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

Re: Textual Criticism of Romans 16

Post by spin »

Bernard Muller wrote: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
You still haven't contemplated what I asked of you. To spell it out: how did the doxology get to where it is in the earliest manuscript we have? If you don't want to think about it, you could just say so, rather than dodging the issue.
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 »

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.
Bernard, you're just going to leave it there? Not a thought about it?
I did not want to be channeled into answering questions which are highly biased. Furthermore, there are more to consider ("the mess") before answering that. My thought? I do not trust my from-the-top-of-the-head opinion. I rather do research first. That takes some time.

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Textual Criticism of Romans 16

Post by Bernard Muller »

You still haven't contemplated what I asked of you. To spell it out: how did the doxology get to where it is in the earliest manuscript we have? If you don't want to think about it, you could just say so, rather than dodging the issue.
But there is no doxology in P.46. How can I answer that question?
And how can you blame me when I answer "I do not know" when you answered the same on 2 Cor 11:32?
Cordially, Bernard
Last edited by Bernard Muller on Thu Oct 31, 2013 8:47 pm, edited 3 times in total.
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
User avatar
stephan happy huller
Posts: 1480
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 3:06 pm
Contact:

Re: Textual Criticism of Romans 16

Post by stephan happy huller »

Image
Everyone loves the happy times
User avatar
stephan happy huller
Posts: 1480
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 3:06 pm
Contact:

Re: Textual Criticism of Romans 16

Post by stephan happy huller »

The honest person generally avoids religion and theology
Everyone loves the happy times
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8042
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Textual Criticism of Romans 16

Post by Peter Kirby »

The honest person, eh? Wasn't that the guy Diogenes was looking for?
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
User avatar
spin
Posts: 2146
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 10:44 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Textual Criticism of Romans 16

Post by spin »

Bernard Muller wrote:
You still haven't contemplated what I asked of you. To spell it out: how did the doxology get to where it is in the earliest manuscript we have? If you don't want to think about it, you could just say so, rather than dodging the issue.
But there is no doxology in P.46.
:consternation:

Rom 16:25-27 is called a doxology (see, for example, NRSV). These are the verses that find themselves at the end of chapter 15 in P.46.
Bernard Muller wrote:How can I answer that question?
The evidence is fairly straightforward. The earliest manuscript of Romans 15-16 has the doxology before chapter 16. Chapter 16 is a cover letter. In later manuscripts the doxology has been moved, most frequently placed at the end of the text. In fact, if the cover letter weren't there, the doxology would still be at the end of the text of P.46. To answer your question of how, you look at the evidence and weigh it up. The cover letter is clearly indicated, "I Tertius, who write this letter, greet you in the lord." It is conjectured that Tertius is not conceptually the writer of the letter, but only the amanuensis (see 1 Cor 16:21). By its nature, however, chapter 16 is not part of the body of the letter, of its argumentation. And the doxology is not part of the cover letter. That's the sort of information you can use to formulate an answer to the question.
Bernard Muller wrote:And how can you blame me when I answer "I do not know" when you answered the same on 2 Cor 11:32?
This isn't a matter of knowledge per se, Bernard, not even yes or no, but of analysis of how. I asked you to make an analysis.
Dysexlia lures • ⅔ of what we see is behind our eyes
User avatar
stephan happy huller
Posts: 1480
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 3:06 pm
Contact:

Re: Textual Criticism of Romans 16

Post by stephan happy huller »

And just think, the only reason we know this about the Marcionite text is because of Jerome's decision to reuse a now lost work of Origen.
Everyone loves the happy times
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Textual Criticism of Romans 16

Post by Bernard Muller »

Spin,
I gave some thought to the whole topic, but I do not know if I'll have time to explain everything today. I got pressing matter to attend to.
However, I'll make some remarks on you last posting:
Yes, I had a lapse yesterday night: the doxology is in p46, at the end of chapter 15.
The cover letter is clearly indicated, "I Tertius, who write this letter, greet you in the lord." It is conjectured that Tertius is not conceptually the writer of the letter, but only the amanuensis (see 1 Cor 16:21). By its nature, however, chapter 16 is not part of the body of the letter, of its argumentation.
If, in p46, 16:1-33, were a cover letter, and with Tertius being dictated by Paul the Romans epistle (chapters 1 to 15) and the so-called cover letter (chapter 16), don't you think that would make the two parts authentic?

Second, just because p46 is the oldest known surviving manuscript, that does not mean it is the closest to the original letter. As a matter of fact, we have witnesses to an earlier version: Origen wrote Marcion's Romans ended at 14:23 and Irenaeus quoted or paraphrased all chapters of Romans except 15 & 16.
That, and other endings of Romans have to be considered. Which is what I did, and still doing. More later ...

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
avi
Posts: 64
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 2:11 pm

Re: Textual Criticism of Romans 16

Post by avi »

stephan huller wrote:And just think, the only reason we know this about the Marcionite text is because of Jerome's decision to reuse a now lost work of Origen.
I acknowledge, candidly, without rancor, that I cannot understand how this sentence relates to spin's question to Bernard.

I also don't understand, (to me, the important issue): how do we know, today, that this represented a "lost work of Origen", rather than a novel creation by Jerome, son of Eusebius? If some chap came along, and "found" a lost work of Shakespeare, Bach, or VanGogh, wouldn't we be a tad suspicious about the provenance of this claim? In other words, which OTHER author, apart from Jerome, identifies this same "missing" document, supposedly authored by "Origen"? How did Marcion enter this discussion? How does Marcion's non-existent text relate to P46?

How does Marcion relate to this discussion about Doxology (ευαγγελιον μου και κυ ιυ χυ praise to 'our lord jesus christ'). I thought Marcion had rejected κυ ιυ χυ, as a false son of the false YHWH?

How does a lost work of Origen relate to this question regarding the location within (P 46 and) Codex Sinaiticus, of Romans 16:25? How is Origen related to "Paul"'s epistles? Is there a link to this "missing" text of Origen, cited by Jerome? Is the text, (apparently claimed by Jerome, to represent a lost manuscript of Origen), composed in Latin, or in Greek; was it written before or after the latter's expulsion from the Christian church?
spin wrote:The earliest manuscript of Romans 15-16 has the doxology before chapter 16
ok, found it. quoted it, above, from Codex Sinaiticus. fine, BUT:
spin wrote:In later manuscripts the doxology has been moved, most frequently placed at the end of the text. In fact, if the cover letter weren't there, the doxology would still be at the end of the text of P.46.
I am completely lost:
Bernard wrote:P.46 has Romans 16:1-23 in it. That might not work for you.
My inability to follow this thread, is probably unique, and most likely represents a new mutation to locus 17q21
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurofibromatosis_type_I
therefore, we ought not waste any bandwidth trying to explain what in the world is being debated...

:eh:
Post Reply