Robert
As for the author’s purpose in introducing this case of mistaken identity

Steefen
Alleged case of mistaken identity

Robert
it is

Steefen
it may be

Robert
a dramatic recognition scene that serves at least in part to demonstrate the contrasting character of Paul’s actual identity from that initially supposed by the tribune

Steefen
Contrasting an Egyptian Prophet who wants to enter Jerusalem by force–a disturbance with Paul who is creating disturbances–
a continuance of disturbances.

There is no contrast, Robert.

Robert
it proves that he was not a gentile in the temple

Steefen
It proves nothing, contrast is not established.

Robert
Paul was a man of Greek education and culture, that he presented no threat to the pax romana,

Steefen
Ridiculous. Paul has created a disturbance such that a crowd wants to kill him and days later, if they could move Paul to Jerusalem, they would kill him, then.

Robert
…thus eventually bringing Paul to preach the gospel in Rome, the goal of Luke’s story.

Steefen
This is EXACTLY why I have ignored you in the past: everyone knows Paul did not found the Christian community in Rome.

The State of Christianity in Rome as Seen in Paul’s Letter to the Romans

Years after the expulsion of the Jews from Rome, Paul addresses Christians in the city. Once the whole letter of the Romans is admitted into evidence, we may attain a detailed picture of the state of Roman Christianity in the late 50’s.

Some scholars contend that Romans 16 was actually written to Christians in Ephesus and was attached to Paul’s original letter to Rome. Advocates of this view argue that in this chapter Paul names too many people for a city he had never visited, and that some of the names fit especially well with Ephesus rather than Rome.³⁸ The diverse locations of Romans 16 in the manuscripts (see especially P ⁴⁶, which places the doxology of Rom 16:25-27 at the end of chapter 15, with the rest of chapter 16 following the doxology) are used as further support.³⁹

Against this hypothesis, Donfried maintains that Paul includes a long list of names in order to boost his credibility with the Roman recipients of his letter.⁴⁰ Lampe observes that Paul did not necessarily personally know every believer in the list, since the wording only requires personal acquaintance with twelve of the people.⁴¹ Furthermore, there are too few names for the Ephesian scenario, since Paul omits mention of important co-workers expected to be found in Ephesus.⁴² Finally, the final remark in 15:33 is atypical to Paul’s style of closing a letter, and the particle de in 16:1 assumes prior material, making the Ephesian theory less plausible.⁴³

Accepting the integrity of the letter, the believers’ established history in the city is indicated (Rom 15:23), along with the presence of Christians who had believed before Paul had (16:7). The presence of these believers and the many others listed in Rom 16 adds further evidence for the development of Christianity in Rome in the years before Paul’s direct contact with the people there.

** you do not have permission to see this link **

= = =

Robert
Atwill discusses the Roman influences upon the gospels. Sorry, I thought you knew that. 

Steefen
Being flippant gets you nowhere. Atwill does not discuss the Roman cohort commander verse in Acts. Second, the Roman cohort commander verse in Acts is not an element in “Roman provenance of the New Testament”.

= = =

P.S. regarding Paul not being the first Christian in Rome: ** you do not have permission to see this link **

Steefen said
Professor,

You said, “I think most of Paul’s theology does not come from Jesus”.

Which of your books best discusses this claim? Is there a debate, a Great Courses class, or another scholar’s book that makes this argument?

Hans Windisch held that the living Jesus commands different decisions than a post-Ascension, vision Jesus.

Christians today may have a joint living Jesus and Pauline Jesus but 1) Jesus and the 12 were insular, not pushed or pulled by the then current religious trends outside the arena of Temple Judaism while 2) Paul was in an eclectic, competitive religious environment trying to win converts.

If most is 60% not from Jesus and 40% from Jesus, I am curious about the major source/s of his theology.

Looking forward to your answer so I can dig into it.

Steefen  

Professor Bart Ehrman
It’s a very, very common argument among scholars; in the age old formulation, Paul does not proclaim the religion of Jesus but the religion about Jesus. I talk about it, e.g., in my NT textbook discussion of Paul.

Steefen
Thank you, professor. I do recall you saying, “Paul does not proclaim the religion of Jesus but the religion about Jesus.”

True, by a very general definition of christology, one would indeed expect the historical Jesus to have thoughts about the nature of a/the Messiah and perhaps to wonder whether or not, or even believe and assert that, he himself was the Messiah. But as Christology is typically understood discussed by Christian theologians, I would certainly not expect the historical Jesus to have had a developed theological perspective about himself, eg, as one divine person with both a human and divine nature, co-equal and consubstantial with the divine persons of the Father and Holy Spirit as one God. I would also not expect the historical Jesus to have even had the less developed theological perspective of Paul in viewing Jesus as a pre-existent divine being, the instrument of creation, who was then born in human form and likeness. Nor would I expect that the historical Jesus thought of himself as someone whose suffering, death, and resurrection  would subsequently be interpreted as redemptive of all humankind.

Blah, blah, blah, you were wrong.