John 3:16 RSV

  • Thread starter Thread starter demerzel85
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

demerzel85

Guest
I was just wondering why in the RSV translation of John 3:16 it seems that a “may” seems like its missing from the text. Other Catholic Translations have may/might in them.

John 3:16 RSV “For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.”

John 3:16 DRV “For God so loved the world, as to give his only begotten Son; that whosoever believeth in him, may not perish, but may have life everlasting.”

John 3:16 NAB “For God so loved the world that he gave 7 his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him might not perish but might have eternal life.”

John 3:16 JB “Yes, God lived the world so much that he gave his only Son, so that whoever believes in him may not be lost but may have eternal life.”

John 3:16 NJB “For this is how God loved the world: he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life.”

John 3:16 CCB “16 Yes, God so loved the world that he gave his only Son that whoever believes in him may not be lost, but may have eternal life.”

John 3:16 NRSV “For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life.”

I dont know much Latin but for the sake of reference here is the text from the Latin Vulgate and Nova Vulgata “sic enim dilexit Deus mundum ut Filium suum unigenitum daret ut omnis qui credit in eum non pereat sed habeat vitam aeternam”

It seems to me that somehow “may” has been dropped from the text in the RSV. There is a difference between “may have eternal life” and just “have eternal life”. The latter is definite but the former is not. There is also a slight difference in emphasis when you look at the earlier “should not” vs “may not” / “might not”.

The only other places where I can find “may” dropped is in the Protestant Translations like the KJV, NIV, ASV, NASB, Wycliffe NT, CEV, MSG, AMP, NLT, ESV, GB/TEV. For the earlier “should not” part these either have shall not, should not or will not.

Am I correct to observe that something is missing here? What does the orginal Greek actually translate to? What does the Latin say? To what extent does the difference have to do with catechesis or interpreting the text?
 
I found this article here in CA Library. Discusses Greek, English and word tense.

God Bless,
Maria
 
Hmm…interesting read, but does dropping the 2nd “may” affect Catholic teaching in any way? If so how much?
 
This is from ‘Young’s Literal Translation’ :
Jhn 3:16 for God did so love the world, that His Son – the only begotten – He gave, that every one who is believing in him may not perish, but may have life age-during.
Click to expand...
The interlinear I have, translates the first ‘may’ as ‘should not’ and leaves the second one alone (as ‘may’).

I think the sense of it is - if you truly believe (and follow the Authority of the Church/Tradition and follow Christs path of conversion) you ‘shouldn’t’ perish, and you may have eternal life if you perform the will of the Father. (Matthew 7:21-23) Protestants dropped the second ‘may’ altogether to conform with ‘sola scriptura’ and ‘sola fide’.

Hope this didn’t confuse you more

Peace

John
 
40.png
demerzel85:
Hmm…interesting read, but does dropping the 2nd “may” affect Catholic teaching in any way? If so how much?
Click to expand...
Yes, I believe it does. It would leave open the error of OSAS.

The “may” helps one to properly interpret the passage in a “working out my salvation” kind of way.

Just my opinion though.

God Bless,
Maria
 
Interesting, YLT retains the 2nd “may”.

Actually no I’m not confused 😉 I know quite clearly the issues surrounding sola scriptura and sola fides and have engaged in my share of apologetics about them.

From what I know it looks like the RSV-CE is about the only Catholic Bibles that has the 2nd “may” missing for John 3:16, and the YLT the only Protestant translation that still retains the “may”.

But what the verdict based on 1) Catechesis and 2) Bibical Scholarship from both sides of the divide? Is the difference just how the manuscript is interpreted or is the dropping of the 2nd “may” just arbitrary?
 
40.png
demerzel85:
Interesting, YLT retains the 2nd “may”.

Actually no I’m not confused 😉 I know quite clearly the issues surrounding sola scriptura and sola fides and have engaged in my share of apologetics about them.

From what I know it looks like the RSV-CE is about the only Catholic Bibles that has the 2nd “may” missing for John 3:16, and the YLT the only Protestant translation that still retains the “may”.

But what the verdict based on 1) Catechesis and 2) Bibical Scholarship from both sides of the divide? Is the difference just how the manuscript is interpreted or is the dropping of the 2nd “may” just arbitrary?
Click to expand...
Interestingly enough, to go along with that - the RSV-CE is simply the protestant RSV, with the deutero-canonicals added. It retains the protestant translations - of everything. Although better than most translations (protestant) it is still not very accurate.

Myself, I prefer the DR - when I run across a word that confuses me, I refer to the NAB for clarification, and then return to the DR - largely ignoring the footnotes for the NAB as well. They are, less than ideal :rolleyes: .

I could not find anything online for comments about the missing words in protestant translations, but I have seen threads on this subject around here - perhaps a search of “Bibe versions” or Bible translations" would be fruitful for you.

The general lean of the subject, as I remember it - was that Luther removed a lot of words, revised whole texts to reflect his understanding of scripture - along with the removal of several books, and wanted to go further, but didn’t - why I don’t remember at the moment.

Happy hunting!

Peace

John
 
I have my own DRV to read, but since I got my pocket Confranternity New Testament, I have been carrying it around and using it for daily devotions since I am more able to carry it about and read it since I am on the bus.

I usually find the RSV-CE to be my bible of choice, as it does retain the beauty of how certain verses have traditionally been worded in various prayers/devotions or songs, and its much easier to identify them. The only place that I do have a problem is John 3:16 because I have not been able to find an explanation why the 2nd “may” is missing. The Navarre and Ignatius Study commentary that use the RSV-CE somehow just dont say a thing.

I do have my own copy of the Haydock Bible, and if you are familiar with some of the commentary inside, in quite a few places it does point out the incorrect interpreations of various verses by Protestants. But unfortunately for John 3:16 it does not.

The Jerusalem Bible 1966, usually is pretty solid for commentary related to the manuscripts, but for this verse it refers to the earlier part not the later.

The commentary in the Christian Community Bible, usually is able fill the gaps for me when the above are not necessarily explained in the most assessible manner. Unfortunately nope, not in this case.

And well I did browse this forum quite abit when I was deciding which Bible Version I should get to replace my old GNB/TEV that I was given for confirmation. Although the verdict is the other Catholic translations are alot better, I did want to find the best one available. Unfortunately that was not a possibility since pre-Challoner revision DRVs are not available. So well I settled for variety, so all that is missing from my collection is just a whole NAB. But I do have to refer to JB quite often since the liturgy uses that translation. That being said from all that I have read from past posts from this forum, I just have not seen a thread where this was raised or a post where this was explained.

Can it be Luther who is to blame? Well I thought most of them dealt with the Epistles and the OT rather than the Gospels when it comes to insertion/deletion of words. Hence began the whole fiasco of sola scriptura that continues till this day. (The term Bible Christian to me just makes no sense at all.)

And well basically it was really a stroke of luck that Protestants have all the books of the New Testament, and Luther not have his way over books like the Epistle of St James, which he described as the epistle of straw. Lest Protestants be in an unenviable position of trying to defend how writings from the apostles themselves or those who recorded their teaching, could be classified as being apocryphal. Would have been much more fun for Catholic apologists, but I guess God works in ways that man cannot fathom. But then again could it have been the other reformers like Calvin who removed it instead of Luther?

Or can it have more to do with the manuscripts themselves?
 
“apollumi” is translated into “Should be perishing” in the greek - “should be being destroyed” in the Hebrew. With, of course, the word “NOT” before it - lol.

and

“echO” is translated as “May have” and “may be having” in the Hebrew.

Two completely different words…in the Hebrew as well, but I don’t have a Hebrew capable keyboard lol.

Based on that I have to say that it is a willful mis-translation - given the fact that ALL Protestant translations claim to be “A faithful translation from the original documents, using the best available sources…”

Why I trust the DRV, true it is a translation itself - but it seems to be (IMO) the best available…given that St. Jerome translated the Vulgate. But that, as I said is stricly my preference.

Peace

Jiohn
 
I always read the “may not” as God giving us the permission to not perish, e.g. to be allowed not to perish, and not the indefinate case of “well, if you believe in him, there is still the possibility that you may still perish”.

Now, as far as the NAB, what is up with that? “If you believe in him you might perish, and you might not perish” is how I read that. I guess, technically, the demons “believed in him”…doesn’t mean they followed him.

The RSV is definately VERY protestant in this example.
 
PraRFLEsEkHm said:
“apollumi” is translated into “Should be perishing” in the greek - “should be being destroyed” in the Hebrew. With, of course, the word “NOT” before it - lol.

and

“echO” is translated as “May have” and “may be having” in the Hebrew.

Two completely different words…
Click to expand...

PraRFLEsEkHm, so, what you are saying is that both the Greek and the Hebrew clearly say “may not”?

Also, just to be complete, don’t you find it odd that in the RSV verse 15 says “may have eternal life” and verse 17 says “might be saved through him” but in that context verse 16 just happens to disregard these indefinites?

I checked all the popular Protestant Bibles, the ESV, the NIV, the KJV, and even the literal NASB, and they all make the first part a definate, and also skip the second “may”.

Thanks
 
For the record, here is what Webster has to say about “may”:
1 a archaic : have the ability to b : have permission to : be free to <a rug on which children may sprawl – C. E. Silberman> – used nearly interchangeably with can c – used to indicate possibility or probability
Click to expand...
So, it could be saying “if we believe then we have the ability not to perish”, or it could be saying “if we believe then we have permission not to perish”, or it could be saying “if we believe then we have the possibility not to perish”.

In each case, we better still believe ;), but I think what John is NOT saying is that “if we believe then we will not perish” or “if we believe then it is predicted that we will not perish”. And sadly, that is basically what the RSV is saying.
 
40.png
demerzel85:
I was just wondering why in the RSV translation of John 3:16 it seems that a “may” seems like its missing from the text. Other Catholic Translations have may/might in them.

John 3:16 RSV “For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.”

John 3:16 DRV “For God so loved the world, as to give his only begotten Son; that whosoever believeth in him, may not perish, but may have life everlasting.”

John 3:16 NAB “For God so loved the world that he gave 7 his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him might not perish but might have eternal life.”

John 3:16 JB “Yes, God lived the world so much that he gave his only Son, so that whoever believes in him may not be lost but may have eternal life.”

John 3:16 NJB “For this is how God loved the world: he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life.”

John 3:16 CCB “16 Yes, God so loved the world that he gave his only Son that whoever believes in him may not be lost, but may have eternal life.”

John 3:16 NRSV “For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life.”

I dont know much Latin but for the sake of reference here is the text from the Latin Vulgate and Nova Vulgata “sic enim dilexit Deus mundum ut Filium suum unigenitum daret ut omnis qui credit in eum non pereat sed habeat vitam aeternam”

It seems to me that somehow “may” has been dropped from the text in the RSV. There is a difference between “may have eternal life” and just “have eternal life”. The latter is definite but the former is not. There is also a slight difference in emphasis when you look at the earlier “should not” vs “may not” / “might not”.

The only other places where I can find “may” dropped is in the Protestant Translations like the KJV, NIV, ASV, NASB, Wycliffe NT, CEV, MSG, AMP, NLT, ESV, GB/TEV. For the earlier “should not” part these either have shall not, should not or will not.

Am I correct to observe that something is missing here? What does the orginal Greek actually translate to? What does the Latin say? To what extent does the difference have to do with catechesis or interpreting the text?
Click to expand...

In English, it often happens that a subjunctive which is present in a Greek verb used twice, which can be seen to be intended by the written form of the Greek, will be expressed in English either by​

  1. by using the Subjunctive form of the verb, followed by a preposition, followed by a second subjunctive
or
  1. by using the subjunctive, then the preposition, then a form which is written so as to be indistinguishable from the indicative, but has a subjunctive meaning.
The difference is not one of doctrine, nor of translation, but of how the different languages express the same meaning. They have different grammatical rules; not unreasonably. 🙂

The English subjunctive can express the range of meaning of the Greek subjunctive only approximately - it can never be assumed that what one language does, another will do; or do in exactly the same way.

Again, Greek uses the accusative where English does not - so that the “Whom do men say that I am ?” of the seventeenth-century English versions is not correct as English; it follows Greek usage, not English usage. In English, it is expressed as “Who do men say that I am ?”

The reason for the lack of subjunctive forms in English in many modern versions, is that the distinction between the indicative & the subjunctive is far less common in everyday English than it was two or three generations ago - I think the decline in knowledge of Greek & Latin is probably a reason.

Hope that helps 🙂 ##
 
Gottle of Geer said:
## In English, it often happens that a subjunctive which is present in a Greek verb used twice, which can be seen to be intended by the written form of the Greek, will be expressed in English either by
  1. by using the Subjunctive form of the verb, followed by a preposition, followed by a second subjunctive
or
  1. by using the subjunctive, then the preposition, then a form which is written so as to be indistinguishable from the indicative, but has a subjunctive meaning.
The difference is not one of doctrine, nor of translation, but of how the different languages express the same meaning. They have different grammatical rules; not unreasonably. 🙂

The English subjunctive can express the range of meaning of the Greek subjunctive only approximately - it can never be assumed that what one language does, another will do; or do in exactly the same way.
Click to expand...

I apologize, but I even looked these forms up on the web and they were confusing. Let me see if I follow.

First of all, are you saying that both are correct?

Anyway, on to the verse:

“may not perish” is in the subjunctive mood (because it is possible, not a definite), followed by “but”, a preposition, followed by “may have,” the second case of a subjunctive mood. This reflects what you listed as #1.

In the RSV case, “should not perish” is in the subjunctive mood (but it seems to still mean something different than "may not perish), followed by “but” a preposition, followed by “have” which you are saying somehow retains the same subjunctive meaning of the previous “should” and is indistinguishable from the indicative? I don’t think I follow what you are saying here for #2.

It seems as if regardless of whether the second case is in the subjunctive or the indicative, it STILL seems to have a different meaning compared to the other verse EVEN IF IT IS read in the subjunctive mood. So, we know that the Greek literally has two instances of ‘may’, one on each verb, and not ‘should’, but either way, what, are you saying, does the actual Greek mean?

I read the RSV passage to be “that whoever believes in him should not perish but (instead) have eternal life.” The “instead” is implied. As I mentioned above, should there also be an implied “should” when reading it in the subjunctive, e.g. “that whoever believes in him should not perish but SHOULD (instead) have eternal life”? Even then, it still means something different from ‘may’.

Maybe you can further comment on why they chose to translate it as “should” instead of “may”, and how we are to read the second half of the RSV, after the proposition?
 
I’m gonna add my two cents here If no one minds:

*That second “missing” may.

Our Catholic understanding of “believing” in Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ,consists of more than just a one time act of faith,it means works also,Our Catholic Church teaches that we have to do more!

Repentance,Baptism,receiving the Sacraments and following Him as best we can all our life , *If *we do that ,we don’t need that “second may” we are assured that we will have eternal life!

.
 
40.png
mmortal03:
PraRFLEsEkHm, so, what you are saying is that both the Greek and the Hebrew clearly say “may not”?

Also, just to be complete, don’t you find it odd that in the RSV verse 15 says “may have eternal life” and verse 17 says “might be saved through him” but in that context verse 16 just happens to disregard these indefinites?

I checked all the popular Protestant Bibles, the ESV, the NIV, the KJV, and even the literal NASB, and they all make the first part a definate, and also skip the second “may”.

Thanks
Click to expand...
Hi

Greek is the language of the New Testament, not Hebrew - sorry for any confusion. But Yes…the Greek clearly has “may not perish”, and “may or might have eternal life”. Both are present in the text, not just one.Myself, I believe they are there because as I and others have stated here:
Originally posted by PrarFLEsEkHm
I think the sense of it is - if you truly believe (and follow the Authority of the Church/Tradition and follow Christs path of conversion) you ‘shouldn’t’ perish, and you may have eternal life if you perform the will of the Father. (Matthew 7:21-23) Protestants dropped the second ‘may’ altogether to conform with ‘sola scriptura’ and ‘sola fide’.
Click to expand...
Peace

John
 
mmortal03 said:
I apologize, but I even looked these forms up on the web and they were confusing. Let me see if I follow.

First of all, are you saying that both are correct?

Anyway, on to the verse:

“may not perish” is in the subjunctive mood (because it is possible, not a definite), followed by “but”, a preposition, followed by “may have,” the second case of a subjunctive mood. This reflects what you listed as #1.

In the RSV case, “should not perish” is in the subjunctive mood (but it seems to still mean something different than "may not perish), followed by “but” a preposition, followed by “have” which you are saying somehow retains the same subjunctive meaning of the previous “should” and is indistinguishable from the indicative? I don’t think I follow what you are saying here for #2.

It seems as if regardless of whether the second case is in the subjunctive or the indicative, it STILL seems to have a different meaning compared to the other verse EVEN IF IT IS read in the subjunctive mood. So, we know that the Greek literally has two instances of ‘may’, one on each verb, and not ‘should’, but either way, what, are you saying, does the actual Greek mean?

I read the RSV passage to be “that whoever believes in him should not perish but (instead) have eternal life.” The “instead” is implied. As I mentioned above, should there also be an implied “should” when reading it in the subjunctive, e.g. “that whoever believes in him should not perish but SHOULD (instead) have eternal life”? Even then, it still means something different from ‘may’.

Maybe you can further comment on why they chose to translate it as “should” instead of “may”, and how we are to read the second half of the RSV, after the proposition?
Click to expand...

The drawback with “should”, is that it is capable of being used to express:​

    1. obligation - “I should not break that glass if I were you; or you are going to have to pay for it”
    1. future conditional states - “Should you pass under this door, a ten-ton anvil will fall on you”.
“May” can express:
    1. permission - “if you wish, you may come in”
    1. conditional states, including futures ones - “if you drink that poison, you may die; though it may be that you will not”
      FWIW, I’m familiar with UK English - not US ##
 
I am really glad that this thread didn’t perish along with the others, because that message above was one of my more insightful ones. I don’t have time to dive into this one right at the moment, but I am at least glad that you replied after all this time!
 
Hi Dem–,

I think an analysis of the Greek text will help you make up your mind on what tranlation is best : (a circumflex accent on an “e” or “o” indicates an “eta” or “omega” respectively)
outôs gar êgapêsen o theos ton kosmon, ôste ton uion ton monogenê edôken, ina pas o pisteuôn eis auton mê apolêtai all’ echê zôên aiônion.
Click to expand...
Please note that “ôste” with indicative introduces a result clause, whereas “ina” with subjonctive introduces a purpose clause. (Note that the Latin has to use “ut” with the subjonctive in both cases). Now here’s a literal translation :

So for loved the God the world that his son the only-born he-gave, so that every the believer in him not be-lost but have life eternal.

We have three elements :

(1) God loves the world

(2) The result is that he gives his only Son

(3) The purpose of this gift is salvation

Now let’s try to put this into more palatable English :

For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son in order that everyone who believes in Him not be lost but have eternal life.

There are different ways of expressing purpose in English and some were more popular at one time than another. In my view, all the translations you cited are corrrect.

Verbum
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top