A Christian Utopia: Paul’s Community of Equality and Justice

By Stephen J. Gaudet

In the first century of the Common Era, the Romans could boast of being the most pious society in the known world. They possessed a highly structured societal organization with a well-defined hierarchy where everyone knew their place and the personal and interpersonal duties associated therewith. It was understood that their success was due in large part to maintaining a relationship with the gods. Yet at the same time, social inequality and lack of justice for its members was ubiquitous and merely part of the fabric of that society. Into this milieu steps Saul of Tarsus, later known as the Apostle Paul. Based upon the authentic corpus of Paul, a new utopian society was envisaged--a society based on equality and justice for all, not just for the elite. This eschatological community is in sharp contrast with Imperial Rome. Following the death of Paul, writers invoking Paul's authority by claiming that their texts were authored by the apostle himself, continued writing letters to various Christian communities. However, their texts differed in significant ways from Paul's vision. Yet these corrupted texts have survived and influenced the development of Christianity for two millennia. It is imperative to retrieve the true vision of Paul for a world in serious need of that eschatological vision.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Wipf and Stock
• Release date: Jan 26, 2017
• ISBN: 9781532601620

Stephen J. Gaudet

Dr. Stephen J. Gaudet was a Fellow in Religious Studies at Harvard University where he studied and completed his thesis under the direction of Professor Helmut Koester. He also has a background in science, earning degrees in biochemistry and conducting research at the National Institutes of Health and has taught at the university level. Additionally, he also holds a Juris Doctorate.

Book preview

9781532601613.kindle.jpg

A Christian Utopia

Paul’s Community of Equality and Justice

Stephen J. Gaudet

13135.png

A Christian Utopia

Paul’s Community of Equality and Justice

Copyright © 2017 Stephen J. Gaudet. All rights reserved. Except for brief quotations in critical publications or reviews, no part of this book may be reproduced in any manner without prior written permission from the publisher. Write: Permissions, Wipf and Stock Publishers, 199 W. 8th Ave., Suite 3, Eugene, OR 97401.

Wipf & Stock

An Imprint of Wipf and Stock Publishers

199 W. 8th Ave., Suite 3

Eugene, OR 97401

www.wipfandstock.com

paperback isbn: 978-1-5326-0161-3

hardcover isbn: 978-1-5326-0163-7

ebook isbn: 978-1-5326-0162-0

Manufactured in the U.S.A. March 7, 2017

Table of Contents

Title Page

Introduction

Chapter 1: The Roman Backdrop

Chapter 2: Augustus and the New Age

Chapter 3: Rome, Palestine, and the Diaspora

Chapter 4: Israel’s Prophetic Tradition of Equality and Justice

Chapter 5: Paul: The Man, His Call, and His Sojourn

Chapter 6: Righteousness and the Law

Chapter 7: Paul’s Utopian Vision: Paul’s Own Words

Chapter 8: Utopia after Paul

Chapter 9: Pseudo-Pauline Literature

Chapter 10: Conclussion

Appendix A: Altera iam teritur

Appendix B: Eclogue IV

Appendix C: Carmen Saeculare

About the Author

Bibliography

I wish to dedicate this work to my friend and teacher Helmut Koester.

Introduction

In the first century of the Common Era, the Roman Empire was the most powerful political and military force in the West. The Empire spread across Europe into the Levant and further into Africa. The Empire in many ways could be considered to have reached its apogee with peace and prosperity secured primarily during the reign of Augustus. Commerce throughout the Empire, secured by imperial might, brought economic prosperity to Rome and its provinces.

Augustus had envisaged a new age for the Empire and once peace was secured and civil strife essentially assuaged members of society began to realize this imperial aspiration. However, Augustus’s vision required a strict understanding and conformity with certain requisite values necessary to be inculcated into its members. Members of society were stratified and each knew his or her position within society. This hierarchy was integral to how Roman society functioned, it was a vital element of one’s piety. Yet at a fundamental level, there existed significant social inequality but this was not viewed as something to be overcome, rather it was an integral and important ingredient of society. There were indeed other elements of piety that had to be embraced by what was considered a good and upstanding citizen of the Empire. Inequality and injustice were just a necessary consequence of piety that existed throughout the Empire—it was just part of life.

Into this social milieu enters Saul of Tarsus (later known as the Apostle Paul). Paul like Augustus also envisaged a new age—a utopia in some sense. However, unlike the Empire, the society contemplated by Paul was based upon equality and justice for all of its members not just a few selected elites. In this work I describe and contrast sharply the eschatological community envisaged by Paul set against the society in which he was living, namely, the Roman Empire.

In order to fully appreciate Paul’s revolutionary concept one needs to have a sense of what Roman society was like during his time. Toward this end, chapter 1 briefly discusses early Roman history and its evolution. Also in this chapter various issues that are important to the understanding of the many tensions that existed between Roman society and Paul’s vision of community are described. In the following chapter, Augustus himself is discussed including his ascendancy to being Rome’s first emperor. Included also is a discussion concerning his eschatological vision as well as some of the sources that helped informed him as to his new age vision. His vision placed alongside Paul’s share common features and yet the reality manifested attendant to imperial society and that envisaged by Paul were vastly different.

The Empire extended into the Levant. In the third chapter, I review the relationship between Rome and, in particular, Palestine. Also briefly discussed in this chapter is the phenomenon known as the Diaspora as Paul himself was from Tarsus and thus living outside Palestine. Biographical indications suggest that Paul understood the Hebrew Scriptures quite well. Thus it can be argued that he necessarily knew the prophetic tradition of Israel which is a key element to understanding his eschatological vision. In the fourth chapter the prophetic tradition is discussed, specifically, three prophets who are seminal for Paul’s vision of equality and justice. Further, these prophets, Amos, Jeremiah and Isaiah, assist in the understanding of how Paul viewed himself within this prophetic tradition.

The next three chapters are focused on Paul himself including an examination of his vision for an eschatological community. As far as is known, Paul never wrote a complete autobiography though in some of his writings he does discuss briefly aspects of his life especially his early years as a devout Israelite. In other writings such as the book of Acts there are references to the life of Paul. However, one needs to be cautious when reading a source such as Acts and relying upon it as being an accurate reflection of history. However, we do have some understanding of the world in which Paul lived thus providing a framework for understanding an individual living in the first century CE. In this section we also consider Paul’s call. I suggest that for Paul his call, and not conversion as some would have it, was a call aligned strongly with the prophetic call as illustrated by the prophets previously mentioned, most notably a call aligned with the concept of the Suffering Servant. In chapter 6 a discussion on the concept of righteousness and the Mosaic Law is presented. This discussion is imperative for appreciating Paul’s position on the Mosaic Law and how it fits within his vision of community. Then in chapter 7 Paul’s utopian vision of community using his writings from the authentic Pauline corpus is presented.

The next two chapters cover Paul’s utopian vision through the lens of pseudo-Pauline authors. Specifically, chapter 8 focuses on the community of the faithful following Paul’s death and how they dealt with Paul’s passing in the absence of the parousia. The Deutero-Pauline and Pastoral Epistles were written following Paul’s death and in the penultimate chapter I summarize arguments establishing the pseudepigraphical nature of these writings. I posit that these post-Pauline writings corrupt Paul’s actual vision and provide a trajectory for the evolution of Christianity down to the present age.

Paul’s concept of an eschatological community built upon the foundation of agape and manifested through equality and justice can be used today as a sort of hermeneutic in assessing contemporary societal institutions. Institutions such as religious organizations in particular can be seen to be lacking when evaluated against Paul’s vision. Other societal organizations also appear to fall short of Paul’s clarion call for equality and justice for all members of society regardless of their station in life. This call for equality and justice transcends time and should be a guiding light for all of humanity.

Chapter I

The Roman Backdrop

The present work examines the utopian community as envisaged by the Apostle Paul. In order to effectively appreciate and understand the dynamic and radical nature of his vision we need to set it against the society in which Paul conceived it—namely, Roman society. Further, it is necessary to consider the utopian vision of another pivotal figure in this story that provides a foil for appreciating the radicalism of Paul’s vision. Such a figure is Augustus who also needs to be understood in the historical, societal, and cultural context of his time. The present chapter briefly provides such a context.

The Beginnings of Rome

Groups of Indo-European people known as Latins migrated to Italy around 1000 BCE.¹ These people originated from the regions of the Danube and Illyria and settled in central Italy and spoke similar languages, collectively called the Italic languages. Around 900 BCE, the Etruscans, whose origins remain enigmatic, migrated to Italy and controlled north and central Italy.

Professor Boren points out that the origins of the Etruscans may be located in Asia Minor. Boren goes on to suggest that the Etruscans regardless of their origin might represent a people of upper-class status and that the lower class populace were indigenous people of northwest Italy.² There was a loose confederacy between the city-states of the Etruscans but this confederacy was weak. This weakness would contribute to their subjugation in later years to a growing Roman juggernaut.

Linguistically the Etruscans like their origin remain a mystery. There are thousands of Etruscan inscriptions dating back to around 700 BCE and are written using the Greek alphabet.³ According to Cornell, these inscriptions can be read quite easily, so the difficulty with understanding the language is not necessarily the decipherment, rather, it has no cognate languages, it clearly is not an Indo-European language.⁴ This unusual feature of the Etruscans, that is their language, contributed to the discomfort level felt by their Roman and Greek neighbors. Because of their enigmatic language the Romans and Greeks were curious as to their origins. Cornell points out that Herodotus suggested that the Etruscans migrated from Lydia in Asia Minor. However, a conflicting story is presented by Dionysius of Halicarnassus who asserted that they, the Etruscans, did not migrate, rather they were indigenous to Italy itself.⁵

Today modern scholars follow Herodotus’s assertion, specifically, that the Etruscans emigrated from Asia Minor around the eighth century BCE. This is not to suggest, however, that the controversy has been settled. Cornell points out that there has never been a solid link between the Etruscan language and Asia Minor.⁶ In addition to the Asia Minor hypothesis, there exist other theories for the origin of the Etruscan people all of which remain problematic.

The Etruscans did have a vibrant culture that was greatly influenced over time by contact with Greece; indeed many Greek characteristics appropriated by Rome were facilitated by the Etruscans themselves.⁷ Greeks began expanding in Italy around the eighth century BCE primarily in the southern part of the peninsula. This expansion led to a significant presence of Greeks in southern Italy resulting in what is often referred to as Magna Graecia (Greater Greece). This Greek expansion increasingly resulted in conflicts with the Etruscans. These conflicts were exacerbated along the northern borders during the fifth century BCE by Celtic tribes.⁸ Compounding their difficulty, Rome conquered various Etruscan cities during the sixth through to the fourth centuries BCE. This effectively disentangled Rome from its Etruscan neighbors.

The Romans did however inherit or were at least influenced by the Etruscans. In fact, according to Boren, Etruscan influence on the Romans is only second to the Greeks.⁹ Recall, however, that much of Greek influence arrived at Rome through the Etruscans. So, even with respect to Greek influence, the Etruscans can substantiate a claim. Certainly Etruscan art influenced Rome but perhaps more significantly was their influence in the realms of religion and politics. According to Boren, the Etruscans gave to Rome new deities in the form of Juno and Minerva.¹⁰ Additionally, many religious practices were passed on from the Etruscans including the rites for the taking of auspices and the Oriental practice of reading livers or scanning the sky for omens.¹¹ Further, the making of religious statues was passed from the Etruscans to the Romans.

In the sphere of political administration, the functions of officials during the Roman Republic seem to reflect that practiced by the Etruscans. Boren goes on to state that even the very senate as extant during the Republic might have been borrowed from the Etruscans. Further, the Roman army was organized into a phalanx much the same way as was practiced by the Etruscans. Still further, the gladiatorial spectacles including the festival games made famous by Rome Boren associates with the Etruscans.¹²

As discussed further below, the Roman social institution of patron-client appears also to be inherited from the Etruscans. Other social institutions such as the gens (family or clan) seem to have been arranged in a similar Etruscan fashion.¹³

Koester points out that these influences are made visible by examining Roman urban characteristics such as a fortified city with streets, sewers, temples, and administrative buildings.¹⁴ Further, Koester points out that this Etruscan influence is observable in the Latin alphabet, in architecture, metalwork, sculpture, and pottery, and in many civic and religious institutions.¹⁵

The influence and impact of Etruscan society upon the development of Rome cannot be overstated. As briefly mentioned above, those characteristics so often associated with Rome have their very origin with the Etruscans. Further, Greek influences reach Rome not only in a direct fashion but also indirectly through the Etruscan culture. Much more could be said about this topic but it is beyond the scope of the present work.

Emergence of the Early Republic

Ancient Rome can be divided into three main periods: the Kingdom Period (ca. 800–500 BCE), the Republic (ca. 500–1st century BCE), and the Empire (ca. 1st century BCE–5th century CE).¹⁶ These periods are somewhat arbitrary in their delineation; however, the general timeline is informative for understanding the evolution of Roman society from around 800 BCE to the 5th century CE.

There exist different foundational myths for Rome. One such myth involves the founding of Rome by two brothers, Romulus and Remus. It must be appreciated that there is no single definitive story involving these brothers and the founding of Rome but perhaps the best known is the one Livy penned, The Early History of Rome.

According to Livy, Romulus and Remus were the sons of Rhea Silvia, a virgin priestess. Silvia was forced into her position as priestess as her uncle Amulius assumed the throne of Alba Longa by removing his brother, Silvia’s father, Numitor. Notwithstanding her position as a virgin priestess, Rhea Silvia was pregnant claiming that she had been raped by the god Mars. From this assault twins were conceived and born, namely Romulus and Remus. Amulius fearing a challenge to his throne one day by these brothers, ordered them to be thrown into river Tiber. The brothers survived this attempt at murder. As the story goes, a wolf came upon the two babies and began to nurse them. Soon thereafter a shepherd found the twin boys and provided them with shelter and food. The boys grew and when they were young men they were reunited with their grandfather, the deposed king, Numitor. Romulus and Remus worked to reinstate their grandfather to the throne and were successful in their efforts. Once they accomplished this task of reinstating their grandfather, they sought to found a new city. However, they could not agree upon a site for the new metropolis and found themselves in a bitter dispute. One such argument was over the precise site for their new city. Romulus chose the Palatine Hill while Remus desired the Aventine Hill for the new city. Their disagreements grew until one day Romulus killed his brother Remus, thereby becoming the sole ruler of the new city that took his name. The story continues and includes the rape of the Sabine women that ostensibly was needed to increase the population of the new city. It is a fascinating, though tragic in many respects, foundational story that can be analyzed in many different ways. For example, the original founding by two brothers, is this a reflection of a two consul rule that would occupy Rome’s politics? The rape of the Sabine women, what does this portend for Rome’s trajectory? One can continue with such queries, however this is not the subject of this work however interesting such a project might be.

Another foundational myth is found in the epic poem Aeneid, which was composed by the poet Virgil during the decline of the Republic. Virgil began writing the Aeneid in the 1st century BCE but it was not completed when he died in 29 BCE. The Aeneid served as one of Rome’s foundational myths much like the Greek Homeric epic foundational poems known to the Romans. Aeneas, a Trojan found in Homer’s Iliad, traveled to Italy and was destined to be an ancestor of the Romans. The story is filled with intrigue, desire, love, tragedy, as well as destiny.

Some versions of the foundational myths sought to reconcile the Romulus and Remus story with that of Virgil’s Aeneid, for example, Romulus and Remus were Aeneas’ descendants through their mother Rhea Silvia.

According to Cornell, most of the ancient sources agree that Rome was founded by Romulus.¹⁷ After disposing of Remus, Romulus became Rome’s first king—a violent beginning perhaps portending the future. According to Boren, there were approximately six other kings who ruled the kingdom until the last one was finally driven out around 509 BCE thus ushering in the Republic.¹⁸

The archeological record appears to support the founding of Rome in the eighth century BCE.¹⁹ As mentioned above, the early period of Rome was ruled by a series of kings and is sometimes referred to as its Monarchy or Kingdom Period. The last three kings were Etruscans. With the expulsion of the last king Rome was finally liberated from the Etruscans. Following the expulsion of the last king, Rome was ruled by a limited number of powerful families. These patrician families acquired their power primarily through the acquisition of agricultural land.

Governing the New Republic

Rome, at least in theory, was a democracy following the fall of the monarchy. Goodman indicates that laws were passed by the citizenry (males) who met in an assembly (comitia tribute) or, more infrequently, in a gathering of the centuries into which the citizen body was divided (comitia centuriata).²⁰ In these mass meetings, votes were taken in order to declare war or to pass legislation. Votes were also used to appoint magistrates who led troops into battle, or to convene courts and the like.²¹ However, as Goodman points out, there was a divergence between theory and praxis. Full democratic power never truly resided with the citizens of Rome.²² This disconnect was obvious to even the outsider, quoting from Polybius’s Histories 6.11.11–12:

It was impossible even for a native to pronounce with certainty whether the whole system was aristocratic, democratic, or monarchical. This was indeed only natural. For if one fixed one’s eyes on the power of the consuls, the constitution seemed completely monarchical and royal; if on that of the senate, it seemed again to be aristocratic; and when one looked at the power of the masses, it seemed clearly to be democracy.

Yet, the governing bodies were collegial and represented a certain unity, at least among the governing class. There was an ebb and flow of power seen as Rome and its governing structure matured. Over time the occupant of a particular political office changed, for example, some offices could only be occupied by a member from a particular class but as the Republic matured this was to change, at least in part as discussed below. There were criteria associated with particular offices mainly having to do with wealth. So, in theory anyone who possessed sufficient wealth could occupy political office. However, in order to advance up the political ladder one had to have access to powerful friends.

According to Goodman, most Romans desired men possessing a certain prestige and background to occupy high office.²³ This prestige was thought to be associated with age and experience. For a young man seeking high office without having this prestige was almost impossible to attain and realize high office. This should not come as a surprise for even in our experience we generally look to men and women of a certain age and experience as being qualified for a particular office, say the United States Senate or president—or at least in the past this was the case. For Romans, it was considered a desirable characteristic for an ambitious man seeking high office to be able to point to ancestors who also had attained such achievement.²⁴ Those who could not call upon their ancestral past were referred to as novi homines (new men). These individuals had to possess talents that would surpass their ancestral deficiency. However, this lacking in pedigree was always a potential Achilles’ heel especially in the hands of opponents.²⁵ This sentiment is aptly described in a letter sent by Quintas Cicero to his brother Marcus, who sought consulship:

Consider these three things: what state this is, what you are seeking and who you are. Then every day, as you descend to the forum, you must say to yourself, I am a new man; I am standing for the consulship; this is Rome. The political newness of your name you will overcome to a large extent by your reputation as a speaker. . . . Next, let the number and quality of your friends be apparent.²⁶

It appears that all Romans shared a common ideal, they were conservative in that any action taken in accord with mos maiorum (ancestral custom) received approval.²⁷ The Romans embraced an idealized heroic past (just recall their foundation story, The Aeneid). Within this idealization, the Romans appealed to freedom. For many in political office this simply meant the right to advocate a certain position. There was no guarantee that the particular position would be taken seriously or considered with the gravamen of the argument.²⁸ Lex Romana was taken very seriously by the Romans and approached in a most reverenced manner. The system of Roman laws was employed to alleviate social and political ills. This system, Lex Romana, helped to cement and fortify the very foundation of Roman society.

Cornell, in his work The Beginnings of Rome, provides an excellent treatment of the offices in government as established in the newly formed Republic.²⁹ With the removal of the last king the Republic replaced monarchy with a unique institution. This odd institution comprised two men sharing ultimate power to rule the new Republic. The original name or title that each possessed was praetor. This term evolved into consul. The Republic was governed by two consuls each of whom were elected by the comitia centuriata (centuriate assembly) for a period of one year. However, there were limitations placed upon the consuls. Livy informs us, in his work The Early History of Rome, that the earliest consuls

exercised the full powers of the kings, and carried their insignia, with one exception—the most impressive of all—namely the rods [or fasces]. These were allowed to only one consul of the two, to avoid the duplication of this dreadful symbol of the power of life and death. (Livy

2

.

1

)

Cornell observes that these limits placed upon the consuls mitigated the appearance of simply replacing one king with essentially two kings.³⁰

There were other limits placed upon the consuls. The Lex Valeria is an example of such limitation. This law (lex) provides citizens of the early Republic some sort of right of appeal, thus limiting the consular fasces.³¹ Further, the mere existence of a term limit of one year amounts to another limitation of office. Moreover, the presence of two consuls can effectively produce an internal limitation, that is, one consul could frustrate the other’s decision on a particular matter.

Koester points out an interesting aspect to consulship, in 374 BCE a law was passed requiring that one of the two consuls be a plebeian.³² Plebeians, as Koester asserts, were elected to other high offices such as praetors, quaestors, and censors. This is an example of what was alluded to earlier, specifically, that over time the strictures associated with who could occupy particular offices evolved.

Lewis and Reinhold, in their work The Republic and the Augustan Age, refer to Cicero’s Laws III, in order to further explore the governing structure of the Republic. In addition to the consuls, there were minor magistrates including tribunes. These were men who commanded soldiers in the Roman army. Tribunes had other duties as well including the confinement of criminals, carrying out capital punishment, and coinage of money. They carried out whatever the Senate decreed.³³

According to Koester, tribunes were always taken from the plebeian class, elected by a plebeian assembly, namely the comitia tribute. Tribunes were powerful advocates for their class, they held veto power over any public act of the Senate as well as the right to propose laws that went into effect once approved by the comitia tribute.³⁴

The quaestors were officials who served under consuls and were custodians of public money.³⁵

Another class of magistrate was the aediles. These magistrates were essentially the caretakers of the city of Rome. They administered the markets and traditional games held in Rome and eventually throughout the provinces.³⁶

The censors were magistrates who performed tasks, as their name implies, of creating lists of citizens, recording information about these individuals. They were also concerned with creating a database of the slave population. However, their duties extended beyond what their title suggests. Censors also were in charge of temples, streets, and aqueducts within the city. Their responsibilities extended beyond those just articulated having a diversity of functions such as prohibiting celibacy.³⁷

Not to be confused with the praetors mentioned above in connection with consuls, the administrators of justice were known as praetors and they were responsible for deciding civil cases. They were considered the guardian of the civil law.³⁸

According to Cicero, no one could hold the same office a second time until a period of ten years had passed. Additionally, there were age limitations associated with these offices.³⁹

There were various and distinct assemblies. Boren in his monograph, Roman Society, provides an excellent overview of these bodies.⁴⁰ The Curiate Assembly granted imperium (power to rule) to the consuls. This act was a purely formal act. The Centuriate Assembly, as mentioned above, elected consuls, praetors, and censor. This assembly also served as an appellate body in matters concerning capital punishment. The Tribal Assembly elected aediles, questers, and other