Was Romans not addressed to Romans?
Re: Was Romans not addressed to Romans?
So if I'm following this correctly, Romans was addressed to a (or the) church in Rome, and not to Roman citizens or governing figures in general. If this is the point here, then it does not appear to be a new revelation. But since all of Giuseppe's posts are driven by new revelation, my take must be completely missing the point.
Re: Was Romans not addressed to Romans?
lsayre,
Ignoring Giuseppe, the opening of the letter (if the below reconstruction is correct) was originally addressed to the holy/saints in whatever congregation received this. There is no way the "holy ones" could mean anything other than Christians, and if ἁγαπητοῖς θεοῦ was present then further "those (who are) [ at location inserted] beloved by God" also had to refer specifically to Christians, whether it said Rome or not (encyclical format). There is no way it could have been addressed to a larger audience. If Giuseppe is arguing that then he is flat wrong.
Giuseppe,
There is some textual evidence in the Western type to support Rome not being original. While all manuscripts bear an inscription or postscript[1] of πρὸς Ῥωμαίος --or some expanded version of that-- even supported by the so called Latin Marcionite prologues, we find G/g 1739-margin and 1908-margin (this means the writers were aware of predecessors without the words) and Origen are missing the address ἐν Ῥώμῃ in 1:7 and G/g and the Latin translation of Origen delete τοῖς ἐν Ῥώμῃ from verse 1:15 as well.
The best textual evidence actually comes from Ephesians 1:1 including the Marcionite version circulated as Laodiceans, with many of the best manuscripts missing ἐν Ἐφέσῳ (p46 ℵ* B* 1739 6 424-corr Mcn-Tertullian, Ephraem). The Marcionite version bore the inscription or title Πρὸς Λαοδικέας rather than Πρὸς Ἐφεσίους, strongly indication of the absence of ἐν Ἐφέσῳ. The title Πρὸς Λαοδικέας may have indeed been the original, as it is referenced as such in Colossians 4:16 (back up by the Marcionite prologues). Altogether it was enough evidence for even the conservative UBS to bracket ἐν Ἐφέσῳ in verse 1:1 as not strong enough top for certain retain.
The reason Ephesians 1:1 important in evaluating Romans 1:7 and 1:15 is that the letter is generally considered to be from a later hand and dependent upon at least one other Pauline latter, and more specifically Romans. Clabeaux spent five pages in his book to outlining the dependence of Ephesians 1:1 upon a Western form of Romans (pgs 94-98 of The Lost Edition of the Letters of Paul), including the strange grammar resulting. He (and many others) feel the evidence is so strong that no modern bible should include ἐν Ἐφέσῳ. But the implications, given Clabeaux and others have demonstrated Ephesians has a strong dependence upon Romans (at least for the opening), is that the missing ἐν Ἐφέσῳ proves an encyclical form of Romans must have circulated prior to the writing of the Ephesians/Laodiceans letter. This would make it possibly the oldest textual variant in the entire Pauline collection, old enough it could have in fact been original (!).
But this begs the question, how could that be, given there is no evidence of Romans ever being encyclical outside of Diglot G/g and the memory of comments in a couple manuscripts and Origen that it may have been an early known form? The answer could lie in the earlier Marcionite form of the opening. It is generally viewed by radical critics that Romans 1:2-6 was inserted by a Catholic redactor who's theology was much closer to matthew's than the original author.
I have gone over this possibility and what the entire adjustment would have looked like and the reasons for it elsewhere. But to summarize, the 10 letter collection, supported by the Marcionite Prologues, was ordered Galatians, then 1 & 2 Corinthians, Romans, 1 & 2 Thessalonian, Laodiceans (Ephesians), Colossians, Philippians and Philemon (the order of the last two is not 100% clear). The Galatians letter stood first where verses 1:1-3, 6ff (verses 1:4-5 were added later) to explain Paul's authority over the collection in the Marcionite or 10 letter form.[2] When the Catholic form was made, a new declaration of Paul's authority, along lines more consistent with the emerging Catholic theology, was required to introduce the collection. And remembers in the earliest collections the Pauline letters stood as an independent collection, as did the Gospels and the Catholic Epistles. So the collection, and the perspective it was to be understood by had to be declared at the beginning of the collection. For the Marcionites and similar Gnostic sects Galatians with it's Gospel from Revelation was that introduction to Paul and his authority, while for the Catholics Romans and it' presentation of a Gospel from Scripture from an obedient Paul was that introduction, the same we have today.
So if Romans was not first, and the additions were written afterward in the form we have now, what did the original look like without verses 1:2-6? The answer is not straight forward deleting the verses, one also has to look at Galatians, Ephesians and other letters in the Pauline collection to see how a medium sized (about 40-50% the size of the current letter) middle of the collection letter would have started. From that my reconstruction looks like this:
That is an extremely bland opening. The term δοῦλος in the Catholic is meant to show the subservience of Paul, similar to it's use in 1 Corinthians. But ἀπόστολος is what is used in every other letter and especially in Galatians to show Paul's claim of never subordinating his authority under obedience to anyone. He was separated from the womb (ὁ ἀφορίσας με ἐκ κοιλίας μητρός μου) to preach, not separated from others to be called an apostle (ἀφωρισμένος with κλητοῖς, see same formula in Acts 13:2 for Paul and Barnabas, part of the pairing of Paul with equals rather than alone and without peer). Also the insertion of 1:2-6 begins in verse 1:1 with "the Gospel of God, concerning his son having come from the seed of David according to the flesh." In Marcion the reference is always to the Gospel of Christ, his resurrection required no intervention from the father he was able to self-arise, as he too was not subordinate to anyone --some have even said the Marcionites could be called Modalists as Jesus was God, but I'm not ready to say that--.
So while Romans could have originally lacked address in verse 1:7 and 1:15, the grammar required some location, and it certainly acquired a title very early in it's history. If Marcionite versions (or pre-Marcionite to use Clabeaux's often useful terminology) did circulate, then given the rewrite which occurred for Romans 1:1-15, it would seem far more probable that the encyclical version only arose once, in the form known by Ephesians, prior to the Catholic revision, than to have arisen twice in identical form. However from the very earliest form of a Pauline collection, as witness Marcion, "To the Romans" was attached to this tract over any other location.
This is an interesting case of where a textual variant survived a redaction. It suggests that redactions did not occur on a single manuscript from which all others derived, but instead were applied as adjustments to existing manuscripts. While surprising it is not illogical, as the high costs of writing from scratch new manuscripts is time and resource consuming, and financially expensive for what was probably a hand to mouth existence for the early church. This is one of several examples which tell me the model of redaction we have does not quite match the evidence, that it was more influenced by economic and resource constraints than has been recognized. How else can one explain textual variants passing through a rewrite of a book (in Romans case doubling in size)?
Notes:
[1] In the earliest manuscripts inscriptions and postscripts are little more than appended words from some second hand in the margins before or after (or both) the text of a book, and not impressive at all, often sloppy scribbled, almost afterthoughts.
[2] Some scholars have suggested Galatians was late to the collection, and that 1 Corinthians originally opened it. The arguments while compelling, are too involved for this brief post.
Ignoring Giuseppe, the opening of the letter (if the below reconstruction is correct) was originally addressed to the holy/saints in whatever congregation received this. There is no way the "holy ones" could mean anything other than Christians, and if ἁγαπητοῖς θεοῦ was present then further "those (who are) [ at location inserted] beloved by God" also had to refer specifically to Christians, whether it said Rome or not (encyclical format). There is no way it could have been addressed to a larger audience. If Giuseppe is arguing that then he is flat wrong.
Giuseppe,
There is some textual evidence in the Western type to support Rome not being original. While all manuscripts bear an inscription or postscript[1] of πρὸς Ῥωμαίος --or some expanded version of that-- even supported by the so called Latin Marcionite prologues, we find G/g 1739-margin and 1908-margin (this means the writers were aware of predecessors without the words) and Origen are missing the address ἐν Ῥώμῃ in 1:7 and G/g and the Latin translation of Origen delete τοῖς ἐν Ῥώμῃ from verse 1:15 as well.
The best textual evidence actually comes from Ephesians 1:1 including the Marcionite version circulated as Laodiceans, with many of the best manuscripts missing ἐν Ἐφέσῳ (p46 ℵ* B* 1739 6 424-corr Mcn-Tertullian, Ephraem). The Marcionite version bore the inscription or title Πρὸς Λαοδικέας rather than Πρὸς Ἐφεσίους, strongly indication of the absence of ἐν Ἐφέσῳ. The title Πρὸς Λαοδικέας may have indeed been the original, as it is referenced as such in Colossians 4:16 (back up by the Marcionite prologues). Altogether it was enough evidence for even the conservative UBS to bracket ἐν Ἐφέσῳ in verse 1:1 as not strong enough top for certain retain.
The reason Ephesians 1:1 important in evaluating Romans 1:7 and 1:15 is that the letter is generally considered to be from a later hand and dependent upon at least one other Pauline latter, and more specifically Romans. Clabeaux spent five pages in his book to outlining the dependence of Ephesians 1:1 upon a Western form of Romans (pgs 94-98 of The Lost Edition of the Letters of Paul), including the strange grammar resulting. He (and many others) feel the evidence is so strong that no modern bible should include ἐν Ἐφέσῳ. But the implications, given Clabeaux and others have demonstrated Ephesians has a strong dependence upon Romans (at least for the opening), is that the missing ἐν Ἐφέσῳ proves an encyclical form of Romans must have circulated prior to the writing of the Ephesians/Laodiceans letter. This would make it possibly the oldest textual variant in the entire Pauline collection, old enough it could have in fact been original (!).
But this begs the question, how could that be, given there is no evidence of Romans ever being encyclical outside of Diglot G/g and the memory of comments in a couple manuscripts and Origen that it may have been an early known form? The answer could lie in the earlier Marcionite form of the opening. It is generally viewed by radical critics that Romans 1:2-6 was inserted by a Catholic redactor who's theology was much closer to matthew's than the original author.
I have gone over this possibility and what the entire adjustment would have looked like and the reasons for it elsewhere. But to summarize, the 10 letter collection, supported by the Marcionite Prologues, was ordered Galatians, then 1 & 2 Corinthians, Romans, 1 & 2 Thessalonian, Laodiceans (Ephesians), Colossians, Philippians and Philemon (the order of the last two is not 100% clear). The Galatians letter stood first where verses 1:1-3, 6ff (verses 1:4-5 were added later) to explain Paul's authority over the collection in the Marcionite or 10 letter form.[2] When the Catholic form was made, a new declaration of Paul's authority, along lines more consistent with the emerging Catholic theology, was required to introduce the collection. And remembers in the earliest collections the Pauline letters stood as an independent collection, as did the Gospels and the Catholic Epistles. So the collection, and the perspective it was to be understood by had to be declared at the beginning of the collection. For the Marcionites and similar Gnostic sects Galatians with it's Gospel from Revelation was that introduction to Paul and his authority, while for the Catholics Romans and it' presentation of a Gospel from Scripture from an obedient Paul was that introduction, the same we have today.
So if Romans was not first, and the additions were written afterward in the form we have now, what did the original look like without verses 1:2-6? The answer is not straight forward deleting the verses, one also has to look at Galatians, Ephesians and other letters in the Pauline collection to see how a medium sized (about 40-50% the size of the current letter) middle of the collection letter would have started. From that my reconstruction looks like this:
Πρὸς Ῥωμαίους
1.1 Παῦλος ἀπόστολος Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ, 1.7 πᾶσιν τοῖς οὖσιν [ἐν Ῥώμῃ] τοῖς ἁγίοις,
χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη ἀπὸ θεοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν καὶ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ.
... (1.8Εὐχαριστῶ τῷ θεῷ μου 11:9 μνείαν ὑμῶν ποιοῦμαι 1.10πάντοτε ἐπὶ τῶν προσευχῶν μου.)
1:15 οὕτως τὸ κατ᾽ ἐμὲ πρόθυμον καὶ ὑμῖν [[τοῖς ἐν Ῥώμῃ]] εὐαγγελίσασθαι.
1:16 Οὐ γὰρ ἐπαισχύνομαι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον, δύναμις γὰρ θεοῦ ᾿στιν εἰς σωτηρίαν παντὶ τῷ πιστεύοντι Ἰουδαίῳ καὶ Ἕλληνι.
1:17 δικαιοσύνη γὰρ θεοῦ ἐν αὐτῷ ἀποκαλύπτεται ἐκ πίστεως εἰς πίστιν,
1:18 ...
Paul, an Apostle of Christ Jesus, to all those [in Rome] who are saints,
grace and peace from God our father and the lord Jesus Christ.
... (I give thanks to my God ... mention you ... always at my prayers.)
So as accorded to me, I am eager also to preach to you [[in Rome]].
For I am not ashamed of the Gospel, for it is the power of God (to bring) salvation unto everyone believing, Jew and Greek
For the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith ...
Note: Irenaeus in AH 5.16.2 reads ἀπόστολος for δοῦλος, Paulus Apostolus Jesu Christi in verse 1:1
Note: G reads ἁγάπη θεοῦ for ἁγαπητοῖς θεοῦ in 1:7 to retain some semblance of grammar -- clearly a location was meant to be inserted
in my reproduction I dropped ἁγαπητοῖς θεοῦ as this phrase is in no other Pauline opening, but I rate it uncertain.
Note: in my reproduction I do not include τοῖς ἐν Ῥώμῃ in verse 1:15
Note: Tertullian AM 5.13.2 read minus πρῶτον τε (primum) in verse 1:16
1.1 Παῦλος ἀπόστολος Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ, 1.7 πᾶσιν τοῖς οὖσιν [ἐν Ῥώμῃ] τοῖς ἁγίοις,
χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη ἀπὸ θεοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν καὶ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ.
... (1.8Εὐχαριστῶ τῷ θεῷ μου 11:9 μνείαν ὑμῶν ποιοῦμαι 1.10πάντοτε ἐπὶ τῶν προσευχῶν μου.)
1:15 οὕτως τὸ κατ᾽ ἐμὲ πρόθυμον καὶ ὑμῖν [[τοῖς ἐν Ῥώμῃ]] εὐαγγελίσασθαι.
1:16 Οὐ γὰρ ἐπαισχύνομαι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον, δύναμις γὰρ θεοῦ ᾿στιν εἰς σωτηρίαν παντὶ τῷ πιστεύοντι Ἰουδαίῳ καὶ Ἕλληνι.
1:17 δικαιοσύνη γὰρ θεοῦ ἐν αὐτῷ ἀποκαλύπτεται ἐκ πίστεως εἰς πίστιν,
1:18 ...
Paul, an Apostle of Christ Jesus, to all those [in Rome] who are saints,
grace and peace from God our father and the lord Jesus Christ.
... (I give thanks to my God ... mention you ... always at my prayers.)
So as accorded to me, I am eager also to preach to you [[in Rome]].
For I am not ashamed of the Gospel, for it is the power of God (to bring) salvation unto everyone believing, Jew and Greek
For the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith ...
Note: Irenaeus in AH 5.16.2 reads ἀπόστολος for δοῦλος, Paulus Apostolus Jesu Christi in verse 1:1
Note: G reads ἁγάπη θεοῦ for ἁγαπητοῖς θεοῦ in 1:7 to retain some semblance of grammar -- clearly a location was meant to be inserted
in my reproduction I dropped ἁγαπητοῖς θεοῦ as this phrase is in no other Pauline opening, but I rate it uncertain.
Note: in my reproduction I do not include τοῖς ἐν Ῥώμῃ in verse 1:15
Note: Tertullian AM 5.13.2 read minus πρῶτον τε (primum) in verse 1:16
That is an extremely bland opening. The term δοῦλος in the Catholic is meant to show the subservience of Paul, similar to it's use in 1 Corinthians. But ἀπόστολος is what is used in every other letter and especially in Galatians to show Paul's claim of never subordinating his authority under obedience to anyone. He was separated from the womb (ὁ ἀφορίσας με ἐκ κοιλίας μητρός μου) to preach, not separated from others to be called an apostle (ἀφωρισμένος with κλητοῖς, see same formula in Acts 13:2 for Paul and Barnabas, part of the pairing of Paul with equals rather than alone and without peer). Also the insertion of 1:2-6 begins in verse 1:1 with "the Gospel of God, concerning his son having come from the seed of David according to the flesh." In Marcion the reference is always to the Gospel of Christ, his resurrection required no intervention from the father he was able to self-arise, as he too was not subordinate to anyone --some have even said the Marcionites could be called Modalists as Jesus was God, but I'm not ready to say that--.
So while Romans could have originally lacked address in verse 1:7 and 1:15, the grammar required some location, and it certainly acquired a title very early in it's history. If Marcionite versions (or pre-Marcionite to use Clabeaux's often useful terminology) did circulate, then given the rewrite which occurred for Romans 1:1-15, it would seem far more probable that the encyclical version only arose once, in the form known by Ephesians, prior to the Catholic revision, than to have arisen twice in identical form. However from the very earliest form of a Pauline collection, as witness Marcion, "To the Romans" was attached to this tract over any other location.
This is an interesting case of where a textual variant survived a redaction. It suggests that redactions did not occur on a single manuscript from which all others derived, but instead were applied as adjustments to existing manuscripts. While surprising it is not illogical, as the high costs of writing from scratch new manuscripts is time and resource consuming, and financially expensive for what was probably a hand to mouth existence for the early church. This is one of several examples which tell me the model of redaction we have does not quite match the evidence, that it was more influenced by economic and resource constraints than has been recognized. How else can one explain textual variants passing through a rewrite of a book (in Romans case doubling in size)?
Notes:
[1] In the earliest manuscripts inscriptions and postscripts are little more than appended words from some second hand in the margins before or after (or both) the text of a book, and not impressive at all, often sloppy scribbled, almost afterthoughts.
[2] Some scholars have suggested Galatians was late to the collection, and that 1 Corinthians originally opened it. The arguments while compelling, are too involved for this brief post.
Last edited by Stuart on Thu Aug 23, 2018 12:59 am, edited 1 time in total.
“’That was excellently observed’, say I, when I read a passage in an author, where his opinion agrees with mine. When we differ, there I pronounce him to be mistaken.” - Jonathan Swift
Re: Was Romans not addressed to Romans?
In the W.B. Smith's article, I read that in ''G' (I don't have other references about) we read:
rather than:
Can someone explain me what is happening here?
πᾶσιν τοῖς οὖσιν ἐν ἀγάπῃ θεοῦ κλητοῖς ἁγίοις
rather than:
πᾶσιν τοῖς οὖσιν ἐν Ῥώμῃ ἀγαπητοῖς Θεοῦ, κλητοῖς ἁγίοις
Can someone explain me what is happening here?
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Re: Was Romans not addressed to Romans?
G or far more likely one of it's predecessors (it's a 9th century manuscript) lacked ἐν Ῥώμῃ ("those in Rome) as did a few other manuscripts. But this creates a grammatical problem with ἀγαπητοῖς Θεοῦ (beloved of God). So a scribe attempted to correct this by removing what he saw as the superfluous definite article (the τοῖς) since the subject was now πᾶσιν τοῖς οὖσιν, making it redundant. This is a secondary correction, on a manuscript inherited by G after the removal of the ἐν Ῥώμῃ by an earlier manuscript. BTW in English (or Italian for the matter) the correction would be invisible after translation (just as many of the grammatical oddities in the Gospel of Mark vanish through translation). So it's just an attempt to correct the grammar. (The corrector obviously never thought to insert a town or city, and G left no space to do so.)Giuseppe wrote: ↑Thu Aug 23, 2018 12:42 am In the W.B. Smith's article, I read that in ''G' (I don't have other references about) we read:
πᾶσιν τοῖς οὖσιν ἐν ἀγάπῃ θεοῦ κλητοῖς ἁγίοις
rather than:
πᾶσιν τοῖς οὖσιν ἐν Ῥώμῃ ἀγαπητοῖς Θεοῦ, κλητοῖς ἁγίοις
Can someone explain me what is happening here?
Note: G is very strange, omitting everything after κλητὸς ἀπόστολος in verse 1:1 until picking up again at ἐν πᾶσιν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν at in verse 1:5. This may indicate the Irish scribe rejected the creed that said:
"set apart to preach the Gospel of God, which he promised before through his prophets in the holy scriptures concerning his son having been born from the seed of David according to the flesh, being designated the son of God in power according to a spirit of holiness from (his) resurrection of the dead, Jesus Christ our lord, through whom we receive grace and apostleship for obedience of the faith"
Although he left space sufficient for the entire text (huh ??). Just very strange, clearly deliberate. (Was he a Bogomil/Cathar sympathizer?)
Note: although the UBS and Metzger regard it as unimportant unrelated and accidental, a couple of manuscripts delete ἀγαπητοῖς Θεοῦ. To me this indicates some instability, although I tend to agree with Metzger and the UBS on this
“’That was excellently observed’, say I, when I read a passage in an author, where his opinion agrees with mine. When we differ, there I pronounce him to be mistaken.” - Jonathan Swift