Perrydox.com is devoted to the pursuit of truth, whether plain or paradoxical, whether simple or sublime, or simply absurd yet absolute.
1 John 2:19 – NASB vs HCSB vs ESV
NASB – They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us.
HCSB – They went out from us, but they did not belong to us; for if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us. However, they went out so that it might be made clear that none of them belongs to us.
ESV – They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us.
Does John have a sarcastic sense of humor? Does John use a pun to antagonize the antagonists? The opposition who left the orthodox denied the fleshly reality of Jesus. The Docetists could be called “The Seemists” because they taught it only seemed or appeared that Jesus had flesh. Christ was only a spirit.
The word translated “shown,” “clear,” and “plain,” is phaneroō. It means “make clear (visible, manifest), make known.” The Docetists said Jesus was not what He appeared to be. John says the Docetists are the ones that are not what they appear to be. When we get to English, this pun becomes “punnier.” We get our word phantom from phareroo. Therefore, we could paraphrase this as, “Jesus is not the phantom; the Docetists are the phantoms.”
Whether the HCSB intended to show this play on words by using “clear,” I do not know. What I do know is the HCSB translation made me check further.
The 1977 NASB is the best literal translation of the Critical Text. Saying it different ways doesn’t make it less of a translation. Personal preference is not the same as accuracy either. Why not just use the Greek NT instead of debunking translations you don’t like? What are your credentials to be a text critic?
“They went out from us, but they were not of* us. For if they had been of us, they would have remained with us. But they went out in order that they might be made-evident that they all are not of us.”
*of us=That is, belonging to us.
John,
Thanks for replying. If you research all the threads where I compare these three translations, you will discover that I do not debunk any of the three. Each one “wins” sometimes as having the better translation on that passage. Also, I do not claim any credentials as a text critic. I just do my best to compare each as I study. I think highly of the NASB and used it for about 35 years; and still do. But it is not a perfect translation. I agree personal preference is not the same as accuracy either. Also, translating word for word is not always an accurate “translation” which even the NASB understands as it sometimes translates idioms from a Hebrew or Greek idiom to one comparable to the English language.