Another King James Bible Believer

Subtitle

"Science" of Textual Criticism Gospel of John



Gospel of John


John 1:28 “in BETHABARA” or “in BETHANY”?


John 1:28 KJB - “These things were done in BETHABARA beyond Jordan, where John was baptizing.”


ESV (NASB, NIV, Holman, NET, Jehovah Witness NWT, Catholic St. Joseph NAB 1970, New Jerusalem bible 1985) - “These things took place in BETHANY across the Jordan, where John was baptizing.”

The reading of BETHANY is that found in Sinaiticus original, P75, Vaticanus, A, C original, the Syriac Peshitta, Coptic Boharic, Slavonic and the Latin copies.

But BETHABARA is the reading of both Sinaiticus correction and C correction, the Syriac Curetonian, Sinaitic  a Syriac Palestinian copy and a Coptic Sahidic copy, and the Armenian and Georgian ancient versions. 

And of course the Textus Receptus reads “in BETHABARA”.  -εν βηθαβαρα. There are hand written Greek manuscripts on both sides of this textual issue.


First of all, Bethany was the hometown of Lazarus, Mary and Martha and it was “nigh unto Jerusalem, about fifteen furlongs off” (John 11:18).  That is less than 2 miles from Jerusalem.  It is nowhere near the Jordan River, which is about 21 miles away.

And Bethabara was northeast of Jerusalem, near Jericho and IS “beyond Jordan”.

Bible commentators haggle back and forth about the true reading here, but even Dan Wallace, who favors the Critical Text, comments: “because Bethany was at least a well-known location in Palestine, mentioned in the Gospels about a dozen times, one has to wonder whether scribes replaced Βηθαβαρᾷ with Βηθανίᾳ.”

John Calvin - “These things were done in Bethabara. The place is mentioned, not only to authenticate the narrative, but also to inform us that this answer was given amidst a numerous assembly of people; for there were many who flocked to John’s baptism, and this was his ordinary place for baptizing. It is likewise supposed by some to be a passage across Jordan, and, from this circumstance, they derive the name, for they interpret it the house of passage;… SOME HAVE INSERTED HERE THE NAME BETHANY, BUT THIS IS A MISTAKE; for we shall afterwards see how near Bethany was to Jerusalem. The situation of Bethabara, as laid down by those who have described the country, agrees best with the words of the Evangelist”

John Gill comments that though many copies read “Bethany” yet he says: “Bethany was not beyond Jordan, nor in the wilderness of Judea, but near to Jerusalem, about two miles distant from it; nor was it situated by waters convenient for baptizing,… either this reading is an error, or there was another Bethany near Jordan: Bethabara signifies "the house of passage", and is thought to be the place where the Israelites passed over Jordan, to go into the land of Canaan”

John Trapp, English Puritan, doesn’t even question the reading of Bethabara. Nor does Matthew Henry. He simply states: “In Bethabara,  That is, by interpretation, the place of passage where Israel passed over Jordan. So the acts of Joshua and Jesus begin both at a place. Baptism also is first administered where it was of old foreshadowed. Christ is the true Bethabara”

Even the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia says: ”Bethany beyond the Jordan" (John 1:28) the King James Version Bethabara, a reading against the majority of the manuscripts: No such place is known.”

Agreeing with the King James Bible and the Reformation bibles in other languages that also read “IN BETHABARA” are Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1835, The Great Bible 1540, Matthew’s bible 1549, the Bishops’ bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, the Beza N.T. 1599, Mace N.T. 1729, Wesley’s N.T. 1755, Worsley N.T. 1770, Haweis N.T. 1795, Thomson Bible 1808, Webster’s bible 1833, Living Oracles 1835, Pickering N.T. 1840,  the Julia Smith Translation 1855, the Calvin Bible 1856, The Revised N.T. 1862, Smith Bible 1876, Young’s 1898,  the NKJV 1982, the Laurie Translation 1998, Third Millennium bible 1998, God’s First Truth 1999, Jubilee Bible 2000, Tomson N.T. 2002, The Pickering New Testament 2005, The Resurrection Life N.T. 2005, Green’s Literal Translation 2005, The Conservative Bible 2010, The Hebrew Roots Bible 2015 and the New Matthew Bible 2016.

Foreign Language Bibles

Foreign language Bibles that also read “in Bethabara” are the Spanish Las Sagradas Escrituras 1569, Cipriano di Valera 1602, the Reina Valera 1909 - 1995 - “en Betábara”, the French Martin 1744, French Ostervald 1996 - “Bethabara”, the Hungarian Karoli bible - “Béthabarában “, the Italian Diodati 1649, and La Nuova Diodati 1991 - “in Betabara”, the Polish Updated Gdansk Bible 2013 - “w Betabarze”, the Romanian Cornilescu bible 1924-2014 - “în Betabara”, the Russian Synodal bible - “Вифаваре”, the Tagalog And Salita ng Diyos bible 1998 - “sa Betabara”, the Bulgarian bible 1940 - “Витавара”, Luther’s German bible 1545 and the German Schlachter bible 2000 - “zu Bethabara”, the Czeck Kralicka bible - “Betabaře “, The Dutch Staten-Vertaling Bible - “in Bethabara”

And The Modern Greek Translation - Ταυτα εγειναν εν Βηθαβαρα περαν του Ιορδανου, οπου ητο ο Ιωαννης βαπτιζων.

https://www.studylight.org/desk/index.cgi?sr=1&old_q=John+1%3A28&search_form_type=general&q1=John+1%3A28&s=0&t1=el_gmd&ns=0

 

 

In John 3:3 we read "Jesus answered AND SAID UNTO HIM". So reads Vaticanus, but Sinaiticus omits the words "and said unto him".

 

In John 3:8 we read "so is every one that is born of the Spirit", but Sinaiticus says: "BORN OF WATER and of the Spirit". In John 3:5 "he cannot ENTER into the kingdom of GOD", but Sinaiticus says "he cannot SEE the kingdom of HEAVEN." 


John 4:1 - KJB, ASV 1901, RSV 1946-1971, NASB 1995- “When therefore THE LORD (ο κυριος) knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John…”


NIV, ESV - “Now when JESUS (Ἰησοῦς) learned that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John”

 


The reading of THE LORD is that found in the Majority of all remaining Greek manuscripts as well as the earliest P66 correction and P 75, A, Vaticanus, C, E, F, G, H, K, L, Delta, Pi, Psi, and the ancient Syriac Sinaitic, Coptic Sahidic, Ethiopian, Georgian and Slavonic versions.


Originally even Westcott and Hort went with THE LORD as did the Nestle 4th edition 1934 and the Nestle-Aland 21st edition 1975. But sometime between the 21st and the 27th the Vatican supervised textual editors just changed their minds and decided to go with JESUS, which is the reading found in Sinaiticus and D.  


So many of the Vatican Versions are not even following the so called “oldest and best manuscripts” here.


The only consistent thing about the new Vatican Versions is their inconsistency.



The Catholic Connection


The Roman Catholic Versions like the Douay-Rheims 1582, Douay 1950, St. Joseph NAB 1970 and the New Jerusalem bible 1985 all read “when JESUS learned”. 


So too do the ESV, NIV, Holman Standard, NET


“when THE LORD knew”


Agreeing with the King James Bible are Tyndale 1524, the Bishops’ Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, Wesley N.T. 1755, Worsley Version 1770, Darby 1890, Young’s 1898, the Revised Version 1881, the ASV 1901, Goodspeed 1923, James Moffatt N.T. 1926, The Revised Standard Version 1946-1971, Bible in Basic English 1961, The New Berkeley Version in Modern English 1969, Living Bible 1971, J.B. Phillips 1972, NKJV 1982, The Koster Scriptures 1998 - “the Master”, Lawrie Translation 1998, God’s First Truth 1999, the World English Bible 2000, the Tomson N.T. 2002, Complete Apostle’s bible 2005, the Mebust Bible 2007, The Faithful N.T. 2009, the Jubilee Bible 2010, The New European Version 2010, Hebrew Names Version 2014, the Modern English Version 2014, The Modern Literal N.T. 2014, The Far Above All Translation 2014 and The New Matthew Bible 2016.


Foreign Language Bibles = the KJB - “when THE LORD knew…”


Foreign language Bibles that read like the KJB are Las Sagradas Escrituras 1569, the Spanish Cipriano de Valera 1602, Reina Valera 1960, 1977, 1995 - “Cuando, pues, el Señor supo”, the French Martin bible 1744, French Ostervald 1996 and French Louis Segond 2007 - “Le Seigneur”, the Italian Diodati 1649 and La Nuova Diodati 1991 - “Quando dunque il Signore seppe”, the Portuguese Almeida Corrigida 2009 - “o Senhor”, the Norwegian Det Norsk Bibelselskap - “Da nu Herren”, the Dutch Staten-Vertaling bible, the Romanian Cornilescu  and the Fidela Bible 2014, Luther’s German Bible 1545 and the German Schlachter Bible 2000 - “der Herr”.


The Modern Greek Bible - Καθως λοιπον εμαθεν ο Κυριος


and The Modern Hebrew Bible - 


ויהי כאשר נודע לאדון כי שמעו הפרושים אשר ישוע העמיד והטביל תלמידים 



NIV, ESV - “Now when JESUS (Ἰησοῦς) learned that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John”


The reading of THE LORD is that found in the Majority of all remaining Greek manuscripts as well as the earliest P66 correction and P 75, A, Vaticanus, C, E, F, G, H, K, L, Delta, Pi, Psi, and the ancient Syriac Sinaitic, Coptic Sahidic, Ethiopian, Georgian and Slavonic versions.


Originally even Westcott and Hort went with THE LORD as did the Nestle 4th edition 1934 and the Nestle-Aland 21st edition 1975. But sometime between the 21st and the 27th the Vatican supervised textual editors just changed their minds and decided to go with JESUS, which is the reading found in Sinaiticus and D.  


So many of the Vatican Versions are not even following the so called “oldest and best manuscripts” here.


The only consistent thing about the new Vatican Versions is their inconsistency.



The Catholic Connection


The Roman Catholic Versions like the Douay-Rheims 1582, Douay 1950, St. Joseph NAB 1970 and the New Jerusalem bible 1985 all read “when JESUS learned”. 


So too do the ESV, NIV, Holman Standard, NET


“when THE LORD knew”


Agreeing with the King James Bible are Tyndale 1524, the Bishops’ Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, Wesley N.T. 1755, Worsley Version 1770, Darby 1890, Young’s 1898, the Revised Version 1881, the ASV 1901, Goodspeed 1923, James Moffatt N.T. 1926, The Revised Standard Version 1946-1971, Bible in Basic English 1961, The New Berkeley Version in Modern English 1969, Living Bible 1971, J.B. Phillips 1972, NKJV 1982, The Koster Scriptures 1998 - “the Master”, Lawrie Translation 1998, God’s First Truth 1999, the World English Bible 2000, the Tomson N.T. 2002, Complete Apostle’s bible 2005, the Mebust Bible 2007, The Faithful N.T. 2009, the Jubilee Bible 2010, The New European Version 2010, Hebrew Names Version 2014, the Modern English Version 2014, The Modern Literal N.T. 2014, The Far Above All Translation 2014 and The New Matthew Bible 2016.


Foreign Language Bibles = the KJB - “when THE LORD knew…”


Foreign language Bibles that read like the KJB are Las Sagradas Escrituras 1569, the Spanish Cipriano de Valera 1602, Reina Valera 1960, 1977, 1995 - “Cuando, pues, el Señor supo”, the French Martin bible 1744, French Ostervald 1996 and French Louis Segond 2007 - “Le Seigneur”, the Italian Diodati 1649 and La Nuova Diodati 1991 - “Quando dunque il Signore seppe”, the Portuguese Almeida Corrigida 2009 - “o Senhor”, the Norwegian Det Norsk Bibelselskap - “Da nu Herren”, the Dutch Staten-Vertaling bible, the Romanian Cornilescu  and the Fidela Bible 2014, Luther’s German Bible 1545 and the German Schlachter Bible 2000 - “der Herr”.


The Modern Greek Bible - Καθως λοιπον εμαθεν ο Κυριος


and The Modern Hebrew Bible - 


ויהי כאשר נודע לאדון כי שמעו הפרושים אשר ישוע העמיד והטביל תלמידים 


 

John 4:42 KJB - "...for we have heard him ourselves, and know that this is indeed THE CHRIST, the Saviour of the world."  

 

This is the reading found in the Majority of all remaining Greek manuscripts including A, C3, D, K, L, N, Gamma, Delta, Theta, Psi, f1, f13, 33, 565, 579, 700, 802, 1241, 1424, the Old Latin e, f, q, and the Syriac Peshitta, Harklean, Palestinian ancient versions.

 

 

The Egyptian manuscripts like Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, P66 and P75 omit this title of THE CHRIST, and so do the New Vatican versions like the ESV, NIV, NASB, NET, the Jehovah Witness NWT and all Catholic versions.

 

"...we have heard him ourselves, and know that this is THE CHRIST, the Saviour of the world." is the reading found in Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, The Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549, the Bishops' bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, the Beza N.T. 1599, Mace N.T. 1729, Wesley's N.T. 1755, Young's 1898, Lamsa's 1933 translation of the Syraic Peshitta, New Life Version 1969, The Amplified Bible 1987, World English Bible 2000, The Voice 2012, The Hebrew Names Version 2014 - "the Messiah, the Savior of the world.", The Modern English Version 2014, and The New Matthew Bible 2016 just to name a few.


and the Modern Greek Bible - και γνωριζομεν οτι ουτος ειναι αληθως ο Σωτηρ του κοσμου, ο Χριστος. 


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 RSV, 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.

 


John 6:47 KJB - “ Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth ON ME hath everlasting life.”



ESV (NIV, NASB, NET, Holman Standard, Jehovah Witness NWT) - “Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life.”

 


The Vatican supervised versions like the ESV, NIV, NASB, NET, Jehovah Witness New World Translation, etc. omit the words “on me” (εἰς ἐμὲ) because they are omitted by Sinaiticus and Vaticanus and P 66, but these two important words ARE found in the Majority of all remaining Greek manuscripts including Alexandrinus, C correction, D, E, G, H, K, N, Delta, Pi, Psi and the Old Latin copies a, our, b, c, d, e, f, ff2, q, r.  They are also found in the Latin Vulgate, the Syriac Peshitta, Harclean, the Coptic Sahidic and Boharic, the Gothic, Slavonic and Ethiopian ancient versions.  They are also found in the Diatessaron that was put together between 160-175 A.D., long before Sinaiticus or Vaticanus existed.


Bibles that agree with the Reformation and the King James Bible text - “he that believeth ON ME, hath everlasting life.” are Wycliffe bible 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, The Great Bible 1540, Matthew’s Bible 1549, the Bishops’ Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, the Beza N.T. 1599, The Douay-Rheims 1610, Mace N.T. 1729, John Wesley’s N.T. 1755, The Revised Translation 1815, The Revised N.T. 1862, The Alford N.T. 1870, Darby 1890, Young’s 1898, Lamsa’s 1933 translation of the Syraic Peshitta, The Bible in Basic English 1965, New Life Version 1969, The Living Bible 1971, NKJV 1982, Amplified Bible 1987, Word of Yah Bible 1993, Contemporary English Version 1995, Worldwide English N.T. 1998, The Koster Scriptures 1998, God’s First Truth 1999, The Message 2000, World English Bible 2000, The Apostolic Polyglot Bible 2003, The Pickering N.T. 2005, The Mebust Bible 2007, The Christogenea N.T. 2009, the Jubilee Bible 2010, The Work of God’s Children Bible 2011, New Testament for Everyone 2011, The Bond Slave Version 2012, The ISV (International Standard Version) 2014, Hebrew Names Version 2014, The Translator’s Bible 2014, The Far Above All Translation 2014, The Hebrew Names Version 2014, The Modern Literal N.T. 2014, The Open English Bible 2014 and The Modern English Version 2014. 



Foreign Language Bibles = “believe IN ME”


Foreign language bibles that read like the KJB are the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569, Cipriano de Valera 1602, the Reina Valeras 1960-1995 - “ De cierto, de cierto os digo: El que cree EN MI tiene vida eterna.”, The French Martin 1744, Ostervald 1998 and the French Louis Segond 2007 - “En vérité, en vérité, je vous le dis, celui qui croit EN MOI a la vie éternelle.”, The Italian Diodati 1649, La Nuova Diodati 1991 and the Italian Riveduta 2006 - “In verità, in verità vi dico: chi crede IN ME ha vita eterna.”, The Portuguese Almeida Corrigida 2009 and O Livro 2000 - “ Na verdade, na verdade vos digo que aquele que crê EM MIM tem a vida eterna.”, and in Luther’s German bible 1545 and the German Schlachter Bible 2000 - “ Wahrlich, wahrlich, ich sage euch: Wer AN MICH glaubt, der hat ewiges Leben.”, the Dutch Staten Vertaling bible, the Romanian Fidela Bible 2014, The Russian Synodal Version, The Afrikaans bible 1953, 


As well as The Modern Greek Bible - Αληθως αληθως, σας λεγω, Ο πιστευων εις εμε εχει ζωην αιωνιον.


And the Modern Hebrew Bible - אמן אמן אני אמר לכם המאמין בי לו חיי עולמים׃




John 6:69 KJB - “And we believe and are sure that thou art THAT CHRIST, THE SON OF THE LIVING GOD.” 



ESV (NIV, NASB, NET, Holman, Modern Catholic versions like St. Joseph NAB 1970, New Jerusalem bible 1985, Jehovah Witness NWT) - “ and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are THE HOLY ONE OF GOD.”


Older Catholic Versions like the Douay-Rheims 1610, Douay 1950 - “we have come to believe and to know that thou art THE CHRIST, THE SON OF GOD.”


What we have here is a cluster of variant readings.


The modern Vatican supervised versions like the ESV, NET, NIV, NASB, ISV, Holman Standard, Jehovah Witness NWT and the modern Catholic versions all unite to say “you are THE HOLY ONE OF GOD.”


This is the reading of P75, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.


P66 says “you are THE CHRIST THE HOLY ONE OF GOD.”


While C correction and Theta read “you are THE CHRIST THE SON OF GOD”


The reading found in the King James Bible and all Reformation Bibles in all languages is “thou art THE CHRIST, THE SON OF THE LIVING GOD” and this is the reading found in the Majority of all remaining Greek manuscripts, including E, F, G, H, K, N, Pi, Psi, several Old Latin copies, the Syriac Peshitta, Harclean, Palestinian, Coptic Boharic, Gothic, Ethiopian, Georgian, Slavonian ancient versions, as well as the Diatessaron (175 A.D.) 


Reading like the KJB in John 6:69 “And we believe and are sure that thou art THAT CHRIST, THE SON OF THE LIVING GOD.” are the following Bible translations -


Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, The Great Bible 1540, Matthew’s bible 1549, the Bishops’ bible 1568, the Geneva bible 1587, the Beza N.T. 1599,  Young’s 1898, Lamsa’s 1933 translation of the Syriac Peshitta - “you are THE CHRIST, THE SON OF THE LIVING GOD”, the New Life Version 1969, the NKJV 1982, the 21st Century KJV 1994, Third Millennium Bible 1998, the Complete Apostle’s bible 2005, and the Modern English Version 2014.  


Foreign Language Bibles  


Foreign language bibles that read like the KJB are Luther’s German bible 1545 and the German Schlachter bible 2000 - “daß du bist Christus, der Sohn des lebendigen Gottes.”, the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569, Cipriano de Valera 1602 and the Spanish Reina Valera 1960-2011 - “tú eres el Cristo, el Hijo del Dios viviente.”, the French Martin 1744, Ostervald 1998, and French Louis Segond 2007 - “tu es le Messie, le Fils du Dieu vivant.”, the Italian Diodati 1649, Nueva Diodati 1991 - “che tu sei il Cristo, il Figlio del Dio vivente”, the Portuguese Almeida Corregida e Fiel Bible - “tu és o Cristo, o Filho do Deus vivente.”, the Hungarian Karoli Bible - “te vagy a Krisztus, az élõ Istennek Fia.”, the Polish Updated Gdansk bible 2013 - “że ty jesteś Chrystusem, Synem Boga żywego.”, the Tagalog Ang Salita ng Diyos 1998 - “ang Mesiyas, ang Anak ng buhay na Diyos.”, the Dutch Statenvertaling bible - “dat Gij zijt de Christus, de Zoon des levenden Gods.”, the Czech BKL bible -“že jsi ty Kristus, Syn Boha živého.”, the Smith & Van Dyke Arabic bible - ونحن قد آمنّا وعرفنا انك انت المسيح ابن الله الحي., and the Romanian Fidela Bible 2014 - “tu eşti Cristosul,Fiul Dumnezeului cel viu.”


The Modern Greek Bible - οτι συ εισαι ο Χριστος ο Υιος του Θεου του ζωντος.


And The Modern Hebrew Bible - ואנחנו האמנו ונדע כי אתה המשיח בן אל חי׃ = you are THE CHRIST, THE SON OF THE LIVING GOD.


So, once again, it comes down to either the Reformation Bibles or the Vatican supervised versions.  God did not inspire two, three or four different  readings in the same place.  


 John 7:50 Is “Jesus” in the text or not?


John 7:50 KJB - “Nicodemus saith unto them, (he that came to Jesus by night, being one of them,)”


The name of Jesus does not appear in Scrivener’s 1894 copy of the Textus Receptus, nor does it appear in the Nestle-Aland text.


 λεγει νικοδημος προς αυτους ο ελθων νυκτος προς αυτον εις ων εξ αυτων


So the question is, where did it come from?


Some possible explanations.


It is found in all three translations of the Syriac Peshitta - Lamsa, Etheridge and Murdock.


It is found in The Diatessaron of Taitain (A.D. 160) translated from the Arabic Version.


https://books.google.com/books?id=Ne3bAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA248&hc_location=ufi#v=onepage&q&f=false


It is found in Beza’s 1599 translation (whose 1598 Greek text was largely followed by the KJB translators) as well as those of Tyndale 1525, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew’s Bible 1549, the Bishops’ Bible 1568, and the Geneva Bible 1599.  This may indicate that it was in the Greek texts these early translations were made from, but we do not know the specific names of them.


Or it may just be an interpretive translation of the Greek word “him” that clarifies the passage to avoid confusion.


Versions that read “JESUS” in their text -


Tyndale 1525 - “He that came to Iesus by nyght and was one of them.”, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew’s Bible 1549, the Bishops’ Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, The Beza New Testament 1599, the Mace N.T. 1729, Whiston’s N.T. 1745, Wesley’s N.T. 1755, the Thomson Bible 1808, The Revised Translation 1815, Webster Bible 1833, Living Oracles 1835, The Pickering N.T. 1840, The Revised N.T. 1862, The Revised English Bible 1877, the Twentieth Century N.T. 1901, Weymouth N.T. 1903,  Riverside N.T. 1923, Montgomery N.T. 1924, Lamsa’s translation of the Syriac Peshitta 1933 - “Nicodemus, one of them, who had come to Jesus at night, said to them,” as well as Murdock’s and Etheridge translations of the Syriac Peshitta, Goodspeed N.T. 1929, Bible in Basic English 1961, New Life Version 1969,  Living Bible 1971, Williams N.T. 1972, J.B. Phillips N.T. 1972, the NKJV 1982, NRSV 1989, Good News Translation 1992, KJV 21st Century Version 1994, Contemporary English Version 1995, God’s Word Translation 1995, the Complete Jewish Bible 1998 -“had gone to Yeshua”, Worldwide English N.T. 1998, The Koster Scriptures 1998, God’s First Truth 1999, The Message 2002, the Tomson N.T. 2002, New Century Version 2005, Easy-to-Read Version 2006, New English Translation (NET) 2006, the Jubilee Bible 2010, The Common English Bible 2011, the NIV 2011, Names of God Bible 2011 - “had previously visited Yeshua”, New Testament for Everyone 2011, The Voice 2012, International Standard Version 2014, Modern English Version 2014, New International Reader’s Version 2014, Tree of Life Version 2015 - “one to Yeshua”,  New Living Translation 2015 and the International Children’s Bible 2015.



Foreign Language Bibles


Foreign language Bibles that contain the name JESUS in John 7:50 are the French Martin 1744 - “Nicodème (celui qui était venu vers Jésus de nuit, et qui était l'un d'entre eux) leur dit”, the French Louis Segond 1910, French Ostervald 1996, the French Louis Segond 2007, Portuguese O Livro 2000 - “que tivera uma entrevista secreta com Jesus:”, Portuguese NIV 2000,  the Portuguese Almeida 2009 - “Nicodemos, que era um deles (o que de noite fora ter com Jesus), disse-lhes”, Romanian Cornilescu bible - “cel care venise la Isus noaptea”, the Italian La Nuova Diodati 1991 - “colui che era andato da Gesú di notte” and the Italian La Bibbia della Gioia 2006, the Tagalog Ang Salita ng Diyos 1998 - “Si Nicodemo, na pumunta kay Jesus nang gabi, ay kasama nila.”, the German Hoffnung fur Alle Bible 2002 - “Pharisäern gehörte und Jesus früher einmal heimlich aufgesucht hatte”, the Spanish La Biblia de las Américas 1997 (Lockman Foundation) - “Nicodemo, el que había venido a Jesús antes”, Spanish Nueva Biblia Latinoamericana de Hoy 2005, Nueva Versión Internacional  (NIV Spanish) 2015, Spanish Reina Valera Contemporánea 2011 - “Nicodemo, que había ido a hablar con Jesús de noche y era uno de ellos, les dijo”

 

John 7:8-10 Is Jesus Christ a liar?


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


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


However Sinaiticus says: "I DO NOT GO to this feast", and so do the NASB, ASV, RSV, ESV and Wallace's NET version thus making our Lord a liar. The fickle nature of this so called "science" is also seen in that Westcott and Hort originally read "NOT YET" and so did the previous Nestle-Aland critical texts up until a few years ago. But the more recent ones have "scientifically" changed to now read "I do NOT go to this feast."

Daniel Wallace's NET version has the Lord saying He is NOT going to the feast, and then going. But the thinking of such "scholars" is revealed in his own footnotes where he says: " Most mss (66,75 B L T W 070 0105 0250 1,13, sa), including most of the better witnesses, have "not yet" here. Those with the reading "not" (ouk) are not as impressive ( D K 1241 al lat), but "ouk" is the more difficult reading here, especially because it stands in tension with v. 10." So, in other words, because it absurdly makes our Lord Jesus a liar, it must be right!


Wilbur Pickering, who himself is not even a KJB onlyist, comments on this blunder: Serious Anomalies/Aberrations-John7:8 oupw--P66,75,B,E,F,G,H,L,N,T,W,X,D,Q,Y 070,0105,0141,0250,f1,13,Byz,Lect,syrp,h,pal,cosa "NOT YET" ; ouk --,D,K,P,lat,syrs,c,cobo "NOT" Problem: Since Jesus did in fact go to the feast (and doubtless knew what He was going to do), the UBS text has the effect of ascribing a falsehood to Him.


Some modern version textual critics actually come right out and tell us that Jesus either lied or he later changed His mind. 


Canons of Criticism - Bob Waltz http://www.skypoint.com/members/waltzmn/CanonsOfCrit.html  

 

Sinaiticus,  D K 1241 1071 1241 a b c e ff2 vg sin cur bo arm geo al read "I am NOT going to this festival." 


P66 P75 B L T W Q 070 0250 33 892 Byz have "I am NOT YET going to this festival." The first reading is to be preferred because it implies that Jesus either lied or changed his mind.  

 

Arthur Schopenhauer (likely using a Tregelles or Tischendorf text) "Jesus Christ himself is reported on one occasion to have intentionally told an untruth" (The Two Fundamental Problems of Ethics - English translation of 1881 German edition)  

  

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

At our Which Version club another Christian posted the following short study on this verse which in some versions makes Jesus to be a liar, and its implications.  He wrote:


"I go not up yet" lets the brothers know that Jesus does indeed plan on attending the feast, but is not quite ready to leave Galilee quite yet. It tells the reader that there is something Jesus wants to do prior to going up to the feast.

When one removes the word 'yet' and has Jesus saying, "I am not going to this feast' it does indeed make Jesus a liar... especially in view of the fact that in verse 10 one finds that after saying 'I am not going' he goes anyway.

David Daniels, in his book "Look What's Missing" explains it thus: "When God says He will do -- or not do -- something, you can be sure He will keep His Word. So if a Bible changes something to make God look like a liar... watch out!!'

The Feast of Tabernacles was not a feast that Jewish males could opt out of. It was required... by the Mosaic Law, that all Jewish males attend three feasts a year; The Feast of Tabernacles, The Feast of Pentecost, and The feast of Unleavened Bread. 

Jesus could not stay at home and break the Law! He came to fulfill the Law.

Those Bibles that have Jesus saying 'You go up to this festival/feast, I am not going' have Jesus causing his brothers to believe He is breaking Mosaic Law... thereby committing a crime against God.

But Jesus does go, so He did not break the Law... He just lied to His brothers. The more than 40 modern versions that have Jesus going to the Feast after He clearly says, "I am not going" have made Him a liar. And in making Him a liar, have removed His deity.

Is it rash for me to declare such? No. For God's Word tells us in Numbers 23:19 that God cannot lie. Many modern versions make Jesus out to lie in John 7:7-10. If He did lie as these versions portray in this passage, then He cannot be God.



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

 

To see more on John 7:8-10 Is Jesus Christ a liar? and a comparison of the various Bible translations that have the correct reading of "I go not up YET unto this feast" see

http://brandplucked.webs.com/john78didjesuslie.htm

 

John 7:53-8:11 - the woman taken in adultery.

 

These entire 12 verses are included in the Majority of all texts, the Old Latin and the Syriac Peshitta translated by Lamsa; as well as the Coptic Boharic, Armenian and Ethiopic ancient versions. They are also found in the Old Latin copies as well as the Latin Vulgate 405 A.D.  However both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus omit these 12 entire verses and so does the Revised Standard Version 1954 but the NRSV of 1989 put them back in the text but in [brackets] 


 Other versions that omit all these 12 whole verses from the text are the New English Bible of 1970 and the Revised English Bible of 1989. At least the RSV was being consistent in their method of adopting the Westcott-Hort Greek text. However the NASB, NIV and ESV all include these verses in their versions. Why? If they already have rejected 14 other entire verses in the New Testament on the basis of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, then why retain these extra twelve?


The NASB, NIV and ESV all contain footnotes for these verses saying: "The earliest and most reliable manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53-8:11" (NIV 1978 edition.) However, the NIV Scofield edition 1982 says: "Although not found is some ancient manuscripts, the immediate context, beginning with Christ's declaration, "I am the light of the world" (8:12) seems clearly to have its occasion in the conviction wrought in the hearts of the Pharisees as recorded in 8:9, and also helps to explain the Pharisees' word in 8:41. It is therefore to be considered a genuine part of the Gospel."



If the NASB, NIV, ESV scholars really believe Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are the best and most reliable texts, then they should follow them and not include these 12 verses in their versions. Why omit some 5000 words from the New Testament primarily because of Sinaiticus-Vaticanus, not follow them in Mark 16:9-20 and John 7:53-8:11, and then call this whole textual process "scientific"?  


The footnotes found in the UBS critical text are likewise deceptive.  They list manuscripts A and C as not containing these verses.  However upon further investigation we find that manuscript A is missing 21 entire leaves of Scripture from John 6:50 to 8:52 and C is missing several leaves in this section too.  


Verses in this entire section are quoted or referred to by many early church 'fathers' including Papias bishop of Hierapolis 130 A.D.,  Ambrose 374 A.D., who quotes from it 9 times, Jerome in 385 A.D., Augustine quotes from them at least 10 times and Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea 315 A.D.  The NKJV footnotes informs us that these verses are found in 99 out of 100 cursive manuscripts.


All 12 verses are found in Wycliffe bible 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549, the Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, the King James Bible, Revised Version 1885, ASV 1901, Darby, Youngs, the NKJV 1982, NASB 1995, ESV 2001, NIV 2010 and numerous foreign language bibles like the Italian Diodati, the French Martin 1744, Ostervald 1996, the Spanish Reina Valera 1569, 1909, 1995, Luther's German bible 1545, the Portuguese Almeida and the Modern Greek N.T. used throughout the Orthodox churches all over the world.



The 2003 Holman Christian Standard bible tells us in their Introduction: "In a few places in the N.T., large square brackets indicate texts that the HCSB translation team and most biblical scholars today believe WERE NOT PART OF THE ORIGINAL TEXT." They say they include them for "their undeniable antiquity" and their "value for tradition".


These "few places in the N.T." include at least 39 entire verses that, by their own admission, "were not part of the original text"!!! Among these are Matthew 17:21; 18:11; 23:14; Mark 7:16; 15:28; 16:9-20; Luke 17:36; 22:43-44; 23:17; John 5:3-4; 7:53-8:11; Acts 8:37; 24:6-7, and Romans 16:24.


If the HCSB people are so committed to inerrancy and are "champions for absolute truth against any compromise with inaccuracy" (as they claim), then why do they include in their new version at least 39 entire verses that they don't think were "part of the original text"? These Scriptures are either inspired of God and belong in the Holy Bible, or they are spurious additions that have no place in any bible version at all.

 

To see my more complete article on John 8 and the woman taken in adultery, Go here -

http://brandplucked.webs.com/john8adulteress.htm 

 

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


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


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



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

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


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

 

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


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


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


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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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


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


 

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



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


However Sinaiticus and Vaticanus read in the indicative mood "If YOU ARE Abraham's children" (ei este). This means that they could be his children or they were his children.  Yet Jesus clearly told them that they were not the children of God but of the devil.


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


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


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


Bibles that Equal the KJB reading

 

Just a few of the Bible translations that match the King James Bible in John 8:38-39 - "I speak that which I have SEEN with MY Father; and ye do that which ye have seen with YOUR Father.... IF YE WERE Abraham's seed, YE WOULD DO the works of Abraham." are the following: Tyndale 1534, Coverdale 1535, The Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549, the Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, the Beza N.T. 1599, Mace N.T. 1729, Whiston's N.T. 1745, Wesley's N.T. 1755, Haweis N.T. 1795, the Revised Version 1885, Darby 1890, the ASV 1901, Godbey N.T. 1902, Weymouth N.T. 1912, the NKJV 1982, the International Standard Version 2014, The Hebrew Names Version 2014 and The Modern English Version 2014.



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

 

MODERN VERSION CONFUSION

 

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

 

Even though Westcott-Hort did NOT read this way in verses 38-39, yet the ASV followed the traditional Reformation text here, and so also did the Revised Version of 1885.  Neither one followed the Westcott-Hort text in these verses.


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

  

The NIV follows SOME of the Critical text readings and SOME it doesn't.


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


The NASB reads just like the Jehovah Witness NWT, by adding the words "MY" and "YOUR" to their Critical text and by following THE OLDER Westcott-Hort/UBS Critical text readings before they changed them. 

The NASB also reverses the parts where it follows the Critical Text from what the NIV does in verse 39. And they call this trickery "the science of textual criticism".

 

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

 

The ESV is like the NIV. It does not follow their own Critical text with "IF YOU WERE" but they do follow it in "YOU WOULD BE DOING", AND even though the Critical text does NOT have the words "MY Father" or  "YOUR father", they put them in anyway like the KJB has it.

  

Actually, if they followed what their corrupt text really says, it would read: "I speak the things I have heard from THE Father, and you do the things which you have heard from THE Father."  This would be saying that BOTH Jesus and the children of the devil have THE SAME FATHER! 

 

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

  

Notice that Dan Wallace has THE SAME FATHER for both Jesus and the children of the devil! He even capitalizes both "the Father"s. Jesus had seen things from THE Father and the children of the devil practiced what they heard from THE Father.


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


Neither does the Holman follow their own critical texts all the way through here.


COMPARISONS


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


The Catholic Connection


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

.  

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


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


What we see here with this so called "science" of textual criticism, is that the so called "oldest and best manuscripts" are in constant disagreement with each other, and the textual "scholars" behind the ever changing UBS/Nestle-Aland/Vatican critical text are constantly changing their readings.


And these textual changes are NOT due to some "further discovery of some ancient manuscripts", but rather to the simple fact that they just changed their minds!


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

 

John 9:4 "I must do the works of him that sent ME, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work." Both "I" must do the works, and "him that sent ME" is the reading in the Majority of all texts as well as Sinaiticus correction, A, C, the Syriac Peshitta, Old Latin, Coptic, Gothic, Arminian and Ethiopic ancient versions. However the NASB, NIV, ESV scholars got themselves in a bit of a bind here because their "oldest and most reliable" texts are in total disarray.


The NASB, NIV, ESV say: "WE must work the works of him that sent US." They came up with this reading because Vaticanus says "WE must work"; but then Vaticanus also ends with "him that sent ME", while Sinaiticus has "him that sent US". So they adopted the scientific method of winging it as long as it differs from the King James Bible. But now the new ISV is coming out and guess what? They have gone back to the KJB reading of "I must do the works of him that sent ME."


John 9:35 KJB - “Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when he had found him, he said UNTO HIM, Dost thou believe on the Son of GOD?”


ESV (NIV, NASB, NET, Holman, Jehovah Witness NWT, modern Catholic versions like the St. Joseph NAB 1970 and New Jerusalem bible 1985) -

 “Jesus heard that they had cast him out, and having found him he said, “Do you believe in the Son of MAN?”

There are two main textual variants found in this one verse.  The words “UNTO HIM” are in the Majority of all remaining Greek manuscripts including P66, Sinaiticus correction, A, K, L, Gamma, Delta, Theta and the ancient Syriac Peshitta.

But the Critical text omits it.

But the most important difference is between the reading of “the Son of GOD” and “the  Son of MAN”

The reading of the Son of GOD is that found in the Majority of all remaining manuscripts including A, E, F, G, K, L, M, S, U, V, X, Gamma, Delta, Theta, Lambda, Psi, the Old Latin a, our, b, c, e, f, ff2, l, q, r1 and is found in the Latin Vulgate, the Syriac Peshitta, Harclean, Palestinian, the Coptic Boharic, Gothic, Slavonic and Armenian  ancient versions.

It is also quoted as “Son of GOD?” By such early church writers as Tertullian, Origen, Faustinus, Theodore-Heraclea, Victorinus, Hilary, Chrysostom, Augustiine, Cyril and Vigilius.

You can see this information here if you like.

http://www.laparola.net/greco/index.php

The reading of “the Son of MAN” is that found in the Egyptian manuscripts of  P66, P75, Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, D and W.

Westcott and Hort were the first ones to change the Reformation text of “Son of GOD” to “Son of MAN”, but not even the Revised Version 1881 nor the ASV of 1901 went along with this reading. 

Both the RV and the ASV still followed the Traditional reading of “Dost thou believe on THE SON OF GOD?”

The older Catholic versions like the Douay-Rheims of 1582 and the Douay Version 1950 both read like the KJB with “Dost thou believe in the SON OF GOD?”


But now the more modern Catholic versions like the St. Joseph NAB and the New Jerusalem follow the Critical text reading of “Do you believe in the SON OF MAN?”


 The first major version to follow this Vatican reading was the liberal RSV 1946.

Agreeing with the King James Bible and the Reformation text of the Bible with “Dost thou believe on THE SON OF GOD?” are the following Bible translations -

The Anglo-Saxon Gospels 990 A.D. - “on godes sunu.”, Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, The Great Bible 1540, Matthew’s Bible 1549, the Bishops’ bible 1568, the Geneva bible 1587, the Beza N.T. 1599, Wesley’s N.T. 1755, Sawyer N.T. 1858, The Alford N.T. 1870, the Revised Version 1881, the ASV 1901, Darby 1890, Young’s 1898,  Weymouth N.T. 1903, Lamsa’s 1933 translation of the Syraic Peshitta, The New Life Version 1969, the NKJV 1982, The Koster Scriptures 1998, The Last Days N.T. 1999, the World English Bible 2000, The Tomson N.T. 2002, The Complete Apostle’s bible 2005, The Resurrection Life N.T. 2005, The Pickering N.T. 2005, The Jubilee Bible 2010, The Hebrew Transliteration Bible 2010 - “"Do you believe on BEN Elohim (אלהים)?”, The New European Version 2010, The Aramaic Plain English Bible 2013, The Modern Literal N.T. 2014, The Modern English Version 2014, The Hebraic Roots Bible 2015 - “Do you believe into the Son of Elohim?”,  the New Matthew’s bible 2016, The Evangelical Heritage Version 2017 and The Passion Translation 2017.

Foreign Language Bibles = the SON OF GOD


 

Foreign language bibles that also read “Do you believe on the SON OF GOD?” are Luther’s German bible 1545, the German Schlachter bible 2000 - “Glaubst du an den Sohn Gottes?”, the Spanish Las Sagradas Escrituras 1549, Cipriano de Valera 1602, Spanish Reina Valera 1960-1995 - “¿Crees tú en el Hijo de Dios?”, the French Martin bible 1744, French Ostervald 1998 and the French Louis Segond 2007 - “«Crois-tu au Fils de Dieu?», the Italian Diodati 1649 and La Nueva Diodati 1991 - “«Credi tu nel Figlio di Dio?»., the Portuguese O Livro 2000 and the Portuguese Almeida Corrigida 2009 - “Crês tu no Filho de Deus?”

So once again it comes down to either the Reformation text of the King James Bible (and many other versions as well) or the modern Vatican supervised text versions.


John 10:17-18 "Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. No man TAKETH it from me, but I lay it down of myself."


Here obviously the Lord Jesus is still alive and He states that no man would take His life but that He would lay it down of Himself. "No man TAKETH it from me", (present tense - aipei) is found in all texts including Sinaiticus, except two, one of which is Vaticanus. "No man taketh it from me" is the reading of the RV, ASV, NIV, ESV, RSV, and ISV. The Vaticanus reading is absurd but that didn't stop the previous Nestle-Aland scholars from following Vaticanus in their text. ONLY the NASB has adopted the Vaticanus reading which puts this verb in the past tense (eeren) and says: "No one HAS TAKEN IT AWAY from me, but I lay it down..." Duh, wouldn't it be obvious that no man had taken His life is He were still alive and speaking to them? The NASB 95 still reads this way, but the Nestle text has once again changed their scholarly opinions and gone back to the KJB reading.



The following is just a sampling of some of the divergent readings found in the few conflicting manuscripts that many modern scholars follow in their attempt to overthrow the traditional Received Text of the New Testament.

This handful of older manuscripts are often in complete disagreement among themselves. The ones I will mention are Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, P66, P75, and sometimes C or D too.

 

In John 3:3 we read "Jesus answered AND SAID UNTO HIM". So reads Vaticanus, but Sinaiticus omits the words "and said unto him".

 

In John 3:8 we read "so is every one that is born of the Spirit", but Sinaiticus says: "BORN OF WATER and of the Spirit".

 

In John 3:5 "he cannot ENTER into the kingdom of GOD", but Sinaiticus says "he cannot SEE the kingdom of HEAVEN."

 

In John 3:20 Sinaiticus omits the words "neither cometh to the light" and it omits all of verse 21: "But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.", but they are found in Vaticanus.

 

In John 3:25 there was a question with THE JEWS (Sinaiticus), but Vaticanus says it was with A JEW.

 

In John 3:28 we read Jesus's words saying: "Ye yourselves bear ME witness", and so read P66, Vaticanus, A and D, along with the NASB, but Sinaiticus and P75 omit this word and so does the NIV.

 

In John 3:31 the Majority, Vaticanus and P66 say "he that cometh from heaven IS ABOVE ALL", but Sinaiticus original and P75 omit these words.

 

In John 3:34 we read that "GOD giveth not THE SPIRIT by measure unto him", yet Vaticanus, Sinaiticus omit the word GOD and so does the NASB, but the NIV retains it, and Vaticanus omits the words THE SPIRIT, but Sinaiticus and the others retain it.

 

In John 4:1 we read that THE LORD knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus baptized, and this is the reading of P66, P75 and Vaticanus along with the NASB, but Sinaiticus says JESUS and so do the ESV and NIV.

 

In John 4:41 we read: "...his servants met him, AND TOLD HIM, saying THY son liveth." P75 and Vaticanus omit the words "and told him" and the NASB omits them too, but they are found in the Majority of texts, Sinaiticus and P66 and are included in the NIV. "THY son liveth" is the Majority reading, as well as that of P66 correction, but P75, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus read HIS son lives, and so too the NASB, NIV.

 

John 5:17 - "But JESUS answered them...". So read the Majority, P66, A, C, and D and the NIV, but P75, Sin and Vat omit "Jesus" and the NASB simply says "he". This may seem minor, but the inconsistency is seen in John 5:19 where again we read: "Then answered JESUS and said unto them...". This time the word JESUS is in the Majority, P66 and A, while Vaticanus and P75 omit the word JESUS again, but this time the NASB decided to keep it in. They just reversed themselves in their "scientific" method of textual criticism.

 

John 5:30 "but the will of THE FATHER which hath sent me." So read the Majority and P66, but Sinaiticus and Vaticanus omit "the Father" and so do the NASB, NIV.

 

John 5:44 - "and seek not the honour that cometh from GOD only." Here Vaticanus, P66 and P75 all unite in omitting the word GOD, yet it is in Sinaiticus, A and D and this time the NASB, NIV include it too!

 

John 6:69 - "we believe and are sure that thou art THE CHRIST, THE SON OF THE LIVING GOD." So read the Majority of all texts including at least 17 uncials, the Old Latin copies, Syriac, Peshitta, Harclean, Palestinian, some Coptic Boharic, the Gothic, Armenian and Ethiopic ancient versions.

 

However P66 reads "THE CHRIST, the HOLY ONE OF GOD", while P75, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus all omit "the Christ" and have instead "the holy one of God". So read the NASB, NIV.

 

John 6:69 KJB "And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God."

 

This is supported by Irenaeus (130-202 A.D.) "By whom also Peter, having been taught, recognized Christ as the Son of the living God." (Against Heresies III: 11:6)


John 7:8 - Here the Lord says: "I go not up YET unto this feast; for my time is not yet come." So read the Majority of all texts including P66, P75 and Vaticanus, and so too does the NIV. However the NASB makes Jesus a liar by following the Sinaiticus reading where it says "I go NOT to this feast" and yet two verses later He does indeed go up to the feast.


John 7:10 - "then went he also up unto the feast, not openly, but AS IT WERE, in secret." So read the Majority, Vaticanus, P66 and P75 and the NASB. But this time Sinaiticus omits the words "as it were" and so does the NIV.


John 7:39 "...for the HOLY Ghost was not yet given". So read the Majority of Greek texts, plus P66 correction and Vaticanus. However Sinaiticus and P75 omit the word "holy" and so too do the NASB, NIV.


John 7:53 all the way through John 8:11. These entire 12 verses are missing from Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, though they are found in the vast Majority of all Greek texts including D plus at least 15 other uncials, many Old Latin copies, the Vulgate, Syriac Palestinian, Lamsa's translation of the Syriac Peshitta, some Coptic Boharic, and the Ethiopian versions. 


It is quoted or referred to by many early church Fathers. However since P66, P75, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus all omit these entire 12 verses, we can well ask, Why do the NASB, NIV, ESV, and Holamn versions all keep them in their bibles?. Why not be consistent and delete all 12 verses from their texts just like the old RSV did? Hello? Is any body there?


John 8:16 - "for I am not alone, but I and THE FATHER that sent me." Here the reading of THE FATHER is found in Vaticanus, P66, and P75 and in the NIV. But the NASB used to follow Sinaiticus and D which omit "the Father" and from 1963 to 1977 the NASB simply said "HE who sent me." But now in 1995 the NASB has changed once again and now adopts the reading of "the Father that sent me."



John 8:28 - "Then said Jesus UNTO THEM, When ye have lifted up..." The words "unto them" are found in the Majority, P66, P75, and Sinaiticus, but Vaticanus omits them and this time the NASB, NIV go along with the Vaticanus reading instead and omit the words.


John 8:28 Again -Then in the very same verse, the "scientific" method of textual criticism has led the NASB, NIV people to completely reverse themselves just a few words later. Here we read: "but as MY Father hath taught me, I speak these things." MY Father is the reading of the Majority of texts and Vaticanus. But P66, P75 and Sinaiticus omit the word "my" and this time the NASB, NIV reverse themselves 180 degrees and now reject the reading found in Vaticanus, whose text they just got done accepting for the first part of the verse, while rejecting the others. Go figure.


John 8:38 - "I speak that which I have seen with MY Father: and you do that which ye have SEEN with YOUR Father.". So read the Majority of all texts, but the "oldest and best" are all over the board. MY Father is found in Sinaiticus, but P66, 75 and Vaticanus omit it and so too the NIV, with the NASB putting "MY" in italics. 


Then SEEN is the reading of Sinaiticus and P66, while Vaticanus and P75 say HEARD, and the NASB, NIV go for this errant reading. YOUR Father is found in the Majority and Sinaiticus, but Vaticanus, P66 and 74 omit it and end up with the ridiculous reading like the one found in the NRSV and the NET versions with "you do that which you have heard with THE father."!!!


Daniel Wallace's goofy NET version actually reads like this: "I am telling you the things I have seen while with the Father; as for you, practice the things you have heard from the Father!"


John 8:39 - "If ye WERE Abraham's children, YE WOULD DO the works of Abraham." 


Clearly Jesus is telling the Pharisees that they are children of the devil and not of God, and that they are not the children of Abraham. "If ye were" is contrary to fact; they weren't Abraham's children. YE WOULD DO is also contrary to fact and is the reading in the Majority, P75 and Sinaiticus. 


But Vaticanus original and P66 say DO, and the NASB has adopted this reading "If you ARE the children of Abraham, DO the deeds of Abraham." Not even the NIV reads this way but says: "If you WERE Abraham's children, then YOU WOULD DO the things Abraham did."


John 8:54 - "it is my Father that honoureth me; of whom ye say, that he is YOUR God." YOUR God is found in Sinaiticus, Vaticanus and P66 original, and in the NIV, RV, ASV, Douay, RSV, NKJV and of course the KJB. However P75 and P66 third correction read OUR God, and so the NASB now reads: "of whom you say, He is OUR God."


John 8:57 - "Thou art not yet fifty years old, and HAST THOU SEEN ABRAHAM?" So read the Majority, Vaticanus and P66, but P75 and Sinaiticus actually read: "AND HAS ABRAHAM SEEN YOU?"


John 9:4 " I must work the works of him that sent ME, while it is day." Both "I" and "him that sent ME" are the Majority reading, and Sinaiticus correction, A and C, but P66, 75, Sinaiticus original and Vaticanus say "WE must work the works...." The NASB, NIV have adopted this reading. But wait. Instead of "him that sent ME" which is even the reading of Vaticanus (and so in the NASB, NIV), the Sinaiticus, P66 and 75 actually say " of him that sent US."


John 9:38 - "And he said, Lord, I believe. And he worshipped him." This entire verse is omitted by Sinaiticus original and P75, yet it is found in the Majority, Vaticanus and P66. So far as I know, only Daniel Wallace proposes getting rid of this entire verse. It is still found in the NASB, NIV.


John 10:10 - "All that ever came BEFORE ME are thieves and robbers." The words BEFORE ME are in Vaticanus and P66 and the NASB, NIV, but Sinaiticus and P75 omit them.


John 10:26 - "But ye believe not, because ye are not my sheep, AS I SAID UNTO YOU." So read the Majority of texts including P66, A and D, but Sinaiticus, Vaticanus and P75 omit these words and so do the NASB, NIV.


John 10:29 - "My Father, WHICH GAVE THEM ME, IS GREATER THAN ALL." So read the Majority, Sinaiticus, and P66. So to the NASB, NIV. However Vaticanus reads: "WHAT MY FATHER HAS GIVEN ME IS GREATER THAN ALL ELSE" and this is actually the reading found in the NRSV.


John 11:50 “for US” or “for YOU”?


John 11:50 KJB - "Nor consider that it is expedient FOR US, that one man should die for the people."

ESV (NASB, NIV, NET, Holman Standard, Jehovah Witness NWT) - “Nor do you understand that it is better FOR YOU that one man should die for the people, not that the whole nation should perish.”


The reading of “FOR US” is that found in the Majority of all manuscripts including A, E, G, H, W, Delta, Theta, Pi, Psi, the Syriac. Peshitta, Palestinian, Harclean, Armenian, Ethiopic, Georgian, Slavonic and the Diatessaron ancient versions.

 

However Sinaiticus omits the words "for us" or “for you” altogether, and Vaticanus and P66 read "it is expedient FOR YOU", and so the NASB, NIV, ESV, Jehovah Witness NWT and the modern Catholic versions like the St. Joseph NAB and the New Jerusalem bible.


Agreeing with the King James Bible and the Reformation bibles - “it is expedient FOR US, that one man should die for the people” are Tyndale, Coverdale, Great Bible, Matthew’s bible, the Bishops’ bible, the Geneva Bible, Wesley’s N.T. 1755, Young’s 1898s, Lamsa’s translation of the Syriac Peshitta, NKJV 1982, World English Bible 2000, the Complete Apostle’s bible 2005, Hebrew Names Version 2014 and the Modern English Version 2014 just to name a few.

 

John 12:1 - "came to Bethany, where Lazarus was WHICH HAD BEEN DEAD." So read the Majority, D and A and P66. But Sinaiticus and Vaticanus omit these words and so do the NASB, NIV.


John 12:28 - "Father, glorify THY name." So read most texts including Sinaiticus and the NASB, NIV, but Vaticanus says: "Glorify MY name". So far no one has followed this reading yet.


John 13:6 and 9 - Peter saith unto him, LORD, dost thou wash my feet?...LORD, not my feet only..." In both these places Sinaiticus omits the important word LORD, but it is in Vaticanus.


John 13:18 - "He that eateth bread WITH ME hath lifted up his heel against me." So read the Majority of texts including P66, A, D and Sinaiticus. However Vaticanus reads "he that eats MY bread" and so do the NASB, NIV.


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

This is an interesting case of the ever revolving door of Textual Criticism.

 

"IF GOD BE GLORIFIED IN HIM" is the reading of the Majority of texts, including A, and Sinaiticus correction as well as C correction, E, F, G, H, K, Delta, Theta, Psi, and is found in the Old Latin e, f, q and the Syriac Peshitta, the Gothic, Armenian, Ethiopian, Georgian, Slavonic ancient versions as well as the Diatessaron 170 A.D. 

   

This is the reading found in Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale, Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible, the Bishops' bible, the Geneva Bible 1587, the Douay-Rheims 1582, the NKJV, and most bibles in history.

However they are omitted by Vaticanus, P66, and D. 

 

The Westcott and Hort text of 1881 omitted the words "IF GOD BE GLORIFIED IN HIM"

  

Critical Text versions that OMIT all these words are the Revised Version 1885, the ASV of 1901, Rotherham's Emphasized bible 1902, Worrell N.T. 1904, Twentieth Century N.T. 1904, Weymouth 1912, Goodspeed N.T. 1923, The Living Bible 1971, the Jehovah Witness NWT 1961 and 2013 editions,  and the Christogenea N.T. 2009.  

The Alford N.T. 1870 and the Catholic St. Joseph New American bible 1970 both [bracket these words]

The Nestle-Aland/UBS/Vatican Critical text still puts them in [brackets] indicating doubt as to their authenticity.


But versions like the NASB, NIV, ESV, Holman now include these words.


Dan Wallace’s NET version includes the reading “If God is glorified in him” but then footnotes with these faith destroying words:  - “A number of early mss (Ì66 א* B C* D L W al as well as several versional witnesses) do not have the words “If God is glorified in him,” while the majority of mss have the clause (so א2 A C2 Θ Ψ Ë13 33 Ï lat). Although THE MSS THAT OMIT THE WORDS ARE SIGNIFICANTLY BETTER WITNESSES, the omission may have occurred because of an error of sight due to homoioteleuton (v. 31 ends in ἐν αὐτῷ [en autw, “in him”], as does this clause). Further, the typical step-parallelism found in John is retained if the clause is kept intact (TCGNT 205-6). At the same time, it is difficult to explain how such a wide variety of witnesses would have accidentally deleted this clause, and arguments for intentional deletion are not particularly convincing. NA27 RIGHTLY PLACES THE WORDS IN BRACKETS, INDICATING DOUBT AS TO THEIR AUTHENTICITY.”


Basically what Dan Wallace's "significantly better witnesses" are, is  the VATICAN manuscript!


So, are these the inspired words of God or not?  If you are a modern Vatican Version user you can never be sure. That is the true nature of the ever revolving door of "the science of textual criticism".

 

 

John 14:11 - "or else believe ME for the very works' sake." So read the Majority, A and Vaticanus. So too did the Revised version, and so do the RSV, NRSV, ESV and the brand new ISV. However P66, 75 and Sinaiticus omit the word ME and so do the NASB, NIV and Holman Standard. And they dare call this "science".


John 14:17 - "for he dwelleth with you, and SHALL BE in you." The future tense verb is found in the Majority and P75 and Sinaiticus. So read the NASB, NIV. However Vaticanus and P66 have a present tense verb which would make the sentence read: "for he dwells with you, and IS in you."


John 15:18 - "If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated YOU." So read the Majority and Vaticanus and the NASB, but Sinaiticus omits the word YOU and so does the NIV.


John 16:27 - "because ye have loved me, and have believed that I came out from GOD." So read the Majority, Sinaiticus correction, P 5 which dates from the 3rd century, A and the NIV, ESV, NRSV and Holman. However Vaticanus and D read THE FATHER and so does the NASB and the RSV.


John 17:7 - "Now THEY have known that all things whatsoever thou hast given me are of thee." Sinaiticus reads: "Now I have known...."


John 17:12 - "While I was with them IN THE WORLD (Vat and Sin omit and so too the NASB, NIV) I KEPT THEM IN THY NAME; THOSE that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost..."


"THOSE THAT THOU GAVEST ME I have kept" is the Majority reading, A and D, but Vaticanus has a very different reading and the NASB, NIV have adopted this, saying: "While I was with them, I was keeping them in Your NAME WHICH YOU HAVE GIVEN ME." In the meantime, Sinaiticus original and P66 omit the words "those thou gavest me" from the text entirely.


John 17:17 - "Sanctify them through thy truth: THY WORD IS TRUTH." Sinaiticus omits these last words "Thy word is truth".


John 17:21 - "...that they also may be ONE in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me." The important word ONE is in the Majority, A, C and Sinaiticus, but Vaticanus and P66 omit it and so do the NASB, NIV.


John 17:24 = "Father, I will that THEY also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am. So read the Majority of texts, but both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus say "I will that THAT also, whom you have given me, be with me where I am" but neither the NASB, NIV has yet to adopt this strange reading.


John 18:5 - "JESUS SAITH UNTO THEM, I AM HE." So read the Majority, A, C and Sinaiticus. The NIV also followed this reading. Vaticanus reads: "HE SAYS TO THEM, I AM JESUS", but nobody has yet followed this reading. The NASB instead chose to follow D saying: "HE SAID TO THEM, I AM HE."


John 19:16 - "And they took Jesus, AND LED HIM AWAY." So read the Majority of texts including A and Sinaiticus. However Vaticanus omits the words "and led him away" and so do the NASB, NIV.


John 19:20-21. Sinaiticus original was missing all of these two whole verses, but they are found in Vaticanus. Sinaiticus was also missing the words: "When Jesus therefore saw his mother" from John 19:26.


In John 19:30 we read: "When JESUS therefore had received the vinegar...". JESUS is in Sinaiticus and the NIV, but not in Vaticanus nor the NASB. But then when we get to John 19:39 we see Nicodemos which "at the first came to JESUS by night". Here JESUS is in the Majority and Sinaiticus and the NIV, but Vaticanus omit JESUS and so does the NASB.


Likewise Sinaiticus omits the words "AND CAME TO THE SEPULCHRE" in John 20:3 and the words "AND THE OTHER DISCIPLE" from John 20:4, but they are found in Vaticanus.


John 21:16 - "He saith to him again THE SECOND TIME, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me?" Here Sinaiticus omits the word "the second time" and so does the NIV, but it is found in Vaticanus and in the NASB.


John 21:23 - "If I will that he tarry till I come, WHAT IS THAT TO THEE?". Sinaiticus omitted these last capitalized words as well as omitting the entire last verse of the gospel of the evangelist - John 21:25, but they are found in the Vaticanus copy.


If these "oldest and best manuscripts" are in fact the best, then we are in a world of hurt and God has failed to preserve His pure words anywhere on this earth in a true Book of the LORD, which is in any real way the complete, inerrant and perfect words of God. You either believe the King James Bible is the pure and perfect words of God or you simply do not believe in the inerrancy of any Bible in any language on the face of this earth.


ALL of grace, believing the Book - the King James Holy Bible,


Will Kinney


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