1. No category

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 978-1-59856-202-6
Preface (pgs. 7-9)
1 Cor. 4:17 (pgs. 332-333)
1 Cor. 7:34 (pgs. 339-340)
Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New
Testament (UBS4)
ISBN 978-1-59856-164-7
Prefaces (pgs. v-ix)
1 Cor. 4:17 (pg. 484)
1 Cor. 7:34 (pg. 490)
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
P R E F AC E
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
(UBS4). 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 UBS4
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
UBS4 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
8*
A TE X TUAL 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 UBS4). 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,
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
332
A TE X TUAL GUIDE
rivalry over one teacher as against another” (Moffatt, who states that “the
text and the meaning of the phrase between la! hgse and ^ima 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. 93-94; Collins, First Corinthians,
pp. 182-86). 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.”
4.17
Vqirsx
Zfl [ # 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)
T H E FI R ST L ET TE R O F PAUL T O THE CORINTHIANS
333
under the influence of the preceding jtqi! x
Z . It is more difficult to decide
between Vqirsx
Zfl # Igrotfl (followed by NRSV, NIV, TEV, and FC) and
simply Vqirsx
Zfl (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 jtqi! ot [g$ lx
fl 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 UBS4,
expands by adding Vqirsotfl (Christ) after # Igrotfl, and manuscript 81 reverses the order to read # Igrotfl Vqirsotfl sotfl jtqi! ot g$ lx
fl m. Whether the
pronoun g$ lx
fl m was added by copyists, or was accidentally omitted by several
witnesses, is difficult to decide. On the basis of good manuscript support,
g$ lx
fl 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 sx
Zfl o# mo! lasi sotfl
#
jtqi! ot [g$ lx
m]
Igrot
(in
the
name
of
the
Lord
[of
us]
Jesus) may be
fl
fl
connected to the words preceding and following. (Thiselton, The First
Epistle to the Corinthians, pp. 393-94, lists six possibilities.)
(1) Some translations take these words with the preceding verb je! 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.’”
T H E FI R ST L ET TE R O F PAUL T O THE CORINTHIANS
339
copyists. In order to recapture some of the nuance belonging to a! dekux
Zfl , the
words sx
Zfl pirsx
Zfl (in the faith) were later added to a! mdqi" 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.
7.15
t# lafly (you) {B}
The variant reading g# lafly (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# lafly.
7.34
jai$ lele" qirsai. jai$ g# ctmg$ g# a~caloy jai$ g# paqhe" 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. 587-90.) The major differences are that in
some witnesses the married man (v. 33) is the subject of the verb lele" 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 leqilmaZfl
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# paqhe" moy (the virgin) may have led copyists to shift the
adjective a~caloy (unmarried) from ctmg" to paqhe" moy, as in some witnesses.
The reading of those manuscripts which have the adjective g# a~caloy after
both ctmg" and paqhe" 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 jai" in some witnesses may be
explained either as an oversight (after ctmaiJI) or (in the case at least of Dc)
as a deliberate removal to keep from having the two nouns g# ctmg" and g#
paqhe" moy both used as the subject of the one verb leqilma
Zfl (is concerned).
That is, g# ctmg" is the subject of the verb lele" qirsai, and g# paqhe" moy g#
a~caloy is the subject of the verb leqilmaZfl . The presence of the first jai" is
supported by a good combination of witnesses.
340
A TE X TUAL 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 [lele" qirsai]. The unmarried woman or girl is concerned
[leqilmaZfl ] 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#
paqhe" moy may be interpreted and translated (see Ellingworth and Hatton,
A Handbook 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 [lele" qirsai] between the wife and the virgin; the unmarried
woman is concerned [leqilma
Zfl ] with the Lord’s business; . . .”
7.40
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 pa" msey cmx
fl 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. 134-43) for a good overview of 8.1-13, in which he argues that Paul is
quoting slogans from Corinth in vv. 1, 4, and 8.
A Textual Commentary on the Greek New
Testament (UBS4)
2nd Revised Edition
Bruce M. Metzger