flamegrilled
You should be aware that the translators of the King James version took the liberty to add the "worms", supposedly to add clarity to the text; However it doesn't exist in the original hebrew text.
Eden
The apparent contradiction of John 3:13
by EdenOne 43 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
Vidqun
Eden, here is a few opinions of the Committee responsible for the Standard text, used in most modern translations. Sorry about the fonts.
3:13 {B}
On the one hand, a minority of the Committee preferred the reading ?νθρ?που ? ?ν ?ν τ? ο?ραν? , arguing that (1) if the short reading, supported almost exclusively by Egyptian witnesses, were original, there is no discernible motive that would have prompted copyists to add the words ? ?ν ?ν τ? ο?ραν? , resulting in a most difficult saying (the statement in 1:18, not being parallel, would scarcely have prompted the addition); and (2) the diversity of readings implies that the expression ? υ??ς το? ?νθρ?που ? ?ν ?ν τ? ο?ραν? , having been found objectionable or superfluous in the context, was modified either by omitting the participial clause, or by altering it so as to avoid suggesting that the Son of Man was at that moment in heaven.
On the other hand, the majority of the Committee, impressed by the quality of the external attestation supporting the shorter reading, regarded the words ? ?ν ?ν τ? ο?ραν? as an interpretative gloss, reflecting later Christological development.[1]
3:13 ?νθρ?που (of man) {B}
The words ? ?ν ?ν τ? ο?ραν? (who is in heaven) at the end of the verse are most likely an interpretative comment by a copyist reflecting later Christological development. On the other hand, the longer reading may be original since the shorter reading is supported almost entirely by Egyptian witnesses. And the diversity of readings may imply that copyists found the expression ? υ??ς το? ?νθρ?που ? ?ν ?ν τ? ο?ραν? difficult and changed it either by omitting the participial clause, or by changing it so as to avoid suggesting that the Son of Man was at that moment in heaven. The shorter reading is found in most modern translations (for example, NRSV and NJB), but a few follow the longer reading (REB, Seg).[2]
{B} {B} The letter {B} {B} indicates that the text is almost certain.
[1] Metzger, B. M., & United Bible Societies. (1994). A textual commentary on the Greek New Testament, second edition a companion volume to the United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament (4th rev. ed.) (174–175). London; New York: United Bible Societies.
NRSV New Revised Standard Version
Seg Segond
NJB New Jerusalem Bible
[2] Omanson, R. L., & Metzger, B. M. (2006). A Textual Guide to the Greek New Testament: An adaptation of Bruce M. Metzger's Textual commentary for the needs of translators (169). Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft.
-
Vidqun
Here's a few comments by Newman & Nida from the Translators handbook of John:
John 3:13
The purpose of this verse is to emphasize the heavenly origin of the Son of Man. John is the only one of the Gospel writers to emphasize this truth; it is basic to his theology. What gives the Son of Man his authority is his heavenly origin. The Son of Man … came down from heaven to tell men on earth about the things of heaven (verse 12). That is, the coming of the Son of Man is an act of divine revelation. But more than revelation is involved, as can be seen from the following verses—it is also an act of self-giving which leads to the death of the Son of Man.
Some scholars maintain that the verb has gone up refers to the Son of Man, and so implies that he had already ascended to heaven at the time these words were written. That is, they assume that this verse contains John’s comments about the Son of Man and that it reflects the post-resurrection theology of John, rather than the words of Jesus. It is thus one way of explaining the use of the perfect tense (has gone up).
However, the statement no one has ever gone up to heaven is possibly intended merely to deny that up to that time anyone had gone up to heaven to learn about the things of heaven. If this is the meaning, no reference to the ascension of the Son of Man is intended. Moreover, just as the first half of the verse denies that anyone else knows about the things of heaven, so the second half affirms that only the Son of Man has knowledge about those things, because his origin is in heaven. It is possible that the verse is intended to carry this meaning. However, in John’s Gospel the verb tenses are not always those one would expect, and it may be that the perfect tense here does not imply that the Son of Man has already ascended to heaven. For example, in 4:38 the past tense is used (TE V have sent) of an action which Jesus has not yet done, according to the time sequence of the Gospel. For translation it is suggested that the equivalent of a perfect tense (or even of a simple past tense) be used for has gone up, without the implication of “has gone up and is now there.”
Verse 13 involves a number of subtle problems for the translator. The use of the perfect tense “has gone up” would almost inevitably indicate this was a reference to the resurrection, and therefore would tend to be interpreted as a prophecy or an interpolation by the Gospel writer. To avoid such an implication the phrase except the Son of Man can be translated “except for the Son of Man, who will go up to heaven.” However, the focus of verse 13 is not on a future resurrection, but on the fact that the Son of Man has come down from heaven and is therefore in a position to reveal truth about God and his purposes for man’s salvation. In order to indicate this contrast vividly and in order to avoid the implication of an anachronism, it is possible to translate “but the Son of Man has come down from heaven.” Such a rendering avoids one difficulty by eliminating a possible interpretation. It seems best, however, simply to translate this verse, along with certain of its exegetical obscurities and ambiguities, and to leave the interpretation to commentators. Even though this solution might allow some slight confusion for the average reader, there is at least no serious distortion of the truth through a more or less “close translation.”
There is also a textual problem in this verse. Some ancient manuscripts read “and no one has ever gone up to heaven except the one who came down from heaven, the Son of Man, who is in heaven.” JB, NEB, Mf t , and Zü r all accept the words “who is in heaven” as a part of the original text. NA B , however, places them in brackets, and Zü r and NEB both have a footnote, indicating the absence of these words from some manuscripts. The other translations which include them give no note (except Segond). This phrase occurs in a few Greek manuscripts, in the Latin, and in a few Syriac versions. The textual evidence in its favour is weak and diverse. Yet the phrase is so difficult that it is hard to see why any manuscript would include it if it were not an original part of the text. The UB S Committee on the Greek text supports the shorter reading because of the strong manuscript evidence. They believe that the words “who is in heaven” were added later as a further Christological interpretation of this verse. [1]
TEV Today’s English Version
J B Jerusalem Bible
NEB New English Bible
Mft Moffatt
Zür Zürcher Bibel
NAB New American Bible
Zür Zürcher Bibel
NEB New English Bible
UBS United Bible Societies
[1] Newman, B. M., & Nida, E. A. (1993). A handbook on the Gospel of John. UBS Handbook Series (84–85). New York: United Bible Societies.
-
Terry
Well now, that is sort of THE problem, now isn't it?
We can all have a go at it.
This that or the other from every man Jack of us until nobody KNOWS and everybody asserts they DO.
It is called Eisegesis.
Wiki:
Eisegesis (from Greek ε?ς "into" as opposed to exegesis from ?ξηγε?σθαι "to lead out") is the process of interpreting a text or portion of text in such a way that it introduces one's own presuppositions, agendas, and/or biases into and onto the text. The act is often used to "prove" a pre-held point of concern to the reader and to provide him or her with confirmation bias in accordance with his or her pre-held agenda. Eisegesis is best understood when contrasted with exegesis. While exegesis draws out the meaning from a text in accordance with the context and discover-able meaning of its author, eisegesis occurs when a reader imposes his or her interpretation into and onto the text. As a result, exegesis tends to be objective when employed effectively while eisegesis is regarded as highly subjective.
An individual who practices eisegesis is known as an eisegete, as someone who practices exegesis is known as an exegete. The term "eisegete" is often used in a mildly derogatory fashion.
Although the term exegesis is commonly heard in association with Biblical interpretations, the term is broadly used across literary disciplines.
-
*lost*
Vidqun Interesting.
-
EdenOne
Vidqun,
Many thanks for your contribution. I agree that the last portion is redundant to the understanding of the text, but, as pointed out by Newman & Nida, " the phrase is so difficult that it is hard to see why any manuscript would include it if it were not an original part of the text." To accept it or not makes little difference to the overall understanding of the text, since the reference "who is [or:exists] in heaven" is easily explained. It may well be a later addition, although I think it needs further evidence to establish a solid conclusion.
The actual point of my question is if this text definitively rules out any resurrection to the heavenly realm before Jesus did. Personally I'm not persuaded that it does, since it's not the point that Jesus was making in his conversation. But since the doctrinal implications are vast, one must thread very carefully on this subject.
Eden
-
EdenOne
Terry,
It's a fine line between exegesis and eisegesis sometimes. That's why the contribution of different Scriptures is so important, so that a broader picture can be established - or at least an honest attempt at it.
Eden
-
Bobcat
Vidqun:
Thanks for posting that reference material.
Take Care
-
Band on the Run
Well, any scholar who writes about son of Man and John's empahsis as the only gospel with truth is no scholar. Pat yourselves on the back. You are letting everyone see how narrow your readings are. Good websites and books are no longer rare. There is an abundance on the popular market. What is more there are many members here who post regularly who know far more of this scholarship than I do.
Graduate from the Witnesses and restrict yourself to only one type of literature. It is basically the same as the Witnesses. Don't think. Raise no hard questions. Obey. Your sources are heavily biased towards one small segment of Christianity. You should post at some fundie site.
Well, I have no right to impose my views on you. It is sad to observe.
My faith was increased by reading neutral sources from a variety of places. You can write term papers for a secular prof regarding some New Testament topic. I never see magic in the real world. My leanings were atheist when I started the course. I discovered that worshiping Jesus with intellectual and rigorous honesty was more than possible. When I started the academic study, I wanted to see Paul resurrected so I could cut off his balls and spit on his face. After much study, I like most of Paul's writings now.
You are playing Bible scholar. Leo's posts alone could make you a true scholar. This forum is chock full of important scholarship and personal reaction to it.
-
Vidqun
BOTR, what Bible do you prefer? On what text is it based? Start there as a reference. The CGS of the NWT is based on the 1881 Westcott & Hort text. If you want to go there, be my guest. There is also something called the Majority text. This is based on the majority of MSS called Miniscules (later Greek texts in small letters). The King James Version relies heavily on these MSS. Then you have Standard (Nestle-Aland) text, where each Scripture in the NT has been weighed by a Committee of Greek scholars. This is also the text used by Bible Societies for translation purposes. The credentials of the individuals in the Committee are impeccable. Do look them up. If you ask me about legal matters, I will bow out gracefully. What I know of the law could be dangerous. But if you ask me about a specific scripture, translation, the original languages of the Bible, dictionaries and lexicons, you are bound to receive an answer, because those are my interests, which I have been studying for over thirty years. So, allow me to put forward the references. What you make of them is your business. Do ask Leo about the quality of the references? Let me know if there is a problem. As far as I know, she would endorse them as reliable. Yes, just like you we are interested in "intellectual and rigorous honesty," i.e., the truth of the matter. We take different roads to get there. If you have other insights, websites, etc. on the subject you want to share, feel free to do so, but let's not generalize. That is a road leading to nowhere.