D
dominikus28
Guest
Why do some Catholic bibles have missing quotes.
e.g. Mat 18:11
It is the word of God, why is it in the footnotes?
e.g. Mat 18:11
It is the word of God, why is it in the footnotes?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
I
I_Leatherman
Guest
Matthew 18:11 For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost. ?Why do some Catholic bibles have missing quotes.
e.g. Mat 18:11
It is the word of God, why is it in the footnotes?
Douay Rheims
N
NotWorthy
Guest
Several of the earliest texts had them, and several didn’t. The Church wasn’t sure if these were added at a later time or not.
Here’s what the NAB says, *Some manuscripts add, “For the Son of Man has come to save what was lost”; cf Matthew 9:13. This is practically identical with Luke 19:10 and is probably a copyist’s addition from that source.
*
You’ll also see this same phenomena in John, chapter 5:
Toward the end of the second century in the West and among the fourth-century Greek Fathers, an additional verse was known: "For [from time to time] an angel of the Lord used to come down into the pool; and the water was stirred up, so the first one to get in [after the stirring of the water] was healed of whatever disease afflicted him." The angel was a popular explanation of the turbulence and the healing powers attributed to it. This verse is missing from all early Greek manuscripts and the earliest versions, including the original Vulgate. Its vocabulary is markedly non-Johannine
Here’s what the NAB says, *Some manuscripts add, “For the Son of Man has come to save what was lost”; cf Matthew 9:13. This is practically identical with Luke 19:10 and is probably a copyist’s addition from that source.
*
You’ll also see this same phenomena in John, chapter 5:
Toward the end of the second century in the West and among the fourth-century Greek Fathers, an additional verse was known: "For [from time to time] an angel of the Lord used to come down into the pool; and the water was stirred up, so the first one to get in [after the stirring of the water] was healed of whatever disease afflicted him." The angel was a popular explanation of the turbulence and the healing powers attributed to it. This verse is missing from all early Greek manuscripts and the earliest versions, including the original Vulgate. Its vocabulary is markedly non-Johannine
V
Verbum
Guest
Hi Dominikus,
As you know, before the invention of printing (around 1450), books were copied by hand. When a book “came out”, and you wanted to have many copies, you dictated it to several copiers, and then the copies were sent out and many of those copies were copied again etc. etc.
Over several hundred years, as you can surmise, this could lead to multiple errors. This, of course, was for all books, not only for the Bible. In the old days, people relied pretty much on more or less subjective criteria for determining the quality of a manuscript or of a reading, for example, its antiquity, its compliance with the majority of manuscripts, the quotes of respected authors, and so on.
With the advent of modern times and the improvement in communications, manuscripts all over the world became available to any scholar. They were then able to establish a sort of “genealogy” of manuscripts, determine “families” and “descendance”. Thus they were able to determine at what time a certain reading came about.
Sources of error are multiple. Among others :
. a simple misreading of a word, like “either” instead of “neither”
. a transposition of words, like “we really felt bad” for “we felt really bad”
. an omission or addition of a word, like “an old tree” instead of “an old apple tree” or vice versa
. introduction of a marginal comment. Someone might have written a thought or comment in the margin, and a subsequent copyist, introduced it in the test, thinking it was part of the original
. introduction from another book of the Bible. The copyist, wrongly perceiving an error, made a “correction” using another book of the Bible. This happens several times in Matthew, Mark and Luke, who have a lot in common
There are Bibles, in the original languages, who use all this info to establish a “critical” text, that is a text that is as close to the original as we can get to with our present knowledge. In these bibles, all the variants are listed at the bottom of the page (the critical apparatus) with the manuscripts of families of manuscripts that feature them.
One of the best known critical editions of the New Testament is that of Eberhard Nestle : Novum Testamentum Graece et Latine, in Latin and Greek, which you can buy online.There is a critical apparatus for the Latin Vulgate as well as the Greek.
I would like to add one more thing. There are a couple of passages in the New Testament that are not considered part of the original text, as it came out on day one, but are nevertheless considered inspired. The best known is John 7-53 to 8,11(the adulterous woman). This is omitted from the best and most ancient manuscripts. One possibility is that it was not in the original edition but was added in a later edition, for example by John’s disciples. One thing is sure; it is of apostolic origin and is canonical.
Do you have any more questions?
Verbum
As you know, before the invention of printing (around 1450), books were copied by hand. When a book “came out”, and you wanted to have many copies, you dictated it to several copiers, and then the copies were sent out and many of those copies were copied again etc. etc.
Over several hundred years, as you can surmise, this could lead to multiple errors. This, of course, was for all books, not only for the Bible. In the old days, people relied pretty much on more or less subjective criteria for determining the quality of a manuscript or of a reading, for example, its antiquity, its compliance with the majority of manuscripts, the quotes of respected authors, and so on.
With the advent of modern times and the improvement in communications, manuscripts all over the world became available to any scholar. They were then able to establish a sort of “genealogy” of manuscripts, determine “families” and “descendance”. Thus they were able to determine at what time a certain reading came about.
Sources of error are multiple. Among others :
. a simple misreading of a word, like “either” instead of “neither”
. a transposition of words, like “we really felt bad” for “we felt really bad”
. an omission or addition of a word, like “an old tree” instead of “an old apple tree” or vice versa
. introduction of a marginal comment. Someone might have written a thought or comment in the margin, and a subsequent copyist, introduced it in the test, thinking it was part of the original
. introduction from another book of the Bible. The copyist, wrongly perceiving an error, made a “correction” using another book of the Bible. This happens several times in Matthew, Mark and Luke, who have a lot in common
There are Bibles, in the original languages, who use all this info to establish a “critical” text, that is a text that is as close to the original as we can get to with our present knowledge. In these bibles, all the variants are listed at the bottom of the page (the critical apparatus) with the manuscripts of families of manuscripts that feature them.
One of the best known critical editions of the New Testament is that of Eberhard Nestle : Novum Testamentum Graece et Latine, in Latin and Greek, which you can buy online.There is a critical apparatus for the Latin Vulgate as well as the Greek.
I would like to add one more thing. There are a couple of passages in the New Testament that are not considered part of the original text, as it came out on day one, but are nevertheless considered inspired. The best known is John 7-53 to 8,11(the adulterous woman). This is omitted from the best and most ancient manuscripts. One possibility is that it was not in the original edition but was added in a later edition, for example by John’s disciples. One thing is sure; it is of apostolic origin and is canonical.
Do you have any more questions?
Verbum
N
NotWorthy
Guest
No, I think you are mixing up your stories.I would like to add one more thing. There are a couple of passages in the New Testament that are not considered part of the original text, as it came out on day one, but are nevertheless considered inspired. The best known is John 7-53 to 8,11(the adulterous woman). This is omitted from the best and most ancient manuscripts. One possibility is that it was not in the original edition but was added in a later edition, for example by John’s disciples. One thing is sure; it is of apostolic origin and is canonical.
Do you have any more questions?
Verbum
John 21 was probably added by one of John’s Disciples.
John 8, with the adulterous woman, was removed from some texts because people felt that it was condoning adultery. Scott Hahn has some info on this in “Scripture Matters”.
T
Todd_Easton
Guest
Regarding Matthew 18:11, A Commentary on the New Testament, prepared by The Catholic Biblical Association, 1942, says:
11. This verse is missing in the best Greek manuscripts, and is generally considered to be taken over from Luke 19:10 (cf. also Matthew 9:13).
11. This verse is missing in the best Greek manuscripts, and is generally considered to be taken over from Luke 19:10 (cf. also Matthew 9:13).
M
mgrobertson79
Guest
This question is very prevelant in the “King James onlyism” school of thought. There are no errors in Sacred Scripture, some may translate differently.
V
Verbum
Guest
Hi Notworthy,
Every “explanation” on this matter is speculative. So nobody, or everybody has go the story “mixed up”. What we must retain is that the passage is inspired.
Verbum
Every “explanation” on this matter is speculative. So nobody, or everybody has go the story “mixed up”. What we must retain is that the passage is inspired.
Verbum
N
NotWorthy
Guest
Well, you’re mostly right.Hi Notworthy,
Every “explanation” on this matter is speculative. So nobody, or everybody has go the story “mixed up”. What we must retain is that the passage is inspired.
Verbum
BUT, it is a fact that the Church removed the part of chapte 8 of John thinking that it promoted the acceptance of adultery. Now, that fact can be verifiable or proven false.
The NAB says that in John chapter 5, the verse of the angel disturbing the water to signal it’s healing effects wasn’t added until the 4th century and only in the eastern church’s Scriptures.
So yes, chapter 8 of John is completely inspired - AMEN!
the single verse of John chapter 5 is not considered inspired. It seems like it was added simply to help explain a special event that was believed by the Jews to occur at the Bethsaida pool.
V
Verbum
Guest
Hi Notworthy,
BUT, it is a fact that the Church removed the part of chapter 8 of John thinking that it promoted the acceptance of adultery
Sorry, that is speculation too.
Verbum
BUT, it is a fact that the Church removed the part of chapter 8 of John thinking that it promoted the acceptance of adultery
Sorry, that is speculation too.
Verbum
M
mgrobertson79
Guest
I have the Douay Rheims, RSV-CE 2nd Edition and the NAB. All of the Gospel according to St. John chapter 8 is there in each of them.Well, you’re mostly right.
BUT, it is a fact that the Church removed the part of chapter 8 of John thinking that it promoted the acceptance of adultery. Now, that fact can be verifiable or proven false.
N
NotWorthy
Guest
Why yes, because they’ve been reinserted. I never claimed that it was removed permanently.I have the Douay Rheims, RSV-CE 2nd Edition and the NAB. All of the Gospel according to St. John chapter 8 is there in each of them.
Are you talking about John chapter 5 where the verse (#3 or 4) is listed in the footnotes?
N
NotWorthy
Guest
I’m sorry. If something can be shown to be true or false, it is a fact. If you are trying to judge the motives behind someone’s actions, or trying to prove something that is un-verifiable, then it is speculation. I’m trying not to deal in speculation on this thread.Hi Notworthy,
BUT, it is a fact that the Church removed the part of chapter 8 of John thinking that it promoted the acceptance of adultery
Sorry, that is speculation too.
Verbum
L
lak611
Guest
I have the RSV-CE, not the RSV-2CE. In my Bible, the footnote reads: “Some ancient authorities insert 7.53-8.11 either at the end of this gospel or after Luke 21.38, with variations of the text. Others omit it altogether.”I have the Douay Rheims, RSV-CE 2nd Edition and the NAB. All of the Gospel according to St. John chapter 8 is there in each of them.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.