Why Rhetoric Is So Important for Understanding the New Tesament

Timothy J. Christian. Summary of Ben Witherington III, “‘Almost Thou Persuadest Me…’: The Importance of Greco-Roman Rhetoric for the Understanding of the Text and Context of the NT,” JETS 58 (2015): 63-88.

In this article, Witherington puts forth and all out defense of NT rhetorical criticism (RC), refuting common objections in part I, confirming/validating the practice in part II, and demonstrating its important use to interpreting the NT (using examples) in part III.

I. REFUTATIO: OBJECTIONS TO NEW METHODS

  • Rhetorical analysis of the NT is not a “new method.”
  • It was practiced by many Greek Fathers
    • Origen, Cappadocian Fathers (Gregory of Nyssa, Basil, Gregory Nazianzus), and John Chrysostom, etc.
  • Problems lies with scholars who have not kept up with classicists and patristic scholars.
  • Nothing is new about RC of the NT.
  • RC is time-honored
    • Been in use for well over a 1,000 years.
    • Predates epistolary analysis by 1,000 years.
  • The rise of all the biblical criticisms during the 19th-21st centuries are “new.”
  • RC is not an antique method.
  • RC was used up until WWI.
  • RC fell out of usage in the 20th century due to changes in university curriculum.
    • Major universities dropped requirements for classical courses.
    • Major universities AND seminaries dropped requirements for rhetorical courses.
  • RC was a pattern of NT interpretation for the Western Church and Protestant tradition.
    • Augustine, De Doctrina Christiana
    • Luther
    • Calvin
    • Philip Melanchthon –commentaries analyzing NT with Greco-Roman (GR) rhetoric, and handbook of GR handbooks for NT.
  • If this is correct, then scholars have misread the NT for a long time.
    • Yes – We’ve missed out.
    • No – We shouldn’t ONLY use rhetoric to interpret the NT. Other methods are helpful/useful/valid.
    • However, those who ignore rhetoric are missing enormous insights into the NT.
  • Most objectors to NT RC espouse that early Christians were not highly educated, which means that they could not have known GR rhetoric, and rather argued mainly from the OT.
    • Below are 12 responses to 12 common objects like this.

Response to 12 objections

  1. Historically, Hellenization swept the Jewish world (Jews, Galilee, Judea) so much so that GR rhetoric was taught in Jerusalem schools.
  2. Early Christianity was not led by illiterate Jewish peasants (contra John Dominic Crossan).
    • Peter and John were probably educated in Galilee.
    • Acts 4:13 (agrammatoi kai idiotai) – doesn’t mean they were uneducated idiots, but that they did not study with scribes in Jerusalem.
    • This is typical snobbery of Jerusalem elites.
  3. Greek education was all over the world, even in the Holy Land.
    • Josephus (historian), Theodorus (rhetorician), Meleager (poet), and Philodemus (philosopher) were all educated in GALILEE!
    • Both grammarians (grammateus) and rhetoricians (rhetors) taught each other’s subjects – they both taught grammar and rhetoric.
    • And this in SAMARIA and GALILEE (where Jesus was raised and disciples were from)!
  4. Rhetoric was the basic education of the day.
    • Rhetoric could be used in epistles.
      • letters of Demosthenes; Fred Long’s Ancient Rhetoric and Paul’s Apology.
    • Rhetorical discourses could have epistolary frameworks.
      • Many ancient documents had epistolary openings in non-epistle genres.
    • A high, formal education in rhetoric was not needed to use and recognize it.
  5. The Roman Empire was rhetorically saturated.
    • In education, public speeches, inscriptions, Imperial propaganda, etc.
    • Most Greek speakers were either “producers or avid consumers of rhetoric” (69).
    • “If early Christianity really was an evangelistic religion wanting to persuade a Greek-speaking world about the odd notion that a crucified manual worker from Nazareth rose from the dead and was King of kings and Lords of lords, this was going to take some serious ‘persuasion,’ and the chief tool in the arsenal of all well-known persuaders, orators, rhetoricians in the Greco-Roman world was rhetoric” (69).
      • This quote helps demonstrate the contribution that RC gives to explaining the rise of early Christianity (contra Scott Hafemann in DPL [IVP] article on “Paul and His Interpreters” [1993] where he states that rhetorical and sociological studies of the NT do not contribute much to the perennial discussion of the rise and development of early Christianity).
  1. Early Gentile Christianity was led by gifted, educated people – Paul, Apollos, Luke – who used oral means (rhetorical preaching) for an oral culture.
    • Paul’s letters are surrogates for oral messages.
  2. Ancient book trade was highly expensive and only for Roman elites.
    • Also, the ancient book trade was only in the beginning stages during the 1st century AD.
    • Thus, texts were understood as oral and always read aloud.
  3. 1 Cor 1-2 is not Paul rejecting rhetoric in general, but particularly sophistic rhetoric.
  4. Epistolary analysis cannot be primary – RC is primary, whereas epistolary criticism (EC) is appropriate though secondary.
    • Cicero says a letter is “a speech in written medium” (Att. 8.14.1; cf. Pseudo-Demetrius, Eloc. 223).
    • Further, epistolary handbooks were later than the NT times and were not widely used/taught in schools.
  5. 1 John and Hebrews are homilies (rhetoric), not epistles – though many NT scholars wrongly attempt to classify them as epistles.
  6. The NT letters are not private (though they are personal), but communal letters for groups and thus are meant to be performed.
    • Not private communication like Cicero to Atticus.
  7. Objections about there not being a scholarly consensus on the rhetoric in NT passages does not mean that rhetoric is not in the NT.
    • Further, mere epistolary scholars also share no consensus either!
    • And that is scholarship! Rarely do scholars enjoy the pleasures of consensus.
    • Perhaps NT rhetorical critics are all too persuasive (my joke, not BW3)!

II. PROBATIO: THE CASE FOR RHETORICAL ANALYSIS OF THE NT

  • Rhetoric was the staple of GR education, not letter-writing.
  • Letter-writing helps with prescripts, greetings, and postscripts, but “That is all” (73).
  • EC provides little to no help in analyzing the bulk of NT letters (particularly, the letter body).
    • “Middle body” wasn’t even a category in ancient epistolary theory.
  • Scholars need to unlearn the anachronisms of EC, because epistolary theory developed after NT times.
  • No big chiasms in the NT letters!
    • Chiasms must be seen, but the NT was primarily heard (only the lectors/oral deliverers saw the NT texts)
    • Sorry Kenneth Bailey (Paul through Mediterranean Eyes)
      • I should write a book called Paul through Mediterranean Ears that furthers Witherington’s (and my own) view of NT RC.
    • Duane Watson strongly critiques chiasm studies.
      • Note (mine, not BW3): this is why in IBS Bauer urges that chiasm must be used with other primary Major Structural Relationships (MSR), since chiasm is a secondary MSR dependent upon primary MSRs.
    • Delivery of Paul’s “epistles” was entrusted to trustworthy coworkers.
    • It helped hearers if written/read documents were structured using common (κοινη) rhetorical structures.
      • Ears were trained to hear these features and even anticipate them.
    • The rhetorical force of the NT documents is largely lost in translation today.
      • We need clever translators!
    • The NT is full of oral documents.
      • This means that rhetoric is needed to analyze the NT
      • BECAUSE the NT was meant to persuade and preach; and the NT itself is persuasion and preaching.

III. COMPLEX RHETORICAL TECHNIQUES IN THE NT

  1. Macro-rhetoric revisited
  • Revisits whether macro-rhetoric is applicable to NT letters.
  • 1 Cor 1:4-9’s thanksgiving also functions as an exordium which prepares the audience for topics to be discussed throughout the discourse and also to make them well disposed towards Paul.
  • Arrangement can be flexible – doesn’t always have to follow by the book, but flexible to suit the needs of the occasion and audience.
  • Rhetorical species can be mixed – 1 Cor is deliberative rhetoric though it has an epideictic digression in 1 Cor 13.
  • Methodologically, NT rhetorical critics must compare the NT not only with the GR rhetorical handbooks, but also especially from actual GR speeches.
    • Margaret M. Mitchell set this methodological precedent in 1991 with her Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation.
    • Fred Long also gives copious evidence on this score.
  • Romans 9-11 is an insinuatio. ******HUGE FOR MY DISSERTATION******
  • Changes in style explain why Paul’s language, syntax, etc. differs significantly in Ephesians, Colossians, and Pastorals.
    • Paul uses Asiatic rhetoric (style) in Ephesians and Colossians.
    • T. Johnson – “changing style was a common rhetorical tactic to be persuasive to differing audiences. It is not a matter of different authors. It is a matter of flexibility in rhetoric” (78).
  • Paul and other NT writers knew rhetoric extremely well and in detail (79).
    • Stanley Stowers
      • Paul hade instruction from a grammaticus
      • Further study in letter writing and elementary rhetoric
      • Including progymnasmic exercises.
    • Jerome Neyrey
      • Paul had a tertiary-level education including rhetoric and philosophy
    • Ron Hock
      • Same conclusion based on Paul’s use of invention and arrangement in the undisputed Paulines.
    • “It is time for us to give the apostle to the Gentiles his rhetorical due” (79).
  1. Rhetoric on full display
  • Witherington’s Rom 7 spiel.
  • “This text proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Paul did not use rhetoric in some purely superficial or sparing way (e.g. using rhetorical questions). To the contrary, the very warp and woof of his argument here reflects, and indeed requires an understanding of, sophisticated rhetorical techniques to make sense of the content of this passage and the way it attempts to persuade the Roman audience” (79).
  • “In short, if Paul can go to these sorts of lengths to use rhetorical conventions to convict and persuade a Roman audience that he has not even met, we may be sure that it is a mistake to underestimate what was rhetorically possible for Paul and other writers of the NT. Not all of them had Paul’s skills and finesse. But almost all of them had some knowledge and made some use of not just micro-rhetoric but also macro-rhetoric, and it is high time we are in more agreement with Origen and Chrysostom and Jerome and Melanchthon and others on this score” (87).
  1. And so?
  • “One ignores Greco-Roman rhetoric at one’s peril if one wants to understand the NT. It is not enough to have a nodding acquaintance with minor rhetorical devices and how they work” (87).

Hell in the New Testament

On April 15, I had the opportunity to present my paper entitled “Hell No? The Void of New Testament Theology” at the Doctoral Biblical Studies Seminar at Asbury Theological Seminary. This is a work of New Testament theology on the negative afterlife. My fellow Ph.D. student Donald Murray Vasser responded with a scholarly review.

Here is the paper abstract:

“It is no small quest to understand and plunge the depths of such a heated matter as Hell. Many throughout church history have perennially ventured on such an endeavor, some understandably with hesitancy and reluctance. At best, their efforts have demonstrated that this doctrine is vitally important for understanding the Christian take on the afterlife. At worst, they have left us today gazing into an abyss of immortal uncertainty about the final destination of the wicked. While some still hold to a traditional interpretation of Hell, many today have meandered off the trail pushing the theological boundaries with universalism, annihilationism, and purgatory. Furthermore, these differing perspectives and the unending debates concerning them seem to lead to more frustration and confusion, putting everyone into a state of “weeping and gnashing of teeth.” Not only so, but these further leave people asking the question, “What exegetical support is there for such proposed claims anyways?” The task set before us then in answering these questions is to delve into the recesses of Hell as presented in the NT and mine the quarry therein in order to provide a thoroughly exegetical NT theology of Hell. As such, we will do this by describing and summarizing each explicit mention of Hell in the NT throughout its major sections: (1) in Jesus and the Gospels, (2) in the book of Acts, (3) in the Pauline Epistles, (4) in the Catholic Epistles, and (5) in Revelation. After the survey of each major section, I will discuss the theological implications of that section for contemporary theology and the church. To finish, I will synthesize the various perspectives on Hell in the NT, thus setting forth a NT theology of Hell. Overall, I am arguing that only the traditional interpretation of Hell holds true when compared with the theology of Hell found in the NT. Put another way, neither universalism, annihilationism, nor purgatory have any exegetical grounding in the NT, but only the traditional take on the fate of the nefarious.”IMG_2534

SBL 2014 – Rhetoric and the New Testament

IMG_1928

 

Here is my paper presentation from SBL this past year in November at San Diego, CA. I had the honor of giving the very first paper for the “Rhetoric and the New Testament” section. I was very happy with how it went and with the feedback I received. I was also very thankful for my Ph.D. advisor, Ben Witherington III, coming to hear my paper. In addition, Greg Carey who presided over the session said at the end of the session, “Well, you’ve convinced me.” This affirmation has given me a lot of encouragement as I continue to seek this topic for my dissertation.

I welcome more feedback, positive and negative, so long as it is constructive.

Review of “Heralds of the Good News” by J. Ross Wagner

Wagner  Review

Timothy J. Christian. Review of J. Ross Wagner, Heralds of the Good News: Isaiah and Paul in Concert in the Letter to the Romans, (Boston: Brill, 2003).

INTRODUCTION

In this book review, I will critically evaluate New Testament scholar J. Ross Wagner’s Heralds of the Good News: Isaiah and Paul in Concert in the Letter to the Romans. I will begin by summarizing Wagner’s aims, methodology, and central theses in the book. Next, I will analyze it by judging whether or not it lives up to its claims and by discussing both places for improvement and the work’s lasting contribution. Overall, Wagner’s work here on the intertextuality of Romans and Isaiah is an invaluable contribution to the field of New Testament studies.

SUMMARY OF WAGNER

The Aims and Methodology

To begin, Wagner’s main aim is to investigate exegetically Paul’s use of Isaiah in Romans, particularly in Rom 9-11 and 15, and specifically regarding his reinterpretation of Isaiah and possible alterations of his Isaianic Vorlage. He attempts to do so by two primary methods, one being intertextual analysis through examining the OT (esp. Isaiah) echoes in Romans, and the other textual criticism through comparative analysis of the Septuagint (LXX), Masoretic Text (MT), Dead Sea Scrolls, and other versions of Isaiah with Paul’s rendition in Romans.

The Central Theses

Throughout Heralds of The Good News, I have traced about eight central theses that Wagner argues. First, he argues that the current “remnant of Israel” guarantees the future restoration of Israel.[1] Secondly, he asserts that Paul’s convictions are threefold: “God’s sovereignty, God’s election of Israel, and God’s fidelity to the covenant.”[2] Thirdly, he contends that Paul consistently interprets the OT christologically and that he adapts or reinterprets Isaiah for his own mission and theological purposes in Romans sometimes regardless of the original context. Another argued thesis is that Paul sees his mission to the Gentiles resulting in the restoration of Israel as prefigured in Isaiah. Next, he sees Isaiah as a fellow herald proclaiming with Paul the good news (gospel) of Israel’s restoration. Moreover, Wagner argues that Paul often conflates other OT texts with Isaiah in Romans, which serve as harmony to the Isaianic melody sounding in Romans. Thus, Isaiah is the prominent soloist and the other texts from Deuteronomy, Psalms, and Hosea are the accompaniment. Lastly, Wagner maintains that Paul uses a Greek Vorlage which is similar to the LXX and has little influence from the Hebrew or Aramaic versions. Overall, Wagner concludes,

[Paul’s] scriptural interpretations serve the ends of the larger argument he is constructing in the letter, an argument that is called forth by a complex set of circumstances and concerns that have arisen in the context of his mission to the Gentiles. And yet, at the same time, the letter to the Romans reveals, perhaps more clearly than any other of Paul’s letters, the deep and pervasive influence that Israel’s scriptures exert on the shape of his thought and on the contours of his apostolic ministry…Paul appropriates Isaianic images in order to depict his ministry of the gospel as the proclamation of Israel’s long-awaited release and restoration.[3]

ANALYSIS OF WAGNER

In my judgment, Wagner most certainly accomplishes his aims in Heralds of the Good News and gives a thorough and detailed analysis of Paul’s use of Isaiah in Romans. Furthermore, he interacts with a plethora of other scholars and touches on many of the main interpretive issues in Romans throughout his exegesis of Rom 9-11 and 15. In addition, his argument has both logical consistency and explanatory power. With regard to his method, Wagner executes the intertextual method and textual criticism with such obvious expertise and experience, and has done a stupendous job setting the standard for intertextual studies in Romans and the NT in general. Furthermore, since his whole study relies upon working with the primary text, he tends to remain faithful to the primary materials of Romans, Isaiah, and other OT texts.

Room for Improvement

There is, however, one main change that Wagner could make to improve his volume even more. While he does a fantastic job at setting out the data concerning Paul’s use of Isaiah and other OT texts in Rom 9-11 and 15, he is nevertheless quite sparse in providing the implications of that data. Most chapters end leaving one asking, “So what?” Even though the final chapter is set aside to display the full implications of the study, Wagner could still have given more to the reader at the end of each chapter.[4] Even though this is for a scholarly audience which will be patient enough to read through until the end, it would be far better to give some “pay off” to the throughout.

The Lasting Contributions of “Heralds of the Good News”

Despite this, Heralds of the Good News has made several important and lasting contributions to NT studies. First, it is a definitive work on Paul’s use of Isaiah in Romans. I am not aware of any other work that attempts such a feat, let alone executes it so well. Secondly, it is a definitive work on intertextual studies and OT echoes in the NT, and advances the body of knowledge as a superb example of how to do intertextuality. In addition, Wagner’s charts and tables comparing and contrasting the several witnesses to the quoted OT texts are indispensable for reference. Finally, this work is both an entry point and cistern for those who desire to understand better Paul’s use of, interpretation of, and adaption of OT Scripture. All in all, Heralds of the Good News is an excellent contribution to the field of biblical studies and I highly recommend it.

You can buy it on amazon for an arm and a leg (about $75): http://www.amazon.com/Heralds-Good-News-Isaiah-Concert/dp/0391042041/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1397321103&sr=8-2&keywords=j+ross+wagner


[1] Wagner says, “Paul joins Isaiah in insisting that the existence of a remnant of Israel in the present time vouchsafes the future redemption of ‘all Israel’” (41).

[2] Wagner 357.

[3] Wagner 356-57.

[4] That is not to say that he gives no implications, because he certainly does, but rather 300+ pages of detailed intertextual and text critical work with little momentary payoff  is quite difficult to trudge through. My point: he does not need to save the climax of implications for the end. It would benefit his work to add more inferences of the data in the chapters proper.

Review of “The Mystery of Romans” by Mark Nanos

121018-122519

Timothy J. Christian. Review of Mark D. Nanos, The Mystery of Romans: The Jewish Context of Paul’s Letter, (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996).

INTRODUCTION

In this book review, I will critically evaluate Jewish New Testament scholar Mark D. Nanos’ important volume entitled The Mystery of Romans  written on Paul’s most commented upon Hauptbriefe, the epistle to the Romans. I will begin by summarizing Nanos’ aims, methodology, and central theses in the book. Next, I will analyze it by judging whether or not it lives up to its claims and by discussing both places for improvement and the work’s lasting contribution. Overall, while I disagree with much of what Nanos purports, I still judge it to be a valuable contribution to the field of New Testament studies.

SUMMARY OF NANOS

The Aim and Methodology

To begin, Nanos’ main aim is to establish the Jewish background and flavor of Romans and of Paul in general, which he argues stands contrary to much Pauline scholarship today. He does this by attempting to establish the social setting of Romans, primarily through two methods. First, he uses Socio-Rhetorical Criticism, although he focuses mainly upon the social aspects trying to understand the social setting. Second, he uses the Historical-Critical Method attempting to reconstruct the world behind the text using historical evidence. These methods serve his overall purpose to see the Jewishness of Paul’s epistle to the Romans.

The Central Theses

            Throughout Nanos’ work, I have traced about seven central theses. First, he argues that Paul is a good faithful Jew who abides by the Law and teaches Gentiles to be Law-respectful. This view of Paul runs contrary to what many scholars from the Old Perspective suggest about Paul today, as Nanos thoroughly points out. Second, he repeatedly moves his discussion toward his rendition of the social setting in Romans, namely, (1) the Gentile Christians’ ethnocentric exclusivism toward Jews and (2) the inseparableness of the Christian community(s) and the non-Christian Jewish synagogue in Rome. Thirdly, Nanos continually reiterates what he believes to be echoes of the Shema [Deut 6:4ff] in Romans, that is to say, the unity of Jews and Gentiles in Christ.[1] Fourthly, he argues that Paul’s mission as the apostle to the Gentiles is intricately linked to the eschatological expectation of the restoration of Israel. Furthermore, Nanos resists and counters the idea of “replacement theology,” that is, that Gentile Christians have replaced Israel as the people of God, a notion that has pervaded NT scholarship for many centuries. Sixthly, Nanos suggests that Romans is epideictic rhetoric because Paul boldly writes to them by way of reminder. Lastly, he argues that the Gentile Christians in Rome – though not limited there – are to abide by the apostolic decree from the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 which is what Paul deems as “the obedience of faith.” In other words, they are to follow the halakhah lifestyle set down by the Jewish synagogue authorities and emulate righteous behavior of god-fearing Gentiles. Overall, Nanos seeks to corroborate his theses by applying his paradigm to both Romans and other Pauline texts.[2] All of this leads to support his aim of showing the Jewish context of Romans.

ANALYSIS OF NANOS

In my opinion, Nanos certainly accomplishes his goal of establishing the Jewish context of Romans. However, he seems to overcompensate in doing so. Romans, as he has shown, is very Jewish in nature, but not in so far as – in my judgment – that Christians and non-Christians worship and have fellowship together.[3] Furthermore, his argument is quite persuasive, that is, until one returns to the pages of Romans itself to find that his argument and implications seem quite forced upon the text. Thus, I deem it as overcompensation. With regard to secondary literature, he indeed interacts with a wide range of scholarship and uses others works to support his theses.

Room for Improvements

Nevertheless, there are several places in his work where there is room for improvement and below are my suggestions for how Nanos could have made his argument stronger. First and foremost, his entire study hinges upon the assumption that the Christians in Rome (mostly Gentile, but also Jews) were not a separate entity from the non-Christian Jewish synagogues. While he strongly defends this assumption, it seems rather lacking from an exegetical standpoint. Furthermore, Nanos does not consider the full implications of this assumption. For one, it implies that the other Christian communities in the Gentile Roman Empire are also under the authority of the non-Christian Jewish synagogues. Why should we assume that the other Christian communities in the Roman world would be any different? If there is a reason, he does not state it. This would obviously require a major paradigm shift for all of NT scholarship, particularly in how we understand the makeup of the Christian communities. However, I think Nanos’ assumption needs to be revised, rather than the present paradigm that there is a separation.

Furthermore, Nanos’ assumption implies that this epistle would have publicly been read aloud in the non-Christian Jewish synagogue to both Christians (Jew and Gentile) and non-Christians (Jews and Gentile god-fearers). If that’s the case, then why does Paul speak of his fellow Jewish kinsman in Rom 9-11 as not being in Christ? There, Paul assumes that there are many Jews that live apart from Christ. This is why he is so grieved. Why would Paul write such things if he knows that it will be read aloud to both the Roman Christians and the non-Christian Jews in the Jewish synagogue? Would this not have been extremely offensive to the non-Christian Jewish authorities who would probably be the ones reading it? Further, would not the epistle itself have been shunned by those Jewish synagogue authorities and possibly been done away with? Wouldn’t the Jewish synagogue leaders have been appalled by Paul’s definition of salvation and arguments about faith in Jesus Christ in Rom 1-8, and offended at Paul’s claims that many of the present Jews are blind and not following the one God in Rom 9-11, and been confused at the exhortations and missionary plans to Spain, and offended at being called “weak in faith,” in Rom 12-16? Additionally, would it not imply that Paul expects the non-Christian Jews to obey his exhortations in Rom 12-15? My guess is that the epistle would not have been received well by the Jewish synagogue authorities in Rome. All this seems to suggest, that Nanos has not thought out the full implications of his conclusions, implications which he would most likely not agree with.

Secondly, his study rests upon the assumption that Romans is primarily epideictic rhetoric. A brief survey of ancient rhetoric would demonstrate that this is quite preposterous. He identifies Romans as epideictic mainly from Rom 15:15 where Paul says he has written “boldly” to them as a “reminder.” However, this is ill-informed. First, he does not use any primary sources about ancient rhetoric to support this thesis, only a few modern works that argues for Romans to be epideictic. Second, epideictic rhetoric focuses upon the present and tends to encourage the audience to keep doing what they are currently doing. However, Nanos elsewhere asserts that Paul is trying to convince the Gentile Romans Christians to live differently than they currently are. Thus, immediately, Nanos contradicts himself, because this describes deliberative rhetoric which focuses upon changing current behavior in the near future. Ben Witherington III says that epideictic rhetoric “did not seek to change beliefs, behaviors, opinions, or attitudes, but rather it sought to reinforce existing ones.”[4] Thus, it is clear that Nanos is not familiar with ancient rhetoric and simply goes off what other scholars say to bolster his pet theory. Thirdly, if epideictic, then why so much paranesis, and why are there little to no exhortations to remember? Lastly, epideictic rhetoric is more than a reminder. It praises or blames for current actions, not simply reminds.[5] Paul could in no way praise his implied audience for their current behavior of ethnocentric exclusivism, rather he writes to correct that very behavior, something that Nanos himself points out. Overall, Nanos is incorrect in purporting that the rhetoric of Romans is epideictic.

Thirdly, the language and phraseology of this work tends to be repetitive, redundant, and tautological. Nanos says the same things over and over again, sometimes in slightly different words, but often times not, which makes for a deja vu read.

Fourth, Nanos deals very little with the content of Rom 1-8, although he occasionally does so. However, given his aim of establishing the social setting, his point is made; Rom 9-16 reveals the most insight into the social setting of Romans. Nevertheless, he could have done better had he worked out more of the implications of the social setting with regard to Rom 1-8.

Lastly, he should have added a section about resurrection language in Romans, since resurrection is primarily a Jewish idea of the afterlife. In addition, when he discusses the restoration of Israel in depth in chapter 5, he fails to mention that this also entails resurrection. Doing this would certainly have furthered his evidence of the Jewish context of Romans.

The Lasting Contributions of “The Mystery of Romans”

Even though Nanos’ work needs many improvements, it nonetheless has several lasting contributions for the study of Romans, Paul, and the NT. First, it gets scholars thinking outside of the box about Paul as a good, practicing Jew, rather than the usual perception of Paul as a former Jew who now disregards most things Jewish for his new found Christian faith. This book thoroughly shows that Paul is a good Jew seeking the restoration of all of Israel.

This leads to the next point, that The Mystery of Romans unravels the widely held view today of “replacement theology” which asserts that God has rejected Israel because they have rejected the Gospel and that the church now replaces Israel as God’s people. Nanos’ work definitively demonstrates that Paul would turn over in his grave had he come to find that people today interpreted his theology in such a way. Nanos shows that Paul believes that all of Israel will be saved in the future when the full number of the Gentiles comes in. In other words, he validates the centrality that both Jews and Gentiles unite in Christ to glorify the one God together; that God is both the God of the Jews and the Gentiles, not either-or and not one replacing the other but both united in Christ.

In conclusion, this work is an excellent starting point for grappling with the social setting of Romans. Understanding the social setting is key to understanding Romans and this work demonstrates Nanos’ grand attempt at establishing it. In the end, I disagree with him, namely, concerning the close connection with the synagogue, but nevertheless, this book has a lasting effect in showing that the social problem in Rome is the ethnocentric Gentiles arrogantly disregarding the Jews, both Christian and not. Therefore, Nanos is a jumping off point that frees readers to consider the social setting which is lacking in much of Romans studies today.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Nanos, Mark D. The Mystery of Romans: The Jewish Context of Paul’s Letter. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996.

Witherington, Ben. New Testament Rhetoric: An Introductory Guide to the Art of Persuasion in and of the New Testament. Eugene, Oregon: Cascade, 2009.

 


[1] He succinctly puts it this way: “The distinction remains; however, discrimination does not” (Nanos 356).

[2] Note that he applies this first in chapter 3 and argues that “the weak” in Rom 14-15 are the non-Christian Jews of the synagogue while the Roman Christians (both Gentile and Jew) are “the strong.” He also applies this paradigm to Rom 13:1-7 in chapter 6 to demonstrate the implications his study and how it bears upon the interpretation of Romans. Here, he suggests that the “governing authorities” are really the Jewish synagogue leaders who bear the authoritative sword of Scripture and that the Christians are to pay the temple tax as is rightfully expected of “righteous gentiles.” Lastly, he applies this more broadly to Pauline studies in Appendix 1 using the example of Peter’s hypocrisy in Gal 2, of which he views is not a matter of Peter’s kosher diet, but of Peter’s denial of the truth of the gospel, namely, that both Jews and Gentiles are equals in Christ. Overall, these chapters serve to corroborate his central theses and purported paradigm through which interpreters should read Romans. Moreover, this all serves to show the Jewish context of Romans.

[3] See below.

[4] Witherington 14.

[5] See Witherington 14.

P46 Tendencies in 2 Corinthians (Part 6)

This is Part 6 of a 6 Part series on the text critical paper that I presented at the 2013 SBL Annual Meeting in Baltimore, MD. Here is Part 1Part 2Part 3, Part 4, and Part 5. I focused on the textual tendencies of the Ancient Greek manuscript called P46 which is the oldest extant manuscript that we have of Paul’s letters. For more information upon this manuscript see The University of Michigan’s Library andThe Chester Beatty Library.

APPENDIX TWO

            Here are my notes for tracking P46 throughout all the most important variants in 2 Corinthians. First, I state whether it is the NU text or not. Second, I make a note about what type of textual variant it is. Thirdly, I note the strength of the external evidence which supports P46.

2 Corinthians 1 – 18 total variants + 1 for the Title

Verse UBS3 UBS4 NA27 Cmfrt Notes
Title/v.1 531 P46, B, and 01 have “To the Corinthians B.” With the best and oldest MSS.
6b-7a B A + 531-2 NU. Keeps original Word Order. P46 actually omits many words in this phrase (Comfort). Strong external support.
10a D B 1 532 Not NU. Change of Grammar/Inflection. Weak external evidence.
10b C B 2 532 NU. Keeps original Grammar/Inflection. Strong external support.
10c C C 3 Not NU. Change of Word Order. This is a messy variant. All over the place. P46 agrees with B, D, 1739, 1881, and Didache against the NU text. NU has better external support.
11 C B 2 533 Not NU. Change of Grammar/Inflection. Fairly good external support.
12a D B 1 534 Not NU. Word Substitution. P46 along with 01, A, B, C, K, P, 044, 33, 1739, 1881, Old Latin r, Coptic, Clement, Origen, and Didache side against the NU text having “holiness.” The NU is supported by a Byzantine text type. Better external than NU.
12b 2 NU. Does not Omit Word. Strong external support.
13 2 534 Not NU. Omission of Phrase. P46 and B are strong externally.
14 C C + Not NU. Omission of Word. Fairly good external support.
15a 1 NU. Keeps original Word Order. Strong external support.
15b C B 2 534 NU. Keeps original Grammar/Inflection. Strong external support.
16a 1 535 NU. Keeps original Grammar/Inflection. Strong external support.
16b 2 Not NU. Word Substitution. Weak external support.
17 3 535 Not NU. Change of Word Order. Two Word Omissions of 2nd nai and 2nd ou. Weak externally.
18 1 Not NU. Word Omission. Weak external support. Singular reading with D.
19 + 535 NU. Keeps original Word Order. Strong external support.
20 1 Not NU. Change of Word Order. Weak external evidence.
22 + NU. Does not Omit Word. Strong external evidence.

 

2 Corinthians 2 – 5 total variants

Verse UBS3 UBS4 NA27 Cmfrt Notes
1 C C + 535 NU. Word Substitution. P46 keeps the original wording. Good external evidence but variant has better.
3a 2 NU. Keeps original Word Order. Strong external support.
7 C + NU. Keeps original Word Order. Best external support.
9 B A 2 Not NU. Word Omission. Little external support.
17 C B + 535 Not NU. Word Substitution. Weak external support.

 

2 Corinthians 3 – 9 total variants

Verse UBS3 UBS4 NA27 Cmfrt Notes
1 1 NU. Word Substitution. Hearing error.  Strong external and internal support.
2 C A + 536-37 NU. Does not change Grammar/Inflection. Strong external evidence.
3a A 1 Not NU. Addition. P46 inserts “kai” along with B, 1739, 1881, f, Vulgate.  Strong external evidence with P46 and B aligning.
3b 2 NU. Keeps original Word Order. Strong external evidence.
5a 2 Not NU. Omission of Word. P46 and B are the singular reading, which is strong.
5b 3 NU. Keeps original Grammar/Inflection. Strong externally.
6 + 537 Not NU. Change of Grammar/Inflection. The original hand of P46 has the variant but the first corrector is with the NU. Split externally.
9 C B 1 537 NU. Keeps original Grammar/Inflection. Strong external support.
13 + Missing in P46.
18 + Not NU. Omission of Word. P46 agrees with Vulgate and Speculum. Little external support.

 

2 Corinthians 4 – 12 total variants

Verse UBS3 UBS4 NA27 Cmfrt Notes
1 538 NU. Keeps original grammar/inflections. Strong external evidence.
4 1 NU. Keeps original grammar/inflections. Shorter reading. Doesn’t add prefix to verb as other variants do. Strong external evidence.
5a 1 538 NU. Keeps original word order. Strong external evidence.
5b C B 2 538 Not NU. Changes original grammar/inflections. External evidence is all over the place.
6a 5 538-39 Not NU. Word Substitution. Substitutes “of God” for a pronoun.  Weak external evidence.
6b 6 539 NU. Original Word Order. Strongest external evidence, although it is split.
10 + NU. Keeps Original Grammar/Inflection.  Strong external evidence.
11 + Not NU. Word Substitution. Changes original word. Misspelling. Possible hearing error. Weak external evidence.
13 + NU. Does not insert/add. Strong external support.
14a C B 1 539-40 Not NU. Word Omission. Split strength of external evidence.
14b + 540 NU. Keeps Original Word. Strong external evidence.
16 1 540 NU. Keeps Original Grammar/Inflection.  See 4:1 for similarity. Strong external evidence.

 

2 Corinthians 5 – 10 total variants

Verse UBS3 UBS4 NA27 Cmfrt Notes
3a 1 Not NU. Change of Grammar/Inflection or change of Word. Western reading.
3b C 2 540 Not NU. Change of Grammar/Inflection. Strongest external evidence is with p46.
8 + NU. Keeps original Grammar/Inflection. Variant has weak external evidence.
10a 2 Not NU. Change of Grammar/Inflection. Week external evidence.
10b 3 Not NU. Word Substitution. Is a Western reading. But the NU external evidence is not strong.
11 + Not NU. Change of Grammar/Inflection. Changes indicative to subjunctive mood.
12 2 541 Not NU. Change of Grammar/Inflection or Word. “Our” to “Your.” Some other strong MSS align with p46.
17 B A + 541-42 NU. Keeps original wording and does not Add “all things.” Variant has weak support, while NU has very strong external evidence.
19 1+2 542 Not NU. Word Substitution. This is a mess. P46 has singular reading. NU has strong external support.
20 1 Not NU. Omission of Word. This is a mess. NU has very strong external support against P46.

 

2 Corinthians 6 – 8 total variants

Verse UBS3 UBS4 NA27 Cmfrt Notes
1 + Not NU. Change of Grammar/Inflection. Western Reading. NU has strong external support.
4 + NU. Keeps original Grammar/Inflection. Strongest external support.
9 + 542 NU. Keeps original Grammar/Inflection. Strong external evidence.
11 + NU. Keeps original Grammar/Inflection. “Our” instead of “your.” Strong external evidence.
15a 1 542 NU. Keeps original Grammar/Inflection. Strong external support.
15b 2 542 NU. Keeps original Grammar/Inflection. Strong external support.
15c 3 542 NU. Keeps original Grammar/Inflection. Strong external support.
16 C B 1 542-43 Not NU. Change of Grammar/Inflection. Good external support, although the NU is just as good.

 

2 Corinthians 7 – 12 total variants

Verse UBS3 UBS4 NA27 Cmfrt Notes
1 1+2 543 Not NU. Change of Grammar/Inflection. P46 has singular reading. Everything is against it.
5a 1 Not NU. Change of Grammar/Inflection. P46 and B align which is strong externally.
5b 2 Not NU. Change of Grammar/Inflection. Weak external evidence.
8a 2 543 NU. Does not Add. Only B adds “but.”
8b D C 3 543-44 Not NU. Word Omission. Omits “for, because.” There is a correction of P46 here. The original has “I see” and the corrector changes it to “seeing.” This is a gram/inflection change within itself.
10 + 544 NU. Keeps original Grammar/Inflection. Externally, evidence is split equally.
11a 2 NU. Does not Add. Strong external support.
11b 3 Not NU. Change of Grammar/Inflection. Weak and little external support.
12a 1 544 NU. Does not Add. Strong external support.
12b 2 NU. Keeps original Grammar/Inflection. Witnesses split but best support NU including P46.
13 + Not NU. Omission of Word. P46 only has support of minuscules.
14 3 NU. Keeps original Word Order. Fairly good external support. Probably the best.

 

2 Corinthians 8 – 10 total variants

Verse UBS3 UBS4 NA27 Cmfrt Notes
2a 1 Not NU. Change of Grammar/Inflection. Very little external support.
2b 2 NU. Keeps original Grammar/Inflection. Split external, but NU and P46 are stronger.
5 + 545 Not NU. Word Substitution. Very little external support, only a few versions.
7 D C + 545-46 NU. Keeps original Grammar/Inflection. Split externally. NU has P46 and B together which is strong support.
14 + Not NU. Omission of Word. Few miniscule support (1739, 1881).
16 + NU. Keeps original Grammar/Inflection. Split externally.
18 + NU. Keeps original Word Order. Strong external support.
19a D 1 NU. Keeps original Word. Word Substitution. Strong external support.
19b C 2 546 NU. Keeps original Grammar/Inflection and does not Omit. However, P46 and 33 do not have this word because of homoeoteleuton and text critics assume that it would’ve been there. Strong external support.
21 2 546 Not NU. Word Substitution. Only has support of lat, sy, and Ambst which is typical when P46 is a singular reading.

 

2 Corinthians 9 – 8 total variants

Verse UBS3 UBS4 NA27 Cmfrt Notes
1 + Not NU. Change of Grammar/Inflection. Singular reading with Old Latin g in agreement.
4 C B 1 546-47 NU. Keeps original Grammar/Inflection. Split external.
5a 1 NU. Keeps original Word. Word Substitution. Stronger evidence for NU than variant.
5b 2 Not NU. Omission of Word. Little external support.
10 1 547 NU. Keeps original Word. Word Substitution. Western reading with P46, B, D, F, and G is agreement.
11 1 Not NU. Word Substitution. Hearing error. Little external support.
12 B + Not NU. Change of Grammar/Inflection. Little external support.
14 + 547-48 NU. Keeps original Grammar/Inflection. Strong support for NU.

 

2 Corinthians 10 – 6 total variants

Verse UBS3 UBS4 NA27 Cmfrt Notes
7b 4 548 Not NU. Addition and Changes Grammar/Inflection. Singular reading.
8a 1 Not NU. Omission of Word. Strong external evidence though.
8b 2 Not NU. Change of Grammar/Inflection. Singular reading while there are several variants.
10a 1 NU. Original Word Order. Little yet strong external support.
10b 2 Not NU. Omission of Word. Little external support.
12/13 C B 1+2 548-49 NU. Does not Omit Phrase. Strong external support for NU.

 

2 Corinthians 11 – 8 total variants

Verse UBS3 UBS4 NA27 Cmfrt Notes
3 C C 4 549-50 NU. Does not Omit Phrase “the Christ.” Strong external evidence, especially with P46 and B.
4 + 550 NU. Keeps original Grammar/Inflection. Split externally, but NU is stronger because P46 and B are together.
6a 1 Not NU. Omission of Phrase. Singular reading. This effects 6b variant.
6b 2 Not NU. Omission of Word. Omits because P46 omits the phrase it is in.
18 + NU. Does not Add. Split externally but NU has better support.
21 B + NU. Keeps original Grammar/Inflection. Strong external support; variant is Western.
23 + NU. Keeps original Word Order. Many variants. NU has best external support.
28 1 550 NU. Keeps original Grammar/Inflection. Very strong external support.
30 1 Not NU. Omission of Word. Agrees only with B. While strong, it’s not enough to overturn.
32 C B 1 Missing from P46.

 

2 Corinthians 12 – 22 total variants

Verse UBS3 UBS4 NA27 Cmfrt Notes
1a C A 2 NU. Keeps original Word. Word Substitution based on a hearing error. Strong externally.
1b C A 3 NU. Keeps original Grammar/Inflection and Wording. Strong external support.
1c 4 NU. Keeps original Word. Word Substitution. Best external evidence.
3 1 NU. Keeps original Word. Word Substitution. Little external support (P46 B D*). Variant has better external support.
5a 1 Not NU. Change of Grammar/Inflection. Little external support.
5b 2 NU. Does not Add. Split externally.
6a 1 Not NU. Change of Grammar/Inflection. Singular reading.
6b 2 NU. Does not Omit Word. Split externally.
7a D C 1 550-51 Not NU. Omission of Word. NU has better external support.
7b C B 3 551-52 NU. Does not Omit Phrase. NU has better external support.
9 A 3 Missing in P46.
10 C 1 Not NU. Change of Word. Word Substitution. Only 01 agrees with P46.
11a 1 551-52 NU. Does not Add. Very strong external support.
11b 2 Not NU. Adds a Word. Singular reading with only B in agreement.
12 1 NU. Keeps original Word Order. Strong external support.
15a B B 1 NU. Does not Add. Addition. One variant adds and another omits. Strong external support.
15b C C 2 NU. Keeps original Grammar/Inflection. Strong external support.
16 + Not NU. Change of Grammar/Inflection. Only D* agrees with P46.
19a A 1 552 Not NU. Addition. Singular reading.
19b 3 Not NU. Omission of Phrase. Very little external support.
20a 1 NU. Keeps original Grammar/Inflection. Best external support. Variant is Western.
20b 2 NU. Keeps original Grammar/Inflection. Strong external support.
21 1 NU. Keeps original Grammar/Inflection. Strong external support.

 

2 Corinthians 13 – 10 total variants

Verse UBS3 UBS4 NA27 Cmfrt Notes
2a 1 552 NU. Does not Add. Strong external support.
2b 2 Not NU. Omission of Phrase. Singular reading with F and G in support.
4a 1 552 NU. Does not Add. Strong external support.
4b B A 2 552 Missing in P46.
4c A 3 552-53 Not NU. Change of Grammar/Inflection. Singular reading.
4d 4 Not NU. Word Substitution. Weak external support.
4e 5 NU. Does not omit phrase. Strong external support.
5a 1 553 Missing in P46.
5b 2 NU. Does not Add. Variant has better external support, but NU has P46 and B together.
13a 1 554 NU. Does not Omit Word. Variant has little external support.
13b 2 554 Not NU. Omission of Word. Singular reading.
13c 3 554 NU. Does not Add. Strong external support.

 

Total of 139 variants of 2 Corinthians observed in this study.

Total of 80 (all) singular readings of P46’s 2 Corinthians in this study.

Grand Total of 219 variants observed of the P46 text in 2 Corinthians in this study.

 

Approximate total variants of Kenyon: 326

Approximate total singular readings of Kenyon: 87

Grand Total of 413 approximate variants observed of the P46 text in 2 Corinthians.

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Comfort, Philip. New Testament Text and Translation Commentary. Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale, 2008.

Comfort, Philip Wesley and David P. Barrett. The Text of the Earliest New Testament Greek Manuscripts. Wheaton: Tyndale House, 2001.

Duff, Jeremy. “P46 and the Pastorals: A Misleading Consensus?” NTS 44 (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1998), 578-590.

Eshbaugh, Howard. “Textual Variants and Theology: A Study of the Galatians Text of Papyrus 46” JSNT 3 (1979): 60-72.

Hull, Robert. The Story of the New Testament Text. Atlanta: SBL, 2010.

Holmes, Michael W. “The Text of P46: Evidence of the Earliest ‘Commentary’ on Romans?” et al. New Testament Manuscripts: Their Texts and Their World. Boston: Brill, 2006.

Hoskier, H. C. A Commentary on the Various Readings in the Text of the Epistle to the Hebrews in the Chester Beatty Papyrus P46 (circa 200 A.D.). London: Bernard Quaritch, 1938.

Kenyon, Frederic G. The Chester Beatty Biblical Papyri: Descriptions and Texts of Twelve Manuscripts on Papyrus of the Greek Bible, Fasciculus I. London: Emery Walker, 1933.

Kenyon, Frederic G. The Chester Beatty Biblical Papyri: Descriptions and Texts of Twelve Manuscripts on Papyrus of the Greek Bible, Fasciculus III Supplement. London: Emery Walker, 1936.

Kim, Young Kyu. “Paleographical Dating of P46 to the Later First Century,” Bib 69:2 (1988): 248-257.

Nestle, E. and K. Aland et al., eds. Novum Testamentum Graece. 27th ed. 1993. Repr., Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2006.

Royse, James R. Scribal Habits in Early Greek New Testament Papyri. Boston: Brill, 2008.

Sanders, Henry A. A Third Century Papyrus Codex of the Epistles of Paul. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, 1935.

Zuntz, G. The Text of the Epistles. London: Oxford, 1953.

P46 Tendencies in 2 Corinthians (Part 5)

This is Part 5 of a 6 Part series on the text critical paper that I presented at the 2013 SBL Annual Meeting in Baltimore, MD. Here is Part 1Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4. I focused on the textual tendencies of the Ancient Greek manuscript called P46 which is the oldest extant manuscript that we have of Paul’s letters. For more information upon this manuscript see The University of Michigan’s Library andThe Chester Beatty Library.

APPENDIX ONE

            These charts demonstrate the inconsistencies of P46 in 2 Corinthians primarily in how it agrees and disagrees with other MSS throughout the entire epistle.

2 Corinthians 1

Manuscript Agrees with P46 in… Disagrees with P46 in…
a Title; 1:6b-7a, 10b, 12a, 15a1, 15bc, 16a, 192, 222 1:15a*, 15bc, 16b, 18, 19*, 20, 22*
A 1:6b-7a, 12a, 14, 15a, 15b 1:16a, 16b, 18, 20, 22
B Title; 1:10b, 10c, 11, 12a, 12b, 13, 15a, 16a, 19, 22 1:14, 15b, 16b, 18, 20
C 1:6b-7a, 10b, 12a, 14, 15a, 16a 1:16b, 18, 20, 22*
D 1:10c*, 14, 15b, 16b, 18*, 19, 20*, 22 1:6b-7a, 10a, 10b, 10c1+2, 12a, 12b, 13, 15a, 16a, 17, 202
F 1:15b, 16b, 19, 22 1:6b-7a, 10a, 10b, 10c, 12a, 12b, 13, 14, 15a, 16a, 17, 18, 20
G 1:15b, 16b, 19, 22 1:6b-7a, 10a, 10b, 10c, 12a, 12b, 13, 14, 15a, 16a, 17, 18, 20
P 1:6b-7a, 10b, 11, 12a, 15a 1:15b, 16a, 16b, 18, 20, 22
Y 1:6b-7a, 12a, 14, 16a, 19 1:16b, 18, 20
33 1:10b, 12a, 12b, 15a, 16a 1:14, 16b, 18, 20
1739 1:6b-7a, 10a, 10c, 12b, 15a, 16a, 17, 19, 22 1:10b, 14, 16b, 18, 20
1881 1:6b-7a, 10c, 12a, 15a, 16a, 19, 22 1:14, 16b, 18, 20
M 1:14, 15b, 16a, 19, 22 1:6b-7a, 10a, 10b, 10c, 12a, 12b, 13, 15a, 16b, 17, 18, 20
Old Latin 1:6b-7a, 10a, 10b, 12a, 12b, 17, 19, 20b 1:12a, 14, 16ab+r, 20
Vulgate 1:6b-7a, 10a, 10b, 11, 12b, 17, 19, 22 1:12a, 14
Syriac 1:6b-7a, 10a, 12b, 15a, 19 1:10b, 10c, 12b, 13, 14, 20
Coptic 1:6b-7a, 10b, 12a, 15b 1:14, 20
Ambrosiaster 1:6b-7a, 10a, 14, 22 1:10b, 10c, 12b, 20
Didache 1:10c, 12a 1:10b
Origen 1:10a, 12a, 17 1:10b, 10c

 

2 Corinthians 2

Manuscript Agrees with P46 in… Disagrees with P46 in…
a 2:3a, 7 2:1, 9, 17
A Nothing 2:1, 3a, 7, 9, 17
B 2:1, 3a 2:7, 9, 17
C 2:7 2:1, 3a, 9, 17
D 2:17 2:1, 3a, 7, 9
F 2:17 2:1, 3a, 7, 9
G 2:17 2:1, 3a, 7, 9
P 2:3a Nothing
Y 2:3a, 7 2:1, 9, 17
33 2:1 2:3a, 7, 9, 17
1739 2:1, 3a, 7 2:9, 17
1881 2:1 2:3a, 7, 9, 17
M 2:7 2:1, 3a, 9, 17
Old Latin 2:1 (r), 7 (r) 2:1, 3, 9, 17
Vulgate 2:3a 2:1, 7, 9, 17
Syriac 2:1 (h), 17 2:1 (p), 3, 9
Coptic Nothing 2:9 (bo), 17
Ambrosiaster 2:3a 2:1, 17
Didache Nothing 2:17
Irenaeus Nothing 2:17

 

2 Corinthians 3

Manuscript Agrees with P46 in… Disagrees with P46 in…
a 3:1, 2, 3a, 3b, 6*, 9 3:5a, 18
A 3:3a, 3b, 9 3:1, 2, 5a, 6c, 18
B 3:1, 2, 3a, 3b, 5a, 6* 3:5b, 9, 18
C 3:1, 2, 3a, 3b, 9 3:5a, 6c, 18
D 3:1, 2, 3a, 3b, 9* 3:5a, 6c, 92, 18
F 3:1, 2, 3a, 6*, 9 3:3b, 5a, 5b, 18
G 3:1, 2, 3a, 3b, 6*, 9 3:5a, 5b, 18
P 3:2, 3a, 3b, 6* 3:5a, 18
Y 3:2, 3a, 6*, 9 3:1, 3b, 5a, 18
33 3:3a, 3b, 6*, 9 3:1, 2, 5a, 18
1739 3:1, 2, 3a, 6*, 9 3:3b, 5a, 18
1881 3:1, 3a, 3b 3:2, 5a, 6c, 9, 18
M 3:2, 3a, 3b 3:1, 6c, 9, 18
Old Latin 3:2, 3af, 9b 3:3b, 9f
Vulgate 3:2, 3a, 18 3:3b, 9
Syriac 3:1, 2, 3a, 9 3:3bp,
Coptic 3:1bo, 2, 3b, 3a, 6* 3:9bo,
Ambrosiaster 3:9 Nothing
Eusebius Nothing 3:3b
Irenaeus Nothing 3:3b
Speculum 3:18 Nothing

 

2 Corinthians 4

Manuscript Agrees with P46 in… Disagrees with P46 in…
a 4:1, 4, 5a, 5b*, 6b, 14b*, 16 4:5b1, 6a, 10, 13, 14a, 14b2
A 4:1, 5a, 5bc, 10 4:4, 5b*vid, 6a, 6b
B 4:1, 4, 10, 13, 14a, 14b, 16 4:5a, 5b, 6a, 6b
C 4:5a, 5b, 6a*, 6b, 10, 13vid, 14b 4:1, 4, 6a3, 14a, 16
D 4:1*, 5a, 6a*, 10, 13, 14b*, 16* 4:12, 4, 5b, 6a2, 6b, 14a, 14b1, 162
F 4:1, 4, 5a, 6a, 10, 11, 14b, 16 4:5b, 6b, 13, 14a
G 4:1, 4, 5a, 6a, 10, 11, 14b, 16 4:5b, 6b, 13, 14a
P 4:5a, 14b Nothing
Y 4:4, 6b, 13 4:1, 5a, 5b, 6a, 14a, 14b, 16
33 4:1, 5b, 10, 13, 14a, 14b 4:4, 5a, 6a, 6b, 16
1739 4:4, 5b, 6bc, 13, 14a, 14b 4:1, 5a, 6a, 6b*, 10, 16
1881 4:4, 5b, 13, 14b 4:1, 5a, 6a, 6b, 10, 14a, 16
M 4:4, 6b, 10, 13 4:1, 5a, 5b, 6a, 14a, 14b, 16
Old Latin 4:5a, 5b, 6ab+r, 6bt, 11b, 13, 14ar, 14b 4:5ab, 5bt+b, 6at, 6b, 10r+t, 14ab
Vulgate 4:5a, 6bmss, 13, 14a, 14b 4:5b, 6a, 6b, 10
Syriac 4:5ah, 6b, 11p 4:5ap, 6a, 10p, 13, 14a, 14b
Coptic 4:1, 5b, 14abo-ms, 14b, 16 4:5bbo, 6a, 10bo, 14abo
Ambrosiaster 4:5a, 10 4:5b, 6b
Eusebius 4:4 Nothing
Marcion 4:5b 4:5a
Tertullian 4:11, 14a, 14b 4:6b
Origen 4:14a 4:10
Irenaeus 4:11 Nothing

 

2 Corinthians 5

Manuscript Agrees with P46 in… Disagrees with P46 in…
P34 Nothing 5:20
P99 5:8, 11 Nothing
a 5:3b, 12, 17 5:3a, 8, 10a, 10b, 11, 19, 20
B 5:3a, 3b, 8, 10b, 12, 17 5:10a, 11, 19
C 5:3b, 8, 17 5:3a, 10a, 10b, 11, 12, 19, 20
D 5:3a, 3b2, 8, 10b, 17*, 20* 5:3b*+c, 10a, 11, 12, 172, 19, 202
F 5:3a, 8, 10b, 17, 20 5:3b, 10a, 11, 12, 19
G 5:3a, 8, 10b, 17, 20 5:3b, 10a, 11, 12, 19
P 5:11 5:17
Y 5:3b, 8, 10b, 11, 20 5:3a, 10a, 12, 17, 19
33 5:3a, 3b, 12 5:8, 10a, 10b, 11, 17, 19, 20
1739 5:3b, 17 5:3a, 8, 10a, 10b, 11, 12, 19, 20
1881 5:3b 5:3a, 8, 10a, 10b, 11, 12, 17, 19, 20
M 5:3b, 8, 10b 5:3a, 10a, 11, 12, 17, 19, 20
Old Latin 5:3b, 10a, 12g, 17d+e+f+g+r, 20b 5:3bf, 17b
Vulgate 5:3b, 10a, 11, 12, 17 5:17cl, 20
Syriac 5:3b, 17p 5:17h, 20
Coptic 5:3b, 17 Nothing
Ambrosiaster Nothing 5:17
Clement 5:3b, 10b, 17 Nothing
Cyprian 5:10a Nothing
Marcion Nothing 5:3b, 17
Speculum Nothing 5:3b
Tertullian Nothing 5:3b, 8, 17

 

2 Corinthians 6

Manuscript Agrees with P46 in… Disagrees with P46 in…
a 6:4*, 9, 15a, 15b, 15c, 162 6:1, 42, 11, 16*
B 6:9, 15a, 15b 6:1, 4, 11, 15c, 16
C 6:4, 9, 11, 15a, 15b, 15c, 16 6:1
D 6:1*, 4*, 11, 15c, 162 6:12, 42, 9*, 15a, 15b, 16*
F 6:1, 4, 11, 15c, 16 6:9, 15a, 15b
G 6:1, 4, 11, 15c, 16 6:9, 15a, 15b
P 6:15a, 15b, 15c 6:4, 16
Y 6:9, 11, 15c, 16 6:1, 4, 15a, 15b
33 6:4, 9, 11, 15a, 15b 6:1, 15c, 16
1739 6:4, 9, 11, 15a, 15b, 15c 6:1, 16
1881 6:4*vid, 9, 15a, 15b, 15c 6:1, 4c, 11, 16
M 6:9, 11, 15b, 15c, 16 6:1, 4, 15a
Old Latin 6:1b, 15a, 16 6:9, 15bb+d
Vulgate 6:15a, 16 6:1, 15b
Syriac 6:16 6:1, 15a
Coptic Nothing 6:16
Ambrosiaster 6:15a, 16 6:9
Clement 6:4, 15a 6:16
Origen 6:16lat 6:16
Tertullian 6:16 6:15b

 

2 Corinthians 7

Manuscript Agrees with P46 in… Disagrees with P46 in…
P99 Nothing 7:10
a 7:8a, 10*, 11a*, 11b*, 142 7:1, 5a, 5b, 8b, 102, 11a2, 12a2, 12b, 13, 14*
B 7:5a, 8b, 10, 11a, 12b 7:1, 5b, 11b, 12a, 13, 14
C 7:8a, 10, 12a, 12b, 14 7:1, 5a, 5b, 8b,  11a, 11b, 13
D 7:8a, 8b*, 10, 11a, 12a 7:1, 5a, 5b, 8b1, 11b, 12b, 13, 14
F 7:5a, 8a, 12a 7:1, 5b, 8b, 10, 11a, 11b, 12b, 13, 14
G 7:5a, 8a, 12a 7:1, 5b, 8b, 10, 11a, 11b, 12b, 13, 14
P 7:8a, 10, 12a, 12b 7:1, 5b, 8b, 11a, 11b, 13, 14
Y 7:8a, 11a, 12a, 12b, 7:1, 5a, 5b, 8b, 10, 11b, 13, 14
33 7:8a, 10, 11a, 12a, 12b, 14 7:1, 5a, 5b, 8b, 11b, 13
1739 7:8a, 11a, 12a, 12b, 14 7:1, 5a, 5b, 8b, 10, 11b, 13
1881 7:8a, 11a, 12a, 12b 7:1, 5a, 5b, 8b, 10, 11b, 13, 14
M 7:8a, 12a, 12b, 14 7:1, 5a, 5b, 8b, 10, 11b, 13
Old Latin 7:8b, 11ab+r 7:12b, 14
Vulgate 7:8b 7:8bmss, 11a, 12b, 14
Syriac 7:5bp 7:8b, 11a
Coptic 7:8bsa? 7:8bbo
Ambrosiaster 7:8b 7:11a, 12a
Clement 7:10, 11a Nothing
Didache Nothing 7:10
Eusebius Nothing 7:10
Tertullian 7:5b Nothing

 

2 Corinthians 8

Manuscript Agrees with P46 in… Disagrees with P46 in…
P99 8:2b Nothing
a 8:2b*, 162, 19a, 19b 8:2a, 2b2, 5, 7, 14, 16*, 18*, 21
B 8:2b, 7, 18 8:2a, 5, 14, 16, 19a, 19b, 21
C 8:2b, 18 8:2a, 5, 7, 14, 16, 19a, 19b, 21
D 8:2a*, 16, 18, 19a, 19b1 8:2b, 5, 7, 14, 19b*, 21
F 8:16, 18, 19a 8:2a, 2b, 5, 7, 14, 19b, 21
G 8:16, 18, 19a 8:2a, 2b, 5, 7, 14, 19b, 21
P 8:2b 8:7, 18, 19a, 19b
Y 8:18, 19a, 19b 8:2a, 2b, 5, 7, 14, 16, 21
33 8:2b, 18, 19b 8:2a, 5, 7, 14, 16, 19a, 21
1739 8:2b, 7, 14, 18 8:2a, 5, 16, 19a, 19b, 21
1881 8:7, 14, 18, 19b* 8:2a, 2b, 5, 16, 19a, 19bc, 21
M 8:18, 19a, 19b 8:2a, 2b, 5, 7, 14, 16, 21
Old Latin 8:5f+r, 7r, 16, 19ab+e+g, 21 8:7, 19af, 19b
Vulgate 8:5mss, 16, 21 8:5, 7, 19a, 19b
Syriac 8:7p, 16, 19a, 19b, 21p 8:7h, 19ap
Coptic 8:2abo, 7sa+bo, 16bo 8:16sa, 19a, 19b
Ambrosiaster 8:7, 16, 21 8:18a, 19a, 19b
Origen 8:7lat Nothing

 

2 Corinthians 9

Manuscript Agrees with P46 in… Disagrees with P46 in…
a 9:5a, 5b* 9:1, 4, 10, 11, 12, 14*
B 9:10 9:1, 4, 5a, 5b, 11, 12, 14
C 9:4*, 5a, 14 9:1, 42, 5b, 10, 11, 12
D 9:4, 10*, 11, 14 9:1, 5a, 5b, 101, 12
F 9:4, 5b, 10, 14 9:1, 5a, 11, 12
G 9:4, 5b, 10, 14 9:1, 5a, 11, 12
P Nothing 9:4, 12
Y 9:5a, 14 9:1, 4, 5b, 10, 11, 12
33 9:5a, 14 9:1, 4, 5b, 10, 11, 12
1739 9:5a, 14 9:1, 4, 5b, 10, 11, 12
1881 9:5a 9:1, 4, 5b, 10, 11, 12, 14
M 9:5a, 14 9:1, 4, 5b, 10, 11, 12
Old Latin 9:1g, 5b, 11b, 12d+g+r 9:12c+e+f+t
Vulgate 9:1mss, 5b 9:4, 12, 14ms
Syriac 9:5b 9:4, 12
Coptic 9:4sa-mss 9:4bo, 12
Ambrosiaster 9:4, 11, 12 Nothing

 

2 Corinthians 10

Manuscript Agrees with P46 in… Disagrees with P46 in…
a 10:10a*, 12 10:7b, 8a, 8b, 10a2, 10b
B 10:8a, 10a, 12 10:7b, 8b, 10b
C 10:12 10:7b, 8a, 8b, 10a, 10b
D Nothing 10:7b, 8a, 8b, 10a, 10b, 12
F 10:8a 10:7b, 8b, 10a, 10b, 12
G 10:8a 10:7b, 8b, 10a, 10b, 12
P Nothing 10:7b, 8b, 10a, 10b, 12
Y Nothing 10:7b, 8a, 8b, 10a, 10b, 12
33 10:8a, 12 10:7b, 8b, 10a, 10b
1739 10:8a, 12 10:7b, 8b, 10a, 10b
1881 10:8a, 10b, 12 10:7b, 8b, 10a
M Nothing 10:7b, 8a, 8b, 10a, 10b, 12
Old Latin 10:8a, 10bb 10:8af+r, 8bg, 12b+d+f+g+r
Vulgate 10:8amss 10:8a, 10b, 12
Syriac Nothing 10:8a, 10b, 12
Coptic 10:10bbo 10:12
Ambrosiaster 10:10b 10:8a, 12

 

2 Corinthians 11

Manuscript Agrees with P46 in… Disagrees with P46 in…
P34 Nothing 11:4, 6
P99 11:28 Nothing
a 11:18*, 21, 28 11:3, 4, 6, 182, 23, 30
B 11:3, 4, 21, 23, 28, 30 11:6, 18
D 11:3, 4*, 18*,  23*+2, 28 11:42, 6, 181, 21, 231, 30
F 11:18, 28 11:3, 4, 6, 21, 23, 30
G 11:18, 28 11:3, 4, 6, 21, 23, 30
P Nothing 11:23
Y 11:3 11:4, 6, 18, 21, 23, 28, 30
33 11:3, 4, 18, 21,  23, 28 11:6, 30
1739 11:18*, 21*, 23, 28 11:3, 4, 6, 18c, 21c, 30
1881 11:18*, 21, 23, 28 11:3, 4, 6, 18c, 30
M 11:3 11:4, 6, 18, 21, 23, 28, 30
Old Latin 11:4r, 23 11:6
Vulgate 11:23 11:4, 6
Syriac Nothing 11:4, 23p
Coptic 11:4sa Nothing
Ambrosiaster 11:23 11:6
Clement 11:3 11:23
Origen Nothing 11:23

 

2 Corinthians 12

Manuscript Agrees with P46 in… Disagrees with P46 in…
P99 12:20avid, 20b Nothing
a 12:1b, 1c, 6b2, 7b2, 10*, 11a, 12*, 15a*, 15b2, 20a, 21* 12:1a, 3, 5a, 5b, 6a, 6b*, 7a, 7b*, 11b, 122, 15a2, 15b*, 16, 19a, 19b, 20b, 212
A 12:11a, 15a, 20a, 20b, 21 12:7a, 7b, 11b, 12, 15a, 15b, 16, 19a, 19b
B 12:1a, 1b, 3, 5b, 7b, 11a, 11b, 12, 15a, 15b, 20b, 21 12:1c, 5a, 6a, 6b, 7a, 10, 16, 19a, 19b, 20a
D 12:1a2, 3*, 5b*, 6b*, 7a, 11a, 15b, 16*, 20b* 12:1a*, 1b, 1c, 32, 5a, 5b2, 6a, 6b2, 7b, 10, 11b, 12, 15a, 162, 19a, 19b, 20a, 20b1, 211
F 12:1a, 1b, 1c, 11a, 12, 15a, 15b, 20b, 21 12:3, 5a, 5b, 6a, 6b, 7a, 7b, 10, 11b, 16, 19a, 19b, 20a
G 12:1a, 1b, 1c, 11a, 12, 15a, 15b, 20b, 21 12:3, 5a, 5b, 6a, 6b, 7a, 7b, 10, 11b, 16, 19a, 19b, 20a
P 12:1a, 1b, 1c, 21 12:5a, 5b, 6a, 10, 11b
Y 12:6b, 7a, 7b, 15b 12:1a, 1b, 1c, 3, 5a, 6a, 10, 11a, 11b, 12, 15a, 16, 19a, 19b, 20a, 20b, 21
33 12:1a, 1b, 1c, 5b, 11a, 12, 15a, 20a, 20b 12:3, 5a, 6a, 6b, 7a, 7b, 10, 11b, 15b, 16, 19a, 19b, 21
1739 12:1a, 1b, 1c, 5b, 7b, 11a, 12, 15b, 20a 12:3, 5a, 6a, 6b, 7a, 10, 11b, 15a, 16, 19a, 19b, 20b, 21
1881 12:1a, 6b, 7a, 7b, 12, 15b, 20a 12:1b, 1c, 3, 5a, 5b, 6a, 10, 11a, 11b, 15a, 16, 19a, 19b, 20b, 21
M 12:6b, 7a, 7b, 15b 12:1b, 1c, 3, 5a, 5b, 6a, 10, 11a, 11b, 12, 15a, 16, 19a, 20b, 20a, 21
Old Latin 12:1a, 1bf, 1c, 5a, 6bf, 7a, 11a, 12g, 15b, 19bb+d 12:1b, 3, 5b, 6bb, 7b, 11ab, 12, 15af+g+r, 19a, 20a, 20b, 21
Vulgate 12:1a, 1b, 1c, 5a, 6bcl, 7a, 11a, 15b 12:3, 5b, 6bst, 7b, 12, 15a, 19a, 20a, 20b, 21
Syriac 12:1a, 5b, 6bh, 7b, 20ap, 20bp 12:1b, 1c, 7ah, 11ap, 15a, 19a, 20ah, 20bh, 21p
Coptic 12:1asa+bo-ms, 1b, 5b, 7asa, 7b, 11a, 15a, 20abo, 20bbo-ms 12:1abo, 6b, 7abo, 19abo, 20asa+bo, 20bsa+bo
Ambrosiaster 12:6b, 7b, 19b 12:1a, 1b, 5b, 12, 15a
Cyprian 12:7b Nothing
Irenaeus 12:7alat 12:7blat

 

2 Corinthians 13 and Subscription

Manuscript Agrees with P46 in… Disagrees with P46 in…
a 13:2a, 4a*, 13a, 13c*, sub 13:2b, 4c, 4d, 5b, 13b, 13c2
A 13:2a, 13a, 13c, sub 13:2b, 4c, 4d, 5b, 13b
B 13:2a, 4a, 5b, 13c, sub* 13:2b, 4c, 4d, 4e, 13a, 13b, sub1
D 13:2a*, 4a*, 4d*+c, 5b*, 13a, sub 13:2a1, 2b, 4c,  4e2, 5b1, 13b, 13c
F 13:2a, 2b, 4a, 13a, 13c, sub 13:4c, 4d, 5b, 13b
G 13:2a, 2b, 4a, 13a, 13c, sub 13:4c, 4d, 5b, 13b
P 13:4a sub
Y sub 13:2a, 2b, 4c, 4d, 5b, 13a, 13b, 13c
33 13:2a, 4a, 4d, 5b, 13a, 13c, sub 13:2b, 4c, 13b
1739 13:2a, 4a, 13a, 13c 13:2b, 4c, 4d, 5b, 13b, sub
1881 13:2a, 13c 13:2b, 4c, 4d, 5b, 13a, 13b, sub
M 13:13a 13:2a, 2b, 4c, 4d, 5b, 13b, 13c, sub
Old Latin 13:2a 13:4er, 13c
Vulgate 13:2a 13:13c
Syriac Nothing 13:2a, 13c
Coptic 13:4a, 13csa 13:2asa+bo, 13cbo
Ambrosiaster 13:13c Nothing
Clement 13:5b Nothing
Eusebius 13:4a Nothing

P46 Tendencies in 2 Corinthians (Part 4)

This is Part 4 of a 6 Part series on the text critical paper that I presented at the 2013 SBL Annual Meeting in Baltimore, MD. Here is Part 1Part 2, and Part 3. I focused on the textual tendencies of the Ancient Greek manuscript called P46 which is the oldest extant manuscript that we have of Paul’s letters. For more information upon this manuscript see The University of Michigan’s Library andThe Chester Beatty Library.

CONCLUSION

            In conclusion, from the evidence put forward above, one can clearly observe that P46 is inconsistent and fickle at many levels. While it is somewhat stable in providing the original text of 2 Corinthians according to the NU, it is quite unstable (1) in agreeing with other extant MSS of 2 Corinthians and (2) in leaning towards one specific textual family. If P46 was said to have any tendencies toward certain MSS in 2 Corinthians, they would surely be the Latin type MSS of the OL, Vg., and Ambrosiaster which all have high percentages of agreement with P46 throughout both the singular readings and 2 Corinthians as a whole. Overall, I conclude that P46 in 2 Corinthians (1) maintains an older reading of Paul in the singular readings that was contained mostly within the Latin Church which was later added to by scribes, (2) tends to preserve the original reading 50% of the time or higher according to the NU, (3) tends to alter grammar and inflection, omit words, and substitute words, (4) tends to disagree with most of the other NT MSS among the variants, and (5) tends to have no preference toward any textual family. In other words, the overwhelming evidence leads one to conclude that the only lasting tendency that P46 has in 2 Corinthians is inconsistency.

POSTSCRIPT

            So what does all this reveal about early Christianity? First and foremost, I think that the inconsistency and lack of alignment with a textual family shows that P46 is a conduit for hearing the earliest rendition of Paul in 2 Corinthians, and this is especially pertinent if one holds to an early dating of P46 to ca. 80 A.D. as Young Kyu Kim proposed in his article Paleographical Dating of P46 to the Later First Century in 1988. Second, as pertains to the MSS with the highest percentage of agreement with P46 (i.e. Copt. and OL), this further corroborates the claim that early Christianity was missional focused, that is, early Christians tried to spread Christianity by translating their sacred texts into other important languages such as Coptic and Latin. Thirdly, as pertains to the Latin type MSS that agree with P46 among the singular readings, this may reveal an important facet of the transmission history of 2 Corinthians, namely, since the Corinth that Paul evangelized and wrote to was the rebuilt Roman city of Corinth – not the Greek Corinth – it is possible that when the original 2 Corinthians was received in Corinth that the church shortly thereafter translated it into Latin due to Roman influence on the city. Lastly, while P46 was discovered in Fayum, Egypt, that does not necessarily mean that it was produced or even primarily used in that region throughout its history. But regardless of whether it was in fact either used and/or produced in Egypt, seeing that P46 has the highest percentage agreement with the Coptic MSS, this might indicate that early Egyptian Christianity used P46 and/or other early non-extant MSS of its similar type and nature to produce their Coptic translations of 2 Corinthians. In these ways, then, Chester Beatty Papyrus II sheds some light on early Christianity, and perhaps even that in Egypt.

P46 Tendencies in 2 Corinthians (Part 3)

This is Part 3 of a 6 Part series on the text critical paper that I presented at the 2013 SBL Annual Meeting in Baltimore, MD. Here is Part 1 and Part 2. I focused on the textual tendencies of the Ancient Greek manuscript called P46 which is the oldest extant manuscript that we have of Paul’s letters. For more information upon this manuscript see The University of Michigan’s Library andThe Chester Beatty Library.

A COMPARISON OF SUMMARIES

            At this point, I will now move forward to compare my summary with Fredrick G. Kenyon’s summary as illustrated in the editio princeps. To begin, here is a chart of his summary of P46 in 2 Corinthians:[1]

  With papyrus Against
a 250 76
A 90 49
B 253 73
C 149 69
D 167 157
F 162 162
G 162 162
TR 165 161
Singular 87
Errors 32

Now while a quick glance at Kenyon’s chart would immediately seem to disregard the above study due to the fact that his suggests that the majority of other MSS agree with P46 50% of the time or more, 3 things must be noted about our differences in approach. First, Kenyon’s chart is almost wholly dependent upon Tischendorf’s critical apparatus, while mine is based upon the most recent scholarly apparati of the NA27 and the UBS4.[2] Secondly, Kenyon does not include variants that are spelling differences, while I do. Thirdly, whereas he examines every variant from Tischendorf’s critical apparatus, I have researched most of the variants and the most significant variants from the NU apparati. Thus, due to our different approaches, one should expect at least some differences in our conclusions.[3] Here is a chart that compares our different summaries:

Kenyon-Christian Comparison

Now the most obvious difference is that not one MS disagrees with P46 more often than not according to Kenyon, that is, none agree less than 50% of the time. In other words, all of the major MSS according to Kenyon agree with P46 50% of the time or higher. My primary contention with this is that Kenyon here does not show his work and did not later publish anything showing evidence for these numbers. One strength of my study is that I avoid this pitfall by providing all of my work in chart form in appendices which I will show at the end of this presentation.

Another very important and different conclusion that we come to is whether or not P46 tends to align with the Alexandrian text type. According to Kenyon, P46 has a strong affinity for the Alexandrian textual family. My study however shows that while P46 is somewhat less Western than Alexandrian, it more so has no affinity for any text type.

In addition, I think there are multiple problems with Kenyon’s approach. First and foremost, his is based upon old scholarship, namely, Tischendorf. My study however is based upon the most recent scholarship, namely, the NU critical apparati. Even though Tischendorf produced 8 magnificent texts and apparati of the Greek NT in his lifetime, he nonetheless did this work by himself. Likewise, Kenyon collated P46 to Tischendorf’s apparatus by himself. However, the NA27 and UBS4 which I am using have been organized by the top scholars in the field via a committee. This in my opinion indicates that I have worked with more superior and more accurate apparati than Kenyon.

Secondly, Kenyon draws from a smaller pool of MSS, that is, he only observes the major codices and the Majority text. I however incorporate those MSS with several miniscule MSS, multiple versions, and the church fathers.

Thirdly, to be fair, Kenyon observes more variants than I do here. While I have examined 219 total variants (139 variants + 80 singular readings), Kenyon looked at approximately 413 (ca. 326 variants + 87 singular readings), almost double the amount of mine. While this may bolster Kenyon’s study, a statistical principle must be noted: those working with statistics always use sample populations. Here, while Kenyon’s sample population is larger than mine, it is nonetheless still a sample population. Thus, the conclusion that Kenyon’s work is better because it observes a larger sample population is unwarranted. The most important criteria then I would suggest are the quality of apparati used and the breadth of MSS observed.

Overall, it seems that Kenyon and I come to different conclusions due to different approaches, different apparati, different breadths of MSS observed, and different number of observed variants, but I hope I have demonstrated how my present study outweighs Kenyon’s in these regards.



[1] Kenyon, Pauline Epistles, xvi.

 

[2] Kenyon, Pauline Epistles, xv.

 

[3] Note that Henry A. Sander’s chart cannot be utilized here due the fact that he combines the numbers for 1 and 2 Corinthians into one section. See Sanders 24-25 for more details.