book of Hebrews: better from Greek, or Aramaic?

[DavidFord]

I count 10 glosses in Greek mss. of the gospels (plus 1 gloss in Acts).
Both the Aramaic Peshitta and the Arabic Diatesseron lack those glosses.

Do you think those glosses:
arose during the translation of the Aramaic gospels into Greek?
were in the original writing of the Greek gospels, and then later on, those glosses got deleted during translation from Greek into Aramaic?

Do you think Tatian, when assembling his Diatesseron, used gospels that:
had glosses, and then he deleted the glosses before completing his Diatesseron project?
lacked glosses?

draft 2.2
"which when translated, means Dorcas"
'which means, being interpreted, “Girl, I tell you, get up.” '
'That is, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” '
'that is to say, given to God;”' '
'that is, “Be opened!” '
"the son of Timaeus"
"(which is to say, being interpreted, Teacher)"
"(which is, being interpreted, Christ)"
"(which is by interpretation, Peter)"
"(he who is called Christ)"
"(which means “Sent”)"

===============================================================================.
"Square brackets [as in this example] are used in the CVB to alert the reader that this text does not appear in the most trusted manuscript identified by majority scholars"
"6:13 Bring us not into temptation, but deliver us from calamity. [For yours is the Kingdom, the power, and the glory to the ages. Amen].’ "

For Mt 6:13, what is "the most trusted manuscript identified by majority scholars"?
The Peshitta and by-A.D. 175 Diatesseron have the 'For yours' sentence, except for the 'Amen.'

Mt PDF at http://www.willker.de/wie/TCG/
TVU 55
NA28 Matthew 6:13 ....
BYZ Matthew 6:13 ....
T&T #19

Byz L, W, D, Q, 0233, 0287, f13, 22, 33, 579, 892, Maj, f, g1, q, Sy, sa, bopt, goth, Didache

quoniam est tibi virtus in saecula saeculorum k
("because yours is the power for ever") 

Didache 10:5, from Funk/Bihlmeyer (1924): ....

txt 01, B, D, Z, 0170, f1, 372, 2737, 2786, pc5, Lat, mae-1+2, bopt, arabMS, Or, Ostrakon (Greece, 4th CE), Acta Thomae (3rd CE)
pc = 130, 890, 1090C, 2701S, 2780*

Lacuna: C, Sy-S
B: umlaut! (line 9 B, p. 1241) ....

Matthew 6:13
http://web.ovc.edu/terry/tc/lay01mat.htm
TEXT: "but rescue us from the evil one."
EVIDENCE: S B D 0170 f1 many lat vg most cop(north)
TRANSLATIONS: ASV RSV NASVn NIV NEB TEV
RANK: A

NOTES: "but rescue us from the evil one, because yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen."
EVIDENCE: K L W Delta Theta Pi f13 28 33 565 700 892 1010 1241 Byz Lect some lat syr(p,h,pal) 
TRANSLATIONS: KJV ASVn RSVn NASV (in brackets) NIVn NEBn TEVn

OTHER: "but rescue us from the evil one, because yours is the power forever and ever."
EVIDENCE: one lat

OTHER: "but rescue us from the evil one, because yours is the kingdom and the glory forever. Amen."
EVIDENCE: syr(c )

OTHER: "but rescue us from the evil one, because yours is the power and the glory forever. Amen."
EVIDENCE: cop(south)

[DavidFord]

I recently reread the footnotes to an English rendition of the Arabic Diatesseron, and the Arabic is clearly a translation from Aramaic. What language do you think the Diatesseron was originally composed in? (Greek? Latin? Aramaic/Syriac?)

The Diatessaron and the Language of its Composition, by Jan Joosten (fixed a typo)
https://www.academia.edu/37896763/The_Di...omposition
Conclusions
I summarize briefly: explicit testimonies about the Diatessaron show that it must have been a
writing published in the east that never gained currency in the Greek-speaking church. The
textual attestation of the Diatessaron confirms the eastern origin and early distribution of the
work. An analysis of the sources of the Diatessaron suggests that Tatian from the start
conceived his composition as a Syriac writing addressed to a Syriac-speaking community.

[DavidFord]

In the Greek for John 21:15-17, Jesus is quoted as asking Simon, "do you ἀγαπᾷς/agapas me.... ἀγαπᾷς/agapas me.... φιλεῖς/phileis me."
https://biblehub.com/text/john/21-15.htm
https://biblehub.com/text/john/21-16.htm
https://biblehub.com/text/john/21-17.htm

In contrast, the Peshitta uses "r-kh-m" for love throughout.  The Diatesseron similarly uses an identical word for love throughout:  "In the Arabic no distinction is drawn throughout this passage corresponding to the ἀγαπᾷν and φιλεῖν of the Greek." - 221 of _The Earliest Life of Christ Ever Compiled from the Four Gospels_ by J. Hamlyn Hill (1910), 224pp. 
https://www.amazon.com/Earliest-Compiled...59333477X/
https://archive.org/details/earliestlife...h/page/iii

What was written first: the Peshitta's use 3 times of an exact same word for love, or the by-A.D. 175 Diatesseron's use of an exact same word for love?

For John 21:15-17, both the Peshitta and the by-A.D. 175 Diatesseron utilize 3 different words for "lambs.... sheep.... ewes."  When Jesus spoke to Simon, did Jesus use "lambs.... sheep.... ewes"? or something else?
What was written first: the Peshitta's use of "lambs.... sheep.... ewes," or the by-A.D. 175 Diatesseron's use of "lambs.... sheep.... ewes"?

John 21 (based on Younan), http://peshitta.org
http://dukhrana.com/lexicon/word.php?adr...=khabouris
http://dukhrana.com/lexicon/word.php?adr...ize=125%25
http://dukhrana.com/lexicon/word.php?adr...ize=125%25
15. Now after they had dined, Yeshua said to Shimon Keepa,
"Shimon bar-Yonah [son (of) Dove],
do you love me more than these?"
He said to him, "Yes, Mari [my Lord]. You know that I love you." He said to him,
"Tend for me amri [my lambs]."
16. He said again to him the second time,
"Shimon bar-Yonah,
do you love me?"
He said to him, "Yes, Mari. You know that I love you."
Yeshua said to him,
"Tend for me airbi [my sheep]."
17. He said to him the third time,
"Shimon bar-Yonah,
do you love me?"
And Keepa was sad that he said the third time to him that, "Do you love me?" And he said to him, "Mari, you understand everything. You know that I love you!" Yeshua said to him,
"Tend for me nequthi [my ewes].

Diatessaron, Section LIV, and my hardcopy book
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/te...saron.html
39 And when they had breakfasted, Jesus said to Simon Cephas, Simon, son of Jonah, lovest thou me more than these? He said unto him, Yea, my Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus said unto him,
Feed for me my lambs.
He said unto him again a second time, Simon, son of Jonah, lovest thou me? He said unto him, Yea, my Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He said unto him,
Feed for me my sheep.^2 [2: Lit _rams_]
He said unto him again the third time, Simon, son of Jonah, lovest thou me? And it grieved Cephas that he said unto him three times, Lovest thou me? He said unto him, My Lord, thou knowest everything; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus said unto him,
Feed for me my sheep.^3 [3: Lit _ewes_]

[DavidFord]

The Greek for John 10:1-5 has 5 mentions of 'sheep' (probaton, probaton, probata, probata, probata).
In contrast, the Peshitta and the Diatesseron have 7 mentions of 'sheep.' For the Peshitta, it's
ai-n-a, ai-n-a, ai-n-a, ai-r-b-u-h-i, ai-n-h (as in: his flock), ai-r-b-u-h-i, ai-n-a.

The Peshitta used a long word for sheep in 2 locations, while the Diatesseron similarly used a different word for sheep in those exact 2 locations.
In what appeared _first_ the different word for sheep in those exact 2 locations: in the Peshitta, or in the Diatesseron?

What was written first: the Peshitta's 7 mentions of 'sheep,' or the by-A.D. 175 Diatesseron's 7 mentions of 'sheep'?
What was written first: the Peshitta's 7 mentions of 'sheep,' or the Greek mss.'s 5 mentions of 'sheep'?

Diatessaron, Section XXXVII
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/te...saron.html
[~4] Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever entereth not into the fold of the sheep by the door, but goeth up from another place, that man is a thief and a stealer. But he that entereth by the door is the shepherd of the sheep. And therefore the keeper of the door openeth for him the door; and the sheep hear his voice: and he calleth his sheep^3 by their names, and they go forth unto him. And when he putteth forth his sheep, he goeth before them, and his sheep^3 follow him: because they know his voice. And after a stranger will the sheep not go, but they flee from him: because they hear not the voice of a stranger. This parable spake Jesus unto them....
3: A different word (lit. _rams_) from that used in the other verses; so in Peshitta....

[DavidFord]

For Acts 9:29, do you think it originally said:  
"Yehudians who knew Greek"?  
"Grecians"?

Acts 9:29
http://dukhrana.com/peshitta/analyze_verse.php?lang=en&verse=Acts+9:29&source=khabouris&font=Estrangelo+Edessa&size=125%25
(Etheridge) And he spake in the name of Jeshu with boldness, and disputed with those Jihudoyee who knew Greek; [Javanith.] but they were wishful to kill him.
(Murdock) And he spoke openly in the name of Jesus and disputed with those Jews who understood Greek. But they wished to kill him:
(KJV) And he spake boldly in the name of the Lord Jesus, and disputed against the Grecians: but they went about to slay him.
(Clementine Vulgate) Loquebatur quoque Gentibus, et disputabat cum Græcis: illi autem quærebant occidere eum.

[DavidFord]

Do you think that those who have “suffered,” or those who have “died,” in the flesh have ceased from sin?

Greek to English rather uniformly yields "suffered in the flesh": https://biblehub.com/1_peter/4-1.htm

1Peter 4:1
http://dukhrana.com/peshitta/analyze_ver...ize=125%25
https://biblehub.com/1_peter/4-1.htm
(Etheridge) If then the Meshiha hath suffered for you in the flesh, be you also armed in it with the same mind; for every one who dieth in his body hath ceased from all sins,
(Murdock) If then the Messiah hath suffered for you in the flesh, do ye also arm yourselves with the same mind: for every one that is dead in his body, hath ceased from all sins,
(KJV) Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the same mind: for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin;
(Clementine Vulgate) Christo igitur passo in carne, et vos eadem cogitatione armamini: quia qui passus est in carne, desiit a peccatis:
google translate: Christ suffered in the flesh, and you the same attitude arm: For those who have suffered in the flesh has ceased from sin;
(Aramaic Bible in Plain English) If therefore The Messiah has suffered in your place in the flesh, be you also equipped with the same mind, for everyone who has died in his body has ceased from all sins;

=====================================.
When 1Peter 4:12 was originally written, do you think it said temptations/ trials “are for your proving/ testing/ scrutiny/ examining”?

1Peter 4:12
http://dukhrana.com/peshitta/analyze_ver...ize=125%25
https://biblehub.com/1_peter/4-12.htm
(Etheridge) My beloved, be not amazed at the temptations which you have,
as that something strange happeneth to you,
because for your probation they have been;
(Murdock) My beloved, be not dismayed at the trials that befall you,
as if some strange thing had come upon you;
for these things are for your probation.
(Lamsa) My beloved, do not think it strange at the trials that come upon you,
as though some strange thing happened to you:
because these things are to prove you.
(KJV) Beloved, think it not strange concerning the fiery trial which is to try you,
as though some strange thing happened unto you:
(Clementine Vulgate) Charissimi, nolite peregrinari in fervore, qui ad tentationem vobis fit,
quasi novi aliquid vobis contingat:
(Aramaic Bible in Plain English) Beloved, do not be astonished at the temptations that will come upon you,
as if something strange happened to you,
for they are for your proving.

d'l'b-u-kh-r-n-k-u-n
http://dukhrana.com/lexicon/word.php?adr...ize=125%25
which leads to
http://cal.huc.edu/oneentry.php?lemma=bw...0&cits=all
bwḥrn, bwḥrnˀ (buḥrān, buḥrānā) n.m. test
1 test, trial Syr. IPet1:7 : ….
2 crisis of illness Syr. LSt.95:13 : …. HippAp 6(19) : …. those parts of illnesses that linger after the climactic episode customarily cause relapse.
3 torture Syr. Kays 260:21 ….
Derivatives:
bwḥrnw, bwḥrnwtˀ (buḥrānū, buḥrānūṯā) n.f. examination

[DavidFord]

Do you think "with you" belongs in 2Peter 2:13?
Does 'iniquity/ wrong/ wrongdoing/ unrighteousness/ injustice' appear once, or twice, in the verse?
Does 'deceptions/ deceivings' belong in the verse?

2Peter 2:13
https://biblehub.com/2_peter/2-13.htm
http://dukhrana.com/peshitta/analyze_ver...ize=125%25
(NIV) They will be paid back with harm for the harm they have done. Their idea of pleasure is to carouse in broad daylight. They are blots and blemishes, reveling in their pleasures while they feast with you.
(Etheridge) while they in whom is iniquity the wages of iniquity shall receive. They repute as pleasure the luxury which is in the day. Blemishes (are they), full of spots, who delighting in their refreshments are luxurious:
(Murdock) they being persons with whom iniquity is the reward of iniquity, and by them rioting in the daytime is accounted delightful; defiled and full of spots [are they], indulging themselves at their ease, while they give themselves up to pleasure;
(KJV) And shall receive the reward of unrighteousness, as they that count it pleasure to riot in the day time. Spots they are and blemishes, sporting themselves with their own deceivings while they feast with you;
(Clementine Vulgate) percipientes mercedem iniustitiæ, voluptatem existimantes diei delicias: coinquinationes, et maculæ deliciis affluentes, in conviviis suis luxuriantes vobiscum,
google translate: And shall receive the reward of their injustice, a pleasure the delights of a day: in the daytime, spots and blemishes, reveling in their own deceptions while they feast with you,

Textual Notes: 2 Peter 2:13
http://www.jeffriddle.net/2010/11/textua...r-213.html
Two issues in 2 Peter 2:13:
a. Should the verb read "to suffer wrong" (adikeo) or "to receive" (komioumai)?

External evidence:
The traditional reading is "to receive." It is supported by the corrected hand of Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, and the majority of minuscules. The alternative reading is found in the original hand of Sinaiticus and in p72.
..
Translation choices:
Translations based on traditional texts:
"And shall receive the reward of unrighteousness" (AV);
"and will receive the wages of unrighteousness" (NKJV).

Translations based on modern critical text:
"They will be paid back with harm for the harm they have done" (NIV);
"suffering wrong as the wages of doing wrong" (NASB);
"suffering wrong as the wage for their wrongdoing" (ESV).

b. Should the reading be en tais apatais auton ("in their own deceiving") or en tais agapais auton ("in their own love feasts")?

External evidence:
The traditional reading (apatais, "deceivings") is supported by p72, Sinaiticus, the original hand of Alexandrinus, and the vast majority of Greek manuscripts. The alternative (agapais, "love feasts"), however, appears in the corrected hand of Alexandrinus and Vaticanus. This provides yet another example where Sinaiticus and Vaticanus do not agree.

2 Peter 2:13
http://web.ovc.edu/terry/tc/lay272pt.htm
TEXT: "reveling in their deceitful pleasures while"
EVIDENCE: p72 S A* C K P 33 81 104 614 630 2495 Byz Lect syr(h) cop(north)
TRANSLATIONS: KJV ASV RSV NASV NIV NEB TEV
RANK: C

NOTES: "reveling in their love feasts while"
EVIDENCE: Ac B Psi lat vg syr(ph) cop(south)
TRANSLATIONS: ASVn RSVn NASVn NIVn NEBn

OTHER: "reveling in their ignorance while"
EVIDENCE: 945 1241 1739 1881

COMMENTS: There are only two letters' difference between the words translated "deceitful pleasures" and "love feasts."

==================================================.
Do you think "and of God the Father" belongs in 2Peter 3:18?
Does an 'amen' belong there?

2Peter 3:18
http://dukhrana.com/peshitta/analyze_ver...ize=125%25
(Etheridge) But increase in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and our Saviour Jeshu Meshiha, and (of) Aloha the Father, Whose be glory both now, and in all time, and to the days eternal. Amen.
(Murdock) But be ye growing in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Redeemer Jesus the Messiah, and of God the Father: whose is the glory, now, and always, and to the days of eternity. Amen.
(KJV) But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen.
(Clementine Vulgate) Crescite vero in gratia, et in cognitione Domini nostri, et Salvatoris Iesu Christi. Ipsi gloria et nunc, et in diem æternitatis. Amen.

A 2005 hardcopy of the HCSB:
3:18.. To Him. Typically doxologies were ascribed to God, but this one is clearly ascribed to the Son.

2 Peter 3:18
http://web.ovc.edu/terry/tc/lay272pt.htm
TEXT: "glory both now and to the day of eternity. Amen."
EVIDENCE: p72 S A C K P Psi 33 81 104 614 630 945 1739c 2495 Byz Lect most lat vg syr(ph,h) cop
TRANSLATIONS: KJV ASV RSV NASV NIV TEV
RANK: D
NOTES: "glory both now and to the day of eternity."
EVIDENCE: B 1175 1241 1739*vid 1881 one lat
TRANSLATIONS: NEB

==================================================.
Do you think 1John 2:20 has:
"and you discern every person"?
"and you all know"?
"and you know all things"?

1John 2:20
http://dukhrana.com/peshitta/analyze_ver...ize=125%25
https://biblehub.com/1_john/2-20.htm
(Etheridge) And you have an anointing from the Holy, and you discern every man.
(Murdock) But ye have an unction from the Holy [One]; and ye discriminate every person.
(KJV) But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things.
(Aramaic Bible in Plain English) And you have an anointing from The Holy One, and you discern every person.

1Jo 2:20 (APNT)
https://aramaicdb.lightofword.org/en/new...ons-search
And you have an anointing from the holy [one] and are distinguishing between everyone.

1 John 2:20
http://web.ovc.edu/terry/tc/lay281jn.htm
TEXT: "from the Holy One, and pl^you all know."
EVIDENCE: S B P Psi cop(south)
TRANSLATIONS: ASVn RSV NASV NIV NEB TEV
RANK: D
NOTES: "from the Holy One, and pl^you know all things."
EVIDENCE: A C K 33 81 104 614 630 945 1739 1881 2495 Byz Lect lat vg syr(p,h) cop(north)
TRANSLATIONS: KJV ASV RSVn NASVn NIVn NEBn
COMMENTS: The difference between the two readings is only one of two letters.

[DavidFord]

Do you think "and of power" belongs in 1 Peter 4:14?
How about "on their part he is evil spoken of, but on your part he is glorified"?

1 Peter 4:14 (Douay-Rheims)
https://biblehub.com/1_peter/4-14.htm
If you be reproached for the name of Christ, you shall be blessed: for that which is of the honour, glory, and power of God, and that which is his Spirit, resteth upon you.

1 Peter 4:14 (HCSB)
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se...rsion=HCSB
If you are ridiculed for the name of Christ, you are blessed, because the Spirit of glory and of God rests on you.[a]
a: Other mss add _He is blasphemed because of them, but He is glorified because of you_.

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary
https://biblehub.com/commentaries/1_peter/4-14.htm
on their part he is evil spoken of, but on your part he is glorified—omitted in the two oldest Greek manuscripts and Syriac and Coptic versions, but supported by one very old manuscript, Vulgate, Sahidic, Cyprian, &c. 

1Peter 4:14
http://dukhrana.com/peshitta/analyze_ver...ize=125%25
(Etheridge) And if you be reviled for the sake of the name of the Meshiha, you are happy; for the Spirit of the glory of Aloha resteth upon you.
(Murdock) And if ye are reproached on account of the name of the Messiah, happy are ye: for the glorious Spirit of God resteth upon you.
(KJV) If ye be reproached for the name of Christ, happy are ye; for the spirit of glory and of God resteth upon you: 
on their part he is evil spoken of, but on your part he is glorified.

1 Peter 4:14
http://www.jeffriddle.net/2010/07/textua...r-414.html
First, there are textual variations in the phrase “the Spirit of glory and of God.”  A number of witnesses add _kai dunameos_ after _doxes_ reading “and the Spirit of glory *and of power* and of God.”  This is one of those places where the so-called “oldest” manuscripts do not agree.  Sinaiticus includes “and of power,” while p72, Codex Vaticanus, and numerous other witnesses support the traditional text by omitting the phrase.  ....

Second, there is a significant textual variation relating to the ending of the verse.  The traditional text includes the final sentence:  “On their part he is blasphemed, but on your part he is glorified [_kata men autous blasphemeitai, kata de humas doxazetai_]”  The eclectic text omits it entirely. There is valuable early support for the sentence.  It appears in Codices K, L, P, Psi, most minuscules, and in various early versions (e.g., Latin, Syriac Harclean, Sahidic, Bohairic).  It is also quoted in Cyprian (d. 258 AD)!  It is omitted, however, in the heavyweights so prized by modern textual critics:  p72, Sinaiticus, and Vaticanus. 

1 Peter 4:14
http://web.ovc.edu/terry/tc/lay261pt.htm
TEXT: "the Spirit of glory and of God rests"
EVIDENCE: p72 B K Psi some Byz
TRANSLATIONS: KJV ASV RSV NASV NIV NEB TEV
RANK: B
NOTES: "the Spirit of glory and of power and of God rests"
EVIDENCE: S A P 33 81 104 945 1241 1739 1881 some Byz Lect four lat cop(north)
TRANSLATIONS: RSVn

OTHER: "the Spirit of glory and of the power of God rests"
EVIDENCE: 614 630 2495 one lat syr(h) cop(south)

OTHER: "the Spirit of the glory of God rests"
EVIDENCE: three lat earlier vg syr(p)

================================================.
Do you think 1Peter 5:1 opens with a conjunction?
Do you think “according to God” belongs in verse 2? How about "overseeing"?

1 Peter 5:1-2 (HCSB)
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se...rsion=HCSB
1 Therefore, as a fellow elder and witness to the sufferings of the Messiah and also a participant in the glory about to be revealed, I exhort the elders among you:
2 Shepherd God’s flock among you, not overseeing[a] out of compulsion but freely, according to God’s will;[b] not for the money but eagerly;
a: Other mss omit _overseeing_
b: Other mss omit _according to God’s will_

1Peter 5:1
http://dukhrana.com/peshitta/analyze_ver...ize=125%25
(Etheridge) BUT I entreat of the presbyters who are among you, I, a presbyter, your companion, and a witness of the sufferings of the Meshiha, and a partaker of his glory that is to be revealed;
(Murdock) And I, an Elder, your associate, and a witness of the sufferings of the Messiah, and a participator in his glory which is to be revealed, entreat the Elders who are among you:

1Peter 5:2
http://dukhrana.com/peshitta/analyze_ver...ize=125%25
(Etheridge) feed the flock of Aloha which is delivered to you, and take care (of it) spiritually,[Vasuru ruchonoith.]
not by constraint, but with the will; not for corrupt gain, but with all your heart;
(Murdock) Feed ye the flock of God which is committed to you: have care [for it], spiritually;
not from compulsion, but voluntarily; not for base gain, but with all your heart;

Textual Studies on 1 Peter 5:1-2
http://www.jeffriddle.net/2010/07/textua...-51-2.html
First, there are three significant variations on the beginning of v. 1:
1. The traditional text begins, _presbyterous tous_ (“the elders”). Uncials that support this reading include Codices P and Psi.
2. Some manuscripts read _presbyterous oun tous_, inserting the coordinating conjunction _oun_ (“Therefore, the elders”). This is the reading of Sinaiticus.
3. Others begin _presbyterous oun_, keeping the conjunction but dropping the article (“Therefore, elders”). This is the reading of p72, Alexandrinus, and Vaticanus. It is the reading adopted by the modern critical Greek text.

This provides another example of divergent readings between Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. In this case Sinaiticus also tends to support the traditional text by its inclusion of the article _tous_. The difference in translation is minor. Even some translations (like the NIV) based on the modern critical text do not bother to translate _oun_. The NASB and ESV, however, include the conjunction. So, the NASB, “Therefore, I exhort the elders among you….” And the ESV, “So I exhort the elders among you….”

Second, in v. 1 the phrase “the sufferings of Christ” becomes “the sufferings of God” in p72 alone. This provides some evidence that the scribe who copied p72 might have had a tendency to “improve” the text or to offer “correction” according to his theological perspective. Does this change reflect the influence of patripassianism?

Third, in v. 2 there is variation on the inclusion of the participle _episkopountes_ (“serving as overseers”). It is omitted in the original hand of Sinaiticus and in Vaticanus but included in almost all other manuscripts. Here is a case where p72 and A supports the traditional text. ....

Fourth, also in v. 2 there is variation on the inclusion of the prepositional phrase _kata theon_ (“according to God”). The original hand of Sinaiticus includes the phrase, as does the modern critical Greek text. It is omitted, however, both by the traditional text and by Vaticanus. Modern translations based on the eclectic text variously render the phrase:
NIV: “as God wants you to be”
NASB : “according to _the will of_ God”
ESV: “as God would have you”
Both the NIV and ESV choose a dynamic equivalent interpretation while the NASB keeps closer to a literal rendering.
It is interesting that in this case, the modern editors do not conclude that the shorter reading is best. ....

Conclusion: This short study raises some interesting issues. First, it reveals that at times some of the manuscripts that are considered the oldest and most reliable support the traditional text (e.g., p72 and A support the traditional text in v. 2 by including _episkopountes_). Second, it reveals how the so-called oldest and most reliable manuscripts often do not agree with each other (e. g., Vaticanus omits _kata theon_ in v. 2 while Sinaiticus includes it). Third, we see some possible evidence of the influence of theological views (e.g., p72’s utterly unique change of “the sufferings of Christ” to the “sufferings of God” in v. 1). One of the prime justifications put forward for departing from the traditional text has been the fact that older and more reliable manuscripts (like p72, Sinaiticus, and Vaticanus) have been rediscovered. Little mention is made, however, about the fact that these manuscripts often do not agree with one another in their variation from the traditional text and that some will occasionally support the traditional text over against the others. This is one little sample of the results digging into just two verses. My guess is that we would find the same if we were to dip into any other spot in the NT.

====================================================.
5:8 Be sober and self-controlled. Be watchful. Your adversary the devil, walks around like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour.

Did 1 Peter 5:8 originally have a 'whom' (or for that matter, a 'someone') after “seeking"?

1Peter 5:8
http://dukhrana.com/peshitta/analyze_ver...ize=125%25
(Etheridge) Watch, and be mindful, because your adversary Satana, as a lion, roareth and walketh and seeketh whom he may devour.
(Murdock) Be sober and guarded, because Satan your adversary, like a lion, roareth, and goeth about, and seeketh whom he may devour.

Textual Notes on 1 Peter 5:8
http://www.jeffriddle.net/2010/08/textua...er-58.html
Third, and most significantly, there is wide divergence on the final two words (in the TR, tina katapie, “whom he may devour”). Metzger describes three main variations (Textual Commentary, pp. 696-97):
a. tina katapiein “seeking someone to devour”; supported by Sinaiticus, K, P, and Origen. This is the reading of the modern critical Greek text, though it is given a weak {D} reading and the tina is placed in brackets.
b. tina katapie “seeking whom he may devour”; supported by p72 and Alexandrinus.
c. katapien “to devour”; supported by Vaticanus, Psi, and the Latin translation of Origen.

Reflections: Again, we see here the great variety of readings that can be found in a single verse. Sometimes it is made to sound as if “the oldest and most reliable manuscripts” uniformly stand opposed to the traditional text. This verse illustrates that this is a fallacy. The ending of 1 Peter 5:8 reads differently in p72, Sinaiticus, and Vaticanus!
....about 100 years ago... modern academics suggested that the received text should be jettisoned in favor of one deemed to be “more original” by scholars. Since that time... it has been the academy choosing the text.

[DavidFord]

From where do you think Codex Fuldensis obtained its arrangement of Mk 16:9-20 material interleaved with other scriptures? (from working solely with the Vulgate? from the by-A.D. 175 Diatesseron?)
How do you think Matthew 28:18 originally read?

Mark 16:9-20 and Early Patristic Evidence
http://www.thetextofthegospels.com/2018/...dence.html
New Testament scholars continue to spread misinformation about Mark 16:9-20. ....
It should be noted that some of the manuscripts that include Mark 16:9-20 do not stand very far away from Vaticanus and Sinaiticus in chronological terms: Codex Alexandrinus has the passage; so does Codex Bezae (though partly damaged) and so does Codex Washingtoniensis.

But there is a larger problem: Dr. Cole has unfortunately completely ignored the patristic evidence. Although Codex Vaticanus, produced around 325, is the earliest known Greek manuscript of Mark 16, and Codex Sinaiticus is indeed the second-oldest, there is evidence from patristic writings that belongs in the equation, and this patristic evidence is older that these two fourth-century manuscripts. Consider: .... (1) Justin Martyr ....

(2) Tatian. In the 170s, Tatian, a student of Justin, made a composition called the Diatessaron. It consisted of the contents of the four Gospels rearranged as one continuous narrative, in more or less chronological order. In later generations, Tatian was widely regarded as a heretic (although a case might be made that he was merely very ascetic), and his writings were either destroyed or allowed to rot away; as a result we do not have any copies of the Diatessaron in Greek or Syriac today, even though hundreds of copies once existed. Two of the most important witnesses to the arrangement of the text in Tatian’s Diatessaron are the Gospels-text of Codex Fuldensis (an important Latin manuscript made in 546) and the Arabic Diatessaron (produced in 1043 by a copyist who stated in a note that he was translating from a manuscript of the Syriac text of the Diatessaron which had been made in 873).

The Latin Gospels-text in Codex Fuldensis represents, in terms of its verbiage, the Vulgate. Similarly, the Syriac Gospels-text in the Arabic Diatessaron has been conformed to the Peshitta. (The reason for this, presumably, is that the scribes were suspicious of Tatian’s wording, but were willing to perpetuate his harmonization-work.) For this reason, neither of these two sources, standing on its own, is a safe guide on which to base a reconstruction of the wording of the Diatessaron as made by Tatian. When they stand in agreement, however, as flagship representatives of a geographically Western transmission-branch and of a geographically Eastern transmission-branch, their combined testimony strongly indicates the arrangement in which Tatian blended together the text of the Gospels.

As I showed in 2012 in an article in the journal The Heroic Age (available to read online https://www.heroicage.org/issues/15/snapp.php ), the arrangement of the contents of Mark 16:9-20 in Codex Fuldensis and in the Arabic Diatessaron match up rather well. For example:
● Both use Mark 16:10 after Luke 24:9,
● Both use Mark 16:12 between Luke 24:11 and 24:13.
● Both use Mark 16:13b between Luke 24:13-35 and part of 24:36.
● Both use Mark 16:14 between Matthew 28:17 and 28:18.
● Both use Mark 16:15 between Matthew 28:18 and 28:19.
● Both use “and sat down at the right hand of God” (from Mark 16:19) between Luke 24:51 and 24:52.

There are some differences, too (see for details the article in The Heroic Age), but inasmuch as (a) Mark 16:9-20 was blended with the other Gospels in the transmission-branch that led to Codex Fuldensis, and (b) Mark 16:9-20 was blended with the other Gospels in essentially the same way in the transmission-branch that led to the Arabic Diatessaron, the conclusion that Mark 16:9-20 was in the source of both branches seems irresistible.

In addition, Ephrem Syrus, who wrote a commentary on the Diatessaron in Syriac in the 360s, mentioned in the opening sentence of the eighth part of the commentary that Jesus told His disciples, “Go into all the world and baptize in the name of the Father, and Son, and Spirit.” This is a combination of Mark 16:15a and Matthew 28:19. (It should be understood that analyses of Ephrem’s testimony prior to 1957 were made without awareness of the contents of Chester Beatty Syriac Manuscript 709, a Syriac manuscript produced in about A. D. 500 which includes most of Ephrem’s commentary.)

(3) Irenaeus .... (4) Epistula Apostolorum .... (5) Hierocles .... (6) Aphrahat the Persian Sage ....

"Mark 16:9–20 in Tatian's _Diatessaron_" by James Snapp, Jr.
https://www.heroicage.org/issues/15/snapp.php
§6. An adequate basis for comparison is provided by the English translation of the Arabic Diatessaron made by the Reverend J. Hamlyn Hill (1894), and the presentation of the Latin text of Codex Fuldensis made by Ernestus Ranke (1868). By placing Hill's English translation of the Arabic Diatessaron alongside Ranke's presentation of Codex Fuldensis, we can compare their arrangements of the pieces of Mark 16:9–20 and see whether they agree or contradict each other. In the following list of comparisons, "AD" represents the Arabic Diatessaron, and "CF" represents Codex Fuldensis.

AD 53 has Mark 16:9 after John 20:2–17.
CF 174 has part of Mark 16:9 between John 20:2–10 and 20:11–17.
AD 53 uses Mark 16:10 after Luke 24:9.
CF 176 uses Mark 16:10 after Luke 24:9.
AD 53 uses Mark 16:11 between Luke 24:10 and 24:11.
CF 176 uses Mark 16:11 between Luke 24:9 and 24:11.
AD 53 uses Mark 16:12 between Luke 24:11 and 24:13.
CF 177 uses Mark 16:12 between Luke 24:11 and 24:13.
AD 53 uses Mark 16:13b between Luke 24:13b–35 and part of Luke 24:36.
CF 178 uses Mark 16:13b between Luke 24:13–35 and part of Luke 24:36.
AD 55 uses Mark 16:14 between Matthew 28:17 and 28:18.
CF 182 uses Mark 16:14 between Matthew 28:17 and 28:18.

AD 55 uses Mark 16:15 between Matthew 28:18 (with "For even as my Father sent me, so I also send you," which is not only found normally in John 20:21 but is also in the Peshitta in Matthew 28:18) and Matthew 28:19.
CF 182 uses Mark 16:15 between Matthew 28:18 and 28:19.

AD 55 uses Mark 16:16–18 between Matthew 28:20 and Luke 24:49.
CF 182 uses Mark 16:16–18 between Matthew 28:20 and Luke 24:49.
AD 55 blends "And our Lord Jesus," from Mark 16:19 with Luke 24:50.
CF 182 does not.
AD 55 uses "and sat down at the right hand of God" (from Mark 16:19) between Luke 24:51 and 24:52.
CF 182 uses "and sat down at the right hand of God" (from Mark 16:19) between Luke 24:51 and 24:52.
AD 55 uses Mark 16:20 between Luke 24:53 and John 21:25.
CF 182 uses Mark 16:20 after Luke 24:53 and ends there with "Amen." (John 21:25 appears in CF at the end of 181.)

============================================================.
_A translation, in English daily used, of the Peshito-Syriac text, and of the received Greek text, of Hebrews, James, 1 Peter, and 1 John : with an introduction on the Peshito-Syriac text, and the revised Greek text of 1881_ by William Norton (1889), on cxxiv-cxxvi
https://archive.org/stream/translationin...t_djvu.txt
Thirdly. The freedom of the Peshito from the many
faulty expressions and meanings of the Greek text of the
Revisers, confirms all other proofs of its purity. Those Revised
Greek readings which agree with the Peshito, (see Section xiv. pp.
111-123) have, as a rule, little or no internal evidence against
them. But among the Revised Greek readings from which the
Peshito differs there are some which prove decisively that the
Greek copies are corrupt from which they are taken. The
following brief quotations from Dr. Scrivener's remarks on some
of these will show the nature of this evidence.

Matt, xxvii. 28, clothed, for stripped him : — "a palpable impropriety"; p. 480 ; "an impossible reading ;" p. 543.

Matt, xxvii. 49. The Saviour pierced before his death ; — "this gross corruption ;" p. 543.

Mark vi. 22. Herod's daughter Herodias danced ; instead of, the daughter of Herodias : — a reading which "brings Mark into direct contradiction with Josephus, who expressly states that the wretched girl was named Salome," and was the daughter of Herod's brother Philip ; p. 544.

Mark xvi. 9-20 : — "all opposition to the authenticity of this paragraph resolves itself into the allegations of Eusebius," (an Arian), "and the testimony of Aleph and B." "We can appeal to all extant manuscripts excepting two ;" p. 590.

Luke ii. 14. The Angelic Hymn sung at the nativity; — "By the addition of a single letter to the end of the last line, the simple shepherds are sent away with a message, the diction of which no scholar has yet construed to his own mind." "Solid reason and pure taste, revolt against" it ; p. 590. The testimony for the common reading "cannot but overpower the transcriptural blunder of some early scribe ;" p. 592.

Luke xxiii. 34. "Father, forgive them :" — "It is almost incredible
that acute and learned men should be able to set aside" the evidence
for these words, "chiefly because D," — a very corrupt Greek
copy, "is considered especially weighty in its omissions, and B has
to be held up, in practice if not in profession, as virtually almost
impeccable." "We cannot doubt that the system which entails such
consequences is hopelessly self-condemned ;" p. 604.

John i. 18. "The only begotten God." "Everyone must feel [the word] God to be untrue, even though for the sake of consistency he may be forced to uphold it." This reading would introduce "a new, and, to us moderns, a strange term into Scripture ;" p. 605.

Acts iv. 25. Some critical editors insert here "that which cannot possibly be right ;" the result of "setting up one or more of the oldest copies as objects of unreasonable idolatry ;" p. 549.

Acts. xii. 25, Barnabas and Saul, who were at Jerusalem (xi. 30), are said to have returned to Jerusalem. "That the two Apostles returned from, not to, Jerusalem is too plain for argument ;" p. 550.

Acts xxv. 13, having saluted Festus : "The reading is manifestly false ;" p. 551.

Acts xxviii. 13, took away, for, made a circuit : a "vile error of transcription ;" p. 551.

Romans v. 1, "let us have peace ;" "a reading which is manifestly unsuitable to the context ;" p. 625.

The Revisers were led to give their countenance to the above
impossible, or evidently false, readings, by the Greek Text of Drs.
Westcott and Hort. And Drs. Westcott and Hort, in the Introduction
to their Greek Testament, do their utmost to commend
their own Greek Text in opposition to the Peshito. None of the
above false readings occur in the Peshito. This fact is one proof of
its superiority to the Greek copies on which Drs. Westcott and Hort
rely. The Peshito is true, where these are grossly false ; it is pure,
where they are corrupt.

[DavidFord]

Do you think "in Hebrew" belongs in John 20:16?
It's in the Peshitta, and in the by-A.D. 175 Diatesseron.

John 20:16
http://dukhrana.com/peshitta/analyze_ver...ize=125%25
(Etheridge) Jeshu saith to her, Mariam. She turned and saith to him in Hebrew, Rabuni, which is saying, Malphona.
(Murdock) Jesus said to her: Mary! And she turned, and said to him in Hebrew: Rabbuni; which is interpreted Teacher.
(KJV) Jesus saith unto her, Mary. She turned herself, and saith unto him, Rabboni; which is to say, Master.
(Clementine Vulgate) Dicit ei Iesus: Maria. Conversa illa, dicit ei: Rabboni (quod dicitur Magister.)

Diatessaron, Section LIII
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/te...saron.html
Jesus said unto her, Mary.  She turned, and said unto him in Hebrew, 
Rabboni; which is, being interpreted, Teacher. 

John 20:16 
https://biblehub.com/texts/john/20-16.htm
Westcott and Hort / {NA28 variants}
λέγει αὐτῇ Ἰησοῦς Μαριάμ. στραφεῖσα ἐκείνη λέγει αὐτῷ Ἐβραϊστί 
Ῥαββουνεί / ραββουνι ὃ λέγεται Διδάσκαλε.
RP Byzantine Majority Text 2005
Λέγει αὐτῇ ὁ Ἰησοῦς, Μαρία. Στραφεῖσα ἐκείνη λέγει αὐτῷ, 
Ῥαββουνί― ὃ λέγεται, Διδάσκαλε.

John PDF at http://www.willker.de/wie/TCG/
TVU 320
NA28 John 20:16 ....
BYZ John 20:16 ....
Not in NA and not in SQE but in Tis! 
Byz A, K, P^C, 050, 0141, f1, f13, 565, 700, 1071, Maj, Lat(a, aur, f, q, vg)
txt 01, B, D, L, N, W, X, D, P*, Q, Y, 0211, 33, 157, L1043, it(b, c, d, e, ff2, r1, 9A, 27, 30, 35*, 48), Sy, Co, arm
Lacuna: C, 579 
B: no umlaut
Compare:  NA28 John 1:38 .... John 5:2 .... John 19:13 .... John 19:17 .... Mark 10:51 ....
A typical Johannine term. It is possible that the addition at this point has been stimulated by the previous context (19:13+17). 
On the other hand it is possible that it has been omitted as redundant, ὃ λέγεται διδάσκαλε follows immediately. 

mistranslation for Mk 10:46-52

Mark 10:46-52 (HCSB)
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se...n=KJV;HCSB
46 They came to Jericho. And as He was leaving Jericho with His disciples and a large crowd, Bartimaeus (the son of Timaeus), a blind beggar, was sitting by the road. 47 When he heard that it was Jesus the Nazarene, he began to cry out, "Son of David, Jesus, have mercy on me!" 48 Many people told him to keep quiet, but he was crying out all the more, "Have mercy on me, Son of David!"
49 Jesus stopped and said, "Call him."
So they called the blind man and said to him, "Have courage! Get up; He's calling for you." 50 He threw off his coat, jumped up, and came to Jesus.
51 Then Jesus answered him, "What do you want Me to do for you?"
"Rabbouni,"[a:  Hb for _my teacher_] the blind man told Him, "I want to see!"
52 "Go your way," Jesus told him. "Your faith has healed you." Immediately he could see and began to follow Him on the road.

There's a gloss in Greek mss. in v. 46 with "Bartimaeus (the son of Timaeus)."  "Bar-" is Aramaic for "son," and "bar-Timaeus" means "son of Timaeus."  Greek mss. also left out a "Timi," since the original Aramaic reads "Timi bar-Timi [Timi son of Timi i.e. Timi, Jr.]."

There's a botched transliteration in v. 51 with "Rabbouni."  The original Aramaic is here better transliterated as "Rabbi-- there's no "n."  Perhaps the Greek translator or Greek manuscript copyist was mistakenly thinking of John 20:16, where there is again the transliteration "Rabbouni" in Greek manuscripts (though even in John 20:16, the original Aramaic there is better transliterated "Rabbuli"-- with an "l" instead of an "n").

Greek mss. incorrectly have Jesus' first words to the beggar's request for healing be a brusque, "Go your way."
In contrast, the original Aramaic has Jesus' first words to the man's request be the kinder, "See."

There's a botched translation in verses 51-52, by having Jesus tell the beggar, 
"Go your way," after which the healed man "began to follow Him on the road."
In contrast, the original Aramaic much more sensibly has Jesus telling the man, 
"See," after which "he saw, and went off down the road."

Translating from the original Aramaic:

Mark 10:46-52 (based on Younan)
46.  And they came to Yerikho.  And when Yeshua and his talmida [students] and a great crowd went out from Yerikho, a blind man, Timi bar-Timi [Timi son of Timi i.e. Timi, Jr.], was sitting on the side of the road and begging.  47.  And he heard that it was Yeshua the Nasraya, and he began to cry out and to say, "Bareh-d'Dawid [of Dawid his son, i.e. Son of David], have mercy on me!"  48.  Many were reproving him to be silent, but he was crying out all the more and saying, "Bareh-d'Dawid, have mercy on me!"  49.  And Yeshua stopped and commanded that they call him.  And they called the blind man and said to him, "Have courage!  Arise, he calls you."  50.  And the blind man threw off his clothes, arose, and came toward Yeshua.  51.  Yeshua said to him, 
"What is it (that) you desire me to do for you?"
And the blind man said to him, "Rabbi, that I may see!"  52.  And Yeshua said to him, 
"See.  
Your faith has made you whole."
And immediately he saw, and went off down the road.

[DavidFord]

Re: John 21:15, 16, 17, do you think Jesus originally said: of John? of Jona?
When those comments were originally written, do you think they read: of John? of Jona?
Both the Peshitta and the by-A.D. 175 Diatesseron have "of Jona."

John 21 (Aramaic Bible in Plain English)
https://biblehub.com/aramaic-plain-english/john/21.htm
15 And after they had breakfast, Yeshua said to Shimeon Kaypha,
"Shimeon, Bar Yonah, do you love me more than these things?" ....
16 He said to him again a second time,
"Shimeon Bar Yonah, do you love me?" ....
17 He said a third time,
"Shimeon Bar Yonah, do you love me?" ....

Diatessaron, Section LIV
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/te...saron.html
39 And when they had breakfasted, Jesus said to Simon Cephas,
Simon, son of Jonah, lovest thou me more than these? ....
He said unto him again a second time,
Simon, son of Jonah, lovest thou me? ....
He said unto him again the third time,
Simon, son of Jonah, lovest thou me? ....

John 21:15, 16, 17
http://web.ovc.edu/terry/tc/lay10jhn.htm
TEXT: "Simon, [son] of John, do you love me"
EVIDENCE: p59vid (in vv. 16, 17) S* (omit in v. 15) S1 B C* D L (in v. 15) W most lat vg cop
TRANSLATIONS: ASV RSV NASV NIV NEB TEV
RANK: -
NOTES: "Simon, [son] of Jona, do you love me"
EVIDENCE: A C2 Theta Psi f1 f13 Maj one lat syr
TRANSLATIONS: KJV NASVn

John 21:15
https://biblehub.com/texts/john/21-15.htm
Westcott and Hort / {NA28 variants}
Ὅτε οὖν ἠρίστησαν λέγει τῷ Σίμωνι Πέτρῳ ὁ Ἰησοῦς Σίμων Ἰωάνου / Ἰωάννου,
ἀγαπᾷς με πλέον τούτων; λέγει αὐτῷ Ναί, κύριε, σὺ οἶδας ὅτι φιλῶ σε. λέγει αὐτῷ Βόσκε τὰ ἀρνία μου.
RP Byzantine Majority Text 2005
Ὅτε οὖν ἠρίστησαν, λέγει τῷ Σίμωνι Πέτρῳ ὁ Ἰησοῦς, Σίμων Ἰωνᾶ,
ἀγαπᾷς με πλεῖον τούτων; Λέγει αὐτῷ, Ναὶ κύριε· σὺ ο ἴδας ὅτι φιλῶ σε. Λέγει αὐτῷ, Βόσκε τὰ ἀρνία μου.

https://biblehub.com/interlinear/john/21-15.htm
Iōannou/ Ἰωάννου/ of John

John PDF at http://www.willker.de/wie/TCG/
TVU 331
NA28 John 21:15 .... BYZ John 21:15 ....
NA28 John 21:16 .... BYZ John 21:16 ....
NA28 John 21:17 .... BYZ John 21:17 ....
Byz A, C^C2, X, D, Q, Y, 0141, f1, f13, 33, Maj, ©, 47v. 15, Sy
Bariona c
txt 01, B, C*, D, L, W, Lat, Co
.... Q (in verse 15)
.... 69, 1071 (in verse 17)
Lacuna: P66, 579
L has a lacuna in verses 16 and 17.
B: umlaut! (1381 B 28 L) 21:15 ....
It is possible that the Byzantine .... in John is a harmonization to Mt: .... On the other hand .... is the more rare word and it is possible that scribes erroneously took it as Ἰωάννου.

[DavidFord]

For Luke 8:26a, what's the best transliteration of the geographical word?
Both the Peshitta (Aramaic to English) and by-A.D. 175 Diatesseron (Aramaic to Arabic to English) yield "Gadarenes."

Diatessaron, Section XI
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/te...saron.html
38 And they departed and came to the country of the Gadarenes,
which is on the other side, opposite the land of Galilee.

Luke 8:26 (based on Younan)
And they journeyed and came to the land of the Gadarenes
which is on the other side opposite of Galeela.

Luke 8:26
https://biblehub.com/texts/luke/8-26.htm
Westcott and Hort / {NA28 variants}
Καὶ κατέπλευσαν εἰς τὴν χώραν τῶν Γερασηνῶν, ....
RP Byzantine Majority Text 2005
Καὶ κατέπλευσαν εἰς τὴν χώραν τῶν Γαδαρηνῶν, ....
Tischendorf 8th Edition 1872
Καὶ κατέπλευσαν εἰς τὴν χώραν τῶν Γεργεσηνῶν, ....

Luke PDF at http://www.willker.de/wie/TCG/
TVU 125
45. Difficult variant
NA28 Luke 8:26 .... BYZ Luke 8:26 ....
NA28 Luke 8:37 .... BYZ Luke 8:37 ....
Lk 8:26
Γερασηνῶν P75, B, D, 0267, Latt, Sy-Hmg, sa, boms
Γαδαρηνῶν A, R, W, D^Gr, Y, 0135, f13, 700C, 1071, 892, Maj, Sy, goth
Γεργεσηνῶν 01, L, X, Q, X, f1, 22, 33, 157, 579, 700*, 1241, 1342, pc, bo, Sy-Pal, arm, geo, Eus, Gre

700: The word is added in the margin by a later hand.
B: umlaut! (1319 C 7 R) ....

[DavidFord]

How do you think Lk 21:12-13 ought read?
How about:  Mk 7:3?  Jn 4:35-36?  Jn 7:21-22?  Lk 24:9-10?

_Our Translated Gospels: Some of the Evidence_ (1936), 172pp. by Charles Cutler Torrey. On 4-5
https://archive.org/details/OurTranslate...ey/page/n1
The great freedom in the order of words of the Aram. sentence, and especially the manner of emphasizing a word by putting it at the beginning or end of a clause, occasionally produced ambiguity, as the translator rendered word by word.  In this way arose the strange reading in Mk. 7:3, where the Jews are said to wash their hands "with the fist." 

Hence also the "already," which in the Aram. of Jn. 4 stood at the end of vs. 35, was by the Grk. translator made to stand at the beginning of vs. 36.  Argument for the date of the Gospel has been based on this translator's error-- for such it certainly is.

Another similar instance is the false position of the phrase "because of this"... which now forms the beginning of Jn. 7:22, whereas it was intended to end the preceding verse.  Ordinarily, indeed, it stands at the head of its sentence or clause. 

The frequently abrupt beginning of the Aram. sentence, without introductory conjunction or adverb, sometimes misleads the Grk. translator, where the context leaves room for doubt as to the connection intended.  An example is Lk. 21:12 f., where the parallels in Mk. and Mt. [Mt 10:18, Mk 13:9] make it certain that the true reading is:  "Before kings and governors, for my name's sake, you will be brought for testimony."

A more important instance is the passage Lk. 24:9 ff., in which the honor of being the first to bring to the disciples the news of the resurrection is by the Grk. translator taken away from Mary Magdalene and Joanna and Mary the mother of James, and given to "the other women."

CVB 2.3, Luke 
21:12 But before all these things, 
they will lay their hands on you and will persecute you, 
delivering you up to synagogues and prisons, 
bringing you before kings and governors for my name’s sake. 
21:13 It will turn out as a testimony for you.

Lk 21:12-13 (based on Younan)
But before all these things, 
they will lay hands upon you and persecute you, 
and they will deliver you to the assemblies and to the prisons, 
and they will bring you before malka [kings] and governors because of my name,
but it will be to you for a testimony.

Mark 7:3 (King James)
https://biblehub.com/mark/7-3.htm
For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders.

Pulpit Commentary
https://biblehub.com/mark/7-3.htm
Verse 3. - Except they wash their hands oft.  The Greek word here rendered "oft" is πυγμῇ:  literally, with the fist, i.e. with the closed hand, rubbing one against the other.  This word has caused a vast amount of criticism; and the difficulty of explaining it seems to have led to the adoption of a conjectural reading (πυκνῷς or πυκνῇ) rendered "oft;" crebro in the Vulgate.  But the Syriac Peshito Version renders the Greek word by a word which means "diligently," and it is interesting and helpful, as a matter of exegesis, to know that it also renders the Greek word (ἐπιμελῶς) in Luke 15:8 by the same Syriac synonym, "diligently."

4435. pugmé 
https://biblehub.com/greek/4435.htm
pugmé: the fist
Original Word: πυγμή, ῆς, ἡ
Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine
Transliteration: pugmé
Phonetic Spelling: (poog-may')
Definition: the fist
Usage: the fist.
NAS Exhaustive Concordance
Word Origin
from pux (the fist)
Definition
the fist

John 4:35-36 (NABRE)
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se...sion=NABRE
35 Do you not say, ‘In four months the harvest will be here’?  I tell you, look up and see the fields ripe for the harvest. 36 The reaper is already[b] receiving his payment and gathering crops for eternal life, so that the sower and reaper can rejoice together.
b:  Already:  this word may go with the preceding verse rather than with Jn 4:36.

John 7 (Berean Literal Bible)
https://biblehub.com/blb/john/7.htm
21 Jesus answered and said to them, “I did one work, and you all marvel. 
22 Because of the fact that Moses has given you circumcision (not that it is of Moses, but of the fathers) also on the Sabbath you circumcise a man.

CVB, Lk 24
24:8 They remembered his words, 24:9 returned from the tomb, and told all these things to the eleven, and to all the rest.  24:10 Now they were Mary Magdalene, Joanna, and Mary the mother of James.  The other women with them told these things to the apostles.

Luke 24 (based on Younan)
8. And they remembered his words. 9. And they returned from the grave and told all these things to the eleven and to the rest. 10. Now they were Maryam of Magdala and Yokan and Maryam the mother of Yaqub and others who were with them, those who had told the Shelikha [Apostles].

[DavidFord]

Do you think Mk 3:32 should start in English with: "and"? "because"? neither?
How do you think Lk 18:7, Jn 2:13, Jn 1:2-3, Mk 5:21, and Jn 18:25 should be rendered in English?

_Our Translated Gospels: Some of the Evidence_ (1936), 172pp. by Charles Cutler Torrey. On 5-6
https://archive.org/details/OurTranslate...ey/page/n1
The incessant Semitic parataxis creates ambiguity in the Gospels, as in the LXX. Successive clauses in varied mutual relation are likely to be strung together by the ever-repeated conjunction _waw_; usually rendered "and" in the Grk., even where it obviously means "while, when, but, for, although, since," etc. The _circumstantial clause_ thus fails, now and then, to come to its rights.

The first clause of Mk. 3:32 in our Grk. is incorrectly translated and given a false connection. As originally written, it formed the close of the preceding sentence, giving in express terms _the reason why_ Jesus' mother and brothers stood outside and sent word to him, instead of coming in: "_because_ a crowd was settled about him." In the parallel, Lk. 8:19, this is plainly stated. Cf. Gen. 22:12, Heb. and Grk., also Ps. 60:13.

-- Lk. 18:7: "Will not God give justice to his elect, . . . _even if_ he is slow to anger in their behalf?"
-- Jn. 2:13: "_When_ the passover drew near, Jesus went up to Jerusalem."
-- An example of the parataxis without a conjunction: Jn. 1:2 f., "_When_ he was in the beginning with God, all things were made by him."
-- Two other examples, Mk. 5:21 and Jn. 18:25, are described in Exhibit XX, A, F.

Mark 3 (YLT)
https://biblehub.com/mark/3-32.htm
31 Then come do his brethren and mother, and standing without, they sent unto him, calling him,
32 and a multitude was sitting about him, and they said to him, ‘Lo, thy mother and thy brethren without do seek thee.’

_Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?_
https://pdfslide.net/documents/aramaic-p...-2008.html
PDF http://www.preteristarchive.com/Books/pd...ngreek.pdf
10. For, but or and? – 2Corinthians 2:1 ....
Another Aramaic word which causes problems for translators is Nyd [i.e.: d-i-n] which really has no equivalent in English, but it is more of a "thought-switcher"-- some English words come close to translating it-- like "And, For, But, Now, However"

[DavidFord]

How do you think Jn 16:30 ought be rendered in English?

'16:30 Now we know that you know all things, 
and don’t need for anyone to question you.  
By this we believe that you came forth from God.” '

_Our Translated Gospels:  Some of the Evidence_ (1936), 172pp. by Charles Cutler Torrey.  On 50, 52
https://archive.org/stream/OurTranslated...y_djvu.txt
d. Jn. 16:30 ac. to Grk.:  Now we know that you know all things, and YOU HAVE NO NEED THAT ANY ONE SHOULD ASK YOU (.... [snip Aramaic] ....). 
True rendering: . . . and NO ONE (of us) HAS NEED TO ASK YOU (same words).
....
Exhibit X, D (Jn. 16:30).  "You have no need that any one should ask you" is quite meaningless here.  The disciples are saying, in these verses, that they are reassured; that they have full confidence in their master's wisdom, and therefore feel that they need not question him further about matters beyond their comprehension.  (They are as bewildered as ever, but are touched by what he has just said to them, and wish to meet him half way.) 
In the original language, the clause illustrates the freedom of the Aram. sentence, the emphasis given to a word by placing it at the end (as has been shown in several other examples in the Gospels).  Our Grk. translation, though wrong, is perfectly natural.

Pashka, Joseph.  2003.  _The Aramaic Gospels and Acts:  Text and Translation_ (USA:  Xulon Press), 300pp.  On 216, Jn 16:30
https://www.amazon.com/Aramaic-Gospels-A...591609798/
Now we see that you know everything, 
and we do not need anyone to ask you questions, 
because of this we believe that you came from God.