Blessed are the conservative in Bible translation

CHARLESTON, West Virginia - The Gospel of Luke records that, as he was dying on the cross, Jesus showed his boundless mercy by praying for his killers this way: "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do."

The project, an online effort to create a Bible suitable for contemporary conservative sensibilities, claims Jesus' quote is a disputed addition abetted by liberal biblical scholars, even if it appears in some form in almost every translation of the Bible...

Experts who have devoted their careers to unraveling the ancient texts of the Scriptures, many in long-extinct languages, are predictably skeptical about a project by amateur translators.

"This is not making scripture understandable to people today, it's reworking scripture to support a particular political or social agenda," said Timothy Paul Jones, a professor at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky, who calls himself a theological conservative.

Dangerous work to enter upon without extreme justification. There is a long history to this passage, and it should not be disturbed. See the following:

http://www.preteristarchive.com/BibleStudies/Bible_NT/Luke/luke_23-34.html

No, I am not a preterist. I just think this is a good collection of commentary on the passage in question. The reason it connects with Preterism is that the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD provides a plausible motive, not for “liberal” addition of the text, but for “conservative” deletion of the text. If God had judged Israel, surely he had not forgiven them. Thus, either the prayer of Jesus was unanswered (not likely), or he never made such a prayer. Thus, you have motive for deletion, but no motive for addition.

The other theory is that perhaps the persecution had left some Christians simply unable to obey their master’s clear command to forgive their enemies, and they contoured the text to suit their disposition. So once again, you have motive for deletion, but no motive for addition.

In either case, the text has sufficient history to make removing it an act of presumption, especially if based on modern categories such as “liberal” and “conservative.” What do conservatives conserve, if not the grand Western Legal Tradition, i.e., natural law implemented in human law via a constitutional republic? And what can be more essential to that tradition than the notion of forgiveness, since no Christian may enter Heaven without it? I don’t get where these tinkerers are coming from, but I fear for where they may be going.

Thanks for the link. Here from my response to CP on the issue:

The only basis for excluding “Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do”, is based upon its absence from older, and therefore supposedly better, mss, which is a questionable premise. (one side: http://www.cai.org/faq/kvj-part-2) Its exclusion on doctrinal grounds has no real basis. This does indeed fulfill the prophecy in Isa. 53:12, that he “made intercession for the transgressors”, praying for them which despitefully abused Him. (cf. Lk. 6:28)

While it is true that there is no forgiveness without repentance, this is another case of the righteous asking for mercy for sinners, which has a solid Scriptural basis.

Exo 32:32 “Yet now, if thou wilt forgive their sin—; and if not, blot me, I pray thee, out of thy book which thou hast written.” (A desire seen in Paul: Rm. 9:3)

Num 14:19 “Pardon, I beseech thee, the iniquity of this people according unto the greatness of thy mercy, and as thou hast forgiven this people, from Egypt even until now.” (cf. Gen. 50:17; Amos 7:2)

Act 7:60 And he kneeled down, and cried with a loud voice, Lord, lay not this sin to their charge. And when he had said this, he fell asleep.

Thus these text must also be excluded, upon the doctrinal basis which is used for Lk. 23:34.

Praying as Christ did manifests selfless love for sinners, even our enemies, which we are commanded to do, (while also reproving such, which Jesus also did). While this may not secure deliverance at the final judgment seat, it can forestall immediate judgment. God hears the cry of the unjustly afflicted, and promised to kill Israelites in response to hearing their cry. (Exo. 22:21-24) But examples are given of intercession which prevented the warranted temporal judgment upon sinners. (Exo. 32:9-14)

As for the objection that the subjects of Jesus intercession were not ignorant, this is seen as regarding the full cognizance of what they were doing by the people overall, and is confirmed by other texts:

Act 3:17 And now, brethren, I wot that through ignorance ye did it, as did also your rulers. (and repentance is then commanded: v. 19)

1 Cor 2:7-8 “But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory: {8} Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.”

Thanks for your analysis. I’ve learned from your quotes of other Scriptural passages. But note how those passages are slightly different: none contain the illogical reasoning of “forgive them because they know not what they are doing.” Sin requires intent, and if there were a true and justified lack of knowledge, then there would be nothing to forgive. So the phrase in Luke has a logical flaw the others lack.

:This phrase doe snot appear in the other Gospels and is not in the original manuscripts. That evidence alone is very compelling in demonstrating it is fake.

:Jesus Himself did NOT forgive one of the thiefs crucified along with Him, so the contradiction is disfavored.

:Finally, as an interesting aside, note how the fake phrase has been cited by evil-doers. One murderer quoted it defiantly just prior to execution. That would be very odd indeed if the phrase were authentic.—[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:16, 18 October 2009 (EDT)

:: One additional point: Luke was not an eyewitness, but served as an historian. It’s implausible that he would include such a quote when the eyewitnesses Matthew, Mark and John all missed it.—[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:54, 18 October 2009 (EDT)

Thanks for your reply. Your objection #1 is that while others Scripturally prayed for God to forgive souls, yet these were culpable while those in Luke were said to be ignorant, thus forgiving them would be illogical. However, this supposes that the souls at issue were inculpably ignorant, and not at all guilty of slaying an innocent man, though they were blind that he was the Messiah. One can also be guilty of being ignorant, due to not cooperating with the grace that would have led to enlightenment. It was ignorance that Jesus was the Messiah that is stated in 1 Cor 2:7-8, and that the Jews were guilty of this is what Peter indicates in his preaching Acts 2 and 3. Realizing this, and the consequence of being on the wrong side of Jesus, the former crowd earnestly sought salvation. (2:37) The apostle Paul testifies he was the chief of sinners, persecuting the church, but that he found mercy for because he “did it ignorantly in unbelief.” (1Tim. 1:13-15; cf. 1Cor. 15:9)

It should also be noted that the Old Testament (Lev. 4;5; Num. 15) provides ample examples of how souls are in need of forgiveness, protection from wrath, in the case of sins of ignorance, perhaps such as due to carelessness/forgetfulness/neglect, after the giving of the law.

So i think there is sufficient warrant to allow that these were guilty souls, and hence the intercession, which is consistent with other Godly examples of such. The correlation of sins and affliction also has an element of mystery to it, as Jesus forgave a sick man who did not ask, equaling it with healing, (Luke 17:17-25) a correlation that is also seen in James 5:14+15. The former is invoked by your(?) church to validate proxy faith, though in both cases it is not be presumed that they could not assent to faith.

2. As acknowledged, the mss issue could be an argument for exclusion, as debatable as it is.
However, excluding it due to its sole inclusion in Luke would also logically candidate numerous other texts for deletion, which uniquely are provided by the diligent inspired historian, and whose accuracy is well attested to. Luke’s gospel for Gentiles, which he researched different sources for (though ref tags were not needed) has 59 percent more material than Matthew, and records six of Jesus’ miracles and 18 parables or stories (publican sinner,s etc.) that are not found in any other gospel, with it overall having more than twice as many of His illustrations than other Gospel writers, making it the longest gospel account. His propensity for thoroughness also weighs against the argument that sees it implausible that he would include a quote that other writers did not know of. Concise (what’s that?) overview of gospels here: http://www.lifeofchrist.com/life/gospels/print.asp

3. As for Jesus not forgiving the railing criminal, that in no way disallows Him from doing it to others. Grace is owed to no man, and God could have even brought Tyre and Sidon, and Sodom to repentance. (Mt. 11:20-24)

4. And as noted before, the misappropriation of Scripture text by enemies is not odd, but logical, and cannot itself warrant their exclusion, lest we remove the 75% percent (i think) of the KJV which the BOM is said to plagiarize! Good day.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.