent structure of domination and control, or to further his personal advantage. The relationship is hierarchical, and though he always will be like a father in that he laid the foundation of the movement in Corinth, this is an unstable hierarchy. The asymmetry was not meant to lead to a permanent function of control or domination of Paul over them – he does not want to lord it over them. If the emphasis on the father/mother metaphors Paul uses is perceived to be in the parental dimension in the sense of the family relationship, and particularly in the vein of the pater familias, then the hierarchy inherent in it is far more stable than if the parental metaphors are perceived as indications 81. Cf. Bartchy 2005: 54–60. 82. Cf. also Harrison who maintains that Paul ‘… reminded his Gentile converts that they had been grafted into the Jewish covenant with its understanding of God’s historical promises finding eschatological fulfilment in the Messiah. The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob determined history’s culmination, not the partial and arbitrary disposition of Roman providence’ (2002: 92). 83. Cf. 7.2 above. 84. Bartchy 2005: 57.

136

Paul and the Dynamics of Power

of an educational discourse.85 If Paul intends to refer by his metaphor to the pater familias he would claim permanent dominating power over his communities. The metaphor then would actually signal his intention to establish a static hierarchy – according to Roman law as a family member one could not opt out of the realm of power of the pater familias. To read the metaphor as resonating with the wider educational discourse found in Paul’s letters implies taking into account that the members of the communities are in a voluntary relationship with Paul and the wider network of the Christmovement. They had chosen to enter a relationship with him. The teacher in such a voluntary setting can enforce neither the establishment nor the continuation of the relationship. The relationship can only be maintained on the basis of trust, which is the presupposition of any successful educational process!86 In most cases we do not know how the recipients of the letters responded but in the case of the Corinthians we know through the existence of 2 Corinthians that the relationship continued after Paul had sent his first letter. It can be concluded from this that, at least until then, the Corinthians as the weaker partners in the relationship did trust him sufficiently to feel safe in maintaining the relationship with him. Since trust is the essential basis for a transformative relation, what is at work in the educational discourse as it can be discerned through the terminological and metaphorical traces in the Pauline letters, is an indication of a transformative rather than of a static form of power. Paul emphasizes again and again that the aim of his teaching is to empower those within his communities to support each other.87 He acts as a parent-teacher using power-over them to empower them and thus render himself, and the power-over exercised in this role, obsolete. Upon successful completion of his teaching and role as a teacher in Christ he will not be needed any longer in this role. Although he will always remain like a father to them, in the sense that he is the founder of their particular group, this does not mean that he ever intended or that he actually claimed or established a position within his communities to ‘lord it over them’. The purpose of this particular form of relating to them is that they grow out of this parental hierarchy – and become mature members of the Christ-movement, developing their own particular gifts88 and being able to empower each other and, like good students, will be able to enter into a conversation with their former teacher on equal and nevertheless respectful and stimulating grounds!

85. 86. 87. 88.

On paternalistic relationships and their drive for stability see above 2.4.2. Cf. Wartenberg 1990 and Chapter 2 above. See 10.4 below. Cf. 1 Cor. 12.1-11; Rom. 12.6-8.

Chapter 8

POWER

IN INTERACTION

– THE DISCOURSE

OF IMITATION

8.1 The Perception of Imitation in Pauline Interpretation At a few points in conversation with his congregations, rather than describing theoretically what to live in Christ implies in specific circumstances, Paul’s guidance consists in a reference to himself and the way he is trying to live and embody the implications of the gospel, asking his converts to become imitators of him (1 Cor. 4.16; 11.1; Phil. 3.17) or appreciating that they ‘became imitators of us and of the Lord’ (1 Thess. 1.6) and that they ‘became imitators of the churches of God in Christ Jesus which are in Judea’ (1 Thess. 2.14). Although these are the only explicit references in the undisputed Pauline letters, the significance of the notion of imitation has been emphasized again and again1 – for example, by Morna Hooker who notes that ‘… the notion of imitation is much more significant in Pauline thought than has often been allowed.’2 This notion is closely linked to questions of power and authority and Paul’s self-understanding as an apostle. Earlier research took Paul’s apostolic authority and exercise of power-over his congregations for granted and thus it seemed self-evident that he asked them to become imitators of him. This power-over was even perceived as being exercised in and through the call to imitation, as Betz asserts: ‘Moreover, it is obviously inherent to Paul’s apostleship that he does not call for a direct mi/mhsivtou= Xristou= but to a mimei=sqaiof the apostle, since it is only in mimei=sqaiof the apostle, that is, in obedience in accordance with the apostolic parakalei=nthat there is true mi/mhsiv tou= Xristou=.’3 A debate has arisen about the content of imitation which has produced quite a wide-ranging spectrum of solutions. It is seen as a call to obedience,4 1. Cf. de Boer1962; Betz1967; Schütz 1975: 226–32; Tomson 1990: 274–81; Hooker 2003: 106–13. 2. Hooker 1996: 83–100, 92. 3. My translation of the German‚ ‘Weiterhin ist für den paulinischen Apostolat offenbar konstitutiv, dass Paulus nicht direkt zur mi/mhsiv tou= Xristou=aufruft, sondern zum mimei=sqai des Apostels, denn nur im mimei=sqai des Apostels, d.h. im Gehorsam gegenüber dem apostolischen parakalei=ngibt es wahre mi/mhsiv tou= Xristou=’ Betz 1967: 155. 4. Betz 1967: 187.

138

Paul and the Dynamics of Power

‘humility, self-giving, self-sacrifice for the sake of Christ and the salvation of others’.5 Furnish, at the other end of the spectrum notices that the imitation passages are rather imprecise when it comes to content. Elizabeth Castelli inteprets this observation as stating that there is no particular content in imitation language. She argues that ‘the lack of content of the object of imitation is itself a rhetorical gesture which reinforces the power of Paul’s example and implicates the imitators in the economy of sameness …’6 Elizabeth Castelli’s volume has set the pattern for an analysis of the issue from a feminist perspective, emphasizing strongly the power and domination aspect inherent in imitation language. Common to these approaches, divergent as they are, is the presupposition that Paul’s notion of imitation is based on an understanding of mi/mhsiv which is rooted in Greek theories of his time. Amongst others it is perceived as being identical with a call to copying a perfect model and a drive towards sameness.7 It is beyond dispute that for an analysis of the dynamics of power in the Pauline letters the notion of imitation is an important one which needs to be analysed. Several aspects are of particular interest here: the presupposition and exclusive application of classical Greek mimesis theories in relation to the Pauline notion of imitation is questionable from the perspective advocated in this study. Thus it has to be considered what difference various hermeneutical presuppositions make concerning Paul’s imitation language in relation to the power dynamics between apostles and communities. The role of imitation in its educational dimension, and the claim that Pauline imitation language is devoid of content need further consideration.

8.2 The Texture of Paul’s Imitation Language 8.2.1 Mi/mhsiv as Copying The evaluation of Paul’s use of imitation language has much to do with the hermeneutical presuppositions of reading his letters. It has been emphasized that Paul’s use of imitation/mimesis language is primarily rooted in Greek patterns and traditions of thought. Thus for example Betz has argued that the fact that Paul does not use the term a0kolouqei=n but mimhth/vindicates the change of thought-world between the Gospels which are still rooted in Palestinian Judaism and Paul’s theology which replaced it by the Hellenistic idea of mimesis.8 Castelli’s interpretation follows Betz and perceives Paul’s use of the mimesis word group as ‘… completely naturalized in the Greek of 5. de Boer 1962: 207. 6. Castelli 1991: 32. 7. Castelli 1991: 86. 8. Betz maintains that ‘an die Stelle der jüdisch-palästinensischen “Nachfolge Jesu” ist die hellenistisch-mysterienhafte Mimensisvorstellung und ihre Terminologie getreten, die ihrerseits auf dem Boden des palästinensischen Judentums und Urchristentums undenkbar ist’ (1967: 186).

Power in Interaction – The Discourse of Imitation

139

his time’. This implies that ‘Mimesis must be understood in its larger context, as a notion that places sameness at a premium and imbues the model with a privileged and unattainable status.’9 Basic to this understanding of mimesis is that ‘mimesis is constituted through a hierarchy in which the model is imbued with perfection and wholeness’, which naturally attributes authority to the one to be copied.10 To copy someone implies the notion of becoming identical with the model. Difference is ruled out since it is associated with disunity. Perceived in such a way, the will to power and dominance over others is thus inherent in the notion of imitation. The drive towards sameness and static hierarchy in mimetic relationships are depicted as an inevitable aspect of the discourse of imitation. Others, such as Thiselton, have argued for a ‘broader’, less mechanical meaning of ‘mimeomai’ and ‘mimetai’, in their original Greek context, demonstrating that ‘the essence of the idea is not so much in the idea of sameness … but rather in terms of bringing to expression, representation …’11 I do not want to get involved in the discussion about the appropriate meaning of mimesis in classical Greek and its relevance for Pauline interpretation here. Even given there is some sort of hierarchy inherent in the discourse of imitation, further analysis is required to establish what this hierarchy could actually have implied.12 Whether this necessarily leads to dominance and control and an eradication of diversity and difference depends at least to some extent on the cultural and social framework which is presupposed for Paul’s thought and activity.

8.2.2 Imitation in the Scriptures Even if it is acknowledged that there is some sort of Hellenistic influence on Paul and thus some sort of Greek understanding of ‘mimesis’ present in his use of imitation language, this does not rule out the embeddedness of the Pauline discourse in the scriptural world that could illuminate a contemporary reading of Paul’s notion of imitation.13 Contrary to the argument that the lack of references to imitation in the Septuagint is an indication that Paul did not in any way refer to scriptural analogies in his notion of imitation,14 I consider it significant to investigate whether or not there is a scriptural context for the Pauline imitation discourse. The denial of any kind of occurrence of the issue of imitation in the Scriptures, on the basis of the number of references in the LXX is, in my view, not sufficient evidence that the topic was totally absent from the Scriptures. This is rather the outcome of a reading of the LXX which presupposes an understanding of mi/mhsiv as copying, as asking 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14.

Castelli 1991: 89, also Betz 1967: 138, 186. Castelli 1991: 86. de Boer 1962: 2. See above 3.2–3.3. Also Derrida 2002: 20–1. Cf. 1.2.1 above. Betz 1967: 101.

140

Paul and the Dynamics of Power

for sameness and excluding difference. It is correct to note that this notion cannot actually be found in the Scriptures. But if the understanding of mi/mhsiv is not restricted to this Greek perception, the lack of precise references to the word-group of ‘imitation’ does not say enough about the issue of imitation in the Scriptures. What is required, then, is to take other word-groups and expressions into account which formulate aspects which could resonate in some way with those of the word-group of mi/mhsiv. It can be found that a different terminology is used to express the same or similar aspects of what a different understanding of mi/mhsiv implies. Several can be mentioned here, although there is not space to elaborate on them in detail. A call to imitation can be heard in the many admonitions to the people ‘to be … as He/I the Lord is/am …’ – most prominently in to be ‘holy as I the Lord, your God am holy’ (e.g. Lev. 11.44-45; 19.2; 20.26). What the people ought to become is comparatively related to God via the causal particle yk/ o3ti. The term used for what they ought to become is the same term which refers to a dimension of God. But the dimension of the holiness of God and the holiness expected of the people, although referred to with the same term #$wdq/ a3giov, cannot carry the same weight in the sense of identical meaning. Obviously here this cannot be a call to sameness, in that it cannot mean that they should become identical with God. They are not asked to ‘copy’ the template. The contexts of the passages indicate that the use of the same words referring to God and his people has something to do with how to live and act in a way that is appropriate to the relationship with God.15 This points towards a relational, comparative dimension of imitation rather than a dimension of copying. (Other analogies are the compassion, justice/righteousness of God which the people of God should live out by their way of life). In this same tradition Jesus, according to the Gospel of Luke, calls his followers to ‘Be merciful, even as your Father is merciful’ (Gi/nesqe oi0kti/rmonev kaqw\v o9 path\r u9mw=n oi0kti/rmwn e0sti/n [Lk. 6.36]) and, according to Matthew, calls them to ‘Be perfect as your heavenly father is perfect’ ( e1sesqe ou]n u9mei=v te/leioi w9v o9 path\r u9mw=n o9 ou0ra/niov te/leio/v e0stin [Mt. 5.48]). Another element in the Scriptures which, in my view, can be interpreted as imitation language is expressed by the many references to ‘walking in the ways of …’. When this refers to a man (woman) it refers to their way of life including its spiritual dimension. Thus it can be stated that Samuel’s sons ‘did not walk in his (their father’s) ways …’ (1 Sam. 8.3). When referring to kings in Israel’s history, the phrase implies that this king lived his life in such a way that this life expressed the religious and ethical commitment which he held. The ‘walking in the ways’ of outstanding persons – David is the most prominent example – could serve as an example to be imitated (1 Sam. 18.14; 2 Sam. 22.22, 31-33). This does not mean to copy David in ‘walking in his ways’ but to live according to the same religious and ethical 15. Note, for example, that at the end of the passage beginning at Lev. 19.2 is the command to love your neighbour (19.8), and Num. 15.40 emphasizes that remembering and doing the commandments and becoming holy are closely intertwined.

Power in Interaction – The Discourse of Imitation

141

principles (cf. 2 Kgs 21.22; 2 Chron. 17.3; 21.12-13; 34.2). In a similar vein the phrase ‘walking in his (the Lord’s) ways’( as in Deut. 8.6; 10.12; 11.22; 19.9; 30.16; Pss. 128.1; 142.8; 145.17; Isa. 2.3; Hos. 14.9; Mic. 4.2 etc.) also resonates with imitation language. Thus the phrase ‘walking in the ways of your father (David)’ with which later kings were criticized or praised indicates that the notion of imitation as ‘the most ancient of all pedagogical practices’ was prevalent in ancient Israel and reflected in its Scriptures. The ‘ways of your father/s/David’ are nothing else than ‘the ways of the ‘Lord’ – thus the admonition to imitate ‘the fathers/David’ is a call to imitate them in their ‘walking in the ways of the Lord’. This does not in any way imply copying God or becoming like him – since in the Scriptures the difference between God and humans is always clearly maintained. This means rather to live according to the Torah and the covenant which God has granted to his people. It calls for an imitation of God in one’s whole life in a type of analogy which is wavering between sameness and difference. To be called to be God’s people implies to follow a specific way of life, in which the experience of God’s grace, compassion, love and justice is passed on to, and lived in the life of, the community. This may be seen as a similarity between God and those called, but it is absolutely clear in the scriptural discourse that any human act of mercy, compassion, love or justice is never perceived as being identical with the divine. This is the dimension of difference between God and humans.16 In the previous chapter I demonstrated that the educational dimension in the Scriptures contributes significantly to an understanding of Paul’s and the Pauline circle’s self-perception and exercise of transformative power. It should not come as a surprise to find traces of an imitation discourse within this educational dimension of the Scriptures as it is recognized that teaching, learning and imitation are closely intertwined aspects of the latter. As Gerhardsson notes concerning the rabbinic educational setting: ‘The paths of the Torah are also taught in this way – the way of the imitatio magistri.’17 But already the ‘educational’ book of Deuteronomy strongly emphasizes that the teaching of the commandments is actually a teaching of ‘the ways of the Lord’.18 Thus in 11.22, the verse following the ‘teaching’ passage 11.18-21, the keeping of the commandments, the love of God and ‘walking in his ways, are mentioned as almost identical. Thus what is taught in 11.19 is ‘walking in the ways of the Lord’.19 In the Psalms the faithful one is found to ask in his/her prayer to be taught ‘the ways of the Lord’ or ‘to walk in the ways of the Lord’ (e.g. Pss. 25.4; 119.15, 26). These references to ‘walking in the ways of the Lord’ and ‘walking in the ways of your father/s/David’ are both

16. Cf. also Rendtorff 2005: 632–34. 17. Gerhardsson 1961: 184. He states that the teachers ‘were conscious that their lives provided visible instruction. It would seem, incidentally, that this is one of the most ancient of all pedagogical principles. Teachers wished to instruct not only by word, but also by deed’ (1961: 185). 18. Cf. 7.2. above. 19. Cf. also Deut.8.6; 10.12; 26.17; 28.9; 30.16.

142

Paul and the Dynamics of Power

indications in the Scriptures for the educational as well as for the imitation discourse inherent in it. These examples of imitation language in the Scriptures of Israel, preliminary as they are, point towards an understanding of imitation which does not require sameness or the eradication of diversity and difference. On the contrary, the call for imitation in the Scriptures refers to a way of life in accordance with the God who had called his people, which encompasses more than conforming to moral norms. To walk in ‘his’ ways involves one’s entire life. But, rather than describing in abstract discourse what the way of life actually encompasses, the guidance through the Torah and the narratives of exemplary followers of the ‘ways of the ‘Lord’ illustrate what this walking in ‘the ways of the Lord’ means. This does not remove from the people the necessity to find their own specific way of ‘walking in the ways of God’. The difference between the images is thereby maintained, thus not confusing imitation with copying. Such differences from a so-called Greek theory of mimesis have also been noticed by Betz and de Boer, in their analyses of Old Testament parallel terms and phrases, but they have concluded that these could not contribute to an understanding of mimesis in Pauline thought since they were part of a completely different culture and thought-world!20

8.2.3 Aspects of Mimesis in Contemporary Literary Theory Surprisingly or not, aspects of an understanding of mi/mhsiv similar to those found in the Scriptures are emphasized in recent literary theories as outlined e.g. in Arne Melberg’s Theories of Mimesis.21 Moving away from Auerbach’s theory of mimesis as a straightforward ‘representation of reality’,22 Melberg depicts mimesis as ‘inherently and always already a repetition … the meetingplace of two opposing but connected ways of thinking, acting and doing: similarity and difference.’23 Inherent to the aspect of repetition in mimesis there is already the notion of difference as that which is repeated lies in the past, otherwise it could not be repeated, thus even repetition is never copying – or as we might say today, cloning; despite all similarity there is something different.24 Derrida has created the term ‘iterabilty’ to replace the word 20. One can only come to such a conclusion if Paul is perceived as completely detached from his roots – as traditional scholarship, or more recently e.g. Barclay, has emphasized. He contends that ‘Paul makes it as clear as possible that he no longer regards himself as living within Judaism … because he now sees with utterly different eyes, from a perspective that radically relativises, if it does not wholly obliterate, all social and historical categories’ (2002: 139). 21. Melberg 1995. 22. Auerbach 1953. 23. Melberg 1995: 1. 24. Melberg also draws attention to Walter Benjamin’s Lehre vom Ähnlichen and Über das mimetische Vermögen, particularly to the emphasis on the German word ‘Ähnlichkeit’ with its notion of similarity in difference(1995: 7).

Power in Interaction – The Discourse of Imitation

143

‘repetition’ to indicate that what is meant has nothing to do with duplication or copying. ‘Iterability does not signify simply … repeatability of the same, but rather alterability of this same idealized in the singularity of the event.’25 I conclude from this that imitation in Greek mimesis theory and its notion of sameness is not the most suitable paradigm through which the Pauline imitation discourse may be read. The tradition of the Scriptures which for Paul was authoritative, as well as recent literary theories provide an understanding of imitation which should not be confused with copying and thus need not, and should not, necessarily be conceived of as a notion of eradicating distinctiveness and difference. It can well be argued that Paul’s call for imitation was nurtured by scriptural analogies. It thus seems problematic to see in this call the mere, possibly even ‘empty’, attempt to exercise control over others. This does not mean to deny that there is some hierarchical tendency in this call for imitation. Whether this also implies a notion of power-over in the sense of domination and control is an issue for further analysis.

8.3 Content and Structure of Pauline Imitation Language In the traditional interpretation of Paul’s call for imitation, the authority of the apostle within the Christ-movement is taken for granted. Given this perception of Paul’s claim and status, combined with the assumption that Greek mimesis language is a notion involving copying, it seems logical that Paul’s call for imitation is a claim of domination and control over his converts. Paul as the ‘model’ to be imitated claims thereby a status of superiority. The notion of imitation is seen as imposing a static hierarchical structure on the community irrespective of the content.26 Two issues are relevant here. First, as mentioned above, several contemporary theories of power demonstrate that the concept of hierarchy and the exercise of power-over need to be considered in a differentiated way.27 In feminist and other liberationist approaches especially, power and hierarchy have a bad press as instruments of oppression.28 As such, this ‘bad press’ is certainly more than justified. But, as noted in Chapter 2, recent social theories demonstrate that the critique of hierarchical structures as instruments of oppression is one thing, and group dynamics and the power issues involved are another.29 Thus to note the existence of a hierarchical tendency in Paul’s notion of imitation is not sufficiently differentiated to allow for an evaluation 25. Cf. Derrida 1988; 2001b: 119. 26. So Castelli, ‘… the lack of content of the object of imitation is itself a rhetorical gesture which both reinforces the power of Paul’s example and implicates the imitators in the economy of sameness by forcing them always to be “policing” themselves, because their model is conspicuously imprecise’ (1991: 32). 27. See 2.4.4 and 3.2–3.3 above. 28. See Horsley 2000b: 5-10. 29. See Chapter 2 above.

144

Paul and the Dynamics of Power

of the implications of this hierarchical concept and possible exercise of powerover members of the Christ-movement on Paul’s part. It cannot be taken per se as evidence for the oppressive nature of Paul’s claim of authority. That Paul did claim authority and status as an apostle over the congregations he founded is beyond doubt. This is an important issue in the assessment of his imitation language. We noted above, as the founder of a community of Christ-followers his status cannot be identical with that of his converts. His role and function are different from the role and function of any of the Christ-followers in the e0kklhsi/ai he founded. There is some hierarchical distance between him and his converts even as they are all one in Christ. He is the founder, the father, the one whose activity brought them into the Christmovement. This need not be seen as being in contradiction to notions of the relativizing of status and other differences towards equality in Christ.30 It is rather taking into account what Derrida has emphasized, and what has been discussed in Chapters 2 and 3, that it is necessary to acknowledge that such hierarchies actually do exist in any discourse, either explicitly or implicitly, either open or hidden. This need not necessarily lead to a static hierarchical structure or the establishment of positions of absolute power within an institution, group or movement. Hierarchies can be flexible. They can be ‘on the move’, dynamic, and functional, serving a specific purpose to build up relationships and communities.31 Thus to state the hierarchical structure of imitation language does not in itself provide sufficient indication for a notion of domination and control inherent in it. Moreover, given that imitation cannot be equated with copying, and hierarchies can also be perceived as flexible concepts in relationships, Paul’s call for imitation cannot be addressed only through an analysis of the structure of imitation language, irrespective of the ‘content’ of this imitation. And although the structure or the acting in their relationship is intertwined with the content of Paul’s notion of imitation, the structure also cannot be separated and perceived in isolation from the content. It does make a difference to consider which aspect of Paul his converts should imitate.32 It also needs to be considered that the language of imitation is not only used in relation to Paul but also in relation to his colleagues, as well as other communities of Christ-followers.

8.4 The Imitation Discourse in 1 Corinthians (4.16 and 11.1) Paul’s call for imitation in 1 Corinthians, although limited to these two verses, does not stand isolated from the context within the text of the letter. In both instances it rather seems that the call to imitate him serves as some 30. Cf. Campbell 2006: 89–93. 31. Cf. Derrida 2002: 21. 32. Cf. Horsley 2000: 82. See also Pogoloff who maintains that content has priority over form in the Pauline letters (1992: 37–70).

Power in Interaction – The Discourse of Imitation

145

sort of summarizing and exemplifying statement of issues he had elaborated at some length in the passages which precede these verses. They should not be read as general isolated statements about Paul as the model to be imitated in any respect but with particular reference to the textual context they are referring to.33 They most likely constitute the summarizing sentence of longer arguments in the letter. 1 Cor. 4.16 functions as some sort of summary to chapter 4 but stretches back in its reference even to the issue of the divisions among the Corinthians Paul addresses in chapters 1 and 3. Concern about status and how to relate to each other, competitive patterns of boasting for status, as was common in the dominant Graeco-Roman society, seem to have gained influence in the constitution of relationships among the Corinthian Christ-believing groups.34

8.4.1 Again – Paul the Father In the verse preceding the notion of imitation, 4.15, Paul explains why he thinks himself qualified to call upon the Corinthians to become imitators of him. The very fact that he feels the need to explain his qualifications indicates that he apparently does not take these for granted, nor do the Corinthians. This in itself can be taken as pointing towards a situation in which his authority was not as established as it might be seen from a later period in history. His authority and exercise of power and the Corinthians’ recognition of it was not a matter of an established hierarchy but rather of an interactive process of negotiating between himself and them. He feels urged to remind them of the parental role he claims to have in relation to them. As has been demonstrated in the previous chapter, inherent in this reference is an understanding of the father (and mother) in their role as teachers, that is, as transmitters of the traditions to the next generation, and thus a clear limitation of any claim or exercise of power is given.35 The role of the father which most likely provides the context for Paul’s use of the parental image could also be seen as a parallel to formulations in later rabbinic Judaism: ‘He who teaches the son of his neighbour the Torah, Scripture ascribes to him as if he had begotten him.’36 Paul does claim fatherhood in his relation to the Corinthian community since it was through him that they came to know the Christ-movement and entered into the life of this movement. This established a unique but not exclusive relationship between Paul and the

33. Cf. Thiselton, who refers to W. D. Spencer ‘The “catalogue of sufferings” (4:9– 13), the mimesis of Paul’s pattern of life (vv. 15–17), and the realities of costly discipleship (vv. 18.21) are all of a piece’ (2000: 374). 34. See Horsley 2000b: 84–90. Also Chapter 6 above. 35. Cf. Jesus’ father metaphors which depict a picture which differs quite significantly from the omnipotent pater familias, see e.g. Lk. 15.11-32. 36. B. Sanh. 19b, cf. de Boer 1962:145. Also 7.2–73 above.

146

Paul and the Dynamics of Power

Corinthians. The metaphor does indicate a hierarchical relationship.37 It is the reason which leads Paul to speak to them as he does. But this needs to be distinguished from a call for blind discipleship. Also his fatherhood is not the content of his call for imitation. Paul reminds them of the hierarchy in their relationship only after having elaborated at length in the previous chapters on the issues which he then summarizes in the call for imitation. This is an example of the intertwined nature of content and structure – here the issues discussed in the letter’s previous chapters indicate what aspects of Paul the Corinthians are advised to imitate. This moreover reflects back on how the hierarchy in their relationship should be perceived. As discussed above, the fatherhood metaphor – especially when taken as referring to a teacher–pupil relationship – can be seen as an indication for the flexibility of the hierarchy as the purpose of such a hierarchical relationship is to render itself obsolete.38

8.4.2 Divisions and Differences – Struggles for Power? In chapters 3 and 4 of 1 Corinthians Paul deals in detail with the issue of the divisions in the Corinthian community which he had already mentioned right at the beginning of the letter (1.10-17). These seem to be rooted in group rivalries related to different apostles. Apart from the fact that these groups referred to one or the other apostle for their respective and distinct identity, no reason for the division is mentioned. There are no indications that convictions concerning their faith in Christ or theological concepts give rise to the conflicts (e1ridev). The terminology used at certain points rather indicates that the different groups were involved in a competitive struggle about who were the better Christ-followers. At the end of a lengthy elaboration of the significance of the cross in relation to, and in distinction from the wisdom of this world, Paul emphasizes that there is no basis within the movement for any kind of boasting except in the Lord (o9 kauxw/menov e0n kuri/w? kauxa/sqw [1 Cor. 1.31]).39 From this it may be concluded that the issue of factional group building had something to do with claims to power and status. To the Corinthians this seemed to be closely connected to ‘belonging’ to a specific apostle. As Clarke notes ‘… it is people and personalities which are at the centre of the division, and not philosophies.’40 In the society in which they lived this would have been the normal pattern of competing for status. Having a close relationship to an important public figure elevated oneself in status 37. See 7.4 and 7.7 above. 38. This does not mean that the relationship breaks up, but the character of the relationship changes. Cf. 7.7 above. 39. The issue of competition obviously was not settled with this letter since Paul had to address it again in 2 Corinthians. See Chapter 6 especially 6.5. 40. Clarke 1997: 92, he continues: ‘The distinctions between the parties are not the theological distinctions between Hellenistic and Jewish Christianity, but rather the personality distinctions based on reputation in secular terms.’ (1997: 95).

Power in Interaction – The Discourse of Imitation

147

and increased one’s power. This is the pattern of a patron–client relationship where honour and status quite often were achieved at the expense of others.41 The client shared in the power and honour of his patron. The Corinthians seem to have viewed the apostles in the category of patrons and on this basis started group competition within the community according to the ‘wisdom of this world’ (th\n sofi/an tou= ko/smou). Status and honour were acquired in belonging to a powerful patron and in triumphing over others.42 Over against this Paul reminds them that to live in Christ implies a ‘deconstruction’ of the patterns ‘of this world’, an inversion of the ‘wisdom of this world’ (1.18–2.16),43 which has clear implications also for the perception of leadership roles within the movement. He develops this by first referring to the relationship of Apollos and himself, not as one of competition but of working together as one (3.8) to serve God in Christ. He emphasizes that as apostles their significance was not focused upon their personalities but on the roles each of them was called to accomplish according to the different gifts given to them (3.6-10; also chapter 12). As Thiselton emphasizes ‘Apollos and Paul each perform assigned roles within a corporate ministry.’44 They are ‘co-workers’ of God in a common task, each with his specific role as part of the whole project.

8.4.3 The Functionality of Apostleship Paul depicts these leadership roles as functions given to him and others not as a means in themselves but as tools to serve the Christ-movement, Christ, and, in and through these, to serve God (3.9).45 This indicates a functional understanding of apostleship. This is emphasized again at the beginning of chapter 4 – as Paul describes apostles to be u9phre/taiand oi0kono/moi. (I consider it significant that Paul is writing in the plural here as it indicates that he is not only referring to his own apostleship but to the function of apostleship generally.46) These are not autonomous roles but functions which are clearly related to specific tasks. They do encompass a certain power otherwise they would be meaningless. Those entrusted with such a function could not achieve anything if they were not also entrusted with some power. But this power is related to the function and the purpose it serves. The dimension of strategic power or power-to, to achieve what they set out to do is inherent in the leadership roles Paul claims for himself and other apostles.47 But this should not be confused with

41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47.

Cf. Epstein 1987: 31; Wan 2000b: 191–215; Clarke 1993: 89–107. Cf. Bartchy 2003: 56–7, also Thiselton 2000: 12–17. Also Elliott 2004: 99–102. Thiselton 2000: 301. See Clarke 1997: 119. See Thistelton 2000: 337, also 3.1 above. See 2.4 and 3.1 above.

148

Paul and the Dynamics of Power

personal power to achieve personal goals. As Clarke emphasizes ‘… the focus is not on who they are, but rather on what their task is.’48 This is not to say that there is no personal element involved in the exercise of such a role. Of course Paul and the other apostles were called to live according to their function, to embody their task.49 But there always remains this consciousness of non-identity, of identifying with their task without becoming identical with it, as, for example, in 3.6 where it is emphasized that it is God himself who gives growth, or in 3.22 where Paul relativizes himself and other apostles since it is to God they belong through Christ. This is what actually counts – even Christ serves as a function in God’s purpose for the world (3.23).

8.4.4 Diversity Among Apostles As already mentioned, these functions and roles are not identical, they do not render all the apostles the same or make them identical with the members of the Corinthian community. The roles and functions of the apostles differ and there is hierarchy between the apostles and the community.50 The fact that Paul’s and Apollos’ roles and tasks differ from each other does not necessarily imply, as the Corinthians apparently had implied, that they are in competition with or in opposition to each other. The one had been planting, the other one had been watering (3.8).51 Paul’s emphasis that he is the one who planted, the master-builder who laid the foundation, has primary significance in that he is the founding apostle of this particular e0kklhsi/a. But far from providing a cause for superiority claims and boasting, this does not create a static hierarchy between these two apostles or an obstacle in their cooperation. Paul emphasizes the necessity of these different roles and tasks for the building up of the community. In different communities different co-workers of the gospel were entrusted with different tasks and functions. Thus in relation to the Corinthians Paul is the ‘founding father’, and hence their apostle. Apollos is not in the same role vis-à-vis the Corinthians, but contributes in the task of ‘building them up’. Distinct from this, in Romans, Paul is not in the role of the founding apostle, but rather in a position similar to that of Apollos in relation to the Corinthians. He is conscious that he is not ‘their’ apostle in the sense that he did not lay the foundation there. He thus explicitly mentions that he nevertheless perceives ‘all God’s beloved in Rome’ to be within the range of his apostolic commission. He is reluctant in the formulation of any guidance he may give them, and stresses rather that he would like to visit

48. Clarke 1997: 119. 49. See Chapter 6 above. 50. See 3.3 above, also Castelli 1991: 105. 51. Clarke comments on these agricultural and building metaphors ‘… it is again manual work which is referred to. Such a metaphor in itself would have been significant to the status-conscious Corinthians’ (1997: 120).

Power in Interaction – The Discourse of Imitation

149

them to contribute to their ‘strengthening’, and hastens to add the mutuality involved in this strengthening and encouraging process. In 1 Corinthians Paul clearly sees himself in the role of the ‘founder’ but, in contrast to the pattern of the surrounding dominant society, he demonstrates a different option of living by the example of his and Apollos’ cooperation and working in and with differences. Paul actually sets the relationship of Apollos and himself as the example to be imitated when it comes to dealing with differing groups within the community. He does not deny or rule out the existence of difference, but acknowledges it positively. Yet he rules out quite clearly any option of boasting, that is, an attitude of dominance and triumph over others. He does not set himself as an example to be imitated like an isolated authoritarian ruler whom they should obey, but what is to be imitated here is a relationship between people who are and remain different. He claims priority in that he was the first from whom they had heard the gospel. This has established a specific relationship which cannot be reversed, but he does not exclude or oppose any other influences amongst them as long as they are not in opposition to the foundation he has laid. Amidst all the differences, it is cooperation which counts in the service of God through Christ. It is this cooperation among apostles that they are admonished to imitate. Since cooperation in a relationship is a lively process between human beings, I cannot see any evidence for a call for copying and sameness through which diversity and difference are to be suppressed. They are working as equals (o9 futeu/wn de\ kai\ o9 poti/zwn e3n ei0sin e3kastov de\ to\n i1dion misqo\n lh/ myetai kata\ to\n i1dion ko/pon [1 Cor. 3.8])52 not only despite, but also because of, their differences. The work of the one could not be done and flourish without the other. These differences are certainly no reason for boasting. It is possible to live and work together in and with differences without getting into a competitive race of triumph and domination. Thus the example given by Apollos and Paul in their relationship as co-workers is an argument against a pattern of domination and control by some over others ‘… that none of you will be puffed up in favour of one against another’ (i3na mh\ ei[v u9pe\r tou= e9no\v fusiou=sqe kata\ tou= e9te/rou [4.6b]).53 Rather than finding an imposition of power in the sense of domination I sense here a call to an inversion/deconstruction of dominating relationships, a call for flexibilty which implies one’s own creativity and responsibility in the formation of the relationship.

52. ‘He who plants and he who waters are equal and each shall receive his wages according to his labor.’ 53. Cf. Clarke who maintains that ‘Paul defines the Christian practice of leadership for them: they are not to rely on boasting or social status to create reputation … and not to rely on a reputation carved out by oratorical power or patronal respect. This constitutes an inverting of the world’s view of leadership’ (1993: 125). On co-workers see 3.2 above.

150

Paul and the Dynamics of Power

8.4.5 Flexible Hierarchies and Apostolic Claims Given that these elaborations on how to deal with difference are still resonating in the ears of the addressees when Paul calls them to imitate him in 4.16, this is a clear indication as to what aspects of Paul ought to be imitated by them. I have argued that the mere fact of this call for imitation says nothing about what aspects of Paul should be imitated. It seems evident that it cannot be a call for imitation in the sense of copying and sameness, in that hardly any scholar would argue that this means that the Corinthians should become apostles, or tent-makers. They also could not become imitators of Paul in the sense of becoming ‘founding fathers’ of their community. With regard to an issue discussed later in the letter, that is, marital status, Paul actually does state that he would like them to become as he is – but despite this rather ‘personal’ wish he by no means asks them to copy him, nor does he ask them to imitate him! He rather respects and accepts decisions for a life which differs from his own in that respect (1 Cor. 7.7). However, the issues addressed preceding the call for imitation in 4.16, refer indirectly to the content of imitation: it is the way Apollos and he himself in their difference relate to each other and work together! They are both apostles but in different roles vis-à-vis the Corinthians. It is thus significant that Paul describes apostleship – not just his own – as a functional task, with some importance but significantly only with relative importance (3.21-23). This reminder of the wider horizon of their life in Christ and of the relativization of everything in that context thus implies that the hierarchy in the relationship between apostles and community is also only a relative and functional one. Once the task is fulfilled the function renders itself obsolete, since it is not the person who counts but the fulfilment of the task.54 It can hardly be argued then that Paul established a static hierarchical position for himself to dominate over his converts. The purpose of his function is to initiate gentile converts into the Christ-movement and to give them some guidance for their life in Christ. Since before their call in Christ they had not been traditionally rooted in the Scriptures of Israel, and there were no books available describing life in Christ, and many of them were illiterate, how could they learn what their faith in Christ implied in everyday life? How is one to evangelize people whose heritage Paul did not share, ‘who shared the culture of the imperial metropolis’?55 I have demonstrated above that Paul and other apostles, although not calling themselves teachers, did actually see aspects of their role as those of teachers.56 The new members of the Christ-movement did need teaching and guidance concerning life in Christ. What it meant to be part of a movement which attributed its origins to one who had been crucified by the imperial power was not self-evident. It was not obvious that values which were the opposite of the Graeco-Roman imperial standard, such as being weak, foolish, poor, working with one’s 54. 55. 56.

See 2.42 and 7 above. Horsley 2000a: 85. See 7.5–7.7 above.

Power in Interaction – The Discourse of Imitation

151

own hands, etc. should be significant.57 The Corinthian correspondence can fruitfully be seen as part of an interactive learning process. I consider Paul’s call to imitate him as part of this process. It is another way of providing guidance in a difficult ‘socialization’ process.58 Although I cannot elaborate on this here, it needs to be noted that imitation plays a significant role in any learning process. It is a primary means of learning and teaching, prior to any conscious, explicit forms of education, let alone of literal teaching/learning communication. Certain dimensions in a teaching–learning context are more easily transmitted in exemplifying them rather than in describing them. In the context of a message which implied the commitment of one’s entire life, and, as such ought to be ‘embodied’,59 to refer to the efforts of others in the movement as examples for such embodiment is not bad teaching practice at all. This means that Paul does exercise power–over his communities in that he does see himself in the role of ‘the subject-who-knows’, who in his perception knows more about life in Christ than they do. But rather than establishing a role of permanent hierarchy over them to keep them totally dependent on him, this pattern is seen as a way of supporting their growth.60

8.5 Christ as the ‘Pattern’ – The Deconstruction of Hierarchies Paul further indicates how he should be imitated in his indirect or direct references to Christ. In 2 Cor. 4.8-13, the so-called catalogue of afflictions could be regarded as an indirect reference to Christ through Paul’s (and other apostles’) life, whereas in 1 Cor. 11.1 he refers directly to Christ as the one who is the ‘pattern’ to be imitated. In order to deal adequately with this aspect of Paul’s call for imitation, passages other than those applying the word-group of mimesis need to be taken into account. I can only touch on some aspects of this whole complex, and will thus focus my attention on the two passages in the Corinthian correspondence. The so-called catalogue of afflictions (4.8-13) is an indirect reference to Christ as Paul here recalls the many hardships apostles have to bear because of their life in Christ. He is challenging his converts with this description. Again Paul seems to refer to the Corinthians’ confusion of the blessedness of life in Christ with triumph according to the standards of ‘this world’. They seem to perceive themselves as already in ‘the world to come’ (4.8), having now achieved what in Christ’s death and resurrection had only just begun. Paul thus has to remind them of the fact that they, as he himself does, must still live in ‘this world’. It may be passing away, but for the time being life in Christ has to be lived under the conditions of this world. This means life 57. See 6 above. Also Horsley 2000a: 90, and Bartchy 2005. 58. Cf. Bartchy 2005: 59. Cf. 8.2.2 above. 60. This perception of the asymmetrical relationship between Paul and the communities he founded is supported by a number of aspects in the Pauline letters, some have been mentioned in previous chapters, some will be elaborated on in Chapters 9 and 10.

152

Paul and the Dynamics of Power

under the conditions of a world which is ruled by the violent power of an empire which was tolerant only insofar as its absolute power was not called into question.61 Claiming that there was a power which did not submit to the power of the emperor was, to say the least, suspicious in the eyes of those dominating the Mediterranean basin. That this claim originated from the eastern corner of the Empire and had a Jewish flavour did not help to demonstrate it was harmless. Under the conditions of ‘this world’ it was no surprise that as a member of this Christ-movement one had to endure hardships. These could hardly be avoided. But this catalogue of afflictions should not be read as an invitation to or glorification of suffering, as has often been the case in Christian tradition.62 Paul is not idealizing the cross – which would in fact mean trivializing it – but is calling his converts back to the real world in which they live and where they must live in conformity with this ‘world to come’, the kingdom of God, which has been inaugurated by the Christ-event, although the violence of the cross and the suffering of human beings can become inevitable. But rather than these events being taken as a sign and proof for failure, as was the case in the dominating value system, they should be regarded as signs for real life in Christ. In that sense the sign of the cross is turned upside down, from a sign of failure into a sign of life. In that sense the hierarchies of values are ‘deconstructed’ in Christ, in that what is folly, and weak and of lowly status is wisdom in the eyes of God. The Corinthians probably had not got that quite clear. They seem to have returned to the hierarchies of the ‘old’ world. Thus Paul has to remind them of his teachings, of ta\v o9dou\v mou ta\v e9n Xristw=? (‘my ways in Christ’ [4.17]), through Timothy, and in addition point to himself as an example of apostolic hardships. What Paul describes here cannot be emulated by the Corinthian community since the hardships of the life of apostles’ are described, not those of Christfollowers generally. This indicates that there is divergence inherent in the call to imitation as the Corinthians have to work out for themselves what this then means for them as an e0kklhsi/a. To live in Christ impacts equally on the whole life of all, but what follows from this needs to be ‘translated’ each time into each new situation by those involved. Since the call of the Scriptures to be ‘righteous’, ‘compassionate’ etc. as the Lord is, does not mean to become identical with the Lord, Christ, Paul and the congregation are not called to become the same. Moreover, ‘My ways which are in Christ’ sounds quite similar to ‘the ways of king so and so’ or ‘the ways of the Lord’ so often referred to in the Scriptures. As has been noted above, ‘these ways’ were the guidelines not the prescriptions for a life according to the covenant. This applies similarly to a life according to Christ. In the context of a Jewish perception of reality on the basis of the Scriptures the call for imitating Paul in his imitation of Christ is not a call to sameness. Distance and distinction are maintained. I thus cannot see an imposition of power in the sense of 61. 62.

See 1.2.2 above. See Chapter 6 above.

Power in Interaction – The Discourse of Imitation

153

domination and control through the vehicle of Pauline imitation language. It is a means for guiding and teaching the Corinthians into a way of life in Christ. But it implies a ‘deconstruction’ of the dominating patterns of life in Graeco-Roman society; static hierarchies are ‘deconstructed’ by Christ and to live in Christ means to live, that is, to embody this deconstruction of hierarchies as a Christ-following community already in ‘this world’. This may imply hardship and troubles under the circumstances of this world, but it neither asks for nor idealizes these. In 1 Cor. 11.1 Paul explicitly refers to Christ as the pattern he is imitating and which therefore should also be imitated by the e0kklhsi/a. Again this call to imitation summarizes the passage preceding it, which addresses issues about eating and drinking. As in Romans 14–15, Paul indicates that what really matters in living in Christ is what serves the purpose of building up the community. The issue of eating and drinking is significant not merely as an ethical appendix to Paul’s theology.63 I cannot elaborate on this in detail here. Of interest are the guidelines which Paul proposes as an adequate way of dealing with the problems of eating and drinking. The call to become ‘imitators of me as I am of Christ’ here implies that the primary ‘principle’ is ‘to seek the advantage of the other’ (10.24; 10.33). The well-being of the other is the testing ground of a life in Christ. He/she is the limit to any freedom in Christ. To accommodate to him/her in his/her difference as Paul does (9.1923) is proper imitation of Christ. This does not mean the giving up of oneself, a frequent and prevalent misunderstanding in Christian tradition, very often at the expense of women who in serving others were denied their own lives. It also cannot mean to be ‘fluttering in the wind’ without any personal identity. Paul is the most telling example of a distinctive personality which is itself necessary in order to really accommodate to others. Accommodation to the other and seeking the advantage of the other should not be confused with giving up oneself. Accommodation serves the purpose of supporting one another. It is not a call to give up one’s own identity and take over the identity of the other. Inasmuch as imitation is not identical with copying, accommodation is not the same as becoming identical with the other. Since Paul asks all members of the community to accommodate to and seek the advantage of the other this is in fact an admonition to mutual support.64 It is no surprise then to find other passages where Christ is the example to be imitated in a way in which mutuality is obviously intended – as, for example, in Rom. 15.7 ‘… welcome one another as Christ has welcomed you.’ Rather than establishing hierarchies in the communities Paul founded, he calls for a ‘deconstruction’ of the hierarchies of ‘this world’ as he says in Rom. 12.2 ‘Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your minds, so you may discern what is the will of God …’ (NRSV). There he further elaborates on the different functions members have in the community – without imposing any hierarchical order. It is moreover evident that Paul 63. 64.

Cf. Ehrensperger 2004a: 177–94, also Nanos 1996: 85; Esler 2003: 339–56. Cf. Ehrensperger 2007.

154

Paul and the Dynamics of Power

encourages his converts to work out the implications of his call to imitation by and for themselves. It thus should be no surprise to find the notion of imitation in 1 Thessalonians 1.6-7 and again in 2.14. The authors recognize and applaud that the converts themselves have become imitators not only of them but also of Christ. They have embodied the message the apostles taught and lived among them and now they themselves serve as an example for other e0kklhsi/ai. Thus the Thessalonians have taken over the function of Paul and other apostles in exemplifying life in Christ to others. They are seen as having become imitators of the apostles and of Christ in relation to one specific dimension, that is, the dimension of the endurance of struggle and ‘suffering’. This, and the fact that it did not prevent them from hearing and responding to the message ‘with joy’ is perceived as being of exemplary quality. This dimension is mentioned in both passages, but significantly in 2.14 it is neither the apostles nor Christ who are the example to be imitated but another e0kklhsi/a. It is obvious from these passages that to be an example for others is not a function exclusively bound to apostles, certainly not to Paul, or restricted to the group of leaders of the Christ-movement, but as with the e0kklhsi/a in Judaea as well as in Thessalonica, a community of Christfollowers could become an example for others as well. This indicates that in embracing the gospel in the way they have, to some extent the Thessalonians have rendered the role of the apostles in relation to them already obsolete. Nowhere is there a hint that Paul, Apollos, or others within the Pauline circle bound the e0kklhsi/ai they were involved with to themselves or held them back so as to prevent them from growing to maturity in faith. It can be concluded that imitation language in 1 Corinthians and 1 Thessalonians, rather than being an instrument of domination and control, serves as one particular means to guide and teach members of the Christmovement about life in Christ. Since this implies a deconstruction of the thought and value system of the dominant Graeco-Roman society, the call to imitation, rather than being an imposition of a dominating pattern which has to be copied, refers to examples of those who at least have attempted to embody the message of the gospel and its alternative values. The guidance and teaching provided by these examples has been seen to cohere with the content of imitation in a way which actually demands the creativity and self-responsibility of Paul’s converts in the formation of their lives in Christ, so that the e0kklhsi/ai themselves eventually grow into ‘teaching examples’ in their own embodiment of the gospel.

Chapter 9

POWER

IN INTERACTION – THE DISCOURSE OF RESPONSE-ABILITY

In the previous chapters it has been argued that although Paul did claim authority in relation to the communities he founded, he did so in a differentiated way which cannot be subsumed under an exercise of power according to power-over in the vein of a command–obedience structure. The notion of teaching in particular indicates that the Pauline power claims, although presupposing a hierarchy between himself and his communities are in no way intended to establish a permanent position of domination and control. But within the Pauline letters there still remains to be analysed a discourse which strongly challenges the proposed perception of Paul as being in a transformative power relationship with his communities. It is a discourse which is traditionally referred to as the discourse of obedience. The terminology of u9pakou/ein/u9pakoh\ is rendered a crucial role in establishing the significance of this discourse in attributing to it notions of subordination and submission as key characteristics. Whilst agreeing with the significance attributed to the discourse related to u9pakou/ein/u9pakoh\ I think a critical voice must be raised against identifying it plainly with a discourse of obedience, and thus subordination and submission. This identification is justified in as much as u9pakou/ein/ u9pakoh\ do refer to obedience. Feminist and other critical voices at the margins of the traditional discourse of interpretation have pointed to the problematic effects this interpretation of the u9pakou/ein/u9pakoh\ discourse has had over centuries in the history of Christendom.1 Although differences between u9pakou/ein/u9pakoh\ and the Pauline use of u9pota/ssesqai/ e0pitag-terminology have been noted, the mere occurrence of the notion of obedience nevertheless promoted a structure of command–obedience and thus subordination to a dominating power.2 I will thus look briefly at aspects of this identification of u9pakou/ein/u9pakoh\ with obedience and then ask what difference an alternative understanding of the discourse would make for a

1. 2.

Cf. Sölle 1968: 11–36, ET 1995: 7–29. Käsemann 1969: 196–216, esp. 206, cf. also 1970: 65.

156

Paul and the Dynamics of Power

perception of the dynamics of power within first-century groups of Christfollowers.3

9.1 Obedience as Faith and as Submission to God Paul frequently refers to the necessity of u9pako/h for the new Christ-followers and although he never explicitly commands what or what not to do, there is no doubt that he not only uses the word parakalei/n (which is seen as a ‘mild’ expression of admonishment)4 when he thinks there is something important for them not only to know about, but also, more importantly, to do. The fact that Paul and the co-senders of the letters perceived themselves as being in a position to give the addressees more than mere advice but to strongly urge them, combined with the characterization of the goal of their activities as being ei0v u9pakoh\n pi/stewv e0n pa=sin toi=v e1qnesin (Rom 1.5), has been taken as a clear indication that obedience and thus submission were perceived as core characteristics of being in Christ. It has even been argued that obedience and faith are actually identical, implying that obedience is the essence of faith. The most prominent advocates of such a perception of Pauline theology, and the core of Christian faith, were Rudolf Bultmann and Ernst Käsemann. Bultmann created the term ‘radical obedience’ which is the attitude of ‘man under faith’ that is, the ‘right’ attitude toward God. It is thus perceived as devoid of content, referring to the believer’s submission under God’s will as the response to the free gift of God’s grace. Obedience as faith is thus structured as a submissive attitude over against a superior power. Although it has to be acknowledged that Bultmann understood this perception of faith as obedience as implying a possible critique of any superior human there are difficult aspects in this empty perception of faith as obedience.5 To establish an attitude of submission (irrespective of content) as an ideal has been used in the course of history not so much to remind men in power of their dependency on another power and their accountability to it, but rather to legitimize their use of power as stewards of a higher power. It was women in particular who were admonished to submit since submission was the highest possible attitude, to be practised not merely in relation to God but equally on earth and over against earthly male rulers at home and in the public realm. And in imperial 3. I am indebted to the warning Dorothee Sölle formulated almost 30 years ago which as a very young student alerted me to the significance of reception history in recognizing problematic outcomes of particular interpretations but also opened my eyes to the options of creatively searching for new readings of biblical traditions. She proposed: ‘Der ungeheure Ballast der Tradition sollte uns warnen. Eine wirkliche Übersetzung dieses Begriffes [Gehorsam des Glaubens] müsste gerade das enthalten, was die Tradition ihm genommen hat: Sachlichkeit und Phantasie.’ (1968: 36 ET 1995: 28). For the sake of specificity, I retain the German original at this point. 4. See the more detailed discussion below 9.4.5. 5. See also 8.3 above.

Power in Interaction – The Discourse of Response

157

contexts this ‘virtue’ of obedience served to put and keep those colonized and marginalized in the place which the imperial power deemed appropriate for them.6 Moreover, Bultmann drew a sharp distinction between this Christian ‘radical obedience’ and Jewish observation of the Torah, which he labelled as legalism and viewed as an inferior response to an outside authority.7 The structural problem remains in Käsemann’s transformation of Bultmann’s concept. Käsemann emphasized the corporate dimension of the obedience/faith discourse in that although obedience to God freed the believer from obedience to any earthly lords, it does not free him/her from social responsibility. Thus subordination to the one Lord implies responsibility for the neighbour. Although Christians should in obedience imitate Christ their Lord who is the exemplary obedient, being obedient unto death for us, a hierarchical pattern of domination and subordination remains inherent in this perception of faith as obedience. Others have followed Bultmann and Käsemann in understanding the discourse of u9pakouei=n/u9pakoh\ as a discourse of obedience and in the identification of obedience with faith.8 Problems inherent in such a perception of the Pauline discourse of u9pakou/ein/u9pakoh\ and of faith have been highlighted by Cynthia Briggs Kittredge in her Community and Authority. If it is presupposed that the u9pakou/ein/u9pakoh\ discourse in Paul is in fact a discourse of obedience in the way in which it is perceived by Bultmann, Käsemann and others, it is then a discourse where power is claimed and exercised according to the pattern of command and obedience. Although in this perception the One whom the faithful ought to obey is God or Christ, implying that obedience should be rendered to no one else, and thus claiming that there is an element of liberation in this perception, the structural pattern of the perceived relationship is still one of domination and subordination. Such a pattern can easily be transformed into a tool of domination in support of human claims, in that already Paul as the exemplary ‘slave of God’ and ‘apostle of Christ’ then can be perceived as asking for obedience not merely to God or Christ but in addition to himself, as their representative. The perception of the ideal faithful relationship between God and humans as one shaped according to a pattern of domination and obedience even when exercised with the best intentions and perceived in an ideal form, is highly problematic because inherent to its structure is a static hierarchical dimension. A static hierarchy with one of the constituents in a permanent superior position and others in permanent subordinate positions has problematic implications for the perception of human relationships. If the discourse of u9pakouei=n/u9pakoh/ is interpreted as a discourse of obedience in this sense, the conclusion that Paul in his self-perception as apostle and slave of Christ claimed and exercised power according to a domination–obedience pattern follows almost naturally, even more so if u9pakouei=n and u9pota/sseqai 6. 7. 8.

Cf. Carter 2006: 6–13 and Horsley 2004: 11–20. Bultmann 1952: 315–16. (cf. Kittredge 1998: 15–16). See the discussion in Kittredge 1998: 13–29.

158

Paul and the Dynamics of Power

are perceived as being identical.9 But the question which should be addressed here is whether reading the discourse of u9pakou/ein/u9pakoh/ according to a command–obedience perception of power is the only possible option the texts actually allow for.

9.2 Obedience as Hearing and Responding 9.2.1 In Contrast to Judaism? Although it is noted in most studies on obedience in the Pauline literature that in the LXX the terminology of u9pakou/ein/u9pakoh\ consistently translates the Hebrew ‘(m#$’ and it is acknowledged that this must have had some bearing on the Pauline discourse, including the distinction that the LXX draws between the u9pakouei=n/u9pakoh/ discourse and a discourse of u9pota/ssesqai/e0pitag - etc., the extent of the significance of this is hardly taken seriously into account. Thus D. B. Garlington notes that ‘… faith’s obedience is the appropriate response of Israel, the covenant partner, to the election, grace and mercy of God. Hence the notion resident in u9pakoh\ pi/stewv is not in any sense original or unique to Paul.’10 But Garlington concludes from this that Paul uses this terminology in conscious, even polemical contrast, to a Jewish perception of this discourse. Garlington narrows what he calls the Jewish perception of obedience to being confined to faithfulness understood as adherence to the law, that is, Jewish identity. In contrast to a narrow so-called ethno-centric exclusiveness, Paul has supposedly widened this Jewish concept and applied the terminology of Israel’s relation to God to those in Christ. He thereby is seen to have established that those in Christ are those who now have obediently responded to the call of God and are thus the true people of God. Garlington maintains that the ‘the obedience of faith among all the nations for his name’s sake’ is the Pauline manifesto that now by faith in the risen Christ alone all the privileges entailed in Israel’s identity as the people of God are available to the nations.11 Thereby the identity of Israel is transferred to the gentile church, a church which is perceived to be the new Israel.12 This highly problematic perception of Paul as ‘stealing’ the identity of the Jews as God’s people and transferring it to the church is problematic in several ways. It presupposes that Paul’s call to proclaim the gospel to gentiles implied a rejection of Judaism, and that the negative response of a presumed majority of Jews to the proclamation of Jesus as the Christ implied that they were rejected by God. This is certainly not what Paul argues in Romans, precisely 9. Cf. Kittredge 1998: 37–51. 10. Garlington 1994: 233. 11. Garlington 1994: 247. 12. Garlington claims that Paul advocated a transference of Israel’s identity both in privilege and obligation to the Gentiles. This is plain supersessionism and is in my and other scholars’ view precisely what Paul argued against – particularly in Romans. For a comprehensive discussion of these issues see Campbell 2006: 134–39.

Power in Interaction – The Discourse of Response

159

the contrary.13 The problem with Garlington’s perception of the discourse of u9pakoh/ as a discourse of obedience is, that although he takes note of the ‘hearing and responding’ aspect inherent in it, he does not consider the relational dynamic of hearing and responding as of primary significance but rather focuses on a replacement paradigm which implies that the ‘hardening of the heart’, or the ‘not hearing’ of the people of Israel naturally means their rejection and replacement. The relational dynamic of hearing and responding is thereby lost.

9.2.2 As Oral Transmission This is also the case with scholars who do not perceive Paul’s use of this terminology in the service of setting up a contrast to Judaism. Contra Garlington, R. Jewett notes that Paul in his references to u9pakoh\ pi/stewv is far from setting up a contrast to Jewish theology, but he emphasizes instead that this refers to the positive response in faith to the gospel Paul intends to advance also in Romans. Jewett sees in the choice of u9pakou/ein a reference to the communication process between ‘preacher, gospel, hearer, Christ and community’,14 thereby emphasizing the dimension of orality in the spreading of the gospel. Faith is seen as the result of hearing and responding to the oral communication of the gospel (rather than conforming to some written law).15 Thus although Jewett attributes real significance to the fact that u9pakoh/ relates the Pauline discourse in some way to the (m#$ discourse of the Scriptures, he attributes significance to this mainly with respect to the formal aspect of the oral proclamation of the gospel.16 It is interesting that even when it is noted that there is no word for ‘obey’ in biblical Hebrew this has no further bearing on any of the interpretations mentioned above. It seems to be taken for granted that ‘In biblical thinking … to speak of faith is to speak of obedience.’17 Such a statement, although indicative for most approaches, comes as something of a surprise given that it has actually been noticed that many dimensions of the u9pakoh\ discourse in the Pauline letters are related to the Scriptures/LXX. Thus I propose a reading of the Pauline discourse of u9pakoh\ which pays particular attention to its affinity with aspects of the scriptural/LXX

13. I cannot deal with the problems inherent in this perception – but see Campbell 2006: 120–29; Ehrensperger 2004a: 123–60; Nanos 2005: 255–67; Eisenbaum 2005: 224– 38 for further details. 14. Jewett 2006: 641 15. Jewett 2006: 642, also Beker 1980: 122. 16. Cf. Müller who in emphasizing the significance of oral communication in antiquity also notes that this fact cannot be reduced to the technical aspect of letter performance. Through the discourse of u9pakoh\ he sees Paul also emphasizing that what is heard should be embodied in life. (1994: 438–39). Also Fitzmyer 1979: 132. 17. Garlington 1994: 11, in contrast cf. Jewett 2006: 110.

160

Paul and the Dynamics of Power

discourse. In this study I can only deal with some examples of this relation as the subject requires more extensive research.

9.3 Called to Hear and to Do – God and His People The narrative within which the discourse of u9pakoh\ is embedded in the Scriptures/LXX is the narrative of the people Israel who are called out of slavery in Egypt to serve God. Thus the call to hear – a0kou/ein /u9pakou/ein, which is rooted in the Hebrew discourse related to the word stem ‘(m#$’,18 – is linked to a specific event in the relationship between God and his people. It needs to be noted though that the narrative does not begin with God’s deliverance of his people but with his hearing their voices of suffering, and remembering that he has committed himself to a relationship with the ancestors of those who are suffering now (Exod. 2.24). Prior to the people being called to hear there is the hearing, compassion, (Exod. 2.25) and response of God in his act of deliverance (beginning by calling Moses Ex. 3.1-15). The One who calls his people to hear his voice (Exod. 19.3-9) and respond to it is the One who hears and responds to their cries. This image of God as the One who hears and responds not only permeates the Exodus narrative but permeates the entire Scriptures, and is an inherent aspect of the tradition of Israel. Almost two-thirds of the Psalms reflect this aspect of the relationship between God and his people, being the prayers/ songs of people in distress calling upon God to hear and respond to the suffering of the faithful. Most of them end in celebrating and praising God in that they acknowledge that he has heard their crying and responded with compassion and mercy.19 Thus Psalm 13 opens with the question ‘How long, O LORD? Will you forget me forever? How long will you hide your face from me?’ (v. 1) and continues explicitly ‘Consider and answer me, O LORD my God!’ (v. 3), concluding that ‘… I trusted in your steadfast love; my heart shall rejoice in your salvation. I will sing to the LORD, because he has dealt bountifully with me’ (vv. 5-6) (NRSV).20 Thus, in putting his/her suffering in words and addressing God, the one who prays perceives God as the One who actually can be expected to hear and to respond. This perception of God as responding is an indispensable dimension of the relationship between God and his people Israel. The call to hear the voice of the Lord is thus part of a relational discourse of mutual commitment which cannot be subsumed under a pattern of command–obedience. But despite this a majority of translations render phrases such as ‘wlqb (m#$l’ as ‘to obey to His voice/law/command’

18. Cf. Patterson who maintains that ‘Jewish thinking … is not so much a manner of speculation as it is a mode of hearing and responding’ (2005:12). 19. See e.g. Zenger 1997. 20. Psalm 22 cries out ‘My God, I call by day but you do not answer, at night but I find no respite’ (v. 2), but in the second part (vv. 22-29) praises his mercy and glory. For a detailed analysis see Zenger 1997: 202–04.

Power in Interaction – The Discourse of Response

161

rather than as ‘to hear/listen to the voice/Torah/guidance of the Lord’.21 Such translations suggest a perception of the relationship of God with his people in the vein of a superior exercising power-over the subordinate in a dominating sense.22 God is seen as imposing his will upon his people irrespective or even contrary to their own interests. Taken the fact that it has been noted that biblical Hebrew does not have a word for ‘obedience’, it is rather strange to find this word so persistently and frequently in all translations. Surprisingly, what is perceived as a discourse of obedience is actually a discourse of hearing and responding. Of particular significance for this study are the traces of this discourse as found in prophetic literature. I have to limit the discussion here to select passages of the book of Isaiah which is of particular significance for the Pauline discourse.23 Thus in numerous passages particularly in Deutero-Isaiah24 the people are summoned to hear ‘now hear, Jacob my servant, Israel whom I have chosen’ (Isa. 44.1); ‘Hear this, House of Jacob, you who are called by the name of Israel’ (Isa. 48.1); ‘Listen to me, Jacob and Israel, whom I have called’ (Isa. 48.12); ‘Coasts and islands listen to me, pay attention, distant peoples’ (Isa. 49.1); ‘Listen to me, you who pursue righteousness, you who seek the Lord’ (Isa 51.1); ‘Listen to me, you who know, what righteousness means’ (Isa. 51.7); ‘Listen carefully to me …’ (Isa. 55.2); ‘… listen and you will live …’ (Isa. 55.3); or alternatively they are asked whether or why they did not hear: ‘Have you not known, have you not heard?’ (Isa. 40.21; 28); ‘your ears are open but you did not hear’ (Isa. 42.20b); ‘Was it not the Lord against whom we had sinned, in whose ways they would not walk and whose Torah they would not hear?’ (Isa. 42.24). Corresponding to such references to the calling of God through the prophet or to the issue of not-hearing, the assurance that God himself does hear and respond is expressed, as, for example, ‘I, the Lord will answer them, I the God of Israel will not forsake them’ (Isa. 41.17b); ‘In a time of favour I have answered you, on a day of salvation I have helped you. I have kept you …’ (Isa. 49.8); ‘Then you shall call and the Lord will answer …’ (58.9); ‘Before they call, I will answer, while they are yet speaking I will hear’ (65.24). These are only a few selected references to the hearing/ responding discourse in Second Isaiah, which indicate how central it is to this book. A more detailed analysis than can be provided in this study would be very illuminating, and further material would need to be considered in a more extended study on this particular issue.25 But it is sufficient to note here that from this very limited overview it already emerges that to ‘hear and respond’, far from witnessing to a discourse in the vein of command–obedience, is

21. Cf. e.g. Deut. 21.18-20; 30.2; Isa. 42.24 NRSV, RSV, NJK. 22. Cf. 2.2 above. 23. As Wagner convincingly demonstrates, see particularly 2002: 341–59. 24. In these passages I follow mainly the NRSV with minor adjustments. 25. Here the role of Deuteronomy which is also of particular significance for Paul (as e.g. Rock 2007 demonstrates) needs to be further analysed, but due to limitations of space cannot be pursued here.

162

Paul and the Dynamics of Power

rather an indication of what I would like to call a ‘discourse of responseability’ between God and his people. Peculiarities in the use of terminology in translation in my view support this reading. The terminology used in the LXX to translate the Hebrew (m#$, or when referring directly to the response dimension, hn(, varies between a0kou/ein/e0pakou/ein/ei0sakou/ein/u9pakou/ein/ u9pakoh//parakou/ein but significantly in Song 5.6; Isa. 50.2; 65.12 and 66.4 the LXX explicitly translates hn( with u9pakou/ein/u9pakoh/ thereby underlining the response character of this Greek term in the context of the LXX. This will be of particular relevance for the analysis of the discourse of u9pakou/ein/u9pakoh/ in the Pauline letters.

9.3.1 Called into Existence This is not to negate that inherent in this scriptural discourse of responseability there is an asymmetrical dimension. But asymmetry in a relationship does not necessarily and inherently imply that power is exercised according to a domination and subordination pattern.26 The asymmetry here is rather indicative of mutual dependency or interrelatedness. The people are called to hear and respond in ‘walking in the ways of the Lord’ that is, to live a life which is appropriate to the relationship they had agreed to (Exod. 19.8 and e.g. Deut. 8.6; 10.12; 19.9; 26.17; 28.9).27 This is actually nothing less than a constitutive aspect of Israel’s identity. Israel is called into existence by the call of God to hear: ‘Israel becomes Israel through hearing’ Brueggemann comments.28 Israel’s life begins and is rooted in God’s call, that is, in his compassion and faithfulness to them, thus their response is inherently ‘existential’. ‘Israel is a creature of God’s word voiced in the Torah …’29 Torah is the guidance to the ‘ways of the Lord’ and teaches Israel ‘how to engage in practices that make it possible to be Israel in an inhospitable world’.30 The people Israel thus find themselves as existing not in and out of themselves, they are not the creators of life, but always called or – as the creation narratives render it – created. The connection between the people crying in despair to God, God hearing, and them being called is not merely one of temporal sequence but of mutual influence in a web of interdependence. Something is prior to them and their existence. Thus inasmuch as the Exodus 26. See 2.4.4 above. 27. Cf. also 8.22 above. 28. Brueggemann 2001: 83. 29. Brueggemann 1998: 4–5 and 335–36. Also 1997: 417–50. Despite this emphasis on the hearing/responding character of the discourse Brueggemann uses obedience and subordination language in referring to it. I consider this problematic as it reintroduces the notion of command–obedience and its implications of domination into a discourse Brueggemann very much views as what I would call a discourse of ‘response-ability’. Cf. also Arendt who even maintains that a command-obedience structure is inherently violent (Allen 1999: 98). 30. Brueggemann 1997: 582.

Power in Interaction – The Discourse of Response

163

narratives, the Psalms and Prophets tell of experiences of God hearing and responding, the people Israel also envisage themselves as living out of and being constituted by a relationship which ‘the Other’ has initiated.31 Yet this initiation did not consist in a call to obedience but in deliverance from servitude and oppression. This is expressed in narratives like those of Hosea who reminds the people that ‘when they were a child God loved them and called them out of Egypt … he taught them to walk … he was like someone lifting an infant to his cheek’ (Hos. 11.1-11).32 A similar image is seen by Ezekiel in relation to Jerusalem: God takes on the role of a tender-loving parent who finds a newborn baby and raises her as his/her own daughter ((Ezek. 16.1-14).33 Inherent in these images in which the relationship between God and his people is depicted is a perception of life as always being a gift, not self-initiated. Hannah Arendt formulated a similar perception in twentieth-century terminology maintaining that ‘all notions of man creating himself have in common a rebellion against the very factuality of the human condition–nothing is more obvious than that man … does not owe his existence to himself.’34 Human life is not perceived as originally and ideally to be lived in autonomy, a stage that subsequently and unfortunately was lost (through sin etc.), but is seen primarily and inherently as being interdependent. Thus Israel, in being called out of Egypt, is not called into autonomy (as something they previously had and then lost) but into relationality with God, the source of life, as distinct from servitude and submission to the dominating power of some ruler, contributing to the accumulation of his wealth and glory.35 Freedom in terms of the Scriptures is not independence in the sense of autonomy or even autarky. There is no promotion of an ideal of having to rely on anyone other than oneself. Rather it means to be called into a relationship which means into interdependency.

31. Concerning the Exodus narrative Susanne Plietzsch comments: ‘Relationality is inherent to the motif of freedom – paradoxically, within the context dealt with here, freedom begins with recognizing one’s own secondary position. But this “coming second”, is nevertheless “read” in its relational and self-standing dimension – as being identified, being constituted, being created.’ My translation of the German: ‘Dem Topos der Freiheit liegt Relationalität zugurnde – Freiheit beginnt paradoxerweise im Kontext des hier behandelten Denkens mit der Erkenntnis der eignen sekundären Position. Dieses Sekundäre wird jedoch – eben relational und sehr souverän – als Wahrgenommen-werden, Konstituiert-werden, Erschaffen-werden “gelesen”’ (2005b: 46). 32. Plietzsch 2005b: 33. 33. Plietzsch comments here concerning the image of the abandoned newborn baby who without help is doomed to die ‘In such a context to exercise domination would be ineffective and nothing other than tender loving care would achieve anything.’ My translation of the German: ‘In einer solchen Situation ist “Herrschaft” schlicht ineffektiv und nichts anderes als liebevolle Zuwendung wirkungsvoll’ (2005b: 59). 34. Arendt 1970: 13. 35. Plietzsch 2005b: 56.

164

Paul and the Dynamics of Power

9.3.2 Inter-Dependence – not Subordination, Submission or Obedience To be dependent is not to be confused with subordination, submission or obedience. It does not inherently and necessarily imply that one is dominated or controlled by the other/Other. It also does not imply that in acknowledging dependency the responsibility for one’s life and actions is delegated to someone else. On the contrary, it is precisely within the context of dependency that Israel is called to respond, that is to be responsible for her actions in relation to others. The call to respond is addressed to a community and it is the life of the community which is the realm within which those called are expected to respond, in being responsible for those who are also part of the network of interdependence, that is the neighbours.36 To be called means, to speak in a Levinasian way to be chosen before choosing.37 As noted above, the Other who calls me is always prior to me, is always already there, thus the relationship constituted by the call and maintained in response is an asymmetrical relationship of response - ability.38 God and Israel are not the same, but are nevertheless bound in interdependence. It is their difference or alterity which is at the heart of their relationship. This means that difference, alterity and asymmetry are not perceived as being in contradiction to relationalilty or to response-ability. Nor is this asymmetry perceived as giving way to power over the other exercised as domination or control.39 God who called Israel out of Egypt does not replace Pharaoh. He does not position himself in the seat of dominating power, his power consists in something radically different from domination. God’s power is perceived as manifesting itself in non-domination, which respects the integrity of the other and thus opens up the possibility of recognition ((dy) and encounter. The power of God is perceived as relationality which rules out any form of force, coercion or domination. God calls Israel not into a new realm of domination, but into a realm of interdependence. The power of God consists not in power-over but in power-with, in giving him/herself into a relationship which is neither constituted nor maintained by power-over, force or domination, but in the tender-loving care for the people called. Arbitrary action and domination by God could contribute nothing to the maintenance of this bond.40 To live in the realm of this God means to be in a relationship, a relationship for which the renunciation of power in the sense of domination is constitutive. Responding to the call of God then cannot but mirror the pattern of this relationship.41 Significantly those most vulnerable and most dependent on the responsible actions of others in the community of Israel are depicted as the exemplary 36. Patterson 2005: 74. 37. See Cohen 2001: 184. 38. Cf. Plüss 2001: 180–81. 39. Cf. Derrida 1997: 230–33, 250–52. 40. I am indebted here to the excellent study of Susanne Plietzsch (2005: 51–59). 41. There are close similarities to this perception of power in Arendt’s differentiation between power, force, domination and violence. I will come back to this below; see 9.7.

Power in Interaction – The Discourse of Response

165

‘others’, that is, widows and orphans are the ‘testing-ground’ of the appropriate response to the God who called Israel. Patterson in his analysis entitled Hebrew Language and Jewish Thought notes that ‘Vulnerable and exposed to danger, my neighbour is entrusted to my care. Which is to say: the “other” or the rx) (acher), is the one for whom I am y)rx) (acherai), responsible.’42 Israel is called to respond not in mere words or in the approval of a creed but in community life. The Israelites were called ‘to hear’ and ‘to do’ (Deut. 4.1; 6.3) and they consented ‘to hear and to do’ (Exod. 19.8). Thus the ‘doing’ according to the ‘hearing’ is not an additional option to ‘faith’ but there can be no ‘hearing’ without ‘doing’. If the response does not emerge in ‘doing justice’ (Prov. 29.7; Hos. 10.12; Isa. 48.18; 51.1; 58.1-14; 64.4) it is as if they had not ‘heard’ the call of God.43 This responsiveness of those called has nothing to do with the traditional notion of obedience since it is not giving in to someone else’s will at the expense of one’s own. When the people upon being asked whether they ‘will listen to my voice and will be attentive to his covenant’ (Exod. 19.5a) reply that ‘all that the Lord has said we will do’ (19.8) this should not be regarded as ‘empty obedience’ to some unknown command. It is rather, in my view, the trusting response of people who have experienced the care and faithfulness of the One who Him/Herself had heard and responded to their suffering in leading them out of Egypt. They confirm their trust in God who is faithful. The word ‘obedience’ in my view cannot and does not express this dynamics of trust appropriately enough.44 The people’s response is rather the positive acceptance, even celebration, of being in a relationship which enhances and enriches life beyond imagination. An image more appropriate than that of submissive obedience, than that of a ruler commanding his subordinates, might be that of the compassionate love between a couple – who are attentive to each other and responsive to each other’s needs as well as joys. Or the image of parents who thankfully, if not always joyfully, respond to the needs of their newborn child in doing whatever she/he needs to grow up and to flourish. Such images are used in the Scriptures for describing the relationship between God and Israel as being dependent on each other in a compassionate relationship. Such images often also indicate that this relationship although asymmetrical is nevertheless mutual – God is expected to respond inasmuch as he/she expects them to respond.45 It is a mutuality which needs to be distinguished from reciprocity. I have elaborated on this distinction previously; here it is sufficient 42. Patterson 2005: 74. 43. See also Patterson 2005: 13 and 191. 44. Brueggemann retains an emphasis on obedience and servitude as the appropriate attitude to Yahweh. As outlined above I consider this terminology problematic. But despite my disagreement with Brueggemann on this, I note that he goes on to present a more rounded picture in that he states ‘… the obedience of Torah piety is not “must” or “ought” or “should”. It is rather the kind of delight whereby friendship ripens into love, and obligation is the chance to please and delight the other …’ (1999: 31). 45. See e.g. Song 2.14; Hos. 14.4-5.

166

Paul and the Dynamics of Power

to note that mutuality does not imply that one gives back what one receives – it is not the same as what has been described as the practice of ‘gift-exchange’ in ancient and some contemporary societies.46 The mutuality consists rather in maintaining the relationship in hnwm)/tm) – that is in abiding trust in each other. This trusting relationality is not confined to inward feelings but emerges in action. The scriptural narrative depicts God’s intervention in history on behalf of his people as inherent in His ‘hearing’ the groaning of his people in Egypt (Exod. 2.23-25), responding to prayers (e.g. Pss. 17.1; 22.12), and not giving up on them despite them going astray (e.g. Hos. 11.8-9). Israel’s response to this grace and compassion of God consists not in giving Him back the equivalent to what they have been given but their ‘trust/faith’ consists in doing justice, that is, ‘to loose the bonds of injustice, to undo the thongs of the yoke, to let the oppressed go free, and to break every yoke …’ (Isa. 58.6 NRSV). The response should encompass whatever contributes to the promotion and abundance of life for all, particularly the life of the weakest and most dependent within the community. What has been received unconditionally should overflow and be passed on into the community.

9.4 Responding as Response-abilty This discourse of hearing and responding ((m#$/hn() is inherent in the a0kou/ein/u9pakou/ein discourse of the LXX and Jewish tradition. Since it is this tradition in which Paul is embedded and with which he is most familiar,47 I cannot see how this dimension could not have resonated with the Pauline discourse of a0kou/ein/u9pakou/ein. From this hermeneutical presupposition I will now offer a reading of the a0kou/ein/u9pakou/ein discourse in some of the Pauline letters.

9.4.1 U(pakoh\ and A0koh\ pi/stewv in Romans and Galatians ‘Paul’s fascinating programmatic phrase’, as Nanos call it, actually brackets the whole of the letter to the Romans to some extent since it is introduced as a description of what Paul does in relation to the gentile nations in Rom. 1.5 and repeated in 16.26,48 with a variation being found in 15.18. It is interesting to note that only in one other letter do we encounter a phrase that is almost identical with the one in Romans, that is, in Galatians where Paul in the debate with the Galatians asks them whether they have received the Spirit ‘by works of the law, or by hearing with faith’ (‘e0c e1rgwn no/mou to\ pneu=ma e0la/bete h2 e0c a0koh=v pi/stewv’ [Gal.3.2]). Again he asks whether they 46. See above 4.5, also Ehrensperger 2004a: 106–10; 117–20; 192–202. Also Jennings 2006: 102. 47. See Wagner 2002: 354–60. 48. Nanos 1996: 219; Jennings 2006: 106. Also Jewett 2006: 110 and 997–1011.

Power in Interaction – The Discourse of Response

167

experienced the effects of the Spirit ‘by works of the law, or by hearing with faith’ (‘e0c e1rgw=n no/mou h1 e0c a0koh=v pi/stewv’ [3.5]). Taking into account what has been demonstrated above, that the terminology of a0kou/ein and u9pakou/ein is used almost synonymously in the discourse of the LXX to translate the discourse of hn(/(m#$ there is therefore no reason to draw a distinction between the phrases u9pakoh\ and a0koh\ pi/stewv in the Pauline discourse. Why should the more programmatic statements about his perceived task in Romans refer to something different from what in a more ‘heated’ discussion is a reminder of the Galatians’ initiation into a relationship with the one God of Israel through Christ? It seems indicative that whereas in Galatians the phrase ‘a0koh\ pi/stewv’ is used in close proximity to the phrase ‘e1rga no/mou’, it is translated as ‘hearing of faith’ with no reference to obedience. No such reticence with reference to obedience terminology can be found when it comes to translating the phrase in Rom. 1.5 (‘… to bring about the obedience of faith for the sake of his name among all the nations’ – ei0v u9pakoh\n pi/ stewv e0n pa=sin toi=v e1qnesin u9pe\r tou= o0no/matov au0tou=) – since issues about ‘works of the law’ are here not as obviously in view as they are presumed to be in the Galatians’ discourse! The scriptural discourse does not show any traces of a distinction between hearing and doing. This is because ‘to hear’ implies ‘to respond’ by doing and not merely by assenting to something like a set of beliefs. The reading proposed here thus suggests that both phrases, resonating so closely with each other as well as with the a0kou/ein/u9pakou/ein discourse of the LXX, refer to the dimension of ‘hearing, responding and doing’ which is inherent in the scriptural discourse.49 Read in this vein the phrases u9pakoh\ and a0koh\ pi/stewv indicate that Paul perceived his task as proclaiming the message of the gospel so that people from the gentile nations could ‘hear, respond, and act’ in a way that corresponds to being called into a relationship with the one God of Israel through Christ. ‘To hear, respond and act’, then, are not separate stages of faith but are constitutive of one and the same positive reaction of those called into a relationship with the God of Israel. It is the expression of having really and truly heard, and thus of responding by trusting in the relationship one is invited to. It is an unconditional invitation which in other words is said to be offered by grace (Rom. 3.24; 5.15 etc.; Gal. 1.6). In that sense it can be said that faith and u9pakoh\ and a0koh\ are the same, but this is far from the identification proposed by Bultmann and Käsemann, in that faith has nothing to do with the traditional notion of obedience. It is the response to an invitation, to an invitation into the realm of God, who does not demand submission under some dominating power but who in his hospitality liberates from such powers and empowers a life in mutual interdependence. The responsive character of u9pakoh\ and a0koh\ pi/stewv is further highlighted by the frequent use of call-language in the Pauline letters. Thus 49. Cf. Nanos who affirms that u9pakou/w (although translating it with ‘obey’) ‘has the clear sense of how one responds to the word of God in faith …’ (1996: 222).

168

Paul and the Dynamics of Power

immediately after mentioning his perception of the purpose/goal of his apostolic commissioning (inviting people from gentile nations to hear and respond) Paul uses ‘call’-terminology for designating them. They are klhtoi\ I0hsou= Xristou= (‘called to belong to Jesus Christ’ [Rom. 1.5]) and klhtoi\ a3gioi (‘called to be saints’ [Rom. 1.6]). If someone is called the intention of the one who calls is that the call should be heard and a response can be expected. The accurate response which confirms that the call has been heard is a ‘way of life’ which is no longer based on the power of sin, or ‘this world’, but on the justice of God (Rom. 6.16-18). This justice, confirmed in the Christ-event, is none other than that revealed in the Torah and the Prophets (Rom. 3.21-22). Thus life lived in faithful trust to this dikaiosu/nh qeou= is shaped according to the guidance given in the Torah and the Prophets, as applied to gentiles who now live in the realm of God through Christ. It is a response to the gift of being called into a relationship which is compassionate and just and caring. The expected response is not to return but to pass on to others what has been received.50 A trusting (faithful) response is aimed at doing justice. Far from implying submission to some exterior force, this means rather to tune into the rhythm of life according to God’s tender-loving care and justice for Israel and the nations, as promised by the Scriptures and confirmed in Christ according to the Scriptures. The theme of an invitation to a hearing response by those called resonates throughout Romans with its culmination in chapters 12–15, and their focus on welcoming, that is, being hospitable towards the other.51 In addition to being firmly rooted in scriptural context, Paul’s emphasis is coloured by the messianic dimension which the early Christ-followers perceived as having been initiated in and by the Christ-event. This ushers in the mission to the gentiles in which the call to the u9pakoh\ and a0koh\ pi/stewv leads to a way of life which has much in common with Jewish ethics, and which in its eschatological/messianic focus is radically open to the future. The trusting response in doing justice and welcoming the other in the midst of an inhospitable world happens in anticipation ‘of the coming of a justice that entails the resurrection of the dead and the new creation’.52 The response in trust is also an expression of hope, a hope against hope, hope which is not seen, because ‘hope that is seen is not hope … we hope for what we do not see …’ (Rom. 8.24-25).

9.4.2 Guidance to the Called in Corinth An accumulation of call-language can be found in a letter like 1 Corinthians, in which Paul and the co-senders are asked for and provide guidance and advice to the community concerning concrete issues of community life. 50. Nanos 1996: 219–26; Jennings 2006: 106. 51. See Campbell 1995, also Jennings 2006: 111; I have elaborated on this in relation to Romans 14–15 in my 2004a: 181–89. 52. Jennings 2006: 167.

Power in Interaction – The Discourse of Response

169

The Corinthians are given guidance about the appropriate response to the call (klh/siv) of God, not as individuals but as a community. Although the terminology of a0koh\/ a0kou/ein is very rare in 1 Corinthians, and nowhere are they reminded to respond to their ‘call’ in u9pakoh\ – terminology, the calllanguage so frequent and pronounced in this letter resonates with dimensions of the ‘hearing and responding’ discourse of other letters. The designation of this group as ta\ e0kklhsi/a tou= qeou= (1.2) resonates with their perception as ‘klh/toi’ (called). They are the group of those from the nations called ‘out of this world’ to live as an alternative community a life in relation to the faithful God who called them (pisto\v o9 qeo/v di’ ou{ e0klh/qhte [1.9a]) – thus they are the e0k-klh-si/a tou= qeou=. The phrase is used far more frequently in 1 Corinthians than in any other letter which is a possible indication that in the situation at Corinth with its group divisions Paul sees a need to emphasize that this assembly to which they all belong is the assembly of God, that is, it is not the assembly of Paul, Kephas or even of a specifically labelled Christ-group, but only the e0kklhsi/a tou= qeou=.53 In addition to the links of e0kklhsi/a-terminology with the LXX translation of lhq54 there are political overtones inherent in this label which indicate that these Christ-following groups most likely had some awareness of the political implications of their own self-understanding. They were assemblies who lived not according to ‘the wisdom of the rulers of this age’ (2.6.)55 The frequent use of the term may also be an indication that their identity as one group of Christ-followers – or as Pauline terminology has it as ‘klh/toi’ – has to be strengthened in a dual way – internally as they seemed to be drifting apart in competing loyalty groups, externally in that their difference from the patterns and customs of ‘this age’ must be further developed.56 This suggestion is supported by the fact that Paul frequently reminds them that they are ‘called’ (1.24, 26; 7.15, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 24). They are addressed or referred to as e0kklhsi/a particularly in the second half of the letter. It coincides with the character of the letter as a letter of guidance in a halakhic vein57 which is the working out of life in Christ as the appropriate response to the call. This response is the evidence that they have already heard, and they are now given guidance in how to translate their hearing/ responding into doing, that is into their everyday lives. It is guidance into a life which is not dominated by values of ‘this world’ (of Roman imperial power) but finds its orientation in relation to the God who in the renunciation of exercising dominating power calls them into a realm of alternative power. As emphasized in the Scriptures, particularly in Deuteronomy and the 53. It is significant to note with Jewett that this is the normal designation Paul uses for the Christ-following groups, apart from the instances where they are either georgraphically or ‘ethnically’ specified, or e0kklhsi/a is used without any genitive. Only one instance in the entire corpus Paulinum combines e0kklhsi/a with Xristou= (Jewett 2006: 976). 54. Cf. e.g. Deut 4.10; 9.10; 18.16; 23.2-4; 23.9; 31.10. 55. Jennings 2006: 201, also Finney 2005: 27. 56. Cf. Campbell 2006: 153–54, 161–70; Horsley 2000a: 82–93. 57. Tomson 1990: 265.

170

Paul and the Dynamics of Power

Prophets, it is the realm where the well-being of the least is the testing-ground of the appropriate response of the community of the called. Since the Corinthians are addressed as ‘klh/toi’ the senders thereby remind them of the specific concrete dimension that is implied in ‘hearing/responding’ to this call of God. The references to the divisions in 1.11-13, the problems concerning the Lord’s Supper mentioned in 11.17-34, and the emphasis on unity in diversity in chapter 12 all indicate that the Corinthians were at least tempted to look for orientation concerning their community life in the surrounding world of imperial power. This would imply that strength and power were sought in entering into a patron–client relationship with a most forceful patron.58 Thus Paul and the co-senders felt the need to clarify for them the implications of living as ‘klh/toi’ in the realm of the God of Israel. As former pagan gentiles they were still in a learning process, in the process of being socialized into ‘life in Christ’. It does not seem to be pure coincidence that in this letter Paul so strongly reminds them that they are called by God through Christ, Christ crucified by ‘rulers of this age’, that is, by Roman imperial power (2.2, 6-8). This in itself should clarify that in the realm of this God, life is lived in a radically different way from the ways of this world.59 The ways of God are not like ‘the wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age’ and they cannot be understood by ‘rulers of this age’ (2.6-8). They are so radically different that only with the help of the spirit of God can understanding begin to grow (2.11-13). The senders address the ‘klh/toi’ who are in Corinth as if they should have some understanding, that is the ‘hearing and responding’ should have led them to ‘doing’ according to their relationship with God through Christ. But the reports from Chloe indicate that they have not quite understood, not quite ‘heard’ and thus not quite ‘responded’ appropriately to their ‘calling’. Thus Paul challenges them to grow further in their life in Christ (3.1-3a). The pattern to be imitated is Christ – and if they need an actual human example they should take Paul and the relationship between Paul and Apollos as an example.60 The guidance given reminds them, through Timothy as well as the letter (4.17), that their entire life ought to seek orientation in ‘Jesus Christ and him crucified’ (2.2). In the anticipation of the coming kingdom of God they ought to base their lives not on the wisdom of this world, that is, not in seeking honour and power according to the values of the Roman Empire, but on the cross. This in itself is an encouragement to an anti-imperial stance and it is elaborated by Paul in that he encourages these ‘klh/toi’, who formerly were pagans, to seek support for understanding the implications of their new-found trust in God through Christ by remembering the fact of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. The cross reveals and signifies that power, in the realm of God, is of a radically different kind from the power of Rome, it is power to empower in contrast to power to dominate.61 58. 59. 60. 61.

See also the discussion of 1 Cor. 4.16 and 1 Cor. 11.1 in 8.4 above. Cf. Horsley 2000a: 90–93. See above Chapter 8. Cf. Chapter 6 above; also Finney 2005: 28–31.

Power in Interaction – The Discourse of Response

171

9.4.3 U(pakoh/ in Other Letters To hear and do in the realm of this God consists not in submission to a dominating power but in being moved by His call to respond with one’s entire life (Deut. 6.4-6). This is what is expressed in passages of two other letters. In one instance it is followed by a blessing ‘a4 kai\ e0ma/qete kai\ parela/bete kai\ h0kou/sate kai\ ei1dete e0n e0moi/, tau=ta pr/assete kai\ o9 qeo\v th=v ei0rh/nhv e1stai meq’ u9mw=n’ (‘What you have learned and received and heard and seen in me do, and the God of peace will be with you’ [Phil. 4.9]). In the other it is followed with the acknowledgement that the ‘hearing’ is effective in the lives of the Christfollowers ‘….h9mei=v eu0xaristou=men tw=| qew=| a0dialei/ptwv o#ti paralabo/ntev lo/gon a0koh=v par’h9mw=n tou= qeou= e0de/casqe ou0 lo/gon a0nqrw/pwn a0lla\ kaqw/v e0stin a0lhqw=v lo/gon qeou= o$v kai\ e0nergei=tai e0n u9mi=n toi=v pisteu/ousin.’ (‘… we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God which is at work in you believers’ [1 Thess. 2.13]). It is significant to note that all those who have ‘heard’ the word of God are perceived as hosts who have welcomed the guest into their lives, that is they have offered the guest (the word) their hospitality. They are active participants in the process rather than passive, submissive recipients and executers of some command. They are the ones who move their lives upon ‘hearing’. They are ‘welcoming’ the ‘word of God’ in a similar vein as they are encouraged to ‘welcome one another’ as ‘Christ has welcomed them’ (Rom. 15.7). This is an activity which is far from submissive obedience. It is an act of hospitality which is based on the inviting hospitality of God through Christ. Emphasis on the life-changing dimension of ‘hearing and responding’ is also found in 2 Corinthians. Paul mentions that he had written to the Corinthians because he wanted to know whether ‘e0iv pa/nta u9ph/kooi/ e0ste’ (2 Cor. 2.9). Traditional translations suggest that Paul wants to know whether they are obedient to his apostolic authority, implying a submissive attitude over against the apostle. But it should be noted here that Paul never actually uses this terminology when he wants addressees to follow his guidance. The u9pakoh/ terminology elsewhere is used exclusively in relation to God. Thus I suggest a reading here which resonates with the ‘hearing and responding’ discourse – Paul then would rather like to know whether their faithful response to their call has actually permeated their entire life, their heart, soul and strength (cf. Deut. 6.4-5). In 2 Cor. 7.15 the context is the reference to the joyful visit of Titus, the memory of which makes his heart overflow when he remembers their hospitality (‘as he remembers the response of you all, and the fear and trembling with which you received him’ ‘e0stin a0namimnh|skome/nou th\n pa/ntwn u9mw=n u9pakoh\n w9v meta\ fo/bou kai\ tro/mou e0de/casqe au0to/n’). The Corinthians’ hearing and responding manifests itself in their welcoming hospitality. The ‘fear and trembling’ (fo/bou kai\ tro/mou) seems to contradict my reading, but without elaborating here any further,

172

Paul and the Dynamics of Power

this could be seen as a reference to respect and appreciation rather than to fear as such, since the joyful context of the term does not indicate a situation of force or coercion as ‘fear and trembling’ language might indicate. The emphasis on the all-encompassing dimension of hearing and responding is also found in 2 Cor. 10.5-6 where Paul strongly affirms that he wishes the Corinthians’ minds and thoughts should be entirely focused on the hearing of and responding to Christ rather than being partially distracted by ‘this world’. The u9pakoh//u9pakou/ein discourse found in the Pauline letters is thus seen as resonating with the hearing/responding discourse of the Scriptures. In the case of the Christ-followers the call to hear is transmitted through the apostles by Christ; it is a call to a response which echoes the celebration of life as interdependence, a response which consists in the overflowing of grace in the life of the community.62

9.5 Submission and Order Discourse (1 Cor. 14.32-34 and Rom. 13.1-7) The references to terms with the word-stem tag- are not frequent in the Pauline letters (14), but in the debates about the discourse of obedience the term u9pota/ssesqai was at the centre of attention. It either is subsumed under and identified with the discourse of u9pakoh\ and a0koh or it is clearly distinguished from the latter.63 On the basis of the close link between LXX terminology and the Pauline discourse, I consider the distinction between u9pakoh//a0koh/ and u9pota/ssesqai as a given. In the LXX the two terms are never used identically. A detailed discussion of the LXX terminology cannot be presented here but it is significant to note that there are two aspects which give some indication for a differentiated reading of the Pauline discourse. The terminology referred to by words with the word-stem tagis related to issues of order and rules. Thus ‘mitzvoth’ are often referred to as prosta/gma(ta) (Gen. 26.5; Exod. 20.6; Lev. 26.14; Deut. 5.10; 19.4; 1 Kgs /LXX 3 Kgdms 8.58, 61; 11.38) a use with which the Pauline use of e0pita/gh resonates (1 Cor. 7.6, 25; 2 Cor. 8.8). There are interesting uses of u9potag- language in certain Psalms (e.g. Pss. 36.7 and 61.2 and 6) which translate words meaning ‘waiting in silence’. The Pauline use of u9potaglanguage seems to refer to issues related to a certain order – some perceived as originating in God, others related to some kind of order/organization necessary as an alternative to chaos. Thus in 1 Cor. 14.32 the prophetic spirit should ‘fit into’ the order of prophets, in 1 Cor. 14.34 some kind of talking by women should ‘fit into’ the order of the assembly when worshipping,64 in 1 Cor. 16.16 the congregation should ‘fit into’ the order 62. Cf. 9.3 above, also Chapter 4. 63. Kittredge 1998: 50–1, cf. also 175–78. 64. Paul and his co-senders apparently see no problem with women praying and prophesying publicly during a worship meeting in 1 Cor. 11.5, thus participating in an active role in the assemblies cannot have been the problem addressed here (if the passage is not perceived as an interpolation).

Power in Interaction – The Discourse of Response

173

provided by the ‘first converts of the household of Stephanas’. In Gal. 2.5 Paul maintains that he did not ‘fit in’ with those who advocate that gentile followers of Christ must fully take on the Torah in order to be accepted as equal members of this movement. All these instances are referring to issues of ‘order’ rather than the message of the gospel and Paul never supports an argument for the necessity of u9pota/ssesqai with reference to the gospel. To me this indicates that it is more likely a technical, organizational term rather than one related to the ‘hearing and doing’ of the gospel. This is even more applicable in relation to the contested field of interpreting Rom. 13.1-7. I am convinced by Ian Rock’s excellent analysis of this passage.65 He argues that the scenario which should be envisaged here is that of a tiny minority (Jews and amongst them Christ-followers) who live under the all-pervasive dominance of Roman imperial power. They have no option but to submit to this power – any other behaviour would come close to suicidal activity. But to be forced to submit to the dominating power of the empire is something which is entirely different from being called by, and responding to, the Other/other in a relationship of welcoming mutuality. This is actually submission to a dominating power – not voluntarily but by force. The significant point Paul makes here, from an apocalyptic perspective, is that even the power of imperial Rome is only established in accordance with God’s will. Paul interprets Scripture as stating that God raised up Pharaoh for His purpose (Rom. 9.17). The ruler is allowed to rule for a limited time, is accountable to this God and will come to an end as God wills (1 Cor. 2.6). The time of imperial Rome is ‘doomed to pass away’ and in Christ those who follow him already live in anticipatory hope of another kingdom to come. Thus submission to this power has again nothing to do with voluntary acceptance and submission to any government of any century to come. Paul’s seemingly quietist guidance is not a fundamental and universal statement about the relationship of Church and state but contextually limited, in that he is addressing the issue of how to live as a small minority under the condition of Roman imperial rule. It is a perspective which is nurtured by a hope which cannot be seen – that another kingdom is already coming – the kingdom of another peace and another justice than the brutal so-called pax et iustitia established by military oppressive force throughout the Mediterranean basin. Thus Paul’s guidance does not give evidence for a command–obedience structure inherent in his dealing with issues related to power, but rather demonstrates his concern for the well-being of the e0kklhsi/a/ai in the confidence that coercion into submission will be brought to an end by God. This can hardly be taken as an argument to support the view that Paul advocates an attitude of submission to the ‘rulers of this world’; rather it is a strategy in the vein of a hidden transcript of power.66 In submitting for the limited time set by God, to the ‘power of the sword’ – that is to coercive and violent power – the Christ-followers are nevertheless 65. 66.

Rock 2007. For a different view see Horrell 2005: 252–57. Cf. Elliott also 2004: 119–22.

174

Paul and the Dynamics of Power

still in charge of their own lives, empowered by the wisdom of the cross and the knowledge that what at the moment seems invincible, the domination of Rome, is passing away.67 Thus submission to Rome’s domination is of a completely different character from responding in trust to God’s call.

9.6 Parakalw~ – a Hidden Request for Obedience? Having come to the conclusion that the use of u9pakoh//u9pakouei=n terminology in the Pauline letters is not an indication for a domination–subordination discourse as this reading proposes and the use of u9potag-/ e0pitag- language is very limited and very specific (as noted above), it could nevertheless be argued that Paul used other ways and means to exercise some kind of coercive power over his communities in urging them to follow his advice or teaching and thus obey him, that is, submit to his power. It has been suggested by some scholars that the Pauline use of the term parakalei/n serves to express an explicit command to obey.68 The view that Paul uses parakalw= to ‘hide’ that he would like to, or actually does command his communities, is most likely nurtured by Phlm. 8-10, where Paul states that he perceives himself to be in a superior position to Philemon, which would allow him to command the latter. Paul here clearly sees himself as being in a position of authority in relation to Philemon, but rather than blatantly exercising authority in the vein of the command–obedience pattern, he renounces it and states parakalw= se. I am not convinced that the emphasis on the contrast set up in this passage between commanding and appealing/encouraging is related primarily to the fact that Paul renounces the exercise of a kind of power-over Philemon, which he actually ‘possessed’.69 Rather, the point made here seems to indicate that Paul distinguished the kind of asymmetrical relationship between himself and other members of the Christ-movement from one that is structured according to a command–obedience pattern. This asymmetrical relationship is not characterized by the notion that the one in the position of power-over can force the dependent other to do what the superior wants him/her to do because he/she is in a superior position. But rather, because this relationship is established on trust not on force and domination and orients itself not according to the ‘pattern of this world’ but on ‘the way of the Lord’, this has implications for the exercise of power-over. Paul, in Philemon, writes to someone who most likely is in a socially superior position. In contrasting e0pita/ssein with parakalei/n he alludes to a perception of superiority as exercising power-over according to a command– obedience model, which Philemon must have been very familiar with. In 67. Since this a contextual statement the issue of the relationship between Church and state has to be reconsidered afresh in each new context rather than simply repeating Paul’s specific guidance. 68. See Kittredge 1998: 91–98. 69. See Chapter 2 above.

Power in Interaction – The Discourse of Response

175

referring to the paradoxical asymmetry between them in the movement Philemon had joined, Paul emphasizes not necessarily his ‘hidden’ wish to command but rather refers to the alternative exercise of power within this community. It is an exercise of power which aims not at establishing positions of domination and control, but where power-over is viewed as a means to guide and encourage others in a transformative way, so they may grow into the way of life of a community which tries in the midst of an inhospitable world not to follow its destructive patterns. From the reading proposed here I cannot see how, from this particular passage, it can be concluded that a command–obedience perception lies at the heart of this as well as all the other parakalw= passages in the Pauline letters. But even if Paul here were somehow ‘hiding’ a preference for commanding, this would be only one specific instance which can hardly serve as the general pattern for his use of parakalw= elsewhere. The least this passage tells us is that Paul obviously did make a distinction between commanding and whatever is expressed by the term parakalw=. The term can hardly be seen as a ‘milder’ form of commanding, it refers rather to an alternative form of relating to one another even when the relationship involves some sort of hierarchy. This is confirmed by previous studies of the parakalw= discourse. Bjerkelund’s study is still the most profound and detailed analysis of the term and he has demonstrated convincingly that sentences introduced by parakalw= in first-century diplomatic correspondence indicated not a paternalistic or otherwise authority-exercising relationship between sender and addressee(s) but, as he formulates it: ‘Es handelt sich um einen würdigen und urbanen Ausdruck der Aufforderung, dem alles Befehlende und Untertänige fernliegt.’70 It is used in situations where the cooperation, contribution or acceptance of the addressees is sought. The use of parakalw=, then, indicates that ‘commanding’ is either not possible because the sender is not in a position to command the addressees or it is not advisable because the consent rather than the submission of the addressees is decisive for the respective purpose.71 Thus the formulaic use of parakalw= /parakalou=men (cf. 1 Thess. 4.1) in the Pauline letters is an indication of a dynamic of power between Paul, the co-senders and the addressees which differs significantly from a command– obedience structure. Paul does exercise power in that the parakalw= terminology signifies the compassionate wish of Paul that the addressees do follow his guidance and share his perceptions of the implications of the Christ-event. But he consistently seeks their consent rather than their submission.72 To seek submission would be contrary to the entire ethos of the 70. Bjerkelund 1967: 110. 71. Jewett 2006: 725–26; Bjerkelund 1967: 188–90. 72. It could be argued that this is a well-known strategy of superiors – to disguise actual domination in seeking the voluntary consent of the dominated to their situation. (Cf. Foucault 1986: 233–34.)Whilst this may be a possible option in modern societies, secured by actual means of force and domination the situation between Paul, the missionary teams and the communities is entirely different from such a contemporary scenario.

176

Paul and the Dynamics of Power

movement as it promoted values for community life not shaped ‘according to this world’. Paul even formulates this in his emphasis: ‘Not that we lord it over your faith; we work with you for your joy …’ (2 Cor. 1.24). This is consistent with gospel traditions which emphasize the same when Jesus says ‘You know that the rulers of the gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them. It shall not be so among you; but whoever would be great among you must be your servant …’ (Mt. 20.25-26, also Lk. 22.24-27). Thus first-century diplomatic correspondence as well as the ethos of the Christ-movement as evidenced elsewhere in the Pauline letters and in the gospels show that parakalw= is actually a very appropriate term for seeking the consent and cooperation of people one compassionately cares about. There is no hint that this is a hidden claim to authority in the vein of domination. When Paul does claim something like that he actually uses much stronger language (as e.g. Gal. 1.6; 3.1). In addition to these aspects, the fact that parakalei/n is used in different contexts without this particular rather technical epistolary connotation but clearly refers to encouragement or comforting (Rom. 12.8; 15.4-5; 1 Cor. 4.13; 14.31; 1 Thess. 4.18; 5.11, etc.) in my view supports this ‘noncommanding’ understanding of the parakalw= discourse. The LXX use of parakalei/n obviously resonates with these Pauline uses of the term, in that echoes of compassion, encouragement, support, even tender-loving care are inherent in the terminology as it is frequently used to translate terms of the word-group mxr/mxn in the Hebrew Scriptures.73 There is sufficient evidence in my view that it is this aspect which also resonates with the specific parakalw=-passages in the Pauline letters, rather than a terminology of commanding and submission. It is significant to note that parakalei/n terminology is most prominent in 2 Corinthians, a letter which according to wide scholarly consensus addresses difficulties in the relationship between Paul, his team and the Corinthian community. The dimension resonating with the LXX use of the term seems far more appropriate for the restoration of a relationship than any attitude which would come close to the exercising of power in the vein of commanding and expecting obedience. The latter might result in submission and control but not to life in Christ as advocated throughout the Pauline letters. The parakalw= discourse thus refers to something which is of special concern and which Paul perceives as being of such significance that his expressed wish is that they act according to his guidance and advice. He thus clearly expresses what he considers to be the appropriate action or behaviour, most frequently in relation to specific issues or a concrete situation in the community (Rom. 15.30; 1 Cor. 1.10; 4.16; 16.15; 2 Cor. 2.8; 10.1; Phil. 4.2; Phlm. 19-10; 1 Thess. 4.10; 5.14). Only Rom. 12.1, 2 Cor. 6.1 (and 1 Thess. 4.1) are not recognizably addressing a particular issue but refer in 73. This denotes the compassionate dimension of God, related to the word for the mother’s womb. Cf. Isa. 22.4; 35.4; 40.1; 51.3; 51.12; 61.2; 66.13. On this see Rendtorff 2005: 623–27. Cf. also Hogeterp 2006: 245.

Power in Interaction – The Discourse of Response

177

a more general way to important aspects of ‘how to live and please God’ (peripatei=n kai\ a0re/skein qew=| [1 Thess. 4.1]). The translations (NKJ, RSV, NRSV) vary between ‘urge’, ‘exhort’, ‘appeal’, ‘entreat’, ‘beg’ according to the literary context in which the term is used. As a guiding principle for translation a perception of the degree of disagreement or problems between Paul and the community seems to emerge, in that stronger words are used when the situation envisaged is one of tension or disagreement whereas the ‘softer’ words seem to be used when no problem of obvious disagreement is involved. Whilst it is legitimate and essential to adjust translations of one and the same word to the context it is used in,74 nevertheless it is not obvious that the English translations always make it clear that the Greek always, whether in a situation of caring concern or disagreement and tension, refers to a compassionate concern and caring respect for the other. In this they are deficient. This is a concern which arises out of the fact that a relationship has been established, a relationship based on trust, not on force, and out of this concern Paul sometimes expresses very strongly what he perceives necessary for them to do. To express a strong concern is still not the same as commanding or forcing someone to do something. In the case of Paul and the communities, Paul claims the position of the ‘subject-who-knows’ who is able and willing to give guidance to the communities he founded. Having called them into a relationship he perceives himself responsible for them and their growing in Christ. But except for the example of his own life and the power of persuasion he has nothing to convince them of his understanding of the implications of the Christ-event for their everyday lives. Although Paul does not see these communities as ‘mature’ members of the Christ-movement who no longer need his guidance but are able to guide and encourage each other (note the frequent use of a0llh/louv), the purpose of the compassionate concern expressed in the parakalw= discourse is actually to guide them towards such maturity in Christ. To hear and respond to the call of God in Christ and to grow into responsibility are one and the same. The parakalw= discourse thus tunes in with the discourse of hearing and responding in faith/trust to the call of God in Christ. It is a powerful call that Paul considers himself to be entrusted with. It is the aim of this call to be heard and responded to – as is the call with which God called Israel into loving bondage. But it is the call of a compassionate loving God, and guidance into a relationship with Him cannot but reflect this compassion. It consists in the renunciation of any worldly force and manifests itself in compassion for his creation, in suffering rather than dominating, in dying rather than in triumphing, and, as such, as life overcoming death.

74.

Eco 2003: 58, 109, also 2004: 123–32.

178

Paul and the Dynamics of Power 9.7 Conclusion

The discourse of response-ability found in the ‘hearing–responding’ discourse of the Pauline letters resonates with aspects of power emphasized in contemporary theories of power which try to move beyond command– obedience paradigms of power. There are aspects within this discourse of response-ablity which resonate with the emphasis on transformation as a specific pattern of an asymmetrical relationship in which guidance in support of someone is one characteristic aspect, and the temporal limitation of the asymmetry another. Indications for such a limited perception of authority roles within the early Christ-movement can be found throughout the Pauline letters. It is a discourse which moreover resonates with aspects of power as emerging in a web of interdependency emphasized first of all by Hannah Arendt, differentiated by Habermas and, from a specifically feminist perspective, Amy Allen. The guidance Paul and the Pauline circle offer the assemblies in Christ addressed in the letters aims at empowering them to interact with each other in a way that shows similarities with dominationfree communication and the resulting power to ‘act in concert’ for the enhancement of the life of all.

Chapter 10

THE DYNAMICS

POWER AND THE CHALLENGE EMPOWERMENT

OF

OF

Through the analysis of various dimensions of communication and interaction in the early Christ-movement there has emerged an image of the power dynamics at work within and between the different e0kklhsi/ai which is far from being one-dimensional. The power at work among leaders, between leaders and communities, and among communities oscillates between power-over, power-to and power-with, and frequently some or even all of these aspects are closely intertwined with each other.1 Nevertheless, some specific variations of power-over, that is of patterns of domination and control, and the exercise of violence, have been identified, but only in relation to authorities who did not share in the Christ-movement’s convictions.2 This is not to deny that Paul and the co-senders of these letters did sometimes use ‘strong language’ and expressed clearly what they perceived as the appropriate response to their advice and guidance. It is obvious that they were passionate about their call, and the message of the gospel. They had strong views on the implications of life in Christ. And they wanted to give guidance to those who had responded positively to the message of the gospel. It is obvious that there was a clear hierarchical dimension in the relationship between Paul and others in the leadership group on one side, and the communities of Christ-followers on the other. It has been demonstrated in chapters 4–9 that Paul, and other leaders of the movement did exercise power-over the communities. But it has also been demonstrated that this is not identical with exercising domination, or with establishing a structure in the vein of a command–obedience model within the movement. The transformative empowering dimension of power, as emphasized particularly in some feminist theories informed by Arendt and Wartenberg, has emerged as a decisive aspect for understanding how Paul and other leaders of the early Christ-movement related to the communities, whether as ‘weak’ apostles, ‘nursing fathers’ and ‘teaching mothers’, models to imitate, and messengers who transmit God’s call to response-ability. 1. Cf. Chapter 2.4.3 and also Arendt 1970: 46. 2. Cf 2 Cor. 4.8-10; 11.25; Rom. 13.1-7. Only in one instance does Paul actually threaten a community with violence (1 Cor. 4.21). I will deal with this in more detail in 10.4.

180

Paul and the Dynamics of Power

In this final chapter I do not want simply to repeat the findings of the earlier chapters but rather to pay attention to some aspects of those dimensions of the dynamics of power which I consider relevant, particularly in relation to power dynamics within contemporary church and society.

10.1 Beginnings – Promise and Trust Although the hierarchical dimension expressed in Paul’s and the co-senders’ letters to the e0kklhsi/ai they founded is acknowledged here, it should be noted that at the point when the communities received these letters they did not then need to be convinced to become members of the movement because this was a step which all of the addressees had already taken. The addressees have already made a decision to join, some by having met Paul and his colleagues, as in Thessaloniki, Corinth, Galatia and Philippi, others, as in Rome through other members of the movement.3 Prior to the writing and the reception of all the letters, except Romans,4 a relationship had been established between Paul, his colleagues and those people who eventually came to form a group of Christ-followers, that is an e0kklhsi/a, in one of the cities of the Roman Empire. They had already experienced power in communicative action, or the power of the Spirit, in that the activity of listening and responding to the message of the gospel had already led to the process of founding an empowered and empowering community.5 Not much is actually known about these beginnings. The letters provide very little information. In 1 Thess. 1.6-8 it is indicated that the beginnings were troublesome for reasons which are not mentioned, but these were not between the apostles and the people who came to form an e0kklhsi/a. In 1 Corinthians we learn that Paul baptized only as an exception, since he goes on to state that, apart from Crispus and Gaius, he only baptized the house of Stephanas (1 Cor. 1.14-16). Paul in this letter also refers to the way they first encountered him, emphasizing that he was sent to proclaim the gospel ‘not with eloquent wisdom’ (1.17b) and ‘I did not come proclaiming to you the testimony of God in lofty words of wisdom’ (2.1). He continues, ‘I was with you in weakness and in much fear and trembling’ (2.3) and refers explicitly 3. Significantly other e0kklhsi/ai are mentioned in the Pauline letters, such as Jerusalem, Antioch and Damascus with no indication that Paul made or had any claims of leadership in relation to these, thus clearly accepting the proclamation of the gospel by other apostles, and thus the diversity of this proclamation. This is an additional reason why the stance that Paul tried to set something like a universal doctrinal standard for all the e0kklhsi/ai cannot be maintained. 4. In the case of Romans it seems that in 16.3-15 Paul provides as many references to people known to him as possible in order to indicate that there already exists some kind of relationship which can serve as a basis of trust between him and the Roman e0kklhsi/ai. The commendation of Phoebe (16.1-2) can be seen as serving the same purpose. Cf. Jewett 2006: 941–48. 5. See 2.4.3 above.

The Dynamics of Power and the Challenge of Empowerment

181

to his poor rhetorical skills (2.4).6 Nevertheless he claims the role of the master builder who laid the foundation of this e0kklhsi/a (1 Cor. 3.10). In 2 Corinthians he refers again to his not very impressive rhetorical performance and other weaknesses upon his first encounter with them.7 In Galatians a similar reference is made in that Paul not only reminds the members of the Galatian e0kklhsi/ai that they had received the gospel he had preached (Gal. 1.9 and 11), but also of their first encounter which could have been an embarrassment for both. Instead it turned out to be the beginning of mutual trust (Gal. 4.12-15). Phil. 2.12 indicates that they have heard and responded in conformity to the message, and in 4.9 they are reminded to act upon what they have previously learned, received, heard and seen in Paul. It is not clear whether these passages refer to the initiation of their relationship or some later visits of Paul, but again this is a clear reference to a relationship which was established and maintained prior to any address via a letter.8 It is evident that there was interaction and communication between Paul, the co-senders and the communities of which only limited traces can be found in the letters. As noted above, the letters are thus clearly fragments of communication and interaction between and among these early Christfollowers, limited fragments. There is something outside the text!9 Even if no details of what happened upon a first encounter between Paul, his colleagues, and later Christ-followers are transmitted through the letters, it is obvious that such encounters resulted in establishing a relationship by the foundation of a community of Christ-followers. Thus the letters as such witness to a relationship between senders and addressees which is based on nothing else but mutual trust. Nothing else was involved in the ‘bonding’ between the messengers and the followers. No force or domination, no violence or control established the bonds of relationship. It was simply trust which established their relation. In the discussion of Hannah Arendt’s approach her emphasis on the dimension of promise in the process of bonding in power-in-action has been noted. Promise-making and promise-keeping are seen as dimensions which are inherent in a trusting relationship. Arendt’s emphasis resonates with the discourse of promise in the Scriptures. Promise-making and promisekeeping are crucial in the establishing and continued bonding of God in his covenant with his people. The early Christ-followers perceived this dimension also as being inherent in God’s acting in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus the Christ. These events were seen as being in accordance with and 6. Thus Horsley emphasizes that ‘… Paul’s aims and the interests of his audience differed radically from those of the Greek elite who cultivated classical rhetoric. … Paul was not involved in public oratory but in small-group teaching and letter-writing connected with separatist communities’ (2000a: 83). 7. See Chapter 6 above. 8. See also 3.3.1 above. 9. Although always filtered through the lens of the authors and senders, and accessible for the interpreter only through the text, the letters themselves at certain points explicitly mention events which are located at a time and space outside the text. See e.g. Rom. 15.2229, 1 Cor. 1.11; 9.4-6; 11.17-21; 16.5-12; 2 Cor. 7.5-7; Gal 1.10-2.14.

182

Paul and the Dynamics of Power

confirming the promises of God as revealed in the Scriptures. Promise and trust were inseparably intertwined in the bonding relationship with this God, which for the Christ-followers was mediated by Christ.10 For people like the early Christ-followers this had implications for their life as a community which saw itself as living in the realm of this God. The trust between the people involved here is an aspect of trust which is not one-dimensional, as between agent A and agent B but rather multidimensional since it is on trust that the movement is based, within which it is rooted, which is its core, and with which it is permeated. Trust in God, the message of the gospel of God through Christ, and the messengers are inseparably intertwined. The message is only trustworthy if the messengers are likewise trustworthy in their entire life, that is, if they embody the message.11 This is the grace and burden of apostleship. The messengers are trustworthy if they entrust their lives to God, the God of Israel who raises the dead (e.g. 2 Cor. 1.9). In this the theology of the Christ-followers was not dissimilar to Judaism.12 Although focused on Christ, I consider Paul’s theologizing as theocentric through and through.13 There is no institution to structure this relationship, there is no army to enforce it, there is no ‘need’ to become part of it, and there is no benefit in terms of status or honour in joining it in these early days. For those from among the gentiles, and for those who had ‘turned to God from idols, to serve a living and true God’ (1 Thess. 1.9) this must have involved the decision not to trust in the gods of the empire (any more) but in the God of Israel. Whatever role is attributed to the power of the Spirit in the emergence of the Christ-following e0kklhsi/ai, the involvement of people like Paul and other messengers of the gospel cannot be denied (since it is people who are moved by the power of the Spirit). Thus to be part of this movement not only implied to set one’s trust in none other than God through Christ, but also to be part of a relational network. It implied a trust in the other members of the movement, those brothers and sisters in Christ. Thus whatever the senders of the Pauline letters feel urged to communicate to the addressees is communicated in the

10. See 2.3.3 above. 11. Cf. Bartchy 2005: 56. 12. The only difference lies in the perception of Jesus as the Christ, through whom the dawning of the coming of the kingdom of God is inaugurated, and thus people from the nations join Israel in glorifying the one God [Rom. 15. 9-12]). This is not to deny the fact that in the course of history two distinct religions, Judaism and Christianity emerged, and there is in my view no going back behind nearly 2000 years of history. But to claim that the early differences inevitably led to the later separation of what in the early days were differing ‘schools’ under the umbrella of Judaism, (cf. Saldarini 2001: 50–75) or even to see an inherent oppositional dichotomy between Judaism and Christianity is anachronistically reading back into the New Testament agendas of a later area. For a more detailed discussion see Campbell 2006: 15–32. 13. In this respect also being entirely embedded in the Scriptures and Jewish tradition. On Paul’s theo-centricity see e.g. 1 Cor. 15.10; 2 Cor. 2.17; 3.4-5; 4.14; 5.5, 18-20; 6.4, 1618; 9.13; Rom. 1.1, 7, 9, 10, 16, 17 etc. cf. also Beker 1980: 355–67.

The Dynamics of Power and the Challenge of Empowerment

183

context of a relationship of mutual trust.14 Although trust does not render a relationship symmetrical and does not presuppose that those committed to each other are equals or the same, it presupposes mutual respect on the basis of their shared trust in God through Christ.15 Thus the power dynamics operative between the e0kklhsi/ai and the Pauline circle, between different e0kklhsi/ai, and within these e0kklhsi/ai, should be read with the presupposition of this priority of trust, or with the priority of what in New Testament language is expressed by the Greek word pi/stiv. This priority of trust has nothing to do with the perception of the law, that is, the Torah, in the Pauline letters.16 It is not a priority in opposition to the law since, in the narrative of the relationship of God with his people Israel, it is trust which establishes the bond.17 The priority of trust/ pi/stiv is perceived here in its relation to the issue of power. It indicates that the notion of domination or control actually stands in contrast to the core dimension of the relationship with the God of Israel. Trust is also identified as a core dimension in power relationships by those contemporary theorists, who maintain that power is more than the imposition of one’s interest and will over others contrary to their interests, that is, that power ought not to be identified with force, domination or control. Where people communicate in ways which lead to achieving something, where power emerges in communicative action, where power-over is exercised in a non-dominating, non-paternalistic but transformative way, where people act together in solidarity, trust is the indispensable core dimension. In this respect some of the contemporary approaches, like Hannah Arendt’s, Thomas Wartenberg’s and feminist approaches like Amy Allen’s, resonate significantly with aspects of the Pauline discourse. But there is also a dimension in which these approaches and the Pauline discourse differ, in that at the heart of the latter’s dealing with issues of power, as with other issues as well, is a transcendent dimension. The care, respect and compassion for others advocated is inextricably intertwined with the trusting relation to God, the wholly ‘Other’.18

10.2 The Guiding Parameters – Christ and the Coming Kingdom of God Although this study does not provide a theology of power, but an analysis of the dynamics of power in social interaction and communication in the early Christ-movement, it has to be taken into account that within this movement this dimension is closely related to the message of the gospel itself. It has been argued above that trust is the basic presupposition of

14. See 7.8 and 9.4-5 above. 15. On respect in a world of inequality cf. Sennett 2004: 207–63. 16. I cannot elaborate on this issue here since the relationship of law and gospel, which I do not perceive as one of contrast in the Pauline letters, would require a separate study. 17. Rendtorff 2005: 432–46. 18. Cf. also Ehrensperger 2007.

184

Paul and the Dynamics of Power

any power dynamics within this movement and that the trustworthiness of the message was inextricably intertwined with the trustworthiness of the messenger. Thus the embodiment of the gospel by the messenger/apostles is not an additional desideratum but a condition sine qua non. But not only is the messenger called to trust in the message of the gospel of Christ, that is to live according to it, but the same also applies to all members and thus to any social interaction and any form of communication within this movement. The so-called paraenetical sections19 of the Pauline letters are not mere appendices to some core ‘theological’ parts as there is no theologizing separate from the way of life in Christ. In this the Scriptures, the Pauline letters and the gospel traditions all bear witness to the primary importance of orthopraxy over against orthodoxy, and in that sense all clearly demonstrate their embeddedness in Jewish tradition.20 Though obviously of primary, but not of exclusive, significance this is nevertheless important in relation to the social dimension of the power dynamics within the early Christ-movement. In the realm of Christ the practice of guidance, as well as the interaction between and within the communities, had to find an orientation that differed from the ways of ‘this world’, since they ‘ought not to be conformed to this world’ (mh\ susxhmati/zesqe tw|= ai0w=ni tou/tw? [Rom.12.2a]). Rather they ought to ‘… be transformed by the renewing of your minds, so that you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect’ (Rom. 12.2b NRSV). When specific examples are given of what this actually means, Paul and the co-senders refer either to the teaching (1 Cor. 11.25) or example of Christ (Phil. 2.5-8) or to the Torah (e.g. Rom. 12.9-21; 13.9-10; 1 Cor. 9.8-11). In cases or situations where the implications of life in Christ were not clear for a community, they apparently did ask for the apostles’ guidance (1 Cor. 7.1; 7.25; 8.1). The way of life in Christ should correspond to the example of Christ who is the ‘likeness/image’ of God (2 Cor. 4.4), to the holiness of the Holy One (e.g. 1 Cor. 3.16-17; Rom. 6.19), as it is emphasized already in the Scriptures (see e.g. Lev. 11.45; 19.2; 20.7; Ps. 77.4), that is, to the one who redeemed his people Israel from bondage and raised from the dead the one crucified by the imperial power. Even the focus on the centrality of the cross ought not to be seen in isolation but within the context of the gospel as a whole, as Brondos notes ‘… for Paul, Jesus’ coming, ministry, death and resurrection are a unified whole …’21 This embeddedness is obvious in 1 Cor. 1.18-31 where the emphasis on the cross is closely linked with what is weak, low and despised in the world, as that which is chosen by God. It resonates with Jesus’ ministry and proclamation of

19. Which, in my view are in most cases not paraenetical but rather reminders of specific aspects of ‘the way’ they should already know. Cf. Campbell 1995; Ehrensperger 2004a: 181–89. 20. Cf. e.g. Mt. 25.31-46; Lk. 10.25-37; 2 Cor. 6.16b–7.1, also Hogeterp 2006: 365– 70. 21. Brondos 2006: 76.

The Dynamics of Power and the Challenge of Empowerment

185

the coming kingdom of God in signs which hinted at the confirmation of the promises (Lk. 7.20-23). Jesus here replies to the question of John the Baptist’s disciples concerning who he was: ‘Go and tell John what you have seen and heard: the blind receive their sight, the lame walk, lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, the poor have good news preached to them(Lk. 7.22).’ This in turn witnesses to the embeddedness of the gospel in the Scriptures, as the coming kingdom is described in the words of the prophets ( Isa. 35.5-6; 42.7). The life which corresponds to these promises is described in similar vein as ‘… to loose the bonds of injustice, to undo the thongs of the yoke, to let the oppressed go free, and to break every yoke. It is to share your bread with the hungry, and bring the homeless poor into your house; when you see the naked, to cover them, and not to hide yourself from your own kin’ (Isa. 58.6-7 NRSV). If Christ is the image and likeness of God and God is none other than the God of Israel, then this correspondence in the perception of what constitutes life in the realm of Christ and according to the will of God can be nothing other than what is outlined as guidance in the Scriptures.22 This results in a way of life which differs radically from the way of life promoted by the imperial elite. The values which also guide everyday life are values ‘not of this world’, but rather prioritize what is despised and regarded as foolish by ‘this world’. This perspective demands care and compassion for those in need, the weak and poor, and a perception of power which is not focused on domination and control but on the ‘humbleness and gentleness of Christ’ (2 Cor. 10.1).23 In whatever way and in whichever situation power is present within the early Christ-movement, it cannot but emerge and be negotiated in conformity and in correspondence with the message of the gospel. The trust upon which the relationship between the members of the Christmovement is built is rooted in trust in the ‘living and true God’ (1 Thess. 1.9) and embedded in the narrative of trust between God and his people as witnessed to in the Scriptures and lived by the Jewish people. Paul and the other apostles interpreted the coming of Christ as the sign of the initiation of the dawning of the coming kingdom of God. It was their conviction that God had confirmed his promises and that now was the time that people from the nations should be called through Christ to join Israel in trust in God, and together with Israel, as gentiles in Christ to praise God with their entire lives (Rom. 6.12-13; 12.1-2).

22. 23.

Cf. Mt. 22.34-40; Rom. 13.8-10. See also 6.6 above.

186

Paul and the Dynamics of Power 10.3 Life in the Realm of Christ – ‘Already and Not Yet’

10.3.1 ‘It Shall Not Be So Among You’ – Internal Limitations to Power The priority of trust and the characteristics of the message of the gospel clearly are the guiding parameters within the movement. This has implications for the handling of issues of power, particularly in those cases where the relationship was asymmetrical and thus prone to an exercise of power as domination. As I have mentioned above,24 as far as the exercise of power as domination is concerned, the gospel tradition is absolutely clear in its emphasis. Sayings such as ‘You know that the rulers of the gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them. It shall not be so among you’ (Mt. 20.25-26a) are part of a consistent alternative tradition of power and authority.25 It is a tradition which could be described in the vein of Scott as a ‘hidden transcript of power’.26 This perception does not mean simply inverting the perspective on power, it does not mean the turning upside-down of hierarchies, but points to a vision of power which has more in common with Arendt’s power as communicative action and, inherent within this, the dimension of promise rather than with domination. Paul obviously was familiar with this tradition, which is emphasized in the Gospels (2 Cor. 1.24). His emphasis on the cross (1 Cor. 1.18-24), read in the context of the Scriptures, which emphasize repeatedly that special attention is owed to those in a weaker position in the community (and society), is further indication that an exercise of power as domination, not to mention force or violence, is virtually inconceivable in the realm of Christ. No member of the movement is exempt from these parameters. The anti-domination dimension of the gospel is the overarching umbrella under which all the social interactions including those of authority and leadership stand. It would be contrary to the gospel to claim authority and leadership according to patterns of domination and control, or any kind of absolute power. Although asymmetrical relationships are not ruled out by these guidelines, the exercise of power in the sense of power-over is strictly limited by the characteristics of the message of the gospel. This also means that hierarchies cannot be established on a permanent basis, they can only be functional in nature, serving limited purposes for a limited time. Moreover, any position of superiority is granted only as a means to serve the gospel, that is, to serve people. I am aware that this is a delicate and controversial issue since in too many cases superiors have claimed that they were exercising their power-over subordinates to the best of the latter’s interest, either claiming to know these interests better than those dominated, or by blatantly disguising abusive behaviour as beneficial.27 24. 25.

Cf. Chapter 6. See also Mk. 10.13-16, 35-45; Mt. 5.1-12; 20.20-23; 23.8-12; Lk. 1.46-55; 14.7-

11. 26. Cf. Scott 1990: 118–19, also Horsley 2004b. 27. As is the case in many cases of sexual abuse of children, but also in other situations where vulnerable people are dependent on others.

The Dynamics of Power and the Challenge of Empowerment

187

To be acknowledged as being entrusted with authority in the realm of Christ implies that if ever one is entrusted to exercise power-over, then it can only be in support of others, and in accordance with the other’s need. The parameter for the others’ need is the need of the actual person in question, and the well-being of the group is dependent on the well-being of its most vulnerable members (e.g. 1 Cor. 12.22-26; Rom. 14.15). Thus if Paul and other apostles were recognized as having been entrusted with specific authority, they had to embody not only the gospel generally but also had to exercise leadership functions in particular in accordance with these parameters. They were not free to exercise power-over for their personal advantage or in a dominating or controlling way. They were not free to introduce into the movement the leadership values of the elite of the empire as this would have been diametrically opposed to the message of the gospel. To be accepted as leaders who were worthy of the trust which the communities had placed in them, meant they could not lord it over them. This is not to disregard the fact that they certainly were convinced of their own perspective, and that they had in some cases very firm views on the issues under debate. But to adhere to one’s convictions, and to argue from and for them, need not be the same, and should not be confused with, the imposition of one’s will on others, contrary to their own will and interest.28 On the contrary, to be a guide in the realm of Christ meant that leaders could not impose their own stances on the communities, or force the communities into a way of life these had not already come to fully embrace themselves. The leaders of this movement, including Paul, could only live in a way which was consistent with, and true to, the message they proclaimed. This had to be sufficient to provide guidance for those new members on ‘the ways in Christ’ and to have a convincing impact upon them. The communities also were not at the mercy of the leaders of the movement. Although in an asymmetrical relationship with their leaders, communities were by no means powerless but active respondents to the call of the gospel, having their own views, and also having possibilities to raise their own voices in situations of conflict and debate (as is obvious in Galatians and 2 Corinthians).29

10.3.2 Ambiguous Leaders – Vulnerable and Disappointing but Empowering This is not to claim that Paul, the Pauline circle or the other apostles and leaders within the movement were always able to live in accordance with the gospel to which they were committed. They did not live in an ideal world, and neither did the communities which had responded positively to their 28. Derrida 2002: 25–26. 29. Although my approach differs from her’s, Wire’s analysis of the Corinthian correspondence provides a thought-provoking reconstruction of the possible stances and activities of a community which disagreed in many ways with the Pauline circle (1990).

188

Paul and the Dynamics of Power

proclamation of the gospel. Although these Christ-followers sought to find orientation ‘in the world to come’, in living in Christ with the anticipation of the coming kingdom already permeating their lives in the here and now, they all also lived in the ‘not-yet’ of this world, that is, under the conditions and the all-pervasive dominance of the Roman Empire. And although the socialization into this ‘way of life’ in Christ most likely required a greater reorientation for those who had formerly lived as gentiles,30 it should not come as a surprise that there is evidence that Paul himself certainly was not always able to live up to the parameters set out by the gospel.31 Every now and then there are indications in the letters that he slips into an attitude which reveals that he might have wished he could actually enforce what he perceives to be the right thing for the addressees to do (e.g. 1 Cor. 4.21; 2 Cor. 13.10; Gal. 3.1) Such passages are not an indication of such an unambiguous embodiment of the message as some Christians have seen or would like to see in him. That he should have required of women to be silent in the e0kklhsi/a is more than problematic from a feminist and gender-sensitive perspective, (whilst recognizing that it is not all that clear what he actually could have meant by this).32 And it should also be recognized that despite this rather strange note, he obviously did not argue against women in leadership positions within the movement, but rather the opposite, he recognized and appreciated them.33 It has also been argued that Paul’s claim of being entrusted with the proclamation of the gospel by God was a claim to absolute power, as this is a claim which can hardly be challenged.34 I am not convinced by this argument as in antiquity it was a far more common practice to refer to divine entrustment, in the pagan as well as in the Jewish context. This claim is thus far more within the ‘normal parameters’ of power and authority claims than in the contemporary secular context of Western societies, and therefore also not as absolute as it would sound today. Divergent claims to divine entrustment, rather than being the last word in a controversial discussion, would most likely be negotiated with and over against each other, and the affirmation and acceptance of a claim of divine entrustment was dependent on factual evidence.35 The parameter according to which any claims of representing, interpreting or living in conformity with the gospel have to be measured, is the gospel itself. This applies to Paul’s as to any other member’s claims, and might well constitute sound guidance for dealing with contemporary power issues. This indicates that there cannot be a final word on the ‘right’ dealing with power in light of the gospel as this has to be and to remain open, and to be negotiated and renegotiated according to new situations. 30. As Bartchy maintains 2005: 57. 31. Cf. Bartchy 2005: 58. 32. Cf. 9.5 above. 33. See 3.2.6 above. 34. E.g. Polaski 1999: 34; 110–14. 35. Cf. e.g. Jeremiah who had nothing to ‘prove’ his divine commissioning, cf. Jeremiah 28.

The Dynamics of Power and the Challenge of Empowerment

189

From indications in the Pauline letters, Paul and his colleagues do not emerge as ‘the ideal leaders’, they are not the super-heroes who are masters of the message they proclaim. Rather the image emerges of humans who are called to a specific task, a call they try to follow to the best of their abilities. These are limited, since Paul recognizes and eventually accepts that there are non-negotiable aspects of his existence (2 Cor. 12.7-10).36 In their weakness and ambiguity, Paul and his colleagues are in good company. In the tradition of the Scriptures the image of the strong, blameless super-hero, or even halfgod, does not exist. Leaders within this tradition are ambiguous, sometimes failing, sometimes even deceitful, human beings.37 Nevertheless, they are called to fulfil specific tasks for the well-being of the people of God, called in their ambiguity, vulnerability and with all the courage and despair that renders them truly human. These are encouraging leader figures not because they are attributed an elevated status by God in assigning them a specific task, or because they are so much more gifted with God’s spirit than anyone else, but precisely because their weakness and ambiguity is not hidden, and obviously does not disqualify them from being called. A blameless superhero in an elevated position has a humiliating and belittling effect rather than being an encouragement for others. This is not ‘the way of the Lord’, as Paul tries to explain to the Corinthians: ‘For consider your call, brethren, not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth, but God choose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise, God choose what is weak in the world to shame the strong …’ (1 Cor. 1.26-27). It is also noteworthy that no advocating of the installation of a static hierarchical order in the hands of a single leader/king to govern the people is found in the narrative of the Scriptures. To the contrary the installation is agreed rather reluctantly by God upon the request of the people, and, later, the activities of the royal house among the people of Israel was a matter of constant challenge and criticism from the prophets. Leaders are often those who are least expected to be leaders. And the greatest of all leaders in the narrative of this tradition, Moses, is depicted as one who did not want this task in the first instance (Exod. 3.11), who, from the start could not and did not want to cope with it on his own, and who wanted it even less halfway through his mission (Num. 11.10-15). In the case of Moses, because of his weakness, leadership had to be a matter of teamwork, not simply of a lonely hero. Aaron was always at his side and seventy elders were eventually gifted with the Spirit to support him in his task (Exod. 4.14-16; Num. 11.16-17).38 In the end he did not accomplish his mission, he himself never

36. See especially Chapter 6 above. 37. Rendtorff draws attention to Moses who is depicted as the paradigmatic leader, who ‘has no successor who could perform his function’, but who nevertheless ‘is absolutely not drawn two-dimensionally and free of contradiction … Moses is as little an ideal figure as the patriarchs are, or any other figure in the Hebrew Bible (2005: 559)’. 38. Cf. also Olson 1994: 158–60.

190

Paul and the Dynamics of Power

entered the promised land into which he was called to lead God’s people. ‘Even the remarkable Moses must die outside the promised land, leaving God to continue the journey with God’s people.’39 This aspect is particularly emphasized in the image Deuteronomy depicts of this leader. Moses is seen as proclaiming guidance for the people, knowing that they will have to be able to walk in the ways of their Lord without their leader. As Olson notes ‘At the end of his days, Moses is portrayed as letting go of his leadership, his power, and his life. He hands it over to God and a new generation to carry on with the story of God’s people.’40 The people will have to mature and walk in the ways of the Lord themselves. But letting go even for a leader like Moses is no easy task. Even he is tempted by the greatest threat a leader can pose to the group he leads – he is tempted to think highly of himself and to make himself indispensable. Such an abuse of power prevents the growth and freedom of the community and thus hinders others from living the lives they are called to live. The abuse of power is always a temptation, or as Foucault states: ‘Power is not always bad, but it is always dangerous,’41 and even Moses has to accept that he too has to live with limitations. It is very interesting to note that in Deut. 3.25-26 Moses addresses a request to God and gets a response which strongly resonates with the response to Paul’s pleading to be freed from the ‘thorn in the flesh’ (2 Cor. 12.7-9). He asks ‘Let me go over, I pray, and see the good land beyond the Jordan, that goodly hill country, and Lebanon … and the LORD said to me, “Let it suffice you; speak no more to me of this matter”.’42 Moses has to learn to accept his limitations and also that a leader has to aim to make him/herself redundant. Thus the teaching of Deuteronomy is a teaching which presupposes the future absence of the leader. Moses cannot go with the people, otherwise they would be denied the opportunity to live the story and history of their own lives in that they could not grow and mature into what they are called to by God. He has to leave them, he is teaching them by leaving, and leaving behind a living tradition which others will continue to shape. Power and leadership cannot be concentrated in one leader, nor even in one group alone, but is distributed, according to Deuteronomy, among many, thus advocating a corporate and flexible exercise of authority and leadership.43 The notion of the ambiguity, limitation and vulnerability of the leader is in itself an empowering dimension of the Scriptures.44 It finds a parallel in the gospel narrative in sayings such as ‘Call no man your father on earth for you have one father who is in heaven’ (Mt. 23.9; also 23.9-11) or in the ascension of Christ in Acts in which the disciples are referred away from staring at 39. Olson 1994: 12. 40. Olson 1994: 159. 41. Foucault 1988: 18. 42. Wildavsky notes that ‘Moses eventually understands that the chief virtue in leaders is to make themselves unnecessary. To be a “nursing father” – knowing that the child might die, will probably rebel, and must be allowed to make history on its own – is the essence of Mosaic leadership’ (1984: 167). 43. Cf. Olson 2005: 6. 44. Cf. also Olson 2005: 10.

The Dynamics of Power and the Challenge of Empowerment

191

the sky/heaven back to earth (Acts 1.11). This is where Christ-followers are called to walk in the ways of their Lord. Although they are promised that he will return, they have to live their lives for the time being in the ‘not yet’ as a community response-able to the call they had received. And whoever would be or claim to be in a position of authority could only be so as part of this community and within the limitations set by the tradition of the Scriptures and the message of the gospel. Paul and all the others who were in some sort of authority and leadership role within the Christ-movement were in no way exempt from this. As emphasized in Chapter 6 in particular, these limitations to the exercise of power in hierarchical relationships are non-negotiable characteristics of dealing with power-over within the Christ-movement.

10.3.3 ‘In This World but not From This World’ – Impacts of the Empire The limitations dealt with above are inherent to the message proclaimed, but outside factors also influenced and put constraints on the power dynamics within the movement. The fact that the e0kklhsi/ai of God addressed in the Pauline letters lived primarily in the context of cities of the Roman Empire meant, as mentioned above, that the value system and structure of Roman imperial society were always present in their lives and around the communities. Some controversial debates within the movement seem to have been influenced by this; for example the faction problem in Corinth may be an indication that the Corinthian community began to relate to apostles, and thus to each other, in the vein of a patron–client relationship. Apart from the divisive impact which this factioning tendency had on the community, it introduced a structure of static hierarchies into the movement which was open to the notion of domination and thus was contrary to the movement’s ethos.45 Another example of a possible influence of Roman societal values is the competitive attitude of ‘super-apostles’ and the boasting that accompanies it ( 2 Corinthians 10–13).46 Aggressive competition which had no other aim than exercising power-over others in the form of domination could not be assimilated with the gospel. Thus in conflict situations like the one found in 2 Corinthians, Paul and the Pauline circle challenge such influence from Graeco-Roman culture and passionately argue for a different way of relating to each other. This is indicated among other things by the consistent use of sibling language, which is characteristic for living in the realm of Christ and in anticipation of the kingdom of God.47 Another dimension which was not a mere internal matter was the relationship between Jews and gentiles within the movement. As apostle to the gentiles Paul strongly advocated the stance he shared with the ‘Jerusalem 45. Cf. Agosto 2004: 122–23. 46. Cf. Chapter 6 above. 47. On sibling language see Chapter 3 above. On the challenge of the patronage system see Wan 2000b.

192

Paul and the Dynamics of Power

pillars’ that Jews and gentiles should be part of the movement on different but equal terms, that is, as Jews and gentiles respectively.48 This was a challenge almost entirely inconceivable from the perspective of Graeco-Roman society. To become an accepted and respectable part of that society one not only had to be a free man but also a free man who had become ‘the same’, that is, who had become ‘Greek’ or ‘Roman’ by the adoption of the Graeco-Roman culture and value system. To be a member of a people other than Greeks or Romans, and to adhere to another culture and value system meant to be despised as uncivilized, barbaric, even as born to be slaves.49 From the perspective of Graeco-Roman society the hierarchy of peoples was absolutely clear. There was no concept of equality which would have allowed for difference in Graeco-Roman culture.50 Thus members of other peoples could opt to become Hellenized or Romanized and as such become part of that society, but they could not be part of that society for what they were, Scythes, Egyptians, Traci, Celts or Jews. As mentioned above, the Jews were perceived as one of the most stubborn and incompatible people within the empire, and anti-Jewish attitudes were the norm rather than the exception. The occasional violent eruptions of such attitudes were thus not a surprise.51 Within the context of the dominating culture of contempt over against anything that did not conform to the values of this culture, the negative Jewish attitude over against gentiles, that is, against those perceived as idolaters and sinners, should be seen as being only of limited significance. The implications and effects of the attitude of a minority culture on the dominating culture and society are not on the same scale as is the case vice-versa.52 Although the Jewish attitude towards gentiles witnesses to a similar belittling attitude towards people who are different, as in the case of the Graeco-Roman attitude, it needs to be noted that within Jewish tradition there is also clear evidence of more positive perceptions of people who are different. There are examples of gentiles like Cyrus who are perceived as servants of the God of Israel without becoming the same, that is, without converting to Judaism. The same applies, for example, for some of the prophetic visions of the world to come, where other peoples are seen as joining in the praise of the one God (Isa. 2.3; Mic. 4.5). These traditions provide some roots from which the early Christ-followers obviously came to the conviction that the coming of the Christ implied that Jews and gentiles, as Jews and gentiles in their differences, were now called 48. For a detailed analysis of this see Campbell 2006. 49. Baltrusch 2002: 75 and Cicero, Prov. cons 10 cf., Baltrusch 2002: 143. 50. Cf. Baltrusch 2002: 41–58 and 119–20. 51. Schäfer 1997: 180–95, Baltrusch 2002: 140–47. Also Chapter 1 above. 52. Cf. Plietzsch 2005b: 138–52. 53. The appreciation and acceptance of difference here is within the parameters of worshipping the same God, that is the God of Israel, and in that sense is an Israel-centred appreciation of difference. We should not expect to find models for a multi-faith society in the past as this is a task of the present. But debates and conversations of the issues of the past may contribute and provide critically informed guidance to the search for responsible ways to deal with contemporary issues.

The Dynamics of Power and the Challenge of Empowerment

193

to praise the one God together.53 Thus to advocate equality on the basis of abiding difference, as did both the Pauline circle and the Jerusalem church, provided some challenge for certain Jewish perceptions of the relationship between Jews and gentiles, but had a firm basis in certain aspects of this very same tradition. The challenge was far from being on the same level as seen from the perspective of the ethno-centric Graeco-Roman value system. The appreciation and acceptance of people under the presupposition of their difference, as Jews and people from the nations/gentiles, was a nonnegotiable dimension of the gospel, and Paul and the Pauline circle passionately advocated this with whatever power of persuasion they had at their disposal from whatever side it was called into question. In Galatia gentile identity was obviously challenged from a Jewish perspective whereas the opposite seems to have been a strong issue in the Roman e0kklhsi/ai. Paul insisted that in this respect no trace of conformity to the Graeco-Roman imperial value system of contempt of others could be accepted within the Christ-movement. The encouragement of, and praise for, mutual support prevalent in the Pauline letters should not merely be seen as encouraging care and solidarity as general guidelines of how people should relate to each other. But, under the presupposition outlined above, this encouragement actually was an immense challenge to the imperial perception and division of the world, between the dominating and the dominated. To advocate that Jews and gentiles in Christ were equal in their difference was implicitly, if not explicitly, undermining the Graeco-Roman claim to universal superiority, and thus their legitimacy to domination. As such it could be described as an act in the vein of the ‘Arts of Resistance’ in that through the power emerging from ‘acting together’ space is created for an alternative community at the margins of the empire.54 Thus in relation to the competitive dimension of Graeco-Roman culture, and in relation to the perception and evaluation of the diversity of peoples, the Pauline letters witness to a strong, even passionate challenge to the dominating cultural, political, social and religious values of the empire. In Paul’s and his colleagues’ perception of the gospel there is no room for negotiation in this respect. They advocate clear boundaries over against the empire, drawing non-negotiable boundaries between the empire and the Christ-movement. In this respect their guidance and exercise of persuasive power does not allow for compromise. Nevertheless, the only available means to convince the members of the e0kklhsi/ai was their embodiment of the gospel in word and deed.55

10.3.4 Limited Challenges: Gender Hierarchy and the Institution of Slavery A different image emerges in relation to discussions concerning gender issues and the role of women on the one hand, and of slavery on the other. 54. 55.

Cf. Scott 1990: 108–35. Cf. 1 Cor. 2.4. I will come back to this in 10.5 below.

194

Paul and the Dynamics of Power

As mentioned above in Chapter 3 the issue of gender and the role of women is one of wavering ambiguity. Paul and his male colleagues obviously were ideologically firmly embedded in what was not merely the imperial, but the patriarchal context of the Mediterranean world generally, in their perception of women as subordinate to men (1 Cor. 11. 3, 7-8; 14.34). On this level the order of society as the natural order of creation was not questioned, but presupposed and apparently taken for granted. Yet this perception of the order of gender as hierarchical in some sense is complemented if not relativized by statements such as 1 Cor. 11.11-12 and Gal. 3.28, and to an even greater extent by the fact that at least one woman was recognized as one of the apostles, and others undoubtedly were co-workers in Christ and not in a subordinate position over against male leaders within the Christmovement. Although the issue of complete gender equality was not an option for Paul and his colleagues, no indication can be found in the Pauline letters that he or his colleagues would have opposed rather than recognized women’s leadership roles. I cannot see that the conflict in Corinth was specifically gender-oriented or that the specific statements concerning the head-covering of women, or what they ought or ought not to do in the worshipping assembly, are indications against any women’s leadership roles. The fact that Phoebe obviously played a particularly important role in the transmission of the letter to the e0kklhsi/ai in Rome56 and that so many women are greeted in Romans 16 is in my view rather evidence to the contrary. Had Paul merely unwittingly accepted what was unstoppable practice why would he have entrusted a woman, Phoebe, with such an important task as the transmission and probably interpretation of this letter to Rome? This is more than a mere acceptance, these two factors in conjunction are rather an indication of a positive appreciation and support for the role of women as leaders within the Christ-movement. Admittedly this does not provide the same challenge to an existing power structure as the challenge concerning competitive attitudes and the value of diversity. The ambiguity of the statements concerning issues of gender and the role of women in the Pauline letters cannot be denied. But, as far as traces of concrete social interactions indicate, the practice was not really consistent with the ‘theory’.57 This did have at least some destabilizing and relativizing effect as narratives such as the Acts of Paul and Thecla, and leadership roles of women in the early church demonstrate.58 As far as slavery is concerned, no traces of what might have constituted a challenge to the institution of slavery occur in New Testament literature, including the Pauline letters. Although unacceptable from a contemporary perspective, it was obviously beyond even their power of conception to envisage a society other than one in which slavery was a given. Graeco-Roman 56. Cf. also 3.2.5 above. 57. This could be due to the fact that Paul as a Pharisee was used to recognized women within a movement he was part of. See Ilan 2006: 73–110. 58. Cf. e.g. Eisen 2000; Macdonald 2003.

The Dynamics of Power and the Challenge of Empowerment

195

and Jewish culture did not differ fundamentally in this respect, but only gradually.59 Paul did not challenge this, and inasmuch as from our perspective one might deplore this failure, it should be acknowledged that this was beyond the scope of what was seen to be the changing effect of the gospel. Although Gal. 3.28 indicates that a relativization of the difference between slave and free was within the early Christ-followers’ realm of thought, and that Paul strongly advised the slave-holder Philemon to regard Onesimus as a brother in Christ, this in no way indicates that Paul perceived it to be problematic that a slave-holder was a member of the Christ-movement, or that he perceived it to be problematic that a slave was a full member. Although I cannot elaborate in detail on this here, the fact that slaves obviously were regarded as full members of the Christ-movement indicates that, in contrast to Graeco-Roman society, at least as Christ-followers, slaves were perceived as persons, human beings, not as the property of someone else. In the given context, this difference in perception over against the surrounding society should not be underestimated. Although it is not evidence of a challenge to the system, it is an alternative to the dominant perception of slaves. In my view the problematic aspect in relation to slavery is not that institutional slavery was not challenged by Paul or any other of the early Christ-followers. The problem was that only at the beginning (and in the USA in the middle) of the nineteenth century the, admittedly faint, traces of a different attitude were recognized and effectively led to the abolishment of slavery under the influence of the Enlightenment notions of equality and human rights. It is this that is scandalous and not Paul’s inability to challenge the slave-owning society of his day. To conclude from the ambiguous attitude concerning gender issues, and the non-challenging statements in relation to the institution of slavery in the Pauline letters, that Paul advocated an exercise of power and the establishment of structures within the Christ-movement which promoted domination, means to ignore the far more frequent indications of challenges to structures and attitudes of domination, challenges to the all-pervasive system of domination in the form of the empire. The undeniable fact that in the course of history such stances have been advocated, claiming support from statements in the Pauline letters, provides no evidence that Paul and the Pauline circle advocated them. It is rather evidence that points to the choices of the interpreters to read certain statements, or the absence of others, as proof in support of claims to power and authority in a dominating and thus oppressive way.60 It is not texts which have oppressive effects, but interpretations which are used to substantiate certain stances at the expense of others. No text, as authoritative as it may be perceived by a faith community,

59. For detailed studies on this see Heszer 2005; Glancy 2006; Harrill 2005. 60. Cf. the role of the interpretation of the Bible in the debates in support of and against slavery in the pre-civil war United States, e.g. Harrill 2005:173. On the necessity of a discussion of ethical implications in interpretation see Patte 1995, also Schüssler Fiorenza 2005: 282–95.

196

Paul and the Dynamics of Power

provides dispensation for its interpreters to avoid the responsibility of their hermeneutical decisions and for the resultant effects their interpretations might have on the lives of others.

10.4 The Dynamics of Power and the Tune of Empowerment This study of the dynamics of power in the Pauline discourse does not claim to be free of interest. I have outlined the hermeneutical presuppositions which guided me in this reading and the reconstruction of the context of the Pauline letters in Chapter 1. The study is moreover guided by discussions of power in contemporary theory, with a particular interest in approaches which highlight the positive, empowering dimension of power as distinct from domination and command. I was driven by the issue of whether traces of such empowering power could be found in the Pauline letters. It has been demonstrated in the analyses of several aspects of the power dynamics read from the particular presuppositions outlined, that there is ample evidence for a differentiated perception of the dynamics of power in these letters which cannot be subsumed under the notion of domination, or even appreciated when perceived only through the lens of theories of power as power-over. Throughout the letters, references to an empowering ‘tune’ can be found which indicate that this is one of the main characteristics not only of the power dynamics within the Christ-movement but also of life in Christ. Orientation and guidance for this are found in the tradition of the Scriptures and the gospel of Jesus Christ.61 As those called by Christ to respond to the call of God, the Christ-followers are called into an interdependent community. Their response consists in the response-ability for the brother and sister for whom Christ also died. The fact that assemblies did actually come to be formed was attributed by the early Christ-followers to the power of the Spirit. They perceived themselves to be tuned into the rhythm of life according to Christ by the power of the Spirit. Whatever gifts they had to contribute to the life of the e0kklhsi/a were seen as gifts of the Spirit. The life-giving Spirit of God was seen as moving them towards a way of life as a community which was supposed to be nothing other than a mutually responsive and response-able, and thus empowering, community. Based on trust this response consisted in the welcoming of the other, that is, in hospitality in an inhospitable world.62 The frequent occurrence of the term a0llh/louv is indicative here. It is found mostly in so-called paraenetic sections which I would rather like to call anamnetic – reminding the Christ-followers of dimensions and aspects of life in Christ they had heard of before. They are reminded again and again that the main focus of life in a community of Christ is the ‘other’. A particularly strong emphasis is found in Romans which so strongly stresses the significance of ‘welcoming’, that is, hospitality within the 61. 62.

See 10.2 above. Cf. also 9.4 above.

The Dynamics of Power and the Challenge of Empowerment

197

movement. Thus the Christ-followers there are reminded that they are ‘one body in Christ, and individually members of one another’ (Rom. 12.5); they should ‘love one another with mutual affection’ and ‘outdo one another in showing honour’ (Rom. 12.10); ‘live in harmony with one another’ (Rom. 12.16); ‘love one another’ (Rom. 13.8); ‘pursue what makes for peace and for mutual upbuilding’(Rom. 14.19); ‘to live in such harmony with one another’ (15.5); ‘welcome one another’ (15.7). In 1 Corinthians they are reminded that ‘when you come together to eat, wait for one another’ (11.33), and that ‘the members may have the same care for one another’ (12.25). In Galatians the Christ-followers are reminded they ought ‘through love (to) be servants of one another’ ( 5.13); ‘bear one another’s burdens’ (6.2); in Philippians that ‘in humility count others better than yourselves’ (2.3). And in 1 Thessalonians they are reminded to ‘abound in love to one another’ (3.12); to ‘comfort one another’ (4.18); and ‘encourage one another’ (5.11); and ‘always seek to do good to one another and to all’ (5.15). The focus of life in Christ is thus not Paul or any of the other apostles or leaders within the movement, but ‘the other’. The group of leaders are merely a part of the movement with specific functions. And inasmuch as the movement’s foundation is Christ and its centre is God, the way of life in the here and now is focused on the ‘other’.63 Evidence for the presence of the Spirit in a community is not what is perceived as strong leadership or exceptional gifts, but whether whatever is done is done to the empowerment/ building up of the ‘other’ (e.g. 1 Cor. 14.3-19). Thus, as emphasized above, being entrusted with a function of leadership within this movement cannot possibly mean to aim at exercising power-over in the vein of domination and control or to establish such a structure in relation to the e0kklhsi/ai. Paul and his colleagues emphasize that their guidance and advice orients itself on the core of the gospel. Thus the aim of their guidance cannot be anything other than that those members of the Christ-movement who have become Christ-followers through Paul be empowered to grow and deepen in their understanding and embodiment of the message of the gospel.64 The aim is that they all might learn from each other and be able to ‘encourage one another’. Thus the verses where Paul expresses in various ways his wish and aim that they may grow and mature should not be taken as mere rhetorical tactics to get them to listen to him. As has been demonstrated above, in Chapters 7 and 8, Paul not only said but embodied such things in his practice as the teaching–learning discourse in his letters indicates. He exercised power-over the communities in a transformative way. Thus the fact that he does explicitly formulate such aims actually supports the reading proposed in this study. The apostles wish in 1 Thess. 3.12 that ‘the Lord may make you increase and abound in love’; the senders hope that the Corinthians may understand fully what is written to them, since they know that they 63. Which conforms to e.g. Mt. 25.35-40. 64. Bartchy’s emphasis on the ‘hard work’ that this in certain cases implied is not evidence to the contrary, just that it was not easy for both Paul and the communities to achieve (2005: 56).

198

Paul and the Dynamics of Power

have already understood in part (2 Cor. 1.14). Paul emphasizes that he has great confidence in them and is proud of them (2 Cor. 7.4). He is aware that the controversy in which he is involved with the Corinthians has dimensions which could be destructive, thus he emphasizes that even in struggling with them he only has authority in relation to them inasmuch as he is building them up (2 Cor. 10.8), and again, at the end of the letter, repeats that what he wants and is commissioned by God to do, is to build them up – so they might grow (2 Cor. 13.9-10). The provocative question in 1 Corinthians ‘do you not know?’ expresses the expectation that they should have learnt and therefore know these things already. Thus he clearly expects them to grow in knowledge, 1 Cor. 6.2, 3, 9, 15, 16, 19 (cf also 1 Cor. 8.1-3 which refers to love as a different kind of knowledge in relation to God) . In 1 Cor. 12.1 he emphasizes that he does not want them to be uninformed but to understand for themselves the implications of being in Christ. One of the most direct expressions of Paul’s aim at rendering himself obsolete as a leader of the Corinthians is 1 Cor. 14.20. He explicitly states that he does not want them to remain in an immature state of understanding and thinking concerning their trust in God but rather that he has this strong desire that they might grow and become te/leioi. Actually the entire section here indicates that Paul perceives this as that which ought to be expected, i.e. that the Corinthians themselves prophesy, speak in tongues etc. The only aspect on which he considers it necessary to give them some advice is concerning the implications that are inseparably bound up with the reception of these gifts – that whatever they do, and whatever effects they experience through the Spirit, must be intelligible and to everyone’s edification (1 Cor. 14.3-19). And in 1 Thess 4.9-12 the authors, Paul, Silvanus and Timothy even acknowledge that the addressees actually do not need to be advised how to relate to each other as they already live the love owed to one another according to the gospel. This leads to another aspect of the letters which points in the same direction. The power dynamics within the communities, as well as between the apostles and the communities, and between those entrusted with special tasks within the movement, apostles and others, if it is not guided by and contributes to the empowerment of all (1 Thess. 3.12) is not true to the message they proclaim. To establish a permanent position of dominating power in or over the communities is thus in contradiction to the message of the gospel and of scriptural tradition within which this message is embedded. The roles within the Christ-movement, and the leadership roles in particular ought to be embodied in the way of Christ, and may be informed by traditions like those of Moses.65 Paul’s understanding, if not always his achievement, of his and his colleagues’ role as apostles resonates strongly with these traditions. In his understanding of apostleship as a blessing (chapter 5) and at the same time as including the, at times, painful acceptance of personal limitations (chapter 6), in his guiding practice as a

65.

See 10.3 above.

The Dynamics of Power and the Challenge of Empowerment

199

‘nursing father’ and a ‘teaching mother’ (chapter 7), in his teaching through living examples (chapter 8), and in his emphasis on the ‘response-abilty’ inherent to life according to the call of God (chapter 9), Paul, the co-authors and the co-senders witness, within and despite their limitations, to a life which attempts to be true to the message proclaimed. The most obvious evidence for the claim that Paul did not see himself in the role of a dominating and controlling leader of the movement is the fact that he acknowledges positively that he is one among other apostles and leaders (e.g.1 Cor. 15.11), and that he is entrusted with a limited task since there is no question that he agrees that there is a division of mission fields between himself and Barnabas (and most likely others) on the one hand and Peter, James, and John at least (Gal 2.9) on the other. In addition to this he emphasizes that he does not want to ‘build on another person’s foundation’ (Rom. 15.20 my translation). He even does not claim or aim at establishing a position of domination or control since he time and again leaves the e0kklhsi/ai he had founded, and although he ‘keeps in touch’ with them through colleagues and letters, he eventually sees his task in the East as fulfilled and announces that he will leave those e0kklhsi/ai for good to embark on new territory in the West (Rom. 15.14-29). He could not possibly have maintained control over the e0kklhsi/ai in the East, given the distance and the very limited opportunities to communicate. Thus the mere fact that Paul explicitly states his intention to leave the communities over against which he sees himself in the role of the founding apostle, is evidence, in my view, that he has actually embodied the message, not perfectly, but to the best of his abilities. He does not perceive himself as indispensable – he is a leader in a Mosaic vein, resisting the temptation to become a threat to their freedom in the gospel in attaching them to his leadership, a teacher in the best sense of the word. His guidance and teaching aimed at nothing more and nothing less, as noted above, than at empowering these new e0kklhsi/ai to live their own life-story as a community in Christ without him. The greatest lesson he teaches his e0kklhsi/ai is in leaving them, confident that they, by living the traditions which have been passed on to them, will continue to shape it. Other leaders will emerge, but significantly there was no attempt from Paul’s or his colleagues’ side to concentrate the task of leadership permanently and statically in the hands of one, not even in the hands of one group only, but only as a corporate function in the service of all. Paul’s departure witnesses to his trust in God and the presence of the spirit in the communities. He leaves them, and this is the ultimate means of empowerment of those who were called through God to respond to the message of the gospel of the Christ. It is communities, not mere individuals, who are entrusted with the gospel. Only as communities can they respond to the call of God. As communities, they are called to be ‘response-able’ people of God and thus to become a ‘light to the world’. All the shared trust, guidance, admonishment, struggling, debate, challenging, celebrating of life found in the Pauline letters witness to the life of vibrant communities who, moved by the Spirit, are on the way to embracing the

200

Paul and the Dynamics of Power

gospel; communities which, with the wealth and limitations, the similarities and differences of their lives, are on the way to tuning into the rhythm of life in Christ, so they may rejoice and praise the Lord with his people.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Aasgaard, R. ‘My Beloved Brothers and Sisters’: Christian Siblingship in 2004 Paul.( London, New York: T&T Clark). Adams, E. and D. G. Horrell (eds) Christianity at Corinth: The Quest for the Pauline Church 2004 (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox). Agnew, F. H. 1986 ‘The Origin of the NT Apostle-Concept: A Review of Research’, JBL 105/1: 75–96. Agosto, E. 2004 ‘Patronage and Commendation, Imperial and Anti-Imperial’ in Horsley, R. A. (ed.) 2004a: 103–23. Servant Leadership: Jesus and Paul. (St. Louis, MO: Chalice 2005 Press). Alexander, H. A. 2001 ‘God as Teacher: Jewish Reflections on a Theology of Pedagogy’, JBV 22/1: 5–17. Allen, A. The Power of Feminist Theory: Domination, Resistance, 1999a Solidarity (Boulder, CO: Westview Press). 1999b ‘Solidarity after identity politics: Hannah Arendt and the power of feminist theory’, Philosophy & Social Criticism 25/1: 97–118. 2002 ‘Power, Subjectivity, and Agency: Between Arendt and Foucault’, International Journal of Philosophical Studies 10/2: 131–49. 2003 ‘Foucault and Enlightenment: A Critical Appraisal’, Constellations Vol. 10/2: 180–98. Anderson, J. C., Sellew, P., Setzer, C. (eds) Pauline Conversations in Context: Essays in Honor of Calvin J. 2002 Roetzel (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press). Andrew, S. B. 1995 ‘Too Weak Not to Lead: The Form and Function of 2 Cor 11.23b-33’, NTS 41: 263–76. Arendt, H. The Human Condition. (Chicago: University of Chicago 1958 Press).

202 1963

Bibliography Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil (New York: Penguin). On Revolution (New York: Viking Press). On Violence (London: Allen Lane).

1968 1970 Auerbach, E. Mimesis: The Representation of Reality in Western Literature 1953 ET (Princeton: Princeton University Press). Bachmann, M. (ed.) Lutherische und Neue Paulusperspektive (Tübingen: Mohr 2005 Siebeck). Balch, D. L., Osiek C. (eds) Early Christian Families in Context: An Interdisciplinary 2003 Dialogue (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans). Baltrusch, E. Die Juden und das Römische Reich: Geschichte einer 2002 konfliktreichen Beziehung (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft). Banks, R. Paul’s Idea of Community. Rev. edition. (Peabody, MA: 1994 Hendrickson). Barclay, J. 2002 ‘Paul’s Story: Theology as Testimony’, in B. W. Longenecker (ed.) Narrative Dynamics in Paul: A Critical Assessment (Louisville, KY: Westminster/JohnKnox Press). Bartchy, S. S. 1999 ‘Undermining Ancient Patriarchy: The Apostle Paul’s Vision of a Society of Siblings’, BTB 29: 68–78. 2003 ‘Who Should be Called Father? Paul of Tarsus between the Jesus Tradition and Patria Potestas’, BTB 33: 135–47. ‘“When I’m Weak, I’m Strong”: A Pauline Paradox in Cultural 2005 Context’, in Strecker 2005a: 49–60. Barth, M., Blanke, H. The Letter to Philemon (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans). 2000 Barton, S. C. 1997 ‘The relativism of family ties in the Jewish and Graeco-Roman Traditions’, in Moxnes 1997: 81–100. Bash, A. Ambassadors for Christ: An Exploration of Ambassadorial 1997 Language in the New Testament (Tübingen: Mohr). Bauman-Martin, B. J. 2004 ‘Women on the Edge: New Perspectives on Women in the Petrine Haustafel’, JBL 123/2: 253–79. Becker, E. M. Schreiben und Verstehen: Paulinische Briefhermeneutik im 2002 Zweiten Korintherbrief (Tübingen, Basel: Francke Verlag).

Bibliography

203

Becker, E. M., Pilhofer, P. (eds) Biographie und Persönlichkeit des Paulus (Tübingen: Mohr 2005 Siebeck). Beker, J. C. Paul, the Apostle: The Triumph of God in Life and Thought 1980 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark). Best, E. A Commentary on the First and Second Epistles to the 1986 Thessalonians (London: Black) Betz, H. D. Nachfolge und Nachahmung Jesu Christi im Neuen Testament 1967 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck). 2 Cor 8 and 9: A Commentary on Two Administrative Letters 1985 of the Apostle Paul (Hermeneia, Philadelphia: Fortress Press). Bieringer, R. (ed.) The Corinthian Correspondence (Leuven: Peeters). 1982 Bjerkelund, C. J. Parakalo:Form, Funktion und Sinn der parakalo-Sätze in den 1967 paulinischen Briefen (Oslo: Universitetsforlaget). Bockmuehl, M. N. A. Revelation and Mystery in Ancient Judaism and Pauline 1990 Christianity (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans). Jewish Law and Gentile Churches: Halakhah and the Beginning 2003 of Christian Public Ethics (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic Press). Boers, H. 1997 ‘Agape and Charis in Paul’s Thought’, CBQ 59: 693–713. Borman, L., DeTredici, D. L., Standhartinger, A. (eds) Religious Propaganda and Missionary Competition in the New 1994 Testament World: Essays Honoring Dieter Georgi (Leiden: Brill). Börschel, R. Die Konstruktion einer christlichen Identität: Paulus und die 2001 Gemeinde von Thessalonich in ihrer hellenistisch-römischen Umwelt (Berlin:Philo). Boschki, R. Beziehung als Leitbegriff der Religionspädagogik: Grundlegung 2003 einer dialogisch-kreativen Religionspädagogik (Ostfildern: Schwabenverlag). Bossmann, D. 1996 ‘Paul’s fictive Kinship Movement’, BTB 26: 163–71. Botha, P. J. J. 1992 ‘Letter Writing and Oral Communication in Antiquity: Suggested Implications for the Interpretation of Paul’s Letter to the Galatians’, Scriptura 42: 17–34.

204

Bibliography

Bourdieu, P. The Logic of Practice. (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press). 1990 Language and Symbolic Power (Cambridge: Polity Press). 1992 Pascalian Meditations (Cambridge: Polity Press). 2000 Bowman E. K., Woolf G. (eds) Literacy and Power in the Ancient World (Cambridge: 1994 Cambridge University Press). Boyarin, D. A Radical Jew: Paul and the Politics of Identity (Berkeley: 1994 University of California Press). Borderlines: The Partition of Judaeo-Christianity (Philadelphia: 2004 University of Pennsylvania Press). Briggs Kittredge, C. Community and Authority. The Rhetoric of Obedience 1998 in The Pauline Tradition (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International). Brondos, D. A. Paul on the Cross: Reconstructing the Apostle’s Story of 2006 Redemption (Minneapolis: Fortress Press). Brooke, G. J. The Dead Sea Scrolls and the New Testament (Minneapolis: 2005 Fortress Press). Brueggemann, W. Theology of the Old Testament: Testimony, Dispute, Advocacy 1997 (Minneapolis: Fortress Press). A Commentary of Jeremiah: Exile and Homecoming (Grand 1998 Rapids, MI: Eerdmans). The Covenanted Self: Explorations in Law and Covenant 1999 (Minneapolis: Fortress Press). Deuteronomy (Nashville: Abingdon Press). 2001 Bultmann, R. Theology of the New Testament (London: SCM Press). 1952 Burke, T. J. Family Matters. A Socio-Historical Study of Kinship Metaphors 2003a in 1 Thessalonians. (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press). 2003b ‘Paul’s Role as “Father” to his Corinthian “Children” in SocioHistorical Context (1 Corinthians 4:14-21)’, in Burke, Elliott 2003: 95–114. Burke, T. J., Elliott J. K. (eds) Paul and the Corinthians: Studies on a Community in Conflict. 2003 Essays in Honour of Margaret Thrall. (Leiden: Brill). Burton deWitt, E. Epistle to the Galatians (Edinburgh: T&T Clark). 1921 Byron, J. Slavery Metaphors in Early Judaism and Pauline Christianity. 2003 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck).

Bibliography Byrskog, S. 1994

205

Jesus the Only Teacher: Didactic Authority and Transmission in Ancient Israel, Ancient Judaism and the Matthean Community (Stockholm: Almqvist&Wiksell International). 1996 ‘Co-Senders, Co-Authors and Paul’s Use of the First Person Plural’, ZNW 87: 230–50. Campbell, W. S. Paul’s Gospel in an Intercultural Context, Jew and Gentile in 1992 The Letter to the Romans (Berlin, Bern, Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang). 1993 ‘The Contribution of Traditions to Paul’s Theology’, in Pauline Theology, Vol. II, 1 & 2 Corinthians, D. M. Hay (ed.) (Minneapolis : Fortress Press): 234–54. 1995 ‘The Rule of Faith in Romans 12:1–15:13: The Obligation of Humble Obedience as the Only Adequate Response to the Mercies of God’, in D. M. Hay and E. E. Johnson (eds), Pauline Theology Vol III. Romans (Minneapolis: Fortress Press): 259–86. 2000 ‘Divergent Images of Paul and His Mission’, in Patte, Grenholm 2000: 187–211. 2004 ‘All God’s Beloved in Rome: Jewish Roots and Christian Identity’, in S. McGinn (ed.), Celebrating Romans: A Template for Pauline Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans): 67–82. 2005 ‘Perceptions of Compatibility between Christianity and Judaism in Pauline Interpretation’, BibInt XIII/ 3: 298–316 Paul and the Creation of Christian Identity (London, New 2006 York: T&T Clark International). 2007 ‘Unity and Diversity in the Church: Transformed Identities and the Peace of Christ in Ephesians’, in IBS 28.2007. Campbell, W. S., Hawkins, P., Schildgen B. (eds) Medieval Readings of Romans Romans Through History and 2007 Culture Series (London, New York: T&T Clark International). Carr, D. M. Writing on the Tablet of the Heart: Origins of Scripture and 2005 Literature (Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press). Carter, W. 2001 ‘Vulnerable Power: The Early Christian Movement’s Challenge to the Roman Empire’, in A. J. Blasi, J. Duhaime, P. A. Turcotte (eds), Handbook of Early Christianity and Social Sciences (Walnut Creek: Alta Mira Press). The Roman Empire and New Testament Studies: An Essential 2006 Guide (Nashville: Abingdon Press). Castelli E. A., Imitating Paul. A Discourse of Power (Louisville, KY: 1991 Westminster/Knox Press). 1994 ‘Romans’ in E. Schussler Fiorenza, A. Brock, S. Matthews (eds),

206

Bibliography

Searching the Scriptures: A Feminist Commentary Vol. 2 (New York: Croosroads): 272–300. Chilton, B. and Evans, C. (eds) The Missions of James, Peter, and Paul: Tensions in Early 2005 Christianity (Leiden: Brill). Chow, J. K. Patronage and Power: A Study of Social Networks in Corinth 1992 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press). Clark, G. A. The Word Hesed in the Hebrew Bible (Sheffield: Sheffield 1993 Academic Press). Clarke, A. D. Secular and Christian Leadership in Corinth: A Socio-Historical 1993 and Exegetical Study of 1 Corinthians 1-6 (Leiden: Brill). 2004 ‘Equality or Mutuality? Paul’s Use of “Brother” Language’, P. J. Williams, A. D. Clarke, P. M. Head, D. InstoneBrewer (eds), The New Testament in Its First Century Setting: Essays on Context and Background in Honour of B.W. Winter on His 65th Birthday (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans): 151–64. Claussen, C. Versammlung, Gemeinde, Synagoge. Das hellenistisch2002 jüdische Umfeld der frühchristlichen Gemeinden (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck& Ruprecht). 2003 ‘Meeting, Community, Synagogue – Different Frameworks of Ancient Jewish Congregations in the Diaspora’, in Olsson, Zetterholm 2003: 144–67. Cohen, R. A. Ethics, Exegesis and Philosophy: Interpretation after Levinas 2001 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Cohen, S. J. D. 1999 ‘Were Pharisees and Rabbis the Leaders of Communal Prayer and Torah Study in Antiquity?’, in Kee, H. C. and L. H. Cohick (eds) Evolution of the Synagogue: Problems and Progress (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International): 89–105. Cohen, S. J. D. (ed.) Jewish Family in Antiquity (Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press). 1993 Collins, J. N. Diakonia: Re-Interpreting the Ancient Sources (New York: 1990 Oxford University Press). Collins, R. F. (ed.) The Thessalonian Correspondence (Leuven: Leuven University 1990 Press). Conzelmann, H. An Outline of the Theology of the New Testament (New York: 1969 Harper&Row).

Bibliography

207

Cousar, C. B. Reading Galatians, Philippians, and 1 Thessalonians (Macon, 2001 GA: Smyth&Helwys). Crenshaw, J. L. Education in Ancient Israel: Across the Deadening Silence 1998 (New York, London: Doubleday). Crook, Z. A. Reconceptualizing Conversion: Patronage, Loyalty and 2004 Conversion in the Religions of the Ancient Mediterranean (Berlin, New York: deGruyter). Crüsemann, F. Masstab Tora: Israels Weisung für christliche Ethik (Gütersloh: 2003a Güterloher Verlagshaus). Kanon und Sozialgeschichte. Beiträge zum Alten Testament 2003b (Gütersloh: Ch.Kaiser/Gütersloher Verlagshaus). Davies, W. D. Paul and Rabbinic Judaism: Some Elements in Pauline Theology 1998 Fiftieth Anniversary Edition (Mifflintown, PA: Sigler Press). De Boer, W. Imitation of Paul: An Exegetical Study (Kampen: Kok). 1962 Derrida, J. Limited Inc. (Evanston: Northwestern University Press). 1988 Gesetzeskraft. Der mystische Grund der Autorität (Frankfurt 1991 a.M.: Suhrkamp). Politics of Friendship transl. G. Collins, (London, New York: 1997 Verso). Writing and Difference transl. A. Bass, (London: Routledge). 2001a Limited Inc. (Wien: Passagen). 2001b Negotiations: Interventions and Interviews 1971–2001 2002 Elizabeth Rottenberg (ed.), (Standford, CA: Stanford University Press). DeSilva, D. A. Honor, Patronage, Kinship and Purity: Unlocking New 2000 Testament Culture (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press). Dewey, J. 1995 ‘Textuality in an Oral Culture: A Survey of the Pauline Traditions’ in Dewey, J. (ed.) Orality and Textuality in Early Christian Literature Semeia 65 (Atlanta: Scholars Press): 37–65. Dickson, J. P. Mission-Commitment in Ancient Judaism and in the Pauline 2003 Communities (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck). Donfried, K. P. (ed.) The Romans Debate. Revised and expanded edition of the 1991 1977 edition (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson). The Thessalonians Debate: Methodological Discord or 2000 Methodological Synthesis (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).

208

Bibliography

Donfried K. P. and Richardson P. (eds) Judaism and Christianity in First Century Rome (Grand Rapids: 1998 William B. Eerdmans). Duffy, S. J. The Dynamics of Grace: Perspectives in Theological 1993 Anthropology. (Collegeville: Liturgical Press). Duling, D. C. 1995 ‘The Matthean Brotherhood and Marginal Scribal Leadership’ in Esler, 1995: 159–82. Dunn, J. D. G. Romans 1&2.World Bible Commentary 38A, 38B (Dallas: 1988 Word). The Theology of Paul, the Apostle (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans). 1998 2002 ‘The Incident at Antioch ( Gal 2:11-18)’, in Nanos 2002: 199–234. The New Perspective on Paul: Collected Essays (Tübingen: 2005 Mohr Siebeck). Eastman, B. The Significance of Grace in the Letters of Paul (New York, 1999 Berlin: Peter Lang). Eastman, S. G. 2006 ‘Cast Out the Slave Woman and her Son: The Dynamics of Exclusion and Inclusion in Galatians 4.30’, JSNT 28.3: 309–36. Eco, U. Experiences in Translation (Toronto: Toronto University 2001 Press). Quasi dasselbe mit anderen Worten: Über das Übersetzen 2003 (München: Hanser Verlag). Mouse or Rat? Translation as Negotiation (London: Phoenix). 2004 Edwards, D. R. Religion and Power: Pagans, Jews, and Christians in the East 1996 (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Ehrensperger, K. 2002 ‘“… Let everyone be convinced in his/her own mind”: Derrida and the Deconstruction of Paulinism’ in SBLSP: 53–73. 2003 ‘“Be Imitators of Me as I am of Christ”: A Hidden Discourse of Power and Domination in Paul?’ LTQ Vol. 38/4: 241–61 That We May Be Mutually Encouraged: Feminism and the New 2004a Perspective in Pauline Studies (New York/London: T&T Clark International). 2004b ‘Scriptural Reasoning – the Dynamic that Informed Paul’s Theologizing,’ IBS (26.1): 32–52 now also in JSR 5/2 2005 http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/journals/ssr. 2005 ‘Paulus und die Gnade. Zu Fragen von Macht, Dominanz und Ermächtigung’, in Gelardini 2005: 60–73. 2007 ‘Levinas, the Jewish Philosopher meets Paul, the Jewish

Bibliography

209

Apostle: Reading Romans in the Face of the Other’ in D. OdellScott and D. Patte (eds) Reading Romans with Philosophers and Theologians Romans Through History and Cultures Series. (London, New York: T&T Clark) (forthcoming). Eisen, U. 2000

Women Officeholders in Early Christianity (Collegeville, MI: Liturgical Press). 2004 ‘“Ich vernichte die Streitwagen …” Aspekte paulinischer Herrschaftskritik und ihre alttestamentlichen Wurzeln’, in ZNT 14/7: 31–9. Eisenbaum, P. 2005 ‘Paul, Polemics and the Problem of Essentialism’, BibInt xiii/3: 224–38. Elliott, N. Liberating Paul: The Justice of God and the Politics of the 1995 Apostle (Sheffield Academic Press). 2000 ‘Paul and the Politics of the Empire’, in Horsley 2000b: 17–39. 2002 ‘The “Patience of the Jews”. Strategies of Resistance and Accomodation to Imperial Cultures’, in Anderson, Setzer, Sellew 2002: 32–41. 2004 ‘Strategies of Resistance and Hidden Transcripts in the Pauline Communities’, in Horsley, R. A. (ed.) 2004b: 97–122. 2005a ‘An American “Myth of Innocence”’, in BibInt xiii/3: 239–49. 2005b ‘Political Formation in the Letter to the Romans’, a paper presented at the SBL Annual Meeting, Philadelphia. Elliott, J. H. 2003 ‘The Jesus Movement was not Egalitarian but Family Oriented’, BibInt XI : 173–210. Ellis, E. E. 1971 ‘Paul and His CoWorkers’, NTS 17:438-52. Prophecy and Hermeneutic in Early Christianity: New 1978 Testament Essays (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck). Engberg-Pederson, T. Paul and the Stoics (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox 2000 Press). Epp, E. J. Junia: The first Woman Apostle (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress 2005 Press) Epstein, D. F. Personal Enmity in Roman Politics (London: Croom Helm). 1987 Erikson, E. H. Identity: Youth and Crisis (London: Faber&Faber). 1968 Esler, P. F. The first Christians in their Social Worlds: Social-Scientific 1994 Approaches to New Testament Interpretation (London, New York: Routledge).

210 2003

Bibliography Conflict and Identity in Romans (Minneapolis: Fortress Press).

Esler, P. F. (ed.) Modelling Early Christianity: Social-Scientific Studies to the 1995 New Testament (London: Routledge). Fines S. (ed.) Jews, Christians, and Polytheists in the Ancient Synagogue: 1999 Cultural Interaction during the Greco-Roman Period (London, New York: Routledge). Finney, M. T. 2005 ‘Christ Crucified and the Inversion of Roman Imperial Ideology in 1 Corinthians’, in BTB 35: 20–33. Fishbane, M. Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Oxford 1985 University Press). Fitzmyer, J. A. 1979 ‘The Semitic Background of the New Testament Kyrios-Title’, in A Wandering Aramean: Collected Aramaic Essays (Chico: Scholars Press): 115–42. Flack, E. E. 1960 ‘The Concept of Grace in Biblical Thought’, in Myers J. M. (ed.) Biblical Studies in Memory of H.C. Alleman (Locust Valley, NY: Doubleday): 137–54. Foucault, M. The Archeology of Knowledge and the Discourse of Language 1972 (New York: Pantheon). Sexualität und Wahrheit: Der Wille zum Wissen (Frankfurt 1977 a.M.: Suhrkamp). Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison (New York: 1979 Vintage). C. Gordon (ed.) (New York: Pantheon). Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings, 1980 1972-1977. 1984a ‘What is Enlightenment?’, in Rabinow 1984: 32–50. 1984b ‘Politics and Ethics: An Interview’, in Rabinow 1984: 373–80. 1986 ‘Disciplinary Power and Subjection’, in Lukes 1986: 229–42. 1988 ‘The Ethic of Care for the Self as a Practice of Freedom’, in J. Bernauer, D. Rasmussen (eds), The Final Foucault (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press): Frey, J. 2005 ‘Paulus und die Apostel. Zur Entwicklung des paulinischen Apostelbegriffs und zum Verhältnis des Heidenapostels zu seinen “Kollegen”’, in Becker, E. M., Pilhofer, P. (eds): 192–227. 2004 ‘Apostelbegriff, Apostelamt und Apostolizität: Neutestamentliche Perspektiven zur Frage nach der “Apostolizität der Kirche”’, in T. Schneider, G. Wenz (eds), Das kirchliche Amt in apostolischer

Bibliography

211

Nachfolge (Freiburg i.B.: Herder/Göttingen: VandenhoeckRuprecht): 91–188. Freyne, S. 2002a 2004

Texts, Contexts and Cultures: Essays on Biblical Topics (Dublin: Veritas). Jesus, a Jewish Galilean: A New Reading of the Jesus Story (London, New York: T&T Clark).

Friesen, S. J. 2004 ‘Poverty in Pauline Studies: Beyond the So-Called New Consensus’, JSNT 26: 323–61. Funk, A. Status und Rollen in den Paulusbriefen: Eine inhaltsanalytische 1981 Untersuchung zur Religionssoziologie ( Innsbruck: Tyrolia). Gäckle, V. Die Starken und die Schwachen in Korinth und Rom (Tübingen: 2004 Mohr Siebeck). Gammie, J. G., Perdue, L. G. (eds) The Sage in Israel and the Ancient Near East (Winona Lake, 1990 IN: Eisenbrauns). Garlington, D. B. The Obedience of Faith (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck). 1991 Faith, Obedience and Perseverance: Aspects of Paul’s Letter to 1994 the Romans (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck). Gaventa, B. R. From Darkness to Light: Aspects of Conversion in the New 1986 Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress Press). 1990 ‘The Maternity of Paul: An Exegetical Study of Galatians 4:19’, in R. T. Fortna et. al. (eds), The Conversation Continues. Studies in Paul and John (FS J. L. Martyn), Nashville 1990: 189–201 1996 ‘Mother’s Milk and Ministry in 1 Cor 3’, in Lovering 1996: 101–13. First and Second Thessalonians (Louisville, KY: Westminster / 1998 John Knox). 2004 ‘Our Mother St. Paul: Toward the Recovery of a Neglected Theme’, in Levine 2004: 85–97. Gelardini, G. (ed.) Kontexte der Schrift Bd.1: Text, Ethik, Judentum und 2005 Christentum, Gesellschaft. Ekkehard W. Stegemann zum 60. Geburtstag (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer). Georgi, D. Theocracy in Paul’s Praxis and Theology, ET (Minneapolis: 1991 Fortress Press). Remembering the Poor: The History of Paul’s Collection for 1992 Jerusalem (Nashville: Abingdon). 1997 ‘God Turned Upside Down’, in Horsley 1997: 148–57.

212 Gerber, C. 2005

Bibliography

Paulus und seine Kinder: Studien zur Beziehungsmetaphorik der paulinischen Briefe (Berlin, New York: Walter deGruyter). Gerhardsson, B. Memory and Manuscript: Oral Tradition and Written 1961 Transmission in Rabbinic Judaism and Early Christianity (Lund: Almqvist and Wiksells). Getty, M. A. 1990 ‘The Imitation of Paul in the Letter to the Thessalonians’, in Collins 1990: 277–83. Glancy, J. A. 2004 ‘Boasting of Beatings (2 Corinthians 11:23-25)’, JBL 123/1: 99–135. Slavery in Early Christianity (Minneapolis: Fortress Press). 2006 Glueck, N. Hesed in the Bible (Cincinnati: The Hebrew Union College 1967 Press). Goodman, M. D. 1994 ‘Texts, Scribes, and Power in Roman Judea’, in Bowman, Woolf 1994: 99–108. Judaism in the Roman World: Collected Essays (Leiden: Brill). 2007a Rome and Jerusalem: The Clash of Ancient Civilizations 2007b (London: Penguin). Gorman M. J. Cruciformity: Paul’s Narrative Spirituality of the Cross (Grand 2001 Rapids, MI: Eerdmans). Gräbe, P. J. The Power of God in Paul’s Letters (Tübingen: Mohr 2000 Siebeck). Gruen, E. S. Heritage and Hellenism: The Reinvention of Jewish Tradition. 1998 (Berkeley, Los Angeles, London: University of California Press). Diaspora: Jews amidst Greeks and Romans (Cambridge, MA: 2001 Harvard University Press). Guijarro, S. 1997 ‘The Family in First Century Galilee’, in Moxnes 1997: 42–65. Habermas, J. The Theory of Communicative Action (Cambridge: Polity 1984 Press). 1986 ‘Hannah Arendt’s Communications Concept of Power’, in Lukes 1986: 75–93. First published in Social Research 44/1(1977): 3–24. Hafemann, S. Suffering and the Spirit: An Exegetical Study of II Cor. 2:14– 1986 3:3 within the Context of the Corinthian Correspondence (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck).

Bibliography

213

Harrill, J. A. Slaves in the New Testament: Literary, Social, and Moral 2005 Dimensions (Minneapolis: Fortress Press). Harrison, J. R. 2002 ‘Paul and the Imperial Gospel at Thessaloniki’, JSNT 25.1: 71–96. Paul’s Language of Grace in its Graeco-Roman Context 2003 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck). Haufe, G. Der erste Brief des Paulus an die Thessalonicher (Leipzig: 1999 Evangelische Verlagsanstalt). Heckel, U. Kraft in Schwachheit. Untersuchungen zu 2 Kor 10-13 1993 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck). Heschel, S. Abraham Geiger and the Jewish Jesus (Chicago: University of 1998 Chicago Press). 2003 ‘Quest for the Aryan Jesus: The Archaeology of Nazi Orientalist Theology’, in Lapin, Martin 2003: 65–84. Hezser, C. Jewish Literacy in Roman Palestine (Tübingen: Mohr 2001 Siebeck). Jewish Slavery in Antiquity (Oxford: Oxford University Press). 2005 Hogeterp, A. L. A. Paul and God’s Temple: A Historical Interpretation of Cultic 2006 Imagery in the Corinthian Correspondence (Leuven: Peeters). Holmberg B. Paul and Power: The Structure of Authority in the Primitive 1978 Church as Reflected in the Pauline Epistles (Lund: Gleerup). Honneth, A. 1995 ‘The other of justice: Habermas and the ethical challenge of postmodernism’, in White 1995: 289–323. Hooker, M. D. 1996 ‘A Partner in the Gospel: Paul’s Understanding of his Ministry’, in Lovering, Sumney 1996: 83–100. Paul: A Short Introduction (Oxford: Oneworld). 2003 Horbury, W. Messianism among Jews and Christians: Biblical and Historical 2003 Studies (London, New York: T&T Clark). Horrell, D. G. The Social Ethos of the Corinthian Correspondence (Edinburgh: 1996 T&T Clark). 2001 ‘From a0delfoi/ to oi]kov qeou=: Social Transformation in Pauline Christianity’, JBL 120/2: 293–311. Solidarity and Difference: A Contemporary Reading of Paul’s 2005 Ethics (London, New York: T&T Clark).

214

Bibliography

Horsley, R. A. Galilee: History, Politics, People (Valley Forge, PA: Trinity 1995 Press International). 1 Corinthians (Nashville: Abingdon Press). 1998 2000a ‘Rhetoric and Empire – and 1 Corinthians’, in Horsley 2000b: 72–102. 2004c ‘1 Corinthians: A Case Study of Paul’s Assembly as an Alternative Society’, (1997) in Adams, Horrell 2004: 227–37. Horsley, R. A. (ed.) Paul and Empire: Religion and Power in Roman Imperial 1997 Society (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International). Paul and Politics: Ekklesia, Israel, Imperium, Interpretation 2000b Essays in Honour of Krister Stendahl (Harrisburg, PA : Trinity Press International). Paul and the Roman Imperial Order (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity 2004a Press International). Hidden Transcripts and the Arts of Resistance: Applying the 2004b Work of James C. Scott to Jesus and Paul (Atlanta, GA: SBL). Ilan, T. Silencing the Queen: The Literay Histories of Shelomzion and 2006 Other Jewish Women (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck). Jennings, T. W. 2004 ‘Justice as Gift: Thinking Grace with the Help of Derrida’, in Sherwood, Y. (ed.), Derrida’s Bible: Reading a Page of Scripture with a Little Help from Derrida (New York: Palgrave Macmillan): 181–98. Reading Derrida/Thinking Paul: On Justice (Stanford, CA: 2006 Stanford University Press). Jewett, R. Romans: A Commentary (Hermeneia) (Minneapolis: Fortress 2006 Press). Jones, I. H. The Epistle to the Thessalonians. (Peterborough: Epworth Press). 2005 Joubert, S. J. 1995 ‘Managing the Household: Paul as paterfamilias of the Christian household group in Corinth’, in Esler 1995: 213–23. Paul as Benefactor: Reciprocity, Strategy, and Theological 2000 Reflection in Paul’s Collection (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck). Judge, E. 1972 ‘St Paul and Classical Society’, JAC 15: 19–36. Käsemann, E. 1942 ‘Die Legitimität des Apostels’, ZNW 41: 33–71. New Testament Questions for Today (Philadelphia: Fortress 1969 Press). Keck, L. Romans (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press). 2005

Bibliography

215

Kee, H. C., L. H. Cohick (eds) Evolution of the Synagogue: Problems and Progress (Harrisburg, 1999 PA: Trinity Press International). Kim, S. The Origins of Paul’s Gospel (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck). 1981 Kittredge Briggs C. Community and Authority: The Rhetoric of Obedience in the 1998 Pauline Tradition (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International). 2003 ‘Rethinking Authorship in the Letters of Paul: Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza’s Model of Pauline Theology’, in Matthews, Kittredge, Johnson-Debaufre 2003: 318–33. Koptak, P. E. 2002 ‘Rhetorical Identification in Paul’s Autobiographical Narrative: Galatians 1:13-2:14’, in Nanos 2002b: 157–68. Kraemer, R. S. Her Share of the Blessing: Women’s Religions among Pagans, 1992 Jews, and Christians in the Greco-Roman World (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Kreitzer, L. J. 2005 ‘The Messianic Man of Peace as Temple Builder: Solomonic Imagery in Ephesians 2:13-22’, in Day, J. (ed.), Temple and Worship in Biblical Israel: Proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar (London, New York: T&T Clark International): 484–512. Krug, J. Die Kraft des Schwachen: ein Beitrag zur paulinischen 2001 Apostolatstheologie (Tübingen, Basel: Francke Verlag). Kurek-Chomycz, D. A. 2006 ‘Is There an “Anti-Priscan” Tendency in the Manuscripts ? Some Textual Problems with Prisca and Aquila’, JBL 125/1: 107–28. Lampe, P. Die stadtrömischen Christen in den ersten beiden Jahrhunderten. 1989 Untersuchungen zur Sozialgeschichte (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck). 2003a ‘The Language of Equality in Early Christian House Churches’, in Balch, Osiek 2003: 73–83. 2003b ‘Paul, Patrons, and Clients’, in Sampley J. P. (ed) 2003: 488– 523. Langton, D. R. 2005a ‘The Myth of the “Traditional View of Paul” and the Role of the Apostle in Modern Jewish-Christian Polemics’, in JSNT 28.1: 69–104. 2005b ‘Modern Jewish Identity and the Apostle Paul: Pauline Studies as an Intra-Jewish Ideological Battleground’, in JSNT 28.2: 217–58.

216

Bibliography

Lapin, H., Martin, D. B. (eds) Jews, Antiquity, and the Nineteenth Century Imagination 2003 (Baltimore: Unversity of Maryland Press). Larson, J. 2004 ‘Paul’s Masculinity’, JBL 123: 85–97. Lassen, E. M. 1991 ‘The Use of the Father Image in Imperial Propaganda and in 1 Corinthians 4:14-21’, TynBul 42: 127–36. 1992 ‘Family as Metaphor: Family Images at the Time of the Old Testament and Early Judaism’, SJOT 6: 247–62. Levinas, E. Totality and Infinity ET A. Lingis 8th edition (Pittsburgh: 1992 Duquesne University Press). Of God Who Comes To Mind (Stanford, CA: Stanford 1998 University Press). Levine, A. J. 2003 ‘Multiculturalism, Women’s Studies and Anti-Judaism’, in JFSR 19.1: 119–28. 2004 ‘The Disease of Postcolonial New Testament Studies and the Hermeneutics of Healing’, in JFSR 20.1: 91–99. Levine, A. J. (ed.) Feminist Companion to Paul (London, New York: T&T Clark). 2004 Levine, L. I. The Ancient Synagogue: The First Thousand Years. 2nd edn 2005 (New Haven, London: Yale University Press). Lietart Perbolte, P. Paul the Missionary (Leuven: Peeters). 2003 Lim, K. Y. 2006 ‘The Sufferings of Christ are Abundant in Us (2 Cor. 1.5): A Narrative Dynamics Investigation of Paul’s Sufferings in 2 Corinthians’ (Ph.D. Thesis University of Wales Lampeter, UK). Lovering, E. H., Sumney, J. L. (eds) Theology and Ethics in Paul and His Interpreters: Essays in 1996 Honor of Victor Paul Furnish (Nashville: Abingdon). Lücking, S. 2002 ‘Bourdieu ist tot. Ein Nachfruf aus der Sicht eines Exegeten’, Biblisches Forum (1/2002) www.bibfor.de/archiv/02-1luecking. pdf acessed 24.April 2006. Lukes, S. Power: A Radical View 2nd edn (Oxford: Blackwell). 2005 Lukes, S. (ed.) Power (Oxford: Blackwell). 1986 Macdonald, M. Y. 1999 ‘Reading Real Women through the Undisputed Letters of Paul’, in R. S. Kraemer, M. R. d’Angelo (eds) Women and Christian Origins (Oxford: Oxford University Press): 199–220.

Bibliography 2003 Malina, B. 1983

217

‘The Role of Women in the Expansion of Early Christianty’, in Balch, Osiek 2003: 157–84. The New Testament World: Insights from Cultural Anthropology (London: SCM Press).

Marböck, J. 2006 ‘Einladung ins Erbarmen Gottes. Sir 17,30-18,14 als ein Beitrag zur Rede von Gott im Sirachbuch’, in Riedel-Spangberger, Zenger 2006: 196–205. Marchal, J. T. Hierarchy, Unity, and Imitation: A Feminist Rhetorical Analysis 2006 of Power Dynamics in Paul’s Letter to the Philippians (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature). Matthews, S. Kittredge, C. B., Johnson-Debaufre, M. (eds) Walk in the Ways of Wisdom: Essays in Honor of Elisabeth 2003 Schüssler Fiorenza (Harrisburg, London, New York: Trinity Press International). Mauss, M. The Gift: Forms and Functions of Exchange in Archaic Societies 1966 (London: Routledge). Meeks, W. A. The First Urban Christian: The Social World of the Apostle 1983 Paul (New Haven: Yale University Press). Meggitt, J. J Paul, Poverty, and Survival (Edinburgh: T&T Clark). 1998 Melberg, A. Theories of Mimesis (Cambridge: Cambridge University 1995 Press). Mitchell, M. M. 1992 ‘New Testament Envoys in the Context of Greco-Roman Diplomatic and Epistolary Conventions: The Example of Titus and Timotheus’, JBL 111: 641–62. Morriss, P. Power: A Philosophical Analysis 2nd edn (Manchester: Manchester 2002 University Press). Moxnes, H. (ed.) Constructing Early Christian Families: Family as Social Reality 1997 and Metaphor (London: Routledge). Müller, P. 1994 ‘Der Glaube aus dem Hören: Über das gesprochene und das geschriebene Wort bei Paulus’, in Borman, del Tredici, Standhartinger 1994: 405–42. Müllner, I. 2006 ‘Lehrerin und Gegenstand zugleich. Didaktische Aspekte der personifizierten Weisheit’, in Riedel-Spangberger, Zenger 2006: 215–25.

218

Bibliography

Murphy-O’Connor, J. 1993 ‘Co-Authorship in the Corinthian Correspondence’, RB 110: 562–79. Paul. A Critical Life (Oxford: Oxford University Press). 1996 Nanos, M. D. The Mystery of Romans: The Jewish Context of Paul’s Letter 1996 to the Romans (Minneapolis: Fortress Press). The Irony of Galatians: Paul’s Letter in First-Century Context 2002a (Minneapolis: Fortress Press). 2005 ‘How Inter-Christian Approaches to Paul’s Rhetoric Can Perpetuate Negative Evaluations of Jewishness – Although Proposing to Avoid that Outcome’ BibInt 13.3: 255–67. Nanos, M. D. (ed.) The Galatians Debate: Contemporary Issues in Rhetorical and 2002b Historical Interpretation (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson). Newson, C. 1990 ‘The Sage in the Literature of Qumran: The Function of the Mas´kil’, in Gammie, Perdue 1990: 373–82. Nolland, J. 1986 ‘Grace as Power’, NovT 28: 26–31. Öhler, M. Barnabas: Die historische Person und ihre Rezeption in der 2003 Apostelgeschichte (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck). Ollrog, W. H. Paulus und seine Mitarbeiter: Untersuchungen zu Theorie und 1979 Praxis der paulinischen Mission (Neukirchen: Neukirchener). Olson, D. T. Deuteronomy and the Death of Moses: A Theological Reading 1994 (Minneapolis: Fortress Press). 2005 ‘Between Humility and Authority: The Interplay of the JudgeProphet Laws (Deut 16:18-17:13) and the Judge-Prophet Narratives of Moses’, SBLSP. Olsson, B. and M. Zetterholm (eds) The Ancient Synagogue: From Its Origins until 200 C.E. 2003 (Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International). Olsson, B. 2003 ‘The Origins of the Synagogue: An Evaluation’ in Olsson, Zetterholm 2003: 132–38. Opitz, P. 2004 ‘Bullinger’s Decades: Instruction in Faith and Conduct, in E. Campi, B. Gordon (eds) Architect of the Reformation. An Introduction to Heinrich Bullinger, 1504-1575 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans): 101–16. Overman, J. A. 2002 ‘Kata nomon Pharisaios: A Short History of Paul’s Pharisaism’, in Anderson, Sellew, Setzer 2002: 180–93.

Bibliography Patte, D. 1995

219

Ethics of Biblical Interpretation (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press). Patte, D., Grenholm, C. 2000b ‘Overture’, in Patte, Grenholm 2000a: 1–54. Patte D., C. Grenholm (eds) Reading Israel in Romans: Legitimacy and Plausibility of 2000a Divergent Interpretations. Romans Through History and Cultures Series (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International). Patterson, D. Hebrew Language and Jewish Thought (London: Routledge). 2005 Pears, A. 2006 ‘The Problematization of Feminisms and Feminist Informed Theologies in the Twenty-First Century’, in Political Theology 7.2: 221–35. Perlitt, L. Deuteronomium-Studien (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck). 1994 Peskowitz, M. 1993 ‘Family/ies in Antiquity: Evidence from Tannaitic Literature’, in Cohen 1993: 9–36. Pitkin, H. F. Wittgenstein and Justice: On the Significance of Ludwig 1972 Wittgenstein for Social and Political Thought. (Berkeley CA: University of California Press). Plietzsch, S. Kontexte der Freiheit: Konzepte der Befreiung bei Paulus und 2005a im rabbinischen Judentum (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer). 2005b ‘Religion der Differenz. Eine Lektüre von bBerakhot 57b-58b’ in Gelardini 2005: 138–52. Plüss, D. Das Messianische – Judentum und Philosophie im Werk 2001 Emmanuel Levinas (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer). Pogoloff, S. M. Logos and Sophia: The Rhetorical Situation of 1 Corinthians 1992 (Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press). Pokorny, P., Roskovec, J. (eds) Philosophical Hermeneutics and Biblical Exegesis (Tübingen: 2002 Mohr Siebeck). Polaski, S. H. Paul and the Discourse of Power (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic 1999 Press). A Feminist Introduction to Paul (St. Louis, MI: Chalice 2005 Press). Powell, M. A. Chasing the Eastern Star: Adventures in Reader-Response 2001 Criticism (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox).

220

Bibliography

Rabinow P. (ed.) The Foucault Reader (New York: Pantheon). 1984 Rawson, B. 2003 ‘Death, Burial and Commemoration of Children in Roman Italy’, in Balch, Osiek 2003: 277–97. Reasoner, M. The Strong and the Weak: Romans 14.1-15.13 in Context 1999 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Reinbold, W. Propaganda und Mission im ältesten Christentum: Eine 2000 Untersuchung zu den ältesten Modalitäten der Ausbreitung der frühen Kirche (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht). Rendtorff, R. The Canonical Hebrew Bible: A Theology of the Old Testament 2005 (Leiden: Deo Publishing). Riedel-Spangberger, I./Zenger, E. (eds) ‘Gott bin ich und kein Mann’: Beiträge zur Hermeneutik 2006 der biblischen Gottesrede. Festschrift für Helen SchüngelStraumann (Paderborn: Schöningh). Rock, I. E. Paul’s Letter to the Romans and Roman Imperialism: An 2007 Ideological Analysis for the Exordium (Rom.1:1-17) (Carlisle: Paternoster). Rosner, B. Scripture and Ethics: A Study of 1 Corinthians 5-7 (Leiden: 1994 Brill). Ruddick, S. 1983 ‘Maternal Thinking’, in J.Trebilcot, (ed.), Mothering: Essays in Feminist Theory (Totowa, NJ: Rowan and Allanheld): 213–30. Runesson, A. The Origins of the Synagogue. A Socio-Historical Study 1982 (Stockholm: Almquist & Wiksell International). 2003 Persian Imperial Politics, the Beginnings of Public Torah Readings, and the Origins of the Synagogue’ in Olsson, Zetterholm 2003:63-89. Saldarini, A. J. Pharisees, Scribes and Sadducees in Palestinian Society: A 2001 Sociological Approach. New edn (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans). Saller, R. P. Personal Patronage under the Early Empire (Cambridge: 1982 Cambridge University Press). Sampley, J. P. (ed.) Paul in the Greco-Roman World: A Handbook (London, New 2003 York: Trinity Presss International).

Bibliography

221

Sanders, E. P. 1973 ‘Patterns of Religion in Paul and Rabbinic Judaism: A Holistic Method of Comparison’, HTR, 66: 455–78. Paul and Palestinian Judaism : A Comparison of Patterns of 1977 Religion (Philadelphia: Fortress Press). Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People (Philadelphia: Fortress 1983 Press). 1999 ‘Common Judaism and the Synagogue in the first Century’, in Fine 1999: 1–17. Sandnes, K. O. Paul – One of the Prophets? (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck). 1991 1997 ‘Equality Within Patriarchal Structures: Some New Testament Perspectives on the Christian Fellowship as a Brother-or Sisterhood and a Family’, in Moxnes 1997: 150–65. Savage, T. B. Power through Weakness: Paul’s Understanding of Christian 1996 Ministry in 2 Corinthians (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Schäfer, P. Judeophobia: Attitudes Toward the Jews in the Ancient World 1997 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press). Schams, Ch. Jewish Scribes in the Second Temple Period (Sheffield: Sheffield 1998 Academic Press). Schiffman, L. H. 1999 ‘The Early History of Public Reading of the Torah’, in Fine 1999: 44–56. Schmeller, Th. Hierarchie und Egalität. Eine sozialgeschichtliche Untersuchung 1995 paulinischer Gemeinden und griechisch-römischer Vereine (Stuttgart: Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk). Schottroff L./ Wacker M. T. (eds) Von der Wurzel getragen, Christlich feministische Exegese in 1996 Auseinandersetzung mit Antijudaismus (Leiden: E. J. Brill). Schottroff, L. et. al., (eds) Paulus, Umstrittene Traditionen – Lebendige Theologie 2001 (Gütersloh: Chr.Kaiser/Gütersloher Verlagshaus) ET JSNT 79/2000. Schürer, E. The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ 1973 (175 BC – AD 135) revised and edited by G. Vermes, F. Miller (Edinburgh: T&T Clark). Schüssler Fiorenza E. 1986 ‘Missionaries, Apostles, Coworkers: Romans 16 and the Reconstruction of Women’s Early Christian History’, in Word and World 6: 420–33.

222 1999 2005

Bibliography Rhetoric and Ethic: The Politics of Biblical Studies (Minneapolis: Fortress Press). ‘Wissenschaftsrhetorik und Interpretationsethik’, in Gelardini 2005: 282–95.

Schütz, J. H. Paul and the Anatomy of Apostolic Authority (Cambridge: 1975 Cambridge University Press). Scott, J. C. Domination and the Arts of Resistance: Hidden Transcripts of 1990 Power (New Haven: Yale University Press). Segal, A. F. Paul the Convert: The Apostolate and Apostasy of Saul the 1990 Pharisee (New Haven and London: Yale University Press). Sennett, R. Respect in a World of Inequality (New York: Norton&Co.). 2004 Snaith, N. H. The Distinctive Ideas of the Old Testament (London: Epworth 1944 Press). Sölle, D. Phantasie und Gehorsam: Überlegungen zu einer künftigen 1968 christlichen Ethik (Stuttgart: Kreuz Verlag) ET by L. W. Denef Creative Disobedience (Cleveland, OH: Pilgrim Press 1995). Sommer, B. D. 1999 ‘Reflecting on Moses: The Redactor of Numbers 11’, JBL 118/4: 601–24. Stanley, C. Paul and the Language of Scripture: Citation Technique in 1992 Pauline Epistles and Contemporary Literature (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Arguing with Scripture: The Rhetoric of Quotations in the Letters 2003 of Paul (New York, London: T&T Clark International). Stark, R. The Rise of Christianity: A Sociologist Reconsiders History 1996 (Princeton: Princeton University Press). Stegemann, E. W./Stegemann, W. The Jesus Movement: A Social History of its First Century 1999 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark). Stegemann, W. 1980 ‘Lasset die Kinder zu mir kommen. Sozialgeschichtliche Aspekte des Kinderevangeliums’, in W. Schottroff, W. Stegemann (eds), Traditionen der Befreiung Bd 1 (München: Kaiser Verlag): 114–44. 2003a ‘Religion als kulturelles Konzept’, in Stegemann 2003b: 43–69. Stegemann, W. (ed.) Religion und Kultur: Aufbruch in eine neue Beziehung (Stuttgart: 2003b Kohlhammer).

Bibliography

223

Strecker, Ch. (ed.) Kontexte der Schrift Band II: Kultur, Politik, Religion.Sprache, 2005a Text Wolfgang Stegemann zum 60. Geburtstag, (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer). Strecker, Ch. 2005b ‘Das Gewesene, das Fremde und die Exegese. Die jüngeren Grundlagendebatten in Geschichtswissenschaft und Kulturanthropologie und ihre Bedeutung für die biblische Wissenschaft’, in Strecker 2005a: 120–31. Stubbs, M. A. 2004 ‘Subjection, Reflection, Resistance: A Three-Dimensional Process of Empowerment in Romans 13 and the Free-Market Economy’, in Yeo 2004: 171–97. Stuhlmacher, P. 1986 ‘Der Abfassungszweck des Römerbriefes’, ZNW 77: 180–93. Sumney, J. L. 1993 ‘Paul’s Weakness: An Integral Part of His Conception of Apostleship’, JSNT 52: 71–91. ‘Servants of Satan’, ‘False Brothers’, and Other Opponents of 1999 Paul (Shefffield: Sheffield Academic Press). 2005 ‘Studying Paul’s Opponents: Advances and Challenges’, in S. E. Porter (ed.) Paul and His Opponents (Leiden: Brill): 7–58. Sutter Rehmann, L. 2000 ‘German-Language Feminist Exegesis of the Pauline Letters: A Survey’, in JSNT 79: 5–18. Taatz, I. Frühjüdische Briefe: Die paulinischen Briefe im Rahmen der 1991 offiziellen religiösen Briefe des Frühjudentums (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht). Tamez, E. Amnesty of Grace: Justification from a Latin-American 1993 Perspective (Nashville, TN: Abingdon). 1998 ‘Der Brief an die Gemeinde in Rom: Eine feministische Lektüre’, in Schottroff, L. & Wacker M. T. (eds) Kompendium feministische Bibelauslegung (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus): 557–73. Taubes, J. The Political Theology of Paul (Stanford: Stanford University 2004 Press) ET by Hollander, D. of Die Politische Theologie des Paulus (München: Wilhelm Fink Verlag 1993). Thackeray, H. S. J. Josephus I: The Life, Against Apion (Cambridge, MA: Harvard 1976 University Press). Theissen, G. The Social Setting of Pauline Christianity: Essays on Corinth. 1982 (Philadelphia: Fortress Press).

224

Bibliography

Theobald, M. Die überströmende Gnade. Studien zu einem paulinischen 1982 Motivfeld (Würzburg: Echter Verlag). Thiselton, A. C. The First Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the 2000 Greek Text (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans). Thrall, M. E. The Second Epistle to the Corinthians Vol. I (Edinburgh: T&T 1994 Clark). Tomson, P. J. Paul and the Jewish Law. Halakha in the Letters of the Apostle 1990 to the Gentiles (Minneapolis: Fortress Press). Tov, E. 1977 ‘Compound Words in the LXX Representing Two or More Hebrew Words’, Bib 58: 189–212. Tuor-Kurth, Ch. 2005 ‘Nochmals: “Wer eines solcher Kinder aufnimmt”. Ein Beitrag zur sozialgeschichtlichen Auslegung von Mk 9.35-37’, in Gelardini 2005: 87–99. Turner, M. 1995 ‘Modern Linguistics and the New Testament’, in Green, J. B. (ed.) Hearing the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans): 146–74. Van der Horst, P. W. 1999 ‘Was the Synagogue a Place of Sabbath Worship Before 70 CE?’ in Fine 1999: 18–43. van Henten, J. W. (ed.) Families and Family Relations: As Represented in Early 2001 Judaism and Early Christianities: Texts and Fiction (Assen: Van Gorcum). Wagner, J. R. Heralds of Good News: Isaiah and Paul ‘In Concert’ in the 2002 Letter to the Romans (Leiden: Brill). Wan S. K. Power in Weakness: Conflict and Rhetoric in Paul’s Second 2000a Letter to the Corinthians (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International). 2000b

‘The Collection for the Saints as an Anti-Colonial Act’, in Horsley 2000b: 191–215. Wanamaker, C. A. 2003 ‘A Rhetoric of Power: Ideology and 1 Corinthians 1-4’, in Burke, Elliott 2003: 115–37. Wartenberg, T. The Forms of Power: From Domination to Transformation. 1990 (Philadelphia: Temple University Press).

Bibliography Weber, M. 1925 1957 1968

1986

225

Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft. Grundriss der verstehenden Soziologie (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr 5th edn 1976). The Theory of Social and Economic Organization Parsons, T. (ed.) (Glencoe, IL: The Free Press). Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretative Sociology Vol. 1, Roth, G. and C. Wittich (eds) (New York: Bedminster Press). ‘Domination by Economic Power and by Authority’, in Lukes 1986: 28–36.

Wengst K. Pax Romana and the Peace of Christ (London: SCM Press). 1987 White, M. L. 2003 ‘Paul and Pater Familias’ in Sampley 2003: 457–87. White, S. K. (ed.) The Cambridge Companion to Habermas (Cambridge: 1995 Cambridge University Press). Wildavsky, A. The Nursing Father: Moses as a Political Leader (Tuscaloosa, 1984 AL: University of Alabama Press). Williams, D. J. Paul’s Metaphors: Their Context and Character (Peabody, MA: 2003 Hendrickson). Wire, A. C. The Corinthian Women Prophets: A Reconstruction through 1990 Paul’s Rhetoric (Minneapolis: Fortress Press). Witmer, S. 2006 ‘Qeodi/daktoi in 1 Thessalonians: A Pauline Neologism’, in NTS 52.2: 239–50. Yeo K. K. (ed.) Navigating Romans Through Cultures: Challenging Readings 2004 by Charting a New Course Romans Through History and Cultures series (London, New York: T&T Clark). Yerushalmi, Y. H. Zakhor: Jewish History and Jewish Memory (Seattle: University 1982 of Washington Press). Yoder, C. R. Proverbs (Nashville, TN: Abingdon). 2008 Zenger, E. Die Nacht wird leuchten wie der Tag: Psalmenauslegungen 1997 (Basel, Freiburg: Herder).

This page intentionally left blank

INDEX

OLD TESTAMENT Genesis 26.5 172 Exodus 2.11 60 2.14 129 2.23-25 166 2.24 60 2.25 60 3.1-5 160 3.11–4.17 91 3.11 189 4.14-16 189 13.3 129 17.4 129 18.20 129 19.3-9 160 19.5a 165 19.8 162, 165 20.4 129 20.6 172 20.12 130 32.12 129 32.27 60 Leviticus 11.44-45 140 11.45 184 19.2 140, 184 19.8 140 20.7 184 20.26 140 26.14 172 Numbers 11.10-15 130, 189 11.16-17 189 15.40 140

OF

ANCIENT SOURCES

Deuteronomy 3.18 60 3.25-26 190 4.1 165 4.10 169 5.1 122, 123 5.5 129 5.10 172 6.3 165 6.4-5 171 6.4-6 171 6.4-25 122 7.18 129 8.2 129 8.6 141, 162 8.18 129 9.10 169 10.12 141, 162 11.18-21 122, 141 11.19 121, 122 11.22 141 14.29 98 15.3 60 16.11-14 98 18.16 169 19.4 172 19.9 141, 162 21.18-20 161 21.18-21 126 23.2-4 169 23.9 169 23.19 60 24.7 60 24.17-18 76 24.17-22 98 26.12 98 26.17 129, 141, 162 28.9 129, 141, 162 30.2 161 30.16 141 31.10 169

32.7 129 32.46-47 125 1 Samuel 2.1-6 110 8.3 140 18.14 140 2 Samuel 22.22 140 31.34 140 2 Kings 2.12 122 21.22 141 2 Chronicles 17.3 141 21.12-13 141 34.2 141 Esther 2.9 74 2.17 74 Psalms 9.18 98 12.5 98 13.1-6 160 13.3 160 14.6 98 17.1 166 18.5 105 21.1-2 166 22.23 60 22.26 98 25.4 129, 141 33.5 77 34.4 105 36.7 172 61.2 172

228 61.6 172 72 99 72.12-14 99 77.4 184 103.8 104 113.7 98 116.3 105 119.15 141 119.26 141 128.1 141 140.12 98 142.8 141 145.17 141 Proverbs 1.8 120 6.20 120 8.22-31 121 10.1 120, 133 15.20 120, 133 17.17 60 17.25 120 18.24 60 22.17-18 120 23.24-25 133 23.25 120 29.7 165 29.15 120, 126 29.17 133 30.17 120 31.1 121 31.10-31 120 Song of Solomon 2.14 165 5.6 162 Isaiah 2.2 141, 192 5.21-24 121 6.1 83 6.2 91 6.8 83, 93 6.8-13 83 6.9-10 83 6.10 83 7.3 93 8.1-4 93 8.16 121 22.4 176 28.9-13 121 29.14 121 35.4 176

Index of Ancient Sources 35.5-6 185 40-66 94 40.1 104, 176 40.21 161 40.28 161 41.17b 161 42.7 185 42.20b 161 42.24 161 44.1 161 48.1 161 48.12 161 48.18 165 49.1 161 49.1-6 95 49.8 161 50.2 162 51.1 161, 165 51.3 176 51.7 161 51.12 176 52.7 93, 94, 95, 96 54 134 54.13 133 55.2 161 55.3 161 58.1-14 165 58.6 166 58.6-7 185 58.6-14 76 58.9 161 61.1-2 94 61.2 176 64.4 165 65.12 162 65.24 161 66.4 162 66.13 176 Jeremiah 1 84 1.4-5 84 1.5 84 1.5-6 95 1.6-8 91 1.7 84, 93 12.1-6 93 16.1-9 93 36 121 45.1-5 93 Ezekiel 1-2 84

1.1-3 84 1.2 84 1.4-28 84 1.28c 84 2.1-4 84 2.3-3.3 91 2.3 93 3.1-3 93 16.1-14 163 Hosea 1.5 93 1.8 93 6.6 76, 77 10.12 165 11.1-11 163 11.8-9 166 14.4-5 165 14.9 141 Joel 2.32

95

Jonah 2.3 105 Micah 4.2 141 4.5 192 6.8 76, 77 Zephaniah 9.9 112 Zechariah 2.12-25 104 6.15 104 Malachi 3.22-24

92

APOCRYPHA Judith 9.11 98 Sira 3.2-16 120 17.22 74 29.21-28 74 30.1-2 126 40.17 74 51.6 105

Index of Ancient Sources NEW TESTAMENT Matthew 5.1-12 186 5.48 140 10.5-16 94 10.38 112 11.29 112 20.20-23 186 20.25-26a 112, 186 20.25-26 176 20.26b-27 112 21.5 112 22.34-40 185 23.8-10 127 23.8-12 186 23.9 190 23.9-11 190 25.31-46 184 25.35-40 197 28.16-20 94 Mark 8.34 112 10.13-16 186 10.35-45 186 10.42 112 Luke 1.46-55 186 4.16-21 94 6.36 140 7.20-23 185 7.22 185 9.23 112 10.1-12 94 10.25-37 184 14.7-11 186 15.11-32 145 22.24-27 176 Acts 1.11 191 9.2 129 15.36-40 44 19.23 129 22.4 129

Romans 1.1 87, 182 1.1-5 90 1.5 44, 86, 88, 90, 156,

166, 167, 168 1.6 90, 168 1.7 126, 182 1.9 182 1.10 182 1.12 90 1.16 182 1.17 182 3.9c 115 3.21-22 168 3.24 167 5.15 167 6.12-13 185 6.14 127 6.16-18 168 6. 19 184 7-8 131 8.15-16 127 8.16 126 8.24-25 168 9.3 128 9.4 60 9.17 173 10.13 95 10.15 93, 95 11.13 89 11.20 61 12-15 168 12.1 6, 177 12.1-2 113, 185 12.2 153 12.2a 184 12.2b 184 12.3 89, 90, 91 12.5 197 12.6 90 12.6-8 136 12.8 175 12.10 197 12.9-21 184 12.12 55 12.16 197 13.1-7 13, 172, 173, 179 13.8-10 77, 185 13.8 197 13.9-10 184 14–15 153, 168 14.1–15.13 12 14.3-19 197 14.15 187 14.19 197 15.1 171 15.4 131

229 15.4-5 176 15.5 153, 197 15.7 197 15.9-12 182 15.14-29 199 15.15-16 90 15.18 166 15.20 90, 199 15.22-29 181 15.30 177 16 52, 194 16.1-2 54, 180 16.2 51 16.3 47, 51, 54 16.3-15 180 16.4 51 16.6 54 16.7 46, 54, 92 16.12 56 16.21 50 16.26 166 1 Corinthians 1-2 131 1.2 169 1.3 126 1.10 177 1.10-17 146 1.11 51, 56, 181 1.11-13 170 1.12 44 1.14-16 180 1.17b 180 1.18–2.16 147 1.18-24 186 1.18-31 184 1.21 129 1.24 169 1.26 169 1.26-27 189 1.31 146 2 130 2.1 180 2.2 170 2.4 181, 193 2.3 180 2.6 129, 130, 169, 173 2.6-8 170 2.9 131 2.11-13 131, 170 2.12 129 2.13 131 2.16 131

230 3-4 130, 146 3.1-2 132 3.1-3a 170 3.1b-2 128 3.1-9 109 3.2 61 3.5 112 3.6 56, 148 3.6-10 147 3.8 147, 148, 149 3.9 47, 147 3.10 181 3.16-17 184 3.21-23 150 3.22 44, 148 3.23 148 4 147 4.6 131 4.6b 149 4.9 92, 129 4.10 115 4.13 129, 176 4.14 128 4.14-21 128 4.15 127, 128, 145 4.16 61, 129, 137, 144, 145, 150, 170, 177 4.17 40, 50, 127, 132, 170 4.21 112, 179, 188 6.2 131, 198 6.3 131, 198 6.9 131, 198 6.15 131, 198 6.16 131, 198 6.19 131, 198 7 61 7.1 184 7.6 172 7.7 150 7.10 112 7.15 169 7.17 169 7.18 169 7.20 169 7.21 169 7.22 169 7.24 169 7.25 172, 184 8.1-3 198 8.1 184 9.4-6 181 9.5 92

Index of Ancient Sources 9.5-6 44 9.8-11 184 9.14 112 9.19-23 153 9.22 132 10.1 131 10.24 153 10.33 153 11.1 137, 151, 153, 170 11.2-16 12 11.3 194 11.5 173 11.7-8 194 11.17-34 170 11.23 112 10.11b 131 11.11-12 194 11.17-21 181 11.25 183 11.33 197 12 61, 147, 170 12.1 198 12.1-11 136 12.28-29 92 21.2 134 12.22-26 187 12.25 197 14.3-19 198 14.20 129, 198 14.31 176 14.32 172 14.32-34 172 14.34 172, 194 15 82, 85 15.5-11 92 15.7b 92 15.8 42, 82 15.9 91 15.10 182 15.11 199 15.15 130 16.5-12 181 16.10 50 16.15 61, 177 16.16 173 16.19 51, 54 2 Corinthians 1–7 102 1.1 50 1.2 126 1.3 101, 104 1.4 104

1.4-8 101 1.4-10 104, 106 1.5 105, 111 1.5-8 104 1.5-11 102 1.8-9 105 1.8-11 101 1.9 105, 182 1.10 105 1.14 198 1.19 50, 51 1.24 112, 176, 186 2.8 177 2.9 171 2.13 52, 101 2.14–7.4 104 2.17 182 3.1-2 102 3.4-5 182 4.4 184 4.5 112 4.7 105 4.7-12 106 4.7-15 102 4.8 151 4.8-9 105 4.8-10 179 4.8-13 151 4.12 106 4.14 182 4.17 152 5.5 182 5.18-20 182 6.1 177 6.4 182 6.13 127 6.16-18 182 6.16b–7.1 184 6.18 127 7.4 198 7.5-7 181 7.6 52 7.7 56 7.8 56 7.15 171 8-9 70, 79, 90 8.1 67, 68 8.1-2 69 8.4 67, 68 8.4-7 68 8.6 56, 67 8.7 52 8.7-8 69

Index of Ancient Sources 8.8 172 8.9 67, 68 8.17 52 8.23 53 9.8 68 9.13 182 9.14 67 10–13 191 10.1 112, 115, 177 10.5-6 171 10.8 61, 106, 198 10.8-9 64 10.10 103, 106 10.13 101, 104 10.13-16 90 10.14 61 10.17 104 11.5 106 11.6a 103 11.6 106 11.7 103 11.12-15 107 11.20-21 107 11.22 107 11.23-25 115 11.23-28 107 1123b-27 107 11.24-25 103 11.25 179 11.30 107 11.32 42 11.32-33 107 12.2-4 107 12.7 107 12.7-9 190 12.7-10 189 12.9 106, 108 12.9b 108 12.9b-10a 110 12.9-10 104, 106, 107 12.10 108 12.10b 106 12.12 108, 109 12.14 127 13.4 110 13.9-10 198 13.10 61, 101, 188 Galatians 1–2 41 1.1 42 1.2 51 1.6 167, 176

1.9 181 1.10 112 1.10-2.14 181 1.11 181 1.12 42 1.13-2.14 41 1.15 86, 87 1.16 86 1.15-16 82, 83, 86, 90 1.15-2.2 95 1.16b-17a 42 1.17 36, 37, 42, 92 1.18-19 36 1.19 92 1.23 36 2.1 52, 53 2.3 52 2.5 173 2.7-8 88 2.7-9 44 2.8 86 2.9 86, 199 2.11-14 45 2.13 44 2.16 90 3.1 176, 188 3.2 166 3.5 167 3.26 127 3.28 194, 195 4.6 127 4.12-15 181 4.19 127 5.13 112, 197 5.23 112 6.1 112 6.2 197 Philippians 1.1 50, 112 2.3 197 2.5-8 184 2.13 181 2.19 50 2.19-30 49 2.22 50, 127 2.23 51 2.25 52 3 7 3.17 61, 137 4.2 177 4.9 61, 171, 181 4.18 52

231 1 Thessalonians 1–2 100 1.1 39, 50, 100 1.4-10 100 1.5 39 1.6 61, 100, 137 1.6-7 102, 154 1.6-8 180 1.7 132 1.9 39, 100, 134, 182, 185 2.1 39 2.2 39, 100, 102 2.4 39 2.6 50, 51 2.7 39, 92, 127, 131 2.7-12 39, 127, 132 2.11 39, 127, 131 2.11-12 132 2.12 132 2.13 132, 171 2.14 137, 154 2.18 39 2.19 133 3.2 40, 47, 50, 56 3.5 39, 40 3.12 197, 198 4 132 4.1 134, 175, 177 4.1-2 132 4.9 132 4.9-12 198 4.10 134, 177 4.18 176, 197 5.11 176, 197 5.14 177 5.15 197 5.24 39 5.27 39 Philemon 1 50 8–10 174 9–10 177 10 61, 172 1 Timothy 2.7 135 LXX 1 Kingdoms 8.27 108

232 3 Kingdoms 8.58 172 8.61 172 11.38 172 OTHER ANCIENT SOURCES Pseudepigrapha

Index of Ancient Sources Legatio ad Gaium 31.210 119 Quod omnis probus liber sit 160 130 De specialibus legibus 4.110-119 117

b.Sanh.19b b.Sanh.68a b.Sanh.99b

129, 145 122 129

Gen.Rab.84(53b)

GREEK AND LATIN LITERATURE Cicero Pro Flacco

1 Enoch 81 124 92.1 124 108 124

De vita Mosis 1.69 109 JOSEPHUS

Diodorus Siculus 40.3 117 40.8 117

Psalms of Solomon 16.12-13 108

Antiquities of the Jews 8.354 122 9.28 122

Ovid

Sibylline Oracles 3.762 117 3.765 117

10

Metamorphoses Contra Apionem 2.202 117 2.203 119

Testament of Job XXIV.6 108

DEAD SEA SCROLLS

Testament of Levi 83-90 124

1 QH Hodayot XII5-XIII4 99

PHILO

MISHNA, TALMUD AND RELATED LITERATURE

8.675-679

117

Plutarch De.lib.edu. 13e

De congressu eruditionis gratia 15-19 130

129

b.Ber.7b

122

117

Tacitus Annales III.24 59 Historiae 5.5.3 117

INDEX

OF

MODERN AUTHORS

Aasgaard, R. 49, 50, 54, 57, 58, 59, 60, 118, 126, 127 Agnew, F. H. 92 Agosto, E. 191 Alexander, H. A. 127 Allen, A. 18, 19, 23, 24, 26, 30, 31, 162, 178, 183 Arendt, H. 14, 17, 18, 19, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 33, 34, 54, 55, 162, 163, 164, 178, 179, 181, 183, 186 Auerbach, E. 142 Baltrusch, E. 8, 9, 10, 72, 77, 111, 116, 192, Bartchy, S. S. 58, 60, 98, 103, 107, 109, 110, 114, 115, 127, 135, 147, 151, 182, 188, 197 Bauman-Martin, B. J. 115 Baur., F. C. 36 Becker, E. M. 56 Beker, J. C. 64, 67, 70, 73, 104, 182 Best E. 133 Betz, H. D. 137, 138, 139, 142 Bjerkelund, C. J. 175 Bockmuehl, M. N. A. 43, 84, 91 de Boer, W. P. 137, 138, 139, 142, 145 Börschel, R. 38, 39, 40, 41, 50, 92 Boschki, R. 25 Bossmann, D. 58 Bourdieu, P. 1, 4, 19, 31, 69 Boyarin, D. 64 Brondos, D. A. 72, 73, 105, 111, 184 Brueggemann, W. 162, 165 Bultmann, R. 63, 65, 112, 156, 157, 167 Burke, T. J. 118, 162 Byrskog, S. 38, 39, 57, 121, 122 Campbell, W. S. 7, 8, 11, 24, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 57, 64, 87, 94, 96, 103, 109, 113, 144, 158, 159, 168, 169, 182, 184, 192 Carr, D. M. 119, 120, 121, 122, 123,

Carter, W. 11, 37, 55, 59, 70, 98, 103, 157 Castelli E. A. 5, 19, 64, 138, 139, 143, 148 Clark, G. A. 74, 75, 76 Clarke, A. D. 103, 146, 147, 148, 149 Claussen, C. 123, 124, 125 Cohen, R. A. 164 Conzelmann, H. 65 Crenshaw, J. L. 119, 120 Crook, Z. A. 71, 72, 73, 74 Crüsemann, F. 7 Derrida, J. 4, 31, 32, 33, 79, 139, 142, 143, 144, 164, 187 Dickson, J. P. 39, 46, 57, 92, 93 Donfried, K. P. 38, 40 Duling, D. C. 127 Dunn, J. D. G. 42, 43, 82, 90 Eco, U. 4, 5, 6, 8, 68, 83, 177 Ehrensperger, K. 4, 5, 7, 8, 12, 36, 63, 66, 68, 71, 72, 73, 83, 94, 127, 159, 166, 183, 184 Eisen, U. 194 Eisenbaum, P. 159 Elliott, N. 10, 13, 26, 59, 71, 113, 127, 147, 174 Elliott, J. H. 58 Ellis E. E. 36 Engberg-Pedersen T. 6 Epp, E. J. 54 Epstein, D. F. 147 Erikson, E. H. 29 Esler, P. F. 11, 24, 153 Finney, M. T. 169, 171 Fishbane, M. 94, 121 Fitzmyer, J. A. 159 Flack, E. E. 74 Foucault, M. 16, 19, 20, 21, 24, 26, 30, 33, 34, 176, 190

234

Index of Modern Authors

Frey, J. 39, 92 Freyne, S. 9, 69 Funk, R. 56 Furnish V. 138 Garlington, D. B. 158, 159 Gaventa, B. R. 82, 127, 128, 130, 133 Georgi, D. 10, 79, 127 Gerber, C. 58, 127, 129 Gerhardsson, B. 141 Glancy, J. A. 98, 103, 105, 115, 194 Glueck, N. 74 Goodman, M. D. 107 Grenholm C. 4 Gruen, E. S. 72 Habermas, J. 18, 24, 25, 26, 30, 178 Hafemann, S. 87 Harrill, J. A. 195 Harrison, J. R. 6, 63, 64, 71, 72, 73, 74, 77, 82, 135 Haufe, G. 39 Heschel, S. 64 Hezser, C. 8,11, 115, 195 Hogeterp, A. L. A. 7, 176, 184 Holmberg B. 2, 3, 37, 41, 44, 57 Honneth, A. 32 Hooker, M. D. 137 Horrell, D. G. 13, 58, 60, 173 Horsley, R. A. 8, 10, 12, 59, 77, 114, 127, 143, 144, 145, 150, 151, 157, 169, 170, 181, 186 Ilan, T.

7, 72, 194

Jennings, T. W. 166, 168, 169 Jewett, R. 47, 53, 54, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 159, 166, 169, 175, 180 Jones, I. H. 38 Joubert, S. J. 64, 71, 73, 117, 118, 128 Judge, E. 67 Käsemann, E. 2, 108, 155, 156, 157, 167 Kim, S. 82 Kittredge Briggs C. 2, 3, 5, 19, 38, 157, 158, 172, 174 Koptak, P. E. 43, 44 Kraemer, R. S. 54 Kreitzer, L. J. 7 Krug, J. 12, 65, 66, 98, 99, 101, 105, 106, 108, 109, 110

Levinas, E. 31, 32 Levine, L.I. 125 Lietart Perbolte, P. 35, 36, 39, 42, 43, 46, 47, 48, 82, 85, 92 Lim, K. Y. 101, 102, 105, 107 Lücking, S. 19 Lukes, S. 20, 21 Macdonald, M. Y. 54, 194 Malina, B. 58 Mauss, M. 69 Meggitt, J. J 70 Melberg, A. 142 Mitchell, M. M. 92 Morriss, P. 17, 18, 69 Müller, P. 159 Murphy-O’Connor, J. 7 Nanos, M. D. 11, 99, 153, 159, 166, 167, 168 Newson, C. 124 Öhler, M. 44 Ollrog, W. H. 35, 45, 46, 47, 48, 51 Olson, D. T. 113, 189 190 Opitz, P. 7 Overman, J. A. 7 Patte, D. 4, 195 Patterson, D. 160, 164, 165 Perlitt, L. 60 Pitkin, H. F. 18 Plietzsch, S. 89, 163, 164, 192 Plüss, D. 164 Pogoloff, S. M. 144 Polaski, S. H. 3, 21, 63, 64, 65, 66, 78, 82, 89, 188 Powell, M. A. 5 Rawson, B. 118 Reinbold, W. 48, 51 Rendtorff, R. 6, 7, 8, 104, 109, 127, 141, 176, 183, 189 Rock, I. E. 77, 161, 173 Ruddick, S. 28 Runesson, A. 119, 125 Saldarini, A. J. 182 Saller, R. P. 69 Sanders, E. P. 64, 124, 125 Sandnes, K.O. 58, 59 83, 86, 87, 93, 95, 104 Schäfer, P. 58, 192

Index of Modern Authors Schams, C. 124 Schüssler Fiorenza E. 54, 58, 65, 79, 195 Schütz, J. H. 2, 3, 38, 42, 43, 45, 62, 85, 90, 92, 93, 94, 102, 103, 104, 137 Scott, J. C. 26, 55, 59, 73, 97, 186, 193 Segal, A. F. 84 Sennett, R. 183 Snaith, N. H. 76 Sölle, D. 155, 156 Sutter Rehmann, L. 12 Stark, R. 36 Stegemann, E. W./Stegemann, W. 9, 59, 72, 117 Stegemann, W. 117 Strecker, Ch. 6 Stubbs, M. A. 13 Sumney, J. L. 100, 102, 103

Taubes, J. 10 Thiselton, A. C. 128, 145, 47, Tomson, P. J. 137, 169 Tov, E. 133 Tuor-Kurth, Ch. 117 Turner, M. 67 Wagner, J. R. 83, 96, 94, 95, 133, 166 Wan S. K. 147, 191 . Wartenberg, T. 18, 20, 21, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 33, 136, 179, 183 Weber, M. 2, 17, 19, 20 White, M. L. 117, 118, 128 Wildavsky, A. 107, 190 Williams, D. J. 127 Wire, A. C. 187 Witmer, S. 133, 134 Yoder, C. R. 121

Taatz, I. 56 Tamez, E. 64

235

Zenger, E.

160