# Luke 2:14



## Peairtach (Dec 20, 2013)

What's the story behind this difference? Presumably a textual variant.



> Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men. (KJV)





> Glory to God in the highest, And on earth peace among men in whom he is well pleased.(ASV)





> Glory to God in the highest heaven,
> and on earth peace to those on whom his favor rests.(NIV)





> “Glory to God in the highest,
> and on earth peace among those with whom he is pleased!”
> 
> Note -Some manuscripts peace, good will among men (ESV)


----------



## CJW (Dec 20, 2013)

The critical apparatus in the bible I use shows:

Amongst men of good pleasure: Sinaiticus1, Alexandrinus, Vaticanus1, Bezæ
Good will toward men: everyone else

I fear I have zero ability to type in Greek, but transliterated the first reading is "among men of good will" with good will being in the genitive. The second reading is "good will among men" with good will being in the nominative


----------



## Logan (Dec 20, 2013)

CJ,

I recently picked up NA27 and am trying to figure out what all the symbols and such mean, perhaps you can help me out?

I take it that though "Sinaiticus1, Alexandrinus, Vaticanus1, Bezæ" are cited, those are not necessarily the only witnesses to that reading (they couldn't possibly put all the manuscripts that agree with one reading or another so they just pick the most prominent witnesses).

I don't know what critical apparatus you are using but in NA27 for Luke 2:14 it says
(I've used carets for superscripts and please pardon my lack of Greek letters)

en (kai sy^s.p, k. en sy^h) anthropois eudokia Aleph^2 B^2 L Theta Psi f^1.13 MajorityText sy bo; Or^pt Eus Epiph 
| 
anthropois eudokias (bonae voluntatis) it vg^cl; Ir^lat | txt Aleph* A B* D W pc vg^st (sa); Or^pt CyrJ

So I take it the difference between these two readings is the one letter sigma on the end of "eudokia" that gives it the genitive or nominative reading? 

Is "bonae voluntatis" the Latin translation that appears in the vulgate? Do you have comments on what this is telling me or should I just hunker down and really study the introduction to this? 
I've read through it but this is really completely new to me, and the only Greek I know is being able to recognize the letters from all the higher math courses I took!


----------



## Afterthought (Dec 20, 2013)

An old thread. http://www.puritanboard.com/f45/greek-luke-2-14-a-77072/




Logan said:


> the only Greek I know is being able to recognize the letters from all the higher math courses I took!


Same here.


----------



## CJW (Dec 20, 2013)

Logan said:


> CJ,
> 
> I recently picked up NA27 and am trying to figure out what all the symbols and such mean, perhaps you can help me out?
> 
> ...



As I am merely a lay-woman who happened to have studied the Classics, I'll answer what I can and leave some of the more indepth of your questions to men way more equipped than I am to answer them. 

I have a Newberry bible which I use for my reading and studies, and in the New Testament he lists the various critical readings of the Greek text; only the uncials are listed. The readings are taken originally from "Textual Criticism for English Students" by C. E. Stuart. 

I also have a Latin (Vulgate)/ Greek (NA-27) which I used to look at the Greek variants. Yes, the single sigma is the only difference between the nominative and the genitive. And yes, "bonae voluntatis" is the Latin for "of good will" and also in the genitive case.

Now as to what it all means, that I am unable to answer! The only "fact" is that there is a sigmas worth of difference between the two readings. 

I'm sorry if none of that was particularly helpful! The link Mr. Raymond posted has some more discussions.


----------



## MW (Dec 20, 2013)

This verse seems to come up regularly around this time of the year. 

One of the problems with the classifications in modern editions of the Greek NT is their bias towards certain mss. Burgon's Revision Revised provides a fuller account of ancient witnesses for the traditional reading.



> And first, permit me to speak for myself. Finding that you challenge the Received reading of S. Luke ii. 14, (“good will towards men”);—and that, (on the authority of 4 Greek Codices [א a b d], all Latin documents, and the Gothic Version,) you contend that “peace among men in whom he is well pleased” ought to be read, instead;—I make my appeal unreservedly to Antiquity. I request the Ancients to adjudicate between you and me by favouring us with their verdict. Accordingly, I find as follows:
> 
> That, in the IInd century,—the Syriac Versions and Irenæus support the Received Text:
> 
> ...


----------



## One Little Nail (Dec 21, 2013)

Matthew thats alot good Textual Criticism that Burgon has produced there, I would have to say that the weightier evidence
would recide in the 2nd Century Witnesses as there closest to the Apostles Time & The Original Autographs,the weight of 
evidence would descend the further we got away from the Apostles time,wasn't The Pershitta an Aramaic Translation if I
could remember rightly & Irenaeus was apparently a Disciple of Polycarp who in turn was a Disciple of The Apostle John
which would put him a generation from the Original New Testament & maybe, just maybe was able to view some of the Original Books/Letters, nonetheless he at the very least would have had the purest transcribed copies.

also wasn't the Original Old Italic Latin Translation carried out in the 2nd Century , it would be interesting to see what it 
had but I suppose Burgon would have been more than aware of this, so maybe it was left out because it didn't support the
Textus Recuptus reading,ah well seems to have sufficient support nonetheless.


----------



## Logan (Dec 21, 2013)

armourbearer said:


> Burgon's Revision Revised provides a fuller account of ancient witnesses for the traditional reading.



Thanks for sharing that, it was helpful. Does Burgon mention what manuscripts support the CT reading or just mention the ones that support the TR (for example, he cites Origin in favour but I found other sources that say Origin had at least one reading that supports the CT)? Regardless of whether there was poor evidence against the TR reading in Burgon's day, are we aware of any manuscripts that have been found since Burgon's time that support the CT reading (I ask as one in ignorance)?

I appreciate Burgon's evidence but don't know if it is one-sided (i.e., he only quotes those fathers who agreed with him) or if there really is small evidence for the other reading.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Dec 21, 2013)

Hello Logan,

Burgon is not noted for withholding evidence in order to support his view, which he came to based on evidences, as well as believing God’s promises. His collection of Scripture readings from ancient fathers and lectionaries is unmatched. He presents evidences with integrity.

In his book on the KJV Edward Hills comments on Burgon’s textual views: King James Version Defended pdf (see chapter 8, section 1 b).

It is okay to be skeptical – I am so myself – and skepticism may usually be relieved by thorough study of whatever field we apply ourselves to. Still and all, the godly approach textual data on a presuppositional basis. I myself was – in 1982 – about to go full steam ahead with the NASB, until I stopped first to study the field, and then came to where I am now. It is okay to doubt such things, but to speak to others when we ourselves but spread our own doubt, (relative) ignorance, and uncertainty does no one any good service.

Please note that Burgon would be classed among the Majority Text adherents rather than the AV / TR 1894 (as the reference to Hills above notes), though he was not in favor of revising the AV as it was so faithful to the Traditional Text, and any revision would ruin its near perfection. Burgon’s books are available (in hardcopy as well as digital); here are some online resources:

_The Revision Revised_ (many formats) : The Revision Revised by John William Burgon - Free Ebook

Five of Burgon’s books: Books by Burgon, John William (sorted by popularity) - Project Gutenberg


----------



## Logan (Dec 21, 2013)

Thank you Steve. I was not trying to cast any doubt upon Burgon but genuinely wanted to know.

I admit that as an engineer I tend to be skeptical of all data. It is very easy to lose one's self and seemingly find corroboration for a hypothesis but a good engineer tries to keep an open mind and consider all possibilities, not limit himself to just one even if it seems obvious.

In this case, Burgon's evidence certainly sounds good and at face value I would agree with him that the most widely attested reading seems to be that which is found in the TR (though he does tend to emphasize patristic citations more than usual). That's how it looks on the surface and I have no problem with that if it is the case, but is it the complete picture? I don't know. Is it attested in patristic citations alone or are there ancient papyrii that also contain this? If it's just 4 manuscripts that are used in this case against everything else then that certainly doesn't sound good. I don't know, but without knowing the evidence for or against, I wouldn't want to make a decision based off of Burgon alone.

Thanks for the links. If I have the time I'll have to look into Burgon. This thread has been helpful to me.


----------



## MW (Dec 22, 2013)

Logan said:


> Thanks for sharing that, it was helpful. Does Burgon mention what manuscripts support the CT reading or just mention the ones that support the TR (for example, he cites Origin in favour but I found other sources that say Origin had at least one reading that supports the CT)? Regardless of whether there was poor evidence against the TR reading in Burgon's day, are we aware of any manuscripts that have been found since Burgon's time that support the CT reading (I ask as one in ignorance)?



Burgon was responding to one who had put forward the evidence for the other reading. The value of his contribution was not in providing empirical evidence which in every case establishes the received text. Rather, his extensive labours have shown the spurious basis on which the received text was laid aside. The ms. evidence simply does not decide many of the variants, whether one takes a genealogical or eclectic approach. This demonstrates to me that other criteria are deciding the issue for those who seek to reconstruct the text.



Logan said:


> I appreciate Burgon's evidence but don't know if it is one-sided (i.e., he only quotes those fathers who agreed with him) or if there really is small evidence for the other reading.



I haven't examined the various citations with respect to this particular reading, but it can be demonstrated that certain fathers cited a text more than one way, so it is possible or likely in this case. So far as biblical interpretation is concerned I think both readings can be given a good meaning.


----------

