Tag: New Testament Textual Studies

PAPYRUS 30 (P30) P. Oxy. 1598 Dating to about 200-250 A.D.

Uncover what was truly written in the early Christian church with Papyrus 30. This ancient manuscript, dating back to 200-250 A.D., contains a portion of the Pauline epistles and is considered to be one of the most reliable early copies of the New Testament. Discover the importance of Papyrus 30 in the study of early Christianity and the establishment of the original readings in the New Testament text. Buy out a few minutes to read this short article and delve into the history of this significant text.

0

Why Is Acts 23:9 Not Found In Our Modern Bible Translations?

This phrase, which also appears in Acts 5:39, does not appear in the earliest and best resources—p74  א A B C (original hand) E Ψ. Latin, Syriac, and others—and does not appear until H L and P (all 9th century). As the original verse ended with a question, it is suspected that this phrase was taken from 5:39 to serve as an answer. Even before the KJV, it was omitted in the Wycliffe and Douay-Rheims versions. It was omitted from editions of the Greek New Testament at least as far back as 1729, in Daniel Mace's edition.

0

Was Acts 13:42 in the Original Acts of the Apostles?

The KJV passage, with its explicit mention of Gentiles interested in the events of the next Sabbath, is a sort of proof text for those denominations that adhere to Seventh Day worship. For example, Benjamin G. Wilkinson, in his 1930 book, Our Authorized Bible Vindicated, says “The Authorized Version pictures to us the congregation, composed of Jews and Gentiles. By this distinction it reveals that a number of the Gentiles were present... All this is lost in the Revised Version by failing to mention the Jews and the Gentiles. ... Does not this affect fundamental doctrine?” However, the RV's text is that of the earliest and most esteemed MSS - p74, א A B C D and many others, including the Vulgate and other ancient versions.

0

Why Have Modern Bibles Removed a Portion of Acts 9:5-6?

The portion of the passage in question is omitted from virtually all modern versions (including both Majority Text editions), frequently without even a footnote. The reason for its omission is quite persuasive. As Bruce M. Metzger puts it, “So far as is known, no Greek witness reads these words at this place; they have been taken from [Acts] 26:14 and 22:10, and are found here in codices of the Vulgate. ... The spurious passage came into the Textus Receptus when Erasmus translated it from the Latin Vulgate and inserted it in his first edition of the Greek New Testament (Basel, 1516).

0

Why Can’t Luke 23:17 Be Found In Our Modern Bible Translations?

The same verse or a very similar verse appears (and is preserved) as Matthew 27:15 and as Mark 15:6. This verse is suspected of having been assimilated into Luke at a very early date. But it is missing from Luke in such early manuscripts as p75 (early Third century), A B K L the Sahidic version, a Bohairic ms, and an Italic ms. On the other hand, it does appear in א W ƒ1, 13 and some Syriac and Bohairic MSS, which indicates that its assimilation into Luke had begun at a fairly early time.

0

Why is Luke 9:55-56 Omitted From Our Modern Bibles?

The shorter version is found in very early manuscripts, although the longer version is used by most Latin manuscripts, which is why it is also present in early English translations. The shorter version, omitting the doubted phrases in both verses, appears in א A B C L W X Δ Ξ Ψ p45 P75, but the words do appear (with minor variants) in some slightly later authorities, such as D and K (D contains the phrase in verse 55, but not the phrase in verse 56).

0

Powered by WordPress.com.

Up ↑