Soul Invictus

In the KJV the passage reads:

"
16 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments."

In the NIV this same passage reads:
"16Now a man came up to Jesus and asked, "Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?"
17"Why do you ask me about what is good?" Jesus replied. "There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, obey the commandments."

With translational issues being contentious for discussions, I picked up on something of interest. The KJV passage has v 17 stating that there is none good but one, that is God. This solidifies any fundamental assertions that Jesus either claimed to be God or is God, because of the reading of this scripture.

In the NIV, however Jesus is said to have referred to there being only One who is good. This version is primarily effective in it's own respect, however I wonder about the difference of word choice from God to good (not that this translations diminishes its effectiveness for argument purposes)

Any thoughts?

Yuri Kuchinsky

This is _not_ a translational issue, Soul. It's a textual issue!

The KJV is based on the Majority/Byzantine Greek text, which is different from Westcott & Hort. So this is one of these matters.

Just like in so many other instances, KJV seems to have a better text here. Westcott & Hort were frauds, and the whole modern Textual Criticism is fraudulent to the core. There's no proof at all that Westcott & Hort's text is better than the Byzantine. It's all a Mirage!

But, in this case, you'll also have to consider the Synoptic parallels. In my view, Mark's and Luke's versions are closer to the original text of this passage. It's quite a complex picture here. Maybe I'll post a brief analysis of these passages when I have the time.

The NIV and other "modern" versions of Matt 19:16-17 (all based on Westcott & Hort) seem influenced by gnosticism IMHO. They are a bit vague and mystical. Whereas the Byzantine version is more straightforward, and easier to understand.

Regards,

Yuri.

Haran

A couple of good online resources (Yuri would probably call these fraud...):

Textual Variants for Matthew Ch. 18-28
Wieland Willker's Textual Commentary on Matthew

yummyfur

Here's the greek, since I need to test this anyway, also need to practice translating Koine Greek.

1991 Byzantine Greek NT

17 o de eipen autw ti me legeiV agaqon oudeiV agaqoV ei mh eiV o qeoV ei de qeleiV eiselqein eiV thn zwhn thrhson taV entolaV

1881 Westcott-Hort Greek NT

17 o de eipen autw ti me erwtaV peri tou agaqou eiV estin o agaqoV ei de qeleiV eiV thn zwhn eiselqein threi taV entolaV

1550/1894 Textus Receptus

17 o de eipen autw ti me legeiV agaqon oudeiV agaqoV ei mh eiV o qeoV ei de qeleiV eiselqein eiV thn zwhn thrhson taV entolaV

I was reading the faq on how to enter Greek text, but I couldn't get the text to convert to NCR's using the batch mode instructions. I did notice howerver that using the standard Symbol font worked fine in my Preview but I'm not sure everyone can see it. Is this correct, or should I only use NCR's?

Also, I'm just trying to learn Koine Greek, so bear with me

Is there anyway in the Greek texts to tell wether eiV should be translated as "one" or as a preposition "to" or "into"?. Is this purely done on context? or is there some other textual marks that don't show up on the online Greek texts that tell you clearly which is intended.

The reason I ask, if it is only a contextual judgement, couldn't:

oudeiV agaqoV ei mh eiV o qeoV

be translated as :

"no one is good except through God"

Where you translate the eiV as a form of into.

here's the Strong's entry for eiV

a primary preposition; to or into (indicating the point reached or entered), of place, time, or (figuratively) purpose (result, etc.); also in adverbial phrases:--(abundant-)ly, against, among, as, at, (back-)ward, before, by, concerning, + continual, + far more exceeding, for (intent, purpose), fore, + forth, in (among, at, unto, -so much that, -to), to the intent that, + of one mind, + never, of, (up-)on, + perish, + set at one again, (so) that, therefore(-unto), throughout, til, to (be, the end, -ward), (here-)until(-to), ...ward, (where-)fore, with. Often used in composition with the same general import, but only with verbs (etc.) expressing motion (literally or figuratively).

The other form of eiV is pronounced differently and here is Strong's entry

(including the neuter (etc.) hen); a primary numeral; one:--a(-n, -ny, certain), + abundantly, man, one (another), only, other, some. See also eis kaq eiV - heis kath heis 1527, mhdeiV - medeis 3367, mia - mia 3391, oudeiV - oudeis 3762.

In the Byzantine Greek of Mathew 19:17, the second eiV is tranlsated as into.

Also couldn't:

ti me legeiV agaqon

be translated as:

"Who/What do I describe as good?"

It seems to make more sense, as the person asking the question in Mathew 19:16 didn't say anything about Jesus being good, so Jesus's question "why callest thou me good" seemed very strange to me. The way I translated it makes more sense, as rhetorical restatement of the persons question, like a teacher would do for a class.

So my final translation reads as

And he said to him "Who/What do I describe as good? No one is good except through God, if moreover you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments."

Any help/criticism would be appreciated

Patrick Schoeb

Soul Invictus

I may take up an interest in the difference in translations to go into the accuracy of the texts. Is your contention that the KJV is more accurate? Do, please expound on your Majority/Byzantine vs Westcott & Hort issue. I've no familiarity with the competing models.

I shall have to re-read yummyfur's post....

yummyfur,

care to offer some insight for me?

Magus55

Sorry but that doesn't show that Jesus never considered himself God. Jesus was acknowledging that He was also human, and in that respect was lower than God. His divinity however is not.

Hbr 2:9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.

Haran

I prefer Unicode. You can also work in the accents when they make a difference.

There is a "rough breathing" mark above the iota that helps distinguish the two words:

εἷς = one, pronounced "heis"
εἰς = in/into, pronounced "eis"

The marks are a little hard to see on the computer, but if you have an accented Greek text in front of you, you'll see the diference between the two words.

Some observations:

• The oldest manuscripts do not have accents.
• Modern critical texts of Matt. 19:17 represent it as "heis" - one.
• Matt. 23:10 has a similar phrase with Christ instead of God that most translate similarly - "heis ho Christos".
• My searches have not turned up anything like "eis ho Theos" translated as "through God".

Since ancient manuscripts do not have accents, it is hard (for me at least) to say that "eis" is an impossible reading. However, from the rest of my above observations, it seems that the most likely construct is "oudeis agathos ei me eis ho Theos", translated "no one is good except one, [that is] God".

This would be a good question for the B-Greek E-List. I'd love to see the answers.

No.

The Greek word "me" is the accusative case, so it would be translated in English as "me" and not "I".

Also, "legeis" is in the second person, "you call" or "call you".

Literally, it would be translated as "Why me call you good?" Of course, the better English translation would be "Why do you call me good?"

Hope that helps.

Haran

However, that vagueness is part of what suggests that it was the original reading, at least according to the methodology of modern textual critics...the more difficult reading is to be preferred as closer to the original. In other words, why would someone change the text such that it becomes less clear? Most people would change a text to help clarify it...

Here is Metzger's take on why they chose the reading they chose for the text of the UBS:

"Many of the witnesses...modify ver. 17 by substituting for Matthew's distinctive account the words from the parallel accounts, τι με λεγεις αγαθον; ουδεις αγαθος ει μη εις ο θεος ("Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone," (Mk 10.18; Lk 18.19). If the latter reading were original in Matthew, it is hard to imagine why copyists would have altered it to a more obscure one, whereas scribal assimilation to Synoptic parallels occurs frequently."

They rank the same text that underlies the NIV's translation with the highest "A" rating, meaning they were pretty confident that this text must be very close to the original.

Their reasons make good sense to me, so I prefer the NIV's reading.

Soul Invictus

Hello Magus55,

Your source for the scripture in Hbr 2:9 isn't something quoted by Jesus, and I was hoping to critique the words that have been attributed to Jesus. I could just as easily quote I John 4:12 which reads,

"No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us." There are scriptures that help your contention as well as mine, so with that being said, my focus is the red letter texts.

About your statement that Jesus didn't not consider himself God, it seems that we're operating from the assumption that Jesus is God, and the scriptures can be harmonized to show that they are actually in accordance with his divinity. I find this approach a bit ineffective, since the assertion that Jesus is God has thus far failed to make a conclusive case for its validity.
In another thread this topic came up, for which I requested your redress. I'm not sure if you received the email reminder or not...sometimes they don't always come through, but I was looking for your response there, as I am sure that you weren't abandoning the thread.


In respect to this thread though, verse 17 has Jesus asking why the one calls him good and Jesus goes on to state that none is good but God. In this passage, it is not my contention that Jesus is not inferring literally that no one (including himself) fails to possess positive human attributes in totality. It is my opinion that he distinguishes mankind,as well as himself, from God, hence the article "but".

I have a hard time not coming to the conclusion that Jesus does not view himself as God when we take into account the following:

1) Jesus inquires of the asker why he calls Jesus "good".
2) Jesus clearly associates the concept of "good" with God.
3) Jesus states that none is good but God (which validates the inference that Jesus acknowledges that he fails to possess this "good" of which is in question.

Soul Invictus

Mods,

In hopes not to derail this thread, can we split this to become a new topic in GRD?

I have always found it an interesting position the idea of God in the flesh. I almost find this contradictory. God is holy,sacred, and divine right? It is the Christian perspective that Jesus was God manifest in an unclean,lowly,basely flesh.

How does this happen? How can the two exist in the same state? Even if one could reconcile it being able to occur, Moses couldn't even look upon God on the mountain. Here is an excerpt from Exodus 33:18-20

18 And he said, I beseech thee, shew me thy glory.
19 And he said, I will make all my goodness pass before thee, and I will proclaim the name of the LORD before thee; and will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will shew mercy on whom I will shew mercy.
20 And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live.

This seems to support my assertion fairly well, also when I take into consideration I John 4:12.

It seems that there is the necessity that Jesus be both human and God, to harmonize certain problematic issues. I am not sure how they can co exist. Jesus would have to be God or man. Take your pick.


Any thoughts?