Mentions of written gospels in Romans 16:25-27

[Giuseppe]

Romans 16:25-27 can be interpreted to mean that the Gospels have been already written by the time the epistle was written:

Now to him who is able to establish you in accordance with my gospel, the message I proclaim about Jesus Christ, in keeping with the revelation of the mystery hidden for long ages past, but now revealed and made known through the prophetic writings by the command of the eternal God, so that all the Gentiles might come to the obedience that comes from faith— to the only wise God be glory forever through Jesus Christ! Amen.

[Giuseppe]

Bolland claims distinctly that the false "Paul" knew the gospel:

One learns once and for all to understand that Justine's 'Memoirs of Petros' (Slide 106), which according to the presbyter of Papias (Eus. H. E. 3: 29) were written down by the 'interpreter of Peter' Mark and according to the Alexandrian tradition (Eus. H. E. 2: 16) were brought to the Alexandrians by this Mark, must have been the writing which in a more or less different reading not only has been known as the 'Gospel of Hebrews', but together with the Alexandrian Clemens (Strom. 3: 9 and 3: 13), the Roman Hippolytus (5:7) and Origen (5: 86 ) can also be called the Gospel of the 'Egyptians'. And from that gospel of the Alexandrian Egyptians have then quoted the Naassene in 'Paul', 'Barnabas' in the second Roman 'Clement', ...

(G. Bolland, DE EVANGELISCHE JOZUA)

It is the first time I read in clear terms, by a Radical Critic, that the first gospel preceded Paul.

[robert j]

Romans 16:25-27 can be interpreted to mean that the Gospels have been already written by the time the epistle was written:

Now to him who is able to establish you in accordance with my gospel, the message I proclaim about Jesus Christ, in keeping with the revelation of the mystery hidden for long ages past, but now revealed and made known through the prophetic writings by the command of the eternal God, so that all the Gentiles might come to the obedience that comes from faith— to the only wise God be glory forever through Jesus Christ! Amen.

The author is referring to the Jewish scriptures.

I don’t think Paul wrote this passage in Romans. But I don’t think of it in terms of ‘pre-Pauline’ or ‘non-Pauline’ or an interpolation. I see at least a handful of passages in Paul’s letters to his communities that I think were written by one or more of Paul’s junior-partners and added to the letters by Paul. These guys were likely more than just Paul's postmen, and Paul wouldn’t recruit and support dunces. I suspect one or more had a proper Greek education and was anxious to please the boss by balancing out Paul’s basic Jewish character with rhetoric that would be more recognizable and appealing to Paul’s Hellenist audience. I think this passage in Romans was written by one of Paul’s junior partners.

Shifting gears here —- This passage in Romans can be seen as providing support for a mythical Jesus without any dependence on a cosmic or heavenly death.


ETA: From the translation above with my change --

" ... about Jesus Christ, in keeping with according to or down from (κατὰ) the revelation of the mystery ... "

[Irish1975]

I don't know if this is a common observation, but it seems most likely that the author/redactor of this closing fragment of Romans also wrote/redacted the prologue of the epistle, since both at 1:5 and at 16:26 we have the phrase εἰς ὑπακοὴν πίστεως, "for the obedience of faith," an expression which (as far as I can tell from a quick search in Strong's) is not elsewhere present in the NT.

In fact, the similarity between the passages is more extensive, since they both refer specifically to obedience of faith on the part of the gentiles:

Romans 1:5
δι’ οὗ ἐλάβομεν χάριν καὶ ἀποστολὴν εἰς ὑπακοὴν πίστεως ἐν πᾶσιν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν ὑπὲρ τοῦ ὀνόματος αὐτοῦ

Romans 16:26
φανερωθέντος δὲ νῦν διά τε γραφῶν προφητικῶν κατ’ ἐπιταγὴν τοῦ αἰωνίου θεοῦ εἰς ὑπακοὴν πίστεως εἰς πάντα τὰ ἔθνη γνωρισθέντος

[Irish1975]

Romans 16:25-27 can be interpreted to mean that the Gospels have been already written by the time the epistle was written:

Now to him who is able to establish you in accordance with my gospel, the message I proclaim about Jesus Christ, in keeping with the revelation of the mystery hidden for long ages past, but now revealed and made known through the prophetic writings by the command of the eternal God, so that all the Gentiles might come to the obedience that comes from faith— to the only wise God be glory forever through Jesus Christ! Amen.

I don’t think so. The Geek text has prophetic in the genitive, plural, (γραφῶν προφητικῶν) i.e.” writings of the prophets”. The author is referring to the Jewish scriptures.

But προφητικῶν is the genitive of the adjective προφητικός, not the genitive of the noun προφήτης. Together they form a compound genitive object of the preposition. So I don't see anything the matter with "through the prophetic writings."

But on substance I agree with Robert. A reference to the Jewish scriptures is likely, since the epistles show many instances of Paul "revealing" something by means of an exegesis.

[robert j]

But προφητικῶν is the genitive of the adjective προφητικός, not the genitive of the noun προφήτης. Together they form a compound genitive object of the preposition. So I don't see anything the matter with "through the prophetic writings."

But on substance I agree with Robert. A reference to the Jewish scriptures is likely, since the epistles show many instances of Paul "revealing" something by means of an exegesis.

Yes, I see your point on the Greek here, thank you. And "through the prophetic writings", would seem preferable.

Meaning, the Jewish scriptures.

[Giuseppe]

Meaning, the Jewish scriptures.

if you concede that Paul is entirely fabricated, then the more probable implication is that "now" the revelation happens according to "writings of the prophets", meaning the gospel as midrash based on the "writings of the prophets".

[andrewcriddle]

16:25-27 is missing from Romans in a few manuscripts. In a number of manuscripts it occurs after 14:23 (either instead of or as well as at the end of chapter 16) in P46 it occurs after 15:33.
There is straightforward textual evidence for doubting its authenticity.

Andrew Criddle

[Irish1975]

16:25-27 is missing from Romans in a few manuscripts. In a number of manuscripts it occurs after 14:23 (either instead of or as well as at the end of chapter 16) in P46 it occurs after 15:33.
There is straightforward textual evidence for doubting its authenticity.

Andrew Criddle

Andrew,

I'm curious what you make of the verbal similarities I noted above, i.e.

Romans 1:5
δι’ οὗ ἐλάβομεν χάριν καὶ ἀποστολὴν εἰς ὑπακοὴν πίστεως ἐν πᾶσιν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν ὑπὲρ τοῦ ὀνόματος αὐτοῦ

Romans 16:26
φανερωθέντος δὲ νῦν διά τε γραφῶν προφητικῶν κατ’ ἐπιταγὴν τοῦ αἰωνίου θεοῦ εἰς ὑπακοὴν πίστεως εἰς πάντα τὰ ἔθνη γνωρισθέντος

and what kind of relationship you think is likely between these parts of the epistle. Was one imitating the other? Is the theology too similar to discount identical authorship?

[andrewcriddle]

16:25-27 is missing from Romans in a few manuscripts. In a number of manuscripts it occurs after 14:23 (either instead of or as well as at the end of chapter 16) in P46 it occurs after 15:33.
There is straightforward textual evidence for doubting its authenticity.

Andrew Criddle

Andrew,

I'm curious what you make of the verbal similarities I noted above, i.e.

Romans 1:5
δι’ οὗ ἐλάβομεν χάριν καὶ ἀποστολὴν εἰς ὑπακοὴν πίστεως ἐν πᾶσιν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν ὑπὲρ τοῦ ὀνόματος αὐτοῦ

Romans 16:26
φανερωθέντος δὲ νῦν διά τε γραφῶν προφητικῶν κατ’ ἐπιταγὴν τοῦ αἰωνίου θεοῦ εἰς ὑπακοὴν πίστεως εἰς πάντα τὰ ἔθνη γνωρισθέντος

and what kind of relationship you think is likely between these parts of the epistle. Was one imitating the other? Is the theology too similar to discount identical authorship?

IMHO 16:25-27 is a paraphrase of Paul's message by a post-Pauline writer. This doxology may have originated as an ending to the 14 chapter version of Romans which appears to have circulated in the early church. (If you regard the 14 chapter version as original and chapters 15 and 16 as both later additions then you might well on that basis regard the doxology as original despite the fact that Marcion appears to have both used a 14 chapter version of Romans and omitted the doxology.)

Andrew Criddle

Edited to Add The doxology may originate as an ending to the 15 chapter version of Romans which also appears to have circulated in the early church. That IMO is at least as likely as it being originally associated with the 14 chapter version.