Why did Paul write Romans?

My answer, in 2 paragraphs, an exercise suggested by Brian LePort:

After nearly a decade of apostle-ing churches, having founded at least ten to that point, Paul had developed a pretty good working idea of what kinds of problems young churches would deal with - especially problems between Jewish and Gentile believers in those churches.  But five years after the Emperor Claudius kicked all the Jews out of Rome, he was poisoned and died.  Hearing that news, late in 54 AD, Paul was finally able to put Italy into his own travel plans.  Postponing his impending trips to Corinth and Judea, Paul went as far as Dyrrachium, founding a church there as a mid-way rest stop for the future, and for any stragglers among his few dozen friends who were moving to Rome (see Rom.16).

Twenty-nine months (or so) after Claudius died, Paul still seemed no closer to visiting Rome, with his hands full in Corinth/Cenchrea.  However, Paul knew many other Jewish-Italian believers (converted at or since Pentecost, like Priscilla & Aquilla) would have moved back to Rome, by that time.  Feeling responsible for the 30 to 40 (or more) saints he'd sent helped encourage to move there, and knowing how many conflicts they might be having with Rome's returning christians, Paul poured his heart into one tremendous effort to get Rome's believers to live at peace with one another, in the Lord.  The letter was sent around the turn of spring, 57 AD.

That's my 2 paragraph explanation as to why Paul wrote Romans.

Now I'll add two paragraphs of commentary.

That story doesn't only explain why Paul wrote Romans, it also explains why Romans came out the way it did.  Paul wasn't trying to be systematic.  He was just trying to communicate well to a large group with very diverse perspectives, in order to help mediate between close friends and virtual enemies.  Paul was trying to phrase things helpfully for some who may have been more familiar with James' epistle & ministry, and for others who likely preferred the language of Galatians.

But in all that, Paul's motive wasn't to craft some ideal theoretical treatise for unity.  He was engaging very practical concerns, among both groups, trying to challenge and honor both groups, and his motive at that time was simply to build common ground among these particular Jews and Gentiles whose particular conflicts and impasses had in fact - to that point - prevented them from standing together as one body, one church.

Quirinius is Irrelevant

Luke is either wrong OR misunderstood, but History doesn't care which it is.  Either way, P. Sulpicius Quirinius was never the Governor of Syria before Herod the Great died.  In other words, defending Luke 2:2 has nothing to do with reconstructing the Historical Nativity.  The Lukan Census (2:3-5) almost certainly belongs to the Governorship of Saturninus (9-6 BC).  That is, of course, assuming it actually happened.

Today, however, that's not my point.  This is.

Brian LePort recently blogged on Quirinius (here and here) and Stephen Carlson left a link to his own study (Dec.2004) of  the verse in question (Luke 2:2).  I'm not the master grammarian around here, but what Stephen suggested looks very unique, and very good.  I'm not sure how I missed or overlooked it before now, but interested parties should definitely pay Stephen's work very careful attention.

Whether Stephen is right or wrong, however, I want to emphasize again that our view of the Christmas Story does not rest on explaining that difficult verse.  Attempting to explain Luke 2:2 is simply a worthwhile challenge unto itself.  Personally, I live in hope that separating these two points will help us out in both departments.  But I have been accused of optimism before.

excerpt: the task of a historian

From Gordon S. Wood's The Purpose of the Past, Chapter 5:

In graduate school I was taught that the task of a historian is to describe how people in the past moved chronologically from A to B, with B always closer to us in time.  It seems self-evident, but for me it is the most important lesson I received in my training to be a historian.  Since people rarely stay the same between A and B, describing and explaining change through time always seems to me to lie at the heart of historical reconstruction.

Yes!  This is why the impulse of many Christian apologists is all fine, from a historical standpoint, even though the academic discipline, historical sense and overall effort of such apologists is often below par, for historical work.  Nevertheless, the desire to do what Wood says above - to describe and explain what's on record, if possible - is a valid historical goal.

excerpt: The Lessons of History

From Gordon S. Wood's The Purpose of the Past, Chapter 4:

History does not teach lots of little lessons. Insofar as it teaches any lessons, it teaches only one big one: that nothing ever works out quite the way its managers intended or expected. History is like experience and old age: wisdom is what one learns from it. ...

By showing that the best-laid plans of people usually go awry, the study of history tends to dampen youthful enthusiasm and to restrain the can-do, the conquer-the-future spirit that many people have. Historical knowledge takes people off a roller coaster of illusions and disillusions; it levels off emotions and gives people a perspective on what is possible and, more often, what is not possible...

To much of this historical sense, too much skepticism, is not, of course, very good for getting things done. ... Fortunately, however, there seems to be little danger of our becoming too historically minded in America today.

This chapter was previously published as a book review in the New York Review of Books, March, 1984.

Herodias, Queen of Galilee: Conclusions

Josephus says Antipas "fell in love" with Herodias, his niece & sister-in-law.  He suggested marriage.  She agreed to wed IF he divorced his first wife AFTER returning from Rome.  Indeed, Josephus says Antipas "transacted some business" (loeb) while there.  He secured the rights to a mint and the right to break a longstanding treaty with Aretas, King of Nabatea.

Josephus does not strictly say that Herodias waited in Caesarea.  If she did not make this voyage with Antipas, she must have written some letters - at least one to her Patron Antonia.  In Rome, such a letter would have gotten Antipas an audience with Antonia, who at least had the power to put Herod in front of Sejanus, and probably Tiberius also.  It seems most likely Antipas did see Capri.

The letter Antipas eventually wrote to Tiberius (AD 36) reflects that some kind of understanding had previously gone between them about Aretas and Galilee.  It wasn't just Antipas' earned favor or Aretas' war crimes that moved Tiberius to send a Legion down for retribution.  The assurance of Rome's power had been part of the bargain when Antipas asked for Herodias - when Antipas asked to divorce the Nabatean.

Why did Antipas want Herodias?  Was love really a factor?  Perhaps.  Herodias' ambition, her connections, her Roman sensibility, her Latin (!), her genes, and the financial prospects of all that together - such attractive assets may have helped inspire the Tetrarch's great "love".  She was quite the match for him, maybe more than a match.

Of Herodias' ambition, it did run in the blood.  Her aunt Salome (HTG's sister) was once briefly the power behind Palestine's throne, for a few months in 4 BC.  Herodias was a small child in Rome at that time, but may have visited with aunt Salome while the Herodian parties waited there for Augustus to rule on their succession dispute.  At any rate, Herodias named her daughter (with husband #1) after that aunt, and later married that daughter to Philp the Tetrarch.  That is some evidence of ambition.

That same royal ambition ironically resulted in Herodias' eventual downfall.  Then again, her only real failures at that point may have been misjudging Caligula, and underestimating her brother.  Apart from the Emperor's madness, the would-be Queen may have gotten her crown after all.  Indeed, if things in 27 BC were as they seem to have been, the entire reason Herodias was selected by Antipas - and approved of by Rome - was to raise the status of Galilee, and effectively become its Queen.

Fini.  For now.


Read the Whole Series: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Conclusion

excerpts: Narrative History

From Gordon S. Wood's The Purpose of the Past, Chapter 3:

Never before have historians been so ready to grasp the central insight of all social science - that society and culture transcend the particular aims and purposes of individuals, that people make their social and intellectual history but are at the same time bound by what they have made. Faced with such an insight, old-fashioned narrative history, which assigns personal responsibility for what happened in the past to particular people, loses much of its meaning.

And:

No doubt there is always a constructed character to all history writing, but this fabricated character seems particularly evident in narrative history. The past, after all, is not a series of stories waiting to be told, as has become more and more apparent in the twentieth century. [In a story, i]ncidents no longer just pile up upon one another; they are drawn together, connected, and given meaning by the ending of the story. The plots, the coherence, and the significance of narratives are always retrospective.

However - and yes, the author thinks this is a good thing:

Most historians, especially in the English-speaking world... still hold to a traditional epistemology, still believe that the past is real and that the truth of it can be recovered through storytelling. The rest of the intellectual world may be falling over itself with excitement in discovering the difficulty, if not the impossibility, of representing reality in any form of language or writing. But not historians. While intellectuals everywhere are promoting "structuralist" and other forms of nonlinear thought, most historians cling innocently to their Newtonian belief that one thing follows another in a coherent and causally related narrative pattern. It may be that traditional narrative writing depends on historians' remaining mentally in the nineteenth century...

The bulk of Chapter 3, Narrative History, was previously published as a book review in the New York Review of Books, August, 1982. The book (2008) includes some of Woods' follow-up reflections, of which I now also quote:

Many historians have blended storytelling with analysis very nicely and, it is hoped, will continue to do so.

Yep. Yep. Yep.

Herodias, Queen of Galilee - 6

What did Rome get from approving Antipas' re-wifing? Aside from Antonia's patronage, or Antipas' improving tax base in Galilee, what else could possibly have swung Tiberius and/or Sejanus into favoring the switch?  (Series so far:  1, 2, 3, 4, 5)

It could be that Aretas was ripe for a demotion in status to begin with. The Nabatean King hadn't won much favor from Augustus, after his crowning in 9 BC, and so far as we know Aretas had done nothing to please Rome since the marriage treaty with Antipas. What we do know is that Aretas spent a great deal of his resources on improving his own kingdom, and yet unlike his Judean counterpart, Herod the Great, we have no record of Antipas contributing benefactions to the Greek-Roman oikoumene at large.  If things were as they appear to have been, such selfish isolationism cannot have won any favor at Rome. More likely, it was quite to the contrary.

By contrast, then, one of Herodias' chief advantages over the Nabatean princess - in Rome's eyes - was Herodias' affinity for Latin culture and for Rome itself.

At the start of this series, we noted how important it was to Augustus (and thus to Tiberius, because Tiberius' positions in foreign policy were uniformly conservative) that foreign rulers be raised and indoctrinated at Rome.  It may not have taken Antonia to point out to Tiberius (or Sejanus) how perfectly Herodias' upbringing met Rome's preferred qualifications.  She was of royal, Herodian blood.  Her husband-to-be, Antipas, had spent several years in education at Rome, but she herself had been raised there from infancy, within the Imperial household!

In start contrast to the princess of Nabatea, whose father's Kingship was only approved for a lack of alternatives, Herodias was a woman whose pedigree was contributive.  In the long road towards (hoped for) Romanization, which was looking especially long in the East, Rome needed to provide backwater regions such as Galilee with as much positive acculturation as it possibly could.  Installing Herodias with Antipas was like installing the mint.  Every developmental assistance encouraged stability.

Although no one saw this marriage as anything so anachronistic as a true partnership of joint rulers, there was definitely some gain for the Empire in giving Herodias to Antipas.  In turn, Antonia and Tiberius (and/or Sejanus... and all their advisors) would have recognized in Herodias another positive way to contribute direct Romanizing influence on a client King in the East.

That - in addition to whatever other advantages Antipas or Antonia may have offered - is why Rome made Herodias Queen - essentially, if not officially or titularly - of Herod Antipas' Galilee.

To be Concluded...


Read the Whole Series: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Conclusion

Herodias, Queen of Galilee - 5

The same sea voyage that got John the Baptist arrested happened to get Herod Antipas more than a divorce. It also got him a mint. (See the recent post: Herod Antipas' Mint (or) Why Herodian coinage helps date John the Baptist's arrest.)

Since Antipas had already scheduled his voyage to Rome, before suddenly proposing to Herodias at the port city of Judea, it seems at least part of his intended business in Italy was to petition the Empire for the right to mint regional coins.

Now, did the advantage of Herodias' connections help Antipas win his petition in Rome? It would be intriguing to speculate, but this question may go beyond simple causality. Does the boss hire his daughter's fiancee to assist in their marriage, or does he only approve of the marriage because the young man now has a secure future? Sometimes it just all comes together.

For starters, the minting of Galilean coins wasn't merely a benefit to Antipas. If Rome helped develop the Tetrarch's financial system, it would surely result in an increase of annual tribute... eventually. That Herod had ruled Galilee for three decades without regional coinage, however, may suggest Rome had previously no reason for confidence in him.

Antipas' rise in favor had been slow, and was not yet very substantial. A marriage treaty added regional stability, but the Nabatean connection had brought nothing noteworthy since. A successful rebuilding of Sepphoris, and a more recent foundation at Tiberias - the latter of which had a local mint since perhaps AD 23; these must have helped. But would they have helped enough?

There's no way to say if winning the minting contract helped Antipas get Herodias, or if having Antonia's favor helped Antipas win the minting contract. All we can tell is that, for Antipas, the mint and the marriage were mutually complementary. This looks like one instance in which causality plays no discernible part.

But were these new arrangements mutually complementary, from Rome's perspective?

We know what Rome got from the mint. What else did Rome get from agreeing to sanction this marriage? We've already supposed Antonia herself might have influenced the decision, but it's too much to suppose that Antonia's favor alone is what won Herodias her "Queenship".  There had to be something more.

To be continued...


Read the Whole Series: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Conclusion

Herod Antipas' Mint (OR) Why Herodian coinage helps date John the Baptist's arrest

When Agrippa accused Antipas before Caligula, in AD 39, he most likely cobbled together some truth and some falsehood, in his charges against the would-be King and Queen of Galilee.

For instance, Antipas did indeed have thousands of units of arms stored up, as Agrippa declared, but it may or may not have been part of a plot with the Parthians.  On the other hand, it's extremely doubtful the cache of arms had anything to do with this betrothal to Herodias.  Rome already had four Legions in Syria.  (For a recent and fuller discussion about this, see my post on Herod Antipas' Army, from earlier this year.)

Likewise, Antipas most likely did NOT plot with Sejanus against Tiberius, even though Agrippa convinced the unstable Caligula this was true.  However, there may be another seed of truth to Agrippa's lies.  Antipas and Sejanus must have consulted on two things together, at least.  Aside from an official release from his marriage treaty with Nabatea, Antipas got one other thing from his voyage to Rome in AD 27/28.  He won the right to mint coins.

The earliest coins of Antipas date to AD 29. Though the city of Tiberias seems to have minted local coins from 23; see Madden & Hoehner for the details.  I disagree with Hoehner, however, that this dates Rome's granting of official permission for Antipas to that same year.  Coins in 29 as - if not more - likely mean permission came in 28.

Logically, if Antipas comes back from Italy in late summer or mid autumn, he must then have taken the rest of the year to obtain ore and commission the castings.  Even commandeering Tiberias' local mint, assuming minor modifications, and even if the first coins were proofed by year's end, it may have been most logical to post date them a few weeks for a first time roll out.  Thus, coins officially dated to 29 don't necessarily mean the right to coin was secured in 29.  More likely, it was 28.*

The coins suggest at least one part of what "business" Herod Antipas must have "transacted" during his one known voyage to Rome of those years (Antiquities 18.111).  Juxtaposing this voyage with the marriage contract to Herodias is what dates the trip to the year before John the Baptist's arrest - the arrest being generally 28, 29 or 30 in almost all accounts, anyway.

-----------------------------

(Full disclosure, I have other reasons for thinking John the Baptist was arrested in 29, just as Hoehner had his own reasons for placing that event in 30.  Tit for tat.)

The Movement of God (Series Intro)

God is moving on Earth today, and God has been moving on Earth for a very long time.  But wait.  Let's back up.  Waaaaaay up.

Before "time and space", there might not have been space, but there was definitely time.  That may be why God wanted physical space - because God likes to MOVE.  He had all kinds of time to Himself, and yet no place to go.

The potential for movement and change had to be one of God's motives for creation.

To express that more deeply:  One reason God created the physical universe is because God is Movement.  That is, Movement expresses an aspect of Who and What God IS.  Or, to put that another way, God moves, and since moving is something God does on the Earth, then there must be something dynamic about the very nature and character of the one who (also) does not change.

To sum up:  God moves.  From before creation up to right now, in physical and mysterious ways, God has been moving.  And one reason God moves on the Earth is because God wants to see human beings learn how to move like He moves.  Or, you might say, God wants to move us, and God wants us to move - preferably as an US, too.  Corporate motion is another key part of this picture.

Movements come and movements go, in our human experience, but the best Movements are always those being generated by the Mover himself.

So let's look at The Movement of God.

from Biblioblogs this July

Of 200+ items I shared this month, here come the share-iest.  Get yourself a Google Blog Reader (here) and you can start sharing too.  It's nice to share, just like all these folks did in July, 2010:

Lots of New Testament Era archaeology news this month, and Rogueclassicism had all the scoops, as usual.  Found:  one shipwreck, one temple & bridge, one coin hoard, one major canal).  IHahn noted a new site called Blogging Pompeii.  Todd Bolen shared details about the late-antique Synagogue that was recently dug up in Galilee.  I always like being reminded of the diligent diggers who keep finding us new evidence to consider.

A review at the BMCR discussed Classical Historiography:  how ancient history writers made decisions about what to include, how much was art or science, and how diverse the genre really was.  On historical skepticism, Chris Brady passed along the perfect analogy - how much of WWII seems unbelievable, today?

Mark D. Roberts considered reasons why Jesus probably spoke some Greek, which I agreed with, and then I learned J.P.Meyer did too.  So that's very good.  Incidentally, I finally picked up the first volume of Meyer's Marginal Jew, recently.  I liked it - mostly, natch.  Meanwhile, James McGrath completed his wonderfully thorough review of The Historical Jesus:  Five Views with separate posts on each contribution:  Price, Crossan, Johnson, Dunn, & Bock.  I also enjoyed Brian LePort's blog review of the same book.

Mark Goodacre started a discussion about countering the stereotype of Pharisees as hypocrites.  Doug Chaplin gave an excellent and detailed response.  Darrell Pursiful also chimed in.  The whole thing got started largely because of a longish blog post on the topic by David Bivin, the founder of Jerusalem Perspective.  If you're interested, read all these posts.  Bottom line:  Overgeneralizing about Pharisees isn't helpful, and lends itself to supporting anti-semitism.  I trust completely that lots of Pharisees were just as bad as Jesus & John the Baptist said they were.  But you do a little more research and you find out how much Jesus respected about the Pharisees, also.

By the way, Mark Goodacre's blogged tour of Israel was tons of fun.  Go scroll through his July Archives.  You'll find more goodies, like the Synoptic PotatoHeads and this comment on one of McGrath's book reviews, which I'm not informed enough to comment on myself.

I'm honestly not sure what to think about Paul Anderson.  I'm thrilled he keeps tirelessly promoting the use of John's Gospel for historical research, but I'm having trouble finding the substantive points in his opinions, as far as any of it applies to actual History.  Anyway, several bloggers responded to Anderson's latest essay, and I still need to read through JohnDave Medina's post on Anderson's recent debate with Marcus Borg, but I mostly just want Anderson's answer to Borg's question:  "So what?"  Is it a good or a bad thing that Anderson can't answer yet?  Perhaps time will tell.

Elsewhere, Phillip J Long shared some more thoughts about Atlases - specifically about New Testament Atlases, or rather the lack thereof, and then suggested some reasonable substitutes.  From downtown Dallas, Matthew Larsen has been blogging his way through E.P. Sanders' Paul & Palestinian Judaism.  It's been good.  Here's post #1.  Find the rest at Matt's blog.

Joel Hoffman asked if there's too much choice in Bible translations.  Daniel Kirk suggested that women's differentness from men is precisely why they should share in church leadership. (AMEN!)  And Bitsy Griffin began reviewing the backstory of The Moravian Church.  Chapter one brought us from the Crusades to John Wycliffe.  Chapter two was my favorite, because John Hus (Yan Huss) is my favorite.  Chapter three is called 'The Aftermath', and Chapter four, on the Unitas Fratrum, is her latest for now.

Lastly, from nearby Fort Worth, Ched Spellman was the latest to rehash Garrison Keillor's May piece on the future of publishing:  "18 million authors in America, each with an average of 14 readers, eight of whom are blood relatives. Average annual earnings: $1.75". After much reflection on that - plus an audio file from Seth Godin on the new dynamics of book publishing - I went on to buy my first Kindle.  To my friends in publishing, please listen to Seth.  He offers some terrific advice.  AND I think you'll like it.  :-)

There's a lot of great stuff I left out, mostly near the end of July.  But that's the kind of stuff you can still catch if you check out my shared items page.  Or get a Google Feed Reader, and use it to follow my shared items feed.

So much for July.  Happy August!