This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Marshall, J. W. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Hybridity and Reading Romans 13

University College, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5S 3H7 john.marshall{at}utoronto.ca

Interpreters of Paul have made substantial progress in identifying anti- or counter-imperial strands in the writings of the apostle. In many cases, postcolonial theory has been an important resource for such interpretations. It has emphasized the imperial (or colonial) character of Roman rule and provided avenues of analysis of resistant action and discourse that are well grounded in theoretical and comparative context. Postcolonialism, however, does more than identify and valorize resistance; it also attends to the discourses of affiliation that colonial subjects so often generate. Homi Bhabha's articulation of `hybridity' as a rubric under which to understand the relationship between resistant and affiliative responses by colonial subjects enables a deeper understanding of Paul specifically in that area that the politically engaged readings of Paul have made even more enigmatic, namely the relationship of the affiliative Rom. 13.1-7 to the apostle's evidently resistant discourse elsewhere in his literary corpus.

Key Words: Colonialism • Homi Bhabha • hybridity • postcolonialism • resistance • Roman Empire

Journal for the Study of the New Testament, Vol. 31, No. 2, 157-178 (2008)
DOI: 10.1177/0142064X08098279


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?