“The manuscript tradition attests eight different forms of Romans.”
“Considerations of content, style, and epistolary practice conspire to make it unlikely that Paul was the author.”
See in particular Elliott (1981); Dunn (1988), 913-16; Fitzmyer (1993), 753.
Elliott, J. K. (1981), “The Language and style of the Concluding Doxology at the End of Romans’, ZNW 72: 124-30
A highly reputed journal published since 1900, the Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft is an international journal for the exegesis of the New Testament and knowledge of the early church (patristics). Appearing annually in two issues of 150 pages each plus supplements, it features original contributions in German, English, and French which have been written by well-known scholars worldwide. By accepting only high quality research papers which advance scholarship, the editors seek to retain the recognizably high niveau of the journal.
Dunn, J. D. G. 1988, Romans (WBC 38; Dallas: Word Books).
Fitzmyer, J. A. 1993, Romans (AB 33; New York: Doubleday)
“The absence of any mention of Christ in ‘the revelation of the mystery concealed for long ages, but now made manifest through the prophetic scriptures’ (16: 25b-26a) betrays its un-Pauline character, even though the language evokes Colossians 1: 26-7.”
“As regards the varying lengths of the letter in different manuscripts, it is most probable that the elements which related the letter to a specific community were deliberately edited out in order to give the letter greater universality. It is known that the particularity of the Pauline letters created certain difficulties in the second century, and the easiest solution to this type of problem is to eliminate the causes. Thus the words ‘in Rome’ were excised from 1: 7 and 15.”
“Were Romans the only case, this hypothesis would lose much of its appeal. But Ephesians is certainly a generic letter, and Dahl has plausibly suggested that the two different positions for the phrase ‘which is in Corinth’ (I Cor. 1: 2) in the manuscript tradition is due to the phrase having been excised in certain manuscripts to generalize the letter, and then restored but in the wrong place. Similarly, certain scribes considered that the personal details about Paul which ch. 15 contained threatened the universality of the letter, whereas others did not. The highly specific greetings of ch. 16 were a much graver cause for concern.”
Dahl, N. A., 1962, ‘The Particularity of the Pauline Epistles as a Problem in the Ancient Church’, in Neotestamentica et Patristica (novTSup 6; FS O. Cullmann; Leiden: Brill), 261-71
The quotations are from the book, Paul: A Critical Life (1996) by Jerome Murphy-O’Connor OP
He is/was Professor of New Testament at the Ecole Biblique et Archeologique Francaise, Jerusalem
Jerome Murphy-O’Connor OP said
“The absence of any mention of Christ in ‘the revelation of the mystery concealed for long ages, but now made manifest through the prophetic scriptures’ (16: 25b-26a) betrays its un-Pauline character, even though the language evokes Colossians 1: 26-7.”
Romans 16: 25-27
** you do not have permission to see this link **to the only wise God, through Jesus Christ, be the glory forever. Amen.
Colossians 1: 24-28
Now, I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake and in my flesh, I am filling up what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ, on behalf of his body which is the church
of which I am a minister in accordance with God’s stewardship given to me to bring to completion for you the word of God
the mystery hidden from ages and from generations past. But now it has been manifested to his holy ones
to whom God chose to make known the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; it is Christ in you, the hope for glory.
It is he whom we proclaim, admonishing everyone and teaching everyone with all wisdom that we may present everyone perfect in Christ.
= = =
I am thinking Murphy-O’Connor is saying Romans does not say the mystery is Christ in you, the hope for glory: this is un-Pauline.
With today being 2015, we are under the impression that Colossians cannot trump Romans because Colossians is not accepted as being an authentic letter of Paul but Romans is.
Jerome Murphy-O’Connor OP said
“As regards the varying lengths of the letter in different manuscripts, it is most probable that the elements which related the letter to a specific community were deliberately edited out in order to give the letter greater universality. It is known that the particularity of the Pauline letters created certain difficulties in the second century, and the easiest solution to this type of problem is to eliminate the causes.
The words ‘in Rome’ were excised from 1: 7 and 15.
Were Romans the only case, this hypothesis would lose much of its appeal. But:
1) Ephesians is certainly a generic letter and
2) the two different positions for the phrase ‘which is in Corinth’ (I Cor. 1: 2) in the manuscript tradition is due to the phrase having been excised in certain manuscripts to generalize the letter, and then restored but in the wrong place.
Similarly, certain scribes considered that the personal details about Paul which ch. 15 contained threatened the universality of the letter, whereas others did not.
Murphy-O’Connor has a point if Romans was written after Colossians.
What do you say, was Romans written after Colossians?
Some reference information:
Seven letters (with consensus dates) considered genuine by most scholars:
First Thessalonians (ca. 51 AD)
Philippians (ca. 52–54 AD)
Philemon (ca. 52–54 AD)
First Corinthians (ca. 53–54 AD)
Galatians (ca. 55 AD)
Second Corinthians (ca. 55–56 AD)
Romans (ca. 55–58 AD)
Re: Colossians
According to Bruce Metzger it was written in the 50s while Paul was in prison. Colossians is similar to Ephesians, also written at this time.
Increasingly, critical scholars ascribe the epistle to an early follower writing as Paul.
The epistle’s description of Christ as pre-eminent over creation marks it, for some scholars, as representing an advanced christology not present during Paul’s lifetime. Defenders of Pauline authorship cite the work’s similarities to Philemon, which is broadly accepted as authentic.
The letter may have been written by Paul at Rome during his first imprisonment. (Acts 28:16, 28:30)
Other scholars have suggested that it was written from Caesarea or Ephesus.
If the letter is not considered to be an authentic part of the Pauline corpus it might be dated during the late 1st century, possibly as late as AD 80.
Here, we go again, but with Ephesians and this is Wikipedia quoting Bart Ehrman:
Most English translations indicate that the addressees are ‘the saints who are in Ephesus’ (1:1), but the words ‘in Ephesus’ are not found in the earliest and best Greek manuscripts of this letter. Most textual experts think that the words were not in the letter originally but were added by a scribe after it had already been in circulation for a time.
I think Dr. Bart Ehrman should extrapolate in a blog entry about the adding or removal of “in [a city]” being added are removed from Paul’s Letters.
Steefen said
Murphy-O’Connor has a point if Romans was written after Colossians.
What do you say, was Romans written after Colossians?Some reference information:
Seven letters (with consensus dates) considered genuine by most scholars:
First Thessalonians (ca. 51 AD)
Philippians (ca. 52–54 AD)
Philemon (ca. 52–54 AD)
First Corinthians (ca. 53–54 AD)
Galatians (ca. 55 AD)
Second Corinthians (ca. 55–56 AD)
Romans (ca. 55–58 AD)
Re: Colossians
According to Bruce Metzger it was written in the 50s while Paul was in prison. Colossians is similar to Ephesians, also written at this time.
Increasingly, critical scholars ascribe the epistle to an early follower writing as Paul.
The epistle’s description of Christ as pre-eminent over creation marks it, for some scholars, as representing an advanced christology not present during Paul’s lifetime. Defenders of Pauline authorship cite the work’s similarities to Philemon, which is broadly accepted as authentic.
The letter may have been written by Paul at Rome during his first imprisonment. (Acts 28:16, 28:30)
Other scholars have suggested that it was written from Caesarea or Ephesus.If the letter is not considered to be an authentic part of the Pauline corpus it might be dated during the late 1st century, possibly as late as AD 80.
Re: Ephesians
If Paul was the author of Ephesians, then it was probably written from Rome during Paul’s first imprisonment (Ephesians 3:1; 4:1; 6:20), and probably soon after his arrival there in the year 62.
So, Murphy-O’Connor’s point is weakened because Colossians is written after Romans (if authentic and definitely, if not authentic).
The quotations are from the book, Paul: A Critical Life (1996) by Jerome Murphy-O’Connor OP
He is/was Professor of New Testament at the Ecole Biblique et Archeologique Francaise, Jerusalem
Dominican Order: Members of the order generally carry the letters O.P., standing for Ordinis Praedicatorum, meaning of the Order of Preachers, after their names. In the year 2000, there were 5,171 Dominican friars in solemn vows, 917 student brothers, and 237 novices.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)