Do some versions "wrest Scripture" in I Peter 5:13?

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by EdSutton, Apr 14, 2008.

  1. EdSutton

    EdSutton
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    The KJV renders I Peter 5:13 along these lines.
    The MSG, AMP, NLT, WE, NIRV, WYC, KJ21, NLV, NCV, AKJV, GWT, WBS, WEY, and not surprisingly, the D/R render this in some way, as "church" as well.

    However, since " ἡ ἐκκλησία" is not found in the Greek text here, nor anywhere in Peter's Epsitles, for that matter, according to the Greek Texts I have any access to, including the two texts "I hold in my hot little paws", as I write this, is not this interpolation/interpretation/injection an example of "bad eisegesis", at best, and "'tormenting' or 'twisting' Scripture", at worst, in the "supplying" of this word where there is absolutely no textual basis to even suggest this? Even the Vulgate does not interject this, here.

    I am not particularly concerned that one may offer "commentary" on this verse in this manner; I do not approve of this being found in the translated text. Comments??

    Ed
     
    #1 EdSutton, Apr 14, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 14, 2008
  2. Jerome

    Jerome
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2006
    Messages:
    5,607
    Likes Received:
    44
    Vulgata Clementina and Codex Sinaiticus do have it.
     
  3. TCGreek

    TCGreek
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2006
    Messages:
    7,373
    Likes Received:
    0
    W-H: "σπάζεται ὑμᾶς ἡ ἐν Βαβυλῶνι συνεκλεκτὴ καὶ Μᾶρκος ὁ υἱός μου"

    "The one chosen with and Mark my son greet you."
     
  4. EdSutton

    EdSutton
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    Are you sure about your above quote?

    Given the propensity of W/H and the UBS 2 (Aland/Black, et al.) to follow Aleph (א), I find it extremely unlikely that this would not be found in the text, or at least referenced in the apparatus and footnotes, were this so. [Likewise, my MT (Hodges/Farstad 2) would have likely noted this variant, as well, I would think, although they may require a second reading, even when one is as 'significant' as א .] I see neither of these in my copies of either, with my UBS2 reading thus: (Note that I did "cut and paste" the above verse, but it is identical to my hard copy, and I cannot 'compose', or 'type in' the Greek on my computer, with my own very limited skills.) Incidentally, I did find a reference to "church" in a 'modern' Greek version known as the Vamvas or Bambas, but this seems to be basically a translation of the KJV into 'modern' (1850s) Greek, so I consider that wording suspect, at best. I suggest the textual backing is really weak (or more like non-existent) when one cannot find it in the Scrivener TR1894, which itself, is basically a 'reverse engineered' Greek text, from the KJV.

    I do not read Latin, but still suppose I would probably recognize the word in the text, as well. I did check a couple of other verses that have the word "church" in Englsh, and "ekkelsia" in the Greek, to find the 'Latin' word "", there. I have no Vulgate (like it would do me any good, if I did), but did find this on-line, for the verse:
    It is called the "Latin: Biblia Sacra Vulgata", but I have no knowledge of how that might relate to "Vulgata Clementia" that you reference. Just notice that there is no mention of a word that would obviously be rendered as "church".

    Ed
     
    #4 EdSutton, Apr 14, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 14, 2008
  5. Salamander

    Salamander
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    3,965
    Likes Received:
    0
    "She who is in Babylon, chosen together with you, greets you; and so does Mark, my son."


    "She" is "chosen". If this isn't the church, then who, pray tell, is it???:wavey:
     
  6. Jerome

    Jerome
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2006
    Messages:
    5,607
    Likes Received:
    44
  7. Deacon

    Deacon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    6,968
    Likes Received:
    128
    How to Guide

    Head over to laparola.net [LINK]

    Pop in 1 Peter 5:13
    Pick the order of the manuscripts in each variant reading to show the variants: "by texttype"

    Press the Blue Box "View Text"

    The results show:

    Variant readings:
    1 Peter 5:13 (Münster)
    Βαβυλῶνι] Alex: p72 A B P Ψ 81 322 323 1175 1241 1243 1409 1735 2298 2344 copsa copbo WH NM Alex/Cæs: Origen according to Eusebius Alex/West: 945 1739 1881 Alex/Byz: 2464 Cæs: geo Eusebius West: 1292 1505 1611 1852 ith itq vgst Byz: K L 436 1067 Byz Lect syrh slav ς

    Βαβυλῶνι ἐκκλησία] Alex: ‭א NR CEI Riv TILC Nv Cæs: arm West: itar itz vgcl vgww Byz: pc syrp ethpp ND Dio

    Ῥώμῃ] West: 1518 2138 Byz: 4mg

    Each particular variant is separated by the mark ----> "]"
    Following the variant is a list of numbers and letters.
    Each number and letter represent a particular manuscript
    In the Information area at the bottom of the page, a tab reads, "All the manuscripts"; click it.

    General information is provided for all the known manuscripts, including their name, the date (by century), the texttype(s), and the portions of Scripture they contain.

    Once you know what you are looking for you can search for sites that offer scans of the manuscripts.

    Codex Sinaiticus [LINK] is one of my favorites. What a masterpiece!

    1 Peter 5:13 Codex Sinaiticus Petropolitanus [LINK] The verse begins on the previous page but the portion in question is at the top of the first column.
    Note that this early manuscript was written without word spaces in capital letters.

    Well my grandson wants me to read him a story... I've gotta go! :wavey:

    Rob
     
    #7 Deacon, Apr 14, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 14, 2008
  8. Deacon

    Deacon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    6,968
    Likes Received:
    128
    It could be Peter's wife, considering that he called Mark his son.

    Rob
     
  9. EdSutton

    EdSutton
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    Not that it is all that unusual, but you are missing the point entirely, here.

    I do not care, in any way, as to whether or not the "she" may be, or is actually referring to the church.

    I do care as to whether or not "ekklesia" is properly found in the text;

    why if it is, and is a variant, does this not seem to be noted in the apparatus of the UBS2, and MT, that I have;

    and why, if it is not found there, have some English translators, over the last 650 yrs. have attempted a 're-write' of the text, to include this rendering?

    Those are my questions!

    Have I made them too difficult for you to understand?

    Or do I need to use smaller words, next time?? :rolleyes:

    Ed
     
    #9 EdSutton, Apr 14, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 14, 2008
  10. EdSutton

    EdSutton
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thank you for the links.

    Now I have a couple or five more questions.

    Where did Sinaiticus get this reading, which seems to me, to be unique to the Greek text, from, to begin with?

    Is it found in other Greek manuscripts?

    And, did Sinaiticus 'provide' this reading for the translator(s) of 'Clementina'?

    If so, How?

    Or did 'Clementina' happen to be a 'product' of the same 'place' as Sinaiticus?

    Ed
     
  11. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    There was a church at Babylon in those days. All those old translators musta known SOMETHING we might not now know. i don't think they'd lightly add something that's not there, nor meant by the writers of the manuscripts.
     
  12. EdSutton

    EdSutton
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    :BangHead: :BangHead: :BangHead:

    My headache seems to be returning!

    That is not the question. I am assuming that there was a church at Babylon.

    But the great majority of the Mss. seem to read "She". Even the TR reads she, and the modern 'critical texts' of both 'traditions' seemongly do not note the variant.

    What gives the translator the "right" to "interpret" as opposed to "translate" the actual word?

    Incidentally, most of these "the old translators" start, not in the first thru fourth centuries, in this practice, but many years later, unless one is assuming that "Aleph" is the only accurate Greek manuscript, here. The Clementine Vulgate, the D/R and the KJV all appear 1200 years later than this. Did this practice start with Wycliffe?

    Ed
     
    #12 EdSutton, Apr 15, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 15, 2008
  13. Salamander

    Salamander
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    3,965
    Likes Received:
    0
    Maybe it's you have some reference material that should never be consulted to understand the word of God?

    Maybe they too can see that Peter referred to the church rather than his mother? John referred to the "Lady elect". Are the references you're using suggesting that Peter's mother isn't a lady?

    Use bigger words next time so you can look more intelligent.

    Even the "revered" Jameison, Faucet, Brown commentaries offer two distinct possibilities, but they too seem to believe the church is referred to rather than Peter's mother.

    Maybe you're having trouble with the metaphorical aspect of Scripture, again.

    Maybe it's the use of the colloquial understanding rather than a literal and specific translation.

    Since I Peter 5 begins with reference to the elect/chosen, to render this to refer to Peter's mother actually causes an interpolation of the text rather than a clearer reading.

    I'll stick with the church, you can run with Peter's mother, but I think she's long been dead.:wavey:
     
  14. Salamander

    Salamander
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    3,965
    Likes Received:
    0
    Maybe it's your lack of understanding the nuances of former languages to render the feminine gender as a direct object rather than an actaul person.

    A ship is referred to as a "she", just as a car is also, so why not the church?

    Since Peter's mother is part of the elect/the church, and as I previously said, I Peter 5 makes specific reference to the elect.

    This rendering as the church would maintain the flow and harmony of the text.

    Or do you think Peter's mommy had something to do with the inspiration behind I Peter?:wavey:
     
  15. EdSutton

    EdSutton
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    Since I did not make any reference to Peter's mother, and since I did not "revere" anything (Oh!! Aside from the texts of Scripture, that is!), including Jameison, Faucett, Brown, your 'digs' are sidestepping, as opposed to answering, the questions I posed.

    Since the "reference material" I was consulting was primarily English versions of Scripture, and Greek NT Texts, which one is it that is bothering you? Stephanaus' TR1560; or Scrivener's TR1894; or W/H; or UBS2 - Aland/Black, et al.; or MT2 - Hodges/Farstad; or DARBY; or ASV; or NKJV? All the above have "she" here. And it is kind of difficult to confuse the root words of " 'egO" and " 'ekklesia", regardless of the endings, IMO.

    And how is it, you can argue, on one hand, for an understanding of "the colloquial understanding", here, and turn around and decry that idea, when someone prefers a more modern language version or a paraphrase, in other instances? Something is not adding up quite right, here! Or is it that Salamander is now on record as being a decided fan of DE??

    Or are you now expressing your own preference for the Roman Catholic versions of Clementina Vulgata, and Douai-Rhemes, which the KJV followed, here?

    Hey! That's it! I just figured it out!! Salamander really prefers the Roman Catholic Bibles, in the NT, over the TR! NOW we know!

    BTW, I might consider using bigger words, next time, but I wanted it to be understandable to all. Maybe next time, I should consider using smaller words, for you have not seemed to get the question, yet. And after three tries, at that!

    Ed
     
    #15 EdSutton, Apr 15, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 15, 2008
  16. EdSutton

    EdSutton
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    FTR, I have posted several times, before that the church is a "she", including, I believe, in this thread.

    And in the case, in point, the "direct object" is not in view, but this is the "subject" of the sentence.

    Nice try, though!

    Ed
     
  17. Jerome

    Jerome
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2006
    Messages:
    5,607
    Likes Received:
    44
    Do those Greek editions really have that pronoun there?

    ego???
     
  18. Salamander

    Salamander
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    3,965
    Likes Received:
    0
    Then your question is moot, since the evidences are self-explanatory.

    Metaphor complications arise again.

    You're attempting an exact interpretation when there actually is none other than what the context has already established throughout I Peter. That is that Peter is speaking of the elect and to the other elect. IOW, he's talking about the advantages and disadvantages of the church to another church.

    Oh, truly someything is adding up, it's called demanding a literal interpretation of the word opf God which denies the priesthood of the believer to determine what the word of God applies to him and what you are complaining about goes against the entire context of I Peter.

    Nice conjecture there, but realistically, the versions mentioned follow the same MSS which the KJB rightfully follows

    Delusion has a way of misleading its victims just as you are being misled, again, thinking you've figured out something amiss.

    Oh? I got the question and the underlying scheme behind it. You've just been so pre-occupied with yourself that you thought I hadn't.
     
  19. Salamander

    Salamander
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    3,965
    Likes Received:
    0
    Glad to see you finally admit Peter wasn't speaking of his wife then.

    Seems I accomplished my task more than you realize.
     
  20. Salamander

    Salamander
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    3,965
    Likes Received:
    0
    It's really his eggo, just don't leggo of the eggo, he likes people to try and take it away from him.:laugh:
     

Share This Page

Loading...