Some Textual Variants In The Book Of Acts

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by Rippon, Oct 21, 2011.

  1. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    I am going to go by Philip w.Comfort's book : New Testament Text and Translation Commentary. I will not necessarily quote all of his findings.


    3:22a
    WH NU :Moses indeed said
    variant/TR : for Moses indeed said to the fathers

    "The WH NU has outstanding manuscript support. The expanded text,in whatever form,is a natural extension,perhaps influenced by 3:13 and 3:25." (p.340)

    4:24b
    WH NU :Master,you who made the heaven
    variant/TR : Master,you are the God who made heaven

    The variant is a scribal expansion,probably intended to heighten the believers' adoration in prayer or imitate prayers found in Exod 20:11;Ps 146:6;Isa 37:16-20. (p.344)

    5:33
    The verb decided suits the context better than took council because the scene depicts a rash action motivated by rage rather than a rational decision motivated by judiciousness. (p.350)

    5:34
    WH NU : the men
    var/TR : the apostles

    According to WH NU,which have excellent testimony,a full translation is,"He [Gamaliel]commanded the men to be put outside for awhile." (p.350)

    6:8a
    WH NU : full of grace and power
    var/TR : full of faith and power
    var2 : full of grace and faith and power

    The WH NU reading has extraordinarily good documentary support...The variants are the result of scribal harmonization and expansion. (p.353,354)

    6:13
    WH NU : he never stops saying things
    var/TR : he never stops saying blasphemous things

    The scribal insertion in TR of the word "blasphemous"heightens the accusation against Stephen. (p.355)

    7:37
    WH NU : at end of verse,omit ("hear him")
    var/TR : at end of verse add ("hear him")

    The WH NU has the support of the four earliest manuscripts,as well as the majority of manuscripts. (p.358,359)

    9:18
    WH NU : he saw again
    var/TR : he saw again instantly

    The manuscript evidence for the WH NU reading is vastly superior to that for TR...It is a case of overload to add "instantly" after ("immediately"). (p.366)
     
    #1 Rippon, Oct 21, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 21, 2011
  2. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    10:6
    WH NU : conclude verse with :who is in a house by the sea
    var/TR : add at end of verse :this one will tell you what to do

    "The manuscript evidence is vastly superior to that of the two variants." (p.369)

    10:12
    WH NU : reptiles of the earth and birds
    var/TR : reptiles and beasts and birds

    "The manuscript evidence for the WH NU reading is superior to that for the TR." He goes on to say that there is scribal harmonization with 11:6 in the TR text. (p.369)

    11:12
    WH NU : without making a distinction
    var/TR : without doubting [or,with no hesitation]

    Comfort says that the WH NU has good documentary support --but the TR reading and another variant have weak support. The TR variant "reflects scribal assimilation to 10:20." (p.375)

    15:7
    WH NU : God made a choice among you
    var/TR : God made a choice among us

    The WH NU has excellent testimony. (389)

    15:24
    WH NU : unsettling your minds
    var/TR : unsettling your souls by saying [it is necessary]to be circumcised and to keep the law

    "[T]his is but another example of unnecessary gap-filling,which found its way into TR and KJV." (p.392)
     
  3. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    16:7
    WH NU : the Spirit of Jesus
    va/TR : the Spirit

    "The WH NU reading is backed by both early and diverse documentary evidence." (p.396)

    16:17
    WH NU : they are proclaiming to you
    var/TR : they are proclaiming to us

    "The reading of TR is based on inferior manuscript support." (p.398)

    17:5
    WH NU : the Jews
    var/TR : the Jews not being obedient (= the unbelieving Jews)

    "The WH NU reading has the backing of six excellent manuscripts,as well as the Coptic. The variant shows a bit of pedantic gap-filling..." (p.401)

    18:5
    WH NU : Paul was occupied with the word
    var/TR : Paul was occupied in the Spirit

    "The documentary evidence strongly supports the WH NU reading,as does the context..." (p.406)

    21:8
    WH Nu : we came into Caesara
    var/TR : they who were accompanying Paul came into Caesarea

    "The words were added to the beginning of thsi verse in the majority of late manuscripts to identify the subject...Even the KJV and NKJV translators did not follow this reading precisely;instead rendering it..'we who were accompanying Paul came into Caesarea.' "(p.417)

    23:9
    WH NU : And what if a spirit or an angel spoke to him?
    var/TR : And what if a spirit or an angel spoke to him? Let us not fight against God.

    "This interpolation was included in TR and then translated in KJV and NKJV." (p.421)

    24:6-8

    WH NU : omit 24:6b-8a
    var/TR : add 24:6b-8a :And we would have judged him according to our law. But the chief captain Lysias came and with great violence took him out of our hands,commanding his accusers to come before you.

    Comfort says this is yet another case of gap-filling. It's an interpolation that tries to add an explanation. (p.423,424)

    24:26
    WH NU : [hoping]money might be given to him by Paul
    var/TR : [hoping]money might be given to him by Paul so that he might release him

    "The WH NU reading has vastly superior documentary support than that behind TR. The majority of manuscripts display a natural scribal expansion here." (p.425)
     
  4. Martin Marprelate

    Martin Marprelate
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2010
    Messages:
    2,500
    Likes Received:
    454
    Hello Rippon,
    I'm not quite sure why you're posting all this stuff.
    First of all, the examples show how very little difference the variants make to our understanding of the text, and secondly, your man Comfort (so far as you've quoted him) gives no reasoning to support his assertions which seem to me to be quite groundless. I could maintain the opposite with just as much logic. I'm afraid I don't find him the meast bit persuasive.

    On almost all the examples, if you go to the textual apparatus of your Greek N.T., you will find the little word byz supporting the T.R. This means that the vast majority of the extant texts support what Comfort is pleased to call the 'variant.' I am not prepared to discard 95% of the extant manuscripts in order to agree with Comfort. Sorry!

    There is one place where the Critical Text agrees with the majority against the T.R.
    All I will observe is that if I adopt the T.R. reading I cannot be going too far wrong since I shall be quoting the word of God (Deut 18:15).

    Steve
     
  5. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    For educational purposes.

    I would have thought that you would want to have a translation that is as accurate as possible. What you term "very little difference" is troubling. You want to have an honerst handling of the Word of God --the Scriptures are not to be trifled with. What may seem minor to you is very important to me.

    I only gave some of his rationale behind the various passages I have cited in my threads on textual variants.


    Only one place? No,you're wrong Steve. There are quite a few. Why do you say that anyway?
     
  6. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    "The majority of manuscripts" is what Comfort said. The WH NU are supported by :p45 Sinaiticus A B 044 Maj

    The variant reading is the result of scribes filling out an OT citation to bring it into conformity with Deut 18:15,as well as Acts 18:15,as well as Acts 3:22,which has the same quotation. The filled-out reading is as follows: "This is the Moses who said to the sons of Israel,'the Lord God will raise up a prophet for you from your own brothers,as he raised me up. Hear him.'" TR adds "Lord" (supported by C E H P and other MSS)before "God." (Comfort p.359)
     
  7. Martin Marprelate

    Martin Marprelate
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2010
    Messages:
    2,500
    Likes Received:
    454
    Yes, I understand that. You will be aware that in 90% or so of the texts in question, the large majority of extant manuscripts agree with the Received Text. Acts 7:37 is one of the 10%. Unless I am mistaken, it is the only one of those that you posted on this thread.

    Once again, you have no proof whatsoever for that. It is simply your opinion.
    Exactly so, and one reason that I feel entirely comfortable reading and preaching from the Received Text on that verse is that it accurately portrays what Moses actually said to the Israelites in Deut 18:15. :D

    Steve
     
  8. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    A Tally

    It might be interesting to total the number of times that the TR agreed with the WH and NU in the book of Acts as far as variants are concerned.

    1:26 : TR WH NU
    2:5 : TR WH NU
    2:16 : TR WH NU
    3:6 : TR NU
    3:13a : TR WH
    4:1 : TR NU
    4:6 : TR WH NU
    5:17 : TR WH NU
    5:28 : TR NU
    6:7a : TR WH NU
    7:43a : TR NU
    8:39 : TR WH NU
    9:17 : TR WH NU
    10:19 : TR NU
    11:20 : TR WH NU
    13:18 : TR WH NU
    13:33b : TR WH NU
    13:44 : TR WH
    13:48 : TR NU
    14:25a : TR WH NU
    15:20c : TR WH NU
    16:32 : TR NU
    17:4 : TR WH NU
    17:28 : TR WH NU
    20:28a : TR WH NU
    21:11 : TR WH NU

    So according to these results the WH agreed with the TR 19 times when it comes to variants. The NU agreed with the TR on 24 occasions.
     
  9. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    That's a given. But that doesn't give the TR any weight in my eyes. There are other considerations that must be taken into account which I have mentioned time and again.

    You are mistaken. I haven't bothered to itemize all the documents in favor of the TR or the NU and the WH.

    In 9:18 the TR,WH, and NU did not use the TR.

    In Acts 10:6 WH NU went with the Maj Text. However it also used P74 Sinaiticus A B C 1739.

    Steve,do you think that TR in any of its incarnations has never made an interpolation? Do you believe it has never harmonized a parallel passage? Do you claim it has never made an expansion ostensibly to fill in what a scribe considered a need filler? I could go on and on with a number of these and other examples of text fiddling that the history of the TR has been engaged in.
     
  10. Martin Marprelate

    Martin Marprelate
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2010
    Messages:
    2,500
    Likes Received:
    454
    Well, perhaps it should do. To depend so greatly upon two manuscripts whilst discarding literally hundreds of others does not seem very smart to me. Nothing that you have quoted from Comfort has caused me to change my mind.
    Actually, I have no dog in this fight. If you can convince me that I should rely on Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, it would make life much easier for me.
    There certainly are, including some that you have not mentioned. For instance, some of the earliest papyrus fragments contain distinctively Byzantine readings (eg. P45, P46, P66). Professor H. Sturz has listed 150 Byzantine readings with early papyri support. Also, contrary to what is often claimed, many ECFs quote from the Byzantine Text. It is clear therefore that the Alexandrian Text-type is no older than the Byzantine. The division in the texts happened very early on. Given that, I feel it right to go with the text that has the larger manuscript support. Where the Majority Text agrees with the Critical Text, the position is more difficult, but since these are a relatively small number, I shall continue with my trusty NKJV until someone convinces me otherwise, and printing out these rather pathetic assertions from Comfort is not going to do the job.
    Rippon,
    I think it might be good to take a long look at the T.R., especially in Revelation. This should be done at the same time as a fresh revision of the KJV which would remove some of the weaknesses of the NKJV. However, do you think that Sinaiticus has no scribal errors in it? Scrivener described it as "Roughly written.......full of gross transcriptural blunders....leaving out whole lines of the original."

    Steve
     
  11. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    You can,in your preaching, quote the entirety of Deut. 18:15.However,in the original of Acts 7:37 "Hear Him" was not there.

    The TR tends to add a lot to the original texts.I went through a number of passages from just two pages of Matthew last night. There were a number of Old Testament citations. Usually they were not citing in the fuller way it was said in the O.T.

    Check these out with your trusty NKJV:

    2:6 quoting Micah 5:2
    2:15 quoting Hosea 11:1
    2:18 quoting Jer. 31:15
    3:3 quoting Isa. 40:3
    4:6 quoting Ps. 91:11,12
    4:7 quoting Deut. 6:16
    4:10 quoting Deut. 6:13
    4:16 quoting Is. 9:1,2

    When Jesus or any author of the New Testament quotes from the Old Testament it is rarely a complete citation --sometimes it is very much paraphrased and in altered form from the original writing made centuries before.

    Therefore your contention that one needs a translation with "hear Him" is very much in doubt Steve. And especially so since the four earliest manuscripts did not include it.
     
  12. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    I have told you before that it was not just two manuscripts Steve. With reference to Acts 7:37 the WH NU relied on P45 A 044 Maj as well as Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.

    Really? I think you actually do.

    It's not a matter of relying on them alone. There a number of other older documents that support a lot of readings that the WH and NU use.

    Metzger says these in particular are proto-Alexandrian (A New Testament manuscript which predates the Alexandrian manuscripts but appears to have been used in making those manuscripts.)

    But look also at the findings of other New Testament textual scholars such as Black,Fee,Epp,Holmes and Wallace.

    Most New Testament textual critics favor the Alexandrian text-type as closer to the autographs.

    Why do you say "pathetic assertions" Steve? Do his words make you feel sympathy,or do think his justifications are weak?



    "The Byzantine manuscripts constitute the largest group and are the furthest removed from the original text in most sections of the New Testament. The one notable exception is the book of Revelation,where several Byzantine manuscripts preserve a purer form of the text.(p.878) [I emboldened the last sentence.]

    I know that the Byzantine is not equivalent to the TR,but I thought I'd give you a bone. :)

    The TR though is not that reliable with respect to the book of Revelation. You don't think that one 12th century manuscript that Erasmus depended upon was that trustworthy,do you? A lot of the TR readings are textually spurious.

    It would be only fair if you would answer my questions first Steve,but yes,Sinaiticus has a number of omissions and some interpolations in the book of Revelation.

    Sinaiticus was tired/careless in his handling of Revelation according to Comfort.

    But Sin.(for short,don't read anything into it) was rather diligent most of the time.

    In general the TR and the Byz texts are smoother than the Alexandrian. That should raise suspicions. If readings are less polished it would seem to indicate that they are the ones closer to the originals.
     
    #12 Rippon, Oct 30, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 31, 2011

Share This Page

Loading...