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 21:41:46 -0500


Jon Peter wrote:

>
> 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 ever claimed to have support in Roman historical documents.

As I see it, I **have** been listening to what you've been saying. Is not
your
exegetical assertion about what Paul is doing in Rom 13 based upon a
particular
reconstruction of the circumstances in Rome that would have convinced Paul
of the
necessity of adopting such a strategy? And is not the heart of this
reconstruction
your allegations that the Christian congregations were being watched by spies
because
of a suspicion on the part of Roman authorities that the church and/or the
Judaism
with which it was associated was politically suspect? Why else does Paul issue
"disinformation"?

All I've done is to ask you for evidence that supports your reconstruction
of the
situation that you see as the occasion for Paul acting as you claim he did.
But
you've produced nothing of the sort.

The assertion that it is likely Nero used spies (or political operatives) to
gather
intelligence against enemies is *not* evidence. For you have not
demonstrated (a)
that the congregations of Christians on Rome or the Judaism of which it was
thought by
the Romans to be a part were considered enemies of Roman order or (b) that
they were
ever the target of infiltrates or political informants.

Nor have you shown -- except by circular appeal to Rom. 13 -- that there is
any
awareness on the part of Christians or Jews that they were ever infiltrated
or "spied
on" - a complaint Jewish authors and later Christian apologists would have
noted had
this been the case.

And when I show you that the evidence from Tacitus on Nero's persecutions of
Christians after the great fire indicates that Nero (a) knew little or
nothing about
them, (b) had to use already known (and not those discovered as such by Roman
political operatives) Christians to find more Christians, and (c) did not
regard them
as politically suspicious, but only guilty of being superstitious -- indeed,
that
Tacitus' report is clear and decisive evidence **against** there ever having
been
government employment of political informants specially against Jews/and or
Christians
-- you do not answer these objections. Instead, you move on to an issue that
was not
under debate, the Chrestus/Christus issue from Suetonius.

Furthermore, you do not seem to see that your admission that

> So, perhaps the higher-ups in Rome didn't know about the existence of a
> Christian group in town until the 60s.

undercuts your case that the informants you imagine -- the (to quote you)

> Spies [who are] are listening /
> watching from the pews or eavesdropping through open windows while Paul's
> letters are read aloud

are officially sponsored. let alone would have had permission to spy on
Christians in
the 50s. And your remark that

> 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),

besides being speculative ("must have been"), seems to me to fail not only to
ask
"renowned to whom"? (obvious answer: among Christians) or to take account of
metaphorical exaggeration but, more importantly, to show any awareness of
how much
this assertion smacks of a rhetorical device typical in an ambassadorial
letter such
as Romans and is not meant to be taken literally.

In the light of all this I find your exegetical assertion unconvincing, indeed
suspect. The scenario that it demands for it to be the case simply has no
historical
support. Without it the assertion collapses.

And with these remarks, I think I have said all that can I can say on the
matter.

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