1 Corinthians 4:6

[joasia]

Is anyone aware of the explanation about this passage? I was told that the part that says, "above that which is written" was actually a correction a supervising monk made on one of the transcripts done by another monk who was copying from it. Then it got incorporated into the actual verse. But, it was meant as an instruction for the re-write.

Apparently, there are a few instances of this in other passages, but I didn't get the other examples. It's an explanation of those who are studying the intricate factors of translation so it's focused only on grammatical and not the message.

I would think that they would need to stand back and look at the whole message as a final analysis of the passage. I tried to find something on the internet, but did not.

[Barbara]

Interesting ! Educational, thank you for bringing up this matter.

[StephenS]

Is anyone aware of the explanation about this passage? I was told that the part that says, "above that which is written" was actually a correction a supervising monk made on one of the transcripts done by another monk who was copying from it. Then it got incorporated into the actual verse. But, it was meant as an instruction for the re-write.

Apparently, there are a few instances of this in other passages, but I didn't get the other examples. It's an explanation of those who are studying the intricate factors of translation so it's focused only on grammatical and not the message.

I would think that they would need to stand back and look at the whole message as a final analysis of the passage. I tried to find something on the internet, but did not.

According to George M Lamsa's translation from the Aramaic of the Peshitta this verse reads:

"These things, my brethren, concerning myself and Apollos I have pictured for your sakes, that in our example you may learn not to think beyond that which is written, and let no one exalt himself over his fellow man on account of any man."

Is this of any help?

[joasia]

No. I'm not looking for different expressions of this verse. What I was told is that the part of "which is written above" was a notation made to correct the translation. It was an instruction to remove a part that was written above or something to that effect. But, it got incorporated into the verse instead.

I'm not saying it's true. I just know that universities are teaching that the New Testament texts, when transcribed, had discrepancies.

[Matthew]

While saying that there could be or are discrepancies in Scripture is not in itself necessarily an attack on Scripture, there is always the danger that this impression (discrediting the veracity of Scripture) could be communicated by positing such things. That Scripture is an artifact of the Faith of the Apostles and is held and interpreted in the bosom of the Holy Mother Church is the corrective to any worries that might arise in such cases. We are not Protestants who have put all their eggs in one basket (the written text alone as the source of all authority and truth) rather than in the Church as a whole. So, it is not something we need to be too worried about. When we encounter people who are concerned with such things we should use that as an opportunity to direct them to the broader issue of Church Authority and Authenticity than of texts taken all on their own.

[joasia]

Symeon,

Actually, this person (mon frere) is studying biblical translations, so his main focus is the letter and not the message. But, it seems to me that there's an underlying understanding that the translations have been tampered with which gives the idea that the Holy Bible is not sacred because it has been changed. I don't know if I'm expressing it well, but it's as if these "scholars" are saying that the Holy Bible is supposed to be sacred and therefore untouchable, but look, an error in translation which taints the Holy Scriptures, so maybe it's not really sacred. I don't believe that, but I can't find anything, online, that discusses translations and discrepancies. Maybe it's just something in these courses. Maybe, one day, I'll go to the McGill bookstore and see what books are used for these courses.

[Maria]

Symeon,

Actually, this person (mon frere) is studying biblical translations, so his main focus is the letter and not the message. But, it seems to me that there's an underlying understanding that the translations have been tampered with which gives the idea that the Holy Bible is not sacred because it has been changed. I don't know if I'm expressing it well, but it's as if these "scholars" are saying that the Holy Bible is supposed to be sacred and therefore untouchable, but look, an error in translation which taints the Holy Scriptures, so maybe it's not really sacred. I don't believe that, but I can't find anything, online, that discusses translations and discrepancies. Maybe it's just something in these courses. Maybe, one day, I'll go to the McGill bookstore and see what books are used for these courses.

Deconstructionists start by tearing the Bible apart trying to find errors wherever possible. Most end up either agnostic or atheistic.