All roads lead from Rome

The final questions to answer in the survey of Romans are the bigger ones - Why was the epistle written? And What are its major themes and its theology?

As it turns out, the answer to 'Why' is actually quite practical; as all of my New Testament sources - Johnson, Robert & Feuillet, and Harrington - unanimously agree: "he writes to the Romans, preparing the way for them to become his new base of operations in the West." (Johnson) "As Apostle to the Gentiles he was more anxious than ever to establish contact with the Roman church for, in view of that apostolate, its position as the church of the empire's capital was of paramount importance. ... [He] saw clearly that the roads which led from Rome to all parts of the orbis Romanus could become so many roads of missionary expansion." (Harrington) All roads lead to (and from) Rome.

But an obvious question would be, why is the epistle so long and rich? Johnson makes the point that Romans is Paul's recommendation letter for himself. He's explaining his Gospel. He's telling the Romans, "I know you have your own foundations, but this is what I'm all about, and why we should work for God together." Remember Paul didn't establish the Roman church, and he wasn't writing at any particular crisis in the community like he did in so many other epistles. He's outlining the themes of his mission so that the Romans can understand his intentions of their place in it.

That does not mean Romans is a systematic exposition of Paul's theology. He leaves out a lot of his important theology that he wrote to other churches. "... on this point the Reformers of the sixteenth century exaggerated its value and character." (Robert & Feuillet) Rather, the Roman epistle is a concentrated narrative of the theme of God's salvation - first foreshadowed, presented, and preached to the Jews and then to the Gentiles as well. It is a compelling history of salvation for the whole world. But I don't think it should be applied as a systematic theological dogma of salvation for the individual person.

Romanorum

In my New Testament class, we've been surveying the synoptic Gospels for the last couple months. We're sure to cover a few basics of each book before diving into the deeper theological themes and content of each. The basics for each book would be who wrote it, when, where, to whom was it written?

As a homework assignment, I'm going to outline these basics for the book of Romans and then delve into the "what" and "why" questions in another post.

• Who?
  

  Authenticity within the 'Pauline corpus' is determined by a number of criteria - style, theological consistency of content, ethics, and the work's fit within Paul's ministry. Our New Testament textbook makes a good point that "Of the above criteria, only the last is really verifiable by the evidence." On the basis of stylistic analysis, liberal scholars can dispute the authenticity of pretty much every epistle. But Johnson offers a more conservative critique: "discussion of authenticity has been distorted by doubtful premises." When it comes to Romans, both conservative and liberal scholars almost unanimously attribute the epistle to St. Paul of Tarsus.

  
  

  However, even "Pauline authorship" isn't the end of the story. All of his letters were composed under his authority and direction, but there are a few complexities. Writing, especially lengthy writing, was often given to trained secretaries. Cicero did so with Atticus, and Tertius names himself as secretary in Rom. 16:22. In addition, the Pauline epistles exhibit a diatribe style - the primary use of which suggests a classroom setting, meaning Paul's authorship could very likely have been a communal activity. Paul's style of midrash also connotes a communal activity. This all suggests a "Pauline school" - "a form of intentional and prolonged contact between master and students. ... it is highly probable that many hands and minds contributed to [the epistles'] composition."

  
  

  I like the thought of this - a more collective and communal development of theology as opposed to single-minded dictates.

  
  


• When?
  

  To find this, I had to grab another New Testament survey from our excellent library at PSI Tulsa Diocese. (Much thanks to Joey for maintaining the great library!) It simply states, "[Romans] was written in Corinth toward the close of the third missionary journey, during the winter of 57/58 A.D. That Corinth was the place of origin is indicated by Paul's recommendation of Phoebe, deaconess of Cenchreae, the eastern port of Corinth (Rm. 16:1), and by the fact that he is the guest of Gaius who is, very likely, the same man named in 1 Cor. 1:14 (Rm. 16:23). We may add that, according to Acts 20:2 f., Paul left from Corinth on his last journey to Jerusalem (cf. Rm. 15:25)" (There seems to be little doubt about the date - my other resources simply state the date of of 57-58 without explanation. Though I did find some alternative opinions on the wikipedia article for Romans)

  
  

  Another New Testament introductory text I checked out from the PSI library makes the following comments about the date: "In 57-58, the date of the Epistle to the Romans, we are in that happy period of the reign of Nero when he was still accepting the counsel of Seneca and was giving the Empire a sound administration. ... [The Christians] were recruited from the lower strata of foreigners and they flocked to Rome from all provinces. The Jews in the city formed an especially homogeneous and influential group. Excavations have brought to light several synagogues and several cemeteries dating from the first century A.D."

  
  


• Where?
  

  As mentioned in the texts, the epistle was written from Corinth. One reason I like this NAB is that it has lots of good footnotes and introductory notes. It has this to say about Corinth: "Paul established a Christian community in Corinth about the year 51. The city, a commercial crossroads, was a melting pot full of devotees of various pagan cults and marked by a measure of moral depravity not unusual in a great seaport. [Filthy sailors!]" The church at Corinth, quite understandably, very much needed the instruction and stern admonitions Paul gave in the Corinthian epistles. His visit in 57/58 was a "follow-up" to the community, and during this visit he wrote his letter to the Romans.

  
  


• To Whom?
  

  The Roman church was not founded by Paul, nor by any known organized mission to the capital, but probably resulted from Christian converts who moved to capital. The Roman church was apparently composed of both Judaeo-Christian and Gentile-Christian members, probably with a Gentile majority since Paul writes "... we have received the grace of apostleship, to bring about the obedience of faith, for the sake of his name, among all Gentiles, among whom are you also ..." (Rm. 1:5)

  
  

  It's interesting to consider that Paul had never been to the Roman church at the time he wrote this letter. (Rm. 15:22-24) He's not writing so much as a pastor correcting faulty teachings or behavior as he does in other epistles. He is writing the general lines of his theology to prepare the Romans for his pending visit. (Though he's careful to say that he isn't trying to replace existing Roman 'foundations' [Rm. 15:20]). As one of my books says, "The writing of Galations had given an opportunity of stating his thesis, but in a polemical atmosphere; now he can take it up again in a calmer fashion and more leisurely. It is not, however, a synthesis of his theology ..."

  
  

  The importance for Paul to establish a connection with the Roman church is obvious. As the imperial capital, the Roman church could (and did, and does!) extend the Christian message across the known world. And for me, the Roman community is exciting because the Roman empire seems similar to our own. The metro- and cosmopolitan society that built the foundation of the Western world. And yet at the time of this letter, the Christian church in Rome was still a small, tightly-knit community trying to understand what had happened and was happening in the life of Christ.

  
  

Next post will cover more 'what' and 'why' in Romans. If any of you actually read this far, did any of this basic material surprise/enlighten/upset/challenge you?

Markan puzzles

I have a few more homework questions about the Gospel of Mark. I can't go into as much detail since I need to answer them all by tomorrow, so here's a more straight-forward homework-style question-answer format.

How could Jesus have been asleep during the treacherous storm in Mk 4:35-41? What is going on here?

My textbook doesn't mention anything about Jesus sleeping. Instead he points out that the storm, like the demons are "bound" by the authority of Jesus. In the context of the other parables, this story shows that faith in Jesus is the understanding that Jesus is demanding from his followers in the previous parables.
In other research, I came across the answer I think is most accurate. Looking at Psalms, Jesus is aspiring to the ideal of 'sleep' as found in Psalm 4:9 - faith in the LORD alone makes Him secure. While looking at the Psalms I also discovered the disciples' reaction is nearly a perfect reproduction of Psalm 44.

How could they "cross the lake" to the Gerasenes in 5:1 if they already went "over to the other side" (4:35) from Galilee (3:7)?

I didn't know that this is apparently a scholarly academic controversy. Religious critics apparently discount Mark authorship of the Gospel on the grounds of geographical errors. I like the common sense response of this blogger, as well as the traditional responses to which he refers. My NAB renders 35 as "On that day as evening drew on, he said to them, "Let us cross to the other side." and renders 5:1 as "They came to the other side of the sea." I don't really see any conflict at all. And additional note in my NAB references Mt. 8:28 in which "Gadarenes" is used from the Codex Vaticanus (Catholic Bible y'know! ;) In any case, my answer would be that Mark mentioned only the "region" and could have made a small geographical generalization.

Why, when Jesus was saying, "Come out of this man, you evil spirit!" was the spirit still there entreating, "don't torture me"?

What does it mean in 6:52, "they had not understood about the loaves"?

My NAB footnote says "The revelatory character of this sign and that of walking on the sea completely escaped the disciples." The loaves (here and in other Gospels) in the Jewish mind allude to the sign of God's provision of bread (manna) in Ex 16. And Mark 6:50 literally says "I am." which is the revelatory formula in the OT for God. Mark is showing that the disciples are missing these revelatory signs of Jesus's messiahship. This is a theme all thru Mark - the disciples (with whom the reader strongly identifies) continuously fail to properly see the nature of Jesus's messiahship.

Messianic Secret

This is the first homework post for my New Testament class. The instructor is giving us specific study questions on the Gospel of Mark to answer in the form of blog posts. My normal theological research process when I learn something new is to Wikipedia and Google the crap out of it to get all kinds of opinions on it. I can't easily do that with most of these homework questions, but here is one I can:

• Why does Jesus in the Gospel of Mark regularly entreat people that he heals "not to tell," except in one instance (1:44; 3:12; 7:36; 8:26; 9:9). The exception is 5:19. What is going on with this so-called "Messianic Secret"?

With a term like that I can make my usual start - the Wikipedia article on Messianic Secret (sadly there's no Catholic Encyclopedia article). Oh ... before that, I should check out the verses themselves. I'm still getting used to Scripture studying.

The only thing I noticed was that Jesus himself gives a reason for his secrecy in Mark 9 - "As they were coming down from the mountain, he charged them not to relate what they had seen to anyone, except when the Son of Man had risen from the dead." This goes along with some scholars' historical and theological explanations that Jesus didn't want the Jewish people to perceive his messiahship as military or political in nature; that his role as messiah could only be rightly understood in the meaning of his death.

There are other more literary explanations. Perhaps The Messianic Secret was not in the original Aramaic text of Mark at all, or maybe Mark used the Messianic Secret as a literary device to associate Jesus to Odysseus - a hero appeal to his gentile audience. I'm not convinced either of those are likely causes.

I'm glad to have done the research, but I'm far from having a concrete answer. And I have 4 more questions to answer in the next week and a half, so I better close this one off here. What do you all think about this whole "Messianic Secret"?