Corpus-Paul

[Loren Rosson <rossoiii AT yahoo.com>]

[Bob]
>I wonder if there is another way to reframe
>the difficulty -
>not just who is the audience - where I tend
>to agree it must be believers in Christ,
>both Jew and Gentile, but also -
>Where is the audience and what is Paul indicating
with
>respect to behaviour of the audience towards the
>Diaspora Jews who may not believe but with
>whom they come in contact regularly?

Bob, thanks for this; I agree about reframing the
issue. One needn't necessarily endorse Mark's idea
that the churches in Rome were part of the synagogue
(or subgroups within) for his essential interpretation
to hold. We don't know what contact the
Christ-believers had with unbelieving Judeans, and it
would appear that speculations about such would have
to be derived (largely) from Paul's rhetoric. If even
Esler allows that Christ-believing Judeans continued
attending synagogues, interaction between Gentiles and
unbelieving Israel can be imagined in like or other
contexts.

Tim wrote:

  [Tim]
>>The thing that Paul says
>>is weak is the *belief* that one must observe
>>these dietary rules, not *that* one does observe
>>them. He considers the former a weak conscience.
  [Loren]
> I think you're the one imposing an outside context
--
> namely I Cor 8. Paul speaks nowhere in Rom 14-15
about
> a weak conscience, and this is the real difference
> between the Corinthian and Roman situations.
  [Tim]
>See Rom 14.22-23, to which I have already drawn
>attention.

I will agree that 14:22-23 is the strongest obstacle
here. But everything else Paul says hinders the
traditional view of the weak. We'd probably argue in
circles from this point on.

I'd like to tie this discussion back to the "Symbolic
Paul". One would be hard pressed to find a better
example of the serious concern for Paul's Jewishness
in Nanos' work. For if the weak were indeed
non-Christian Judeans, then Paul would be urging
accommodation and respect to outsiders, which offers a
congenial Paul for today's world. Is Nanos' Mystery of
Romans the product of a need to make Paul into an
"honorary Jew" who can stand as a symbol for
interfaith tolerance and respect? Does this Paul help
insulate Christianity from complicity in centuries of
anti-Semitism? No doubt.

Yet I've made clear that I happen to believe Mark is
right about a lot of what he argues in Mystery. I'm
put in mind of Arnal's closing words in The Symbolic
Jesus:

"I have been accused in my own work on Q of projecting
my circumstances onto those of the Q people (whom I
describe as, essentially, alienated low-level
intellectuals, a characterization that certainly
reflects my own self-conception) while criticizing
others who do likewise. I can hardly deny the
accusation, but at the same time the actual evidence I
cite will support my reconstruction (or fail to, as
the case may be) regardless of the congeniality of my
conclusions. Indeed, I would claim -- at least in
those ephemeral moments of supreme self-confidence --
that it is precisely the congeniality of these views
that allowed me to see the historical Sitz im Leben
behind Q accurately." (Symbolic Jesus, p 73)

I suspect that the congeniality of the weak being
non-Christian is precisely what drew Mark to see
what's been under our noses for centuries -- namely,
that Abraham wasn't strong in faith for "believing in
God independently of circumcision and other works, and
having that reckoned to him as righteousness" (Rom
4:1-17), but rather for "believing that God would make
good on his promises against all odds, overcome death,
and 'save'" (Rom 4:18-25); and thus that those in Rome
who observe days and abstain from meat aren't weak in
faith for doing these things (nor even for believing
in the necessity of doing them for themselves, about
which they should be "fully convinced in their own
minds"), but rather for failing to believe that God
delivered on his promise in the resurrection of
Israel's messiah. 

Agendas over Jesus'/Paul's "Jewishness", or
"Jewish-friendliness", may impede historical inquiry
more often than not, and I think in many cases it has.
The trend begun by Stowers, for instance -- which sees
Gentiles under fire every step of the way in Romans --
has resulted in very strained and implausible
readings. But agendas can also lead to exegetical
epiphanies, as it were, as Arnal apparently believes
about his own work on Q (in his "moments of supreme
self-confidence", at any rate :) but no, Bill, you
haven't sold me on Q!), and as I obviously believe
about Mark's work on Romans. Of course, I'm in the
minority here (along with perhaps Bob).

I believe that Jesus'/Paul's "Jewishness" doesn't
matter all that much for today's purposes (agreeing
with Arnal). But perhaps the more relevant point for
Corpus Paul is that it does indeed matter to many
people, for better or worse. The historical and
symbolic Paul aren't easily kept separate... and
perhaps sometimes, even exegetically, that's just as
well. 

Loren Rosson III
Nashua NH
rossoiii AT yahoo.com

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