translation_id: net-engnet

label: NET translator note

text: Grk “ignorant.”


text: Grk “brothers.” See note on the phrase “brothers and sisters” in 1:10 .


text: read the imperfect middle ἐβαπτίζοντο [ ebaptizonto ]). The passive looks like a motivated reading in that it is clearer and conforms to typical Pauline usage (his thirteen instances of the verb are all either active or passive). B. M. Metzger, in representing a minority opinion of the UBS Committee, suggests that the middle would have been appropriate for Jewish baptism in which the convert baptizes himself ( TCGNT 493). But this assumes that the middle is a direct middle, a rare occurrence in the NT (and never elsewhere with this verb). Further, it is not really baptism that is in view in v. 2 , but passing through the Red Sea (thus, a metaphorical use). Although the present editors agree with the minority’s resultant reading, it is better to take the middle as causative/permissive and the scribes as changing it to a passive for clarity’s sake. Translational differences are minimal, though some exegetical implications are involved (see ExSyn 427).


text: The term “play” may refer to idolatrous, sexual play here, although that is determined by the context rather than the meaning of the word itself (cf. BDAG 750 s.v. παίζω ). sn A quotation from Exod 32:6 .


text: 1739 1881) and Western (D F G) texttypes, and other mss and versions ( Ψ latt sy co). On the other hand, some of the important Alexandrian witnesses have κύριον ( kurion , “Lord”; א B C P 33 104 1175 al ). A few mss (A 81 pc ) have θεόν ( qeon , “God”). The nomina sacra for these readings are quite similar ( cMn , kMn , and qMn respectively), so one might be able to account for the different readings by way of confusion. On closer examination, the variants appear to be intentional changes. Alexandrian scribes replaced the highly specific term “Christ” with the less specific terms “Lord” and “God” because in the context it seems to be anachronistic to speak of the exodus generation putting Christ to the test. If the original had been “Lord,” it seems unlikely that a scribe would have willingly created a difficulty by substituting the more specific “Christ.” Moreover, even if not motivated by a tendency to overcorrect, a scribe might be likely to assimilate the word “Christ” to “Lord” in conformity with Deut 6:16 or other passages. The evidence from the early church regarding the reading of this verse is rather compelling in favor of “Christ.” Marcion, a second-century, anti-Jewish heretic, would naturally have opposed any reference to Christ in historical involvement with Israel, because he thought of the Creator God of the OT as inherently evil. In spite of this strong prejudice, though, {Marcion} read a text with “Christ.” Other early church writers attest to the presence of the word “Christ,” including {Clement of Alexandria} and Origen. What is more, the synod of Antioch in a.d. 268 used the reading “Christ” as evidence of the preexistence of Christ when it condemned Paul of Samosata. (See G. Zuntz, The Text of the Epistles , 126-27; TCGNT 494; C. D. Osburn, “The Text of 1 Corinthians 10:9 ,” New Testament Textual Criticism: Its Significance for Exegesis , 201-11; contra A. Robertson and A. Plummer, First Corinthians [ICC], 205-6.) Since “Christ” is the more difficult reading on all accounts, it is almost certainly original. In addition, “Christ” is consistent with Paul’s style in this passage (cf. 10:4 , a text in which {Marcion} also reads “Christ”). This text is also christologically significant, since the reading “Christ” makes an explicit claim to the preexistence of Christ. (The textual critic faces a similar dilemma in Jude 5 . In a similar exodus context, some of the more important Alexandrian mss [A B 33 81 pc ] and the Vulgate read “Jesus” in place of “Lord.” Two of those mss [A 81] are the same mss that have “Christ” instead of “God” in 1 Cor 10:9 . See the tc notes on Jude 5 for more information.) In sum, “Christ” has all the earmarks of authenticity here and should be considered the original reading.


text: Grk “by the destroyer.” BDAG 703 s.v. ὀλοθρευτῆς mentions the corresponding OT references and notes, “the one meant is the destroying angel as the one who carries out the divine sentence of punishment, or perh. Satan.” sn This incident is recorded in Num 16:41-50 .


text: Grk “except a human one” or “except one common to humanity.”


text: Grk “God is faithful who.” The relative pronoun was changed to a personal pronoun in the translation for clarity.


text: The words “to bear” are not in the Greek text, but are implied. They have been supplied in the translation to clarify the meaning.


text: Grk “Israel according to (the) flesh.”


text: Grk “what they sacrifice”; the referent (the pagans) is clear from the context and has been specified in the translation for clarity.


text: The question in Greek expects a negative answer (“We are not stronger than he is, are we?”).


text: Grk “builds up.” The object “others” is not expressed but is implied, as v. 24 shows. Paul picks up a theme he introduced at the start of this section of the letter ( 8:1 ).


text: Ψ Ï ) essentially duplicate v. 26 at the end of this verse (with γάρ [ gar , “for”] in second instead of third position), which itself is a quotation from Ps 24:1 ( 23:1 LXX). Not only is there a vast number of early, important, and diverse witnesses that lack this extra material ( א A B C* D F G H* P 33 81 365 630 1175 1739 1881 2464 latt co), but the quotation seems out of place at this point in the discourse for Paul is here discussing reasons not to partake of food that has been sacrificed to idols. Perhaps scribes felt that since food is from the Lord, to eat meat sacrificed to idols contradicts that belief. Either way, the better witnesses lack the clause which, had it been authentic to v. 28 , would have not occasioned such a widespread excision. The evidence is thus compelling for the shorter reading.


text: Grk “about that for which”; the referent (the food) has been specified in the translation for clarity.


text: Although the Greek word translated “benefit” occurs only once in this verse, the Greek article occurs twice. This indicates an implied repetition of the term, which has been included twice in the translation for the sake of clarity and English style.