Corpus-Paul

["Mark D. Nanos" <nanos AT gvi.net>]

> Eric Potts wrote:
>
> > [...] so much of the argument in Romans appears to be directed to Jewish
> > Christians. For example, just how meaningful would the excursion into the
> > Abraham story have been to Gentiles?

And Jim Hester replied:

> I have been persuaded by Mark Nanos that the audience of Romans was Gentile
> Christians, but keep in mind that I also think that Paul constructed the
> particular audience he wanted to address.  I see no compelling argument for
> a Jewish audience for Romans 4. Abraham as "our father according to the
> flesh" is the paradigmatic man of faith, whose example is meaningful to all
> Christians, Gentile or Jewish. He was one who demonstrated the obedience of
> faith Paul preached to Gentile Christians.

Dear Eric, Jim, and list,
May I add that although I have argued for a gentile audience, what 
sets my view apart from others who have also argued along this line 
(e.g., W. Campbell, N. Elliott, S. Stowers) is the proposal that 
(Paul's rhetoric implies) these gentiles meet within Jewish communal 
space, that they are part of (sub)groups of believers in Christ 
(which also have Jewish members who are not the target addressees; 
cf. ch. 16 greetings) functioning within the larger Jewish 
communities of Rome. This too helps to account for the rhetorical 
concern with matters usually considered Jewish, such as the status of 
one's relationship to Abraham, or not. On the other hand, when the 
addressees' groups are conceived of within institutionally separate 
Christian social space (e.g., Christian house churches, when assumed 
or defined as already separating themselves from Jewish communal 
life/jurisdiction/legitimacy/etc.), it is logical to to postulate 
Christian Jews, as does Eric, with the majority of interpreters, and 
usually to propose some fault with them Paul seeks to correct (the 
problem is traditionally considered to be the "judaizing" of these 
Christian Jews). This is done in order to account for the continued 
concern with matters of Jewish identity and behavior that arise in 
Paul's argument, which otherwise seems to address gentiles, and thus 
should logically address their concerns, and not those which arise in 
Jewish terms of identity and behavior.

It is possible to imagine that these gentiles were seeking to 
understand their identity in the context of the influences of a 
larger Jewish environment, wherein identity vis-a-vis Abraham is 
essential, yet their understanding of this matter was different than 
the prevailing view of the Jewish people outside of this subgroup 
comprising that environment (i.e., that gentiles were not children of 
Abraham, although they could become such by completion of proselyte 
conversion). In such a case the standing of any of the people of God 
(Jewish or gentile) in terms of relationship to Abraham are 
important, and the writer would have good reason to suspect the need 
to address such a topic from the perspective of their alternative 
understanding of the matter, especially if a different spin on this 
relationship with Abraham has been a usual concern of the author, 
regardless of how many of the particulars of the argument being made 
in the situation of the audience are known to the author.

The issue of how proselytes were related to Abraham is evident in 
Philo's rhetoric about Abraham (whom he describes as the first 
proselyte) as well. It seems this was to encourage his fellow Jews to 
a continued welcoming/respectful disposition toward proselytes, a 
no-doubt tricky proposition in terms of the tensions which arose in 
Alexadrian social space at this time between Egyptians and Greeks and 
Jews. Such transitions across boundaries of identity where tensions 
prevail can be very difficult in legal as well as many other terms, 
not only for the one (or family) making the crossing, but for other 
interested members to the various identity groups as well.

Regards,
Mark Nanos