Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: Christianity in Rome

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: Christianity in Rome
  • Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 16:02:35 -0700


Jeffrey wrote:

>
> If you'd care to go back to my post of Wed. July 7 entitled "the occasion
of Romans"
> and to Mark Nanos' post of the same date (with the heading Re:Neil
Elliott, Liberating
> Paul"), you would see that what you claim above regarding our views of
when there were
> Christ believers in Rome, let alone that there is any evidence for the
existence of
> Christians in Rome prior to 64) is a gross misrepresentation of what we
hold to be
> the case; As evidence for this I quote my post:
>
> > What you are ignoring here, Jon, is that the issue is *not* the fact
that Christians
> > were called Christians before Claudius (if that is indeed what the Acts
text
> > indicates), or even that they existed in Rome and elsewhere before 64,
but whether
> > there was **knowldege** of the existence of this group called Christians
on the part
> > of Nero and the elites of Rome before 64.:
> >
[snip]
>
> Please note that the only issue that we were dealing with was not whether
we believed
> there were Christians in Rome prior to 64 or -- even 49 (I for one do
believe this,
> and though I do not wish to speak for Mark, I think it's safe to say that
he does
> too). Rather it was whether there was any knowledge of their existence in
Rome on the
> part of Roman elites prior to 64.
>

Jeffrey, I am glad you have clarified your positions for me. Thank you. I
was not distorting your views nor those of Mark Nanos. Here is what you
originally wrote in the Neil Elliott thread:

<<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_).>>

That's a mighty strong and categorical statement, Jeffrey. You did not
qualify it by saying anything about the perceptions of Roman **officials**
only. That statement caused my misunderstanding of you. Hence, when you
later added a reference to Nero in 64, I did not realize that you were also
thereby retracting what you had said so forcefully above. Rather, I thought
you interjecting a second, related issue, which was, the timeframe in which
Roman authorities recognized a Christian community. Now I do see that you
were also dramatically softening what you first wrote.

Even so, unless I am still not getting you, it seems to me that the basic
point you and Mark Nanos have been making about the mid-1st century
Christian community in Rome remains essentially unchanged. Here is Mark N's
statement on this, with which I think you have shown agreement:

<<Obviously there were Christ-believers in Rome to whom Paul wrote, but how
their community or communities was/were constructed or labeled is a matter
for discussion. I have argued at length from the rhetoric of Romans (in The
Mystery or Romans) that they were a part of the synagogue communities of
Rome. There is no material or literary proof of which I am aware that
indicates otherwise. Paul does not ever call them or anyone else
Christians; rather he knows Jewish and non-Jewish people, which fits a
Jewish communal point of view precisely. Peter Lampe has argued that they
met in homes and in the same parts of the city as the Jewish people; the
identification is logical on this historical information as well. Most
people recognize that there was a time when this movement was wholly
Jewish; I suggest that we have in Romans literary evidence of just such a
time.>>


You can surely see how one might read Mark's statements and yours together
as being arguments against a self-identified Christian community in Rome at
the time of Paul's letter.

I would counter both of you by saying that "Christ-believers" are **by
definition** an independent community. Their members were initiated with
baptism. They received the Holy Spirit, they sang hymns to Christ, they
shared their material goods and they took communion. They followed apostolic
guidance. These standard rites and practices were in place pre-64 and are
referred to in the NT. Other Jews didn't do these things.

Additional labels for the membership were in use as well, such as "brothers"
"disciples" and followers of "the Way."

Note also Mark N's very strong statement above: "There is no material or
literary proof of which I am aware that indicates otherwise…" I would
submit that virtually all of the NT indicates otherwise. It is evidence of a
self-identified movement of Christ-believers, using special rituals, offices
and vocabulary.

Mark also said: "Most people recognize that there was a time when this
movement was wholly
Jewish; I suggest that we have in Romans literary evidence of just such a
time."

That's quite a whopping assertion. Mark N. did not follow-up with any
argument except to say that "Paul does not call them…Christians…" From this,
Mark mistakenly concluded that no sense of separation in self-identity
existed. However, as I replied to Mark in a previous correction, the
"Christian" label was first applied by outsiders disparagingly, and we
should not expect Christ-believers to use it on themselves initially. The
absence of the "Christian" label in the Romans letter does not mean Paul
didn't consider Christ-believers a distinct sect. Paul's preferred label is
'hagios' (saints) used 7 times in Romans.

So you see, Mark's claim was quite a bit stronger than saying merely that
the imperial authorities didn't know about a Christian group. He was saying
that in the 50s the group didn't see themselves as something different from
other Jews.

I now see that I have perhaps unfairly equated your position with Mark's. He
was going much further than you. Even so, I think you left us the impression
that you were joining him in saying that the saints did not see themselves
as distinct. I think you gave Mark the impression you basically agreed with
him. Have I again misrepresented you? If so, I apologize for any ill temper
I may have caused.

Best regards,

Jon









Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page