The Nestle-Aland 27th & 28th editions - The Merry Go Round of Modern Textual Criticism -
2 Peter 3:10; Mark 6:22; Jude 5; Matthew 1:20-21; John 5:2; Acts 12:25
The true nature of the constantly changing Vatican supervised Nestle-Aland Critical Greek Text.
Wilbur Pickering, ThM. PhD. writes in his book The Identity of the New Testament Text, 2014 -
"Bruce Metzger said, "It is understandable that in some cases different scholars will come to different evaluations of the significance of the evidence". A cursory review of the writings of textual scholars suggests that Metzger's "in some cases" is decidedly an understatement. In fact, even the same scholars will vacillate, as demonstrated by the "MORE THAN FIVE HUNDRED CHANGES" introduced into the third edition of the Greek text produced by the United Bible Societies as compared with the second edition (the same committee of five editors prepared both).
K. Aland, M. Black, C.M. Martini, B.M. Metzger, and A. Wikgren, eds., The Greek New Testament, third edition (New York: United Bible Societies, 1975), p. viii. Although this edition is dated 1975, Metzger's Commentary upon it appeared in 1971. The second edition is dated 1968. IT THUS APPEARS THAT IN THE SPACE OF THREE YEARS ('68-'71), WITH NO SIGNIFICANT ACCRETION OF NEW EVIDENCE, THE SAME GROUP OF FIVE SCHOLARS CHANGED THEIR MIND IN OVER 500 PLACES. IT IS HARD TO RESIST THE SUSPICION THAT THEY WERE GUESSING."
Undeniable Proof the ESV, NIV, NASB, Holman Standard, NET, Jehovah Witness NWT etc. are the new "Vatican Versions"
Undeniable Proof the ESV, NIV, Holman Standard, NET, NASBs, Jehovah Witness NWT are the new "Vatican Versions" Part TWO
2 Peter 3:10 King James Bible - “ But the day of the Lord will come as a thief IN THE NIGHT; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein SHALL BE BURNED UP.”
Modern day textual criticism is done by men who do not believe that “The Bible” IS or ever was the complete, inspired and infallible words of God. They are Bible agnostics who do not know for sure what God has said and not one of them has any complete and infallible Bible in any language they believe in themselves or they can show you. No reading is sure. No text is settled. Everything is open to debate, discussion and doubt.
I would like to examine in more detail a few examples of the latest lunacy that has come out in the more recent Nestle-Aland 27th and 28th editions of what the textual critics like to refer to as their “science” of textual criticism.
The first one is found in 2 Peter 3:10
The Traditional Greek Text, which is also the Majority reading and the Byzantine and the text used by the Greek Orthodox churches to this day reads just as it is found in the King James Bible - "Ἥξει δὲ ἡ ἡμέρα κυρίου ὡς κλέπτης ἐν νυκτί, ἐν ᾗ οἱ οὐρανοὶ ῥοιζηδὸν παρελεύσονται, στοιχεῖα δὲ καυσούμενα λυθήσονται, καὶ γῆ καὶ τὰ ἐν αὐτῇ ἔργα κατακαήσεται."
This last word here is where all the changes are found in a few manuscripts that differ so often even among themselves. The word κατακαήσεται simply means "shall be burned up".
On the other hand, the Westcott-Hort text, as well as the UBS and the Nestle critical Greek text through 27 different editions read - "Ἥξει δὲ ἡμέρα Κυρίου ὡς κλέπτης, ἐν ᾗ οἱ οὐρανοὶ ῥοιζηδὸν παρελεύσονται, στοιχεῖα δὲ καυσούμενα λυθήσεται, καὶ γῆ καὶ τὰ ἐν αὐτῇ ἔργα εὑρεθήσεται.
There are two textual problems here. Number one is the omission of the words "in the night" - ἐν νυκτί - which are found the Majority of all texts as well as C, but are omitted by Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. The second and more important difference is the word εὑρεθήσεται instead of κατακαήσεται.
This completely different Greek word here - εὑρεθήσεται- literally means (as even Dan Wallace notes and the ESV tells us in their footnote) "SHALL BE FOUND".
So, as it stands in the critical Greek UBS and Nestle 27th edition, a literal and more honest translation would be the nonsensical "But the day of the Lord will come as a thief; (omits "in the night") in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein SHALL BE FOUND."
In fact, The Faithful N.T. 2009 translates it this way, saying: "...and the earth and its works WILL BE FOUND."
The Holman Standard 2009 and Lexham English Bible 2012 also followed this errant reading and translated it as - "the earth and the works on it WILL BE DISCLOSED."
The ISV 2014, Mounce N.T. 2011 and The International Children's Bible 2015 translated it as "and the earth and everything done on it WILL BE EXPOSED."
The Voice 2012 followed this wrong reading and even paraphrased it badly to actually say - "and the earth and all the works done on it WILL BE SEEN AS THEY TRULY ARE."
And then it footnotes "other manuscripts read "and be burned up."
The Pioneer's N.T. 2014 has - "and the earth and the deeds in it WILL BE FOUND-OUT."
Even Dan "Anything but the King James Bible" Wallace has noted - "One of the most difficult textual problems in the NT is found in v. 10. The reading εὑρεθήσεται, which enjoys by far the best support (א B K P 0156vid 323 1241 1739txt pc) is nevertheless so difficult a reading that many scholars regard it as nonsensical. NA27 lists five conjectures by scholars, from Hort to Mayor, in this text."
Of course I totally disagree with Mr. Wallace that this absurd reading has "by far the best support" for two reasons. Number one is that his so called oldest and best manuscripts, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, often differ radically from not only the Majority of all Greek manuscripts but also from each other by literally hundreds of words, phrases and numerous whole verses.
To see what these two "oldest and best manuscripts" are really like, see many examples of their confusion and mutual disagreement here - http://brandplucked.webs.com/oldestandbestmss.htm
It should also be noted that codex C has a completely different reading here than the others. It says ἀφανισθήσονται - which means "IT SHALL DISAPPEAR" and P72, the early papyrus manuscript, adds another word to the verb not adopted by anybody. It says -ἑυρεθήσεται λυόμενα - which would then be translated as "SHALL BE FOUND LOOSED".
Secondly, the reading found in the King James Bible is that of the Majority of all remaining Greek manuscripts as well as the Old Latin copies of ar, c, dem and p, the Syriac Harclean, the Coptic Boharic and the Ethiopic ancient versions.
"SHALL BE BURNED UP" is also the reading found in almost every Bible translation ever made in all languages and not even many of the modern critical text versions like the RV, ASV, RSV, NASB followed this ridiculous reading found in the Nestle-Aland, UBS (United Bible Society) critical text editions.
And those that do, have been very deceptive and dishonest in how they have gone about attempting to translate this false reading in a manner to make it appear not quite so absurd.
But NOW, the latest Nestle-Aland 28th edition has come down the pike and has made every translation out there "out of date" with their latest findings of modern scholarship. They have once again changed their critical Greek text and it now has the exact opposite meaning of what it has had for 27 different editions.
The Nestle Aland 28th edition now says - "καὶ γῆ καὶ τὰ ἐν αὐτῇ ἔργα οὐχ εὑρεθήσεται." They have simply ADDED one more little word that makes it mean the polar opposite from what it used to mean. Their ever changing Critical Text now reads: "and the earth also and the works in it shall NOT be found."
And where exactly do they get this reading of "shall NOT be found"? Well, it doesn't come from a single Greek manuscript. Not one. Instead this newly adopted reading comes from a single Coptic Sahidic manuscript and one Syriac Philoxenian manuscript. That's it. And, Violá, we now have a new text!
"SHALL BE BURNED UP"
Now let's look at the various Bible translations and see what text they have followed. Agreeing with the Traditional Greek Text and the reading found in the King James Bible of "the earth also and the works that are therein SHALL BE BURNED UP." are Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, the Bishops' Bible 1568, Douay-Rheims 1582, the Geneva Bible 1587, the Beza N.T. 1599, the Bill Bible 1671, Mace N.T. 1729, Whiston's N.T. 1745, Wesley's translation 1755, Worsley Version 1770, Haweis N.T. 1795, Living Oracles 1835, Noyes Translation 1869, Alford N.T. 1870, Darby 1890, Youngs literal 1898, the Revised Version 1885, the ASV 1901, Godbey N.T. 1902, Worrell N.T. 1904, Weymouth 1912, Goodspeed 1943, J.B. Phillips 1962, New Life Bible 1969, the New Berkeley Version in Modern English 1969, Living Bible 1971, the RSV 1973, the NKJV 1982, the Amplified Bible 1987, the NASB 1963-1995, the Complete Jewish Bible 1998, the Third Millennium Bible 1998, The Koster Scriptures 1998, The Last Days Bible 1999, God's First Truth 1999, Green's literal 2005, The Resurrection Life N.T. 2005, the Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010, The New European Version 2010, The Conservative Bible 2010, the Jubilee Bible 2010, The Work of God's Children Bible 2011, World English Bible 2012, Bond Slave Version 2012, the 2012 Knox Bible, Interlinear Hebrew-Greek Scriptures 2012 (Mebust), The Modern Literal N.T. 2014 and The Modern English Version 2014.
Many of these Bible versions were Critical Text editions that chose not to follow the Westcott-Hort, Nestle- Aland Greek text here in 2 Peter 3:10.
The first major bible version to begin to adopt this silly reading found in the Westcott-Hort, Nestle, UBS critical Greek text was the liberal NRSV of 1989. Not even the earlier RSV attempted to put it into their translation, but had: "and the earth and the works that are upon it WILL BE BURNED UP."
But the 1989 NRSV and the 2003 Holman Standard say: "and the earth and everything that is done on it WILL BE DISCLOSED."
The 2001 ESV, as well as the critical text 2012 Common English Bible, follows suit and say: "and the earth and the works that are done on it WILL BE EXPOSED."
Then the ESV footnotes that the Greek literally says "shall be found". Likewise the NIV and Dan Wallace's NET version say: "and the earth and everything in it WILL BE LAID BARE."
There is no way the Greek word they followed here - εὑρεθήσεται- can possibly be translated as "laid bare". Even Dan Wallace admits in his footnote that a literal translation would be "shall be found".
The NIV has translated this same Greek word as "finds", "find" and "found" 151 times and only one time as "laid bare". This is a dishonest attempt to try to make their corrupt reading not sound quite so absurd.
The Catholic/Jehovah Witness Connection
As usual, the Catholic versions disagree among themselves. The older Douay-Rheims 1582 and the Douay Version 1950 followed the traditional text and said: "and the earth, and the works that are in it, WILL BE BURNED UP."
But then the St. Joseph New American bible 1970 went with the Critical text reading and said: "and the earth and all its deeds WILL BE MADE MANIFEST."
But then after this, the New Jerusalem bible 1985 went back to the traditional text reading and now says: "the earth and all that it contains WILL BE BURNED UP."
As for the Jehovah Witness New World Translation 1961 edition, it too follows the Westcott-Hort/UBS/Vatican text reading and says: "and earth and the works in it WILL BE DISCOVERED." but the Jehovah Witness updated version of 2013 has: "and earth and the works in it WILL BE EXPOSED."
Keep in mind that the Jehovah Witness NWT is translated from the same, ever changing, Vatican supervised Nestle-Aland critical Greek text as are the ESV, NIV, NASB, NET and Holman versions.
The latest Nestle Aland Novum Testamentum Graece 28th edition has changed the Greek text in some 30 places from the old 27th edition. Another textual change they have made is in Jude 5 where instead of the previous "how that THE LORD, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt" (Majority, Sinaiticus, P72, C) they have now changed the text to read "that JESUS, who saved a people out of the land of Egypt". See my article titled "The Book of Jude - James White's "inferior" texts" here -
It also documents many concrete examples of how Bible agnostics like James White's "superior texts", upon which today's Vatican Versions like the ESV, NIV, NASB, NET, Holman, Jehovah Witness NWT, etc. are based, are in a continual state of disagreement even among themselves. And for Proof that versions like the ESV, NIV, NASB, NET, Holman, Jehovah Witness NWT etc. are indeed the "new" Vatican Versions See Parts One and Two here -
Mark 6:22 - The Daughter of Herodias or Herod's daughter Herodias? - The Ever Changing Lunacy of Modern Textual Criticism
In Mark 6:22 we read: "And when the daughter OF the said HERODIAS (mentioned in verses 17 and 19) came in, and danced, and pleased Herod...the king said...Ask of me whatsoever thou wilt, and I will give it thee."
Common English Bible 2011 - "Herod’s daughter Herodias came in and danced...
Dan Wallace's NET version - "WHEN HIS DAUGHTER HERODIAS came in and danced, she pleased Herod..."
The 2003 Holman Standard reads: "When Herodias’s own daughter[a] came in and danced..."
And then footnotes - Mark 6:22 Other mss read "When HIS DAUGHTER HERODIAS"
In the Lexham English Bible 2012 we see the same thing. It rejects the latest “scholarship” of the UBS/Nestle-Aland editors and goes with Traditional reading of the KJB.
It says: And when THE DAUGHTER OF HERODIAS HERSELF came in and danced and pleased Herod and his dinner guests, the king said to the girl, “Ask me for whatever you want, and I will give it to you.”
Then it footnotes: In place of “the daughter of Herodias herself” some manuscripts have “his daughter Herodias”. And what exactly are these “some manuscripts”? They are our old “friends” Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. Two of the most corrupt manuscripts to see the light of day, that not only contradict the Traditional Text of the Reformation Bibles but contradict each other literally thousands of times.
To see the true nature of these so called “oldest and best manuscripts” upon which most modern Vatican Versions like the ESV, NIV, NASB, NET, Holman, the Jehovah Witness NWT and the modern Catholic versions are based, see my article here -
Herodias was previously the wife of Phillip, the brother of Herod, and she had a daughter by Phillip. At some point Herod took Herodias, his brother's wife, to be his own and John the Baptist reproved Herod for this. "For Herod himself had sent forth and laid hold upon John, and bound him in prison for Herodias' sake, his brother Phillip's wife; for he had married her. For John had said unto Herod, It is not lawful for thee to have thy brother's wife." Mark 6:17-18.
Matthew 14:6 clearly tells us: "But when Herod's birthday was kept, THE DAUGHTER OF HERODIAS danced before them, and pleased Herod."
The reading that repeats the information and tells us that this girl who danced at Herod's birthday party was THE DAUGHTER OF HERODIAS is that of the Majority of all Greek texts as well as Alexandrinus and C.
However the so called "oldest and best manuscripts" of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus actually say that this was Herod's daughter named Herodias, instead of saying that it was Herodias' daughter and not mentioning her name.
Obviously the two readings cannot both be inspired by God at the same time, and the reading found here in Mark 6:22 in Sinaiticus and Vaticanus (the so called oldest and best upon which most modern versions are based) obviously contradicts what Matthew 14:6 tells us about this girl being "the daughter of Herodias".
Part of what makes this obvious textual blunder of such interest is to see how the critical text "scholars" have dealt with it. The textual differences are quite obvious in the Greek. The Traditional Greek text and that of almost every Bible version in all languages in history that tells us this was the daughter of Herodias is "τῆς θυγατρὸς αὐτῆς τῆς Ἡρῳδιάδος " whereas the Vatican mss. reads "τῆς θυγατρὸς αὐτοῦ Ἡρῳδιάδος" = HIS DAUGHTER HERODIAS.
THE CONSTANTLY CHANGING CRITICAL TEXT EDITIONS
Westcott and Hort originally adopted this strange variant reading because of their blind devotion to the Vatican manuscript, but not even the Revised Version of 1885 or the ASV of 1901 followed this strange and contradictory reading, but stayed with the traditional - "when THE DAUGHTER OF HERODIAS HERSELF came in and danced".
However later on the Nestle critical Greek text 4th edition 1934 and the Nestle 21st edition of 1975 both read like the King James Bible and the traditional Greek text. They did NOT adopt the Vatican/Sinaitic reading.
But then again the latest Nestle-Aland critical Greek texts 27th and the most recent 28th edition have once again changed their Greek text and have gone back to the one first followed by Westcott and Hort. The most recent Nestle Aland critical Greek texts now read "HIS DAUGHTER HERODIAS" = τῆς θυγατρὸς αὐτοῦ Ἡρῳδιάδος
We can see part of this fickle change in the RSV, NRSV and the revision of the revision of the revision called the ESV. The RSV read -" For when HERODIAS' DAUGHTER CAME IN" but the NRSV of 1989 said: "WHEN HIS DAUGHTER HERODIAS came in and danced," and then the ESV 2011 went back to reading: For when HERODIAS'S DAUGHTER came in and danced..."
This means that the ESV, along with the NIV and NASB are not even following the latest musical chairs reading found in the last few printings of the "updated" UBS/Nestle-Aland critical text editions.
Agreeing with the correct reading that this was "the daughter of Herodias" and not "Herod's daughter Herodias" are Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549, the Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, Darby 1890, Young's 1898, the RV 1881, ASV 1901 - "when the daughter of Herodias herself came in and danced", Living Bible 1971, NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV, Holman Standard 2009, NKJV 1982, Complete Jewish Bible 1998, Easy-to-Read Version 2006, the ISV 2014, .
Those following the corrupt Vaticanus-Sinaiticus, United Bible Society/Vatican/Nestle-Aland 28th edition and that tell us this girl was Herod's daughter and her name was Herodias are Daniel Wallace and company's NET version, the latest critical text version called The Common English Version of 2011, the NRSV of 1989, The New Living Translation 2007, and the Disciples New Literal N.T. 2011.
The Living Bible 1971 followed the Traditional text, but this latest "update" has now gone for this blunder found in the Vatican manuscripts.
The New Living Translation 2007 now says: - "Then HIS DAUGHTER, ALSO NAMED HERODIAS, came in and performed a dance".
Since the ever changing critical text scholars have lately adopted this obvious blunder as their preferred Greek text I suppose we will see some more in the future.
Jude 5 “the LORD” or “JESUS”? The Nestle-Aland 28th edition
Jude 5 KJB -"I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that THE LORD, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not."
ESV - "Now I want to remind you, although you once fully knew it, that JESUS, who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe."
“THE LORD, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt” is the reading found in the Majority of all Greek manuscripts including Sinaiticus and was the reading that even Westcott and Hort went with - οτι ο κυριος λαον εκ γης αιγυπτου σωσας
However both Alexandrinus and Vaticanus, as well as the Latin Vulgate actually read JESUS instead of the LORD, even though the passage is speaking about the Lord God, the Father, bringing the children of Israel out of Egypt. These two manuscripts tell us that Jesus saved the people out of the land of Egypt.
The Latin Vulgate has: “IESUS populum de terra Aegypti salvans” and the Clementine Vulgate reads: “JESUS populum de terra Ægypti salvans”
The correction of manuscript C reads God instead of Lord, and P72 actually says "God Christ" brought the people out of Egypt! Confusion reigns among James White’s so called “oldest and best manuscripts”.
The ESV does not even follow the UBS 1st through 4th editions, or the first 27 editions of the Nestle-Aland Critical Text Greek here. The UBS text says "the Lord" (ο κυριος) and the reading of "Jesus" (Ἰησοῦς) is merely placed in a footnote as being found in the Vatican mss. and A.
But wait a minute. Now the 28th Nestle-Aland critical text has just come out in 2012 and it now has removed the word "Lord" which was in it for 27 different editions, and now they actually put the word "Jesus" into their late$t text.
Don’t forget, the ESV came out in 2001 and again in 2007 and a third edition different from the previous 2 ESV editions in 2011. So at that time they weren’t even following the UBS/Nestle-Aland critical Greek texts. This reading of JESUS is primarily that found in the Vatican manuscript, the Latin and Clementine Vulgates, and the Roman Catholic Douay-Rheims and Douay versions.
A couple other recent modern versions that now adopt this "new" reading of JESUS instead of THE LORD are Dan Wallace's NET version (Surprise!), the New Living Translation (even though the previous Living Bible 1971 said “the Lord”) and the Lexham English bible 2012.
What is to be noted is that not all of the modern Critical Text versions follow this reading that the ESV and SOME Catholic versions have. (more on that in a moment)
The reading of "how that THE LORD, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not" is the reading found in Tyndale 1525, Coverdale, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549, the Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, the Beza N.T. 1599, Darby 1890, Young's 1898, the RV 1885, ASV 1901, Weymouth 1912, NIV 1978-2011 editions, NASB 1995 (critical text version), NKJV 1982, The Pickering N.T. 2005, the Holman Standard 2009 (critical text), Jubilee Bible 2010, The New European Version 2010, The Mounce Interlinear N.T. 2011 (critical text version), The Names of God Bible 2011 (critical text), Common English Bible 2011 (another Critical text version), the ISV 2014 (critical text) the Voice 2012, The Biblos Bible 2013, The English Majority Text N.T. 2013, The Far Above All Translation 2014, The Modern Literal N.T. 2014, The New International Reader's Version 2014, The Pioneer's New Testament 2014 and The Modern English Version 2014.
Foreign Language Bibles
It is the reading found in Luther’s German Bible 1545 and the German Schlachter Bible 2000 - “daß der HERR, da er dem Volk aus Ägypten half”, the French Martin 1744, Ostervald 1996 and the Louis Segond 2007 - “que le Seigneur”, the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569, Cipriano de Valera 1602 and Reina Valera 1909-2011 - “que el Señor, habiendo salvado al pueblo”, the Italian Diodati 1649 and La Nuova Diodati 1991 and La Nuova Riveduta 2007 - “che il Signore” and the Portugueze A Biblia Sagrada, O Livro 2000, NIV Portuguese 1999 and the Almeida Actualizada - “havendo o Senhor salvo um povo”, the Tagalog Ang Salita ng Diyos 1998 and the Romanian Fidela Bible 2014.
This is also the reading of the Modern Greek Bible - “οτι ο Κυριος, αφου εσωσε τον λαον εκ γης Αιγυπτου”
and the Modern Hebrew Bible - ויש את נפשי להזכיר אתכם את אשר כבר ידעתם כי הושיע יהוה
The Catholic Connection
The Catholic versions are their usual mixed bag with the previous Douay-Rheims of 1582 and the Douay of 1950 both reading JESUS (which they got from the Latin Vulgate), while the later Jerusalem bible 1968, New American Bible 1970, and the New Jerusalem bible 1985 reading THE LORD, instead of 'Jesus".
But wait! It's not over yet with the Catholic church and their Merry-Go-Round Versions. Now the latest Catholic Public Domain Version (The Sacred Scriptures) of 2009 has come out, and they have gone back to the Vatican reading of JESUS. It says: "Those who once knew everything that JESUS, in saving the people from the land of Egypt"
This same confusion is seen in the revision of the revision of the revision, called the ESV. Instead of reading THE LORD the RSV of 1952 says HE (found in no text at all), then the NRSV of 1989 went back to THE LORD, but then in 2001 the ESV (English Standard Version) has now adopted the reading found in Vaticanus and it actually says JESUS saved the people out of the land of Egypt.
Daniel Wallace's NET version has also adopted this weird variant of JESUS too and in his footnotes he says: "As difficult as the reading "Jesus" is, in light of v. 4 and in light of the progress of revelation, it is wholly appropriate."
In other words, because it is clearly wrong it must be right! This is the nature of the so called "science" of textual criticism. Every man does that which is right in his own eyes.
Back in the days spoken of when the LORD brought the people out of the land of Egypt, THERE WAS NO JESUS. Jesus is His human name given to the Son of God at His birth when He took on human flesh at the incarnation. Before the Incarnation He was Christ the eternal Son of God, (Daniel 3:23; Proverbs 30:5, 1 Cor. 10:4) but He was not yet a partaker of flesh and blood. There was no Jesus before the incarnation. His human name is Jesus.
Matthew 1:20-21 - "But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. And she shall bring forth a son, and THOU SHALT CALL HIS NAME JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins."
“But now we see not yet all things put under him. But we see JESUS, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour” Hebrews 2:9
The Lord Jesus Christ is never referred to as Jesus until after his incarnation when He took on Him the seed of Abraham and was made in the likeness of men.
The reading now found in the ESV, Catholic Douay-Rheims, Douay and most recent Catholic Public Domain Version as well as Dan Wallace's NET version is just another proof that the ESV is a bogus Vatican Version. It doesn't even follow the previous 27 editions of the Nestle-Aland critical texts, let alone the traditional Greek texts found in the King James Bible.
John 5:2 - Bethesda, or Bethzatha, or Bethsaida, or Bedsaidan, or Belzetha?
John 5:2 KJB - “Now there is at Jerusalem by the sheep market a pool, which is called in the Hebrew tongue BETHESDA, having five porches.”
BETHESDA (βηθεσδα) is the reading found in the Majority of all Greek manuscripts including A, C, E, F, G, H, K, Delta, Theta, Pi, the Old Latin f, q, the Syriac Peshitta, Curetonian, Armenian, Georgian, Slavonic and Diatessaron ancient versions.
However Sinaiticus basically alone reads BETHZATHA while Vaticanus has BETHSAIDA, which is no where near Jerusalem but is on the northeast side of the sea of Galilee.
The Catholic Douay Rheims says “called in Hebrew BETHSAIDA”.
P66 originally had Bedsaidan (Βηδσαϊδάν) but was then changed to read Bedsaida (Βηδσαϊδά)
Manuscript D has Belzetha (Βελζεθά)
And Vaticanus and P75, the so called oldest and best, have the absurd reading of Bethsaida, which again was no where near Jerusalem where this event took place.
Westcott and Hort rejected the reading of their favorite Vatican manuscript here because of its obvious error, and instead, rejecting the overwhelming textual evidence for the reading of Bethesda, chose to go with basically one manuscript - Sinaiticus - which reads BETHZATHA - (βηθζαθα)
BUT not even the Revised Version 1881 nor the ASV 1901 followed this reading but stuck to the traditional BETHESDA.
Dan Wallace’s NET version, however, reads: “Now there is in Jerusalem by the Sheep Gate a pool called BETHZATHA in Aramaic”, thus following the reading of Sinaiticus that still stands in the Nestle-Aland Vatican supervised Critical text.
Other versions that DO follow the Westcott-Hort/UBS/Nestle-Aland Critical text reading of BETHZATHA are the Jehovah Witness NWT, Today’s English Version, the RSC, NRSV, New Century Version, Bible in Basic English, the James Moffatt translation, Contemporary English Version 1995, International Children’s bible 2015, Lexham English bible 2012.
YET versions like the ESV, NIV, NASB, ISV do NOT follow even their own UBS/Nestle-Aland reading here but say: “called BETHESDA”, thus agreeing with versions like Wycliffe, Tyndale, the Bishops’ bible, the Geneva Bible, Darby, Young’s, the NKJV and the Modern English Version to name but a few.
What we see in this instance is the total disagreement found among the so called “oldest and best” manuscripts upon which the Vatican supervised Critical text versions are generally based.
Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, P66, A and D all disagree with each other giving us 6 different readings for the name of this one town called Bethesda.
Acts 12:25 “returned FROM Jerusalem” or “returned TO Jerusalem”?
The fickle nature of the so called “science” of textual criticism.
Not even the ESV, NASB, NIV follow the present Nestle-Aland Critical text 28th edition.
In Acts 12:25 we read: “And Barnabas and Saul returned FROM (ex) Jerusalem, when they had fulfilled their ministry, and took with them John, whose surname was Mark.”
This is the reading found in a multitude of Greek manuscripts and Bible versions including P74, Alexandrinus, the Textus Receptus, the Modern Greek N.T., the Vulgate 425, Wycliffe 1395, the Geneva Bible 1599, the Revised Version 1881, ASV 1901, Weymouth 1902, Lamsa’s translation of the Syriac 1933, Douay 1950, Darby, Young’s 1898, J.B. Phillips 1962, Berkeley Version in Modern English 1969,the NKJV 1982, NASB 1963-1995, RSV 1952, ESV 2001-2016 editions, The Message 2002, Bible in Basic English 1969, New English Bible 1970, Complete Jewish Bible 1998, the NIV 1984 -2011 editions, and Common English Bible (another critical text edition like the ESV, NIV, NASB that does NOT follow the UBS text here), the Orthodox Jewish Bible 2011, and The Voice (another Critical text version" of 2012 - "the time Barnabas and Saul spent in Jerusalem came to an end, and they reported back to Antioch, bringing along John, who was also called Mark."
The Names of God Bible 2011 says -" they returned TO Antioch FROM Jerusalem."
Foreign language bibles also read "returned FROM Jerusalem" such as the Italian Diodati 1649 and La Nuova Diodati 1991 - "ritornarono di Gerusalemme, Luther's German Bible 1545 and German Schlachter bible 2000 - "Barnabas aber und Saulus kehrten wieder von Jerusalem" = "returned FROM Jerusalem", the French Martin 1744, Louis Segond 1910, Ostervald 1996 - " s'en retournèrent de Jérusalem", the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569, Reina Valera 1602 - 1995 and Reina Valera Gómez 2010 - "Y Bernabé y Saulo volvieron de Jerusalén " and the Portuguese Almeida Bible - Barnabé e Saulo, havendo terminando aquele serviço, voltaram de Jerusalém, levando consigo a João"
the Modern Greek Bible - "Ο δε Βαρναβας και ο Σαυλος υπεστρεψαν εξ Ιερουσαλημ αφου εξεπληρωσαν την διακονιαν αυτων" = "FROM Jerusalem",
and the Modern Hebrew Bible - "וישובו בר נבא ושאול מירושלים אחרי כלותם את השמוש"
Clearly the whole context tells us that Barnabas and Paul had already gone TO Jerusalem and had now returned FROM Jerusalem.
In Acts 11:29-30 we read: “Then the disciples, every man according to his ability, determined to send relief unto the brethren which dwelt in Judea: Which also they did, and sent it to the elders by the hands of BARNABAS AND SAUL.”
Then in Acts 13:1 we again pick up with both Saul (Paul) and Barnabas already at Antioch, and not in Jerusalem. “Now there were at Antioch certain prophets and teachers: as Barnabas....and Saul.”
However the corrupt manuscripts of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus tell us in Acts 12:25 that both Barnabas and Saul (Paul) now returned TO Jerusalem, even though they had already been there as recorded in Acts 11:29-30, and were now in Antioch along with John Mark as recorded in Acts 13:1-6.
The total fickleness and inconsistency of the modern Critical text is seen in that Westcott and Hort originally went with the erroneous reading of “returned TO Jerusalem” (eis) -
but then the Nestle text 4th edition 1934 and the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece 1962 and the Nestle Greek text 21st edition 1975 all read “returned FROM Jerusalem (ex) - "ὑπέστρεψαν ἐξ Ἱερουσαλὴμ."
There are other variant readings here too. Manuscript D has"ἀπὸ Ἰερουσαλὴμ", which would translated as "from Jerusalem" and Mss. E has "from Jerusalem TO ANTIOCH" - ἐξ Ἰερουσαλὴμ εἰς Ἀντιόχειαν" which nobody followed.
But wait; it gets worse. Now the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum 27-28th editions and the UBS 4th edition have once again rejected the previous Nestle critical text and have gone back to the reading originally adopted by Westcott and Hort that comes from both the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus manuscripts...You know...those "oldest and best" ones that today's Vatican Versions are based on.
Versions that contain this erroneous reading - “returned TO Jerusalem” - and thus contradict the whole context of Acts 11 through 13 are Tyndale 1525 - (one of many reasons why Tyndale was not the perfect English Bible - see http://brandplucked.webs.com/tyntrorkjb.htm ) Coverdale 1535, Bishops’ bible 1568, and in modern times Rotherham’s Emphasized bible 1902, the Catholic St. Joseph New American Bible 1970, Hebrew Names Version, the NRSV 1989, Holman Christian Standard Version 2003-2009, the ISV (International Standard Version 2003), Lexham English bible 2012 and Dan Wallace's NET version.
The CEV (Contemporary English Version) 1995 has: "they WENT BACK TO Jerusalem".
Notice that the RSV 1952 and the ESV 2001 both read “FROM Jerusalem” but the NRSV 1989 read “TO Jerusalem”. These three are revisions of each other. Can’t seem to make up their minds, can they?
The Catholic Connection
As usual we see confusion and change among the Catholic versions. The older Douay-Rheims 1582 and Douay of 1950 both read "returned FROM Jerusalem". But then the 1970 St. Joseph New American Bible changed this to "returned TO Jerusalem." But then the 2009 Catholic Public Domain version has now gone back to "returned FROM Jerusalem."
Dan Wallace of the NET version chosen to read follow the corrupt reading and says: - "So Barnabas and Saul returned TO 85 Jerusalem when they had completed their mission, bringing along with them John Mark."
He then gives us these remarkable footnotes: "There are a number of variants at this point in the text: εἰς (eis, “to”) in א B Ï sams syhmg;ἀπό (apo, “from”) in D E Ψ 36 323 453 614 1175 al; ἐξ (ex, “from”) in Ì74 A 33 945 1739 al; ἐξ ᾿Ιερουσαλήμ εἰς ᾿Αντιόχειαν in a few later manuscripts and part of the Itala. A decision on this problem is very difficult, but for several reasons εἰς can be preferred. It is the most difficult reading by far in light of the context, since Paul and Barnabas were going to Jerusalem in 11:30. It is found in better witnesses, א and B being very strong evidence. ...This problem is so difficult that some scholars resort to conjectural emendation to determine the original reading. All in all, the reading εἰς should be preferred as original, recognizing that there is a good measure of uncertainty with this solution."
In other words, even though his so called oldest and best and "can be preferred" reading of "returned TO Jerusalem" makes absolutely NO sense and contradicts the entire context of chapters 12 and 13, he just can't bring himself to admit that his so called "oldest and best" are actually among the most corrupt manuscripts imaginable.
The saying is true, if you mess with the Book, God will mess with your mind." Or as the Bible puts it - "For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?" 1 Corinthians 1:19-20
Funny 5 1/2 minute video about New Version Scholar Dr. Smart E. Pants.
Another example of The ever changing nature of Textual Criticism
This is an excellent exposure done by David Daniels of Greek Codex 2427 that is so often mentioned in the Critical Apparatus of the Nestle-Aland/UBS Greek texts, proving that it is a fraud.
I checked previous editions of the UBS/Nestle-Aland critical texts before the 27th edition and they used to reference 2427 all the time. Then I checked the Nestle-Aland 28th edition, and suddenly all these references to 2427 are no longer there!
This means that for years the critical scholars had been listing this bogus mss. as proof confirming the readings of their corrupt text. At least they had the integrity to now remove these references. But they still are using the wrong Vatican supervised texts for their fake bible versions.
Get yourself a copy of the only Bible believed by multiplied thousands of God's redeemed people to be the complete, inspired and 100% true words of the living God. You will never go wrong and you will be greatly blessed and built up in the true faith of our Lord Jesus Christ. All other roads lead back to the Whore of Babylon one way or another.
By sovereign grace, believing God's Book - the Authorized King James Holy Bible.
Return to Articles - http://brandplucked.webs.com/kjbarticles.htm