Subject: Re: tc-list 1 Jn 4:1-3 translations

From: Jim West <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 02 Nov 1998 13:43:44 +0000

At 01:20 PM 11/2/98 -0500, you wrote:
>
>Dear friends,
>
>I'm now trying to determine who exactly were the opponents criticised in 1
>Jn 4:1-3. 
>
>
>But in the case of v. 3 the Greek text seems to be rather uncertain. I've
>looked at the variants, but I'm still not sure which variant may be the
>more reliable.
>
>English translations of v. 3 are divided. Some, like RSV above, and the
>more recent translations in general, say
>
>"...every spirit which does not confess Jesus is not of God"
>
>But KJV, Darby, and YLT translate more like
>
>"...every spirit which does not confess that Jesus Christ came in flesh is
>not of God"
>
>Perhaps someone can clarify this for me. Why has RSV chosen to go with
>"...every spirit which does not confess Jesus is not of God", and not the
>other translation?
>
>Thanks in advance.
>
>Yuri.

Yuri- the answer seems simple- the RSV gives the text attested in the best
and oldest mss whereas the KJV and the other versions have expanded the text
(based, to be sure, on expansions in various Greek mss).

This is one of those places where the various scribes just tried to make
clear something they perceived as unclear.  Either way, the point remains
the same--- those who, like the proto-gnostics- deny the authenticity of the
incarnation are not to be believed... that is, it seems to me, John's point
plain and simple- textual variants here arose simply to make that plain.

Best,

Jim

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Jim West, ThD
Quartz Hill School of Theology
[email-masked]

de mortuis nihil nisi baloni!

---

From: [email-masked] (M A Robinson)
Date: Tue, 03 Nov 1998 00:51:49 EST

Just to make the contrast a little more proper, the TR should not be the
standard of comparison against WH; rather BYZ versus NA27.  Not that
there is any difference between WH and NA27 (as normal); but BYZ as R/P
or H/F edited it differs from the TR in omitting (with K pm) TON ante
IHSOUN (and of course no brackets in the verse):

1Jo 4:3  BYZ
KAI PAN PNEUMA O MH OMOLOGEI        IHSOUN CRISTON EN SARKI ELHLUQOTA 
EK TOU QEOU OUK ESTIN KAI TOUTO ESTIN TO TOU ANTICRISTOU O AKHKOATE
OTI ERCETAI KAI NUN EN TW KOSMW ESTIN HDH

1Jo 4:3  NA27
KAI PAN PNEUMA O MH OMOLOGEI TON IHSOUN 
EK TOU QEOU OUK ESTIN KAI TOUTO ESTIN TO TOU ANTICRISTOU O AKHKOATE
OTI ERCETAI KAI NUN EN TW KOSMW ESTIN HDH

Now to the other point:

>Yuri- the answer seems simple- the RSV gives the text attested in the 
>best and oldest mss whereas the KJV and the other versions have expanded

>the text (based, to be sure, on expansions in various Greek mss).

I know your principles, Jim, and you are continuing to act in accordance
with them. 
But it would be nice to stop blaming the KJV for the Byzantine readings
:-)

Also it would probably be more helpful to at least acknowledge the other
more obvious possibility, namely that the phrase CRISTON EN SARKI
ELHLUQOTA _could_ simply have been omitted in a _very_ small minority of
MSS (A B 323 945 1241 1739 pc it-r vg cop Ir-lat Or) by two simultaneous
(or nearly so) stages of homoioteleuton which could easily have happened
during the copying process in a small number of witnesses which may have
been less-than-careful at this point. 

Stage 1 -- omit CRISTON by homoioteleuton IN XN -> IN (cf.  not only the
previous small group of  witnesses at that point, but also Psi 33 81 630
1505 pc which read only IHSOUN, but left the other longer reading in
place); stage 2 --accompany this by the homoioteleuton from E1 to E3
causing  EN SARKI ELHLUQOTA EK to leave only EK as a result.

Since even other witnesses of the same texttypes as those supporting NA27
here do not side with the shorter variant in this unit, the chance of
error as the primary cause should not be minimized or overlooked.

As for "Byzantine" or other scribal expansion, I would ask why ? You
wrote, 

>This is one of those places where the various scribes just tried to 
>make clear something they perceived as unclear.  

The expansion is already present and quite "clear" for the entire context
in verse 2, so why would you think the "various scribes" (i.e. nearly all
of them, including "early" ones) would think it necessary to clarify
further in the verse immediately following?

>those who, like the proto-gnostics- deny the authenticity 
>of the incarnation are not to be believed... that is, it seems to me,
John's 
>point plain and simple

Exactly, and that is my point. The textual variant arose primarily by
accident; if deliberate it could only be argued that, since the context
was already plain, the phrase was stylistically removed to eliminate a
redundancy (but I do not make that line of argument in a case where error
is so likely and where so few witnesses agree in support of such a
reading).

==============================================================
Maurice A. Robinson, Ph. D.
Professor of Greek and New Testament
Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary
Wake Forest, North Carolina, USA

___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]