# Mark 10:13



## Kaalvenist (Feb 29, 2008)

AV: "And they brought young children to him, that he should touch them: and _his_ disciples rebuked *those that brought them*."

ESV: "And they were bringing children to him that he might touch them, and the disciples rebuked *them*."

I just became aware of this textual variant a few hours ago, in studying this passage in regard to paedobaptism. Any thoughts? (I can see an argument for defending the Byzantine/TR rendering; I'm interested in what opinions or resources others might have regarding this text.)


----------



## fredtgreco (Feb 29, 2008)

I don't see how there is any substantive difference. In both cases the disciples were rebuking the bringers of the children. We know that it was not the children who were rebuked, because the "them" in the ESV is masculine plural, and "children" is neuter plural. The "them" agrees grammatically with "they brought"


----------



## Kaalvenist (Feb 29, 2008)

fredtgreco said:


> I don't see how there is any substantive difference. In both cases the disciples were rebuking the bringers of the children. We know that it was not the children who were rebuked, because the "them" in the ESV is masculine plural, and "children" is neuter plural. The "them" agrees grammatically with "they brought"


Just wondering, since it cinches the argument that much more. Fred Malone writes regarding this passage (with the parallels), "Although some have pointed out that Luke calls the children mentioned in this passage _brephe_ (infants), yet the reflexive pronoun _auta_ (them) defines those who were restrained from coming to Jesus as the _brephe,_ not the parents who were bringing them. The context defines these "infants" as capable of responding to Jesus' call." But if Mark specifically says that they rebuked those that brought the children (in so many words), that disposes entirely of such an argument.


----------



## Kaalvenist (Apr 5, 2008)

Anybody else? Please?


----------



## Grymir (Apr 7, 2008)

Well, since nobody else did, I will respond. I use the KJV for many reasons. You highlight a good example. On first read, I thought, "well, the AV quote does say something a little different than the ESV." Then I read Fredtgreco's post and agreed with him in essence. I had to re-read the ESV and agreed with him, although the passage could be confusing if not compared to the KJV. But the KJV is clearer. I got it the first time. And yes, there are a few subtle difference's (ie, should touch vs. might touch. One seems to suggest a stronger request by the supplicants) This is a great comparison. 

Thanks.


----------

