Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: [Corpus-Paul] Paul on Authorities

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: jblanken AT ccat.sas.upenn.edu
  • To: Corpus-Paul <corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [Corpus-Paul] Paul on Authorities
  • Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2005 11:30:29 -0400

Just a few comments in response to Mark.

The section I excerpted from the dissertation seemed the briefest summary
that I
could find. The points were developed & supported earlier in the dissertation.
The earlier material defends Paul from the charge of naiveté, arguing that
Paul’s language here is not as absolute as some readers have read it, and that
Paul was “more pragmatic and less idealistic than is often initially thought.”

A couple other drive-by references to the material earlier in the
dissertation:

1) In the earlier material, I follow Käsemann’s demonstration that, the
language
of Rom 13 is the standard language of Hellenistic administration. “Käsemann
cites the work of both Strobel and Delling showing that Rom 13:1-7 is filled
with the standard language of Hellenistic administration, including
“ejxousiva.” “Tetagmevnai,” “leitourgov",” “ajrchv,” “tou` Qeou` diataghv,”
“Ôupotavssesqai” and “uJperevxonte"” are also frequently used to describe a
subject’s relationship to the state.28”

28 Käsemann, Commentary, 353, citing A. Strobel, “Zum Verständnis von Röm 13,”
ZNW 47 (1956): 79ff.; and G. Delling, TDNT, 8:29f. Käsemann also cites A.
Deissman, Light from the Ancient East, 2d ed., 1927, pp 86f. See also A.
Strobel, “Furcht, wem Furcht gebürht. Zum profangriechischen Hintergrund von
Röm 13, 7,” ZNW 55 (1964): 58-62.

2) The sword & fear were tools Rome actually used at least to establish rule,
and probably to continue their rule. I wouldn’t be surprised if the sword was
at least occasionally actually used when the Roman legal process decided that
capitol punishment was appropriate - but have no cites & no time to look &
won’t claim it so without a specific reference. (Did the Zealots use tribute
slogans, as well as ‘no king but God’ kinds of slogans?) At least some Romans
actually bore a sword. Even if Mark sees a bit of a metaphorical leap from
sword to government authorities enforcing tax penalties (“Swords were not used
on tax evaders in Rome” below), this is surely less a leap than from sword to
synagogue authorities.

As Mark says below, what “makes ‘more sense’ is in the eye of the beholder.”
Hopefully a few people will read “Subject to the Governing Authorities” and
comment on the degree to which they behold sense there.

Jim

--

James R. Blankenship, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Biblical Studies
John Brown University
2000 West University Street
Siloam Springs, AR 72761


Quoting "Mark D. Nanos" <nanosmd AT comcast.net>:

> Jim,
> Just a few comments below yours. Thanks for the discussion of my work! I
> look forward to learning from your dissertation.
>
> on 6/16/05 10:54 AM, jblanken AT ccat.sas.upenn.edu at
> jblanken AT ccat.sas.upenn.edu wrote:
> >
> >> From that dissertation, 4 reasons I see government, not synagogue,
> >> authorities
> > in view in Rom 13. (I haven't changed from the Greek font to ASCII code.)
> >
> >
> > "First, as noted above, the entire passage is filled with standard
> Hellenistic
> > administrative and tax language.71 If Paul wanted to address attitudes
> toward
> > secular government, he would have been hard pressed to use more
> > appropriate
> > language.
>
> Mark: The same goes for the language to use about the governing role of
> synagogue authorities.
>
> > "Additionally, even though fovbo", “fear, terror” (13:3) and mavcairan,
> > “sword”
> > (13:4) are not standard language when discussing secular government,
> “fear,”
> > “terror” and the threat of the “sword” make more sense in the context of a
> > secular government known for its military and conquest than in the context
> of
> > synagogue authorities. The use of fovbo" and mavcairan is telling. Nanos
> > does
> > address “the problem of the ‘sword’” (310-314), but he seems to lack
> > confidence
> > in his proposal (“Paul could have intended the usage of ‘sword’
> figuratively .
> > . .” 313, my emphasis). The use of “terror” and “sword” pose no problem
> when
> > one sees the ejxousiva as the political authorities.
>
> Mark: I don't think I lack confidence in my proposal. I was offering several
> options I think are stronger than the standard ones (and I favored my
> suggestions of the sword as "symbol of power" options over my suggestion of
> the figurative for "the word of God" option). (Swords were not used on tax
> evaders in Rome by Roman authorities any more than in synagogues to
> discipline, but symbolizes the power to punish, which synagogue authorities
> held, as witness by Paul's own self-claimed experience of suffering such
> punishment by the 39 stripes, 5 times.) I sought to offer the entire
> discussion of Rom 13 as an example of what approaching Romans in new ways as
> addressed to synagogue subgroups might reveal, and to do so with humility,
> not least because I am suggesting new options that seem to be unexplored in
> a couple of thousand years of exegesis of this passage. Which makes "more
> sense" is in the eye of the beholder, if the language is flexible enough to
> be argued to either conclusion.
>
> > "Also, Paul’s advice is one of the traditional Jewish responses to the
> problem
> > of foreign rule.
>
> Mark: Yet as I discuss (and more could be made of this point), this language
> in (other) Jewish texts (since I assume Paul's to be a Jewish text too)
> generally can be quite easily understood to have expressed either political
> expedience, misinformation, or even irony; in any case, not to have lost
> sight of the fact that other nations ruling over Israel represents something
> other than the divine order of life on earth as it "ought" to be (being used
> nevertheless by God to his purpose). But Paul's language is seemingly so
> transparent about the "oughtness" of this authority without expressing that
> distance.
>
> > While many object that Paul could not have said such things
> > during Nero’s reign, two observations discussed above serve to lessen the
> > difficulties. First, Nero’s reign looked very different in its first five
> > years than it looks in hindsight. As mentioned earlier, Nero began his
> reign
> > in peace and was compared favorably to Augustus who is said to have ruled
> > through bloodshed.72
>
> Mark: I have seen this argued (most recently in Witherington's commentary on
> Romans), but I just don't buy it to express Paul's point of view (and I
> cannot emphasize enough how naïve I find this argument for a Judean under
> Roman rule). He is well aware of proclaiming one crucified under Rome, with
> the tragic events in Alexandria for the Jewish community just a few years
> before Nero, with the arrogance of Rome under Nero as everyone else, with
> his own experiences of suffering, with compliance of some Jewish communal
> leaders to the compromise of Judaism according to most Judean's standards
> for the rule of the people of God, and so on.
>
> > Also, the understanding that even foreign tyrants were
> > put in place by God was so deeply a part of Jewish tradition that, as has
> been
> > noted above, Habakkuk says essentially the same thing when the abuse of
> power
> > was much more obvious and much more raw.73 Though Habakkuk’s response is
> more
> > difficult to understand than Paul’s, Habakkuk’s response is not seen as an
> > impossibility. Neither should Paul’s response be seen as an
> > impossibility.
>
> Mark: I don't think this grasps Habakkuk's probable meaning, or Paul's.
> Anyway, possibilities does not rule out what I have proposed as possible,
> and argued as probable.
>
> > "Finally, Nanos is right that Paul’s seemingly unconditional counsel to
> submit
> > to political authorities is troubling, but Nanos’ proposed solution seems
> to
> > merely shift this same obligation to Gentile Christians to submit
> > unconditionally to Jewish synagogue authority. It is hard to see how
> Nanos’
> > proposal is any less troubling when coming from Paul.
>
> Mark: First, I follow Yoder in understanding the issue not to be "to submit"
> but "to subordinate," and thus, to allow room for less than perfect examples
> of rule, but the call to suffer for failure to comply. Second, that Jewish
> communal leadership is "ordained by God" in the kind of unguarded language
> Paul seems to employ makes "more sense," to me at least, of synagogue
> authorities than Roman ones.
>
> > A far better solution
> > is
> > to understand that Paul’s counsel is neither unconditional nor exhaustive,
> but
> > here specifically limited to the expressly mentioned taxes and attitude,
> > as
> > argued above."
>
> Mark: This is what Yoder argued, and now Neil Elliott, and although I like
> it much better than the alternatives, I just don't see that Paul's language
> expresses this as I wish I could believe it to. To your first point above,
> Paul could have chosen much better language to make this kind of limited
> point. But he speaks of right and wrong, for example, which at least one can
> see him claiming that synagogue authorities should represent, but hardly
> Roman rulers who claim (or are claimed) to be divine (and worship other
> divinities than the One God) while crushing those who will not serve Rome
> according to Rome's terms.
>
> Regards,
> Mark
> --
> Mark D. Nanos, Ph.D.
> Rockhurst University
> Co-Moderator
> http://home.comcast.net/~nanosmd/
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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