Another King James Bible Believer

The true character of the so called "Oldest and Best Manuscripts"

 

The usual mantra we hear today from those who promote the modern versions like the ESV, NIV, NASB, NET, Holman, etc. is that they are based on "the oldest and best manuscripts" and that the King James Bible (along with all Reformation Bibles in all languages) "added to the words of God from late manuscripts."  

The facts are that these so called "oldest and best" are among the most corrupt and contradictory of manuscripts out there.  They not only disagree with the vast Majority of all Greek manuscripts, but also with each other. A far more logical and consistent explanation for their old age is due to the fact that they were recognized as being hopelessly corrupt and therefore were not used. That is why they didn't wear out.

 

For an excellent and well documented article on the so called “oldest and best manuscripts” and their true character, see KJV Today site here - 

 

Aren't older manuscripts more reliable?

 

http://www.kjvtoday.com/home/q-arent-older-manuscripts-more-reliable

 

The true character of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus texts - the so called "Oldest and Best Manuscripts"

Most of the over 5000 New Testament textual differences between the King James Bible and modern Bible versions like the NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV, NET, Living Bible, and others, are the result of two manuscripts which allegedly date to around 350 AD called Sinaiticus (Aleph) and Vaticanus (B).

For a short, general overview of the textual issues between the two camps and the percentages of manuscripts on either side, see this article written by another Bible believer called The Bible God Loves And Satan Hates - The KJV

http://donoterr.wordpress.com/2013/02/03/a-blog-on-peace/

 

As for the Papyri manuscripts so highly vaunted by men like James White, they are a very mixed bag.  They all come from the Alexandrian region in Egypt and most likely represent a localized text, and they frequently differ even among themselves.

 

http://www.truthmagazine.com/archives/volume29/GOT029003.html

Manuscript Comparison Chart

PAPYRUS

(ALEPH) SINAITICUS

(B) VATICANUS

TEXTUS RECEPTUS

p 45 agrees with

19 times

24 times

32 times

p 66 agrees with

14 times

29 times

33 times

p 75 agrees with

9 times

33 times

29 times

p 45, 66, 75 agrees with

4 times

18 times

20 times

p 45, 66 agrees with

7 times

3 times

8 times

 

(The above chart data, taken from A Survey of the Researches into the Western Text of the Gospel & Acts; part two 1949-1969, by A.F.K. Klijn.)

Papyrus (p45) contains excerpts of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and Acts. It is presently in the Chester Beatty Museum, Dublin, Ireland.

Papyrus (p66) contains excerpts from the Gospel of John. It is presently located at Cologne/Geneve, in the Bibliotheque Bodmer.

Papyrus (p75) contains excerpts of Luke and John. It is presently located at Cologne/Geneve, in the Bibliotheque Bodmer.

 

Note, please, that these lately discovered manuscript fragments, agree more frequently with the Textus Receptus, than they do with Westcott and Hort's favored Aleph and B (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus). P45 is thought to date from the 3rd century. P66 is dated circa 200 A.D. And, P75 is dated from the beginning of the 3rd century.  But more research has been coming out lately that affirms these Papyri actually date to the 4th century.

 

Nicholas Lunn has recently done his own collations and tells us: "The P75 Bodmer Papyrus XV contains John 1-15 and disagrees with both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus and agrees with the Byzantine text type at John 1:18, 4:31, 5:12, 8:41, 8:52, 9:11, 9:16, 9:17, 10:27, 10:29, and 12:9. Thus an Alexandrian manuscript that is more than 100 years earlier and in the same family as Vaticanus and Sinaiticus preferred the Byzantine text type in the indicated instances.


The P45 Chester Beatty Papyrus contains Mark and disagrees with both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus and agrees with the Byzantine text type at Mark 5:42, 6:2, 6:22, 6:41, 7:5, 7:6, 7:12, 7:29, 7:31, 7:32, 7:35, 8:20, 8:36, 9:2, 9:6, 9:20, and 11:28. Thus an Alexandrian manuscript that is about 100 years earlier and in the same family as Vaticanus and Sinaiticus preferred the Byzantine text type in the indicated instances."

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus_75

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus_45 

 

Regarding James White's statements about no one being influenced to try and corrupt the biblical text, White does not tell the reader about those in the early church who were concerned about corrupters of the word. Here are a couple of quotes to demonstrate this.

 

Gaius (AD175-200) speaks of the source of corruptions that survive in the early papyri: "The Divine Scriptures these heretics have audaciously corrupted, laying violent hands upon them, under pretense of correcting them." Burgon, The Revision Revised, p. 323

 

Eusebius (Ecclesiastical History), citing Clement of Alexandria: "The worst corruptions to which the New Testament has ever been subjected originated within one hundred years after it was composed."

 

He doesn't tell us about some contemporary scholars' comments on early textual variations/changes.

 

Colwell (What is the Best New Testament Text?, p.119) "The first two centuries witnessed the creations of the large number of variations known to scholars today. In the manuscripts of the New Testament most variations, I believe, were made deliberately."

 

G.D. Kilpatrick (Atticism and the Text of the Greek New Testament, pp 125-131)  "Deliberate changes in all text types appear to antedate A.D. 200…as distinct from errors…all categories of deliberate alteration are present in both groups. Taitian is the last author of make deliberate changes. The vast majority of deliberate changes were older then A.D. 200. They came into being in the period A.D. 50-200."

 


Gaius (AD175-200) speaks of the source of corruptions that survive in the early papyri: "The Divine Scriptures these heretics have audaciously corrupted, laying violent hands upon them, under pretense of correcting them." Burgon, The Revision Revised, p. 323

Eusebius (Ecclesiastical History), citing Clement of Alexandria:
"The worst corruptions to which the New Testament has ever been subjected originated within one hundred years after it was composed."

He doesn't tell us about some contemporary scholars' comments on early textual variations/changes.

Colwell (What is the Best New Testament Text?, p.119) "The first two centuries witnessed the creations of the large number of variations known to scholars today. In the manuscripts of the New Testament most variations, I believe, were made deliberately."

G.D. Kilpatrick (Atticism and the Text of the Greek New Testament, pp 125-131)  "Deliberate changes in all text types appear to antedate A.D. 200…as distinct from errors…all categories of deliberate alteration are present in both groups. Taitian is the last author of make deliberate changes. The vast majority of deliberate changes were older then A.D. 200. They came into being in the period A.D. 50-200."


 

Wilbur Pickering, ThM. PhD. writes in his book The Identity of the New Testament Text, 2014 - 

"Bruce Metzger said, "It is understandable that in some cases different scholars will come to different evaluations of the significance of the evidence". A cursory review of the writings of textual scholars suggests that Metzger's "in some cases" is decidedly an understatement. In fact, even the same scholars will vacillate, as demonstrated by the "MORE THAN FIVE HUNDRED CHANGES" introduced into the third edition of the Greek text produced by the United Bible Societies as compared with the second edition (the same committee of five editors prepared both).

K. Aland, M. Black, C.M. Martini, B.M. Metzger, and A. Wikgren, eds., The Greek New Testament, third edition (New York: United Bible Societies, 1975), p. viii. Although this edition is dated 1975, Metzger's Commentary upon it appeared in 1971. The second edition is dated 1968. IT THUS APPEARS THAT IN THE SPACE OF THREE YEARS ('68-'71), WITH NO SIGNIFICANT ACCRETION OF NEW EVIDENCE, THE SAME GROUP OF FIVE SCHOLARS CHANGED THEIR MIND IN OVER 500 PLACES. IT IS HARD TO RESIST THE SUSPICION THAT THEY WERE GUESSING."

http://www.walkinhiscommandments.com/Pickering/Miscellaneous/Pickering%20-%20Identity%20of%20the%20NT%204th%20edit..pdf

 

The changes between the 25th and 27th editions of the Nestle-Aland NTG are also interesting -- 763 changes, of which 408 occur in the Gospels.

 

Dr. Kurt Aland and Dr. Barbara Aland calculated that all the variants between all of the New Testament manuscripts calculated to a 37.1% difference. (Dr. Kurt Aland and Dr. Barbara Aland, The Text of the New Testament, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), p. 29.) That means that over a third of the New Testament has meaningful variants.


The Alexandrian Family is what underlies most of the modern versions of the Bible (NASB, ESV, NIV, NLT, etc.). The Alexandrian text is full of variants and makes up most of the 37.1% difference between all the Greek New Testament manuscripts. Early church father Origen (who lived in Alexandria) said about the local Bible copiers, “…the differences among the manuscripts [of the Gospels] have become great, either through the negligence of some copyists or through the perverse audacity of others; they either neglect to check over what they have transcribed, or, in the process of checking, they lengthen or shorten, as they please.” (Bruce Metzger, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, 3rd ed. (1991), pp. 151-152.) 


Sinaiticus and Vaticanus

Dean John William Burgon, personally collated both the Sinaiticus and the Vaticanus manuscripts. In his book, "The Revision Revised", which he wrote in 1881, he gives his opinion and lists numerous examples of the textual blunders found in these two manuscripts.

Mr. Burgon states on page 11; "Singular to relate Vaticanus and Aleph have within the last 20 years established a tyrannical ascendance over the imagination of the Critics, which can only be fitly spoken of as a BLIND SUPERSTITION. It matters nothing that THEY ARE DISCOVERED ON CAREFUL SCRUTINY TO DIFFER ESSENTIALLY, NOT ONLY FROM NINETY-NINE OUT OF A HUNDRED OF THE WHOLE BODY OF EXTANT MSS. BESIDES, BUT EVEN FROM ONE ANOTHER. In the gospels alone B (Vaticanus) is found to omit at least 2877 words: to add 536, to substitute, 935; to transpose, 2098: to modify 1132 (in all 7578): - the corresponding figures for Aleph being 3455 omitted, 839 added, 1114 substituted, 2299 transposed, 1265 modified (in all 8972). And be it remembered that the omissions, additions, substitutions, transpositions, and modifications, are by no means the same in both. IT IS IN FACT EASIER TO FIND TWO CONSECUTIVE VERSES IN WHICH THESE TWO MSS. DIFFER THE ONE FROM THE OTHER, THAN TWO CONSECUTIVE VERSES IN WHICH THEY ENTIRELY AGREE."

 

On page 319 of he remarks, "In the Gospels alone Vaticanus has 589 readings quite peculiar to itself, affecting 858 words while Aleph has 1460 such readings, affecting 2640 words."

In his book, Revision Revised, Dean Burgon wrote over a hundred years ago, concerning the ages of Codices Vatican (B) and Sinai (Aleph): Quote: "Lastly, - WE SUSPECT THAT THESE TWO MANUSCRIPTS ARE INDEBTED FOR THEIR PRESERVATION, SOLELY TO THEIR ASCERTAINED EVIL CHARACTER,  which has occasioned that the one eventually found its way, four centuries ago, to a forgotten shelf in the Vatican library; while the other, after exercising the ingenuity of several generations of critical Correctors, eventually (viz. in A.D. 1844) got deposited in the waste-paper basket of the Convent at the foot of mount Sinai. HAD B (VATICANUS) AND ALEPH (SINAITICUS) BEEN COPIES OF AVERAGE PURITY, THEY MUST LONG SINCE HAVE SHARED THE INEVITABLE FATE OF BOOKS WHICH ARE FREELY USED AND HIGHLY PRIZED; NAMELY, THEY WOULD HAVE FALLEN IN DECADENCE AND DISAPPEARED FROM SIGHT." (Ref: P1)

IN SHORT, THESE TWO CODICES ARE OLD SIMPLY BECAUSE, FIRST, THEY WERE WRITTEN ON EXTREMELY EXPENSIVE AND DURABLE ANTELOPE SKINS, AND SECONDLY, THEY WERE SO FULL OF ERRORS, ALTERATIONS AND DELETIONS, THAT THEY WERE NEVER USED BY TRUE BELIEVERS AND SELDOM EVEN BY THEIR OWN CUSTODIANS. THUS THEY HAD LITTLE CHANCE OF WEARING AWAY."

 

Herman Hoskier also has written a 2 Volume set called: Codex B and Its Allies: A Study and an Indictment. - Hoskier, Herman Charles (1864-1938) This thorough and scholarly work can now be seen online here: In it he documents many of the 4000 or more differences that exist just between these two "oldest and best" manuscripts.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/hoskier/codexb1.html

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/hoskier/codexb2.html

The purpose of this article is to give you just a few of the many examples of just how contradictory and confusing these two "oldest and best" manuscripts really are when contrasted with the Traditional Greek Text that underlies the King James Bible of 1611. Literally thousands of words have been omitted from the KJB text primarily on the basis of Sinaiticus or Vaticanus, yet the modern versions follow no discernible or logical pattern as to when they decide to include or exclude readings from one or the other.  

For several concrete examples of how both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus differ from each other and how the critical text versions keep changing from one version to the next, see my study on the book of Romans here - 

http://brandplucked.webs.com/textcritromans.htm

SINAITICUS (Aleph) completely omits the following verses while they are found in Vaticanus. Matthew 24:35 - "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away"; Luke 10:32 - "And likewise a Levite, when he was at the place, came and looked on him, and passed by on the other side."; Luke 17:35 - "Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left."; John 9:38 - "And he said, Lord, I believe. And he worshipped him. And Jesus said"(omitted in Sinaiticus original and P75, but found in Vaticanus and P66); John 16:15 - "All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you."; John 21:25 - "And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen."; and I Corinthians 2:15- "But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man." and 13:1b -2 - "I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not - (charity, I am nothing)."

(As a side note, there are many sections and even whole books missing from the Old Testament. Aleph -"Sinaiticus: written more than 200 years after the completion of the New Testament. It omits Genesis 23:19-24:46, Numbers 5:27-7:20, 1 Chronicles 9:27-19:17, all of Exodus, Joshua, 1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings, Hosea, Amos, Micah, Ezekiel, Daniel and Judges. It contains New Testament Apocrypha.)

Here you can see a page of the Sinaiticus manuscript that shows the many changes that were being made to it over the years.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1632954490293101&set=p.1632954490293101&type=1&theater

VATICANUS - 

Vaticanus contains the Gospels, Acts, the General Epistles, Paul’s Epistles, and Hebrews 1:1 to Hebrews 9:14.  However the ending of Hebrews is missing from chapter 9:14 to Hebrews 13:15. It is also missing First and Second Timothy, Titus, Philemon and the book of Revelation.

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

This verse is found in the Majority of all texts, in Sinaiticus correction, C and D. However Vaticanus omits it.

The RV and ASV included the verse. Then the Revised Standard Version of 1952 omitted it, but the NRSV of 1989 but it back in again. But wait. Now the 2001 ESV again omits it! However the NASB, NIV, ISV, Wallace's NET version and the Holman all keep it in their texts. Some "science", huh?

 


Vaticanus also omits Luke 22:43-44 "And there appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him. 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."

 Vaticanus omits all of these two verses.

Sinaiticus original had them in the text. Then a scribe took them out, and then another on put them back in again! They are also missing from A and P75. The Nestle-Aland critical text puts Luke 22:43-44 in [[double brackets]] indicating that they do not believe this is inspired Scripture.  Yet these two verses are found in the Majority of all texts including D plus at least 18 other uncial copies, the Syriac Peshitta, Harclean, Palestinian, Curetonian, Armenian, Ethiopic and Coptic Boharic ancient versions.

Justin (100-165 A.D.), says, "For in the memoirs which I say were drawn up by His Apostles and those who followed them, it is recorded that His sweat fell down like drops of blood while He was praying, and saying, If it be possible, let this cup pass" (Trypho 103:24)


 

Matthew 27:49 Here BOTH Sinaiticus and Vaticanus as well as codex C ADD the words "AND ANOTHER TOOK A SPEAR AND PIERCED HIS SIDE AND THERE CAME OUT WATER AND BLOOD."  But no bible version includes these words here. Why? Because this textual blunder would have our Lord Jesus being put to death, and then He continues to speak several whole verses afterwards.

Dan Wallace footnotes: “Early and important mss (א B C L Γ pc) have another sentence at the end of this verse: “And another [soldier] took a spear and pierced him in the side, and water and blood flowed out.” This comment finds such a strong parallel in John 19:34 that it was undoubtedly lifted from the Fourth Gospel by early, well-meaning scribes and inserted into Matt 27:49. Consequently, even though the support for the shorter reading (A D W Θ Ë1,13 33 Ï lat sy sa bo) is not nearly as impressive, internal considerations on its behalf are compelling.” 

And yet these are the so called “oldest and best manuscripts” upon which today’s Vatican Versions like the ESV, NIV, NASB, NET and Holman Standard are based.

Luke 23:17 "FOR OF NECESSITY HE MUST RELEASE ONE UNTO THEM AT THE FEAST."

This entire verse is found in the Majority of all texts as well as Sinaiticus. However Vaticanus omits the whole verse and so do the NIV, RSV, ESV, RV, ASV, the modern Catholic Versions and the Jehovah Witness New World Translation. The NASB pulls its usual trick, and from 1963 to 1972 the NASB omitted the verse, but then in 1977 and again in 1995 the NASB scholars decided to put the verse back in the text. The brand new ISV of 2004 and the Holman Christian Standard of 2003 also retain the verse and place it in their modern versions, but The Message and the NET version continue to omit it. Aren't you glad we have the latest sure findings of modern scholarship to help us find out what God REALLY said?

Vaticanus also omits Luke 23:34, "Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do", while it is retained in Sinaiticus and this time kept in the ESV, NASB and NIV, and placed in [brackets] by Dan Wallace and the Catholic St. Joseph NAB.  But James White says he does not believe it is inspired Scripture and he would not preach on it. Go figure.

Vaticanus also omits the entire verse of 1 Peter 5:3 but it is found in Sinaiticus and the Majority of all manuscripts and Bible translations - "Neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being ensamples to the flock."

In the gospels alone, BOTH SINAITICUS and VATICANUS omit the following verses. Matthew 17:21, 18:11, 23:14; Mark 7:16, 9:44, 9:46, 11:26, 15:28; Luke 9:55-56, 17:36, 23:17, and John 5:4. They are all found in the majority of the remaining Greek texts we have today. The NASB of 1972 omitted these verses, but in 1977 put them back [in brackets]. The NIV and ESV continue to omit these verses entirely. 

 

Matthew 5:19 - “Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom heaven; BUT WHOSOEVER SHALL DO AND TEACH THEM, THE SAME SHALL BE CALLED GREAT IN THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN.”

 

Sinaiticus omits all these capitalized words but they are found in Vaticanus.

 


Matthew 6:13

What is commonly referred to as the Lord's Prayer ends with these words: "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen."

Out of about 1000 remaining manuscripts these words are found in all but 10, or a ratio of 100 to 1. They are included in the Didache 150 AD, and the Diatessaron 170 AD (200 years before Sinaticus and Vaticanus). They are also found in the following ancient Bible versions: The Old Latin 200 AD, the Syriac Peshitta 250 AD, Harclean, Curetonian, Palestinian, Coptic, Gothic, Armenian, and Ethiopic.

These inspired words of our Lord Jesus Christ are also found in Tyndale, Coverdale, Great Bible, Matthew's Bible, the Bishops' Bible, the Geneva Bible, NKJV, Lamsa's 1936 translation of the Syriac, the Italian Diodati 1991 and Riveduta 2006, the Spanish Reina Valera 2011, Luther's German Bible 1545 and the 2000 German Schlachter bible, the French Martin 1744, Ostervald 1998 and French Louis Segond 2007, the Portuguese Almeida Actualizada and even in the NIV Portuguese bible 1999 - "porque teu é o Reino, o poder e a glória para sempre. Amém." (but not in the English NIVs) as well as the Modern Greek Bible Διοτι σου ειναι η βασιλεια και η δυναμις και η δοξα εις τους αιωνας· αμην. and the Modern Hebrew Bible - ואל תביאנו לידי נסיון כי אם חלצנו מן הרע כי לך הממלכה והגבורה והתפארת לעולמי עולמים אמן׃

 

However both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus omit all these words and the NIV, RSV, ESV, NET, Catholic Versions and Jehovah Witness New World Translation omit them while the NASB, and Holman Standard put them in brackets.

Matthew 8:13 - “And Jesus said unto the centurion, Go thy way; and as thou hast believed, so be it done unto thee. And his servant was healed in the selfsame hour.”

However Sinaiticus as well as C ADD all these words to the text - AND THE CENTURION, RETURNING TO HIS HOUSE IN THAT HOUR, FOUND HIS SERVANT IN GOOD HEALTH.” But these extra words are not in Vaticanus.


 

Matthew 16:2-3 The Utter Hypocrisy of modern Textual Criticism

 

 

In Matthew 16:2-3 we read: "He answered and said unto them, WHEN IT IS EVENING, YE SAY, IT WILL BE FAIR WEATHER; FOR THE SKY IS RED.  AND IN THE MORNING, IT WILL BE FOUL WEATHER TO DAY; FOR THE SKY IS RED AND LOWRING.  O YE HYPOCRITES, YE CAN DISCERN THE FACE OF THE SKY; BUT CAN YE NOT DISCERN THE SIGNS OF THE TIMES?"

 

Matthew 16:2-3.  Here we see an example of how ridiculous it is to call modern textual criticism a "science" in any legitimate sense at all.  Modern textual criticism has more in common with Voodoo or the Ouija board than science.

 

It's the ol' "Double, double toil and trouble; Fire burn, and caldron bubble...For a charm of powerful trouble, Like a hell-broth boil and bubble."  (From Shakespeare's Macbeth) 

 

Before we get into the textual matters, I want to address the word "lowring".  This is not an archaic word.  Webster's 1999 dictionary defines it as meaning "frowning; dark and threatening, gloomy, or sullen."  Lowring is also the English word found here in the Geneva Bible,  Wesley's N.T. 1755, the Worsley Version 1770, the Alford N.T. 1870, the RV 1885, ASV 1901, the Thomson Bible 1808, Webster's Bible 1833, Darby 1890,  the Montgomery N.T. 1924,  the Douay Version 1950, the KJV 21st Century 1994, Third Millennium Bible 1998, the Knox Bible 2012 (lowering) and even in the 2003 Updated Bible Version.  Now, to address the textual issues.


All these words in capital letters from "When it is" to "of the times?" are found in the Majority of all Greek texts, including C correction, the Syriac Peshitta and numerous Old Latin copies.  However BOTH Sinaiticus and Vaticanus completely omit all 32 Greek words in these sentences.  

The total inconsistency of modern textual criticism is seen here in all its absurdity.  There are literally hundreds and hundreds of words and many whole verses omitted from most modern versions based primarily on the omissions found in Sinaiticus and/or Vaticanus, yet right here in Matthew 16:2-3, even though BOTH Sinaiticus and Vaticanus omit all these words, versions like the NASB, NIV, RSV, RV, ASV, ESV, ISV, NET and the Holman Standard, continue to include these two verses in their versions.  

 

Westcott and Hort put both verses [in brackets] to indicate doubt as to whether or not these 2 verses are inspired Scripture, and the Nestle-Aland and UBS critical Greek texts STILL have them in brackets today.

 

Versions that OMIT BOTH verses - Matthew 16:2-3 - because of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus

Actually, there are some versions that are based on the Critical Text that do omit all these 32 words from their translations because these words are omitted by the Sinaitiic and Vaticanus manuscripts. At least they are being consistent and more honest about it. 

 

These include The Anderson New Testament Translated from the Sinaitic Manuscript 1918, Rotherham's Emphasized bible 1902, the James Moffatt New Testament 1913, the Riverside N.T. 1923, Goodspeed's translation of 1942, The English Bible of 1970, the Williams N.T. 1972, the Revised English Bible 1989 and The Christogenea New Testament 2009 - another Critical Text version.  The Jehovah Witness NWT puts the verses [in brackets], indicating doubt as to their authenticity.

 

Even in these two verses another significant omission is seen. The words "O YE HYPOCRITES" are in the Majority of Greek copies as well as the Old Latin copies a, air, b, c, d, ed, f, ff1, ff2, g1, l, q, the Coptic Boharic and the Diatessaron 170-175 A.D.

 

The word "HYPOCRITES!" is in the text of the Reformation Bibles in numerous foreign language Bibles as well.   But  there are a few manuscripts that contain all the words both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus leave out, except they omit the word "HYPOCRITES". So what do these modern versions do?  They also omit the words "O ye hypocrites" too.  

 

In other words, even though ALL these 32 words are NOT FOUND in either Sinaiticus or Vaticanus, these modern versions INCLUDE all of them except "O YE HYPOCRITES" which is omitted only by a very few, and is found in the vast majority.  Now how "scientific" is that???!

 

The words "O ye HYPOCRITES" are found in Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549, the Bishops' bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1582, Wesley's N.T. 1755, Youngs 1898, NKJV 1982, World English Bible 2000, Modern English Version 2014,  Lamsa's translation of the Syriac Peshitta,  Luther's German Bible 1545 and Schlachter Bible 2000 "Ihr Heuchler!", the French Martin Bible 1744, Ostervald 1996 and Louis Segond 2007 - "Hypocrites" (it's the same in French as in English), the Italian Diodati 1649, La Nuova Diodati 1991 and Riveduta 2006 "Ipocriti", the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569 and Cipriano de Valera 1602 and Reina Valera 1909-1995 "Hipócritas", the Portuguese A Biblia Sagrada "Hipócritas", the Afrikaans bible 1953 "Geveinsdes", Hungarian Karoli Bible "Képmutatók", the Russian Synodal Version 1876 "Лицемеры!", the Romanian Cornilescu Bible - "Făţarnicilor",  the Dutch Staten Vertaling Bible - "Gij geveinsden!", the Tagalog Ang Salita ng Diyos 1998 - "O, kayong mga mapagpaimbabaw!", the Albanian Bible, the Smith and Van Dyke Arabic Bible -وفي الصباح اليوم شتاء. لان السماء محمرة بعبوسة. يا مراؤون تعرفون ان تميّزوا وجه السماء واما علامات الازمنة فلا تستطيعون.  and the Modern Greek Bible "Υποκριται".

 

Matthew 16:2-3 are found in virtually every Bible translation ever made, in spite of the fact that BOTH Sinaiticus and Vaticanus completely omit them. They are found in all Reformation Bibles in all languages including the Modern Greek Bible and the Modern Hebrew Bible.

 

If ever the omission of a particular reading speaks volumes, this is it. The words "O ye hypocrites" are missing from these modern versions like the ESV, NASB, NIV, NET AND from all the aforementioned Catholic versions.  Do you think there might be a chance these bible translators will hear "O ye hypocrites!" loud and clear from the mouth of the Lord God Almighty in a coming day? 

 

Matthew 17:20 An error still retained in the NASB, ESV, Holman Standard and NIV is the result of following Aleph and B. When the disciples could not cast out a devil they ask Jesus why. The Lord tells them, "Because of your UNBELIEF: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove." In this instance they had no faith at all and Jesus tells them that if they had just a little bit of faith they could remove mountains.

However both Aleph and B read "little faith" instead of “unbelief”, and so the NASB, ESV and NIV read, "Because you have SO LITTLE FAITH. I tell you the truth, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed. . .". If they had a little bit of faith to begin with, it doesn't make sense to tell them they only need a mustard seed of faith to accomplish great things. But if they had no faith, then Jesus's words make sense. The older Catholic versions like the 1582 Douay-Rheims and the 1950 Douay read like the KJB with "unbelief" (NO faith) but the more modern Catholic Versions like the St. Joseph NAB 1970 and the New Jerusalem 1985 now agree with the false reading found in the NIV, ESV, NASB, Holman Vatican Versions.

Matthew 18:35 "That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by * the prophet, saying, I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world."

This is obviously a quote from Psalm 78:2, and that particular Psalm was written by Asaph. It is labeled "Maschil of Asaph".  Yet Sinaiticus original says "which was spoken by ISAIAH the prophet, saying..."  Nobody followed this erroneous reading, but it does show something of the very poor quality of this "oldest and best" manuscript.


 
NASB Confusion - The two sons and the Father's vineyard - Matthew 21:28-31 


Matthew 21:28-31 - "A certain man had two sons; and he came to the first, and said, Son, go work to day in MY vineyard. He answered and said, I will NOT: BUT AFTERWARD HE REPENTED, AND WENT. And he came to the second, and said likewise. And he answered and said, I GO, sir.; and HE WENT NOT. Whether of them twain did the will of his father? They say unto him, The FIRST."

This is the reading of the King James Bible 1611, Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, the Bishops’ Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, the Revised Version of 1881, the American Standard Version of 1901, the RSV 1952, NRSV 1989, ESV of 2001, the NKJV 1982, Holman Standard 2003, the ISV 2010,  the Catholic Douay 1950 and Jerusalem bibles 1969,  1985, the NIV of 1984  and even the NET version.   These readings are found in the majority of all manuscripts and in the Siniaticus copy, one of the so called oldest and best. However Vaticanus or B, reverses the order of the two sons. Even the Catholic bibles rejected the Vaticanus reading,  and they have it in the Vatican library as one of their treasured possessions. Yet they chose to follow the reading that matches that found in the King James Bible. 

 When the Father came to the first son and told him to go work in his vineyard, instead of saying "I will NOT:BUT AFTERWARD HE REPENTED, AND WENT." the NASBs from 1962, 63, 68, 71, 72, 75 and 1977  say "I WILL, AND HE DID NOT GO.”  And when he comes to the second son, in the NASBs from 1962 to 1977 , instead of him saying "I GO SIR, AND HE WENT NOT” the NASBs have "I WILL NOT, YET AFTERWARD HE REGRETTED IT AND WENT.”  Then, when Jesus asks which of them did the father's will, instead of “the FIRST”, the NASBs (1963 to 1977) say "the LATTER"!!!

Other bible versions that also follow the reading found in Vaticanus are the Jehovah Witness New World Translation 1961, the New English Bible 1970, Goodspeed 1943, and the Revised English Bible of 1989, put out as a recent joint effort between Protestants and Catholics.  All these versions follow the Vaticanus reading, in spite of the overwhelming evidence that it is wrong.

The NASB does not always follow the Vaticanus readings.   Siniaticus differs from it  over 3000 times in the gospels alone. In fact in verse 28 the “my” of "MY vineyard" is in B, but not in Siniaticus, but the NASB did not put it in.  So the NASB goes back and forth between Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, sometimes following one, sometimes the other, and sometimes changing their opinion from one year to the next. Here in verse 28 both the NIV and NASB have followed Siniaticus and rejected the Vaticanus and Majority reading of “MY vineyard”and have merely "THE" vineyard. 

The NASBs then chose to follow the Vaticanus reading (and not the Sinaiticus nor Majority reading) in verses 29-31 in all their editions from 1960 through 8 different editions until 1995 when they again changed their "scholarly opinion", based on the same evidence which  they had all along! NOW the 1995  NASB “update” reads as did the King James Bible and many others all this time. 

Which NASB was or is the true words of God?  Short answer- None of them.  There is no  “science” in their critical text methods; only the fickle and every changing opinions of men who make change for change’s sake (and perhaps for a few dollars and personal fame tossed in as well.)   Their bogus bibles only serve to undermine the authority of God's true words and sow doubt and confusion among God’s people. 

Will Kinney

 

 

NASB & Jehovah Witness NWT, Catholic versions, Sinaiticus/Vaticanus Confusion - The two sons and the Father's vineyard - Matthew 21:28-31 

 

 

Matthew 21:28-31 - "A certain man had two sons; and he came to the first, and said, Son, go work to day in MY vineyard. He answered and said, I will NOT: BUT AFTERWARD HE REPENTED, AND WENT. And he came to the second, and said likewise. And he answered and said, I GO, sir.; and HE WENT NOT. Whether of them twain did the will of his father? They say unto him, The FIRST."

 

This is the reading of the King James Bible 1611, Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, the Bishops’ Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, Alford N.T. 1870, the Revised Version of 1885, the American Standard Version of 1901, the RSV 1952, NRSV 1989, ESV of 2011, the NKJV 1982, Holman Standard 2009, the ISV 2014, the Catholic Douay 1950 and Jerusalem bibles 1969, 1985, the NIV of 1984 and 2011 and even the NET version.  

 

These readings are found in the majority of all manuscripts and in the Siniaticus copy, one of the so called oldest and best.

 

However Vaticanus reverses the order of the two sons and has the first son in verse 29 saying "I WILL GO, BUT HE WENT NOT" and the second son in verse 30 saying "I WILL NOT, BUT LATER HE GOES."

 

Westcott and Hort originally followed this reading found in Vaticanus and so did the earlier Critical Greek texts. I have a Nestle text 4th edition 1934 and the Nestle-Aland 21st edition 1975 and both of them read this way.  Yet in spite of the Westcott-Hort/Nestle-Aland Vaticanus reading in their text, versions like the RV 1885, ASV 1901 and not even the RSV followed it.

 

But later on (with NO ADDITIONAL textual discoveries) they just changed their minds and now the more recent Nestle-Aland texts follow the reading that has been in the KJB all along.

 

The Catholic Connection

 

Even "most" of the Catholic bibles rejected the Vaticanus reading here, and they have it in the Vatican library as one of their treasured possessions. Yet they chose to follow the reading that matches the one found in the King James Bible and placed it in the 1582 Douay-Rheims, the Douay 1950, the Jerusalem bible 1968 and the New Jerusalem bible of 1985. 

 

However the 1970 St. Joseph New American Bible reverses the two sons and has the first one saying he will go and then doesn't, while the second son says he will not go, and then does.   But the latest 2009 Catholic Public Domain version goes back to the traditional reading found in the King James Bible and in all Reformation bibles.

 

 When the Father came to the first son and told him to go work in his vineyard, instead of saying "I will NOT: BUT AFTERWARD HE REPENTED, AND WENT." the NASBs from 1962, 63, 68, 71, 72, 75 and 1977 say "I WILL, AND HE DID NOT GO.”  And when he comes to the second son, in the NASBs from 1962 to 1977, instead of him saying "I GO SIR, AND HE WENT NOT” the NASBs have "I WILL NOT, YET AFTERWARD HE REGRETTED IT AND WENT.”  Then, when Jesus asks which of them did the father's will, instead of “the FIRST”, the NASBs (1963 to 1977) say "the LATTER"!!!

 

Other bible versions that also followed the reading found in Vaticanus are the Jehovah Witness New World Translation 1961 edition, Twentieth Century N.T. 1904,  Riverside N.T. 1923, Montgomery N.T. 1924, Moffatt N.T. 1926,  Goodspeed 1943, the New English Bible 1970, and the Revised English Bible of 1989, put out as a recent joint effort between Protestants and Catholics.  All these versions follow the Vaticanus reading, in spite of the overwhelming evidence that it is wrong.

 

BUT now the Jehovah Witnesses have "revised" their New World Translation in 2013 and the new JW "bible" has now reversed itself just like the NASB 1995 did, and it now has the first son saying he will not go, but afterwards repents, while it is the second son who says he will go, but doesn't.

 

The NASB does not always follow the Vaticanus readings.  Siniaticus differs from it over 3000 times in the gospels alone. In fact in verse 28 the “my” of "MY vineyard" is in Vaticanus, but not in Siniaticus, but the NASB did not put it in. 

 

So the NASB goes back and forth between Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, sometimes following one, sometimes the other, and sometimes changing their opinion from one year to the next. Here in verse 28 both the NIV and NASB have followed Siniaticus and rejected the Vaticanus and Majority reading of “MY vineyard”and have merely "THE" vineyard. 

 

The NASBs then chose to follow the Vaticanus reading (and not the Sinaiticus nor Majority reading) in verses 29-31 in all their editions from 1960 through 8 different editions until 1995 when they again changed their "scholarly opinion", based on the same evidence which they had all along! NOW the 1995 NASB “update” and the Jehovah Witness NWT update both read like the King James Bible and many others did all along. 

 

Which NASB was or is the true words of God?  Short answer - None of them.  There is no “science” in their critical text methods; only the fickle and every changing opinions of men who make change for change’s sake (and perhaps for a few dollars and personal fame tossed in as well.)   Their bogus bibles only serve to undermine the authority of God's true words and sow doubt and confusion among God’s people. 

 

 

 Matthew 27:49 A very serious error occurs here in both of these so called "oldest and best" manuscripts upon which most modern versions are based, which is not used by any Bible in any language I have ever seen though the reading is noted in the RSV footnote as, *Other ancient authorities insert - "AND ANOTHER TOOK A SPEAR AND PIERCED HIS SIDE AND THERE CAME OUT WATER AND BLOOD." Amazingly enough, I have seen several anti KJB sites that list this "omission" as being an error in the King James Bible!

None of the major English Bible translations in history ever included this added verse. This includes Wycliffe 1396, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549, the Bishops' bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, the Revised Version of 1881, the ASV 1901, NASB 1963-1995, the NIV 1973, 79, 84 and 2011, the RSV, NRSV 1989, ESV 2001, NKJV 1982, ISV 2011, Dan Wallace's NET Version 2006, Holman  Standard of 2003, Darby, Youngs, Rotherham's Emphasized bible 1902, the Message 2002, New English bible 1970,  Revised English bible 1989, the Common English Bible 2011, Orthodox Jewish Bible 2011, the Voice 2012 nor any of the Catholic versions like the Douay-Rheims 1610, St. Joseph NAB 1970, New Jerusalem bible 1985 nor the 2009 Catholic Public Domain Version.

It is an obvious textual blunder. Yet there are a couple of wackos going around the internet claiming that the KJB is wrong because it does not include this extra verse! We do live in interesting times. This reading of both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus as well as C has a man killing our Lord rather than He Himself commending His spirit into the hands of the Father and voluntarily giving up the ghost.

This reading is also a serious error in that it has Christ being put to death at this time, and yet we see from the very next verse and the other gospels that He continues to speak. In Luke 23:44-46 Jesus says, "Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit", and John 19:30 says, "When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost".

It is not until AFTER our Lord said all these things, and He Himself voluntarily gave up His own life that we read in John 19:34, "one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water".

Not even Daniel "anything but the KJB" Wallace includes this spurious verse in his NET version.  But he does footnote: "Early and important mss (א B C L Γ pc) have another sentence at the end of this verse: “And another [soldier] took a spear and pierced him in the side, and water and blood flowed out.” This comment finds such a strong parallel in John 19:34 that it was undoubtedly lifted from the Fourth Gospel by early, well-meaning scribes and inserted into Matt 27:49. Consequently, even though the support for the shorter reading (A D W Θ Ë1,13 33 Ï lat sy sa bo) is not nearly as impressive, internal considerations on its behalf are compelling." 

Well, Daniel's "early, impressive and important manuscripts" are only "impressively" corrupt, and yet it is primarily these two manuscripts of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus that are being used today with the direct influence of the Vatican to corrupt today's Vatican Versions like the ESV, NIV, NASB, ISV, NET and Holman versions people are ignorantly buying into.

Obviously some very careless scribes took this reading from John's gospel and placed it in Matthew 27:49, where it is completely out of order. Yet this reading is found in both of these "oldest and best" manuscripts upon which most modern versions are based.

Matthew 1:7-10. ESV errors from corrupt texts


Matthew chapter one lists the genealogy of our Lord Jesus Christ from the kingly line of David and Solomon. 


KJB - “And Solomon begat Roboam; and Roboam begat Abia; and Abia begat ASA (ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ἀσά); and ASA (Ἀσά) begat Josaphat…(v.10) And Ezekias begat Manasses; and Manasses begat AMON (Μανασσῆς δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ἀμών) and AMON ( Ἀμών) begat Josias.”


ESV - “and Solomon the father of (Here the ESV changed the verb found in all Greek texts “begat” to a noun not found in ANY Greek text “the father of) Rehoboam, and Rehoboam the father of Abijah, and Abijah the father of ASAPH (δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ἀσάφ), and ASAPH ( Ἀσάφ) the father of Jehoshaphat…(v.10) And Hezekiah the father of Manasseh and Manasseh the father of AMOS (Μανασσῆς δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ἀμώς) and AMOS ( Ἀμώς) the father of Josiah.”


These different names - ASA versus ASAPH, and AMON versus AMOS are TEXTUAL differences. They are not variations in spelling the same names, but are totally different names that come from very different Greek texts.  And the texts followed by the ESV here in verses 7, 8 and 10 are the WRONG names.

Simply go back to 1 Chronicles 3:10-14 in either the Hebrew Scriptures or even the so called Greek Septuagint and they both read the same.  ASA was the son of Abia, and AMON was the son of Manasseh. Even the ESV tells you this in 1 Chronicles 3:10-14.

The ESV has followed the Westcott-Hort, UBS critical Greek text in these places where they have the wrong names.  There were at least three men names Asaph and two names Amos, but neither one of them is listed anywhere in the Bible as being in the lineage of the man Jesus Christ.

The Majority of all Greek manuscripts, the Hebrew Scriptures, Lamsa’s translation of the Syriac Peshitta and even the so called Greek Septuagint read as does the King James Bible with ASA and AMON.

So where did the ESV get the names of ASAPH and AMOS?  They come from Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.  Instead of just recognizing that these are two of the most corrupt manuscripts in existence, they have chosen to go against all historical evidence  to the contrary and have two guys in the lineage of our Saviour who simply do NOT belong there.

What is interesting here is that not even the NASB, NIV, Holman Standard, The Voice, the Orthodox Jewish Bible 2011 or even Dan Wallace’s NET version followed the UBS, Nestle-Aland critical Greek texts here that falsely read “Asaph” and “Amos”, but went instead with the Traditional Greek texts of the Reformation Bibles and the KJB and they all correctly read “ASA” and “AMON” instead of the ESV’s “ASAPH” and “AMOS”.


The other perverted bibles would be the previous RSV where they correctly have ASA in verses 7 and 8 but then footnote that “the Greek says ASAPH”, which is not true at all.  Only a very few corrupt Greek manuscripts like Sinaiticus and Vaticanus read this way, while the vast majority of them have it right.  But the RSV then went with the false reading of AMOS in verse 10, and then footnotes “others read Amon”.


Then came along the NRSV of 1989 and it changed BOTH names to ASAPH and AMOS, just like the ESV 2001-2011 has it.  These are TEXTUAL errors that result in two of the wrong men being placed into the lineage of the Lord Jesus Christ, and even the NASB, NIV, Holman and NET translators had enough sense to see that these are the wrong names and they went back to the Traditional Greek text in these two instances.

God is a God of absolute Truth; He cannot lie.  If you find lies and falsehood in a book that purports to be the words of the living God and they are false, then this bible version is false and cannot be trusted.

“For many bare false witness against him, but their witness agreed not together.”  Mark 14:56

 

Mark 1:2. Another error still retained in the NASB, ESV and NIV is found in this verse. The KJB reads: "As it is written IN THE PROPHETS, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way BEFORE THEE. The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight."

Here we have two different prophets quoted. One is Malachi and the other Isaiah. That is why it says prophets - plural. It is the reading of the Majority of Greek texts. It is found in many ancient versions and quoted by Ireneaus and Tertullian who lived 150 years before Aleph and B ever saw the light of day. The NASB, ESV and NIV say, "as it is written in ISAIAH..." but only part of the quote is from Isaiah (40:3); the other part is from Malachi (3:1).

In Mark 1:1-2, both Aleph and B change “the prophets” to “Isaiah”, and both omit the words "before thee". Sinaiticus omits THE SON OF GOD from verse 1, but it is found in Vaticanus.

 

 

Mark 6:22 - The Daughter of Herodias or Herod's daughter Herodias? - The Ever Changing Lunacy of Modern Textual Criticism

 

 

In Mark 6:22 we read: "And when the daughter OF the said HERODIAS (mentioned in verses 17 and 19) came in, and danced, and pleased Herod...the king said...Ask of me whatsoever thou wilt, and I will give it thee." 

 

Common English Bible 2011 - "Herod’s daughter Herodias came in and danced...

 

Dan Wallace's NET version - "WHEN HIS DAUGHTER HERODIAS came in and danced, she pleased Herod..."

 

The 2003 Holman Standard reads: "When Herodias’s own daughter[a] came in and danced..."

 

And then footnotes - Mark 6:22 Other mss read "When HIS DAUGHTER HERODIAS"

 

In the Lexham English Bible 2012 we see the same thing. It rejects the latest “scholarship” of the UBS/Nestle-Aland editors and goes with Traditional reading of the KJB. 

 

It says: And when THE DAUGHTER OF HERODIAS HERSELF came in and danced and pleased Herod and his dinner guests, the king said to the girl, “Ask me for whatever you want, and I will give it to you.”  

 

Then it footnotes: In place of “the daughter of Herodias herself” some manuscripts have “his daughter Herodias”. And what exactly are these “some manuscripts”?  They are our old “friends” Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. Two of the most corrupt manuscripts to see the light of day, that not only contradict the Traditional Text of the Reformation Bibles but contradict each other literally thousands of times.

 

To see the true nature of these so called “oldest and best manuscripts” upon which most modern Vatican Versions like the ESV, NIV, NASB, NET, Holman, the Jehovah Witness NWT and the modern Catholic versions are based, see my article here -

http://brandplucked.webs.com/oldestandbestmss.htm

 

Herodias was previously the wife of Phillip, the brother of Herod, and she had a daughter by Phillip.  At some point Herod took Herodias, his brother's wife, to be his own and John the Baptist reproved Herod for this. "For Herod himself had sent forth and laid hold upon John, and bound him in prison for Herodias' sake, his brother Phillip's wife; for he had married her. For John had said unto Herod, It is not lawful for thee to have thy brother's wife." Mark 6:17-18.

 

Matthew 14:6 clearly tells us: "But when Herod's birthday was kept, THE DAUGHTER OF HERODIAS danced before them, and pleased Herod."

 

The reading that repeats the information and tells us that this girl who danced at Herod's birthday party was THE DAUGHTER OF HERODIAS is that of the Majority of all Greek texts as well as Alexandrinus and C.

 

However the so called "oldest and best manuscripts" of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus actually say that this was Herod's daughter named Herodias, instead of saying that it was Herodias' daughter and not mentioning her name.

 

Obviously the two readings cannot both be inspired by God at the same time, and the reading found here in Mark 6:22 in Sinaiticus and Vaticanus (the so called oldest and best upon which most modern versions are based) obviously contradicts what Matthew 14:6 tells us about this girl being "the daughter of Herodias".

 

Part of what makes this obvious textual blunder of such interest is to see how the critical text "scholars" have dealt with it. The textual differences are quite obvious in the Greek. The Traditional Greek text and that of almost every Bible version in all languages in history that tells us this was the daughter of Herodias is "τῆς θυγατρὸς αὐτῆς τῆς Ἡρῳδιάδος " whereas the Vatican mss. reads  "τῆς θυγατρὸς αὐτοῦ Ἡρῳδιάδος" = HIS DAUGHTER HERODIAS.

 

THE CONSTANTLY CHANGING CRITICAL TEXT EDITIONS 

 

Westcott and Hort originally adopted this strange variant reading because of their blind devotion to the Vatican manuscript, but not even the Revised Version of 1885 or the ASV of 1901 followed this strange and contradictory reading, but stayed with the traditional - "when THE DAUGHTER OF HERODIAS HERSELF came in and danced".

 

However later on the Nestle critical Greek text 4th edition 1934 and the Nestle 21st edition of 1975 both read like the King James Bible and the traditional Greek text. They did NOT adopt the Vatican/Sinaitic reading. 

 

But then again the latest Nestle-Aland critical Greek texts 27th and the most recent 28th edition have once again changed their Greek text and have gone back to the one first followed by Westcott and Hort. The most recent Nestle Aland critical Greek texts now read "HIS DAUGHTER HERODIAS" =  τῆς θυγατρὸς αὐτοῦ Ἡρῳδιάδος

 

We can see part of this fickle change in the RSV, NRSV and the revision of the revision of the revision called the ESV.  The RSV read -" For when HERODIAS' DAUGHTER CAME IN" but the NRSV of 1989 said: "WHEN HIS DAUGHTER HERODIAS came in and danced," and then the ESV 2011 went back to reading: For when HERODIAS'S DAUGHTER came in and danced..."  

 

This means that the ESV, along with the NIV and NASB are not even following the latest musical chairs reading found in the last few printings of the "updated" UBS/Nestle-Aland critical text editions.

 

Agreeing with the correct reading that this was "the daughter of Herodias" and not "Herod's daughter Herodias" are  Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549, the  Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, Darby 1890, Young's 1898, the RV 1881, ASV 1901 - "when the daughter of Herodias herself came in and danced", Living Bible 1971, NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV, Holman Standard 2009, NKJV 1982, Complete Jewish Bible 1998, Easy-to-Read Version 2006, the ISV 2014.

 

 Those following the corrupt Vaticanus-Sinaiticus, United Bible Society/Vatican/Nestle-Aland 28th edition and that tell us this girl was Herod's daughter and her name was Herodias are Daniel Wallace and company's NET version, the latest critical text version called The Common English Version of 2011, the NRSV of 1989, The New Living Translation 2007, and the Disciples New Literal N.T. 2011.

The Living Bible 1971 followed the Traditional text, but this latest "update" has now gone for this blunder found in the Vatican manuscripts.

 

The New Living Translation 2007 now says: - "Then HIS DAUGTER, ALSO NAMED HERODIAS, came in and performed a dance".  

 

Since the ever changing critical text scholars have lately adopted this obvious blunder as their preferred Greek text I suppose we will see some more in the future.


Mark 10:24 - "...But Jesus answereth again, and saith unto them, Children, how hard is it FOR THEM THAT TRUST IN RICHES to enter the kingdom of God.”

ESV - “…But Jesus said to them again, “Children, how difficult it is to enter the kingdom of God!”


“FOR THEM THAT TRUST IN RICHES” - This is the reading found in the Majority of all Greek texts including Alexandrinus, D and C, the Old Latin copies aur, b, d, f, ff2, l and q which witness to a text written long before Sinaiticus and Vaticanus saw the light of day, the Latin Vulgate of 382 A.D. and 425 A.D., the Syriac Peshitta, Harclean, Sinaitic, the Coptic Boharic, Gothic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Georgian and Slavonic ancient versions.

The first major English version to come out that omitted these words was the liberal RSV of 1952. Not even the previous "revisions" based on the Westcott-Hort critical text went along with this innovation. The Revised Version of 1881 and the American Standard Version of 1901 BOTH kept these words in their English texts - "Children, how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God!"

The whole meaning of the passage is radically changed when omitted by such versions as the NASB, NIV 1984 and 2011 editions, RSV, NRSV, ESV, NET, Common English Bible and Holman Standard. 

They end up saying: "Children, how hard is it to enter the kingdom of God." It is not hard at all; we enter the kingdom by faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. The NIV 1978 edition (I have a hard copy of it) said: "How hard it is FOR THE RICH to enter the kingdom of God." But then they removed these words in the 1984 edition.  

The 2011 NIV edition now says: “…But Jesus said again, “Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God.”

The phrase "for them that trust in riches" is also found in the following Bible translations: the Anglo Saxon Gospels 990 A.D., Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew’s Bible 1549 - “chyldren howe harde is it for them, that truste in rychesse, to enter into the kyngdome of God.”, Bishops’ Bible 1568, Douay-Rheims 1582, the Geneva Bible 1599, Wesley's N.T. 1755, the Living Oracles 1835,  Darby 1890, Young’s 1898, Weymouth 1913, Douay 1950, Hebrew Names Version, James Moffatt's N.T., the New Life Bible 1969, Bible in Basic English 1960, the New Berkeley Version in Modern Speech 1969, the NKJV 1982, KJV 21st Century 1994, Third Millenium Bible 1998, Green's MKJV 2000, the Aramaic Bible in Plain English 2010, the Jubilee Bible 2000 and the Knox Bible of 2012.

It is also found in a multitude of foreign language Bibles including Luther's German bible 1545 and the 2000 Schlachter Bible, the French Martin 1744, Ostervald 1996 and the Louis Segond of 2007 -"Mes enfants, qu'il est difficile à ceux qui se confient dans les richesses d'entrer dans le royaume de Dieu!", the Portuguese Almeida and A Biblia Sagrada em Portugués, the Portuguese O Livro of 2000 - "Filhos, quão difícil é, para os que confiam nas riquezas, entrar no reino de Deus!", the Spanish Reina Valera 1995 and R.V. Gómez 2010 - "Hijos, ¡cuán difícil les es entrar en el reino de Dios a los que confían en las riquezas!", the Italian Diodati 1649, La Nuova Diodati 1991 and the 2006 Nuova Riveduta Bible - "Figli, quanto è difficile, per coloro che confidano nelle ricchezze entrare nel regno di Dio." and the Modern Greek Bible - “Τεκνα, ποσον δυσκολον ειναι να εισελθωσιν εις την βασιλειαν του Θεου οι εχοντες το θαρρος αυτων εις τα χρηματα” and the Modern Hebrew Bible - “ויבהלו התלמידים על דבריו ויסף ישוע ויען ויאמר להם בני מה קשה לבטחים על חילם לבוא אל מלכות האלהים׃”

What is funny to see is how even some of the more modern versions that usually follow the UBS/Nestle-Aland critical Greek texts (which completely omit these words from their text)  are now rejecting the Sinaiticus, Vaticanus readings here and are going back to the Traditional text used in the King James Bible. 

The Amplified bible of 1987, which is put out by the same Lockman Foundation that prints the NASB, includes the phrase "those who trust in riches", and the ISV (International Standard Version) of 2012 as well as The Voice of 2012.  Even though the ISV and the Voice usually follow the critical texts they have now put these words back into the text where they belong reading: "Children, how hard it is FOR THOSE WHO TRUST IN THEIR WEALTH to get into the kingdom of God!” 

Eugene Peterson’s horrible paraphrase called the Message of 2002, which almost always follows the UBS critical Greek text, includes the phrase, but paraphrases it as it does almost everything else.  It says: “Jesus said, “Do you have any idea how difficult it is FOR PEOPLE WHO ‘HAVE IT ALL’ to enter God’s kingdom?” 

As usual, we see the same thing happening in the Catholic versions. The older Douay-Rheims of 1582 and the Douay of 1950 both contain the words "for them that trust in riches" but the St. Joseph NAB 1970 and the New Jerusalem bible 1985 omit it, just like the new Vatican Versions ESV, NIV, NASB, NET. BUT now in the 2009 Catholic Public Domain version they have put these words back in the text and once again it reads: " “Little sons, how difficult it is FOR THOSE WHO TRUST IN MONEY to enter into the kingdom of God!"

"Scholarship" is an amazing thing to behold, isn't it. 

Luke 1:26 "And the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of GALILEE, named Nazareth." Sinaiticus reads "a city of JUDEA, named Nazareth" - a clear geographical error (one of many). Nazareth is in Galilee, not Judea.

Luke 8:43-45 And the Silly "Science" of Modern Textual Criticism




In Luke 8:43-45 we find just a couple of the hundreds of examples in the Bible where we can clearly see the silly, arbitrary and capricious nature of what the unbelievers in a complete and infallible Bible like to call “the science of textual criticism.”  This so called “science” is about as scientific as the Ouija board, and just as deadly.  It will end up leaving you with NO infallible Bible in any language on the face of this earth. Guess who wants you to think this way about God’s Book?


Here is Luke 8:43-45 we read: “And a woman having an issue of blood twelve years, WHICH HAD SPENT ALL HER LIVING UPON PHYSICIANS, neither could be healed of any, (44) Came behind him, and touched the border of his garment: and immediately her issue of blood stanched. (45) And Jesus said, Who touched me? When all denied, Peter AND THEY THAT WERE WITH HIM said, Master, the multitude throng thee and press thee, AND SAYEST THOU, WHO TOUCHED ME?”


All the capital lettered words are missing in several modern versions. But as we shall soon see, the Critical Text Catholic and Evangelical versions are continually in a state of flux and do not even agree among themselves.


The words “WHICH SPENT ALL HER LIVING UPON PHYSICIANS” -"τις ατρος προσαναλώσασα λον τν βίον" is found only here in the entire Bible.


There is a similar passage in Mark 5:25-26, but most of the words and their order are quite different from what we find here in Luke 8:43. 


Luke 8:43 reads: "Κα γυν οσα ν ύσει αματος π τν δώδεκα, τις ατρος προσαναλώσασα λον τν βίον οκ σχυσεν π' οδενς θεραπευθναι"


but Mark 5:25-26 has: "25 Κα γυνή τις οσα ν ύσει αματος τη δώδεκα, 26 κα πολλ παθοσα π πολλν ατρν, κα δαπανήσασα τ παρ' ατς πάντα, κα μηδν φεληθεσα, λλ μλλον ες τ χερον λθοσα'.


When we compare these verses we see that they only have 7 words in common ("And there was a woman", an issue of blood" and - "twelve") and they aren't even in the same order.


The words "which spent all her living upon physicians" in Luke 8:43 are found in the vast Majority of all Greek texts INCLUDING SINAITICUS, A, C, D, K, L, P, W, Delta, Theta, Xi, Pi as well as the Old Latin a, aur, b, c, f, ff2, l, q, r1, and the Syriac Curetonian, Peshitta, Harkelian, Coptic Boharic, Gothic and Ethiopian ancient bible versions.


The words are omitted in just two Greek manuscripts - Vaticanus and P75. That's it.


So, what have our critical text scholars done with these words?  Well, Westcott and Hort originally left them all in the text without brackets.  Then later the Nestle-Aland critical text completely took them out of the text.  I have a Nestle text 4th edition from 1934 and the words are completely gone from the text. 


But later still they decided to put them back in the critical text editions where they stand today in the UBS 1st-4th editions and the Nestle-Aland 21st and 27th and 28th editions.


How do the Critical Text (Vatican) versions treat these words? Let's take a closer look.


The words “WHICH SPENT ALL HER LIVING UPON PHYSICIANS” in Luke 8:43 are found in the Revised Version of 1885 and in the ASV of 1901.


But then the NASB 1960-1995 omitted all these words, as do the NIV 1984, 2011 editions, Rotherham's Emphasized bible 1902, the RSV 1946, 1973, the Jehovah Witness NWT, God's Word Translation 1995, the New Century Version 1991 and Dan Wallace's NET version. 


However all these words ARE FOUND in the NRSV 1989, the ESV of 2001-2011 (notice the RSV omitted them, the NRSV put them back and the ASV put them in, but the NASB took them out!), A Conservative Version 2005, the Lexham English Bible 2012, The Voice 2012, and The International Children's Bible 2015.



The "ever dependable" NIVs


Even though the NIVs in English have decided to omit all these words from the Bible Text, yet the NIV Portuguese editon HAS THEM! 


The Portuguese Nova Versao Internacional 1993 and 2000 editions read: - "E estava ali certa mulher que havia doze anos vinha sofrendo de hemorragia E GASTARA TUDO O QUE TINHA COM OS MEDICOS; mas ninguém pudera curá-la." But the Spanish NIV omits them.  Go figure. 


The words are also included in the other Critical text versions like the Holman Standard 2003, the ISV of 2014 and the critical text Common English Bible of 2011.


The reading "WHICH SPENT ALL HER LIVING UPON PHYSICIANS" in Luke 8:43 is found in the Anglo-Saxon Gospels, Corpus Christi Manuscript 140 of 1000 A.D., Wycliffe's Bible 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540 - "which had spent all her substaunce vpon phisicions", Matthew's Bible 1549, the Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, The Beza N.T. 1599, Wesley's translation 1755, Worsley N.T. 1770, The Alford N.T. 1870, the RV 1885, ASV 1901, Darby 1890, Young's 1898, Weymouth's N.T. 1912, Godbey N.T. 1902, the Bible in Basic English 1961, the NKJV 1982, the Third Millenium Bible 1998, The Koster Scriptures 1998, The Lawrie N.T. 1998, The Last Days N.T. 1999, The Tomson N.T. 2002, The Pickering N.T. 2005, The Resurrection Life N.T. 2005, The Mebust Bible 2007, The Christogenea N.T. 2009, The New European Version 2010, The Jubilee Bible 2010 The Orthodox Jewish Bible 2011, the Common English Bible 2011, Lexham English Bible 2012, Orthodox Jewish Bible 2011, The Work of God's Children Bible 2011, The Voice 2012, The Biblos Bible 2013, The Pioneer's N.T. 2014, The Modern Literal N.T. 2014 and The Modern English Version 2014 (just to name some of them)


 


All these words are also found in the Modern Greek Bible - " ητις δαπανησασα εις ιατρους ολον τον βιον αυτης",


and in the Modern Hebrew Bible - ואשה זבת דם שתים עשרה שנה אשר הוציאה כל קנינה לרפאים ואין איש יכל לרפאתה׃


Among foreign language translations the words "WHICH SPENT ALL HER LIVING UPON PHYSICIANS” are found in the Latin Vulgate 382 A.D. -"in fluxu sanguinis ab annis duodecim quae in medicos erogaverat omnem substantiam" , Luther's German Bible 1545 and the 2000 German Schlachter Bible - "die hatte alle ihre Nahrung an die Ärzte gewandt", the Portuguese Almeida, O Livro 2000, Sagrada Biblia and NIV Portuguese edition - "E certa mulher, que tinha uma hemorragia havia doze anos e gastara com os médicos todos os seus haveres e por ninguém pudera ser curada", the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569, the Reina Valera's of 1909, 1960, 1995, La Biblia de las Américas 1997, and Contemporánea 2011 - "y había gastado en médicos todo lo que tenía”(but NOT the Spanish NIV), in the French Martin 1744, Ostervald 1996, Louis Segond of 1910 and 2007 - "souffrait d'hémorragies depuis 12 ans; elle avait dépensé tout son bien chez les médecins", the Russian Synodal Version 1876, the Afrikaans Bible 1953, the Italian Diodati 1649, Nuova Diodati 1991, La Paroa é Vita 1997 and Italian Riveduta 2006  - "E una donna, che aveva un flusso di sangue da dodici anni ed aveva speso con i medici tutti i suoi beni senza poter essere guarita da alcuno."

 


The Catholic Connection -


The Catholic Versions are all over the board, as usual. The earlier Douay-Rheims of 1582 included the words, as does the 1950 Douay Version, reading: "And there was a certain woman having an issue of blood twelve years, who had bestowed all her substance on physicians and could not be healed by any."


But then in 1968 the Catholic Jerusalem bible removed the words; then in 1970 the St. Joseph New American Bible put them back in.  Then in 1985 the New Jerusalem bible took them out again; but now once more in 2009 the Sacred Bible Catholic Public Domain Version has put them back in again!


It should be obvious by this time that the multiple choice Critical Text bible editions are consistently inconsistent, and yet they are all allegedly put together by studying "the science" of textual criticism. Their "science" has nothing at all to do with "the new discovery of ancient manuscript readings" or "transcriptional probabilities" or anything remotely logical or faith based at all.


They are just guessing, changing their minds on a whim and they don't even agree with each other.  What a joke! And all the while fewer and fewer Christians believe in the Inerrancy of the Bible and the Muslims, Atheists and Bible Mockers are having a Field Day of it. 

 

 

Luke 8:47 - “AND WHEN THE WOMAN SAW THAT SHE WAS NOT HID, SHE CAME TREMBLING, and falling down before him, she declared unto him before all the people FOR WHAT CAUSE SHE HAD TOUCHED HIM, AND how she was healed immediately.”

Sinaiticus omits all the capitalized words, but they are found in Vaticanus.


Luke 10:1, 17 - "How many men did the Lord Jesus send out to preach, 70 or 72?"


Most Evangelical Christians today do not believe that any Bible in any language IS the inerrant words of God. In spite of the lame, signifying nothing, recent Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, they did get one thing right.It’s found in Article XII - “We deny that Biblical infallibility and inerrancy are limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes, exclusive of assertions in the fields of history and science.” 

Every true Bible believer should agree with this statement. IF the Bible is not 100% historically true, then at what point does God start to tell us the truth? If we cannot trust God's Book when it comes to specific numbers and names when it comes to past history, then how can we be sure He got the other parts right? 

Luke 10:1, 17 KJB, RV, ASV, RSV, NRSV, NASB, Holman, ISV  - "After these things the Lord appointed other SEVENTY also, and sent them two and two before his face into every city and place, whither he himself would come." V.17 "And the SEVENTY returned again with joy, saying, Lord, even the devils are subject unto us through thy name."

ESV, NIV, NET, Catholic versions - "After this the Lord appointed SEVENTY TWO others and sent them on ahead of him, two by two...V.17 The SEVENTY TWO returned with joy, saying, Lord, even the demons are subject to us in your name."

The reading of SEVENTY is found in Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535 - "the LORDE appoynted out other seuentie, and sent them two and two before him", the Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549 - "the Lord appoynted other seuentye also", the Bishops' Bible, the Geneva Bible 1599, Mace N.T. 1729, Whitston's N.T. 1745, Wesley's N.T. 1755, Worsley Version 1770, Living Oracles 1835, Darby 1890, Young's 1898, the RV 1881, ASV 1901, Godbey N.T. 1902, Weymouth 1912, RSV 1952, NRSV 1989, J.B. Phillips N.T. 1962, the Aramaic Bible in Plain English, Lamsa, Etheridge and Murdock's translation of the Syriac Peshitta, the NKJV 1982, NASB 1963-1995, the Holman Standard 2009, the 2007 International Standard Version, Orthodox Jewish Bible 2011, Names of God Bible 2011 and The Voice 2012. 

Seventy is the reading found in the Majority of all Greek manuscripts including Sinaiticus, A, C the Old Latin f, q, r1 and the Syriac Peshitta, Harclean, Palestinian, Coptic Boharic, Gothic and Ethiopian ancient versions. It is also so quoted by Irenaeus, Clement, Tertulian, Origen, Eusebiou, Basil, Ambrose, Jerome and Cyril. It is also the Greek text reading of the Majority text, Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, the Greek Orthodox text, and even Tischendorf's 8th edition. 

Foreign language Bibles that also read "SEVENTY" in Luke 10:1 and 17 are the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569, Cipriano de Valera 1602, the Reina Valera's 1909-1995 - "el Señor designó también a otros setenta", the French Martin 1744, Ostervald 1996 and Louis Segond 2007 - " le Seigneur en ordonna aussi soixante-dix autres", Luther's German Bible 1545 and German Schlachter bible 2000 - "HERR andere siebzig aus und sandte sie zwei ind zwei", the Portuguese Almeida - "o Senhor outros setenta", the Italian Diodati 1991 and the Italian Riveduta Bible 2006 - "il Signore ne designò altri settanta", the Modern Greek Bible - "Μετα δε ταυτα διωρισεν ο Κυριος και αλλους εβδομηκοντα" and the Modern Hebrew Bible - "ואחרי כן הבדיל האדון עוד שבעים אחרים וישלחם לפניו"

However the Vaticanus manuscript and D read SEVENTY TWO and so the NIV, the ESV, New English Bible 1970, Common English Bible 2011, Dan Wallace's NET version and ALL Catholic versions like the Douay-Rheims 1582, Douay 1950, Jerusalem Bible 1968, St. Joseph NAB 1970, New Jerusalem bible 1985 and the 2009 Catholic Public Domain Version - "After this the Lord appointed SEVENTY-TWO others and sent them two by two ahead of him..." (NIV). Notice that the previous RSV, NRSV went with 70, but the latest revision of the revision of the revision, the ESV, now goes with 72.

But many newer modern versions that are based on the Critical Text have gone back to the reading of SEVENTY. Among these are the NASB 1995, the Holman Standard 2009, The Voice 2012, the Complete Jewish Bible 1998, the Message 2002, Names of God Bible 2011 and the International Standard Version.

The Nestle-Aland critical Greek textbooks keep changing as well. Westcott and Hort put SEVENTY [TWO] in their text, bracketing the number [TWO]. However not even the Revised Version 1881 or the ASV of 1901 followed this reading of 72 but stayed with 70. The Nestle Critical text 4th edition 1934 says 70 with no "two" in the text at all. I have a hard copy of it here in my study. But some time later the Nestle Critical text went back to putting the number [two] in brackets, indicating doubt, and this is how it stands in todays UBS/Nestle-Aland/Vatican critical textbooks.

So if all these versions are equally the inspired, inerrant and 100% historically true words of God, how many men did the Lord Jesus send out to preach - SEVENTY or SEVENTY TWO? It is impossible that God inspired both readings in the same place. One is right and the other is wrong. 

The King James Bible is always right. Accept no substitutes.

Luke 10:42 How many things are needed? "ONE THING" or "A FEW THINGS"?  Bible Babble Buffet at its Best.

 

King James Bible -  Luke 10:42 - But ONE THING IS NEEDFUL: and Mary hath chosen that good part, which shall not be taken away from her.”


NASB 1963-1977 editions - “But ONLY A FEW THINGS ARE NECESSARY, REALLY ONLY ONE, for Mary has chosen the good part, which shall not be taken away from her.”


NASB 1995 edition - “But ONLY ONE THING IS NECESSARY, for Mary has chosen the good part, which shall not be taken away from her.”

 

NIV 1973, 1978 and 1982 editions - "BUT ONLY ONE THING IS NEEDED. Mary has chosen what is better, and it will not be taken from her."  

 

NIV 2011 edition - "BUT FEW THINGS ARE NEEDED - OR INDEED ONLY ONE. Mary has chosen what is better, and it will not be taken from her."  

 

Did you notice that both the NASB and the NIV changed THE TEXT from one edition to another, AND that they REVERSED THEIR CHOICES?  What is going on here in Bible Babble Buffet Land?


This section of Luke tells of the time when Jesus came to the house of Martha and Mary, and Martha was cumbered with much serving and Mary sat at the feet of Jesus and heard his word. In Luke 10:42, after Jesus told Martha that she was careful and troubled about many things, he says: "But ONE THING IS NEEDFUL: and Mary hath chosen that good part, which shall not be taken away from her."


The one thing that is needful is to sit at the feet of Jesus, to hear his words, and be in fellowship with him.


"BUT ONE THING is needful”


The "But one thing is needful" is the reading found not only in the Majority of all manuscripts and the TR, but also of P45 and P75, both of which predate the vaunted Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. It is also found in Alexandrinus, C original, E, F, G, H, K, M, P, S, U, V, Gamma, Delta, Theta, Lambda, Pi, Psi. And it is the reading of the Old Latin aur,  f, g1, q, the Syriac Peshitta, Curetonian, Harclean, Coptic Sahidic and Vulgate ancient versions.

 

"BUT ONE THING is needful" is the reading of Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549, the Bishops’ Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, the Revised Version 1881, the ASV of 1901 (the highly praised precursor to the NASB), the RSV, NRSV, ESV, NKJV, Holman, Common English Bible and Dan Wallace's 2006 NET version.


But in the NASBs of 1963, 1972 and 1977 we read instead: "FEW THINGS ARE NECESSARY, REALLY ONLY ONE."

 

This ridiculous reading comes from the Vaticanus manuscript.   The Siniaticus goes back and forth, being corrected three times in this one phrase alone. First Sinaiticus actually read ὀλίγων δέ ἐστιν ἢ ἑνὸς = "but few things are the one" (Deep, huh?) Then a scribe changed it to read like the Majority text; and then another scribe changed it back again to read like Vaticanus.   


Also reading this way are the Jehovah Witness New World Translation 1961 and the 2013 J.W. Revision which say: “A FEW THINGS THOUGH ARE NEEDED, OR JUST ONE. For her part, Mary chose the good portion.”  


The Amplified bible of 1987 still non-sensically reads: “THERE IS NEED OF ONLY ONE THING OR BUT A FEW THINGS. Mary has chosen the good portion”. Rotherham’s Emphasized bible 1902 read this way - “OF FEW THINGS, IS THERE NEED, OR, OF ONE; Mary, in fact, hath chosen, the good part,” as does the Lexham English Bible of 2012 - “But FEW THINGS ARE NECESSARY, OR ONLY ONE THING, for Mary has chosen the better part


But the NASB update of 1995 has reversed itself, and now reads as the KJB and the NIVs EARLIER EDITIONS and the ESV. Why? Not because of any new manuscript evidence recently come to light; they simply changed their minds.


The Catholic versions have done the same thing.  The early Douay-Rheims of 1610 and the 1950 Douay followed the Traditional texts and read like the KJB - “But ONE THING IS NEEDFUL, and Mary hath chosen that good part”.  But then the 1968 Jerusalem bible and the 1985 New Jerusalem bible followed the Vaticanus reading and read: “FEW THINGS ARE NEEDED, INDEED ONLY ONE.”


But now the 2009 Catholic Public Domain Version has also gone back to the Traditional reading and once again says: “And yet ONLY ONE THING IS NECESSARY. Mary has chosen the best portion”


Likewise the Nestle-Aland Critical Greek texts have changed over the years. Westcott and Hort originally went with the nonsensical reading ὀλίγων δέ ἐστιν χρεία ἑνός, which is not even grammatically correct and literally is “few things is necessary the one”.  So also did the Nestle 4th edition 1934 and the Nestle 21st edition 1975. I have hard copies of both of these and this is how their critical text reads.


 But not even the RV, ASV or even the RSV were that far gone that they actually followed this absurd reading found in their own critical Greek text editions. The first major translation to adopt it and put it in their text was the NASB in 1963 and the NASB stuck with it through 7 different editions until 1995.  Then sometime later they changed the Nestle-Aland, UBS critical texts and they now read as does the KJB with “ἑνὸς δέ ἐστιν χρεία = “but one thing is necessary.”  

 

But wait!  There is more.  The NIVs 1973, 1978 and 1984 editions had it right. The read: "BUT ONLY ONE THING IS NEEDED. Marry has chosen what is better."  But now that the UBS/Nestle-Aland critical Greek texts have changed their reading to the correct one, which reads this way, the NEW NIV 2011 edition has come out, and now gone with the OLD Vaticanus reading the the critical text editors and the NASB just got done correcting.  The New NIV of 2011 now reads: "BUT FEW THINGS ARE NEEDED - OR INDEED ONLY ONE. Mary has chosen what is better."!!!


    So the critical text promoters have abandoned in this place their beloved "oldest and best" manuscripts, all in the name of "the science” of Textual Criticism, don’t ya know. The question remains - Which NASB or which NIV was inspired and inerrant? The first 7 editions of the NASB from 1963 to 1977 or the 1995 update?  Or the first three editions of the NIV, or this latest one done in 2011 where it doesn't even follow the late$t $cholarly Finding$? Well, actually, there is NO NASB or NIV user who believes their ever-changing versions are the inspired and infallible words of God.


 The 1995 NASB update changed 20,000 words and deleted another 8000 words from the previous 1977 NASB edition. This is not fantasy. I have the book Double Jeopardy, by Lawrence M. Vance, that documents in black and white every change that has taken place between these two different editions of the NASB.   


What we see among these bogus bible versions that are based on the ever changing Nestle-Aland/UBS/Vatican critical Greek texts (both  the “Evangelical” NASB, ESV, NIV, and the modern Catholic versions) is the fact that they have no settled Scripture. What may be fa$hionable $cholar$hip today, will change with the wind tomorrow.  And their so called “oldest and best manuscripts”, that these new Vatican Versions are based on, are in fact among the most corrupt in existence.


Get yourself the King James Holy Bible and “meddle not with them that are given to change” - Proverbs 24:21


Return to articles - http://brandplucked.webs.com/kjbarticles.htm


 

 Luke 11:11 "If a son shall ask BREAD...WILL HE GIVE HIM A STONE?


The perversion of God's word in the present day, began in 1881 with the publication of the Revised Version in England. This is when Christiandom began to accept the Westcott-Hort revised Greek text, and literally thousands of changes were made in an attempt to overthrow the authority of the King James Bible and the Biblical text of the Reformation Bibles.  Satan is subtle, and he introduces his changes little by little.

 

The next bible version that gained some acceptance was the American Standard Version of 1901. They still kept all of the "thee"s and "ye"s, and actually the ASV is textually much closer to the KJB than its later counterpart, the NASB. Each new version departs from the Hebrew and Greek texts that underlie the King James Bible a little bit more. The NKJV is not primarily based on the same Greek text as the NIV, but it does not wholly follow the KJB either in at least 40 instances in the New Testament, and has changed the meaning of hundreds of verses and introduced false doctrines into the Bible.


Luke 11:11 KJB - "If a son shall ask BREAD of any of you that is a father, WILL HE GIVE HIM A STONE? OR IF HE ASK a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent?" 

 

ESV -  "What father among you, if his son asks for A FISH, will instead of a fish give him a serpent."


All of the capitalized letters are omitted in the new Vatican Versions like the ESV, NASB, NIV, NET, Holman, CEB, the Jehovah Witness New World Translation and some modern Catholic versions. The NASB says: " Now suppose one of you fathers is asked by his son for a FISH (not bread), he will not give him a snake instead of a fish, will he?"

 

There is no "now suppose" in any text; they have changed the active verb "ask" to the passive "is asked" and they have omitted the words "BREAD...WILL HE GIVE HIM A STONE, OR IF HE ASK". 

 

 The reading of “if a son shall ask BREAD of any of you that is a father, WILL HE GIVE HIM A STONE?  OR IF HE ASK a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent?” is found in the Majority of all manuscripts, and in such Bible translations as: the Anglo-Saxon Gospels Corpus Christi Manuscript circa 1000 A.D., Wycliffe 1395 - "Therfor who of you axith his fadir breed, whether he schal yyue hym a stoon? or if he axith fisch, whether he schal yyue hym a serpent for the fish?", Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, The Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549, the Bishops’ Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1557-1602, the Douay-Rheims of 1582, the King James Bible 1611, Mace N.T. 1729, Wesley’s translation of 1755, Young’s, Darby, Hebrew Names Version, World English Bible, Lamsa’s 1936 translation of the Syriac, The Aramaic Bible in Plain English, Weymouth Version 1902, the Bible in Basic English 1961, the New Life Version 1969, Hebrew Names Version, the New Berkeley Version 1969, the Amplified Bible 1987 (put out by the same Lockman Foundation that prints the NASB), the 1994 21st Century KJV, the 1998 Third Millennium Bible and the Jubilee Bible 2000.



Foreign language Bibles that read the same way as the King James Bible are Jerome’s Latin translation of 382 A.D., the Latin Vulgate of 405, the Sagradas Escrituras of 1569, Cipriano de Valera Bible 1602, the Spanish Reina Valera 1909, 1960, 1995 - “¿Qué padre de vosotros, si su hijo le pide pan, le dará una piedra? ¿o si pescado, en lugar de pescado, le dará una serpiente?”, the 2004 Reina Valera Gomez, La Biblia de las Américas 1997 (by the same Lockman Foundation), Luther’s German Bible 1545, the German Schlachter Bible 2000, the Italian Diodati 1649, and the New Diodati 1991, and the 1997 La Parola e Vita - “E chi è tra voi quel padre che, se il figlio gli chiede del PANE, gli dà una pietra? “, the Portuguese de Almeida, the Chinese Union Traditional, the Russian Synodal Bible, the Tagalog Ang Dating Bible 1905, the Romanian Cornilescu Bible,  the French Martin 1744, Louis Segond 1910, French Ostervald 1996 - “Qui est le père d'entre vous, qui donne à son fils une pierre, lorsqu'il lui demande du PAIN?”, the Modern Greek used throughout the whole world in the Greek Orthodox churches and the Modern Hebrew New Testament and in the Modern Hebrew Bible - ומי בכם האב אשר ישאל ממנו בנו לחם ונתן לו אבן ואם דג היתן לו נחש תחת הדג׃

 

 

 

The NIV and ESV are similar to the NASB. This is because Vaticanus does not have these words and Vaticanus (B) has substitued "Fish" for "bread".  However all these words ARE in Sinaiticus as well as the Majority of all Greek texts including A, C, D and the ancient Old Latin, Syriac, Coptic, Ethiopic and Gothic ancient versions. Even Tischendorf's 8th edition agreed with the reading found in the King James Bible. It was Westcott and Hort who chose the Vatican reading over all the others.

 

P45 and P75 are also in disagreement with each other, as well as the Majority of all Greek texts.  P45 agrees with Vaticanus and has "FISH" (ixthun, not BREAD - arton) BUT P75 has a unique reading not found in any bible version I know of.  P75 actually has a completely different word here - isxun - STRENGTH, or MIGHT = "If a son asks STRENGTH..."  These two partial, paprus manuscripts often differ one from the other, sometimes following Vaticanus and at others Siniaticus, and sometimes going their own separate ways. For example, both P45 & 75 omit "neither under a bushel" in verse 33, yet the NASB, NIV, ESV include these words because they are found in both Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.  


 

It should be noted that the KJB reading is also that of the Revised Version of 1881 and the ASV of 1901 which was so highly praised by the NASB as being the Rock of Biblical Honesty. Not even these two early Revised English versions went with the reading found in Vaticanus and the Westcott-Hort text.  The RV and ASV both read: "And of which of you that is a father shall his son ask A LOAF, AND HE GIVE HIM A STONE? OR a fish, and he for a fish give him a serpent?"

 

 

Among the Catholic versions we see the usual pattern. The Catholic Douay-Rheims of 1582 as well as the Douay of 1950 and even the Jerusalem bible of 1968 all went with the Traditional reading found in the King James Bible - "And which of you, if he ask his father BREAD, WILL HE GIVE HIM A STONE? OR a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent?"

 

But then in 1970 the St. Joseph NAB and in 1985 the New Jerusalem both went with the Vatican mss. reading and read like the ESV, NIV, NASB.  BUT now the latest Catholic version has come on the merry-go-round bible scene and guess what. It has gone back to the original reading once again.  It is the 2009 The Sacred Bible Catholic Public Domain Version and it now reads: "So then, who among you, IF HE ASKS HIS FATHER FOR BREAD, HE WOULD GIVE HIM A STONE? Or if he asks for a fish, he would give him a serpent, instead of a fish?"

 

Can we expect the same random changes in the Bible of the Month Club English versions?  Most definitely.  In fact, it has already happened among those modern versions that follow the ever changing Westcott-Hort, UBS type of fickle scholarship.  They have come out with a new bible version called the International Standard Version and it has gone back to the original reading found in the King James Bible all along.  The brand new, updated according to $cholar'$ late$t finding$, I$V now reads in Luke 11:11 - "What father among you, IF HIS SON ASKS FOR BREAD, WOULD GIVE HIM A STONE, OR IF HE ASKS for a fish, would give him a snake instead of the fish?"

 

 

Modern scholarship is nothing if not consistently inconsistent.

The first major version the change the Greek and English text to omit the words “WILL HE GIVE HIM A STONE, OR IF HE ASK" and to change BREAD to FISH was the liberal RSV, then followed by the NASB, NRSV, NIV, ESV, Message, the Holman Standard and Wallace’s NET version.

 

If you are trusting the modern "bibles" to give you the complete truth of God, you are getting something "fishy" instead of the true bread of God.

 

Luke 14:5 “an ass” or “a son” or “a sheep”?


Luke 14:5 - KJB - “And (Jesus) answered them, saying, Which of you shall have AN ASS or an ox fallen into a pit, and will not straightway pull him out on the sabbath day?”


NIV, RSV, NASB - “Then he asked them, "If one of you has A SON or an ox that falls into a well on the Sabbath day, will you not immediately pull him out?"


Whiston’s Primitive New Testament 1745 - “And said unto them, Which of you shall have A SHEEP or an ox fallen into a pit on the sabbath-day and will not straightway pull him out?” (Manuscript D actually reads “a SHEEP or an ox")


Let’s see....AN ASS, A SHEEP or A SON?  Yep, pretty close in meaning, right?  What is going on here?  Well, as usual, the so called “oldest and best Greek manuscripts” are once again in disagreement with each other and the scholars can’t seem to make up their minds which reading God inspired.  Sinaiticus reads as does the KJB with “an ASS or an ox”, while Vaticanus has “a SON or an ox” and Mss. D reads “a SHEEP or an ox”, and the bible versions are all over the board.  

 

There is actually one manuscript that could be seen in a humorous light.  It is mss. Theta and it actually reads "If your ASS SON or ox falls into a pit" -ὄνος υἱὸς ἢ βοῦς

 

The reading of "AN ASS (ὄνος) or an ox" is that found in Sinaiticus, A, K, L, X, Pi, Psi, the Old Latin a, air, b, c, ff2, i, l, r1, the Syriac Palestinian, Coptic Boharic, Armenian, Ethiopic and Slavonic ancient versions. It is also the reading found in the Modern Greek Bible - " Τινος υμων ο ονος η ο βους θελει πεσει εις φρεαρ" = "Which of you AN ASS or an ox that will fall into a well..." and it is the reading found in the Modern Hebrew Bible - "ויען ויאמר אליהם מי מכם אשר חמרו או שורו יפול אל הבאר" = "And he answered and said unto them, Which of you whose ASS or his ox fall into a well..."  

 

So once again we see that the so called "oldest and best manuscripts" upon which most modern Vatican Versions are based differ the one from the other, as they do some 3000 times just in the 4 gospels alone.

 

 

The reading found in the King James Bible of “an ASS or an ox” is that found in Wycliffe 1395 - "Whos ASSE or oxe of you schal falle in to a pit", Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540 - "which of you shall haue AN ASSE or an oxe fallen into a pytt", Matthew's Bible 1549, the Bishops’ Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1557-1602, the Douay-Rheims 1582, the KJB 1611, Wesley 1755, Worsley Version 1770, the Revised Version of 1881, and American Standard Version of 1901 - "Which of you shall have AN ASS or an ox fallen into a well", Webster’s 1833, Darby 1890, Young’s 1898, Worrell Version 1904, the Douay Version 1950, J.B. Phillips Translation 1962, the New English Bible 1970, New Berkeley Version 1969, New Life Bible 1969, the Bible in Basic English 1961, the NKJV 1982, KJV 21st Century 1994, the Third Millenium Bible 1998, the Jubilee Bible 2000, and the Apostolic Bible Polyglot Greek 2003, and the American Bible Union Version 2008.


However, the first major English bible to adopt the Vaticanus reading of SON instead of ASS was the liberal RSV in 1952, even though Sinaiticus reads AN ASS and both the RV and the ASV kept that reading too.  This was then followed by the NRSV, NASB, NIV, ESV, Holman Standard, the Message, the Jehovah Witness New World Translation, Common English Bible and Dan Wallace’s NET version.

 

The Living Bible 1971 just flat out OMITTED either "ass" or "son" and said: "If your cow falls into a pit, don’t you proceed at once to get it out?”


As usual, the Catholic versions are in a state of constant change.  The 1582 Douay-Rheims as well as the 1950 Douay read “an ASS or an ox”, but then changed to “A SON or an ox” in the 1969 Jerusalem bible, the 1970 St. Joseph New American Bible and the 1985 New Jerusalem bible.  However in the brand new 2009 The Sacred Bible Catholic Public Domain Version they have once again gone back to read “an ASS or an ox”.


Foreign language Bibles that read ASS


Jerome’s Vulgate 382 A.D., Vulgate 405, Clementine Vulgate 2005 - “vestrum ASINUS aut bos in puteum cadet”


The Western-Saxon Gospels 990 A.D. - "eowres ASSA oððe oxa ", Anglo-Saxon Gospels, mss. 140 circa 1000 A.D, and mss. 38 circa 1200 A.D. - “eowres ASSA odde oxa befealp on anne pytt”

 


The Spanish Evangelio Según San Lucas, Rey de Alfonso X, El Sabio done in 1260 A.D. - "¿Cuyo ASNO o cuyo buey cae en el pozo el dia del sabado, e nol saca ende luego?", Las Sagradas Escrituras 1569, Cipriano de Valera 1602, the Spanish Reina Valera 1909, 1960, 1995, 2011, the Spanish Reina Valera Gomez 2004 - “¿Quién de vosotros, si su ASNO o su buey cae en algún pozo, no lo saca inmediatamente, aunque sea sábado?”

 

 

Italian Diodati 1649, and the Nuevo Diodati 1991 - “Poi, rispondendo loro disse: «Chi di voi se il suo ASINO o bue cade in un pozzo, non lo tira subito fuori in giorno di sabato?”


Portuguese A Sagrada Biblia em Portugués, Almeida Corrigida E Fiel, and O Livro 2000 - “Se o vosso JUMENTO (an ass or donkey) ou o vosso boi cair numa cova, não tratam logo de o tirar? “


French - La Bible de Geneva 1669, French Martin 1744, and the French Ostervald 1996 - Puis il leur dit: Qui de vous, si son ANE  (ASS) ou son bœuf tombe dans un puits, ne l'en retire aussitôt le jour de sabbat?”


German Luther 1545, Schlachter 2000 - “Und antwortete und sprach zu ihnen: Welcher ist unter euch, dem sein Ochse oder ESEL (an ASS) in den Brunnen fällt, und er nicht alsbald ihn herauszieht am Sabbattage?”


Russian Synodal Version, Chinese Union Traditional bible, Hungarian Karoli Bible - "Ki az közületek, a kinek szamara vagy ökre a kútba esik" = "having a donkey or an ox fallen into a pit", the Tagalog Ang Dating Biblia 1905 - "asno o isang baking lalake", and the 2009 Romanian Fidela Bible - "În ziua sabatului, care dintre voi dacă îi cade un măgar sau un bou într-o groapă nu îl va scoate imediat?"

 

John Gill comments on Luke 14:5 - " which of you shall have an ass, or an ox fallen into a pit, and will not straightway pull him out on the sabbath day? being just ready to be drowned there; and therefore it must be much more right and necessary to cure a man, a reasonable creature, just drowning with a dropsy, as this man was. The Syriac and Persic versions, instead of "an ass", read "a son", very wrongly: a like kind of reasoning is used by Christ, in Matthew 12:11, Luke 13:15."


What we see once again is the total confusion of the modern versionists, and their so called “oldest and best manusripts” (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus) differ from each other thousands of times, and the “scholars” who put together today’s conflicting Bible of the Month Club versions keep changing their minds with practically every new version to come down the pike.


Stick with the time tested King James Bible and you will never go wrong.  

 

Luke 16:12 and 15 and the Vatican manuscript  

 

In Luke 16:12 we read: "And if ye have not been faithful in that which is another man's, who shall give you that which is YOUR OWN?" -τὸ μέτερον

 

This is the reading found in the Majority of all manuscripts as well as P75, Sinaiticus, A, D, the Old Latin, Syriac, Gothic, Armenian, Georgian and Slavonic ancient versions.  It is so quoted by numerous early church writers.  However the Vatican manuscript (one of the so called "oldest and best manuscripts" upon which most modern versions are based) standing virtually all by itself actually says - "And if ye have not been faithful in that which is another man's, who shall give you that which is OURS?" -  τὸ μέτερον

 

 Westcott and Hort were so enamored with the Vatican manuscript, that they actually put this reading in their new Greek text.  However nobody followed it. Not even the Revised Version of 1881 or the ASV of 1901. They both stuck with the Traditional reading of "who shall give you that which is YOUR OWN?". In fact, so did everybody else. I have not seen a bible version yet that follows the Vaticanus reading of "who will give to you that which is OURS", as Westcott and Hort erroneously believed was the best reading here, not even the Catholic versions or the NET,NIV, NASB, ESV, RSV.  The closest thing to it I am aware of is the Catholic New Jerusalem bible of 1985 which in the text reads: "who will give you what is YOUR VERY OWN?", but then it footnotes: VARIANT - "OUR VERY OWN". They've got to at least create doubt in your mind, right?

Nobody has followed this corrupt reading in the so called "oldest and best".  Luke 16:15 "And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight OF GOD."

"in the sight OF GOD" -ἐνώπιον τοῦ θεοῦ - is the reading found in every known manuscript to man except the Vatican manuscript. It alone differs from all others and says "in the sight OF THE LORD". -  ἐνώπιον κυρίου. But nobody followed this Vaticanus reading, not even Westcott and Hort.  This in itself can be considered a minor variation, but throughout both the Vaticanus and Sinaitic manuscripts, upon which most modern versions are based, we find literally THOUSANDS of variant readings, and both Vaticanus and Sinaiticus differ even between themselves in over 3000 significant ways in just the 4 gospels alone.

 

 Luke 20:23 "Why tempt ye me?"

 

Luke 20:23 KJB - "But he perceived their craftiness, and said unto them, WHY TEMPT YE ME?"

 

ESV, NIV, NASB - "But he perceived their craftiness, and said to them,"

 

The reading of "Why tempt ye me?" - "Τί με πειράζετε;" - is that found in the Majority of all Greek manuscripts including A, C, D and many other uncial copies, the Old Latin and the Syriac ancient versions.  However Sinaiticus and Vaticanus omit these words.

 

Yet Sinaiticus and Vaticanus do not agree with each other several times in just this one chapter.

 

 For example, in Luke 20:14 "This is the heir: COME, let us kill him." the word "COME" -  δεῦτε 


- is found in the Majority of all texts including Sinaiticus, but Vaticanus omits it.  In Luke 20:19 we read of "the chief priests and the scribes" in the Majority and in Sinaiticus, but Vaticanus reverses the order of words and has "the scribes and the chief priests", and in Luke 20:28 Sinaiticus original omitted all these words: "and he die without children, that his brother should take his wife", but they are found in the Majority and Vaticanus.

Among the Catholic versions the words "Why tempt ye me?" are found in the Douay-Rheims bible of 1582 and the Douay of 1950. But then in 1968 in the Jerusalem bible, and again in the 1970 St. Joseph NAB and the 1985 New Jerusalem bible they omitted these words. But now in the 2009 Catholic Public Domain Version they have put them back in again - " But realizing their deceitfulness, he said to them: “WHY DO YOU TEST ME?"

 

Modern versions that omit the words "Why tempt ye me?" are the ASV, RSV, ESV, NIV, NASB, NET, Holman and the Jehovah Witness New World Translation. 

 

The reading at the end of this verse "Why tempt ye me?" is found in the Anglo Saxon Gospels of 900 A.D. and 1200 A.D. - " Hwi fandige mín;", Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549, the Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, Mace N.T. 1729, Wesley N.T. 1755, Etheridge 1849, Murdock 1852 and Lamsa's 1933 translations of the Syriac Peshitta, Darby 1890, Young's 1898, Godbey Translation 1902, the Aramaic Bible in Plain English - " “Why are you testing me?”, NKJV 1982, the Third Millennium Bible 1998 and the Jubilee Bible 2000.

 

Foreign language bibles that include the words "Why tempt ye me?" are the Spanish Evangelio Según San Lucas Rey Alfonso X El Sabio of 1250 A.D. (this is really old Spanish) - "El, entendiendo el enganno dellos, dixo les: ¿Por que me temptades ?", las Sagradas Escrituras, Cipriano do Valera 1602, the Reina Valera 1909 - 1995 - "¿Por qué me tentáis?", the Portuguese Almeida Corregida E Fiel and A Biblia Sagrada em Portugués - " Porque me tentais?",Russian Synodal Bible - "что вы Меня искушаете?", Romanian Cornilescu and 2009 Fidela Bible - "Pentru ce Mă ispitiţi?",  Tagalog Ang Dating Biblia 1905 - " at sinabi sa manila", the French Martin 1744, Ostervald 1996 and French Louis Segond 2007 - " pourquoi me tentez-vous?", Luther's German Bible 1545 and German Schlachter Bible 2000 - "Was versucht ihr mich?", Dutch Staten Vertaling, and the Italian Diodati 1649 and Nuova Diodati 1991 - "Perché mi tentate?", the Afrikaans Bible 1953 - "Waarom versoek julle My?", the Hungarian Karoli Bible - "Mit kísértetek engem?, the Modern Greek Bible - "Τι με πειραζετε; and the Modern Hebrew Bible - "מה תנסוני"  

 

If you want a whole Bible with ALL the words God inspired to be in His Book, then get yourself the Authorized King James Holy Bible.  Accept no substitutes.

 


Luke 22:43-44 - "And there appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him. 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." 

 

The total hypocrisy of the modern versions is shown by how they deal with these two verses. They are found in the Majority of all texts including D, E, F, G, H, K, L, Q, X, Delta, Theta, Psi,  the Old Latin copies a, aur, b, c, d, e, ff2, i, l, q, r1, the Latin Vulgate, the Syriac Peshitta, Curetonian, Harkelian, Palestinian, Armenian, Slavonic and Ethiopic ancient versions.  They are also found in the Greek Diatessaron 170 A.D., and quoted by such early church writers as Justin, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Origen, Arius, Eusebian, Hilary, Gregory-Nazianzus, Epiphanius, Chrysostom, Theodore, Augustine, Nestorius, Theodoret, and John-Damascus.   

 

This evidence alone should tell us about how “reliable” the Vatican manuscript (upon which most modern versions heavily rely)  really is.

 

Even Alford’s 1870 New Testament contains the verses. He then footnotes: “Verses 43, 44 are not found in some of the oldest manuscripts; but they are contained in the greater number, and in the earliest versions, and are quoted by the primitive Fathers, Justin, Irenaus, and Hippolytus.”

 

However, Vaticanus omits all these words, and so do P75, A, N, T, W, the Coptic Sahidic, Armenian and Georgian ancient versions.  Sinaiticus original contained all these words; then a scribe omitted them, and then another scribe put them back in again!  

 

Westcott and Hort put [[double brackets]] around them indicating strong doubt as to their authenticity and that is how they appear in today’s Nestle-Aland/UBS Critical Greek texts.

 

Even though Vaticanus omits all these words, and the modern versions like the NASB, NIV, ESV omit thousands of words because of the Vaticanus readings, yet the NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV, ISV and Holman continue to include these two verses in their versions.

 

Daniel Wallace's NET version also includes them [in brackets], but reveals the mindset of many scholars today in his footnotes. Mr. Wallace tells us: "Arguments can be given on both sides about whether scribes would tend to include or omit such comments about Jesus’ humanity and an angel’s help. But even if the verses are NOT LITERALLY AUTHENTIC, they are PROBABLY HISTORICALLY AUTHENTIC...Nevertheless, because of the SERIOUS DOUBTS as to these verses’ authenticity, they have been put in brackets."

 

So, in other words, even though God may not have inspired them, and they were later added by mere human hands, it may be OK to keep them in our bibles, but we should continue to call them into question!!! Do you see how these guys think? 

 

Some bible versions actually omitted both verses from the text, while others [put them in brackets] indicating doubt as to their authenticity. 

 

OMIT BOTH VERSES from the Text

 

Versions that omit both these verses are - Rotherham’s Emphasized bible 1902 (completely gone), Godspeed’s New Testament 1923 (a critical text version), The Revised Standard Version 1946, 1952 1973 (Some editions have the verses and others omit them both - the online editions omit them), William’s N.T. 1972, and The Christogenea New Testament 2009

 

[BRACKETS indicating doubt]

 

Versions that put them in [brackets] are Moffatt N.T. 1913,  Twentieth Century N.T. 1904, Montgomery N.T. 1924,  the NRSV 1989, the Holman Standard 2009, The Voice 2112.  

 

The ESV footnotes them saying “Some manuscripts omit verses 43 and 44.”

 

The NIV footnotes: “Many early manuscripts do not have verses 43 and 44.”

 

 

Luke 23:34 - "THEN SAID JESUS, FATHER, FORGIVE THEM; FOR THEY KNOW NOT WHAT THEY DO.  And they parted his raiment, and cast lots."

This is the reading found in the Majority of all Greek manuscripts as well as Sinaiticus original and Sinaiticus 2nd correction, A, C, D correction, E, F, G, H, K, L, M, Q, S, U, V, X, Gamma, Delta, Lambda, Pi, Psi, the Old Latin copies air, b, c, e, f, ff2, l, r1, the Latin Vulgate, the Syriac Peshitta, Curetonian, Harclean, Palestinian, some Coptic Boharic and Sahidic copies and well as the ancient Armenian and Ethiopian versions.  The whole sentence was originally in the Sinaitic mss.  Then some scribe removed it, and then another scribe put the words back in the text.

However Vaticanus omits all the capital lettered words "Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do." But it has the rest of the verse - "And they parted his raiment, and cast lots."

Every Bible version I am aware of includes these words in Luke 23:44 but the NRSV 1989 puts them in [[double brackets]] and the Holman Standard [brackets the words] to indicate doubt as to their authenticity. The latest Nestle-Aland 28th edition and the UBS 4th edition critical texts both [[put the words in double brackets]] indicating serious doubt as to their authenticity.  So they may very well disappear from the up and coming "late$t in $cholar$hip Advance$ in the future.  Meanwhile the RSV, ESV and NIV all cast doubt as to whether or not they are God's inspired words by footnoting: "Some early manuscripts do not have this sentence."

 We see the same pattern among the Catholic versions. The earlier Douay-Rheims 1582 and the 1950 Douay and even the 1968 Jerusalem bible all include the words with NO footnotes. But then the 1970 St. Joseph NAB and the New Jerusalem bible 1985 [bracket] the words (St. Joseph) and footnote (New Jerusalem) "This verse is retained despite its omission by some good and diverse ancient authorities."

Dan Wallace's NET version also includes the words but he has these mind numbing, typical Bible agnostic mumblings that cast doubt on whether or not these words are inspired Scripture or not. He says: "Many important mss (Ì75 א1 B D* W Θ 070 579 1241 pc sys sa) lack v. 34a. It is included in א*,2(A) C D2 L Ψ 0250 Ë1,(13) 33 Ï lat syc,p,h. It also fits a major Lukan theme of forgiving the enemies (6:27-36), and it has a parallel in Stephen’s response in Acts 7:60. The lack of parallels in the other Gospels argues also for inclusion here. On the other hand, the fact of the parallel in Acts 7:60 may well have prompted early scribes to insert the saying in Luke’s Gospel alone. Further, there is the great difficulty of explaining why early and diverse witnesses lack the saying. A decision is difficult, but even those who regard the verse as inauthentic literarily often consider it to be authentic historically. For this reason it has been placed in single brackets in the translation."

In other words, maybe it is, maybe it isn't; "a decision is difficult",  it might be "literally inauthentic" but it is "historically authentic" - Say what?  As long as they can cast doubt with their "Yea, hath God said...?" footnotes, the Jesuits have accomplished their goal of overthrowing the final authority of God's words.

 

Numerous early church writers made allusion to this verse -

 

Archelaus Acts of the Disputation with the Heresiarch Manes: and here, our Lord Jesus prayed that the Pharisees might be pardoned, when He said, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do."[531]

 

Clementine Homily XI: prayed to the Father that the sin of those who slew Him might be forgiven, saying, `Father, forgive them their sins, for they know not what they do.'[8]

Constitutions of the Holy Apostles Book II: For our Saviour Himself entreated His Father for those who had sinned, as it is written in the Gospel: "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do."[88]

 

Constitutions of the Holy Apostles Book V: And a little afterward, when He had cried with a loud voice, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do,"[114]

 

Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians: but prayed for His enemies, "Father, forgive them; they know not what they do."[82]

 

Gospel of Nicodemus I The Acts of Pilate: Then Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying: Father, let not this sin stand against them; for they know not what they do.[106]

 

Irenaeus Against Heresies Book III: And from this fact, that He exclaimed upon the cross, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do,"[348]

 

Of the Journeyings of Philip the Apostle: was made to drink gall and vinegar, and said, Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.[14]

Recognitions of Clement VI: Wherefore, in short, the Master Himself, when He was being led to the cross by those who knew Him not, prayed the Father for His murderers, and said, `Father, forgive their sin, for they know not what they do!'[7]  

All these words are found in the Latin Vulgate 405 A.D., the Anglo-Saxon Gospels Corpus Christi mss. Aelfric circa 1000 A.D. - " Ða cwæð se hælend. fæder. forgyf him forþam hig nyton hwæt hig doð; Soðlice hig dældon hys reaf & wurpun hlótu." Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549, the Bishops' Bibld 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, the Douay Rheims 1610, and in the more modern versions like the RV, ASV, NASB (ft.), RSV, [[NRSV]], ESV (ft.), NIV (ft.), Holman (ft.), NKJV, the Modern Greek Bible with NO brackets - " Ο δε Ιησους ελεγε· Πατερ, συγχωρησον αυτους· διοτι δεν εξευρουσι τι πραττουσι. Διαμεριζομενοι δε τα ιματια αυτου, εβαλον κληρον.- ", the Orthodox Jewish Bible and the Modern Hebrew Bible (again, with NO brackets) - "ויאמר ישוע אבי סלח להם כי לא ידעו מה הם עשים ויחלקו בגדיו להם ויפילו גורל׃"

 

"He that hath ears to hear, let him hear."  Luke 8:8

 

 

 

John 4:1-3 and the ever changing NIVs and UBS Greek texts -

A rather peculiar case of senseless and arbitrary textual changes is found in John 4:1-3. In the King James Bible, as well as the Majority of all texts including Vaticanus, P66, P75, A  and C we read: 1. “When therefore THE LORD (ho kurios) knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John, 2. (Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples,) 3. He left Judea, and departed again into Galilee.”


The reading of “the Lord” was even in the Westcott-Hort Greek text and in the earlier critical text Nestle-Aland editions. I have a 4th edition Nestle text from 1934 and it reads “the Lord”.  However Sinaiticus and D read “Jesus” instead of “the LORD” and later on the Nestle-Aland, USB critical texts changed their reading to “JESUS knew how the Pharisees had heard...” That is how the Nestle-Aland 27th edition and the UBS 4th edition now read.

This is an example of modern scholarship rejecting even their “oldest” manuscripts and following instead a very minority reading.  But wait. There is much more going on here when we compare the various NIV editions to come down the pike lately and how the Catholic bible versions are exerting their influence by producing an “interconfessional” New Testament text through the United Bible Society.


Those Bible translations that read “the LORD knew...” are Tyndale 1525, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew’s Bible 1549, the Bishops’ Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, the Revised Version 1885, the ASV of 1901, the RSV, NASB, NKJV, Darby, Youngs, Rotherham’s Emphasized bible and the NIV editions of 1973, 1977 and 1984, although quite curiously they put this whole reading in verse 3 instead of verse 1.

 The NIVs from 1973, 77 and 84 read: 1. “The Pharisees heard that Jesus was gaining and baptizing more disciples than John, 2. although in fact it was not Jesus who baptized, but his disciples. 3. WHEN THE LORD LEARNED OF THIS {all taken from verse 1 in ALL Greek manuscripts; not one of them reads like the NIV has it} he left Judea and went back once more to Galilee.”

However the “new” NIV of 2011 now has changed their underlying Greek text once again. Instead of having the words “When the LORD learned of this” in verse 3 as all previous NIVs read, they have now put these words back into verse one and changed “the LORD” to “JESUS”.  It now reads: 1. “Now JESUS learned that the Pharisees had heard that he was gaining and baptizing more disciples than John -”

Those versions that read “JESUS knew that...” (instead of “the LORD knew that...”) are the NRSV, ESV, NET, NIV 2011 and the Catholic versions like the Douay, the St. Joseph New American bible 1970 and the New Jerusalem bible of 1985.

Once again we see the fickle and ever changing nature of the so called “science” of textual criticism at work and these Bible Babble Buffet versions don’t even agree among themselves. 
 

John 5:44 - "How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from GOD ONLY?"

NKJV, NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV - "How can you believe, who receive honor from one another, and do not seek the honor that comes from THE ONLY GOD?"

Besides mistranslating the verse, the so called “oldest and best mss.” - P66, P75 and Vaticanus omit the word GOD.  But the versions retain the word anyway and it is found in Sinaiticus, A, D and the Majority of all Greek manuscripts.

See John 5:44 “the honour that cometh from God only?”

http://brandplucked.webs.com/john544godonly.htm

Did Jesus lie?  John 7:8-10
NKJV, NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV - "How can you believe, who receive honor from one another, and do not seek the honor that comes from THE ONLY GOD?"
Besides mistranslating the verse, the so called “oldest and best mss.” - P66, P75 and Vaticanus omit the word GOD.  But the versions retain the word anyway and it is found in Sinaiticus, A, D and the Majority of all Greek manuscripts.

See John 5:44 “the honour that cometh from God only?”

http://brandplucked.webs.com/john544godonly.htm


 John 5:44 - "How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from GOD ONLY?"
NKJV, NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV - "How can you believe, who receive honor from one another, and do not seek the honor that comes from THE ONLY GOD?"
Besides mistranslating the verse, the so called “oldest and best mss.” - P66, P75 and Vaticanus omit the word GOD.  But the versions retain the word anyway and it is found in Sinaiticus, A, D and the Majority of all Greek manuscripts.

See John 5:44 “the honour that cometh from God only?”

http://brandplucked.webs.com/john544godonly.htm

John 7:8-10 Here we read of Jesus telling his brethren to go up unto a feast and He says: "I go NOT up YET unto this feast; for my time is not yet full come. When he had said these words unto them, he abode still in Gallilee. But when his brethren were gone up, then went he also up unto the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret." He did in fact go up to the feast.

Vaticanus, as well as P66, 75, and the majority of all texts read as does the KJB with: "I go not up YET unto this feast", and so do the Revised Version 1881, Geneva, Tyndale, Bishops', Coverdale, the NIV 1982 edition,  Holman Standard 2003, the 2005 ISV (International Standard Version), Young, Weymouth, Rotherham's Emphasized Bible 1902.

However Sinaiticus says: "I DO NOT GO to this feast", and so do the NASB, ASV, RSV, ESV and Wallace's NET version thus making our Lord a liar. The fickle nature of this so called "science" is also seen in that Westcott and Hort originally read "NOT YET" and so did the previous Nestle-Aland critical texts up until a few years ago. But the more recent ones have "scientifically" changed to now read "I do NOT go to this feast."  And now the "new" NIV of 2011 has once again changed their underlying Greek texts and they now read "I AM NOT GOING up to this festival" and then He goes.  The Catholic bibles read this way too, making Jesus a liar. These are the Catholic Douay-Rheims, the St. Joseph New American bible 1970 and the New Jerusalem bible 1985.

Daniel Wallace's NET version has the Lord saying He is NOT going to the feast, and then going. But the thinking of such "scholars" is revealed in his own footnotes where he says: " Most mss (P66,75 B L T W 070 0105 0250 Ë1,13 Ï sa), including most of the better witnesses, have “not yet” here. Those with the reading "not" (ouk) are not as impressive ( D K 1241 al lat), but "ouk" is the more difficult reading here, especially because it stands in tension with v. 10." So, in other words, because it absurdly makes our Lord Jesus a liar, it must be right!

Wilbur Pickering, who himself is not even a KJB onlyist, comments on this blunder: Serious Anomalies/Aberrations -John 7:8 oupw--P66, 75, B, E, F, G, H, L, N, T, W, X, D, Q, Y, 070, 0105, 0141, 0250, f1, 13, Byz, Lect, syr. p, h, pal, "NOT YET" ; ouk --À,D,K,P,lat,syr.s,c,cobo "NOT" Problem: Since Jesus did in fact go to the feast (and doubtless knew what He was going to do), the UBS text has the effect of ascribing a falsehood to Him.

Discussion: Since the UBS editors usually attach the highest value to P75 and B, isn't it strange that they reject them in this case? Here is Metzger's explanation: "The reading ["not yet"] was introduced at an early date (it is attested by P66, 75) in order to alleviate the inconsistency between ver. 8 and ver. 10" (p. 216). So, they rejected P66,75 and B (as well as 99% of the MSS) because they preferred the "inconsistency". NASB, RSV, NEB and TEV stay with the eclectic text here. (end of comments by Dr. Pickering.)

Also in just these three verses we see that the word “this” of THIS FEAST is omitted by B but found in Aleph, but the NASB and NIV both omit the word, while "UNTO THEM" is in the NASB and B, but not in the NIV or Aleph, and "AS IT WERE" is in B and the NASB, but not in Aleph and the NIV. This is the character of these two manuscripts and bible versions in a nutshell.

John 8:16 - "And if I judge, my judgment is true: for I am not alone, but I and THE FATHER that sent me."

The purpose of this little study is not so much to point out a huge difference in the meaning of the text, but rather to expose the fickleness upon which the so called "science of textual criticism" is based. This is just one of a hundred typical examples found in the New Testament.

There is a very definite textual difference in the reading of this verse. The words "the Father" are found in the vast Majority of all Greek texts as well as in P39, 66 and 75, and in the Sinaiticus correction, Vaticanus, many Old Latin copies, as well as the ancient versions like the Syriac Peshitta, Harkelian, Palestinian, Coptic Boharic and Sahidic, Armenian, Ethiopian, Georgian, Latin Vulgate and Slavonic. So one would naturally think that there should be absolutely no doubt about the inclusion of the words "the Father" in this text.

However, Sinaiticus original (which was later corrected to include the words) as well as manuscript D (well known for its numerous oddities) omit the words "the Father" and so do a number of modern versions. 

The interesting thing is that the Nestle-Aland critical texts keep on changing every few years and so does the NASB, which is based upon them.

When Westcott and Hort came out with their new critical text, they originally put the Greek words for "the Father" [in brackets], indicating doubt about their inspiration.  Tischendorf completely omitted the word from his Greek text.

 

Then in many later editions of the Nestle-Aland critical texts, they completely omitted the words "the Father" from their text. I have hard copies of the Nestle Greek text 4th edition 1934 and the Nestle Greek text 21st edition 1975.  In both of these the word for "FATHER" (πατήρ) is completely omitted. It is not even in [brackets]

BUT now, based upon the same evidence they have ALWAYS had, the critical text "scholars" have put the words "the Father" back into the UBS/Nestle-Aland 27th edition text, and this time not even in brackets. That makes for THREE changes in the critical text editions over the years concerning just one word in the Greek - Father - pater. (πατήρ)

The words "but I and THE FATHER that sent me" are found in the following Bible translations: Wycliffe 1395, Coverdale 1535, Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, the KJB, Douay, Darby, Youngs, the Revised Version of 1881 (though WH bracketed the words, the RV included them in their version), the ASV of 1901, the "Rock of Biblical Honesty" [What a joke!] of the NASB, the NKJV, NIV, NRSV 1989, and the ESV of 2001.

As for foreign language Bibles, the words "the Father" are found in Luther's German, the French Louis Segond, Martin, and Ostervald, the Spanish Reina Valera, the Portuguese Almeida and the Italian Diodati, just to name a few.

However, the NASB omitted the words "the Father" from all 8 of their revisions dating from 1963 till 1977. For all those years the NASB read: "for I am not alone in it, but I and HE WHO sent Me". 

In other words, the NASB "scholars", in spite of all the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, omitted the word "Father" and followed the reading of manuscript D in this place. But wait! Now once again in 1995 the NASB has changed and it now includes the word. The 1995 edition of the NASB now reads: "but I and THE FATHER who sent Me."

Other bible versions that omit the words "the Father" and read things like "the One who" or "he who sent me" are the Revised Standard Version (but the later NRSV, and ESV put the words "the Father" back in), the Revised English Bible of 1989, the New English Bible of 1970, the Catholic versions of New American bible 1970, the Jerusalem bible 1969 and the New Jerusalem bible 1985, the New Berkeley version, The Voice 2012, and ISV 2014 - International Standard Version. 

These guys just can't seem to get their act together, can they.

This one example serves to illustrate the fickle and ever-changing nature of what the Bible Agnostics like to call the "science" of textual criticism.

John 8:38-39 "I speak that which I have seen with MY Father; and ye do that which ye have SEEN with YOUR father. They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye WERE Abraham's children, YE WOULD DO the works of Abraham."

There are two spiritual families. The children of God and the children of the devil. In John 8:44 the Lord Jesus tells these same Pharisees: "Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do."

The readings found in the King James Bible in verses 38-39 are those of the Majority of all Greek texts, and those found in Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, The Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549, the Bishops' Bible 1568, Geneva Bible 1599, King James Bible, the NKJV 1982, Noyes Translation 1869, Darby 1890, Young's 1898, the ASV 1901, Green's Modern KJV, Hebrew Names Bible, the Spanish Reina Valera and Lamsa's 1936 translation of the Syriac Peshitta.

However the so called "oldest and best" manuscripts upon which most modern versions are based are in continual disagreement among themselves and so are the modern versions based on them.

"I speak that which I have seen with MY Father" is the reading of the Majority of all texts including Sinaiticus, E, F, G, H, K, N, Delta, Theta, Psi, the Old Latin a, aur, e, f, ff2, the Syriac Peshitta, Palestinian, Herculean, the Gothic, Armenian, Georgian and Slavonic ancient versions. It is also in the Diatessaron and is so quoted by Tertullian and Augustine.

However Vaticanus, along with P66 and P75, omits "MY" (μου) and reads "THE" Father (τῷ).

"Ye do that which YE HAVE SEEN" (heoorake -ἑωράκατε) is the Majority reading plus that of P66 and Sinaiticus. However Vaticanus reads: "you DO that which you HAVE HEARD" (eekousate -ἠκούσατε), while P75 says "you SPEAK ( laleite -λαλεῖτε) what you have heard"

"that which ye have seen with YOUR father" (humoon- ὑμῶν) is the Majority reading plus Sinaiticus, D, E, F, G, H, N, Delta, Psi, the Old Latin a, aur, b, c, e, ff2, l, q, the Syriac Peshitta, Sinaitic, Palestinian, Herculean, Ethiopian and Slavonic ancient versions but Vaticanus reads "THE father" (tou).

 

John 8:39 - "IF YE WERE Abraham's seed, YE WOULD DO the works of Abraham." 

The words "if YE WERE" (Εἰ ἦτε) are in the subjunctive mood in the Majority and C texts, and this means that they are NOT Abraham's seed. It is a contrary to fact construction. It's like the song - "IF I WERE a rich man..." But I'm not.

However Sinaiticus and Vaticanus read in the indicative mood "If YOU ARE Abraham's children" (ei este). This means that they could be his children.

Then in the second part of this verse the words "YE WOULD DO" (epoiete) again implies "contrary to fact" and agree with the previous verb in the subjunctive mood. So read the Majority, P75 and Sinaiticus, plus the Vaticanus correction. 

However Vaticanus original and P66 read "YOU DO" (poiete) in the indicative mood, and make it a command "DO". The older Westcott-Hort, Nestle-Aland texts used to read "DO" (poieite - ποιεῖτε). I have hard copies of the Nestle 4th edition 1934 and the 21st edition 1975 and both clearly say DO ποιεῖτε.  This is the reading of P66 and Vaticanus original.  

BUT the Majority of all texts as well as the traditional Reformation Bibles, the TR, P75, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus correction read "If ye WERE Abraham's children YE WOULD DO the works of Abraham." ποιεῖτε = ye  would do. This means that they were not doing them, and that is because they were not the true children of Abraham. 

AND NOW the Nestle-Aland, UBS, Vatican Critical text has once again changed their Greek text and in the 27th and 28th editions they now have what the King James Bible had all along - "YOU WOULD DO the works of Abraham" - τὰ ἔργα τοῦ ἀβραὰμ ποιεῖτε

 

MODERN VERSION CONFUSION

The NET version by Daniel Wallace of Dallas Theological Seminary - "I am telling you the things I have seen while with THE Father; as for you, PRACTICE the things you have HEARD from THE Father!" They answered him, (omits "and said") "Abraham is our father!" Jesus replied, (omits "unto them") "If you ARE Abraham's children, you WOULD BE DOING the deeds of Abraham."

ASV - "I speak the things which I have seen with MY Father, and ye also do the things which ye HEARD from your father. They answered and said unto him, Our father is Abraham. Jesus saith unto them, IF YE WERE Abraham's children, YE WOULD DO the works of Abraham."  

Even though Westcott-Hort did NOT read this way in verse 39, yet the ASV followed the traditional Reformation text here.

NIV - "I am telling you what I have seen in THE Father's presence, and you do what you HAVE HEARD from YOUR father. "Abraham is our father," they answered. "IF YOU WERE Abraham's children," said Jesus, "then YOU WOULD DO the things Abraham did."

NASB - "I speak the things which I have seen with [MY] Father; therefore you also do the things which you HEARD from [YOUR] father." They answered and said to Him, "Abraham is our father." Jesus said to them, "IF YOU ARE Abraham's children, DO the deeds of Abraham."

RSV - "I speak of what I have seen with MY Father, and you do what you have HEARD from YOUR father." They answered him, "Abraham is our father." Jesus said to them, "IF YOU WERE Abraham's children, YOU WOULD DO what Abraham did."

NRSV - "I declare what I have seen in THE Father's presence; as for you, you SHOULD DO what you have HEARD from THE Father." They answered him, "Abraham is our father." Jesus said to them, "IF YOU WERE Abraham's children, you WOULD BE DOING what Abraham did."

ESV - "I speak of what I have seen with MY Father, and you do what you have HEARD from YOUR father." They answered him, "Abraham is our father." Jesus said to them, "IF YOU WERE Abraham's children, YOU WOULD BE DOING what Abraham did."

Holman Standard - "I speak what I have seen in the presence of THE Father, and therefore you do what you have heard from YOUR father." "Our father is Abraham!" they replied."IF YOU WERE Abraham's children," Jesus told them, "YOU WOULD DO what Abraham did."

COMPARISONS

MY Father - KJB, NKJV, ASV, NASB, RSV, ESV - Sinaiticus

THE Father - Catholic St. Joseph, Douay, NET, NIV, NRSV, Holman - Vaticanus

SEEN - KJB, NKJV, Tyndale, Geneva, Youngs, Darby - P66, Sinaiticus

HEARD - NIV, ASV, NASB, RSV, NRSV, ESV, NET, Holman - P75, Vaticanus

YOUR father - KJB, Catholic versions, NKJV, NIV, NASB, RSV, ESV, Holman - Sinaiticus

THE Father - NRSV, NET version (Daniel Wallace)- Vaticanus

IF YE WERE...YE WOULD DO --- Contrary to fact. They are not Abrahams seed. - KJB, NKJV, ASV, Catholic St. Joseph, NIV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, Holman - "ye would do" -Sinaiticus

IF YOU ARE....DO --- Not contrary to fact. They are or could be Abraham's children, so they should do. - Catholic Douay, NASB - "do" - Vaticanus  

The Catholic Connection 

We see the typical total confusion in the ever changing Catholic versions as well. I will compare two of them so you can plainly see it.  

The Catholic Douay Version 1950 reads in John 8:38-39 - "I speak what I have seen with THE Father; and you do what you have SEEN with your father."  They answered and said to him, "Abraham is our father."  Jesus said to them, "IF YOU ARE the children of Abraham, DO the works of Abraham." 

But the 1970 Catholic St. Joseph New American Bible reads: "I tell you what I have seen in THE Father's presence; you do what you have HEARD from your father."  They retorted, "Our father is Abraham." Jesus told them, "IF YOU WERE Abraham's children, YOU WOULD BE following Abraham's example."  

What we see here with this so called "science" of textual criticism, is that the so called "oldest and best manuscripts" are in constant disagreement with each other, and the textual "scholars" behind the ever changing UBS/Nestle-Aland/Vatican critical text are constantly changing their texts. And these textual changes are NOT due to some "further discovery of some ancient manuscripts", but rather to the fickle fact that they just changed their minds!

W. M. Pickering significantly notes that in the space of three years (1975-1978), "with no significant addition of new evidence, THE SAME GROUP OF FIVE SCHOLARS CHANGED THEIR MINDS IN OVER FIVE HUNDRED PLACES. IT IS HARD TO RESIST THE SUSPECION THAT THEY ARE JUST GUESSING." - The Identity of the New Testament Text, revised edition, Thomas Nelson, Nashville, p. 209, footnote 5 for chapter 1.

 

 

John 9:4 KJB - "I must do the works of him that sent ME, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work."

John 9:4 ESV - "WE must work the works of him who sent ME while it is day; night is coming, when no one can work."

The reading of "I" must do the works of him that sent "ME" (ἐμὲ δεῖ... πέμψαντός με) is that found in the Majority of all remaining Greek manuscripts as well as Sinaiticus correction, A, C, E, F, G, H, K, N, Syriac Peshitta, the Armenian, Ethiopic, Georgian and Slavonic ancient translations and the Diatessaron.  It is so quoted by such early church writers as Hilary, Basil, Ambrose, Chrysostom and Augustine.

However Vaticanus differs from both Sinaiticus and P66 and P75.  Vaticanus says "WE must do the works of him that sent ME", but  P66 and P75 say "WE must do the works of him that sent US"! So what we see here is total confusion among the so called "oldest and best".  

The Traditional Reformation Greek text read "I must do the works of him that sent ME" -  Ἐμὲ δεῖ ἐργάζεσθαι τὰ ἔργα τοῦ πέμψαντός με

However Westcott and Hort went with "WE must do the works of him that sent ME" - ἡμᾶς δεῖ ἐργάζεσθαι τὰ ἔργα τοῦ πέμψαντός με", but Tischendorf's Greek text went with "WE must do the works of him that sent US" - ἡμᾶς δεῖ ἐργάζεσθαι τὰ ἔργα τοῦ πέμψαντός ἡμᾶς

 

The Vatican Versions that follow the UBS/Nestle-Aland/Vatican critical Greek text and read "WE must do the works of him that sent ME" are the RSV, ESV, NIV, NASB, NET, Holman, Jehovah Witness New World Translation and the Common English Bible. The Holman Standard has - We[a] must do the works of Him who sent Me[b] while it is day. Night is coming when no one can work." Footnotes: a. John 9:4 Other mss read "I".  b. John 9:4 Other mss read "us".


Agreeing with the reading found in the King James Bible are the Anglo Saxon Gospels 900 A.D - 1200 A.D. - "Me gebyrað to wyrceanne þæs weorc þe me sende ", Wycliffe 1395 - "It bihoueth me to worche the werkis of hym that sente me", Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549 - " I must work the workes of hym that sente me", the Bishops' Bible 1568, the Douay-Rheims Bible 1582, the Geneva Bible 1587 - "I must worke the workes of him that sent me", Mace's N.T. 1729, Wesley's N.T. 1755, Worsley 1770,  Living Oracles 1835, the Etheridge 1849, Murcock 1852 and Lamsa 1933 translations of the Syriac Peshitta - "I must do the works of him that sent ME", the Aramaic Bible in Plain English, Julia Smith Translation 1855, Darby 1890, Youngs 1898, Hebrew Names Version, the NKJV 1982, the KJV 21st Century 1994, Third Millennium Bible 1998, the Jubilee Bible 2010, Apostolic Bible Polyglot Greek Bible 2003, the Emphatic Diaglott N.T., A Conservative Version 2005, Bond Slave Version 2009, the 2009 English Majority Text Version,  the Concordant Literal Version 2009, Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010, Holy Scriptures VW Edition 2010, Conservative Version 2011, New Translation Majority Text by Wilbur Pickering, Work of God's Children Illustrated Bible 2011 and the  World English Bible 2012.  

Numerous foreign language bible follow the Traditional Reformation text and read "I must do the works of him that sent me" are Luther's German Bible 1545 and the 2000 German Schlachter Bible - "Ich muß Wirken die Werke des, der mich gesandt hat", the French Martin 1744, French Ostervald 1996 and the Louis Segond of 2007 - "Il me faut faire les oeuvres de celui qui m'a envoyé, the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569, Cipriano de Valera 1602 and Reina Valera 1909-1995 - " Me es necesario hacer las obras del que me envió", the Italian Diodati 1649, La Nuova Diodati 1991 and the Riveduta of 2006 - "Bisogna che io compia le opere di colui che mi ha mandate",  the Russian Synodal Version - "Мне должно делать дела Пославшего Меня", the Tagalog Ang Dating Biblia 1905 - "Kinakailangan nating gawin ang mga gawa niyaong nagsugo sa akin" , the Afrikaans Bible 1953 - "Ek moet die werke doen van Hom wat My gestuur het", the 2009 Romanian Fidela Bible - "Eu trebuie să lucrez faptele celui ce m-a trimis cât este ziuă", the Modern Greek Bible - "Εγω πρεπει να εργαζωμαι τα εργα του πεμψαντος με" and the Modern Hebrew Bible - עלי לעשות מעשי שלחי בעוד יום יבוא הלילה אשר בו לא יוכל איש לפעל

 

 


The Catholic Connection  

"I must do the works of him that sent ME" is the reading found in the Catholic Douay-Rheims of 1582, the 1950 Douay Version and even the 1968 Jerusalem bible read this way.  However since the new Vatican Versions like the ESV, NIV, NASB and the modern Catholic versions are all based on the same "inter confessional" texts set up by the Vatican, the more modern St. Joseph New American bible 1970 and the New Jerusalem bible of 1985 now read "WE must do the works of him that sent ME."  But they are not done yet. Now the latest 2009 Catholic Public Domain Version and come out and it goes back to " I must work the works of him who sent ME." 

 

 

Tertullian, Against Praxeas - trans by Peter Holmes (1870)

http://www.tertullian.org/anf/anf03/anf03-43.htm

http://books.google.com/books?id=nlcPAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA383

 

"In like manner He declares, in the case of the man born blind, "that He must do the works of the Father which had sent Him; and after He had given the man sight, He said to him, " Dost thou believe in the Son of God?" (ch. xxii)

 

John Gill comments: "I must work the works of him that sent me,.... This shows, that the works of God, that were to be manifest, were to be done by Christ: many were the works which the Father gave him to do, and which he undertook to perform; and therefore there was a necessity of doing them, as principally the work of redemption, by fulfilling the law, and satisfying justice: and besides this, there were the preaching of the Gospel, and doing of miracles, and among these was this of giving sight to the blind, see Isaiah 35:5, both in a natural and spiritual sense: and with a view to this he speaks of the works he mast do." 

 

Jamieson, Faussett and Brown - " I must work the works of him that sent me, &c.—a most interesting statement from the mouth of Christ; intimating, (1) that He had a precise work to do upon earth, with every particular of it arranged and laid out to Him."  

 

John Calvin - "I must work the works of him who hath sent me. He now testifies that he has been sent for the purpose of manifesting the kindness of God in giving sight to the blind man...He therefore employs the word Day to denote the time which the Father had fixed, during which he must finish the work assigned him."  

The King James Bible is right, as always.

John 9:38 - The blind man healed and his response to Jesus. In John 9:38-39 we read: "AND HE SAID, LORD, I BELIEVE. AND HE WORSHIPPED HIM. AND JESUS SAID, For judgment I am come into the world, that they which see might not see; and that they which see might be made blind."

This again is just one more of the multiple examples of where the fickle and contradictory "oldest and best" manuscripts upon which most modern versions like the ever-changing NASB, and others like the NIV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, and Holman Standard are based.

The entire verse and part of the next one read: "And he said, Lord, I believe. And he worshipped him. And Jesus said..." This is the reading found in the Majority of all Greek texts including P66, A, Vaticanus, D, Sinaiticus correction, plus numerous other uncial copies. It is also the reading found in most Old Latin copies, the Syriac Peshitta, Harkelian, Palestinian, Coptic Sahidic, Boharic, Gothic, Armenian, Georgian, Slavonic and Ethiopian ancient versions.

The entire verse is found in every Bible version I have consulted, including the NASB, NIV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, NKJV, and Holman Standard.

However both P75 and Sinaiticus original (it was later corrected to include the verse) omit the entire verse of John 9:38 and part of 9:39. So too do the Diatessaron, and a few of the Old Latin witnesses, though it is included in most of them.

Daniel Wallace's NET version places all these words in brackets, thus casting doubt as to their authenticity. He then footnotes: "Some early and important witnesses lack the words, “He said, ‘Lord, I believe,’ and he worshiped him. Jesus said,” (vv. 38-39a). THIS IS WEIGHTY EVIDENCE FOR THE OMISSION OF THESE WORDS. " (Caps are mine). He then continues: "It is difficult to overstate the value of P75 here, since it is the only currently available papyrus ms. extant for the text of John 9:38-39." (Note: this is a lie. P66 also exists and it includes the words Daniel Wallace would have us doubt).

He goes on: "Further, Sinaiticus is an important and early Alexandrian witness for the omission." (Note: Then why was it later altered to include the verse?) He continues: "The versional testimony and codex W also give strong support to the omission. Nearly all other mss, however, include these words. The omission may have been occasioned by parablepsis (both vv. 37 and 39 begin with “Jesus said to him”), though it is difficult to account for such an error across such a wide variety of witnesses. On the other hand, the longer reading appears to be motivated by liturgical concerns (so R. E. Brown, John [AB], 1:375), since the verb proskunew, “I worship”) is used in John 4:20-25 of worshiping God, and again with the same sense in 12:20. If these words were authentic here, this would be the only place in John’s Gospel where Jesus is the explicit object of proskunew. Nevertheless, a decision is difficult, and the included words may reflect a very early tradition about the blind man’s response to Jesus."

Daniel Wallace and men like him are willing to overlook all the evidence, and even to lie about it, and then conclude that the whole verse and more "appears to be motivated by liturgical concerns" and "may reflect a very early tradition". In other words, it probably isn't inspired Scripture, but was later added by well meaning men, so let's keep it in our versions, but continue to cast doubt about its authenticity! This is the type of thinking of we find in the men who continue to churn out the ever changing modern versions, none of which any of them believes to be the complete, inspired and inerrant preserved words of the living God.

John 10:17-18 - “Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. No man TAKETH IT from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.”

It is obvious that the Lord had not yet died and He emphatically states that “no man TAKETH IT from me, but I lay it down of myself.”  This is the reading found in the vast majority of all Greek manuscripts including P66, Sinaitic correction, A, D, K, L, W, X and the Majority of all cursive as well as uncial manuscripts. It is the only reading that makes logical sense.

However, believe it or not, the Vatican manuscript B as well as the Sinaitic original (before it was corrected by another scribe) and P45 have the non-nonsensical reading of a past tense verb here and say “No man HAS TAKEN it from me, but I lay it down on my own initiative” and this is how the NASB actually reads. The only other version I am aware of that reads this way is the Jehovah Witness Watchtower version of 1961.

The “science” of textual criticism does it’s usual “change at any moment” routine with this verse.  Westcott and Hort originally adoped the past tense reading from Vaticanus and had “no man TOOK it from me” and so too the previous Nestle-Aland texts (4th edition 1934 and 21st edition 1975) adopted the reading of Vaticanus and said “no man HAS TAKEN it away” = eeren. But later on the same Nestle-Aland text ‘scholars’ (27th edition) and the UBS I and UBS IV editions went back to reading the present tense verb “no man takes it away” = airei.  This is how the present day critical text reads and it is the reading that has always been in the King James Bible.

Agreeing with the King James Bible’s “no man TAKETH it away from me, but I lay it down of myself” are the following Bible translations: Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, the Bishops’s Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, the King James Bible, the Revised Version 1885 (even though Westcott and Hort had “took” the Revision committee did not go with the WH reading), the ASV of 1901 - the predecessor to the NASB . Also agreeing with the reading found in the King James Bible are all Catholic versions including the Douay-Rheims, the Douay, the St. Joseph New American bible 1970 and the New Jerusalem bible of 1985.  After all, this is how the present Nestle-Aland, UBS critical texts now read.  Also in agreement with the KJB reading are Darby, Youngs, Lamsa’s translation of the Syriac Peshitta, the RSV, the NRSV, ESV 2001, the NKJV 1982, the Holman Standard 2003, the NIV 1984 and 2011 editions, Daniel Wallace’s NET versions and the brand new ISV - International Standard Version.

The manuscript tradition is overwhelmingly on the side of the reading found in the King James Bible - “no man TAKETH it away” as opposed to the very minor reading found in the Vatican manuscript B and P45.  Once again, the only versions that seem to follow this non-nonsensical reading are the NASB and the Jehovah Witness New World Translation put out by the Watchtower Society in 1961.

 

Let's examine just SOME of the textual differences between Sinaiticus and Vaticanus in this one chapter of John 10.

 

 

In John 10:4 we read: "And when he putteth forth his SHEEP..."

 

Instead of "his sheep" Vaticanus reads "ALL HIS OWN" (NASB, NIV, ESV, omitting "sheep"), while Sinaiticus simply reads "his own", omitting both ALL and SHEEP.

 

10:7 "Then Jesus said UNTO THEM AGAIN, Verily, verily, I am the door of the sheep." Here Sinaiticus omits AGAIN but has "UNTO THEM", while Vaticanus omits UNTO THEM, but has AGAIN. 

 

10:8 "All that ever came BEFORE ME (pro emou)are thieves and robbers." Here Sinaiticus omits "before me" but it is found in Vaticanus.

 

10:10 "I am come that they may have life." Here Sinaiticus adds ETERNAL life, but no version follows it here.

 

10:12-13 "and the wolf catcheth them, and scattereth THE SHEEP. THE HIRELING FLEETH because he is an hireling." Here both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus omit all the capitalized words, and so do the NASB, NIV, ESV replacing them with made up words like "they" or "he".

 

10:16 "and THERE SHALL BE one fold, and one shepherd." "There shall be" is the singular geneesEtai, and this used to be the Nestle text reading as well as the Majority, P66, A, and Sinaiticus original. It is still the reading of the NIV, ESV. However, the Nestle text has once again changed and now the verb is plural geneesONtai, following Vaticanus, and the NASB says: "and THEY SHALL BE one flock, and one shepherd."

 

10:18 "No man TAKETH IT from me, but I lay it down of myself." So read the majority of texts, P66, A, D, Sinaiticus correction and the newer Nestle text. This is also the reading of the NIV, ESV. The older Nestle texts used to follow Vaticanus and the NASB still does which has the absurd reading of "no man TOOK IT from me, but I lay it down of myself."

 

10:26 "But ye believe not, because ye are not my sheep, AS I SAID UNTO YOU." The words "as I said unto you" refer back to John 8:39-47, and are found in the Majority of all texts, A, D, and P66. But Sinaiticus and Vaticanus omit these words and so do the NASB, NIV, ESV.

 

10:29 "My Father, WHICH GAVE THEM ME, is greater than all." These words are missing from Sinaiticus, but found in Vaticanus.

 

10:38 "that ye may know AND BELIEVE, that the Father is in me, and I in him." Here the majority, A, and Sinaiticus read "that ye may know and BELIEVE", but Vaticanus says "thay you may know AND KNOW, that the Father is in me" and the NASB, NIV, ESV have followed Vaticanus rendering it as "that you may know and UNDERSTAND that the Father is in me..."

 

These are just A FEW of the textual differences in this chapter alone between "the oldest and best manuscripts" that form the ever changing and conflicting texts of the modern bible versions

 

John 13:32 KJB - "IF GOD BE GLORIFIED IN HIM, God shall also glorify him in himself, and shall straightway glorify him."

ASV 1901, RV 1881 - "and God shall glorify him in himself, and straightway shall he glorify him."  

We see both the fickleness of the "science" of textual criticism and the corruptions of the so called "oldest and best manuscripts" in this verse.  The words "IF GOD BE GLORIFIED IN HIM" - εἰ ὁ θεὸς ἐδοξάσθη ἐν αὐτῷ - are omitted in Vaticanus, P66, Sinaiticus original, C original and D.  Westcott and Hort omitted them from their Greek text, but Tischendorf included them in his.  Tregelles put them in [brackets].

Among the various Critical Text versions that omitted the words "If God be glorified in him" are The Revised Version of 1881, the ASV of 1901, Rotherham's Emphasized bible 1902, Weymouth 1902, James Moffatt Translation 1926, Williams N.T. 1937,  Goodspeed N.T. 1943, the Jehovah Witness New World Translation 1961 and 2011 editions and the Living Bible of 1971.

The UBS 28th edition places them in [brackets], thus indicating doubt as to their authenticity, and Dan Wallace (though he includes the words in his NET version) footnotes: "A number of early mss. do not have the words “If God is glorified in him,” while the majority of mss have the clause. Although the mss that omit the words are significantly better witnesses, the omission may have occurred because of an error of sight due to homoioteleuton.  it is difficult to explain how such a wide variety of witnesses would have accidentally deleted this clause, and arguments for intentional deletion are not particularly convincing. NA27 rightly places the words in brackets, indicating doubt as to their authenticity." (Dan Wallace)

 This is the typical Bible Agnostic double-speak jibberish we get from the Vatican version promoters like Dan Wallace. He can't bring himself to admit that it is his so called "oldest and best mss." are actually the ones that are corrupt, and he still ends up creating doubt as to what God REALLY said.  

The NIV likewise footnotes: "Many early manuscripts do not have If God is glorified in him."

The Catholic Versions  The older Douay-Rheims 1582 and the Douay Version of 1950 both read exactly like the King James Bible with no footnotes.  However the 1970 St. Joseph New American bible puts the words in [brackets] indicating doubt as to their authenticity. It says: "[If God has been glorified in him], God will, in turn, glorify him in himself, and will glorify him soon."  Then the New Jerusalem bible of 1985 has the words in the text with no brackets, but it then footnotes to "omit 'If God has been glorified in him.'  Then once again in 2009 the Catholic Public Domain online Version has come out, and it goes back to including all these words and does not have either the brackets or the footnote telling us to omit these words!

 

The words ARE found in the Majority of all Greek manuscripts including Sinaiticus and C corrections, A, E, F, G, H, K, Delta, Psi and in the Syriac Peshitta, Coptic, Gothic, Armenian, Georgian and Slavonic ancient versions.

The words "If God be glorified in him" are included in Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale, Coverdale, Bishops' Bible, the Geneva Bible, the RSV, NRSV, ESV, NASB, NIV, NKJV, ISV and basically every Bible that has ever been printed. But notice that the Revised Version and the ASV both omitted these words (along with Rotherham, Goodspeed, Moffatt, Williams, J.W. version and Living Bible)  but then the RSV and NASB put them back in again.  

This is the true nature of the so called "science of textual criticism" - Fickle and constantly changing, and it is NOT based on any supposed "new discoveries of manuscript readings".  They just keep changing their minds even with the same textual evidence in front of them.

 

John 16 - A few examples. In John 16:9 we read of the Comforter coming into the world to reprove of sin, righteousness and judgment - "Of sin, because they believe NOT on me". However Sinaiticus original says: "Of sin, because they believe on me". Not quite the same, is it? Sinaiticus original also omitted the entire verse of 16:15 -"All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall show it unto you."

In John 16:16 we read: "A little while, and ye shall not see me: and again, a little while, and ye shall see me, BECAUSE I GO TO THE FATHER." These last 6 words are found in the Majority of all texts, A, plus at least 23 other uncials, the Old Latin, Syriac, Gothic, Armenian, and Coptic manuscripts.  All these words are found in the Latin Vulgate 405, Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549, the Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, the NKJV, Darby, Youngs, KJV 21st Century Version 1994, Third Millenium Bible 1998, the Modern Greek Bible used by the Orthodox churches all over the world today, Lamsa's translation of the Syriac, the French Martin 1744, Louis Segond 1910, French Ostervald 1998, the Italian Diodati 1649, Riveduta 1927, New Diodati 1991, Luther's German Bible 1545, and the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569, Reina Valera 1909, 1960, 1995 and the Reina Valera Gomez of 2004.

Among the Catholic versions we see the usual confusion.  The 1582 Douay-Rheims version and the 1950 Douay version include the words in John 16:16 "because I go to the Father", but then the 1968 Jerusalem bible, the 1970 St. Joseph New American Bible and the 1985 New Jerusalem omit these words.  But now once again in 2009 the Catholic Public Domain Version has once again put the words back in the text.  You can see it online here -

http://www.sacredbible.org/catholic/NT-04_John.htm#16 

We see the disciples refer to these words again in the very next verse when they ask: "What is this that he saith unto us, A little while and ye shall not see me: and again, and little while, and ye shall see me: and, BECAUSE I GO TO THE FATHER?"

However both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus omit "Because I go to the Father" in verse 16 and so do the NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV and Holman versions, but yet they include these words in the next verse when the disciples repeat what Jesus had just got done saying. Why would they ask what Jesus had meant by saying "Because I go to the Father", when, according to the NASB, NIV, ESV, He didn't just say it?   Those trying to defend these modern versions tell us that Jesus referred to "I go to my Father" way back in 16:10.  However if you read through all the verses here, the KJB reading makes the most sense.  Jesus just got done saying in 16:16 "A little while, and ye shall see me no more: and again, a little while and ye shall see me, BECAUSE I GO TO THE FATHER."  THEN in the very next verse the apostles ask: "Then said some of his disciples among themselves, What is this that he saith unto us, A little while and ye shall not see me, and again, a little while, and ye shall see me: and Because I go to the Father?" This is what He just got done saying when we include all the words in John 16:16.  Not only this, but Sinaiticus also omits the words "A little while, and ye shall not see me: and again" in John 16:16 itself, but are included in Vaticanus and the modern versions. Keep in mind, that these two manuscripts are "the oldest and the best" upon which most modern versions are based.

We see again the fickleness of modern scholarship in John 16:27. Here we read: "For the Father himself loveth you, because ye have loved me, and have believed that I came out from GOD." The word GOD is found in the Majority of all texts including the Old Latin, and Syriac. Sinaiticus first read GOD, then a scribe changed it to "the Father", and then another one changed it back to "God". Vaticanus reads THE FATHER and so does the NASB, ASV and the RSV. However the "updated" UBS critical text now goes with "I came out from GOD" and so do the NRSV, ESV, NIV and the Holman Standard.

John 17:15- "I pray not that thou shouldest take them OUT OF THE WORLD". Vaticanus says: "I do not pray that you should take them FROM THE EVIL ONE."

 

Acts 7:46 "The GOD of Jacob" or "the HOUSE of Jacob"?  

 

An interesting anomaly that shows the utter inconsistency of the modern Critical Text/Vatican Versions is found in how they deal with the TEXT of Acts 7:46.  

 

In the King James Bible we read: "Who found favor before God, and desired to find a tabernacle for the GOD of Jacob."  

 

Both the text and the immediate context are talking about a dwelling place for GOD, not for His people.

 

The reading "GOD of Jacob" τω θεω ιακωβ is found in the majority of all texts, including Sinaiticus correction, A, C and many ancient versions like the Old Latin ar, c, dem, e, gig, h, p, ph, ro, w, the Syriac Peshitta, harkelian, Coptic Boharic, Sahidic, Ethiopian, Georgian, Slavonic and Armenian.

 

 

 

Yet the Critical text UBS 1-4 editions and the Neslte-Aland editions dating from at least the 4th edition 1934 to the present day 28th edition 2012 all read "the HOUSE of Jacob" in their Greek text. τω οἴκῳ ιακωβ.  These are two very different words; not even close in spelling or meaning.  In spite of the FACT that the UBS/Nestle-Aland/Vatican Critical text reads "the HOUSE of Jacob", yet the vast majority of all Critical text versions chose not to follow this reading, which comes from the Vatican manuscript as well as Sinaiticus original, D and H.

 

 

 

Following the traditional Reformation reading of the "GOD of Jacob" are the Revised Version 1881, ASV 1901, NIV 1973, 1984 and 2011 editions, the NASBs 1963-1995, RSV 1946, 1971 and ESVs 2001 - 2011 editions.

 

But again Vaticanus reads differently and says: "to find a tabernacle for the HOUSE of Jacob." The NASB, even though it reads "God of Jacob", has this footnote: "the earliest mss. read 'house' and not 'God'". Well, if they think this is the closest to the original reading, why not put it in their version?

 

Ah, but wait, the NRSV 1989, the ISV (International Standard Version), Dan Wallace's NET version 2006 have done just that and now read "for the HOUSE of Jacob." Notice that the RSV said "the GOD of Jacob", the the NRSV went with "the HOUSE of Jacob", but then the revision of the revision of the revision - the ESV, went back to "the GOD of Jacob" even though their own UBS/Nestle-Aland Critical text has "HOUSE" in the text!  

 

Yet other Critical Text versions continue to reject the UBS reading of HOUSE and still go with "the GOD of Jacob."  Among these are the Holman Standard 2009 edition, the 2011 Common English Bible and the Lexham English bible 2012.  

 

The reading of "the GOD of Jacob" is that of the traditional Reformation texts and is that found in Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1534, Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549, the Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, RV, ASV, Darby 1890, Young's 1898, the NKJV 1982 as well as the NASB, NIV and ESV.

 

The Catholic Connection

 

The earlier Douay-Rheims 1582 and the 1950 Douay Version both follow the traditional text here and say: "that he might find a dwelling place for the GOD of Jacob". 

 

But now the 1968 Jerusalem bible, the 1970 St. Joseph New American bible and the 1985 New Jerusalem have once again changed their text and now read: "who found favor with God and begged that he might find a dwelling place for THE HOUSE of Jacob."

 

Get yourself the King James Bible and stick with it. Friends don't let friends read fake bible versions that nobody believes are the inerrant words of the living God.

 

Acts 10:19 “three men”, “two men” or just “ some men”?

Further textual confusion both by Westcott-Hort and the two so called “oldest and best” manuscripts is further seen in Acts 10:19. In the King James Bible we read: “While Peter thought on the vision, the Spirit said unto him, Behold, THREE men seek thee.” The three men refers back to verses 10:7-8 where we read that Cornelius “called TWO of his household servants, AND a devout soldier of them that waited on him continually...he sent THEM to Joppa.” Thus there were three men altogether who went to find Peter.

The reading of "THREE men" is again confirmed in chapter eleven verse eleven where Peter is rehearsing the events that previously occurred in chapter ten. There Peter relates: "And, behold, immediately there were THREE men already come unto the house where I was, sent from Caesarea unto me."

THREE men (andres treis) is the reading found in the TR, Stephanus, Beza, Elziever, Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, C, E, many Old Latin copies, Coptic Sahidic, Boharic, Syriac, Georgian, Vulgate and the Ethiopian ancient versions. It is also the reading of Spanish Reina Valera and the Modern Greek N.T.

THREE men is also the reading found in Wycliffe 1395, Bishops’ bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, Revised Version 1881, ASV 1901, RSV, NRSV, ESV, NASB, NKJV, NIV and the Holman Standard.

Quite a few manuscripts completely omit any number here and simply say “Men seek thee”. Among these are D, L, P and a few Old Latin copies. Among those versions that omit any number at all are Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535 and the New English Bible 1970.

However where the real confusion comes in is when we look at the Vaticanus manuscript and the early Westcott-Hort, Nestle Aland critical texts. ONLY the Vaticanus copy reads TWO men (andres duo) and Westcott and Hort as well as the Nestle 4th edition 1934 and the Nestle-Aland 1962 editions read “TWO men seek thee”, all based solely on the Vaticanus mss.

Later on the Nestle-Aland crtical text once again changed their previous reading and the current one now reads “THREE men”, and so too do the NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV and Holman Standard.

There are only two bible translations I have found so far that actually contain the Vaticanus reading of “two men”. One is Rotherham’s 1902 Emphasized bible that says: “Behold, TWO men seek thee.”, and the other one is the Catholic New American Bible St. Joseph 1970 which reads: “There are TWO men in search of you.”

The Catholic versions present us with the usual hodge-podge of confusion, with the previous Douay 1950 correctly reading “three men”, then the 1968 Jerusalem bible came out with the reading “SOME men”. Then in 1970 the St. Joseph NAB 1970 went with the Vaticanus reading of “TWO men”, but now the latest Catholic bible, the New Jerusalem bible of 1985, has come out and it just omits the number altogether and once again reads: “SOME men have come to see you.”

This is the fickle nature of the so called “oldest and best manuscripts” and the men who support them.

Acts 12:25 - The Devil is in the Details

In Acts 12:25 we read: “And Barnabas and Saul returned FROM (ex) Jerusalem, when they had fulfilled their ministry, and took with them John, whose surname was Mark.”

This is the reading found in a multitude of Greek manuscripts and Bible versions including P74, Alexandrinus, the Textus Receptus, the Modern Greek N.T., the Vulgate 425, Wycliffe 1395, the Geneva Bible 1599, the Revised Version 1881, ASV 1901, Weymouth 1902, Lamsa’s translation of the Syriac 1933, Douay 1950, Darby, Young’s 1898, J.B. Phillips 1962, Berkeley Version in Modern English 1969,the NKJV 1982, NASB 1963-1995, RSV 1952, ESV 2001-2011 editions, The Message 2002, Bible in Basic English 1969, New English Bible 1970, Complete Jewish Bible 1998, the NIV 1984 -2011 editions, and Common English Bible (another critical text edition like the ESV, NIV, NASB that does NOT follow the UBS text here), the Orthodox Jewish Bible 2011, and The Voice (another Critical text version" of 2012 - "the time Barnabas and Saul spent in Jerusalem came to an end, and they reported back to Antioch, bringing along John, who was also called Mark."

 

The Names of God Bible 2011 says -" they returned TO Antioch FROM Jerusalem."

 

Foreign language bibles also read "returned FROM Jerusalem" such as the Italian Diodati 1649 and La Nuova Diodati 1991 - "ritornarono di Gerusalemme, Luther's German Bible 1545 and German Schlachter bible 2000 - "Barnabas aber und Saulus kehrten wieder von Jerusalem" = "returned FROM Jerusalem", the French Martin 1744, Louis Segond 1910, Ostervald 1996 - " s'en retournèrent de Jérusalem", the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569, Reina Valera 1602 - 1995 and Reina Valera Gómez 2010 - "Y Bernabé y Saulo volvieron de Jerusalén " and the Portuguese Almeida Bible -  Barnabé e Saulo, havendo terminando aquele serviço, voltaram de Jerusalém, levando consigo a João" the Modern Greek Bible - "Ο δε Βαρναβας και ο Σαυλος υπεστρεψαν εξ Ιερουσαλημ αφου εξεπληρωσαν την διακονιαν αυτων" = "FROM Jerusalem", and the Modern Hebrew Bible - "וישובו בר נבא ושאול מירושלים אחרי כלותם את השמוש"

Clearly the whole context tells us that Barnabas and Paul had already gone TO Jerusalem and had now returned FROM Jerusalem. In Acts 11:29-30 we read: “Then the disciples, every man according to his ability, determined to send relief unto the brethren which dwelt in Judea: Which also they did, and sent it to the elders by the hands of BARNABAS AND SAUL.”

Then in Acts 13:1 we again pick up with both Saul (Paul) and Barnabas already at Antioch, and not in Jerusalem. “Now there were at Antioch certain prophets and teachers: as Barnabas....and Saul.”

However the corrupt manuscripts of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus tell us in Acts 12:25 that both Barnabas and Saul (Paul) now returned TO Jerusalem, even though they had already been there as recorded in Acts 11:29-30, and were now in Antioch along with John Mark as recorded in Acts 13:1-6.


The total fickleness and inconsistency of the modern Critical text is seen in that Westcott and Hort originally went with the erroneous reading of “returned TO Jerusalem” (eis) -

 "Βαρνάβας δὲ καὶ Σαῦλος ὑπέστρεψαν εἰς Ἰερουσαλὴμ"

but then the Nestle text 4th edition 1934 and the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece 1962 and the Nestle Greek text 21st edition 1975 all read “returned FROM Jerusalem (ex) - "ὑπέστρεψαν ἐξ Ἱερουσαλὴμ." There are other variant readings here too. Manuscript D has"ἀπὸ Ἰερουσαλὴμ", which would translated as "from Jerusalem" and Mss. E has "from Jerusalem TO ANTIOCH" - ἐξ Ἰερουσαλὴμ εἰς Ἀντιόχειαν" which nobody followed.


But wait; it gets worse. Now the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum 27-28th editions and the UBS 4th edition have once again rejected the previous Nestle critical text and have gone back to the reading originally adopted by Westcott and Hort that comes from both the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus manuscripts...You know...those "oldest and best" ones that today's Vatican Versions are based on.  

The UBS 4th edition and the Nestle Aland 28th edition once again say: “returned TO (eis) Jerusalem.” - " ὑπέστρεψαν εἰς Ἰερουσαλὴμ"  

Versions that contain this erroneous reading - “returned TO Jerusalem” - and thus contradict the whole context of Acts 11 through 13 are Tyndale 1525 - (one of many reasons why Tyndale was not the perfect English Bible - see http://brandplucked.webs.com/tyntrorkjb.htm ) Coverdale 1535, Bishops’ bible 1568, and in modern times Rotherham’s Emphasized bible 1902, the Catholic St. Joseph New American Bible 1970, Hebrew Names Version, the NRSV 1989, Holman Christian Standard Version 2003, the ISV (International Standard Version 2003), Lexham English bible 2012 and Dan Wallace's NET version. The CEV (Contemporary English Version) 1995 has: "they WENT BACK TO Jerusalem".

Notice that the RSV 1952 and the ESV 2001 both read “FROM Jerusalem” but the NRSV 1989 read “TO Jerusalem”. These three are revisions of each other. Can’t seem to make up their minds, can they?

The Catholic Connection  

As usual we see confusion and change among the Catholic versions. The older Douay-Rheims 1582 and Douay of 1950 both read "returned FROM Jerusalem". But then the 1970 St. Joseph New American Bible changed this to "returned TO Jerusalem." But then the 2009 Catholic Public Domain version has now gone back to "returned FROM Jerusalem."

 Dan Wallace of the NET version chosen to read follow the corrupt reading and says:  - "So Barnabas and Saul returned TO 85 Jerusalem when they had completed their mission, bringing along with them John Mark."

He then gives us these remarkable footnotes: "There are a number of variants at this point in the text: εἰς (eis, “to”) in א B Ï sams syhmg;ἀπό (apo, “from”) in D E Ψ 36 323 453 614 1175 al; ἐξ (ex, “from”) in Ì74 A 33 945 1739 al; ἐξ ᾿Ιερουσαλήμ εἰς ᾿Αντιόχειαν  in a few later manuscripts and part of the Itala. A decision on this problem is very difficult, but for several reasons εἰς can be preferred. It is the most difficult reading by far in light of the context, since Paul and Barnabas were going to Jerusalem in 11:30. It is found in better witnesses, א and B being very strong evidence. ...This problem is so difficult that some scholars resort to conjectural emendation to determine the original reading. All in all, the reading εἰς should be preferred as original, recognizing that there is a good measure of uncertainty with this solution."

In other words, even though his so called oldest and best and "can be preferred" reading of "returned TO Jerusalem" makes absolutely NO sense and contradicts the entire context of chapters 12 and 13, he just can't bring himself to admit that his so called "oldest and best" are actually among the most corrupt manuscripts imaginable.  

The saying is true, if you mess with the Book, God will mess with your mind."  Or as the Bible puts it - "For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. Where is the wise?  where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?"  1 Corinthians 1:19-20

Acts 17:28. An interesting textual blunder is found here in the Vaticanus manuscript, but no version I am aware of has followed this unusual reading. In the context the apostle Paul is speaking to the Athenians and he quotes from their own poets. He says: "For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of YOUR own poets have said, For we are also his offspring."

Clearly the apostle was referring to certain pagan poets and not Jewish writers. The reading of YOUR own poets is that of the majority of all texts, including Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus. However P74 and Vaticanus actually have the Jewish apostle Paul referring to this saying as coming from "certain of OUR poets".

Acts 19:16

In Acts 19 we are told of SEVEN sons of Sceva, who were vagabond Jews, exorcists, which "took upon them to call over them which had evil spirits the name of the Lord Jesus, saying, WE adjure you by Jesus whom Paul preacheth". There are two blunders found here in the "oldest and best" texts of both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, against the majority of all others. The Majority of all texts, as well as the Syriac Peshitta, read as does the KJB with these seven sons saying "WE adjure you by Jesus". The word "we" is obviously plural, and the evil spirit answers in verse 15 "Jesus I know, and Paul I know, but who are YE?". Now, the word "ye" is plural in all texts answering to the plural "we" of "We adjure thee".

However Sinaiticus and Vaticanus both have only one individual saying: "I" adjure you by Jesus, and so read the NASB, NIV, and ESV. Nevertheless, the evil spirit still answers addressing a plural number of persons rather than one individual even in the corrupted Sinaiticus and Vaticanus manuscripts.

The more striking blunder is found in Acts 19:16. There we read: "And the man in whom the evil spirit was leaped on them, and overcame THEM, (autoon) and prevailed against them, so that they fled out of that house naked and wounded." There were seven sons and the spirit leaped on THEM.

The single word "them" is the reading of the majority of all texts. However both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus tell us that the evil spirit "overcame BOTH OF THEM, (amphoteros autwn) and prevailed against them."

The Amplified bible brings out this errant reading and even tries to tell us that it is found “in the best texts”. The Amplified reads: “Then the man in whom the evil spirit dwelt leaped upon them, mastering TWO OF THEM, and was so violent against them that they dashed out of that house in fear, stripped naked and wounded.” Then in a footnote is says: “The best texts read "both of them."

The word for "both" is amphoteros, and always means "both". Yet the word "both" can only refer to the number two, not the SEVEN sons of Sceva. In fact, the NASBs from 1963 through 1972 read "and overcame BOTH OF THEM", and so also do the Revised Version 1881 and ASV 1901.

Not even the RSV, NRSV or ESV followed this bogus reading found in the “oldest and best manuscripts”, though they do mention it in their footnotes. The RSV and ESV read “mastered ALL of them”, but then footnote: “Or BOTH of them.” Even to this day the ever changing Nestle-Aland critical Greek text used in making up most modern versions still reads “overcame BOTH of them”.

Finally, after several years and numerous editions, it apparently occured to the NASB scholars that there was a clear blunder in their "oldest and most reliable texts", so in 1977 and again in 1995 the NASB changed their versions to read that the evil spirit overcame "ALL OF THEM" instead of "both of them". The NIV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, Holman Standard also say "all of them". Actually, the word "all" is not found in any text whatsoever, but the NIV, NASB, RSV, ESV put the extra word in anyway.

Again, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are clearly wrong. The NKJV correctly footnotes that the Nestle and UBS text says "both of them" instead of "overcame them".

Acts 27:37 - “216 souls” or “about 76”?

Vaticanus alone has a silly reading in this verse. The Holy Ghost is relating the shipwreck that occured when Paul was on his way to Rome. The Scripture says: “And we were in all the ship two hundred and sixteen souls.”

So read the majority of all texts as well as Sinaiticus and C. Alexandrinus uniquely reads “275” instead of “276”, but Vaticanus alone reads “we were in all the ship ABOUT 76 souls”. Now, you can have about 200 or about 300, but it is more than a little silly to say ABOUT 76. The number 76 is an exact number, not a round number.

Westcott and Hort initially followed the erroneous reading of Vaticanus and placed “about 76 souls” in their critical Greek text, but later revisors decided to reject this unique reading, and changed their texts to read 276 souls.

The only version I am aware of that actually followed this bogus reading found in the Vaticanus manuscript is Rotherham’s Emphasized bible of 1902. It reads: “Now we were, in the ship, in all, ABOUT SEVENTY-SIX souls.”

Romans - The book of Romans, just as every other New Testament book, is full of examples where the two so called oldest and best manuscripts (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus) are at odds with each other. I could show numerous examples, but for the moment here are a couple of them.

Romans 13:9 "...Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, THOU SHALT NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS, Thou shalt not covet..." The words "Thou shalt not bear false witness" are found in multiple manuscripts and ancient versions like the Old Latin, the Syriac Harkelian, Coptic Boharic, Armenian and Ethiopic. They are also in Sinaiticus. They are included in all English Bibles from Wycliffe, Tyndale, Coverdale, Bishops', and the Geneva. However Vaticanus omits these words and so do the versions from the Revised Version, to the NASB, RSV, ESV, NIV and Holman Standard.

Romans 14:21 - "It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, OR IS OFFENDED, OR IS MADE WEAK." The capitalized words are again found in the Majority of all Greek texts and even in Vaticanus, plus the Sinaiticus correction. They are found in Wycliffe, Tyndale, Coverdale, Bishops, Geneva, Douay-Rheims, NKJV and the Spanish Reina Valera. Even some modern versions that usually follow the Westcott-Hort text include the words. Among these are the Amplified Bible (put out by the same people who give us the NASB), and the brand new ISV (International Standard Version). However Sinaiticus original had a different reading that said "or is grieved". Then it was corrected to agree with the KJB reading. In spite of all this evidence, versions like the RV, NASB, RSV, ESV, NIV and Holman omit "or is offended, or is made weak" - all done on a strict "scientific method", don't ya know.

For a mind blowing study showing the utter foolishness of the "art and science of textual criticism" please see this factual study of the book of Romans here: http://brandplucked.webs.com/textcritromans.htm

Romans 15:19 - Bible Babble Buffet Versions in Action 

In the King James Bible we read: "Through mighty signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit OF GOD; so that from Jerusalem, and round about unto Illyricum, I have fully preached the gospel of Chirst."  The NIVs of 1973, 1978 and the 1984 editions all omitted the words "of God" and read: "by the power of signs and miracles, through the power of the Spirit."  However once again in 2011 the new NIV has changed its underlying Greek text and now reads: "by the power of signs and wonders, through the power of the Spirit OF GOD."

Textually speaking, this is a very interesting verse in that it reveals a great deal about the mindset of the men behind the multitude of conflicting modern versions. The reading of "the Spirit OF GOD" is that of the Majority of all texts, including Sinaiticus, D correction and P46, which is about 200 years older than Vaticanus. "Spirit of GOD" (pneumatos theou) is found in Tyndale, 1525, Coverdale 1535, Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, the King James Bible 1611, the NKJV 1982 and Lamsa's translation of the Syriac Peshitta. The modern versions of the NRSV, ESV, ISV, Holman Standard  all read "Spirit of GOD", just as the King James Bible.

When Westcott and Hort first came out with their totally revised Greek text in the 1881 Revised Version, their text read: "power of the HOLY SPIRIT" (pneumatos hagiou) and so read the Revised Version of 1881, the ASV 1901, the RSV of 1952 and the 1989 Revised English Bible.  "HOLY Spirit" is the reading found in codex Alexandrinus and D original.

 

I have in my possession three different Nestle-Aland Greek texts, which is basically the Westcott-Hort text that underlies most modern versions since 1881. All three of these are different here in Romans 15:19. The one from 1934 (4th edition) says: HOLY Spirit. The one dated 1962 changed this to simply "the SPIRIT", thus omitting "Holy" and "God". This reading , the one found in the NASB, comes from only one manuscript and that is Vaticanus. The NASB and the NIV 1984 both follow only one Greek manuscript here and read: "through the power of the SPIRIT".

Then sometime between the 1962 edition and the 1993 edition, the Nestle-Aland text changed for the third time and now reads: "the Spirit OF GOD", as has the King James Bible for almost 400 years now. We can clearly see here the constantly changing opinions of the noted scholars behind the modern versions.

Here is a brief chart showing the conflicting readings of just this one phrase. The Catholic versions are very much like the "new" Vatican Versions (NIV, ESV, NASB, Holman, ISV, NET) in that they are constantly changing their underlying Greek texts and in the main follow the Vatican manuscript. The 1582 Douay-Rheims and the 1950 Douay  and the 1968 Jerusalem bible went with "the Holy Ghost" (1582) and "the Holy Spirit" (1950, 1968). Then in 1970 the St. Joseph New American Bible and the 1985 New Jerusalem read "the Spirit OF GOD", BUT the latest Catholic Public Domain Version of 2009 has now gone back to "the HOLY Spirit".

 "power of the SPIRIT OF GOD" -Tyndale, Geneva,  KJB, NKJV, NRSV, ESV, ISV, Holman and now the NIV 2011 edition.

"power of the HOLY SPIRIT" - RV, ASV, RSV, Jerusalem Bible 1968, 2009 The Sacred Bible Catholic Public Domain Version

"power of the SPIRIT" - NASB 1963-1995 editions, NIV 1973, 78 and 1984 editions.

 

1 Corinthians 2:1 - "...declaring unto you the TESTIMONY of God." The critical text editions show their utter confusion and the fickle nature nature of their "science" of textual criticism here.  The word "testimony" (marturion) is that found in the Majority of all remaining Greek manuscripts as well as Sincaitcus correction, Vaticanus, D, F, G and the Traditional Greek text of the Textus Receptus.  However Sinaiticus original, A and C read "MYSTERY" (musterion).  Besides the King James Bible, other early translations that read "the TESTIMONY of God" are Tyndale 1525, Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible of 1587 as well as Darby and Youngs.  When Westcott and Hort came out with their critical text they went with the reading found in the KJB of "testimony" and so did the Nestle text 4th edition  of 1934 as well as the Nestle text 21st edition of 1975. 

However now the latest Nestle-Aland 27th edition and the UBS 1st and 4th editions (United Bible Society) printed Greek texts have changed their minds and have now gone with the other reading of "MYSTERY".  The confusion is seen from the very beginning among the critical text "scholars". The ASV of 1901 read "TESTIMONY of God" but the Revised Version of 1881 went with "the MYSTERY of God".  The RSV went back to "TESTIMONY of God", but then the NRSV of 1989 has "MYSTERY of God" and then once again the revision of the revision of the revision - the ESV of 2001 has now gone back to "the TESTIMONY of God", thus not even following their own 'updated' UBS critical Greek text. 

Also agreeing with "the TESTIMONY of God" (and going contrary to the latest and ever changing UBS, Nestle-Aland critical texts) is the NASB 1995, NIV 1984 and 2011, Holman Standard 2003 and the NET versions.  However the ISV (International Standard Version and the 2011 critical text Common English Bible have now adopted the reading of "the MYSTERY (or SECRET) of God".  The NASB 1995 gives us a totally false and misleading footnote here.  It says "ONE early manuscript reads "mystery".  This is completely false. Even  the previous NASBs of 1960, 1972 and 1977 footnoted "MANY ancient manuscripts read "mystery". 

Among the Catholic versions we see the same confusion. The earlier Douay-Rheims of 1582 as well as the Douay of 1950 and the 1970 St. Joseph NAB read "the TESTIMONY of God" but the 1985 New Jerusalem now reads "the MYSTERY of God". Oh, but wait... Now the latest 2009 Catholic Public Domain Version has come out and it reads "the TESTIMONY of CHRIST", thus going back to "testimony" but changing "God" (which is the reading in all texts) to "Christ" (which is not found in ANY text at all).

 

Another place in this same chapter of 1 Corinthians 2 where the so called "oldest and best manuscripts" are in disagreement is found in verse 16 where it says: "But we have the mind of CHRIST."  The word "Christ" is found in the Majority of all Greek manuscripts including Sinaiticus, A, C and D correction, but Vaticanus, D original and a couple of others say "the mind of the LORD" (kuriou). But nobody I am aware of follows the Vatican manuscript reading in this place.  This is the true character of these so called "oldest and best manuscripts" and the falsely called "science" of textual criticism.

 

The Constantly Changing Critical (Condition) Text Versions in Action.


In 1 Corinthians 13:3 we read in the KJB -  "and though I give my body to BE BURNED, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing”.


ινα καυθησωμαι


This is the reading found in the Majority of all Greek texts, the Textus Receptus, K, Psi, the Old Latin ar, b, d, dem, e, f, g, m, o, t, tx, the Syriac Peshitta (Lamsa), the Gothic, Armenian, Ethiopic, and Slavonic ancient versions. 


 It is also quoted like this by such early church writers as Tertullian, Methodius, Cyprian, Ambrosiaster, Zeno, Basil, Pacian, Gregory-Nyssa, Theodoret, John-Damascus and Jerome.


But the so called “oldest and best” manuscripts of P46, Sinaiticus, Vaticanus and A, as well as the constantly changing Nestle-Aland, UBS Critical Greek texts, have put on a dizzying display of continuous change and absurdity.


These “oldest and best” mss. actually say “If I give my body THAT I MAY BOAST, and have not charity it profits me nothing.”


ινα καυχησωμαι . kauXEEsomai.  


This was the original reading put in the text by Westcott and Hort in 1881.  BUT not even the Revised Version of 1885 nor the ASV 1901 followed it.  Instead, both rejected this reading and continued to read just like the KJB and all earlier Bibles with “if I give my body TO BE BURNED.”


However, just a few years later they changed the Nestle Greek text to read “if I give my body TO BE BURNED, and have not charity…”


I have hard copies of the Nestle 4th edition 1934 and the Nestle 21st edition 1975 and they both read this way - ἵνα καυθήσομαι - kauTHEEsomai.  It is an irregular form to follow the word “hina” (ἵνα)  but it translates the same way as found in the KJB - If I give my body TO BE BURNED. - ινα καυθησωμαι


This is the reading - καυθήσομαι - found in C, D, F, G and L and it is still the reading found in the SBL (Society of Biblical Literature) Greek New Testament of 2010.


However, in recent years the Nestle-Aland Critical text has now once again changed their text, and have gone back to read as Westcott and Hort first had it. The Nestle-Aland Critical text now reads “If I give my body THAT I MAY BOAST, and have not love, it profits me nothing.” 


This means that so far the Critical Greek text has had THREE different readings in it for this one single Greek word.


BUT, this reading is so absurd, that many of the modern versions still do not follow it.


The NASB 1995 does not, nor does the ESV 2001-2011.  The NASB reads: “If I deliver my body TO BE BURNED, but do not have love, it profits me nothing.”  Then it footnotes: “Some ancient mss. read THAT I MAY BOAST.


And the ESV 2011 has: “If I give away all I have, and if I deliver up my body TO BE BURNED,  but have not love, I gain nothing.”  


It then Footnotes “Some manuscripts - THAT I MAY BOAST”


However the NIV DOES keep changing its TEXT.  The NIVs 1973, 1978 and 1984 editions say: “If I give all I possess to the poor and SURRENDER MY BODY TO THE FLAMES, but have not love, I gain nothing.”


Then they footnote: “Some early manuscripts - THAT I MAY BOAST.”


BUT now the NIV 2011 has come out and it changed its text and now reads; “If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body THAT I MAY BOAST, but do not have love, I gain nothing.”  


And this time it footnotes: “Some manuscripts BODY TO THE FLAMES.”  


The “Reliable” NIVs.


Even though the recent NIV English version of 2011 has changed its TEXT to read “THAT I MAY BOAST”, yet the NIV Spanish edition, La Nueva Versión Internacional of 2015 still reads like the KJB and the TR reading.  


It says “y si entregue mi cuerpo para que LO CONSUMAN LAS LLAMAS…. = TO BE BURNED.  


And so also does the NIV Portuguese edition of 2000 - “e entregue o meu corpo para ser queimado” = TO BE BURNED.


The Holman Standard.


The Holman Christian Standard Bible has done the same thing as the NIV. I have a hard copy of the Holman Standard 2003.  The Holman Standard has already come out with different editions in 1999, 2000, 2003, 2009 and now they are working on another one with great Fanfare.


The 2003 Holman “Standard” (I guess the new “Standard” with today’s Bible Babble Buffet Carousel is one of “constant change”) reads: “…and I give MY BODY TO BE BURNED…”


BUT the Holman “Standard” of 2009 now says: “and if I give my body IN ORDER TO BOAST, but do not have love…”


Also following this most recently changed Critical text reading is (big surprise) Dan Wallace’s NET version 2006 - “if I give over my body IN ORDER TO BOAST…”  


“IN ORDER THAT I MIGHT BOAST”


Other bibles that follow this latest textual change in the Critical (Condition) versions are THE JEHOVAH WITNESS New World Translation 1961 edition and the 2013 Revised Jehovah Witness NWT - “and if I hand over my body SO THAT I MAY BOAST”, Rotherham’s 1902 (thus following the original Westcott-Hort reading), the NRSV 1989, New Living Translation 2015 (even though the “old” Living Translation 1971 said “to be burned”)


The brand new International Standard Version 2014 just made up their own translation that says: “Even if I give away everything that I have AND SACRIFICE MYSELF, but have no love, I gain nothing.” 


THEN it gives this very misleading Footnote, saying:  “Other mss. read sacrifice my body to be burned; or myself so that I may boast.”


By saying “other manuscripts read…..” they are implying that THEY actually followed SOME manuscript, when in fact they just MADE THIS UP out of thin air.  NO manuscript reads “and sacrifice myself”  



Those Bibles that read like the King James Bible (and many of these are themselves Critical Text versions)  with “and though I give my body TO BE BURNED” are Tyndale, Bishops’ Bible, the Geneva bible, Darby, Youngs 1898, R.V. 1885, ASV 1901, Weymouth 1902, Living Bible 1971, Revised Standard Version 1972, J.B. Phillips 1972, NKJV 1982, NASB 1995, Complete Jewish Bible 1998, God’s Word 2000, The Message 2002, New Century Version 2005, The Conservative Bible 2010, ESV 2011, the Names of God Bible 2011, Mounce N.T. 2011, Orthodox Jewish Bible 2011, Lexham English Bible 2012, The Voice 2012, The Biblos Bible 2013, The Modern English Version 2014, The Modern Literal N.T. 2014, The Pioneers’ N.T. 2014 and the International Children’s Bible 2015.



If you think the Vaticanus manuscript is the best to follow here, you should take note of the fact that in 13:5, just two verses later, instead of reading "charity...seeketh not her own", Vaticanus reads: "charity does not seek that which is NOT her own". 


As for Sinaiticus, among its many other blunders, in 1 Corinthians 15:51 instead of saying: "We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed" Sinaiticus actually says: "we shall sleep but we shall NOT all be changed." 


These are the "oldest and most reliable manuscripts" the modern scholars are so fond of, that form the Vatican supervised, ever changing Greek text that is the basis of versions like the ESV, NIV, NASB, NET, Holman, the Jehovah Witness New World Translation and the modern Catholic versions like the St. Joseph New American bible 1970 and the New Jerusalem bible 1985.  


Their ever changing “Science” of Textual Criticism is about as scientific as playing the Lottery or throwing darts at a dartboard in a drunken stupor.


Get yourself the King James Bible and stick with it. You will never go wrong.


 

I Corinthians 13:5- ". . .charity seeketh not HER OWN". Vaticanus alone reads "love does not seek that which IS NOT HERS" - the opposite meaning.

I Corinthians 15:51- "We shall NOT all sleep, but we shall all be changed" in Sinaticus reads: "we shall sleep but we shall NOT ALL be changed" - the exact opposite.

1 Corinthians 15:54-55- "Death is swallowed up in VICTORY. O death, where is your sting? O grave, where is your VICTORY." In Vaticanus this verse reads, "Death is swallowed up in CONTROVERSY. O death, where is your sting? O grave, where is your CONTROVERSY."

1 Thessalonians 1:1- " Paul, and Silvanus, and Timotheus, unto the church of the Thessalonians which is in God the Father and in the Lord Jesus Christ: Grace be unto you, and peace, FROM GOD OUR FATHER, AND THE LORD JESUS CHRIST."

All the capital lettered words are found in the Majority of all Greek texts AS WELL AS SINAITICUS, A, D, the Old Latin d, e and mon, the Syriac Harclean, Georgian, Slavonic and Coptic Boharic ancient versions and Lamsa's translation of the Syriac/Aramaic.  This is the reading found in Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible (John Rogers) 1549, the Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, Mace's N.T. 1729, the Living Oracles 1835, Young's 1898, Websters 1833, the Emphatic Diaglott 1865, Julia Smith Translation, Concordant Literal Translation, Emphatic Diaglott N.T., Analytical Literal Translation, Green's literal, A Conservative Version, Anderson N.T.,  Complete Apostle's Bible 2005, English Jubilee Bible 2000, the NKJV 1982, the KJV 21st Century Version 1994 and the Third Millenium Version 1998.  Even the brand new ISV (International Standard Version) which is usually a critical text edition, has included these words in 2010.  

Among foreign language bibles all these words are found in Luther's German bible 1545, the German Elberfelder 1905 and the 2000 German Schlachter Bible - "Gnade sei mit euch und Friede von Gott, unserm Vater, und dem HERRN Jesu Christo!",  Las Sagradas Escrituras 1569, the Spanish Reina Valera 1602-1995, the R.V. Gómez 2010 - "Gracia y paz tengáis de Dios nuestro Padre y del Señor Jesús, el Cristo.", the Basque-Navarro N.T., the French Martin 1744, French Ostervald 1996 - " La grâce et la paix vous soient données de la part de Dieu notre Père, et du Seigneur Jésus-Christ.", the Italian Diodati of 1649 and the New Diodati of 1991 - "grazia a voi e pace da Dio nostro Padre e dal Signore Ges Cristo.", the Afrikaans Bible 1953, the Russian Synodal version 1876, the Lithuanian Bible, the Hungarian Karoli Bible, the Polish Gdanska Bible, the Finnish Bible 1776,  the Romanian Cornilescu - "Har şi pace dela Dumnezeu, Tatăl nostru, şi dela Domnul Isus Hristos.", the Portuguese A Biblia Sagrada and the Almeida Corrigida E Fiel 1681 - "Graa e paz tenhais de Deus nosso Pai e do Senhor Jesus Cristo." and in both the Modern Hebrew Bible פולוס וסלונוס וטימותיוס אל קהלת התסלוניקים באלהים האב ובאדון ישוע המשיח חסד לכם ושלום מאת אלהים אבינו ואדנינו ישוע המשיח and the Modern Greek used in the Orthodox churches all over the world - "χαρις ειη υμιν και ειρηνη απο Θεου Πατρος ημων και Κυριου Ιησου Χριστου."  Both the Modern Hebrew Bible and the Modern Greek Bible can be seen at the Biola University webstie called the Unbound Bible here - http://unbound.biola.edu/

 However Vaticanus omits the words "from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ" and so do versions like the RV, ASV, NASB, NIV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, NET and Holman Standard.  ALL Catholic versions omit these words - the Douay Rheims 1610, Douay 1950, St. Joseph NAB 1970, the New Jerusalem bible 1985 and the 2009 Catholic Public Domain Version. So, the words ARE found in Sinaiticus but not in Vaticanus and once again these so called "oldest and best manuscripts" are in disagreement with each other.  So once again, it comes down to either following the biblical text of the Reformation Bibles or the Vatican Versions.

1 Thessalonians 2:7-  One of the silliest readings in the New Testament is found primarily in the Vaticanus manuscript in 1 Thessalonians 2:7.  This reading was even rejected by the Critical Text editors that came after Westcott and Hort until very recently, when things are now just getting  goofier and goofier.  


The Majority of all Greek texts as well as Alexandrinus and the corrections to Sinaiticus, C and D all have the apostle Paul telling the saints:  "But we were GENTLE among you, even as a nurse cherisheth her children". 


This is the reading found in Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535,  Cranmer 1539, the Bishops’ Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, Wesley’s translation 1755,  the Revised Version 1885, the ASV of 1901, Rotherham’s Emphasized bible 1902, Darby, Young’s,  the Bible in Basic English 1960, the New English Bible 1979,  the NASBs 1963 through 1995, the NIVs of 1973, 78 and 84, the NKJVs, the RSV, NRSV 1989, the ESV 2001,  the Revised English Bible 1989,  the Message of 2002 and the Holman Standard of 2003, the Modern Greek version used all over the world in the Greek Orthodox churches as well as the up and coming ISV (International Standard Version) in 2010. 


Among foreign language Bibles, the reading found in the Traditional Greek Texts and the King James Bible of  “GENTLE among you, even as a nurse cherisheth her children” are the Spanish Reina Valera of 1602, 1909, 1960 and 1995, - “nos portamos con ternura”,  the 1997 Biblia de las Américas put out by the Lockman Foundation - “benignos entre vosotros” as well as the Traducciôn en Lenguage Actual of 2000 put out by the United Bible Society- “los tratamos con mucho cariño”, and the Reina Valera Gomez Bible of 2004.  Also agreeing with “were gentle among you” are the Italian Diodati 1649 and 1991 New Diodati, the Riveduta of 27, the Italian1997 La Parola é Vita - “gentili con voi”,   the French Martin 1744 - “French Louis Segond 1910, the Ostervald  1996 and the 1999 La Bible du Semeur - “tendresse”, and the 2000 Portuguese O Livro.



 However Vaticanus actually says: "But we were BABIES among you, as a nursing mother cares for her own children."   Westcott and Hort first adopted this absurd reading, but very soon the critical text editors deleted this reading and replaced it with the correct reading of “gentle among you”.  This reading lasted through at least  21 separate editions of their ever changing Greek Critical text.  However the 27th edition of the Nestle - Aland text 1993 as well as the UBS 1 through 4 editions texts have now removed the previous reading of “GENTLE” and replaced it with the Vaticanus, Westcott-Hort reading of “we were BABES among you”.


Even though the more recent Nestle - Aland, UBS Greek texts have adopted this strange reading, still most modern versions that usually follow the critical text readings have not gone along with them on this. 


But there are a few notable exceptions like Daniel Wallace’s NET version.  Daniel Wallace’s NET version has actually followed this strange reading.  His NET version reads: “although we could have imposed our weight as apostles of Christ; instead we became LITTLE CHILDREN among you. Like a nursing mother caring for her own children..." But there is more!  The new NIV 2011 has come out and they have changed the underlying Greek text they followed in their first three editons (1973, 78 and 1984 - "but we were GENTLE among you") and now the late$e$t in Scholar$hip edition now reads: "Instead we were LIKE YOUNG CHILDREN among you." 


This is similar to the Catholic Douay-Rheims version of 1582 which reads - “but WE BECAME LITTLE ONES IN THE MIDST OF YOU, as if a nurse should cherish her children”, but this reading is obviously absurd since it defies all reason and logic and turns the apostles into little children and the new believers  into their care givers.


The Catholic version of 1979 called the Saint Joseph New American Bible went back to the reading of “we were GENTLE among you”, but then once again in 2009 the latest Catholic version, the Catholic Public Domain Version,  has once again changed their underlying texts and have gone back to the reading of - “we became LIKE LITTLE ONES in your midst, like a nurse cherishing her children.” 


The New Living Translation of 1998 has “we were as GENTLE among you as a mother feeding and caring for her own children.”  But the 2004 New Living Translation has once again changed their text to now read - “we were like children among you.”


It is interesting that even though the NIV 1984 keeps the reading of “but we were gentle among you, like a mother caring for her little children. “ the now discontinued TNIV (Today’s NIV) of 2005 went with the Vaticanus reading and has: “Instead, we were like YOUNG CHILDREN among you. Just as a nursing mother cares for her children.”  It will be interesting to see what the New NIV does when it’s upcoming revision comes out in the next year or two.

 

2 Thessalonians 2:13 Another mind-blower!

"But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath FROM THE BEGINNING chosen you to salvation..."

"From the beginning" is the reading found in the majority of all texts, as well as Sinaiticus, the Old Latin, Syriac Peshitta, Coptic Sahidic, Armenian, and Ethiopic ancient versions. It also was the reading of the previous Nestle-Aland Greek editions, and is still found in the NIV 1973, 1984 editions, NASB, RV, ASV, NKJV, RSV, NET version and the 2003 Holman Christian Standard.

However, the latest Nestle-Aland texts have once again changed their reading, based on Vaticanus, and now reads: "God has chosen you AS THE FIRST FRUITS to be saved" and this is how the NRSV, ESV  and the NIV 2011 edition now read! So again, it looks like those old NASB, NIV's 1973, 1984  and 2003 Holman Standards are once again out of date and follow the wrong texts according to the late$t $cholarly finding$.

 

 

Hebrews 2:7 "Thou madest him A LITTLE LOWER than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour,AND DIDST SET HIM OVER THE WORKS OF THY HANDS."

 

Here Vaticanus omits the whole phrase "and didst set him over the works of thy hands" and so too do versions like the NIV, ESV, ISV, NET, Common English Bible and the Holman Standard all OMIT these words.

 

However the phrase is found in the majority of Greek manuscripts and in Sinaiticus, A, C, D correction, the Old Latin ar, b, comp, d, v, the Syriac Peshitta, Harkelian, the Coptic Sahidic, Boharic, Armenian, Ehtiopic, Georgian and Slavonic ancient version.  So once again (and there are some three to four THOUSAND places where this occurs in the New Testament  between these 2 "oldest and best manuscripts" ) we see that Sinaiticus and Vaticanus do NOT agree even with each other.

 

This time even the NASB, RV, ASV and NKJV include all the words "AND DIDST SET HIM OVER THE WORKS OF THY HANDS. "See how the "scholars", even among those using the ever changing Critical Greek text, don't agree among themselves. This same confusion is constantly repeated in the new Bible of the Month versions that continue to pour off the presses.

 

We see this even in the constantly changing Vatican Versions like the NIV. The 1984 NIV edition of Hebrews 2:6-7 reads: "What is MAN that you are mindful of HIM, THE son of man that you care for him? You made HIM a little lower than the angels; you crowned HIM with glory and honor and put everything under HIS feet."  But the NIV 2011 edition now reads: "What is MANKIND that you are mindful of THEM, A son of man that you care for him? You made THEM a little lower than the angels; you crowned THEM with glory and honor and put everything under THEIR feet."  And when quoting from Psalm 8:5 the NIV 1984 edition says: "You made HIM a little lower than the HEAVENLY BEINGS." But the 2011 NIV edition now says: "You have made THEM a little lower than the ANGELS."

 

The words "AND DIDST SET HIM OVER THE WORKS OF THY HANDS" are found in Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, the Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, Wesley's translation 1755, the Douay-Rheims 1582, the 1950 Douay, Rotherham's Emphasized bible 1902 (a critical text edition), the Revised Version 1881, the ASV 1901, J.P. Phillips translation 1962, Weymouth, NASB 1995, Darby, Youngs, the Bible in Basic English 1961, the NKJV 1982, the Orthodox Jewish Bible 2011, the Knox Bible 2012, the KJV 21st Century 1994, the Third Millenium Bible 1998.

 

We see the same confusion among the Catholic versions. The earlier Douay-Rheims of 1582 included these words "and didst set him over the works of thy hands" as well as the 1950 Douay, but the 1968 Jerusalem bible, the 1970 St. Joseph New American Bible and the 1985 New Jerusalem bible all now OMIT this phrase. But wait!  Now the latest 2009 Catholic Public Domain Version has come out, and it now once again includes these inspired words of Scripture - "and you have set him over the works of your hands."

 

 

 

Among foreign language Bibles the words are found in the Italian Diodati 1649 and the New Diodati 1991 - "e lo hai costituito sopra le opere delle tue mani", Luther's German bible 1545 and the 2000 Schlachter Bible - "und hast ihn gesetzt über die Werke deiner Hände.", the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569, La Biblia de Las Américas 1997 (Lockman Foundation), the Reina Valera 1909, 1960, 1995, La Nueva Biblia de los Hispanos 2005, the Reina Valera Contemporánea 2011 and the 2010 Reina Valera Gómez Bible - "Y le pusiste sobre las obras de tus manos", the French Martin 1744, Ostervald 1996 and the French Louis Segond 2007 - "et tu lui as donné la domination sur ce que tes mains ont fai.", the Aramaic Bible in Plain English 2010 - "and you have authorized him over the works of your hands.”, the Norwegian: Det Norsk Bibelselskap 1930 - "og satte ham over dine henders gjerninger", the Dutch Staten Vertaling Bible - "en Gij hebt hem gesteld over de werken Uwer handen", the Chinese Union Bible, the Hungarian Karoli Bible, the Polish Gdanska Bible, the Russian Synodal Bible and the Russian Zhuromsky N.T., the Portuguese Almeida Corrigida E Fiel 1681 and A Biblia Sagrada em Portugués - "e o constituíste sobre as obras de tuas mãos." and the Modern Greek Bible used in the Greek Orthodox churches all over the world - "και κατεστησας αυτον επι τα εργα των χειρων σου·"

 

"Thou madest him A LITTLE LOWER THAN the angels" is quoted from Psalm 8:5. "A little lower" is the reading of the RV, ASV,  NKJV and NIV, but the NASB, ESV and the Holman say God made man "FOR A LITTLE WHILE lower than the angels".

 

The interesting thing is when you look back at Psalms 8:5 the King James Bible correctly reads: "For thou hast made him a little lower than THE ANGELS." This is also the reading of the NKJV, the Jewish translations of 1917, 1936, Lamsa, Webster's, New American Bible, Douay, Douay-Rheims, Spanish, Diodati, Darby, Living Bible, New Century Version, Modern Greek translation, KJV 21 and the Third Millenium Bible.

 

However the NASB and the Holman Standard actually read: "Thou hast made him a little lower THAN GOD." One could combine the NASB and Holman readings to say: "Thou hast made him for a little while lower than God", and thus imply that man will some day be equal to God. Isn't this the ultimate apostasy that fallen man will embrace?

 

The NIV 1984 edition and the ESV differ yet from both the KJB and the NASB in that they read in Psalm 8:5 "You made him a little lower than the HEAVENLY BEINGS." However the NIV 2011 has now changed once again and now reads: "You have made  them a little lower than THE ANGELS." So, is it angels, heavenly beings, or God?

 

Do you think James White is correct when he says we can get a sense of the real meaning by comparing all the different versions together? All we really end up with is total confusion which leads to unbelief and apostasy.

 

 Peculiarities of Vaticanus in First Peter.


Codex Vaticanus is highly exalted among modern scholars as being the best Greek manuscript, and its readings are primarily responsible for the omission of hundreds and hundreds of words from the King James Bible.


The following is a list of readings or omissions that are found ONLY in Vaticanus. Sinaiticus, the other darling of the Textus Corruptus crowd, does follow the KJB readings in these few instances.


This information is not found in the UBS, or Nestle-Aland texts. It is not to their advantage to let you know these things. This information comes from the book Codex B and its Allies, A Study and an Indictment, by Herman C. Hoskier, Volume #1 pages 417-418.


1 Peter 1:1 to the strangers in ....Asia, AND BITHYNIA. - Vaticanus alone omits AND BITHYNIA


1:11 the Spirit OF CHRIST which was in them - Vaticanus alone omits OF CHRIST.


1:21 who by him DO BELIEVE (pisteuontas) - Vaticanus and A read: who by him FAITHFUL (pistous), against all others.


2:1 laying aside all...hypocrisies, and ENVIES, and all evil speakings - Vaticanus alone reads MURDERS instead of ENVIES.


2:6 he that believeth ON HIM shall not be confounded - Vaticanus alone omits ON HIM (ep autoo)


2:24 who his own self bare OUR sins - Vaticanus alone reads YOUR sins


2:25 FOR YE WERE (eete gar) as sheep going astray - Vaticanus alone omits FOR YE WERE.


3:4 of a MEEK and QUIET spirit - only Vaticanus reverses and reads: of a QUIET and MEEK spirit.


3:18 suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us TO GOD (τω θεω) - only Vaticanus omits these two words.


5:3 "Neither as being lord's over God's heritage, but being examples to the flock." μηδ ως κατακυριευοντες των κληρων αλλα τυποι γινομενοι του ποιμνιου

 

Vaticanus omits the entire verse, though it is found in all the others.


5:8 the devil...seeking WHOM (tina) he may devour - Vaticanus alone omits WHOM.


5:12 by SilVanus, a faithful brother - Vaticanus alone reads: by SilBanus.



Vaticanus also omits the entire verse of 1 Peter 5:3 but it is found in Sinaiticus and the Majority of all manuscripts and Bible translations throughout history - "Neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being ensamples to the flock."


2 Peter 3:10- . . ."the earth also and the works that are therein SHALL BE BURNED UP", reads in both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, "the works that are therein SHALL BE FOUND". The old RSV stayed with the reading of "shall be burned up" as does the NASB, but the NIV, ESV say the works "will be exposed" (ESV) or "will be laid bare" (NIV), while the Holman Standard says "the works on it will be disclosed". The Holman then footnotes that the Greek text they are following, which is the Sinaiticus/Vaticanus reading, says "found" and then tells us "some manuscripts read 'will be burned up' ". "Some"?!  How about the vast Majority  of all Greek texts including Alexandrinus, the Old Latin, the Syriac, Coptic and Ethiopian ancient versions.

1 John 4:3 KJB - "And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus CHRIST IS COME IN THE FLESH is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world."

ESV - 1 John 4:3 - "and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you heard was coming and now is in the world already."  

You will notice here that the words "CHRIST IS COME IN THE FLESH" - χριστον εν σαρκι εληλυθοτα -  are omitted by versions based on the UBS/Nestle-Aland/Vatican critical text versions.

All these words are found in the Majority of all remaining Greek manuscripts including the Old Latin l, the Syriac Peshitta, Ethiopic and Slavonic ancient versions, and is so quoted by such early church writers as Origen, Cyprian, Priscillian, Tyconius, Tyconius, Ambrose, Augustine, Fulgentius and Theophylact.

Sinaiticus and Vaticanus do not even agree with each other in this verse. In fact, they are not even close.  Sinaiticus says "every spirit that does not confess Jesus LORD IS COME IN THE FLESH" - παν πνευμα ο μη ομολογει τον  Ἰησοῦν κύριον ἐν σαρκὶ ἐληλυθότα [א] - but Vaticanus does not have the word "LORD" in it (nor does any other manuscript) AND it omits the words "IS COME IN THE FLESH."

So the omission of these words in the modern Vatican versions like the ESV, RSV, NIV, NASB, NET, Holman, Jehovah Witness New World Translation and the modern Catholic versions are basically due to Vaticanus, A and the Latin Vulgate.

The Catholic Connection  -

The Catholic versions all omit this phrase "is come in the flesh" and some of them are very weird.  The early Douay-Rheims of 1582 says: "And every spirit that dissolveth Jesus is not of God." (That's really what it says!).  The 1950 Douay is almost as bad with: "And every spirit that SEVERS Jesus, is not of God."  Then the St. Joseph NAB 1970 drops even the word Jesus from the text and has: "every spirit that fails to acknowledge him does not belong to God." And now the 1985 New Jerusalem reads just like the NIV with: "and every spirit which does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God."

The words "Jesus CHRIST IS COME IN THE FLESH" are found in the Reformation Bibles including Tyndale 1525 - "Iesus Christ is come in the flesh", Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549 - "And euerye spyryte þt confesseth not that Iesu Christe is come in the fleshe, is not of God."Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587 - "Iesus Christ is come in the flesh", Mace 1729, Wesley's N.T. 1755, Worsley Version 1770, Webster's 1833, Darby 1890, Youngs' 1898, Etheridge 1849, Murdock's 1852 and Lamsa's 1933 translations of the Syriac Peshitta - "Jesus Christ has come in the flesh", the Aramaic Bible in Plain English - "And no spirit that does not confess that Yeshua has come in the flesh is from God.", the World English Bible, God's Word Translation, the NKJV 1982, Amplified Bible 1987, Third Millennium Bible 1998, Names of God Bible 2012 (a normally critical text version), the Jubilee Bible 2000-2010 - "And every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ, is come in flesh is not of God." and the Natural Israelite Bible 2012 - "and every spirit that does not confess that Yah’shua the Messiah has come in the flesh is not of Yahweh." 

Numerous foreign language bibles contain all these words.  Among them are  Luther's German Bible 1545 and the German Schlachter bible 2000 - "und ein jeglicher Geist, der da nicht bekennt, daß Jesus Christus ist in das Fleisch gekommen, der ist nicht von Gott. ", the Italian Diodati 1649 and La Nuova Diodati 1991 - "E ogni spirito che non riconosce che Gesú Cristo è venuto nella carne, non è da Dio", the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569, Cipriano de Valera 1602, Reina Valera 1909-1995 and the R.V. Gómez 2010 - "y todo espíritu que no confiesa que Jesucristo ha venido en carne, no es de Dios.", the French Martin 1744, Ostervald 1996 and Louis Segond 2007 - "Et tout esprit qui ne confesse point que Jésus-Christ est venu en chair, n'est point de Dieu", the Portuguese Almeida Corregida E Fiel 1681 and A Biblia Sagrada - "E todo o esprito que no confessa que Jesus Cristo veio em carne no de Deus",  the Hungarian Karoli Bible - "És valamely lélek nem vallja Jézust testben megjelent Krisztusnak, nincsen az Istentõl", the Russian Synodal Version - "а всякий дух, который не исповедует Иисуса Христа, пришедшего во плоти, не есть от Бога", the Afrikaans Bible 1953, the Tagalog Ang Salita ng Diyos of 1998 - "Ang bawat espiritung hindi kumikilala na si Jesucristo ay nagkatawang tao sa kaniyang pagparito ay hindi mula sa Diyos.", the Modern Greek Bible - "και παν πνευμα, το οποιον δεν ομολογει οτι ο Ιησους Χριστος ηλθεν εν σαρκι, δεν ειναι εκ του Θεου·" and the Modern Hebrew Bible - "וכל רוח אשר איננו מודה בישוע האדון כי בא בבשר לא    עליו כי"  

Get the Bible with ALL of God's words in it; the only English Bible believed by multiplied thousands to be the complete, inspired and infallible words of the living God - the King James Holy Bible. 


 

1 John 4:19 KJB - "We love HIM because he first loved us."  

ESV, NIV, NASB -  "We love because he first loved us."

There are several textual variants in just this one verse with so few words in it, and once again, the so called "oldest and best" do not agree with each other. The Majority of all remaining Greek manuscripts read as does the King James Bible and the Reformation bibles - "We love HIM because he first loved us." - Ἡμεῖς ἀγαπῶμεν αὐτόν.

However Sinaiticus actually reads "We love GOD because he first loved us." -  Ἡμεῖς ἀγαπῶμεν τὸν θεόν - whereas the Vatican manuscript simply has "We love because he first love us." - ἡμεῖς ἀγαπῶμεν - and thus the modern Vatican Versions like the  ESV, NIV, NASB, Holman, NET and ISV.

The New Living Translation 2007 just made up their own text and says: "We love EACH OTHER because he loved us first."  There is NO Greek text that reads this way. But the Living Bible of 1971 had it right even though it was a paraphrase with - " our love FOR HIM comes as a result of his loving us first."

 

Agreeing with the King James Bible "We love HIM because he first loved us." are Tyndale 1525 - " We love him for he loved vs first.", Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible1540, Matthew's Bible 1549, the Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587 - " We loue him, because he loued vs first.", Mace N.T. 1729, Wesley's N.T. 1755, Worsley N.T. 1770, Living Oracles 1835, Youngs 1898, J.B. Phillips Translation 1962, New Life Version 1969, NKJV 1982, Amplified Bible 1987,  Green's literal Translation, Third Millennium Bible 1998 and the Jubilee Bible 2000-2010 - " We love him, because he first loved us."  

Foreign language Bibles that have the same reading as the KJB are the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1549, Cipriano de Valera 1602, the Reina Valera 1909-2011 - "Nosotros lo amamos a él, porque él primero nos amó.", Luther's German Bible 1545 and Schlachter Bible 2000 - "Lasset uns ihn lieben; denn er hat uns zuerst geliebt.",  the French Martin 1744, Ostervald 1996 and Louis Segond 2007 - "Nous l'aimons, parce qu'il nous a aimés le premier.", the Portuguese A Sagrada Biblia and O Livro 2000 - " Ns o amamos a ele porque ele nos amou primer.", the Italian Diodati 1649, La Nuova Diodati 1991 and Nuova Riveduta 2006 - "Noi lo amiamo, perch egli ci ha amati per primo."

 

Those that have adopted the Vaticanus reading and say merely "We love because he first loved us." are the RV, ASV, NASB,NIV, RSV, ESV, ISV, NET, the Jehovah Witness New World Translation and the modern Catholic Versions like the Douay 1950, St. Joseph NAB 1970 and the New Jerusalem 1985.

The earlier Douay-Rheims of 1582 followed the Latin Vulgate, and not the Greek texts,  which had the word "God" in the verse 2 times.  The Douay-Rheims reads -" Let us therefore love God: because God first hath loved us.  and the Latin Vulgate of 407 A.D. said "Nos ergo diligamus Deum, quoniam Deus prior dilexit nos." However, in typical fashion the Catholic church has now "updated" the New Latin Vulgate 1979 and it reads just like the modern Vatican Versions - " Nos diligimus, quoniam ipse prior dilexit nos." = "We love, because he first loved us." (Just a "coincidence", right?)

Even though the English version of the NIV says "We love, because he first loved us.", the NIV Spanish version -Nueva Versión Internacional 1999 -  follows a different text and says "We love GOD because he first loved us." - Nosotros amamos a Dios porque él nos amó primero."  

So you have a choice to make, either the Reformation text of the King James Bible or the new Vatican Versions. God did not inspire three different readings in the same verse in the same place. One is right and the others are wrong.  Guess who wants you to be in continual doubt as to what God really said in His Book. The same serpent we see in Genesis 3 who asks the first question recorded in the Holy Bible - "Yea, hath God said..." (Genesis 3:1)

 

 

Revelation- The Vaticanus manuscript is missing ALL of the book of Revelation as well as I and II Timothy, Titus, and from Hebrews 9 to the end of the book. However Sinaiticus give us some really strange readings in the book of Revelation.

Revelation 4:8 - "HOLY, HOLY, HOLY, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come." But Sinaiticus says: " Holy, holy, holy, holy, holy, holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty..."

Revelation 7:4 and 14:3- Both verses mention the number of 144,000. However Sinaiticus has 140,000 in 7:4 and 141,000 in 14:3.

Revelation 10:1 - "And I saw another mighty angel come down from heaven, clothed with a cloud: and A RAINBOW was upon his head..." Sinaiticus says: "clothed with a cloud with HAIR on his head."

Revelation 21:4- "For THE FORMER THINGS are passed away". Sinaiticus reads: "For THE SHEEP are passed away."

Revelation 21:5- "Behold, I make all things NEW", while Sinaiticus says: "Behold, I make all things EMPTY."

These are just a few samples from these two "oldest and best" manuscripts which so many modern versions are based on. It is my firm conviction that God has preserved His inspired, pure, and perfect words as He promised and they are found today in English only in the Authorized King James Bible.

"Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls." Jeremiah 6:16

"He that hath ears to hear, let him hear." Luke 8:8

Will Kinney

"The Oldest and Best Manuscripts" ?

These portions are taken from an article found at

http://www.truthquest.free-online.co.uk/vs_a_mss.htm#history

Most modern Versions have followed to a large extent the Greek Text prepared by Westcott and Hort in 1881. The Text of the Revised Version 1881 was influenced greatly by these scholars and the Nestlé Text is a collation of three (3) texts, Westcott and Hort, Tischendorf and Bernhard Weiss.

Westcott and Hort recognised, as their supreme authorities, only two (2) manuscripts, Aleph and B, and these are among the five (5) ancient manuscripts appealed to by modern versions.

In contrast to this Westcott-Hort text which first appeared in the Revised Version of 1881 and is now generally followed by such versions as the NASB, RSV, ESV, NIV, and Holman Standard, the older English Bibles like Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, the Bishops's Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, and later on the King James Bible, Webster's, Young's, and the NKJV are based on what is called The Traditional Text or the Textus Receptus.

Dr. Edward F. Hills states that "in all essentials, the New Testament text first printed by Erasmus, and later by Stephens (1550) and Elzevir (1633) is in full agreement with the traditional text (Byzantine text) providentially preserved in the vast majority of the Greek New Testament Manuscripts .... It is from this Textus Receptus that the King James version was made" (Believing Bible Study, Page 37).

Westcott and Hort could not understand why the Alexandrian manuscripts were not copied in vast numbers, as were the Byzantine manuscripts. They propounded the theory that somebody must have produced the Byzantine Text about the 4th Century. Westcott and Hort called it the "Syrian Text." This theory has absolutely no historical foundation. It is a figment of their imagination to excuse them for rejecting the vast majority of manuscripts. Surely such a major recension of the text, if it had occurred, would have been documented in church history. This is especially so, as major doctrinal issues of that period are recorded in considerable detail, e.g. Council of Nicea 325 AD, which dealt with the Arian heresy. History is silent about any revision of the Text in Syria, Antioch or Constantinople!!

While Westcott and Hort were introducing their so-called "neutral text" to the Revised Version Committee 1881, the true text was strongly defended by such scholars as Dean Burgon and Dr. Scrivener.

Those who have examined the ancient manuscripts, indicate that some of the oldest manuscripts are most carelessly written.

Five of the oldest codices are Aleph, A, B, C, and D, and it is upon the evidence of these, and their small company of allies, that the Greek texts of Lachmann 1842-50; Tischendorf 1865-72; Tregelles 1857-72; Westcott and Hort 1881, rely.

In fact Westcott and Hort, who dominated the Revised Version Committee of 1881, accepted what they called a neutral text. Only Codex Aleph and Codex B, in their opinion, preserve this text in its purest form. Of these two, when they differ, B is preferred to Aleph, in which "the scribe's bold and rough manner has endured all the ordinary lapses due to rapid and careless transcription more numerous than in B. " Scrivener, Page 289, Volume II.

But how carefully written were these great UNCIALS on which our modern versions are based. Let us look at Aleph, B and D.

Codex Sinaititus (Aleph) (4th Century) "From the number of errors, one cannot affirm that it is very carefully written. The whole manuscript is disfigured by corrections, a few by the original scribe, very many by an ancient and elegant hand of the 6th Century whose emendations are of great importance, some again by a hand a little later, for the greatest number by a scholar of the 7th Century who often cancels the changes by the 6th Century amender, others by as many as eight (8) different later writers. " Scrivener, Page 93, Vol. I.

Codex Vaticanus (B) (4th Century) "One marked feature is the great number of omissions which induced Dr. Dobbin to speak of it as an abbreviated text of the New Testament. He calculates that whole words or clauses are left out no less than 2556 times." Scrivener, Page 120, Volume I.

This explains why the modern versions have omitted so much of the scripture -- a fact which is not always apparent due to the practice of grouping verses.

Codex Bezae Graeco-Latinus (D) (5th or 6th Century) "The manuscript has been corrected, first by the original penman and later by 8 or 9 different revisors." And again: "No known manuscript contains so many bold and extensive interpolations (600 in ACTS alone) Scrivener, Pages 128 and 130, Volume I.

The Alexandrian School however, is recognised as one of the greatest sources of corruption, and it is Alexandrian influence which permeates some of the oldest manuscripts (particularly Vaticanus B, Sinaiticus Aleph) upon which the modern versions are based.

Scrivener states: "it is no less true to fact than paradoxical in sound, that the worst corruptions to which the New Testament has ever been subjected, originated within 100 years after it was composed: and that Irenaeus and the African Fathers, and the whole Western, with a portion of the Syrian Church, used manuscripts far inferior to those employed by Stunica, Erasmus or Stephens, thirteen centuries later when moulding the Textus Receptus."

THE OLDEST MANUSCRIPTS ARE IN PERPETUAL DISAGREEMENT If we were to believe that the manuscripts became more corrupt each time they were copied, we would therefore expect the oldest to be the best and also to be in greatest agreement with each other.

THE FACT IS THEY ARE NOT -- as the following quote will show: "Ought it not, asks Dean Burgon, sensibly to detract from our opinion of the value of their evidence, (Codex B and Codex Aleph) to discover that it is easier to find two consecutive verses in which the two manuscripts differ, the one from the other, than two consecutive verses in which they entirely agree? .... On every such occasion only one of them can possibly be speaking the truth. Shall I be thought unreasonable if I confess that these perpetual inconsistencies, between Codd B and Aleph -- grave inconsistencies and occasionally even gross ones -- altogether destroy my confidence in either?"

Or as Srivener writes: "The point on which we insist is briefly this: that the evidence of ancient authorities is anything but unanimous, that they are perpetually at variance with each other, even if we limit the term ancient within the narrowest bounds. Shall it include, among the manuscripts of the Gospels, none but the five oldest copies of Codices Aleph, A, B, C, D? The reader has but to open the first recent critical work he shall meet with, to see them scarcely ever in unison, perpetually divided two against three, or perhaps four against one."

The following figures provided by Kirsopp Lake and his associates (1928), demonstrate that Codices Aleph, B and D are in greater disagreement among themselves than they are with the Received Text!

In Mark Chapter 2 alone-- Aleph, B and D differ from the Received Text 69, 71 and 95 times respectively. B differs from Aleph 34 times B differs from D 102 times D differs from Aleph 100 times.

Hoskier, who studied the differences between the texts of Aleph and B, lists the following differences in the 4 Gospels. These numbers show how often Sinaiticus (Aleph) and Vaticanus (B) DIFFER FROM EACH OTHER!

Matthew: 656 differences, Mark: 567 differences, Luke: 791 differences, John: 1,022 differences. Total for four (4) Gospels 3,036 differences.

In the light of the facts stated above it is clear that we cannot have confidence in any modern version or Greek text which rejects the concordant testimony of the vast majority of manuscripts in favour of a small company of ancient, but discordant witnesses.

TWO STREAMS OF MANUSCRIPTS HAVE ALWAYS EXISTED The foregoing comments serve to show that the claim of some modern translations and paraphrases, that the oldest manuscripts are the best, is altogether based on a wrong foundation.

Dr. D. Otis Fuller, in his book "WHICH BIBLE," has shown that Christians of all ages have recognised that two streams of manuscripts have always existed.

The muddy stream of the corrupt text, including the Western family (characterised by interpolations), and the Alexandrian family {characterised by omissions) has flowed through channels such as Origen (who denied the deity of Christ) Eusebius, Jerome (who produced the Latin Vulgate), and in the last century, through Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Westcott and Hort.

The pure stream of the New Testament has flowed to us through the Received Text, which Dr. D. Otis Fuller tells us: "had authority enough to become either in itself, or by its translation, the Bible of the great Syrian Church, of the Waldensian Church of northern Italy, of the Gallic Church of Southern France, and of the Celtic Church in Scotland and Ireland, as well as the official Bible of the Greek Church (BYZANTINE TEXT)." The reformers stood firmly by the Received Text, Luther's German Translation and Tyndale's magnificent English Translation were from it. When 47 scholars translated the Authorised Version in 1611, by Divine Providence the Received Text was used.

Manuscript discoveries since 1611 have NOT altered the picture. The number increased to 3791 in 1881, and since then to about 5,000, BUT STILL ABOUT 90% AGREE WITH THE RECEIVED TEXT!

 Here is another good site that documents what Sinaiticus actually looks like.  You can see for yourself the actual scribal corrections that litter this so called "oldest and best manuscript"-

http://www.preservedword.com/article.php?id=237  

 

 

Are the Older Manuscripts More Reliable?

http://www.textusreceptusbibles.com/Are_Older_Manuscripts_More_Reliable

Good article that explains a lot about the older, Egyptian manuscripts that are primarily used in the modern Vatican versions like the ESV, NASB, NIV, NET, etc.  It shows some of the readings found in Sinaiticus and how they got that way.  Good information. 

 

 

Modern Textual Criticism


Refutes James White from the Reformed point of view.  Lots of factual information


Why the “oldest manuscripts” may not be the best.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3gfLDDb0zc&feature=youtu.be&fb_ref=Default&fb_source=message

 

 

Will Kinney

Return to Articles - http://brandplucked.webs.com/articles.htm 

 

Notes from the Internet -

Are the Earliest manuscripts the best?

Gnostic Corruptions in the Critical Texts

A Case Study On the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, 21st Edition

http://www.studytoanswer.net/bibleversions/gnostic.html

 

 

Didn't Erasmus and the Reformation Editors Use Textual Criticism?

 

http://libertyparkusafd.org/lp/Burgon/reports%5CDidn%27t%20Erasmus%20and%20the%20Reformation%20Editors%20Use%20Textual%20Criticism.htm

 

 


 

 

The reading of “if a son shall ask BREAD of any of you that is a father, WILL HE GIVE HIM A STONE?  OR IF HE ASK a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent?” is found in the Majority of all manuscripts, and in such Bible translations as: the Anglo-Saxon Gospels Corpus Christi Manuscript circa 1000 A.D., Wycliffe 1395 - "Therfor who of you axith his fadir breed, whether he schal yyue hym a stoon? or if he axith fisch, whether he schal yyue hym a serpent for the fish?", Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, The Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549, the Bishops’ Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1557 - 1602, the Douay-Rheims of 1582, the King James Bible 1611, Mace N.T. 1729, Wesley’s translation of 1755, Young’s, Darby, Hebrew Names Version, World English Bible, Lamsa’s 1936 translation of the Syriac, Weymouth Version 1902, the Bible in Basic English 1961, the New Life Version 1969, Hebrew Names Version, the New Berkeley Version 1969, the Amplified Bible 1987 (put out by the same Lockman Foundation that prints the NASB), the 1994 21st Century KJV, the 1998 Third Millennium Bible and the Jubilee Bible 2000.



Foreign language Bibles that read the same way as the King James Bible are Jerome’s Latin translation of 382 A.D., the Latin Vulgate of 405, the Sagradas Escrituras of 1569, Cipriano de Valera Bible 1602, the Spanish Reina Valera 1909, 1960, 1995 - “¿Qué padre de vosotros, si su hijo le pide pan, le dará una piedra? ¿o si pescado, en lugar de pescado, le dará una serpiente?”, the 2004 Reina Valera Gomez, La Biblia de las Américas 1997 (by the same Lockman Foundation), Luther’s German Bible 1545, the German Schlachter Bible 2000, the Italian Diodati 1649, and the New Diodati 1991, and the 1997 La Parola e Vita - “E chi è tra voi quel padre che, se il figlio gli chiede del PANE, gli dà una pietra? “, the Portuguese de Almeida, the Chinese Union Traditional, the French Martin 1744, Louis Segond 1910, French Ostervald 1996 - “Qui est le père d'entre vous, qui donne à son fils une pierre, lorsqu'il lui demande du PAIN?”, the Modern Greek used throughout the whole world in the Greek Orthodox churches and the Modern Hebrew New Testament and in the Modern Hebrew Bible - ומי בכם האב אשר ישאל ממנו בנו לחם ונתן לו אבן ואם דג היתן לו נחש תחת הדג׃

 

 

 Luke 10:1, 17 -  "How many men did the Lord Jesus send out to preach, 70 or 72?"

Most Evangelical Christians today do not believe that any Bible in any language IS the inerrant words of God.  In spite of the lame, signifying nothing, recent Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, they did get one thing right.It’s found in Article XII - “We deny that Biblical infallibility and inerrancy are limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes, exclusive of assertions in the fields of history and science.” 

Every true Bible believer should agree with this statement.  IF the Bible is not 100% historically true, then at what point does God start to tell us the truth?  If we cannot trust God's Book when it comes to specific numbers and names when it comes to past history, then how can we be sure He got the other parts right? 

Luke 10:1, 17  KJB - "After these things the Lord appointed other SEVENTY also, and sent them two and two before his face into every city and place, whither he himself would come." V.17 "And the SEVENTY returned again with joy, saying, Lord, even the devils are subject unto us through thy name."

ESV -  "After this the Lord appointed SEVENTY TWO others and sent them on ahead of him, two by two...V.17 The SEVENTY TWO returned with joy, saying, Lord, even the demons are subject to us in your name."

The reading of SEVENTY is found in Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535 - "the LORDE appoynted out other seuentie, and sent them two and two before him", the Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549 - "the Lord appoynted other seuentye also", the Bishops' Bible, the Geneva Bible 1599, Mace N.T. 1729, Whitston's N.T. 1745, Wesley's N.T. 1755, Worsley Version 1770,  Living Oracles 1835, Darby 1890, Young's 1898, the RV 1881, ASV 1901, Godbey N.T. 1902, Weymouth 1912, RSV 1952, NRSV 1989, J.B. Phillips N.T. 1962, the Aramaic Bible in Plain English, Lamsa, Etheridge and Murdock's translation of the Syriac Peshitta, the NKJV 1982, NASB 1963-1995, the Holman Standard 2009, the 2007 International Standard Version,  Orthodox Jewish Bible 2011, Names of God Bible 2011 and The Voice 2012. 

Seventy is the reading found in the Majority of all Greek manuscripts including Sinaiticus, A, C the Old Latin f, q, r1 and the Syriac Peshitta, Harclean, Palestinian, Coptic Boharic, Gothic and Ethiopian ancient versions.  It is also so quoted by Irenaeus, Clement, Tertulian, Origen, Eusebiou, Basil, Ambrose, Jerome and Cyril. It is also the Greek text reading of the Majority text, Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, the Greek Orthodox text, and even Tischendorf's 8th edition. 

Foreign language Bibles that also read "SEVENTY" in Luke 10:1 and 17 are the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569, Cipriano de Valera 1602, the Reina Valera's 1909-1995 - "el Señor designó también a otros setenta", the French Martin 1744, Ostervald 1996 and Louis Segond 2007 - " le Seigneur en ordonna aussi soixante-dix autres", Luther's German Bible 1545 and German Schlachter bible 2000 - "HERR andere siebzig aus und sandte sie zwei ind zwei", the Portuguese Almeida -  "o Senhor outros setenta", the Italian Diodati 1991 and the Italian Riveduta Bible 2006 -"il Signore ne designò altri settanta", the Modern Greek Bible - "Μετα δε ταυτα διωρισεν ο Κυριος και αλλους εβδομηκοντα" and the Modern Hebrew Bible - "ואחרי כן הבדיל האדון עוד שבעים אחרים וישלחם לפניו"

However the Vaticanus manuscript and D read SEVENTY TWO and so the NIV, the ESV, New English Bible 1970, Common English Bible 2011, and ALL Catholic versions like the  Douay-Rheims 1582, Douay 1950, Jerusalem Bible 1968, St. Joseph NAB 1970, New Jerusalem bible 1985 and the 2009 Catholic Public Domain Version - "After this the Lord appointed SEVENTY-TWO others and sent them two by two ahead of him..." (NIV). Notice that the previous RSV, NRSV went with 70, but the latest revision of the revision of the revision, the ESV, now goes with 72.

But many newer modern versions that are based on the Critical Text have gone back to the reading of SEVENTY. Among these are the NASB 1995, the Holman Standard 2009, The Voice 2012, the Complete Jewish Bible 1998, the Message 2002, Names of God Bible 2011 and the International Standard Version.

 The Nestle-Aland critical Greek textbooks keep changing as well. Westcott and Hort put SEVENTY [TWO] in their text, bracketing the number [TWO]. However not even the Revised Version 1881 or the ASV of 1901 followed this reading of 72 but stayed with 70.  The Nestle Critical text 4th edition 1934 says 70 with no "two" in the text at all.  I have a hard copy of it here in my study.  But some time later the Nestle Critical text went back to putting the number [two] in brackets, indicating doubt, and this is how it stands in todays UBS/Nestle-Aland/Vatican critical textbooks.

So if all these versions are equally the inspired, inerrant and 100% historically true words of God, how many men did the Lord Jesus send out to preach - SEVENTY or SEVENTY TWO?  It is impossible that God inspired both readings in the same place. One is right and the other is wrong.  

The King James Bible is always right.  Accept no substitutes.

 

 Luke 10:1, 17 -  "How many men did the Lord Jesus send out to preach, 70 or 72?"

Most Evangelical Christians today do not believe that any Bible in any language IS the inerrant words of God.  In spite of the lame, signifying nothing, recent Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, they did get one thing right.It’s found in Article XII - “We deny that Biblical infallibility and inerrancy are limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes, exclusive of assertions in the fields of history and science.” 

Every true Bible believer should agree with this statement.  IF the Bible is not 100% historically true, then at what point does God start to tell us the truth?  If we cannot trust God's Book when it comes to specific numbers and names when it comes to past history, then how can we be sure He got the other parts right? 

Luke 10:1, 17  KJB - "After these things the Lord appointed other SEVENTY also, and sent them two and two before his face into every city and place, whither he himself would come." V.17 "And the SEVENTY returned again with joy, saying, Lord, even the devils are subject unto us through thy name."

ESV -  "After this the Lord appointed SEVENTY TWO others and sent them on ahead of him, two by two...V.17 The SEVENTY TWO returned with joy, saying, Lord, even the demons are subject to us in your name."

The reading of SEVENTY is found in Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535 - "the LORDE appoynted out other seuentie, and sent them two and two before him", the Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549 - "the Lord appoynted other seuentye also", the Bishops' Bible, the Geneva Bible 1599, Mace N.T. 1729, Whitston's N.T. 1745, Wesley's N.T. 1755, Worsley Version 1770,  Living Oracles 1835, Darby 1890, Young's 1898, the RV 1881, ASV 1901, Godbey N.T. 1902, Weymouth 1912, RSV 1952, NRSV 1989, J.B. Phillips N.T. 1962, the Aramaic Bible in Plain English, Lamsa, Etheridge and Murdock's translation of the Syriac Peshitta, the NKJV 1982, NASB 1963-1995, the Holman Standard 2009, the 2007 International Standard Version,  Orthodox Jewish Bible 2011, Names of God Bible 2011 and The Voice 2012. 

Seventy is the reading found in the Majority of all Greek manuscripts including Sinaiticus, A, C the Old Latin f, q, r1 and the Syriac Peshitta, Harclean, Palestinian, Coptic Boharic, Gothic and Ethiopian ancient versions.  It is also so quoted by Irenaeus, Clement, Tertulian, Origen, Eusebiou, Basil, Ambrose, Jerome and Cyril. It is also the Greek text reading of the Majority text, Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, the Greek Orthodox text, and even Tischendorf's 8th edition. 

Foreign language Bibles that also read "SEVENTY" in Luke 10:1 and 17 are the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569, Cipriano de Valera 1602, the Reina Valera's 1909-1995 - "el Señor designó también a otros setenta", the French Martin 1744, Ostervald 1996 and Louis Segond 2007 - " le Seigneur en ordonna aussi soixante-dix autres", Luther's German Bible 1545 and German Schlachter bible 2000 - "HERR andere siebzig aus und sandte sie zwei ind zwei", the Portuguese Almeida -  "o Senhor outros setenta", the Italian Diodati 1991 and the Italian Riveduta Bible 2006 -"il Signore ne designò altri settanta", the Modern Greek Bible - "Μετα δε ταυτα διωρισεν ο Κυριος και αλλους εβδομηκοντα" and the Modern Hebrew Bible - "ואחרי כן הבדיל האדון עוד שבעים אחרים וישלחם לפניו"

However the Vaticanus manuscript and D read SEVENTY TWO and so the NIV, the ESV, New English Bible 1970, Common English Bible 2011, and ALL Catholic versions like the  Douay-Rheims 1582, Douay 1950, Jerusalem Bible 1968, St. Joseph NAB 1970, New Jerusalem bible 1985 and the 2009 Catholic Public Domain Version - "After this the Lord appointed SEVENTY-TWO others and sent them two by two ahead of him..." (NIV). Notice that the previous RSV, NRSV went with 70, but the latest revision of the revision of the revision, the ESV, now goes with 72.

But many newer modern versions that are based on the Critical Text have gone back to the reading of SEVENTY. Among these are the NASB 1995, the Holman Standard 2009, The Voice 2012, the Complete Jewish Bible 1998, the Message 2002, Names of God Bible 2011 and the International Standard Version.

 The Nestle-Aland critical Greek textbooks keep changing as well. Westcott and Hort put SEVENTY [TWO] in their text, bracketing the number [TWO]. However not even the Revised Version 1881 or the ASV of 1901 followed this reading of 72 but stayed with 70.  The Nestle Critical text 4th edition 1934 says 70 with no "two" in the text at all.  I have a hard copy of it here in my study.  But some time later the Nestle Critical text went back to putting the number [two] in brackets, indicating doubt, and this is how it stands in todays UBS/Nestle-Aland/Vatican critical textbooks.

So if all these versions are equally the inspired, inerrant and 100% historically true words of God, how many men did the Lord Jesus send out to preach - SEVENTY or SEVENTY TWO?  It is impossible that God inspired both readings in the same place. One is right and the other is wrong.  

The King James Bible is always right.  Accept no substitutes.

 

85tc There are a number of variants at this point in the text: εἰς (eis, “to”) in א B Ï sams syhmg;ἀπό (apo, “from”) in D E Ψ 36 323 453 614 1175 al; ἐξ (ex, “from”) in Ì74 A 33 945 1739 al; ἐξ ᾿Ιερουσαλήμ εἰς ᾿Αντιόχειαν (ex Ierousalhm ei" Antioceian, “from Jerusalem to Antioch”) in {a few later manuscripts and part of the Itala}. A decision on this problem is very difficult, but for several reasonsεἰς can be preferred. It is the most difficult reading by far in light of the context, since Paul and Barnabas were going to Jerusalem in 11:30. It is found in better witnesses, א and B being very strong evidence. The other readings, ἐξ and ἀπό, are different from εἰς yet bear essentially the same meaning as each other; this seems to suggest that scribes had problems with εἰς and tried to choose an acceptable revision. If εἰς is the earliest reading, ἀπό may be a clarification of ἐξ, and ἐξ could have arisen through confusion of letters. Or ἐξ and ἀπό could both have independently arisen from εἰς as a more acceptable preposition. Despite such arguments, however, the case for εἰς is not airtight: eitherἐξ or ἀπό could be preferred on other lines of reasoning. The reading ἐξ enjoys the earliest support, and εἰς could have arisen through the same confusion of letters mentioned above. The immediate and wider context seems to mitigate against εἰς as the original reading: The aorist participle πληρώσαντες(plhrwsante", “when they had completed”) seems to signal the end of the mission to Jerusalem with the famine relief, so it would make sense in the context for the team to be coming from Jerusalem (to Antioch) rather than to Jerusalem, and 13:1 certainly presents the scene at Antioch. The later addition εἰς ᾿Αντιόχειαν after ᾿Ιερουσαλήμ in some mss seems to be a clarification in light of 13:1 (notice that some of the mss that read ἐξ add εἰς ᾿Αντιόχειαν [945 1739], and some that read ἀπό also add εἰς ᾿Αντιόχειαν [E 323 1175]). Thus, the idea of spatial separation from Jerusalem is strongly implied by the context. This problem is so difficult that some scholars resort to conjectural emendation to determine the original reading. All in all, the reading εἰς should be preferred as original, recognizing that there is a good measure of uncertainty with this solution.
85tc There are a number of variants at this point in the text: εἰς (eis, “to”) in א B Ï sams syhmg;ἀπό (apo, “from”) in D E Ψ 36 323 453 614 1175 al; ἐξ (ex, “from”) in Ì74 A 33 945 1739 al; ἐξ ᾿Ιερουσαλήμ εἰς ᾿Αντιόχειαν (ex Ierousalhm ei" Antioceian, “from Jerusalem to Antioch”) in {a few later manuscripts and part of the Itala}. A decision on this problem is very difficult, but for several reasonsεἰς can be preferred. It is the most difficult reading by far in light of the context, since Paul and Barnabas were going to Jerusalem in 11:30. It is found in better witnesses, א and B being very strong evidence. The other readings, ἐξ and ἀπό, are different from εἰς yet bear essentially the same meaning as each other; this seems to suggest that scribes had problems with εἰς and tried to choose an acceptable revision. If εἰς is the earliest reading, ἀπό may be a clarification of ἐξ, and ἐξ could have arisen through confusion of letters. Or ἐξ and ἀπό could both have independently arisen from εἰς as a more acceptable preposition. Despite such arguments, however, the case for εἰς is not airtight: eitherἐξ or ἀπό could be preferred on other lines of reasoning. The reading ἐξ enjoys the earliest support, and εἰς could have arisen through the same confusion of letters mentioned above. The immediate and wider context seems to mitigate against εἰς as the original reading: The aorist participle πληρώσαντες(plhrwsante", “when they had completed”) seems to signal the end of the mission to Jerusalem with the famine relief, so it would make sense in the context for the team to be coming from Jerusalem (to Antioch) rather than to Jerusalem, and 13:1 certainly presents the scene at Antioch. The later addition εἰς ᾿Αντιόχειαν after ᾿Ιερουσαλήμ in some mss seems to be a clarification in light of 13:1 (notice that some of the mss that read ἐξ add εἰς ᾿Αντιόχειαν [945 1739], and some that read ἀπό also add εἰς ᾿Αντιόχειαν [E 323 1175]). Thus, the idea of spatial separation from Jerusalem is strongly implied by the context. This problem is so difficult that some scholars resort to conjectural emendation to determine the original reading. All in all, the reading εἰς should be preferred as original, recognizing that there is a good measure of uncertainty with this solution
The extant New Testament of the Vaticanus contains the GospelsActs, the General Epistles, the Pauline Epistles, and the Epistle to the Hebrews (up to Hebrews 9:14, καθα[ριει); it is lacking 1 and 2 TimothyTitusPhilemon, andRevelation

Matthew 12:47 reads: "Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee." This verse is found in the Majority of all texts, in Sinaiticus correction, C and D. However Vaticanus omits it.

The RV and ASV included the verse. Then the Revised Standard Version of 1952 omitted it, but the NRSV of 1989 but it back in again. But wait. Now the 2001 ESV again omits it! However the NASB, NIV, ISV, Wallace's NET version and the Holman all keep it in their texts. Some "science", huh?

Matthew 12:47 reads: "Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee." This verse is found in the Majority of all texts, in Sinaiticus correction, C and D. However Vaticanus omits it.

The RV and ASV included the verse. Then the Revised Standard Version of 1952 omitted it, but the NRSV of 1989 but it back in again. But wait. Now the 2001 ESV again omits it! However the NASB, NIV, ISV, Wallace's NET version and the Holman all keep it in their texts. Some "science", huh?

● Matthew 5:19:  Whoever therefore shall make void one of the least of these commandments, and shall teach men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of the heavens; but whoever shall do and teach, he shall be called great in the kingdom of the heavens.
The reading "WHICH SPENT ALL HER LIVING UPON PHYSICIANS" in Luke 8:43 is found in the Anglo-Saxon Gospels, Corpus Christi Manuscript 140 of 1000 A.D., Wycliffe's Bible 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540 - "which had spent all her substaunce vpon phisicions", Matthew's Bible 1549, the Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, The Beza N.T. 1599, Wesley's translation 1755, Worsley N.T. 1770, The Alford N.T. 1870, the RV 1885, ASV 1901, Darby 1890, Young's 1898, Weymouth's N.T. 1912, Godbey N.T. 1902, the Bible in Basic English 1961, the NKJV 1982, the Third Millenium Bible 1998, The Koster Scriptures 1998, The Lawrie N.T. 1998, The Last Days N.T. 1999, The Tomson N.T. 2002, The Pickering N.T. 2005, The Resurrection Life N.T. 2005, The Mebust Bible 2007, The Christogenea N.T. 2009, The New European Version 2010, The Jubilee Bible 2010 The Orthodox Jewish Bible 2011, the Common English Bible 2011, Lexham English Bible 2012, Orthodox Jewish Bible 2011, The Work of God's Children Bible 2011, The Voice 2012, The Biblos Bible 2013, The Pioneer's N.T. 2014, The Modern Literal N.T. 2014 and The Modern English Version 2014 (just to name some of them)


All these words are also found in the Modern Greek Bible - " ητις δαπανησασα εις ιατρους ολον τον βιον αυτης",

and in the Modern Hebrew Bible - ואשה זבת דם שתים עשרה שנה אשר הוציאה כל קנינה לרפאים ואין איש יכל לרפאתה׃

Among foreign language translations the words "WHICH SPENT ALL HER LIVING UPON PHYSICIANS” are found in the Latin Vulgate 382 A.D. -"in fluxu sanguinis ab annis duodecim quae in medicos erogaverat omnem substantiam" , Luther's German Bible 1545 and the 2000 German Schlachter Bible - "die hatte alle ihre Nahrung an die Ärzte gewandt", the Portuguese Almeida, O Livro 2000, Sagrada Biblia and NIV Portuguese edition - "E certa mulher, que tinha uma hemorragia havia doze anos e gastara com os médicos todos os seus haveres e por ninguém pudera ser curada", the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569, the Reina Valera's of 1909, 1960, 1995, La Biblia de las Américas 1997, and Contemporánea 2011 - "y había gastado en médicos todo lo que tenía”(but NOT the Spanish NIV), in the French Martin 1744, Ostervald 1996, Louis Segond of 1910 and 2007 - "souffrait d'hémorragies depuis 12 ans; elle avait dépensé tout son bien chez les médecins", the Russian Synodal Version 1876, the Afrikaans Bible 1953, the Italian Diodati 1649, Nuova Diodati 1991, La Paroa é Vita 1997 and Italian Riveduta 2006 - "E una donna, che aveva un flusso di sangue da dodici anni ed aveva speso con i medici tutti i suoi beni senza poter essere guarita da alcuno."


The Catholic Connection -

The Catholic Versions are all over the board, as usual. The earlier Douay-Rheims of 1582 included the words, as does the 1950 Douay Version, reading: "And there was a certain woman having an issue of blood twelve years, who had bestowed all her substance on physicians and could not be healed by any."

But then in 1968 the Catholic Jerusalem bible removed the words; then in 1970 the St. Joseph New American Bible put them back in. Then in 1985 the New Jerusalem bible took them out again; but now once more in 2009 the Sacred Bible Catholic Public Domain Version has put them back in again!

It should be obvious by this time that the multiple choice Critical Text bible editions are consistently inconsistent, and yet they are all allegedly put together by studying "the science" of textual criticism. Their "science" has nothing at all to do with "the new discovery of ancient manuscript readings" or "transcriptional probabilities" or anything remotely logical or faith based at all.

They are just guessing, changing their minds on a whim and they don't even agree with each other. What a joke! And all the while fewer and fewer Christians believe in the Inerrancy of the Bible and the Muslims, Atheists and Bible Mockers are having a Field Day of it.