Message

Codex Boernerianus and Romans 1.1b-5a.

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.

Codex Boernerianus and Romans 1.1b-5a.

Postby Ben C. Smith » Fri Jun 24, 2016 5:19 pm

I recently started a thread in search of a Pauline Christology as a precursor for this current investigation. To get right to the point, I have found myself more and more persuaded of late that Romans 1.1b-5a constitutes an interpolation. Neil Godfrey recently offered a link to a page of what appear to be his own notes on the topic, which lacks any mention of codex Boernerianus (since the case is being made for 1.2-6 in their entirety, not exactly the part of the text omitted by Boernerianus). But Neil makes this up in another blog post of his elsewhere.

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 (NASB, modified to match G): 1 Paul, a slave of Jesus Christ, called as an apostle set apart for the gospel of God, 2 which He promised beforehand through His prophets in the Holy Scriptures, 3 concerning His Son, who was born from the seed of David according to the flesh, 4 who was declared the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead, according to the spirit of Holiness, Jesus Christ our Lord, 5 through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith among all the Gentiles, for the sake of His name, 6 among whom you also are the called of Jesus Christ; 7 to all who are in Rome in the love of God [NA27: beloved of God], called as saints: grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

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:

The opening verses introduce the adoptionist doctrine that Jesus was only declared to be the Son of God at the resurrection. This also contradicts Romans 8:3... where the author accepts that it was “his Son” that God sent to earth, ostensibly “as” His Son, prior to any death and resurrection.

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: http://earlywritings.com/forum/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:

Image
Last edited by Ben C. Smith on Sun Jun 26, 2016 8:00 am, edited 1 time in total.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΕΘΕΙΑ
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
 
Posts: 3609
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA

Advertisements

by »

 

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

Postby Secret Alias » Fri Jun 24, 2016 6:40 pm

Very cool. Thanks so much. Always informative!
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
User avatar
Secret Alias
 
Posts: 6991
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

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

Postby Bernard Muller » Fri Jun 24, 2016 6:46 pm

The codex is dated 9th century.
Also Rom 2:17-24 is missing.
Also missing are 1 Cor. 3:8-16, 6:7-14, Col. 2:1-8, Philem. 21-25.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Boernerianus
I cannot see a pattern explaining why these passages were purposely omitted (but a space (lacuna) was allotted for each one of them).
But because of all that, I won't trust it about passages being non existent in the original manuscript.

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.

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
Bernard Muller
 
Posts: 2565
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm

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

Postby Ben C. Smith » Fri Jun 24, 2016 7:11 pm

Bernard Muller wrote:The codex is dated 9th century.


Yes.

Also Rom 2:17-24 is missing.
Also missing are 1 Cor. 3:8-16, 6:7-14, Col. 2:1-8, Philem. 21-25.


True. It seems worth pointing out that these other omissions do not leave a smooth syntax in their wake. Well, Philemon [1.]21-25 does, for whatever it may be worth (at the verse break between 20 and 21), but it is the entire end of the epistle that is missing, so there is nothing to continue the syntax after the break like there is with Romans 1.1b-5a.

I cannot see a pattern explaining why these passages were purposely omitted (but a space (lacuna) was allotted for each one of them).


The omission of these other passages appears to be accidental, given that the remaining syntax is broken (or given that there is no epistolary closure in the case of Philemon). 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.

But because of all that, I won't trust it about passages being non existent in the original manuscript.


I agree that the manuscript is pretty weird.

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.


See? Wriggle room.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΕΘΕΙΑ
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
 
Posts: 3609
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA

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

Postby Bernard Muller » Fri Jun 24, 2016 7:19 pm

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,

"called as an apostle among all the Gentiles" does not sound right.
"called as an apostle to/for the Gentiles" would make more sense.
The exemplar probably had the text in question but that was unreadable due to stains or other causes.

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
Bernard Muller
 
Posts: 2565
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm

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

Postby Ben C. Smith » Fri Jun 24, 2016 7:28 pm

Bernard Muller wrote:
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,

"called as an apostle among all the Gentiles" does not sound right.


There is nothing ungrammatical about it. What sounds wrong about it to you?
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΕΘΕΙΑ
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
 
Posts: 3609
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA

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

Postby Ben C. Smith » Fri Jun 24, 2016 7:46 pm

If Paul can preach among the gentiles and obtain fruit among the gentiles, why can he not be an apostle among the gentiles?

Galatians 1.15-16: 15 But when He who had set me apart, even from my mother's womb, and called me through His grace, was pleased 16 to reveal His Son in me, that I might preach Him among the Gentiles [ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσι], I did not immediately consult with flesh and blood....

Galatians 2.2: 2 And it was because of a revelation that I went up; and I submitted to them the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles [ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσι], but I did so in private to those who were of reputation, for fear that I might be running, or had run, in vain.

Romans 1.1a+5b (G): 1a Paul, a slave of Jesus Christ, called as an apostle 5b among all the Gentiles [ἐν πᾶσιν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν], for the sake of His name....

Romans 1.13: 13 And I do not want you to be unaware, brethren, that often I have planned to come to you (and have been prevented thus far) in order that I might obtain some fruit among you also, even as among the rest of the Gentiles [ἐν τοῖς λοιποῖς ἔθνεσιν].
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΕΘΕΙΑ
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
 
Posts: 3609
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA

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

Postby Ben C. Smith » Fri Jun 24, 2016 8:01 pm

One may have noticed that Boernerianus has Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ in Romans 1.1 where the NA27 has Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ. I decided to compare Boernerianus to Vaticanus in this respect across all the epistolary greetings, and this is what I get:

Verse
Boernerianus
Vaticanus
Romans 1.1Jesus ChristChrist Jesus
1 Corinthians 1.1Christ JesusChrist Jesus
2 Corinthians 1.1Jesus ChristChrist Jesus
GalatiansJesus ChristJesus Christ
EphesiansJesus ChristChrist Jesus
PhilippiansJesus ChristChrist Jesus
ColossiansChrist JesusChrist Jesus
1 ThessaloniansJesus ChristJesus Christ
2 ThessaloniansChrist JesusJesus Christ
1 TimothyChrist Jesus-
2 TimothyChrist Jesus-
TitusJesus Christ-
PhilemonChrist Jesus-

Where Vaticanus is extant, these two manuscripts disagree (5 times) more often than they agree (4 times). Not sure this proves anything of note, but the exact sequence seems to be pretty flexible from manuscript to manuscript and from epistle to epistle.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΕΘΕΙΑ
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
 
Posts: 3609
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA

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

Postby Bernard Muller » Fri Jun 24, 2016 8:55 pm

to Ben,
There is nothing ungrammatical about it. What sounds wrong about it to you?

"I am an apostle to the Gentiles" (Rom 11:13).
That's what Paul would have said: apostle to the Gentiles.
Also, in your quotes, I see "among Gentiles" not "among all the Gentiles" (except for Rom 1:5).
"all" is odd in "called as an apostle among all the Gentiles". And then, that could be understood as such: all the Gentiles called Paul as an apostle.

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
Bernard Muller
 
Posts: 2565
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm

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

Postby Ben C. Smith » Fri Jun 24, 2016 9:22 pm

Bernard Muller wrote:to Ben,
There is nothing ungrammatical about it. What sounds wrong about it to you?

"I am an apostle to the Gentiles" (Rom 11:13).
That's what Paul would have said: apostle to the Gentiles.
Also, in your quotes, I see "among Gentiles" not "among all the Gentiles" (except for Rom 1:5).
"all" is odd in "called as an apostle among all the Gentiles". And then, that could be understood as such: all the Gentiles called Paul as an apostle.


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".

"Among the gentiles" is functionally the same as "among the rest of the gentiles" in Romans 1.13. You + the rest = all.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΕΘΕΙΑ
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
 
Posts: 3609
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA

Advertisement

by »

 

Next

Return to Christian Texts and History

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot], MrMacSon and 54 guests