15 Some indeed preach Christ even of envy and strife; and some also of good will: 16 the one preach Christ of contention, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my bonds: 17 but the other of love, knowing that I am set for the defence of the gospel. 18 What then? notwithstanding, every way, whether in pretence, or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice.
15 Some indeed preach Christ from envy and rivalry, but others from good will. 16 The latter do it out of love, knowing that I am put here for the defense of the gospel. 17 The former proclaim Christ out of selfish ambition, not sincerely but thinking to afflict me in my imprisonment. 18 What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed, and in that I rejoice.
Q. Why does the English Standard Version (ESV) reverse the order of verses 16 and 17 in Philippians chapter 1?
A. The ESV (as well as most modern translations) is following the NA-UBS (CT) texts, which flip-flop the order of verses 16-17 from what is found in the Received Text. The CT follows Codex Vaticanus, while the RT order agrees with the majority of extant texts.
15 τινὲς μὲν καὶ διὰ φθόνον καὶ ἔριν, τινὲς δὲ καὶ δι᾽ εὐδοκίαν τὸν χριστὸν κηρύσσουσιν
16 οἱ μὲν ἐξ ἐριθείας τὸν χριστὸν καταγγέλλουσιν οὐχ ἁγνῶς οἰόμενοι θλῖψιν ἐγείρειν τοῖς δεσμοῖς μου
17 οἱ δε ἐξ ἀγάπης εἰδότες ὅτι εἰς ἀπολογίαν τοῦ εὐαγγελίου κεῖμαι
↑ Received Text
versus
↓ Critical Text
15 τινὲς μὲν καὶ διὰ φθόνον καὶ ἔριν, τινὲς δὲ καὶ δι᾽ εὐδοκίαν τὸν χριστὸν κηρύσσουσιν.
16 οἱ μὲν ἐξ ἀγάπης, εἰδότες ὅτι εἰς ἀπολογίαν τοῦ εὐαγγελίου κεῖμαι,
17 οἱ δὲ ἐξ ἐριθείας τὸν Χριστὸν καταγγέλλουσιν, οὐχ ἁγνῶς, οἰόμενοι θλῖψιν ἐγείρειν τοῖς δεσμοῖς μου.
Here is an example of a defense of the CT/Vaticanus reading from the Contending for the Faith commentary (Charles Baily, editor). “The King James Version follows the Received Text in reversing the order of verses 16 and 17. This change seems to have been made to conform the text to the order of the two classes of preachers mentioned in verse 15; but the change is not supported by the best textual witness, and it is not followed in most translations. The authentic text has a chiastic (crisscross) order; that is, verse 16 discusses what is mentioned in verse 15b, and verse 17 refers to the content of verse 15a (Loh and Nida 23-24).”
In contrast, the Received Text makes more sense. It follows through with the same order of sense and argument in verse 15, then verses 16-17, and then verse 18. Some indeed preach Christ even of (a) envy and strife; and some also of (b) good will: the one preach Christ of (a) contention, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my bonds: but the other of (b) love, knowing that I am set for the defence of the gospel. What then? notwithstanding, every way, whether in (a) pretence, or (b) in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice.
The Contending for the Faith commentary’s argument rests on accepting the Vaticanus reading, and making an argument to explain it. My argument is based on accepting the majority reading as found in the Received Text, and making an argument based on that. While I believe the TR/KJV reading is correct, I don’t, however, suppose that Paul’s sentence order alone makes so strong of a case to prefer one reading over the other. Other factors should be included, such as the majority of textual evidence, and faith in God’s providential preservation of his word (versus the modern reconstruction of it from variant choices of corrupted manuscripts).
No comments:
Post a Comment