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

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

 

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

 

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??

Ed

 

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

 

: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

 

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

 

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