www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Scripture and Patristic Writings 1 Corinthians 7 : 5

Dear learned brothers,

The problem I have with many of these deletions in modern editions of the Bible is that they delete texts many of our beloved Church Fathers knew as well. Thus we end up with a Bible significantly altered from the one they had.

I, for one, prefer the texts known and used by Sts. Chrysostom, Augustinos, Jerome, Athansios, etc. Therefore I like what the Orthodox Study Bible did. It gave us the received text and then, in the notes, indicated where it varied from not only the critical text but also the majority text.

Such an approach is one I can live and work with... much better than just deleting everything which doesn't jive with the Alexandrian Codexes.

Continuing to trust in Christ's Light,
Wm. DerGhazarian
Looys Kreesdosee
www.geocities.com/derghazar [geocities.com]

Here is a little background reading on the issue of text-types:
http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn/TextTypes.html

on Critical Editions:
http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn/CriticalEds.html
on The Majority Text:
http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn/TR.html

on Eclecticism:
http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn/Eclecticism.html

Textual Criticism of the Greek New Testament:
http://www.bible-researcher.com/title.html

The Critical Text and the Textus Receptus:
http://www.bible-researcher.com/kutilek1.html

Of special note:
"The "Received Text" is also not a single text. It is a tradition of printed texts published during the time of the Protestant Reformation, that is, the 1500's and early 1600's. It includes the editions of Erasmus, Estienne (Stephens), Beza, and Elzevir. These texts are closely allied, and are all mostly derived from Erasmus 1516. They are based upon a small number of late medieval manuscripts. The King James Version is based upon the Received Text. The Majority Text is derived from the plurality of all existing Greek manuscripts; but because most of these manuscripts are late medieval manuscripts, there is a family resemblance between the Received Text and the Majority Text. They agree with one another much more than either of them agree with the critical Greek texts published by scholars in the past two hundred years. These critical texts are based upon the oldest manuscripts and versions (from the 100's to the 600's), and agree with one another much more than any of them agree with the Received Text or the Majority Text. And so it is appropriate to say that the texts in question fall into two groups: (1) The kind of text found in the majority of medieval manuscripts (often called the Byzantine text-type)."

The question is before us: Do we accept a text based on very late (alamost 1,000 years) later than the originals or do we accept a text based on the earliest manuscripts?

Kutilek writes about the KJV's own history of picking and choosing:

"it is worth noting that the translators of the King James Version did not follow exclusively any single printed edition of the New Testament in Greek. The edition most closely followed by them was Beza's edition of 1598, but they departed from this edition for the reading in some other published Greek text at least 170 times, and in at least 60 places, the KJV translators abandoned all then-existing printed editions of the Greek New Testament, choosing instead to follow precisely the reading in the Latin Vulgate version."

Puzzle from the Byzantine Lectionary:
The Third Sunday of Pascha (Myrrhbearing Women) assigns the reading of Mark 15:43-16:8. Nowhere do we read the "longer ending" of Mark, that is, Mark 16:9-20. Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus do not include this longer ending. Why did the Byzantine Lectionary omit this for so long? Shouldn't we read what is in the Textus Receptus or KJV?

God bless!
Joe Thur

Brother Ghazar,
I agee with you.

Brother Joe,
A Greek Orthodox priest commented, compare the Epistles of Nestle/Aland to those in the Apostolos, then decide.

james

Jakub,

Actually, the issue will never be solved. We have no autographed manuscript. There is a lot of witness to the Byzantine text in the early Church Fathers though.

My posts were only meant to explain. There is considerable debate over the issue of why many words and/or phrases have been deleted by later critical editions. I wasn't the one who started it. Some translators have made decisions on what text-types to base their work on.

Some don't prefer the subtle 'anti-feminist' alterations in the TR (and KJV), which is probably a sign of why church authorities enjoyed the alterations in their favor. For example, check out Acts 18:26 in the KJV and in the NAB (or any critical edition). In the KJV, Aquila is mentioned first. In the NAB, Priscilla is mentioned first. There are other preferences for naming the man first and not the woman.

Joe

Brother Joe,

No offense given ot taken, I am on one of my scriptural expeditions again, and will mellow out at some point, have'nt you ever got the bug ? Question why this was added or that changed or eliminated ?

Or why the Church uses one bible for 200 years then changes ?

james

James,

It is one of the most interesting adventures - to study the Scriptures ... all variants too!

As I mentioned briefly above, I wonder why there isn't such an outcry over the changes that the Byzantine text made in regards to the status of women in the church?

Cf. Matthew 6:13 in the KJV and the NAB (or NIV). The KJV includes a doxology whereas the NAB and NIV do not. The doxological addition is based on later manuscripts, probably liturgically influenced. Both traditions omit the liturgical doxology in Luke 11. Was Luke much fairer without having to put in a very Our "Father" in his text? The Church, both East and West, also preferred Matthew's version of the Beatitudes. It was more spiritualized, totally unlike the more social-justice oriented Lucan version. Did Luke's version about the nasty rich do harm to the church gaining financial sponsors to build churches and found monasteries? Just wondering.

Like liturgical translations and editions, how far back do we go to capture the essence of the text? I find liturgical translations as interesting as biblical translations. Both groups serve to tick off those who can't accept change.

One additional note about the Church Fathers: the NAB notes how some of them include the phrase "May your holy Spirit come upon us and cleanse us", thereby reflecting a petition found in the baptismal liturgy. Again, the question has to be asked: How much is based on original wordings and how much was based on liturgical and ecclesiastical preference?

So, how much of the text was quoted by the Church Fathers and how much of the Church Fathers found their way into the text?

All too interesting, no?

Cantor Joe Thur

Cantor Joe,

I have a 1st edition NAB(good) & the 2nd edition with the revised NT and Psalms which has the inclusive language which I seldom use, but I use my 1st ed. Jerusalem Bible and my Douay/Confraternity most of the time, then the exploring bug kicks in.

I learn alot from my spiritual expeditions daily.

Peace of our Lord to you, Cantor Joe

james

Dear Brothers,

I don't use the KJV nor am I an advocate of it. Typically I use the RSVCE. Of course the CE part means that many of the NT deletions were restored by the English Catholic Bishops before the RSV was originally o.k.'ed for Roman Catholic use.

Curiously it is this very edition (RSVCE) which was used by the Armenian Apostolic Church when it published its English edition of the Bible. Of course there were a few OT books added to better reflect the traditional Armenian Canon.

Cantor Joe mentioned anti-feminist strains in the KJV. But their are many pro-feminst revisions in the NAB not the least of which is, as Jakub mentioned, inclusive language. I would like the NAB NT very much if it were not for these feminist exaggerations. Ofcourse I find the NAB OT to be unuseable with so many of its extreme alterations of the text. For goodness sakes, the translators practically re-wrote the book of Job with all the verse re-arranging they did.

Cantor Joe is right when he says everyone has an argument for their particular way of translating the Bible. And these arguments go round and round. This is why I prefer a text that was at least known by the Fathers of the great patristic period. If the edition was good enough for them, it is certainly good enough for me. Not that I speak of a particular edition, but rather a text that is similar to what many of them had.

when Cantor Joe says:
The question is before us: Do we accept a text based on very late (alamost 1,000 years) later than the originals or do we accept a text based on the earliest manuscripts?

reply:
I'm not talking about a text this new. Again, texts like the "Angel stirring the water" in St. John's Gospel, were known and used by St. John Chrysostom. This is certainly not 1,000 years after the originals but rather only a few centuries. And for all we know it could have been a variation there from the start, reflecting an authentic tradition from the time of Christ or before. How dare translators just strike that out of the text with no indication to the reader. I have a hard time accepting such a text which does this based on some codices which really are only around a century older than the majority text and are only from a particular region.

Finally, Jakub, as for your frustrations over translations: I'm with and have very much experienced many, many frustrations over this issue. But now, I don't get mad, I just make corrections to the text I use. If the translator used "elder" because he didn't want to use priest or presbyter (which are the same thing) I just put the word elder in brackets and then at the bottom put a note that the word could rightly be translated "priest" or "presbyter." Then the problem (for me) is solved. All translators have an agenda of some sort (including myself). But I'm comfortable with the agenda I have (i.e. making a text which is similar to the traditional one used by the Church Fathers) so I don't mind using my own corrections. This works fine for me for personal study and family Bible study and prayer hours. I correct all my families' Bibles and then we're all on the same sheet of music. I explain to them why I make the corrections I made. This at least alerts them to the problems we have with modern translations and points them to the Fathers as a source for guiding light in the understanding of not only the Holy Breath of God (as we Armenians refer to the Bible) but also the Orthodox Faith of the Catholic Church.

In Christ's Light,
Ghazar

Ghazar,

Of coursse. The point I was trying to make was the preference of the TR for men being mentioned first compared to the earlier manuscripts. Interesting things happen when political hands muddy the translation.

Take, for instance, the infamous "Blessed is the ONE, Alleluia, who has not walked in the counsel of the wicked" (ref. Psalm 1:1). found in our Vesper book (Cf. p.5 in the Uniontown edition). "Man" has been replaced with the generic and politically correct "one." This not only a bad translation (agenda-driven) but is also theologically incorrect.

The NAB has "those" but notes that it means literally "man."

The NRSV has "Happy are those."

The JB has "Happy the man."

The NIV has "Blessed is the man" but notes how it is related to Deut 33:29 where "Blessed are you, O Israel." is used.

The LXX has "Blessed is the man."

The JPS Tanakh has "Happy is the man."

Both "happy" and "Blessed" are interchangable, hence the reason why there are so many ways of singing 'God grant him/her/them many years' will include either.

Another fun one is Psalm 103:14,15.

"Man" (JPS, LXX, KJV, Darby) is often replaced with:

"all" (Uniontown)
"our" (NAB)
"them" (JB)
"human" (NRSV).

This is another interesting psalm for it describes our litija at festive vespers (bread, wine, oil).

Cantor Joe Thur

St. John Chrysostom's Homily 19 (on First Corinthians) regarding 7:5 ...

- - -

Ver. 5. "Defraud ye not one the other, except it be by consent."

What then can this mean? "Let not the wife," says he, "exercise continence, if the husband be unwilling; nor yet the husband without the wife's consent." Why so? Because great evils spring from this sort of continence. For adulteries and fornications and the ruin of families have often arisen from hence. For if when men have their own wives they commit fornication, much more if yon defraud them of this consolation. And well says he, "Defraud not; fraud" here, and "debt" above, that he might shew the strictness of the right of dominion in question. For that one should practice continence against the will of the other is "defrauding;" but not so, with the other's consent: any more than I count myself defrauded, if after persuading me you take away any thing of mine. Since only he defrauds who takes against another's will and by force. A thing which many women do, working sin rather than righteousness, and thereby becoming accountable for the husband's uncleanness, and rending all asunder. Whereas they should value concord above all things, since this is more important than all beside.

We will, if you please, consider it with a view to actual cases. Thus, suppose a wife and husband, and let the wife be continent, without consent of her husband; well then, if hereupon he commit fornication, or though abstaining from fornication fret and grow restless and be heated and quarrel and give all kind of trouble to his wife; where is all the gain of the fasting and the continence, a breach being made in love? There is none. For what strange reproaches, how much trouble, how great a war must of course arise! since when in an house man and wife are at variance, the house will be no better off than a ship in a storm when the master is upon ill terms with the man at the head. Wherefore he saith, "Defraud not one another, unless it be by consent for a season, that ye may give yourselves unto prayer." It is prayer with unusual earnestness which he here means. For if he is for-bidding those who have intercourse with one another to pray, how could "pray without ceasing" have any place? It is possible then to live with a wife and yet give heed unto prayer. But by continence prayer is made more perfect. For he did not say merely, "That ye may pray;" but, "That ye may give yourselves unto it;" as though what he speaks of might cause not uncleanness but much occupation.

- - -

"Fasting" is not mentioned as from the biblical text. John mentions fasting in a different context, "... where is all the gain of the fasting and the continence, a breach being made in love?" Not in conjunction with prayer, but in conjunction with continence. The sad case he brings up is when a wife withholds the marital privelege without the willingness of the husband. All Hell can break loose with the man not being able to contain it. Marriage no longer becomes a 'safe haven' for sexuality. So, what is all this prayer about if it leads to a wrecked home? If husbands don't 'get it' anymore, then they will find alternative outlets to remedy a dry relationship, hence the "great evils" that John mentions.

Again, John does not include "fasting" as a part of the text he is commenting on.

Cantor Joe Thur

Brother Ghazar & Cantor Joe,

Thank you both for your posts, today I am going to visit my favorite book store in Pasadena, they have alot of books from the East/West Fathers and will try to find one or two to illuminate my mind.

james

James,

One or two books? or one or two versions of a book?

Joe

Ah Cantor Joe,

A few of both East & West , one never can enough illumination!

james

This is why I prefer texts like the RSVCE and NKJV. They have their problems for sure. But for me, they have less serious ones -ones I can easily correct too.

Ghazar