Featured KJV Defense of Romans 8:1

If you took away from John 3:16 in a copy a day after John himself wrote it and it was preserved and was the only 1st century copy of the Gospel in existence today, would that make it right against all other 1700 copies of John 3:16 that preserved it intact up to this day? Of course not.

As for Rom 8:1, there is far more reason for a critic to remove the expression because of its tension with 7:25 than that anyone would add a blatant difficulty into the text. This is textual criticism 101.

 

Unless you don't rely so much on internal evidence. Yay Sturz!!!

 

Hi Tim,

Not sure what Sturz would have chosen here, since there are both Alexandrian and Western witnesses with the addition, including two of the three early versions (Latin in the West and Syriac the East). Plus there is a strong consensus of Greek manuscripts and the internal evidence of the addition being much harder than the omission and thus more likely to be original.

 

Your denial that earlier sources are superior to later, more copied sources, as textual criticism 101 betrays a bias for the more corrupt sources.

To claim all the modern scholars who chose to exclude what they believe is an addition, were wrong because they lacked your expertise in textual criticism cuts no mustard. They may indeed be wrong, but evidence rather than absurdity should be offered. Dr. Wallace says the evidence is compelling against your view. What specifically is wrong with the evidence presented?

 

Hi Van,

1. The oldest text, not the oldest manuscript, is to be preferred. Dan Wallace would agree, as he says the "angry" Jesus in Mark 1:41 is original, even though all Greek manuscripts except one say Jesus was compassionate. The one that doesn't is from the 5th century. Do you follow Wallace at Mark 1:41? If not, why not?

2. The earliest manuscripts are no automatic guide to the original reading (contra Phil Comfort) or an excuse to refuse to do honest textual criticism. This fact is what drove Michael Holmes, the more mainstream final student of Bruce Metzger (the more radical being Bart Ehrman) to state:

3. For Rom 8:1, Paul often repeats things verbatim within short spaces of text. See my previous post on another thread (KJV Copyist Error? Romans 8:1 and 8:4) for exact instances of this Pauline feature.

4. Textual criticism 101 says that scribes take away apparent contradictions and difficulties, not add them. This is where Wallace's explanation out of thin air withers. To believe Wallace's explanation, one has to believe that a scribe would "insulate the gospel from being characterized by too much grace" how? By apparently condemning Paul himself to damnation under a simple reading of the text! Paul says he serves the law of sin with his flesh in 7:25, so let's say there's no condemnation only to those who don't walk according to the flesh in 8:1, in effect introducing a possibly inextricable difficulty into the text. No, this is not how scribes acted. In fact, it was just this kind of simple reading of the text that would have caused a scribe, probably one in Egypt or the early West from whence Egypt derived their early copies, to remove the apparent difficulty.

5. If you accept Wallace's view, not only did a scribe have to do what they did not normally do (textual criticism 101), but they had to get all the Greek-speaking churches, which were continually copying manuscripts and using manuscripts that were passed down to them, to stop using the ones that were passed down but to start using the ones that had the wrong text. We already know that the West with the Latin Vulgate had the more difficult reading (the addition) and the East with the Syriac did as well. Where did the easier reading (the omission) have currency? In Coptic in Egypt and some old Latin witnesses, probably an indication of the area where the error arose.

All of these, not any one in isolation, give good reason to accept the reading that apparently has always dominated the manuscript tradition, especially since the earliest manuscripts derive from mainly one location and thus are cannot be thought to be indicative of the entire manuscript tradition in every other region of Christendom at that time. By the way, Dan Wallace has no advanced degree in textual criticism (his was in Greek grammar). I am not one that claims degrees are any definitive proof of competence, but in this case I do in fact have an advanced academic degree in none other than N.T. textual criticism.

 

Coming right out of chapter 7, the natural progression would have been to have it read that God grace was upon those who did not walk after their own flesh, as paul described himself at onre point doing, so to remove that would have been jarring to the text, so good evidence the original never included it!

 

Sorry you don't get it. Maybe next time.

 

there is no "not get it', for can there be a certainity here as to which rendering is actually preserving the original one?

 

You mean the ONLY inerrant text from God?

 

Hi Jonathan, let me repeat my understanding of what you assert.

1) Scribes fix problems, and in doing so, introduce corruptions.

2) The more copies of copies are made, the more opportunity for scribes to fix problems.

3) So while the earliest copies are more probable as containing the least corruptions, it remains possible that an older copy may have the original text, while an earlier copy may be corrupted.

I certainly agree with all that.

Dr. Wallace, I believe would agree with that too, i.e. angry rather than compassionate.

Your explanation of the corruption, in your eyes the deletion of last part of the phrase, then all of the phrase, because the scribes were fixing your perceived problem seems to simply dismiss the idea that the scribes were fixing Dr. Wallace's perceived problem.

I think the deletion of the last part of the phrase, walk by the Spirit, is problematic for your view. Any comment. If they were deleting to fix a problem why delete the part that ameliorates the problem, and leaves the starkest part of the problem?

 

Actually, most scribes just left the text alone. When they did change it for theological reasons, they didn't add text but rather omitted or changed the text.

See, e.g., Frederik Wisse, "Redactional Changes in Early Christian Texts" (pp. 39–53 in Gospel Traditions in the Second Century [ed. William Petersen; Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1989]), who says, "There is also a limited amount of evidence for ideological redaction, i.e., attempts to correct what appear to be factual 'errors' or questionable theological statements. However, this is not done through interpolations but by changing words and by minor omissions" (p. 52; emphasis mine).

Even though most scribes just left the text alone, we have to deal with the few texts that are remnants of those who didn't leave it alone. Thus the need for textual criticism.

I do not agree that the earliest manuscripts are inherently more likely to preserve the original reading. In fact, my own investigations have tended to show that they do not. Furthermore, most of the so-called special readings, i.e., those neither in the Nestle/UBS text nor the Majority text, are from none other than the earliest manuscripts. But since all Greek manuscripts from before the 4th century derive from Egypt or that area, there is no reason to think that those manuscripts are representative of what the text looked like in more developed Christian areas, such as Asia Minor, for example.

How do we know the text of most manuscripts is superior to that of the few? By using internal evidence of widely accepted rules of textual criticism to judge every variation on a sequential basis. The sequence of text (or text-type) with the fewest alterations is thus superior. You can see a sample of this process at the following website: A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament.

Thus early or late as regards the date of a physical manuscript is irrelevant. What matters, and it has always been this way, is the date of the text of a manuscript, not the date of the manuscript. The original text is always the earliest. That's why in our little exchange earlier I said that the text of a first-century copy of John 3:16 with half of it missing would not be earlier than the text of 1800 manuscripts of John from the 5th through 16th centuries. I hope this much is clear. If not (ει δε μη -- haha!), there really is no reason to go further.

 

I have no doubt that TR is correct on this verse.

Absolute majority of manuscripts contains the latter part. Even Alexandrinus has ; μη κατα σαρκα περιπατουσιν

My question is about the comma placed by KJV.


1) Do the born-again Christians follow the Spirit (not after the flesh) all the time?

2) Will there be no condemnation onto the Believers even if they commit sins?

I believe there will be No Death Penalty or no judgment leading the Believers to the eternal death.
But for the behaviors of the sins, is there no condemnation onto the Believers who do not follow the Spirit but the flesh, once they are in Jesus Christ?

This question makes me think about the comma placed in the KJV translation.

 

Romans 8:1

There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. - KJV

What if we translate it as follows ?

There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus and walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit.

I believe Verse 4 confirms that the latter part is the genuine part of the Bible.


Romans 8:4

That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

People who object to KJV may say that this portion was copied, then included in verse 1.

But the truth is that all Christians are not exempted from the condemnation even when they do not follow the Spirit and commit sins, though they are free from the condemnation of eternal Death.

 

Not true, many times interpolations are found in the text, where something in one gospel, is copied into a parallel gospel account. Here we are dealing with the interpolation of a clause in Romans 8:4.

There is no reason to go further, you did not even address Dr. Wallace's reasoning for the clause being added in two separate versions.

1) The earlier the date of the manuscript, the more probable the text reflects an earlier date. With each copy the possibility of intentional and unintentional corruptions occurs.

2) The Critical text abounds with examples of additions to the text by ever helpful copyists, such as in 1 John 5:8. Your denial of any additions is absurd.

Lets return to Romans 8:1 (NKJV) There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit.

Does this addition create or resolve a perceived theological problem? No. Some read this as saying there is now no condemnation if you do not sin. Not what it says. In verse 5 we see the same phrase worded slightly and tellingly differently. Here those who walk according to the flesh are "according to the flesh" thus the idea is those who walk according to the flesh are unsaved.

Paul repeatedly adds to his statements concerning salvation a clause that basically says if you are really saved. For example, if you endure to the end. In that verse those saved will endure to the end, thus enduing to the end proves salvation, it does not provide salvation.

In sum, it appears that the phrases were added as interpolations, just to make the same point about being really saved.

The deletion view falls apart when looked at in sequence. We have some texts, late ones (2x, D2, 33vid and I) with the whole clause. Then we have earlier ones with part of the clause (A D1,81, 365, 629 pc vg). So we are asked to believe some scribes deleted "but according to the Spirit", but left "who do not walk according to the flesh." Then still earlier scribes deleted "who do not walk according to the flesh." Nonsense! If they were deleting to fix a problem why delete the part that ameliorates the problem, and leaves the starkest part of the problem?

 

You don't read very well, since we were not talking about blanket "interpolations" but rather corruptions due to theological difficulty (both Wallace's and my assertion for Rom 8:1). Since you don't understand the basic argument, all the rest of your note is irrelevant.

 

Hi Jonathan,
I am talking about the interpolation from Romans 8:4 to Romans 8:1, the same one Wallace is talking about in his footnote. Perhaps one of us does have trouble reading.

Here is the question once more. The deletion view falls apart when looked at in sequence. We have some texts, late ones (2x, D2, 33vid and I) with the whole clause. Then we have earlier ones with part of the clause (A D1,81, 365, 629 pc vg). So we are asked to believe some scribes deleted "but according to the Spirit", but left "who do not walk according to the flesh." Then still earlier scribes deleted "who do not walk according to the flesh." Nonsense! If they were deleting to fix a problem why delete the part that ameliorates the problem, and leaves the starkest part of the problem?

 

Wallace says the addition came about because of an apparent theological problem. Most theological problems, however, are solved not by adding text but by deleting or altering the text. See the article by Wisse that I mentioned in a previous post.

How are most of the mss you mention earlier? The mss. 81, 365, 629 are not any earlier than all the ones with the whole clause. Besides, the date of a ms is no indication of the date of its text. For example, I mentioned in a previous post 1 Cor 15:54, where the bulk of all later manuscripts have an earlier text than all of the earliest witnesses (including Irenaeus, p46 ℵ* C* 088 0121 0243 etc.).

No. Since all the manuscripts that have the shorter addition are Alexandrian mss, the more reasonable explanation is that they are indeed secondary to the Alexandrian omission, i.e., they reflect the knowledge (perhaps from memory or patristic commentaries) that their predecessor text was missing a clause but didn't have accurate mss at hand for restoring it precisely. They did the best they could with what they had and knew.

 

Dr Wallace said they were earlier and earlier still. Are you saying the dating given by Dr. Wallace is wrong?

The date of the manuscript is important when we are talking about an action of the scribes copying the manuscript, either adding the clause, the Dr. Wallace view, shared by CT advocates, and the deletion view, held by Byzantine advocates.

1) The earliest, according to Dr. Wallace had no addition of the interpolation from Romans 8:4. OTOH, you claim non-existent copies earlier that these, had the addition.

2) The next later batch had part of the addition according to Dr. Wallace. You claim these were flawed (from memory) efforts to restore the deletions supposedly in the earliest but non-existent copies.

3) The latest copies have the full interpolation according to Dr. Wallace. You claim these are actually copies, not from memory as the earlier ones were, of the non-existent copies containing the full addition.

4) Does not hang together at all for me.