Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: Neil Elliot, "Liberating Paul"

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Jeffrey B. Gibson" <jgibson000 AT mailhost.chi.ameritech.net>
  • To: Corpus-paul <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: Neil Elliot, "Liberating Paul"
  • Date: Tue, 06 Jul 1999 16:18:15 -0500


Jon Peter wrote:

> Jeffrey wrote:
>
> > First, there is to my knowledge absolutely no evidence of Roman spying on=
> > Jewish
> > Synagogue services.
>
> All governments have intelligence services -- spies, informants, tough cops,
> surveillance units etc. When governments decide to take actions against
> groups, it is a safe bet that there has been investigative work going on to
> determine the nature and extent of the group's activities.

Let's admit this for the sake of argument. But it does not follow that if
the Roman
government circa the time in which Paul writes had such spies that they are
being
used, as you claim, to infiltrate Synagogues. What still needs to be shown
-- and I
still await your evidence supporting your claim -- is that such a decision to
take the
action you posit was ever taken. Is there any notice about this in Tacitus or
Suetonius? Any complaint about it Jospehus or Philo? Anything anywhere?

>
> Judaism was a legal religion, their synagogues class=
> > ified as
> > "collegia", and therefore *legally protected against* the sort of activit=
> > y you
> > envision.
>
> I don't know what you're referring to here exactly. But I am sure Priscilla
> and Aquilla and the other Jews who were expelled from Rome will be happy and
> relieved to hear that they were so well protected by the right of habeas
> corpus. (Acts 18.2) <g>

That an order of expulsio could be levelled against a group that was
suspected of
causing a civil disturbance has nothing to do with (a) whether that group was
spied
upon as a matter of government policy, especially before the disturbance or
after the
edict came to an end -- as it would have done **if it was ever carried out at
all**
(see Murphy-O'Connor's _Paul: A Critical Life_) at Claudius' death, let alone
with (b)
whether spying was illegal against collegia. May I have some evidence to the
contrary
please?

I'll not touch the habeus corpus remark as it is a non sequitur. e

> In any case, if you're right about Judaism being licitas, then this would
> tend to bolster my case even more, wouldn't it? The Christian congregations
> were not under legal protection and hence, Paul would have even greater
> cause for writing disinformatively as I've been saying.
>

Hardly. There is absolutely no evidence that Christianity was ever regarded
in Rome or
by Romans, let alone (as Mark Nanos demonstrates) that "christian"
congregations ever
existed, as something separate from Judaism until after the Great fire of
Rome in 64.
Indeed, even after that the evidence is that the christianoi, as Tacitus
calls them,
were still just a new sect of Judaism (cf. D. Benko, _Pagan Rome and the Early
Christians_; M. Grant, _Nero_). Also telling here is that when Nero, in
fixing a
scapegoat for the fire, moves to find and arrest the Christianoi he does so
**not
through the use of spies**, but by gathering who is who and who is where
through the
interrogation and torture of those who already publicly known to be among the
sect!

In addition, here's where the issue of the date of Romans is important. If,
as is
usually argued, it is in the mid 50's, there is even less reason to say that
Roman
authorities would have or even could have recognized Christians as separate
from Jews.

> Moreover, despite the so called disturbance under Claudius Roma=
> > n Judaism (of
> > which Roman Christianity was a part) was not under a cloud of political s=
> > uspicion.
> >
>
> Categorically? Never -ever -ever? Never, despite the difficulties in
> governing Judea year after year? Not even in the 60s when Legions were
> ransacking Judea and Galilee?
>
> You may be right, but I find this hard to believe and would appreciate
> evidence or additional arguments.

Let's stick to what's going on in Rome not Judea. As I pointed out above, the
fact,
noted by Tacitus, that in 64-65 Nero had to rely on identification of who
was a
Christians by the testimony of Christians belies your claim that he used
official
spies. In any case, the onus of proof really lies upon you.

> > Second, there were at least eleven synagogues in Rome. Not a single one h=
> > ad pews. Many
> > were in tenements and therefore above ground. Window spying would be diff=
> > icult.
>
> I was speaking figuratively about pews. My point was simply that, in some
> way or another, a letter from Paul could easily be employed by the
> Christians recipients to communicate the false impression that Christians
> revered authority. Another means of doing so would be simply be to show the
> police Paul's letters and say 'here, see what our leader tell us to
> believe?" A number of such uses for this letter can be imagined.
>

But Paul was categorically *not* the leader of the Roman congregations. Part
of the
reason for Romans is that Paul needs to get the congregations to accept him as
authoritative and to abide by what he has to offer! And as has already been
pointed
out to you, given the nature of its language elsewhere that there is no one
to be
worshiped or given allegiance except God and his regent, king Jesus, Paul's
letter,
once falling into the hands of your (imagined?) thought police, would actually
incriminate those who possessed it.

> Third, so far as we know -- and as Paul himself testifies -- Romans was t=

> > he only
> > letter of Paul that the Roman congregations possessed or were familiar wi=
> > th. So your
> > speaking of them as listening to Paul's letters being read aloud is a con=
> > siderable
> > historical inaccuracy as well anachronism.
> >
>
> Okay, I can't show that a second letter existed, and perhaps none ever did.
> I would be most interested to know, though, how you can be so confident in
> saying that reading a letter aloud would have been anachronistic?

The reading of a letter aloud was not what I was claiming was anachronistic.
It was
the idea that there was at Rome at the time of Paul's letter to them any
knowledge,
let alone, a collection, of his other letters.

> > Fourth, as commentators such as Cranfield and J..H. Yoder have noted, Pau=
> > l does
> > **not** counsel obedience. He counsels SUNTASIS, which, given the connota=
> > tions of this
> > word, would have had a quite different ring to it to both Roman Christian=
> > as well as
> > non Christian Roman ones than you imagine.
>
> The letter says hupotasso in 13.1. Can you help me out on SUNTASIS?
>

Got me here. On this, consult the C-P archives for a message from me dated 5/7
entitled "Paul's Naiveté".

>
> > Fifth, as Mark Nanos has argued, there is some doubt that what is going o=
> > n in Rom 13
> > has anything to do with Roman political authorities. Rather the admonitio=
> > n here has to
> > do with Gentile Christians submitting to the authority of Jewish synagogu=
> > e leaders.
> > But on this, I've urged Mark himself to say more.
> >
> >
>
> Mark N. may be right. In fact, I hope he is. I will listen. If indeed the
> authorities in 13.1 are Jewish rather than Roman, then that supports my
> contention about the need for Pauline disinformation even further, because
> Paul specifically writes about intra-religious spying activity taken against
> the Galatian Christians (2.4).
>

Even if so, are we talking about disinformation to Roman spies in Rome?

Yours,

Jeffrey
--
Jeffrey B. Gibson
7423 N. Sheridan Road #2A
Chicago, Illinois 60626
e-mail jgibson000 AT ameritech.net






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page