1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Whether there be any Holy Ghost

Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by Logos1560, Oct 11, 2007.

Top Posters
  1. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    6,213
    Likes Received:
    405
    Faith:
    Baptist
    In his publication OLDE PATHS AND ANCIENT LANDMARKS, Glenn Conjurske wrote: "According to the Authorized Version, when Paul asked the disciples at Ephesus, in Acts 19:2, "Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed?' they responsed, 'We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.' This is a palpable blot upon the face of the old version. The expression in the original is such that some degree of interpretation is necessary to produce an intelligible translation of it, but the interpretation found in the common English Bible can hardly be the right one" (March, 1997, p. 63).
     
    #1 Logos1560, Oct 11, 2007
  2. TCGreek

    TCGreek New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2006
    Messages:
    7,373
    Likes Received:
    0
    1. Literally the Greek order reads: "He said to them, 'If the Holy Spirit you received, having believed?

    "But they said to him, 'But neither if the Holy Spirit is, have we heard.'"

    2. But we must make it intelligible: "He said to them, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?" And they said to him, "No, we have not even heard whether there is a Holy Spirit." NASB
     
    #2 TCGreek, Oct 11, 2007
  3. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    6,213
    Likes Received:
    405
    Faith:
    Baptist
    In his article, Glenn Conjurske, who was a defender of the KJV as the best overall English translation and who was often a critic of modern translations, noted: "let it be understood that the portion of the verse which is in question reads literally, 'We have not even heard if [the] Holy Ghost is.' The question is, what does that mean" (Olde Paths, March, 1997, p. 64).

    Conjurske maintained that "the key to its meaning is found in John 7:39, where we read literally, '[The] Holy Ghost was not yet.'" He added: "To this the translators of the King James Version, following the Geneva Bible, very properly added the word 'given,' which appears in italics. They ought to have added it also in Acts 19:2. John 7:39 certainly does not teach that the Holy Ghost did not exist, but that he was not yet given. The disciples of John knew very well that he existed, and expected him to be given. They employ the same language in Acts 19:2 as John employed in his Gospel. Their language ought to be translated, 'We have not even heard if the Holy Ghost is given '" (p. 64).


    Conjurske also offers evidence concerning the source of the rendering at Acts 19:2 in the KJV.
     
    #3 Logos1560, Oct 12, 2007
  4. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,929
    Likes Received:
    4
    The Jamieson, Fausset, Brown commentary is very similar here --
    We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost
    This cannot be the meaning, since the personality and office of the Holy Ghost, in connection with Christ, formed an especial subject of the Baptist's teaching. Literally, the words are, "We did not even hear whether the Holy Ghost was (given)"; meaning, at the time of their baptism. That the word "given" is the right supplement, as in John 7:39, seems plain from the nature of the case.​
    This from J.W. McGarvey's Acts of the Apostles is also parallel --
    It is inconceivable that these disciples were ignorant of the existence of the Holy Spirit, hence a literal rendering of their reply, "We have not so much as heard that there is a Holy Spirit," would convey a false idea. The supplement given is necessary to complete the sense, as it is in John 7:39, where it is said, "The Holy Spirit was not yet, because Jesus was not yet risen." The term given must be supplied, in the latter case, in order to avoid the denial of the existence of the Spirit previous to the resurrection; and, in the former, to avoid the declaration of an ignorance on the part of these men inconsistent with the fact that they were disciples.​

    The latter portion of John Gill's commentary --
    ...they had heard nothing of the day of Pentecost, and of the pouring out of the Spirit upon the apostles then, nor of any instance of this kind since; they did not know that the Holy Ghost was yet, (John 7:39) they knew he was promised, but not that he was given; the Ethiopic version, to avoid the difficulty of the text, renders it, "we have only heard that there was an Holy Ghost".​

    The ASV renders Acts 19:2 thus --
    and he said unto them, Did ye receive the Holy Spirit when ye believed? And they [said] unto him, Nay, we did not so much as hear whether the Holy Spirit was [given].​
     
    #4 franklinmonroe, Oct 12, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 12, 2007
  5. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    6,213
    Likes Received:
    405
    Faith:
    Baptist
    As to the source of the KJV's rendering at Acts 19:2, Conjurske wrote: "What, then, led all the Protestant translators astray, from Tyndale to the King James Version? I believe that here, as often enough elsewhere, the fault lies with Martin Luther. His German New Testament (1522) reads at Acts 19:2, ob eyn heyliger geyst sey, 'if an Holy Ghost be.' It was a mistake to add the indefinite article before "Holy Ghost.' 'Tis true, there is no definite article in the Greek, but that is no indication we may insert the indefinite. There is no definite article in John 7:39 either, nor in the first half of the text before us, where Paul asked the disciples, 'Have ye received the Holy Ghost,' yet Paul was certainly not asking them if they had received a Holy Ghost, but the Holy Ghost. Luther himself has den heyligen geyst, 'the Holy Ghost,' in Paul's question in the first half of the verse" (March, 1997, p. 64).

    Conjurske concluded: "Yet Tyndale followed him, and under Tyndale's hand Luther's indefinite article grew to 'any,' and so it appeared in all the Protestant Bibles up to the King James Version (Coverdale excepted, who follows Luther with 'an holy goost')" (Ibid.)
     
    #5 Logos1560, Oct 12, 2007
  6. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    6,213
    Likes Received:
    405
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The 1842 revision of the KJB by Baptists has the following translation of the second half of Acts 19:2

    And they said to him, We have not even heard that the Holy Spirit is given.
     
    #6 Logos1560, Oct 13, 2007
  7. robycop3

    robycop3 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    14,362
    Likes Received:
    668
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The Ephesians were prolly not familiar with the Old Testament, except for what Jews there were among them, and therefore didn't know that the Holy Spirit had manifested Himself more than once in BC times.
     
    #7 robycop3, Oct 14, 2007
  8. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    6,213
    Likes Received:
    405
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Martin Vincent noted that "as Bengel observes, 'They could not have followed either Moses or John the Baptist without having heard of the Holy Ghost.' The words, therefore, are to be explained, not of their being unaware of the existence of the Holy Ghost, but of his presence and baptism on earth" (Vincent's Word Studies in the New Testament, Vol. 1, p. 551).
     
    #8 Logos1560, Nov 10, 2007
  9. npetreley

    npetreley New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2002
    Messages:
    7,359
    Likes Received:
    2
    Funny you should mention this, because I had alluded to it in a PM. Here's the passage:

    Here's what I find interesting, regardless of how you interpret what they said.

    The question, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?" assumes they were believers. Yet they were believers without the Holy Spirit? How could that be? I don't see how that's possible. Then it says, "And when Paul had laid hands on them, the Holy Spirit came upon them", which implies that this is when they first received the Holy Spirit -- WELL AFTER they believed. How could this be? Again, I don't see how that's possible.

    Then it says, "and they spoke with tongues and prophesied." This is what leads me to believe they HAD the Holy Spirit all along, but they were Baptized with the Holy Spirit and given gifts when Paul laid hands on them.

    Just my $2 (2 cents adjusted for inflation).
     
    #9 npetreley, Nov 10, 2007
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Loading...