Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: Did Paul know Peter's travel locations?

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Mark D. Nanos" <nanosmd AT comcast.net>
  • To: Corpus-paul <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: Did Paul know Peter's travel locations?
  • Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 04:18:41 -0500


on 6/27/02 8:21 PM, Kym Smith at khs AT picknowl.com.au wrote:

Kym,
Thanks for the reply. I will comment below.
You wrote:
> Would not ‘where Christ has already been named’ (15:20) – which you say
> was in Jerusalem – be equivalent to ‘fully preached the gospel of Christ’
> (15:19) – which Paul had done ‘from Jerusalem and as far round as
> Illyricum’ (15:19). Is this not what the whole of v.20 is saying:
> Thus making it my aim to preach the gospel, not where Christ has already
> been named…
> Paul could equally have said:
> Thus making it my aim to name Christ, not where the gospel has already
> been preached…
> If this is so then Jerusalem has no special claim here to being the place
> ‘where Christ has already been named’.

I do not think that these have the same meaning so that they can be switched
like this; that is part of the point I am making. Christ/Messiah was named
in Jerusalem in a way that no other location can claim; the gospel was not
proclaimed in that location uniquely, although it was proclaimed there by
people other than Paul. At least that is what I take this somewhat awkward
statement to indicate.
>
> Added to this is the fact that Paul did not want to ‘build on another’s
> foundation’. Surely if Jerusalem were intended, it is more likely that he
> would have said ‘the foundation of others (plural)’ rather than ‘another’s
> (singular)’.

I do not see the grammar indicating this. ALLOTRION (strange/ foreign/
belonging to another, or, to someone else) is an adjective modifying
GEMELION (foundation), but it is not a genitive (not "another's"). You are
right to note that this is a singular phrase, and when translated as
"belonging to another/someone else" rather than "foreign" it does seem to
imply a possessive function, but I think that it does not warrant the point
you seek to make.
>
> [Mark had written earlier]<<< Note that in v. 23 he states, "but now, no
longer having room [TOPON] in
> those regions, and having great desire to come to you for many years...").
> This is the statement that follows v. 22, "and therefore I have been
> prevented
> (much) from coming to you." It is the completion of the eastern region arc
> that has occupied him and kept him from Rome thus far, not something about
> an
> apostolic foundation in Rome, as far as I can see. >>>
>
> I think you are probably right here about Paul needing to complete those
> regions in his first ‘eastern arc’ before heading further west. It does
> raise an interesting question, however, which brings us back to the work
> of both Peter and Paul. How can Paul say that he no longer has room in
> those regions when he has not ministered at all – as far as we know – in
> the northern reaches of Asia Minor. Surely those parts would also have
> been part of his ‘arc’ through that area. As I have already made clear, I
> suspect that he has no room because he knows that Peter has worked in and
> coordinated the mission to those parts, i.e. the addressees of 1 Pet 1:1.

Surely there were many locations throughout the regions of that arc that he
had not "won obedience from the Gentiles." I see an indication that Paul has
completed the preaching of the Gospel there, but not that he is otherwise
prohibited from going to other locations within that arc. Would not the
Roman reader logically deduce that this does not indicate that he has
preached within every location available in the overall region of that
endeavor as he defines it? Rather, the salient point is this: that
trajectory for his ministry did not include points West, such as Rome, and
hence, he has not been there yet, although he "longs" to come to them. You
may of course argue that this has something to do with the presence of
others winning obedience from the Gentiles in certain locations within that
arc, but I do not see Paul saying this, and if so, that it has to do with
Peter rather than some other representatives. On what basis does this text
indicate either that this is the reason for "no more room" or that it has to
do with the presence of Peter (unmentioned here, and not in the letter
anywhere)? In Galatians, Paul mentions Peter in Jerusalem and Syrian
Antioch, but otherwise I do not know that he mentions Peter in other
locations within either that eastern or the now contemplated western arcs.
>
> <<< This reading eliminates the problems of both his proclaiming the gospel
> to
> Rome in this letter, and his plan to do the same upon his planned arrival,
> which seem to undermine his point as usually understood. >>>
>
> The problem is only a problem if we insist that there was some tension
> between the apostles, especially Peter and Paul, that made their working
> in the same place an issue.

I do not think that there is any great tension between Peter and Paul either
(here we agree, against the majority view), although I do not see any
indication that this text, or Romans overall, has to do with this topic (I
have argued this even for how the text of Gal. 2 should be read, in both
Mystery of Romans and Irony of Galatians, and in forthcoming work). The only
issue of this nature raised in Romans, that I have recognized to date
anyway, is at the ending of chapter 15. There concern is expressed for the
reception of his "service for Jerusalem" by "the holy ones," to which
(unique and central to any Judaism/Judeanism) location he is returning to
demonstrate the completion of that arc, which precedes commencement of the
next arc, which includes Rome. I do not think Peter/Paul tension or not
tension is at issue unless an interpreter interjects Peter into the
discussion, as you have. Why does Peter have anything to do with what Paul
is saying in this text (or Rome), except perhaps as one of the holy ones in
Jerusalem, along with many others, since Paul does not mention Peter (at all
in Romans: in Rome, Jerusalem, or elsewhere)?

> If there were no tension – as I argue – then
> the opportunity of working together for a time would have been eagerly
> anticipated. What Paul would not be doing was ‘laying a foundation’. He
> would not have to establish a new congregation, as it were. Rather he was
> free to preach in the context of existing congregations/churches where
> they could be ‘mutually encouraged’ (Rom 1:12). That does not mean that he
> would not attempt to preach to unbelievers, but if he did he would have
> existing congregations to feed them into.

What Paul means by "so that I would not be building upon a foundation
belonging to another" [or, "upon a foreign foundation"] is at issue in your
point. You take it to mean, "so that I would not be establishing a new
congregation." But this creates problems for his definition of the lack of
"room" in the arc of the more eastern region (to Rome/Spain). Were there no
cities/towns/villages where the gospel had not been proclaimed by Paul or
someone (anyone) else, and thus that new congregations would need to be
established? Were there no locations where "he was free to preach in the
context of existing congregations/churches where they could be "mutually
encouraged," where he "would have existing congregations to feed them into"?

>Paul’s desire was to work among
> the brethren at Rome, but his intention, ultimately, was to pass through
> that city to new fields in Spain.

It is unclear to me that Paul was intending to simply pass through Rome to
Spain, although he does make such a comment (Jervell and Jewett have made
much of this, but I think too much). But is that not a function of his next
arc to the West, and does it not seem that Rome is the starting
(foundational) point of many points along that arc's trajectory? He also
states in the opening and here that he wants to proclaim the gospel in Rome,
and to these addressees, and he proclaims it in a sense in this letter as
well. I take your point, but I do not think it has sufficient weight for our
quest here to define the meaning of his moving from the eastern arc to Rome
as the place to begin his western one where the language of "foreign
foundation" is concerned. Does this matter not just involve us in
circularity?

This is an awkward passage, and I remain open to new readings, but I am not
persuaded by the traditional one, upon which your thesis builds. It seems to
me that it strains the likely implications of Paul's writing to and intended
visit to the addressees (to take the lack of room in the eastern arc and
eschewing of building on a foreign foundation that is mentioned) in the ways
that you and the traditional reader have understood them. For a discussion
of the locations of Peter's ministry, including Rome, I find nothing in this
text upon which to draw.

Thanks for the exchange,
Mark
--
Mark D. Nanos, Ph.D.
313 NE Landings Dr.
Lee's Summit, MO 64064
USA
nanosmd AT comcast.net





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page