Tag Archives: TC

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 Robinson-Pierpont edition, the Gospel According to Matthew.

Codex Basilensis in Swanson

The New Testament Greek Manuscripts series by Reuben Swanson is a very valuable work, and an amazing one. What a huge task he did! I am grateful for it. In such a large and complex work, there are bound to be errors.

The uncial E (07), Codex Basilensis, is a 6th century Greek manuscript of the four gospels of the New Testament. Because it is complete for those books, and relatively ancient, makes it important. However, it is not cited in the critical apparatus of the NA28. It is cited in Swanson, but only when it differs from the BYZ group.

Because of this lack of citation, this manuscript is one whose reading I often look up personally on the Uni-Münster site images. No transcription is available; I look at the photographs of the manuscript itself and find the readings in it.

I should probably keep a log of the errors I find in Swanson’s work touching Codex E. The latest is in Matthew chapter 20 verse 21. The mother of James and John, wife of Zebedee, is asking Jesus that he decree that her two sons sit one on his right and one on his left in his kingdom. The possessive pronoun σου, “your,” is not found in every manuscript following both right and left, ie., “on your right and your left.” Swanson’s apparatus says that Codex E omits the second σου, joining the Textus Receptus against the majority and the NA28. However, this is not correct. Codex E contains both instances of σου, as can be seen in this snip from the image of the manuscript.

Matthew 20:21 in Codex Basilensis (E, 07)

Current Activities

Though I still have a job doing something I don’t want to do, I now have a little more spare time than I did the last few years. Also, I moved to the state of Florida. I am currently working on 3 projects at once:

1.) Revising and updating my translation of the Apocalypse of John, or the Book of Revelation. My original edition I did about 15 years ago, and it still refers to the UBS4 and NA27. I am updating the GNT editions cited to include the SBL and Tyndale House editions, and of course UBS5 and NA28, as well as the BG, family 35 and Antoniades here and there. In addition, I am eliminating the accentuation of the Greek in the textual variant footnotes, since the direction of the accents would be technically incorrect when outside of the sentence and punctuation of the actual Bible text, and the early manuscripts did not contain them. This is what the Nestle-Aland editions do in their footnotes. This is all in preparation for publishing on Amazon.

2. Revising and updating my translation of the gospel of Matthew, since, again, my original was done 20 years ago or more, and I have learned much since then, and also become less closed to the Byzantine text stream. Like with Revelation, I am adding citation to the SBL and TH editions, but also adding many more textual variants in comparison to the Robinson-Pierpont text, as I am simultaneously creating a Robinson-Pierpont (RP) edition. This is all in preparation for publishing on Amazon.

3. Still slowly translating the Acts of the Apostles, currently in chapter 25.

Acts chapter 26 verse 4

There is a textual variant in the Greek manuscripts of The Acts of the Apostles chapter 26 verse 4, that affects the accuracy of the translations made from them. The variant is the presence or absence of the word τε, which means “and” or “also.” The NA28 and Tyndale House Greek New Testaments contain the word τε, while the Textus Receptus and the Byzantine Majority Text do not contain it.

Here is how the English text reads in some translations with the word τε in their source text:
NIV: The Jewish people all know the way I have lived ever since I was a child, from the beginning of my life in my own country, and also in Jerusalem.
DRP: My manner of life since youth therefore, which took place at first in my own country and also in Jerusalem, is known by all the Jews.

The problem with the text without τε, is that the translations made from it make it sound like the apostle Paul lived his whole life in Jerusalem, when in fact he was from Tarsus in Cilicia before he lived in Jerusalem.

KJV: My manner of life from my youth, which was at the first among mine own nation at Jerusalem, know all the Jews;
NKJV: My manner of life from my youth, which was spent from the beginning among my own nation at Jerusalem, all the Jews know.
EMTV: Therefore my way of life from my youth, which from the beginning was spent among my own nation in Jerusalem, all the Jews know,

Here is the list of the readings of the manuscripts:
 txt εν τε 𝔓⁷⁴ ℵ A B E 181 1175 2464 syr-h-ms SBL TH NA29 {\} εν C H L P Ψ 049 056 33 1611 1739 1891 Byz vg syr-h-ms Chrys TR RP lac 𝔓²⁹ 𝔓¹¹² 048 096.

Luke Ch 2 verse 22

There is a textual variant in Luke 2:22, where the Textus Receptus Greek text reads “her purification,” but all other Greek editions read “their purification. The TR reading is found only in the Catenae, but in no Greek manuscript, or other language version, or in any Church Father writings. The Bishops’ Bible, the Douay Rheims Bible, the Geneva Bible and the King James bibles read “her purification,” but Tyndale reads “their purification,” so they departed not only from the Greek and Latin manuscripts, but also from their predecessor English translation. Wycliffe reads “the daies of the purgacioun of Marie.”

Here is the footnote from my translation of Luke:

txt αυτων 76 rell. Gk. it-q syr-p,h cop-sa,bo-pt AT RP NA28 αυτου D 118 205 209 it-a,aur,b,c,d,e,f,ff²,g¹,l,r¹ vg syr-s cop-sa-ms arm Ir-lat (Adv. Haer αυτον Θ* ‖ omit cop-bo-pt Chrys Diatess-Pers. αυτης TR ‖ lac 𝔓⁴⁵ 𝔓⁷⁵ C F N P Q T.

You can download my translation of Luke here.

Dative Case Marker Words

Modern Greek differs from New Testament Greek in many ways, and one of the biggest differences is that there are no longer any Dative Case inflections or suffixes on words like there were in Koine Greek. Instead, marker words or helper words came to be used.

See for example Luke 21:23 txt τω λαω ℵ A B C D K L M N Π Ψ ƒ¹ ƒ¹³ 33 157 579 892 1241 2542 lat SBL TH ΝΑ28 {\} εν τω λαω E G H S U W Y Γ Δ Θ Λ Ω 2 124 346 565 700 1071 𝔐 syr-h TR RP επι τω λαω 1424 vg: ira populo huic (KJV) ‖ lac 𝔓⁴⁵ 𝔓⁷⁵ F P Q T 28.

Some recent translations of the Majority text render this “wrath among this people.” I disagree with that, and I render both the NA28 and Majority texts the same way.

So also, where the same construction is found in Romans 16:7, ἐπίσημοι ἐν τοῖς ἀποστόλοις, it should be rendered “who are well known to the apostles, and were in Christ before me.”

αὐτοῦ versus ἑαυτοῦ in Luke’s Gospel

I am now fully annoyed by the recurring variant in the gospel of Luke between αὐτοῦ and ἑαυτοῦ.  The UBS and RP texts alternate sides back and forth.

The latest is Luke 15:5, ἐπὶ τοὺς ὤμους ἑαυτοῦ (BYZ) or ἐπὶ τοὺς ὤμους αὐτοῦ (UBS).  He places it upon his shoulders.  The KJV does not render this “his OWN shoulders” as do some recent translations of the BYZ text.  There is no real reason to.

15:26 πατέρα ἑαυτοῦ v. πατέρα αὐτοῦ (BYZ)
Again, there is no reason to render this “his OWN father.”

14:27 σταυρὸν ἑαυτοῦ (UBS) v. σταυρὸν αὐτοῦ (BYZ)
His OWN cross v his cross, this one may be meaningful.

15:20 πατέρα ἑαυτοῦ (UBS) vs πατέρα αὐτοῦ (BYZ)

Complicating this, and perhaps explaining the rise of this, is the contraction of ἑαυτοῦ which is αὑτοῦ. Note the rough breathing mark, which is the only thing that distinguishes it from αὐτοῦ.  The early papyri and uncials may not show this, so they could read either way.

Jude Verse 19

One of the more significant Greek textual variants in the Epistle of Jude is between the Textus Receptus underlying the KJV, versus most other Greek New Testament editions. The KJV says those who separate themselves, and the newer translations say something like those who cause divisions.

Jd 19a txt αποδιοριζοντες ?⁷² ℵ A B K L P Ψ 049 056 0142 0316 18 33 35c 81 93 307 442 665 1241 1739* 1852 2344 latt cop syr arm Cyr Did PsOec TR-Steph Eras Scriv-1887 TG TH WH AT VS HF BG RP TW SBL NA28 αποδιοριζοντες εαυτους C 5 6 35* 323 621 915 1243 1611 1739c 2298 2805 geo TR-Scriv-1894 Col. Beza Elz. ‖ hiant ?⁷⁸ 0251

It is perplexing to me why King James Onlyists like Stephanus’ 1550 TR text, when that is not the text followed by the KJV. Scrivener made his 1894 edition of the Greek New Testament precisely to show the Greek text underlying the KJV.