Signs of the Beginning of Sorrows Mark 13:8 (variations)

by Herman of bibledifferences.net

Can you believe that on the last word of a sentence there could be no less than nine variations? That is the situation with Mark 13:8! How would one discern which could represent the original? Only one can be in accordance with the original autograph as inspired by the Holy Spirit.

Let us first look at what these variations are and how much support each has in the available manuscripts.
This is called the external criteria.

1. External criteria.
1. “Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be earthquakes in various places, ‘there will be famines.’ These are the beginnings of birth pains.” Four Greek codices (±350 – 750 A.D.) and three Antique Translations (±250 – 450). This variation is found in the New International Version.
2. ‘… and there will be famines and troubles.’ (And troubles added). Five Greek uncials, (450 – 850} 21 Greek minuscules (after 900) as well as four ancient translations (450 – 950) This variation is found in the King James Version.
3. ‘… and famines.’ One Greek codex (450), the Vulgate (350) and eleven Old Latin translations (350 – 1250). (This illustrates that the repeated verb “there will be” could be replaced with “and” without altering the meaning, yet it is an alteration that people that refer to the many variations in the Bible, like to count!)
4. ‘… troubling famines.’ One Greek codex (375) and two antique translations (250 and 350). (By altering the sequence of “famine” and “trouble”, the two words form a new meaning, but still making perfect sense.)
5. ‘… and plagues and troubles. ‘ One Greek codex (750), two Greek minuscules (after 900), and one antique translation (950). (Here famines ‘limoi’ is replaced with pestilence or plagues ‘loimoi’, a reading mistake that could easily happen.)
6. ‘… and there will be famines and plagues and troubles.’ One Greek uncial and one Greek minuscule. (If you have one manuscript reading “famines and troubles” and another reading “plagues and troubles” how would you decide? For fear of leaving out the correct word, a scribe would rather put them in both!)
7. ‘… and there will be earthquakes, and famines in various places and troubles.’ One Greek lectionary. (Here “in various places” was transposed from “earthquakes” to “famines”. Something that can happen!)
8. ‘… plagues and famines and troubles.’ One antique translation. (Once again the sequence of words come into play.)
9. ‘… hunger and thirst.’ One antique translation. (Could it be that the scribe had to swot a fly and then completed the sentence from his memory with two words belonging together?)

We have to consider only the first two variations. The others I added with my personal notes in brackets to illustrate an important human trait concerning the habits of scribes. This just shows the human factor that can cause variations without any mala fide intention.

One can immediately see that the first variation is present in the oldest Greek codices and oldest antique translations. Many late manuscripts, especially the minuscule manuscripts after 900 A.D. only prove that they were copied from a source text containing that version. Many copies of any document do not prove anything concerning the original autograph.
According to the manuscripts the version as is found in the NIV has the greater possibility to represent the original autograph.

2. Internal criteria.
Our next criterion is to try and discern how the variations could have originated. I have explained possibilities for all the variations except the first two that are of real importance.

Had the original been only “earthquakes and famines” (like the NIV), someone had to add “and troubles”. But there is no reason to indicate the need for such an addition.
If however the original had been “earthquakes and famines and troubles” (like the KJV) someone had deliberately removed “troubles”. Again no reason for such an alteration can be found.

Since about 92% of Mark is taken up in Matthews and 85% in Luke, we can deduce that the authors of both these gospels have used Mark in compiling their gospels. In Matthew 24;7 we find “earthquakes and famines” like the NIV version. In Luke 21;11, we find “earthquakes and famines and pestilence” (limoi and loimoi) but not “troubles” (tarachai). If “troubles” had been part of Mark, why then would both Matthew and Luke remove that word? It just makes no sense.
This is a strong indication that the original autograph had to be without the word “troubles” (tarachai).

3. Intrinsic criteria.
Our last indication can come from an intrinsic study, looking at the context of this passage.
Looking at this passage as a whole, Jesus is explaining the signs that will precede the second coming. And in verse eight He first mentions what will happen between humans. “Nation will rise against nation and kingdom against kingdom.” Here “troubles” could fit in. But then Jesus indicates things that will happen in nature: “Earthquakes and famines” coming over men without their involvement. Here “troubles” does not fit in for it again reflects back to the actions of man.
According to the context this word also does not fit in.

Conclusion.
With all three objective criteria in agreement that the original autograph would have been without “troubles”, the removal of it from the version found in the familiar King James Version, is just restoring the Scripture to its original as had been inspired by the Holy Spirit.

Son or Donkey or Sheep in the well, Luke 14:5

by Herman of bibledifferences.net

Luke tells us of Jesus’ healing of the man who suffered of unusual swelling of the body due to water retention, also known as dropsy. This happened on a Sabbath day. Jesus defended Himself by asking the Pharisees who of them would not save something from a well on the Sabbath. What example did Jesus mention that had to be saved from the well?

KJV: “And answered them, saying, Which of you shall have an ass or an ox fallen into a pit, and will not straightway pull him out on the sabbath day?”

NIV: “If one of you, has a son or an ox that falls into a well on the Sabbath day, will you not immediately pull him out?”

In the manuscripts we find three versions.

1. Internal Criteria.

To try to come to a decision, we first examine the manuscripts that has this verse.

“A son or an ox” is found in Papyrus 45 and 75, both from ±250 A.D. Also in four other Uncials (350 – 850) and eleven Minuscules later than 850 A.D. Also in the majority of Byzantine manuscripts and Greek lectionaries. Lectionaries are copies of the passages of Scripture that were read in the Greek Orthodox Church on specific Sundays and holidays according to the Christian year, starting with Easter. This version is also found in seven antique translations dating between 250 – 650 A.D. Even the Diatessaron, a compilation of the four gospels made by Tatian the Syrian (±150 A.D.) has this version.

“A donkey or an ox” is found in six Uncials dated 350 – 850 A.D. and ten Minuscules and one Greek lectionary. It is also found in thirteen antique translations dated between 350 – 1300 A.D.

“A sheep or an ox” is found in codex Bezae (500) and one Old Latin translation from the same time.

Several other manuscripts have different sequences of these variations and even all three together, “a son or donkey or sheep or ox”. One manuscript ha an obvious misspelling where an “n” was substituted by an “r”, causing the version “a mountain or an ox”! Humans do make mistakes!

According to the manuscript evidence the version “son or ox” clearly has the older and better evidence and should be seen as the greatest possibility to represent the original autograph.

2. Internal Criteria.

But why and how could these variations have come about?
To have a son and an ox together could be seen as an uneasy fit by some scribes. Two animals mentioned together would not cause any offence or uneasiness. Therefore the version urging alteration would be the son and ox combination, causing the variations. That version should therefore have the greater possibility to be the original.
But why then combined with a donkey or a sheep?

Jesus had just beforehand (Luke 13:15) mentioned that anyone would untie his ox or donkey on the Sabbath and give it water. So the donkey and ox combination is easily acceptable.
And some scribe could have remembered that Jesus mentioned that one would save his sheep from a pit on the Sabbath when He had to defend His healing of the man with a shrivelled hand. (Matthews 12:11) Thus the combination of sheep and ox is also easily explained.After the three variations were created, the sequence or combinations or compilations could easily originated.Looking at these facts, it is obvious that the version with “son and ox” would rather render the original, calling for alteration to prevent offence.

3. Intrinsic Criteria.

Lastly we look at any possible markers from the context or use of words or expressions that could help us further to a definite choice. Unfortunately I find nothing and have to rely on the previous two criteria.

4. Conclusion.
With the first two criteria urging the “son or ox” variation to be in agreement with the original autograph, the version found in the NIV should be accepted rather than that in the KJV.

Although these variations makes no real difference in interpretation or application of this verse, these variations prove that men made mistakes, being it per chance or deliberately. Therefore all variations should be taken seriously and examined with all objective instruments to our disposal. We would like to have the Bible as near as possible to the very words the Holy Spirit had inspired the authors to write down. Even insignificant variations like these give us trust in the work of Script examiners and the Bible translators.