Читать книгу Paul Among the Gentiles: A "Radical" Reading of Romans - Jacob P. B. Mortensen - Страница 35

In Romans 14:1–15:6, Paul discusses whether ‘the strong’ should yield to the conduct of ‘the weak’. This passage offers critics some of the strongest evidence for a Jewish constituency in the Roman congregation, because the terminology Paul employs is unique to Judaism, and he writes in an oblique manner, as though the audience knows the identities of the two groups involved.1 So the argument is that Jews must be involved.

‘The weak’ try to keep Jewish customs and ‘observe the day’ (14:6f.). They perceive certain food to be ‘unclean’ (14:14), and they avoid meat and wine in favour of a diet possibly consisting of vegetables and water (14:21).2 Therefore, scholars have traditionally identified ‘the weak’ as Jewish Christians who continued to observe the food regulations of the (Mosaic) law, and ‘the strong’ as Gentile, non-law-observing Christians.3 However, the observance of Jewish customs does not necessarily require the presence of Jews in the Roman congregation. The Jewish customs shaped in 14:1–15:6 are precisely the sort of customs observed by proselytes, ‘God-fearers’, or Gentiles affiliated with Judaism who accommodate themselves to Jewish customs. And the controversies reflected in the passage are easily imagined among Gentiles with differing perceptions of the (Mosaic) law. The question concerning the eating of meat could reflect whether or not the meat on the table was considered pure by those observing the (Mosaic) law in this matter. Thus, the problem would be one of commensality – how law-observing Gentiles could partake of a meal hosted by someone who did not scruple to observe the (Mosaic) law on this matter – and not one of how to acquire kosher meat in Rome,4 or a principled stance on vegetarianism or dietary asceticism.5 There are well-known examples of how someone faithful to the observance of the (Mosaic) law restricted their diet to vegetables and water when eating meals prepared by unclean Gentiles (e.g. Daniel and Esther), and there are also first-century parallels to this solution in Rome.6 Also, in Against Apion, Josephus mentions that many non-Jews observe Jewish Sabbath and food customs:

The masses have long since shown a keen desire to adopt our religious observances; and there is not one city, Greek or barbarian, nor a single nation, to which our custom of abstaining from work on the seventh day has not spread … and [where] many of our prohibitions in the matter of food are not observed. (Ag. Ap. 2.40)

Philo made a similar statement when he wrote:

[Jewish customs] attract and win the attention of all, of barbarians, of Greeks, of dwellers on the mainland and islands, of nations of the east and the west, of Europe and Asia, of the whole inhabited world from end to end. (Mos. 2.4)

The point made by both Josephus and Philo concerns the distinction between proselytes and sympathizers. Proselytes are circumcised (and thereby ‘converted’) Gentiles who somehow now have become Jews, even though they may not be considered ‘real’ historical-ethnic Jews by some other Jews (cf. Jubilees 15:26). However, the sympathizers easily present themselves as ‘God-fearers’. The Greek term θεοσεβής, usually translated as ‘God-fearer’ or ‘God-worshipper’, was a Jewish way of describing Gentiles who were regarded as pious by Jewish standards. Jews had used versions of the same expression in Hebrew and Greek to describe the piety of other Jews (e.g. Abraham in Gen 22:12), but in the late Hellenistic period, ‘God-fearer’ became a designation of pious Gentiles.7 Equivalent expressions include σεβομένος and φοβούμενος τὸν θεὸν. Apparently, the designation θεοσεβής is so broad that Josephus may call the wife of the emperor Nero a ‘God-fearer’ (Ant. 20.189–196). But it was also used with respect to other Jews in Jewish Hellenistic literature, for example Joseph, in Joseph and Asenath.8 It is doubtful that there were any formal requirements for designating anyone as a God-fearer, but it often refers to Gentiles who were either respectful of the one God of Israel, of the Jewish community and practices, or both.

Along with Philo’s and Josephus’ testimonies, Gentile authors also witnessed to the popularity of Jewish customs among non-Jews. In the works of Juvenal (Sat. 14.96ff.), Horace (Sat. 1.9.68ff.), Ovid (Am. 219), and Seneca (Ep. 95.47), we may read of Gentiles accommodating themselves to, or being affiliated with the Jewish community and practices. These authors attest to pervasive Sabbath observance among Gentiles. And in the New Testament, we have the clearest evidence of the presence of Gentiles in synagogues on the Sabbath. Acts does not use the specific word θεοσεβής, but instead mentions ‘You Israelites and others who fear God’ (ἄνδρες Ἰσραηλῖται καὶ οἱ φοβούμενοι τὸν θεόν, Acts 13:16). Acts has several references to these pious Gentiles.9

With the foregoing in mind, we should note that the content of Rom 14:1–15:13 is completely comprehensible even in the absence of any Jews in the Roman congregation. ‘The weak’ may indicate Gentile ‘God-fearers’ or proselytes who observe the (Mosaic) law, and ‘the strong’ may indicate non-law-observing Gentiles. To reconstruct the Roman situation we need only to imagine some law-observing Gentiles refusing to eat meat served by those whose law-observance they had reason to doubt. Thus, to understand the prevailing situation, it is irrelevant whether the meat in question was from an impure animal, or from an incorrectly slaughtered animal, or other dubious connections.10 What mattered to the people in the Roman assembly was that it was considered κοινός. The whole point of the passage is that Paul does not demand cultic purity practice of Gentiles, which means that we should imagine the Jewish observances in view as practised specifically by Gentiles affiliated with Judaism. The whole reason Paul can speak obliquely about ‘the strong’ and ‘the weak’ without further qualification is that both groups are Gentile, but ‘the weak’ observe Jewish cultic practices, whereas ‘the strong’ do not. Because the non-law-observing Gentiles (in Christ) had stopped practising Jewish customs, the ongoing validity of the (Mosaic) law was at stake, since the law-observing Gentiles still did. If ‘God-fearers’ ate with those who were not ‘God-fearers’ (i.e. non-law-observing Gentiles), they would probably have had concerns about the meat and wine, because the meat might have been sacrificed to idols. Such a situation would have led to tensions, and this would be a specific situation in which Paul would intervene, and write a letter with a specific occasion and purpose. Therefore, throughout chapters 1 to 11 Paul presents a situation where he constructs the situation of a fictive, Gentile ‘God-fearer’. This situation and theological dialogue serve as the foundation on which the specific exhortations of 14:1-15:13 build.