3 John 15? NET, ESV, NA28, THGNT?

[why1942]

Never ran across this before. What's the deal with 3 John 15? Why do some bible translations and Greek texts have 3 John 14-15 split while the TR, NKJV, and KJV have it all in just vs 14? There doesn't appear to be any difference in the Greek text.

 

Just curious and couldn't find any reference to it in any tools or online.

 

w

[Fabian]

Hello 

 

Welcome to Accordance. As you say, you never ran in to this issue, that's because nearly all Bible software doesn't matter about this and are not able to display it correct. Some simply let the verses where they are, but then the content are not in parallel, or they change the verses to the KJV verse mapping if they want you can have the Bibles in parallel.

 

Accordance is made, so the content of the verse are in parallel. You'll explore later some Bibles have to the same content in another verse reference. But the content are in parallel.

 

The verse references are not hammered in stone (in Stein gemeisselt) like the 10 commandments, and even they have different numberings, the Jew, Catholic and protestant differs, that means everybody which creates Bibles or Translations can do the verses where he wants. And can spilt verses or combine verses. Same with chapters. KJV and similar has 14 verses, European Bibles have mostly 15 verses. 

In the apocryphal Books the verse mapping gets even wilder. 

 

BTW even the Qur'an has 2 different verse mappings. An old one and the Hafs. 

 

Greetings

 

Fabian

[Graham Buck]

w,

 

It's not that Accordance has taken any liberties with verse mapping, we simply present the content as received. That being said, you've clearly run across a difference in the GNT based on text type.

 

Editors of Alexandrian types, which primarily underly the eclectic Nestle Aland and its derived translations, (as well as of Peshitta and Coptic texts) have split the text into 15 verses.

 

Editors of Byzantine types, which underly the TR, do not.

 

Good job on some basic text criticism.

 

[why1942]

Accordance is made, so the content of the verse are in parallel. You'll explore later some Bibles have to the same content in another verse reference. But the content are in parallel.

 

Indeed, I have noticed this as I was scrolling through the LXX. In theWord Majority text, it has parenthesized reference corrections so it would still line up with the software's internal reference system, which could make it difficult when clicking on hyperlinks. I thought it was interesting that Accordance was adjusting on the fly, even though the verses were off, they still aligned correctly. Nicely done.  

 

The verse references are not hammered in stone (in Stein gemeisselt) like the 10 commandments, and even they have different numberings, the Jew, Catholic and protestant differs, that means everybody which creates Bibles or Translations can do the verses where he wants. And can spilt verses or combine verses. Same with chapters. KJV and similar has 14 verses, European Bibles have mostly 15 verses. 

In the apocryphal Books the verse mapping gets even wilder.

 

And this is certainly fine. But my actual question is, why the difference? There does not appear to be a contextual variant between the two texts. I'm curious as to the reasoning on the part of the translators/publishers for adding an additional verse number in 3 John 14-15 when the older versions only have vs 14 (but the same text as 14 and 15? 

 

w

[why1942]

w,

 

It's not that Accordance has taken any liberties with verse mapping, we simply present the content as received. That being said, you've clearly run across a difference in the GNT based on text type.

 

Editors of Alexandrian types, which primarily underly the eclectic Nestle Aland and its derived translations, (as well as of Peshitta and Coptic texts) have split the text into 15 verses.

 

Editors of Byzantine types, which underly the TR, do not.

 

Good job on some basic text criticism.

 

Screen Shot 2020-04-07 at 8.21.42 AM.png

 

 

Hi Graham,

 

Thanks for the response. My sincerest apologizes. It was not my intention to insinuate Accordance had taken any liberties with the texts. In fact, the first thing I did when stumbling onto this was check online bibles outside of Accordance and also the translation modules I have in theWord. Sure enough, the NA28 has a vs 15. 

 

But it still begs the question: why?

 

It does not appear there is any contextual variant as the text is the same in both the TR and the NA28. My exegetical commentaries and the variant apparatus are silent on the verse. Most commentaries I use mention nothing at all and simply choose to reference just vs 14 or vs 15 separately, but make no indication that there is a variant or difference.

 

Do you know of any tools or articles online or books that address the reasons why the Critical text editors made this choice? 

 

Again, no intention to malign or accuse Accordance of wrongdoing. In fact, I'm rather surprised I've not stumbled onto it in the past. Having the three texts parallel really made it stand out.

 

w

Edited April 7, 2020 by why1942

[Fabian]

I would say: Simply because they think it is worth to have the content of the verse 15 as an own verse. 

 

The Afrikaans has a chapter which has one verse more than all others. The Slovak Rohacek has the same, the Eesti Piibel has 1Pet 1,26. 

 

Sometimes I don't understand why they have done two verses, as it is one though. And sometimes I don't understand why it is only one verse, as the there are two thoughts. So in my opinion the verse mappings are without any logic. 

 

Some German Bibles has an old and a new verse mappings. 

 

If you ask why, I can only say there is a story about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Estienne who has done the verse mapping in the coach (carriage) on the way to ... sorry I forgot it ... and bad tongues say: as the coach wheels hit a stone he missed the right point to start a new verse. Or a similar story. I guess you'll find it on the internet.

 

Greetings

 

Fabian

Edited April 7, 2020 by Fabian

[MattChristianOT]

It is purely an editorial choice. Whoever is working on the text for that book in a given translation is most likely grappling with the context and clauses. Some seem to deem these as standalone verses and break them up and others do not. All the choice of the translator/editor at that point

[why1942]

Update: Here's what I've found so far.

 

A footnote in the Baker Exegetical Commentary:

 

1. Third John 14 and 3 John 15 are combined into a single verse (3 John 14) by the KJV, NASB, NEB, and NIV/TNIV. CEV, ESV, JB, LB, NLT, NRSV, RSV, and TEV follow NA27 in numbering two verses here. Throughout my commentary I refer to these verses as 3 John 14 (14a NIV) and 3 John 15 (14b NIV). (Baker Exegetical Commentary pg 385)
 

A website with some promise:

 

http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2016/05/variant-versification.html

 

A comment at the bottom of that article connects the NA28 versing to Westcott & Hort versing (as opposed to that of the KJV).

 

"Obviously, the RP Greek editions directly reflect that particular system, while NA/UBS tend to follow that found in WH."

 

A short history and pretty extensive listing of verse variants can be found in this online book:

https://archive.org/stream/authorshipoffour00abbo#page/464/mode/2up

The author mentions that versification started around the 1550's and was basically the wild west; standardization came out of necessity due to all the chaos and confusion.

 

One hypothesis: the KJV translators used the standard system they inherited. The NA28 translators operate from the belief that the critical texts (like W&H) are more accurate and so assume the KJV translators "combined" the two verses, and so, they retained the W&H versification, which they think is more accurate.

 

Also, the translator for the Tyndale Greek New Testament remarked he would have preferred to make more verse changes than he actually did.

 

I haven't seem anything printed stating this outright, though. I have a lot more reading to do now. At least I have a direction to head in.

 

w
 

 

Edited April 12, 2020 by why1942

[why1942]

I've narrowed this down a bit. The KJV translators were heavily influenced by the Geneva Bible. The Geneva Bible was the first English bible to have verse numbers. They stated they used Stephanus' verse number system from his Greek New Testament. Stephanus' GNT was the first with verse numbers. Beza also had a Latin New Testament that used Stephanus' verse numbers.

 

But, Stephanus, Beza and all who came after show verse 14 AND 15. Only the Geneva bible and subsequently the KJV show the text in verse 14, no 15.

 

The Geneva bible had extensive notes in the margins by Beza and others. If there was an intentional reason to combine the verses in the Geneva Bible, it stands to reason they would have mentioned it in the notes, but they don't. This leads to the assumption that the verse 15 number was accidentally left out in the Geneva Bible and wasn't noticed for many years (maybe not until the KJV translators sat down and looked at the Greek texts). Despite having both Stephanus' and Beza's Greek New Testaments, and Beza's Latin NT (which all had the verse number 15), the KJV translators chose to go with the Geneva Bible verse numbering. Which stands to reason, since, by then, the Geneva Bible had been in wide circulation for over 50 years as the first mass produced bible for ordinary people. They were use to it. I can only assume this is why the KJV translators chose the GB numbering over the numbering in the Greek Texts. No reason to rock the boat, just go with what everyone is already used to.

 

w

[MattChristianOT]

Yup- All based on editorial discretion. the commentators you looked at all had a similar question and made an editorial move in their work.