No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Enabling Language in Paul
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 10 June 2011
Extract
Paul of Tarsus, first-century Diaspora-Jew-become-Christian, became, through Augustine and Luther, the canonical theologian for Protestant Christianity. Consequently, his theology has been of overwhelming interest, whether in research, teaching, or preaching. This dominating concern with his theology, however, has diverted interest from other significant deposits Paul left us in his letters. F. W. Beare, in a study on “St. Paul as Spiritual Director,” has shown that this itinerant preacher of primitive Christianity has left us a record of his pastoral concerns that can still serve as a useful model for the modern pastor. A growing number of scholarly articles on Paul and women shows that while Paul sometimes simply reflects a male-dominated social reality, he occasionally envisions freedom and equality for women. Disappointment in other aspects of Paul's social perspective is largely overcome when that perspective is sought within his teaching on the church which, in his apocalyptic orientation, would be the continuing social reality.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © President and Fellows of Harvard College 1986
References
1 StEv 2 (1964) 303–14.
2 E.g., 1 Cor 11:3–16; l:33b–36 (Col 3:18; Eph 5:22–24).
3 Stendahl, Krister, The Bible and the Role of Women: A Case Study in Hermeneutics (trans. Sander, Emilie T.; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1966) 32–37;Google ScholarMiller, Calvin, “St. Paul and the Liberated Woman,” Christianity Today 15 (1971) 999–1000;Google ScholarScroggs, Robin, “Paul: Chauvinist or Liberationist?” Christian Century 89 (1972) 307–9;Google Scholar idem, “Paul and the Eschatological Woman,” JAAR 40 (1972) 283–303;Google Scholar idem, “Paul and the Eschatological Woman: Revisited,” JAAR 42 (1974) 532–37;Google ScholarCaird, G. B., “Paul and Women's Liberty,” BJRL 54 (1972) 268–81;Google ScholarHarrington, W. J., “St. Paul and the Status of Women,” AusCathRec 50 (1973) 39–50;Google ScholarPagels, Elaine, “Paul and Women: A Response to Recent Discussion,” JAAR 42 (1974) 538–49.Google Scholar
4 Thuruthumaly, J., “The Church and the Social Concern in Pauline Writings,” Biblebhashyam 4 (1978) 229–41;Google ScholarZieder, J. A., “Paul and New Society,” Epworth Review (1981) 68–74, 75–79;Google ScholarTambasco, Anthony, “Pauline Ethics: An Application of Liberation Hermeneutics,” BTB 12 (1982) 125–27.Google Scholar
5 Allo, E.-B. (Première Épître aux Corinthiens [ÉtBib; Paris: Gabalda, 1934] 4)Google Scholar and Craig, Clarence T. (“The First Epistle to the Corinthians,” in Buttrick, George A., ed., The Interpreter's Bible 10 [New York: Abingdon Cokesbury, 1955] 18)Google Scholar regard Paul's thanksgiving (1 Cor 1:4–9) as ironic and ignore the affirmative language throughout the letter (discussed below) that is homogenous with that of the thanksgiving. Sanday, William and Headlam, Arthur C. (A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans [5th ed.; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1902] 403–4), associating Rom 1:8 and 15:14, derive from the “language of compliment” a theory for Paul's reason for writing: “He (Paul) has grasped clearly the importance of the central position of the Roman Church and its moral qualities, and he realizes the power that it will be for the instruction of others in the faith. Hence it is to them above all that he writes, not because of their defects but of their merits.”.Google Scholar
6 Galatians is a special case. 2 Corinthians has a berakah (a praise-giving or eulogy).
7 ⋯π⋯ πάσῃ τῇ μνείᾳ ὑμ⋯ν usually translated “in all my remembrance of you,” but cf. O'Brien, Peter T., Introductory Thanksgivings in the Letters of Paul (NovTSup 49; Leiden: Brill, 1977) 22–23, 41–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8 Schubert, Paul, Form and Function of the Pauline Thanksgivings (BZNW 17; Berlin: Topelmann, 1939). Schubert, having made it his task to determine “whether the thanksgivings are essentially epistolary in form and function, or whether they must be considered capricious, foreign accretions, borrowed from liturgical practice or from literary sources” (3), came to the conclusion that they served the purpose of introducing the basic themes of the letters (180), thus associating them inextricably with the bodies of the letters. Nevertheless, his formal approach has led some (e.g., O'Brien, Thanksgivings, 12–13) to draw more negative conclusions from his work than he stated or suggested.Google Scholar
9 2:13, 19–20; 3:6 (twice), 7, 9; 4:1, 9, 10; 5:1, 2, 5, 11.
10 1:14; 3:2–3; 7:4 (four times), 7 (three times), 11 (twice), 13, 14 (twice), 15, 16; 8:7, 8, 24; 9:2, 3; 13:3, 5.
11 1:19; 2:12, 15; 4:1, 10, 14, 15, 16, 18.
12 3:3, 5, 26, 27, 28, 29; 4:6, 7, 9, 14, 15, 28; 5:1, 7, 10. 25.
13 6:3, 17, 18; 8:9, 10–11, 15, 16, 17; 11:17, 24, 30–31; 13:11; 14:22; 15:1.
14 O'Brien, Thanksgivings, overlooked the presence of these statements in the bodies of Paul's letters and the congruence between them and the statements of the thanksgivings.
15 I Thess 4:1, 9–12; 5:11; Gal 4:9, 14–15; 5:1, 7, 25; 2 Cor 8:7; 9:1–3; 13:5; Rom 6:1–4, 17–19; 8:15–17; 11:17; 14:22; 15:1, 14–15; 16:19; Phil 2:12, 14–16; 4:1; Phlm 4–10.
16 Koester, Helmut, Introduction to the New Testament, vol. 2: History and Literature of Early Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982) 292–93.Google Scholar
17 1:2 (twice), 3 (twice), 5, 8 (twice), 14, 18, 22, 23; 2:3, 9, 10 (twice); 3:7; 4:10, 14.
18 2:20; 3:1, 2; 3:14, 24; 4:4 (twice), 6, 13; 5:19, 20.
19 16.17; 19.2; 29.1; 30.1; 45.2; 53.1 (twice); 62.3.
20 1.2; 2.1; 3.1; 4.1 (twice); 9.1 (three times), 2 (three times); 12.1 (three times).
21 Salutation, 1.1; 3.1 (twice); 12.1 (four times); 14.1.