Читать книгу Paul Among the Gentiles: A "Radical" Reading of Romans - Jacob P. B. Mortensen - Страница 20

Following the description outlined above, it is time for me to sketch out the contours of my own approach, and explain how it extends and differs from those of the abovementioned scholars. First, it must be stated that I am merely presenting a possible reading of Romans, albeit inspired by the radical perspective. This reading of mine merely searches out the possibilities and limits of such a radical reading. Hence, I will use insights from the radical perspective as a lens through which I focus my own interpretation of Romans. I have chosen this point of departure because of the cogency the radicals show, and the consequence with which they present their interpretation with regard to Paul’s Jewish background and his address to Gentiles. These are the two major driving forces behind my interpretation: 1) Paul was thoroughly Jewish (as in ‘not Christian’) and 2) he addressed his message exclusively to Gentiles.

I develop my interpretation through a fruitful and productive conversation with the radical perspective, but in no way do I claim to subscribe to the overall view. I will allow weaknesses in my interpretation to appear as weaknesses, because I am not fanatical about my point of departure in the radical perspective. I have no stake in the radicals’ ‘Paul within Judaism’ project, and I have no intention of defending it as a religious claim. My project is simply historical-critical and philological, and I do not enter into discussions of contemporary ideology. I wish to explore the mindset, values, and category formations of the ancients – how they understood the phenomena their world presented to them. My interpretation includes no ethical claim or evaluation concerning contemporary ideological positions, as is found in the work of scholars such as Lloyd Gaston and Pamela Eisenbaum.1 I offer no evaluation of Christian anti-Judaism or anti-Semitism, as is found in the work of Paula Fredriksen and John Gager.2 I have no intention of arguing for a specific religious point (à la religious pluralism), and I am not engaged in any modern dialogue between Christianity and Judaism. In some of the radical scholars’ work, I can see and identify an idea of contemporary ‘religion’ as providing different but equally valid ‘paths to salvation’ which may also be identified in Paul. But I have no intention of unifying these two areas in my present interpretation of Romans. I intend to approach Paul from the perspective of historical-critical scholarship, since my aim is to better understand Paul from a historical and a philological perspective.

This said, I wish to make a case for not being simplistic when dealing with interpretative and textual problems. A disagreement over the interpretation of one or two verses should not lead to objections, if the overall interpretation explains more than previous interpretations have done. Although the devil is in the details, we will never understand the parts if we do not understand the whole, and vice versa. Part and whole must complement each other, and in the end, the one interpretation that explains more, more comprehensively, is preferable. There are problems with all interpretations, but they should be dealt with, and localized within the broader interpretive framework.

Working my way forward from the radical perspective, I try to answer this question: Can we go beyond what has already (and repeatedly) been claimed by the contenders of the radical new perspective? I think we can. The primary contribution of my interpretation is to argue for a simpler and more coherent perception of Romans than has been previously developed. I will also argue from a comprehensive and exhaustive interpretation of Romans. I do not consider my interpretation to be a commentary on Romans, but I intend to work my way through all the parts of Romans. With this as my goal, I will try to meet the almost overwhelming task of commenting on all parts of Romans from the position of a radical stance on Paul. Even though many of the radical scholars have commented on several parts of Romans, I am not aware of anyone who has worked with Romans in its entirety, from chapter 1 to chapter 16; herein lies my work’s primary contribution. Another contribution concerns the interpretation of parts of Romans not yet commented on by the radicals, or drawing conclusions other than those drawn by the radicals (e.g. Rom 5; 8; 9; 14–15). Another and more general contribution is the use of Romans – as read from my coherent, continuous, and comprehensive perspective – to evaluate the other Pauline letters.

All scholars working with Romans are aware of the multiple possibilities presented by The Romans Debate (1991), concerning the addressees, dating, situation, and purpose of Romans. I believe that my interpretation is simpler and more coherent than any previously presented. I came to this conclusion by way of a continuous and successive reading, from chapter 1 to chapter 16, in the framework of Paul’s Jewish background and his address to Gentiles. However, there will be objections to my interpretation, so I may as well present some of them here.

There will be disagreement concerning the addressees. My perspective takes Paul at his word when he claims to be apostle to the Gentiles (εἰμι ἐγὼ ἐθνῶν ἀπόστολος, Rom 11:13), and when he states that he was appointed apostle to the Gentiles, and Peter was appointed apostle to the Jews (Gal 2:7–9). From this basic supposition, I state that Paul addressed his gospel exclusively to Gentiles – also in Rome. This point of departure establishes my reading strategy. I find this supposition explicitly supported and substantiated in the first and fifteenth chapters of Romans, and in many of the chapters between them, and I find it challenged only in 2:17. Extending Runar Thorsteinsson’s work on Romans 2, I argue that in 2:17 Paul addresses a Gentile in the diatribe style, and that he continues to address a Gentile in the diatribe style all the way through to 11:36. Furthermore, I argue that Paul continuously addresses Gentiles in chapters 12 to 15 – also in chapters 14 and 15, concerning the ‘strong’ and the ‘weak’. My fundamental claim of a simpler interpretation supports this: If Paul addressed his message exclusively to Gentiles, and if he addresses a fictive Gentile in the diatribe style in chapters 2 to 11, then he also (and exclusively) addresses Gentiles in the paraenesis of chapters 12 to 15. If this interpretation may be substantiated and proved, then this interpretation is the simplest, and, hence, is to be preferred. This interpretation is also more coherent than previous interpretations because of the actual and immediate continuity of the discourse, from the theological exposition (1–11) to the paraenetic (12–15). The relevance of the theological exposition to the paraenesis will also be more conspicuous than in previous interpretations. Essentially, the paraenesis may be said to be firmly embedded in the theological exposition of the possible position of a Gentile believer. Hence, the unity of Romans – from chapter 1 to chapter 16 – will be confirmed.

Some will argue that there is a problem with certain ‘Jews’ in chapter 16, because Paul identifies them as kin or family (συγγενής). I will try to show that this argument has some weaknesses. Specifically, how are we to differentiate between Paul’s use of συγγενής in 9:3 and in chapter 16, if he qualifies the use in 9:3 with κατὰ σάρκα, but does not do so in chapter 16? Is there anything in chapter 16 that could indicate that Paul does not refer to historical-ethnic Jews in chapter 16 because he does not qualify them by way of κατὰ σάρκα, but uses συγγενής metaphorically to construct family ties with the assembly in Rome? I will try to show that there is.

In conclusion, there will be disagreements with many of my interpretive points. However, my interpretation operates with the premise that the most simple, unified, sequential, and coherent interpretation is to be preferred. And I will try to show this by way of a continuous and successive exegesis.