• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Case by case.

37818

37818

Well-Known Member
Basically Bible textual variants are of two kinds.
The choice of the Hebrew/Aramaic or Greek text variants bring translated or the choice of the English words or translation style to be used.

Personally I prefer a KJB as my primary Bible.

Of the modern Bibles I recommend the NKJV.
 
37818

37818

Well-Known Member
Mark 9:29, And he said unto them, This kind can come forth by nothing, but by prayer and fasting.

Of 1655 copies of Mark's gospel account only 4 codex omit "and fasting."
 
C

Conan

Well-Known Member
So the words "and fasting" fell out of the 4 manuscripts by eye skip. An error of the scribe. A scribe accidentally skipped over the words.
 
37818

37818

Well-Known Member
A parallel verse to Mark 9:29.
Matthew 17:21, Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting.

Both Codex Sinaticus and Codex Vaticanus also omits the whole verse. Being of the few 00.6% of codex which omit the passage.
 
Last edited:
37818

37818

Well-Known Member
John 13:2, . . . And supper being ended, . . .
Of the codex of John's gospel, 99.5% translate "being ended."
The Greek being γενομενου.
The reminning 00.5% of codex translate "during" for the Greek, γινομενου. Having to be an intentional change to the Greek to be γινομενου.
 
Last edited:
C

Conan

Well-Known Member
Codexes Vaticanus and Sinaiticus have many differences. But they have agreements in what I believe to be early scribal mistakes. Perhaps even 2nd century. But all Variants that matter were suppose to be created in the wild 2nd century anyway. When most mistakes were made. I used to, as new to the subject see those agreements as important. 30 years later scribal mistakes. An Alexandrian Text that went nowhere.
 
37818

37818

Well-Known Member
37818 said:
John 13:2, . . . And supper being ended, . . .
Of the codex of John's gospel, 99.5% translate "being ended."
The Greek being γενομενου.
The reminning 00.5% of codex translate "during" for the Greek, γινομενου. Having to be an intentional change to the Greek to be γινομενου.
Click to expand...

Codex Vaticanus,has γινομενου.
Codex Sinaiticus actual has, γεινομενου.
it's second corrector, γεινομενου
 
Last edited:
Deacon

Deacon

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Two things brought this thread to my attention today:

(1) Tomorrow my church begins a series of new electives prior to the service on Sunday; one of them is on FASTING.

(2) An article in the Logos Bible Blog last month was on FASTING: "How to Fast For God: What Fasting Is, Why it Matters & More" [link]

Reading through the Logos Blog article I noted that the variant texts of Mark 9:29 and Matthew 17:21 that you mentioned are not unique.

~~~~~~~~~
COMPARE Textus Receptus vs. Critical Text

Matthew 17:21 (AV 1873) Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting. [this verse is excluded from the Critical Text; considered an assimilation of Mark 9:29]
Mark 9:29 (AV 1873) And he said unto them, This kind can come forth by nothing, but by prayer and fasting.
Acts 10:30 (AV 1873) And Cornelius said, Four days ago I was fasting until this hour; and at the ninth hour I prayed in my house, and behold, a man stood before me in bright clothing,
1 Corinthians 7:5 (AV 1873) Defraud you not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer, and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.

~~~~~~~~~

Textual scholars conclude that the discrepancies between texts occurred very early.
All textual scholars agree upon the numeric predominancy of the readings found in the textus receptus.

Conclusions differ, many/most current textual critics conclude that these were additions to the text.

Rob
 
C

Conan

Well-Known Member
Deacon said:
Two things brought this thread to my attention today:

(1) Tomorrow my church begins a series of new electives prior to the service on Sunday; one of them is on FASTING.

(2) An article in the Logos Bible Blog last month was on FASTING: "How to Fast For God: What Fasting Is, Why it Matters & More" [link]

Reading through the Logos Blog article I noted that the variant texts of Mark 9:29 and Matthew 17:21 that you mentioned are not unique.

~~~~~~~~~
COMPARE Textus Receptus vs. Critical Text

Matthew 17:21 (AV 1873) Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting. [this verse is excluded from the Critical Text; considered an assimilation of Mark 9:29]
Mark 9:29 (AV 1873) And he said unto them, This kind can come forth by nothing, but by prayer and fasting.
Acts 10:30 (AV 1873) And Cornelius said, Four days ago I was fasting until this hour; and at the ninth hour I prayed in my house, and behold, a man stood before me in bright clothing,
1 Corinthians 7:5 (AV 1873) Defraud you not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer, and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.

~~~~~~~~~

Textual scholars conclude that the discrepancies between texts occurred very early.
All textual scholars agree upon the numeric predominancy of the readings found in the textus receptus.

Conclusions differ, many/most current textual critics conclude that these were additions to the text.

Rob
Click to expand...
But it is not the case of Mark 9:29. There it is obvious a Scribe Skipped over the first ka to the second ka starting in verse 30. The skip is recorded in only 4 Uncial manuscripts, 1 only old Latin manuscript and the first Georgian version.
The missing words are recorded In 26 Uncial manuscripts, all other cursive manuscripts, whether Byzantine or independent (1655), 11 Old Latin Manuscript, Latin Vulgate, the whole Syraic Tradition, no matter what groups, and countless early Church Writers.

Had the words Not been original it would be found missing in many more manuscripts.

The superstitious days of just going by whatever Vaticanus and Sinaiticus says are over. It was an early scribal mistake that hardly affected the tradition at all. Not until Westcott and Hort and Metzger thought way to highly of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. They are good, valuable manuscripts that have many mistakes in them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top