The argument was shown to me like this: John 7:8 in the KJV says, "Go ye up unto this feast: I go not up yet unto this feast; for My time is not yet full come." Then in most other translations (we'll use NIV), it'll say something like, "You go to the festival. I am not going up to this festival, because My time has not yet fully come.” Then you go to verse 10, and in the KJV, it says, "But when his brethren were gone up, then went he also up unto the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret." And in the NIV (and some other translations), it goes like, "However, after his brothers had left for the festival, he went also, not publicly, but in secret." Okay, what's the deal?
The idea is, the KJV (and, may I note, a few others as well) have the word "yet" in verse 8, while the other translations do not, so it appears that Jesus is saying, "I'm not going." then goes later, while in the KJV He says, "I'm not going yet." and goes later.
Today, when I thought about it, the first thing that came to my mind after I mentally reviewed that argument was, "Would the translators who made the NIV deliberately leave out the 'yet' if they knew it was probably in the originals? Would translators who produce other translations? Perhaps one or even two, but there's plenty of translations missing a 'yet'." I then did a little Googling to see if I could find a case that legitimately showed even without the "yet," Jesus wouldn't have lied, even though it looked like He did. Obviously, there's always an answer, and I found some, but none really convinced me much, except for one, which said something about the Greek sentence structure with verse 8 is present tense, so it could be rendered in English also as, "I'm not now going." I tried to verify it, but I just don't think I can figure out the stuff with the Greek. (If someone could help me verify it that would know what to look for, I'd love to know your thoughts on it.) Though it does sound legit. But my devil's advocate side says, "If that's how it could be rendered, why didn't they put it there so people could understand it better?" I couldn't really think of an answer, so I just started mulling over it for a while. Some had said something about the context, others the Greek, some the grammar... How to come up with a legit-sounding answer that shows the 'yet' is implied whether it's there or not?
It hit me.
Look at that context again. John 7:1-10 NIV, "After this, Jesus went around in Galilee. He did not want to go about in Judea because the Jewish leaders there were looking for a way to kill Him. But when the Jewish Festival of Tabernacles was near, Jesus’ brothers said to Him, 'Leave Galilee and go to Judea, so that Your disciples there may see the works You do. No one who wants to become a public figure acts in secret. Since You are doing these things, show Yourself to the world.' For even His own brothers did not believe in Him. Therefore Jesus told them, 'My time is not yet here; for you any time will do. The world cannot hate you, but it hates Me because I testify that its works are evil. You go to the festival. I am not going up to this festival, because My time has not yet fully come.' After He had said this, He stayed in Galilee. However, after His brothers had left for the festival, He went also, not publicly, but in secret."
First off, what's this feast? Google helped me with this one. It's Sukkot- The Feast of the Tabernacles, or the Feast of the Booths. It lasts about a week, and it's to commemorate the time when Moses led the Israelites out of Egypt and into the desert. Very important Jewish holiday. In fact, Hebrew4Christians.com says it's the most important of all holidays.
Now, let's remember, the Jews are all believers in God. (In those times, I mean.) Everyone in Israel practiced the customs and holidays because God had commanded them to back in the Torah (first 5 books of the Bible). Anyone who is a Jew and doesn't observe this holiday is, well, probably unheard of. This is serious stuff. And what's Jesus? A Jew. And it's obvious He believes God exists and knows the Torah very well.
This same Jesus tells His brothers (well, half-brothers, technically) that He's not going to this festival, after they mockingly invite Him to go with them and show Himself to be the Messiah He claims to be. Yet His bros are not shocked at all. The Bible doesn't record the brothers being shocked or anything. Now, I know it actually doesn't give their response at all. But if Christians are to take the Bible as being inerrant, would they believe John stopped writing in the middle of the conversation between Jesus and His brothers? If John is being the honest writer we assume he's being, we can assume Jesus' answer was final and His brothers didn't push Him any more. So where is the shock and questioning of Jesus as for His reasoning for not going to partake of this feast? This was a huge thing to say you're Jewish, obey the Torah, then go and say you're gonna disobey it. But it appears as if they just left without a fight. Why would they have done that unless they and Jesus knew something we don't? The only explanation is that Jesus did, in fact, mean He was not going to go with them, especially publicly, and He was not going right now, and implied He was gonna go later. And that He did in verse 10. Privately, of course.
Now, the devil's advocate is telling me, "But that just has to mean the 'yet' was there!" Not necessarily. Lots of manuscripts have it with it, lots have it without it, so it's hard to really tell if it's supposed to be there or not. But whether it is or not, it's most certainly implied in the context.
"If it's that certain, why don't all translations just take out 'yet'?" Well, apparently it's not that certain. I imagine there's some we can't quite tell how old they are. There's probably lots of other reasons, I don't know. And I doubt most people reading this actually study ancient documents for themselves. But the translators likely use their own judgement and discretion about what they believe was originally in there and what wasn't. That's what I believe is probably the case- some translators feel it's necessary to put in the "yet" (or "now") and others don't. And besides, with the kind of reasoning mentioned, why does it matter if 'yet' is there or not? It's certainly implied in the context. If one can see that, one should know that other translations, even without "yet," do not portray Jesus as a liar.
Note: I came up with this idea myself. If it's right, then I believe it to be from God, showing me the answer. But I want all to know I haven't (intentionally) stolen anyone's ideas. If someone's thought of this before me, more power to them. Thank God I finally caught onto it :)
J-Lindo
No comments:
Post a Comment