The Bible NETWork ~ Impacting the World for Christ one post at a time!

I've noticed that part of Luk 4:4 is omitted from many translations including the Net Bible. Why is this?

(NET) Jesus answered him, "It is written, 'Man does not live by bread alone.' "

(KJV+) And Jesus answered, him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, <B>but by every word of God.</B>

(ASV) And Jesus answered unto him, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone.

(ESV) And Jesus answered him, "It is written, 'Man shall not live by bread alone.'"

(GNB) But Jesus answered, "The scripture says, 'Human beings cannot live on bread alone.' "

(LITV) And Jesus answered to him, saying, It has been written: "Man shall not live on bread alone, <B>but on every Word of God."</B> Deut. 8:3

(MKJV) And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written that "man shall not live by bread alone, <B>but by every Word of God."</B>

(RV) And Jesus answered unto him, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone.

(SSE) Y Jesús respondiéndole, dijo: Escrito está: Que no con pan sólo vivirá el hombre, <B>mas con toda palabra de Dios.</B>

(Vulgate) et respondit ad illum Iesus scriptum est quia non in pane solo vivet homo <B>sed in omni verbo Dei</B>

[quote]13tc Most mss (A [D] ÃŽËœ Ψ [0102] Ë1,13 33 Ã? latt) complete the citation with ἀλλ᾿ á¼?Ã

So the original writings didn't actually have "but by every word of God". It was added to strengthen that particular part?

That is how I read the NET Bible notes -- that "but by every word of God" was probably not in the original.

As to whether it was added to make it stronger or more consistent, that is not commented on in the NET Bible notes.

So would that mean that translations such as Net, NIV, and ESV would be more correct?

I would start by saying that the differences in the translations are insignificant overall. Then I would say that there has been progress in analyzing ancient texts over the past 400 years, so I would say that the modern translations that use the best manuscripts are more likely to be consistent with the originals. One could call that more correct.

Yes. John

Someone might ask, Where is it written?



So, it is correct to add, "but by every word of God", at the end of Luke 4:4.

Deuteronomy 8:3



The earliest manuscripts we have of the Luke 4:4 document reflect the NET, NIV, et al as explained in the NET notes.


It is possible that scribes in copying this passage either confused it with the Matthew passage or sought to harmonize it with the Matthew passage. Perhaps the phrase was added to better reflect Deut 8:3. Whatever the reason the inclusion or removal of the phrase does not really affect the intent nor the contextual meaning of the text in question. Neither can one accuse others of "adding to" or "taking away" since the meaning and intent is not in any way changed.

IMHO the evidence shows that Luke did not have the phrase in the origional manuscript. So the modern translations better reflect the origional as Cobra said. However, in this case the rest of the phrase being placed in really does not matter.

Blessings,
Randy

Well, I have come to a decision that, it was probably due to laziness on behalf of the old scribes.

It should be there because without it looses half of its meaning. Moses was instructed by God to write down both parts.

I feel, it leaves the reader hanging. For example, A man shall not live by bread alone. Then what else shall a man live by, tell me don't leave me hanging. I am being a little facetious but it's only to make a point.

I understand, the original scribes of whatever ancient records you have(including my KJV & Bible software package installed on my computer), didn't include "but by every word of God". Fine, but doesn't mean we are not to use common sense and good judgment.

That's not a decision that is a misplaced judgment. One BTW without any knowledge of the scribe to whom you refer.

What Moses was instructed to write - he wrote. What Matthew was led to write - he wrote. What Luke was led to write - he wrote. In all three cases the meaning has been well preserved. Including the meaning and intent behind Christ's quotaion of Scripture as revealed in Matthew and Luke.

Your feeling aside IMHO you are mistaken. Perhaps you should look at the statement in context because your point is contextually mistaken. BTW Luke appears to write to a reader (Theophilus) who understands the OT background in my understanding of Luke 1:1-4. If you pay attention to the personal pronouns (the "us" and "us" and "you") are quite telling that Theophilus would be familliar with the Deuteronomy passage.



I agree that we should use good common sense and good judgment. Part of that common sense would be to understand the context and what was common sense in the 1st and 2nd century context. Setting aside our twentieth century mindset is difficult to near impossible but necessary before we come to such judgments.

Blessings,
Randy

kingjew:

So, every time a NT author quotes just part of a verse, that's wrong because God told the OT author to write down the whole verse?

And why stop with the verse? Why not the whole chapter? The whole book? The entire OT?

Obadiah:

God told what? I guess that explains Ezekiel 5:6 , NOT.

Have you read at least one of the gospels in the NT concerning the so called scribes? Not exactly a welcoming committee of

brotherhood! Them and the Pharisees, another lovely bunch of corruption.

Another quote out of context and does not apply to this situation.


Apples to Oak Trees comparisome. As for your use of the word "another" above would you please explain who the first group of "corruption" to whom you refer is?

Blessings,
Randy

kingjew:

You've responded entirely as I anticipated: you didn't answer my point, since it's entirely too logical for you to address, but instead posted something completely irrelevant and emotionally charged. Do I have you KJV-only guys down, or what?

The scribes that Jesus criticizes in the gospels are Jewish scribes; the scribes who perpetuated the NT manuscripts were Christian scribes. (Actually, the Jewish scribes tended to keep better track of their sacred documents, but that's another story.)

Do you realize that the only reason you even have an OT is because Jewish scribes preserved it?

And what on earth does Ezekiel 5:6 have to do with this discussion? It's part of an indictment of the people of Jerusalem during the 6th century BCE. It says nothing at all about scribes, textual preservation or anything else germane to this thread.