Category Archives: Announcement

Revelation 1 verse 8

I discovered an error in my footnote to Revelation 1:8. I had manuscript GA 2074 reading as the Textus Receptus, omitting QEOS, but that is not correct. I have now corrected the footnote, and added the variant to my endnote Nr. 4 about singular TR readings. I have also added the readings of some very late MSS that agree with the TR. You can download the corrected Revelation PDF here, and I also corrected the Revelation printed paper and ink edition on Amazon.

Mark’s Gospel 2nd Edition ECM-NA29

Gospel of Mark, 2nd Editions are uploaded.  I have updated my editions of Mark’s gospel to reflect the Editio Critica Major (ECM) data in my footnotes about textual variants.  I also made a few changes to my translation and endnotes. Thus my footnotes give the readings of the ECM, like this one for Mark 9:29:

9:29 txt προσευχῇ καὶ νηστείᾳ “prayer and fasting” ℵ² A C* D E F G H K L N W X Δ (τῇ νηστείᾳ) Θ Π Σ Φ Ψ ƒ¹ ƒ¹³ 28 33 118 157 180 205 565 579 597 700 892 1006 1009 1010 1071* 1079 1195 1216 1230 1241 1242 1243 1253 1292 1342 1344 1365 1424 1505 1546 1646 2148 2174 𝔐 Lect it-a,aur,b,c,d,f,ff²,i,l,q,r¹ vg syr-h cop-sa,bo goth geo2 slav Diatessarona,p Basil TR RP TH ECM= ‖ νηστείᾳ καὶ προσευχῇ “fasting and prayer” (cf. I Cor. 7:5) syr-s,p,pal cop-boms arm eth ‖ προσευχῇ “prayer” ℵ* B 0274 it-k geo¹ Clement SBL ECM= ‖ lac 𝔓⁴⁵ P 067 0233.

Note that there are two readings that are supported by ECM=.  The = sign means that the ECM editors give it a “split primary line” or, that they consider those two readings of equal weight.

Unfortunately, there was an error in my first edition of Mark.  In the verse above, I had failed to change the English text in that I failed to add “and fasting” to the English translation.  This is now corrected in both the electronic and printed versions.  And as I said above, there are also a few changes in the translation and in the endnotes.

The printed Robinson-Pierpont 2nd edition of Mark may be purchased here.  And its Kindle version. The Eclectic Gospel of Mark printed 2nd edition may be purchased here. The PDF of of Mark may be downloaded here.

Gospel of John Byzantine Printed

I have published a paperback edition of my translation of the Robinson-Pierpont Greek text of the Gospel according to John on Amazon. This is a new format, 8 1/2 X 11 in, in order to fit a large chart of manuscript readings of the Pericope Adulterae. This book has the Greek text alternating with my English translation.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/1958612111

There is also a Kindle edition of the same book available, except minus the PA chart, as that chart is just to complex and large for Kindle.

Acitivities October 2023

These are the activities of David Robert Palmer in October 2023:

  1. I am updating, and adding more manuscripts to my chart of the manuscript readings for the Pericope Adulterae, in the style of Swanson. Then the plan is to add it to my 2nd edition of the Gospel of John. In addition to soon publishing a Second Edition of my eclectic-text based Gospel of John, I am composing a Robinson-Pierpont edition, which will also include the PA chart. You can download the PA chart by itself still, at this link: https://bibletranslation.ws/trans/pachart.pdf
  2. On the side I am casually making a harmony of five translations of the Book of Enoch, blending the translations of Richard Laurence, R.H. Charles, M. Knibb, George Schodde, and Matthew Black, plus consulting two Greek manuscripts myself. If you like you can download that file now, and keep checking back for updates: https://bibletranslation.ws/down/enoch.pdf

The Book of Enoch- Laurence

I have typed up the first English translation that was made of the Book of Enoch, translated by Richard Laurence, LL.D., the Archbishop of Cashel. It is a PDF of about 1 gigabyte in size. I also made a printed edition of it on Amazon for $9.95, and a Kindle edition.

The return of the long lost Book of Enoch to the modern western world is credited to the famous explorer James Bruce, who in 1773 returned from six years in Abyssinia with three Ethiopic copies of the lost book.  In 1821 Richard Laurence published this, the first English translation, from the Ethiopic (Ge’ez) manuscript residing in the Bodleian Library at Oxford.  The version I have uploaded is an edition updated in 1883. The volume begins with an introduction, the author anonymous, only described as “the author of ‘The Evolution of Christianity.’ ”  The text of Enoch itself is footnoted where Mr. Laurence has not rendered the Ethiopic literally into English but supplies a literal rendering in the notes.  An anonymous editor has supplied additional notes not by Mr. Laurence, giving the opinions of M. Knibb and R. H. Charles and others.

Richard Laurence, LL.D. (13 May 1760 – 28 December 1838) was an English Hebrew scholar and Anglican churchman. He was made Regius Professor of Hebrew and canon of Christ Church, Oxford, in 1814, and Archbishop of Cashel, Ireland, in 1822. He died in Dublin in 1838.

Warning: the Introduction by the Anonymous author is rather modernistic and “Unitarian,” but it contains valuable and interesting information, including a table of passages in Enoch placed next to New Testament passages that were evidently influenced by them. Download the free PDF, or purchase the paperback edition or the Kindle Edition of the Book of Enoch.

Change of Rendering John 9:33

The verse John 9:33 has bothered me as long as I can remember.  In the King James Version it says:

“If this man were not of God, he could do nothing.”

The ESV, NIV, NRSV, NASB etc, all the mainstream translations say the same thing, or use the word “anything” rather than “nothing.”

This bothered me, because it is not true.  Men who are not from God CAN do something, including miracles.  For example, in Exodus 7:10-11, Pharaoh’s magicians turned a wooden staff into a snake.

The context of this verse, the verse immediately before this in John, is the man who was blind from birth, who after having been healed by Jesus, told the Pharisees, “Since time began, reports have not been heard that someone opened the eyes of one born blind.”

So first of all, the man is saying Jesus would not have been able to do THAT PARTICULAR miracle if he were not from God.  This is clearly what he meant, but most conservative translations are too afraid to say this, even in italics.  However, I want to give credit to those translations who at least rendered this part correctly:

(Williams)  If this man had not come from God, He could not have done anything like this.”
(Phillips) If this man did not come from God, he couldn’t do such a thing!”
(GW)  If this man were not from God, he couldn’t do anything like that.”
(ISV)  If this man were not from God, he couldn’t do anything like that.”
(ERV) This man must be from God. If he were not from God, he could not do anything like this.”
(AMPC) If this Man were not from God, He would not be able to do anything like this.
(NOG) If this man were not from God, he couldn’t do anything like that.”
(NLV) If this Man were not from God, He would not be able to do anything like this.”
(NLT) If this man were not from God, he couldn’t have done it.”
(WE) If this man did not come from God, he could not do anything like this.’

Plus the translations of the Syriac Peshitta say:
“If this man were not of God, he could not do this thing.”

This leaving of the object of the verb unsaid is not uncommon in New Testament Greek, I can tell you.  It is proper to supply in your target language something like, “this” or “that,” or “it.”  And there is no need to put those in italics.

Now, those translations above to did supply an object for the verb, still did not render the word οὐδέν correctly.  The verse in Greek is: εἰ μὴ ἦν οὗτος παρὰ θεοῦ, οὐκ ἠδύνατο ποιεῖν οὐδέν.

Both the LSJ and BDAG lexicons say that the neuter form, οὐδέν, in the accusative is an adverb.  See BDAG p. 735, 2 (b) γ- “in no respect, in no way.  This is an “adverbial accusative,” see BDF § 160, where DeBrunner points out another place that John used an adverbial accusative, 8:25 – τὴν ἀρχήν, “at all.”  “Why am I speaking to you at all?”  For οὐδέν here see also LSJ:  III  1. neut. οὐδέν as Adv., not at all.

So, I have revised my translation of John 9:33 here.  I render the οὐδέν as an adverb.  The LSJ says “not at all,” the BDAG says “in no way.”  This healed blind man was very street colloquial in his speech.  I rendered this “Since time began, reports have not been heard that someone opened the eyes of one born blind.  If this man were not from God, no way could he have done this thing.” You can download my translation here.

Papyrus 141

Recently a new papyrus from Oxyrhynchus has been transcribed and published and been given a Gregory-Aland number. The Gregory-Aland number is Papyrus 141, as opposed to P. Oxy 5478 or its library shelf ID at the Sackler Library in Oxford. This new papyrus is dated from the III century, and contains fragments of the gospel of Luke chapters 2 and 24.

So this is to announce that I have added it to my “Table of NT Greek Manuscripts arranged by date” page. I have also added its reading in one footnote in my translation of the gospel of Luke, chapter 2 verse 33.

There is a textual variant in Luke 2:33 where the UBS/NA28 text has “And the child’s father and mother were marveling at the things being said by him.” The Textus Receptus and the Robinson-Pierpont texts say “And Joseph and his mother were marveling…” Our new Papyrus 141 supports the UBS/NA28 reading.

Erasmus has πατηρ “father” in all 5 of his editions.  He said, “In some Greek manuscript I read ‘Joseph’ instead of ‘father’; in my opinion it has been changed by someone who feared that Joseph be called Jesus’ father” (“In Graecis aliquot codicibus lego pro pater, Ioseph; quod arbitror immutatum a quopiam, qui vereretur Ioseph vocare patrem Iesu…”; ‘aliquot’ added in 1519—ASD VI–5, p. 484 ll. 42–44; similarly in Resp. ad annot. Ed. Lei, ASD IX–4, p. 126 ll. 506–509).  So we see that Erasmus figured that copyists changed the original “father” to Joseph, for the very same reasons that KJV Onlyists prefer the reading “Joseph.”  But they forget that the KJV calls Joseph Jesus’ father in several other passages.  Erasmus was correct, but the KJV does not follow him here.

You can download my updated gospel of Luke with Greek text here, and the Manuscripts listed by date page is here. I also updated the printed edition of Luke on Amazon.