Please Support the Bible Translation Work of the Updated American Standard Version (UASV)
$5.00
EDWARD D. ANDREWS (AS in Criminal Justice, BS in Religion, MA in Biblical Studies, and MDiv in Theology) is CEO and President of Christian Publishing House. He has authored over 180+ books. In addition, Andrews is the Chief Translator of the Updated American Standard Version (UASV).
Major Critical Texts of the New Testament
Byz RP: 2005 Byzantine Greek New Testament, Robinson & Pierpont TR1550: 1550 Stephanus New Testament Maj: The Majority Text (thousands of minuscules which display a similar text) Gries: 1774-1775 Johann Jakob Griesbach Greek New Testament Treg: 1857-1879 Samuel Prideaux Tregelles Greek New Testament Tisch: 1872 Tischendorf’s Greek New Testament WH: 1881 Westcott-Hort Greek New Testament NA28: 2012 Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament UBS5: 2014 Greek New Testament NU: Both Nestle-Aland and the United Bible Society SBLGNT: 2010 Greek New Testament THGNT: 2017 The Greek New Testament by Tyndale House GENTI: 2020 Greek-English New Testament Interlinear
1 Corinthians 7:5 Updated American Standard Version (UASV) 5 Stop depriving one another, except by agreement for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer, and come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.
1 Corinthians 7:5English Standard Version (ESV) 5Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.
1 Corinthians 7:5 New American Standard Bible (NASB) 1995/2020
5 Stop depriving one another, except by agreement for a time so that you may devote yourselves to prayer, and come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.
The original reading is “you may devote yourselves to prayer,” according to the early and various manuscripts 𝔓11vid 𝔓46 א* A B C D F G Ψ 1739 cop. We have a variant reading, “you may devote yourselves to fasting and to prayer,” which is supported by (א2 [7th-century] Maj syr), which means it is found in the KJV. 𝔓11vid has a lacuna, meaning the reading appears to be in the manuscript, but some damage to it does not make it as sure if the damage was not there. (See Mark 9:29)
Lacuna (pl: Lacunae): an unfortunate loss of text within a manuscript due to accident or wear and tear. Unfortunately, lacunae are usually more frequent and more damaging in early manuscripts, especially papyri. The essential elements of the missing text can be supplied from other manuscripts, of course, but they are not sufficient to reconstruct a variant reading. To attempt any kind of reconstruction, one must have access to an accurate facsimile of the damaged manuscript. In some cases, with the size and spacing of letters, measuring the missing space can allow us to determine the likely reading.
1 Corinthians 7:5 Philip W. Comfort
WH NU σχολάσητε τῇ προσευχῇ “you may devote yourselves to prayer” 𝔓11vid 𝔓46 א* A B C D F G Ψ 1739 cop
Variant/TR σχολασητε τη νηστεια και τη προσευχη “you may devote yourselves to fasting and to prayer” א2 Maj syr
The addition, which is late, reflects the ascetic tendencies of certain scribes influenced by the monastic movement. Paul would probably not be calling for one form of abstinence—fasting—in the same passage where he is clearly speaking against sexual abstinence. (See also note on Mark 9:29.)
Bruce M. Metzger writes,
7:5 τῇ προσευχῇ {A}
The Textus Receptus, following א K L 88 614 ByzLect syrp, goth al, prefixes τῇ νηστείᾳ καί, and 330 451 John-Damascus add καὶ νηστείᾳ. Both are interpolations, introduced in the interest of asceticism. The shorter text is decisively supported by all the early and best witnesses (𝔓11, א* A B C D G P Ψ 33 81 104 1739 it vg copsa,bo, fay arm eth al).
Some Insights
Variant Reading(s): differing versions of a word or phrase found in two or more manuscripts within a variation unit (see below). Variant readings are also called alternate readings.
Variation Unit: any portion of text that exhibits variations in its reading between two or more different manuscripts. It is important to distinguish variation units from variant readings. Variation units are the places in the text where manuscripts disagree, and each variation unit has at least two variant readings. Setting the limits and range of a variation unit is sometimes difficult or even controversial because some variant readings affect others nearby. Such variations may be considered individually or as elements of a single reading. One should also note that the terms “manuscript” and “witness” may appear to be used interchangeably in this context. Strictly speaking, “witness” (see below) will only refer to the content of a given manuscript or fragment, which it predates to a greater or lesser extent. However, the only way to reference the “witness” is by referring to the manuscript or fragment that contains it. In this book, we have sometimes used the terminology “witness of x or y manuscript” to distinguish the content in this way.
TERMS AS TO HOW WE SHOULD OBJECTIVELY VIEW THE DEGREE OF CERTAINTY FOR THE READING ACCEPTED AS THE ORIGINAL
The modal verbs are might have been (30%), may have been (40%), could have been(55%), would have been (80%),must have been (95%), which are used to show that we believe the originality of a reading is certain, probable or possible.
The letter [WP] stands for Weak Possibility (30%), which indicates that this is a low-level proof that the reading might have been original in that it is enough evidence to accept that the variant might have been possible, but it is improbable. We can say the reading might have been original, as there is some evidence that is derived from manuscripts that carry very little weight, early versions, or patristic quotations.
The letter [P] stands for Plausible (40%), which indicates that this is a low-level proof that the reading may have been original in that it is enough to accept a variant to be original and we have enough evidence for our belief. The reading may have been original but it is not probably so.
The letter [PE] stands for Preponderance of Evidence (55%), which indicates that this is a higher-level proof that the reading could have been original in that it is enough to accept as such unless another reading emerges as more probable.
The letter [CE] stands for Convincing Evidence (80%), which indicates that the evidence is an even higher-level proof that the reading surely was the original in that the evidence is enough to accept it as substantially certainunless proven otherwise.
The letter [BRD] stands for Beyond Reasonable Doubt (95%), which indicates that this is the highest level of proof: the reading must have been original in that there is no reason to doubt it. It must be understood that feeling as though we have no reason to doubt is not the same as one hundred percent absolute certainty.
NOTE: This system is borrowed from the criminal just legal terms of the United States of America, the level of certainty involved in the use of modal verbs, and Bruce Metzger in his A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (London; New York: United Bible Societies, 1994), who borrowed his system from Johann Albrecht Bengel in his edition of the Greek New Testament (Tübingen, 1734). In addition, the percentages are in no way attempting to be explicit but rather they are nothing more than a tool to give the non-textual scholar a sense of the degree of certainty. However, this does not mean the percentages are not reflective of certainty.
B. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort, Introduction to the New Testament in the Original Greek: Appendix (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1882)
Biblical Studies Press, The NET Bible First Edition Notes (Biblical Studies Press, 2006)
Bruce Manning Metzger, United Bible Societies, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Second Edition a Companion Volume to the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament (4th Rev. Ed.) (London; New York: United Bible Societies, 1994),
Eberhard Nestle and Erwin Nestle, Nestle-Aland: NTG Apparatus Criticus, ed. Barbara Aland et al., 28. revidierte Auflage. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2012).
Dirk Jongkind, ed., The Greek New Testament: Apparatus (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2017).
Eberhard Nestle and Erwin Nestle, Nestle-Aland: Novum Testamentum Graece, ed. Barbara Aland et al., 28. revidierte Auflage. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2012)
The original reading is “you may devote yourselves to prayer,” according to the early and various manuscripts 𝔓11vid 𝔓46 א* A B C D F G Ψ 1739 cop. We have a variant reading, “you may devote yourselves to fasting and to prayer,” which is supported by (א2 [7th-century] Maj syr), which means it is found in the KJV. 𝔓11vid has a lacuna, meaning the reading appears to be in the manuscript, but some damage to it does not make it as sure if the damage was not there. (See Mark 9:29)
Variation Unit: any portion of text that exhibits variations in its reading between two or more different manuscripts. It is important to distinguish variation units from variant readings. Variation units are the places in the text where manuscripts disagree, and each variation unit has at least two variant readings. Setting the limits and range of a variation unit is sometimes difficult or even controversial because some variant readings affect others nearby. Such variations may be considered individually or as elements of a single reading. One should also note that the terms “manuscript” and “witness” may appear to be used interchangeably in this context. Strictly speaking, “witness” (see below) will only refer to the content of a given manuscript or fragment, which it predates to a greater or lesser extent. However, the only way to reference the “witness” is by referring to the manuscript or fragment that contains it. In this book, we have sometimes used the terminology “witness of x or y manuscript” to distinguish the content in this way.
The letter [WP] stands for Weak Possibility (30%), which indicates that this is a low-level proof that the reading might have been original in that it is enough evidence to accept that the variant might have been possible, but it is improbable. We can say the reading might have been original, as there is some evidence that is derived from manuscripts that carry very little weight, early versions, or patristic quotations.
Leave a Reply