Diogenes the Cynic

Yeah, everybody in Ephesus picked up and moved en masse to Rome, like the last season of a bad 70's sitcom. That must be it.

BenefitOfTheDoubt

I kind of thought that, but at the same time, I also kind of though that maybe by "Shakespear still did the lions share for me" he was repeating the tired old myth that Shakespeare was one of the translators of the KJV--it was a toss up--and therefore I was refering to Greek, Latin, etc. versions of the book of Romans.

BenefitOfTheDoubt

It's not impossiblem especially since it is highly possible that many in Ephesus were there on business when converted, but I frankly don't recall using the word "EVERYBODY." Are you saying that Paul listed "EVERYBODY" from Ephesus in Romans 16? That's a bit of an exaggeration, don't you think?

jakejonesiv

You must discount the authenticity of Romans where Paul is supposed to be writing to a church he had never visited (Romans 1:10-11). A church of world wide fame (1:8) that had been established for many years (15:23). A gentile church (1:13). Hey, wasn't Paul supposed to be the Apostle to the Gentiles? And here he is a "Johnny come lately" to the gentile church in Rome? Just who did found this church? This would indicate a date of composition after the alleged life span of the first century apostle.

Despite the fact that Rome is a well established gentile church, that is of as great or greater renown than Paul's own efforts, Paul still wants to visit to preach his version of the gospel (1:11,15). This resonates with Marcion's coming to the Roman church.

Jake

Steven Avery

Interestingly, Photius in a discussion of some works of Philo (possibly one not extant) discusses how Philo places Mark and Peter in Rome.

http://www.ccel.org/p/pearse/morefat...ibliotheca.htm
105. [Philo Judaeus, Censure of Gaius and Censure of Flaccus]
Before this, during the reign of the emperor Claudius, he had visited Rome, where he met St. Peter, chief of the apostles, and became intimate with him, which explains why he thought the disciples of St. Mark the evangelist, who was a disciple of St. Peter, worthy of praise, of whom he says that they led a contemplative life amongst the Jews. He calls their dwellings monasteries, and declares that they always led an ascetic life, practising fasting, prayer, and poverty.

Granted, one might take the position that Photius had got into a discussion from sources separate from the Philo tractates he was reviewing.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Ben C Smith

Indeed, one is practically forced into such a position when one notes that this entire section is prefaced with the words it is said and that the very sentence in question also has a they say in the Greek...:

It is said that he was converted to Christianity, but afterwards abandoned it in a fit of anger and indignation. Before this, [they say {φασιν},] during the reign of the emperor Claudius, he had visited Rome, where he met St. Peter, chief of the apostles, and became intimate with him, which explains why he thought the disciples of St. Mark the evangelist, who was a disciple of St. Peter, worthy of praise, of whom he says that they led a contemplative life amongst the Jews. He calls their dwellings monasteries, and declares that they always led an ascetic life, practising fasting, prayer, and poverty.

...almost certainly indicating a source other than the two treatises in question.

Ben.

Ben C Smith

Paul explicitly tells us that he is not the only person preaching to gentiles. He mentions that Apollos, for instance, preached in Corinth, a primarily gentile church.

Ben.

BenefitOfTheDoubt

No bikes, no cars, no motor planes, not a single luxury.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv Just who did found this church?

All the people who moved to Rome from Ephesus.

jakejonesiv

Not only is the Epistle to the Romans in contradiction to Acts, it is in contradiction to Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.3.2.

Literally, Peter and Paul evangelized and laid the foundation of the Church in Rome.

That is completely opposite to the situation described in Romans. According to Romans, Paul had never been there, Peter is never mentioned, the church is already long established and of world wide fame.

So what is the answer? Marcion came to Rome with the Pauline teachings (shades of Romans chapter 1). This Apostle of the Heretics was co-opted by the orthodox, the Pauline writings redacted to include the dogma of the Roman church, and the two legendary apostles, Peter and Paul, were then conceived to be a dynamic duo founding the Church at Rome. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Jake Jones

Ben C Smith

I confess I am unable to see how your response answers my statement. It looked to me like you were arguing that, since Paul was the apostle to the gentiles and the Roman church was gentile, the traditional view that Paul wrote Romans is in jeopardy. Such an argument requires the premise that only Paul, on the traditional view, could have founded a gentile church; but this is a premise that the traditional view does not, can not, hold because of the testimony of Paul himself that there were others who went to the gentiles too.

As for Irenaeus, his statement that Peter and Paul evangelized and founded Rome is easily recognized as Roman propaganda, is it not? I have not ruled out Peter being the founder of the Roman church, though there are obstacles to that view, but associating famous apostles with the foundation of influential churches was a familiar game in the second century. We see the same thing with John and Ephesus.

I do not see how any of this forces one to conclude that Paul did not write Romans.

Ben.