Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - [Corpus-Paul] Re: The audience of Romans

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: <khs AT picknowl.com.au>
  • To: Corpus-Paul <corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: [Corpus-Paul] Re: The audience of Romans
  • Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2005 17:23:41 +0930

Dear Antti,
I have a solution which is somewhat speculative but it fits with what we know of dates, times and Paul and Peter and some traditions about the two apostles.
What we do know is that Romans was written in Corinth around 57. It is also safe to assume that Paul understood that the church in Rome was under apostolic oversight. While he was looking forward to preaching the gospel there and that he and they should be mutually encouraged (1:8-15), he saw Rome as having been built on another man’s foundation (15:20), that is, another apostle’s foundation. Paul’s main aim, therefore, was to visit Rome on his way to fresh fields further west, in Spain (15:22-24). So who was the apostle ministering in Rome?
It is a Roman Catholic tradition that Peter ministered in Rome over a period of twenty five years. Given the presence of Romans among the converts at Pentecost (Acts 2:10), the importance of that city and the enormous Jewish population there (estimates sit between 20,000 and 60,000), it should not surprise us at all if Peter took an early interest in the believers there. If Peter died in Rome in 64, then he may have been there from as early as 39. Was it Peter’s preaching of ‘Chrestus’ which led to Emperor Claudius expelling the rioting Jews in 49. It is possible.
If Peter was in Rome, as I suspect he was, then his preaching would have been primarily – if not solely – among the Jews. With the expulsion of many of the Jews Peter would also have left, probably earlier if he was the primary source of the trouble. He was back in Palestine for the Council of Jerusalem in early 49.
Following the Council, unable to return to Rome and somewhat surplus to the work in Jerusalem, Peter began a new work in northern Asia Minor in those places (apart from Asia) addressed in his first epistle (Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Bithynia). I suspect his encounter with Paul as recorded in Gal 2:11ff occurred on his way to this new mission field. It was a necessary corrective – one for which he would have been grateful to Paul – as his new ministry would not have been to Jews only but to Gentiles also.
On the death of Claudius in 54 Peter was free to return to Rome and did so. However, with his experience in Asia Minor, he was determined that his ministry there would no longer be restricted to the Jews. He resolved to reach out to the Gentiles as well. To help him with this (for on his return journey Peter would have visited Paul in Asia), Paul sent with him a number of his co-workers (Rom 16:3-16), including Prisca and Aquila who were already familiar with the situation in Rome (Acts 18:1-2).
After some time of this broader ministry in Rome the tensions, which rose inevitable between Jewish and Gentile believers, needed to be addressed. At that time Peter, perhaps interrupting a return trip to Jerusalem or Asia Minor, called in on Paul at Corinth to discuss the issue with him. Peter had not had the years of experience that Paul had had in dealing with the conflicts between Jewish and Gentile believers and sought his fellow-apostle’s wisdom here. Then, either Peter invited Paul to write to the church at Rome or the latter offered to do so, and the letter to the Romans is the result. It is a letter written to a mixed, Jewish and Gentile church which was under apostolic authority but, as was known to Paul and the church, their particular apostle was not present at the time and so he was not addressed in the letter as he may have been if he were present.
This scenario is speculative, as I said, but I think it makes sense of all the issues.
Sincerely,
Kym Smith
Adelaide
South Australia
khs AT picknow.com.au

Antti V J Mustakallio writes:

I would like to know what kind of opinions list members hold
concerning the audience of Paul's letter to Romans. I consider the
question a major problem.
There are two realistic alternatives: either Paul intended the
letter for Gentile Christians or then Paul addressed a mixed audience,
which included both Gentile and Jewish Christians. The latter option is
currently a majority view, but lately solely Gentile Christian audience
has been ably defended by some scholars (e.g. Runar Thorsteinsson in his
dissertation). There is, however, one major obstacle, in my opinion, to
concluding that the audience consisted only of Gentile Christians: the
letter is addressed to all believers in Rome (1:7) and Paul clearly
recognized the presence of Jewish Christian believers (ch. 16). Hence the
audience was necessarily a mixed one.
However, I must admit that the arguments put forward by advocates
of purely Gentile Christian audience are quite persuasive. Especially
problematic for me is to comprehend how in the world could Paul have begun
his letter in such a way when one considers the rhetorical situation of
Romans. To me it seems probable that there was some kind of a conlict
situation among Roman Christians: it was between those adhering to Mosaic
Law (mostly Jewish Christians) and those who felt to be free from the Law
(mostly Gentile Christians). It seems, moreover, that Jewish Christians
were more or less repressed in that situation. That is, they were in need
of Paul's support. The other thing which one is to take into account is
how were the Jewish Christians supposedly disposed towards Paul. Paul's
constant defending of himself and his Gospel in the letter speaks for
mistrustful audience. I think that it would have been wise that Paul would
have expressed interest towards his Christ-believing kinsmen and kinswomen
at the beginning of the letter. But precisely this cannot be found there!
On the contrary, Paul associates himself strongly with Gentiles and seems
to address Gentile believers (esp. 1:13-15). If the letter was really
addressed to Jewish Christians too, that kind of rhetorical strategy seems
irrational: it would be a rhetorical suicide!
All in all, both views of the audience are very problematic. This
important question has become a dead end to me.
Antti Mustakallio
PhD student
Department of Biblical Studies
University of Helsinki
Finland
_______________________________________________
Corpus-Paul mailing list
Corpus-Paul AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/corpus-paul





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page