aChristian

Sorry about that. I guess I got my quote indicators mixed up.

GakuseiDon

Paul implies in his writings that Jesus came after certain people in the Bible.

Imagine we have this:
1. Paul believes Jesus came after David
2. Paul believes that passages before David refers to things that happened to Jesus.

If both those things are true, then Paul would certainly be using Scriptures to show them predicting what will happen to Jesus rather than information about what did happen to Jesus. (For those concerned about my motivation to to much: The logic holds regardless of whether this is MJ or HJ, so this is not an argument for HJ)

Some passages in Paul:

Rom 1:3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh
Gal 3:19 Wherefore then [serveth] the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; [and it was] ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.

jakejonesiv

I think both sides, historist and mythicist, have gone astray in this discussion because the fundamental text critical question has not been addressed; is Romans chapters 15 and 16 part of the original text?

A review of the evidence raises questions against the authenticity of chapters 15 and 16.

Marcion and Tertullian's versions end with chapter 14. Neither Irenaeus nor Cyprian quoted from chapters 15 or 16. This is not a big deal concerning Irenaeus, but considering Cyprian's subject matter, he likely only knew the original 14 chapter version.

Codex Amiatinus, Capitulum L specifically refers to 14:15,17 and could denote the line of thought through 14:23. Capitulum LI refers to the doxology, now found at 16:25-27. There is no capitula for chapters 15 and 16. So much for the argument that the original version could not have been 14 chapters. (The wide dispersion of the Amiatine system is decisive evidence against the apologetic that it refers to a mutilated archetype).

The epistle to the Romans has apparently had three separate endings during its textual history.

Origen stated that Marcion had a 14 chapter version of Romans. He claimed that Marcion "cut away" (dissecuit) all that followed 14:23. But, as we shall see, that can hardly be the case. This is the standard tactic to cover for catholic redactions. And the fact that the proro-orthodox were established liars does indeed establish a modus operandi.

Tertullian never cited Romans 15-16 and referred to Romans 14 as the conclusion to the letter. The first ending is 14:23 + Marcionite doxology. See Hermann Detering:_ Der Römerbrief in seiner ursprünglichen Gestalt_, Seite 120 ff. ~ Harnack, 166* und Sitzungsbericht der Preußischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1919, 527ff and Delafosse.

Origen sees the doxology after 14:23 in his version. What an odd place to put the doxology if this was not indeed the original end of the epistle? Origen is IN agreement with this positioning with L 181 326 330 451 460 614 1241 1877 1881 1984 1985 2492 2495 Chrysostom Cyril Theodoret.

The doxology is assigned variously to the end of Romans chapters 14, 15 (P46), and 16 in the manuscript tradition. This textual confusion is caused by the fact that the original letter had been extended two times.

The epistle appears to want to end a second time at 15:30-33.
30 I beseech you, brethren, by our Lord Jesus Christ and by the love of the
Spirit, to join me in the struggle by your prayers to God on my behalf,
31 that I may be delivered from that do not believe in Judaea; and that my
ministry for Jerusalem may be acceptable to the saints,
32 so that I may come to you with joy by the will of God and be refreshed
together with you.
33 The God of peace be with all of you. Amen.

That is clearly an ending, is it not?

The canonized version finally ends a third time with a catholicized version of the doxology.

Romans 16
25 Now to him who can strengthen you, according to my gospel and the
proclamation of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery kept
secret for long ages
26 but now manifested through the prophetic writings and, according to the
command of the eternal God, made known to all nations to bring about the
obedience of faith,
27 to the only wise God, through Jesus Christ be glory forever and ever. Amen.

But just before the final ending, we have a very revealing notation.
16:22 aspazomai umas egO tertios o grapsas tEn epistolEn en kuriO
16:23 aspazetai umas gaios o xenos mou kai olEs tEs ekklEsias aspazetai umas
erastos o oikonomos

The name Tertius (gk tertios) is of Latin origin, TeÑrtiov. It quite simply means "the third." He is allegedly the amanuensis of Paul in writing the epistle to the Romans. But he has a more active role than a mere note taker. It is Tertius who greets the readers of the Epistle in his own name.

I, Tertius, who write this letter, greet you in the Lord. Gaius, who is host to me [Tertius] and the whole church, greets you. Erastus, the city treasurer, and our brother Quartus greet you. Romans 16:22-23.

Tertius is not the amanuensis of Paul. He actually says no such thing. Paul is not even mentioned by name in the 16th chapter. This is merely the traditionalists' attempt to save the unity of the epistle. "Tertius" is the non de plum of the catholic editor who added the sixteenth chapter. All the names mentioned are the early third century friends and acquaintances of Tertius

Immediately after Tertius' greeting, the text actually does end on the third try (Tertius!).

The evidence, then , is that the epistle to the Romans was known in at least three versions, 14, 15, and 16 and the shorter versions have the earliest attestation. The canonized text we read now in our Bibles was not the original from which all others fragmented, and then stitched themselves back together into pristine unity! This is preposterous. Instead, the epistle grew by redaction as did most texts in antiquity including the gospels. The canonized text is the result of the great normalizing recensions.

To close, I will make a few observations concerning the epistle to the Romans as a whole. Romans did not begin as a letter. It was a combination of 3 dogmatic treatsies that were cobbled together and made to look like a letter.

In very broad outline (without attempting to define later interpolations), these were
Chapters 1-8.
Chapters 9-11.
Chapters 12-14.
No doubt the last ended after 14:23+Doxology.

Also please ponder this. The audience of the letter/treatsie were Pauline Christians, otherwise (as Van Manen observed) they would not understand all the nuances of "faith," "grace," "righteousness," "love," "justification by faith," and "works of the law" just to name a few. Now if this audience were indeed the first century church at Rome, we have a perplexing problem. How could the great church, presumably founded by Pauline Christians and presumably the recepient of one of the "Great Epistles" be found to be in such ignorance of the Apostle before Marcion's appearance with the Apostilicon? It just doesn't make sense.

Best,
Jake Jones IV

spamandham

I guess I should have emphasized "For everything that was written in the past was written to teach us, so that through endurance and the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope."

It's hard for me to see that as anything other than Paul equating Jesus with ancient scriptures.

Although I am in the minority, I do not start by assuming that all the writings attributed to Paul really were written by one person in one relatively short span of time. I'm taking a minimalist position. Therefor, I do not accept arguments linking different portions of "Paul" at face value.

I feel my position is the most reasonable, considering that modern textual analysis has revealed that ~half of the works previously attributed to Paul are actually pseudepigrapha, and well qualified scholars argue about the veracity of significant portions of what's left.

spamandham

I have argued at great length on this board in the past that Romans 15 is entirety inauthentic for reasons other that what you've presented - but had not previously given much thought to Romans 16. Upon review, your argument seems sound.

Doug Shaver

OK. Accidents happen.