Durham E-Theses Reading Romans in Rome: A Reception of Romans in the Roman Context of Ethnicity and Faith HOLDSWORTH, BENJAMIN,EVANS How to cite: HOLDSWORTH, BENJAMIN,EVANS (2009) Reading Romans in Rome: A Reception of Romans in the Roman Context of Ethnicity and Faith, Durham theses, Durham University. Available at Durham E-Theses Online: http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/214/ Use policy The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that: • a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in Durham E-Theses • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders. Please consult the full Durham E-Theses policy for further details. Academic Support Oce, Durham University, University Oce, Old Elvet, Durham DH1 3HP e-mail: [email protected] Tel: +44 0191 334 6107 http://etheses.dur.ac.uk 2 Reading Romans in Rome: A Reception of Romans in the Roman Context of Ethnicity and Faith Thesis Submission for a Doctor of Philosophy To the University of Durham Durham, United Kingdom By Benjamin Evans Holdsworth, Jr. July 2009 Declaration I hereby declare that the work included in this thesis is original. No part of this thesis has been submitted for a degree elsewhere in the United Kingdom, or in any other country or university. The copyright of this thesis and intellectual rights and original ideas are the sole property of the author. 1 Abstract This thesis primarily addresses one question: “To what extent can Romans be heard and understood by a readership in Rome within its religio-economic, socio-political, and ethnic context, especially by non-Judeans?” To address this question, certain presuppositions regarding the audience are re-examined. This first is how the epistle‟s audience, as residents of Rome, may have understood their ethnic identity, and how they constructed and negotiated that identity as Greeks, Romans, and Judeans. Chapter 1 focuses on this question for Greek and Roman identity formation and negotiation, since both groups are integral to reading Romans in Rome. The chapter concludes that Hellenization and Romanization were simultaneously shaping life in Rome prior to and during the time the initial hearers interacted with the Roman epistle. The second chapter concurrently tests two presuppositions. The first is whether Judean treatment in Rome was any different from the experience of any other ethnic minority – whether Rome was anti-Semitic. This is tested by developing a comparative review of Judean life in relation to contemporaneous Egyptian treatment in Rome, in conjunction with Appendices 2 and 3. The second presupposition tested in this chapter is a tangent of the first – that is whether Wiefel‟s hypothesis is a valid foundation for assumptions regarding the audience experience in Rome, prior to and at the time of the epistle‟s reception. The chapter concludes that Judean and Egyptian ethnicities were in competition in Rome, and based upon ongoing change in circumstances experienced a range of acceptance and rejection. It also concludes that Wiefel‟s hypothesis – the eviction in 49 CE of all Judeans and Judean Christ- followers from Rome – does not reflect the reality of the Judean situation. Chapter 3 tests the presupposition, that the epistle received in Rome was interpreted by listeners primarily through an oft-assumed Judean lens – that of Judean tradition and the LXX. The chapter reexamines a sample of key ethnic semantics of the epistle – the interaction of honor, faith, piety, and righteousness in Rome‟s way of life. It concludes that honor was a key driver in the Roman socio-cultural experience. Faith-making and faith- keeping were integral frameworks for human and divine relationships, and piety and 2 righteousness were enmeshed in faith and faithfulness in the Roman way of life as the foundation of right relationship between humanity and deity. Chapter 4 integrates these ideas in reinterpretation of Romans as an audience recipient, by “sitting in the audience,” primarily as a non-Judean listener. It follows the flow of the discourse, noting the ethnic interplay, and the use of honor, faith, and righteousness as key Roman language to engage in ethnic reconstruction. This re-hearing of the sampled terms in Romans 1:1-17 is only an example of future work to examine extended readings of Romans in Rome, re-viewing the text through a Romanized lens. 3 Gratitude and Dedication Many individuals over the last decade had a hand in bringing this work to fruition. The following are not named in order of importance, the debt of gratitude, or their impact on this research, but as they come to mind. Apologies to those who also deserve mention, but were unintentionally missed in this process. First, I am thankful to the ministers and members at Markham Woods and Florida Hospital Seventh-day Adventist churches who have been friends, fellow students of Scripture, and foresaw this adventure a decade ago. I am particularly grateful to the family of Dr. Stevens for sharing their father, his passion for God, and kind support for many years. Additionally, many friends kept our household items while we were away in the UK, and I am thankful for their patience and kind generosity in helping us, and continuing our friendships from afar. I am grateful as well to the churches I pastored in Tampa, Florida, whose members molded my ministry and gave foundation to some ideas contained in this work. I would be remiss to not mention the professors of Newbold College, who provided a place to test concepts in regard to sociolect while going through my MA work on Ephesians, particularly Dr. Aulikki Nahkola, Gifford Rhamie, and Dr. Erich Metzing. Many at Durham University listened and helped shape perspective while I engaged in this research. Dr. Naomi Jacobs provided helpful insights into 2nd Temple Judaism, and Kevin Bywater, Dr. Wenhua Shi, Matthew Scott, and Judith Fain have helped in many ways, most of all friendship and listening as I developed the direction of this research. The professors of Durham University are owed much. I am particularly grateful to Dr. Loren Stuckenbruck, Dr. William Telford, and Dr. Douglas Davies for insight, supervision, critique, and most of all collegiality, during different stages of this work. This is better because of you. Drs. Lionel and Wendy North deserve special mention for guidance, encouragement, and care. I am grateful as well to those at Durham who have trod the text of Romans before this thesis, who have shared their insights and views, Dr. C.K. Barrett, Dr. C.E.B. Cranfield, Dr. James D.G. “Jimmy” Dunn, and Durham‟s “Bishop Tom,” N.T. Wright. If what is produced here has merit, it is because, as Newton said, “I have stood on the shoulders of giants,” even when I have not agreed with them. 4 Gratitude is certainly heartfelt for support by our extended family, in Cyprus, England, and America, who encouraged us through this sojourn and sent many items that helped along the way. There are six people to whom this work is dedicated. Les Hess a longtime friend whose kindness and care have been greatly appreciated through the years and especially during the last days before submission. Les, thanks for your friendship, even when inconvenienced, to help bring this work to conclusion. Margaret, thank you for prayers, thoughtful contemplation on life in Christ, for kindness and a place to rest and work while in transition to our new lives. My brother, David Holdsworth, has been a sounding board and support through this long process. Many thanks for music, emails, phone calls, mailings from America, and most of all for being my brother, who “marked me for life,” but that is another story. You share the dedication of this research for reading chapters and making insightful comments. This work is dedicated in honor of Joanne Elmadjian, who faced the ultimate test, and awaits God‟s coming kingdom after an untimely death from pancreatic cancer. Joanne taught me about perseverance and is sorely missed by all who knew her lovely cheer and love for God. Professor J.M.G. Barclay deserves my most profound gratitude, as supervisor, critic, and a source of penetrating questions, direction, and support innumerable ways and especially in dark and difficult moments in bringing this work to fruition. His guidance, professionalism, and supervision have been exemplary, and in my future work, I hope to follow his example of grace. Last and most importantly, this is doctoral work is dedicated to my precious wife, Ani, who believed in the dream, and came on the adventure as companion, friend, supporter, biggest critic, dearest advisor and my wife. This would not have possibly happened without you. This is especially dedicated to you, my hokis. July, 2009 5 Contents Page Abstract 2 Gratitude and Dedication 4 Contents 6 Introduction 7 Chapter 1 13 Chapter 2 69 Chapter 3 166 Chapter 4 210 Chapter 5: Conclusions 273 Appendix 1 280 Appendix 2 284 Appendix 3 297 Appendix 4 325 Bibliography: Primary Sources 332 Bibliography: Secondary Sources 341 Bibliography: Abbreviations 365 6 Reading Romans in Rome INTRODUCTION 1: Disquieting Presuppositions and Resulting Questions This research was born out of unease with some assumptions shaping the interpretation of Romans. These emerged from unanswered questions primarily dealing with the first century listeners in Rome and how they heard Romans within their context. A few of those frustrations became fascinations which formed the foundation of this thesis.