From: Carl W. Conrad (cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu)
Date: Wed Dec 04 1996 - 07:24:32 EST
At 10:48 PM -0600 12/3/96, Mitchell Andrews wrote:
>It is important to note that in the earliest Greek MSS., there is a
>punctuation stop after TO KATA SARKA. An example of the effect this has
>is shown in the Revised Standard Version:
>Romans 9:5 to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to
>the flesh, is the Christ. God who is over all be blessed for ever. Amen.
>(Note the period before God).
> ... (intermittent material deleted)
>Further, TO KATA SARKA represents a natural end to a complete grammatical
>sentence, there is nothing else needed to complete the clause. There is a
>natural pause after SARKA. This natural pause after SARKA is driven home
>by the fact that we find an punctuation point (roughy corresponding to a
>colon) after SARKA in all our oldest MSS, namely, A, B, C, L, ... and
>dozens of cursives have a stop after SARKA.
While I agree with most of the reasoning of this lengthy response, I think
that the facts regarding punctuation in the oldest MSS are somewhat
misrepresented above. Metzger has a very lengthy note on this in his
_Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament_ 2nd ed. While noting in the
course of his argument the point made by Mitchell Andrews above that "four
uncial manuscripts (ABCL) and at least twenty-six minuscule manuscripts
have a point after SARKA, either by the first hand or by subsequent
correctors," he goes on to say, "In both cases the tradition, whether
patristic or palaeographical, originated at a time subsequent to Paul's
writing (i.e. dictating; cf. 16:22) the passage, and is therefore of
questionable authority." And he begins his 3-page discussion of this
problem by stating sharply, "the earliest manuscripts of the New Testament
are without systematic punctuation." In a footnote he cites the most
significant bibliography on the two viewpoints regarding this question.
At 2:57 AM -0600 12/4/96, Rod Bias wrote:
>Carl W. Conrad wrote:
>>
>> However, it appears to me that the UBS4 editor does NOT so understand it
>> that way, but rather thus: "Of whom [the Jewish people] are the fathers
>> [patriarchs], out of whom [the Jewish people] is the Messiah--so far as his
>> physical manifestation is concerned--blessed forever [be] God who is over
>> all."
>
> As I recall (I don't have UBS4 at hand, but did check this out
>previously.), UBS3 editors (by a 3-2 vote) understood the passage along
>the lines you give above. However UBS4 gives the preference to the
>punctuatuion which would refer to Christ as God. This was one of the
>places where they reversed themselves. Can someone else quote or
>condense the footnote? Bruce Metzger (originally in the minority -- now
>in the majority) discussed this passage at some length (3+ pages) in _A
>Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament_ (UBS3 companion volume).
>Metzger quotes Westcott and Hort as supporting the "Christ ... who is
>God over all" position in these words: "The juxtapostion of hO CHRISTOS
>KATA SARKA and hO WN k.t.l. seems to make a change of subject
>improbable."
UBS4 does print the text with a comma after TO KATA SARKA and no
punctuation at all after QEOS. I see that Rod Bias has cited, from the 1st
edition of Metzger's Commentary, the same statement about punctuation that
I have above from the 2nd edition. However, I am unable to glean from
Metzger's note whether he sides with the minority which preferred a comma
after TO KATA SARKA, thereby enhancing the possible interpretation of the
remainder of the verse as appositional--or with the majority that rejected
that interpretation. What Metzger does is to cite the reasons supporting
both arguments, including those later cited in Rod Bias' statement as
Metzger's own for the appositional interpretation, but as I read the note
in the 2nd edition, I can't see that Metzger expresses a personal
preference for either view over the other. Rather he cites as clearly and
fully as possible the counter-arguments for the two positions.
>> So ultimately the choice between the alternatives must fall to the
>> prayerful and thoughtful reader of the passage.
>
> Moulton's (4-vol set) _Grammar_ (p. 228) also discusses "Christ ... who
>is God over all" and concludes: "It is exegesis rather than grammar
>which makes the reference to Christ probable." See the entire
>discussion. Moulton refers to Sanday and Headlam p. 235 and following,
>("with whom I agree" -- Moulton).
Exegesis rather than grammar--and maybe a bit of eisegesis as well. I'll
stick with my previous statement: ultimately the choice between the
alernatives must fall to the prayerful and thoughtful reader of the
passage. Some may decide on the baasis of which authorities are lined up on
which side, but the fact is that there are authorities on both sides of the
matter and the issue is not going to be settled by a majority vote, even if
a committee of editors puts it that way. When the printed text meets us, it
offers us the alternatives and it is up to us to come to our own
conclusions as to what we believe the text says and means.
I don't think there's any great danger of this question being resolved to
everybody's satisfaction in the near future; sharply-divided opinions and
opposing arguments are likely to persist. But I think it is worth noting
that we have no clear evidence regarding how the original author, Paul,
--or his amanuensis--would have punctuated this verse, if he had known any
clear standard of punctuation.
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO, USA 63130
(314) 935-4018
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cwc@oui.com
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:58 EDT