Corpus-Paul

[nanosmd AT comcast.net]

Loren and list,
Sorry about the delay; my internet server has been down for several days. But 
Loren, your timing is unbelievable. 

Ironically enough, when you wrote on Mon., Anders Runesson just arrived from 
Canada to spend the week with me working on a project together. In view of 
the comments you cite from Esler, it is also notable that he and I met at and 
participated in a conference in Sweden in Oct of 2001, while Irony of 
Galatians was at the printer, but before his dissertation was defended or 
available to me, and we later both published in the same volume called The 
Ancient Synagogue from its Origins until 200 CE: Papers Presented at an 
International Conference at Lund University, Oct. 14-17, 2001, which was 
published in 2003. Donald Binder also participated in the conference, and it 
was the first time we met, and it is true that I had likely not read his 
dissertation before the manuscript of Irony was completed.  

Anyway, it was startling to see Esler's comment (and others on the pages to 
which you refer). I had/have not yet read his new Romans book, although it is 
working its way up the pile of such volumes to which I must--and want 
to--attend. But Anders and I have had many conversations about the synagogue 
situation of Paul's time, and I never thought, nor has he ever suggested, 
that there was any historical problem with my analysis of the matter at issue 
for Romans. 

Caveat: Anders has revised my understanding that there were no public 
examples contemporaneous with Paul; there were two of which we are now aware 
based on his analysis, which comes to different conclusions than those upon 
whom my comments relied (they thought these were early houses before public 
buildings, Runesson does not): Ostia and Delos, although the latter may have 
been Samaritan. But the witness of some public architecture at the time does 
not make the case that there was only public architecture, upon which Esler's 
criticism depends, and upon which his conclusion of a separation of house 
churches from synagogues also proceeds [he draws an institutional inference 
from material remains that does not follow: see Anders' comments below]. In 
other words, there continued to be both private and public space for 
synagogues at the time of the development of private spaces for 
Christ-believers.

Anders has written the following reply to the comments you note from Esler, 
which I copy below:
---
Reading Loren Rosson’s interesting and well-written presentation of Esler’s 
fascinating new book on Romans I cannot but note the impeccable timing of 
some of Rosson’s comments since, ironically, I am sitting in Mark’s office 
working together with him on a joint project on Paul. Of course, we have not 
been able to avoid discussing the fact that Esler uses Binder’s and my own 
work on the ancient synagogue in order to make the case that, contra Nanos, 
the Christ-movement had separated from the synagogue in the city of Rome by 
the time Paul wrote. One of the arguments Esler uses to support his claim is 
that, contrary to the Christ-movement who assembled in private houses, “we 
know that the Judeans of Rome met in large tailor-made proseuchai” (p. 342). 

Esler summarises my own, Binder’s, Meek’s, and others’ work nicely on pp. 
88ff and give a balanced description of the mixed nature of the buildings in 
which Jews gathered (both purpose built separate edifices and private homes), 
although this was still the case in Rome in the first century. However, the 
fact that Christ-believers in first century Rome gathered in homes does not 
necessarily lead to the conclusion that the Christ-movement had separated 
from the synagogue: most likely it had not. There is no contradiction, either 
sociologically or otherwise, between belonging to a larger community 
gathering in a public building and, at the same time, organising separate 
meetings in other loci, maintaining the specific identity of a sub-group 
within the larger community. There are plenty of modern examples when this 
has happened and still happens. 

For example, for many years within the Church of Sweden an organised 
sub-group has been operating. They have their own pastors and hierarchy and 
meet in separate buildings usually called prayer-houses; yet they were and 
still are acknowledged by the church as a legitimate (alternative) expression 
of its Christian faith. The houses they met in originally were private 
houses. Later on meetings were held in separate houses, though these houses 
were—and still are—architecturally simple and very different from the church 
buildings owned by the Church of Sweden. While future archaeologists will 
have no problem identifying the church buildings, most of these prayer-houses 
will be indistinguishable from any other (secular) meeting hall. 

It may also be noted that from time to time there have been some people 
within the sub-group that have wanted to part ways with the church, as other 
groups did in the latter half of the 19th century. However, so far any such 
solution has been rejected by the organisation as a whole. The group in 
question remains to this day a part of the church of Sweden: there never was 
a ‘parting of the ways.’

There are more things to say about different ways to interpret archaeological 
remains. Here I just want to point out that my work on the ancient synagogue, 
more specifically in this case the synagogue at Ostia, does not by itself 
support Esler’s conclusion. In fact, both Nanos and I agree that the 
Christ-movement in first century Rome was a sub-group within the synagogue 
and that no separation between Christ-believers and non-Christ believers had 
yet occurred. 

Anders Runesson
---
 
So Loren, as you can see, what Philip argued remains arguable. I do not see 
that it has any bearing on the merits of my own prior argument that it is 
probable that the communities in Rome to whom Paul wrote were a part of the 
Jewish communities there, in some manner subgroups, and that their meeting in 
homes neither symbolized something different from Jewish communal (synagogal) 
life, nor was it intended to do so. To the degree that various communities 
had time, resources, and the desire to build private or public structures 
dedicated to communal activities, they did so, and moved away from the use of 
homes or other such activities, just as often remains the case today for 
groups of many different faiths. There were/are always new groups that are 
not in a position to, or maybe do not even want to have buildings dedicated 
to their assembling. 

It is highly improbable that house meetings were unique to Christ-believers, 
to Christ-believingness, if you will. It does not make sense to argue that 
all Jews or groups of Jews had been in Rome so long and had by definition the 
resources and will to have private or public structures that made their 
meetings and meeting places by definition always distinguishable from the new 
meetings and meeting places of Christ-believing groups (especially so if they 
were Jewish, i.e., synagogue subgroups).

One point that this discussion gives me the opportunity to stress that I 
raised in Mystery of Romans and subsequent work is that it is 
methodologically suspect to constrain what rhetorical analysis of Paul's 
texts (and other from antiquity) might tell us by "historical" evidence, when 
that evidence is itself the product of little to no unambiguous data, but 
rather interpretive constructions, theories, and so on, and thus far from 
providing any more certainty than evidence within the text under 
investigation itself. 

Loren, thanks for the review, the effort, and stimulating and interesting 
discussion, and for me at least, a moment so remarkably ironic as to seem to 
be simply impossible to believe to be true.

Regards,
Mark
-- 
Mark D. Nanos, Ph.D.
Rockhurst University
Co-Moderator
http://home.comcast.net/~nanosmd/


on 7/20/04 6:39 AM, Loren Rosson at rossoiii AT yahoo.com wrote:

> List members --
> 
> I have recently finished reading Philip Esler's
> "Conflict and Identity in Romans", which is the book
> on Romans I've been waiting to see for years. Since
> the list has been dormant lately, I decided to write a
> review and invite discussion. The book was actually
> published last year in November, and it is a sequel to
> Esler's 1998 publication on Galatians written for the
> Routledge New Testament Readings series. My apologies
> in advance for the length, but I want to do the book
> justice.
> 
> Philip Esler used social-identity theory to explain
> Galatians, and he now uses recategorization theory to
> account for Romans. They are sibling models, to be
> sure, but whereas the former focuses on relationships
> between groups, the latter does so within groups. So
> in the earlier letter, the Judean influencers must be
> degraded (in line with the canons of an honor-shame
> culture) and their tradition radically reinterpreted
> for the benefit of Paul's Gentiles. In the second
> letter, the mixed group of Judean and Gentile
> Christ-believers, conflicted over ethnic pride, must
> be "taken down" to the same level, but in such a way
> that neither group feels that its ethnic identity is
> erased in the process.
> 
> Esler draws on the work of social theorists who have
> shown that recategorization is successful only when
> the different ethnic groups within a movement have
> equal status in a different way -- since if they were
> equal in the same way, they would simply continue to
> compete in a fashion destructive of unity (see p 144).
> This is why the last thing Paul wants to say in Romans
> is, "In Christ there is neither Judean nor Greek", as
> he did in Galatians. Contra Daniel Boyarin, Paul is
> not attempting to erase ethnic distinctions -- at
> least not in Romans.
> 
> So, for instance, Paul claims that just as Gentiles
> are under the domain of sin without the Torah
> (1:18-2:5), Judeans are under its power with the Torah
> (2:17-3:20) -- and the transition text stresses the
> impartiality of God in punishing members of each
> ethnic group, "the Judean and the Greek", those under
> the law and those not under the law (2:6-16).
> Likewise, just as Gentile Christ-believers have been
> liberated from the power of sin which ruled them as
> immoral pagans (6:15-23), Judean Christ-believers have
> been liberated from the power of sin which ruled them
> through the law (7:1-25). Judeans need to recognize
> that Gentiles are God's elect and heirs to the
> promises of Abraham (9:1-11:12), but Gentiles should
> understand that these benefits are a means to an end
> -- to provoke Judeans to reacquire what is really
> theirs (11:13-32). 
> 
> These days it's the force of fashion to interpret
> Romans as having the Gentile group in its sights, but
> I've always believed that various parts of the letter
> target one group or the other. Esler has confirmed my
> convictions by accounting for this in terms of
> recategorization theory. I could quibble about his
> particular breakdowns. For instance, I've argued in
> the past that Rom 7:7-25 has both Judeans (vv 7-13)
> and Gentiles (vv 14-25) in view. But in any case, the
> point is that successful recategorization requires
> careful attention to all ethnic groups involved. "The
> establishment of a common ingroup identity will only
> succeed if the two subgroups concerned do not feel
> that their distinctive identities are threatened in
> the process -- this is the 'equal status - different
> dimensions condition' that is a prerequisite to
> successful recategorization" (p 219). 
> 
> This, says Esler, accounts for Paul's treatment of
> Abraham in Rom 4 and the Torah's purpose in Rom 7.
> Abraham is a prototype for Judeans and Gentiles who
> have faith, against the polarizing implication of Gal
> 3:6-9 that Judeans have been disinherited. He became
> circumcised in order to seal his faith-righteousness,
> precisely in order to become the ancestor of two
> different ethnic groups (4:11-12). And the Torah is
> holy and passive in its relationship to sin, against
> the perverse claim in Gal 3:19-26 that it actively
> confined people under sin. Sin used the law to its
> advantage, and the Torah, though given for the promise
> of life, was unable to do the job God gave it
> (7:10-11). This may raise questions about God's
> competency, but it exonerates him of perversity. 
> 
> So far so good, but no sooner does Esler establish
> these more palatable interpretations than undercut
> them by advancing two startling claims: (1) that it is
> wrong to speak of salvation-history in Rom 4 and 9-11;
> and (2) that the law is completely obsolete for
> Christ-believers in Rom 7-8 and 13:8-10. Is Romans so
> much like Galatians after all? Let's consider.
> 
> (1) As mentioned above, Rom 4:1-17 improves over Gal
> 3:6-9. But not much, as it turns out, because
> faith-righteousness displaces the covenant as much as
> before. Esler is worth quoting at length:
> 
> "Those who see Paul's thought in terms of the
> fulfillment or climax of the covenant [Wright, Dunn,
> etc] must explain its outright replacement by
> faith-righteousness... Paul's argument is radical. He
> is saying that Judeans trace descent from Abraham not
> in virtue of his circumcision, but from the
> faith-righteousness he had prior to it and of which
> circumcision was merely a sign... Since Abraham's seed
> are those who are righteous by faith and no one,
> except Abraham himself, appears to fit this category
> until the possibility arose of faith in Christ, it
> follows (even though Paul does not mention it) that we
> have a period between Abraham and Paul's time when the
> promise was not fulfilled by anyone; it was de futuro
> only. This would seem to produce barren ground for
> notions of 'salvation history' or 'the climax of the
> covenant'... Paul does agree that in Christ God
> fulfilled the promises made to Abraham (but in Rom
> 4:11 deletes the word 'covenant' from his source in
> Gen 17:11)... Yet the centuries between Moses and
> Christ comprised a period of unrelieved gloom." (pp
> 189, 190, 192, 193, 286)
> 
> My question is whether such an audacious assault on
> the contemporary understanding of Abraham can support
> Esler's recategorization thesis, which depends on
> maintaining something pleasing (and preserving) to the
> ethnic group in question. The above commentary may
> well apply to Galatians, but it shouldn't for Romans
> -- unless there is a nuance to recategorization theory
> I'm missing.
> 
> (2) Likewise, having gone out of his way to stress the
> more palatable treatment of the law's purpose in Rom
> 7:7-25 (when compared to Gal 3:19-26), Esler undoes
> this by arguing that the law is entirely irrelevant
> for Christ-believers, as much in Romans as Galatians.
> Against those who see Christ as the "goal" of the law
> in Rom 10:4, Esler states: "There is absolutely no
> sense that Christ is the 'goal' or 'natural result' of
> anything to do with the law... He did not come at the
> tail-end of a process of which the law represented the
> earlier stages. He was the person who liberated Israel
> from the law's mess." (p 285) As in Gal 5:13-6:10, the
> texts of Rom 8:1-17 and 13:8-10 may declare the law
> fulfilled in the commandment, "You shall love your
> neighbor as yourself". But, says Esler, given that
> love is the first fruit of the Spirit, Paul is saying
> that Christ-believers have access to the best the law
> promised but never delivered, by an entirely different
> route -- the Spirit (pp 285, 335). With the Spirit
> they have achieved the ideal of the law which was
> never realized by the law (p 335).
> 
> It is true that one can interpret Gal 5:13-6:10 and
> Rom 8:1-17; 13:8-10 this way. But what about Rom 3:31?
> Here Paul says that the law must actually be upheld --
> not fulfilled by a different route provided by the
> Spirit. Esler waxes evasive here, saying that Paul is
> ultimately "unable to demonstrate the truth of what he
> says" in Rom 3:31 (p 170). But Rom 3:31 is precisely
> the sort of statement which would support a
> recategorization thesis! Perhaps Rom 8:1-17 and
> 13:8-10 should be interpreted along the same lines;
> and perhaps Paul, in Romans, is implying that much of
> the law is still in force after all.
> 
> Esler is on more firm ground with Rom 14:1-15:13,
> which supports a recategorization reading on almost
> every level. "Paul plainly views the strong as those
> who must give way most. The weak are not to judge
> them, but the initiative for resolving disputes rests
> with the strong." (p 355) Indeed, opines Esler, if the
> weak continue to associate with the synagogues, that
> is fine with Paul, whose only interest lay in what
> occurred within the Christian house-churches
> themselves (p 364). But one wonders if there was more
> interaction between synagogue and church. Mark Nanos
> (Esler's student) believes that the church in Rome was
> still tied to the synagogue, and the language of Rom
> 14:1-15:13 (especially when taken with Rom 4:18-25)
> points to the weak as referring to those outside the
> Christ-movement -- "weak in faith", meaning lacking
> faith in Israel's messiah, not as if to imply that
> Torah-observance itself makes one weak; for about this
> Paul says "everyone should be convinced in their own
> mind what is right" (Rom 14:5-6).
> 
> Esler criticizes Nanos on the basis of Rom 16, which
> points to house-gatherings (p 342), and that, contra
> Nanos, Judeans did not meet in privately owned homes.
> "Nanos is in error here, a lapse explicable in that he
> was following specialists on Judean and
> Christ-movement architecture who themselves make the
> same mistake, and was writing before this view had
> been subjected to a recent probing reexamination
> against the primary data by Donald Binder and Anders
> Runesson." (p 88; and see pp 89-97 for Esler's full
> examination of the literary and epigraphical data) I
> wonder if Mark would be interested in responding to
> these criticisms. 
> 
> In conclusion, this is the book on Romans I've been
> waiting for, even if I dispute some of Esler's results
> -- and even if I still like Mark Nanos' particular
> treatment of Rom 14:1-15:13 better than anyone else's.
> We can now thoroughly appreciate Paul's most famous
> letter through the eyes of those who inhabited the
> strange and distant world of the ancient
> Mediterranean. We see Paul's eschatology as
> "forthcoming-present" more than "future" (Rom
> 8:18-39). We catch a glimpse of Paul as the victim of
> slander and gossip (Rom 3:8) -- the malicious "weapon
> of the weak" which crippled people's honor on a daily
> basis. We appreciate the dual occasion of the letter
> -- Paul's impending missions to Jerusalem and Spain,
> intersecting with the ethnic crisis in Rome -- and how
> the two are truly inseparable (see pp 128-129). And we
> see Paul the Middle-Eastern all too familiar with the
> hostile nature of gift-giving, whose collection for
> the poor was a "slap in the face" to his colleagues in
> Jerusalem (p 131), who really did "feed the hungry in
> order to heap burning coals upon the heads of others"
> (Rom 12:20).
> 
> Esler recognizes that Paul was on a battleground when
> he wrote his letters, reinterpreting scripture in
> legitimately offensive ways, in line with the canons
> of honor-shame. He has explained these battles with
> especially insightful uses of anthropological and
> social theory. In my view, these sort of approaches
> serve us better than, say, trying to interpret Paul on
> the basis of "thought patterns abstracted from
> rhetorical and social setting" (Tom Wright), or even
> worse, by using literary intertextual approaches
> (Richard Hays). There's a wide chasm separating us
> from the biblical world, and only when we acknowledge
> it can we begin to build bridges. Esler's epilogue
> would seem to imply that there is indeed all the more
> need for such bridges in today's world: "Every
> Christian who senses the daunting contemporaneity of
> Romans wants to select some area of human experience
> where the letter articulates a problem and gives voice
> to a solution. For me, Romans reveals its connection
> with the taproot of human experience in relation to
> violent ethnic conflict in the world." (p 357) This is
> about as far cry from Augustinian/Lutheran relevancy
> as one can get. The New Perspective is here to stay.
> 
> So I heartily recommend the book (along with Esler's
> Galatians) to all list members. Furthermore, and
> ironically, I recommend them taken in conjunction with
> the books on Romans and Galatians written by Esler's
> own disciple Mark Nanos -- who comes to some
> startlingly different conclusions. Talk about grist
> for the mill!
> 
> Loren Rosson III
> Nashua NH 
> rossoiii AT yahoo.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
> http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail 
> _______________________________________________
> Corpus-Paul mailing list
> Corpus-Paul AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/corpus-paul