Posts by Earnest

43

Acts 20: 28 Corruption in the NWT

by Sea Breeze in

here's how this verse should read: .

take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the holy ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of god, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

- kjvhere's how it reads in the nwt: pay attention to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the holy spirit has appointed you overseers, to shepherd the congregation of god, which he purchased with the blood of his own son.. here is how it reads in the kjv with the greek keyed to strong's: take heedg4337 thereforeg3767 unto yourselves,g1438 andg2532 to allg3956 theg3588 flock,g4168 overg1722 the whichg3739 theg3588 holyg40 ghostg4151 hath madeg5087 youg5209 overseers,g1985 to feedg4165 theg3588 churchg1577 of god,g2316 whichg3739 he hath purchasedg4046 withg1223 his owng2398 blood.g129 .

Earnest

Earnest : The RSV reads "... to care for the church of God which he obtained with the blood of his own Son" with a footnote "Greek with the blood of his Own or with his own blood".
aqwsed12345 : The RSV appeared in 1952 with the literal wording “with his own blood”; the wording you quote is the 1971 “Common Bible” revision produced for ecumenical use and reprinted in the NRSV family.

This is just to report back that I checked the 1952 RSV and it does read "with his own blood" but it has a footnote "with the blood of his Own" showing that even back then they recognised there were two ways of translating this verse. No one (except Hort) has claimed that the word "son" stood in the original, although Metzger does say that palaeographically such an omission would have been easy.

The claim is, as the NET bible explains, that the genitive construction could be taken in two ways: (1) as an attributive genitive (second attributive position) meaning “his own blood”; or (2) as a possessive genitive, “with the blood of his own.” In this case the referent is the Son, and the referent has been specified in the translation for clarity.

You keep on insisting it can only be translated in one way i.e. "his own blood", but many translations either translate it differently or record alternatives. Most translators will translate in a way they think is in harmony with the rest of scripture which is why so many translate it as "with the blood of his own Son".

43

Acts 20: 28 Corruption in the NWT

by Sea Breeze in

here's how this verse should read: .

take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the holy ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of god, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

- kjvhere's how it reads in the nwt: pay attention to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the holy spirit has appointed you overseers, to shepherd the congregation of god, which he purchased with the blood of his own son.. here is how it reads in the kjv with the greek keyed to strong's: take heedg4337 thereforeg3767 unto yourselves,g1438 andg2532 to allg3956 theg3588 flock,g4168 overg1722 the whichg3739 theg3588 holyg40 ghostg4151 hath madeg5087 youg5209 overseers,g1985 to feedg4165 theg3588 churchg1577 of god,g2316 whichg3739 he hath purchasedg4046 withg1223 his owng2398 blood.g129 .

Earnest

aqwsed12345 : The RSV, NRSV and NIV follow precisely that discipline [of using a marginal gloss] by placing “Son” in an explanatory foot-note.
aqwsed12345 : The NIV, NRSV and NET demonstrate proper practice: they retain the literal phrasing in the text and relegate “his own Son” to a footnote that explicitly warns readers the word is not in the Greek.

The RSV reads "... to care for the church of God which he obtained with the blood of his own Son" with a footnote "Greek with the blood of his Own or with his own blood".

The NRSV/NRSVUE reads "... to shepherd the church of God that he obtained with the blood of his own Son" with a footnote "Or with his own blood; Gk with the blood of his Own".

The NET reads "... to shepherd the church of God that he obtained with the blood of his own Son" with a footnote "Or “with his own blood”; Grk “with the blood of his own.”

NET adds to the footnote : The genitive construction could be taken in two ways: (1) as an attributive genitive (second attributive position) meaning “his own blood”; or (2) as a possessive genitive, “with the blood of his own.” In this case the referent is the Son, and the referent has been specified in the translation for clarity.

The NIV reads "... Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood" with a footnote "Or with the blood of his own Son".

Let the translations speak for themselves.

43

Acts 20: 28 Corruption in the NWT

by Sea Breeze in

here's how this verse should read: .

take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the holy ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of god, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

- kjvhere's how it reads in the nwt: pay attention to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the holy spirit has appointed you overseers, to shepherd the congregation of god, which he purchased with the blood of his own son.. here is how it reads in the kjv with the greek keyed to strong's: take heedg4337 thereforeg3767 unto yourselves,g1438 andg2532 to allg3956 theg3588 flock,g4168 overg1722 the whichg3739 theg3588 holyg40 ghostg4151 hath madeg5087 youg5209 overseers,g1985 to feedg4165 theg3588 churchg1577 of god,g2316 whichg3739 he hath purchasedg4046 withg1223 his owng2398 blood.g129 .

Earnest

Sea Breeze : You have shown no evidence [that writings of early church leaders were hopelessly corrupted by the fourth century].

Evidence has been provided on a number of threads, such as this one where we were also discussing Acts 20:28. But any review of the recensions of the Ignatian letters (there were three) should convince you they were hopelessly corrupted by the fourth century. Wikipedia would be a good start (see particularly Reception in Antiquity).

43

Acts 20: 28 Corruption in the NWT

by Sea Breeze in

here's how this verse should read: .

take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the holy ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of god, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

- kjvhere's how it reads in the nwt: pay attention to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the holy spirit has appointed you overseers, to shepherd the congregation of god, which he purchased with the blood of his own son.. here is how it reads in the kjv with the greek keyed to strong's: take heedg4337 thereforeg3767 unto yourselves,g1438 andg2532 to allg3956 theg3588 flock,g4168 overg1722 the whichg3739 theg3588 holyg40 ghostg4151 hath madeg5087 youg5209 overseers,g1985 to feedg4165 theg3588 churchg1577 of god,g2316 whichg3739 he hath purchasedg4046 withg1223 his owng2398 blood.g129 .

Earnest

aqwsed12345 : Because no manuscript supplies υἱοῦ [son], translations that insert “Son” are not rendering a different Greek reading but offering an explanatory gloss.

I can concur with this if we are talking about a literal word-for-word translation of scripture. But one can also translate thought-for-thought, also known as dynamic equivalence, like the NIV [which reads "which he bought with his own blood" footnote "Or with the blood of his own Son"], NLT [which reads "purchased with his own blood" footnote "Or with the blood of his own [Son]"] and NRSV [which reads "that he obtained with the blood of his own Son" footnote "Or with his own blood; Gk with the blood of his Own"]. In this case it is warranted to go beyond word-for-word to complete the sense for a modern English reader.

So if the ancient Greek reader would understand "with the blood of his Own" as referring to "his own Son" then it is legitimate to complete that sense in the translation. If, on the other hand, the ancient Greek reader would understand "with the blood of his Own" as referring to "his own blood" then it is legitimate to translate it in that way. The point is that when there are two ways of translating a passage then it will be translated in the way that it is believed the author intended it.

Interestingly, in the 1984 NWT, which was a a literal word-for-word translation, it read "which he purchased with the blood of his own [Son]" and referred to an appendix for a discussion of the translation.

43

Acts 20: 28 Corruption in the NWT

by Sea Breeze in

here's how this verse should read: .

take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the holy ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of god, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

- kjvhere's how it reads in the nwt: pay attention to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the holy spirit has appointed you overseers, to shepherd the congregation of god, which he purchased with the blood of his own son.. here is how it reads in the kjv with the greek keyed to strong's: take heedg4337 thereforeg3767 unto yourselves,g1438 andg2532 to allg3956 theg3588 flock,g4168 overg1722 the whichg3739 theg3588 holyg40 ghostg4151 hath madeg5087 youg5209 overseers,g1985 to feedg4165 theg3588 churchg1577 of god,g2316 whichg3739 he hath purchasedg4046 withg1223 his owng2398 blood.g129 .

Earnest

Earnest : When one can choose between four textually valid readings ...
Sea Breeze : There are not 4 equally valid readings of this passage.

Whether or not a particular interpretation of a Bible reading is supported does not make it more or less textually valid. Only the underlying text does that, and Philip Comfort (who was a critic of JWs but well-versed in textual criticism) maintains the four textually valid readings.

We have already discussed that writings of early church leaders were hopelessly corrupted by the fourth century and cannot be relied on. If you wish to rely on tradition rather than scripture it is no wonder that you align yourself with Catholicism.

43

Acts 20: 28 Corruption in the NWT

by Sea Breeze in

here's how this verse should read: .

take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the holy ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of god, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

- kjvhere's how it reads in the nwt: pay attention to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the holy spirit has appointed you overseers, to shepherd the congregation of god, which he purchased with the blood of his own son.. here is how it reads in the kjv with the greek keyed to strong's: take heedg4337 thereforeg3767 unto yourselves,g1438 andg2532 to allg3956 theg3588 flock,g4168 overg1722 the whichg3739 theg3588 holyg40 ghostg4151 hath madeg5087 youg5209 overseers,g1985 to feedg4165 theg3588 churchg1577 of god,g2316 whichg3739 he hath purchasedg4046 withg1223 his owng2398 blood.g129 .

Earnest

In Philip Comfort's Commentary on NT Text and Translation he says that the textual evidence allows for four different meanings :

(a) "Take care of the church of God which he [God] purchased with his own blood".

(b) "Take care of the church of God which he [God] purchased with the blood of his own Son".

(c) "Take care of the church of the Lord which he [the Lord] purchased with his own blood".

(d) "Take care of the church of the Lord which he [the Lord] purchased with the blood of his own Son".

In connection with (b), he says that the expression τοῦ ἰδίου ("his own") was also used in Greek papyri to mean "one's own child" (The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament, Moulton & Milligan, 1997, p.298) in the same way as he is called "only-begotten" (John 1:14). Thus, the expression could mean "the blood of his own" (i.e., "the blood of his Son" - see ESVmg). ESV margin reads "Or with the blood of his Own".

When one can choose between four textually valid readings it is absurd to say that anyone choosing (b) is interpretive but if you choose (a) you are not. All translation is interpretive but RSV, NRSV, CEB, CEV, LEB, CJB, GNT, NCV, MRINT (Mounce Reverse Interlinear NT) also chose (b).

One interesting point that Metzger makes regarding the reading ἰδίος αἵματος in many Byzantine witnesses is that "as Lake and Cadbury point out, after the special meaning of "own" [meaning "own child"] had dropped out of Christian usage, the τοῦ ἰδίου ("his own") of this passage was misunderstood as a qualification of αἵματος ("his own blood"). This misunderstanding led to two changes in the text : τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ ἰδίου was changed to τοῦ ἰδίου αἵματος, which is neater but perverts the sense, and θεοῦ [God] was changed to κυρίου [Lord] by the Western revisers.

43

Acts 20: 28 Corruption in the NWT

by Sea Breeze in

here's how this verse should read: .

take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the holy ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of god, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

- kjvhere's how it reads in the nwt: pay attention to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the holy spirit has appointed you overseers, to shepherd the congregation of god, which he purchased with the blood of his own son.. here is how it reads in the kjv with the greek keyed to strong's: take heedg4337 thereforeg3767 unto yourselves,g1438 andg2532 to allg3956 theg3588 flock,g4168 overg1722 the whichg3739 theg3588 holyg40 ghostg4151 hath madeg5087 youg5209 overseers,g1985 to feedg4165 theg3588 churchg1577 of god,g2316 whichg3739 he hath purchasedg4046 withg1223 his owng2398 blood.g129 .

Earnest

Interesting. The expression "church of God" only occurs three times (Acts 20:28; 1 Corinthians 15:9; Galations 1:13) and in each case the expression is "the church of the God" (τὴν ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ θεοῦ). Normally "the God" is used to refer to God the Father only, unless the context is clear it is referring to another god.

Should Acts 20:28 then be understood to refer to the blood of God the Father? I thought that was the heresy of patripassianism but must be mistaken.

84

Zechariah 12:10 Corruption in the NWT

by Sea Breeze in

here's a question for those who still support watchtower on this forum.

why did watchtower leave out the word "me" in zech.

zechariah 12:10 reads like this: .

Earnest

@ aqwsed12345

Let me see if I understand you correctly.

When John writes in John 19:37 "And again, a different scripture says [Zechariah 12:10]: “They will look to the one whom [ὃν] they pierced”, he is not altering the Hebrew of Zechariah 12:10 "because John presupposes that ὃν refers back to the first-person speaker".

But when the NWT translates Zechariah 12:10 in the same way "it corrupts the Hebrew".

I agree with you that John is not altering the Hebrew, and neither is the NWT. Why do I say this? You suggested that the evangelist had before him 8 ḤevXIIgr itself, another scroll of the same recension, or a liturgical extract derived from it when he quoted from Zechariah 12:10. If John wrote his gospel in Ephesus it seems very unlikely he would have had in front of him a scroll that ended up in a cave in the Judean desert. So there must have been at least two copies of this translation of Zechariah. And Origen must have had a copy when he created the Hexapla in Caesarea. In fact, it looks like this was the copy of the Greek scriptures in common use in John's time, doesn't it?

You say about it that it is "the Jewish revision that already matched the Hebrew more closely than the older LXX". I agree. Bynum argues convincingly in his article on John 19:37 "that John’s citation from Zechariah is both accurate and historically reliable. Carefully considering the biblical textual milieu of the era brings to light John’s concern for fidelity to the prominent Hebrew text of his day, and for the correctness of the Septuagint form of the citation." Whether this is a new translation or a revision of an existing translation, it shows that it was used used by Jews at least some of whom could compare them with proto-MT. In other words, these were semi-bilingual Jews who made use of both Greek and Hebrew texts, and required, like those who used Aquila later on, a translation which accorded with the Hebrew text before them. To put it more plainly, the Hebrew text that the translators had available to them reflected the Greek of John 19:37 and not that of the Masoretic Text.

Just one other thing to add while we are talking about 8 ḤevXIIgr. This is a translation into Greek which contains the tetragrammaton multiple times (Jon 4:2; Mic 1:1, 3; Mic 4:4, 5, 7; Mic 5:4, 4; Hab 2:14, 16, 20; Hab 3:9; Zep 1:3, 14; Zep 2:10; Zec 1:3, 3, 4; Zec 3:5, 6, 7). John was using just such a translation when he wrote his gospel. So apart from providing support for the Zechariah 12:10 translation, it also supports the use of God's name in the Greek mss used by the gospel writers.

84

Zechariah 12:10 Corruption in the NWT

by Sea Breeze in

here's a question for those who still support watchtower on this forum.

why did watchtower leave out the word "me" in zech.

zechariah 12:10 reads like this: .

Earnest

aqwsed12345 : Whether the evangelist had 8 ḤevXII gr itself, another scroll of the same recension, or a liturgical extract derived from it is secondary; the textual affiliation is manifest, and the scholarly majority now says so...

We have two early Greek sources for Zechariah 12:10.

The earliest is 8 ḤevXIIgr dated between the 1st century BCE and the 1st century CE. This is fragmentary and reads "κα̣[ὶ ἐπιβλέψονται εἰς ὃ]ν ἐξε̣[κέντησαν]" meaning "an[d they will look to the one wh]om they have [pierced]".

The other is P66 which is dated between the third and fourth century CE. It is a quotation in the gospel of John (19:37) of Zechariah 12:10 and is also fragmentary. It reads "κ]αι πα[λιν ετερ]α γραφη λ[ε]γει [οψονται] εις ον [εξεκ]εντησαν" meaning "A]nd ag[ain anoth]er scripture s[a]ys, [They will look] to the one whom [they p]ierced”.

For the purpose of this thread it does not matter whether John translated Zechariah himself or whether he derived it from an existing Greek translation. What is relevant is that John recognises as inspired a translation of Zechariah which is identical to NWT which reads "and they will look to the one whom they pierced".

The issue raised in this thread is that the NWT corrupted its translation of Zechariah 12:10. Quite clearly that is not so unless you wish to argue that is true of John also.

84

Zechariah 12:10 Corruption in the NWT

by Sea Breeze in

here's a question for those who still support watchtower on this forum.

why did watchtower leave out the word "me" in zech.

zechariah 12:10 reads like this: .

Earnest

aqwsed12345 : In other words, the Gospel preserves the Jewish-Greek wording while drawing the theological conclusion that Arian exegesis must avoid: the ὃν of Zech 12:10 is none other than the enfleshed Logos.

I do not understand why "Arian exegesis must avoid [the theological conclusion]: the ὃν of Zech 12:10 is none other than the enfleshed Logos." That is how John understood it and how the publishers of the NWT understand it. Unless you disagree textually with the way NWT (and multiple other translations) translate John 19:37, your interpretation of its meaning is irrelevant.

aqwsed12345 : Finally, to say that Codex L is “medieval” and therefore irrelevant is to mis-locate the force of manuscript evidence. A ninth- or eighth-century witness that agrees verbatim with a first-century scroll establishes a pre-Christian textual stratum.

I didn't mention codex L, but your conclusion that "a ninth- or eighth-century witness that agrees verbatim with a first-century scroll establishes a pre-Christian textual stratum" is tendentious. They may be related or it may be a coincidence. The fact that 8 ḤevXIIgr is so fragmentary makes it difficult to say "it agrees verbatim" but it would be interesting to apply the Coherence-Based Genealogical Method (CBGM) to this particular codex.

aqwsed12345 : That [pre-Theodotionic] revision is attested in two independent material witnesses: 8 ḤevXII gr (late 1st cent. BCE/early CE) and the later Codex L (8th cent.), whose common reading—καὶ ἐπιβλέψονται εἰς ὃν ἐξεκέντησαν—matches John 19:37...

I could not find Zechariah 12:10 in 8 ḤevXIIgr, or the "common reading" to which you refer. Can you please confirm that this is extant.