Gospel of Mark Reference Books

Because I stay a week ahead doing Sunday School Notes, I had to go ahead and order some reference books for next quarter. For those interested, my commentary sources will be:

Mark: NIV Application Commentary by David Garland

Gospel of Mark: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary by Ben Witherington III

Gospel of Mark: New International Greek Testament Commentary by R.T. France

Also featured will be:

Rabbinic Commentary on the New Testament: Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke by Samuel T. Lachs

New Testament Text and Translation Commentary by Philip Comfort

The Source New Testament by Ann Nyland

These, together with the usual antique sources and perhaps some things from archive dot org and google books. Be prepared for much longer notes than in the Psalms.

Studying the Apocrypha/Deuterocanonicals/Anagignoskomena

Whew! What a mouthful that title is. I got all the titles from the Wiki page on “Apocrypha”, which links helpfully to “Biblical Apocrypha” and “Deuterocanonical Books”. What you will get out of reading those three articles at its most basic is that one person’s apocrypha, etc. is another person’s holy writ. There is no totally agreed upon selection of Old Testament apocrypha, our subject in this post.

Some brief definitions:
Apocrypha:That hidden away. Originally things were hidden because they were too esoteric for the average joe.  Later the idea became that these things were hidden because they were false, or at least questionable.

Deuterocanonical: of the second canon. The first canon are the universally received books of the Hebrew Tanakh or Protestant Bible. The division was cooked up during the sixteenth century during the debates on Old Testament canon revolving around the Council of Trent.

Anagigoskomena: things read. This fits the classic idea that these books not found in the Hebrew Tanakh are to be read as instruction, devotion, and example, but not to establish doctrine. This is a distinction practiced by some Roman Catholic authorities before the Council of Trent, the Anglican Church, and at least part of the Orthodox church.

Oh, and while we’re on the subject, the Jewish reaction to these eighteen books is interesting. Most of them were never considered part of Jewish scripture, but over the centuries many rabbis have been very interested in some of them (Sirach/Ecclesiasticus in particular). Much of the material might have entered Jewish consciousness more through oral sources as the actual documents, for the details in the various Maccabees and Judith (who somehow along the way got associated with Hanukkah) stories in Jewish literature don’t necessarily match those in the actual books.

Those of you whose religious tradition accepts the importance of these books will have to bear with me now as I make a very short case for Protestant/Evangelical study of them, all of which most people have probably heard before. Nevertheless, in short, the reasons are three:

1. Tradition: Protestantism didn’t spring from nowhere. These books and the debate about them are part of the history and foundation of the various Protestant denominations. Studying them makes one more aware of his roots and his extra-denominational Christian fellows’ viewpoint.

2. History and historical background: 1 Maccabees in particular is a main source of the history of the intertestamental period, and even the mangled history in some of the books point to actual events. Likewise even those apocryphal books which are regarded as historical fiction still serve as background to the thought and culture of the bible, as a number of the books were plainly popular in the Second Temple period, based on discovered remains of copies.

3. Theology:  Religious cultural background, in short. What people were thinking and writing in the times that lead to our New Testament. These books are a distinct Jewish part of that thought process from roughly 300 BC to 100 AD. There’s plenty more books, including a mountain of Greco-Roman ones and what are termed apocrypha and pseudepigraphia to form that background of thought, but these apocrypha are the most familiar in style and content of the lot.

There, having laid out all that background, I can now get to the real point of this post: What’s an easy way to study the “Apocrypha” in the internet age?

1. Try the resources listed on one of my most popular blog posts, about electronic apocrypha and pseudepigraphia, unsurprisingly. Add to that a trip to e-Sword Users where you can get “A Catholic Commentary on Scripture” and “Haydock Catholic Bible Commentary, 1859″ for esword 8.x and 9.x.

2. Buy a bunch of books. Lock up your wallet and credit cards, this gets expensive fast:

a. Apocrypha/Deuterocanonical Editions of the Bible:

1. NRSV with Apocrypha: The standard bearer, with the most complete selection of apocrypha in its day.

2. ESV with Apocrypha: A reader’s edition of the popular conservative formal translation with the addition of the same apocrypha as the NRSV.

3. New English Translation of the Septuagint (NETS): Recent translation of the Greek OT, which includes the standard apocrypha, thus doubly useful for apocryphal study and examining the OT translation the apostles used.

4. The Apocrypha translated by Edgar Goodspeed: One of the first twentieth century modern english translations of most of the apocrypha, and one of the more easy to read.

5. New Living Translation Bible, Catholic Reference Bible: Out of print but still often available used or in bookstore backstock, this is probably the easiest to read translation of the various apocryphal books (together with Today’s English Version, aka the 6.  Good News Translation, Catholic Edition (GNT)), but not officially approved by the Roman catholic hierarchy. My leather-like edition has cross-references, a small concordance, and a useful verse finder for topics in the front.

7. The Parallel Apocrypha: Out of print, pricey but still available used and lurking in bookstore corners. This is your one stop multiple translation source, including Greek, KJV, Douay, Knox, TEV, NRSV, NAB and NJB. It also has very interesting and useful essays about the apocrypha and various churches’ views on them preceding the actual apocrypha that I used to craft the introductory part of this blog.

“Okay”, you say, “but what if I want to do more than read these books? What if I want to actually study them a bit?”

That’s where study bibles come in, along with a couple of one volume bible commentaries:

8.  New Interpreter’s Study Bible (NRSVA): fast becoming the new scholarly standard. Available in several bindings.

9. Harper Collins Study Bible(NRSVA): The gold standard of the Nineties, revised in 2006. Several bindings available.

10. New Oxford Annotated Bible: Multiple editions, including a forthcoming fourth edition any second now. Not only in NRSVA but also an older 11. RSVA version.

12. New Jerusalem Bible: A Roman Catholic translation, noted for its literary style and in this edition, loads of short but very pointed and useful study notes.

13.  Harper Collins Bible Commentary: Another standard updated. Based on the NRSVA’s fuller canon.

14. Oxford Bible Commentary: Large in size as well as scope, this is Oxford’s answer to the Harper Collins and the next competitor:

15. Eerdmans Commentary on the Bible: One of the latest of these scholarly one volume heavyweights, Eerdmans’ claim to uniqueness is that it also adds commentary on 1 Enoch to the apocrypha.

16. New Jerome Commentary: An increasingly dated Roman Catholic standard work that includes much material about specific Roman catholic thought about the bible, along with the more standard scholarly commentary.

“Yes”, you add,”but what if I want to actually study these apocrypha in depth? What then?”

Well, first you cry. See the price for one paperback commentary set here for why. The Anchor Bible commentary series is no better alternate, financially.

However, there is a less than optional alternate. Yes, e-books from the internet for free! They’re outdated,  and they use the KJV or the Revised Version for base text (some original translations are in there, but they’re still bible English, if you know what I mean). But they do really dig into the text and they are free (can’t say that too often).

So without further ado, here are the e-books I found on the Apocrypha for your amusement and edification. (At last! The real reason for this already over-long post!!)

17. The Story of the Apocrypha: Edgar Goodspeed, American translator of the Apocrypha, gives a brief overview of the Apocrypha including previous translations and summaries of each book’s contents. Almost new by archive standards.(1939)

18. Readings from the Apocrypha: A “greatest hits” selection from the various apocryphal books in the KJV translation.(1922)

19. An Introduction to the Books of the Apocrypha: Now we start the serious scholarly tomes. Relatively new for archive books (1935)

20 and 21. The Apocrypha and Pseudepigraphia of the Old Testament edited by R.H. Charles: vol 1: Apocrypha; vol 2: Pseudepigraphia. The same volumes as on my other blog post, but added here individually. A standard work still, I believe.(1913)

22. Lange’s Commentary on Holy Scriptures vol. 15: The Apocrypha: 1873, but it’s huge, with small print, and free.

23.  Holy Bible(KJV) with Revision and Commentary-Apocrypha: vol. 1 and vol. 2: Addition to the Speaker’s Commentary (1888)

24. 1 Maccabees: Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (1897)

25. The Apocrypha: Greek and English in Parallel Columns: For the hardcore researchers and Greek students wanting something less familiar than the New Testament to work with.(1871)

26. The Apocryphal Books of the Old and New Testament: A bonus; this is a brief layman-friendly summary of the apocrypha of both testaments.(1908)

And finally, if you want to read the bible through in a year with the apocrypha included, you can find several useful reading plans for this here, courtesy of Kevin Edgecomb and Esteban Vazquez. You can use the NRSVA or the ESVA for the whole bible, or the NETS for the OT alone.

On Biblical Lexicons

Because I know Jim West read this comment on his blog and thought, “Holy Deleted! Doesn’t Chuck have a blog of his own?!” And because I haven’t posted anything in a few days. Though, of course, I have commented elsewhere.

So, for the two of you who don’t read Jim West’s blog, (Hi, there Nick Norelli! for one) or the much larger number who see multiple paragraphs and skip on by, here’s my reply. (Brevity not always being the soul of wit. Sometimes it is a lack of something meaningful to say. But when has that ever stopped me?)

“There’s nothing that wrong with Strong’s Numbers, though I prefer Goodrick-Kohlenbarger myself. It’s the lexicon you use them with that’s the problem.

But worst of all is the notion of some sort of direct one to one correspondence between original language words and translation words. Words have connotations and ranges of meaning, some of which even alter over time. (This is one of the problems with the KJV– some of those words didn’t mean what they now mean, so you aren’t necessarily getting what the translators of 1611 or 1769 meant). So a proper lexicon has to discuss not only meaning, not only connotations of meaning, but meaning over time. Yet pretty much any NT Greek resource, for example, before about 1900 is based on classical usage, because it wasn’t until after roughly 1900 that scholars gained access to Koine documents, closer in time and thus usage to the NT than classical Greek works. Strongs just isn’t up to that.

Truth is, there’s simply no short cut, no magic bullet. Use BDAG and HALOT long enough and you’ll grow a list of questions about their accuracy as well. Study Hebrew and Greek and you’ll learn a whole new set of questions about what the Bible means in various places you never considered from translations, even as you settle some problems with translations.

I don’t want to say that studying the Bible in translation is useless, because most people in history have learned the Bible in translation– especially the OT–, but I also don’t want to say learning Greek and Hebrew are useless, simply because most people will never become proficient in those languages. What is required is a healthy dose of modesty about what you know, and a realistic view of the perfection of your sources. I mean, even N.T. Wright admits 1/3 of what he teaches is probably wrong.

A believer obviously wants to know God better, and the two means for doing that are prayer and scripture. These are the tools, weapons, and exercise equipment of believers rolled into one. We must use them, study them, practice with them.

Apologetics-wise, there has never been a time when being acquainted with both the original languages and the transmission of the bible text- textual criticism, boring as so many find it– is more important. The internet has spawned a huge mass of biblical “information” readily available for anyone to misunderstand, misuse, or just plain lie about. If every American classically thinks himself a king in his own home, now every man worldwide thinks himself an expert thanks to a laptop and a wi-fi connection. Dr. Johnson I believe said something to the effect that a writer will use up a whole library to write a single book. Likewise, a Christian will have to know a mass of information from and about the Bible in order to overturn the prejudices and misapprehensions of non-believers.”

Heliodorus Stele

For a lot of Protestants this is  a “huh, what?” news story. This limestone monument, published in 2007, confirms the historicity of an individual mentioned in the deuterocanonical /apocryphal book 2 Maccabees 3, KJV:

2Ma 3:7 Now when Apollonius came to the king, and had shewed him of the money whereof he was told, the king chose out Heliodorus his treasurer, and sent him with a commandment to bring him the foresaid money.
2Ma 3:8 So forthwith Heliodorus took his journey; under a colour of visiting the cities of Celosyria and Phenice, but indeed to fulfil the king’s purpose.

2Ma 3:10 Then the high priest told him that there was such money laid up for the relief of widows and fatherless children:
2Ma 3:11 And that some of it belonged to Hircanus son of Tobias, a man of great dignity, and not as that wicked Simon had misinformed: the sum whereof in all was four hundred talents of silver, and two hundred of gold:
2Ma 3:12 And that it was altogether impossible that such wrongs should be done unto them, that had committed it to the holiness of the place, and to the majesty and inviolable sanctity of the temple, honoured over all the world.
2Ma 3:13 But Heliodorus, because of the king’s commandment given him, said, That in any wise it must be brought into the king’s treasury.

2Ma 3:24 Now as he was there present himself with his guard about the treasury, the Lord of spirits, and the Prince of all power, caused a great apparition, so that all that presumed to come in with him were astonished at the power of God, and fainted, and were sore afraid.
2Ma 3:25 For there appeared unto them an horse with a terrible rider upon him, and adorned with a very fair covering, and he ran fiercely, and smote at Heliodorus with his forefeet, and it seemed that he that sat upon the horse had complete harness of gold.
2Ma 3:26 Moreover two other young men appeared before him, notable in strength, excellent in beauty, and comely in apparel, who stood by him on either side; and scourged him continually, and gave him many sore stripes.
2Ma 3:27 And Heliodorus fell suddenly unto the ground, and was compassed with great darkness: but they that were with him took him up, and put him into a litter.
2Ma 3:28 Thus him, that lately came with a great train and with all his guard into the said treasury, they carried out, being unable to help himself with his weapons: and manifestly they acknowledged the power of God.
2Ma 3:29 For he by the hand of God was cast down, and lay speechless without all hope of life.

2Ma 3:32 So the high priest, suspecting lest the king should misconceive that some treachery had been done to Heliodorus by the Jews, offered a sacrifice for the health of the man.
2Ma 3:33 Now as the high priest was making an atonement, the same young men in the same clothing appeared and stood beside Heliodorus, saying, Give Onias the high priest great thanks, insomuch as for his sake the Lord hath granted thee life:
2Ma 3:34 And seeing that thou hast been scourged from heaven, declare unto all men the mighty power of God. And when they had spoken these words, they appeared no more.
2Ma 3:35 So Heliodorus, after he had offered sacrifice unto the Lord, and made great vows unto him that had saved his life, and saluted Onias, returned with his host to the king.
2Ma 3:36 Then testified he to all men the works of the great God, which he had seen with his eyes.
2Ma 3:37 And when the king Heliodorus, who might be a fit man to be sent yet once again to Jerusalem, he said,
2Ma 3:38 If thou hast any enemy or traitor, send him thither, and thou shalt receive him well scourged, if he escape with his life: for in that place, no doubt; there is an especial power of God.
2Ma 3:39 For he that dwelleth in heaven hath his eye on that place, and defendeth it; and he beateth and destroyeth them that come to hurt it.

The original Heliodorus Stele inscription and English translation is available here.

Now it is announced three fragments from the same Heliodorus inscription have been discovered and sample photos provided here.

Of such things are real archaeology and history made.

HT: Jim West

White/Ehrman Debate: How Many Early NT Manuscripts Have We?

The fallout from the “Did the Bible Misquote Jesus?” debate continues. One disputed point in the debate was James White’s claim that a dozen manuscripts from before 300 AD show the relative earliness and stability of our manuscript witnesses, as opposed to Bart Ehrman’s frequent comments about the lateness (fourth century?) and lack of similarity of the early NT manuscripts. Post debate White put up a blog post showing his list of the pre-300 AD manuscripts, which apparently Ehrman found overly enthusiastic, Ehrman viewing several of the listed manuscripts as more likely post-300 AD.

Well now Dan Wallace has entered the discussion, in a  2/2/09 article on bible dot org, “Second Century Papyri”. He gives his own very similar list, and comes up with ten reasonable pre-300 manuscripts, and three more serious candidates. Since he is Dan Wallace, he then gives us some numbers as to how many NT books in portion these manuscripts represent, and what percentage of the NT these portions testify to. His most difficult claim is that these fragmentary manuscripts are substantially the same as the later complete manuscripts of the fourth century, as that requires great familiarity with the manuscripts, something most of us laymen do not have.

Thanks to Bart Ehrman’s fame, we laymen are becoming increasingly educated about these things in a small stream of books, debates, mp3s and even, dare I say it, YouTube videos. Check this latest article out.

Dan Wallace on New Testament Originals

“Did the Original New Testament Manuscripts Still Exist in the Second Century?” Not the newest word on the subject, perhaps, but interesting in light of the Bart Ehrman/James White debate. It discusses not only the survival of the original manuscripts, but lost Pauline letters, early Christian canonical views, and scribal copying practice.

The large selection of Dan’s writings at bible dot org are indexed here if you just can’t read one.

What Greek Commentaries Can Teach You

Rod Decker has a list of things his Greek class won’t teach you. My Greek is pretty awful (and no one’s fault but my own, too). I do regularly use Greek-based commentaries for Sunday school notes, so I can tell you from about a year’s experience, Greek is no silver bullet. Paul is just as confusing on occasion in Greek as in English translation, even to people whose Greek is much better than mine (that’s most everyone, BTW).

In fact he may be even more confusing in Greek, because translators have a natural desire to make things clear that aren’t necessarily clear in the original.

And then if you add the social/cultural background in with the ambiguous Greek, things can get really confusing! I’m thinking specifically of the beginning of this week’s Sundy School verses, 1 Thessalonians 5:12, where Charles Wanamaker makes the case for Paul to be speaking of patrons, not necessarily “ministers”. No way to abbreviate that discussion!

Bart Ehrman, David Hume, and the New Testament Text

So at least one corner of the bibliobloggingsphere is occupied this weekend with discussion of the recent debate between James White and Bart Ehrman, the subtitle of which was “Can the New Testament Be Inspired in Light of Textual Variation”. It’s an important topic, even if textual criticism bores you to tears, because:

1. Ehrman has brought it into public consciousness in a bestselling way with Misquoting Jesus

2. Skeptics and opponents of Christianity are latching onto Ehrman’s opinions in a big way

3. Too many Christians are ignorant of how we got the New Testament in their Bibles.
 

Anyway, occurred to me this morning that one way to characterize Bart Ehrman’s position on the New Testament manuscripts is to see it as a relative of David Hume’s famous position on miracles.

Roughly put, Hume said that, logically, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Miracles, being extremely extraordinary because they violate what we know of natural law, have a burden of proof so high as to be impossible to meet. Thus, Hume thought, one logically couldn’t believe in miracles.

I would presume Bart Ehrman’s case against the New Testament is similar. Christianity makes extraordinary claims (miracles, the incarnation of God, only one path to eternal life) based on the text of the New Testament, thus logically, Ehrman might say, the New Testament requires extraordinary proof that Christianity’s reading of the New Testament is right. Since there are some 4000 meaningful and viable variants out of an estimated 400,000 total variants in our current fund of NT manuscripts, and a serious number of the 4000 deal with doctrinally important verses, Ehrman thinks Christianity has poor proof for its claims.

From listening recently to much of the Greer Heard Forum 2008 on textual criticism (great summaries here), it seems New Testament textual criticism these days comes down to a “glass half occupied with water” situation.  For the more skeptical textual critics, the manuscript glass is half empty, and likely never to get full, for the closer you get to the time of origination of manuscripts, typically, the more numerous the variants in copies become. For the more optimistic textual critics, the rule of ever more variants near the source means that there is a good likelihood that we come ever closer to the “original” or base text, because variants are persistent, and stay in the stream of copies, so that the “original wording” is presumably preserved in the manuscripts. Thus the glass is half full for the optimists, who think the science of textual criticism can bring us “close enough” to the base text. There are even some textual critics who have claimed we have 99% of the original New Testament in our current critical editions.

Certainly we have made progress. About a hundred years ago our collected manuscripts took our knowledge of the New Testament back to around 400 AD. Today most NT textual critics put that date at 200 AD. Digital photography of ancient manuscripts is proceeding apace, and electronic means of displaying the whole range of variants are being planned and implemented. If the last generation of NT textual critics felt they were just consolidating things, the future looks very bright for the next generation, who will hopefully have unprecedented tools at their disposal.

I genuinely disagree with Bart Ehrman on many of his conclusions. But I can’t help but think that he is doing the Lord’s work in his own way. His controversial fame is alerting many Christians to the importance of the text of Scripture they often take for granted, and the rich legacy of faith we have in the vry human scribes who delivered the New Testament manuscripts down to us. And for that Bart Ehrman should get a bettr reception than he often does in Christian circles.

Online Textual Commentary on the Greek Gospels, Sixth Edition, 2009

Whatever else he may be, Wieland Willker is not idle. He has once more updated his Greek Gospels textual critical commentary, adding the latest new information to the main commentary, and a new paleographical section using images from the Internet to highlight textual problems. As always, I am staggered by the amount of work that goes into this commentary. Hats off to Dr. Willker and his notion of a hobby!

While this work can definitely go right over one’s head, it is a very useful resource for gospels study. And the fact that it is available in Adobe Acrobat format means I can carry it on my Archos 404. Hurrah!

Bookmark it, download the files, but absolutely use this if you’ve got the Greek. And get the Greek if you don’t! It’s great stuff!

New Testament Text and Translation Commentary: A Personal Example of Its Use

Mat 5:44 NKJV But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you,

Mat 5:44 NET. But I say to you, love your enemy and pray for those who persecute you,

Those up on their text criticism or bible translations know where I am going with the citation of the NKJV. This is my pastor’s translation of choice. That means for those carrying more recent translations, there are often moments of “Hey, my bible doesn’t say that”. Sometimes it is so small a difference it is hardly noticeable. On a recent occasion at our church, it was one of those “Text Criticism Slaps You in the Face” moments.

Since purchasing Comfort’s New Testament Text and Translation Commentary, I have added its bulk to my already overstuffed book bag on Sundays and Wednesday. The verse above came up on a recent Sunday.

Turning to the verse in the commentary (pgs12-13), one finds the notation “WH NU” which tells you that the critical Greek New Testaments using the first quoted Greek form are Westcott/Hort (WH)and Nestle-Aland/United Bible Society(NU). Beside this info is the Greek form of the verse found in most translations, an English translation, the symbols for the major Greek manuscripts and Church fathers which quote this form, and list of fourteen translations that use or cite this form (“NKJVmg” means the form is cited as a marginal note in the NKJV. One plus of the NKJV is it cites these Greek manuscript differences regularly).

Next comes a listing “variant/TR” which tells you the second form used in bible translations comes either from a Greek variant not used in modern translations and/or is used in the Textus Receptus, which is the Greek behind the KJV/NKJV (because the NKJV decided to use the same Greek as the centuries old KJV for reasons passing understanding). The TR is mostly based on some edition of Desiderius Eramus’ (1466-1536)Greek New Testament first compiled in 1516 from only a few Greek manuscripts. (Important note: Greek New Testaments are what is called “eclectic texts”, meaning they are created by some form of comparing multiple ancient manuscripts and determining which version of a verse is most close to what the “original text” said. There is no single great manuscript sitting in the bowels of the Vatican that all New Testaments are translated from.) Then one gets the Greek form, the English translation, the manuscript symbols, and the translation list for this version of the text cited. In this case it is KJV NKJV and marginal notations in all the others.

The fun part is next. Comfort tells you which reading is to be preferred and why. In this case the shorter reading has earlier support in ancient manuscripts and church fathers, for two. The main thing against the longer version, however, is the fact that it copies from Luke’s parallel account of this great sermon, Matthew’s version being the “Sermon on the Mount”, Luke’s the “Sermon on the Plain”. It isn’t like believing scribes to drop words out of a text (especially the Sermon on the Mount!), so the assumption is that scribes in ancient times, well acquainted with Luke’s account, were caught short when copying Matthew’s Sermon on the Mount, stopped and said, “Hey, this is missing something. Let me add the extra words back in”. In fact, originally, Matthew’s version didn’t have the blessing and doing good.

Okay, so you have an immediate objection. “Does this mean Jesus didn’t say this?” Absolutely not. Using Comfort’s book, you can go to Luke and check for a citation of Luke 6:27-28. There isn’t one. That’s a good clue the verses here are considered original. To really be sure you could get a Greek New Testament. My personal favorite is the NET/NA27 diglot, which combines in one binding the NET Bible New Testament with selected notes and the Nestle Aland 27th edition Greek New Testament. Without getting into the labyrinth that is NA27 symbology, one can easily see that there is only one symbol noting a variant in the Greek text of verses 27-28, and a glance at the bottom of the NA27 page shows it is only a single word variant.

So, what is the explanation of the difference between Matthew and Mark’s account? Comfort makes the obvious point that much of what Jesus said, he likely said more than once, and not in exactly the same way. Thus Matthew and Luke are citing much the same saying from Jesus, but in different forms from different occasions.

Oh, and interestingly, there is a hint of this found even in the original KJV of 1611. While it gives the longer form of Matt 5:44, it has a marginal note pointing out the parallel version in Luke 6:27-28. Nowadays, a reader of the original 1611 edition should see that as a definite hint something is up.

Stay tuned for another example of using textual critical tools and a NKJV verse that hit me right on the nose. Same geek time, same geek channel.