Paul and the Dynamics of Power: Communication and Interaction in the Early Christ-Movement (Library Of New Testament Studies)

LIBRARY OF N EW TESTAMENT STUDIES

325 formerly the Joumal for the Stt1dy of the New Testameut Supplement series

Editor Mark Goodacre Editorial Board John M . G. Barclay, Craig Blomberg, Kathleen E. Corley, R. Alan Culpepper, James D. G. Dmm, Craig A. Evans, Stephen Fowl, Robert Fowler, Simon J. Gat hercole, John S. Kloppenborg, M ichael Labahn, Robert Wall, Steve Walton, Robert L. Webb, Catrin H . Williams

This page imenrionally le(r blank

PAUL AND THE DYN AMICS OF POWER

Communication and Interaction in the Early Christ-Movement

KATHY EHRENSPERGER

·" t t tclark

Cop)•right ©Kathy FJmnsp dcctronic or mechanical, including photocopring, recording or any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishcn.

Kathy Ehrcnspi>OSn"'ONS AND CONTEXTS

Paul was po\~t'CI' conscious. This is hardly a rnancr of controvc.rsial de-bate. It is perceived as almost S traditional and legal authority he views both Paul and his communities as sharing in the same charismafic expericnce.s>and thus in principle in the same authority in Christ. He concludes 'Where thq• stand "in" the gospel che.y stand in the same power as he docs and the.ir authority is the same as his.'' Bc.ngt Holmberg's stud)' Paul aud Powe-r also presupposed Weber's theorie-s} but in distinc.tion from SchUtz he emphasized the e.n tircly social nature: of authority which he perceived as 'a social phenomenon, not a theological intc.rprctation o f social phenomena'.1 Holmberg views Paul as an apostle who acknowledged that he was parr o f, and dependent on a movement, but nevertheless claimed specific power and control over his communities. Thus in relation to other apostles, Holmberg perc.cives Paul as both viewing himself and also be-ing accepted by other.s as equal with regard to power and authoril)·~• \vhere.as in rdation to his communities he views him as promoting an asymmetrical hierarchy in a stafic sense.' More rc.cently Cynthia Briggs Kittredge in her anal)•sis, Conmumity and Authority: The Rhetoric of Obedience iu the Pauline Tradition, has focused on the impJic.a tions of the discourse of obedience~ presupposing that the Pauline discourse was primarily informe.d by the obedience discourse o f the 2. 3. 4.

5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

SchUrr. 197;:21. Quote in Schl•tz I975: i:oc. Schi"nz. 1975: i:oc. ScbUtz1975: i:oc. Schi"lrz 1975: 181. Holmbe-rg 1978: 104. Holmberg 1978: 194-201. Holmbe-rg 1978: 116. 158.

Reading tbe. Pauline Letters dominating Graeco-Roman imperial d ite culture.") Sandra Hack Polaski's study> Paul aud the Discourse of Porver, is informed by Michel Foucault's perception of power as an often hidden but a ll-pen•asivc discourse of po\~t'er exerc.ised 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.•• T hese book-length studies from diffe.rcnt pc.rspcctives contribute valuable insights into the discourse of power in the Pauline 1cttc.rs. They each focus on particu lar aspects of that discourse {Polaski, Kittredge), and interpret it from particular he.rmcneutical prc.suppositions {Kinrcdge), or through the lens of

one parricular rheory oi power (Schiitz, Holmberg, Polaski). T hese studies have contributed to the recognition that the Pauline discourse of power is not uniform. Depending on the perspective chosen~ different aspe.ccs of the Pauline claim to, and exercise of, power a rc highlighted- a ll of which have had a major inAucncc in the course of the history of interpretation. T he approach advocated in this study builds on these studies, and is informed by insights they provide. But it presupposes a perspective which d iffers in a number of ways from these. Issues raised by contemporary sociologica l, philosophical a nd politic.a l theories will be taken into account, in that the Pauline discourse will be re.ad in concert with such 1heorics. But 1 do not rely on one particular theory or

model and rhen read the Pauline discourse rhrough the lens of this rheory or modd. To read the Pa uline discourse in conce.rt with, and informed by, comemporary 1heories of power is a frui tful mO\'C but one which also needs to be approached with caution. Since contemporary t.heoric.s of power arc based on data gained through analyses of modern \'V'cstcrn societies a nd/or through the perspective of such~ their appropriateness for an analysis of communities of the first century c1: c.an only be limited. The necc.s sarr dam

cannot be gained by sociological methodology as applied in rhe reS<arch of contemporary societies. but on I)' from fragmentary literary and archaeologic.a l sources. This further limits the possibility of attaining direct sociologic.al insights. Nevcnhdess 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 unnotice.d.

1.2 Hermeneuticol Presuppositions of this Study

My proposal to read the •fragmentary discourse of the Pauline cpiscolary conversation' in light of contemporary theories of powc.r reveals that 1 have already made a decision concerning 1hc hermeneutical presuppositions o f my reading: 'Fragmentary' indicates that the letters arc se.en as only part of something dsc; 'discourse' indicates that the contents arc influenced by specific c.hoicc.s and intere.sts; 'Pauline' indicates that [his is seen as a label which 10. I I.

KittrtdgC' 1998: .l 7- 51. Polaski 1999: l04--2J.

4

Paul and the Dynamics of Power

might comprise more than one person; 'con\'c:rsation' indicates that the lcttc.rs arc not seen as a means in thcmsdvcs or perceived as theological essays. In agreement with most of contcmpora rr Pauline scholarship, J perceive claims to objective readings, and to the reduction of texts to one correct mc.aning, as a concept of the past. I have prniousl)' arguc,d that interpret ation should rather be seen as a process of ncgorjating mc.aning in and for specific contexts, with a conscious appreciation and open conversation about each interpreta tion's hcrmcnc·utical prcsuppositions. 11

1.2.1 Tile Cultural Embeddedness - judaism and its Scriptures Thus, the reading of a text, panicularlr one like the Pau1inc letters, which e.merges from a context and time not our own, requires a framework of reference and understanding which precedes this veJJ same re.ading. Since the reading of a biblical text in a scholarlr setting is preceded br an act o f translation, rhe re-ader is in a situation which has been described as follows: 'If in order to translate one must make a scrie.s of h)'pothe.sc-s about the deep sense and the purposc.s of a text, then translation is a certain form o f interpretation.' 1 0 This insight leads Eco to the: conclusion that •a translation is made possible b}' a previous interpret ation of a text. ' 14 In light of this any reading of the Pauline lertcrs is seen as informed by some pre-reconstruction of a framework within which the letters arc seen to be located. This framework- or what Eco describes as •Mutmassung iibcr die bcschriebcnc mOgliche. \Vclt' is itself influenced by the perspective. of thC' interpretcr, that is his/her context and choice.s concerning the hermeneutical presuppositions that have been made prior to rcadingt interpreting and translating a text.U Hermeneutical pre.suppositions arc.constructed and constmcr a framework of interpretation which influc.nces the choices necessarily made in the process o f translation. This consc.qucntly implic.s that translation is as much a proce.ss of negotiation as is the process of intcrpretation. 16 Texts such as the New Testament writings and the Pauline letters in particular, which arc written in Greek, give rise to the question of what should be c.o nsidered the relevant cultural c.o mext in which these te.xts arc embedded and with which they resonate. Since. Greek in this c.asc is not the language of a particular people or of a particuJar geographic region, chc.sc parameters can not contribmc to guide an informed hermeneutical choice. Greek culture

12. Cf. J:hrC'nsperg'ed and thought. The re~ding put forward in this study is informed by Rendtorff's approach which ad>'ocatcs that ' ... Christian theology docs not begin with the message of the New Tcstament.'3 1 I thus will attempt a reading o f the Pauline d iscourse. taking into account that the Scriptures arc Jsracl's Sc.ripture.s and that they a rc the symbolic uni't·ersc which .shaped the socia l world in whic.h Paul and his colleagues in the apostolate lived and from which they a rguc.d:12 T his is perceived as the 'source' of his writ ing and even though the source might resonate differently with the 'target) audience, this docs not invalidate the

16. Rrndtorff 2005: 742-43. 27. On the difficulties some GC'rm3n Gr«k philologists fo und in tr)·ing to underst3nd P3ul \vith tht'it ·Greek car• S« T:n1bc:s 2004: 3-5. 18. Murphy·O'Connor 1996: 52- 70; F.hrlted with~ gm«al nnalrtics of C'very possible pow or powc.r arising from the conscnsu.s of a group of people to act togcthc.r. It also docs not account for what has bcc:n called 'trnnsformativc power' .

2.3 "Power-to' or CommunicatiliC Power The perception o f power as power-over and rhus inhcrcndy dominating or at least dangerous has been challenged parricularly by Hannah Arendt as it conccivc.s of powr.r as an cntircl}' negative, cvc.n repressive force. Arendt mainta ins that the logica l consequence of a defi nition of po\~t'cr as powerover- or, in her perception) according to a command-obedience model - is that violence is the ultimate form that power ca n 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 betwee.n powc.r, strength) force, authority and \'iolcncc:,n and notes that •power is indeed of the e.sscnce of all go\'c.rnmcnt, but violence is not.'JO Violence i.s instrumental~ a means to achie\o'e an end, power is not. She nen maintains chat 'power and violence arc o pposites; where the one rules absolutely, the other is absc:nt.'.l 1 It is viokncc which always invokes a command-obe-dience: structure whereas power is neither command or rule but collaboration and action~ it is •... the human abilit}' not just to act bm to act in conc.c.rt. Power is never the property of an individual; it bclong.s to a group and remains in existence only so long as the group kc:e.ps together.'.ll Power cannot be fully realized where violence reigns. She emphasizes that 'Power is actualized only where word and dcc:.d have not parted company, where words arc not empty and d«ds arc not brutal, where words arc not used to veil intentions but to disclose realities~ and deeds arc: not used to \~o l a te and de.stroy but to establish relations and create new re.alitie.s.m In addition to distinguishing power from \'iolc.ncc etc. 1 Arendt share.s with Foucault and others che view that power is not something one can possess, not something that some have which can be stored and then applied over othc.rs, and which others do not ha\•e. She stres-ses that power c.xists only in its actualization; it •is always .. . a power potential and not an unchangeable, measurable, and reliable c.ntit)' like force or strength'; it 'springs up between men when they act together and vanishes the moment when they dispcrse.)4

29. Arendt 1970: 44-7. 30. Arendt 1970: 51. 3 I. Arctldt 1970: 56. This is a concc-prual distinc.'1ion and Arendt is wdl.-.warC' that 'in the rC':tl world' powC'r and ' 'iolencc arc more often rhan nor inextricably intcrm·ined. 32. Arendt 1970: 44. 33. Ar~'tld t 1958: 100. 34. Arendt l9;8: 200.

Concepts of Power iu Contemporary Tbeor)'

_,

?'

Thus power derives from rc.ciproc.al collective action>that is, it is inherently intcrtv.•incd with action which takes places within a web o f relationships with other acrorst and its main purpose is to establish and maintain this web of rclationship.J~ She states chat action •is never possible in isolation; to be isolated is m be deprived of the capacity to act'.-.,, Other aspects of Hannah Arendt's political thinking ha\'c co be mentioned here briefly as her conception of power is closcl)' related to these. To perceive of po\vcr as a collccti't'C, relational phenomenon for Arendt implies the plurality of human beings. If \'lC were all the same, communication and action in concert would be superfluous. Rdarionality and group solidarity do not rest on some sharc.d identity in the sense. of inherem sameness, such as a same essence~ a same experiencC of oppression or posse.ssion etc. She states that 'Plurality is the condition of human action bt-cause we arc all the same, that is, human> in such a way that nobody is e.ver the same as anyone else who ever li'fc.d, li'fcs, or will live.'.l7 This should not be understood as a promotion of individualism or existentialism as Arendt d early reje.cts 'all notions of man creating himself' since they 'ha\•e in common a rebellion against the very factuality of the human condition - nothing is more obvious than that man ... docs not owe his cxistcnc.e to himsclf.'·011 But she maintains that the very fact that human beings do c.ommunicate and act in concen indicates that the presupposition of sameness or a share.d ontological identity is flawed. Nevcnhclcss, she doc.s not advocate the entire abandonment o f the notion of commonality, acknowle-dging that communication and action in concert would be impossible if we were all radically differc.nt. Arendt advocates a perception of a d ialc.ctic.al relationship betwcc.n equality and distinction, commonalit}' and diffc.rcnc.c. Although she. e-mphasizes difference in her writings she doc.s not gi\•c up the notion of identity categories c:ntirclr. But in ascribing some validity to group identities she. warns against taking these as fixed> natural or ncn historicallr determined. She maintains chat identities should be perceived as webs constructed ouc of fabrics of differences and distinction. It is circumstances rather than ontological essentials which drive 35.

Cf. Allen 1002: 137.

Arendt 1958: 188. Arendt 1958: 8. She- funher note-s 'Hum:1n plurality, the txlsic condition of both t~crion :md speech, h:t.s the- rwofold ch-arncter of equality -and distinction. If mrn wcre not equal, they c:ould ncither understand (';lCh othe-r and thosr who C:lrtlC' before- the-m nor plt~n for tbr furore- and for<s« the n«ds of rhosc who will come afrcr thcm. If mcn wrre not distinguishrd, e-ach hum::ln bring distinguishe-d from :my othe-r who is, was, or will be-, the-y n«-d nrithrr sp«.:h nor acrion to make themsclvcs understood' ( 1958: 175-76). 38. Arendt 1970: 13. She cmphasius that ·... the id(';l of man creating himsclf is stricdy in th< n;.1dirion of Hegdian nnd "'brxian thinking ... According to Hegd nmn "'produccs,. himsd f through thought, whc-re:1s for .Marx, who turne-d Hrgcl's '"idealism.. upside- down, it was labor ... th-at fulfilf.ed this fun~1i on' l1970: 12-1 3}. S« nlso her earlier conlmrnt "... nobOOy is the- :1mhor or produce-r of his own life- story ... the stories, the results of t~ctions .md speech, rrve:~l an :1grm, but this agrnc is not nn author or produc:cr. Some-body brg..1n it t111d is its subj.C'ct in the twofold srnsr of fhe word, namdy its :IC:tor and suffe-rer, but nobOOy is its t~ u thor' ( 1958: 184). 36. 37.

24

Paul and the Dynamics of Power

people to perceive o f certain facts and expcric.ncc.s as forming something like a common idcntity:111

Plurality and difference arc at thc hc.art of Arendt's pc.rc.cption of power as communic.ativc action, as a fu nction of consent. As Habcrmas notc.s: ' E\'cry interaction unifies multiple perspectives of perception and action of those prc.scnt~ who as individuals occupr an inconvertible.standpoint.''"' For Arendt such communicative powc.r is inherc.ntl)' positive as it is the medium through which the space of a shared lifc·\\o'orld is acmally created. To act together thus doc.s not rdy on an essentialist and thus c.xclusionary definition of group idcntity.4t T he power of solidarity grows out of an interplay between identity and non-identity, bctwc.en c.quality and distinction. It emerges not out of a pre-existing~ exclusionary unity but out of dc.cisions and promisc.s by people through which they mutually commit themselves to act in concert. Po\\o'C r in Arendt's perception is inherently rdatcd to communities who commit themselves to act together by way of promise. and contract. [n such binding commitment, structures arc generated which enable a community to continue to gc:nc.ratc power over rime. To sustain a ' powerful' community it is crucial that its membc.rs continue to engage in promise-making, promise-keeping and fo rgiveness. T he c.o ntinuing existence of a community which emerged through power-in-action is an indica tion that the}' arc •in the process o f foundation. of constituting a sta ble worldly structure to house, as it were.~ their combined power o f action' :u Such binding commitment resulting in the formation of a community cannot be static but must be subject to ongoing revision and negotiation othe.rwisc 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 pcrcdvc power, as did Foucault, as permeating the fidds of oconomy, work, family~ education etc. This is one o f the many critiques which have been raisc.d against her approach. Neverthe-less, she has drawn anention to a dimension of power as a positive aspe('t of human interaction and various theorists have followed that thread and dndoped it in critical discussions of Hannah Arcndr~s work.

2.4 Strategic ami Commtmicatitte Concepts of Power in Critical Diswssion 2.4.1 Critiques of Arendt: Habermas and Feminist Theories T he main critique which has been raised against Arendfs perception o f power (apart from the critique raised against the limitation of her concept to the 39. On this S« also Allen 1999b: 105..07 and her rtfrrcncc to Arendt 1968: 18 :tnd 1963: 171. 40. Habcrmas 1986: 78. 41. Cf. he-re Esler's discussion of F. S:tn h :tnd others on whether identity is an ontological or consrruncd c-mitr !2003: 19- 53); also C:tmpbcll2006: 2-6, 94- 96. 42. Armdr 1968:176.

Concepts of Power iu Contemporary Tbeor)'

25

public {political) rcalm)0 is that she exdudcs any stratc.g ic aspc.ct from it in cla iming that 'strategic action is instrumental as well as violent, and that action of this t)'pt: falls outside the domain of the politic.al. ' 44 As suc.h strategic action has nothing to do with power as she defines it Habcrmas appreciates that over against a tradition of political theory which identified power with the potential for succc.ssful strategic action, Arendt maintained that 'strategic contests for political powu neither call forth nor maintain those institutions in whic.h that power is anchored. Political institutions live not from force but from rccognition.'.u But Habcm1as maintains that to pcrc.ch'c of power c.xdusivdy in te.r ms of communication is too limite.d a perception. As an analytic-al tool it is not adequate: enough to acco unt for wa)'S and means by which groups pursue certain aims and achieve certain goals. Social intc-.raction is not e-xclusively communicative and consent is not merely a means in and by itself. Habcnnas thus srrcsses that strategic action alongside communkativc action is not onl)' another form of social interaction and cannot be- equated with violence or domination. but also that inherent in communkarivc: action arc specific goals or purposes. The purposc of achieving consent in an idc.al speech-act situation \vhich is free of domination and where e\o·eryone involved can freely speak and his/her voice is he.ard, is to achieve cc-.rtain aims, to come to an agrcc.mcnt about ce-rtain issues. Communicative. acrion is not a mc.ans in itself but always strategic, according to Halx-rmas. Habcrmas~s critique of Are.ndt in this respect has bcc-.n widely recognized, also by feminist theorists, although his perception of an ideal speech-act which would allow "alidity for political decisions only when a consensus is achicve,d in 'communication free from domination' has triggered critical and ongoing debate- in turn (on which I cannot elaborate herc).46 Others have drawn attention to the fact that Arendt's concept of power docs not account for the many forms of power which do not fall into the othc.r analytical categories of Arendt's approach, that is, violence~ strength, forc.e or authorit)'· Forms of power e-xercised in and through economic factors or in famih• rdations, in relations bet\vccn men and women do not fit into Are.ndt's c.itcgoriz.ation of power. In that sense Arendt depicts too rosr a pict ure o f power. 43. Cf. Habermas who m:~inrnins that "Arcndt•s concC'pt of communic:uivdy t;C'nemtrd power c-:m become a sharp insuumr m onlr if we C'Xrric-.m: it from the d amps of ~n Anistotdi:~n theory of ncrion. ln sep:~mting prnxis from the unpolitical acrivities of working ~nd labouring on thr one sidr and of thinking on thr othc:-r, Arendt traces back political powC'r exdusi\·dy to praxis, to spe-aking and ~ bm for 9. 10. t93. On I I. 12. 13.

I \viii daboratC' on ~spccts of 'commt' in Chsptcrs 4-9. On the asymm reminding the addressees of their initial rc.sponse to the message> which also sheds lighr on rhe rclarionship of rhe rhrcc wirh rhe EKKA~ola o f rhe Thessalonians. It is significant first, that the gospel is qualified as TO EUayyiAtov ~IJWv, denoting its corporate dimcnsion.:w In addition, the three arc ide.ntificd as the founders of this EKKAT)ola - 'for our gospel came: to you> (1.5), 'we had courage in our God ro declare ro you rhe gospel of God' (2.2}. As founders rhey remind rhe addressees rhar 'we have been approved by God to be enrrusred wirh rhe. gospel' (2.4), and rhat 'we might have made demands as apostles of Christ' (2.7). Thus the three prcscnr rhemsclves as apostles and nowhere in the letter is there a hint that this or its corrdate of \•ic:wing them as equals was problcmatic.1 1 They arc corporately referred to as involved in this fo unding activity in being geode: as a nurse. in sharing and preaching chc: gospel of God and in exhortation, encouragcme.nt~ and admonition (2.7-12). The activity of all three is prc.scntcd as the same; it thus comes as no surprise that they arc all referred to as apostles (2. 7), and the mcraphors of a nurse (2.7) and farhe.r (2.11) of the EKKA~ola of the Thessalonians apply to all rhree of rhem. In contrast with 1 Corinthians, Paul here doc.s not d aim to be in a unique rdation to the fKKAflota of the The-ssalonians, and although he is

18.

x< Brr>l apart from the emphasis on the revelatory character of the gospel he proclaimed, is an indication that he did not live and tcavd on his own during all che year.s umil he wem up to Jerusalem with Barnabas and Titus. He was hardly on his own in Arabia and Damascus (Gal. 1.17; 2 Cor. 1l.32l,"' and the fact that he is part of the group which meets with the pillars here, shows that he must have lh•ed and worked for some time in the community at Antioch. lictart Pecrbolte notes that ' .. . some time after his call Paul indee.d bec.ame in\'oh·cd .. . in rhe Christian community of Antioch. He gradually achiC'\'e.d such a prominem position within this communit)\ that he was sent out together with Barnabas.' Jt The meeting of the Antioch apostle.s and the Jerusalem pillars doe.s not seem to have bee.n initiated by Paul and he does not claim leadership of the group, but only that he dec.ided to join the group due to a revelation. Lictart Pecrbohe e\'en maintains that ' ... Paul went to Jcrusalc.m as an em•oy of the congregation of Antioch.'n Moreo\'cr, the fact that the group from Antioch travds to jerusalem and not vice \'ersa demonstrates chat there were hierarchical issues involved in the relationship betw(:cn the two communicics, with Je.rus.alc:m acknowledged as the centre of the movc.mcnt, but ' ... their share.d confession raised the need 29. Cf. Dunn 2001: 202. 30. As W. S. Campbe-ll nm'elling with Pau i .S~ 3.2.2 A&A<jl
58. 59. 60. 6 1. 62.

Cf. 3.3.2 and Chflptouthe Move T he image of the group of people invoh·cd in the proclamation/work of the gospel emerging from the. Pauline Jcttcrs is very divergent. Although Paul is \'cry much part o f a network, and working in a team, no consta nt group around him can be idcntific,d. T he fact that he sends Timothy and Titus on his behalf dem onstrate-s that there were le\•ds of hierarchies amongst those involved in this teamwork, a nd that Paul was by some accepted as a 1~de r with special authority over against other membc.rs of this team. But the e.x tc:nt of this authority seems to have be.cn limited in rime and extent and there arc no traces in his lcners to indicate that Paul was c.spccially conc.crne.d abom chis. He a ppears as one of many c.ngagcd in the work of the gospd 71.

Cfjc-wC'tt2006:94J-48,

54

Paul and the Dynamics of Power

and his primary concc.rn seems to be that this work be done. The image of the network of co-workers \vithin the Christ-movement that emerges is that of a group within which hkrarchics did exist, but these seem to have been

neither static nor 'high' 1 but rather Rcxiblc and flat. No titles or 'offices' were established at that time in the movcmcnt. Thus the powr.r dynamics within this special group, the communities, and someone like Paul, who as an apostle was part of a (maybe the only) spe.cificall)' labelled group, seems to have been a vcq• flexible onc."2 The group of •special workers' in the proclamation of the gosp ~nit arc perceived as closely related to each other and somctimc.s - depending on the context, a rc even intcrchangcablcu - it is impossible to reduce the translation of one word - ii1 - to one single meaning. This is supported by the observation that there was an increasing tendency among first·ccntury Jewish writers, writing in Grc.ck, tO exchange f}.EOc; (mercy) and xciptc; (grace), using them interchangeably, in rhcir description of God's favou r towards humans - rhat is, of his 10n or ji1:n Also thc fact that thc LXX translates the. active cognate-s of Jn such as pm (gracious) and pn, (to be gracious, to be merciful) with eAfO this vision/revelation must have been an cxpcric.ncc which occurred earlier than his call as an apostJc to the gcntilcs.3The xcip1c; thus given to him is then pcrcch·cd as being this rc\•dation of the resurrected Christ ... It seems to be taken as self-evident what this revelation actually implied and thus often no further explanation is given of what it could have mc.ant to Paul. 1f any further explanation is given, it seems almost to be ttkcn for granted that Paul in this vision has come to rec.ognizc. that he i.s saved in Christ apart from works of the law!·\ Following from this he is then seen as having had the insight that •... the gospel may be offered freely to the Gc.ntilcs.'6 Another aspect of Paul's references to his encounter \•lith Christ is an emphasis that he too~ like: the othc.rs who have seen Christ resurrected, arc apostles. But interestingly in l Corinthians 15 not all \vho have: sc:c:n the resurrected Christ arc called apostlc.s by Paul. Lic:tart Pecrbohe notes •... there must have been an additional criterion for being an apostle. An apparition alone was not enough.n Thus the point Paul is making here is less obvious than is often indicated. More:ovc.r, if the vision/re.vdation of Christ resurrected and the call and commissioning arc taken to be separate 'items', and it is also implied that to have seen Christ has made it dear to Paul that he is saved by grace~ one has to ask how he would have this theological insight if he simply had a vision of the resurrected Lord! It seems that rather than the vision/revelation being self-explanatory~ the content of the \'ision and its implications arc the interpreter's perception rather than Paul's own explanation. If the rc.vclationlvision of the resurrected Christ is viewed as being identical with the insight that salvation is through grace (apart from works of the law) and thus that any reference to grace in Paul's letters refers to this \vho1c theological concept, this would actually mean arriving at a christo1ogic.al conclusion via a short cut. This to me seems slightly anachronistic given that a fully developed Christology did not exist at Paul's time:, irrespective of the means by which it was .supposcdlr rc.ceivcd. To regard vision, call and commissioning as having occurred in a temporal sequence leads to rc.adings of Gal 1.15·1 6 in which the xthen he sccms to ha\'C bct'n aware that he is alluding to the imagt'.s and narratives surrounding prophetic calls and commissioning.!I \Xfhat we find in these - without giving detailed exegeses of the rt'.spcctivc passages - is that in all the prophetic call ac.coum.s of the Scriptures the vision! revelation of God, the call, and the commissioning/sending for a specific purpose arc one and the same cxpericnct'! 5.2 Being Called aud Seut According to the Propbet.s 5.2.1 Tbe Call Narrative i11 l soiab 6 In Isaiah 6 the prophet describes his encountt'r with the Lord as a vision {Isa. 6.1 ) as well as the hearing of his voice (lsa. 6.8·13); )'ct although the cxpcric.ncc is described in overwhelming, pictorial language the vision is not cmcial in what is happening. The decisive moment o f the scene is the prophet he.aring the word of God and his response to it (ls.a. 6.8-13 ). 10 This communication betwtcn the Lord and the prophet consists in the lance volunteering to be sent (drrooml.ov ~·( LXX 6.8)), and the Lord commissioning him to bring His mc.ssagc to the people (6.9-10). (Significantly the prophet is sent to his people who for a specific time will not understand and recognize, and whose heart will be hardened (6.101!) The vision, the hearing of the voice of God, the call and commissioning to do something which is related to the people, arc not separate sequential steps but happen at one and the same time. There is no vision of the. Lord apart from the call and c.ommissioning. The prophet only sees the Lord in relation to what he is called to do. The whole scene is S. SandnC's 199 1: 60-63. On the ·use• of lsrad•s Scriptures sct EhrenspC'rgrr 2004b. 1 am in agrerrmnt 9. hrre with WagnC'r who maint.-.ins 'Moor scholars continue to bl·lirvc that the- usc of lsrad's scriprur in tdling the Galatians about his encounter with Christ in the way Ptlul doc.s, he ccrtainl)' alludes to the whole.nc:ss of the event - and he moreover dearly sets his experience within the tradition of being c.ommissioned for a communal purpose. The vision of Christ, the call by God a nd being scm ro proclaim the gospel to the gentiles arc one inseparable entity.u All of these asp.~ I also cannot find any indication that he has to defend himsdf here over against anybody {opponents etc.) but rather that he seems co sec a nec.cssit)' to explain 30. 3 1.

32. 33. exists.

ScC" Is:t. 6.1- tJ;Jn 1.4-IO;Euk. 2. 1-S. SeC' Plicnsch 2005:1: 31 4 9. Contr-a Polaski 1999: 110-1 11. The- .Stci follow(d by the aocu~ti ve implies 'the rc:-1son why something happens, ~sults'

2006: 906).

: md thus has explanatory connot:.u ions (BAGD 181

rcfer~d

to in j (W(tt

90

Paul and the Dynamics of Power

this because it docs not follow a 'nom1aP pattern. To be commissioned to be an apostle s«ms to implr to be a founder o f Christ-following communities with a policy of non-intcrfc.rcncc (Rom. L5.20). Paul explains at various points in Romans that he. is aware that he docs .something which is not sdfcvidc.nt, bm which in his perception nevertheless is in accordance with his commissioning and mc.ans not going lxyond previously agreed boundaries (2 Cor. 10.13· 16). This reading of the phrase in Rom. 12.3 is supported by the paralld KO:T0: T~V xclp1V Ti)v 6o6lloav riiJIV (according to the grace given to US) in 12.6 which dc.arl)' refers to divc.rgcnt gifts/functions that each mcmbc.r o f the community has rccci\'cd rather than to a theological or christological doctrine or some qua1ity unique to Paul.l 4 And in 15.15-16 the link between x&ptan upsetting messenger scnt to cause him trouble. Only afte-r he. has begged three times to be delivered from this 'angelic thorn' t docs he receive c.onfirmarion that God has heard his plea. The rcpl)' sc.cms ambiguous at lc.ast, since PauPs 'wisht is rcjcctcd.4" He docs not get any rdkf but has to live with this thorn. But at the same time he receives confirmation that chis docs not mean that God's grace has abandoned him, on the contra')', he. is told that God's grace is sufficient for him (dpKEI oot ~ xapt~ ~ou ~ yap 6wa~·~ 1v ao6mla n llelra t [12.9bl). T he active iorm of the

Greek d pKi'*l refers ro the objeaivcly existing abundance of somc.thing.~ 1 This is thus a sta1ement about (he abundance o f divine grace in Paul's life despite the prcscnce of this ' thorn in the flesh,, Thus what could be pcrcci\'e.d 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 k an indic.ation for the \'alidation of power. Translations which render ' n:AfiTal' as ' made perfect' are missing the point here. I am of the view chat rather than referring to some perfection of power in we.akne.ss the intention here is to maintain that power onl)' accomplishes what it set out to accomplish through we.akncss. The iv is takc.n here not as modal but rather as instrumental..u Power is not we.akness, and weakness is not power, but po\ver accomplishes, that is, has an effect through \'.tcakncss. The boasting of Paul is a boasting of his we.aknc.ss, nothing dsc. Paul boasts in his we.akncss~ acknowledging it for what it is - a thorn in the Acsh, and insuJts, hardships and persecutions are what they arc.~ causing suffering and bringing Paul to the brink of death. He is at JX'3CC (1 2.10) with

his weakness not bec.ausc he re.alizes that weakness is acmaHy not weakness but power, but bc.cause through weakness the power o f God in Christ is manifested. Again, it ncc.ds to be emphasized that God's power is nor weakness, but in and despite we.akncss God's power is experienced as being pre-scm (imokl\vs know1e.dge of such traditions, there can be no doubt that they were aware of them. The fact that hardly any explicit rcfcrc:nce.s to such traditions c.an be found in the Pauline lcners~ rather than being an indic-ation that Paul and the Pauline circle did not know of such traditions or considered them irrdevant, could indic-ate on the contrary that they presttpposed chat these were known in the communities from pre.vious reaching visits..s.s But nen without many explicit references to the teachings of Jesus (1 Cor. 7.1 0; 9.1 4; 11.23), references such as 'oUx On KUplnJOIJfV VIJkog 1994:36-38. 14. i\111. 8.354 and Ant. 9.28. 2; . B. Bn 7b, b. .1.7111>. 6Sa, Mck. on 12.1 . 13.19. Sec Byrskog 1994:38. On the signillC'.mce of fathcr and mcKhcr in rdation to education in Jewish tradition see also P:muson 2005: 10-23. 26. Cf. Carr 1005: 134-43. Thc tt'>.1 also cont'.ains rdcrcnccs to this .:haracterisric in the Oeutcronomic hismrical l't'Conmu, tion.

Power in Int-eraction - Paul aiUI tiJe Discourse of Education

123

through f and thc.y are incorporated through Christ into the Jewish symbolic universe and a way of 1ife shaped by the Scriptures.1 ' Once this is successfully achie.vcd, Paul'.s and the other apostles' role-s as their te-achers and the power-over that goes- with this1 becomes superfluous. 7.7 Patti the Teacher aud Trmts{ormatillt! Power SincC' it is most likclr that the majority of the Christ-group in Corinth (1 Cor. 12.2) as well as in Thcssaloniki (1 Thcss.1.9) were gentiles, to find such cbr indications of a teaching and learning discourse here should not come as a surprise. A teaching/le-arning relationship is not an egalitarian relationship. It has been noted that Paul C'mphasizes his role and power as a tc.acher in using parental language metaphorically. He perc.dves himself as teaching his iKKArtolal ' the ways of Christ'~ he is their guide and tC'acher into a way of life in Christ. As such, he is. to usc Fo ucaulrian language~ ' the subject who knows', and he claims a position which is supc.rior to them. in that he claims to know more about the 'wa)'S of the: Lord' than they do. Along with this claim of superior knowledge goes a claim of power ovc.r the communities. These people fro m other nations had not known 'the ways of chc Lord' before; they had not bec.n socialized into a Jc\~t· ish srmbolic universe and way of life from an carl)' age as Jews would most likely have been." Although the)' may have gained some knowledge of the Jc.wish wa)' of life., and the. Scripturcs 1 if they wc.rc former srmpathizcrs {God-fc-.arcrs) related to synagogue communities, 78. Cf. th< vocabularr of cnllinsfKoJ.£1v in 1 Corinthions. 79. I ogr« with Winner in his emphasis on rhr idemiry-shaping dimension of the neologism but I think he overstat and co-authors 1ikc-wise in relation to the The-ssalonians. But although Paul docs not call himself a reacher, the usc of parental image.s in his writings and rc-fc.re.nces to himself, and other aposrlc.s working with him, certainly point towards an unde-rstanding of aspc.cts of his selfunderstanding, and that of other aposdes, as being teachers. Certainly later traditions did not hesitate. co perceive him as such - as I Tim. 2. 7 shows - there Paul calls himself a te-ache-r of the nations.

7 .S 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 c.stablish a pem1ancnt structure of domination and control, or to fu rthe.r 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 pe.rmancnt function of control or domi nation of Paul over them - he docs not want to lord it over them. [f the emphasis on the- father/mother metaphors Paul usc.s is p as Berz asserts: •Moreo,.er, it is ob\•iousl}' inherent to Paul's apostlc.ship that he. docs not call for a direct 1Jl~qo1c; ToU Xpto toU but to a JJliJEio6al of rhe apostle> since it is only in ~q.ulo6a1 of the apostle> that is, in olxdience in accordance with the apostolic uo:paxo:Aelv that there is true IJi!.HlOic; ToU Xp1otoU.,, A debate has arisen about the content o f imitation which has produced quite a wide-ranging spc.ctrum of solutions. It is seen as a call to obe.dicncc,4 1. Cf. dr &oerl962; Brttl967; SchOn 1975: 226-32; Tomson 1990: 274- 81; Hook aspects of an understanding of IJIIJ(}Oic; similar to those found in the. Sc.riptures arc emphasized in rcc.cnt litcrary theories as outlined e.g. in Arne Melberg's Theories of Mimesis.!' Mo\•ing away from Auerbach's theory o f mimesis as a straightforward 'representation of reality',22 Melberg depicts mimesis as 'inherently and alwa)'S already a rt,fJetit.iott ... the meeting· place of two opposing but connected ways of thinking, acting and doing: similarity and diffaence.m lnhcrent to the aspect of repetition in mimesis there is already the notion of differenc.c as that which is repc.ated lies in the past, otherwise it could not be repeated) thus nen repetition is nc.vcr copying - or as we might say today, cloning; dc.spite all similarity thc.rc is something diffcrcnt.24 Dcrrida has created the term 'itcrabilty' to replace the word 20. One can onlycomr to such a conclusion if Paul is pcorctivcd aSlav Toti K0o)Jou). Status and honour were acquired in belonging to a powerful patron and in triumphing ova othcrs.41 Ovc.r against this Paul reminds them that to live- in Christ implies a 'deconstruction~ of the patte-rns 'of this world~. an inve-rsion of the 'wisdom of this world' (1.18- 2.16ku which has ckar implkations also for the: pcrc.cption of lc.adcrship roles within the movement. He develops this br first referring to 'he re-lationship of Apollos and himsclf1 not as one of competition but of working together as one. {3.8) to serve God in Christ. He emphasizes that as apostles their signific.ance was not focused upon their personalitie-s but on the roles each of them was c.alled to accomplish according to the differe-nt gifts given to them (3.6-10; also chapter 12). As Thiselton emphasizes 'Apollos

and Paul c.ach perform as.signe.d roles. within a corporate ministry.' 44 They arc 'co-workers' of God in a common task, e.ach with his spe.cific role: as part of the whole proje.ct. 8.4.3 The Functionality of Apostleship

Paul depicts rhc:sc leadership roles as functions given m him and others not as a means in themselves but as tools co serve the: Christ·movement, Christ, and> in and through these~ to serve God (3.9).-.u This indicates a functional understanding of a postleship.

This is emphasized again at the be-ginning of chapter 4 - as Paul describes apostles to be- Urrqpha 1 and oi~ov6~ol. (I c.onsider it significant that Paul i.s writing in the pJural here as it indic.atcs that he is not only rcfc.rring to his own a postkship but to the function o f apostkship general!)'.") These arc not

autonomous roles but functions which arc clearly related to specific tasks. They do encompass a certain power othenvise they would be meaningless. Those entrusted with .such a function could not achie-ve anything if they were not also entrusted with some power. But chis power is related to the- fu nction 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.4 1 But this .should not be confused with

4 1. 42.

Cf. Epstein 1987: 31; W:m 2000b: 191-2 15; Clarke 1993: 89-107. Cf. Uan.:hy 2003:56-7, also Thisdton 1000: 12-17.

43.

Also Ellion 2004: 99- 102.

44.

Thisdton 2000:30 1.

45. 46.

xc Clorlthey 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 value.s arc 'deconstructcd' in Christ, in that what is folly> and we.ak and of low!)' status is wisdom in the e)'CS of God. The Corinthians probably had not got that quite dc~r. They seem to have returned to the hierarchies of the. 'old' world. Thus Paul has to remind them of his teachings> of r dc; OOoVc;: JJOU TChrist, Paul and the congregation arc not callc.d to become the same. Morcove.r., 'My ways which arc in Christ' sounds quite similar to 'the ways of king so and so' or ' the ways of the Lord' so often rde.rred ro in the Scriptures. As has bc.en noted abo\'c, ' these ways) we.rc the guidelines not the pre.scriptious fo r a life. according to the CO\'cnant. This applies similar!)' to a life according to Christ. Jn the conte.xt of a Jewish perception of rcaliry on the basis of the Scriptures the call for imitating Paul in his imitation of Christ is not a call to samcne.ss. Distance and distinction arc maintained. I thus cannot sc.e an imposition of power in [he sense of 61. 62.

See 1.1.2 nbov('. See Chaptr r 6 obovc.

Power in lnt.eraction- The Discourse of Imitation

153

domination and control through che vehicle of Pauline imitation language. It is a means for guiding and reaching the Corimhians into a way of life in Christ. But it implies a 'deconstruction' of the dominating patterns of life in Gracco-Roman socict)'.; static hierarchies arc. ' deconstructed' by Christ and to live. in Christ means to live, that is, to embody this deconstruction of hierarchies as a Christ-following c.ommunity alrt4dy in ' this world'. This may imply hardship and troubles under chc. circumstances of this world, but it neither asks for nor idealizes these. In 1 Cor. 11.1 Paul explic.itly refc.rs to Christ as the panern he is imitating and which therefore should also be imitated by the fi(I(A~ola. Again this call to imitation summarizes the passage preceding it, which addresses issues about eating and d rinking. As in Romans 14-15, Paul indicates that what really maners in li\•ing in Christ is what serves the purpose of building up the community. The issue of eating and drinking is significant not mere!)' as an ethic:al appendix to Pau l ~s theology.,;) I cannot elaborate on this in detail here. Of interest arc 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' he.rc implie.s that the primary ' principle' is 'to sc.ek the advantage of the other' (10.24; 10.33). The wel l· being ofthe other is the te.sting ground of a life in Christ. He/she is 1he limit to any freedom in Christ. To accommodate to himlher in his/her difference as Paul docs (9.19· 23) is proper imitation of Christ. This docs not mean the gi\•ing up of oneself, a frequent and prevalent misunderstanding in Christian tradition, \'cry 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 pcrsonalit)' which is itself necessary in order to reallr accommodate to others. Accommodation to the othcr and seeking the advantage of the other should not be confused with gi.,.ing up one.scH. Accommodation serves rhc purpose of supporting one another. Jt is not a caH to give up ones own identity and take over the identity of the other. Inasmuch as imitation is not ide.ntical with copying, accommodation is not the same as becoming identical with the othe.r. Since Paul asks all me.mbcrs of the comnmnit)' to accommodate to and se.ck the advantage of the other this is in fact an admonition to mutual support."-' It is no surprise the.n to find other passages where Christ is the e.xample to be imitated in a way in which mutuality is ob\•iously 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 r .1.s 3 very young studcnt :tlwC'd mc- to the signillcancc- of rrccption hiscorr p rohlem ~ltic omcoriKs of parricul:tr imcrprctarions but also opened my eyes

Power in lnt.eraction- The Discourse of Respousc

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.11 Morem·er, 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;: The. structural problem r that the terminology of dKOOt•v and Urro:KoUt iV is used almost synonymously in the discourse of the LXX to translate the discourse of ;-JJ.U/.UCtl there is therc.forc: no reason co draw a distinction bctwe.cn the phrases UnaKo~ and dxo~ rrlon~ in chc Pauline discourse. \Xfhy should the more programmatic statements about his perceived cask in Romans refer to something different from what in a more 'hc.atcd' discussion is a reminder of the Galatians~ initiation into a relationship with the one God of Israel rhrou9h Christ? It seems indic.ativc that whereas in Galatians the phrase 'ci:Koi) mon~· is uSC'd in dose proximit)' co the phrase 'ipycx vOIJou•, it is translated as 'hearing of faith• with no rderc.ncc to obedience. No such reticence with rdc:rc:ncc to obedience terminology c.an be found when it comes to translating the phrase in Rom. 1.5 (' ... to bring about the obcdic.nce of faith for the sake of his name among all the nations' - flc; UnaKoiw nl onc.Y; iv mio•v Tolr; i6vfOI\I Urrfp ToU OvO~aT<X; a1hoU) - since issues about 'works of the law' arc here not as obviously in \'iew as they arc pre.sumcd to be in the Galatians' discourse! The saipwral discourse dCX'.s not show any traces of a distinction between hearing and doing. This is because ' to hear' implies. 'to respond' b)' doing and not merely by assenting to something like a Sresonating so closely with e.ach othc.r as well as with the:: d:KoUetv/Uno:KoUuv discourse of the LXX>refer to the. dimension of ' hcaringt responding and doing' which is inherent in the scripwral discoursc. 4 ' Read in this vein the phrases UnaKo~ and d~t; Orl no:paAa~Ovnc; XOyov dw:ol)t; rrap'fu.u::iv roU 6eoUf&~ao6f oU XOyov dv6p~JT(o)V dXAO: Ka6c.k iOTtv dJ,.,e~ XOyov &oV Oc; w:ai fve pye.'irw iv VJJ1v role; n1onUooo1v.' (' ... we also chank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God which you heard from US1 you accepted it nor as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God which is at work in you believers' l1 Thess. 2.13)). It is significant to note that all those who have 'heard' the word of God arc pcrcei\'ed as hosts who have welcomed the gue.st into their lives, that is they have offered the guest (the word) their hospitality. They arc active participants in the procc.ss rather than passi\'c., submissh·c recipients and cxccutcrs of some command. They arc the ones who move chcir lives upon ·hc.aring'. They arc 'welcoming' the 'word of God' in a similar vdn .as they arc cnc.ouraged to 'welcome one another' as 'Christ has wekomcd them' (Rom. 15. 7). This is an activity which is far from submissive obedience. It is an act of hospitalit)' which is based on 1he inviting hospitalit)' of God through Christ. Emphasis on the llfc-c.hanging 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 'he; ncivra Vml~ since the jorful context of the term docs not indicate a situation of force or cocrdon as 'ft.ar and trembling' language might indicate. The

c.mphasis on the all·c.ncompassing dimension of hearing and responding is also found in 2 Cor. 10.5-6 wherr Paul strongly affirms that he wishes the Corinthians~ minds and thoughts should be entire!)' focused on the hea ring of and responding to Christ rather than being partially distracted by 'this

world'. The lnrcucor)/V nm:oUEtv discourse found in the Pauline letters is thus seen as rc.sonating with the hea ring/responding discourse of rhc Scripntrcs. In the case o f the Christ-fo llowers the call to hear is transmitted through the apostles by Christ; it is a call to a response which echoes the celebration o f life as interdependence, a response which consists in the ovc.rAowing of grace in the life of the community.62 9.5 Submission and Order Discourse (I Cor. 14.32-34 and Rom. 13.1-7) T he rcfcrence.s to terms with the word-stem Tay - arc not frequent in the Pauline letters (H ), bm in the debates a bout the d iscourse of obedience the te.rm UrroT.flv he alludes to a perception of superiority as exe-rcising power-over according to a commandobedience model) which Philemon must have been very familiar with. In 67. Since this a conto tual sttltcmcnt the issue of the rckuionship bcrw('('n Olurch and has co be- reconsidered tlfrcsh in each new context rather th:m simply rrp~X~ting Paul's specific guid:mcr. 68. Sre Kittredge- 1998:91-98. 69. Scr Chapte-r l tlbove. st:.~u

Power in lnt.eraction - The Discourse of Respousc

175

referring to the paradoxical asymme-try bctw(en them in the movement Philemon had joined, Paul emphasizes not necessarily his ' hidden' wish to command but rather rcfc.rs to the a1tc.rnative exercise of powe.r within this community. It is an exercise of power which aims not at establishing positions of domination and c.ontrol, but where pO\ver-ovcr is viewed as a means to guide and encourage others in a transfomlativc wa)', 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 sec how, from this particular passage, it c-an be concluded that a command-obedience perception lies at the he--art of this as well as all the othc.r rro:paKaAc3 passages in the Paulinc- letters. But even if Paul hc:re were somehow ' hiding' a preference for commanding, this would be only one specific instance- which c.an hardly serve as the general pattern for his usc. of napo:Ko:AW elsewhere-. The least this passage- tells us is that Paul obviously did make a distinction betwe-en commanding and whateve-r is exprc-.sscd b)' the term napa~r;:o:A~. Thcte.ml can hardly be seen as a 'milder' form of commanding, it refers rather to an alternative form of relating to one anothc.r e\'en when the relationship involves some sort of hierarchy. This is c-o nfirmed by preNious studies of the trapaKaAc3 discourse. Bjcrkclund's smdy is still the most profound and detailed analysis of the term and he has demonstrated convincingly that sentences introduced by no:po:Ka~W in first-cc-muq•diplomatic c.o rrespondcncc indicated not a paternalistic or otherwise authority-exercising relationship betwe-en sender and addressec(s) but, as he formulates it: ' Es handclt sich um c:incn wi.irdigen und urbanc.n Ausdruck der Aufforderung, dem allcs Bcfehlende. und Untertanigc- fc.mliegt.' 10 lr is usc:d in situations where the coop models to imitatc, and messcngcrs who transmit God's call to response-ability. I.

1. !lu~tcn

10.4.

Cf. Ch:~ptu 2.4.3 :md nlso Arendt 1970:46. Cf 1 Cor. 4.8·1 0; 11.15; Rom. 13.1-7. Onlr in one in.st:Jnc< does Paul actuully :1 communi£)' with violence ll that is, against those perceived as idolaters and sinners, should be seen as being only of limited significance. The: implications and effects of the anirude o f a minority culture on the dominating culture and socicry arc not on the same scale as is the case vicc-vcrsa.n Although the Jewish attimde towards gentiles witnc.sscs to a similar belittling attitude towards pc.opk who are different, as in the.c-ase of the: Grac:co-Roman ani tude. it needs to be noted that within Jewish tradition there is also clear C:\'idc:ncc of more positive perceptions of people who arc different. There arc examples of gentiles like Cyrus who arc perceived as servants of the God o f Israel without becoming the same., that is} without converting to Judaism. The same applies, for example, for some of the prophetic \•isions of the world to come, where other peoples arc seen as joining in the praise of the one God (lsa. 2.3; ~rlic. 4.5). Thc.se traditions provide some roots from which the.early Christ-followers obviously came to chc conviction that the: coming o f the Christ implied that Jews and g('.ntiles, as Jews and gentiles in their differences> were now called 48.

For n dct:tikd analysis of this sec Campbcll l 006. Bahru.sch 2001: 75 and Cicrro. Pro11. co11s 10 cf., B:altrusch 1002: 143. Cf. Rahrusch 2002: 4t-58:tnd 119- 20. 51. Sch:ifa 1997: 180-95, Baltrusch 2002: 140-47. Also Ch01prrr I :above. 52. Cf. Plictzsch 2005b: 138-52. 53. Thr 01ppreciarion and ncctpt:tllC·iously were regarded as full membh of God in Life and Thought 1980 (Edinburgh: T&:T Clark). Best~ E. '1 986 A Commelltary on the First ancl Second Epistles to the Tlmsalouiaus (london: Black) Bctz, H. D. 1967 Nachfolge und Nachalmmng Jesu Christi im Neucn Testamellt (Tiibingen: Mohr Si Sellew 2002: 32-41.

2004 2005a 2005b

<Strategies of Rc.sistance and Hidden Transcripts in the Pauline Communities', in Horslc)', R. A. (ed.) 2004b: 97- 122. 'An American "M)~h of Innocence"', in Bihlnt xiii/3: 2 39-49.

wledge and the Discourse of Lauguage 1972 {New York: Pantheon). Scxualitiit und Ulabrheit: Der \Ville von Wis.sen (Frankfurt 1977 a.M.: Suhrkamp). Disciplit~e and Punish: The Birth of the Pris01s (New York: 1979 Vintage). C. Gordon {ed.) (New York: Pantheon). Power!Kuowledge: Selected Interviews aud Other \'flritings, 1980 1972-1977. '\X'hat is Enlightcnmc.nt?~, in Rabino\V 1984: 32- 50. 1984a and Ethics: An I nterv i ew'~ in Rabinow 1984: 373- 80. 'Poliric.s 1984b 'Disciplinary Power and Subjection·, in Lukes 1986: 229-42. 1986 'The Ethic of Care fo r che Self as a Praccic.c of Freedom', in j. 1988 Bernauer, D. Rasmussen (cds}, The Final Foucault (Cambridgc1 MA: MIT Press): Frey, J. 'Paulus und die Apostd . Zur Entwicklung des paulinischcn 2005 Apostclbegriffs und zum Verhaltnis des Heidenapostcls zu scincn "Kollcgcn"\ in Becker, £ . M., Pilhofer, P. (cds): 192-227. 2004 'Apostclbcgriff, Apostdamt und Apostolizit3t: Ncutcstamtntlichc Pcrspcktiv D. B. 1991 The Obedience of Faith (Tubingcn: Mohr Sielxck). 1994 Faith, Obedieuce and J>erseveraJtce: Aspects of Paul's Letter to the Romans (T ubingen: Mohr Sicbcck). Ga\'Cnt<J.} B. R. 1986 From Darkuess to Light: Aspect:s of Conversion in the New Testamellt (Philadelphia: Fortress Press). 1990

'The Maternity of Paul: An Exegetical Stud)' of Galatians

4:19\ in R. T. Forma et. al. (eds), The Conversation Continues. Studieo in Paul and John (FS J. l. Martyn), Nashville 1990: 189- 201 1996

'Mother's tvlilk and Ministry in I Cor 3'> in Lovering 1996: 10 1-1 3.

1998

First and Second Thessalonians (l ouisville, KY: Westminster I

2004

John Knox). ' Our Mother St. Paul: Toward the Recovery of a Neglected

Themc' 1 in Levine 2004: 85- 97. Gclardini, G. (ed.) 2005 Kontexte der Sd!Yift Bd.l: Text, Ethik, judentum und

Christ.eutmn, Gesellschaft. Ekkebard \X~ Stegemann v on 60. Gcburtstag (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer). Georgi, D. 199 1

Theocracy in Paul's Praxis and Theolog); ET (Minneapolis: Fortress Press).

1992

Remembering the Poor: The History of Paul's Collection for Jerusalem (Nashville: Abingdon).

1997

'God Turned Upside Down', in Horsley 1997: 148- 57.

21 2 GC. 2005

Bibliography Paulus und seine Kinder: Studieu Vir Bezielmngsmet.aphorik dcr paulinische11 Briefe (Berlin, New York: Walter deGruyter).

Gcrhardsson, B. 196 1 Memory ami Manuscript: Oral Tradition and Written Transmission in Rabbinic j udaism and Early CIJristiauity (Lund: Almqvist and \XC.ksdls). Gerty, M. A. 1990 'The Imitation o f Paul in the letter to the Thessalonians', in Collins 1990: 277- 83. Glancy, j . A. 'Boasting of Beatings (2 Corinthians 11:23-25)', JBL 123/1: 2004 99- 135. Slavery iu Early Christianity (Minneapolis: Fortress Press). 2006 Glueoi to o1Koc; 6wU: Social Transformation in Pauline 200 1 Christianity', }BL 12012: 293- 311. Solidarity and Difference: A Contemporary Reading of Paul's 2005 Ethics (London, New York: Tl' Some Textual Problems with Prisca and Aquila', JBL 12511: 107-28.

Lampe, P. 1989

Die stadtrOmischen Christen iu dett ersten heiden Jahrlmmlerteu. Umersuclumgeu tur Sozialgeschichte (Tlibingcn: Mohr

Siebcc.k). 'The Language of Equalit)' in Early Christian House Churches', 2003a in Balch, Osick 2003: 73- 83. 'Pa ul, Patrons, and Clients', in Sampley J- P. (ed) 2003: 4882003b 523. Langton, D. R. 'The Myth of the "Traditional View of Paul" and the Role of 2005a 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.

Bibliography

216

lapin, H., Martin, D. B. (cds) 2003 Jeuts, Autiquil)', attd the NiueteentlJ Century lmagiuation (Baltimore.: Un,.crsity of Maryland Press). Larson, J. 2004 'Paul's Masculinity',JBL 123:85-97. Lassen> E. M. 1991 'The Usc of the Father Image in Imperial Propaganda and in I Corinthians 4:1 4·21', Tyn8ul42: 127- 36. 1992 'Family as Metaphor: Family Images at the Time of the Old Testament and Early judaism', SJOT 6: 247- 62. lcvinas E. Totality and Infinity ET A. lingis Sth c.dition (Pittsburgh: 1992 Duquesne Univcr.sitr Press). 1998 Of God W'ho Comes To Mind (Stanford, CA: Stanford Uni\'crsiry Press). levine, A. J. 'Mulriculturalism, \X/omc.n's Studies and Anti-Judaism', in }FSR 2003 19.1: 119-28. 'The Disease. of Postcolonial New Testament Studies and the 2004 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 L 2005 The Ancient Synagogue: The First Thousand Years. 2nd cdn (New Haven) London: Yale University Press). Lie tart Pcrboltc) P. 2003 Paul the Missionary (lcuven: Peeters). lim, K. Y. 'The Sufferings of Christ arc Abundant in Us (2 Cor. 1.5): A 2006 Narrative. Dynamics Investigation o f Paul's Sufferings in 2 Corinthians' (Ph.D. Thesis Univcrsit)' of Wales lampeter, UK). l o,.ering, E. H., Sumney, J. L (eds) Theology and Ethics ill Paul and His Interpreters: Essays in 1996 Honor of Victor Paul Fumish (Nashville: Abingdon). Lucking, S. 'Bourdic:u ist tot. Ein Nachfruf aus dcr Sicltt cines ExcgctS i11 Honor of Elisabeth Sc!Jiissler Fioren'(a (Harrisburg, London, New York: Trinity Press International). Mauss, M. 1966 The Gift: Forms attd Functions of Exchange in Archaic Societies (London: Routledge). Meeks, W. A. 1983 The First Urban Christian: The Social \>lorld of tl~e Apostle Ptwl (New Ha\'cn: Yale University Press). Meggitt, J. J Paul, Pov.r1)\ and Snrvir,al (Edinburgh: T&T Clark). 1998 Melberg, A. 1995 Theories of Mimesis (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Mitchell, M. M. 1992 •New Testament EnVO\'S in the Context of Grc.co·Roman Diplomatic and Episto13ry Con\'entions: The Example of Titus and Timothcus',JBL 111:641-62. Morriss, P. 2002 Porver: A Philosophical Analysis 2nd edn (Manchc.stcr: Manchester University Press). Moxnes, H. (cd.) 1997 Constructing Early CI!Yistiau Families: Family as Social Reality and Metaphor (London: Routledge). Miillcr, 1'. •ocr Glaube aus dem HOren: Obcr das gc.sprochene und 1994 das gcschriebenc \Vort bei PauJus', in Borman, del Trcdici, Standhartinger 1994: 405-42. Miillner, I. 2006 'Lchrerin und Gegenstand zugleich. Didaktische Aspekte der pcrsonifizicrtcn \Vcishcit', in Rie.dci-Spangbc.rger, Zenger 2006: 215-25.

218

Bibliography

Murph)'·O'Connor, J. 1993 'Co-Authorship in rh< Corinthian Corr<spondcne