Mat 19:17 and the Word "good"

Note: I was unable to copy the GK text from the following Adam Clarke's Commentary, so when GK text appears it is noted as (the GK text). If one is a serious GK student, they can pick up his commentary and read the GK. Let me tell you one thing, I am beginning to understand the old adage, "It's all GK to me.":thumbs:


Subsequent to my last post I happened to pick up a commentary by Adam Clarke. Upon reading him in all three gospels that have the account of the man that came running to Christ first noted in Matthew 19, then Mark 10, and subsequently in Luke 18, he would agree that all three accounts speak of the same encounter of Christ with this man. He goes into to some detail in Matthew to explain from the Greek the different clear renderings from the Greek text even the TR was taken from. He clearly takes exception with the way it is most commonly understood in the King James, and claims not only upon his authority but on the authority of many other well-known authorities before him, the text can clearly be read without doing any injustice to the Greek in the following manner. In verse 16 where the King James states "Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?" Adam Clarke states emphatically that he can be clearly understood to say "why dost thou question me concerning that good thing?" Adam Clarke says that "this important reading is found in the be BDL, three others, the Coptic, Sahidic, Armenian, Ethiopic, later Syriac, Vulgate, Saxon, all the Itala but one, Origen, Eusebius, Cyril, Dionyisus Areop., Antiochus, Novation, Jerome, Augustin, and Juvencus. Erasmus, Grotius, Mill, and Bengel approve of this reading. This authority appears so decisively to Griesbach that he has received this reading into the text of his second edition, which in the first he had interlined. And instead of, none is good but the one God, he goes on to read, on nearly the same respectable authorities, (the GK text) 'there is one who is good.' Let it be observed also that, in the 16th verse, instead of (the GK text), good teacher, (the GK text) only is read by BDL, one other, non-Evangelistic – arium, the Ethiopic, three of the Itala, Origen, and Hillary. The whole passage therefore maybe read the us: "oh teacher! What good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life? And he said unto him, why dost thou question me concerning that good thing? There is one that is good.(Or he who is good is one.) But if thou art willing to enter into that life, keep the Commandments." This passage, as it stood in all the common additions, as been by some writers as an incontrovertible proof against the Divinity or Godhead of Christ. "

He goes on to say, that while some have tried to be build the doctrine of the Godhead of Christ from this text, they destroy it by the very rendering they accept it as saying when they agree with the literal meanings purported by the KJV. Obviously he is speaking of those that render it literally from the King James that there is 'none good but one, that is God.' Clearly enemies of the Trinitarian doctrine would desire to let stand the manner in which the King James version translates this passage.

It should be noted as interesting that instead of lining up the Matthew account with the Mark and Luke accounts, Adam Clarke believes all three accounts clearly can be justly read as his comments present it in this Matthew account. Obviously there has been much agreement amongst well recognized and accepted Greek scholars in the past as well as many other authorities in the early church.

One thing is clear to me, good men and able scholars have taken issue with the rendering of the King James in all three accounts of this man running to Christ with his question of what good thing must I do to inherit eternal life.

Before I ever read Adam Clarke, the rendering of the King James simply did not make sense to me. With limited resources I first went to the an eight translation New Testament to seek some insight. As I posted in an earlier post clearly the majority of all of the translations mentioned were in basic agreement with Adam Clarke, yet having established their notions concerning this text by different manuscripts/translations. Adam Clarke does not in any way rely on the textual criticism of Wescott and Hort or others, neither did he base his feelings upon any of the new translations that are now so prevalent. I also felt it more than strange for Christ to make mention of His Deity, when that was not being addressed or called into question.

So now I have to wonder once again about the accounts of this man running to Christ, due to the clear agreement between different scholars dating back to the early Christian fathers to Adam Clark's day, being in basic agreement with the conclusions of the textual criticism that took place in the late 1800s to early1900s and beyond dealing with these passages, yet both groups, those prior to the textual criticism that took place subsequent to Westcot/Hort as well as those hundreds of years prior to any such textual criticism, all arriving at the same basic understanding even though forming their opinions of the Greek from clearly differing manuscripts and or translations,including but not limited to, the TR itself.

I wish in retrospect I would have read Adam Clarke before I did. It might have aided our discussion earlier on. Of a truth, hindsight runs 20/20. :thumbs:

 

HP: Now we can take the word of Roman Catholics and complete strangers, but God forbid we listen to a Methodist. Strange (or not so strange) you would make this a point. If ones theological positions would influence the rendering on the manner in which the GK is read, all the more reason for some clear thinking men of God, far distanced from the Church of Rome, the notions of Augustine and Calvin, and the appointees by King James, angry over footnotes in another translation, to be listened to carefully. So what if he is a Methodist? Some great men of God in the last few hundred years were Methodists as well. What does that have to do with ones ability to understand the GK? Were the early Christian fathers and scholars he mentioned in support of the same rendering of the texts 'Methodists' as well or influenced by some 'Methodist' agenda?

I would like to know something. Do have more confidence in your skills in the GK than any or all of those listed by Clarke, including Clarke himself? I am not disparaging your understanding of the GK, only asking. What 'Methodist' notion or agenda do you see driving the early Christian fathers mentioned or scholars such as Griesbach?
If in fact there is some hidden agenda for all the scholars and writers listed by Clarke, why would that clear possibility be true for any or all other translator/scholars, including but not limited to those responsible for the KJV, or your own feelings on this passage for that matter? Is everyone biased to a particular agenda but you and those that are in keeping with your own ideas?

The first thing that gave me a clue that something was possibly wrong with the common understood meaning of these passages was the manner in which they were being used by yourself and others to somehow prove a purely Calvinistic notion that all are continuing sinners and none that are good. I certainly saw a clear agenda in your own use of the text. That was my first clue to even take the time to start asking questions. Scripture never indicates anywhere else that no men are good in God's eyes, and in many places clearly indicates that some are indeed good, holy, just, righteous, blameless, perfect, without guile, without rebuke or reproach, and on and on the list goes. So how are you going to convince the audience that it is not your own doctrinal bias driving your GK understanding to the disregard of others that might (depending on your answer to my former question as to your own opinion of your skills of the GK) in fact be miles ahead in their understanding in which the GK can, and even should be, reasonably interpreted? Besides, I would clearly be of the opinion that the verses in question do absolutely nothing to support the notion of the Deity of Christ as you suppose, but rather disparages it and add fuel for those that would want to disparage His Deity.

 

Biblicist, Your comments thus far would again blow the notion out of the water than translators would not be prone to interpret the GK in light of their particular doctrinal persuasions or that no translations affect any doctrines directly.

HP: I believe you are in error, although clearly he sees it can be read as he states in his explanation. Do you believe Clarke was ignorant of the TR or the GK manuscripts from which it was derived?

HP: He reasons not only from the text itself, again with much support from well qualified men to make such judgments outside his own theological persuasion, but from the manner the KJ rendering would lead itself to a position far from the truth of the Deity of Christ. I see no personal 'Methodist' doctrine period to be upheld or supported from his rendering of the GK. Just curious. Tell us what might be the 'hidden Methodist agenda' you see by rendering the GK in the manner he and the others mentioned did? Why would the others, removed from Methodism, be supporting 'Methodist notions? Were all the men responsible for latter critical renderings (from the numerous versions I previously posted) from the GK closet Methodists trying to support some Methodist notion?

HP: From my standpoint, not being able to read and understand the GK, I see merit in what you are saying, yet those well able scholars listed, who indeed can read and understand the GK, Latin, and possibly other languages as well, coming from a wide variety of theological understanding and beliefs, would clearly disagree with both of us. Should we not give some fair consideration to these men that most likely are far more knowledgably than even you are concerning the renderings clearly in keeping with the GK texts?

HP: That is precisely where all the listed scholars, from the ones in the early Church to the day of Clarke onward, would disagree with you and those appointed by King James. They obviously felt that the GK placed no such emphasis on the word 'good.'

HP: That is not in keeping with the question he asked according to the GK scholars listed by Clarke. He asked about some 'good' thing he might do to inherit eternal life. Christ's response was not a dissertation on his Deity, but rather clearly pointed him to the righteousnes of the law and the merits of keeping the law, if one would. I know full well how this would disagree with your own doctrinal; position, but surely we would not allow that alone to simply disregard the scholastic abilities of those mentioned in understanding the GK text now would we?

HP: In all fairness, that is sheer philosophical conjecture, not established by the text itself.

HP: I cannot believe you cannot see the position you are trying to take, one at direct antipodes with your own position. If I believe you, I could say, Christ was trying to say that the law, or to come and follow Christ, demands an impossibility, faith in and obedience to the commandments of God. What kind of faith can beleive in something known to be an impossibility? Your position is that it is absolutely impossible to fulfill any of the commandments, or have faith in the commandments, whatsoever. You are making the clear suggestion that God is lying to the man, suggesting that God, via the law, demands the impossible, i.e., keeping the law. One thing I do know, and that is God will never use something that is a complete impossibility to make a point in showing an honest seeker of truth how to obtain eternal life. Your position makes a mockery of the truth Christ plainly stated, and destroys any notion of the justice of God's law, as well as placing faith in the law as just impossible.

HP: Here you make up something not indicated in the least by the text. There was not the slightest indication, from the text itself or from Christ's response that would indicate this man had not in fact kept the commandments as he said he had. The only thing we know is that in light of the new revelation Christ gave him, he was at that time unwilling to follow the new light given him.

Think about the demands Christ made upon Him. How would have you responded? It is a scary thought to me. Oh, I can say, yes Lord I will come and follow you......but I am certainly glad you did not in reality give me that ultimatum...........or does or will He?

HP: According to the many voices cited by Clarke, the GK text itself (you do realize that no translation is devoid of being an interpretation of the original autograph and as such may in fact in error as to what God intended for it to portray,.... or are you saying the KJV is 'infallible' as opposed to all other translations and renditions of the GK?,......in like kind to possibly the KJO crowd) indicates no such thing.

 

HP: Let the reader fully understand the position of Biblicist. He has taken the position that the KJV is infallibly the oracles of God as opposed to all other GK scholars looking at the same GK manuscripts, and other manuscripts as well. If that is not KJO in regard to these texts, the Pope is not a Catholic.

How is his postion not precisely showing a complete lack of respect for the Word of God as pointed out by his utter disregard for all other translations and or reditions of even the same GK text itself? His position is in esssence, if it is not KJ as I understand it, it is not Scripture.

Here appears to me a clear distinction between myself and Biblicist. While he clearly advances the KJV alone to be infallible in regard to the passages in question, as well as his understanding of it, it is my position that it is the original autographs alone are infallible. All subsequent translations/interpretations are subject to reasonable debate and or examination.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavenly Pilgrim

HP: I believe you are in error, although clearly he sees it can be read as he states in his explanation. Do you believe Clarke was ignorant of the TR or the GK manuscripts from which it was derived?

HP: DHK, when did Adam Clarke live? How was he influenced by the work of men such as W&H? Did you even read the comments by Clarke? The men citing agreement with the rendering of these texts goes clear back to the days of the Early Christian fathers no less. This was no product of the textual criticism of W&H or any other modern day scholastic attempt at textual criticism. Clarke was reading the same texts available to the translators of the KJV as far as I can tell. The GK manuscripts W&H used to establish their higher criticism was no where to be found. It was safely tucked away in some trash bin in some monastery as I recall.

 

HP: As I have said all along, we should examine all the passages in their own light. What is interesting to me is, (remember I cannot understand the GK) is that this able commentator, clearly fluent in the GK, indeed found no reason to interpret the passages in Mark of Luke from precisely the manner in which he interpreted the GK concerning the passage in Matt. In both places, he defers his comments to his Matt. comments, that again listed those in agreement with such a rendering as he gave.

It is plainly obvious to me that Clarke found nothing in the GK, dealing with the accounts in Mark or Luke , that would render the text in any other manner than what was already stated concerning the Matt. account. I am certainly willing to seek others on this issue as well, for truth did not die with Clarke or anyone else. I do believe that Clarke did have much support for his understanding of these passages, in light of the others he spoke of that were in agreement to his position, Griesbach among those mentioned, indeed a well educated and capable GK scholar from everything I have read.

 

DHK, although I believe your advice to be careful of others is indeed wise, I cannot help but see a double standard at work in your comments. I know how you feel about Calvin and the Catholics, so why would not yourself be concerned as to the influences upon the GK translations heavily influenced by some of the men responsible for compiling the GK texts used in the TR itself, as well as many other GK and Latin manuscripts also? What about the ones directly involved in the KJV itself? Are they all white as the driven snow, and not in any manner influenced by the King that appointed them or any doctrinal notions clearly held in their day? What would have been their fate if they crossed the King or the Church hierarchy in their interpretations presented? Are you following your own good advice?

 

HP: Let the listener be exceedingly careful in understanding what Biblicist is claiming. We would all agree that the Holy Spirit is indeed infallible. Biblicist is once again taking the position that the King James version, the translation from Greek manuscripts, NOT ORIGINAL AUTOGRAPHS, nor even in consideration of many other manuscripts, is in fact the infallible witness of the Holy Spirit alone. The King James version, or others in agreement with it, are alone the true witness of the Holy Spirit. Again I ask the reader, how is this not the most blatant witness for the very spirit so often criticized of those holding to KJO? If to question Greek manuscripts and or translations from Greek manuscripts, is paramount to rejecting witnesses of the Holy Spirit, how are not such comments in precisely the same spirit, or even more disrespectful towards all other translations of the word of God, then any one that has ever taken KJO position on this list or anywhere else?

DHK, can you refresh our understanding as to the position of the Baptist Board on those holding and setting forth a KJO position, to the disparagement of all other translations/interpretations of the Greek, setting all others but the King James version in direct opposition to the Holy Spirit Himself? I may be wrong but I think I recall something written about such positions on Baptist Board.

I do not take the position of KJO for very good reason. I do not take the position that to disagree with anything other than the original autographs of Scripture are in fact a denial or rejection of the truth set forth by the Holy Spirit. Biblicist, as I read and understand him, has clearly stepped over the line of reasonable debate, with his assertions made above. I am keenly interested in the remarks possibly from the moderators in relationship to the position he is taken above. Is his position, and yes even his attacks, acceptable rhetoric on this forum? Has he not clearly insinuated that anyone that denies a specific translation of the Greek as found in the King James version, is in essence denying the truth of the Holy Spirit, which well could be possibly termed 'blasphemy of the Holy Spirit?'

His stated positions and feignly camouflaged attack should alarm any reasonable believer and certainly the moderators of this list.