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.

Where it fits into Paul’s known chronology can be (and sometimes is) debated, but it is widely considered the final letter of Paul we have.  As we will see, he indicates that he has finished his missionary work in the eastern part of the empire and now wants to take the gospel to the “ends of the earth,” to Spain, the westernmost region known to those in the Roman world at the time.  The other letters were written to and in areas of Asia Minor ,Macedonia, and Achaeas (Turkey and Greece).  He’s finished there and ready to head west.

The other letters probably date mainly throughout the decade of the 50s; if this is Paul’s last it can plausibly be put in the early 60s — pick 62 as a possible date; the tradition is that he was martyred in 64 CE in Rome, but we don’t have good evidence for it.

With this letter, far more interesting and important than the who and when is the why.  I take much of the following from the discussion in my undergraduate textbook, edited for current purposes (The New Testament: A Historical Introduction…. Oxford University Press).

As I pointed out in my earlier post, Romans differs in one significant way from all of Paul’s other letters: it is written to a congregation that Paul did not establish, in a city that he had never visited (see Romans 1:10-15).  Given what we know about Paul’s own sense of his apostolic mission, this should immediately give us pause.  Paul’s other letters were written to deal with problems that had arisen among those whom he had converted to faith in Christ.  That clearly is not the case here.  Why, though, would he be writing to someone else’s congregation?

At least on the surface, Paul does not appear to be writing to resolve problems that he has heard about within the Roman church.  As I indicated before, the issues  he discusses appear to relate instead to his own understanding of the Christian gospel.  This is clearly the case in chaps. 1-11; but even his exhortations in chaps. 12-15 are general in nature, not explicitly directed to problems specific to the Christians in Rome.  Nowhere, for example, does he indicate that he has learned of their struggles and that he is writing to convey his apostolic advice (contrast all of his other letters).  Is it possible then that he simply wants to expound some of his views and explain why he holds them?  This is possible, of course; but why would he want to do so for a church that he has never seen?

There may be some clues concerning Paul’s motivation at the beginning and end of the letter.  At the outset he states that he is eager to visit the church to share his gospel with them (1:10-15).  One might think that Paul is preparing the Romans for his visit, giving them advance notice about what he is up to.  But at the end of the letter a fuller agenda becomes more evident.  There he indicates he has completed the work that he has to do where he is — probably Achaia (in Corinth itself?), since according to Romans 16:1 the person carrying the letter, Phoebe, is a deacon of the church in Cenchreae, Corinth’s nearby port; moreover, he is eager to extend his mission into the Western regions, specifically Spain, and wants to visit Rome on the way.

But now, with no further place for me in these regions, I desire, as I have for many years, to come to you when I go to Spain.  For I do hope to see you on my journey and to be sent on by you, once I have enjoyed your company for a little while (Romans 15:23-24).

In light of these comments, it appears that Paul is interested in more than simply meeting with these Roman Christians.  He evidently wants them to provide support — moral and financial — for his westward mission; possibly he would like to use Rome as the base of his operation to the regions beyond.  But why would he need to provide such a lengthy exposition of his views in order to get their support?  Don’t they already know who he is — the apostle to the Gentiles?  And wouldn’t they readily undertake to provide him with whatever assistance is needed?

As I suggested in my previous post, this may be precisely the point.  Either the Romans have only a dim knowledge of who Paul is or, even more likely, they have heard a great deal about him and what they have heard has made them suspicious.  If this is the case, or at least if Paul believes that it is, then presumably their suspicions would relate to the issues that Paul addresses throughout the letter, issues such as whether Gentiles and Jews can really be thought of as equal before God and, if so, (a) whether God has forsaken his promises that the Jews would be his special people and (b) whether Paul’s “law-free gospel” to the Gentiles leads to lawless and immoral behavior.

The tone and style of this letter support the view that Paul wrote it in order to explain himself to a congregation whose assistance he was eager to receive.  When reading through Romans carefully, one gets the sense that Paul is constantly having to defend himself and to justify his views by making careful and reasoned arguments (see, for example, 3:8; 6:1, 15; 7:1; etc.).  Moreover, he makes this defense in a neatly crafted way, following a rhetorical style known in antiquity as the “diatribe.”  This involved advancing an argument by stating a thesis, having an imaginary opponent raise possible objections to it, and then providing answers to these objections.  Consider the following rhetorical questions and answers:

Then what advantage has the Jew?  Or what is the value of circumcision?  Much in every way.  For in the first place the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God (Romans 3:1-2).

What then? Are we any better off?  No, not at all; for we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under the power of sin (Romans 3:9).

What then are we to say?  Should we continue in sin in order that grace may abound?  By no means!  How can we who died to sin go on living in it?  (Romans 6:1-2).

Since the author both asks and answers the questions, the diatribe is remarkably effective for showing that he knows what he is talking about and that he is always right.  By employing this style, Paul could effectively counter arguments that others had made against his teachings.

It may be worth noting that Paul’s travel plans include not only the trip through Rome to Spain, but an earlier jaunt to Jerusalem.  Paul has collected funds for the poor Christians of Judea from his Gentile converts in Macedonia and Achaia (Romans 15:25-27) and appears uneasy over his upcoming trip to deliver them (Romans 15:30-32).  He is quite openly fearful of “unbelievers” in Judea (presumably Jews who don’t take kindly to his faith in Jesus) and apprehensive of his reception by the “saints” (presumably Jewish-Christians who have not warmed to his law-free gospel to the Gentiles).  Some scholars have suspected that his letter to the Romans is a kind of trial run for his views, an attempt to get his thoughts organized on paper before having to present them to a hostile audience in Judea.

There may be some truth in this, but it may be best to see the letter as chiefly directed to the situation that Paul expects to find where he addresses it, in Rome.  He wants to use this church as his base of operation and knows (or thinks) that he has some opposition.  He writes a letter in order to persuade this congregation of the truth of his version of the gospel.  This is a gospel that insists that Jews and Gentiles are on equal footing before God: both are equally alienated from God and both can be made right with God only through Christ’s death and resurrection.  Moreover, the salvation that is offered in Christ comes to people apart from adherence to the Jewish Law, even though the Law itself bears witness to this faith as the only means of salvation.  Indeed, Christ is the goal of this Law.  Above all else, this shows that God has not gone back on his promises to the Jews and has not rejected them as his people.  In Christ, all of the promises of God have come to fruition.  Furthermore, the Romans can rest assured that this gospel does not lead to moral laxity: Paul is himself no moral reprobate and he does not urge his converts to engage in wild and lawless activities.