Believe it or not, I generally shy away from trying to explain highly technical issues of translation in the Bible since I am by no means an expert in either Hebrew or Greek. However, I thought that the following example might prove to be of special interest in showing the great amount of time and energy scholars take over even the smallest issues relating to the proper understanding of the Bible. The particular passage in question is an important one to commentators, as witnessed below, since it deals with the issue of Christ's divinity.
Concerning Romans 9:5, Bruce Metzger in his Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament spends three whole pages discussing the correct punctuation of this one verse.
Sandlay and Headlam state, “The interpretation of Rom. ix. 5 has probably been discussed at greater length than that of any other verse in the N.T.”
John Murray appends a four-page discussion of the verse to his two-volume commentary on Romans.
“F.C. Burkitt once said, with some exaggeration, that the punctuation of Romans 9:5 has probably been more discussed than that of any other sentence in literature.” (Witherington)
“The meaning of the rest of the verse [Rom. 9:5] is one of the most hotly disputed questions of the New Testament.” (Morris)
I will attempt as best as I can to summarize the main translation aspects involved here in a way that even I can understand.
First, look at how the NIV treats this verse. Their preferred translation (A) is “Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of the Messiah, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen.” But in a footnote, they offer two alternative translations: (B) “...Messiah, who is over all. God be forever praised” or (C) “...Messiah. God who is over all be forever praised!” Note that the major differences between the three possibilities are caused by the question of proper punctuation (comma or period) and where the punctuation is to be placed.
Deciding between these three options is unfortunately not just a matter of looking for the earliest manuscripts to see where they placed the punctuation. The reason is that for the most part the early manuscripts did not contain any punctuation at all. And, as Metzger and others point out, some of the manuscripts which do contain a certain amount of punctuation cannot be trusted since it is often obvious that later scribes had added them to the documents, sometimes using different types of ink.
Thus, the scholars studying this issue have little or no “external” evidence to go by and must fall back on “internal” evidence arguing, as to the most probable original meaning of the verse (i.e. the one that best fits the immediate context, the theology and writing style of the author, and consistency of teaching with the rest of the Bible).
Recapping the three possibilities laid out by NIV,
Option A treats the whole verse as one sentence with clauses separated by commas, and it states that Messiah (the Christ) is actually over all things, is called God, and is to be forever praised. Adhering to this understanding which equates Christ with God Himself are such translations as KJV, ASV, NRSV (with C as an alternative), NASB, JB, AB, J.B. Phillips, and The Message.
Option B treats it as two separate sentences. The first states that Christ is over all, and the second is a doxology of praise to God. This “compromise” option (a) does not really really resolve any of the real issues separating A and C; (b) of the translations I have canvassed, only The Living Bible takes this view; (c) Fitzmyer for one discards this option as being improbable; and (d) most other commentators do not even mention it as a possibility. Therefore, we will not consider it any further in the discussion below.
Option C also treats it as two separate sentences, but with the break after Christ instead. Thus, according to this translation it ends with a doxology to God who is over all and to be praised. This is the favored understanding of RSV, NEB (with A or B as alternatives), TEV, and commentators such as Barclay and Kasemann.
Option D has also been invoked on occasion. It involves a rearrangement of the Greek text from ho on to hon ho, meaning “(and) to whom (belongs) the one overall, God, blest forever!” Since there is no manuscript evidence for this possibility, commentators such as Fitzmyer reject it as being improbable.
Thus we are left with the “high christology” of Option A or a passage such as C which treats the last part of the verse as a separate doxology to God the Father. Here are some of the main arguments pro and con regarding these two possibilities:
Grammar and Context
Almost all comments relating to these two aspects of the subject are found to be in favor of Option A:
Metzger notes in favor of A the fact that it best suits the structure of the whole sentence. Changing the subject to God at the end is “awkward and unnatural.” In the same vein, Morris says, “To have the doxology apply to God requires a very abrupt change of subject.” Witherington arrives at the same conclusion when he states that “the most natural way to read the grammatically difficult phrase in Romans 9:5” is as one sentence.
And Fitzmyer says, “In the light of the context, in which Paul speaks of his sorrow over Israel's unbelief, there seems to be no psychological explanation to account for the introduction of a doxology at this point.”
“Both the context and the internal development of the sentence imply that this doxology is addressed to Christ.” (Jerusalem Bible) Similarly, Morris notes that “a joyful doxology is out of place.”
Murray makes the following observations: “Grammatically or syntactically, there is no reason for taking the clauses in question as other than referring to Christ.” In terms of the immediate context of the verse, he notes that since Paul is listing the privileges of Israel, “witout some predication expressive of Jesus' transcendent dignity there would be a falling short of what we should expect in this climctic conclusion.”
Christ “according to the flesh”
This phrase appears in the first half of the verse and gives rise to the following observations, again all in favor of adopting Option A:
Davidson and Martin state, “An even more telling point in favour of the ascription of the phrase to Christ is that some such designation of the Lord as 'God over all' seems required to balance 'according to the flesh,' i.e. as regards His human descent. Paul complements this with a statement as regards His eternal being.”
Witherington puts it this way, “Kata sarka in Romans 9:5a is unnatural in its present form if the speaker does not go on to say what Christ is according to something else besides the flesh.”
And Morris echoes this argument when he says, “The reference to Christ 'according to the flesh' looks for an antithesis. It would be very unexpected to have this as all that is said of him.”
External Evidence
As mentioned above, this type of evidence is not necessarily to be relied on too heavily. However, even here, what evidence there is again points to Option A:
“The early Fathers, including many whose native language was Greek, usually take the words [in the last half of the verse] to refer to Christ.” (Morris)
Metzger notes that all of the Church Fathers who mention this verse understood it to all refer to Christ. And thirty early manuscripts place a period after “flesh” leaving the rest of the verse to concern Christ.
Doxology
Option C treats the end of Romans 9:5 as a separate doxology to God whereas in Option A it can be considered as either a doxology to Christ or as just the end of the long sentence regarding Christ rather than being a doxology at all. And again, for several reasons, the evidence points to A as the most likely possibility. Witness the following statements.
Witherington notes that “it is almost a universal pattern for doxologies in the Hebrew and LXX [Greek Septuagint] to be 'blessed be God,' not 'God blessed,' as we have here if one translation [Option C] is followed. So the likelihood is that 'God blessed' does not express a wish that God be blessed forever, but that the Messiah, who is God, is by nature blessed forever.” Fitzmyer also brings up this fact.
Zahn introduces another piece of evidence by stating that Paul's true doxologies always attach themselves to that which precedes. But that is not at all the case here; if it is a doxology to God, it is introduced as a totally separate thought (some would say a rather jarring thought) compared to Paul's ideas in the previous verses.
Murray aptly summarizes the situation thusly, “The reasons necessary to support the thesis that Paul had here departed from the usual, if not uniform, formula for doxology would have to be conclusive.”
So what are the “conclusive” rebuttals offered by those who adhere to Option C as the proper understanding of the verse? The few offered are summarized below with corresponding rejoinders by those who hold to Option A instead:
Doxologies are always offered to God, not to Christ.
This is an exceedingly weak argument in light of two facts: (a) As explained above, those who prefer Option A generally do not consider Romans 9:5 as a doxology at all, and (b) Fitzmyer notes the following doxologies in the NT which are addressed to Christ – Revelation 1:6; 5:13; 7:10; II Peter 3:8 and possibly II Timothy 4:18 and I Peter 4:11.
Consideration of I Corinthians 15:27-28
Fitzmyer points to those treating Romans 9:5 as two separate sentences (Option C) as citing I Cor. 15:27-28 as a “definitive” passage for rejecting Option A. That is because it explains that after all things are accomplished, Jesus will become subordinate to the Father. Thus, there is no way that Paul could consider Christ to be equal to God. I have dealt with this subject earlier in my post titled “The Son's Eternal Submission to the Father,” but suffice it to say here that Christ's submission to the Father by no means precludes him being a full part of the Godhead even if the respective functional roles of the members of the Trinity differ.
Paul's “low” Christology
In his report on the deliberations made by the team working on the third edition of United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament, Metzger states that all of the factors given above in favor of Option A were duly recognized but finally rejected since “none of these considerations seemed to be decisive, particularly since nowhere else in his genuine epistles does Paul ever designate 'the Christ' as 'God.'”
Numerous NT scholars, however, have responded to this “decisive” argument by quoting passages by Paul in which he strongly infers the full deity of Christ. One could even begin by citing Metzger himself who states that Philippians 2:6 comes close to making this statement. He also admits that the Committee did not take Titus 2:13 (“...while we wait for the blessed hope and the manifestation of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ.”) into account due to its supposed non-Pauline origin.
Other passages dealing with the divinity of Christ that have been suggested by commentators for study include: I Cor. 8:6;12:3; II Cor. 3:17: Phil. 2:6,11; Col. 1:19; 2:2,9; and II Thess. 1:2,12. Thus, as Murray concludes, “it is may not be dogmatically affirmed that Paul never uses the predicate theos of Christ.”
In the final analysis, however, it must be admitted that if Option A is the correct interpretation of this verse, it demonstrates in a much more definite manner the high christological belief of Paul. L.C. Allen believes he has an explanation as to why Paul would come down so definitively on this point in this particular epistle: “In the face of the general Jewish denial that Jesus was the Messiah, Paul is driven in reaction to avow his own recognition of Him in terms stronger than he tends to use elsewhere.”
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments