Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: Neil Elliott, 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 Elliott, Liberating Paul
  • Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 21:46:31 -0700


Neil Elliott wrote:

<<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.">>


It surprises me that the idea of Paul planting disinformation or playing to
a gallery is so easily dismissed. Well, so be it. I must say that one
routinely hears that the Gospels are polemical, with certain passages aimed
at various audiences including Gentiles and Romans. So, my suggestion of a
comment pointed to them in Paul's letter isn't inherently farfetched.
Remember that the issue of whether Christians were subjects or subversive
was of utmost concern, and a source of attention, ever since Christianity's
inception. **Either way**, a declaration of loyalty or of feigned loyalty
expressed in a letter from Paul would serve as potentially exculpatory
evidence (as would the book of Acts, and as would the Gospels).

In this regards, we know that Paul met with Christian refugees Priscilla and
Aquila in Corinth ca. 52. At this time he could easily have arranged with
them to assist the Roman Church's precarious situation by writing such an
artful letter.

Anyway, Neil continues:


<<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). >>


It seems to me you're saying in the 1st sentence, "Don't look for historical
circumstances to help explain Paul" -- then, in the last sentence you say
that our question should instead be, "What were the immediate circumstances
to prompt his statements?" This distinction between "historical" and more
"immediate" circumstances doesn't seem warranted or rigorous. In fact it
seems like a contradiction, especially since you want us to look at the
issue of dating and contemporaneous events.


<<"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. >>


I wholeheartedly agree that Paul's pro-imperial statement in Rom 13 are at
odds with the Gospel and with his other stated positions. You continue:


<<Note that Seneca's De Clementia,
contemporary with Nero (and Romans)>>


Why couldn't Paul be writing before 54 while Claudius was still in charge?


<<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.>>


But Christians and Jews could hardly feel safe under Claudius either.


<<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.>>


It is theoretically possible that a special taxation controversy is in
Paul's view here, but I doubt it for several reasons. The main one is that
taxation isn't really highlighted as an issue. The payment of tribute is a
sub-set of Paul advice about acquiescence to authority in Rom. 13, which is
in turn an extension of the stream of homily that he begins in Rom 12.1.

A second reason is that balking at taxes is a rather perennial issue for all
people in all times. It is hard to see why Christians would have a sudden
crisis in principles over an onerous tax as opposed to previous taxes.
Again, the emphasis on the tribute-paying topic is fairly subordinate in the
laundry list of Paul's moralizing. It is placed neither at the beginning nor
the very end, the places where rhetorical emphasis is achieved. There's
nothing in Paul's manner of reference to taxation to suggest it is high in
Paul's thoughts. I don't think a minister's saying either "pay your taxes"
or "don't pay" carries any practical consequences or weight. People have to
pay or they refuse to, and risk being punished.

All in all, Rom 12-13 makes the most sense as flattery to Rome in either
Claudius' or Nero's time. Everything Paul writes is just what a government
loves to hear. The Christians were in a precarious situation as a sect who
might be slandered to their great harm by their detractors, or simply
misunderstood and disliked for their beliefs. During the 50s Paul became
prominent and controversial. He was subjected to accusals and
incarcerations. Soon his fate was going to be settled in Roma. In these
facts, we see a ready motive for him to write glowingly of the emperor, but
not entirely with sincerity.


<<,* (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. >>

The "boasting" you refer to is a misreading I think. There is no evidence to
suggest that Gentiles were actually boasting. Rather, we have the opposite
indication. Paul explains to them a theology which might lead them to boast.
This theology is clearly Paul's own original concept and he is expressing it
in an introductory way in ch. 11. Afterwards he says, "don't boast" (v 18)
and then goes on to explain that **if** they do boast, God will reject them
as he did the Jews. Paul is really expounding upon God's even-handedness
here, rather than rebuking Gentile behavior based on actual complaints or
reports. Again, the proof is that it is Paul himself who is supplying the
original theology that **might** produce arrogance.

If the exegesis is otherwise, so that we assume a rebuke is being given for
actual behavior, then we would have to say that the Gentiles have heard
Paul's theology independently by some other means previously, and that Paul
has heard about resulting arrogance. This scenario of interaction seems
fairly unlikely, given that Paul has never been to Roma and doesn't know the
congregation members. Also, if he had heard of actual arrogance, he would
have issued a rebuke rather than a warning. (v21)


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.

Gager's _Paul and the Origins of Anti-Semitism_ convincingly pins great
blame on Paul, albeit indirectly, for the anti-Judaism in later Christian
exegesis. I don't think there's any evidence in Romans of Paul having or
showing concern for Jews' immediate wellbeing v-a-v the government. Rather,
he is making a theological claim about God as one who justifies all persons
of faith, and who rejects those who abuse the gift of being "chosen." This
is why Paul warns Gentiles not to get big-headed about their lofty new
status.


<<* 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.>>

Actually, Nanos' exegesis of Suetonius conceded the "Chresus" reference to
be a generic messianic dispute not necessarily referring to Jesus. Nanos
originally seemed to question that the expulsion even occurred. I took issue
with him on the latter point not because I happen to favor the
Chrestus=Christ, but because I am interested in how and when the Roman
Christian Church began. Nanos and Gibson were arguing that no evidence for
it pre-dated 64. But the Suetonius reference to events in 49 counts as
evidence, NOT because of who Chrestus might be, but because the author of
Acts knows that Pricilla and Aquila were refugees of the expulsion (Acts
18.2). Regardless of who "Chrestus" was, and regardless of why the
expulsion occurred, here are two Christians who were in Rome during the 40s.

Best regards,

Jon





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page