"Jesus" in Mt 8:29

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by Ziggy, Sep 21, 2004.

  1. Ziggy

    Ziggy
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2004
    Messages:
    532
    Likes Received:
    2
    From a former thread, now closed:

    Matthew 8:29, KJV/TR/Byzantine text:

    And, behold, they cried out, saying, What have we to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God? art thou come hither to torment us before the time?

    Variant reading found in MVs: omit “Jesus”

    Sorry to burst certain bubbles, but this omission or inclusion was *not* deliberate. Why so? Answer: the parallel passages Mk 5:7 and Lk 8:26 in *all* MSS of *all* texttypes retain the name “Jesus”, without variation.

    The *real* reason for omission or inclusion in Mt 8:29 appears to be a matter of copyist error. Sacred names like “Jesus” were abbreviated in Greek, using the first and last letters only.

    Thus, this portion of Mt 8:28 in ancient MSS (written in caps and without word division) would look like this: TIHMINKAISOIIUUIETOUQEOU. The key phrase here is “you (SOI) Jesus (IU), Son (UIE)”, which causes letter redundancy: SOIIUUIE. A scribe could easily skip over or deliberately eliminate that which appeared to be redundant, but since the parallel passages in Mk and Lk *retain* the word “Jesus”, accidental omission appears to be more likely.

    A similar scribal error of omission occurs in the parallel Lk 8:26; there *some* MSS omit the phrase “of God” following “Son”, where the text in caps would read: SOIIUUIETOUQUTOUUYISTOU. Here the scribe’s eye could easily skip from the first TOU to the second TOU in the phrase TOUQUTOU and thereby leave out “of God” (QU being normal abbreviation for “of God”, which in full form would be QEOU).

    There simply was *no* deliberate attempt to “eliminate” either the name of Jesus or the phrase “of God” in these passages, since exact parallel locations clearly *retain* the same words. Deliberate alteration would have been consistent throughout. For most people, such a concept should not be hard to grasp; unfortunately, some people think they have to argue a fictional “conspiracy theory” merely in order to defend the underlying text of the KJV.

    Now, would anyone care to discuss this variant *without* turning it into typical KJVO spin?
     
  2. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,154
    Likes Received:
    322
    You've said all that is necessary IMO Ziggy.
    We simply cannot determine if it was in the original autograph because, of course, we don't have it.

    Is it within the realm of possibility that it was in the Matthew autograph? Yes, I think so.

    personally I would still go with it's inclusion in the TR/Majority Text over an Aleph or B omission.


    HankD
     
  3. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ziggy, very good, you've done some research. A common thought of name abbreviation in koine is felt by many to be equivalent to being a pronoun (looking at it from "English" eyes, anyway). In other words, seeing an abbreviation in koine would be tantamount to saying "he", "she", etc (again, in "English" eyes). Most copies of the MSS, if I remember correctly, contain the abbriviation (I could be wrong).

    This is a clear case of one of the many issues that comes up whenever you transate from one language to another (especially a language like koine Greek to English, which are non-parallel n regards to much of the syntax). This is a case where neither answer in English is necessarily the onyl right one. But in any case, the notion that only one or the other compromises or changes any scriptural doctrine is absurd.

    It should be noted, however, than rules of abbreviation in the OT TR Hebrew are nor the same as rules of abbreviation in NT Greek, either TR or MSS. They're two different languages, with two VERY different sets of rules. Hence, YHVH would never be considered a pronoun in any sense of the word, even though IUUIE or IU might be.
     
  4. Ziggy

    Ziggy
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2004
    Messages:
    532
    Likes Received:
    2
    On the contrary, I would not say that IU would ever be considered a mere pronoun.

    While the Greek definite article can be used as a pronoun, a name -- particularly a sacred name, even under abbreviation -- remains a name and not a pronoun.
     
  5. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Perhaps "pronoun" is the wrong word to use. We in English don't appreviate proper names, so we don't really have an equivalent to the Greek.
     
  6. AVL1984

    AVL1984
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=../ubb/avl1984.jpg>

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2002
    Messages:
    6,932
    Likes Received:
    3
    We dont' abbreviate proper names?

    Jn John
    Js James

    These are just a couple. Care to elaborate, or am I mistaking your meaning, Johnv? :confused:

    AVL1984
     
  7. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0
    How about Wm or Geo.?
     
  8. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    I was referring to abbreviation of names in regards to sentence structure. In regards to reference, such as a phonebook listing, that would not apply. Clearly, I was being unclear. [​IMG]
     
  9. AVL1984

    AVL1984
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=../ubb/avl1984.jpg>

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2002
    Messages:
    6,932
    Likes Received:
    3
    No problem, John...just needed to make sure I was understanding you right. Thanks for the clarification. [​IMG]

    AVL1984
     
  10. Terry_Herrington

    Terry_Herrington
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2002
    Messages:
    4,455
    Likes Received:
    1
    No we do not have the originals, but we do have something that is just as good, the KJV. The Bible that God has blessed for hundreds of years.
     
  11. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Oh no, not the "God has blessed us for hundreds of years" revisionist history falsehood. The current revision of the KJV only dates back 225 years (not the nearly 400 years that some KJVO's claim). It varies significantly from its prior revisions. The KJV did not catch on when it was first was published. It was only after it became illegal (under penalty of imprisonment) to own anything besides the KJV was the KJV the most common translation in England. So furious were many religious groups who had been continually oppressed by the Crown, that some decided to venture the Atlantic and settle a colony in the New World, renouncing the KJV and taking their old bible with them. Yup, the Bible of the Pilgrims was the Geneva.

    As for the "originals" we have the source texts that the KJV translators used. You can purchase them on Amazon.com and many Christian bookstores.

    Still, the bottom line is, I am entitled to a translation that is translated into my language, not Elizabethan English.
     
  12. Ziggy

    Ziggy
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2004
    Messages:
    532
    Likes Received:
    2
    Terry: "No we do not have the originals, but we do have something that is just as good, the KJV. The Bible that God has blessed for hundreds of years."

    Hi, Jack...

    Which statement and followups no longer have anything to do with the main point of this thread....
     
  13. Askjo

    Askjo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    Only 11 MSS omitted Jesus on Matthew 8:29.

    More than 40 MSS had Jesus. Funny, one manuscript defends MVs had Jesus. Why did MVs reject this manuscript DEFENDING MVs?
     
  14. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    There doesn't appear to be any defense of copyist errors. As stated, the issue is one of Proper Name appreviation in koine Greek, which is something that is not done in English grammar (though, as pointed out, it is done in English reference). Neither substitution of the full proper name, nor the substitution of a pronoun, is the 100% best choice, and neither is a bad choice. This is a translation issue, one of many, that is inhierent in translating from one language to another, especially when the languages are not parallel in syntax like and kind.

    There are copyist problems in the KJV as well. Does that make them wrong? Not typically.
     
  15. Ziggy

    Ziggy
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2004
    Messages:
    532
    Likes Received:
    2
    JohnV: "There doesn't appear to be any defense of copyist errors."

    The issue in this passage is a variant reading among the MSS, of which a small number omit the abbreviated name of Jesus (IU), most likely through scribal error, while most MSS contain the name.

    Given the various researches on the types of error scribes were likely to commit (studies by Colwell, Head, Royse), accidental omission by a small number of MSS in such a case is more likely than accidental duplication of both the I from the end of SOI and the U from UIE in the remainder of the MSS so as to produce a name IU that was not there originally.
     
  16. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,154
    Likes Received:
    322
    According to this logic the Latin Vulgate is THE most blest Bible on earth seeing that has endured for over 1500 years.

    In fact the first English Bibles were translations of a translation, yes that's right the Latin Vulgate was translated into English in 1380 (plus or minus) by John Wycliffe and later had a definite influence upon the 1611 KJV English incorporating some unique Vulgate readings into the AV that endure to this day.

    HankD
     
  17. AVL1984

    AVL1984
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=../ubb/avl1984.jpg>

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2002
    Messages:
    6,932
    Likes Received:
    3
    No we do not have the originals, but we do have something that is just as good, the KJV. The Bible that God has blessed for hundreds of years. </font>[/QUOTE]You truly believe in "revisionist history", don't you Terry? The KJV was rejected by many as a "NEW TRANSLATION" until it was forced upon the people. Even the Puritans didn't accept it. Wonder why??? :rolleyes:

    AVL1984
     
  18. Craigbythesea

    Craigbythesea
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,500
    Likes Received:
    20
    1. They came to the other side of the sea, into the country of the Gerasenes.
    2. When He got out of the boat, immediately a man from the tombs with an unclean spirit met Him,
    3. and he had his dwelling among the tombs. And no one was able to bind him anymore, even with a chain;
    4. because he had often been bound with shackles and chains, and the chains had been torn apart by him and the shackles broken in pieces, and no one was strong enough to subdue him.
    5. Constantly, night and day, he was screaming among the tombs and in the mountains, and gashing himself with stones.
    6. Seeing Jesus from a distance, he ran up and bowed down before Him;
    7. and shouting with a loud voice, he *said, "What business do we have with each other, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? I implore You by God, do not torment me!"
    8. For He had been saying to him, "Come out of the man, you unclean spirit!"
    9. And He was asking him, "What is your name?" And he *said to Him, "My name is Legion; for we are many."
    10. And he {began} to implore Him earnestly not to send them out of the country.
    11. Now there was a large herd of swine feeding nearby on the mountain.
    12. {The demons} implored Him, saying, "Send us into the swine so that we may enter them."
    13. Jesus gave them permission. And coming out, the unclean spirits entered the swine; and the herd rushed down the steep bank into the sea, about two thousand {of them;} and they were drowned in the sea.
    14. Their herdsmen ran away and reported it in the city and in the country. And {the people} came to see what it was that had happened.
    15. They *came to Jesus and *observed the man who had been demon-possessed sitting down, clothed and in his right mind, the very man who had had the "legion"; and they became frightened.
    16. Those who had seen it described to them how it had happened to the demon-possessed man, and {all} about the swine.
    17. And they began to implore Him to leave their region.
    18. As He was getting into the boat, the man who had been demon- possessed was imploring Him that he might accompany Him.
    19. And He did not let him, but He *said to him, "Go home to your people and report to them what great things the Lord has done for you, and {how} He had mercy on you."
    20. And he went away and began to proclaim in Decapolis what great things Jesus had done for him; and everyone was amazed.
    Mark 5:1-20, (NASB, 1995)

    28. When He came to the other side into the country of the Gadarenes, two men who were demon-possessed met Him as they were coming out of the tombs. {They were} so extremely violent that no one could pass by that way.
    29. And they cried out, saying, "What business do we have with each other, Son of God? Have You come here to torment us before the time?"
    30. Now there was a herd of many swine feeding at a distance from them.
    31. The demons {began} to entreat Him, saying, "If You {are going to} cast us out, send us into the herd of swine."
    32. And He said to them, "Go!" And they came out and went into the swine, and the whole herd rushed down the steep bank into the sea and perished in the waters.
    33. The herdsmen ran away, and went to the city and reported everything, including what had happened to the demoniacs.
    34. And behold, the whole city came out to meet Jesus; and when they saw Him, they implored Him to leave their region.
    Matt. 8:28-34, (NASB, 1995)

    Ziggy,

    Matthew’s account is much less detailed than Mark’s, which may very well explain the omission of the name Jesus. A scribal gloss from Mark, and maybe even Luke, is a very likely explanation for its inclusion in some manuscripts of Matthew 8.
     
  19. Ziggy

    Ziggy
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2004
    Messages:
    532
    Likes Received:
    2
    CBS: "Matthew’s account is much less detailed than Mark’s, which may very well explain the omission of the name Jesus. A scribal gloss from Mark, and maybe even Luke, is a very likely explanation for its inclusion in some manuscripts of Matthew 8"

    So nice to be back on topic. [​IMG]

    One certainly could argue deliberate harmonization from the parallel passages which include the name Jesus; however, it is far easier to assume a small minority of manuscripts (Aleph B C* L f1 33 892 al) omitting the name (making SOIIUUIE read only SOIUIE) due to skippage, than that a large number of MSS (the remainder of the tradition) would add a harmonizing parallel without any complaint being raised from any quarter.

    The comparison with the Lk 8:28 parallel is apt, since one there finds another small minority of manuscripts (p75 D f1 579 al -- two of which also omit IU in Mt 8:29 [!]) omitting "of God" for the same reason of skippage (from TOUQUTOU to TOU).

    It is far more probable that a small number of MSS -- particularly when of related type -- would err than that the remainder of the tradition -- representing MSS of all other texttypes -- would silently harmonize.

    As noted, this fits in with the studies on scribal habits made by Colwell, Royse, and Head, and some of the primary MSS involved in non-inclusion of the name Jesus are among those whose scribal habits regarding omission are well documented.
     
  20. Ziggy

    Ziggy
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2004
    Messages:
    532
    Likes Received:
    2
    CBS: "Matthew’s account is much less detailed than Mark’s, which may very well explain the omission of the name Jesus. A scribal gloss from Mark, and maybe even Luke, is a very likely explanation for its inclusion in some manuscripts of Matthew 8"

    So nice to be back on topic. [​IMG]

    One certainly could argue deliberate harmonization from the parallel passages which include the name Jesus; however, it is far easier to assume a small minority of manuscripts (Aleph B C* L f1 33 892 al) omitting the name (making SOIIUUIE read only SOIUIE) due to skippage, than that a large number of MSS (the remainder of the tradition) would add a harmonizing parallel without any complaint being raised from any quarter.

    The comparison with the Lk 8:28 parallel is apt, since one there finds another small minority of manuscripts (p75 D f1 579 al -- two of which also omit IU in Mt 8:29 [!]) omitting "of God" for the same reason of skippage (from TOUQUTOU to TOU).

    It is far more probable that a small number of MSS -- particularly when of related type -- would err than that the remainder of the tradition -- representing MSS of all other texttypes -- would silently harmonize.

    As noted, this fits in with the studies on scribal habits made by Colwell, Royse, and Head, and some of the primary MSS involved in non-inclusion of the name Jesus are among those whose scribal habits regarding omission are well documented.
     

Share This Page

Loading...