Published online by Cambridge University Press: 03 September 2013
Following the recent emphasis on studying early Christian manuscripts as historical artefacts, whose text and meta-textual aspects comprise important embodiments of reception and interpretation, this article re-examines the early Titus fragment 𝔓32 (P.Ryl. Gr. 1.5) with respect to its physical situation within the manuscript. I expand the scope of current reconstructions to consider in detail the lost beginning of the epistle, and argue that Titus was not the first document in the codex: at least one other preceded. Although the identity of the accompanying material cannot be deduced codicologically, patristic evidence suggests that Titus was normally transmitted in a collection of thirteen or fourteen Pauline epistles when the 𝔓32 codex was produced, rendering these the prime candidates.
Thanks to Elizabeth Gow, Manuscript Curator at the John Rylands Library, for arranging access to 𝔓32 and related archival records. Thanks also to the Arts and Humanities Research Council for funding the research, and to J. K. Elliott, P. M. Head, R. H. Bell, R. Deines and the Informal Biblical Seminar at the University of Nottingham for responding to working drafts of this article.
1 The editio princeps is Hunt, A. S., Catalogue of the Greek Papyri in the John Rylands Library, vol. I (Manchester, 1911) 10-11Google Scholar. Digital images at The John Rylands University Digital Library, image numbers JRL023046tr (recto) and JRL023047tr (verso), http://enriqueta.man.ac.uk/luna/servlet/ManchesterDev~93~3 (March 2013).
2 Hence its uncontested place in the Gregory Aland register; cf. Aland, K., Kurzgefasste Liste der griechischen Handschriften des Neuen Testaments (Zweite, neubearbeitete und ergänzte Auflage, in Verbindung mit M. Welte, B. Köster und K. Junack; ANTF 1; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, updates at www.uni-muenster.de/NTTextforschung/.
3 At Titus 2.7 𝔓32 reads [αφ]θονιαν (rather than αφθοριαν or αδιαφθοριαν) in agreement with the ‘Western’ reading of F G 1881, but at two other points 𝔓32 agrees with the rest of the tradition against F and G: at 1.12 it lacks δɛ and at 1.14 it reads ɛντολ[αιϲ] rather than ɛνταλμαϲιν. At 2.7 it is clear from the amount of space available that there was agreement with א A C D2 F G K L 81 1739 1881 pc in reading ϲɛ[μνοτητα] without αφθαρϲιαν= D2 K L Ψ 𝔐. It seems that the scribe accurately reproduced their exemplar, at least in the text that has been preserved.
4 Dobschütz, E., ‘Zur Liste der Neutestamentlichen Handschriften’, ZNW 23 (1924) 251CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
5 Bell, H. I. and Skeat, T. C., Fragments of an Unknown Gospel and Other Early Christian Papyri (London: Trustees of the British Museum/Oxford University, 1935) 6-7Google Scholar, reporting the support of palaeographers Wilhelm Schubart and Frederic Kenyon; Bell, H. I., ‘Evidences of Christianity in Egypt during the Roman Period’, HTR 37 (1944) 201CrossRefGoogle Scholar n. 23.
6 Roberts, C. H., Manuscript, Society and Belief in Early Christian Egypt (London: Oxford University, 1979) 13-14Google Scholar; Roberts, C. H. and Skeat, T. C., The Birth of the Codex (London: Oxford University for The British Academy, 1987) 40-1, 46Google Scholar; Comfort, P. W., Encountering the Manuscripts: An Introduction to New Testament Paleography and Textual Criticism (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2005) 130–1Google Scholar; Martinez, D. G., ‘The Papyri and Early Christianity’, The Oxford Handbook of Papyrology (ed. Bagnall, R.; Oxford: Oxford University, 2009)Google Scholar 596; Aland, K., ‘Zur Liste der Neutestamentlichen Handschriften VI’, ZNW 48 (1957) 153CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Liste, 6; Repertorium der griechischen christlichen Papyri, I: Biblische Papyri (PTS 18; Münster: de Gruyter, 1976)Google Scholar 253.
7 Gronewald, M., ‘Unbekanntes Evangelium oder Evangelienharmonie (Fragment aus dem “Evangelium Egerton”)’, Kölner Papyri (P.Köln) VI (Cologne: Westdeutscher, 1987) 136-45CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
8 Cf. Roberts, C. H., Greek Literary Hands. 350 B.C.–A.D. 400 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1955) xi-xvGoogle Scholar; Turner, E. G., Greek Manuscripts of the Ancient World: Second Edition Revised and Enlarged (ed. Parsons, P. J.; ICS Bull. Supp. 46; London: Institute of Classical Studies, 1987) 18-20Google Scholar; Cavallo, G., ‘Greek and Latin Writing in the Papyri’, The Oxford Handbook of Papyrology (ed. Bagnall) 101-2 and throughoutGoogle Scholar; Barker, D., ‘The Dating of New Testament Papyri’, NTS 57 (2011) 571-82CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
9 Schubart, W., Paläographie I: Griechische Paläographie (HAW I.4.1; Munich: Beck, 1925) 111–16Google Scholar.
10 Turner, Greek Manuscripts of the Ancient World, 21, 38; citing Menci, G., ‘Scritture greche librarie con apici ornamentali (III a.C. - II d.C.)’, Scrittura e Civiltà 3 (1979) 23-53Google Scholar. Cf. Menci, ‘Zierstil’, Der Neue Pauly Enzyklopädie der Antike (ed. Cancik, H., Schneider, H., and Landfester, M.; Stuttgart: Metzler, 1996–2003)Google Scholar s.v.
11 Cavallo, G., ‘ΓΡΑΜΜΑΤΑ ΑΛΕΞΑΝΔΡΙΝΑ’, Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik 24 (1975) 35, 50-1Google Scholar; cf. Cavallo, G. and Maehler, H., Greek Bookhands of the Early Byzantine Period, A.D. 300-800 (London: Institute of Classical Studies, 1987) 22-5Google Scholar; Cavallo, G., Il calamo e il papiro: La scrittura greca dall'eta` ellenistica ai primi secoli di Bisanzio (Papyrologica Florentina 36; Florence: Gonnelli, 2005) 175-202Google Scholar; Turner, ‘Greek and Latin Writing in the Papyri’, 129-31.
12 Cavallo and Maehler, Greek Bookhands, 52-3, 82, 104, 112-15.
13 Barker, ‘New Testament Papyri’, 574-5. Cf. Pickering, S. R., ‘The Dating of the Chester Beatty–Michigan Codex of the Pauline Epistles (𝔓46)’, Ancient History in a Modern University (ed. Hillard, T. W. et al. ; 2 vols.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998)Google Scholar 2.225, appealing to the literary papyri P.Berol.9782 (II) and P.Oxy. 412 (III).
14 Turner, Typology of the Early Codex, 19, 147. The editor C. B. Welles's controversially early dating of the Yale Genesis to c. AD 90 was subsequently revised to II (C. H. Roberts and T. C. Skeat) or II/III (E. G. Turner).
15 The mean, median, mode and mid-range number of letters per line (verso) are all approximately 24, the range 21-26.
16 The mean number of letters per line (recto) is approximately 27, the median and mode 28, the mid-range 26, the range 23-29.
17 E. M. Schofield, Papyrus Fragments, 238; Turner, Typology of the Early Codex, 147; van Haelst, Catalogue, 189; Aland, Repertorium, 253; NTP ii/2, XLVIII; Comfort and Barrett, Text, 135-7.
18 Of the known points of variation in the text supplied for the missing lines (i.e. Titus 1.7-11a; 1.15b-2.3a), thirteen alternative readings would marginally affect the length of the text (our particular concern), by a total of plus 29 or minus 18 letters (i.e. plus or minus one line).
19 Skeat, T. C., ‘The Oldest Manuscript of the Four Gospels?’, NTS 43 (1997) 1-34CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
20 Skeat also applies a similar argument to the four fragmentary leaves of 𝔓4, working backwards from Luke 1.58 to find the beginning of the Gospel ‘at the beginning of a leaf, i.e. at the top of col. 1’, but this time a summary of calculations rather than a detailed reconstruction is given.
21 Head, P. M., ‘Is 𝔓4, 𝔓64, 𝔓67 the Oldest Manuscript of the Four Gospels? A Response to T.C. Skeat’, NTS 51 (2005) 455, 453CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Cf. Hill, C. E., ‘Intersections of Jewish and Christian Scribal Culture. The Original Codex Containing P4, P64, and P67, and its Implications’, Among Jews, Gentiles, and Christians in Antiquity and the Middle Ages (ed. Hvalvik, R. and Kaufman, J.; Trondheim: Tapir Academic, 2011) 75-91Google Scholar.
22 Barker, D., ‘How Long and Old Is the Codex of which P.Oxy 1353 Is a Leaf?’, Jewish and Christian Scripture as Artifact and Canon (ed. Evans, C. A. and Zacharias, H. D.; LSTS 70; London: T&T Clark, 2009)Google Scholar 197.
23 The customary location of the title of a literary text in a subscription (at the end) is known to have been carried over from papyrus rolls into early codices (𝔓66 may be a case in point, since there is reason to suspect its superscription to be a later insertion). Cf. Turner, Greek Manuscripts of the Ancient World, 13-14Google Scholar.
24 The pertinence of this orientation to my argument was highlighted to me by P. M. Head.
25 The Euthalian apparatus is first attested in the sixth-century Codex Coislinianus (H 015).
26 Cf. the Bodmer ‘Composite’ Codex, page 62, where the final two lines of the 11th Ode of Solomon (P.Bodm. XI) precede the epistle of Jude (P. Bodm. VII= 𝔓72).
27 Other examples include P.Bodm. III (John, Genesis), P.Bodm. XIX (Matthew, Romans) and the Crosby-Schøyen MS 193 (Melito's Homily on the Passover, 2 Macc 5.27–7.41, 1 Peter, Jonah, unknown text), all from the same hoard; P.Mich. 3520 (Ecclesiastes, 1 John, 2 Peter), B.M. MS Or. 7594 (Deuteronomy, Jonah, Acts, Apocalypse of Elijah), P.Berl. Or. 408 + B.M. Or. 3518 (Revelation, 1 John, Philemon), 𝔓6= P.Strasb.Copt. 371, 372, 375-85 (John, James, 1 Clement); Hamburg Staats- und Universitatsbibliothek Pap. bil. 1 (Acta Pauli, Song of Songs, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes); P.Ch.Beatty Ac. 1390 (John; mathematical exercise).
28 Wisse, F., ‘The Coptic Version of the New Testament’, The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research: Essays on the Status Quaestionis (ed. Ehrman, B. D. and Holmes, M. W.; NTTSD 42; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995) 134–5Google Scholar.
29 Note the Coptic scribe of 𝔓72, and the shared provenance of the Bodmer codex with several diverse Coptic codices from the same monastic library. See also P.Ch.Beatty XV (Psalms, Acts of Phileas) and B.M. inv.2468 + P.Montseratt II inv. 84 (Song of Songs, Apology of Aristides).
30 Adv. Haer. 1.Praef.1 (= 1 Tim 1.4), 1.16.3 (= Titus 3.10-11), 2.14.7 (= 1 Tim 6.20), 3.3.3 (= 2 Tim 4.21), 3.3.4 (= Titus 3.10-11), 3.14.1 (= 2 Tim 4.10–11).
31 Looks, C., Das Anvertraute bewahren: die Rezeption der Pastoralbriefe im 2. Jahrhundert (MTB; Munich: Herbert Utz, 1999) 362-6Google Scholar; White, B. L., ‘How to Read a Book: Irenaeus and the Pastoral Epistles Reconsidered’, Vigiliae Christianae 65 (2011) 125-49CrossRefGoogle Scholar (135).
32 II.39-68. The document is traditionally dated to the late second/early third century, but this has been contested by A. C. Sundberg and especially G. M. Hahneman who proposed a fourth-century Eastern origin. However, the case has not proved convincing and the earlier dating stands. See Ferguson, E., ‘Canon Muratori: Date and Provenance’, StudPat 17 (1982) 677-83Google Scholar; Hill, C. E., ‘The Debate over the Muratorian Fragment and the Development of the Canon’, WTJ 57 (1995) 437-52Google Scholar; Verheyden, J., ‘The Canon Muratori: A Matter of Dispute’, The Biblical Canons (ed. Auwers, J.-M. and de Jonge, H. J.; BETL 163; Leuven: Peeters, 2003) 487-586Google Scholar.
33 E.g., Adv. Marc. 5.1.9; 5.21.1 (discussed below); De praes. haer. 6.1,3 (= Titus 3.10-11); 16.1 (= 1 Tim 6.4; Titus 3.10); De idol. 15 (= Titus 3.1); De pud. 1.5 (= Titus 3.5); 2.1 (= 1 Tim 4.10); 13.15,19-21 (= 1 Tim 1.19–20); 14.27 (= Titus 2.7); 18.9 (= 1 Tim 5.22); 18.15–16 (= 1 Tim 1.13, 15). Cf. Looks, Das Anvertraute bewahren, 368-75; Frisius, Mark A., Tertullian's Use of the Pastoral Epistles, Hebrews, James, 1 and 2 Peter, and Jude (SBL; New York: Lang, 2011) 121-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
34 Ad Autol. 3.14.4 (= 1 Tim 2.1–2; Titus 3.1); cf. 1.1.1 (= 2 Tim 3.8).
35 Protr. 1.4.4 (= Titus 3.3-5); 1.7.2 (= Titus 2.11-13); 9.87.1 (= 1 Tim 4.8, 10; 2 Tim 3.15-17); Strom. 2.11.5-6 (citing 1 Tim 6.20). Clement's student, Origen, speaks of the apostle's ‘fourteen epistles’ (Hom. Jesu Nave 7.1), and Eusebius goes on to classify them as ὁμολογούμɛνοι (Hist. eccl. 3.3.5; 25.2).
36 The language is that of Hurtado, The Earliest Christian Artifacts, 39.
37 The Latin tradition also came to include the pseudepigraphon Laodiceans, whereas the Syriac tradition omitted Philemon and included the pseudepigraphon 3 Corinthians.
38 Richards, E. R., The Secretary in the Letters of Paul (WUNT 2/42; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1991) 6-7Google Scholar; Richards, ‘The Codex and the Early Collection of Paul's Letters’, BBR 8 (1998) 151-66Google Scholar; Richards, Paul and First-century Letter Writing (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2004) 210-23Google Scholar.
39 In particular, the recent studies of Johnson, Luke Timothy (The First and Second Letters to Timothy [AB 35A; New York: Doubleday, 2001])Google Scholar and Fuchs, Rüdiger (Unerwartete Unterschiede: Müssen wir unsere Ansichten über die Pastoralbriefe revidieren? [Bibelwissenschaftliche Monographien 12; Wuppertal: Brockhaus, 2003])Google Scholar give fresh impetus to the case for authenticity.
40 Porter, Stanley E. does (‘Paul and the Pauline Letter Collection’, Paul and the Second Century [ed. Bird, M. F. and Dodson, J. R.; LNTS 314; London: T&T Clark, 2011] 32-5)Google Scholar. Trobisch, David (Die Entstehung der Paulusbriefsammlung: Studien zu den Anfängen der christlichen Publizistik [NTOA 10; Freiburg: Universitätsverlag, 1989]CrossRefGoogle Scholar, ET Paul's Letter Collection: Tracing the Origins [Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994])Google Scholar and Gamble, Harry Y. (Books and Readers in the Early Church: A History of Early Christian Texts [New Haven and London: Yale University, 1995] 100-101)Google Scholar favour an ‘authorized recension’, but treat the ‘Pastorals’ and others as second-century pseudonymous supplements.
41 Adv. Marc. 5.21.1; cf. 5.1.9. Irenaeus also accuses Marcion of ‘mutilating’ the scriptures, omitting some of them in toto (Adv. Haer. 3.12.12). Clement (Strom. 2.11.5-6), Origen (In Matt. ser. vet. interp. 117), Epiphanius (Pan. 1.9.3, 11.9-12) and Jerome (Comm. in Ep. ad Titum, Praef.) also reproach ‘heretics’ (Marcion, Basilides, Tatian) for repudiating some or all of the epistles to Timothy and Titus.
42 Berding, K., Polycarp and Paul: An Analysis of their Literary and Theological Relationship in Light of Polycarp's Use of Biblical and Extra-Biblical Literature (VCSup 62; Leiden: Brill, 2002) 142-55CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 187-8. Recent studies of the literary relationship between Paul and Polycarp discredit the earlier contention of Hans von Campenhausen that Polycarp wrote the Pastorals against Marcion, and argue instead for his dependence on them (at least, on 1 and 2 Timothy). Cf. Lindemann, A., Paulus im ältesten Christentum: Das Bild des Apostels und die Rezeption der paulinischen Theologie in der frühchristlichen Literatur bis Marcion (BhT 58; Tübingen: Mohr, 1979) 221-32Google Scholar; D. K. Rensberger, ‘As the Apostle Teaches: The Development of the Use of Paul's Letters in Second-Century Christianity’ (PhD dissertation, Yale University, 1981) 120-5; Looks, Das Anvertraute bewahren, 153-87; Hartog, P., Polycarp and the New Testament: The Occasion, Rhetoric, Theme, and Unity of the Epistle to the Philippians and its Allusions to New Testament Literature (WUNT 2/134; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002) 229–35Google Scholar; Merz, A., Die fiktive Selbstauslegung des Paulus: intertextuelle Studien zur Intention und Rezeption der Pastoralbriefe (NTOA 52; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004) 114-40CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Holmes, M. W., ‘Polycarp's Letter to the Philippians and the Writings that Later Formed the New Testament’, The Reception of the New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers (ed. Gregory, A. and Tuckett, C.; Oxford: Oxford University, 2005) 125-8Google Scholar.
43 See Lieu, J. M., ‘“As much my apostle as Christ is mine”: The Dispute over Paul between Tertullian and Marcion’, Early Christianity 1 (2010) 41-59CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The same issues surround the corroborative statements of Irenaeus et al. noted above.
44 Schmid, U., Marcion und sein Apostolos: Rekonstruktion und historische Einordnung der marcionitischen Paulusbriefausgabe (ANTF 25; Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, 1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar esp. 260-98, 313-44. Cf. Roth, D. T., ‘Marcion's Gospel: Relevance, Contested Issues, Reconstruction’, Expository Times 121 (2010) 287-94CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and ‘Marcion and the Early Text of the New Testament’, The Early Text of the New Testament (ed. Hill, C. E. and Kruger, M. J.; Oxford: Oxford University, 2012) 302-12CrossRefGoogle Scholar, who sees preliminary indications of a similar state of affairs for Marcion's Euangelion.
45 Quinn, J. D., ‘P46—The Pauline Canon?’, CBQ 36 (1974) 379-85Google Scholar; Quinn, The Letter to Titus: A New Translation with Notes and Commentary, and an Introduction to the Pastoral Epistles (AB 35; New York: Doubleday, 1990)Google Scholar 3, 8, 19-20.
46 Cf. Cyprian Ad quir. I.20; Ad fort. XI; Victorinus In Apoc. I.7; De fabr. mundi VIII; Ps-Chrysostom Op. imperf. in Matt. I; Jerome De vir. ill. 5.9-11; Dionysius bar Salibi In Apoc. 1.4 (attributed to Hippolytus of Rome); and the Vulgate ‘primum quaeritur’ preface to the epistles.
47 For the dating see Barker, ‘New Testament Papyri’, 578-82.
48 Kenyon, F. G., Chester Beatty Biblical Papyri, Fasciculus III, Pauline Epistles and Revelation (London: Emery Walker, 1934) v-viiGoogle Scholar; Kenyon, Chester Beatty Biblical Papyri, Fasciculus III Supplement, Pauline Epistles, Text (London: Emery Walker, 1936) viii-xiiGoogle Scholar.
49 Metzger, B. M., ‘Recently Published Papyri of the NT’, Biblical Archaeologist 10.2 (1947) 25-44CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Metzger, Manuscripts of the Greek Bible: An Introduction to Greek Palaeography (Oxford: Oxford University, 1981)Google Scholar 64; Epp, E. J., ‘The Papyrus Manuscripts of the New Testament’, The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research (ed. Ehrman and Holmes) 37Google Scholar; Epp, ‘Textual Criticism in the Exegesis of the New Testament, with an Excursus on Canon’, Handbook to Exegesis of the New Testament (ed. Porter, S. E.; NTTS 25; Leiden: Brill, 1997)Google Scholar 76; but most recently in ‘Issues in the Interrelation of New Testament Textual Criticism and Canon’, The Canon Debate (ed. McDonald, L. M. and Sanders, J. A.; Peabody: Hendrickson, 2002) 485-515Google Scholar, Epp is more cautious and leaves the question open.
50 Examples detailed by Turner, Typology of the Early Codex, 73. Sanders, H. A., ‘A Fragment of the Acta Pauli in the Michigan Collection’, HThR 31 (1938) 74-5Google Scholar, cites the 𝔓5 codex (P.Oxy. 208) as another possible example of miscalculation leading to the addition of one or more sheets at the beginning/end.
51 Duff, J., ‘𝔓46 and the Pastorals: A Misleading Consensus?’, NTS 44 (1998): 578-90CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
52 Epp, ‘Issues in the Interrelation of New Testament Textual Criticism and Canon’, 498-500.
53 Parker, D. C., An Introduction to New Testament Manuscripts and their Text (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 2008) 253-54CrossRefGoogle Scholar, argues that the examples of single-sheet supplements are not convincing analogies since 𝔓46 would require four additional sheets to house a fourteen-epistle collection; the Nag Hammadi Codex I may not be a case of under-calculation since it has not one but two supplements of eight and six sheets (= two miscalculations?); the sixth-century Toura manuscript may have been influenced by the commonplace practice of supplementing parchment codices with single (or half) sheets, and its texts may not derive from a single exemplar.
54 E. B. Ebojo, ‘𝔓46 with the Pastorals: A Misleading Proposal? Re-investigating the Evidence of the Missing Last Pages of 𝔓46’, paper presented at the Society of Biblical Literature, NT Textual Criticism Section, 19 November 2011, San Francisco.
55 Grenfell, B. P. and Hunt, A. S., The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, XIII (London: Egypt Exploration, 1919)Google Scholar 12; Trobisch, D., Die Entstehung der Paulusbriefsammlung: Studien zu den Anfängen der christlichen Publizistik (NTOA 10; Freiburg: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1989) 26, 138–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Wachtel, K. et al. , eds., Das Neue Testament auf Papyrus II. Die paulinischen Briefe, Teil 2 (ANTF 22; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1994)Google Scholar xlvi.
56 Grenfell, B. P. and Hunt, A. S., The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, VII (London: Egypt Exploration, 1910)Google Scholar 8; Bartoletti, V., Papiri greci e latini, XVI (Pubblicazioni della Società italiana; Florence: le Monnier, 1957) 5-7Google Scholar; Comfort, P. W., ‘New Reconstructions and Identifications of New Testament Papyri’, NovT 41 (1999) 215-16Google Scholar; but cf. Das Neue Testament auf Papyrus II/2, xli, lxi.
57 These are: 𝔓17= P.Oxy. 1078 (Hebrews), 𝔓27= P.Oxy. 1355 (Romans), 𝔓40= P.Heid.G. 645 (Romans), 𝔓87= Köln 12 (Philemon), 𝔓113= P.Oxy. 4497 (Romans), 𝔓114= P.Oxy. 4498 (Hebrews), 𝔓118= Köln 10311 (Romans), 𝔓123= P.Oxy 4844 (1 Corinthians), 𝔓126= PSI 1497 (Hebrews), 0220= Schøyen MS 113 (Romans). In addition, newly discovered apparently early manuscripts of Romans, 1 Corinthians and Hebrews are being prepared for publication in D. Obbink and J. Pattengale, eds., The Green Scholars Initiative: Papyrus Series (Leiden: Brill, forthcoming).
58 Dahl, N. A., ‘The Origin of the Earliest Prologues to the Pauline Letters’, Semeia 12 (1978) 233-77Google Scholar; Gamble, H. Y., The New Testament Canon: Its Making and Meaning (GBS; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985) 39-41Google Scholar; Gamble, Books and Readers in the Early Church: A History of Early Christian Texts (New Haven and London: Yale University, 1995) 59-62Google Scholar. Evidence for the various orders is presented by Frede, Herman Josef, ‘Die Ordnung der Paulusbriefe und der Platz des Kolosserbriefs im Corpus Paulinum’, Epistulae ad Philippenses et Colossenses (Vetus Latina 24/2; Freiburg: Herder, 1969) 290-303Google Scholar.
59 The order of the Apostolikon is inferred from Tertullian Adversus Marcionem 5 (Philemon after Colossians and Philippians) and Epiphanius Panarion 42.9.3-4, 11.9-12 (Philemon after Colossians, before Philippians; cf. the Latin stichometric list of biblical books inserted in the sixth-century Codex Claromontanus, which puts Colossians with Philemon, among the epistles ‘to individuals’). The so-called ‘Marcionite Prologues’ also seem to presuppose an edition with the same arrangement as the Apostolikon (Dahl's formal analysis finds those to 2 Corinthians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon and Hebrews are probably secondary additions to an original, second-century set of seven Prologues = one for each church), but their origin is an ongoing matter of dispute. Scherbenske, E. W., Canonizing Paul: Ancient Editorial Practice and the Corpus Paulinum (New York: Oxford University, 2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar 85–93, restates the case for Marcionite content, locating their opposition to ‘false apostles’ in Marcion's rejection of reversion to Judaism.
60 Dahl, ‘The Origin of the Earliest Prologues to the Pauline Letters’, 253, appealing to the old Syriac order (Galatians–Corinthians–Romans, etc.) as proof that the initial placement of Galatians is not Marcionite in origin. Cf. Gamble, ‘The Canon of the New Testament’, The New Testament and its Modern Interpreters (ed. Epp, E. J. and MacRae, G. W.; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1989) 207-8Google Scholar; Schmid, Marcion und sein Apostolos, 284-303.
61 Trummer, P., ‘Corpus Paulinum—Corpus Pastorale. Zur Ortung der Paulustradition in den Pastoralbriefen’, Paulus in den neutestamentlichen Spätschriften (ed. Kertelge, Karl; QD 89; Freiburg: Herder, 1981)Google Scholar 133. Cf. C. K. Rothschild's argument that Hebrews is a Pauline pseudepigraphon which never circulated independently but was composed to be published in a new edition of an existing (late first-century) Pauline letter collection, in Hebrews as Pseudepigraphon: The History and Significance of the Pauline Attribution of Hebrews (WUNT 1/235; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009) 139-54Google Scholar.
62 Tsuji, M., ‘Persönliche Korrespondenz des Paulus: Zur Strategie der Pastoralbriefe als Pseudepigrapha’, NTS 56 (2010) 253-72CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
63 Prior, M., Paul the Letter-Writer and the Second Letter to Timothy (JSNTSup 23; Sheffield: JSOT, 1989)Google Scholar; Murphy-O'Connor, J., ‘2 Tim Compared with 1 Tim and Titus’, RB 98 (1991) 403-18Google Scholar; Aageson, J. W., Paul, the Pastoral Epistles and the Early Church (Library of Pauline Studies; Peabody: Hendickson, 2006)Google Scholar; Herzer, J., ‘Fiktion oder Tauschung? Zur Diskussion über die Pseudepigraphie der Pastoralbriefe’, Pseudepigraphie und Verfasserfiktion in frühchristlichen Briefen (ed. Frey, J. et al. ; WUNT 246; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009) 489-536Google Scholar; Richards, W. A., Difference and Distance in Post-Pauline Christianity: An Epistolary Analysis of the Pastorals (SBL 44; New York: Lang, 2002)Google Scholar. Cf. the defence of Häfner, G., ‘Das Corpus Pastorale als literarisches Konstrukt’, ThQ 187 (2007) 258-73Google Scholar.
64 Verheyden, ‘The Canon Muratori: A Matter of Dispute’, 524-8; cf. Eusebius Hist. Eccl. VI.20.3; repeated by Jerome De vir. ill. 59.
