Adding to Scripture?

[Van]

Mark 9:23 NASB
But Jesus said to him, “‘If You can’? All things are possible for the one who believes.”

Mark 9:23 NKJV
Jesus said to him, “If you can believe,[fn] all things are possible to him who believes.”
_______________
Footnote: CT does not include "believe"

Here we have two very different verses, both of which seem to add to scripture.

In the NKJV, Jesus is asking whether the human can believe. But in the NASB, Jesus is ridiculing the human for asking whether Jesus can help his son.

But this thread is not asserting the CT is superior to the TR in this verse. Obviously the context indicates the man had questioned whether Jesus could do something.

No, the issue in this verse is whether it was intended to convey "All things are Possible," or "Anything is Possible" or "Everything is Possible?" I say NO, and almost every English translation has added to this scripture beyond what it was intended to convey.

If we have the faith like a mustard seed, we can move mountains. A mustard seed is quite small, yet we are NOT to be of little faith. We are to have a faith like Abraham's, who was willing to slay his son because he literally believed the promises of God. He lived his life not according to the possibility God would keep His promises, but with the certainty God would keep His promises. Quite a difference.

When we see "all" (Greek Pas) in the text, we must ask all of what and search the context for the answer. All blessings are possible for those with credited as righteousness faith. Here the blessing of having the demon removed is in view, so there is no reason to expand the scope beyond the context.

 

[Deacon]

These two attitudes—radical skepticism and absolute certainty—must be avoided when we examine the New Testament text. We do not have now—in our critical Greek texts or any translations—exactly what the authors of the New Testament wrote. Even if we did, we would not know it. There are many, many places in which the text of the New Testament is uncertain. But we also do not need to be overly skeptical. Where we should land between these two extremes is what this book addresses.

The new generation of evangelical scholars is far more comfortable with ambiguity and uncertainty than previous generations. They know the difference between core beliefs and those that are more peripheral. They recognize that even if we embrace the concept of absolute truth, absolute certainty about it is a different matter.

One word kept coming to mind as I read this book: nuance. The authors understand what is essential and of vital significance in the Christian faith and what is more peripheral. As Stephen Neill argued over fifty years ago and Peter Gurry affirms in this book, “The very worst Greek manuscript now in existence … contains enough of the Gospel in unadulterated form to lead the reader into the way of salvation.”
Wallace, Daniel B. 2019. “Foreword.” In Myths and Mistakes in New Testament Textual Criticism, edited by Elijah Hixson and Peter J. Gurry, xii. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic: An Imprint of InterVarsity Press.

 

[37818]

Proverbs 30:5-6,Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

 

[Van]

These two attitudes—radical skepticism and absolute certainty—must be avoided when we examine the New Testament text. We do not have now—in our critical Greek texts or any translations—exactly what the authors of the New Testament wrote. Even if we did, we would not know it. There are many, many places in which the text of the New Testament is uncertain. But we also do not need to be overly skeptical. Where we should land between these two extremes is what this book addresses.

The new generation of evangelical scholars is far more comfortable with ambiguity and uncertainty than previous generations. They know the difference between core beliefs and those that are more peripheral. They recognize that even if we embrace the concept of absolute truth, absolute certainty about it is a different matter.

One word kept coming to mind as I read this book: nuance. The authors understand what is essential and of vital significance in the Christian faith and what is more peripheral. As Stephen Neill argued over fifty years ago and Peter Gurry affirms in this book, “The very worst Greek manuscript now in existence … contains enough of the Gospel in unadulterated form to lead the reader into the way of salvation.”
Wallace, Daniel B. 2019. “Foreword.” In Myths and Mistakes in New Testament Textual Criticism, edited by Elijah Hixson and Peter J. Gurry, xii. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic: An Imprint of InterVarsity Press.

I do not think we need to brand our determination of the most likely meaning as absolute certainly.

I am frequently concerned that many translation choices are driven not by context, but by tradition.

I am not overly concerned with the mistaken views brought in general by this or that Greek text, but do want to reach a consensus about this or that specific verse under study.

For example the tradition of translating "all" with no answer to "all of what" with "all things" systematically "adds" to scripture. But I do not recall anyone agreeing with that assessment.

I disagree with those "more comfortable" with ambiguity than with "most likely contextual choice."
We should speak plainly, clearly and boldly.