Omitted verses.
- Thread starter Raggedcloth
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Let me just begin by prefacing this: Various versions may translate a phrase (or phrases) differently from one another and that will impact word count greatly. Consider the ESV, or NASB. They were both translated from the same underlying Greek apparatus as the NIV — Nestle Aland 28 — but they each have different word counts, because it is possible to render phrases with some slight variation. Take a simple genitive as an example: “the day of the Lord.” This could be alternatively translated, “the Lord’s day.” We took five words down to three, but both communicate the same thing.
The particular question you are asking about, refers to "missing" verses, when really it's quite a bit more complex than that: "textual criticism." One very important concept in the science known as “textual criticism” is geographic distribution. The importance of this is to find just how far a particular variant/reading made it around the globe (or how “wide spread” it was) and where/how/when it could have possibly originated. This idea can be used to illustrate which readings were the most common throughout the Christian world.
Let me give you just one example: 1 Peter 3:14–15. The KJV translates it in this way,
Imagine you were to plot each manuscript that contains the reading, “the Lord God” (1 Peter 3:14–15, KJV) on a world map. How many would there be, and from what region(s) would it be most prominent? You'd be able to get a pretty good visual of the region (and time period) from which that variant gave rise. Likewise, if you plotted the manuscripts that alternatively read, “Christ the Lord” on a map, you would see that it already had broad geographic attestation by the time the alternate reading really (“the Lord God”) had any significant prominence. Already by the 3rd-5th centuries versional witness of the Greek NT were being translated with the use of “Christ the Lord” (Coptic, Syriac, some Latin).
What is most fascinating about 1 Peter 3:14–15 is that it is an allusion to Isaiah 8:12–13 LXX,
The real question you should be asking, is: What underlying Greek textual apparatus’ did the version in question use? And how are they different from the Greek textual apparatus’ used in the translation of other translations?
Welcome to the wonderful world of “textual criticism.”
The particular question you are asking about, refers to "missing" verses, when really it's quite a bit more complex than that: "textual criticism." One very important concept in the science known as “textual criticism” is geographic distribution. The importance of this is to find just how far a particular variant/reading made it around the globe (or how “wide spread” it was) and where/how/when it could have possibly originated. This idea can be used to illustrate which readings were the most common throughout the Christian world.
Let me give you just one example: 1 Peter 3:14–15. The KJV translates it in this way,
"…and be not afraid of their terror, neither be troubled; but sanctify the Lord God in your hearts…” (1 Peter 3:14–15, KJV)
However, other translations do not read this way. Translations such as the NASB, Lexham, ESV, NIV, NET, and so forth, each read in this fashion,"But do not fear what they fear, or be in dread, but honor Christ the Lord as holy"
The reason for this, is because the textual decision made by Nestle Aland 28 is based off an earlier, and more broadly (geographically) attested reading, as found in p72 א A B C Ψ 33 614 1739 itar vg syr(p,h) cop(sa,bo) arm Clement.Imagine you were to plot each manuscript that contains the reading, “the Lord God” (1 Peter 3:14–15, KJV) on a world map. How many would there be, and from what region(s) would it be most prominent? You'd be able to get a pretty good visual of the region (and time period) from which that variant gave rise. Likewise, if you plotted the manuscripts that alternatively read, “Christ the Lord” on a map, you would see that it already had broad geographic attestation by the time the alternate reading really (“the Lord God”) had any significant prominence. Already by the 3rd-5th centuries versional witness of the Greek NT were being translated with the use of “Christ the Lord” (Coptic, Syriac, some Latin).
What is most fascinating about 1 Peter 3:14–15 is that it is an allusion to Isaiah 8:12–13 LXX,
Isaiah 8:12-13 LXX
τὸν δὲ φόβον αὐτοῦ οὐ μὴ φοβηθῆτε οὐδὲ μὴ ταραχθῆτε, κύριον αὐτὸν ἁγιάσατε
But do not fear what it fears, or be in dread; honor the Lord himself as holy
1Peter 3:14-15
τὸν δὲ φόβον αὐτῶν μὴ φοβηθῆτε μηδὲ ταραχθῆτε, κύριον δὲ τὸν Χριστὸν ἁγιάσατε
But do not fear what they fear, or be in dread, but honor Christ the Lord as holy
Think about the implications of that. If attributed to “Christ the Lord,” then the text attributes to Christ what the OT says of YHWH, following the exact same verbal pattern. Might I suggest that the scribes transcribing the manuscripts underlying the KJV saw this allusion to Isaiah 8:12–13 LXX, which is why they opted for “the Lord God.”The real question you should be asking, is: What underlying Greek textual apparatus’ did the version in question use? And how are they different from the Greek textual apparatus’ used in the translation of other translations?
Welcome to the wonderful world of “textual criticism.”
-
2
-
1
-
1
- Show all
We should remember that the Latin Vulgate was the official Latin Bible of the Roman Catholic Church which is said to be a revision of the Old Latin which is scattered throughout the whole world. Jerome's work was only confined to the Roman Catholic as urged by Pope Damasus but not the vast majority of the entire Latin-speaking world as in Africa and others. You should know also the Syriac is a 4th-century version like the Greek uncial Vaticanus, Sinaticus, and other copies. So I cannot for sure if this is a sound judgment/ justification of your example, for even Bruze Metzger do not deny the fact the reading of the KJB along with the other versions before KJB exist were the familiar ones and the less familiar was the reading of the critical text. The German Luther is the same as the KJB, and The Spanish Sagradas which is older than KJB has the same reading. Same with the Italian Diodati. Actually, the majority of the manuscripts contained in the many minuscules attested to the KJB reading.
Let's set a couple things straight.
My original post was never intended to be a dig against the KJV, but for whatever reason you took it there. There are scenarios, where I think the KJV is correct (i.e., 1 Cor. 10:9), but that goes without saying that other versions, i.e., Lexham, NET, NIV, also read identically at 1 Cor. 10:9. My reasons for believing texts like 1 Cor. 10:9 (as found in the KJV, Lexham, NET, NIV) is authentic is very different from that of a King James Only advocate. I give early, and broad attestation as just one of the reasons for authenticity, but King James only advocates believe the King James is an inspired English version of the text. That's where we differ.
It does not matter if the Syriac is a 4th (or 5th) c. version. It does not matter is Vaticanus or Sinaiticus are 4th c. mss. The fact that a text is being transcribed and translated by the 4th. c, requires a text to have been distributed at an earlier date. Imagine this: Let's say that by the 4th c. versional witnesses such as the Coptic, Syriac, Latin, etc., were already in print/distribution. It would not matter if they are 4th c. documents. There was no printing press; no internet; no electricity; no computers. They were transcribed and translated by hand, and sometimes in very low light situations. That means that for the documents to exist by the 4th c., a variant reading would have needed to have been circulated throughout those locales at an earlier date.
Further, because Vaticanus and Sinaiticus have been found to agree very closely with even earlier papyri which are dated to the beginning of the 3rd century, this demonstrates by recourse to a postulated earlier exemplar from which they descend. “In English,” so-to-speak, this means that these mss are representative of an even earlier archetype. Hence, we have p46, which is a 3rd c. collation of nearly all the Pauline letters in our NT's today.
I am not anti-King James. But I look at variant readings on a one-by-one basis. This allows me to, at times, agree with the KJV (and even other versions that contain the same reading) and to also disagree with it's underlying textual apparatus.
My original post was never intended to be a dig against the KJV, but for whatever reason you took it there. There are scenarios, where I think the KJV is correct (i.e., 1 Cor. 10:9), but that goes without saying that other versions, i.e., Lexham, NET, NIV, also read identically at 1 Cor. 10:9. My reasons for believing texts like 1 Cor. 10:9 (as found in the KJV, Lexham, NET, NIV) is authentic is very different from that of a King James Only advocate. I give early, and broad attestation as just one of the reasons for authenticity, but King James only advocates believe the King James is an inspired English version of the text. That's where we differ.
It does not matter if the Syriac is a 4th (or 5th) c. version. It does not matter is Vaticanus or Sinaiticus are 4th c. mss. The fact that a text is being transcribed and translated by the 4th. c, requires a text to have been distributed at an earlier date. Imagine this: Let's say that by the 4th c. versional witnesses such as the Coptic, Syriac, Latin, etc., were already in print/distribution. It would not matter if they are 4th c. documents. There was no printing press; no internet; no electricity; no computers. They were transcribed and translated by hand, and sometimes in very low light situations. That means that for the documents to exist by the 4th c., a variant reading would have needed to have been circulated throughout those locales at an earlier date.
Further, because Vaticanus and Sinaiticus have been found to agree very closely with even earlier papyri which are dated to the beginning of the 3rd century, this demonstrates by recourse to a postulated earlier exemplar from which they descend. “In English,” so-to-speak, this means that these mss are representative of an even earlier archetype. Hence, we have p46, which is a 3rd c. collation of nearly all the Pauline letters in our NT's today.
I am not anti-King James. But I look at variant readings on a one-by-one basis. This allows me to, at times, agree with the KJV (and even other versions that contain the same reading) and to also disagree with it's underlying textual apparatus.
And I forgot one thing: You said the German Luther Bible was "the same" as the KJV. To be fair, I am not so sure that what you had intended by this comment was to say that the two versions (specificially at 1 Peter 3:14-15) are identical, or whether you intended to mean that they "were the same" throughout the entire corpus. If by the latter, then you are entirely incorrect. But even if the German Luther Bible reads identically to the KJV at 1 Peter 3:14-15, so what? So what if the German Luther Bible (a translation from the 16th c.) reads identically to the KJV at 1 Peter 3:14-15. What bearing does that have on the topic of early, widespread attestation? You need to show that the reading adopted by the King James (at 1 Peter 3:14-15) was earlier and more broadly attested. By citing the Luther Bible, the only thing you are doing is confirming a much later dating. And plus, by the 1500's, they were working with more advanced technologies than they were in the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th centuries, so "broad attestation" loses its "umph" as technology progresses: the printing press.
While there may be places where the German Luther Bible does read identically to the KJV, what you are not telling the audience, is that there are also places where the German Luther Bible (and the KJV itself) read identically as the NIV, Lexham, and NET. Also, what you are not telling your audience, is that the German Luther Bible may have used some of the same underlying Greek apparatus' and/or mss as the KJV to reach its textual decision. But the fact is, the textual apparatus underlying the King James does have readings that are not in any other mss on the face of the earth. How come you didn't mention that?
While there may be places where the German Luther Bible does read identically to the KJV, what you are not telling the audience, is that there are also places where the German Luther Bible (and the KJV itself) read identically as the NIV, Lexham, and NET. Also, what you are not telling your audience, is that the German Luther Bible may have used some of the same underlying Greek apparatus' and/or mss as the KJV to reach its textual decision. But the fact is, the textual apparatus underlying the King James does have readings that are not in any other mss on the face of the earth. How come you didn't mention that?
-
1
-
1
- Show all
Of course, the transcriptions and translations especially by Jerome were not used by the common Christians or early believers is most questionable. The Vaticanus, Sinaticus, and the Latin Vulgate though of old antiquity were subject to most omission. I believe that by the time of 4 th Ce these circulation in those locales are but, in its infancy, especially the Latin why? Simply because there were already Latin texts prior to Jerome’s work and in his Preface, he did mention the worldwide circulation of these Latin Bibles. For the codices, Vaticanus was confined only in the Vatican Library while Sinaticus were found in a wastebasket ready to light the Monastery.
As for St. Jerome's Preface to the Vulgate Version of the New Testament which was addressed to Pope Damasus, A.D. 383. He said:
“You urge me to revise the old Latin version, and, as it were, to sit in judgment on the copies of the Scriptures which are now scattered throughout the whole world; and, inasmuch as they differ from one another, you would have me decide which of them agree with the Greek original…”
https://vulgate.org/
Yes, the Vaticanus and Sinaticus were earlier Greek representatives but it doesn’t mean it was better representative of the copies of the original. Their authenticity is well tarnished due to the fact they were not even used by the common believers of that time. There were many omissions of text and sometimes added into the text. The faithful copies were actually in the hands of the believers being persecuted by Rome itself.
As for St. Jerome's Preface to the Vulgate Version of the New Testament which was addressed to Pope Damasus, A.D. 383. He said:
“You urge me to revise the old Latin version, and, as it were, to sit in judgment on the copies of the Scriptures which are now scattered throughout the whole world; and, inasmuch as they differ from one another, you would have me decide which of them agree with the Greek original…”
https://vulgate.org/
Yes, the Vaticanus and Sinaticus were earlier Greek representatives but it doesn’t mean it was better representative of the copies of the original. Their authenticity is well tarnished due to the fact they were not even used by the common believers of that time. There were many omissions of text and sometimes added into the text. The faithful copies were actually in the hands of the believers being persecuted by Rome itself.
-
1
-
1
- Show all
There’s a lot of inaccuracies that you’ve presented here.
In 1844, while visiting the monastery of St. Catherine, Tischendorf noted several scraps of parchment in a basket that were “mouldered by time.” Upon closer examination, Tischendorf discovered that they contained parts of the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the OT. It is not certain that these folios were originally apart of Sinaiticus, but there may have been worn fragments from Sinaiticus that were included, but there is no evidence to suggest this. Nowhere in Tischendorf’s account does he indicate that the entire uncial (Sinaiticus) was found in this basket; he only makes mention of several folios that contained parts of the LXX. Those folios could have been apart of another uncial, but that is speculative at best.
In 1853, Tischendorf returns to St. Catherine’s for a second time, but finds no add’l manuscripts.
In 1859, under the authority of Czar Alexander II, Tischendorf made a third trip to St. Catherine’s. On this occasion, Tischendorf either gifts (or at least presents) one of his published copies of the Septuagint to the monastery’s custodian. In turn, Tischendorf is shown a copy a codex “wrapped in red cloth”: Sinaiticus.
In its current state, only a very small portion of it’s nearly nine hundred pages are actually damaged. It is plausible that the monks at St. Catherine’s could have restored some of its time worn folios, but Tischendorf nowhere indicates that segments or folios from Sinaiticus were found in a basket. You have not done your due diligence, and are relying heavily on inaccurate information you dug up on the internet. I understand you’d like to discredit Sinaiticus, but at the end of the day, it is a real, historical document, and needs to be treated as such, no matter how much discomfort is causes you.
I nowhere indicated that Vaticanus and Sinaiticus were “better represenatitives” of the original autographs. In fact, what I said was, that when the two documents agree, they “have been found to agree very closely with even earlier papyri which are dated to the beginning of the 3rd century, this demonstrates by recourse to a postulated earlier exemplar from which they descend. 'In English,' so-to-speak, this means that these mss are representative of an even earlier archetype.” As I indicated prior, there are times I disagree with Sinaiticus and/or Vaticanus, but I take each variant on an individual basis. Sometimes Sinaiticus disagrees with Vaticanus, but agrees with the KJ. Sometimes Vaticanus disagrees with Sinaiticus, but agrees with the KJ. Sometimes all three disagree. But where I think the strongest case can be made is when Sinaiticus and Vaticanus both agree (or perhaps even one-or-the-other) in conjunction with other mss in circulation at the time. That is where your argument runs into problems. You can try to (unsuccessfully) discredit Vaticanus, or Sinaiticus, but you can’t discredit the earlier papyri that agree with them, or even the later 5th c. mss such as Ephrami, Alexandrinus, or Washingtonianus that (at points) agree with them, yet disagrees with the KJ.
There are a whole host of documents that are quite a bit older than Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. I can’t list them all out, but to name a few of the prominent ones,
p46 – It contains (86) folios; all from the Pauline literature. It predates Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, and yet agrees with Vaticanus and Sinaiticus in critical places. There are also places it may agree with Vaticanus, and disagree with Sinaiticus (or vice-versa), and there are places it disagrees with both.
p66 – A late 2nd c. (or perhaps early 3rd c.) document that contains (39) folios; all from the Gospel of John. This document predates Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, and yet agrees (and/or disagrees) with them in places. But then again, there are places where all three witnesses agree in contrast to the KJ. p66 is actually a common ancestor to p75, and Vaticanus.
p72 – It contains the Petrine epistles + Jude. It too, in places agrees with Vaticanus, and/or Sinaiticus, and even at times disagrees with both.
p75 – Is a late 3rd c. mss which contains a large portion from the Gospel of John, and the Gospel of Luke. It is closely related to p66, and Vaticanus.
Sinaiticus is often mislabeled as an Alexandrian witness; but this codice aligns more with a Western tradition than it does Alexandrian in John 1:1—8:38, but elsewhere does follow the Alexandrian tradition. What this means is that throughout the first eight chapters of John, there are witnesses from two different textual streams: Alexandrian (p66, p75, Vaticanus) and Western (Sinaiticus) — all of which are dated to the 2nd to 4th c. So we can deduce that portions of Vaticanus date back to the third, even the second century. But again, each variant has to be examined on an indivudual basis.
In 1844, while visiting the monastery of St. Catherine, Tischendorf noted several scraps of parchment in a basket that were “mouldered by time.” Upon closer examination, Tischendorf discovered that they contained parts of the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the OT. It is not certain that these folios were originally apart of Sinaiticus, but there may have been worn fragments from Sinaiticus that were included, but there is no evidence to suggest this. Nowhere in Tischendorf’s account does he indicate that the entire uncial (Sinaiticus) was found in this basket; he only makes mention of several folios that contained parts of the LXX. Those folios could have been apart of another uncial, but that is speculative at best.
In 1853, Tischendorf returns to St. Catherine’s for a second time, but finds no add’l manuscripts.
In 1859, under the authority of Czar Alexander II, Tischendorf made a third trip to St. Catherine’s. On this occasion, Tischendorf either gifts (or at least presents) one of his published copies of the Septuagint to the monastery’s custodian. In turn, Tischendorf is shown a copy a codex “wrapped in red cloth”: Sinaiticus.
In its current state, only a very small portion of it’s nearly nine hundred pages are actually damaged. It is plausible that the monks at St. Catherine’s could have restored some of its time worn folios, but Tischendorf nowhere indicates that segments or folios from Sinaiticus were found in a basket. You have not done your due diligence, and are relying heavily on inaccurate information you dug up on the internet. I understand you’d like to discredit Sinaiticus, but at the end of the day, it is a real, historical document, and needs to be treated as such, no matter how much discomfort is causes you.
I nowhere indicated that Vaticanus and Sinaiticus were “better represenatitives” of the original autographs. In fact, what I said was, that when the two documents agree, they “have been found to agree very closely with even earlier papyri which are dated to the beginning of the 3rd century, this demonstrates by recourse to a postulated earlier exemplar from which they descend. 'In English,' so-to-speak, this means that these mss are representative of an even earlier archetype.” As I indicated prior, there are times I disagree with Sinaiticus and/or Vaticanus, but I take each variant on an individual basis. Sometimes Sinaiticus disagrees with Vaticanus, but agrees with the KJ. Sometimes Vaticanus disagrees with Sinaiticus, but agrees with the KJ. Sometimes all three disagree. But where I think the strongest case can be made is when Sinaiticus and Vaticanus both agree (or perhaps even one-or-the-other) in conjunction with other mss in circulation at the time. That is where your argument runs into problems. You can try to (unsuccessfully) discredit Vaticanus, or Sinaiticus, but you can’t discredit the earlier papyri that agree with them, or even the later 5th c. mss such as Ephrami, Alexandrinus, or Washingtonianus that (at points) agree with them, yet disagrees with the KJ.
There are a whole host of documents that are quite a bit older than Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. I can’t list them all out, but to name a few of the prominent ones,
p46 – It contains (86) folios; all from the Pauline literature. It predates Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, and yet agrees with Vaticanus and Sinaiticus in critical places. There are also places it may agree with Vaticanus, and disagree with Sinaiticus (or vice-versa), and there are places it disagrees with both.
p66 – A late 2nd c. (or perhaps early 3rd c.) document that contains (39) folios; all from the Gospel of John. This document predates Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, and yet agrees (and/or disagrees) with them in places. But then again, there are places where all three witnesses agree in contrast to the KJ. p66 is actually a common ancestor to p75, and Vaticanus.
p72 – It contains the Petrine epistles + Jude. It too, in places agrees with Vaticanus, and/or Sinaiticus, and even at times disagrees with both.
p75 – Is a late 3rd c. mss which contains a large portion from the Gospel of John, and the Gospel of Luke. It is closely related to p66, and Vaticanus.
Sinaiticus is often mislabeled as an Alexandrian witness; but this codice aligns more with a Western tradition than it does Alexandrian in John 1:1—8:38, but elsewhere does follow the Alexandrian tradition. What this means is that throughout the first eight chapters of John, there are witnesses from two different textual streams: Alexandrian (p66, p75, Vaticanus) and Western (Sinaiticus) — all of which are dated to the 2nd to 4th c. So we can deduce that portions of Vaticanus date back to the third, even the second century. But again, each variant has to be examined on an indivudual basis.
-
2
-
1
- Show all
You have still failed to show that the reading adopted by the KJ (at 1 Peter 3:14-15) was early, and widely attested. The earliest date you have doesn't come until much later. As for the variant I am defending (as found in virtually ever modern Bible today), was the reading of nearly all ancient copies from the 5th c. (or earlier), whether Greek, Latin, Syriac, or Coptic -- all from vastly different regions throughout the "Christian world."
Oh, you mean the Christian's that were being persecuted during the Diocletian Persecution? I wonder which texts they had in hand? They didn't equip themselved with a KJ, that is for sure. What they used wouldn't have been representative of p46, p66, p72, or p75, would it? These were, after all, collations of the NT being used by Christian's during the time. As I said formerly, p46 contains portions of the Pauline epistles, p75 contains portions of John and Luke, p72 contains the Petrine epistles and Jude. These are collations of the NT that Christians during the time of the Diocletian Persecution would have been using.
Hi,
You have listed just a few readings to attest to the critical text. Your point of justification to your point is the older readings are correct but that is just merely an educational guess. The geographical argument is one leg since we have other geographical bases such as the German Luther Bible, the Diodatti of Italy, and The Spanish Sagradas has it which offer different locales or places. The Arabic Version has the reading of KJB on the specific exemplar. What you have not listed to support your view is the majority of them have the KJB reading and other early versions. While the Greek uncials do support KJB reading of the supposed passage in question or between “Lord God” vs Lord Christ”, Ephramai does not contain the Catholic Epistles which includes 1 Peter. Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, and Vaticanus have the support of the critical English Text but the Uncial 025 Phophyranius, 0142 and 0129, however, does contain 1 Peter and are said to be evidence for KJB reading though they were penned later. Shreds of evidence are counted this time since they are independent and this begs us the question where did they get their master copies as they penned it? For the Papyri, you had listed only one which is B72. B74 and B81 are found to have 1 Peter, So the papyri that contain the subject is assumed to have the KJB reading. Of the minuscules, you listed only a few that is 33 614 1739 as support for the critical “Lord Christ”. The vast majority of the minuscules that contained 1 Peter although written around 10 to 16th Ce does contain the support of the KJB. Do I need to list the minuscules, where the majority of the support belongs to the KJB. The following are for your consideration.
1569 Spanish Bible
SE 15 sino santificad al Señor Dios en vuestros corazones, y estad siempre aparejados para responder a cada uno que os demande razón de la esperanza que está en vosotros; y esto con mansedumbre y reverencia,
APB Greek (based on Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, and Syriac) does contain the reading of the KJB “Lord God” not “Lord Christ”
ABP_GRK(i)
15G2962κύριονG1161δεG3588τονG2316θεόνG37αγιάσατεG1722ενG3588ταιςG2588καρδίαις υμώνG1473 G2092έτοιμοι δεG1161 G104αείG4314προςG627απολογίανG3956παντίG3588τωG154αιτούντιG1473υμάςG3056λόγονG4012περίG3588τηςG1722ενG1473υμίνG1680ελπίδοςG3326μετάG4240πραϋτητοςG2532καιG5401φόβου
The Emphatic Diaglott employing Greisbach Greek has “Theos”
1 Peter 3:15
Diaglott(i) 15 Lord but the God do you sanctify in the hearts of you; prepared and always with a defence to all to the one asking you an account concerning the in you hope, with meekness and fear;
The Arabic Bible has the same reading for KJB for the Lord God vs Lord Christ
بل قدسوا الرب الاله في قلوبكم مستعدين دائما لمجاوبة كل من يسألكم عن سبب الرجا الذي فيكم بوداعة وخوف
But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, always being ready to give an answer to everyone who asks you a reason for hope who is in you with meekness and fear
The Dutch Bible has “God”
1 Peter 3:15
DSV(i) 15 Maar heiligt God, den Heere, in uw harten; en zijt altijd bereid tot verantwoording aan een iegelijk, die u rekenschap afeist van de hoop, die in u is, met zachtmoedigheid en vreze.
Btw, it is you who brought out this comparison between KJB and the critical English Version in which you seem to uphold critical reading based on the Geographical which I have attended to disagree. Ang for fair analysis of the older Greeks may come up with the correct original language text. The variants on Greek were the majority in favor of the KJB reading and these are familiar or common to early believers as the consistency of the Received Text placed a major role in deciding which is the correct reading.
You have listed just a few readings to attest to the critical text. Your point of justification to your point is the older readings are correct but that is just merely an educational guess. The geographical argument is one leg since we have other geographical bases such as the German Luther Bible, the Diodatti of Italy, and The Spanish Sagradas has it which offer different locales or places. The Arabic Version has the reading of KJB on the specific exemplar. What you have not listed to support your view is the majority of them have the KJB reading and other early versions. While the Greek uncials do support KJB reading of the supposed passage in question or between “Lord God” vs Lord Christ”, Ephramai does not contain the Catholic Epistles which includes 1 Peter. Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, and Vaticanus have the support of the critical English Text but the Uncial 025 Phophyranius, 0142 and 0129, however, does contain 1 Peter and are said to be evidence for KJB reading though they were penned later. Shreds of evidence are counted this time since they are independent and this begs us the question where did they get their master copies as they penned it? For the Papyri, you had listed only one which is B72. B74 and B81 are found to have 1 Peter, So the papyri that contain the subject is assumed to have the KJB reading. Of the minuscules, you listed only a few that is 33 614 1739 as support for the critical “Lord Christ”. The vast majority of the minuscules that contained 1 Peter although written around 10 to 16th Ce does contain the support of the KJB. Do I need to list the minuscules, where the majority of the support belongs to the KJB. The following are for your consideration.
1569 Spanish Bible
SE 15 sino santificad al Señor Dios en vuestros corazones, y estad siempre aparejados para responder a cada uno que os demande razón de la esperanza que está en vosotros; y esto con mansedumbre y reverencia,
APB Greek (based on Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, and Syriac) does contain the reading of the KJB “Lord God” not “Lord Christ”
ABP_GRK(i)
15G2962κύριονG1161δεG3588τονG2316θεόνG37αγιάσατεG1722ενG3588ταιςG2588καρδίαις υμώνG1473 G2092έτοιμοι δεG1161 G104αείG4314προςG627απολογίανG3956παντίG3588τωG154αιτούντιG1473υμάςG3056λόγονG4012περίG3588τηςG1722ενG1473υμίνG1680ελπίδοςG3326μετάG4240πραϋτητοςG2532καιG5401φόβου
The Emphatic Diaglott employing Greisbach Greek has “Theos”
1 Peter 3:15
Diaglott(i) 15 Lord but the God do you sanctify in the hearts of you; prepared and always with a defence to all to the one asking you an account concerning the in you hope, with meekness and fear;
The Arabic Bible has the same reading for KJB for the Lord God vs Lord Christ
بل قدسوا الرب الاله في قلوبكم مستعدين دائما لمجاوبة كل من يسألكم عن سبب الرجا الذي فيكم بوداعة وخوف
But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, always being ready to give an answer to everyone who asks you a reason for hope who is in you with meekness and fear
The Dutch Bible has “God”
1 Peter 3:15
DSV(i) 15 Maar heiligt God, den Heere, in uw harten; en zijt altijd bereid tot verantwoording aan een iegelijk, die u rekenschap afeist van de hoop, die in u is, met zachtmoedigheid en vreze.
Btw, it is you who brought out this comparison between KJB and the critical English Version in which you seem to uphold critical reading based on the Geographical which I have attended to disagree. Ang for fair analysis of the older Greeks may come up with the correct original language text. The variants on Greek were the majority in favor of the KJB reading and these are familiar or common to early believers as the consistency of the Received Text placed a major role in deciding which is the correct reading.
-
1
- Show all
P
P46 does not contain the Catholic Epistle of 1 Peter, so this is not evidence to the contested passage
p66 is all about the Gospel of john. This is far from the evidence
p75 does not contain 1 Peter so this is not evidence or support of the passage in question.
For the Sinaiticus, I have given the gist history of how it really got by Tsicehndorf. If you have read Scrivener's "A Plain Introduction to Criticism of the New Testament" you will find that the Septuagint leaves were part of the known Sinaticus. The value of the manuscript for the monk is lesser, had they not known to Tsicendorf, those leaves including others would be of the same fate.. They are just good for nothing. Scrivener also mentioned of Simonedes who claimed he wrote Sinaticus but I have yet to read the book.
P46 does not contain the Catholic Epistle of 1 Peter, so this is not evidence to the contested passage
p66 is all about the Gospel of john. This is far from the evidence
p75 does not contain 1 Peter so this is not evidence or support of the passage in question.
For the Sinaiticus, I have given the gist history of how it really got by Tsicehndorf. If you have read Scrivener's "A Plain Introduction to Criticism of the New Testament" you will find that the Septuagint leaves were part of the known Sinaticus. The value of the manuscript for the monk is lesser, had they not known to Tsicendorf, those leaves including others would be of the same fate.. They are just good for nothing. Scrivener also mentioned of Simonedes who claimed he wrote Sinaticus but I have yet to read the book.