Textual Criticism of Romans 16

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
spin
Posts: 2146
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 10:44 pm
Location: Nowhere

Textual Criticism of Romans 16

Post by spin »

Bernard Muller wrote:I do not think a city (Corinth) fully destroyed by the Romans, mostly in ruins since that time and not yet founded again would have an "oikonomos" of the city (Romans 16:23).
But then, I guess you think Rom 16 is original.
Dysexlia lures • ⅔ of what we see is behind our eyes
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Ethnarch of King Aretas? the legendary Damascus basket c

Post by Bernard Muller »

Spin:
But then, I guess you think Rom 16 is original.
Yes, but I have plenty of doubts for 16:25-27.
Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
User avatar
spin
Posts: 2146
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 10:44 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Ethnarch of King Aretas? the legendary Damascus basket c

Post by spin »

Bernard Muller wrote:Spin:
But then, I guess you think Rom 16 is original.
Yes, but I have plenty of doubts for 16:25-27.
Check the location of the doxology in P.46.
Dysexlia lures • ⅔ of what we see is behind our eyes
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Ethnarch of King Aretas? the legendary Damascus basket c

Post by Bernard Muller »

Check the location of the doxology in P.46.
I knew already about the erratic locations and sometimes absences of Romans 16:25-27 in ancient manuscripts. Furthermore the wording & style are unlike Paul's and "the preaching of Jesus Christ" seems to indicate a knowledge of the gospels.
For everyone to see, about p.46., from http://web.ovc.edu/terry/tc/lay15rom.htm:
Romans 16:25-27:
...
NOTES: omit verses 25-27 here but include them at the end of chapter 15
EVIDENCE: p46
TRANSLATIONS: NEBn TEVn
However 16:1-24 is included.

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
User avatar
spin
Posts: 2146
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 10:44 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Ethnarch of King Aretas? the legendary Damascus basket c

Post by spin »

Bernard Muller wrote:
Check the location of the doxology in P.46.
I knew already about the erratic locations and sometimes absences of Romans 16:25-27 in ancient manuscripts. Furthermore the wording & style are unlike Paul's and "the preaching of Jesus Christ" seems to indicate a knowledge of the gospels.
For everyone to see, about p.46., from http://web.ovc.edu/terry/tc/lay15rom.htm:
Romans 16:25-27:
...
NOTES: omit verses 25-27 here but include them at the end of chapter 15
EVIDENCE: p46
TRANSLATIONS: NEBn TEVn
However 16:1-24 is included.
Now explain the phenomen. Did someone leave out the cover letter, but copied the doxology, and then realizing the issue, stuck it on the end?? Did the scribe decide off his own bat that the doxology went better at the end of ch.15??
Dysexlia lures • ⅔ of what we see is behind our eyes
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Ethnarch of King Aretas? the legendary Damascus basket c

Post by Bernard Muller »

Now explain the phenomen. Did someone leave out the cover letter, but copied the doxology, and then realizing the issue, stuck it on the end?? Did the scribe decide off his own bat that the doxology went better at the end of ch.15??
I do not know.
Look at the webpage I gave you. There are all kinds of variations for the ending of Romans. One of the most numerous is the doxology being placed at the end of chapter 14. Romans 16:1-24 (with whole of chapter 15) is reported missing in three manuscripts:
Three vulgate manuscripts omit chapter 15:1 through 16:23.
From that webpage,
Romans 16:24:

TEXT: omit verse 24
EVIDENCE: p46 p61 S A B C 81 1739 one lat earlier vg cop
TRANSLATIONS: ASV RSV NASV NIV NEB TEV
RANK: B
NOTES: include verse 24: "·The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ [be] with plyou all. Amen."
EVIDENCE: D G (omit "Jesus Christ") Psi 614 630 1241 1881 2495 Byz Lect most lat later vg syr(h)
TRANSLATIONS: KJV ASVn RSVn NASVn NIVn NEBn TEVn

NOTES: include verse 24 after verse 27 instead of here
EVIDENCE: P 33 104 syr(p)
TRANSLATIONS: NEBn TEVn

COMMENTS: The oldest manuscripts have this sentence at the end of verse 20. Some manuscripts moved it here and others combined the two by having it both places. See the comments above. A few manuscripts have it both at the end of verse 20 and at the end of verse 27.


Romans 16:25-27:

TEXT: include verses 25-27 here
EVIDENCE: p61vid S B C D 81 630 1739 most lat most vg {syr(p)} cop
TRANSLATIONS: KJV ASV RSV NASV NIV NEB TEV
RANK: C
NOTES: include verses 25-27 both here and at the end of chapter 14
EVIDENCE: p61? A {P 33 104}
TRANSLATIONS: TEVn

NOTES: omit verses 25-27 here but include them at the end of chapter 14
EVIDENCE: L Psi 614 1241 1881 2495 Byz one lat syr(h)
TRANSLATIONS: ASVn NEBn TEVn

NOTES: omit verses 25-27 here but include them at the end of chapter 15.
EVIDENCE: p46
TRANSLATIONS: NEBn TEVn

NOTES: omit verses 25-27 altogether
EVIDENCE: F G (both Greek and Latin--but leave space at the end of chapter 14) 629
TRANSLATIONS: ASVn NEBn

COMMENTS: Verses 25-27 are enclosed in brackets in the UBS text, since they are missing here from many manuscripts. They are included here by early manuscripts of several kinds of ancient text. See also the comments on Romans 14:23 and 15:33. The evidence listed in braces inserts verse 24 following these verses. Manuscript p61 only contains Romans 16:23-27. Three vulgate manuscripts omit chapter 15:1 through 16:23.


Romans 16:27:

TEXT: "·to the only wise God, to him [be] glory"
EVIDENCE: p46 S A C D {P} Psi 33 {81 104} 614 1241 1739 1881 2495 Byz Lect most lat vg {syr(h)} cop
TRANSLATIONS: ASV NEBn
RANK: C
NOTES: "·to the only wise God [be] glory"
EVIDENCE: B 630 one lat syr(p)
TRANSLATIONS: KJV ASVn RSV NASV NIV NEB TEV
COMMENTS: The words "to him" are literally "to whom" which makes for a difficult grammatical construction. The evidence listed in braces changes it to "to him" to make it easier. A few manuscripts removed the grammatical difficulty by omitting it altogether.
Draw your conclusions about that mess if you can.

Cordially, Bernard

PS: Maybe that discussion should become another thread.
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8024
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Ethnarch of King Aretas? the legendary Damascus basket c

Post by Peter Kirby »

Bernard Muller wrote:PS: Maybe that discussion should become another thread.
Done.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Textual Criticism of Romans 16

Post by Bernard Muller »

I just remember I have a blog post (which may need revision) on the subject. Apparently, Marcion's version of Romans did not have chapters 15 & 16. And there is more to it:
http://historical-jesus.sosblogs.com/Hi ... b1-p64.htm

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
User avatar
spin
Posts: 2146
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 10:44 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Ethnarch of King Aretas? the legendary Damascus basket c

Post by spin »

Bernard Muller wrote:
Now explain the phenomen. Did someone leave out the cover letter, but copied the doxology, and then realizing the issue, stuck it on the end?? Did the scribe decide off his own bat that the doxology went better at the end of ch.15??
I do not know.
Christ, Bernard, you're just going to leave it there? Not a thought about it?
Bernard Muller wrote:Look at the webpage I gave you.
Do you think I just pulled this issue out of my [..], that you can whip up a handy-dandy site of internet to solve the problem?
Bernard Muller wrote:There are all kinds of variations for the ending of Romans. One of the most numerous is the doxology being placed at the end of chapter 14.
I don't know if "one of the most frequent" is true, but you need to go with the quality of the manuscript witness rather than the quantity. The reason why I mentioned P.46 is because it is probably the oldest testimony we have on the issue (c.200). There is no better, so it must be dealt with.
Bernard Muller wrote:Romans 16:1-24 (with whole of chapter 15) is reported missing in three manuscripts:

{Mess omitted}

Draw your conclusions about that mess if you can.
You should gather I already have. I was trying to get you to draw some conclusions rather than swerve to avoid it.
Dysexlia lures • ⅔ of what we see is behind our eyes
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Textual Criticism of Romans 16

Post by Bernard Muller »

The reason why I mentioned P.46 is because it is probably the oldest testimony we have on the issue (c.200). There is no better, so it must be dealt with.
P.46 has Romans 16:1-23 in it. That might not work for you.

I drew already my conclusions: Romans 16:25-27 is out (interpolation) and Romans 15:1 to 16:24 is in (authentic).
As stated in my blog post. You should study "the mess" before making your conclusions. Every bit of data counts.

Cordially, Bernard
Last edited by Bernard Muller on Thu Oct 31, 2013 7:56 pm, edited 2 times in total.
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
Post Reply