Read part 1 here
Read part 2 here
Read part 3 here
Read part 4 here
Read part 5 here
Read part 6 here
Read part 7 here
______________________________________________
Now we proceed to the “missing verses” from John and Acts.
•Try and find these scriptures in NIV and ESV on your computer, phone or device right now if you are in doubt:
Matthew 17:21, 18:11, 23:14;
Mark 7:16, 9:44, 9:46;
Luke 17:36, 23:17;
John 5:4; Acts 8:37.
John 5:4
John
5:4 in the King James Version reads like this:
4 For an angel went down at a certain season into
the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of
the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had.
The
NIV has a footnote:
Some manuscripts include here, wholly or in part,
paralyzed—and they waited for the moving
of the waters. 4From time
to time an angel of the Lord would come down and stir up the waters. The first
one into the pool after each such disturbance would be cured of whatever
disease they had.
The
ESV footnote reads:
Some manuscripts insert, wholly or in part, waiting for the moving of the water; 4for an angel of the Lord
went down at certain seasons into the pool, and stirred the water: whoever
stepped in first after the stirring of the water was healed of whatever disease
he had
First,
we must note that, as in the other cases we have already looked at, the modern
translations do provide footnotes mentioning why they don’t include the “missing”
words in the main text. So there is no attempt in these translations to
deceive people, as these social media posts insinuate. It’s a simple case of
earlier manuscripts not including the words, and the belief that the older the manuscript, the better the chance that it reflects the original text.
So,
if these words were not in the original autographs and earliest copies, how did
they get into the later manuscripts that were the basis of the text used by the
KJV translators? In this case, they were not added from one of the other Gospel
accounts, because only John tells this particular story. Dr. William Mounce,
author of one of the most-used textbooks for first-year students of biblical
Greek, has a wonderful video explaining this particular verse, which can be
seen at https://youtu.be/YC1oU2zNC_Q
Allow
me to summarize the text critical view of this verse. These words may have originally
been a marginal note on a manuscript, made by a scribe familiar with traditions
about the pool at Bethesda, giving an explanation for what the lame man says in
verse 7 about not being able to make it into the water when it became stirred.[1] A later scribe copying
that manuscript may have thought the marginal note was actually part of the
text that a prior scribe had accidentally skipped over, and put in the margin
so it wouldn’t be lost from the book of John. So the second scribe “put it back
in” the main text where it seemed to fit.
While
we don’t know for sure that this is why this verse is not in earlier manuscripts
and is in later ones, it is a possible explanation, and makes much more sense
than someone taking these particular words out of the Bible, considering that
the words in question have absolutely no impact on any essential doctrine (therefore
undermining the implications of the meme that there is some sinister plot to
change the message of the Bible in modern translations).
Acts 8:37
The
King James Version has the following text in Acts at this point:
37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine
heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is
the Son of God.
The
NIV has a footnote (and the ESV has a similar note):
Some manuscripts include here Philip said, “If you believe with all your
heart, you may.” The eunuch answered, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son
of God.”
Again,
this verse is omitted from newer translations because it is absent in the
oldest manuscripts available today, which were not available at the time King
James commissioned the translation that bears his name. We do know from
history, however, that the words “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God”
were a common part of baptism ceremonies, confessed by the person being
baptized before being immersed in the water.[2]
Some
opponents of the modern translations object that removing this verse is an
attack on the doctrine that Jesus is the Son of God, the second Person of the
Trinity. I have read claims that the modern translations remove the deity of
Christ from the test. But there are still plenty of other verses that attest to
the fact of Christ’s divine Sonship that are still present in the critical text
and the translations based on it (Matt. 14:33, 16:16, 18:29, 27:54; Mark 1:1,
3:11, 15:39; Luke 1:35, 4:41; John 1:34, 1:49, 3:18, 10:36, 11:4, 11:27; Act
9:20; Rom 1:4; 2 Cor. 1:19; Gal. 2:20; Eph. 4:13; and Heb. 4:14, to name a
few).
In
our next installment, we will deal with the issue of “gender inclusive language”
and what that actually means. (Hint: it doesn’t mean what most of the accusers
mean when they talk about “gender neutral” language.)
[1] Craig S. Keener, The IVP Bible Background
Commentary: New Testament (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993), Jn
5:4.
[2] John
B. Polhill, Acts, vol. 26, The New
American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1992), 226.
No comments:
Post a Comment