Intro and I Cor 4:6
1watson2 at open.org
Tue Dec 12 01:38:19 EST 2000
I think this is my 4th post in about 11/2 years and figured I ought
to weigh in with an introduction of some kind.
I've been fairly active with the text for the past 11+ years and
have been teaching for the past three. Our school is a small one -
usually 6 to 18 students per year. We emphasis the GNT so that students
can (hopefully) translate well after two years of honest work. The
method is inductive starting in John 1:1. First and second year Greek
is one hour/day, 4 days per week. During the first year they usually
make it through the first 2-4 chapters in John followed by I
Thessalonians and Galatians. Sometimes they make it to Ephesians.
Second year is a continuation of the first. After using I John to
knock off the summer rust I take them into Mark and on to Romans. I've
had some interesting results dragging them through Ephesians/Philippians
(What I call 'deadheading').
I tend to lurk with glee on a daily basis but something struck me
last night and this is why I'm compelled to write.
This awkward construction eluded me until I saw an interesting
difference between texts. I use the UBS 3rd edition and the Majority
text on occasion. This is where I found what I'm convinced is an
articular infinitive. It also appears in the TR but not in my pocket
The MT and TR reads:
I Cor 4:6 TAUTA DE, ADELFOI METESXHMATISA EIS EMAUTON KAI APOLLW DI
hUMAS hINA EN hHMIN MAQHTE TO MH UPER hO YEYRAPTAI FRONEIN hINA MH EIS
hUPER TOU hENOS MH FUSIOUSQE KATA TOU hETEROU.
But the UBS and Nestle texts read:
I Cor 4:6 TAUTA DE ADELFOI METESXHMATISA EIS EMAUTON KAI APOLLWN DI
hUMAS hINA EN hHMIN MAQHTE TO MH hUPER A YEYRAPTAI hINA MH EIS hUPER TOU
hENOS FUSIOUSQE KATA TOU hETEROU.
I also noted Randolph Yeager's interesting comment in vol. 12 p 389:
. . . TO introduces the object clause, into which we must
inject an infinitive, perhaps NOMIZEIN - "to think" . . . .
I've concluded that the MT supplies a more consistent reading with
TO . . . FRONEIN limiting (perhaps specifying) the negative clause so
that the Corinthians have a clear picture of the sphere in which their
thinking should operate ie. ".. .. .. so that you might learn to think
only within the sphere of what has been written.. .. .. " As well, the
singular pronoun O is more consistant with the number of YEYRAPTAI
rather than the plural A even though the plural N can have a 3S verb.
By default I realize I've made a textual decision but I sincerely
want to avoid the subject of textual criticism. After years of puzzled
thought I was tickled to find this reading and I offer my observations
up for your inspection and comments.
Yours in the Spirit of Christ's birth,
More information about the B-Greek