NASB and Matt 1:25

Discussion in '2003 Archive' started by Nimrod, Apr 22, 2003.

  1. Nimrod

    Nimrod
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    306
    Likes Received:
    0
    Matt 1:25

    The Traditional Greek Text reads that Mary "brought forth her fisrt-born Son." The NASB reads, 'she gave birth to a son.' This omission of first-born has the authority of only two old manuscripts Aleph and B(both of which were unknown to the Christian world as a whole until about 1860, except for the Coptic Church of Egypt). The words first-born have been alleged to have been brought across(interpolated) into Matt. 1:25 from Luke 2:7. But two points must be considered; first textual. Is it even barely credible that the interpolation of fist-born managed to corrupt the whole stream of Christian tradition, not only in early manuscripts whose origins are at least as old as Aleph and B, but in Greek, Latin and Syriac churches? The implication from the wide range of evidence favouring first-born is that the word goes back to Matthew's autograph. Secondly, there is a docturinal point. Even the Roman Catholic Church (witnessed by the Latin Vulgate) accepted the word first-born iin spite of the Roman doctrine of "the perpetual virginity of Mary." The dropping of first-born from Aleph and B is corruption reflectiing Egyptian inclinations. To the Arians, for example, the Lord Jesus did not truly reflect God, because to them He was "a creature of God" (See Prov. 8:22). But to them neither could the Lord Jesus be a true human being, because he was of God-generation, not human generation. The addition of first-born suggest, not just that our Lord Jesus had brothers and sisters, but that HE was a genuine human being, the first family of children. IN Luke 2 there is an interesting point about Codex W (probably 4th century). It was quite probably pieced together from surviving parts of the Four Gospels put together as a complete book after the destruction of Scriptures during persecution. In Matthew's Gospel Codex W is Byzantine, and of course includes first-born. BUT in Codex W the first eight chapters of St. Luke are Alexandrian. So here in Luke 2:7, Codex W is the only Greek manuscript to OMIT first-born as part of Luke's Gospel. This is the tip an iceburg. We can confidently affirm (including Pastor Larry) that a whole group of Egyptian manuscripts (nearly all now perished) OMITTED first-born from Matt. 1:25, BUT ALSO from Luke 2:7. In other words, the very weakly supported omission of first-born in the NASB is due to heretical tampering with the text.

    Pages 330-331 in "UnHoly Hands on the Bible Volume II"
     
  2. martyr

    martyr
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2003
    Messages:
    78
    Likes Received:
    0
    Since there is only one occurence ever mentioned in the Bible(any version) of a baby being born by immaculate conception, then the argument against the NAS here is irrelevant. Matthew 1:25 says, "and kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son, and he(Joseph) called His name Jesus."
    One immaculate conception only, and His name is Jesus, so if Joseph kept Mary a virgin until she gave birth to Jesus, it is obvious that Jesus was not only the first born son, but the first born child to them. This grasping at straws to oppose the NASB is ridiculous when there is much more evidence to show the NASB as being reliable.
     
  3. kman

    kman
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2002
    Messages:
    299
    Likes Received:
    0
    The manuscript support for the NASB reading of Matt 1:25 is more extensive then just Aleph and B.

    According to NA 27th edition and UBS 3rd edition:

    Greek Texts: Aleph, B, Z(vid), 071 (vid), f1 and f13 family of manuscripts, 33

    Versions: the 2 oldest syriac versions: sinaitic and the curetonian. Some of the old latin (b,c,g1,k) the coptic (sa and bo) and the georgian version

    -kman
     
  4. Nimrod

    Nimrod
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    306
    Likes Received:
    0
    Obviously someone is lying. It would be interesting to get to the bottom of this.
     
  5. Nimrod

    Nimrod
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    306
    Likes Received:
    0
    Family 1 --> 12th-14th century
    33 --> 9th Century
    Codex Theta -->9th century
    071 ??
    f13 ??

    Maybe the author was speaking about early translations.
     
  6. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Obviously someone is lying.

    Why? Because some include the greek word "protokokos" and some don't?

    Do you consider similar discrepancies in the KJV translation from its originating texts to be lies, or simply translational errors?
     
  7. Refreshed

    Refreshed
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Messages:
    901
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think he's saying someone's lying because one person says it is based on two manuscripts, and another says it is based on more than two.
     
  8. Pastor_Bob

    Pastor_Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Messages:
    3,461
    Likes Received:
    45
    I have had several inquiries as to why this thread has been closed. I did not close this thread, nor the other three that were recently closed.
     
  9. TomVols

    TomVols
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    This topic was closed because it was started by a non-Baptist. Since this is a Baptist only area, this is a violation of BB rules.

    Tom
     

Share This Page

Loading...