Originally posted by KingDavid403
I agree with some of what you are showing me here. I do NOT believe that the Protestants should have removed the books from the original bible 400 years ago, That's now know as the catholic bible.
These links you posted show some of those books and other Apocrypha books. I have studied the apocrypha books from the catholic bible, but I've only go ...[text shortened]... ese are newly discovered. But I guess that's pretty much besides the point. 🙂
Actually, omitting 'without cause' is probably a more faithful reading because it shows the sort of
hyperbole that Jesus was prone to using. Adding 'without cause' softens the proscription, making
it something subject to interpretation -- I can be angry because I 'have cause.' This runs contrary
to the exaggerated things that Jesus said in other places.
And it's not only those two ancient authorities that lack it. The Latin Vulgate also lacks it, and
while a subservient authority, represents 5th-century scholarship using the best available sources
to St Jerome. But, if you don't find that compelling, two other older authorities also lack that
translation:
P67 from the late 2nd/early 3rd century lacks it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magdalen_papyrus
p86 from the late 3rd/early 4th century lacks it.
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Bible/Text/Mss/P86.html
Generally, in textual criticism, all things being equal, early sources should be favored over later
ones, especially when there is concordance (as among these five citations). Furthermore, readings
which run contrary to the expected grain (harder to live by) are more likely to be authentic
rather than interpolations, whereas those things which soften a hard reading are more likely
to be the result of scribal editorial license.
And simply because Jesus said something literally doesn't mean that one should take it literally.
Jewish tradition was riddled with hyperbole and exaggeration, with proscriptions which are
impossible to meet literally (and, when interpreted in that fashion, yield contradictions in Jesus'
teaching). Simply because Jesus taught it in an exaggerated way doesn't mean that He would
have viewed anger in your heart as a sin. It was part of the 'hasidic hedge,' so to speak, in
which one distances oneself as far from the actual sin as possible. We see this in the way that
Orthodox Jews keep kosher (e.g., the command was to avoid boiling a kid in its mother's milk,
but, in order to avoid going anywhere near the sin, Jews will not consume meat and dairy at
the same time).
The (original) King James translation used the best sources it had available, which were late
sources, much further removed than the ones available today. As far as the editors of that
translation knew, they were utterly faithful to the original. They were wrong. The New King
James version basically pretends that Biblical scholarship since 1611 doesn't exist. It's a
shameful work which butchers the language of the 1611 edition but doesn't replace any of the
erroneous translations.
Nemesio
Just been reading Genesis
22 Oct '08 03:081 edit
Back to Top