Muad'Dib

Disciple, let me add that it is not in any reliable Greek manuscript that we have seen, either.

Why is it in the KJV, then?

Erasmus's first edition of the Greek NT caused a firestorm of controversy because (among other things) he left out 1 John 5:7, which was in the Vulgate in plain Latin for anyone (literate) to see. He explained that he had done so because that verse had no support of any kind in the Greek manuscripts, and after being hassled for a long time, he finally exclaimed, "If you can find one Greek manuscript containing the verse, I will include it in my next edition!" Surely enough, an appropriate Greek manuscript was promptly manufactured, and Erasmus was forced to abide by his promise: his third edition contained the verse, along with lengthy footnotes explaining his suspicions of the falsity of the document's origin.

Guess which of his editions was used for the King James Bible? The third. The translators conveniently neglected to include his footnotes, too.

If you read Luther's German translation of the NT which uses Erasmus's second edition of the Greek NT, it does not contain 1 John 5:7.

[ October 28, 2001: Message edited by: Muad'Dib ]

Apikorus

Another amusing KJV related story: A friend of mine who is a bible scholar knows of several examples of evangelical preachers who in oration place special emphasis on the italicized words in the KJV. Apparently these preachers think the italics are for emphasis. In reality, the italicized words are precisely those which are not present in the Hebrew or Greek.

HelenM

The Guy, Nomad

I thought it was known that Luke and Acts were originally one book.

They got split up so that all the gospel accounts could be put together.

That's what I thought I had heard.

So they never were two books, by Luke's hand...it was one long book.

Unless that's just speculative.

love
Helen

lpetrich

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Apikorus:
<STRONG>Another amusing KJV related story: A friend of mine who is a bible scholar knows of several examples of evangelical preachers who in oration place special emphasis on the italicized words in the KJV. Apparently these preachers think the italics are for emphasis. In reality, the italicized words are precisely those which are not present in the Hebrew or Greek.</STRONG>[/QUOTE

Like the word "is" in the OT; in some languages, one can get away with dropping the present tense of "to be" in its identity meaning. However, if that construction is clear from the context, there is no need to note anything special about using "is" in the translation.

I don't have a KJV Bible with me, so I can't say much more; is "of" also italicized?

Apikorus

Actually I am quite favorably disposed toward the KJV, though for the Hebrew Bible, which is my principal interest, I prefer NJPS over other English translations. Of course there is no substitute for the Hebrew itself, and there I prefer the Qoren edition.

One nice thing about the KJV is the fact that it retains the distinction between thou/thee/thine and you/ye/your, i.e. between second person singular and plural. This distinction is present in the Hebrew, so the Jacobean English allows for a more faithful rendering in this respect.

Generally the KJV is quite good, although at times the translators missed certain idiomatic constructions such as hendiadys (e.g. itzboneikh v'heironeikh in Gen 3:16, which KJV improperly renders as "thy sorrow and thy conception"). From a literary point of view, it is a masterpiece.

The fact that the KJV italicizes words not present in the original Hebrew and Greek reflects the meticulous approach of its translators. In most cases, these added words simply render the English more readable in places where particles are absent in the original language. But sometimes the italicized words reflect a tendentious harmonization. For example in 2 Samuel 21:19, the KJV reads that "...Elhanan the son of Jaare-oregim, a Bethlehemite, slew the brother of Goliath the Gittite...". The italicized words the brother of appear nowhere in the Hebrew, which simply reads ...elkhanan ben-yaarei orgim beit halakhmi et galyat hagiti.... The Hebrew refers to Goliath, not to Goliath's brother. That the Hebrew must refer to the familiar Philistine hero is clear since it uses the exact same language to describe him as in 1 Samuel: "the staff of whose spear was like a weaver's beam" (1 Sam 17:7, 2 Sam 21:19).

In this case, the KJV harmonizes the account in 2 Sam 21 with that in 1 Sam 17. In fact, the KJV translators were not the first to harmonize these texts. The Chronicler, in the 5th/4th century BCE, did so, in 1 Chronicles 20:5, where Elhanan is said to have slain "Lahmi the brother of Goliath". The Chronicler ingeniously derives the name lakhmi from the beit lakhmi in 2 Sam 21:19. In fact, some scholars have suggested that it is 2 Sam which is in error - Samuel is one of the most corrupt texts in the Hebrew Bible owing to its great antiquity - and that the Chronicler's version is accurate. But for several reasons, this explanation doesn't quite work. One reason is the problematic etymology of lakhmi. Another is the fact that the text is clearly focussed on Goliath himself, since it describes him in legendary terms (his staff was as thick as a weaver's beam).

[ October 29, 2001: Message edited by: Apikorus ]

Polycarp

Quote:

Originally posted by HelenSL: I thought it was known that Luke and Acts were originally one book. They got split up so that all the gospel accounts could be put together. That's what I thought I had heard. So they never were two books, by Luke's hand...it was one long book.

Without getting too far afield, the best explanation can be given by
considering two factors. First, Acts 1:1 explicitly refers to a "former" or
"previous" account. This would seem to make it clear that Luke and Acts
were written as two separate volumes.

Second, the size of a first-century scroll would prohibit both volumes being
able to fit on one scroll. It just so happens that Luke and Acts are very
similar in length, and their length is equal to approximately the maximum
capacity of a standard scroll. Luke probably broke up his work into two volumes for both topical (Jesus in Luke, early church in Acts) and practical (scroll
capacity) reasons.

Peace,

Polycarp

Nomad

First, this is not what I said. You had said you had a problem with how the “note” in your NIV Study Bible treated verses 42-44. What I pointed out to you was that the NIV translation itself did not make the point you were disputing, however. A straight forward reading of Luke 24:42-44 in the NIV shows all of the events effectively happening at the same time, especially taken in the context of Acts 1:3. This is why I fail to see what your complaint against the NIV happens to be. Any contradiction you see in Luke is found in ALL translations, so blaming one of them more than any other seems pretty nonsensical in my view.

That said, my suggestion as to a potential reconciliation with other gospels was in response to your own assertion:



I added the emphasis to demonstrate that you see Acts as Luke’s attempt to “clarify” the view of the Resurrection he offered in GLuke (his first book) with “other legends”. Now, if these other legends do not include Matthew and John, then I am unsure what you are talking about. What other legends are you thinking about? I had offered that the editor of your study Bible was trying to connect Luke 24:42-44 with John’s own story, but I rejected this view as extremely unlikely. I do not think that you believe this either, but I am trying to clarify what your own position happens to be here.

In any event, since Luke never brings up the appearances in Galilee in Luke or Acts, then he doesn’t appear to be very interested in clarifying this “contradiction” to your satisfaction. His interest in the Resurrection and Ascension remains confined to Jerusalem, just as Matthew is interested only in the appearances in Galilee (this, BTW, is one of the major arguments used to establish that Matthew and Luke wrote independently and unaware of the other). All Luke does in Acts is explain that the time line between Resurrection and Ascension is 40 days. In other words, he expands on a previous point.

How can you create a “contradiction” from silences? Luke and Acts are connected, and Acts expands on Luke regarding the time between the Resurrection and the Ascension. Since none of the other Gospels even mention the Ascension, nor how long Jesus remains on earth after His Resurrection you are continuing to argue from silence. This is simply fallacious reasoning.

If I tell you that I went for lunch with my wife, then later tell you that I went for lunch with my family and friends, have I contradicted myself, or expanded on a previous point? In order to show a contradiction, you must show that the one statement cannot be reconciled with another statement.

Actually, I made this exact point in my previous post. A difference in interest or emphasis does not create a contradiction. At most it may offer some tension in the text, but here even this is not the case. Luke does not care about time lines in GLuke, but he does in Acts. More importantly, this is something that is true in all translations, not just the NIV, so I am still left wondering why you offered it as an example of why the NIV is a bad translation. As you can see, you have confused two points. You may think that Luke contradicts Acts, but since this is true in all translations of the Bible, then do not use it as an argument to reject one of those translations.

This is a rather naïve view of how history is recorded and written. Since it is axiomatic that all histories are given through the lenses of the historian(s) recording it, his presuppositions and biases affecting what he writes, and how he writes it, what would constitute non-fictional history in your opinion?

Out of curiousity, do you accept the view that Reagan (or Kennedy, or Nixon, etc.) was a good president, or a bad one? Historians disagree on this point, and some have expressed on view, and others the opposite. Clearly each presents his “history”, including basically the same set of facts, to support his own point of view. All history is written from a point of view. Please do not reject those points of view as non-historical, simply because you do not like (or agree with) what they have to say.

Nomad

The Guy

I haven't visited this forum in several days, but I thought I would chime in and say that I was a member of Disciple for a short time. I was a Christian at the time, and I still maintain a relationship with Brad.

I am glad to see you enjoy their music.



[ October 31, 2001: Message edited by: The Guy ]

The Guy

I said:
You replied:

So I looked to see what you said, and I found this:

It looks to me like I understood what you said perfectly, you are just trying to make me look confused denying you said that. My initial post that said Luke was harmonizing his account with other legends was intentionally ambiguous on my part. As being familiar with urban legends and how they spread, it is expected that the stories concerning his activities would only get more and more grand, with many more details filling in any gaps in the legends. The discrepancy between Mark and Luke is enough to warrant a slight re-writing of the account to leave open the possibility of other events having happened during that time.

That I was referring to John was just a mistaken assumption on your part. I am not aware of exactly what ‘legends’ Luke was harmonizing, just that he did. I could think of several possibilities, but I would be speculating too much, which I don’t think is necessary.

I don’t want this to resort to flaming, but how many times to I have to make the same point before you get it. Luke says the disciples are to remain in Jerusalem until pentecost, and Mark and Matt say Jesus told his disciples to meet him in Galilee. That is not an argument from silence, to say that it is, is absolutely ridiculous.

That is why I have to question your motivation here. You ignore the obvious, and accuse me of fallacious reasoning, that is bizarre.

This actually is a good example of a false analogy. A better one would be if you told me you met your wife for lunch today at a particular restaurant, then later told me you met her at a different restaurant for lunch. That is a much more accurate analogy to the account of the resurrection as presented in the gospels. And that is not a clarification; it is a contradiction.

What? Besides that fact that is established when comparing the resurrection accounts, you are sadly mistaken if you believe that any possible explanation, no matter how absurd, negates any contradiction, no matter how obvious.

You seem to be rejecting the contradiction because it implies an unfortunate conclusion (that the resurrection is fictional), and since the conclusion is unacceptable, then there must not be a contradiction. I am sure you will deny this, but it is pretty apparent to me.

Again, denial of the contradiction doesn’t make it go away. But I explained earlier why I used this scripture in my example, in case you forgot, here it is again.

I had problems with the NIV already, I would have used another example if it was another instance that led to me discarding it, but it was that one; the fact that my study bible jumped all over the opportunity to insert a break in the text is a separate issue.

Polycarp

Quote:

Originally posted by The Guy: I haven't visited this forum in several days, but I thought I would chime in and say that I was a member of Disciple for a short time. I was a Christian at the time, and I still maintain a relationship with Brad. I am glad to see you enjoy their music.

Very interesting… It’s a small world when a band as obscure as Disciple can find three people at the SecWeb who actually know who they are. I love their music, but their lyrics could benefit from a little more creativity.

Are you still playing music? If you’re willing, I’d be curious to hear your thoughts on why you switched belief systems.

Peace,

Polycarp