Bible commentary.

[B-A-C]

It;s a well known fact, that many Bible passages have parenthesis in them.

John 7:50;
(KJV) Nicodemus saith unto them, (he that came to Jesus by night, being one of them,)
(MKJV) Nicodemus said to them, (he who came to Jesus by night, being one of them),
(NAS77) Nicodemus *said to them (he who came to Him before, being one of them),
(NAS95) Nicodemus (he who came to Him before, being one of them) *said to them,

All Bible do not do this. The NIV and NIrV for example, do not add the parenthesis.

(NIrV) Then Nicodemus, a Pharisee, spoke. He was the one who had gone to Jesus earlier. He asked,
(NIV) Nicodemus, who had gone to Jesus earlier and who was one of their own number, asked,

Typically anything in parenthesis, mean it is not in the original Hebrew of Greek manuscripts.
The translators added these word for clarity.

So then, who is right? In this particular case, the NIV and NIrV would be wrong, as (he was one of them) is not in the original Greek manuscripts.
But it isn't just the NIV that does this, many Bible transaltions do this do some varying extent.

1 John 5:7;
(KJV) For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
(MKJV) For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one.
(NAS77) And it is the Spirit who bears witness, because the Spirit is the truth.
(NAS95) For there are three that testify:

Again the words "the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost" are not in the original Greek texts, but are added in the King James variants.

The use of italicized text was first seen in the Geneva Bible in 1560. This is sometime used to specify words that were not in the original texts.
Sometimes color alone is used to acheive the same purpose.

(CSB) When Jesus told them, “I am he,” they stepped back and fell to the ground.
(ESV) When Jesus said to them, “I am he,” they drew back and fell to the ground.
(HCSB) When He told them, "I am He," they stepped back and fell to the ground.
(ISV) When Jesus told them, "I AM," they backed away and fell to the ground.
(KJV) As soon then as he had said unto them, I am he, they went backward, and fell to the ground.
(MKJV) Then as soon as He had said to them, I AM, they went backward and fell to the ground.
(NAS77) When therefore He said to them, "I am He," they drew back, and fell to the ground.
(NAS95) So when He said to them, "I am He," they drew back and fell to the ground.
(NIV) When Jesus said, "I am he," they drew back and fell to the ground.
(NKJV) Now when He said to them, "I am He," they drew back and fell to the ground.

Some transaltions say "I am He", some simply say "I am", and some say "I am He", but only "I am" is colored red, and the "he" is left in black text.
So who is right here? Again the original texts only say "I am", none say 'I am "He"'.

Now why do some Bibles do this? No doubt some of this is purely for clarity reasons, but it seems as more and more Bible translations have appeared,
it has become more and more common place, and now it is getting difficult to know what was in the original texts, and what wasn't.

I will pick on the NIV again here. The following verses are missing form the NIV BIble.

1. Matthew 23:14
2. Matthew 17:21
3. Matthew 18:11
4. Mark 7:16
5. Mark 9:44
6. Mark 9:46
7. Mark 11:26
8. Mark 15:28
9. Luke 17:36
10. John 5:4
11. Acts 8:37
12. Acts 15:34
13. Acts 24:7
14. Acts 28:29
15. Romans 16:24

Why? When Bibles leave out verses, they will usually say one of two different things. "Not found in majority texts" or "Not found in oldest manuscripts".

So, what the difference? One set is older, but there are much fewer surviving copies. These are found closer to Jerusalem.

The other set has many more surviving copies, but they aren't quite as old, and they are generally found further from Jerusalem.

The Textus Receptus, which the King James Bible was based on, is itself based on the Byzantine texts.
How do we know which is more accurate? That is still a subject of much debate and has been over the last 2,000 years.
But keep in mind, even with missing verses above. Most mainstream Bibles are still 99.99% the same.

The Bible contains 31,102 verses when all Old and New Testament books are combined. Specifically, the Old Testament has 23,145 verses, while the New Testament has 7,957 verses
So, if 15 verses are missing, that's less than .001 % There are some newer Bible out now that go a whole direction. There are "Gay Bibles" "Non-Gender Bibles", and Bible that deliberately add, delete and
change certain texts to spin a particular doctrine.

The Jehovah's Witnesses use the "New World Translation". It has words added that are not in the mainstream Bibles.

The NLT Bible is missing a couple of verses as well. Matt 17:21; and Matt 18:11;

All of this to say, be careful what verse you build a doctrine on. Some Bible have verses not found in either the oldest or the majority texts.

But some change the text accordingly, the NLT for example...

(NLT)
Eph 4:8 That is why the Scriptures say, “When he ascended to the heights, he led a crowd of captives and gave gifts to his people.”
Eph 4:9 Notice that it says “he ascended.” This clearly means that Christ also descended to our lowly world.

(KJV)
Eph 4:8 Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men.
Eph 4:9 (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth?

One versions seems to say that Jesus descended into hell, the other version simply says Jesus descended to the Earth. However that version puts the text in parenthesis.

Some will take a post like this to say the Bible is wrong or inconsistent, I disagree, I believe the Bible, and I believe it to be accurate.
But there are differences.

 

[B-A-C]

A well known story in the Bible is interesting from this perspective.

[NASB]
Joh 7:53 [Everyone went to his home.
Joh 8:1 But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives.
Joh 8:2 Early in the morning He came again into the temple, and all the people were coming to Him; and He sat down and began to teach them.
Joh 8:3 The scribes and the Pharisees *brought a woman caught in adultery, and having set her in the center of the court,
Joh 8:4 they *said to Him, "Teacher, this woman has been caught in adultery, in the very act.
Joh 8:5 "Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women; what then do You say?"
Joh 8:6 They were saying this, testing Him, so that they might have grounds for accusing Him. But Jesus stooped down and with His finger wrote on the ground.
Joh 8:7 But when they persisted in asking Him, He straightened up, and said to them, "He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her."
Joh 8:8 Again He stooped down and wrote on the ground.
Joh 8:9 When they heard it, they began to go out one by one, beginning with the older ones, and He was left alone, and the woman, where she was, in the center of the court.
Joh 8:10 Straightening up, Jesus said to her, "Woman, where are they? Did no one condemn you?"
Joh 8:11 She said, "No one, Lord." And Jesus said, "I do not condemn you, either. Go. From now on sin no more."]

12 entire verses, across two chapter of the Bible, in a very well known Bible story. Why is all of this in brackets?
Again, this story is not found in many manuscripts.

This example is from the NASB, but most mainstream Bible do the same thing with this passage.

 

[Brad Huber]

Chapters and verses in general were not used in the original letters and books of the bible, you more or less had to read the whole thing and let the Holy Spirit guide you. First of all, grammer and words were used alot differently back when they were written, so without praying that God would use the Holy Spirit to guide you as you read, you will automatically be reading from man made commentaries that may or may not be true to the original.

 

[B-A-C]

Chapters and verses in general were not used in the original letters and books of the bible

The familiar chapter and verse numbering we use today was primarily standardized by Robert Estienne (also known as Stephanus) in the 16th century. His system became widely accepted and is still in use today.
Some sources say 1551, others say 1555, still other sources say "the mid 1500's". Apparently, he owned a printing press.
Of course, before that, as you mentioned, they were simply one big, long letter.

The good thing about it, is that it is easy to look up a specific verse. The bad thing about it, is people lose context of the verses around it.

One of the more famous examples of this is...

Heb 13:5; Make sure that your character is free from the love of money, being content with what you have; for He Himself has said, "I WILL NEVER DESERT YOU, NOR WILL I EVER FORSAKE YOU,"
Heb 13:6; so that we confidently say, "THE LORD IS MY HELPER, I WILL NOT BE AFRAID. WHAT WILL MAN DO TO ME?"

People take the "I will never leave you" .. 'or forsake you' part if this verse to mean one thing, but in the context of this verse, it's about trusting God to take care of your material needs.
Not having the love of money and being content.

 

[B-A-C]

It has been discussed before here on TalkJesus about verses that are NOT in the Bible, but people say they are. "God helps those who help themselves" - Not in the Bible.
"Cleanliness is next to Godliness" - Not in the Bible, "God works in mysterious ways" - Not in the Bible, - "This too shall pass" - Not in the Bible. There are several more, but I can't remember them at the moment.

I don't know how many times I have heard people say the Pharisees were a bunch of legalists that forced people to keep the commandments of the Old Testament, - but this isn't true either. In fact, the opposite was true.

Matt 15:2; "Why do Your disciples break the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat bread."
Matt 15:3; And He answered and said to them, "Why do you yourselves transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?
Matt 15:6; he is not to honor his father or his mother.' And by this you invalidated the word of God for the sake of your tradition.

Mark 7:5; The Pharisees and the scribes *asked Him, "Why do Your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat their bread with impure hands?"
Mark 7:8; "Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men."

Mark 7:9; He was also saying to them, "You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition.
Mark 7:13; thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that."

Matt 23:23; "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier provisions of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness; but these are the things you should have done without neglecting the others.

Matt 23:27; "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs which on the outside appear beautiful, but inside they are full of dead men's bones and all uncleanness.
Matt 23:28; "So you, too, outwardly appear righteous to men, but inwardly you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.

The Pharisees didn't follow the commandments, they followed man made "traditions".

Col 2:8; See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ.
Tit 1:14; not paying attention to Jewish myths and commandments of men who turn away from the truth.

 

[KingJ]

@B-A-C Wow, learning so much, thanks for sharing.

 

[B-A-C]

The **Alexandrian text** and the **Byzantine text** are two major types of Greek New Testament manuscripts. Here are the key differences:

1. **Origin and Representation**:
- **Alexandrian Text**: Represents a smaller minority of Greek manuscripts. It is often short and terse, with harder-to-understand readings. It is associated with early Christian communities in Alexandria.
- **Byzantine Text**: Represents the overwhelming majority of Greek manuscripts. It is longer than the Alexandrian text and has smoother Greek. It was widely used in churches of the Byzantine Empire for centuries.

2. **Accuracy and Age**:
- **Alexandrian Text**: Considered by some scholars to be closer to the original New Testament writings due to its conciseness and early origin.
- **Byzantine Text**: Regarded as a later creation resulting from scribes combining various readings into one text.

3. **Variants**:
- Both texts have textual variants (differences in wording) due to the manual copying process. However, no Christian doctrine is omitted from either text; some doctrines even appear strengthened in the Byzantine text¹.

In summary, while the Alexandrian text is shorter and associated with early Christian centers like Alexandria, the Byzantine text is longer and more widespread in usage. Both contribute to our understanding of the New Testament, and scholars carefully analyze their differences through the field of textual criticism.

(1) Majority Text vs. Critical Text vs. Textus Receptus - Textual Criticism .... Majority Text vs. Critical Text vs. Textus Receptus - Textual Criticism 101 - Berean Patriot.
(2) New Testament Text-Types - World History Encyclopedia. New Testament Text-Types.
(3) An Introduction to Textual Criticism: Part 12-The Eclectic Text .... An Introduction to Textual Criticism: Part 12–The Eclectic Text Position: “Reasoned Eclecticism”.
(4) Textual Criticism | All-Nations Bible Translation. Textual Criticism | All-Nations Bible Translation.

Almost all modern English Bibles are based on the Alexandrian Text, including versions like the NIV, NAS, Good News, and Living Bible. However, the King James Version (KJV) is based on the Received Text.

The **Received Text**, also known as **Textus Receptus** (Latin for "received text"), refers to a succession of printed editions of the Greek New Testament. It served as the textual base for vernacular translations during the Reformation period. Notably, the King James Version (KJV) was based on the Received Text. However, it's essential to recognize that the Received Text itself underwent revisions and critical analysis before being declared the standard.

(1) Alexandrian Manuscripts vs. Textus Receptus; What's the Difference?. Alexandrian Manuscripts vs. Textus Receptus; What's the Difference?.
(2) Textus Receptus - Wikipedia. Textus Receptus - Wikipedia.
(3) THE RECEIVED TEXT VS. THE CRITICAL TEXT: WHICH ONE IS RIGHT?. THE RECEIVED TEXT VS. THE CRITICAL TEXT: WHICH ONE IS RIGHT? – FAITH HAPPENS BOOKS.
(4) Received Text - definition of Received Text by The Free Dictionary. Received Text.

 

[B-A-C]

The Dead Sea Scrolls provide valuable insights into the original language of the Bible. Let’s explore how they relate to different textual traditions:

Masoretic Text (MT):
The MT, finalized by Jewish scholars around 1000 C.E., is the traditional Hebrew text used in most modern Bibles.
Some Dead Sea Scrolls align closely with the MT, suggesting accurate preservation over centuries1.
Septuagint (LXX) and Alexandrian Text:
The LXX is a Greek translation of the Torah, created by Jews in Alexandria around the third century B.C.E.
Interestingly, some Dead Sea Scrolls resemble the LXX more than the MT, implying that the LXX translators worked from Hebrew texts similar to the Scrolls2.
Byzantine Text:
The Byzantine text, which forms the majority of Greek New Testament manuscripts, is not directly related to the Dead Sea Scrolls.
However, the Scrolls’ impact on New Testament studies primarily concerns the Old Testament portion.
Comparing Accuracy:
While the Scrolls differ from the MT, the variations are not profound enough to upend Judaism significantly.
The Leningrad Codex (similar to the Aleppo Codex) is another complete Hebrew Bible from the same period as the Scrolls. It includes vowel markings, cantillation signs, and extensive textual notes.
Scholars generally consider the Aleppo Codex superior in accuracy and masora scholarship, but the Leningrad Codex (used in the Biblia Hebraica) remains a standard scholarly text3.
In summary, the Dead Sea Scrolls offer valuable context, but no single version can claim absolute closeness to the original Bible. Each tradition contributes to our understanding, and scholars continue to explore their connections.

One thing to keep in mind about the Dead Sea Scrolls, they do not directly include any New Testament text.
But what the Dead Sea Scrolls do prove, is that our current Bibles are VERY VERY accurate when compared to the first century texts. This takes away the argument, that the Bible has changed over the centuries.

So what can we compare the New Testament with?

1. Codex Vaticanus:
   • Age: Codex Vaticanus (also known as Vaticanus B) dates back to the 4th century C.E. It is one of the oldest extant copies of the Greek Bible.
   • Location: It is housed in the Vatican Library (Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana) in Rome, Italy.
   • Contents: The codex contains most of the Old and New Testaments, including the entire New Testament except for the book of Revelation.
2. Codex Sinaiticus:
   • Age: Codex Sinaiticus (also known as Aleph or 01) is also from the 4th century C.E., making it one of the earliest complete copies of the New Testament.
   • Location: It was discovered at St. Catherine’s Monastery in the Sinai Peninsula (hence the name) and is now divided between several institutions, including the British Library in London, the Leipzig University Library in Germany, the National Library of Russia in St. Petersburg, and the Monastery of St. Catherine itself.
   • Contents: It contains the entire New Testament, portions of the Old Testament, and other early Christian texts.

It is somewhat ironic, that both of these are newer than the Dead Sea Scrolls ( first century vs fourth century ).

Codex Sinaiticus:
Age: Dating to the mid-4th century C.E., Codex Sinaiticus is the oldest complete manuscript of the New Testament.
Contents: It contains the entire New Testament, along with other early Christian texts like the Letter of Barnabas and most of the Shepherd of Hermas.
Notable Omissions: Some differences exist between Codex Sinaiticus and later versions. For instance:
The resurrection narrative at the end of Mark (16:9–20) is absent.
The conclusion of the Lord’s Prayer (Matthew 6:13) is missing.
The story of the woman caught in adultery (John 8) is omitted.
The reference to Jesus’ ascension in Luke 24:51 is also absent1.
Codex Vaticanus:
Age: Codex Vaticanus, representing the Alexandrian text-type, dates to the 4th century C.E.
Contents: It contains most of the Old and New Testaments, except for the book of Revelation.
Comparison: In the Gospels of Luke and John, it closely agrees with the Bodmer Papyrus 75, which itself dates back to the beginning of the 3rd century—making it at least 100 years older than Codex Vaticanus

The Bodmer Papyrus 75, is either 3rd century is even possibly late 2nd century. It contains most of Luke, and the first 8 verses of John.

 

[B-A-C]

HOW WE GOT OUR BIBLE
by Charles C. Ryrie

The question of which books belong in the Bible is called the question of the canon. The word canon means rule or measuring rod, and in relation to the Bible it refers to
the collection of books that passed a test of authenticity and authority; it also means that those books are our rule of life. How was the collection made?
The Tests for Canonicity
First of all, it is important to remember that certain books were canonical even before any tests were put to them. That’s like saying some students are intelligent before any
tests are given to them. The tests only prove what is already intrinsically there. In the same way, neither the church nor councils made any book canonical or authentic; either the book was authentic or it was not when it was written. The church or its councils recognized and verified certain books as the Word of God, and in time those so recognized were collected together in what we now call the Bible.
What tests did the church apply?
(1) There was the test of the authority of the writer. In relation to the Old Testament, this meant the authority of the lawgiver or the prophet or the leader in Israel.
In relation to the New Testament, a book had to be written or backed by an apostle in order to be recognized. In other words, it had to have an apostolic signature or apostolic authorization. Peter, for instance, was the backer of Mark, and Paul of Luke.
(2) The books themselves should give some internal evidences of their unique character, as inspired and authoritative. The content should commend itself to the
reader as being different from an ordinary book in communicating the revelation of God.
(3) The verdict of the churches as to the canonical nature of the books was important. There was in reality surprising unanimity among the early churches as to which
books belonged in the inspired number. Although it is true that a few books were temporarily doubted by a minority, no book whose authenticity was doubted by any large number of churches was later accepted.
The Formation of the Canon
The canon of Scripture was, of course, being formed as each book was written, and it was complete when the last book was finished. When we speak of the “formation” of
the canon we actually mean the recognition of the canonical books by the church. This took time. Some assert that all the books of the Old Testament canon were collected and recognized by Ezra in the fifth century B.C. References by Josephus (A.D. 95) and in 2 Esdras 14 (A.D. 100) indicate the extent of the Old Testament canon as the thirty-nine books we know. The discussions by the teaching-house at Jamnia (A.D. 70—100) seemed to assume this existing canon. Our Lord delimited the extent of the canonical books of the Old Testament when He accused the scribes of being guilty of slaying all the prophets God had sent Israel, from Abel to Zechariah (Luke 11:51). The account of Abel’s death is, of course, in Genesis; that of Zechariah is in 2 Chronicles 24:20-21, which is the last book in the order of the books in the Hebrew Bible (not Malachi as in our English Bibles). Therefore, it is as if the Lord had said, “Your guilt is recorded all through the Bible—from Genesis to Malachi.” And He did not include any of the apocryphal books that were in existence at that time and which contained the accounts of other martyrs. While these book are of value, the canonizers of the period felt that they "did not reveal the divine nature of God". The first church council to list all twenty-seven books of the New Testament was the Council of Carthage in A.D. 397. Individual books of the New Testament were acknowledged as Scripture before this time (2Pet 3:16 and 1Tim 5:17), and most were accepted in the era just after the apostles (Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John and Jude were debated for some time). The selection of the canon was a process that went on until each book proved its own worth by passing the tests of canonicity. The twelve books of the Apocrypha were never accepted by the Jews or by our Lord on a par with the books of the Old Testament. They were revered but were not considered Scripture. The Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament done in the third century B.c.) included the Apocrypha with the Old Testament canonical books. Jerome (ca. Ail 340—420) in translating the Vulgate distinguished the canonical books from the ecclesiastical books (the Apocrypha), which had the effect of according them a secondary status. The Council of Trent (1548) recognized them as canonical, though the Reformers rejected this decree. In our English Bibles the Apocrypha was set apart in the Coverdale, Geneva, and King James versions. The first English Bible to exclude it entirely as a matter of policy was an Amsterdam edition of the Geneva Bible published in 1640, and the first English Bible printed in America (the Aitken Bible, 1782) omitted it.
Is Our Present Text Reliable?
The original copies of the Old Testament were written on leather or papyrus from the time of Moses (ca. 1450 B.c.) to the time of Malachi (400 B.C.). Until the sensational discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1947 we did not possess copies of the Old Testament earlier than Ail 895. The reason for this is simply that the Jews had an almost superstitious veneration for the text, which impelled them to bury copies that had become too old for use. Indeed, the Masoretes (traditionalists), who between Ail 600 and 950 added accents and vowel points and in general standardized the Hebrew text, devised complicated safeguards for the making of copies. They checked each copy carefully by counting the middle letter of pages, books, and sections. Someone has said that every thing countable was counted. When the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered, they gave us a Hebrew text from the second to first century B.C. of all but one of the books (Esther) of the Old Testament. This was of the greatest importance, for it provided a much earlier check on the accuracy of the Masoretic text, which has now proved to be extremely accurate. Other early checks on the Hebrew text include the Septuagint translation (middle of third century B.C.), the Aramaic Targums (paraphrases and quotes of the Old Testament), quotations in early Christian writers, and the Latin translation of Jerome (A.D. 400) that was made directly from the Hebrew text of his day. All of these give us the data for being assured of having an accurate text of the Old Testament. More than 5,000 manuscripts of the New Testament exist today, which makes the New Testament the best-attested document of all ancient writings. The contrast is quite startling. Not only are there so many copies of the New Testament in existence, but many of them are early. The approximately seventy-five papyri fragments date from Ail 135 to the eighth century and cover parts of twenty-five of the twenty-seven books and about 40 percent of the text. The many hundreds of parchment copies include the great Codex Sinaiticus (fourth century), the Codex Vaticanus (also fourth century), and the Codex Alexandrinus (fifth century). In addition, there are 2,000 lectionaries (church service books containing many Scripture portions), more than 86,000 quotations of the New Testament in the church Fathers, old Latin Syriac and Egyptian translations dating from the third century, and Jerome's Latin translation. All of the data plus all of the scholarly work that has been done with it assures us that we possess today an accurate and reliable text of the New Testament.

Posted here with permission.

 

[Rhema]

now it is getting difficult to know what was in the original texts, and what wasn't.

Actually, that's pretty easy. Get a good interlinear.

The Interlinear KJV-NIV Parallel New Testament in Greek…

The Interlinear KJV-NIV Parallel New Testament does thr…

www.goodreads.com

Compare the interlinear text with the companion translations, and you'll see just how bad they may (or may not) be.

Then maybe get a good book on textual criticism, or the history of New Testament manuscripts.

Wallace is doing some fantastic work:

The Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts

www.csntm.org

Rhema