Читать книгу Paul Among the Gentiles: A "Radical" Reading of Romans - Jacob P. B. Mortensen - Страница 29

In the history of interpretations of Romans, some scholars have concluded that the current form of the letter is a composite of two, three, or more letters.1 If that was actually the case, it would be futile to search for a single occasion and purpose behind the letter, because the situation behind one strand might be entirely dissimilar from the situation behind another. Consequently, before we can determine the situation(s), occasion(s), and purpose(s) underlying Romans, we need to consider the partition theories.

Walter Schmithals argued, in a 1975 monograph and again in his 1988 commentary, that Romans is a composite of two originally separate letters to Rome, and of other fragments of Pauline and non-Pauline origin. Paul wrote Letter A (Rom 1:1–4:25; 5:12–11:36; 15:8–13) in Ephesus earlier in his ministry, prior to the problems in Corinth, and later he wrote Letter B (Rom 12:1–21; 13:8–10; 14:1–15:4a, 5f., 7, 14–32; 16:21–23; 15:33) in Cenchreae, since Rom 16:1–20 commends Phoebe, a deacon of the church at Cenchreae. Schmithals argues from apparent contradictions in the framework of the letter. In 15:20, Paul writes that he does not wish to build on someone else’s foundations, but in 1:13 he envisions producing some fruit in Rome. In 15:24, he plans to visit Rome in order to gain support for his trip to Spain, but in chapter 1 he desires to visit the recipients for their own sake. In 1:10 and 13, Paul claims that his visit to Rome was hindered, but in 15:22–25 the hindrance seems to be in the past, and Paul is sure that he will succeed in visiting Rome. These conflicting statements led Schmithals to conclude that Romans was composed (primarily) of two separate letters.

In a 1979 article (reprinted in The Romans Debate), Alexander J.M. Wedderburn responded to Schmithals’ position. Wedderburn noted that the hindrance in 1:13 had already been removed (‘up until now’) in chapter 1, so the travel plans in chapter 15 were clear throughout. Concerning Paul’s statement about not wanting to build on someone else’s foundations, positing two separate letters would not resolve this contradiction. Wedderburn also noted the different contexts of 1:15 and 15:20: In chapter 1, Paul addresses believers, whereas in chapter 15 he speaks of preliminary missionary work. In chapter 1, Paul manoeuvres a situation with a group he has not yet visited, whereas the general principle of 15:20 does not necessarily rule out Paul’s preaching among other believers, but merely mentions his reluctance to do so. Finally, the extant textual evidence includes no signs that support the hypothesis of separate strands underlying Romans. Therefore, Richard Hays stated his aversion to such ‘wildly speculative hypotheses’, and claimed that such ‘theories belong in a museum of exegetical curiosities rather than a serious discussion of the theological coherence of Romans’.2 Partition theories suffer from the complete lack of evidence in the manuscript tradition, and cannot satisfactorily explain how and why later redactors of Romans would weave together the fragments into its current form.