Peshitta Forum

Full Version: book of Hebrews: better from Greek, or Aramaic?
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
gloss added:  Mark 7:11
transliteration without a gloss:  Matthew 27:6

Do you think Mark 7:11 did, or didn't, have a definition of 'qorbani' when it was originally:
spoken?
written?

Do you think Matthew 27:6 was originally spoken in:  Greek?  Hebrew?  Aramaic?

Mark 7:11-12 (based on Younan)
http://dukhrana.com/peshitta/analyze_ver...ize=125%25
11. But you say, 
If a man should say to his father or to his mother, 
What you (would) have gained from me is qorbani [my offering/gift],'
12. then you do not allow him to. . . . 

The Greek translation of the original Aramaic gives a transliteration of an Aramaic word and then gives that word's translation:

Mark 7:11 (KJV)
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se...HCSB;NABRE 
But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.

The Latin also has the gloss:

Mark 7:11, http://dukhrana.com 
Vos autem dicitis:  Si dixerit homo patri, aut matri, Corban, (quod est donum) quodcumque ex me, tibi profuerit:
google translate:  You say, 'If a man says to his father or mother, Corban, (which is gift) from me is given to God;

The Greek mss. for Mt 15:5 have a translation without a transliteration and without a gloss:

https://biblehub.com/text/matthew/15-5.htm
https://biblehub.com/matthew/15-5.htm
https://biblehub.com/matthew/15-6.htm
(Berean Literal Bible) But you say, 'Whoever shall say to the father or mother, "Whatever you might be profited by me is a gift," [Greek:  Δῶρον/ Dōron/ gift]
he shall not honor his father or his mother.' And you made void the commandment of God on account of your tradition!

The Greek and Latin for Mt 27:6 have another transliteration of the Aramaic, but no gloss:

Matthew 27:6
https://biblehub.com/matthew/27-6.htm
https://biblehub.com/interlinear/matthew/27-6.htm
http://dukhrana.com/peshitta/index.php
http://dukhrana.com/peshitta/analyze_ver...ize=125%25
(Berean Literal Bible) And the chief priests, having taken the pieces of silver, said, "It is not lawful to put them into the treasury [Greek mss.:  korbanan/ κορβανᾶν], since it is the price of blood."
(Clementine Vulgate) Principes autem sacerdotum, acceptis argenteis, dixerunt: Non licet eos mittere in corbonam:  quia pretium sanguinis est.

The by-A.D. 175 Diatessaron lacks the gloss:
Section XX
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/te...saron.html
[~23] God said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whosoever revileth his father and his mother shall surely die. But ye say, If a man say to his father or to his mother, What thou receivest from me is an offering,--and ye suffer him not to do anything for his father or his mother; and ye make void and reject the word of God by reason of the ordinance that ye have ordained and commanded, such as the washing of cups and measures, and what resembles that ye do much. And ye forsook the command of God, and held to the ordinance of men. Do ye well to wrong the command of God in order that ye may establish your ordinance?
Glosses in Greek mss. are absent from the Diatesseron

////////////////////////
Mt 27:46: didn't make it into Tatian's Diatesseron

////////////////////////
Mk 5:41: The Diatesseron lacks the gloss present in Greek mss.:

Diatesseron, Section XII
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/te...saron.html
[~29] And he took hold of the hand of the maid, and said unto her, Maid, arise. And her spirit returned, and straightway she arose and walked: and she was about twelve years of age.

////////////////////////
Mk 7:11: The Diatesseron lacks the gloss present in Greek mss.:

Section XX
[~24] But ye say, If a man say to his father or to his mother, What thou receivest from me is an offering,--and ye suffer him not to do anything for his father or his mother; and ye make void and reject the word of God by reason of the ordinance that ye have ordained and commanded, such as the washing of cups and measures, and what resembles that ye do much.

////////////////////////
Mk 7:34: The Diatesseron lacks the gloss present in Greek mss.:

Section XXI
[~4] And he drew him away from the multitude, and went away alone, and spat upon his fingers, and thrust them into his ears, and touched his tongue; and looked to heaven, and sighed, and said unto him, Be opened. And in that hour his ears were opened, and the bond of his tongue was loosed, and he spake with ease.

////////////////////////
Mk 10:46: The Diatesseron lacks the gloss present in Greek mss.:

Section XXXI
[25] And when Jesus went out of Jericho, he and his disciples, there came after him a great multitude. And there was a blind man sitting by the way side begging. And his name was Timaeus, the son of Timaeus. And he heard the sound of the multitude passing, and asked, Who is this?

////////////////////////
Jn 1:38: The Diatesseron lacks the gloss present in Greek mss.:

Section V
[~7] And his two disciples heard him saying this, and they followed Jesus. And Jesus turned and saw them coming after him, and said unto them, What seek ye? They said unto him, Our master, where art thou staying? And he said unto them, Come and see.

////////////////////////
Jn 1:41-42: The Diatesseron lacks the 2 glosses present in Greek mss.:

Section V
[~10] And he saw first Simon his brother, and said unto him, We have found the Messiah. And he brought him unto Jesus. And Jesus looked upon him and said, Thou art Simon, son of Jonah: thou shalt be called Cephas. And on the next day Jesus desired to go forth to Galilee,

////////////////////////
Jn 4:25: The Diatesseron lacks the gloss present in Greek mss.:

Section XXI
[~29] That woman said unto him, I know that the Messiah cometh: and when he is come, he will teach us everything. Jesus said unto her, I that speak unto thee am he.

////////////////////////
Jn 9:7: The Diatesseron lacks the gloss present in Greek mss.:

Section XXXVI
[~17] And when he said that, he spat upon the ground, and made clay of his spittle, and smeared it on the eyes of the blind man, and said unto him, Go and wash thyself in the pool of Siloam. And he went and washed, and came seeing.
When it was originally written, do you think Hebrews:
4:8 mentioned "the son of Nun"?
4:12 mentioned "bones"?

Hat tip:  
http://www.everlastingkingdom.info/gb4.html#heb4

Hebrews 4:8
http://dukhrana.com/peshitta/analyze_ver...ize=125%25
(Etheridge) ---but if Jeshu-bar-Nun had established them in rest [Given them rest] , he [would] not have spoken afterwards of another day:
(Murdock) For if Joshua, the son of Nun, had given them rest, he would not have spoken afterwards of another day.
(KJV) For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day.

Hebrews 4:12
http://dukhrana.com/peshitta/analyze_ver...ize=125%25
(Etheridge) For living is the Word of Aloha, and all-acting, and more penetrating than a two-edged sword [The sword of two mouths] , and entereth to the separation of the soul and the spirit, and of the joints, and of the marrow, and the bones, and discerneth the reasonings and counsel of the heart.
(Murdock) For the word of God is living, and all-efficient, and sharper than a two-edged sword, and entereth even to the severance of the soul and the spirit, and of the joints and the marrow and the bones, and judgeth the thoughts and reasonings of the heart:
(KJV) For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged [literal Greek:  2-mouthed] sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
When it was originally written, do you think Hebrews 6:12 spoke against:
hope being cut off? fainting? slothfulness? sluggishness? despairing? growing weary of waiting?

Hebrews 6:11
http://dukhrana.com/peshitta/analyze_ver...ize=125%25
(Etheridge) But we desire that every one of you manifest the same diligence for the full completion of your hope until the end;
(Murdock) And we desire, that each one of you may show this same activity, for the completion of your hope, even to the end:
(KJV) And we desire that every one of you do shew the same diligence to the full assurance of hope unto the end:

Hebrews 6:12
http://dukhrana.com/peshitta/analyze_ver...ize=125%25
(Etheridge) and that it be not cut off from you [Tethkatao lecun. (Katao, abscidit. Ethpaal, abscissus est.) ] , but that ye be imitators of them who by fidelity and patience [Prolongedness of spirit] have become heirs of the promise.
(Murdock) and that ye faint not; but that ye be emulators of them who by faith and patience have become heirs of the promise.
(KJV) That ye be not slothful, but followers of them who through faith and patience inherit the promises.

Hebrews 6:12 (Berean Literal Bible)
https://biblehub.com/hebrews/6-12.htm
https://biblehub.com/interlinear/hebrews/6-12.htm
so that you may not be sluggish [Greek: nōthroi/ νωθροὶ/ sluggish], but imitators of those inheriting the promises through faith and patience.

3576. nóthros
https://biblehub.com/greek/3576.htm
nóthros: sluggish, slothful
Original Word: νωθρός, ά, όν
Part of Speech: Adjective
Transliteration: nóthros
Phonetic Spelling: (no-thros')
Definition: sluggish, slothful
Usage: blunt, dull, hence spiritually; sluggish, remiss, slack.
HELPS Word-studies
3576 nōthrós – properly, slow, sluggish (LS); (figuratively) dull because slothful; lazy, inert, listless (lackadaisical).

http://cal.huc.edu/oneentry.php?lemma=q%...0&cits=all
vb. a/a to cut off, to cut down
G View a KWIC
1 to cut off, to cut down ....
2 to cut into pieces .... (a.1) to make a covenant .... to stipulate, agree on .... to decree .... (a.2) to destroy a cultic installation .... (b) fig. .... to divide into sections .... cut the Decalogue into sections so that our children will be able to read them. © to bite off .... that ass that bit off a child's hand.
3 (intrans.) to stop movement or process .... with Ebiathar the priestly line of Eli came to an end, and with John the prophetic line of the Children of Israel ceased. ....
4 to dig ?? ....
D View a KWIC
1 to cut off .... the h'-plant 'cuts off ' the legs of the evildoers [i.e. convicts them].
2 fig. : to interrupt .... so that one does not speak all his words while another one cuts his words short. (a) to neglect ....
3 to cut up into sections .... but don't we cut them (i.e. the verses) in the academy (during study)?. .... for the wood cutters .
4 to kill ....
Gt View a KWIC
1 to be cut off, cut short .... when (the wind) may swirl around within it and is cut off by a strong force. .... just as his route to Padan Aram was cut short when he went, so was it cut short at his return so that he went in one day and returned in one day. .... their lifetimes were cut short and they died.
2 to cease .... inheritance rights cease from women after the first level. (a) impersonal .... to take a break .... Abraham journeyed the whole day without stopping. .... he did not stop praying.
Dt View a KWIC
1 to be cut off ....
2 to be esteemed lightly ....
3 to despair .... the athlete looking at the wreath will not despair because of the severity of the struggle. (a) to grow weary of waiting .... If I am delayed do not despair of waiting.

=============================================.
When it was originally written, do you think Hebrews:
5:2 had "humble himself"?
5:8 had "fear"?

Hebrews 5:2
http://dukhrana.com/peshitta/analyze_ver...ize=125%25
(Etheridge) and (is one) who can humble himself, and suffer with those who know not and err, since he also himself with infirmity is clothed.
(Murdock) and he can humble himself, and sympathize with the ignorant and the erring, because he also is clothed with infirmity.
(KJV) Who can have compassion on the ignorant, and on them that are out of the way; for that he himself also is compassed with infirmity.

Hebrews 5:8
http://dukhrana.com/peshitta/analyze_ver...ize=125%25
(Etheridge) And though he was the Son, yet from the fear and the sufferings which he sustained he learned obedience.
(Murdock) And though he was a son, yet, from the fear and the sufferings he endured, he learned obedience.
(KJV) Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;
When it was originally written, do you think Hebrews 7:21 had:
“the hand of David”?
“after the likeness of Melchisedec”?
“after the order of Melchisedec”?
none of those?

Hebrews 7:21
http://dukhrana.com/peshitta/analyze_verse.php?lang=en&verse=Hebrews+7:21&source=khabouris&font=Estrangelo+Edessa&size=125%25
(Etheridge) For they were made priests without an oath; but this [one] with an oath: as he said unto him by the hand of David, The Lord hath sworn and will not lie, that 
thou art the Priest for ever in the likeness of Malki-Zedek.
(Murdock) For they became priests without an oath; but this man by an oath.  As he said to him by David: The Lord hath sworn, and will not lie, 
Thou art a priest for ever, after the likeness of Melchisedec.
(KJV) (For those priests were made without an oath; but this with an oath by him that said unto him, The Lord sware and will not repent, 
Thou art a priest for ever after the order of MelchisedecSmile

Hebrews 7:21 (HCSB)
but He became a priest with an oath made by the One who said to Him:
The Lord has sworn, and He will not change His mind, You are a priest forever.

Psalm 110:4 (HCSB)
The Lord has sworn an oath and will not take it back:
“Forever, You are a priest like Melchizedek.”

https://biblehub.com/texts/hebrews/7-21.htm
Westcott and Hort / {NA28 variants}
ὁ δὲ μετὰ ὁρκωμοσίας διὰ τοῦ λέγοντος πρὸς αὐτόν Ὤμοσεν Κύριος, καὶ οὐ μεταμεληθήσεται, Σὺ ἱερεὺς εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα
RP Byzantine Majority Text 2005
ὁ δὲ μετὰ ὁρκωμοσίας, διὰ τοῦ λέγοντος πρὸς αὐτόν, Ὤμοσεν κύριος καὶ οὐ μεταμεληθήσεται, Σὺ ἱερεὺς εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα κατὰ τὴν τάξιν Μελχισεδέκ―
Greek Orthodox Church 1904
ὁ δὲ μετὰ ὁρκωμοσίας διὰ τοῦ λέγοντος πρὸς αὐτόν· ὤμοσε Κύριος, καὶ οὐ μεταμεληθήσεται· σὺ ἱερεὺς εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα κατὰ τὴν τάξιν Μελχισεδέκ· -

==================================.
When they were originally written, do you think Hebrews 6:4 and 10:32 had:
“enlightened/ illuminated”?
“baptism”?

Hebrews 10:32
http://dukhrana.com/peshitta/analyze_verse.php?lang=en&verse=Hebrews+10:32&source=khabouris&font=Estrangelo+Edessa&size=125%25
(Etheridge) Be mindful, therefore, of the first days, those in which ye received baptism; and when ye sustained a great agony of sufferings, with ignominy and affliction;
(Murdock) Therefore, recollect ye the former days, those in which ye received baptism, and endured a great conflict of sufferings, with reproach and affliction;
(KJV) But call to remembrance the former days, in which, after ye were illuminated, ye endured a great fight of afflictions;

Hebrews 6:4
http://dukhrana.com/peshitta/analyze_verse.php?lang=en&verse=Hebrews+6:4&source=khabouris&font=Estrangelo+Edessa&size=125%25
(Etheridge) But they who once unto baptism have descended [Honun d'chado zaban l'mahmuditho nechathu. The Greek reads, Tous apax photisthentas, "they who have been once enlightened." The rendering of the Peschito here harmonizes with the emblematical way of speaking of baptism, as the mysterion photismatos, "the sacrament of illumination," that prevailed in the ancient church; and to which an allusion is made so early as the middle of the second century, in the Apology of Justin Martyr. (Apol. i. cap. 80.) The epithet of "the illuminated" might have been applied to the baptized, in primitive days, both because the administration of the ordinance betokened a recognition, on the part of the church, of a certain measure of divine knowledge in the candidate, as well as that it was in itself a medium through which the BELIEVER had the privilege of receiving more of the illuminating grace of the Holy Spirit. Still we have no evidence that, in the tous photisthentus of the Greek text, there was any specific allusion to baptism. In this and the parallel place, in chap. x. 32, the Greek phrase plainly refers to inward and spiritual illumination,-or, as it is expressed in the explanatory terms of verse 26 of that chapter, the receiving the knowledge of the truth], and have tasted the gift which is from heaven, and have received the Spirit of Holiness,
(Murdock) But they who have once descended to baptism, and have tasted the gift from heaven, and have received the Holy Spirit,
(KJV) For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,
Heb 13:16 mention the poor?; Heb 12:2 & Rom 2:4 have despising?

When it was originally written, do you think Hebrews 13:16 mentioned the poor?
Do you think sacrifices that God is pleased with include:
communication?
communication with the poor?
fellowship with the poor?

Hebrews 13:16
http://dukhrana.com/peshitta/analyze_verse.php?lang=en&verse=Hebrews+13:16&source=khabouris&font=Estrangelo+Edessa&size=125%25
(Etheridge) And forget not compassion and communication to the poor: for with these sacrifices a man pleaseth Aloha.
(Murdock) And forget not commiseration and communication with the poor; for with such sacrifices a man pleaseth God.
(Lamsa) And do not forget kindness and fellowship with the poor: for with such sacrifices God is well pleased.
(KJV) But to do good and to communicate forget not: for with such sacrifices God is well pleased.

=======================================.
According to Hebrews 12:2, do you think Jesus:
‘delivered himself to shame’?
‘surrendered himself to opprobrium’?
‘despised shame’?

Hebrews 12:2
http://dukhrana.com/peshitta/analyze_verse.php?lang=en&verse=Hebrews+12:2&source=khabouris&font=Estrangelo+Edessa&size=125%25
(Etheridge) And let us look unto Jeshu, who hath become the chief and the perfecter of our faith; who, for the joy that was before him, endured the cross, and unto shame delivered himself, and at the right hand of the throne of Aloha hath sat down.
(Murdock) And let us look on Jesus, who hath become the commencement and the completion of our faith; who, on account of the joy there was for him, endured the cross, and surrendered himself to opprobrium; and is seated on the right hand of the throne of God.
(KJV) Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising [Greek:  kataphronēsas/ καταφρονήσας/ having despised] the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

2706. kataphroneó
https://biblehub.com/greek/2706.htm
kataphroneó: to think little of
Original Word: καταφρονέω
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: kataphroneó
Phonetic Spelling: (kat-af-ron-eh'-o)
Definition: to think little of
Usage: I despise, scorn, and show it by active insult, disregard.
HELPS Word-studies
2706 kataphronéō (from 2596 /katá, "down, according to," intensifying 5426 /phronéō, "regulating behavior from inner mind-set") – properly, view down, i.e. with a negative (hostile) outlook; to despise, thinking down on (thinking little of); esteem lightly, seeing as insignificant or detestable; to treat with contempt or disregard (BAGD); devalue; to depreciate (scorn); pay no regard to (because something seems of no account); " 'despise, scorn,' and show it by active insult" (Souter).
[2706 /kataphronéō (literally, "think down") refers to holding someone in contempt, deeming them unworthy and hence despised (scorned).]
NAS Exhaustive Concordance
Word Origin
from kata and phroneó

=======================================.
Do you think Romans 2:4 speaks of:
presumption?  abuse?  standing against?  despising?

Magiera renders “m-m-r-kh” as:  are you presumptuous
https://aramaicdb.lightofword.org/en/new-interlinear-search
Rom 2:4 (APNT) 
https://aramaicdb.lightofword.org/en/new-parallel-versions-search
Or are you presumptuous against the riches of his kindness and against his long-suffering and against the advantage that he gave to you?  And do you not know that the kindness of God brings you to repentance?

Romans 2:4
http://dukhrana.com/peshitta/analyze_verse.php?lang=en&verse=Romans+2:4&source=khabouris&font=Estrangelo+Edessa&size=125%25
(Etheridge) Or upon the riches of his goodness, and upon his long-suffering, and upon the space he giveth thee, presumest thou ? and knowest not that the goodness of Aloha unto repentance leadeth thee?
(Murdock) Or wilt thou abuse the riches of his benevolence, and his long suffering, and the opportunity which he giveth thee ? And dost thou not know, that the benevolence of God should bring thee to repentance?
(Lamsa) Do you stand against the riches of his goodness and forbearance, and the opportunity which he has given you, not knowing that the goodness of God leads you to repentance?
(KJV) Or despises [Greek:  καταφρονεῖς/ kataphroneis] thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?

http://cal.huc.edu/oneentry.php?lemma=mrx+V%20&cits=all
mrḥ   vb.  C to act boldly

1  to act boldly, dare  …. so that (nations) do not act boldly against each other ….. (a) w. asyndetic verbal complement  …. who would dare to investigate Him now that He has ascended and sat on high at the right hand?.  …. which mouth dares to contemplate it?.
Dt
1  to be done boldly  Syr. SevLet 255c:22 .
Ct 
1  to show oneself bold  Syr. PO4 52:6 .
2  to be done daringly  Syr. Rie 120:18 .    ….
Derivatives:
mrḥ (marrāḥ) adj.   bold
mrḥʾyt (marrāḥāˀīṯ) adv.   boldly
mrḥw, mrḥwtˀ (marrāḥū, marrāḥūṯā) n.f.   bold impropriety

2706. kataphroneó
https://biblehub.com/greek/2706.htm
kataphroneó: to think little of
Original Word: καταφρονέω
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: kataphroneó
Phonetic Spelling: (kat-af-ron-eh'-o)
Definition: to think little of
Usage: I despise, scorn, and show it by active insult, disregard.
HELPS Word-studies
2706 kataphronéō (from 2596 /katá, "down, according to," intensifying 5426 /phronéō, "regulating behavior from inner mind-set") – properly, view down, i.e. with a negative (hostile) outlook; to despise, thinking down on (thinking little of); esteem lightly, seeing as insignificant or detestable; to treat with contempt or disregard (BAGD); devalue; to depreciate (scorn); pay no regard to (because something seems of no account); " 'despise, scorn,' and show it by active insult" (Souter).
[2706 /kataphronéō (literally, "think down") refers to holding someone in contempt, deeming them unworthy and hence despised (scorned).]
NAS Exhaustive Concordance
Word Origin
from kata and phroneó
Mark 16:9-20 is in the Diatesseron of Tatian (died A.D. 175), and in the writings of Justin (died A.D. 165).
https://bibledifferences.net/2012/08/21/...mk-169-20/

////////////////////////////////////////////
Justin (died A.D. 165), the Peshitta, and the by-A.D. 175 Diatesseron lack an added 'mourning' to Mt 2:18.

Justin
https://bibledifferences.net/2012/12/04/...a-mat-218/

Matthew 2:18 (HCSB)
A voice was heard in Ramah,
weeping,[a: Other mss read _Ramah, lamentation, and weeping,_] and great mourning,
Rachel weeping for her children;
and she refused to be consoled,
because they were no more.

Tatian included merely 3 and not 4 terms synonymous with 'mourning.' Of course, in making his consolidation of the 4 Gospels, he didn't include 100% of their text.

Diatesseron 3:18
A voice was heard in Ramah,
Weeping and much lamentation;
Rachel weeping for her children,
And not willing to be consoled for their loss.

The original Aramaic of the Peshitta has merely 3 and not 4 terms synonymous with 'mourning':

Matthew 2:18 (based on Younan)
"A voice was heard in Ramtha,
great crying and wailing.
Rakhiel crying for her sons
and not desiring to be comforted,
because they were not."
The Peshitta, by-A.D. 175 Diatesseron, and "Justin Martyr (140 AD); Theophilus Ant. (168 AD); Athenagoras (177 AD); Clemens Alexand. (192 AD)" agree: Mt 5:44 originally had all its text.

Matthew 5:44 (HCSB)
But I tell you,
love your enemies[a: Other mss add
_bless those who curse you,
do good to those who hate you,_]
and pray for those who[b: Other mss add _mistreat you and_] persecute you,

As of A.D. 175, that verse had all of the material mentioned:

Diatesseron 9:13
but I say unto you,
Love your enemies,
and pray for those that curse you,
and deal well with those that hate you,
and pray for those who take you with violence and persecute you;

The original Aramaic of the Peshitta has it all:

Matthew 5:44 (Younan)
But I say to you,
love your enemies,
and bless those that curse you,
and do that which is pleasing to those who hate you,
and pray for those that take you by force and persecute you. . . .

From
http://www.jeffriddle.net/2012/01/textua...w-544.html
Translations based on traditional text (emphasis added to phrases omitted in modern text):
Geneva: Matthew 5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies: *bless them that curse you: do good to them that hate you,* and pray for them which *hurt you, and* persecute you.
KJV: Matthew 5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, *bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you,* and pray for them which *despitefully use you, and* persecute you;

Translations based on modern critical text:
NIV (1984): Matthew 5:44 But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,
NASB: Matthew 5:44 But I say to you, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you

ANALYSIS:

External Evidence:
A look at the critical apparati for Matthew 5:44 reveals some minor variations in the disputed phrases but, in general, the traditional text is supported by D, L, W, Theta, family 13, 33, and the Majority text tradition.
The modern critical text is, predictably, supported by Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.

Burgon, with typical bite, chides Wescott and Hort for the “deplorable error” of omitting these phrases: “You relied almost exclusively on those two false witnesses, of which you are so superstitiously fond, B and Aleph: regardless of the testimony of almost all the other copies besides:--of almost all the VERSIONS: --and of a host of primitive FATHERS" (Revision Revised, p. 410). Among the fathers who support the traditional text he cites the following: Justin Martyr (140 AD); Theophilus Ant. (168 AD); Athenagoras (177 AD); Clemens Alexand. (192 AD); Origen (210 AD); Apostolic Constitution (3rd century AD); etc.
"likely fused Luke 6:28 together with Matt 5:44"

Matthew 5:44 (NABRE)
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se...HCSB;NABRE
But I say to you, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you,

Luke 6:28 (NABRE)
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se...HCSB;NABRE
bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you.

Mashup of Mt 5:44 + Lk 6:28 NABRE:
But I say to you,
love your enemies,
and pray for those who persecute you,
bless those who curse you,
pray for those who mistreat you.

Mat 5:44 (APNT)
https://aramaicdb.lightofword.org/en/new...ons-search
But I say to you,
love your enemies
and bless those who curse you
and do that which is pleasing to him who hates you
and pray for those who take you by force and persecute you,

The Aramaic has material different than what's had by the NABRE's Mt 5:44 + Lk 6:28:
"take you by force and"
"and" before 'bless'
"and do that which is pleasing to him who hates you"

Even if "pray for those who mistreat you" is basically the same as "pray for those who take you by force," starting with the NABRE's Mt 5:44 + Lk 6:28, where does the Aramaic and the KJV's [APNT]"and do that which is pleasing to him who hates you"/ [KJV]"do good to them that hate you" come from?

Matthew 5:44 (KJV)
But I say unto you,
Love your enemies,
bless them that curse you,
do good to them that hate you,
and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
"If these were sourced from Q then everything should be identical, except for the problem of say, Luke and Matthew, translating it into Greek separately. But the extra phrases I think are best explained by different oral sources"
Makes sense.
For the Lord's Prayer, the Aramaic Mt has slightly more material than the Aramaic Lk. Also, the Aramaic Lk uses 2 words that mean the same thing as what's in the Aramaic Mt, but that destroy in those 2 places the extensive rhyming had in the Aramaic Mt.
Do you think "For yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever" does, or doesn't, belong in Mt 6:13?

Matthew 6:13 (HCSB)
And do not bring us into temptation,
but deliver us from the evil one.
[For Yours is the kingdom and the power
and the glory forever.
Amen.][c: Other mss omit bracketed text]

Except for an "amen," the text was present as of A.D. 175:

Diatesseron 9:36-37
And bring us not into temptations,
but deliver us from the evil one.
For thine is the kingdom,
and the power, and the glory,
for ever and ever.
If ye forgive. . . .

The original Aramaic of the Peshitta has the text without the added "amen":

Matthew 6:13 (Younan)
And bring us not into trial,
but deliver us from the evil one.
For yours is the kingdom,
and the power,
and the glory,
forever and ever.
For if you forgive men their transgressions. . . .

Note on the text of Matthew 6:13b
http://www.jeffriddle.net/2009/04/note-o...-613b.html
A follow up on a point raised last night at JPBC on the external evidence for the doxology of the Lord’s Prayer (Matt 6:13b): "For yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen." The doxology is omitted in modern translations like the RSV, NIV, and ESV. The ESV footnote explains, "some manuscripts add" v. 13b.

What is the ancient attestation to this text and how early is it?

E. F. Hills (see his discussion in KJV Defended, pp. 146-50) says, "almost all the Greek NT manuscripts" include the doxology. He notes it is in codices W (4-5th century) and Sigma and Phi (both 6th century). My copy of the UBS 3rd corrected edition also lists codices K L Theta Pi and family 13 among others.

Hills adds that it is also in an early Christian work called the Apostolic Constitution (4th c.) and is cited by Chrysostom (345-407 AD) and Isidore of Pelusium (370-440 AD).
The earliest testimony to the doxology in Greek, however, is found in the Didache, an early Christian writing usually dated to the first half of the second century (see Didache VIII.2). It is also well attested in the ancient versions including Old Latin and Syriac (Peshitta, Harclean, and Palestinian).

The key external evidence against it is summed up by Hills: It "is omitted by by Aleph B D S and by six minuscule manuscripts. It is also omitted by all the manuscripts of the Vulgate and by nine manuscripts of the Old Latin. And certain Church Fathers omit it in their expositions of the Lord’s Prayer."

Conclusion: The doxology has credible, ancient attestation in the traditional text of Scripture and should be included in the canonical text of Scripture.
Do you think "blessed are you among women" does, or doesn't, belong in Luke 1:28?

Luke 1:28 (HCSB)
And the angel came to her and said,
"Rejoice, favored woman!
The Lord is with you."[a: Other mss add
_blessed are you among women_]

As of A.D. 175, the complete text was present:

Diatesseron 1:29
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf09.iv.iii.i.html
And the angel entered unto her and said unto her,
Peace be unto thee,
thou who art filled with grace.
Our Lord is with thee,
thou blessed amongst women.

The original Aramaic of the Peshitta has the complete text:

Luke 1:28 (based on Younan's interlinear at peshitta.org)
And the malaka [angelic messenger] came to her and said to her,
"Shlam [hello/ peace] to you full of grace.
Maran [our Lord] is with you,
blessed among women."

Textual Note: Luke 1:28
http://www.jeffriddle.net/2012/06/textua...e-128.html
Translations based on traditional text (emphasis added):
Tyndale (1536) Luke 1:28: And the angel went in unto her, and said: Hail full of grace, the Lord is with thee: *blessed art thou among women.*
KJV Luke 1:28: And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: *blessed _art_ thou among women.*

Translations based on modern-critical text:
RSV Luke 1:28: And he came to her and said, “Hail, O favored one, the Lord is with you!”
ESV Luke 1:28: And he came to her and said, “Greetings, O favored one, the Lord is with you!”

External Evidence:
The traditional reading is supported by A (Alexandrinus), C, D, Theta, family 13, 33, and the vast majority of manuscripts. It is also the reading of the Syriac, and it appears in the Church Father Eusebius. Metzger begrudgingly admits that the traditional reading is supported by “fairly good witnesses” (Textual Commentary, p. 129).
The modern critical reading is supported by the “big two” of modern text criticism: Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. It is also supported by L, W, Psi, and family 1, as well as by the Church Father Epiphanius of Constantia.

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
When Luke 2:14 was originally written, do you think it had:
"peace on earth to people He favors"?
"peace on earth, good will to people"?

Luke 2:14 (HCSB)
Glory to God in the highest heaven,
and peace on earth
to people He favors![a: Other mss read _earth
good will to people_]

As of A.D. 175, the latter reading was present:

Diatesseron 2:22
Praise be to God in the highest,
And on the earth peace,
and good hope to men.

The original Aramaic of the Peshitta has the latter reading:

Luke 2:14 (Younan)
"Tishbokhtha [glory/ praise] to Allaha in the highest,
and on earth shlama [peace]
and good hope to the sons of men."

Text Note: Luke 2:14
http://www.jeffriddle.net/2012/07/text-n...e-214.html
The Issue:
The textual issue in this well-known “Christmas” passage is reflected in the renderings of various English translations. Whereas translations based on the traditional text read: “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, *goodwill toward men”* (AV, emphasis added), those based on modern texts read, “Glory to God in the highest and on earth peace *to those on whom his favor rests”* (NIV, emphasis added).

In Greek, the issue is the matter of the case of a single word, eudokia. Should it be a nominative eudokia: “goodwill toward men” [en anthropais eudokia] or genitive eudokias: “among men of goodwill” [en anthropais eudokias]?

Is the angelic announcement threefold (glory, peace, and goodwill) or twofold (glory and peace) with the expanded emphasis on his peace bestowed among those “on whom his favor rests” (NIV) or “among men with whom He is pleased” (NASB)?

External evidence:
The traditional reading of eudokia is supported by L, Theta, Psi, family 1, family 13, and the vast majority of manuscripts. It is also supported by the Syriac and Bohairic versions, as well as by the Church Fathers Eusebius and Epiphanius of Constantia.
The modern critical reading of eudokias is supported by the original hands of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, as well as codices A, D, W, and a few Latin manuscripts. Among the Church Fathers it is found in some texts from Origen and in Cyril of Jerusalem.

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
When Luke 2:33 was originally written, do you think it had: father? Joseph?

Luke 2:33 (HCSB)
His father and mother[a: Other mss read _But Joseph and His mother_] were amazed at what was being said about Him.

The "Joseph and His mother" phrasing was had as of A.D. 175:

Diatesseron 2:41-42
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf09.iv.iii.ii.html
And Joseph and his mother were marvelling at the things which were being said concerning him.

The "Joseph and His mother" phrasing is present in the original Aramaic:

Luke 2:33 (Younan of peshitta.org)
And Yosip and his mother were marveling at these things that were spoken concerning him.

Text Note: Luke 2:33 (43)
http://www.jeffriddle.net/2012/07/text-n...33-43.html
The Issue:
The textual question in Luke 2:33 is whether the verse should read “his father and mother [ho pater autou kai he meter]” (modern critical text) or “Joseph and his mother [Ioseph kai he meter autou]” (traditional text). The primary issue, then, is whether or not the text makes use of the noun “father [pater]” or the personal noun “Joseph [Ioseph].”

This distinction is reflected in modern English translations:
Translations based on the traditional text (emphasis added):
KJV: And *Joseph* and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him.
NKJV: And *Joseph* and His mother marveled at those things which were spoken of Him.

Translations based on the modern-critical text (emphasis added)
NIV: The *child's father* and mother marveled at what was said about him.
ESV: And *his father* and his mother marveled at what was said about him.

External Evidence:
The traditional text is supported by codices A, Theta, Psi, family 13, 33, and the vast majority of Greek manuscripts. It is also supported by several ancient versions such as the Old Latin and the Gothic. Metzger also notes that this is the reading of Tatian’s Diatesseron (c. 2nd century) (Textual Commentary, p. 134).
The modern critical text is supported by Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, in addition to a few other codices. It is also supported by several ancient versions, including a few Vulgate manuscripts.

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
When Luke 4:4 was originally written, do you think it had, or lacked, "but by every word of God"?

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se...HCSB;NABRE
Luke 4:4 (KJV) And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That
man shall not live by bread alone,
but by every word of God.
Luke 4:4 (HCSB) But Jesus answered him, “It is written:
Man must not live on bread alone.”[a: Other mss add
_but on every word of God_]

Luke 4:4 didn't make it into Tatian's Diatesseron.

Luke 4:4 (based on Younan)
Yeshua answered and said to him,
"It is written that,
it is not by bread alone man should live,
rather, by every word of Allaha."

Text Note: Luke 4:4 (fixed a typo)
http://www.jeffriddle.net/2012/11/text-n...ke-44.html
https://biblehub.com/interlinear/luke/4-4.htm
The issue:
The question is with the citation of Deuteronomy 8:3. In the modern critical text, the verse ends, “for it is written that man does not live by bread alone.” The traditional text, however, adds, after this statement, “but by every word of God [all' epi panti rhemati theou].”

External evidence:
The traditional text has wide and ancient support, including codices Alexandrinus, Theta, Psi, family 1, family 13, and the vast majority of manuscripts.
The modern critical reading is supported by the heavyweight codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus and three others.
When Luke 6:1 was originally written, do you think it had:
“on the second sabbath after the first”?
“on the sabbath”?

Luke 6:1 didn't make it into Tatian's Diatesseron.

The Aramaic Peshitta has merely “on the sabbath”:
Luke 6:1 (based on Younan) Now it happened on the Shabbata while Yeshua was walking in the fields, his students were plucking heads of grain and rubbing them in their hands and eating.

Text Note: Luke 6:1
http://www.jeffriddle.net/2012/12/text-n...ke-61.html
The issue:
The main question here is the whether the verse should include the adjective deuteroprotos in modification of the noun “sabbath.” The traditional text includes the word and the modern critical text omits it. A comparison of English translations reflects this textual difference:

AV (following the traditional text): “And it came to pass on the second sabbath after the first [egeneto de ev sabbato deuteroproto]….”
RSV/ESV (following the modern critical text): “On a sabbath [egeneto de en sabbato]….”

So, did Luke specifically say that when Jesus and his disciples walked through the grain fields it was “the second sabbath after the first,” or did he more generically say that this event happened “on a sabbath”?

External evidence:
Again, the textual evidence follows similar lines as we have seen in previous studies of textual matters in the opening chapters of Luke.
The traditional reading is supported by codices Alexandrinus, C, D, R, Theta, Psi, family 13 (with negligible variations), and the vast majority of extant Greek manuscripts. It also appears in the Old Latin and Syriac Harclean versions. In addition it appears in Epiphanius of Constantia (d. 403 A. D.).
The modern critical reading is supported by p4, Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, L, W, family 1, 33, and 1241. Among the versions it appears in some Old Latin manuscripts and the Syriac Peshitta.
When Luke 10:1 was originally written, do you think it had: seventy? seventy-two?

Luke 10:1 (HCSB)
After this, the Lord appointed 70[a: Other mss read _72_] others,
and He sent them ahead of Him in pairs to every town and place where He Himself was about to go.

As of A.D. 175, the text had "70":

Diatesseron 15:15
And after that, Jesus set apart from his disciples other seventy,
and sent them two and two before his face to every region and city whither he was purposing to go.

The original Aramaic of the Peshitta has "70":

Luke 10:1 (Younan)
After these things, Yeshua appointed seventy from his other students
and sent them two by two before his face to all regions and medintha [cities] that he was about to go (to).

Luke 10:1, 17 and the Traditional Text of Scripture
http://www.jeffriddle.net/2009/05/luke-1...xt-of.html
The Question: Did Jesus send out seventy (traditional text) or seventy-two (modern critical text) disciples in Luke 10:1, 17?
The traditional text, as reflected in translations like the AV and NKJV, reads "70." The modern critical text’s use of "72" is an example of an unnecessary change in the traditional text.

I. External Evidence:
The pivotal question is the inclusion or omission of one word, duo. Include the word, and it reads "72." Exclude the word, and it reads "70."

1. Greek manuscripts that include duo (Luke 10:1):
P75 B (Vaticanus) D (Bezae) 0181
In addition, this reading is supported by a few Old Latin manuscripts, the Sinaitic Syriac, the Curetonian Syriac, the Sahidic, and a single Bohairic manuscript. In the Church Fathers, it is found in some manuscripts of Origen (d. 254 AD) and in Adamantius (c. 300-350 AD).

2. Greek manuscripts that exclude duo (Luke 10:1):
Aleph (Sinaiticus) A C L W Theta Psi family 1 (1, 118, 131, 209, 1582) family 13 (13, 69, 124, 174, 230, 346, 543, 788, 826, 828, 983, 1689, 1709) and the Majority of extant manuscripts.
In addition, the traditional text is supported by the Syriac Peshitta, the Syriac Harclean, and the Bohairic. It is also supported by quotations in the Church Fathers including Irenaeus (2nd cen. AD); Clement (c. 95 AD); and Tertullian (c. 220 AD).

3. Evaluation:
One will notice that the two manuscripts most prized by modern critical scholars are divided in their reading. Vaticanus supports the non-traditional reading and Sinaiticus the traditional reading. There are only four Greek manuscripts that support the non-traditional reading.
The external evidence appears overwhelmingly to support the traditional text of Scripture. Metzger, however, can somehow say, "The external evidence is almost evenly divided" (this and all other quotes below are from Bruce Metzger, ed. A Textual Commentary on the New Testament [UBS, Corrected ed., 1975]: pp. 150-51). The attestation to the traditional text is ancient and widespread.

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
When the Lukan Lord's Prayer was originally written, do you think it was: a long rendition? or a short rendition?

The Peshitta has a long rendition:

Luke 11 (based on Younan)
2. Yeshua said to them,
"When you pray, be speaking as such:
Our Father in heaven
hallowed be your name.
Your Kingdom come,
Your will be done
as in heaven so on earth.
3. Give us the bread of our need everyday.
4. And forgive us our sins
for we also forgive all who have offended us.
And lead us not into trial
but save us from the evil one."
5. And he said to them,
"Who among you who has a friend....

Thoughts on the text of the Lukan Lord's Prayer: Luke 11:2-4
http://www.jeffriddle.net/2013/07/though...rayer.html
The issue:
A comparison of the NKJV (based on the traditional text) and the NIV (based on the modern critical text) illustrates the differences (disputed inclusions in bold and underlined):

NKJV:
Luke 11:2 So He said to them, "When you pray, say:
*Our* Father *in heaven,*
Hallowed be Your name.
Your kingdom come.
*Your will be done On earth as it is in heaven.*
3 Give us day by day our daily bread.
4 And forgive us our sins, For we also forgive everyone who is indebted to us.
And do not lead us into temptation, *But deliver us from the evil one."*

NIV:
Luke 11:2 He said to them, "When you pray, say:
"'Father, hallowed be your name,
your kingdom come.
3 Give us each day our daily bread.
4 Forgive us our sins, for we also forgive everyone who sins against us.
And lead us not into temptation.'"

External evidence:
When I examined the external evidence in the critical apparatus, I was surprised to see the strength of the manuscript support for the traditional reading. Take the opening phrase in v. 2: hemon pater ho en tois ouranois [“Our father which art in heaven” KJV]. This traditional reading is supported by codices A, C, D, W, Theta, family 13, and the vast majority of Greek manuscripts. The truncated reading pater of the modern critical text is supported by only five early Greek manuscripts (though they include the “big two” Sinaiticus and Vaticanus): p75, Aleph, B, 1, 700. Similar results (with some variety) are found when the other contested passages are examined.
....
Evaluation:
The external evidence in support of the traditional reading is surprisingly early (A, for example, is typically dated c. 5th century, putting it on par with the “big two”) and widespread, while the evidence supporting the modern critical reading is, correspondingly, surprisingly weak.

What are we to make, however, of Metzger’s confident assertion that the traditional reading is simply the result of accommodation or harmonization to the Matthean Lord’s Prayer (Matt 6:9-13) based on the extensive liturgical use of the latter? There seems to be an obvious logical problem with this assumption. If the scribes wanted to accommodate Luke’s text to Matthew’s the effort was not entirely successful. While the traditional text of the Lukan Lord’s Prayer is substantially like the traditional text of the Matthean Lord’s Prayer, the two are not exactly the same. For example, in Matthew 6:12 it reads, “Forgive us our debts [ta opheilemata hemon] as we forgive our debtors,” but the parallel passage in Luke 11:4 reads, “And forgive us our sins [tas hamartias hemon], as we also forgive everyone that is indebted to us.” If the scribes were driven to assimilation, why did they not harmonize this part of Luke’s prayer with Matthew’s? Most striking is the fact that there does not appear to have been an effort to insert the Matthean doxology (Matt 6:13) into the text of the Lukan Lord’s prayer at v. 4. At least the 27th ed. of the N-A apparatus does not cite any evidence of this.
The conclusion we must reach is that the scribes did not see the need to make Luke’s Lord’s Prayer conform exactly to Matthew’s, though it is very similar.
When Luke 14:5 was originally written, do you think it had:
"his son or his ox"? (had by the Peshitta and the Diatessaron)
"an ass or an ox"?

The Diatessaron has 98 instances of "answered and said." Both the Peshitta and the Diatessaron have merely "And he said to/unto them" for Luke 14:5. When Luke 14:5 was originally written, do you think it had:
"answered and said"?
merely "said"?

Luke 14:5 (based on Younan) And he said to them,
"Who among you if his son or his ox falls into a well on the day of the Shabbata
and does not immediately pull (and) bring him up?"

Diatessaron, Section XXIX
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/te...saron.html
[~47] And he said unto them,
Which of you shall have his son or his ox fall on the sabbath day into a well,
and not lift him up straightway, and draw water for him?

Text Note: Luke 14:5
http://www.jeffriddle.net/2013/10/text-n...e-145.html
There are at least two significant textual variations:
First: Should the participle “answering [apokritheis]” be included in the text along with the verb “he said [eipen]”?

The traditional text includes the participle and the modern critical text excludes it. This is reflected in modern translations (emphasis added):
KJV [traditional text] Luke 14:5 *And answered them, saying,* Which of you shall have an ass or an ox fallen into a pit, and will not straightway pull him out on the sabbath day?
Note on KJV: Interestingly, the translators make the participle the finite verb and the finite verb the participle. A literal rendering of the Greek would be: “And answering, he said….”

NASB [modern critical text] Luke 14:5 *And He said to them,* "Which one of you shall have a son or an ox fall into a well, and will not immediately pull him out on a Sabbath day?"

External evidence: The inclusion of the participle has peculiarly strong external support, including the original hand and the second corrector of Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, Theta, Psi, family 13, and the vast majority of manuscripts.

The omission of the participle, on the other hand, is supported by p 45, p 75, the first corrector of Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and family 1, among others.
This is another place where Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are not clearly on the same side.
....
Second, and most significant (and much more complicated), is whether or not the text should read “ass [onos]” or “son [huios].”

The Textus Receptus reads “ass” and the modern critical text reads “son.” Interestingly, the Byzantine text also reads “son.” This difference is reflected in modern translations (emphasis added):
KJV [traditional text] Luke 14:5 And answered them, saying, Which of you shall have *an ass or an ox* fallen into a pit, and will not straightway pull him out on the sabbath day?
NASB [modern critical text] Luke 14:5 And He said to them, "Which one of you shall have *a son or an ox* fall into a well, and will not immediately pull him out on a Sabbath day?"

External evidence: The reading of the Textus Receptus is supported by Sinaiticus, K, L, Psi, family 1, family 13, and others. The reading of the Majority Text, in this case followed by the modern critical text, is supported by p 45, p 75, Vaticanus, W, and the vast majority of Byzantine manuscripts. Codex D reads probaton, “sheep.”
This is another example of lack of agreement between Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Luke 17:36 is in the Peshitta and in the by-A.D. 175 Diatesseron. Do you think it belongs in the Bible?

Luke 17:36 (NIV)
[36] [a: Some manuscripts include here words similar to Matt. 24:40.]

Luke 17:36 (HCSB)
[36 Two will be in a field:
One will be taken,
and the other will be left.]"[a: Other mss omit bracketed text]

As of A.D. 175, the text was present:

Diatesseron 42:49
And two shall be in the field;
one shall be taken,
and another left.

The original Aramaic of the Peshitta has the complete text:

Luke 17:36 (Younan)
Two will be in the field;
one will be taken
and the other will be left.

Text Note: Luke 17:36
http://www.jeffriddle.net/2014/01/text-n...-1736.html
Should Luke 17:36 be included in the text of Scripture (as in the traditional text) or omitted (as in the Majority and modern critical text)?

External evidence:
The verse is omitted in a number of significant manuscripts, including some that regularly support the Majority and traditional texts in Luke: p 75, Sinaiticus, A, B, L, W, Delta, Theta, Psi, and family 1.
On the other hand, the verse is included in D, family 13, and in some Latin and Syriac manuscripts.

There is another key piece of external evidence: In the original hand of Sinaticus and some Latin Vulgate manuscripts, the preceding verse (Luke 17:35) is also omitted. Most agree that in this case the verse was accidentally omitted through homoeoteleuton. But this omission raises the question as to whether it might not be equally possible that the omission of v. 36 also came through scribal error.
When Luke 22:31 was originally written, do you think it read:
"And Jesus said unto Simon"? (had by the Peshitta and the by-A.D. 175 Diatessaron)
"Then the Lord said"?
neither?

Do you think the passage originally had:
Jesus saying Simon's name twice?
Jesus saying Simon's name once, as in: "And Jesus said unto Simon, 'Simon...."

Luke 22:31 (HCSB)
"Simon, Simon,[a: Other mss read
_Then the Lord said,
"Simon, Simon_] look out!
Satan has asked to sift you like wheat.

As of A.D. 175, the full text was present:

Diatesseron 45:17
And Jesus said unto Simon,
Simon, behold,
Satan asketh that he may sift you like wheat:

The original Aramaic of the Peshitta has the full text:

Luke 22:31 (Younan)
And Yeshua said to Shimon,
"Shimon, behold,
Satana [the Adversary] wants to sift all of you like wheat.

Text Note: Luke 22:31
http://www.jeffriddle.net/2014/07/text-n...-2231.html
The Issue:
The issue here is what might be considered the relatively minor matter of the introductory phrase, “And the Lord said [eipe de ho kurios].” It is included in the traditional text and omitted in the modern critical text. Compare (emphasis added):

NIV Luke 22:31 Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift you as wheat.
NKJV Luke 22:31 *And the Lord said,* "Simon, Simon! Indeed, Satan has asked for you, that he may sift you as wheat.”

External evidence:
The traditional text is supported by Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, D, W, Theta, Psi, family 1, family 13, and the vast majority.
The modern critical text is supported by 5 Greek manuscripts (according to NA 27th ed): p75, Vaticanus, L, T, and 1241.
When Luke 23:15 was originally written, how do you think it read?

The Peshitta and the by-A.D. 175 Diatessaron have "Herod, for I sent Him to him."

Luke 23:15 (based on Younan) Nor has Herodus, for I sent Him to him
and behold, nothing that is worthy of death has been committed by Him.

Diatessaron, Section L
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/te...saron.html
[~12] nor yet Herod: for I sent him unto him;
and he hath done nothing for which he should deserve death.

Text Note: Luke 23:15
http://www.jeffriddle.net/2014/09/text-n...-2315.html
I. The issue:
The question here concerns Pilate’s words to the chief priests, rulers, and people regarding his previously sending Jesus for an interview before Herod.
The traditional text reads: “No, nor yet Herod: for I sent you to him [anapempsa gar humas pros auton]….” (KJV).
The modern critical text, however, reads: “No, nor has Herod, for he sent Him back to us [anapempsen gar auton pros hemas]….” (NASB).

So, did Pilate tell them that he had sent them (presumably along with Jesus as his accusers) to Herod, as in the traditional text? Or, did Pilate say that Herod had sent Jesus back to him (presumably after finding no fault worthy of condemnation in him), as in the modern critical text?

II. External Evidence:
The traditional text reading is supported by the following: A, D, N, W, Gamma, Delta, Psi, family 1, 565, 700, 1424, 2542, and the vast majority of Greek manuscripts. It is also found in the Old Latin and in the Haraklean Syriac versions.
The modern critical text reading is supported by the following: p75, Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, K, L, T, Theta, 892, 1241. Among the versions it is found in some Vulgate mss and in the Coptic.

The apparatus of the NA 28 also indicates several other variations, such as:
“For he sent him to you”: family 13, some Vulgate mss;
“He sent him to you”: 579;
“For they sent him to us”: 070, a marginal reading in the Syriac Harklean.

III. Internal Evidence:
In his Textual Commentary, Metzger begins his discussion of this verse by saying, “In the transmission of this clause copyists became hopelessly confused….” (p. 179).
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21