Textual Variants In Galatians

[Rippon]

Some observations from Philip Comfort's book:New Testament Text And Translation Commentary.

3:1a
WH NU : who bewitched you?
var/TR : who bewitched you that you should not obey the truth?

"The WH NU reading has better manuscript support than what is behind TR." (p.564)

3:1b
WH NU : Christ was portrayed as having been crucified
var/TR : Christ was portrayed as having been crucified among you

"The manuscript evidence (both early and diverse) for the WH NU reading is vastly superior to that for TR." (p.564)

4:6b
WH NU : our hearts
var/TR : your hearts

Comfort says the Greek word for our has superior documentation and your is "an obvious assimilation to the immediate context." (p.567)

4:26
WH NU : our mother
var/TR WH : mother of us all

"The documentation behind the WH NU reading is impressive,having support from the four earliest manuscripts..." (p.570)

4:28
NU : but you,brothers..are
var/TR WH : but we,brothers...are


"The testimony of P46B D* is sufficiently weighty to show that the reading of the NU text is original..." (p.570)

5:19
WH NU : fornication (or:sexual immorality)
var/TR : adultery,fornication

The insertion is a scribal attempt at harmonization. Documentary evidence is with WH NU. (p.571)

5:21
WH NU : envyings,drunkennesses
var/TR : envyings,murders,drunkennesses

Another attempted harmonization. However,the manuscript support goes against this. (p.571,572)

 

[Greektim]

Some observations from Philip Comfort's book:New Testament Text And Translation Commentary.

3:1a
WH NU : who bewitched you?
var/TR : who bewitched you that you should not obey the truth?

"The WH NU reading has better manuscript support than what is behind TR." (p.564)

3:1b
WH NU : Christ was portrayed as having been crucified
var/TR : Christ was portrayed as having been crucified among you

"The manuscript evidence (both early and diverse) for the WH NU reading is vastly superior to that for TR." (p.564)

4:6b
WH NU : our hearts
var/TR : your hearts

Comfort says the Greek word for our has superior documentation and your is "an obvious assimilation to the immediate context." (p.567)

4:26
WH NU : our mother
var/TR WH : mother of us all

"The documentation behind the WH NU reading is impressive,having support from the four earliest manuscripts..." (p.570)

4:28
NU : but you,brothers..are
var/TR WH : but we,brothers...are


"The testimony of P46B D* is sufficiently weighty to show that the reading of the NU text is original..." (p.570)

5:19
WH NU : fornication (or:sexual immorality)
var/TR : adultery,fornication

The insertion is a scribal attempt at harmonization. Documentary evidence is with WH NU. (p.571)

5:21
WH NU : envyings,drunkennesses
var/TR : envyings,murders,drunkennesses

Another attempted harmonization. However,the manuscript support goes against this. (p.571,572)

I'm curious... why do you keep posting Comfort's commentary info? Are you trying to prove a point that I missed somewhere. Again, very curious.

 

[Rippon]

I'm curious... why do you keep posting Comfort's commentary info? Are you trying to prove a point that I missed somewhere. Again, very curious.

As I told Steve --it's for educational purposes.

Most of the time the TR adds things that were not in the original. It tries to harmonize,has unwarranted expansions,changes pronouns,"corrects" what "must" have been an earlier mistake, occasionally deletes and has many other alterations.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

As I told Steve --it's for educational purposes.

Most of the time the TR adds things that were not in the original. It tries to harmonize,has unwarranted expansions,changes pronouns,"corrects" what "must" have been an earlier mistake, occasionally deletes and has many other alterations.

But you provide no evidence of any sort for this. It is much more logical to suppose that the scribes who produced Sinaiticus and Vaticanus simply missed out verses by accident through carelessness. That is why they were hardly copied. Where's my evidence? I don't have any (except in one or two cases where the C.T. reading is bizarre), but nor do you.

Steve

 

[Rippon]

But you provide no evidence of any sort for this. It is much more logical to suppose that the scribes who produced Sinaiticus and Vaticanus simply missed out verses by accident through carelessness. That is why they were hardly copied. Where's my evidence? I don't have any (except in one or two cases where the C.T. reading is bizarre), but nor do you.

Steve

There are manuscripts --papyri,unicals,minuscles other than Sinaiticus and Vaticanus that are earlier than much that the TR has used. Documents which are older and perhaps a bit more reliable than the venerable TR.

I have been giving evidence throughout these Variant threads that demonstrate the tendency of the TR to change what the older,primitive and quite likely --what the original autographs have said.

 

[Baptist4life]

There are manuscripts --papyri,unicals,minuscles other than Sinaiticus and Vaticanus that are earlier than much that the TR has used. Documents which are older and perhaps a bit more reliable than the venerable TR.

I have been giving evidence throughout these Variant threads that demonstrate the tendency of the TR to change what the older,primitive and quite likely --what the original autographs have said.

"perhaps" and "quite likely" are simply opinions.

 

[jbh28]

"perhaps" and "quite likely" are simply opinions.

And thanks for your opinion.

 

[Rippon]

"perhaps" and "quite likely" are simply opinions.

B4L never fails to grace us with an enlightening word.

 

[Rippon]

In the book of Galatians,the TR reading agreed with the WH and NU as follows:

1:6 : WH NU
1:15a : WH NU
2:5 WH NU
2:9 : WH NU
2:12 : WH NU
2:12b : WH NU
2:16a : NU
2:16b : WH NU
3:14b : WH NU
3:21: WH NU
4:28 : WH
5:23 : WH NU
6:2 : WH
6:13 : WH NU

So WH agreed with the TR reading 13 times.
The NU reading agreed with TR on 12 occasions.