1 Corinthians 15:20 "become" textual issue

[Timotheos]

KJV: But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept. (1 Co 15:20).

ESV: But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. (1 Co 15:20).

NIV: But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. (1 Co 15:20).

Metzger's commentary is silent on this.

Is it listed as a variant at all?  I am not at home where my Greek tools are located.

The apparatus from Tischendorf...

τ. κεκοιμημενων sine εγε. cum אABD*EFGP 6. 17. 67** 71. 177. d e f g r vg sah cop basm arm aeth Irint 309 Or2,552 et3,538 (etcat 297) etint 4,693 Dial854 Chr426 Euthalcod al Hil1104 Ambrst al

 

[Thomas Cassidy]

I would argue that it does obscure the meaning. I don't see it as a flagrant issue, but the words "and become" does allow for a time lapse. It could be misleading in that sense (ala MacArthur)

Although it is possible to misunderstand the meaning of the text with the inclusion of the words in question, a closer examination of the entire passage seems, in my opinion, to clarify the intent. If you see the words "and become" used in the temporal sense, then, yes, you could be misled. However, if you see the words "and become" in the logical sense, as the "now" is to be understood, the meaning is the same with or without the reading "and become." So, in this instance I will stand in support of Ransom's opinion that the meaning is the same either way.

 

[Thomas Cassidy]

Ah, this is MUCH more clear.

Well, actually I don't believe it is. The way such textual apparatuses count manuscripts is a bit skewed. Each Alexandrian or Western manuscript is counted as a single witness but the Byzantine witnesses, which far outnumber the Alexandrian or Western witnesses, are counted as a single witness.

That means of counting stems from the assertion that the Byzantine text form was the result of a recension by Lucian, presbyter of Antioch. This recension is mentioned by Jerome, but he makes it clear it was ONLY the Old Testament that Lucian worked on. Any New Testament recension is mere speculation.

Additionally, adding to the above assertion, is the claim made by Eusebius presbyter of Caesarea that Emperor Constantine established scriptoriums and paid for the extensive copying of bible manuscripts. The claim is made that these scriptoriums produced the Byzantine manuscripts. This theory flies in the face of the fact that the two manuscripts most often considered "oldest and best" are Aleph and B, produced at the time of the supposed scriptoriums. Why would they copy two different manuscript traditions in the same scriptoriums?

The more likely explanation and the simplest (Occam's Razor) is that the Byzantine Empire was the only Greek Speaking society left after Rome and Latin rose to ascendancy and it was the Eastern Orthodox Church that preserved and copied the Byzantine text form, and still uses a variant of the Byzantine text form as its official bible today. In my opinion it is strong evidence that the people who read, write, and speak Greek every day as their first language use the Byzantine text form.

All of that to say, if you count each manuscript as a separate witness (as they already do with the Alexandrian and Western witnesses) there is far, far more evidence for the inclusion of the reading than for its omission.

 

[FSSL]

I would argue that it does obscure the meaning. I don't see it as a flagrant issue, but the words "and become" does allow for a time lapse. It could be misleading in that sense (ala MacArthur)

Although it is possible to misunderstand the meaning of the text with the inclusion of the words in question, a closer examination of the entire passage seems, in my opinion, to clarify the intent. If you see the words "and become" used in the temporal sense, then, yes, you could be misled. However, if you see the words "and become" in the logical sense, as the "now" is to be understood, the meaning is the same with or without the reading "and become." So, in this instance I will stand in support of Ransom's opinion that the meaning is the same either way.

Agreed.

 

[JamesTucker]

Ah, this is MUCH more clear.

Well, actually I don't believe it is. The way such textual apparatuses count manuscripts is a bit skewed. Each Alexandrian or Western manuscript is counted as a single witness but the Byzantine witnesses, which far outnumber the Alexandrian or Western witnesses, are counted as a single witness.

That means of counting stems from the assertion that the Byzantine text form was the result of a recension by Lucian, presbyter of Antioch. This recension is mentioned by Jerome, but he makes it clear it was ONLY the Old Testament that Lucian worked on. Any New Testament recension is mere speculation.

Additionally, adding to the above assertion, is the claim made by Eusebius presbyter of Caesarea that Emperor Constantine established scriptoriums and paid for the extensive copying of bible manuscripts. The claim is made that these scriptoriums produced the Byzantine manuscripts. This theory flies in the face of the fact that the two manuscripts most often considered "oldest and best" are Aleph and B, produced at the time of the supposed scriptoriums. Why would they copy two different manuscript traditions in the same scriptoriums?

The more likely explanation and the simplest (Occam's Razor) is that the Byzantine Empire was the only Greek Speaking society left after Rome and Latin rose to ascendancy and it was the Eastern Orthodox Church that preserved and copied the Byzantine text form, and still uses a variant of the Byzantine text form as its official bible today. In my opinion it is strong evidence that the people who read, write, and speak Greek every day as their first language use the Byzantine text form.

All of that to say, if you count each manuscript as a separate witness (as they already do with the Alexandrian and Western witnesses) there is far, far more evidence for the inclusion of the reading than for its omission.

I didn't realize any of this. Thanks for clarifying.

 

[FSSL]

Ah, this is MUCH more clear.

Well, actually I don't believe it is. The way such textual apparatuses count manuscripts is a bit skewed. Each Alexandrian or Western manuscript is counted as a single witness but the Byzantine witnesses, which far outnumber the Alexandrian or Western witnesses, are counted as a single witness.

That means of counting stems from the assertion that the Byzantine text form was the result of a recension by Lucian, presbyter of Antioch. This recension is mentioned by Jerome, but he makes it clear it was ONLY the Old Testament that Lucian worked on. Any New Testament recension is mere speculation.

Additionally, adding to the above assertion, is the claim made by Eusebius presbyter of Caesarea that Emperor Constantine established scriptoriums and paid for the extensive copying of bible manuscripts. The claim is made that these scriptoriums produced the Byzantine manuscripts. This theory flies in the face of the fact that the two manuscripts most often considered "oldest and best" are Aleph and B, produced at the time of the supposed scriptoriums. Why would they copy two different manuscript traditions in the same scriptoriums?

The more likely explanation and the simplest (Occam's Razor) is that the Byzantine Empire was the only Greek Speaking society left after Rome and Latin rose to ascendancy and it was the Eastern Orthodox Church that preserved and copied the Byzantine text form, and still uses a variant of the Byzantine text form as its official bible today. In my opinion it is strong evidence that the people who read, write, and speak Greek every day as their first language use the Byzantine text form.

All of that to say, if you count each manuscript as a separate witness (as they already do with the Alexandrian and Western witnesses) there is far, far more evidence for the inclusion of the reading than for its omission.

I didn't realize any of this. Thanks for clarifying.

What was not stated above is that among the one text family, a variant is most likely to be repeated throughout that family of texts.

That is why an early and geographically diverse group of mss which do not include this reading makes a very strong case against the Byz

 

[FSSL]

The more likely explanation and the simplest (Occam's Razor) is that the Byzantine Empire was the only Greek Speaking society left after Rome and Latin rose to ascendancy and it was the Eastern Orthodox Church that preserved and copied the Byzantine text form, and still uses a variant of the Byzantine text form as its official bible today. In my opinion it is strong evidence that the people who read, write, and speak Greek every day as their first language use the Byzantine text form.

This is an appeal to authority that has a glaring problem.... they were not Koine speaking Greeks. The EOC was hundreds of years removed from the Koine Greeks. It wasn't until the 1700-1800s that Koine studies began to emerge.

Besides, this verse, is good Koine Greek in both readings.

 

[FSSL]

Since the T man's apparatus is a bit more obscure, I will give some more stuff from the NA27 apparatus.

Thanks! Just when I thought I had every Greek source Logos produces, it looks like I have to buy the SESB now! http://www.logos.com/product/8484/stuttgart-electronic-study-bible

 

[SAWBONES]

...the Byzantine Empire was the only Greek Speaking society left after Rome and Latin rose to ascendancy and it was the Eastern Orthodox Church that preserved and copied the Byzantine text form, and still uses a variant of the Byzantine text form as its official bible today

This is indeed true, and the long perpetuation of that text as the only persisting representative of the Greek NT remaining in continuous use within Christendom (within the Eastern Orthodox Church after the fall of the Byzantine Empire), permitted that text to become a semi-distinct and perhaps independent, if "full" GNT witness, albeit one with what many scholars consider to represent recognizable conflations and assimilations.

 

[Bob]

Ah, this is MUCH more clear.

Well, actually I don't believe it is. The way such textual apparatuses count manuscripts is a bit skewed. Each Alexandrian or Western manuscript is counted as a single witness but the Byzantine witnesses, which far outnumber the Alexandrian or Western witnesses, are counted as a single witness.

That means of counting stems from the assertion that the Byzantine text form was the result of a recension by Lucian, presbyter of Antioch. This recension is mentioned by Jerome, but he makes it clear it was ONLY the Old Testament that Lucian worked on. Any New Testament recension is mere speculation.

Additionally, adding to the above assertion, is the claim made by Eusebius presbyter of Caesarea that Emperor Constantine established scriptoriums and paid for the extensive copying of bible manuscripts. The claim is made that these scriptoriums produced the Byzantine manuscripts. This theory flies in the face of the fact that the two manuscripts most often considered "oldest and best" are Aleph and B, produced at the time of the supposed scriptoriums. Why would they copy two different manuscript traditions in the same scriptoriums?

The more likely explanation and the simplest (Occam's Razor) is that the Byzantine Empire was the only Greek Speaking society left after Rome and Latin rose to ascendancy and it was the Eastern Orthodox Church that preserved and copied the Byzantine text form, and still uses a variant of the Byzantine text form as its official bible today. In my opinion it is strong evidence that the people who read, write, and speak Greek every day as their first language use the Byzantine text form.

All of that to say, if you count each manuscript as a separate witness (as they already do with the Alexandrian and Western witnesses) there is far, far more evidence for the inclusion of the reading than for its omission.

You have the right to your opinion, but it is a standard  argument used to support the KJV as the best translation of the TR/Byz family.  I disagree. Oldest has much greater weight and I think that the critical text aparratus is the best that there is.

 

[Thomas Cassidy]

You have the right to your opinion, but it is a standard  argument used to support the KJV as the best translation of the TR/Byz family.

As I am strongly anti-KJV I don't see what your objection is. What argument is used to support the KJV as the best translation of the TR/Byz family of manuscripts? I don't recall making such an argument.

  I disagree. Oldest has much greater weight and I think that the critical text aparratus is the best that there is.

Oldest is not always best and best is not always oldest. And the oldest reading my not be in the oldest manuscript and vice versa. It is dangerous to put too much emphasis on a single rule of thumb when discussing textual criticism. Age is certainly a factor, but so is number, historicity (as mentioned above by Sawbones, cross textual affinity, and geographical distribution.

When you say "critical text apparatus" which one do you mean? I have UBS 2, 3, and 4 as well as NA 26, and 27, and find them all extremely useful. I also use Scrivener's apparatus found in his TBS TR to sort out the variant readings found in the various TRs. I also find Hodges and Farstad's textual apparatus found in "The Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text" to be quite useful.