An interesting suggestion at Michael Gilleland’s Laudator Temporis Acti:
1 Corinthians 4:6 (Revised Standard Version):
I have applied all this to myself and Apollos for your benefit, brethren, that you may learn by us not to go beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up in favor of one against another.
ταῦτα δέ, ἀδελφοί, μετεσχημάτισα εἰς ἐμαυτὸν καὶ Ἀπολλῶν δι’ ὑμᾶς, ἵνα ἐν ἡμῖν μάθητε τό μὴ ὑπὲρ ἃ γέγραπται, ἵνα μὴ εἷς ὑπὲρ τοῦ ἑνὸς φυσιοῦσθε κατὰ τοῦ ἑτέρου.
τό μὴ ὑπὲρ ἃ γέγραπται del. Frid. Aug. Bornemann, “De memorabili glossemate, quod locum I Corinth. 4, 6. insedisse videtur,” Biblische Studien von Geistlichen des Königreichs Sachsen 2 (1843) 37-44 (at 37-40).
Bornemann, p. 38 (my translation):
I would like you to recognize in the words τό μὴ ὑπὲρ ἃ γέγραπται nothing but an annotation, by which the scribe wanted to indicate that in the original in front of his eyes, the negative word μή had been written above the final letter of the conjunction ἵνα, in such a way that the scribe doubted whether he should consider it as genuine or not, whether he should put it in the text or omit it.
In verbis τό μὴ ὑπὲρ ἃ γέγραπται nihil nisi adnotamentum velim agnoscas, quo librarius indicaturus erat, in archetypo, quod ipsi ante oculos erat, negationem μή literae ultimae coniunctionis ἵνα superscriptam fuisse, ita ut haesitaret scriba, pro genuina haberet necne, in textisne poneret, an omitteret.
In other words, the scribe meant to note that “μή has been written above α (of ἵνα).”
Gilleland adds this from Joseph A. Fitzmyer ad loc. (3rd of 4 explanations of τό μὴ ὑπὲρ ἃ γέγραπται):
The words are considered to be a marginal gloss that has been introduced secondarily into the text. A scribe perceived that the negative (mē) was missing from the first hina clause, and because the text without it would have read, “Now, brother, I have transferred this to myself and Apollos for your sake, that you may learn from us to become arrogant, siding with one against another,” it would flatly contradict the point that Paul has been trying to make. So the scribe emended the text, writing mē above the alpha (the final letter) of hina and calling attention to it in a marginal note, which was subsequently added to the text. Baljon (De tekst, 49–51) was among the first to propose this explanation; it has been adopted by many others: Bousset, Héring, Howard, Legault, MacDonald, Murphy-O’Connor, Strugnell, C.S.C. Williams; cf. IBNTG, 64; BDR §230.4). (Although it is not noted in the usual apparatus criticus, the mē is absent in mss D and E.) Even though this explanation seems attractive, it involves anacoluthon in the first hina clause and makes the second hina clause the obj. of the verb mathēte, which is strange. Murphy-O’Connor, acknowledging these difficulties, nevertheless considers Strugnell’s translation “undoubtedly correct” and raising “the hypothesis of a gloss to the level of certitude” (“Interpolations,” 85); but Kilpatrick (“Conjectural Emendation,” 352) remains “unconvinced by Strugnell’s suggestion”; similarly Lindemann, 1 Cor, 103.
Gilleland points out that Baljon’s book “appeared 41 years after Bornemann, who deserves credit for the ingenious suggestion.” It is indeed ingenious and attractive, but I am not competent to judge whether it is convincing.
“Was among the first to propose” would make sense for an obvious but revolutionary idea… (or for people known to work independently)
Baljon 1884 is available online:
https://catalog.hathitrust.org/api/volumes/oclc/31246460.html
Maybe note Bornemann/Borneman spellings
This suggestion is new to me; I agree that it seems quite convincing.
The text as it stands only makes sense if you assume that Paul is referring to some well-known saying for which we have no other evidence. Some English translations embroider the actual text quite a lot to make this seem more plausible, e.g. the NIV’s “so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, ‘Do not go beyond what is written.’ Then you will not be puffed up …” The 1996 and 2016 Kusaal versions (but not 1976) seem to be translated straight from this, with an actual quoted “saying.”
In addition to Krans (the current go-to guy on NT conjectures, cited by LTA), Georg Luck has written a generation earlier about it among many other conjectures in the NT. Strugnell was the last major scholar to champion this conjecture in the 1960s. Now conjectural emendation is so out of fashion that the individual conjectures are being removed from the Nestle-Aland apparatus.
I feel it that the text is missing another τὀ to make it work, however. If α were really a reference to the letter, it would be much clearer with ὑπὲρ τὀ ἅ.
Whereas many scholars of the US constitution are said to be moving from “originalism” to moraline-compatible emendation. Moralin.
moraline (Péjoratif) Bien-pensance.
New to me.
You don’t see it much nowadays, even in popularized German philosophy. It’s one of those teenage moral philosophy things.
Something strange is going on with this particular post. When in Chrome on my notebook, positioned at the top of the page, I press F5 to refresh, the refresh takes place. When I then move the mouse cursor down, the page jumps down just as if I had pressed “page down”. I can repeat rthis behavior at will with this page, but with no other on your site that I have tried out.
There’s something similar that happens on my smartphone with the DNB (Dictionary of National Biography) newsletter (i.e. it happens in the GMX mail app). When I press the newsletter link for today’s article, the page jumps downwards visibly before the link opens in Chrome (on my smartphone).
Some of this is over my head, but provisionally, unofficially:
Baljon (“non vidi” at L.T.A.) did cite Bornemann, spelled there Borneman.
J.A. Fitzmyer, like S C. Carlson, is usually right.
One of my teachers, Orval Wintermute, a PhD from William F. Albright, said another PhD, Fitzmyer, turned in his dissertation draft. Albright could not find anything to correct until, upon repeated tries, finally, he found one misspelling in the Acknowledgments.
J. Strugnell’s contribution in CBQ was in 1974.
Orval Wintermute – what a wonderful name for a biblical scholar !
I wasn’t familiar with the passage, but the incorporated-gloss reading looks convincingly natural once you see it (not unlike Theobald’s famous a babbled of green fields for a table in Falstaff’s death scene). μάθητε ἵνα is odd from a Classical perspective, but in post-Classical Greek ἵνα makes its way into some constructions where you wouldn’t expect it — in particular, ἵνα + subjunctive starts on its journey toward displacing the infinitive in control structures, which maybe is what’s going on here — and there are some examples of this un-Classical ἵνα in the NT, though none seem to be exactly parallel (e.g. Matt. 4:3 εἰπὲ ἵνα οἱ λίθοι οὗτοι ἄρτοι γένωνται, Mark 7:26 ἠρώτα αὐτὸν ἵνα τὸ δαιμόνιον ἐκβάλῃ ἐκ τῆς θυγατρὸς αὐτῆς).
(I’m not sure what the seemingly indicative φυσιοῦσθε is doing in a ἵνα clause under either reading — my guess is it’s intended as subjunctive and the spelling results from the confusion of indicative and subjunctive due to the merger of ω and ο.)
μάθητε ἵνα is odd from a Classical perspective, but in post-Classical Greek ἵνα makes its way into some constructions where you wouldn’t expect it
That’s what I was thinking in a vague sort of way, but I don’t have the Hellenist chops to say anything useful.
I never actually thought about the origin of Modern Greek να before. Obvious once it’s been pointed out (like so many things …)
One is of course reminded of dord. I’m sure it happens a lot.
Stu:
It’s one of those teenage moral philosophy things.
Careful not to give us any spoilers. I fell asleep thirteen minutes into that film and didn’t wake up till the final chase scene. Will try again when it hits Netflix.
I fell asleep thirteen minutes into that film
So you never saw the Kierkegaard orgy scene?
One is of course reminded of dord. I’m sure it happens a lot.
https://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2008/nov/01/5
“Dord” is Irish for “bass”, in the musical sense. Or drone or things like that.
But related to the theme, there was a time back in the 1960s or 1970s when bouzoukis (formerly only a Greek instrument) came into the Irish traditional music scene. Someone (perhaps Donal Lunny?) ordered a bouzouki through a Dublin music store. But there were two sizes available, so he ordered the large one.
When the instrument arrived, the sales order said “B. large”. So in newspaper articles and perhaps a few album covers you can see references to a musical instrument called the “blarge”.
It could be mpouzouki…
So in newspaper articles and perhaps a few album covers you can see references to a musical instrument called the “blarge”.
That sounds like a classic urban myth. Not saying it didn’t happen, but I’d like to see some evidence. (Google Books finds “a large mini-batch Blarge,” but that’s something quite different.)
Mplarge.
“Blarge” – Irish Bouzouki mit 10 Saiten (mit tiefer C Saite)
Discussion of blarges etc at https://thesession.org/discussions/45836 and https://www.mandolincafe.com/forum/threads/50640-It-s-a-blarge! – giving the impression that it’s been a joke since the beginning, or at least a shorthand way of referring to something without a definite name (which, to be fair, maidhc didn’t say it wasn’t).
Of the other names mentioned, I do like ‘bassouki’. But what I actually want is still an ordinary mandolin.
So it’s really a thing! Thanks for finding those links, and my apologies to maidhc for the skepticism.