Textual Criticism of Romans 16

[stephan happy huller]

You know how much I love and respect you Andrew, but you also must know how bad these arguments are.

The evidence for Marcion is in unusual because most of the testimonies rarely repeat in more than one source. So if it wasn't for Origen's statement about the end of Romans we would never have known that the text ended in chapter 14. The statement just comes out of the sky as it were - like the heretical Jesus - abruptly and without precedent. Indeed the parallel evidence from Tertullian Against Marcion 4:14 about another chasm - Rom 8:14 - 10:2 - and then spotty references to the end of the text is just another example. The bottom line is then whether we believe that God somehow arranged for us to have all the evidence about the shape of the Marcionite canon (implicit in your statement - " I would be surprised that no surviving writer says so").

I am not surprised because the manner in which evidence about the Marcionite canon comes down us is bizarre. Off hand comments in Tertullian, Origen, Ephrem but where no single source tells us anything directly about the canon as a whole or its individual parts.

The lack of reference to any Marcionite interpretation before the end of chapter 2 in Galatians in Jerome's commentary (borrowed apparently from Origen) is another example not only of the 'large chasm' of text but also the idea - reinforced at the beginning of Tertullian Against Marcion Book 5 - that the Marcionite canon offered no biographical clues about the apostle. Hence an important clue for identifying the end of Romans as a fake even if we didn't have Origen.

[stephan happy huller]

The literary epistles of such lengths all have one common feature. They are not one-off incidental writings.

But that's precisely the point Peter. What were the Pauline epistles? How were they and why were they canonized? We know that there are three different lengths of the Ignatian corpus. If Cureton hadn't found the short length we wouldn't even be talking about them (indeed most scholars ignore them anyway). But the parallel between the short Syrian and the Marcionite epistles is very powerful especially given that the third epistle has been broken apart into 'to the Romans' and 'to the Tarsians.' The same pattern can be inferred from the Marcionite text (i.e. Philemon etc).

I still think we need to look at these texts from the altitude of 10,000 feet above the earth. Too much time is examining the minutiae. Too little time admitting we don't know enough and asking big, unfathomable questions like - WTF were the epistles, who collected them and why?

[hjalti]

chapter 15 on internal evidence is clearly Pauline.

Care to elaborate on this point?

[spin]

IIUC Romans and 1 Corinthians are both substantially longer than any ancient non-Christian Greek or Latin letters, However the range of length for Paul's letters is not unusual (Romans is about 22 times longer than Philemon.) The average length of Paul's letters is high by ancient world standards. Hence his longer letters are very long indeed by ancient world standards.

Note the name of the J.C. O'Neill article called "Paul Wrote Some of All, But Not All of Any" (Pauline Corpus, ed Porter, Brill, 2004). Here are a few excerpts:

• 169-170
  all the canonical letters with Paul's name in the opening greeting are, in their present form, books. That is, they were originally made up of sheets of papyrus, folded, and gathered together to make a || codex or book. This is evident when we observe the ratio of the length of any one compared with each of the others....
  
  ...the lengths of the epistles in number of characters do not form a smooth series. Rather, they are stepped, and each step seems to be related to the others by being a different multiple of a unit comprising one sheet of papyrus folded into two, giving two leaves and four pages, each page containing roughly the same number of characters.
  
  171-172
  ...The letters would originally have been written on one side of a papyrus roll. The text would probably have been rolled up, tied with a fibre taken from one end of the roll, and sealed.
  
  The compilers of our present canonical epistles would have first to transcribe the beginning, middle, and end of the letter on to separate sheets of papyrus in order to add to those sheets the other sheets of traditional material to make a book.
  
  Each official letter, if we can judge by other official letters, is unlikely to have contained text enough to fill more than twelve pages. || Most were much shorter. Philemon, when transcribed from a scroll to sheets of papyrus, was probably four pages long.
  
  The compilers inserted into the body of the letter related sacred texts, each insertion usually four pages long....

If Marcion's Romans was as short as you claim I would be surprised that no surviving writer says so. (One problem with Romans ending at the end of chapter 14 is that it would make a very abrupt end.)

[Peter Kirby]

The literary epistles of such lengths all have one common feature. They are not one-off incidental writings.

But that's precisely the point Peter.

So glad I made it, then.

[stephan happy huller]

And I think this is the parallel to the hatred that misguides people like Pete and avi. I think believers have a problem reconciling the theological implications of accepting the originality of the Marcionite canon. If there is a God, they secretly reason, how could he have abandoned us and let his scriptures be counterfeited?

I am not going to answer that question. I am just putting it out there to emphasize how hard it is for us to look at these matters indifferently. It's like watching the Food Network while you are on a hunger strike.

[andrewcriddle]

chapter 15 on internal evidence is clearly Pauline.

Care to elaborate on this point?

Romans 15:1-13 continues the argument of chapter 14. An ending at 14:23 is far too abrupt.

Romans 15:14-32 is closely related too Romans 1:8-13 in theory this could be imitation by a later writer but it would be a very subtle imitator.

Andrew Criddle

[stephan happy huller]

Let's not forget what Irenaeus says about cento gospels. The Ignatian correspondences demonstrate that epistles had sections 'moved around' like stones in a mosaic. The question isn't necessarily whether all the material is fake but whether or not the text ended where the Marcionites said it did. Many people think that Ephesians is two letters. I personally think that the 'removed section' between Romans 8:14 - 10:2 is an authentic section moved from another letter. So too with material in Hebrews.

The point isn't whether all of the additions or subtractions are 'Pauline' but whether or not it was a tactic of the Catholic editor to interrupt or suspend unwanted arguments.