Original manuscripts and added.

[Pamelav]

What's the deal with the translations adding certain scripture, then footnoting it as not in the original manuscripts?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

What's the deal with the translations adding certain scripture, then footnoting it as not in the original manuscripts?

As "love hopes for the best", the editors/ publishers 'at best' may be adding something
so that a text may be more clear in what is translated.

Like if the widow put in two coins, two pennies, two farthings, "all her savings" (literally)
some commentators or translators may add a word, words, verse or part of a verse to
more fully describe what she actually put in the collection when Y'SHUA MESSIAH SAVIOR KING
pointed this out to HIS disciples.

At worse, with "love still hoping the best",
the translators are told by an authority over them
to add or subtract something
to try to confirm or detract from what is actually there.

YHWH is not caught off guard, and YHWH ALWAYS GUARDS HIS WORD even more than HE GUARDS HIS VERY OWN NAME (as it is written in HIS WORD),
so
we can trust the GOOD SHEPHERD WHO is echad with YHWH, and who ecclesia are echad ('one') with ,
to deliver (reveal) to us what is the TRUTH
even if the translators make a mistake (which they do sometimes; ) , and YHWH has proven HIMSELF FAITHFUL ALWAYS and accomplished this for me and other ecclesia exactly as HE and HIS WORD says plainly.

 

[Deadworm]

What's the deal with the translations adding certain scripture, then footnoting it as not in the original manuscripts?

There are 10 million variant readings in ancient biblical manuscripts. The King James is the most corrupt text because it only had access to later far more error-prone manuscripts. So translators want you to be aware of texts that are mistakenly widely considered to be part of the Word of God. It is highly ironic that fundamentalists who most strongly espouse biblical inerrancy are content to use the most corrupt version of God's Word! One reason for modern translations like the NIV, NRSV, NASV, and New Jerusalem versions is to give you a translation based on the latest and best research on what is the original text of Scripture.

 

[Norbert L]

What's the deal with the translations adding certain scripture, then footnoting it as not in the original manuscripts?

I would suggest to start by viewing lectures by Daniel Wallace on youtube. Some of them are short and some of them a very long

In my view the footnotes are there in an effort to maintain intellectually honesty. It's a note whereby the reader needs to figure it out.

 

[JohnRabbit]

good thread!

 

[Pamelav]

I'm sorry. What I meant was the earliest manuscripts. You know, for example the adulterous woman and Jesus and let he who is without sin cast the first stone. How that with several others are added because they are not on the earliest known manuscripts. So why have they decided to keep them. It is clear that some of them are out place looking, which commentators have said.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

I'm sorry. What I meant was the earliest manuscripts. You know, for example the adulterous woman and Jesus and let he who is without sin cast the first stone. How that with several others are added because they are not on the earliest known manuscripts. So why have they decided to keep them. It is clear that some of them are out place looking, which commentators have said.

Simple.
(truly honestly is).
The more you seek the answer, the more history you find,
the more you will find how corrupt men are. (in the church and out of the church, just like in the Temple and Synagogues previously and since then).

With so many men being by nature corrupt,
YHWH called for HIMSELF a remnant,
out of every nation, and out of every 'group' as HE pleased.

It is written that YHWH guards HIS WORD.

We can trust YHWH to accomplish what men cannot,
even with faithless and corrupt men all around us.

Yes, and even with faithless and corrupt men all through history, as recorded also in HIS WORD.

 

[Dave-W]

What's the deal with the translations adding certain scripture, then footnoting it as not in the original manuscripts?

The KJV folk love to point to verses that were "left out" of newer translations. In almost every case the better, earlier manuscripts did not have those passages. But since people feel cheated or lied to with missing verse numbers, publishers sometimes put them in and foot-note them.

The prime example of that is Mark 16. The version used in the KJV is the longest one out there, but only appears in very late manuscripts. There are at least 2 completely different endings for that book.

Here are the other 2 endings, replacing Mark 16.9-20:

But they reported briefly to Peter and those with him all that they had been told. And after these things Jesus himself sent out through them, from east to west, the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation.

[II] This age of lawlessness and unbelief is under Satan, who does not allow the truth and power of God to prevail over the unclean things of the spirits [or, does not allow what lies under the unclean spirits to understand the truth and power of God]. Therefore reveal your righteousness now’ – thus they spoke to Christ. And Christ replied to them, ‘The term of years of Satan’s power has been fulfilled, but other terrible things draw near. And for those who have sinned I was handed over to death, that they may return to the truth and sin no more, in order that they may inherit the spiritual and incorruptible glory of righteousness that is in heaven.

 

[Dave-W]

At worse, with "love still hoping the best", the translators are told by an authority over them to add or subtract something to try to confirm or detract from what is actually there.

This is an entirely different situation/problem. While NT Greek and English at least are both linear phonetic languages and have a common Indo-European root, OT Hebrew is entirely foreign to English. It is not linear, (meaning it has several simultaneous levels of meaning) the alphabet is both phonetic and pictographic (meaning the pictures of the letters give yet another level of meaning) and the linguistic contructs are vastly different.

An honest translator would try to convey the meaning in the basic understanding level (called "peshat") without embellishment. However, as Hebrew is a kind of "in-your-face" or "tell it like it is" language, English translators try to soften the blow in many cases. And there are times when certain doctrinal viewpoints make them color the translation to their particular flavor. (that is done both in the NT and OT) Sometimes it can change the basic understanding of the text.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

I'm sorry. What I meant was the earliest manuscripts. You know, for example the adulterous woman and Jesus and let he who is without sin cast the first stone. How that with several others are added because they are not on the earliest known manuscripts.

Yes, there are several passages not found in the earliest manuscripts. The passage of the 'woman taken in adultery' in John 8 is one such passage. It is not found in the earlier, presumably 'more original' texts. However, it is inserted into the KJV without comment.

Another such passage is the last clause of Matthew 6:13. The phrase, "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen", is not found in the earliest manuscripts. However, it is inserted into the KJV without comment.

So why have they decided to keep them.

I presume this is a question.

In the case of the KJV, it was in the manuscripts with which the translators worked. It seems - I cannot read minds of 400 years ago and no explanation is included - the translators assumed - since the manuscripts they had was what they had - the texts were correct. They had no reason to think otherwise.

One also notes neither passage presents any teaching contrary to the teachings of the Old Testament "Law and Prophets" nor the teachings of Jesus Christ. So no damage is done, particularly.

One also notes - and mentioned in the textual notes provided by the translators and editors of the NET Bible - the additions appear to be - in the opinion of the translators and scholars making such decisions - 'honestly' added and without intent to deceive. However, the NET includes the 'adulterous woman' passage (with notation as to why) and omits the 'power and glory' ending to the Lord's Prayer (with notation as to why).

It is clear that some of them are out place looking, which commentators have said.

I presume you intend to say '...some passages look out of place...' Would you please indicate an example or two of what you mean; or indicate an example or two of added passages that change the meaning of the whole text?

 

[ViaCrucis]

What's the deal with the translations adding certain scripture, then footnoting it as not in the original manuscripts?

Translations aren't adding anything, they're translating. What you are likely referring to is when translators add marginal notes to explain that certain portions of the text aren't found in some of the earliest manuscripts.

For example the Pericope Adulterae, the episode in John's Gospel where Jesus pardons the woman caught in adultery, isn't found in the earliest manuscripts of John. Translators adding notes like this benefit the reader to help them learn more about the text. The translators didn't add anything, it (the Pericope) is found in many--many--manuscripts, but it is noticeably absent from our earliest manuscripts; and that is information worth sharing.

In the case of the Pericope Adulterae it has also, in a few ancient manuscripts been found as part of Luke's Gospel; one of the theories which I'm familiar with is that the Pericope Adulterae likely has its origins as a free-floating story--a story about Jesus which circulated in the ancient Church but which was not attached to any of the four Canonical Gospels. Eventually it found its way into John's Gospel, and has remained there since.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[BobRyan]

What's the deal with the translations adding certain scripture, then footnoting it as not in the original manuscripts?

Good question -- this is the long and short of it.

There are three main sources

Textus Receptus compiled by Erasmus - Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus

Texts that are "older" are in some cases crumpled up tossed-in-the-trash texts that were "recently discovered" in a monastary where it is evident that they were deemed as worthless at the time they had been copied - and not used at all by scholars at that time -- but now that we are many centuries beyond that point - they are now "Older" than the remaining "good texts" - and under the new rule of "older is more accurate" well then yesterday's trash became today's "gold standard".

And in that trash version -- some texts were missing, words were crossed out etc. It was a mess. Still if you use that as "the gold standard" then you look at the enduring "good texts" and if the old one did not include a verse you delete it and produce something like the NIV etc.


Different translations are sometimes based on a different Codex source - and sometimes as in the case of the NASB they tell you when they deleted scripture -- placing it in the margin to let you know what you would have seen had you been reading the NKJV.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Textus Receptus compiled by Erasmus

Well, no.

Erasmus produced five editions of his critical Greek text of the New Testament, none were called the Textus Receptus. Theodore Beza also produced a critical Greek text, as did Robert Estienne (Robertus Stephanus).

When King James I ordered for a new authorized version of the Scriptures for use in the English Church the translators relied on all the above for their critical source; they also borrowed heavily from earlier English translations notably the Bishop's Bible which the Authorized Version was intended as a total overhaul of, as well as Tyndale's New Testament. They were also influenced by the Vulgate.

Prior to the Authorized Version of 1611 there didn't really exist a Textus Receptus as a single textual work; as a single textual work the Textus Receptus shows up later as a Greek text of the New Testament that used the particular choice readings which the translators of the Authorized Version chose from among the aforementioned critical editions of Erasmus, Beza, and Stephanus.

As such the Textus Receptus, as a singular Greek text, is essentially a patchwork of the earlier critical editions based on the choices of the translators of the Authorized Version. Since the critical texts they worked with were not in complete agreement, and even the several editions of Erasmus' work didn't agree with one another (Erasmus produced five editions because he was continually improving it over the years).

-CryptoLutheran

 

[tz620q]

Another such passage is the last clause of Matthew 6:13. The phrase, "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen", is not found in the earliest manuscripts. However, it is inserted into the KJV without comment.

I was asked that question once and tracked the doxology back to the Didache. That seems to be the earliest writing that contained it.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

I was asked that question once and tracked the doxology back to the Didache. That seems to be the earliest writing that contained it.

Tz, I don't find anything 'wrong' with it; at least in terms of doctrine or expression. It just isn't in the original manuscripts.

The only 'error' is the translators of the KJV weren't aware of it.

 

[Shane R]

Textual criticism is a complicated discipline. I will sketch out a few basics of how it works.

First, there are three main approaches to the text. They can be described as: older is better; the majority reading is better; and inerrancy, where some particular manuscript (real or imaginary) is viewed as totally reliable through divine preservation.

To make a decision about which if these approaches is likely to yield the best result, one needs to understand how the church traditionally worked. The church was conciliar for the first millenia and more of its existence. This is not exactly the same as democracy, but it is a collective form of responsibility. Traces of what this meant to textual preservation were seen until relatively recently in the practice of keeping in the trust of some worthy individual or group of individuals a 'standard text' from which all copies should be made. With this in mind, I favor the majority approach, where the reading which occurs in the most manuscripts is preferable.

Secondly, textual criticism is no longer all about Greek manuscripts. It is now standard practice to compare old translations - notably the Latin, Syriac, and Coptic versions - to gain additional insight into what the standard text reading was. This assumes to some degree that these earliest translations were made competently. This can be verified to a high level by comparing them. Translation is no easy discipline either.

I think a final element to consider is the attitude of the scholars who are working with the text. Some have a greater respect for it than others. It will color the amount of variation found within their translation.

 

[Radagast]

What's the deal with the translations adding certain scripture, then footnoting it as not in the original manuscripts?

I don't believe any footnote ever says that. Typical footnotes on e.g. Mark 16 are:

• Some of the earliest manuscripts do not include 16:9–20 (ESV)
• The earliest manuscripts and some other ancient witnesses do not have verses 9–20 (NIV)
• Other mss omit bracketed text (HCSB)
• Later mss add vv 9-20 (NASB)
• Verses 9–20 are bracketed in NU-Text as not original. They are lacking in Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, although nearly all other manuscripts of Mark contain them (NKJV)
• Mark 16:9-20 [the portion in brackets] is contained only in later manuscripts (The Message)
• The most reliable early manuscripts of the Gospel of Mark end at verse 8. Other manuscripts include various endings to the Gospel (NLT)

Basically, there is debate as to whether these verses were in the original. They are present in some old manuscripts, but missing from others. The logical response is to print the verses with a short mention of the debate in a footnote. As you can see, different translation committees have different opinions on the debate.

 

[Radagast]

one of the theories which I'm familiar with is that the Pericope Adulterae likely has its origins as a free-floating story--a story about Jesus which circulated in the ancient Church but which was not attached to any of the four Canonical Gospels. Eventually it found its way into John's Gospel, and has remained there since.

Another theory is that there was a back-and-forth between scandalised moralists taking it out and others putting it back in. IIRC, that's supported by something Augustine says.

For many of the longer debated passages, like this one, an entire book could be written about the cases for and against it being original. Printing the verses with a footnote is probably the best translator response.

 

[Biblicist]

What's the deal with the translations adding certain scripture, then footnoting it as not in the original manuscripts?

One of my favourite remarks by any Biblical scholar or linguist came from John Kohlenberger back in 1990 in the preface to the new NIV Exhaustive Concordance. Any linguist or lexical compiler who has any sense of integrity will recognise and admit that whenever an attempt is made to faithfully transfer one language to another (Biblical text or with any other) that it is at best a perilous path that is strewn with linguistic minefields. Kohlenbeger stated (from memory);

"If the Bible translator is a traitor then the concordance maker is his partner in crime!"​

Where Kohlenberger was speaking of himself in that even though he aimed for the highest level of achievement, that in the end, even the best efforts of the best of scholars will fall short of the mark.

 

[ViaCrucis]

One of my favourite remarks by any Biblical scholar or linguist came from John Kohlenberger back in 1990 in the preface to the new NIV Exhaustive Concordance. Any linguist or lexical compiler who has any sense of integrity will recognise and admit that whenever an attempt is made to faithfully transfer one language to another (Biblical text or with any other) that it is at best a perilous path that is strewn with linguistic minefields. Kohlenbeger stated (from memory);

"If the Bible translator is a traitor then the concordance maker is his partner in crime!"​

Where Kohlenberger was speaking of himself in that even though he aimed for the highest level of achievement, that in the end, even the best efforts of the best of scholars will fall short of the mark.

There's an Italian proverb that says "Traduttore, traditore", meaning "the translator is a traitor"; translation inevitably is an imperfect science and often more art than science. Since a perfect translation can't exist, the act of translation will always result in a betrayal of the original text because there are always shades of meaning that get lost. Thus a good translation is, at its best, always just an approximation.

-CryptoLutheran