- Nov 18, 2012
- 476
- 69
- Faith
- Presbyterian
- Marital Status
- Married
Some manuscripts include 'in me' (for example, the beloved but out-dated Kings James Version) and some do not (NASB).
What to make of it? I have two responses.
1) It makes no doctrinal difference whether the phrase is there or not. It is clearly implied from the context. It is a ridiculous straining at gnats to claim, in context, that it refers to anything except believing in Christ, as a simple reading of the text in context will confirm. The context and other sections of Scripture support our understanding that belief in Christ is salvific.
2) I have before me the United Bible Society's Greek New Testament. Mine includes footnotes documenting manuscript variations. I will not flood the thread with manuscript references, for one thing that would be pointless, but the UBS is of the opinion the accurate reading of the text is certainly without the 'in me', although there is ancient attestation for 'in me'. The Coptic (coptic-ach-2), Armenian and Georgian-1 evidence does not include the phrase; the Vulgate, Coptic(8a,bo), Gothic, Ethiopian, Georgian-2, the Diatesseron, (a,i,n), Hilary Didymus and Cyril do. Syric (c,c) has 'in God' interestingly.
There are also even more tedious manuscript citations, and the experts in this have concluded that the original version surely did not include 'in me'. Does adding the phrase constitute a sin? Surely not, as it amplifies the meaning.
It is however hostile to the Gospel to insist that the phrase must be there and that no other translations or versions are correct and allowable. To amplify, it is an arrogant presumption to assert that the phrase MUST be there if the version is to be considered error-free. Someone advocating this is promulgating error, IMHO, and I would advise they spend time developing humility instead of wasting time in a foolish dispute about words, which Paul has something to say about.
If the phrase is not in the original, what of Rev 22:18-19? Were they added? I don't think this clarification is crossing the line, certainly does not change doctrine, and may even be necessary in a translation to accurately convey the meaning of the text.
What to make of it? I have two responses.
1) It makes no doctrinal difference whether the phrase is there or not. It is clearly implied from the context. It is a ridiculous straining at gnats to claim, in context, that it refers to anything except believing in Christ, as a simple reading of the text in context will confirm. The context and other sections of Scripture support our understanding that belief in Christ is salvific.
2) I have before me the United Bible Society's Greek New Testament. Mine includes footnotes documenting manuscript variations. I will not flood the thread with manuscript references, for one thing that would be pointless, but the UBS is of the opinion the accurate reading of the text is certainly without the 'in me', although there is ancient attestation for 'in me'. The Coptic (coptic-ach-2), Armenian and Georgian-1 evidence does not include the phrase; the Vulgate, Coptic(8a,bo), Gothic, Ethiopian, Georgian-2, the Diatesseron, (a,i,n), Hilary Didymus and Cyril do. Syric (c,c) has 'in God' interestingly.
There are also even more tedious manuscript citations, and the experts in this have concluded that the original version surely did not include 'in me'. Does adding the phrase constitute a sin? Surely not, as it amplifies the meaning.
It is however hostile to the Gospel to insist that the phrase must be there and that no other translations or versions are correct and allowable. To amplify, it is an arrogant presumption to assert that the phrase MUST be there if the version is to be considered error-free. Someone advocating this is promulgating error, IMHO, and I would advise they spend time developing humility instead of wasting time in a foolish dispute about words, which Paul has something to say about.
If the phrase is not in the original, what of Rev 22:18-19? Were they added? I don't think this clarification is crossing the line, certainly does not change doctrine, and may even be necessary in a translation to accurately convey the meaning of the text.
