Romans 1:1-5

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3166
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Romans 1:1-5

Post by Bernard Muller » Wed Mar 13, 2019 2:27 pm

to Stuart,
If you do not accept the Marcionite text as an earlier form, which I think is an extremely weak position, then these things become "assumptions." But I challenge any claiming they are not earlier forms to explain the vocabulary differences between the attested "Marcionite" form of Paul and the Canonical form. This is only one of the arguments for that being earlier.
I am absolutely certain the Marcionite form is not the earliest form. My reasons are explained here, in details: http://historical-jesus.info/73.html. But I already sketched some of the main points in an earlier post. Did you read them?
What difference of vocabulary? Anyway these differences can come from Marcion' rewriting his Pauline Corpus from the canonicals, rather than the opposite.
If the text is not attested in the "Marcionite" form (which I argue they simply preserved, by dropping out of the main stream and having their own churches, so didn't have the same textual development and scriptural additions, which even the Gnostics had by remaining in the main body), which is what I am informing you, then if you accepted the earlier form, you have to demonstrate that the unattested text is consistent with the attested text in the ten letter form to claim it is part of the early strata.
There is no attested form of the Marcionite Pauline Corpus we know about, only parts that has been recorded, mostly in the writings of Tertullian & Epiphanius. For the majority of the epistle texts in Marcion's version, there is no attestation. Please refer to Ben's extensive study: viewtopic.php?t=1837
As for consistency, Marcion's version of his gospels & epistles, according to specifics in Tertullian & Epiphanius' writings, looks very much as a truncated version of the canonicals, rather than the canonicals resulting from additions to Marcion's version.
That consistency has to include the vocabulary, the points of theology, the voice of the writer (can't be switching from "I' to "we" for example), and the focus. I would also add that the character has to be maintained. Paul, for example is a command figure who accepts no caveats to his authority in the attested text (e.g. in the attested earlier form of 1 Corinthians 5:5 Paul says he delivered up this one to Satan, which 1 Timothy 1:20 borrowed for different purposes, but in the canonical text Paul asks the locals to deliver this one to Satan, a more passive Paul, typical of the catholic revision).
1 Timothy was not written by Paul but generations after him.
What theology? Marcion's gospel and epistles, as far as we know, do not expound Marcionite's theology & christology. The deletions he made just allow them. If Marcion created these epistles, we would expect to see in them some positive support for his teachings.
And where would be attested that no-switching of "I" to "we" in Marcion's version as compared to the switching in corresponding passages in the canonicals?
Bernard, that is the challenge for you. To show these passages which are not attested, and which conflict with the theology are in fact part of the first layer. Until you do that you are attempting to compare apples to oranges.
I responded to the challenge. I think you have "an extremely weak position", "then these things become "assumptions".

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed

Stuart
Posts: 456
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 12:24 am
Location: Sunnyvale, CA

Re: Romans 1:1-5

Post by Stuart » Wed Mar 13, 2019 5:11 pm

Bernard,

Understand, I am not your research assistant. Arguments from ignorance carry no weight.

I am not the first person to suggest that the titles of the Pauline latters came from the editor of the first collection. You seem unaware of this theory or its's history. Please educate yourself on this before you throw out an argument from ignorance saying, "this is an assumption."

And speaking of assumptions, all NT study is based on assumptions. I stated plainly the parameters of my argument. If you wish to argue within the parameters that there is some logic flaw here or there fine. But leaving the confines of those parameters without demonstration that the parameters are too exclusive is, well, cheating.

I am perfectly open to debating the parameters. But not to arguments from ignorance. It is not my job to teach you the basics of the radical critics, and their various concepts from 1700 to the present. That is on you to learn. You are intelligent, you can read and learn.

I will say this as a counter, to your claim that I make an assumption the letters were originally tracts. The assumption that they were letters is equally an assumption, but a weaker one. there are no extant surviving letters which are not ecclesiastical (Patristic works are of the same nature and same snow ball accumulation), that are anywhere near as long as even say Colossians or 2 Peter. Find a few from the Roman era and then we can talk. But until you find such a letter (and there are some pretty lareg online libraries you can search), then the counter claim has to be considered much weaker IMO. This is becaus eyou have to invent a new type of letter unique to Christianity.
“’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

Bernard Muller
Posts: 3166
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Romans 1:1-5

Post by Bernard Muller » Wed Mar 13, 2019 9:47 pm

to Stuart,
Understand, I am not your research assistant. Arguments from ignorance carry no weight.
Good excuse for not coming with any evidence to support your position. As for me, I did my research, came up with evidence supporting my position and it is available for all.
I am not the first person to suggest that the titles of the Pauline latters came from the editor of the first collection. You seem unaware of this theory or its's history. Please educate yourself on this before you throw out an argument from ignorance saying, "this is an assumption."
Suggestion? Not the first one, does that matter? A theory: where is the evidence which supports that theory?
Yes, I see your theory is just unevidenced assumption. Prove me wrong.
And speaking of assumptions, all NT study is based on assumptions. I stated plainly the parameters of my argument. If you wish to argue within the parameters that there is some logic flaw here or there fine. But leaving the confines of those parameters without demonstration that the parameters are too exclusive is, well, cheating.
The parameters of your argument is not evidence. "logic" can be manipulated, biased and very deceptive and again is not evidence.
I am not going to argue about some parameters. I think I already answered what I think you mean, and so Ben, in earlier posts on that thread. As I saw them, these parameters are just a pile of assumptions.
I am perfectly open to debating the parameters. But not to arguments from ignorance. It is not my job to teach you the basics of the radical critics, and their various concepts from 1700 to the present. That is on you to learn. You are intelligent, you can read and learn.
Thank you for your compliment about my intelligence! Let's debate about evidence, not parameters. These basics of the radical critics are not necessarily the right ones, more so when these critics do/did not agree because they have/had various concepts: that should raise some red flags. Obviously, you are immersed into the writings of these critics (from 1700!) and you made a point not to read the web pages and earlier posts where I exposed my relevant arguments demonstrating my position.
I will say this as a counter, to your claim that I make an assumption the letters were originally tracts. The assumption that they were letters is equally an assumption, but a weaker one. there are no extant surviving letters which are not ecclesiastical (Patristic works are of the same nature and same snow ball accumulation), that are anywhere near as long as even say Colossians or 2 Peter. Find a few from the Roman era and then we can talk. But until you find such a letter (and there are some pretty large online libraries you can search), then the counter claim has to be considered much weaker IMO. This is because you have to invent a new type of letter unique to Christianity.
Here is the oldest textual witness of the Pauline epistles, well into the Roman era:
From Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus_46:
"Papyrus 46 (in the Gregory-Aland numbering), scribal abbreviation P46, is one of the oldest extant New Testament manuscripts in Greek, written on papyrus, with its 'most probable date' between 175 and 225.[1] Some leaves are part of the Chester Beatty Biblical Papyri ('CB' in the table below), and others are in the University of Michigan Papyrus Collection ('Mich.' in the table below).[2]"
"P46 contains most of the Pauline epistles, though with some folios missing. It contains (in order) "the last eight chapters of Romans; all of Hebrews; virtually all of 1–2 Corinthians; all of Ephesians, Galatians, Philippians, Colossians; and two chapters of 1 Thessalonians. All of the leaves have lost some lines at the bottom through deterioration."[3]"
In your parameters, I don't see what is the importance of the length of Paul's epistles. What would prevent Paul to write long or short epistles? These epistles were not (secular) letters, for most of their content. They were mostly about many religious items & problems solving through a lot of rhetoric and words. Added to that, it is certain that 1 & 2 Corinthians are the result of a combination of multiple letters for each of them: that would reduce the length of the original Corinthians epistles.
Christianity was a peculiar religion, with a peculiar development, so it should be of no surprise that the epistles (& the gospels) be unique in their construct. Why would you expect Paul and others to conform to some imagined rule which would assign a maximum length to letters?

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed

perseusomega9
Posts: 492
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 7:19 am
Contact:

Re: Romans 1:1-5

Post by perseusomega9 » Thu Mar 14, 2019 6:44 am

Bernard Muller wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 2:27 pm
I am absolutely certain the Marcionite form is not the earliest form. My reasons are explained here, in details: http://historical-jesus.info/73.html. But I already sketched some of the main points in an earlier post. Did you read them?
What difference of vocabulary? Anyway these differences can come from Marcion' rewriting his Pauline Corpus from the canonicals, rather than the opposite.
The canonical form though, is most surely a catholic redaction of the Marcionite form.

Bernard Muller
Posts: 3166
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Romans 1:1-5

Post by Bernard Muller » Thu Mar 14, 2019 8:00 am

to perseusomega9,
The canonical form though, is most surely a catholic redaction of the Marcionite form.
Do you have evidence to support your claim?

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed

perseusomega9
Posts: 492
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 7:19 am
Contact:

Re: Romans 1:1-5

Post by perseusomega9 » Thu Mar 14, 2019 8:41 am

Yes, having more than 2 brain cells.

Bernard Muller
Posts: 3166
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Romans 1:1-5

Post by Bernard Muller » Thu Mar 14, 2019 9:14 am

to perseusomega9,
Yes, having more than 2 brain cells
And you call that evidence?

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed

perseusomega9
Posts: 492
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 7:19 am
Contact:

Re: Romans 1:1-5

Post by perseusomega9 » Thu Mar 14, 2019 12:27 pm

indubitably

Bernard Muller
Posts: 3166
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Romans 1:1-5

Post by Bernard Muller » Fri Mar 15, 2019 6:36 pm

Any bolding is mine.

From Secret Alias,
No one writes letters this long. Not even the worst writers in history.
From Stuart,
there are no extant surviving letters which are not ecclesiastical ..., that are anywhere near as long as even say Colossians or 2 Peter. Find a few from the Roman era and then we can talk. But until you find such a letter (and there are some pretty large online libraries you can search), then the counter claim has to be considered much weaker IMO.
Plutarch's Isis and Orisis is a letter because addressed to one person, Clea. That letter is considerably longer than Paul's Romans.
It begins as: "All good things, my dear Clea, sensible men must ask; ..."
And then Clea is mentioned three more times (at chapters 3, 11, 35), as the addressee of the letter.
Plutarch lived from 46 to 120 AD.

From https://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2013 ... n-letters/
The 796 letters by Cicero range from 22 to 2530 words, with an average of 295 words. The 124 extant letters of Seneca range from 149 to 4134 words, averaging 955 words. By comparison, e.g., Romans (Paul’s longest) has 7101 words,
OK, none of these letters are longer than Romans, but at least two of them are longer than Colossians (about 2000 words) and 2 Peter (about 1600 words).

To Stuart,
Patristic works are of the same nature and same snow ball accumulation
How do you assume that? If you don't have evidence for some massive accumulation in the Patristic letters, then I present the following:

Justin Martyr's so called 1 Apology is actually a letter addressed to the Roman emperor:
It begins as: "To the Emperor Titus Ælius Adrianus Antoninus Pius Augustus Caesar, and to his son Verissimus the Philosopher, and to Lucius the Philosopher, the natural son of Caesar, and the adopted son of Pius, a lover of learning, and to the sacred Senate, with the whole People of the Romans, I, Justin, the son of Priscus and grandson of Bacchius, natives of Flavia Neapolis in Palestine, present this address and petition in behalf of those of all nations who are unjustly hated and wantonly abused, myself being one of them."
Also, it is much longer than 'Romans'.

Also Irenaeus' Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching is also a letter, addressed to Marcianus
It begins as such "Knowing, my beloved Marcianus, your desire to walk in godliness, ...".
Needless to say, this Irenaeus' letter is much longer than Romans.

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed

Post Reply