摒除尊卑之分——罗马书这封宣教者信函的要旨
朱伟特教授（Prof. Robert Jewett）
本院在4月17日特别邀请了著名新约学者朱伟特博士担任早会讲员，并邀请周兆真博士作回应讲员。朱伟特博士的信息强调摒除尊卑之分是罗马书的要旨，此要旨对二十一世纪这充满冲突的世代尤其具有现实意义。今期《院讯》翻译了朱伟特博士当日的讲稿，与读者一同分享信息。
经文：罗一1-17；十四1～十六16
引言
由西方学者所主导的罗马书研究有一个怪现象，就是忽略了书内两个劝勉：十四章1节和十五章7节提到的彼此「接纳」，以及在十六章重复了二十一次的「问某某安」。有关罗马书的著述虽汗牛充栋，却没有一篇文章是以这些劝勉为题的。十六章16节提到的「圣洁的亲嘴」虽较受注意，1 至今却没有一篇专文解释它在教会的处境或罗马书的论证中有何作用。那些阐释罗马书所论的荣辱尊卑的专文，并没有提到「接纳客人」这劝勉在当代社会的意涵。2
这两个劝勉构成了罗马书的高潮，其重要性是不容置疑的。但解经家却缺少了神学和社会学的触觉，不明白这些经文所讨论的是什么。自奥古斯丁（Augustine）以来，人们一直以罪和罪得赦免这两个议题作为罗马书的主要神学论点，这种先入为主的看法，使得我们的神学传统忽略了这书信中那显著的社会议题：排斥卑下（shameful exclusion）和接纳尊贵（honorable welcome）。到底这些主题在罗马书的论证中起着什么作用？在保罗想要针对的处境中，它们与社会及神学有什么关联？这里有没有一个基础，让我们在二十一世纪发展一种彼此接纳、彼此尊重的新伦理？以下让我们先看看罗马书第一章如何论述尊贵与卑下。
1. 摒除尊卑之分的讨论
朱奇（EA Judge）指出，在古代世界，人们每每把赚取尊荣看成人生唯一的目标，保罗则试图在罗马书里把这个普遍的传统扭转过来。 「人们认为对在公职上有建树的人而言，赢得尊荣是最好的报酬。」3 这见解在兰顿（JE Lendon）的书《荣耀的帝国》（Empire of Honour）得到印证，他这样描述罗马帝国那些上流社会的看法：
当一个地位显赫的贵族俯视在他以下的社会，有一度门槛在那里，在这门槛之下，照他的想法，尊荣是不存在的；许许多多的人都没有尊荣，而且最好维持那状况……奴隶正是这类人的典型，他们没尊荣可言。4
罗马书的受众大部分对尊荣无所指望。在罗马社会的阶级里，早期基督徒多是奴隶或作过奴隶的，生来就因为人的偏见被贬低。新约有关shame 的用词包括了可耻的行为，以及加诸别人身上的卑下地位，5 而在罗马书最为突出的是后者。事实上，最具破坏力的耻辱就是这一种，即内化了这偏见：认定某些人或某些群体是毫无价值的，他们的生命无关重要。
莫兹尼斯（Halvor Moxnes）在〈罗马书的尊贵与义〉（“Honour and Righteousness in Romans”）一文中，从古代社会那种看重尊荣的文化背景来探讨罗马书的要旨。在这社会里，「别人的认可和肯定」是很重要的，且意味着「群体比个人更重要」。6 这跟西方神学的主要关注和对罗马书的诠释有所不同，因为后者的关注和诠释「是以罪和罪疚为主导，这罪和罪疚是犯错后的反应」。7 莫兹尼斯发觉尊荣和耻辱/ 卑下的词语组（word fields）在罗马书中扮演着重要的角色，即尊重、羞辱、不知羞耻、羞愧的、使丢脸、光荣、荣耀、赞赏、夸口和夸耀等，在保罗的论证里甚为重要。莫兹尼斯指出，尊贵和卑下这焦点与罗马书的宗旨有关——「把信主的犹太人和非犹太人连成一体」。8 这意味应去除「排斥卑下」的做法，而那是不能靠罪得赦免就能达到的。这与罪和赦罪在罗马书仅为次要议题有关。
不过，莫兹尼斯却忽略了书中其他具有歧视意味的表述和用语，例如：
- 「希腊人、化外人、聪明人、愚拙人」（一14）；
- 出现了二十八次，隐含羞辱性的字眼：「外邦人」；
- 「软弱」和「强壮」（十四1～十五7）；
- 二十五次提到「接待」（welcome）和「问候」（greeting）这些表示敬重的社交行为（遍布最后三章）；
- 七十次提到「义」（righteousness）、「使之成义」（make righteous）等，它们常被误译为「称义」（justification）。
若拿这些跟只在罗马书三章25节出现过一次的「宽容人先时所犯的罪」作比较，就可清楚看到在罗马书的诠释传统里，人们是误将一条主流当为支流。传统的罗马书神学集中在个人因无法按律法生活而有的罪疚，以及罪的赦免上，但我要提出，这封信的中心题旨却是：要借着遵从不同形式的法律，改变那些区分尊卑的谬误制度，以纠正这个世界。
这使得保罗这书信对二十一世纪有崭新的现实意义。在过去多个世纪，强调赦罪是适切的，因为在西方大部分人都因自己未能按律法的标准生活而害怕地狱之火。但赦罪对于今天大多数社会来说，似不像从前般适切。欧洲和北美的人大多不再感到受律法约束，而非洲和亚洲的社会更没有遵守圣经规条的传统。在我们的时代，最主要的冲突源自耻辱——某些被歧视的群体感到受辱。处身这「圣战时代」的回教徒感到受歧视，恨恶被别人支配；事实上，目前以美国为首的西方国家所推行的挑衅性政策，正是优越感的表现。曾受害于种种帝国主义的其他国家，也出于愤恨而起来反抗昔日的宗主国，以致和谐的国际关系难以维持。保罗的论证在当今处境下有重大的意义，因为罗马书第一至三章说，没有人比其他人优胜，所有民族都犯了罪，亏缺了神的荣耀。某些群体声称凭自己种种德行赚得神的祝福，但罗马书三至六章、九至十一章却说，所有人都只能靠恩典得救。我们要用合适的措词，来重新建构宗教改革那「因信称义」（justification by faith）的传统教义。 「因信成义」（Righteous through faith）的意思是接受这福音：基督代替那被羞辱的一群，在羞辱中受死，这意味我们所有人同被看重。保罗在第三章结束时说，神不独是犹太人的神或外邦人的神，因为神的义是一视同仁的。我们若能明白这一点，就会愿意停止所谓神圣之战，转而服从国际公法的同一标准，借此寻求世界和平。
2. 向西班牙的化外人传福音的挑战
这种研究罗马书的新进路，关连于罗马书主要的写作目的：为西班牙的宣教事工寻求罗马人的支援。再次令人感到意外的，在一章14节，保罗用了一些带有歧视的语言，提到「希腊人、化外人、聪明人、愚拙人」。这些词语以十分侮慢的方式，说出了希罗文化的社会分界。正如杜殊（Yves Albert Dauge）等人所指出，9 βάρβαρoς 是希罗文化中的「N-」字（即具负面意义），若这字跟与它对立的另一个字「希腊人」一起使用，就是指那个在罗马帝国以外，也偶而在它以内，威胁到其和平与安全的残暴、乖张、腐败、未开化的领域。这或类似中国古时看北方外族为危险的蛮夷。同样，σoφός（「聪明」）和άvοήτoς（「愚拙/ 没受教育的」）二字，说出了罗马帝国公民和不体面的平民之间的教育分界。叫读者吃惊的，是保罗不仅用了这些区分尊卑的字眼，他更要摇动希罗世界的道德前提——因他宣称，无论是卑下的一群或尊贵的一群，他都欠他们的债。
在这个值得注意的句子之后是一个对比：「先是犹太人，后是希腊人……。」（一16-17）罗马教会以外邦基督徒为主，他们以为自己的种族高人一等，但这里却要改变他们的看法。10 保罗提到「不以福音为耻」（一16），这也为罗马书余下的部分定调。正如我们可以从哥林多前书一章20至31节的平行经文看到的，对古代文化来说，福音本质上是叫人羞耻、叫人丢脸的。身为弥赛亚的救赎者竟被钉死在十架上，这信息「在犹太人为绊脚石，在外邦人为愚拙」。神在卑污的十字架上自我启示，似乎是贬低了神的身分，又妄顾无论在犹太或希罗文化中，那已建立的宗教传统的尊严和恰当性。这样一个福音，并不吸引社会上尊贵高尚、有德有义的一群，它却似乎专为吸引遭人藐视、无权无势的一群而设计。让我们再看看哥林多前书的话：「神却拣选了世上愚拙的，叫有智慧的羞愧；又拣选了世上软弱的，叫那强壮的羞愧。神也拣选了世上卑贱的、被人厌恶的……在神面前一个也不能自夸。」（林前一27-29）本来有很强的理由叫保罗以福音为耻，但他声称不以福音为耻，标示福音已开展了一场社会和意识形态的革命。
这个革命性观点跟西班牙的宣教使命有直接关系。在罗马书十五章24节，保罗讲述他的计划：「盼望从你们那里经过，得见你们，先与你们彼此交往，心里稍微满足，然后蒙你们送行。」「送行」一词是重要的，那与西班牙的宣教使命有关的。解经家认为它是早期宣教圈子惯用的术语。11 保罗正礼貌地请求罗马人为他的宣教事工提供后勤支援。12 在十五章28节，保罗说当他把捐款送交耶路撒冷后，「就要路过你们那里，往西班牙去」。这又是意在言外，用意是邀请罗马教会提供支援。
西班牙的宣教使命有什么特别，须要这样深思熟虑地准备？假如整卷罗马书确实与这事工有直接关系，为什么需要这些？为什么保罗认为用他在帖撒罗尼迦或哥林多的做法，照样在西班牙开展事工是不可行的？为什么要事先准备，而不是首先前去会堂讲道，找个当地的赞助人，再建立一个地方教会？根据当今获得的资料，我们可以为这个问题找到答案。
新资料涉及犹流－革老丢（Julio-Claudian）王朝期间，是否有犹太人居住在西班牙。旧日解经家主要根据一些过时的资料，假定有犹太社群居于西班牙。13 可是事实上，正如保云斯（WP Bowers）所指出，直到公元三至四世纪，西班牙才有相当数量的犹太殖民。14
西班牙没有犹太殖民，会对保罗一贯的宣教策略构成重大障碍。除了欠缺犹太人这些福音对象外，他也难以在西班牙各城招聚一群敬畏神的外邦人或归主的犹太教徒，作为发展教会的核心成员。不会有人因全心信赖七十士译本而对弥赛亚来临的宣告感兴趣。没有会堂，保罗就难以使用他往日在东部希腊诸城设立工作基地的途径。保罗在所到之地，尽可能在会堂开始他的宣教活动，遇有麻烦或有赞助人出现之后，就迁移到一个宣教基地。15 没有会堂作起点，就极难接触到合适的赞助人——这对保罗这个以手作维生的社会阶层尤其困难。
当地没有会堂，也带来相关的经济难题，因为往来各地的犹太人经常利用这类地方作为旅馆和生意的联系。西班牙既没有地方会堂这个资源，就要事先寻找工作基地和招揽合适的赞助人。由于西班牙的经济资源由罗马人控制，矿场、工业和土地大部分也为罗马帝国直接拥有或管理，16 要解决资源问题就可能要借助一些靠近罗马政府官员的人。由此可见，没有犹太殖民导致保罗必须重新部署往西班牙传福音的整体策略。
让我们看看西班牙那段时期的文化情况。我发现从罗马人的观点来看，保罗在罗马书一章14节所提到的卑下的「化外人」是包括了西班牙人在内的。尽管西班牙有一个归化罗马的上流社会，但部分人却未为外表美丽的罗马文化所薰陶。17 特别是农村及北部的居民根本与希罗文化没有交流。大体而言，「那些拥有罗马公民权利、多少被罗马化的人，只占西班牙人口的少数，至于其余的人，身分地位还是一样……。」18 西班牙所用的语言对保罗这个惯说希腊语的人来说，也构成很大阻碍。大城市一般是说拉丁语的，虽然有时说得不流利，但「西班牙的伊比利人（Iberians）和塞尔特－伊比利人（Celt-Iberians）却说自己的语言……」。19 近期有关西班牙文化的研究证实了这点。
在语言及政治层面上，西班牙的情况都对保罗的宣教策略带来巨大挑战。他须要以拉丁语宣讲和教导，但他不见得能够说流利的拉丁语而无需翻译员协助。要开拓这样的资源确实困难，因为当时希伯来圣经还没有拉丁文译本，而最早说拉丁语的教会到第二世纪中期才出现。20 就连罗马教会在第三世纪中期以前也是说希腊语的；21 至于西方其他地区，教会多个世纪以来亦一直受希腊移民所影响。22 把福音、礼拜文和口传的教导翻译成另一种语言是艰巨的，特别要跨越西班牙那狭小的拉丁化圈子，是需要额外的翻译资源。保罗先前在一些说希腊语的区域取得成功，但那些拉丁化城市却与这些区域不同，它们以颇不同的方式作为罗马帝国管治和文明的前哨基地。因此，在当地寻找赞助人时必须小心，对方要不为土生土长的人所憎恶。
总之，前往西班牙宣教所要求的是另一层次的计划和支援，与保罗早期随机应变式的宣教策略相比，是一大转变。
3. 消除罗马教会内的大民族主义
明白了向西班牙的「化外人」传福音所带来的挑战，我们就能理解为何罗马书用那么多篇幅来处理罗马教会的大民族主义。既然这些信徒视对方为危险的化外人，拒绝彼此接纳，他们的行为就跟西班牙的罗马人不相伯仲。在这样的情况下宣教，只会令西班牙人感到又是可恨的罗马帝国主义强压下来。故此保罗要用那么多时间，指出如何消除大民族主义。
在十四章13节及十五章7节，保罗劝读者要「彼此接纳」（mutual “welcome”），解经家们认为这劝告与教会的处境有关。信中特有的伦理教导是这样开始的：「信心软弱的，你们要接纳，但不要辩论所疑惑的事。」（罗十四1）这里明显是指犹太人的保守派基督徒，他们被视为「软弱」的一群，受到罗马大多数的外邦基督徒所歧视。 「软弱」一词带有轻蔑之意，大部分人以为这些犹太人太「软弱」了，以致未能摆脱犹太律法的束缚。这群人很可能包括了第十六章所提到的曾被放逐的犹太基督徒，他们在革老丢法令（the Edict of Claudius）废除后重返罗马。根据韦福（Wolfgang Wiefel）的研究，这群犹太人看来不被接纳，因而无法融入这个他们昔日曾一起建立的群体之中。双方在神学、伦理、崇拜和领导上出现了冲突。我们从保罗的劝告得知，有人「为不同的见解争辩」，即把别人带到一旁，教训一番。然而保罗强调一种无条件的接纳，提醒自由派须接纳保守派，不应试图改变对方。我们从十五章7节的措词看出，保罗把这原则伸延至双方：「所以，你们要彼此接纳……」，这符合十四章1节至十五章7节的要旨，那里禁止信徒在教会里试图改变对立者：双方要互相造就，不要攻击对方的人格，尽管双方的神学和文化在教会里引发不同的观点和做法。
在第十六章，保罗向一大批人士问安，这些人是他先前在地中海东部一带宣教时认识的。他们之所以回归罗马，是与公元54年革老丢法令失效有关。使徒行传显示，保罗在罗马书十六章3至5节问候的百基拉和亚居拉是早年被迫离开罗马的难民，而保罗则在公元50年冬到达哥林多时遇上他们。第十六章也提到另一些可能是难民的人：以拜尼土、马利亚、安多尼古、犹尼亚、暗伯利、耳巴奴、士大古、亚比利……等。保罗何以认识这些早期的基督徒领袖？最可能的解释是，他们是在流亡期间认识的。保罗知道他们在尼禄（Nero）执政早期的太平日子里，在公元56至57年他在哥林多写罗马书之前，已经回到罗马帝国的首都来。
林普（Peter Lampe）在他有关罗马基督教的大部头著作中，23 指出了基督教在罗马城开展的确实地域。林普基于五类型考古学和文学证据的脗合性，采用地形学的方法找到早期家庭教会两个最可能的聚会地方：特拉斯提凡尔（Trastevere）和移民聚居地波特迦百拿（Porta Capena）周边的阿比亚街道（Appian Way）一带。此为奴隶和手作工人聚居的贫民区，而第十六章所提到的名字，代表了罗马城人口中最低下的一群，他们正是住在这些贫民区里。
这个主题——欢迎及接纳一切低下的外人，在第十六章透过信函的惯用语继续表达。 「问某某安」在此章以不同形式重复了二十一次。在希罗文化里，「问安」的意思实际上是用手臂绕着对方，拥抱或亲吻他们，以表示欢迎。那是主人在客人进入屋里时惯常做的动作。因此，这个重复的劝勉，与十四章1节和十五章7节有同一含义：欢迎别人到你们的爱筵来。
这要求的高潮出现在十六章16节：「要用圣洁的亲嘴彼此问安」，这样问安能消除早期基督徒群体之间的冲突。跟现今世界不少亲嘴的习俗很不一样，在保罗时代，这种亲嘴主要是一件在家里作的事，即遇见家人时互相亲吻。对早期的基督徒群体来说，圣洁的亲嘴使这个扩大了的家更为团结；它实际上是说，你就是我的「兄弟」「姊妹」，是极为尊敬的表达。那时大部分基督徒都不能拥有一个安乐窝，从这一点看，当他们聚集一起用餐，亲嘴这个动作就延伸至家人以外的其他对象，此为早期基督徒爱筵常有的特色。不过，我想指出的是，以这方式「彼此问安」可以消除早期基督徒群体之间的敌意和偏见，使他们准备好向罗马帝国以外的西班牙人宣教。
这个慷慨和白白赐下恩惠的福音，被基督徒的大民族主义出卖了；因着这大民族主义，把世界联结起来的使命遭受阻挠，正如在保罗的年代，它危害到向西班牙的化外人宣教的计划。
4. 罗马书主旨的新亮光
罗马书的主旨是：神的义是世上最强大的力量。在一章16节，保罗说福音「是神的大能，要救一切相信的」。基督饱受凌辱，在十架上受死——这样的福音粉碎了标榜文化优越性的一切努力。福音透过基督向我们启示，祂的死表达了神对人最深的爱，也暴露了人性最彻底的堕落。基督揭示了宗教最大的矛盾：宗教可以被滥用为谋取地位的工具，以致我们可以说：「我们比你们公义。」或说：「我们比你们更懂得寻求自由与平安。」保罗因而明确指出，生命的转化是「一切相信的人」都可得到的，不论是活在希罗文化下的人或是化外人。神的义推翻了各个国家和群体所设立的，用以划分贵贱的不公平制度，表明了全人类都是神所爱的，并且这爱是神圣、一视同仁和公义的。神这大能要求我们彼此接纳。西方解经家还未明白这个道理，他们自宗教改革以来，就努力阐述称义的正确教义，好证明他们那群信徒的优越性。这导致西方解经家忽视了形成罗马书高潮的最后几章的重要意义——信徒要彼此接纳，不因神学上的分歧而彼此排斥。我相信十六章17至20节和十六章25至27节两段经文是人们早期添加的，为要避开保罗论证中的包容意涵，反认定排外才是保罗的准则。
事实上，保罗在这最长的一封书信里，用了十六章来说明应怎样理解基督所彰显的神的义，并将之活出来。这直接关系到应如何理解十五章33节的「赐平安的神」，以及十五章7至13节的全球性复和。若神的义果真是一视同仁的，我们在国际场景里，就该按国际法一视同仁地对待其他国家。在教会的场景里，在类似罗马那种会众互相争竞的处境中，就意味该邀请群体里的成员参加自己的爱筵；这爱筵是庆贺基督代替卑微的人经历羞辱性的死而建立的团契（koinonia）。神的义的救赎大能，是借着彼此问安，借着聚会开始时圣洁的亲嘴而传开的。
总结
时候到了，随着二十一世纪来临，我们应认真地思考早期基督徒集体生活的真正本质、化外人被视为低下这个议题、宗教何以沦为一个取得尊荣的工具，以及神那一视同仁的义。当代基督徒、回教徒和犹太人所使用和鼓吹的暴力，反映了他们对神的义有扭曲了的观念，又有人妄想借暴力成就良善；最能对应这一切的，正是基督在十架上忍受羞辱的福音。这讲说神的义的福音，是全世界真正的权力中心，那里有被人看为低下的地位，那里就有胜过它的福音；这使我们知道，无论我们身处耶路撒冷或地极的哪一端，我们全都是神所爱的儿女。化外人和居住于罗马帝国中心的公民，不论他们身在何处，在基督里他们之间的分界已被彻底消除了。假如人们明白这一点并将之活出来，那么二十一世纪的历史将反映全球复和的使命的实现，这使命正是保罗昔日写罗马书时提出的。
____________________________________________
1 参Stephen Benko, “The Kiss,” in Pagan Rome and the Early Christians, ed. S. Benko (Bloomington: Indiana University, 1984) 79-102；John Ellington, “Kissing in the Bible: Form and Meaning,” BT 41 (1990): 409-416；William Klassen, “The Sacred Kiss in the New Testament,” NTS 39 (1993): 122-135；Eleanor Kreider, “Let the Faithful Greet Each Other: The Kiss of Peace,” Conrad Grebel Review 5 (1987): 28-49；W. Lowrie, “The Kiss of Peace,” TTo 12 (1955): 236-242；Nicholas James Perella, The Kiss: Sacred and Profane: An Interpretative History of Kiss Symbolism and Related Religio-Erotic Themes (Berkeley: University of California, 1969)；Klaus Thraede, “Ursprünge und Formen des 'Heiligen Kusses' im frühen Christentum,” JAC 11-12 (1968-1969): 124-180。
2 Halvor Moxnes, “Honour and Righteousness in Romans,” JSNT 32 (1988): 61-77，此文发展了之前一篇文章的思想，该文为“Paulus og den norske vaeremåten. 'Skam' og 'aere' i Romerbrevet” [Paul and Norwegian Culture. “Shame” and “Honor” in Romans], NorTT 86 (1985): 129-140。
3 EA Judge, “The Conflict of Educational Aims in New Testament Thought,” Journal of Christian Education 9 (1966): 38-39；他引述了Sallust, Bellum Jugurthinum LXXXV: 26的一句：「沉默只会使人误以谦逊取代一颗内疚的良心」。
4 JE Lendon, Empire of Honour (Oxford: OUP, 2001), 96.
5 参A. Horstmann, “α_σχύvoμαι be ashamed,” EDNT 1 (1990): 42-43，此语突出了被别人「羞辱」的意思，它有别于为自己的行为「感到羞愧」的主观意思，后者特别见于παισχύνομαι 的用法。
6 Moxnes, “Honour and Righteousness in Romans,” 63.
7 Moxnes, “Honour and Righteousness in Romans,” 62.
8 Moxnes, “Honour and Righteousness in Romans,” 64.
9 Yves Albert Dauge, Le Barbare. Recherches sur la conception romaine de la barbarie et de la civilisation Collection Latomus 176 (Brussels: Latomus, 1981): 393-810，作者指出在罗马文献中，「化外人」一词所形容的外人是非理性、野蛮、好战、疏离、无秩序的，在各方面都与文明的罗马人相反。
10 参James C. Walters, Ethnic Issues in Paul's Letter to the Romans (Valley Forge: TPI, 1993), 68-79。
11 Michel, Römer, 369.
12 CH Dodd, The Epistle of Paul to the Romans (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1932), 229.
13 Ernst Käsemann, Commentary on Romans, trans. GW Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), 398; CEB Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, vol. 2 (Edinburgh: Clark, 1979), 769; Michel, Römer, 369；Emil Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ: 175 BC-AD135, vol. 3, rev. ed., G. Vermes et al. (Edinburgh: Clark, 1986), 84-85，Schürer 此新修订的版本在这一点上更正了之前的版本，考虑到Bower 在其作品所提出的见解。
14 WP Bowers, “Jewish Communities in Spain in the Time of Paul the Apostle,” JTS 26 (1975): 400.
15 参Stanley Kent Stowers, “Social Status, Public Speaking and Private Teaching: The Circumstances of Paul's Preaching Activity,” Novum Testamentum 26 (1984): 68-73，当中有证据显示，赞助人的家是保罗宣教的主要场所。也有学者提出保罗可能用工场作为宣教的场所，参Ronald F. Hock, The Social Context of Paul's Ministry: Tentmaking and Apostleship (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980)。
16 M. Rostovtzeff, The Social and Economic History of the Roman Empire (Oxford: Clarendon, 1926；引文取自PM Fraser 修订的第二版，1957), 213f。亦参JM Blázquez (Martínez), “Roma y la explotació'n económica de la Península Ibérica,” Las Raices de España, ed. JM Gómez-Tabanera (Madrid, 1967) 253-281。
17 Rostovtzeff, The Social and Economic History of the Roman Empire, 211-215.
18 Rostovtzeff, The Social and Economic History of the Roman Empire, 215.
19 Rostovtzeff, The Social and Economic History of the Roman Empire, 213.
20 参WHC Frend, The Rise of Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984), 340。
21 参WHC Frend, Town and Country in the Early Christian Centuries (London: Variorum, 1980), 126。
22 参Frend, “A Note on the Influence of Greek Immigrants on the Spread of Christianity in the West,” in Town and Country in the Early Christian Centuries, 125-129。
23 Peter Lampe, Die stadtrömischen Christen in den ersten beiden Jahrhunderten: Studien zur Sozialgeschichte (Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1987; second ed., 1990)；英译本 From Paul to Valentinus: Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries, trans. M. Steinhauser, foreword by R. Jewett (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003)。
李金好译
本文承蒙朱伟特博士授权翻译，谨此致谢。
The Seminary invited world renowned New Testament scholar, Professor Robert Jewett, to be our speaker at the morning chapel on April 17. Dr. Chow Siu-chun was the respondent. Dr. Jewett claimed Roman's main theme is the overcoming of shameful status and pointed out that this same issue often lies behind the many conflicts of the 21st century. We are indeed privileged that Dr. Jewett has granted HKBTS's English Newsletter permission to publish his manuscript in this issue.
Scripture: 1:1-17, 14:1-16:16
Introduction
One of the oddities of Romans research, dominated thus far by western scholars, is the lack of interest in the twofold admonition to “welcome” each other in Rom 14:1 and 15:7 and the twenty-one repetitions of the formula “greet so and so” in chapter 16. In the vast scholarly literature on Romans, there is not a single article devoted to either of these terms. The reference in 16:16 to the “holy kiss” has attracted more attention,1 but no study has thus far explained its function in the congregational situation or the argument of the letter. In the studies written on the dialectic between honor and shame in Romans, there is no mention of the social function of honoring guests implicit in these references.2
Given the fact that these admonitions form the climax of the letter, their significance is indisputable. Yet commentators have lacked the theological and social sensitivity to understand what was at stake in these prominent references. The preoccupation with issues of guilt and forgiveness, which has dominated the theology of Romans since Augustine's time, has rendered our theological tradition oddly uninterested in the pervasive social issues of shameful exclusion and honorable welcome. What is the function of these themes in the argument of the Paul's letter? What is their social and theological relevance in the situation Paul is attempting to address in Romans? Is there a basis here to develop a new ethic of honorable welcome in the 21st century? We begin the quest with a consideration of the language of honor and shame in the opening chapter of the letter.
I. Overcoming shameful status in the argument of Romans
EA Judge helps us understand that Paul in Romans is reversing a broad cultural tradition in the ancient world that viewed the earning of honor as the only suitable goal for life. “It was held that the winning of honor was the only adequate reward for merit in public life. ”3 This insight was confirmed by Empire of Honor, in which JE Lendon describes the views of the upper class in the Roman Empire:
When a great aristocrat peered down into society beneath him, there was a threshold beneath which, to his mind, honor did not exist; there were people, a great many people, without honor, and best kept that way…. The slave is the archetype of the man without honor.4
Most of the audience of Romans consisted of persons with no prospects of gaining such glory. In the hierarchical context of Roman society, the early Christians were mostly slaves and former slaves who were demeaned from birth on prejudicial grounds. The rhetoric of shame in New Testament usage includes both shameful deeds and shameful status imposed by others.5 It is the second type of shame that surfaces most prominently in this letter. In fact the most damaging form of shame is this second type, namely to internalize prejudicial assessments that persons or groups are worthless, that their lives are without significance.
In “Honor and Righteousness in Romans,” Halvor Moxnes places the argument of the letter in the ancient cultural context of an “honor society” in which “recognition and approval from others” is central, which means that the “group is more important than the individual.”6 This contrasts with the dominant concern of Western theology and interpretation of Romans, “in which guilt and guilt-feeling predominate as a response to wrongdoing.”7 He notes that the word fields of honor and shame play important roles in the argument of Romans, with references to “honor, dishonor, shameless, be ashamed, put to shame, glory, glorify, praise, boast and boasting” playing decisive roles in Paul's argument. This focus on honor and shame relates to the central purpose of the letter as Moxnes understands it, “to bring together believing Jews and non-Jews in one community.”8 This means that shameful exclusion should be overcome, and that cannot be accomplished by forgiveness. This relates to the fact that guilt and forgiveness are decidedly secondary issues in Romans.
To these references, I would add the socially discriminatory categories that Moxnes overlooked such as
- “Greeks and barbarians, educated and uneducated” in 1:14;
- The 28 appearances of the potentially shameful epithet “Gentiles”;
- The categories “weak” and “strong” employed in 14:1-15:7;
- The 25 references to social gestures of honor in the form of “welcome” and “greeting” that dominate the last three chapters;
- And the 70 references to “righteousness,” “make righteous,” etc. that are often mistranslated as “justification.”
When compared with the single allusion to the “passing over previously committed sins” in Rom 3:25, it is clear that a mainstream has been confused for a minor current in the tradition of interpreting Romans. Therefore, in place of the traditional theology of Romans that concentrates on individual guilt and forgiveness for failing to live up to the law, I propose that the central issue is setting the world right by overcoming its perverse systems of honor and shame through conformity to various forms of law.
This allows Paul's letter to have a fresh relevance for the 21st century. Although it was relevant in previous centuries to stress forgiveness because most people in the West feared the fires of hell because they were not living up to the law, forgiveness is less relevant for most societies today. Most people living in Europe and North America no longer feel bound by the law, and the societies in Africa and Asia lack the tradition of biblical rules. The most significant conflicts in our time come from shame in the form of social discrimination. Muslims who dominate the news in this “era of Jihad” resent their domination by others; they feel discriminated against, and in fact the aggressive policies of the west, currently led by the United States, are an expression of the feeling of superiority. Other nations that have suffered from various forms of imperialism act out of resentment against their former masters, which makes peaceful international relations difficult to maintain. Paul's argument has great relevance in this contemporary situation, because Rom 1-3 says that none is superior, that all nations have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. In face of claims that some group earns God's blessings because of its alleged virtues, Rom 3-6, 9-11 says all people can be saved by grace alone. We need to reformulate the classical Reformation doctrine of “justification by faith” in relevant social terms. To become “righteous through faith” means to accept the gospel of Christ's shameful death in behalf of the shamed, which means that all of us humans are equally honored. God is not the God of the Jews or the Gentiles alone, argues Paul at the end of Romans 3, because his righteousness is impartial. If we understood this, we would all be willing to stop crusading against each other, and to place ourselves under the same standards of international law, which would be the key to world peace.
2. The challenge of the mission to the barbarians in Spain
This new approach to the theology of Romans is linked with the central purpose of this letter, which was to enlist Roman support for the mission to Spain. Here again, there is a surprise. In 1:14, Paul employs some discriminatory language by referring to “Greeks and barbarians…wise and foolish.” These terms articulate the social boundaries of Greco-Roman culture in a thoroughly abusive manner. As studies of βάρβαρoς by Yves Albert Dauge and others have shown,9 this is the “N-” word in Greco-Roman culture. When paired with its ideological opposite, “Greeks,” it denotes the violent, perverse, corrupt, uncivilized realm beyond and at times within the Roman Empire that threatens peace and security. There may be parallels here to the ancient Chinese view of the dangerous barbarians of the North. Similarly, the terms σoφός (“wise”) and άvοήτoς (“unwise/uneducated”) depict the educational boundary between citizens of the Roman Empire and the shameful masses. But it is not just Paul's use of these epithets of honor and shame that jars the reader; he undercuts the moral premise of the Greco-Roman world in proclaiming his indebtedness to the shameful as well as to the honorable representatives of the antitheses.
When the remarkable formulation is followed by the antithesis “to the Jew first and also to the Greek” in Rom 1:16-17, there is a reversal of the claim of ethnic priority that was being claimed by the Gentile Christian majority in Rome.10 The reference to not being “ashamed of the gospel” (1:16) also sets the tone for the entire subsequent letter. One can see from the parallel text in 1 Cor 1:20-31 that the gospel was innately shameful as far as ancient cultures were concerned. The message about a messianic redeemer being crucified was a “stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles.” A divine self revelation on an obscene cross seemed to demean God and overlook the honor and propriety of established religious traditions, both Jewish and Greco-Roman. Rather than appealing to the honorable and righteous members of society, such a gospel seemed designed to appeal to the despised and the powerless. To use the words of 1 Corinthians once again, “God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong. God chose what is low and despised in the world …so that no one might boast in the presence of God.” (1 Cor 1:27-29) There were powerful, social reasons why Paul should have been ashamed of this gospel; his claim not to be ashamed signals that a social and ideological revolution has been inaugurated by the gospel.
This revolutionary viewpoint is directly related to the mission to Spain. In Rom 15:24, Paul refers to his plan to “see you in passing as I go to Spain, and to be sped forward on my journey there by you, once I have enjoyed your company for a little.” The crucial element in verse 24 in relation to the Spanish mission is the expression “send forward,” or “sped onward” which is perceived by commentators as something of a technical expression in early Christian missionary circles.11 Paul is politely requesting logistical support for his mission project.12 In 15:28, Paul says that after the offering has been delivered to Jerusalem, “I shall go on by way of you to Spain.” Again by implication this reference invites the Roman churches to become involved in the planning and support of the Spanish project.
What was there about the Spanish mission that required such tactful preparation? If, indeed, the entire letter to the Romans is directly related to this project as I show in the commentary, why was it all necessary? Why did Paul not think it was feasible to start the mission in Spain as he had in Thessalonica or Corinth? Why not arrive without advanced notice or preparation, start preaching in a synagogue, find a local patron or patroness, and build a local congregation of converts? In light of information that is now available, we are now in a position to provide an informed answer to this question.
The first matter on which new information is available relates to the presence of Jewish population in Spain during the Julio-Claudian period. Older commentators assume the presence of Jewish communities in Spain, relying primarily on outdated information.13 In fact evidence of substantial Jewish settlement in Spain does not appear until the third and fourth centuries CE, as WP Bowers has shown.14
The lack of Jewish settlement in Spain posed several large barriers to Paul's previous missionary strategy. Not only did this eliminate the prospects of Jewish converts to the gospel, but it also ruled out finding a group of God-fearers or proselytes in the Spanish cities to recruit as the initial core of Christian churches. There would be no initial interest in a messianic proclamation prepared by devotion to the Septuagint. The absence of synagogues also eliminated the avenues that Paul normally used to establish a base of operations in the Greek cities of the east. Wherever possible Paul began his missionary activities in local synagogues and move to an independent base of operations after troubles erupted or patrons and patronesses emerged.15 Without a synagogue as a starting point, the crucial contacts with appropriate patrons would be extremely difficult to make, especially for a handworker of Paul's social class.
The absence of synagogues would pose a related economic problem, because Jewish travelers often used such buildings as convenient hostels and places to develop business contacts. In the case of Spain, prior arrangements for bases of operations and the recruitment of appropriate patrons would be required in the absence of the resources of local synagogues. Given the Roman domination of the economic resources in Spain and the high proportion of mines, industries, and estates directly owned and managed by the empire,16 it would likely be necessary to approach this problem through persons close to administrators in Rome. The broad consequence of the lack of Jewish settlement is that the entire strategy of the Spanish mission needs to be reconceived.
With regard to the Spanish cultural situation during the period of Paul's intended mission, I have discovered that Paul's reference to shameful “barbarians” in Rom 1:14 would have included the Spaniards, from the Roman point of view. Despite the presence of a small, Romanized upper class in Spain, large portions of the peninsula were substantially untouched by the veneer of Roman civilization.17 The rural population in particular and the northern portions of Spain specifically remained apart from Greco Roman culture. In general, “those who held Latin rights and were more or less Romanized formed a small minority of the population of Spain, while the status of the rest remained the same…”18 On the decisive question of the language spoken in Spain, the barriers to a Greek speaker like Paul were rather high. While Latin was spoken in the major cities, at least in part, and at times rather poorly, the “Iberians and Celt-Iberians of Spain spoke their own languages…”19 Recent studies of the cultural situation in Spain confirm this picture.
The situation in Spain presented Paul's missionary strategizing with formidable challenges both on the linguistic and political levels. Proclamation and instruction in Latin would be required, and there is no evidence that Paul was sufficiently fluent to carry this out without translators. Indeed, such resources would be difficult to develop, because the Hebrew scriptures were not yet available in Latin, and the first evidence we have of Latin-speaking churches is in the middle of the Second Century.20 Even the church in Rome remained Greek speaking until the middle of the third century,21 while elsewhere in the West the church was associated for centuries with Greek immigrants.22 The translation of the gospel, the liturgy, and the instructional traditions into another language would be a substantial undertaking, especially in light of the fact that a range of additional translation resources would be required to extend past the restricted circle of Latin civilization in Spain. Since the Latinized urban centers functioned as outposts of Roman rule and civilization in ways quite different from the Greek speaking portions of the empire where Paul had scored his earlier successes, care would have to be taken to find local patrons who were not resented by the native population.
In sum, the Spanish mission required a level of planning and support that represented a huge leap from the improvised scheme of earlier Pauline missionizing.
3. Overcoming Chauvinism within the Roman Congregations
When one understands the challenge of a mission to the “barbarians” in Spain, it becomes clear why so much of Romans seeks to overcome chauvinistic behavior among the congregations in Rome. Since these congregations were treating each other as dangerous barbarians, refusing to accept each other, they were behaving much like the Romans had behaved in Spain. A mission under these circumstances would be perceived by the Spaniards as one more exercise in hateful Roman imperialism. This is why Paul spends so much time providing ways to overcome chauvinism.
In 14:13 and 15:7 there is an admonition to mutual “welcome” in a context that commentators agree was closely related to the congregational situation. The specific ethic of the letter opens with the words, “Welcome the one who is weak in faith, but not in order to dispute debatable points” (Rom 14:1). This is a clear reference to the Jewish Christian conservatives, the “weak” who are being discriminated against by the Gentile Christian majority in Rome. The term “weak” was probably applied by the majority in a pejorative sense, depicting their opponents as persons too “weak” to break free from the Jewish law. It is likely that this group included some of the Jewish Christian exiles mentioned in chapter 16 who are now returning to Rome after the lapse of the Edict of Claudius. Following the reconstruction of Wolfgang Wiefel, it appears that they were not being accepted back into the groups they had earlier helped to form. Conflicts over theology, ethics, worship, and leadership had emerged. As we can tell from the wording of Paul's admonition, when they were admitted into these congregations, it was “to dispute debatable points,” that is, to get them in a corner and show them what's what. Paul insists instead on an unconditional form of welcome, in which liberals were to accept conservatives without trying to change them. As we can see from the wording of 15:7, Paul extends this principle both ways: “Welcome one another, therefore…” This fits the argument of 14:1-15:7 which forbids mutual conversion of opponents in the church: each side is to build up the other, protecting the integrity of those whose theology and cultures lead them to different perspectives and practices in the church.
In Romans 16 Paul greets a large number of persons whom he had met in previous missionary activities in the eastern half of the Mediterranean world. They are now back in Rome, which correlates with what we know about official Roman policy. In CE 49 the Emperor Claudius issued an edict banning Jewish agitators from Rome because of uproars over a certain “Chrestus.” I still accept the standard inference that conflicts between Christian evangelists and Jewish zealots and traditionalists in the Roman synagogues led to this edict that disrupted both synagogue and church life in the city until the end of Claudius' career in CE 54. The book of Acts indicates that Priscilla and Aquila, whom Paul greets in 16:3-5, were refugees forced out of Rome whom Paul met in Corinth when he arrived there in the winter of CE 50. Other likely refugees mentioned in chapter 16 are Epaenetus, Mary, Andronicus and Junia, Ampliatus, Urbanus, Stachys, Apelles, Herodion, Tryphena, Tryphosa, Persis, Rufus and his mother. The most probable explanation for Paul's acquaintance with these early Christian leaders is that they met during exile. Paul knows that they have returned to the capitol of the empire during the peaceful, early years of the Nero administration before he writes in the winter of CE 56-57 from Corinth.
The massive study of Roman Christianity by Peter Lampe,23 my colleague in Heidelberg, goes beyond these frequently accepted inferences to suggest the precise districts in the city where Christianity got its start. Using a topographic method based on the coincidence between five different types of archeological and literary evidence, Lampe showed that two of the most likely areas for early Christian house churches were in Trastevere and the section on the Appian Way around the Porta Capena inhabited by the immigrants. These are the slum districts where slaves and handworkers lived, the most shamed element in the population of Rome, whose names surface in chapter 16.
This theme of inclusive welcome of shameful outsiders is continued in the repeated formulas of chapter 16. “Greet so and so” is repeated 21 times in this chapter, in various forms. The meaning of the term “greet” in the Greco-Roman culture is actually to put one's arms around the other, to hug or kiss them as a sign of welcome. It was ordinarily done when a guest enters the house or space of a host. So the implication of this repeated admonition is the same as we found in 14:1 and 15:7, to welcome people into your love feasts.
The climax in this request for mutual welcome, which would overcome the conflicts between these early Christian groups, is found in 16:16, “greet one another with a holy kiss.” In contrast to much of the kissing in the modern world, in Paul's time it was primarily a family matter. One kissed family members when meeting them. In the case of early Christian groups, the holy kiss sealed the solidarity of extended family. It said, in effect, you are my “brother” or “sister;” it is the ultimate expression of honor. And in view of the fact that most Christians did not own homes, the kiss was extended when they met for their common meals. It was a regular feature in the early Christian love feasts. What I would like to point out, however, is that to “greet one another” in this manner would overcome the hostilities and prejudices between early Christian groups, and make them ready to participate in the mission to the imperial outsiders in Spain.
This gospel of generous grace has been betrayed by Christian chauvinism, thwarting the mission to unify the world, just as in Paul's time, it threatened the possibility of a successful mission to the barbarians in Spain.
4. New light on the thesis of Romans
The thesis of Romans is that the righteousness of God is the greatest power in the world. In 1:16, Paul writes that the gospel “is the power of God for salvation, for all who believe.” The gospel of Christ shamefully crucified shatters all efforts to retain claims of cultural superiority. It is revealed in Christ, whose death expressed divine love at its height and exposed human depravity at its depth. Christ revealed the deepest dilemma of religion, that it can be misused as a means of status acquisition, leading us to say, “We are more righteous than you,” and “We know better than you how to achieve freedom and peace.” This is why Paul insists that this transformation is available to all who believe, whether Greco-Romans or barbarians. The righteousness of God overturns the unjust systems of honor and shame that each nation and group creates, showing that all humans are equally loved by God with a holy, impartial, righteous passion. This power demands mutual acceptance of others. This has not been understood by western interpreters, who since the Reformation have devoted their energies to define the correct doctrine of justification so as to prove the superiority of their group of believers. This leads western commentators to disregard the significance of the climactic, final chapters of Romans that call for mutual acceptance in place of theological exclusion of fellow believers. We return to this theme in the final lecture that identifies the interpolations of 16:17-20 and 16:25-27 as early efforts to avoid the tolerant implications of Paul's argument and to establish intolerant exclusion as the norm advocated by Paul.
In fact, Paul devotes 16 chapters of his longest letter to demonstrate how divine righteousness as revealed in Christ should be understood and lived out. This has a direct bearing on how the “God of peace” in 15:33 and the global reconciliation of 15:7-13 should be understood. If divine righteousness is indeed impartial, then in the international arena, we should treat other nations as equals under international law. In the church arena similar to the situation of congregational competition that Paul was facing in Rome, it means inviting members of other groups into one's own love feasts that celebrate the koinonia established by the shameful death of Christ in behalf of the shamed. It is in mutual greetings of one another, through the holy kiss at the beginning of our meetings together, that the redemptive power of divine righteousness is spread.
Conclusion
The time has come in the 21st century for the true nature of early Christian communalism, the issue of barbarian shame, the insight about the perversion of religion into a means of gaining honor, and the message concerning the impartial righteousness of God to become clear. In face of the violent campaigns of contemporary Christians, Muslims and Jews that reflect distorted visions of divine righteousness, and illusions about the capacity to achieve the good through violence, the gospel of Christ shamefully crucified remains supremely relevant. This gospel of divine righteousness is the true power center of the universe, overcoming shameful status where ever it remains, and making us know that we are all God's beloved children wherever we may be on that great circle from Jerusalem to the ends of the earth. In Christ the line between the barbarians and the citizens of imperial centers, wherever they may be located, has been definitively erased. If this were understood and lived out, the story of the 21st century would reflect the fulfillment of the globally reconciling mission that Paul wrote this letter to advance.
____________________________________________
1 See Stephen Benko, “The Kiss,” in Pagan Rome and the Early Christians, ed. S. Benko (Bloomington: Indiana University, 1984) 79-102；John Ellington, “Kissing in the Bible: Form and Meaning,” BT 41 (1990): 409-416；William Klassen, “The Sacred Kiss in the New Testament,” NTS 39 (1993): 122-135；Eleanor Kreider, “Let the Faithful Greet Each Other: The Kiss of Peace,” Conrad Grebel Review 5 (1987): 28-49；W. Lowrie, “The Kiss of Peace,” TTo 12 (1955): 236-242；Nicholas James Perella, The Kiss: Sacred and Profane: An Interpretative History of Kiss Symbolism and Related Religio-Erotic Themes (Berkeley: University of California, 1969)；Klaus Thraede, “Ursprünge und Formen des 'Heiligen Kusses' im frühen Christentum,” JAC 11-12 (1968-1969): 124-180.
2 Halvor Moxnes, “Honor and Righteousness in Romans,” JSNT 32 (1988): 61-77, which develops the ideas in the earlier article, “Paulus og den norske vaeremåten. 'Skam' og 'aere' i Romerbrevet‘ [Paul and Norwegian Culture. ’Shame‘ and ’Honor” in Romans], NorTT 86 (1985): 129-140.
3 EA Judge, “The Conflict of Educational Aims in New Testament Thought,” Journal of Christian Education 9 (1966): 38-39; he cites Sallust, Bellum Jugurthinum LXXXV: 26, “Reticence would only cause people to mistake modesty for a guilty conscience.”
4 JE Lendon, Empire of Honour (Oxford: OUP, 2001), 96.
5 See A. Horstmann, “α_σχύvoμαι be ashamed,” EDNT 1 (1990): 42-43, which lifts up the public sense of persons “being put to shame” by others in contrast to the subjective meaning of “be ashamed” of what one has done, found especially in the use of “παισχύvoμαι.”
6 Moxnes, “Honour and Righteousness in Romans,” 63.
7 Moxnes, “Honour and Righteousness in Romans,” 62.
8 Moxnes, “Honour and Righteousness in Romans,” 64.
9 Yves Albert Dauge, Le Barbare. Recherches sur la conception romaine de la barbarie et de la civilization, Collection Latomus 176 (Brussels: Latomus, 1981): 393-810, showing that the term barbarian in Roman materials serves to depict outsiders as irrational, ferocious, warlike, alienated, chaotic, and in all respects the opposite of the civilized Roman.
10 See James C. Walters, Ethnic Issues in Paul's Letter to the Romans (Valley Forge: TPI, 1993), 68-79。
11 Michel, Römer, 369.
12 CH Dodd, The Epistle of Paul to the Romans (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1932), 229.
13 Ernst Käsemann, Commentary on Romans, trans. GW Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), 398; CEB Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, vol. 2 (Edinburgh: Clark, 1979), 769; Michel, Römer, 369; the new edition of Emil Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ: 175 BC-AD135, vol. 3, rev. ed., G. Vermes et al. (Edinburgh: Clark, 1986), 84-85 correct the earlier edition at this point, taking Bowers' work into account.
14 WP Bowers, “Jewish Communities in Spain in the Time of Paul the Apostle,” JTS 26 (1975): 400.
15 See Stanley Kent Stowers, “Social Status, Public Speaking and Private Teaching: The Circumstances of Paul's Preaching Activity,” Novum Testamentum 26 (1984): 68-73, for evidence suggesting that the homes of patrons were the primary locus of the Pauline mission. The use of workshops for missionizing has been made plausible by Ronald F. Hock, The Social Context of Paul's Ministry: Tentmaking and Apostleship (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980).
16 M. Rostovtzeff, The Social and Economic History of the Roman Empire (Oxford: Clarendon, 1926; citations from the second edition revised by PM Fraser, 1957), 213f. See also JM Blázquez (Martínez), “Roma y la explotació'n económica de la Península Ibérica,” Las Raices de España, ed. JM Gómez-Tabanera (Madrid, 1967), 253-281.
17 Rostovtzeff, The Social and Economic History of the Roman Empire, 211-215.
18 Rostovtzeff, The Social and Economic History of the Roman Empire, 215.
19 Rostovtzeff, The Social and Economic History of the Roman Empire, 213.
20 See WHC Frend, The Rise of Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984), 340.
21 See WHC Frend, Town and Country in the Early Christian Centuries (London: Variorum, 1980), 126.
22 See Frend, “A Note on the Influence of Greek Immigrants on the Spread of Christianity in the West,” in Town and Country in the Early Christian Centuries, 125-129.
23 Peter Lampe, Die stadtrömischen Christen in den ersten beiden Jahrhunderten: Studien zur Sozialgeschichte (Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1987; second ed., 1990); English translation, From Paul to Valentinus: Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries, trans. M. Steinhauser, foreword by R. Jewett (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003).