I have completed and uploaded my translation of the Robinson-Pierpont majority text version of the gospel of John. You can download that as the separate pdf file, or as part of the Byz Holy Bible: http://bibletranslation.ws/trans/johnwgrkbyz.pdf http://bibletranslation.ws/trans/holybiblebyz.pdf ; A Microsoft Word edition of the whole bible is also available: http://bibletranslation.ws/trans/holybiblebyz.docx
The oldest Greek manuscript we have of any significant part of the Gospel of Matthew is probably Papyrus 64/67 (𝔓⁶⁴). Regarding Papyrus 64, there are 7 places where the Byzantine Robinson-Pierpont (RP) text and/or the Textus Receptus (TR) disagree with the Critical Text (CT), and where P64 is also extant:
5:20, CT and P64 read υμων η δικαιοσυνη, RP has η δικαιοσυνη υμων
5:22, CT and P64 read αυτου, RP reads αυτου εικη
5:25, CT and P64 read ο κριτης, RP reads ο κριτης σε παραδω
5:27, CT and P64 and RP read ερρεθη, TR reads ερρεθη τοις αρξαιοις (difference between TR and Robinson-Pierpont)
26:8, CT and P64 read μαθηται, RP reads μαθηται αυτου
26:22, CT reads εις εκαστος, RP reads εκαστος αυτων, but P64 omits both of these
26:23, CT and P64 read μετ εμου την χειρα εν τω τρυβλιω, RP reads μετ εμου εν τω τρυβλιω την χειρα
So, P64 agrees with CT 5 out of 7, agrees with CT and RP against TR 1 out of 7, and against both CT and RP 1 out of 7.
The only really significant variant is 5:22. CT and P64 say “angry with his brother,” and RP text says “angry with his brother without a cause”
5:27, CT and P64 and RP say “You have heard that it was said,” and TR says, “You have heard that it was said to the people long ago.”
26:22, CT says, “they began each one to say to him; RP says “they began each one of them to say to him,’ and P64 says “they began to say.”
My son Jacob sent me a list of what he thought might be typos in my translation of Mark:
2:16 – “Torah scholars of the Pharisees” instead of “Torah scholars and the Pharisees”
This is a Greek textual variant between the Nestle/Aland, United Bible Societies’ text, versus the Textus Receptus. The text as I have it is referring to the Torah scholars belonging to the sect of the Pharisees; there were Torah scholars belonging to other sects as well. This is not the only place we find this variant; it is in other passages and other gospels too.
2:23 – The heading is “Man Over the Sabbath”. I was wondering if you meant “Lord Over the Sabbath”?
Well, I have it purposely ambiguous, because not only is there a man who is Lord over the Sabbath, Jesus Christ, but also it means man is more important than the Sabbath. Judaism made the Sabbath the most important thing in the Jewish universe, far more important than people, or any other part of the Torah, even more important than an actual walk with God.
5:35 – “Why inconvenience the teacher any farther?” Farther is used for physical distances. If it is figurative, it should be further. I think it’s a stretch to call it a physical distance.
Yes, further is for abstracts, and farther is for physical distance, but in fact, if you look at it, physical distance is actually what is being talking about. Jesus had not yet traveled all the way to him, so they are saying, why make Jesus come all the way. Why make the Rabbi go even farther out of his way. I do remember thinking about that a long time when I translated it. Maybe I will make a footnote about it. BTW, people are losing that distinction these days, I have heard even news anchors use the words wrongly.
9:23 – Jesus said to him, “‘If I can’?…” First, shouldn’t the single quote mark be after the question mark? Secondly, why is it necessary, since Jesus is paraphrasing the father?
Yeah, the Greek actually says, quoting the father directly “What is this ‘If you can’ you are saying.” I’ll have to think about what to do there. But you are right, the quotation marks are not necessary for an indirect quotation.
14:22 – “taking a loaf of bread and blessing” Should there be an it after blessing to indicate that the bread was being blessed?
Here, the Greek word for blessing is also the Greek word often used to mean “giving thanks,” or “praising.” Jesus was actually blessing God, not the food particularly, but blessing in the sense of praising God for it. The lesson is, you bless the food by praising God for it. I remember making it deliberately ambiguous so that people would stop and think. Catholics would have an easier time understanding it, since they use those words more interchangeably than Protestants do. I guess I should make a footnote explaining it.
The Longer Ending of Mark
The “Longer Ending” of the gospel of Mark was not the majority text, as late as the 5th century. Victor of Antioch said that the majority of copies of Mark in Antioch in the 5th century lacked Mark 16:9-20. It is deceptive to indicate that the absence of the Mark Longer Ending has scant MS evidence. It would also be deceptive to state that the omission of Mark 16:9-20 is an Egyptian or Alexandrian one. Again, Severus, in Antioch, Syria, and Victor, in Antioch, Syria acknowledged that in the 5th century, the best copies, and even the majority of copies, omitted Mark 16:9-20. This is why I do not care what the number of copies made in the 12th, 13th, 14th, 15th, 16th centuries, do include it. Isn’t that reasonable? See my notes in my translation of the Gospel of Mark.
Please share this post about the longer ending of Mark.
You should know that, as is often the case, the mainstream media are not telling you the truth about something. In this case, it is regarding the so-called Gospel of Jesus’ Wife. It is in fact a modern forgery. Here is a good summary of the evidence and the opinions of actual experts.
In this anti-free speech world, you get falsely accused as misogynist for proving wrong a woman, any woman, about anything, no matter how scientifically correct you are.