Romans 9-11 & the temple's destruction

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Romans 9-11 & the temple's destruction

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Irish1975 wrote: Wed May 22, 2019 7:35 pm
theme Romans 1:1-15 Romans 15:14-24
Paul's self-description apostle, called and set apart minister, by God's grace
attribute of Romans praised by Paul faith full goodness and knowledge
authority claimed by Paul to call people to the obedience of faith to boast of what Christ works through him
scope of Paul's mission all the nations, including the Romans regions where Christ is unnamed, no apostles have labored
purpose of Paul's projected visit to Rome preach the gospel, reap a harvest enjoy company for a little, get sent on to Spain

These parallels need a lot of work; they are not at all the best parallels that one can muster from these passages. For example, you list "obedience" in connection with the gentiles in Romans 1, yet fail to notice that Romans 15 also speaks of "obedience" in connection with the gentiles. You also put down that Paul is a minister by the "grace" of God in Romans 15, yet fail to notice that he also links his apostleship with "grace" in Romans 1.

Furthermore, with respect to your fourth parallel, it is Romans 15 that coheres most strongly with the other Pauline literature (wishing only to lay foundations, never to build on another man's foundation); if anything is anomalous here, it is the desire to preach to the already faithful Romans in chapter 1. And there is no tension or contradiction at all between the Romans having faith and the Romans being full of goodness and knowledge.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
User avatar
Irish1975
Posts: 1057
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:01 am

Re: Romans 9-11 & the temple's destruction

Post by Irish1975 »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Wed May 22, 2019 11:46 am
1) Why is the author suddenly modest, almost apologetic, for preaching the gospel? Galatians!
I detect no such modesty, and certainly no apology for preaching the gospel in Romans 15. To the contrary, in verses 15-16 Paul asserts that he has spoken "boldly" to the Romans precisely because of his metaphorical status as a priest of the gospel of God. In verse 19 he claims the power of signs and wonders in his ministry; and in that same verse he boasts of having veritably fulfilled the gospel by preaching in so wide an arc.
"I have written to you very boldly, but it was to remind you (sc. of what you already know)" is not the same Paul as "I have been called, set apart, and given authority from God to preach the gospel to all nations, including you." At the very least, it's less intense. Furthermore, since Paul's status as an apostle was so dear to him, it cannot be insignificant that he replaces that title with "leitourgos."
2) Why is he suddenly satisfied that the Romans are full of all goodness and knowledge and instruction, when in 1:11 he had expressed the desire to visit them in order to impart spiritual gifts that would build them up?
This is simply a nonobjection, an attempt to find discord where there is none. There is no contradiction or tension, especially rhetorically, between affirming the basic goodness of one's readership or audience while simultaneously expressing a wish to build that same readership or audience up. Modern preachers do this literally every Sunday (and Wednesday, and on holidays, and at church retreats and camps). It is practically a cliché that someone can be virtually a saint and yet still benefit from some Christian upbuilding and encouragement.
But Paul tells them that they are, en masse, πεπληρωμένοι πάσης τῆς γνώσεως, full of all knowledge. For him that would be a weighty claim. And is it believable that he would make that assertion to a church he has never visited?
3) The verb hierourgein in verse 16, according to Ryder, occurs nowhere else in the NT. Nowhere else in Paul is there a conception of offering gentiles to God as a sacrifice. Does he ever even mention priests or priestly imagery, apart from the passing reference to latreia in Romans 9:4?
It is not common, but he does, yes:

Philippians 2.17: 17 But even if I am being poured out as a drink offering upon the sacrifice and service (σπένδομαι ἐπὶ τῇ θυσίᾳ καὶ λειτουργίᾳ) of your faith, I rejoice and share my joy with you all.

2 Corinthians 2.15-16: 15 For we are a fragrance [εὐωδία] of Christ to God among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing; 16 to the one an aroma [ὀσμή] from death to death, to the other an aroma [ὀσμή] from life to life. And who is adequate for these things?

Raymond F. Collins, Commentary on 2 Corinthians, page 72: The aromatic imagery takes a different turn in verse 15. In an explanatory clause beginning with because, Paul affirms that we are the fragrance of Christ to God (2:15). “Odor” and “fragrance” are biblical terms used to describe the pleasant smells that arise from sacrificial offerings (Gen. 8:21; Exod. 29:17–18; Lev. 1:9, 13, 17; Num. 15:3, 7, 10). Thus, Paul seems to be alluding to Christ’s sacrificial offering of himself, which Paul and his companions exude through their apostolic ministry. The biblical language suggests that not only the participants in the sacrifice and the onlookers can smell the pleasant aroma, but also that the smell is pleasing to God himself, a sign that the offering is acceptable to God. Not only is Christ’s sacrifice acceptable to God; so too is the ministry of Paul and his evangelizing companions.

Each of these metaphorical usages of priestly protocol stands alone: one compares Paul himself to an offering; another compares the gentiles to an offering, with Paul as the priest; and the other compares Christ to a priestly sacrifice, with Paul and his colleagues as the smoke therefrom. Sacrificial language was (and still is) a very flexible motif.
Interesting.
7) Why has Rome suddenly become a layover on the way to...Spain?? "Because the apostle had so filled the East with his preaching, that he could not remain in it without being idle, and because if he went to Rome he would be in a place where he could not remain without building on another man's foundation, nothing remained but that he should go to Spain! How completely without motive this all is."
Some of this is answered by the above. If Paul felt that the East was full enough of apostles and preachers (Cephas, Apollos, the "brothers of the Lord," and so on), then his ego may easily have led him to wish to go somewhere less traveled. This is a common enough missionary motive. As for the specific question of why Spain should be the target country, the short answer is that I do not know. I once read an intriguing suggestion about that in a book by Roger David Aus, but I do not have access to that book at this precise moment; nor do I recall the overall argument well enough to present it here competently. But it may not matter in the long run. Sometimes missionaries just want to go where they want to go. My parents became evangelical missionaries when I was a child, and their first target country was Bolivia. Why Bolivia? I honestly have no idea. They said that the Lord led them there. But it never worked out, because my father was diagnosed with some sort of condition which high altitudes would complicate; so the target became Mexico: same language, so no language lessons were wasted, but a very different country. And, again, I really have no idea why. Maybe, for Paul, the lure of the "ends of the earth" was, by itself, enough of a reason. (That said, I could equally well see the "ends of the earth" as a good target for a later forger to put into his mind, so to speak. I simply think that, pending further information, this point could go in either direction.)
I think that our image of Paul as the great missionary is a product of Acts (which I read as fiction). It seems that Paul largely failed in Galatia (wherever that was), and Corinth, and it was partly out of frustration at not getting his gospel properly heard and understood that he wrote Romans. Paul was essentially an apostle (from God to humanity), not a missionary (from Jerusalem to the ends of the earth).
The crucial and decisive parallel is between Romans 15:20 ("thus making it my ambition to preach the gospel, not where Christ has already been named, lest I build on another man’s foundation") and 2 Cor 10:16 ("so that we may preach the gospel in lands beyond you, without boasting of work already done in another’s field"). The author of Romans 15 has Paul using his own standard against himself, the upshot being that Paul doesn't have any apostolic mandate towards the church in Rome. He suddenly needs to correct himself for having had the audacity to write them this very epistle. And he will be going into "lands beyond you," i.e. somewhere completely beyond even Gaul (arguably within the ambit of the Roman church), onto Spain and, who knows, the Pillars of Hercules.
Yes, if a person harbored the motive of denying Paul any sort of apostleship over Rome, then he or she could use 2 Corinthians 10.14-16 in this way. But, if Paul himself really did try to avoid doubling up on other apostles' areas of influence, and if Paul really was not the founder of the church of Rome, then Romans 15.20-21 is also exactly what we should expect from him.
If there really had been a church in Rome when Paul wrote, and if his letter included chapters 15 and 16, don't you think they would have preserved the entire thing as a treasured possession? Why circulate a 14-chapter version that says nothing about them?
User avatar
Irish1975
Posts: 1057
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:01 am

Re: Romans 9-11 & the temple's destruction

Post by Irish1975 »

I wrote
If there really had been a church in Rome when Paul wrote, and if his letter included chapters 15 and 16, don't you think they would have preserved the entire thing as a treasured possession? Why circulate a 14-chapter version that says nothing about them?
but failed to consider that another church might have been motivated by envy to cut it short. Ah well, it's late.
User avatar
Irish1975
Posts: 1057
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:01 am

Re: Romans 9-11 & the temple's destruction

Post by Irish1975 »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Wed May 22, 2019 7:55 pm
Irish1975 wrote: Wed May 22, 2019 7:47 pmA literary dependence between the two texts seems likely to me as well. But I don't see why your scenario is more likely. If Romans 15 is based on Acts, then naturally the forger would have depicted Paul as having no foreknowledge, but only apprehension, of what might happen.
In Acts he does have foreknowledge: he affirms that the Spirit has testified in no uncertain terms that he is going to end up in chains (Acts 20.23). In Romans he has no such foreknowledge; he hopes for the best, giving no hint of knowing how things will turn out.
My point was that this difference doesn't tell us anything about which text came first.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Romans 9-11 & the temple's destruction

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Irish1975 wrote: Wed May 22, 2019 8:45 pm"I have written to you very boldly, but it was to remind you (sc. of what you already know)" is not the same Paul as "I have been called, set apart, and given authority from God to preach the gospel to all nations, including you."
I agree; they are not the same. They are, in fact, apples and oranges. One is Paul's mission statement; the other is the rationale for Paul's letter to a church which is, at best, the product of somebody else's mission.
At the very least, it's less intense.
In what way? I am not following.
Furthermore, since Paul's status as an apostle was so dear to him, it cannot be insignificant that he replaces that title with "leitourgos."
It is significant. It is part of the liturgical metaphor. Also, despite his pride in his apostleship, Paul does not always call himself an apostle; he frequently calls himself a servant, for example.
But Paul tells them that they are, en masse, πεπληρωμένοι πάσης τῆς γνώσεως, full of all knowledge. For him that would be a weighty claim.
Why do you think he would not make such a claim? What is this based on? Is he not allowed to be nice (or extend a measure of flattery) to a church he has never visited but hopes to visit soon?
And is it believable that he would make that assertion to a church he has never visited?
Yes, of course it is believable. Why do you think otherwise?
I think that our image of Paul as the great missionary is a product of Acts (which I read as fiction). It seems that Paul largely failed in Galatia (wherever that was), and Corinth, and it was partly out of frustration at not getting his gospel properly heard and understood that he wrote Romans. Paul was essentially an apostle (from God to humanity), not a missionary (from Jerusalem to the ends of the earth).
I potentially agree with all of this, except that you are dicing up the terminology too finely (apostle versus missionary, both of which mean "sent one," and neither of which etymologically specifies the sender). But Paul still chose whither to go, and the reason(s) for his choice may still be opaque to us: not just in this case, but in every case.

We do know some of his preferences: whereas the gospels speak of apostles/missionaries going to villages and roaming the countryside, Paul seems to go only to strongholds of Greco-Roman culture (Thessalonica, Philippi, Corinth, Ephesus). So to go to Rome or to Spain is at least in keeping with his overall modus operandi. But why Spain as opposed, say, to some other province with Roman cities? That is what I am saying we may never know for certain, because the rationale is probably purely subjective. Why Ephesus instead of Alexandria? And so on.
If there really had been a church in Rome when Paul wrote, and if his letter included chapters 15 and 16, don't you think they would have preserved the entire thing as a treasured possession? Why circulate a 14-chapter version that says nothing about them?
This is where Gamble comes in. The point of eliminating all references to Rome would be to make the text catholic/universal, which was demonstrably a point of concern for churches in century II. I recommend reading his book in full for a more complete picture.

And who says it had to be Rome that cut it off at chapter 14?
My point was that this difference doesn't tell us anything about which text came first.
I freely admit it is not a slam dunk. But Acts has Paul predicting what will happen to him, and Romans does not. One of these texts is plausible as coming from Paul's own mouth or pen, and the other is not. And that the interpolator of Romans should subtract Paul's prediction seems less likely to me than that the author/editor of Acts should add it.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
User avatar
Irish1975
Posts: 1057
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:01 am

Re: Romans 9-11 & the temple's destruction

Post by Irish1975 »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Wed May 22, 2019 8:10 pm
Irish1975 wrote: Wed May 22, 2019 7:35 pm
theme Romans 1:1-15 Romans 15:14-24
Paul's self-description apostle, called and set apart minister, by God's grace
attribute of Romans praised by Paul faith full goodness and knowledge
authority claimed by Paul to call people to the obedience of faith to boast of what Christ works through him
scope of Paul's mission all the nations, including the Romans regions where Christ is unnamed, no apostles have labored
purpose of Paul's projected visit to Rome preach the gospel, reap a harvest enjoy company for a little, get sent on to Spain

These parallels need a lot of work; they are not at all the best parallels that one can muster from these passages. For example, you list "obedience" in connection with the gentiles in Romans 1, yet fail to notice that Romans 15 also speaks of "obedience" in connection with the gentiles. You also put down that Paul is a minister by the "grace" of God in Romans 15, yet fail to notice that he also links his apostleship with "grace" in Romans 1.
I think you failed to notice that I called specific attention to "same or similar language" (obedience, grace, longing to see you, prevented from visiting you, etc.) in these two sections, which motivates the comparison in the first place (in addition to Paul being concerned with the same essential topic). The purpose of the chart is to highlight the differences.
Both passages address who Paul thinks he is in relation to the Romans, using the same or similar language, but producing two different accounts.
Furthermore, with respect to your fourth parallel, it is Romans 15 that coheres most strongly with the other Pauline literature (wishing only to lay foundations, never to build on another man's foundation); if anything is anomalous here, it is the desire to preach to the already faithful Romans in chapter 1.
That's the point of Baur's case against Pauline authorship. Romans 15 does cohere with other Pauline letters, but not with Romans 1-14. The agenda of the author of 15 is to reinterpret Paul as operating in collegiality with the other apostles--a concern absent from Romans 1-14--using the 2 Corinthians 10 passage as a rationale for Paul's uncharacteristic self-limitation of his own apostleship.
And there is no tension or contradiction at all between the Romans having faith and the Romans being full of goodness and knowledge.
To reiterate:
It is not a question of bald contradictions, but of many subtle changes.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Romans 9-11 & the temple's destruction

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Irish1975 wrote: Thu May 23, 2019 8:09 amI think you failed to notice that I called specific attention to "same or similar language" (obedience, grace, longing to see you, prevented from visiting you, etc.) in these two sections, which motivates the comparison in the first place (in addition to Paul being concerned with the same essential topic). The purpose of the chart is to highlight the differences.
Exactly. And you included similarities in it for some reason.
That's the point of Baur's case against Pauline authorship. Romans 15 does cohere with other Pauline letters, but not with Romans 1-14. The agenda of the author of 15 is to reinterpret Paul as operating in collegiality with the other apostles--a concern absent from Romans 1-14--using the 2 Corinthians 10 passage as a rationale for Paul's uncharacteristic self-limitation of his own apostleship.
I fail to see how a chapter that coheres with Pauline thought elsewhere is therefore not Pauline. Would not the more natural conclusion be that Romans 1-14 is spurious but chapter 15 is genuine?
And there is no tension or contradiction at all between the Romans having faith and the Romans being full of goodness and knowledge.
To reiterate:
It is not a question of bald contradictions, but of many subtle changes.
Every author makes "subtle changes," unless s/he is copying out the same text again. How do these kinds of "subtle changes" demonstrate a different authorship, unless they are also tensions in some way?

Not trying be difficult here. I genuinely think that these arguments are weak to nonexistent.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
robert j
Posts: 1007
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 5:01 pm

Re: Romans 9-11 & the temple's destruction

Post by robert j »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Wed May 22, 2019 3:07 pm
... whether (A) as a record of Paul's actual dealings with the Macedonians, the Galatians, the Achaeans, and the Jerusalemites or (B) as a record of his various lies to the Achaeans, using the Macedonians and the Galatians as foils for the deceit.
Much of our difference of opinion on the collection for the Saints comes down to how much integrity and veracity to allow Paul when it comes to money.

Ben C. Smith wrote: Wed May 22, 2019 3:07 pm Make no mistake: I am persuadable on Romans 15. But I have not actually been persuaded yet.
So there’s no slam dunk --- it's interpretation and opinion.

Especially in the case of Romans with its messy textual history, I'm not really interested in persuading anyone --- except that the solutions that I suggest are plausible. That they belong on the table.

Ben C. Smith wrote: Wed May 22, 2019 3:07 pm I am interested in reading more from you along these lines. But you have a habit on this forum of leaving tantalizing notes and then disappearing for months at a time. ;)
I'll take "tantalizing notes " as a compliment.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Romans 9-11 & the temple's destruction

Post by Ben C. Smith »

robert j wrote: Thu May 23, 2019 11:12 amSo there’s no slam dunk --- it's interpretation and opinion.
Oh, of course. I do not fault anybody for thinking that Romans 15 is spurious. There is actually textual evidence that suggest that something is up with it.
Especially in the case of Romans with its messy textual history, I'm not really interested in persuading anyone --- except that the solutions that I suggest are plausible. That they belong on the table.
I agree. They do.
I'll take "tantalizing notes " as a compliment.
As you should. :)
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Romans 9-11 & the temple's destruction

Post by Giuseppe »

Thanks Irish1975 and Ben for this exchange of different views about Rom. 9-11.

It may be interesting the reading of Doudna's view about the same passages:
(2) I know that is the common understanding but once the argument that a post-70 1 Thes 2 means interpolation is gone, I do not see a significant thematic difference between 1 Thes 2 and Rom 9-11 apart from emotional stance. Both read to me as post-70 ideology. Rom 9-11 is rhetorically more appealing with expression of sorrow in saying that Jews are rejected now in the present age. The “wrath” that Jews have received of I Thes 2:15 corresponds to Rom 9 and esp. 9:22 where Paul defends the justice of God and expresses Paul’s own deep sadness that the Jews have been made by God “vessels of wrath fitted to destruction”. It is the same thing! The difference between Rom 9-11 and I Thes 2 is not substantive but rather Paul’s presentation: in one he says “good riddance” and the other he is weeping over what God has justly done to his people the Jews.
Yes, in Romans Paul holds out (a) a remnant of Jews in the present age are righteous, and (b) there will be a future redemption of all Israel (universal salvation) in a future age, beyond God’s rejection of the Jewish nation as a people “fitted for destruction” in the current one. But such talk of a few good ones (remnant) and in the end everyone will be saved (pie in the sky) of a doomed people in the present age is rhetoric. Agrippa II and Josephus, who were with Titus, similarly no doubt wept at the divine justice of Roman wrath on the holy city and condemned people within, as they assisted the Romans in carrying it out.
Rhetorical back-and-forth between total destruction of a condemned target and “nevertheless” language of remnants and salvation for all at a future age is common. On I Thes 2:15 charging the Jewish nation with the death of Jesus and persecution of Christians, claimed to be unattested elsewhere in Paul’s letters, the same reads to me as implied and expressed at Gal 4:22-31 at 4:29 (“even so it is now”); also at Gal 1:13. Cp. Martin Luther alternatively conciliatory and then holocaust-justifying in his statements concerning Jews and wilful resistance to accept the gospel.

https://vridar.org/2019/04/04/can-we-fi ... ment-92224
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Post Reply