Tag Info

Hot answers tagged

9

The existing answer already gives the essentials. This variation in reading Revelation 22:14 persists across quite a number of modern English translations. I thought it might help to have a bit of explanation, too, especially if readers have some sense of the textual landscape for the NT. Not for nothing does the introduction to the Nestle-Aland edition ...


7

We cannot read NT passages into the Old Testament to explain difficulties - each passage must be understood in its own context. Otherwise I would read the second half of 2 Pet 3:8 into Genesis and say that Methuselah was almost a day old when he died. Instead, I'll give an OT example with similar wording to try to understand the meaning behind the Hebrew ...


6

The LXX and MT texts of Jeremiah are substantially different. The LXX is substantially shorter (around an eighth shorter) and the order of some of the text is different. This is much more substantial than most divergences between the LXX and MT. In general, there are two main ways in which the MT and LXX can differ: the Hebrew text that the LXX ...


6

A reinked manuscript is indeed a manuscript where a later scribe wrote over the letters. The scribe might be trying to preserve a text that otherwise would be lost or might be making "corrections." Reinking a manuscript makes paleographic analysis very difficult because the original handwriting is overwritten. Reinking also tends to obscure accent marks and ...


5

Your question somewhat amounts to two separate questions. Though, perhaps there is some reason you asked them together (besides their proximity) that I am not grasping. In any event, I chose to treat each question separately. Spiritually or Symbolically The word translated variously as "spiritually" or "symbolically" or "metaphorically" is πνευματικῶς. ...


5

It is omitted in versions where the committee of experts behind the translation determined that those words were most likely not in the original text of Luke. In this particular case, the evidence that these words were not original is very strong, though not completely overwhelming. The shorter version is found in: Both extant Papyrus texts (P45 and ...


5

Update: I've left my original two opening paragraphs here (slightly modified for contextual clarity) because I still believe in general they are true when it comes to resolving highly disputed variants in the text. Often the reason they are highly disputed is because the extant textual witness cannot answer which variation is correct in a straightforward ...


4

In order to answer such a question, we must first put away our theological preferences, whether pre-, post-, or amillennial. Only then can we objectively consider the textual evidence: According to the NA-28 apparatus, the first half of the verse is missing in codex Sinaiticus, the byzantine manuscripts, and to a few much less significant manuscripts. ...


4

Prelims. Just for comparison, the three synoptic texts from UBS4: Mt 22:37 ὁ δὲ ἔφη αὐτῷ, Ἀγαπήσεις κύριον τὸν θεόν σου ἐν ὅλῃ τῇ καρδίᾳ σου καὶ ἐν ὅλῃ τῇ ψυχῇ σου καὶ ἐν ὅλῃ τῇ διανοίᾳ σου· Mk 12:30 καὶ ἀγαπήσεις κύριον τὸν θεόν σου ἐξ ὅλης τῆς καρδίας σου καὶ ἐξ ὅλης τῆς ψυχῆς σου καὶ ἐξ ὅλης τῆς διανοίας σου καὶ ἐξ ὅλης τῆς ἰσχύος σου. Lk 10:27 ... ...


4

Yes. Dr. C. Matthew McMahon writes that the belief that the four gospels were written in Hebrew is an idea that is not consistent with the manuscript evidence, and furthermore he draws the conclusion that believing that the four gospels were written in Hebrew is detrimental to knowing who God is, what he is like, and that Jesus is both God and man. See his ...


4

I agree in large part with both Niobius's answer and Joseph's answer, but have a particular disagreement with Joseph's that I feel must be noted, and a particular missed opportunity from Niobius's answer to help explain Gen 2:17. My Two Agreements Both answers acknowledge that in not all instances does that phrase refer to actually dying on the same day ...


3

In Biblical Hebrew the infinitive absolute functions as an "absolute complement" or adverb to indicate intensity. So in Gen 2:17 the infinitive מֹות modifies the imperfect verb תָּמוּת, and of course the context indicates the future. That is, literally that day Adam "...was surely to die..." Another example of this verb/adverb arrangement are the ...


3

The customary/traditional Hebrew reading is "he saw". The Radak (a medieval biblical commentator) states that some people read "and he was afraid" and that there's no literary necessity to do so, he "saw" that he was in trouble, and he fled. The Jonathan Aramaic translation (which is from around the 7th century) also renders "he saw". The emphasis of the ...


3

The word translated as wife is not actually adelphe (G79) but gyne (G1135). PS: My personal opinion, even though I know no Greek, is that this passage clearly loses some meaning in translation, which could be recovered from the context of the chapter. I would paraphrase him thus: Could not Barnabas and I also (married: take along as wives) (members ...


3

It may have simply been the author's comment. A redaction is an edit or revision to an original text. This is a synoptic parallel shared among the three Synoptic Gospels, i.e. Matthew, Mark, and Luke. However, you did not cite the one which occurs in Luke. In Luke 21:20-21 (KJV), it is written, 20 And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, ...


3

"Western uncial D" is better known as Codex Bezae. It contains both a Greek and a Latin version of the gospels and acts, and is around 80% complete. In John it is missing the first three chapters. It is usually dated to the 5th century, which is very early. Nonetheless, it is not considered very reliable as it has a large number of unusual readings. ...


3

To assume that it is omitted from the ESV is an invalid assumption. Another possibility is that it was added to the KJV. There are two different manuscript families represented by the KJV and ESV, so, in reality, the KJV added nothing nor did the ESV omit anything. They simply represent accurately the manuscripts which they translate. The question then ...


3

This question goes back to where we get out current Bible from. There are several ancient manuscripts, and there are some minor discrepancies between them. These words are omitted in the Codex Vaticanus and others. Luke 9:55–56 – και ειπεν, Ουκ οιδατε ποιου πνευματος εστε υμεις; ο γαρ υιος του ανθρωπου ουκ ηλθεν ψυχας ανθρωπων απολεσαι αλλα σωσαι ...


2

There are two important textual variants in Acts 10:28, which shed light on how to translate it. Neither of these variants involves the word "son." Nonetheless, the original Greek is ambiguous and can be reasonably translated either as "his own blood" or "the blood of his own Son." First let me explain the textual variants (explained here, here, and ...


2

I believe it is the Masoretic text that literally reads 'in' the clouds (עִם־עֲנָנֵ֣י) and the LXX simply took slight liberty to translate this as 'on' the clouds. Unfortunately the Dead Sea Scrolls provide no help in providing any information. Right after verse 11 and before v15 there is text corruption: there is a gap in the scroll evidence of more ...


2

If you have not read 'The last twelve verses of Mark' from Dean John Burgon, I'm sad to say that you have not fully researched this subject. Please read it, it will honestly vindicate these verses as a true part of the Holy Scriptures as they truly are. This book has not been fully answered by the critics since it publication over a hundred years ago, simply ...


2

This verse is quoted in the Apostolic Constitutions,1 but is referenced as Ps. 145:17 in the scripture index. Although the writer is specifically speaking of the faithfulness of the words of Jesus and not the faithfulness of all his works as in v. 17. By quoting this verse, the unknown author of the Constitutions shows that the verse was known in at least ...


2

Here is the actual digital photograph of the uncial itself. The hash mark (to the left in the margin) is where the "Pericope Adulterae" actually begins in the text, and please note as a matter of passing interest that there are no marginalia or corrections by other editors. In other words, the copyist(s) for the Codex Bezae had written the uncial including ...


2

As to #1 - Different Quantity of Objects No reconciliation needed across the gospels, because if it is true that Christ said four things, he also said three things. There is no untruth in noting the lesser amount, just a shift in emphasis. Now as far as reconciling four things in the Greek with the three things of the Hebrew text, the Hebrew word לֵבָב ...


2

There are four documents that quote Jesus, all originally written in Greek - the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. First of all they should be understood as having been written anonymously, and that they were only attributed to the persons whose names they now bear later in the second century. In spite of the attribution of two of them to the ...


2

The manuscript evidence is summed up well by R.B. Allen: The reading “and he was afraid” has the support of LXX, Vg, Syro-Hexapla, Syriac, one MS of the Targum, and some Hebrew MSS. Against this largely versional evidence stand most Hebrew MSS and the Targum, which read “and he saw.” Allen, R.B., "Elijah the Broken Prophet." Journal of the ...


1

Several modern critical commentaries confidently dismiss in methodological exactness the typical traditional reasons why many have held that the ‘MT is superior to the LXX’. For example on reviewing the omissions of the LXX which represents the largest difference, here is a concise summary of old ideas rejected by a critical commentary: These (in common ...


1

As best I can tell, there is no major difference in the wording seen in the oldest extant manuscripts dated closest to any original text of 2 Peter. Specifically: P72 (ca. 275-325 CE) shows ΠΑΡΑΚΥΡΙΟΥΒΛΑΣΦΗΜΟΝΚΡΙΣΙΝ (παρα κυριου βλασφημον κρισιν), and similarly, codex Vaticanus (ca. 325-375 CE) reads ΠΑΡΑΚ̅ WΒΛΑΣΦΗΜΟΝΚΡΙϲῙ (παρα κω βλασφημον κρισι̅ ). ...


1

There is no incestuous implication here; nor is there an implication of a "platonic" relationship. The idea of calling a bride a "sister" is an ancient one, probably rooted in the fact that God was Father to both Adam and Eve, and in that sense, they were brother and sister. The biblical book with marriage as its theme uses the language of "my sister, my ...



Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible