Rev 11:15 hH BASILEIA / hAI BASILEIAI David McKay music at fl.net.au
Sun Sep 5 08:40:53 EDT 1999
Rev 11:15 hH BASILEIA / hAI BASILEIAI Rev 11:15 hH BASILEIA / hAI BASILEIAI I have read that some of the KJV renderings in Revelation come from Latinrather than Greek manuscripts. Does anyone have access to any information onthis?I would be interested to know of a KJV rendering or two which illustratethis.David McKaymuisc at fl.net.au
Rev 11:15 hH BASILEIA / hAI BASILEIAIRev 11:15 hH BASILEIA / hAI BASILEIAI
Rev 11:15 hH BASILEIA / hAI BASILEIAI Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Sun Sep 5 08:52:52 EDT 1999
Rev 11:15 hH BASILEIA / hAI BASILEIAI Matthew 21:29-31 At 8:26 AM -0400 9/5/99, Jim West wrote:>At 07:48 AM 9/5/99 -0700, you wrote:>>The 1550 Textus Receptus apparently has hAI BASILEIAI. My UBS 3rd lists no>>variants that support that reading, and reads hH BASILEIA instead.>>Metzger’s Textual commentary does not discuss the verse, so I assume that>>support for the plural reading is not strong. Does anybody know what that>>support is?> >There is one mss (number 1 in fact)a 12th century text which has the>plural. Small wonder UBS 3 doesnt mention it.Is the fact that only this one has the plural the reason why you say “ONE MSs”?Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics/Washington UniversityOne Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
Rev 11:15 hH BASILEIA / hAI BASILEIAIMatthew 21:29-31
Rev 11:15 hH BASILEIA / hAI BASILEIAI Jonathan Robie jonathan.robie at sagus.com
Sun Sep 5 10:48:02 EDT 1999
A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament Matthew 21:29-31 The 1550 Textus Receptus apparently has hAI BASILEIAI. My UBS 3rd lists no variants that support that reading, and reads hH BASILEIA instead. Metzger’s Textual commentary does not discuss the verse, so I assume that support for the plural reading is not strong. Does anybody know what that support is?Jonathan
A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament Matthew 21:29-31
Rev 11:15 hH BASILEIA / hAI BASILEIAI Jim West jwest at Highland.Net
Sun Sep 5 15:01:43 EDT 1999
Rev 11:15 hH BASILEIA / hAI BASILEIAI Rev 11:15 hH BASILEIA / hAI BASILEIAI At 10:40 PM 9/5/99 +1000, you wrote:>I have read that some of the KJV renderings in Revelation come from Latin>rather than Greek manuscripts. Does anyone have access to any information on>this?in fact erasmus had no copy of rev in greek– so he translated the vulgateinto greek and viola! revelation in greek as the TR has it!best,jim+++++++++++++++++++++++++Jim West, ThDemail- jwest at highland.netweb page- http://web.infoave.net/~jwest
Rev 11:15 hH BASILEIA / hAI BASILEIAIRev 11:15 hH BASILEIA / hAI BASILEIAI
Rev 11:15 hH BASILEIA / hAI BASILEIAI Bill Barton phos at prodigy.net
Sun Sep 5 13:48:05 EDT 1999
English to Greek Excercises? Rev 11:15 hH BASILEIA / hAI BASILEIAI Johnathan Robie wrote:JR>The 1550 Textus Receptus apparently has hAI BASILEIAI. My UBS 3rd listsno variants that support that reading, and reads hH BASILEIA instead. Metzger’s Textual commentary does not discuss the verse, so I assume thatsupport for the plural reading is not strong. Does anybody know what thatsupport is?>Hodges and Farstad (“The Greek New Testament According to the MajorityText,” Nelson 1985) give a citation of TR (Textus Receptus) and Me (thatis, M superscript e) for the plural reading BASILEIAI. They identify Me asfollows: “Md and Me are subgroups of the family of manuscripts associated with thecommentary of Andrew, bishop of Caesarea, in Cappadocia. The life and workof Andrew are usually assigned to the late sixth and early seventhcenturies. This may well be too late, but in any event the text-form whichAndrew used is much older.” (op cit pg. xxxvi)Bill Barton
English to Greek Excercises?Rev 11:15 hH BASILEIA / hAI BASILEIAI
Rev 11:15 hH BASILEIA / hAI BASILEIAI Jim West jwest at highland.net
Sun Sep 5 15:03:24 EDT 1999
Rev 11:15 hH BASILEIA / hAI BASILEIAI Rev 11:15 hH BASILEIA / hAI BASILEIAI At 07:52 AM 9/5/99 -0500, you wrote:>>There is one mss (number 1 in fact)a 12th century text which has the>>plural. Small wonder UBS 3 doesnt mention it.> >Is the fact that only this one has the plural the reason why you say “ONE MSs”?i guess so!!! i must have been carried away in the spirit- writing what idid not know!!! ;-)j.+++++++++++++++++++++++++Jim West, ThDemail- jwest at highland.netweb page- http://web.infoave.net/~jwest
Rev 11:15 hH BASILEIA / hAI BASILEIAIRev 11:15 hH BASILEIA / hAI BASILEIAI
Rev 11:15 hH BASILEIA / hAI BASILEIAI Bob Vincent rbvincent at xc.org
Sun Sep 5 15:20:05 EDT 1999
Rev 11:15 hH BASILEIA / hAI BASILEIAI Rev 11:15 hH BASILEIA / hAI BASILEIAI Jim West <jwest at Highland.Net> wrote:> in fact erasmus had no copy of rev in greek– so he translated the vulgate> into greek and viola! revelation in greek as the TR has it!Dear Jim,Bruce Metzger said:”For the Book of Revelation he had but one manuscript, dating from thetwelfth century, which he had borrowed from his friend Reuchlin.Unfortunately, this manuscript lacked the final leaf, which had containedthe last six verses of the book. For these verses, as well as a few otherpassages throughout the book where the Greek text of the Apocalypse and theadjoining Greek commentary with which the manuscript was supplied are somixed up as to be almost indistinguishable, Erasmus depended on the LatinVulgate, translating this text into Greek. As would be expected from such aprocedure, here and there in Erasmus’ self-made Greek text are readingswhich have never been found in any known Greek manuscript — but which arestill perpetuated today in printings of the so-called Textus Receptus of theGreek New Testament.” [Bruce M. Metzger, _The Text of the New Testament_(Oxford: 1968), pp. 99, 100]Sincerely,Bob”He said that we called ourselves Christians, but we were indifferent to thesufferings of Christians. He said that when we say we are Christians, whatwe mean is that we are white.”Jarvis in Alan Paton’s _Cry, the Beloved Country_Robert Benn Vincent, Sr.Grace Presbyterian Church4900 Jackson StreetAlexandria, Louisiana 71303-2509318.445.7271 church318.443.1034 fax318.445.7905 homerbvincent at xc.orghttp://www4.linknet.net/rbvincent
Rev 11:15 hH BASILEIA / hAI BASILEIAIRev 11:15 hH BASILEIA / hAI BASILEIAI
Rev 11:15 hH BASILEIA / hAI BASILEIAI Edgar Foster questioning1 at yahoo.com
Sun Sep 5 15:23:01 EDT 1999
Rev 11:15 hH BASILEIA / hAI BASILEIAI Rev 11:15 hH BASILEIA / hAI BASILEIAI Hi Jonathan,You might take a look at Aune’s commentary on Revelation. He has thefollowing information that might be able to serve as a springboard foryour research:”Variants: (1) EGENETO hH BASILEIA] Andreas 94 025. (2) EGENONTO hAIBASILEIAI] Andr a b c g h n 598 1773 2019 (3) omit EGENETO] Andr. e.The abbreviation key is also in the front of his commentary.I’m no textual critic, but I thought this might help you some.Edgar===Edgar FosterClassics MajorLenoir-Rhyne Collegehttp://www.egroups.com/list/greektheology/__________________________________________________Do You Yahoo!?Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com
Rev 11:15 hH BASILEIA / hAI BASILEIAIRev 11:15 hH BASILEIA / hAI BASILEIAI
Rev 11:15 hH BASILEIA / hAI BASILEIAI clayton stirling bartholomew c.s.bartholomew at worldnet.att.net
Sun Sep 5 16:24:38 EDT 1999
Rev 11:15 hH BASILEIA / hAI BASILEIAI Rev 11:15 hH BASILEIA / hAI BASILEIAI According to Bruce Metzger Erasmus was missing only the last page (leaf) of his single 12th cent. Greek manuscript for Revelation. The six verseson this leaf he supplied from the Latin Vulgate. Erasmus also used theVulgate to supply his text of Revelation in a few other places (howmany?) where the Greek text was confused because the explanatoryglosses were mixed in with the text. See Metzger, Text of the NT, 2nded. p. 99.–Clayton Stirling BartholomewThree Tree PointP.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062———-J. Robie wrote:>>I have read that some of the KJV renderings in Revelation come from Latin>>rather than Greek manuscripts. Does anyone have access to any information on>>this?Jim West replied:> > in fact erasmus had no copy of rev in greek– so he translated the vulgate> into greek and viola! revelation in greek as the TR has it!> > best,> > jim
Rev 11:15 hH BASILEIA / hAI BASILEIAIRev 11:15 hH BASILEIA / hAI BASILEIAI
Rev 11:15 hH BASILEIA / hAI BASILEIAI Bill Barton phos at prodigy.net
Sun Sep 5 16:36:06 EDT 1999
Rev 11:15 hH BASILEIA / hAI BASILEIAI erasmus and rev. Jim West wrote:JW>in fact erasmus had no copy of rev in greek– so he translated thevulgate into greek and viola! revelation in greek as the TR has it!>Metzger notes the following in “The Text of the New Testament” (Oxford,1992, pp. 99-100):Owing to the haste in production [of Erasmus’ 1516 Greek text], the volumecontains hundreds of typographical errors; in fact, Scrivner once declared,'[It] is in that respect the most faulty book I know.’ 1 Since Erasmuscould not find a manuscript which contained the entire Greek Testament, heutilized several for various parts of the New Testament. For most of thetext he relied on two rather inferior manuscripts from a monsastic libraryat Basle, one of the Gospels (see Plate XV) and one of the Acts andEpistles, both dating from about the twelfth century.2 Erasmus comparedthem with two or three others of the same books and entered occasionalcorrections for the printer in the margins or between the lines of theGreek script.3 For the Book of Revelation he had but one manuscript,dating from the twelfth century, which he had borrowed from his friend,Reuchlin. Unfortunately, this manuscript lacked the final leaf, which hadcontained the last six verses of the book. For these verses, as well as afew other passages throughout the book where the Greek text of theApocalypse and the adjoining Greek commentary with which the manuscript wassupplied are so mixed up as to be almost indistinguishable, Erasmusdepended upon the Latin Vulgate, translating this text into Greek. Aswould be expected from such a procedure, here and there in Erasmus’self-made Greek text are readings which have never been found in any knownGreek manuscript–but which are still perpetuated today in printings of theso-called Textus Receptus of the Greek New Testament.1″”1 For example akathartetos (Rev. xvii.4; there is, however, no such wordin the Greek language as akathartes, meaning ‘uncleanness’); orthrinos(xxii.16); elthe twice, elthetw (xxii.17); summarturoumai gar…epititheipros tauta (xxii.18); aphairei biblou…aphairesei (future for aphelei!!),biblou (second occurrence) xxii.19; humwn (xxii.21).”
Rev 11:15 hH BASILEIA / hAI BASILEIAIerasmus and rev.
Rev 11:15 hH BASILEIA / hAI BASILEIAI Carlton Winbery winberyc at popalex1.linknet.net
Sun Sep 5 17:21:39 EDT 1999
erasmus and rev. 3 questions >At 10:40 PM 9/5/99 +1000, you wrote:>>I have read that some of the KJV renderings in Revelation come from Latin>>rather than Greek manuscripts. Does anyone have access to any information on>>this?> >in fact erasmus had no copy of rev in greek– so he translated the vulgate>into greek and viola! revelation in greek as the TR has it!> Jim, the fact is that Erasmus did have a ms of Revelation, but the last fewverses were missing. These verses are what he translated from Latinintroducing some few readings for which there has not been found a Greekwitness.Dr. Carlton L. WinberyFoggleman Professor of ReligionLouisiana Collegewinbery at andria.lacollege.eduwinberyc at popalex1.linknet.netPh. 1 318 448 6103 hmPh. 1 318 487 7241 off
erasmus and rev.3 questions
Rev 11:15 hH BASILEIA / hAI BASILEIAI LGOberean at aol.com LGOberean at aol.com
Sun Sep 5 18:59:36 EDT 1999
erasmus and rev. Cyclopedia G’day, David ~Rev. 22:19 is perhaps the most famous example of this phenomena of KJV renderings in the Apocalypse that are of Latin (rather than Greek) origin.AFAIRHSEI hO QEOS TO MEROS AUTOU APO TOU BIBLOU THS ZWHS [Erasmus; Stephens, 1550; Elzevir, 1633 (“TR”)]”…God shall take away his part out of the book of life…” (KJV)This Greek text has no manuscript support. It originated with Erasmus. I refer specifically to the word BIBLOU in the phrase quoted above. The reading BIBLOU is Erasmus’ translation of the Latin “libro.” Either the Latin manuscript Erasmus translated from had this reading, or Erasmus mistook “ligno” (tree) for “libro” (book). It of course should read: AFELEI hO QEOS TO MEROS AUTOU APO TOU XULOU THS ZWHS [Griesbach; Lachmann; Tischendorf; Tregelles; Alford; Wordsworth; Westcott-Hort; Scrivener; Nestle (21st Edition); UBS3 (Corrected)] “God will take away his part from the tree of life.”Also, in the beginning of this phrase in the so-called Textus Receptus, AFAIRHSEI lacks MSS support. The reading should be AFELEI, as indicated above.Hope this helps.Larry G. OvertonLGOberean at aol.comIn a message dated 9/5/99 7:38:26 AM Central Daylight Time, music at fl.net.au writes:<< Subj: Re: Rev 11:15 hH BASILEIA / hAI BASILEIAI Date: 9/5/99 7:38:26 AM Central Daylight Time From: music at fl.net.au (David McKay) Reply-to: music at fl.net.au (David McKay) To: at franklin.oit.unc.edu (Biblical Greek) I have read that some of the KJV renderings in Revelation come from Latin rather than Greek manuscripts. Does anyone have access to any information on this? I would be interested to know of a KJV rendering or two which illustrate this. David McKay muisc at fl.net.au >>
erasmus and rev.Cyclopedia
Rev 11:15 hH BASILEIA / hAI BASILEIAI James S. Murray jsmurray at execpc.com
Sun Sep 5 19:17:14 EDT 1999
Cyclopedia 3 questions David McKay wrote:> I have read that some of the KJV renderings in Revelation come from Latin> rather than Greek manuscripts. Does anyone have access to any information on> this?> > I would be interested to know of a KJV rendering or two which illustrate> this.David,As others have mentioned, Erasmus was missing the last 6 verses and thereforetranslated back in to the Greek from Latin.The only example I’m aware of in Revelation is Rev. 22:19, where Erasmus had APOBIBLOU based on the Latin LIBRO instead of APO TOU XULOU. The error occurred when ascribe miscopied LIBRO (book) instead of LIGNO (tree). With both expressions beingused in the the text, it’s easy to see how this might have happened. APO BIBLOU wasin the editions used by the KJV translators.Jim MurrayRacine, WI
Cyclopedia3 questions
Rev 11:15 hH BASILEIA / hAI BASILEIAI Jonathan Robie jwrobie at mindspring.com
Mon Sep 6 14:26:58 EDT 1999
3 questions erasmus and rev. At 02:20 PM 9/5/99 -0500, Bob Vincent wrote:>“For the Book of Revelation he had but one manuscript, dating from the>twelfth century, which he had borrowed from his friend Reuchlin.Has that manuscript been identified? I would love to know which MS it is.Jonathan
3 questionserasmus and rev.
Rev 11:15 hH BASILEIA / hAI BASILEIAI Edward Hobbs EHOBBS at WELLESLEY.EDU
Mon Sep 6 19:39:04 EDT 1999
Rahlfs’ LXX Romans 5:15 Colleagues:Jonahan asks:>“For the Book of Revelation he had but one manuscript, dating from the>twelfth century, which he had borrowed from his friend Reuchlin.Has that manuscript been identified? I would love to know which MS it is.———————–It is cursive 1 (of Revelation, not Gospels, Acts, and Paul),which is now renumbered as 2814. It is the text of Revelation with a commentary on it by Andreas, bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia. (Thecommentary text somtimes mucks up the text of the Apocalypse, forcingErasmus to back-translate words here and there, in addition to 22:16-21which were missing (being the last leaf, frequently falling off bookseven in these modern times).My memory tells me Tregelles collated it soon after it was located by Delitzsch–must have been in the 1870’s.Edward Hobbs
Rahlfs’ LXXRomans 5:15
tell me more about this Gary Micheal Epping RichardAnna Boyce
One can obviously prefer the Majority Text as an overall form witnessed to by the majority of documents, without having to insist that every single original reading must have a majority of the surviving manuscripts in its favor. The overall form of text in the Hodges/Farstad edition is clearly the form found in a majority of the NT documents (except in John 7:53–8:11 and in Revelation where no one “form” of the text is in the majority). In this sense it is not illegitimate to call the Majority Text itself a “texttype.” But it is trans missionally possible that some of theoriginal readings of this “texttype” are not attested in a majority of the extant manuscripts known today. Revelation 11:13 When the seventh angel sounds his trumpet, John explains that loud voices in heaven proclaim that “our Lord” (God the Father) and “His Christ” (God the Son) are now in complete control of the earth. The kingdom (singular in the MT) “of this world has become the kingdom of” God. Obviously this event is being referred to as if it has already taken place (the phrase have become is anticipatory). The actual coronation of Christ will not come to pass until He returns to earth after the seven-year Tribulation is complete, but heaven is already singing about it and viewing it as accomplished. Once He is crowned as king, Christ will “reign forever and ever!” “And of His kingdom there will be no end” (Luke 1:33).
naah RichardAnna Boyce Majority Text is not even scholarly enough
The KJV and the NKJV translate the Textus Receptus (TR), which in most cases reflects the reading of the majority of outstanding Greek manuscripts. The other five translations translate what is called the Critical Text (CT). Though there are thousands of manuscripts for most books of the NT, the NIV, NASB, NET, HCSB, and ESV essentially translate three manuscripts (or only two if these three do not agree). In their view these three early manuscripts (Aleph, A, and B) were nearly perfect manuscripts and thus when they agree, that is the correct reading even if a thousand or more manuscripts contradict that reading.
Here are a few examples of where this impacts Free Grace theology in some way:
John 6:47. “He who believes in Me has everlasting life” (MT) versus “He who believes has everlasting life” (CT).
2 John 8. “Look to yourselves, that we do not lose those things we worked for, but that we may receive a full reward” (MT) versus “ Watch yourselves, that you do not lose what we have accomplished , but that you may receive a full reward” (CT, though the NIV reads you in all three places).
Rev 22:19. “If anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Tree of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book” (MT, CR) versus “If anyone takes away…God shall take away his part from the Book of Life…” (TR). [This is a major example of the TR varying from the MT.]
John 7:53-8:11. The account of the woman caught in adultery is bracketed by the NIV, NASB, ESV, HCSB, and NET, indicating those versions all believe this testing of Jesus is not Scripture at all. The KJV and NKJV both consider this Scripture.
Mark 16:9-20. The ending of Mark’s Gospel is not considered Scripture in the NIV, NASB, ESV, HCSB, and the NET Bible. The KJV and NKJV consider this Scripture.
I (Bob Wilkin – Free Grace) evaluate seven major translations in terms of how they handle passages of special interest to the Grace message. Those seven are the NIV, NASB, NET Bible, HCSB, ESV, KJV, and NKJV.
Before I discuss each, I think it is important to explain the difference between the Greek texts that five of these translations utilize versus the other two.
Critical Text Versus Majority Text Translations
Of the seven, only the KJV and the NKJV are translating what is often called the Majority Text (MT) of the NT. For example, in 1 John 4:19 the KJV and NKJV include the word Him after “we love,” but the other five translations do not. The options are: “We love Him because He first loved us” versus “We love because He first loved us.” The issue here is not translation style. The issue is the Greek manuscripts that they choose to translate.
The KJV and the NKJV translate the Textus Receptus (TR), which in most cases reflects the reading of the majority of outstanding Greek manuscripts. The other five translations translate what is called the Critical Text (CT). Though there are thousands of manuscripts for most books of the NT, the NIV, NASB, NET, HCSB, and ESV essentially translate three manuscripts (or only two if these three do not agree). In their view these three early manuscripts (Aleph, A, and B) were nearly perfect manuscripts and thus when they agree, that is the correct reading even if a thousand or more manuscripts contradict that reading.
Here are a few examples of where this impacts Free Grace theology in some way:
John 6:47. “He who believes in Me has everlasting life” (MT) versus “He who believes has everlasting life” (CT).
2 John 8. “Look to yourselves, that we do not lose those things we worked for, but that we may receive a full reward” (MT) versus “ Watch yourselves, that you do not lose what we have accomplished , but that you may receive a full reward” (CT, though the NIV reads you in all three places).
Rev 22:19. “If anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Tree of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book” (MT, CR) versus “If anyone takes away…God shall take away his part from the Book of Life…” (TR). [This is a major example of the TR varying from the MT.]
John 7:53-8:11. The account of the woman caught in adultery is bracketed by the NIV, NASB, ESV, HCSB, and NET, indicating those versions all believe this testing of Jesus is not Scripture at all. The KJV and NKJV both consider this Scripture.
Mark 16:9-20. The ending of Mark’s Gospel is not considered Scripture in the NIV, NASB, ESV, HCSB, and the NET Bible. The KJV and NKJV consider this Scripture.
Can Faith Save Him? James 2:14
Note how our seven translations handle this verse, and especially pay attention to the different ways they translate the last part of it, i.e., the question dealing with the connection between faith and salvation/deliverance. I have italicized key differences.
KJV: “What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? Can faith save him?”
NKJV: “What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him?”
NASB: “What use is it, my brethren, if a man says he has faith, but has no works? Can that faith save him?”
NIV: “What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him?”
NET: “What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but does not have works? Can this kind of faith save him?”
HCSB: “What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can his faith save him?”
ESV “What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him?”
The NIV, NASB, NET, and ESV qualify faith the second time it appears in the verse with words which question the validity of the faith: “such faith,” “that faith,” “this kind of faith,” or “that faith,” respectively. The KJV and NKJV do not supply the qualifiers. Though the HCSB has a qualifier (“his faith”), there is nothing in the qualifier that questions the faith.
The Greek merely refers to “the faith” (hē pistis). The definite article is also used with pistis in the nominative case in vv 17, 20, 22, and 26. Yet in none of these other places do the NIV, NASB, NET, or ESV translate the expression as that faith, such faith, or this kind of faith. The translators are making an interpretive decision for the readers here. The KJV, NKJV, and the HCSB more accurately represent the Greek, with no pejorative description of the faith in question.
In addition, the NIV and NET also seem to be interpreting for the reader when it translates ean… legē tis (literally “if someone says”) as “if a man claims” or “if someone claims.” Yet this destroys the verbal tie here with v 12. There the same verb, legō, is used and clearly it refers to speaking, not claiming. Note even the NIV and NET translations of v 12: “Speak and act as those who are going to [or will] be judged by the [or a] law that gives freedom.”
The issue in Jas 1:21–2:26 is that we are to be doers and not merely speakers. We find the same thing in 1 John 3:16-18. The issue in v 12 is saying versus doing, not claiming versus doing. Claiming has a pejorative tone. Why wasn’t v 12 translated that way then: “Claim and act as those who are going to be judged…”? The reason is obvious. That isn’t the point in v 12. The other five translations (KJV, NKJV, NASB, HCSB, ESV) correctly translated ean…legē tis.
The Free Grace person using the NIV or NET is doubly handicapped on this verse. The NASB and ESV users are also handicapped, but not quite as much. The KJV, NKJV, and HCSB are friendly to the Free Grace position in this verse since their translation does not try to interpret the verse for the readers.
This passage serves to illustrate how translators sometimes find it difficult to set aside their theological convictions when translating. If the goal were simply to convey what the original language says as clearly as possible in English, then they would not resort to this sort of interpretive rendering of the text.
A Critical Examination of Seven Bible Translations (Part 1)
January 1, 2015 by Bob Wilkin in Grace in Focus
Anyone Named Brother: 1 Corinthians 5:11
The key question here is how the various translations handle the Greek words tis adelphos onomazomenos.
KJV: “But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater…”
NKJV: “But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater…”
ESV: “But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater…”
NASB: “But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he should be an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater…”
NIV: “But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, or an idolater…”
NET: “But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who calls himself a Christian who is sexually immoral, or greedy, or an idolater…”
HCSB: “But now I am writing you not to associate with anyone who claims to be a believer who is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater…”
In this passage Paul is telling the believers in the church of Corinth that they are to judge those who are inside, not those outside, the church (vv 10, 12). If one believes those inside the church are believers, then Paul is telling the believers in Corinth to separate from immoral or covetous or idolatrous believers in the church. If, however, one believes that those inside the church includes both believers and unbelievers [or false professors], then Paul is telling the believers in Corinth to separate from immoral or covetous or idolatrous unbelievers in the church.
If the job of the translator is to translate and not interpret, the translator should seek to make his translation of this passage as vague as the original. In this case the first two translations, the KJV and NKJV, fit the bill. A Greek participle, onomazomenos, has a literal meaning of “anyone bearing the name.” The NKJV and ESV get it just right and the KJV is close. The other four, the NASB, NIV, HCSB, and NET all interpret this phrase for the reader rather than translate it.
There is nothing in the Greek that suggests translations such as “any so-called brother,” “anyone who calls himself a brother,” “anyone who calls himself a Christian,” or “anyone who claims to be a believer.” The words themselves and the context strongly suggest that a genuine believer is in view (compare vv 10 and 12). There is also nothing in the text about what the person calls himself. The Greek verb to call is not found in this verse. Nor is the word himself. Nor are the words Christian or believer. All these things are artificially placed there.
The last four translations reflect an interpretive bias which springs out of Reformed theology. If there is no such thing as a believer who is immoral or covetous or an idolater, then Paul isn’t warning about believers here. But note well that even if I was convinced this passage was warning about false professors, I still would translate it “anyone who bears the name brother” or “anyone named brother.” The reason is because it is not the job of a translator to explain what the text means. It is his job to give the best possible translation and leave the interpretation to the reader.
Conclusion to Part 1
In terms of which translation of the New Testament best handles the actual text that God gave us, I have argued that the KJV and NKJV stand out since they alone follow the Majority Text.
In terms of the two test verses we considered, four of the seven proved best. In terms of the translation of Jas 2:14, the KJV, NKJV, and the HCSB were best. For 1 Cor 5:11 the best three were the KJV, NKJV, and the ESV.
All of the seven translations considered are well done and can be used profitably by believers. However, some of those translations interpret, rather than translate, upon occasion, and sometimes when they do they introduce interpretations that are antithetical to the Free Grace position. The reader should be aware of this, regardless of which translation he uses.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/18/us/earthquake-salt-lake-temple-moroni/index.html