How would I use L4/Scholar's to find out the following...?

I'm still new to greek/hebrew language stuff...

I want to demonstrate to someone that my translation of Luke 4:4 (NASB), while different than theirs, is actually more accurate than their translation (KJV) even though mine appears to have some text "missing".

Obviously, it has something to do with the manuscripts which were used for the translations. But can I use L4 to show that?

Thanks!

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Terry Poperszky

I want to demonstrate to someone that my translation of Luke 4:4 (NASB), while different than theirs, is actually more accurate than their translation (KJV)

Carmen, how do you know that the NASB IS more accurate than the KJV in this instance?

Until you know why you believe something, it is hard to convince someone else.

spitzerpl

To find which one is more accurate the best place to look is in an apparatus. Understanding what you are seeing in an Apparatus is a different story, though. Another source to look in is Metzger's A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (I'm not sure you have it with scholars) which will Tell you why the NASB goes with the shorter translation. I would also run a passage guide on the verse and read through the commentaries you have that may deal with the differences in translation.

Todd Phillips

I want to demonstrate to someone that my translation of Luke 4:4 (NASB), while different than theirs, is actually more accurate than their translation (KJV) even though mine appears to have some text "missing".

Obviously, it has something to do with the manuscripts which were used for the translations. But can I use L4 to show that?

It's not easy to "demonstrate" the reasons behind textual decisions without examining the differing manuscripts, and I don't think Scholar's Library has the tools for doing that, nor does it have the commentaries that discuss the text at that level. But here is some helpful discussion from books you could add to Logos if you don't have them:

Bruce Metzger's commentary on Luke 4:4 states:

"The shortest reading, which has good and early support, must be original; the longer forms of text have been assimilated by copyists to the Matthean parallel (Mt 4:4) or to the Septuagint of Dt 8:3, either verbatim or according to the general sense. If any of the longer forms of text had been original, its omission from א B L W 1241 syr cop, bo would be unaccountable."
Bruce Manning Metzger and United Bible Societies, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Second Edition a Companion Volume to the United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament (4th Rev. Ed.) (London; New York: United Bible Societies, 1994), 113.

Darrell Bock, in his BECNT commentary on Luke, has this discussion:

   "Some manuscripts cite the whole of Deut. 8:3 (Byz, A, D, Θ), but the different forms that the longer version of Luke 4:4 has in the manuscript tradition argue against the presence of this longer reading (see UBS on this text).
   "Different theories exist for how the original temptation tradition was worded, given Matthew’s long citation and Luke’s short version. Schürmann (1969: 210 n. 164) argues that Luke shortened the original: (1) Luke 4:22 shows that Luke knew the concept of “words proceeding out of the mouth of God,” which is present in Matthew’s OT citation; and (2) Luke’s understanding of God’s word did not allow him to use the term to refer to preservation of life; instead he referred it more specifically to God’s utterances (also Wiefel 1988: 101).
   "On the other hand, Holtz (1968: 61) argues that Matthew filled out the citation to bring out clearly the point intended in the reference to Deut. 8:3. Fitzmyer argues that Matthew expanded the text to bring in wisdom motifs about the teacher who feeds his disciples. These explanations are possible, but less than convincing. Did Luke really avoid the idiom of God’s word, as Schürmann suggests? Is the passage’s point really clearer by the text’s expansion, as Holtz suggests? Interestingly, no pattern emerges as to whether Luke 4 or Matt. 4 possesses the longer OT citations. Luke 4:10–11 has the longer OT text versus Matt. 4:5–7. Neither Gospel writer is inclined to abbreviate or expand quotations in this account. It may be that the tradition has produced these variations. This difference may illustrate only that slightly distinct, but similar, sources have been used, since there is no clear evidence that one or the other is original. This is the first of many such details in this pericope, as noted in the exegesis above."
Darrell L. Bock, Luke Volume 1: 1:1-9:50, Baker exegetical commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 1994), 384–385.

Rodney Underwood

Hello Carmen to answer your question, this is what I would do:

1. Go to these links: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KJV_Bible

:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASB

2. Ask yourself these question : Who translated , who was the translation used for, what manuscripts were used, why were they used, which manuscripts where used. Just a few that comes to mind.

3.Do a passage guide study

4. Do a exegetical guild study.

5. Read some Commentaries .

I've only had Logos 4 Scholar since 11/09 and I'm loving-it. I think this would get You started in the right direction. If not I'm sure some will chim in and give you more insight on this.....Guess what ? I would like see other opinions on this also. I use KJV, NKJV, ESV,NLT, and NASB95 as my top five bibles.

Blessing

Rodney

Carmen Gauvin-O'Donnell

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/92013#Comment_92013

Thanks for all the replies, folks... I figured that the above would probably be what I'd have to do.

Terry, and I don't want to spark a debate here... I'm just telling you where I'm coming from, but I firmly believe that the NASB IS more accurate than the KJV, and I do know why I believe it, if only in virtue of several hundred years' worth of manuscripts discoveries between the two.

Don''t get me wrong, I love the sheer literary beauty of the KJV but also realize that for bible study, I'm looking for the most accurate and up-to-date version I can find (my background: I grew up being told what was and was not in the Bible, so when I became a Christian I swore that the only way I could really get to know God was by studying His Word for myself. I also have an interest in apologetics and the cults so the most accurate Bible is crucial when they go off Scripture-Twisting...).

That having been said, I did read in commentaries that that particular verse was modified in some versions so that it would match Matthew 4:4 (probably some well-meaning scribe, as usual).

Unfortunately, a friend of mine who for some reason has decided to go almost "KJV-only" on me decided to use Luke 4:4 to make his argument criticizing the NIV because the NIV omits "but by every word which comes out of the mouth of God".I was surprised to find the end part of the verse missing in my own NASB as well (gasp!) so I wanted to know who got it "right", KJV or NIV/NASB, but using the manuscripts, as opposed to a "he said/she said".

See? [:D]

Thanks for all your help, folks! You guys ROCK.

Terry Poperszky

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/92448#Comment_92448

Terry, and I don't want to spark a debate here... I'm just telling you where I'm coming from, but I firmly believe that the NASB IS more accurate than the KJV, and I do know why I believe it, if only in virtue of several hundred years' worth of manuscripts discoveries between the two.

Debates are fun. Carmen.

I study out of the NASB and haven't opened a KJV in years. You asked help proving it was more accurate, which is based on the manuscripts involved, not on translations per se. I personally wanted to find out if you knew why you believed it was more accurate, or were just taking someone else's word for it.

Carmen Gauvin-O'Donnell

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/92454#Comment_92454

You're right Terry. Debates ARE a hoot, and I thank you for keeping on my toes (the only reason I mentioned not debating is because not everyone in the forums is interested...)

I have as much fun keeping my own Bible study group accountable... telling them that they can believe whatever they want, but they had better know why and be able to justify it scripturally. Half of them are Catholic (as I used to be, so i know what the doctrines are) and you would not believe the fun I have when one of them suggests that the Bible says such and such about whatever.

I usually just look at them with my eyebrows raised and say "really?" that's followed by them saying "...doesn't it?..." to which I usually reply, "I don't know. You're the Catholic... you tell ME what the doctrine is."

They get that "tired look" on their face that says, " oh nooooo... not again. I'm going to actually have to go look this up, aren't I?"

Uh huh! [:D] "the priest told me so" won't cut it with me.

This is all done in a spirit of fun... we're all good friends who have known and loved each other for years.

Bill Rust

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/92461#Comment_92461

There are a couple of reasons why this is difficult to do. 1) The two translations use different Greek manuscripts - which it looks like you are aware of, and 2) The KJV is not a bad translation for what it is - it is 399 years old, and help defined the English language we know today. The words used are accurate if you understand that they can mean slightly different things to a 1611 audience and a 2010 audience.

There are two schools of thought for KJV fans in my opinion: 1) Those that believe the translation is inspired, and 2) Those that prefer the Byzantine texts to the Alexandrian texts. I can't make sense of position 1) but neither have I had any success convincing anyone to change their mind from it. Position 2) rests on whether you believe that the 2 texts that are heavily weighted in the Alexandrian camp are in fact older and better as the majority believe. It comes down to how you feel about textual criticism. I am not entirely convinced that the Byzantine camp is wrong, but it is extremely difficult to know which camp is right without trusting a scholar who is a fallible human like myself.

One thing helps me ultimately. I learn faster using the NASB update. I also use my KJV as a reference when using the classic study tools like the Treasury of Scripture Knowlege, and to compare texts. Then again I also have the ESV handy when the need arises. And when I memorize Scripture I tend to favor KJV, go figure.

I really don't know if I helped clear anything up or not.

- Bill

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/92461#Comment_92461

They get that "tired look" on their face that says, " oh nooooo... not again. I'm going to actually have to go look this up, aren't I?"

Yeah, it's a problem ... I bet you wouldn't let me by with "well, it's one of those epistles read when we're reading the Bread of Life discourse" ... which I am much more apt to know than what city Paul was writing to this time.[;)]

Answer: Bread of Life discourse is used to fill in the year of Mark so we're talking Year B. Year B starts with the Corinithians, Ephesians, James, Hebrews. Bread of Life is towards the end of summer so I'll guess Ephesians or James. Huh, I'm sure glad Logos is on my phone so I can search (or read) until I find that "blankety-blank" passage. You sure you won't just trust me that it around there somewhere?[emoticon for pleading]