mrsoandso-blog-blog - Tumblr blog

mrsoandso-blog-blog · 11 years ago

Text

I think the NA28 got I Jn 5:18 wrong, and here's why.

Don’t know why I haven’t spotted this before, but the NA28 text has changed in I Jn 5:18 from Οἴδαμεν ὅτι πᾶς ὁ γεγεννημένος ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ οὐχ ἁμαρτάνει, ἀλλ᾿ ὁ γεννηθεὶς ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ τηρεῖ αὐτὸν καὶ ὁ πονηρὸς οὐχ ἅπτεται αὐτοῦ. (NA27)

to

Οἴδαμεν ὅτι πᾶς ὁ γεγεννημένος ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ οὐχ ἁμαρτάνει, ἀλλʼ ὁ γεννηθεὶς ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ τηρεῖ ἐαυτόν καὶ ὁ πονηρὸς οὐχ ἅπτεται αὐτοῦ. (NA28)

The big difference is in the reflexive pronoun replacing the personal pronoun in the phrase, “the one who was born of God keeps him/himself”. αὐτὸν changes to ἐαυτόν. This brings the NA text into agreement with Scrivener’s Textus Receptus (and other Byzantinish texts), except for the punctuation.

The interpretation of this verse involves considering who ‘the one who has been born of God’ (ὁ γεγεννημένος) and ‘the one who was born of God’ (ὁ γεννηθεὶς) are. Are they both the born again Christian, or is the ὁ γεννηθεὶς Christ? In John’s writing he often uses the participle of γενναω to refer to the believer, but always in the perfect passive tense (ὁ γεγεννημένος), not aorist (ὁ γεννηθεὶς). Which argues against the reflexive pronoun. So, as far as intrinsic probabilities, NA27 looks more obvious.

Sadly, for such a big change (and one of few made to the entire text), the NA28 offers precious testimonial evidence in the apparatus. Having only “αυτον A* B 1852 latt”. Not even a positive argument for εαυτον. That’s why you keep your old editions. NA27 has for the reflexive pronoun: 01 A(c) P Ψ 33. 1739 Majority; Origen The problem with the witnesses for αυτον, however, is that they can’t all be counted as witnesses for ὁ γεννηθεὶς … αὐτὸν. Both the 1852 as well as latt are testifying to η γεννησις … αυτον, “the birth which is from God keeps him”. This is a completely different reading. The NA28 apparatus notes this difficulty: when citing the witnesses for η γεννησις it recommends the reader compare the witnesses for αυτον.

The witnesses for η γεννησις are too weak to suppose it original. So, many good witnesses for the personal pronoun must go, because they aren’t really witnesses for the personal pronoun, but a different reading. The remaining witnesses seem impressively to favor the reflexive pronoun when a simple head count is done. Even beyond that, the spread of location and age make it a good candidate for original, considering external evidence alone.

But external evidence, though much, is not all. Given that the two participles differ in tense, and the Johannine style in referencing believers as ὁ γεγεννημένος, perfect passive participle, and never with the aorist tense, leaves too much question to simply capitulate to the majority of manuscripts. Further, the context of the verse is the preceding verses 15-17, wherein we are told to pray for those brothers who have sinned (but not sinning the sin unto death) and God will give them life. To further explain that deliverance comes from Christ’s keeping him that has been born of God, in answer to your prayers, jibes better, I think, than changing the subject to suddenly explain that believers don’t sin anyhow because they keep themselves from the evil one.

So the personal pronoun does have Greek manuscript support (and Alexandrinus teamed up with Vaticanus together is nothing to sneeze at), it has Johannine style backing it, it has the natural force of the grammar behind it, and it has the logical flow of the text. I believe ὁ γεννηθεὶς ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ τηρεῖ αὐτὸν remains the best text and most likely original, contrary to the NA28s judgment.

#new testament #textual criticism #NA28 #NA27 #i john #Sanctification

0 notes

mrsoandso-blog-blog · 12 years ago

Quote

But now if a man be so under the power of his lust that he hath nothing but law to oppose it withal, if he cannot fight against it with gospel weapons, but deals with it altogether with hell and judgment, which are the proper arms of the law, it is most evident that sin hath possessed itself of his will and affections to a very great prevalency and conquest. Such a person hath cast off, as to the particular spoken of, the conduct of renewing grace, and is kept from ruin only by restraining grace; and so far is he fallen from grace, and returned under the power of the law. And can it be thought that this is not a great provocation to Christ, that men should cast off his easy, gentle yoke and rule, and cast themselves under the iron yoke of the law, merely out of indulgence unto their lusts? Try thyself by this also: When thou art by sin driven to make a stand, so that thou must either serve it and rush at the command of it into folly, like the horse into the battle, or make head against it to suppress it, what dost thou say to thy soul? what dost thou expostulate with thyself? Is this all, — “Hell will be the end of this course; vengeance will meet with me and find me out?” It is time for thee to look about thee; evil lies at the door. Paul’s main ar- gument to evince that sin shall not have dominion over believers is, that they “are not under the law, but under grace,” Rom. vi. 14. If thy contendings against sin be all on legal accounts, from legal principles and motives, what assurance canst thou attain unto that sin shall not have dominion over thee, which will be thy ruin? Yea, know that this reserve will not long hold out. If thy lust hath driven thee from stronger gospel forts, it will speedily prevail against this also. Do not suppose that such considerations will deliver thee, when thou hast voluntarily given up to thine enemy those helps and means of preservation which have a thousand times their strength. Rest assuredly in this, that unless thou recover thyself with speed from this condition, the thing that thou fearest will come upon thee. What gospel principles do not, legal motives cannot do.

John Owen, Mortification, Chapter 9

0 notes

mrsoandso-blog-blog · 12 years ago

Text

Ehrman is counting on your ignorance.

Ehrman starts off with a baldfaced ad hominem: Only the "rabid fundamentalists" would contradict Ehrman here. Next comes the sophisticated rhetoric of saying "lie", "lier", "lying", etc. as often as English style will allow. Then the claim that euphemizing a lie by calling it "pseudepigrapha" has fooled those stupid fundamentalist Christians, because they will never realize that "pseudepigrapha" means the author lied about his identity. He then plainly lays out his claim: Much of the NT was written under false authority. This isn't a new or strange idea, but the ad populum he employs, telling us that all the good scholars agree with him, isn't entirely convincing to a Christian at his guard. His argument here is that "we all think so" then "you can too". He has more complicated, and even substantial, arguments elsewhere, but at the Huffington Post he doesn't need anything better. He then brings it home to us all: even if you don't believe the bible, there is a sort of powerful sexism found in it that has been fueling the horrible non-egalitarian view of the sexes pushed by the church. Specifically found in I Timothy, where we read, in Ehrman's words that, women are to be "silent, submissive and pregnant." (Another abductio ad absurdum + red herring). No doubt there is something about this passage, perhaps, hard to understand, "which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures." But that doesn't mean Ehrman made a good summary of it.) But Ehrman comes to Paul's rescue to tell us Paul didn't write I Timothy, Mr. I. M. Liar did, and he was just a lying lie-y lieface. The implication he hopes you will get is that if we just treated the bible as a bunch of lies and well intentioned pap, like we should, the world would be a better place. The reasons for believing that many of the NT writings are pseudepigrapha rely on the discipline of Form Criticism, which by it's nature cannot produce hard evidence. Normally it is most usefully checked against the hard evidence of historical accounts and chronicles made by eyewitnesses and second hand witnesses, extant manuscripts and the like. When it runs wild, this happens. Pretty much all of our histories from witnesses and historians who lived closer to that time, had access to accounts from that time or knew people who did, contradict Ehrman and his "best scholars". That's why Walter Baur and the Ehrman-Baur thesis is necessary to support these claims. That thesis turns history on it's head and makes it a thing of imagination more than research. The world is counting on your ignorance, Christian. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bart-d-ehrman/the-bible-telling-lies-to_b_840301.html

#Bart Ehrman #NT #Pseudepigrapha #I Peter #Pauline epistles #Paul's epistles #Early Christianity #Who wrote the bible?

0 notes

mrsoandso-blog-blog · 12 years ago

Text

One With Nature

Swiftly rolling Southward down the freeway; can't see cars only nature and asphalt. Regarding a raptor lighting on a branch touching-down on a tree, making regal figure. Listlessness leaving me, leaning forward with anticipation, Hands go to honk! Let fly that toot! Bird bobs head, royal attitude abdicated, perch preserving, Eye seeking noisy buffoon. Ah! Kin with Kite! Of one feather, it seems! We both seem bird-brained now! He by sight, I by record.

#poetry

1 note · View note

mrsoandso-blog-blog · 12 years ago

Text

A Midwinter Night's Dream

Last night, at about three AM, one of my boys made a thumping noise on his bed. It woke my wife, but not me, I was awakened by my wife's excited voice whispering, "What's that?" In a split second I had a clear feeling of being rushed upward, toward what seemed to be the surface of a great body of water. In my slumber, the noise had appeared to me a great booming, resonating the whole world. I had a distinct cognizance of the fact that this noise, shaking the pillars of the earth, was representing the force of Granville Sharp's Rule throughout history. When I heard it, the images before my dreaming eyes were that of FTL travel.

#Dream #sleep #Granville #Sharp

0 notes