Luke 14:5 "an ass" ,"a son" or "a sheep"?

[brandplucked]

Luke 14:5 Which of you shall have "AN ASS" or an ox fallen into a pit...? or “A SON” or “A SHEEP”?

Luke 14:5 - KJB - “And (Jesus) answered them, saying, Which of you shall have AN ASS or an ox fallen into a pit, and will not straightway pull him out on the sabbath day?”

NIV, RSV, NASB - “Then he asked them, "If one of you has A SON or an ox that falls into a well on the Sabbath day, will you not immediately pull him out?"

Whiston’s Primitive New Testament 1745 - “And said unto them, Which of you shall have A SHEEP or an ox fallen into a pit on the sabbath-day and will not straightway pull him out?” (Manuscript D actually reads “a SHEEP” or an ox)

Let’s see....AN ASS, A SHEEP or A SON? Yep, pretty close in meaning, right? What is going on here? Well, as usual, the so called “oldest and best Greek manuscripts” are once again in disagreement with each other and the scholars can’t seem to make up their minds which reading God inspired. Sinaiticus reads as does the KJB with “an ASS or an ox”, while Vaticanus has “a SON or an ox” and Mss. D reads “a SHEEP or an ox”, and the bible versions are all over the board.

The textual evidence for the different readings here are very confused and diverse. The reading found in the King James Bible of "an ASS (ὄνο&#962 or an ox" is that found in Sinaiticus, K, L, X, Y, Omega, Pi, Psi, many cursive manuscripts, the Old Latin copies of a, air, b, c, ff2, i, l, r1. It is also the reading of the Syriac Palestinian, Coptic Boharic, Armenian and Slavonic ancient versions, and it is the reading found in the Traditional Reformation texts of Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza and Elziever.

However Vaticanus and many other manuscripts read "a SON (υἱὸ&#962 or an ox", and there are even a couple of manuscripts like Theta, 2174 and the Syriac Curetonian that actually read "AN ASS SON or an ox" (ὄνος υἱὸς ἢ βοῦ&#962

The reading found in the King James Bible of “an ASS or an ox” is that found in the Anglo Saxon Gospels manuscript 140 by Aelfric dated at about 1000 A.D. - "hwylces eowres assa oððe oxa befealþ on anne pytt", Wycliffe 1380, 1395, Tyndale 1525 - "whiche of you shall have an ASSE or an oxe fallen into a pitt", Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549, the Bishops’ Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1557-1602, the Douay-Rheims 1582, the KJB 1611, Wesley's N.T. 1755, Worsley Version 1770, Thomas Haweis N.T. 1795, Webster's Bible 1833, Living Oracles 1835, Julia Smith Translation 1855, the Revised Version of 1881 - "Which of you shall have an ASS or an ox fallen into a well", and American Standard Version of 1901, Darby 1890, Young’s 1898, Worrell N.T. 1904, the Douay Version 1950, J.P. Phillips N.T. 1962, the New English Bible 1970, New Berkeley Version 1969, New Life Bible 1969, the Bible in Basic English 1961, the NKJV 1982, KJV 21st Century 1994, J.P. Green's literal translation, the Knox Bible of 2012, the Third Millenium Bible 1998, New Simplified Bible 2004, the 2010 English Jubilee Bible and the 2012 Natural Israelite Bible.

Even though the Westcott and Hort Critical Greek text read "A SON or an ox", yet both the Revised Version 1881 and the ASV of 1901 editors chose to stick with the Traditional Reformation reading of "AN ASS or an ox" instead of "A SON or an ox".

However, the first major bible version to follow the Vaticanus reading of SON instead of an ASS was the liberal RSV of 1946. This was then followed by the NRSV, NASB, NIV, ESV, Holman Standard, the Message, Jehovah Witness New World Translation and Dan Wallace’s NET version.

The Catholic Connection

As usual, the Catholic versions are in a state of constant change. The 1582 Douay-Rheims as well as the 1950 Douay read “an ASS or an ox”, but then changed to “A SON or an ox” in the 1969 Jerusalem bible, the 1970 St. Joseph New American Bible and the 1985 New Jerusalem bible. However in the brand new 2009 The Sacred Bible Catholic Public Domain Version they have once again gone back to read “an ASS or an ox”.

Foreign language Bibles that read ASS

Jerome’s Vulgate 382 A.D., Vulgate 405, Clementine Vulgate 2005 - “vestrum ASINUS aut bos in puteum cadet”

Anglo-Saxon Gospels, mss. 140 circa 1000 A.D, and mss. 38 circa 1200 A.D. - “eowres ASSA odde oxa befealp on anne pytt”

The really old Spanish translation called El Evangelio Según San Lucas, Edición de 1260 del Rey Alfonso X, el Sabio - “¿Cuyo ASNO o cuyo buey cae en el pozo el dia del sabado, e nol saca ende luego?

The Spanish Las Sagradas Escrituras 1569, Spanish Reina Valera 1909-2011, Spanish Reina Valera Gomez 2010 - “¿Quién de vosotros, si su ASNO o su buey cae en algún pozo, no lo saca inmediatamente, aunque sea sábado?”

Italian Diodati 1649, La Nueva Diodati 1991 and Conferenza Episcopale Italiana Bible - “Poi, rispondendo loro disse: «Chi di voi se il suo ASINO o bue cade in un pozzo, non lo tira subito fuori in giorno di sabato?”

Portuguese A Biblia em Portugués, Portuguese Almeida Corrigida E Fiel and O Livro 2000 - “Se o vosso JUMENTO (an ass or donkey) ou o vosso boi cair numa cova, não tratam logo de o tirar? “

French - La Bible de Geneva 1669, French Martin 1744, and the French Ostervald 1996 - Puis il leur dit: Qui de vous, si son ANE (ASS) ou son bœuf tombe dans un puits, ne l'en retire aussitôt le jour de sabbat?”

German Luther 1545 and German Schlachter Bible 2000 - “Und antwortete und sprach zu ihnen: Welcher ist unter euch, dem sein Ochse oder ESEL (an ASS) in den Brunnen fällt, und er nicht alsbald ihn herauszieht am Sabbattage?”

Russian Synodal Version- "если у кого из вас осёл или вол упадет в колодезь", the 1998 Tagalog Ang Salita ng Diyos Bible - “Ang inyong ASNO o toro ay nahulog sa isang hukay sa araw ng Sabat.”, the Polish Updated Gdansk Bible 2013 - “Któż z was, jeśli jego osioł albo wół wpadnie do studni”, Norwegian Det Norsk Bibelselskap 1930 -"Hvem av eder har en sønn eller en okse som faller i en brønn", Hungarian Karoli Bible - "Ki az közületek, a kinek szamara vagy ökre a kútba esik",Afrikaans Bible 1953, Chinese Union Traditional bible, the Dutch Staten Vertaling Bible - "En Hij, hun antwoordende, zeide: Wiens ezel of os van ulieden zal in een put vallen", the Romanian Cornilescu Bible and Fideli of 2014 - "Pe urmă, le -a zis: ,Cine dintre voi, dacă -i cade copilul sau boul în fîntînă", the Smith & Van Dyke Arabic Bible - ثم اجابهم وقال من منكم يسقط حماره او ثوره في بئر ولا ينشله حالا في يوم السبت., and the Modern Greek Bible - "Και αποκριθεις προς αυτους ειπε· Τινος υμων ο ονος η ο βους θελει πεσει εις φρεαρ, και δεν θελει ευθυς ανασυρει αυτον εν τη ημερα του σαββατου;"

What we see once again is the total confusion of the modern versionists, and their so called “oldest and best manuscripts (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus) differ from each other thousands of times, and the “scholars” who put together today’s conflicting Bible of the Month Club versions keep changing their minds with practically every new version to come down the pike.

Stick with the time tested King James Bible and you will never go wrong.

For many more examples like this see Bible Babble Buffet Versions Part 4 -

Bible Babel 4 - Another King James Bible Believer

 

[Radagast]

Stick with the time tested King James Bible and you will never go wrong.

"The KJV is right because I say it's right" is hardly an argument! ... and you've totally failed to make your case in the debate on the topic.

In this verse, υἱὸς ἢ βοῦς is most likely the correct Greek, for several reasons, and son or ox (as per HCSB, ESV, NASB, NKJV footnote, etc.) the best translation.

 

[x141]

Luke 14:5 Which of you shall have "AN ASS" or an ox fallen into a pit...? or “A SON” or “A SHEEP”?

Luke 14:5 - KJB - “And (Jesus) answered them, saying, Which of you shall have AN ASS or an ox fallen into a pit, and will not straightway pull him out on the sabbath day?”

NIV, RSV, NASB - “Then he asked them, "If one of you has A SON or an ox that falls into a well on the Sabbath day, will you not immediately pull him out?"

Whiston’s Primitive New Testament 1745 - “And said unto them, Which of you shall have A SHEEP or an ox fallen into a pit on the sabbath-day and will not straightway pull him out?” (Manuscript D actually reads “a SHEEP” or an ox)

Let’s see....AN ASS, A SHEEP or A SON? Yep, pretty close in meaning, right? What is going on here? Well, as usual, the so called “oldest and best Greek manuscripts” are once again in disagreement with each other and the scholars can’t seem to make up their minds which reading God inspired. Sinaiticus reads as does the KJB with “an ASS or an ox”, while Vaticanus has “a SON or an ox” and Mss. D reads “a SHEEP or an ox”, and the bible versions are all over the board.

The textual evidence for the different readings here are very confused and diverse. The reading found in the King James Bible of "an ASS (ὄνο&#962 or an ox" is that found in Sinaiticus, K, L, X, Y, Omega, Pi, Psi, many cursive manuscripts, the Old Latin copies of a, air, b, c, ff2, i, l, r1. It is also the reading of the Syriac Palestinian, Coptic Boharic, Armenian and Slavonic ancient versions, and it is the reading found in the Traditional Reformation texts of Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza and Elziever.

However Vaticanus and many other manuscripts read "a SON (υἱὸ&#962 or an ox", and there are even a couple of manuscripts like Theta, 2174 and the Syriac Curetonian that actually read "AN ASS SON or an ox" (ὄνος υἱὸς ἢ βοῦ&#962

The reading found in the King James Bible of “an ASS or an ox” is that found in the Anglo Saxon Gospels manuscript 140 by Aelfric dated at about 1000 A.D. - "hwylces eowres assa oððe oxa befealþ on anne pytt", Wycliffe 1380, 1395, Tyndale 1525 - "whiche of you shall have an ASSE or an oxe fallen into a pitt", Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549, the Bishops’ Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1557-1602, the Douay-Rheims 1582, the KJB 1611, Wesley's N.T. 1755, Worsley Version 1770, Thomas Haweis N.T. 1795, Webster's Bible 1833, Living Oracles 1835, Julia Smith Translation 1855, the Revised Version of 1881 - "Which of you shall have an ASS or an ox fallen into a well", and American Standard Version of 1901, Darby 1890, Young’s 1898, Worrell N.T. 1904, the Douay Version 1950, J.P. Phillips N.T. 1962, the New English Bible 1970, New Berkeley Version 1969, New Life Bible 1969, the Bible in Basic English 1961, the NKJV 1982, KJV 21st Century 1994, J.P. Green's literal translation, the Knox Bible of 2012, the Third Millenium Bible 1998, New Simplified Bible 2004, the 2010 English Jubilee Bible and the 2012 Natural Israelite Bible.

Even though the Westcott and Hort Critical Greek text read "A SON or an ox", yet both the Revised Version 1881 and the ASV of 1901 editors chose to stick with the Traditional Reformation reading of "AN ASS or an ox" instead of "A SON or an ox".

However, the first major bible version to follow the Vaticanus reading of SON instead of an ASS was the liberal RSV of 1946. This was then followed by the NRSV, NASB, NIV, ESV, Holman Standard, the Message, Jehovah Witness New World Translation and Dan Wallace’s NET version.

The Catholic Connection

As usual, the Catholic versions are in a state of constant change. The 1582 Douay-Rheims as well as the 1950 Douay read “an ASS or an ox”, but then changed to “A SON or an ox” in the 1969 Jerusalem bible, the 1970 St. Joseph New American Bible and the 1985 New Jerusalem bible. However in the brand new 2009 The Sacred Bible Catholic Public Domain Version they have once again gone back to read “an ASS or an ox”.

Foreign language Bibles that read ASS

Jerome’s Vulgate 382 A.D., Vulgate 405, Clementine Vulgate 2005 - “vestrum ASINUS aut bos in puteum cadet”

Anglo-Saxon Gospels, mss. 140 circa 1000 A.D, and mss. 38 circa 1200 A.D. - “eowres ASSA odde oxa befealp on anne pytt”

The really old Spanish translation called El Evangelio Según San Lucas, Edición de 1260 del Rey Alfonso X, el Sabio - “¿Cuyo ASNO o cuyo buey cae en el pozo el dia del sabado, e nol saca ende luego?

The Spanish Las Sagradas Escrituras 1569, Spanish Reina Valera 1909-2011, Spanish Reina Valera Gomez 2010 - “¿Quién de vosotros, si su ASNO o su buey cae en algún pozo, no lo saca inmediatamente, aunque sea sábado?”

Italian Diodati 1649, La Nueva Diodati 1991 and Conferenza Episcopale Italiana Bible - “Poi, rispondendo loro disse: «Chi di voi se il suo ASINO o bue cade in un pozzo, non lo tira subito fuori in giorno di sabato?”

Portuguese A Biblia em Portugués, Portuguese Almeida Corrigida E Fiel and O Livro 2000 - “Se o vosso JUMENTO (an ass or donkey) ou o vosso boi cair numa cova, não tratam logo de o tirar? “

French - La Bible de Geneva 1669, French Martin 1744, and the French Ostervald 1996 - Puis il leur dit: Qui de vous, si son ANE (ASS) ou son bœuf tombe dans un puits, ne l'en retire aussitôt le jour de sabbat?”

German Luther 1545 and German Schlachter Bible 2000 - “Und antwortete und sprach zu ihnen: Welcher ist unter euch, dem sein Ochse oder ESEL (an ASS) in den Brunnen fällt, und er nicht alsbald ihn herauszieht am Sabbattage?”

Russian Synodal Version- "если у кого из вас осёл или вол упадет в колодезь", the 1998 Tagalog Ang Salita ng Diyos Bible - “Ang inyong ASNO o toro ay nahulog sa isang hukay sa araw ng Sabat.”, the Polish Updated Gdansk Bible 2013 - “Któż z was, jeśli jego osioł albo wół wpadnie do studni”, Norwegian Det Norsk Bibelselskap 1930 -"Hvem av eder har en sønn eller en okse som faller i en brønn", Hungarian Karoli Bible - "Ki az közületek, a kinek szamara vagy ökre a kútba esik",Afrikaans Bible 1953, Chinese Union Traditional bible, the Dutch Staten Vertaling Bible - "En Hij, hun antwoordende, zeide: Wiens ezel of os van ulieden zal in een put vallen", the Romanian Cornilescu Bible and Fideli of 2014 - "Pe urmă, le -a zis: ,Cine dintre voi, dacă -i cade copilul sau boul în fîntînă", the Smith & Van Dyke Arabic Bible - ثم اجابهم وقال من منكم يسقط حماره او ثوره في بئر ولا ينشله حالا في يوم السبت., and the Modern Greek Bible - "Και αποκριθεις προς αυτους ειπε· Τινος υμων ο ονος η ο βους θελει πεσει εις φρεαρ, και δεν θελει ευθυς ανασυρει αυτον εν τη ημερα του σαββατου;"

What we see once again is the total confusion of the modern versionists, and their so called “oldest and best manuscripts (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus) differ from each other thousands of times, and the “scholars” who put together today’s conflicting Bible of the Month Club versions keep changing their minds with practically every new version to come down the pike.

Stick with the time tested King James Bible and you will never go wrong.

For many more examples like this see Bible Babble Buffet Versions Part 4 -

Bible Babel 4 - Another King James Bible Believer

You can learn everything that man has to teach about the words in the Bible and never be any closer to understanding the language of God that he alone defines.

 

[Ttery]

I believe that in a general sense you have a point, which clearly needs to be addressed.

But from what I see is the making of a big deal about what specifically Jesus is using as an example. What's being used as an example in this passage shouldn't get us distracted from the overall message Jesus is teaching.

 

[Radagast]

I believe that in a general sense you have a point, which clearly needs to be addressed.

His only point is that he likes the KJV and he thinks all other bibles are rubbish.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

Luke 14:5 Which of you shall have "AN ASS" or an ox fallen into a pit...? or “A SON” or “A SHEEP”?

Luke 14:5 - KJB - “And (Jesus) answered them, saying, Which of you shall have AN ASS or an ox fallen into a pit, and will not straightway pull him out on the sabbath day?”

NIV, RSV, NASB - “Then he asked them, "If one of you has A SON or an ox that falls into a well on the Sabbath day, will you not immediately pull him out?"

Stick with the time tested King James Bible and you will never go wrong.

When confronted with a question like this, Christians have basically two choices:

1. Blindly side with the King James Version and ignore 400 years of biblical scholarship.
2. Look up the verse in the 27th Edition of Novum Testamentum Graece, learn their preference, and use their critical apparatus to learn which reading has the best manuscript support.

In this particular case, both readings have very strong support. The apparatus shows that there are yet other readings, but they lack the necessary support to be the original reading. Now the Christian has basically three choices:

1. Toss a coin
2. Make an uninformed guess
3. Consult scholars of the Greek text of Luke (using their commentaries), read their analysis of the two choices and their conclusions, and make an educated but tentative decision

The currently most frequently cited English commentaries on Luke’s gospel are the following:

Bock, Darrell L. - B.E.C. exe., xxxv, 2,148 pages in two volumes, 1994, 1996
Creed, John Martin exe., lxxxix, 340 pages, 1930
Fitzmyer, Joseph A. - A.B. exe., xxvi, xxxv, 1,642 pages, 1981
Marshall, I. Howard exe., 928 pages, 1978
Nolland, John (Ch. 1-9:20) - W.B.C. exe., lxvi, 454 pages, 1989
Nolland, John (Ch. 9:21-18:34) - W.B.C. exe., lix, 440 pages, 1993
Nolland, John (Ch. 18:35-24:53) - W.B.C. exe., lxi, 398 pages, 1993
Plummer, Alfred - I.C.C. exe., lxxxviii, 592 pages, 1896

I am fortunate enough (but not by accident) to have all of these commentaries on Luke in my personal library, so I took them off the shelf and read what they have to say. Noland favors the reading “ass”; the others favor the reading “son.” Reading their analysis and their conclusions is not only interesting—it is also enlightening because it shows how each one interpreted and then weighed the evidence.

I consulted the scholars, read their analysis of the two choices and their conclusions, and made an educated but tentative decision—“son.”

Had this matter been of special interest to me, I could have searched for relevant articles in peer-reviewed journals hoping to find more information, but the information that I found in the commentaries was very substantial.

 

[Radagast]

I am fortunate enough (but not by accident) to have all of these commentaries on Luke in my personal library, so I took them off the shelf and read what they have to say. Noland favors the reading “ass”; the others favor the reading “son.” Reading their analysis and their conclusions is not only interesting—it is also enlightening because it shows how each one interpreted and then weighed the evidence.

I consulted the scholars, read their analysis of the two choices and their conclusions, and made an educated but tentative decision—“son.”

Thanks for expanding on the issue.

 

[brandplucked]

And yet you fellas remain unbelievers in the inerrancy of ANY Bible in any language, and are now promoting the new Vatican Versions like the ESV, NIV, NASB etc.

 

[Ttery]

And yet you fellas remain unbelievers in the inerrancy of ANY Bible in any language, and are now promoting the new Vatican Versions like the ESV, NIV, NASB etc.

That sounds like an attack rather than a intelligent argument.

I'm sure we understand that there are some areas of the Bible that are disagreed upon by in terms of translation, no one argued otherwise.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

And yet you fellas remain unbelievers in the inerrancy of ANY Bible in any language, and are now promoting the new Vatican Versions like the ESV, NIV, NASB etc.

I believe in the truth, and I believe in telling the truth rather than lying about translations of the Bible that God Himself has used to bring souls into His kingdom, and to bring about their growing in His grace and their bringing forth fruit in abundance.

People who, while wearing the cloak of Christianity, slander God’s workmen not only slander the workmen, but they slander God Himself.

Brandplucked has, in very numerous threads and posts on various message boards, exposed hundreds of the thousands of errors in the King James translation of the Bible, and has misrepresented these errors as being the work of God. Who or what has inspired Brandplucked to do such a thing?

 

[brandplucked]

I believe in the truth, and I believe in telling the truth rather than lying about translations of the Bible that God Himself has used to bring souls into His kingdom, and to bring about their growing in His grace and their bringing forth fruit in abundance.

People who, while wearing the cloak of Christianity, slander God’s workmen not only slander the workmen, but they slander God Himself.

Brandplucked has, in very numerous threads and posts on various message boards, exposed hundreds of the thousands of errors in the King James translation of the Bible, and has misrepresented these errors as being the work of God. Who or what has inspired Brandplucked to do such a thing?

Hi PG. The FACT is you do not believe that ANY Bible in ANY language IS or ever WAS the complete and infallible words of God. Prove me wrong, and SHOW US this infallible Bible you seem to want us to think you believe in. But you won't and never will. Why? Because you don't believe such a thing exists.

Secondly, your last statement is as absurd as your first one. I have never exposed "hundreds of thousands of errors in the KJB". There are none to show. Instead, I have shown hundreds of errors in your fake Vatican Versions like the ESV, NIV, NASB and the corrupt NKJV.

You must be a highly imaginative individual to think that I have exposed 100,000s of errors in the King James Bible. Just like this imaginary "infallible bible" you profess to believe in.

See Six Lies Modern Scholarship Tells Us

Lies of mod. Scholarship - Another King James Bible Believer

"He that hath ears to hear, let him hear." Luke 8:8

 

[PrincetonGuy]

Hi PG. The FACT is you do not believe that ANY Bible in ANY language IS or ever WAS the complete and infallible words of God. Prove me wrong, and SHOW US this infallible Bible you seem to want us to think you believe in. But you won't and never will. Why? Because you don't believe such a thing exists.

Thank you for reading my post. The FACT is that I believe that the word of God is perfect and infallible, and I believe the word of God where it teaches in innumerable places that men are NOT infallible. I have in my home library approximately 65 different bound translations of the Bible, and many more electronic copies. Additionally, I have very many copies of the King James translation of the Bible published by many different publishers over a span of many years. These copies vary from copy to copy because all attempts to produce a standardized edition of the King James translation of the Bible have failed. Our Lord God could have accomplished that task for us, but according to His sovereign and divine will, He chose not to.

Secondly, your last statement is as absurd as your first one. I have never exposed "hundreds of thousands of errors in the KJB". There are none to show. Instead, I have shown hundreds of errors in your fake Vatican Versions like the ESV, NIV, NASB and the corrupt NKJV.

I have never made such a statement! I wrote, “Brandplucked has, in very numerous threads and posts on various message boards, exposed hundreds of the thousands of errors in the King James translation of the Bible, and has misrepresented these errors as being the work of God.” Notice these words, “exposed hundreds of the thousands of errors”.

 

[brandplucked]

You still don't get it, do you? You have NO Bible in any language that you believe is the infallible words of God. And there are NO errors in the King James Bible. I have never "exposed" a single one. Adiós