Insights From Postmodernism'S Emphasis On Interpretive Communities In .
JETS 37/4 (December 1994) 5 1 1 - 5 2 7 INSIGHTS FROM POSTMODERNISM'S EMPHASIS ON INTERPRETIVE COMMUNITIES IN THE INTERPRETATION OF ROMANS 7 WALT R U S S E L L * In reaction to modernism's radical individualism and lack of emphasis on group identities, the recent rise of postmodernism has helped to regain an appreciation for both the corporate dimension of the self and the influence of one's group or interpretive community on the interpretive process. 1 This essay is an attempt to glean some of the positive benefits from this postmodern emphasis and to apply these insights to the interpretation of the notorious crux mterpretum, Rom 7:7-25. I. THE CONCEPTION OF INTERPRETIVE COMMUNITIES Within the diverse and multidisciplinary reaction to modernism known as postmodernism there are various and sundry expressions of the concept of interpretive communities. Certainly two of the best known and most influential expressions are those set forth by Thomas S. Kuhn in the history of science and Stanley Fish in literary criticism.2 While others have added their voices to this perspective, Kuhn's and Fish's have been the most formative. Kuhn has helped us see the importance of the interpretive paradigm within which scientists work and carry out their scientific research. In other words, Kuhn has asserted that there is a sociology of knowledge that is a * Walt Russell is associate professor of New T e s t a m e n t at Talbot School of Theology, 13800 Biola Avenue, La Mirada, CA 90639 The term "postmodernism" is notoriously difficult and slippery to define The existence of numerous and conflicting definitions adds to this confusion The definition t h a t I will work with in this essay is from D Harvey, The Condition of' Postmoder nity (Cambridge/Oxford Basil Blackwell, 1990) 4 4 - 4 5 Harvey notes t h a t postmodernism is a t root a metaphysical and epistemological skepticism "To begin with, we find writers like Foucault and Lyotard explicitly a t t a c k i ng any notion t h a t t h e r e might be a meta-language, m e t a - n a r r a t i v e , or meta-theory t h r o u g h which all things can be connected or represente d Universal and eternal t r u t h s , if they exist at all, cannot be specified Condemning m e t a - n a r r a t i v es (broad interpretative schémas like those deployed by Marx or Freud) as 'totalizing,' they insist upon t h e plurality of 'power-discourse' formations (Foucault), or of 'language games' (Lyotard) Lyotard in fact defines t h e postmodern condition simply as 'incredulity towards m e t a - n a r r a t i v e s '" 2 Τ S Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (2d ed , University of Chicago, 1970), The Essential Tension Selected Studies in a Scientific Tradition and Change (Chicago University of Chicago, 1977), S Fish, Is There a Text m This Class? (Cambridge H a r v a r d University, 1980), Doing What Comes Naturally Change, Rhetoric, and the Practice of Theory in Literary and Legal Studies (Oxford Clarendon, 1989)
512 JOURNAL OF THE EVANGELICAL THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY significant interpretive factor in the handling of the data of science In this sense no data are raw, uninterpreted data Rather, scientists interpret the data with some sense of a preunderstanding or paradigm that significantly affects their perceptions This nuancing of the role of scientists regarding their network of relations corrects the mechanistic Enlightenment view of the totally objective scientist/interpreter It also adds appropriate weight to the role of one's interpretive community in the scientific enterprise In a parallel manner, Fish has made the same point about the perceptions of the interpreters of texts He thereby dislodges texts from the center of authority in favor of readers within their respective interpretive communities The notion of "interpretive communities," which had surfaced occasionally in my discourse before, now becomes central to it Indeed, it is interpretive communities, rather than either the text or the reader, that produce meanings and are responsible for the emergence of formal features Interpretive communities are made up of those who share interpretive strategies not for reading but for writing texts, for constituting their properties In other words these strategies exist prior to the act of reading and therefore determine the shape of what is read rather than, as is usually assumed, the other way around 3 While Kuhn and Fish have provoked significant discussion in their respective fields, in a very real sense they simply joined the ongoing dialogue among those working within the field of the sociology of knowledge In particular, almost thirty years ago Berger and Luckmann made a definitive statement about the social dimension of the interpretive process 4 This perspective has now been present within academia for over a generation (Kuhn's first edition was in 1962) But the full effects of these interpretive insights are only now being felt It is beyond the scope of this paper to critique the fundamental flaws of this emphasis on interpretive communities Others have done that far more eloquently elsewhere 5 Therefore let me simply note the weaknesses of this perspective regarding its problematic philosophy of language, its inconsistent treatment of the conventional basis of words and meanings, and the enormous leap that is made from legitimate interpretive impediments to epistemological dogma about perception and reality Such difficulties make unwise the wholesale adoption of the relativistic stance of Kuhn, Fish and others 6 In enumerating these criticisms of the perspective of interpretive communities, however, I would not want to say that significant insights into the 3 Fish, 7s There a Text 14 Ρ L Berger a n d Τ L u c k m a n n, The Social Construction of Reality (Garden City Doubleday, 1966) 5 In p a r t i c u l a r see J F H a r r i s Against Relativism A Philosophical Defense of Method (La Salle Open Court 1992), esp 7 3 # 9 4 on K u h n a n d 9 5 # 1 2 2 on h e r m e n e u t i cs 6 For a d e v a s t a t i ng and insightful t r e a t m e n t of Fish's theories a n d those of other socio pra g matic h e r m e n e u t i c a l advocates see A C Thiselton, New Horizons in Hermeneutics (Grand Rap ids Zondervan, 1992) 535#55 0 Note also t h a t K u h n modified his earlier views in his l a t e r work, Essential Tension 4
POSTMODERNISM EMPHASIS ON INTERPRETIVE COMMUNITIES 513 interpretive process are not to be gained from a t t e n d i n g to t h i s viewpoint Since i n t e r p r e t a t i on does involve a network of relations t h a t encompasses interpreters and t h e i r communities, these m u s t be addressed in t h e interpretive process Additionally, since t h e r e is a corporate dimension to t h e self and no person i n t e r p r e t s as a self in individualistic isolation, t h i s adds a corporate dimension to m e a n i n g 7 Also, it is beyond question t h a t our individual perceptions are enormously influenced by our social settings Therefore as I t u r n to t h e formation of t h e traditiona l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of Romans 7 it is inevitable t h a t I m u s t address t h e formation of t h e interpretive community (or communities) t h a t shaped and sustaine d t h i s interpretation for well over a millennium II T H E TRADITIONAL I N T E R P R E T A T I O N OF ROM 7 1 7 # 2 5 7 What shall we say then? Is the Law sin ? May it never be' On the contrary, I would not have come to know sin except through the Law, for I would not have known about coveting if the Law had not said, "You shall not covet " 8 But sin, taking opportunity through the commandment, produced in me coveting of every kind, for apart from the Law sin is dead 9And I was once alive apart from the Law, but when the commandment came, sin became alive, and I died, 1 0 and this commandment, which was to result in life, proved to result in death for me, n for sin, taking opportunity through the commandment, deceived me, and through it killed me 12 So then, the Law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good 13 Therefore, did that which is good become a cause of death for me ? May it never be' Rather, it was sin, in order that it might be shown to be sin by effecting my death through that which is good, that through the commandment sin might become utterly sinful 1 4 For we know that the Law is spiritual, but I am of flesh, sold into bondage to sin 1 5 For that which I am doing, I do not understand, for I am not practicing what I would like to do, but I am doing the very thing I hate 1 6 But if I do the very thing I do not wish to do, I agree with the Law, confessing that it is good 17 So now, no longer am I the one doing it, but sin which indwells me 1 8 For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh, for the wishing is present in me, but the doing of the good is not 1 9 For the good that I wish, I do not do, but I practice the very evil that I do not wish 2 0 But if I am doing the very thing I do not wish, I am no longer doing it, but sin which dwells in me 2 1 I find then the principle that evil is present in me, the one who wishes to do good 2 2 For I joyfully concur with the Law of God in the inner man, 2 3 but I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind, and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members 24 Wretched man that I am' Who will set me free from the body of this death 9 2 5 Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord' So then, on the one hand I myself with my mind am serving the Law of God, but on the other, with my flesh the law of sin 8 7 For a defense of t h e corporate dimension of t h e self see Selves People, and Person What Does It Mean to Be a Self2 (ed L S Rouner, Notre D a m e University of Notre Dame, 1992) 8 This t r a n s l a t i o n follows t h e NASB except for t h r e e exceptions I follow t h e p a r a g r a p h divi sions of UBSGNT, I s t a r t a new p a r a g r a p h a t ν 13, and I capitalize t h e "L" in t h e "law" of God in vv 22 25
514 JOURNAL OF THE EVANGELICAL THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY The issue t h a t P a u l addresses in Romans 7 is t h e J e w i sh issue of t h e a u t h o r i ty of t h e Law (Torah) over a person now t h a t t h e Messiah h a s come and died and been resurrecte d (e.g. 7:4#6). These kinds of J e w i sh issues and t h e i r relevance to Gentile believers in Christ were of great significance durin g t h e NT era and d e m a n d e d t h e Church's intense a t t e n t i o n from time to time (e.g. M a t t h e w 5#7; Acts 15; Galatians). But after t h e two J e w i sh revolts in AD 6 6 # 7 4 an d AD 135, very few J e w i sh people believed in J e s u s as t h e Messiah for several h u n d r e d years. This is why writings like t h e Dialogue with Trypho by J u s t i n M a r t y r (AD 110#165) are somewhat r a r e by t h e second century of t h e Church era. The resulting shift among C h r i s t i a n i n t e r p r e t e r s was away from a perspective t h a t was sensitive to Jewish#Gentile relations within t h e Church to a perspective t h a t was essentially Gentile in its orientation. While it is perfectly norma l t h a t certain issues may become culturally irrelevant as time passes, it a p p e a r s t h a t much of t h e apostle Paul's concern about Jewish#Gentil e relations quickly became archaic because of t h e essential disappearance of t h e J e w i sh p a r t of t h e Church. Consequently issues involving Jewish#Gentile relationships became u n i n t e r e s t i n g an d irrelevant. When this kind of cultural irrelevance sets in, it seems to d e m a n d a change in t h e perspective of t h e interpretive community if t h e ongoing relevance of the Word of God is to be m a i n t a i n e d in various passages. This a p p e a r s to be t h e case from early in t h e second century onward. For example, it a p p e a r s t h a t in t h e second century t h e m a i n interpretive question t h a t was asked on Romans 7 was w h e t h e r P a u l was describing his experience as s non#Christia n (i.e., in his Jewish, pre#converted state) or as a Christian. Obviously, such a n interpretive question only gives two possible answers. Therefore it is u n d e r s t a n d a b l e t h a t t h e early C h u r c h was divided in its i n t e r p r e t a t i o n primarily between these two views. The early Greek fathers generally followed t h e view t h a t Paul's autobiographical language referred to his pre#converted, J e w i s h s t a t e . This interpretatio n h a s generally been championed by G e r m a n i n t e r p r e t e r s in t h i s century who have largely followed t h e lead of W. G. K u m m e l . 9 The i n t e r p r e t a t i o n t h a t t h e "I"of Romans 7 refers to P a u l as a C h r i s t i a n was championed by t h e Greek father M e t h o d i u s 1 0 a n d t h e L a t i n fathers Ambrose and A m b r o s i a s t e r . 1 1 But it was Augustine's l a t e r view t h a t P a u l was describing himself as a C h r i s t i a n (a clear retraction of his earlier view of P a u l speaking in t h e n a m e of u n r e g e n e r a t e persons) t h a t was so powerful in helping to form t h e broad#based medieval view. 1 2 This is t h e view t h a t W G Kummel, Romer 7 und die Bekehrung des Paulus (UNT 17, Leipzig J D H i n n c h s , 1929) For a lengthy list of G e r m a n i n t e r p r e t e r s see D Β Garhngton , "Romans 7 14#25 and the Creation Theology of Paul," Trinity Journal (1990) 198 η 5 1 0 Methodius Ex libro resurrectione (PG 18 cols 299 if ) Ambrose De Abraham 2 6 27 {PL 14 col 467), Ambrosiaster Commentarla in XIII epístolas beati Pauli {PL 17 col 111-116) For Augustine's earlier, u n r e g e n e r a t e view see PL 35 col 2071, for his later, C h r i s t i a n view see PL 32 cols 620 ff, 629 ff
P O S T M O D E R N I S M ' S EMPHASIS ON INTERPRETIVE COMMUNITIES 515 13 Thomas Aquinas c h a m p i o n e d . It is also t h e view adopted by t h e majority of the sixteenth#century Reformers, especially M a r t i n L u t h e r and J o h n Calvin. 1 4 At present t h e r e a r e a t least five major views of Rom 7:7#25 t h a t have flowed out of t h e two ancient i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s . While t h e r e is some disparity among these views, they nevertheless are products of t h e same ancient interpretive community t h a t was formed d u r i n g t h e second century. These views are in continuity with one a n o t h e r because of t h e i r relationship to t h e major interpretive question asked of Romans 7: "Is P a u l describing his pre# Christian or C h r i s t i a n state?" (1) The " I " is P a u l as a non#Christian viewed from his later C h r i s t i a n perspective. 1 5 (2) The " I " is t h e representativ e experience of all, C h r i s t i a n or non#Christian, who try to live u n d e r law (i.e. try to be righteous and holy by t h e i r own efforts). 1 6 (3) The " I " refers to Adam, or to h u m a n i t y in Adam, with t h e Genesis 3 n a r r a t i v e being viewed as p a r a d i g m a t i c . 1 7 (4) The " I " refers to P a u l in t h e years immediately following his conversion when he still tried to live u n d e r t h e Law before learning to live by t h e Spirit (this view is often called "the victorious C h r i s t i a n life" view). 1 8 (5) The " I " is representativ e of P a u l and any normal C h r i s t i a n who is simultaneously justified, yet still a sinner and struggling with t h e normal tension between living in two ages at t h e same t i m e . 1 9 Central to t h e ancient paradigm or interpretive community of Paul's theology in general (and Romans 7 in particular) is t h e u n d e r s t a n d i n g of P a u l from t h e perspective of guilt and legalism. In other words P a u l was viewed as a typical first#century P h a r i s e e in t h a t he struggled with a sense of guilt before God and sought to allay his guilt by doing t h e works of Torah in a legalistic m a n n e r . In particula r t h e late#medieval and Reformation understanding developed t h i s interpretive paradigm to its fullest form. Luther's introductory comments in his 1535 lectures on G a l a t i a n s vividly express this interpretive grid in his inimitable style: But such is human weakness and misery that in the terrors of conscience and in the danger of death we look at nothing except our own works, our worthiness, and the Law When the Law shows us our sin, our past life immediately comes to our mind Then the sinner, in his great anguish of mind, groans and says to himself "Oh, how damnably I have lived' If only I could live longer' Then I would amend my life " Thus human reason cannot refrain from looking at active 13 Τ Aquinas, Super epístolas S Pauli lectura (8th ed , ed R Cai, Turi n 1953) 1 101 M Luther, Lectures on Romans (London 1961) 200 ff, J Calvin, The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Romans and to the Thessalonians (Edinburgh 1961) 146 ff 15 Cf e g H Ridderbos, Paul An Outline of His Theology (Grand Rapids E e r d m a n s , 1975) 126-130 16 Cf e g R Ν Longenecker, Paul Apostle of Liberty (New York H a r p e r , 1 9 6 4 ) 8 8 # 9 5 17 Cf e g E K a s e m a n n , Commentary on Romans (Grand Rapids E e r d m a n s , 1980) 192#197 18 Cf e g W D Lawrence, "The Traitor in t h e G a t e s The Christian's Conflict with t h e Flesh," Essays in Honor of J Dwight Pentecost (ed S D Toussaint and C H Dyer, Chicago Moody, 1986) 115#131 19 Many who hold t h i s view u n d e r s t a n d Rom 7 7#13 as Paul's description of himself in his preconversion J e w i s h s t a t e (aorist tense) and 7 14#25 as his description of himself in his present C h r i s t i a n condition (present tense) 14
516 JOURNAL OF THE EVANGELICAL THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY righteousness, that is, its own righteousness; nor can it shift its gaze to passive, that is, Christian righteousness. So deeply is this evil rooted in us, and so completely have we acquired this unhappy habit' Taking advantage of the weakness of our nature, Satan increases and aggravates these thoughts in us 2 0 The Reformers advanced t h e medieval paradigm by emphasizing t h e divine antidote to h u m a n i t y ' s guilt problem: justification by faith, r a t h e r t h a n justification by works. Of course L u t h e r and others were powerfully impacted by Paul's emphasis on faith#righteousness versus works#righteousness. In fact those epistles t h a t emphasized justification by faith (Galatians and Romans) became t h e lens t h r o u g h which t h e rest of Paul's epistles, t h e r e m a i n d e r of t h e NT, and even t h e whole Bible was viewed and interpreted . As m a n y have noted, thi s perspective became Luther' s "canon within t h e canon." The vulnerability of paradigms, according to Kuhn, is t h a t they can be overturned when they are no longer sufficient to deal with an overwhelming n u m b e r of anomalies. We are presently witnessing t h e subverting of t h e traditional interpretive paradigm of Paul's theology and t h e a t t e m p t to replace it with a new perspective on t h e apostle. My goal is to d e m o n s t r a t e t h a t t h e traditiona l i n t e r p r e t a t i on of Rom 7:7#25 is one of t h e anomalies t h a t supports this replacement. I I I . T H E FORMATION O F T H E N E W PAULIN E I N T E R P R E T I VE COMMUNITY If Augustine of Hippo (AD 354#430) is viewed as t h e informal yet primary shaper of t h e traditiona l interpretive community for P a u l i n e theology, 2 1 t h e n his formative work h a s certainly withstood t h e rigors of centuries of theologizing. The last twenty#five years, however, have brought profound changes in t h e very foundations of Pauline theology. The primary change t h a t h a s occurred in i n t e r p r e t i ng P a u l i n e theology does not even directly deal with P a u l b u t with first#century J u d a i s m . Specifically, recent scholars have asserted t h a t " J u d a i s m of t h e first century was not a religion based on e a r n i n g acceptance with God t h r o u g h t h e merit of righteousness based on t h e works of Law#obedience." 2 2 In other words t h e legalistic context in which P a u l was supposed to have been immersed as a Pharise e is now being hotly contested. Interestingly enough, earlier scholars h a d made thi s point with great fervor. 2 3 But it was not u n t i l t h e recent 2 0 Luther's Works (St Louis Concordia, 1963) 26 5 This is Κ Stendahl' s opinion in "The Apostle P a u l and t h e Introspective Conscience of t h e West," HTR 56 (1963) 199#215, r e p r i n t e d in Stendahl, Paul Among Jews and Gentiles (Philadelphia Fortress, 1976) 7 8 # 9 6 2 2 I am indebted to D A H a g n e r for his insights into t h e new perspective on P a u l in "Paul and J u d a i s m — T h e J e w i s h Matrix of Early Christianity Issues in t h e C u r r e n t Debate," Bulletin for Biblical Research 3 (1993) 111#130 2 3 Cf e g G F Moore, Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era (Cambridge H a r v a r d University, 1927#30) esp 1 110#121, 520#545 , R Τ Herford, Judaism m the New Testament Period (London Lindsey, 1928), C G Montefiore, Rabbinic Literature and Gospel Teaching (1930, reprinted, New York Ktav, 1970) 2 1
P O S T M O D E R N I S M ' S EMPHASIS ON INTERPRETIVE COMMUNITIES 517 works by E. P. S a n d e r s appeared t h a t t h e so#called Copernican revolution in Pauline studies b e g a n . 2 4 Those who are r e s h a p i n g our u n d e r s t a n d i n g of Paul's theology assert not only t h a t first#century J u d a i s m was not t h e legalistic religion t h a t Christians for centuries have believed it was bu t t h a t justification by faith is not the center of Paul's theology (nor t h e center of t h e NT nor of t h e whole Bible). Rather, they follow t h e earlier conclusion of Albert Schweitzer: "The doctrine of righteousness by faith is therefore a subsidiary crater, which has formed within t h e rim of t h e m a i n c r a t e r — t h e mystical doctrine of redemption t h r o u gh being#in#Christ." 2 5 The answer to t h e question "How could t h e Church so fundamentally have misunderstood and misinterprete d Paul's theology and first#century Judaism for over a millennium and a half?" brings us back to t h e issue of interpretive communities. The beginning of thi s m i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g of P a u l and first#century J u d a i s m is rooted in t h e disappearance of J e w i s h believers from t h e Church and t h e redefining of Paul's concerns in largely Gentile categories. In other words t h e early Church formed a distorted interpretive community regarding these issues because of t h e seeming irrelevance of Paul's original categories. In t h e words of E. D. Hirsch, Jr., they formed a generic conception of t h e whole of Paul's theology and of t h e m a t r i x of first# century J u d a i s m , which t h e n e n t r a p p e d t h e m in a hermeneutica l circle: Thus, the distressing unwillingness of many interpreters to relinquish their sense of certainty is the result not of native close#mindedness but of imprisonment in a hermeneutic circle Literary and biblical interpreters are not by nature more willful and un#self#critical than other men. On the contrary, they very often listen patiently to contrary opinions, and after careful consideration, they often decide that the contrary hypotheses "do not correspond to the text " And of course they are right The meanings they reject could not possibly arise except on the basis of a quite alien conception of the text It is very difficult to dislodge or relinquish one's own genre idea, since that idea seems so totally adequate to the text After all, since the text is largely constituted by the hypothesis, how could the hypothesis fail to seem inevitable and certain? 2 6 Given the early Church's comfort with its Gentile conception of Paul's theology, it is not difficult to imagine how Luther could build on this interpretive foundation and found his theology upon the long#standing view of Paul and the J u d a i s m t h a t spawned him. In fact this is now one of th e primary critiques of th e traditional interpretive community of Pauline theology. Specifically the criticism is t h a t Paul's theology h a s been misunderstood in recent centuries because it h a s been read through the lens of Luther and the Reformation. In this context the t e r m "the L u t h e r a n view of P a u l " h a s a pejorative ring to it. As Krister Stendahl and others have noted, Luther's view of Paul as a person struggling with agonizing personal guilt and the burden 2 Ε Ρ Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism (Philadelphia Fortress, 1977), Paul, Law and the Jewish People (Philadelphia Fortress, 1983) 2 5 A Schweitzer, The Mysticism of Paul the Apostle (New York Seabury, 1931) 225 2 6 E D Hirsch, J r , Validity in Interpretation (New Haven Yale University, 1967) 166 the
518 JOURNAL OF THE EVANGELICAL THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY of self#justification probably tells us more about late medieval piety t h a n it does about t h e apostle. 2 7 While t h e r e are several major corollaries t h a t flow out of t h i s revised view of P a u l an d first#century J u d a i s m , one is particularly i m p o r t a n t for our purposes. This h a s to do with Paul's m a i n concern. R a t h e r t h a n being focused on t h e universal h u m a n problem with guilt (as understood by Augustine an d Luther), it a p p e a r s t h a t Paul's m a i n concern was t h e t e r m s of conversion for t h e Gentiles and how they would relate to J e w s within t h e body of Christ. Again, given t h e disappearance of J e w i s h believers in Christ after t h e two J e w i sh revolts in AD 6 6 # 7 4 an d 135, t h i s central concern of P a u l soon became a nonissue in t h e ancient Church. Therefore t h e very core of P a u l i n e theology was reshape d according to more culturally relevan t concerns. The J e w i sh C h r i s t i a n missionary P a u l was r e s h a p e d in t h e image of t h e Gentile C h r i s t i a n interpretive community. It is this ancient distortion t h a t L u t h e r and t h e other Reformers simply enhanced an d extended. When applied to t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of Romans 7, t h e t r a d i t i o n a l paradigm assume d t h a t Paul's m a i n categories were t h a t of " C h r i s t i a n " an d "non#Christian, " an d t h e major i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s have fallen on one side or t h e other of this divide. Additionally t h e focus h a s tended to center on t h e guilt t h a t P a u l expresses in t h e passage, not j u s t regarding t h e Mosaic Law b u t now in relation to God's d e m a n d s in general. In other words t h e passage's very specific concern with obedience to t h e Mosaic Law is generally broadened to any kind of legalistic efforts on t h e p a r t of religious persons to justify themselves before God. The centrality of t h e works#righteousness/ justification#by#fait h lens is readily observable in t h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . For those who i n t e r p r e t Paul's r e m a r k s in Romans 7 as r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of a Christian, "the Law" is also assume d to be something more generic t h a n t h e Mosaic Law. It is usually understood as God's more general d e m a n d s an d t h e Christian's agonizing struggle to satisfy divine expectations. Since Augustine's time t h e focus is generally on t h e i n n e r turmoil t h a t t h i s struggle engenders. IV. ROMANS 7 : 7 # 2 5 AND T H E NE W P A U L I N E I N T E R P R E T I VE COMMUNITY While I would not go so far as m a n y in t h e newly#emerging P a u l i n e interpretive community who cast out any concern by P a u l about J e w i sh legalism, 2 8 I would agree with t h e new p a r a d i gm t h a t this is not Paul's prim a r y focus in Romans 7. R a t h e r, Paul's concern in this passage more closely aligns with those one would expect from a J e w i sh C h r i s t i a n missionary an d pioneer church p l a n t e r among t h e G e n t i l e s . 2 9 This is why Paul's bifurcation of h u m a n i t y in t h i s epistle is not into C h r i s t i a n s an d Stendahl, Paul Among Jews 8 5 # 8 6 Cf e g S a n d e r s , Paul and Palestinian Judaism 543#556 9 For a development of t h i s perspective within t h e whole epistle to t h e Roman s see Ρ S Minear, The Obedience of Faith The Purposes of Paul in the Epistle to the Romans (SBT 18, Naperville Allenson, 1971)
P O S T M O D E R N I S M ' S EMPHASIS ON INTERPRETIVE COMMUNITIES 519 non-Christians b u t into J e w s and Gentiles. In fact this latter set of t e r m s occurs more in Romans t h a n in all the rest of Paul's epistles combined. Central to Paul's u n d e r s t a n d i n g of "the gospel"—the main theme of Romans—is how this good news distinctly intersects Jewish and Gentile cultures and yet unites these diverse racial and cultural entities into the one people of God. This uniting of Jewish and Gentile believers in Christ was of immediate interest to the Christians in Rome when Paul wrote his epistle. Most agree that Paul is writing from Greece (probably Corinth) as Acts 2 0 : 1 - 3 records. The three months Paul spent t h e r e were during the winter of AD 5 6 - 5 7 . This date is significant because it was only two years after the J e w s (including Jewish Christians) h a d been allowed to assemble again within t h e confines of Rome. Claudius Caesar had issued an edict in 49 t h a t essentially expelled all J e w s from Rome (e.g. Acts 1 8 : l - 2 ) . 3 0 It was not until Nero became Caesar t h a t this edict was lifted in 54. These events were immensely significant to the church in Rome because it had apparently been started by Roman J e w s who may have been converted at Pentecost (Acts 2:10). This m e a n s t h a t the Jewish Christians in Rome were probably the senior members of the church, and it probably reflected a large amount of Jewish culture. In fact the church in Rome may still have been meeting in a number
the role of one's interpretive community in the scientific enterprise In a parallel manner, Fish has made the same point about the per-ceptions of the interpreters of texts He thereby dislodges texts from the center of authority in favor of readers within their respective interpretive communities
Thesis: The failure of epistemology made postmodernism possible, and the failure of socialism made postmodernism necessary. List of Tables and Charts v Chapter One: What Postmodernism Is The postmodern vanguard Foucault, Lyotard, Derrida, Rorty 1 Modern and postmodern 5 Modernism and the Enlightenment 7
The Aalto Card in the Conflict between Postmodernism and the Modernist Tradition in Finland Anni Vartola 1.2.2013 2/17 www.alvaraaltoresearch.fi play the — — card to introduce a specified issue or topic in the hope of gaining (esp. political) advantage, by appealing to the sentiments or prejudices of an audience.1 1. Introduction During the excited years of postmodernism, one of the lines .
“postmodernism.” In this way postmodernism is seen as the general or foundational problem, and so it follows that “postmodern” English must be a problem too. Our first task, then, is to decide what “postmodernism” means, according to its detrac
of postmodernism in recent years, there has been a move to textualize everything: history, philosophy and other disciplines are treated as so many optional “kinds of writing” or discourse.[2]35 T. his paper interprets postmodernism from the aspects of postmodern narra
fiction, poetry, and drama. It deftly maps postmodernism’s successive historical phases, from its emergence in the sixties to its waning in the first decades of the twenty-first century. Weaving together multiple strands of postmodernism – people and places from Andy Warhol, sLyotard,Laurie
Postmodernism and Consumer Society FREDRIC JAMESON The concept of postmodernism is not Nidel) accepted or even understood today. Some of the resistance to it may come from the unfamiliarity of the . Andy Warhol and Pop art, but also the more recent Photo-reailsm; m music, the moment of John Cage but also the later synthesis of .
Carver’s “Cathedral” Wolff’s “Hunters in the Snow” Tues. 8/2 Dirty Realism Introduction Carver and Wolff Discussion Homework: Langston Hughes Casebook Wed. 8/3 Raymond Carver Documentary Langston Hughes Casebook Homework: Postmodernism Casebook Thurs. 8/4 Postmodernism Casebook Homework: Postmodernism Continued Week Five: Mon. 8/8
postmodernism relate to each other and whether they can be seen as coherent cultural forms, or whether postmodernism is inescapably fragmented. . Fredric Jameson. Postmodernism and Consumer Society. In: The Anti-Aesthetic: Essays in Postmodern Culture. Seattle: Bay Press, 1983:
