ROMANS 8 TEXTUAL PROBLEMS

Fitzmyer considers this chapter to form “a certain peak in Paul's whole discussion, because it seeks to bring out the reality of the new aeon and of the new life that human beings can now lead in union with Christ and through his Spirit. It also stresses how God's love is poured out on his human creatures. Divine love is seen as the counterpart of divine uprightness.”

“Until now Paul has used pneuma five times only and some of these do not refer to the Holy Spirit. But in this chapter the term occurs 20 times, the most in any one chapter in the New Testament.” (Morris)

1 Fitzmyer notes regarding this verse that a number of Greek manuscripts, as well as the Latin Vulgate, add 'who walk not according to the flesh.' But that is not the reading in the best MSS...and is clearly derived from 8:4. Still other MSS...add the same phrase, but also alla kata pneuma, 'but according to the Spirit.'”

Metzger agrees: “The shorter text, which makes the more general statement without the qualification that is appropriate enough at ver. 4, is strongly supported by early representatives of both the Alexandrian and the Western types of text...”

Murray's opinion is that “the external evidence is such that we cannot assume the genuineness of this addition in whole or in part. It is most likely that it was inserted from the end of vs. 4 in the course of transcription. In the later case there is no textual question.”

2 “Me” = “you” or “us” in other manuscripts. Fitzmyer weighs the evidence on each side, but concludes, “It is not easy to say which fits the context better...In any case, Paul clearly means the justified Christian.” Murray similarly states, “The sense is not affected.” And adding to this consensus is Morris: “Not much depends on the point because either way Paul clearly means the term to apply to any believer.”

NRSV: Here the Greek word you is singular in number; other ancient authorities read me or us.”

3 The Greek reads literally “For sin.” But NIV has “as a sin offering,” echoing the Septuagint's use of the phrase applied to sacrifices for sin.

11a Morris explains, “The Spirit is not usually linked with resurrection, but here he seems to be. It is not clear whether Paul is saying that the Spirit is to be the agent in the raising us or the guarantee that we will be raised. Both are true, and it does not seem to matter greatly which way we resolve the textual problem.” He adds: “There seems no compelling reason for choosing either [of the two textual possibilities].”

Comfort agrees with Morris' assessment: “Either reading could be original. The first indicates agency (God will resurrect believers through the indwelling Spirit); the second indicates cause (God will resurrect believers because they have the Spirit).”

11b NRSV “Other ancient authorities read the Christ or Christ Jesus or Jesus Christ” for the second mention of him in the verse.

12 The sentence here breaks off in the middle and implies that we are debtors to the Spirit. It starts out with a strong expression which in the Greek is literally “wherefore therefore.” It is a deduction from the theological truths that preceded in order to give an application in living.

13 “Paul uses soma, 'body,' as the synonym for sarx, 'flesh,' which some MSS even introduce as a correction...” (Fitzmyer)

15-16 The Greek word for spirit appears four times in these verses. Since there was no capitalization in the original Greek to distinguish spirit from Spirit, this causes some uncertainty in how to translate and understand the text. Thus, in contrast to the obvious references to the Holy Spirit in vv. 13-14, the two occurrences in v. 15 and the second appearance in v. 16 more likely have the meaning of a disposition or frame of mind (8:15) and a component of man's make-up (8:16).

21 Fitzmyer explains that there are two different readings in the existing manuscripts: either hoti ('that') or dioti ('because'). He opts for the first since, “The reading dioti...probably developed by dittography (elpidi hoti becoming elpidi dioti). This verse explains the hope.” Note: dittography is an accidental error made by a scribe in which he repeated a word or some letters in the text, di in this particular case.

Murray points out, “Notable editors follow the latter reading [i.e. dioti].” By contrast, Morris feels that hoti is to be preferred.

23 NEB note “Some witnesses [i.e. manuscripts] omit 'make us his sons and'.” “The textual variants in this verse do not materially change the sense.” (Murray) Morris admits that “there is textual uncertainty” but concludes that “Paul is clearly emphasizing the truth that none less than believers join in the groaning.”

“Several witnesses, chiefly Western...omit huiothesian [ i.e. 'adoption'], a word which copyists doubtless found to be both clumsy in the context and dispensable, as well as seeming to contradict ver. 15.” (Metzger)

24a NEB note: Some witnesses read “why should a man hope...” Fitzmyer comments: “In the long run the sense is little affected.” 24b NRSV note “Other ancient authorities read 'Who awaits' in place of 'who hopes.'” Again, as Murray points out, “The sense is not materially affected.”

25 JB note: alternative reading in the Latin Vulgate “The Spirit bears witness to our spirit.”

26 NRSV note: Other ancient authorities add for us after intercedes.Fitzmyer expresses the opinion that “It may be a copyist's added phrase.” Comfort aggrees with that view in that “for us” is only supported by one 7^th cent. manuscript.

28 RSV note: “Other ancient authorities read in everything he works for good, or everything works for good.” Fitzmyer feels, “Any one of them would suit the context.” Comfort adds, “It is God who turns everything to good; it is not just that everything works out for the good.”

Morris says, “A few MSS read 'God works all things...' This gives a excellent sense and is accepted by RSV. But it is hard to understand why it is read by so few MSS if it is correct and involves us in a problem with the Greek construction.” To explain this issue, he notes that the Greek of this variation really indicates that God works together with all things, and states, “But God is sovereign, not a partner, working 'with' the things he has made.”

31 “Most MS read hos ge (which is emphatic, 'he who' or 'the same one who,' even with a causal nuance, 'seeing that he')...but MSS D, F, and G read hos oude tou idiou huiou, 'who did not spare even his own Son.'” (Fitzmyer)

34a Both Murray and Comfort point out that the manuscript evidence is pretty much divided here over the issue of whether the verse should read “Christ Jesus” or just “Christ” alone.

34b Fitzmyer rejects the addition of the words “from the dead,” saying “but that is almost certainly a copyist's explanatory addition.” The shorter reading is found in the better and older manuscripts.

35 Fitzmyer similarly rejects the reading '(the love) of God that is in Christ Jesus' as “almost certainly a copyist's harmonization with v 39...” Comfort finds confirmation in that view by taking into account the amount of space allotted to a missing text in two early manuscripts.

38 “Paul has ten items in his list. The manuscripts vary a little, but he seems to arrange them in four pairs, along with two single items.” (Morris)

Morris opts for the listing in which the last items mentioned are: “things present,” “things to come,” and “powers” in that order. The reason for that judgment is given as “the diversity of the [manuscript] evidence in its favor. It is also the more difficult reading.” That last reason may sound counterintuitive, but it makes actually good sense since it is highly unlikely for a scribe to purposely change a text to make it less understandable to the reader, while the reverse change is much more likely to take place.