4.1 Background information to 1 Corinthians
4.1.1 Authorship
Pauline authorship of 1 Cor is undisputed, though certain passages like 1 Cor 11:1-16, have been argued to be an interpolation. These arguments regarding the presence of possible significant interpolations concern especially passages where women are subordinated to men e.g. 1 Cor 11:2-16 and 14:34-35. Some scholars have for instance argued for a case of interpolation in 1 Cor 11:1-16 on the basis of the flow of argument. As I have argued in chapter 1, I do not wish to enter into the debate about interpolation, but rather seek to adopt the traditional view of Paul as author, because I am interested not so much in the redaction of the text, but in the production and appropriation of it. In its appropriation in faith communities the author is presumed to be Paul. In
this case I regard the debates about its authorship as secondary to the primary purpose of reading it, since the text stands as gender-biased regardless of who wrote it. I therefore maintain the traditional view of Pauline authorship in order to be able to examine his thought through a postcolonial optic and to read the passage in liberating ways for women. Given that I am presuming Pauline authorship, Paul’s background becomes important to this study.
Paul was born in Tarsus which, according to Marrow (1986:8), was designated the capital city of the Roman province of Cilicia in 67 B.C.E. It was located at the foot of the Taurus Mountains on the road passing from Asia Minor to Syria. During Paul’s time, Tarsus was a Hellenistic city as well as an important trading, commercial and Greek cultural centre (Bornkamm 1995:3, Roetzel 1997:11-16). Paul was therefore born in the Diaspora (Jews living outside Jerusalem). There are however debates about where Paul was brought up. While some scholars, such as Bornkamm (1971:3) following Acts 22:3, cf. 23:34, argue that his parents may have moved to Jerusalem in his youth where Paul received his education, others dispute this Lucan view and have preference for Tarsus as the place of Paul’s upbringing and education, undergoing Hellenistic influence, and where his missionary view was shaped, rather than Jerusalem (see debates in Roetzel 1997:11- 16). He had two names, a Hebrew one (Saul) and a Greek one (Paul). Some scholars, like Lϋdemann (2002:134), however indicate that ‘Paul’ was a Roman name. It was a custom for Jews living in Diaspora to have two names, a Hebrew one, and a Greek or Roman one.
Paul was a Jew by birth (Rom 11: 1; 2 Cor 11:22; Phil 3:5) from the tribe of Benjamin (Rom 11:
1; Phil 3:5). He referred to himself as a Hebrew of Hebrews, thus associating himself with the Jews of the motherland since this term referred to Jews of the motherland who spoke Hebrew or Aramaic (Acts 6:1). Paul could therefore speak Hebrew (cf. Acts 21:40, 22:2), although Greek may have been his first language as he was a Diaspora Jew. He was also a Pharisee born of the Pharisees (Acts 23:6), indicating that he was a member of one of the main Jewish sects in Jerusalem.
From the Lucan account (Acts 22:25-27), Paul was a Roman citizen. This view is however sharply disputed. Scholars who support Paul’s Roman citizenship argue that Paul may have acquired it through his parents who had obtained citizenship (see for example Ferguson 2003:63). Lϋdemann (2002:134-135) also argues for Paul’s Roman citizenship and gives several
points to support his view as follows. Firstly, he argues that on the basis of his Roman name (Paul), he must have been a Roman citizen since a Roman citizen had a right to bear a Roman name. Secondly, he asserts that Paul’s appeal to be tried in Rome (Acts 25:10-11) is evidence of his citizenship. Thirdly, he states that Paul’s freedom to write to Philemon from prison can be explained by his citizenship because as a citizen, he was not kept under harsh confinement but in a liberal detention. Fourthly, that Paul’s wide-ranging missionary journeys were only possible, because his citizenship served both as his passport and his shield.
Views against Paul’s Roman citizenship, which far outweigh the Lucan view and Lϋdemann’s argument, are based on various arguments. Roetzel (1997:19-22) mentions some of them.
Firstly, Jews from Eastern Provinces were not given Roman citizenship, unless they were rich and influential. Secondly, citizenship demanded participation in the civic cult. This would be at odds with Paul’s religious zeal in Judaism (cf. Phil 3:6). This argument may however be countered by the fact that, since the reign of Julius Caesar, Jews were given the right to govern themselves by their laws, to practice their ancestral religion, and autonomy to create their own administrative and judicial organization (Roetzel 1997:21). Thirdly, Paul’s endurance of oppression (cf. 2 Cor 1:8, 9f), when an appeal on the basis of his Roman citizenship would have offered a ready escape, puts his Roman citizenship in question. Fourthly, Paul himself does not give any evidence of his Roman citizenship in his letters. Finally, Luke’s theological interest would have been served by Paul’s Roman citizenship in that Luke would be able to show that the movement in which Paul was involved was not a subversive one.
We may never be able to establish Paul’s citizenship with certainty. By extension, this also implies that Paul’s social status cannot be established with certainty, because only Roman citizens could occupy the higher stratum.
Some scholars like Mary Smallwood (cited in Roetzel 1997:22) argue, that to be a citizen did not necessarily imply that one was indeed a Roman citizen. It could also imply that one was a member of a politeuma46
46 A politeuma referred to a self-governing group within a Roman city who were given specific rights. Alexandrian Jews for instance formed a politeuma, meaning that they were allowed to live in their own laws i.e. they were not
. I therefore concur with Roetzel (1997:22) that Paul may have been a member of a Diaspora Jewish politeuma or association in Tarsus.
Paul was an educated man. It is however doubtful whether he was taught by Gamaliel (a famous pharisaic teacher of the Torah in Acts 5:34) if Paul was indeed reared in Tarsus, as argued above.
However his education equipped him with the knowledge of the Septuagint and also with skills of interpretation, as evidenced by the way he often cited Jewish Scriptures and applied Jewish thought patterns to clarify his point, though giving them a new meaning in Christian thought (see Achtemeier, Green and Thompson 2001:296-297). Through his education, he was immersed into the tradition of Israel and the Pharisaic understanding. Education also exposed him to Greek philosophy, which provided a framework for thinking in the Greco-Roman world. Although he may not have had intensive training in Greek culture, he learnt a lot about it through his preaching and also through the theology of the Diaspora synagogue. This is exemplified in his writings, which draw concepts and ideas from the philosophy of the Stoics (e.g. his use of terms like freedom, reason, nature, conscience, sobriety, virtue and duty). His use of the contrast between flesh and spirit in Rom. 8:9-13, reflects Platonic thinking, encouraged by Stoic philosophers (cf. also 1 Cor 7:29-31, 2 Cor 6:10).
This brief background shows that Paul was a highly hybridized man. He was a man of three worlds: a Jew, perhaps a ‘Roman’ citizen (even if only through his membership of a politeuma), and he was also familiar with Greek language and culture, having been born and brought up in the Diaspora, a strongly Hellenized environment. All these worlds shaped his thought and worldview, as reflected in his writings and especially his view of woman, as we shall continue to establish.
During Paul’s life before conversion, he was a persecutor of Christians. He put much pressure on them and applied torture, forcing them to blaspheme or curse Christ in Jerusalem (Acts 26:11, 1 Cor 12:3). He then planned to extend the persecution to the centres of the Jewish Diaspora where the Christians had fled in order to escape the persecution in Jerusalem (Acts 8:1, 11:19). Our knowledge of Paul as persecutor of Christians is however limited and Luke’s account, which some scholars regard as biased, differs from that of Paul (1 Cor 15:9) (see arguments in Roetzel 1997:38-43).
granted citizenship but “they were given the right to create their own administrative and judicial organization which was called a politeuma” (Roetzel 1997:21).
Paul’s conversion took place on the road to Damascus. After the conversion, he may have joined the Jesus’ movement in this Hellenistic city on the border of Roman political influence (Haacker 2003:24), where he stayed for three years (Galatians 1:17-18). When he went back to Jerusalem, he stayed for two weeks with Peter. According to Acts 9:26-30, the disciples at Jerusalem did not readily welcome him because they doubted the sincerity of his conversion. Later, he had trouble with Hellenistic Jews who plotted to kill him. The church in Jerusalem escorted him to Caesarea with a ticket for Tarsus (Acts 9:30). It is not clear for how long Paul stayed in Tarsus before Barnabas invited him to join in the ministry in Antioch.
Paul’s background and influences that shaped his life are pertinent to the understanding of 1 Cor and will greatly inform and shape my reading of chapter 11:1-16. This is the case, particularly because his argument in this text seems to be highly informed by his background.