...against you

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by Deacon, Jul 10, 2010.

  1. Deacon

    Deacon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    6,968
    Likes Received:
    128
    If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother.
    Matthew 18:15 (ESV)

    If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother.
    Matthew 18:15 (NAS)


    Should these words be in the text or not?

    What other portions of scrupture support the inclusion or exclusion?

    Rob
     
  2. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,124
    Likes Received:
    319
    Wescott and Hort omit "against" (the word eis).

    It seems missing from Aleph exclusively.

    I would include it.


    HankD
     
  3. rsr

    rsr
    Expand Collapse
    <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    10,073
    Likes Received:
    101
    Aleph does not contain the phrase; it is omitted by Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.

    "Against you" was in the original NIV and NASV but was dropped in the newer revisions, as it was in the NET. Among the newer versions, it remains in the ESV, NRSV, Holman, New American Bible and NLT.

    The phrase has been added to recent UBS/NA editions in brackets; it had previously been omitted. Perhaps this explains why the (relatively) older NASB omits the phrase. I think a good case can be made for its inclusion.
     
  4. jbh28

    jbh28
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2008
    Messages:
    3,761
    Likes Received:
    0
    If it's in the ESV, it has to be right. :D:smilewinkgrin:
    It's a textual variant. NA27 has it in the text but in brackets. Not sure about the UBS4th. Have to go and look. In principle, it could be both.
     
  5. Deacon

    Deacon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    6,968
    Likes Received:
    128
    The differences between versions shows the translators uncertainty.
    Certainly, if a person sinned against me, I would approach him privately.

    But what if you saw a bruised and battered child? What if you suspected parental child abuse?
    Would you first turn to the parent?

    What do other portions of scripture say?
    Can they help to determine the correct action?

    Rob
     
  6. Winman

    Winman
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14,768
    Likes Received:
    0
    [OFF TOPIC]

    The KJB says:

    Matt 18:15 Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.
     
    #6 Winman, Jul 10, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 11, 2010
  7. Deacon

    Deacon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    6,968
    Likes Received:
    128
    [Response to off topic comments]

    I stumbled across this variant while dealing with a church problem.
    I was going to base my argument on the text of the ESV until I checked other versions.

    Since a variant exists I can't support my argument.

    Rob
     
    #7 Deacon, Jul 10, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 11, 2010
  8. Deacon

    Deacon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    6,968
    Likes Received:
    128
    [Response to off topic comment]
    I'm certainly uncertain, it doesn't take a scriptural variant to known it.

    There are lots of things in Scripture I'm uncertain about.

    I'd be wary of those who think they have an answer for everything.


    'Still waiting for scripture to back up one position or another.

    Rob
     
    #8 Deacon, Jul 10, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 11, 2010
  9. jbh28

    jbh28
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2008
    Messages:
    3,761
    Likes Received:
    0
    [Response to off topic comments]
    As far as this passage goes, many churches use the principle behind this passage as using for church discipline. In the context of the passage, I believe Jesus is speaking about personal sins. However, the principle of going to the person alone at first I think can be carried over to other sins. So no, I wouldn't say this passage specifically says that, but the principle behind it I think supports it.
     
    #9 jbh28, Jul 10, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 11, 2010
  10. rsr

    rsr
    Expand Collapse
    <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    10,073
    Likes Received:
    101
    It depends on the context.

    You've already suggested that perhaps the admonition might be interpreted in the context of "but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea." In that case, the sin being mentioned in v. 15 might be in view, in that the brother's sin has caused another child to transgress, and thus it is the duty of all brethren to see that such sin is addressed.

    However, another possible interpretation is that the passage ties into not what went before but what follows:

    Then Peter came up and said to him, “Lord, how often will my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? As many as seven times?” Jesus said to him, “I do not say to you seven times, but seventy times seven."

    Here the issue is certainly forgiveness of sins committed against one personally, not against someone else or the church as a whole. Since Peter asked the question in this way, it lends weight to an interpretation that Jesus was talking how to deal with sins against one's self; the parable follows in the same train.

    The second interpretation would be my choice. However, the principle involved may stand whichever interpretation is chosen.
     
  11. jonathan.borland

    jonathan.borland
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2008
    Messages:
    1,154
    Likes Received:
    0
    I haven't studied this particular passage, but a glance shows that the same textual problem occurs in the passage noted in the Eusebian canon (Matt 18:15 || Luke 17:3). The "against you" in Luke is not supported as well as in Matthew.

    My impression, although initial, is that the omission in Matthew and perhaps also in Luke is intentional orthodox strengthening of the command, just as occurs with the intentional omission of "without a cause" in Matt 5:22. The orthodox strove for universals, and thus adjusted the text accordingly. I think the context, as already mentioned by others, better supports the addition of the words than their omission.

    Jonathan C. Borland
     
  12. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    Please discuss the passage at hand. Do not attempt to drag the thread off topic. Other posters can help by simply reporting derail attempts and thenn ignoring them.
     
  13. jonathan.borland

    jonathan.borland
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2008
    Messages:
    1,154
    Likes Received:
    0
    Johann Albrecht Bengel indicates that the words "against you" were omitted to conform the text to Luke 17:3 (Apparatus criticus ad Novum Testamentum [ed. Philipp David Burk; 2d ed.; Tubingae: Io. Georgii Cottae, 1763], 126).

    Johann Jakob Griesbach, whom most commentators on this passage before and many even after Westcott and Hort follow, says: "εἰς σε ['against you'] disappeared after ἁμαρτήση ['sins'] either by accident, or it was omitted because at some time it went missing from many manuscripts in Luke 17:3, or it was deleted on purpose in order that the command might encompass all kinds of sins" (Commentarius criticus in textum graecum Novi Testamenti [2 vol.; J. C. G. Goepferdt, 1798, 1811], 1:149-50).

    For internal evidence confirming the authenticity of "against you" in Matt 18:15 one should consider the comments of S. W. Whitney (The Revisers’ Greek Text [2 vols.; Boston: Silver, Burdett, & Company, 1892], 1:124-5).

    Jonathan C. Borland
     
    #13 jonathan.borland, Jul 11, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 11, 2010
  14. John of Japan

    John of Japan
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    12,208
    Likes Received:
    192
    Jonathan has given some excellent reasons that "against you" should be in the text.

    Here are some other reasons. First of all, the phrase does occur in all Greek texts in other places where forgiving others is discussed. Right there in Matt. 18:21, in the same context, all Greek texts have the phrase. And Peter is obviously reacting to Christ's previous words. in v. 15.

    The phrase occurs in the parallel passage in Luke 17:3-4. The modern texts leave out the phrase in v. 3, but not in 4, which to me is strange. At any rate, the meaning in Luke and I think in Matthew is obviously if someone sins against you, not just sins. Surely this is one case where the Westcott and Hort rule that the shorter reading is always right leads to a ridiculous reading!

    Now think about that. It seems very illogical that Christ was commanding us to rebuke every sin we see, and then take it before the church if necessary. What if the wife refuses to make my coffee because she's mad at me, am I going to bring the deacons in on it and then take it before the church? Obviously Christ didn't mean that. If He did we'd all become like "Crudens the Corrector," author of Cruden's Concordence, who literally went nuts because he tried to correct every little thing he saw. :smilewinkgrin:
     
  15. John of Japan

    John of Japan
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    12,208
    Likes Received:
    192
    Hmm. Okay, the wife withholding my coffee would be a definite sin against me. So let's think of a lady at a church dinner stealing a bite of someone else's cake. Should I then rebuke her and call in the elders if she doesn't repent? :saint:
     
  16. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,124
    Likes Received:
    319
    Yes, by all means.
    Also, she must make restitution by baking a whole new cake for the offendee.

    HankD
     
  17. Mexdeaf

    Mexdeaf
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2005
    Messages:
    7,051
    Likes Received:
    0
    Unless it's carrot cake- then she may have all of it.

    And I'm no scholar, but the 'against you' reading just makes plain ol' common sense.
     
  18. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    :) I like that, I am a fan of common sense.


    ....and carrot cake :)
     
  19. John of Japan

    John of Japan
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    12,208
    Likes Received:
    192
    Restitution is good.... :laugh:
     
  20. jonathan.borland

    jonathan.borland
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2008
    Messages:
    1,154
    Likes Received:
    0
    In addition to the reasons given by Griesbach, I propose that literary purism on the part of early grammarians on the text of the NT may lie behind the omission of "against you" (εἰς σέ) in both Matt 18:15 and Luke 17:3. Since in classical Greek verb "to miss the mark; to sin" (ἁμαρτάνω) overwhelmingly takes its object in the genitive case when no preposition is used, literary purists sought to "purify" the text by removing the "against you" through understanding the pronoun after "brother," namely "of you/against you" (σοῦ), not as a possessive of "brother" but rather as the object of the verb. This explanation also solves the question why the same grammarians did not also remove the "against you" in Luke 17:4, already mentioned by John of Japan, since there was no such object marker in that place. But the NT is not like classical Greek: in the NT the σοῦ ("of you") of ὁ ἀδελφός σου ("the brother of you" or "your brother") is customary; in classical Greek it is redundant and totally unnecessary. So the powerful Alexandrian grammarians figured a way to purify the text without at all changing its meaning in the classical sense. Yet their valiant efforts to purify the text of the NT, while certainly elegant, must in the end always be rejected.

    Jonathan C. Borland
     

Share This Page

Loading...