Another NIV error

Goodness we need to correct the author of Mark, he must have been mistaken.

Let us correct the earliest Greek manuscripts.

This is a weakness of the Byzantine Priority stance.

Rob

 

why does this op so remind me of "yea, hath God said?"



if the arbitrary criterion of "accuracy" were to be applied to the AV, wld we have ANY bible left?

when will these self-appointed modern-day bible correctors (of MVs) stop?


​

 

I'm not sure here, maybe a scholar can help me, but I seem to remember that at that time the Prophets were referred to by the term "Isaiah."

Any help, or correction, would be appreciated.

 

i ain't no scholar, but here's a link that might help:
http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=676

check out the rest of the article via the link.

i'm wondering, however, on the basis of the Luke 24 paradigms of the 3-fold Hebrew canon (Moses/Law, Prophets, n the Psalms/Writings) if Isaiah, being the head of the Prophets, might've stood for all of the prophetic books just as the Psalms stood for all of the Writings.

can we page a Hebrew scribe or something? :1_grouphug:

 

Irenaeus favored "In the prophets" over "in Isaiah prophet" on Mark 1:1-2 because he wrote, "Plainly does, the commencement of the Gospel quote the words of the holy prophets.." (Against Heresies III:10:5, :11:4, :16:3)

I would say that Frederic Kenyon disagreed with Daniel Wallace. Frederic explained that 1 of 2 text readings was replaced because he showed that this replacement is the alteration in interests of accuracy because the quotation included words from Malachi and Isaiah.

 

It seems that it was an accepted practice that when mixing quotations together from multiple sources to only name the most important or prominent prophet (in this case, Isaiah). By the way, the first phrase of the quote is actually closer to the wording of Exodus 23:20 than Malachi 3:1. Notice that none of the OT verses are exacly word-for-word as Mark has written it.

 

This is not a new discovery. To be fair, any version (not just the NIV) that uses this underlying Greek text would have the same 'problem'. It is not an 'error' of translation. This is really an attack on that Greek text, not a particular English version.

 

In fact, it is just as likely the opposite occurred. In the face of the 'problem' of only Isaiah being credited in the text, a well-meaning copyist decided to 'correct' the inspired original author's word by placing "prophets" in the text. This explanation for the difference between Greek texts fits the documentary evidence ("Isaiah" in early MSS, and "prophets" being in late MSS) as cited by Dr. Wallace (which is very similar to the note at this verse in the NET).

JF&B states: Instead of the words, "as it is written in the Prophets," there is weighty evidence in favor of the following reading: "As it is written in Isaiah the prophet." This reading is adopted by all the latest critical editors. If it be the true one, it is to be explained thus--that of the two quotations, the one from Malachi is but a later development of the great primary one in Isaiah, from which the whole prophetical matter here quoted takes its name. But the received text is quoted by IRENAEUS, before the end of the second century, and the evidence in its favor is greater in amount, if not in weight. The chief objection to it is, that if this was the true reading, it is difficult to see how the other one could have got in at all; whereas, if it be not the true reading, it is very easy to see how it found its way into the text, as it removes the startling difficulty of a prophecy beginning with the words of Malachi being ascribed to Isaiah.

 

Unless there is more, this statement does not prove that Irenaeus actually favored the words "in the prophets" for the text in Mark's Gospel. It merely shows that Irenaeus (as many others) recognized that there is more than one prophet quoted in this passage. Notice his use of "holy" before the word "prophets" in the Iranaeus quote. Does he in Agaist Heresies (or anywhere) specifically state that in his opinion " in the prophets" are the original inspired words?

 

This page on the internet contains the intellectual property
of Jack Moorman:

http://www.biblebelievers.net/BibleVersions/kjcforv4.htm

says: //" ... Plainly does the commencement of the Gospel quote
the words of the holy prophets, " (Against Heresies III:10:5, 11:4, 16:3).//

Unless the person has a copy of "Against Heresies" and
checks the citations (III:10:5, 11:4, 16:3 -- BTW, only one of the
three are quoted by Mr. Askjo) he is likely committing intellectural
fraud. The common courtesy is to cite the source of the
intellectual property of the person doing the actual research.
Again, if a person actually turns to citations
10:5, 11:4, and 16:3 of the IIIrd part of AGAINST HERESIES,
one can cite as noted above.

 

That is very possible. Malachi is not a book unto itself in the Hebrew Tanakh, but is just one of 12 (Minor) Prophets grouped together in one volume. Isaiah does stand under its own title.

 

Irenaeus (c. 130–202) AGAINST HERESIES [link] III. 10:5. [bolding added]
Wherefore also Mark, the interpreter and follower of Peter, does thus commence his Gospel narrative: “The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God; as it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send My messenger before Thy face, which shall prepare Thy way. * The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make the paths straight before our God.” Plainly does the commencement of the Gospel quote the words of the holy prophets, and point out Him at once, whom they confessed as God and Lord; Him, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who had also made promise to Him, that He would send His messenger before His face, who was John, crying in the wilderness, in “the spirit and power of Elias,” Luke i. 17. “Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make straight paths before our God.” For the prophets did not announce one and another God, but one and the same; under various aspects, however, and many titles. For varied and rich in attribute is the Father, as I have already shown in the book preceding See ii. 35, 3. this; and I shall show [the same truth] from the prophets themselves in the further course of this work. Also, towards the conclusion of his Gospel, Mark says: “So then, after the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God;” Mark xvi. 19. confirming what had been spoken by the prophet: “The Lord said to my Lord, Sit Thou on My right hand, until I make Thy foes Thy footstool.” Ps. cx. 1. Thus God and the Father are truly one and the same; He who was announced by the prophets, and handed down by the true Gospel; whom we Christians worship and love with the whole heart, as the Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things therein.

* The Greek of this passage in St. Mark i. 2 reads, τὰς τρίβους αὐτοῦ , i.e., His paths , which varies from the Hebrew original, to which the text of Irenæus seems to revert, unless indeed his copy of the Gospels contained the reading of the Codex Bezæ. [See book iii. cap. xii. 3, 14, below; also, xiv. 2 and xxiii. 3. On this Codex, see Burgon, Revision Revised , p. 12, etc., and references.]

Look up the other sited references on your own.

Rob

 

I bet the "Baptist board" in 1612 said the same thing...

 

For the record, I am not necessarily a NIV supporter. I've been saved for about 30 years and didn't own a NIV until this year. All those years as an average 'everyday Christian' I found many apparent contridictions in my KJV, all of which have some way to be reconciled (but it may take some 'training' to accomplish).

The 'bottom line' is that the Bible has difficulties, regardless of version. Look at the many problems within the genealogies of Jesus presented in Matthew and Luke, for example.

I do believe that God is 'big enough' to supply a perfect translation of every verse... the Holy Spirit impresses upon me that those perfect verses may not all be in one volume. Why didn't God just make it easy? Perhaps because "narrow is the way..."

I am currently just starting to learn Greek, and I am convinced that knowing the original languages is the best way to come the closest to understanding God's original message. We are not compelled to learn Hebrew and Greek today because some one else has already done the work (learned them and translated them into English) for us. Without these dedicated scholars (starting with Tyndale, whom paid with his life) we wouldn't even have English versions to debate about!

 

I believe that God is big enough to supply us with his word as He intended to preserve it.
I believe that he gave us reason to learn all we could of the world around us (some more than others :tongue3: ).

I believe that his holy Spirit resides in all believers even those that use the NIV.

Rob

 

If the NIV is full of errors and these errors weaken faith in the word of God, then what about where the NIV corrects errors made in older versions? Wouldn't those errors also weaken faith in the word of God?