Extracts from Paula Fredriksen, When Christians Were Jews: The First Generation (pp. 118-119). Yale University Press. Kindle Edition.
Most authorized translations of the opening of Paul’s letter to Rome mute Paul’s linkage of Jesus’ Davidic sonship to these Endtime events. These translations obscure this important passage of Paul’s letter by mistranslating it. And these mistranslations occur for good reason: the ever-expanding lag between Jesus’ first coming and his second one.
But Paul, in the mid-first century, wrote in innocence of this long pause in history’s sweep. He expected the general resurrection soon—in his own lifetime, in fact. And he expected that event to declare in public, before the universe, what Jesus’ own resurrection appearances had earlier declared to select insiders: the Kingdom was at hand. The standard English misrendering of these lines of Paul’s attests, instead, to the pressures of the passage of time. Instead of reading “designated son of God in power by the resurrection of the dead,” which is what Paul’s Greek says, the Revised Standard Version gives “designated son of God in power by his resurrection from the dead.” But that is not what Paul says. He states, rather, that Jesus will be known as “son of God”—that is, as the Davidic messiah—not by his own resurrection from the dead, but by the (general) resurrection of (all of?) the dead. This is a distinction with a difference. The RSV’s mistranslation erases the gap between first-century proclamation and later, postapocalyptic interpretations of it. The RSV puts all the emphasis on Jesus’ individual resurrection. It thereby decouples Jesus’ resurrection from what it was necessarily and immediately linked to, as Paul elsewhere insisted: the final transformation of both the dead and the living at Christ’s return, when, as Paul said elsewhere, “he delivers the Kingdom to God the Father.”
Go to the post on this site here for a ChatGPT response, related to Frederikson’s point above, on other scholars and their debate about Romans 1:4.
From OpenAI. (2024). ChatGPT [Large language model]. https://chatgpt.com
Prompt: Do critical bible scholars believe that Paul dictated his letter to the Romans? Cite all sources.
Yes, critical Bible scholars generally agree that Paul dictated his Letter to the Romans. This conclusion is primarily based on Romans 16:22, where Tertius, the amanuensis, explicitly states, “I, Tertius, who wrote this letter, greet you in the Lord.” This indicates that Tertius transcribed the letter as Paul dictated it.
The use of an amanuensis was a common practice in the ancient world, and Paul is known to have employed this method for several of his epistles. In his blog, scholar Bart Ehrman discusses how Paul’s practice of dictating his letters complicates the task of determining their original text, noting that scribes would often make a fresh copy after Paul made corrections. See EhrmanBlog.org.
Therefore, the consensus among critical scholars is that Paul dictated the Letter to the Romans, with Tertius serving as his scribe.
Prompt – Why do Hughes and Jewitt believe Romans was written from Corinth?
Hughes and Jewett argue that the Apostle Paul wrote the Epistle to the Romans from Corinth based on several key factors drawn from historical, geographical, and textual evidence. Below are the main reasons for their belief:
1. Paul’s Mention of His Travel Plans (Romans 15:23-24)
In Romans 15:23-24, Paul writes about his plans to visit Rome after completing his mission in Spain. He indicates that he would first stop in Rome on his way to Spain. He also mentions that he is presently in the region of Greece (Achaia), preparing to travel to Jerusalem with the offering collected from the Gentile churches. This is consistent with the historical context of Paul’s travels.
Given that Paul’s travel plans in Romans align with his actual journey as recorded in Acts, and that his journey to Jerusalem was from the region of Achaia, it suggests that Paul wrote Romans while in Achaia, most likely from Corinth.
2. Paul’s Association with Gaius and Erastus (Romans 16:23)
In Romans 16:23, Paul sends greetings from Gaius, whom he refers to as his host. The letter also mentions Erastus, the city treasurer. Both individuals are known to have been in Corinth at the time. Paul’s association with Gaius and Erastus in this way strongly indicates that Paul was in Corinth when writing Romans, as these two men were prominent members of the Corinthian church.
- Gaius: The name “Gaius” was common in the early Christian world, and there was a Gaius mentioned in 1 Corinthians 1:14, who was likely a member of the Corinthian church. In addition, Paul’s reference to Gaius as his “host” suggests Paul was in Corinth, as he would not have referred to him in this way from a distant location.
- Erastus: The mention of Erastus as the “city treasurer” in Romans 16:23 supports the idea that Paul wrote from Corinth, where Erastus is traditionally understood to have held this position. Archaeological discoveries in Corinth have confirmed the presence of an inscription that mentions an Erastus, adding historical weight to the claim that Paul was indeed in Corinth when writing Romans.
3. Context of Paul’s Journey to Jerusalem (Romans 15:25-28)
In Romans 15:25-28, Paul explains that he is about to travel to Jerusalem to deliver the contributions from the Gentile churches. The mention of his mission to deliver the offering provides a concrete historical context that places him in Achaia at the time of writing. Since the collection for Jerusalem had been made by the churches in Macedonia and Achaia (1 Corinthians 16:1-4), and since Paul was preparing to take this offering to Jerusalem, it strongly suggests he was in Corinth, the major city of Achaia, when writing to the Romans.
4. The Length of Time in Corinth
Paul spent a significant amount of time in Corinth during his second missionary journey (Acts 18). By the time he wrote Romans, he had likely spent several months in Achaia, and it is plausible that he wrote the letter while in this region. The timing of Romans fits with the period when Paul was concluding his ministry in Achaia and preparing for his journey to Jerusalem.
5. Lack of Mention of Other Churches
In Romans, Paul does not make reference to the church in Corinth in the same way he does in his other letters (such as 1 and 2 Corinthians), which might suggest that he was writing from a place where he was less involved or had already addressed those issues. The absence of direct references to Corinth supports the idea that he had completed his work there and was now in a different phase of his ministry, possibly in the final stages of his time in Corinth.
6. Historical and Archaeological Evidence
The historical context and archaeological evidence support the idea that Paul wrote Romans from Corinth. As mentioned earlier, the inscription mentioning Erastus, the city treasurer of Corinth, provides a tangible link to Corinth during the time Paul would have been writing. Furthermore, the tradition that Romans was written from Corinth is well-supported by early Christian writings and commentators, lending credibility to the theory.
Conclusion
Hughes and Jewett’s argument that Romans was written from Corinth is based on the convergence of several factors:
- Paul’s mention of his travel plans and location (Romans 15:23-24),
- His association with Gaius and Erastus in Romans 16:23,
- The context of his journey to Jerusalem (Romans 15:25-28),
- The historical and archaeological evidence from Corinth.
These elements together make it highly plausible that Paul wrote Romans from Corinth, as he prepared for his journey to Jerusalem and made plans to eventually visit Rome.
