The Necessity of Translation

Introduction: Now that we’ve established the origins of the various Greek New Testaments, the next step in the process is translation into the receptor language. Last time, we saw that there are really two streams of MSS that have basically produced about four Greek standardized texts which are very similar to each other. Two are from the Byzantine family of MSS and the other two are a combination of both the older Alexandrian MSS as well as the Byzantine texts as well. We saw that the major differences in these texts are about 17 Individual verses missing from the older MSS and about 6 larger portions that are missing.  The total difference is about 1/1000th of a percent between these two families of texts which attests to the preservation of God’s Word over the years and through out all the different parts of the world where these ancient MSS have been found.

1.            The Need for Translation

Now we come to the point of understanding how a translation is produced from these various Greek texts. The first thing I want to talk about is the need for translation. The first obvious reason for translation is that of language barriers. The original writers wrote in ancient Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. Today, the vast majority of people have no idea how to read write or speak those languages. Unlike the Koran, the Bible doesn’t claim to be the Word of God only in the original languages. If it cannot be understood, it does no good to you. Understanding the Word which has its origins in God alone, is what powerfully changes people. The Word is powerful, but it must be understood in the languages of all the different people in the world.  For over a thousand years, the Bible was only available in Latin, so that only educated people  were able to read it. The common people, for the most part during the Middle Ages were uneducated, illiterate and had no Bible whatsoever. They had to depend on the priests to explain what the Bible said and meant. You can see how this could really be used for evil. A man or a whole institution could tell people what the Bible meant and the people would have no way to verify it. And the people were taught that the Church created the Bible anyway, so it had authority to interpret it as it wished.

Let me make something else clear about languages – there are no superior languages. English is not a more holy language than German, Spanish, Tagolog ,  Chinese, etc… God created language when he made Adam, and God made diversity of languages at the tower of Babel. Language is nothing more than an arrangement of sounds that convey meaning. Language is not static, it continuously changes and evolves. Languages add new words, change the meaning of words and drop the usage of other words as time passes. So the need for translation work and continued translation work is absolutely necessary.

To complicate the matter more, languages also have differences in form, tense, voice and mood. There are tenses in biblical Greek that don’t exist in English, so that a perfect translation of the original tense cannot be communicated in English. For example :

2 Corinthians 2:15 (KJV)   For we are unto God a sweet savour of Christ, in them that are saved, and in them that perish.

2 Corinthians 2:15 (NKJV)  For we are to God the fragrance of Christ among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing.

The words “are saved or are being saved”  is one Greek word: “sozomenois” which is in the

Tense – Present;  Voice – Passive;  Mood – Participle

We don’t have one word for “save” that matches the Greek word, so the KJV goes with a present tense “are saved” but the problem is this – “sav-ed” in English communicates past tense, when this word in Greek has no past tense, it’s in the present and the participle means to make the word a continual process in the present tense. So, the NKJV tries to convey that idea more clearly by translating it: “are being saved”.   I actually have read and heard KJVO folks who have tried to say this verse is proof of corruption in the new versions because it perverts the doctrine of salvation. These kinds of accusations are leveled from those who are ignorant of Greek, ignorant of their own language, and ignorant of the theology in the Bible they are trying to defend since the Bible teaches that were  are saved, being saved and will be saved.

So, by this one example it’s obvious that trying to convey a perfect exact translation of a foreign language – especially a foreign language that nobody has spoken in 1000+ years – is not as simple as it seems.

2.            Methods of Translation

So, that moves me to the next section which is the method of translation. How do you make decisions to go from one language to another? Which words to you use if there isn’t an easy exact equivalent? What about word order?  If you read from the Greek or Hebrew in literal word for word order, often times you will get a sentence that is totally unintelligible. There are really two philosophies of translation today that govern the decisions of translation committees. The first one we’ll look at is called:

A.            Formal Equivalence

This is a “word for word” type of translation. This method of translation seeks to be as faithful to the original words as possible within the linguistic obstacles that different languages naturally set up.  At such points of obstacle such as an idiom, a strict wooden formal equivalence will not do. You will lose either exactness in the wording or lose the meaning and in some cases, you cannot have both. This leads us to the next philosophy of translation that is an attempt to make up for the deficiencies in formal equivalence. Here is an example of strict formal equivalence found in Young’s Literal Translation from 1898 1 Corinthians 6:7   Already, indeed, then, there is altogether a fault among you, that ye have judgments with one another; wherefore do ye not rather suffer injustice? wherefore be ye not rather defrauded?

This same verse in the KJV sounds like this:

1 Corinthians 6:7  Now therefore there is utterly a fault among you, because ye go to law one with another. Why do ye not rather take wrong? why do ye not rather suffer yourselves to be defrauded?

And here is this verse in the NKJV:

1 Corinthians 6:7  Now therefore, it is already an utter failure for you that you go to law against one another. Why do you not rather accept wrong? Why do you not rather let yourselves be cheated?

B.            Dynamic Equivalence

The founder of the UBS, Eugene Nida, really coined this phrase and articulated this idea of translation in his book Toward a Science of Translating published in 1964.  Other names have been used to describe this method such as “functional equivalence” or “meaning – based translation”. The main idea here is to translate the most precise meaning of a phrase into an easy to understand meaning in the receptor language. In Nida’s book, he proposed a systematic way by which translating can be done with respect for the linguistic intricacies of the receptor language.  He developed principles to help translators handle them objectively and efficiently. The theory is basically good since it’s based on proper linguistic, grammatical principles; however as with every thing else, it has been taken to an extreme by translators. Instead of trying to be faithful to the actual words of the original text, translators have gone further by interpreting what the original says and then translating it into the receptor language based upon how they understood the original to read. The danger in this practice is that when the reader reads a verse that perhaps the translator didn’t interpret correctly, the reader could be led to believe a false idea about a passage.

Here’s an example of that found in the NLT:

Psalm 23:5 NLT  You prepare a feast for me in the presence of my enemies. You honor me by anointing my head with oil. My cup overflows with blessings.

Psalm 23:5 KJV Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies: thou anointest my head with oil; my cup runneth over.

This attempt to be more understandable has actually limited the passage. The table that was set before him, doesn’t necessarily mean a table of food. It could be a table of land, a large broad open flat space for a sheep to graze on safely. The cup overflowing  or running over is now limited to “blessings” when the Psalmist could mean, happiness or something else. The danger with this kind of interpretation in translation is that the accuracy of the Bible version is greatly reduced and the mind of the translator is inserted with the mind of God and the reader can’t tell the difference.

Modern versions that take this approach to translation are the NIV, NLT, the Living Bible, the Message (which is a paraphrase).

To make things worse, there have been translations made with such a strong dynamic equivalence emphasis, that the translators of some versions have taken it to extremes such as the TNIV’s feminist accommodation by using more gender neutral prounouns, or the “Word on the Street” which is a Bible written in street slang, or the “gender neutral Bible”

Proverbs 13:1 TNIV A wise child heeds a parent’s instruction, but a mocker does not respond to rebukes.

Proverbs 13:1 KJV A wise son heareth his father’s instruction: but a scorner heareth not rebuke.

3.            The People Behind the Translations

The last thing to consider about a translation, is who are the scholars doing the translation work? What is their philosophy, what is their theological background and what do they actually believe about the Bible?  This is a little more difficult to find out. This may take some extensive research.

So, when we look back at the KJV translators in 1611, what were their credentials and theological commitments?  All of them were a part of the Church of England which makes sense since King James of England commissioned the translation. Although I don’t recommend the writings of  Dr. D.A. Wait,  he does have  a good list of 24 translators of the KJV in his book Defending the King James Bible which shows that they were able men and as far as we can tell 400 years removed, they were believers.

What about the NKJV? Two large meetings of the North American Overview Committee met at Nashville and Chicago in 1975 to assist in preparing guidelines for the NKJV. Nearly all felt that the project was worthy of the time, money, and effort that would be invested. Members of this committee included well known men like Jerry Falwell, James Kennedy, Curtis Hudson, Tim LaHaye, Henry Morris, Adrian Rogers, Dwight Pentecost, Charles Ryrie, RC Sproul, Charles Stanley, etc..

The newly translated ESV comes from the NA27 and has a good list of men on the committee such as Wayne Grudem, JI Packer, Kent Hughes, Leland Ryken and mostly reformed men.

The NIV translation committee had a large conversion of different denominations involved. Some men whom we might recognize would have been Charles Ryrie, Lewis Johnson, Edmond Heibert but the blemish on the NIV besides the dynamic equivalency, was the linguistic stylist Virginia Mollenkott  who was used as a consultant on translation. She (is/was?) an Episcopal college professor. She has come out of the closet as a lesbian and belongs to a group called “Christian Lesbians Out Together” and has even more recently written wicked books on the acceptance of homosexuals and transgender people in the church. Even though the NIV committee didn’t know she was a homosexual at the time, many believe that the NIV has watered down its language in regards to homosexuality by substituting words like “sodomite” with “shrine prostitute” or “temple prostitute”. Versions such as the NIV and TNIV are being translated to be more sensitive to feminists and homosexuals.

1 Corinthians 6:9 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders.

Ms. Mollenkott says that this phrase is closer to the text because a homosexual offender could be speaking of a homosexual who does bad things like rape or something and the same could be said of heterosexuals.

So, in conclusion I would not personally recommend dynamic equivalent translations who had liberals and unbelievers involved in the translation decisions.  But on the other hand, if that’s all you’ve got, God is bigger than them and can even use them to communicate His Word in whatever language they are translating to.

 

 

 

 

NC Church Burns Bibles On Halloween

A few weeks ago we posted about a North Carolina church that planned to burn Bibles and other Christian materials on Halloween.

I had hoped that the media coverage would have made them slink back into their cave like a member of  the Taliban, but it seems to truly have taken place.

The Wall Street Journal has an article about this event and has titled it Burnt Offerings.

What irony!

You see, it was on October 31, 1517 that Martin Luther nailed his Ninety-Five Theses on the door of the church in Wittenberg.  This act is marked as the official beginning of the Protestant  Reformation.  One of the hallmarks of the Reformation is the fact that the Scriptures were translated into the vulgar, or common, language.  No longer was it locked up in Latin and inaccessible to the common man.

While we respect and love the King James Version we must say that the burning of Bibles is more in tune with Halloween than it is with Reformation Day and Reformation faith.  There is more satanic movement behind the burning of Bibles than there is true, Biblical faith and principle.

As a Burnt Offering the burning of Bibles is more in line with the wicked act of king Jehoiakim instead of the spirit of righteous Jeremiah.

Let it thus be stated, then, that the Burnt Offering of Amazing Grace Baptist Church is unacceptable to God, and is probably akin to the strange/foreign fire of Nadab and Abihu.

More KJVO Drivel Hot off the Press

Joe Esposito from Pacific Baptist Church in Long Beach CA has written another rag for the inspiration and infallibility of the KJV. Here it is: http://www.pacificpublications.org/?p=339

Here’s what the book is about:

“During the past few years, an issue (for which many Fundamental Baptists seemed to be settled) has arisen that has caused a great stir within our movement. We now have Fundamental Baptist brothers claiming to be King James Only men out of of one side of their mouths while out of the other they indirectly, and in some cases directly, criticize teh very same King James Bible.  Without realizing it, they are casting a long shadow of doubt on its validity as the inerrant and infallible words of God.

This book is this authors feeble attempt to “sound the trumpet in Zion” and to herald out a warning and a call for prudence as well as a call to common sense among many Fundamental Baptist brethren.  May the Holy Spirit use this book in some small way to keep us from starting the slide down the slippery slope of compromise concerning the FINAL AUTHORITY of God’s inspired and preserved words as found in the King James Bible.”

A Question For All Who Wish to Comment in Reply

I am looking for an interlinear NT.

I would like one that contains some manner of  justification for the reading chosen.

At this point I have two based on the TR, but would like one based on the TR with variants noted with a justification for their inclusion.  I would also like one based upon the latest UBS of Nestle that would also have the same.

Any suggestions?

Understanding the Printed Greek Texts

2721130981_ee046cd10e Now that we’ve looked at the different text types from the extant  MSS , we need to proceed to the next step in the process of how we got our Bible. The next step is to compile the extant MSS, compare them  look for differences in the readings and make educated decisions about which reading is the right one. Then when the evidence has been weighed and measured, then a standardized Greek NT or Hebrew OT must be compiled so that a translation can be made into the receptor language.  So, let’s look at these standardized Greek texts and how they came into being. The process by which scholars compare MSS and make decisions as to which reading was the original is called “textual criticism”. This is not to be confused with “Higher Criticism” which is the study of events in the Bible and then determining whether the events, people, and sayings are really true. This is generally an academic endeavor by liberals who want to disprove the Bible from the start. Textual Criticism, however is simply the process by which the original reading of the Bible is discovered in the multitude of MSS available.

1. The Textus Receptus

The first one I want to talk about is what has been called “the Received Text” in Latin “textus receptus”. This is really the first of the text that for the most part, your KJV and NKJV is translated from. The history of this text begins with a man named Desedrius Erasmus who was really the first textual critic. Erasmus was born in 1466 and lived during the time of the Reformation. He was a brilliant Roman Catholic scholar who became famous for his writings.  He was an upright and moral man, but there’s little evidence that he ever was born again because he never left the Catholic Church when there was ample opportunity to do so in the middle of the Reformation. Church historian Philip Schaff writes of Erasmus:

He desired a reformation by gradual education and gentle persuasion within the limits of the old Church system.  He disapproved of the violent measures of Luther and Zwingli, and feared that they would do much harm to the cause of learning and refined culture, which he had more at heart than religion. The truth is that Erasmus was a critical scholar and not a man of action or of deep conviction.  AT  best, he was a moralist, he went through no such religiouns experiences as Luther, and Luther early wrote of Erasmus that he “feared Erasmus knew little of the grace of God.”

In the year 1515, Erasmus was in England when a printer named John Froben pleaded with him to put together a Greek NT that would make a great product for both of them to profit from and also be a blessing to the church scholarship. Erasmus gathered all the Greek MSS he could find in Basle England, and came up with five, none of which contained the entire NT (all were dated 12th century or later). He had to borrow a MSS of Revelation from a friend but it lacked a sheet containing several of the last verses. In this case, he took readings from the Latin Vulgate and translated them back into Greek. All of his MSS were of the Byzantine text type because that was all that was available back then. He could have used Codex Vaticanus which is Alexandrian, but for some reason turned it down. It could be because of all the scribal errors that would have slowed down his work. After all, he was in a hurry to be the first one to print a NT Greek text.

A year later, he published his first edition in 1516 and it was dedicated to Pope Leo X.  However, because he did this work in such a hurry, there were a many typographical errors. Afterwards, he made corrections and in the succeeding years, five editions were printed. Erasmus’ work made it possible to now translate a version of the Bible into another language from the original languages. Luther used his second edition for his famous German translation.

Some years later between 1546-1551, a Reformer named Robert Estienne aka Stephanus was a royal printer in France who carried on the work of Erasmus’ textual work with 15 other MSS and during his life, he printed four editions of the Greek NT which included a critical apparatus. This was a marginal writing that documented his decisions on which readings he chose and why.

Then again sometime between 1565-1604, another man came on the scene to further the textual work. His name was Theodore Beza. He was the successor to John Calvin. He took over Calvin’s ministry when he died and was a well respected scholar.  He published about nine editions of the improved text. This last edition of the Greek Text was used in 1611 to translate the King James Version.

Afterwards in 1633, two brothers, Abraham and Bonaventure Elzevir continued the textual work of Beza and published several more editions.  In an advertisement, they wrote in Latin: “You have therefore a text now received by all, in which we give nothing altered or corrupt.” This is where the name Textus Receptus came from and from now on, we will refer to it as the TR.

Later on in 1707, a man named John Mills published another edition of the TR where he continued the Textual work by looking at over 100 MSS.

So far what we’ve seen is that the TR went through at least 20 editions and I believe it was further updated by Fredrick Scrivener in the 1800’s. Many KJVO advocates like to say that the TR is the preserved Text, but then the question is raised: which TR? There are at least 20 editions of them. Again, we go back to our understanding of Biblical Inspiration and preservation. God did not tell us he would preserve His words in one MSS family, one published text or any translation from any of those texts.

2. The Majority Text

The next text I’d like to take a look at is the majority text which also comes from the Byzantine Text Type.  Many times, people mix up the TR with the MT. This is a mistake because the TR doesn’t always favor the Majority text readings. There are minority readings in the TR and conversely, in the KJV also. Like we mentioned before, I John 5:17 is one of those examples of a minority reading. The Byzantine text type makes up the vast majority of the 5487 ancient MSS.  What is interesting is that there are 1838 different readings from the MT and the TR. So far there has only been two publications of a Greek Text taken from the MT published in 1982 and 1985 by Zane Hodges and Arthur Farstad by Nelson publishers. The MT has not yet been the basis of any English translation although the NKJV favors some of the MT readings and thus differs from the TR and the KJV in some places as a result.  Although in the past there has not been a lot of favor for a MT position in modern scholarship, scholars like Harry Sturz have been championing the MT as the favored text based on early witnesses to the Byzantine text type as superior to the early witnesses to the Alexandrian text type.  The earliest Church Father to witness to a Byzantine text-type in substantial New Testament quotations is John Chrysostom (c. 349 — 407); although the fragmentary surviving works of Asterius the Sophist († 341) have also been considered to conform to the Byzantine text. The earliest translation to witness to a Greek base conforming generally to the Byzantine text is the Syriac Peshitta; usually dated to the 4th century; although in respect of several much contested readings, such as Mark 1:2 and John 1:18, the Peshitta rather supports the Alexandrian witnesses.

Personally I would prefer an accurate “word for word” type of English translation from the Byzantine MT over the TR and if one was to be translated, I would consider using it as my preferred version over the KJV. However, at this time, the KJV and the NKJV are the only two versions in English that come from the same Byzantine text type and so I prefer them.  The other advantage that the Byzantine MT has is the use of the churches through out history.

2. The Eclectic or Critical Text

Since the discovery of Codex Sinaiaticus in the 1840’s, most textual scholars have believed that the older Alexandrian MSS more accurately resemble what the originals would have said above what the later Byzantine MSS witness. So, the first Greek text based on the Alexandrian MSS was published by Tischendorf in the 1849’s , who found Codex Sinaiaticus.

After his work, the textual work that is most notable is that of Brook Foss Westcott and Fenton Anthony Hort. These men were two Anglican bishops who worked for nearly 30 years with the two oldest MSS (Sinaiaticus and Vaticanus) to compile a new textual base for translation that was published in 1881. At this point in the discussion, a lot of accusations are raised against these two men; some true and some not true.

Here’s an example of a false accusation by Gail Riplinger, the author of “New Age Versions”:

“Riplinger accuses Westcott of being a “spiritualist,” although there is no evidence of this in any of Westcott’s or his son’s books. In New Age Bible Versions, Riplinger states:

The Greek Text used to translate the NIV, NASB and others was an edition drastically altered by a Spiritualist (one who seeks contact with the dead through seances), who believed he was in the “new age.”

Here Riplinger cites Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott, Vol. 2, by Arthur Westcott. There is nothing in the book implicating Westcott as a “spiritualist”; the page cited contains a letter written by the Bishop in 1898, concerning the uncertainty of changing times as a new century was about to begin and the Industrial Revolution was advancing more rapidly. In the letter, Westcott notes “the struggles of a new age.” The “new age” Westcott is referring to was the “new era” of change. The term “New Age”, as it is used today, was not yet heard of in 1898.

Anyway, some of the things that I have seen that are attributed to their writings seem to question the six day creation which was pretty clear that he didn’t believe. I’ve read other things said about him such as in David Sorenson’s book where he obviously is looking for something to use against him such as on page 113, 115. I am not an expert on these men, and have not read much of their writings and I am reluctant to cast a judgment upon them especially since much of what I have seen written against them is not true.

Westcott and Hort put together a new set of rules by which to weigh textual evidence instead of counting it. They believed that each MSS family could be traced back to a common relative by which the others had been copied and that no matter how many MSS there were in a particular family, it should be weighed with the same amount of importance as a MSS where there are very few copies. They basically believed that the older MSS that had been recently found in their day were the most accurate to the originals and that their readings should be favored when they differed from the Majority of MSS. They taught that if there were two readings that differed, the more difficult reading should be preferred because they presumed that scribes would simplify rather than complicate the text and that the shorter reading should be preferred because scribes would include more possible variants rather than exclude any possible words from the text. They felt that the Byzantine text was conflated – it included extra words and phrases in order not to leave any that are possibly legitimate parts of the sacred text. However, Harry Sturz, the MT advocate notes that in numerous cases, such apparent conflation in older MSS are found in even the Alexandrian MSS. So, this idea can’t be fully trusted. Using these kinds of rules of textual criticism, they put together their Greek NT which became the basis of the 1901 American Standard Version.

Later in 1898 Eberhardt Nestle published another Greek NT comparing Westcott and Hort’s work with Tischendorf’s. In 1927, his son Erwin Nestle continued published the 13th edition of his father’s work and in 1950 another man named Kurt Aland became Erwin Nestle’s associate in the textual work. The latest edition of the Nestle Aland text was published in 1993 in it’s 27th edition. In the most recent editions, this text has given more serious consideration to the readings of the Byzantine MSS.

The United Bible Society led by Eugene Nida had also published its first Greek NT in 1966 and four editions have been published since, the last of which was published in 1993. This Greek text is very similar to the Nestle Aland 27th edition. What troubles me about the UBS is editorial board have overseen these Greek NT’s. There is a Roman Catholic, a Greek Orthodox and several theological liberals.

3. What is the difference?

The TR has 140,744 words  100% point of reference for the sake of comparison.

The MT has 140,259 words  99.65% compared to the TR

The NA27 has 138,019 words. 98.06% compared to the TR

There are few verses which the NA27 and the MT do not include in their texts. Almost 10% of the 2725 TR words not included in the NA27 are in just 17 passages. Three of these passages are not included in the MT either. All of these passages appear in the NA27 and MT footnotes.

The absence of these passages is not necessarily due to some conspiracy, but to the ancient testimony of Greek Bibles used by Christians living in the first few centuries. Almost all the modern versions also carry these verses in the margins. In addition to these 17 passages absent from the oldest MSS, there are 6 more which include up to 31 verses, yet in the modern versions, these verses are given the benefit of the doubt and are put in. Not one of those variants from the older MSS changes any doctrine that cannot be found elsewhere in the scripture.

Conclusion: All modern versions of the English Bible are translated from the NA 27 or the UBS 4th Edition and none use the old Westcott and Hort Greek NT. The only two that have not been translated from one of these texts is the KJV and the NKJV. Because of the fact that these Alexandrian MSS have been hidden for so long and the church got along fine using Byzantine type of MSS to base their translations on; and so many questionable people have been on the editorial boards of these many editions of the critical text, I am not inclined to trust their scholarship.

Even so, after I spent hours reading all kinds of diatribes against Westcott and Hort, Nestle and Aland and the United Bible Society in the attempt to convince the reader that their Greek texts are totally corrupted and of the devil. The truth is, the differences are so small, it boggles my mind that some of these authors would spend their entire lives trying to destroy these men’s reputations when their Greek texts have such a small difference. Like I said before, you have to weigh the evidence and make a decision yourself as I have and I’d rather stick with church history and the reformers text than the modern text, but in the end, it doesn’t make as big a difference as the controversy has made it out to be.

For the record, here are the major variants that I mentioned earlier:

The 17 Minor Variants

Matthew 17:21 Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting.

Matthew 18:11 For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.

Matthew 23:14 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows’ houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.

Mark 7:16 16 If any man have ears to hear, let him hear.

Mark 9:44 44 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.

Mark 9:46 44 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.

Mark 11:26 But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses.

Mark 15:28 And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors.

Luke 17:36 Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.

John 5:3b-4 …of blind, halt, withered, waiting for the moving of the water.  4 For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had.

Acts 8:37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

Acts 15:34 34 Notwithstanding it pleased Silas to abide there still.

Acts 24:6-7 nd would have judged according to our law.  7 But the chief captain Lysias came upon us, and with great violence took him away out of our hands,

Acts 28:29 And when he had said these words, the Jews departed, and had great reasoning among themselves.

Romans 16:24 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.

1 John 5:7-8 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.  8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

The other SIX major variants

Matthew 12:47 Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee.

Matthew 21:44 And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.

Mark 16:9-20 Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils.  10 And she went and told them that had been with him, as they mourned and wept.  11 And they, when they had heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her, believed not.  12 ¶ After that he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country.  13 And they went and told it unto the residue: neither believed they them.  14 ¶ Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen.  15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.  16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.  17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;  18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.  19 ¶ So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.  20 And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.

Luke 22:43-44 And there appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him.  44 And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground.

John 7:53 – 8:11 And every man went unto his own house.  KJV John 8:1 Jesus went unto the mount of Olives.  2 And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them.  3 And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,  4 They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.  5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?  6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.  8 And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.  9 And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.  10 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?  11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

Romans 16:25-27 Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,  26 But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:  27 To God only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ for ever. Amen.