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: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"?
No, I am saying that it would mean "determine to be son of god", not "determine to be god" or "deify". You quoted the lexicon as if one meaning of the word ὁρίζω itself was "determine one to be a god, deify," and that is not the case. The lexicon at that point was defining the word in context of a particular phrase, and it is the entire phrase that means "deify".

I suspect you wish to interpret the English word "determine" in its secondary sense, to ascertain or find out by research or investigation. I suspect it would be inconvenient for you if the lexicon was using it in its primary sense, to cause something to occur. Am I right?

Ben.
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:
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.
Codex Boernerianus preserves some very early readings. Remember, a manuscript copied in the ninth century from a fourth century exemplar is just as valuable as a manuscript copied in the fifth century from a fourth century exemplar. (I am not saying we know the age of this manuscript's exemplar; I am just saying that later does not always mean less valuable.)
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 »

Most of you are probably aware that many scholars hold 1 Corinthians 14.34-35 to be an interpolation; part of the argument for this position is that several Pauline manuscripts postpone these verses to the end of the chapter, placing them after 14.40 and before 15.1, implying some confusion over where to insert them. Codex Boernerianus is one of those manuscripts:

boernerianus1corinthians14.jpg
boernerianus1corinthians14.jpg (128.14 KiB) Viewed 3765 times
Last edited by Ben C. Smith on Tue Jun 18, 2019 1:49 pm, edited 2 times in total.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

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

Post by Peter Kirby »

We shouldn't really be surprised to find an interpolation at the beginning of Romans. The Catholic Christian party took the Marcionite canon, known to be Galatians first, and supplanted it with their own collection of Pauline texts that puts Romans first. The beginning of Romans presents an obvious opportunity to put in material that would allow the canon to be used as a refutation of Marcionite Christians. [for some relevant information, see the notes from Neil Godfrey]

This is also why you'd expect the extant manuscript support for the original to be thin to non-existent.

Like everything else, there's no easy way into this subject. Try to pick at one thread, and you will have to deal with ten others. Almost nothing's going to resolve itself cleanly and clearly in isolation.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
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 »

In another post I listed instances of the verb ὁρίζω from the LXX and the Greek NT. But I had not fully gone through them yet. The time has come.

The question here is how good a word ὁρίζω is for expressing that some contingency which is already the case is now being declared, shown, made known, proven, or acknowledged. For the interpretation to which Bernard is subjecting this word in Romans 1.4 is that Jesus was already, in fact, the son of God, but he was finally declared to be the son of God by his resurrection. The other interpretation on the table is that this word is expressing a new state of affairs: Jesus was not the son of God all along, but now, at his resurrection, he is.

The following instances from that list of instances of ὁρίζω involve binding oneself with an oath:

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."

I do not think that what is in view here is an oath already taken and now finally being recognized. No, the person is making an oath here and now. There was no oath in effect before, but now there is one. This usage is consonant with Jesus becoming the son of God at his resurrection, not merely being recognized as such.

The following instances involve the setting of boundaries or borders around land:

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."
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."

Again, I think the sense is clearly that previously unmarked land is being marked off. There is no phase in view during which the land is marked off but not yet recognized as such. The borders are not being discovered in these verses; they are being created, and once created they will continue to mark off the land in perpetuity.

The following instance involves the casting of lots:

Proverbs 18.18: The lot puts an end to contentions and decides between the mighty.

There is a period before the decision is made; the lot is cast; and then there is a period in which the lot's decision prevails. I do not see a time period during which the decision has been made but nobody knows it yet.

The following instance is similar, but instead of a lot making the decision it is a person:

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.

The following instances involve the issuing of decrees:

Daniel 6.12: Then they approached and spoke before the king about the king's injunction, "Did you not issue an injunction [determine] 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 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.

Again, I do not see these verses as implying a period during which the decree is unknown, finally to be declared publicly. First there was no decree. Then the decree was issued (determined, made). And now there is a decree in force.

I am honestly not sure about this next instance:

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.

Is the evil already there, and now being revealed by the man's lips? Or are the lips actually creating evil (in the form of ill-meant words)? The Hebrew seems to mean someone who pinches or presses his lips together, so the Greek is not very close in meaning here.

This brings us to the New Testament instances:

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."

Note that, every time the translation "determine" is used of the verb in question, it means a decision and not a discovery; it is speaking to the moment when something new is put into play, not to any moment when something already in play is merely being declared or acknowledged or demonstrated. Where the translation is "appoint", it is God doing the appointing; it seems highly unlikely that God is discovering or merely declaring/acknowledging Jesus to be the eschatological judge; no, God is making him the judge, deciding that he will be the judge. In Acts 17.31 the appointment or determination is specifically distinguished from the proof of it to all humankind. Jesus was appointed (time unspecified), and then his appointment was proven by the resurrection. By contrast, Romans 1.4 places the appointment itself at the resurrection.
Last edited by Ben C. Smith on Sat Dec 03, 2016 4:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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 »

Scholars routinely argue that Paul is drawing upon an already established creedal tradition of some kind in Romans 1.3-4. Part of the argument is the appearance of elements only here in the Pauline letters. Charles Talbert, for instance, writes on page 32 of his Commentary on Romans:

“Son of David” is used only here in the undisputed [Pauline] letters; the verb horizein (to appoint) is used only here in Paul; the Semitic phrase “spirit of holiness” is not Paul’s usual way of speaking (cf. T. Levi 18:11); the contrast between flesh and spirit is used in a non-Pauline way but in a way like that found in other traditional passages (1 Tim 3:16; 1 Pet 3:18); the association of Jesus’ sonship with the resurrection is unlike Paul in his letters but like Acts 13:33, which probably also reflects pre-Pauline tradition.

Acts 13.32-33, then, reads as follows:

"And we preach to you the good news of the promise made to the fathers, that God has fulfilled this promise to our children in that He raised up Jesus, as it is also written in the second Psalm, 'Thou art My Son; today I have begotten Thee.'"

Psalm 2.7, of course, is used of the baptism in Matthew 3.17 = Mark 1.11 = Luke 3.22 (especially in Bezae). Here it is used of the resurrection. Thus the idea that Jesus was begotten as son at the resurrection seems to have been available in early Christianity, and Romans 1.4 looks very much like a piece of this tradition.

ETA: Douglass Moo adds the following on page 44 of his New International Commentary:

The phrase "holy Scriptures" occurs only here in Paul.

Last edited by Ben C. Smith on Sat Dec 03, 2016 4:35 pm, edited 2 times in total.
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 »

The venerable Ernst Käsemann, on pages 11-12 of his Commentary:

The traditional doctrine of the two natures of Christ has always hampered interpretation at this point, as the textual variants already show (cf. L. C. Allen, "Background," 104ff.) with their reference to divine predestination. Luther notes in the scholia to his lecture that it is doubtful whether there has ever been any correct exposition. Yet ὁρίζεν τινά τι, as in Acts 10:42; 17:31; Ign. Eph. 3:2, can mean merely "define someone as something, appoint as something" (still against the consensus of more recent commentaries is Ridderbos, Paulus, 66: "gerehabiliteerd" [rehabilitated], although the Eng. tr. has "vindicated" [Paul, 67]). The reference here is to the enthronement of Christ as Son of God, and the Spirit of holiness was the power which accomplished this. This view may correspond fully to the passage in Testament of Levi, but it is unusual in Paul. For the apostle the Spirit proceeds from Christ or represents him, but the Spirit does not act upon him. It seems, then, that the statement is pre-Pauline and must be part of the original formula.

We are thus granted a perspective by which to understand these verses. As in Mark 12:35; 2 Tim 2:8 and the infancy stories, the title "Son of David" is ascribed to the earthly Jesus, as befits the messianic king according to Ps. Sol. 17:21fI. (cf. also 4QFlor on 2 Sam 7:1lff.). There can thus be no question of a theology of humiliation in v. 3b (Kramer, Christ, 109; Wengst, Formeln, 115). The one described in earthly terms as the messianic king is destined for appointment and enthronement as Son of God and thus follows a course which is divided into two stages by the Resurrection (but cf. Schlier, "Zu Rom 1, 3f.," 212ff.). It can be seen that this understanding has been constantly obscured by the influence of the doctrine of the two natures and the consequent reference to Jesus' two modes of existence (Lietzmann; Kiihl; Lagrange: Kuss; Althaus; Black). Unlike Paul himself the formula does not presuppose the preexistence and divine sonship of the earthly Jesus (contra Lietzmann). The antithesis of the two lines and the use of the term "appoint" make it clear that Jesus receives the dignity of divine sonship only with his exaltation and enthronement. Hence the two participles speak expressly of becoming rather than being. As in Acts 2:36; 13:33 one detects the adoptionist christology of primitive Christianity (Dodd; Knox; Eichholz, Paulus, 128ff.; Schweizer, TDNT, VI, 417; Hahn, Titles of Jesus, 248f.; Stuhlmacher, "Probleme,'' 382; Wengst, Formeln, 114). ἐξ ἀναστάσεως νεκρῶν, in the temporal sense, marks the decisive turning point (Lietzmann; Hahn, Titles of Jesus, 250 contra the grammatically possible causal view of Schweizer, Erniedrigung, 91; Gaugler; Murray; Ridderbos).

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,
No, I am saying that it would mean "determine to be son of god", not "determine to be god" or "deify". You quoted the lexicon as if one meaning of the word ὁρίζω itself was "determine one to be a god, deify," and that is not the case. The lexicon at that point was defining the word in context of a particular phrase, and it is the entire phrase that means "deify".

I suspect you wish to interpret the English word "determine" in its secondary sense, to ascertain or find out by research or investigation. I suspect it would be inconvenient for you if the lexicon was using it in its primary sense, to cause something to occur. Am I right?
In the primary sense of "determine", we would have:
"And caused to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:"
which of course is conflicting with Gal 4:4 & Rom 8:3.
But it is not the case for the secondary sense.
Note that, every time the translation "determine" is used of the verb in question, it means a decision and not a discovery;
But "decided" does not go against my case:
"And decided [by men] to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:"
What made the decision to consider Jesus as the Son of God is his resurrection from the dead.

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:In the primary sense of "determine", we would have:
"And caused to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:"
which of course is conflicting with Gal 4:4 & Rom 8:3.
Ding ding ding. Yes. Exactly so.

My argument is that the lexicon was using the English word "determine" in its primary sense. (This should not be an argument over English words, though; Paul wrote in Greek, not in English. What is a good example of the Greek word in question being clearly used in your preferred sense?)
Bernard Muller wrote:
Note that, every time the translation "determine" is used of the verb in question, it means a decision and not a discovery;
But "decided" does not go against my case:
"And decided [by men] to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:"
You are using variances in the English word "decide" to help you pin down the meaning of a Greek word. Of course I meant "decide" in a constitutive sense, which is the sense I find in most if not all of the examples I listed from the LXX and the NT. In which of the instances of the word in question do you find your preferred meaning?

Also, it does not bode well for your interpretation that you have to basically rewrite the verse, inserting "by men" when the context nowhere suggests it.
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,
My argument is that the lexicon was using the English word "determine" in its primary sense. (This should not be an argument over English words, though; Paul wrote in Greek, not in English. What is a good example of the Greek word in question being clearly used in your preferred sense?)
from http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... Do(ri%2Fzw a meaning for 'orizw' would be "2.to determine for oneself, to get a thing determined, Dem."

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
Post Reply