Another King James Bible Believer

Subtitle

 

 
 


The "Science" of Textual Criticism - Gospel of Matthew. Is this "Science" or Hocus-Pocus?



Most modern versions like the NASB, NIV, ESV (the 2001 English Standard Version) are based on the Westcott-Hort, UBS, Nestle-Aland/Vatican critical Greek text, which omits or substitutes some 5000 words and many whole verses from the New Testament Greek text that the King James Bible is derived from.


The W-H text is based primarily on two manuscripts called Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. These two texts disagree significantly with each other, let alone with the vast majority of all other texts, in over 3000 places in the gospels alone, and over 1000 times in the rest of the New Testament. Yet they form the textual basis of most modern bible versions. Any modern bible version that is based on the UBS (United Bible Society) critical Greek text or the Nestle-Aland 27th edition critical text is in fact and undeniably a "Catholic" Vatican Version.  


See the undeniable proof of this in their own words here -

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



 

Bruce Metzger, the chief editor of the United Bible Society eclectic critical Greek text, says, "It is understandable that in some cases different scholars will come to different evaluations of the significance of the evidence." B.M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament (London: Oxford University Press, 1964), p. 210.


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!!!


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.


In case you are under the impression that all bibles are 99% the same, I highly recommend you take a look at this site called Westcott and Hort's magic marker. There are two parts to this, but it is very easy to follow and will probably shock you to actually see just how different the two basic New Testament texts really are.


http://av1611.com/kjbp/charts/themagicmarker.html



In this study we will be looking at some of the places where the readings found in most modern versions are based on only one, two or a small handful of manuscripts as opposed to the overwhelming majority of all other Greek copies. You will also find many examples of where the Nestle-Aland, UBS critical Greek texts continue to change from one edition to the next. The Modern Multiple-Choice, X Files (the truth is out there somewhere) Bible of the Month Club's contradictory versions have no settled and final text. 


The main versions referred to in this study are the King James Bible, NKJV, NASB, NIV and the ESV. Of these 5 versions, the NASB, NIV and ESV are primarily based on the Westcott-Hort Alexandrian Greek text, while the KJB and NKJV are based on the Traditional Text of the Greek speaking churches.


Gospel of Matthew

 

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 (NASB, NIV, NET, Holman Standard)  "And Solomon begat Roboam; and Roboam begat Abia; and Abia begat ASA ; and ASA  begat Josaphat"(v.10) And Ezekias begat Manasses; and Manasses begat AMON  and AMON  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, and ASAPH  the father of Jehoshaphat"(v.10) And Hezekiah the father of Manasseh and Manasseh the father of AMOS  and AMOS  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  

 

 


Matthew 2:16 "slew all the children", "all the boys" or "all the male children"?


Some Bible critic, who himself does not believe that any Bible in any language is now or ever was the complete and inerrant words of God, criticizes the King James Bible (and many others as well) for what it says in Matthew 2:16 that Herod slew all the CHILDREN under two years old.


Matthew 2:16 KJB - "Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew ALL THE CHILDREN that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently inquired of the wise men."


This Bible critic writes - "Eventually, almost 300 years later, the other Christian bibles corrected the error in the King James Version, saying it was NOT all the children, meaning boys and girls,  it was ONLY the males. For example, from the New International Version (NIV):


NIV - "When Herod realized that he had been outwitted by the Magi, he was furious, and he gave orders to kill ALL THE BOYS in Bethlehem and its vicinity who were two years old and under, in accordance with the time he had learned from the Magi."


NKJV (NASB, ESV, Holman Standard) - "all the male children"


The Bible critic continues - "The error had been made; the bell had been rung. If a Christian missionary went to country that had no religion, or its own religion, and these missionaries gave the people in this 3rd world country the King James Version bible, what message would these people receive? That King Herod killed all the boys and girls under the age of three."


(End of Bible critic's comments)


So, how do we respond to this criticism?


It's not that difficult to explain.  First of all, our Bible critic did not bother to do his homework very well.  Had he done so, he would have realized that he is wrong in affirming that  "almost 300 years later English bibles corrected the error."


Had he bothered to do some basic research he would have found out that the Geneva Bible of 1587 and the Catholic Douay-Rheims of 1582 both read: "and slew all THE MALE CHILDREN."


The KJB translators were obviously aware of this possible translation, but they deliberately chose to reject it, and instead went with simply "all the CHILDREN", as also did Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, The Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549 and the Bishops' bible 1568.


We need to look at the whole context and the meaning of the Greek words used in this passage of Scripture.


In Matthew 2:16 where the KJB and many others as we shall soon see,  read - "and slew all the children" the underlying Greek word here is pais and this word has several meanings including "children, servant, son, young man, child, maid and maiden."


The word can refer to either males or females or both at the same time.  Even the NIV and the other modern versions translate this same word as both "children" and as "maiden" or "girl"



Matthew 21:15 KJV

And when the chief priests and scribes saw the wonderful things that he did, and THE CHILDREN (pais) crying in the temple, and saying, Hosanna to the son of David; they were sore displeased?


Also reading CHILDREN in this verse are the NIV, NASB, ESV, NKJV, Holman Standard, Geneva bible, Darby, Young's.


Luke 8:51 KJV, speaking of the daughter of the ruler of the synagogue, says: 

And when he came into the house, he suffered no man to go in, save Peter, and James, and John, and the father and the mother of THE MAIDEN. (pais)


Luke 8:54 KJV 

And he put them all out, and took her by the hand, and called, saying, MAID, arise. (pais)


MAIDEN - Tyndale, Coverdale, Great Bible, Matthew's bible, Bishops' bible, the Geneva bible, Revised Version, ASV, Jubilee Bible 2010 


Girl - NASB, NKJV, The Voice


Young girl - ISV


Child - NIV, ESV, Holman, NET. 


It is of interest that the context, here, is clearly that of "the daughter" (a female) of the ruler of the synagogue, yet the NIV, ESV, NET and Holman refer to her as "the child".


Could we not then equally apply the use of the word "children" in Matthew chapter 2 to the CONTEXT and assume that it refers to the male children?


It is only an assumption on the part of this King James Bible critic that King Herod only killed the boy babies. He may very well have killed ALL the children, both male and female, that were two years old and under. Herod was well known for his cruelty and may well have wanted all the Jewish families with children to suffer his wrath.


As one brother pointed out, "Maybe children under two wore similar clothing and it was not easy to distinguish sex. Maybe the soldiers didn't have time to strip them and make a determination. So Herod figured, "just kill 'em all." Any young child in the vicinity of two years old or less. Take no chances. No quick attempt of avoidance by disguising the sex of the children. Butcher them, one and all."


Or, we can simply follow the context of Matthew 2 where it is talking about the Christ (messiah) to be born, and take the view that the "children" that were slain would have been the males. But, this is only by assuming that Herod was a rational man to some degree, rather than a sadistic tyrant who slew ALL the children from two years old and under.


In either case, the word "children" fits the context. The TEXT itself does not explicitly clear up the matter one way or the other.


There IS a specific Greek word that means "male", but God did not use it in this context of Matthew chapter 2.


The specific word for "male" is #142 arseen, and it is used in Luke 2:23 KJV where we read: 

"As it is written in the law of the LORD, Every MALE that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord." 


God could have used this specific word in recording the events of Matthew chapter 2, had He wanted to emphasize or point out that these included only the MALE children, but He didn't do that. Instead He used the generic word for "children"


IF we follow on in the context of Matthew 2 and just read the very next 2 verses, we see that Herod's killing the children was the fulfillment of a prophecy: 


Matthew 2:17-18 KJV 

17 Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet, saying,


18 In Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for HER CHILDREN, and would not be comforted, because they are not.


Here, the underlying Greek word is teknon, and this is the general word for "children" of both sexes.


Matthew 2:16 KJV

Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew ALL THE CHILDREN that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently inquired of the wise men.


Agreeing with the translation found in the KJV of "and slew all the CHILDREN" are the following Bible translations - Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, The Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549 and the Bishops' bible 1568, Whiston's N.T. 1745, The Clark N.T. 1745, Sawyer N.T. 1858, The Revised N.T. 1862, The Sharpe Bible 1883, the NRSV 1989, The Revised Webster Bible 1995, God's First Truth 1999, Dan Wallace's NET version 2006, The Mebust Bible 2007, The Christogenea N.T. 2009, the Jubilee Bible 2010, The Hebrew Transliteration Scriptures 2010, the Common English Bible 2011, The Far Above All Translation 2014, The Pioneer's N.T. 2014, and The New Matthew Bible 2016 - "and slew all THE CHILDREN that were in Bethlehem" 



Matthew 5:27 KJB - "Ye have heard it said BY THEM OF OLD TIME, Thou shalt not commit adultery."

ESV (NIV, NASB, NET, Jehovah Witness NWT, Catholic St. Joseph NAB, Holman Standard) -  "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery.'"


"by them of old time" is a minority reading but it has manuscript, patristic and ancient version support.

It is found in the Textus Receptus, and manuscripts L, Delta, Theta, 233, f13, 33, 579, 892, 1010 and others (Pickering says about 10% of the Greek mss. read this way) and is in the Latin Vulgate 405 A.D, the Syriac Curetonian, some Syriac Harclean ancient versions and is so quoted by Origen, Eusebius and Cyril among the early church writers.

The Catholic Connection

The phrase is found in the older Catholic versions like the Douay-Rheims 1582 and the Douay Version of 1950, but in more recent times the Catholic versions like the St. Joseph NAB 1970 and the New Jerusalem bible 1985 have omitted these words.

Bibles that read like the KJB- BY THEM OF OLD TIME are Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, The Great bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549, the Bishops' bible 1568, the Douay-Rheims 1582, the Geneva bible 1587, the Beza N.T. 1599, Worsley N.T. 1770, Haweis N.T. 1795, the Boothroyd bible 1853, The Revised N.T. 1862, Smith Bible 1876, The Revised English Bible 1877, Young's 1898,  the Clarke N.T. 1913, New Life Version 1969, the NKJV 1982, The Koster Scriptures 1998, The Lawrie N.T. 1998, Third Millennium bible 1998, God?s First Truth 1999, the Tomson N.T. 2002, The Apostolic Polyglot bible 2003,  Resurrection Life N.T. 2005, the Mebust Bible 2007, Jubilee bible 2010, The Work of God?s Children Bible 2011, The Voice 2012 - "long ago", The Modern English Version 2014 The Hebrew Roots Bible 2015 and the New Matthew Bible 2016.

Foreign Language bibles = KJB

The Latin Vulgate 405 A.D. - "audistis quia dictum est antiquis non moechaberisthe", The Clementime Vulgate,  the Spanish Las Sagradas Escrituras 1569, Cipriano do Valera 1602 and the Reina Valera Gómez  - "Oísteis que fue dicho a los antiguos: No adulterarás.", Italian Diodati 1649 and La Nuova Diodati 1991 - "Voi avete udito che fu detto agli antichi: Non commettere adulterio.", the French Martin bible 1744, French Ostervald 1996 - "qu'il a été dit aux Anciens", Luther's German Bible 1545 and the German Schlachter bible 2000 - "Ihr habt gehört, daß zu den Alten gesagt ist: "Du sollst nicht ehebrechen.", the Portuguese A Biblia Sagradq, and the Almeida Corrigida - "Ouvistes que foi dito aos antigos: No cometers adultrio.", the Hungarian Karoli bible - "hogy megmondatott a régieknek", the Russian Synodal Version, the Smith & Van Dyke Arabic bible and the Dutch Staten Vertaling bible.

And in The Greek Modern Translation -

https://www.studylight.org/desk/index.cgi?sr=1&old_q=Matthew+5%3A27&search_form_type=general&q1=Matthew+5%3A27&s=0&t1=el_gmd&ns=0

And The Modern Hebrew Bible -

https://www.studylight.org/desk/index.cgi?sr=1&search_form_type=general&q1=Matthew+5%3A27&s=0&t1=iw_hmd


Once again it comes down to the difference between the Reformation Bible tezt or the new Vatican supervised Text Versions.


Matthew 6:1 ALMS or RIGHTEOUSNESS?


KJB - "Take heed that ye do not your ALMS before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven."


ESV (NASB, NIV, NET, Holman, Catholic versions, Jehovah Witness NWT) - "Beware of practicing your RIGHTEOUSNESS before other people in order to be seen by them, for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven."


The reading of ALMS (eleemosunee) is that found in the Majority of all manuscripts including E, K, L, M, S, U, W, Z, Delta, Theta, Pi, Sigma, Omega, the Old Latin f, k, and the Syriac Peshitta, Harclean, Gothic, Armenian and Ethiopic ancient versions.  


The Aramaic Scriptures - "your almsgiving"


Wilbur Pickering notes that 99% of the Greek manuscripts we have read "ALMS".


That of RIGHTEOUSNESS is found in Sinaiticus, Vaticanus and D.


Agreeing with ALMS, as found in the KJB and other Reformation bibles, are  Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew's bible 1549, the Bishops' bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, Beza's N.T. 1599, Haweis N.T. 1795, Darby 1890,  Lamsa's translation of the Syriac Peshitta, the NKJV 1982, Third Millennium bible, World English Bible, the Tomson N.T. 2002, A Conservative Version 2005, Complete Apostle's bible 2005, Wilbur Pickering N.T., Orthodox Jewish Bible 2011 (charity giving), Hebrew Names Version,  Jubilee Bible 2010, The Hebrew Transliteration Scriptures 2010 (charity giving), the Modern English Version 2014 (charitable deeds), New Matthew Bible 2016 - alms.


Foreign Language Bibles = ALMS


Italian Diodati 1991 -Guardatevi dal fare la vostra ELEMOSINA  davanti agli uomini.


French Martin 1744, Ostervald 1996 - votre AUMONE - and The French Louis Segond 2007 - Gardez-vous bien de faire des DONS devant les hommes


The Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569, Cipriano de Valera 1602 and the Reina Valera Gomez bible (NOT the Reina Valera) - Mirad que no hagáis vuestras LIMOSNAS delante de los hombres. 


The Portuguese A Biblia Sagrada and Portuguese Almeida  - Guardai-vos de fazer a vossa ESMOLA diante dos homens


Luther?s German bible 1545 and the German Schlachter bible 2000 -  Habt acht auf eure ALMOSEN


The Dutch Staten Vertaling bible - dat gij uw AALMOES


The Romanian Fidela Bible 2015 - face'i milosteniile voastre 


Once again, it is the difference between the Reformation Bible text or the Vatican Versions. Either one is the inspired text and the other is not or they are both wrong, but they cannot both be right at the same time.



Matthew 6:13 "And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: FOR THINE IS THE KINGDOM, AND THE POWER, AND THE GLORY, FOR EVER. AMEN."


One of the most notable differences between the Catholic bible versions and the Protestant Reformation Bibles has been the ending of what is commonly referred to as the Lord's Prayer. These last words: "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen" are found in the vast Majority of all Greek texts, as well as in four copies of the Old Latin (k,f, g, and q), which predates anything we have in Greek. All these words are also found in the ancient Syriac Peshitta, Harkelian, Curetonian, and Palestinian, as well as the Coptic Boharic and Sahidic, the Georgian, Armenian, Slavonian, and Ethiopian ancient versions. In fact, of over 1000 Greek manuscripts that contain this section of Matthew's gospel, these words are found in all but 10 manuscripts. Dean Burgon mentions emphatically the 100 to one ratio in favor of the King James reading.


The modern English versions present a confused picture even among themselves as to the authenticity of these words. Such modern versions as the NIV, RSV, ESV, Darby, CEV, and the 2003 ISV omit these precious words, as do all Catholic versions.


However the NASB, and the 2003 Holman Christian Standard, include the words but place them in brackets, indicating doubt as to their inspiration.


Other modern versions, which are still based primarily on the UBS, Westcott-Hort texts which omit hundreds and hundreds of words from the New Testament, have gone back to including these words without brackets. Among these are the New Life Bible (Lockman foundation 1969), World English Bible, the Hebrew Names Version, and the 1998 Complete Jewish Bible.


The 2002 version called The Message includes the words but paraphrases them to such a degree that they are virtually unrecognizable. It says: "Keep us safe from ourselves and the Devil. You're in charge! You can do anything you want! You're ablaze in beauty! Yes. Yes. Yes."


The confusion is seen in the two most recent "evangelical" versions to come out. The 2003 International Standard Version omits all these words, while the 2003 Holman Standard contains them.


Even the footnotes found in the modern versions that omit these words give conflicting evidence.


The RSV omits the words as does the NIV, but the RSV footnotes that the reading is found in "Other authorities, some ancient", whereas the NIV footnote is completely false and presents a distorted view of the evidence. The NIV footnotes tells us: "Some late manuscripts" include the verse. SOME?! Is the ratio of 100 to 1 fairly considered as "SOME"?


 As for "late manuscripts", they apparently do not want you to know the reading is found in copies of SEVERAL ancient Bible versions that predate the very few manuscripts that omit these words. This is not scholarship but sleight of hand.


The ancient Syriac Peshitta reads: "And bring us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever and ever: Amen."


These words are also found in the following English Bible versions: Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, The Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549, Bishop's Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, Wesley 1755, Worsley bible 1770, Webster's 1833, Young's, the NKJV 1982, the KJV 21st Century 1994, the Third Millenium Bible 1998, the Hebrew Names Version, World English Bible, the New Berkelely Version 1969, the 1987 Amplified Version all read: " For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen." and Green's Modern KJV.


The list of foreign language Bibles that include the words "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen" is quite impressive. Among them are: the Africaans Bible 1953, the Albanian, Armenian, Basque, Bulgarian, Czech BKR, Chinese Traditional Union Version, Croatian, Danish, Dutch Staten Vertaling, Finnish bible of 1776 and 1938,  French Louis Segond 1910, French Martin 1744, French Oservald 1996,  Gaelic, Greek Orthodox Bible, Hungarian Karoli, Lithuanian,  Luther's German 1545, German Schlachter 1951, the Modern Greek N.T. used throughout the Greek Orthodox churches all over the world, Gypsy Rhomanese, Hatian Creole, Modern Hebrew, Hungarian, Icelandic, the Italian Diodati 1649, the New Diodati 1991, Korean, Latvian, Maori bible,  Norwegian Det Norsk 1930,  Polish Bible Gdanska, Portuguese Almeida, Romanian Cornilescu, the Russian Synodal  and Zhuromsky translations, the Shuar translation, the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569, the Spanish Reina Valera 1909, 1960, 1995, La Nueva Biblia de los Hispanos 2005 (Lockman),  Swahili N.T., Tagalog Ang Dating bible, Turkish, Ukranian, Uma N.T., and Vietnamese N.T. 1934.


The New Testament from Aramaic, copyright 1940 reads like the King James Bible saying: "Because thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory for ever and ever. Amen."

 

 But in the USA we have such versions that omit these words as the NIV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, ISV, and the New Living Translation.


 Bible "scholars" are all over the board.  What one affirms another just as confidently denies.  Some argue for the legitimacy of these words and others deny they are part of Scripture, in spite of the massive evidence in favor of these inspired words.


John Calvin includes all these words in his Latin translation and then comments: "For thine is the kingdom"- It is surprising that this clause, which agrees so well with the rest of the prayer, has been left out by the Latins for it was not added merely for the purpose of kindling our hearts to seek the glory of God, and of reminding us what ought to be the object of our prayers; but likewise to teach us, that our prayers, which are here dictated to us, are founded on God alone, that we may not rely on our own merits."


Adam Clarke also says regarding the Doxology - "It should not, in my opinion, be left out of the text"


Barnes' Notes on the New Testament includes all these words with no hint that they are spurious and he expounds upon them in great detail.


David Guzik's Commentary on the Bible concludes - "we should regard it as Jesus truly said it."


Likewise Matthew Henry says - "Observe, how full this doxology is, The kingdom, and the power, and the glory, it is all thine." and then proceeds to expound upon them in great detail.


John Wesley believed these words form part of inspired Scripture and he both expounded upon them in his commentary and included them in his own translation made in 1755 - "And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil. For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever and ever. Amen." (Wesley translation 1755) 

 

Octavius Winslow comments on these words in Matthew 6:13 - "We see no just reason, however, to question its integrity. Found as it is in the Syriac copy, the most ancient version of the New Testament--standing as it does in close harmony with the very first petition of the prayer--and maintaining a strict analogy with the whole tenor of God's Word, we feel no difficulty in accepting it as genuine."


A.W. Pink expounds upon the passage and includes the Doxology as inspired Scripture.  He states: "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen." Thus the family prayer closes with a doxology or an ascription of that glory which is due unto God, thereby teaching us that prayer and praise should always go together. It is to be carefully noted that this doxology of the Divine perfections is made use of as a plea to enforce the preceding petitions: "deliver us from evil for Thine is the kingdom," etc....The concluding "Amen" expresses both a fervent desire, "so be it," and an avowal to faith, "it shall be so." 

Bible "scholars" are all over the board.  What one affirms another just as confidently denies.  Some argue for the legitimacy of these words and others deny they are part of Scripture, in spite of the massive evidence in favor of these inspired words.



 Some Bible critics I have run into try to tell us that the Doxology found in Matthew 6:13 should be omitted because it is not found in a similar prayer recorded in Luke 11:1-4. These critics fail to notice the obvious. The context of Luke chapter 11is very different from the context of Matthew chapter 6. In Matthew the Lord is giving the sermon on the mount to a great multitude. In Luke it is the disciples who come to our Lord at a different time and request that He teach them how to pray.


There are also some very serious textual changes found in the prayer pattern found in Luke 11:2-4. In the King James Holy Bible we read: "And it came to pass, that, as he was praying in a certain place, when he ceased, one of his disciples said unto him, Lord, teach us to pray, as John also taught his disciples. And he said unto them, When ye pray, say, OUR Father, WHICH ART IN HEAVEN, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. THY WILL BE DONE, AS IN HEAVEN, SO IN EARTH. Give us day by day our daily bread. And forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation; BUT DELIVER US FROM EVIL."


All the capital lettered words have been omitted in such versions as the NIV, RSV, NASB, ESV. Every one of these omitted words are found in the vast Majority of all Greek manuscripts. The NIV, NASB and ESV omit them primarily on the basis of 4 manuscripts, yet among these four "oldest and best", out of the 45 Greek words found within just three verses, no two of them agree with each other in 32 out of the 45 words found here! And the new version editors call this a "science"!


The Lord Jesus Christ either said all these words and they are inspired Scripture, or they are not. Not all bible versions say or teach the same things.


Matthew 6:33

"But seek ye first the kingdom OF GOD, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you."


The modern scholars continue to change both their Greek texts and their translations. They have no settled and firm words of God and continue to disagree with each other about what God wrote and how to translate it.


The words OF GOD (tou theou) in the phrase "the kingdom of God" are found in the Majority of all Greek texts, the Old Latin 150 A.D., which predates by 200 years anything we have in Greek, the Syriac Peshitta 250 A.D., Harkelian, Curetonian, Palestinian, Coptic, Georgian, Armenian, Ethiopian, and Slavonic ancient versions. These all read as does the King James Bible.


The RV, ASV, RSV 1952, Amplified bible 1987, the NASB 1995, NIV 1982 - 2011, Lexham English bible 2012, Dan Wallace's NET version and the Jehovah Witness New World Translation all omit the words OF GOD, and say: "Seek first His kingdom and His righteousness..."


According to the UBS critical text itself, ONLY Sinaiticus and Vaticanus omit the words OF GOD, and these two "oldest and best manuscripts" even disagree with each other! Sinaiticus says "the kingdom and his righteousness", while Vaticanus reverses the reading and has: "the righteousness and his kingdom", and these are supposedly the "best", even though they differ from each other over 3000 times in the gospels alone.


Bible versions that correctly read as the King James Bible - "Seek ye first the kingdom OF GOD, and his righteousness" are: the Anglo Saxon Gospels 1000 A.D. - "Eornestlice secheð ærest GODES riche. & hys rihtwysnesse.", Wycliffe 1395 - "Therfor seke ye first the kyngdom of God, and his riytfulnesse", the Great Bible 1540,  Bishop's Bible 1568,  the Geneva Bible 1587, Wesley 1755, Webster's 1833, Living Oracles 1835, Murdock's  1852 and Lamsa's 1933 translations of the Syriac Peshitta, Douay 1950, Hebrew Names Version, the Holman Standard 2003, and the 2002 International Standard Version.


The former Nestle-Aland critical Greek text, upon which most modern versions are based, omitted the words OF GOD, but now they have put them back in their Greek text but still in brackets, indicating doubt as to their authenticity.


The Catholic Connection


The previous Douay-Rheims 1582 and the Douay of 1950 both read "Seek first the kingdom OF GOD and his righteousness." But then they omitted the words "kingdom OF GOD" for "HIS kingdom" in the 1968 Jerusalem bible, the 1970 St. Joseph NAB and the New Jerusalem bible 1985. 

 

But, not to fear, now once again in the 2009 Catholic Public Domain Version they have gone back to "Seek first the kingdom OF GOD, and his righteousness." 


As newer versions roll off the presses they keep changing the way Scripture reads. Other modern versions still based primarily on the Westcott-Hort text but having put the words OF GOD back into the English text include the NRSV 1989, ESV 2001 - 2011, Good News Bible, New American Bible 1970, Contemporary English Version 1991, The Message 2002, Today's English Version 1992, Holman Christian Standard 2003, the ISV, the Common English Bible 2011 and the Voice 2012.


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


This entire verse is found in the Majority of all Greek manuscripts, including C, D, Sinaiticus correction, the Old Latin, and the Syriac Peshitta. 


However this whole verse is missing from Vaticanus, and the modern versions are in disagreement with each other. It was originally missing from Sinaiticus also, but later was corrected and the verse was put back in the text of Sinaiticus.


The Revised Standard Version of 1952 was the first version to omit the whole verse, but then in 1989 the New Revised Standard put the verse back in their New Testament. 


But wait! In 2001 the English Standard Version once again removed this whole verse and the ESV jumps from Matthew 12:46 to 12:48. 


Goodspeed also omitted this verse in 1942 from his translation, and now in 1998 the brand new Complete Jewish Bible has come out and it too omits the entire verse jumping from 12:46 to 12:48.


So we see the RSV omitted it; the NRSV put it back in; and the ESV has once again removed it.


The Catholic Versions


A similar fickle fate is found in the Catholic versions. The Douay-Rheims bible of 1582 and the 1950 Douay version contain the verse.


Then in 1968 The Jerusalem Bible removed it. Then in the St. Joseph New American Bible of 1970 it was placed back in the Catholic bible, but then in 1985 the New Jerusalem Bible once again removed the verse!


Westcott and Hort originally omitted the entire verse from their Greek text, all on the basis of the Vaticanus manuscript. But neither the Revised Version of 1881 nor the ASV of 1901 agreed with them. They both include the entire verse.


Later on, the newer editors of the Nestle-Aland text decided to put it back in without brackets;  It is in the Nestle's 4th edition 1934 with NO brackets. but then later still (Nestle's 21st edition 1975), they decided to put [brackets] around it, thus indicating doubt as to its authenticity.


Other modern versions still include the whole verse. Among these are the NASB, NIV, NET, ISV, NKJV, and the Holman Christian Standard.


 It is either inspired Scripture or it isn't, but the scholars today can't seem to make up their minds and they disagree among themselves.


Though Vaticanus (one of those "oldest and best manuscripts" don't ya know) omits the entire verse, even Dan Wallace comments: "early scribes probably omitted the verse through homoioteleuton. The following verses make little sense without v. 47; its omission is too hard a reading. Thus v. 47 was most likely part of the original text."


You see, Dan Wallace and most Christians today have a "most likely" bible.


 I don't know why it doesn't occur to them that the reason for such confusion is that the two so called oldest and best manuscripts - Sinaiticus and Vaticanus - are hopelessly corrupt and should be abandoned immediately.


Get yourself the Bible God has born witness to in so many ways and the only one seriously believed by thousands of God's redeemed people to be the complete and inerrant words of God - The King James Holy Bible.  


 

Don't settle for a "bible" version that even the scholars refer to as a "most likely" version of what God inspired.

 

 


Matthew 14:30 "But when he (Peter) saw the wind BOISTEROUS (iskupon), he was afraid".


The Constant Merry Go Round of Modern Textual Criticism.


The word "boisterous" is in the Majority of all manuscripts including Vaticanus correction, C, D, E, F, G, K, L, P, W, X, Delta, Theta, Pi, Sigma, the Old Latin copies, Syriac Peshitta, Harclean, Palestinian, Armenian, Georgian and Slavonic ancient versions.


Basically the only mss. that omits this word is Sinaiticus.


Westcott and Hort originally omitted this word and so did the Nestle 4th edition 1934 and the Nestle 21st edition 1975.  However now the Nestle-Aland Critical text includes the word but in [brackets].


The Critical text versions themselves are in disagreement with each other.


Critical text versions that include the word "boisterous", "mighty" or "strong" are the NRSV 1989, New English bible 1970, J.B. Phillips 1972, Good News Translation 1992, Contemporary English Version 1995, NET 2006, Common English bible 2011, Names of God Version 2011, Mounce Interlinear 2011, International Standard Version 2014, New Living Translation 2015, Holman Standard 2017, Evangelical Heritage Version 2017. 


"But when he saw the wind, he was afraid."


Critical text Versions that omit the word "boisterous, mighty or strong" are the RSV, ESV `2001-2016 , NIV, NASB, Jehovah Witness NWT, Tree of Life Version 2015.  

 

Notice that the RSV omitted the word, the NRSV 1989 put it in, and then then ESV took it out again.


Inconsistent NIVs


Even though the English NIV omits the word and says: "But when he saw the wind, he was afraid and, beginning to sink, cried out, "Lord, save me!"


Yet the NIV Spanish version 2015, Nueva Versión Internacional (NVI) keeps the word in the text - "Pero, al sentir el viento FUERTE, tuvo miedo y comenzó a hundirse. Entonces gritó:¡Señor, sálvame!"


The Catholic Connection



The previous Catholic versions like the Douay-Rheims 1582, Douay 1950 and the St. Joseph New American bible 1970 all contain the word.


BUT the New Jerusalem bible 1985 omits it and reads like the NASB, NIV, ESV and the Jehovah Witness NWT.


The Reformation Bibles in all languages include this reading. This includes Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale, Coverdale, The Great bible, Matthew's bible, the Bishops' bible, the Geneva Bible, Young's, NKJV, and a multitude of other Bibles in all languages.

 

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.


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?"


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 RV, ASV, Wesley's translation, Geneva Bible, Douay, Darby, Webster's translation, the KJV 21st Century, Third Millennium Bible and even in the 2003 Updated Bible Version. Now, to address the textual issues.



All these words in capital letters from "When"...to "of the times?" are found in the Majority of all Greek texts, including C, D, the Syriac Peshitta and the 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, Holman Standard, Dan Wallace's NET version and the Modern Catholic versions continue to include these two verses in their versions. 


Dan Wallace's NET version doesn't even have a footnote letting us know that Matthew 16:2-3 are not found in his "oldest and best manuscripts". Not a peep.


Actually, there are a few modern versions that do omit all these 32 words from their translations. These include the New English Bible of 1970, Goodspeed's translation of 1942, Rotherham's Emphasized Bible 1902 and the 1989 Revised English Bible which actually reads: Matthew 16:2 He answered: 16:4 "It is a wicked, godless generation that asks for a sign...." Verse 2 merely says: "He answered." Then they skip verse 3 entirely and then pick up with verse four.


Even in these two verses another absurdity is SIGNIFICANTLY to be observed. The words "O YE HYPOCRITES" is in all the Greek texts and versions mentioned before, except Sinaiticus and Vaticanus (which omit ALL the words), and manuscript D, which omits the words "O ye hypocrites" but contains all the other 31 words. So what do the NASB, NIV, ESV, ISV etc. do based on one manuscript that included all the other words but omitted the word "hypocrites"? They omit it too!


If ever the omission of a reading spoke volumes, this is it. The words "O ye hypocrites" are missing from these modern versions. Do you think there might be a chance these "bible translators" will hear them loud and clear from the mouth of the Lord God Almighty in a coming day?  

 

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.


Matthew 17:15-21 Lunatick, Epileptic or Afflicted with Seizures?


This section of the gospel of Matthew is really messed up in many modern versions. There is one translational problem (lunatick), and two textual problems - 1. Unbelief versus Little Faith, and 2. all of verse 21 "Howbeit, this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting."


In 17:14-15 we read: "And when they were come to the multitude, there came to him a certain man, kneeling down to him, and saying, Lord, have mercy on my son: for HE IS A LUNATICK, and sore vexed..."


This man's son was possessed of a devil, which caused the lad's mental illness. Jesus then casts out the devil and the boy is cured in that very hour. The word correctly translated as LUNATICK is the Greek word from which we get the word "moon" or "luna". Thus in English we have the lunar cycle. Lunatick means literally "moon-struck", and has to do with mental illness or madness. It is not the physical affliction of epilepsy.


Bible versions that correctly translate this word as Lunatick are the Vulgate in 425 A.D, Wycliffe 1395, Coverdale 1535, Bishop's Bible 1568, Geneva Bible 1599, Wesley's translation 1755, Webster's 1833, the Douay-Rheims, Rotherham's Emphasized bible 1902, Darby, Young's, the KJV 21, Third Millennium Bible, and Green's Modern KJV.


The NASB is interesting in that from 1960 to 1972 it translated this word as "for he is AN EPILEPTIC", with a footnote telling us that the word literally means moonstruck. But then in 1977 and again in the 1995 Update, the NASB now reads "he is a LUNATIC".


Many modern versions tell us the boy was an EPILEPTIC, including the NKJV, RSV, ISV, Holman Standard, and the ESV. The NIV in 1977 said: "he is an epileptic", but then in 1984 changed this to "he has seizures".


In case you miss the obvious, a lunatick is not the same thing as an epileptic. This boy's lunacy was a mental affliction caused by a devil. Epilepsy is a physical disease, and epileptics are not generally considered to be lunaticks. All bibles do not say the same things but with different words.


The next two problems are textual. The disciples ask why they could not cast out the devil and Jesus tells them the reason in Matthew 17:20. "And Jesus said unto 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."


The disciples had no faith in regards to healing this boy. The word found in the Majority of all texts including C, D, and translated as "unbelief" in the Old Latin, and the Syriac Peshitta is apistian, which means NO Faith, or "unbelief". Bible versions that correctly read that the disciples suffered from UNBELIEF are Wycliffe, Tyndale, Coverdale, Geneva, Bishop's, Wesley, Webster, Youngs, Darby, NKJV, KJV 21, TMB, MKJV, and even the Catholic Douay version.


However both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus have an obvious blunder and this error is carried over into the modern versions based on these corrupt texts. Instead of reading "because of your unbelief", Sinaiticus and Vaticanus read "because of your LITTLE FAITH".


"Little faith" would mean they had some faith but not enough. The word is quite different from apistian (no faith). It is oligopistian which means little faith. The versions that read this way are the NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV, ISV, Holman Standard and many others.


The reason it is a blunder is because if they had just a little bit of faith and not enough to cure this boy, then it makes no sense for Jesus to then tell them if they had faith as a grain of mustard seed, they would be able to remove mountains. Faith as a grain of mustard seed IS "a little bit of faith". Their problem was they had NO faith. The King James reading is correct; the other one is not.  

 

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


The third problem in this section is the whole of verse of 17:21. Here we read Jesus saying: "Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting."


This entire verse is found in the Majority of all Greek texts, including C, D, and Sinaiticus correction. It is also found in at least 12 Old Latin copies as well as the Syriac Peshitta and Harclean ancient versions.


However Vaticanus and a few others omit the entire verse. Versions that omit the verse from the text of the Bible are the RV, ASV, RSV, NIV 1984, ESV 2001, The Message 2002, and the New Living Bible 1996.


The NASB includes the verse but puts it in brackets, indicating doubt as to its authenticity and so does the Holman Christian Standard. However the 2003 ISV (International Standard Version) puts the whole verse back in the text.


The whole verse is found in all the older versions that preceded the King James Bible, including the Latin Vulgate 425 A.D, Wycliffe 1295, Tyndale, Coverdale, Bishop's Bible, the Geneva Bible, and is found in such versions as the NKJV, New Life Version, Douay-Rheims (though the more modern Catholic versions omit it), Webster's, Young's, Darby, World English Bible, KJV 21 and the Third Millennium Bible.


The verse is either inspired Scripture spoken by our Lord Jesus Christ or it is not. The Lord said heaven and earth would pass away but His words would not pass away. All these bible versions cannot equally be the complete, inspired, infallible words of God. Some of them have either added to the words of God or taken away from His inspired words.

Matthew 17:21


254 A.D. Early Church Fathers - Ante-Nicene Fathers - Volume 9 - Origen's Commentary on Matthew. - Book 13. - The Power of Faith. But let us also attend to this, "This kind goeth not out save by prayer and fasting," in order that if at any time it is necessary that we should be engaged in the healing of one suffering from such a disorder, we may not adjure, nor put questions, nor speak to the impure spirit as if it heard, but devoting ourselves to prayer and fasting, may be successful as we pray for the sufferer, and by our own fasting may thrust out the unclean spirit from him.


354-430 A.D. Early Church Fathers - Nicene & Post-Nicene Fathers - First Series - Volume 6 - St. Augustin: - Book II - Chapter LVIII - Of the Man Who Brought Before Him His Son, Whom the Disciples Were Unable to Heal; And of the Question Concerning the Agreement Between These Three Evangelists Also in the Matter of the Order of Narration Here.

116. Matthew goes on in the following terms: "And when He was come to the multitude, there came to Him a certain man, kneeling down before Him, and saying, Lord, have mercy on my son; for he is lunatic, and sore vexed;" and so on, down to the words, "Howbeit this kind is not cast out but by prayer and fasting." Both Mark and Luke record this incident, and that, too, in the same order, without any suspicion of a want of harmony.


354-430 A.D. Early Church Fathers - Nicene & Post-Nicene Fathers - First Series - Volume 6 - St. Augustin: Sermon on the Mount, Harmony of the Gospels, Homilies on the Gospels - Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament. - Sermon XXX - On the words of the Gospel, Matt. 17:19, Why could not we cast it out? etc., and on prayer.


3. Wherefore, see how the Lord in this passage exhorted His disciples to prayer, when He said, "Ye could not cast out this devil because of your unbelief.? For then exhorting them to prayer He ended thus; ?this kind is not cast out but by prayer and fasting."


347-420 A.D. Early Church Fathers - Nicene & Post-Nicene Fathers - Second Series - Volume 6 - St. Jerome: Letters and Select Works - Treatises. - Against Jovinianus. - Book II

But the Lord Himself consecrated His baptism by a forty days' fast, and He taught us that the more violent devils cannot be overcome, except by prayer and fasting.


397 A.D. Early Church Fathers - Nicene & Post-Nicene Fathers - Second Series - Volume 10 - Ambrose: Select Works and Letters - Selections from the Letters of St. Ambrose. - Epistle LXIII: To the Church at Vercell.

And since they say that we ought not to fast, let them prove for what cause Christ fasted, unless it were that His fast might be an example to us. Lastly, in His later words He taught us that evil cannot be easily overcome except by our fasting, saying: "This kind of devils is not cast out but by prayer and fasting."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Patristic Evidentiary Support for the Genuineness of the above Passage

c.130? AD Pseudo-Clement of Rome, Concerning Virginity (1 8:59) refers to this passage

c.254 AD Origen, Matthew (1 10:479) refers to this passage

c.397 AD Ambrose, Letters (iii 10:459) refers to this passage

Source: Early Church Fathers and the A.V. by Jack Moorman

ref: from the Ante-Nicene Early Church Fathers 38vol set (1 =set; 10=vol; 122=page)

 

The "science" of textual criticism can't seem to get its act together and the various versions conflict with each other in both texts and meaning. The question to ask yourself is: Do we have a perfect Holy Bible today, or have some of God's words been lost or mixed up to where we cannot be sure about what He inspired to be written? Do we have an inspired Bible or just a mixture of conflicting readings that may or may not approximate what God might have said?


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


This entire verse is found in the Majority of all Greek texts, including D and at least 21 other uncial (capital letter) copies. It is also found in the Syriac Peshitta, Harkelian, Curetonian, and in some Coptic Boharic, the Armenian and Ethiopic ancient versions. It is also found in the Old Latin copies a, aur, b, d, f, ff2, g1, l, n, q, r1 and r2.


Westcott and Hort omitted the entire verse on the basis of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, and now the whole verse is missing from the texts of the NIV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, NET, Common English Bible, The Message, CEV, New Living Translation, and the more modern Catholic bible versions.

 

The Catholic Connection

 

The Catholic Douay-Rheims of 1582 and the Douay of 1950 both contained the whole verse without brackets, but the newer Catholic versions like the St. Joseph New American Bible 1970 and the New Jerusalem Bible 1985 and both omit the verse entirely.


BUT now the 2009 Catholic Public Domain Version has come out and they put the whole verse back in their text and not even in brackets. It reads: "For the Son of man has come to save what had been lost."  


The Jehovah Witness New World Translation likewise omits the entire verse from the Bible.

The NASB puts the verse in the text but again in [brackets], indicating doubt as to its authenticity, and so does the 2003 Holman Christian Standard and also The Voice of 2012 - [The Son of Man has come to save all those who are lost.]


However the whole verse is included as inspired Scripture spoken by our Lord Jesus Christ in the following Bibles: The Vulgate 425 A.D.


Though it is almost impossible to read because it is the Anglo-Saxon Gospels written around 1000 A.D. yet the verse is clearly there - "Mat 18:11 Soðlice mannes sune com to ge-hælenne þæt for-wærð."


It is also found in Wycliffe's Bible 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540 - "For þe sonne of man is come to saue that whych was lost.", Matthew's Bible 1549, Bishop's Bible 1568, Geneva Bible 1599, Mace's N.T. 1729, Wesley's Translation 1755, Worsley Version 1770, Webster's Translation 1833, Living Oracles 1835,  Etheridge Translation of the Syriac, Young's 1898, Darby 1890, Hebrew Names Version, New Life Bible 1969, NKJV 1982, KJV 21st Century 1994, Third Millennium Bible 1998, Green's Modern KJV, and it is placed back in the text without brackets by the International Standard Version 2014. 


It is also the found in the Orthodox Jewish Bible of 2011 - "For the Ben HaAdam [Moshiach] came to save that which was lost." and in the Jubilee Bible 2010 - "For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost." and in the Modern English Version 2014.  


Other English Bibles that contain Matthew 18:11 are The Word of Yah 1993, The Interlinear Greek New Testament 1997 (Larry Pierce), The Lawrie Translation 1998, The Evidence Bible 2003, Green's Literal 2005, The Resurrection Life New Testament 2005 (Vince Garcia), Bond Slave Version 2009, The Voice 2012 (another critical text version), the Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010, the Biblos Interlinear Bible 2011, The Orthodox Jewish Bible 2011, The Far Above All Translation 2011, The Work of God's Children Illustrated Bible 2011, the Interlinear Hebrew-Greek Scriptures 2012 (Mebust), and the World English Bible 2012. 

Again, we see the total inconsistency of the modern "scientific" scholars. What one denies as inspired Scripture, another affirms to be the very words of God.


Among the foreign language Bible versions that contain the whole verse of Matthew 18:11 "For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost." are: the Albanian, Arabic, Bulgarian, Chinese, Danish, Dutch, French Martin, Ostervald and Louis Segond 2007 - "En effet, le Fils de l'homme est venu sauver ce qui était perdu.", Gaelic, German Luther and Schlachter Bible 2000, the Modern Greek Bible, Gypsy Rhomanese, Hatian Creole Bible, Hungarian Karoli Bible,  Icelandic, Italian Diodati 1649, 1991, Italian Riveduta 2006 - "Poiché il Figlio dell?uomo è venuto a salvare ciò che era perduto.",

 

The Korean Bible, Latvian, Norwegian, Portuguese Almeida and O Livro  2000 - "Porque o Filho do homem veio salvar o que se havia perdido.", Rumanian Cornilescu and Fidela 2014, Russian Synodal Version and the Russian Victor Zhuromsky bible, Spanish Reina Valeras 1602-1995, Tagalog Ang Salita ng Diyos 1998 - "Ito ay sapagkat ang Anak ng Tao ay naparito upang iligtas ang nawawala.",Turkish, Ukranian, Chinese Union Traditional Bible -and Vietnamese bibles. 

 

The Modern Greek Bible includes the entire verse - 


https://www.studylight.org/desk/index.cgi?sr=1&search_form_type=general&q1=Matthew+18%3A11&s=0&t1=el_gmd


The Modern Hebrew Bible contains the entire verse - 


https://www.studylight.org/desk/index.cgi?sr=1&old_q=Matthew+18%3A11&search_form_type=general&q1=Matthew+18%3A11&s=0&t1=iw_hmd&ns=0



 

The NIV in foreign languages -


It is typical of the fickle nature of the so called "science" of textual criticism, that though the English version of the NIVs omit Matthew 18:11, yet when they translated the NIV into Portugues, they included the verse -Nova Versão Internacional 1999 - " O Filho do homem veio para salvar o que se havia perdido." and the NIV did the same thing in their Spanish Version called Nueva Versión Internacional (Castilian)- "El Hijo del hombre vino a salvar lo que se había perdido."


To demonstrate the fickleness and inconsistency of the modern version in following or not the variant readings of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, we will consider a few minor examples found in this same chapter of Matthew 18.


In Matthew 18:15 we read: "Moreover if thy brother sin AGAINST THEE (eis se), go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone." The words "against thee" are missing from both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, but they are found in the Majority of all Greek texts and in the Old Latin and the Syriac. The Nestles Greek text used to omit these two words entirely, but later they added them but put them in {brackets}.


In spite of the words "sin AGAINST YOU" being omitted by Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, only the NASB and the Jehovah Witness versions omit these words. Obviously their omission changes the meaning and application of the passgage. The NASB reads: "If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private."


On the other hand, versions like the NIV, NKJV, RSV, ESV, ISV, and the Holman Standard all reject in this place the two texts which are responsible for the omission of hundreds of other words in their New Testament versions, and here follow the Traditional textual reading of the King James Bible - "If your brother sins AGAINST YOU, go and tell him his fault." And they call this willy-nilly process the "science of textual criticism".


In Matthew 18:19 Vaticanus adds an additional word which would make the beginning of the sentence say: "Again VERILY (amen) I say unto you...". But this extra word is not found in Sinaiticus and this time the NASB, NIV, RSV, RV, ASV do not follow Vaticanus, but omit the word.


In Matthew 18:26 we read: "The servant therefore fell down and worshipped him, saying, LORD, have patience with me, and I will pay thee all."


Here the word LORD is found in the Majority of all texts including Sinaiticus, and so read the Revised Version, American Standard Version, and the Revised Standard Version. But because Vaticanus omits the word "Lord", the NASB, NIV, ESV, ISV, and Holman omit it. Why was it "scientific" for the RV, ASV, RSV to include the word based on the same evidence, and then "scientific" for the NASB, ESV and NIV to omit it, still based on the same evidence? Go figure.


Finally in Matthew 18:34 we read: "And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due UNTO HIM." The words "unto him" are found in the Majority of all texts including Sinaiticus and the NASB. But Vaticanus omits these last two words and so does the NIV.


Do you see how both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus constantly differ from each other (over 3000 times in the gospels alone) and the modern versions are totally inconsistent in which text they chose to follow and they end up contradicting each other? If you focus on man and his faulty abilities, you will never have the sure words of God. Only if you believe God is faithful to keep His promises to preserve His infallible words, and has providentially done so in the King James Bible will you ever be able to say with confidence "Thus saith the Lord".


Matthew 19:16-17 KJB "And, behold, one came and said unto him, GOOD Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? And he said unto him, WHY CALLEST THOU ME GOOD? there is NONE good but one, THAT IS, GOD: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments."


ESV (NIV, NASB, NET, Holman, Catholic versions, Jehovah Witness NWT) - "And behold, a man came up to him, saying, "Teacher, what good deed must I do to have eternal life?" And he said to him, "WHY DO YOU ASK ME ABOUT WHAT IS GOOD? There is only one who is good. If you would enter life, keep the commandments."


This same event is found three times in the holy gospels. It is also found in Mark 10:17 and in Luke 18:18 where even the NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV, and ISV say the same thing as recorded here - Matthew 19:17 - in the King James Bible. 


The reading found in the King James Bible is that of the Majority of all texts, including C plus at least 17 other uncial copies. It is also the reading of the Syriac Peshitta, Curetonian, Harkelian, the Coptic Sahidic, some Boharic, and many of the Old Latin copies.


However Sinaiticus and Vaticanus again are responsible for a very different reading which is followed by the Catholic versions and the NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV, ISV, Jehovah Witness NWT and the Holman Standard versions. 


Instead of the man calling Christ GOOD Master, and the Lord responding with: "WHY CALLEST THOU ME GOOD? there is NONE good but one, THAT IS, GOD".


Sinaiticus and Vaticanus omit the word "good" in verse 16 and in verse 17 unite in reading: "WHY ARE YOU ASKING ME ABOUT WHAT IS GOOD? There is only One who is good."


The words "GOOD master" are found in the Majority of all remaining Greek manuscripts plus C, E, F, G, H, K, W, Delta,Theta, Xi, the Old Latin air, b, c, f, ff2, g1, l, q, the Vulgate, the Syriac Peshitta, Curetonian, Palestinian and Sinaitic as well as the Coptic Sahidic, Boharic, Armenian, Ethiopian, Georgian, Slavonic ancient versions as well as the Diatessaron. But it is omitted in Sinaiticus, Vativanus and D.


 

Both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus have very different wording in verse 17.  Whereas the Majority of all manuscripts read "WHY CALLEST THOU ME GOOD, THERE IS NONE GOOD BUT ONE, THAT IS GOD" -


Sinaiticus and Vaticanus read "Why DO YOU ASK ME ABOUT WHAT IS GOOD. ONE IS GOOD."  and they omit the phrase "THAT IS, GOD." 


This meaning contradicts the other two accounts found in Mark and Luke, where the same event is recorded, even in the NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV, NET and ISV.


Is it "textual science" for these modern versions to follow Sinaiticus and Vaticanus in Matthew 19:17 against virtually all other manuscripts, and yet to not follow these same two "oldest and best" in Matthew 16:2-3 where they omit almost two whole verses, but the NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV include them? 


The reading of "And, behold, one came and said unto him, GOOD Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? And he said unto him, WHY CALLEST THOU ME GOOD? there is NONE good but one, THAT IS, GOD: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments." in Matthew 19:16-17 is also that found in the following Bible translations -


Tyndale 1524, Coverdale 1535, The Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549, the Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, the Beza N.T. 1599, Wesley N.T. 1755, Worsley N.T. 1770, Haweis N.T. 1795, the Thomson Bible 1808, Webster Bible 1833, Living Oracles 1835, The Longman Version 1841, the Boothroyd Bible 1853, Julia Smith Translation 1855, The Revised N.T. 1862, The Smith Bible 1876, The Revised English Bible 1877, Young's 1898, The Clarke N.T. 1913, Lamsa's 1933 translation of the Syriac Peshitta,  the NKJV 1982, The Koster Scriptures 1998, The Laurie N.T. 1998, Third Millennium Bible 1998, the World English Bible 2000, The Tomson N.T. 2002, The Apostolic Polyglot Bible 2003, A Conservative Version 2005, Complete Apostle's Bible 2005, The Pickering N.T. 2005, The Resurrection Life N.T. 2005, The Conservative Bible 2010, The Hebrew Translitertation Bible 2010, The English Majority Text N.T. 2013, The Modern English Version 2014, The Modern Literal New Testament 2014, The Hebraic Roots Bible 2015, the New Matthew's Bible 2016 and The Passion Translation 2017. 


Foreign Language Bibles 


Foreign Language Bibles that follow the same readings as the KJB are the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569, Cipriano de Valera 1602, the Spanish Reina Valera 1960, 1977 and 1995 editions - "Maestro bueno, ¿qué bien haré para tener la vida eterna?  17 El le dijo: ¿Por qué me llamas bueno? Ninguno hay bueno sino uno: Dios.", The Italian Diodati 1649 and La Nuova Diodati 1991 - "«Maestro buono, che devo fare di buono per avere la vita eterna?» 17 Ed egli disse: «Perché mi chiami buono? Nessuno è buono, se non uno solo, cioè: Dio.", the Portuguese Almeida Corrigida 2009 - "Bom Mestre, que bem farei, para conseguir a vida eterna? 17 E ele disse-lhe: Por que me chamas bom? Não há bom, senão um só que é Deus.",The French Martin Bible 1744 and the French Ostervald 1996, Luther's German Bible 1545 and the German Schlachter Bible 2000 - "Guter Meister, was soll ich Gutes tun, um das ewige Leben zu erlangen? 17 Er aber sprach zu ihm: Was nennst du mich gut? Niemand ist gut als Gott allein!" and the Romanian Fidela Bible 2014. 


As well as the Modern Greek Bible 

And the Modern Hebrew Bible - 


So once again, it comes down to either the Reformation text as found in the King James Bible is God's true words or it is one of the constantly changing Vatican Versions.  You pick.



Or how about Matthew 27:49? A very serious error occurs here in both of these manuscripts, which is not used by the NASB, NIV, ESV, ISV or the RSV, 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." This is the reading of both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. It 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 has Christ being put to death at this time, 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 piered his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water".


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.


In Matthew 19:20 we read: "The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept FROM MY YOUTH UP: what lack I yet?" The words "from my youth up" (ek neoteetos mou) are again found in the Majority of all texts, including C, D, and even Sinaiticus correction. They are also in the Old Latin and the Syriac texts. But once again, Vaticanus omits these words and so do the RSV, NASB, NIV, ESV, and ISV.


The Catholic Douay-Rheims retains the words "from my youth", but the Douay omits them as do the other modern Catholic versions. The words "from my youth up" are found in Wycliffe, Tyndale, Coverdale, Bishop's, Geneva, Wesley, Webster, KJV 21, NKJV, MKJV, TMB, World English Bible, Hebrew Names Version, and Young's.


Matthew 19:29 "or wife" or not; "an hundredfold" or "many times as much"?  


The utter confusion of the so called "oldest and best" manuscripts.


Matthew 19:29 "And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, OR WIFE, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive AN HUNDREDFOLD, and shall inherit everlasting life."


Here the words "or wife" are found in most texts including Sinaiticus, C, E, F, G, H, K, L, W, X, Y, Delta, Theta, the Old Latin, Vulgate, Syriac Peshitta, Harclean, Coptic Sahidic, Boharic, Armenian, Ethiopian, Georgian and Slavonic ancient versions.

The King James Bible along with the foreign language Reformation bibles include the word "wife" along with the word "hundredfold".


Just a few of the Bibles that read just like the KJB are Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549, the Bishops' bible 1568 and the Geneva Bible, Young's, World English bible 2000, NKJV and the Modern English Bible 2014 - plus many more.

BUT Vaticanus, virtually all by itself, omits these two words  - "OR WIFE" and so do the NASB, NIV, ESV, NET, Jehovah Witness NWT and the Holman Standard.

The second important textual variant is the difference between AN HUNDREDFOLD and MANY TIMES AS MUCH.  These are two very different Greek words. One literally has the word "a hundred" in it and the other one literally has the word "many?"

The vast majority of all manuscripts as well as the ancient versions read "AN HUNDREDFOLD". This includes Sinaiticus, C, D, E, F, G, H, K, W, X, Delta, Theta, the Old Latin copies, the Vulgate, Syriac Peshitta, Coptic Boharic, Armenian, Ethiopian, Georgian and Slavonic ancient versions.

BUT, once again, virtually all by itself Vaticanus reads "MANY TIMES AS MUCH". The Critical text of Westcott and Hort used to read this way. I have hard copies of the Nestle 4th edition 1934 and the Nestle 21st edition 1975 and both read MANY TIMES AS MUCH.


BUT later on, the Nestle-Aland/UBS Vatican supervised Critical text changed this reading for the other one that is found in Sinaiticus and most others, and NOW the Nestle-Aland/UBS texts read "a HUNDREDFOLD"


And they did all this, not because they discovered some new textual evidence. They just changed their minds.

Not even the Revised Version 1881 nor the ASV of 1901 went along with Westcott and Hort on this one, but still read "an hundredfold", as also do the RSV, NRSV, ESV, NET, NIV, Holman, NKJV, etc.

BUT the NASB, virtually all by itself except for the Jehovah Witness New World Translation STILL has the Vatican reading here and says: "And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or farms for My name's sake, will receive MANY TIMES AS MUCH, and will inherit eternal life."


The Catholic Confusion

The Douay-Rheims of 1582 as well as the Douay Version 1950 both read exactly like the KJB has it. - "And every one that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, OR WIFE, or children, or lands for my name's sake, shall receive AN HUNDREDFOLD, and shall possess life everlasting."


BUT the St. Joseph New American bible 1970 includes the word WIFE but has MANY TIMES AS MUCH instead of "an hundredfold"

And then the New Jerusalem bible of 1985 reverses itself and it now omits the word WIFE AND goes with A HUNDRED TIMES AS MUCH.

 

So, in this one verse alone, both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus differ from each other twice, and most of the modern versions follow Vaticanus in one instance and Sinaiticus in the other, - but not all. The NASB differs from the others. And they call this rigamarole the ?science" of textual criticism!


FOR MANY BE CALLED, BUT FEW CHOSEN.  Matthew 20:16


This parable about the kingdom of heaven being likened unto a husbandman who hired laborers into his vineyard and paid them all the same, ends with the words: So the last shall be first, and the first last; FOR MANY BE CALLED, BUT FEW CHOSEN.


 This is the reading found in the Majority of all manuscripts including  C, D, E, F, G, H, O, W, Delta, the Old Latin aur, b, c, d, e, f, ff1, ff2, g1, h, l, n, q, the Latin Vulgate, the Syriac Peshitta, Sinaitic, Palestinian and Harclean, the Armenian, Ethiopic, Georgian and Slavonic ancient versions.


These words are found in Wycliffe 1395, The Anglo Saxon Gospels 990 A.D., Tyndale, Coverdale, the Great Bible, Matthew's Bible, the Bishops' Bible, the Geneva Bible, the older Catholic Douay-Rheims 1582 and Douay 1950, Beza?s N.T. 1599, Lamsa's translation of Syriac Peshitta 1933, the NKJV 1982, The World English Bible 2000, The Apostolic Polyglot Bible 2003, The Jubilee Bible 2010, The Hebraic Transliteration Scriptures 2010, The Conservative Version 2010, The International Standard Version 2014, Modern English Version 2014, and The Hebrew Roots Bible 2014 to name but a few.


Foreign Language Bibles


Foreign language Bibles that contain the words FOR MANY BE CALLED, BUT FEW CHOSEN are the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569, the Reina Valera 1995, the Portuguese Almeida 2009, the Italian Diodati 1649 and La Nuova Diodati 1991, the Italian Nuova Riveduta 2006, the French Martin 1944, the French Ostervald 1998 and the French Louis Segond 2007, Martin Luther's German bible 1545 and the German Schlachter Bible 2000, the Polish Updated Gdansk bible 2013, the Smith & Van Dyke Arabic bible, the Czech BKR bible, the Dutch Staten Vertaling Bible, the Hungarian Karoli Bible,  the Chinese Union Traditional bible,  and the Romanian Fidela Bible 2014 


as well as The Modern Greek Bible - 


https://www.studylight.org/desk/index.cgi?sr=1&old_q=Matthew+20%3A16&search_form_type=general&q1=Matthew+20%3A16&s=0&t1=el_gmd&ns=0



and The Modern Hebrew Bible 


https://www.studylight.org/desk/index.cgi?sr=1&old_q=Matthew+18%3A11&search_form_type=general&q1=Matthew+20%3A16&s=0&t1=iw_hmd&ns=0



But the words FOR MANY BE CALLED, BUT FEW CHOSEN are omitted by Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, and so too do the modern Catholic versions like the St. Joseph New American bible 1970, the New Jerusalem bible 1985, the Jehovah Witness New World Translation and the ESV, NIV, NASB, NET, Holman and NET versions.


That is because the Nestle-Aland, every changing Critical text that is under the direct supervision of the Vatican is the basis for all these new translations.


Undeniable Proof the ESV, NIV, NASB, Holman Standard, NET, Jehovah Witness NWT etc. are  the new "Vatican Versions"


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

 


Matthew 21:28-31 The Two Sons of the Father and the Bible Babble Buffet in Action.

Matthew 21:28-31 "But what think ye? 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 WENT NOT. Whether of the twain did the will of his father? They say unto him, THE FIRST."

  

This is the reading found in the Majority of all texts including Sinaiticus and is the reading not only of the KJB but also of the RV, ASV, RSV, ESV, NIV, NKJV. However the case with the NASB is quite interesting. From 1960 through 1977, a period of 9 revisions, the NASB followed the Vaticanus manuscript which reverses these two sons, but then in 1995 the NASB reversed themselves again from the previous NASBs and changed their readings back to match that of all the other versions. The NASB 95 Update now reads like the KJB.


  From 1960 through 1977 the NASB read: "he came to the first and said, Son go work in the vineyard. And he answered and said, I WILL SIR, AND HE DID NOT GO. And he came to the second and said the same thing. But he answered and said, I WILL NOT, YET AFTERWARD HE REGRETTED IT AND WENT. Which of the two did the will of his father? They say, THE LATTER."  


Go here to see the entire article on these verses -

https://brandplucked.webs.com/mat21thetwosons.htm


Matthew 23:4 "For they bind heavy burdens AND GRIEVOUS TO BE BORNE, and lay them on men's shoulders."


All texts read "and grievous to be borne", (kai dusbastakta) including Vaticanus, except Sinaiticus which omits these words. Here the NASB and NIV chose to follow ONE manuscript (Sinaiticus) and omit these words; yet "and grievous to be borne" is found in the Revised Version, the ASV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, and the NKJV.

 

Matthew 23:35 Zachariah the son of Berechiah or Zechariah the son of Jehoiada?  


Is there a copyist error in ALL texts and in ALL Bibles as many claim?


There is a textual reading found in the recorded words of our Lord Jesus Christ in Matthew 23:35 where the Lord is rehearsing the long, sad history of the rebellion of the children of Israel.

  


In Matthew 23:34-36 we read: 34 Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city: 35 that upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of BARACHIAS, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar. 36 Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.


The "problem" many see in this text is that though there are about 27 different people called Zechariah in the Old Testament, it is not recorded that Zacharias the son of BARACHIAS (Berechiah) was killed in this way, but there IS a similar death recorded of Zechariah the son of JEHOIADA in 2 Chronicles 24:20-22.


Here we read: "20 And the Spirit of God came upon Zechariah the son of JEHOIADA the priest, which stood above the people, and said unto them, Thus saith God, Why transgress ye the commandments of the Lord, that ye cannot prosper because ye have forsaken the Lord, he hath also forsaken you. 21 And they conspired against him, and stoned him with stones at the commandment of the king in the court of the house of the Lord. 22 Thus Joash the king remembered not the kindness which Jehoiada his father had done to him, but slew his son. And when he died, he said, The Lord look upon it, and require it."


A surprising number of Bible commentators tell us that this is a TEXTUAL ERROR that was either originally made by Matthew himself or that some later scribe misread the text and thus ALL the Greek manuscripts repeated this error.  


Typical of this claim of TEXTUAL ERROR is The Expositor's Greek Testament, which says:"(son of Berechiah), the designation of the last but one of the minor prophets, applied here to the other Zechariah, BY INADVERTENCE EITHER OF THE EVANGELIST (Matthew himself) OR OF AN EARLY COPYIST."


And Robertson's Word Pictures in The New Testament says: "The usual explanation is that the reference is to Zachariah the son of Jehoiada the priest who was slain in the court of the temple (2 Chronicles 24:20.). HOW THE WORDS, "THE SON OF BARACHIAH" GOT INTO MATTHEW Matthew WE DO NOT KNOW."


Many Bible commentators and even some books that attempt to explain alleged "contradictions" in the Bible, just omit any reference to this verse.  They apparently cannot give a reasonable explanation.


ALL Bibles in all languages of the world I have looked at read the same here in Matthew 23:35 - Zechariah the son of BERECHIAH, and not Zechariah the son of Jehoiada.


A professing Christian who does not believe his Bible - ANY Bible - is the inerrant words of God, posts at one of our Facebook forums: 


"Do you want more examples of error in the Bible? Here the name Jehoiada is wrongly given as Barachias - Mat. 23:35 That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar. 


Compare to -  2 Chron. 24:20 And the Spirit of God came upon Zechariah the son of Jehoiada the priest, which stood above the people, and said unto them, Thus saith God, Why transgress ye the commandments of the LORD, that ye cannot prosper? because ye have forsaken the LORD, he hath also forsaken you." (End of Bible critic's comments)


Is there a way to explain this apparent contradiction without resorting to the claim that the Bible is simply wrong?


Yes, there is.  First of all, there IS a prophet named Zechariah who was the son of Berechiah and he is found in the book of Zechariah. What a coincidence!


Zechariah 1:1-3 KJB - "In the eighth month, in the second year of Darius, came the word of the Lord unto Zechariah, the son of BERECHIAH, the son of Iddo the prophet, saying, 2 The Lord hath been sore displeased with your fathers. 3 Therefore say thou unto them, Thus saith the Lord of hosts; Turn ye unto me, saith the Lord of hosts, and I will turn unto you, saith the Lord of hosts."


Secondly, the Lord Jesus is drawing a contrast between the first and the last of the men of God whom wicked men had slain.  He begins with Abel and ends with Zechariah the son of Berechiah.


Matthew 23:35 - "That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, FROM the blood of righteous Abel UNTO the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar." 


The Zechariah the son of Jehoiada recorded in 2 Chronicles 24 lived died around 800 B.C. and was by no means the last of the Old Testament martyrs. 


Gleason Archer points this out in his book Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, 1982, Zondervan Corporation, pages 337-338.  He says: "Hence he makes a poor balance to Abel, who certainly was the first."


Mr. Archer then goes on to say: "The obvious solution is to start all over again and assume that Matthew 23:35 correctly reports the words of Jesus, and that He knew what He was talking about.


If so, then we discover that the Zechariah He was referring to was indeed the son of Berechiah (NOT Jehoiada), and that he was indeed the last of the Old Testament martyrs mentioned in the Hebrew Scriptures."


Mr. Archer goes on to note that Christ is recalling to His audience the circumstances of the death of Zechariah, the son of Berechiah (Zechariah 1:1) whose ministry began some three centuries later than that of the other Zechariah mentioned in 2 Chronicles 24.  


We are not told in the O.T. Scriptures how this later prophet, Zechariah the son of Berechiah, died. It is simply not recorded, but that does not mean it did not happen the way the Lord Jesus said it did. 


There are several things the N.T. reveals that are not recorded in the Old Testament. 


For example, the names of the Egyptian magicians Jannes and Jambres as found in 2 Timothy 3:8. Or how "Lot vexed his righteous soul from day to day" in 2 Peter 2:7-8. Or how that Michael the archangel contended with the devil about the body of Moses in Jude 1:9.


One difference between the two different Zechariahs is that the one referred to in 2 Chronicles  was stoned IN THE COURT OF THE HOUSE OF THE LORD, but the Zechariah the son of Berachiah Jesus refers to in Matthew 23 was slain BETWEEN THE TEMPLE AND THE ALTAR.


Mr. Archer concludes with these words, saying: "In the absence of any other information as to how the prophet Zechariah died, we may as well conclude that Jesus has given a true account of it and add him to the roster of the noble martyrs of biblical times."


Most Bible commentators either tell us this is a textual error in Matthew 23:35 or they just skip over it because they don't know how to explain it.  


But I did find one Bible commentator who agrees with our view.


Peter Pett says in his Commentary on the Bible - "For the blood of "Zachariah the son of Berechiah" we probably have to look to the Jewish tradition of the time of Jesus, which sadly is not available to us. For this was probably the Zechariah, son of Berechiah, of Zechariah 1. Certainly we know that he had many dangerous opponents whom he had outfaced (Zechariah 10:3; Zechariah 11:8), and his words had undoubtedly stirred up deep antagonism against him (Zechariah 11:8; Zechariah 11:12-14; Zechariah 13:7), as he described them as worthless shepherds (Matthew 11:16-17) so such a death is quite likely to have happened to him and to have been remembered in the tradition. He may thus well have been the last prophet to have been martyred. The description "between the sanctuary and the altar" is specific and suggests some specific and well known tradition. This makes it unlikely that this refers to Zechariah the "son" (probably grandson, and therefore he could have been a son of Berechiah, which was not an uncommon name, compare 1 Chronicles 6:39) of Jehoiada, who while he was slain in the courtyard of the Lord's house (2 Chronicles 24:21), was not said to have been slain in this specific place (the priestly section of the courtyard)."


You either believe the Book or you do not, and this particular bible critic who brought up this objection in our Facebook forum, clearly is just another professing Christian who does NOT believe the Bible - ANY Bible - IS the complete and inerrant words of God.

Matthew 25:13 KJB (Reformation Bibles) - “Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour WHEREIN THE SON OF MAN COMETH.”


ESV (Catholic versions, NASB, NIV, Holman, NET and JW New World Translation) - “Watch therefore, for you know neither the day nor the hour.”


The words “wherein the Son of man cometh” are found in the Majority of all remaining Greek manuscripts as well as C correction, E, F, G, H and some Old Latin copies.


They are found in all Reformation bibles in all languages like the German Luther bible, the French Olivetan, the Spanish Cipriano de Valera, the Italian Diodati and the French Martin bible.


The words are omitted in Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, A and D and several others.  The Catholic versions as well as the Critical text versions omit them.


The words “wherein the Son of man cometh” are found in Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew’s bible 1549, the Bishops’ bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, Young’s 1898, the World English Bible, Green’s Literal Version, the NKJV 1982, the Modern Literal Version, The English Majority Text Version, The Koster Scriptures 1998, Wilbur Pickering N.T., the Tomson N.T. 2002, the New Life Version 2003, A Conservative Version 2005, The Complete Apostle’s bible 2005, The Resurrection Life N.T. 2005, New Century Version 2005, the Mebust Bible 2007, the Jubilee Bible 2010, The Voice 2012, The Modern English Version 2014, and The International Children’s Bible 2015.


Foreign Language Bibles


The words “wherein the Son of man cometh” in Matthew 25:13 are found in Luther’s German Bible 1545 and the German Schlachter bible 2000 - “in welcher der Sohn des Menschen kommen wird.”, the French Martin bible 1744 - “en laquelle le Fils de l'homme viendra.” and French Ostervald and French Louis Segond 2007 - “où le Fils de l'homme viendra.”, the Spanish Cipriano de Valera 1602 and the Reina Valera 1960-1995 - “en que el Hijo del Hombre ha de venir.”, the Italian Diodati and Italian Riveduta 2006,  - “nè l’ora, che il Figliuol dell’uomo verrà.”, Portuguese Easy-to-Read Version 1999 and the Portuguese Almeida Corrigida 2000 - “em que o Filho do Homem há de vir.”, the Dutch Staten Vertaling, the Hungarian Karoli bible, the Czech Kralicka bible, the Polish Gdansk bible 2013, the Romanian Cornilescu bible and Romanian Fidela Bible 2015 - “în care vine Fiul omului.”, the Russian Synodal bible, 


And the Modern Greek Version - καθ' ην ο Υιος του ανθρωπου ερχεται.


https://www.studylight.org/desk/index.cgi?sr=1&search_form_type=general&q1=Matthew+25%3A13&s=0&t1=el_gmd



And the Modern Hebrew Bible - 

לכן שקדו כי אינכם יודעים את היום ואת השעה אשר יבא בה בן האדם׃

https://www.studylight.org/desk/index.cgi?sr=1&old_q=Matthew+25%3A13&search_form_type=general&q1=Matthew+25%3A13&s=0&t1=iw_hmd&ns=0



 

One last verse of interest in Matthew is 27:24 where Pilate washes his hands and says: "I am innocent of the blood of this JUST PERSON." The reading of this "just person" (tou dikaiou toutou) is in all Greek manuscripts including Sinaiticus; only three manuscripts omit the word "just" or "righteous", two very minor and Vaticanus. Even when the Westcott-Hort text first came out, the Revised Version and the American Standard Version kept this word in their texts and read as the KJB, Douay, NKJV, Lamsa's translation of the ancient Syriac, Tyndale, Geneva, and Wycliffe. The first English version to omit this word "just" was the liberal RSV and from then on the NASB, NIV, and ESV followed suit and now omit the word because of Vaticanus. So the NASB, NIV now read: "I am innocent of this man's blood", leaving out the testimony of Pilate that He was a "JUST PERSON".


Matthew 27:16 Barabbas or JESUS Barabbas?

 

KJB - "And they had then a notable prisoner, called Barabbas."

 

So read the Geneva bible, NKJV 1982, NASB 1995, ESV 2011, Holman 2009, New European Version 2010,  The Voice 2012 and the NIVs 1973, 1975 and 1984 editions.

 

BUT now the NIV 2011 edition reads; "At that time they had a well-known prisoner whose name was JESUS BARABBAS."

 

Then it footnotes: "Many manuscripts do not have JESUS. also verse 17."

 

The single name Barabbas is found in virtually every manuscript in existence, including Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, A, D, E, F, the Old Latin, Syriac Peshitta, Coptic Sahidic and Boharic, the Ethiopian, Gothic, Georgian and Slavonic ancient versions.

 

As pointed out, even the THREE previous NIV editions of 1973, 1975 and 1984 all read the single name of Barabbas.

 

So what manuscripts says Jesus Barabbas?  Basically it is one Greek mss. called Theta.  The previous Nestle-Aland critical text versions like the 4th edition 1934, 21st edition 1975 only had Barabbas - But now the Nestle-Aland 27th and 28 editions place the name JESUS in the Greek text but in [brackets] indicating doubt about its authenticity.

 

And the Critical Text (Vatican supervised) Society of Biblical Literature Greek New Testament 2010 places both names in the text with NO brackets.  


And our nutter "scholar", Dan (anything but the KJB) Wallace's NET version also includes this extra name (big surprise) reading - "At that time they had in custody a notorious prisoner named Jesus Barabbas."




It is of interest to compare the RSV 1946, 1972 and the NRSV 1989 and then the ESV 2011 editions, which are all revisions of one another.


The RSV merely had "called Barabbas."  Then it footnoted - "Other ancient authorities read JESUS BARABBAS."

 


Then the NRSV came out in 1989 and it read: "At that time they had a notorious prisoner, called JESUS Barabbas."  And this time they footnote - "Other ancient authorities lack Jesus."


But now they have come out with the ESV 2001-2011 and once again they omitted the extra name of JESUS and went back to "And they had then a notorious prisoner called BARABBAS." with NO footnotes this time.


This is how the "science" of textual criticism works, folks.

 

The reading is not in the Vulgate, nor in the Syriac Peshitta nor any Catholic bible version, nor any Reformation Bible I looked at, nor in any modern version either - except the NIV 2011 edition and now also Dan Wallace's NET version (We can always count on "Doctor Dan", can't we ;-)  and the 2012 Lexham English bible.


It is kind of interesting that, though the Catholic versions still read like the KJB and the traditional text, the Roman Catholic New Jerusalem bible 1985 has this footnote after Matthew 27:16 - "Here and in v. 17, variant JESUS Barabbas, which would give peculiar point to Pilate's question BUT APPEARS TO HAVE ITS ORIGIN IN AN APOCRYPHAL TRADITION." 


But now Dan "the Man" Wallace, who seems to like ANY weird reading out there, and the new NIV 2011 have put it in the text of their fake (apocrypha = of doubtful authenticity) "bible" versions.

 

Want to learn more about this Dan Wallace character? See "Dan Wallace is Messing with The Book - Big Time!" - 

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


To see many more examples like this in the NIVs See -

"What about the NIV 2011?"


http://brandplucked.webs.com/whatabouttheniv2011.htm



As Wilbur Pickering, ThM. PhD. points out 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".4 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).  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."


 

Matthew 27:42 KJB - "He saved others; himself he cannot save. IF he be the King of Israel, let him now come down from the cross, and we will believe him."


NIV (NET, NASB, ESV, Holman Standard, Jehovah Witness New World Translation, Catholic St. Joseph New American bible 1970, New Jerusalem bible 1985) - "He saved others," they said, "but he can't save himself! He's the king of Israel! Let him come down now from the cross, and we will believe in him."


The Catholic Connection  


The previous Douay-Rheims 1582 and the Douay Version 1950 both read like the KJB and the Reformation Bibles - "IF he is the King of Israel, let him come down now from the cross, and we ill believe him."


BUT the St. Joseph New American bible 1970 and the New Jerusalem bible 1985 read like the NIV, ESV, NET, NASB, etc. and say: "He is the king of Israel; let him come down now from the cross, and we will believe in him."


This is a textual issue; not just a translational issue.  That little and all important word IF in the phrase "IF he be the King of Israel" is found in the Majority of all remaining Greek manuscripts as well as Alexandrinus, E, F, G, H, K, W, Delta, Theta, Pi, Sigma, the Old Latin a, aur, b, c, f, ff1, ff2, g1, l, q, r1, the Latin Vulgate, the Syriac Sinaitic, Peshitta, Harclean, Palestinian, the Coptic Boharic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Georgian and Slavonic ancient versions, as well as the Greek Diatessaron 175 A.D.  And it is so quoted by such early church writers as Eusebius, Ambrose, Chrysostom, Augustine and Cyril.


The manuscripts that OMIT that little word IF are the usual suspects of those notoriously corrupt Sinaiticus and Vaticanus mss. as well as D.


If you don't know (and most people do not) how corrupt and contradictory even to each other these so called "oldest and best manuscripts" are, then see The true character of the so called "Oldest and Best Manuscripts"


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


Agreeing with the King James Bible's "IF he be the King of Israel, let him now come down from the cross" are 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, the Bishops' bible 1568, the Douay-Rheims 1582, the Geneva Bible 1587, The Beza N.T. 1599, Mace N.T. 1729, Haweis N.T. 175, John Wesley's N.T. 1755, Worsley N.T. 1770, the Thomson Bible 1808, The Revised Translation 1815, the Living Oracles 1835, The Pickering N.T. 1840, Sawyer N.T. 1858, The Revised N.T. 1862, Young?s 1898, Godbey N.T. 1902, The Clarke N.T. 1913, Lamsa's 1933 translation of the Syraic Peshitta, New Life Version 1969, the J.B. Phillips N.T. 1972, the NKJV 1982, Worldwide English N.T. 1998, The Koster Scriptures 1998, The Lawrie N.T. 1998, God's First Truth Translation 1999, The Last Days N.T. 1999, the World English Bible 2000, the Tomson N.T. 2002, The Apostolic Polyglot Bible 2003, Green?s Literal 2005, The Pickering N.T. 2005, the Complete Apostle's Bible 2005, The Resurrection Life N.T. 2005, Easy-to-Read Version 2006, The Mebust Bible 2007, The Conservative Bible 2010,  the Jubilee Bible 2010, New Heart English Bible 2010, The Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010 - "If he be the Melekh Yisrael, let Him now come down", The New European Version 2010, The Aramaic New Testament 2011, The Work of God's Children Bible 2011, The Bond Slave Version 2012, The Voice 2012, The Far Above All Translation 2014, The Hebrew Names Version 2014, The Modern Literal N.T.2014 and the Modern English Version 2014.


Foreign Language Bibles = the KJB


"IF he is the King of Israel, let him come down from the cross"


The Spanish Sagards Escrimeras 1569, Cipriano de Valera 1602, Reina Valera 1909- 1995 - "Si es el Rey de Israel, que descienda ahora de la cruz, y creeremos en él.", the French Martin bible 1744, French Ostervald 1998 and French Louis Segond 2007 - "S'il est roi d'Israël, qu'il descende maintenant de la croix et nous croirons en lui.", the Italian Diodati 1649 and La Nuova Diodati 1994 - "Se lui è il re d'Israele, scenda ora giú dalla croce, e noi crederemo in lui.", and the Portuguese Almeida Corrigida 2009 - "Se é o Rei de Israel, desça, agora, da cruz, e creremos nele", Luther's German bible 1545 and the German Schlachter Bible 2000 - "Ist er der König Israels, so steige er nun vom Kreuz, so wollen wir ihm glauben.


The Modern Greek Translation -



And the Modern Hebrew Bible -  


All of grace, believing the Book - the King James Bible.


Will Kinney


Return to Articles - https://brandplucked.webs.com/kjbarticles.htm