Omanson, A Textual Guide to the Greek New Testament ISBN Preface (pgs. 7-9) 1 Cor. 4:17 (pgs ) 1 Cor. 7:34 (pgs.

Transcription

1 What is the difference between the Omanson and Metzger? We have included the following from each text to help you compare and contrast the two approaches. Omanson, A Textual Guide to the Greek New Testament ISBN Preface (pgs. 7-9) 1 Cor. 4:17 (pgs ) 1 Cor. 7:34 (pgs ) Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (UBS4) ISBN Prefaces (pgs. v-ix) 1 Cor. 4:17 (pg. 484) 1 Cor. 7:34 (pg. 490)

2 A Textual Guide to the Greek New Testament An Adaptation of Bruce M. Metzger s Textual Commentary for the Needs of Translators Roger L. Omanson, editor

3 PREFACE The notes in this volume are based on the second edition of Bruce M. Metzger s A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (1994), and are meant to be read alongside the text and textual notes in the United Bible Societies The Greek New Testament 4th revised edition, 8th printing 2004 (UBS 4 ). During one of our triennial translation workshops a few years ago, the translation officers of the United Bible Societies expressed the need for a revision of Metzger s Textual Commentary, one which would assist translators who have not received formal training in textual criticism to discover more easily for themselves the reasons that certain variant readings in the NT are more likely to be original than others. The notes are not intended to replace Metzger s original notes, but merely to simplify and expand them. One way the notes have been simplified is by not repeating the manuscript evidence for the different textual variants. Readers should consult the UBS 4 text to see which manuscripts support the different readings. Metzger s notes have met admirably the needs of advanced students of textual criticism since they were first published in 1971, and they will continue to do so. Furthermore, Metzger s volume discusses several hundred additional readings that are not included in the critical apparatus of the United Bible Societies Greek New Testament and which are not, therefore, included in this present volume. The notes in this volume were prepared in the awareness that English is not the first language of most translators of the NT. Therefore, technical matters have been explained in non-technical language. But use of some technical terms and expressions is unavoidable, and for this reason, the chapter The Practice of New Testament Textual Criticism provides a brief overview of textual criticism, including explanations of key terms, a history of the text, and methods that are used by text-critical scholars to arrive at their conclusions. In the present volume, Metzger s notes have been expanded by considerations related to translation of the readings in the critical apparatus (see, for example, Luke 4.17; Acts 2.37; 2 Cor 5.17). In a case such as 1 Cor 4.17, for example, translators will easily understand from the critical apparatus in UBS 4 that the text reads in Christ Jesus, and that the variants are in Christ, and in the Lord Jesus. But with variant readings such as those in 1 Cor 7.34, it may not be clear what the differences in meanings are, so the

4 8* A TEXTUAL GUIDE notes help sort out how the different variants will be interpreted and translated. It will be noted that some of the variant readings have little or no significance for translation. The difference between the variant readings may be one of style only (Matt 20.31; 23.9), such as the presence or absence of a preposition with a noun (Mark 1.8). Often variant readings of this kind will be translated the same in the receptor language. Or the variant readings may be synonyms (Matt 9.8; 16.27; 28.11) or may consist of the presence or absence of a definite article (Mark 10.31; 12.26) or a third-person pronoun used to express possession (Matt 19.10; Mark 6.41). Characteristics of the receptor language may require that variant readings of this kind be translated the same as the reading in the text. For functional equivalence translations, other kinds of variants such as different spellings of a person s name (Matt 13.55) or the presence or absence of the subject or object of a verb (Matt 8.25; Mark 9.42) may also be insignificant. The textual notes also include discussions of some of the more significant differences in divisions and punctuation of the text where those involve differences in meaning (see The Discourse Segmentation Apparatus in the Introduction to UBS 4 ). Modern editions of the Greek NT, as well as modern translations, sometimes differ in where breaks are made in the text. This is certainly true in terms of where new paragraphs and new sections begin. Among the kinds of significant segmentation differences discussed are the following: (1) breaks between paragraphs (1 Tim 3.1), (2) breaks between words and phrases (Mark 13.9; 2 Cor 8.3; Eph 1.4), (3) use or non-use of quotation marks (1 Cor 6.12, 13; 7.1), (4) beginning and ending of direct quotations (John 3.13, 15, 21; Gal 2.14), (5) ending of embedded quotations (Matt 21.3), (6) existence of parenthetical comments (Luke 7.28; Acts 1.18), (7) punctuation of sentences as declarative or interrogative (1 Cor 6.19), (8) use of poetic format to indicate use of traditional material (Phil 2.6; Col 1.15), (9) o^si understood as recitative (introducing a direct quotation), as introducing an indirect quotation, or as introducing a causal clause (Mark 8.16). Translators are urged to follow the readings in the text of The Greek New Testament. The textual notes here frequently provide a translation both of the readings in the text and of the variant readings so that the differences in meaning among the variants may be more clearly understood. Often major contemporary versions such as RSV, NRSV, REB, NIV, TEV, NJB, TOB,

5 PREFACE 9* FC, Seg, and a few others have been quoted to illustrate these differences. The use of these quotations is not intended to recommend either the variant itself or its translation, but only to illustrate it. The notes on different possible segmentation and punctuation do not present the exegetical evidence for or against the various possibilities, nor do they argue in favor of one or the other. By means of these notes, translators are alerted to places where the meaning and translation will be different, depending on how the words, phrases, and sentences in the text are divided. Translators should consult the standard commentaries, some of which are listed in the sources cited at the end of the notes on each book. Throughout this volume, references are made to recent commentaries in English, most of which are still in print and are easily available. There are many useful books and articles related to the study of the NT text in other major languages such as French and German, but the references here have been limited to English-language books and articles in keeping with the intended audience. Roger L. Omanson United Bible Societies Consultant for Scholarly Editions

6 332 A TEXTUAL GUIDE rivalry over one teacher as against another (Moffatt, who states that the text and the meaning of the phrase between laä hgse and i^ma lg are beyond recovery ; TOB also omits these words, stating in a footnote that they are a scribe s comment in the margin of a manuscript which was later mistakenly added to the text itself); (3) A designation of Old Testament scripture or a popular saying: For your sake, my friends, I have applied all this to Apollos and me, using the two of us as an example, so that you may learn what the saying means, Observe the proper rules. None of you should be proud of one person and despise another (TEV); and Now, brothers, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, Do not go beyond what is written. Then you will not take pride in one man over against another (NIV). An alternate translation in VP reads, so that you may learn not to go beyond the Scriptures. NLT similarly says I have used Apollos and myself to illustrate what I ve been saying. If you pay attention to the Scriptures, you won t brag about one of your leaders at the expense of another. For a clear and brief argument for this interpetation, see Hays (First Corinthians, pp.68-69), who writes, What would it mean to go beyond (hyper) this witness of Scripture? It would mean, quite simply, to boast in human wisdom by supposing that we are, as it were, smarter than God. 4.8 Segmentation The three statements in this verse are translated as simple statements in KJV. This punctuation seems to suggest that Paul is stating what he believes to be true. But most interpreters think that Paul is being quite sarcastic here (Soards, 1 Corinthians, p ; Collins, First Corinthians, pp ). Translations attempt to express the irony or sarcasm by punctuating either with exclamation points or question marks. NRSV, for example, translates, Already you have all you want! Already you have become rich! Quite apart from us you have become kings! Indeed, I wish that you had become kings, so that we might be kings with you! And TEV translates, Do you already have everything you need? Are you already rich? Have you become kings, even though we are not? Well, I wish you really were kings, so that we could be kings together with you Vqirsxfl Z [ Igrotfl] (in Christ [Jesus]) {C} Among the several variants presented by the manuscripts, the Western reading of D* F G ( in Lord Jesus ) is clearly a copyist s error (KW for XW)

7 Z Z Z THE FIRST LETTER OF PAUL TO THE CORINTHIANS 333 under the influence of the preceding jtqiäxz.itismore difficult to decide between Vqirsxfl Igrotfl (followed by NRSV, NIV, TEV, and FC) and simply Vqirsxfl (followed by RSV, NJB, REB, TOB, and Seg). In order to represent the balance of evidence, the name Igrotfl has been kept, but put in brackets. 5.4 sotfl jtqiäot [g lxfl m] Igrotfl (of the Lord [of us] Jesus) {C} In accord with the solemn character of the address, the Textus Receptus, in agreement with the manuscripts listed in the critical apparatus of UBS 4, expands by adding Vqirsotfl (Christ) after Igrotfl, and manuscript 81 reverses the order to read Igrotfl Vqirsotfl sotfl jtqiäot g lxfl m. Whether the pronoun g lxfl m was added by copyists, or was accidentally omitted by several witnesses, is difficult to decide. On the basis of good manuscript support, g lxfl m is kept in the text, but it is put in brackets to indicate a measure of doubt as to its right to stand there. In some languages, it will be grammatically necessary to include a possessive pronoun regardless of the text followed. There are at least three ways in which the words e m sxfl o moä lasi sotfl jtqiäot [g lxfl m] Igrotfl (in the name of the Lord [of us] Jesus) may be connected to the words preceding and following. (Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, pp , lists six possibilities.) (1) Some translations take these words with the preceding verb jeä jqija (I have pronounced judgment). NRSV, for example, says 3 For though absent in body, I am present in spirit; and as if present I have already pronounced judgment 4 in the name of the Lord Jesus on the man who has done such a thing. That is, Paul s judgment is in the name of Jesus. (2) Others take these words with what follows in verse 4. REB, for example, reads when you are all assembled in the name of our Lord Jesus, and I am with you in spirit... (similarly NJB). That is, the Corinthian believers are gathered together in the name of Jesus. (3) Still others connect these words with the man who has done such a thing. The alternate translation in NRSV reads, 3 For though absent in body, I am present in spirit; and as if present I have already pronounced judgment 4 on the man who has done such a thing in the name of the Lord Jesus. Following this third possible segmentation, Horsley (1 Corinthians, p. 79) comments, Just as Paul called the Corinthians sophia wisdom of the world (1.20), so here he suggests rhetorically that the man was living with his stepmother in the name of the Lord Jesus.

8 Z Z Z Z THE FIRST LETTER OF PAUL TO THE CORINTHIANS 339 copyists. In order to recapture some of the nuance belonging to a dekuxfl Z, the words sxfl pirsxfl (in the faith) were later added to a mdqiä in some witnesses. These changes are stylistic and do not change the overall sense of the text (Collins, First Corinthians, p.271). If a literal translation of the reading in the text may be misunderstood, a rendering such as through her Christian husband (REB, TEV, FC), her believing husband (NIV), or simply through her husband (NRSV and TOB) may be preferable t lafl y (you) {B} The variant reading g lafl y (us) seems to have slightly stronger external support than the reading in the text. In later Greek these two plural pronouns were pronounced alike. However, since the tendency of copyists was to make changes that generalize the reference in statements such as this, it seems more likely that t lafly is original but was changed to g lafl y jai leleä qirsai. jai g ctmg g a~caloy jai g paqheä moy (and he is divided. And the unmarried woman and the virgin) {D} The text here has numerous variant readings and its interpretation is uncertain. (See the concise discussion of this text by Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, pp ) The major differences are that in some witnesses the married man (v. 33) is the subject of the verb leleä qirsai (see the REB translation cited below); and in others, the unmarried woman is the subject of this verb. In some witnesses, the subject of the verb leqilmafl is the unmarried woman and the virgin ; and in others, the subject is the virgin. The difficulty of distinguishing g ctmg g a~ caloy (the unmarried woman) from g paqheä moy (the virgin) may have led copyists to shift the adjective a~ caloy (unmarried) from ctmgä to paqheä moy, asinsome witnesses. The reading of those manuscripts which have the adjective g a~ caloy after both ctmgä and paqheä moy is the result of two separate readings having been combined. None of the readings is satisfactory, but the most satisfactory is that of the text, which is supported by early representatives of the Alexandrian and the Western text-types. The absence of the first jaiä in some witnesses may be explained either as an oversight (after ctmaiji)or (in the case at least of D c ) as a deliberate removal to keep from having the two nouns g ctmgä and g paqheä moy both used as the subject of the one verb leqilmafl (is concerned). That is, g ctmgä is the subject of the verb leleä qirsai, and g paqheä moy g a~caloy is the subject of the verb leqilmafl Z. The presence of the first jaiä is supported by a good combination of witnesses.

9 340 A TEXTUAL GUIDE Nearly all modern translations follow the reading in the text. REB, for example, translates, 33...his aim is to please his wife, 34 and he is pulled in two directions [leleä qirsai]. The unmarried woman or girl is concerned [leqilmafl Z ] with the Lord s business; her aim is to be dedicated to him in body as in spirit. But the married woman is concerned with worldly affairs; her aim is to please her husband. It should be noted that even if the reading in the text is followed, there are at least five different ways in which the words g ctmg g a~ caloy jai g paqheä moy may be interpreted and translated (see Ellingworth and Hatton, AHandbook on Paul s First Letter to the Corinthians, p. 173). The REB footnote gives the following translation of the reading of some early versions and later Greek manuscripts: 33...his aim is to please his wife. 34 There is this difference [leleä qirsai] between the wife and the virgin; the unmarried woman is concerned [leqilmafl Z ] with the Lord s business; heotfl (of God) {A} The reading Vqirsotfl (of Christ) in two manuscripts arose through errors in copying. 8.1 Segmentation As in 6.12 and 13, many interpreters think that the words paä msey cmxfl rim e~volem (we all have wisdom) are a slogan used by the Corinthians to justify their behavior. According to this interpretation, Paul quotes the slogan and agrees in part, but then corrects the slogan to show how they have misused this understanding. NRSV reflects this interpretation by placing quotation marks around the slogan: Now concerning food sacrificed to idols: we know that all of us possess knowledge. Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up. Translations that follow this interpretation often simply put quotation marks around the translated words (so, for example, RSV and NRSV). If this interpretation is followed, however, REB, which adds the words as you say, may provide a better model: Now about meat consecrated to heathen deities. Of course We all have knowledge, as you say. Knowledge inflates a man, whereas love builds him up. See Hays (First Corinthians, pp ) for a good overview of , in which he argues that Paul is quoting slogans from Corinth in vv. 1, 4, and 8.

10 A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (UBS4) 2nd Revised Edition Bruce M. Metzger

11

12

13

14

15

16

17