Is Romans 9:5 a late catholic interpolation?

[andrewcriddle]

The best known (and simplest) conjectural emendation is instead of ὁ ὢν to read ὧν ὁ
In this case one would translate whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, theirs [the Jews] is God over all blessed forever. Amen. i.e. God is in a special sense the God of the Jewish people.

Andrew Criddle

[Irish1975]

The best known (and simplest) conjectural emendation is instead of ὁ ὢν to read ὧν ὁ
In this case one would translate whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, theirs [the Jews] is God over all blessed forever. Amen. i.e. God is in a special sense the God of the Jewish people.

It is a rhetorical device to repeat the conjunction καὶ in a series of coordinate phrases (polysyndeton), and another device (asyndeton) to omit καὶ where it logically belongs. What we get in Romans 9:4-5 is a strange mixture of asyndeton and polysyndeton. [bolded means it's in our text, and the line strike means it's missing]:

who are Israelites,
and to whom belongs the adoption as sons,
and the glory
and the covenants
and the giving of the Law
and the worship
and the promises,
and whose are the fathers,
and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh,
and theirs [the Jews] is God over all blessed forever. Amen.

If the apostle is only referencing one divine being after his last "and," i.e. Christ the God, then it resolves nicely on the level of rhetoric. But if he suddenly reverts to asyndeton when he turns (according to the proposed conjectural emendation) to praising the God of Israel, it is very awkward. The final asyndeton between Christ according to the flesh and this conjectured reference to the God of Israel would not be rhetoric, but confusion. A final statement in this resume of Jewish greatness, referring to their god as the one true god, would deserve pride of place. But the use of asyndeton here fails to honor such a statement.

Therefore, as long as we're indulging in conjectural emendations, we should add an extra καὶ between σάρκα and ὧν ὁ:

οἵτινές εἰσιν Ἰσραηλῖται, ὧν ἡ υἱοθεσία καὶ ἡ δόξα καὶ αἱ διαθῆκαι καὶ ἡ νομοθεσία καὶ ἡ λατρεία καὶ αἱ ἐπαγγελίαι, ὧν οἱ πατέρες καὶ ἐξ ὧν ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα, καὶ ὧν ὁ ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, ἀμήν.

To buy this revision of the text, of course, one has to believe that Paul's words were received incorrectly from the beginning, in a statement about Christ and God, and were never afterwards corrected in a single manuscript of Romans.

[DCHindley]

As for whether there is textual reasons for believing Romans 9:5 is a later interpolation, I looked up this passage in William O. Walker Jr's Interpolations in the Pauline Letters (2001: Sheffield Academic Press):

Page 17, note 33: "Listed without documentation as a proposed 'secondary gloss' by Fitzmyer (Romans, p. 65)."

So, on textural grounds, it is not high on the list of likely scribal interpolations. Elsewhere in his book, Walker says that hardly any of the likely interpolations have strong manuscript support. I believe I remember him suggesting this may be due to the final editing having occurred after other variants had been rejected for whatever reason.

This leaves us with arguments based on style, but such arguments are (IMHO) too speculative to fill me with great confidence.

That being admitted, I do identify this verse as an interpolation that was inserted to "hijack" the original argument. That "original" argument was about how faith in God's promise to give the promised land to Abraham's "seed," had justified Abraham before God even before he circumcised himself and the members (no pun intended) of his household. Paul was telling his gentile friends that because they believed that God would fulfill his promise, God was prepared to adopt the gentiles as co-heirs to share in the exceptional bounty that age would bring to the world.

The interpolation makes the justification available only through faith in the idea that Jesus as an atoning sacrifice. To me that seems secondary, something added to change the moral of the story.

DCH

[Irish1975]

It is worth pondering that almost every affirmation made in 9:4-5 of the distinctiveness of the Jews has its contrary/contrast elsewhere in the epistle:

to the Israelites belongs the adoption as sons	For all who are being led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God. (8:14) It is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants (9:8).
to the Israelites belongs the giving of the Law	For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them (2:14-15)
to the Israelites belongs the glory	for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (3:23)
to the Israelites belong the promises	For this reason it is by faith, in order that it may be in accordance with grace, so that the promise will be guaranteed to all the descendants, not only to those who are of the Law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham...(4:16a)
of the Israelites are the fathers	...Abraham, who is the father of us all. (4:16b)
theirs [the Jews] is God over all blessed forever Amen [conjectured]	Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also (3:29)

Only some of these antitheses make sense according to the "Jew first, but also the Greek" theme.

[Irish1975]

So, on textural grounds, it is not high on the list of likely scribal interpolations. Elsewhere in his book, Walker says that hardly any of the likely interpolations have strong manuscript support.

Your second sentence cancels out the first. The likelihood of interpolation (or secondary/editorial authorship) is not and should not be predicated on manuscript variations. I made no appeal to that. And I think the causes of textual variation are many, and can rarely be connected with any reliability to questions about authenticity.

This leaves us with arguments based on style, but such arguments are (IMHO) too speculative to fill me with great confidence.

What about the non-Pauline style of the Pastorals? Do you not consider that sound evidence of pseudonymity?

That being admitted, I do identify this verse as an interpolation that was inserted to "hijack" the original argument. That "original" argument was about how faith in God's promise to give the promised land to Abraham's "seed," had justified Abraham before God even before he circumcised himself and the members (no pun intended) of his household. Paul was telling his gentile friends that because they believed that God would fulfill his promise, God was prepared to adopt the gentiles as co-heirs to share in the exceptional bounty that age would bring to the world.

The interpolation makes the justification available only through faith in the idea that Jesus as an atoning sacrifice. To me that seems secondary, something added to change the moral of the story.

I don't see how these comments bear specifically on Romans 9:1-5, although they do relate to 9:6ff. What (e.g.) does the atoning sacrifice have to do with 9:5?

[GakuseiDon]

It is worth pondering that almost every affirmation made in 9:4-5 of the distinctiveness of the Jews has its contrary/contrast elsewhere in the epistle:

to the Israelites belongs the adoption as sons	For all who are being led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God. (8:14) It is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants (9:8).
to the Israelites belongs the giving of the Law	For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them (2:14-15)
to the Israelites belongs the glory	for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (3:23)
to the Israelites belong the promises	For this reason it is by faith, in order that it may be in accordance with grace, so that the promise will be guaranteed to all the descendants, not only to those who are of the Law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham...(4:16a)
of the Israelites are the fathers	...Abraham, who is the father of us all. (4:16b)
theirs [the Jews] is God over all blessed forever Amen [conjectured]	Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also (3:29)

Only some of these antitheses make sense according to the "Jew first, but also the Greek" theme.

Not so much "Jew first, but also the Greek", but more "Natural/flesh first, but really the spiritual". Take Rom 9:8 for example:

8. That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

Compare with the following, where one could easily replace "natural man" by "Jewish man holding on to the law":

1 Cor 2:
14 The natural man does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God. For they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Below, the "natural" body is first, and then the "spiritual":

1 Cor 15:

46 The spiritual, however, was not first, but the natural, and then the spiritual.

As Paul makes clear, Jewish people can also be part of the promise to the seed, as long as they are part of the spiritual path and not the "fleshly" path.

[Irish1975]

Not so much "Jew first, but also the Greek", but more "Natural/flesh first, but really the spiritual".

Yes Paul has a flesh/spirit theology across many passages. But are you saying that Paul is not primarily talking in Romans 9-11 about the Jewish people as constituted under the Mosaic covenant and law?

[GakuseiDon]

Not so much "Jew first, but also the Greek", but more "Natural/flesh first, but really the spiritual".

Yes Paul has a flesh/spirit theology across many passages. But are you saying that Paul is not primarily talking in Romans 9-11 about the Jewish people as constituted under the Mosaic covenant and law?

Yes, in a way, if you mean his primary concern was about the divide between law-abiding Jews vs Gentiles. Paul does of course talk about law-abiding Jews, but to my mind he is talking about issues that are deeper than that Jewish/Gentile divide. After Paul felt called to Christ, he still considered himself an Israelite, but did he still consider himself Jewish? I think he did, but I think he thought that those who are in Christ, including the Gentiles, were all spiritually circumcised, and thus all spiritually Jewish. As Paul writes in Romans 2:

Rom 2:28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

In Romans 10, Paul writes:

Rom 10:12 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.
13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

Similarly, Paul writes in Galatians:

Gal 3:27 For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.
28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
29 And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed and heirs according to the promise.…

The divide there isn't between Jew and Gentile, but those called to Christ and the rest. As Paul writes:

Rom 9:6 ... Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:
7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed...
...
Rom 9:23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,
24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

Paul does have a lot to say about Mosiac law-abiding Jews, but it is always in terms of the spiritual aspects.

[Mask]

Romans 9-11 is a great Second-Temple monotheistic exposition, telling the story of God's covenant to Abraham coming true, and this is done through the Messiah that there can be dikaiosyne for all who believe. Chuck in the King's College choir and you have the Nine Lessons and Carols.

So what Paul is doing is tying together messianic beliefs and the hope for the return of YHWH. In effect, he's saying in R9-11 that it turns out that the Messiah is YHWH embodied, come to keep His deal on track.

Grammatically Paul calling Jesus theos is preferable, as argued earlier.

So the context is there, the grammar is there; the only remaining objection seems to be that Paul doesn't do this elsewhere. But he does. The blatant application in Philippians 2:10 of Isaiah 45 esp v23 is one such place. The insertion of Jesus into the Shema in 1 Corinthians 8 esp v4-6 is another.

[Irish1975]

Grammatically Paul calling Jesus theos is preferable, as argued earlier.

So the context is there, the grammar is there; the only remaining objection seems to be that Paul doesn't do this elsewhere. But he does. The blatant application in Philippians 2:10 of Isaiah 45 esp v23 is one such place. The insertion of Jesus into the Shema in 1 Corinthians 8 esp v4-6 is another.

Thanks for responding.

This is interesting, because I read those texts, as well as 1 Cor 15 (see above), as saying exactly the opposite: that (for Paul) there is God (the Father), and there is also the Lord Jesus Christ. The Philippians hymn is explicit that a being “in the form of God,” and having the option to “seize equality with God,” descended, died, and was exalted by God. Then given the name above all names, and acclaimed as Lord. In the mythology of this poem, God is patently a distinct, superior, and utterly transcendent “Father.” There is no binitarianism or trinitarianism in Paul. Neither does he ever say “Jesus is God.” There is God on the one hand, and the Son of God on the other hand.

I also take issue with your statement that “the context is there.” The context of chapters 9-11 is a lamentation for the “fleshly” people of Israel and a theodicy arising from that lamentation. A sudden “ejaculation” about the deity of Christ (the only way to describe it) in verse 5—having nothing whatever to do with the issue of God’s people and their ignorance of God’s righteousness—which has no prelude and no follow-up, and in itself follows the verbatim form of a doxology of YHWH/God-the-Father, but in a garbled and incoherent manner: this cannot be a Pauline discourse.