Steven Carr

This is an easy question. Tertius wrote Romans (Romans 16:22).

What does stylistic analysis of Romans and 1 Corinthians say?

Toto

Many commentators think that Romans 16 was added on to an essay that Paul had composed, which was intended for more recipients than the church in Rome.

Tertius is assumed to be the stenographer, not the composer in any case. But if Tertius wrote the greetings in Rom 16, that would say little about who composed the rest of the epistle.

Boro Nut

So what if he did? Friends, countrymen, lend me your ears gets the message across anyway. Shakespear still did the lions share for me.

Boro Nut

mikem

Romans reads like an essay. Corinthians is a series of replies to various problems that had arisen in the church. I corinthians 16:21 seems to suggest that Paul dictated this letter too. Those factors might account for the differences between them stylistically. I don't know anything about dictation practices in the 1st century, but I did read somewhere that the secretaries had some freedom in how they composed the letters. It's an interesting question though, and I'd like to know more about it.

Toto

Epistle to the Romans is no evidence that Paul was ever in Rome

(this URL may need to be edited)

Steven Carr

But we can tell on stylistic grounds that Shakespeare never wrote 'Infamy! Infamy! They've all got it in for me.' More fool him.

I know stylistic analysis has been applied to 'Pauls' letter, and I was curious how they coped with a letter written by Tertius that Paul never even countersigned. The last chapter does seem very different on stylistic grounds to the rest of Romans.

And I agree that Paul is writing to the Romans, so there is no proof that he has ever been to Rome in the letter.

yalla

F.F. Bruce, whilst believing Paul wrote the epistle to the Romans, gives examples of texts that, variously, omit "in Rome'' [1.7], that it had various endings, the doxology was variously placed or missing, and in some texts Ch 16 was omitted whilst others omitted Ch 15.

So are we certain, that whoever wrote it, it was indeed written to Rome?

He states that the context of Romans 1.8-15 must refer to "Rome and Rome only".
But I can't see that [the final words of 1.15, "who are in Rome also" apparently are omitted in some text[s]].
Comment?

BenefitOfTheDoubt

Did Shakespeare write the Greek, Latin, Syriac (Aramaic) and Ethiopic versions that preceded his time by centuries and centuries? Or are you refering to some other Shakespear without an "e" at the end? Perhaps a time-traveling Shakespear from the future?

BenefitOfTheDoubt

Apparently people in the ancient world were incapable of moving from one city to another. How impossible it is for people from Ephesus to move to Rome--that's just as insane idea. Horses? What's a horse? Obviously the fact that Paul sent a letter to Rome in which he mentions people from Ephesus who moved to Rome proves that he never wrote a letter to Rome because it's impossible for anyone from Ephesus to move to Rome, seeing that Ephesus is on the moon and Rome is in the andromeda gallaxy.

Diogenes the Cynic

Dude, he was making a joke. "Friends, Romans Countrymen, lend me your ears" is a line from Shakespeare's Julius Caeasar. It's not actually a historical speech. Shakespeare made it up. There aren't any Greek, Latin, Aramic, etc. versions of the speech. Boro was just making a joke that If Paul wrote "Romans," then "friends and countrymen" was still good enough.