Monday, February 6, 2023

Robert Sungenis on the Textual Issues Surrounding 1 Corinthians 4:6

 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 μὴὑπὲρ 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