An Exercise in NT Textual Criticism

The Case of 1 Cor 15:49

(avg. read time: 5–11 mins.)

To conclude my short series on textual criticism, I want to present a shorter, less technical version of one of my published articles. Since I started publishing journal articles, I have had a goal to write more generally available and accessible equivalents alongside the published work. In the example today, I am writing a condensed and reworked version of this article:

“Same Sound, Better Reading? A Text-Critical Analysis of the 1 Cor 15,49 Variants,” Bib 102 (2021): 419–34.

 I refer the readers there for more detail and research.

Of all the textual variants in 1 Cor 15, the one that has caused the most controversy in modern scholarship is the question of the last verb of v. 49. Is the earliest recoverable reading φορέσομεν, as most scholars and translations attest, or φορέσωμεν? In seeking to answer this question, I will illustrate the challenges of NT textual criticism and how one might proceed when the canons do not align in establishing one reading as superior to another. This is a case in which I think the majority of scholars are correct, but they have not tended to provide a detailed defense of this view as some of the advocates of the alternative do, and as I have done in my published work. I argue that the reading with the ο reading is at least respectable according to external criteria, better satisfies internal criteria, and, most importantly, works as the best explanation for the existence of both variants.

Setting the Scene

But first we need to establish why there is controversy. The variants are generally understood as conveying two distinct verbal notions. On the one hand, φορέσομεν is a future active indicative translated as “we will wear.” On the other hand, φορέσωμεν is an aorist active subjunctive that, since it is first person, is taken as a hortatory aorist translated as “let us wear.” One is a simple promise and the other calls for action in the present beyond trusting in the promise. The first one appears to fit the context better, but the second one has significantly better attestation among manuscripts and quotations. Additionally, because of the quality of its attestation, scholars also add considerations of internal criteria that would suggest that the second reading is more likely to be earlier because it is the more difficult reading and because it can plausibly fit the context as well. At this point, let us consider the case in favor of φορέσωμεν.

The Case for φορέσωμεν

First, even without considering the Majority Text, which favors it, this reading has the best attestation in terms of number (one papyrus, nine uncials, at least twenty-eight minuscules, the majority of lectionary texts, Old Latin, Vulgate, Bohairic Coptic, Gothic, and dozens of patristic citations), age (three sources from the second century including the only papyrus and, presumably, Marcion favor this reading), geographic distribution (it dominates in every text-type and in the majority of the versions), and quality (both readings have high-quality witnesses, but this one has more). The most unified witness comes from Rome and other Latin witnesses, as the difference in Latin between a subjunctive and a future indicative is more pronounced—portemus vs. portabimus—while the Alexandrian, Byzantine, Coptic, and patristic witnesses are divided. The far southern and eastern witnesses favor the ο reading while the far northern and western witnesses favor the ω reading.

Second, on the understanding that this reading is the aorist hortatory subjunctive, it represents the more difficult reading. If the future indicative were original, it appears difficult to account for why scribes would change the reading to something that does not appear to fit as well with the rhetorical context. One would think the scribal tendency to correct, if they felt compelled to correct something, would be to make the reading easier.

Third, given the same understanding, this reading does actually fit the rhetorical context as well as the ο reading. As one can see, this argument operates in the opposite direction from the previous one, but the underlying idea is that the reading is more difficult, but not incoherent given the rhetorical context and Paul’s general style of argumentation. Paul uses other ethical exhortations at key junctures in this chapter in vv. 34 and 58. One can also appeal to Paul’s other uses of image language that indicate Paul is talking about something ethical that is currently possible in Rom 8:29; 2 Cor 3:18; Gal 3:27; and Col 3:10.

Evaluating the Case

By every metric, the external evidence does favor the ω reading, but it is not as overwhelming as is often portrayed, as I have indicated already and as I will examine further below. What should also be noted is the extra complication that comes with patristic evidence, and this is an important general point for textual criticism. That is, the manuscripts of patristic authors from which we derive patristic quotations have their own history. In my article I note several cases where the evidence from the history of transmission is conflicted for patristic authors cited in favor of either reading. Furthermore, because of the pronunciation factor, which I unpack a bit more below, it is not always clear that the ω reading signifies the aorist hortatory subjunctive. It may in some cases be an alternative spelling of the future indicative.

As for the second argument, it has become more disputed recently just how much of a scribal tendency it is to make readings easier, and there are plenty of cases in which the harder reading is not necessarily the most preferable if it does not have other factors supporting it. Sometimes the more difficult reading is the more difficult reading simply because it does not fit the context, as I noted in my previous post with Zech 14:3–5. This argument also operates on the assumption that the spelling indicates an aorist hortatory subjunctive, which is not necessarily a given in every case.

The third argument from contextual fitness has proceeded from either sparsely substantiated arguments from the larger structure of 1 Cor 15 or from the context of Paul’s general style of argumentation, drawing on parallel passages form his other works. These are not inherently weak bases for such text-critical arguments, but it is noteworthy that the argument has not been built from the immediate context of 1 Cor 15:49. Otherwise, one would rather quickly see that there is contextual warrant for ethical exhortations in vv. 34 and 58 that does not exist for v. 49. Verses 33 and 34 follow directly from Paul’s considerations of conduct in vv. 29–32 and thus serve as an appropriate summary. Verse 58 serves as a conclusion for the chapter as a whole, as well as a summary exhortation for the letter to this point, and the single imperative verb is further linked to key terms that make this verse thoroughly ethically focused and exhortative. But for v. 49, the context beginning in v. 42 has established a comparison and sequence of the body of the present age and the body of the age to come defined in relation to Adam and Christ, respectively. By the time we get to v. 48, we see that the Adam-Christ contrast here, and its generalization to those who are “in Adam” and “in Christ” (v. 22), is not defined ethically, but somatically, cosmologically (in terms of old and new creation), and temporally. The Adam-Christ contrast is ethical in Rom 5, but there it is clearly established, as opposed to here where sequence is important to his argument, because Christ has set the pattern for the future his audience can expect. The language of “wearing” the image also fits with the clothing language of vv. 53–54 as referring to resurrection (in this case) and transformation (in the latter case). With these points in mind, it is clear that Paul is capable of using the “image” language and the “wearing” or “clothing” of the same in multiple ways, rather than that he uses it in only one way. He clearly does in the case of the latter, as in this passage he also refers to the eschatological transformation in terms of being clothed/putting on, just as he does with being clothed/putting on the image of Christ elsewhere.

The Case for φορέσομεν

What then can we say for the case of the φορέσομεν reading? As I noted above, the external evidence is weaker than the ω reading, but it is still quite significant. It appears in six uncials, at least fifteen minuscules, six lectionary texts, texts in Syriac, Sahidic Coptic, Ethiopian, and several patristic citations. Possibly the earliest attestation of it is in Clement of Alexandria’s excerpts of Theodotus. But the fact that it predominates in Syriac also indicates how well and early established it was in at least one tradition, whereas in other versions (outside of Latin and the mixed Coptic witness) we do not have as great a variety of evidence to work with.

Second, as established in the previous section, and as is readily acknowledged by scholars as the primary reason for following this reading, this reading fits the context the best. In a didactic rather than ethically driven section, a future indicative works best here. It also fits the particulars of the context in terms of the sequence and contrasts set up there.

Third, the future indicative being the earliest recoverable reading best explains the emergence of the other variant, meaning that this reading best satisfies the most binding text-critical canon. There are four facets to this explanation. First, the simplest reason why these readings both exist is because the vowels were pronounced the same, and thus we have many, many examples of them being interchanged beyond the transmission history of this verse. However, this interchange worked in both directions and so this factor alone is not sufficiently indicative. Second, this interchange of vowels is part of a larger phenomenon of interchange of vowels, which led to many orthographical mistakes in textual transmission, including in the papyrus that is our earliest manuscript witness (P46). Third, although it is identical in appearance, this use could be an alternative spelling, and there are indications that the ω reading constituted an alternative spelling of the future, including among patristic witnesses. On the other hand, we do not have as much evidence that could possibly indicate the ο reading as an alternative spelling of the subjunctive, particularly since the ω was one of the thematic vowels of the subjunctive. In those cases where a future indicative spelling appears where one might expect a subjunctive, it is because there are explicit signals in the text that tend to belong with the subjunctive (such as the presence of ἵνα or οὐ μή), which are absent here. Fourth, perhaps most significantly, the patristic citations in particular—which also may indicate an indirect influence on scribes of the manuscript evidence—regularly demonstrate that a reason for preferring the ω spelling is because they did in fact take it as a hortatory subjunctive and used it in a moralizing fashion. One can see this from the contexts in which the verb appears in homilies/sermons or other texts focused on moral formation. These texts will also often cite some of the examples used by scholars today as parallels to insist that Paul could have used the hortatory subjunctive. If it was common for this sense to prevail in contexts of moral formation, this may in turn have shaped the expectations of some of the scribes who copied this text. If they had heard this text in sermons before, they would likely be accustomed to the ethical sense and assume that the “o” sound that the reader pronounced was an ω rather than an ο. The fact that the ω reading was flexible and ambiguous in these ways that the ο reading was not may provide further reason for its popularity over the latter.

Evaluating the Case

While the external evidence prima facie favors the ω reading, there are multiple factors mitigating the value of this testimony and the external evidence for the ο reading is by no means weak. The internal evidence strongly favors the ο reading as the one that best fits the context. But most importantly, the ο reading fulfills the criteria of best explanation as what explains the existence of both variants. It is more plausible by virtue of its better fit in the context. It has better explanatory scope by virtue of its ability to explain both variants by appeal to homophony, conventions of spelling, the greater ambiguity and flexibility of the ω spelling, and the preference for the alternative reading due to its usefulness for moralistic contexts. It thus also has better explanatory power than the alternative, even at the point where they might be expected to be equivalent in explaining the spelling via homophony. It is also more illuminating of the variety of uses of this text in its history of transmission and of why different spellings have been used. By all of these metrics, φορέσομεν is most likely the earliest recoverable reading of the last verb in 1 Cor 15:49.