Does the NRSV negate the Trinity?

[Epistemes]

Be the judge:

Now he said this about the Spirit, which believers in him were to receive; for as yet there was no Spirit, because Jesus was not yet glorified. (John 7:39)

 

[RobHom]

It may muddy the water for “non-Catholics”, but it fails to negate anything especially the “Trinity” which is well established biblically.

The Douay-Rheims version of that scripture is thus:

36 What is this saying that he hath said: You shall seek me, and shall not find me; and where I am, you cannot come? 37 And on the last, and great day of the festivity, Jesus stood and cried, saying: If any man thirst, let him come to me, and drink. 38 He that believeth in me, as the scripture saith, Out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. 39 Now this he said of the Spirit which they should receive, who believed in him: for as yet the Spirit was not given, because Jesus was not yet glorified. 40 Of that multitude therefore, when they had heard these words of his, some said: This is the prophet indeed.

As you can see…another attempt has been made to “revise” the truth…it may for non-Catholics, but it fails to do so for Catholics.

 

[mccorm45]

This really has nothing to do with Catholic or Protestant translations, but rather attempting to find out what was written in the earliest editions. There is also no hiding of the truth. Only the Vaticanus text and a few others has the “given” additions, while the others do not. There are both Catholic and Protestant translations that do not contain “given”.

Either way, the lack of inclusion of “given” does not deny the Trinity. John was simply writting this from a human standpoint and has nothing to do with the preexistence of the third Person of the Trinity. For John, the era of the Holy Spirit had not yet arrived. The Spirit was not as yet at work in the world because Pentecost had not yet come. There is no implication, without “given”, that the HS had not existed.

There is no revision of the truth here. If there was, then the NRSV people would not have added a note, which is in all NRSV versions, which points out the existence of the “given” translation: “Other ancient authorities read for as yet the Spirit had not been given.”

 

[RobHom]

There is no revision of the truth here. If there was, then the NRSV people would not have added a note, which is in all NRSV versions, which points out the existence of the “given” translation: “Other ancient authorities read for as yet the Spirit had not been given.”

I’m not sure, but I think you misunderstood my response. I was not intimating that the D-R was attempting to “revise” the truth. I think the NSRV, even with the notations…has a tendency to muddy water that is very clear otherwise. While I am far from being a “theologian”, I think that some of the new translations using more “contemporary” language are unnecessary and tend to bend meanings out of context which is revision-istic and can muddy issues up.

There is, to me, a significant difference in the meaning of the two phrases used: …“for as yet there was no Spirit” as opposed to … “for as yet the Spirit had not been given”. The first lends a tendency toward meaning that the Spirit did not yet exist, whereas the second makes clear that it does exist, yet is not yet present… I am not attempting to “interpret” only show the semantic differences.

 

[thistle]

I’m not sure, but I think you misunderstood my response. I was not intimating that the D-R was attempting to “revise” the truth. I think the NSRV, even with the notations…has a tendency to muddy water that is very clear otherwise. While I am far from being a “theologian”, I think that some of the new translations using more “contemporary” language are unnecessary and tend to bend meanings out of context which is revision-istic and can muddy issues up.

There is, to me, a significant difference in the meaning of the two phrases used: …“for as yet there was no Spirit” as opposed to … **“for as yet the Spirit had not been given”. **The first lends a tendency toward meaning that the Spirit did not yet exist, whereas the second makes clear that it does exist, yet is not yet present… I am not attempting to “interpret” only show the semantic differences.

To me they have the same meaning.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Be the judge:

Now he said this about the Spirit, which believers in him were to receive; for as yet there was no Spirit, because Jesus was not yet glorified. (John 7:39)

The NRSV rendering agrees with the Greek. Your argument is with the Evangelist (& his sources); not with the translators ​

 

[peregrinus_sg]

Only if you think that Scripture alone is the word of God. Clearly, the Tradition of the Church informs us of the truth, and how we could interpret the various textual traditions of this text.

 

[NoelFitz]

This is a tricky point.

To me John 7:39 says “for yet there was no spirit”.

The word for spirit is PNEUMA. Capital letters were not in the original Greek, thus spirit and Spirit were not distinguished. I believe the doctrine of the Holy Spirit was not clarified until the Council of Chalcedon (451 AD), hundreds of yearsa after the NT was written.

 

[lanceg]

This is a tricky point.

To me John 7:39 says “for yet there was no spirit”.

The word for spirit is PNEUMA. Capital letters were not in the original Greek, thus spirit and Spirit were not distinguished. I believe the doctrine of the Holy Spirit was not clarified until the Council of Chalcedon (451 AD), hundreds of yearsa after the NT was written.

The Divinity of the Holy Spirit was settled at the 2nd Ecumenical Council in Constantinople.

By the way, I recommend St. Basil’s On The Holy Spirit, available in a very inexpensive paperback edition from St. Vladimir’s Press. St. Basil is one of the theologians who help to articulate the doctrine and divinity of the Holy Spirit.

The NRSV rendering at John 7.39 is a legitimate rendering. There are other reasons to criticize the NRSV, but its rendering of 7.39 is not one of them. I do not believe that the verse as rendered denies the Holy Trinity. One has to take into account the entire scripture.

The NRSV is a good translation in many ways. But it uses too much on inclusive language, undermining its over all accuracy.

 

[NoelFitz]

Lanceg,

Thank you for your post.

essentially we agree.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

The text is no problem for us, the Holy Spirit was not sent to **enpower **as a witness to Jesus until Acts 2. The apostles were **indwelt **by the Holy Spirit around John 20:21.

Note: there is a difference between the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and Enpowering of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Henning]

interesting the Latin of 7:39

“hoc autem dixit de Spiritu
quem accepturi erant credentes in eum
**non enim erat Spiritus **
quia Iesus nondum fuerat glorificatus”

**non **not
**enim **for
**erat **was
**Spiritus **Spirit

 

[peary]

Be the judge:

Now he said this about the Spirit, which believers in him were to receive; for as yet there was no Spirit, because Jesus was not yet glorified. (John 7:39)

No Spirit yet: Codex Vaticanus and early Latin, Syriac, and Coptic versions add “given.” In this gospel, the sending of the Spirit cannot take place until Jesus’ glorification through his death, resurrection, and ascension

 

[NoelFitz]

There are many textual variations for John 7:39. See A Textual Commentary on the GNT (B M Metzger).

Some texts have HAGIOS (holy) added. More (as has been noted) have DEDOMENON (given) added. There are also other slight variations.

However the best version (presumably as in NA27 and UBS, 4th Ed.) corresponds to the NRSV.

However not all translations agree as can be seen below:

New American Bible, John 7:39
… There was, of course, no Spirit yet…

New Revised Standard Version John 7:39 …for as yet there was no Spirit…

New American Standard Bible (1995), John 7:39 … for the Spirit was not yet given…

I do not think the various versions differ substantially or pose really major theological problems.