Acts 7:59 which is more literal?

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by Logos1560, Nov 17, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    Which if any of the following renderings is the more literal and word for word translation of the Greek Textus Receptus at Acts 7:59?

    calling on and saying Lord Jesus (Tyndale's, 1537 Matthew's, 1539 Great, 1568 Bishops')
    which cried and said, Lord Jesus (1535 Coverdale's)
    called on God and said, Lord Jesus (1557 Whittingham's, 1560 Geneva)
    calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus (1611 KJV)
     
  2. Deacon

    Deacon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    6,972
    Likes Received:
    129
    >>>>>calling on and saying Lord Jesus (Tyndale's, 1537 Matthew's, 1539 Great, 1568 Bishops')

    There are many places in scripture where the verb tense seems, (how do you say it?)

    ...wrong :eek:

    ...at least to our English ear.

    The New American Standard Bible marks such places with an asterisks to signify that they changed the tense in translation.

    Rob
     
  3. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,872
    Likes Received:
    3
    The word "God" (Greek theos) does not appear in the verse. Luke quotes Stephen as saying "kurios Iesous..." (Lord Jesus). Logically, it does not follow then to translate that he "called upon" (or invoked) God's name when he clearly actually spoke words "Lord Jesus". It is my opinion that the word "God" does not really belong here; therefore, the Tyndale/Coverdale renderings are more literal than the Wittingham/KJV effort.
     
  4. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    In his commentary on Acts, J. A. Alexander basically agrees with you.
    J. A. Alexander wrote: "Upon God is introduced by the Geneva and King James with a very bad effect, that of separating Stephen's invocation from its object, and obscuring, if not utterly concealing, a strong proof of the divinty of Christ" (pp. 311-312). Alexander added: "Calling upon God and saying Lord Jesus may have been intended by the translators to identify these objects in the strongest manner; but besides the impropriety of such interpolations, even for such a purpose, the actual impression is most probably the contrary, to wit, that there are two distinct acts here recorded, that of calling upon God, and that of saying Lord Jesus, whereas these acts are spoken of as one and the same, in the Greek and in several of the older versions" (p. 312).
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Loading...