"Jesus" in Mt 8:29

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

We dont' abbreviate proper names?

Jn John
Js James

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

AVL1984

 

How about Wm or Geo.?

 

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.

 

No problem, John...just needed to make sure I was understanding you right. Thanks for the clarification.

AVL1984

 

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.

 

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.

 

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?

 

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.

 

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

 

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???

AVL1984

 

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.