Tag Info

Hot answers tagged

23

Your question doesn't break it down this way, but there are really three separate issues at stake here. What does the Gospel of Barnabas claim about Christ? The most significant claim relevant to Christianity is that Christ wasn't crucified. Instead, according to the Gospel of Barnabas, Judas took his place. Obviously if this were to be verified as a true ...


11

This is a textual issue. That is, some manuscripts have the words and fasting while others don’t. The NA28 includes the text similar to the GNT you quote: . . . τοῦτο τὸ γένος ἐν οὐδενὶ δύναται ἐξελθεῖν εἰ μὴ ἐν προσευχῇ (NA28) . . . this kind cannot be driven out by anything but prayer (ESV) The apparatus notes the variant you ask about (the ...


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 ...


9

This is not a question of textual criticism, nor is there any reason to reject the authenticity of Mark 7:19. It is entirely a question of interpreting the text. Let us look at the oldest versions: The Greek original has: οτι ουκ εισπορευεται αυτου εις την καρδιαν αλλ εις την κοιλιαν και εις τον αφεδρωνα εκπορευεται καθαριζων παντα τα βρωματα The ...


9

There are no important textual variations here: all our manuscripts include this parenthetical. There's no manuscript evidence whatsoever that this is a later insertion. (See this list of textual variants as well as the lack of any variants listed at the NET bible.) Thus we can be completely certain that the head of the manuscript tradition (that is the ...


9

A Plausible Majority Text Argument Susan's answer has correctly given the direct answer to your question when she states: This is a textual issue. That is, some manuscripts have the words and fasting while others don’t. That is the simple fact. Which manuscript tradition the particular translation in question is following determines the omission or ...


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 ...


7

Ecclesiastes 7:27 unusually records: "says Qohelet" (אָמְרָה קֹהֶלֶת = ʾāmĕrâ qōhelet), notable for more than one reason. The problem here is the gender of the verb (which is, in the MT, 3rd feminine singular). The title "Qohelet", usually translated (when it is translated) as "the Preacher" or the like, only occurs in Eccl. 1:1, 2, 12; 7:27; 12:8, 9, 10 - ...


7

Another addendum to Susan's fine answer and ScottS's alternative account. All manuscripts are not the same, which is why the text critic's job is not simply that of counting noses. We have two possible scenarios an original shorter reading, which was subsequently expanded in transmission by the addition of "+ and fasting" after "prayer"; an original ...


6

According to The Greek New Testament (4th Edition), edited by Aland, Metzger, et al. (2012), this verse does not appear in the best Greek manuscripts available. In order to save ourselves the tedious task of comparing and contrasting the pros and cons of the variant readings, the late Bruce Metzger has also published the companion volume, which is A Textual ...


6

Is this a significant scholarly position? Significant enough that it is discussed regularly in various scholarly places. For example, there is extensive discussion in a fairly recent work: D. A. Carson and Douglas J. Moo, An Introduction to the New Testament, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2005), 142-150 (hereafter referred to as C&M). In that ...


6

The position in the question, that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is not original to Matthew 28:19 is held today by very few scholars. Those that do point to a quotation from the early church historian Eusebius. In Demonstratio 3.6, he replaces "name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" with "my name." This is then taken as a direct quote from the copy of ...


6

The Gospel of Thomas Logion 114 is fairly controversial and (like many questions on BH.SE, it seems) has generated a healthy specialist bibliography.1 The translation alone is disputed (or at least discussed!); the one provided by OP is that of Thomas Lambdin (a very fine scholar). OP: What reasons are there to think that it is or is not an addition? ...


6

Verse 33 explains what’s going on: ולא ילמדו עוד איש את־רעהו ואיש את־אחיו לאמר דעו את־ה׳; כי־כולם ידעו אותי למקטנם ועד־גדולם נאם-ה׳ כי אסלח לעונם ולחטאתם לא אזכר־עוד׃ and they shall teach no more every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying: ‘Know the LORD’; for they shall all know Me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, ...


6

Analysis of Sinaiticus (yes, א is the symbol) has led to the conclusion that there are three general periods of additional editing. So the symbols represent information about these periods. Per the NA28 Introductory material on the critical apparatus: א by itself means the only reading present. א* Is a notation for the original reading when a later ...


5

There are a few scattered scholars who did believe this, though it is certainly not the prevailing opinion. The Wikipedia article, as well as most Biblical Encyclopedias, write that the text of Matthew doesn't look like a translation. However, at least a few scholars did believe that the Gospel of Matthew was first written in Hebrew. The Wikipedia article ...


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 ...


5

As Wikis noted, there are many Bible versions which render the Greek aor. pass. part. masc. sing. nom. verb CΠΛΑΓΧΝΙCΘΕΙC (σπλαγχνισθεις) as "moved with compassion, " or "moved with pity". The form of that verb, however, properly means "to have the bowels yearn" (Strong's G4697). And the root of that verb form (σπλαγχνoν) refers to "the chief intestines, ...


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

Short Answer: After weighing all of the evidence (both internal and external), it would seem that Mark 16:9-20 was indeed originally part of Mark's Gospel. The ending of Mark's Gospel is one of the major textual problems in the New Testament.1 As noted by the OP, the "problem" is whether the end of Mark (16:9-20) was originally part of Mark's Gospel. ...


5

The Idea in Brief The passage leans more toward the reading σπλαγχνισθεὶς based on various textual readings to include Ephraem Syrac's commentary on Tatian's Diatessaron. Discussion Based on best evidence, Arland et al (2012) provided this verse as follows in their Fourth Edition of The Greek New Testament: Mark 1:41 (mGNT) 41 καὶ σπλαγχνισθεὶς ...


5

First, let me put into context that "new covenant" as used in Jeremiah does not mean a covenant that replaces an "old covenant." When we speak of "the Covenant" we are usually talking about the one between the Jewish people and God made at Mt. Sinai. But that covenant was not the first, nor the last covenant between G-d and the Jewish people. See, e.g. ...


5

Indisputable? I agree with Frank Luke's comment, further adding that using such a term does technically make the question unanswerable (because, as Frank noted, people dispute things that ought not be). Probable Testimony Circa 60-70 A.D. The earliest probable reference to Luke's gospel is by the apostle Paul himself in 1 Tim 5:18, circa mid 60's A.D. ...


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 ...


4

To make the comparison a little easier, here are the texts (with key below): Stephanus (1550) Textus Receptus = TR 28th edition Nestle Aland = NA28 TR:    Καὶ ἤρξαντό τινες ἐμπτύειν αὐτῷ NA28: Καὶ ἤρξαντό τινες ἐμπτύειν αὐτῷ TR:    καὶ περικαλύπτειν            τὸ ...


4

You're not alone in having noticed this repetition. Various hypotheses have been proposed for its existence, from those suggesting it is a thematic choice by the narrator to highlight Elijah's change in character, to a more critical position that there was an intentional addition (perhaps from an alternate tradition of the same story). While in the process ...


4

Translation of Hebrew Text The Hebrew text of Jer. 31:31-34 (Jer. 31:30-33 Masoretic) states, לא הִנֵּה יָמִים בָּאִים נְאֻם יַהְוֶה וְכָרַתִּי אֶת בֵּית יִשְׂרָאֵל וְאֶת בֵּית יְהוּדָה בְּרִית חֲדָשָׁה לב לֹא כַבְּרִית אֲשֶׁר כָּרַתִּי אֶת אֲבוֹתָם בְּיוֹם הֶחֱזִיקִי בְיָדָם לְהוֹצִיאָם מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם אֲשֶׁר הֵמָּה הֵפֵרוּ אֶת בְּרִיתִי וְאָנֹכִי ...



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