Читать книгу Paul Among the Gentiles: A "Radical" Reading of Romans - Jacob P. B. Mortensen - Страница 36

Many scholars infer ethnic Jewish addressees in Rome, and a Jewish constituency in the Roman congregation, because of the names Paul mentions in chapter 16.1 Prisca and Aquila are mentioned, and we know from Acts 18:2 that they were Paul’s Jewish co-workers. Paul had also referred to his fellow Jews as ‘compatriots’ or ‘relatives’ (συγγενής) in 9:3. He applies the same word in 16:7, 11, and 21 to Andronicus, Junia, Herodion, Lucius, Jason, and Sosipater. Thus, the argument is that since these must be Jews, the actual addressees of Romans must also contain Jews.

If we turn to LSJ and BDAG, we soon learn that the most common use of συγγενής is not ‘fellow national’, but ‘relative’ or ‘kin’. Words do receive their meaning through their use in a specific context, but the dictionary gives the most common use and meaning. In the New Testament, the word συγγενής appears six times outside the Pauline text, and on each occasion means ‘family member’.2 Romans 9:3 contains the only instance that deviates from this meaning, and this might cause us to pause. Also, in 9:3 Paul goes out of his way to firmly signal a use of συγγενής that differs from the most widespread one, by modifying it with κατὰ σάρκα. Thus, in 9:3 Paul specifically identifies an ethnic affiliation, but he does it by way of κατὰ σάρκα, instead of merely through συγγενής. This qualification is lacking in chapter 16! Besides, nothing in chapter 16 indicates a departure from the word’s usual meaning of ‘relative’, as occurs in 9:3. This argument e silentio does not automatically mean that Paul does not refer to ethnic Jews in chapter 16, but it does show a different and more widespread use of συγγενής than that chosen by those scholars who argue for a Jewish constituency in the Roman congregation. Hence, the argument e silentio is stronger because of the difference from the use of the word in 9:3, and because of the more common meaning of the word.

In addition to the foregoing observation, we must note that frequently, Paul metaphorically employs familial language when referring to members of his movement. For instance, he identifies his addressees as ‘brothers’ (1 Thess 1:4; 1 Cor 8:11; Phil 3:1). Epaphroditus and Timothy are his ‘brothers’ (Phil 2:25; 1 Thess 3:2), and Apphia is a ‘sister’ (Phlm 2). A believing wife is also a ‘sister’ (1 Cor 9:5). Paul calls himself ‘father’ (1 Cor 4:15; 1 Thess 2:11; Phlm 10), and Timothy and Onesimus are Paul’s ‘children’ (1 Cor 4:17; Phil 2:22; Phlm 10). The Corinthians are Paul’s ‘children’ (1 Cor 4:14; 2 Cor 6:13) and the patriarchs are ‘ancestors’ or ‘forefathers’ (Rom 9:5). Those who believe are ‘sons’ of Abraham (Gal 3:7), and those who belong to Christ are Abraham’s ‘offspring’ (Gal 3:29). Jesus is the firstborn of many siblings (Rom 8:29).

Throughout chapter 16, Paul also employs this metaphorical kinship language. Hence, Phoebe is Paul’s ‘sister’ (16:1), several of those greeted are Paul’s ‘beloved’ (16:5, 8, 9, 12), Rufus’s mother is Paul’s own mother (!) (16:13), and Paul also speaks of his ‘brothers’ and ‘sisters’ (16:14, 15, 17). Consequently, Paul’s wording in chapter 16 suggests that he constructs metaphorical family ties to the Roman congregation. Paul constructs a metaphorical family in which the genealogical relationship to Christ is prior to any ethnic relationship to parents. This affects the meaning of συγγενής in chapter 16. The mere use of the word συγγενής does not justify the conclusion that the persons thus described are Jews. And if we want to insist on the literal meaning of συγγενής, to imply historical-ethnic Jewishness, then we should be consistent and also insist on the literal meaning being that Phoebe is Paul’s biological sister, that Rufus’s mother is Paul’s biological mother, and of the others mentioned being Paul’s biological siblings. Otherwise, our reading strategy and logic will be inconsistent, eclectic and predisposed. Hence, these observations support the argument e silentio as presented above, where συγγενής does not mean ‘fellow Jews’. Additionally, the presence of Prisca and Aquila in Rome indicates a Gentile congregation – not a Jewish one. The reason for this is that we know from Acts that Prisca and Aquila may be associated with Paul’s mission to the Gentiles. The presence of Jewish missionaries to the Gentiles would affirm the Gentile identity of the Roman congregation. Therefore, the addressees of Romans should be considered Gentiles, and the doubtful presence of Jews in chapter 16 (apart from Prisca and Aquila) should not be taken to indicate a Jewish constituency in the Roman congregation. The arguments for a Jewish constituency simply do not convince.