Hybridity and Reading Romans 13

Abstract

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.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 10 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.