|
| |
Critical Text vs. Received Text |
|
|
|
Bible general Archive 1
|
| |
I have recently seen a tract that explains that the Received Text, or Majority Text/Textus Receptus, is superior to the Critical Text, or an 'eclectic' Greek text. Is there any truth to the claim that one set of Greek texts, the Byzantine (Majority/TR) or the Alexandrian (Critical), is better than another and therefore, more reliable? |
| |
Critical Text vs. Received Text |
|
|
|
Bible general Archive 1
|
| |
Great question Nolan!
The crucial difference between the three texts (Textus Receptus, Majority Text, and the Critical Text) concerns the weight given to different manuscript traditions.
Each of them is technically an 'eclectic' text, since we do not posess any of the original autographs. Each of them had to make critical decisions. The basic approach of each is as follows.
Textus Receptus: The TR was the first attempt at putting together an 'offical' Greek text. The only problem with it is that there were very few manuscripts available at the time, and they were all comparatively late manuscripts (which allows for possible mistakes).
The Majority Text: Is almost identical to the TR, but not quite. It uses the theory that critical decisions must be made on the basis of the number of texts, rather than the quality of the texts (hence the name Majority Text.) It differs from the TR primarily only where the majority of texts differ from the TR.
The Critical Text: Usually refers to the Nestle-Aland Text. It primarily gives weight to ealier and higher quality texts, rather than later and more numerous texts.
Byzantine does not refer to either the Majority Text or the TR. It refers to a number of texts produced in a certain area at a certain time. The same is true of Alexandrian. The only relevance to these two terms is that the Critical texts usually give more weight to Alexandrian manuscripts, while the Majority Text and the Textus Receptus rely more heavily on others. Other types include: the Western and the Caesarean Texts.
In my opinion, the Critical text is better and more reliable! However, let me note that none of them are 'bad' texts. The vast majority of textual decisions have to do with spelling and word order. Though the different texts may disagree on minor points, they all teach the same doctrine.
Your Brother in Christ,
Tim Moran |
| |
Critical Text vs. Received Text |
|
|
|
Bible general Archive 1
|
| |
This is an issue I struggled with for years, because I knew God only wrote one Bible. Let me explain why I came to the conclusion that the received text is closest to God’s original inspired words than the critical text.
We often pray to God to be greatly concerned about things we ourselves do not seem to care so much about. The received text addresses that in Mat 17:21, the critical text does not. John 7:8 would seem to indicate deception on the part of Jesus if the word “yet” is missing, as in the CT. John 8:1-11 in not included in the CT. Many sermons have been preached on John 8:1-11, with much good fruit brought forth. I don’t think that would have been possible unless it was God’s inspired Word. The last part of Mark is missing in the CT, but it is included with brackets in all CT Bibles. I think this is important, inspired, scripture because it contains direct commands from Jesus, and unless one misinterprets verse 18a, it causes no doctrinal differences among believers. The belief that baptism is meant for believers only is not dependant on one verse, but there is none stronger than Acts 8:37, which is missing in the CT. The longer ending of Romans 8:1, in the RT, would seem to be correct in context with Romans 8:2 and the rest of the chapter that speaks of walking according to the Spirit, not the flesh.
The CT text puts much weight on the Alexandrian (Egypt) text. The RT is based on the Byzantine (Antioch) text. The Alexandrian text is closer, date wise, to the originals than the Byzantine text. However, Byzantine manuscript fragments and Byzantine quote’s of church fathers exist that are just as ancient as the Alexandrian text. The church and the Word spread quickly with Antioch as the hub. Consider the fact that the Alexandrian text was in control by only one group of people in Egypt, where Christianity fell quickly. This, to me, this would be a greater risk of corruption than scribble additions. Scribble deletions, to me, would seem more likely than additions anyway, because a deletion would probably be an unintentional mistake whereas an addition would almost have to be done intentionally.
Knowing all the above, I was still not convinced until I saw Acts 6:7 (also 12:24, 13:49, 19:20) in the following light. All these verses describe the Word as spreading, growing, multiplying, and prevailing. Heb 4:12 also describes the Word as living and active. This convinces me that the Byzantine text is closer to God’s original than the Alexandrian text. History tells us that the Byzantine seemed to have God’s blessing by spreading, growing, multiplying, and prevailing. The Alexandrian text did not spread, grow, multiply, or prevail; it remained in Egypt. Consider it.
As Nolan and Tim have already said, the doctrinal differences that exist among believers are never based on a CT/RT difference. (Unless one misinterprets Mar 16:18a!).
God bless you both.
retxar |
| |
Critical Text vs. Received Text |
|
|
|
Bible general Archive 1
|
| |
Good observations retxar, and I appreciate your honest answer and coming forward!You specifically mentioned certain verses, like Matt. 17:21.. The critical text seems to lead us to the conclusion that this verse was 'borrowed or copied' from Mark 9:29- thus a scribal error.. Good observation on John 7:8! I think that the 'broader range' of the question concerning this verse could be addressed on its own in a different thread. I agree with you on John 8:1-11 and Mark 16:9-20, these should be in the Bible even though many manuscripts do not include these, they include them in different places, or they contain fragments of each or even a different rendering than that which is traditionally agreed upon. I also agree that Acts 8:37 should be at least in brackets and not excluded from the text. This was one of the main reasons that drove me away from the NIV and to the NASB. The NASB includes this passage (and other critical renderings) whereas the NIV takes it out of the text and places it in the commentary. Another good observation on Romans 8:1. However, it could appear that Romans 8:1 is the 'introductory' verse, therefore making it possible that a scribe could have copied part of 8:4 into the 'heading' of 8:1. I agree with what you said about the addition/deletion issue on part, but I also believe that one could place an addition to a verse after copying so many manuscripts that sound almost exactly the same! As far as deletion, if they skipped over a verse or phrase than they would have to scrap the entire manuscript that they were copying, since they adhered to strict 'rules' while copying Scripture. So either premise for addition/deletion could explain why there are so many variants. But like you said, the history of Alexandria cannot compare to the history of Constantinople. But we must not forget the other cities and sources of 'found Biblical manuscripts'. God indeed has blessed the texts (and the cities) that used the Byzantine family of manuscripts. However, that is not to say that the Alexandrian family of manuscripts are in any way inferior, since they have a greater age then any of the Byzantine manuscripts. This is all very good food for thought! Thank you retxar, and I look forward to more input.. |
| |
Critical Text vs. Received Text |
|
|
|
Bible general Archive 1
|
| |
Good info Chris! The DTL web site you mentioned is the best place I know of to educate one’s self on this issue. The Received Text and the Majority Text are from the same Byzantine (Antioch) source. The Critical Text is from the Alexandrian (Egypt) source. The RT, in effect, is the same as the MT except for Revelation, as you pointed out. The 1 John 5:7 difference you mentioned is about the only difference you will find between the RT and the MT (except for Rev). The 1 John 5:7 variant is not really a manuscript difference, but came about as pressure from the Roman Clergy toward Erasmus (Texus Receptus originator) to make it agree with the longer Latin Vulgate ending. The small handful of manuscripts Erasmus had to work with speaks well of the MT consistencies. Almost any other small number of MT manuscripts could have been selected, at random, and the results would have been the same.
The reason for the Revelation variants in the RT, is because Erasmus only had 1 or 2 manuscripts that contained Revelation at all. The Vulgate to Greek translating was very limited, however. It happened as a result of Erasmus rushing to get the TR published before he could get hold of reliable, complete Revelation manuscripts.
The Revelation differences, that I saw, in my NKJV Bible, that demand a decision, are as follows: 1:5 (RT/MT-washed CT-freed), 5:10 (RT-us CT/MT-them), 8:13 (RT-angel CT/MT-eagle), 9:21 (RT-sorceries CT/MT-drugs), 10:11 (RT-he CT/MT-them), 11:8 (RT-our CT/MT-their), 11:12 (RT/CT-they MT-I), 12:8 (RT/CT-them MT-him), 13:1 (RT/MT-I CT-he), 15:3 (RT-saints CT/MT-nations), 16:16 (RT/CT-Armageddon MT-Megiddo), and 22:14 (RT/MT-do His commandments CT-wash their robes). Notice sometimes the RT agrees with the MT and sometimes the RT agrees with the CT, but most of the time the MT/CT agree with other, as you have pointed out. I will look further at the RT/MT differences to see if I want to scratch in the MT translation in my NKJV. I know there are many more Revelation variants than these, but these are the only ones I saw as effecting the meaning. Most are just word order. Thanks for motivating me to investigate!
A good MT translation you might want to check into is the WEB (ebible.org). It is only available in the New Testament as hard copy at this time. It is available complete as a free download for the e-Sword bible program. E-sword is excellent and available free at e-sword.net. Check it out.
In Christ Jesus! |
| |
One Source or Several? |
|
|
|
Bible general Archive 1
|
| |
Great post Rextar!
I did have one question though! It is my understanding that the Majority and the Testus Receptus are not based upon the Byzantine manuscripts only. They simply give more weight to them because they are more numerous. However, they both use manuscripts from many different areas.
In the same way, the Critical text does rely only upon Alexandrian manuscripts. It simply gives more weight to their readings because of the perceived quality of the manuscripts and their early date.
I especially appreciated your comments about the quality of the text that we have in the Bible. To me, this is one of the great evidences for the inspiration and continuing protection of God's Word by the Holy Spirit.
Your Brother in Christ,
Tim Moran |
| |
One Source or Several? |
|
|
|
Bible general Archive 1
|
| |
Hi Tim! Technically that is correct for the MT and the CT. I am not sure about the TR, as Erasmus used what he had, which I think was only late Byzantine manuscripts. I am sure the CT relies on more Byzantine manuscripts that the MT relies on the Alexandrian manuscripts because of the limited number of Alexandrian manuscripts available. Both the CT and the MT look at all available manuscripts, as you say, so my “source” statement was a little misleading. Here’s what I meant. The CT is always going to go with the oldest and the MT is always going to go with the majority. However the CT would always go with the Alexandrian if it disagreed with a Byzantine for the simple reason that the Alexandrian text would almost always be older. By the same token the MT would always go with the majority, which will almost always be the Byzantine text. I am far from an expert here, folks, so if someone has more, please share.
God Bless! |
| |
Who wrote the letter to the Hebrews? |
|
|
|
Hebrews
|
| |
Greetings Tim!
The authorship of Hebrews is very interesting.. Apollos is a candidate that I had not heard a strong persuasion for until I read the commentary of authorship in Zondervan's NASB Study Bible, which reads concerning Apollos,
"The other leading candidate for authorship is Apollos, whose name was first suggested by Martin Luther and who is favored by many scholars today. Apollos, an Alexandrian by birth, was also a Jewish Christian with notable intellectual and oratorical abilities. Luke tells us that Apollos was "an eloquent man ... and he was mighty in the Scriptures" (Acts 18:24). We also know that Apollos was associated with Paul in the early years of the church in Corinth (1 Cor. 1:12; 3:4-6,22)."
Another leading candidate could be Barnabas, which is my favorite. :) Concerning Barnabas, Zondervan's NIV Study Bible (same notes as the NASB, I just wanted to have some variety in this post.. :) ) states,
"The earliest suggestion of authorship is found in Terullian's De Pudicitia, 20 (c. 200), in which he quotes from 'an epistle to the Hebrews under the name of Barnabas.' From the letter itself it is clear that the writer must have had authority in the apostolic church and was an intellectual Hebrew Christian well versed in the OT. Barnabas meets these requirements. He was a Jew of the priestly tribe of Levi (Acts 4:36) who became a close friend of Paul after the latter's conversion. Under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the church at Antioch commissioned Barnabas and Paul for the work of evangelism and sent them off on the first missionary journey (Acts 13:1-4)."
So either way, both Apollos and Barnabas have strong 'support' for the authorship of Hebrews. As you have said before "only God knows in this case", but one thing that we can be sure of: the Holy Spirit has His fingerprints all over it! :)
Blessings,
Nolan! |
| |
The Sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4 |
|
|
|
Genesis
|
| |
Thanks for the comments, Nolan.
This is a real problem for me. I am one who cannot accept anything without solid proof behind it. I even put John Calvin and Calvinism to the test once. I came to the conclusion that if Calvin had the Alexandrian texts, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and other recently found manuscripts, his doctrinal teachings would've been different. But that's another topic I wish not to go into further discussion about.
Jesusman |
| |
word of God or Word? |
|
|
|
Luke 1:2
|
| |
Hi Lionstrong, Thanks for the dictionary information. It had more than my daughter's Intermediate Dictionary did. ORDER,COMMAND-don't move till I give the word. That sounds like the order of Jesus to the disciples, Luke 24:49, "And behold, I am sending forth the promise of My Father upon you; but you are to stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high."
The idea of the Gospel (often capitalized) gives the idea that it is the word of God that we are speaking of here in Luke 1:2. I know that the
New English Bible reads, "...following the traditions handed down to us by the original eyewitnesses and servants of the Gospel".
I was comparing Luke 1:2 today with Acts 1:1 written by the same author, "The first account I composed, Theophilus, about all that Jesus
began to do and teach..."
I am about talked out about this verse I guess. We might go to another verse that you would dispute with me even more. The verse in Acts that I am thinking about is suggested by Luke 1:4 here, "so that you might know the exact truth about the things ["words" in the Greek] you have been taught." He seems to say that there is the truth and there is the exact truth.
Here is another verse that we can talk about if we want to leave this verse of Luke. Acts 18:24, "Now a certain Jew named Apollos, an Alexandrian by birth, an eloquent man, came to Ephesus; and he was mighty in the Scriptures. This man had been instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in spirit, he was speaking and teaching accurately the things concerning Jesus, being acquainted only with the baptism of John; and he began to speak out boldly in the synagogue. But when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him aside and explained to him the way [I would suggest Way] of God more accurately." This is in comparison with Acts 19:9, "But when some were becoming hardened and disobedient, speaking evil of the Way before the multitude, he withdrew from them..."
Have we rested our cases here in Luke? Thanks for the conversation we've had so far.
From the heart, Ray
|
| |
Study the Word, Calvin, or Aminian??? |
|
|
|
John 6:65
|
| |
Hello bgg,
Welcome to the forum!
Before I start, I must admit that I am neither Calvinist nor Arminian. I am Christian. Paul explained it best in 1 Corinthians 1:10-17;3:1-9. Basically, Paul teaches that we are all to claim to be disciples of Christ alone, and not to any other person. Paul makes the point that all of God's servants have played a part in God's plan. So, due to these two passages, I call myself a Christian, or a man of Jesus as it were. I don't hold to titles such as Calvinist, arminian, or what have you. With that out of the way, let's continue.
As far as to which group I adhere closer to, I must admit that I don't really follow either. I agree with Calvinism on a few things, yet disagree with them also. The same is true for Arminianism. Here are a few reasons why.
First, when I began my education in religion, I focused in two specific areas: exegesis and hermaneutics. Exegesis is the "bringing out" of the text. Basically, it is the study of the original languages of the Bible. Hermaneutics is slightly broader than exegesis. It is the basic study of a passage. While it includes "exegesis", it goes into the history and culture of the writer and the events being written. When I began to examine Calvinism and Arminianism, the first place I looked into was the history.
The argument between Arminianism and Calvinism really goes back further to Augustine and Pelageous in around 200-300 AD. Calvinism is the "updated" version of Augustine's views. There is little change between them. Augustine disagreed with Pelageous, and vise versa. Pelageous taught that Mankind basically saved himself. There was a bitter debate over the two drastically different views, and they began calling each other "heretics". To settle the debate, "Semi-pelageanism" was developed, which eventually lead to Arminianism. Now, forward to the students of Arminius. His students developed what became the foundation of Arminianism, called "The Remanstrance (sp)". When the followers of Calvin's teaching got ahold of it, they got mad, to say the least. They formed a "committee" and developed the five points of Calvinism. They, too, labled the Arminians as "Heretics". The Committee became known as "The Synod of Dort". Now, for a few things I have questions on.
First off this debate has been going on for nearly 2000 years, or better. Included with that, has been some hot tempered arguments. I don't know about anyone else, but I have only called one person a "heretic". When I did, I was not concerned with what the Bible "truly" said, but what I wanted to prove. Upon speaking and researching this with other pastors and biblical circumstances, I have found that the term "heretic" has almost always been used during times of extreme emotions, namely: anger. I have yet to find a recorded time when the term was used in a calm and delicate manner. I can only imagine what the Synod of Dort was feeling when they first came across Arminianism.
Secondly, I wonder about the resources availiable at the time of the forming of Calvinism and Arminianism. The Alexandrian texts weren't found until the 1800's, and the Dead Sea Scrolls until the early 1900's. The Textus Receptus was barely developed, if it was even finished at all. Even then, it would've been under scrutiny. The primary available texts would've been the Byzintine Texts or Majority text form, the Latin Vulgate, the Septuagint, the Messoritic Text, Luthor's German translation, and various english translations. The Oldest text available for New Testament studies would've been dated some 400 - 500 years after the New Testament Closed. Then you need to address the issue of how readily availiable these texts were, and especially to those who were declared "protestant" by the Catholic Church, which controlled a majority of the texts listed. My personal thinking is that Calvin's teaching may have been different if he had access to today's texts, and availiability.
The Third issue concerning these two groups is focused around the points themselves. If you examine closely, the five points of Calvinism is exactly opposite of the Five points of Arminianism, almost to the extreme. This ties into what I said earlier about the term "heretic". I believe that the Five Points of Calvinism was not developed to give the church a concise outline of Biblical Doctrine. Rather, it was developed to combat Arminianism. To "show them up", so to speak.
There are other points that I could make, but it would take too much time and space. I believe this starts things pretty well.
Before I close, I must point out that I am not refuting Calvin's, Arminius', Augustine's, Pelageous', or any other Biblical Scholar's brilliance and knowledge. I have a high respect for these men, and use their insights on a regular basis.
Jesus Loves You!
Jesusman |
| |
the best Manuscripts? |
|
|
|
Acts
|
| |
Greetings Bgg!
Makarios pointed you to a site which can probably answer your question in more detail than I could here. However, let me touch on a couple of important factors which determine "better" manuscripts as opposed to "weaker" manuscripts.
1) Age: This is one of the most important factors. We have literally thousands of manuscripts, but they cover a wide range of time. Therefore, one would give more importance to a manuscript dated from the second century than to one dated from the tenth century.
2) Quality: Of the various 'families' or 'types' of text, some are known to be of better quality than others. For instance, the Alexandrian texts are considered to generally be truer to the text than the the Western texts, which were given to conflating various readings into one long reading. Thus, one type of text can be 'better' than another.
The various kinds of manuscripts include:
a) Papyri: These are the earliest extant witneses to the text of the New Testament. Some of the most important ones include: p45, p45, p45, p52, p66, p72, p74, and p.75. Most of these manuscripts date from the second century or earlier.
b) Uncial Manuscripts: These are parchmen manuscripts written in all capitals from about the fourth century through the tenth century. Some of the more important ones include: Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Alexandriinus, Codex Vaticanus, Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus, Codex Bezae, and Codex Washingtonensis.
c) Minuscule Manuscripts: These are parchament manscripts written in all lower case letters dating from after the tenth century.
There are also others kinds of manuscripts: Different languages or versions, lexicons, quotations by early church leaders, ect....
With the verse in question (Acts 8:37), it is not found in any manuscripts dated before the sixth centutry. Therefore, it was added almost 500-600 years after the original text of Acts was written.
Your Brother in Christ,
Tim Moran |
| |
What Book ofthe bible means going forth? |
|
|
|
Ex 1:1
|
| |
John Gill explained :
This book is called by the Jews Veelleh Shemoth, from the first words with which it begins, and sometimes Sepher Shemoth, and sometimes only Shemoth. It is by the Septuagint called Exodus, from whom we have the name of Exodus, which signifies "a going out"; see #Lu 9:31, because it treats of the going of the children of Israel out of Egypt; and hence in the Alexandrian copy it is called the Exodus of Egypt; and so the Syriac version entitles it the second book of the law, called "the going out"; and to the same purpose the Arabic version. |
| |
jewish dispersion in east and west |
|
|
|
James
|
| |
A good book that answers all these questions is "The Life and Times of Jesus Christ, the Messiah"
by Albert Edersheim.
that and his other books can be found on www.godrules.net
about the dispersion :
"
When we turn from the Jewish 'dispersion' in the East to that in the West, we seem to
breathe quite a different atmosphere. Despite their intense nationalism, all
unconsciously to themselves, their mental characteristics and tendencies were in the
opposite direction from those of their brethren. With those of the East rested the future
of Judaism; with them of the West, in a sense, that of the world. The one represented old
Israel, stretching forth its hands to where the dawn of a new day was about to break.
These Jews of the West are known by the term Hellenists, from , to conform to the
language and manners of the Greeks.[1 Indeed, the word Alnisti (or Alunistin), 'Greek',
actually occurs, as in Jer. Sot. 21 b, line 14 from bottom. Bohl (Forsch. n. ein. Volksb. p.
7) quotes Philo (Leg. ad Caj. p. 1023) in proof that he regarded the Eastern dispersion as
a branch separate from the Palestinians. But the passage does not convey to me the
inference which he draws from it. Dr. Guillemard (Hebraisms in the Greek Test.) on Acts
vi. 1, agreeing with Dr. Roberts, argues that the term 'Hellenist' indicated only principles,
and not birthplace, and that there were Hebrews and Hellenists in and out of Palestine.
But this view is untenable.]
"
ect
from the same chapter ...
"
From this it would, of course, follow that the Canon of the Old Testament was then
practically fixed in Palestine. [1 Comp. here, besides the passages quoted in the
previous note, Baba B. 13 b and 14 b; for the cessation of revelation in the Maccabean
period, 1 Macc. iv. 46; ix. 27; xiv. 41; and, in general, for the Jewish view on the subject
at the time of Christ, Jos. Ag. Ap. i. 8.] That Canon was accepted by the Alexandrian
translators, although the more loose views of the Hellenists on 'inspiration,' and the
absence of that close watchfulness exercised over the text in Palestine, led to additions
and alterations, and ultimately even to the admission of the Apocrypha into the Greek
Bible. Unlike the Hebrew arrangement of the tex into the Law, the Prophets, [2 Anterior:
Josh., Judg., 1 and 2 Sam. 1 and 2 Kings. Posterior: Major: Is., Jer., and Ezek.; and the
Minor Prophets.] and the (sacred) Writings, or Hagiographa, the LXX. arrange them into
historical, prophetical, and poetic books, and count twenty-two, after the Hebrew
alphabet, instead of twenty-four, as the Hebrews. But perhaps both these may have
been later arrangements, since Philo evidently knew the Jewish order of the books. [a
De Vita Contempl. section 3.] What text the translators may have used we can only
conjecture. It differs in almost innumerable instances from our own, though the more
important deviations are comparatively few. [3 They occur chiefly in 1 Kings, the books
of Esther, Job, Proverbs, Jeremiah, and Daniel. In the Pentateuch we find them only in
four passages in the Book of Exodus.] In the great majority of the lesser variations our
Hebrew must be regarded as the correct text. [4 There is also a curious correspondence
between the Samaritan version of the Pentateuch and that of the LXX., which in no less
than about 2,000 passages agree as against our Hebrew.
" |
| |
Help me understand John 14:1-7 |
|
|
|
John 14:1
|
| |
Greetings Squeekie!
Cheryl provided some excellent thoughts!
Here is the NET Bible translation of John 14:1-7, followed by a portion of the commentary..
"14:1 “Do not let your hearts be distressed.1 You believe in God;2 believe also in me. 14:2 There are many dwelling places3 in my Father’s house.4 Otherwise, I would have told you.5 I am going away to make ready6 a place for you.7 14:3 And if I go and make ready8 a place for you, I will come again and take you9 to be with me,10 so that where I am you may be too. 14:4 And you know the way where I am going.”11
14:5 Thomas said,12 “Lord, we don’t know where you are going. How can we know the way?” 14:6 Jesus replied,13 “I am the way, and the truth, and the life.14 No one comes to the Father except through me. 14:7 If you have known me, you will know my Father too.15 And from now on you do know him and have seen him.”
------------------------------------
5tc A number of mss supply “that” (oti, Joti) here. Should the oti be included or omitted? The external evidence is almost equally divided. Most Alexandrian and Western mss favor inclusion (it is unusual for the Alexandrian to favor the longer reading) while most Byzantine mss favor omission (again unusual). Complicating things is the reading of Ì66, which aligns with the Byzantine. Because of the strength of a papyrus reading aligned with the Byzantine, and because the shorter reading is out of character for the Byzantine text, the shorter reading (omitting the oti) could certainly be authentic. If the oti is included, there are no less than four possible translations of the phrase: (1) “Otherwise I would have told you [warned you], because I am going to prepare a place” (2) “Otherwise would I have told you so, because I am going to prepare a place?” (3) “Otherwise I would have told you that I am going to prepare a place” (4) “Otherwise would I have told you that I am going to prepare a place?” The first option (1) can be understood only if “otherwise I would have told you” is a parenthetical statement, and the oti clause goes with the preceding “There are many dwelling places in my Father’s house.” Translations (2) and (4) should probably be ruled out because they imply a previous statement by Jesus that either (2) there are many dwelling places in his Father’s house or (4) He was going off to prepare a place for them. There is no indication anywhere in the Fourth Gospel that Jesus had made such statements prior to this time. Finally, (3) is understandable—if there were no dwelling places, Jesus would have told them that he was going off to make dwelling places. But the following verse makes clear that Jesus’ departure is not hypothetical but real—he is really going away. Thus all the possibilities for understanding the verse with the inclusion of oti present some difficulties. R. E. Brown is probably right when he states: “all in all, the translation without oti makes the best sense” (John [AB], 2:620). Thus the following translation seems best: “Otherwise, I would have told you [warned you]. I go to prepare a place.”
11tc Some early mss read, “You know where I am going, and you know the way.” Once again there is a difficult textual problem in this verse. Either assertion on the part of Jesus would be understandable: “you know the way where I am going” or “you know where I am going and you know the way.” In this case the shorter reading is basically Alexandrian; the primary Western codex D sides with Ì66 and the majority of Byzantine minuscules in favor of the longer reading kaiV thVn oJdovn oi[date (kai thn Jodon oidate).
15tc Again there is a difficult textual problem: the statement reads either “If you have known (ejgnwvkate, egnwkate) me, you will know (gnwvsesqe, gnwsesqe) my Father” or “If you had really known (ejgnwvkeite, egnwkeite) me, you would know (ejgnwvkeite) my Father.” The division of the external evidence is difficult, but would appear to favor the first alternative, since there is an Alexandrian-Western alliance supported by Ì66. In this case (a first class condition) Jesus promises the disciples that (assuming they have known him) they will know the Father. Contextually this fits better with the following phrase (7b) which asserts that “from the present time you know him and have seen him” (compare John 1:18)."
[Taken from The Net Bible - http://www.bible.org]
- Makarios |
| |
Go and sin no more? |
|
|
|
John
|
| |
Greetings Slide m46!
Here is some commentary that explains John 8 in a little more depth..
"[1]tc This entire section, 7:53-8:11, traditionally known as the pericope adulterae, is not contained in the earliest and best mss and was almost certainly not an original part of the Gospel of John. Among modern commentators and textual critics, it is a foregone conclusion that the section is not original but represents a later addition to the text of the Gospel. B. M. Metzger summarizes: “the evidence for the non-Johannine origin of the pericope of the adulteress is overwhelming” (Textual Commentary, 187-89). External evidence is as follows: For the omission of 7:53-8:11, Ì66 Ì75 Í B L N T W X Y D Q Y 053 0141 0211 22 33 124 157 209 565 788 828 1230 1241 1242 1253 2193 al. In addition codices A and C are defective in this part of John, but it appears that neither contained the pericope, because careful measurement shows that there would not have been enough space on the missing pages to include the pericope 7:53-8:11 along with the rest of the text. Among the mss that include 7:53-8:11 are: D F G H K M U G 28 700 892 1009 1010 1071 1079 1195 1216 1344 1365 1546 1646 2148 2174 Byz al. In addition E, S, L, and P include part or all of the passage with asterisks or obeli, 225 places the pericope after John 7:36, Ë1 places it after John 21:24 or 25, 115 after John 8:12, Ë13 after Luke 21:38, and the corrector of 1333 includes it after Luke 24:53. In evaluating this ms evidence, it should be remembered that in the gospels A is usually considered to be of Byzantine texttype (unlike in the Pauline epistles, where it is Alexandrian), as are E, F, and G (mss with the same designation are of Western texttype in the Pauline epistles). This leaves D as the only major Western uncial witness in the gospels for the inclusion. Therefore the evidence could be summarized by saying that almost all early mss of the Alexandrian texttype omit the pericope, while most mss of the Western and Byzantine texttype include it. But it must be remembered that “Western mss” here refers only to D, a single witness. Thus it can be seen that practically all of the earliest and best mss extant omit the pericope; it is found only in mss of secondary importance. But before one can conclude that the passage was not originally part of the Gospel of John, internal evidence needs to be considered as well. Internal evidence in favor of the inclusion of 8:1-11 (7:53-8:11): (1) 7:53 fits in the context. If the “last great day of the feast” refers to the conclusion of the Feast of Tabernacles, then the statement refers to the pilgrims and worshipers going home after living in “booths” for the week while visiting Jerusalem. (2) The chief priests and Pharisees had just mocked Nicodemus for suggesting that Jesus’ claims might possibly be true. In particular they heaped scorn on Jesus’ Galilean origins . But far more than a prophet was to come from Galilee, according to Isa 9:1-2. In view of John’s observed fondness for Isaiah, it seems impossible that he was unaware of this prophecy. But if he was aware of it, he might be expected to work it into the background of the narrative, as he has often done before. And that is exactly what is found: 8:12 is the point when Jesus describes himself as the Light of the world. But the section in question mentions that Jesus returned to the temple at “early dawn” ( [Orqrou, Orqrou, in 8:2). This is the “dawning” of the Light of the world mentioned by Isa 9:2. (3) Furthermore, note the relationship to what follows: just prior to presenting Jesus’ statement that he is the Light of the world, John presents the reader with an example that shows Jesus as the light. Once again, this calls to mind one of the major themes of the Gospel: light and darkness (compare especially 3:19-21). Here the woman “came to the light” (although not at first willingly) while her accusers shrank away into the shadows, because their deeds were evil. This could be seen as an appropriate setting for Jesus to follow with the statement of 8:12, “I am the light of the world.” (1)
[Part 1 of 2]
Blessings to you,
Makarios
(1) The NET Bible (Study Notes of John 7:53-8:20 [http://www.bible.org])
|
| |
NIV comments? |
|
|
|
Psalm
|
| |
Psalms 199:89
In the last few months I have spent many hundreds of hours researching the bible version issue. All my life 99 percent of the Christians I have associated with have been KJV only.Few have done any research on WHY they believe this so I did my own research. To answer your question, the NIV is based on a different text than the KJV so there are many TEXTUAL differences even before the translation itself comes into play. The NIV is based on the same text as the Nasb and most modern versions. Is it the best text? That is a matter of opinion. I will be quite honest, no one has convinced me that either text is "better" than the other. Let's say the Alexandrian type Text (NiV, Nasb) is the best text.(The KJV is from the Textus Receptus). I do not believe the NIV is even the best translation from this text. It tends to be too interpretive in places and paraphrases often. Now, any bible read and studied diligently is a "good bible", but if one wants the most accurate translation of an ancient bible text, I recommend the NKJV,NASB, and Green's Literal Bible. (KJV is an exellent translation and anyone does well to study and be happy with it, but if one wants a bible in a more up to date english, I reccomend the above versions. I am used to the language of the KJV and love it, but often consult other versions.)Sad to say, this issue will rage indefinitely but just keep loving God's word and if your conscience won't allow you to use another version right now, don't! |
| |
History of the Book of Galatians. |
|
|
|
Galatians
|
| |
Greetings HeavenlyHeart!
To add to what Prayon has already written, this commentary puts the timing of the writing of Galatians in an "Atlas" kind of perspective..
"THE EPISTLE OF PAUL THE APOSTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
Chronological Notes relative to this Epistle.
Usherian year of the world, 4056.
-Alexandrian era of the world, 5554.
-Antiochian era of the world, 5544.
-Constantinopolitan era of the world, 5560.
-Year of the Eusebian epocha of the Creation, 4280.
-Year of the Julian period, 4762.
-Year of the minor Jewish era of the world, 3812.
-Year of the greater Rabbinical era of the world, 4411.
-Year from the Flood, according to Archbishop Usher, and the English Bible, 2400.
-Year of the Cali yuga, or Indian era of the Deluge, 3154.
-Year of the era of Iphitus, or since the first commencement of the Olympic games, 992.
-Year of the Nabonassarean era, 799.
-Year of the era of the Seleucidae, 364.
-Year of the Spanish era, 90.
-Year of the Actiac or Actian era, 83.
-Year of the vulgar era of Christ's nativity, 52.
-Year from the building of Rome, according to Varro, 805.
-Year of the CCVIIth Olympiad, 4.
-Year of Ananias, high priest of the Jews, 8.
-Common Golden Number, 15.
-Jewish Golden Number, 12.
-Year of the Solar Cycle, 5.
-Dominical Letters; it being Bissextile or Leap year, BA.
-Jewish Passover, April lst.
-Easter Sunday, April 2d.
-Epact, or the moon's age on the 22d of March, or the Xth of the Calends of April, 4.
-Year of the reign of Claudius Caesar, the fifth emperor of the Romans, 12.
-In the last year of Ventidius Cumanus, governor of the Jews.
-Year of Vologesus, king of the Parthians, 2.
-Year of Cains Numidius Quadratus, governor of Syria, 1.
-Roman Consuls; Publius Cornelius Sylla Faustus, and Lucius Salvius Otho Titianus; and for the following year, viz. A. D. 53, (which is supposed by some to be the date of the epistle,)
Decimus Junius Silanus, and Quintus Haterius Antoninus.
CHAPTER I.
St. Paul shows that he was especially called of God to be an apostle, 1.
Directs his epistle to the Churches through the regions of Galatia, 2.
Commends them to the grace of Christ, who gave himself for their sins, 3-5.
Marvels that they had so soon turned away from the grace of the Gospel of Christ, to what falsely pretended to be another gospel, 6, 7.
Pronounces him accursed who shall preach any other doctrine than that which he had delivered to them, 8, 9.
Shows his own uprightness, and that he received his doctrine from God, 10-12.
Gives an account of his conversion and call to the apostleship, 13-17.
How three years after his conversion he went up to Jerusalem, and afterwards went through the regions of Syria and Cilicia, preaching the faith of Christ to the great joy of the Christian Churches in Judea, 18-24.
NOTES ON CHAP. I.
Verse 1. Paul, an apostle, not of men] Not commissioned by any assembly or council of the apostles.
Neither by man] Nor by any one of the apostles; neither by James, who seems to have been president of the apostolic council at Jerusalem; nor by Peter, ..."
"But by Jesus Christ] Having his mission immediately from Christ himself, and God the Father who raised him from the dead, see
#Ac 22:14, 15, and commanded him to go both to the Jews and to the Gentiles, to open their eyes, to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they might obtain remission of sins, and an inheritance among them that are sanctified. See #Ac 9:1," (1)
Blessings to you,
Makarios
(1) Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible
|
| |
History of the Book of Galatians. |
|
|
|
Galatians
|
| |
Greetings HeavenlyHeart!
To add to what Prayon has already written, this commentary puts the timing of the writing of Galatians in an "Atlas" kind of perspective..
"THE EPISTLE OF PAUL THE APOSTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
Chronological Notes relative to this Epistle.
Usherian year of the world, 4056.
-Alexandrian era of the world, 5554.
-Antiochian era of the world, 5544.
-Constantinopolitan era of the world, 5560.
-Year of the Eusebian epocha of the Creation, 4280.
-Year of the Julian period, 4762.
-Year of the minor Jewish era of the world, 3812.
-Year of the greater Rabbinical era of the world, 4411.
-Year from the Flood, according to Archbishop Usher, and the English Bible, 2400.
-Year of the Cali yuga, or Indian era of the Deluge, 3154.
-Year of the era of Iphitus, or since the first commencement of the Olympic games, 992.
-Year of the Nabonassarean era, 799.
-Year of the era of the Seleucidae, 364.
-Year of the Spanish era, 90.
-Year of the Actiac or Actian era, 83.
-Year of the vulgar era of Christ's nativity, 52.
-Year from the building of Rome, according to Varro, 805.
-Year of the CCVIIth Olympiad, 4.
-Year of Ananias, high priest of the Jews, 8.
-Common Golden Number, 15.
-Jewish Golden Number, 12.
-Year of the Solar Cycle, 5.
-Dominical Letters; it being Bissextile or Leap year, BA.
-Jewish Passover, April lst.
-Easter Sunday, April 2d.
-Epact, or the moon's age on the 22d of March, or the Xth of the Calends of April, 4.
-Year of the reign of Claudius Caesar, the fifth emperor of the Romans, 12.
-In the last year of Ventidius Cumanus, governor of the Jews.
-Year of Vologesus, king of the Parthians, 2.
-Year of Cains Numidius Quadratus, governor of Syria, 1.
-Roman Consuls; Publius Cornelius Sylla Faustus, and Lucius Salvius Otho Titianus; and for the following year, viz. A. D. 53, (which is supposed by some to be the date of the epistle,)
Decimus Junius Silanus, and Quintus Haterius Antoninus.
CHAPTER I.
St. Paul shows that he was especially called of God to be an apostle, 1.
Directs his epistle to the Churches through the regions of Galatia, 2.
Commends them to the grace of Christ, who gave himself for their sins, 3-5.
Marvels that they had so soon turned away from the grace of the Gospel of Christ, to what falsely pretended to be another gospel, 6, 7.
Pronounces him accursed who shall preach any other doctrine than that which he had delivered to them, 8, 9.
Shows his own uprightness, and that he received his doctrine from God, 10-12.
Gives an account of his conversion and call to the apostleship, 13-17.
How three years after his conversion he went up to Jerusalem, and afterwards went through the regions of Syria and Cilicia, preaching the faith of Christ to the great joy of the Christian Churches in Judea, 18-24.
NOTES ON CHAP. I.
Verse 1. Paul, an apostle, not of men] Not commissioned by any assembly or council of the apostles.
Neither by man] Nor by any one of the apostles; neither by James, who seems to have been president of the apostolic council at Jerusalem; nor by Peter, ..."
"But by Jesus Christ] Having his mission immediately from Christ himself, and God the Father who raised him from the dead, see
#Ac 22:14, 15, and commanded him to go both to the Jews and to the Gentiles, to open their eyes, to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they might obtain remission of sins, and an inheritance among them that are sanctified. See #Ac 9:1," (1)
Blessings to you,
Makarios
(1) Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible
|
| |
History of the Book of Galatians. |
|
|
|
Galatians
|
| |
Greetings HeavenlyHeart!
To add to what Prayon has already written, this commentary puts the timing of the writing of Galatians in an "Atlas" kind of perspective..
"THE EPISTLE OF PAUL THE APOSTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
Chronological Notes relative to this Epistle.
Usherian year of the world, 4056.
-Alexandrian era of the world, 5554.
-Antiochian era of the world, 5544.
-Constantinopolitan era of the world, 5560.
-Year of the Eusebian epocha of the Creation, 4280.
-Year of the Julian period, 4762.
-Year of the minor Jewish era of the world, 3812.
-Year of the greater Rabbinical era of the world, 4411.
-Year from the Flood, according to Archbishop Usher, and the English Bible, 2400.
-Year of the Cali yuga, or Indian era of the Deluge, 3154.
-Year of the era of Iphitus, or since the first commencement of the Olympic games, 992.
-Year of the Nabonassarean era, 799.
-Year of the era of the Seleucidae, 364.
-Year of the Spanish era, 90.
-Year of the Actiac or Actian era, 83.
-Year of the vulgar era of Christ's nativity, 52.
-Year from the building of Rome, according to Varro, 805.
-Year of the CCVIIth Olympiad, 4.
-Year of Ananias, high priest of the Jews, 8.
-Common Golden Number, 15.
-Jewish Golden Number, 12.
-Year of the Solar Cycle, 5.
-Dominical Letters; it being Bissextile or Leap year, BA.
-Jewish Passover, April lst.
-Easter Sunday, April 2d.
-Epact, or the moon's age on the 22d of March, or the Xth of the Calends of April, 4.
-Year of the reign of Claudius Caesar, the fifth emperor of the Romans, 12.
-In the last year of Ventidius Cumanus, governor of the Jews.
-Year of Vologesus, king of the Parthians, 2.
-Year of Cains Numidius Quadratus, governor of Syria, 1.
-Roman Consuls; Publius Cornelius Sylla Faustus, and Lucius Salvius Otho Titianus; and for the following year, viz. A. D. 53, (which is supposed by some to be the date of the epistle,)
Decimus Junius Silanus, and Quintus Haterius Antoninus.
CHAPTER I.
St. Paul shows that he was especially called of God to be an apostle, 1.
Directs his epistle to the Churches through the regions of Galatia, 2.
Commends them to the grace of Christ, who gave himself for their sins, 3-5.
Marvels that they had so soon turned away from the grace of the Gospel of Christ, to what falsely pretended to be another gospel, 6, 7.
Pronounces him accursed who shall preach any other doctrine than that which he had delivered to them, 8, 9.
Shows his own uprightness, and that he received his doctrine from God, 10-12.
Gives an account of his conversion and call to the apostleship, 13-17.
How three years after his conversion he went up to Jerusalem, and afterwards went through the regions of Syria and Cilicia, preaching the faith of Christ to the great joy of the Christian Churches in Judea, 18-24.
NOTES ON CHAP. I.
Verse 1. Paul, an apostle, not of men] Not commissioned by any assembly or council of the apostles.
Neither by man] Nor by any one of the apostles; neither by James, who seems to have been president of the apostolic council at Jerusalem; nor by Peter, ..."
"But by Jesus Christ] Having his mission immediately from Christ himself, and God the Father who raised him from the dead, see
#Ac 22:14, 15, and commanded him to go both to the Jews and to the Gentiles, to open their eyes, to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they might obtain remission of sins, and an inheritance among them that are sanctified. See #Ac 9:1," (1)
Blessings to you,
Makarios
(1) Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible
|
| |
Sola Scriptura supported by bible? |
|
|
|
Bible general Archive 1
|
| |
"(it was actually in the appendix of his translation, just like it was in the Vulgate)"
It depends on how you look at this. Sure, Jerome didn't consider these books on par with the others, so they were isolated between the Old and New Testaments. But why do you suppose he left them in? It was because there were others who believed that they should be there and he didn't have enough of an argument to remove them. There was a difference between the Alexandrian texts and the Palestinian texts. The majority of complete manuscripts that come from the Alexandrian variety included the apocryphal books.
You seem to think that because it wasn't until Trent that the RCC declared these books scripture that it was a new thing. You obviously don't know how the RCC works. Before they consider it dogma it has been the norm for some time. As you say, Luther originally didn't remove them, but moved them to the back. This shows that they were in there before the reformation.
I am not Catholic by the way. But I do respect the doctrine, theology and heritage that they bring. It is very short sighted, in my opinion, to just ignore over 1600 years of Christian history. You ask me how do I tell what is scripture? That is a good question. I don't think there is a right answer to that. That is my point. I am not trying to argue in favor of the RCC Bible. I am trying to say that either position is not Biblical.
|
| |
Sola Scriptura supported by bible? |
|
|
|
Bible general Archive 1
|
| |
" The early lists were all in basic agreement and used similar critieria. The problem I have with the RCC list is which 'Church' was right, the one in the late 300's or the one in the 1500's? "
I think that there were no fewer than 3 councils that had canon lists in the 4th century. They didn't all agree, so which one do you mean? Also, the first church historian, Eusebius,did not consider Revelation to be scripture, he didn't even believe that it was written by the apostle John. Jude was a book that was in some lists and not in others, Hebrews as well. In fact, Hebrews, by todays standards for canonization doesn't make the cut because we don't know the author. As I mentioned before, there were different version of the Old Testament as well depending on if you were of the Palestinian or Alexandrian persuasion.
You say that these apocryphal books were not recognized, and I agree people disagred about it. But the simple fact that it was in the scriptures says that it wasn't some kind of fly by night fad. Especially when Jerome himself didn't recognize them as being inspired. He still incuded them in the Vulgate. Somebody thought they belonged there. It may have a lot to do with the fact that they were in the Septuagint.
But my point is that people look through rose colored glasses. There wasn't all this automatic agreement that people seem to think.
I think that people have trouble dealing with ambiguity. They don't like the idea that there isn't some kind of solid "correct" list that has God's stamp on it. So they deny the truth. You see, if the Bible is your God, it must be everything you want it to be. If Christ is your God, as long as it points to him, it's good enough. |
| |
| To See More, Click Here... |
|
|
