Back to the Program

READING PAUL IN A FRONTIER CONTEXT
Moral criticism and Paul's picture of "Gentiles"

Halvor Moxnes, University of Oslo

In one way the two papers under discussion seem very different. Kathy L. Gaca, "Paul's Uncommon Declaration in Roman 1:18-32 and Its Problematic Legacy for Pagan and Christian Relations" investigates two different strands of interpretation of Romans 1 among early Christian interpreters in 2-4d centuries. Jonathan Draper's "Bishop J.W. Colenso's Interpretation to the Zulu People of the Sola Fide in Paul' letter to the Romans," studies a 19th century interpretation of Romans in a South African context.  However, they share a common focus on
what meaning "pagans/ heathens" in Paul's text may be given in the context under study, and particularly what function this (constructed) meaning  have had in contemporary relations between Christians and pagans/ heathens. Thus, the underlying question is that of the ethics of interpretation: what is the role of biblical texts and their interpretation in, to use modern terms, inter-faith, inter-ethnic or inter-racial relations where Christians are engaged? And what is the responsibility for the interpreter or the students of historical interpretations? I sense in both authors this commitment to moral questions, and an willingness to evaluate the interpretations by Colenso or 4th century Christian  Greek authors from the perspective of  their relevance to group relations and politics.

Moral readings of Pauline dichotomies
These two papers represent a focus on one of the dichotomies of Galatians 3:28 that, strangely enough, have been least studied. I am thinking of "neither Jew nor Greek". I think it is right to say that the other two dichotomies of Galatians 3:28 have played an important role in recent New Testament studies. In fact, we may look upon the interest in them as indicative of developing trends of how the present context shapes questions addressed to biblical texts. Since the 1960's social issues and issues related to gender have been important concerns. The "neither slave nor free" is underlying the study of the social constructions of Early Christian groups. Was what has often been perceived of as theological differences in fact  based on conflicts between social groups? And the idea of "egalitarianism" has given way to a study of groups and internal social conflicts (John S. Kloppenborg, "Egalitarianism in the Myth and Rhetoric of Pauline Churches," in Reimagining Christian Origins (FS for B. Mack) ed. E. A. Castelli and H. Taussig, Valley Forge: Trinity: 1996, 247-63).  Likewise, in the last decades the dominant interpretation of the "neither male nor female" has been an emphasis upon equality between the sexes (especially E. Schüssler Fiorenza). The Pauline statement has been taken to support egalitarian relations between men and women in the earliest Christian groups. Recently, however, critical  - and feminist - voices have raised doubt about this consensus: rather than an emphasis upon equal rights, does Paul's position imply a swallowing up of the female in the male? Is it really creating a unity that is based on superiority of the male, as the model for the "new human being"?(e.g. L. Fatum, "Image of God and Glory of Man: Women in the Pauline Congregations," in K. Børresen (ed.) Image of God and Gender Models in Judaeo-Christian Tradition, Oslo: Solum 1991 (56-137).

When it comes to the third pair,  "Jew and Greek", focus of interest has been on Paul's construction of Jews, or rather, Paul's picture of the Jews as it has been constructed by Christian  interpreters (cf. E.P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, 1977). This, of course, is very much part of a hermeneutical issue: present days Jews consider themselves as in some way heirs and related to the Jews at the time of paul, just as Christians understand themselves as heirs and related to Pauline Christians. Therefore,  the way in which Paul's picture of Jews is represented and understood in scholarship is directly relevant to present day relations and dialogues between Jews and Christians.
What is new to the contributions of Draper and Gacas is that they explicitly focus on other part in the "Jew and Greek" dichotomy, on Paul's construction of the Greek, as well  as the hermeneutical implications of this picture. Probably one reason why this has not until now received so much attention, is that the Christian church and theologians understood themselves as "Greek" in contrast to the Jews. And since a "gentile/ heathen" background was no longer a reality in the European and North-American cultures, that aspect of "Greek" receded into the background. It may be a sign of a growing awareness of the multicultural and multireligious  context of Christianity and Christian theologians that Paul's discussion of "Greek/ gentile/ pagan" come into view. And quite specifically it is a sign of a moving away from a European and Anglo-American context of doing Biblical studies.

Here the question of categories of representation and understanding of what was at stake in the first century is of great consequence. The categories that were coined in the 19th century were those of "nation" and "race", especially the last one with ominous consequences .This has led to a presentation of the conflicts involved in categories that were relevant to modern Europe. The present more widely used category is ethnicity(M.G. Brett (ed.) Ethnicity and the Bible. Leiden : E.J. Brill, 1996). From a Jewish perspective, it has been argued that Paul, exactly when he is including Jews, actually strips them of their identity. They are included, but at the cost of their own dearest concepts of identity: not the acts of observance of circumciscion and Torah themselves, but the central meaning attached to this observance. (D. Boyarin, A Radical Jew. Paul and the Politics of Identity. 1994). This seems to be a parallel argument to the criticism that Paul includes the female by actually transforming it into male.

We easily use our own categories, for instance, when Colenso, as Draper suggests, makes "Jews" into an essential entity. Gaca may do the same, when she raises the question of "the precise identity of the alleged truth suppressers," and goes on to draw differences between "Gentiles" and "Greeks" (175). Her use of "Mediterranean" with religion, polytheism, and cultural identity (instead of "ethnic"?) indicates a modern perspective. That becomes visible also in an aside in a footnote, saying that "some of Paul's patristic exegetes also presumed that what is gay must be Greek (175 n.28)." Especially this last example, the use of "gay" or "homosexual" in discussions and  even translations of Rom 1:26-27, shows how easily modern categories that come out of a totally different social and symbolic world can enter into studies of premodern periods (D.B. Martin, "Heterosexism and the Interpretation of Romans 1:18-32," Biblical Interpetation 3 (1995) 332-55)|. That is a problem in all historical studies, but particularly if the text is used as an  authority in contemporary debates.

Thus, I suggest that interpretation is not an attempt primarily to clarify the meaning of Paul's statements (about gentiles), but to clarify the understanding and consequences in one's own time. It is interesting to read Colenso' concern with the same question as Gaca raises: who are meant by the sinful gentiles in Rom 1:18ff.? Colenso's reading si similar to that of many recent interpreters: Paul's statement that "they are without excuse" here is meant to imply Jews as well as gentiles, but this intention does not become  explicit until later in the letter. And Colenso rejects that  Paul speaks of "every individual heathen" : "Of course, there were infants and young children, at all events, of whom this could not be said. There were others also, the wise and good of ancient Greece and Rome, and, doubtless, of every nation under heaven, civilised or barbarian, who did, as St. Paul says himself presently, work that was good, according to the light and strength vouchsafed to them" (14). Colenso suggests that Paul has in view especially the Sophists.  Moreover, he distinguishes between those who sinned ignorantly, and those who did not sin ignorantly (c. Gaca). Only the latter group of heathens, as well as Jews and Christians, exposed themselves to the wrath of God.

The Zulus, as Draper has pointed out, represent those heathens who, if they sinned, it was ignorantly. In an interesting but brief comment that points to a much larger argument in his The Pentateuch and the Book of Joshua (1865), Colenso makes the Zulus to (fallen) Jews. This is based on Colenso's claim that the Zulus believed in a god named uNkulunkulu, which he interpreted as "Supreme Creator", in analogy with Yahweh. Their present recognition of this god was but a mere trace of their previous knowledge when they were, says Colenso "sons (very probably) or grandsons of Abraham" (20, D. Chidester, Savage Systems, Charlottesville and London: Univ. Of Virginia Press: 1996, 124-27, 137-38). Even if they had fallen down from their previous knowledge, the light of that knowledge had not been withdrawn. Thus, we can see that in the case of Colenso, different from the Christian Greek authors studied by Gaca,  the attempt to make the Zulus insiders, sharing in the knowledge of God, is not used to make them more guilty, but instead to strengthen an attitude of tolerance.

From an imperial to a frontier context in the reading of Paul's letter to the Romans

The villain of Gaca's story is not Paul or his text in Romans 1:18-32 in itself, but rather its interpretation and use from the late 2.c., and especially in the 3. and 4th centuries. This spread of Paul's views has to do with his growing authority in the early Church. But it is combined with other elements: the social and political demise of the Greek and Roman gods, especially from the 4th c., and the growth of Christian polemics and intolerance toward pagan religion (196-98). Thus, Paul and his texts receive status as authorities, and Christians come into power, helped by imperial policy. We may say that this introduces a period (which has lasted until this day)  when  Romans has been read as "Paul's testament", as a theological authority, Paul's synthesis of Christian beliefs, and of general applicability to issues like the human condition, sin and salvation.  It is this I, with terminology borrowed from D. Chidester, Savage Systems, suggest is to read Paul in an imperial context.

David Chidester has a somewhat different purpose from J. and J. Comaroff (Of Revelation and Revolution, 1991), but it is an equally fascinating reading of the colonial experience in South Africa in the 19. century. The subtitle of his book is  Colonialism and Comparative religion in Southern Africa. His interest is to study how the discipline of comparative religion emerged not only out of Enlightenment, but also out of the history of colonial conquest and domination (xiii).
Chidester (1996:2-4) looks at  the development of comparative religion in a study of a specific context, Britsh colonisation of South Africa in the 19th c, and finds two main phases, the first "frontier", the next "imperial". Chidester, define frontier as "a zone of contact, rather than a line, a border or a boundary. By this definition, a frontier is a region of intercultural relations between intrusive and indigenous people" (20). The frontier remains open as long as power relations are unstable and contested, it can produce conflict, but also new forms of co-operation and exchange. However, these open zones of intercultural contact closed "with the establishment of some form of European colonial hegemony. As I suggest, these closures were matter of both power and knowledge" (26).

How does Chidester see the relation between different phases of colonisation and the development of comparative religion? First, frontier comparative religion was a human science of local control, based on studies of religion as local systems.  From our perspective is the interesting aspect how the agents of these studies (missionaries, colonial agents etc) engaged in discussions with the local population. Colenso, as Draper points out,  and his commentary on the Romans represents in many ways this position (although in other ways he represents an imperial position, cf. his dedication of his book to Shepstone).  In the translation of the Bible into Zulu, there was a double movement, in that he also interpreted the Bible by help of Zulu understanding of religion. I.e. this is a frontier situation, of dialogue, encounters, with power differences, but also with the possibility of influence.

Second, imperial comparative religion, as practised in Europe from 1850 onwards represents a different practice. Evidence from different parts of the world was arranged into "a single, uniform, temporal sequence, from primitive to civilised, that claimed to represent the universal history of humanity" (3). This global knowledge reinforced global control. And this imperial comparative religion erased all historical, local, social contexts.

I suggest that the readings of Romans that Gaca present, highlighting the contributions of Greek authors in 3 and 4th centuries, represent an imperial reading. It does not necessarily imply that they had superior power in relation to pagans, but the frontiers were no longer a zone of contact, but closed borders and boundaries. Gaca points to the context of the interpretation of Romans 1  in the Christian polemics against pagans, growing stronger after Constantine. Then it functions clearly against specific groups. But it strikes me also that the material Gaca presents, of the "double attitudes" that Origin, Clement and others have to Greek philosophers, may be interpreted as an example of imperial reading in a specific context. Considering the importance of Greek culture, Greek paideia, and rhetoric for the Greek church fathers, is it possible to understand these two different attitudes as attempts to sort out for themselves what was valuable in Greek philosophy? They wanted to separate themselves from and de-legitimatise pagan cults and philosophical schools, at the same time as they employed Greek philosophy and rhetoric in their own expositions of Christian beliefs.

And after the 4th century the Christian interpretation of the Bible undisputedly took the place of hegemony. That has characterised historical-critical scholarship, which came into its own in the modern period at the time of colonialism. Thus, it is fair to say that New Testament scholarship, with its European and North American domination, represents as paradigm of imperialism. For instance, in studies of  the historical Jesus, Jesus was represented as progress, Judaism as backwardness. Likewise,  Paul was read in the context of universalism, versus Jewish particularity. One example of this is the way in which "race" as a negative concept was brought in to characterise the Jews, and specifically of the sins of the Jews (C.J. Roetzel, "No'Race of Israel' in Paul," Putting Body and Soul Together. Essays in honor of Robin Scroggs. Valley Forg: Trinity (1997) 230-44). This was spoken from a position of power, so that  "race" is not something that characterises "us", but always "the others", inferiors or savage people. Therefore, Paul is read as a universal, i.e. imperial theologian, speaking  - as modern Western interpreters - from an imperial position, of power. This is a reading him from the perspective of his general, over all statements, e.g. salvation for all, God for all , and  in emphasising the equality of all - Jews and Gentiles, i.e. of creating a unity, disregarding the differences.
 

Back to a frontier reading of Paul?

Can we move from a reading of Paul in an imperial setting to one in a frontier setting? This is a double question: can modern readers who come from an hegemonic context , for instance in terms of economy, power,  culture, ethnicity, accept or open up for readers from other contexts, with other perspectives of reading? And can we in this process construct a different scenario of Paul, not as an imperial theologian, but as a missionary in a frontier context?

What if we try to read Paul in a frontier setting, as one who tries to find a place for himself and the groups of Christ followers within the socio-cultural, religious and ethnic context. This implies that he does not have the full power to label, to identify. Gaca's conclusion that "in the text of Romans itself, the identity of Paul's "truth-suppressing people" remains open-ended, which likely precludes a modern consensus about their cultural identity" points in this direction. I should include a caveat here, however. It may also be that the text is not meant to give information about cultural (or ethnic) identity, so that it will not respond to our questions. Stanley Stowers has pointed to similarities between Rom 1:18-32 and Greco-Roman  "decline of civilisation narratives" (A Rereading of Romans. New Haven. Yale (1994) 85-104.  The purpose of such narratives is to describe "the other" in contrast to "self", so that they serve as argument for  organising society. Thus, the pictures are obviously stereotypes, clichés of  "the other", part of a rhetoric, and may therefore not lend themselves to specific questions of identity. Therefore, when early Christian Greek writers and Colenso in the 19th century raise such questions, they may be using the text for a different purpose than it its first context.

But the observation that the text is "open-ended" is still valid and valuable, as it may point to the ambiguity of the "self" that Paul attempts to create as well. I still think that Paul in Romans wants to include (Christian) Jews and pagan Christians into some sort of unity by means of his argument about the impartial God. Thus,  Paul is attempting to create a new understanding of identity, but it is something that cannot be taken for granted, or find a clear, conceptual expression,  since it is not yet visible as a socio-religous entity. Since Paul never speaks of the Christian ekklesia in Rome, the most likely social setting is that the Christians were subgroups that belonged within Jewish synagogues, i.e. that the separation had not yet taken place, and that there was no defined "Christianity" in Rome (M. Nanos, Mystery of Romans,  summary in "The Jewish Context of the Gentile Audience Addressed in Paul's Letter to the Romans," CBQ 61 (1999) 283-304). Thus, both socially and conceptually it was a frontier situation, without fixed boundaries, and Paul had an uncertain power base to enter into the relations.

I suggest that this frontier situation becomes visible in Romans 4, Paul's interpretation of Abraham (H. Moxnes, Theology in Conflict. Studies in Paul's Understanding of God in Romans . Leiden: Brill (1980) 117-282). Abraham as an ideal figure is in many ways the contrast to the negative picture of the gentiles in Romans 1. His introduction as "ancestor" (4:1) makes him a positive  identity figure for the audience. However, like Romans 1.18ff  this text is ambiguous and open-ended when it comes to specific identification of those who may identify with Abraham.

Paul's interpretation of Abraham is an example of an inclusive use of a Jewish symbol. It was possible to read him also as a symbol for  pagans, as an idolater who converted and trusted in God (in contrast to the pagans in 1:20). Is this indicative of the frontier position - Abraham is a figure who can be read from two sides, he can be used as a figure of identification for pagans (or former pagans), but also (even more) for Jews? Paul attempts, for both groups, to re-configure him, to make him primarily a figure of identification for Christians among  Jews and pagans. But whereas it is clear that Abraham can only be a father figure for believing pagans, those who have turned away from idol worship, he remains a father for Jews - undefined, whether Christian or non-Christian! Thus, there is an ambiguity that remains, that shows how Paul speaks from within a frontier/ dialogue context, not from an imperial context

We notice this ambiguity on the side of Paul when he speaks of who the descendants of Abraham are in Romans 4. Paul here gives a re-interpretation of the narrative of Abraham. Instead of the focus on the obedience of Abraham, exemplified in his willingness to sacrifice Isaac (Gen 22), Paul puts the emphasis on Abraham receiving (and believing) the promise of God of land and descendants (Gen 12 and 15). The structuring element in Paul's midrashic interpretation of the Abraham story is a quotation from Gen 15:6: "Abraham believed in God and that was reckoned to him as righteousness" (Rom 4:3, cf. 4:5, 9, 22,23). Although there is no mention of Jesus Christ in Romans 4 until v. 24, Paul's use of "faith", "believe" and "grace" clearly presupposes his understanding of God's act of salvation in Christ, and the parallel between Abraham and those who now believe in Jesus. Thus, the logic of the argument would require that the descendants of Abraham were those Jews who believed in God "who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead" (4:24). But Paul does not say that, at least not that it was only the Jews who believed in Jesus. Instead he in two instances in ch. 4 seems to make a careful distinction not to say that. "The purpose was to make him father of all who believe without being circumcised and who thus have righteousness reckoned to them, and likewise the father of the circumcised, (of) those who are not only of the circumcision, but also those who follow the example of faith which our father Abraham had before he was circumcised" (4:12, my transl.). Paul speaks of tois ouk ek periomtes monon alla kai tois stoichousin tes ichnesin...The problem of the two tois that indicate two different groups, is sometimes solved by correcting the second tois to autois , but there is no ms evidence for this (Moxnes 1980, 112). And the problem remains, since 4:16 is also ambiguous. Paul's draws the consequences of his argument that the promise rests on grace and faith,  only in that way can it be guaranteed to all his descendants - "not only to the adherents of the law (ou to ek tou nomou monon), but also to those who share the faith of Abraham (alla kai to ek pisteos Abraham).

How shall we understand the ambiguity of these expressions that in heir inclusiveness seems to go against the very thrust of  Paul's Christocentric argument? Paul's explicit use of Abraham, when he turned circumcision and obedience of the law into "accompanying signs" of the righteousness which he received though faith (4:11, 13), served to make them relative as identity markers (Boyarin). This was a position, which the church in (not so much) later periods should  elaborate on and explicitly exclude non Christian Jews from their place as heirs of Abraham. This was the imperial position. But in the position in which Paul writes, this imperial stand is not yet possible. He writes in a frontier situation, of Christ believing Jews and pagan Christians living as subgroups in the synagogues, or at least, closely related to the synagogues. The attempt to transform the identity of Abraham is a bold attempt and part of the main structure of the text. But when he draws his conclusions there is an ambiguity that provides openings for an understanding that non-Christian Jews might hear as not so offensive, as keeping open their place as descendants of Abraham. Thus, there seems to be a correspondence between the ambiguity of the identity of pagans/ gentiles in Romans 1-2, and the ambiguity about the Jewish descendants of Abraham in Romans 4.

Frontier and morality
The studies of Gaca and Draper have shown that readings of Paul from an "imperial position" (be it by Christian Greek writers in the 4th c or the Church of England hierarchy in the 19th century) are wrought with moral problems. But since they often form part of the governing consensus, and its hegemony of meaning, these problems only become visible when they are confronted with readings from a frontier context. Historical studies may have an important moral function here. They can question the frames of interpretation, the cultural constructions and concepts that govern the readings of ancient texts. We know of the dangers and the fateful consequences of pictures of the Jews, drawn (at least partly) on the basis of Paul and the Gospels.
Gaca has in a parallel way pointed to the danger of  pictures of "gentiles" and "pagans" that can be constructed on the basis of Romans 1, and Draper's study of Colenso has presented a possible alternative reading than the traditional, "imperial" one. They have shown that the effect of a text, and the context within which it is read, is an important part of the totality of a text as it is handed down through history.

I have suggested that we make a distinction between an imperial reading of Paul, and a reading of him in a frontier context.  It think that from a frontier context one may be better able to explain Paul's position on Jews and pagans, his use of literary conventions and stereotypes, and even understand its function in his historical situation.  I don't suggest, however, that this will solve all problems, and necessarily make Paul's position on all issues morally acceptable. Nor can we put Paul above moral criticism. As long as his texts are used as authoritative and read with a view to their meaning for contemporary questions, we must engage in discussion with them and enter into moral arguments when needed.

7