Featured Why I use the NKJV (Part 1)

As I said, it is odd more people do not use the WEB. All of their textual arguments support the WEB.

What I have found is when the NKJV essentially matches a verse in the NASB95, often the NKJV translation is better, more stylish.

 

This is inaccurate. First of all, you are talking about two different Herods. Herod the Great ruled at the beginning of Luke, then Herod Antipas by the time of Luke 4:44. Yes, Herod the Great ruled that whole area, but Herod Antipas did not.

It is clear from Luke 3:1 that by the time of John the Baptist Herod Antipas only ruled Galilee. And where does the NKJV (or the Greek) use Judea as a general term for Herod's area? It doesn't. Luke 2:4, 3:1, 5:17, Acts 9:31, 10:37 all belie your statement that Judea was a blanket term including Galilee.

Furthermore, the parallel passage to Luke 4:44 is Mark 1:39, "And he preached in their synagogues throughout all Galilee, and cast out devils." If we follow the Alexandrian in making Luke 4:44 say "Judea" we have more than just the Synoptic problem, we have an inerrancy problem. Therefore, the Byzantine is correct from both external and internal evidence.

This is a classic example of the critics following the Alexandrian and ignoring all other mss. All of the support for "Judea" is Alexandrian with the exception of f1 (p75 Aleph B C L Q f1 579 892 1241, etc.).

 

The place where I listed in does.

Not at all. That is how Luke used the term. No errors. Luke didn't write Mark, so it would not reflect Luke style. Acts and Luke do. Herod wasn't a real King....so should we can errancy based on the Luke saying he was King????? Herod was a Idulman. Not a King. It was Luke using local terms to describe people and places. Eusebius used Judea to describe the whole area as well in his Church history. Professor or Palestinian geography S.J. Riggs also says it was used as a descriptive term for the whole region .

To call the use of Judea and error, one must also call the use of King an error

Sent from my LGLS990 using Tapatalk

 

I would say it is an example of Byzantine scribes, being separated by time and culture, not knowing the usage of the term. They perceived an error in the ancient text, and changed it to prevent charges of errancy.



Sent from my LGLS990 using Tapatalk

 

You have yet to prove this.

Nope, sorry, Luke did not use the term that way, and I gave you multiple references from his writings to prove that. If you expect to convince anyone you must deal with the references I gave.

You're kidding. Herod wasn't a real king? That's against all historical evidence. (I think you mean Idumean, not Idulman.) Remember that Luke was a Roman, not a Jew. If the Roman government said Herod was a king, he was a king.

The term "Judea" was very flexible in Roman times. Under the Maccabees and then Herod the Great, it included Galilee, but under Herod Antipas (the time of Luke 4:44) it did not.

"Under the Romans, Judah--now more properly 'Judea'--was a rather indefinite term. Herod the Great was named king of Judea, meaning approximately the region included i the Maccabean kingdom at its greatest extent. On the other hand, when Archelaus was named ethnarch of Judea, the region included only Samaria, the pre-Maccabean Juday, and Idumea" (International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, rev., Vol. 2, p. 1150).

Nope, that does not follow for the reasons I gave. Herod was truly a king.

 

Can you prove this? If not, it is simply speculation.

 

Those describe specific locations. My references do not. Did the chief priests per NKJV, really think Galliee was in Judea? That is what they said. Are they wrong? (Acts 10:37). " If you expect to convince anyone you must deal with the references I gave"

.
I did use the wrong term....meant neither. Herod was not king in the sense he ruled a kingdom....even though that term was used. Herod in early gospels was a "ethnarch". He was ruler over the ethnic group of the Jews. I confused him with successor as you noted. Ethnarch would just encourage the use of Judea to be applied to the dwelling of the Jews. From Matthew 2:22 we learn that the were quickly under the ethnarch, not the King. The ruler of the ethnic group.

Other would disagree. D.A. Carson, Wayne Grudem, Thomas Schreiber, Riggs....etc



Sent from my LGLS990 using Tapatalk

 

Of course it is a opinion. I never presented it otherwise. "I would say" *characterizes what follows as a personal opinion or judgment:*From what I know of him I would say he is coming."



Sent from my LGLS990 using Tapatalk

 

Sorry, Acts 10:37 does not mean what you think it means. The statements are parallel, in the sense that the normal Greek phraseology for Galilee being included in Judea would be different. The clause with "beginning" would come first.

Simply because it began in Galilee with John's baptism does not mean that Galilee is included in Judea, where it was later preached.

It's quite easy to list famous authors as being on your side without quoting them. :tongue3:

 

Schreiner/Grudem "Judea is used broadly to describe the land of the Jews rather than to narrowly refer to the Roman Province". 1:5-7 Luke commentary ESV study Bible

David Pao " In this context Luke is focusing on Jesus Galilean ministry, it does not refer to region south of Galiliee and Samaria " They also reference 10:37 and Luke 1 doing the same.- Luke4:44 commentary Zondervan Study Bible. General editor D.A Carson.

Another point....what was the title that Herod the Great went by??? It was "King of Judea". Not King of Judea, Samaria and Galiliee. It was King of Judea. His " kingship" of Judea included Samaria and Galiliee. He was the Roman client King of all 3. Therefore Luke would have been justified in referring to area as "Judea". You know because Judea is also a place naming meaning " Jewish".



Sent from my LGLS990 using Tapatalk

 

Thank you for supplying the quotes. I'm just getting back online after a busy three day weekend.

Here's the thing, though. These men are all strong supporters of the critical Greek text, so naturally they would defend the UBS/Nestle's reading in Luke 4:44. So this is circular reasoning, not proof at all, unless you believe the "appeal to authority" philosophical fallacy is proof. :smilewinkgrin:

It's kind of like going to the Kansai area of Japan and saying, "The Tokyo Giants are a far better team than the Hanshin Tigers." Say that to a Kyoto taxi driver and you'll get kicked out of the taxi. Say it in a ramen shop and you'll be asked to leave (hopefully without violence against your person).

So of course those men are going to defend the UBS reading in Luke 4:44. They have a vested interest in it being right.

I'm pretty sure you're not being deliberately obtuse, but go back and look. I dealt with this in post #28 with a quote from ISBE. There is historical distance between Luke 1:5 and 4:44.

It's like saying "I'm from the South" in the US. Are you referring to the South as being below the Mason Dixon line, as in the states that fought for the South in the Civil War? Or are you from Kentucky, N. Carolina or W. Virginia, all of which historically share the Southern culture?

 

Not an issue. I am buried in reading papers anyway.

...and naturally MT supporters will defend the MT.

Who the ruler was in 1:5 and 4:44 is irrelevant. The geographical area is the same. You stated in post 28 that Judea was "felixible". Under the Maccabees and Herod the Great it would have included Galiliee. There is no reason why this area would not continue to be lumped into the same term to describe the same area, just a few years later.

Exactly. Galiliee was culturally similar to other areas in the Judea blanket. Place of the Jews. So, Luke can refer to them as "Judea", just like Kentucky can say they are from the south based on culture (without leaving the North during the war). Kentucky was not politically part of the south, but they claim to be of the south. Most people outside Kentucky would call it a southern state as well. Not sure how this argument helps your point.



Sent from my LGLS990 using Tapatalk

 

Naturally.

It certainly is relevant. Semantic change is very common and can occur in a very short time, as witness the modern English meaning of "gay". Change from one ruler to another produces semantic change, such as the semantic change to theos when a Roman emperor first claimed deity. (I don't remember which one.)

Added in: Moving back to the US last year after living 33 years in Japan, I've been intrigued by all of the semantic change I've seen. For example, the word "amazing" meant "surprising" when we moved to Japan (as in "Amazing grace, how sweet the sound, that saved a wretch like me). Now it has an additional meaning of "wonderful," overused so much that it is trite, but yet the change is clear. This is about the same time frame as we are talking about with the semantic change in the term "Judea."

You missed my point, which was that "South" is polysemous, having more than one meaning depending on context. Some would include Kentucky, some would not. Likewise, "Judea" had more than one meaning in the first century Roman Empire, depending on historical context.

With Herod the Great the word Judea meant a larger area than with Herod Antipas, as said W. S. Lasor, the unbiased scholar who wrote the ISBE article I quoted said. The fact that Lasor is not a textual critic and therefore has no side to take in the Luke 4:44 discussion gives his view greater weight than scholars like D. A. Carson, who is strongly for the critical text.

 

Thanks for your insight on Luke's using Judea as descriptive of any place where Jews may have resided back in those days.

Another thing that really confused me was the AV's use of "Herod" to describe at least 3 different Herods in the NT. Thankfully some of the Bibles that have come out in more recent years have made a more clear-cut distinction as to which "Herod" the context of the passage is referring.

 

I pointed out a few verses in Luke's writings before showing he considered Galilee and Judea to be separate, but you apparently didn't catch that. So I'll post the verses themselves this time, not just the references.

Lu 3:1--"Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judaea, and Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip tetrarch of Ituraea and of the region of Trachonitis, and Lysanias the tetrarch of Abilene,"

Lu 5:17--"And it came to pass on a certain day, as he was teaching, that there were Pharisees and doctors of the law sitting by, which were come out of every town of Galilee, and Judaea, and Jerusalem: and the power of the Lord was present to heal them."

Ac 9:31--"Then had the churches rest throughout all Judaea and Galilee and Samaria, and were edified; and walking in the fear of the Lord, and in the comfort of the Holy Ghost, were multiplied."

Ac 10:37--"That word, I say, ye know, which was published throughout all Judaea, and began from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached;"

 

Luke wrote his gospel in what, 62 AD. Luke saying that Gennesaret or even the sea of Galiliee was in Galiliee(I know, keep reading) may have caused people in 62 AD to question his knowledge of geography. In 61 AD Nero transferred the Sea of Galilee and all its boarding towns(which include Gennesaret to the Kingdom of Agrippa II. Who was the tetrarch and King of Chalcis. With the sea of Galiliee(and surrounding area) changing hands so frequently, and not even being part of the rest of Galiliee when Luke wrote "Luke", it would make since that he would use Judea " place of the Jews", when describing the area around the sea.

Nazareth was part of traditional Galilee still. Nazareth and Gennesaret/Sea of Galiliee were under different rule when Like wrote his gospel. It would make since he would refer to them differently.

Sent from my LGLS990 using Tapatalk