Scriptural Re-Interpretation and Social Identity Negotiation in the Corinthian Letters

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is a very well thought out, researched argued application of Tajfel’s Social Identity Theory (‘SIT’) to aspects of 1 and 2 Corinthians where Paul uses Israelite scripture to build and maintain the identity of his Christ-followers in Corinth. It has many interesting new things to say about these passages and does so judiciously and in an attractive style. It could be published pretty much as it is. There are, however, a few areas where it could be improved and I would suggest these be attended to before acceptance of the submission.

 

 

1.     There is a significant misunderstanding of what ‘social identity’ means. On lines 127-129 the author quotes Tajfel’s definition of social identity as ‘that part of an individual’s self-concept which derives from his knowledge of his membership of a social group etc’. The reference to the individual is vital, since social identity is a notion from social psychology and only individuals have a psyche and are susceptible to examination in terms of psychology. For this reason SIT does not predicate ‘social identity’ of groups. This can be inconvenient at times, but is fundamental to the approach. In spite of having cited what Tajfel meant by ‘social identity’ the author on several occasion predicates social identity of groups. Examples can be found in lines 25, 85-86 (where a social identity interest is attributed to John Barclay even though he is on record as doubting the efficacy of the whole enterprise of applying SIT to the New Testament!), 108, 136 (where ‘social identities’, i.e. of individuals, is needed), 286, 310 (‘possible social identities’ is needed, as in the subtitle of the article by Marco Cinnirella that the author relies upon) and 479.

 

2.     The statement of Turner’s Self-Categorisation Theory in lines 154-156 does not quite get the core of the theory right. Turner was fundamentally interested in explaining the psychological processes by which a person came to identify with a group in the first place.

 

3.     The author uses ‘social creativity’ in the title. This expression has a specific meaning in SIT. Yet the author does not mention it in their discussion of SIT (lines 123-164). The author does not explicate what ‘social creativity’ might entail. I suggest that they either adopt and apply ‘social creativity’ from SIT, or drop the expression and use some other way to encapsulate whatever they mean by it.

 

4.     In fn 17 the author recognises that Israel had an ethnic identity; this is in line with their astute appreciation of issues of identity in the article. Yet on a couple of occasions, they refer to ‘Second Temple Judaism’ (e.g. lines 10, 98, 480).  There has been discussion in the last couple of decades of the inappropriateness of applying ‘Judaism’ (which cannot designate an ethnic identity, but only part thereof) to the totality of the ethnic Judeans of the first century CE. I would suggest that the author justify their use of ‘Judaism’ or replace it with something else.   

 

5.     2 Cor. 3.1-4.6 are discussed from an SIT perspective (although one mainly focused on the SIT approach to leadership) in Philip F. Esler, 2 Corinthians: A Social Identity Commentary (London: T & T Clark, 2021), pp. 103-141. The author might like to review this discussion to see if there is anything there useful for their argument. 

 

6.     Two very minor points: (A) on a couple of cases verbs are expressed in the plural when they should be in the singular or vice versa (e.g. ‘provide’ in line 34; ‘provides’ in line 77); and (B) the author describes this submission as an ‘essay’ in line 44; should this be ‘article’?

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your thorough and thoughtful comments on my work. I appreciate your expertise and willingness to help me recognize several places where I lost some important nuance in abridging a much longer work into this short article. I've addressed your points in the following ways:

1. As suggested, throughout I have nuanced the language to make clear that SIT applies to individuals/group members and is not something that can be attributed to a group in its entirety. In the discussion of Barclay, I've also omitted the previous language of "social identity" entirely to avoid giving the impression that he's working with that category or SIT and instead left it general about intergroup relations between Judean groups and the wider culture to avoid misrepresenting his work.
2. On SCT and its core, I've addressed your concern with the following: "In seeking to explain 'how individuals are able to act as a group at all,' SCT delineates types of group behavior that result from individuals’ identification with a group. Among these behavioral effects are group cohesiveness and conformity to group norms." This distinguishes the core/goal of the theory from some of its implications that I am discussing.
3. On "social creativity": I have used this concept of SIT in my larger work, but as you rightly point out, did not define it or explicitly develop it in the article. Given the space constraints, I've opted to omit it and changed the title to "Scriptural Re-interpretation and Identity Negotiation in the Corinthian Letters."
4. I've replaced "Jewish" with "Judean" throughout where the referent is the ethnic group and retained "Second Temple Judaism" in those places where I'm referring to the entire time period of the second temple and the literature produced therein. I've added a footnote to this effect on the first occurrence of it to clarify terminology.
5. I implemented Esler's important 2 Corinthians commentary in my analysis of 2 Cor 3:1--4:6 where he draws attention to (rightly, in my view) the fact that Paul's leadership and his relationship with the Corinthians is the major issue throughout the entire letter. I also brought his work into the discussion of 2 Cor 3:18 on Moses, agreeing with him that Paul describes believers as having the access to God that Moses had, but disagreeing that Paul is disparaging Moses in any way in the passage.
6. I've corrected these typological errors and changed "essay" to "article.

Thanks again for your expertise and careful engagement with my work.

Reviewer 2 Report

I think there is a degree of consusion about the  use of intergroup and intragroup in the earl sections, which seems to be resolved in the latter sections. If only because the focus shifts to intragroup in Corinth)

The use of social identity theory seems to  be a new way of finding answers which were already known to other scholars who do not use such theory. Whether the  same conclusions by a new route is a hallmark of originality, I leave to the editors.

The focus on  Identity theory  dominates- and leaves little room for example, for   the  adoption of insights leading to similar conclusions based on sociocultural readings, often which looked at the  religious functions of eating, and  well  articulated in Kasemann's and Fotopolous' work.

 

 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your time and comments on my work, especially your incisive comments on terminology and categories in the PDF. You've helped me hone and clarify my thinking on "intergroup" and "intragroup" in important ways.

I've addressed your feedback in the following ways:

1. On the two instances where you've pointed out that it is Paul's context, rather than a modern perspective or approach that makes it fitting and necessary to read him within that context, I have nuanced the wording to make clear that that is what I intended to say. In the first instance, I've emended the sentence to say "This relative neglect [i.e., in secondary literature] suggests the necessity of reading Paul’s letters within the hermeneutical framework of his Second Temple context, ..." to make clear that he is in fact within that context objectively. Similarly, on p. 2 where I had said that my approach "accounts for" the Corinthians' complex identities, I've changed it to "recognizes" to make clear which direction this relationship goes.
2. On "intergroup" and "intragroup" confusion in Section 2, and to address your insightful concern regarding an assumed binary between "Judaism" and "Hellenism/Greco-roman culture," I've nuanced by specifying that this is "intergroup" not in an objective sense but in a subjective sense in those particular texts that indicate that is the primary group comparison at work, e.g., those texts that are concerned with "foreignness," compromise, indicate that outsiders are a threat, etc. Second, for the relationship between subgroups/sects within Judaism, I've changed that also to "intergroup" (rather than intragroup), as you suggested, since in those texts that differentiate between one sect and another, two groups are still being differentiated although on a different level than in the first group of texts described. I then used "intragroup" to refer only to indications where a group is self-legitimating or articulating their own self-understanding for their own use or there is some relationship at stake between group members, as in Corinth. I think this adds clarity and consistency.
3. On p. 4 and your question regarding the cognitive component of social identity and whether it is always conscious, I did not address (though it is a valid question), since the tenet that awareness of group membership is a necessary prerequisite to the type of group behaviour that Tajfel describes seems to me inherent in the theory itself.
4. On p. 5 and the question on whether "baptism into Moses" is problematic, I take it that the issue is that I've described that as "Christian ritual" when Paul is saying "into Moses," and thus I've replaced that language with "baptism."
5. On your comment regarding the work of Fotopoulos, I had implemented his insights in n40 but not in the way you describe; thus, I've added a footnote in the "emotional component" section noting that his findings on the communal/unifying nature of these meals in the Greco-roman culture corroborates from a socio-cultural analysis what I have shown from a textual analysis. I've also added a second footnote on Fotopoulos in the "behavioral" section citing his demonstration that the deity participated in the ritual. I also noted there that, since Malachi can speak of the altar as "the Lord's table," that this concept is present in Jewish background as well and thus we need not tease out which one is primary in this passage. I decided not to bring in Kasemann, partly because I didn't find an article by that title and date but, second, I read an essay of his on the theology of the Lord's supper (in his Essays on New Testament Themes; a reprint of an earlier article), but his theology of both the Body of Christ and the eucharist are so indebted to his assumption of the Gnostic Redeemer myth that I judged it would obscure the matter more than clarify to bring him into the discussion.
6. On your summary remarks: though there is some question here as to the originality or contribution of social identity theory as I have applied it, my analysis has: 1. integrated insights from socio-cultural approaches and social-scientific criticism into a text-based framework that specifies how these contribute to meaning in a text, which is a methodological lacuna in social theory approaches to the NT; but, second, it has also led me to conclusions that diverge from many interpretations of debated segments, e.g. that Paul sets himself and Moses up as parallel in 2 Cor 3-4 rather than as contrasting, and frames Moses as a prototype of the ingroup are both novel conclusions generated by the analysis. Thus, my hope is that the method and its application in fact do push the field forward in some ways.

Thanks again for your insightful feedback and helping me to regain some of the nuance I lost when I cut a much larger work down to this size. I appreciate your expertise in improving my work.