Textual Criticism of Romans 16

[stephan happy huller]

avi,

you've been here long enough to know this stuff by now - if you weren't stuck on reinforcing an idiotic thesis. Figure it out.

[spin]

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?

It is quite possible that the two parts are authentic and still not be of help to you. There is no necessity, given the natural reading of the text, to assume that Tertius was an amanuensis. If you note 2 Maccabees it has two cover letters that precede the main text. There is also a forward by the epitomist. None of these were written by the person (or persons) who wrote the main text of 2 Maccabees.

The cover letter may simply have been a letter from one church to another and nothing to do with Paul. The writer may have used the conventions of the time of paying homage to a great writer.

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 ...

The earliest existent form of a work must always be dealt with first before all others, as it naturally has the best claim of being most original in form. One has to argue against the form of the earliest work before asserting other forms.

P.46 has claims of being older that the time of Origen's works. Aland dates P.46 to circa 200 (NTG, 1979-2006, p.686) and let's make that +/- 50 years (I'm wary of narrow palaeographic datings), so it could have been copied as late as 250 CE, but it reflects a form of the text that could have been in circulation in Irenaeus's heyday.

Whatever the dating of P.46, it doesn't mean that the cover letter wasn't attached to Romans before Irenaeus. It just means that it is likely that the cover letter was added after the doxology and that because of the nature of the doxology it was moved to the end of the text after the addition of the cover letter.

I have not as yet looked at specific textual issues in the cover letter.

[Bernard Muller]

to spin:

It is quite possible that the two parts are authentic and still not be of help to you.

Yes, that would help me! That thread started from your doubts on the authenticity of Ro 16:23b.
If authentic, we all agree and there is no need to discuss that anymore.

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.

P.46 is, by far, the oldest document showing the whole of the Romans letter. That does not mean there were no other manuscripts of Romans written around 200 CE, showing some other variations. Actually, we have proof of that about Marcion's, as reported by Origen and implied by Irenaeus' writings. All we know is no other manuscripts from that time has survived and been discovered for our inspection. So I do not see why P.46 is the end all, more so because P.46 is unique in placing the doxology at the end of Ch. 15, when all the other ancient manuscripts put it at the end of ch.14 or ch.16 (some others, including Marcion's, do not have any doxology).

In later manuscripts the doxology has been moved, most frequently placed at the end of the text.

So how do you explain the doxology shows at the end of ch. 14 in quite a few ancient manuscripts as shown here:

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

The cover letter is clearly indicated, "I Tertius, who write this letter, greet you in the lord."

But I do not read Tertius wrote only the so-called cover letter.
Do you think somebody (otherwise not mentioned in the NT) who wrote, by himself, the so-called cover letter, would have written that:

Greet Prisca and Aq'uila, my fellow workers in Christ Jesus,
who risked their necks for my life,

Greet Androni'cus and Ju'nias, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners; they are men of note among the apostles, and they were in Christ before me.

Timothy, my fellow worker, greets you; so do Lucius and Jason and Sosip'ater, my kinsmen.

Either Tertius was trying to be Paul & even upstage him, Or Tertius was overly pretentious in presenting a letter by Paul that way. And Paul is never mentioned in the so-called cover letter.
Furthermore greetings at the end of a letter is not unique in the Paulines. 1 Corinthians also has a section of it at its end.
OK, Paul, in 1 Corinthians, apparently wrote the greetings himself. That certainly would not prevent him to have the greetings dictated to someone else for Romans.

however, chapter 16 is not part of the body of the letter, of its argumentation.

I think ch. 16 fits very well where it is placed. Why do greetings have to contain argumentations? (there are enough of that in the epistle!).

If you note 2 Maccabees it has two cover letters that precede the main text. There is also a forward by the epitomist. None of these were written by the person (or persons) who wrote the main text of 2 Maccabees.

Why do you invoke 2 Maccabees for understanding Romans? On another thread, you blamed people who think "Matthew" had Joseph living in Galilee before the conception because they read that from Luke's nativity story. Be consistent.

The writer may have used the conventions of the time of paying homage to a great writer.

It is all speculation, and far-fetched. So now, Tertius would have imitated Paul, and in the process becoming a forger, and all that to pay homage to a great writer (whom he did not name!). And I do not see where the great writer is praised.

Cordially, Bernard

[stephan happy huller]

It is all speculation, and far-fetched.

But all you do is play defense like a soccer team with a one goal lead. Yes to be sure, the existing material is attested from the third century onward. Yes to be sure you will have generations of scholars who have opened their window and looked at the view the existing paradigm gives them and accepted it at face value. But you ignore the fact that this other paradigm existed - a collection of writings with many, many long lacunas which you don't care about because you like the comfort the existing canon gives you. I don't spend my time attacking your position because I am happy for you that you are content going to your grave ignoring the other possibilities that exist out there. You don't feel compelled to offer up a defense to Marcionitism and that is fine. Your answers are reflective of the existing paradigm of scriptures. But it's not worth anything beyond the comfort that you derive from your inflexibility. I wish you well but the only way we could have a meaningful conversation is to challenge your inherited assumption that Marcionitism isn't worth studying. And I have learned from experience in life that you can't change someone else's disinterest into interest no matter how hard you try. You want the existing scriptures to be the limit of any discussion of Christian origins and that's the end of it. I don't know what value it is to come to a forum like this and ignore all possibilities to the contrary of that possibility. No one can make you interested in exploring other possibilities. There is no intellectual equivalent of Viagara or Cialis to arouse your interest in things beyond what gives you comfort.

[spin]

to spin:

It is quite possible that the two parts are authentic and still not be of help to you.

Yes, that would help me! That thread started from your doubts on the authenticity of Ro 16:23b.

You misunderstand me. If Tertius wrote the cover letter and it was added to the letter, then it would be genuine in itself, but not a work of Paul, so both parts could be genuine.

Tertius talks of a deacon of the church of Cenchreae, but there was no official positions with the church during Paul's writing. Paul uses the term "deacon" quite differently. He had no church officials because they were his communities. Tertius is writing at a later time than Paul.

If authentic, we all agree and there is no need to discuss that anymore.

Hastiness won't help you.

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.

P.46 is, by far, the oldest document showing the whole of the Romans letter. That does not mean there were no other manuscripts of Romans written around 200 CE, showing some other variations. Actually, we have proof of that about Marcion's, as reported by Origen and implied by Irenaeus' writings. All we know is no other manuscripts from that time has survived and been discovered for our inspection. So I do not see why P.46 is the end all, more so because P.46 is unique in placing the doxology at the end of Ch. 15, when all the other ancient manuscripts put it at the end of ch.14 or ch.16 (some others, including Marcion's, do not have any doxology).

Haven't we already dealt with the dating issue here?? Origen is after P.46, so forget him. He is of no use for jimmying P.46 out of its killing position.

In later manuscripts the doxology has been moved, most frequently placed at the end of the text.

So how do you explain the doxology shows at the end of ch. 14 in quite a few ancient manuscripts as shown here:

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

You need to pay attention to the dates of these texts. The earliest are from the 9th c., most are after the 12th c. and none are of any value to us.

The cover letter is clearly indicated, "I Tertius, who write this letter, greet you in the lord."

But I do not read Tertius wrote only the so-called cover letter.
Do you think somebody (otherwise not mentioned in the NT) who wrote, by himself, the so-called cover letter, would have written that:

Greet Prisca and Aq'uila, my fellow workers in Christ Jesus,
who risked their necks for my life,

Greet Androni'cus and Ju'nias, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners; they are men of note among the apostles, and they were in Christ before me.

Timothy, my fellow worker, greets you; so do Lucius and Jason and Sosip'ater, my kinsmen.

Either Tertius was trying to be Paul & even upstage him, Or Tertius was overly pretentious in presenting a letter by Paul that way. And Paul is never mentioned in the so-called cover letter.

Perhaps you haven't read the pseudo-Paulines.

Furthermore greetings at the end of a letter is not unique in the Paulines. 1 Corinthians also has a section of it at its end.
OK, Paul, in 1 Corinthians, apparently wrote the greetings himself. That certainly would not prevent him to have the greetings dictated to someone else for Romans.

however, chapter 16 is not part of the body of the letter, of its argumentation.

I think ch. 16 fits very well where it is placed. Why do greetings have to contain argumentations? (there are enough of that in the epistle!).

There is of course nowhere else to place it. It is an item in itself that doesn't belong to the letter. The text has also supplied its parting benediction. That usually marks the end of a letter.

If you note 2 Maccabees it has two cover letters that precede the main text. There is also a forward by the epitomist. None of these were written by the person (or persons) who wrote the main text of 2 Maccabees.

Why do you invoke 2 Maccabees for understanding Romans?

To show that cover letters have no necessary connection to the main text. What else do you think I talked about the cover letters in 2 Macc for??? Jeez.

On another thread, you blamed people who think "Matthew" had Joseph living in Galilee before the conception because they read that from Luke's nativity story. Be consistent.

The writer may have used the conventions of the time of paying homage to a great writer.

It is all speculation, and far-fetched. So now, Tertius would have imitated Paul, and in the process becoming a forger, and all that to pay homage to a great writer (whom he did not name!). And I do not see where the great writer is praised.

These cogitations, Bernard, simply don't deal with the major issue: the earliest exemplar of the text has the doxology before the cover letter. That demolishes all of your rationalizations. It is plain and simple that the cover letter is additive after the doxology, so we have a relative chronology. The doxology was added before the cover letter. Some time after the cover letter was added a scribe hit on the idea of relocating the doxology after the cover letter. That's the manuscript evidence.

[Bernard Muller]

Tertius talks of a deacon of the church of Cenchreae, but there was no official positions with the church during Paul's writing. Paul uses the term "deacon" quite differently. He had no church officials because they were his communities. Tertius is writing at a later time than Paul.

Why do you assume the word in question has to mean "deacon"? Paul used the same word with a meaning of "servant" and/or "minister" for himself, Apollos, Jesus Christ, Roman authorities, false apostles (of Satan) (2 Cor 11:15). Why would it be different in Romans 16:1?
1 Cor 3:5

Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man?

Rom 15:8

Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister G1249 of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers:

Rom 13:4

For he is the minister G1249 of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister G1249 of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

Tertius is writing at a later time than Paul

Not much later, because Romans 16 features the same persons appearing in other Pauline epistles: Priscilla & Aquila and Timothy. So now Timothy would be a workfellow of Paul and (otherwise unknown) Tertius. What a coincidence!

Haven't we already dealt with the dating issue here?? Origen is after P.46, so forget him. He is of no use for jimmying P.46 out of its killing position.

How many times I have to tell you that Origen reported about Marcion. Origen is a witness of Marcion (and also Irenaeus' lack of comments on Ro 15-16, when he commented on all other chapters, has to be considered):

“Marcion, by whom the evangelical and apostolic writings were falsified, removed this section [16:25–27 the doxology] completely from the epistle, and not only so, but deleted everything from that place where it is written, ‘whatsoever is not of faith is sin,’ [14:23] right to the end.”

Origen, Commentary on the epistle to the Romans, XIV, 1290 AB

You need to pay attention to the dates of these texts. The earliest are from the 9th c., most are after the 12th c. and none are of any value to us.

Yes, but why, so late, we have manuscripts which put the doxology at such an illogical place, if not because they were copies from more ancient copies with the same feature. Why these late manuscripts put the doxology at the end of chapter 14, when many copies were available with the doxology at the end of chapter 16, if not because they reproduced more ancient copies which put the doxology at Ch. 14.

Perhaps you haven't read the pseudo-Paulines.

The speudo-Paulines have not the look of your so-called cover letter. Furthermore the name "Paul" appears in the pseudo-Paulines, but not in your so-called cover letter.

If you note 2 Maccabees it has two cover letters that precede the main text. There is also a forward by the epitomist. None of these were written by the person (or persons) who wrote the main text of 2 Maccabees.

For the second so-called cover letter, it looks more like an introduction to the work, and written by the same author as the rest of 2 Macc.
2 Macc. 2, [23]

All these things, I say, being declared by Jason of Cyrene in five books, we will assay to abridge in one volume.

However, in Romans 16, there is nothing which presents Romans 1-15. In other words, Romans 16, in no way, appears to be an introduction to a work.
2 Macc. 1 has nothing to do with a cover letter and has no relation with the rest of 2 Macc. It also seems to be a stand-alone text explaining the death of Antiochus IV and some sacred fire of Nehemiah.

There is of course nowhere else to place it

(about Romans 16)
Right, because it does not look like a cover letter, nor an introduction to a work, but as greetings and salutation, it fits very well at the end of Romans.

Cordially, Bernard

[spin]

Tertius talks of a deacon of the church of Cenchreae, but there was no official positions with the church during Paul's writing. Paul uses the term "deacon" quite differently. He had no church officials because they were his communities. Tertius is writing at a later time than Paul.

Why do you assume the word in question has to mean "deacon"?

For want of understanding you are shooting in the wrong direction. Try the fact that we are dealing with a position within a church, translate διακονος however you want (how bout "schmuck"). It points to a formalized position within the church of schmuck. This is the only place where the term is used as a role within a specific church, though in 1 Tim 3:8-13 we do find it used as a formalized position.

Tertius is writing at a later time than Paul

Not much later, because Romans 16 features the same persons appearing in other Pauline epistles: Priscilla & Aquila and Timothy. So now Timothy would be a workfellow of Paul and (otherwise unknown) Tertius. What a coincidence!

Have you read the letters to Timothy, Titus, the Colossians, or the Ephesians? I guess they don't have various names.

Haven't we already dealt with the dating issue here?? Origen is after P.46, so forget him. He is of no use for jimmying P.46 out of its killing position.

How many times I have to tell you that Origen reported about Marcion.

Until you can come up with a tenable reason to consider what he has to say, seeing that he was writing later and thus interpreting a state of evidence from a later time. We aren't dealing with Marcion at all here, but with a text that Origen has some knowledge of whose form is attributed to Marcion.

Origen is a witness of Marcion (and also Irenaeus' lack of comments on Ro 15-16, when he commented on all other chapters, has to be considered):

“Marcion, by whom the evangelical and apostolic writings were falsified, removed this section [16:25–27 the doxology] completely from the epistle, and not only so, but deleted everything from that place where it is written, ‘whatsoever is not of faith is sin,’ [14:23] right to the end.”

Origen, Commentary on the epistle to the Romans, XIV, 1290 AB

But what exactly do you want to do with this quote? It has incidentally been wrongly translated. If Marcion removed the doxology and also everything after 14:23, did he remove the doxology twice? No, the verb rendered "deleted" here is actually "cut off". What do you think Origen meant? What distinction is he making?

You need to pay attention to the dates of these texts. The earliest are from the 9th c., most are after the 12th c. and none are of any value to us.

Yes, but why, so late, we have manuscripts which put the doxology at such an illogical place, if not because they were copies from more ancient copies with the same feature. Why these late manuscripts put the doxology at the end of chapter 14, when many copies were available with the doxology at the end of chapter 16, if not because they reproduced more ancient copies which put the doxology at Ch. 14.

The techniques for copying texts were far more sophisticated eight to 12 centuries later. You cannot meaningfully compare the two processes and draw conclusions.

Perhaps you haven't read the pseudo-Paulines.

The speudo-Paulines have not the look of your so-called cover letter. Furthermore the name "Paul" appears in the pseudo-Paulines, but not in your so-called cover letter.

The issue was the fact that there were all these names that you were so keen about. They are no help to you as the pseudo-Paulines clearly indicate.

If you note 2 Maccabees it has two cover letters that precede the main text. There is also a forward by the epitomist. None of these were written by the person (or persons) who wrote the main text of 2 Maccabees.

For the second so-called cover letter, it looks more like an introduction to the work, and written by the same author as the rest of 2 Macc.
2 Macc. 2, [23]

All these things, I say, being declared by Jason of Cyrene in five books, we will assay to abridge in one volume.

However, in Romans 16, there is nothing which presents Romans 1-15. In other words, Romans 16, in no way, appears to be an introduction to a work.
2 Macc. 1 has nothing to do with a cover letter and has no relation with the rest of 2 Macc. It also seems to be a stand-alone text explaining the death of Antiochus IV and some sacred fire of Nehemiah.

And cover letters have to have the same purpose, I see. Rather than accept the fact that materials are frequently added to other works, you play the game that the letters are not the same. Geez.

There is of course nowhere else to place it

(about Romans 16)
Right, because it does not look like a cover letter, nor an introduction to a work, but as greetings and salutation, it fits very well at the end of Romans.

What does a bollerplate cover letter look like, Bernard? I don't think they had Word templates in those days. This copy of the letter to the Romans was carried by Phoebe the deacon of the church of Cenchreae. That's part of the purpose of the cover letter. The letter to the Romans is sent to a group that Paul has never met, but you want us to believe that he can pull all these names out of a hat, literally dozens. The cover letter has nothing to do with the Paul who has never proclaimed the gospel in Rome.

[Bernard Muller]

to spin,

But what exactly do you want to do with this quote? It has incidentally been wrongly translated. If Marcion removed the doxology and also everything after 14:23, did he remove the doxology twice? No, the verb rendered "deleted" here is actually "cut off". What do you think Origen meant? What distinction is he making?

If Marcion's Romans removed (or deleted or cut off) everything after 14:23, then there was no doxology and no chapters 15 and 16.
I think Origen was very clear on the matter. What happened to a natural reading?

This copy of the letter to the Romans was carried by Phoebe the deacon of the church of Cenchreae

And how do you know that, about the letter carried to the Romans by Phoebe? Another natural reading?
Also, the Greek does not have "the" before what you interpret as deacon. So now Phoebe did not have to occupy a unique position in the church of a small city. She was one among others as a servant.
It looks to me dear Phoebe was requiring help that the local church was not giving to her (probably because she suffered some rejection) and Paul tried to fix the problem in favour of a good friend who helped him, and others, before.
Romans 16:1-2

"I commend to you Phoebe our sister, who is a servant of the church in Cenchrea,
that you may receive her in the Lord in a manner worthy of the saints, and assist her in whatever business she has need of you; for indeed she has been a helper of many and of myself also."

The letter to the Romans is sent to a group that Paul has never met, but you want us to believe that he can pull all these names out of a hat, literally dozens. The cover letter has nothing to do with the Paul who has never proclaimed the gospel in Rome.

The names of the Christians then in Rome are probably about the ones that Paul met in Corinth or Ephesus. It looks they went (or came back) to Rome under the reign of Nero, after Claudius had expelled the Christians from Rome. A good example of that is Prisca & Aquila from Pontus (Ac 18:2), who went to Rome (Ac 18:2), then had to move to Corinth (Ac 18:2, 1 Cor 16:19), then went to Ephesus (Ac 18:19, 26) and finally back to Rome (Ro 16:3).

Cordially, Bernard

[stephan happy huller]

If Marcion's Romans removed (or deleted or cut off) everything after 14:23, then there was no doxology and no chapters 15 and 16.

Why exactly must this be the starting assumption? I can't account for your lack of imagination other than your German last name (which interestingly very closely resembles mine - umlauten and all). The text that we have is Paul's original letter. Your certain of that? Why? Why isn't there any doubt at all that Marcion's might have been first?

[Bernard Muller]

to spin,

The techniques for copying texts were far more sophisticated eight to 12 centuries later

And you think that alleged sophistication made these copyists put the doxology at the end of chapter 14?

Cordially, Bernard