Codex Boernerianus and Romans 1.1b-5a.

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Codex Boernerianus and Romans 1.1b-5a.

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Bernard Muller wrote:ὁρισθέντος is fairly ambiguous and can mean "defined", "determined", "declared".
Anyway, I do not see any conflict: Jesus can be determined (by humans) to be the Son because of his alleged resurrection. That does not mean the Son was not pre-existent and not sent on earth by God. Only that he was "incognito" as a man, not revealing he was the Son in any ways.
I want to add here, for the sake of future conversations, that the stance you are taking resembles that of many evangelical apologists, not only in your defense of the extant text as it stands in most manuscripts, but also in your explanation of the title "Son of God" being attached to the resurrection (rather than to pre-existence) in this passage by reference to the meaning of the participle ὁρισθέντος. For example:

In verse 4 the Greek word translated as “appointed” should really be translated as “declare” or “show”. This interpretation has, as my friend Greg said, a noble pedigree. It was the accepted understanding of Chrysostom, Martin Luther, John Calvin, Charles Hodge, B.B. Warfield, and Robert Haldane.

(The article goes on to offer a different kind of apology for this verse, but you can see how common your approach has been in the annals of Christian apologetics.)

Now, I honestly do not care how many apologists you agree with in your interpretation of these texts. As I have noted before, sometimes apologists get it right; sometimes they even have excellent ideas. I am not bringing this up as an ad hominem against your argument; rather, I am reminded that you have used ad hominem arguments against me before:
Bernard Muller wrote:In Galatians? No he did not. Just that a prominent apologist made a point from Paul going to Arabia and then goes on with some far-fetched parallels between Paul and Phinehas/Elijah, even saying Paul tried to imitate Phinehas &/or Elijah.
Bernard Muller wrote:I think you are taking cover behind some anonymous various scholars, which I think might be Christians and therefore taking an apologist stand for 1 Corinthians 15:4.
The first quote is of no great moment, but the second quote ought to strike you as supremely ironic by now: as if I would "take cover" behind Christian scholars as part of an apologetic stance for 1 Corinthians 15.4 when all along I lean toward regarding most of 15.3-11 as an interpolation. I kept the scholars anonymous in that thread because (A) I wanted to focus on the matter at hand and not on a list of names and (B) because the position I hold has been held by so many different scholars whom I have read over the years that naming a few would be futile, and I cannot ever hope to remember all of them; it is such a common position. I did mention that at least one of the scholars is a Christian while at least one of them is an atheist, and these two were, respectively, N. T. Wright and Robert M. Price.

But I digress. My point is that it does no more good for you to condemn my arguments on the basis of their resemblance to apologetics than it does for me to do the same to you when your arguments resemble apologetics. Again, just a point for future conversations.

Now, as for the verb ὁρίζω, which of the following instances best approximate(s) the meaning you would find for it in Romans 1.4?

Numbers 30.2 (30.3 LXX): "If a man makes a vow to the Lord, or takes an oath to bind himself with a binding obligation, he shall not violate his word; he shall do according to all that proceeds out of his mouth."
Numbers 30.3 (30.4 LXX): "Also if a woman makes a vow to the Lord, and binds herself by an obligation in her father's house in her youth...."
Numbers 30.4 (30.5 LXX): "...and her father hears her vow and her obligation by which she has bound herself, and her father says nothing to her, then all her vows shall stand, and every obligation by which she has bound herself shall stand."
Numbers 30.5 (30.6 LXX): "But if her father should forbid her on the day he hears of it, none of her vows or her obligations by which she has bound herself shall stand; and the Lord will forgive her because her father had forbidden her."
Numbers 30.6 (30.7 LXX): "However, if she should marry while under her vows or the rash statement of her lips by which she has bound herself...."
Numbers 30.7 (30.8 LXX): "...and her husband hears of it and says nothing to her on the day he hears it, then her vows shall stand and her obligations by which she has bound herself shall stand."
Numbers 30.8 (30.9 LXX): "But if on the day her husband hears of it, he forbids her, then he shall annul her vow which she is under and the rash statement of her lips by which she has bound herself; and the Lord will forgive her."
Numbers 30.11 (30.12 LXX): "...and her husband heard it, but said nothing to her and did not forbid her, then all her vows shall stand, and every obligation by which she bound herself shall stand."
Numbers 34.6: "As for the western border, the Great Sea shall mark it off, that is, its coastline; this shall be your west border."
Joshua 13.7: "Now therefore, apportion this land for an inheritance to the nine tribes, and the half-tribe of Manasseh. From Jordan to the great sea westward thou shalt give it them: the great sea shall mark it off."
Joshua 13.27: ...and in the valley, Beth-haram and Beth-nimrah and Succoth and Zaphon, the rest of the kingdom of Sihon king of Heshbon, and the Jordan shall mark it off, as far as the lower end of the Sea of Chinnereth beyond the Jordan to the east.
Joshua 15.12: "And the Great Sea shall mark off the western border, even its coastline. This is the border around the sons of Judah according to their families."
Joshua 18.20: Moreover, the Jordan shall mark it off on the east side. This was the inheritance of the sons of Benjamin, according to their families and according to its borders all around.
Joshua 23.4: "See, I have apportioned to you these nations which remain as an inheritance for your tribes, with all the nations beginning at Jordan; and some I have destroyed; and the Great Sea shall mark it off westward."
Proverbs 16.30: And the man that fixes his eyes devises perverse things, and marks out with his lips all evil: he is a furnace of wickedness.
Proverbs 18.18: The lot puts an end to contentions and decides between the mighty.
Ezekiel 47.20: "This part of the Great Sea marks it off, till one comes opposite the entrance of Emath. This is the west side."
Daniel 6.12: Then they approached and spoke before the king about the king's injunction, "Did you not issue an injunction that any man who makes a petition to any god or man besides you, O king, for thirty days, is to be cast into the lions' den?" The king answered and said, "The statement is true, according to the law of the Medes and Persians, which may not be revoked."
3 Maccabees 5.42: The king, just like another Phalaris, a prey to thoughtlessness, made no account of the changes which his own mind had undergone, issuing in the deliverance of the Jews. He swore a fruitless oath, and determined forthwith to send them to Hades, crushed by the knees and feet of the elephants.
3 Maccabees 6.36: They made a public ordinance to commemorate these things for generations to come, as long as they should be sojourners. They thus established these days as days of mirth, not for the purpose of drinking or luxury, but because God had saved them.
Luke 22.22: "For indeed, the Son of Man is going as it has been determined; but woe to that man by whom He is betrayed!"
Acts 2.23: "...this Man, delivered up by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death."
Acts 10.42: "And He ordered us to preach to the people, and solemnly to testify that this is the One who has been appointed by God as Judge of the living and the dead."
Acts 11.29: And in the proportion that any of the disciples had means, each of them determined to send a contribution for the relief of the brethren living in Judea.
Acts 17.26: "And He made from one, every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times, and the boundaries of their habitation...."
Acts 17.31: "...because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead."
Hebrews 4.7: He again fixes a certain day, "Today," saying through David after so long a time just as has been said before, "Today if you hear His voice, Do not harden your hearts."

Do any stand out to your mind? (This is not a trick question; I only now assembled them all, and have not reviewed each and every one of them very carefully yet.)

Ben.
Last edited by Ben C. Smith on Sun Jun 26, 2016 8:21 am, edited 1 time in total.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Codex Boernerianus and Romans 1.1b-5a.

Post by Bernard Muller »

to Ben,
Romans 11.13 does not have "to the gentiles". I checked before I posted. "Apostle to the gentiles" appears nowhere in the Pauline corpus. In Romans 11.13 it is "apostle of gentiles".
With the correction: "I am an apostle of the Gentiles" (Rom 11:13).
That's what Paul would have said: "apostle of the Gentiles", not "apostle among all the Gentiles".
"all" looks also suspicious: could Paul claim dealing with "all" the Gentiles: hardly so.

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Codex Boernerianus and Romans 1.1b-5a.

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Bernard Muller wrote:With the correction: "I am an apostle of the Gentiles" (Rom 11:13).
That's what Paul would have said: "apostle of the Gentiles", not "apostle among all the Gentiles".
He uses that phrase once. Once. That is not enough to establish a pattern.
"all" looks also suspicious: could Paul claim dealing with "all" the Gentiles: hardly so.
Yet that is exactly what he does, whether the interpolation is there or not: he is either an apostle among all the gentiles or his calling is to produce the obedience of all the gentiles. And he claims to have produced fruit among the rest of the gentiles.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
TedM
Posts: 855
Joined: Sun Oct 13, 2013 11:25 am

Re: Codex Boernerianus and Romans 1.1b-5a.

Post by TedM »

Ben C. Smith wrote: In the case of Romans it may be accidental, as well; if so, then the fact that the syntax works would be just a coincidence.
Just as the relevance/importance of a chiasm requires further examination of the context and of the overall usage of chiasms, the same applies to passages that make sense when portions are removed. There are a number of other combinations that would work:

If you number the passage as follows:


1 Paul

2 a slave of Jesus Christ,
3 called as an apostle
4 set apart for the gospel of God,

[gospel of God]
5 which He promised beforehand through His prophets in the Holy Scriptures,
6 concerning His Son,

[His Son]
7 who was born from the seed of David according to the flesh,
8 who was declared the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead,
9 according to the spirit of Holiness,

10 Jesus Christ our Lord,
11 through whom we have received grace and apostleship

[we have received]
12 to bring about the obedience of faith

13 among all the Gentiles,for the sake of His name,

14 among whom you also are the called of Jesus Christ;


It looks to me like the following combinations of consecutive passages can be removed, with the syntax still working.

2
2,3
3,4,5,6
3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10a
4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11
4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12 - the Boernerianus
5,6,7,8,9,10,11
5
6,7,8,9,10,11
7
8
7,8,9
7,8,9,10
7,8,9,10,11
8,9
8,9,10
8,9,10,11
9
9,10
9,10,11
10
10,11
11

This is a minority of all consecutive passage combinations in the overall passage, so one might say that a 'working' outcome would be less probable by chance than a non-working one, but there are several other 'omissions' that would work.
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Codex Boernerianus and Romans 1.1b-5a.

Post by Bernard Muller »

to Ben,
According to http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... Do(ri%2Fzw
Apparently, one definition for ὁρίζω is "determine one to be a god, deify".
Another one "determine for oneself".

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Codex Boernerianus and Romans 1.1b-5a.

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Bernard Muller wrote:to Ben,
According to http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... Do(ri%2Fzw
Apparently, one definition for ὁρίζω is "determine one to be a god, deify".
Look at the phrase that is being defined at that point:

ὁ. τινὰ θεόν determine one to be a god, deify

That phrase means to "determine to be a god" precisely because it says so, with the word θεόν (= accusative of "god") right there in the phrase. That is a great parallel for the phrase in Romans 1.4, but there instead of "god" we find "son of god". Therefore the meaning in Romans 1.4 would be "determine to be a son of god," because that is what it says.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Codex Boernerianus and Romans 1.1b-5a.

Post by Ben C. Smith »

TedM wrote:If you number the passage as follows....
You have divided the passage into discreet sense units, each one a coherent phrase or clause on its own. If you work only with sense units, then of course a lot of combinations are going to make sense. But the other lacunae in Boernerianus do not retain complete sense units, at least not ones that mesh together well; that is why I think those omissions are accidental in nature. In order to test the hypothesis that this omission was accidental but somehow makes sense anyway, you would have to do the math word by word, not phrase by phrase, since an accidental lacuna can conceivably fall anywhere. (If the hypothesis is rather that the omission was on purpose, then of course the approach to testing it will have to be completely different.)

That said, I think there was probably a slight tendency in manuscript transcription to reduce truncated sentences down to complete sense units. Imagine finding something like this: "I ate the apple. Th." The "th" at the end is obviously the start of a new sentence or at least a new clause, but we cannot tell whether it was going to be "the" or "then" or "thermonuclear"; and, even if we did know or could guess, it would not be complete. Under such circumstances, with no other exemplar available to remedy the loss, I think it possible that scribes might wind up omitting the "th" at the end. It is also possible that a scribe might know from previous experience that the next phrase is supposed to be "the apple tasted bitter," and will fill it out; and of course it will come out in full sense units if that happens.

But I do not think this tendency is strong enough on its own to account for the sense that this lacuna makes. It was not strong enough, after all, to make sense of the other lacunae. Some of the other lacunae actually can be seen as making grammatical sense, probably because of the scribal smoothing that I described above, but they make mincemeat of the logical sense of the passage, whereas in Romans 1.1a-5b the sense that remains is just fine.

Here are the other omissions; the red slash (/) marks the lacuna:

Romans 2.14~25: For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness, and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, on the day when God judges / your circumcision becomes uncircumcision.
1 Corinthians 3.7~16: So then neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but God who causes the growth / lives in you. If any man destroys the temple of God, God will destroy him, for the temple of God is holy, and that is what you are.
1 Corinthians 6.5~15: I say this to your shame. Is it so, that there is not among you one wise man who will be able to decide between his brethren, but brother goes to law with brother, and that before unbelievers and not before saints? Do you not know / or do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I make them members of a harlot? May it never be! Or shall I then take away the members of Christ and make them members of a harlot? May it never be!
Colossians 2.1~8: For I want you to know how great a struggle I have on your behalf, and for those who are at Laodicea / of the world and not according to Christ.
Philemon [1.]20~25: Yes, brother, let me benefit from you in the Lord; refresh my bowels in Christ. / ....

Now, 1 Corinthians 3.7~16 actually comes out to be grammatical, but the expression ending verse 7 is not at all what one would expect, and the metaphor of destroying the temple comes out of the blue. Philemon [1.]20~25 comes out fine grammatically, but it is not analogous since the entire remainder of the epistle is absent, so there is no phrase waiting to make sense (or not) at the other side of the gap; and of course this lacuna means that the epistle remains without a closing. The other three lacunae leave grammatical and/or syntactical nonsense behind them. Only Romans 1.1a-5b seems to make complete sense as it stands.

Ben.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Codex Boernerianus and Romans 1.1b-5a.

Post by Bernard Muller »

to Ben,
That phrase means to "determine to be a god" precisely because it says so, with the word θεόν (= accusative of "god") right there in the phrase. That is a great parallel for the phrase in Romans 1.4, but there instead of "god" we find "son of god". Therefore the meaning in Romans 1.4 would be "determine to be a son of god," because that is what it says.
Are you saying because it is "a god" in the example, "determine" cannot be a valid translation if "a god" is replaced by "the Son of God"?

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
TedM
Posts: 855
Joined: Sun Oct 13, 2013 11:25 am

Re: Codex Boernerianus and Romans 1.1b-5a.

Post by TedM »

Ben C. Smith wrote:
TedM wrote:If you number the passage as follows....
You have divided the passage into discreet sense units, each one a coherent phrase or clause on its own. If you work only with sense units, then of course a lot of combinations are going to make sense. But the other lacunae in Boernerianus do not retain complete sense units, at least not ones that mesh together well; that is why I think those omissions are accidental in nature.
That makes 'sense'. I hadn't looked at the others. Is anything known about the most likely source by this scribe? Ie, location, etc.? The 9th century seems a very long time for 2 different versions to co-exist - especially if the location of this one isn't far from the location of the 'orthodox' one.
gmx
Posts: 317
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2015 4:35 am

Re: Codex Boernerianus and Romans 1.1b-5a.

Post by gmx »

Since probabilistic analysis seems to be flavor of the month, I wonder if there is such an approach for determining the likelihood that this manuscript alone among the extant Greek texts represents the more primitive textual tradition?
I saw a Naked girl ,Slowly emerge in front of me,Greek hairstyle,Very beautiful,She has a beautiful [fine] profile.; She is fine in profile. the view of profile,hard to tell.
Post Reply