I enthusiastically agree with your opinion here on Price's characterization of the Pauline epistles.Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Sat Jul 07, 2018 10:39 pm I love to read Price. I really do. But I disagree thoroughly with his estimate of the Pauline epistles.
Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Sat Jul 07, 2018 6:12 pm We have more than Asia Minor and Greece on the map, as well... Rome is definitely early...
I think “definitely” is way too strong here based on the letter Romans.Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Sat Jul 07, 2018 7:05 pm For Rome we have Paul's epistle to the Romans, which presupposes a Christian community there even before Paul was set to arrive.
I know you are familiar with the issues, but I’ll summarize some of them by citing Gamble from his The Textual History of the Letter to the Romans ---
In relation to an early fourteen-chapter form (lacking chapters 15 and 16), Gamble writes,
In relation to the lack of the two addresses to Rome at 1:7 and 1:15 in some MSS, Gamble writes,
Sure, Gamble does come down on the side of the position held by the majority of Pauline scholars (quelle surprise) that the form of the letter we now have is the original form, but that conclusion is just his opinion. And most Pauline scholars are heavily invested in the canonical form of the letter Romans.
I think the evidence that Gamble provides is just as strong in support for an original form of the letter that lacked the 2 addresses to Rome in chapter one and lacked chapter 15 --- the only parts of the letter that indicate any clear association with Rome. Whether or not one might agree with my opinion here, the textual evidence certainly does not provide definitive evidence for a Roman congregation of believers in Christ at the time in which Paul was writing letters. Gamble admits the lack of a definitive solution right up front in his introduction ---
Gamble cites, on page 13, a Benedictine scholar who characterized Romans in 1908 as,
Gamble laments that in the ensuing decades “the obscurity has not been relieved” and if anything, he writes, “the situation is even more beclouded now” with the addition of new evidence and hypotheses. (p. 13)
Gamble admits in relation to the textual history of Romans,