Romans 1:1-5

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Stuart
Posts: 460
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 12:24 am
Location: Sunnyvale, CA

Re: Romans 1:1-5

Post by Stuart » Sun Mar 03, 2019 11:11 pm

Ben,

I think you miss the point. I do understand that the letters are in size order. But the first version of Romans in the ten letter collection was much much shorter, roughly 45% the current versions size in terms of words. So size may have set the order, except for Galatians (note Philippians was also much shorter, probably smaller than either Thessalonian letters we have now). Galatians headed the collection for theological reasons, but the rest possibly size order (note Corinthians and Thessalonians were possibly sized as a single unit).

Note: we only know about the ten letter collection because a sect kept it in that form and did not assimilate. (In my view the the Gospel of John and 1 John went under a 2nd Catholic redaction, but no sect preserved the older form like the Marcionites did with the first version of Luke and Paul ... this is probably a better way to state it because many non-Marcionite elements and other diversity exists in Paul in the ten letter form)

But my point is, why does Galatians, a letter in the middle of the order, have a full on declaration for the authority of Paul, when it does not head the collection? There is no reason for it. We have to go back in time to when having that mattered, when it headed the ten letter collection. Only then doe sit make sense.

As for Romans, I argue the so-called pre-Pauline Creed is post ten letter collection. None of it's strong anti-Marcionite elements were known in the version the Marcionites had, for certainly the Church fathers would have pointed out immediately the contradictions. with the Marcionite.

Now the first form of Romans opening I argue looked very similar to Ephesians 1:1. I actually went into depth with this some years ago in correspondence with another person I preserved. I'll send that to you in a PM. In fact I go into great detail about how the openings came to be, and why they have the basic form they have.

As for Romans heading the collection as the longest letter, it sort of comes down to when chapters 15 and 16 were added. They seem to have been very late, even after the 13 letter collection was first bound. So that does undercut the order by size argument, as 1 Corinthians would in fact be the first letter (I think 1 Corinthians chapter 16 is as "new" as Romans 16, which kind of evens the playing field). But it should also be noted that multiple orders of the letters emerged in early manuscripts (see 1241, P46 H 049 plus D K L placing Colossians ahead of Philippians) especially of the middle letters and Hebrews before things settled into the Canonical order we have.

My point is that placing Romans first, whatever the "guiding principle" of the overall order, with it's introduction to Paul, his authority, Gospel and Christ, parallels the situation with the ten letter collection. I do not believe it came first solely due to the happy coincidence that it was the longest.
“’That was excellently observed’, say I, when I read a passage in an author, where his opinion agrees with mine. When we differ, there I pronounce him to be mistaken.” - Jonathan Swift

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 6214
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Romans 1:1-5

Post by Ben C. Smith » Mon Mar 04, 2019 6:47 am

Stuart wrote:
Sun Mar 03, 2019 11:11 pm
Ben,

I think you miss the point. I do understand that the letters are in size order. But the first version of Romans in the ten letter collection was much much shorter, roughly 45% the current versions size in terms of words.
I would not claim that Romans was first included in order by word count and then lengthened. It would be the other way around. And (at least) some of the lengthening may have accompanied the ordering, given that Romans now, by word count, stood first.
But my point is, why does Galatians, a letter in the middle of the order, have a full on declaration for the authority of Paul, when it does not head the collection?
Because the rationale for the ordering of the letters may have had nothing to do with declaring Paul's authority. How do you argue that his declaration of authority has to come in the first letter of the collection without merely assuming that it has to come in the first letter of the collection? What is the noncircular evidence for that?
Now the first form of Romans opening I argue looked very similar to Ephesians 1:1. I actually went into depth with this some years ago in correspondence with another person I preserved. I'll send that to you in a PM. In fact I go into great detail about how the openings came to be, and why they have the basic form they have.
I received it, and will look it over. Thank you.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

Bernard Muller
Posts: 3234
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Romans 1:1-5

Post by Bernard Muller » Mon Mar 04, 2019 8:35 am

to Stuart,
But the first version of Romans in the ten letter collection was much much shorter, roughly 45% the current versions size in terms of words.
How do you know that?
But my point is, why does Galatians, a letter in the middle of the order, have a full on declaration for the authority of Paul, when it does not head the collection?
Galatians shows that Paul's was trying to keep his converts, against some Jewish or Jewish Christians preachers. That does not show Paul full authority. But in Romans, Paul is lecturing Gentiles and Jews with great authority.
Now the first form of Romans opening I argue looked very similar to Ephesians 1:1.
Critical Scholars (and myself) think Ephesians was not written by Paul, but by somebody else, around 80-100 CE. It has been also noted that the author of this epistle knew about earlier Pauline letters. So it of no surprise that Ephesians 1:1 would have similarity with the beginning of Romans.

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 10601
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Romans 1:1-5

Post by Secret Alias » Mon Mar 04, 2019 9:58 am

No one writes letters this long. Not even the worst writers in history. The Pauline letters are obviously composite because they meander without any direction or purpose. Come on. The fact that we know the letters look like this isn't the final word. Since other texts had material added to them (the epistle of Ignatius for example) it is possible.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

Bernard Muller
Posts: 3234
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Romans 1:1-5

Post by Bernard Muller » Mon Mar 04, 2019 10:15 am

To Stuart,
I think your OP is full of assumptions.
Note: we only know about the ten letter collection because a sect kept it in that form and did not assimilate. (In my view the the Gospel of John and 1 John went under a 2nd Catholic redaction, but no sect preserved the older form like the Marcionites did with the first version of Luke and Paul ... this is probably a better way to state it because many non-Marcionite elements and other diversity exists in Paul in the ten letter form)
If 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians & Philippians were actually, for each of them, three letters combined into one (which is what I found: see http://historical-jesus.info/appp.html, then "find" on The Corinthians letters), Marcion could not have had the original letters of Paul.
As far as we can be sure through Tertullian and Hippolytus, the Marcionites Corpus does not contain pro-Marcionite elements, but instead, just allows for Marcionite beliefs.
Why take the Marcionite Corpus as the basis? Isn't starting with an assumption?
Why not the canonical epistles & gLuke as the basis of Marcion's corpus?
As for Romans heading the collection as the longest letter, it sort of comes down to when chapters 15 and 16 were added.
Without Chapters 15 & 16, Romans would not have any conclusion. So it makes more sense that these two chapters were omitted in some copies rather than added (see http://historical-jesus.info/60.html).

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed

Stuart
Posts: 460
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 12:24 am
Location: Sunnyvale, CA

Re: Romans 1:1-5

Post by Stuart » Mon Mar 04, 2019 12:17 pm

Bernard,

My argument goes to the recognition that the Pauline collection was always in some form a collection.

As for the individual "letters", I agree with Stephen are tracts, not letters. These tracts were pseudonymous before they were in the collection, and those like the Corinthians and Hebrews simply collected similar material.

The collector would have framed the tracts as letters. In the process he would have added openings, most following a simple formula. Elements of pseudo biographical or incidental conversation would have been added to "personalize" these "letters", drawn from legends of Paul.

The endings are equally artificial as the openings. The first collector almost certainly lacked the "salutations" to a host of people. -- I could give a strong argument as to why these were impossible in the ten letter form strictly on theological grounds, but that is another topic. Instead he ended them very curtly with simply "grace be with you" or "grace of the lord Jesus be with you". This is similar to the first openings with were simply "Paul and apostle of Christ Jesus, to the assembly at (place) and the saints, grace and peace from God the Father and Lord Jesus Christ". Very much a formula.

The greeting/opening and endings only existed when the collection was formed. The entire concept of letters needing an ending presumes these tracts stood alone in letter form outside the collection. We have no evidence of that whatsoever.

Back to Romans. the lack of ending led to the creation of 16:25-27. The wording make sit clear that it is part of the second revision, as it calls for obedience of the faith, that is falling in line with the church leadership. This of course is impossible were it from Paul, as the churches at that time were anything but the hierarchy that latter developed, more mom and pop startups as part of early evangelism (another of those fast forward into the distant future proclamations Paul makes -- he has better predictive powers of the future than Jesus it seems!). Were you concluding chapters in place both that doxology and also Romans 16:24 (follows the standard "grace of the lord Jesus Christ be with you" formula) would not have existed in manuscripts.

I think it's more likely 16:24 fell out of early copies. This led to the creation of a new ending by the 2nd writer.

I see Chapter 15 as something added on as similar to chapter 14 themes, but with Pastoral terminology littering it. Chapter 16, Tertius greetings to Phoebe as completely superfluous material that got tacked on, with names drawn from a variety of legends and probably an inside joke snuck in there of one or two of the writer's buddies names got snuck in (Kilroy was here). Similar for Chapter 16 of 1 Corinthians. We see the 2nd revision writer's hands in many of the endings as the collection for the poor theme.

But again all this only exists with a collection.
“’That was excellently observed’, say I, when I read a passage in an author, where his opinion agrees with mine. When we differ, there I pronounce him to be mistaken.” - Jonathan Swift

Bernard Muller
Posts: 3234
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Romans 1:1-5

Post by Bernard Muller » Mon Mar 04, 2019 4:16 pm

to Stuart,
My argument goes to the recognition that the Pauline collection was always in some form a collection.
How can you be sure of that?
More so that towards the end of the first century, Colossians, Ephesians and 1 Thessalonians were written in the name of Paul. The author of Ephesians knew about Colossians (and some other Pauline epistles), the author of 2 Thessalonians knew about 1 Thessalonians, and the author of 1 Clement knew about Paul & some Corinthians epistles. And in the first part of the 2nd century, some author(s) were writing the "Pastorals" again in the name of Paul.
All of that showing that some orthodox Christian communities the Pauline brand had some authority. And therefore the Pauline epistles would have been collected epistles by communities. And it would have been easy for Marcion to get hold of the ten epistles.
As for the individual "letters", I agree with Stephen are tracts, not letters. These tracts were pseudonymous before they were in the collection, and those like the Corinthians and Hebrews simply collected similar material.
This is another assumption.
The collector would have framed the tracts as letters. In the process he would have added openings, most following a simple formula. Elements of pseudo biographical or incidental conversation would have been added to "personalize" these "letters", drawn from legends of Paul.
These are other assumptions.
I could give a strong argument as to why these were impossible in the ten letter form strictly on theological grounds, but that is another topic.
I would like to hear about your strong argument.
Instead he ended them very curtly with simply "grace be with you" or "grace of the lord Jesus be with you". This is similar to the first openings with were simply "Paul and apostle of Christ Jesus, to the assembly at (place) and the saints, grace and peace from God the Father and Lord Jesus Christ". Very much a formula.
Do you have evidence for? that looks again like assumptions.
Back to Romans. the lack of ending led to the creation of 16:25-27. The wording make sit clear that it is part of the second revision, as it calls for obedience of the faith, that is falling in line with the church leadership.
Ro 16: 25-27 appears either at the end of chapter 14, or 15 (with 16 existent), or 16 in the ancient manuscripts. Some ancient manuscripts ended at the end of chapter 14, with no doxology (that's where Marcion ended his version of Romans).
That does not show that the doxology was put to the initial text of Romans at the end of chapter 14.
Paul makes -- he has better predictive powers of the future than Jesus it seems!).
Paul did not predict the persecution of Nero on the Christian of Rome and the fall of Jerusalem.
But Jesus does predict the fall of Jerusalem in the synoptic gospels. Why? Because these gospels were written after the events of 70 CE. But Paul did not because his epistles were written before the persecutions in Rome and the fall of Jerusalem.
I think it's more likely 16:24 fell out of early copies. This led to the creation of a new ending by the 2nd writer.
You are assuming.
I see Chapter 15 as something added on as similar to chapter 14 themes, but with Pastoral terminology littering it. Chapter 16, Tertius greetings to Phoebe as completely superfluous material that got tacked on, with names drawn from a variety of legends and probably an inside joke snuck in there of one or two of the writer's buddies names got snuck in (Kilroy was here). Similar for Chapter 16 of 1 Corinthians. We see the 2nd revision writer's hands in many of the endings as the collection for the poor theme.
You have a lot of imagination.

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed

Michael BG
Posts: 644
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 8:02 am

Re: Romans 1:1-5

Post by Michael BG » Tue Mar 05, 2019 4:34 am

Stuart, I found some of your ‘assessment’ interesting, especially the idea that it is unlikely that Paul would write “gospel of God”. However it also is used at Roms 15:16, 2 Cor. 11:7, I Thess 1:5, 2:2, 2:8 and 2:9.

I still think ‘adoptionism’ is early and this is stage one, Jesus appointed Son of God at resurrection. Therefore I think it is unlikely that Roms. 1:1-6 was added in the second century. While I think it is possible that Mark is ‘adoptionist’ (at baptism), I have never considered Luke as ‘adoptionist’.

Bernard Muller
Posts: 3234
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Romans 1:1-5

Post by Bernard Muller » Wed Mar 13, 2019 11:12 am

I am been thinking about ὁρισθέντος in Romans 1:4.
The word can have (at least) three meanings:
1) Appointed/ordained
2) Marked off/marked out
3) decided/determined

In the first case, I find the Resurrection appointing/ordaining Jesus as Son of God is very bizarre. Normally, it would be God doing that, not an event, just like: Acts 10.42: "And He ordered us to preach to the people, and solemnly to testify that this is the One who has been appointed by God as Judge of the living and the dead."

In the second case event, "mark out" makes more sense. But from whom Jesus as Son of God would be marked off/out? Obviously humans. Of course "from other humans" is not in Ro 4:1, but I do not think it needs to be said (it cannot be angels, these ones do not die). Just like in Joshua 18:20, there is no need to say that the territory of the Benjamin tribe is marked off on the east side by the Jordan from territory farther east.
"Moreover, the Jordan shall mark it off on the east side. This was the inheritance of the sons of Benjamin, according to their families and according to its borders all around."
And in Hebrews 4:7, "fixes" can also be "marks out" (from all other days): "He again fixes a certain day, "Today," saying through David after so long a time just as has been said before, "Today if you hear His voice, Do not harden your hearts.""

In the third case, I take "decided/determined" as a mild form of "appointed/ordained". But it is still bizarre that the Resurrection does the deciding.

So, I think the second case makes the most sense. But that does not mean that ὁρισθέντοςat cannot be seen or heard in multiple instances as meaning appointed/ordained or decided/determined.
I also think that "mark out" is the core meaning of the word because:
Almost all the examples that Ben gave in viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2494&start=20#p55982 could be translated by "mark out" even if the textual context of the quoted verses invites the use to a less ambiguous word.
The same goes in Antiquities 10.11.7 §267 where Josephus wrote that Daniel prophetically "determined the season" (καιρὸν ὥριζεν).

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed

Stuart
Posts: 460
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 12:24 am
Location: Sunnyvale, CA

Re: Romans 1:1-5

Post by Stuart » Wed Mar 13, 2019 12:37 pm

Bernard,

The ten letter form I speak of is the Marcionite. If you do not accept the Marcionite text as an earlier form, which I think is an extremely weak position, then these things become "assumptions." But I challenge any claiming they are not earlier forms to explain the vocabulary differences between the attested "Marcionite" form of Paul and the Canonical form. This is only one of the arguments for that being earlier.

If the text is not attested in the "Marcionite" form (which I argue they simply preserved, by dropping out of the main stream and having their own churches, so didn't have the same textual development and scriptural additions, which even the Gnostics had by remaining in the main body), which is what I am informing you, then if you accepted the earlier form, you have to demonstrate that the unattested text is consistent with the attested text in the ten letter form to claim it is part of the early strata.

That consistency has to include the vocabulary, the points of theology, the voice of the writer (can't be switching from "I' to "we" for example), and the focus. I would also add that the character has to be maintained. Paul, for example is a command figure who accepts no caveats to his authority in the attested text (e.g. in the attested earlier form of 1 Corinthians 5:5 Paul says he delivered up this one to Satan, which 1 Timothy 1:20 borrowed for different purposes, but in the Canonical text Paul asks the locals to deliver this one to Satan, a more passive Paul, typical of the catholic revision).

Bernard, that is the challenge for you. To show these passages which are not attested, and which conflict with the theology are in fact part of the first layer. Until you do that you are attempting to compare apples to oranges.
“’That was excellently observed’, say I, when I read a passage in an author, where his opinion agrees with mine. When we differ, there I pronounce him to be mistaken.” - Jonathan Swift

Post Reply