Biblical Interp

[Gregory Matthews]

Norman & everybody else:

The so-called Textus Receptus (TR), once translated (such as English) is then a translation, and no longer the TR.

The TR was generally the work of a man named Beza who published editions of the Greek New Testament between 1565 and 1604. It should be noted that the TR did not come from one manuscript (MSS). Rather it came from a collection of MSS. In addition, the TR did NOT come from one family of MSS or one Text Type. The TR was an eclectic work which came from a varity of MSS and text types.

Scholars "Westcott & Hort have suggested that the TR came from the Alexandrian, Neutral and Western text types, with some modifications from the "Syrian Revision, and a considerable endebtness to the Byzantine text.

The scholar Streeter traces the TR to the Alexandrian Eastern and Western text types. He then further modifies these to tie the TR to the Antioch branch of the Eastern type, Lucian's Revised Text, and ends by agreeing the the TR is considerably endebted to the Byzantine text.

I do not intend to either advocate for or against the KJV, now the NKJV. But, if you rightly understand the issues that are raised in regard to the TR, and the text types that it came from you will understand why some of us value some of the newer versions/translations published today.

This subject is important. I suggest that everyone interested in it purchase the following book:

Gugliotto, Lee J. HANDBOOK FOR BIBLE STUDY: A GUIDE TO UNDERSTANDING, TEACHING AND PREACHING THE WORD OF GOD. Review, 1995 & 2000, paper and hardback, 464 pages.

That book has become recognized outside of SDA circles as a very valuable book for the typical student of the Bible.

[Gregory Matthews]

In simple terms, here is how Beza developed the TR.

For one part of his NT, he chose to take from a Wesern text type MSS. Then in another section, he chose to take from Alexandrian text type MSS. In another the chose to take from a Byzantine text type MSS. Etc.

This is what all good translators of the Bible do. They chose their MSS, and then translate from those MSS. Frankly, there is no other way that translations can be appropriately done.

My illustration is simple, but accurate, on simple terms.

The Bible has not been translated form one MSS, or from one text type as generally translated.

[Ron Lambert]

Norman, the two versions of the Greek New Testament that I have on my computer came bundled with other Bibles with my Seedmaster software. They are displayed in Greek characters. What I like to do is open some windows with English translations and compare them to the window where I'm displaying the Greek text--giving me in effect something like an interlinear, so I can readily be clued in on unfamiliar words in the Greek.

Textus Receptus is Latin for Received Text. Gregory gave a history of this text. It is the one that most Christian scholars regarded as the official text in the original Greek, back when the KJV was translated. Since then, more manuscripts (some older) have been found, and different translators prefer to go by different manuscripts when there are variants on a text.

We also refer to the Old Testament passed down to us by the Masoretic scribes (a group of Jewish scribes from 500-1000 A.D.) as being part of the Received Text as well. Scholars feel a lot more confidence in the Masoretic text than in the New Testament text, because frankly the Jewish scribes were clearly much more careful in their copying and preservation of Scripture than were the Christian scribes. Comparing different manuscripts of the New Testament, we find numerous cases of words being left out in some of them but not in others, and apparent editorial insertions in some manuscripts. Translators literally have to guess which way the text read originally, after comparing all the manuscripts available, giving weight to the oldest manuscripts, and giving weight to how a majority of manuscripts render a text, when variations exist in some manuscripts.

One example: Many scholars believe that the line "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory forever" was not in the original Lord's Prayer, but rather was a common liturgical response that became an ingrained part of church custom. At some point, some Christian scribe took it upon himself to add the customary response to the text. Some other scribes picked up on this, especially in later transcriptions. But there are manuscripts that do not have these words at the end of the Lord's Prayer. When scholars assess this and try to explain the variance between texts, they figure it is more likely that someone added the customary liturgical response, than that anyone would have left out a whole line of the original Lord's Prayer.

[Norman Byers, N.D.]

Hi Ron and Gregory,

Thanks for the explanations. I did know some of what you mentioned but not in great detail. I think I'd like to look into this further because I do agree with Gregory that this is important. I am one who likes to study for myself and come up with my own conclusions to and then decide whether or not I have found truth. I have been saying things on this forum that showed my ignorance in this line. I am therefore thankful for you both and others who have by your desire, time and energy learned these things and have shared them with us.

It's something that I've wanted to look into more diligenlty for a while but frankly have been too busy and a somewhat lazy.

Thanks again and God bless you both,

Norman

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

And my thanks, too, to everyone for their very helpful explanations and advice on the various translations! I appreciate it a lot!!! (I've already ordered a couple books mentioned here.)

[Clio]

Pam -

For personal devotional reading, I really like the New Living Translation.

For study, however, I start with just reading it in my NLT. Then I get out the rest of my translations and compare. I have the Amplified Bible (has all the implied meanings of key words and phrases in parenthesis right in the text), KJV, NKJV, NIV, the Jerusalem Bible (inlcudes the Apocrypha), RSV, NASB, and Young's Literal Translation. I used to have the Message, but I gave it to my son.

For commentarys, I have Matthew Henry's Complete Commentary on the Complete Bible, Holdcroft on the Pentateuch, and Holdcroft on the Historical books. I have several Bible atlases as well as a current pictoral book on what Israel and the lands of the Bible look like today with written summaries on various customs.

I would like to purchase the writings of Flavius Josephus as I have found great pearls of wisdom by comparing his writings with various Biblical writings. Including some illumination regarding the Gog/Magog war described in Ezekiel.

But for loveliness of language in understandable English and a deep satisfaction in my personal devotion, I really like the NLT.

Clio

[Neil D]

Hey Pam,...

I kinda stayed away from this as Gregory does a thourough job of explaining the history of the technical aspects of the bible.

When I became a Christian, I had a hard time with the KJV of the bible. I admit to becoming bored with the "thees" and "thous" and the "begets"...

But I did find the Living Bible a easy book to read and it help my spirituallity trememdously at that point in my life.

Eventually, I was able to find some other bibles, with different slants that gave new meaning to old texts. After settling with the NASB, [i found it relatively accurate and my personal standard], I went on to read The New Testament by JB Phillips. I found that the letters from Paul made much more sense and came alive for me, when I read from his translation. I eventually picked up a NT bible that had 4 translations, the Amplifide Bible, the Revised Standard Bible, the KVJ, and the Living Bible. And then I got turned on to Weylan Bible [?]...quite interesting emphasis there as well.

I guess what I am saying, Pam, is that you need to visit different bibles at different times in your life because YOU change and mature and there are bibles out there that will fit your needs.

Right now, you may need an introductory bible...and the Living Bible _could_ fit the bill. Of course, someone else may try to convince you that the New International Bible should be your first bible. [and I have heard there is one that is even simplier/better call the "internet bible"].

Be that as it may, go to the library, and select some passages and stories that you like and puruse the different bibles over just those passages and texts...Which one gives you a richer sense of what is happening? Which one speaks to you clearer than the others? Once you find a style that you like, then check out the red letter editions, and the ones with and without concordances. You will find one that you will like...

May God bless as you search his word...

[Gregory Matthews]

Biblical translations generally fall into two catigories:

FORMAL EQUIVALENCE: These attempt to stay as close as possible to what was written in the manuscript (MSS). They are best used for doctinal study and preaching.

DYNAMIC EQUIVALENCE: These attempt to accuratly convey the meaning of what is written in the MSS. Of course, this involves a subjective element that is greater than that which exists in FORMAL translations. Dynamic translations are best used of devotional reading.

PARAPHRASED are actually dynamic translations. But, they are at the extremen end of the dynamic. It is for that reason that some people add paraphrased as a third catagory of translations. Two examples of this type are the "LIVING" series, and THE CLEAR WORD. It should be noted that the author of THE CLEAR WORD explicitly stated in the first printing that it should NOT be used for either doctrinal study or preaching, and it was his position that it should NOT be called a Bible.

My point: There is a Bible for every need. There are other types, but they will fall into the above catorgies. These include: Bibles for people who have learned English as a second language, and have a limited vocabulary, Bibles for small children, youth, and teens. Bibles for women, and much more. In some cases these are simply standard translations with marginal notes. In other cases they are drastic revisions that mean that they cannot be truely be called Bibles. Some are of value to their specific group--e.g. for people with a limited English vocabulary.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

Whew! Lots of translations! You all have no idea how much I appreciate everyone's input here. Today I splurged and bought a Parallel Bible with 4 translations: NIV, KJV, NASB Updated (don't yet know what the updated part means), and NLT. Hopefully, some things will start making a bit more sense to me ..... but I better warn you...I'm sure I'll be posting some questions here!

[archierieus]

Lots of translations indeed. And, of course, all are not on the same level of accuracy. I have found it quite challenging at times to deal with some of the differences, in writing Bible studies and putting together presentations. A couple of very good Greek lexicons are helpful to have handy. The Living Bible and NLB are not true translations, but paraphrases which reflect the theological views of the translators. Interesting insights in many places, but not accurate in many places. BTW the "updated" NASB attempts to simplify/streamline the language of the original NASB, hence it is called 'updated.'

The NASB is indeed quite accurate and a good study tool. The NIV takes some liberties with the text, as does the NKJV.

Regards, Dave

[archierieus]

In rereading some earlier posts on this thread, I should like to add a caveat--Jesus said, as is quoted at the top of the webpage on this site, "Sanctify them through Thy truth. Thy Word is truth." So long as a Bible translation is true and accurate, it may properly be said that there is a translation for every need. However, if a version of the Bible teaches error, then how may the reader be sanctified? Some of the most difficult experiences I have had in soul-winning, have pertained to individuals reading certain Bible texts in support of beliefs which are erroneous--for example, Col. 2:16, which the NIV inaccurately renders as "a Sabbath day," and Heb. 9:12, in which the NIV states that Christ entered "the Most Holy Place once for all." Thus, the necessity arises, not only of testing all teaching by the Word, but further of testing the accuracy of the Bible version!

Regards, Dave

[archierieus]

I should like to take issue with your assertion that all NT versions are based on two manuscripts, and are Catholic in flavor and corrupt. While Vaticanus is relied on for some versions, there is also Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus, for example, as well as a host of other lesser manuscripts and fragments which far antedate the three mentioned. These early manuscripts and fragments verify the accuracy of the later copies, with some stylistic differences. There are, of course, some notable exceptions, as in 1 John, but contemporary scholarship takes note of that.

Sincerely, Dave

[archierieus]

Norman, the Textus Receptus is widely available on inexpensive, basic Bible study CD-ROM's. In fact, it can easily be accessed online, on several sites. Other Greek texts are somewhat more pricey, for example the Nestle Aland.

Regards, Dave

[Gregory Matthews]

Re: " . . . the NIV inaccurately renders [Colossians 2:16] as "a Sabbath day," . . .."

Col. 2: 16: This is where appearances can be decieving. One cannot simply read a page in a grammer book and rigidly apply it to a passage of Scripture.

The word that is used in the manuscript is "sabbata." One might think that one could simply go to a gramer and determine what it means. But, it is not so simple.

"Sabbata' could be derived from the Greek "sabbaton." If it is, Sabbata then is likely to be a word with an actual plural meaning. So, in this case, we would want to give it a plural translation, and not a singular one. If so, our firend might be correct in telling us that the NIV is wrong in its translation.

However (You were expecting this were you not?), "Sabbata" may also be derived from the Aramiac word "shabbata." Remember, that the NT contains both Greek and Aramaic words. If "sabbata" comes from the Aramaic word "shabbata" it has a singular meaning.

The major questions that Bible translators face in translating this word is to decide on its origon. Sometimes it is evident. Check out Matthew 28:1, and you will likely agree with me that the conclusion is evident. In the Matthew passage, is must come from the Aramaic and be singular.

In Colossians the origon is not so clear. It may not be fair to declare that the NIV mistranslated it. Perhaps they were wrong, and perhaps they were not.

[archierieus]

My Greek NT for that verse uses the word 'sabbatoon' which is of course the genitive plural. I am, of course, relying on Nestle Aland here, although I believe that it is similar in other Greek NT's While I don't recall any notes in the text either in the UBS hard copy or in the online version which I have, nor have I had access to the original manuscripts, if you have, then please specify which manuscripts you are referring to. As for 'sabbatoon,' occurring without the article it is not used for the weekly sabbath. a couple of translations have rendered it in this verse as 'a sabbath day' (the word 'day' being added) but you will notice in the footnotes the entry, 'or 'sabbaths'. An in-depth study of the use of 'toon sabbatoon' indicates that it refers to various religous holidays and, in other contexts, the week. I should also like to point out that the word does not have an initial cap in the original. That is another example of a significant change by the NIV. Particularly is that true since the NIV does not cap pronouns relating to God, while the NASB does. Hence, the editorial choice to capitalize 'sabbath' here, in itself would seem to send a message, as indicating the weekly Sabbath.

Regards, Dave

[archierieus]

Ach! In my haste I made a mistake. It is 'sabbatoon' without the article, not 'toon sabbatoon.'

BTW Gregory, since I no longer have most of my reference works due to a divorce, if you could cite and excerpt here a good etymological treatment of the word as it is used in Col. 2:16, I should be most grateful.

Regards, Dave

[archierieus]

Quote:

---

Gregory Matthews said:

The word that is used in the manuscript is "sabbata." One might think that one could simply go to a gramer and determine what it means. But, it is not so simple.

---

Upon further reflection, Gregory, I think it might be good to take a careful look at your post here. The word used in the Greek NT is 'sabbatoon' not 'sabbata' Credible Greek NT's include majority text, minority text and other variants. Also, they cite representative manuscripts/ codices which contain the variants. A credible Greek NT is supposd to mirror the Greek manuscripts. If, indeed, as you assert, 'the manuscript' says 'sabbata' and the Greek NT says 'sabbatoon' then that is not a translation issue--that is changing the text, which would, of course, be unconscionable.

That brings up the other point of interest about your post. You refer to "the manuscript." Well, thinking back on variant readings for the subject verse, for this occurrence of the word, I don't seem to recall any such variants. You use the word 'manuscript,' singular. Once again, please identify the 'manuscript' which contains the purported variant reading which you claim.

I also find the word which you used, 'sabbata,' interesting. I do not presently have my Greek grammar. But, I seem to recall that the root word is 'sabbaton' nominative singular, 'sabbatou' genitive singular, 'sabbaton' accusative singular, etc. Now, you mention 'sabbata' Please state your morphology.

Quote:

---

"Sabbata' could be derived from the Greek "sabbaton." If it is, Sabbata then is likely to be a word with an actual plural meaning. So, in this case, we would want to give it a plural translation, and not a singular one.

---

Well now, 'sabbaton' is singular. While the gentive plural is used, of course, for plural applications, the nominative/accusative singular is used, to my recollection, for singular applications.

Reviewing Kittel, I note that there was a 'sabbath' concept in ancient Babylon, although it was in reference to penance, apparently. As for non-Biblical, classical Greek literature, Gregory, are you suggesting that the singular 'sabbaton' was consistently used for plural applications? Can you give me a cite for that? I just reviewed BAGD, and did seem to find that. What is your source?

As for your statements about the possible origin of this occurrence of the word, please give a cite which we may review. Hebrew 'shabat' comes to mind, and Paul was, after all, a Jew. But, I look forward to seeing your cites.

Regards, Dave

[archierieus]

Woops! Typo. In my last post, I wrote, "I just reviewed BAGD, and did seem to find that." That should read, "and did not seem to find that." 'sabbatoon' the genitive plural, is used in plural applications and without the article often refers to the week.

Regards, Dave

[Gregory Matthews]

Yes, I have had some Greek, and some Hebrew, but, foreign languages are not my strong point. So, I do not get into deep discussions in regard to the Biblical languages.

The SDA Bible Comment does have a comment on Col. 2:16. You can find it, if you wish, at 7SDABC page 205, 1980 revision.

[archierieus]

Well if that don't beat all. On this very thread, NeilD hisself declaimed upon your prowess in this field. And now, this?

I did read the commentary article which you cited, and, quite honestly, it made much better sense than your post. Although, there are a couple of things which I question: firstly, it is routine to reference Greek nouns by the nominative singular. Interesting that the commentary does not do that.

Secondly, as for the commentary's position on the derivation of the OT word for Sabbath, I take issue. For your convenience and future reference, I here excerpt NIDOTTE, the article 'shabat':

"Although a cognate exists in Aram., Syr. sabbeta', it is unlikely that the Heb. nom. shabat (middle consonant doubled) can be derived from the Akk. term sab / pattu for "15th day/full moon day," because of the doubled last consonant of the latter. There is also uncertainty about the possible connection between shabat and the Akk. seventh, sibbitîm (both fem. forms). The Heb. for seven is sheba`1, and there has been no convincing explanation as to why the final consonants changed. Despite inconclusive ANE comparative evidence and fruitless etymological speculation, sevenfold chronological divisions can be found in Ugaritic texts: seven years (Dnl cycle); seven days (Krt legend). This does not presuppose any universal sevenfold chronology in the ANE, but it does indicate a certain tendency to use a sevenfold division for whatever reason (Kapelrud, 494-99). In an ancient Hebrew inscription, the Yabneh-Yam ostracon (dated in the seventh century BC), lines 5-6 contain the phrase lpny sbt. Although this phrase has been translated "before Sabbath," there is no certainty that it does in fact refer to the Sabbath (Delekat, 455; Davies, 491).

OT 1. Usage. The nom. shabat is used 104x in the OT; the books with the highest frequency of usage are: Lev 24x; Ezek 15x; Exod 14x; Neh 14x; 1-2 Chron 8x; Isa 7x; Jer 7x; 2 Kgs 5x; Num 3x; Deut 3x. It is used once each in Ps, Lam, Hos, and Amos. These statistics point to more frequent usage in OT books where priestly influence dominates and to its absence in the Wisdom literature, where no direct reference is made to the Sabbath.

shabaton is a denom. nom., and the suffix -—ôn probably indicates an abstract meaning, "restfulness" (GKC 86f, 240). This derivation from shabat designates the weekly Sabbath (Exod 16:23; 31:15; 35:2; Lev 23:3), the Day of Atonement (Lev 16:31; 23:32), the sabbatical year (Lev 25:4-5), the day of rest commemorated by trumpets (Lev 23:24), and the first and eighth day of the Feast of Succoth (Lev 23:39).

The prefix mem is used to modify the meaning of the root shabat1 to form a nom. with an abstract sense, mishebat, which occurs only in Lam 1:7 (IBHS, 90). This hapleg. is often emended by commentators, but since it is related to shabat, a trans. "cessation" or "destruction" fits the context of a destroyed Jerusalem well (Hillers, 70).

2. When was the Sabbath kept? No astrological, menological, sociological, etymological, or cultic hypothesis about the origin of the Sabbath has achieved scholarly consensus (ABD 5:851).

(a) The fact that the Sabbath is mentioned with the new moon in several preexilic books (2 Kgs 4:23; Isa 1:13; Hos 2:11 [13]; Amos 8:5) has led to the assumption that the Sabbath was a relic of an ancient moon cult (this theory was at first advanced by Meinhold in 1905 and more recently by Robinson in 1988). There were important similarities between the Sabbath and the new moon: On both days it was customary to visit a holy man (2 Kgs 4:23), and business and trade were suspended (Amos 8:5). These full moon or new moon days were, however, viewed to be unlucky, and there is no convincing argument how or why the Sabbath developed independently of the lunar cycle.

( Numerous cultures identify certain days for a particular form of work and others for not doing any work. The Romans, for example, chose market days as their days of rest, and the Sabbath as an ancient market day has been advanced as a theory to explain the early development of the Sabbath (cf. Jenni). This interesting hypotheses has up to now not been substantiated with regards to the Sabbath as a/the day of rest in the context of Israelite culture and religion.

© It has already been noted that seven-day periods were well known in the ANE, but there is no clear instance of a similar seventh day of rest outside of Israel. Eichrodt (132) states without qualification: "Even therefore if the name Sabbath is not Israelite, the thing which it denotes is only to be found in Israel." To answer the question whether the seventh day was always referred to by Israel as the Sabbath is highly problematic. It is significant that some of the oldest references to a day of rest (Exod 23:12; 31:17; 34:21) do not make use of the nom. but of the vb. shabat (Andreasen, 121). This might indicate a time in the religious history of Israel when the Sabbath was not used as a reference to the seventh day, although the practice of rest could have existed. The fact remains that both versions of the Decalogue are explicit that the Sabbath is the seventh day (Exod 20:10; Deut 5:13)."

Now, Gregory, I do have several suggestions for you:

1. Don't get your information on Biblical languaages from a commentary. Go to primary or at least secondary sources instead.

2. Give proper attribution. This will have several advantages: firstly, it will avoid the appearance of plagiarism; secondly, it will give others an opportunity to check out the reference for themselves; thirdly, it is much more credible.

3. If you are going to present someone else's treatment of a technical item as your own, be careful to stick with the language in the article, unless you are very well versed in the field. What raised real questions about your post was some of the language which you used, which did not sound credible. Once I read the commentary article, it made much more sense.

Regards, Dave

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

:::off topic for just a sec:::

Dave (archierieus), just out of curiosity, are you an attorney in real life? You write like one.

[archierieus]

lol thanks for the compliment, Pam! I am doing full time city evangelism actually.

Dave

[archierieus]

The subject of Col. 2:16 would seem to merit a little more attention. A very important text, I think! Firsly, in regard to the derivation of this occurrence of sabbaton (sabbatoon here). Logically, one would think that the author's intent is controlling. Paul, who dictated the letter to an assistant, was a Jew. It would seem to follow that Paul's reference to 'sabbath(s)' is within the Jewish construct--that is, the word is of Hebrew (not Aramaic, btw) derivation. [see NIDOTTE on that point) That, however, does not solve our issue. Hellenistic culture did not have the highly developed doctrine of 'sabbaths' as Jewish culture had. Thus, the Greek language has the word, 'sabbaton' without the various shades of meaning and application that are found in Hebrew. In Hebrew, different words described different types of sabbaths. 'shabat' typically referred to the weekly Sabbath. 'shabbaton', 'shabbatati' to other 'sabbaths.' The Greek language not having the nuances of Hebrew here, the same Greek word 'sabbaton' would be used to describe the various Hebrew 'sabbaths.'

But, there are other ways to understand the distinction. In the NT, the weekly Sabbath is described WITH THE ARTICLE--"the Sabbath." That is true in both singular and plural. The word 'sabbatoon' which is a plural, WITHOUT THE ARTICLE typically refers to days OTHER than the weekly Sabbath and, in some applications, the week. That fact can easily be observed by using your exhaustive analytical Greek NT concordance. One crucial point which I notice in this text is the fact that Paul used the plural form 'sabbatoon' WITHOUT the article. That, and the author's cultural/religious construct, would seem to have much more weight than the speculative issue of Greek vs. Hebrew origin of the word.

I also assert that the use of the SINGULAR verb in the Greek--"which IS a shadow of coming things" but rendered as "which ARE a shadow of coming things" is helpful in understanding Paul's intent. That is, Paul was not focusing on the 'sabbaths' specifically as being a shadow, but the entire Jewish ceremonial system, including new moons, feast days, rituals and ceremonial sabbaths.

Regards, Dave

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

I like this thread.... I'm learning that the Bible is to be used to interpret itself. Now I have another question....Before the New Testament was written, was the Old Testament enough to use to interpret itself? Did the people of Old Testament times had the ability - the means - to understand the Old Testament and what it meant only by using the scripture that they had? And can the New Testament be understood without using the Old Testament? []http://image.inkfrog.com/pix/Rudywoofs/icon_confused.gif[/]

[Gregory Matthews]

People reading the OT, in times before the NT, had the ability to understand as much as God felt that they needed to understand. With the passage of time, and the need to undersand more, Christ came, and so did the NT.