Romans 9:5 - manuscripts that have alternate punctuation and text

Steven Avery

Administrator
This became important because Brian made absurd claims.

There's not "more than one Greek," nor are there multiple ways to read the Greek from which the AV was translated but there is more than one valid way to translate it into English. There's one Greek in the manuscripts and fathers, and then there are three or four proposed emendations among English translators

In this case, there's not a single variant listed in the NA28 text. This removes the only "variant" reading listed in the NA27, which is specifically noted as being "Schlichting cj," which means a conjectural (cj) emendation offered by Schlichting. There is also no variant listing in the UBS4 text, which reversed the previous conjectural emendation of the UBS3 committee that forced a doxology to the Father and was used in a small number of translations. The passage is punctuated the same in the critical texts and in the Textus Receptus. So what variant punctuation or variant are you proposing? Where's all the manuscripts with a full stop (not a middot) after "over all," etc., or supporting all these "various" readings you keep offering?

Greek punctuation among the manuscripts designates a short pause, long pause, or full stop. What we find in manuscripts such as Alexandrinus and other manuscripts is a middle dot, which corresponds with our comma, after "flesh." It is not a period. Thus you will find the middot in Stephen's 1550, and the comma in Beza's, and both signify one and the same thing.

You do not use a critical apparatus to make claims about all the manuscripts in the manuscript lines, since so much is omitted.
Textual Analysis 101.

Then Brian admits that there is differing punctuation in:

"Alexandrinus and other manuscripts".
"Greek punctuation among the manuscripts designates a short pause, long pause, or full stop."

So why not simply acknowledge the blunder in his earlier claims?

There's one Greek in the manuscripts and fathers

More detail at:

Robert Hommel using material from Gregory Stafford.
https://web.archive.org/web/20160730225534/http://www.forananswer.org/Romans/Rom9_5.htm

Mitchell Andrews
http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/test-archives/html4/1996-12/15926.html
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.

We can see difference in descriptions of the points between Stafford and Andrews on one side and Hommel and Winter on the other. Let them hash that out. Note, though, that Robert Hommel was far more honest in his analysis than Brian.

The simple fact is that Brian spoke untruthfully in writing:

There's one Greek in the manuscripts and fathers

Then, rather than admitting the error, he tries the normal Brian smoke and fog.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
For the Stafford-Hommel writings:


objection: In the second section of his defense, "Punctuation in early Greek manuscripts," Mr. Stafford offers evidence 'countering' that provided by early translations. Mr. Stafford notes the specific Greek punctuation marks that concern us: "A middle point is usually taken to indicate a pause such as we might indicate by use of a colon or comma, while a high point is generally used to indicate a full stop" (Stafford, p. 144 n39). He summarizes Metzger, indicating that some manuscripts - notably Codex A - have a middle point after "flesh," while others "such as B, L, 0142, and 0151 have a high point after 'flesh,' also indicating a pause or break of some kind" (Ibid.). Mr. Stafford notes that Metzger identifies Codex B as a middle point, but argues that "it is quite possible" that B is actually a high point (Ibid, n39). Mr. Stafford agrees with Metzger that the use of punctuation in these manuscripts is "oddly placed," but argues that Codex A is an exception, "and yet uses a mid- or highpoint and what appears to be a small space between sarka and the article ho" (Ibid, p. 145). Mr. Stafford concludes this section with another agreement with Metzger:

Metzger is probably right in saying that "the most that can be inferred from the presence of a point in the middle position after sarka [sarka, 'flesh'] in the majority of the uncial manuscripts is that scribes felt some kind of pause was appropriate at this juncture of the sentence" (Metzger, p. 99 in Stafford, p. 145).​

1640678204064.png


Chart also given at:
https://breadfromabeggar.wordpress....-the-clearest-attribution-of-deity-to-christ/

Pointing to the Robert Hommel site.

Also Sam Shamoun uses Robert Hommel here
https://answeringislamblog.wordpress.com/2021/06/26/jesus-as-god-in-romans-95/
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
Again, none of this is particular important to me, but it is another example of Brian simply making things up, hoping he won't get called out.
 

Brianrw

Member
Again, none of this is particular important to me, but it is another example of Brian simply making things up, hoping he won't get called out.
Sometimes things can be stated simply without involving a long debate, which you've unnecessarily chosen to spark here.

Then Brian admits that there is differing punctuation in:

"Alexandrinus and other manuscripts".
"Greek punctuation among the manuscripts designates a short pause, long pause, or full stop."
You pretend to contradict me as though I never wrote, "Greek punctuation among the manuscripts designates a short pause, long pause, or full stop. What we find in manuscripts such as Alexandrinus and other manuscripts is a middle dot, which corresponds with our comma, after 'flesh.' It is not a period. Thus you will find the middot in Stephen's 1550, and the comma in Beza's, and both signify one and the same thing."

In the second quote, you reverse the order of my words, giving a false impression that I'm speaking specifically of Romans 9:5, not how ancient Greek manuscripts are punctuated in general, and launch a rambling straw man attack from it.

Mitchell Andrews
http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/test-archives/html4/1996-12/15926.html
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.
I said there is "middle dot" or middot present in codices such as Alexandrinus. Why are you acting so astonished and exasperated as though I did not? And what are you offering above in "correction" that I didn't already say myself?

Mitchell's comment about the cursives is completely false, which he either received directly from Abbot or from Abbot through Metzger. As detailed below, the minuscules either have a middot, comma, or no punctuation at all--after the word "flesh." None of this warrants a period or close of thought.

Middot in the Uncials​

Metzger writes, "A point standing in a middle position with respect to the line of writing (a colon) is present." That's the middot I was speaking of, and you'll variously see it referred to as a "comma" or "colon" (Cf. here). Even Stafford, your source acknowledges that as well:

A middle point is usually taken to indicate a pause such as we might indicate by use of a colon or comma

According to Dionysius the Thracian, "There are three dots: final, middle, underdot. And the final dot is a sign for a complete thought, while the middle is a sign taken up for a breath, and the underdot is a sign for a thought which is not yet complete, but is still wanting." The middot marked the end of a brief clause or κόμμα (komma), if that sounds familiar to you at all. Thus as Metzger notes, "the most that can be inferred from the presence of a point in the middle position after σάρκα in a majority of the uncial manuscripts is that scribes felt that some kind of pause was appropriate at this juncture in the sentence." (p. 99). Stafford himself agrees. This does not affect the meaning or reading of the text at all. Metzger further notes that the high dot also signifies a "colon" in his comment on the reading of Tischendorf's edition of codex C (which is inserted by Tischendorf, and not distinguishable in C itself). The truth is, in practice, usage is inconsistent. The middot was largely neglected by scribes and the high dot often took its place, and we can tell the difference by the overall usage in any particular manuscript.

You do not use a critical apparatus to make claims about all the manuscripts in the manuscript lines, since so much is omitted.
Textual Analysis 101.

Uncial punctuation/Stafford's "High Points" are actually middots

Stafford alleges that "B, L, 0142 and 0151 have a high point after 'flesh," which is incorrect on almost all points.
  • In B, a "high point" occurs in the position above the letter and a middot occurs even with the top of the letter. Thus we can distinguish, in Romans 9:5, between the "high point" after "amen" and the middle point (middot), not by the original hand, after "flesh."

  • The 9th century (not 8th) codex L utilizes commas for a shorter pause and a middle-high point for a medium pause in places we may insert a comma, semicolon, or colon. It occurs where we would otherwise expect a middot. For a full stop, the scribe used a dot followed by a space, which we find only after "amen." Of additional note there is a comma after "God" (see note below on "Interpunct after the 7th century"), which makes it all the more clear that the referent is Christ.

  • I've looked at 0151 (9th century) and 0142 (10th century), and they are both a middot, not a high dot as Stafford/Aland (acc. to Metzger) claim and you have on your chart. In 0142, there is a high dot after "amen," so that distinction is clear. In 0151, the final line is slanting upward towards the right and the middot is even with the heigh of the alpha, and there is a double dot after "amen" for a full stop. Contra Metzger, in 0151 there is no space after the point. Rather, it is followed on the next page by a commentary before resuming the passage again. Placing a space between the Uncial text and the minuscule commentary is a scribal habit in 0151.
Both p27 and p46 are defective. No interpunct is present in Sinaiticus, F, K, 0285 (6th century), 0319. Uncials A, B, C, L, Ψ, 040 (high dot after "amen"), 049, 056 (high dot after "amen") have a middot; Codex G has a middot after both "over all" and "God," a reading also found in later minuscules. 623 and 2110, though classed as minuscules, have an uncial text and both contain a middot (noted also below).

D (06) arranges the text as follows:

καὶ ἐξ ὧν ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα​
ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς​
εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας​
ἀμήν​

That's it for the uncials, so far as I know.

Interpunct after the 7th Century​

After the 7th century the distinction between a high dot and a middle dot begins to change, with a lessening of the force of the high dot in general to reflect a medium pause. When high dots do occur in minuscules, it is above, not even with, the vowel height. The middot was gradually taken over by the comma starting in the 9th century, and the full stop was gradually taken over by a low dot. Thus we find a mixture of the different forms in the minuscules themselves.

Abbot's "Stops" are not (High) Stops, but turn out to be middots

Abbot (who is followed by Metzger and Mitchell) claims that in 26 minuscules there is a "stop" after σάρκα, and infers from this that "three-quarters or four-fifths of the cursive MSS containing Rom. ix. 5 have a stop after σάρκα." But that ratio has not held true for the present inquiry. I've found no certain instance of a full stop among the minuscules. They almost invariably have a middot, comma, or no punctuation at all.

Minuscules 6, 69, 365, 398, 1846, 1996, 2544 have no interpunct after "flesh."

The following minuscules have a middot after "flesh": 1, 3, 5, 18, 33, 35, 38, 42, 43, 51, 81, 82, 88, 90, 93, 103, 105, 131, 133, 141, 149, 177, 189, 203, 206, 209, 218, 234, 250, 263, 319, 323, 336, 363, 421, 424, 429, 451, 452, 454, 455, 457, 462, 466, 467, 608, 614, 619, 620, 621, 623 (uncial text, minuscule commentary), 627, 628, 630, 664, 676, 823, 824, 876, 891, 909, 915, 945, 1065, 1105, 1108, 1127, 1175, 1243, 1297, 1425, 1505, 1506, 1573, 1617, 1718, 1725, 1729, 1751, 1760, 1766, 1798 (it seems, the folio image is out of focus), 1837, 1838, 1852, 1860, 1862, 1877, 1880 (high dot after “amen”), 1881, 1893, 1894, 1897, 1900, 1905, 1908, 1909, 1912, 1916, 1918, 1923 (high dot after “amen”), 1935, 1942, 1948, 1961, 1962,1969,1981,1985, 1991, 1995 (comma after “blessed”), 1997, 2000, 2004 (high point after “amen”), 2012, 2080, 2102, 2104, 2110 (uncial text, minuscule commentary, high point after “amen”), 2127, 2197, 2200, 2257, 2298, 2344 (accidental omission of κατὰ), 2352, 2464, 2492 (low dot period after “amen”), 2495, 2516, 2523, 2576, 2587, 2659, 2674, 2685, 2691, 2705, 2774, 2816, 2817, 2865, 2886, 2918. Some of these contain additional marks:
  • A middot also after "God": 5, 33, 218, 363, 421, 676, 824, 909, 1359, 1503, 1718, 1729, 1751, 1766, 1894, 1897, 2344, 2352, 2464, 2516
  • A comma also after "God": 141, 142, 149, 209, 323, 608, 621, 1725, 1838 (a middot?), 1855, 1900, 1935, 1948, 2080, 2691, 2705, 2816, 2886
  • 627 has a comma before "God," 1319 a middot before.
  • 432 has a comma after "flesh" and a middot after "God."
  • 398, 424 place a low dot after "God."
Generally, the relative clauses are broken up in these by middots, thus it operates as the equivalent of a comma. The following minuscules have a comma after "flesh" that replace the earlier middot: 61, 104, 367, 432, 467, 629, 1241, 1886, 1950, 1963, 1999, 2221, 2888. A few of these contain additional marks:
  • 432, 2221 place a middot after "God"
  • 1241 places a comma after "God" (this appears thus far to be a singular reading)
1739 (considered a very important NT manuscript) has a low dot after "flesh" and high dot after "amen."

91, a commentary manuscript, breaks up the clause as "who is God over all" followed by "blessed." 400 is illegible. Two manuscripts have suffered corruption through homoioarcton (1509, 1563). I've examined all the manuscripts I know of. I anticipate any further inquiry into it will yield consistent results. In other words, Abbot's stops are actually not stops at all.

456, 459, 606 (semiuncial text, minuscule commentary) use low dots, middots, and high dots. The sentence ends with a high dot after "amen," and there is a low dot (short pause) after "flesh." 606 also has a low dot after "blessed."

I've found the reading of two manuscripts to be ἐξ ὧν τὸ κατὰ σάρκα ὁ Χριστὸς, ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας ἀμήν, involving a transposition of words by no affect in the meaning: 1929 (uncial text, minuscule commentary), 2889. I have not found this mentioned anywhere else.

The English is not affected​

So where are we at after this long diversion? There is no change the meaning of the text itself or how it is translated in the English. None of the editors of any edition (the Textus Receptus, the UBS, the NA, and the RP Majority Text) so much as mention any significant form of variation in this text. The NA, particularly, is meticulous about such things.

Furthermore, as Metzger states the punctuation "originated at a time subsequent to Paul's writing . . . and is therefore of questionable authority." He further cautions that, "The presence of marks of punctuation in early manuscripts of the New Testament is so sporadic and haphazard that one cannot infer with confidence the construction given by the punctuator to the passage." Therefore the one Greek I referred to is that which reflects what was originally written, without punctuation (not a middot or comma after "flesh" alters that meaning), where the attributive participle does all the heavy lifting, making the passage refer to Christ as "God," and so it was understood also by the Greek fathers.

And are you any further along in finding justification for your reading, "blessed by God"? It seems not.

In short, this diatribe has gotten us exactly nowhere in the discussion and amounts to nothing more than another strained personal attack on "Brian." Are you about through with the libelous accusations, and insult after insult? Wouldn't it be better to politely ask questions or point out what you see may be errors in my statements, rather than attacking me and my motives?
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
You disagree with various writers about the significance of the dots.
You can make your claims, that is not my point. I have learned not to have any confidence in your claims.


You're the one that keeps making things up. There's not "more than one Greek," nor are there multiple ways to read the Greek from which the AV was translated but there is more than one valid way to translate it into English. There's one Greek in the manuscripts and fathers,

This was a terrible factual blunder on your end.

Rather than simply accept the correction, you go all over the map.

Why not be a mentsch and say ... "oops, I erred."
 
Last edited:

Brianrw

Member
You disagree with various writers about the significance of the dots.
Harris and Andrews are following Abbot, as is Metzger to some extent, so in reality it's Abbot I'm taking issue with. These authors are not looking at the manuscripts themselves, nor did they live in a time that was possible. Metzger received his information by inquiry as well. I have digital access to all the manuscripts, so I can verify with my own eyes.

I said that Abbot was misleading in saying three quarters to four fifths of manuscripts contain a "stop," yet does not distinguish which type of stop. I looked at all the manuscripts and that stop in the vast majority of manuscripts is a middot, which is not a period in minuscule texts and does not support his contention that it is a doxology to the Father. That's more than a hundred manuscripts listed above that I have examined. So Abbots assessment is not accurate. In fact, I don't recall seeing a high dot at all, in any minuscule manuscript. There may be, but I looked at every manuscript available to me. This fact is borne out in the commentaries and writings that have survived from ancient times--there is no clear indication that it was ever understood in any meaningful capacity as a doxology to the Father. And not a single one of them is found to support your English reading of it. You have utterly failed to substantiate your point at all against the mountain of evidence presented against it.

This was a terrible factual blunder on your end.
I don't know what "factual blunder" you are referring to. The original Greek had no punctuation, every Koine Greek scholar knows that. Furthermore none of the punctuation in the manuscripts above changes the meaning or results in a doxology to the Father. What you are arguing is akin to saying, "My dog, who is a maltese, is white" or "My dog--who is a maltese--is white" or "My dog (who is a maltese) is white" differs in meaning from "My dog who is a maltese is white." All the punctuation does (as Metzger notes) is show some sort of pause for a breath is intended.

My point is that the passage does not have four or so mutually exclusive meanings.

You can make your claims, that is not my point. I have learned not to have any confidence in your claims.
You're not after the truth here, but simply defending your personal point of view and the easiest path seems for you to attack the messenger. That speaks volumes to me.
 
Last edited:

Brianrw

Member
Check your own sources. Rommel writes:

To get rid of the bright testimony here borne to the supreme divinity of Christ, various expedients have been adopted:

(1) To place a period, either after the words "concerning the flesh Christ came," rendering the next clause as a doxology to the Father--"God who is over all be blessed for ever"; or after the word "all"--thus, "Christ came, who is over all: God be blessed.", &c. [ERASMUS, LOCKE, FRITZSCHE, MEYER, JOWETT, &c.]. But it is fatal to this view, as even Socinus admits, that in other Scripture doxologies the word "Blessed" precedes the name of God on whom the blessing is invoked (thus: "Blessed be God," Psa 78:35; "Blessed be the Lord God, the God of Israel," Psa 72:18).
Besides, any such doxology here would be "unmeaning and frigid in the extreme"; the sad subject on which he was entering suggesting anything but a doxology, even in connection with Christ's Incarnation [ALFORD].

(2) To transpose the words rendered "who is"; in which case the rendering would be, "whose (that is, the fathers') is Christ according to the flesh" [CRELLIUS, WHISTON, TAYLOR, WHITBY]. But this is a desperate expedient, in the face of all manuscript authority; as is also the conjecture of GROTIUS and others, that the word "God" should be omitted from the text. It remains then, that we have here no doxology at all, but a naked statement of fact, that while Christ is "of" the Israelitish nation "as concerning the flesh," He is, in another respect, "God over all, blessed for ever." (In 2 Cor 11:31 the very Greek phrase which is here rendered "who is," is used in the same sense; and compare Rom 1:25 Greek). In this view of the passage, as a testimony to the supreme divinity of Christ, besides all the orthodox fathers, some of the ablest modern critics concur [BENGEL, THOLUCK, STUART, OLSHAUSEN, PHILIPPI, ALFORD, &c.]


Harris and Metzger likewise discard these solutions.

In other words, the majority of authors you advance in support of your argument acknowledge that this passage speaks of Christ as God, and none of them offer your interpretation as a valid solution.
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
In other words, the majority of authors you advance in support of your argument acknowledge that this passage speaks of Christ as God, and none of them offer your interpretation as a valid solution.

You are totally confused if you think that I am advancing Crellius, Erasmus etc in support of my argument as to the true reading of the text as in the AV, which does not support the apposition theory.

They do refute your ultra-blunder.
"There's one Greek in the manuscripts and fathers"

Back to square one. Use the pure and perfect AV as your baseline. If Abbot or anybody adds faux punctuation, they are adding to the theories, but they are still wrong.

Eventually you may understand the basics.
 
Last edited:

Brianrw

Member
You are totally confused if you think that I am advancing Crellius, Erasmus etc in support of my argument as to the true reading of the text as in the AV, which does not support the apposition theory.
I'm looking everywhere at all your comments. You're fishing for validation all over the internet. The all of the readings but approach clearly indicates hostility toward the passage referring to Christ as God, which it does, unless you want to change the punctuation or wording (transposition, conversion, omission, punctuation).

I never said the apposition is the only way, that's how you're mischaracterizing my argument all over the place. I only said that the passage refers to Christ as God in the Greek, and other than emendations there's no real way around that. English has a few options, but they won't diverge from that meaning. But since we are addressing the AV, I'm simply noting that they have chosen to translate using an apposition. That is all.
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
I'm looking everywhere at all your comments. You're fishing for validation all over the internet. The all of the readings but approach clearly indicates hostility toward the passage referring to Christ as God, which it does, unless you want to change the punctuation or wording (transposition, conversion, omission, punctuation).

I never said the apposition is the only way, that's how you're mischaracterizing my argument all over the place. I only said that the passage refers to Christ as God in the Greek, and other than emendations there's no real way around that. English has a few options, but they won't diverge from that meaning. But since we are addressing the AV, I'm simply noting that they have chosen to translate using an apposition. That is all.

You are claiming that the apposition is a grammatical imperative unless you throw in funky punctuation.

If that is NOT your claim, say so clearly.
 

Brianrw

Member
You are claiming that the apposition is a grammatical imperative unless you throw in funky punctuation.

If that is NOT your claim, say so clearly.
I have. More than a few times. Again I said that the AV translators are utilizing an appositive. That is the topic of discussion, and therefore a limiting factor of my argument. I've repeatedly said the meaning of the Greek has more than one way of being conveyed in English, attributive or predicative which are simply nuanced, but that the other options including your own solution require an emendation either of the punctuation or of the text itself.

Since you've rejected the period, you've limited the argument to a Greek text that does not use one, so we are on the same Greek text. At this point, you are all in on the false notion that the Greek construction forms a compound adjective. In that, you've been sadly misinformed.
 
Last edited:

Brianrw

Member
That claim proves you are weak in English. You tried all sorts of attempts, it was humorous.
Rather, I said the same thing about a hundred times and you misconstrued it a hundred ways.

What's humorous is that you believe an appositive would be formed by placing a comma after "God," and that an apposition is actually an ellipsis that can't be modified by an adjective. You actually seem to have no idea what an appositive is, and you're all over the place saying θεὸς εὐλογητὸς is two nouns strung together forming a compound adjective in the Greek. Still, you feel you have the high ground. Good for you.
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
What's humorous is that you believe an appositive would be formed by placing a comma after "God,"

You are hopeless.

With a comma you would have God == Christ, your desired apposition. God would be the second attribute of Christ.

GRAMMAR
a relationship between two or more words or phrases in which the two units are grammatically parallel and have the same referent (e.g. my friend Sue ; the first US president, George Washington ).

Do you remember your own argument that the comma was missing as a historian anomaly in comma usage?

Give it up.

Then you tried to claim there would have to be a hyphen between God and blessed if it were not an apposition.
 
Last edited:
Top