Loading...In my previous post I summarized the major themes of the letter to the Romans; in that context I mentioned already some of the key aspects of both authorship and purpose. But in this post I want to dig deeper into who wrote it, when, and at particular length, why.
******************************
Romans is the sixth book of the New Testament and the first for which we are virtually certain as to the authorship. The Gospels and Acts are anonymous, only later attributed to their eponymous authors (eponymous being one of those words I love). Romans, however, names its author — in the first word! “Paul.” Lots of other writings claim to be by the apostle Paul but were actually written by other people claiming to be Paul, as I’ve mentioned; six of those are in the NT (at least six that are debated) and there are more than that outside it (none of which are debated).
But in this case there is little doubt about the matter. This letter claims to be by Paul, is in Paul’s writing style, embraces Pauline themes found throughout his other letters, makes sense in Paul’s historical context, and so on. So, it is the first of Paul’s “undisputed” letters.
Get access to Dr. Ehrman's library of 4,000+ articles plus five new articles per week about the New Testament and early Christianity. It costs as little as $2.99/mth and every cent goes to charity!
Unlock 4,000+ Articles Like This!
Congratulations on hitting such a large milestone for charity Bart. Can you explain to me who started the church in Rome?
Thanks, Randolah
Wish I could. We don’t know. Wasn’t Paul (since he had never been there); wasn’t Peter (since he’s not even there at the time). Lots of people came to Rome for lots of reasons (more than any other city probalby in the world), and my guess is that Christians ended up there one reason or another and converted people and it went from there.
I’ve always wondered what it was like for those early Christians to meet Paul. Especially if they already had an established community or church, had their won leaders, and met him for the first time. He arrived to minister to them or lecture them about what they were doing wrong. Were they nervous or reluctant to have him there. Did Paul get on people’s nerves, even the early Christians?
We don’t have anyone else’s reports, but from his own reports it certainly sounds like a lot of people got irritated with him. I wish we know about his actual personality.
May I ask Professor, does the mention of “female deacons (ministers)” in Romans chapter 16 reflect Paul’s permission for women to preach? Does it make sense for conservatives to interpret it as a ‘constable’?
We don’t know exactly what deacons were doing or who was preaching or what that even meant (i.e., what preaching was at the time). “Constable.” Apart from 19th century novels, I’m not sure I hear the word used. The word is the same translated “deacon” in every other context in the New Testament, and can be translated as “minister” — that is, it refers to someone who has a positoin that involves serving others in the church.
Okay, are you saying that Romans simply cannot reflect Paul’s permission for women to preach? Perhaps within the evangelical community (who all believe that 1 Timothy was written by Paul himself), it is indeed more reasonable to be a complementationist?
I’m saying that speficially calling Phoebe a deacon does not indicate whether she preached or not. It’s not evidence in either directoin.
Thanks
I’m listening to your Great Course, “How Jesus Became God.” You mention Acts 1:3, “After his suffering, he presented himself to them and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive. He appeared to them over a period of forty days,” and ask why they needed so many days and so many proofs.
Good question!
What do literalists say?
I suppose that they might say they were slow learners; or that it wasn’t the only thing he was talking to them about; or that he gave proofs they themselves didn’t need to present ot others? (The last option seems the most plausible, but then it doesn’t make sense given the rest of the narrative of Acts, where the apostles try to convince others that Jesus was raised but never mention any of those compelling proofs!
So if Paul converted around the year 33, we have 20 years or so where we are completely in the dark about what was going on? No letters or other writings.. so frustrating!
Yup!
I see a parallel between Jesus and Paul. Jesus finally takes his message to Jerusalem, the center of Jewish worship, hoping to see the new kingdom come to earth, and is executed. Paul goes to Rome, the center of the Gentile world, hoping to extend his mission to the rest of the world, and is executed. Lesson? In the words of Dirty Harry: a man’s got to know his limitations!
Or be willing to pay the price….
What’s your thoughts on this paper? Do you know the author?
https://www.academia.edu/127949202/The_Markan_Perspective_on_Petrine_Theology_A_Response_to_Richard_Bauckham
Haven’t seen it, I’m afraid?
I know you have recommended the HarperCollins Study Bible. Lately I’ve seen The SBL [Society of Biblical Literature] Study Bible, “A thoroughly revised edition of The HarperCollins Study Bible.”
Have you seen the SBL Study Bible? Would you recommend it over HarperCollins?
Thanks.
I’m sure it’s great. Maybe it’s even greater. But I’ve refused to get one for a very seemingly irrelevant reason. The pages it is printed on are so terribly thin and flimsy I don’t know how they would hold up to longterm use. I’ve complained about it, but I’m sure they are much cheaper to produce that way.
Has anyone else reading this had that problem?
This is a great article, I’ve often wondered why Paul would be writing such a lengthy exposition of his gospel if they were already an established church. I got to thinking about the section of this article where it deals with Paul’s fear about returning to Jerusalem on account of opposition because he wanted to take the money that he raised there before leaving for Spain. I used to couple this account with Paul’s final leg of his third mission out of Corinth back to Jerusalem, and there he indeed faces opposition Acts chapter 20 and then finds himself in Rome, in prison Acts 28. So, according to Acts, they at least got haha! They seem to fit well together, but how? History, hearsay, looking at the letter itself expanding the details? What do you think?
I don’t think Acts is reliable on Paul’s arrest and trials. Just the arrest itself is meant to show that he has never done anything contrary to Jewish law, but he himself says explicitly otherwise (to the Jews I’m a Jew and to the Greeks a Greek). And the trip to Rome hinges on his being a Roman citizen, which I don’t think can be true. So I see Acts as coming up with a tale to allow him to defend himself and his message to show that he’s completely innocent (Just as Luke — more than even the other Gospels — works to show that Jesus was completely innocent) AND to show that th emessage really has now gone to the very heart of the empire, the capital.
city)disabledupes{32de578ddea016f6babf7acb49c95a71}disabledupes
Did Paul ever mention a virgin birth?
Nope! Neither did anyone else in the NT outside of Luke and Matthew.
If Paul thinks he has time to evangelize Roman Hispania do you think maybe he’s backing off a bit from his expectation of the imminent Parousia evidenced in his letter to the Thessalonians?
On the contrary, I think he realizes that he has to preach to the “ends of the earth” so that Jesus can come right away.
But I guess that *would* mean that he knew it couldn’t happen just yet.disabledupes{8b880ff979cb381bf2113302664d887b}disabledupes
Thank you Doc for this post. It suggests one explanation for the contradictions which are present in chapter 2 where Paul seems to suggest that works is a pathway to salvation, even as he asserts that it is not. Paul then was still not fully matured in his soteriology and was not aware of the inconsistencies. That the works -grace conflict persisted in the early church is evident by the epistle of James.
In looking at Paul’s letter to the church in the city of Rome, it seems that Paul is trying to replace whatever theology they had with his own theology/gospel. Do you think that was one of Paul’s motivations for writing such an exhaustive exposition of his own theology? In other words, Paul could be implicitly saying “Hey, let’s have my theology be preeminent in your church”. It seems that could be the case if, for example, the churches that Paul established in Galatia abandoned Paul’s theology at the urging of other Christian missionaries. Then Paul and other Christian missionaries may have been playing a mean little game of theologically taking over churches that weren’t established by them.
I don’t see any indication that he was trying to correct them. Given what he says, it appears he is trying to clarify that he himself believes nad preaches in light of what others have said about him.
Your reference to Paul’s belief about gentiles and Jews made me think if the Jews are God’s chosen people, how does this square with the Native Americans, Chinese and various peoples in Africa who existed way before Christ? How do religious experts explain this and did God reveal himself only to the Jews?
It’s a religious belief of Jews, not something that experts who know *about* various religions can say is right or wrong. Many people tend to think they are the ones chosen by God, from ancient Romans to many modern Americans.
I’ve always wondered how much the content of Romans was inspired by the nature of Roman religious practices—that is, essentially pagan, with various gods and goddesses. As I understand it, one aspect of these practices was to thank the gods/goddesses for the pleasures they’ve given people by indulging in them. This could have included physical pleasures not in sync with Christian behavior as Paul wanted it to be. Indeed, I believe Romans is the only book in the Bible addressing woman-with-woman sexual activity, which might well have been happening given the pagan practices common in that city. Does this idea hold any water?
I don’t think Roman religions urged people to engage in particular sexual practices because they were given by the gods or to thank them for it. That sounds like a kind of polemic against paganism, the kind Paul himself uses n Romans 1? He doesn’t ever talk about the sexual issues he deals with later in the book as being connected with pagan worship.