Roman Catholic influence in Modern Versions?

[icthus]

The Roman Catholic heresy of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, gains support in almost all the Modern Veriosns of the New Testament.

The text in question is, Matthew 1:25, where the good old King James Version has it:

"and knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn Son; and he called His Name Jesus"

The leading MV, the New International Version has it here: (also as the RV, RSV, NASB, HCSB, ESV, ASV, NLV, etc)

"But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave Him the Name Jesus"

What indeed happened to "ton prototokon" (the firstborn)?

Interesting that the Codex Vaticanus omits this, along with the Sinaiticus.

The reading as given in the KJV, predates the two mentioned Greek Codices by about 200 years, as it is found in the Diatessaron of Tatian (about A.D.170). It is also attested for by both Greek (Didymus, Chrysostom, etc)and Latin (Jerome, Augustine) Church fathers. As well as the second century Old Latin version, the Latin Vulgate, the Old Syrian, etc.

Dr Philip Schaff, writing in Dr J P Lange's Commentary on Matthew, said this of the omission:

"the omission may also be easily explained from superstitious veneration of the Blessed Virgin, as necesarily implying her perpetual virginity, which the term 'firstborn' seemed to disapprove" (p.52)

There can be no doubt that the evidence for its omissions, was not based on the weight of ancient authorities. This is another example which clearly shows the inferior textual basis of the MV's

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

"But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave Him the Name Jesus"

I miss how this translation supports perpetual virginity. .."he had no union with her until she gave birth.." clearly implies that she did NOT stay a virgin.

 

[Gold Dragon]

I know that for some here, it is important that the RCC be wrong. For biblical translators, it is more important that a translation accurately represents the greek/hebrew of the original autographs than which doctrines an interpretation apparently supports or doesn't support.

Just an fyi that several of the NRSV translators were Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and even 1 Jewish scholar. I do recommend the NRSV as a very scholarly translation.

And before the accusations start flying, I don't believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary and I don't believe this interpretation supports the doctrine.

Correction: it was the RSV that was used as the base for the ESV.

 

[icthus]

Originally posted by C4K:
"But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave Him the Name Jesus"

I miss how this translation supports perpetual virginity. .."he had no union with her until she gave birth.." clearly implies that she did NOT stay a virgin.

Hi C4K

The problem lies in the meaning of "ginosko", which does have the meaning "to know someone carnally", and is how we would take it here. However, it can also be argued successfully from the usage of the Greek word, that its meaning does not have to be taken as it is by most versions. From the time of Homer "ginosko" was also used for "to make the acquanitance of (a person)" (Odyssey, 411), which could be the meaning adopted here by anyone wishing to argue fot the "perpetual virginity" of Mary.

By including "ton prototokon", Matthew ensures that no such meaning can be found in this passage, since this teaches, not implies, that Jesus was Mary's first child to be born, and that she would have therefore had other after this time.

 

[NateT]

If someone would argue that ginosko could also mean "acquaintance" then refer them to the fact that in this passage, ginosko is an imperfect verb. It is similar to me saying "I was walking around campus today." You wouldn't think that I was still walking around the campus.

Had it been a perfect verb, it would have meant an action started in the past with current ramifications. Like me saying "I have believed Jesus" which implies that I still am believing Him.

Interestingly, as far back as 1933, A.T. Robertson argued that the "firstborn" wasn't authentic here, but was in luke

Mat 1:25 - And knew her not (kai ouk eginôsken autên). Note the imperfect tense, continuous or linear action. Joseph lived in continence with Mary till the birth of Jesus. Matthew does not say that Mary bore no other children than Jesus. "Her firstborn" is not genuine here, but is a part of the text in Lu 2:7. The perpetual virginity of Mary is not taught here. Jesus had brothers and sisters and the natural meaning is that they were younger children of Joseph and Mary and not children of Joseph by a previous marriage. So Joseph "called his name Jesus" as the angel had directed and the child was born in wedlock. Joseph showed that he was an upright man in a most difficult situation.

 

[russell55]

From the time of Homer "ginosko" was also used for "to make the acquanitance of (a person)" (Odyssey, 411), which could be the meaning adopted here by anyone wishing to argue fot the "perpetual virginity" of Mary.

Do you know any Catholics that argue about the meaning of the word "know" here? Do you know anyone who argues that Joseph didn't makes Mary's acquaintance until after Christ was born?

Arguing that would be sort of ridiculous, being they travelled to Bethlehem together and all, whether the term "firstborn son" is there or not.

What Catholics will argue, BTW, is that "until" doesn't have to mean that Joseph "knew" Mary later, and that "firstborn" doesn't have to mean that their are other sons--that "firstborn" is a title given to only sons as well.

 

[Ransom]

The Roman Catholic heresy of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, gains support in almost all the Modern Veriosns of the New Testament.

Half the KJV cheerleading squad blames the modern versions for denying the Virgin Birth, and the other half blame them for taking the Virgin Birth too far.

Sheesh! You can't win for losing with these guys.

Get your heads together, and make up your mind!

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Originally posted by icthus:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by C4K:
"But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave Him the Name Jesus"

I miss how this translation supports perpetual virginity. .."he had no union with her until she gave birth.." clearly implies that she did NOT stay a virgin.

Hi C4K

The problem lies in the meaning of "ginosko", which does have the meaning "to know someone carnally", and is how we would take it here. However, it can also be argued successfully from the usage of the Greek word, that its meaning does not have to be taken as it is by most versions. From the time of Homer "ginosko" was also used for "to make the acquanitance of (a person)" (Odyssey, 411), which could be the meaning adopted here by anyone wishing to argue fot the "perpetual virginity" of Mary.

By including "ton prototokon", Matthew ensures that no such meaning can be found in this passage, since this teaches, not implies, that Jesus was Mary's first child to be born, and that she would have therefore had other after this time. </font>[/QUOTE]I understand the scriptural reasoning. I also understand the Greek meanings, but this translation about "no union with her until in and of itself makes it clear that union took place after the birth of Christ. The English tranlsation does not, in my mind, support perpetual virginity. There may be an underlying textual problem - but that is not obvious in the translation.

 

[icthus]

Originally posted by NateT:
If someone would argue that ginosko could also mean "acquaintance" then refer them to the fact that in this passage, ginosko is an imperfect verb. It is similar to me saying "I was walking around campus today." You wouldn't think that I was still walking around the campus.

Had it been a perfect verb, it would have meant an action started in the past with current ramifications. Like me saying "I have believed Jesus" which implies that I still am believing Him.

Interestingly, as far back as 1933, A.T. Robertson argued that the "firstborn" wasn't authentic here, but was in luke
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
Mat 1:25 - And knew her not (kai ouk eginôsken autên). Note the imperfect tense, continuous or linear action. Joseph lived in continence with Mary till the birth of Jesus. Matthew does not say that Mary bore no other children than Jesus. "Her firstborn" is not genuine here, but is a part of the text in Lu 2:7. The perpetual virginity of Mary is not taught here. Jesus had brothers and sisters and the natural meaning is that they were younger children of Joseph and Mary and not children of Joseph by a previous marriage. So Joseph "called his name Jesus" as the angel had directed and the child was born in wedlock. Joseph showed that he was an upright man in a most difficult situation.

</font>[/QUOTE]Hi Nate, If you are going to qoute Greek grammar to me, it would help if you knew something about what you write.

Your understanding of the tenses in Greek is faulty. You have the completely wrong handle on the imperfect tense. Did you know that in John 1:1, for example, that "was" (en) in the Greek is in the imperfect tense? Does this mean that "the Word" is no longer "God"?, or even "with God"? You quote A T Robertson, but have not heard what he says: "the imperfect draws the picture. It helps you to see the course of the act. It passes before the eye the flowing stream of history...The aorist lifts the curtain and the imperfect continues the play" (Greek Grammar, pp.883,838). This is what Robertson says in the quote you have from him, "Note the imperfect tense, continuous or linear action". Or, as we see in Dana and Mantey's, A Manual Grammar of the Greek NT, "the imperfect denotes an incomplete action, one that is in its course, and it not yet brought to its intended accomplishment. But excludes the assertion that the end of the action was attained" (p.187)

The use or misuse of "ginosko" in our passage is in no way affected by the tnese being imperfect. While it may not be used by most to refer to "acquaintance", yet this is a real possibility, which cannot be discounted by the use of the word itself. In other words, it is not 100% conclusive from the meaning of the word, that "sexual relations" are in the mind of Matthew. The added "firstborn" makes any other understaning of the words of Matthew here, thnn "sexual relations", not a possibility. As for Robertsons rejection of "firstborn" here, makes no difference. He was a brilliant Greek scholar, but not a textual critic.

 

[icthus]

Originally posted by C4K:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by icthus:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by C4K:
"But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave Him the Name Jesus"

I miss how this translation supports perpetual virginity. .."he had no union with her until she gave birth.." clearly implies that she did NOT stay a virgin.

Hi C4K

The problem lies in the meaning of "ginosko", which does have the meaning "to know someone carnally", and is how we would take it here. However, it can also be argued successfully from the usage of the Greek word, that its meaning does not have to be taken as it is by most versions. From the time of Homer "ginosko" was also used for "to make the acquanitance of (a person)" (Odyssey, 411), which could be the meaning adopted here by anyone wishing to argue fot the "perpetual virginity" of Mary.

By including "ton prototokon", Matthew ensures that no such meaning can be found in this passage, since this teaches, not implies, that Jesus was Mary's first child to be born, and that she would have therefore had other after this time. </font>[/QUOTE]I understand the scriptural reasoning. I also understand the Greek meanings, but this translation about "no union with her until in and of itself makes it clear that union took place after the birth of Christ. The English tranlsation does not, in my mind, support perpetual virginity. There may be an underlying textual problem - but that is not obvious in the translation. </font>[/QUOTE]Hi, but you have to understand, that the "union" here spoken off does not necessary have to mean "sexual union". It could just as well refer to the Joseph marrying Mary. We read in Luke 2:5, where Mary is referred to as Joseph's "espoused wife", which is clear that they did not marry till after the birth of Jesus. My argument is, that with the removal of "firstborn" from this text, the language as it stands does not with certainity show that Mary had other Children after the birth of Jesus. It is no small matter that I believe the enemy saw ot it that "firstborn" was removed.

Likewise, in Luke 2:33, the reading "and Joseph and His mother", has been changed to, "and His father and mother". And, verse 43, "and Joseph and His mother", to, "and his parents". The readings of the KJV are very clear, and preserve the fact that Joseph was not the actual father of Jesus. The change indeed weakens this. We have here two more texts where the relationship of Joseph to Jesus could be misunderstood. Why the change in the first place, see that the textual evidence for the KJV readings is far greater? The enemy is always on the attack on the Person of Jesus Christ, and will use all available means to do just that, even if it means using the MV's.

 

[icthus]

Originally posted by Ransom:
The Roman Catholic heresy of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, gains support in almost all the Modern Veriosns of the New Testament.

Half the KJV cheerleading squad blames the modern versions for denying the Virgin Birth, and the other half blame them for taking the Virgin Birth too far.

Sheesh! You can't win for losing with these guys.

Get your heads together, and make up your mind!

Not so. Its simple facts that we of the KJV seem to have a better handle on textual criticism that those who support the MV's. The changes that the MV's have, and which are ignored by many on this board, and clearly the work of the enemy, are very important on doctrinal matters. And, when it comes to these important doctrine texts, those who support the TR and KJV, are confident that the reading that we have are without doubt superior. This is because God in His providence saw to it that the text of the KJV was preserved. Though it is by mo means perfect, yet no MV can be compared with it as to its superior text. I have posted a few times here, the views of those like Metzger, Aland, Nestle, Black, etc, on the Authority of Scripture, where they are clearly very liberal, and yet this has been ignored by most on this board. It seem to me, that what someone believes on the Infallibility, Inerranec and Authority of Scripture, does not mean much these days. This is the same problem the Church had in the days of the Revised Version, where the Committee were content in having a Unitarian on the board! Likewise, the RSV had men who rejected the Virgin Birth, Inerrancy and Infallibility of Scripture, etc. If this is not the work of the devil, then what is it?

Versions that use the USB, N-A, W&H texts for these basis, do so with a disregard for the KJV, as they are deceived into believing that the earlier Greek manuscripts have to be better. A notion that shows the standard of modern scholarship.

 

[NateT]

icthus:

This is what Robertson says in the quote you have from him, "Note the imperfect tense, continuous or linear action". Or, as we see in Dana and Mantey's, A Manual Grammar of the Greek NT, "the imperfect denotes an incomplete action, one that is in its course, and it not yet brought to its intended accomplishment. But excludes the assertion that the end of the action was attained" (p.187)

I was not saying that the imperfect meant that Joseph not knowing Mary was a simple act (eg "He did not know her on Tuesday Jan 5, 01"). I completely understand that the imperfect is continuous (normally). My point was that in the indicative mood, Imperfect is a past tense from the point of the writer.

It can be summarized by what Wallace calls the "Progressive (descriptive) imperfect" in which he defines it as

"an action or state that is in progress in past time from the viewpoint (or, more accurately, portrayal) of the speaker. (~p540)

If Wallace is right on this one, then that would mean that Joseph was in the process of not knowing Mary from the point of view of Matthew, but that the action did not spill over until the time that Mattew was writing, or he would have used the perfect.

 

[icthus]

Nate, No, you are wrong in your defination of the imperfect in the indicative. I have already shown that this is exactly what John writes in 1:1 of his Goepel, "...was (en) the Word, and the Word was (en) with God, and the Word was (en) God. Here "en" is in the 3rd person, singular, imperfect, indicative. Surely you are not saying that "the Word" is no longer with God the Father, or that He is no longer God Himself?

Daniel Wallace in not correct in what he says on the imperfect tense.If indeed this is what he only says. I showed Dana and Mantey, who quote Dr Donaldson on the imperfect tense, where he says, "the imperfect denotes an incomplete action, one that is in its course, and it not yet brought to its intended accomplishment. But excludes the assertion that the end of the action was attained" (p.187)

Also, Dr E De Witt Burton;

"The Imperfect Indicative...The statement respecting the translation of the Progressive Present (cf.10), applies to the Imperfect also. Notice the third example above (John 11.36, "behold how he loved him"), and see also Luke 2:51, 'his mother kept (dieterei) all these things in her heart'; in Luke 24:32, A.V., 'did not our heart burn within us', is better than R.V., 'was not our heart burning within us'. Though the verb is a periphrastic Imperfect, kaiomene en, the English form 'did burn' sufficiently suggests action in progress to render it adequately" (Syntax of the Mood and Tenses in New Testament Greek, p.12)

 

[NateT]

So if the imperfect in and of itself does not express an end wouldn't ews provide the termination to the action in this case?

 

[icthus]

Originally posted by NateT:
So if the imperfect in and of itself does not express an end wouldn't ews provide the termination to the action in this case?

As I have already said. It is quite possible, without the further qualification of "firstborn", to take the words to refer to the time when Joseph actually marries Mary. He "knew" her in one sense before the birth of Jesus, but in another sense as wife, after she gave birth. The presence of "firstborn" does not leave this option open.

 

[Ransom]

icthus said:

Its [sic] simple facts [sic] that we of the KJV [sic] seem to have a better handle on textual criticism that [sic] those who support the MV's.

Well, anything would have to be better than your "handle" on the English language.

Of course, I've not seen any evidence of your superior "handle" on text crit. I've seen an awful lot of pomposity and presupposition, though. Certainly, the sky-is-falling sort of extreme rhetoric that starts this thread doesn't lend any credence to it.

 

[AVL1984]

Sick 'em, Ransom!

 

[icthus]

Originally posted by Ransom:
icthus said:

Its [sic] simple facts [sic] that we of the KJV [sic] seem to have a better handle on textual criticism that [sic] those who support the MV's.

Well, anything would have to be better than your "handle" on the English language.

Of course, I've not seen any evidence of your superior "handle" on text crit. I've seen an awful lot of pomposity and presupposition, though. Certainly, the sky-is-falling sort of extreme rhetoric that starts this thread doesn't lend any credence to it.

 

[David J]

A have a couple of questions for ya icthus.

1. You seem concerned about the RCC having some influence in MV's. How do you feel about Erasmus?

2. Here is a verse in the KJV that "could" support a works based salvation(KJVOist who peddle the lie that salvation will be by works in the Tribulation use this verse and many lose it gain it churches use this verse to support their doctrines). Please note that I am not saying that it does support a works based salvation and I understand that it is a textual issue between texts.

Revelation 22:14 (KJV)
14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.


As compared to the NASB

Revelation 22:14 (NASB)
14 Blessed are those who wash their robes, so that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter by the gates into the city.


Could I not argue that Erasmus may have over looked the underlying text that has “those who wash their robes” and used the underlying text “are they that do his commandments” because of his Roman Catholic influence?


For the record I think you are grasping at straws trying to paint fine MV’s as being part of some RC conspiracy to bring RC teachings into the Protestant churches.


What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

 

[TCassidy]

Originally posted by David J:
Could I not argue that Erasmus may have over looked the underlying text that has “those who wash their robes” and used the underlying text “are they that do his commandments” because of his Roman Catholic influence?

You could argue anything you wanted to, regardless of the facts, but the fact is the official bible of the Church of Rome, the Latin Vulgate of Jerome reads "robe" (stolas) and not "commandments" (mandata), so, if Erasmus was bowing to RCC influence he would have agreed with the reading "robes."

Erasmus followed the manuscript he had available to him which read "commandments."

It must be noted that only Aleph, A, 1006, 1841, 2053, and 2062 read "robes" while "commandments" is found in 205, 209, 1611, 1854, 2030, 2329, 2377, all the Byzantine mss (hundreds of them) including 046 the great Byzantine uncial.