Yeah, I largely agree with that. Romans 16 is also a complicated one. And even Romans 10 for that matter. Romans 16 does seem to make sense as an authentic work, but clearly it wasn't a part of Marcion. However, I can accept that Romans circulated as an independent letter that was different from the version in the collection. I can also see why Romans 16 would be excluded from Marcion's publication even if he knew of it, because its largely irrelevant material that's mostly just a cover letter. So I could agree that Romans 16 was both authentic and not a part of Marcion's version and that later orthodox compilers had hold of an independent version of that one letter. Yet it remains suspect that the only place ekklēsia exists in Romans is in Romans 16.Irish1975 wrote: ↑Fri May 21, 2021 10:23 amYes. I largely agree with your account of the 2nd century interpolators/editors in the Roman church (maybe Ephesus too). I'm starting to eschew the concept of "the (7) authentic Pauline epistles" in favor of a more vague "Pauline Corpus." If we knew there were only one man behind the big four epistles Galatians, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Romans, that would be one thing. But it almost seems easier to identity the personality behind 1 Corinthians and 1 Thessalonians than to identify the Paul of Romans with the Corinthian Paul.rgprice wrote: ↑Fri May 21, 2021 8:36 am Yeah, 1 Thess 2 is particularly thorny. It's both important and a can of worms. I also find that trying to make sense of the canonical Pauline letters is increasingly difficult because it's clear that alterations and multiple authors abound. Trying to come up with any consistent line of reasoning is almost impossible. It's also a challenge specifically because of the nature of the editing that was done to the letters. Just as in the case of 1 Thess 2, many of the most significant elements are hampered by interpolation.
What about 1 Cor 2:6-16? See recent discussion about Arthur Droge's case for interpolation there.We do not know if the "authentic letters of Paul" within Marcion's collection contained interpolations.
Indeed. I've argued that the intro to Romans (at least 1:1-4) and Romans 15 are particularly suspect. It is standard to use Romans 15 to situate the epistle in a historical context, but what a phony context. Quite clear that Marcion had only a 14 chapter epistle, and the orthodox crafting of 15 was particularly concerned to weasel in a respect for Peter's apostlehood in the eyes of Paul, similar to the much more flagrant interpolation at Galatians 2:7b-8.It also seems to me that there is a relationship between the writing of the Gospel of Luke, Acts of the Apostles, and the orthodox version of Paul's letters.
But lots of Romans 15 looks suspect to me. Romans 15 contains many elements that appear designed to glorify the Romans and even subversive slights against Paul himself, meant essentially to show that Roman Christianity preceded Paul and was superior to Paul's ministry.
