Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - The Roman Congregation (was "Neil Elliot...")

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: The Roman Congregation (was "Neil Elliot...")
  • Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 14:06:37 -0700


Mark Nanos wrote:


>
> Some of your replies are not only inappropriate in tone, but I find them
> beyond response, since they seem to miss the point made.

I apologize if I've offended you. I do find in myself a certain
exasperation, in that, you refer to your book for support of you assertions,
and I am of course unable to obtain it, and so am at a loss to engage in a
discussion. You have acknowledged that your positions are non-mainstream. I
have read your posts going back for some months, in which you reassert these
positions on Paul and on Jewish-Gentile relations, but I have not found you
offering arguments. Nor have you engaged any of the the considerable
counter-evidence to be found in Paul's letters. Hence, my tone of
frustration. If you can correct me with citations from the archives, in
which you handle Paul directly, please do.

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.
>

As I said, both the Gospels and Paul conform to an earlier model. I am not
going to argue for my methodology here, as this email format doesn't lend
itself to necessarily extensive treatment. I merely raised it as a
possibility which some list members might wish to consider themselves.


> >
> >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


What is the implication you make from this ? Do you find them unreliable
historians consistently?


> 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.
>

"When" is inferred by personages and events named.

Do you discount the author of Acts?

> >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.

Sorry, I misunderstood you. Previously you wrote of the "so-called edict of
Claudius," then you went on to say that "IF" this occurred, etc. From this
I thought you were questioning the historicity. I was asking you how you
could explain the reference to such an expulsion in Acts, confirming
Suetonius.

> Paul's association with them is given as that of a common trade,
> not that of a common faith.

Yes, to the first part. But the common faith was clearly Judaic, and just as
clearly Christian. P and A "expounded the way of God more perfectly." (Acts
18.26) "Perfection" and "the way" are NT code phrase. For anyone to think
that the author of Acts might have said this kind of thing carelessly,
without meaning something significant by it, is hard to swallow.

>
> 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 seemed to be asserting above that Christus meant "king." The word
"Christus" is not Latin for "king" It means "Christ" i.e., that specific
person only, a proper noun.

>
> 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.
> >

Gladly! In Latin "chrestus" can mean "excellent" in certain contexts, but is
not a royal title. "Christus" is not Latin of course. It is a word coined
from Gr. when Jesus arrives. When a Latin speaker first hears the obscure
Gr. theological term. "Christos" a mistaken assumption is made that the
revered figure must be "Chrestus." That mistake explains the origin of the
occasional early use of Chrestus for Jesus Christ.

Beginning in the 2nd century this mistake becomes deliberately replicated by
Latin-speakers because "chrestians" when spoken with a lisp, creates a
comical kind of ridicule. We have about half a dozen documented instances of
this occurring empire-wide before Constantine.

So much for how Latin folk mis-hear a strange, uncommon Greek word,
Christos. A Roman historian such as Tacitus or Suetonius using 'Chrestus' in
the 2nd century can only be referring to the individual Jesus Christ. Why?
Because by that time "Christus" was a household name, and the "chrestians"
were notorious scapegoats and victims of serial persecution. No other
interpretation of "Christus" in the annals is reasonable, unless you posit a
monumental intellectual lapse by the historians.

>
> >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,

I didn't mean to refer to you personally, but to the position, which I know
is not originally yours. Sorry. I'll be more careful.

>
> 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;

Okay it's "extremely unlikely" and not outright preposterous. My tone
reflects a frustration that this evidence of references to Christ
(misspelled once) and to Christians, in Tacitus, Suetonius and the book of
Acts, is not being dealt with forthrightly by revisionist scholars. I think
an honest appraisal of NT scriptures together with Latin writings leads to a
high probability conclusion that Christians were in Rome during Claudius'
time. Don't you? That's all we're talking about here.

A final note: If Suetonius or Tacitus had meant someone other than Christ,
they would have specified him as "Chrestus the proconsul from Carthage" or
whatever. That was the common method of signifying people. Again,
Christus/os and "Christians" were household words by the time Tacitus
(c.55-A.D. c.117) and Suetonius (A.D. c.69-c.140) wrote their histories.
Hence, one word like "Chrestus" was enough. If I wrote about "Madonna" now,
in the context of a well-known contemporary figure, you would know right
away who I meant from the context, even if I cutely spelled Mad-donna..

To assert that these writers referred to someone else must assume a literary
lapse that is hard to imagine. Also, in the case of the Suetonius reference,
what other "Chrestus" could have been in a position to cause trouble among
the Jews in Claudius day? Do you see why I am adamant?

Combine this evidence from Suet. with mention in Acts of two Christian
refugees of the explusion, and you have a datum you can't just glibly
ignore.

Incidentally, in order to correct a possible misunderstanding in your post:
I never asserted anything previously about the ethnic composition of those
expelled, apart from saying that some were Jewish.


> 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.
> >

Why should we have to assume that *all* Jews were expelled? Iudaeos
impulsore Chresto assidue tumultuantis Roma expulit.




> >
> >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.

Paul's vocabulary in Romans, and the nature of the Christian initiation
rites, indicate a sense of a distinct community. Would you not agree? Do you
assert something otherwise that we should hear about?

>
> 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.
>

There are several issues to sort out here.

--First, did Christians including Paul see themselves as militantly distinct
from all others who did not accept Christ? Answer, yes. Proof texts on
request.

---Secondly, were those Christians welcomed in synagogues that rejected this
messiah? Answer: Sure, if they kept mum. But no, if they became pushy. The
prototype here is Jesus himself kicked out of the synagogue in Capernaum,
followed by his saying that "you'll be thrown out of synagogues too." . We
have evidence of Paul wanting Christians to distance themselves from
Torah-keepers and we have the birkat ha-minim in the 80s or so.

As for the Roman group specifically: Perhaps in the 50s when Paul wrote his
letter, the conflicts were minimal or non-existent. Maybe Christ-believers
were side-by-side with non-believers at the synagogue. Let's discuss this if
you like. My position would be, that, beginning in Rom 2.17, Paul becomes so
anti-Torahnic and ultimately anti-Judaic (in the conventional sense of the
day) and pro-Gentile, that Torah-keepers would find this theology
intolerable. Again, I'll entertain discussion.


> Paul does not ever call them or anyone else
> Christians;

Remember, "Christians" is a dismissive label coined by Latin speakers. Paul
uses "saints" instead (Rom 1.7)

>
> 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.
> >

It's really a question of when the separation occurred. Paul, in ca. 37,
was deputized to arrest and execute, and presumably to evict, Christians
from Jewish congregations. That's decades before this Romans letter. And the
document usually regarded as the earliest one in the NT, Galatians, contains
a command from Paul to exclude Torah-keepers.

Perhaps, though, a rapprochement occurred in the 40s or 50s. Any external
evidence bearing on the timing of the schism would be welcome.

>
> 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.
>

I have read all of your posts. Frustratingly, I have not found in them any
arguments for your position. Rather I see you asserting and re-asserting,
without engaging the relevant NT texts at all. Please correct me if any of
this is wrong.

>
> 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.
>

I challenged you to give me evidence of strong and puzzling statement about
Gentile arrogance (your word), or of any ethnic hostility going on in Rome.
Perhaps my manner was intemperate. I apologize, but I still would like to
hear you confront the question directly.

Best regards,

Jon





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page