# Easter, Titus 2:13, & Romans 8:26 in the AV



## JohnGill (Oct 29, 2012)

In another thread dealing with the inadequacies of the NIV with regards to 1 Cor 5:5, the following was posted:



Peairtach said:


> > I don't see how Romans 8:16 and Titus 2:13 are better translations in the NIV, it seems pretty equivalent to me.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Going back and looking at my last post I see that in the post before mine Marrow Man as moderator pointed out this was off topic to the 1 Cor 5:5 discussion and so I'm moving the 2nd part of my answer which dealt with Romans 8:26 (not 16) here and will deal with the other three verses mentioned.

*Romans 8:26*

Geneva Bible: 



> 26 Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what to pray as we ought: but the Spirit *itself *maketh request for us with sighs, which cannot be expressed.



Authorized Version:



> 26 Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit *itself* maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.



As to the himself/itself regarding the Holy Ghost in Romans 8:26, perhaps the Geneva Bible translators, for it is there as well, and the AV translators knew something we do not. It is well known that both groups translated the verse to accurately reflect the underlying Greek text. Modern versions do not. As the Greek *requires* the translation to have the neuter pronoun. Having a problem with the Geneva/AV renderings of Romans 8:26 is having a problem with the original text of scripture in the Greek language. I've always found it strange that people who cry foul over this verse, do not cry foul over Luke 2:17 in the ESV which refers to Jesus as an it. Inconsistency in argumentation reveals bias against that which is being argued. And bias has no place in our reasoning.

John Gill's Exposition:



> but the Spirit itself maketh intercession, for us, with groanings which cannot be uttered; not the spirit of a man; or the gift of the Spirit in man; or a man endued with an extraordinary gift of the Spirit; but the Holy Ghost himself, who makes intercession for the saints: not in such sense as Christ does; for he intercedes not with the Father, but with them, with their
> spirits; not in heaven, but in their hearts; and not for sinners, but for saints:



Notice the absence of his comments on the rendering.

*Easter*

Acts 12:3,4

Geneva Bible:



> 3 And when he saw that it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further, to take Peter also (then were the days of unleavened bread.) 4 And when he had caught him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to be kept, intending after the Passover to bring him forth to the people.



Authorized Version:



> 3 And because he saw it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also. (Then were the days of unleavened bread.) 4 And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.



Doesn't take much to see that Easter is a synonym for Passover. This TBS article deals with it and points out it was most likely inadvertent that it was left in: Acts 12:4 & Easter

John Gill's Exposition:



> *intending after Easter*, or the passover,



*Titus 2:13*

Geneva Version:



> 13 Looking for that blessed hope, and appearing of that glory of that mighty God, and of our Savior Jesus Christ.



Authorized Version:



> Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;



One needs merely read the following article to see how there is no problem with either version's rendering. Titus 2:13 The author points out that the problem is not with the text, but with our understanding of English grammar. From the article:



> In English, when two nouns are separated by the phrase _and our_, *the context determines* if the nouns refer to two persons or to two aspects of the same person. Consider the following sentence, "He was a great hero and our first president, General George Washington." This statement is not referring to two persons but two aspects of the same person. Washington was a great hero by anyone's standards, but he was not everyone's president. He was _our president_.



The author also comments on an important theological distinction made in the Geneva/AV rendering and lost in such renderings as found in the NIV:



> The same is true of the phrase in Titus 2:13. When Christ returns He is coming as King of kings and Lord of lords (Revelation 19:16). He is returning as _the great God_ (Titus 2:13; Revelation 19:17). Therefore, He will return as everyone's King, everyone's Lord, as the great God over all. But He is not everyone's Savior. He is only the Savior of those who have placed faith in Him. When He returns He is coming as _the great God_ but He is also returning as _our Savior_, two aspects of the same Person.



Lest someone bring up the Granville-Sharp "Rule" one can read a refutation of it here, Vindication of certain passages in the Common English Version of the New Testament, addressed to Granville Sharp by Calvin Winstanley.


----------



## Peairtach (Oct 29, 2012)

Very good, Chris.

I wouldn't defend the NIV, or ESV, tooth and nail, on every point of translation, but neither would I, the KJV.


----------



## JP Wallace (Oct 30, 2012)

Actually on a technical note even in the AV the neuter auto is not always translated as 'it' but also as 'him', thus your point that the Greek requires the neuter it was not shared by the translators, or so it appears.

I don't know how often but a quick search produced these;

KJV Matthew 2:13 And when they were departed, behold, the angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou there until I bring thee word: for Herod will seek the young child to destroy *him*.

KJV Matthew 18:2 And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set *him* in the midst of them,

Now as far as I can remember this neuter use is frequent enough with daiomion, paidiov and teknov - none of which suggests they are impersonal rather because they are neuter nouns they take neuter pronouns and are or may be translated as contect demands, he, she or it. We must remember that the pronouns etc. must agree with their noun - since pneuma (spirt, wind, Spirit) is neuter it must have a neuter autos.

My only point is the Greek does not require the translation itself.....unless and I haven't had time to check this, it is required when in the emphatic "himself, itself" location in the text. I personally doubt that, and have never heard a rule to that effect.

Now of course all this does nothing to explain why the AV translators chose itself rather than himself.

BTW I'm not a fan of the NIV, but of NT Greek


----------



## Jackie Kaulitz (Oct 30, 2012)

As a user of the NIV mainly, I appreciate this thread and the insights from Chris and Paul. Very good work, guys! Very good info to know.  I've made appropriate notes in my NIV.


----------



## JohnGill (Oct 30, 2012)

JP Wallace said:


> Actually on a technical note even in the AV the neuter auto is not always translated as 'it' but also as 'him', thus your point that the Greek requires the neuter it was not shared by the translators, or so it appears.
> 
> I don't know how often but a quick search produced these;
> 
> ...



Reading back, my explanation wasn't as clear as I thought. Context with the Greek grammar require the reading of "itself" there and in 8:16. As it's late here I'm not sure my clarification is any clearer. When I read it earlier I swore it had "context" in it.

It's not just the AV translators that chose "itself". The Geneva translators before them and even Martin Luther. Some modern versions use the neuter pronoun in reference to Christ as well as the Holy Ghost. What I dislike is the charge by some that because of this rendering the AV is somehow teaching that the Holy Ghost is impersonal. Which from the context of usage it is obvious that is not what is being taught.

I'm a fan of Greek as well, bu I'm also a fan of translations that accurately reflect both the Greek and Hebrew originals. Though honestly I prefer Attic to Koine. And I know there is the school of thought that sees little difference betwixt the two, but there is more "rigor" in Attic. I also prefer Latin to French, Spanish, Italian, & Portuguese. And I prefer Anglo-Saxon to modern English. I miss the dual pronouns. I am not a fan of modern English and would prefer if we junked all English grammars after the 19th century. Those are my own idiosyncrasies though.


----------



## JP Wallace (Oct 30, 2012)

JohnGill said:


> What I dislike is the charge by some that because of this rendering the AV is somehow teaching that the Holy Ghost is impersonal. Which from the context of usage it is obvious that is not what is being taught.



Which of course is a ridiculous and foolish charge and doesn't really deserve any time to refute.

I think in these cases where autos is used to emphasis....someone themselves...the actual gender is to be established from context - the grammatical gender must be what it is in agreement with the noun it is referring to- there can be no exegetical point made from the grammatical gender alone - i.e if pneumaton was not neuter but feminine then the feminine grammatical gender would have to be used, but it would not mean herself. Context, context, context.


----------



## Peairtach (Oct 30, 2012)

*Chris*


> It's not just the AV translators that chose "itself". The Geneva translators before them and even Martin Luther. Some modern versions use the neuter pronoun in reference to Christ as well as the Holy Ghost. What I dislike is the charge by some that because of this rendering the AV is somehow teaching that the Holy Ghost is impersonal. Which from the context of usage it is obvious that is not what is being taught.



I wouldn't say that, but there is no doubt an argument that "Himself" would be better. The translators of the KJV recognised their fallibility as is clear from their Translators' Preface.



> I'm a fan of Greek as well, bu I'm also a fan of translations that accurately reflect both the Greek and Hebrew originals. Though honestly I prefer Attic to Koine. And I know there is the school of thought that sees little difference betwixt the two, but there is more "rigor" in Attic. I also prefer Latin to French, Spanish, Italian, & Portuguese. And I prefer Anglo-Saxon to modern English. I miss the dual pronouns. I am not a fan of modern English and would prefer if we junked all English grammars after the 19th century. Those are my own idiosyncrasies though.



You're obviously an accomplished linguist, unlike myself.


----------



## JohnGill (Oct 30, 2012)

JP Wallace said:


> JohnGill said:
> 
> 
> > What I dislike is the charge by some that because of this rendering the AV is somehow teaching that the Holy Ghost is impersonal. Which from the context of usage it is obvious that is not what is being taught.
> ...



In some circles it has to be refuted. Sometimes when dealing with those who condemn the AV for it and sometimes when dealing with those who use the AV and believe that the Holy Ghost is impersonal. 

And you're absolutely right about context. It's the locationx3 of the Bible.

So how's Ireland right now? Does our storm affect your weather? 

It's late here in Alaska so I'll say good night/morning and ask if you're in Ballymena and if you have more audio sermons available than what's on your site.


----------



## JohnGill (Oct 30, 2012)

Peairtach said:


> *Chris*
> 
> 
> > It's not just the AV translators that chose "itself". The Geneva translators before them and even Martin Luther. Some modern versions use the neuter pronoun in reference to Christ as well as the Holy Ghost. What I dislike is the charge by some that because of this rendering the AV is somehow teaching that the Holy Ghost is impersonal. Which from the context of usage it is obvious that is not what is being taught.
> ...




Accomplished linguist? Accomplished amateur with enough knowledge to be dangerous. I think you might have read more into my comment than I put. I like programming. I like Python & C++, but I hate Java. The languages I prefer all have a more "rigid" structure. To me they are more precise. It's the precision I like. So my whole comment could be boiled down to, I prefer a precise language over an imprecise language. The way I wrote it was to contrast more precise languages with less precise languages. Well less precise in my opinion. That's the reason I prefer Attic to Koine, Latin to (French, Portuguese, Italian, & Spanish), and Anglo-Saxon structure to modern English structure which to me seems to be loosening every year. Read nothing more into it than that. 

As to himself/itself, since the AV and Geneva have it, I'll keep it.


----------



## JohnGill (Oct 30, 2012)

Peairtach said:


> *Chris*
> 
> 
> > It's not just the AV translators that chose "itself". The Geneva translators before them and even Martin Luther. Some modern versions use the neuter pronoun in reference to Christ as well as the Holy Ghost. What I dislike is the charge by some that because of this rendering the AV is somehow teaching that the Holy Ghost is impersonal. Which from the context of usage it is obvious that is not what is being taught.
> ...




Accomplished linguist? Accomplished amateur with enough knowledge to be dangerous. I think you might have read more into my comment than I put. I like programming. I like Python & C++, but I hate Java. The languages I prefer all have a more "rigid" structure. To me they are more precise. It's the precision I like. So my whole comment could be boiled down to, I prefer a precise language over an imprecise language. The way I wrote it was to contrast more precise languages with less precise languages. Well less precise in my opinion. That's the reason I prefer Attic to Koine, Latin to (French, Portuguese, Italian, & Spanish), and Anglo-Saxon structure to modern English structure which to me seems to be loosening every year. Read nothing more into it than that. Or to put it another way, I'm a bit of a grammar geek. When I was in high school, during the summers I would check out Anglo-Saxon, Latin, & Ancient Greek grammars and read them for fun. I loved the structure of those grammars. Don't know if that makes any sense. It's like a warm blanket for my mind.

As to himself/itself, since the AV and Geneva have it, I'll keep it. Besides, some other modern translations also have it. And the fallibility of the AV translators does not invalidate their rendering.


----------

