Catholic apologist, Robert A. Sungenis, noted the following textual issues with 1 Cor 4:6:
Weiss points out four areas
of discrepancy that lead to his conclusion: (1) there is a suspicious
repetition in τὸ μὴ ὑπὲρ and ἵνα μὴ εἶς ὑπὲρ suggesting that the scribe
may have copied μὴ… ὑπὲρ twice but only one was
present in the text. (2) the Latin texts do not translate the “[ινα μη],” which suggests that it was not in the original from which they
copied. (3) the object of μάθητε (“to
learn”) seems to be juxtaposed, suggesting that the phrase “not above what has
been written” would fit better after the clause “that one be not puffed up
against the other.” It would make more sense if the Corinthians were to learn
that they shouldn’t be puffed up rather than learn not to go above what has
been written. The latter has no precedent in the epistle whereas the former
continues very well the general theme of 1 Corinthians 1-4. The Douay-Rheims
version takes note of this juxtaposition and translates accordingly by placing
“what has been written” at the end of the sentence (i.e., “…that in us you may
learn, that one be not puffed up against the other for another, above that
which is written.”). (4) the striking absence of μὴ (“not”) in uncials D
(Codex Bazae) and E (Codex Laudianus), which suggests that it was not part of
the inspired text. (Robert A. Sungenis, “Does Scripture Teach Sola Scriptura,”
in Not By Scripture Alone: A Catholic Critique of the Protestant Doctrine of
Sola Scriptura, ed. Robert A. Sungenis [2d ed.; State Line, Pa.: Catholic Apologetics
International Publishing, Inc., 2013], 135 n. 44)
For Bousset, τὸ μὴ ὑπὲρ ἃ
γέγραπται is understood as a marginal note instructing the copyist that, “the
μὴ is written above the alpha” (i.e., the final letter of ἵνα). According to
Baljon, the phrase in question is the comment of a scribe who found the μὴ
added over the εἶς (written in the form of a numerical symbol “a”). Weiss
starts the gloss from ἃ in (ἃ γέγραπται ἵνα μὴ εἶς) which would read: “the ἃ
has been written, [read it as] ἵνα not εἶς”. This would necessitate the verb to
be an infinitive (φυσιοῦθαι) rather than the present indicative (φυσιοῦσθε) or subjunctive.
Curiously, a corrected version of Codex Sinaiticus contains the infinitive form
of the verb. We might also add at this point that though ὑπὲρ with the
accusative normally means “above” or “beyond” as noted in the various translations
recorded, it can also have the meaning of “over” in the local sense. This again
may suggest that the phrase in question was a marginal note to subsequent
copiers. It could have crept into the Greek text and become “not beyond what
has been written” when it originally was the marginal directive “the μὴ is
written over the alpha” alerting the scribe that the Greek word μὴ had been written
“over” the alpha of the word ἵνα. (Ibid., 136 n. 46)
For more on 1 Cor 4:6, see:
Not By Scripture Alone: A Latter-day Saint Refutation of Sola Scriptura