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.
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.