Some Textual Variants In Collosians

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by Rippon, Oct 31, 2011.

  1. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,403
    Likes Received:
    328
    I will be going by Comfort's book on textual variants in the NT.

    1:6
    WH NU : it is bearing fruit and growing
    var/TR : it is bearing fruit

    "The manuscript evidence both early and diverse,overwhelmingly supports the wording in WH NU...[The TR variant]is probably the result of scribal error." (p.620)

    1:7
    TR NU : a servant on your behalf
    var/WH : a servant on our behalf

    "The Greek documentary evidence for the variant reading is far superior to that for TR NU..." (p.621)

    1:14
    WH NU : the redemption
    var/TR : the redemption through his blood

    "[T]his variant did not appear in a Greek manuscript until the ninth century. Nonetheless,TR has this reading,followed by KJV and NKJV." (p.622)

    2:11
    WH NU : the body of the flesh
    var/TR : the body of the sins of the flesh

    "The reading found in WH NU has the support of all the earliest manuscripts." (p.627)

    2:18
    WH NU : delving into things which he has seen
    var/TR : delving into things which he has not seen

    "The WH NU has exceedingly superior support and suits the context exactly..." (p.628)

    3:6
    TR NU : the anger of God is coming on the sons of disobedience
    var/WH : the anger of God is coming

    "The variant has early documentary support,and there is no reason why the extra phrase would have been deleted if it originally stood in the text." (p.630)

    3;13
    WH NU : the Lord
    var/TR : the Christ

    "The WH NU reading has excellent documentary support [p36 A B D* F G]" (p.631)

    3:15
    WH NU : the peace of Christ
    var/TR : the peace of God

    "The lateness of corrections in a number of manuscripts (none earlier than the sixth century)reveals the secondary nature of the variant reading." (p.632)

    3:16b
    WH NU : to God
    var/TR : to the Lord

    Comfort cites P46 and other superior documentation supporting the WH NU reading. "The variant reading is the result of scribal conformity to Eph. 5:19,a parallel passage." (p.632,633)

    3:17b
    WH NU : giving thanks to father God [or,God the Father]
    var/TR : giving thanks to God and [the] Father

    "The variant is the result of scribal conformity to Eph 5:20,a parallel passage.The WH NU reading has excellent documentation..." (p.633)
     
  2. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,403
    Likes Received:
    328
    The header of the OP should have been Colossians. This scribe is tired.
     
  3. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    Rippon, your work here is very interesting and I can see why you are tired. It is fascinating to see the differences broken apart with the textual discussion after each. I thank you for the work and will be printing and keeping a notebook with all your variations.

    All in all it does show that if we take our Bibles in context and study from more than one version it seems that there is so little deviation as long as we stick to the major accepted versions. It is so easy for someone to pull one verse out that does not have a word and say that the Bible is obviously wrong because it leaves out the words "Son of God" in one specific place and ignore all of the other chapters and verses. When I say there are several hundred differences between two translations, that means nothing.

    Also, I have heard people complain about a translation being worse because it has less "Christology" than another translation because they count the word "Christ" or some other word. This certainly doesn't make the translation with 5 more than the other one more accurate as long as the message is clear. I see why scholars believe that we are a good percentage of the original manuscripts with a high degree of accuracy.

    I certainly see that it is also important that we should read more than one manuscript, especially if we are going to use the King James version because I was suprised at how many words I thought meant something that it didn't due simply to the earlier English.

    Does this make sense to you Rippon? I am having trouble getting my sentences out today for some reason. But, I think you can catch my drift. Excellent Job and I appreciate it. Very informative.
     
  4. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,403
    Likes Received:
    328
    It's the work of Philip Comfort and his son John --not me. I am just citing a fraction of his material.

    So true.


    Thanks.
     
  5. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,403
    Likes Received:
    328
    As far as textual variants go --the TR agrees with NU 6 times in this book and also it agrees 6 times with WH.

    1:7 : NU
    2:7b : WH
    2:10 : WH NU
    2:23 : WH NU
    3:4 : WH
    3:6 : NU
    3:16 : WH NU
    3:23 : WH NU
     

Share This Page

Loading...