Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: Romans and Universal Audience

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Mark D. Nanos" <nanos AT gvi.net>
  • To: "Corpus-paul" <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: Romans and Universal Audience
  • Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2000 09:13:43 -0500


Eric Potts wrote:

> [...] so much of the argument in Romans appears to be directed to Jewish
> Christians. For example, just how meaningful would the excursion into the
> Abraham story have been to Gentiles?

And Jim Hester replied:

I have been persuaded by Mark Nanos that the audience of Romans was Gentile
Christians, but keep in mind that I also think that Paul constructed the
particular audience he wanted to address. I see no compelling argument for
a Jewish audience for Romans 4. Abraham as "our father according to the
flesh" is the paradigmatic man of faith, whose example is meaningful to all
Christians, Gentile or Jewish. He was one who demonstrated the obedience of
faith Paul preached to Gentile Christians.

Dear Eric, Jim, and list,
May I add that although I have argued for a gentile audience, what sets my view apart from others who have also argued along this line (e.g., W. Campbell, N. Elliott, S. Stowers) is the proposal that (Paul's rhetoric implies) these gentiles meet within Jewish communal space, that they are part of (sub)groups of believers in Christ (which also have Jewish members who are not the target addressees; cf. ch. 16 greetings) functioning within the larger Jewish communities of Rome. This too helps to account for the rhetorical concern with matters usually considered Jewish, such as the status of one's relationship to Abraham, or not. On the other hand, when the addressees' groups are conceived of within institutionally separate Christian social space (e.g., Christian house churches, when assumed or defined as already separating themselves from Jewish communal life/jurisdiction/legitimacy/etc.), it is logical to to postulate Christian Jews, as does Eric, with the majority of interpreters, and usually to propose some fault with them Paul seeks to correct (the problem is traditionally considered to be the "judaizing" of these Christian Jews). This is done in order to account for the continued concern with matters of Jewish identity and behavior that arise in Paul's argument, which otherwise seems to address gentiles, and thus should logically address their concerns, and not those which arise in Jewish terms of identity and behavior.

It is possible to imagine that these gentiles were seeking to understand their identity in the context of the influences of a larger Jewish environment, wherein identity vis-a-vis Abraham is essential, yet their understanding of this matter was different than the prevailing view of the Jewish people outside of this subgroup comprising that environment (i.e., that gentiles were not children of Abraham, although they could become such by completion of proselyte conversion). In such a case the standing of any of the people of God (Jewish or gentile) in terms of relationship to Abraham are important, and the writer would have good reason to suspect the need to address such a topic from the perspective of their alternative understanding of the matter, especially if a different spin on this relationship with Abraham has been a usual concern of the author, regardless of how many of the particulars of the argument being made in the situation of the audience are known to the author.

The issue of how proselytes were related to Abraham is evident in Philo's rhetoric about Abraham (whom he describes as the first proselyte) as well. It seems this was to encourage his fellow Jews to a continued welcoming/respectful disposition toward proselytes, a no-doubt tricky proposition in terms of the tensions which arose in Alexadrian social space at this time between Egyptians and Greeks and Jews. Such transitions across boundaries of identity where tensions prevail can be very difficult in legal as well as many other terms, not only for the one (or family) making the crossing, but for other interested members to the various identity groups as well.

Regards,
Mark Nanos





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page