Tag Archives: gospel

John Ch 7 verse 39

John 7:39 πνευμα “the spirit was not yet present’ 𝔓⁶⁶c 𝔓⁷⁵ ℵ N* T vg-st arm eth geo¹ Or-grk,lat1/6 Ps-Dion Cyr3/9 Hesych Rebap SBL NA28 {A} πνευμα αγιον “the holy spirit was not yet present” 𝔓⁶⁶* E L Nc W 047 𝔐 eth Or-lat4/6 Marcellus Did-dub Chrys Cyr6/9 Thod Tyc TR RP TH πνευμα δεδομενον “the spirit was not yet given” it-a,aur,b,ff²,l,r1 vg-cl,ww syr-c,s,p Eus Vict-Rome Ambrosiaster Ambrose Gaud Jer Aug πνευμα αγιον δεδομενον “the holy spirit was not yet given” B it-e,q vg-mss (syr-h δεδομενον with *) syr-pal geo² Or-lat1/6 το πνευμα αγιον επ αυτοις “the holy spirit was not yet upon them” D* το πνευμα το αγιον επ αυτους”the holy spirit was not yet upon them” D¹it-f ‖ lac A C P Q 0233.

Codex Vaticanus reads: ··ουπω γαρ ην πνευμα αγιον δεδομενον οτι ις̅ ·· (umlauts)

Note: The Tyndale House going against an A reading of the UBS. The NIV, ESV, NET, CSB follow the πνευμα δεδομενον reading, and the KJV and NASB put “given” in italics. Whereas Tyndale reads “For the holy goost was not yet there because that Iesus was not yet glorifyed.”

It should also be noted that the versions such as Latin which read “not yet given” may have had a source text without δεδομενον but the translators supplied “given” just like many English translations do.

John 3:34 Translation Issues

John 3:34- 
ὃν γὰρ ἀπέστειλεν ὁ θεὸς τὰ ῥήματα τοῦ θεοῦ λαλεῖ, οὐ γὰρ ἐκ μέτρου δίδωσιν τὸ πνεῦμα.”
For he whom God has sent speaks the words of God; because to him God gives the Spirit without measure.”

 txt το πνευμα 𝔓³⁶ 𝔓⁶⁶ 𝔓⁷⁵ 𝔓⁸⁰ ℵ B¹ C* L Wsupp 083 it-b,e,fc,l Or-grk Cyr Vict-Pett½ SBL TH NA28 {B} ο θεος το πνευμα A C² D E 047 086 𝔐 it-a,aur,(d),f*,j,π,q,r¹ (itff² του θεου) vg syr-p,h cop arm eth geo Or-lat Did-dub Chrys Vict-Pett½ Greg-Elvvid Jer Aug TR RP ο πατηρ τω υιω αυτου syr-c,Diatess-Eph  ο θεος ο πατηρ syrs  omit B* lac Ν P Q T 0233

The Bible translator confronts two questions here: (1) whether to include ο θεος “God” or not; and (2), whether the verb δίδωσιν has an implied direct object, i.e., the person who is the subject being discussed, “he whom God has sent,” the Son.

On the first question, we cannot tell which text the translations are following, since they could have, like I did, even though following the Greek text not containing ο θεος, felt a need to clarify who was doing the giving, and added the word “God” anyway.  Note in the critical apparatus that indeed the Curetonian Syriac and the Diatessaron supplied τω υιω αυτου, “to his Son.”  That does not mean that their Greek exemplar contained those words.)

Following are he translations which we presume follow the UBS/NA text, which nevertheless supply the word “God” for clarification:

Weym   for God does not give the Spirit with limitations.”
CBW      for God continues to give Him the Spirit without measure.
AMP      for God gives the [gift of the] Spirit without measure [generously and boundlessly]!
CEB        because God gives the Spirit generously.
CJB         For God does not give him the Spirit in limited degree —
ERV        God gives him the Spirit fully.
EHV?     for God gives the Spirit without measure.
GW        After all, God gives him the Spirit without limit.
GNT       because God gives him the fullness of his Spirit.
ICB         . God gives him the Spirit fully.
ISV         because God does not give the Spirit in limited measure to him.
MOUNCE    for God does not give the Spirit in a limited measure.
NCB       for God gives him the Spirit without measure.
NCV       because God gives him the Spirit fully.
NIV        for God gives the Spirit without limit.
NLT        for God gives him the Spirit without limit.

On the 2nd question, whether a direct object is implied as to whom the Spirit is given without measure, the following translations supply “him” or some other stand-in for the Son:

CBW      for God continues to give Him the Spirit without measure.
Bishops       For God geueth not the spirite by measure vnto hym.
CJB         For God does not give him the Spirit in limited degree —
CEV        and he has been given the full power of God’s Spirit.
DLNT     For He does not give Him the Spirit from a measure.
ERV        God gives him the Spirit fully.
Genev  for God giveth him not the Spirit by measure.
GW        After all, God gives him the Spirit without limit.
GNT       because God gives him the fullness of his Spirit.
ICB         God gives him the Spirit fully.
ISV         because God does not give the Spirit in limited measure to him.
PHILLIPS    and there can be no measuring of the Spirit given to him!
KJV         for God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him.
NCB       for God gives him the Spirit without measure.
NCV       because God gives him the Spirit fully.
NLT        for God gives him the Spirit without limit.

And those which do not supply an object:

Weym   for God does not give the Spirit with limitations.”
AMP      for God gives the [gift of the] Spirit without measure [generously and boundlessly]!
Tyndale     For God geveth not the sprete by measure.
ASV        for he giveth not the Spirit by measure.
CSB        since he gives the Spirit without measure.
CEB        because God gives the Spirit generously.
EHV        for God gives the Spirit without measure.
ESV        for he gives the Spirit without measure.
HCSB     since He gives the Spirit without measure.
MOUNCE    for God does not give the Spirit in a limited measure.
NAB       He does not ration his gift of the Spirit.
NASB95     for He gives the Spirit without measure.
NET        for he does not give the Spirit sparingly.
NIV        for God gives the Spirit without limit.
NKJV     for God does not give the Spirit by measure.
NRSV     for he gives the Spirit without measure.
RSV        for it is not by measure that he gives the Spirit;

Now a conclusion I make about which was the true early Greek text, is that it was the reading without ο θεος, as in the 3rd centruy 𝔓⁸⁰, and that the Byzantine text, coming out of Syria, had to acknowledge the prior popularity of all the Syriac language translations that were already popular, including the Diatessaron which was more popular than the individual Greek gospels.  The Syriac translators I say, supplied “God” or “the Father” for clarification just as many modern translations do even though their translations were based on a Greek source text that doid not include ο θεος.  Fortunately, the addition of ο θεος in the text does no harm, since that is who is doing the giving clearly from context.

Pericope of the Adulteress

In the Pericope of the Adulteress, John 8:6 has the most significant and interesting variant in the passage.  In the part where Jesus bends down and writes in the ground, about half of the majority text manuscripts add the words μη προσποιουμενος, see below.

εις την γην D Μ S U Γ Λ Ω 047 0233 2c 7 8 9 28 65c 115sup 118 700 892 1049 1071 1203 1216 1243 1514 2722 lat TR-Eras,Beza,Elz,Steph AN HF BG [NA28]

εις την γην       προσποιουμενος 1194

εις την γην μη προσποιουμενος E G H K 2* 18 27 35 65* 346 475 532 579 682 1212 1505 1519 2561-mg 2253 2907 geo-mss TR-Scriv RP

  lac  F P Q V Π

The John 8:6 passage it translated into English like this: “But Jesus bent down and was writing in the earth with his finger, taking no notice.”

But what was Jesus writing?  Messianic Rabbi Zev Porat (and Jerome before him) has a good answer to this.

Just prior to this in John 7:38, Jesus had declared himself to be the fountain of living waters.  And now that the Jewish leaders had turned away from that fountain, Jeremiah 17:13 was being fulfilled in two ways: they were put to shame, and their names were being written in the earth. Jeremiah 17:13 says, “Thou hope of Israel, Yahweh! All that forsake Thee shall be ashamed; they that turn away from Thee shall be written in the earth, because they have forsaken Yahweh, the fountain of living waters.”

This is in contrast to those who believe in the Son of God and are born again.  Their names are written in heaven, not in the earth which will be destroyed.  Luke 10:20; Hebrews 12:23; Phil 4:3; Rev. 13:8; 17:8;20:12,15; 21:27; Psalm 69:28.

The above material can be read in my translation of the gospel of John, in PDF and in Print, and in Kindle.

Gospel of Matthew Printed Editions

I have published on Amazon two editions of my translation of the gospel of Matthew. They alternate verse by verse between the Greek text and my English translation. They have 671 footnotes each. I have footnoted with critical apparatus most all the meaningful variants between the NA28 text and the Robinson-Pierpont Greek text.

Eclectic Edition of the Gospel of Matthew, with my Greek text being unique. I follow more Byzantine readings than does the Tyndale House GNT, but on the other hand there are a few times the TH follows the Byz where I do not. I have a couple readings not found in any of the above. The U.S. price on Amazon is $6.89.

The Robinson-Pierpont edition, the Gospel According to Matthew. The U.S. price on Amazon is $6.95.

Neuter Plurals Singular Verb

This post discusses a textual variant in Matthew’s gospel, chapter 26, verse 31, as follows:

διασκορπισθησεται 𝔓³⁷ 𝔓⁴⁵ D E F K U V W Γ Δ Θ Π Φ ƒ¹ 2 28 565 579 1424 pm Eus Chrys Or-pt TR RP διασκορπισθησονται 𝔓⁵³ ℵ A B C G H L M S Σ 067 0281 ƒ¹³ 33 157 700 892 1071 1241 pm Or-pt SBL TH ΝΑ28 {\} lac 𝔓⁶⁴ N P Q Ζ 0233 346

The nominative substantive, the subject of our sentence here, is τα προβατα, “the sheep,” a neuter plural subject. But the BYZ text couples with it a singular verb, διασκορπισθησεται, while the NA28 text uses a plural verb, διασκορπισθησονται.

Classical, Attic, Greek had a grammar rule that broke the grammar rules.  Usually, verbs must agree in gender, number and case with the subject noun.  This is called concord.  But there was a rule that neuter plural subjects usually took a singular verb.

BDF §133: “This is because neuter plurals were originally in part feminine singular collectives: Schwyzer ɪ 581 f.). The rule appears to have been most strictly followed in the Attic dialect (Schwyzer ɪɪ 607); Homer and Koine are less consistent, while the plural is used exclusively in MGr.  In the NT (as in the LXX and pap.: Mayser ɪɪ 3, 28 ff.) there is marked diversity, and often in individual instances the MSS diverge.  The plural is used for the most part in Herm. (1) The plural is used especially with neuters designating persons (also class., K.-G. ɪ 65), most frequently with ἔθνη, less often wth τέκνα and δαιμόνια. (2) The singular, on the contrary, preponderates with words having non-personal meaning (even when a numeral is inserted: ἐὰν γένηται…ἑκατὸν πρόβατα Mt 18:12), (3) and even more so with abstracts and pronouns (ταῦτα, ἅ etc.).—For stereotyped ἴδε, ἰδού, ἄγε used in spite of a plural subject, s. §144.”

Smyth §958: “A neuter plural subject is regarded as a collective (996), and has its verb in the singular: καλὰ ἦν τὰ σφάγια the sacrifices were propitious X.A.4.3.19.  Here, sheep are a herd, a collective, so take a singular verb, the herd is scattered.  But Smyth then says in §959, “A plural verb may be used when stress is laid on the fact that the neuter plural subject is composed of persons or of several parts: τὰ τέλη τῶν Λακεδαιμονίων αὐτὸν ἐξέπεμψαν the Lacedaemonian magistrates despatched him (Thuc. 4.88), φανερὰ ἦσαν καὶ ἵππων καὶ ἀνθρώπων ἴχνη πολλά many traces both of horses and of men were plain X.A.1.7.17. (a.) With the above exception Attic regularly uses the singular verb.  Homer uses the singular three times as often as the plural, and the plural less frequently with neuter adjectives and pronouns than with substantives.  In some cases (B 135) the metre decides the choice.” 

Here in Mt 26:31 the sheep are persons, so one cannot declare with absolute certainly which reading in this variant is grammatically correct for classical Greek.  Now, there are many other examples of this category of variant in Matthew, but I am showing this one because so many papyri are extant.  The testimony is equally early for both readings.  Each has a III century papyrus in support, 𝔓⁴⁵ and 𝔓⁵³.  The Greek Old Testament, the Septuagint, does not pertain here, as Zech 13:7 in the LXX does not have the same sentence structure, that is, there is no neuter plural subject.  Rather it says, “Strike the shepherds, and remove the sheep…”  I should also mention that neither the Byzantine majority text nor the “critical text” consistently follow this Attic rule. There are variants where the Byz breaks the rule and the critical text follows it.

Now a question for us is, was Matthew (or his translator, if he wrote his gospel in Hebrew or Aramaic) bound to follow Attic rules, or even familiar with Attic rules?  Possibly editors or copyists of Matthew corrected what they thought was incorrect grammar, to follow the Attic rule.  But in this variant we probably have a legitimate exception to the Attic rule since the sheep are persons.  This explanatory note, and many like it, can be read in my translation of the gospel of Matthew, downloadable here.

Matthew chapter 25 verse 6 variant

There is a variant in the Greek manuscripts of the gospel of Matthew, chapter 25 verse 6, where the Majority text reads, “Look! The bridegroom is coming,” while the NA28 reads, “Look! The bridegroom.”  So the NA28 text lacks the word ερχεται, “is coming.”  Then after that, in both texts, the next Greek word is also a form of the word “come,” εξερχεσθε, and says “Come out to meet him.”

νυμφιος ερχεται C³ E W Σ Φ latt syr-p,h arm Chrys TR RP νυμφιος ℵ B C* D L Z cop-sa Cyr SBL TH NA28 {\} lac A N P 0233 0281

What I found that is significant, is that the scribe of Codex D, Codex Bezae, first wrote εξερχεται, which is only two letters different than ερχεται, just adding εξ to it, “out,” but then he omitted εξερχεσθε that is supposed to follow that according to all manuscripts.  He seems to have gotten confused by the similarity of the two words.  Here is a snip from the image of Codex D.

Matthew 25:6 in Codex D

So in view of the problem the scribe of Codex D had, I changed my Greek text to that of the Majority text, adding ερχεται, “the bridegroom is coming.”  Because I find this to be an explanation as to how the variant arose, how ερχεται dropped out of text streams.  In other words, the most important question in textual criticism is, which variant best explains the rise of the others?

Where Swanson is Correct

I have pointed out lately a few places where Reuben Swanson’s apparatus has been incorrect, so now I will be fair and point out a place where I think Swanson is correct and the NA28 apparatus is not.

In Matthew chapter 22 verse 30 there is a variant where most manuscripts say “are like the angels of God in heaven,” but some mss. say only “are like the angels in heaven.” (As does the parallel passage in Mark 12:25.) It is the difference between:
ὡς ἀγγελοι τοῦ θεοῦ εν ουρανῶ εισιν and
ὡς ἀγγελοι εν ουρανῶ εισιν.

Swanson’s apparatus says the original reading of Codex E (07) did not have the words τοῦ θεοῦ “of God” and then a corrector (possibly the original scribe himself) rubbed out the original writing and added those words. The NA28 apparatus, however, does not indicate that the manuscript has been corrected there. I think Swanson is right here. Here is a snip of the manuscript:

Note that in the second half of the second line, the words ΤΟΥ ΘY̅ ƐΝ ΟY̅ΝW̅ ƐΙCΙΝ are smaller and fainter than all the other letters. This means the scribe had to shrink the rest of the words on the line in order to fit ΤΟΥ ΘY̅ in the line without having to correct the next line as well. As long as we are here, if you have not seen “nomina sacra” before, here we have two of them. The genitive form of the word θΕΟΣ, ΘΕΟΥ is shortened to ΘY̅ with a line above it. And the dative form for the word for heaven, ΟΥΡΑΝΟΣ, ΟΥΡΑΝW, is shortened to ΟY̅ΝW̅ with two overlines. These are called “nomina sacra” and they did this also for the words Jesus, Christ, David, Holy Spirit, and sometimes for Jerusalem and other words.