The placement of the Romans doxology in GA 1506 has long created a good deal of confusion. This manuscript is a copy of John of Damascus’s edited collection of extracts from John Chrysostom’s Homilies on Romans. The biblical text is written in red ink, often very faint, especially in the microfilm images, while the commentary text is written in a darker ink that is much easier to read.
The NA28 apparatus (in the variation unit on the doxology) tells us: “add p. 14,23 et p. 15,33 (sed om. 16,1–24) 1506.” This is also the reading provided in the IGNTP transcription, in Text und Textwert, and in the literature more generally. Some sources (e.g. Aland’s 1979 article “Der Schluß und die ursprüngliche Gestalt des Römerbriefs”) also point out that a blank space of half a page has been left for 16:1–24.
Today, however, as I took another look at this “blank space,” I noticed something odd. Most of the text visible on the page is the result of ink bleedthrough from the other side of the folio. As such, the text is reversed. Yet in the margin, outside the block of transfer, a marginal note was visible, one in which the letters were facing the right direction and which therefore cannot be the result of ink bleedthrough or transfer:
In examining other manuscripts of John of Damascus’s commentary (GA 2110 and GA 0150, identified by David Flood as members of the same family as GA 1506), I discovered that not only did they contain a form of this same marginal note but that this note was a gloss on the name Ἑρμᾶν in 16:14.
Therefore, rather than categorizing this as an omission, it is likely better classified as a lacuna due to illegibility (as Swanson already did). In any case, the presence of this marginal note at the correct place and in the same red ink used elsewhere for the lemmata makes it unlikely either that the exemplar of this manuscript was missing these verses or that the red ink used for the lemmata had run out (possibilities suggested by David Flood, “New Readings in GA 1506: A Fresh Analysis of Old Microfilm Scans”).
The simplest explanation seems to be that the scribe did indeed copy these verses, but that the ink has now faded beyond recovery without better images. It may also be relevant that the page in question (330v) seems to be the final page of its quire, which could have resulted in more severe fading, either before the initial binding or at some subsequent rebinding.
We really do need better images of the Athos manuscripts!
Great observation, Peter. UBS6 has moved away from recording this as an omission due to the apparently blank space (and hence the doxology is not really located after 15:33); I suspect that NA29 will present this in a similar way. Even so, I may have to update my Textual Commentary at Rom. 15:33!
ReplyDeleteThanks! If this gets included in published material, I'll be sure to mention the shift in UBS6.
DeleteExcellent work Peter. Thank you for your labors.
ReplyDeleteThanks!
DeleteNice! So am I right in thinking that there are no manuscripts that omit chapter 15 or chapter 16, but the evidence for an earlier 14 chapter version of Romans remains strong? It seems to me that chapters 15 and 16 were omitted or deleted in a manuscript during the persecution by Nero, for security reasons. I flip-flop on whether GMark too lost an ending at the same time and place.
ReplyDeleteYes, there are (to my knowledge) no extant manuscripts, in any language, that (as originally written) had a shorter version of Romans. There is strong evidence that Marcion had a shorter text, and there are some paratextual elements in Latin that suggest there once existed a shorter version in Latin. However, I'm not at all sure that the varied placement of the doxology is itself evidence for shorter versions of Romans. It seems more likely that the prior misplacement of the doxology explains what would otherwise be an odd division in Marcion (I know that it has been suggested that he inherited a shorter text, but I'm not yet persuaded of that either). I'm working on a paper (and possibly eventually a short monograph) on this whole topic. The first installment will be at ETS this year with a comprehensive survey of the extent manuscript evidence for the presence and placement of the doxology.
DeleteThanks.
DeleteIs there a consensus on when the last two chapters were first omitted to create a 14-chapter version? Have there been major advances on the subject since Gamble?
DeleteI don't think there is a consensus. Some would say that Marcion himself (as Origen claimed) mutilated the letter, while others (notably Ulrich Schmid) argue that he inherited a shorter version of the letter, and that the shorter version was the result of an earlier accident. I'm working on sorting through the literature as part of this research project.
Delete//In other words, while it may be difficult (or even impossible) to identify any of the biblical text under the heavy ink transfer and ink bleed through with the microfilm images currently available, it is very likely that GA 1506, as originally copied, contained 16:1–24, just as do the other manuscripts of this commentary tradition. //
ReplyDeleteThis seems like the kind of situation where multispectral imaging and/or other new technologies that have been used to read previously illegible ancient manuscripts should be useful. If the text of Romans 16:1-24 really once was on that page, then some traces of it would still have to be detectable, wouldn't they?
Yes I think so. While MSI would be best, I have a strong suspicion that even decent color photos in good lighting would likely prove sufficient to demonstrate the presence of text, even if more advanced technology was necessary for full transcription. We really need better images of the Athos manuscripts!
DeleteI am coming to the conclusion that Rom 15 and Rom 16 were omitted from some copies for protective reasons, perhaps even on Phoebe's instructions. Marcion and Tertullian (and Irenaeus?) did not have those chapters. Rom 15 discusses a collection for Judea and this could get the Christians into trouble with the Romans, particularly after the outbreak of the war. Rom 16 contains a list of prominent Christians so it had to be suppressed during the persecution(s). See my recent Facebook post, here: https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1DhgdFkkcn/
ReplyDeleteI think this means that there is no evidence that Romans should be partitioned. It also means that large chunks of text can be present in every surviving manuscript even if they were once widely absent. So the fact that 1 Cor 14:34-35 is in every manuscript is not strong evidence that it was original.
I think the main concern I have for this is that we don't have any evidence for non-Marcionite copies of Romans in Greek that omit these two chapters. Furthermore, if this was the goal, breaking the letter at 15:1 is a *very* strange thing to do, especially as a strong case can be made for 15:1–12 as the climax of the argument of Romans as a whole. No one who understood Paul would ever have done this (which is why Marcion himself might still have done so). Sections that were known to once be widely absent (e.g. the PA in John, or the ending of Mark), have left many traces of their absence behind, not only in the text of manuscripts, but in the margins and in patristic discussions. Given that there are multiple unique transpositions in the bilingual tradition, and given that most of these seem to go back to a rather free initial translation into Latin, the transposition of 1 Cor 14:34–35 is no reason to question their originality. Of course it is always possible to hypothesize that particular sections of text were additions to the original, but once we disconnect the shape of this original from the evidence we have, these hypotheses become impossible to prove. This is why the concept of an "initial text" is valuable. It is difficult to prove the negative position that no changes were made that have left no evidentiary traces. It is much more straightforward to show that no such changes are necessary to sufficiently explain all the evidence that we do have.
DeleteThanks, Peter.
DeleteYou wrote, "I think the main concern I have for this is that we don’t have any evidence for non-Marcionite copies of Romans in Greek that omit these two chapters." Why is that a concern?
You raise an interesting question about why the text used by Marcion ended before 15:1, instead of, say, 15:13. My explanation is that 15:4, 9-12 speak of the Judean scriptures with approval, and I think this could get the Christians into trouble, especially after the wars in which the Judeans took up arms against the Romans. Also, I imagine that the Romans would not look favourable on Rom 15:12 "Isaiah says, “The root of Jesse shall come, the one who rises to rule the Gentiles". What is your explanation for the omission of Rom 15:1-12? Also, how do you explain the omission of Rom 16? It could be a protective measure to deny the Romans a list of prominent Christians in Rome to arrest. Why would Marcion and Tertullian object to this list of names?
You wrote, "Given that there are multiple unique transpositions in the bilingual tradition, and given that most of these seem to go back to a rather free initial translation into Latin, the transposition of 1 Cor 14:34–35 is no reason to question their originality." The transpositions of text strings of more than 3 words in the bilingual tradition are addressed in my 2024 JSNT article, and they argue AGAINST the authenticity of 1 Cor 14:34-35. Are they the transpositions that you had in mind? Manuscript 88 is not in Latin and nor is it "western" in its text. I'm curious: what reasons do we have to believe that any of the transpositions in the "western" manuscripts of Paul happened in Latin before they happened in Greek?
Some of these are broader issues that can well be discussed in the comments to a blog post! To respond briefly:
Delete1. It is a concern in the sense that, when there is an abundance of extant evidence, it seems to me methodologically problematic to set that evidence to one side to develop theories that depend exclusively on non extant evidence.
2. Come to my ETS paper (or email me after ETS and I'll share it with you). This is precisely the point on which I'm working.
3. I read your JSNT article. I will dig into the relationships of 88 * and 915 once the 1 Corinthians collation is available (I'll be doing some work on this for my SBL paper). However, I must confess that I was not persuaded by your argument. Almost all of the other examples on your first table have multiple early witnesses that omit the relevant text entirely. It is one thing to say that later additions often occur in multiple places. It is another thing to say that all text that occurs in more than one place anywhere in the tradition is therefore a later addition. I don't think the second follows from the first.
4. Because translation offers more affordances for creativity than transcription, and the "western" witnesses are increasingly being seen simply as latinized witnesses, some of which latinizations entered the broader transmission. The work of Peter Lorenz and Martina Vercesi is instructive in this respect, and I have a forthcoming chapter on latinization in D06.
Thanks.
Delete1) It is not clear to me what evidence you think my theory sets aside. If Marcion's texts can be explained as a version that was created to help prevent persecution by the Romans, and if such a version explains how Marcionism came to be, and if it explains the origin of the 14 chapter form and absence of 2 Cor 8-9 in Tertullian, then it has widespread explanatory power. Specifically, which data do you think I am setting aside?
2) I look forward to seeing your ETS work.
3) You wrote "Almost all of the other examples on your first table have multiple early witnesses that omit the relevant text entirely." Yes. That is precisely the point! If there were cases of transposition that did not show evidence of having been once absent, you would have evidence that text could jump from one location to another in a single step. There is no such evidence, so 1 Cor 14:34-35 was almost certainly once absent from at least one early manuscript.
You earlier wrote, "there are multiple unique transpositions in the bilingual tradition". Again, which transpositions do you think help your case?
Thanks, Peter. I replied earlier, but the comment did not go through.
Delete1) What evidence do you think I am setting aside? If a protective version of the Luke and Paul's letters can explain Marcion's text an the omissions of Rom 15-16; 2 Cor 7-8 in Tertullian's manuscripts, and other variants, then it has wide explanatory power, especially if it also helps to explain why Marcion came to his views in the first place.
2) I look forward to reading your ETS article.
3) You wrote, "Almost all of the other examples on your first table have multiple early witnesses that omit the relevant text entirely." Yes. That is exactly the point! Large transpositions occur only when we have evidence that the text was once missing. They do not occur in one step. If 1 Cor 14:34-35 was never missing, then it is unique. There is no transposition of a text where we have no evidence that it was once missing. You wrote, "It is another thing to say that all text that occurs in more than one place anywhere in the tradition is therefore a later addition." I did not say that. All we can conclude from the transposition is that 1 Cor 14:34-35 was once missing from at least one early manuscript. Then we need to decide, on other grounds, whether its addition or its omission is more likely.
1. I think there is a simpler explanation of Marcion's text that doesn't appeal to a lost edition for which we have no clear evidence. I'm planning on digging deeper into the Tertullian data here in a bit, thanks for reminding me of it.
Delete2. Thanks!
3. I definitely agree that additions/omissions often result in transpositions. What I'm not convinced of is that transpositions are always a sign of omission. I'll be working through the examples in my paper, but I think I can identify multiple transpositions in the bilinguals that are better explained as intentional one-step shifts rather than the result of prior omissions. Appreciate the interaction on this, and I'll be giving your paper a more careful read as I work on mine!
1. I think there is an alternative explanation of Marcion's text that doesn't require a lost edition for which we have no direct evidence. I have Tertullian on my list of things to dig into further—thanks for mentioning 2 Cor 7–8.
Delete2. Thanks!
3. While I agree that large-scale omissions/additions often create transpositions, I'm not persuaded that's the only explanation for them. I think I have multiple examples within the bilingual tradition of transpositions that are arguably intentional, one-step transpositions. I'll save the details for the paper, but I'll be sure to give a careful re-read of yours. Thanks for the interaction!
Sorry, my first comment disappeared because I wasn't logged in to google, so I had to re-write it from memory.
Delete1. It seems that you have misunderstood my proposal. I am not proposing that that there was a "lost edition", other than the edition that Marcion used, which everyone agrees existed.
Delete