Tychicus wrote:
I am curious what motivates you to take such a radical view.
Are you asking why there has been misunderstanding of Romans over the years or are you asking how the clues accumulated over the years (by the scholars) have now begun to point to a clearer understanding of Romans?
I had begun reading Romans on my own. It was around 2003 or 2004 that I recognized the Jew-gentile conflict. I verified with Walter Russell, III, that this was a recent discovery. And by 2007 I had realized that the approach by Paul seemed to pinpoint that he was addressing a gentile audience. Das then was publishing his book "Solving the Romans Debate" which presented his initial argument for a gentile audience. Das' mentor, Paul Achtemeier, had come to this conclusion earlier. Stowers also had come to such a determination but his book , A Rereading of Romans, proposes an unusual idea that the focus of Romans was on Self-Mastery.
So I am basically just coming to some conclusions about Romans based on ideas being proposed by respectable scholars. Das
If by the "older familiar theme of works-vs-faith" you are referring to the Protestant Reformation ideas of Luther and Calvin, then yes, I agree with those more recent scholars (e.g. Dunn, Wright) who think Luther's view needs to be reexamined.
Then why are you asking any questions why anyone would take a radicalized view? Either the issues of Romans have been settled or they haven't. This is the reason why people have kept proposing different readings of Romans.
Sanders stirred the waters. From that Wright and Dunn have sought interpretations of Romans which sought a view of the works-vs-flesh issue as if these were not truly polar opposites. I sort of see Wright as taking on an apologetics mode in his theology -- trying to defend Christianity as if Sanders' was completely right. Sanders was not fully correct. But Sanders' main influence was to remove some of the anti-Jewish bias passed via historic theology.
I see the works-vs-faith issue somewhat along the interpretation of the Luther/Calvin, however I found (through D Campbell's Deliverance of God) many points of the traditional 'justification' model as inaccurate.
The problem with all the readings of Romans is that the commentators have not even followed obvious structures in the text (plus the emotional approach taken by Paul) such that a proper determination of the flow and context of Romans could be made. Most importantly, Paul's rhetorical approach was so subtle that we were not able to detect the problems which Paul was seeking to correct.
What is the evidence that the audience was solely gentile? Paul certainly expected the audience to have a good knowledge of the Old Testament prophets, and he mentions some Jews by name, e.g. Priscilla and Aquila.
I can see where chapter 11 was written primarily to gentiles (see 11:13) partially "in order to promote a benevolent attitude about Jews". But how can you get from there to saying the whole book was written to gentiles?
First it must be clarified that there were both gentile and Jewish believers in Rome. Paul, however, was trying to convince the dominating gentile faction into accepting Jews into common fellowship. As such, he wrote to the gentiles in Rome.
Stowers asks your question in reverse. He basically asks where in the text do we find a specific address to the Jews after Paul has introduced himself as an apostle to the gentiles (however I may not be representing Stowers view properly in all detail here). I would suggest reading Das' Solving the Romans Debate chapter 2.
Das (Sep JSNT 2011) mainly addresses the evidence of a gentile audience in Rom 15 also notes on pg 104:
Likewise in Rom. 1.13 Paul writes: ‘I do not want you to be ignorant, brothers and sisters, that I often planned to come to you (but was prevented until now), in order that I may reap some fruit among you just as I have also among the rest of the gentiles’. Paul refers to ‘the rest’ of the gentiles in relation to his Roman audience.
You can see some of his latest discussion starting on page 29 of the book at this link
Reading Paul's Letter to the Romans
Basically what is important is that we read the letter in its proper context. If people have mistakenly read the letter as if the issues were addressed to Jews, then we end up with a series of misconception about Paul's purpose.
Regarding the required knowledge of scripture, Paul's placement of scripture quotes basically is such that the facial meaning of the text is sufficient to communicate Paul's points. Sometimes Paul is essentially relying on the 'testimony' of scripture (i.e. in 3:10-18) and sometimes he is speaking of prophecy which is relevant. However, all of Paul's use of scripture can be comprehended by a gentile audience -- especially, as in Rome, where many of the original gentile believers had begun their 'Christian' life within the synagogue. Only the basic accounts of Abraham, Genesis, David and a few others were needed for the audience to comprehend the letter. The main reason that commentators have been led to expect deeper understanding of scripture then has been due to the improper determination of the flow and context of Romans.
I looked quickly at
Garlington's review of Das' Solving the Romans debate and I didn't see any problem in answering the issues raised by Garlington. Maybe Garlington can be converted.
The ultimate goals is to find out the true context of Romans. I think I can quite sufficiently prove that the contextual recreation is correct when we look at Romans as being addressed to a Romans audience.
