Judging and Identity Formation in 1 Corinthians 6:1–11, Part 4

The reality is that the Corinthians, by going before the local magistrates, where in effect, admitting that their identity had not changed. Paul reminds them that this was shameful and, echoing an earlier argument, they were not as wise as they appear (v. 5). So Paul argues that they are transformed in Christ and that transformation should reveal itself in the way they interact with the civic authorities. Paul, it may be argued is engaging in apocalyptic identity formation.

If one is reminded of Lieu’s (2004: 12) framework that identity “involves ideas of boundedness, of sameness and difference, of continuity, perhaps of a degree of homogeneity, and of recognition by self and by others” then one is now ready to evaluate if Paul is engaged in this process. As for “boundedness” one may argue that his primary purpose is the establishment of boundaries for who may be taken to court and who may not. The concepts of “sameness and difference” are seen in the terms Paul uses to describe the Corinthians (saints, believer, washed, sanctified, justified) in contradistinction to the civic magistrates (unrighteous, world, those who have no standing within the church, unbelievers, wrongdoers, and the vice list in vv. 9-10). Concerning continuity, it appears that Paul is echoing what Jews were already practicing (i.e., avoiding local courts) and what he had instructed the other assemblies to do. One of the key structural points to Paul’s rhetoric of identity formation in Corinth is connecting what he is teaching them with the other communities he has established (1 Cor 7:17; 11:16; 14:33; 16:1); this provides a sense of homogeneity that reinforces Paul’s vision of their identity, even it if does not cohere with their local vision of their identity (Hvalvik 2005: 123-143). This tension produces the need for negotiation and Paul’s argument becomes his primary means of negotiating the Corinthians’ identity. The final aspect of Lieu’s definition, the recognition by self and others may be what is at the root of this issue. Because the Corinthians had such a good relationship with the civic authorities, they, intentionally or not, dropped some of their identifying boundary markers that distinguished them from those who did not believe in Jesus. He felt also, that the Corinthians did not recognize, truly who they were (i.e., judges of the world and angels) and had settled for a status beneath who they were in Christ. Paul engages in apocalyptic identity formation in 1 Cor 6:1-11 in order to shame the Corinthians to live in their new identity and to recognize that there are significant differences between them and those on the outside, or at least there should be.

References

Reidar Hvalvik, “All Those Who in Every Place Call on the Name of Our Lord Jesus Christ: The Unity of the Pauline Churches,” in Jostein Ådna (ed), The Formation of the Early Church, (Tübingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), 123-143.

Judith M. Lieu, Christian Identity in the Jewish and Graeco-Roman World. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004).

Judging and Identity Formation in 1 Corinthians 6:1–11, Part 3

Why would Paul be so concerned about the Corinthians taking their disputes to the local magistrates? Why was Paul so negative concerning the Roman law system? Was his view common or idiosyncratic in the mid-first century CE? How did Paul view the civic judges when compared to those believers within the community of faith?

The local-civil courts in ancient Rome were not to be trusted for the unbiased application of justice. The law system in Rome with its hierarchical structure may have provided a modicum of justice; however, even Roman citizens had no real expectation of justice being served in their civil courts. The social status of the individual oftentimes served more of a determiner of the legal proceedings than did the actual facts of the case. On the other hand, Paul may have developed his negative view concerning the Roman courts from his Jewish background. The Jews sought to avoid the Roman courts whether for reasons of exclusivism or pragmatism, Diaspora Jews choose not to, if at all possible, engage in local legal proceedings with the civil magistrates.

Paul had learned that the Corinthians were taking each other to the local civil-magistrates and he concludes that this was shameful (Hurd 1983: 85). His assessment of the court system would not have been considered inconsistent with what others living under the colonial power of Rome would have felt; however, Paul’s concern is couched in the language of the other. He considers these judges to be “unbelievers” (v. 6) and defines them as individuals who should not be held in high esteem within the believing community (v. 4). This begs the question, why would the Corinthians even wish to involve themselves in the court system? It appears, that the Corinthians, because of civic circumstances exclusive to Roman Corinth, had a fairly good relationship with the civic authorities (Walters 2005: 417). In fact, the Christ-followers in Corinth do not appear to have any external conflict with the civic rulers or community. This fact, in part, may have led to the internal conflict, in that, most of the other communities Paul founded, experienced conflict with the local governing powers (e.g. Thessalonica and Philippi; see De Vos 1999). So, it could be that Paul is basing his negative assessment of this situation, as much on his experiences with the other Jesus-believing communities that he founded, as well as, the general disdain for the local courts in both the Graeco-Roman and Jewish communities.

That said, there is also ample evidence that Paul’s rationale for avoiding the local courts may be identity driven, that is, Paul understands the Corinthians to be new “in Christ” and that has an ontological impact on the boundedness of the community (Keener 2005: 53). He engages in apocalyptic (Ramsaran 2004: 89–101) boundary formation in vv. 2–3 by arguing that the Corinthians do not realize that they, themselves are capable of judging, because, for example, they will, in the future, judge the world and angels (Belleville 2003: 226). So, the function of Paul’s argument is to redefine who should be a judge and he uses the terminology of honor and shame to communicate that to them. He honors the Corinthians, by informing them that they will one day judge the world and angels and then challenges them in v. 5 by shaming them because their practice is not congruent with this reality.

Paul negotiates identity not from a position of the social status of the elites but from a position of a contested equal seeking to affect mission within this nascent community of Christ-followers. His main argument in this section seeks to connect their local engagement with the civic authorities with their apocalyptic identity “in Christ” (Sampley 1980: 4). He concludes this section by reminding the Corinthians, after a digression into a vice list and an ironic statement of what happens to those who “do wrong,” and reminds them that the primary reason for not going to those on the outside to justice is that they had been “washed,” “sanctified,” and “justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God” (1 Cor 6:11), which appears to be a part of a baptismal formula (Schnelle 2003: 208). This is important because, often identity formation is embedded in rituals and early Christ-movement rituals serve as boundaries for the new community.

References
Belleville, Linda L. “KEFALH and the Issue of Head Covering in 1 Cor. 11:2-16,” in Trevor J. Burke and J. Keith Elliott (eds.), Paul and the Corinthians: Studies on a Community in Conflict. Essays in Honour of Margaret Thrall, (Leiden: Brill, 2003).
De Vos, Craig Steven. Church and Community Conflicts: The Relationships of the Thessalonian, Corinthian, and Philippian Churches with Their Wider Civic Communities. Atlanta, Ga: Scholars Press, 1999.
Hurd, John C. The Origin of 1 Corinthians, (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1983).
Craig S. Keener, 1-2 Corinthians (The New Cambridge Bible Commentary), (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005).
Ramsaran, Rollin A. “Resisting Imperial Domination and Influence: Paul’s Apocalyptic Rhetoric in 1 Corinthians,” in Richard A. Horsley (ed.), Paul and the Roman Imperial Order, (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2004), 89-101.
Sampley, J. Paul. Pauline Partnership in Christ. Christian Community and Commitment in Light of Roman Law, (Philadelphia, Fortress Press, 1980).
Schnelle, Udo. “Apostle Paul: His Life and Theology,” M. Eugene Boring, (trans.), (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2003).
Walters, James. “Civic Identity in Roman Corinth and Its Impact on Early Christians,” in Daniel N. Schowalter and Steven J. Friesen (eds.) Urban Religion in Roman Corinth: Interdisciplinary Approaches, (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2005).

Judging and Identity Formation in 1 Corinthians 6:1–11, Part 2

The rhetoric of Paul in 1 Cor 6:1–11 is based on the concepts of honor and shame and their attendant symbolic resources to affect the establishment of new boundaries and of a negotiation of the identity between those listening to Paul and Paul, himself (Malina and Neyrey 1991: 25–65). Paul’s rhetoric functions symbolically to include and exclude those whom he feels are behaving outside of the communal boundaries and are endanger of becoming other. Paul uses language of the outsider quite often in these verses (i.e., v. 1 “unrighteous”; v. 2 “world”; v. 4 “those who have no standing within the church”; v. 6 “unbelievers”; v. 9 “wrongdoers”; and the vice list in vv. 9–10). While at the same time, he uses terms to signal those who are on the inside and not other (vv. 1–2 “saints”; vv. 5–6 “believer”; v. 11 “washed”, “sanctified”, and “justified”).

Paul clearly identities the Corinthians as “judges” and this aspect of their identity appears to be one in which there is confusion and division among their community members (Blumenfeld 2001: 206). Before we investigate this aspect of Paul’s argument the concept of identity shall be illuminated. We proceed within the Lieu’s conceptual framework of identity being that which “involves ideas of boundedness, of sameness and difference, of continuity, perhaps of a degree of homogeneity, and of recognition by self and by others” (2004: 12). The concept of “boundedness” is vital to understanding the current text. The establishment of boundaries would have been done, primarily by the social elites who had the power in the ancient world; however, Paul feels that the establishment of proper boundaries is necessary to further his mission. Thus, one should expect to find Paul struggling with establishing boundaries “from the middle.” Attempting to affect boundaries in this way creates the potential for rejection of his authority by those in socially higher positions within the community. These boundaries are drawn in order to establish the concepts of “sameness and difference.” The previous paragraph listed Paul’s use of terminology that was designed to establish “sameness and difference.” These concepts will prove vital to Paul’s argument in 1 Cor 6:1–11. Identity requires “continuity.” Paul reinforces continuity primarily through connecting the experiences of the Corinthians with those of ancient Israel or in the experiences of Jesus. The “degree of homogeneity” will be important because of the Corinthians’ lack of congruence with their profession and the observation of their behavior by those in the community (i.e., those observing in the courts, for example). The final aspect of Lieu’s definition reflects on the importance of the “recognition by self and by others.” This appears to be the reason for Paul’s commitment to identity formation in the Corinthian correspondence: he desires the Corinthians to see who they are “in Christ” and this realization may produce a concomitant recognition by those in the broader Corinthian civic community.

The concept of “boundedness” is inherent in many of the issues that Paul addresses in the Corinthian correspondence. Boundaries are central to the construction and maintenance of identity and serve as a nexus of transformation and negotiation, as well as exclusion; we are investigating the way boundaries function in 1 Cor 6:1–11. The primary way in which boundaries were reinforced was through the use of honor and shame. Paul uses the categories of honor and shame to bring about change in the Corinthians. In verse 5 he writes, “I say this to your shame,” writing to shame the Corinthians was an attempt to establish boundaries in the community (see 1 Cor 15:34), these boundaries are primarily internal within the Christ-following community. Paul, at this point, is not concerned with establishing the boundaries with those outside the Christ-movement (Aasgaard 2004: 236).

References:
Aasgaard, Reidar. “My Beloved Brothers and Sisters!” Christian Siblingship in Paul (Journal for the Study of the New Testament. Supplement Series 265), (London / New York: T & T Clark, 2004).

Blumenfeld, Bruno. The Political Paul: Justice, Democracy and Kingship in a Hellenistic Framework, JSNT Supplement Series 210 (Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001).

Judith M. Lieu, Christian Identity in the Jewish and Graeco-Roman World. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004).

Malina, Bruce J., and Jerome H. Neyrey, “Honor and Shame in Luke-Acts: Pivotal Values of the Mediterranean World,” in The Social World of Luke-Acts: Models for Interpretation, ed. Jerome H. Neyrey (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1991), 25–65.

Judging and Identity Formation in 1 Corinthians 6:1–11, Part 1

The precise nature of the litigious practices in the Corinthian community—such as could individuals of low status even attempt to go before the local magistrate or was this issue limited to the land owners—has often formed a major area of research for commentators (Thiselton 2000: 419–21). It is, however, equally important to ask how discussion of these lawsuits among Christ-followers furthers Paul’s broader rhetorical aims and what they reveal about Paul’s understanding of the Corinthians’ identity as reflected in his statements. This refocusing of the question moves Paul away from his traditional pastoral role, though not completely, to one where he may be described as attempting to apply an identity that is strongly boundaried.

The focus of Paul’s argument in 1 Cor 6:1–11 is found in 6:8: “But you yourselves wrong and defraud—even your own brothers.” Here he lays the groundwork for a new understanding of the Corinthians’ identity. He has used the language of the insider and the outsider throughout his argument; however, in 6:8 he argues that they are wrongdoers, then in 6:9 he goes on to question the Corinthians’ membership in the kingdom of God, if they are one of the individuals who is engaging in such litigious practices. While it is true that Paul continues his argument in verses 9–11, his conclusion in 6:8 and his engagement in deliberative rhetoric hopes to convince his auditors that if one properly understands their identity, as shaped by Paul, they will discontinue their current practice of taking those within the community of Christ-followers before the local magistrates (Mitchell 1991: 116-18).

The end of the textual unit is central to an identity-critical analysis of this passage. In 6:11 he addresses the Corinthians with a reminder of their former identity: “And this is what some of you used to be.” This reminder of their former state is in line of the rhetorical approach in which ethnic identity is seen primarily as a discursive product (Hall 1997; Hall 2002). So, in this text Paul is concerned with establishing the boundaries of civic identity and activity within the Corinthian community’s context. Paul’s argument has larger concerns than simply proper procedure for resolving disputes within the community. He has a desire to establish a particular ethos of identity which requires boundaries that he negotiates through his rhetoric, an identity that will allow for a more stable internal situation and mission in Roman Corinth. One notices, however, that Paul is not afraid to resort to the use of shame when his arguments may not be winning a hearing from his auditors (Winter 2001: 72–73).

References:
Jonathan M. Hall, Ethnic Identity in Greek Antiquity, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997.
Jonathan M. Hall, Hellenicity: Between Ethnicity and Culture. (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2002).
Margaret M. Mitchell, Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation. An Exegetical Investigation of the Language and Composition of 1 Corinthians, (Westminster, John Knox Press, 1991.
Anthony C. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians. A Commentary on the Greek Text (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2000.
Bruce W. Winter, After Paul left Corinth. The Influence of Secular Ethics and Social Change, (Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans, 2001).

Opening section of my SBL Midwest 2010 Paper

Did Paul’s letters create a distinct ‘Christian’ identity? Furthermore, was early ‘Christian’ identity created or construed? These questions address important issues that separate two key approaches to the study of identity within New Testament scholarship. Those focusing on construal (Bengt Holmberg and Ben Meyer) argue that Paul simply interpreted an already-existing Christian identity and thus focused on self-definition or self-understanding not identity. A second group (Judith Lieu and Hans Leander) argues that Paul created Christian identity through his discursive agency and that there was no prior essential Christian social identity. This paper offers an assessment of Holmberg’s critique of Philip Esler and William S. Campbell and contends that a prior event began the process of identity formation; however, its ongoing concrete expression or creation was accomplished through Paul’s discursive agency (i.e. primarily his letter writing). Thus, this approach cuts a middle path between the construed or created binary formulations and concludes that Holmberg’s assessment of Campbell and Esler is unconvincing and that aspects of his argument are better suited for a critique of Lieu and Leander.

Before I look at Paul’s role in the creation of identity, I should briefly address a recent issue raised by David Horrell and restated by many of the contributors in the recent After the First Urban Christians (Horrell (2009: 9); Adams (2009: 77n.24); Still (2009: 79n.1)) that questions the usefulness and ‘validity’ of phrases like: ‘Pauline community’, ‘Pauline church’, and ‘paulinische Gemeinde’. The issue is further broadened to include doubts about whether the recipients of Paul’s letters ‘can in any sense be meaningfully labelled “Pauline”’ (Horrell 2008: 188). Horrell rightly recognizes the influence of other leaders in Corinth (e.g. Apollos and Cephas) without positing a ‘separate Petrine community down the road’. Also, he is correct in claiming that the communal life that had developed in Corinth did ‘not correspond’ to ‘Paul’s ideal’ for this assembly and that ‘competing and conflicting perspectives’ were evident (Horrell 2008: 193-95). Thus, Horrell concludes that ‘there is no clear justification for speaking of “Pauline churches”, or at least, not without heavily qualifying what that might mean’(Horrell 2008: 203).

By way of assessment, first, Horrell overstates the accepted view of the sectarian nature of the Christ-movement (Campbell 2008: 46-48). Very few scholars would contend that the Pauline communities were monolithic in their cultural expressions of the Christ-movement. Furthermore, Paul’s rule in 1 Cor 7.17-24, that in all the assemblies, Christ-followers are to remain in the situation in which they were called, if applied, would result in the kind of diversity that Horrell points out (Horrell 2008: 193). Horrell’s expectation of ideological and theological unanimity in the Pauline community does not cohere with Paul’s teaching, e.g. in Romans 14.5, that ‘each one should be fully convinced in his own mind’ and Romans 15:7, ‘Therefore welcome one another as Christ has welcomed you, for the glory of God’. Horrell’s reduction of a contextualized, discernible, Pauline ethos, if accepted, reinforces his view of the early emergence of a predominant ‘Christian’ identity (Horrell 2008: 203). Here Horrell’s universalistic approach to Christian identity comes to the fore. Evidence of diversity within Paul’s letters should not be seen as prima facie evidence that Paul’s letters were not foundational in the formation of unique, local expressions of Christ-movement social identity.

Campbell, W.S.
2008 Paul and the Creation of Christian Identity (London: T&T Clark).

Horrell, D.
2009 ‘Whither Social-Scientific Approaches to New Testament Interpretation? Reflections on Contested Methodologies and the Future’, in Still and Horrell (eds.) 2009: 6-20.

2008 ‘Pauline Churches or Early Christian Churches? Unity, Disagreement, and the Eucharist’, in A. Alexeev et al., (eds.) Einheit der Kirche im Neuen Testament (WUNT, 218; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck).

Still, T. and D. Horrell (eds.)
2009 After the First Urban Christians: The Social Scientific Study of Pauline Christianity Twenty-Five Years Later (New York and London: T&T Clark).

SBL Midwest Morning One: Matthew, James, Hebrews

The morning started with Brian Dennert, a first year PhD student at Loyola University Chicago, who argued that the Son of David in Matthew was a leader of national spiritual restoration rather than a political deliverer. He drew from Psalms of Solomon 17 and was quite persuasive, though I wonder what Warren Carter would have said?

Robert Kinney, a PhD researcher at the University of Bristol, UK, argued for a Hellenistic context for understanding Jesus and his approach to teaching in Matthew. Since I think that Jewish teaching and learning discourse is the proper background for understanding Jesus' approach to formation, I was highly interested in his argument. Kinney ultimately argued that characteristics of the philosophical schools is the proper framework for understanding Jesus' educational approach (e.g. the way Euthydemus became a disciple of Socrates). He rightly noted the lack of discipleship language in the Hebrew tradition, however, since the family was the primary focus of education, domestic/kinship language would provide a way forward in this regard.

Russell Sisson of Union College presented a paper that looked at possible sayings of Jesus in James. I found it interesting that the first clear allusion to James is in Origen. He noted that scholars see as little as 8 or up to 65 allusions to Jesus' teaching in James. The crux of the issue is the lack of exact wording. To solve this problem, Sisson relies on the concept of oral performance in which exact wording is not required, the text is ancillary. He suggests that the allusions are located in the so-called Q source (insert a question from Mark Goodacre here, if he were present). In addressing the question as to why James was not referenced clearly until Origen? Sisson concludes that if the early Church Fathers were looking for Jesus material they would not have looked to James, but they continue to be aware of the document.

Jeffrey Gibson from Harry S Truman College argued, quite persuasively, that the Sitz im Leben of Hebrews was the Jewish War. The writer of the letter was addressing issues of non-violence in the context of the threat of the Romans and Jewish desire for violent revolt by the zealots. I really enjoyed his discussion of Heb. 13.13 and the departure from the camp. I think Jeffrey is on to something here and hope others will consider this interpretive framework, originally put forward by Alexander Nairne.

This was a great morning of stimulating papers and good discussions with old and new friends. Afternoon sessions to follow soon but I should probably read over my paper, on identity formation and Paul, imagine that!

SBL Midwest Night One - Texts and Jewish Identity

I Attended the Plenary Session tonight on Social Identity based on Texts and Archaeology: The Jews. Gary Knoppers, from Penn State University, presented a paper entitled 'Social Identity Based on Texts and Archaeology: The Jews of the Neo-Babylonian and Persian Periods'. Since I am writing a commentary on Ezra, I was most interested in this paper. He looked at recent archaeological evidence dealing with the 'town of Judah' and discussed the implications of vertical alliances and Artaxerxes' juridical charge to Ezra (Ez. 7.25-26). The Priestly linage of Ezra was discussed, his argument here is based an essay in his book, Community Identity in Judean Historiography (Eisenbrauns, 2009). He concluded with the role of the Temple in Jerusalem in the development of Judean identity (Ez. 7. 13-24). Overall it was a good paper, though, I am hesitant to use archaeology to determine specific nodes of social identity. However, he is right to note that there is a discernible diasporic Jewish identity during this period.

David Rudolph's paper was entitled 'Jesus-Believing Jews and Kol Yisrael: Rethinking Long-Held Assumptions'. David's paper felt like a summary of recent post-supersession reading of the NT. Furthermore, it was a nice summary of key arguments from his dissertation, which will be out next year, its entitled A Jew to the Jews: Jewish Contours of Pauline Flexibility in 1 Corinthians 9:19-23 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck). David is interested in understanding how Jewish Christ-followers understood themselves in relation to others. He focused on the parting of the ways, which he explains should be dated to the 4th century CE. Next he looked at how Jesus-believing Jews understood themselves, he built on Paul Foster's work on Matthew. Finally, he discussed halakhic interpretations within the early Christ-movement. David concludes that Paul understood the Christ-movement as two segments (Jews and gentiles) united by faith in Christ.

Carol Bakhos of UCLA presented a paper entitled 'The World of the Rabbis: Fact and/or Fiction'. She started out by saying that she would not be discussing Jewish social identity during the Rabbinic period because she is not convinced that we can discern this from the extant texts. Her approach reminded of Judith Lieu's but she is right in noting that there is a need for an awareness of narrative discourse, attention to the way others discuss the same communities, and that there needs to be a rubric of categories in which these texts can be organized into meaning artifacts for the analysis of identity (a taxonomy of identity? someone should write one, maybe I will?). She looked at how Arabs are depicted in the Talmud as a case study for her approach. She also mentioned that the Iranian context of the Talmud is an area of emerging research. I found her presentation quite interesting and thought provoking.