Bible Translation Discussion Place
- Thread starter KJV1611
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
L
Foisting? Was he hoist by his own petard? 
With my apologies to KJV1611 ...
With my apologies to KJV1611 ...
to force upon or impose fraudulently or unjustifiably (usually followed by on or upon):
to foist inferior merchandise on a customer.
to bring, put, or introduce surreptitiously or fraudulently (usually followed by in or into):
to foist political views into a news story."
No, he was not hoisted by his own petard. He seems to have gotten away Scott free.
-
1
-
1
- Show all
Hi Post, you might be in reference to the rendering of GENEVA Bible of “merchandise” whereas the KJV has the word “corrupt”. This needs tracing back for the purity of translation. While Geneva Bible is generally good and has the “merchandise” but we’ll look further to what is the historic timeline of English Bible translation to see what is the appropriate, pure. precise translation. Briefly, the English bible translation of Wycliffe 1382 was translated in the Latin Language to have it as to “adulterate”. This is important since the English word adulterate has the original meaning of corrupt, debase especially by admixture. It is first used dated 1531 and to have it later by 1590 to what is known today as to make adultery. The KJV is of course not yet in the scene and when it has been translated they consider the Latin Language of “adulterate”. Since the two meanings can be said true during their time, it is implicit that they have rightfully translated it as “corrupt” which does not convey the latter meaning of taking adultery. But that is from Latin to English.
Now, we go over to the older English translation before the Geneva of 1560.
First, the Tyndale bible of 1534, had translated it “chop and change”. Still though has the idea of trade perhaps merchandise. According to the Shorter Oxford Dictionary Vo. 1 p. 330, the word chop first evidence in “Chop church” which appears to have evolved from OE ceapian (cedpian) this means “to barter” to exchange as used in 1485 thus chop and change means to frequently change. Another meaning is to “buy and sell” yet the original meaning of chop in this trade is to barter not necessarily to mean buy. It is an exchange of goods to other goods. Common British, the phrase “chop and change” is briefly defined as “keep changing”. And this was Tyndale.
Second, The Coverdale Bible 1535 is of the same trade of using “chop and change”.
Thirdly, The Great Bible likewise have its translation of “chop and change”
Then the GENEVA 1560 used “merchandise” commonly use of buying and selling commodities for profit. It is indeed the GNV 1560 had it changes while at the outset it is good but the precision is not there. It changes from the common meaning of barter which is to exchange or change. But the Bishops bible of 1568 restores the “chop and change”.
The KJV 1611 did not change it because of what the GNV says so. It is the GNV that changes it. But what about the KJV? The usage of the KJV “corrupt’ is a translation and has considered every available material having diligently compared former Translations including the RC Version of the Douay Rheims.
English, is Germanic which belongs to Indo European Language and tracing it further to the 4th ce. Germanic Language of the Goths. The little wolf had translated from the Greek to Gothic language has “maidjadans” which simply means to change, to corrupt.
Corinthians II 2:17 Gothic Bible 4Ce.
A unte ni sium swe sumai maidjandans waurd gudis, ak us hlutriþai, ak swaswe us guda in andwairþja gudis in Xristau rodjam.
https://books.google.com.ph/books?i...ec=frontcover&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
Now, we go over to the older English translation before the Geneva of 1560.
First, the Tyndale bible of 1534, had translated it “chop and change”. Still though has the idea of trade perhaps merchandise. According to the Shorter Oxford Dictionary Vo. 1 p. 330, the word chop first evidence in “Chop church” which appears to have evolved from OE ceapian (cedpian) this means “to barter” to exchange as used in 1485 thus chop and change means to frequently change. Another meaning is to “buy and sell” yet the original meaning of chop in this trade is to barter not necessarily to mean buy. It is an exchange of goods to other goods. Common British, the phrase “chop and change” is briefly defined as “keep changing”. And this was Tyndale.
Second, The Coverdale Bible 1535 is of the same trade of using “chop and change”.
Thirdly, The Great Bible likewise have its translation of “chop and change”
Then the GENEVA 1560 used “merchandise” commonly use of buying and selling commodities for profit. It is indeed the GNV 1560 had it changes while at the outset it is good but the precision is not there. It changes from the common meaning of barter which is to exchange or change. But the Bishops bible of 1568 restores the “chop and change”.
The KJV 1611 did not change it because of what the GNV says so. It is the GNV that changes it. But what about the KJV? The usage of the KJV “corrupt’ is a translation and has considered every available material having diligently compared former Translations including the RC Version of the Douay Rheims.
English, is Germanic which belongs to Indo European Language and tracing it further to the 4th ce. Germanic Language of the Goths. The little wolf had translated from the Greek to Gothic language has “maidjadans” which simply means to change, to corrupt.
Corinthians II 2:17 Gothic Bible 4Ce.
A unte ni sium swe sumai maidjandans waurd gudis, ak us hlutriþai, ak swaswe us guda in andwairþja gudis in Xristau rodjam.
https://books.google.com.ph/books?i...ec=frontcover&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
The idiom to be hoist by one's own petard originates in Shakespeare's Hamlet (written around 1600). In the play, Claudius, the Danish king and Hamlet's stepfather, entreats two of Hamlet's schoolfellows, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, to betray Hamlet—the pair are to escort Hamlet to England, carrying a letter instructing the English king to put Hamlet to death. Learning of the plot to kill him, Hamlet contemplates how to turn the tables against them: "For 'tis the sport to have the enginer / Hoist with his own petar; and't shall go hard / But I will delve one yard below their mines / And blow them at the moon." Hoist is the past participle of hoise, an earlier form of the verb hoist, "to be lifted up," while a petar or petard is a small bomb used in early modern warfare. The phrase "hoist with his own petard" therefore means "to be blown up with his own bomb." Contemporary audiences must have been struck by Shakespeare's turn of phrase, because it soon became a commonplace expression in 17th-century English.
Someone who was hoist by his own petard was Haman..
So they hanged Haman on the gallows that he had prepared for Mordecai. Then was the king's wrath pacified.
Esther 7:10, KJV
Someone who was hoist by his own petard was Haman..
So they hanged Haman on the gallows that he had prepared for Mordecai. Then was the king's wrath pacified.
Esther 7:10, KJV
-
1
- Show all
Giving you what Bill Mounce's says of:
Bill Mounce’s definition is based on Strong’s definition which is Thayer. Interesting is that peddling is just a gloss meaning it is just a marginal note or an explanation. It would seem to suggest but it is not ultimately the right words of the given text and often times it falls short of the true idea within the context so that it is not preferably used or being disregard. They have indeed rejected words.
https://www.billmounce.com/greek-dictionary/kapeleuo
Dictionary:
καπηλεύω
Greek transliteration:
kapēleuō
Simplified transliteration:
kapeleuo
Principal Parts:
-, -, -, -, -
Numbers
Strong's number:
2585
GK Number:
2836
Statistics
Frequency in New Testament:
1
Morphology of Biblical Greek Tag:
v-1a(6)
Gloss:
to act as a peddler, trade in for profit
Definition:
pr. to be κάπηλος, a retailer; to peddle with; to corrupt, adulterate, 2 Cor. 2:17*
Bill Mounce’s definition is based on Strong’s definition which is Thayer. Interesting is that peddling is just a gloss meaning it is just a marginal note or an explanation. It would seem to suggest but it is not ultimately the right words of the given text and often times it falls short of the true idea within the context so that it is not preferably used or being disregard. They have indeed rejected words.
https://www.billmounce.com/greek-dictionary/kapeleuo
Dictionary:
καπηλεύω
Greek transliteration:
kapēleuō
Simplified transliteration:
kapeleuo
Principal Parts:
-, -, -, -, -
Numbers
Strong's number:
2585
GK Number:
2836
Statistics
Frequency in New Testament:
1
Morphology of Biblical Greek Tag:
v-1a(6)
Gloss:
to act as a peddler, trade in for profit
Definition:
pr. to be κάπηλος, a retailer; to peddle with; to corrupt, adulterate, 2 Cor. 2:17*
Of course, Thayer says it is indeed most of the interpreters on the account of context favors corrupt but to him, it's not. Amazingly, Thayer is a Unitarianist and probably skewed meaning if he is saying to "purposely mistranslated. Scott and Lidell Greek Lexicon by Henry Lidell and Robert Scott 1901 p.742 says it is corrupt.
non enim sumus sicut plurimi adulterantes verbum Dei sed ex sinceritate sed sicut ex Deo coram Deo in Christo loquimur
For we are not as many, adulterating the word of God: but with sincerity: but as from God, before God, in Christ we speak.
http://vulgate.org/nt/epistle/2corinthians_2.htm
English "Adulterate" means corrupt not peddle.
For we are not as many, adulterating the word of God: but with sincerity: but as from God, before God, in Christ we speak.
http://vulgate.org/nt/epistle/2corinthians_2.htm
English "Adulterate" means corrupt not peddle.
-
1
- Show all
L
The idiom to be hoist by one's own petard originates in Shakespeare's Hamlet (written around 1600). In the play, Claudius, the Danish king and Hamlet's stepfather, entreats two of Hamlet's schoolfellows, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, to betray Hamlet—the pair are to escort Hamlet to England, carrying a letter instructing the English king to put Hamlet to death. Learning of the plot to kill him, Hamlet contemplates how to turn the tables against them: "For 'tis the sport to have the enginer / Hoist with his own petar; and't shall go hard / But I will delve one yard below their mines / And blow them at the moon." Hoist is the past participle of hoise, an earlier form of the verb hoist, "to be lifted up," while a petar or petard is a small bomb used in early modern warfare. The phrase "hoist with his own petard" therefore means "to be blown up with his own bomb." Contemporary audiences must have been struck by Shakespeare's turn of phrase, because it soon became a commonplace expression in 17th-century English.
Someone who was hoist by his own petard was Haman..
So they hanged Haman on the gallows that he had prepared for Mordecai. Then was the king's wrath pacified.
Esther 7:10, KJV
Someone who was hoist by his own petard was Haman..
So they hanged Haman on the gallows that he had prepared for Mordecai. Then was the king's wrath pacified.
Esther 7:10, KJV
I also like malaphors, and non sequiturs.
I'm kind of a nerd that way.
But hey different strokes make the world go around, and what ever floats your wagon, because I accept people for who they could be.
-
1
- Show all
Which of the following do you consider corrupt, and why?
P52 (usually dated around 125 AD)
P104 (2nd century)
P4/64/67 (late 2nd/early 3rd century)
Uncial 0189 (late 2nd/early 3rd century)
P66 (late 2nd/early 3rd century)
P46 (late 2nd/early 3rd century)
P75 (late 2nd/early 3rd century)
P20 (late 2nd/early 3rd century)
P98 (late 2nd/early 3rd century)
P45 (3rd century)
P47 (3rd century)
Uncial 0171 (late 3rd century)
P115 (late 3rd/early 4th century)
P72 (late 3rd/early 4th century)
P100 (late 3rd/early 4th century)
(reference: https://carm.org/KJVO/chronological-list-of-major-greek-new-testament-manuscripts)
P52 (usually dated around 125 AD)
P104 (2nd century)
P4/64/67 (late 2nd/early 3rd century)
Uncial 0189 (late 2nd/early 3rd century)
P66 (late 2nd/early 3rd century)
P46 (late 2nd/early 3rd century)
P75 (late 2nd/early 3rd century)
P20 (late 2nd/early 3rd century)
P98 (late 2nd/early 3rd century)
P45 (3rd century)
P47 (3rd century)
Uncial 0171 (late 3rd century)
P115 (late 3rd/early 4th century)
P72 (late 3rd/early 4th century)
P100 (late 3rd/early 4th century)
(reference: https://carm.org/KJVO/chronological-list-of-major-greek-new-testament-manuscripts)
Since I am certainly no expert or scholar of the papyri, we will let Professor Larry Hurtado (a New Testament scholar at the University of Edinburgh) tell us why these are corrupt:
The Early New Testament Papyri: A Survey of Their Significance L. W. Hurtado (University of Edinburgh)
1. There are now 127 NT papyri in the Gregory-Aland list, comprising actually 125 manuscripts, which represents a massive increase accrued over the course of the 20th century.
2. The primary value of the NT papyri is, of course, not their writing material but their age. Actually, however, a number of these NT papyri are in fact dated to the same centuries from which our well-known principal witnesses come, 4th to 8th century CE, and so, at least for text-critical purposes, have not been particularly crucial.
3. In this presentation, therefore, I focus on the 49 NT papyri and two parchment manuscripts (0189, 0220) palaeographically dated to the 2nd or 3rd century CE, giving some key information about them, and highlighting the principal historical issues on which they uniquely shed light... Of the 51 manuscripts that we consider in this discussion, only five provide us with much more than such small portions of text. Nevertheless, all of these 51 manuscripts comprise our earliest copies of NT writings and so are invaluable as witnesses to the history of the text of these writings, and for a number of other historical questions as well that I will highlight here.
4. As noted already, the fragmentary nature of most of the earliest NT manuscripts means that collectively they preserve only limited amounts of the text of NT writings.
5. It is also well known that the earliest NT manuscripts all were found in Egypt, and so it is appropriate to consider how representative they may be of the wider circulation of NT writings in the period of these manuscripts. There are, however, several reasons for thinking that these early manuscripts are likely reflective of the status and transmission of NT writings more widely.
6. As already noted, all of the 51 manuscripts that form the focus here are dated to the 3rd century or earlier, at least eight of them to ca. 200 or soon thereafter, and as many as four (P52, P90, P98, P104) to the (late) second century.
7. Studies by Colwell and Royse show that P45 has an unusually large number of “significant singular” readings that likely represent a particular effort to produce a readable and edifying text, “improving” it by many stylistic changes, harmonizations, simplifications, and even pruning. [Note: This would in fact be corrupting the text]
8. It is interesting to me that the great palaeogapher Eric Turner identified two broad tendencies in ancient papyri of classical literary texts, one exhibiting greater freedom in adding lines or leaving out lines and with “substantial variant phrases or formulas” (which Turner associates with a Platonic attitude toward books), and the other reflecting a greater respect for the wording of the text and exhibiting a lower “coefficient of error” (which Turner links with Aristotle). It may well be that earliest NT manuscripts show a somewhat comparable spectrum of transmission practice. [Note: In plain English, the first tendency would be corruption]
9. The Bodmer papyrus of John, P66, has also had a significant impact. Though initially judged simply a “mixed” text, i.e., not a “pure” witness to any of the major texttypes, P66 is now typically linked with the P75-B type of text (albeit, a somewhat looser member of this type, with a number of readings supported also by “Western” and “Byzantine” witnesses).32 As Royse has stated, however, “The most striking feature of P66 is the quantity of corrections,” identifying 465 corrections in the extant 75 leaves. [Note: More evidence of corruption]
10. For example, James Royse’s massive study of all the earliest substantially preserved NT papyri shows persuasively that copyists in fact more often produced shorter, not longer, readings, and so the traditional principle of preferring the shorter reading does not carry the force it once did. [Note: More evidence of corruption]
11. Likewise, Royse has shown that harmonization to the immediate context was common, a datum that has obvious implications for assessing variants on the basis of similarity to the wording/style of the text. [Note: More evidence of corruption]
12. He [Epp] notes the strong P75-B connection (with P66 as a somewhat weaker member of this “textual cluster”) as showing a textual “trajectory” of this kind of text back to ca. 200 (the common dating of P75), and Epp accepts the arguments for tracing this trajectory earlier still, well back into the second century at least. He also posits a looser but real connection of certain other papyri (P29, P48, P38, 0171) to the kind of text later found in Codex D (at least in Acts). [Note: B = Codex Vaticanus, D = Codex Bezae. Both have been established as two of the most corrupt NT manuscripts]
13. I reiterate the observation that the early papyri certainly attest varying levels of fluidity in the NT text, and a readiness among some Christians to “improve” the text in various ways (e.g., stylistic changes, harmonizations, etc.); but these manuscripts do not reflect a careless or “wild” transmission attitude and process. [Note: A very polite and scholarly way of saying that there was a lot of corruption]
https://larryhurtado.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/nt-papyri1.pdf
The Early New Testament Papyri: A Survey of Their Significance L. W. Hurtado (University of Edinburgh)
1. There are now 127 NT papyri in the Gregory-Aland list, comprising actually 125 manuscripts, which represents a massive increase accrued over the course of the 20th century.
2. The primary value of the NT papyri is, of course, not their writing material but their age. Actually, however, a number of these NT papyri are in fact dated to the same centuries from which our well-known principal witnesses come, 4th to 8th century CE, and so, at least for text-critical purposes, have not been particularly crucial.
3. In this presentation, therefore, I focus on the 49 NT papyri and two parchment manuscripts (0189, 0220) palaeographically dated to the 2nd or 3rd century CE, giving some key information about them, and highlighting the principal historical issues on which they uniquely shed light... Of the 51 manuscripts that we consider in this discussion, only five provide us with much more than such small portions of text. Nevertheless, all of these 51 manuscripts comprise our earliest copies of NT writings and so are invaluable as witnesses to the history of the text of these writings, and for a number of other historical questions as well that I will highlight here.
4. As noted already, the fragmentary nature of most of the earliest NT manuscripts means that collectively they preserve only limited amounts of the text of NT writings.
5. It is also well known that the earliest NT manuscripts all were found in Egypt, and so it is appropriate to consider how representative they may be of the wider circulation of NT writings in the period of these manuscripts. There are, however, several reasons for thinking that these early manuscripts are likely reflective of the status and transmission of NT writings more widely.
6. As already noted, all of the 51 manuscripts that form the focus here are dated to the 3rd century or earlier, at least eight of them to ca. 200 or soon thereafter, and as many as four (P52, P90, P98, P104) to the (late) second century.
7. Studies by Colwell and Royse show that P45 has an unusually large number of “significant singular” readings that likely represent a particular effort to produce a readable and edifying text, “improving” it by many stylistic changes, harmonizations, simplifications, and even pruning. [Note: This would in fact be corrupting the text]
8. It is interesting to me that the great palaeogapher Eric Turner identified two broad tendencies in ancient papyri of classical literary texts, one exhibiting greater freedom in adding lines or leaving out lines and with “substantial variant phrases or formulas” (which Turner associates with a Platonic attitude toward books), and the other reflecting a greater respect for the wording of the text and exhibiting a lower “coefficient of error” (which Turner links with Aristotle). It may well be that earliest NT manuscripts show a somewhat comparable spectrum of transmission practice. [Note: In plain English, the first tendency would be corruption]
9. The Bodmer papyrus of John, P66, has also had a significant impact. Though initially judged simply a “mixed” text, i.e., not a “pure” witness to any of the major texttypes, P66 is now typically linked with the P75-B type of text (albeit, a somewhat looser member of this type, with a number of readings supported also by “Western” and “Byzantine” witnesses).32 As Royse has stated, however, “The most striking feature of P66 is the quantity of corrections,” identifying 465 corrections in the extant 75 leaves. [Note: More evidence of corruption]
10. For example, James Royse’s massive study of all the earliest substantially preserved NT papyri shows persuasively that copyists in fact more often produced shorter, not longer, readings, and so the traditional principle of preferring the shorter reading does not carry the force it once did. [Note: More evidence of corruption]
11. Likewise, Royse has shown that harmonization to the immediate context was common, a datum that has obvious implications for assessing variants on the basis of similarity to the wording/style of the text. [Note: More evidence of corruption]
12. He [Epp] notes the strong P75-B connection (with P66 as a somewhat weaker member of this “textual cluster”) as showing a textual “trajectory” of this kind of text back to ca. 200 (the common dating of P75), and Epp accepts the arguments for tracing this trajectory earlier still, well back into the second century at least. He also posits a looser but real connection of certain other papyri (P29, P48, P38, 0171) to the kind of text later found in Codex D (at least in Acts). [Note: B = Codex Vaticanus, D = Codex Bezae. Both have been established as two of the most corrupt NT manuscripts]
13. I reiterate the observation that the early papyri certainly attest varying levels of fluidity in the NT text, and a readiness among some Christians to “improve” the text in various ways (e.g., stylistic changes, harmonizations, etc.); but these manuscripts do not reflect a careless or “wild” transmission attitude and process. [Note: A very polite and scholarly way of saying that there was a lot of corruption]
https://larryhurtado.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/nt-papyri1.pdf
Your biased commentary is not needed, thanks. I'm not some wolf pup needing my food predigested.
Hurtado's comments compare these earliest manuscripts to unidentified later sources, and declare (without a shred of supporting evidence) that the earlier ones are out of alignment. He has made exactly the same error you (and other KJV-onlyists) consistently make when you compare later translations to the KJV as though the KJV were the standard of accuracy and purity.
Your assertion is, therefore, baseless.
Hurtado's comments compare these earliest manuscripts to unidentified later sources, and declare (without a shred of supporting evidence) that the earlier ones are out of alignment. He has made exactly the same error you (and other KJV-onlyists) consistently make when you compare later translations to the KJV as though the KJV were the standard of accuracy and purity.
Your assertion is, therefore, baseless.
I would suggest reading God's Secretaries: The Making of the King James Bible by Adam Nicolson.
He covers all of these issues.
James, indeed, commissioned the KJV and defined some of the parameters of their work. It was largely due to his disagreement with the Geneva Bible, because the notes contained remarks that were antithetical to governmental stability.
He covers all of these issues.
James, indeed, commissioned the KJV and defined some of the parameters of their work. It was largely due to his disagreement with the Geneva Bible, because the notes contained remarks that were antithetical to governmental stability.
John 9:35
For clearer see chart at this link: https://bibledifferences.net/2016/05/04/138-son-of-man/ giving an unbiased sources where explanation in there favors the Egyptian text of Son of Man. Here is my observation.
Here we see that the Greek Alexandrinus departed from its allies on the reading of Son of God vs Son of man perhaps the scribes had not altered the true reading. While at the outset the Greek evidence of “Son of Man” is supported earlier copies but this does mean it is reliable copies of the true reading for we have numerous Greek evidence supporting the reading of “Son of God” though later copies. The myth of the “old is the best” makes no sense since many of the earliest Greek copies of Egypt are done in a corrupt manner. Evidence of the Son of God for Versions is numerous rather than of the Son of Man whereas the citation from the early Church Fathers is by far greater in favor of the Son of God. We have to exclude Chrysostom since he mentions the two readings and we have still find out why and this leaves no Church father to attest to the veracity of the “Son of Man”. Even Origen by this passage had to attest of the Son of God rather than the Son of Man.
Eventually, the reading in P75 for John 9:38-39 had to be omitted because the passage talks about Jesus is to be worship. For if he is the” son of man” conclusively he need not be worshipped or Christ is liable of idolatry but if he is the “Son of God”, it is said the scripture is clear Christ can be worship, the thing only God is worthy of worship. P75 is left by its ally Sinaiticus for giving the reading of worshipping him. If indeed P75, including the Sinaiticus are a correct reading of John 9: 35 why there is disagreement of the two as it is related to John 9:38-39. Had someone come to think there is no corruption? I believe there is.
http://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx?book=36&chapter=9&lid=en&side=r&verse=38&zoomSlider=0
Even Iraneus had said this corruption is common during his time.
I do not know how it is that some have erred following the ordinary mode of speech, and have vitiated the middle number in the name, deducting the amount of fifty from it, so that instead of six decads they will have it that there is but one. [I am inclined to think that this occurred through the fault of the copyists, as is wont to happen, since numbers also are expressed by letters; so that the Greek letter which expresses the number sixty was easily expanded into the letter Iota of the Greeks.] Others then received this reading without examination; some in their simplicity, and upon their own responsibility, making use of this number expressing one decad; while some, in their inexperience, have ventured to seek out a name which should contain the erroneous and spurious number. Now, as regards those who have done this in simplicity, and without evil intent, we are at liberty to assume that pardon will be granted them by God. But as for those who, for the sake of vainglory, lay it down for certain that names containing the spurious number are to be accepted, and affirm that this name, hit upon by themselves, is that of him who is to come; such persons shall not come forth without loss, because they have led into error both themselves and those who confided in them.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/irenaeus-book5.html
For clearer see chart at this link: https://bibledifferences.net/2016/05/04/138-son-of-man/ giving an unbiased sources where explanation in there favors the Egyptian text of Son of Man. Here is my observation.
Here we see that the Greek Alexandrinus departed from its allies on the reading of Son of God vs Son of man perhaps the scribes had not altered the true reading. While at the outset the Greek evidence of “Son of Man” is supported earlier copies but this does mean it is reliable copies of the true reading for we have numerous Greek evidence supporting the reading of “Son of God” though later copies. The myth of the “old is the best” makes no sense since many of the earliest Greek copies of Egypt are done in a corrupt manner. Evidence of the Son of God for Versions is numerous rather than of the Son of Man whereas the citation from the early Church Fathers is by far greater in favor of the Son of God. We have to exclude Chrysostom since he mentions the two readings and we have still find out why and this leaves no Church father to attest to the veracity of the “Son of Man”. Even Origen by this passage had to attest of the Son of God rather than the Son of Man.
Eventually, the reading in P75 for John 9:38-39 had to be omitted because the passage talks about Jesus is to be worship. For if he is the” son of man” conclusively he need not be worshipped or Christ is liable of idolatry but if he is the “Son of God”, it is said the scripture is clear Christ can be worship, the thing only God is worthy of worship. P75 is left by its ally Sinaiticus for giving the reading of worshipping him. If indeed P75, including the Sinaiticus are a correct reading of John 9: 35 why there is disagreement of the two as it is related to John 9:38-39. Had someone come to think there is no corruption? I believe there is.
http://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx?book=36&chapter=9&lid=en&side=r&verse=38&zoomSlider=0
Even Iraneus had said this corruption is common during his time.
I do not know how it is that some have erred following the ordinary mode of speech, and have vitiated the middle number in the name, deducting the amount of fifty from it, so that instead of six decads they will have it that there is but one. [I am inclined to think that this occurred through the fault of the copyists, as is wont to happen, since numbers also are expressed by letters; so that the Greek letter which expresses the number sixty was easily expanded into the letter Iota of the Greeks.] Others then received this reading without examination; some in their simplicity, and upon their own responsibility, making use of this number expressing one decad; while some, in their inexperience, have ventured to seek out a name which should contain the erroneous and spurious number. Now, as regards those who have done this in simplicity, and without evil intent, we are at liberty to assume that pardon will be granted them by God. But as for those who, for the sake of vainglory, lay it down for certain that names containing the spurious number are to be accepted, and affirm that this name, hit upon by themselves, is that of him who is to come; such persons shall not come forth without loss, because they have led into error both themselves and those who confided in them.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/irenaeus-book5.html
-
1
- Show all