Textual Notes on 1 Peter 5:5-6

Image:  An ancient manuscript with the ending of 1 Peter

A few more textual gleanings from 1 Peter 5:5-6 (after preaching last Lord's Day on “Clothed with Humility” from 1 Peter 5:5-7:

First, in v. 5 after the initial adverb homoios (“likewise”) some texts add a post-positive conjunction etc. Variations:

1. Add de: original hand of Sinaiticus, Psi

2. Add de oi: several minuscules including 33 etc.

3. Add de kai oi: various minuscules including 614

Analysis: This provides another example of a place where Sinaiticus diverges both from Vaticanus and from the received text.

Second, in v. 5 variations exist on the inclusion or omission of the participle hupotassomenoi. Variations:

1. P72 adds the preposition en before allelois;

2. The received text (including the majuscule P) reads allelois hupotassomenoi (“submitting to one another”);

3. A few minuscules (614, etc.) read allelois hupotagomen (“let us submit to one another”);

4. One codex (Psi) reads allelous agapasate (“love one another”).

5. The critical heavyweights Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and Alexandrinus agree in omitting the participle.

Analysis: Inclusion or exclusion certainly alters translation:

Inclusion:

AV: “Yea, all of you be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility”

NKJV: “Yes, all of you be submissive to one another, and be clothed with humility”

Exclusion:

NIV: “All of you, clothe yourselves with humility toward one another”

NASB: “and all of you, clothe yourselves with humility toward one another”

There is a strong external argument for keeping the participle with the imperative since this is typical of the Petrine style. The verb “to submit” is also a Petrine favorite (cf. 1 Peter 2:13, 18; 3:1; 5:5).

Third, in v. 6 after the prepositional phrase en kairo (“in due time”) some manuscripts add episkopes (making the phrase “in the time of visitation”; cf. “in the day of visitation” 1 Peter 2:12). This addition appears in Codices A, P, and Psi and in various minuscules. It is not included in the traditional text or in the Alexandrian heavyweights. Oddly, Metzger says, “After kairo the Textus Receptus adds episkopes….”; he then dismisses it as a “scribal addition derived from 2:12” (Textual Commentary, p. 696). This is odd because Scrivener’s printed version of TR does not include episcopes and translation based on the TR do not reflect its inclusion (cf. the AV which reads: “that he may exalt you in due time”). Is this an error by Metzger?

Analysis: Contrary to Metzger, this appears to be a place where the so-called “oldest and most reliable manuscripts” support the traditional reading over against variations found in other ancient sources (including Codex Alexandrinus).

Conclusions: One of the typical comments made by those who support the modern eclectic text is that there are only a handful of major textual issues in the NT (namely the pericope adulterae of John 7:53-8:11 and so called Longer Ending of Mark [Mark 16:9-20]). Comparison of the received text and the modern critical Greek text, however, reveals variations in nearly every verse in the NT. What does this mean for the stability of the text of Scripture? For its canonicity?

JTR