The Markian passage (snake handlers special) and the Johanine passage (woman taken in adultery - John 8) are both episodes not found in the oldest of mss. I do not bring this up to offend, but just to point out that the jury is still out as to whether these are actually Scriptural or spurious. Erasmus did not have the benefit of later findings and he was without question, sympathetic to Rome.
But, with respect to "paraphrasing", I offer the following thoughts. Occasionally, "supplied" words are not necessarily "supplied". For example, the wooden word-for-word translation of a remark in Koine' Greek, does not mean the same thing in English UNLESS (occasionally) the missing (but understood by Greek speakers) words are "supplied". Are those words then actually "supplied" or are they "required"?
During the years I studied Koine' Greek in college, I began to recognize this important factor when it came to "translating". Thus, sometimes "paraphrasings" can be closer "translations" than what we have ordinarily called, "word for word translations".
Further, words in the King's English (such as "prevent")meant something quite different 500 years ago. In this example, "prevent" meant "go before" or "go in front of" rather than "stop from doing". Thus, the idea that the KJV moved into English, today leaves one with an incorrect understanding of the intent of the passage, although it was spot on 500 years ago. Our Greek professor embarrassed us all with some of these examples.
When one couples this with the issues of trying to make idiomatic remarks of Koine' move into idioms of the King's English and then into modern idioms, we sometimes have a very difficult time. Again, our objective is to apprehend exactly what the original writer was getting at. No more, no less.
I completely agree that there is no modern translation that seems to hit on all cylinders (idiom). But, reading and re-reading all of the translations, examining the good original language composite texts, using our lexicons, and continuing to "heed the basic Truth in any translation", is very good advice. Thank you for that.
I believe the folks at McKenzie Study Center combine all of this into an "authorial intent" objective. That is, they assume that any particular writer (principally of the NT epistles) is developing (primarily) a single argument throughout their letter. They strive to get the gist of the argument thread well-understood before deconstructing the individual passages or thoughts. Everything in the letter is assumed to support or add to this central argument. Thus, out goes "bumper sticker" theology supported by odd-ball single phrases or even "Verses". For example, how many folks have used John 3:16 as an "offer" rather than a "statement of fact".
Frankly, Chapters and verses were the construct of a medieval monk and often get in the way of the argument, yet KJV, NASB, Geneva, et al, continue to use this formatting. But, to have the text of any "book" translated into a single letter format is actually a very good exercise. That is the way the message came to the original readers, but we modernists tend to love our "references".
Anyway, I ramble. However, I deeply appreciate your remarks on this subject and the others to which you respond. Keep up the good work, my FRiend and brother. Grace to you.
But the premise is that older copies must be better copies is presumptuous, as the more recent copies can be from even earlier copies which wore out.
You many like this post on this issue, and which is also debated in such forums as here .
In addition, if i recall correctly, the old mss have the greater percentage of real discrepancies btwn each other.
And based upon this older=better premise, the end of Mark is rejected or held as doubtful despite what 99.9% of the Greek manuscripts, 99% of the Syriac manuscripts, and 99.99% of the Latin manuscripts, and four second-century witnesses, over 40 other Roman-Empire-era witnesses evidence to the contrary.
It is also noted that Christian faith seems to have done quite well with its great revivals before some men removed "And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen." (Mark 16:20)
Yet there is more to revival than that!
Occasionally, "supplied" words are not necessarily "supplied."
I was aware of that, and sometimes i think the KJV has words that are not in the Greek but are not marked as supplied via the use of italics. Yet often i find the reading clearer without the use the italicized supplied words.
One example is
Therefore hearken unto me, ye men of understanding: far be it from God, that he should do wickedness; and from the Almighty, that he should commit iniquity. (Job 34:10)
Of course, the commas are supplied, and punctuation is needed or helpful all over the place.
John 8:58 says before Abraham was, "I Am," (egō eimi) without any added italicized "he." And in Jn. 13:13: "Ye call me Master and Lord: and ye say well; for so I am." But in Jn. 8:24 it adds the "he" in italics, "ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he , ye shall die in your sins." Also in Jn. 8:28.
Likewise in Jn. 18:5-6:
They answered him, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus saith unto them, I am he . And Judas also, which betrayed him, stood with them. As soon then as he had said unto them, I am he , they went backward, and fell to the ground.
In all these cases i believe it should read "I Am," as it seems John is denoting His deity. Yet in other places the "he" is rightly added in italics, as in "Jesus answered, I have told you that I am he : if therefore ye seek me, let these go their way:" (Jn. 18:8) This answers to Christ being the Jesus of Nazareth whom the soldier sought, while I AM is whom they met and could not have touched if the Lord was not also the Lamb of God.
And in Jn. 9:9 Is not this he that sat and begged? Some said, This is he: others said, He is like him: but he said, I am he .
Further, words in the King's English (such as "prevent")meant
I rarely have had a problem with such, for as in everyday speck, context usually supplies meaning. They that speak leasing is not referring to Avis.
Chapters and verses were the construct of a medieval monk
Very helpful but not inspired or binding. I use BPbible which enables copying in paragraph style.
Anyway, I ramble.
Me to, but which Scripture Never Does, but provides an abundance of Truth in an economy of words. You may like my Books of the Bible page. Has some interesting stats also. Praise be to God.
Another notable aspect is the variety of literary genres in Scripture and in life, and which variety is part of the unique scope and depth and communication that is unique to humans. A revealing study (and of liberal fantasy) related to this is Project Nim: Can a chimp learn language ?
Carry on soldier!