Romans 5:1, a text-critical problem
December 2, 2006 at 10:22 am (Difficult Scripture, NT-Romans)
There is a significant textual variant in Romans 5:1 that drastically affects the meaning of the verse. The variant that almost all translations have as their in-text printing is the indicative “we have peace.” The by far stronger manuscript support, however, is for the subjunctive (”let us have peace.”) The two readings side-by-side would then read, first “Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.” And second, “Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, let us have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.” Here we have a case where internal evidence (that is, evidence of probability) far outweighs the manuscript support (external evidence). Paul is writing in the indicative all the way through this section. He is not in the imperatival portion of the epistle yet. He is describing the indicative of our salvation. It would surely be completely out of character for Paul to say that we have justification, but then have to strive for peace with God. It contradicts everything else the apostle ever wrote about justification. Justification means that we do have peace with God. Add to this the other internal evidence of the similarity of vowels in the two readings (the two variants only differ by one vowel which sounds the same in both variants: omicron for the indicative, omega for the subjunctive), and one has enormous probability that the indicative is correct. I throw this variant out there to indicate the relative weight of various factors in textual criticism. Textual criticism has two sorts of evidence: internal and external, which correspond to transcriptional probability versus manuscript evidence. In general, I weight the external evidence more heavily, since it is much more verifiable. However, internal considerations cannot be discounted. The other place where internal evidence rules is in the Lukan version of the Lord’s Prayer, which is much shorter than Matthew’s.
If we wanted to break down criteria for textual criticism, we could do it this way. In the external evidence side of things, there are several criteria we need to use in weighting manuscripts, none of which is absolute: age of manuscript (older is generally better); geographical distribution of readings (a more geographically diverse reading is much more likely to be original); family characteristics of manuscripts (a daughter manuscript (if proved to be a daughter) has no additional weight than the parent manuscript, unless corrected against another manuscript; number of manuscripts (the more the better: however, there are a significant number of qualifications on this one, since the vast majority of manuscripts of the NT are Byzantine in origin, and there are definitely family characteristics there. Furthermore, the Byzantine manuscripts are much younger than other text-types); tendencies of text-types (certain text-types are prone to expansion, others are prone to deletion, etc.). The internal evidence attempts to weigh transcriptional probability (what is most likely to have been written). It asks question such as these: “what is the more difficult reading (more likely to be original, since a scholar would be more likely to make a reading easier to understand than more difficult: however, this is not absolute),” “is there some error of copying that can explain the variants (same ending of words, same beginning of words, copying two identical words instead of one, omitting one of two identical words, same line ending, same line beginning, and so on).” This evidence is inevitably more subjective. However, as in the case above, internal evidence cannot be let go so easily. When weighing the variants, a dictum that is well-nigh absolute is this, “Does the reading I am leaning towards have the ability to explain how all the other readings arose?” This is an immensely important dictum in textual criticism. The best reading can explain how all the others arose. So textual criticism weighs internal and external evidence in attempting to find the original text.
Lest anyone have any misimpressions, very little of the NT is in any serious doubt as to what the original manuscript (the autograph) said. And of the texts that are in doubt, very few of those, in turn, have any significance for the meaning of the text. The dealt with above is one of the few.
greenbaggins
glwjohnson
jeffhutchinson
davejes1979
reformedmusings
its.reed
Andrew Webb
theologian said,
December 2, 2006 at 12:02 pm
Very good post on some issues that surround textual criticism.
You bring up a good point about there being only one letter of difference, and those letters not having a different sound. This brings up a question of whether Paul could have dictated the indicative but his scribe could have written the subjunctive. I guess if that were the case then we would be left with an original manuscript that was not pure, so i would not go along with that line of thinking myself.
greenbaggins said,
December 2, 2006 at 12:07 pm
Yes, I had significant problems with Metzger’s position (what you said seems to be his position). I think it much more in line with an evangelical doctrine of Scripture that the error occurred early in the copying process, which was also done by reading aloud the manuscript, and having several scribes copy.
The Reformed Virginian said,
December 2, 2006 at 3:12 pm
I hadn’t thought about that problem with Metzger’s line of reasoning. I wonder if Metzger would argue that the inerrancy rested on Paul’s words spoken and not Tertius’ words written. Certainly shaky ground in many ways, yet I wonder what the committee’s thought on this was. Certainly it wasn’t an oversight.
Thanks for the words on the text, text criticism, and the criticism of text criticism.
greenbaggins said,
December 2, 2006 at 3:15 pm
I realize I wasn’t clear with regard to Larry’s comment. I was not meaning to suggest that Larry held to Metzger’s position. Just to clarify.
Joe, if he does argue that way, then he argues a canon within a canon, and only the text-critic can find out what the “real” Word of God is. You’re welcome. Text criticism is a necessary step in our exegesis. But we need to be so carefuly, because the temptation is always to play God.
The Reformed Virginian said,
December 2, 2006 at 4:02 pm
I agree and am glad to have had the opportunity to think through the issue.
theologian said,
December 2, 2006 at 7:10 pm
Correct, i was not arguing for Metzger’s position.
Any discipline that a Christian is in he must never lay aside the foundational presuppositions of the Christian faith. Especially when working within a Christian discipline! I find it problematic that some of the text critics working on the NT text hold a less than orthodox view of the Scripture to begin with.