Gordon,
Thanks for the additional comments.
It appears that one could now argue for the particular authority of the
English KJV in that it achieves, (a) the centrality of the shortest
chapter (Ps.117) - an outward appeal, invoking all to praise God, and
(b) the centrality (in terms of verses) of a matching inward appeal,
encouraging the soul to bless the Lord (Ps.103:1,2).
With respect to Bruce Metzger, if the Lord has indicated his approval in
this particular way (as he has, for example, in respect of Genesis 1:1
and the Creator's name), then the opinions of generations of 'experts'
are of little account for, clearly, they had no knowledge of these
developments.
Vernon
gordon brown wrote:
>
> Vernon,
>
> I don't have time to compile a complete list of verses missing from recent
> translations of the Bible, and so let me give just a couple of examples.
> Mark 9:44 and 46 are missing from the NIV. This is the sort of thing
> that would change the calculation of the central verse of the Bible.
>
> There are also many cases in which a phrase found in the AV is missing
> from a verse in the recent translations, but this would not affect the
> counting of the total number of verses in the Bible. There are also a
> number of verses that are separated from the rest of the text by such
> devices as including them in brackets to indicate doubt that they were
> part of the original text. The two long examples of this are Mark 16:9-20
> and John 7:53-8:11.
>
> It is interesting that although there are 150 psalms in the Russian Bible,
> due to splitting and combining a couple of our psalms, the numbering is
> different, and their Psalm 117 is actually our Psalm 118.
>
> I don't know how you can conclude that the dispute involving Mark 16:9-20
> has been resolved in favor of its legitimacy. For that to happen
> plausible explanations would have to be found for the following phenomena.
> I have taken these from a textual commentary by Bruce Metzger. The long
> ending of Mark is absent from the two oldest Greek manuscripts (which are
> considered to be the most reliable) and from many translations into other
> languages (some in manuscripts as late as the tenth century). Clement of
> Alexandria and Origen show no knowledge of these verses. Eusebius and
> Jerome attest that the passage was absent from almost all copies of Mark
> known to them. Many manuscripts that do contain it have a scribal note
> stating that the older Greek manuscripts lack it. Others mark it with
> asterisks or obeli, a conventional way of indicating a spurious addition.
> Some manuscripts have a different, shorter ending. The connection between
> vs. 8 and vs. 9 is awkward. The women are the subject of vs. 8, but the
> verb of the first clause of vs. 9 is third person singular with no subject
> indicated.
>
> Gordon Brown
> Department of Mathematics
> University of Colorado
> Boulder, CO 80309-0395
>
> On Sat, 15 Sep 2001, Vernon Jenkins wrote:
>
> > Gordon,
> >
> > Thanks for these comments. The text I took as the basis of my analysis
> > was that of the Authorized (King James) Version. However, I observe that
> > the NIV and NASB display identical chapter/verse structures - each with
> > a footnote to the effect that some of the older mss do not contain
> > Mk.16:9-20. It appears that other versions, while omitting these verses
> > from the main text, nevertheless provide them as a footnote.
> >
> > What, then, are we to make of these matters? Here again are the facts:
> >
> > 1) The central chapter of all English versions of the Christian Bible is
> > Psalm 117 - the shortest of all its 1189 chapters, and one that
> > powerfully exhorts all peoples to praise the Lord.
> >
> > 2) For the AV, NIV and NASB (and possibly others), standing at the
> > centre of the verse structure are the first two of Psalm 103. These also
> > take the form of an exhortation - but now directed inwardly at the soul
> > of the individual believer.
> >
> > While verses of exhortation are no rare thing in the Book of Psalms, I
> > suggest, nevertheless, that such common ground between these two
> > _biblical centres_ can hardly be attributable to blind chance -
> > particularly in view of the parallel phenomena to which attention has
> > already been drawn. Indeed, the strong suggestion is that the dispute re
> > Mk.16:9-20 is now resolved in favour of their legitimacy!
> >
> > Would you agree ?
> >
> > Vernon
> >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Sep 21 2001 - 16:52:58 EDT