Welcome! Start here!

Welcome! Start here!

See what the blog “Bible Differences” can provide and how it may be of use to you. I focus mainly on the New Testament, but occasionally look at something from the Old Testament.

A list of Scriptures already studied can be found at “Scriptures“.

Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | 6 Comments

110. Why would “by his blood” be left out of Colossians 1:14 in modern versions?

The statement “through his blood” in Colossians 1:14, is not found in most modern versions of the Bible. What would be the reason that such a Biblical truth could be removed?

(KJVR) “In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:

(NIV) “…in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.”

Let us first look at the manuscripts to our disposal. The oldest Greek manuscript we have containing the words “through his blood”, is Ms. 1912 dating ±950 A.D. and then again in Ms. 35 of ±1050. After that most minuscule manuscripts do have these words. Continue reading

Posted in Ancient Translations, Desiderius, Erasmus | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

109 Andrew in the Gospel of John

 

I re-blog this post from Phillip Lang’s blog “Reading Acts”. ( http://readingacts.wordpress.com/)

May you be blessed as much as I had been reading it.

The Gospel of John and the “Other Disciples” – Andrew

December 2, 2014 in Gospels | Tags: AndrewApostle Andrew

Phillip writes as follows:

We know far less about Andrew than Peter, James and John, although he is often listed along with these three in the gospels.  Andrew and Peter were brothers, as were James and John, working in the same fishing village in Galilee when they are called to be followers of Jesus.  But all four seem to have been looking for the coming of the Messiah, as we see from reading John 1.

When John the Baptist was still baptizing in the Jordan, Andrew is following him.  They encounter the Lord and John the Baptist announce that Jesus is the Messiah.  In John’s gospel, this is the third day, usually significant in the Bible!  The witness of John starts a “chain reaction” as Jesus is followed by Andrew and another disciple of John the Baptist (1:35-39). Continue reading

Posted in Context | Leave a comment

108 The great uproar between the Pharisees and Sadducees. Acts 23:9

In Acts 23:1 – 10 Luke tells of the incident where Paul had been brought before the Jewish high council. In verse eight Luke mentions three matters that the Pharisees and Sadducees disagreed with one another. First he mentions the resurrection, then the existence of angels and spirits. Paul calls up the first one, stating that he is being on trial because of his hope in the resurrection. This caused division in the council.

But in the manuscripts we now find two versions. The one group of manuscripts mention only these three aspects Luke referred to. The other group of manuscripts adds another, viz. “…let us not fight against God.” Continue reading

Posted in Gloss, KJV/NIV Controversy | Leave a comment

107. Why people easily Reject the Existence of God with Little Evidence.

Herman of bibledifferences.net:

Why do people reject with 100% certainty the existence of God when a follower of Jesus mentions only 10 % uncertainty? Yet through life we accept many things with far less certainty or evidence? William Lane Craig has some very interesting thoughts on this problem.

Originally posted on THINKAPOLOGETICS.COM:

Here is William Lane Craig’s response to a relevant issue.

I also have noted that there are 6 things that impact discussions on the existence of God.

1. Proofs and evidence are person-relative. While one proof or a line of evidence  may be a home run for one person, it may result in little more than contempt  for someone else. How may times have both sides looked at the other and said “Don’t you think that is a convincing argument?” ” How can you reject such a sound argument?”

2. An individual’s presuppositions play a large role in how they evaluate the evidence for God. A presupposition is something assumed or supposed in advance. If someone presupposes that God must not exist or that miracles are not possible, in many cases they will seek out evidence that confirms their hypothesis, and dismiss evidence that might challenge or overturn their position.  Likewise, if someone presupposes that God…

View original 627 more words

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

106 Did God create all nations out of one blood, or one man? (Acts 17:26)

Sometimes there are differences that present as possibly challenging a crucial Biblical truth. Did God create all nations out of one blood, or one man? We should study every difference thoroughly to get to the bottom of the cause for that difference.

KJV: “And He has made all nations of men of one blood to dwell on all the face of the earth, ordaining fore-appointed seasons and boundaries of their dwelling.”

(NIV) “From one man he made every nation of men,that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live.”

(RSV)  “And he made from one every nation of men to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their habitation.”

How can that be? There is a huge difference between “one blood” and “one man”. Continue reading

Posted in Causes for Variations, Context | Tagged | 1 Comment

105 Was Paul “a baby” or “gentle” among the Thessalonians?

105. Babes or gentle 1Thes. 2:7

What would you do if you were confronted with two sets of manuscripts, the one reading: “Because of her strictness, our headmistress was known as ‘Queennarrow’.” The other set of manuscripts read “…Queenarrow.” Of cource this is a foolish little sentence, but assume that it really was important and did make a substantial difference, how could one go about to discern the original autograph?
Just counting how many copies are represented by which set of manuscripts wouldn’t help, since it all started with one deviation, and now we are only confronted by which group needed the most copies. Having the most copies made, does not prove originality! Continue reading

Posted in Ancient Translations, Causes for Variations, Church Fathers | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

104. The Earliest Manuscript of Paul’s Letters, Papyrus 46

Some Notes on the Earliest Manuscript of Paul’s Letters

This is a copy of an interesting post by Prof. Dan Wallis.

His blog is at: www.http://danielbwallace.com/

The publication of P46 in 1935–37––then, and now, the oldest extant manuscript of Paul’s epistles––has not ceased to pique the interest of biblical scholars. Beginning with the plates and text published by Kenyon (1936, 1937), and continuing with the virtual birth of reasoned eclecticism with Zuntz’s magisterial The Text of the Epistles: A Disquisition on the Corpus Paulinum (1953), and reconsiderations of its date (Young Kyu Kim, “Palaeographical Dating of P46 to the Later First Century,” Biblica 69 [1988] 248–57), this priceless document has made its way to the front lines of biblical scholarship for a long time. Though Kim’s suggestion that Chester Beatty Biblical Papyrus II was written before the reign of Domitian (81–96 CE) has been refuted, the consensus continues that it was produced c. 200 CE.

Where Are the Pastoral Epistles?
One curiosity of this papyrus is that, in its current state, it lacks the pastoral letters. With 86 of the original 104 leaves still extant, scholars have a good amount of material to work with as to whether it would have originally contained the pastorals.

How do they know that it originally contained 104 leaves? Two features are used to infer this. First, the manuscript is a single quire codex. This means that all the double leaves (or bifolia) were laid down on top of each other, then folded and sewn into the binding. The fact that it was a single-quire codex can be detected by size of the pages: moving from the beginning to leaf 52, the pages get increasingly narrower. Then, from leaf 53 to the end, the pages get increasingly wider. This can only mean that all the bifolia were laid down in one stack, folded, then trimmed on the outside so that all the leaves were relatively flush. (The later, standard quire was eight leaves [or four double leaves], used throughout the early to middle ages.)

Second, each page is numbered by the original scribe. This is unusual for manuscripts of any age. Usually the quires are numbered, and frequently the leaves were numbered (on the front page), but not the pages. Since the first extant page is numbered 17 (folio 8), and starts with Romans 5.17, we can extrapolate that the manuscript began with Romans 1 and is missing the outer seven double leaves.

What is extant are nine ‘Pauline’ letters: Romans, Hebrews (almost always included in the Pauline corpus as far as ancient manuscripts are concerned), 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Ephesians, Galatians, Philippians, Colossians, and 1 Thessalonians. Missing are 2 Thessalonians, Philemon, and the pastoral letters.

Almost surely 2 Thessalonians followed 1 Thessalonians, as it does in all other manuscripts which have both letters. But what about Philemon? Most scholars are of the opinion that Philemon was also included in this codex.

But the pastorals? This is where opinions have varied. Kenyon started the ball rolling with the suggestion that the last five leaves were left blank and did not include the pastorals. The argument is that there was simply not enough room to include the pastorals and Philemon, which would require about twice as many leaves. Why would this be the case? Was the scribe unaware of them? If he was, this might suggest that they are not authentic.

Although Kenyon’s view held sway for many decades, and is even now occasionally affirmed, Jeremy Duff’s article in New Testament Studies 44 (1998), “P46 and the Pastorals: A Misleading Consensus?” challenged this hypothesis.

One of the points made by Duff is that the letters are more compressed at the end of the codex than in the middle. He noted that there are half again as many letters per page in the last leaves than in the middle leaves. But this is partially due to the fact that the outer leaves are wider than the inner leaves. Nevertheless, there are more letters in the back outer leaves than the front outer leaves, showing that at least some compression did take place. And this seems to suggest that the scribe was aware of the problem he had created for including the pastorals and he began to compensate upon realizing his mistake.

There are problems with Duff’s analysis, however. The scribe seemed to understand to some extent how much space it would require to produce his codex. This is seen in his notes at the end of each book of how many lines he wrote. This was customary for professional scribes; it was in essence a bill for services, since they were paid by the line. He may have been working from a manuscript that had already indicated the number of lines, and thus would have known how many leaves he needed for his manuscript. Of course, the fact that his words were more compressed at the end of the codex seems to show that as careful as he was in his calligraphy (and he was), this tells us nothing about his math skills.

A Fresh Examination of the Codex
This week I had the privilege of examining P46 in the flesh. Fifty-six of the 86 leaves are housed at the Chester Beatty Library in Dublin. I have spent the last three days examining them in some detail, comparing them to the editio princeps by Kenyon. Sir Frederic Kenyon produced the plates of this famous papyrus in 1937. Each image has been assumed to be exactly the same size as the actual leaf it represents. I measured each leaf against Kenyon’s plates and noticed some interesting phenomena.

Of the 88 plates (44 leaves) I was able to measure, the plates in Kenyon’s volume are off at least 61 times. Most of these are within 1 mm or so, but a few are fairly significant. At least three are off by 3 mm, and one is off by as much as 5 mm.

In addition, I noticed a curiosity: some of the plates in Kenyon’s volume were photographed without the lens plane exactly parallel to the leaf. For example, the photograph of folio 39 verso (1 Cor 1.14–23) is slightly wider than the actual leaf on the bottom, while the top of the leaf is the same size in both the photograph and actual manuscript. And leaves 49 recto (1 Cor 10.1–10), 50 recto (1 Cor 10.21–30), and 51 verso (1 Cor 10.31–11.6) are also somewhat trapezoidal. This suggests that the camera got cocked, or the tape around the plates (for Kenyon’s photographs were of the papyrus under glass) got doubled up, creating the trapezoidal effect.

How much the incorrect sizes of the leaves in Kenyon’s volume impact the discussion of whether P46 originally contained the pastorals is yet to be seen. But in the least, this anomaly needs to be factored into the discussion. Much can still be learned from this renowned papyrus.

Continue reading

Posted in Papyri | Leave a comment