**Acts 21:25** **25 And as to the Gentiles who believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing,** save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication.” Thanks in advance.

Eusebius in his *Historia Ecclesiastica 3.39.15* writes about Papias claiming Mark, an attendant of Peter, had written an account about Jesus: > And the elder would say this: Mark, who had become the interpreter of > Peter, wrote accurately, yet not in order, as many things as he > remembered of the things either said or done by the Lord. For he > neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but later, as I said, Peter, > who would make the teachings to the needs, but not making them as an > ordering together of the lordly oracles, so that Mark did not sin > having thus written certain things as he remembered them. For he made > one provision, to leave out nothing of the things that he heard or > falsify anything in them. > > Και τουθ ο πρεσβυτερος ελεγεν· Μαρκος μεν ερμηνευτης Πετρου γενομενος, > οσα εμνημονευσεν ακριβως εγραψεν, ου μεντοι ταξει, τα υπο του κυριου η > λεχθεντα η πραχθεντα. ουτε γαρ ηκουσεν του κυριου ουτε παρηκολουθησεν > αυτω, υστερον δε, ως εφην, Πετρω, ος προς τας χρειας εποιειτο τας > διδασκαλιας, αλλ ουχ ωσπερ συνταξιν των κυριακων ποιουμενος λογιων, > ωστε ουδεν ημαρτεν Μαρκος ουτως ενια γραψας ως απεμνημοσευσεν. ενος > γαρ εποιησατο προνοιαν, του μηδεν ων ηκουσεν παραλιπειν η ψευσασθαι τι > εν αυτοις. Could the phrase ου μεντοι ταξει refer to the concept of a rhetorical arrangement that is not in order, in that it skips over major sections of the life and ministry of Jesus? There are two references in the New Testament that are different, yet similar: > Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account > of the things accomplished among us, just as those who from the > beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word have handed them > down to us, it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated > everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in > orderly sequence [καθεξῆς], most excellent Theophilus; so that you > might know the exact truth about the things you have been taught. (Luke 1.1-4) > > But Peter began speaking and proceeded to explain to them > in orderly sequence [καθεξῆς], saying.... (Acts 11.4) The early second century literary critic Lucian in his book, *How to Write History* uses ταξει in a broad sense when he writes: > As to the facts themselves, [the historian] should not assemble them > at random, but only after much laborious and painstaking > investigation. He should for preference be an eyewitness, but, if not, > listen to those who tell the more impartial story, those whom one > would suppose least likely to subtract from the facts or add to them > out of favor or malice. When this happens let him show shrewdness and > skill in putting together the more credible story. When he has > collected all or most of the facts, let him first make them into a > series of notes, a body of material as yet with no beauty or > continuity. Then, after arranging them into order [τάξιν], let him > give it beauty and enhance it with the charms of expression, figure, > and rhythm. (47-48) Of course, it is possible that Papias is making reference to an early version of Mark's Gospel. If so, it might be similar to how Tertullian in his work *Against Marcion* writes: > Nothing I have previously written against Marcion is any longer my > concern. I am embarking upon a new work to replace an old one. My > first edition [primum opusculum], too hurriedly produced, I afterwards > withdrew, substituting a fuller [*pleniore*] treatment. This also, > before enough copies [*exemplariis*] had been made, was stolen from me > by a person, at that time a Christian but afterwards an apostate, who > chanced to have copied out some extracts very incorrectly > [*mendosissime*], and shewed them to a group of people. Hence the need > for correction [*emendationis necessitas facta est*]. The opportunity > provided by this revision has moved me to make some additions. Thus > this written work, a third succeeding a second, and instead of third > from now on the first, needs to begin by reporting the demise of the > work it supersedes, so that no one may be perplexed if in one place or > another he comes across varying forms of it [*varietas eius*]. > (1.1.1-2) The target audience of Mark's Gospel appears to be Cæsar's equites . So, an abridged version of the life and ministry of Jesus might have deliberately been crafted to leave out certain events for rhetorical purposes such as memory retention, etc. For example, in the Fragments attributed to Clement of Alexandria it states (emphasis added): > Mark, the follower of Peter, while Peter publicly preached the Gospel > at Rome before some of **Cæsar's equites**, and adduced many testimonies > to Christ, in order that thereby they might be able to commit to > memory what was spoken, of what was spoken by Peter, wrote entirely > what is called the Gospel according to Mark. As Luke also may be > recognised by the style, both to have composed the Acts of the > Apostles, and to have translated Paul's Epistle to the Hebrews. So, what is a survey of the various views that Christians related to the question of what did Papias mean when he wrote how Mark did not write "in order" about what Jesus said or did?

I would consider as evidence papyri fragments, patristic gospel quotations (even without naming the supposed evangelist), or patristic references, e.g., "Luke wrote his gospel thirty years after the ascension." The data should predate 135 CE.

Does anyone know if there are digital versions of these greek New Testament texts available? Not just online or pdf versions, but complete downloadable full Greek texts in unicode text format: 1. Textus Sinaiticus 2. Textus Vaticanus 3. Textus Receptus (Download ) 4. Westcott and Hort (Download ) 5. Ivan Panin Greek New Testament edition And maybe if you know any other good options for comparative studies, I'd appreciate. I will add hyperlinks to the titles, when I have found pleasing site for my purpose with your help.

Constantine the Great and his Christian faith: Does anyone have any insight on how Constantine came to put his faith in Christ and what specifically led him [to commission the making of ***Codex Sinaiticus***](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Sinaiticus#Date) ?

[See my other question first](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/14769/in-what-language-was-the-book-of-matthew-written) . I have heard it taught in several places that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew and its intended audience was the Jew (which does help explain why it seems a bit more vague on key Christian concepts). But recently I have been told that there are no Hebrew manuscripts of this text. I assume at least that he meant there are no Hebrew manuscripts that out date the Greek ones. So this makes me wonder that if there are no Hebrew manuscripts of Matthew why would one argue this point? Essentially the question is then, who is the intended audience? *** Ultimately it's everybody, right, but I mean were a specific people in mind when it was written?

I have heard it taught in several places that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew and its intended audience was the Jews (which would help explain why it seems a bit more vague on key Christian concepts). But recently I have been told that there are no Hebrew manuscripts of this text. I assume at least that the person who told me this meant that there are no Hebrew manuscripts that outdate the Greek ones. So in what language was Matthew written?

Simple question: What are the best arguments for the divine inspiration of the longer ending of Mark (Mark 16:9-20), according to believers in its inspiration? These are examples of articles presenting arguments *against* Mark 16:9-20's inspiration: - [Why I Will Not Be Preaching the Longer Ending of Mark](https://g3min.org/longer-ending-mark/) - [Should Mark 16:9-20 be in the Bible?](https://www.gotquestions.org/Mark-16-9-20.html) Answers rebutting these articles will be highly appreciated. ____ A related question illustrating why the question about inspiration is important: [Are the signs mentioned in Mark 16:17-18 universally expected of all true believers?](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q/59009/38524)

Given that [proponents of *Textus Receptus* Only](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Only_movement#Variations) are still influential today and that the majority of Bible translations today are using the [*Nestle-Aland* edition](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novum_Testamentum_Graece) , I wonder whether there are Bible translations that cater to **both** Greek editions by *consistently* providing the original Greek text **as well as** the translation of the variant *not* used in the main text. **CONSISTENTLY** is the operative word here, so that [*Textus-Receptus*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textus_Receptus) only Bible readers can benefit from non-KJV translations to help them understand Scripture better (by using a modern translation) **while trusting** that the *Textus Receptus* manuscript version is always present to them. It makes sense from the Marketing perspective. Although of course one could consult *Wikipedia* or a list of differences in a [web article](https://textusreceptusbibles.com/Differences_Between_Textus_Receptus_and_NaUbs) , or use a tool such as *BibleGateway* to display it side by side, it is a lot more user-friendly to see the variant as a footnote that is available **offline**. My preliminary research shows that alternate manuscript footnotes are sporadic, not consistent. For example, for [Matt 19:16-17](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2019%3A16-17&version=KJV,YLT,CSB) CSB only shows the *mss* variant in v. 17, but not in v. 16, and *not* show the Greek itself. [*Bible Hub*](https://biblehub.com/interlinear/matthew/19-16.htm) *does* have links to alternate manuscript but it's not indicated in the main text as an alert. Given that such a dual-manuscript translation is not available easily today, what is the easiest way to read the Bible **and be consistently alerted** when a *Textus-Receptus* variant exists? I know I can use tools like the [Logos software](https://www.logos.com/) to do side by side interlinear translations of both CSB and KJV/YLT, but it's not that easy to spot a variant. So I will also accept an answer that can provide a recipe for using a software like this to read a Bible normally but has footnote, color codes, etc. to alert me that a **meaning-altering** *Textus Receptus* variant exists. ----- **NOTE** (after feedback in comments). Of course I wouldn't want any variants that don't make a difference in meaning. My Question has to do with making sure that the 3 text traditions (let's also add the Eastern Orthodox text tradition whose OT is based on Septuagint) are well represented in footnotes that **should include a judgment from within each tradition on how that variant is likely**. Each translation based on a particular text tradition already winnowed out meaningless variants BY THAT tradition, so in my ideal Bible those variants don't need to be mentioned at all. So I just want the 3 tradition text critic (TR, NA, and EO) to do their job well *within their text-tradition*, and the Bible publisher would present their 3 works in a single Bible volume with the main text coming from one of the 3 (the rest is in the footnotes). **So 3 Bible committees consulting their respective text-critic experts, and 1 publisher.**

Of the Byzantine texts that Erasmus had at his disposal, where did he come by them? Also, did the Waldenses provide any either directly or indirectly?

Based on a comment from @AndrewThompson, >'the' Bible (any one you care to name) is no more evidence of anything than the BOM is. You might take the numerous discrepancies between versions of 'the' Bible as the proof of that statement. there is a belief out there that "versions" of the Bible apparently have "numerous discrepancies". I'd like to know what these are. What is the most egregious textual variant measured in terms of its impact on theology? P.S. If you are going to cite the game of "telephone" please be prepared to cite a specific example, demonstrably showing manuscript evidence. If there are so many "discrepancies" this should be an easy exercise. The Codex Vaticanus, the Codex Sinaiticus, and the Dead Sea Scrolls are all online. Additionally, there are several "[Critical Apparatuses"](http://www.ericlevy.com/Revel/Cosmogony/Guide%20to%20BHS%20Critical%20Aparatus.PDF) , the best are by [Bruce Metzger](http://www.amazon.com/Text-New-Testament-Transmission-Restoration/dp/0195072979) , that will catalog every known variation. These things can be checked, I'd just like a good example of something significant.

The New Testament makes several references to "Scripture" or "the word of God", but without specifying a concrete canon: | Passage (ESV) | Content | | - | - | | Acts 17:11 | Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining **the Scriptures** daily to see if these things were so. | | 2 Timothy 3:16-17 | 16 **All Scripture** is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.| | 2 Peter 1:20-21 | 19 And we have the prophetic word more fully confirmed, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts, 20 knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of **Scripture** comes from someone's own interpretation. 21 For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. | | Hebrews 4:12 | For **the word of God** is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart. | How do Latter-day Saints decide whether a given manuscript (or a copy of a manuscript) should be considered "Scripture," and how does this approach contrast with that of other faiths like Catholicism and Protestantism? Furthermore, considering the divergences in canon determination among different traditions, what are the merits of the Latter-day Saint method? What critiques can be leveled against the processes followed by other traditions, and what makes the Latter-day Saint method of canon determination preferable? --- See also: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/101393/61679

The National Library of Sweden has a rare manuscript by the name [Codex Gigas](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Gigas) . It is a compilation of texts including those of both Old and New Testaments, a medical book, chants etc. One curious thing about the book is that it has, towards the end, a full-page illustration of the devil! The manuscript is said to have been made by a Benedictine monk of Bohemia in the 13th century. There are some legends that are not in good taste, concerning the creation of the manuscript. One would like to know what the take of Catholic Church is, on the realities and stories involving Codex Gigas.

I'm trying to figure out what are the oldest complete manuscripts of the Gospel of John in Greek. [New Testament (Wikipedia)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_Testament_papyri) For example, papyrus 66 > They say 66 is the oldest and nearly complete; but the trouble is I don't want anything that was DISCOVERED in 1952… even though it was dated as the earliest, I want there to be a historical record of the manuscripts existence since ancient times. And I'm not researching any other books of the bible, I'm just concerned with finding an old source for the gospel of John. Thanks [Codex Bezae](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Bezae#History) >The manuscript is believed to have been repaired at Lyon in the ninth century, as revealed by a distinctive ink used for supplementary pages. It was closely guarded for many centuries in the monastic library of St Irenaeus at Lyon. I found Codex Bezae: there are records that people were familiar with it around the 10th century; and scientific dating places its creation in the year 400. Vaticanus was created in 300, but discovered in 1516. this isn't old enough for me Sinaiticus was created in 330, but discovered in 1844... definitely not old enough. Textus Receptus was critical collation created in 1516 by Erasmus. That's great but I'm interested in seeing his raw sources; not his expert opinion on the best combination of sources. Any others? I like to get the two oldest and compare them.

I've heard it claimed that St. Thomas Aquinas desired to obtain a manuscript of a biblical commentary (by St. John Chrysostom?) more than he desired to posses an entire kingdom. What is the source of this story?

As a Catholic, I have to take it as a dogmatic tenet of faith that everything in the Latin Vulgate during the council of Trent was inspired by the Holy Sprit. That being said, I am seeing good arguments for Mark 16:9-20 being later additions, for example, it is missing from both Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. What would be the best arguments in favor of Mark 16:9-20 being part of the original text? Edit: I found this (very long) article very helpful in answering this question for myself. I realize now looking back that this question deserves a small book as an answer and is therefore not appropriate for this medium. If you are also asking this question I recommend you read the article linked to below. God bless! https://www.bereanpatriot.com/majority-text-vs-critical-text-vs-textus-receptus-textual-criticism-101/

To understand the history of the Christian church, the accessibility of Vulgate manuscripts during the middle ages is of interest. What is known? Is there a date from which we may assume that all, or most, Catholic parishes in Europe had such a manuscript?

What I mean is the following: - Job stands out as being as old as the Torah (if not older) - None of the characters are Israelites (especially if it was Abrahamic time when Israel didn't even exist) - Every other book can be traced back by tradition, the author is fully unknown So how did the Jews get a hold of Job scriptures? or does it not have an answer and is left to theory?

In the Hebrew Aleppo, Leningrad And Cairo codices, there is a separation mark between Yahweh and Our Righteousness. This is how it looks: ״יהוה | צדקנו״, Separating God’s name from Our Righteousness. But, there are some English versions that say “The Lord Our Righteousness”, but I don’t know why. There is a Hebrew version online that says “the LORD Our Righteousness”, but the website says it’s based on the Leningrad codex, but the Leningrad codex has the separation mark. There is another version which is based on the Aleppo codex and “The manuscripts close to it”, and it also does not have the separation mark, but if we go to the Aleppo codex online, I think it has it. What is true and how? “The LORD will call him ‘Our Righteousness’” or “He shall be called: the LORD our Righteousness”?

[Epistemologically speaking](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology) , when a Christian is faced with a given piece of text, manuscript, book, etc., how does he or she go about deciding whether the material at hand is divinely inspired or not? What features of the text itself, or about its origin, or about whatever might be relevant do Christians pay attention to in order to decide if the piece of text they have in front of them was divinely inspired? For example, let's say someone is handing out cards with quotes from the Book of Mormon, and I receive one. What should I do in order to decide if the quote I received is divinely inspired? I know this question sounds a bit opinion-based, so to mitigate this, I would rather favor answers that reference official recommendations by any Christian denomination, group or institution. I'm tagging the question with 'denomination-survey' for this reason.