Sunday, March 13th, 2022
QUOTE OF THE WEEK
Quote of the Week for Sunday, March 13th, 2022
Acts 8:37?
NT Textual Criticism can seem esoteric and maybe some of it is. However, you may run into text-critical issues and decisions far more than you think you do. If you are using a translation of the scriptures (or of any other text) a number of different decisions and interpretations have already been made for you. Sometimes the editor and translators will call alert you to their decision in the footnotes and or margin notes of your chosen translation.
Disclaimer: The following summary is an oversimplification of how textual critical decisions are made. In general, I would say that text-critical decisions are made by those that follow into the following three main camps of reasoning:
- (a) Those that go with the reading found in earlist available text or texts
- (b) Those that go with the reading vast majority of textual witnesses
- (c) Those that go with the reading they think reflects the text that their faith community has historical used and or that the church fathers used.
Now, If you own an English translation of the New Testament turn to Acts chapter 8. Now, check do you have verse 37 in the main body of your text or in a footnote? Are, you provided with any information about the manuscript evidence and different points of view? Which of the three camps mentioned above do you think the translators and or editors of your translation fall into at Acts 8:37?
Just for fun here are a few other opinions:
CASES FOR
- The Case of the Missing Verse (Acts 8:37) LINK
- Acts 8:37 – “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God” https://av1611.com/kjbp/faq/holland_ac8_37.html
- Was Acts 8:37 removed from modern Bibles? https://carm.org/king-james-onlyism/was-acts-837-removed-from-modern-bibles/
CASES AGAINST
- Why Is Acts 8:37 Omitted from Many Bible Translations? https://www.catholic.com/qa/why-is-acts-837-omitted-from-many-bible-translations
- I never knew this before but https://catholicbiblestudent.com/2007/01/acts-837-i-never-knew-this-before-but.html
NEUTRAL / EXPLANATORY
Why Is Acts 8:37 Omitted from Some Translations and not Others? https://blog.logos.com/why-some-translations-include-acts-837-and-others-dont/
What do you think? How do you read the text?
Ye shall spoil the Egyptians?
Question: In Exodus chapter 3 What does borrowing from one’s neighbor have to do with spoiling or plundering of the Egyptians?
But every woman shall borrow of her neighbour, and of her that sojourneth in her house, jewels of silver, and jewels of gold, and raiment: and ye shall put them upon your sons, and upon your daughters; and ye shall spoil the Egyptians (Exodus 3:22).
KJV (public domain in the U.S.A)
The KJV curiously translates וְשָׁאֲלָ֨ה אִשָּׁ֤ה as ” but every woman shall borrow” yet the verb שׁאל means to ask or to make a request of someone and in this case of ‘her neighbor’. I suppose “borrow” and “ask are close enough if the KJV is producing a ‘dynamic equivalent’ translation and that may very well be the case if the KJV is actually presenting an original translation. But, now who is this “neighbor”? From the context, it seems that this neighbor is not another Hebrew, but is rather the Egyptians who appear immediately before in this pericope in verse 21 who are by providence now favorably disposed toward the Hebrews. This makes it highly unlikely or at least odd that Hebrew women are now plundering the particular Egyptians who are willingly helping them. And, interestingly נָצַל (natzal) the lexeme that KJV translates here as ‘spoil’ elsewhere means to deliver or to save( for example see Exodus 6:6, 18:4, 18:8, Numbers 35:25, Joshua 2:13, 9:26, and 24:19). Concerning the meaning of נָצַל Dr. J. H. Hertz comments that:
its direct object is never the person or the thing from whom the saving or the rescuing or snatching has taken place, but always the person or thing being rescued… “ye shall spoil the Egyptians,” is, therefore, unwarranted, for two reasons. it takes the persons from whom things are snatched as the direct object; and furthermore, it necessitates an entire reversal of the meaning נָצַל from save into despoil!
Hertz, J.H., 2nd ed.The Pentateuch and Haftorahs. London: Soncino press, 1981
Okay, so why did the KJV translators render Exodus 3:22 the way they did? Was it an original translation or was it something else? Since the KJV was hardly the first English translation available a number of other translations had already started a tradition. In 1384 John Wycliffe’s translation read “nakid” amd later number of Bible translations like Matthew Bible (1537), The Great Bible (1539), The Bishops Bible (1568) agree at the following reading “and shall robbe the Egyptians”. At first sight, this might appear to be where the KJV is getting its translation from however if you check the coverdale bible 1535, Geneva Bible of 1560, Douay Rheims Bible (1582) you will find that it reads thus:
“and shall spoyle the Egyptians/Egypt.” which is the same as the modernized spelling KJV (1611) ‘s ‘spoil’ .
So, back to the question In Exodus chapter 3 What does borrowing from one’s neighbor have to do with spoiling or plundering of the Egyptians?
Answer: nothing at all, the KJV mistranslation is borrowed from older English Bible translations most notably the Coverdale translation of the OT that was based much more on the latin Vulgate and German translations than on the Masoretic text of the Hebrew Bible.
Exodus 24:10 (saw or feared)?
This week’s question: Does וראו in Exodus 24:10 mean ‘saw’ or ‘feared’?
It is basically accepted that the original Hebrew text of the Torah/Pentateuch was written only in consonants. Vowels and cantillation were supplied orally by the experienced reader. Early texts such as those found in the dead sea scrolls are absent of any diacriticals, cantillation/accent marks, and vowels. Even today Sefer Torah (Torah Scrolls) used in Synaguoge are written without vowel marks and cantillation marks as is the vast majority of modern Hebrew literature. So, if we assume that the original text of Exodus 24:10 was written without vowel points and cantillation marks both ‘saw’ and ‘feared’ become possible readings. Why are such different readings possible? Because Hebrew is or can be very flexable in ways that English is or can not. The א in ויראו can come with any number of accent marks none of wich actually change the meaning. The string ויראו can mean ‘and they feared’ but that has nothing to do with the accents check out the following:
ויראו with a Munach:
Gen 37:4 ( וַיִּרְא֣וּ ), Exodus 16:15 ( וַיִּרְא֣וּ ), Joshua 4:14 ( וַיִּֽרְא֣וּ /fear), Judges 18:7 ( וַיִּרְא֣וּ ), 1 Samuel 31:17 (וַיִּרְא֣וּ), and Psalm 86:17( וְיִרְא֣וּ )
ויראו with a zaqef gadol :
Exodus ( וַיִּרְא֕וּ ) and Jugdges 3:24 ( וַיִּרְא֕וּ)
ויראו With the meaning to fear:
Deuteromy 7:13, 19:20, 21:21, 28:10, 31:12, Joshua 4:4, and 1 Samuel 4:7
However, as mentioned before both accents and vowels are absent in Torah scrolls, On the other hand, all the Masoretic diacriticals are present in Masoretic codices containing books of the Hebrew Bible and in printed editions of the Hebrew Bible/Tanakh. And, the Masoretic scribes, preserve the reading וַיִּרְא֕וּ (and they saw) at Exodus 24:10 in all manuscripts as well as printed editions of the Hebrew Bible. But either reading and both readings at the same time are possible if, of course, you are reading the Hebrew text.
For more interesting opinions of ideological nature on this verse check out: https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/under-gods-feet/
POSTSCRIPT (2022/08/05) 18:30 JST: I just ran across a prolific blogger (and Accordance Bible Software user) Abram J-K over at the Words on the Word blog who also just happens to have covered a very similar issue last year in another book and passage of the Hebrew Bible/OT. I have linked the pertinent post below:
https://abramkj.com/2021/12/15/fear-no-evil-or-see-no-evil-one-way-to-preach-a-textual-variant/