KJV Copyist Error? Romans 8:1 and 8:4

many feel that this was added in by a scribe, or maybe a gloss was incorporated intot he text, as someone could not handle the reading that we were justified freely by Christ regardless of living in the flesh or not!

 

I'm pretty sure that all the words present in most Greek mss of Rom 8:1 reflect the original. There is some question though about the second and third parts of the verse.

Rom 8:1:
Therefore now there is no condemnation to those in Christ Jesus
(about 15 Greek mss)

Therefore now there is no condemnation to those in Christ Jesus who walk not after the flesh
(about 10 Greek mss)

Therefore now there is no condemnation to those in Christ Jesus who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit.
(about 570 Greek mss)

Paul often repeats himself, sometimes with identical wording. For example, see 1 Cor 15:13–16 (esp. vv. 13 and 16); 1 Cor 6:12 and 10:23; 2 Cor 10:8 and 13:10; 2 Cor 11:5 and 12:11, etc.

What must be considered is the quality of the Greek mss that omit the second and third parts of Rom 8:1, which could have irritated some due to their repetition in 8:4. And here we have a similar example in 1 Cor 15:53–54.

1 Cor 15:53 For this perishable must put on the imperishable, and wthis mortal body must put on immortality. 54 When the perishable puts on the imperishable, and the mortal puts on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written:

The text in bold was omitted by the two witnesses that are 150 years earlier than the earliest of all other witnesses to the passage (p46 Ir-lat). But they reflect a wrong copying tradition that probably began because the repetition was thought unnecessary or even annoying.

Now the interesting thing is that two of the primary witnesses that omit the second and third parts of Rom 8:1 also omit the six words in 1 Cor 15:53–54. Those are ℵ*/01 and C*/04 (both from the 4th cent.). These and many other Alexandrian witnesses characteristically shorten the text elsewhere, and so when they do so here in Rom 8:1 their activity may be interesting from an editorial perspective but certainly not worth following.

There is another reason why some tried to omit the clause intentionally: it seemed to contradict the previous verse, where Paul says his flesh serves the law of sin. The omitted clause of 8:1 limits the freedom from condemnation to only those who do not walk after the flesh! To some this seemed that Paul himself was not free from condemnation due to their impudent understanding of 7:25: "but with my flesh I serve the law of sin." This in itself was enough for some to banish the phrase(s) from their copies.

Sincerely,

Jonathan C. Borland