Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Matthew 26:51 high priests

Expand Messages
  • sarban
    The 1611 KJV describes the man whose ear is cut off in Matthew 26:51 as a servant of the high priests (plural) This translation seems to go back to Coverdale
    Message 1 of 4 , Apr 7 1:43 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      The 1611 KJV describes the man whose ear is cut off in Matthew 26:51 as "a servant of the high priests" (plural)
      This translation seems to go back to Coverdale but I can find no basis for it in Greek or Latin.
      Can anyone explain how this translation arose ?
       
      Andrew Criddle
       
       
    • Jonathan C. Borland
      Dear Andrew, Perhaps they were led astray by the Latin Vulgate s colloquial servant of the chief of the priests (servum principis sacerdotum)? As you, I
      Message 2 of 4 , Apr 8 4:50 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        Dear Andrew,

        Perhaps they were led astray by the Latin Vulgate's colloquial "servant of the chief of the priests" (servum principis sacerdotum)? As you, I can't find any Greek mss that indicate the actual rendering of the 1611 edition of the KJV. Incidentally, I have a printed edition of the KJV that has "servant of the high priest's," which, with its double use of the possessive, is just bad grammar.

        Sincerely,

        Jonathan C. Borland




        On Apr 7, 2014, at 4:43 PM, sarban <sarban@...> wrote:


        The 1611 KJV describes the man whose ear is cut off in Matthew 26:51 as "a servant of the high priests" (plural)
        This translation seems to go back to Coverdale but I can find no basis for it in Greek or Latin.
        Can anyone explain how this translation arose ?
         
        Andrew Criddle
         
         


      • dchindley
        Andrew, Couldn t it just be as simple as a missing apostrophe in the 1611 edition, that should have indicated possession, later corrected? KJV (as corrected
        Message 3 of 4 , Apr 8 10:14 AM
        • 0 Attachment

          Andrew,

           

          Couldn't it just be as simple as a missing apostrophe in the 1611 edition, that should have indicated possession, later corrected?

           

          KJV (as corrected 1769) Matthew 26:51 And, behold, one of them which were with Jesus stretched out his hand, and drew his sword, and struck *a servant of the high priest[']s*, and smote off his ear.

           

          Dave Hindley

        • Jonathan C. Borland
          Dear List, I notice that OL codex Corbeiensis (ff2/9) has servum principibus sacerdotum, servant to the chiefs of the priests, but now I assume that the
          Message 4 of 4 , Apr 10 1:35 PM
          • 0 Attachment
            Dear List,

            I notice that OL codex Corbeiensis (ff2/9) has servum principibus sacerdotum, "servant to the chiefs of the priests," but now I assume that the error in 26:51 (if it may be called that) was either an inadvertent assimilation to the plural "chief priests" in 26:47 or an intentional one in deference to that passage.

            Sincerely,

            Jonathan C. Borland



            Sent from my iPhone

            On Apr 8, 2014, at 1:14 PM, <dhindley@...> wrote:

             

            Andrew,

             

            Couldn't it just be as simple as a missing apostrophe in the 1611 edition, that should have indicated possession, later corrected?

             

            KJV (as corrected 1769) Matthew 26:51 And, behold, one of them which were with Jesus stretched out his hand, and drew his sword, and struck *a servant of the high priest[']s*, and smote off his ear.

             

            Dave Hindley

          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.