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: "Jon Peter" <jnp AT home.com>
  • To: "Corpus Paulinum" <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: Neil Elliot, "Liberating Paul"
  • Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1999 07:57:38 -0700


Mark wrote:

>
> 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.
>

I hope my clarification on this very point, in responding separately to
Jeffrey, will begin to answer your concern. Indeed, this text from Paul is
not our only candidate for such analysis of course.


>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?
>

Underlying my highly tentative exegetical method is my wish to shed light,
if possible, on a very difficult problem found in Paul -- which is, the
sense I often get of his logical non sequiturs and contradictions or
apparent inconsistencies. Along with various other readers' theories for
explaining this trait -- e.g. interpolations or Paul's rhetorical
incompetence, etc., --- I offer the suggestion of deliberate disinformation.
It may be an idea that others haven't thought of and may want to explore.


>
> 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,
>

I largely agree with you that Paul's fears pertain more to what fellow Jews
may do to him and to his flocks. But the principle of mis-directing
outsiders' attention would naturally apply to any potential source of harm.


>
> 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.
>

Quite the contrary! Paul is better able to write "Christ Jesus is Lord" --
which he must do, as his duty and calling from Christ -- without risking an
accusation of sedition for it, precisely because he goes on to write
approvingly of submission to secular authorities. The "sedition" of "king
Jesus" becomes quite acceptable to Rome this way


>
> 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
>

The keys have been taught orally. In the case of the Gospels, they are also
(I think) conveyed in the texts themselves by various means.


>
> 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!).

If you accept Acts, you can date the Christian label to pre-Claudius (41)
see Acts 11.28

Also, you and Jeffrey discount Tacitus' and Suetonius' references to
Christians in the 40s. Others would disagree with you, such as Sanders in
_The Historical Figure of Jesus_ p 49ff

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;
>

What do you say about Aquila and Priscilla?

>
> By the way, Chrestus (a common name) and Christus (king) are very
> different,

Christus = Christ Latin for king is rex. What are you referring to?

The assertion that Tacitus' "Chrestus" is just some guy on the street
causing a disturbance among Jews is quite preposterous. Tacitus could only
have been speaking of Christ.


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).
>

I would like your Suet. reference on the 2 words used disparately. The
deliberate garbling by Latin speakers of christiani with chrestiani as a
slur has been adequately demonstrated.


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).
>

You're saying Suetonius and Paul or pseudo Paul were mistaken? The expulsion
never happened? The two are a fairly strong combination I'd say.

Also, I wish that either you or Jeffrey would explain how you cite the
Romans epistle and simultaneously claim no Christian Church existed in the
city pre 64.

>
> 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.
>

Where are you finding such arrogance? The context is, Paul spends 11 solid
chapters expounding on why Gentiles are taking-over in God's plan as
"ingrafted branches." Following this discourse comes a chapter on love and
forgiveness of those who are recently persecuting them (12.4, 17ff) which
segues into "submission to authorities." There is no hint of bad attitude
of Gentiles towards Jews. Please explain your statement.

Also, note that the reference to persecutions the group have suffered, and
Paul's homily against vengeance-seeking, coming immediately before the
"submit to authorities" passage in 13.1 This shows that harm was indeed
befalling the Christians from outside. Paul knows of it and he couches his
"submission" advice with this context in mind. I'm sorry, Mark, but your
ideas about a Jews v Gentile thing are completely lacking in support here
and in fact are contradicted.



> of those "stumbling" Jewish people vicariously suffering presently on
these
> gentiles' behalf (Rom. 11; 12:1ff.).

I see the connection with Rom 11, but don't see any hint in 12.1ff of
allusion to any point you're making.

>
> Why would Paul tell Romans to be good citizens of
> Rome?

The answer is obvious from chapter 12, isn't it?. Christians are being
persecuted, but they should not retaliate or seek vengeance. On the contrary
they should be docile subjects.


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?
>

You have lost me here. I don't see any reference to Jewish-Gentile relations
or an argument about it at all, unless you're suggesting that the
persecutors in 12.14 are Jewish?


>
> 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.

I think if you re-read chapter 12, the logical flow of ideas is quite clear,
and reaches the conclusion that Christians, despite being persecuted, should
submit to Roman authorities. Are you still uncertain about this?


Best regards,

Jon





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page