Tag Info

Hot answers tagged

24

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 ...


13

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 ...


10

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 ...


10

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

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 ...


9

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? ...


8

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 ...


8

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. ...


8

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 ...


8

Manuscript support Both readings have early manuscript support The reading μυστήριον (mystery) finds early support in P46vid? א* A C 88 436 itr, 61 syrp copbo Hippolytus Ambrosiaster Ephraem Ambrose Pelagius Augustine Antiochus.1 UBS3 cites P46vid? in support of μυστήριον however the question mark follows "vid" because the editors were not sure of the ...


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

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

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

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 ...


6

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, ...


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

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. ...


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 ...


6

Hebrews 7:1-3: For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him; To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace; Without father, without mother, without ...


5

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 ...


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

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. ...


5

The textual variants are ἰδὼν and εἰδώς. According to Tischendorf, ἰδών is the well attested variant. ἰδών is a participle declined in the aorist tense, active voice, nominative case, masculine gender, and singular number. It is derived from the aorist tense verb εἶδον. εἰδώς is a participle declined in the perfect tense, active voice, nominative case, ...


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

After reading through the few books I have on the Apocryphal Gospels, I was unable to find any direct evidence for logion 114 being a later addition. I also am unaware of any Greek fragments of 114, so as far as I know, we only have this in the Coptic text. The closest Greek fragment is logion 77, so we cannot say for sure it is not in the Greek text. The ...


4

The Textual Witnesses "Joseph" is found in some translations because the Greek word for Joseph (Ἰωσὴφ), is found in the majority of extant manuscripts. The majority text reading is reflected in the "RP Byzantine Majority Text," the two "Textus Receptus," and the "Greek Orthodox" renderings shown in parallel at Biblehub. Verse 33 is this ("Joseph" bolded): ...


3

The problem occurs in v. 10 as well, where variant readings between "Amos" and "Amon" occur. That is, like "Asaph" and "Asa," the words are near homonyms with the respective psalmist Asaph and prophet Amos. In this regard, the late Bruce Metzger (1994) comments as follows on these verses: 1:7–8 Ἀσάφ, Ἀσάφ {B} It is clear that the name ...


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 ...


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 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. ...



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