I CORINTHIANS 8: TRANSLATION PROBLEMS

The problems associated with properly translating New Testament texts are somewhat different from those encountered in the Old Testament. On the one hand, most of the key manuscripts we have are in only in one language; there are much fewer obscure words to deal with; and we possess many more ancient manuscripts to compare with one another. On the other hands, the Greek words themselves often have multiple nuances of meaning to them, and one must determine from the context which meaning to use.

Another problem area is that the NT manuscripts were produced, for the most part, by untrained scribes who often made numerous accidental copying errors. The approach taken in producing the text used for the KJV was to count the number of manuscripts reading a certain way and go with the reading that the majority of them had, thus “the Majority Text.” The tack taken by most modern translators, however, has been to weigh the earlier manuscripts much more heavily than the later productions since these earlier documents were less likely to have accumulated errors and purposeful additions or deletions over the years of copying and recopying. I have chosen I Corinthians 8 to illustrate some of these issues.

I Corinthians 8:1 “A few of the earlier interpreters suggested that oidamen (“we know”) should read oida men. But this is an unnecessary expedient.” (Fee)

The Greek has simply “the idol offerings,” but “meats” is clearly intended, according to Orr and Walther. They are also among the several commentators who note that the absence of the article “the” before “knowledge” generalizes this usage, i.e. it is not just knowledge about idols that is in mind.

I Corinthians 8:2-3 There is a fair amount of uncertainty as to the original Greek text of these verses. As an example, the NIV follows the majority of early manuscripts to read:

“Those who think they know something do not yet know as they ought to know. But whoever loves God is known by God.”

But here is how all the earliest Egyptian manuscripts as well as a quotation from the early Church Father Clement read:

“If anyone thinks he has arrived at knowledge, he does not yet know as he ought to know; but if anyone loves, this one truly knows (or is known).”

Other translations go with this reading. As Fee says, “The latter reading fits the context so perfectly that it is either the Pauline original or else the work of an editorial genius.” Fee also explains the ambiguity concerning the last word given in this verse – It depends on whither the verb form for “know,” egnosta, is taken as being passive (is known) or middle (has come to know for oneself).

I Corinthians 8:2 Two translations for the Greek word dokei are possible: “thinks” or “appears to.” “The difference is insignificant but the translation 'thinks' is nevertheless to be preferred since the second half of the verse shows that Paul in the first half introduces the man who thinks he knows.” (Grosheide)

“It may not be possible [in Romans 8:26] to determine whether katho dei should be rendered 'as we ought' or 'as is meet'. I Cor. 8:2 would suggest the former.” (Murray) But the alternative translation is also possible.

There is a major controversy as to whether the small word ti (“anything/something”) was in the original text. Bruce Metzger states that the United Bible Societies felt that its absence in some manuscripts was “either a deliberate omission, made in order to sharpen Paul's statement, or as an accidental oversight.”

On the other hand, Orr and Walther in preparing their Anchor Bible translation went with the one NT papyrus that leaves out that pronoun, stating that ti was probably a scribal addition. Gordon Fee agrees with that assessment. Orr and Walther also say that the literal phrase “has not yet come to know” is in a verb form that “defies the translator.”

I Corinthians 8:3 There is a question regarding whether “God” was originally present in the text or added later. In either case, “God was the intended object of the verb, and there is very slim manuscript evidence for omitting it.”

I Corinthians 8:4 “There is no God” in Greek becomes in some manuscripts “There is no other God,” in line with Exodus 20:3 – probably a later textual addition. (Fee)

The RSV uses quotation marks in this verse since it “appears to introduce more quotations from the Corinthian inquiry.” (Marsh) Keep in mind that there were very few examples of punctuation marks in the ancient Greek manuscripts. Thus, this sort of issue can occasionally cause some ambiguity as to who is speaking or being quoted.

I Corinthians 8:5 Grosheide notes there are two possible translations: 'for if there might be those, who (continually) are called gods' or 'for if there might be so-called gods.' But whichever option one goes with, “The meaning remains the same.”

I Corinthians 8:6 This verse reads, “But for us there is one God the Father from whom are all things (ex hou ta panta), and we are for him (eis auton).” This final phrase is generally taken to mean “we live/exist for him.” But Painter expresses the opinion that since “the first preposition ex relates to source/origin, it is likely that the eis refers to the goal. We come from God and we go to God.” In addition, Bartels says, “We should not take v.6 as consisting of two parallel statements simply joined by kai (and). Rather we must interpret kai as meaning: just in the way and with the reality in which we have one Lord Jesus Christ.”

Notice that the controversies above both relate to the proper translation of seemingly insignificant words such as “for” and “and” which can have multiple meanings depending on the context.

I Corinthians 8:7 The Greek of the first part of this verse reads literally “this knowledge is not in all.” Marsh explains, “There is a difference between knowing theoretically and having that knowledge in one as an activating reality.”

Fee takes issue with the NIV translation “as having been sacrificed” since no tense is implied in the Greek word.

There are three mentions of a 'weak conscience' in this chapter (vv. 7,10,12). “The translation and meaning of Gk. syneidesis remains controversial. Does it mean 'conscience' or (more probably) 'self-awareness'?” (Thiselton)

I Corinthians 8:8-9 Gordon Fee calls these verses “as puzzling as they are abrupt.”

I Corinthians 8:8 This is another case where it is not quite certain which words belong to Paul and which ones he is quoting from the Corinthians. Grosheide feels it is the latter.

I Corinthians 8:10 The main issue in translation here relates to the meaning of eidolothyta. Fee says that it “does not refer primarily to marketplace food [which was previously offered to idols], but to the eating of sacrificial food at the cultic meals in the pagan temples.” Contrary to this view is that of C.A. Kennedy who argues that the word refers to memorial meals for the dead.

In addition, a number of manuscript lack the word se (“you”) in this verse. But Metzger states, “Copyists are more likely to have omitted the pronoun, thus generalizing the apostle's statement, than to have inserted it.” This is the sort of general reasoning that translators use when deciding between two textual options that both have good manuscript support.

I Corinthians 8:11 “There is the question of the meaning of 'destroyed;' is it an internal falling apart or the loss of salvation?” He opts for the latter since the first idea “is altogether too modern; and elsewhere in Paul this word invariably refers to eternal ruin.”

I Corinthians 8:12 The word typto (“wounding”) is literally to beat or strike, but figuratively as in this verse “it means to be responsible for the wounds that such a person has received.” (Fee)

One early Egyptian papyrus as well as a quotation from Clement have left out the word asthenous “as either an accident in transcription or a deliberate modification, introduced to prevent the reader from assuming that wounding a brother's conscience is allowable except when it is 'weak'.” (Metzger)

One word of warning in conclusion: I purposely chose this chapter as an example of an unusually difficult one to translate. Do not come to the conclusion that there is the same amount of uncertainty in the rest of the NT. And even in the above cases, you will note that none of these issues has any impact on a Christian doctrine.