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: "Jon Peter" <jnp AT home.com>
  • To: "Corpus Paulinum" <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: Neil Elliot, "Liberating Paul"
  • Date: Tue, 6 Jul 1999 17:35:10 -0700


Jeffrey wrote:

>
> That an order of expulsio could be leveled against a group that was susp=
> ected 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 ou=
> t at all**
> (see Murphy-O'Connor's _Paul: A Critical Life_) at Claudius' death,


Jeffrey, I think you are taking off too hard on the espionage bit instead of
listening to what I have been saying. My point is simply that Paul's
writings in support of authority can be interpreted as disinformation. This
is entirely an *exegetical* assertion from me. It is not one for which I
ever claimed to have support in Roman historical documents.

Again, though, I will say that it is a safe assumption that Rome's security
men gathered info on citizens whom they considered potentially dangerous,
or, for that matter, were merely curious about.


>
>
> There is absolutely no evidence that Christianity was ever regard=
> ed in Rome or
> by Romans, let alone (as Mark Nanos demonstrates) that "Christian" congre=
> gations ever
> existed, as something separate from Judaism until after the Great fire of=
> Rome in 64.


Gee, this almost sounds like the "Chrestus" / "Christos" debate rearing its
ugly head again. We have these "C" words from Tacitus and Suetonius writing
post-64 but referring to a Chrestus/os personage in the 40s-50s. Those who
wish to see this as a Christ-reference are satisfied that it is. Others are
not. In addition we have the mention in Acts that the "Christians" were
first called that, in Antioch pre-64. But the tendency to coin the word
'Christians' from Christos, mistaking it for 'Chrestus,' is a strong urge
for the native Latin tongue.

So, perhaps the higher-ups in Rome didn't know about the existence of a
Christian group in town until the 60s. If they didn't, they must have been
the only ones so ignorant -- because, according to Paul, the Roman Church
was already world-renowned!!. (Rom 1.8) Also, then, perhaps the writings of
Tacitus/Suetonius have been misinterpreted by myself and others.

Unfortunately, Mark Nanos will have a hard time convincing me or the apostle
Paul that there was/were no such congregation(s) in Rome before 64. I mean,
after all, we do have this letter from Paul written to them. And it explains
how and why Christians are separate folk from law-abiding Jewish folk (Rom
7.4). Or have I missed something?



> 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_).


I think you are perhaps conflating two issues which should remain separated,
namely, whether Christians saw themselves as somehow distinct (yes, of
course) and whether and when the Roman officials perceived them to be
distinct from other Judaisms (yes, but in slow stages of awareness, and not
with instantaneous overnight appreciation of the nuances).


Also telling here is that when Nero, in f=
> ixing 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!
>

Gee, Jeff, I wish I hadn't waved that red-flag 's' word at you. Let me
retract it and use a broader term -- say, "Roman intelligence operatives"
instead of spies. Now, you and I have no disagreement whatever anymore, do
we? You agree that Nero used RIO's against his perceived enemies, don't you?


> In addition, here's where the issue of the date of Romans is important. I=
> f, as is
> usually argued, it is in the mid 50's, there is even less reason to say t=
> hat Roman
> authorities would have or even could have recognized Christians as separa=
> te from Jews.
>

That's speculative. I think it is worth noting here that Paul lobbied his
followers to distinguish themselves sharply from Jews who preferred the
Torah. He wanted separation. This is evidenced in both in Romans (10.3) and
Galatians. In the latter he writes, "kick out the Torahkeepers." (Gal 4.30).
Hence, when the Romans ever sauntered past the synagogue and inquired about
congregational distinctions, they would have heard Christians saying "we're
Christians, not Jews." Before long, such statements would have sunk in and
gained the Christians a degree of distinctiveness.


> > Moreover, despite the so called disturbance under Claudius Roma=3D
> > > n Judaism (of
> > > which Roman Christianity was a part) was not under a cloud of politic=
> al s=3D
> > > 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.


My point was that diaspora Jewish loyalties were naturally tending toward
home in Judea, and therefore, an uprising back there would have caused grave
security concerns in Rome as well. Don't you agree?



As I pointed out above,=
> the fact,
> noted by Tacitus, that in 64-65 Nero had to rely on identification of wh=
> o 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.
>

You're really putting words in my mouth here. Forget about the spies who
shagged Christians, okay?


>
>
> But Paul was categorically *not* the leader of the Roman congregations.
>
>

I respectfully disagree. By the 50s, Paul was on board the leadership team
as a recognized apostle. Pillars were calling on him in Antioch. His
reputation preceded him in Rome. He know people there. He was not *the* sole
leader. But certainly he was an authority figure to them.


>
> Paul 's letter,
> once falling into the hands of your (imagined?) thought police, would act=
> ually
> incriminate those who possessed it.
>

Could you amplify on this thought?


>
> The reading of a letter aloud was not what I was claiming was anachronist=
> ic. 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.
>

Thanks for the clarification.

Here is an excerpt from your post of May 5 --

"As I understand things, and as has been argued by C.E.B. Cranfield ("Some
Observations on Romans XIII:1-7," NTS 6 [1959-60] 242], the
imperative hUPOTASSESQW calls for sub*ord*ination, which is something quite
different from obedience, especially if obedience be understood in terms of
completely bending one's will and one's actions to the desires of another."

I can see where distinctions might be made between absolute submission and
mere law-abiding good citizenship. But this distinction doesn't weaken my
proposed disinformation exegesis in the least.


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


My disinformation hypothesis/exegesis doesn't need to distinguish between
Romans and Jewish malefactors as targets of the disinformation. Either way,
the same principle holds. Both opponents were dangerous. Both were going to
be upset if they perceived Christians to be either insurrectionists (in the
Roman's case) or Torah-breakers (in Jewish case).

As I noted, my exegesis is greatly strengthened if Mark Nanos is right in
saying that Paul's submission-to-authority statement refers to obeying
Jewish leaders and halakha rather than Roman magistrates.

Best regards,

Jon





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page