Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: Tensions in Rome

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Mark D. Nanos" <nanosmd AT comcast.net>
  • To: Corpus-paul <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: Tensions in Rome
  • Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2002 09:14:05 -0600


James Miller wrote:
"But I think the idea that an expulsion of Jews under Claudius, and their
later return, determined the situation among those to whom Paul wrote in
Rome needs to be challenged."

James then lists some good reasons why the historical evidence upon which
the supposed expulsion of Jews under Claudius is not as clear as it is often
taken to be, or should be, if one is to presuppose it when interpreting
Paul's Romans.

James concludes:
"Claudius probably did take some action against the Jews in Rome in 49 C.E..
But that action would be too small to decisively shape the character of the
Jesus movement in Rome in the late 50's when Paul writes."

I agree with James, and my own work on this topic was in an appendix, which
says much about its place in my own argument. That is, I do not think that
the fact that some of us find questionable the "edict of Claudius"
construction for framing the situation in Rome thought by some to give rise
to the tensions between Jewish and non-Jewish Christ-believers, which has
become popular in the last 30 years or so, even gospel, has been used by us
to develop some other supposedly historical approach to Romans based on the
"edict of Claudius" interpreted differently. We have just tried to show that
it consists of elements, each of which involve questionable interpretive
moves, pressed together into a construction that is questionable. Then this
ostensibly (and indeed clever) construction is used to control the
reading/interpretation of Romans. It confines what the situation in Rome can
or cannot plausible be. The point is that it closes down the construction of
alternative hypothesis that might be suggested by alternative close readings
of the rhetoric of the letter itself. That is the problem. That is why I
developed the appendix on the historical shortcomings of the thesis in
Mystery of Romans. Let me share with you antidotal evidence for the need to
provide that appendix.

While still writing Mystery but not yet finished, I had the opportunity to
explain my thesis to a leading authority on Romans and Roman history during
the first centuries of this era. He was very gracious and thought the thesis
extremely creative and interesting. But when, after detailed discussion, I
asked him what he thought about the feasibility that the Christ-believing
non-Jews were meeting within Christ-believing subgroups of the Jewish
communities of Rome when Paul wrote Romans, he answered, that, in spite of
my justification of this view from within the rhetoric of Romans itself, it
was not historical viable. Why? Because of the expulsion of the Jews from
Rome by Claudius because of disturbances about Christ/Christians....

While I was aware of the arguments, I had not given them that kind of
weight! So I returned to investigate them more closely, and the result of my
research is argued in that appendix. Although I can figure out how to make
my reading work with the interpretation of the Claudius edict he supposed to
be certain, and I like Loren's suggestion in that direction, I do not think
that this is necessary or the most productive way to advance the study of
Paul's letter, or that it is warranted by the historical evidence itself, as
my appendix argued, and as outlined in James' post.

I think the issue for interpreters of Romans is to recognize that we simply
do not have the neat historical frame that the recently conceived and now
often almost casually accepted thesis of the edict of Claudius has been
supposed to provide (it is sometimes noted as an aside by interpreters prior
to the 70's). It is a mistake to let it control our reading of Romans, and
it would be a mistake to let some other interpretation of that data do so as
well. In my view, we should first construct a probable situation or
situations from the rhetoric of the letter, which will include attending to
all of the historical and cultural material, etc. of which we are aware,
then we can show how it works within the context of any and all other
probable historical evidence (at least until something more historically
compelling than the prevailing edict of Claudius construction comes along).

The issues that arise for the interpreter or Acts are also interesting, as
Gary notes. It is curious that the author of Acts 18, who writes of an
expulsion of Jews from Rome, can write also that the Jewish communal leaders
in Rome do not know much about that of which Paul speaks. Surely if all the
Jews of Rome, or even many--probably if even some!--had been expelled from
Rome because of preaching the Christian gospel, and if that is what the
write of Acts knows and implies in ch. 18 (and supposes his audience to know
too?), then it is difficult to reconcile with his characterization of
relative ignorance of first-hand knowledge among Jewish leaders of this
disturbance in ch. 28. To me, it would make more sense if the expulsion,
however extensive it was, had to do--for the writer of Acts --with someone/s
other than Christ or Christ-believers, for example, Chrestus, whoever he
was, just as it apparently did for Seutonius when he later wrote of this
incident.

Anyway, this is a very interesting topic, and it will be interesting to see
how or when or even if the momentum that this construction has gained in the
last 20 years for interpreters of Romans will be altered in view of the
several recent challenges to its certainty.

Regards,
Mark
--
Mark D. Nanos, Ph.D.
313 NE Landings Dr.
Lee's Summit, MO 64064
USA
nanosmd AT comcast.net




  • Re: Tensions in Rome, Mark D. Nanos, 11/01/2002

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page