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: Wed, 7 Jul 1999 21:50:14 -0500 (CDT)


Jon Peter wrote:
>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.

I find this methodology suspect. It is difficult to dialogue with someone
who has a key they can turn at any (what seems to others) random point
where they find something that does not work with their construction of
Paul? Have you considered that the ostensible problems you find in the text
may be the result of the assumptions you bring to it, and that these are
what are in need of suspicion?

Some of your replies are not only inappropriate in tone, but I find them
beyond response, since they seem to miss the point made. But a few might
bear some comment; the rest are deleted. I must say also that it seems odd
to me that your methodology appeals to the gospels as we have them as
preceding Paul, and that you seem to appeal to Acts as though written by
Paul himself.

>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

None of these authors are writing when Paul is, including the author of
Acts. The point is the comment there does not tell us when, but where. By
the time Acts was written this label was applied; but when was it used? by
whom? why? and even how widely? There is no evidence contemporary with Paul
for Rome that this label was in use.

>What do you say about Aquila and Priscilla?

I say, what do you mean? When I read the account in Acts 18 I see no
indication "why" they were involved in an expulsion by Claudius, only that
they were. Paul's association with them is given as that of a common trade,
not that of a common faith. What does this prove about who "Chrestus" was
in a comment by Suetonius, or when, or whether these two references have
anything to do with one another?

>> 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 association with the anointed one or messianic figure I thought would
be clear enough for the point at hand. You are after all the one following
those who believe the reference is to a disturbance involving a christus
(i.e. messianic) matter in Rome in the reference to Chrestus in Suetonius,
not me. Such titles would not be presumably taken lightly by Romans in
Rome. I do recognize that this construct is not yours, but if you are to
adopt it I expect you to defend it.
>
>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.

I do not appreciate this kind of language in dialogue, and would not
normally respond to a point made in such fashion, and it is poor
historiography as well to put yourself in a position to know what Tacitus
had to mean, or what is preposterous; moreover, it is not Tacitus about
whom we are speaking but Suetonius who refers to a disturbance involving
someone in Rome named Chrestus (note too that Suetonius, upon whom this
construction hangs, seems to have thought that this person was in Rome: was
Christ in Rome under Claudius's reign?). Roman historians are not as sure
as yourself on this whole matter, and I would suggest you do a little
reading of Dixon Slingerland on these matters before you mount this high
horse again. And one of the odd things about Roman histories of the period
is precisely that Tacitus, who covered this period, does not mention this
expulsion, wherein some 20-50,000 Jewish people (are presumed by this
construction) to have been expelled; note also that Josephus does not
mention it.
>

>I would like your Suet. reference on the 2 words used disparately.

Nero 16.2; Claudius 25.4
>
>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.

Where does Paul refer to this expulsion? And I don't deny the Chrestus
incident, but I question the creative interpretation that has been spun and
now (in recent times only I believe) repeated as though historical fact.
>
>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.

Obviously there were Christ-believers in Rome to whom Paul wrote, but how
their community or communities was/were constructed or labeled is a matter
for discussion. I have argued at length from the rhetoric of Romans (in The
Mystery or Romans) that they were a part of the synagogue communities of
Rome. There is no material or literary proof of which I am aware that
indicates otherwise. Paul does not ever call them or anyone else
Christians; rather he knows Jewish and non-Jewish people, which fits a
Jewish communal point of view precisely. Peter Lampe has argued that they
met in homes and in the same parts of the city as the Jewish people; the
identification is logical on this historical information as well. Most
people recognize that there was a time when this movement was wholly
Jewish; I suggest that we have in Romans literary evidence of just such a
time.
>
The rest of your comments were framed in a style that I do not care to
engage. But may I suggest you try listening to another's suggestions with a
little respect. We are, after all, trying to understand someone and
something with the same few pieces of evidence. If the answers were
objectively obvious we would not sensibly spend our time and energy in this
subjective task, or try to communicate with each other in order to advance
the process. I find it hard to believe that it is in the interests of
Corpus Paul for participants to communicate in this way.

Regards,
Mark Nanos






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page