 |
Got a question and there are some really smart people on this site I'd like their thoughts concerning this verse.
Romans 8:1 King James Bible
[There is] therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the spirit
Is it true the last part of the verse the Apostle Paul never actually wrote but that it was added later? If it was added later, who added it?
Who says that the latter part of that verse was not written by the author of the book of Romans?
RickJ,
Heard it all my life and didn't know if it were true. I think it isn't even in some translations.
Volumes have been written about this subject (of who wrote what - and what was originally written and what was added later).
Thankfully, there are some good sources on the internet. I like Bible Gateway because there I can easily compare the various versions.
King James was not a Scripture scholar. But despite that, I do admit that he did the best that he could, at the time, to offer an English translation of scripture that was based on what they knew then.
Based on what I know of exegesis, what you quoted was a part of the original writing.
Whether the Apostle Paul, himself, wrote Romans or not is a different story.
But that is besides the point. I firmly believe that either he (Paul) or one of his close followers wrote it.
Yes, there is of course a good debate if Paul wrote Romans or not, but as noted that is another discussion.
There are people, esp those who wish to discredit the bible, who go over word for word, trying to find difference in writing style, improper use of words for a time and more to try to prove points like this.
And of course in some books like Genesis there are discussions about different older versions being combined prior to the birth of Christ after being lost many years.
We do have to understand and remember that for 100's of years there was no "bible" there was old testement scripture accepted though the Jewish Faith that Christ accepted and used. And then there was separate and individual letters that various church leaders wrote to different churches. There would have been 100's if not 1000's of letters from different leaders to individual churches or people. I would guess that Paul should have written dozens more at lest, but they did not survive and were lost. Others were from lesser known church leaders if they existed and did not get included. In some cases some letters where only used or keep at one church and not accepted by others. It was a long and detailed process to decide what letters to include into what we have as a New Testement.
And most of those had been copied and sent out, and re copies and those were copies and so on.
So is it possible, of course, is it likey, no really. Since the entire sentence does fall within the norm and teachings of Paul in comparison to his other writings also.
Poster A on puritanboard.com wrote: According to Hodges and Farstad, in their Majority Text Greek NT the second half of the verse is extremely well attested in extant manuscripts. The chief objection is that two very old manuscripts (Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus) do not contain it.
Poster B: 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 (mē kata sarka peripatousin, “who do not walk according to the flesh”), while even later ones (א2 D2 33vid M) 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 M. -- Biblical Studies Press. (2006; 2006). The NET Bible First Edition; Bible. English. NET Bible.; The NET Bible. Biblical Studies Press.
Poster C: 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.
Just to clarify - King James I did not himself work on the Authorized King James Version of the bible. What he did was convene a group of 47 scholars from the Church of England and charge them with making a new english translation from the original Hebrew and Greek.Quote:
Originally Posted by RickJ
This poster is flat wrong about those men not adding to or taking away from it; the plethora of variations among the NT manuscripts shows that the scribes were a lot more willing to "correct" the text than scribes of the Old Testament were. In this particular verse, it looks to me like some scribes let their eyes stray from verse 1 to verse 4 and back again, and that's how the phrase got into verse 1. It was easy to do; consider that the copies they were working from looked something like this:Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Thereforethereisnownocon
Demnationforthosewhoarein
CtJsbecausethroughCtJsthel
AwoftheSptoflifesetmefreefr
OmthelawofsinanddeathForw
Hatthelawwaspowerlesstodoin
Thatitwasweakenedbythesin
FulnatureGddidbysendinghisown
Soninthelikenessofsinfulmantobe
Asinofferingandsohecondemneds
Ininsinfulmaninorderthattheright
Eousrequirementsofthelawmight
Befullymetinuswhodonotliveacc
Ordingtothesinfulnaturebutacco
RdingtotheSt
Try copying THAT 20 times a day without making mistakes!
Yes, I know that. What most people don't know is who those scholars were and what texts they used for the translation.Quote:
Originally Posted by ebaines
... but that's besides the point. I don't rely on the KJV but the version that I rely on does contain the text that the original poster posted about.
So we can agree on that! :)
I dug into this a little further and from everything I read it was not in the original Greek manuscripts.
The New American Standard Bible simply says:
Therefore there is now no condmenation for those who are in Christ Jesus.
AND think about this... why would there BE ANY condmenation if there was no sin involved in the first place? The enitre second part of that verse really doesn't even make sense.
So... I think I found the best answer to my question... so YAY go me. :)
The part in question does make sense: "who walk not after the flesh, but after the spirit." To me, that sounds like those who follow their own dictates (Freud's id) -- whatever feels good -- versus those who follow Jesus.Quote:
Originally Posted by classyT
WG,
Why would Paul say there is no condemenation as long as you are walking in the Spirit? We already KNOW that. Condememnation wouldn't be an issue if one had not sinned... right?
I don't feel condemenation when I haven't failed in some area. It only comes up when I have fallen short. That is the miracle and wonder of Grace.
Therefore now there is no condemnation to those who are IN Christ Jesus. Jesus took all of our shame, sin and condemnation at the cross. Knowing that gives us power not to sin.Isn't that what Jesus told the woman caught in adultry... neither do I condemn you, go and sin NO more.
Living under true Grace doesn't cause one to run out and sin. It does just the opposite. It causes us to be in awe and not want to sin. Paul says that sin will NOT have dominion over us... why? Because we are NOT under the law but under GRACE. So... I think Paul knocked your whatever feels good do it theory out of the water.
Huh? I don't have a "feel good" theory! I totally agree with you and believe the last part of that verse just further explains the first part, was added as clarification.Quote:
Originally Posted by classyT
WG,
OH! Well I'm so use to you arguing with me that I read it wrong. Ha ha... sorry WG. :(
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:54 PM. |