Fri Feb 14 22:50:37 1997
From owner-tc-list Fri Feb 14 22:50:37 1997
Return-Path:
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id WAA26300; Fri, 14 Feb 1997 22:50:37 -0500
Message-ID: <3305C761.33CF@sn.no>
Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 06:25:37 -0800
From: "Mr. Helge Evensen"
Organization: SN Internett
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win16; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Subject: Re: Mark 2:15
References:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
content-length: 7076
On Wed 12 Feb Ronald L. Minton wrote:
> I cannot find why the KJV has "as Jesus sat" instead of "as he sat."
Does anyone know if they were following a form of Erasmus or other text?
I have four editions of the TR and none read that way.
Thanks ahead of time.
> On Thu, 13 Feb 1997, Mr. Helge Evensen wrote:=20
Mr. Minton,
> The problem in the KJV at Mark 2:15 does not seem to be a translation=
al
> problem at all, as it has been suggested. Sometimes the KJV =
translators used other sources than the available Greek editio=
ns. For instance, a few
> times the they selected readings from the Latin Vulgate. Their main
> source for the NT was Beza=B4s 1598 Greek edition. Since the translato=
rs
> seem to have had Beza as the greatest authority for the text of the NT=
,
> it will do good sometimes to check out his Latin translation.
>=20
> I have done so in a few occasions, and more than once I found that the
> KJV translators have followed a Latin translation of Beza. I have a
> pocket edition of Beza=B4s Latin dated MCMXXV. It=B4s text is taken fr=
om a
> reprint dated 1642.
>=20
> In Mark 2:15 this text reads as following: Et factum est, ut quum Jesu=
s
> accumberet in domo illius, .......
>=20
> The Latin Vulgate reads: Et factum est cum accumberet in domo
> illius......
> =20
Mr. Minton answered on Fri 14 Feb:
=20
> I don't think it was the influence of Beza's Latin because all the earl=
ier
> English NTs based on Greek have "Jesus" twice like the KJV. It followe=
d
> them. Wycliffe and Rheims read more like the Greek, apparently followi=
ng
> the Latin Vulgate.
>=20
> --=09
I reply:
First, let me establish Beza=B4s extraordinary influence on the KJV trans=
lators:=20
Scrivener wrote: "Doubtless they rested mainly on the later editions of B=
eza=B4s Greek=20
Testament, whereof his fourth (1589) was somewhat more highly esteemed th=
an his fifth=20
(1598),....." and "On certain occasions, it may be, the Translators yield=
ed too much to=20
Beza=B4s somewhat arbitrary decicions; but they lived at a time when his =
name was the very=20
highest among Reformed theologians,.....". (The Athorized Version, App. E=
, p.60).
A good example of this yielding is their choice to follow Beza in Rom.7:6=
(apothanontos)=20
against all known MS evidence. Only Erasmus alleged that the reading was =
supported by=20
Chrysostom.=20
None of this does, of course, prove conclusively that the KJV translators=
included the=20
first "Jesus" in Mark 2:15 only because Beza had it in his Latin. But I a=
sk this question:=20
Is it not a possibility though, since they relied so heavily on Beza else=
where? If the KJV=20
translators could follow the *Roman Catholic* Vulgate Latin in some place=
s, I believe it=20
is only logical to conclude that they also could have followed Beza=B4s *=
Reformed* Latin in=20
some places!=20
The fact that the earlier translations had the rendering/reading in quest=
ion, did, without=20
question, influence their choice. But still I ask: Is it likely that they=
would have=20
included this reading *without* the authority of Beza=B4s Latin? I sugges=
t that it is=20
*unlikely* that they would! Why? Because normally they placed translation=
al additions in=20
italics! Also, in the Geneva Bible "Jesus" is added without italics, as i=
n the KJV. Below=20
I shall comment on the fact that the Geneva Bible too, which, by the way,=
was the first to=20
use italics in the text, was influenced by Beza.
No doubt, this reading *may* be a translational thing, and the English tr=
anslators *and*=20
Beza (in his Latin) may have added "Jesus" for the sake of clarification.=
If this is so,=20
the suggestion is that there never was any real MS evidence for the readi=
ng, not even=20
among Latin MSS. But if this was *not* a translational thing with Beza, h=
e must have had=20
some authority for the reading.=20
We know that Beza=B4s Latin translation first appeared in 1556. (This is =
according to=20
Scrivener!). Also, we know that the Geneva New Testament first appeared i=
n 1557.=20
Therefore, it is very likely that Beza=B4s Latin influenced the decicions=
made for the 1557=20
and 1560 editions of the Geneva NT. It is, at least, very clear that Beza=
left his mark on=20
both the Geneva NT and the AV 1611 NT. Also, the Reformed theology of Bez=
a and Calvin is=20
the very foundation for the famous marginal annotations in the Geneva Bib=
le edition of=20
1602, two years before the KJV translators started their work. In fact, t=
hese annotations=20
is based directly on Beza=B4s 1574 Latin translation with notes.
The English versions prior to Beza may have used the same sources for the=
NT (other than=20
the Greek) that Beza used for his Latin (whatever that may have been) for=
the establishing=20
of the reading in Mark 2:15. The fact that the Geneva Bible, which was th=
e first to=20
include italics, did *not* place "Jesus" in italics, suggest an authority=
for the reading,=20
other than just a translational solution. Translations prior to the Genev=
an did not=20
indicate words which were not in the Greek.=20
In conclusion, let me point to one possible witness to the authority of t=
he "Jesus"=20
reading/rendering in Mark 2:15:=20
In a 1825 printing of H. A. Schott=B4s edition of the Greek-Latin New Tes=
tament, which has a=20
brief critical apparatus for both the Greek and the Latin, the Latin text=
reads as follows=20
in Mark 2:15a: "In cuius domo quum Jesus postea accubuisset, .....".
That this Latin translation reads "Jesus" here *without* placing it in a =
parantheses (or=20
brackets) is remarkable, for it seems that it *usually* has parantheses a=
round words=20
supplied, especially names of Deity added for emphasis or clarity. Look, =
for instance, at=20
the rendering at Colossians 1:21-22: "Vos quoque, olim alienos (a Deo), m=
ente (Deo)=20
inimicos, pravis quippe factis deditos, nunc omnino (Deo) reconciliavit (=
Christus) corpore=20
suo,.....".
>From the above example, it is to be expected that this Latin edition woul=
d have had=20
"Jesus" within parantheses in Mark 2:15 if the editor had felt that there=
was no Latin (or=20
other) authority for the reading/rendering. However, I am not saying that=
this *proves*=20
anything. Besides, it=B4s still *possible* to imagine that the Latin read=
ing is a=20
translational decision.
I conclude that it is at least *likely* that the KJV translators (and the=
Genevan=20
translators) adopted the reading under the influence of Beza, knowing tha=
t Beza had a=20
reason to include the reading. After all, the translators had the *opport=
unity* to place=20
supplied words in italics, but they didn=B4t do it! This indicate some *o=
ther* authority=20
than just the rendering of Tyndale, et.al.=20
I have only attempted to answer your question concerning the authority be=
hind the KJV=20
reading/rendering at Mark 2:15, well aware of the fact that I cannot prov=
e anything=20
concerning it. It is just suggestions, nothing more.
--=20
- Mr. Helge Evensen
Back