1 Peter 2:1

Discussion in '2005 Archive' started by UZThD, May 18, 2005.

  1. UZThD

    UZThD
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2004
    Messages:
    1,238
    Likes Received:
    0
    Is one, or two, "better"? If so, why?

    " of...Jesus Christ our God and Savior," Living Bible

    "Of our God and the Savior Jesus Christ," New World Translation

    "of our God and Savior Jesus Christ, " NIV

    "of God and our Savior Jesus Christ ," KJV
     
  2. NateT

    NateT
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2000
    Messages:
    886
    Likes Received:
    0
    First of all, the verse is 2 Peter 1.1 not 1 Peter 2.1 [​IMG]

    I would think "of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ."
    which is the NASB and similar to NIV.

    I think it is better than the KJV and NWT (never thought I'd have those two in the same group) because it seems like they are talking about 2 different people.
     
  3. UZThD

    UZThD
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2004
    Messages:
    1,238
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sorry for my error. Why do you think that text is not talking about two?
     
  4. NateT

    NateT
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2000
    Messages:
    886
    Likes Received:
    0
    For one thing, verse 11 uses very similar language for Lord and Savior. I looked at KJV, NKJV, NIV, NAS, RSV, NRSV, NET, Geneva, and they all translate that passage "our Lord and Savior" (not Lord and our Savior)I couldn't find the NWT on it.
     
  5. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    2Pe 1:1 (Geneva Bible 1585):
    Simon Peter a seruant and an Apostle of Iesus Christ,
    to you which haue obteined like precious faith with vs
    by the righteousnesse of our God and Sauiour Iesus Christ:

    2Pe 1:1 (KJV1611 Edition):
    Simon Peter, a seruant & an Apostle of Iesus Christ,
    to them that haue obtained like precious Faith with vs,
    through the righteousnes of God, and our Sauiour Iesus Christ.

    2 Peter 1:1 (KJV1769 Edition):
    Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ,
    to them that have obtained like precious faith with us
    through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:

    Notice how the punctuation of the KJV1769 is more like the
    Geneva than the KJV1611. This means that the people making
    changes from the KJV1611 to the KJV1769 thought more of
    the Geneva Bible than the KJV1611 :(
     
  6. Bluefalcon

    Bluefalcon
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2004
    Messages:
    914
    Likes Received:
    4
    I can't find the Greek support for the KJV reading. The 1550 Stephens TR has "of our God and our Savior Jesus Christ," i.e., 2 uses of "our" in the clause, while almost all other MSS I know of have "of our God and Savior Jesus Christ," with a few, including Sinaiticus, reading "of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ." The Consensus Greek Text IMO is for taking God and Savior as attributive of Jesus Christ, while the TR obviously implies two persons with its double usage of "our," and the KJV, while not following the TR here, also implies two persons. The Consensus text is preferred. Also, some scribes didn't feel comfortable with the Consensus terminology and changed "God" to "Lord" to make it less offensive to Jewish-minded hearers.

    Yours, Bluefalcon
     
  7. icthus

    icthus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,114
    Likes Received:
    0
    Firstly, the Greek for this is: "en dikaiosuen tou theou hemon kai soteros iesou christou". In Greek grammar, we here have a case, "when the copulative kai (and) connects two nouns of the same case, if the article ho (the)or any of its cases preceds the first of the said nouns or participles, and is not repeated before the second noun or participle, the latter always relates to the same person that is expressed or described by the first noun or participle; i.e. it denotes a further description of the first-named person" (Drs Dana and Mantey; A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, p.147). They are here quoting Dr Granville Sharp, who laid this "rule" for the Greek grammar, over 100 years ago. Which still holds good even today.

    In our text from 2 Peter, we have the two nouns, "theos" (God), "soteros" (Saviour). We have the Greek article (tou) used with the first noun only, "tou theou", and the copula, "kai" (and) is used to "connect" both the nouns. In the very next verse we can see the force of this grammar. Here the Greek reads: "tou theou kai iesou tou kuriou hemon" (of God and of Jesus our Lord). Here too we have the two nouns, and coplua. However, there is one very important differnece here. We now have the article "tou" (the) repeated with each of the nouns. This means that a distinction is meant, and therefore two Persons.

    The reading of the KJV is interesting, "of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ". While the Greek text has the pronoun, "hemon" (our) with "theos" (tou theos hemon= "our God"), the KJV has, for whatever reason, moved the pronoun, "soteros hemon" (our Saviour). I do notice that some of the early versions of the NT, the Coptic, Syriac, Ethopic and Armenian, do actually have the pronoun with both nouns: "en dikaiosuen tou theou hemon kai soteros hemon iesou christou". (through the righteousness of our God and our Saviour Jesus Christ). I will have to admit, that at least here the KJV is in error in its rendering of the Greek text.

    The same construction of the Greek as found in 1:1, is also found in verse 11, "tou kuriou hemon kai soteros iesou christou" (of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ), also 3:18. Where the only difference is that "kurios" (Lord) is used in the place of "theos" (God). Yet, no one would ever think that two Persons are meant.
     
  8. icthus

    icthus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,114
    Likes Received:
    0
    The three translations used by the Jehovah's Witnesses, read at 2 Peter 1:1, as follows

    THE NEW WORLD TRANSLATION (1961 edtion)

    "of our God and [the] Saviour Jesus Christ" (page 1312)

    Note the inclusion of "the" in brackets, which is not supported by any Greek manuscript. Inserted, no doubt to deny the Deity of Jesus Christ, which the text does teach.

    THE KINGDOM INTERLINEAR TRANSLATION OF THE GREEK SCRIPTURES (1969 edition)

    Literal reading under the Greek text:

    "of the God of us and of Saviour Jesus Christ"

    Reading of English translation in right column:

    "of our God and [the] Saviour Jesus Christ:a"

    Footnote with the letter "a":

    1a "of our God and the Saviour Jesus Christ"; to agree with the distinction between God and Jesus in the next verse (2)Of our God and of our Saviour Jesus the Messiah" (page 1038)

    Interestingly, the same Greek construction in 1:11 reads, "of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ" (p.1040). And in 3:20, "of the Lord and our Saviour Jesus Christ" (p.1045)

    I an appendix on page 1163 on the reading of Titus 2:13, which includes 2 Peter 1:1, they give their reasons from the Greek, why two persons are meant. They actually quote from Dr James Moulton, Dr Wendland, and suppose that these two Greek scholars support their understanding of the Greek! Wilfull blindness or what?

    THE EMPHATIC DIAGLOTT (1942 edition)

    English under the Greek text:

    "of the God of us and a saviour Jesus Anointed"

    English translation in right column:

    "our God and Saviour Jesus Christ" (page 785)

    This reading clearly testifies to the True Deity of Jesus Christ
     
  9. UZThD

    UZThD
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2004
    Messages:
    1,238
    Likes Received:
    0
    IMO Icthus and Sharp are right here . But , I think, the rule is not applicable in cases where the substantives are plural.

    2 Pet 2:1 appears to be an occasion when the KJV does not follow correct principles of Greek Grammar (of course those translators did not have Sharp's research), and where some MV more correctly and clearly support our Lord's deity.

    This is but another reason why I deem the KJV to be a very good translation but far from inspired or inerrant.
     
  10. NateT

    NateT
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2000
    Messages:
    886
    Likes Received:
    0
    Daniel Wallace uses 2 Pet 2.1 as an example when discussing Sharp & Christological passages.
     
  11. UZThD

    UZThD
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2004
    Messages:
    1,238
    Likes Received:
    0
    ===

    yep. I once spent a whole day tring to prove that Wallace was wrong about Sharp's rule being inapplicable to plurals. But he seems to be right!
     
  12. icthus

    icthus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,114
    Likes Received:
    0
    Strictly speaking, at least according to the English for 2 Peter 1:1, as found in the KJV, there is no problem with both nouns referring to the same Person, viz, that Jesus Christ is at once called both "God and our Saviour", even though the KJV has the pronoun, "hemon" in the wrong place (a genuine error?).

    If we are to go to the other great Christological passage of Titus 2:13, you will see that the Greek here reads: "tou megalou theou kai soteros hemon iesou christou". This literally in English would read: "great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ". Notice the position of "hemon" here, where it is not used with "theos", but with "soteros". This is how the KJV has it in 2 Peter 1:1.

    It has wrongly ben suggested by some, that the reading of the KJV shows that two Persons are meant in Titus 2:13. But, this is not the case. It is evident from the Greek, that "hemon" does also mean, "of us", rather than "our". But, this aside, I can give give two examples from the NT, which shows that the KJV is not wrong here, and does not weaken this testimony of Christ's Deity.

    Galatians 1:4 reads in the Greek: "tou theou kai patros hemon". Note the construction here, and that of Titus 2:13. The English here would read: "of God and our Father". Does this mean that two Persons are meant? I don't know anyone who would think so. Likewise we have the same readings in 1 Thessaloians 1:3, and 3:13. Again, no one would ever question that one Person is referred to here as "our God and Father". The Greek being, "God and our Father".

    Remarking on Titus 2:13, the Greek scholar, Dr G B Winer (whom Dr A T Robertson considered to be one of the greatest in his field), shows his theological bias, when he admits that grammatically, the whole sentence in the Greek no doubt refers to one Person, the Lord Jesus Christ. However, he goes on to say, "but the dogmatic conviction derived from Paul's writings that this apostle cannot have called Christ 'the Great God' induced me to show that there is no grammatical obastacle to our taking the clause kai sot...christou by itself, as referring to a second subject" (A Treatise on the Grammar of New Testament Greek, p.162). Dr Winer, it must be remembered, was a Unitarian, whose "theology" would not permit in Paul calling Jesus "the Great God"
     
  13. UZThD

    UZThD
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2004
    Messages:
    1,238
    Likes Received:
    0
    I am wondering if the KJV translators are inconsistent with their renderings in 2 Pet and if so, what are the probable reasons for that, and what are the possible effects of that.

    As I understand it, 2 Pet has 5 Christological phrases which have the TSKS pattern: 1:1;1:11;2:20;3:3 and,3:18.

    The last appears to have the same structure as the first but does not appear to have the same translation:

    1:1

    Grk: "tou theou hemon kai soteros "
    KJV: "of God and our Savior"


    3:18

    Grk: tou kuriou hemon kai soteros"
    KJV: "our Lord and Savior"

    Please forgive if I've erred as my Greek is not good.

    My question is, as the pronoun (hemon) in both Grk texts follows the first noun, why does the KJV in first verse place the "our" before the first substantive and in the latter verse place it before the second substantive?

    Does doing that make it less clear to the English reader that both nouns reference the same Person?

    Please excuse my density if I've revealed my ignorance.
     
  14. icthus

    icthus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,114
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hi, It would appear to me that this must be a genuine error by those who translated this Epistle. The scholars of the 1611 KJV were among the very best in this country at the time, in Hebrew, Greek and Latin. Some also knew many other languages. I very much doubt that this would have been anything but an error, as it is very plain to us who read the Greek text, that the pronuon "hemon" in the Greek in 1:1, is with "theos", and not "soteros", as the KJV has it.
     
  15. UZThD

    UZThD
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2004
    Messages:
    1,238
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hi, It would appear to me that this must be a genuine error by those who translated this Epistle. The scholars of the 1611 KJV were among the very best in this country at the time, in Hebrew, Greek and Latin. Some also knew many other languages. I very much doubt that this would have been anything but an error, as it is very plain to us who read the Greek text, that the pronuon "hemon" in the Greek in 1:1, is with "theos", and not "soteros", as the KJV has it. </font>[/QUOTE]===

    For the record I wish to say that neither do I think any MV is perfect. IMO every translation likely has faults and is subject to examination to uncover these mistakes.
     
  16. Bluefalcon

    Bluefalcon
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2004
    Messages:
    914
    Likes Received:
    4
    I do see now that a few minuscules (20 28 40) omit the first "our" of "our God," while Tischendorf mentions that perhaps some minuscules along with some versions (as icthus mentioned) have a second "our" with "our Savior." It appears the KJV translators made a text-critical decision using the MSS and other evidence they had available to them along with internal arguments, i.e., what kind of construction is most Pauline, is most likely to have been changed by scribes, etc., to come to their conclusion that the first "our" is not original while the second "our" is original. I don't agree with them here, but it appears this is what they have done.

    Yours, Bluefalcon
     

Share This Page

Loading...