Please Help Us Keep These Thousands of Blog Posts Growing and Free for All
Major Critical Texts of the New Testament
Byz RP: 2005 Byzantine Greek New Testament, Robinson & Pierpont
TR1550: 1550 Stephanus New Testament
Maj: The Majority Text (thousands of minuscules which display a similar text)
Gries: 1774-1775 Johann Jakob Griesbach Greek New Testament
Treg: 1857-1879 Samuel Prideaux Tregelles Greek New Testament
Tisch: 1872 Tischendorf’s Greek New Testament
WH: 1881 Westcott-Hort Greek New Testament
NA28: 2012 Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament
UBS5: 2014 Greek New Testament
NU: Both Nestle-Aland and the United Bible Society
TGNT: 2017 The Greek New Testament by Tyndale House
GENTI: 2019 Greek-English New Testament Interlinear
MATTHEW 8:21 2019 Greek-English New Testament Interlinear (GENTI WH TGNT SBLGNT) [CE]
21 Ἕτερος δὲ τῶν μαθητῶν εἶπεν αὐτῷ Κύριε, ἐπίτρεψόν μοι πρῶτον ἀπελθεῖν καὶ θάψαι τὸν πατέρα μου.
MATTHEW 8:21 2012 Nestle-Aland / Stephanus New Testament (NU TR) [P]
21 Ἕτερος δὲ τῶν μαθητῶν [αὐτοῦ] εἶπεν αὐτῷ Κύριε, ἐπίτρεψόν μοι πρῶτον ἀπελθεῖν καὶ θάψαι τὸν πατέρα μου.
|Matthew 8:21 Updated American Standard Version (UASV)
21 Another of the disciples said to him, “Lord, permit me first to go and bury my father.”
|Matthew 8:21 Christian Standard Bible (CSB)
21 “Lord,” another of his disciples said, “first let me go bury my father.”
|Matthew 8:21 New American Standard Bible (NASB)
21 Another of the disciples said to Him, “Lord, permit me first to go and bury my father.”
GENTI TGNT SBLGNT WH ετερος δε των μαθητων
“another of the disciples”
א B 33 it cop
Variant/TR NU ἕτερος δὲ τῶν μαθητῶν [αὐτοῦ]
“another of his disciples”
C L W Θ 0250 f,13 Maj
NOTE: When there is a superscript א* This siglum refers to the original before it has been corrected. The superscript א1 This siglum refers to the corrector who worked on the manuscript before it left the scriptorium. The superscript א2 refers to correctors in the 6th and 7th century C.E., who altered the text to conform more with the Byzantine text.
What are the original words, what is the correct translation, and what is the correct meaning? Why is it somewhat more significant than might be thought? The original wording in Matthew 8:21 is “another of the disciples” (ετερος δε των μαθητων), which is found in the earliest significant manuscripts (א B 33 it cop) and GENTI TGNT SBLGNT WH. We have a variant, “another of his disciples” (ἕτερος δὲ τῶν μαθητῶν [αὐτοῦ]) that is found in (C L W Θ 0250 f,13 Maj) and TR NU, which is a scribal clarification attempting to make more clear what the scribe felt Matthew meant.
Both readings have early and weighty manuscript support and neither of them could be considered a difficult reading because they both make perfect sense. What tipped the scales for The Greek-English New Testament Interlinear (GENTI) and the omission of αὐτο (of him) was the more significantly strong manuscript support from Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus.
The harder reading is the text without αὐτοῦ (of him) because it is more ambiguous, and it does not more readily advance the reader’s understanding. The other textual scholars try to turn to the possible motivation for why the scribe may have omitted the pronoun αὐτοῦ (of him). Metzger argues that “αὐτοῦ [of him] may have been deleted in order to prevent the reader from inferring that the γραμματεύς [scribe] of ver. 19 was one of Jesus’ disciples.” (A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, p. 18) While this sounds feasible, as the scribes of the Pharisees, who created the oppressive oral law to go along with the Mosaic Law and so were despised on one level, the people also viewed them with respect and honor, calling them “Rabbi” (Gr., rhabbi, “My master; My teacher”).
Comfort wrote, “It may have been deleted so that readers would not think that one of Jesus’ very own disciples (whether of the twelve or of the seventy-two) was excusing himself from following Jesus. In this case, the sense is that one of the people who had been following Jesus declined total commitment. Perhaps Matthew intended this meaning, and the variant reading reflects what he originally wrote. If so, the addition of αυτου (‘his’) can be explained as a rote scribal insertion—inasmuch as it was customary for this possessive pronoun to appear after ‘disciples’ in Matthew.” (New Testament Text and Translation Commentary, p. 23) Comfort is right to reject αὐτοῦ (of him) as being the original reading, his suggestion that the scribe inserted αὐτοῦ (of him) in order to make more clear what the scribe felt Matthew meant, clearing up the ambiguity, seems reasonable.
The preferred method of getting at the original words of the original text is the documentary method, which considers internal and external evidence, as well as all manuscripts, yet giving the greater weight to the trusted documents (dates of the manuscripts supporting a reading, the geographical distribution of the manuscripts, and the overall quality both of the individual manuscripts and textual “families.”), and so, it is Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus that are the deciding factor in going against the NU text.
Variant Reading(s): differing versions of a word or phrase found in two or more manuscripts within a variation unit (see below). Variant readings are also called alternate readings.
Variation Unit: any portion of text that exhibits variations in its reading between two or more different manuscripts. It is important to distinguish variation units from variant readings. Variation units are the places in the text where manuscripts disagree, and each variation unit has at least two variant readings. Setting the limits and range of a variation unit is sometimes difficult or even controversial because some variant readings affect others nearby. Such variations may be considered individually, or as elements of a single reading. One should also note that the terms “manuscript” and “witness” may appear to be used interchangeably in this context. Strictly speaking “witness” (see below) will only refer to the content of a given manuscript or fragment, which it predates to a greater or lesser extent. However, the only way to reference the “witness” is by referring to the manuscript or fragment that contains it. In this book, we have sometimes used the terminology “witness of x or y manuscript” to distinguish the content in this way.
TERMS AS TO HOW WE SHOULD OBJECTIVELY VIEW THE DEGREE OF CERTAINTY FOR THE READING ACCEPTED AS THE ORIGINAL
The modal verbs are might have been (30%), may have been (40%), could have been (55%), would have been (80%), must have been (95%), which are used to show that we believe the originality of a reading is certain, probable or possible.
The letter [WP] stands for Weak Possibility (30%), which indicates that this is a low-level proof that the reading might have been original in that it is enough evidence to accept that the variant might have been possible, but it is improbable. We can say the reading might have been original, as there is some evidence that is derived from manuscripts that carry very little weight, early versions, or patristic quotations.
The letter [P] stands for Plausible (40%), which indicates that this is a low-level proof that the reading may have been original in that it is enough to accept a variant to be original and we have enough evidence for our belief. The reading may have been original but it is not probably so.
The letter [PE] stands for Preponderance of Evidence (55%), which indicates that this is a higher-level proof that the reading could have been original in that it is enough to accept as such unless another reading emerges as more probable.
The letter [CE] stands for Convincing Evidence (80%), which indicates that the evidence is an even higher-level proof that the reading surely was the original in that the evidence is enough to accept it as substantially certain unless proven otherwise.
The letter [BRD] stands for Beyond Reasonable Doubt (95%), which indicates that this is the highest level of proof: the reading must have been original in that there is no reason to doubt it. It must be understood that feeling as though we have no reason to doubt is not the same as one hundred percent absolute certainty.
NOTE: This system is borrowed from the criminal just legal terms of the United States of America, the level of certainty involved in the use of modal verbs, and Bruce Metzger in his A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (London; New York: United Bible Societies, 1994), who borrowed his system from Johann Albrecht Bengel in his edition of the Greek New Testament (Tübingen, 1734). In addition, the percentages are in no way attempting to be explicit but rather they are nothing more than a tool to give the non-textual scholar a sense of the degree of certainty. However, this does not mean the percentages are not reflective of certainty.
- B. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort, Introduction to the New Testament in the Original Greek: Appendix (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1882)
- Bruce Manning Metzger, United Bible Societies, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Second Edition a Companion Volume to the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament (4th Rev. Ed.) (London; New York: United Bible Societies, 1994),
- Eberhard Nestle and Erwin Nestle, Nestle-Aland: NTG Apparatus Criticus, ed. Barbara Aland et al., 28. revidierte Auflage. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2012).
- Dirk Jongkind, ed., The Greek New Testament: Apparatus (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2017).
- Dirk Jongkind, ed., The Greek New Testament (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2017), Matt. 6:8.
- Eberhard Nestle and Erwin Nestle, Nestle-Aland: Novum Testamentum Graece, ed. Barbara Aland et al., 28. revidierte Auflage. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2012)
- The NET Bible. Garland, TX: Biblical Studies Press, 2006
- Philip Wesley Comfort, A COMMENTARY ON THE MANUSCRIPTS AND TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Academic, 2015).
- Philip W. Comfort, New Testament Text and Translation Commentary: Commentary on the Variant Readings of the Ancient New Testament Manuscripts and How They Relate to the Major English Translations (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., 2008).
- Philip Wesley Comfort and David P. Barrett, The Text of the Earliest New Testament Greek Manuscripts (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House, 2001)
- Wallace B., Daniel (n.d.). Retrieved from The Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts: http://csntm.org/
- Wilker, Wieland (n.d.). Retrieved from An Online Textual Commentary on the Greek Gospels: http://www.willker.de/wie/TCG/index.html
Please Help Us Keep These Thousands of Blog Posts Growing and Free for All