# 1 Corinthians 15:49 Textual Variant



## py3ak (Jul 19, 2009)

In 1 Corinthians 15:49 there is a textual variant, and it is actually one of the places where the TR and the MT are not in agreement. So is the best reading of "bear" (_phorew_) indicative or subjunctive? Why do you think that?

[Moderator]Note: this is not the place for discussion of wider textual issues: while arguments for your perspective on _this_ text are welcome, off-topic posts will be ruthlessly deleted.[/Moderator]


----------



## MW (Jul 19, 2009)

The parallel created by the context makes the indicative the natural reading and it is easy to see how an homiletical environment would introduce the hortative to give the passage a devotional strain. I know there is no desire to enter into textual debates, but the tendency of the Alexandrian witnesses to fall prey to factors such as this is well attested.


----------



## py3ak (Jul 19, 2009)

Thanks, Mr. Winzer. Internal harmony and an explanation for the origin of the variant do seem like good reasons to stick with the TR on this point. 
If, though, the MT has the subjunctive can we attribute that to Alexandria? I see the Alexandrian manuscripts (except B) supporting the subjunctive, but there is also D, K, L, P, etc.


----------



## greenbaggins (Jul 19, 2009)

armourbearer said:


> The parallel created by the context makes the indicative the natural reading and it is easy to see how an homiletical environment would introduce the hortative to give the passage a devotional strain. I know there is no desire to enter into textual debates, but the tendency of the Alexandrian witnesses to fall prey to factors such as this is well attested.



The majority text, including most of the Byzantine manuscripts, supports the subjunctive reading. In this case, anyway, the Alexandrian and the Byzantine mss have the same failing. And yet one of the mss that supports the _indicative_ is Alexandrian. Metzger argues the same as Matthew does. Their committee went with the future indicative, arguing that the context is didactic, not hortatory (Metzger, p. 502).


----------



## py3ak (Jul 19, 2009)

I noticed that the UBS has the indicative; but Hodges and Farstad went with the subjunctive, even though the subjunctive does seem counter-intuitive. The "as we have borne", in the whole context of the contrast between the two Adams, would seem to call for a statement of fact, not an exhortation.


----------



## MW (Jul 19, 2009)

py3ak said:


> If, though, the MT has the subjunctive can we attribute that to Alexandria?



Good point; there is no doubt that Western and Byzantine readings share the Alexandrian reading, which suggests a common source.


----------



## py3ak (Jul 19, 2009)

Do you think it most likely that the common source was Alexandria itself, in this instance?


----------



## MW (Jul 19, 2009)

py3ak said:


> Do you think it most likely that the common source was Alexandria itself, in this instance?



Possibly, yes; or it could have been an oral source leading to a lack of discrepancy between long and short vowels, as has been conjectured on Rom. 5:1; or perhaps both.


----------



## py3ak (Jul 19, 2009)

I wondered if it was a situation where the original was read aloud and a copyist misheard the quantity.

Unless an MT defender can suggest something different, I'm inclined to think that Erasmus and Aland are correct.


----------



## Sven (Jul 19, 2009)

Here is what Hodge says, and I do think his argument is valid:

"In this passage, instead of the future phoresomen, _we shall bear_, the great majority of the oldest MSS. read the conjunctive phoresoomen, _let us bear_. The context, however, so evidently demands the future, that the common reading is preferred by almost all editors. An exhortation here would be entirely out of place. The apostle is evidently proceeding with his discussion. He is obviating the objection to the doctrine of the resurrection founded on the assumption that our bodies here-after are to be of the same kind as those which we have here. This is not so. They are to be like the body of Christ. As we have born the image of Adam as to his body, we shall bear the image of Christ as to his body. The idea that as we have derived a corrupt nature from Adam, we derive a holy nature from Christ, though true in itself, is altogether foreign to the connection."

I can see how the copyist could make the mistake. It would be very easy to substitute an omega for an omicron. But the two letters make for a different translation. But Hodge has a good point, the future makes more sense in this passage.


----------

