Corpus-Paul

[Loren Rosson <rossoiii AT yahoo.com>]

Runar,

Thanks for jumping in with a solid counter. You offer
a plausible alternative, though I disagree with it.
See responses below.

>I wonder what "effective purpose" it would have
>served for Paul to charge Jews with "robbing
temples".
>After all, this was not something which Jews
>could be or normally were in the habit of doing.
>"Laugh", you say, pointing out the potential irony 
>here.I suspect that laughter may indeed have been
>the actual effect, a laughter caused by Paul's 
>ridiculous rhetoric, i.e. IF his charge would have 
>been understood
>by his first century audience to be a charge against
>Jews (or any Jew). Unlike us, however, who are more
>or less influenced by a post-70 CE view of
>"the typical, Pharisaic Jew", this audience would
>probably not have made such a connection at all,

The effectiveness comes by shaming the Judean group
while giving face to the Gentiles after the indictment
of 1:19-2:6: they are not the only ones who will be
judged by the law. Remember that insults and
caricatures are legitimate shaming devices in a world
like the ancient Mediterranean. They don't depend on
accuracy.

Paul insists on dishing out business to the "Judean
and the Greek", and we should take him seriously here.
I agree with you about misplaced caricatures of
Pharisees (this is an old story), but we shouldn't
blind ourselves to the commonplace use of caricatures
(and lies/insults) themselves in an honor-shame
environment. 

>I wonder: If, as many scholars suggest,
>(one of) Paul's main purpose(s) with his letter was
>to settle tensions between a "Jewish
>Christian" minority and a "gentile Christian"
>majority, and to ensure that the latter (the
"strong")
>accept and welcome the former (the "weak"), 
>why on earth would he want to "take Judeans
>down as much as the pagans"?

Because of the obvious potentials for the opposite
problem. The way I see it is that (in Romans) Paul
wants to defend and offend "the Judean and Greek"
alike. Let's look at the structure again and see how
it plays out. This closely follows Esler's structure,
though I would differ on a few things if I broke this
stuff down further. For instance, I have a different
take on Rom 7:7-13 (which indeed has Adam/Eve in view,
contra Philip) as distinguished rhetorically from
7:14-25. And the excursus in 4:18-25 seems to
anticipate the concerns of 14:1-15:13, as Mark Nanos
has brilliantly demonstrated. (Though Mark will object
to much of my interpretation here.) In terms of the
letter's overall function we have:

1:16-3:20  ALL TO BE JUDGED. Judean and Greek will be
judged, either by the law or apart from the law
(2:7-16). The Greek will be judged (1:19-2:6) as much
as the Judean (2:17-3:20). Both groups judged for the
same thing, in different ways.

3:21-4:25  ALL RIGHTEOUSED ON THE SAME BASIS. Since
Christ’s death has inaugurated the end-time,
righteousness is by faith apart from works (3:21-31).
Abraham was justified by faith, and was then
circumcised to seal that righteousness, in order to
become the ancestor of both Judeans and Gentiles
(4:1-17). [4:18-25 excursus] Christ takes over the
epoch of Moses. Both groups justified by faith, in
different ways.

5:1-8:39  ALL SANCTIFIED ON THE SAME BASIS. Dying with
Christ (the anti-Adam (5:1-21)) liberates from the
dominion of sin (6:1-14). Gentiles become slaves to
righteousness instead of sin (6:15-23); Judeans become
slaves to righteousness rather than the law, which
itself is holy and given for the purpose of life but
unable to do the job God gave it (7:1-25). Both groups
fulfil the "requirement" of the law by a different
route: the Spirit (8:1-17). [8:18-39 excursus] Christ
takes over the epoch of Adam. Both groups die to sin
and death, in different ways.

9:1-11:32  GENTILES ARE HEIRS, BUT THEY'RE A MEANS TO
AN END. Judeans need to recognize Gentiles as heirs to
the promises of Abraham (9:6-11:12), but Gentiles need
to understand their benefits are a means to an end
(11:13-32). Israel has been displaced, the Torah torn
away: the Judeans are no more collective heirs to the
Abrahamic promises than Esau was (9:6-16); and Christ
is the replacement (not goal or climax) of the
covenant (10:1-11). On the other hand, pagans have
nothing worthy to contribute to God's people; in order
to be fruitful they had to be grafted, contrary to
nature, onto a cultivated olive tree with Abraham as
the root (11:17-24) [see endnote below]. Israel still
has a chance and will indeed be saved through jealousy
(11:13-15,25-32). 

14:1-15:13  GENTILES ARE THEORETICALLY FREE FROM
TORAH, BUT NOT PRACTICALLY. Food isn't unclean in
itself (14:14a), though it is for those who think it
is (14:14b). Greeks who are in the company of Judeans
must abide by minimal Torah standards. If Judeans are
being injured by what Greeks eat, then the Greeks are
not behaving properly (14:15); they shouldn't eat meat
or drink wine if it causes strife (14:21). 

The repeating patterns are too obvious. X is true, but
so is Y. X is true, but it is undermined by Y. This
squares with the recategorization agenda proposed by
Esler. Neither group is really ahead of the other --
only seemingly, in isolation. But we can't isolate
3:1-2, 9:4-5, 11:13-25, 14:1-15:6 anymore than we can
isolate 3:21-31, 4:1-17, 7:7-25, and 9:6-10:21. 

I look forward to any further critcisms you have,
Runar. Thanks.

Loren Rosson III
Nashua NH
rossoiii AT yahoo.com


ENDNOTE. See Esler's full discussion of the olive tree
metaphor on pp 301-305. Here's a summary:

According to Esler, the metaphor of the olive tree
does not suggest that Gentiles are rejuvenating Israel
and bringing it back to health -- the view of Baxter
and Ziesler, owing to Columella, who speaks of a
cultivated tree that is unproductive prior to the
grafting in of wild branches. For the branches would
then support the tree and bring it back to
productivity. But Paul says that the root is holy, and
thus so are the branches; indeed, the ingrafted
braches do not support the root -- the root supports
the branches (11:18). Furthermore, the tree would be
better off with its original cultivated branches which
have been broken off (11:24). Paul indeed believes
(unlike Columella) that grafting wild branches into a
cultivated tree is "contrary to nature" (11:24).

Paul suggests, rather, the complete opposite -- that
Gentiles have nothing worthy to contribute. In order
to be fruitful, they had to be grafted on to a
cultivated (and productive) olive tree which had
Abraham as its root. Saying that the Gentiles are wild
branches is thus a nasty indictment, owing to an
inversion of the standard practice of grafting
discussed by Theophrastus, who speaks of a wild tree
ingrafted with cultivated branches. (Wild olive trees
have extensive root systems -- needed for taking in as
much water as possible -- and have greater disease
resistance, while cultivated branches bear the best
fruit. So a wild tree with cultivated branches gives
the best of both worlds.) Paul deliberately stands
this on its head, portraying a cultivated tree
ingrafted with wild branches -- not to follow
Columella, but to invert Theophrastus, and indict
rather than praise the Gentiles. 

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com