What happened to Romans 16:24?
Pastor Ostella
10-14-2001
Introduction
One day while outlining the book of Romans and studying the pericopes (literary paragraphs), I was surprised to find that many of my sources skipped Romans 16:24 going from verse 23 to verse 25. Then I noticed that the NIV omits verse 24 as well (putting it on the margin). In verse 24, the KJV has "The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen."
What happened to Roman 16:24? That is my topic for this morning. I will speak on the verse that isn't there, which makes for an interesting challenge. My main points will be as follows: 1) First, we will set the stage by putting this question into the context of textual criticism. 2) Second, we will consider the application of textual criticism to this passage. 3) Finally, we will discuss some perspectives on textual criticism for our reading of Romans and the NT today. Thus we will cover: the context of textual criticism, the application of textual criticism, and perspectives on textual criticism as these things are brought to our attention by the missing text in Romans 16.
1A. The context of textual criticism
To answer the question, "What happened to Romans 16:24?" we have to turn our attention to the science of text criticism. This science, like all sciences, has its own vocabulary. So we need to define some key terms to establish a context for this passage.
1) Autographs refer to the original text that was given by divine inspiration.
2) Inspiration refers to the written product of the creative breath of God given through human authors (2 Tim. 3:16, cf. it is the "writings" that are God-breathed). Thus, it can be said that most of what Jesus said was not inspired though all that He said was revelation. How is this so? It is because most of what He said was not written down. Inspiration is in effect a technical term for the writing down of the words of God without error, that what Paul wrote, for example, was exactly what God intended.
For the book of Romans we need to make this simple qualification: the author may be different from the writer because Tertius wrote the letter to the Romans (16:22). Tertius is called an amanuensis; he is the person who writes for another. It is like saying Moo is the author of the commentary on Romans but Eerdmans wrote, that is, printed the words in the form that we read them. Likewise, Paul is the author of Romans but Tertius put the words down in writing in the form that the Romans actually read (they saw the penmanship of Tertius and not that of Paul). The work is inspired because of Paul's commission as an apostle who was appointed by God to give authoritative witness to the gospel of Christ.
The comment of Tertius also highlights another point about the inspiration of the NT. The NT is apostolic even though some of the authors are not apostles because the entire NT is either authored by apostles or comes under apostolic authority. For example, Tertius makes his own comment in verse 22. It is a greeting. He authored these words and not Paul. Is verse 22 inspired though not authored by Paul? Yes, because it comes under the apostolic umbrella. This is how we should view the writings of Luke, Mark, and Hebrews. They come to us from under the apostolic umbrella of authority and thus from the mouth of God.
Thus we need to note that the autographed letter to Romans is the original work that was authored by Paul, written down by Tertius, inspired by the Holy Spirit, and delivered to the city of Rome in approximately 57 A. D. (on the date see Moo 3).
3) Extant is a common word in this science. It means "still existing" versus being lost or destroyed. This brings up the important and inescapable fact that we do not have the autographs; they have been lost over time; they are not extant. What we do have are numerous copies of the originals. We have about 5,000 copies of the NT in Greek. Some are fragments and some contain the entire NT. The word "extant" applies here as well because many copies have been lost, some just wore out over time by continual use like what happens to our Bibles today; the binders break, we lose pages, and finally we replace it. How many of you have the first Bible you read and studied extensively? My first Bible was a Scofield Bible that lasted through my high school years and into college.
4) Variants are places where the copies differ. It should be no surprise to find differences of various sorts from the spelling of individual words to conflicting words, sentences, and even whole paragraphs in a couple of places (cf. the end of Mark and John 7:53-8:11). There are variants in the copies of the NT as we might expect from the difficulty of hand copying many pages of text that have no verse or paragraph divisions (sometimes just all capital letters with no breaks between the words!). They speak of errors of fatigue, errors of the eye, and even errors introduced by copyists trying to rectify differences they observe in the materials they have before them.
5) Textual criticism is the science that identifies and seeks to resolve variants. The goal is to determine the original by comparison of the copies (and by studying copying tendencies and pitfalls).
6) Textual witnesses are the copies themselves, quotations of the text in the church fathers, and translations into other languages. These all witness to the autographs. It has to be determined if the witness is credible or not.
7) Textual families are manuscripts or copies however complete or incomplete that are so similar when matched that they can be grouped together. They are like limbs on the transmission tree: picture some marked differences while the branches and leaves intertwine and cohere. We should point out at this juncture that though there are family differences, there is still a single family. This is saying that most of the variants are inconsequential. I'll say more about that later.
8) The "textus receptus" (the received text) refers to the textual family that is said to underlie the KJV (also called the majority text because this family out numbers all others). The translators of the KJV did some textual criticism (they made marginal notes at more than a dozen places) but the science as we know it blossomed in the 19th century. The KJV lacks input from developments in the science of textual criticism of modern times.
Some observations should be made in this light. 1) Again, even the KJV translators did textual criticism in full recognition of variants in the Greek text they used. 2) Variants exist in the history of the KJV itself in English (1611). The 1613 edition differed at 400 places from the 1611 edition. The 1631 edition had "Thou shalt commit adultery" for Exodus 20:14. 3) The textus receptus is by and large the 1516 text of Erasmus (the opponent of Luther). That accounts for the unusual variant of 1 John 5:7-8 (on the three that are one that was penned by a friar in 1520 and inserted by Erasmus in his 1522 edition). Erasmus also translated the Latin into Greek when he lacked a Greek text as in Acts 9:6 ("What will you have me do?" is in the Latin of 9:6 probably based on Acts 22:10 where there is a Greek basis). A good plea for realism regarding the KJV and other translations is made by D.A. Carson's The King James Version Debate (Baker, 1979).
2A. The application of textual criticism
In an abbreviated way we can see how textual criticism applies to Romans 16:24.
1B. First, we need to see the alternatives.
Verse 24 occurs in the witnesses to the original reading (the copies) not only at this location but also at the very end of the chapter. Let's put the variations in front of us.
1. 24 omitted but 25-27 present 23 25-27
2. 24 placed after 25-27 23 25-27 24
3. 24 present but 25-27 omitted 23 24
4. 24 placed before 25-27 23 24 25-27
Thus Romans has two endings: either v. 24 (benediction) or vs. 25-27 (doxology)
24 ends the book (with 25-27 present; # 2 above)
24 ends the book (with 25-27 omitted; # 3 above)
25-27 ends the book (with 24 present; # 4 above)
25-27 ends the book (with 24 omitted; # 1 above)
(for thought: from either list which pattern is found in the KJV versus the NIV?)
2B. A basic fact about 16:24 is that "the verse is omitted in the earliest and most important MSS" (Moo 933).
3B. How do we proceed from this basic fact?
We try on two different shoes, which are a) either it was not original and was added or b) it was original and was deleted. Regarding b) there is no good explanation for it being deleted if it was original. If the earliest witnesses to the text of Romans do not have v. 24 (and they do not) and if you assume that it should be there (as in KJV) you have to explain why it was deleted so early (before the 4th century). But no such explanation can be given. This argues strongly for the view that it was added later.
But if you assume that it was not there originally (as the best MSS indicate) but was added later, then you have to explain why it was added to confirm the original. And there are good accounts that can be offered to this end.
Here is a good account in summary. This is called a "liturgical formulation" (as a benediction). The tendency regarding sections in Scripture like this was to expand the text adding elements by comparison of different epistles of Paul and by comparison of different copies. This account can be worked out in steps in a rough and ready way.
1) First, why was it added? It was added at the end of the book to avoid ending with a doxology (to end with a benediction instead). It was and continues to be troubling for some readers of the close of Romans to have it end with a doxology (25-27). Paul does not end any other book with a doxology. He ends all others with a benediction sometimes with the exact words of the Romans 16:24 variant (1 Thess. 5:28; 2 Thess. 3:18). So, the tendency arose among some scribes to add the doxology of the Thessalonian epistles at the end of Romans. They got the idea by comparing various book closings and sensing something lacking they inserted this phrase (cf. benedictions with language similar to the variant that end Philippians, 2 Tim, Titus, Philemon, Col, Gal, Eph, and both Corinthian letters). Note that it is the end of the book that is in question.
2) Second, how did it find its way to its present location in the KJV tradition? The doxology (another story all its own) was questioned and was itself deleted in some manuscripts. In these manuscripts v. 24 was thus moved back to its present position following v. 23.
3) Then when vs. 25-27 were added in again (for good reasons), v. 24 was left in some MSS though it never occurred there or anywhere in the early MSS. Now the case is that some manuscripts do not have v. 24, some have it without vs. 25-27, some have it after 25-27 and some have it before 25-27. This set the stage for the final step.
4) Later families that underlie the KJV tended to collate all the various readings rather than err on the side of omission (i.e., if the MSS before them had one with Lord, another with Jesus, and still another with Christ, they would combine them into "Lord Jesus Christ."). In a way it is like what we have in the NIV when v. 24 is cited for us in the footnote. Just in case we may err by omission and due to the probabilities at work the reading is preserved but placed in a subordinate position in the margin.
This "textus receptus" tradition characteristically tended to include all the variables. Here it would not leave v. 24 out nor would it leave vs. 25-27 out. They would favor #4 in the list above though it has the least textual support.
Even this brief consideration shows that there is no good reason to depart from the oldest and most important witnesses that do not have v. 24 and that there is substantial evidence that accounts for how it was added at a later time. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that the NIV reading reflects the original (cf. Carson argues that the NIV is the best English translation yet, 97).
3A. Perspectives on textual criticism
Now some perspectives on textual criticism for our reading of Romans and the NT today.
1B. TC seeks to establish the autographs by getting behind all the copies to a text that is better than any one of them. It does not want to take away from Scripture but it also does not want to add to Scripture. We need to deal with this reality. Some copying mistakes subtract from the originals and some add to them. Hence the value of the eclectic text behind the NIV.
2B. TC shows us that variants only affect about 1/8 of the NT. Where there is substantial variation (like the end of Mark) variants only affect 1/1000 of the NT (about one page from the Greek NT). We should note that the study of textual transmission not only uncovers variants but it also uncovers how most of the variations occurred and in most cases which reading is the correct one.
3B. TC confirms that the theology of the NT is unimpaired by copyist errors. Even the worst manuscripts preserve historic Christian faith. For example, a manuscript that has "Joseph begat Jesus" also explicitly states that Jesus was born of a virgin.
4B. TC identifies the variants. This is radically important. We know where the variants are. Knowing where the variants are is critical. Therefore, no shadow of doubt is cast over every text.
5B. TC teaches us some things about God's providence. a) God has allowed copyist errors. b) They do not affect the truth of the gospel. A trustworthy message does not depend on establishing the exact words of Scripture at every point but on establishing the exact words on the majority of points, the 7/8 and the 999/1000. c) God's providence does not allow us to condone mistakes in copying nor does it restrain us from correcting them. d) TC shows us that the text of the NT is providentially and wonderfully preserved. When compared with Greek writings (Plato, etc), the transmission history is far superior.
6B. TC can be related to the inspiration and authority of Scripture. It may well be asked, "what is the value of verbal (word) inspiration if we have no word perfect copies or translations?" The value concerns that which is unquestionable. Inspiration grounds historic Christian faith as infallible, inerrant, and without contradiction. It cannot be broken for time or eternity. This is the point of passages like Psalms 12:6-7 and Matthew 5:18. God is faithful and will keep His promises. All will be accomplished. These are not promises of perfect transmission but of covenant faithfulness. With regard to those who are oppressed, needy, and being maligned, the Lord says, "I will protect them from those who malign them." And "the words of the Lord are flawless, like sliver refined in a furnace of clay, purified seven times." This turns to a prayer of faith and trust: "O Lord, you will keep us safe and protect us from such people forever" no matter how much they strut about (Ps. 12:5-8).
Conclusion
This fact wakes us up to the historical reality of Romans and all of Scripture. God has put His infallible word into history. He has preserved it through frail human copying and industrious textual criticism. He saves sinners in history.
This should remind us that we have a great privilege to have the Scriptures in our hands in the form we have it today. Thus we should be encouraged to the basic duty we have as disciples to handle it accurately. We should make it our regular diet to live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God. We are to be people of the Book! (cf. Carson on subtracting Scriptural content from our lives: "How many of us ignore major doctrines, or do not trouble ourselves to attain to a thorough grasp of the basic content of each book of the Bible?" 72).
So we learn to not build our theology on a variant reading. But we also learn by great encouragement to build our theology by vigilant and discerning reading to the glory of Christ.