Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: Paul's Naivete

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Neil Elliott" <elliott AT igc.org>
  • To: corpus-paul
  • Subject: Re: Paul's Naivete
  • Date: Thu, 13 May 1999 21:30:8


On Romans 13:1-7, a vexing text but one regarding which Jeffrey
Gibson has invited my comments--I take the bull by the horns!

I'm NOT convinced this is EITHER merely expedient, "survival"
talk; NOR that it is "naivete." Some relevant observations
(spelled out a bit more fully in an article in HORSLEY, Paul
and Empire):

1. This is NOT a "theology of the state"; the RELATIVIZATION
implied by TETAGMENAI ("put in their place") and HYPOTASSES-
THAI, not HYPAKOYW, are relevant here.

2. This is nevertheless far more "naively" positive than many
contemporary Jewish texts with which Rom 13 is often
compared. So what's going on? This reads, on the surface,
as more naive than PAUL usually is!

3. Kaesemann notices, and I emphasize, that the scheme of
rulers-rewarding-good-behavior-so-there-is-nothing-to-fear-
and-we-submit-out-of-conscience, SYNEIDHSIS, is inconsistent
with comments about fear, PHOBOS: exactly which IS our motive,
"conscience" or fear? I notice that political rhetoric from
the early principate usually DISTINGUISHES these as SEPARATE
motives--for the elite, consent is gladly granted to the rulers;
for the humiliores, a salutary level of terror must be main-
tained (references so abundant this is practically a TOPOS).

4. Goodenough notices Philo makes a similar "double-talk" in
De Somniis--under the right circumstances, given some freedom,
we bravely defy the tyrant; but in straitened circumstances,
caution (EULABEIA) requires we rein in our tongue and appeal
gently to the ruler's "better nature."

5. I conclude Paul is being diplomatic in a tough spot: he's
perfectly aware (not "naive" at all) that "the ruler does
not bear the sword in vain," or more forcefully, "the sword
is not an empty threat" (as Nero's propagandists insisted
it WAS). Still Paul (like Philo) wanted to avoid any civil
provocation that could elicit Roman repression like that
most recently visited on the Jewish communities (edict of
Claudius).

More details in Paul and Empire; comments, anyone?

Neil Elliott




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page