Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: Neil Elliot, "Liberating Paul"

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Mark D. Nanos" <nanos AT gvi.net>
  • To: "Corpus-paul" <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: Neil Elliot, "Liberating Paul"
  • Date: Tue, 6 Jul 1999 22:04:15 -0500 (CDT)


Jeffrey Gibson wrote:
as Mark Nanos has argued, there is some doubt that what is going on in Rom 13
>has anything to do with Roman political authorities. Rather the admonition
>here has to
>do with Gentile Christians submitting to the authority of Jewish synagogue
>leaders.
>But on this, I've urged Mark himself to say more.

Thank you Jeffrey for this invitation.

There is much going on in the discussion between Jeffrey and Jon. I do not
follow the basis of the assumption on Jon's part that this passage, for
example, and not others, represent misinformation by Paul. On what basis
does one decide what is information to construct a portrait of Paul that
justifies such a move about other information provided by him, and within
the same limited correspondence? And what semantic markers support such a
claim? Could one not argue the opposite side with such a methodology (which
seems to me to be random in selection of passages), based upon this passage
as the salient information and certain other passages, such as the
ostensibly negative view of Law that Jon constructs as the basis of his
portrait (a portrait with which I entirely disagree, to put it mildly), as
the misinformation? Perhaps this is another way of saying what Jeffrey is
calling for: where is the substance to this suggestion apart from its
ability to deprive Rom. 13 of its rhetorical teeth?

I understand better the mirror-reading methodology of suggesting that
parties other than the implied addressees may have an interest, negative or
positive for that matter, in this correspondence. But I must agree with
Jeffrey that I do not see how this has been shown to be spies in Rome, or
that any such parties are implied by the language under discussion in
Romans, esp. ch. 13.

The passage in Galatians 2:4 to which John (perceptively) appeals for an
example of spies (I translate as "investigators" actually) interested in
this Jewish coalition is somewhat limited in direct appeal by being
concerned with an intra-Jewish context in Jerusalem, where each Jewish
group would need to justify their approach to relationships with gentiles,
especially if they were suspected of jeopardizing the interests of other
Jewish groups/people, as was this case. But this is different than in the
diaspora context of Romans or in arguing for support of Roman spies. Yet
the idea that interested representatives of a government or interest
group--whether spies or investigators, or even vigilante intruders, for
that matter--might look into any group is of course a possibility that
cannot be categorically ruled out.

The point remains, where is this indicated or implied in historical data
for Romans of this period toward Jewish groups (among which the
Christ-believers would be identified and function), or the rhetoric of
Romans, that is to say, this Jewish group at this time. I must agree with
Jeffrey that if Paul was worried about such readers, then his referring to
this figure Jesus as the king is at cross-purposes. More than that, it is a
most dangerous and deleterious act and runs in the opposite direction of
Jon's implied situation. If this passage is meant to be taken in the
opposite way, then where is the rhetorical clue in this letter, or even the
indication that Paul thought otherwise (in this letter, since others that
may suggest otherwise do not apply to this non-Paul founded community in
Rome as far as we know).

Finally, to get to Jeffrey's invitation to participate directly in offering
an interpretation of the implied situation and of the meaning of this
passage, I offer the following brief comment, since I have written
extensively on both in Mystery, and, at this time, the jury is still out on
my suggestions (feedback welcome!).

Jeffrey has noted some data that does suggest that Romans were not aware of
any institutions that were Christian/Christianity, but only in 64ce of
christianoi in a reference that seems to some experts to imply they were a
certain kind of Jewish group. (Note too the Acts reference to "Christians"
is about where, not when!). So Jon's construction must at least tread
lightly on this and related points. I have argued also that the so-called
edict of Claudius does not indicate a Christian/Jewish conflict; but if it
was, then there is no basis for assuming that Jewish Christ-believers were
expelled while gentile ones were not, for these would be equally implicated
and punished, perhaps double so, since they are also suspect as Roman
non-Jews so implicated in a Jewish matter involving treason (if it was a
Jewish king Christus at dispute that is). It need also indicate no more
than a particular or small group of Jews were involved or suffered the
consequences.

By the way, Chrestus (a common name) and Christus (king) are very
different, and the (later) Roman authors on this point knew of Christiani
elsewhere in their works (Tacitus refers to the christianoi of 64ce
correctly before Seutonius wrote his reference to Chrestus, and then
elsewhere Suet. writes of the christiani, not chrestiani). Note also that
Tacitus and Josephus don't record the alleged expulsion, a notable fact if
some 20-50,000 Jewish people were expelled. Not to mention the problem of
treating Roman citizens this way without due process, which some if not
many were (note Philo says that many were; Leg. ad Gaium 23.155).

There is good reason to think Roman attitudes and policies changed greatly
toward Judeans during the revolt of the 60's and immediately thereafter,
but that is not germane to discussion of Romans, written at an earlier time.

I have argued that this reference in Rom. 13 would make sense in the flow
of Paul's argument and in the case of Rome if it continues the contextual
concern to censure the growing arrogance among the gentile Christ-believers
in Rome toward Jewish people who do not share their faith. If these
"gentiles" are members of Jewish subgroups, then good members might be
expected to participate in the Temple tax collection which provided for
freedom for Jewish communities from participation in the imperial cult (as
though proselytes or those on the road to this status).

It seems plausible to me to suspect that righteous gentile guests seeking
full membership treatment (which the addressees apparently were, at least
Paul arguing for such treatment implies that this is the tension at hand)
would be in a precarious position on this matter. Paul's passage is a call
to go the extra mile in being assessed as good citizens of this minority
community with concern for the marginality situation of the larger yet very
much still minority Jewish community/ies in Rome.

Even if these gentiles' rights and privileges might be in dispute (since
they are predicated on a disputable notion, that is, apart from proselyte
inclusion to negotiate this status claim), Paul calls them not to resist
and fight, but to "subordinate" themselves in gracious gratitude for the
gifts bestowed upon themselves now in Christ, as gentiles, at the expense
of those "stumbling" Jewish people vicariously suffering presently on these
gentiles' behalf (Rom. 11; 12:1ff.). They are to pay the Temple tax and
behave in the way deemed appropriate for righteous gentiles within the
Jewish community. Since the leaders of the synagogue communities in Rome
would answer for the behavior of the members, and thus of these gentile
associates claiming equality justified by their belief in Jesus Christ, the
context of Paul's language in Rom. 13 seems to me to fit where the
traditional view has not. Why would Paul tell Romans to be good citizens of
Rome? And why disrupt the flow of his argument about how gentiles are to
interact respectfully with non-Christ-believing Jews in order to do this?

Finally, let me chime in with a positive word about Neil Elliott's
Liberating Paul, from which this conversation stems. It is an important
work on Paul, worthy of much reflection. It has many points that challenge
existing views convincingly. But his view of Rom. 13 does not convince me,
and, in fact, it is around discussion of this passage that we initially met
a few years ago.

I just don't see how or why Paul would call for this view or behavior for
Romans toward the empire, while it makes sense to me as a new situation
with regard to synagogue authorities and customs, and thus in need of
mention. And I do not see where Paul's language lets his reader in Rome off
the hook. Yes it is subordination and not obedience per se, but where is
the loophole? Interpolation has been suggested to exercise it, and now
misinformation. Yoder called for a distinction between that rendered to God
and human agents, but the text just doesn't make the distinction he argues
for (as does, e.g., 1 Pet. 2:17, per Yoder: fear God--but only!--honor the
king). It should have, if the empire was in view, and that is the problem,
as history has proven. But as we have it, it just does not. But why must it
deal with the empire--which is not explicitly mentioned--at all?

Regards,
Mark Nanos






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page