Author Archives: Dungadin

The Book of Enoch- Laurence

I have typed up the first English translation that was made of the Book of Enoch, translated by Richard Laurence, LL.D., the Archbishop of Cashel. It is a PDF of about 1 gigabyte in size. I also made a printed edition of it on Amazon for $9.95, and a Kindle edition.

The return of the long lost Book of Enoch to the modern western world is credited to the famous explorer James Bruce, who in 1773 returned from six years in Abyssinia with three Ethiopic copies of the lost book.  In 1821 Richard Laurence published this, the first English translation, from the Ethiopic (Ge’ez) manuscript residing in the Bodleian Library at Oxford.  The version I have uploaded is an edition updated in 1883. The volume begins with an introduction, the author anonymous, only described as “the author of ‘The Evolution of Christianity.’ ”  The text of Enoch itself is footnoted where Mr. Laurence has not rendered the Ethiopic literally into English but supplies a literal rendering in the notes.  An anonymous editor has supplied additional notes not by Mr. Laurence, giving the opinions of M. Knibb and R. H. Charles and others.

Richard Laurence, LL.D. (13 May 1760 – 28 December 1838) was an English Hebrew scholar and Anglican churchman. He was made Regius Professor of Hebrew and canon of Christ Church, Oxford, in 1814, and Archbishop of Cashel, Ireland, in 1822. He died in Dublin in 1838.

Warning: the Introduction by the Anonymous author is rather modernistic and “Unitarian,” but it contains valuable and interesting information, including a table of passages in Enoch placed next to New Testament passages that were evidently influenced by them. Download the free PDF, or purchase the paperback edition or the Kindle Edition of the Book of Enoch.

The Book of Enoch by Richard Laurence

Change of Rendering John 9:33

The verse John 9:33 has bothered me as long as I can remember.  In the King James Version it says:

“If this man were not of God, he could do nothing.”

The ESV, NIV, NRSV, NASB etc, all the mainstream translations say the same thing, or use the word “anything” rather than “nothing.”

This bothered me, because it is not true.  Men who are not from God CAN do something, including miracles.  For example, in Exodus 7:10-11, Pharaoh’s magicians turned a wooden staff into a snake.

The context of this verse, the verse immediately before this in John, is the man who was blind from birth, who after having been healed by Jesus, told the Pharisees, “Since time began, reports have not been heard that someone opened the eyes of one born blind.”

So first of all, the man is saying Jesus would not have been able to do THAT PARTICULAR miracle if he were not from God.  This is clearly what he meant, but most conservative translations are too afraid to say this, even in italics.  However, I want to give credit to those translations who at least rendered this part correctly:

(Williams)  If this man had not come from God, He could not have done anything like this.”
(Phillips) If this man did not come from God, he couldn’t do such a thing!”
(GW)  If this man were not from God, he couldn’t do anything like that.”
(ISV)  If this man were not from God, he couldn’t do anything like that.”
(ERV) This man must be from God. If he were not from God, he could not do anything like this.”
(AMPC) If this Man were not from God, He would not be able to do anything like this.
(NOG) If this man were not from God, he couldn’t do anything like that.”
(NLV) If this Man were not from God, He would not be able to do anything like this.”
(NLT) If this man were not from God, he couldn’t have done it.”
(WE) If this man did not come from God, he could not do anything like this.’

Plus the translations of the Syriac Peshitta say:
“If this man were not of God, he could not do this thing.”

This leaving of the object of the verb unsaid is not uncommon in New Testament Greek, I can tell you.  It is proper to supply in your target language something like, “this” or “that,” or “it.”  And there is no need to put those in italics.

Now, those translations above to did supply an object for the verb, still did not render the word οὐδέν correctly.  The verse in Greek is: εἰ μὴ ἦν οὗτος παρὰ θεοῦ, οὐκ ἠδύνατο ποιεῖν οὐδέν.

Both the LSJ and BDAG lexicons say that the neuter form, οὐδέν, in the accusative is an adverb.  See BDAG p. 735, 2 (b) γ- “in no respect, in no way.  This is an “adverbial accusative,” see BDF § 160, where DeBrunner points out another place that John used an adverbial accusative, 8:25 – τὴν ἀρχήν, “at all.”  “Why am I speaking to you at all?”  For οὐδέν here see also LSJ:  III  1. neut. οὐδέν as Adv., not at all.

So, I have revised my translation of John 9:33 here.  I render the οὐδέν as an adverb.  The LSJ says “not at all,” the BDAG says “in no way.”  This healed blind man was very street colloquial in his speech.  I rendered this “Since time began, reports have not been heard that someone opened the eyes of one born blind.  If this man were not from God, no way could he have done this thing.” You can download my translation here.

Papyrus 39 John Variant

In John 8:14 there is a textual variant between Η in the NA28 versus ΚΑΙ in the Byzantine text:

ὑμεῖς δὲ οὐκ οἴδατε πόθεν ἔρχομαι  Η ποῦ ὑπάγω

ὑμεῖς δὲ οὐκ οἴδατε πόθεν ἔρχομαι, ΚΑΙ ποῦ ὑπάγω.

Now concerning Papyrus 39, the Münster Institute and the NA28 say 𝔓³⁹ reads Η, while the IGNTP says it reads ΚΑΙ.  The NA28 does not even put a “vid” with it.  But only the right edge of the last letter of the word is visible to me.  It is rounded, not a straight up and down line like it would be for H or I. But the scribe’s Epsilon is round, and it seems more likely to be an E than Η or I, thus perhaps ΟΥΔΕ.  Is the theory that there is only room there for one letter, like H?  However, it certainly does not look like an H. (Image posted below, the 2nd line ΠΟΥ ΥΠΑ with the letter in question barely visible before that.)

The NA28 text in English is “but you do not know where I came from or where I am going.”
The Byz text in English is “but you do not know where I came from and where I am going.”
𝔓³⁹ if ΟΥΔΕ in English is “but you do not know where I came from nor where I am going.”

Papyrus 39, John 8:14

Papyrus 141

Recently a new papyrus from Oxyrhynchus has been transcribed and published and been given a Gregory-Aland number. The Gregory-Aland number is Papyrus 141, as opposed to P. Oxy 5478 or its library shelf ID at the Sackler Library in Oxford. This new papyrus is dated from the III century, and contains fragments of the gospel of Luke chapters 2 and 24.

So this is to announce that I have added it to my “Table of NT Greek Manuscripts arranged by date” page. I have also added its reading in one footnote in my translation of the gospel of Luke, chapter 2 verse 33.

There is a textual variant in Luke 2:33 where the UBS/NA28 text has “And the child’s father and mother were marveling at the things being said by him.” The Textus Receptus and the Robinson-Pierpont texts say “And Joseph and his mother were marveling…” Our new Papyrus 141 supports the UBS/NA28 reading.

Erasmus has πατηρ “father” in all 5 of his editions.  He said, “In some Greek manuscript I read ‘Joseph’ instead of ‘father’; in my opinion it has been changed by someone who feared that Joseph be called Jesus’ father” (“In Graecis aliquot codicibus lego pro pater, Ioseph; quod arbitror immutatum a quopiam, qui vereretur Ioseph vocare patrem Iesu…”; ‘aliquot’ added in 1519—ASD VI–5, p. 484 ll. 42–44; similarly in Resp. ad annot. Ed. Lei, ASD IX–4, p. 126 ll. 506–509).  So we see that Erasmus figured that copyists changed the original “father” to Joseph, for the very same reasons that KJV Onlyists prefer the reading “Joseph.”  But they forget that the KJV calls Joseph Jesus’ father in several other passages.  Erasmus was correct, but the KJV does not follow him here.

You can download my updated gospel of Luke with Greek text here, and the Manuscripts listed by date page is here. I also updated the printed edition of Luke on Amazon.

John Ch 7 verse 39

John 7:39 πνευμα “the spirit was not yet present’ 𝔓⁶⁶c 𝔓⁷⁵ ℵ N* T vg-st arm eth geo¹ Or-grk,lat1/6 Ps-Dion Cyr3/9 Hesych Rebap SBL NA28 {A} ‖ πνευμα αγιον “the holy spirit was not yet present” 𝔓⁶⁶* E L Nc W 047 𝔐 eth Or-lat4/6 Marcellus Did-dub Chrys Cyr6/9 Thod Tyc TR RP TH ‖ πνευμα δεδομενον “the spirit was not yet given” it-a,aur,b,ff²,l,r1 vg-cl,ww syr-c,s,p Eus Vict-Rome Ambrosiaster Ambrose Gaud Jer Aug ‖ πνευμα αγιον δεδομενον “the holy spirit was not yet given” B it-e,q vg-mss (syr-h δεδομενον with *) syr-pal geo² Or-lat1/6 ‖ το πνευμα αγιον επ αυτοις “the holy spirit was not yet upon them” D* ‖ το πνευμα το αγιον επ αυτους”the holy spirit was not yet upon them” D¹it-f ‖ lac A C P Q 0233.

Codex Vaticanus reads: ··ουπω γαρ ην πνευμα αγιον δεδομενον οτι ις̅ ·· (umlauts)

Note: The Tyndale House going against an A reading of the UBS. The NIV, ESV, NET, CSB follow the πνευμα δεδομενον reading, and the KJV and NASB put “given” in italics. Whereas Tyndale reads “For the holy goost was not yet there because that Iesus was not yet glorifyed.”

It should also be noted that the versions such as Latin which read “not yet given” may have had a source text without δεδομενον but the translators supplied “given” just like many English translations do.

Spelling of Capernaum

John 6:24 txt καφαρναουμ 𝔓⁷⁵ ℵ B D N W SBL TH NA28 {\} ‖ καπερναουμ A E L 047 TR RP ‖ lac 𝔓⁶⁶ C T. The lacunose MSS do have the word elsewhere. The MSS are listed by date as follows:

𝔓⁶⁶ – 200 – καφαρναουμ
𝔓⁴⁵ – III – καφαρναουμ
𝔓⁷⁵ – III – καφαρναουμ
0162 – III/IV – καφαρναουμ
ℵ – IV – καφαρναουμ
B – IV – καφαρναουμ
W – IV/V – mixed
C – V – καφαρναουμ
D – V – καφαρναουμ
T – V – καφαρναουμ
A – V – καπερναουμ
Z – VI – καφαρναουμ
N – VI – mixed
Σ – VI – καπερναουμ
Φ – VI – καπερναουμ
E – VIII – καπερναουμ
L – VIII – mixed
047 – VIII – καπερναουμ

You can see that the spelling changed in the 5th century with Codices W and A, except that Codices L and N and Z carried it a bit later. The BDF grammar on the transliteration of Hebrew “MUTES: כ, פ, ת (unvoiced nonemphatic stops and spirants) are represented by χ, φ, θ, except where two aspirates would follow in contiguous syllables (in which case the Greeks dissimilated even in their own words).”

Ancient Greek had letters for both the aspirated and unaspirated P, T and K, while in English we have letters only for the aspirated, because the unaspirated stops do not mean something different from the aspirated versions, they are not “phonemes.” In Greek, the aspirated P was Φ φ (sounds just like our English P) and the unaspirated was Π π, which English does not have a letter for. The Greek aspirated T was Θ θ, like our English T, and the unaspirated was Τ τ, which English does not have a letter for. The Greek aspirated K sound was the letter Χ χ, like our English letter K, and the unaspirated was Κ κ, which English does not have a letter for. The Greek language has changed very much since then. For example, the letter β is no longer the B sound but is now V. You now write the B sound as the two letters μπ. The letter δ is no longer the D sound, but is now voiced TH as in “then.” Now, to write the D sound you write two letters, ντ. Greek grammar has of course changed in the thousands of years. One of the biggest changes is that there is no longer a dative case.

John 3:34 Translation Issues

John 3:34- 
ὃν γὰρ ἀπέστειλεν ὁ θεὸς τὰ ῥήματα τοῦ θεοῦ λαλεῖ, οὐ γὰρ ἐκ μέτρου δίδωσιν τὸ πνεῦμα.”
For he whom God has sent speaks the words of God; because to him God gives the Spirit without measure.”

 txt το πνευμα 𝔓³⁶ 𝔓⁶⁶ 𝔓⁷⁵ 𝔓⁸⁰ ℵ B¹ C* L Wsupp 083 it-b,e,fc,l Or-grk Cyr Vict-Pett½ SBL TH NA28 {B} ‖ ο θεος το πνευμα A C² D E 047 086 𝔐 it-a,aur,(d),f*,j,π,q,r¹ (itff² του θεου) vg syr-p,h cop arm eth geo Or-lat Did-dub Chrys Vict-Pett½ Greg-Elvvid Jer Aug TR RP ‖ ο πατηρ τω υιω αυτου syr-c,Diatess-Eph ‖ ο θεος ο πατηρ syrs ‖ omit B* ‖ lac Ν P Q T 0233

The Bible translator confronts two questions here: (1) whether to include ο θεος “God” or not; and (2), whether the verb δίδωσιν has an implied direct object, i.e., the person who is the subject being discussed, “he whom God has sent,” the Son.

On the first question, we cannot tell which text the translations are following, since they could have, like I did, even though following the Greek text not containing ο θεος, felt a need to clarify who was doing the giving, and added the word “God” anyway.  Note in the critical apparatus that indeed the Curetonian Syriac and the Diatessaron supplied τω υιω αυτου, “to his Son.”  That does not mean that their Greek exemplar contained those words.)

Following are he translations which we presume follow the UBS/NA text, which nevertheless supply the word “God” for clarification:

Weym   for God does not give the Spirit with limitations.”
CBW      for God continues to give Him the Spirit without measure.
AMP      for God gives the [gift of the] Spirit without measure [generously and boundlessly]!
CEB        because God gives the Spirit generously.
CJB         For God does not give him the Spirit in limited degree —
ERV        God gives him the Spirit fully.
EHV?     for God gives the Spirit without measure.
GW        After all, God gives him the Spirit without limit.
GNT       because God gives him the fullness of his Spirit.
ICB         . God gives him the Spirit fully.
ISV         because God does not give the Spirit in limited measure to him.
MOUNCE    for God does not give the Spirit in a limited measure.
NCB       for God gives him the Spirit without measure.
NCV       because God gives him the Spirit fully.
NIV        for God gives the Spirit without limit.
NLT        for God gives him the Spirit without limit.

On the 2nd question, whether a direct object is implied as to whom the Spirit is given without measure, the following translations supply “him” or some other stand-in for the Son:

CBW      for God continues to give Him the Spirit without measure.
Bishops       For God geueth not the spirite by measure vnto hym.
CJB         For God does not give him the Spirit in limited degree —
CEV        and he has been given the full power of God’s Spirit.
DLNT     For He does not give Him the Spirit from a measure.
ERV        God gives him the Spirit fully.
Genev  for God giveth him not the Spirit by measure.
GW        After all, God gives him the Spirit without limit.
GNT       because God gives him the fullness of his Spirit.
ICB         God gives him the Spirit fully.
ISV         because God does not give the Spirit in limited measure to him.
PHILLIPS    and there can be no measuring of the Spirit given to him!
KJV         for God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him.
NCB       for God gives him the Spirit without measure.
NCV       because God gives him the Spirit fully.
NLT        for God gives him the Spirit without limit.

And those which do not supply an object:

Weym   for God does not give the Spirit with limitations.”
AMP      for God gives the [gift of the] Spirit without measure [generously and boundlessly]!
Tyndale     For God geveth not the sprete by measure.
ASV        for he giveth not the Spirit by measure.
CSB        since he gives the Spirit without measure.
CEB        because God gives the Spirit generously.
EHV        for God gives the Spirit without measure.
ESV        for he gives the Spirit without measure.
HCSB     since He gives the Spirit without measure.
MOUNCE    for God does not give the Spirit in a limited measure.
NAB       He does not ration his gift of the Spirit.
NASB95     for He gives the Spirit without measure.
NET        for he does not give the Spirit sparingly.
NIV        for God gives the Spirit without limit.
NKJV     for God does not give the Spirit by measure.
NRSV     for he gives the Spirit without measure.
RSV        for it is not by measure that he gives the Spirit;

Now a conclusion I make about which was the true early Greek text, is that it was the reading without ο θεος, as in the 3rd centruy 𝔓⁸⁰, and that the Byzantine text, coming out of Syria, had to acknowledge the prior popularity of all the Syriac language translations that were already popular, including the Diatessaron which was more popular than the individual Greek gospels.  The Syriac translators I say, supplied “God” or “the Father” for clarification just as many modern translations do even though their translations were based on a Greek source text that doid not include ο θεος.  Fortunately, the addition of ο θεος in the text does no harm, since that is who is doing the giving clearly from context.