Another Issue of Leaving Out Verses

[Phillip]

While we were discussing translations that leave out certain verses, I would like to ask another question?

Bluefalcon puts up a good argument that these verses are found in many Greek manuscripts and missing in only a small number.

Whether or NOT the verses were left out or added; how do each of you feel:

Would you rather have the verse left in place with a footnote mentioning that it is not found in all manuscripts, or would you rather the translation just leave it out.

Personally, I would rather the verse be included with a footnote.

I notice that the ESV is bad about simply leaving them out while the NIV, HCSB, NASB, etc. will include the verses with footnotes:

What say each of you?

 

[David J]

Personally I had rather have the verses in with footnotes. To me this is the safest thing to do.

 

[Glory Bound]

It seems it would be clearer to include the verse with footnotes - imagine if someone asked you about the verse and you just had a gap in verse numbers... you'd have to look it up somewhere else to be able to discuss it.

 

[Ziggy]

With apologies to Orwell: Like pigs, not all variants are equal, but some variants are more equal than others. Nor should all variants be in either the main text or footnotes. but only those with translational or exegetical significance that *also* are regarded as having some degree of significant support by differing theoretical advocates.

However, if the evidence is strong and widespread among the manuscripts, versions, and patristic quotations for *including* the variant within the main text, I would want to see that reading *in* the main text, with the footnote indicating accurately that only "some" MSS, versions, or fathers happen to omit such.

On the other hand, if the evidence for a variant is weak and apparently localized within a small region among the manuscripts, versions, and fathers, I would *not* want to see that reading in the main text, but at most only in a footnote, noting that only "some" MSS, versions, or fathers read in such a manner.

I at least remain consistent in my application of this point, BTW.

 

[Phillip]

Ziggy, regardless of the specific number of manuscripts involved and without studying each verse; I am referring to the specific verses that are being left out of some new translations, or are being marked with a footnote that some manuscripts do not have these verses.

I am NOT talking about every variant that is found in other manuscripts that have not been included in mainstream Bibles such as the Geneva and KJV, etc. I am talking about those specific verses being discussed that are either marked or left out of some modern versions.

Verses like the end of Mark, for instance.

I do NOT intend this to include any other verses not already found in historical mainstream Bibles.

...just wanted to make sure that my question was clear.

 

[Bluefalcon]

I agree with Ziggy. If we included all the extra verses in Codex Bezae for Acts, for example, it would be 20% longer! But most of those are singular readings and thus obviously later than the self-propagating MS tradition with the original text. Along the same lines, other likely "original omissions" that should not be in the text of our versions, but may be cited in footnotes, include Lk. 17:36; Ac. 8:37; Ac. 15:34; 1 Jn. 5:7-8; and this is just to be consistent with the evidence. The point is, we don't want to include in our text that which is not original, but we also don't want to exclude from our text that which is original. That which is not original should go in the footnotes. The problem is that different textual theories exist, and thus different conclusions are reached as to what is original and what is not.

Yours,

Bluefalcon

 

[Ed Edwards]

Originally posted by Phillip:
Personally, I would rather the verse be included with a footnote.

I notice that the ESV is bad about simply leaving them out while the NIV, HCSB, NASB, etc. will include the verses with footnotes:

Amen, Brother Phillip -- Preach it!

I think there should be a
footnote even if you include the verse -
if there are sources without the verse
and the translator thinks the Bible
should have the verse. You can say things
like: "some minor mss have this verse missing".

 

[Bluefalcon]

Originally posted by Ed Edwards:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Phillip:
Personally, I would rather the verse be included with a footnote.

I notice that the ESV is bad about simply leaving them out while the NIV, HCSB, NASB, etc. will include the verses with footnotes:

Amen, Brother Phillip -- Preach it!

I think there should be a
footnote even if you include the verse -
if there are sources without the verse
and the translator thinks the Bible
should have the verse. You can say things
like: "some minor mss have this verse missing". </font>[/QUOTE]Amen, Brother Ed Edwards -- Preach it!

I don't think it's wrong to educate people on these facts. It should even eat into false myths and other false notions about the Word of God.

Yours,

Bluefalcon

 

[BruceB]

I prefer the verses to be left in the text as opposed to deleting them; my NASB uses brackets and a note, which works fine for me.