Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

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

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Lee Dahn <lee_dahn AT yahoo.com>
  • To: Corpus-Paul <corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [Corpus-Paul] The audience of Romans
  • Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2005 09:22:40 -0700 (PDT)

Antti,
 
You said:
"In the letter adscription, 1:7, one can find the identification of the recipients. PASIN TOIS OUSIN EN RWMH AGAPHTOIS QEOU KLHTOIS hAGIOIS seems to mean all (PASIN) the Christ believers in Rome... did Paul think that there were Jewish Christians in Rome. To me it seems certain that Paul recognized their presence (ch. 16). And because the letter is addressed to "all" the believers that must necessarily include Jewish Christians."
 
While 1.7 does seem to indicate that "all belevers [including Jewish ones]" are addressed, I think it is important to recognize additional comments which may help define what Paul means there in 1.7, as opposed to reading "all" and thus concluding that every single believer, Gentile and Jewish, MUST be in Paul's assumed audience.  For example, 1.5,6 reads: "...to bring about the obedience of faith for the sake of his name among all the nations [ethnesin], including yourselves...".  Also see 1.13-15: "in order that I may reap some harvest among you as well as among the rest of the Gentiles [ethnesin].  I am under obligation to both Greeks and barbarians, both the wise and foolish: and so I am eager to preach the gospel to you in Rome."  Why does Paul not mention that he's ombligated to preach to the Jews as well?  I say it's because he intends to address Gnetiles specifically.  That is not to say that he believed there were no Jewish Jesus-believers in Rome, or even in his assumed Roman congregation; but, it seems to me that Paul assumed his readers to be Gentile, and not Jewish.  So, the "all" ought not be read as absolutely emphatic.  And, as for ch. 16, and as I have just stated above, I am not saying that Paul thought there were NO Jews there.  Most likely, the "Jews" suppopsedly addressed in ch. 16 (if not a later additional chapter) agreed with Paul on the issue of Gentile-Jewish relations.  I think it is most important, as Fred has pointed out and as Paul has explicitly stated (11.13), that Paul is the apostle to the Gentiles, and, if we remember Galatians 2, has consented that ministry to the Jews be for Peter, etc.
 
You said:
"how do you identify the weak and the strong in ch. 14. In 14:10 Paul seems to address weak believers. If one is following a traditional identification (the weak consists mainly of Jewish Christians) then it seems that Paul addresses Jewish Christians here. And another question: do not you think that it is rather weird that Paul writes "Now I am speaking to you Gentiles" (11:13), if he has spoken to them from the very beginning of the letter? Does not this rather indicate that he turns to a specific segment of the mixed audience, that is, Gentile Christians?"
 
I have no problem identifying the "weak" with Jews.  I'm not sure how this text is significant to whether or not Paul is addressing Gentiles only or a mixed audience.  He has addressed imaginary individuals throughout, and for the sake of taching something, not simply addressing individuals (or specific groups).  Could this not be another such instance? 
 
As for 11.13, no I don't find it strange.  The section previous is diatribal, in which he is essentialls conversing with two voices, and he weaves in and out of it with editorial/authorial vocal interjections (see. esp. ch.3).  I read 11.13 as such an interjection, clarifying that he is now addressing them rather than speaking about them (as in 11.7-12).  The only place I can find in Romans where Paul might be addressing a Jew explicitly is 2.17; but, again, that section is in diabtribal form, which suggest imaginary individuals for the sake of demonstrating a point.
 
See also 3.1, where Paul speaks about Jews but TO Gentiles, and even AS a Gentile himself.  I would not expect this if the audience included Jews.
 
I realize that you do not agree with Stowers' reading of Rom7.  But, there are several scholars of all different kinds who read Rom7 as non-autobiographical without referring to it as prosopopoiia: Doug Moo (commentary on Romans [NICNT]), Robert Reymond (his systematic theology, an appendix on Rom7), to name two.  I do, however, suggest that Stowers' understanding of diartribal writing and rhetorical devices contemporary to Paul be granted a hearing.  I wonder, have you read Stowers' essay, "Romans 7.7-25 as a Speech-in-Character (prosopopoiia)", in Paul and His Hellenistic Context, ed. Troels Engberg-Pedersen?  I'm curious as to what you make of the many source citations there.
 
 
Lee Dahn
Houston, Tx
 



Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page