Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Neil Elliott, Liberating Paul

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Neil Elliott" <elliott AT igc.org>
  • To: corpus-paul
  • Subject: Neil Elliott, Liberating Paul
  • Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1999 10:23:14



PART II: On Romans 13: my two bits.

Romans is written to the Christians of Rome. Whatever our conclusions
regarding the existence of imperial "spies"--some modern authors have
discussed them, Tacitus describes them, but they seem never to have been
organized on the level of a sort of Roman Secret Service--Paul's political
reticence is directed for INTERNAL consumption. He's advising house church
members on their behavior "out there," in the public sphere. I very much
doubt he's writing here for the imperial "mice in the walls."

GIVEN my considerations in a previous post (Part I), the interpretation of
this text should focus NOT on identifying possible historical circumstances
that would have motivated everything Paul says here. Rather, following
Kaesemann, we should frankly admit a lot of this is simply Paul's
(seemingly unreflective) use of commonplace, inconsistent with any coherent
thought he provides elsewhere. Our question should be, rather, what
immediate circumstances prompt this ad hoc exhortation urging subjection,
payment of taxes, a "quietistic" posture (Dunn). "Immediate
circumstances"--because this DOESN'T seem to be Paul's general view, or his
general posture: it seems to be an ad hoc formulation.

And of course THAT'S why dating is so important! I think we're beyond the
older debate about Nero's "good years" and "bad years"--a retrospective
judgment from 30-plus years later. Note that Seneca's De Clementia,
contemporary with Nero (and Romans), lets slip that the fate of the Roman
people was very much in question from the outset as everyone waited to see
what Nero's accession would bring. The extreme caution of De Clem. makes it
doubtful, I think, that ANY contemporary would have regarded Nero a "safe"
or "good" emperor.

The real focus items for dating are (1) the question of taxes under Nero
(Friedrich et al.), (2) related to tax riots in nearby Puteoli; and (3) the
status of Jews expelled under Claudius and now returned,* (4) related as it
is to gentile-Christian boasting (Rom 11) and a general perception among
g-Xns that Jews have "stumbled" or "fallen." I think these are all related:
That Paul is struggling against a real temptation among Roman (gentile)
Christians to blow off Jews-in-general as so much poor Asian trash, foreign
flotsam clogging the city. Peter Schaefer, John Gager, and others have
documented anti-Jewish sentiment in Roman elite circles; Dixon Slingerland
has plotted a consistent pattern of imperial hostility to Jews in the
city.
___________
* Slingerland's discussion of the Suetonius reference is convincing.
"Chrestus" could be any number of Roman aristocrats but was
probably NOT = "Christus." Without that equation, there is NO
reason to import "Jesus" or "messianic agitation" into the report of
Jewish "disturbances." Nanos' "minimal" reading (he's loath to read
the Claudian edict as portraying a dominant gentile Christianity
independent of the synagogue) is instructive precisely because of
how much he nevertheless admits: there WAS an expulsion; many
Jews WERE involved; it DID impact the congregations Paul
addressed.
-------------------

Finally: (5) We must bear in mind the tremendous propaganda campaign waged
by Nero's courtiers. (There's a lot of interest in Roman imperial
propaganda recently, among classicists and, increasingly, NT types. Most
recently I heard Andy Overman present a convincing description of the
propaganda needs of the Flavian dynasty and how these determined policy
toward Judaea.) What's new with Nero is the much-vaunted boast that, in
contrast to warriors like Julius Caessr and Augustus, HE came to power
WITHOUT using force. Seneca's De Clementia and several poet propagandists
gush about how with Nero "the sword" is idle, unused, practically rusting
in its scabbard. Here I think Paul's quip that the authority "does not bear
the sword in vain"--EIKE, "idly"?--is a direct contradiction to a central
imperial propaganda theme.

Enough, perhaps, for now: I eagerly await responses!

Neil Elliott




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page