Romans 8:1 - the Origen reference - apparatus rigging - "who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit."

[Steven Avery]

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.

The corruption versions will have inferior translation and will omit:
who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
And another variant has
who walk not after the flesh

Below I refer to these as Full, Part, Omit, eg.
AppFull - who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
AppPart - who walk not after the flesh
AppOmit - (blank)
means the placing of the 3 variants in the apparatuses.

This was being discussed on Facebook ....

Elijah Hixson

https://www.facebook.com/elijah.hixson.5/posts/10101457542929608

And is now on PureBible on Facebook.

Facebook - PureBible:
Romans 8:1 - Origen - apparatus rigging
https://www.facebook.com/groups/purebible/permalink/1892050247553522/

It came up since Spurgeon bought into the textual error in the Revision, which gave a very deceptive foonote (see towards bottom.) And the Spurgeon discussion was noted by Elijah Hixson, favorably, since Elijah also generally buys into the Westcott-Hort recension nonsense.

Added Oct 2, 2018
Elijah Hixson somehow read the above as if I was referring to the largely defunct Hortian theories of a Syrian/Lucian/Byzantine recension, which were a lynch-pin of Hortian confusions (he also had a Syriac recension as well.) And these arguments were artfully demolished in 1881 by a superb, for the ages, classical ad hominem argument given by John William Burgon, later published in 1883 in The Revision Revised. Westcott-Hort recension of course refers to the textual line from their secret text given to the Revision committee members starting in 1871, up through all the modern Critical Text corruption editions through the recent NA-28. What I wrote above was perfectly clear and accurate.

This Romans 8:1 verse, textual and harmony and doctrine, could be a whole study later. Right now I noticed that the apparatus wrongly lists Origen as favoring the mangled short version. (Later, I checked additional aspects of apparatus error in the ECW.)

Laparola
http://www.laparola.net/greco/index.php?rif1=52&rif2=8:1

However, go to Origen, to the translation from the Latin of Rufinus of his Romans commentary, and be surprised (I add some emphasis and formatting):

Origen:
After having taught what conflict there is in those who are caught in the struggle between a mind which lives according to the law of God and the desires of the flesh which lead them into sin,

Paul now goes on to talk not about those who are partly in the flesh and partly in the Spirit but about those who are wholly in Christ.

He declares that there is nothing in them worthy of condemnation.

Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans.1
1 CHR 3:286-88.

Romans
https://books.google.com/books?id=yVs2SQkeZEoC&pg=PA193

Origen, in exposition, simply flipped the order of the parts of the Pure Bible verse. This should be put in the apparatus as favoring the full text (either with or without parenthesis.) What type of doofus would actually claim that Origen's text above supports the short verse?

Added 10/3/2018:
Elijah Hixson felt that this was stated too definitively. Fair enough. The flipping the order of the verse I will simply assert is the best and most likely explanation of the evidences. The main alternative, that Origen dipped down to v. 4 and then coincidentally placed that right by v. 1 is surely possible, but far less likely.

Elijah also emphasized that his is a Rufinus Latin (Rufinus at times modified Origen to match his doctrinal preferences.) I simply do not feel that this really adds anything to the equation. The text stands as it is, there is always a remote possibility that the flip is Rufinus, but that does not change the apparatus. At most, "Ruf" can be put after "Lat"

======================

Read the whole section especially the same qualification 3 verses later.

Perhaps Spurgeon and Elijah Hixson would like to truncate Romans 8:4?

Romans 8:4
That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us,
who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

Later I noticed that the DoRightChristians article makes the same point. Actually, the two verses make for a doctrinal contradiction within the corruption versions.

Added Oct 2, 2018
Elijah Hixson agrees that the full version is true in Romans 8:1, but emphasizes that Spurgeon made an argument that the second part of the verse works in 8:4 but not 8:1. Since Elijah accepts 8:1 as true, he can not agree with the Spurgeon tightrope walk. This can all be a later post, including whether 8:1b-c and 8:4 b-c are qualifying or defining (discussed a bit on the PureBible Facebook thread.)

======================

I'll try to check more of the ECW (and how massive is the textual support) for now simply quoting.

DoRightChristians
KJV Defense of Romans 8:1: Rebuttal to “Baptist Deception”
https://dorightchristians.wordpress.com/2013/05/25/kjv-defense-of-romans-81/

Early church fathers who cite the phrase are Chrysostom(4th century), Theodoret(5th century), ps Oecumenius(10th century), and Theophylact(11th century). Taking into account that Chrysostom quotes the entire verse, in the 4th century, WORD FOR WORD as it appears in the Authorized Version…along with the Peshitta of the 2nd century containing the phrase, it is CLEAR to those with eyes to see that the reading was genuine from the beginning, then was removed by the corrupt manuscripts, from whence all the modern bibles originate!

CHRYSOSTOM (4th century) – “And as to our having received more abundant help, hear thou Paul, when he saith,” There is therefore no condemnation now to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit: for the law of the Spirit of life hath made me free from the law of sin and death.” (Homilies, #16, pg 242 as found in The Master Christian Library, Ver 7, Disk 1)​

​

​

The fact that Chrysostom quotes the verse, verbatim, speaks louder than those fathers who don’t cite it! As a dear brother recently reminded me, “an argument from silence is no argument at all…and would never stand up in a court of law!”

One small correction, the negatives are supposed to be citing the short version without the phrase. However, as we see in Origen, that is totally unreliable from the apparatus.

Will Kinney

Another King James Bible Believer

The King James Bible.

brandplucked.webs.com

Early Church Writers -

THE EARLY CHURCH FATHERS 347-420 A.D. St. Jerome: Letters and Select Works - Treatises. - Against Jovinianus. - Book I - And ROM 8:1-2. “THERE IS THEREFORE NOW NO CONDEMNATION TO THEM THAT ARE IN CHRIST JESUS, WHO WALK NOT AFTER THE FLESH. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus made me free from the law of sin and death.” And more clearly in what follows he teaches that Christians do not WALK ACCORDING TO THE FLESH BUT ACCORDING TO THE SPIRIT.”

347-407 A.D. Early Church Fathers - St. Chrysostom: - The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom. - Homily XVI - Matthew 5:17. “And as to our having received more abundant help, hear thou Paul, when he saith, “THERE IS THEREFORE NO CONDEMNATION NOW TO THEM WHICH ARE IN CHRIST JESUS, WHO WALK NOT AFTER THE FLESH, BUT AFTER THE SPIRIT:"

347-407 A.D. Chrysostom: Homilies on the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistle to the Romans - The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans - Homily XIII on Rom. 7:14.For “THERE IS,” he says, “NOW NO CONDEMNATION TO THEM WHICH ARE IN CHRIST JESUS, WHO WALK NOT AFTER THE FLESH.” Yet he did not say it before he had first recalled to mind our former condition again in the words, “So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin.”

Ken Matto
http://www.scionofzion.com/romans_8_1.htm

Romans 8:1 - "who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit"
Thomas Holland
https://av1611.com/kjbp/faq/holland_ro8_1.html

The whole verse is cited, with the phrase in question, by Theodoret (466 AD), Ps-Oecumenius (tenth century), and Theophylact (1077 AD). We also have partial citation of the verse by Basil (379 AD). He writes:

And after he has developed more fully the idea that it is impossible for one who is in the power of sin to serve the Lord, he plainly states who it is that redeems us from such a tyrannical dominion in the words: "Unhappy man that I am, who shall deliver me from the body of this death? I give thanks to God through Jesus Christ, our Lord." Further on, he adds: "There is now, therefore, no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus, who walk not according to the flesh."[SUP] [2] [/SUP]​

​

​

​

[SUP][2] [/SUP] St. Basil, "Concerning Baptism," The Fathers Of The Church: Saint Basil Ascetical Works (trans. Sister M. Monica Wagner, vol. 9, New York: Fathers Of The Church, Inc., 1950), 343.

We must remember that the word condemnation not only carries the meaning of judgment, but also of disapproval.
[3] The context of Romans 8 teaches us that faithful Christians are to walk after the Spirit and not after the flesh. The Christian is in a constant battle between the Spirit and the flesh (Galatians 5:16-18). There is no condemnation for the Believer who is following the Holy Spirit. However, there is condemnation for those who do not follow the leading of the Spirit, but seek to follow their own flesh.

The Book on Romans above that gives the Origen quote also has:

Diodore:
Paul shows here that those who are under the law, because they live according to the flesh, are under sin and condemnation. But those who are in Christ are nor under condemnation because they do not walk according to the flesh. Pauline Commentary from the Greek Church.2

Ambrosiaster:
It is true that there will be no damnation for those who are Christians serving the law of God with a devout mind. Commentary on Paul's Epistles.3

Chrysostom:
Paul met the difficulty posed by postbaptismal sin by saying that it is due to our laziness. For now that we are in Christ Jesus we have the power to avoid walking after the flesh, but before that it was a difficult task.
Homilies on Romans 13.4

Augustine:
There is no condemnation just because carnal desires exist;
it is only if we give to them and sin that we are condemned.5
Augustine on Romans 47. 6

Pelagius:
There is nothing which deserves condemnation in those who have been crucified to the works of the flesh. Pelagius's Commentary on Romans.7

Gennadius of Constantinople:
Look how great Christs grace is in that he has set us free from condemnation.
Pauline Commentary from the Greek Church.8

2 NTA 15:90.
3 CSEL 81.1:251.
4 NPNF 1 11:431.
5 See 1 Cor 10.13: Heb 4:15; 1 Mace 2:52.
6 AOR 19.
7 PCR 105.
8 NTA 15:375.

====================


Here is a paper that is helpful:

Testamentum Imperium
An International Theological Journal
www.PreciousHeart.net/ti
Volume 2 - 2009
Romans 8:1:
Is “who walk not after the flesh but after the spirit” a Textual Addition or Original?
Craig A. Smith
http://www.preciousheart.net/ti/2009/aa_37-068_Smith_Romans_8_1.pdf

Notice that Craig Smith does not do any research at all on the ECW quotes, so he ends up being rather massively duped, contributing to his questionable (erroneous) conclusions in favor of the short omission text. His reference to Adamantius needs special checking.

The New Testament in the original Greek, (1881)
Westcott- Hort
https://books.google.com/books?id=gZ4HAAAAQAAJ&pg=RA1-PA109

Notice that they do have Adamantius, but not the later error of claiming Marcion according to Adamantius

===========

Now the LaParola apparatus pic:

Why does the partial text say to look at Romans 8:4?

==============

Next, the LaParola apparatus ECW extracted:

Appartus Laparola
Omit (Marcion according to Adamantius) origen-lat Ambrosiaster Athanasius Diodore Didymus Augustine Cyril
Partial - Victorinus-Rome Ephraem Basil Chrysostom Pelagius Jerome Speculum
Full - Cyril-lem Theodoret Ps-Oecumenius Theophylact

Let's summarize the various ECW. Using the dates from Craig A. Smith, with some checking, (when he has the ref), else simply doing the best we can using the dates of the authors (not checking the history of the specific writing.)

- error - means that we have hit a problem with the apparatus. It could be that it is placed in the wrong bucket (e.g Origen), or it could be totally omitted (e.g. - one of the Chrysostom refs.)

FULL SUMMARY OF ROMANS 8:1 ECW

Marcion according to Adamantius - 2nd c.- AppOmit - error - this should not be included
Tertullian c. AD 200 - NA28 - (other variant)
Origen AD 254 - AppOmit - error - (full in parenthesis)
Adamantius - AD 300 - AppOmit - yes
Athanasius - AppOmit - yes
Methodius - c. AD 300 - (other variant)
Victorinus-Rome (AD 362) - AppPart (looking for quote) WH have two entries one Full with an m
Ephraem (AD 373) - AppPart (looking for quote)
Basil - (AD 379) AppPart - yes
Ambrosiaster (after AD 384) - AppOmit - error - (wrong for our quote)
Ambrosiaster-mss (century 4) - AppPart per CS
Diodore (before AD 394) - AppOmit - error - (wrong for our quote, better is partial)
Didymus (AD 398) - AppOmit (looking for quote)
Chrysostom (AD 407) - AppPart - yes
Chrysostom (AD 407) - AppOmit - error - Full ref
Pelagius (c. AD 410) - AppPart - yes
Pelagius-mss - (after 418) - AppPart (looking for quote)
Jerome - (AD 419-420) AppPart - yes
John Cassian (AD 425) - error - Omit - not in apparatus
Augustine (AD 430) - AppOmit - yes - actually 2x
Cyril - (AD 444) AppOmit (looking for quote)
Cyril-lem (AD 444) - AppFull - (looking for quote)
Speculum (5th c) - AppPart - (looking for quote)
Theodoret (AD 466) - AppFull - yes
Ps-Oecumenius (10th c) - AppFull - (looking for quote) - formerly Oecumenius
Theophylact (AD 1077) - AppFull - (looking for quote)

--- totally missing in all apparatuses referenced:

one quote of Chrysostom that is Full
John Cassian

also Gennadius of Constantinople - (however, not fixed for any variant, so not apparatus material)

Of the five placement or omission errors (so far) in the apparatuses, Origen and Chrysostom are the two bigger ones, Ambrosiaster and Diodore and Cassian might be less significant.

WIP
Marcion- should be omitted
Origen - wrong variant
Ambrosiaster - wrong variant (maybe 2 refs)
Diodore - wrong variant
Chrysostom - missing (2 refs)
John Cassian - missing

And there are about 12 that still need quotes to see if the apparatus placement is right.

Of what is complete so far:

7 are placed right
------
2 are placed wrong
3 are omitted
1 is included wrongly

(Augustine is 2 refs)

============

Here are details on 5 references, all but Jerome and Chrysostom are new to this post:

Jerome - Against Jovinianus (text above in Will Kinney section.)
https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf206.vi.vi.I.html

And again, “So then I myself with the mind serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.” And,“There is therefore now no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus made me free from the law of sin and death.” And more clearly in what follows he teaches that Christians do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit:

The Works of Aurelius Augustine: The Anti-Pelagian works, v. 2
On Marriage and Concupisence - Chapter 36
https://books.google.com/books?id=p1dHAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA133 - 1874
https://books.google.com/books?id=4pANAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA278 - 1887

Then let us observe carefully what he has said after all the above: “There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus Even now, says he, when the law in my members keeps up its warfare against the law of my mind, and retains in captivity somewhat in the body of this death, there is no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus. And listen why: “For the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus,” says he, “ hath made me free from the law of sin and death.” 1

Augustine
Against Two Letters of the Pelagians - Chapter 21
https://books.google.com/books?id=u05tQmcNlsoC&pg=PA253

Then he adds the reason why he said all these things: “ 0 wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death ? The grace of God, through Jesus Christ our Lord!” And thence he concludes: “Therefore I myself with the mind serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin.”1 To wit, “ with the flesh, the law of sin,” by lusting; but “with the mind, the law of God,” by not consenting to that lust: “For there is now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus.” * For he is not condemned who does not consent to the evil of the lust of the flesh. “For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made thee free from the law of sin and death, lest, to wit, the lust of the flesh should claim for itself thy consent.”

The Letters Of Saint Athanasius Concerning The Holy Spirit to Bishop Serapion
From the translation with introduction and notes by C.R.B. Shapland, originally published Epworth Press, 1951.
http://thegroveisonfire.com/books/Athanasius/Athanasius-Letters-to-Serapion-CRB-Shapland.pdf

8/ Read the sacred Scriptures, and you will find 'spirit' used of the meaning which is in the divine words, as Paul writes: 'Who also made us sufficient ministers of a new covenant, not of letter but of spirit; for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.' For that which is expressed is inscribed by letter, but the meaning which is in it is called spirit. Thus too, the law is spiritual'; so that, as he says again, we may serve not 'in oldness of letter' but 'in newness of spirit’.The same writer says, when giving thanks: 'So then I myself with the mind serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin. There is therefore now no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus made me free from the law of sin.'

===========

The Conferences of John Cassian
Conference 22 - Chapter 13
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf211.iv.vi.vii.xiii.html#iv.vi.vii.xiii-p4.1
https://books.google.com/books?id=Ny8ORFuVXjAC&pg=RA2-PR63

And hence it is that the blessed Apostle, though he openly admits that he and all saints are bound by the constraint of this sin, yet boldly asserts that none of them will be condemned for this, saying: “There is therefore now no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus: for the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath set me free from the law of sin and death,”i.e., the grace of Christ day by day frees all his saints from this law of sin and death, under which they are constantly reluctantly obliged to come, whenever they pray to the Lord for the forgiveness of their trespasses.

The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom (1841)
Homily XIII on Romans VII:14
https://books.google.com/books?id=BI3YAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA216

For there is, he says, now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit. Yet he did not say it before he had first recalled to mind our former condition again, in the words, So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin. Then as the fact that many fall into sin even after Baptism presented a difficulty, he consequently hastened to meet it, and says not merely to them that are in Christ Jesus, but adds, who walk not after the flesh; so shewing that all afterward comes of our listlessness. For now we have the power of walking not after the flesh, but then it was a difficult task.

Nice. Chrysostom is one of the few, maybe the only one, who shows that the additional phrase is doctrinally significant! (Even with just the part phrase.)

Commentary of Theodoret of Cyrus on Romans
https://books.google.com/books?id=VcA7AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA610 - 1839
https://sites.google.com/site/aquinasstudybible/home/romans/theodoret-of-cyrus-on-romans

Chapter VIII.1.
There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit: for our passions can no longer get the mastery over us without our own consent, now that we have received the grace of the Spirit of God.

Courtesy of the always helpful Ben C. Smith:

BCHF - Bible Criticism and History Forum
Romans 8:1 - apparatus - Marcion according to Adamantius
http://earlywritings.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=4573

The Adamantius Dialogue quotes Romans 8.1-2 without the line about walking according to the spirit instead of the flesh (μὴ κατὰ σάρκα περιπατοῦσιν ἀλλὰ κατὰ πνεῦμα):

Romans 8.1-2: 1 οὐδὲν ἄρα νῦν κατάκριμα τοῖς ἐν Χριστῶ Ἰησοῦ· 2 ὁ γὰρ νόμος τοῦ πνεύματος τῆς ζωῆς ἐν Χριστῶ Ἰησοῦ ἠλευθέρωσέν σε ἀπὸ τοῦ νόμου τῆς ἁμαρτίας καὶ τοῦ θανάτου.

Adamantius Dialogue 5.27: 27 .... <οὐδὲν ἄρα νῦν κατάκριμα τοῖς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, ὁ γὰρ νόμος τοῦ πνεύματος τῆς ζωῆς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ ἠλευθέρωσεν ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ τοῦ νόμου τῆς ἁμαρτίας καὶ τοῦ θανάτου>. ....

The notation in the apparatus is based on this quotation.

But proving an absence is not easy, since that is where the quote (which actually started back at Romans 7.25b) ends. And, as Stuart was saying, it is always debatable whether this goes back to the Marcionite text itself. It could be another.

Bottom (very last lines) of page 234 of the 1901 edition:
https://archive.org/details/derdialogdesada00orig/page/234
and continuing up to the top (very first lines) of page 236. He immediately launches into some reasoning concerning what he just quoted (this is just a quickie translation of my own, since I cannot quickly find an already existing English translation): "'...from the law of sin and of death' [= the end of the quotation, Romans 8.2a]. Now, if the mind is slave to the law of God, but the flesh that of sin, and [if] the law of the spirit of life liberated us in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death, then it is clear that the thing which was enslaved to the law of sin was liberated from sin; but it is not the mind which was enslaved to the law of sin, but rather the flesh. The flesh, therefore, was liberated from death."

Later on in the thread, I discuss what that means for the apparatus entry. Adamantius is not proper, but (Adamantius) MIGHT be acceptable.

D.C. Hindley
http://earlywritings.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=92264#p92275

His [Marinus'] statement that the life of Jesus is manifested in the flesh requires no explanation! Again Paul: “When what is mortal is absorbed by immortality” 236. What else can be understood here than that the mortal goes forward into life? then this: “I myself with my mind serve the law of God; d but with my flesh, the law of sin. There is now therefore no doom for those who are in Christ Jesus, for the Spirits life-giving law in Christ Jesus has set us free from the law of sin and death” 237. If the mind serves the law of God, but the flesh (236) the law of sin, and the law of the spirit of life, in Christ Jesus, has delivered us from the law of sin and death, it is obvious that it has delivered that which served the law of sin from sin. Yet it was not the mind that served the law of sin, but the flesh. Consequently, the flesh has been delivered from death. Now let Marinus please explain how that which was delivered from death by the law of the spirit of life in Christ is saved 238, e for I myself am increasingly ashamed to be arguing against the ignorance 239 of these opponents of mine!

236 See 1 Cor. 15:54, and 2 Cor. 5:4 (a loose quotation).
237 Rom. 7:25; 8:1-2. The “us” is supported by Rufinus, Mardon, Methodius, and a few other authorities; “me” by A D Latin, etc.; “thee” by X B G and the main recensions.

So the text actually goes to 8:2 and can be considered an omissoin.

 

[Steven Avery]

Textcrit Nonsense

Romans 8:1 and TEXTCRIT NONSENSE

Next, an example of textcrit nonsense, from Schaff and the decrepit Revision:

And as to our having received more abundant help, hear thou Paul, when he saith, “There is therefore no condemnation now to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit:700for the law of the Spirit of life hath made me free from the law of sin and death.”

700 [This addition to[Rom.|viii 1 (“who walk,” etc.), now rejected by all critical editors, is not found in any patristic authority older than Chrysostom. The argument above shows how it was added from an assumed application to sanctification.—R.]

http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/npnf110/cache/npnf110.pdf - p.198
https://books.google.com/books?id=dDswAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA107

R is the false note in the Revised Version.

Once the apparatus is deceptive, it passes down to the Commentaries, which can be even more deceptively selective, as here:

The Epistle to the Romans (2016)
Richard N. Longenecker,
https://books.google.com/books?id=fFYzDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA676

Metzger's weak note (which looks to have started with Headlam's note) in:

Metzger Bruce M. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. 2nd ed. New York: American Bible Society, 1994.

for now we will take from:

The KJV, NKJV, and Reina-Valera
Brad Norman May 23, 2011
https://static1.squarespace.com/sta...f2c343/1354919305983/kjv-nkjv-reinavalera.pdf :

“At the close of the verse the later manuscripts introduce an interpolation from ver. 4.... 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” (Metzger, 455-56).

The typically worthless circular and biased Metzger analysis then adds apparatus ms. evidence for the omission:
(Sinaiticus * B C2 D* G 1739 it-d*,g cop-sa,bo arm-mss al )
and nothing else.

And here is the NETBible, generally super-deceptive in trying to support the Westcott-Hort recension Critical Text variants:

1 tc The earliest and best witnesses of the Alexandrian and Western texts, as well as a few others (א* B D* F G 6 1506 1739 1881 pc co), have no additional words for v. 1. Later scribes (A D1 Ψ 81 365 629 pc vg) added the words μὴ κατὰ σάρκα περιπατοῦσιν (mh kata sarka peripatousin, “who do not walk according to the flesh”), while even later ones (א2 D2 33vid Ï) added ἀλλὰ κατὰ πνεῦμα (alla kata pneuma, “but [who do walk] according to the Spirit”). Both the external evidence and the internal evidence are compelling for the shortest reading. The scribes were evidently motivated to add such qualifications (interpolated from v. 4) to insulate Paul’s gospel from charges that it was characterized too much by grace. The KJV follows the longest reading found in Ï.

The NETBible and Bruce Metzger are the two most common ways to dupe the internet crowd and seminarians.

Daniel Wallace's motive hyper-conjecturalizing "evidently..." was ripped to shreds on Puritan Board by nicnap back in 2010:

Puritan Board
Textual Evidence for Romans 8:1
https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/textual-evidence-for-romans-8-1.64284/

Presupposition at best; impugning motives at worst. Men who believed that the Bible is the Word of God do not add to or take away from it. This note shouldn't be included in the NET Bible's notes. If it is not original, it may very well have been interpolated, but it would have been accidental.

The Bruce Terry (another Westcott-Hort recension dupe) apparatus note, using the KISS idea, shows us the absurd "A" ranking for the short text omission corruption.

Romans 8:1:

TEXT: "no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus."
EVIDENCE: S* B D* G 1739 1881 two lat cop
TRANSLATIONS: ASV RSV NASV NIV NEB TEV
RANK: A

NOTES: "no condemnation for those who in Christ Jesus walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit."
EVIDENCE: S[SUP]c[/SUP] D[SUP]c[/SUP] K P 33 104 614 630 1241 2495 Byz Lect two lat syr(h)
TRANSLATIONS: KJV NIVn

NOTES: "no condemnation for those who in Christ Jesus walk not according to the flesh."
EVIDENCE: A D[SUP]b[/SUP] Psi 81 most lat vg syr(p)
TRANSLATIONS: none

COMMENTS: The additional words seem to have been added in two stages from verse 4.

=====================

Here is a sidenote about an interesting scholastic diversion about Origen and Romans, that follows up on the Facebook thread mentioned at top:

Elijah Hixson

https://www.facebook.com/elijah.hixson.5/posts/10101457542929608

SA Analysis Summary:

Elijah Hixson, rather than acknowledge the apparatus error, raised the red herring of ms. 1739, a ms. conjectured to be 10th century that has a superscription saying that the text of Romans follows the Origen commentary, a claim that, on analysis, is said to be usually true (see Robert B. Waltz) and the superscription and textual study is described by Harry R. Gamble in The Textual History of the Letter to the Romans. While all this is an interesting study it is a total red herring for 3 reasons.

a) It is a general book-wide relationship, with numerous exceptions
b) The same error made by the modern apparatus scholars could easily have been made by Ephraim
c) 10th century New Testament manuscripts are not part of the apparatus entries for early church writers.

#3 is the red herring aspect.

================

Elijah also went on about the Origen entry being Latin (which I had noted), and being from Rufinus (which I added), none of which is particularly relevant here. The possibility of Rufinus having adjusted Origen to create the flip-section is small, and does not change the apparatus section.

 

[Steven Avery]

John Gill and Commentaries

John Gill (the textual part -

The phrase, "but after the Spirit", is left out in the Alexandrian copy, and in the Vulgate Latin, and Syriac versions; and the whole description of the persons in some copies, and in the Ethiopic version.

Precept-Austin has many commentaries, some are interesting, some are modern and weak.