Читать книгу Paul Among the Gentiles: A "Radical" Reading of Romans - Jacob P. B. Mortensen - Страница 30

Whereas the manuscript tradition of Romans constitutes a serious weakness for the partition theories, it also raises a new set of questions, because Romans presents several textual problems. Do Rom 1:7 and 1:15 belong to the original letter, or are they products of later scribal editors? The manuscript tradition is undecided. Were chapters 15 and 16 original parts of the letter? One or both may be questioned, based on the extant textual evidence. Is the doxology (16:25–27) original, and does it belong at the end of the letter? In some manuscripts the doxology is placed at the end of chapter 14, in others at the end of chapter 15, and in yet others, at the end of chapter 16.1

Some manuscripts support a fourteen-chapter version of Romans by inserting the doxology after 14:23. In other manuscripts, the doxology follows both 14:23 and 16:24.2 Marcion’s prologue claims that Romans was written in Athens, even though Rom 15 to 16 suggests a Corinthian origin. This means that Marcion’s version must have been based on a version without chapters 15 to 16.3 Although forteen-chapter versions of Romans exist, this is probably not the original form, because it cannot account for the development of the old Latin manuscripts that end with chapter 15. And scholars commonly agree that 15:1–16:16 (maybe even 16:24) are Pauline in content and style. Also, Paul’s admonition to the ‘strong’ and the ‘weak’ does not end until 15:6 or 15:13. And no one has been able to convincingly argue why 15:1–6 (or 15:1–13) would have been subsequently added to a fourteen-chapter version of the letter. Consequently, no one has been able to explain why a later addition to the letter would have continued a discussion that belonged with the original situation.4

The most likely explanation is that an original, longer, letter was abbreviated to a fourteen-chapter version, even though the rationale behind such a revision is difficult to determine. Hypotheses include that the revisionists found the content offensive, that the fourteen-chapter version was used for liturgical purposes, or that Romans was shortened into a more general form to appeal to a broader audience. Harry Gamble noted that a few manuscripts omit ἐν Ῥώμῃ in 1:7, and τοῖς ἐν Ῥώμῃ in 1:15, and that these omissions coincide with the fourteen-chapter version attested to in the Western bilingual versions.5 Together, 1:7, 15, and chapters 15 to 16 specify the addressees. This suggests that Romans was deliberately shortened. With regard to the fourteen-chapter version, it may be stated that no one has been able to provide a satisfactory account of the origins of this version of Romans. Thus, the only relative certainty is that the fourteen-chapter version is not the original form.

In 1829, David Schulz argued that Paul wrote Rom 1–15 to the congregation in Rome, and then added chapter 16 for the church at Ephesus.6 In 1962, T.W. Manson advanced Schulz’s original hypothesis, specifically by arguing from the strongest textual evidence (p⁴⁶), which uniquely positions 16:26–27 after chapter 15.7 However, most scholars have not found Manson’s case compelling, mainly because the textual evidence overwhelmingly favours the inclusion of chapter 16. Even in p⁴⁶, 16:1–23 immediately follows the doxology.8 Only Miniscule 1506 presents chapter 15 without 16:1–23, but there is a blank half page between chapter 15 and 16:25–27, which suggests that the copyist knew of Rom 16. Additionally, the δέ in 16:1 presupposes a preceding text, and confirms that chapter 16 did not stand on its own. The simplest explanation is that Rom 16 naturally follows Rom 15, thus making it improbable that Rom 16 was a separate letter of commendation and greetings. After all, such a letter would be unparalleled in the Pauline corpus. A letter of recommendation for Phoebe is unnecessary, when Paul typically includes subforms of various genres in his letters.9

The greetings in Rom 16 work much better in a Roman than in an Ephesian context. Although Paul reveals personal knowledge of only nine of the people on his list, the rest may have been well-known individuals in the Roman congregation.10 It should not be considered odd that Paul knew of twenty-six people in Rome, when his close companions (Prisca and Aquila) were in Rome, and could have informed him of the people living there – especially in view of his plans to visit Rome. Prisca and Aquila may have travelled back and forth between Rome and the Aegean region several times, because of the Edict of Claudius11 and business in Ephesus. And the names in Rom 16 are otherwise attested in Rome through ancient inscriptions.12 Identifying Epaenetus as the first convert in Asia (16:5) also makes little sense if chapter 16 was originally addressed to Ephesus, because the Asian Ephesians would already know Epaenetus. On the other hand, the Romans may have been unfamiliar with Epaenetus’s significance. Besides, would it not make more sense that the Ephesians already knew Prisca and Aquila, Paul’s co-workers, since they would have known that Timothy was his co-worker (16:21)? And does not the number of people greeted in Romans actually argue against an Ephesian destination, since in no other letter does Paul attach such an extensive list of greetings to a church with which he was familiar? In Ephesus, Paul would surely have known more than twenty-six persons, and he might have risked offending Ephesians who were not specifically mentioned. And if he had continued the practice begun in the other letters, he would have referred to his experiences and future plans with the Ephesians. Consequently, a Roman destination makes more sense. By listing all these names and greetings at the end of the letter, Paul was establishing his authority and commending his ministry by means of his associations with respected persons in Rome who could serve as character references.13 In greeting and highlighting his contacts in Rome, he was laying the foundation for his future work and new ministry in the West in Spain.14

The concluding elements of Rom 16 are typical of a Pauline letter closing: greetings (16:3–15), kiss of peace (16:16), admonition (16:17–20), and grace benediction (16:20).15 If Rom 16 were intended for Ephesus, 15:33 would be the conclusion of the letter, with its wish for peace. But Paul does not conclude any of his other letters with a wish for peace. Elsewhere in Paul, such wishes for peace precede the greetings, as in Rom 16 (cf. Phil 4:9; 2 Cor 13:11; 1 Thess 5:23; Gal 6:16 (also, cf. 2 Thess 3:16; Eph 6:23)). Besides, the grace benediction in 16:20b, 24 is exactly what we would expect in a Pauline ending. Thus, Karl P. Donfried’s words concerning the place of Rom 16 in Paul’s original letter to the Romans is worth repeating: ‘An especially significant shift has occurred with regard to the understanding of Romans 16, which is now viewed by the majority [of scholars] as being an integral part of Paul’s original letter’.16 Any reconstruction of the situation in the Roman congregation must employ the full sixteen chapters.17 Therefore, I take chapter 16 to be an original part of Romans.18