Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: Rom. 13

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: Rom. 13
  • Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1999 11:05:00 -0600


>>
>>I think it is reasonable to consider the threat this could involve for the
>>Jewish communities. Especially if these righteous gentiles were to regard
>>themselves no longer as pagans and thus claim under the privileges of the
>>Jewish communities the rights to refrain from pagan practices.
>
David Noy wrote:
>Is this quite the right way to think of it? In 1st century Rome, no-one
>was obliged to take part in pagan practices unless they were a senator,
>soldier or something else out of the ordinary. Obligatory participation in
>paganism only became a general issue when loyalty tests for Christians
>started to be used. An ordinary civilian who opted out of pagan religious
>life might attract adverse comment, but wasn't doing anything illegal in
>the 1st century.

I appreciate that at this time there were not specific pagan religious
groups per se, and that there was a difference between the few elites and
the majority of the population. Without claiming to be an expert on Roman
life at this time, I am working with the assumption that in Rome pagan
religious and social (e.g., political and economic) life were not
independent as we now might experience them to be, but religious life and
rituals were embedded in the institutions and activities of daily life. And
the sources I am acquainted with suggest that little was personal or secret
in ones life, that is, that changing communal affiliation would likely be
quickly noticed and commented upon, for example, by "street associations"
(vici), or the simply high normal level of communication that went on among
those often spending their time outside of their homes among the urban
population. I am assuming that a high level of comparison was common in
this dyadic culture, and suspicion easily aroused in agonistic terms. In
other words, I assume that what a family member or neighbor (near equal)
did was of concern, impinging on oneself/group, and often reason for
action.

Changing beliefs and practices for a pagan seeking "full" membership with
Jewish communal and thus religious life would I assume bring disruption to
the kinship and patronage systems of their life. Trade or other (e.g.,
dining, burial) concerns involved many in a collegia, which had patron gods
and opened meetings with a prayer to the deity. Dinner parties and
festivals involved libation of wine and sacrificial rites and food. Family
life involved traditional rites such as the worship of "sacra familiae,"
and rites or passage with attendant worship practices. Are these
assumptions mistaken, or have I missed your point?

I mean simply to note that the faith claims and explanations of these new
attendees of the synagogue communities may have eventually involved the
leaders in what could be a sensitive predicament if it was required of them
to answer for this development; if "pagans" were "justifying" their
"atheism" under the protection of the Jewish communal umbrella. If so, and
if this subgroup within the synagogue claimed this right for these
non-Jewish people on the basis of Jesus Christ, a viewpoint not necessarily
shared by the social control agents of the Jewish communities charged with
compliance and protection of their people, this might make sense of the
exigence in Rome.

Then I would understand the need for a spokesperson within the subgroup
(such as Paul) to direct these gentiles to behave righteously and
appropriately according to the dominant communal views as far as they are
able, including subordination to the leaders and payment of the Temple Tax
(ch. 13). This is what I take Paul in Romans to be doing in calling for
respectful regard for Jewish sensibilities and a new mind, so that they see
how they are unexpectedly involved in the process of the restoration of
those stumbling, and thus seek to avoid contributing to their fall by
assertion of their "rights" as a result of remaining non-Jews, i.e., not
obliged in principle to Torah-observance (yet obliged to serve in a manner
acceptable to humans; chs. 12-14). These gentiles would be suffering
marginality both in their pagan worlds and in their new Jewish communal
world, where they are welcome as "guests" until "proselytes," but where
their current claim for "full membership rights" would be problematic, to
say the least. Paul confronts their growing resentment in Romans and calls
for subordination and respectful behavior in this present anomalous stage.
At least, that is what I think, and why I was trying to tease out some of
the pagan side of this tension that might help explain the context of the
rhetorical situation.

Regards,
Mark Nanos





  • Re: Rom. 13, Mark D. Nanos, 07/09/1999
    • <Possible follow-up(s)>
    • Re: Rom. 13, David Noy, 07/09/1999

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page