jakejonesiv

The traditional view (according to Acts, Irenaeus and others) is that Paul was founder (or co-founder) of the church at Rome. Not just any gentile church, but precisely the Roman Church.

The Epistle to the Romans is in contradiction to this, is it not? It denotes a Church in Rome that is long established, world famous, and has not heard Paul's preaching. (the idea that a few converts wandered up to Rome from Ephesus does not meet this criteria).

If you consider it for a moment, the esteemed position of the Church at Rome as described in Epistle to the Romans is the Roman church of the second century CE. Paul comes to it as an equal, not to found the church, but to share his gospel with them. The closest historical parallel we have to this is Marcion coming to Rome about 140 CE. Did Marcion incorporate some biographical details into his version of Romans as he did into Galatains? I don't know for sure, but it is worth a discusssion.

I totally agree that Irenaeus was engaged in Roman propaganda, as was the book of Acts.

Jake

Ben C Smith

Acts 28.14-15 asserts that there were already brethren in Rome before Paul arrived. The epistle to the Romans presumes that there were already brethren in Rome before Paul arrived. How are Acts and Romans in contradiction on this point?

Ben.

jakejonesiv

Depsite the claims in Romans that the church there was long established and world famous, the Jews there had apparently never the gospel expounded.

Jake

mikem

In Romans 16: 7 Paul mentions Adronicus and Junias, my "kinsmen" and "men of note among the apostles". These individuals appear to be fellow Jews, and apostles. The term was not restricted solely to the 12, but was used of others who were missionaries. Taken at face value, this would suggest that there were Christian Jews were in Rome prior to Pauls' letter, and that they had been evangelised by fellow Jews who had gone to Rome specifically for that purpose. This does not seem unlikely. Paul also mentions other individuals with Greek names, which might suggest that there were gentile Christians there too. Given that Rome was the most important city around, it does not seem unlikely that it acted as a magnet for all sorts of people. In fact, we know it acted as a magnet because contemporary Roman historians have told us so.

Paul says that he is on his way to Jerusalem to deliver aid collected from different churches. Clearly the Jerusalem church was having a hard time of it. (That of itself might have been sufficient reason for Christians at Jerusalem to "move on"). Following the delivery of aid, he states his intention of visiting Rome, with a view to making it a launching post for a mission to Spain. So it is clear that he had not at the point of writing never been there. Following his return to Jerusalem of course, he did end up going to Rome to plead his case before Nero, (if Acts is to be believed).

Ben C Smith

You yourself said that the Roman church was primarily gentile in composition. How the presence of Jews in Rome who had merely heard of the sect without personally encountering any (or many) from the sect poses a problem for any viewpoint escapes me. Especially when we keep in mind that the description of the Roman church as established and famous is Pauline flattery, practically expected in a letter, and not to be pressed as far as it appears you are pressing it.

Ben.

Toto

A confusing mishmash. Paul is under guard, but casually visits with people. He is greeted by "brothers" - are these Jews or Christians? He then preaches to the leaders of the Jewish community, not to a gentile church. These Jewish leaders refer to fellow Jews who have come from Judea as "brothers" and indicate that they have heard something about this new sect, but don't seem to know a lot, and there is no indication that they could have asked a local group.

It's hard to know what to think from this passage, which is part of the "we" passages. But there is no clear indication of a gentile church in Rome.

jakejonesiv

I am glad you agree that, according to Acts chapter 28, the Jews in Rome had never heard the gospel expounded.

Jake

Ben C Smith

I am not qualified to comment on the plausibility of a Roman house arrest.

Is there really any doubt that these are Christians?

This is a Lucan affectation. At least thrice in Acts Paul preaches to the Jews first, they reject Jesus, then he preaches to the gentiles.

Where in Acts 28 do the Roman Jews claim ignorance of the new sect? I find them saying the following:

1. That they have received no letters from Judea about Paul.
2. That none of the brethren have come to report badly about Paul.
3. That they desire to hear what Paul thinks.
4. That they are aware that the sect is spoken against everywhere.

Only number 4 has anything directly to do with the Christian sect, and it is a statement of what the Roman Jews know about it, not what they do not know about it. The rest have to do with Paul himself; it is Paul of whom they are ignorant. What from Acts 28 do you have to add to this list?

There are mysteries, to be sure, but how many commentators trip over whether or not Acts 28.14-15 represents Christians coming from Rome? Show me a respected commentary with a different take on those verses and I will rethink my position.

Ben.

Ben C Smith

Actually, no, I do not necessarily agree with that; I am not certain we have enough information to know one way or the other. However, even granting you that point, I do not know how it helps your thesis.

Ben.

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

Since some are discussing Peter in Rome on a thread I thought
it would be good to revisit this thread about Photius and Philo.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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...:

Hi Ben,

The problem with that means of separating out the section from the
review is that it does not address the switch back to "he said" -

...Read, also, his two tractates, Censure of Gaius1 and Censure of Flaccus2 in which, more than in his other writings, he shows vigour of expression and beauty of language. ... 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,

Up to here, the 'voice' is clear.
Now I will highlight the change of voice, which even has a phrase
"which explains" as a separation and a segue into the next part.

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.

Clearly it is difficult to theorize that "they say" that "he thought" and "he says" and "he calls" ..

So if we knew nothing about what we are supposed to know about Philo ..
it would simply look like Photius is switching back to a writing by Philo.

And since the section is about two writings (and one I believe is
non-extant) the simple referent would be a return to the writings
that he is reviewing.

Shalom,
Steven Avery