What's missing from your Bible?

[BPPLEE]

That argument is deeply flawed. While there is a possibility, which I have contemplated and even spoken about, that the Alexandrian text type was influenced by Arianism, it is clearly not influenced by Gnosticism. The Gnostics composed their own fake or corrupted gospels and other scriptures, for example, the Gospel of Truth, the Gospel of Mary, the Gospel of Philip, the Tripartite Tractate, the Pistis Sophia, the Acts of Thomas, and other works. In the 4th century, the predominant Gnostic sect was the Manichaean religion founded by a Persian painter named Mani, who declared himself an Apostle of Jesus Christ to the Christians, and of Hermes to the Pagans, and of Buddha to the Buddhists, and produced illustrated religious literature and a Gospel of Mani, which is lost, although much information about Manichaean dogma remains, and there is also a Manichaean church in China disguised as a Buddhist temple, although it has not been used as such for many years. The last surviving Christian Gnostics were the Paulicans of Armenia, who converted to Orthodoxy in the 19th century, and the last surviving Gnostics are the Mandaeans and possibly the Druze. There are of course neo-Gnostic Christians like the Ecclesia Gnostica.

Some Gnostics probably used canonical New Testament scriptures, perhaps in corrupted form (the Gospel of Thomas consists of sayings, most of which are in the Synoptics but some of which are clear Gnostic interpolations), but the thing to remember about Gnosticism is that it is the opposite of Arianism or Unitarianism, in that Gnostics are Docetic, believing matter to be evil and regarding Jesus Christ as entirely divine and in no respect human.

Thanks for the correction and the information. It's very interesting

 

[BPPLEE]

That argument is deeply flawed. While there is a possibility, which I have contemplated and even spoken about, that the Alexandrian text type was influenced by Arianism, it is clearly not influenced by Gnosticism. The Gnostics composed their own fake or corrupted gospels and other scriptures, for example, the Gospel of Truth, the Gospel of Mary, the Gospel of Philip, the Tripartite Tractate, the Pistis Sophia, the Acts of Thomas, and other works. In the 4th century, the predominant Gnostic sect was the Manichaean religion founded by a Persian painter named Mani, who declared himself an Apostle of Jesus Christ to the Christians, and of Hermes to the Pagans, and of Buddha to the Buddhists, and produced illustrated religious literature and a Gospel of Mani, which is lost, although much information about Manichaean dogma remains, and there is also a Manichaean church in China disguised as a Buddhist temple, although it has not been used as such for many years. The last surviving Christian Gnostics were the Paulicans of Armenia, who converted to Orthodoxy in the 19th century, and the last surviving Gnostics are the Mandaeans and possibly the Druze. There are of course neo-Gnostic Christians like the Ecclesia Gnostica.

Some Gnostics probably used canonical New Testament scriptures, perhaps in corrupted form (the Gospel of Thomas consists of sayings, most of which are in the Synoptics but some of which are clear Gnostic interpolations), but the thing to remember about Gnosticism is that it is the opposite of Arianism or Unitarianism, in that Gnostics are Docetic, believing matter to be evil and regarding Jesus Christ as entirely divine and in no respect human.

I deleted that segment from the OP.

 

[BPPLEE]

That argument is deeply flawed. While there is a possibility, which I have contemplated and even spoken about, that the Alexandrian text type was influenced by Arianism, it is clearly not influenced by Gnosticism. The Gnostics composed their own fake or corrupted gospels and other scriptures, for example, the Gospel of Truth, the Gospel of Mary, the Gospel of Philip, the Tripartite Tractate, the Pistis Sophia, the Acts of Thomas, and other works. In the 4th century, the predominant Gnostic sect was the Manichaean religion founded by a Persian painter named Mani, who declared himself an Apostle of Jesus Christ to the Christians, and of Hermes to the Pagans, and of Buddha to the Buddhists, and produced illustrated religious literature and a Gospel of Mani, which is lost, although much information about Manichaean dogma remains, and there is also a Manichaean church in China disguised as a Buddhist temple, although it has not been used as such for many years. The last surviving Christian Gnostics were the Paulicans of Armenia, who converted to Orthodoxy in the 19th century, and the last surviving Gnostics are the Mandaeans and possibly the Druze. There are of course neo-Gnostic Christians like the Ecclesia Gnostica.

Some Gnostics probably used canonical New Testament scriptures, perhaps in corrupted form (the Gospel of Thomas consists of sayings, most of which are in the Synoptics but some of which are clear Gnostic interpolations), but the thing to remember about Gnosticism is that it is the opposite of Arianism or Unitarianism, in that Gnostics are Docetic, believing matter to be evil and regarding Jesus Christ as entirely divine and in no respect human.

I just deleted that part from the OP

 

[BPPLEE]

Can you provide more information about Lucian of Antioch and his text?


How much correlation in the NT is there between the Codex Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, and Ephraemi? And also between these codices and early translations for example to Latin, Aramaic, and Sahidic Coptic?


Yes, the Codex Sinaiticus contains extensive corrections and the Codex Alexandrinus contains the Byzantine-type Gospel text.


As bad as this sounds, I do not find many significant differences when I read modern translations based on the Critical Text side-by-side with others based on a Byzantine-type text.


It may be the other way around. I guess I need to see a list that supports this claim.


I'm not interested in personal attacks.


This is an important point. Are these newly-discovered fragments being studied carefully?


Not necessarily. Origen lived most of his life in Caesarea, Israel. NT manuscripts from that area are considered Caesarean text-type. Some scholars include that text type with the Western-text type, which is the least reliable of the 3 major text type as it tends to use paraphrase.


Irenaeus was likely describing the Western-type text, also. The relevant question is Byzantine-type vs Alexandrian-type, noting that there is variability within each family.


Alexandria was also the center of Christian Orthodoxy, where St Athanasius and his successors fought Arianism. And although Arianism started in Egypt, it really continued for a lot longer in Byzantium. I like the Byzantine-type text but attacks on Alexandrian Christianity do not help your case.

↑BPPLEE said
Alexandria was the center for Gnosticism. Isn’t it more likely that scriptures were removed to align with their Gnostic heresy than that they were added later and copied to a majority of the texts? Does the majority mean anything?
Andrewn said
Alexandria was also the center of Christian Orthodoxy, where St Athanasius and his successors fought Arianism. And although Arianism started in Egypt, it really continued for a lot longer in Byzantium. I like the Byzantine-type text but attacks on Alexandrian Christianity do not help your case.

I have removed that segment from the OP. The Liturgist also noted that this was a flawed argument.

 

[The Liturgist]

Well @BPPLEE I am thankful you took my advice, because now I am able to fully agree with you, in that the Alexandrian Text is substantially overrated. Now, do I think we should have some translations based on it? Absolutely. But what would be really useful would be some translations based on the Western Text Type manuscripts used by the the earliest third century Syriac translations of the four Gospels, the Vetus Syra, which replaced the Gospel harmony known as the Diatessaron compiled by Tatian, who actually was a Gnostic heretic, but between the second and third centuries the Syrian churches had no alternative, and the original second century Latin translation, the Vetus Latina (which is still used in the traditional Latin mass for liturgical purposes, for example, Gloria in Excelsis Deo is the elegant Classical Latin of the Vetus Latina, where the Vulgar Latin of the Vulgate reads Gloria in Altissimus Deo).

But in general, I prefer the Byzantine Text Type or the Peshitta translation for the New Testament, whether in the original Greek or Syriac, or translated into English, and the Septuagint for my Old Testament. That said, I find the KJV and the Douai Rheims delightful, and they are surprisingly similiar since in their original form they include the Deuterocanonicals, and are both translated from the Hebraic text, except the Douai Rheims uses St. Jerome’s translation of the Septuagint Psalter rather than the Vulgate Psalter, because the Roman Church like the Eastern Orthodox church organized its Psalm singing using Septuagint versification, and in general I prefer the Septuagint reading, especially Psalm 95:5 LXX “The Gods of the Gentiles are demons” vs. the Masoretic Psalms 96:5 “The Gods of the Gentiles are idols, with only two exceptions: As should be evident, the Psalms are ordered differently in the Septuagint, so frequently the number is off by one, however Psalm 23 is where you would expect it, and in this case I love the KJV translation of the Masoretic, which is the most beautiful I have seen. I also prefer Psalm 1 in the Masoretic since it has a Christological reference missing from the Septuagint, but these two exceptions are the only ones, because in general the Septuagint has many Christological references missing from the Masoretic.

 

[BPPLEE]

Well @BPPLEE I am thankful you took my advice, because now I am able to fully agree with you, in that the Alexandrian Text is substantially overrated. Now, do I think we should have some translations based on it? Absolutely. But what would be really useful would be some translations based on the Western Text Type manuscripts used by the the earliest third century Syriac translations of the four Gospels, the Vetus Syra, which replaced the Gospel harmony known as the Diatessaron compiled by Tatian, who actually was a Gnostic heretic, but between the second and third centuries the Syrian churches had no alternative, and the original second century Latin translation, the Vetus Latina (which is still used in the traditional Latin mass for liturgical purposes, for example, Gloria in Excelsis Deo is the elegant Classical Latin of the Vetus Latina, where the Vulgar Latin of the Vulgate reads Gloria in Altissimus Deo).

But in general, I prefer the Byzantine Text Type or the Peshitta translation for the New Testament, whether in the original Greek or Syriac, or translated into English, and the Septuagint for my Old Testament. That said, I find the KJV and the Douai Rheims delightful, and they are surprisingly similiar since in their original form they include the Deuterocanonicals, and are both translated from the Hebraic text, except the Douai Rheims uses St. Jerome’s translation of the Septuagint Psalter rather than the Vulgate Psalter, because the Roman Church like the Eastern Orthodox church organized its Psalm singing using Septuagint versification, and in general I prefer the Septuagint reading, especially Psalm 95:5 LXX “The Gods of the Gentiles are demons” vs. the Masoretic Psalms 96:5 “The Gods of the Gentiles are idols, with only two exceptions: As should be evident, the Psalms are ordered differently in the Septuagint, so frequently the number is off by one, however Psalm 23 is where you would expect it, and in this case I love the KJV translation of the Masoretic, which is the most beautiful I have seen. I also prefer Psalm 1 in the Masoretic since it has a Christological reference missing from the Septuagint, but these two exceptions are the only ones, because in general the Septuagint has many Christological references missing from the Masoretic.

I like the NKJV and the NASB95. I just got the Net Bible with full notes and I have never seen a Bible with so many notes. I'm going through it now. So far I like it.

 

[BPPLEE]

NASB95: No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.

NASB20: No one has seen God at any time; God the only Son, who is in the arms of the Father, He has explained Him.

NET: No one has ever seen God. The only one, himself God, who is in closest fellowship with the Father, has made God known.

MEV: No one has seen God at any time. The only Son, who is at the Father’s side, has made Him known.

NRSVUE: No one has ever seen God. It is the only Son, himself God, who is close to the Father’s heart, who has made him known.

CSB: No one has ever seen God. The one and only Son, who is himself God and is at the Father’s side—he has revealed him.


MEV follows the Textus Receptus. Other translations follow the Alexandrian Text or the Critical Text.

Notes on John 1:18
tn Or “The unique one.” For the meaning of μονογενής (monogenēs) see the note on “one and only” in 1:14.
tc The textual problem μονογενὴς θεός (monogenēs theos, “the only God”) versus ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός (ho monogenēs huios, “the only son”) is a notoriously difficult one. Only one letter would have differentiated the readings in the mss, since both words would have been contracted as nomina sacra: thus qMs or uMs. Externally, there are several variants, but they can be grouped essentially by whether they read θεός or υἱός. The majority of mss, especially the later ones (A C Θ Ψ ƒ M lat), read ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός. P א 33 have ὁ μονογενὴς θεός, while the anarthrous μονογενὴς θεός is found in P א* B C* L. The articular θεός is almost certainly a scribal emendation to the anarthrous θεός, for θεός without the article is a much harder reading. The external evidence thus strongly supports μονογενὴς θεός. Internally, although υἱός fits the immediate context more readily, θεός is much more difficult. As well, θεός also explains the origin of the other reading (υἱός) because it is difficult to see why a scribe who found υἱός in the text he was copying would alter it to θεός. Scribes would naturally change the wording to υἱός however, since μονογενὴς υἱός is a uniquely Johannine christological title (cf. John 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9). But θεός as the older and more difficult reading is preferred. As for translation, it makes the most sense to see the word θεός as in apposition to μονογενής, and the participle ὁ ὤν (ho ōn) as in apposition to θεός, giving in effect three descriptions of Jesus rather than only two. (B. D. Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, 81, suggests that it is nearly impossible and completely unattested in the NT for an adjective followed immediately by a noun that agrees in gender, number, and case, to be a substantival adjective: “when is an adjective ever used substantivally when it immediately precedes a noun of the same inflection?” This, however, is an overstatement. First, as Ehrman admits, μονογενής in John 1:14 is substantival. And since it is an established usage for the adjective in this context, one might well expect that the author would continue to use the adjective substantivally four verses later. Indeed, μονογενής is already moving toward a crystallized substantival adjective in the NT [cf. Luke 9:38; Heb 11:17]; in patristic Greek, the process continued [cf. PGL 881 s.v. 7]. Second, there are several instances in the NT in which a substantival adjective is followed by a noun with which it has complete concord: cf., e.g., Rom 1:30; Gal 3:9; 1 Tim 1:9; 2 Pet 2:5.) The modern translations which best express this are the NEB (margin) and TEV. Several things should be noted: μονογενής alone, without υἱός, can mean “only son,” “unique son,” “unique one,” etc. (see 1:14). Furthermore, θεός is anarthrous. As such it carries qualitative force much like it does in 1:1c, where θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος (theos ēn ho logos) means “the Word was fully God” or “the Word was fully of the essence of deity.” Finally, ὁ ὤν occurs in Rev 1:4, 8; 4:8; 11:17; and 16:5, but even more significantly in the LXX of Exod 3:14. Putting all of this together leads to the translation given in the text.

tn Grk “in the bosom of” (an idiom for closeness or nearness; cf. L&N 34.18; BDAG 556 s.v. κόλπος 1).
tn Grk “him”; the referent (God) has been specified in the translation for clarity.
sn Has made God known. In this final verse of the prologue, the climactic and ultimate statement of the earthly career of the Logos, Jesus of Nazareth, is reached. The unique One (John 1:14), the One who has taken on human form and nature by becoming incarnate (became flesh, 1:14), who is himself fully God (the Word was God, 1:1c) and is to be identified with the ever-living One of the Old Testament revelation (Exod 3:14), who is in intimate relationship with the Father, this One and no other has fully revealed what God is like. As Jesus said to Philip in John 14:9, “The one who has seen me has seen the Father.”

18 No one has ever seen God. The only one, himself God, who is in closest fellowship with the Father, has made God known.

 

[BPPLEE]

Interesting article. This verse came up in discussions with Unitarians. Here is another one they don't like and there is some variance with it too
Act 20:28

Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. And 2 Peter 1:1

Notes on 2 Peter 1:1
tn The terms “God and Savior” both refer to the same person, Jesus Christ. This is one of the clearest statements in the NT concerning the deity of Christ. The construction in Greek is known as the Granville Sharp rule, named after the English philanthropist-linguist who first clearly articulated the rule in 1798. Sharp pointed out that in the construction article-noun-καί-noun (where καί [kai] = “and”), when two nouns are singular, personal, and common (i.e., not proper names), they always had the same referent. Illustrations such as “the friend and brother,” “the God and Father,” etc. abound in the NT to prove Sharp’s point. In fact, the construction occurs elsewhere in 2 Peter, strongly suggesting that the author’s idiom was the same as the rest of the NT authors’ (cf., e.g., 1:11 [“the Lord and Savior”], 2:20 [“the Lord and Savior”]). The only issue is whether terms such as “God” and “Savior” could be considered common nouns as opposed to proper names. Sharp and others who followed (such as T. F. Middleton in his masterful The Doctrine of the Greek Article) demonstrated that a proper name in Greek was one that could not be pluralized. Since both “God” (θεός, theos) and “savior” (σωτήρ, sōtēr) were occasionally found in the plural, they did not constitute proper names, and hence, do fit Sharp’s rule. Although there have been 200 years of attempts to dislodge Sharp’s rule, all attempts have been futile. Sharp’s rule stands vindicated after all the dust has settled. For more information on the application of Sharp’s rule to 2 Pet 1:1, see ExSyn 272, 276-77, 290. See also Titus 2:13 and Jude 4.

 

[stacey7]

Hard to beat the KJV ... also the Geneva bible with the reformers notes is interesting although not very popular in some circles.

That being said .... no doubt the the Lord works within peoples hearts through His written word ... or otherwise. His basic moral precepts are written on everyone's heart whether they acknowledge it as being from Him .... or not .... all are without excuse.

Looking so forward to His return and ending this mess we are in on planet earth. AMEN!

KJV is a great version of the bible. I want to read the Wycliffe bible or The Tyndale Bible.

 

[pescador]

KJV is a great version of the bible. I want to read the Wycliffe bible or The Tyndale Bible.

I much prefer modern translations. They are written in my native language, so I understand God's word far better than a translation written 400+ years ago in a dead language. It's also the language that all of us use to communicate with each other (if we want to be clearly understood).

They are also free of the gender bias that exists in the English language, but not in the source languages.

 

[pescador]

I like the NKJV and the NASB95. I just got the Net Bible with full notes and I have never seen a Bible with so many notes. I'm going through it now. So far I like it.

I like it also. There has never been a handier one-volume reference.

My present favorite is the newly-published NRSVue. It's an excellent translation and the font is good for my aging eyes (even with glasses).

NRSVue stands for New Revised Standard Version updated edition. I wonder what they'll name the next version. Maybe NNRSVue or NRSVuue or ..?

 

[The Liturgist]

KJV is a great version of the bible. I want to read the Wycliffe bible or The Tyndale Bible.

The Wycliffe Bible is written in an older form of the English language which is in many respects different from the Early Modern English we see in Tyndale, Coverdale and the KJV. The Tyndale Bible is also incomplete, but Coverdale translated the missing parts giving us the Great Bible, which was the first English Bible used in the Church of England. It was replaced by the elegant Bishops’ Bible, which for some reason irritated the Puritans and Presbyterians, who preferred the Geneva Bible, which like the Douay Rheims has in-line commentary, so the KJV was produced as a means of creating a Bible without interpretive commentary, only marginal notes on textual variants, that could replace both the Geneva Bible and the Bishops’ Bible and provide a single authoritative English language Bible that would be used in both the Anglican Church of England and the Calvinist Presbyterian Church of Scotland. The last Church of Scotland parish to use the Geneva Bible in worship switched to the KJV around 1676, but Scottish Presbyterians continued to use illicitly printed and old copies of the Geneva Bible in the home, and perhaps in some of the non-conforming churches, like the Covenanting Reformed Presbyterian Church.

 

[WintersDust]

Is there one huge inclusive of all textus per the OP Bible? A giant reference tome as it were?

Edited to fix typo

 

[The Liturgist]

They are also free of the gender bias that exists in the English language, but not in the source languages.

The “gender bias” in the original Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic is limited to references to the Holy Spirit being neutral in Greek and feminine in the Semitic languages. To a very large extent the NIV version 3 has intentionally inserted gender-neutral language where it is unwarranted. This combined with the fact that it lacks the Deuterocanonical books causes me to favor other translations.

 

[The Liturgist]

Is there one huge inclusive of all textus per the OP Bible? A giant reference time as it were?

There have been parallel Bibles. Sadly the most interesting and useful of all of them, Origen’s Hexapla, has been lost, along with the variant Hebrew texts it contained, but that referred to the Old Testament, and the debate about Byzantine vs. Alexandrian text types pertains to the New Testament.

Also from an English language perspective you can go to BibleHub and open up a translation leaning on the Alexandrian text type like the NIV or the Open English Bible and then compare that with the Byzantine-based Textus Receptus KJV/NKJV (which are the only two New Testaments commonly used in Orthodox churches, the NKJV being used alongside a new translation of the Septuagint in the Orthodox Study Bible) and the Douay Rheims and translations of the Peshitta.

 

[The Liturgist]

I like it also. There has never been a handier one-volume reference.

My present favorite is the newly-published NRSVue. It's an excellent translation and the font is good for my aging eyes (even with glasses).

NRSVue stands for New Revised Standard Version updated edition. I wonder what they'll name the next version. Maybe NNRSVue or NRSVuue or ..?

I think you would like Hal Taussig’s A New New Testament. It features the 27 canonical books of the New Testament plus various Apocrypha, much of it Gnostic like the Gospel of Truth, and some of it not Gnostic, such as the largely factual Acts of Paul and Thecla, but the interesting thing is that his translation team modified the text of the Open English Bible to read “Child of Humanity” instead of “Son of Man”.

 

[BPPLEE]

I like it also. There has never been a handier one-volume reference.

My present favorite is the newly-published NRSVue. It's an excellent translation and the font is good for my aging eyes (even with glasses).

NRSVue stands for New Revised Standard Version updated edition. I wonder what they'll name the next version. Maybe NNRSVue or NRSVuue or ..?

I like the NET. The notes are proving to be very helpful in debates with Unitarians. The online version is more user friendly than the printed version. There is a thread on the NRSVue. I understand they removed the references to homosexuality in that version.

 

[stacey7]

I much prefer modern translations. They are written in my native language, so I understand God's word far better than a translation written 400+ years ago in a dead language. It's also the language that all of us use to communicate with each other (if we want to be clearly understood).

They are also free of the gender bias that exists in the English language, but not in the source languages.

yes, that's true. I have boug

I like the NET. The notes are proving to be very helpful in debates with Unitarians. There is a thread on the NRSVue. I understand they removed the references to homosexuality in that version.

i

 

[The Liturgist]

I like the NET. The notes are proving to be very helpful in debates with Unitarians. There is a thread on the NRSVue. I understand they removed the references to homosexuality in that version.

They obfuscated the translation in what I regard as a transparent attempt to make it politically correct.

 

[WintersDust]

There have been parallel Bibles. Sadly the most interesting and useful of all of them, Origen’s Hexapla, has been lost, along with the variant Hebrew texts it contained, but that referred to the Old Testament, and the debate about Byzantine vs. Alexandrian text types pertains to the New Testament.

Also from an English language perspective you can go to BibleHub and open up a translation leaning on the Alexandrian text type like the NIV or the Open English Bible and then compare that with the Byzantine-based Textus Receptus KJV/NKJV (which are the only two New Testaments commonly used in Orthodox churches, the NKJV being used alongside a new translation of the Septuagint in the Orthodox Study Bible) and the Douay Rheims and translations of the Peshitta.

Thank you.