SBL  Toronto 2002

Romans Through History and Cultures Seminar

 

‘….Let Everyone Be Convinced in His/Her Own Mind’

 

Derrida and the Deconstruction of Paulinism

 

Kathy Ehrensperger,

University of Wales

      Lampeter

 

I Introduction

 

With his practice of deconstruction the French philosopher Jacques Derrida challenges Western logocentrism and with it the foundations of a tradition which for centuries has dominated Western European discourse.   He perceives it as a pattern of thinking which to a vast extent is responsible for all kinds of oppressionist ideology and he goes as far as to attribute to it responsibility for oppression in Western thinking and culture generally.[1] In his essay on Emmanuel Levinas’ philosophical approach, ‘Violence and Metaphysics’[2] he states

 

Incapable of " respecting the Being and meaning of the other, phenomenology and ontology would be philosophies of violence. Through them the entire philosophical tradition, in its meaning and at its bottom, would make common cause with oppression and the totalitarianism of the same. [3]  

 

 

Pauline studies are part of this logocentric tradition with its corresponding implications. The traditional image of Paul – or what I term the Paul of Paulinism is based on an interpretation of Romans as the centre and culmination of Paul’s thought. This interpretation of Romans and the image of Paul inherent in it have been challenged from several perspectives over the last thirty years. Some of these challenges  seem to indicate a critique of the traditional image of Paul which, although not being identical with, nevertheless show  tendencies as radical  as Derrida’s deconstructions of philosophical and other Western discourses. The thesis advocated in this paper is that aspects of Derrida’s approach and ‘deconstructive’ questions raised by him could prove stimulating in analysing hermeneutical presuppositions in Pauline studies, particularly for an analysis of ‘Paulinism’, and  its interpretation of Romans as the culmination and centre of Paul’s theology.  Aspects of Derrida’s thinking could moreover prove illuminating in the search for new and/or different perspectives on Paul, not least in a new approach from  feminist perspectives.

I will concentrate on four aspects of Derrida’s thinking, giving a brief outline of each of these:   (1) Deconstruction and the Spirit, (2) Logocentrism and Universalization, (3) Texts and Contexts, and (4) Negotiations. This is a description from a theologian’s perspective,  limited to the purpose of this study. Much more could be said since I think that the implication of Derrida’s thinking for Pauline studies is a topic for further research.  I will then in Part III relate these four to corresponding aspects of the image of Paul in Paulinism, demonstrating how these could sustain an analysis of  its hermeneutical presuppositions. As these four aspects cannot be clearly separated from each other, being all related in several ways, some repetition in these sections is inevitable.

 

 

II Aspects of Derrida’s thinking

 

Deconstruction and the Spirit

 

Derrida challenges traditional patterns, categories, systems and methods of thinking since he seeks to find perceptions and understandings of life and reality beyond traditional patterns of Western philosophical discourse. He thereby does not situate himself beyond this discourse but at its limits.[4] He is nevertheless aware that in relating to this tradition it is inevitable that one must use its terminology and categories to some extent, else it would not make sense and thus be irrelevant to the discourse it is challenging.  The danger implicit in this is that the totalising tendencies which are criticised are re-inscribed in the discourse of deconstruction itself. Derrida therefore emphasizes that  deconstructive strategies need to critically  reflect on their own deconstructive critiques of dominant ‘logocentric’ discourses.  

 

Derrida’s thinking is subsumed under the label of ‘deconstruction’ or ‘deconstructions’[5] by which he himself emphasizes that ‘deconstructions’ is not a project, or a method or system. It is rather one of the possible names for designating a certain practice of dislocating texts of classical philosophy in the first instance – but also of texts of other disciplines, and of every ‘text’ in the general sense Derrida uses this term. It could also be described as a set of practices by which formalising and totalising tendencies in philosophical as well as other discourses of European tradition are not opposed (since to oppose something implies to think in the categories of traditional dualistic patterns of logic) but maybe one could say – set aside. In setting aside a perspective different from the dominant one, the totalitarian character of an approach which claims to have found the one and only true meaning  is revealed. [6] Western philosophical tradition is dominated, as Derrida demonstrates, by the values of essence and presence (ontology and phenomenology). It presupposes that there is one true essence present in everything that is. The spirit or the nous is the ‘tool’ by which this true essence can be recognized. There is an inherent relation/connection between truth/Being and logos/spirit. Thus the one true meaning, the essence of Being can only be found in the process of pure logical thinking, which makes privileged use of binary oppositional structures where one term is defined in opposition over against another. As some essential true Being or fundamental principle is presupposed, the respective essence of one term is defined through that which it is not. True knowledge is attained in an identification of spirit and the essence of being. As Heidegger says ‘…spirit is the being-resolved …..to the essence of Being, of a resolution which accords with the tone of origin and which is knowledge’ [7]

 

The ontological tradition of Western discourse/logocentrism cannot be neatly separated from totalitarian systems which emerged from it as is evident in Heidegger’s philosophy of the Nazi period in Germany. The fact that Heidegger launched his Nazi profession of faith in his Rectorship address in 1933 in Marburg in the name of the ‘freedom of the spirit’  denotes a mentality that cannot be dismissed simply by condemning it as a mere distortion of an otherwise pure and innocent tradition.  One question Derrida raises again and again is how Nazism as an ideology could emerge in the centre of so-called civilized Europe. It is not sufficient to condemn Nazism or a philosopher like Heidegger since Nazism did not emerge out of nowhere but in contact and interaction with the rest of Europe, with other philosophies, with other political or religious languages. In an interview in 1987 Derrida said, ‘…..the elevation of the spirit, through the celebration of its freedom, resembles other European discourses (spiritualist, religious, humanist) which are generally opposed to Nazism. This is a complex and unstable knot which I try to entangle by recognizing the threads common to Nazism and anti-Nazisms, the law of resemblance, the inevitability of perversion. ……It is not a question of mixing everything together, but of analyzing the traits that prohibit a simple break between the Heideggerian discourse and other European discourses, whether old ones or contemporary ones.’[8]  Deconstruction thus is a constant warning against all sorts of metaphysical purifications, essentialisations, totalisations, and transcendentalisations. 

 

Deconstruction cannot be described as a method whose methodology can be transferred from one discipline or subject to another, as this would imply the sort of generalisation deconstruction is arguing against. Deconstruction  means to account for the distinctiveness of each subject and issue and situation in its respective context, thus asking for a constant change of perspective according to the subject/issue dealt with (accommodating practice). This makes it impossible for one perspective to claim absolute truth since the limitation and changeability of any perspective is a basic presupposition of deconstruction. It further implies a constant unveiling of the constructed character of the patterns or textures of thinking and acting. It is a ‘thinking from another border’, from beyond traditional presuppositions.

 

Logo-Centrism  and Universalization

 

 Traditional philosophical discourse which is  based on Greek terminology and form   is so deeply entrenched in thinking in identities that there is no room for difference. [9] To think in these terms implies generalizations. The true essence of being behind or beyond  all that is  can only be truly recognized in getting beyond the diversity and particularity of what is through the logic of sameness and identification.  To think in this tradition means to think in a specific terminology which is searching for identities and the general via the logic of pure thinking which is spiritual. This implies moving beyond the specific and particular to the universal, from the particular letter of a text to its universal meaning, as the letter is only a derivate of the true and essential being.[10]

 

As not only but particularly emphasized in the tradition of German idealism, this is the one and only appropriate method to attain truth. In order to find truth, particular subjects and experiences have to be overcome or universalized/aufgehoben into higher, more  general insights. The search for truth in this perception is bound to generalizations, to generalizing abstractions.  The spirit/logos/Geist is perceived as the means by which particularity and diversity can be overcome. It is the spirit that motivates humans to move toward the recognition of  truth. True knowledge is always spiritual. Since the terminology of philosophy developed in Greek – and later in German language, Heidegger could state that only and exclusively Greek and German thinking  are capable of  approaching the heights of truth.[11] These are perceived as having achieved the highest and most developed terminology of abstractions and universalizations.

 

To perceive universalization and abstraction as higher stages of knowledge (irrespective in which language) implies that it is necessary to move beyond the particularity of the letters in reading and interpreting a text, since inherent and behind these some core or central meaning must be revealed. In and through the particularity of one specific text some essential meaning has to be found. Language points to the objective and stable truth, to true being and it can be accessed through logic and reason. Thus the aim of the process of  reading/interpreting in logocentric tradition is to get beyond the particular to the fundamental, principal, central and universal meaning of the written letters.  This means in fact, universalizing one particular aspect whilst silencing or erasing others. There is no room for difference in traditional logocentric discourse. The difference of the Other is an obstacle to universalisation.

Deconstruction draws attention to the constructed character of such fundamental or central meanings as original or universal status is granted to one particular expression of experience over another. As we will see in Derrida’s understanding of ‘text’ what gives meaning to specific signifiers is not a given essence but emerges in an ongoing play between signifiers which are distinct and differ from each other. ‘Différance’, this neologism created by Derrida, is ‘the systematic play of differences, of the traces of differences, of the spacing by means of which elements are related to each other.’[12] Differences, contradictions, inconsistencies and paradoxes are thus part of this interplay. They need not be silenced or oppressed as in logocentric discourse.

 

Texts and Contexts

 

Deconstruction refers particularly to the reading of texts of traditional philosophical discourse but it is also applied to other areas as in  Derrida’s approach ‘all that is’ is ‘text’ – ‘il n’y pas d’hors texte’ – as his half ironical famous ‘saying’ mentions. All is perceived as  ‘text’. There is a text as soon as there is a ‘trace’, a reference from one trace to another, distinct trace. Such references are never static and traces are neither present nor absent. Thus a text can never be a closed system. A text is a texture of traces which are interwoven and interacting in mutual relation to each other. These traces refer to something which again is referring to something as a trace. Texts thus are  not limited to written texts. Derrida’s broad understanding of text implies that there is no perception of life and reality beyond text.  Also spoken discourse  or  gestures and rituals are texts in this sense.  By this understanding of ‘text’ Derrida does not intend to create some sort of ‘textcentrism’. He emphasizes that a text is not a centre but an open interplay of references without any restricting boundaries.[13]

 

Writing as a sign is thus not referring to something beyond itself (as derivative of the voice which is closer to the true essence of being),  but it is a trace referring and related to other traces within an interplay of traces.  Texts are interplays of traces of experiences which are composed in differentiating from and relating to each other. There is no original meaning of a sign/word  which others could be derived from. Meanings of words/signs are variable and vary in an ongoing interplay with other signs/words to constitute ever new meanings. Texts thus are always ‘on the move’. They are  in a sort of floating interaction of traces in ever new constellations responding to each other– thus meaning emerges in ever new situations and contexts.  Since a text is always open –  it cannot have only one single true meaning.

 

The interpreter also cannot interpret texts from one and the same perspective only since he/ she is part of this ‘movement’ in his/her specific contexts which again are also varying. There cannot be one ‘objective’ perspective which would allow for the one ‘objective’ interpretation of the text. It is crucial for interpretation thus to read texts from and in their respective contexts as far and as appropriately as possible. The interplay of signifiers which constitute a text is itself again related and interwoven with particular historical, cultural, etc contexts. Thus Derrida emphasizes that ‘all texts are different. One must never try to measure them “on the same scale”. And never read them “with the same eye”. Each text calls for so to speak, another “eye”’.[14]

 

It could be argued that this opens the door to absolute individualism and subjectivity in interpretation which would make any communication, even if only about a more or less appropriate interpretation, impossible. Over against this Derrida emphasizes the need to take thoroughly into account the specific contexts of texts which then allow  for the elaboration of certain specific relative rules for interpretation. Such rules are not to be understood as general rules for deconstruction but as generalized relative tools deriving from a particular context applicable only in a particular context. The limits of application of a relative general rule could be described in analogy to the transferability of languages. It depends on the degree of generalization of a language to what extent rules derived from it can be transferred to another. It depends on the translatability of a text whether its rules can be transferred to another text. In that sense Derrida could say that deconstruction presupposes the plurality of languages.[15]

 

With regard to the danger of pure subjectivity in the interpreter, Derrida reminds us that in analogy to languages, texts are never purely individual but related to the context of the history of a particular language. Texts are  related to other ‘interlocutors’ within a network of an interplay within which there is mutual influence, that is,  within a network of communication. Irrespective of  the singularity of each text there is a communal aspect in each as well.

The interpreter as well as the text are both related to their respective contexts, which in themselves cannot be objective or stable. This implies that philosophical and theological arguments cannot be separated from the historical, political, social, and  geographical context, or the language they emerged from. Moreover, the recognition of the fluidity of texts and contexts requires an ongoing relativization of one’s own perspective, the recognition that no perspective can claim to be the only true and right one as it is always limited and variable. Each individual is born into his/her specific ‘preference’ – into his/her family, into his/her geographical, and social context, into a specific language at a specific moment in time. Derrida emphasizes that ‘Everything is drawn for me from the (living, daily, naïve or reflective, always thrown against the impossible) experience of  this “preference” that I have at the same time to affirm and sacrifice. There is always for me, and I believe there must be more than one language, mine and the other…….and I must try to write in such a way that the language of the other does not suffer in mine, suffers me to come without suffering from it, receives the hospitality of mine without getting lost or integrated there.’[16]

The emphasis on the ongoing interplay of signifiers in a text is an indication for  another ‘trace’ of Derrida’s thinking – that reality and life cannot be ‘grasped’ in any kind of closed system, that the process of understanding and interpreting never can come to a final conclusion, it has to remain open to that which is not yet and has not yet been.[17]

 

 

Negotiations

 

As texts are perceived as ongoing and never ending interplays of divergent signifiers the project of interpretation is perceived in analogy to this. Interpretations of texts in the narrower sense are in themselves again ‘texts’, that is, interplays of divergent discourses interacting whit each other. This process can be described by the term ‘negotiations’. Meaning emerges in an ongoing  process of negotiations, requiring an ongoing questioning of the origins of one’s own concepts and their political implications.  Interpretation always takes place in a process of negotiation and  thus has to ask these very same questions. [18] There is no stopping in this project, no settling down in one ever stable and unquestioned position, as there is no final and unquestioned true essence to be found in a text. Nor is there one fundamental stable principle from which to interpret any text. Understanding emerges in an open process of negotiation. As Derrida states ‘…one is always working in the mobility between several positions, stations, places, between which a shuttle is needed.’[19] The need to negotiate constantly does not deny the necessity of negotiating from a position, but to constantly also be aware of the constructed and thus ‘deconstructable’ character of one’s own position. As such interpretation can be seen as ‘a knot of negotiation’ where there are ‘different rhythms, different forces, different differential vibrations of time and rhythm.’[20] There is an element of risk and undecidability in negotiation since openness implies uncertainty, else it would merely be programming and calculating. In the processes of negotiation there must be room for decisions which in interpretation always also have ethical implications.

 

These are only a few aspects of Derrida’s approach which I think could provide refreshing insights in Pauline studies – particularly in deconstructing Paulinism and reading Romans ‘with a little help from Derrida’. In the light of these I will now look at some aspects of Paulinism analysing the consequences of a deconstructive approach on this perspective and seeking for possibilities to move beyond it. 

 

 

III The Paul of ‘Paulinism’ – Deconstructed

 

By the Paul of Paulinism I understand the image of Paul as it has been depicted by  traditional interpretation in the dominant discourse influenced by the Reformation image of Paul but particularly relevant in Pauline studies since F.C.Baur. This image presents us a Paul who is a lonely fighter, the first Christian theologian, who has elevated Christianity to its true self-understanding as the religion of the universal spirit.

The core or centre of Paul’s theology  is found in Romans, particularly in the doctrine of justification by faith without works of the law. Presupposed and inherent in this perception of Romans was the image of Paul as the one who had overcome particularistic and ethnocentric Judaism in favour of the universalistic Christian faith. 

Reading this image of the Paul of Paulinism through the lenses of deconstruction it is seen to be as constructed as any other discourse, and to be as limited as any other perspective, influenced by and influencing the context it emerged from. It thus needs to be analysed in relation to the context/texture of influences and agendas in which it has been developed. Derrida’s emphasis is that there is no neutral interpretation but that all interpretation serves a certain purpose or is interest-related since it starts from specific presuppositions and has practical consequences. The Paul of Paulinism therefore cannot be viewed as a scholarly neutral image of a figure of a remote past which has been depicted according to some supposed objectivity. A deconstructive approach on Paulinism would be a project for a book length study, so here I can only give some indications as to where such an analysis might lead. 

 

 

The Paul of Paulinsim – the Paul of the Spirit

 

The Paul of Paulinism shows surprisingly (or maybe not so surprisingly) clear traces of an idealization of the spirit and its universalizing tendencies. The two aspects are closely related, but I will deal with them in two different sections, probably with some overlap between them.

Paul is the first Christian theologian, the lonely fighter and pure theological thinker and as such he is the champion of the law-free gospel, the one who has liberated the concept of God from the ethno-centric particularities of Judaism to its true, spiritual essence. He has brought Christianity into its own true self-understanding as the universal spiritual religion.[21] This Paul is regarded  as the one who has formulated the one Christian truth  in clear opposition to Judaism.  F.C.Baur has most clearly developed this perception of Paul as the liberator of Christianity. But it is actually rooted in the Augustinian-Lutheran perception which turned Paul’s arguments into a timeless theological concept of human agency in opposition to divine agency, with Jewish Law keeping becoming the paradigm for human self-righteousness and pride.[22] 

 

It is significant to note that here as much distance as possible is put between Paul and Judaism. The high spiritual insights of Pauline theology are mainly due to his enculturation in Hellenism, due to the Greek categories of thinking which provide Paul with the terminology to formulate his insights into truth. Thus a dichotomy between Hellenism and Judaism is set up out of which true Christianity emerges.  I do not think that it is purely incidental that aspects of this Paul were outlined by F.C.Baur at a time when German idealism and its high estimation of the Geist/spirit was still dominating wide areas of the cultural and academic ‘mood’ in a not yet united Germany. It is significant to note, as Dale B.Martin has done in his recently published article ‘Paul and the Judaism/Hellenism Dichotomy’ that it was only in the nineteenth century that scholars, especially in pre-united Germany, became interested in Hellenism as a cultural and political phenomenon in antiquity. [23] The Greek spirit which had unified Greco-Roman culture at its height in the one empire was depicted in analogy to the German Geist and its supposed unifying capacity to unite Germany as one Reich. The open minded universalistic tendency attributed to Hellenism as such was also regarded as the main basis for  the development of early Christianity.[24] And if some Jewish influence was accepted as important for nascent Christianity, it was Judaism in its Hellenistic form. Moreover this  was considered as being in the process of  overcoming its particularistic attitude. Thus it seems to be the Hellenistic influence of proper thinking which enabled Paul to become the founder of Christianity as the true spiritual religion. 

 

Romans in this image of Paul is the letter where this concept of the pure spiritual religion is perceived as being outlined in its most perfect form.  Romans 8 then is the culmination of Paul’s outline of the ideal Christian life in faith, which is understood to be a life ‘in the spirit’ beyond the particularities and contingencies of everyday life. One of the problems with Romans arising from this depiction is that the letter does not stop at the end of chapter 8. Chapters 9-11 in particular now seem to be superfluous and even irritating amendments, since here Paul suddenly takes up the particular issue of the Jews. Chapters 12-15 could somehow still be integrated as the outline of the ethical consequences of this spiritual faith.

C.H.Dodd for example ‘solves’ this problem by depicting Paul as a man full of contradictions, who despite his grandeur is still struggling with his Jewish past. He now and then falls back into his Jewish past, overwhelmed by emotions which for a brief moment seem to obscure the clarity of truth in Christ.[25] He thus concludes that 12:1ff is the real sequel to 8:39, 9-11 being an insert or digression. Rudolf Bultmann also had difficulties with chapters 9-11 as Nils Dahl in his review of the Theology of the New Testament noted. He stated that Bultmann had much to say about Rom 1-8 but hardly anything about Rom 9-11. And what Bultmann said demonstrated his view that Christ was the end of history, indicating that there is neither room nor time for ongoing Judaism in history.

 

This image of Paul as the pure, Hellenistic, ‘spiritual’ thinker did not emerge in a vacuum but in specific political contexts in Europe. It is no coincidence, I think, that in these contexts rising anti-Semitism soon emerged.[26] Such a perspective on Paul does not seem to be far removed  from the  appraisal of the Geist/spirit of Western logocentrism and German idealism and its philhellenism in particular, and its later unfolding in a variety of approaches. (Nazism and anti-Nazism as well – see above). These are obviously related to political and ideological contexts and Derrida has alerted us to the fact that there are totalitarian tendencies inherent in essentialist, universalizing approaches. In emphasizing the ‘spiritual’ aspect in Pauline interpretation today one therefore needs to ask what is the purpose behind this emphasis and what are its ethical consequences.

 

It might also be relevant to take into account another question raised by Derrida in Of Spirit. What is actually meant by the word ‘spirit’ in Pauline interpretation, what are the associations which are implied in the use of this term ? How come that it often seems taken for granted, as Heidegger states, that ‘Geist’, ‘pneuma’, and ‘spiritus’ are historically related to each other in their meaning in an ‘intra-translational triangle’[27] leaving aside – or as Derrida says, foreclosing the Hebrew ‘ruah’? Derrida rightly asks what justifies this closure historically, since what had to be translated into the Greek pneuma and then the Latin spiritus, and only later into the German Geist, was originally the Hebrew  ruah. We also have to ask what changes with the translation of one term not only from one language into another but also from one cultural context into another. I cannot elaborate here on these questions, but they are raised here as indications of what needs to be taken  into account in reemphasizing  the ‘spiritual’ Paul of Paulinism after Derrida.

 

The Paul of Paulinism – the Paul of Universalism

 

The ‘spiritual’ Paul cannot be separated from the ‘universalizing’ Paul as I have already noted. The spirit leads from the particularities of the physical appearances  to the real spiritual world which is universal. The particularities and differences of this physical world have to be overcome - or formulated with Hegel - have to be ‘aufgehoben’ (raised above into) into the higher spiritual dimension of the real world.

Christianity as advocated by the Paul of Paulinism must be universally applicable; Romans as a theological treatise and ‘his last will and testament’ must address humanity as such. Bornkamm regards Romans as the elevation of themes Paul had dealt with in earlier letters, having elevated them in Romans from particular  everyday problems  to the heights of universal truth.[28] Bornkamm seeks to avoid contradictory interpretations of Paul by regarding him as developing his theology from a stage where he is still more or less bound to his Jewish past (which is viewed as a minor stage of faith)  to an increasingly clear view and understanding of the universal meaning of the Christ-event.

 

In order to depict the universalism of Paul, the particularity of Judaism necessarily has to be depicted as in opposition to it. Thus F.C.Baur  described the history of early Christianity as an antithesis between the Jewish ‘Petrine’ and ‘Pauline’ faction through which the genuine Christian self-consciousness arose. For this depiction of history Baur 'needed' Jewish Christianity as representing ‘the narrow, nationalist, conservative tendency of adherence to Old Testament law among early Christians.’[29] For Baur Paul advocated ‘a total renunciation of the compulsoriness of the Mosaic Law’ and revealed the fundamental ‘antithesis between Judaism and Pauline Christianity’.[30] The essence of Christianity is regarded as a moral universalism already present in  Jesus teachings but there it was still  bound to Jewish particularism.

 

E.P.Sanders has convincingly demonstrated that the image of Judaism  depicted as in opposition to Christianity is in fact a construction created in the pattern of 16th century Reformation problems. This is turn was rooted in Augustine’s transformation of Romans during the Pelagian controversy into a timeless theological treatise of human over against divine agency. This Jewish  religion of works-righteousness, which is needed to support the doctrine of justification by faith, (which since the Reformation was perceived as the centre of Paul’s theology) , according to Sanders actually did not exist. But Sanders’ own depiction of first century Judaism has most recently been criticized from several perspectives. It has been argued that this depiction is not appropriate and that this is proof that Paul was actually opposing  Judaism as such. But even if Sanders’ depiction of first century Judaism and his own image of Paul are inadequate, he nevertheless convincingly demonstrated the constructed character of the image of Judaism of the Lutheran approach and of Paulinism as a reflex of the situation of the churches in the 16th century. [31] He has thus also ‘deconstructed’ the hierarchical oppositional pattern of the traditional formulation of Christian identity. There is no way back behind this.

 

Nevertheless, the pattern of Paulinism can be discovered in several recent approaches.  Daniel Boyarin  in his A Radical Jew is depicting Paul as a Hellenistic Jew who has close similarities with the Paul of Paulinism. He finds in him someone who ‘motivated by a Hellenistic desire for the One, which among other things produced an ideal of a universal human essence, beyond difference and hierarchy.’[32]  Based on this presupposition Boyarin contends that for Paul all ethnic and gender distinctions are erased in Christ. From this background Paul, in Boyarin’s view, in his interpretation of Jewish Scriptures, consequently spiritualizes integral Jewish features such as circumcision (Rom 2:25-29), descent from Abraham (Gal 4:21-31) or Israel according to the flesh (1 Cor 10:18). Through this method he ‘transforms the rites and the very existence of a ‘particular tribe’ into ‘an ahistorical, abstract, and universal human truth.’[33] Differences between individuals and people are thus relegated to the extent that they are perceived as irrelevant and of minor value. According to Boyarin this is what Paul's message promotes. It thus implies the eradication of diversity to achieve sameness – ‘a humanity undivided by ethnos, class, and sex.’[34]  What Boyarin here ascribes to Paul is really just another interpretation but it is nevertheless quite an adequate description of some implications of the universalization of Paul’s statements in his letters. This is the universalized Paul of Paulinism. Again, as in the previous section, this Paul is seen as being enculturated in Hellenism, having departed at least partly from Judaism. Similarly, even in the work of the most prominent representative of the ‘New Perspective’ J.D.G.Dunn this pattern of interpretation can still be found. Dunn sees Paul not opposing Judaism as such but only a particularistic, ethno-centric form of it. Thus Paul’s universal gospel is defined in opposition to ‘bad’ Judaism.[35]

 

Behind this ‘universal Paul’ the logocentric presupposition that there is one true essence of Being beyond the particularities of this world clearly shines through. The logic of sameness and identification leads to an eradication of differences. Particularities hinder the universal truth of the gospel. There is no room for Jews in Christ since to be one in Christ implies that all are the same. Diversity and difference thus threaten this ‘Oneness’.  Nor is there room  for Jews after the time of Christ in this depiction since difference and diversity  threaten the universal truth of Christian faith. The Jews are and remain the ‘Others’, those who are and remain different. The particularity and difference of Judaism is perceived as anachronistic, a hindrance for the unfolding of the spirit, it thus had to disappear for the sake of the universalism of Christian faith. That there is a totalitarian tendency in this claim which is not merely theoretical we are very well aware at the beginning of the 21st century. The  universalistic claim of Western discourse, and thus also of Paulinism, can only formulate its self-understanding at the expense and exclusion of the ‘others, which in the latter case are the Jews. Recognizing its constructed character, it becomes evident that those values and appearances which are declared to be universal are most likely to be those of the dominant power. Thus what is declared to be the universal identity in Christ resembles very much gentile identity in Christ. The Paul who is depicted as the founder of universal Christianity in opposition to particularistic Judaism, has close similarities with a white Christian man, which is a very particular identity. What is declared to be the universalism of Paul’s gospel is in fact the universalization of one aspect of Paul’s acting and theologizing which is related to particular people in a specific situation at a specific moment in time addressing particular problems. This in fact is not universalism but the universalization of particularity.[36]

 

Beyond the Paul of Paulinism – Paul in Context

 

To see Paul as the first Christian theologian and as a pure theological thinker raises him above the contingencies of everyday life and thus detaches him from the context in which he was living and acting. It is an image which tends to see his letters as chapters of a systematic theology. Paul’s gospel concerning Christ is then viewed as a coherent system of  timeless theology. Romans likewise is perceived as the culminating conclusion, the clearest expression of Christian truth. Themes of this timeless theology are to be found throughout the letters, and since they are all indications of the same one truth, generalizations across the letters can be made to clarify and develop the content of each  term. Galatians and Romans, for example,  are combined under the one heading of righteousness.

In this perception of Paul it is presupposed that there is one and only one true meaning in the written text which is accessible through scholarly objectivity. Once this meaning is found the process of  interpretation comes to a halt, is closed, or maybe foreclosed.  The absolutistic claim inherent in this understanding of Paul has found its explicit formulation not only in the establishment of church hierarchies and doctrines but also in the posited universalism of Paul’s theology . This claim renders any differing interpretations invalid if not heretical and marginalizes or even forecloses them as errant with regard to truth.

With Derrida’s help this absolutistic  claim inherent in Paulinism can be deconstructed as the claim of the dominating mainstream discourse which is part of the logocentric discourse of domination.[37]  The emphasis on the fluidity of any text as an interplay of interrelated signifiers and its embeddeness in a particular context challenges radically the notion of one single timeless truth fixed in a text. What applies to the text in the same way applies also to the interpreter. Both are part of the ‘text’, that is, of the ‘context’from which they emerged and to which they are related. Derrida’s approach parallels and confirms several of the  most recent approaches in Pauline studies.

 

It is significant to note that in such new approaches particularity and the contextuality of Paul’s letters, including Romans, are emphasized. The Pauline Theology group at SBL devoted itself between 1986 and 1996 to the exegetical principle to read and interpret each of the Pauline letters and its ‘theology’ without reference or recourse to the other letters of the Pauline corpus.  This project is an indication of an increasing awareness that ‘Paul's letters should not be read as disparate chapters of dogma or milestones in an ongoing theological biography’.[38]  Since Paul had not intended to develop a systematic theology, as William S.Campbell asserted ‘we can no longer therefore legitimately use his statements as if they were abstract and timeless theology.’[39] We should rather,‘as far as humanly possible…..interpret Paul's mission and Paul himself as they are presented in this specific text, before we resort to harmonization or revision from any other sources, however significant.’[40]

 

J.C.Beker’s concern for the particularity and contingency of each letter must also be mentioned here as well as scholars who emphasize rhetorical aspects of Paul’s letters. Neil Elliott sees striking resemblances between Beker’s coherence-contingency scheme’ and  recent rhetorical approaches since both emphasize that Paul’s letters are discourses ‘determined by persuasive purpose within a constraining situation.’[41] Elliott and others such as  Richard Horsley, emphasize that the concrete situation of Paul and his communities has to be seen to be related to the political context of first century Roman Empire. Not only Paul’s use of language and imagery are related to this context but his message of the gospel has to be read from this context. What emerges then is a Paul who at the margins of mainstream imperial society and its hierarchical power structures tries to set up alternative satellite communities as forerunners of another justice and another peace than that of the Roman empire. Significantly also the Jewish texture of Paul’s thinking and activity is more and more acknowledged.[42] 

 

Even Romans is in these perspectives perceived as a particular letter addressing specific problems of the Christ-believing groups in Rome. The issue most prominently addressed in it then is not the doctrine of justification as such but the relation of Jews and Gentiles after the Christ-event. Paul is pleading not for the erasure of differences but for the abiding respect and appreciation  of different and distinct identities as Jews and Gentiles in Christ.

These tendencies show parallels to Derrida’s emphasis that texts are bound to contexts, in that they all in various ways emphasize different aspects of the context of Paul’s letters. The emphasis on the particularity of each letter and the need to interpret  each one in its own right is parallel with Derrida’s insight that a text, as we have seen above, is an interplay of signifiers in which one signifier/word in ever new constellations is responding to the other, thus constituting meaning in an ongoing process of interaction. Thus, as I quoted above Derrida emphasizes that ‘each text calls for another “eye”’.  Reading the Pauline letters, and Romans in particular from such  ‘deconstructive’ perspectives necessarily leaves the process of interpretation open. In as much as a text is not a closed system,  Romans as any other of Paul’s letters is not a closed system with one final true meaning since not only  the context of the text but also the context of the interpreter is constantly varying.[43]

 

Paul  Inconsistent or a Partner in Negotiations ?

 

The  issues most frequently addressed recently in Pauline studies are what seem to be contradictory statements within one and the same letter or between different letters. In particular Paul’s statements about the Law and the status of the Jews after the Christ event seem inconsistent, as Räisänen insists.[44]  Paulinism requires a Paul consistent with the conceptualized logic of Western rationality. Whenever he differs from this logic this causes irritations especially when the relation between Jews and Gentiles and the question of the unity in Christ is at stake. According to Western rationality unity and oneness require sameness. Thus there can be no room for diversity in a logocentric concept of Christianity according to the Paul of Paulinism. Oneness in Christ equals sameness in Christ, which implies that Jewish identity has to disappear after the Christ-event, be it in Christ or outside of Christ. Paul does not seem to advocate this consistently. When he emphasizes ‘let everyone be convinced in his/her own mind’ (Rom 14: 5b) on the one hand, and  ‘to be likeminded’      (Rom 15:5)  this seems to be contradictory in itself.  F.Watson e.g. stated that Paul arguments for his people in Rom 11are inconsistent since some would claim that Romans 11 is based on the definition of the chosen people rejected in Romans 9.’ Watson’s surprise seems to be based on the presupposition of a complete sociological distinction between Judaism and Christ-believing groups at the time of Paul.This in fact is a sociological repetition of the theological opposition between Pauline Christianity and Judaism in Paulinism.[45]to indicate that Paul ‘…is full of inconsistencies’ as Räisanen insists.  Paulinism requires a Paul consistent with the conceptualized logic of Western rationality. Whenever he differs from this logic this causes irritations especially when the relation between Jews and Gentiles and the question of the unity in Christ is at stake. According to Western rationality unity and Oneness require sameness. Thus there can be no room for diversity in a logocentric concept of Christianity as is advocated by the Paul of Paulinism. Oneness in Christ equals sameness in Christ, which implies that Jewish identity has to disappear after the Christ-event, be it in Christ or without Christ. Paul does not seem to advocate this consistently. When he emphasizes ‘let everyone be convinced in his/her own mind’ (Rom 14: 5b) on one hand and  ‘to be       (Rom 15:5)  this seems to be contradictory in itself.  F.Watson, e.g. stated that Paul arguments for his people in Rom 11 are diametrically contradicting what he said in Rom 9. He notes that ‘It is ironic that Paul’s arguments for the consistency of God in 9-11 are themselves inconsistent for Romans 11 is based on the definition of the chosen people rejected in Romans 9.’ Watson’s surprise seems to be based on the presupposition of a complete sociological distinction between Judaism and Christ-believing groups at the time of Paul, which is sociological repetition of the theological opposition between Pauline Christianity and Judaism in Paulinism.  

 

Some scholars recently have challenged the notion that Paul is thinking and acting according to Western rationality.[46] They perceive him as well rooted in the tradition of his ancestors, that is Judaism, and thus well at home in the Scriptures, which for him were nothing other than the Scriptures of Israel. Thus these scholars do not perceive Paul as having departed from Judaism after his call, but see him embedded in this tradition interpreting the Christ-event from within it.  This implies that he could not have argued for a rejection or supersession of Israel since ‘God’s call and election are irrevocable’ (Rom 11:29) . Christianity is not lifted out of Judaism. Paul is perceived as living and thinking within a Jewish texture of thought, predominantly within the symbolic universe of Judaism. It is a way of thinking and arguing which by Peter Ochs and Stanley Hauerwas is described as scriptural reasoning. [47] It as a thinking that is more responsive than originative as it evolves in a constant ‘dialogue’ with the Scriptures (of Israel). W.S.Campbell states ‘…Paul understands himself in front of scriptures, standing before them and answering to them and a form of life that they project.’[48] Similarly P.Tomson emphasizes that Paul is coherent according to the ‘logic’ of scriptural reasoning when he states

 

 …….it is precisely this variegated structuring of life by means of halakha which enables and indeed requires the seemingly unlimited flexibility  of theological thought in Paul. In other words the basic coherence of Paul’s thought is not in any particular theological theme but in the organic structure of practical life.[49]

 

This implies that Paul is in ongoing interaction in interpreting, theoretically and concretely, with the best exegesis of his time, that is, also with Jewish interpreters whether they were Christ-believers or not. Differences, diversity and contradictions then are not indications of a minor stage of faith or of incoherence in Paul but they are consistent within this way of scriptural reasoning and contextual arguing. Paul here is not seen as being  interested in abstract truth but in the life of Christ-believing groups, that is in the life of Jews, Jews in Christ, and Gentiles in Christ.

 

Derrida’s challenge to Western rationalism, and his philosophizing at and beyond the boundaries of this discourse is not identical with, but rather demonstrates parallels to and confirms these most recent approaches in Pauline studies. His depiction of  the limited character of Western logocentrism confirms and supports the notion  of a different kind of thinking which is described as scriptural reasoning. Derrida’s emphasis on the contextuality and interrelation of texts with other texts sheds light on Paul’s way of interpreting the Christ-event in the light of Scriptures and practical life. Interpretation is itself part of this interactive interrelation, that is, in an ongoing process of negotiation. Romans then  can be viewed as part of such processes of negotiation between Paul, his Christ-believing communities, his co-workers, other apostles, other exegetes, and Scriptures, with Paul being one of the partners in this process. Romans, as Paul’s  other letters, provides us with insights into this specific process, a  process of negotiations within which aspects of truth and meaning can emerge. Paul’s statements cannot then be perceived as  timeless theology since they are part of a vivid interaction closely related to life. An element of uncertainty has to be maintained in the process of negotiation, otherwise it would not be really negotiating but calculating. Negotiation implies real openness to that which is still to come, to that which has never yet been.

It is further significant to note here that Derrida maintains that the presuppositions for the possibility of negotiation are not sameness or identity but difference and affirmation. Moreover the aim of this process is not understanding in the sense of a unification of horizons but the recognition and appreciation of differences and the continuing of the process of negotiation

To perceive interpretation as negotiation not only sheds light on Paul’s thinking, and activity but they also apply to contemporary interpretation. The context of the interpreter is as much part of this process as the context of Paul. The aim of interpretation then  is not to uncover the centre and core of Paul’s theology (in Romans), but to enter from one’s own perspective into a process of ongoing negotiation with Paul via the text of his letters as well as with other interpreters. This is the purpose and rationale of  the ‘Romans through History and Culture’ Seminar.[50]  

 

Derrida’s emphases are very much  in support of insights within the most recent trends in Pauline scholarship as demonstrated above.  His deconstructive approach helps to uncover hermeneutical presuppositions in Pauline studies and draws attention to practical implications they had or might have. Contingency and diversity thus need not be perceived as a problem in Romans but as intrinsic to Paul’s negotiating way of theologizing in context. The call for Oneness in Christ in Gal 3:28 and like-mindedness in Rom 15:5 then do not demand sameness but real unity in abiding difference in Christ. Derrida’s emphasis on the necessary openness of the process of negotiation resonates well with the end of Romans 11 where Paul, rather than closing his interpretation of the Christ event in a final last word, leaves it open to that which is still to come,  open to God thus offering hope for oppressed and marginalized minorities.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


[1] Referring to  Lévinas Derrida states that ‘ “Ontology as first philosophy is a philosophy of power”, a philosophy of the neutral, the tyranny of the state as an anonymous and inhuman universality.’ ‘Violence and Metaphysics’, in Writing and Difference ,London: Routledge reprint 2002 of the first edition of 1978, p. 120.

[2] Writing and Difference pp.79-153.

[3] Writing and Difference, p.141. 

[4] ‘The movements of  deconstruction do not destroy structures from outside. They are not possible and effective, nor can they take accurate aim, except by inhabiting those structures. Inhabiting them in a certain way, because one always inhabits, and all the more when one does not suspect it.’ Derrida, Of Grammatology, Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press 1997 (corrected edition), p.24.

[5] Derrida prefers the plural form of the term . Cf. ‘A “Madness” Must Watch Over Thinking’ in Jacques Derrida, Points: Interviews, 1974-1994.Stanford, CA : Stanford University Press 1995, p. 356.

[6] See Jacques Derrida, Wie Meeresrauschen auf dem Grund einer Muschel.....Paul de Mans Krieg.Mémoires 2.Wien: Edition Passagen 20, 1988, p. 108.

[7] Derrida, Of Spirit: Heidegger and the Question. .Chicago: University of Chicago Press 1989, p. 67.

 

[8] ‘Heidegger, the Philosopher’s Hell’, in Points, p. 185

[9] ‘The entirety of philosophy is conceived on the basis of its Greek source….it is simply that the founding concepts of philosophy are primarily Greek, and it would not be possible to philosophise, or to speak philosophically, outside this medium.’ ’Violence and Metaphysics:An Essay on the Thought of Emmanuel Levinas’ in Writing and Difference, p. 81, or Martin Heidegger ‘the word philosophia tells us that philosophy is something which, first of all, determines the existence of the Greek world. Not only that – philosophia also determines the innermost basic feature of our Western-European history…..’What is Philosophy?, London: Vision Press 1958, pp.29-31.

[10] Focussed on the logos (Geist) as the means by which truth, that is, the essence of being can be recognized logocentrism devalues writing over against spoken language. The letter is only derivative of that which is more closely and naturally related to truth. Derrida states that ‘All signifiers, and first and foremost the written signifier, are derivative with regard to what would wed the voice indissolubly to the mind or to the thought of the signified sense, indeed to the thing itself…….The written signifier is always technical and representative. It has no constitutive meaning……..This notion remains therefore within the heritage of that logocentrism which is also a phonocentrism: absolute proximity of voice and being, of voice and the meaning of being, of voice and ideality of meaning.  Of Grammatology,p.11 f.

[11] True thinking is only possible in German thus he could say in an interview in 1976 those who think  think in German.. See Derrida, Of Spirit,p. 69.

[12] Derrida, Positions.London: The Athlone Press 1981, p.27.

[13] See Peter Engelmann (ed.), Postmoderne und Dekonstruktion: Texte französischer Philosophen der Gegenwart.Stuttgart: Reclam 1990,  p.21.

[14] Points, p.216.

[15] See Engelmann (ed.), Postmoderne und Dekonstruktion  p. 25.

[16] “A ‘Madness’ Must Watch Over Thinking”, in Points, p. 363.

[17] As he has formulated in the Exergue to Of Grammatology ‘Perhaps patient meditation and painstaking investigation …..are the wanderings of a way of thinking that is faithful and attentive to the ineluctable world of the future which proclaims itself at present, beyond the closure of knowledge. p.4.

[18] see Elizabeth Rottenberg ‘Introduction: Inheriting the Future’ in Jacques Derrida, Negotiations. Stanford: Stanford University Press 2000, p.2.

[19] Negotiations, p. 12.

[20] Negotiations, p. 29.

[21] This is emphasized by Baur, see note  88 in my thesis, but still also by Rudolf Bultmann ‘Indeed the main importance of Paul has not been mentioned yet. It is to be found in the fact that as a theologian he provided Christian faith with an adequate understanding of itself.’RGG 2nd edition, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 1930, p. 1026.

[22] Cf.Stanley K. Stowers, A Rereading of Romans: Justice, Jews and Gentiles.New Haven: Yale University Press 1994, p.327.

[23] In Troels Engberg-Pedersen (ed.), Paul Beyond the Judaism/Hellenism Divide, Louisville, KY: John Knox Press 2001, pp. 29-62. In the same volume cf. also Philip S Alexander.,’Hellenisim and Hellenization as Problematic Historiographical Categories’, pp.63-80. 

[24] We cannot elaborate on this in more detail, but considering the political implications this pattern of thinking had, I think it is significant to note that Heidegger stated that ‘it is not German idealism which ahs collapsed, it was the age (Zeitalter) which was not strong (strong) enough to remain equal to the grandeur, the breadth, and the original authenticity (Ursprünglichkeit) of this spiritual world, that is, to realize it truly, which means something different from simply applying maxims and ideas.’ Quoted in Derrida, Of Spirit, p.60.

[25] The Epistle to the Romans, London: Hodder and Stoughton 1932, p. 42.

[26] It would be aa topic for further research to investigate the relation of the emergency of ethnic national states, the problem of minorities, racism, and the history of Pauline interpretation. 

[27] Derrida, Of Spirit,p. 100.

[28] Der Römerbrief als Testament des Paulus, Geschichte und Glaube 2.München 1971. pp.134f.

[29] Susannah Heschel, Abraham Geiger and the Jewish Jesus.Chicago: The University of Chicago Press 1998,, p. 112.

[30] Baur,‘Christuspartei‘, p.49,74f 

[31] See W.S.Campbell, ‘Martin Luther and Paul’s Epistle to the Romans’ in Orlaith O’Sullivan (ed.), The Bible as a Book: The Reformation. London: British Library 2000, and ‘The Interpretation of Paul: Beyond the New Perspective’ paper given at the British New Testament Conference Manchester 2001.

[32] Daniel Boyarin, A Radical Jew:Paul and the Politics of Identity,Berkely: University of California Press 1994, p.7.

[33] John M.G. Barclay, ‘Neither Jew Nor Greek: Multiculturalism and the New Perspective’, in Mark G. Brett (ed.), Ethnicity and the Bible. Leiden: J.B.Brill 1996, p.207.

[34] Boyarin, A Radical Jew, p.181.

[35] See Luise Schottroff ‘Here a law observant Gentile church is seen as being Paul’s achievement, thus traditional anti-Judaism is overcome. But thus law observant Gentile church is set up to bring to an end a wrong Jewish understanding of the Torah. The sociological construction of Dunn continues to adhere to a anti-Jewish Christian perception of the narrow particularistic Israel versus the universal gospel.’ In JSNT 79/2000, p. 340,.Also Neil Elliott 'Paul and the Politics of the Empire'  in Richard A. Horsley (ed.),Paul and Politics: Ekklesia, Israel, Imperium, Interpretation, Essays in Honor of Krister Stendahl, Harrisburg, PA : Trinity Press International 2000, p.20,

 

 

[36] Cf. W.S.Campbell who emphasized this in his paper ‘How New Perspectives on Paul Assist in Illuminating Ancient Jewish-Christian Relations’ given at SBL Denver November 2001.

 

[37] Cf. page 1 of this paper.

[38] Tomson, Paul and the Jewish Law: Halakha in the Letters of the Apostle to the Gentiles.Minneapolis: Fortress 1990,  p. 56.

[39] Campbell, Paul's Gospel in an Intercultural Context,: Jews and Gentile in the Letter to the Romans, Berlin: Peter Lang 1992, p. 81.

[40] 'Divergent Images of Paul and His Mission', in Cristina Grenholm and Daniel Patte (eds.), Reading Israel in Romans: Legitimacy and Plausibility of Divergent Interpretations, Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International 2000, p.208.

[41] The Rhetoric of Romans: Argumentative Constraint and Strategy in Paul’s Dialogue with Judaism. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press 1990, p.18.

[42] Cf. W.D.Davies, Paul and Rabbinic Judaism:Some Elements in Pauline Theology. Fiftieth Anniversary edition Mifflintown, PA: Sigler Press 1998,  Peter .Tomson, Paul and the Jewish Law. et.al.

[43] see above p. 6f. of this paper.

[44] Heikki Räisänen, Paul and the Law,Tübingen: Mohr 1987,p.264.

[45] Paul,Judaism, and the Gentiles: A Sociological Approach.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press 1986, p. 168.

[46] Cf. W.D.Davies, P.Tomson, ( note 43) W.S.Campbell, Paul’s Gospel in an Intercultural Context, and   M.Nanos, The Mystery of Romans.The Jewish Context pf Paul’s Letter to the Romans.Philadelphia: Fortress 1996,  et.al.

[47] See the volume Christianity in Jewish Terms, in the series Radical Traditions: Theology in a Postcritical Key.

Boulder CO :Westview Press 2000. What Cristina Grenholm and Daniel Patte describe as scriptural criticism in their ‘Overture’ to Reading Israel in Romans: Legitimacy and Plausibility of Divergent Interpretations.Harrisburg,PA: Trinity Press International 2000, pp.1-54 points into a similar direction.

[48] Campbell, ‘The Contribution of Traditions to Paul’s Theology’, in David M. Hay (ed.) Pauline Theology Vol II, Minneapolis: Fortress Press 1993,  p.241.

[49] Tomson, Paul and the Jewish Law, p.265.

 

[50] As is outlined by Daniel Patte und Cristina Grenholm in the ‚Overture’ to Reading Israel in Romans,pp. 1-54.