Mashup and Identity Studies

I’ve decided my approach to Paul and Christ-movement social identity may be described as mashup. I take data from two (or more) different sources and combine them into something new. Here is what is sounds like when Party Ben combines The Police and Snow Patrol.


So, I am wondering if mashup is the future of biblical studies? I’ve been amazed how much has been written in Pauline studies in the last few years and the field might benefit from a few DJs mixing things up resulting in densely complex and aesthetically pleasing scholarship. So, rather than using Tajfel and Turner’s social identity theory/self-categorization theory by itself, what if we combined it with Stryker and Burke’s identity theory. Or better yet, add some poststructuralist identities consideration into the mix. When we combine these resources with Paul’s fragmentary discourse what would result: fresh insights or scholarship that misses the mark? Maybe this would be like combining Beyonce with Andy Griffith but hey aren’t there single ladies in Mayberry?


If so, maybe using the image of music mashup is 'Just What I Needed' to trigger creative scholarly insights. What do you think?

James D.G. Dunn and Paul's Identity

James D. G. Dunn’s latest statement on identity: ‘In using the term ‘identity’ I am conscious both that identity is at least in some degree a social construct and that it should not be regarded as something fixed or single. Precisely because it is in some degree a social construct, a person’s identity will inevitably change through time and at any time will be multiple in character (son, Jew, apostle, client, tent-maker, etc.’ (2009: 522n.12).

First, Dunn is conflating identity categories, a critique that I directed towards his work in my thesis. Second, he is also equivocating by bringing in the temporal dimension. This is actually the philosophical question of identity change over time. Third, he furthermore confuses identity positions and identity roles. Fourth, his broader approach to Paul’s identity does not fully account for the social constructedness of identity, i.e. Paul left Judaism but still a Jew is not a coherent position (524-26). Finally, the primary focal point for understanding Paul is social identity, Dunn still does not fully account for his group memberships. Though, this quote is from Dunn’s new book, his understanding of Paul’s identity has not changed much since his 1999 New Testament Studies article and his dismissive remark about the current fashionableness of ‘identity’ overlooks that studies on Paul’s Greekness and/or Jewishness (older language) goes back to the early 20th century in NT studies.

Dunn, James D. G. 2009. Beginning from Jerusalem. Grand Rapids, Mich: William B. Eerdmans Pub. Co.

Dunn, James D. G. 1999. ‘Who Did Paul Think He Was? A Study of Jewish Christian Identity’. NTS 45: 174-93.