Mat 19:17 and the Word "good"

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Does the GK have reasonable rules as to where and how adjectives are used, before or following a noun? Since the scribes and or translators added a comma in the TR after the word 'teacher,' what affect would that have upon the relationship to the word 'teacher?' Would the word following the comma most likely to modify "teacher, or would it most likely modify something following the inserted comma?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: Matthew 19:16 And kai, behold idou, one eiV came prosercomai and said epw unto him autoV, Good agaqoV Master didaskaloV, what tiV good thing agaqoV shall I do poiew, that ina I may have ecw eternal aiwnioV life zwh?

HP: Here notice the comma inserted not after teacher as in something else you presented (which I thought was the TR) but after Good Master, with the 'Good" PRECEEDING the word "Master." Am I the only one that could imagine a little subjective rewording of the actual TR in the translation of it above? If I am wrong, in that what DHK posted was in fact not the TR, just say so. Identify what it is that was posted. What drives the capitalization of the first word 'Good' in the text above from the TR itself? Did the word 'good' start the sentence in the TR? If not, why did they change it? Is there a rule of GK that would drive such a change?

 

[DHK]

HP: Here notice the comma inserted not after teacher as in something else you presented (which I thought was the TR) but after Good Master, with the 'Good" PRECEEDING the word "Master." Am I the only one that could imagine a little subjective rewording of the actual TR in the translation of it above? If I am wrong, in that what DHK posted was in fact not the TR, just say so. Identify what it is that was posted. What drives the capitalization of the first word 'Good' in the text above from the TR itself? Did the word 'good' start the sentence in the TR? If not, why did they change it? Is there a rule of GK that would drive such a change?

Your are grasping at straws. This is an interlinear. I believe it is Green's interlinear, which if that is the case, is the TR. The translator is translating from the KJV. It is apparent that he is keeping the word order of the Greek as close as possible to the English, and giving the Greek translation of the English which is what an interlinear is. It can be done either way. Look at the translation. It makes sense when read in English. If translated straight from the Greek order it would not make any fluid sense.

 

[The Biblicist]

HP: Here notice the comma inserted not after teacher as in something else you presented (which I thought was the TR) but after Good Master, with the 'Good" PRECEEDING the word "Master." Am I the only one that could imagine a little subjective rewording of the actual TR in the translation of it above? If I am wrong, in that what DHK posted was in fact not the TR, just say so. Identify what it is that was posted. What drives the capitalization of the first word 'Good' in the text above from the TR itself? Did the word 'good' start the sentence in the TR? If not, why did they change it? Is there a rule of GK that would drive such a change?

You are apparently not aware that when an adjective, and "agathe" is an adjective must agree with the noun it modifies in gender, number and case.

In Matthew 19:16 "agathe" agrees with gender, number and case of "didaskale". Here the case would determine the proper punctuation. The case is "vocative" or the case of direct address and so the proper punctuation must follow the term "Master" as "good" modifies master and it is a direct address as in "good Master,"

In modern English it would be like me introducing a letter by "dear HP,". It would be rediculous for me to introduce a letter by "dear, HP"

The vocative demands both terms are used together in a direct address and the direct address is separated from the following question by punctuation (,).

In a direct address it would be rediculous to say "Good, Master". "Good" modifies "Master" and both are in the vocative case and therefore both are part of the direct address just as you would directly address someone at the beginning of a letter, or at the beginning of a conversation before discussing an issue.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings Moriah,

I hope that we can debate together on that topic one day, and I hope Heavenly Pilgrim does not believe like you, in that we do not have a spirit that lives on after the death of our bodies.

My statement was off-topic and mainly meant as a response to HPs title. I am very interested in Genesis 13:14-15, Galatians 3:8,16,26-29 (drummed into me by my Sunday School teacher 50 years ago) and the subject of the mortality of man Genesis 2:7, 3:19. If you want to start a thread on this quoting my previous statement I will try to respond. A warning though, I only visit about once every few days and do not stay on-line. For example, I posted on page 2 and this thread is now page 9. I could not keep up with this, and even now have only downloaded pages 2-9 for reading later tonight when not busy.
Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK, what GK text do you think the KJV is taken from?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Did the word 'good' start the sentence in the TR, (or should I say whatever text the KJV originally used) or did the word 'good' come after the comma inserted?

 

[The Biblicist]

Did the word 'good' start the sentence in the TR, (or should I say whatever text the KJV originally used) or did the word 'good' come after the comma inserted?

The term "good" does not start the verse in the KJV or in the Greek text regardless of what text you choose. It is the first word in the direct address to Christ by the rich young ruler.

There can be no comma after "good" but before "Master" as both are in the vocative case of direct address. The comma must come after "Master" in order to separate the vocative case direct address from the question that follows.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

You got it right and still flunked the exam.:smilewinkgrin:

Talk to you later.

 

[The Biblicist]

You got it right and still flunked the exam.:smilewinkgrin:

Talk to you later.

We will see won't we?

 

[DHK]

DHK, what GK text do you think the KJV is taken from?

It is taken from the TR.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

It is amazing to me the discrepancies and differences of opinions that exist about GK manuscripts. I read where it says the KJV was not based on the TR for the TR did not even come out (if that is the proper words) until several years after the KJV was compiled,translated, or written.

In other places the text by Stephanus is listed as the TR.

 

[The Biblicist]

It is amazing to me the discrepancies and differences of opinions that exist about GK manuscripts. I read where it says the KJV was not based on the TR for the TR did not even come out (if that is the proper words) until several years after the KJV was compiled,translated, or written.

The KJV was based upon previous English Translations (Tyndale 1523, Coverdale 1535, Matthew 1537, Geneva Bible 1560 and Bishops Bible 1568) all of which were improvements upon William Tydale's translation. The King James translators used what later became known as the Textus Receptus or Received Text as the basis in making their original translations. The manuscripts that composed the Textus Receptus had been furnished by the Dutch scholar Desiderous Erasmus who published it in Basel Switerland in 1516 and was the text that Tyndale used for the first English translation. Erasmus's edition was edited later by Robert Stephens in 1546 and then republished by Theodore Beza in 1565. Later in 1624 it was published by two brothers, Bonaventure and Abraham Elzevir in which the second edition in 1633 in the introduction said, "Therefore thou has the text now receiveded by all, which we give nothing altered or corrupted"

It was from this introduction in the 1633 edition originally written in Latin, "Textum ergo habes nunc ab omnibus receptum, in quo nihil immutatum aut corruptum damus" came the words "Textus Receptuus (abbreviated TR), to mean the commonly accept text of the Greek New Testament. This Greek text was the basis of The King James or Authorized Version in 1611 although the name Textus Receptus came later in 1633 from the introduction to the second edition by those two brothers.

I have simply given the overall history leaving out many other details. So for those who know the history in its details it was not my intent to convey other influences upon the development of the Textus Receptus although I am fully aware of such things as the Complutensian Polyglot, etc.

 

[DHK]

It is amazing to me the discrepancies and differences of opinions that exist about GK manuscripts. I read where it says the KJV was not based on the TR for the TR did not even come out (if that is the proper words) until several years after the KJV was compiled,translated, or written.

In other places the text by Stephanus is listed as the TR.

The KJV came from the TR.
Here is a site that gives quite a bit of information that you can look at:

Erasmus used approximately six copies of the Greek Byzantine manuscripts as his source for the new Bible, rejecting copies of the Alexandrian text available in the Roman Catholic Church. The first printing of the new Greek Bible was in February 1516 and contained Greek text parallel to his own Latin version. The work was a huge success and in great demand even though the hurried work left many typographical errors. The second edition was printed in 1519 and the third in 1522. This work became known as the Textus Receptus or Received Text. Erasmus' work came under criticism because of a few small differences not found in a majority of the Greek Byzantine manuscripts. The verse giving a good description of the Trinity (1 John 5:7 in the KJV and NKJV) was inserted in his third edition. However, this was not an addition by Erasmus, because the same text can be found in four of the older Greek manuscripts. Of the Greek manuscripts used by Erasmus only one is said to have contained the book of Revelation but was missing the last page. He is believed to have translated the last six verses from the Latin Vulgate into Greek. Even so, these verses translated today from other Greek manuscripts give the same English rendering. The critics of the Textus Receptus tend to focus on these minor occurrences in the work in order to divert the reader from the real status of the work. The Textus Receptus is the Holy Inspired Word of God.

In the famous Hampton Court Conference, Dr. John Reynolds, a Puritan, requested that King James authorize the printing of a new Bible without the marginal notes. King James agreed. He authorized work to begin on the new Bible in 1604 with a team of fifty-four theologians and scholars, and it was printed in 1611. The Bible was to be a new translation from the Greek. The King James Version of the Bible was prepared from the Textus Receptus as well as many of the other 5,000 Greek manuscripts. It is known as the 1611 Authorized King James Version.

http://www.biblelife.org/word.htm

Notice this was in the early 1500's. Stephanus's edition came in 1550. Beza produced another edition shortly after that. Each edition refined the one before correcting spelling mistakes or printing mistakes.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK, next problem. Are all GK texts entitled TR the same? I would like to find the Stephanus text in a format that I can cut and paste from preferably with a lexicon of the GK words. Any idea as where is a good online source?

 

[DHK]

DHK, next problem. Are all GK texts entitled TR the same? I would like to find the Stephanus text in a format that I can cut and paste from preferably with a lexicon of the GK words. Any idea as where is a good online source?

http://live.e-sword.net/app/

This is one source. Select GNT-TR
You can view e-sword here on-line. If you down-load the program you can download the TR without Strong's numbers. It is a free program.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Thanks DHK. I will give it a try. :thumbs:

 

[billwald]

The reason for this thread is that you all worship a text and the text contains conflicting material. It drive you bjerk.

 

[DHK]

The reason for this thread is that you all worship a text and the text contains conflicting material. It drive you bjerk.

Please provide evidence where anyone worships a text!

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK, I am with you on the TR GK text and KJV. The KJV has been my personal choice for years and I am not going to be easily moved. I will simply put aside my own feelings concerning the GK text in Matt and the discrepancies /variants concerning Matt 19:16-17 for now, despite some lingering clear impressions I might have. I would rather have some questions remain in my own mind for the present than to set the KJV version aside, or disparage that blessed text in any way, that has been the stay of the Church for so many years. I have more faith in the KJV than I do in my own understanding of GK texts, and that is certain!

As for Biblicist, I have to agree with him that Matt, IF that account is one in the same as Luke 18 or Mark 10, (and even to me that does appear at the present to be the case) is indeed the exception to the rule, and as such it is totally reasonable for the translators to word it in like manner as the other two passages state it. Forgive me for saying you flunked the test, even in jest. Aside from some bombshell evidence I have certainly not found thus far, I would believe you are far closer to the truth in light of the GK text than I might have at first given you credit for. Please accept my apology.

I am far from done examining these passages, but for now, it is ""Good Master,..... and "Why callest thou me good, there is none Good but God." :thumbs::godisgood: ..and so is the KJV.