List of major textual variants in the New Testament

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an (incomplete) list of major textual variants in the New Testament, with a focus on differences between categories of New Testament manuscript.

• The Textus Receptus (Latin: "received text") is the name subsequently given to the succession of printed Greek texts of the New Testament which was first collated by Desiderius Erasmus in the 16th century. It constituted the translation base for the translation of the New Testament into English by William Tyndale, the King James Version, and most other Reformation-era New Testament translations throughout Western and Central Europe.
• The Majority Text represents the Byzantine text-type, which was used in Eastern Greek speaking churches and was dominant from the late middle agesonwards. It is similar to the Textus Receptus.
• The modern critical text (e.g. Novum Testamentum Graece) is close to the Alexandrian text-type, which accounts for some of the earliest New Testament manuscripts; it stands behind most modern English translations of the New Testament including the ASV, the NIV, the RSV and the ESV.

For a more comprehensive list which includes many minor variants, see Textual variants in the New Testament.

Variations between Majority Text/Textus Receptus and critical text[edit]

The following list contains texts where the Majority Text is in agreement with the Textus Receptus, against the critical text.

MT = Majority Text. CT = Critical text

Gospels[edit]

Matthew 5:44

MT: But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you.

CT: But I say to you, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you.

Matthew 6:13

MT: And do not lead us into temptation, But deliver us from the evil one. For Yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen.

CT: And do not lead us into temptation, But deliver us from the evil one.

Matthew 17:21

MT: However, this kind does not go out except by prayer and fasting.

CT: Verse omitted

Matthew 18:11

MT: For the Son of Man has come to save that which was lost.

CT: Verse omitted

continue reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_major_textual_variants_in_the_New_Testament

Many others

During the past decade or two there has been a flood of new translations, too numerous to mention here. Some have endeavored to be literal renderings of the originals, while others are definitely paraphrases into what is considered to be more modern English usage. Still others are in the making and will, no doubt, be seen in the near future.

Conclusion: Does this flurry of “experts” to give us the exact language of the original autographs indicate that we cannot depend upon our present English Bible to declare the true message God would proclaim to Mankind? Perhaps the following quotation from Sir Frederic Kenyon, director of the British Museum, will answer the question best: “It is reassuring at the end to find that the general result of all these discoveries and all this study is to strengthen the proof of the authenticity of the Scriptures, and our conviction that we have in our hands, in substantial integrity, the veritable Word of God.”^25[1]

---

²⁵ Sir Frederick Kenyon, source unknown.

^[1] Guy P. Duffield and Nathaniel M. Van Cleave, Foundations of Pentecostal Theology (Los Angeles, CA: L.I.F.E. Bible College, 1983), 44.

A Clear Exposition of Psalm 12 as a Whole

By Erik DiVietro, December 11, 2012

1 Help, Lord; for the godly man ceaseth;
For the faithful fail from among the children of men.

2 They speak vanity every one with his neighbour:
With flattering lips and with a double heart do they speak.

3 The Lord shall cut off all flattering lips,
And the tongue that speaketh proud things:

4 Who have said, “With our tongue will we prevail;
Our lips are our own: who is lord over us?”

5 “For the oppression of the poor, for the sighing of the needy,
Now will I arise,” saith the Lord;
“I will set him in safety from him that puffeth at him.”

6 The words of the Lord are pure words:
As silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

7 Thou shalt keep them, O Lord,
Thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

8 The wicked walk on every side,
When the vilest men are exalted. (Psalm 12, KJV)

Why do an exegesis of this Psalm?

The King James Version Only camp loves to quote verses 6-7 of this chapter as a proof text for their position. Despite the fact that countless commentaries and even the marginal notes of the translational ancestors of the KJV like the Geneva Bible contradict them, KJVO believers insist that the “them” in verse 7 is “the words of the LORD” in verse 6 and that this indicates the need for, as one pundit puts it, “a 100% pure version of the Bible.”

This passage has been cited this way so many times in various forums, that it led me to do an expositional study of the passage. My hope and prayer is that by understanding these verses in their proper (and immediate) context, our brothers and sisters will be encouraged by the content of the psalm rather than continuing to apply a poor hermeneutic to it.

The Structure of the Psalm

The psalm is composed of four distinct sections or stanzas.

1. The call for assistance (1-2)

2. Accusation against the wicked (3-4)

3. YHWH’s response (5-6)

4. Response to YHWH (7-8)

The Call for Assistance (1–2)

Clearly, the psalm is meant to reflect a period of oppression or attack. The author, traditionally King David, is really struggling. He declares that he is on the verge of collapse. (Ceaseth is Hebrew גמר. See perfect in Psalm 138:8.) This is a personal feeling but it is also felt in the entire faith community. Both “the godly man” and “the faithful” (plural) are under duress.

The particular issue in view appears to be lies and false witness against the people of God. Vanity (שוא) implies emptiness. The imagery also seems to indicate manipulation of others through flattery (חלק) and deceit.

The Accusation Against the Wicked (3-4)

The prideful attitude of these accusers becomes clear. The psalmist quotes their bravado and empty words of self-confidence before YHWH. They proclaim that they will overcome and bow to no authority but themselves (v 4).

YHWH’s Response (5-6)

This blasphemy of self-worship frames YHWH’s response. The psalmist picks up the motif of the poor and oppressed crying out. This motif looks back as far as Abel’s innocent blood (Genesis 4), mingling it with imagery that appears in the opening of Exodus and is repeated in Judges.

YHWH hears the cries of those these self-worshipers are destroying, and he says, “I will arise.” This concept is picked up by the prophets Isaiah (14:22) and Amos (7:9).

Because the psalmist attributes this statement to YHWH himself, we have every reason to believe this declaration is meant to be taken as a declaration of YHWH’s will, and as mentioned before, it conforms with his character as demonstrated in both Genesis and Exodus.

God himself is speaking, and His words are actions. This is a statement of great importance. It is a response to prayer, and a declaration of action from YHWH himself.

It is immediately on the heels of this declaration that the psalmist declares, “The words of the Lord are pure words: As silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.”

Response to YHWH (7-8)

Notice that there is an immediate shift in the object of the Psalmist’s words. He now speaks directly back to YHWH. Verse 6 is not a direct address to YHWH, but rather an affirmation of the words spoken by YHWH. In liturgical use, verse 6 may have been a refrain that was meant for the assembled believers to recite. (It is important to remember that the psalms were meant for public recitation by the faith community, not personal reading.)

But verse 7 addresses YHWH directly. It is a response to YHWH’s declaration in verse 5. The psalmist responds to YHWH in thanks that he will preserve and keep. But what will he preserve and keep? It is the “godly man” and “the faithful” in verse 1. The psalm is not a declaration of the Word. It is a call for help, a prayer for intervention. And YHWH answered the Psalmist’s prayer.

And if it weren’t completely clear, the statement is immediately followed by a clarifying statement in verse 8 addressing the justice to be dispensed against the wicked. These wicked people surround the “them” of verse 7. This again looks back to verse 1.

Conclusions

A clear, simple reading of this psalm as a liturgical song of prayer and divine response indicates that this passage is misread when one applies the affirmation of verse 7 to the statement of verse 6. Verse 6 is a communal affirmation while verse 7 is the answer of prayer.

This passage makes no guarantee of a “100%” preservation of the Scriptures as “the words of the Lord” which requires a single translation of the texts.

It does, however, encourage those who are facing opposition, persecution and false witness that YHWH does not abandon his people and he will “arise”.

The writer can be contacted at:

http://kjvonlydebate.com/about/contact/

false teachers like to twist this psalm to suit their false teaching, they said God give us Verbal Plenary Preservation....

Hunting for the text of the New Testament

All right, so how might we explore the cumulative impact of all these differences? Actually, it is quite easy, though sensationalists avoid mentioning this. One reason why textual criticism is so complex is that we have so many manuscripts, in different scribal forms, from such a wide area, over a long period of time. One of the main theories (though this has recently been challenged) is that there are three main ‘families’ of manuscripts:

1. The Western tradition, which consists of early manuscripts from a wide area, and was the basis of translations in the Western church, in particular Jerome’s Latin translation the Vulgate, which was the dominant biblical text in the Roman church.
2. The Eastern tradition, or Byzantine text-type  , which consists of around 80% of all manuscripts, though none of them very early. Known as the Majority Text (MT), this was the dominant text used in the Eastern church, and was the basis of theTextus Receptus   (TR), a collation of manuscripts by Erasmus during the Reformation. When it was decided to make translations from original Greek texts rather then from the Latin Vulgate, this became the basis of early English translations up to and including the AV in 1611.
3. The third player in the drama is what is known as the Alexandrian text type  ; this includes Codex Sinaiticus   and Codex Vaticanus   (used by Westcott and Hort   in 1881) and consists of a smaller number of much earlier manuscripts which take us much closer to the original texts. It is this group of manuscripts which are sensationalised as introducing the differences from earlier manuscripts, and these are the basis of all modern translations.

read more: http://www.psephizo.com/biblical-studies/hunting-for-the-text-of-the-new-testament/

Original Text Is Without Errors, Not the Copies.

As noted in the article Bible, Alleged Errors in, this does not mean that every copy and translation of the Bible is perfect. God breathed out the originals, not the copies, so inerrancy applies to the original text, not to every copy. God in his providence preserved the copies from substantial error. In fact, the degree of accuracy is greater than that of any other book from the ancient world, exceeding 99 percent ^[1]

Do not tell me KJV is perfect.....

---

^[1]Norman L. Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, Baker Reference Library (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1999), 92–93.

Book Review: One Bible Only?

Roy E. Beachum & Kevin T. Bauder, General Editors

Grand Rapids, MI

Kregel Publications. 2001. 238 pp. $13.99

Subtitled, Examining Exclusive Claims for the King James Bible, this book does an excellent job of refuting the position of King James only adherents. The editors are both professors at Central Baptist Theological Seminary in Plymouth, Minnesota. A total of seven contributors were involved in producing this title. It covers the background and origin of the King-James-only controversy, with separate chapters on the debates concerning the OT and NT texts, followed by a chapter on the preservation of Scripture as it relates to the controversy.

A discussion of translation theory and an examination of several 20th century versions is also included. Four Appendices then follow: a question-and-answer format regarding the controversy; an essay on Fundamentalism and the KJV only position; a reprint of the preface to the KJV; and finally a reprint of the address of Thomas Armitage at the founding of the American Bible Union. The Introduction is by Bauder.

Earnest counsel is given here that all Bible believers should be hesitant to be dogmatic about the merits of any one translation’s methods. Neither formal nor dynamic equivalence is believed to be the inherently better theory. Both methods have their strengths and weaknesses, depending upon the use for which a given translation is intended.

As Bauder asserts, if the preservation of the Word of God depends upon the exact preservation of the words of the original documents, then the situation is dire. No two manuscripts, whether the Masoretic or the Textus Receptus, contain exactly the same words. Neither do any two modifications of the KJV text contain exactly the same words. Either the advocates of KJV only must specify, a priori and without Biblical evidence, a single manuscript or edition of the Bible in which the exact words are preserved, OR they must modify their insistence upon exact preservation.

Read more: http://www.biblecollectors.org/reviews/one_bible_only.htm

Do not tell me, we must have one Bible, that is KJV....

The task of NT textual criticism

Thus the task of NT textual criticism is vast and unfinished. Certainly, advances have been made since the material began to be collected and examined in the 17th century. Both Hort and von Soden present texts better than the printed texts of the Renaissance, and provide a sound basis upon which satisfactory exegesis may proceed. It is evident that many of the principles behind the Alexandrian text were sound. But it must be constantly borne in mind that even the best philological work of antiquity demands critical scrutiny if we seek the original text. The textual critic will be as the scribe discipled in the kingdom of heaven, bringing forth from his treasures things new and old. The busy textual projects of the post-war years should bring us nearer to the apostolic ipsissima verba than previous generations were favoured to come; yet we cannot but build on other men’s foundations.^[1]

Be humble, and start to be honest, accept textual criticism...

---

^[1] J. N. Birdsall, “VII. Conclusion,” ed. D. R. W. Wood et al., New Bible Dictionary (Leicester, England; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1996), 1179.

Copies of the Autographs (to c. 150)

Most of the New Testament books were written during the second half of the first century. Those manuscripts were written under the direction of the Holy Spirit and were inerrant. They were undoubtedly written on papyrus and have all subsequently been lost. Nevertheless, the autographs of the New Testament were providentially copied and circulated before they became illegible or lost. These copies were made as early as a.d.95. If copying had not begun very soon after the autographs were written, there would be no Bible today because papyrus survives for long periods of time only under exceptional conditions. Just as the autographs were written on papyrus rolls, so the earliest copies were probably written on papyrus rolls. Soon, however, papyrus codices were produced, and parchment and vellum were employed still later. Very few, if any, of the early copies are extant today, for basically the same reasons as indicated with regard to the autographs (see chap. 20).

Although there were many early copies of the autographs, they are not all of the same quality, for as soon as a manuscript was copied misprints began to creep into the text. Some of the early copies were highly accurate and quite expensive, as they were copied by professional scribes. Manuscript copies made by less capable scribes were less expensive, but they were of a generally poorer quality and wider distribution.Still other copies made in this early period were quite poor in quality, as they were often copied by nonprofessionals and were often all that an individual or group could afford to have made. Gordon Fee correctly calls this a “Period of Confusion (to a.d. 400)” and adds that

during the second century in particular, when each NT book was being transmitted independently of the others and when there was wide geographical distribution of these documents with little or no “controls,” such scribal errors proliferated. Once an error was introduced into the text, it was then copied by the next scribe as his “received” text. Sometimes a scribe “corrected” what he thought to be errors and in doing so created errors of his own.^33[1]

majority text maybe corrupted...think about this.

---

³³ Gordon D. Fee, “The Textual Criticism of the New Testament,” in Frank E. Gaebelein, ed., The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, p. 425.

^[1]Norman L. Geisler and William E. Nix, A General Introduction to the Bible, Rev. and expanded. (Chicago: Moody Press, 1986), 445–446.

Respect the multidisciplinary nature of careful study

There are several different ways to look at any piece of literature. In the case of the Bible, it pays to look from every angle that might yield a payoff. It is convenient to think of 11 such angles, or “steps,” in the study process:

1. Text—Seeking the original wording to avoid treating a scribal error that accidentally crept into the text as original.

2. Translation—Studying how to best convey in a modern language the concepts conveyed by the original Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek.

3. Grammar—Analyzing the language of the passage under consideration to be sure it is not misunderstood.

4. Lexical content—Seeking the correct meaning of a passage’s words.

5. Form—Studying the literary category and the characteristics that make any passage special.

6. Structure—Analyzing the way that the elements of a passage are ordered and how that affects its meaning.

7. Historical context—Studying the milieu in which the Bible was revealed to humans, which helps yield the point of its contents.

8. Literary context—Studying how a passage fits within the book of which it is a part and how that affects its meaning.

9. Biblical context—Analyzing what a passage contributes to the Bible as a whole, and what the rest of the Bible contributes to understanding the passage.

10. Application—Seeking to conform beliefs and actions to the guidance that the Bible imparts.

11. Secondary literature—Examining the wisdom and diligent study of others as they have put it into books and articles.^[1]

I hope we may do sincere Bible Study, please do not use big jargon like theologian!

No two handwritten NT manuscripts are identical

It is important to remember that prior to the printing press every copy of Scripture was made by hand, and all hand-copied documents of substantial length of the same document differ from one another. No two handwritten NT manuscripts of any NT book or group of books are identical. But we have every reason to believe that every original reading has survived in some manuscripts. That is why textual critics study as many manuscripts as possible.^[1]

What is the fuss, quarreling for NT manuscripts, please show me a perfect Manuscript!

---

^[1]Charles W. Draper, “Textual Criticism, New Testament,” ed. Chad Brand et al., Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary(Nashville, TN: Holman Bible Publishers, 2003), 1573.

New Testament Greek

Cremer’s dictionary deals with a problem that has not yet been solved, namely, that of NT Greek.

a. This question was already discussed in the early church.³⁴ When the NT was becoming known in the Greek world, the educated attached great value to the writing of good Greek. The NT could not compete with the published literary works of the time.³⁵ Celsus compared the sentences of the Bible with Plato and came to the conclusion that everything was better expressed among the Greeks than in the NT (Orig. Cels., VI, 1). The apostles were uncultured tax-gatherers and fishermen who could not measure up to Greek philosophers (I, 62). Similar objections were constantly raised. How did the church respond to them?

Two arguments were used in defense of the Greek of the NT. First, it was said that the apostles deliberately used simple speech to make themselves generally understood. The preacher’s task is not just to win the clever. Out of love for all men he consciously turns as well to the simple and uneducated, to women and children, even to the uncivilised, in order to convert them. Hence the Christian teacher has to use a language which all can understand and which can captivate all.³⁶

The second argument starts with the fact that the apostles themselves were simple people who could not match the skilled speech of the philosophers. Another reason was thus given for the success of primitive Christian preaching. According to Origen, what won people to Christ was not fine speech or oratorical skill, not the art of dialectic or rhetoric, but Christ himself. If Jesus had chosen clever folk to proclaim his teaching, Christianity might have been taken for a philosophical school. But now that uneducated people, fishermen and tax-gatherers, who did not have even the rudiments of learning, have not only spoken to the Jews with shocking boldness about faith in Christ but also preached Jesus successfully to all nations, one has to ask what is the source of the unparalleled power of their words to convince. The only possible conclusion is that a higher than they has been speaking and that he has endowed their words with persuasive force (Orig.Cels., I, 62 [GCS, 2, 113f.]).^[1]

My point is please use simple English to reach out to the unsaved, use NIV please....

---

NT New Testament.

³⁴ E. Norden, Die antike Kunstprosa, II⁵(1958), 521–534; J. Vergote, Art. “Grec biblique” in Dict. Bibl. Suppl., III (1938), 1321–1323.

NT New Testament.

NT New Testament.

³⁵ “To use a non-Attic word was a very serious literary offense and a work not adorned with figures of speech had no claim to a place in literature; in short, writing well or badly distinguished Greeks and barbarians. A public of this kind could only regard the religious documents of the Christians as monstrosities,” Norden, op. cit., 516f.

NT New Testament.

Orig. Origen, of Alexandria (185–254 a.d.), pupil of Clement of Alexandria, and most learned and fruitful representative of ancient Christian scholarship and culture, ed. by different scholars in Die griech, christl. Schriftsteller der ersten 3 Jahrhunderte, 1899 ff.

Cels. Contra Celsum.

NT New Testament.

³⁶ Orig. Cels., VI, 1 (GCS, 3, 72); Isidore of Pelusium Ep., IV, 67 (MPG, 78, 1124f.).

Orig. Origen, of Alexandria (185–254 a.d.), pupil of Clement of Alexandria, and most learned and fruitful representative of ancient Christian scholarship and culture, ed. by different scholars in Die griech, christl. Schriftsteller der ersten 3 Jahrhunderte, 1899 ff.

Cels. Contra Celsum.

^[1]Gerhard Kittel, Geoffrey W. Bromiley, and Gerhard Friedrich, eds., Theological Dictionary of the New Testament(Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964–), 632.

Failure to resolve personal disputes (1 Corinthians 6:1–11)

The topic of judgment continued as Paul shifted to another disorder afflicting the Corinthian church. The same laxity in dealing with the immoral brother was found in cases of personal disputes between members which the church refused to adjudicate. It was yet another manifestation of the divisive spirit which racked the congregation.

With the introductory phrase “Do you not know,” Paul pointed toward certain truths which should have prevented the problem in the first place. The phrase recurs six times in this chapter alone. (Outside this letter this construction appears only three other times in the NT.) Paul had used it before (3:16; 5:6) and would subsequently use it again (9:13, 24) to the same effect. The implication that they should have known these things must have painfully hit home to a church enamored with its own wisdom and knowledge.

6:1. Paul’s chagrin about this issue was great, not only because it further divided the church, but also because it hindered the work of God among the non-Christians in Corinth (cf. 10:32). Those related by faith needed to settle their disputes like brothers, not adversaries (cf. Gen. 13:7–9).

6:2. The first of six do you not know phrases in this chapter (cf. vv. 3, 9, 15–16, 19) concerned the role of saints in judging (cf. John 5:22; Rev. 3:21). Paul had probably taught this doctrine in Corinth in the course of his founding the church there, since he cited it as an indisputable proposition.

6:3. Since they were going to judge supernatural beings (the fallen angels, 2 Peter 2:4; Jude 6), surely they should handle mundane matters satisfactorily.

6:4. The form of the Greek word (kăthizete, appoint) may be a statement (indicative) or a command (imper.). The NIVhas taken it as a command, making the difficult phrase men of little account refer to those in the church not too highly esteemed for their “wisdom”; but Paul considered them more than adequate for the task.

“Appoint” may be indicative (and therefore a question; see alternate trans. in marg.) which seems more likely in view of verse 5. If so, the participle translated “men of little account” would be better rendered “men who have no standing” in the church, that is, non-Christians. The sad refrain of verse 1 to which Paul would refer yet a third time in verse 6 was thus heard again.

6:5–6. No doubt the statement in verse 5 reddened some of the wiseCorinthians’ faces. Certainly a part of Paul’s concern in this issue was the harmful effect such legal wrangling would have on the cause of the gospel in Corinth (9:23). Such lawsuits certainly did not glorify God (10:31–33).

6:7–8. Because their greed dishonored God, Paul concluded that the important issue was lost before the case had begun. He therefore said that mundane loss was preferable to the spiritual loss which the lawsuits produced. As it was, the Corinthian lawsuits seemed not to have been so much a matter of redressing wrong or seeing justice served as a means for personal gratification at the expense of fellow believers. This was “body life” at its worst!^[1]

My point is when you start to solve problem in court room, you are losing from day one.

---

imper. imperative

NIV New International Version

trans. translation, translator, translated

marg. margin, marginal reading

^[1]David K. Lowery, “1 Corinthians,” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures, ed. J. F. Walvoord and R. B. Zuck, vol. 2 (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1985), 515–516.