Roman Catholic influence in Modern Versions?

The Roman Catholic heresy of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, gains support in almost all the Modern Veriosns of the New Testament.

The text in question is, Matthew 1:25, where the good old King James Version has it:

"and knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn Son; and he called His Name Jesus"

The leading MV, the New International Version has it here: (also as the RV, RSV, NASB, HCSB, ESV, ASV, NLV, etc)

"But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave Him the Name Jesus"

What indeed happened to "ton prototokon" (the firstborn)?

Interesting that the Codex Vaticanus omits this, along with the Sinaiticus.

The reading as given in the KJV, predates the two mentioned Greek Codices by about 200 years, as it is found in the Diatessaron of Tatian (about A.D.170). It is also attested for by both Greek (Didymus, Chrysostom, etc)and Latin (Jerome, Augustine) Church fathers. As well as the second century Old Latin version, the Latin Vulgate, the Old Syrian, etc.

Dr Philip Schaff, writing in Dr J P Lange's Commentary on Matthew, said this of the omission:

"the omission may also be easily explained from superstitious veneration of the Blessed Virgin, as necesarily implying her perpetual virginity, which the term 'firstborn' seemed to disapprove" (p.52)

There can be no doubt that the evidence for its omissions, was not based on the weight of ancient authorities. This is another example which clearly shows the inferior textual basis of the MV's

 

Hi C4K

The problem lies in the meaning of "ginosko", which does have the meaning "to know someone carnally", and is how we would take it here. However, it can also be argued successfully from the usage of the Greek word, that its meaning does not have to be taken as it is by most versions. From the time of Homer "ginosko" was also used for "to make the acquanitance of (a person)" (Odyssey, 411), which could be the meaning adopted here by anyone wishing to argue fot the "perpetual virginity" of Mary.

By including "ton prototokon", Matthew ensures that no such meaning can be found in this passage, since this teaches, not implies, that Jesus was Mary's first child to be born, and that she would have therefore had other after this time.

 

</font>[/QUOTE]Hi Nate, If you are going to qoute Greek grammar to me, it would help if you knew something about what you write.

Your understanding of the tenses in Greek is faulty. You have the completely wrong handle on the imperfect tense. Did you know that in John 1:1, for example, that "was" (en) in the Greek is in the imperfect tense? Does this mean that "the Word" is no longer "God"?, or even "with God"? You quote A T Robertson, but have not heard what he says: "the imperfect draws the picture. It helps you to see the course of the act. It passes before the eye the flowing stream of history...The aorist lifts the curtain and the imperfect continues the play" (Greek Grammar, pp.883,838). This is what Robertson says in the quote you have from him, "Note the imperfect tense, continuous or linear action". Or, as we see in Dana and Mantey's, A Manual Grammar of the Greek NT, "the imperfect denotes an incomplete action, one that is in its course, and it not yet brought to its intended accomplishment. But excludes the assertion that the end of the action was attained" (p.187)

The use or misuse of "ginosko" in our passage is in no way affected by the tnese being imperfect. While it may not be used by most to refer to "acquaintance", yet this is a real possibility, which cannot be discounted by the use of the word itself. In other words, it is not 100% conclusive from the meaning of the word, that "sexual relations" are in the mind of Matthew. The added "firstborn" makes any other understaning of the words of Matthew here, thnn "sexual relations", not a possibility. As for Robertsons rejection of "firstborn" here, makes no difference. He was a brilliant Greek scholar, but not a textual critic.

 

Hi C4K

The problem lies in the meaning of "ginosko", which does have the meaning "to know someone carnally", and is how we would take it here. However, it can also be argued successfully from the usage of the Greek word, that its meaning does not have to be taken as it is by most versions. From the time of Homer "ginosko" was also used for "to make the acquanitance of (a person)" (Odyssey, 411), which could be the meaning adopted here by anyone wishing to argue fot the "perpetual virginity" of Mary.

By including "ton prototokon", Matthew ensures that no such meaning can be found in this passage, since this teaches, not implies, that Jesus was Mary's first child to be born, and that she would have therefore had other after this time. </font>[/QUOTE]I understand the scriptural reasoning. I also understand the Greek meanings, but this translation about "no union with her until in and of itself makes it clear that union took place after the birth of Christ. The English tranlsation does not, in my mind, support perpetual virginity. There may be an underlying textual problem - but that is not obvious in the translation. </font>[/QUOTE]Hi, but you have to understand, that the "union" here spoken off does not necessary have to mean "sexual union". It could just as well refer to the Joseph marrying Mary. We read in Luke 2:5, where Mary is referred to as Joseph's "espoused wife", which is clear that they did not marry till after the birth of Jesus. My argument is, that with the removal of "firstborn" from this text, the language as it stands does not with certainity show that Mary had other Children after the birth of Jesus. It is no small matter that I believe the enemy saw ot it that "firstborn" was removed.

Likewise, in Luke 2:33, the reading "and Joseph and His mother", has been changed to, "and His father and mother". And, verse 43, "and Joseph and His mother", to, "and his parents". The readings of the KJV are very clear, and preserve the fact that Joseph was not the actual father of Jesus. The change indeed weakens this. We have here two more texts where the relationship of Joseph to Jesus could be misunderstood. Why the change in the first place, see that the textual evidence for the KJV readings is far greater? The enemy is always on the attack on the Person of Jesus Christ, and will use all available means to do just that, even if it means using the MV's.

 

Not so. Its simple facts that we of the KJV seem to have a better handle on textual criticism that those who support the MV's. The changes that the MV's have, and which are ignored by many on this board, and clearly the work of the enemy, are very important on doctrinal matters. And, when it comes to these important doctrine texts, those who support the TR and KJV, are confident that the reading that we have are without doubt superior. This is because God in His providence saw to it that the text of the KJV was preserved. Though it is by mo means perfect, yet no MV can be compared with it as to its superior text. I have posted a few times here, the views of those like Metzger, Aland, Nestle, Black, etc, on the Authority of Scripture, where they are clearly very liberal, and yet this has been ignored by most on this board. It seem to me, that what someone believes on the Infallibility, Inerranec and Authority of Scripture, does not mean much these days. This is the same problem the Church had in the days of the Revised Version, where the Committee were content in having a Unitarian on the board! Likewise, the RSV had men who rejected the Virgin Birth, Inerrancy and Infallibility of Scripture, etc. If this is not the work of the devil, then what is it?

Versions that use the USB, N-A, W&H texts for these basis, do so with a disregard for the KJV, as they are deceived into believing that the earlier Greek manuscripts have to be better. A notion that shows the standard of modern scholarship.

 

Nate, No, you are wrong in your defination of the imperfect in the indicative. I have already shown that this is exactly what John writes in 1:1 of his Goepel, "...was (en) the Word, and the Word was (en) with God, and the Word was (en) God. Here "en" is in the 3rd person, singular, imperfect, indicative. Surely you are not saying that "the Word" is no longer with God the Father, or that He is no longer God Himself?

Daniel Wallace in not correct in what he says on the imperfect tense.If indeed this is what he only says. I showed Dana and Mantey, who quote Dr Donaldson on the imperfect tense, where he says, "the imperfect denotes an incomplete action, one that is in its course, and it not yet brought to its intended accomplishment. But excludes the assertion that the end of the action was attained" (p.187)

Also, Dr E De Witt Burton;

"The Imperfect Indicative...The statement respecting the translation of the Progressive Present (cf.10), applies to the Imperfect also. Notice the third example above (John 11.36, "behold how he loved him"), and see also Luke 2:51, 'his mother kept (dieterei) all these things in her heart'; in Luke 24:32, A.V., 'did not our heart burn within us', is better than R.V., 'was not our heart burning within us'. Though the verb is a periphrastic Imperfect, kaiomene en, the English form 'did burn' sufficiently suggests action in progress to render it adequately" (Syntax of the Mood and Tenses in New Testament Greek, p.12)

 

As I have already said. It is quite possible, without the further qualification of "firstborn", to take the words to refer to the time when Joseph actually marries Mary. He "knew" her in one sense before the birth of Jesus, but in another sense as wife, after she gave birth. The presence of "firstborn" does not leave this option open.