DCHindley

I lived there for a while too. Where'd you call home? I don't think Microsoft had a branch office there ... :constern01:

My Dad had a place in Belle Isle right on the lower lobe of Lake Conway. My job took me all around central Fla. This was early 80's. After a year, I moved to Brevard County (Merrit Island) for 2-3 more. Too hot/humid!

DCH

stephan huller

Yeah, when I was there I found the weather quite nice from November to April. The rest of the year it is quite difficult. It was also fun to find alligators in your pool, under your car! The people are generally quite stupid and poor which means its easier to find companionship, even if it means having intercourse - social intercourse of course - with people who don't even have a basic grasp of North American geography let alone the rest of the map. I remember dating a girl who didn't even know where Canada was and thought you could drive to Africa (like there was some big suspension bridge over the Atlantic Ocean!). That's why I guess Fark.com has a special 'Florida tag' for stories that demonstrate how stupid the people are down there.

DCHindley

Rollins College? May have been a bit too hoidy toidy for you. When did they kick you out?

No, perhaps the Navy Training Center (now closed, but I got a nice urinary tract infection from a girl I met there). Remember the sink-hole in Winter Park?

DCH

stephan huller

No it wasn't school. It was a much crazier story that I might one day turn into a movie.

DCHindley

Mmmm ... Went to Orlando to work as an entertainer at Dizzy, maybe Universal, maybe International Drive. However, your first day at work you drove west on Sand Lake Rd, but because you get your tire stuck in an extra sandy intersection in Dr Phillips, you get turned around and instead of a left at the "T" with Apopka-Vineland Rd, you took a right, and ended up totally lost. You stop at someone's house, and it's Jim Varney himself, who tells you you're in Apopka.

Luckily he hires you on the spot for the role of "Vern" in one of his upcoming movies. Once you pocket his card, he directs you to Orange Blossom Trail and you head south, not knowing of the low life strip clubs that line both sides of the road. You stop at one, "just to ask for directions," because it says "all the beer you can drink, free," and settle in for a few minutes to recharge your batteries, gazing in amazement at the underage dancer with the whole body tattoo (it was a snake, in full color).

When you realized that the beer had no alcohol content, you storm out in disgust. Without realizing it, you get into someone else's yellow 1963 Oldsmobile F85 Deluxe Cutlass Convertible (hey, the key worked) and off you flew, still hoping to make it to work on time. Along the way, you see this place that features a Drag Queen Show, and figure, you have an acting job lined up, no sense hanging drywall, so you stop to check it out. While the bare butted guys in chaps heading to the theme section of the establishment catch your attention, it is only for a moment, as the sound of 1960's era MoTown tickles your ears, and you watch the show.

Unfortunately, while you stand up to give an ovation, someone pinches your --- wallet --- and you think maybe it was the strange man who was sitting behing you getting a thrill. Amused, you get back on OBT. However, right at the intersection of SR-50, a sheriff's deputy pulls you over. He says the car you are driving is stolen, and wants to see your ID. "Sure" you assure him, slapping your back pocket, and then realize your wallet is missing.

Not sure you want to try to explain why you are driving a stolen car with no ID to a red neck cop who looks like smokey the bear, you pretend to reach in to "shut the engine off" as the deputy calls in for backup, but you're not waiting. Hopping in, you hit the gas instead and zig zag onto I-4, heading south. Luckily, the car you accidentally stole is the Jetfire model, and that turbocharger sent you flying well beyond the reach of the deputies. Well, at least you have your keys and about $20 in your pocket.

Figuring an APB has been broadcast, you feel you really need to find a quiet place to hide for a half day, so you pass Dizzy and get off at the Irlo Bronson Hwy and head east towards "Kiss-me". In town just where Rts 17-92 jogs north beck to Orlando, you remember your "connection" told you he operates an air boat ride company on Neptune Rd, so you take a right and then a left.

You pull into his parking lot with the 4 "seed" cars with flat tires, and barrel down the access road to where "Hog" Waller has his shop, and you pull the car in so no one sees it. "Hog" walks out, chicken grease on his dirty undershirt and some food remnants on his scraggly beard, so you tell him your story. Now it just so happened that "Hog" needs a feller to train to "rassle" with the 'gators, but you explain that your delicate disposition wouldn't hold up to that kind of punishment.

"Hog" stops to ponder a few moments, brushing the crumbs off his beard, and then he lets on that his supplier has a ranch nearby and needs a hand for a week. Well, you figure a little country air might be good for what ails yuh, so you say "Let's go!" Because the ranch is a tad on the remote side, "Hog" takes you on an air-boat ride through the swamps around Lake Tohopekaliga, past the fake "indian village" to a dock on the far south shore.

There to greet you, M-16 in hand, is "Loco" Innuendo, who owns a cattle operation (handy fact: Florida is in the top 2 states when it comes to beef production). "Yup" he says, spitting tobacco juice on your shiny wing tip shoe, "we can use a greenhorn for the drop t'uhmarruh." "Drop?" you think to yourself, but reason that he means "drop off some of them thar heifers to the slaughterhouse." Raul sets you up in the bunk house with a couple of derelicts who haven't appeared to have bathed for a week.

"What kind of pay do I get for this?" you asked "Loco," and he gave you the lowdown. His friends in "Mex-hico" would make a "dee-livery" at an old dirt landing strip in the center of the ranch. In exchange for offloading the cargo and hauling it to the nearby barn, you'd get a bale of weed. "Accordin' to Worker Compensation law here in Florida," he explains very matter of factly, "'in-kind' payments are exempt from reporting." You asked exactly how you can spend Columbian pot, and he says "at any bar."

And so began your career as a pot wrangler, and a really big hit at the local bars, until that day came when the deputies beat the crap, I mean "arrested" you in a raid, and sent you to the state prison. There, you start to read a lot, mainly Ephraim the Syrian, and drum up a conversation with Mr Holding, the librarian. He tells you there is a better life if you reform. After 2 years of "good behavior" the job that Jim Varney promised came to fruition and you earned your parole.

At least you will have stories to regale your children with for decades to come.

Amen.

DCH

jakejonesiv

There is good reason to suspect that the original version of Romans ended after what is now called chapter 14, and that chapters 15 and 16 developed late 2c., early 3c. around Alexandria, and only slowly migrated to the west. For example, both Marcion and Tertullian had the "14 chapter" version of Romans, and even Cyprian in the middle of the 3c. seems not to have known these chapters even in topics where they would have been very useful to him.

All extant versions of Romans contain sixteen chapters. But none of these texts date before the third century. And there are no citations from chapters 15 or 16 in the west before the mid-third century, even when one would expect it. (The Stromata dates to 202-203 or even 208-211). About 250 CE, Cyprian in Test. 3.68, 78 wrote about avoiding heretics without referring to Romans 16.17-19 - surely he would have done so if he had known the text.

There is strong evidence that Romans existed in earlier times in shorter versions. Even in extant texts, the doxology, the natural ending to the epistle, (found in modern versions at 16:25-27) occurs in various places; at the end of chapter 14 (L), the end of chapter 15 (p46), and the end of chapter 16. Some witnesses have the doxology twice; after chapter 14 and after chapter 16. Such variation in placement of a text indicates interpolation.

What is the evidence that a shorter version of Romans existed in the second century CE?

The _Concordia epistularum Pauli_, a guide to themes in the letters cross-referenced to the Amiatine chapters, has no themes in Romans after XLII, referring to Romans 14:17ff, and XLIII, cross-referenced to Amiatine Chapter LI. This indicates an underlying text that stopped after chapter 14. The same can be deduced from the chapter headings of Codex Fuldensis, the last heading describing chapter 14. Thus, before ever examining Marcion's version we have evidence for a short form of Romans. In the course of textual transmission, it is much more usual for texts to be expanded that cut
down.

The Marcionite Prologue to Romans refers to the letter being written in Athens! This would be impossible to believe if Romans 15.25-7 or Romans 16.1 existed.

Origen wrote that the Marcion’s version of Romans did not contain chapters 15 and 16. “Marcion, by whom the evangelical and apostolic writings were falsified, removed this section [16:25–27 the doxology] completely from the epistle, and not only so, but deleted everything from that place where it is written, ‘whatsoever is not of faith is sin,’ [14:23] right to the end.” Origen, Commentaria in epistolam ad Romanos, XIV, 1290 AB
Rufinus’s Latin version of Origen’s commentary “usque ad finem cuncta dissecuit. “ Most scholars read “dissecuit” as “cut it away all the way to the end” from Romans 14:23, of course (with the possible exception of the doxology?) . T.Zahn tenditiously reasons that Marcion would not have discarded all of this material, so he interprets it as “cut in pieces” meaning some was chopped out, but not all. But the evidence is that a text lacking chapters 15 and 16, not a mutilated text.

While it quite likely that Marcion’s text did not contain chapters 15 and 16, it would appear that Origen was wrong when he surmised that Marcion had deleted it. Tertullian, AM 5.14, refers to Romans 14.10 as “in clausula epistolae” (Latin), i.e. ‘in the conclusion of the epistle’. (See *Note below).
http://tinyurl.com/3qslbmo

But Tertullian made no comment on the lack of the last two chapters. Now Tertullian was careful to note not only where Marcion’s text differed from his own, but also where Marcion’s text was by comparison missing. For example, Tertullian wrote that the Marcionite epistle to the Romans did not contain parts of Romans chapter 2 and most of Romans chapters 9-11. Tertullian’s lack of comment concerning chapters 15 and 16 indicates that these chapters were not in either Marcion’s version or Tertullian’s version. Not
in either one.

The very much undercuts the dearly held belief in the literary unity of the book of Romans; that Paul was not the author of the so-called authentic epistles in their entirety.

What knowledge do we lose if chapters 15 and 16 are the work of one or more redactors? There are personal notes in chapter 1 and in chapters 15-16, but virtually none in the central part of the epistle.
(the destination of Rome is even in doubt; various manuscripts related to the alleged 14 chapter form do not contain the reference to Rome in 1:7,15). (Heck, chapter 16 is a perhaps a completely separate document and isn't even allegedly by Paul, it is by Tertius). In fact, without these chapters, Romans begins to look less and less like a letter, and more and more like a document of generic dogmatics.

It would seem likely that the 14 chapter version of Romans is the Vorlage or the sixteen chapter version. The next question is, did Marcion create the 14 chapter form, or did he utilize "pre-Marconite" 14 chapter Romans?

Here is a good reference to the textual history of Romans.

Textual History of the Letter to the Romans: A Study in Textual and Literary Criticism (Studies and Documents) (or via: amazon.co.uk) by Harry Gamble , Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company (January 1977). Gamble, as is the case of most modern critics, starts with the supposed priority of the Catholic version and assumes Marcion's "tendentious alterations" without any further scholarly research. This clouds his conclusions.

See also
http://www.theology.bham.ac.uk/resou.../lecture4b.pdf


Jake Jones IV

*Note: The argument against an original 14 chapter form is that is no reason to see a caesura between 14:23 and 15:1. It is claimed that the argument that finds its beginning in chapter 14 does not reach its logical conclusion until 15:6 or even 15:13. This is a good point. It seems that quite a few readers were comfortable with the text ending at 14:23. Perhaps the abruptness of the ending was the inspiration to add to it, much as the continuation to the gospel of Mark after 16:8.

But there is still some funny business left with the end of chapter 14. As Tertullian noted, the end of the epistle is near Romans 14:10. A close reading of chapter 14 shows that the discussion of food concludes with the uplifting 17-20, and then is jarringly re-opened with verse 21. It makes you want to object “We have been through that already!” As R.Price has pointed out in “The Nicene New Testament” 2006, this is evidence of text conflated from multiple sources.

aa5874

Any claim that Marcion was in possession of or knew of Pauline writings appear to be BOGUS.

The evidence suggests that Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings were really UNKNOWN up to the mid-late 2nd century.

stephan huller

Jake

I am talking to my wife on the phone with my laptop but Zahn isn't alone in this view. Those who claim 'cut out' means 'cut off' ignore the actual meaning of the Latin and follow Baur's efforts to bring the text in line with traditional assumptions about Marcion. Yet as the author of the English translation of the Commentary notes (agreeing with Zahn and against Baur) it doesn't make sense to think that Origen meant 'cut off' when the reference appears side by side with the statement that Marcion 'completely removed' 16:25 - 27. Why would Origen say Marcion 'cut out' everything after the end of chapter 14 and then in the next breath say that 16:25 - 27 was 'completely removed'? Zahn must be right. He is saying that what survives from the Catholic text of 15 and 16 was preserved 'cut up' or in pieces.

I think my developing thesis on the parallels between the Clementine and Marcionite citations of Romans will help solidify this argument. If you are interested I can show you a couple of examples which make the existence of a Marcionite Epistle to the Romans with only 'pieces' of chapters 15 and 16 likely.

jakejonesiv

Thanks Stephan. You might want to consider a Clementine origin. the evidence suggests that chapters 15 and 16 appeared first around Alexandria, and then only slowly gained acceptance in the west.

Jake

jakejonesiv

The epistle to the Romans has three separate endings. This is an indication of growth by adding text, much in the same way as the fourth gospel.

Origen stated that Marcion had a 14 chapter version of Romans. He claimed that Marcion “cut away” (dissecuit) all that followed 14:23. (Yes, Stephan, I am sticking with the "majority" on this reading!) But, as we shall see, that can hardly be the case. This is the standard tactic to cover for catholic redactions. And the fact that the proto-orthodox were established liars does indeed establish a modus operandi.

Tertullian never cited Romans 15-16 and referred to Romans 14 as the conclusion to the letter. This is the first ending. N/AThe doxology is assigned variously to the end of Romans chapters 14, 15 (P46), and 16 in the manuscript tradition. This textual confusion is caused by the fact that the original letter had been extended two times.

The epistle appears to want to end a second time at 15:30-33.
30 I beseech you, brethren, by our Lord Jesus Christ and by the love of the Spirit, to join me in the struggle by your prayers to God on my behalf,
31 that I may be delivered from that do not believe in Judaea; and that my ministry for Jerusalem may be acceptable to the saints,
32 so that I may come to you with joy by the will of God and be refreshed together with you.
33 The God of peace be with all of you. Amen.

That is clearly an ending, is it not?

The canonized version finally ends a third time with a catholicized version of the doxology.

Romans 16
25 Now to him who can strengthen you, according to my gospel and the proclamation of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery kept secret for long ages
26 but now manifested through the prophetic writings and, according to the command of the eternal God, made known to all nations to bring about the obedience of faith,
27 to the only wise God, through Jesus Christ be glory forever and ever. Amen.

But just before the final ending, we have a very revealing notation.
16:22 aspazomai umas egO tertios o grapsas tEn epistolEn en kuriO
16:23 aspazetai umas gaios o xenos mou kai olEs tEs ekklEsias aspazetai umas erastos o oikonomos

The name Tertius (gk tertios) is of Latin origin. It quite simply means "the third." He is allegedly the amanuensis of Paul in writing the epistle to the Romans. But he has a more active role than a mere note taker. It is Tertius who greets the readers of the Epistle in his own name.

I, Tertius, who write this letter, greet you in the Lord. Gaius, who is host to me [Tertius] and the whole church, greets you. Erastus, the city treasurer, and our brother Quartus greet you. Romans 16:22-23.

Tertius is not the amanuensis of Paul. He actually says no such thing. Paul is not even mentioned by name in the 16th chapter. This is merely the traditionalists’ attempt to save the unity of the epistle. “Tertius” is the non de plum of the catholic editor who added the sixteenth chapter. All the names mentioned are the early third century friends and acquaintances of Tertius.
N/A


Immediately after Tertius’ greeting, the text actually does end on the third try.

Jake Jones IV