Enzinas 1543 Diligently Compared
by William Kincaid
I recognize that the problem of different language translations is deeper than
individual readings or translation choices. Therefore much of the following
is immaterial. I certainly would give Enzinas the freedom to translate the
edition of the Greek NT he had on his desk, whichever it was. And had his
NT ever done any good at all for the Spanish speakers of the world over the
centuries, I would be defending it today. But the Enzinas NT never made a
dent. It accomplished even less than the original Reina and Valera, if that
is possible. Except for the fact that Reina used it to help him translate
his own NT we have no reason to be interested in it. But there are KJV believers
who claim that Enzinas is a truly "Protestant" translation while
Reina's and Valera's are "corrupted". This is simply wishful thinking.
All three translations are literarily related. All three differ from the KJV
substantially. Dedicated brethren who are presently "revising" the
Enzinas with the intent of publishing it as a superior Bible to Valera revisions
are wasting their time. I'll try not to waste yours and get right to the point.
Notice Enzinas occasionally translated "metanoeo" as "hazed penitencia" (as in Mat. 3.2, 4.17), which altogether too many reformers were likely to do. Of course "metanoeo" means "change your mind" or "make up your mind". It is translated "repent" in the KJV. It can never be construed as to "do" anything (as in Enzinas' "hazed"). Although Reina preferred "enmendaos", which implies an outward change as well as a change of mind, Enzinas' choice of "hazed penitencia" is precisely demanding the superficial. Enzinas usually uses "arrepentirse", occasionally "enmendarse". But why he ever used "hazed penitencia" I'll not venture to guess. Enzinas was consistent in calling Hell "Infierno", but many of his other translations are curious, such as in:
Mat. 9.15, where he calls the "children of the bridechamber" "los hijos del esposo". Reina called them "los que son de bodas", which might be less literal then "children" but is accurate as to WHO they are, presumeably NOT children of the brideGROOM.
2 Tim. 2.15, as far as I can tell by my copy he translates "rightly dividing" as "tratando rectamente" rather than Reina's "traza bien" (trace).
Acts 13.22, translates "raised up" as "resucitado", making David resurrected to the throne, rather than exalted to it.
Rom. 1.31, translates "implacable" (or unforgiving) as "sin fee", makes me suspect an uncommon variation in his Greek text since the Nestles omits it altogether. Reina rendered it "sin lealtad". Go figure.
Rom. 13.12, translates "far spent" and "at hand" as "ya pafado" and "es venido", exactly like Reina. This is important seeing it is a peculiarity to the old Spanish Bibles, which proves among other things that Reina used Enzinas.
Jude 24, translates "from
falling" as "fin peccados", seems rather imprecise.
It is an unsubstantiated assumption that corruption can
be proved by textual discrepancies between reformation Bibles in different languages.
Since they are derived from different sources, and differed long before any
of them were standards of their languages, their differences are not necessarily
"corruptions". Nevertheless sourcing the textual differences is useful
especially to demonstrate the error of Enzinas fanatics. Any KJV believer who
prefers Enzinas over Valera simply has not done his homework. Out of the 875
or so textual variations footnoted in the NKJV New Testament, (between the Textus
Receptus, the Majority Text and the Nestles Text) in about 65 Enzinas followed
some reading other than the TR. That is about a 7.5 percent discrepancy rate.
Of course, there are many other discrepancies in Enzinas which are uncommon
enough to not even be noted in major sources of text discrepancies, (such as
the footnotes of the NKJV), but this gives us an impartial judgment of its similarity
to the TR. This makes it approximately equal to the original Valera, perhaps
a little more different. It is important to keep in mind that each of the following
discrepancies has its root in the source Greek text. This is not to indicate
it as an important change, but as a source change. I have indicated the likely
source, separating Majority Text variations from Vaticanus based variations.
Key to identifying the source: N = Nestle's, M = Majority Text, S = Stephens,
O = Other or unknown source. Notice the number of unusual readings in the Enzinas
which are retained by Reina and Valera. This demonstrates their literary relation.
An asterisk indicates that Reina retained the same discrepant reading. Brackets
around an asterisk indicate that it is bracketed in Reina. In all others Reina's
source was identical to the KJV.
|Mat. 22.13||N||take him away|
|Mat. 27.64||N||by night|
|Mark. 11.26||N||WHOLE VERSE OMITTED|
|Mark 15.3||N||but he answered nothing*|
|Luke 2.9||O||the glory of the Lord shone round about them|
|Luke 17.36||NM||WHOLE VERSE OMITTED|
|John 8.6||NM||as though he heard them not*|
|John 8.9||NM||being convicted by their conscience[*]|
|John 8.59||N||going through the midst and so passed by|
|Acts 16.7||O||WHOLE VERSE OMITTED|
|1 Cor. 10.23||O||All things are lawful for me but not all things are expedient|
|1 Cor. 15.55||O||O death, where is thy sting?|
|Rev. 11.1||NM||and the angel stood*|
Mentioned only as INDICATORS of textual variation from the Textus Receptus.
|2 Cor. 8.24||NM||and*|
|Gal. 4.24||NM||the (two covenants)|
|1 The. 2.2||NM||even|
|Rev. 4.5||M||the (seven spirits)*|
|Rev. 14.15||NM||for you|
|John 3.3||O||de lo alto|
|John 8.11||NM||de aquí adelante|
|Rom. 14.21||O||en la fee|
|Col. 1.6||NM||y crece[*]|
|2 Pe. 2.16||O||fobre la qual el eftaua afentado,*|
|Rev. 13.7||NM||y pueblo*|
|Rev. 22.8||NM||foi aquel que ha*|
mentioned as INDICATORS only.
|Acts 21.4||N||los (difcipulos)*|
|1 Cor. 7.38||N||fu virgen*|
|1 Cor. 12.2||NM||quando*|
|Eph. 6.9||N||y de ellos*|
|3 Jn. 4||N||la (verdad)*|
|Rev. 16.1||NM||siete (phialas)*|
|Rev. 19.1||NM||así como|
|Luke 2.22||O||purgacion de ellos (her)|
|Luke 2.33||N||Y fu padre y fu madre (Joseph and his mother)*|
|Luke 2.43||N||y fus padres (Joseph and his mother)|
|John 9.8||N||mendico (blind)|
|1 Cor. 15.55||N||Muerte (grave)*|
|Heb 12.7||O||el Señor (God)|
|Heb. 13.21||O||lo que hazeis (working in you)|
|James 2.18||S||tu fee por tus obras (thy faith without thy works)|
|James 5.12||M||diffimulaciõ (condemnation)|
|Jude 24||M||guardar los (keep you)|
|Rev. 16.5||NM||y fancto (shall be)*|
|Rev. 19.6||NM||Señor nueftro Dios (Lord God)*|
mentioned only as INDICATORS.
|Mat. 26.26||M||hecho gracias (blessed)*|
|Mrk. 8.14||NM||they (the disciples)*|
|John 8.28||N||el padre (my Father)*|
|John 14.28||O||el padre (my Father)*|
|John 16.33||NM||teneis (shall have)|
|John 18.20||N||todos los Iudios fe juntán (Jews always meet)*|
|Acts 3.24||NM||annunciaron (foretold)|
|Acts 5.41||O||nombre de Dios (his name)*|
|Acts 10.30||N||Quatro dias ha hafta efta hora que yo me eftaua fentado ayuno, (Four days ago I was fasting until this hour)|
|Acts 20.8||NM||eftabamos (they were)|
|Acts 25.2||N||los Principes de los facerdotes (the high priest)|
|1 Cor. 12.13||N||beber de (drink into)*|
|2 Cor. 1.8||O||bien que vofotros fepais (not have you ignorant)|
|2 Tim. 4.1||N||por fu aparicion (at his appearing)|
|Titus 2.8||NM||mal de nofotros (say of you)|
|Heb. 11.26||NM||theforos de los de Egipto (treasures in Egypt)*|
|James 1.12||O||Dios (Lord)*|
|James 5.20||N||fu anima (a soul)|
|1 Pe. 2.7||N||no crein (disobedient)*|
|1 Jn. 3.1||M||no os conofce a vofotros (knoweth us not)|
|1 Jn. 3.23||M||el lo ha mandado (gave us commandment)|
|Rev. 14.1||NM||el Cordero (a lamb)*|