PhilosopherJay

Hi All,

It is hard for me to believe that the rational, well-educated, legal minded Roman scholar who wrote the main part of Epistle to the Romans (similar in tone and style to the writer of Acts and the Gospel of Luke) could have turned into the angry, theatrical, uneducated, Greek Gnostic writer/s who wrote 1 Corinthians. It is hard to find two documents allegedly by the same person with authorial traits more dissimilar.

Does anybody have information about scholars who have noticed the Jekyll and Hyde personalities exhibited in the two documents.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

DCHindley

I dunno, Jay.

Most critics seem to think Romans and 1 Corinthians are more alike than dis alike. Ferdinand Christian Baur sees these two, along with Galatians, as the "Big Three."

What makes you feel Romans has such a magisterial unity? Daniel Völter held that

"The Epistle to the Romans has been very extensively interpolated. (145n1) The original writing was addressed to Gentile readers. The interpolator, on the other hand, has in view readers 'who occupy an Old Testament standpoint.' "

145n1) ln its original form it consisted, Völter thinks, of the following sections: i. i, 50-7, 8-17; v. 1-12, 15-19, 21; vi. 1-13, 16-23; chapters xii. and xiii.; xiv. i-xv. 6; xv. 14-16, 230-33; xvi. 21-24.

PAUL AND HIS INTERPRETERS: A CRITICAL HISTORY (or via: amazon.co.uk), Albert Schweitzer, 1912, pg 145

DCH

Toto

It appears that Paul and his Interpreters can be downloaded in pdf format here

PhilosopherJay

Thanks DCHindley,

I did not mean to imply that the Epistle to the Romans was a unity. Völter seems to get it pretty much right that there are a few interpolations in chapters 1-11 and a great deal of 12-16 is by another hand.

W.C. van Manen (http://depts.drew.edu/jhc/vanrom.html) seems to pretty much agree. He hits the nail on the head when he says:

It is the main portion of Roman, chapters 1-11 which seems to me to be the work of the author of Acts. Even these chapters seem to contain a few interpolations. Most of Chapters 12-16 seem to reflect a style and thought more in line with 1 Corinthians. Of Course, 1 Corinthians itself seems to have at least two and possibly three or four contributors, but none of them match the writer of Acts (i.e. the main writer of Romans 1-11) in any way that I can discern.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Toto

Sorry, but a signficant amount of material was lost here. If anyone has copies, please feel free to post them.

DCHindley

As far as I know, there are only graphic scans, not digitized text, of this book on the net. It is for sale new at Amazon, as noted above, for about $25 USD, but it is difficult to do searches on it as the index is weak. While I have created a digitized text of this book, as well as Schweitzer's Quest of the Historical Jesus, I have too many financial and computer problems to create that web page I keep threatening to do someday on my evil and certainly wrong redacted Paul hypothesis, where I would post them.

Peter Kirby has scanned a digital text of Quest and posted it on his web site, but he never fully edited it to correct the hundreds of misspelled words the OCR software didn't recognize correctly. Even after spending countless hours comparing the scanned text to the printed pages, I am sure my versions still have some as well. It didn't help that I am not intimate with German, French, Dutch or Hebrew, but the resulting texts are readable.

DCH

Rick Sumner

I think everyone has noticed the Jekyll and Hyde to some degree. I think you're comparing apples and oranges though. The concerns of 1 Corinthians really don't fit the context of Paul's epistle to Rome. You can't really compare the tone of one with the other. In the former he's chastising. In the latter, trying to win friends somewhere he's never been. In Corinth, Paul is fighting Paganism. In Rome, defending Judaism. . .sort of.

A more reasonable comparison would be Romans and Galatians, which contrast not only in tone, but often seem to flatly contradict each other. I don't think you'd have a leg to stand on there either, however, you'd just be slightly less lame.

I'd be interested in seeing a breakdown on how Romans is "similar in style" to Luke or Acts. It's a rather strange position--I don't believe I've ever heard it--so I'm afraid I can't accept it on your say-so alone.

It's also very, very easy to change tone when writing. One could go through the annals here of any large number poster and see that in action. A change in tone from one letter to another tells us nothing. Even here we address different people, and different subjects, in remarkably different ways.

Even beyond anything else, there's a better than passing case to be made that Paul lost one or more churches during his career. That in itself can account for a more measured pace.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

PhilosopherJay

Hi Rick,

The author of Romans is writing before there is a break between Chrisitianity and Judaism.

Roman 3:

Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the benefit of circumcision?
2. Great in every respect. First of all, that they were entrusted with the oracles of God.
3. What then? If some did not believe, their unbelief will not nullify the faithfulness of God, will it?
4. May it never be! Rather, let God be found true, though every man be found a liar, as it is written, "THAT YOU MAY BE JUSTIFIED IN YOUR WORDS,
AND PREVAIL WHEN YOU ARE JUDGED."
5. But if our unrighteousness demonstrates the righteousness of God, what shall we say? The God who inflicts wrath is not unrighteous, is He? (I am speaking in human terms.)
6. May it never be! For otherwise, how will God judge the world?

The author has Paul praise the Jewish laws, especially circumcision. He is portraying Paul as a devout Jew. Christianity is only the devout form of Judaism.
This indicates that the author still supports Jewish practices.
The second part is an attack against Marcion's idea that a righteous God does not punish. We can, therefore, say that Romans is being written by a Jewish man who upholds Jewish law, post Marcion's time (circa 140).


Acts 16:3
Paul wanted this man to go with him; and he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews who were in those parts, for they all knew that his father was a Greek.

Acts 26:
"So then, all Jews know my manner of life from my youth up, which from the beginning was spent among my own nation and at Jerusalem;
5. since they have known about me for a long time, if they are willing to testify, that I lived as a Pharisee according to the strictest sect of our religion.
6. "And now I am standing trial for the hope of the promise made by God to our fathers;
7. the promise to which our twelve tribes hope to attain, as they earnestly serve God night and day. And for this hope, O King, I am being accused by Jews...
19 "So, King Agrippa, I did not prove disobedient to the heavenly vision,
20. but kept declaring both to those of Damascus first, and also at Jerusalem and then throughout all the region of Judea, and even to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, performing deeds appropriate to repentance.
21. For this reason some Jews seized me in the temple and tried to put me to death.
22. "So, having obtained help from God, I stand to this day testifying both to small and great, stating nothing but what the Prophets and Moses said was going to take place;

The author is portraying Paul as a devout Jew and the practice of Christianity as devout Judaism, keeping all the Jewish laws and customs.

The other epistles, with the exception of Hebrews, seem to come from a time where Christians have broken with Jewish customs and no longer uphold them.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Rick Sumner

On the contrary. Romans is backpedaling. It's the epistle of a man who has been beaten elsewhere, and is hoping to stave off concerns that his reputation has preceded him.

As near as I can see, Paul never sees a "break" between Christianity and Judaism. There are new terms, but the people are *still* Israel. Just not Israel "after the flesh."

Paul never suggests that Jewish customs be "broken entirely." Nor, for that matter, does Romans suggest that the convert need keep all the Laws of Judaism. He's addressing different people at different times, and his arguments reflect that.

Romans represents a more mature christology, in many ways. Paul has finally reasoned through what he couldn't before--Israel was spurned to reach "The fulfillment." Your chronology makes jibberish of that. Moving from more developed soteriology to more simplistic.

Surely you don't think a red font on an English translation with no stylistic similarity even in translation constitutes support for your suggestion that Romans and Acts are stylistically similar? I eagerly await your dissection. It is, I must confess, an idea that is entirely novel to me.

Regards,
Rick Sumner