1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

1 John 2:23

Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by Ed Edwards, May 27, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Top Posters
  1. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Bible Versions/Translations Forum
    new topic:
    1 John 2:23

    1Jo 2:23 (Geneva Bible, 1587):
    Whosoeuer denyeth the Sonne, the same hath not the Father.

    1Jo 2:23 (KJV1611 Edition):
    Whosoeuer denieth the Sonne, the same hath not the Father:
    but he that acknowledgeth the Sonne, hath the Father also.

    Italics are in the paper KJV1611 Edition for:
    but he that acknowledgeth the Son, hath the Father also

    Italics are NOT in my paper KJV1769 Edition.
    Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.

    Italics are in my paper KJV1873 Edition and brackets around 'but'
    and for good sport the comma doesn't follow 'Son':
    {but} he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also

    What dynamic is going on here?
     
    #1 Ed Edwards, May 27, 2006
  2. DesiderioDomini

    DesiderioDomini New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2005
    Messages:
    836
    Likes Received:
    0
    I understand there are alot of things taken out of current KJV's. I wonder exactly what is the purpose for hiding the translation margin notes, the preface, the italics, or anything else from the original translators?
     
    #2 DesiderioDomini, May 27, 2006
  3. IveyLeaguer

    IveyLeaguer New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2004
    Messages:
    666
    Likes Received:
    0
    Not sure about the dynamic, Brother Ed, but the NASB puts it very well, IMHO:
     
    #3 IveyLeaguer, May 27, 2006
  4. Bluefalcon

    Bluefalcon Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2004
    Messages:
    957
    Likes Received:
    15
    This is a pious expansion by the Alexandrians in addition to a small minority of the Byzantines. The overwhelming consensus omits the words mentioned in italics above.
     
    #4 Bluefalcon, May 27, 2006
  5. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    30,389
    Likes Received:
    551
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.

    Scofield (1769 Oxford)

    I've checked it out and haven't found that extra phrase in any Greek text I have. But the translators were honest in using italics.
     
    #5 Dr. Bob, May 27, 2006
  6. TCassidy

    TCassidy Late-Administator Emeritus
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    20,080
    Likes Received:
    3,491
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Really? You must have overlooked both UBS3 and 4 and NA23, 24, 25, 26, and 27! They reflect that the phrase is found in Aleph, A, B, C, P, Phi, 33, 323, 614, 630, 945, 1241, 1505, and 1739. UBS2 considers it so certain that it does not even bother to mention that it is missing from the Byzantine textform. [​IMG]

    But I agree with Bluefalcon. The reading represents an expansion of the true text by the Alexandrian copyists. [​IMG]
     
    #6 TCassidy, May 27, 2006
  7. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    30,389
    Likes Received:
    551
    Faith:
    Baptist
    My blended texts are older than dirt, eh?

    Why the italics, then in my AV? Did the AV translators not have the Greek documents that included it?

    Serious. If they DID have one or more supporting texts, why put it in italics as if added by them?

    And another question - what other non-Byzantine phrases that are found in Aleph et al, were included in the AV "in italics"? Working on a theory here . . .
     
    #7 Dr. Bob, May 27, 2006
  8. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    6,602
    Likes Received:
    464
    Faith:
    Baptist
    At 1 John 2:23, the 1539 Great Bible was perhaps the first English Bible to add in parenthesis and perhaps in a different size font the words (he that knowledgeth the sonne, hath the father also).
    It may be one of the several additions in the Great Bible from the Latin Vulgate. The Great Bible did not use italics. This addition was also found in the 1568 Bishops' Bible and there it was in italics (But he that knowledgeth the Sonne, hath the Father also).

    The 1611 KJV could have kept these words in italics from the Bishops' Bible.

    So far as I know, the first KJV edition to drop the brackets and italics in the latter clause of 1 John 2:23 was the 1852 new standard KJV folio edition of the American Bible Society.
     
    #8 Logos1560, May 27, 2006
  9. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Bible Versions/Translations
    1 John 2:23

    THE JOURNEY FROM TEXTS TO TRANSLATIONS,
    The Origin and Development of the Bible, by Paul D. Wegner
    (Baker Academic, 1999, ISBN 0-8010-2169-3) page 225
    used 1 John 2:23 as an example of:

    "8. Homoioteleuton
    An omission caused by two words or phrases that
    end similarly."

    The repeated phrase is the Greek for 'has the Father'.
    So this theory would explain why the earlier witnesses
    have the longer version and the later witnesses the shorter
    version.
     
    #9 Ed Edwards, May 29, 2006
  10. TCassidy

    TCassidy Late-Administator Emeritus
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    20,080
    Likes Received:
    3,491
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The reason it is in italics in the KJV is that it is not in the TR as the only textform containing the reading is Alexandrian and the TR is, for the most part, more Byzantine. :)

    There are a few readings that made their way into the TR from the Alexandrian textform (much to the chagrin of the KJVOs).
     
    #10 TCassidy, May 29, 2006
  11. Deacon

    Deacon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    9,760
    Likes Received:
    1,337
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Would they have snuck in by way of the Vulgate?

    Rob
     
    #11 Deacon, May 29, 2006
  12. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    6,602
    Likes Received:
    464
    Faith:
    Baptist
    KJV defender Edward F. Hills wrote: "at 1 John 2:23 the King James translators followed the Great Bible and the Bishops' Bible in adding the clause, he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also" (Believing Bible Study, p. 207).

    Hills noted that the clause "is found in the Latin Vulgate and in
    Aleph and B" (p. 207).
     
    #12 Logos1560, May 29, 2006
  13. John of Japan

    John of Japan Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    19,633
    Likes Received:
    1,832
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Vulgate:
    Omnis qui negat Filium nec Patrem habet qui confitetur Filium et Patrem habet.

    Translation: All who deny the Son do not have the Father. Whoever confesses the Son also has the Father.
     
    #13 John of Japan, May 29, 2006
  14. mima

    mima New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2006
    Messages:
    395
    Likes Received:
    0
    Does this mean

    Hello John of Japan:
    Does this scripture mean that all non-messianic Jews are lost?? Does this mean that all Moslems are lost? Does this mean for example that all Jehovah witnesses are lost? In short, does this scripture mean that all who say they have the Father and then deny the Son, in fact have neither the Father nor Son?????????
     
    #14 mima, May 30, 2006
  15. robycop3

    robycop3 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    14,396
    Likes Received:
    672
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Please read & consider the Scripture carefully, from whatever version(s) you use. Does it say anything differently? We are under the New Covenant, and other Scriptures say the ONLY way to become "right" with The father is through The Son.

    Without The Son (JESUS) we would be lost.
     
    #15 robycop3, May 30, 2006
  16. HankD

    HankD Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    26,977
    Likes Received:
    2,537
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Yes, however, what is meant in this passage by the word "deny" and what Peter did when the rooster let forth his crow?

    It must surely mean a settled and intelligent denial and not one made out of fear.


    HankD
     
    #16 HankD, May 30, 2006
  17. william s. correa

    william s. correa New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2006
    Messages:
    677
    Likes Received:
    0
    Every Toungue will confess But only the Saved will Acknowledge the Son!
     
    #17 william s. correa, Jun 2, 2006
  18. John of Japan

    John of Japan Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    19,633
    Likes Received:
    1,832
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Hi, mima. Sorry I missed seeing this. I didn't mean to ignore you.

    Yes, it does mean that all who deny Jesus Christ are lost: non-Messianic Jews, Moslems, JW's, etc. I would be happy to debate you on this if you would start a thread to that effect. :Fish:
     
    #18 John of Japan, Jun 5, 2006
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...