Romans 9-11 & the temple's destruction

[Ben C. Smith]

There is an old thread viewtopic.php?f=3&t=168 about the textual history of Romans which may be of interest.

From that thread:

chapter 15 on internal evidence is clearly Pauline.

Care to elaborate on this point?

Romans 15:1-13 continues the argument of chapter 14. An ending at 14:23 is far too abrupt.

Romans 15:14-32 is closely related too Romans 1:8-13 in theory this could be imitation by a later writer but it would be a very subtle imitator.

It is true that Romans 14.23 makes for an unsatisfactory ending for this epistle, even if capped off by the (almost certainly spurious) doxology.

As for the travel plans of Romans 15.14-32, there is more to them than the (very real) correspondence with Romans 1.8-13; there is also this interesting sequence having to do with the (in)famous collection:

Galatians 2.10: 10 They only asked us to remember the poor — the very thing I also was eager to do.

1 Corinthians 16.1-4: 1 Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I directed the churches of Galatia, so do you also. 2 On the first day of every week each one of you is to put aside and save, as he may prosper, so that no collections be made when I come. 3 When I arrive, whomever you may approve, I will send them with letters to carry your gift to Jerusalem; 4 and if it is fitting for me to go also, they will go with me.

2 Corinthians 9.1-4: 1 For it is superfluous for me to write to you about this ministry to the saints; 2 for I know your readiness, of which I boast about you to the Macedonians, namely, that Achaea has been prepared since last year, and your zeal has stirred up most of them. 3 But I have sent the brethren, in order that our boasting about you may not be made empty in this case, so that, as I was saying, you may be prepared; 4 otherwise if any Macedonians come with me and find you unprepared, we — not to speak of you — will be put to shame by this confidence.

Romans 15.25-26: 25 But now, I am going to Jerusalem serving the saints. 26 For Macedonia and Achaea have been pleased to make a contribution for the poor among the saints in Jerusalem.

The presumed sequence of events is subtle, but cohesive:

1. Paul instructs the Galatians (in person) to start up a collection for the poor saints of Jerusalem; he alludes back to his instructions in Galatians 2.10.
2. Paul now also instructs the Corinthians (by letter) to do the same thing in 1 Corinthians 16.1-4.
3. Paul instructs the Macedonians (in person) to do the same thing, using the Corinthians (= Achaea) as a role model for them. Galatia is not mentioned; they have probably dropped out by this time. Paul alludes back to his instructions to the Macedonians in 2 Corinthians 9.1-4.
4. Paul now has the collection for the poor saints of Jerusalem in hand in Romans 15.25-26; Macedonia and Achaea are the donors, and the Galatians have definitely dropped out at this point.

This collection was not much mentioned by later authors who wrote of Paul. 1 Clement alludes to his travel plans to the far west, yet says nothing of the collection; Acts narrates his entire fateful journey to Jerusalem, with warnings and much foreshadowing, and then even narrates the first half (Jerusalem to Rome) of his westward travel plans to Spain, yet says nothing of the collection. (I do not think the Acts of Paul mentions it, either; on the other hand, that text is fragmentary.) But Paul himself would have every reason to mention the collection, since it was obviously dear to him.

Furthermore, I have argued elsewhere that Acts drew upon both the Pauline epistles and the Catholic epistles for the distinct "voice" that it gives each of the apostles; if I am right, then the author/editor of Acts probably knew chapter 15 of Romans:

Acts 20.22-23: 22 And now, behold, bound by the Spirit, I am on my way to Jerusalem, not knowing what will happen to me there, 23 except that the Holy Spirit solemnly testifies to me in every city, saying that bonds and afflictions await me.

Romans 15.25, 30-32: 25 But now, I am going to Jerusalem serving the saints. .... 30 Now I urge you, brethren, by our Lord Jesus Christ and by the love of the Spirit, to strive together with me in your prayers to God for me, 31 that I may be rescued from those who are disobedient in Judea, and that my service for Jerusalem may prove acceptable to the saints; 32 so that I may come to you in joy by the will of God and find refreshing rest in your company.

The likeliest direction of dependence between these potentially connected passages seems clear enough to me: Romans expresses what appears to be a sincere hope that all will be well, while Acts replaces that hope with the foreknowledge that the trip is going to end badly.

Finally, for various reasons (some of them, I admit, merely aesthetic, but by no means all) I am drawn to David Trobisch's hypothesis that Paul himself (or a close associate) published the Hauptbriefe (Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians) for the church in Ephesus, with Romans 16 as a cover letter for that church (the names therein, therefore, being those of Ephesian rather than of Roman Christians). This attractive scenario works best on the assumption that Romans 15 is original at least to that edition of the letters, since to the best of my knowledge we have no textual evidence of chapter 16 following hard upon chapter 14. (I emphasize that italicized phrase because the same author may sometimes be responsible for different recensions of his/her own letters; authors sometimes edit and redact their own letters for publication.)

[Irish1975]

Romans 15:

14 I myself am satisfied about you, my brethren, that you yourselves are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge, and able to instruct one another. 15 But on some points I have written to you very boldly by way of reminder, because of the grace given me by God 16 to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles in the priestly service of the gospel of God, so that the offering of the Gentiles may be acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit. 17 In Christ Jesus, then, I have reason to be proud of my work for God. 18 For I will not venture to speak of anything except what Christ has wrought through me to win obedience from the Gentiles, by word and deed, 19 by the power of signs and wonders, by the power of the Holy Spirit, so that from Jerusalem and as far round as Illyr′icum I have fully preached the gospel of Christ, 20 thus making it my ambition to preach the gospel, not where Christ has already been named, lest I build on another man’s foundation...23 But now, since I no longer have any room for work in these regions, and since I have longed for many years to come to you, 24 I hope to see you in passing as I go to Spain, and to be sped on my journey there by you, once I have enjoyed your company for a little.

Doing my best to summarize Baur's suspicions about the authorship of the above--

1) Why is the author suddenly modest, almost apologetic, for preaching the gospel? Galatians!
2) Why is he suddenly satisfied that the Romans are full of all goodness and knowledge and instruction, when in 1:11 he had expressed the desire to visit them in order to impart spiritual gifts that would build them up?
3) The verb hierourgein in verse 16, according to Ryder, occurs nowhere else in the NT. Nowhere else in Paul is there a conception of offering gentiles to God as a sacrifice. Does he ever even mention priests or priestly imagery, apart from the passing reference to latreia in Romans 9:4?
4) Why does Paul characterize his missionary activity as proceeding from Jerusalem? Galatians!
5) When did Paul ever go to Illyricum?
6) Is it plausible that Paul no longer had room in the East?
7) Why has Rome suddenly become a layover on the way to...Spain?? "Because the apostle had so filled the East with his preaching, that he could not remain in it without being idle, and because if he went to Rome he would be in a place where he could not remain without building on another man's foundation, nothing remained but that he should go to Spain! How completely without motive this all is."

Baur detects a motive in Romans 15 to placate Jewish Christians of the 2nd century, and to dissociate Paul from the apostolic foundation of the church in Rome. On the basis of the parallels cited in my previous post, he suggests that the author had 2 Corinthians, and perhaps also Acts, in front of him when he composed Romans 15.

The crucial and decisive parallel is between Romans 15:20 ("thus making it my ambition to preach the gospel, not where Christ has already been named, lest I build on another man’s foundation") and 2 Cor 10:16 ("so that we may preach the gospel in lands beyond you, without boasting of work already done in another’s field"). The author of Romans 15 has Paul using his own standard against himself, the upshot being that Paul doesn't have any apostolic mandate towards the church in Rome. He suddenly needs to correct himself for having had the audacity to write them this very epistle. And he will be going into "lands beyond you," i.e. somewhere completely beyond even Gaul (arguably within the ambit of the Roman church), onto Spain and, who knows, the Pillars of Hercules.

As for Romans 16,

"The long series of persons whom the apostle greets has quite the appearance of a catalogue of those who at that time were recognized as the notabilia of the most ancient Roman church. As the relation of the apostle Paul to the Roman church became afterwards a subject of party strife, it would seem to be the interest of a follower of Paul to give a proof by such a document as this, that the apostle already stood in very near and confidential connection with the best known members of the first church, and that many among those persons had won special praise from the apostle."

All to say that the last two chapters reinforce exactly the Peter/Paul balance that was so important to the author of Acts, and indeed, to the publisher (Polycarp) of the Canonical Edition of the New Testament circa 160 AD.

[Giuseppe]

5) When did Paul ever go to Illyricum?

When does Baur date that interpolation in Romans, more precisely?

I do this question because the name "dalmanautha" in Mark 8:10 is probably a reference to "Illyricum" above. Hence I am interested to the answer above.

[Ben C. Smith]

Romans 15:

14 I myself am satisfied about you, my brethren, that you yourselves are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge, and able to instruct one another. 15 But on some points I have written to you very boldly by way of reminder, because of the grace given me by God 16 to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles in the priestly service of the gospel of God, so that the offering of the Gentiles may be acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit. 17 In Christ Jesus, then, I have reason to be proud of my work for God. 18 For I will not venture to speak of anything except what Christ has wrought through me to win obedience from the Gentiles, by word and deed, 19 by the power of signs and wonders, by the power of the Holy Spirit, so that from Jerusalem and as far round as Illyr′icum I have fully preached the gospel of Christ, 20 thus making it my ambition to preach the gospel, not where Christ has already been named, lest I build on another man’s foundation...23 But now, since I no longer have any room for work in these regions, and since I have longed for many years to come to you, 24 I hope to see you in passing as I go to Spain, and to be sped on my journey there by you, once I have enjoyed your company for a little.

Doing my best to summarize Baur's suspicions about the authorship of the above--

Thank you for this summary.

1) Why is the author suddenly modest, almost apologetic, for preaching the gospel? Galatians!

I detect no such modesty, and certainly no apology for preaching the gospel in Romans 15. To the contrary, in verses 15-16 Paul asserts that he has spoken "boldly" to the Romans precisely because of his metaphorical status as a priest of the gospel of God. In verse 19 he claims the power of signs and wonders in his ministry; and in that same verse he boasts of having veritably fulfilled the gospel by preaching in so wide an arc.

2) Why is he suddenly satisfied that the Romans are full of all goodness and knowledge and instruction, when in 1:11 he had expressed the desire to visit them in order to impart spiritual gifts that would build them up?

This is simply a nonobjection, an attempt to find discord where there is none. There is no contradiction or tension, especially rhetorically, between affirming the basic goodness of one's readership or audience while simultaneously expressing a wish to build that same readership or audience up. Modern preachers do this literally every Sunday (and Wednesday, and on holidays, and at church retreats and camps). It is practically a cliché that someone can be virtually a saint and yet still benefit from some Christian upbuilding and encouragement.

3) The verb hierourgein in verse 16, according to Ryder, occurs nowhere else in the NT. Nowhere else in Paul is there a conception of offering gentiles to God as a sacrifice. Does he ever even mention priests or priestly imagery, apart from the passing reference to latreia in Romans 9:4?

It is not common, but he does, yes:

Philippians 2.17: 17 But even if I am being poured out as a drink offering upon the sacrifice and service (σπένδομαι ἐπὶ τῇ θυσίᾳ καὶ λειτουργίᾳ) of your faith, I rejoice and share my joy with you all.

2 Corinthians 2.15-16: 15 For we are a fragrance [εὐωδία] of Christ to God among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing; 16 to the one an aroma [ὀσμή] from death to death, to the other an aroma [ὀσμή] from life to life. And who is adequate for these things?

Raymond F. Collins, Commentary on 2 Corinthians, page 72: The aromatic imagery takes a different turn in verse 15. In an explanatory clause beginning with because, Paul affirms that we are the fragrance of Christ to God (2:15). “Odor” and “fragrance” are biblical terms used to describe the pleasant smells that arise from sacrificial offerings (Gen. 8:21; Exod. 29:17–18; Lev. 1:9, 13, 17; Num. 15:3, 7, 10). Thus, Paul seems to be alluding to Christ’s sacrificial offering of himself, which Paul and his companions exude through their apostolic ministry. The biblical language suggests that not only the participants in the sacrifice and the onlookers can smell the pleasant aroma, but also that the smell is pleasing to God himself, a sign that the offering is acceptable to God. Not only is Christ’s sacrifice acceptable to God; so too is the ministry of Paul and his evangelizing companions.

Each of these metaphorical usages of priestly protocol stands alone: one compares Paul himself to an offering; another compares the gentiles to an offering, with Paul as the priest; and the other compares Christ to a priestly sacrifice, with Paul and his colleagues as the smoke therefrom. Sacrificial language was (and still is) a very flexible motif.

4) Why does Paul characterize his missionary activity as proceeding from Jerusalem? Galatians!

I agree completely that this is a good question, and I would like to see it addressed.

5) When did Paul ever go to Illyricum?

Such an objection depends completely upon our confidence that we know most of what there is to know about Paul's career, and such a confidence can arise only from treating the later Acts (of the Apostles or of Paul) as comprehensive and/or accurate. If we do not put quite so much stock in those later writings, we are forced to admit that we are getting mere snatches of Paul's overall career from the epistles, and it is quite plausible both that Paul preached there (possibly unsuccessfully) and that he preached in other locales of which we are even less aware. Alternatively, Charles H. Talbert notes in his Commentary on Romans, "The expression 'as far around as' translates the word mechri which can denote simply 'up to' instead of 'into.'"

More about Illyricum later, though.

6) Is it plausible that Paul no longer had room in the East?

No, it is not possible. But that is the boring question. The real question should be: is it possible that Paul wanted to make a name for himself in places that no apostle had even ventured to visit yet? Modern missionaries, especially of the "church planter" variety, often prefer to go to some tribe which has never even been touched yet by Christianity rather than to go to some equally untouched town or village in a country which already has a Christian presence or among a people who have already been at least partially evangelized.

7) Why has Rome suddenly become a layover on the way to...Spain?? "Because the apostle had so filled the East with his preaching, that he could not remain in it without being idle, and because if he went to Rome he would be in a place where he could not remain without building on another man's foundation, nothing remained but that he should go to Spain! How completely without motive this all is."

Some of this is answered by the above. If Paul felt that the East was full enough of apostles and preachers (Cephas, Apollos, the "brothers of the Lord," and so on), then his ego may easily have led him to wish to go somewhere less traveled. This is a common enough missionary motive. As for the specific question of why Spain should be the target country, the short answer is that I do not know. I once read an intriguing suggestion about that in a book by Roger David Aus, but I do not have access to that book at this precise moment; nor do I recall the overall argument well enough to present it here competently. But it may not matter in the long run. Sometimes missionaries just want to go where they want to go. My parents became evangelical missionaries when I was a child, and their first target country was Bolivia. Why Bolivia? I honestly have no idea. They said that the Lord led them there. But it never worked out, because my father was diagnosed with some sort of condition which high altitudes would complicate; so the target became Mexico: same language, so no language lessons were wasted, but a very different country. And, again, I really have no idea why. Maybe, for Paul, the lure of the "ends of the earth" was, by itself, enough of a reason. (That said, I could equally well see the "ends of the earth" as a good target for a later forger to put into his mind, so to speak. I simply think that, pending further information, this point could go in either direction.)

The crucial and decisive parallel is between Romans 15:20 ("thus making it my ambition to preach the gospel, not where Christ has already been named, lest I build on another man’s foundation") and 2 Cor 10:16 ("so that we may preach the gospel in lands beyond you, without boasting of work already done in another’s field"). The author of Romans 15 has Paul using his own standard against himself, the upshot being that Paul doesn't have any apostolic mandate towards the church in Rome. He suddenly needs to correct himself for having had the audacity to write them this very epistle. And he will be going into "lands beyond you," i.e. somewhere completely beyond even Gaul (arguably within the ambit of the Roman church), onto Spain and, who knows, the Pillars of Hercules.

There is, in fact, no tension between these two passages:

Romans 15.20-21: 20 And thus I aspired to preach the gospel, not where Christ was already named, so that I would not build on another man’s foundation; 21 but as it is written, “They who had no news of Him shall see, and they who have not heard shall understand.”

2 Corinthians 10.14-16: 14 For we are not overextending ourselves, as if we did not reach to you, for we were the first to come even as far as you in the gospel of Christ; 15 not boasting beyond our measure, that is, in other men’s labors, but with the hope that as your faith grows, we will be, within our sphere, enlarged even more by you, 16 so as to preach the gospel even to the regions beyond you, and not to boast in what has been accomplished in the sphere of another.

1 Corinthians 3.6, 10: 6 I planted, Apollos watered, but God was causing the growth. .... 10 According to the grace of God which was given to me, like a wise master builder I laid a foundation, and another is building on it. But each man must be careful how he builds on it.

Yes, if a person harbored the motive of denying Paul any sort of apostleship over Rome, then he or she could use 2 Corinthians 10.14-16 in this way. But, if Paul himself really did try to avoid doubling up on other apostles' areas of influence, and if Paul really was not the founder of the church of Rome, then Romans 15.20-21 is also exactly what we should expect from him.

Back to Illyricum:

Marjeta Šašel Kos, "Roman Conquest of Illyricum (Dalmatia and Pannonia) and the Problem of the Northeastern Border of Italy," in Studia Europaea Gnesnensia 7, page 182: After the Pannonian-Dalmatian rebellion in AD 9, Illyricum may have been divided into superius and inferius, but was officially called Dalmatia and Pannonia probably not earlier than under Vespasian; after this division, no Roman province bore the name Illyricum. [Link: http://bazhum.muzhp.pl/media/files/Stud ... 69-200.pdf.]

The mention of Illyricum actually fits nicely with the dating of this passage to the time period from Augustus to Vespasian. We can probably see the effect of the change of provincial nomenclature elsewhere:

2 Timothy 4.9-10: 9 Make every effort to come to me soon; 10 for Demas, having loved this present world, has deserted me and gone to Thessalonica; Crescens has gone to Galatia, Titus to Dalmatia.

[robert j]

... I am drawn to David Trobisch's hypothesis that ... for the church in Ephesus, with Romans 16 as a cover letter for that church (the names therein, therefore, being those of Ephesian rather than of Roman Christians).

I agree with that. I think Romans 16 was a cover letter intended for Asia Minor. I do not think Paul wrote it, and I think chapter 16 of Romans belongs among the early Deutero-Paulines.

... there is also this interesting sequence having to do with the (in)famous collection:

Galatians 2.10: 10 They only asked us to remember the poor — the very thing I also was eager to do.

1 Corinthians 16.1-4: 1 Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I directed the churches of Galatia, so do you also. 2 On the first day of every week each one of you is to put aside and save, as he may prosper, so that no collections be made when I come. 3 When I arrive, whomever you may approve, I will send them with letters to carry your gift to Jerusalem; 4 and if it is fitting for me to go also, they will go with me.

2 Corinthians 9.1-4: 1 For it is superfluous for me to write to you about this ministry to the saints; 2 for I know your readiness, of which I boast about you to the Macedonians, namely, that Achaea has been prepared since last year, and your zeal has stirred up most of them. 3 But I have sent the brethren, in order that our boasting about you may not be made empty in this case, so that, as I was saying, you may be prepared; 4 otherwise if any Macedonians come with me and find you unprepared, we — not to speak of you — will be put to shame by this confidence.

Romans 15.25-26: 25 But now, I am going to Jerusalem serving the saints. 26 For Macedonia and Achaea have been pleased to make a contribution for the poor among the saints in Jerusalem.

The presumed sequence of events is subtle, but cohesive:

1. Paul instructs the Galatians (in person) to start up a collection for the poor saints of Jerusalem; he alludes back to his instructions in Galatians 2.10.

There is nothing in the letter to the Galatians about a making a collection for the Jerusalemites. Paul told the Corinthians that he was making a collection among the Galatians.

2. Paul now also instructs the Corinthians (by letter) to do the same thing in 1 Corinthians 16.1-4.

Yes, it all centers on the Corinthians.

3. Paul instructs the Macedonians (in person) to do the same thing, using the Corinthians (= Achaea) as a role model for them. Galatia is not mentioned; they have probably dropped out by this time. Paul alludes back to his instructions to the Macedonians in 2 Corinthians 9.1-4.

There is nothing in the letters to the Macedonians about a collection for the Jerusalemites. Paul told the Corinthians about the "wealth of the generosity" of the Macedonians on behalf of the Saints. Paul used the Macedonians, both trying to shame the Corinthians into giving (2 Corinthians 9:1-4), and to lay a guilt-trip (2 Corinthians 8:1-7).

4. Paul now has the collection for the poor saints of Jerusalem in hand in Romans 15.25-26; Macedonia and Achaea are the donors, and the Galatians have definitely dropped out at this point.[/list]

The author (interpolator?) of Romans 15:25-26 only claims to know the source of the funds and only claims that Paul had plans to deliver a collection to the poor Saints in Jerusalem.

Other than this insufficient and questionable attempt to try and tie-up a loose end in Romans chapter 15, and the all-too vague desire in Galatians 2:10, all of Paul’s efforts to collect money for the Saints in Jerusalem are found only in the letters to the prosperous Corinthians.

And there is no clear evidence in the Corinthian correspondence that the collection among the Corinthians was ever successful or completed.

This collection was not much mentioned by later authors who wrote of Paul. 1 Clement ... says nothing of the collection; Acts ... says nothing of the collection. (I do not think the Acts of Paul mentions it, either ...

“Not much mentioned”? Not mentioned at all seems more accurate.

All three forms of Romans (14, 15, and 16 chapters) thus almost certainly date back to century II. The evidence from that century, however, is pretty meager ... If Paul really wrote in century I, then we are left almost strictly with internal evidence for or against the various forms of Romans, as is usual for this kind of inquiry about Christian origins.

Yes, the textual evidence clearly reveals that the letter Romans was messed-with early-on. The various portions of textual evidence indicate some editorial manipulation of Romans --- at a minimum --- in the opening verses 1:1-5; in the two addresses to Rome in the first chapter 1:7 and 1:15; and most or all of chapter 15. (chapter 16 has already been addressed).

And I agree that resurrecting the original form of the letter from the messy textual evidence is not likely to be achievable. So we are left with the internal evidence to evaluate.

The following is based on reading Gamble's Textual History of the Letter to the Romans ...

... There were three very ancient versions of Romans:
i/ 1-16 without the doxology (doxology = 16:25-27)
ii/ 1-14 without the doxology
iii/ 1-15 with the doxology

... Version ii/ [lacking chapter 15] is not original because chapter 15 on internal evidence is clearly Pauline.

Romans 15:14-32 is closely related too Romans 1:8-13 in theory this could be imitation by a later writer but it would be a very subtle imitator.

I suggest a different solution here. I think that portions of Romans chapter 1 and 15 are “closely related” because both chapters were subject to interpolation by (the same?) an early catholic editor.

And that in appearance chapter 15 “on internal evidence is clearly Pauline” is no surprise. The interpolator had the rest of Romans and likely other letters of Paul as well --- writing in a manner to sound like Paul was paramount.

But more important than the parts that sound like Paul, are the parts that do not --- what was the purpose of the interpolation? What early-catholic ecclesiastical aim was the interpolator serving?

1. All Roads Lead to Rome. For a Rome-centric early-catholic editor to bring Paul to Rome -- as was done with Peter (and Marcion too?) --- would be par for the course.

2. Paul Completed the Collection and Was on His Way to Jerusalem. There is no clear supporting evidence in Paul’s letters, or externally, that Paul completed his collection. The best the interpolator dared to claim here was that Paul had plans to deliver a collection to the Saints in Jerusalem.

3. Paul’s Christ Was Davidic. However, nowhere in any of Paul’s letters is Jesus Christ identified or even intimated as being Davidic --- that is except in the portions of Romans interpolated by an early catholic editor (Romans 1:3 and 15:12). The Davidic nature of Jesus Christ became a firmly established foundational paradigm in the 2nd century. It is not at all surprising to see a later editor insert that concept into the opening and closing portions of the flagship letter Romans, and thus establish a Davidic Jesus in among the earliest of Christian texts.

[John2]

First, I have to say that Ben's responses above are very well (and politely) put. What a treat.

All I care to say is in response to question 4 (which Ben did not address):

4) Why does Paul characterize his missionary activity as proceeding from Jerusalem? Galatians!

I think it's one thing for Paul to characterize his mission to the Gentiles as proceeding from Jerusalem (via God and the heavenly Jesus and with the blessing of Jewish Christian leaders) and another to say that he did not receive his Torah-free gospel from Jewish Christians in Jerusalem. As he puts it in Gal. 2:6-9:

... those men [Jewish Christina leaders] added nothing to my message [i.e., his Torah-free gospel]. On the contrary, they saw that I had been entrusted to preach the gospel to the Gentiles, just as Peter had been to the Jews. For God, who was at work in Peter’s apostleship to the Jews, was also at work in my apostleship to the Gentiles.

And recognizing the grace that I had been given [from God], James, Cephas, and John —those reputed to be pillars—gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, so that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the Jews.

I don't think the Jewish Christian leaders had an issue with Paul teaching Gentiles about Jesus (as per 1 Cor. 15-11) and against Gentile Torah observance, only with his teaching (or appearing to teach) Jews to not observe the Torah, as per Acts 21:20-25:

... they said to Paul, “You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews have believed, and all of them are zealous for the law. But they are under the impression that you teach all the Jews who live among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or observe our customs. What then should we do? They will certainly hear that you have come.

Therefore do what we advise you. There are four men with us who have taken a vow. Take these men, purify yourself along with them, and pay their expenses so they can have their heads shaved. Then everyone will know that there is no truth to these rumors about you, but that you also live in obedience to the law. As for the Gentile believers ...

So on one hand Paul was converted and received his Torah-free gospel and apostle-to-the-Gentiles status via God and the heavenly Jesus, and on the other hand, while the Jewish Christian leaders in Jerusalem had recognized Paul's conversion and approved of his teaching Gentiles about Jesus, they did not contribute anything to his Torah-free gospel (and they certainly did not approve of his teaching Jews to not observe the Torah, as per Gal. 2 and Acts 21).

So I think Paul is just saying in Rom. 15 (and perhaps somewhat poetically) that he taught his Torah-free gospel (that he received from God and the heavenly Jesus) "from Jerusalem and as far round as Illyricum" and not that he had received his Torah-free gospel from Jewish Christian leaders in Jerusalem.

Or maybe I'm misunderstanding the question.

[Ben C. Smith]

There is no clear evidence that Paul instructed the Galatians to make a collection for the Jerusalemites. Only that Paul told the Corinthians that he was making a collection among the Galatians.

....

Yes, it all centers on the Corinthians.

....

There is no clear evidence that Paul instructed the Macedonians to make a collection for the Jerusalemites. Only that Paul told the Corinthians about the "wealth of the generosity" of the Macedonians on behalf of the Saints. It was the Macedonians that Paul used as a role model in his plea to the Corinthians (2 Corinthians 8:1-7).

....

The author (interpolator?) of Romans 15:25-26 only claims to know the source of the funds and only claims that Paul had plans to deliver a collection to the poor Saints in Jerusalem.

Okay, but the main point still stands: the sequence is intelligible, whether (A) as a record of Paul's actual dealings with the Macedonians, the Galatians, the Achaeans, and the Jerusalemites or (B) as a record of his various lies to the Achaeans, using the Macedonians and the Galatians as foils for the deceit.

This collection was not much mentioned by later authors who wrote of Paul. 1 Clement ... says nothing of the collection; Acts ... says nothing of the collection. (I do not think the Acts of Paul mentions it, either ...

“Not much mentioned”? Not mentioned at all seems more accurate.

I was leaving room for authors that I have not examined with this specific datum in mind; for example, I do not know whether Irenaeus and those writing after him happen to mention it. Surely at some point somebody does; whole commentaries were written. I bet Origen mentioned it in his Commentary on Romans. Just writing cautiously, nothing more.

Other than this insufficient and questionable attempt to try and tie-up a loose end in Romans chapter 15, and the all-too vague desire in Galatians 2:10, all of Paul’s efforts to collect money for the Saints in Jerusalem are found only in the letters to the prosperous Corinthians.

Wait a minute. My point above was that later authors did not seem to be very interested in the Jerusalem collection, but that Paul himself (whether he was lying or not) certainly might be. You came along and strengthened that point by observing that later authors seemed to be not at all interested in the collection. But, at the same time, you postulate that the interpolator of Romans 15 was interested: at least enough to write up a few verses rounding it all out. This goes back, then, to the reason for my original observation: the part about the collection in Romans 15 is perfectly plausible coming from Paul's pen (again, whether as a genuine plan of his or as a bit of deceit on his part; if he supposed the Achaeans would never find out, then a fortiori the Romans would be in the same position). Coming from someone else, however, it seems to stand out a bit as the only mention of it by anybody other than Paul for many, many years. (Your limitation of the motif only to Corinthian letters is artificial, especially given the relative sparsity of the evidence we are dealing with here; there is no reason why Paul could not have profited from it with other readerships.)

Yes, the textual evidence clearly reveals that the letter Romans was messed-with early-on. The various portions of textual evidence indicate some editorial manipulation of Romans --- at a minimum --- in the opening verses 1:1-5; in the two addresses to Rome in the first chapter 1:7 and 1:15; and most or all of chapter 15. (chapter 16 has already been addressed).

As you probably remember, I have argued that Romans 1.1b-5a, at any rate, may be an interpolation. I have also harbored doubts about Romans 9-11. I have serious reservations about Romans 13.1-7. I have zero faith that the doxology is original. And you also now know that I feel that Romans 16 may not have originally been directed toward the Romans. So it is not as if I think that Romans 1-16 is a spotless cloth which has been rent asunder in some spots only by later scribes. It is just that, for Romans 15 and the mentions of Rome in 1.7 and 1.15, I think that Gamble makes a good case. Romans 14.23 was never the end point of this text, not even if graced by the doxology. Something came after it, and there are precious few obstacles to Romans 15 being that something.

I suggest a different solution here. I think that portions of Romans chapter 1 and 15 are “closely related” because both chapters were subject to interpolation by (the same?) an early catholic editor.

I would be interested in your specific arguments for this solution to the problem.

But what is more important here are not the parts that sound like Paul, but the parts that do not --- what was the purpose of the interpolation? What early-catholic ecclesiastical aim was the interpolator serving?

1. All Roads Lead to Rome. For a Rome-centric early-catholic editor to bring Paul to Rome -- as was done with Peter (and Marcion too?) --- would be par for the course.

I am interested in reading more from you along these lines. But you have a habit on this forum of leaving tantalizing notes and then disappearing for months at a time.

2. Paul Completed the Collection and Was on His Way to Jerusalem. There is no clear supporting evidence in Paul’s letters, or externally, that Paul completed his collection. The best the interpolator dared to claim here was that Paul had plans to deliver a collection to the Saints in Jerusalem.

This point just does nothing (that I can see) to distinguish the hypothetical interpolator from Paul himself.

3. Paul’s Christ Was Davidic. However, nowhere in any of Paul’s letters is Jesus Christ identified or even intimated as being Davidic --- that is except in the portions of Romans interpolated by an early catholic editor (Romans 1:3 and 15:12). The Davidic nature of Jesus Christ became a firmly established foundational paradigm by the 2nd century. It is not at all surprising to see a later editor insert that concept into the opening and closing portions of the flagship letter Romans, and thus establish a Davidic Jesus in among the earliest of Christian texts.

I agree: that would not be surprising. And, having already argued for the Davidic reference in chapter 1 being a forgery, I would not be at all surprised if the Davidic reference in chapter 15 were, as well. The issue is that the arguments for chapter 15 being an interpolation seem much weaker to me than the arguments for parts of chapter 1, and I am forced to imagine an extremely subtle interpolator (A) who knew that Paul (supposedly) lived during the time when the Roman province of Dalmatia was still called Illyricum (unlike the forger of 2 Timothy, apparently), (B) who cared as much as Paul himself presumably would about wrapping up the motif of the Jerusalem collection (unlike, on your own showing, everybody else), (C) who was very restrained in his knowledge of future events (unlike Acts, which has Paul knowing that his trip to Jerusalem will wind up getting him arrested), and (D) who sounded exactly like Paul on various topics of interest (Romans 15.4 || 1 Corinthians 9.10; 10.6, 11; Romans 15.20 ||1 Corinthians 3.10; 2 Corinthians 10.14-16; Romans 15.15-16 || Galatians 1.15-17; Romans 15.25-26 || Galatians 2.10). Not impossible, of course, but also not necessarily my first choice.

Make no mistake: I am persuadable on Romans 15. But I have not actually been persuaded yet.

[Irish1975]

Romans 1 1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God 2 which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy scriptures, 3 the gospel concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh 4 and designated Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord, 5 through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith for the sake of his name among all the nations, 6 including yourselves who are called to belong to Jesus Christ; 7 To all God’s beloved in Rome, who are called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. 8 First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, because your faith is proclaimed in all the world. 9 For God is my witness, whom I serve with my spirit in the gospel of his Son, that without ceasing I mention you always in my prayers, 10 asking that somehow by God’s will I may now at last succeed in coming to you. 11 For I long to see you, that I may impart to you some spiritual gift to strengthen you, 12 that is, that we may be mutually encouraged by each other’s faith, both yours and mine. 13 I want you to know, brethren, that I have often intended to come to you (but thus far have been prevented), in order that I may reap some harvest among you as well as among the rest of the Gentiles. 14 I am under obligation both to Greeks and to barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish: 15 so I am eager to preach the gospel to you also who are in Rome.

Romans 15 14 I myself am satisfied about you, my brethren, that you yourselves are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge, and able to instruct one another. 15 But on some points I have written to you very boldly by way of reminder, because of the grace given me by God 16 to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles in the priestly service of the gospel of God, so that the offering of the Gentiles may be acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit. 17 In Christ Jesus, then, I have reason to be proud of my work for God. 18 For I will not venture to speak of anything except what Christ has wrought through me to win obedience from the Gentiles, by word and deed, 19 by the power of signs and wonders, by the power of the Holy Spirit, so that from Jerusalem and as far round as Illyr′icum I have fully preached the gospel of Christ, 20 thus making it my ambition to preach the gospel, not where Christ has already been named, lest I build on another man’s foundation, 21 but as it is written,“They shall see who have never been told of him, and they shall understand who have never heard of him.” 22 This is the reason why I have so often been hindered from coming to you. 23 But now, since I no longer have any room for work in these regions, and since I have longed for many years to come to you, 24 I hope to see you in passing as I go to Spain, and to be sped on my journey there by you, once I have enjoyed your company for a little.

theme	Romans 1:1-15	Romans 15:14-24
Paul's self-description	apostle, called and set apart	minister, by God's grace
attribute of Romans praised by Paul	faith	full goodness and knowledge
authority claimed by Paul	to call people to the obedience of faith	to boast of what Christ works through him
scope of Paul's mission	all the nations, including the Romans	regions where Christ is unnamed, no apostles have labored
purpose of Paul's projected visit to Rome	preach the gospel, reap a harvest	enjoy company for a little, get sent on to Spain

Both passages address who Paul thinks he is in relation to the Romans, using the same or similar language, but producing two different accounts. It is not a question of bald contradictions, but of many subtle changes. Whether the overall change is significant or insignificant, and in what way, is a judgment call.

There seem to be 3 possibilities--

1) Paul wrote 15 knowing full well he was changing the message of Romans 1
2) Paul wrote 15 with no awareness of changing his message in Romans 1
3) Someone else wrote Romans 15

[Irish1975]

I have argued elsewhere that Acts drew upon both the Pauline epistles and the Catholic epistles for the distinct "voice" that it gives each of the apostles; if I am right, then the author/editor of Acts probably knew chapter 15 of Romans:

Acts 20.22-23: 22 And now, behold, bound by the Spirit, I am on my way to Jerusalem, not knowing what will happen to me there, 23 except that the Holy Spirit solemnly testifies to me in every city, saying that bonds and afflictions await me.

Romans 15.25, 30-32: 25 But now, I am going to Jerusalem serving the saints. .... 30 Now I urge you, brethren, by our Lord Jesus Christ and by the love of the Spirit, to strive together with me in your prayers to God for me, 31 that I may be rescued from those who are disobedient in Judea, and that my service for Jerusalem may prove acceptable to the saints; 32 so that I may come to you in joy by the will of God and find refreshing rest in your company.

The likeliest direction of dependence between these potentially connected passages seems clear enough to me: Romans expresses what appears to be a sincere hope that all will be well, while Acts replaces that hope with the foreknowledge that the trip is going to end badly.

A literary dependence between the two texts seems likely to me as well. But I don't see why your scenario is more likely. If Romans 15 is based on Acts, then naturally the forger would have depicted Paul as having no foreknowledge, but only apprehension, of what might happen.

[Ben C. Smith]

A literary dependence between the two texts seems likely to me as well. But I don't see why your scenario is more likely. If Romans 15 is based on Acts, then naturally the forger would have depicted Paul as having no foreknowledge, but only apprehension, of what might happen.

In Acts he does have foreknowledge: he affirms that the Spirit has testified in no uncertain terms that he is going to end up in chains (Acts 20.23). In Romans he has no such foreknowledge; he hopes for the best, giving no hint of knowing how things will turn out.