Over at Evangelical Textual Criticism, Peter Head just posted about a monastery excavation that links the origin of Codex Sinaiticus to Jerusalem. If this provenance is correct, then it does, of course, constitute a substantive piece of evidence for a wider geographic distribution of the Alexandrian text type than is sometimes assumed.
Wilbur Pickering’s updated (2003) defense of the majority text available online. Whatever one’s perspective on methods of textual criticism, Pickering’s analysis at least merits familiarity. In concert with the theory of textual criticism that he outlines here, Pickering has also posted his own reconstructions of James, 1 Peter, 2 Peter, and Revelation, according to the […]
Beyond these general reasons that the perspectives of Baur and others on Rom 15–16 are insufficiently supported, several other pieces of evidence also converge to suggest that these chapters, much in the form in which they appear in the modern, printed editions, are original to Romans. On Origen’s testimony, Marcion truncated the epistle before the […]
The arguments against the authenticity of Rom 15–16 that have been summarized are, however, inadequate for several reasons, which including the following: Far from a needless repetition of Rom 12:1ff, Rom 15:1–13 actually provides a necessary continuation of Paul’s argument from Rom 14:1–23 (Murray 2:263–65). When Paul speaks of ministering “from Jerusalem and around as […]
Perhaps the most persistently thorny issues in textual criticism of Romans are related to: (1) the placement of the doxology, which normally appears in Rom 16:25–27 in modern, printed editions and (2) the cohesion of Rom 15–16 with the rest of the epistle. While distinguishable, however, these issues cannot be completely separated from each other, […]