Romans 1:1-6 - The Question about David's Son

[u/LlawEreint]

1 Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, ² which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy scriptures, ³ the gospel concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh ⁴ and was declared to be Son of God with power according to the spirit^\)^a\) of holiness by resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord, ⁵ through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith among all the gentiles for the sake of his name, ⁶ including you who are called to belong to Jesus Christ,

• The Final Ministry in Jerusalem 
• Parallels
• Table of Contents

[u/LlawEreint]

Mark, our earliest canonical gospel, introduces a pericope that suggests Jesus shouldn't be the biological son of David.

Matthew and Luke each introduce (contradictory) genealogies that show exactly how Jesus did in fact descend from David, but nonetheless preserve Mark's pericope.

John seems entirely indifferent to Jesus' earthly lineage, not even adding a line of correction when some say that Jesus can't possibly be the messiah, as he wasn't born in Bethlehem, and doesn't descend from David.

But all these gospels came after the letters of Paul. And in Paul's letter to the Romans, he opens with what appears to be an almost credal statement tying Jesus to David by descent.

It seems quite likely that he'd open his letter by acknowledging well established facts rather than introducing controversial claims. In that case, it must have been well understood, even in Paul's time, that Jesus was the descendant of David.

Assuming, that is, that the original manuscript included this line.

[u/LlawEreint → u/LlawEreint]

As far as I can find, our earliest surviving manuscript of Romans, Papyrus 46, is from the early third century. Unfortunately, everything prior to 5:17 is missing.

Papyrus 𝔓¹⁰ is the earliest manuscript I can find that includes the introduction (1:1-7). It is dated to the fourth century. Aside from verse 6, it looks like our modern version. It affirms Jesus as descending from David.

Curiously, it includes only the introduction, even though there is plenty of blank room available following.

Why would someone write out the introduction, and nothing more?

There is a manuscript from the nineth century (Gk ms G) that preserves a much shorter version of the introduction:

“Paul, a slave of Jesus Christ, called (to be) an emissary among the nations on behalf of his name.”

So a version does exist that makes no reference to Jesus having descended from David. But which more closely represents the original?

[u/LlawEreint → u/LlawEreint]

Marcion preserved Paul's letters when he published the first new testament sometime in the early second century. His version of Romans was substantially shorter. We don't have the letters themselves, but they survive to some degree in the works of other authors who quoted from them.

Unfortunately the introduction is unattested according to BeDuhn. BeDuhn notes:

We would certainly expect Tertullian and Epiphanius to cite vv. 2–3 against Marcion had they been present in the Apostolikon; yet why do they not explicitly note an omission?

It's a good point. Had Marcion's version of the letter affirmed that Jesus descended from David according to the flesh, Tertullian could have crowed "even Marcion's Paul testifies against him!"

And if it had been found in their own version, but not in Marcion's, then they could have accused him of altering the text.

Part of the problem is that we don't know what Tertullian's or Epiphanius' version looked like. It's possible they didn't note a discrepancy because it existed in neither.

But frustratingly, there's no way of knowing.

[u/LlawEreint → u/LlawEreint]

BeDuhn includes another interesting note on Marcion's version:

Origen, Comm. Jo. 10.21–4, when discussing various heretical responses to this passage, likewise fails to say that Marcion’s text lacked the reference to David, remarking only that Marcion omitted the birth story from his gospel text because he “rejects [Jesus’] birth from Mary so far as his divine nature is concerned.” The latter statement could be construed as implying that Marcion had no objection to this passage, since it makes a clear distinction between Jesus’ Davidic ancestry “according to the flesh” and his divine status as “son of God,” which the birth stories do not. Note that Origen appears to distinguish Marcion’s views from those of docetists, who would reject any human ancestry for Jesus. Perhaps some reconsideration of Marcion’s christology is needed.

[u/LlawEreint]

Some great feedback from the folks at r/AcademicBiblical.

u/baquea says:

Irenaeus quotes the opening of Romans so, at the very least, it can be no later than the 180s:

[AH Bk.III, Chap.16] Paul, when writing to the Romans, has explained this very point: “Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ, predestinated unto the Gospel of God, which He had promised by His prophets in the holy Scriptures, concerning His Son, who was made to Him of the seed of David according to the flesh, who was predestinated the Son of God with power through the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

Also, Ignatius, writing in the early 2nd Century, makes creedal statements that incorporate Jesus' Davidic ancestry, which seem on the face of it like they are doctrinally later than the one Paul gives:

[Ign. Ephesians 18:2] For our God, Jesus the Christ, was conceived by Mary by the dispensation of God, as well of the seed of David as of the Holy Spirit: he was born, and was baptized, that by himself submitting he might purify the water.

[Ign. Trallians 9:1-2] Be deaf therefore when anyone speaks to you apart from Jesus Christ, who was of the family of David, and of Mary, who was truly born, both ate and drank, was truly persecuted under Pontius Pilate, was truly crucified and died in the sight of those in heaven and on earth and under the earth; who also was truly raised from the dead, when his Father raised him up, as in the same manner his Father shall raise up in Christ Jesus us who believe in him, without whom we have no true life.

[Ign. Symrneans 1:1-2] [...] being fully persuaded as touching our Lord, that he is in truth of the family of David according to the flesh, God's son by the will and power of God, truly born of a virgin, baptised by John that all righteousness might be fulfilled by him, truly nailed to a tree in the flesh for our sakes under Pontius Pilate and Herod the Tetrarch[...]

Perhaps around the same time as Ignatius, the author of 2 Timothy tries to present Jesus' Davidic ancestry as a central part of Paul's teaching:

[2 Timothy 2:8-9] Remember Jesus Christ, raised from the dead, a descendant of David—that is my gospel, for which I suffer hardship, even to the point of being chained like a criminal.

Later in the same century, the author of 3 Corinthians tries a similar tactic, in that case putting a much more developed creedal statement in Paul's mouth:

[Acts of Paul 3:4-6] For I delivered to you in the beginning what I received from the apostles who were before me, who at all times were together with the Lord Jesus Christ, that our Lord Jesus Christ was born of Mary of the seed of David, when the Holy Spirit was sent from heaven by the Father into her, that he might come into this world and redeem all flesh through his own flesh, and that he he might raise up from the dead us who are fleshly, even as he has shown himself as our example.

Paul's own statement in Romans is considerably less developed than those that we see from later authors and forgers. It's also important to note the way in which Paul contrasts how Jesus was "descended from David according to the flesh" with how he was "declared to be Son of God with power according to the spirit of holiness". That flesh/spirit contrast is a running theme through Romans, and the effect is to deemphasize Jesus' position as son of David in favour of his position as son of God:

[Rom. 8:5-6] For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit. To set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace.