Читать книгу Paul Among the Gentiles: A "Radical" Reading of Romans - Jacob P. B. Mortensen - Страница 12

Many scholars consider Stanley Stowers’ book on Romans, A Rereading of Romans (1994), the most significant contribution to the discussion of Romans since E.P. Sanders’ Paul and Palestinian Judaism (1977).1 Indeed, Stowers embarks on a complete rereading of Romans, even if some parts of the letter receive more attention than others.2 Stowers continuously positions his own reading in opposition or as a challenge to what he designates a ‘traditional’ (Augustinian–Lutheran–Christian) interpretation of Romans. He does that in order to present a more ‘correct’ historical understanding of Romans. According to Stowers, Paul was not preoccupied with questions of human sinfulness and salvation, nor was the Judaism of his time. In this regard, Stowers’ rereading of Romans depends on, and further elaborates on, the new perspective on Paul and Krister Stendahl’s approach: He rejects Augustinian (and subsequent Western) readings of Paul; he emphasizes the ethnic rather than the individual aspects of Paul’s soteriology; and he conceives of the salvation of Jews and Gentiles as a ‘two covenant’ solution. Additionally, much of what Stowers argues may be found in Lloyd Gaston’s interpretations, even though Stowers does not seem to buy into Gaston’s hermeneutical and theological agendas.

A complete interpretation of Stowers is far too complex to summarize adequately. Nevertheless, almost every part of Stowers’ rereading is relevant to the radical perspective on Paul. In order to mediate this problem, I will highlight some key points that indicate how Stowers may be said to be a predecessor to the radical perspective. First, Stowers constructs the audience throughout the letter as Gentile. He meticulously distinguishes between the ‘implied audience’ and the ‘real audience’ of Romans. He claims that we cannot know anything about the ‘real’ audience’ of Romans. But it is obvious from the letter that Paul constructs the ‘implied audience’ as purely and distinctively Gentile. Hence, there is no ‘universal’ address in Paul’s gospel, but (merely) an address from a Jewish apostle to Gentiles interested in Judaism, about a Jewish way of living. Secondly, Stowers treats key passages of Romans as examples of the diatribe style or ‘speech-in-character’ (προσωποποιία). The obvious speech-in-character passage is 7:7–25, but Stowers also identifies the figure of προσωποποιία in 2:1–16, where Paul addresses a boastful Gentile. Stowers also identifies speech-in-character in 2:17–4:21, but here it concerns Paul’s address to a Jewish teacher of Gentiles. It is important to Stowers that this teacher does not represent all Jews, but only a hypothetical Jewish teacher with whom Paul would compete for righteous Gentiles. Hence, there is no criticism of Judaism from Paul, merely a discussion with a(nother) teacher of Gentiles.

Apart from the first-century-relevant rhetorical point concerning the use of προσωποποιία, Stowers notes the cultural ideal of ‘self-control’ (ἐγκράτεια) in this ancient society. According to Stowers, the ideal of self-control is crucial for understanding Romans. This aspect refers to the social background and status of the Gentiles Paul addressed, and their interest in his message. Jews at the time of Paul considered themselves a people characterized by an extraordinary degree of self-restraint, because they had the (Mosaic) law as a means of attaining this goal. And since self-control was such a widely distributed cultural ideal, non-Jews took an interest in Paul’s Jewish message. Thus, Stowers notes that Gentiles may have found it opportune to achieve self-control by way of the (Mosaic) law, and in this way improve their upward social mobility.

The third aspect of Stowers’ interpretation leads to the final key point. If Gentiles in Rome capitalized on the (Mosaic) law in order to boost their upward social mobility, they went too far in their dealings with historical-ethnic Jews.3 According to Stowers, this is why Paul turns to the relationship between Israel and the Gentiles in Romans 9 to 11. Even if God showed mercy to the Gentiles, adopted them as sons, and grafted them onto the stock of Israel, they should not boast in front of their Jewish brothers. The gospel is to the Jew, first, and then also to the Gentile. God never abandoned his covenant with Israel, and that is why Jews and Gentiles have separate but related paths in God’s overall design. In short, Stowers follows Krister Stendahl and Lloyd Gaston with a ‘two covenant’ solution.