Tag Info

Hot answers tagged

16

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 ...


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

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 ...


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 - ...


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 ...


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

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

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

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

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 ...


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 ...


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

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 ...


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

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 ...


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 ...


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

There is no textual evidence to suggest that the Gospel we call "Matthew" was written in Hebrew, as opposed to Greek. The only scrap of evidence for this view is a statement made by Eusebius (an early Christian historian) that "Matthew collected the saying of Jesus in the Hebrew Language." It is not clear at all that this statement refers to the book we now ...


3

The issue here isn't one of translation, but rather that it's uncertain what the original Greek text said in this verse (called a "reading"). The committee making the translation has to decide which reading they think is the original, and different committees can make different decisions. This is a particularly fascinating example, as explained here. ...


3

The verse appears as follows in the Masoretic Text. Ecclesiastes 7:27 (MT) 27 רְאֵה זֶה מָצָאתִי אָמְרָה קֹהֶלֶת אַחַת לְאַחַת לִמְצֹא חֶשְׁבֹּֽון׃ The word קֹהֶלֶת is the same grammatical form as the feminine singular qal active participle, which is based on the triliteral root קָהַל, which means to assemble or call together (people or sayings). ...


3

The translation discrepancy can be boiled down to different readings of the Greek words καυχησωμαι, “I may boast”, and καυθησομαι, “I may be burned.” Kevin Brown wrote a well-cited textual criticism on this topic. Here is the conclusion that he came to: There is no obvious answer to this textual dilemma in 1 Cor. 13:3 as both the external and internal ...



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