Corpus-Paul

["Mark D. Nanos" <nanosmd AT comcast.net>]

Philip Esler has composed a good response, as expected. The topic at issue
cannot be resolved by appeals to archaeology, but I understood from the
comments and quotes in Loren's post and a review of those pages that Esler
had done so. Anders Runesson has argued for a date for a public building
that functioned as synagogue in Ostia beginning in the second half of the
first century ce, and conjectured that it can be "perhaps close to the reign
of Claudius" (The Synagogue of Ancient Ostia and the Jews of Rome, 92).  The
date and the elements of the earliest phase are matters of current debate.
Moreover, we have no similar evidence from Rome. It is amazing that we have
only two cases (with Delos) to which we can point for any such Judean
synagogue possibly contemporary to Paul from the entire Diaspora. Was Ostia
an exception instead of the rule? Whether it was or not, there is little
basis, and little agreement among the specialists who interpret these data
upon which to hang decisions about what must have been the case in Rome.

Even if we had monumental evidence from Rome, the sociological issues raised
in our post remain: it would not tell us that the Christ-believers met in
homes in order to make a statement of separation. It is probably more a
matter of time (newness) and resources (scarce)--combined with self-identity
as a temporary phenomenon within Judaism/Judeanism. The Christ-believing
subgroups of the synagogue were a new development, and saw themselves as a
temporary coalition within the synagogues working on behalf of rather than
against the larger communal groups who disagreed with them (did not agree
with them "yet"). They were not yet ready to abandon the idea that they were
a remnant, a foretaste of that which the rest would soon also believe to be
true. With the later abandonment of that expectation, there is the later
emergence of Christianity. In my view, Paul's comments make it clear that he
was not at that point, and that he was confronting signs among the Roman
addressees he recognized as mistaken and dangerous--which he sought to
challenge to be the result of failure to see things from God's point of
view: that their present marginalization as a deviant subgroup or subgroups
was a temporary (unexpected) moment in the restoration of Israel and
bringing in of the nations. They would be harming Israelites, and
themselves, to permit such attitudes to develop.

When Philip writes:
>The simple fact is that there is no
> positive evidence for Judean house-synagogues in Rome,
> whereas there is for proseuchai (and the Ostia example
> is marvellous in telling us what they must have been
> like). If there were Judean house-congregations, they
> were in the minority and the tailor-made proseuchai we
> know from Ostia and from Philo in Rome for the 40s
> were the characteristic architectural and
> institutional _expression of the centuries-old
> community of Judeans in Rome - with the consequences
> for identity differentiation between them and a
> Christ-movement meeting in houses that I have set out.

This is perplexing. Could we ever have archaeological evidence of a
house-synagogue in Rome? especially in the primary residential areas of
Judeans, since these were destroyed in the reign of Nero? (If we found one,
how could we know it was one? and not, e.g., a house of a Judean, or of a
Christ-believer, Judean or not; or if Jewish artifacts were found in a
house, of a gift from a Judean to a non-Judean, or a cache from a theft of a
Judean house or public building, and so on...) We have none for public
synagogue buildings in Rome either. There is no archaeological basis for
identity differentiation between Judeans and Christ-believers in Rome. The
way that the various language referring to Jewish communal meetings is used
(e.g., synagogos, proseuchai, ekklesia) is too ambiguous to determine the
spatial facts on the ground. (Anders Runesson has addressed this in The
Origins of the Synagogue, 171-73, including the case of ekklesia used for a
public synagogue institution in Judea). (For an introduction to Anders work,
the Bible and Interpretation web site has just hosted an article on the
origins of the synagogue).

Philip Esler makes it clear that his argument depends upon evidence other
than this, especially a rhetorical engagement of Romans. I have not yet read
the book, so to that I am not qualified to reply. It is clear from Loren's
comments and Philip's reply that we do not agree on the reading of Romans,
just as we did not agree on the reading of Galatians. That has been
primarily based upon our different views of the rhetoric of the letter, as
well as what Judaism (or Judeanism) was like in Paul's time, and larger
constructions of Paul, such as the meaning of his call/conversion. Where I
see implied subgroups of the Jewish communities, he sees sectarian groups
that have left the Jewish communities. This archaeological matter perhaps
looks to him like it makes some difference that I do not understand it to do
based on the comments of the list and the few pages I consulted to reply.
Perhaps when I read the book in full I will have to modify my view. This is
a lively and good spirited disagreement among friends and colleagues.
Perhaps I will be persuaded in due time... that is something we should
remain open to, if we expect it of others with whom we communicate.

In the meantime, perhaps others on the list would like to discuss Philip
Esler's arguments about the rhetoric of the letter, some of which Loren has
nicely set out.

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




on 7/25/04 5:25 AM, Loren Rosson at rossoiii AT yahoo.com wrote:

> Mark,
> 
> I'm glad my review of Esler coincided with your
> correspondence with Anders. Thanks to both of you, for
> good replies to Philip's criticisms. I forwarded your
> post to Philip, to which he kindly replied and gave
> permission to post on the list. So without further
> ado, here's more on the church-synagogue question.
> 
> Loren Rosson III
> Nashua NH
> rossoiii AT yahoo.com
> 
> ________________________________________________
> 
> 
> Dear Loren,
> 
> I am surprised that Mark and Anders both appear to
> have missed the significance of a mid first century
> date for the Ostia proseucha in relation to Romans and
> their idea that the Christ-movement was
> intra-synagogal, especially when we have the
> proseuchai in Philo's Legatio and there are no
> proseuchai in sight whatever in Romans 16.
> 
> I do not deny the possibility that some Judean
> Christ-followers continued to attend the Roman
> proseuchai. I also do not deny the possibility there
> may have been some newer congregations of Judeans
> meeting in houses  (I make this point at length on p.
> 97 of the book). The simple fact is that there is no
> positive evidence for Judean house-synagogues in Rome,
> whereas there is for proseuchai (and the Ostia example
> is marvellous in telling us what they must have been
> like). If there were Judean house-congregations, they
> were in the minority and the tailor-made proseuchai we
> know from Ostia and from Philo in Rome for the 40s
> were the characteristic architectural and
> institutional _expression of the centuries-old
> community of Judeans in Rome - with the consequences
> for identity differentiation between them and a
> Christ-movement meeting in houses that I have set out.
> 
> My argument is that the Christ-movement as such was
> not within the Judean ethnic group. Anders' Swedish
> example raises interesting questions but proves
> nothing about Romans. It is axiomatic that you cannot
> use such a comparison from another time and place to
> prove something about the New Testament, only to raise
> questions heuristically. And it is easy to come up
> with a counter-example, such as members of a vibrant
> ecumenical Christian charismatic group, where most of
> the real action is and who have a long Sunday
> afternoon meeting, who yet retain some affiliation
> with their own denominational churches, by attendance
> on Sunday morning (a phenomenon I know from
> Australia). Although even here I hesitate about
> offering such a comparison, covering two types of
> religious grouping, since Judean identity in Rome was
> ethnic and the Christ-movement (on my view) was not,
> being trans-ethnic, indeed socio-religious.
> 
> My argument, moreover, is based on an interpretation
> of the whole letter (as Mark himself requires), with
> the architecture question only part of the case. I
> could cite, as one only example of other evidence, the
> anti-Judean views on the part of Greek
> Christ-followers mentioned in Romans 11. I cannot see
> them attending a proseucha with views like this. They
> scorn Israel. But, as I say, my argument is a
> cumulative and inter-connected one, which goes far
> beyond the architectural question.
> 
> Also I would have thought that my overall position
> would have come as no surprise to Mark; I have much
> the same view in relation to Galatians, although I
> agree that in Romans Paul is much more conciliatory to
> the Judean ethnos and its law.  He is careful to
> preserve Judean ethnic identity and the man who writes
> of its magnificent features mentioned in Romans 9.4
> presumably knew of the no doubt impressive proseuchai
> that certainly formed the Judeans' architectural and
> institutional base in Rome.
> 
> Still, it is a fascinating area of disagreement.
> 
> All the best.
> 
> Philip 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __________________________________
> 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