Welcome! The blog with the facts concerning the differences between the King James Version, and the New International Version!

Welcome!

On this blog all the reasons for the major differences between older translations like the KJV and modern translations like the NIV are given in plain English. All differences have logical explanations, but rather have the real naked facts! The only difference I found in more than 130 Scriptures studied that touches on a Biblical conviction is Revelation 22:14.

A list of Scriptures already studied can be found at “Scriptures“. If you miss something that is important to you, e-mail me (bibledifferences@gmail.com) and I will provide the facts.

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

Advertisements
Posted in Uncategorized | 8 Comments

154 Fruit of Light, Ephesians 5:9.

In Ephesians 5:9 we find an interesting difference between the King James Version versus the New International Version, as is the case also with most modern translations. Yet it is only when we study the deeper meaning and application of the words that we understand the significance of this difference.
“…(For the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness and righteousness and truth;) Proving what is acceptable unto the Lord.” (KJV)
“…(for the fruit of the light consists in all goodness and righteousness and truth) and find out what pleases the Lord.” (NIV)
Was Paul talking of the fruit of the “Spirit”, or of the fruit of the “Light”?

1. External Criteria.
Our first criterion is to study which variation is represented by which manuscripts. It is obvious that the older manuscripts are nearer to the original autograph and therefore has a greater chance to be without alterations that could happen due to the process of the copying of the manuscripts.

Ephesians 5:9

Variation: Fruit of the Light Fruit of the Spirit
Witneses Greek: Translations: Church Fathers: Greek: Translations: Church Fathers:
101-200 Papyrus46
201-300 Papirus 49 Sahidic Origen*, Gregory-Thaumaturgas
301-400 Sinaiticus, Vaticanus Bohairic,
Vulgate,
Gothic
Ambrosiaster, Lucifer, Victorinus-Rome
401-500 Alexandrinus, Bezae 2 Syriac,
Armenian,
1 Old Latin
Jerome, Augustine, Euthalius Chrysostom*, Theodore, Theodoret
501-600
601-700 1 Syriac
701-800 Mosquensis, Atous- Laurae John-Damascus
801-900 Boernerianus,
Porphyrianus, Minuscule 33
4 Old Latin
901-1000 2 Old Latin Byzantine Manuscripts, Lectionary
1001-1600 8 Minuscules 3 Old Latin 13 Minuscules

Up to the year 500 A.D. “…fruit of Light…” is represented by Papyrus 49 (±250 A.D.) as well as 4 Uncial Codices, as well as eight Antique Translations and eight Church Fathers. Another two uncial codices and nine minuscules and also nine Ancient Translations dated after 800 A.D. have the same version.
For the first 500 years “…fruit of the Spirit…” is found only in Papyrus 46 (±200 A.D.) and three Church Fathers. Even after 600 A.D. only two Uncial codices and one Ancient Translation and one Church Father have this version. It is more common after 900 A.D. with some Byzantine manuscripts, Lectionaries and 13 Minuscule manuscripts.
According to the manuscript evidence, the version with “…fruit of Light…” has overwhelming support.

2. Internal Criteria.
But let us consider how this variation could have originated. I am convinced that some scribe must have remembered Galatians 5:22 and from memory, and without noticing it himself wrote “…fruit of the Spirit…”. There Paul had given a list of sins, and then gave the very familiar list of “…fruit of the Spirit…”.

3. Intrinsic Criteria.
It is logic that both the fruit of light and the fruit of the spirit would be the work of the Holy Spirit. But is there any difference between the fruit of the Spirit and the fruit of the Light? Aren’t they the same? To come to a conclusion we have to study these two Scriptures carefully.
In Galatians it is clearly concerned with the deeds revealed in practice. That is why Paul sets the deeds of the sinful nature of man against the fruit of the Spirit. There he gives a list of sinful deeds as well as a list of deeds brought forth as fruit of the Spirit. Both are revealed in practical life.
But in Ephesians 5 it is about a completely different matter. In this paragraph Paul uses the image of light that reveals what otherwise would remain unseen. Light brings discretionary power. That is why Paul encourages his readers to discern whether something is acceptable to the Lord. The fruit of Light is not about specific deeds, but the three criteria with which to evaluate deeds. “Goodness” is not a deed, but a norm of discernment or to evaluate the worth of some deed. Likewise “righteousness” is about discerning whether a deed would satisfy the judgement of God, and “truth” whether the deed would stand the test of not being false. These three fruits of the light helps us to evaluate our deeds.
The “fruit of the Spirit” refer to specific deeds being lived out, while the “fruit of the Light” refer to the ability of discernment.

To me this is an interesting difference though both are the work of the Holy Spirit. Paul chose his words with great care under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

Let us then consciously develop the fruit of Light in our daily lives. Then we need not ask ourselves whether something is sin or against the will of God. By developing our sense of discernment and allow the spirit of Light to grow in us, we will allow the light to a lamp for our path.

God bless,
Herman.

Posted in Causes for Variations, External Criteria, Internal Criteria, Intrinsic Criteria, KJV/NIV Controversy | Leave a comment

153 The spirit of the Antichrist. 1 John 4:2-3

Did John caution against Gnosticism per se? The spirit of the Antichrist, 1 John 4: 2-3.

Why would confessing Jesus as BORN IN THE FLESH be a standard by which to judge the spirit working within a prophet? And today?

In 1 John 4: 2 – 3 we find a small variation of paramount importance! The words in uppercase in the KJV are not present in the NIV: “Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: And every spirit that confesseth not THAT JESUS CHRIST IS COME IN THE FLESH is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

1. External Criteria

This version is supported by Codex Sinaiticus (±350 A.D) and 5 codices after 750 A.D. as well as 17 minuscule manuscripts after 850 A.D. and 2 Syrias and an Aramaic Translation.

Modern translations have a shorter version, like the NIV:
1 John 4:2 – 3: “This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.”

Supported by Vaticanus (±350 A.D) and Alexandrinus (±350 A.D) and 5 minuscules after 850 A.D. as well as 11 Ancient translations dating from 250 A.D. and spread out from Egypt, Ethiopia, and Europe up to Rome.

According to the Greek manuscripts available the two versions have very equal support. The great geographic distribution of the Ancient Translations lets the pendulum swing more towards the NIV-version.

2.  Internal Criteria.
How could the origin of this variation be explained? 1) Jumping of the eye, either dittography or haplography by which the phrase could be duplicated or left out. Both are equally possible. 2) Duplicating the description of Jesus by memory. This is possible, giving preference to the shorter version. 3.) Deliberately removing this descriptive phrase of Jesus at this crucial point. For such a corruption to be done there must be good reason. In this specific verse a scribe following the Gnostic heresy of the Docetism could indeed have done this!
The internal criteria brings us no further to a definite choice.

3. Intrinsic Criteria.
By studying the context we try to discern what the function of this clause is in this part of John’s epistle. Why would the confession that “JESUS IS COME OF THE FLESH” be a criterion by which to indicate the spirit of the Antichrist?
In 1 John 4:1 we read: “Do not believe every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God …” In the time of John the Docetism as a Gnostic heresy had already been active. They renounced the human nature of Jesus. As Son of God he supposedly was only a spiritual being, so divine that He could not have been human. Since God lacked a material body, even so Jesus only appeared to be a flesh-and-blood man; his body was only a phantasm, which therefore could not physically suffer.
According to them, the history of Jesus’ suffering, crucifixion, resurrection and ascension into heaven had been constructed by the disciples to incorporate the atonement sacrifice of the Old Testament. This heresy not only nullifies Jesus’ atonement, it denies Jesus’ human nature.

In this sentence John uses the participle of the verb that emphasizes the ongoing effect of something that happened in the past. John does not say that Jesus only came in the flesh, but that “He is come in the flesh” meaning that his human nature has ongoing effect in the present! And this John says, is a standard by which to evaluate the spirit working within a prophet, or leader coming to them in the name of Christ. Who spiritualizes everything and denies the two natures of Christ, the divine as well as the mortal, is not filled with the Holy Spirit, but indeed the spirit of the Antichrist.

John gives a criterion by which to judge someone who is coming in the name of Christ therefore already “acknowledging Christ” as in the NIV-version. But how he acknowledges Christ is the criterion. That is confessing his HUMAN NATURE as in the KJV-version!

An open question: In our modern age we often find a diminishing of physical deeds directly commanded or directly forbidden in the Word of God, by replacing them with “spiritual” criteria. Are we not re-enacting the very essence of Docetism in a modern guise? Compare for instance the long list in Romans 1. How often we “not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practise them.”

In Greek different tenses of the verb are used to express specific meaning. If I want to express something that happened in the past, but wanted to stress its effect in the present, I use the a participle.
As an example, I do not merely want to state that “the cup fell and was broken”, but the effect it has in the present: “I wanted to pour myself a cup of coffee, but the cup fell and was broken.” This is the tense John uses when he stated that “Jesus is come in the flesh.”
The fact that Jesus came in the flesh and accepted a fully human body has effect until the present day. The atonement sacrifice on the cross, the resurrection and ascension and being seated at the right hand of God are not merely historical facts, but has ongoing effect. Who spiritualizes everything and denies the two natures of Christ, the divine and the mortal is not filled with the Holy Spirit, but indeed the spirit of the Antichrist.
Prof. Francois Malan (emeritus) explains it as follows: “ ‘Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God’ – is a test whether the person that comes to you, is confessing the truth concerning Jesus; That Jesus Christ came from God and in reality became a human being. (Literally in the flesh, as in John 1:14 and 6:51 – 55 his flesh eat and his blood drink – that He really became a weak human being). This is confessed against the Greeks who would not believe that Jesus fully became human and the Jews who could not accept his divinity. The coming of Jesus in the past has effect in the present. The Son of God fully stepped into history as mediator between us and the Father. It is not merely a confessional article, but indicates a true personal relationship with God through Jesus and the consequence on how we live.

Both the short and the long variations convey this same message.

In the short version there is however another difference found in the English translations. Grammatically both are equal.
Some translations, like the NIV states: “every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God.”
Here the translator puts the emphasis on Jesus as Person. That would include both natures the divine as well as the human.

Other translations have another interpretation,
Like the BBE: “And every spirit which does not say this is not from God:”
And the CEV: “But when someone doesn’t say this about Jesus,”

Now the translation is referring back to the statement in the preceding sentence, and on the acknowledgement of the human nature of Jesus, which is the test in the struggle against the Docetism.

Looking at all the facts above, the short variation as we find in the modern versions, seems to render that which John had written down under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Even the choice between the two possibilities in the short version accentuates the delicate choices the translator is often confronted with.

In our time it is not the human nature of Jesus that is attacked. It is His divine nature. The translation with “Who does not confess Jesus” emphasizes both natures of Jesus. Therefore I personally prefer this version. “Every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God.” And in our day those who do not acknowledge Jesus, are very active. We should take note and not allow them to undermine our faith! “Do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God.”

God bless,

Herman

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

152 Without a cause, Matthew 5:22.

In the King James Version, we find a statement that is lacking in the NIV and most modern versions of the Bible. “…Without a cause…” is left out.
“But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment…” (KJV)

What would be the reason for this?
To come to an objective answer, we use three criteria.

1. External criteria.

Our first criterion is to look at the manuscripts available that represent these variations.

Matthew 5:22

Variation: Without this indication: With “without cause”:
Witnesses: Greek: Translations: Church Fathers: Greek: Translations: Church Fathers:
101-200 Papyrus 67 Gospel of the Nazarenes, Ptolemy, Justin Diatessaron
201-300 Irenaeus (Latin), Tertullian, Origen* Sahidic Irenaeus (Greek), Origen*, Cyprian
301-400 Sinaiticus, Vaticanus Vulgate Eusebius, Basil 1 Old Latin, Bohairic, Gothic Eusebius, Lucifer
401-500 Ethiopic Augustine Bezae, Washington 4 Old Latin, 5 Syriac, Armenian, Georgian Augustine, Cassian, Ps- Justin, Chrysostom* , Cyrel- Alexandria
501-600 Pseudo-Athanasius
601-700 3 Old Latin
701-800 Regius
801-900 Cyprius, Sangallensis, Koridethi, Petropolitanus, Minuscule 33 2 Old Latin
901-1000 1 Old Latin
1001-1600 1 Minuscule Family 1, Family 13, 16 Minuscules, Byzantine Manuscripts, Lectionary 1 Old Latin

What immediately draws our attention is that the oldest Greek manuscript, the Papyrus 67 (±200 A.D.) together with three representatives of the Church Fathers before the year 200 A.D. all quote this verse without the indication “…without cause…). On the other hand the Diatessaron from the same period does have this indication. But the Diatessaron that Tatian the Syrian compiled in 170 A.D. is seen by Bible Experts as a document of low esteem. Tatian compiled the four gospels into one continuous narrative, adding some of his personal notes and leaving out portions as he pleased. Yet due to the convenience of having one instead of four gospels, his document was widely used and copied. Only much later the leaders in the Church realised that his document caused many alterations in the Greek texts. Then in was abolished and replaced with the original gospels.
It is noteworthy that Irenaeus (†202 A.D.) quoted this verse in his Latin writings without these words, but in his Greek writings with the phraze. Could it be that his Greek copy had already been influenced by the Diatessaron? Origen (†254 A.D.), Eusebius (†339 A.D.) and Augustine (†430 A.D.) also use both versions.
The Sinaiticus and the Vaticanus (±350 A.D.), both reckoned by Text experts as of the most reliable Greek manuscripts are without this phrase. The first Greek manuscripts with the phrase are the codices Bezae and Washingtoniensis of a hundred years later, both of much lower esteem. The later Greek manuscripts, all dating after 700 A.D. as well as most Antique Translation contain this phrase.

The manuscript evidence strongly calls for the variation without the phrase to represent the original autograph.

2. Internal criteria

Our next criterion is looking at a possible explanation of how a the variation could have originated.
Scribes could easily add a phrase as logic as this without even noticing it themselves, but for removing such a phrase from the text would require clear evidence. In this pericope no such reason is evident.
The original must have been without this phrase.

3. Intrinsic Evidence.
The third objective criterion is to look at the context and the function of the words under observation in the sentence itself. Would Jesus in fact have added this phrase, or would He rather have said or without this phrase?

Let us look at the context:
1) Matthew 5:17: “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.”
Jesus wanted to explain how the Law should be “fulfilled”, or have its real meaning.
2) Verse 20: “For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.”
Would “without cause” not have been exactly what the scribes and Pharisees have said? But Jesus said that our righteousness should exceed what they teach.
3) Verse 22 b: “…and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.”
Jesus emphasizes that it is about much more than just the letter of the Law.
4) Verse 23: “So if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you…”
Once again Jesus places the responsibility not on the guilty brother, but on his follower.

From the context it is obvious that Jesus is stressing much more than just justified anger. He stresses that his follower has a responsibility that should come from within.

Looking at the function of this phrase within the sentence itself, it is clear from the others examples that Jesus mentioned that He is not talking about cases where there are any grounds for being angry at all. Being angry with your neighbour has already damaged the relationship, and that is already against the core of this law.

According to the context it is obvious that Jesus is talking about being angry per se, and not whether there are grounds for being angry or not.

4. Conclusion.
With all three objective criteria in favour of the version where the phrase “..without cause…” is lacking, that version should be chosen as representative of the original autograph.

God bless,

Herman.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

151 “Through the Spirit” left out? 1 Peter 1:22

In his first epistle, Peter calls upon his readers to take responsibility for their lives in following Jesus. In the first chapter, verse 22, we are confronted with two variations in the manuscripts.
The one version is represented in the NIV as: “Now that you have purified yourselves by obeying the truth so that you have sincere love for your brothers, love one another deeply from the heart.” (NIV)
The other version is found in the KJV as: “Purifying your souls in the obedience of the truth THROUGH THE SPIRIT to unfeigned love of the brothers, love one another fervently out of a PURE heart,” (MKJV) Note the words in uppercase.
We investigate this verse to try to establish which version has the greater chance to represent the original autograph.

If we exclude “Spirit” in the clause of our present investigation, Peter uses the word “spirit” six times in his first epistle. Three times he refers to the spirit of man (3:4, 4:6, 4:14), and three times to the Holy Spirit (1:2, 1:11, 3:18). In all three cases where he refers to the Holy Spirit, it is directly linked to Jesus or His work. “Spirit” is not found in the second epistle. Here in verse 22 the Holy Spirit is however linked to the Christian in his responsibility for his life in following Jesus. This is unusual for Peter.

1 Peter 1:22

Possibilities: By obeying the truth. By obeying the truth through the Spirit.
Witness: Greek: Translations: Church Fathers: Greek: Translations: Church Fathers:
101-200
201-300 Papyrus 72 Sahidic Clement
301-400 Sinaiticus, Vaticanus Bohairic Priscillian
401-500 Alexandrinus, Ephraemi Syriac Armenian Vigilius
501-600
601-700 Syriac Old Latin
701-800 Atous- Laurae
801-900 Mosquensis, Porphyrianus, Uncial 049
901-1600 Uncial 056, Uncial 0142, 9 Minuscules 13 Minuscules Ps-Oekumenius

Our second criterion is to examine the manuscripts available. It is noticeable that all six of the older Greek manuscripts (200 – 800 A.D.), four Ancient Translations (200 – 700) and quotations by the Church Fathers all are without this reference to the Spirit in this verse. The clause is first found in three Greek manuscripts after 850 A.D. and in two Ancient Translation of 450 and 650 A.D. This is a very strong indication that this clause could not have been in the original autograph, but had been added to the text at a very late date.
But what us important is that the addition of this clause is not only foreign to Peter, but goes directly in against the spirit of this chapter. Peter urges his readers to take responsibility for their lives. Adding “through the Spirit” in this way, makes the Christian dependent on the Spirit instead of taking responsibility himself as is urged in this chapter and in fact throughout the whole epistle. It might sound good, but this alteration is a serious deviation from the Word of God as the Holy Spirit had inspired Peter to write down.
We cannot hide behind the Holy Spirit!
God Bless,
Herman.
Your comments at the bottom of this page are very welcome, or directly to me at bibledifferences@gmail.com

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

150 Who is greater than all? John 10:29

In John 10:29 we have a variation that is extremely important. Does “greater” refer to the Father who gave the flock to Jesus, or to the flock itself?
Is the Father greater than all, or is the flock the Father gave Jesus, greater than all?

KJV: “My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father’s hand.”

Good News: “What my Father has given me is greater than everything, and no one can snatch them away from my Father’s care.”

BBE: “That which my Father has given to me has more value than all; and no one is able to take anything out of the Father’s hand.”

Our first criterion to consider is to look at how strong the different variations are represented in the manuscripts we have.

John 10:29

Possibilities: My Father is greater: The flock is greater:
Witness: Greek: Translations: Church Fathers: Greek: Translations: Church Fathers:
101-200 Papyrus 66
201-300 Sahidic Adamantius
301-400 Vaticanus 2 Old Latin, Bohairic, Gothic Ambrose Sinaiticus, Syriac, Achmimic, Bohairic Basil, Diodore
401-500 3 Old Latin Jerome Bezae, Washington Old Latin, 2 Syriac, Armenian, Georgian Chrysostom*, Nonnus*, Cyril
501-600 2 Old Latin
601-700 3 Old Latin Syriac
701-800 Regius, Atous- Laurae

801-900 Petropolitanus, Sangallensis, Cyprius, Koridethi, Campianus U
901-1600 2 Old Latin 20 Minuscules, Families 1 and 13, 6 Lectionaries

The United Bible Societies examine all manuscripts known all over the world. They consider more than 6,500 Greek manuscripts, more than 18,000 manuscripts of Ancient Translations and the quotations or references of more than 200 Church Fathers before they decide on a specific variation to use as their text. Then they give all the information concerning these sources in an apparatus at the bottom of the page. This enables anyone to see which variation is supported by which document. But even then they also evaluate their own choice in a scale of A: “The text is virtually certain”, to D: “There is a very high degree of doubt concerning the reading selected for the text.” In this verse they selected the variation that says “the Father is greater”, but gave their choice a “D” rating. This actually means that a panel of highly educated experts on Greek and the New Testament say that both variations have equal grounds, but they had to make a choice.
Accordingly the variation saying that the Father is greater than all, has a very slight advantage to represent the original autograph.

Our next criterion to evaluate the two versions is to try and understand how this variation could have originated. The difference is caused by a single letter, an omicron, or an omega. Is it “meizon”, or “meizōn”? Is it the third person singular, or third person plural? Whether a scribe misread his source manuscript, or confused the letter in his mind going from the source to the copy he was making, or even if he deliberately altered his copy to suit his preference, it could have gone either way. This brings us no further to establishing the original.

Lastly we can examine the context where this variation is embedded. The Jews confronted Jesus by asking Him to tell them plainly whether He was indeed the Christ or not. To this Jesus answered: “I did tell you, but you do not believe. The miracles I do in my Father’s name speak for Me, but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. My sheep listen to My voice; I know them and they follow Me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; No one can snatch them out of my hand. [THE SHEEP OR MY FATHER] who has given them to me, is greater than all; No one can snatch them out of My Father’s hand. I and the Father are one.” (NIV) Did Jesus say the sheep are the greater than all, or did He say his Father is greater than all? How can we solve this conundrum?

The case for the sheep:
Jesus compares his followers as his sheep in opposition to the Jews. His sheep will be given eternal life in contrast with the Jews, for the flock listen and know and follow Jesus. Jesus is the Christ on behalf of them. And no one can snatch them out of His or out of his Father’s hand. He and the Father stand on equal foot in favour of the sheep. All these remarks prove the utmost greatness with which Jesus sees His followers in opposition to the Jews. They are most certainly greater than them, for they were even given to Jesus by the Father! If they were not that important to Jesus, why would He do so much for them?

The case for the Father:
Right at the beginning of his answer Jesus says that the miracles He does are in the name of the Father. And it is indeed the Father who gave Jesus the sheep. And no one can snatch them out of the Father’s hand. And then Jesus concludes with the statement that He and the Father are one.
Both cases have strong firm grounds to claim the “greater” attribute! Did Jesus say that the Father, or that the sheep was greater than all?

But finally we have to bear in mind that this is not a statement on its own concerning the relationship between Jesus, the flock and the Father. It is indeed the essence of the answer Jesus gave the Jews on the question whether He was indeed the Christ! What would drive the message home that Jesus is indeed the Christ to his flock in opposition to the Jews?
Would Jesus mean: “Understand this, Jews: I am indeed the Christ to my flock, for no one can snatch out of my hand, or out of my Father’s hand who is greater than all, for I and the Father are one, for their well-being!”
Or: “Understand this, Jews: I am indeed the Christ to my flock who are greater than all, for no one can snatch out of my hand, or out of my Father’s hand for I and the Father are one, for their well-being!”

Both variations stand on equal foot, but let the light fall on a different aspect of the epitome of the whole plan of salvation!
This sentence makes some comparison. Somebody is more important than someone else. The Father is not compared to anybody in this conversation. But the sheep are compared to the Jews. This actually calls for the version of saying that “the sheep are the greater” to be the authentic version. Does this not make sense?

God bless,

Herman.

Commentary at the bottom of this page or directly to me at bibledifferences@gmail.com is very welcome.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

149 Sodom and Gomorrah left out of Mark 6:11?

A careful study of the synoptic gospels clearly reveals that Matthew and Luke made use of Mark when they compiled their gospels. Therefore the three gospels correspond nearly word for word in a huge amount of material. But Matthew and Luke had another source called “Q” (Quelle, German for a well) in which they both correspond, but is not found in Mark. And then each of them also did their own unique research, adding material that is unique to that gospel only.

In Mark 6:11 we are confronted with a variation where the clause in uppercase (KJV) is not found in the modern Bibles like the NIV.

“And whoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when you depart from there, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. TRULY I SAY TO YOU, IT SHALL BE MORE TOLERABLE FOR SODOM AND GOMORRAH IN THE DAY OF JUDGEMENT THAN FOR THAT CITY.” Continue reading

Posted in External Criteria, Internal Criteria, Intrinsic Criteria | 1 Comment

148 Teacher to the Gentiles? 2 Timothy 1:11

It was customary for a writer to introduce himself to his addressee. Paul introduced himself in 2 Timothy 1:1. But when Paul comes to the essence of this letter, he emphasizes his position of authority with which he comes to Timothy. For this reason he was appointed. But here in 2 Timothy 1:11 we find two variations in the manuscripts.
The first variation indicates Paul in a general ministry to all:
“Of which I was made a preacher and an Apostle and a teacher;” (BBE)

But the second variation indicates Paul as an apostle and teacher specific to the gentiles: “to which I am appointed a preacher and an apostle and a teacher OF THE NATIONS.” (MKJV)

So how did Paul introduce himself here in the second epistle to Timothy? Continue reading

Posted in Context, External Criteria, Internal Criteria, Intrinsic Criteria | Leave a comment