The similarity in wording might have implications for the theory that 4:6c is a marginal note for copyists that has nothing to do with the content in the context, unless we suggest that 4:6d was altered to massage the gloss into the text.
Is 4:6d the clause that says "that you may not be puffed up individually in favor of one against the other"?
If so then how's about your own suggestion turned around a bit. Instead of 4:6d being massaged to fit with the gloss, it was already there, and it "showed the way" ;) to insert the copyist's note.
I agree with peacefulpete about the verse flowing much better without that rule of sorts.. That's about adding to teachings and holy writ. But Paul's talking about not judging others, then he mentions how even Apollos and himself are applying this to themselves so that......[cut out possible inserted note]....they'd also learn not to be putting themselves against each other.
I agree that it seems a verb has gone missing here somewhere, like "to go" etc. For instance, the Vulgate reads:
...propter vos ut in nobis discatis ne supra quam scriptumest unus adversus alterum infletur pro alio.
which certainly runs almost ungrammatical in its missing a verb. Aland chose to capitalize the MH portion of the 'admonition' in Greek as if this was a phrase as the object of the (h)ina, almost an an independent phrase, but again, we're missing a verb, or as if its understood that we mean '(to go) beyond/above that which is written.' I don't agree the sentence reads better if we consider this to be a directive in the marginalia or as an extraneous portion, to be omitted.
The grammatical construction of (H)INA + MH + _(verb)__ would almost certainly want the subjunctive or infinitive of the verb.
I agree that it is quite possible to understand it as an elliptical phrase with an implied (unstated) verb (a few mss supply phronein); whence the proverbial ring (cf. NRSV, "saying"). On the hand, the repetition of mè and huper, and the strange thought flow, are strong arguments for some early textual accident which may have called for a scribal note which in turn crept into the text as the text itself seemed to "invite" it (as Midget-Sasquatch put it).
It would be one typical example of a text writing itself...
The similarity in wording might have implications for the theory that 4:6c is a marginal note for copyists that has nothing to do with the content in the context, unless we suggest that 4:6d was altered to massage the gloss into the text.
On first reading Leolaia's thoughts, I focussed on the part I yellowed, then offered up a scenario. But on rereading it I see how the part I marked in red is implicitly making that connection for me, and all I simply did was write it more explicitly. Don't want to look like I'm stealing someone else's thunder.
