Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

The Omission of Luke:23:17

  • 10-11-2012 11:57pm
    #1
    Onesimus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,055 ✭✭✭


    Can anyone here explain to me why Luke:23:17 in modern translations of the Bible has been omitted?


Comments

  • #2
    frozenfrozen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,903 ✭✭✭frozenfrozen


    It was lost in translation


  • #3
    Doc Farrell
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,882 ✭✭✭Doc Farrell


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


  • #4
    Onesimus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,055 ✭✭✭Onesimus


    Interesting. I wonder how protestants feels about these modern omissions.


  • #5
    lmaopml
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,080 ✭✭✭lmaopml


    Onesimus wrote: »
    Can anyone here explain to me why Luke:23:17 in modern translations of the Bible has been omitted?

    It is not left out, but put in parenthesis in some translations - it doesn't change the meaning of the passage. Perhaps a good reason to study Greek too.

    Perhaps the best way to answer this is to understand why there a reason why Luke 23:17 stands out to you, and to explain why so?


  • #6
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Onesimus wrote: »
    Interesting. I wonder how protestants feels about these modern omissions.

    I don't see how it's a Protestant/Catholic issue at all. Christians want their translations of the Bible to be accurate, therefore they should be as close as possible to the original manuscripts.

    Knowledge improves all the time, and textual criticism helps this apply to our knowledge of the biblical text too.


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    lmaopml wrote: »
    It is not left out, but put in parenthesis in some translations - it doesn't change the meaning of the passage. Perhaps a good reason to study Greek too.

    Perhaps the best way to answer this is to understand why there a reason why Luke 23:17 stands out to you, and to explain why so?

    The issue here is not translation from Greek to English, but rather what the Greek should be - what appeared in the original Greek text.

    Some manuscripts of Luke do not contain 23:17, but other manuscripts do.

    In this case, textual criticism asks "Which is more likely, that at some stage a scribe added this verse, or that a scribe ommitted it."

    Two clues help us answer this question.

    1. The verse does not appear in the earliest and most reliable manuscripts, but does appear in later manuscripts.

    2. When it is added, the passage more closely conforms to parallel passages in Matthew and Mark.

    The most plausible explanation then, is that the original manuscript of Luke did not contain verse 17. But, at some stage, a scribe was copying it and, being already familiar with Matthew and Luke, added it. This may have been deliberate, trying to harmonise the three accounts, but was more likely accidental as he wrote a phrase that was familiar to him.


Advertisement