Please Support the Bible Translation Work of the Updated American Standard Version (UASV)
Major Critical Texts of the New Testament
Byz RP: 2005 Byzantine Greek New Testament, Robinson & Pierpont
TR1550: 1550 Stephanus New Testament
Maj: The Majority Text (thousands of minuscules which display a similar text)
Gries: 1774-1775 Johann Jakob Griesbach Greek New Testament
Treg: 1857-1879 Samuel Prideaux Tregelles Greek New Testament
Tisch: 1872 Tischendorf’s Greek New Testament
WH: 1881 Westcott-Hort Greek New Testament
NA28: 2012 Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament
UBS5: 2014 Greek New Testament
NU: Both Nestle-Aland and the United Bible Society
SBLGNT: 2010 Greek New Testament ()
THGNT: 2017 The Greek New Testament by Tyndale House
GENTI: 2020 Greek-English New Testament Interlinear
ROMANS 16:24 2021 Greek-English New Testament Interlinear (GENTI & TR NU TGNT SBLGNT) [BRD]
ROMANS 16:24 WH Westcott and Hort
ROMANS 16:24 Nestle-Aland Text of the New Testament
Romans 16:24 King James Version
Romans 16:24 Updated American Standard Version (UASV) (Also, ESV, CSB, LEB, etc.)
WH NU omits verse
P46 P61 א (A) B C 1739 it cop
variant/TR include verse (same as in 16:20—see below)
D (F G omit Ιησου Χριστου [Jesus Christ]) Ψ Maj syrh
א* The superscript * refers to the original Codex Sinaiticus before it has been corrected by the correctors at the time of it be published or later correctors.
א1 is the corrector who worked on the manuscript before it left the scriptorium. B2 is a tenth- or eleventh-century corrector, who also retouched the writing and added accents and punctuation marks.
vid (short for Latin videtur, “it seems so”) indicates that the reading appears to be in the witness, but a lacuna or other damage to the ms makes it somewhat uncertain.
In the New Testament, we have numerous instances where the missing verse(s) evidently have come from other NT books or other parts of the same book itself. If you compare the King James Version or the New King James Version with the Updated American Standard Version or another modern translation, you will discover this. When you make this comparison, you will discover that what is omitted is just a verse repeated from another place in the book itself or another book. (Compare Matt. 18:11 with Luke 19:10; Matt. 23:14 with Mark 12:40 and Luke 20:47; Mark 7:16 with Mark 4:9, 23 and Luke 8:8; Mark 11:26 with Matt. 6:14; Mark 15:28 with Luke 23:37; Luke 17:36 with Matt. 24:40; Luke 23:17 with Matt. 27:15 and Mark 15:6.) Now considering our verse, compare Romans 16:24 with verse Romans 16:20 and as well as the closing verse in almost any of the books authored by the apostle Paul. You will notice that, in Romans 16:24, some copyists clearly added a closing expression, which was common with Paul in virtually all of his books. – 1 Cor. 16:23; 2 Cor. 13:14; Phil. 4:23; 1 Thess. 5:28; 2 Thess. 3:18.
The earliest and best manuscripts (P46 P61 א A B C 1739 Itb cop) do not contain vs 24, while later witnesses (D Ψ Maj syrh) contain 16:24, “The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen,” with F G omitting Ιησου Χριστου [Jesus Christ]. This verse is the same as the end of vs 20. All modern translations do not include this verse because of the superior testimony against it both internal and external.
Metzger in his A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, writes,
The earliest and best witnesses omit ver. 24. See the comment on ver. 20.
COMMENT ON VERSE 20: The shorter form of the benediction (𝔓46 א B 1881) appears to be more primitive, for if Χριστοῦ (A C P Ψ 33 81 1739 Byz all versions) were present originally there seems to be no reason why a copyist should have deleted it, whereas the general tendency was to expand liturgical formulations. Several Western witnesses (D G itd*, Sedulius Scotus) transfer the benediction to follow ver. 23, thus preventing the greetings of verses 21–23 from having the appearance of being an afterthought. Other witnesses (P 33 104 256 263 436 1319 1837 syrp arm) place ver. 24 following 16:27 (i. e. after the doxology), thus concluding the epistle with a benediction. If, however, it stood in this position originally, there is no good reason why it should have been moved earlier.
Comfort in his New Testament Text and Translation Commentary: Commentary on the Variant Readings of the Ancient New Testament Manuscripts and How They Relate to the Major English Translations writes,
The omission of this verse is strongly supported by all the earliest manuscripts. The verse was copied from 16:20 by some scribe (or scribes) who thought it was also suited to follow the postscript (see note on 16:20). Since TR and Majority Text include this verse, so do KJV and NKJV. The Western manuscripts (D F G) add the benediction at 16:24 because they do not include 16:25–27. All modern translations, following superior testimony, do not include the verse. At the same time, these translations provide a textual note concerning this verse because of its place in traditional English translations. The textual situation of 16:24 must be considered along with 16:25–27 (see following note).
The doxology to Romans is as follows:
Now to the one who is able to strengthen you, according to my gospel and the proclamation of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery kept secret in times eternal, but is now manifested, and through the prophetic writings is made known to the Gentiles, according to the command of the eternal God, to bring about the obedience of faith—to the only wise God, through Jesus Christ, to whom be the glory forever. Amen.
This doxology is found in several places in the manuscript tradition
Variant Reading(s): differing versions of a word or phrase found in two or more manuscripts within a variation unit (see below). Variant readings are also called alternate readings.
Variation Unit: any portion of text that exhibits variations in its reading between two or more different manuscripts. It is important to distinguish variation units from variant readings. Variation units are the places in the text where manuscripts disagree, and each variation unit has at least two variant readings. Setting the limits and range of a variation unit is sometimes difficult or even controversial because some variant readings affect others nearby. Such variations may be considered individually, or as elements of a single reading. One should also note that the terms “manuscript” and “witness” may appear to be used interchangeably in this context. Strictly speaking “witness” (see below) will only refer to the content of a given manuscript or fragment, which it predates to a greater or lesser extent. However, the only way to reference the “witness” is by referring to the manuscript or fragment that contains it. In this book, we have sometimes used the terminology “witness of x or y manuscript” to distinguish the content in this way.
Copyists made some additions to their Greek text at times. They were more inclined to do this than to omit material. One must always carry out careful research of the external and internal evidence to uncover such scribal interpolations. Hence, the most dependable witnesses are from the Alexandrian family of manuscripts found to be the most condensed. On the other hand, the Byzantine family is the most drawn out and extended from scribes taking liberties with the text.
TERMS AS TO HOW WE SHOULD OBJECTIVELY VIEW THE DEGREE OF CERTAINTY FOR THE READING ACCEPTED AS THE ORIGINAL
The modal verbs are might have been (30%), may have been (40%), could have been (55%), would have been (80%), must have been (95%), which are used to show that we believe the originality of a reading is certain, probable or possible.
The letter [WP] stands for Weak Possibility (30%), which indicates that this is a low-level proof that the reading might have been original in that it is enough evidence to accept that the variant might have been possible, but it is improbable. We can say the reading might have been original, as there is some evidence that is derived from manuscripts that carry very little weight, early versions, or patristic quotations.
The letter [P] stands for Plausible (40%), which indicates that this is a low-level proof that the reading may have been original in that it is enough to accept a variant to be original and we have enough evidence for our belief. The reading may have been original but it is not probably so.
The letter [PE] stands for Preponderance of Evidence (55%), which indicates that this is a higher-level proof that the reading could have been original in that it is enough to accept as such unless another reading emerges as more probable.
The letter [CE] stands for Convincing Evidence (80%), which indicates that the evidence is an even higher-level proof that the reading surely was the original in that the evidence is enough to accept it as substantially certain unless proven otherwise.
The letter [BRD] stands for Beyond Reasonable Doubt (95%), which indicates that this is the highest level of proof: the reading must have been original in that there is no reason to doubt it. It must be understood that feeling as though we have no reason to doubt is not the same as one hundred percent absolute certainty.
NOTE: This system is borrowed from the criminal just legal terms of the United States of America, the level of certainty involved in the use of modal verbs, and Bruce Metzger in his A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (London; New York: United Bible Societies, 1994), who borrowed his system from Johann Albrecht Bengel in his edition of the Greek New Testament (Tübingen, 1734). In addition, the percentages are in no way attempting to be explicit but rather they are nothing more than a tool to give the non-textual scholar a sense of the degree of certainty. However, this does not mean the percentages are not reflective of certainty.
- Edward D. Andrews, FROM SPOKEN WORDS TO SACRED TEXTS: Introduction-Intermediate New Testament Textual Studies (Cambridge, Ohio), 2021.
- B. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort, Introduction to the New Testament in the Original Greek: Appendix (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1882)
- Biblical Studies Press, The NET Bible First Edition Notes (Biblical Studies Press, 2006)
- Bruce Manning Metzger, United Bible Societies, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Second Edition a Companion Volume to the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament (4th Rev. Ed.) (London; New York: United Bible Societies, 1994),
- Eberhard Nestle and Erwin Nestle, Nestle-Aland: NTG Apparatus Criticus, ed. Barbara Aland et al., 28. revidierte Auflage. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2012).
- Dirk Jongkind, ed., The Greek New Testament: Apparatus (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2017).
- Dirk Jongkind, ed., The Greek New Testament (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2017), Matt. 6:8.
- Eberhard Nestle and Erwin Nestle, Nestle-Aland: Novum Testamentum Graece, ed. Barbara Aland et al., 28. revidierte Auflage. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2012)
- Philip Wesley Comfort, A COMMENTARY ON THE MANUSCRIPTS AND TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Academic, 2015).
- Philip W. Comfort, New Testament Text and Translation Commentary: Commentary on the Variant Readings of the Ancient New Testament Manuscripts and How They Relate to the Major English Translations (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., 2008).
- Philip Wesley Comfort and David P. Barrett, The Text of the Earliest New Testament Manuscripts: Text of the Earliest New Testament Greek Manuscripts, 2 Volume Set The (English and Greek Edition) (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Academic, 2019)
- Rick Brannan and Israel Loken, The Lexham Textual Notes on the Bible, Lexham Bible Reference Series (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2014).
- Roger L. Omanson and Bruce Manning Metzger, A Textual Guide to the Greek New Testament: An Adaptation of Bruce M. Metzger’s Textual Commentary for the Needs of Translators (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2006).
- Wallace B., Daniel (n.d.). Retrieved from The Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts: http://csntm.org/
- Wilker, Wieland (n.d.). Retrieved from An Online Textual Commentary on the Greek Gospels: http://www.willker.de/wie/TCG/index.html