Paul Baxter

Steven,

glad you brought up Rom 13. Did you intentionally leave off the last verse of the section? It says, part "fear to who fear is due". Some versions translated phobos here as respect, but it's the same word as in vs 3. This is directly contrary to imperial propaganda of the period. Rome was responsible for peace throughout the empire. And, according to the poets, no one could even remember war:

"The unholy War-Goddess [Bellona] shall yield and have her vanquished hands bound behind her back, and, stripped of weapons, turn her furious teeth into her own entrails; upon herself shall she wage the civil wars which of late she spread o'er all the world . . .[etc.]"
from Calpurnius Siculus.

And from the Einsiedeln Eclogues,

"we reap with no sword, nor do towns in fast-closed walls prepare unutterable war: there is not any woman who, dangerous in her motherhood, gives birth to an enemy. Unarmed our youth can dig the fields, and the boy, trained to the slow moving plow, marvels at the sword hanging in the abode of his fathers."

These are both from Nero's time. Both are obviously toadying propagandists (which might have been the safest occupation at that time?), but this is the message Rome was proclaiming about itself.

For a more well known figure of the time, try Seneca (De Clementia), who says of Nero, "[he] needs no bodyguard; the arms he wears are for adornment only", and, ". . .you have not shed a drop of human blood . . ."


In contrast to this, Paul says, to Romans no less, be wary of the sword of the Romans. Be submissive. Bless your persecutors (12: 14--the preceding paragraph.) Hmm. Who might the persecutors be? And what does the last verse of ch 12 say?

So, in summary, I'll defend my claim that Paul was quite anti-imperial (Jesus is the true lord, Caesar is the fake) in his message, but that he was shrewd enough to be somewhat cautious how he said this. After all, not only was his own life at stake, but the lives of those whom he had brought to the faith.

Paul Baxter

Sorry,

should have said that much of the above was drawn from Neil Elliott's article "Romans 13:1-7 in the Context of Imperial Propaganda" found in _Paul and Empire_, ed. Richard Horsley.

Geoff Hudson

Paul,

Rom 12:21

Do not be overcome by [evil] {the spirit of deceit}, but overcome [evil] {the spirit of deceit} with [good] {the Spirit of God}.

The spirit of deceit (or darkness) is also changed to the "sinful nature" (Rom 8:4).

Extant Romans where "Jesus is Lord" is way past first century "Paul" (I mean James). The original was heavily edited by those manipulative "authorities".

Geoff

Steven Carr

Jews presumably. Other Christians who disagreed with Paul. In his world, disagreeing with Paul was persecution to him.

As can be seen from Romans 12
14Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse. 15Rejoice with those who rejoice; mourn with those who mourn. 16Live in harmony with one another. Do not be proud, but be willing to associate with people of low position. Do not be conceited

Paul is telling the Roman Christians not to persecute each other, but to live in harmony with each other, and still to associate with each other, even if they regard each other as beneath them.

And where does Paul mourn people who have died for the faith? Or mourn any apostles or disciples who have died for the faith?

Or warn the Roman Christians that their lives were at risk?


You mention Romans 12, again without bothering to explain how it supports your position.

Romans 12:20-21
On the contrary:
"If your enemy is hungry, feed him;
if he is thirsty, give him something to drink.
In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head." 21Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

Was Paul suggesting that the persecuted Roman Christians feed the Roman soldiers who were killing them?

But Romans 13 is very clear as to the non-subversive nature of Paul's attitude to Caesar. 'For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong.' This does not mean that rulers hold terror for those , like Paul, who are doing right.

Geoff Hudson

Stephen,

Have you forgotten the collections for the poor of Palestine in which the young Titus (I mean Vespasian's son) was so heavily involved, that although he was rich, he made himself poor in his giving, and became an example to others. Then there were the shipments of grain sent by [Helena] {clearly a substitute for Agrippina in Ant.20} and the gifts of money from [Izates] {clearly Nero also in Ant. 20}. And I have argued that "Paul's" final journey to "Rome" was in fact from Rome to Caesarea via Alexandria with a shipment of grain that did get through to its destination. So for a time at least, some of these authorities sided with the "Christians". But many of the Jews of Rome and Palestine had other ideas and caused trouble, probably because they feared the end of worship in the temple. The Senators blamed the Christians and sided with the Jews against the imperial household. After all, the rise of the Christians meant the decline in some of the businesses that provided the Senator's income, well pointed out in Tertullian's De Spectaculis.

Geoff

Paul Baxter

Steven,

are you seriously suggesting that Roman Christians in Nero's time needed warning that their lives were at risk?

You really need to think about the context and what things didn't need saying, and what things couldn't be said at all.

Steven Carr

Certainly their lives were at risk if they committed robbery or murder. But Paul reminded them that the authorities appointed by God were no threat to them if they did right, and were a threat only to wrong-doers.

Are you suggesting Romans was written after Nero used the Christians as a scapegoat?

Geoff Hudson

Paul,

I see [Paul] {James} being in Rome much earlier than the extant book of Acts implies. In early days there were problems with Claudius, but he died (Acts 12:19-23). Nero is much maligned.

Geoff

Geoff Hudson

Mark Chapter 1

THE EDITOR INTRODUCES HIS FICTITIOUS JESUS AND WRITES JOHN OUT

(7)[And this was his message: "After me will come one more powerful than I, the thongs of whose sandals I am not worthy to stoop down and untie.
(8)I baptise you with water, but he will baptise you with the Holy Spirit.”
(9)At that time Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee and was baptised by John in the Jordan.
(10)As Jesus was coming up out of the water,
He saw heaven being torn open and the Spirit descending on him like a dove .
(11)And a voice came from heaven: “You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased.”
(12)At once the Spirit sent him out into the desert,
(13)and he was in the desert for forty days, being tempted by Satan.
He was with the wild animals, and angels attended him.
(14)After John was put in prison, Jesus]

Notes:

Verses 7 to 14 are pure invention by the editor, obviously hurriedly produced, to remove John and introduce Jesus:

v.(7)The editor has changed John’s ministry from proclaiming the Spirit to proclaiming someone who is superior to him, but whose name John appears not to know. That Mark is early compared to other gospels, is evident from the fact that the editor has not worked-out how John knew Jesus and that Jesus would come after him. Luke corrects this by having Jesus and John as relatives.
v.(8)The editor made John’s ministry inferior to Jesus’. He relegated John to being only a baptiser in water (which he never was). Jesus will baptise in the Holy Spirit, but there is no indication when this will occur – Pentecost is yet to be worked-out. The editor was obviously aware of that John proclaimed the Spirit, and in effect transposed John’s ministry to Jesus. In John’s real ministry, the Spirit was the Spirit of God who came immediately from God to those who heard it and obeyed it.
v.(9)The editor has decided where Jesus is to come from, but there are no details about Jesus’ birth, as in Luke and Matthew – more evidence that Mark is an earlier gospel. One has to suspect that the editor has not yet worked-out how Jesus was going to be born.
V.(10-13) The editor incorporates some dramatic details emphasising Jesus’ superior status to John.
v.(14)At the beginning of Mark, one could be forgiven for expecting John to be the main character in the gospel. But in verse 14, the editor has John removed from the scene anachronistically by having him imprisoned, and gives no indication as to who has put him in prison or why, although the editor probably knew the true details. The editors of Mark and Josephus’ Antiquities had not worked out jointly who would THEY would have responsible for John’s death. This was editing and publishing “on the fly”, and it shows.

Geoff

Geoff Hudson

A better version would be:

Chapter 1
(1)The beginning of the [gospel] {PROCLAMATION} [about] {of} the [Jesus Christ,] the [Son] {Spirit} of God.

Geoff