Category Archives: Commentary

Difficult Robinson-Pierpont Readings

I had difficulty translating these first two passages from the Robinson-Pierpont text, so I looked at the WEB version, which is generally a Majority Text translation, and I see that he did not adapt the RP text in these two passages, but the NA28 instead.

In James 2:18,
the EMTV version follows the TR rather than RP, and the WEB follows the NA28 rather than the TR or RP.

RP: εῖξόν μοι τὴν πίστιν σου ἐκ τῶν ἔργων σου, κἀγὼ δείξω σοι ἐκ τῶν ἔργων μου τὴν πίστιν μου.

“Show me your faith by your works, and I will show you my faith by my works.”


This completely misses the contrast set by the previous sentence: “You have faith, I have works.”  But here, they both have works by which they demonstrate their faith.  The Textus Receptus and the NA28 text do show the contrast, but the TR has one more σου- “your” in it and an extra μου- “my” in it. 

TR: δεῖξόν μοι τὴν πίστιν σου χωρὶς τῶν ἔργων σου, κἀγὼ δείξω σοι ἐκ τῶν ἔργων μου τὴν πίστιν μου.

“Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works.”

EMTV: Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by means of my works. 

NA28: δεῖξόν μοι τὴν πίστιν σου χωρὶς τῶν ἔργων, κἀγώ σοι

δείξω ἐκ τῶν ἔργων μου τὴν πίστιν

DRP: “Demonstrate to me that faith of yours without works, and I will demonstrate faith to you by means of my works.”

WEB: “Show me your faith without works, and I will show you my faith by my works.”
The WEB follows the NA28 without the extra “your” found in the TR, because the NA28 text has the clearest teaching of the principle. 

Revelation 3:7

TR: ὁ ἔχων τὴν κλεῖδα τοῦ Δαβίδ, ὁ ἀνοίγων καὶ οὐδεὶς κλείει, καὶ κλείων καὶ οὐδεὶς ἀνοίγει

the one holding the key of David, who opens and no one closes, and closes and no one opens

NA28: ὁ ἔχων τὴν κλεῖν Δαυίδ, ο ανοιγων και ουδεις κλεισει
και κλειων και ουδεις ανοιγει
“the one holding the key of David, who opens and no one closes, and closes and no one opens”

RP: ὁ ἔχων τὴν κλεῖν τοῦ Δαυίδ, ὁ ἀνοίγων καὶ οὐδεὶς κλείσει αὐτὴν, εἴ μὴ ὁ ἀνοίγων: καὶ οὐδεὶς ἀνοίξει.

the one holding the key of David, who opens and no one shall close except the one opening, and no one shall open:

WEB: he who has the key of David, he who opens and no one can shut, and who shuts and no one opens

EMTV: He who has the key of David, He that opens and no man shuts, except He that opens, and no man shall open.”

The EMTV follows the RP text but it inaccurately says “no MAN” shall open, but that is not in the Greek.  The WEB version follows the TR or NA28, which say the same thing as each other with slightly different verb tenses. 

Acts 26:4

RP: τὴν ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς γενομένην ἐν τῷ ἔθνει μου ἐν Ἱεροσολύμοις

My manner of life since youth therefore, which took place at first in my own country in Jerusalem

NA28: τὴν ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς γενομένην ἐν τῷ ἔθνει μου ἔν τε Ἱεροσολύμοις
My manner of life since youth therefore, which took place at first in my own country and also in Jerusalem

The problem with translations made from the Byzantine Greek text not containing τε – “and also” – is that they are saying Paul’s life was spent in Jerusalem from the beginning, when in fact his country was Cilicia, in the city of Tarsus. (Acts 9:11; 21:39; 22:3; 23:34).  Under the law, Paul was a citizen of Cilicia, Acts 23:34.  Paul consistently calls Cilicia his “country” and Israel his “nation.”The WEB version, a Majority Text translation, therefore does not follow the TR or Majority text here but follows the NA28 instead.

You can download my translations of James, Revelation, and Acts at these links.

.

Timing of Baptism

The apostles and prophets gave us teaching by example on the topic of the timing of baptism. We find in the book of the Acts of the Apostles that believing the gospel and getting baptized are closely associated.

Acts 2:38– And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized each one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins.
Acts 2:41- The ones therefore who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand souls were added during that day.

Other passages in Acts showing immediate baptism are 8:12; 8:36-38; 9:18; 10:47-48; 16:14-15; 16:32-33; 18:8. You were expected to be baptized at the same time as you believed, they are a simultaneous event.

Take for example the Philippian jailer, when he believed, he was baptized “on the spot…in the middle of the night.” (Acts 16:31-34).

In Acts 8:13 Simon the magician was baptized by the apostles even though they knew his heart was not right. But he had professed belief, so he had to be baptized immediately, that is true doctrine and practice.

This doctrine of immediate baptism is so important, that God performed a miracle for the Ethiopian eunuch. In Acts 8:26, the scripture tells us that the road he was on was desert. Yet as soon as the eunuch believed, they saw a body of water deep enough for both Philip and the eunuch to get down into it and the eunuch be baptized. (Acts 8:36)

Have you believed, but are not yet baptized? If so, you are in disobedience to the apostles of Christ, and your leaders are in disobedience, who have neglected to baptize you immediately upon your profession. Satan, the enemy of your soul, wants you to have a cooling down period.

Am I saying that, if say, a man leads 3 people to belief in the gospel on Thursday, that he should not wait until the next Sunday to baptize them? Exactly! I am saying that if he led someone to the Lord during lunch break at work on Thursday, the convert should tell his boss he is leaving his job temporarily in order to find water to be baptized that Thursday afternoon, baptized by the believer who told him the gospel. What a powerful testimony that is, that you drop everything else going on in order to find water and be baptized. You are now dead to the world, so what else matters? Find water, and show everyone that you died and were buried with Christ, and have come out in newness of life, and nothing else matters. Do not allow anything or any human to let you cool down from your first love.

This truth about the timing of baptism has bearing on a couple textual variants in the Greek New Testament text. The biggest one is in Acts 8:37, where it was added to the narrative of the Ethiopian eunuch, where the eunuch had asked, “Look, water. Is there anything forbidding me to be baptized?” Then an addition was made later to the text which says, 37″And Philip said, ‘If you believe with all your heart, it is permissible.’ And he answered and said, ‘I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.’ “

Similar is an addition made to Acts 2:41. Papyrus 74, Codex Sinaiticus, Codices A, B and C, Sahidic Coptic, the Ethiopic, Clement, and Eusebius read: “The ones therefore who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand souls were added during that day.”

But later manuscripts read: “The ones therefore who READILY accepted his message were baptized…”But this “readiness” was not for the baptizers to judge. If the person accepted the message and professed belief, they were to be baptized, period.

The bishops had later decided that there should be some kind of “probationary period” to see whether the convert was serious or not. They also made baptism something only “clergy” could perform, but this is not indicated by the example and teaching of the apostles.

At the same time, since believing the gospel and baptism are closely connected, it is not appropriate for an infant to be baptized since the infant is not capable of believing the gospel and repenting of his/her sins.

James Ch 4 verse 5


James 4:5

I love the King James Bible and I read it more often than any other translation.  But there are some very strange renderings in it that are a problem.  The epistle of James, chapter 4 verse 5 is one example.  But most of the other translations are not much better here.

KJV – The spirit that dwelleth in us lusteth to envy  


On the surface, the KJV sounds like it is saying that the Holy Spirit really really wants to envy. But that is certainly not true about the Holy Spirit.

NASB – “He jealously desires the Spirit whom He has made to dwell in us”?


NASB1995 – “He jealously desires the Spirit which He has made to dwell in us”?

That also is a problem. If the word Spirit were not capitalized, it would be a little less of a problem.  But as it is, how does God jealously desire himself?

ESV – “He yearns jealously over the spirit that he has made to dwell in us”?


CEV – “God truly cares about the Spirit he has put in us”?

NRSV – ‘God yearns jealously for the spirit that he has made to dwell in us’?

NIV – he jealously longs for the spirit he has caused to dwell in us*?           

*Or that the spirit he caused to dwell in us envies intensely;           
  or that the Spirit he caused to dwell in us longs jealously


CSB – The spirit he made to dwell in us envies intensely? 
(No, surely not. )

NET – “The spirit that God caused to live within us has an envious yearning”? 

NLT – God is passionate that the spirit he has placed within us should be faithful to him. 


The following are closer, but are under-translating in my opinion: 


GW – “The Spirit that lives in us wants us to be his own.”ERV – “The Spirit God made to live in us wants us only for himself.” 

ISV – the Spirit that God caused to live in us jealously yearns for us? 

My translation (DRP) reads, “The Spirit whom God made to dwell in us craves possession of us, tending toward jealousy”

https://bibletranslation.ws/trans/james.pdf

We Must Judge Ourselves

1 Corinthians 11:31,32: For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world.

1 Pet 4:17-18:  Because the time has come for judgment to begin, starting with the household of God.  And if firstly with us, what will be the fate of those disobeying the gospel of God?    And if the righteous person is barely saved, where will the ungodly and the sinner appear? 

James 5:16: Confess your sins then one to another, and pray for one
another, so you may be healed.

https://bibletranslation.ws/trans/holybible.pdf

James Snapp versus John MacArthur

David Robert Palmer’s response to James Snapp’s document: “Snapp-MACARTHUR-BAD-ENDING-Dec-2023.doc” which Snapp sent to him personally and asked him to read.  I read it, January 27, 2024, and made this document in response.  The paper is about MacArthur’s beliefs about Mark 16:9-20 versus Snapp’s beliefs. I made a PDF of Snapp’s document and you can download that PDF here.  The title of Snapp’s document in the Word properties window is “JOHN MACARTHUR LIAR.”

p. 5, Snapp wrote: “If John is going to say that the Holy Spirit preserved the Scripture in its pure state through all history, how can he turn around and reject these twelve verses?”

Palmer: For textual criticism reasons, like any other variant.  Not everything preserved by the bishops and scribes is scripture.

p. 6, Snapp wrote: “John, you can’t have it both ways:  either the Holy Spirit kept the Scriptures in a pure state, or else the Holy Spirit allowed thousands and thousands of manuscripts in Greek, Latin, Syriac, and Ethiopic were contaminated by twelve verses that the Holy Spirit did not want to be in the text of the Gospel of Mark.”

Palmer: These two options stated by Snapp are no different than in the situation of any other textual variant.  Yes, clearly the Holy Spirit did allow the scriptures to be contaminated, that’s why we have textual variants, and textual critics trying to ascertain the authorial texts.  The Holy Spirit also allowed religious leaders to set aside the Word of God in order to set up their own traditions of men. We do not need to take heed to that kind of men.

p. 6, Snapp wrote: ” Once the premise is accepted that the Holy Spirit has providentially preserved the purity of Scripture for the church in all ages,”

Palmer: I imagine MacArthur’s view of this is the same as mine: The Holy Spirit did preserve the pure text of Mark 16 in Codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, plus in all the other manuscripts in any era and any age, which did not include the Longer Ending of Mark.  REMEMBER, there were dark ages when the regular people had no access to any written form of the word of God at all, but that was the fault of the type of high-church “bishops” whom Snapp trusts to have preserved the Word of God for us!

p. 9 Snapp wrote: “and you will see that over 99.9% of these manuscripts support including Mark 16:9-20.”

Palmer: That is, 99.9% of all currently existing manuscripts.  But as MacArthur knows, Eusebius indicates that the majority of manuscripts in his day did not contain the Longer Ending of Mark.  And in the 5th century, Victor of Antioch says that was still the case, that most manuscripts did not have it, and he and his colleagues set about the task of adding the Longer Ending of Mark to the manuscripts.  Snapp knows this, or should know.

Snapp next rebuts some minor points of MacArthur that do not pertain to Mark in particular, so I will skip ahead.

p. 13, Snapp clarifies what “oldest manuscripts mean” and says the Dead Sea Scrolls are older, etc.  Well this is not relevant because we all know MacArthur meant the oldest manuscripts which contain the whole gospel of Mark.

p. 21, Snapp disagrees with MacArthur’s claim that one can reconstruct the entire NT text from quotations of the Fathers.  I don’t have an opinion on that.

p. 24, Snapp addresses preservation again, and my response would be the same as previously.

p. 25, Snapp asks “Did generation after generation of Vulgate-readers use a “bad ending”?  Did all the Greek-speaking Orthodox believers, gathering annually on Ascension-day, read 12 verses that the Holy Spirit did not want them to read?”

Palmer: I don’t know MacArthur’s answer to that, but my answer is “Yes.”  The “high church” denominations like the Roman Catholic church have many things that were added by the traditions of men, by “bishops” who granted themselves unwarranted authority, which I reject.

p. 25, Snapp:  Did the Reformers develop doctrine based on this passage that they never should have used? 

Palmer: I don’t know that the reformers based doctrine on the LE of Mark, but if they did, they should not have.

p. 37, Snapp says MacArthur says Irenaeus, Justin Martyr and Tatian showed knowledge of other endings.  Snapp says they did not.

Palmer: I do not know what MacArthur is basing his statement upon.  I don’t know that Snapp knows either, but Snapp proceeds to affirm that those men believed that the Longer Ending was scripture.  I cannot imagine that those men were unaware that there were manuscripts of Mark that did not have the Longer Ending.  I do not believe that they were unaware.  Since Eusebius and Victor were aware of this, why would the others not be aware of it.

Snapp ends his document by giving a long list of scholars and pastors and text books that state opinions about the evidence for this textual variant.  My impression is that Snapp is giving them as examples of misinformation.  But Snapp fails to say which fact from these quotations are in error according to him, and therefore which facts John MacArthur should not also be stating.  So this long section was really not helpful.

p. 42, Snapp says “Finally:  REPENT.  Stop spreading falsehoods about the ending of Mark.  If you need to become better-informed about Mark 16:9-20, I offer to you, and to each of the elders of Grace Community Church, a copy of my book, Authentic:  The Case for Mark 16:9-20 (Fourth Edition).”

Palmer: I do not think that anything MacArthur said warrants this level of rebuke.  He interprets the historical evidence differently than Snapp does, and granted might have made a few very minor mistakes based on outdated information, since he is quite advanced in age and had his training many decades ago.  But those are very minor and do not warrant this level of rebuke.

p. 92, Snapp says: “Be careful of what you say, John, lest on the day of judgment you come to a “bad ending.”  REPENT   and trust the word of God.  NOW

Palmer: To demand that John MacArthur “trust the Word of God” is ignoring the very point of controversy, that is, whether Mark 16:9-20 is the word of God.  I do not believe Mark 16:9-20 is the word of God, and I take it that MacArthur does not believe it is the word of God.  If anyone is in danger, I think it is the person who ADDED 16:9-20 to the word of God.  I agree with MacArthur that Mark 16:9-20 is a bad ending.  See my translation of Mark for my main reasons: https://bibletranslation.ws/trans/mark.pdf  

Snapp takes a lot of space giving places where church fathers quoted the Longer Ending of Mark as scripture.  This is not what is in dispute.  The question is, “should they have quoted Mark 16:9-20 as scripture?”  The answer is no.  I say that Snapp and others are in denial about the evidence found in the writings of Eusebius, Victor of Antioch, etc. that most manuscripts at that time did not contain the Longer Ending of Mark.  In view of that evidence, those church fathers should not have made any strong doctrinal assertions based on a passage that was clearly disputed.  Nor should we today.  I know, Snapp will respond that Eusebius could not know what all the manuscripts of Mark in the world said.  True enough, but he quoted people who said that most manuscripts did not have the LE, and he did not correct them on that.  It was apparently common knowledge.

I also want to say that John MacArthur is to be commended for not closing his church during “Covid.”  On the day of Judgment, I believe most pastors in America will have cause to be ashamed that they let a mayor or governor or president use false authority to get them to close their churches.  This latter is relevant because it is also a question of authority true authority versus false authority.  We must have spiritual discernment from God in order to discern truth from error.

This document by Palmer can be downloaded as a PDF here. https://bibletranslation.ws/down/Palmer-Response-to-Snapp-RE-MacArthur.pdf
One of the sermons given by John MacArthur, containing the points which Snapp rebuts, is found in this 12 year old video by John MacArthur entitled “The Fitting End to Mark’s Gospel (Mark 16:9-20)” here: https://youtu.be/NmudwnVPQ7A
The document by Snapp here. https://bibletranslation.ws/down/Snapp-MACARTHUR-BAD-ENDING-Dec-2023.pdf
David Robert Palmer’s translation of the gospel of Mark with a long endnote discussing Mark 16:9-20: https://bibletranslation.ws/trans/mark.pdf

Candace Queen of the Ethiopians

In Acts 8:27, in the King James Version, we are told that the Ethiopian eunuch was “of great authority under Candace queen of the Ethiopians.”  This word Candace came to us through the Latin language, from the original Greek κανδακη – Kandake.  As is usually the case, a letter “C” in KJV names was originally a “K.”

This Kandake was not the woman’s name, but rather her title.  She was “the Kandake of the Ethiopians, like how we say “the Pharaoh of Egypt. This title was used for at least 5 known queens of the Nubian kingdom.  The wording of the translation should be that the eunuch was of great authority under The Kandake. 

My research into the original Nubian pronunciation of the word leads me to believe it was pronounced Kentakee.  And the personal name of this particular woman, who ruled about the years 25-41 A.D. was apparently Amantitere.  You can read my new translation of the Acts of the Apostles here: https://bibletranslation.ws/acts.html

Acts 27 verse 19

I am translating Acts chapter 27. In verse 18 it says that, because of being in a violent storm, they lightened the ship by throwing stuff overboard. Then in verse 19 it says they threw stuff overboard “with their own hands.” But wait, whose hands were doing the ship lightening in verse 18 then?

Was it because of this very problem that the Byz text of verse 19 has the main verb in the 1st person, to differentiate the actors from verse 18? So the Byz text says “WE threw the ship’s equipment overboard with our own hands.”

Who is “we”? Paul, Luke and Aristarchus?

Then again even later, in verse 38, the crew throws cargo overboard to lighten the ship.

Some possibilities I see are:

  1. The Byz text changed the verb in v. 19 to the 1st person in order to eliminate the seeming nonsense described above.
  2. The 𝔓⁷⁴ ℵ A B C text wrote the verse 19 verb in the 3rd person by unconscious assimilation to the 3rd person verbs in the preceding verse.
  3. A long shot, but perhaps the original text in v. 18 had the violent storm itself causing the cargo to fly off the ship, and then in v. 19 the crew starting throwing stuff off with their own hands.

Acts 27:19 txt ερριψαν 𝔓⁷⁴ ℵ A B C 33 181 1175 1739 1891 2464 latt cop SBL TH NA29 {\} ‖ ερριψαμεν L Ψ 049 056 1611 𝔐 syr eth Chrys TR RP ‖ lac 𝔓⁴⁵ 𝔓¹¹² D E H.

Read Acts so far here: https://bibletranslation.ws/acts.html

If your brother sins

Matthew 18:15-17
¹⁵Now if your brother sins, go show him his fault, just between you and him.  If he listens to you, you have won back your brother.  ¹⁶But if he does not listen, take with you one or two others, so that ‘upon the mouths of two or three witnesses every matter be established.’  ¹⁷And if he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the assembly.  And if he refuses to listen to the assembly, he should be regarded by you no differently than a gentile or a revenue agent.”

I agree with the UBS textual commentary that the phrase “against you” [if your brother sins against you] might have been added in order to harmonize this verse with the “against me” of v. 21 shortly thereafter where Peter asks, “How many times shall my brother sin against me and I forgive him?”

Peter was thinking of himself, but Jesus was thinking of the whole church and church discipline.

In my opinion, when it comes to variants in the Greek text of the New Testament, this is one of the most damaging, the longer reading containing “against you,” is damaging. Here is the practical situation.  A brother is reported to have sinned, or be sinning.  But not sinning against anyone in particular in that community.  So no one goes and confronts him about it, because it was not involving them.  The result is gossip, and then inflating of the original rumor, and even ultimately progressing to people “bearing false witness against their neighbor.” I know very well this scenario personally, because there are rumors about me sinning which are false rumors, but no one has come to me to talk to me about it. The rumor just keeps spreading, and takes on the appearance of truth since so many people have heard it.

Does anyone in that scenario want to “win back your brother”?  If you have Christian love for your brother, you will go to him and talk to him about it, even if he did not sin against you in particular, because if the rumor is true, you want him to be restored.  And if the rumor is not true, you do not want people spreading untrue things about your brother. This may not be scientific textual criticism, but I believe for practical and doctrinal and ecclesiological reasons that the shorter reading must be correct.

This is a very important, and very wonderful passage in the Bible, if applied correctly. Because it nips in the bud the problem of gossip. If you cannot get one or two others to agree to be witnesses with you against this brother regarding the accusation, then the accusation is probably not true. And if you do get someone to go with you, and you confront the brother, and he asks, when and were did you see me do this sin, and neither you nor your witnesses can answer that question, then that is another indication that the rumor is false. You have just been believing a rumor, started perhaps by some jealous person who has a personal problem with the accused. Then after finding that out, you have an obligation to rebuke anyone whom you hear repeating the false rumor.

You can download my translation of the Gospel of Matthew here.