While Paul has been used as a source for philosophy and politics in recent decades, his thoughts on community have not been well represented; nor has there been a sustained effort to bring together sophisticated debates on the community-individualism problem with Pauline communitarian thought. In light of the recent history of Paul in philosophy, the intention of this essay is to test the waters of interactivity through exploring how Paul’s communal activity and writing allows for thinking through contemporary political philosophical problems inherent in the concept of community, a problem that forms partially around notions of individuality and how communitarian or collectivistic sensibilities arrange the individual. The essay first points to a form of community found in Thomas Hobbes that is fraught with conceptual problems, before moving to an obverse conception of community found in Paul. The final section points to contemporary theorisations of community found in the work of Roberto Esposito and Jean-Luc Nancy, showing how they connect and help provide conceptual vocabulary to the Pauline motifs shown earlier, while also borrowing from the work of Paul. This points to the possibility for using Paulinist motifs in the current debate about community.
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
Ward Blanton, A Materialism for the Masses: Saint Paul and the Philosophy of Undying Life (New York: Columbia University Press, 2014). This is, after all, the point of Blanton’s polemical book: namely, a call to reading against the grain and a realization that uncovering subterranean Pauline materialist streams follows from genealogical investigation and realizations that our figurations are not as settled and unmoveable as the discipline often implies.
Jeph Holloway, ‘“Walk Worthy of Your Calling”: A Narrative Ethic’, The Poetics of Grace: Christian Ethics as Theodicy, Volume 2: The Worthy Walk (Eugene: Cascade, forthcoming); See also Kevin J. Vanhoozer, Biblical Narrative in the Philosophy of Paul Ricoeur: A Study in Hermeneutics and Theology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990); and John L. Meech, Paul in Israel’s Story: Self and Community at the Cross (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006).
Mika Ojakangas, ‘On the Pauline Roots of Biopolitics: Apostle Paul in Company with Foucault and Agamben’, Journal of Cultural and Religious Theory 11.1 (2010), pp. 92-110 (92); John Milbank, ‘Paul Against Biopolitics’, Theory, Culture & Society 25.7-8 (2008), pp. 125-72.
John Barclay, Paul and the Gift (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 2015).
Rachel S. Turner, Neo-Liberal Ideology: History, Concepts and Policies (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2008).
Victoria Kahn, Wayward Contracts (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2004), pp. 20-24. Kahn’s brief discussion of Hobbes and liberalism is important to note here, though she nuances the debate significantly. Her overview, which includes a discussion on Arendt’s, Habermas’s and Pocock’s readings of Hobbes’s contribution to the creation of ‘bourgeois private individuals’ is crucial. John Gray notes the ‘close affinities’ Hobbes has with liberalism due to his uncompromising attachment to individualism, a fact that, he writes, Hobbes scholars across the board recognize. See John Gray, Liberalism (Buckingham: Open University, 2nd edn, 1995), 9-12; and Turner, Neo-Liberal Ideology.
Jesus M. Zaratiegui Labiano, ‘A Reading of Hobbes’ Leviathan with Economists’ Glasses’, International Journal of Social Economics 27.2 (2000), pp. 134-46 (134).
Marie-Eve Morin, Jean-Luc Nancy (Cambridge: Polity, 2012), p. 101; Kahn, Wayward Contracts, p. 34. Kahn notes, as a usual instance, Hugo Grotius’s use of Cicero’s ‘state of nature’ to discuss social contract. Again, there is the common imagery of an originary situation that gives birth to communities, laws and rights.
John Gray, Post-Liberalism: Studies in Political Thought (London: Routledge, 1993), p. 5; Gert, ‘Hobbes’ Psychology’, p. 170; Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan: Parts I and II (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1958 [original, 1651]), pp. 78-86.
Robin Douglass, Rousseau and Hobbes: Nature, Free Will, and the Passions (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015), pp. 3-5. Rousseau’s understanding of Hobbesian thought led him to believe that it would destroy the very idea of a properly working republic.
Roberto Esposito, Communitas: The Origin and Destiny of Community (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2010), p. 30.
Roberto Esposito, Bíos: Biopolitics and Philosophy (trans. Timothy Campbell; Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2008).
Esposito, Communitas, p. 27. Crucially, Esposito points as well to this form of ‘peaceful’ state as enacting a radical, ‘strategic de-politicization of society in favour of the sovereign’ (Roberto Esposito, Categories of the Impolitical [trans. Connal Parsley; New York: Fordham University Press, 2015], p. 2). Hobbes becomes, for Esposito, the actual foundational thinker of modern politics.
Dale B. Martin, The Corinthian Body (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995).
Neil Elliott, The Arrogance of Nations: Reading Romans in the Shadow of Empire (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2008), p. 150. Significantly, Elliott counters the public/private distinction that can be read into Paul, something which, rather than denoting a full theological/ontological reality of the subject, would posit a different order of relation normal to the congregant, as opposed to a universal order of relation.
John Barclay, Pauline Churches and Diaspora Jews (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2016). One of the most prominent samples was on full display in the 2007 public SBL Pauline Epistles section debate between N.T. Wright and Barclay on the topic of Paul’s feelings toward the Roman Empire and how distinctive the evidence is within the broader Pauline corpus. Despite Barclay disagreeing strongly with an anti-imperial reading of the major Pauline epistles, he does make clear his approval of the strong difference in values evident, that Paul’s communities are deeply antithetical to the values of the larger Empire. While the Roman Empire may fall within the larger forces Paul addresses, it is never singled out directly or intended as a referent, in Barclay’s estimation. See also Barclay’s review of Elliott’s Arrogance of Nations: John Barclay, ‘Review of The Arrogance of Nations, by Neil Elliott’, JR 90 (2010), pp. 85-87.
David G. Horrell, Solidarity and Difference: A Contemporary Reading of Paul’s Ethics (London: T & T Clark, 2005), pp. 231-45; John Barclay, ‘Manna and the Circulation of Grace: A Study of 2 Corinthians 8:1-15’, in J. Ross Wagner, C. Kavin Rowe, and A. Katherine Grieb (eds.), The Word Leaps the Gap: Essays on Scripture and Theology in Honour of Richard B. Hays (Grand Rapids: William Eerdmans, 2008), pp. 409-426. Horrell’s work represents a constructive engagement with ideas of mutuality in Paul’s larger corpus, and specifically how the images in 2 Corinthians connect to contemporary concerns. Barclay has written in numerous places about Paul and grace, which is crucial for reading the images discussed below. While it would be difficult to summarize the Pauline imagery completely, it should be noted that body imagery is found in 1 Corinthians and connects directly as well to what our engagement with the images in 2 Corinthians 8 attempts to do, namely, point to a temporal nexus. Martin’s work, gestured to above, points to Pauline imagery that can, likewise, be engaged with in new ways.
Richard B. Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989), p. 90. Hays rightly points out that Paul is calling the Corinthians to solidarity. Yhwh may have been abundant in the desert, but the Corinthians are hoarding the ‘manna’, not sharing with the less fortunate within the larger community.
David E. Briones, Paul’s Financial Policy: A Socio-Theological Approach (London: Bloomsbury, 2013), pp. 104, 120-21.
Jean-Luc Nancy, Being Singular Plural (trans. Robert D. Anderson and Anne E. O’Byrne; Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2000), pp. 2-3.
All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
---|---|---|---|
Abstract Views | 270 | 51 | 6 |
Full Text Views | 118 | 1 | 0 |
PDF Views & Downloads | 88 | 5 | 0 |
While Paul has been used as a source for philosophy and politics in recent decades, his thoughts on community have not been well represented; nor has there been a sustained effort to bring together sophisticated debates on the community-individualism problem with Pauline communitarian thought. In light of the recent history of Paul in philosophy, the intention of this essay is to test the waters of interactivity through exploring how Paul’s communal activity and writing allows for thinking through contemporary political philosophical problems inherent in the concept of community, a problem that forms partially around notions of individuality and how communitarian or collectivistic sensibilities arrange the individual. The essay first points to a form of community found in Thomas Hobbes that is fraught with conceptual problems, before moving to an obverse conception of community found in Paul. The final section points to contemporary theorisations of community found in the work of Roberto Esposito and Jean-Luc Nancy, showing how they connect and help provide conceptual vocabulary to the Pauline motifs shown earlier, while also borrowing from the work of Paul. This points to the possibility for using Paulinist motifs in the current debate about community.
All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
---|---|---|---|
Abstract Views | 270 | 51 | 6 |
Full Text Views | 118 | 1 | 0 |
PDF Views & Downloads | 88 | 5 | 0 |