Boernerianus, known as G amongst the Pauline manuscripts, has strange gaps in various places, and one of these gaps falls right at the beginning of the epistle to the Romans, at the spot where we ought to find Romans 1.1b-5a, but that text is missing. Gaps like this in other manuscripts are often explained as indications that the scribe was working with an exemplar which lacked the text in question, but knew that something belonged there, and thus left room for it. However this may be, G offers some evidence of a text that proceeds directly and smoothly from 1.1a to 1.5b: the syntax is intact, and one would never know that anything was missing were it not for other manuscripts.
Besides lacking 1.1b-5a, Boernerianus also lacks the address to Rome both in 1.7 and in 1.15. Harry Gamble discusses this extensively in The Textual History of the Letter to the Romans.
The red text below represents what is missing from Boernerianus; the green text represents what has been altered; and the underlined text bears a different word order:
Romans 1.1-7 (G: codex Boernerianus): 1 Παῦλος δοῦλος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, κλητὸς ἀπόστολος ἀφωρισμένος εἰς εὐαγγέλιον θεοῦ, 2 ὃ προεπηγγείλατο διὰ τῶν προφητῶν αὐτοῦ ἐν γραφαῖς ἁγίαις 3 περὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ τοῦ γενομένου ἐκ σπέρματος Δαυὶδ κατὰ σάρκα, 4 τοῦ ὁρισθέντος υἱοῦ θεοῦ ἐν δυνάμει κατὰ πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης ἐξ ἀναστάσεως νεκρῶν, Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν, 5 δι᾽ οὗ ἐλάβομεν χάριν καὶ ἀποστολὴν εἰς ὑπακοὴν πίστεως ἐν πᾶσιν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν ὑπὲρ τοῦ ὀνόματος αὐτοῦ, 6 ἐν οἷς ἐσταὶ καὶ ὑμῖς κλητοὶ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, 7 πᾶσιν τοῖς οὖσιν ἐν Ῥώμῃ ἐν ἀγαπη θεοῦ, κλητοῖς ἁγίοις, χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ ἰρήνη ἀπὸ θεοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν καὶ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ.
Romans 1.1-7 (NA27): 1 Παῦλος δοῦλος Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ, κλητὸς ἀπόστολος ἀφωρισμένος εἰς εὐαγγέλιον θεοῦ, 2 ὃ προεπηγγείλατο διὰ τῶν προφητῶν αὐτοῦ ἐν γραφαῖς ἁγίαις 3 περὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ τοῦ γενομένου ἐκ σπέρματος Δαυὶδ κατὰ σάρκα, 4 τοῦ ὁρισθέντος υἱοῦ θεοῦ ἐν δυνάμει κατὰ πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης ἐξ ἀναστάσεως νεκρῶν, Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν, 5 δι᾽ οὗ ἐλάβομεν χάριν καὶ ἀποστολὴν εἰς ὑπακοὴν πίστεως ἐν πᾶσιν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν ὑπὲρ τοῦ ὀνόματος αὐτοῦ, 6 ἐν οἷς ἐστε καὶ ὑμεῖς κλητοὶ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, 7 πᾶσιν τοῖς οὖσιν ἐν Ῥώμῃ ἀγαπητοῖς θεοῦ, κλητοῖς ἁγίοις, χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη ἀπὸ θεοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν καὶ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ.
My posting of the thread about Pauline Christology was an attempt to lay out all of the evidence for and/or against the following point made by Neil:
Galatians 4.4-5 also appears relevant in this regard. Philippians 2.5-11 certainly has something important happen at the exaltation (which I presume lines up with the resurrection), but that something does not involve being called the Son of God, a title absent from the so-called Christ Hymn.
I see some potential wriggle room in the exact phrasing of Romans 1.4 inasmuch as Christ is said to have been declared the Son of God with power at his resurrection, but having wriggle room is not the same thing as it being a good idea to take advantage of it.
What do you think? What is the status of Romans 1.1b-5a? Is it integral to the text of Romans, or is it an interpolation? If the former, why does Boernerianus lack it, and how does the Christology here line up with the Christology elsewhere in Paul? If the latter, why is Boernerianus the only manuscript (to my knowledge) that seems to lack it? In either case, what do you think of the rest of the arguments adduced by Neil? Also refer to the list of scholars that Peter Kirby offers for regarding (at least parts of) this passage as an interpolation: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1839&p=40594#p40587 (scroll down to the line in the notes section: "Peter Kirby remarks concerning Romans 1.1b-5a").
Ben.
PS: Here is an image of the page in question from codex Boernerianus: