The Majority Text & Textus Receptus Vs. the Modern Bible Versions: NET Version (3rd Edition)

m

uring the last several years of the life of the apostle Paul (Hebrew “Saul Paulus,” ca. 2-68 AD), heresy already was developing a stronghold in an attempt to thwart the sacred teachings and doctrines as the very books of the New Testament of the Holy Scriptures were being penned through the verbal inspiration of God. Wrote Paul about six to seven years before his martyrdom, “O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called” (1 Timothy 6:20). Paul also spoke against several heretics, among them Hymenaeus and Philetus (2 Timothy 2:17), and Alexander the coppersmith (2 Timothy 4:14). In Titus 3:10 Paul wrote, “A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject.” And also the apostle Peter (c.

1 BC to 68 AD), who wrote in 2 Peter 2:1, “But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.”

Some of these “heretics” represented the early yield of “Gnosticism,” a movement comprising an amalgamation of various sects whose chief belief was that special secret knowledge was apportioned to some elect persons, who thereby were allocated special spiritual status and glory.a The word gnosis means knowledgeb (or science), hence Paul’s early reference to a “science falsely so called.” Thriving during the second and third centuries, Gnosticism was designated by second century Church Fathers Irenaeus (c. 130-202), Tertullian (c. 160-220), and Hippolytus (c. 170-236) as an aberrant Christian teaching resulting from the syncretism of unsound Christian doctrine with pagan philosophy, or even astrology and Greek mystery religions. These three Church Fathers attributed Gnosticism to the magician Simon Magus, who is mentioned in Acts 8.c By the fourth century, however, 37 Fathers’ written contributions outweighed those represented in the misguidedly celebrated Greek ma ­ nuscripts Aleph (Sinaiticus) and B (Vaticanus), dated 325-360 AD, by 65.7 percent to 34.3 percent. d Nevertheless, heretical teachings based on this tiny sampling of tainted documents (about 43 all told, eventually) evolved into not only the accepted Christian teachings of the day, but also the official establishment of the fledgling Roman Catholic Church (fourth century). However, this false doctrine embedded within this minuscule collection of manuscripts was abandoned almost entirely by the Church Universal by about the end of the seventh century. Hence, the manuscripts and critical text editions underlying nearly every contemporary Bible version published today were abandoned from the seventh century until a text critic named Friedrich Constantine von Tischendorf (1815-1874) first discovered the NT manuscript Aleph in a waste heap in the St. Catherine’s Monastery, on Mt. Sinai in Egypt, in 1844. e Vaticanus B was the first entry appearing in the Vatican Library, back in 1475.f Now these 43 or so minority manuscripts, represented foremostly by Aleph and B, remain the foundation of critically edited Greek versions used by modern translators to produce contemporary Bibles. This has been the case since the release of the first new-age pseudo-Bible in 1881, the English Revised Version (or “RV”) New Testament. g Most modern biblical text critics remain entangled in the fourth century web perpetuated by some heretics and scribes of that time, but the inspired real truth of God’s Word has incontrovertibly been proved. Never has any opponent triumphed over God’s wisdom having appeared in the “unanswered and unanswerable” arguments of the few stalwart orthodox Christian scholars of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries—John W. Burgon (1813-1888), Edward Miller (1825-1901), Frederick Henry Ambrose Scrivener (1813-1891), Herman C. Hoskier (1864-1938), Edward F. Hills (1912-1981), Floyd Nolen Jones, Donald A.Waite, and others. a

J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines (Peabody, Mass.: Prince Press, Hendrickson Publishers, 2004), p. 22.

Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 22. c Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 22. b d

J. A. Moorman, Early Manuscripts, Church Fathers and the Authorized Version (Collingswood, N.J.: The Bible for Today Press, 2005), p. 116.

James Bentley, Secrets of Mount Sinai: The Story of Finding the World’s Oldest Bible — Codex Sinaiticus (London: Orbis Publishing, 1985), p. 86. f William Henry Paine Hatch, The Principal Uncial Manuscripts of the New Testament (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1933), Plate XIV. g Wilbur N. Pickering, “The Identity of the New Testament Text” in Floyd Nolen Jones, Which Version is the Bible?, 19th ed., rev. and enlarged (Goodyear, Ariz.: KingsWord Press, 2006), p. 163. e

I. II.

Cover Page ............................................................................................................... 1 Preface ..................................................................................................................... 2

III.

Introduction ............................................................................................................. 4

IV.

Verse Comparison .................................................................................................... 4

V.

Conclusion ............................................................................................................. 39

VI.

Explanatory Notes ................................................................................................. 40

VII. Document Glossary ............................................................................................... 44 VIII. Appendix I: The Greek Alphabet ........................................................................... 58 IX.

Appendix II: The Nestle-Aland (NA) Critical Apparatus ...................................... 59

X.

Appendix III: Referenced Manuscript Data .......................................................... 60

XI.

Appendix IV: Textual Criticism Text-Types .......................................................... 64

XII. Appendix V: S/V/A Alterations to the KJV Text ................................................... 65 XIII. Appendix VI: S/V/A Alterations Affecting the Divinity of Christ ........................ 66 XIV.

Endnotes ................................................................................................................ 70

XV.

Suggested Reading ................................................................................................ 71

XVI. Colophon ............................................................................................................... 72 XVII. Index ............................................................................................................ 73

6The Majority Text & Textus Receptus Vs. the Critical Text 6 Editions and the Modern Bible Versions: NET Version (3rd Edition)

By EDWARD E. SCOTT This notated comparison document serves to clearly identify and clarify some of the documented differences—here in 105 selected verses/passages—existing between the King James Version—and its “legacy” precursors—and virtually every other New Testament version commercially available since the controversial 1881 release of the English Revised Version (ERV). Many of these alterations have been noted previously by both liberal and conservative theological scholars of the past and present. The author of this document has invested portions of more than two years in conducting research, inputting data, and proofing, editing, and augmenting this document. This comparison assemblage has been produced to the glory of God and for the edification of redeemed believers through Jesus Christ, that the latter may be enlightened about the long-standing, well-disguised and -hidden activities transpiring beneath the massive, deceptive and misguided overarching mechanisms of modern Bible translation and the Bible societies. Since largely the eighteenth century, liberal, naturalistic and spiritually remiss biblical and theological scholars have attempted to undermine and even overturn the NT “Byzantine” text underlying classical Bibles—the KJV and those preceding it in the sixteenth century. Many of these modern theological “naturalists” simply have perpetuated the twisted theories and the deplorable manuscripts and texts which led to the alarming production of the new-age pseudo-Bible, the ERV. From this unholy spring has flowed the multitudinous new tradition of false Bibles. For this comparison the NET, NASB and NIV were selected for contrast to the KJV (and its underlying Greek texts) because of their popularity, contemporary representativeness and identical NT textual base.(Other editions of this document have been produced to include modern alternatives to the NET version.)

(The columns below illustrate the textual—and often doctrinal—differences among numerous selected verses of the New Testament. Analysis is in blue and red.)

KJV Matthew 1:25 — “And [Joseph] knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus.”

NET

NASB

NET reads: “. . . but did not have marital relations with her until she gave birth to a son, whom he named Jesus.”

NASB reads: “. . . but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Je­ sus.”

(Although “but knew her not” is (“Joseph” inserted to replace “he” correct, the minority Greek source for clarity only.) text ignores the fact that Jesus was Mary’s firstborn son! “Mariam” later had four additional sons with Joseph. The footnote fails to men­ tion this! Moderns do not believe.)

(The Greek ouk eginōsken, “had no carnal knowledge” [did not know her], is the same for the NASB and the NIV, yet “kept her a virgin” and “had no union with her,” both dynamic equivalents, are used.)

Matthew 5:22 — “But I say unto you, That whosoever is an­ gry with his brother without cause shall be in danger of the judgment . . .”

NET: “But I say to you that any­ NASB: “But, I say to you that one who is angry with a brother everyone who is angry with his will be subjected to judgment . . .” brother shall be guilty before the court . . .”

(The NET footnote refers to “without cause” [Gk. eikē ] as an (The NA27 states that eikń, “with­ “insertion,” explaining that the (Underscored, italicized and/or red “ms evidence favors its exclusion.” out cause,” is an 2insertion accord­ ing to Codices Í [Aleph-2/7th text has been so presented for em­ This depite included conclusive cent.], D [Bezae], L, W, Theta [Θ], phasis and/or comparative argu­ evidence otherwise! Two of mo­ Families 1 and 13 [Ë1 . 13], 0233, ment. [Some italicized text was so dernists’ favorite manuscripts, and many more. Modern biblical emphasized in its source.])

Codices Aleph [‫ ] א‬and B, are the text critics often cite these MSS to primary reason for this rationale.) support their preferred readings!) ,

NIV

PROBLEM

The Bible clearly identifies, in five places in the New Testa­ ment, that Jesus had four other brothers (step): James; John; Joses; Judas (Jude) [Matt., 2; (The proven corrupt Greek manu­ Mk., 3]. Support exists in the scripts Aleph [Sinaiticus] and Vat­ Majority text, five significant icanus [B], ca. 325-360 AD, other uncials, and in the Syriac Pe­ Greek Z, 071, and 33, plus most shitta (2nd cent.) and Harclean Old Latin, much of the Syriac and (7th), plus the Latin Vulgate. A Coptic, and Families 1 and 13, vie few other Byzantines against against at least 85 percent of the these support belief in Mary’s perpetual virginity. extant [existing] Greek MSS.)

NIV reads: “But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.”

Omission of the clause “without cause” makes Jesus subject to His own judgment, because He, Himself, showed anger! Other support for the inclusion of “without cause” are most of the Old Latin (most 64 (Only Ì [papyrus], Aleph [‫] א‬, B, = “it” or “Itala”), all the Syriac, 2 th D [6 ], all the Vulgate, a few Byz. and all the Coptic (Egyptian). manuscripts, the margin of 1424 “Some manuscripts” (NIV) [ca. 900], and Origen—the most severely misrepresents! Note heretical “Church Father” in that an NET footnote provides Christian history—support the two possible scribal error types omission of “without cause.”) to offset its evidential defeat.

NIV: “But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment.” Footnote reads: “Some manuscripts brother without cause.”

KJV Matthew 5:44 — “But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you.”

(Also see Luke 6:27, 28.)

NET Reads: “But I say to you, love your enemy and pray for those who persecute you, . . .’”

(The NA27 critical apparatus and an NET footnote categorize “bless those . . . who hate you” as both a parallelization [to Luke 6:27-28] and an “alternative reading.” This is based on the modern TC theory that very similar or identical verses appearing in Matthew and Luke indicate that the Matthean scribe “harmonized” the text to match that in Luke. Proof does not exist.)

NASB

NIV

Reads: “But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.” Footnote reads: “Some late manuscripts enemies, (. . . Eulogeite tous katarōmenous bless those who curse you, do [h]umas, “bless those who curse good to those who hate you.” you,” kalōs poieite tois misousin [h]umas, “do good to those who (Minority source text support ex­ hate you,” and proseuchesthe [h]uper tōn epēreazontōn [h]umas ists only in uncials [all caps] Aleph and B, Family 1 [Caesarean], the kai, “pray for those who despite­ Syriac Sinaitic [4th] and Curetoni­ fully use you and . . . ,” despite th being labeled a “motivated read­ an [5 ], the Sahidic [Egyptian] some Bohairic [Egyptian], a few ing” by the NET, nevertheless is backed by the vast majority.)

Byz. mss, and one Old Latin.)

Reads: “But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.”

Matthew 8:29 — “And, behold, they (the demons) cried out, ‘What have we to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God? Art thou come hither to torment us before the time.’”

NET reads: “They cried out, ‘Son of God, leave us alone! Have you come here to torment us before the time?’”

NASB reads: “And they cried out, saying, ‘What business do we have with each other, Son of God? Have You come here to torment us before the time?’”

NIV reads: “‘What do you want with us, Son of God?’ they shout­ ed. ‘Have you come here to tor­ ture us before the appointed time?’”

Matthew 9:13 — “But go ye and learn what that meaneth, ‘I will have mercy, and not sacri­ fice’: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.”

NET reads: “. . . Go and learn what this saying means: ‘I want mercy and not sacrifice.’ For I did not come to call the right­ eous, but sinners.”

NASB reads: “. . . For I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”

NIV reads: “. . . For I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”

(Despite its omission from the minority source Greek for both the NASB and the NIV, the Zonder­ van Greek and English Interlinear New Testament (NASB/NIV) in­ cludes ≈“to repentance,” in English, underneath the interlinear portion, but nowhere else. Why?)

(The minority [Nestle-Aland/ United Bible Societies] text has very broad and diverse testimony: ‫ ;א‬B; D; N; W; D [Delta]; 0233; Ë1; 33; 565; numerous Byzantines; most OL and all the Vulgate; the Peshitta and Harclean; and part of the Bohairic [“bopt”—five or more MSS].)

PROBLEM The Majority (85+%—at least 4,856 mss) Greek says: “But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those cursing you, do well to the ones hating you, and pray for the ones mistreating you and persecuting you . . .” Most Ï manuscripts are later; “some” is inaccurate. But other Majority support exists in uncials D (5th), W (6th), L (9th), and Theta (9th), plus 33 (9th), Ë13 (11th -15th/13 mss), some OL and all the Latin Vulgate, and the Peshitta and Harclean.

The main issue here is that the minority of early MSS separate “Jesus” from “Son of God”— an attempt to denigrate Christ.

Supporting this denigration are (As in Mark 5:7, the parallel pas­ uncials ‫א‬, B, C (5th), and L, sage among the gospels, Jesus is (Again, “Jesus” is removed, based plus cursives Ë1 (five mss), 33, (The word “business,” being a removed, based on a different on a source text largely underlaid 892, numerous Byz. mss, three (Author clarified “they” with “the Greek source text—“lower Chris­ modernistic attempt to appease an by corrupt Alexandrian Codices Old Latin, the Syriac Sinaitic, tology.” The NET footnote states demons” for clarification purposes the Greek idou was not translated allegedly incapable reader, does Aleph [‫ ] א‬and B—possibly a and part of the Bohairic. But not appear in their source Greek. backing the KJV are the Ï text only.) scribal effort to subtly degrade “because it has no exact English Do most people not know what Christ’s divine status.

This also (Byz.), uncials C3 (ca. 9th), W, equivalent here.” This is absolut­ “have to do with” means? This has been done several times in the Θ (Theta), Ë13 (13 mss), most of (Also see Mark 5:7.) ely false! Idou means “behold,” obviously is simply relational New Testament by separating the OL, the Syriac Peshitta (2nd) “see,” “look,” or “surprise.” Also, and Harclean (7th), the Sahidic “leave us alone” is not literal and association. Note how the NASB “Lord” from “Jesus” or “Jesus legonteς, “saying,” does retain Christ,” or “Christ” from “Jesus,” (southern Egypt), and part of skews the meaning! “Jesus” does the Bohairic (northern Egypt). not appear in the NA27 Greek!) unlike all other translations here.) etc.—as is done in the NA27.)

(Also see Mark 2:17.)

(Firstly, the Greek in the Majority text and NU apparatus is identical for the first independent clause, including tí esti n (transliteration), which translates “this means”—no Greek for “saying.” Secondly, the NU Greek excludes eiς meta­ noian, “to repentance”—the key to this verse’s full significance.)

No 1: Modern versions fail to include “to repentance.” It does not appear in their own Greek source text. No. 2: The Major­ ity (85+% of Greek) is sup­ ported by C, L, Theta, 0281, Ë13, the Syriac Sinaitic, the Sa­ hidic, and part of the Bohairic.

“To repentance” possibly was omitted to reduce the severity of the message! Most are not amenable to the fact that their intrinsic, depraved nature re­ quires repentance before God for justification.

KJV

NET

NASB

Matthew 11:23 — “And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shall be brought down to hell . . .”

Reads: “And you, Capernaum, will you be exalted to heaven?

No, you will be thrown down to Hades!”

Reads: “And you, Capernaum, will not be exalted to heaven, will you? You will descend to Hades . . .”

(Only the KJV here precisely translated the correct Greek katabibasqhse [kah-tah-bibos-thay´-seh], “to cause to go down,” “to bring down,” or “to thrust down.” [Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Updat­ ed Edition, p. 1638] The etymo­ logy is from the Greek kata and bathos, meaning “after the manner of going down to the great depths.” Only the KJV here uses the future passive indicative form.)

(The NU Greek first poses a question. But the Byz. text states a fact. The Ï reads “And you, Capernaum, the one having been exalted to heaven . . . ” Note vv. 20 and 21, in which other cities are referred to as having benefited from great works by Jesus. This clarifies the present participle—the present in the KJV—as correct.

Also, a literal translation is: “. . .

You will throw yourself down.”)

(“Hadou” is the literal translation, from the Greek root word hades [hah´-dace]. From Strong’s Com­ plete Word Study Concordance [p.

2013], “. . . The place [state] of departed souls—grave, hell.” In this context, the correct translation is [h]adou. “Hell” is an idiomatic —but effectively correct—tran­ slation. Anything but “hadou” [or “hell,” though idiomatic] is ambig­ uous, deceptive, and “palatable.”)

Matthew 12:47 — “Then one said unto him, ‘Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee.’”

NET: “Someone told him, ‘Look, your mother and your brothers are standing outside wanting to speak to you.’”

NASB reads: “Someone said to him, ‘Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are standing out­ side seeking to speak to You.’”

(The NET translation committee cherry-picks when to use the Greek idou, preferring not to translate it when it best translates as “behold”—a rather majestic term. Here they use “look.” The committee did choose wisely in translating this verse, which in the NA text defies the brackets indic­ ating suspicion of authenticity.)

(The NA27 apparatus reveals that this verse is omitted by and characterized as doubtful by ‫א‬, B, L, Gamma [Γ ], a few Byz. mss, two OL, the Syriac Sinaitic and Curetonian, and the Sahidic.

“Seeking,” however, is preferred over “desiring.”)

(The Greek [transliteration] echō [ekh´-o] here means “out,” or “outside” [“without”].)

Matthew 16:3 — “And in the morning, ‘It will be foul weather to day: for the sky is red and lowring.’ O ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky; but can ye not discern the signs of the times?”

Reads: “And in the morning, ‘It will be stormy today, because the sky is red and darkening.’ You know how to judge correctly the appearance of the sky, but you cannot evaluate the signs of the times.”

(The KJV translators unnecessarily added “O ye,” which does not appear in the Majority Greek text or the Textus Receptus. Lowring means “to be gloomy and overcast with clouds.”)

(The minority Greek text omits [h]upokritai, “hypocrites.” At least 85 percent of extant NT Greek MSS include it; yet, modernists’ two favorites, Aleph and B, do not contain it. More modern bias.)

Reads: “And in the morning, ‘There will be a storm today, for the sky is red and threatening.’

Do you know how to discern the appearance of the sky, but cannot discern the signs of the times?”

(The Greek purrazi gar stugnazō [poo-rodd´-zee | garr | stoog-nodzō], “being overcast,” is not the equivalent of “threatening.” This is a bit of a stretch. Contemporary idiom here increases severity to emphasize a “sign of the times.”)

NIV

PROBLEM

Reads: “And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted up to the skies?

No, you will go down to the depths.”

Greek text, word form, and translation issues exist. But the evidential testimony resolves the problems. “. . . Having been exalted to heaven” is sup­ (“. . . Lifted up to the skies” is not the Ï text (at least literal here. “. . . To the depths” is ported by 85%), Ë13, 33, most of the Sy­ an explanatory and effectively riac, and three OL. Opposing vitiated substitute for hades that defies the NU Greek. The NU also are ‫א‬, B, D, W, Θ, most of the uses the future middle deponent Latin, the Syriac Curetonian, form, katabhsh [kah-tah-bay´- and the Coptic. Supporting “. . . say], rather than the future passive will be thrown down” are the indicative. All other translations but Ï text, ‫א‬, C, L, Θ, Ë1 . 13, 33, the KJV use [h]uψwqhsh, the the Peshitta and Harclean, and future passive indicative of “to the Bohairic. Against are B, D, exalt,” rather than [h]uψwqeisa, W, all Latin, the Sinaitic and Curetonian, and the Sahidic. the aorist passive participle.)

NIV reads: “Someone told him, ‘Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you.’” Footnote reads, “g47 Some manuscripts do not have verse 47.”

(The footnote is nothing but con­ fusing to the reader: “What other manuscripts? How important is this?” This is none other than a naturalistic, modernistic scholarly means of casting doubt on what previously was accepted as the ir­ refutable Word of God.)

Reads: “. . . and in the morning, ‘Today it will be stormy, for the sky is red and overcast.’ You know how to interpret the ap­ pearance of the sky, but you can­ not interpret the signs of the times.” Footnote reads: “a 2 Some early manuscripts do not have the rest of verse 2 and all of verse 3.”

(Nevertheless, the source text contains these verses! And “some early” is an adroit attempt to leverage the alleged weight of moderns’ favorite uncials!)

With the exception of the di­ visive and deceptive footnote accompanying the NIV, the NET and NASB are okay.

Support for the KJV includes overwhelming evidence: the Majority Greek (85+%); uncials Í1, C, D, W, Z, Theta (Θ), Ë1 . 13, 33, most Old Latin and all the Vulgate, the Pe­ shitta and Harclean, and the Bohairic. Manuscript weight and number favor the KJV. The NIV footnote indicts the NU text and the scribes of its sources by admitting that only “And he answered and said” appears in v. 2—the rest of vv.

2-3 being questioned as doubt­ ful. (??) Also supporting this nonsense are uncials X and Γ, Ë 13, 579, a few Byz., the Sin­ aitic and Curetonian, the Sahi­ dic, and part of the Bohairic.

Supporting the Ï are C, D, L, W, Θ, Ë1, 33, all Latin, the Pe­ shitta/Harclean, and the bopt.

KJV Matthew 17:20 — “And Jesus said unto them, ‘Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, “Remove thee hence to yonder place;” and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you.’”

NET NET reads: “He told them, “It was because of your little faith. I tell you the truth, if you have faith the size of a mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move; nothing will be. . . .” (“Little faith” must be erroneous: Jesus said that even tiny faith—like a “grain of mustard seed”—will move a mountain! Unbelief and little faith are not synonymous.

[The translators admit to not direct­ ly translating from the Greek.])

Matthew 18:11 — “For the Son Omits the entire verse, then footnotes with “1 tc The most of Man is come to save that important MSS (‫ א‬B L* Θ* Ë1 . 13 which was lost.”

33 892* pc e ff1 sys sa) do not include 18:11. . . .” (Om.: (Also see Luke 19:10.) [[EMPTY]].)

Matthew 18:15 — “Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou has gained they brother.”

(Eis, as in “unto,” also can mean “against,” as here and in the Ï.)

Matthew 19:9 — “And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry an­ other, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.”

(Also see Mark 10: 11, 12, and Luke 16:18.)

NASB

NIV

PROBLEM

NASB reads: “And He *said to them, ‘Because of the littleness of your faith; for truly I say to you, if you have faith the size of a mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, “Move from here to there,” and it will move; and nothing will be. . . . ’”

NIV reads: “He replied, ‘Be­ cause you have so little faith. I tell you the truth, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, “Move from here to there” and it will move. Nothing will be. . . .’”

Notice also that the NU reads “He said,” rather than “Jesus said.” The Ï text (at least 85% of Greek) reads Iēsous eipen (“Jesus said”) and apist­ ian (“unbelief”). Also sup­ porting the former are C, L, W, Ë1, six OL, and the Peshitta and Harclean. The same, minus three OL, Ë1, and the Peshitta, support eipen. “Unbelief” is supported by the Ï, C, D, L, W, all Latin, and most Syriac.

All of these are opposed by Í, B, D, Θ, Ë13, 33, and more.

(The NA-UBS read identically with the Byzantine majority, os (“Littleness of your faith” is literal kokkon sinapeōs, “like [or “as”] a from the Nestle-Aland27 Greek, but grain of mustard [seed], yet the is incorrect. “Size of” was inserted translators add “small” for un­ necessary clarity.) by the translators.)

[“For the Son of Man has come Verse 11 is omitted from the text. to save that which was lost.] Foot­ Footnote reads, “The Son of Man note reads “Early MSS do not con­ came to save what was lost.” tain this v.”

(“[ ]”—in the NA apparatus and the NASB text—means “highly (The NA27-UBS4 texts, supported questionable.” Yet the NA omits by their Greek mss, do not include the verse, then brackets the num­ ber below. The two also divide verse 11. Aleph and B are among over “early MSS.” The NA admits the most-corrupt MSS extant! A th note reads that the NET follows the that D [5 ] and W [6th] support the omission as do “a number of mo­ Byz., then tosses in two OL manu­ scripts, too.) dern translations.”)

(Why is there no explanation ac­ companying verse 11’s footnoted content? Did the NIV committee seek public disclosure approval, yet hope that readers would not understand the significance of this?)

Reads: “If your brother sins2, go and show him his fault in private: if he listens to you, you have won your brother.” Footnote reads: 2 3 (One note reads “ tc ‡ The earliest “18:15 Late MSS add against you. and best witnesses lack “against you . . . .” Translators are referring (The minority Greek lacks “against to the corrupt ‫ א‬and B—different in you,” but is outnumbered by more 3,036 places in the gospels alone!) than 9 to 1!)

Reads: “If your brother sins against you,b go and show him his fault, just between the two of you.

If he listens to you, you have won your brother over.” Footnote reads: 15 Some manuscripts do not have against you.”

NET: “Now I say to you that whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another commits adultery.”

NIV reads: “I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and mar­ ries another woman commits adultery.”

Reads: “If your brother sins, go and show him his fault when the two of you are alone. If he listens to you, you have regained . . . ”

(Modern critical rules—preferred shorter reading—reign, here.)

The Ï text (85%+) includes v.

11: “For the Son of Man came to save the lost.” The Byz. also is supported by 078, most OL and all the Vulgate, most of the Syriac, and part of the Bohairic (bopt). (See NET note for op­ posing witnesses.) And note the NET footnote insists upon har­ monization with Luke 19:10.

When it suits them moderns insist the scribes are in error!)

The Ï (85%+) reads eis se, “against you.” “Late mss” is irrelevant because of over­ whelming witness: D; L; W; Θ; 078; Ë13; 33; all Latin; all Sy­ riac; bopt. Only Aleph and B, Alex. 0281 and 579, Ë1, the Sahidic, a few Byz. cursives, and part of the Bohairic, defy.

Look at the overwhelming evi­ dence favoring the KJV read­ ing (NET note). Why have the moderns abandoned Codex B? Because not doing so would (No note appears in the NET to not sell their “Bibles”? Oppos­ address this critical difference (“Immorality” long had been used (“Marital unfaithfulness” is an ing testimony are Í, C3, D, L, between source texts. The last to mean “sexual immorality.” impotent term for violation of the 1241, a few Byz. mss, the Old independent clause is supported by Immorality is underlain by the Seventh Commandment! It simply Latin (55-60 mss), the Syriac the Ï, B, C, W, Z, Θ, Ë1 . 13, 078, 33, Greek porneia. A more accurate is “fornication,” or “adultery,” and Sinaitic and Curetonian, and almost all Latin, the Peshitta and word is “fornication.” Moichatai God does not take this lightly!)

Harclean, and the Bohairic.) means “commits adultery.”) the Sahidic.

NASB reads: “And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adul­ tery.”

KJV Matthew 19:16 — “And behold, one came and said unto him, ‘Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?’”

NET NET reads: “Now someone came up to him and said, “Teacher, what good thing must I do to gain eternal life?”

NASB

NIV

NASB reads: “And someone came to Him and said, ‘Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may obtain eternal life?’”

NIV reads: “Now a man came up to Jesus and asked, ‘Teacher what good thing must I do to get eternal life?’”

PROBLEM

The Majority text (Ï) reads Didaskale agathe, “Good Tea­ cher.” “Good” is necessary here because it speaks to God being good: If Christ is not God, then God (the Father) is not good.

(Notice how “good” [ agath ē ] has (Kai “. . . has been translated as (As always, no footnote exists for been omitted from all three mo­ Underlying the NU reading are ‘now’ to indicate the transition to a the Majority reading. Because the substantially doctrinally cor­ dern translations—absent from (Also see Luke 18:18. Note that new topic,” according to the foot­ Aleph [‫]א‬, B, D, and L, plus modernists hold that the “best” their Greek. See their unconvinc­ rupt 1 “thing” does not appear in either note. Next, the committee again Ë , 892 (850 AD), a few By­ manuscripts are the “earliest” or ing evidence at right. [Also note Greek source text, but, rather, has wrongfully states that no English “early,” these translators withhold zantines, three Old Latin, and that 10 Old Latin—50-55 extant— pt been inserted—unnecessarily—by equivalent for idou exists! Lastly, mention of the vast majority of support the Byz. Ï cursives, plus part of the Bohairic (bo ). If they chose a different auxiliary “good” is omitted, then v. 17a, b translators for clarity.) verb for “shall,” using “must.” The Greek MSS outnumbering them. C, W, Θ, Ë13, 33, most Latin, all —as in the NU—must be omit­ pt Greek differs in the NU, vs. Byz.) Inferior doctrine defies “best”!)

Syriac, the Sahidic, and the bo .]) ted.

Matthew 20:16 — “So the last Reads: “So the last will be first, shall be first, and the first last: for and the first last.” many be called but few chosen.”

(A familiar NET action: It fails to (The “called” are those who have footnote, simply because the lib­ been invited, while the “chosen” are those who have been genuinely eral, modernistic, contemporary saved. —Jamieson-Fausset-Brown scholarly community is so certain Bible Commentary, Vol. 3, p. 100) that the Majority reading is woe­ fully wrong, that it refuses to (Eklektoi means “chosen” or “elect”: those who have been “cal­ acknowledge it.) led” by the Spirit and have come to Christ for salvation.)

Matthew 21:44 — “And whoso­ ever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.”

(The “spiritual builders” of Jesus’ time, the Pharisees, Saducees and scribes, personally were being “broken” by “falling” on [reject­ ing] the keystone of the kingdom of God—Christ. Similarly, in their final rejection of Christ, these Jew­ ish leaders would be “ground to powder.” “The Kingdom of God is here a temple . . . .” —JamiesonFausset-Brown Bible Comment­ ary, Vol 3, p. 104)

NET: “The one who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces, and the one on whom it falls will be crushed.”

Reads: “So the last shall be first, Reads: “So the last will be first, and the first last.” and the first will be last.”

(The first portion of v. 16 calls for a further conclusion. It seems in­ complete. “This and that are true, so something else must follow.”

This is not simply a retelling of the earlier parable in Matt. 19:30.

[Moderns’ only recourse are ‫א‬, B, L, Z, 085, 892, 1424, the Sahidic, Lectionary (ℓ) 844, a few Byz. mss, and part of the Bohairic.])

(The NA27 implies that the last portion of the verse is a [later] in­ sertion—based on Matthew 22:14 —according to the following: C; D; W; Theta [Θ]; Caesarean group Families 1 and 13 [Ë1 . 13]; “the great cursive” 33; the Ï; all Latin; all Syriac; more. So, moderns essentially stand on Aleph and B. But against 90%-plus of the mss?)

NIV omits the verse from the text, then inserts the footnote: “Some manuscripts do not have verse 44.”

The last portion has been re­ moved from nearly every mo­ dern Bible version: A failure to respond positively to the Gos­ pel does not sell, and moderns stand by their favored MSS. And the fact that none of these modern versions contains any type of footnote about the last portion’s removal is suspi­ cious. It possibly may imply a failure to truly comprehend the entire verse’s meaning.

The Majority text (Ï) includes the verse (85%+ of extant Greek) but, more interestingly, modern scholars’ two favorite MSS, uncials Aleph and B, also include the verse. The only “early” uncial that does not (The Greek sunqlasqh/setai, (According to the NA27, only D, include this verse is the notor­ cursive 33, many Old Latin, and sunthlasthēsetai [soong-thlas(Verse 44 is omitted from the in­ iously corrupt Codex D (Be­ the Syriac Sinaitic do not contain thay´-seh-tahee] means “to terlinear Greek in The Zondervan zae/Western). That’s right, the this verse! Yet the NIV translators academics have defied Aleph crush,” “to shatter,” “to break” [to Greek and English Interlinear removed it. Even ‫א‬, B, C, L, and W and B. Why? (The verse even pieces]. The Greek likmάsei New Testament [NASB/NIV]. As 1 [lik-ma´-sigh], means “to pulver­ for “to scatter like dust,” this is a include the verse, as do Z, 0102, Ë has been removed in the Greek, . 13 from a recent interlinear.) The , some Old Latin and all the usage mentioned in Thayer’s ize,” “to grind to powder,” “to “harsh” tone? Doesn’t sell.

Greek-English Lexicon of the New Vulgate, most of the Syriac, and crush.” It also can mean “to all the Coptic. So why have these Also notice the NIV footnote, Testament, but it is one prefaced winnow,” or “to scatter.” So the at left: “some manuscripts.” translators chosen to omit it? Do This is absolute falsehood and by “in a sense unknown to prof.

NET translators did not alter the they think that readers will not auth. [professional authorities],” deception, as the vast majority words or meaning of the text.) and it does not carry “like dust.” understand it? Do they, them­ of all manuscripts contain the verse—not just the Greek!

[References to the Septuagint.]) selves, not understand it?)

NASB: “And he who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces; but on whomever it falls, it will scatter him like dust.” The foot­ note reads: “Some manuscripts do not have verse 44.”

KJV

NET

NASB

Matthew 23:8 — “But be ye not called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren.”

NET reads: “But you are not to be NASB reads: “But do not be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have one called Rabbi; for One is your Teacher and you are all brothers.” Teacher, and you are all broth­ ers.”

(Omission of “even Christ” is supported by no MSS listed in the 27 NA27. Yet the NET committee, with (The Greek kathēgētēs [kath-ay´- this reading still based on ‫א‬, B, D, (The NA labels kaqhghthς, “teacher,” or “master,” as an gate-ace] means “teacher,” or and L, opposes the correct one. This alternative reading, based on ‫א‬, “master”—most appropriately the also is supported by Johann Jakob Í2, D, L, Theta [Θ]; “zero uncials” latter in this context. The opposing Griesbach [1805], Karl Lachmann 0102 and 0107, f 1 . 13, and the Ï [1842], Tischendorf [1872], text reads didaskalos, “teacher” text! Why? Mostly because Í1, B only. “O” in Greek means “the,” Westcott-Hort [1870], and others, [Vaticanus], and 33 support and the NA editions 17, 26, and 27, not “even.”) didaskalos, “teacher.”) plus the UBS4.)

Matthew 23:14 — “Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypo­ crites! for ye devour widows’ houses, and for a pretense make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.”

The verse is excluded entirely.

The text reads “[[EMPTY]].

Footnote reads: “1 tc The most important MSS (‫ א‬B D L Z Θ Ë1 33 892* pc) and several versional witnesses do not have 23:14. . . .”

Matthew 24:7 — “For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pesti­ lences, and earthquakes, in divers places.”

NET: “For nation will rise up in arms against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. And there will be famines and earthquakes in var­ ious places.”

NASB reads: “For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom, and in various places there will be famines and earthquakes.”

(“Up in arms” is footnoted to refer readers to an out-of-print “L&N” lexicon, whose co-author [“N”], (The Greek kata [kah-tah´] means Eugene Nida, is the creator of a —among other things—“against” liberal language-encoding process. or “in diverse” [manifold] places.” Lack of “pestilences” is justified by MSS B, D, 892, 5 OL, and more.)

(The NA27 posits that “and pesti­ lences, and earthquakes” has been harmonized to Luke 21:11, but the only match is “pestilence,” itself!

Moderns uphold TC rules beyond testimony—and reason: including questionable “internal evidence.”)

Matthew 24:36 — “But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels, but my Father only.” (Also see Mark 13:32.)

Reads : “But as for that day and hour no one knows it—not even the angels in heaven—except the Father alone.”

NIV

The words “the Christ” (o Cristoς) appear in the Maj­ ority Greek—at least 85% of cursives. These words also are included in manuscripts K (9th), Gamma (Γ/10th), Delta (Δ/9th), (The NIV committee has been 0102 (650 AD), 579 (1200), 700 prudent in translating kathēgētēs c rd as “master,” but this version still is (1050), 892 (3 copyist/ 850), largely based on the substantially and 1241 (1150), as wellthas in (5 ) and corrupt minority text. Hence, pre­ the Syriac Curetonian the Harclean (7th). Again, no cisely as the other modern versions witnesses are listed against it. here, it omits “even Christ.)

Why?

NIV reads: “But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have only one Master and you are all brothers.”

Puts verse 14 in brackets to indi­ Omits verse 14, does not mark the cate suspicion about authenticity, footnote in the text and adds the verse below Scripture. then adds footnote: “This v not found in early MSS.” (The above insinuates that “some manuscripts” add verse 14. These (Three of the earliest NT Greek are clarified in the NA27 apparatus: uncials omit this verse: Í; B; D. (The note also states that the verse Also supporting the NU text are L, W; 0102; 0107; 892; Ë13; the Itala appears in the Majority, yet says, “. Z, Θ, Ë1, 33, 892, five Old Latin, a [many Old Latin]; the Peshitta and (Also see Mark 12:40, Luke 20:47.) . . but it is almost certainly not few Byz. mss, the Syriac Sinaitic, Harclean; the Syriac Curetonian; original.” It then mentions that it part of the Bohairic. But why the Sahidic, part of the Bohairic. abides by the NA, then implies har­ Testimony is diverse and broad, would any scribe add words of monization with Mark and Luke.) but does not offset the Ï text.)

Christ that He did not say?)

(Remember that Jesus is co-equal to God the Father—hence, Mat­ thew’s not alluding to “the Son.” “Even,” after “not,” was omitted.)

PROBLEM

The vast majority of manu­ scripts have verse 14—includ­ ing at least 85 percent of the Greek. This comprises approx­ imately 90 percent of NT min­ uscules (cursives/9th cent. and later), and—according to lead­ ing modernistic scholars Aland and Metzger (both deceased) —24.2 percent of Greek un­ cials (4th-9th centuries). (Per­ centage is based on my per­ sonal count of categorized extant manuscripts.)

The Ï (85+% of existing Greek) reads loimoi (plague, disease, pestilence). Also sup­ porting the Byz. Ï text are C, Θ, 0102 (Alex.), f 1,13, two Old Latin, and the Peshitta and (In the face of overwhelming Harclean. Moderns prefer to manuscript testimony, the NIV evaluate mss based on the text rides the NA27 in defiance. Also content of each ms, itself, among the minority evidence are a rather than on other charact­ few Byz. mss, the Syriac Sinaitic, eristics of the MS and on re­ and the Coptic Sahidic.) lationships with others.

NIV reads: “Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be famines and earthquakes in vari­ ous places.”

Includes “or the Son himself,” but Adds “nor the Son,” then adds the provides no footnote evidence for footnote: “Some manuscripts do not have nor the Son.” its appearance as an alternate variant to the Majority reading. (“Some manuscripts”? No! Clearly (The NET states that Matthew the vast majority of Greek and 27 generally softened “Mark’s harsh (Testimony for the NA reading otherwise!

Look at the paltry statements,” and corrected his own 2 13 error by removing “nor the Son”! are ‫ א‬and Í , B, D, Theta [Θ], Ë , support for inclusion of oude o a few Byz., and the Itala.) uioς, at immediate left.)

This defies inerrant inspiration!)

The vast majority of Greek MSS (90%+) support the reading of the Byzantine Majority text: omission of [h]oude o [h]uios.

The Ï text is backed by Í1, L, W, Ë1, 33, 1 (1150/Caesarean), all the Vulgate, all the Syriac, and all the Coptic (Bohairic and Sahidic).

KJV

NET

Matthew 25:31 — “When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory.”

NET reads: “When the Son of Man comes in his glory and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne.”

(The modern Greek text [NU], the Majority text, and the Textus Re­ ceptus each read qronou dozeς, which can be translated either “glorious throne” or “throne of his glory.” Doxēs [dox-āce], a singular feminine noun, also can be used as an adjective, as in “glorious,” to describe throne.)

(In Jacobean English and in “bib­ lical” English, the word shall was not used as it is today, then mean­ ing the same as will. Today, the word shall indicates intent. As for the absence of “holy,” the modern apparatuses—based largely on the Westcott-Hort Greek [1870]—do not include the word.)

Matthew 26:28 — “For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.”

Reads: “. . . for this is my blood, the blood of the covenant, that is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.”

(Also see Mark 14:24 and Luke 22:20.)

Matthew 27:34 — “They gave him vinegar to drink mingled with gall: and when he had tasted thereof, he would not drink.” (“Gall” is bile secreted from the liver, and, as such, a bitter sub­ stance which biblically is used to denote bitterness of spirit [Acts 8:23, Lamentations 3:19].)

(First, the NET footnotes that “the blood” was added before “of the covenant” to clarify that the suc­ ceeding phrase modifies blood.

This is absurd, as this truth is ob­ vious to the reader! This simply is heavy-handed editing! “New” was omitted because of alleged and “motivated” “parallelism” with Luke 22:20, and the support of “diverse witnesses”—hardly that.)

Reads “. . . and offered Jesus wine mixed with gall to drink.

But after tasting it, he would not drink it.”

NASB

NIV

PROBLEM

NASB reads: “But when the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the angels with Him, then He will sit on His glorious throne.”

NIV reads: “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory.”

Omits “new.”

Omits “new,” then adds footnote, The vast majority of Greek manuscripts include “new.”

“Some manuscripts the new.”

Jesus is referring to the “new covenant,” which, as mention­ (“Some manuscripts”? No! The overwhelming majority—at least ed in Hebrews 8:6-13, explicit­ ly replaces the old covenant as 85 percent of the total extant being a better one! Moderns Greek majuscule [cursive] manu­ boast about the supremacy of scripts included. The translators do the NU witness, led by their not want to “confuse the readers preferred Aleph, B, and 33, but with the facts”!) these are substantially corrupt!

Also supporting the minority Greek are Ì37 and Ì45, L, Z (Alex.), Theta (Θ), 0298 (Caes.), and a few Byzantines.

The Byzantine (at least 85% of extant Greek) reads agioi (holy) before “angels.” The Ï text is supported by A, W, Ë13 (11th-15th/13 mss), one OL, the (This is the correct reading here, (“Heavenly glory” does not appear Syriac Peshitta and Harclean, except for the absence of “holy,” in the minority manuscripts repres­ and part of the Bohairic. The NU ented in the modern critical texts. text of modern Bibles is sup­ according to the Ï text and the ported by minority-text staples TR. The overall majority of MSS Once again, the NIV deviates from Í, B, D, L, and 33, plus Ë1, Θ, support the NU reading—without its own Greek source text—pre­ 565, a few Byzantines, nearly agioi—but not the overall num­ sumably for “stylistic” purposes. all the Latin, the Sahidic, and erical Greek testimony. The over­ [The obvious presumption is that part of the Bohairic—a diverse all majority is misleading because Christ’s throne is in heaven!]) and broad testimony, but not 10,000 are of the Latin Vulgate.) enough to offset the Ï.

(Jesus’ blood was not shed for the old covenant. It had to be for the “new” covenant—an eternal prom­ ise replacing a temporal one!

Kainῆς, “new,” appears in the Ï, A, C, D, W, Ë1 . 13, all the Syriac, all the Latin, the Sahidic, and the Bohairic.)

Reads “wine” rather than “vine­ gar.”

(The problem with the Greek word used here in the “NU” text, oinon, is that, though it is a fermented (The footnote says that “Jesus” drink [wine], it is not sour wine. was inserted to replace “him,” for The Greek oxos is correct: sour clarity. What clarity is needed wine—vinegar. Even the Septua­ here? Again, heavy-handed edit­ gint, the Greek Old Testament— which many moderns highly favor ing! “It,” not appearing in the above the Hebrew—reads oxoς Greek, was added. Another note refers to “wine mixed . . . ,” stating [Ps. 69:21], “vinegar.” Though the NU text source is outnumbered, that who offered the “wine” and moderns use the Byz. text to their gall is uncertain. No! Verses 31-33 advantage whenever possible—K, use “they” to refer to the Roman Theta, and Pi being such. [See NIV soldiers who had mocked Christ.) note.])

Reads “wine” rather than “vine­ gar.”

“Oinon,” fermented drink, is incorrect! “Oxos,” rather, is sour wine—vinegar. “Vine­ (See note at immediate left.) gar” fulfills prophecy in Psalm 69:21: “They also gave (Moderns stand by Í, B, and D, me gall in my food; and in my plus K, L, Theta [Θ], Ë1 . 13, 33, many Byz., most of the Latin, the thirst they gave me vinegar to Sinaitic, the Sahidic, and the Bo­ drink.” Supporting the Ï are hairic. Diversity and broadness of A (5th/Alex.), W (6th/mixed), support are won by the NU Greek, 0250 (Caes./750 AD), 0281 but oinon simply is incorrect.)

(7th-8th/ mixed), four Old Latin (2nd), and the Syriac Peshitta (2nd) and Harclean (7th).

KJV

NET

NASB

NIV

Mark 1:1 — “The beginning of Reads: “The beginning of the Reads: “The beginning of the Reads: “The beginning of the the gospel of Jesus Christ, the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of gospel about Jesus Christ, the Son of God; . . .”

God.” God.” Son of God.” Footnote reads: “Some manuscripts do not have (In the footnote the NET commit­ (The NA27 modern critical appa­ the Son of God.” tee admits that uiou Θeou ratus states that Í, Theta [Θ], (Again, extreme deception by the [“Son of God”] most likely is the uncial 28 [Byz./ca. 950], a few correct reading, based on the over­ more Byzantine mss, Lectionary [ℓ] NIV translators perpetrated be­ cause of their argument that a pal­ whelming evidence. This defies 2211, and one Sahidic MS do not try minority of manuscripts con­ the NA27 text, which questions authenticity with brackets, and as include “Son of God.” So the com­ tradicts—as in the NASB note— an alternate reading. The note also mittee was correct in leaving the the “longer reading.” Why confuse reading unmolested. They know— the reader by drawing into quest­ argues against the inclusion of or at least have manifested—the “tou” [of], which appears in A, ion the variant of omission by adding this note?) Ë1 13, 33, and the Majority [Ï ].) truth, here.) .

Mark 1:2 — “As it is written in the prophets, ‘Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.’”

NET reads: “As it is written in Isaiah the prophet, ‘Look, I am sending my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way . . .’”

NASB reads: “As it is written in Isaiah the prophet: ‘Behold, I send My messenger ahead of You, Who will prepare Your way.’”

(It is critical to note that this OT quotation appears in two passages, and by different prophets: Isaiah 40:3 AND Malachi 3:1. Both verses speak of John the Baptist, but it is two prophets—not Isaiah alone—who proclaim this OT prophecy!)

(A footnote defends the reading using three of the moderns’ fav­ orite five old uncials—Aleph, B, D —and the second-century Greek testimony of Church Father Iren­ aeus. Further, another corrupt Alexandrian MSS, Codex L, is used, plus 33 [9th] and several “geographically widespread” but essentially Alexandrian witnesses.)

(No footnote appears to mention any other reading. This is decep­ tion, and the translators probably did not include the Byzantine reading because of their favorite evidence: ‫א‬, B, and D. To many moderns, the corrupt Aleph and B are tantamount to absolute truth!)

Mark 1:14 — “Now after that John was put into prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, . . .”

NET: “Now after John was im­ prisoned, Jesus went into Galilee and proclaimed the gospel of God.”

(Despite the overwhelming numerical testimony against this (What is missing in these modern reading, the NET translators have translations is the clarifier “king­ the gall to insist that the external dom of God,” which is specifically manuscript evidence [mss] is the type of “good news” or “gos­ “significantly stronger.” No! See the evidence at far right. Also, the pel” being preached!) committee here uses more modern text-critical gymnastics created to support their favored manuscripts.)

PROBLEM At least 4,400 of the extant 5,700-plus (76%) total NT Greek manuscripts (incl. lec­ tionaries) contain “Son of God”! Also containing these words are Í1, Codex Vaticanus (B), Codex Bezae (D), L, W, 2427, a few Byz., and all the Latin, Syriac, and Coptic.

Opposing are no more than a dozen or so manuscripts (NASB note). Evidence for [h]uiou Theou thus is thor­ oughly overwhelming.

This prophecy appears in Mala­ chi 3:1 and Isaiah 40:3. How­ ever, in the modern critical edi­ tion and in the manuscripts on which it is based, the reading is “Isaiah the prophet.” This pro­ bably is a scribal error. The (The NET refers to its nine speci­ Majority is joined by A, W, Ë13, fic MSS witnesses as “early,” but and the Syriac Harclean. The six are no earlier than 850 AD! As NU does have substantial sup­ for “ahead of you,” the Greek is port beyond those at left: Delta; the same, but pro proswpou Θ; 565; 892; 1241; 2427; many sou does not mean “ahead of Byz. cursives; the Peshitta; you.” It means “before thy face.” Harclean margin; all Coptic.

But Malachi’s prophecy and And note how the NIV removes idou, “behold,” “look,” or “see.”) the Ï text derail it!

NIV reads: “It is written in Isaiah the prophet: ‘I will send my mes­ senger ahead of you, who will prepare your way’”b— The footnote reads: “1:2 Mal. 3:1.”

NIV: “After John was put in pris­ NASB: “Now after John had on, Jesus went into Galilee, pro­ been taken into custody, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the claiming the good news of God.” gospel of God.” (“Good news” and “gospel” have the same meaning, according to (“. . . Taken into custody” is the Greek euaggelíō [you-ang-gelsomething of a stretch from the Greek paradothēnai [pair-a-doth- ee´-ō]. Nevertheless, the gospel of Jesus Christ is a sacred thing, so to ay´-nahee]. The translators have replace it with the pedantic “good unnecessarily substituted some words for what evidently, in their news” certainly seems irrespon­ opinion, are required for clarity. sible and disrespectful. Where is This is an immense disservice to a the sense of godly reverence in more-capable readership.) these NIV translators?)

“. . . Kingdom of God” is the reading in the profound major­ ity of mss: a vast majority of the Byzantines; A; D; W; most Old Latin and all of the Vul­ gate; the Peshitta; and part of the Bohairic (bopt). The NU Greek is supported by very broad and diverse evidence: ‫;א‬ B; L; Θ; Ë1 ,13; 28; 33; 565; 579; 892; 2427; a few Byz.; four OL; the Peshitta and Harc­ lean; the Sahidic; and bopt. But the Ï text—at least 85% of Greek—still carries the day.

KJV

NET

Mark 3:15 — “And to have NET reads: “. . . and to have power to heal sicknesses, and to authority to cast out demons.” cast out devils: . . .”

(Excluding “to heal sicknesses and”—without footnote—is at (In this particular case, the KJV least extremely irresponsible, and, translators chose the best Greek more likely, a modernistic effort to word, daimonion [demon], but op­ revoke Jesus’ and his disciples’ ted for the less-appropriate English power over bodily afflictions. word, “devils,” rather than “de­ Many moderns manipulate source mons.” The Greek daimon also texts, centrally using the “NU,” could have been used.) but also using Byz. readings when convenient. Here they list no evi­ dence—presumably because all other “important” MSS support.)

Mark 3:29 — “But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal dam­ nation: . . .”

Reads: “But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven, but is guilty of an eternal sin.”

Mark 6:11b — “Verily I say unto you, It shall be more toler­ able for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.”

NET: This last portion of verse 11 is completely omitted from the NU text, thus the NET, the latter without footnote.

(The NA27 Greek source reads amartēmatos [or amartias ], “sin,” (The KJV translators chose to rather than kriseōs, “damnation,” leave out “in this age” [eternally] or “judgment.” Moderns do not after “forgiveness,” evidently seem to distinguish between “sin” having decided that “in this age” and “damnation,” based on the might confuse readers. But eiς absence of any footnote. “Sin” [or ton aiwna, “in this age,” “missing the mark” (of God’s appears in both the Ï & TR. They perfection)] has significant support both also have “has not” after in ‫א‬, B, L, Delta [D], Θ, 28, 33, “Ghost” [Spirit].)

565, 892, and 2427 [19th].)

(Also see Matthew 10:15.)

NASB NASB reads: “. . . and to have authority to cast out demons.”

(The NASB translators are being selective about their footnoting.

Have they attempted to denigrate the divinity of Christ by failing to footnote, here—“power to heal sicknesses”? Are only our physi­ cians, with modern technology, able to heal sicknesses? Have God’s chosen vessels no power to do so—those given the gift of healing by the Holy Spirit?)

NIV

PROBLEM

Some scribe(s) made a serious error of omission here, leaving out a key phrase in this verse.

(The NA27 apparatus states that “to It does not appear in the min­ ority Greek—here far less than heal sicknesses” is an insertion, 1 percent of extant NT MSS. according to nearly all available But the Majority text includes 2 manuscript evidence: Ï; A; C ; D; θerapeuein tas nosouς W; Θ; Ë1 . 13; 33; 579; 700; 1424; kai (“to heal sicknesses and”), 2542; and most of the Latin [it] as does more than 99% of all and Syriac Harclean [the latter two other extant manuscript testi­ with some slight variation]. The mony. (See Matt. 10:1 and apparatus only lists the Syriac 16:18, and 1 Cor. 12:9.) Why Sinaitic [4th] and Peshitta [2nd] as do modern text critics doubt offering some opposition.) the authenticity of this verse?

NIV reads: “. . . and to have au­ thority to drive out demons.”

Modern versions mitigate the severity of the sense: “eternal sin” rather than “eternal damn­ ation”—different Greek words: amarthmatoς (sin) vs. krisewς (damnation). The Ï ( ⸁ The NA27 states that “in this (Again, no footnote to mark the age”—see far left—is omitted by different final word. Further, could also reads—as noted at far left —“has not” after “Ghost.”

D, W, Θ, 1 [ca. 1150], 28 [ca. 950], not “eternal sin” simply mean to “Damnation” is supported by: readers—however confusingly—a 565 [ca. 850], 700 [ca. 1050], 2542 sin that lasts forever [all other sin Ï (at least 85%); A; C2; Ë1; [ca. 1250], many Byz. mss, most 1424; two OL; the Peshitta and being forgotten], rather than one or all of the Old Latin, and the that is eternally punishable, hence Harclean; part of the Bohairic.

Syriac Sinaitic. But sin must be But damnation doesn’t sell warranting damnation? This is wrong because “blasphemy against especially troublesome in light of their “Bibles.” Most people do the Holy Spirit” ultimately means the potential uncertainty of the not want to know and hear rejection of Christ!) meaning of “blasphemy” here.) about damnable sin.

Reads: “. . . but whoever blas­ phemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness ⸁, but is guilty of an eternal sin.”

Reads: “. . . but whoever blas­ phemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin.”

NASB: Verse 11b is omitted without footnote.

NIV: Verse 11b is omitted with­ out footnote.

(Omission without at least the typ­ ical designation “other mss” is negligence. This exclusion evid­ (Among the verses in this docu­ ently is based on “harmonization,” ment, this one carries more evi­ dence for the NU Greek than most or “parallel influence,” the theor­ etical scribal practice of copying others: Í; B; C; D; L; W; D; Θ; Scripture from one Gospel—in 28; 565; 892; 2427; 2542; many Byzantines [still a minority]; most this case from Matthew, in 10:15 Latin; the Syriac Sinaitic; the Sahi­ —to another to ensure narrative consistency. Moderns uphold this.) dic; part of the Bohairic.)

(The NA27 credits the Majority reading with additional support by A, Ë1 . 13, 33, three Old Latin, the Syriac Peshitta and Harclean, and part of the Bohairic. On the NU side, primary witnesses Aleph, B, D, and L have proven themselves sub­ stantially corrupt based on sub­ standard biblical doctrine and other factors. Also note that minuscule 2427 is a forgery made no earlier than 1874!)

Again, the NU Greek text makes a decent case here, with a majority of 70% or fewer of Greek mss opposing its read­ ing. It also has broad and di­ verse testimony on its side.

Yet, a substantial majority of the Byzantines do read as the KJV. When combined with the relative reliability of witnesses A, Ë1 . 13, and the Peshitta, the Ï reading still is more cre­ dible. And the same reading remains in Matthew.

KJV Mark 9:29 — “And he said unto them, ‘This kind can come forth by nothing, but by prayer and fasting.’”

(Also see Matthew 17:21.)

Mark 9:42 — “And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is bet­ ter for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea.”

NET

NIV

Reads: “He told them, ‘This kind Omits “and fasting.” can come out only by prayer.’”

(The vast majority of the Greek— (The footnote exploits modern at least 85%—text includes “and text-critical mechanisms, and re­ fasting,” as do Ì75, Í2, C, D, L, W, sulting subjectivity. It states that both “early and excellent” witnes­ Θ, Y [Psi], Families 1 and 13 ses read “and fasting,” but argues [Ë1 . 13], 33, most Old Latin and all that the reading is “motivated” by the Vulgate, the Syriac Harclean, “the early church’s emphasis on and all Coptic [Sahidic and Bo­ fasting” [asceticism]. “The most hairic].) important witnesses” [‫ א‬B] are claimed to have no good reason for deliberate omission.)

Omits “and fasting,” and footnote reads, “Some manu­ scripts prayer and fasting.”

Reads: “If anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a huge millstone tied around his neck and to be thrown into the sea.”

Reads: “Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe to stumble, it would be better for him if, with a heavy millstone hung around his neck, he had been cast into the sea.”

Reads: “And if anyone causes one of these little ones who be­ lieve in me to sin, it would be better for him to be thrown into the sea with a large millstone tied around his neck.”

(The Greek omission of eis éme, “in me,” is founded upon only uncials Aleph, C, and D, the cursive Delta [9th], and four Latin manuscripts. Note that the NA25 [1963] includes eiς έme, “in me.”)

(The NIV translators have done the right thing by not footnoting with a reference to “some mss,” “early mss,” or “the earliest mss” excluding “in me.” Rare wisdom for the translation committee.)

NASB reads: “[where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.] Footnote reads “Vv 44 and 46, which are iden­ tical to v 48, are not found in the early MSS.”

NIV omits the verse, then adds the footnote: “44where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched. 45Some manuscripts hell, where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.”

(The Greek skandalίsh [scanda-lee´-say] means “to stumble, “to offend,” “to entice to sin,” so this is nearly correct, except for word order, which would have (Also see Matthew 18:6 and Luke been a bit awkward—but correct 17:2.)

—as “causes to sin one . . .”)

(The Greek lίqoς [lee´-thos] is used just thrice in the New Testa­ ment to mean “millstone”—a heavy, flat stone.)

Mark 9:44 — “Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.” (Also repeated in verses 46 and 48.)

NASB

Based on the NA27 critical appa­ ratus, the NET deletes verses 44 and 46. “[[EMPTY]]” is inserted for these verses.

PROBLEM

On the basis of only five ex­ isting manuscripts, “and fasting” is removed from this verse by nearly every modern “Bible” version. Is fasting (Only most modern scholars’ ancient duo of Aleph [‫ ] א‬and B op­ now unfashionable? Is it no pose, along with 0274, 2427, and longer deemed important? The answers seem obvious. (The one Old Latin manuscript. Con­ temporary text critics’ lynch pin is significance of fasting with prayer is self-denial to en­ the ‫א‬/B combo. The modern hance focus on Christ and the critical apparatus’ foundation is upon these two. [Remember that invocation of His healing minuscule 2427 is a forgery.]) power through purity.)

Both Greek sources read “And whoever entices to sin one of these little ones . . . ,” yet the modern versions have trans­ posed the first clause with “be­ lieving in me.” (“. . . Entices to sin” is clearly the correct tran­ slation of skandalise here—not “causes . . . to sin.”) “. . . In me” is supported by the Ï, A, B, C2, L, W, Θ, Y, Ë1 . 13, almost all Latin, all Syriac, the Sahidic, and bopt. No evidence omitting “in me” is listed in the NU.

Translators distort the truth in the NASB footnote, as two fifth century “old uncials”—A and D—include the verse. Al­ so, the words appear in Theta (The committee admits that the (9th), f 13, some Old Latin and (Parenthetical material, above, ad­ vast majority of extant witnesses all of the Vulgate, and the Sy­ ded by author.)

—Greek and versions [other riac Peshitta (2nd) and Harclean languages]—support the reading (The translators write “the early repeated in 46 and 48. Yet, “This MSS” in reference to only Í, B, (Also see Matthew 17:21.)

(The NIV committee chose to be (7th). The verse also appears in appears to be a scribal addition and C—three of the five “old even more irresponsible than that the Ï text. Translators seem to from v. 48 and is almost certainly uncials”—plus W [6th], again of the NASB by deleting the verse disapprove of the “repetition” a part of the Greek text of Mark,” appealing to moderns’ liberal futil­ entirely—more deceptive and sin­ of this phrase, as well as of the the footnote reads. Because of the ity. Also supporting omission are ister activity by the NIV translat­ foreboding tone. Some early moderns’ preferred ancient MSS, 1 ors. Removal here, in effect, min- scribes also took liberties in Delta and Psi, f , two later uncials Aleph, B, and C, plus L, three Caes­ th th imizes the penalty of eternal their copying by “removing and two minuscules [cursives], the arean [11 -15 ], six more Alex­ damnation—but it coincides pre­ repetition.” Satan is a master of Coptic, and some others.) andrian/Egyptian mss, and a pau­ cisely with the revered Í and B.) partial truths—seen here! city of Coptic, the NET defies.)

KJV

NET

NASB

NIV

PROBLEM

Mark 10:21 — “. . . One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up thy cross, and follow me.”

NET: “. . . ‘You lack one thing.

Go, sell whatever you have and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven.

Then come, follow me.’”

Mark 10:24 — “And the dis­ ciples were astonished at his words. But Jesus answereth again, and saith unto them, Chil­ dren, how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God!”

NET reads: “‘. . . Children, how NASB reads: “Children, how NIV reads: “Children, how hard The Majority text reads, “for the ones having put trust in hard it is to enter the kingdom of hard it is to enter the kingdom of it is to enter the kingdom of riches (chré-ma) to enter into God!’” God.” God!” the kingdom of God. . . .” The (Again, the translators acknow­ NA27—largely based on the W(The bases for the omission of the (Jesus mentions money and riches ledge that the majority of MSS H 1870 NT and Tischendorf’s at least 31 times in the New Testa­ 1872 NT, omits “for them hav­ clause “. . . for them that trust in contain “for them that trust in riches,” but deny legitimacy based riches” are only Í [Aleph], B, Delta ment—one of His most-emphas­ ing put trust in riches.” Uncials [9th], Psi [8th or 9th], the Sahidic ized topics. Yet, in a critical verse, A, C, D, and Θ include this on the modernistic belief that many scribes tend to expand upon Coptic [3rd or 4th], and a few of the here, a modernistic text apparatus phrase, as well as f 1 . 13, some “harsh” statements by Christ Bohairic Coptic [3rd or 4th].) based on a minority of corrupt Old Latin and all the Vulgate, “intended to soften the dictum.” manuscripts is used to defy one of all the Syriac, plus part of the Then they refer to their hallowed the most-profound points in Scrip­ Bohairic. Including the omitted uncials ‫ א‬and B, plus two others, portion would indeed offend ture—that a preoccupation with and the Sahidic, as supporting the wealth often precludes salvation.) today’s wealthy. The true “shorter reading.”) reading wouldn’t sell.

(The footnote explains that “the money” does not appear in the (Note that the KJV does transpose Greek, but is implied there. But the final two clauses, “follow me,” the Greek osa does not mean “money,” anyway, but “how and “taking up thy cross,” also much,” “all that,” “those things,” changing the tense.) etc. Furthermore, “take up thy (See Matthew 16:24, Luke 9:23.) cross” is absent without note!)

(Also see Matthew 19:24, Mark 10:25, and Luke 18:25.)

Mark 11:26 — “But if ye do not This verse is omitted by the forgive, neither will your Father NET, with only “[[EMPTY]]” which is in heaven forgive your appearing in the text (placeholder). trespasses.”

(The footnote refers to the same manuscripts listed as “diverse” (Also see in Matthew 6:15, and sources in 9:44 and 10:24: Alex­ similar in Proverbs 21:13.) andrian [essentially Egyptian], Caesarean, and a very few of the Egyptian Coptic MSS. The similar Matt. 6:15 leads to 11:26 being referred to as “probably an assim­ ilation,” and “most later mss,” including the Ï, are discredited, despite their number. Doubt also is cast upon mss C, D, 33, others!)

The independent clause “take up The independent clause “take up Despite the vast majority of manuscripts (85%+) supporting thy cross . . .” is omitted. thy cross . . .” is omitted. the inclusion of “taking up thy (The minority Greek omits the key (The minority text’s opposition is cross” after “and follow me,” phrase apas ton stauron [or apas substantial, according to the NA27: modern versions have omitted the former. Omission reduces ton stauron sou ], “taking up thy Aleph; B; C; D; Delta [D]; Θ cross.” The cross here is the daily [Theta]; Ψ [Psi]; three Greek un­ the burden of discipleship. burden of obedience to God’s cials; two cursives; a few Byzan­ How convenient for the mo­ word—a command most unwel­ tines; some Old Latin and all the dernistic critical translators and their readers. Supporting the come to today’s “lukewarm” be­ Vulgate [“lat”]; the Egyptian Byz. text are A, W, f 13, some lievers!)

Bohairic; others.) cursives (+ sou [thy]), and all the Syriac.

Only 10 Greek mss, plus a few cursives, two OL, the Syriac Sinaitic, the Sahidic, and part of the Bohairic, do not include this verse. The two earliest manuscripts (ca. 325-360 AD), (The minority text’s omission is excluding “fragments,” do not supported by nine uncials—‫א‬, B, include this verse (‫א‬, B). How­ (“Some” manuscripts? No! Only a ever, three of the earliest five L, W, D, Ψ, 565, 700, and 892— few hundred manuscripts, at the and one minuscule, the forged manuscripts (A, C, D) include 2427, plus a few Byzantines, two very most, omit this verse! This is the verse. Again, “some manu­ scripts” is major distortion of Old Latin, the Syriac Sinaitic, and absolute deception and simple the truth! Also supporting the untruth! And those manuscripts part of the Bohairic.)

1 . 13 , 33, some that have it, include it; they do not Ï are Theta, f OL and all Vulgate, the add it.)

Peshitta/Harclean, and bopt.

Verse 26 is bracketed to indicate suspicion about validity. Foot­ note reads: “Early MSS do not contain this v.”

This verse is omitted from the NIV. The footnote reads: “Some manuscripts add verse 26, But if you do not forgive, neither will your father who is in heaven for­ give your sins.”

KJV

NET

NASB

NASB reads: “Take heed, keep on Mark 13:33 — “Take ye heed, NET reads: “Watch out! Stay watch and pray: for ye know not alert! For you do not know when the alert; for you do not know when the appointed time will the time will come.” when the time is.” come.” (“Stay alert!” appears not to be a (The KJV actually is a bit idiomat­ direct translation, but, rather, an (The translators took the liberty of adding “appointed” here. Why do ic here. The literal translation from implication and inference from these scholars think they have the the Majority text is: “Be watchful, “stay awake.” The translators authority to tamper with the Word stay awake, and pray; for you do admit that the “vast majority” of of God? Bill Mounce explains one not know when the time is.”) witnesses include “and pray,” but tenet in Greek for the Rest of Us: again ascribe it to harmonization “The translators are trying to help to Mark 14:38 and Luke 21:36. you understand not only the words, This “motivated reading” does not but what the words mean.” [This is appear in their favored B, and D.) modern translation theory.])

Mark 15:28 — “And the Scrip­ ture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors.”

(Modern critics argue that this verse is an interpolation, a late insertion by a misled scribe. But the verse fulfills OT prophecy directly stated in Scripture—Isaiah 53:12b!)

The NET omits this verse, just placing “[[EMPTY]]” in the text, meaning that the translators are certain that the reading is false.

(Again the committee denigrates the majority of MSS because they are later than their favorites—and because they are Byzantine. It also states that the fulfillment of Isa. 53:12 “probably represents a scribal assimilation from Luke 22:37”! And despite some of its own Alexandrian MSS supporting the Byz., it defaults to ‫א‬, B, C, D.)

PROBLEM

NIV reads: “Be on guard! Be alert! You do not know when that time will come.” Footnote reads “Some manuscripts alert and pray.”

The Ï text under girds the KJV, as do seven significant uncials (incl. L &W), f 1 . 13, some Old Latin and all Vulgate, plus ‫א‬, A, C, Θ, Ψ, and all the Syriac and Coptic! Thus, (The Greek blēpetē [blay´-peh“some” is outright deception! tay] means “behold,” “beware,” (Most would be correct.) Do “see,” “take heed,” “perceive,” or these committees and their “look on” [or “to”], not “be on corporate owners not want guard.” Agrupnite means “to keep people to pray? Minority de­ awake,” or “to watch.” The NU fense exists only in uncials B and D, 2427, a few Byz. mss, does not contain and proseuch­ and three Old Latin. esthē, “and pray.”)

All five “old uncials” omit, as do Psi (Ψ), 2427 (19th), a few Byz., one OL, the Syriac Sin­ aitic, the Sahidic, and part of the Bohairic. But the Ï text (at least 85%), L, Θ, 083 (6th) and 0250 (8th), Families 1 & 13 (Ë1 . 13), 33, most OL and all (Yes, the few “earliest” extant— (Bishop Charles Ellicott, who ser­ Vulgate, and the Peshitta and existing and usable—manuscripts, from the second and fourth centur­ ved as the chairman of the 1881- Harclean, do include this 85 ERV translation committee, yet verse. Again, moderns hypo­ ies [papyri and uncials], do not earlier admitted that the Byzantine thesize about the verse’s contain this verse. But the Byz­ text dates back to at least the antine majority dates back to at alleged “assimilation” from least the fourth century!) fourth century. [See NASB note.]) Luke 22:37. (??)

NASB contains the verse, with question: “[And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, ‘And he was numbered with transgressors.’]

Footnote reads “Early MSS do not contain this v.”

The NET includes the entire pas­ The NASB includes the passage sage, but inside double brackets, but adds the footnote: “Later MSS to designate it as almost certainly add vv 9-20.” false. (“Add” refers to moderns’ belief (A portion of the footnote reads, that some scribe[s] inserted the “All of this evidence strongly sug­ words into manuscripts normally gests that as time went on scribes added the longer ending . . . .” An dating back no further than about earlier portion highlights that “two the tenth or eleventh centuries. In (Without this “longer ending,” the of the most respected MSS [‫ א‬B]” his A Student’s Guide to New Test­ ament Textual Variants [1998], Gospel of Mark would end with, ended the gospel at v. 8. But it is Bruce Terry—in “APPENDIX: “. . . [they] fled from the sepul­ mentioned that the majority of chre; for they trembled and were MSS include the “longer ending.” The Style of the Long Ending of Further, the footnote also provides Mark”—debunks common mo­ amazed; neither said they any three explanations for other shorter dernistic theories most frequently thing to any man; for they were readings. In summary, modernistic used to discredit vv. 9-20. He afraid”!)

TC methods and theories abound to successfully refutes the focal four rationalize the validity of ‫ א‬B.) arguments, and more.)

Mark 16:9-20 — This passage details the appearance of Jesus after His resurrection: first to Mary Magdalene, then to Cleo­ pas and another disciple, fol­ lowed by to the disciples on three occasions.

NIV

NIV omits the verse, then adds the footnote: “27Some manu­ scripts left, 28and the scripture was fulfilled which says, ‘He was counted with the lawless ones.” (Isaiah 53:12)

The fact is, yes, the two oldest manuscripts (excluding frag­ ments) do not include this pas­ sage. But out of the extant 5,700-plus NT Greek witnes­ ses, only Aleph and B, one cur­ sive, and several other MSS, do not have this passage, plus the Sinaitic. What is more, three of (In the NA27 critical apparatus, the earliest five manuscripts do moderns use 25 notation lines to include the passage! “Earliest discredit the last 12 verses. All manuscripts” refers to what manner of theories and postula­ tions, however, do not overturn the conservative biblical scholars (for 500 years) have labeled, in bottom line: overwhelming evi­ fact, as two of the three mostdence of authenticity. The vast majority of NT Greek, 29 specific corrupt extant “old uncials”— uncials [incl. A C D], nine OL, the Aleph and B. Aleph and B are the only uncials omitting these Vulgate, most Syriac, all Coptic, verses. and four versions confirm them.)

The NIV also includes the pas­ sage, but questions its authenticity by placing the following content in brackets, between verses 8 and 9: “The earliest manuscripts and some other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20.”

KJV Luke 1:28 — “And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.”

NET

NASB

NET reads: “The angel came to NASB reads: “. . . Greetings her and said, “Greetings, favored favored one! The Lord is with you.” one, the Lord is with you!”

(Based mostly on the Westcott(The first note says that “and,” to Hort 1870 text, Tischendorf’s 1872 start the verse, has been dropped [eighth], and Bernhard Weiss’ “because of differences between 1903 [NA3], the Nestle-Aland Greek and English style.” Moderns [Novum Testamentum Graece] prefer to eliminate conjunctions text was formed. Eberhard Nestle wherever possible—as do ‫א‬, A, published the first edition in 1898. and B. As for the last sentence, the Essentially, the content of this text translators admit that the MS was based upon Vaticanus B and majority includes it, yet refer to it Sinaiticus [Í]. But the W-H text as having “the earmarks of a scri­ was used to formulate the 1881 bal addition for balance.” Aleph ERV, the 1901 ASV, the 1946 RSV and B again are called the “most [among 14 others]—then, later, the important witnesses.” Yet A, C, D, NASB. Thus the last sentence re­ Ë13, and 33 oppose their reading!) moved from corrupt manuscripts!)

Luke 2:14 — “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.”

NIV NIV reads: “. . .Greetings you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you.”

(The minority texts’ only recourse for omission of eulogēmenē sou en gunaizin, “blessed art thou among women,” are Aleph, B, L [9th], W [6th], Psi [8th or 9th], Family 1 [five mss], uncial 579 [ca. 1250], three numerical majuscules, a few Byzantine mss, and all the Coptic.

Meanwhile, supporting the Ï text are: uncials A, C, D, and Theta; f 13; Alexandrian cursive 33; all Latin; all Syriac.)

Reads: “Glory to God in the high­ Reads: “. . . Glory to God in the est, and on earth peace among highest, And on earth peace people with whom he is pleased!” among men with whom He is pleased.” Footnote reads “Lit of (The note concedes that the major­ good pleasure; or of good will.”

(The Greek in both the NU and ity—a varied one—reads as the Byz. [Maj.]/Textus Receptus reads KJV, yet cites four of its “old un­ (The NA27 refers to the majority anqrώpoiς [an-thrō-pōh-eece]: cials” to support the modern view reading as “an alternative rea­ that God loves only His saved— “men” or “mankind”—that is, ding.” It records that “good will not all people [ʡ“TCGNT 111”]. “people.”) toward men” appears in Í2, B2, L, Further, a similar OL reading is Θ, X [Xi ], Y, Ë1 . 13, and in all used to further defy the majority evidence, supported by its being a Syriac and Bohairic, as well as in “more difficult” variant.) the Ï text.)

Reads: “. . . Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace to men on whom his favor rests.”

Luke 2:43 — “And when they had fulfilled the days, as they re­ turned, the child Jesus tarried be­ hind in Jerusalem; and Joseph and his mother knew not of it.”

The NIV is equally divergent from its own source texts: “After the feast was over, while his par­ ents were returning home , . . .”

(Also in verse 33.)

NET: “But when the feast was over, as they were returning home, the boy Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem. His parents did not know it, . . .” (“Home” is not in the Greek, but was supplied for clarity—unnece­ ssarily. Despite acknowledging the opposing majority, the note quan­ tifies with “especially later ones,” then claims that the opposing read­ ing is “motivated” “to insulate the doctrine of the virgin conception of our Lord.” A, B, and D support the above.)

The NASB, also relying on co­ dices Aleph and B (plus only el­ even others), provides another loose “translation”: “But his par­ ents were unaware of it.”

(All three Greek texts read the same, yet the translators evidently have inserted “feast” in verse 43 to clarify the circumstances—not the meaning. The NA refers to Iēsous o pais, “the boy Jesus,” as an “alternative reading”! )

PROBLEM The Majority text reads: “. . .

Rejoice, favored woman, the Lord is with you, blessed are you among women.” “The angel” even is omitted by the NA text. But 16 other uncials— not mentioned in the NA appa­ ratus because of their alleged unimportance—also support the former clause. Uncials B, L, W, Theta, X, Y, plus 565, 1241, a few cursives, all Sahi­ dic, and part of the Bohairic support omission of “the an­ gel.” When including the Ma­ jority text, the evidence for inclusion of both aforemen­ tioned is conclusive.

Firstly, the majority of MSS have Greek text very closely matching the KJV reading.

Secondly, the “modern” read­ (Supporting the NA-UBS appar­ ing, derived from four of the atuses are only Aleph [Í ], A, B, D, earliest five MSS, is incorrect, simply based on biblical doct­ W, a few Byzantine mss, and the rine. God wishes good will to Sahidic [with some variation].)

ALL PEOPLE! (See Matt.

18:11; Luke 19:10; Rom. 5:6; 2 Cor. 5:14, 15; 1 Tim. 2:1; 4, 6.)

The “Majority text” (also “Byzantine,” “Traditional,” “Antiochian,” “Constantino­ politan,” or “Ecclesiastical”) reads “Joseph and his mother , .

(The NU text reads goneis, “par­ . .” as it should. Joseph was ents,” but the Byz. text, 85%-plus NOT Jesus’ real father! God the Father is Jesus’ father! (“Par­ of extant Greek, holds the fort, ents” is probably a ruse to es­ plus: A; C; Psi; 0130 [ca. 850]); cape controversy, as some var­ 13 Ë ; the OL; the Syriac Peshitta and Harclean. Opposing are: Í; B; iants read “father.”) Mary birthed Jesus. Joseph was an D; L; W & Θ; Ë1 ; 33, 579, 700 & earthly surrogate father. He did 1241; the OL/Vulgate [Itala]; the not provide the “seed” of Sahidic; more.

Christ; the Holy Spirit did!

KJV

NET

NASB

Luke 4:4 — “And Jesus an­ swered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.”

NET reads: “Jesus answered him, NASB reads: “And Jesus an­ ‘It is written, “Man does not live swered him, ‘It is written, “MAN by bread alone.”’”

SHALL NOT LIVE ON BREAD ALONE.”’” (By only the support of MSS Aleph [Sinaitic] and Vatican [B], plus L and W, a few cursives, the Sahidic, (The absence of “but by every the Syriac Sinaitic, plus the “late” word of God” possibly might be (Also see Matthew 4:3, 4.)

Alexandrian cursive 1241 [12th], an error of haplography—a scribal the remainder is omitted. Yet the (“Utterances,” or “sayings,” is a error of omission because of dis­ note reads “most” rather than “the traction from copying, or simple more-accurate translation here, vast majority”! The “longer end­ because the Greek is rhmati fatigue. Otherwise, it is either a ing” is referred to as an “assim­ direct copying from a corrupt [rhēmati (ray-mah-tee)], which ilation to Matt. 4:4.” The note also does not mean Christ [logos ] or includes, “There is no good reason scribal exemplar [source ms], or a specific Scripture, but Scripture in why the scribes would omit the rest scribal interpolation [insertion] based on personal belief.) general.) of the quotation here.” [??])

Luke 9:35 — “And there came a voice out of the cloud, saying, This is my beloved Son: hear him.”

(Also see Matthew 3:17.)

Luke 9:56 — “For the Son of man is not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them. And they went on to another village.”

Reads: “Then a voice came from the cloud, saying, ‘This is my Son, my Chosen One. Listen to him!’”

(The footnote says that “most mss” have the reading at left, yet they are quantified as “especially later ones,” and are relegated to “assim­ ilation” status, to Matt. 17:5 and Mark 9:7. Nevertheless, the Ma­ jority reading is supported by their favored codices A and C, plus W, Ë13, 33, and many of the OL. Op­ posing are ‫א‬, B, L, and cursives 892 [9th] and 1241 [12th], plus third-century papyri Ì45 . 75.)

NET: “. . . and they went on to another village.”

NIV

PROBLEM

NIV reads: “Jesus answered, ‘It Two of the oldest five extant is written: “Man does not live on Greek NT MSS, Í and B, omit “but by every word of God.” bread alone.”’”

However, another two of the earliest five, A and D, include (Again, the footnote only attributes the phrase. The Majority text the quotation to its scriptural ori­ includes the phrase. Without gin in Deut. 8:3. But the OT scrip­ these words the meaning is tural reference is truncated! Deut. incomplete: What else does he 8:3 reads, “. . . man does not live live by? Man certainly must by bread only, but by every word live by the Word of God, lest that proceeds out of the mouth of he be hopelessly lost. Also supporting the Ï are Θ, Ψ, and the LORD does man live.”)

0102, plus the Peshitta/Harc­ lean, all Latin, Ë1 . 13, cursive 33, and more.

Reads: “. . .This is my Son, My Chosen One; listen to Him.”

Reads: “. . .This is my Son, whom Only five significant Greek I have chosen; listen to him.” uncials, Ì45 , 75, Aleph, B, and L(Alex.), plus Family 1 (Gk. (Simply a more contemporary but /five mss), four OL, the Syriac (The NA27 labels agapētos [beloved] as an alternative reading. slightly less accurate, longer and Sinaitic (sys), all Coptic As always, the modernistic transla­ less “biblical” variation of the (Egyptian—Sahidic/Bohairic), NASB reading.) tion committees do not wish to three other Greek mss, and a confuse the readers with the facts few Byzantine mss, replace —only to present the Word of God (Note: Numerous Greek uncials “beloved” with some variation often are not mentioned—evi­ based on their own skewed theor­ of “chosen.” The Ï text, dently based on spatial consid­ ies, beliefs, and preferences.) erations—in the NA because mo­ along with uncials A, C, and derns consider them unimportant: W, Ë 13, 33, most OL, and the e.g., E, F, G, H, K, P, R, S, U, Y, Peshitta and Harclean, read X, and several others.) “beloved.”

NASB: Questions the authenti­ city of the last portion of verse 55 and all of verse 56 by sur­ (Many among the Byzantine texttype of mss—not an overwhelming rounding with brackets. No foot­ (Also see Matthew 18:11 and Luke majority—include this verse in its note exists even to explain the full significance of the bracket­ entirety, plus: the TR; seven 19:10.)

1 . 13 ing. uncials; Ë ; several Old Latin (The Hodges-Farstad Majority text [2nd]; the Peshitta; others. TR/other (Single bracketing by modern version [1985] includes the first versions containing this portion sentence unmolested. However, the include: Erasmus/1516; Stephens/ scholars denotes suspicion about verse/passage authenticity. Double Robinson-Pierpont version [2005] 1550; Beza/1598; Elzevir/1633; encloses it in single brackets to plus the Geneva NT/1557; Tyndale bracketing means the material in­ indicate doubt about its authen­ /1526; the 1514/1517 Compluten­ side is considered “highly doubt­ ticity. [??]) ful,” or wholly inauthentic.) sian Polyglot; others.)

NIV: “. . . dand they went to an­ other village.” The footnote reads: d 55, 56 Some manuscripts them And he said, ‘You do not know what kind of spirit you are of, for the Son of Man did not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them.’ 56And” (Also note the context of this verse, which clearly justifies its appearance.)

Again, “some manuscripts” is a profound understatement. The verse is in many cursives, Ë1 . 13, 8 OL, the Vulgate, the Peshitta/ Harclean, 10 specified uncials, more. The NU text does have support of 16 significant un­ cials, plus papyri Ì45 . 75, many of the cursives, the Sahidic, and, not leastly, all five of the “old uncials”: Aleph; A; B; C; D. Also uncials E, G, H, L, S, V, X, Delta [D], Xi [X], Psi [Y], 3 OL, and the Syriac Sinaitic.)

KJV Luke 11:2a — “And he said unto them, When ye pray, say, Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. . . .”

(Also see Matthew 6:9.)

Luke 11:2b — “Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth.”

NET

NIV

Reads: “So he said to them, ‘When you pray, say: “Father, may your name be honor­ ed; . . .”’”

Reads: “And he said to them, ‘When you pray, say: “Father, hallowed be your name. . . .”’”

Footnote reads “Later MSS add (The committee again refers to the phrases from Matt 6:9-13 to overall majority of MSS as “most make the two passages closely mss,” then states “including later similar.” majority [Ï].” These include sev­ eral uncials and cursives usually (This subjective remark in the used for minority defense. About 10 MSS are called “more weigh­ footnote is little more than mod­ ty,” and harmonization to Matt. 6:9 ernistic conjecture—nothing more is cited—all to defy “which art in than an unproven theory regarding gospel “harmonization”!) heaven.”)

Reads: “He said to them, ‘When you pray, say: “Father, hallowed be your name, your kingdom a come . . .”’” Footnote reads “ 2 Some manuscripts Our Father in heaven.”

NASB: “Your kingdom come.”

Footnote reads: “11:2 1 Later (The committee relegates 11:2b to MSS add phrases from Matt 6:9harmonization to Matt. 6:10! Then 13 to make the two passages comes the modernistic attestation closely similar.” to its text-critical devices: “The shorter reading is found, however, (A theory commonly held by in weighty MSS [Ì75 B L pc ], and modern biblical scholars—“har­ cannot be easily explained as arising from the longer reading.” monization.” Modernists have invented an entire vernacular in Modern critics embrace the rule that the reading that is believed to defense of their clearly corrupted explain its alternative is probably manuscript base.) correct—usually the shorter. [??])

NIV: “. . . your kingdom come.”b b 2 Some manuscripts come. May your will be done on earth as it is in heaven.”

NET: “. . . may your kingdom come.”

Luke 18:28 — “And Peter said, NET reads: “And Peter said, Lo, and we have left all, and fol­ ‘Look, we have left everything we own to follow you!’” lowed thee.”

(Also see Matthew 19:27.)

NASB

(The Greek source reads, “See [or “look,” “lo,” or “behold], we have left our homes and followed you.”

The essential difference here is the use of idia [“our own,” “our homes,” “our possessions”] in the NU Greek versus panta [“all”] in the Ï. Hence, “everything we own,” although a condensed En­ glish equivalent, is not a literal translation. Further, no footnote exists to cite the evidence for the opposing readings. What is to be made of this evidential absence?)

The Majority text reads “Our Father in the heavens . . . Let your kingdom come, let Your will be done as in heaven also upon the earth.” Not some ma­ nuscripts—the vast majority!

Furthermore, uncials A, C, D, (“Some manuscripts” is highly deceptive. The NA27 calls “Our W, Θ, Y, and 070, Family 13 Father . . . heaven” an alternative (13 cursives), cursive 33 reading. But it is supported by (some doubt) and many Old overwhelming testimony! Only 75 1 Ì , ‫א‬, B, L, uncials 1 and 700, Ë , Latin (“it”), plus nearly all the the Vulgate, a few Byzantines, and Syriac, and all Coptic, support the Byzantine text. the Syriac Sinaitic oppose. )

(Again, “some manuscripts” is a monumental understatement. The NA27 labels elthēto a Basileia sou [“thy kingdom come”] an alter­ native reading, then omits the remainder of the verse, citing Ì75, B, L, numerical minuscule 1, the Vulgate, the Syriac Sinaitic [4th] and Curetonian [5th], and a few Byzantine MSS for support.)

NASB reads: “And Peter said, NIV reads: “Peter said to him, ‘We have left all we had to follow ‘We have left all we had to fol­ you!’” low you!’”

(There still is a difference between “all we had” and “all.” “All we had,” as attested to by the Greek idia, refers to possessions—as better indicated by the NET’s “everything we own.” Opposingly, panta simply means “all”— possessions, relationships, way of life, philosophies, etc. In the NASB, “all we had” is a compro­ mise of the minority Greek to nonspecifically appear to favor “all” without explicitly saying so.)

PROBLEM

The vast majority of manu­ scripts support the KJV read­ ing: the Ï text (all of them cursives, as always); A; C; D; W; Θ; 070; Y; Ë13; 33; many Old Latin; the Peshitta/Harc­ lean; the Curetonian; all Cop­ tic. Note that “later” uncials (6th-9th) support the KJV by a margin of 80.2% to 19.8%!

(Nearly one quarter [24.2%] of all NT Greek uncials are Byzantine, as well.)

True to form, the NET does not cite evidence when incon­ venient to its cause. The NASB and NIV, though close (As seen in the NASB note, at to their underlying Greek immediate left, “all we had” is a sources, still are not entirely more socially palatable way of accurate thereto (“styliza­ expressing “everything,” or “all” tion”). The Ï text is support­ without specifically saying so. ed by Í, A, W, Y, 33, two Old This is a compromise between the Latin, the Latin Vulgate, and Greek terms, one that soothes the the Peshitta and Harclean. contemporary reader’s mind—a Supporting the critical text are less direct and extreme termino­ Í2, B, L, 892 (9th), three Old logy and message. A shameful Latin, a few Byz. cursives, concession to a “lukewarm” and the Coptic Bohairic. public.)

KJV

NET

NASB

NIV

Luke 21:36 — “Watch ye there­ fore, and pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy to es­ cape all these things that shall come to pass, and to stand before the Son of man.”

NET reads: “But stay alert at all times, praying that you may have strength to escape all these things that must happen, and to stand before the Son of Man.”

NASB reads: “But keep on the alert at all times, praying that you may have strength to escape all these things that are about to take place, and to stand before the Son of Man.”

NIV reads: “Be always on the watch, and pray that you may be able to escape all that is about to happen, and that you may be able to stand before the Son of Man.”

(“Be accounted worthy . . .” means that the redeemed, the children of God, should live sanctified lives which exude the “fruit of the Spir­ it”—a signal to the world that they already have been justified and re­ deemed through God’s grace.

These should be lives ordered after Christ’s—lives consistent with God’s requirements for those already justified through faith in His Son. [Ephesians 2:8, 9])

(The Greek agrupneite [ag-roopnigh-teh] means “be awake,” and “watch,” so “stay alert, though an implication of the literal transla­ tion, is borderline acceptable. “. . .

May have strength to escape” appears in only about 45 of the extant NT Greek MSS. This reading—with the Greek katis­ cusηte [kah-tis-coo´-say-teh], here “to prevail,” or “to be superior in strength”—defies the pretribulational Rapture! [See NASB note.] The NET provides no footnote, probably because its preferred reading is outnumbered by such convincing testimony: Majority text [Ï]; A; C; L; W; Theta; Psi; Ë1 . 13; 33; the OL/ Vulgate [“lat”]; two other versions.

Minority support: ‫ ;א‬B; L; T; W; Psi; 070; f 1; 33; 579; 892; a few Byz.; Coptic.)

Reads: “[Then an angel from heaven appeared to him and strengthened him. And in his anguish he prayed more earnestly, and his sweat was like drops of blood falling to the ground.]”

(Note that this particular reading nullifies the pre-tribulational Rap­ ture! The implied result is, as this verse reads in the NASB, that those saved before the Great Tribulation still must endure it! Al­ ternatively, the implication is that, through prayer, the redeemed through Christ may be able to “hide themselves” from the Anti­ christ’s wrath. The NA27 apparatus reads that katiscushte, “to have power,” “to have strength,” or “to overpower.” The only other support for this reading—beyond that at immediate left—is cursive 1241 (Alexandrian/1150 AD). The correct reading is kataxioqηte, “to be accounted worthy.”)

The minority Greek sources for the modern versions support their readings but are incorrect. The Majority text reads, “Watch therefore in every time praying that you may be accounted worthy to escape all the things being (Once again, the source Greek about to happen, and to stand here nullifies the pre-tribulational before the Son of Man.” The Rapture! The NIV reading also NET, NASB and NIV nullify misrepresents the source text with the pre-tribulational Rapture, “. . . that you may be able to seeming to indicate that ardent stand,” possibly indicating that prayer and watchfulness may some meritorious human behavior —it is hoped—deliver be­ may lead to believers’ redeemed lievers from the Antichrist’s appearance before Christ. Notice deadly persecution. But the the difference in the KJV: “and to pre-tribulational Rapture is biblical! See these passages: stand , . . .” rather than “. . . may Luke 17:34-36; 1 Corin. 15:51, be able to stand.” No Greek 52; 1 Thess. 4:15-17; Rev. minority text support exists for “that you may be able to stand.”) 3:10. It is scriptural fact that those accepting Christ as Savior before the Tribulation begins will be taken to heaven “to meet the Lord in air” (1 Thess. 4:17).

Verses are included without note. Verses are included and the foot­ note reads: “Some early manu­ (Nevertheless, the NASB still uses scripts do not have verses 43 and the Greek osei, meaning “like,” 44.” “as,” “as it were” [had been], “as though,” or “like as” —a meta­ (Minority support for omission phorical reference rather than comprises: Aleph-1; Ì45; A; B; N; (Bracketing indicates suspicion literal—concerning Christ’s blood about authenticity. The Greek T; W; uncials 579 [ca. 1250 AD] falling to the ground; gon (“As it were,” in this context, does qromboi [thromboi ] means “a and 1071 [ca. 1150]; and ℓ 844 [ca.

—“ground,” “earth,” “dirt,” etc.) large thick drop, esp. of clotted not signify that the intensity of 861]; and a few Byzantine MSS. Christ’s angst compares his sweat blood.” [See left.] These verses are Versional support comes from the drops to blood, as a simile, based included in ‫[ א‬Aleph] and Aleph-2, (The NA27 includes vv. 43-44, but Sinaitic Syriac [4th], Sahidic [3rd or D, L, Theta [Θ], Psi [Ψ], 0171 on the subjunctive tense. Rather, puts them in double brackets to 4th], part of the Bohairic [3rd or 4th], [Western, 4th cent.]), Ë1, Ï, and the Greek word egeneto [from indicate certainty that they are and one Old Latin manuscript.) more. TC rules invalidate, despite spurious.) ginomai]—combined with the admission “. . . It is very likely thromboi, “great blood drop”— that such verses recount a part of means His sweat literally “be­ came” blood, or mingled with it.) the actual suffering of our Lord.”

Luke 22:43, 44 — “And there appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him. And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground.”

PROBLEM

Yes, some early manuscripts, including at least three of the oldest (including two ancient papyrus fragments), omit these verses—among a total of nineplus Greek in opposition to the Byzantine. But the vast major­ ity include the verses, including two of the earliest five Greek MSS. Jesus was God, but He also was such in human form: 100% divine and 100% human.

In His humanity, he felt angst and needed strength. This did not render Him less than God. Other support comes from most of the Latin, most of the Syriac, and part of the Bohairic.

KJV Luke 22:64 — “And when they had blindfolded him, they struck him on the face, and asked him, saying, Prophesy, who is it that smote thee?”

NET Reads: “They blindfolded him and asked him repeatedly, “Prophesy! Who hit you?”

(Classically for the NET committee, it makes as many (Also see Matthew 26:68 and contemporary stylistic changes as Mark 14:65.) possible, here: It removes the conjunction kai [stylization]; (Note that the KJV committee fail­ changes the voice and tense of ed to precisely correctly translate epērōtōn [“asked repeatedly”]; and this verse, adding “they” in the omits legontes [redundant]. On first instance, and also adding the positive side, a “study note” “when.” The team also used the [sn] is included that reads, “Who wrong tenses for “blindfolded” and “struck.” “. . . Were striking” hit you? This is a variation of one is correct [etupton]—imperfect of three ancient games that third-person plural indicative; involved blindfolds.” The NET “having blindfolded” [perika­ often does include interesting luφantes] is correct—aorist informative notes such as this one third-person plural participle.)

—yet it neglects scriptural purity.)

Luke 23:34 — “Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. And they parted his raiment, and cast lots.”

NET: [But Jesus said, ‘Father, forgive them, for they don’t know what they are doing.’] Then they threw dice to divide his clothes.”

NASB Reads: “. . . And they blindfolded Him and were asking Him, say­ ing, ‘Prophesy, who is the one who hit You?’” (The Zondervan Greek and Eng­ lish Interlinear New Testament [NASB/NIV], which is based on the UBS Greek, does not renounce the Majority or TR readings dir­ ectly, by including this footnote: “a autou to prosopon, kai included by TR after eparoton” [“on the face, and” . . . after “were asking . . .”]. Hence, the translators did not deny the reading out­ rightly. However, they footnoted it using Greek, making it both cryp­ tic and almost unnoticeable to nearly anyone not fluent in Greek.)

NASB: “But Jesus was saying, ‘Father, forgive them; for they do not know what they are doing.’

And they cast lots, dividing up his garments among them­ (Bracketing indicates modernistic selves.”

(NKJV footnote reads: “NU-Text suspicion of authenticity. In part brackets the first sentence as a lat­ the footnote reads, “Many im­ (Note the consistency, by absence, er edition.” NU refers to the cur­ portant MSS [Ì75 Í1 B D* W Θ between this verse and Mark s rent, naturalistic “critical text,” an 070 579 1241 pc sy sa] lack v.

11:26: The modern versions omit 34a.” Again, many is a superlative the Luke 23:34a reference to Je­ apparatus containing editorial exaggeration! “Important”? The changes incorporated into the sus’ forgiveness of His murderers, notators insist that P75 [Aleph as well as omit Mark 11:16, God’s Scriptures by modernists of the 1 pred.], Í , B, D, W, Theta, 070 [ca. charge for humans to forgive one th th, th st 18 , 19 , 20 , and 21 centuries.) 550], 579 [ca. 1250], 1241 [ca. another. The NA27 apparatus says 1150], pc [“a few” Byz. cursives], that v. 23a is a parallelism—to the Syriac Sinaitic, and the Sahidic are “many”—and that their “eclec­ Acts 7:60, according to a NET ticism” combines to establish their note—based on all of the minority supremacy. No! They argue both witnesses listed at immediate left. ways, then state, “Further, there is But, again, this modernistic theory is just that, and has no basis in the great difficulty of explaining actual proof! This verse can be why early and diverse witnesses lack the saying.” Readers must be only an extremely vague reference to Stephen’s plea for mercy to his confused by this introduced doubt!) murderers!)

NIV

PROBLEM

Reads: “They blindfolded him and The NET, NASB, and NIV demanded, ‘Prophesy! Who hit omit any reference to the actual you?’” contact point [the face] of the beating. The Majority text (In the interlinear referred to at reads, “And blindfolding him, immediate left, underneath the they were striking him on the Greek“proφήteuson” (pro­ face and were asking Him, saying . . .” Only eight speci­ phēteuson — prof-ay΄-too-sun), fied Greek uncials of the 5,700meaning “prophesy,” the trans­ lators chose the word “tell”—how plus extant Greek mss support pedestrian and inappropriate. the modern reading, plus many Within this context the English cursives, and the Bohairic. word prophesy is clearly the cor­ Uncials A, W, Theta (Θ), Psi rect translation. Furthermore, the (Y), Ferrar Group 13 (Ë13/Cae­ NA27 reads that “they were strik­ sarean), most OL and all the ing him on the face and” is a para­ Vulgate, and the Syriac Harc­ llelism to Matt. 26:67, 68 and lean, support the Ï. The NA’s Mark 14:65. Harmonization is central support are Ì75 (3rd), implied. It also reads that “were asking him saying” is an alterna­ Aleph, and B, plus K, L, T, tive reading. But both are support­ 1241, many of the Byzantine minuscules (cursives), and the ed by overwhelming manuscript Bohairic. testimony.)

NIV: e “Jesus said, ‘Father, for­ give them; for they do not know what they are doing.’ And they divided upon his clothes by cast­ ing lots.” Footnote reads: “e 34 Some early manuscripts do not have this sentence.”

(The footnote indicates the entire first part of verse 34 [a] is lacking in some manuscripts. The result is that only the “b” portion, the second half, “And they divided up his clothes by casting lots,” exists in these aforementioned manuscripts. This is a heinous omission!

And, again, this omission is sup­ ported by two of moderns’ favorite “old uncials,” B and D—clearly among the proven most-corrupt majuscules! Note that the morereliable A and C, plus 33, support the Byz. Majority text—and that A is Byz. in the gospels. [Uncial C and 33 also are partly Byzantine.])

The translators in modern ver­ sions claim that this portion of the verse may have been later added by some. Modern trans­ lators also are mitigating God’s command for forgiveness—first by eliminating Jesus’ forgive­ ness for His murderers, then by omitting a reference to biblical human forgiveness of one an­ other. The overwhelming lot of the Majority cursives here are supported by uncials ‫ א‬and Í2, A, C, D2 (2nd corrected), L, Psi, 0250 (ca. 750), Ë1.13, modern­ ists’ favorite cursive, 33 (9th), most Old Latin and all the Vul­ gate, nearly all the Syriac (Peshitta/Harclean/Curetonian), and part of the Bohairic (north­ ern Egyptian). This overall test­ imony is equally as diverse as the minority!

KJV Luke 24:12 — “Then arose Peter, and ran unto the sepulchre; and stooping down he beheld the linen clothes laid by themselves, and departed, wondering in him­ self at that which was come to pass.”

NET NET reads: “But Peter got up and ran to the tomb. He bent down and saw only the strips of linen cloth; then he went home, wondering what had happened.”

(Here is a senseless deviation from what appears in both Greek source (The KJV is a bit idiomatic, here, texts: the translators using the English “went home” despite the with “and stooping down he be­ held,” rather than “and stooping to Greek reading apelthen, “to go look in,” but the phraseology is in­ off,” or “to depart.” “Went home” here is mere speculation that mo­ consequential to the meaning.

Nevertheless, the English transla­ dern translators and text critics commonly advocate and imple­ tion should be more accurate!) ment in contemporary English versions. Frequently, NET notes refer to a reading being used in other modern versions. The nota­ tors admit that the Greek means “went away, wondering to him­ self,” yet they deviate. Then, in note six of six, they cast doubt on the authenticity of the entire verse by referring to its absence from Western and “many” OL mss!)

Luke 24:40 — “And when he Reads: “When he had said this, had thus spoken, he shewed them he showed them his hands and his feet.” his hands and his feet.”

(Also see John 20:20.)

(The NET committee makes no note of its removal of the con­ junction kai [here “and”], as it did in Luke 1:28. Again, moderns normally oppose translation of conjunctions that start sentences.

The footnote reads, “Some West­ ern MSS [D it] lack 24:40. How­ ever, it is present in all other mss, including Ì75, and should thus be regarded as an original part of Luke’s Gospel.” Once again, why confuse the reader—especially over no more than 13+ specific mss? [“It” is most of Old Latin.])

NASB NASB reads: “But Peter got up and ran to the tomb; stooping and looking in, he saw the linen wrappings only; and he went away to his home, marveling at what had happened.”

(The Greek parakupsas [par-akoop´-sos] means both “to stoop down” and “to look into.” “Only” is a poor translation of mόna [mah´-nah], which means “alone.”)

NIV NIV reads: “Peter, however, got up and ran to the tomb. Bending over, he saw the strips of linen lying by themselves, and he went away, wondering to himself what had happened.” Footnote reads “Some manuscripts do not in­ clude this verse.”

The Ï text reads: “and stoop­ ing to look in . . . and he went off to himself marveling . . .”

The problem with the modern versions, here, is that their readings simply are incorrect!

Supporting the Majority— according to J.A. Moorman’s apparatus—are moderns’ fav­ orite manuscripts, Aleph (Í) and B, plus their highly est­ (“Some manuscripts”? Yes— eemed Ì75 papyrus. In addition, 27 according to the NA [D, Itala] codices A (5th), E (6th), F (9th), and Moorman’s digest [D, a few G (9th), H (9th), K (9th), L (9th), Byz. cursives, six OL]. According M (8th), S (10th), U (9th), V (9th), W (5th) and X (10th) support the to the UBS4, however, only D 27 Majority text reading, as well omits the verse. The NA notes that numerous MSS have the verse as nine other specified Greek Peshitta and with minor variants—such as in­ mss, plus the 1.13 Harclean, Ë , the Sahidic and clusion or omission of keimena Bohairic, three OL, all the Vul­ [kigh´-meh-nah], “laying” [“linen gate, and more. Only “some” cloth”].) source mss, led by Codex D, oppose the Byzantine reading.

Moderns have abandoned their revered “earliest manuscripts.”

Why—external pressure, per­ haps? They like to have it both ways.

Reads: “And when He had said Reads: “When he had said this, this, He showed them His hands he showed them his hands and feet.” and His feet.”

(The NASB translators’ source texts, the NU [NA27 and UBS4], include verse 40, with overwhelm­ ing support. Yet the Zondervan Greek and English Interlinear New Testament [NASB/NIV] fol­ lows several individual critical texts by completely omitting the verse from the Greek [and without note]: Westcott-Hort [1870]— highly doubtful; Tischendorf [1872]—omitted; Tregelles [1857] —doubtful. Why would they do this? B includes the verse. Were they perhaps going by W-H?)

PROBLEM

(Regarding the NET footnote, con­ cerning moderns’ preference for removing or changing conjunc­ tions, Tischendorf—who produced eight NT critical editions in the mid-1800’s—indicted himself by authoring an 1869 comparison of the AV NT with variants from Í, A, and B. Results reveal these “hal­ lowed” MSS contrary in at least 777^ places! [e.g., “for” for “and,” “now” for “and,” “then” for “and,” “now” for “therefore,” etc.] The author personally counted these!)

Only the corrupt Codex D (Bezae) represents the Greek minority! In addition, just six Old Latin (2nd), and the Syriac Sinaitic (4th) and Curetonian (5th) versions, omit this verse, plus a few Byz. Greek cursives.

Those that include it are the Ï cursives, 22 significant uncials (including Aleph and B) and six other Greek, Ì75, the Pe­ shitta/Harclean, all the Vulgate, and all the Coptic. Regarding the other modern “Bibles” cited here, they are similar to the Majority text, but their source text does not contain Verse 40 —a shameful contradiction!

KJV

NET

NASB

Luke 24:47 — “And that repent­ ance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.”

NET: “. . . and repentance for the forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem.”

NASB: “. . . And that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerus­ alem.”

(The Byzantine Ï text and Textus Receptus [Erasmus 1516, Estienne 1550, Beza 1598, Elzevir 1633, etc.] each read kai, “and” [“repen­ tance and forgiveness”] in this context. Nearly every Reformation -era New Testament reads “and,” rather than “for” [eij] in this context.)

(The Greek for the verse in both source texts [Byz./NA] reads almost identically. However, “should be proclaimed,” in the KJV—and “would be proclaim­ ed,” here—is a slightly adrift translation of the Greek keruch­ thenai, which is in the aorist pas­ sive infinitive. Literally, it should read “is to be proclaimed.” The major difference, though, is the NU’s “for” in place of “and.”)

(Despite the fact that the NA27 reads kai [here “and,” but always a conjunction], the translators use “for” between repentance and forgiveness. Why? Because their corrupt favorite uncials and papyrus use eis [here “for,” but always a preposition]: ‫ ;א‬B; and Ì75. Also reading eis are the UBS and the critical editions of Westcott-Hort, Tischendorf [8th ed.], and Weiss [3rd ed.]. These editions directly underlie the NU!)

John 1:18 — “No man hath seen God at any time; the only begot­ ten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.”

NET reads: “No one has ever seen NASB reads: “No one has seen God. The only one, himself God, God at any time; the only begot­ who is in closest fellowship with the Father, has made God known.” ten God who is in the bosom of

(Two footnotes use 564 words to justify alteration of “only begotten” [monogenēs ] to the inaccurate “only one.” The note reads that (The Greek monogenes means “only-born” or “only,” specifically monogenēs [H]uios [“only begotton is incorrect, despite the vast in the sense referring to the unique Son”] majority of evidence for it. What identity of God’s Son—p. 2116, opposes? Moderns’ Ì75, [Í* ?]

Strong’s Complete Word Study (original), Í1, [B ?], [C ?], [D* ?], [L ?], 33, and a few cursives only.

Concordance.)

“Himself God” is not explained.

The note reads, “Internally, al­ though uáoς fits the immediate context more readily, Qeoς is much more difficult.” [?])

John 3:13 — “And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.”

(Removing the last verse portion ignores the fact that Christ eternally remains in heaven.)

the Father, He has explained Him.”

(“ . . . God” is incorrect here. As for the Byz. reading, most editions of the Majority text err here by using the term “explained” rather than “revealed.” The KJV’s “declared” is closer to precisely correct. How­ ever, in this unique context, accord­ ing to the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament [one volume, abridged], only here is the correct usage “revealed” [no object].)

NIV NIV: “. . . And repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all na­ tions, beginning at Jerusalem.”

(The NIV translators have relied upon the NA27 edition—which reads identically to the Majority/ TR here—for their translation.

“And” between repentance and forgiveness is correct. [However, the UBS4 reads eij [“for”] rather than kai [“and”]. The reason for this discrepancy is that although the primary sources for the NU text are the W-H 1870 and Tis­ chendorf 1872—both reading “eis”—the UBS is less critical.)

PROBLEM Although the Greek reading (kai ) underlying these modern versions is the same, notice how the NET and NASB de­ viate. Without repentance and remission of sins, the intima­ tion is that “acts of penance,” apart from forgiveness of sins, can achieve salvation. Repen­ tance and remission are dif­ ferent acts! The Ï cursives, uncials A, C, D, L, W, Θ, Ψ, Ë1 . 13 , all the Latin, and the Harc­ lean and Sinaitic, dominate.

Only Í, B, Ì75, the Peshitta, and the Coptic, oppose.

The Ï text reads “only begotten Son.” A, C3, Θ, Ψ, Ë1.13, most OL and the Vulgate, plus the Harclean, are correct. Greek in the Alexandrians reads “only begotten God,” or “the only begotten God.” No. 1: “Only Son” ignores reference to Jesus’ (The only opposition to the Ma­ unique status as God’s incar­ jority and its supporters here are nate Son in the flesh (according Ì66, [Ì75 ?], Aleph, [Aleph-1 to Greek). No. 2: “Only begot­ 1 (Í ) ?], B, C, L, [33 ?], and a few Byz. cursives. [NOTE: Just as in ten God” originates from early the NET note, some witnesses have Gnostic heresy about types of been set here with question marks lower deities (“aeons”) and the because it is impossible to deter­ belief that Jesus was a “created mine—based on the English trans­ deity.” No. 3: “God the one and Only” does not uniquely refer to lation—which Greek variant Jesus as God the Father’s Son. reading was the source.])

NIV reads: “No one has ever seen God, but God the one and Only, who is at the Father’s side, has made him known.” Footnotes read: “14,18 Or the only begotten.

18 Some manuscripts but the only (or only begotten) Son.”

Reads: “No one has ascended into Reads: “No one has ascended into Reads: “No one has ever gone heaven except the one who de­ into heaven except the one who heaven, but He who descended scended from heaven—the Son of from heaven: the Son of Man.” came from heaven—the Son of Man.” d d

The minority Greek removes reference to the fact that since His ascension, Jesus has been and will remain in heaven for­ Man. ” Footnote reads: “ 13 (Part of the note reads, “Most wit­ (Only 10 specified Greek MSS Some manuscripts Man, who is evermore. Support for the KJV: Ï text; 18 significant uncials nesses, including a few important support this reading: Ì66 . 75 [3rd]; in heaven.” (incl. A, Θ, Ψ); all Latin; Ë1 . 13 ones [A[*] Θ Ψ 050 Ë1 . 13 Ï latt Í; B; L; T [ca. 450]; 33 [ca. 850]; c,p,h (The NU Greek reads anabebēken, (Caes./18 mss); the Syriac sy ], have at the end of this Peshitta, Harclean, and Cure­ verse “the one who is in heaven . . 083 [ca. 600]; 086 [ca. 550]; and “ascended,” and katabas´, “de­ 1241 [ca. 1150]—plus a few of the scended,” yet the English is so tonian (5th), and part of the Bo­ . .” Yet the “longer reading” is cursives, and the Coptic.) called “too hard.” [??]) pedantic—“gone” and “came.”) hairic (bopt).

KJV

NET

NASB

John 3:15 — “That whosoever believeth in him should not per­ ish, but have eternal life.”

NET reads: “. . . so that everyone NASB reads: “So that whoever who believes in him may have believes will in Him have etern­ eternal life.” al life.” Footnote reads: e 15 Or believes may have eternal life in (Critical substance in the note (“Should,” “may” or “will” [have] reads, “Some interpreters extend him.” the quotation of Jesus’ words to v. (“. . . Will in him” is incorrect —Gk. έχω [ekh´-ō]— are used variously in different versions of 21.” What? What argument could according to the NU, Majority and the Textus Receptus, Majority text deny the full length to v. 21, or the TR. Why the changed word order? fact that they all are Jesus’ words? and NA/UBS [“NU”].)

A glaring weakness with moderns: . . . iva pas o pisteuon eis auton They emphasize their role as inter­ me apolatai all eche zoen aionion, “. . . That whoever believes in Him preters rather than translators!

Nothing is provided to explain the should not perish, but should [will] have eternal life,” is correct.) absence of “should not perish.”)

NIV

PROBLEM

NIV reads: “That everyone who The modern versions’ Greek believes in Him may have eternal source text reads: “So that everyone who believes in Him life.” may have eternal life.” The ab­ (The NA27 provides the true wit­ sence of the words “should not ness proofs, as often, but it again perish . . .” mitigates the sense, overemphasizes the importance of seeming less harsh for those who do not believe in Christ. its favorite two uncials, other Only 29+ of the extant 5,700Alexandrian uncials, and same plus Greek MSS support this papyri—‫ א‬and B leveraged as the reading. The Ï text (cursives) 36 th 66 . 75 best. Ì and Ì (6 ), L, T, four is supported by Ì63 (6th), A, Θ, numeric uncials, Ë1, two OL, the Ψ, 016, 063, Ë13, most OL and Curetonian, Coptic, and a few all the Vulgate, and nearly all Syriac.

Byz. MSS pitted against the Ï.)

John 5:4 — “For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had.”

The last portion of v. 3b and all of v. 4 are bracketed to indicate sus­ picion about validity. Footnote reads: “5:3 Early MSS do not contain the remainder of v 3, nor v 4.”

This verse omitted. Footnote reads: “Some less important manuscripts paralyzed—and they waited for the moving of the waters. From time to time an an­ gel of the Lord would come down (This designation is fallacious. The (This notorious omission, depend­ and stir up the waters. The first note defends the correct reading: one into the pool after each such ent largely upon four of the five “The majority of later MSS [C3 Θ 66 “old uncials” [‫א‬ B C D ], plus Ì disturbance would be cured of Ψ 078 Ë1 . 13 Ï] add [the words].”

75 whatever disease he had.” and Ì , is a fortuitous opportunity But the note degrades the Ï with for theological modernists simply “later mss,” despite defense by Θ Ψ (The footnote not only denies Ë1 . 13, MSS moderns often use for to deny the miraculous in the their defense. “Few textual scholars Bible. Many contemporary biblical God’s divine power, but also refers scholars and theologians embrace to the Majority text as “less im­ today would accept . . . any por­ this unbelieving position. Other tion . . . for they are not found in manuscripts”! Both the the earliest and best witnesses support are 33, 3 OL, the Cureton­ portant 27 NA and the UBS4 omit v. 4.) [Ì66.75 ‫ א‬B C* T pc co] . . . .”) ian, the Coptic, a few cursives.)

Supporting the Ï text are 20 significant uncials (incl. A C3 [ca. 9th cent.] L Θ Ψ) Ë1 . 13, the Peshitta and Harclean, many Old Latin and all the Vulgate.

Omission of these words removes the divine miracle in the healing of those immersed in the pool! Moderns are prone to accept this unbelieving view, using textual criticism as a science to disprove the miracu­ lous! Modern TC methods show a clear derivation from the first such critic, Origen, a learned scholar and prolific writer who also remained the greatest heretic in the church!

John 6:47 — “Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.”

Reads: “Truly, truly, I say to you, Reads: “I tell you the truth, he he who believes has eternal life.” who believes has everlasting life.”

(Text-critical scholars use five of (The NA27 apparatus indicates that their favorite Greek MSS to de­ (Notators admit that “most wit­ nesses . . . have ‘in me’ . . . . ,” but eiς eme [“in me”] is an insertion fend their reading: Ì66 . 75 vid; ‫ ;א‬B; they call them “predictable var­ based upon what amounts to the and C—plus L, T, W, Θ, and uncial iants” motivated by scribal ten­ overwhelming majority of extant 892 [ca. 850]. Note that the critical dencies “toward greater explicit­ witnesses! It is interesting that the sign “vid” follows Papyri 75 [Ì75], ness.” They usually argue for the 4 UBS —apparently in the face of meaning that “the reading of a accuracy of scribal copying, but when “errors” suit their position, the monumentally defiant evidence witness cannot be determined with they criticize the copyists. Further, —has no note or symbol at all to absolute certainty.” They refer to these MSS as the “earliest and three of moderns’ hallowed MSS, flag this so-called “insertion.”)

A, D, and 33, support the Byz.) best.”)

The Majority text reads, “Truly, truly, I say to you, the one believing in me has eternal life.” Without “in me” the verse does not refer to that in which belief must be held! The KJV is supported by the Ï cur­ sives, 17 significant uncials (incl. A C2 D D Ψ), Ë1 . 13, min­ uscule 33, most of the Latin, the Syriac Peshitta and Harc­ lean, and the Sahidic, Bohairic, and Proto-Bohairic (early 4th).

(The vital Greek eỉs èmé, “into me,” “in me,” or “on me,” is lacking in the modern versions.)

Verse 4 is replaced by the committee’s favored [[EMPTY]] to indicate that such material is “early insertions in the textual tradition.” Hence, it is designated as certainly inauthentic.

Reads: “I tell you the solemn truth, the one who believes has eternal life.”

KJV John 8:59 — “Then they took up stones to cast at him: but Je­ sus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.”

(Also see Luke 4:30.)

John 13:32 — “If God be glori­ fied in him, God shall also glori­ fy him in himself, and shall straightway glorify him.”

NET

NASB

Reads: “Then they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and went out from the temple area.”

Reads: “Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him, but Jesus hid Himself and went out of the temple.”

(The NA27 text omits “going through the midst of them, and so passed by.” This is critical because this verse portion indicates that Jesus’ supernatural power allowed him to leave unmolested. The NET uses four—see NASB—of “the best and earliest witnesses” [?] to establish their position that scribes used “amplification” and “paral­ lelism” for the longer reading.)

(Essential opposition to the Ma­ jority comes from papyri Ì66 . 75, Í, B, D, W [5th], and Theta [Θ, 9th].

Nine Old Latin and all the Vulgate [“vg”], the Sinaitic (4th), the Sahi­ dic and the Proto-Bohairic, plus some Byz., also support the minor­ ity Greek. But they are outnumber­ ed by the vast majority of NT Greek and more.)

NET reads: “If God is glorified in him, God will also glorify him in himself, and he will glorify him right away.”

NASB reads: “. . . if God is glorified in Him, God will also glorify Him in Himself, and will glorify Him immediately.”

(Although a NET note admits that the majority of mss—[Í2 A C2 Θ Ψ Ë13 33 Ï lat sa syP]—contain the first clause, the writers use ‫א‬, B, C, and D to establish their argument that explaining accidental scribal omission would be difficult, “and arguments for intentional deletion are not particularly convincing.”

How so? Are we simply to trust?)

(Some of the UBS4’s additional key evidence against including the first clause are: Ì66; L; W; 1; 579; and most OL [it/Itala] manuscripts.

Yet, what moderns essentially re­ cognize as an “insertion” in the Greek they still have decided to in­ clude in the English. Moderns’ de­ cision to be dissuaded by existing opposing evidence is unlikely.)

NIV

PROBLEM

Ï text: “Therefore they picked up stones so that they might throw at Him; but Jesus was hidden and went out of the temple, having gone through (It is significant that Codex Alex­ their midst, and passed by th andrinus [A], of the 5 century, is lumped in with “later witnesses” thus.” The removal of the by the NET committee in suppor­ clause in question omits the di­ ting the “longer reading.” As with vine miracle of Jesus’ super­ natural power (invisibility?). the NASB, here, no footnote is mentioned for any other reading. Lower Christology. The Ï is The UBS4 has the shorter reading, supported directly by 29 speci­ and supports it with copious evi­ fied uncials (incl. A), Families dence—some contrary to NA27— 1/13, 2 OL, and Θc (3rd copy­ for several variants: some by unre­ ist). Opposition is diverse but liable sources, such as Origen.) outnumbered and outclassed.

Reads: “At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds.”

The simple fact is, the majority of Byz. mss support inclusion of the first clause, as well as: 24 specified Greek mss; A; C2 Í2; Θ; Ψ; Ë13; 33; all Vulgate and many OL; the Sahidic; the Peshitta; and part of the Bohai­ (Translators here use “many early” ric. Furthermore, modern scho­ to offset the overwhelming major­ lars have defied their own man­ ity of manuscripts opposing their uscripts in including “If God be minority text. The UBS4 lists 24 glorified in him . . .” Based on specific Greek mss opposing omis­ their evidence, it is easiest to conclude that they included the sion, as well as same versions.

[See NET note.] Omission results words for fear of an evangelical backlash! in incompletion and nonsense.)

NIV reads: “If God is glorified in him,c God will glorify the Son in himself, and will glorify him at once.” Footnote reads: “c 32 Many early manuscripts do not have If God is glorified in him.”

Despite substantial opposition, the Ï text includes “according to . . . the Christ,” as do uncials Psi (Ψ), P, 049, 056, and 0104 (7th), plus cursives 33 and 0142 (10th), the Harclean, and a few (Based on the Westcott-Hort and 27 (The omission of “raise up Christ” (The NA calls “his loins” an NU texts, “according to the flesh, other Byz. Most of the Early “alternative reading,” then marks is traced to the ancient argument all after loins to be a textual inser­ that Christ will return in the flesh to raise up the Christ” is omitted. Church Fathers oppose. But, —a great divide between light and Not only is this translation wrong­ Tertullian (Latin, d. 220), tion. About the Greek osφuς, (This verse is a reference to 2 ful in omitting words, but it is not whose extant writings number “the hip,” or “the loins” [“(by ex­ darkness . . . between good and Samuel 12—God telling David the tension)] procreative power”], the evil . . . between God and Satan. even literal according to its own 36-8 (82%) for the Textus Re­ Greek. The NU has excellent sup­ ceptus, was for the Byz. Only Messiah will emerge from his NET committee writes, “A literal Nevertheless, the JFB Commen­ c Tatian (77) has more extant bloodline. “Loins” signify “procre­ rendering like ‘one who came tary insists that “of the fruit . . . up port from: Í; A; B; C; D ; 81; writings. Early Fathers (preative power,” according to from his genital organs’ would be Christ” are “not genuine.” “They 1175; most OL and all Vulgate Strong’s Complete Word Study regarded as too specific . . . even doubtless crept in from an explan­ [“lat”]; a few Byz.; Peshitta; Sahi­ 400) favored the Byzantine 3 to 2—60% to 40%. dic; Bohairic.) atory gloss in the margin.” [??]) vulgar by many . . . readers.”)

Concordance, p. 2125.)

Acts 2:30 — “Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, ac­ cording to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne.”

NET: “So then, because he was a prophet and knew that God had sworn to him with an oath to seat one of his descendants on his throne . . .”

NASB: “But he was a prophet and knew that God had promised him on oath that he would place one of his descendants on his throne.”

NIV: “But he was a prophet and knew that God promised him on oath that he would place one of his descendants on his throne.”

KJV

NET

Romans 5:6 — “For when we NET reads: “For while we were were yet without strength, in due still helpless, at the right time time Christ died for the unChrist died for the ungodly.” godly.”

(The NET English reading is very (The Majority text, from the Byz­ close to being absolutely correct.

Kata kairon [kah-tah´ kigh´antine Greek, reads, “For yet Christ, when we were weak, in due ron], these two words together, literally mean “in [or ‘according time on behalf of the ungodly to’] due time” or “in [or ‘accord­ died.” Hence, the KJV translators ing to’] the right time.” Reads re-arranged the word order, as Strong’s Complete Word Study have most translators doing so Concordance, p. 2596 [kata ], “[B] essentially literally and based upon Of time, i.e., of a period or point the Majority text.) of time . . . occasion, season, opportune time, in due time.” As for “still helpless,” this essentially is the meaning, but a lesserpreferred reading.)

NASB NASB Reads: “For while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly.”

NIV

What doesn’t appear here is that Codex B, the most-beloved MS of most modern scholars, actually reads “If indeed . . .” rather than “For when . . .”

(The NIV slightly misleads with Modern translators have been powerless,” based on the careful to abandon this reading (Only in this instance, in the New “still 27 NA Greek.

The meaning of here, because support for this Testament, may the Greek word “asthenes” does not so much con­ variant is minimal. The Greek asthenes—note at far right—be note a condition of varying power word asthenes means “without properly used in this context. As —a term usually associated with strength,” “weak,” “sick,” “im­ for “the right time,” this is a cor­ advantage—as it does of passive potent,” “more feeble,” and, rect translation, as well. [However, weakness, or lack of strength.) parallel to a lost sinner (»TDNT, abridged, p. 84), note that the NIV, at immediate (The 1870 Wescott-Hort [W-H] “helpless.” So, evidentially, right, wrongly includes “just” New Testament, which is the listing witnesses essentially is before “the right time”—just not essential base for the NU, reads as irrelevant, because nearly every appearing in the Greek or being B, ei ge, “if indeed.” This W-H extant MS is identical in the carried with another Greek word.]) reading, of course, questions Greek. Hence, the problems are whether or not Christ did die for in the English translations, and, the ungodly!) in this particular case, few.

NIV Reads: “You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the un­ godly.”

Reads: “Therefore there is now no Reads: “Therefore, there is now condemnation for those who are in no condemnation for those who Christ Jesus.” are in Christ Jesus.” Footnote a (Footnote: “The earliest and best (The minority text has substantial reads, “ 1 Some later manu­ scripts Jesus, who do not live ac­ witnesses”—primarily ‫א‬, B, D—of support in nine specific Greek cording to the sinful nature but the Alexandrian [Egypt. Gk.] and mss, two Old Latin, all Coptic, according to the Spirit.”

(Thomas Holland explains that Al­ Western [known for additions/ plus a few Byz. cursives—the transpositions] and some others exandrians believe[d] that “ditto­ latter just two, evidently, according 27 truncate the verse after “Christ.”) graphy”—the repetition of text— to the NA26. The specified Greek (The NA also lists the Greek mss “The scribes were evidently mot­ th accounts for the final 10 words: a are: ‫ ;א‬B; D; F; G; 6 [13 ]; 1506; 6, 1506, 1739, 1881, and a “few ivated to add such qualifica­ others,” plus the Egyptian and duplication of the words from verse tions . . . to insulate Paul’s gospel 1739 [ca. 950]; 1881 [ca. 1350].

4. But why move backward from v. from charges that it was charac­ Note that the NA27 uses two “late” Ethiopic, and Origen [d. 254], as 4 to v. 1—major slip by moderns?) terized too much by grace.”)

MSS to support its case!) supporting the minority.)

Romans 8:1 — “There is there­ fore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.”

Reads: “There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.”

Romans 10:15b — “. . . As it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gos­ pel of peace, and bring glad tid­ ings of good things.”

NET: “As it is written, ‘How NASB: “. . . Just as it is written, timely is the arrival of those who ‘HOW BEAUTIFUL ARE THE FEET OF THOSE WHO BRING GOOD NEWS proclaim the good news.’”

OF GOOD THINGS.’” (The NET points out that the Greek oraioi [oraioi ] means (Tωn euggelizomenωn “beautiful,” as well as “timely,” eirηnηn, “preaching the gospel but it does not mean plainly of peace,” is omitted from the NU “attractive, welcome,” as it says. texts, based on a relative paucity But it asserts a valid argument of evidence: Ì46; ‫ ;א‬A; B; C; 81; when it says, “The metaphorical 630; 1506; 1739; 1881; a few Byz. nuance of ‘beautiful feet’ is that mss; and all the Coptic.) such represent timely news.”)

(The Greek agatha´ at the end of this verse literally means “good,” but “things” is implied. The final independent clause is redundant, but, again, Greek is a language of redundancy and repetition!)

PROBLEM

Again, observe the NIV foot­ note referring to “some later manuscripts . . .” Most of the mss incorporating the last clauses of the verse are later than the authorities supporting its absence, but it is the Ï which includes this portion.

Also including these clauses are A, Í2, D1 (6th-7th), D2 (ca.

9th), 33, K, P, Ψ, 049, 056, 0142, 0151, 81, 365, 629, the Harclean, and the Vulgate.

The Ï reading: “Just as it is written, ‘How beautiful are the feet of the ones proclaiming the gospel of peace, of the ones proclaiming the gospel of the (The footnote only provides the good (things/news)!’” The mo­ source of the quotation, Isaiah dern versions’ Greek source 52:7. No modern Bible mentions combines the last two phrases to it, but “preaching the gospel of summarize them as one. The peace” is listed in the NA27 critical Byz. reading is supported by: notes as an “insertion” [T]—a “late Í2; D; F; G; Ψ; 33; 049; 056; interpolation” based on the Byz. 0142; 0151; most OL (it) and and other majority evidence.) all the Vulgate; all the Syriac.

NIV: “. . . As it is written, ‘How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news.’”

KJV

NET

NASB

NIV

PROBLEM

NIV reads: “. . . judgment seat of The vast majority of extant mss read “Christ.” Modern transla­ God.” tors adopt the minority reading 27 because it is upheld by all of (The NA designates God as an (Christ will be performing both “alternative reading” in its critical their beloved “old uncials,” judgments. Rev. 20:11, 12 de­ apparatus, using mainly ‫א‬, A, B, C, plus F, G, 630, 1506, 1739, a scribes the “Great White Throne few Byz., most Latin, and Cop­ Judgment,” that for the condemn­ and D to defend this reading. It also tic. (This may originate from c ed. It details how earth and heaven lists—other than the Ï—‫[ א‬third lower Christology’s genesis in will flee from Jesus—reminiscent copyist], C2 [2nd corrected], Ψ, 33, first-century Gnosticism.) Also of unbelievers hiding at the and three other Greek, plus all Sy­ for the Ï are 048, 0209, 33, Second Coming.) riac, as supporting the Ï reading.) 1881, and all Syriac.

Romans 14:10c — “For we shall NET reads: “For we will all stand all stand before the judgment seat before the judgment seat of God.” of Christ.” (. . . bήmati tou Qeou# [bayʹ(Note that John 5:22 reads, “For mah-tee too thehʹ-oo], “judgment the Father judgeth no man, but seat of God,” is in the minority hath committed all judgment unto text, but it simply is textually and the Son.” Modern translations in­ theologically incorrect! [See note clude this verse, unchanged, yet at left.] It should read Cristou# they omit the above reference to [krisʹ-too] instead of Qeou.)

Christ!)

NASB reads: “. . . judgment seat of God.”

1 Corinthians 7:39 — “The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord.”

Reads: “A wife is bound as long as her husband is living. But if her husband dies, she is free to marry anyone she wishes (only someone in the Lord).”

Reads: “A wife is bound as long as her husband lives; but if her husband is dead, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord.”

The Ï text reads as the KJV. Others supporting it are Í2, D1, F, G, Psi, four numeric uncials, and all the Syriac. Omitting “by law” complies with old un­ cials ‫א‬, A, B, and D. But omit­ (In the translators’ collective opin­ (Again, what is missing in the ting “by law” removes a speci­ (Nómō ephi, “by law,” is not in the ion, the testimony of four of the modern versions is the Greek nom­ fic reference to God’s law (Sev­ 27 NA . The NET does not explain five “old uncials” —plus four fav­ on [nom´-on], “regulation,” “law,” enth Commandment). Other its absence, but the NA apparatus ored cursives, among others—out­ “principle.” “Belong” also is in­ minority support: Ì46; 0278; 6; marks it as an insertion based on weighs the Greek Majority and correct—the Greek monon mean­ 33; 81; 1175; 1739; 1881; a the vast majority of manuscript overwhelming overall witness, it ing “only” or “alone.” “Wife” is few Byz.; some OL and all the seems.) the better translation here!) evidence.)

Vulgate.

1 Corinthians 9:22 — “To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.”

NET: “To the weak I became weak in order to gain the weak. I have become all things to all people, so that by all means I may save some.”

NASB: “To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak; I have become all things to all men, so that I may by all means save some.”

1 Corinthians 11:24b — “And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you; this do in remembrance of me.”

Reads: “‘This is my body, which Reads: “This is my body, which is Reads: “This is my body, which is The Ï text (85%+) has “Take, for you . . . .” for you; . . .” is for you. . . .’” eat . . . ,” as do C3 (ca. 9th), Ψ, 12 specified Greek, lections (NU evidence for “This is . . . ” is (In both Greek source texts, the (“Take, eat” also appears in Matt.

46 (maj.), and the Peshitta and substantial, yet outnumbered: Ì ; word [h]upēr [hoop-ayr´] appears, 26:26. The NA27 marks “Take, eat” Í; A; B; C; D; F; G; 33; 81; 12 but a clearly poor contextual tran­ Harclean. The Majority text as an insertion here according to 2 other numeric Greek; six Old Latin; slation is made by moderns: “for” the majority of evidence! Myster­ the Coptic; the Palestinian. NU test­ is used, rather than “on the part of” also reads “broken,” as do Í , C3, D2, F, G, Ψ, 20 specified iously, the NA27 evidently has imony for “for you” is less convin­ or “for the sake of.” Is this an 26 46 dropped 17 mss from the NA .) cing still: Ì ; Í; A; B; C; 33; 424; effort to conserve words? To sim­ Greek, four OL, and the Pe­ shitta and Harclean. plify?)

1739; the Palestinian [6th?].)

Reads: “A woman is bound to her husband as long as she lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to marry anyone she wishes, but he must belong to the Lord.”

The Majority reads “as weak,” plus Í2, C, D, F, G, Ψ (Psi), 33, 1881, four other numeric un­ cials, plus all the Syriac and Coptic. Opposing are Ì46, Aleph (Í), A, B, 1739 (10th), (The simple omission of ōs [as] (“Possible” is not in the Greek. here, most probably, is an accidental (The spiritually unregenerate—and Did the committee or stylists think plus most OL and all the Vul­ scribal error, but it changes meaning even some regenerate—may not gate, and a few Byz. cursives. that without this word readers dramatically! The NET scoffs at the comprehend the difference be­ would confuse the meaning with (Paul became like-minded with difference, without a note. The NA27 tween “weak” and “as weak.” the common phrase used to convey the weak to relate to them; he calls ως an insertion according to did not “backslide” to become Might worldly translators fail to a modern sense of certainty? the majority evidence.) weak!) properly discern, as well?)

Unnecessary tampering cited.)

NIV: “To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have be­ come all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some.”

KJV 1 Corinthians 11:29 — “For he that eateth and drinketh unwor­ thily, eateth and drinketh damna­ tion to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.” (“Unworthily”: without forgiving one’s appropriate brother[s] and/or sister[s] first; approaching this sacrament without a pure heart and due reference for our Lord.”)

NASB

NIV

NET reads: “For the one who eats and drinks without careful regard for the body eats and drinks judgment against himself.”

NASB reads: “For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judg­ ment to himself if he does not judge the body rightly.”

NIV reads: “For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.”

(The NET committee, like the others, has misunderstood the meaning, based on flawed Greek and a poor translation. Both indi­ cate respect for one’s own body, rather than reverence for Christ’s!)

(Opposing the Majority reading are only Ì46, Aleph, A, B, and C, plus 6 [13th], 33 [9th], 1739 [ca.

950], all the Coptic, and a few Greek cursives.)

NET

PROBLEM

The Majority text reads “un­ worthily” and “body of the Lord.” Partaking of the ele­ ments does not evoke God’s judgment, obviously, but parti­ cipating without due reverence (The NU Greek reads “brings condemnation when not discerning for Christ, and without forgive­ the body.” Note how different this ness of one’s fellow man. Sup­ literal translation is from the mo­ porting the Ï are Í2, C3, D, F, dern versions herein. But the worst G, Ψ, 1881, all Latin, and all error is absence of “unworthily.”) the Syriac.

Again, the Majority text reads “all things,” but modern com­ mittees are infatuated with Aleph, A, B, C, D, and Ì46.

“All” accentuates that Christ (“Anyone” or “any man” are the has spiritually regenerated and (Again, the NU text omits ta same in Greek, tis, but the NU (The NU text has substantial sup­ redeemed every believer from panta, “all things.” It also does 46 Greek has kaina gegonon, “the otherwise eternal ramifications port in Ì , Í , B, C, and D, plus F, not list the Majority text [Ï] in the new has come,” rather than go­ G, uncials 048 and 0243, and four of his/her depraved nature. In evidential testimony, despite the gone kaina ta panta, “all things the regenerate, all is new! Sup­ numeric cursives. All Coptic and a porting the Byz. Majority are: have become new.” The NET will fact that it does read ta panta.

Instead, it prefers to quibble over few Greek cursives also support not yield to the vast majority of D2; K; L; P; Psi; 33; 81; 10 which MSS have “new” [ kaina ] the minority text.) mss, including its favorite minus­ other numerics; most other before or after “all things.”) cule, 33, and L, and Psi.) cursives; 2 OL; the Harclean.

2 Corinthians 5:17 — “There­ fore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.”

Reads: “So then, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; what is old has passed away – look, what is new has come!”

Reads: “Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature: the old things passed away; behold, new things have come.”

Reads: “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come!”

2 Corinthians 12:9 — “And he said to me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.”

NET: “But he said to me, “My grace is enough for you, for my power is made perfect in weak­ ness.” So then, I will boast most gladly about my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may reside in me.”

NASB: “And He has said to me, ‘My grace is sufficient for you, for power is perfected in weak­ ness.’ Most gladly, therefore, I will rather boast about my weak­ nesses, so that the power of Christ may dwell in me.”

NIV: “But he said to me ‘My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weak­ ness.’ Therefore I will boast all the more gladly about my weak­ nesses, so that Christ’s power may rest upon me.”

Galatians 3:1 — “O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?”

Reads: “You foolish Galatians!

Who has cast a spell on you?

Before your eyes Jesus Christ was vividly portrayed as cruci­ fied!”

Reads: “You foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified?”

(The committee did not feel that a literal translation was necessary.

They had to add their own flavor.)

(Omitting the clause “that you should not obey the truth” is a critical blunder, here!)

Bewitched them about what?

The truth! One of Satan’s chiefest intentions is to sepa­ rate believers from the truth!

The Ï text (at least 85%) is (The Greek proegráphē means supported by C, D2, Ψ, 33c, “evidently set forth,” “announc0278, 1881, and the Harclean, ed,” or “written afore,” not “exhib­ plus other uncials 049, 056, ited” or “clearly portrayed.”)

075, 0142, 0150, and 0151.

The NU text has substantial testimony, yet remains clearly overwhelmed by 85%+ of ex­ tant Greek. The NASB is gravely erroneous: Not any power “is made perfect in weak­ ness,” but only Christ’s power!

27 (The NA critical apparatus cate­ (Greek episkenÒωin this (Note the Greek word episkenóō gorizes “my” as a scribal insertion! unique context means “to enter (The NET has done its homework (Omission—the most common has unique meaning in this NT These text critics use four of their or take up residence”—not “rest scribal error—of just the Greek context, according to the Theolo­ here. It has properly translated five favorite uncials in reasoning, upon” or “work through,” etc.) mon [“my”] between “for” and Even two recent versions of the gical Dictionary of the New Testa­ episkenóō to mean “reside in” “Scribes probably added the ment [Abridged], p. 1043.) rather than “rest upon.” [See left.]) “power” makes all the difference.) pronoun for clarity . . . .” [NET]) Ï text are wrong here.

Reads: “You foolish Galatians!

Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified.”

KJV

NET

NASB

NIV

PROBLEM

Galatians 3:16, 17 — “Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed be­ fore of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thir­ ty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.”

NET reads: “Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his descendant. Scripture does not say, ‘and to the descendants,’ re­ ferring to many, but ‘and to your descendant,’ referring to one, who is Christ. What I am saying is this: The law that came four hundred thirty years later does not cancel a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to invalidate the pro­ mise.”

NASB reads: “Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, ‘And to seeds,’ as referring to many, but rather to one, ‘And to your seed,’ that is, Christ. What I am saying is this: the Law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise.”

NIV reads: “The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. The Scripture does not say ‘and to seeds,’ meaning many people, but ‘and to your seed,’ meaning one person, who is Christ. What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the prom­ ise.”

(Verse 16 more literally reads, from the Ï Greek, “Now to Abra­ ham were the promises made, and to his seed. He does not say, ‘And to his seeds,’ as of many, but as of one, ‘and to your seed,’ which is Christ.” [The term “seed,” sperm­ ati [spermati], is an especially theologically significant one, as referred to in the Hebrew-Greek Key Word Study Bible: “sperma— [II] Figuratively . . . of the seed of conception . . . . Offspring. Gener­ ally, seed in the sense of poster­ ity.” —p. 2243])

(As the NET committee otherwise might write, “descendant is a eu­ phemism for ‘seed,’ or ‘off­ spring.’” They have transposed the wording of the first sentence, sub­ stituted “Scripture” for “He” [God] or “It” [Scripture], trans­ posed the wording of the last sentence, and replaced “disannul” with “cancel” —all for readability.

All of this is entirely unnecessary.

Where is the opportunity for the reader to learn what “seed” means? Does replacing “He” in­ sinuate the translators do not be­ lieve that God wrote the Word through His chosen instruments?)

(The NU Greek reading near the end of v. 17 is Qeou [God] rather than Qeou eiς Criston [God in Christ]. Remember also that John 1:3 says of Christ, “All things were made through him, and without him was nothing made that was made.”)

The Majority reading in v. 17 is “God in Christ.” Many modern Bible translators, much like the Gnostic Docetists and Adoptionists— largely of the first through third centuries— don’t seem amenable to the concept that Jesus is, in fact, God. Others rationalize the supremacy of the NU text based on its “widespread test­ imony”—mss and versions representing various text-types (Alex., Byz., Caes., Western, etc.). (But many of these MSS are corrupt, as well!) At least 85% of the NT Greek cursive witnesses (Byz.) support the KJV, along with uncials D, F, G, and I, plus numericals 049, 056, 075, 0142, 0150, 0151, 0176, 0178, 0278. Many OL (“it”) and all the Syriac also support. Evidence opposing the majority are Ì46, Í, A, B, C, P, Psi, and numerics 6, 33, 81, 1175, 1739, 1881, and 2464.

Two OL, the Latin Vulgate, a few Byz. cursives, and all the Coptic round out excellent NU support.

Galatians 4:7 — “Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.”

Reads: “So you are no longer a slave but a son, and if you are a son, then you are also an heir through God.”

(Here, “heir of God through Christ” is used similarly in Ro­ mans 8:17, “joint-heirs with Christ”—from the Greek sugklēro­ nomai [soong-klay-ron-om´ahee].)

(Jesus Christ the Son has made us co-heirs to God through His vica­ rious sacrifice! Yet the notators are certain that because “through God” is an “unusual expression,” scribes later changed it to be more “customary” or “theologically ac­ ceptable.” It is obvious that mo­ derns have created a set of rules that justifies their readings!)

Reads: “Therefore you are no Reads: “So you are no longer a longer a slave, but a son; and if a slave, but a son; and since you son, then an heir through God.” are a son, God has made you also an heir.”

(NU support does exist in the ma­ jority of extant MSS [not Greek]: (Conversely, the vast majority of Ì46; Aleph [Í]; A; B; C; 33; most Greek MSS are supported by Í2 Old Latin; all of the Vulgate [Aleph-2], C3, D, 0278, and the [10,000]; the Bohairic. Hence, the Armenian and all Syriac.) total numerical witness is more than 10,200, but only six of these are Greek. [And remember that in many places, the Latin Vulgate is corrupt.])

(Regarding translating the implied third-person singular masculine pronoun before “does not say” [either “He” for God, or “It” for Scripture], remember that Paul indirectly is referencing Gen. 12:3, 7—specifically, words God actually spoke to Abraham!)

(Notice “in Christ” is omitted from the phrase “God in Christ,” again wrongfully dissociating God’s Son. Christ is the promised seed only through whom salvation comes! This omission is incongru­ ous with the previous reference to Christ. Also note that the words “people” and “person” do not ap­ pear in the NU Greek, but, rather, have been added by the translators [or their “stylists”]. These terms are unnecessary clarification. Nei­ ther is “The Scripture” necessary for clarification. Finally, “set aside” incorrectly translates akur­ oi, which means “to disannul,” “to invalidate,” or “to make of none effect.”)

Omitting “through Christ” is a profound distortion of the doctrine that all believers are heirs to God through Jesus Christ—ONLY through Christ! Five other NT verses state this directly or imply it.

Believers are, indeed, “coheirs” with and through Christ, but it is only through Christ that we receive our heirship. “Through Christ” clearly establishes this doc­ trine here.

KJV Galatians 6:15 — “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircum­ cision, but a new creature.”

NET

NET reads: “For neither circum­ NASB reads: “For neither is cir­ cision nor uncircumcision counts cumcision anything, nor uncir­ for anything; the only thing that cumcision, but a new creation.” matters is a new creation.”

(Again, translators justify using largely on the (The NET calls the inclusion of “in this reading based authority of Ì46 [3rd cent., Paul­ Christ Jesus” a harmonization.

Deplorable. [Aside from His role ines] and Codex B. Because of the verse has no significant mean­ sparse Greek ms testimony, they ing.] It comments about its addi­ use the UBS’s six early Patristic Fathers: Gregory of Nissa; Chry­ tion of “the only thing that mat­ ters.” The vast majority of mss sostom; Theodorelat; Ambrosiaster; support the Byz. reading, including Jerome; Augustine. Again, even ‫א‬, A, C, D, F, G, 81, 1241, 1881, 17 four of the five “old uncials” op­ other specified Greek, the Vulgate, pose B here. And remember that six OL, and the Bohairic, but the many moderns willingly embrace committee mainly uses Ì46, B, Ψ, the lower Christology promulgated and 33 to defend its position.) by their admired predecessors.)

Ephesians 5:9 — “(For the fruit Reads: “. . . for the fruit of the light consists in all goodness, of the Spirit is in all goodness righteousness, and truth –” and righteousness and truth);” (All Greek source texts compared herein, the Byz. Majority, the Tex­ tus Receptus, and the NU, do not include a verb after “Spirit” or “light, so the respective translation committees have selected their own preferences. However, the most appropriate form probably is the simple being form “is.”)

Ephesians 5:30 — “For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.”

NASB

(The notators use multiple quest­ ionable arguments for “light” [in this context], but the external evi­ dence of diverse witnesses does support “light.” However, Ï, Ì46, D2, Ψ [Psi], and the Harclean sup­ port “Spirit,” as does the doctrinal sense of the verse. This committee seems to have overlooked the meanings of the respective terms —spirit and light.)

PROBLEM

NIV reads: “Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means any­ thing; what counts is a new crea­ tion.”

Removing “in Christ Jesus” nullifies the essential, critical meaning of the verse because the essence of it is that, plainly, in Christ, circumcision has no true significance; it is a ritual entirely disassociated from eternal kingdom appli­ cability. It is in Christ only that our lives have true signi­ ficance. But as very often is the case, the modern text cri­ tics use their 10-12 systematic critical rules that support their preferred readings and mss. (e.g., an NET note refers to the “longer reading” as a “har­ monization to Gal 5:6.”)

(Again, a loose and undignified translation. The Majority/TR/KJV read that neither circumcision nor uncircumcision—also metaphors for a purificational distinction within the OT dispensation—have any spiritual significance among believers.)

(Other minority evidence are cur­ sives 075 [10th/mixed], 1175 [11th/ Alex.], 1505 [12th/mixed], and 1739 [10th/Alex.].)

Reads: “(for the fruit of the Light Reads: “. . . for the fruit of the consists in all goodness and light consists in all goodness, righteousness and truth) . . .” righteousness and truth) . . .”

(The NU text is consistent in wrongfully using “light,” utilizing (Note that herein the NET and some form of phōs [abstract light] NIV remove kai, “and,” from in several locations of the New between “goodness” and “right­ Testament—rather than the correct eousness.” The NIV is noted for its pneuma [spirit, wind, life, breath]. frequent omission of conjunctions Also, because the Holy Spirit is [and, but, or, etc.] to improve the “agent” of activity in the be­ “readability.” Again, this commit­ liever, “Spirit” must be correct!

Christ is the “light” of godliness in tee thinks it is rightful in altering us, but the Spirit directs and enab- God’s Word—in this case, for les our righteousness.) “stylistic” purposes!)

NET: “. . . for we are members of NASB: “. . . Because we are his body.” members of His body.”

(Note starts, “Most Western wit­ nesses, as well as the majority of (Note: This statement outrightly Byzantine MSS and a few others identifies believers with Christ’s [Í2 D F G Ψ 0278 0285vid Ï lat], full humanity, and His passion, add the following words to the end death and resurrection. It is not in­ of the verse . . . ‘of his body and of tended to be interpreted literally, his bones.’” Only D is Western!

46 as in Roman Catholicism’s celeb­ Moderns hang their hats on Ì , ‫*א‬ , A, B, and 33.

These support ration of the mass.) moderns’ shorter reading theory.)

NIV

(It is interesting that moderns generally categorize any manu­ script dating to the ninth century or later as “late,” unless it sup­ ports their cause and appertaining reading. For example, at left, 1739 [ca. 950], 81 [ca. 1050], and 1881 [ca. 1350] also are used to defend moderns’ preferred reading.)

NIV: “For we are members of his body.”

(Modern textual authority for this reading comprises Ì46, Í, A, and B, four numeric uncials, three such cursives, all the Coptic, and a few other Greek cursives. This against the Majority, Í2, D, F, G, K, Ψ, and some Old Latin and all the Latin Vulgate.)

The source Greek for modern versions is “phōs” (luminous­ ness—bodies, splendor around God’s throne) rather than Pneu­ ma (Spirit). Majority testimony is opposed by diverse and sub­ stantial witness: Ì49 (3rd); ‫ ;א‬A; B; D; F; G; P; 6; 33; 81; five cursives; all Latin; the Peshitta; all Coptic. Galatians 5:22 lists the “fruit of the Spirit,” and it is the (Holy) Spirit which pro­ duces the “light” of Christ’s righteousness in believers’ lives. (See later—1 John 1:7.)

The KJV stays with the Major­ ity text again. The alternate reading found in minority MSS probably was an early scribal attempt to remove an indica­ tion of Christ’s humanity—part of early heresy. The Majority reading does more than simply refer to believers as the “body of Christ.” This is the process of sharing in Christ’s death and resurrection!

KJV

NET

NASB

NIV

Philippians 2:6, 7 — “Who, be­ ing in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: . . .”

NET reads: “. . . who though he existed in the form of God did not regard equality with God as something to be grasped, but emptied himself by taking on the form of a slave, by looking like other men, and by sharing in human nature.”

NASB reads: “Who although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself . . .”

NIV reads: “Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing; . . .”

Colossians 3:6 — “For which things’ sake the wrath of God cometh on the children of dis­ obedience.”

Reads: “Because of these things the wrath of God is coming on the sons of disobedience.”

Reads: “For it is because of these things that the wrath of God will come upon the sons of disobedi­ ence.” Footnote reads “Two early manuscripts do not contain upon the sons of disobedience.”

Reads: “Because of these, the wrath of God is coming.” Foot­ note reads, “Some early manu­ scripts coming on those who are disobedient.”

PROBLEM

The underlying Greek, again, is identical, so why the confus­ ing English translation? Evi­ dently, modern translators think that “robbery” is too dif­ ficult for contemporary readers to comprehend; thus, they add (God’s Son, Jesus Christ, did (Note that the NASB does cor­ three words to avoid using the rectly translate the word ekénosē claim equality with God—because term. The Greek arpagmon [ek-en´-oce-ay] here—“emptied.”) He is co-equal to God—and He (The underlined portion is from means “the act of seizing or the NU Greek, identical to the did not need to “cling to” or (The Majority and TR both use the robbing.” Hence, “not grasp­ “grasp” it. As for “nothing” here, ing to be equal” might seem to word ekénosē (from kenóō ), “to Byz./TR. But the phraseology eas­ ily can be misconstrued to mean this is a contextual misuse of the be a more appropriate “modern empty or abase,” in verse 7, but that Christ did not strive to attain Greek kenóō. Christ “emptied the KJV committee produced a translation.” Instead, moderns equality with God—as if He were himself” by taking “the form of a have opted for ambiguous more idiomatic translation.) not equal! Also, “made in the like­ servant.”) translations. ness of men” is plain enough.)

1 Thessalonians 1:1 — “Paul and Silvanus, and Timotheus, unto the church of the Thessalo­ nians which is in God the Father and in the Lord Jesus Christ: Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.”

(The NET committee, despite its confusing and opposing reason­ ings, is wise in retaining the last five words. It uses its favored Ì46 and B for support, but acknow­ ledges the testimony of several uncials, some Old Latin and all Vulgate, some cursives, all Syriac.

Yet they still write “The decision to retain the words in the text is less than certain.” B’s influence.)

(The footnote casts doubt—only two specific MSS—on the validity of the reading. Wrongfully confus­ ing! The NU refers to Ì46 [3rd], B [4th]—the latter moderns’ “sacred” manuscript—and one OL, plus the Sahidic and Syriac Palestinian.)

NET: “From Paul and Silvanus and Timothy, to the church of the Thessalonians in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. Grace and peace to you!”

NASB: “Paul and Silvanus and Timothy, to the church of the Thessalonians in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ: Grace to you and peace.”

(The notators use substantial evi­ dence to support the absence of “from God . . . Lord Jesus Christ.”

The NA27 marks these words as an (The 1550 Robert Estienne TR, insertion based on the vast major­ succeeding the Majority, reads “. . . ity of Greek manuscript testimony. from God our Father and the Lord Is that, in and of itself, not suffi­ Jesus Christ.” Erasmus [1516] pen­ cient proof for the “longer read­ ned this before William Tyndale.) ing”?)

(Not many MSS. [See left.] But the Ï also is supported by Í, A, C, D1, F, G, H, I, Psi, 075, and cursive 33, 0150, and 20 specified cursives [UBS4]. Additional Byz. support comes from some OL and all Vul­ gate, the Peshitta/Harclean, and the Bohairic.)

NIV: “Paul, Silas and Timothy, to the church of the Thessalonians in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ: Grace and peace to you.”

Footnotes read: “a1 Greek Silva­ nus, a variant of Silas. b1 Some early manuscripts you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus (The NA-UBS are supported by substantial and diverse testimony: Christ.”

B; F; G; Ψ; 075; 0278; three speci­ (“Some early” is correct—but fied Greek cursives and a few “several” is better: Í, A; D; I; one others; some Old Latin and all the OL. Also later MSS K [9th], L [9th], Vulgate; the Syriac Peshitta [2nd]; P [6th or 9th], 048 [6th], 049 [9th], plus 056 [10th], 075 [10th], 0142 the Coptic Sahidic [3rd or 4th].)

[10th], 0150 [9th], and 0151 [9th].)

The Majority reading includes “children of disobedience.”

(Greek for children and sons is the same: “uihos” [hwee´-os].)

This same phrase also appears in Eph. 2:2 and 5:6. “Children of disobedience” are unbeliev­ ers who thus habitually behave egregiously against God’s will —the class of the lost doomed to hell. Note that the NET reading includes the last three words in defiance of the NU text. Why?

The Majority contains the entire last sentence (1b).

Aleph, A, (Dvid—some var.), I (5th), 33, one OL (mvid—some var.), the Syriac Harclean (7th), and the Coptic Bohairic (3rd or 4th) also support the Byz. reading. The shorter reading may have been an early scribal attempt to “elim­ inate repetition,” as done, historically, by scribes, some Fathers, and by some modern translators.

KJV 1 Timothy 3:16 — “And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preach­ ed unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.”

(Some Greek mss read “He who,” but these are very few. In both Greek source texts, the wording is identical, except for the relative pronoun [h]os appearing for The­ os. But os would mean “who” in this context. No “he” precedes it!)

1 Timothy 4:10 — “For there­ fore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.”

(See 1 Peter 4:14.)

1 Timothy 6:5 — “. . . Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.” (“Destitute” likely is the best translation, here, from the Greek apesterηmέnōn. This is so because, although these false teachers have been “deprived” of the truth by lies of Satan, said de­ privation has resulted in the con­ sequence of their destitution of godly truth.)

NET

NASB

NIV

PROBLEM

Reads: “And we all agree, our religion contains amazing reve­ lation: He was revealed in the flesh, vindicated by the Spirit, seen by angels, proclaimed among Gentiles, believed on in the world, taken up in glory.”

Reads: “By common confession, great is the mystery of godliness: He who was revealed in the flesh, was vindicated in the Spirit, seen by angels, proclaimed among the nations, believed on in the world, taken up in glory.”

Reads: “Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is great: He appeared in a body, was vindic­ ated by the Spirit, was seen by angels, was preached among the nations, was believed on in the world, was taken up in glory.”

Footnote reads “c16 Some manu­ (“Who”—excluding “He”—has formidable support in Aleph, A, C, scripts God. d16 Or in the flesh.”

(Based on 784 words in an NET footnote, the committee has altered F, and G, 33, and a paucity of the this reading dramatically. The first Byz. But the Ï Greek numerically (Not only is “appeared in a body” is far superior and outweighs—and incorrect according to the Greek, four words are a plainly ignoble translation, “our . . . revelation” is “he” is not a part of the above mss. but it also is plainly ignoble! And a repugnant substitute, and “vin­ “Confessedly” could replace “He” [ὅ] only is supported by D, “without controversy”— dicated” is incorrect. Ï is over­ just seven Old Latin, all the Vul­ turned primarily by Í* A* C* F G [h] omologoumenως [omolo­ gate, a few early Church Fathers, 33—not B! [* Denotes original.]) goumenōs ].) and possibly 061.)

The Majority text rebukes nearly all modern versions, reading “God.” The Greek for “He,” “who,” “God” and “Christ” each is different.

“Who” and “which” are the same in Greek. Note how all three modern versions use “vindicated” for “justified.”

According to the ±“NAGL” (W. J. Perschbacher), p. 102, vindicated is only correct in Matt. 11:19 and Luke 7:29.

This is the foremost passage clearly establishing God’s manifestation in the flesh. The Ï is backed by Í2 (ca. 7th), Ac, C2 (ca. 6th), D2 (ca. 9th), Ψ, 075, cursives 81, 1739, 1881, more.

Reads: “In fact this is why we work hard and struggle, because we have set our hope on the liv­ ing God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of believers.”

The NASB, also milder than the KJV, reads “strive.”

The Majority reading supports “suffer reproach.” “Suffer re­ proach” places the rightful bur­ den of discipleship and sub­ sequent receipt of rebuke, etc., on the believer. Jesus said that faithful believers will be re­ proached for their faith. Note that although Aleph, A, and C uphold the NU text, B (Vatica­ nus) is conspicuously absent.

NET: “. . . and constant bickering by people corrupted in their minds and deprived of the truth, who suppose that godliness is a way of making a profit.”

NASB: “. . . and constant friction between men of depraved mind and deprived of the truth, who suppose that godliness is a means of gain.”

(The minority Greek source reads, “toiling [kop-ee-ah´-ō] and strug­ gling [a´-gonid´-zo-mahee]” rather than “labour and suffer reproach.”

(Neither Greek reads “in fact,” which is a poor transition anyway. These are very different meanings.

To “suffer reproach,” or “to be The Greek oneidichómetha “to suffer reproach,” is replaced with reviled” addresses the plight of believers’ persecution!) agonizómetha, “to struggle.”)

(The notators admit the majority of MSS have “from such withdraw thyself.” They state that no good reason seems to exist to remove the last phrase “in some of the oldest and best witnesses,” so, “it is likely that it crept into the text early, perhaps as a marginal comment.”

NU support is strong for omission of the last phrase: ‫א‬, A, D, F, G, eight specified Greek, a few Byz., some OL and all Vulgate, and all Coptic. But the Ï opposes.)

(The Greek apesterēménōn means both “destitute” and “deprived”— the compound root words being apo, “to separate,” and steréo, “to deprive.” Hence, combining the words, in effect, enhances the potency of the Greek word. Greek is a language of emphasis through repetition and the use of double positives and double negatives.)

The NIV also mitigates the con­ notation with “strive.”

(Uncials ‫א‬, A, C, F [9th], G [9th], K [9th], and Ψ [8th] support the min­ ority Gk., as do 33 and six others, and many Byz. Joining the Ï are Í2 [ca. 7th], D, 20 other specified Greek, and all the Latin, Syriac, and Coptic—overwhelming nu­ merical testimony.)

NIV: “. . . and constant friction between men of corrupt mind, who have been robbed of the truth and who think that godli­ ness is a means to financial gain.”

The NU apparatus labels the last four words of the KJV/TR/ Ï reading as an insertion. But, again, the Ï reading—at least 85% of NT Greek—supports “from such withdraw thyself,” as does the Greek of D2 and Psi, three Old Latin, and all the (“Robbed” is both a legitimate Syriac. Some miffed scribe(s) meaning and a suitable application probably was/were offended by of the word apesterēménōn in this the separatist doctrine pre­ scribed by God through Paul context.)

—“‘Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye sep­ arate,’ saith the Lord, ‘and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you.’”

—2 Corinthians 6:17

KJV

NET

NASB

Hebrews 1:3 — “Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high . . .”

Reads: “The Son is the radiance of his glory and the represent­ ation of his essence, and he sus­ tains all things by his powerful word, and so when he had accom­ plished cleansing for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high.”

Hebrews 1:5a — “For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee?”

NET: “For to which of the angels NASB: “For to which of the an­ gels did He ever say, ‘You are did God ever say, “You are my son! Today I have fathered you”? My Son, today I have begotten You?’” (No major existing critical appa­ ratus supplies any manuscript (According to the often-corrupt NU Greek text, “God,” in fact, is testimony for “God.” “God” has not included here, but, rather, been inserted for “he” “for cla­ “he.” In multiple interlinears the rity,” according to an NET foot­ note. Another footnote states that word “God” is inserted into the Greek—obviously for clarity. But the literal Greek reads “I have begotten you.” So why the change the context makes this entirely unnecessary!) to “fathered [you]”?)

NIV

PROBLEM

Reads: “The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact rep­ resentation of his being, sustain­ ing all things by his powerful word. After he had provided pu­ rification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven.”

The Ï text supports the KJV reading, “by himself purged our sins,” plus Ì46, D2, Hc (3rd copyist) and 15other specified Greek, three Old Latin, all Sy­ riac, and the Sahidic and Bo­ hairic versions. What is mis­ sing in modern versions is that Christ alone expiated our sins , Alexandrinus [ A ] , ( Sinaiticus [Í] (“The Son” is not in either Greek 1 th Vaticanus [ B ] , D [ca.

7 ] , H, P, and text, but, rather, an unnecessary (“Word of his power” and “power­ through His vicarious sacrifice.

This variant could be the result clarifier for “he.” [“Son” appears in Ψ support this reading, along with ful word” differ. “The Word” is th th th of early Gnosticism, promoting 33 [9 ] , 81 [11 ] , 629 [14 ] , 1175 v. 2.] A note explains the Greek from the Son’s authority: It is not the Catholic doctrine that actually reads “Word of his power,” [11th], 2464 [9th], 075, and 0150, just a “powerful word,” but also a works are part of salvation. but an incorrect alternative is cho­ and some Byz. minuscules, plus “Word of His power.” —JFB Bible some Old Latin, all the Vulgate, sen. [H] eautou, “himself,” is Some of the “revered” early Comm., Vol. 3, p. 527.) not in the NU, but is critical here!) and the Syriac Palestinian.)

Church Fathers believed in this.

Reads: “And He is the radiance of His glory and exact represent­ ation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His po­ wer. When He had made puri­ fication of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high . . .”

The best English rendering is “begotten.” The Greek gennao (ghen-nah´-ō) means “to bear, beget, bring forth, conceive, father.” “Spoken of the rela­ tionship between God and the Messiah, called His Son” (Heb. (The Greek gennao does mean, 1:5, et. al.), according to lastly, “to father,” but the passive Strong’s Complete Word Study NIV reading [“have become”] Concordance. (God had always almost seems to indicate that some been Jesus’ father, but had “be­ event occurred to also somehow gotten” Him in the flesh at His “make God Jesus’ father.”) earthly birth).

NIV: “For to which of the angels did God ever say, ‘You are my Son; today I have become your Father’?” Footnote reads “Or have begotten you.”

Omits “after the order of Melchi­ Omits “after the order of Melchi­ The Majority text [Ï] includes “after the order of Melchizesedec.” sedec.” dek,” as do codices Í2, A, D, 46 (Melchisedec was Abram’s and the (Vaticanus, C, and Ì , cursives Ψ, 075, 1241, 1739, 1881, and Hebrews’ first high priest, and he 33, 81, 436, 629, and 2464, uncial 15 other specified Greek. represented all people—just as 0150, a few Byz. Greek, three Old Other support is in all Syriac (The first half of the minority text Christ has replaced him to repres­ Latin and all the Vulgate, the Sa­ and part of the Bohairic. It reads as the Majority, but it has ent all believers now! Jesus’ “ante- hidic [Coptic], part of the Bohairic seems clear, here, that some been removed here. Because the type,” Melchisedec, here is simply [Coptic], and the Syriac Pales­ scribe committed the error of (Remember God’s warning, in NU source does not contain “You left out of the priestly line that tinian [6th ?], testify to the NU text haplography: accidentally Revelation, against “adding to” or are a priest . . . ,” this portion is apparatus.) omitting words he thought “taking away from” God’s words. omitted. The NU marks the last as ends with Christ.) absent from the “exemplar” The Scriptures are God’s words an insertion, but fails to address (source)—or with which he “breathed out” to elected men the first at all. [??] And why does disagreed. being His chosen instruments.) the verse end with a long dash?)

Hebrews 7:21 — “(For those priests were made without an oath; but this with an oath by him that said unto him, The Lord sware and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the or­ der of Melchisedec . . .)”

NET reads: “. . . but Jesus did so with a sworn affirmation by the one who said to him, “The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind, ‘You are a priest forever’” —

KJV

NET

Hebrews 9:11 — “But Christ be­ ing come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;”

Reads: “But now Christ has come as the high priest of the good things to come. He passed through the greater and more perfect tent not made with hands, that is, not of this creation, . . .”

(Actually, the Byzantine Greek and the Textus Receptus do not read “more perfect,” but, rather, “complete,” or “perfect.” The Greek teleioteras does not carry the modifier “more.” “Having come” is a better translation than “being come,” in the second aorist tense. “Coming,” the present participle, is correct.)

(“Has come” is in the present per­ fect. But the aorist participle [-ing], rather, appears in the Greek. “Com­ ing” is correct, from the Ï text mellónton, but the NA27 uses a dif­ ferent verb, gegoménōn, having the same meaning, but allowing for greater time leeway. The future infinitive “to come” is incorrect.)

NASB

NIV

Reads: “But when Christ ap­ peared as a high priest of the good things to come . . .” Foot­ note reads, “Two early MSS read that have come.”

Reads: “When Christ came as high priest of the good things that are already here . . .” Footnote reads, “Some early manuscripts are to come.”

PROBLEM

The Ï text reads “having come,” and “good things com­ ing . . .” In the NIV, “some,” again, is outright deception— most being correct! The NU text “good things having come . . .” (“Two early MSS”?? But B and D (The NRSV—herein not included The “good things” to which the —footnote reads “Other ancient author of Hebrews refers are “. . here [based on the NA27 critical authorities read good things to . pardon, reconciliation, right­ apparatus—notes at page bottom], come.” Yes, again, the vast major­ eousness, holiness, adoption, support “having become.” Never­ ity! The Byz. text reads so, along and glorious salvation,” accord­ theless, the NASB committee chose with “old uncials” ‫א‬, A, and D2. ing to Matthew Poole, as well to ignore the Greek second aorist Other Byz. support are uncials K, as believers’ eternal inheritance. tense [completed in recent past] to L, and P, 075, 0150, and 0278, The modern readings are sup­ use “appeared,” which is a different cursives 33, 81, 1241, and 1881, ported by B, D, 1739, a few tense and verb—in fact mellon­ [and 15 others] plus some OL and Byz. manuscripts, and almost tωn, the Greek in the Byz.!) all the Vulgate, and all the Coptic.) all of the Syriac.

The Byz. Ï text supports the existence of “in heaven” (“in the heavens”), which certainly is different from the less-spe­ cific “eternity,” and from “last­ ing possessions.” Again, on the basis of the older but corrupt (Egyptian) manu­ (“For you showed sympathy to the (The moderns have fairly substan­ Alexandrian 13 . 46 scripts Ì , ‫א‬, D, and H, plus tial support; yet they remain over­ prisoners . . .” is incorrect accord­ (The NU text literally reads “For whelmingly outnumbered. “Com­ 33, 1739, most Latin, and all (The KJV reading does transpose indeed you felt sympathy for those ing to the NU Greek! The Greek passion on me” is opposed by A, D, Coptic, the “critical text” reigns preposition/conjunction kai is in bonds, and you accepted the the Majority text’s and Textus H, 6, 33, 81, 1739, most Latin, and supreme in the modern ver­ absent, and the verb “showed” is more. En ouranoiς, “in heaven,” sions, hereby supporting the Receptus’ “and remaining posses­ spoiling of your possessions joy­ fully because you knew that you not in the Greek. None of these omission of “in heaven.” But is opposed by Ì13 . 46, ‫א‬, A, D, H, sion” and “in the heavens.”) had better substance, and abiding.” modern versions accurately without these words, the “en­ 33, most Latin, all Coptic, and The Majority reads “in my bonds.”) represents its own Greek.) during substance” is neglected! more.)

Hebrews 10:34 — “For ye had compassion of me in my bonds, and took joyfully the spoiling of your goods, knowing in your­ selves that ye have in heaven a better and an enduring sub­ stance.”

NET reads: “For in fact you shared the sufferings of those in prison, and you accepted the confiscation of your belongings with joy, because you knew that you certainly had a better and lasting possession.”

Hebrews 11:11 — “Through faith also Sara herself received strength to conceive seed, and was delivered of a child* when she was past age, because she judged him faithful who had promised.”

Reads: “By faith, even though Sarah herself was barren and he was too old, he received the ability to procreate, because he regarded the one who had given the promise to be trustworthy.”

(* Or, “bore a child.” [Author’s note.])

NASB reads: “For you showed sympathy to the prisoners and accepted joyfully the seizure of your property, knowing that you have for yourselves a better possession and a lasting one.”

NIV reads: “You sympathized with those in prison and joyfully accepted the confiscation of your property, because you knew that you yourselves had better and lasting possessions.”

Reads: “By faith Abraham, even though he was past age—and Sarah herself was barren—was enabled to become a father be­ cause he considered him faithful who had made the promise.”

Footnote reads, “Or By faith even (The NU refers to Sarah only; yet (The Zondervan NASB/NIV inter­ Sarah, who was past age, was linear inserts into the running in­ Abraham is mentioned as “he.” enabled to bear children . . .”

Nearly this entire translation has no terlinear English “Abraham was enabled to become a father . . . ,” basis in either Greek source text!

(The NIV breaks almost entirely despite the NA Greek’s reference Notice how “eteken,” “bore a from its Greek, emphasizing Abra­ child,” is absent without comment only to Sarah by name! Then, in the ham’s role, presumably because of 13 . 46 [Ì ‫ א‬A D Psi 33 81 most Latin, English column, only Sarah is the Jews’ patriarchal system—and, all Coptic, more]. There is no foot­ mentioned! This translation is a perhaps, chauvinism. Only two mo­ note anywhere about anything.) hybrid of the Ï and the NU.) dern versions mention Abraham.)

Reads: “By faith even Sarah her­ self received ability to conceive, even beyond the proper time of life, since she considered Him faithful who had promised.”

The Ï supports the KJV reading. The NET faithfully adheres to the NU Greek, while the others vacillate. Note how the NIV includes “barren” but bases the passage on Abraham.

“Bore a child” (Gk. eteken) is supported by the Majority text, Í2, D2, one OL, and all the Syriac. Omission of eteken does have substantial and di­ verse testimony: Ì13 . 46; ‫ ;א‬A; D; Ψ; 6; 33; 81; 1739; 1881; most Latin; all Coptic. But the Ï still dominates.

KJV

NET

NASB

NIV

Hebrews 11:37 — “They were stoned, they were sawn asunder, were tempted, were slain with the sword: they wandered about in sheepskins and goatskins; being destitute, afflicted, tormen­ ted; . . .”

Reads: “They were stoned, sawed apart, murdered with the sword; they went about in sheepskins and goatskins; they were destitute, afflicted, illtreated.”

Reads: “They were stoned, they were sawn in two, they were tempted, they were put to death with the sword; they went about in sheepskins, in goatskins being destitute, afflicted, ill-treat­ ed . . .” Footnote reads, “One early MS does not contain they (The NET note even states that the were tempted.” (That is, Ì46.) omission of epeirásthēsan, “they were tempted,” is supported by (The Greek kakouchoumenoi very limited manuscript testimony: means “to maltreat,” “to suffer ad­ Ì46; 1241s [supplemental]; a few versity,” “to torment.” But surely Byz. mss; the Syriac Peshitta [2nd]; “tormented” is the most suitable English here! Also, despite its ab­ the Sahidic; and two Church 27 Fathers. [Moderns stand mostly on sence from the NA Greek, epeirásthēsan, “they were tempted,” the testimony of Ì46.]) has been added in the English.)

Reads: “They were stoned; they were sawed in two; they were put to death by the sword, They went about in sheepskins and goatskins, destitute, persecuted and mistreated . . .” Footnote reads, “Some early manuscripts stoned; they were put to the test; . . .”

James 2:20 — “But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?”

NET: “But would you like evi­ dence, you empty fellow, that faith without works is useless?”

NIV: “You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless?” Footnote reads “Some early manuscripts dead.”

James 4:4 — “Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.”

NET reads: “Adulterers, do you not know that friendship with the world means hostility toward God? So whoever decides to be the world’s friend makes himself God’s enemy.”

(The Greek boulhθh—“wishes to be” here—is in the aorist sub­ jective here, expressing a wish in the ongoing present, not in the future. Thus, “will be” is the wrong tense. The translators pro­ bably wanted the verse to sound more conclusive and potent.)

(The minority Greek reads moi­ (Per the indications at far left, bou­ lēthē here has been translated cor­ chalides [adulteresses], omitting moichoi kai [adulterers and] before, rectly, based on precisely the same

NASB: “But are you willing to recognize, you foolish fellow, that faith without works is use­ (By the NET’s own admission, the less?”

PROBLEM

The Ï text supports the KJV, as do Ì13, A, D1 (6th or 7th) Ψ (Psi), 1739, 1881, some Old Latin and all the Vulgate, and the Bohairic (northern Egypt­ ian). Most moderns do not believe in “verbal” inspiration —the actual words of God in the pure Scriptures. This allows them to manipulate and mix texts—even denigrate the (Because the Byzantine manu­ supernatural. (This despite lip script tradition dates back to at service, by many, to verbal least the fourth century [and likely inspiration.) Note here that not earlier still], “some” probably is only does the Ï text support incorrect—with “early” referring the KJV, but also a broad and to MSS [uncials or papyri] of the diverse testimony from the third to fourteenth centuries.

7th century or before.)

The Majority reading is “dead” (Gk. “nek-rōs´”), in­ cluding one of the modern “critical text” keystones, Co­ Greek qeleiϛ de gnomai means dex Sinaiticus (Aleph). A and “Would you like to know?” Yet, it (Out of 5,700-plus Greek mss, (Only two of the “earliest” [or C2 (2nd corrected) also support uses “evidence.” They also openly only the corrupt B, plus C, support “early”] manuscripts, codices B the Ï reading, plus K, L, P, the minority text. Also, the 1592 admit that nearly all extant wit­ and C, read the Greek argōs´, Psi, 33, 1241, and all the Sy­ nesses read “dead,” yet argue that it Clementine Vulgate, numerics riac and Bohairic. Note that is an assimilation from vv. 17 and 323, 945, and 1739, and the Sahi­ “unprofitable,” “inactive,” or 26. Support: Vaticanus [B] and C dead and useless have very dic, pay misguided homage to the “useless.” [For the “some” manuscripts, see immediate left.]) different meanings! read “useless,” argή.)

Alexandrian [Egypt] Vaticanus.)

with the NA27 calling it an inser­ tion. The translators have replaced their Greek with, “So whoever decides . . . God’s enemy.” No significant footnote appears.

NASB reads: “You adulteresses, do you not know that friendship with the world is hostility toward God? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God.”

Greek. The Greek word for “hos­ tility,” echthros, carries the mean­ ing of extreme “enmity with God by (man’s) sin” [Thayer’s New Testament lexicon, p. 265].)

NIV reads: “You adulterous people, don’t you know that friendship with the world is hatred toward God? Anyone who chooses to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God.”

The Majority text (Ï—dom­ inant in 9th-13th cent.) supports “adulterers and adulteresses,” as do Í2 (ca. 7th), K (9th), L (8th), P (6th), Ψ (9th), 16 minus­ cules, and the Harclean (7th).

Note how only the NIV agrees, in meaning, with the KJV and the Byzantine—but (Minority Greek support exists not in the Greek. All other ver­ more diversely in Ì100, Aleph, A, sions here substitute another B, 33, 81, 1241, and 1739, plus a verb for the Greek boulhθh few of the Byzantine mss, all the —decides, wishes, chooses.

Latin, all Coptic, and the Peshitta.) Moderns stretch the meaning here.

KJV

NET

NASB

1 Peter 1:22 — “Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently.”

Reads: “You have purified your souls by obeying the truth in order to show sincere mutual love. So love one another earnestly from a pure heart.”

1 Peter 2:2 — “As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby.”

NET: “And yearn like newborn NASB: “. . . Like newborn ba­ infants for pure, spiritual milk, so bies, long for the pure milk of that by it you may grow up to the word, so that by it you may salvation . . .” grow in respect to salvation.”

(The NA text reads “. . . by it you may grow up to (or “into”) salva­ (The NA text reads “. . . by it you tion.” Peter’s letter targeted recent may grow to (or “into”) salva­ Gentile Christian converts, those tion.” The translators appear to be who already knew Christ. Thus, he unsure as to the spiritual state of was exhorting these “newborn Peter’s listeners, hence substitut­ babes” in Christ to grow in the love and knowledge of the Savior ing “in respect to” for “up in your . . .” Furthermore, the English trans­ by reading existing Scripture.

Peter was not—as the NET and its lation does not match the minority present brethren indicate—com­ Greek source apparatus [“to”]. manding unbelievers to become Also, the translators appear to saved by reading Scripture! Salva­ have reached a hybrid compromise tion of the soul comes only with “in respect to” substituted for through personal interaction with “up to” or “up into,” bridging the Christ: sin confession; repentance; and acceptance of Christ as sover­ gap between the Byz./TR and minority readings.) eign Lord over one’s life.)

NIV

PROBLEM

Reads: “Now that you have puri­ fied yourselves by obeying the truth so that you have sincere love for your brothers, love one another deeply, from the heart.”

Footnote reads: “Some early manu­

Though the most-ancient ma­ nuscript evidence (five of the oldest extant MSS—Ì72 [3rd century papyrus], Aleph, A, B, C) supports the omission of “through the Spirit,” the Major­ (A diverse array of Greek MSS scripts from a pure heart.” ity text includes it, as do K, L, and versions do support omission (The minority has excellent support P, and seven cursives. Katharas (“Having purified” [hgnikoteς] of “through the Spirit.” But “in in four significant uncials and (Both the NA27 and the UBS4 kardias, “pure heart,” also is in is correct, as nowhere seen here. order to show” does not appear in many Greek cursives, Ì72, cursives question the authenticity of 27 the Byz. text. Recall that the th th th Of 47 instances of the root word in the NA ! This leaves a potentially 33 [9 ], 81 [11 ], 323 [11 ], 945 katharas, “pure,” using single th th th Greek always holds the greatest the NT, only this occasion uses the suspicious gap between “truth” [11 ], 1241 [12 ], and 1739 [10 ], brackets. But the text apparatus of weight because it is the origi­ and “unfeigned.” No accounting is plus all the Vulgate, Syriac, and perfect active participial form.) each fails to mention why. [??]) made in the NA or the NET. [??]) Coptic, and many Byzantines.) nal NT source language.

(The Ï text and the Textus Recep­ tus each read “by it you may grow.” That is, grow spiritually.

But note that according to the NT Greek texts [TR] of Erasmus [1516], Theodore Beza [1598], Stephanus [1550], and others, and even the Ï—all partial sources for the KJV—the Authorized Version [1611/1769/others] is partly poorly translated as “of the word.” Also note that the KJV and NASB omit reference to the Greek logikos, which, in this context, means “spi­ ritually logical,” “spiritually rea­ sonable, ” or simply “reasonable” or “logical.” )

Reads: “Since you have in obedi­ ence to the truth purified your souls for a sincere love of the brethren, fervently love one an­ other from the heart.” Footnote reads: “Two early MSS read a clean heart.”

NIV: “Like newborn babies, crave pure spiritual milk, so that by it you may grow up in your salvation.”

(The NA Greek text reads “. . . by it you may grow to (or “into”) salvation.” The English is a some­ what sensible reading [“up in your”], but it still is incorrect, the words “to salvation” apparently having been added by some scribe[s] for unnecessary clarifica­ tion. [See KJV reading.] And a be­ liever does not “grow up to” [or “into”]salvation—only an unbeliever; and this still would represent an awkward reading.

These translators, too, have reached a compromising reading.)

The Byz. Ï reads, “. . . by it you may grow.” Writes J. A. Moorman of modern renderings from very early MSS: “A classic salvation by works alteration which despite its uncial and versional support cannot possibly be right.” In­ deed, the NU text reads, “. . . by it you may grow into salva­ tion.” (Salvation is a one-time event at a fixed moment!) The Ï, L (9th), and Byz. uncials 049, 056, and 0142 back the KJV. NU support is vast and diverse—but see Moorman quote—for this doctrinally wrong source reading. Support­ ing the NU are Ì72, majuscules ‫א‬, A, B, C, K, P, and Ψ, cur­ sives 33 and 81, eight other specified, diverse cursives, and all Latin, Syriac, and Coptic.

“As of evildoers,” as in the Ï and TR, accentuates the signi­ ficance of the righteous believer being falsely accused. The NU notates “you as evildoers” as an alternative reading according to (Ì72, B, and Psi, 10 specified Greek (The NA27 actually reads “. . . so the Ï, K, L, 10 minuscules, and cursives, many Byz. cursives, plus that in the very thing in which you most of the lectionaries. Also (The NET transposes word order: (“Behavior” inserted by author for “so . . . slander” and “your . . . the Peshitta [2nd], the Sahidic and are being slandered, those who are opposing—see NASB note— clarification of antiquated meaning you.” W-H, et. al., and the NU start Bohairic [3rd or 4th], represent the reviling your good conduct in are 614 (13th), 630 (14th), 1241, minority texts.) for “conversation.”)

Christ will be put to shame.”) v. 16 “Yet with gentleness . . .”)

1505 (11th), 1739 (10th), others.

1 Peter 3:16 — “Having a good conscience; that, whereas they speak evil of you, as of evildoers, they may be ashamed that falsely accuse your good conversation (behavior) in Christ.”

Reads: “Yet do it with courtesy and respect, keeping a good con­ science, so that those who slander your good conduct in Christ may be put to shame when they accuse you.”

Reads: “And keep a good con­ science so that in the thing in which you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ will be put to shame.”

Reads: “. . . keeping a clear con­ science, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be asham­ ed of their slander.”

KJV

NET

1 Peter 4:1 — “Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves like­ wise with the same mind: for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin. . . .”

Reads: “So, since Christ suffered in the flesh, you also arm your­ selves with the same attitude, be­ cause the one who has suffered in the flesh has finished with sin . . .”

2 Peter 1:21 — “For the proph­ ecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.”

NET: “For no prophecy was ever borne of human impulse; rather, men carried along by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.”

2 Peter 2:4 — “For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment; . . .”

Reads: “For if God did not spare the angels who sinned, but threw them into hell and locked them up in chains in utter darkness, to be kept until the judgment,”

NASB Reads: “Therefore, since Christ has suffered in the flesh, arm your­ selves also with the same purpose, because he who has suffered in the flesh has ceased from sin.” Foot­ note reads “i.e. suffered death.”

(The NET admits the majority of (The Greek ennoian means “in­ MSS read “for us,” yet argues— from the NA27—for “for you.” Yet, tent,” “mind,” “thought,” “will,” neither of these is in its reading!) etc., not “purpose.”)

NIV

The Byz. text, Í2, A, and five other significant uncials, plus the Harclean and Bohairic, read “for us.” Opposing minority testimony on behalf of “for you” exists only in Greek cur­ (The NA27 provides no opposing sives 69 (15th), 1505 (11th), a evidence for the omission of “for” few Byzantines, a single Vul­ [or “on behalf of”] us,” but only gate ms, and the Syriac Peshitta for “for you” rather than “for us.”) (2nd), according to the NA27.

Reads: “Therefore, since Christ suffered in his body, arm your­ selves also with the same attitude, because he who has suffered in his body is done with sin.”

NASB: “For no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.”

NIV: “For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy (A more literal translation from (The NA27 reads thelēmati, “will,” Spirit.” (“. . . Came not in old time” does slightly different Greek. “From” is “resolve,” “purpose,” or “design” (The Majority text reads agioi —not “was ever made.” “For no not appear in the Byz. text or most not in the vast majority of MSS. TR. Erasmus was the origin. “Car­ “Impulse” is an inaccurate trans­ prophecy ever came by the will of anthropoi, “holy men.” The NA ried” or “brought forth” are much- lation of qelhmati [will]. The NU man, but, by the Holy Spirit, holy omits “holy,” and adds apo, preferable to “came.”) omits “holy” before “men.”) men of God spoke” bests all these.) “from.”)

(Although all of the versions herein read “hell” here, this is a mistranslation of the Greek for reader-comprehension purposes.

The actual word is “tartarōsas”— cast down to Tartarus.)

PROBLEM

The vast majority of existing Greek contain “holy”—in­ cluding codices Í, A, Ψ (800 AD), and Θ, plus 33, one OL, all Vulgate, and the Peshitta and Harclean. The NA is sup­ ported by Ì72, B, P (6th), 323 (12th), 614 (13th), 630 (14th), 945 (11th), 1241 (12th), 1505 (11th), 1739 (10th), some Byz., and the Harclean (7th).

The difference between the Ï/TR reading and that appear­ ing in partial support of the NA is that A, B, C, and 81 use the masculine form, while the Ï/TR and NA use the feminine. The (The Greek seirais zophou means best testimony favors the Ï (The Greek paredwken “chains of darkness”—period. Yet reading: Ì72; P; Psi; 33; 1739; [paredōken] means “to give over some use the Greek reading ap­ (“Chains of gloom . . .” would be Vulgate; Syriac. Some moderns to,” “to deliver up,” or “to com­ pearing in the partial source of the mit,” not “to lock up”! “3 tn” in the 1881 ERV—Westcott’s & Hort’s— correct. Similar to seirois, at left, Í, write such things as, “. . . In prof. seirois, the masculine form. Sei­ and a few Byz. read sirois. A, B, C, writ. is a pit” (Thayer). Vincent NET even reads “Grk. ‘handed and 81 read seiroiς [masculine wrote, “The best texts . . . sub­ them over.’” [Tartarus is the Greek roς, reflected in the NASB plural].) stitute . . . pits or caverns.” ??? place for the wicked dead.])

English, is a pit, den, or cave.)

Reads: “For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to pits of darkness, reserved for judgment; . . .”

Reads: “For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell, putting them into gloomy dungeons to be held for judgment; . . .” Footnote reads, “Some manuscripts into chains of darkness.”

The Ï reads “. . . heavens will pass away with a great noise (rhoidzedon), and the elements, burning with heat, will be de­ stroyed, and the earth and the works in it will be burned up.”

The NU text reads “. . . will be (“Celestial bodies” [or “heavenly discovered [or ‘exposed’].” The bodies”] is correct, from the Greek Byz. is supported by A, 048, 33, (The Greek word rhoizedon stoicheia. But “laid bare”— (The Greek eurethēsetai, meaning 81, 1505, nine other specified [rhoyd-zeh-donn] here literally eureq h setai —is different (The KJV translators used “great “will be discovered/found, ob­ Greek, much of the Syriac The translation is inaccu­ means “loud noise,” and is used noise” and “shall melt with fervent Greek.” rate because the committee found uniquely in this context in the New served or gathered,” here is substi­ (Harc./Pal.), and the Coptic Bo­ heat.” “. . . Burning with intense Testament. It also means “with a tuted in the NIV—and other mod­ hairic. Opposing are Í, B, K, P, the last portion of the verse non­ heat, will be destroyed,” is a more sensical. They then concluded that great noise,” “whizzingly [hissing] ern versions—for katakaēsetai, six specified Greek, a few Byz. meaning “burned up,” in the KJV, mss, and the Syriac Philoxenian accurate rendering. “Terrible with a crash,” or “with roaring all must be destroyed from the speed.”)

TR, and Byz.) noise” originated from Tyndale.) earth to leave men’s deeds bare.)

(6th ??).

2 Peter 3:10 — “But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the hea­ vens 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.”

NET reads: “. . . the heavens will disappear with a horrific noise, and the celestial bodies will melt away in a blaze, and the earth and every deed done on it will be laid bare.”

NASB reads: “. . . in which the heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and its works will be burned up.”

Footnote reads, “Two early MSS read discovered.” (Uncials A and 048.)

NIV reads: “. . . The heavens will disappear with a roar; the ele­ ments will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything in it will be laid bare.” Footnote reads, “Some manuscripts be burned up.” (No! The majority!)

KJV 1 John 1:7 — “But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with anoth­ er, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.”

NET Reads: “But if we walk in the light, as he himself is in the light, we have fellowship with one another and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin.”

NASB

NIV

Reads: “. . . But if we walk in the Light as He Himself is in the Light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Je­ sus His Son cleanses us from all sin.”

Reads: “But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one anoth­ er, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin.”

(Notice how the NET committee rightfully has “light” in lowercase.

But, most importantly, Criston (No footnote appears for any other [Christ] is omitted after Ihsoun reading. Again, the NASB with­ holds information that its translat­ [Jesus], based on ‫א‬, B, C, P, Psi, 323, 630, 945, 1241, 1505, 1739, ors evidently think may confuse and a “paucity” [very few] of the the reader, concerning evidential weight—older manuscripts versus Byzantine MSS. All of these but 945 are what the moderns refer to number of manuscripts. That is, as “witnesses of the first order” or the translators hold back informa­ of the “second order.” [The NA27 tion because they are sold on the (About walking in this “light,” runs “earliest manuscripts” rather than Henry Alford [nineteenth century] text and marginal apparatus 27 wrote that it is “. . . an identity in 35 pages!] The NA editors meti­ the overwhelming majority that oppose. Also, “Himself” does not the essential element of our daily culously have classified diverse appear in either Greek source.) walk with the essential element of MSS to support their favored readings!)

God’s being.”)

(Understanding “light” properly in this context requires beyond super­ ficial word study, but the answer is found in a good lexicon: “phōs” [SRN 5457]—“(III) Figuratively, moral and spiritual light and knowledge which enlightens the mind, soul or conscience. . . .” p.

2176, Strong’s Complete Word Study Concordance)

PROBLEM

This is another of many ex­ amples of lower Christology among the modern versions: “Christ” is separated from “Je­ sus—possibly stemming from early Gnosticism. Note how the NASB committee completely misinterpreted the meaning of b (Footnote reads: “ 7 Or every.” “walk in the light,” which—in [Reference to “all.” —author] The this context—is entirely re­ minority text actually has greater moved from some type of phy­ sical illumination in God’s overall support [but not in the presence. The NASB commit­ Greek], including the following tee also misinterpreted “light” nd versions: the Syriac Peshitta [2 ]; (God’s essence) as evidently the Sahidic [3rd or 4th—northern being a literal manifestation of Egyptian]. [See NET notes for “phōs”: luminescence. They also capitalized Light, as if to further Alexandrian and other indicate it might represent the support.])

Holy Spirit, or some manifest­ ation thereof, or some other “divine entity.” The Ï is sup­ ported by A, 33, three OL, the Peshitta, and the Bohairic. (A and 33 are partially Byzantine.)

1 John 2:20 — “But ye have an NET: “Nevertheless you have an NASB: “But you have an anoint­ NIV: “But you have an anointing unction from the Holy One, and anointing from the Holy One, and ing from the Holy One, and you from the Holy One, and all of you all know.” ye know all (things).” all know.” you know the truth.” Footnote reads, “Some manuscripts and (The UBS4 and NA27 read oidate (As in both the Majority text and (The NASB translators showed you know all things.” panteς, “you know all,” but the sound judgment and wisdom in the Textus Receptus [Stephens latter designates this as an alter­ 1550, etc.], translators have added native reading. The NET bases this this case, not altering “unction,” or (The translators deviated from the the English word “things” to NU Greek, which reads kai oidate on ‫א‬, P, Ψ, a few Byz., and Egypt­ “anointing”—from the Greek clarify meaning, but the word chris´-ma, meaning precisely pantes, “and you all know.” In a re­ ian bishop Hesychius. [They obviously is not required for a anointing or unction: Strong’s Ref­ cent Zondervan interlinear, they assign tremendous weight to ‫א‬ complete understanding of the erence Number [“SRN”] 5545. simply ╗added the English “the and Hesychius—the latter being verse.)

The NASB has no footnote. “You truth” into both the interlinear and the alleged architect of the Al­ exandrian text ca. 300. He gener­ all know” what? Part of the NET the NIV English column. In the ally is credited as co-reviser of the note reads: “The statement you all preface, Greek scholar and teacher (About “you know all” Matthew Septuagint and the Greek New Bill Mounce writes, “May our Poole [1685] wrote, “all these know probably constitutes an Testament.] This despite the oppo­ indirect allusion to the provisions work help all of you using this new things concerning Christ and his site truth—that panta reads in religion. . . .” —Matthew Henry’s of the new covenant mentioned in interlinear to understand the won­ the overwhelming evidence: Ï; A; Whole Bible Commentary Jer 31.” The classic biblicists and derful truths of God’s Word, every C; K; L; 33; 1739; 18 other cur­ word proceeding from God’s [MHWBC] [See JFB agreement sives; all Latin [“latt”]; all Syriac; theologians of yesteryear differ. mouth. . . . ” Modifying Scripture, 4 at far right.])

[See far right.]) the Bohairic. The UBS lists B, then proclaiming verbal inerrancy, 1852, and the Sahidic as additional is wretched duplicity!) minority witnesses.)

Some variation of “you all know” may sound more cor­ rect, but it is the result of either an inadvertent scribal error or a deliberate alteration. Only ‫א‬, B, P, Psi, a few Byz., and Hesy­ chius support this reading (NA27)! The meaning of the verse is that, as specified in the Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary (Vol. 3, p. 635/ 1871), John’s readers knew all things “. . . needful for acting against antichrist’s seductions, and for Christian life.” Again, NIV’s “some” is wholly decep­ tive: Most, or vast majority, would be correct. (See NET notes for Byz. support.) (Even text critic S. P. Tregelles follow­ ed the Byz./TR reading in his 1857-1879 editions!)

KJV 1 John 4:3 — “And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.”

NET

NASB

NIV

Reads: “. . . And every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God; this is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming, and now it is already in the world.”

Reads: “. . . But every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.”

PROBLEM

The Ï reading supports “. . .

Jesus Christ as having come in the flesh.” Modern versions hinge largely on A, B, 33, and 81. But supporting these also are Psi (9th), five mixed cur­ sives (minuscules), and a few Byzantines. At least one mo­ (The essence is to warn against dern interlinear shows inclu­ (Note that v.

2, immediately those who do not acknowledge (“Christ” [Criston] is omitted Christ as God’s Son, and as such by the NU, as is “is [has] come in proceeding, reads, in the Ï, “By sion of “having come in the flesh,” in the English below the God in the flesh! This is the spirit the flesh.” Tischendorf [1872]— this the Spirit of God is known: Greek, yet the translators omit of antichrist. “But tὸn ᾿Ιhsoun Every spirit that confesses Jesus them in the accompanying text. who idolized Aleph Sinaiticus [‫]א‬ [‘Jesus’] is well supported by A B Christ as having come in the flesh Supporting the vast majority of —and Westcott and Hort [1870] Ψ 33 81 1739 al, and internally Greek in reading “Christ” are is of God . . .” According to the best explains the rise of the omit both, as well. [Westcott and practice of many ancient scribes, K, L, 049, 056, 0142, and others,” an NET note reads. Mo­ Hort idolized Vaticanus B, as well 0245, plus the Syp,h. As for dernism. However, the NA27 trun­ as did influential critic Griesbach.] “as having come in the flesh” may “having come in the flesh,” the have been removed deliberately cates opposing evidence by omit­ Tregelles’ Greek edition also Ï, ‫א‬, Ψ, 33, and all Syriac sup­ from the exemplar [copying ting testimony listed in another port. Opposing are A, B, seven omitted both Christon and en sarki source] with the thought that this specified Greek, a few Byz. digest: six specific Byz.; one Alex­ elēluthota [el-ay-loo-thah-tah], clause accidentally was inserted andrian [L]; much more. [See mss, all the Vulgate, and all the “has come in the flesh.”) into v. 3 by an earlier hand.) other evidence at far right].)

Coptic.

Reads: “. . . but every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God, and this is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming, and now is already in the world.”

Revelation 6:17 — “For the NET: “. . . because the great day NASB: “. . . for the great day of of their wrath has come, and who their wrath has come, and who is great day of his wrath is come; able to stand?” and who shall be able to stand?” is able to withstand it?”

(The NA27 fails to mention vital (The NET committee has the details about particular Revelation unmitigated, unsubstantiated gall MS evidence. But in two books, J. to insist that most Greek MSS were A. Moorman addresses this ma­ terial. In When the KJV Departs changed to ensure consistency between vv. 16 and 17! They have from the Majority Text, he meti­ so much confidence in Í, C, five culously describes the source for the Ï/TR Revelation: H. C. Hos­ Alexandrian cursives, and two kier’s masterful collation of about versions that often deny their own 200 Greek MSS. This work is readings, and so much disdain for based upon Greek MS groups 046 the Byz. Ï text, that they defy [Alex.] and the Andreas [Byz.], reason here. The Greek text each comprising about 80 MSS. dominates in weight and number!) These support the Majority.)

The Ï text (at least 85%), joined by A, P, 046, more, under gird the KJV reading. The Greek word “autos” (ow-tos´), (Related to the note at immediate is a personal pronoun used for left, for the NASB, very little both the first- (his) and thirdGreek manuscript evidence is person (their) cases, but note the extant. For example, unfortunately, previous verse, 6:16, which Erasmus—who used only about refers to “the wrath of the nine select MSS for his 1516 Lamb” immediately before v.

Greek NT translation—had few 17 begins. Conclusive. None of Revelation Greek MSS available the five minuscules opposing the Ï reading—again, all to him. Hence, for most of the Alexandrian—is older than the book, he was forced to translate available Latin Vulgate into Koine tenth century. (Greek-witness diversity is poor: only Alex.)

Greek.)

Revelation 22:14 — “Blessed are they that do his command­ ments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.”

NIV reads: “Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and may go through the gates into the city.”

NIV: “For the great day of their wrath has come, and who can stand?”

The Ï reads “. . . they that do his commandments.” A and ‫א‬ oppose (B truncated after Heb. 9:13), as do five Alex. cursives and a few Byz., plus the Sahi­ 27 dic. Supporting the Byz. text (The NA notates the KJV reading (Not only is this reading out­ weighed and outnumbered, but it is are groups 046 and the And­ as an alternative, despite superior reas, all Syriac, and the Bo­ Greek and versional evidence. “Ac­ (Probably a reference back to Rev. incomplete. Wash their robes in 7:9 wrongfully repeated here. hairic. (See 046 and Andreas what? The Lamb’s blood? If so, cess” is a poor translation and Most likely scribal error.) why would this not appear here?) groups, within NASB, above.) wrong according to their Greek.)

NET reads: “Blessed are those who wash their robes so they can have access to the tree of life and can enter into the city by the gates.”

NASB reads: “Blessed are those who wash their robes, so that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter by the gates into the city.”

KJV

NET

NASB

NIV

PROBLEM

Although imperfect, like every other existing NT version (other than originals), the KJV translation is based upon refinements of the Majority text tradition (Textus Re­ ceptus) executed by matchless, spiritually regenerate, orthodox scholars of the 16th and 17th centur­ ies. The lineage of the KJV repres­ ents an overwhelming majority of nearly identical Greek manuscripts outnumbering the modern text base by an 8-to-1 to 9-to-1 ratio.

The Byzantine lineage dates back to the fourth century, if not earlier, even according to Greek source opponent F. J. A. Hort, hence hav­ ing a pure heritage extending back more than 1,500 years.

Promoted as a literal-but-idiomatic translation known for its gaining academic acceptance among a variety of Protestant denomina­ tions, The NET Bible (2006) does represent a unique modern version.

It is brimming with 60,932 mostly scholarly study notes (sn) and “text-critical” notes (tc). But like nearly all modern versions, the NET not only is based upon “mo­ dernistic,” “naturalistic” prin­ ciples, but its notes reflect the scholarly bias inherent to the Nestle-Aland text and apparatus, and to today’s liberal theological and critical beliefs and methodo­ logies.

Long regarded as one of the “most accurate” and literal translations in existence, the NASB, upon closer examination, proves otherwise: based upon the NU critical text; often “stylized” against its Greek source text and even defying it.

This version also takes liberties in word and phrase order, based on its own source Greek, and it often fails to footnote significant variant readings, such as those of the Ma­ jority text. It frequently has been mistranslated from its own Greek source, and it represents an “up­ dated” version of the 1901 ASV— the ASV being an “Americanized” version of the oft-corrupt 1881 ERV New Testament.

The most classic, deceptive literaldynamic equivalence version avail­ able, the NIV is a subtly comprom­ ising bridge between devotion to its own vacillating, corrupt Greek source text and its commitment to a stylized, modernistic concession to a wanton worldly readership. It softens the Bible’s critical warnings and harsh realities, alters biblical doctrine, and aggregately consti­ tutes a vitiated Gospel of positiv­ ism eagerly embraced by both be­ lievers and unbelievers. It is a ver­ sion especially designed for and ap­ pealing to those having “itching ears” (2 Timothy 4:3). Because of these qualities, the NIV has outsold every other Bible version since 1986—with the KJV second. (Mar­ keting and “stylization” = +sales.)

Since the first century, heretics have attacked God’s Word, modifying it, adding to it and subtracting from it. Successive infidels established the Roman Catholic Church based on noncanonical doctrine, human constructs and self-serving ma­ nipulation of Scripture. One result was a minority of older manuscripts evolving into a corrupt, false “Bible” based on a “critically edited” NT Greek text forced upon the public by naturalistic scholars and lin­ guistic “stylists.” Bible societ­ ies have become a collective corporate, rich CEO.

The NET’s 25-plus translators fully embrace openly-stated ob­ jections to traditionally, conserv­ The KJV was based on the content atively orthodox approaches to of several earlier Reformation interpretation and translation: gen­ Bibles, including Tyndale’s, der issues; wording; “stylization”; Coverdale’s, the Matthew’s (John literalism (extreme); “readability” over language faithfulness; etc. A Rodgers), Taverner’s, the Great portion of this version’s intro­ Bible, the Bishops, and the duction best illustrates their claim­ Geneva. Additionally, Theodore ed contradictions: “The ultimate Beza’s 1598 TR was another objective of the NET Bible is to be source, plus some of Erasmus’ accurate, readable, and elegant. manuscripts (late cursives).

Yet these three principles are all too often in conflict with one ano­ The entire translation process for ther.” (An allegiance not to God!) the Authorized Version spanned seven years, from 1604 (some And the NET—as with almost work) to the final editing work in every other modern version—is 1610. Official work by the appoin­ based upon proven doctrinally cor­ ted translation body began in rupt manuscripts, “critical edi­ 1607. The final initial version was tions,” and underlying Greek and presented to James I in early 1611. Hebrew texts, including: Codex Note that no copyright ever has Leningradensis B19a (OT); the NA and UBS Greek; the Westcottbeen established for the KJV— Hort NT; ancient Codices ‫א‬, B, D, something uncharacteristic of L, and others (Greek NT). every other Bible version!

First released in 1966 by the Lock­ man Foundation, supposedly a “nonprofit, interdenominational ministry dedicated to the transla­ tion, publication and distribution of the New American Standard Bible, the Amplified Bible . . . ,” the NASB also underwent a signif­ icant update in 1995. According to the Lockman Foundation website, “In 1995 the NASB was updated, increasing clarity and readability.

Vocabulary, grammar, and sen­ tence structure were carefully re­ viewed for greater understanding and smoother reading. . . .” (Au­ thor’s underlining.) It is certain that the changes, being modern­ istic, have further degraded God’s Word. Just look at the revealing quote.

Note that, according to the “Biblica” web site, now repres­ enting the merged IBS and “Send the Light” organizations, more than 100 scholars repres­ The original NIV Bible was first enting 20 denominations trans­ published in 1978 by the Interna­ lated the NIV “Bible.” The tional Bible Society, then in 1984. same source states that for 30 Currently, Zondervan—a leader in years the Committee on Bible Translation (CBT) “has labored contemporary, modernistic Bible translation (highly commercialized) to bring the Word of God to —uses Bible “databases” owned by people in contemporary Eng­ lish.” (That is, pedantic, sim­ the International Bible Society plistic, diluted and mistrans­ (IBS). The NIV’s modernistic asso­ lated.) ciations are examples of the com­ plexity and profit that have infilt­ Now nearly every modern rated the Bible-publishing business: translation states it is based on the “most ancient and best ma­ For more than 200 years the IBS nuscripts,” and “according to had been “sharing God’s Word around the world.” But in 2007, the accepted principles of New Testament textual criticism.”

IBS adjoined the STL (Send the These modernistic methods yet Light) to become Biblica. Space is have an opponent in the spir­ prohibitive to fully describe how itual form of textual criticism: commercialized Zondervan’s and one well-supported since the the NIV’s relationship has become. sixteen century!

The Critical Editions (texts) The modern “critical text” is a liberal, modernistic, scholar-edited apparatus based largely on the ancient uncial (all-capital letters) codices (facing pages, bound on one edge) Aleph (Sinaiticus) and B (Vaticanus), circa 325-360 AD. (Most scholars estimate that Vaticanus is a few years older.) Numerous scholars of naturalistic “textual criticism” (the science of applying modern analytical theories to ancient documents—in effect without due consideration for the Bible as expressly God-inspired), particularly during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, produced their own “edited” versions based substantially on these two early manuscripts—some of the most-famous biblical text critics being J. S. Semler (1725-1791), Johann Ja kob Griesbach (1745-1812), Samuel P. Tregelles (1813-1875), (Lobegott) Friedrich Constantine von Tischendorf (1815-1874), Brooke Foss Westcott (1825-1901), and Fenton John Anthony Hort (1828-1892). The current critical apparatuses used as the basis for nearly every modern Bible translation/version are the Nestle-Aland (NA) and that of the United Bible Societies (UBS). These two alternative, modernistically and naturalistically “edited” texts purportedly are different from each other in about 400 places, but almost entirely inconsequentially. Mostly, they differ in punctuation, grammar, use of personal pronouns and word order, according to the consensus of contemporary text critics. Note that the “NA” now is in its twenty-eighth edition (late 2012). Both of these apparatuses very closely parallel the Westcott-Hort NT edition first secretly disclosed in 1870, during the beginning stages of the English Revised Version’s translation process: “Nearly every Bible written in English since 1881 has used as its basic New Testament text the Westcott-Hort edition (Origen Adamantius’ [185-254] privately ‘edited’ N.T.).”1 (The W-H edition was based largely on Sinaiticus, Vaticanus and Tischendorf’s eighth edition. Tischendorf’s last edition [1869-1872] differed from his seventh version, of “mature conclusions,” in 3,572 places—mostly because F. J. A. Hort of the contrasting readings in Codex Aleph, versus Vaticanus.)2 Richard Simon (1638-1712), a Roman Catholic priest of the seventeenth century, is generally credited as being the “forerunner of modern biblical criticism”— utilizing analytical methods previously and typically applied to classical works of Greek literature. 3 (Karl Lachmann [1793-1851] highly popularized this methodology in 1831 with the release of his first “critical edition” of the “Bible.” “. . . Lachmann was not a theologian but had distinguished himself by critical editions of Latin and German classics.”)4 The textual-criticism movement—which often is applied “naturalistically” with effectively little genuine regard for the Bible as being a God-breathed work (Gk. theopneustos)—largely was less-pronounced in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, but gained momentum in the latter 1700s. J. S. Semler (1725-1791)— often regarded as the “father of German rationalism”—was a chief proponent of this methodology in the late 1700s and early 1800s, followed by his prodigy, Griesbach. 5 Griesbach, like several of his theological predecessors, produced his own “critical edition,” followed by the likes of such nineteenth century philological (pertaining to the study of language in written historical sources) analytical masters as Tischendorf, Tregelles and, of course, the classic duo of Westcott and Hort. Based on their own critical text which was 14 years in the making (1857-1870), Westcott and Hort masterminded the development of the English Revised Version (ERV or “RV”)—the NT introduced in 1881 and the entire Bible in 1885. 5 The ERV marked a deliberate, concerted motion intended to undermine—in fact, replace—the King James Version, but the efforts, of course, were not ultimately and definitively successful.6 (Although the ERV and its American counterpart, the American Standard Version [ASV], never gained large-scale acceptance, the modern versions are varying iterations of them, nevertheless.)

Tischendorf’s wild textual-criticism escapade after his seventh edition was based on his initial discovery of 129 or 130 (his accounts varying)—43 of which he was allowed to borrow—leaves of the Codex Sinaiticus in a waste heap in St. Catherine’s Monastery, at the foot of Mt. Sinai, in 1844. 7 (These 43 Old Testament leaves from the Septuagint (Greek Old Testament) now are collectively referred to as Codex Friderico-Augustanus.) 8 He later acquired the bulk of the manuscript (303½ leaves—1,214 pages) during his third visit in 1859—never returning the manuscript on loan from the monks of the monastery/convent .9 All of this, including Tischendorf’s textualcriticism lunacy following his Aleph find, is well-documented. (Tischendorf was exceptionally proud of his discovery and detested the monks who accommodated him: “Oh, these monks!” he wrote. “If I had the military strength and power, I should be doing a good deed if I threw this rabble over the walls.” 10)

Codex Vaticanus

As for Codex Vaticanus B (03) Gk. 1209, its known history is meager, with only its approximate date of origin (c. 325-360 AD), its “texttype” (Alexandrian) and its fifteenth-century discovery, to present, being known. The Vaticanus came into the possession of the Vatican in 1444 —hence its name—and the Vatican Library’s first registry entry was for Codex B, the entry dated 1475. 11 Now naturalistic text critics boast interminably about the pristine condition—actually a detriment to manuscript character by indicating a lack of scribal use—of their ancient treasures of alleged superior integrity. Just simply contemplate the futile concept of essentially a mere two documents being leveraged to outweigh the vast majority of 5,773 Koine NT Greek manuscripts—the total “text-type” evidence being between 85-15 percent and 95-5 percent in favor of the Byzantine text. Nevertheless, most modern “Bible” versions’ New Testaments are based on the Koine Greek of only the following: 1) Vaticanus B (90%); 2) Sinaiticus Aleph (7%); 3) Alexandrinus A (approx. 2.5%); 4) codices Bezae (D), L, M, and a few others (one-half of one percent among them all).12

But the disproportionate manuscript numbers represent just one component of this multifaceted issue, some others being doctrinal errors, scribal blunders, text-type considerations and nonsensical readings, scriptoral region of origin, area schools of thought, and more. The fact is, naturalistic text critics supporting this paucity of ancient manuscript evidence still have no actual proof to back their suspicious critical claims, many of them based adroitly on phantom theories such as those generated by Westcott and Hort—including the “Antiochian rescension” (or “Lucianic rescension”) the latter standing on absolutely no documented proof. (The Antiochian rescension is the W-H premise theorizing that the Majority [Byzantine, Traditional, Antiochian, Constantinopolitan, Ecclesiastical] text is a fabricated, mixed text most probably made

by Lucian [d. 312] in Antioch during the third or fourth centuries, combining the Alexandrian/Western texts. But, again, this theory is entirely unsubstantiated.)13

Author’s sources Information about verse attestation/testimony is derived from The Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece, 27th Edition (Stuttgart, Ger.: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2006), pp. 48-57 and 65-69 (Intro.), and 3-680, and J. A. Moorman’s title Early Manuscripts, Church Fathers, and the Authorized Version (Collingswood, NJ: The Bible for Today Press, 2005), pp. 124-311. Comparison verses cited from the KJV, NASB and NIV are taken from The Contemporary Parallel New Testament (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997), pp. 30-1785, by John R. Kohlenberger III, ed. The NET Bible, New English Translation (2006) text was taken from “theWord” Bible software (Greece: Costas Stergiou, 2003-2012). Verse material cited from the Majority text was used from The Majority Text Greek New Testament Interlinear (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 2007), by Zane C. Hodges and Arthur L. Farstad, eds., and The Analytical-Literal Translation of the New Testament of the Holy Bible, Second Edition (Bloomington, Ind.: AuthorHouse, 2005), by Gary F. Zeolla. (The Majority text in this latter title was derived from The New Testament in the Original Greek According to the Byzantine Majority Textform [Atlanta: Original Word Publications, 1991], by Maurice A. Robinson and William G. Pierpont, 1991.) Other Byzantine text (Greek) was taken from Robinson’s and Pierpont’s 2000 edition, from “theWord” Bible software. Scripture portions cited from the Textus Receptus were taken from The Interlinear Hebrew-Greek-English Bible, Vol. 4 (Lafayette, Ind.: Sovereign Grace Publishers, 1985), by Jay P. Green, Sr., from the 1550 version of the Robert Stephens (Estienne/Stephanus—1503-1559) TR, Copyright © 1976 by the Trinitarian Bible Society, London, England.

In addition, Matthew Poole’s Commentary on the Holy Bible, Vol. 3 (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, 1982), was used to look up parallel verses among the gospels. Other factual information has been gleaned from numerous scholarly and authoritative resources, and some, such as the number of existing Greek NT manuscripts (5,700-plus), is common knowledge in the biblical textual-criticism realm.

KJV (“Authorized Version”) content More than 80 percent of the wording of the King James Version (1611) New Testament is derived from William Tyndale’s (1494-1536) famous 1526 Tyndale Bible (NT only), the earliest of several versions among the proto-KJV legacy.14 Other Bibles of this tradition are Myles Coverdale’s (1488-1569) 1535 Bible (first complete Bible printed in Modern English), the 1537 Matthew’s Bible (John Rodgers—1500-1555), the Great Bible of 1539, the renowned Geneva Bible (Pilgrims on the Mayflower) of 1560 (NT first published in 1557, with William Whittingham’s (ca. 1524-1579) verse numbers—a first in the English New Testament), and the Bishops’ Bible of 1568.15 (The first-recorded NT version of the Bible to include verse numbering is Robert Stephens’ 1551 Greek NT, its 1550 predecessor called the Royal Edition (“editio regia”), this being the Greek underlying most Textus Receptus-based New Testaments existing today.16 Theodore Beza’s (1519-1605) 1598 NT version is the only other “TR” popularly used today.

Interlinear Bibles The Interlinear Hebrew-Greek-English Bible, Vol. 4 (New Testament only) is the culmination of exhaustive research and translation work by a single individual, Jay P. Green, Sr. (1918-2008). More than 350,000 of its copies having been sold, the complete OT-NT interlinear (four volumes or one large single volume) provides something invaluable to all interested in the Greek NT: the venerated 1550 Greek New Testament of Robert Estienne (Stephanus), accompanied by an English translation (below) and Strong’s Reference Numbers (SRN—above) for nearly every Greek word.

Flanking the long, central Greek-English column are, at left, Green’s own Literal Translation of the Bible, and to the right, the King James Version translation (1769 version, including replacement of highly antiquated terms). Stephanus (Stephens) was one of the most-learned biblical scholars of the sixteenth century, and a French printer. He produced four Greek editions of the NT, based on Erasmus’ work—in 1546, 1549, 1550 and 1551. Stephens’ 1550 Greek New Testament followed Erasmus’ 1527 and 1535 editions, and added marginal readings from the Complutensian Polyglot (completed in 1514/1517 and printed in 1522).17 The Old Testament of the §“IHGEB” also is translated into English, from the Hebrew Masoretic Text (Aleppo Codex/tenth century), and includes the accompanying Strong’s Reference Numbers (SRN). No other interlinear Bible contains a truly unadulterated, pure version of the NT “Textus Receptus,” and the truly pure OT Masoretic Text—the latter founded upon the Aleppo Codex and its familial group of manuscripts. (This writer has no relationship with the publisher—except as a patron.)

All other existing interlinears are based on “critical editions” (essentially Aleph and B), compare the KJV text to that of a modern “Bible,” or have been found to have some corruptions—e.g., G. R. Berry’s (1897) and Thomas Newberry’s (1877). Furthermore, Alfred Marshall’s popular NT interlinear (1958), for example, is based on Eberhard Nestle’s (1851-1913) Novum Testamentum Graece—the Nestle-Aland apparatus—and compares this corrupt minority Greek to the NIV. The same is true of William D. and Robert H. Mounce’s The Zondervan Greek and English Interlinear New Testament (NASB/NIV). Beware of the new breed of interlinears which have been produced during the past few decades: Nearly all are based mostly on the ancient Aleph and B manuscripts, via the NU text.

By way of such a “comparison” purchase, the author has learned (from the preface) that—to his surprise—evidently many modern Bible scholars are largely ignorant not only of the intricacies of the Majority text, TR and NU critical editions, but also have little or no knowledge of the study of textual criticism. For much of the past century, seminaries and Bible colleges almost exclusively have been presenting students with a single Greek source text: the “NU.” It seems that many of the professors, themselves, have not been aware of the chicanery that has been foisted upon them. They simply have been accepting the Read the preface of outrageously flawed conclusions of their predecessors, and their teachings and conclusions, then passing them on to their students! Conversely, here is an excerpt from the “Preface to the Third Edition” of the Interlinear Greek-English New Testament (Vol. virtually any modern 4 of 4 of this complete interlinear Bible): “So it may be clearly seen that our aim is exact correspondence between the English word ‘Bible’ version and you’ll and the original word, as far as God will bless us with the right choice. This is in contrast with those who claim they have the license to discern the thoughts of the original writers and then to make up their own expressions of what they would have written if they were glean significant alive today.”18 (Emphasis mine.) The second sentence from this excerpt is a quite accurate description of the current trend in Bible understanding of how translation: “dynamic equivalence,” or “functional equivalence,” which is a “thought-for-thought” translation methodology based on these large interEugene Nida’s new-age communication model (“SMR”—Source [encoded]-Message-[decoded] Receptor). Read the preface of virtually any modern “Bible” version and you’ll glean significant understanding of how these large interdenominational, denominational, ecumenical translation committees operate. Said operational models in the prefaces of these “new-age” “Bibles” describe how ‘ecumenical’ translation interdenominational translation committees, with an excessive emphasis on unification among worldwide Christendom, work to eliminate discord (with the price of compromising the bold truth of God’s Word), “bridge cultural gaps,” and provide “Bible” versions committees operate. “in today’s language”—ones that sacrifice scriptural fidelity for alleged “easier reading.”

“

”

Common biblical vernacular “Koine” (coin-ā´) means common. The vast majority of the New Testament was written in a style of Greek (“common Greek”—Koine) used by the general, common folk. “Classical Greek” was the linguistic form of the learned, thus was not chosen by God to be used in communicating with the “common man.” The physician and historian Luke, however, for whatever reason, wrote his Gospel to the Gentiles (“Hellane”—Greek for Gentile or Greek-speaking person) in Classical Greek. God knows.)

The ending of Mark’s Gospel Omission of “the last twelve verses of the Gospel according to Mark,” vv. 9-20 of Chapter 16, is significant because, other than the plain fact that this passage is attested to by the vast majority of extant NT Greek manuscripts (all but two uncials), without it, the Book of Mark ends with the apostles being “afraid.”19 But, equally important, leaving out this passage also would have excluded the “Great Commission” from the Book of Mark (v. 15): “And he said unto them, ‘Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature” (KJV). Subsequent verses in the passage are critical, as well, discussing the significance of salvation and baptism, spiritual works , and God’s protection for believers. The final verse vitally galvanizes this key passage with affirmative apostolic action: “And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.” Most naturalistic text critics of both yesteryear and today insisted and continue to plead that the passage should be excised from God’s Word on two grounds: 1) It is not attested to by their beloved Codices B (primarily) and Aleph (secondarily); 2) they don’t think it “fits the sense” in the location of the book—that it is “out of place”(a later interpolation). Conversely, the spiritually based text critics of past and present argue for its appropriateness in textual proximity, its consistency with surrounding text, its majority reading, and its importance to the Scriptures. Imagine the Bible with only one gospel reference, in another Synoptic, to the Great Commission (Matthew 28:19). (A fascinating side note is that Codex Vaticanus, upon which the vast majority of the modern critical texts depend, contains an entirely blank column after Mark 16:8—a vacancy precisely matching the space required for the “longer ending” of Mark. Furthermore, in this same space in Sinaiticus, the handwriting, ink, letter size, and spacing are different in an obvious attempt to fill the space.20 “These circumstances testify that the sheet is a forgery.”21)

John W. Burgon

Fortunately, thanks to among the most erudite biblical, theological, and linguistic scholars of the past 200 years, such knowledgeable, studious, resourceful, wise, and conservative orthodox Christian figures of the faith as John William Burgon (pictured on previous page), Edward Miller, F. H. A. Scrivener, and Herman Charles Hoskier (d. 1938), each of the nineteenth century, peoples of today and tomorrow still have and will have access to the expositional evidence overwhelmingly supporting the case for God’s true Word: His words “breathed out” through His appointed human vessels—whose canonical writings evolved into the Majority text, their subsequent refinement in the Textus Receptus, and, ultimately, into the production of the KJV. (Unless God has a plan for a superior English translation, which seems unlikely given the KJV was produced at the pinnacle of the language’s development.)

Verbal inspiration of KJV? Many, many KJV advocates among both the ordained and laity—the “KJV-only” community—have emphatically maintained that the AV is divinely inspired (plenarily). However, the truth is, the 54 (at onset—seven having died or resigned during the process) original members of the translation committee aggregately never claimed that their work was divinely inspired, verbally. Essentially, these scholars, among the very finest of their time and of all time (but imperfect), believed that the time was ripe—as did both the agreeable king (James I of England) and those clergy petitioning for a new translation—for a new version of God’s Word. Belief in the divine inspiration of the KJV translators, and their work, in the original plenary sense, is wrongful! Only the original, plenarily inspired human instruments of God’s Word—the respective biblical books’ writers—and their original output, actually were verbally (“plenarily”) inspired by God. 22 Moreover, many orthodox theological scholars through the centuries have firmly held that the original biblical “autographs” not only were verbally “God-breathed” (2 Timothy 3:16-17) but, subsequently, that the precise content of the autographs has been providentially preserved, as well. “What value has inspiration without preservation?” (David W. Cloud, in his book Faith Vs. the Modern Bible Versions, cites several Bible verses that very easily can be interpreted as proof of God’s preservation of the original manuscripts’ words—Psalm 12:6, 7; Psalm 119:89; Proverbs 30:5, 6; Isaiah 40:8; Isaiah 55:11; Matthew 5:18; Matthew 24:35.)

The KJV foundation However, such KJV opponents as learned modernistic scholars Daniel B. Wallace and Bruce M. Metzger (d. 2007) discredit or have discredited the AV on the basis of Desiderius Erasmus’ (1466-1536) TR foundation, his first edition, in 1516. One problem with Wallace’s argument is that Erasmus’ 1516 A friend of edition—again, the very first printed Greek edition—was not at all the direct basis for the 1611 KJV. (And Erasmus used nine Greek [total in all of his editions]—five from Basel [Switzerland] and four from England—for his 1527 and 1535 editions, not four or five, as Wallace Erasmus, Paulus craftily has intimated. [Four or five may have been used for Erasmus’ first edition.] A friend of Erasmus, Paulus Bombasius, researched Bombasius, Codex Vaticanus23, and, based on Erasmus’ examination of 365 passages from Codex B provided by correspondent Juan Ginés de Sepúlveda, he excluded the manuscript from translation consideration because of its Alexandrian [Egyptian] characteristics.)24 The researched original AV bases were the following: 1) William Tyndale’s 1526/1534 Bibles; 2) the Bishop’s Bible (1568—no more than eight percent in Codex Vaticanus, KJV); 3) Theodore Beza’s 1598 TR edition; 4) the Coverdale Bible (1535); the Matthew’s Bible (1538); 5) the Great Bible (1539); 6) the and, based on Geneva Bible (1560); 7) a few of the Greek MSS used by Erasmus. 25 (Erasmus, a Reformation humanist—one dedicated to learning and enlightenment, not to human merit before God—who believed in large-scale Roman Catholic renovation from within the system rather Erasmus’ than the necessary wholesale change that Martin Luther stipulated, produced two other Greek versions, in 1519 and 1522. His fourth and examination of last, in 1535, he produced the year before his death.)26

“

365 passages from Codex B . . . he excluded the manuscript from translation consideration because of its Alexandrian [Egyptian] characteristics.”

In a 1987 television commercial promoting “The Book,” a condensed version of The Living Bible, Billy Graham said that The Book “reads like a novel”—an intended compliment.27 CONCLUSION: In the final analysis of these issues, it is important to ask one’s self a single practical question, because, for most of today’s biblical scholars, manuscript evidential age is tantamount to legitimacy: Should a paltry minority of older, betterpreserved documents take adoptional precedence over a numerically overwhelming, highly consistent but slightly eclectic (variable) majority of manuscripts? (And should the “editorial judgment” of naturalistic scholars be accepted and commended above God and His Word?)

Romanism’s structure, doctrine and practices are consistent with the fact that “revered” objects, especially “sacred” manuscripts, traditionally were protected from public access of any kind. Hence the pristine condition of the ancient corrup ted manuscripts, such as Sinaiticus (Aleph) and Vaticanus (B). (Remember that the Roman Catholic Church officially took form in the fifth century; but its essential framework was begun by Constantine I [272-337] in 312. His reign marked the official adjoining of the church and state, a transaction that resulted in all manner of ills among the Church.)

A Adoptionist—One who believes that Christ was a “mere man” until God’s Spirit had descended on him at baptism—hence, that God “adopted” Jesus Christ, thus helping to explain how “God is one.” The doctrine of Adoptionism originated in the third century.

Aeons (ayh´-ons)—Spirit beings of differing importance residing within various “levels” of the supernatural realm. Belief in this phenomenon originates in Gnostic heresy beginning in the first century AD. It was believed that persons could ascend to higher levels of status in this spiritual realm.

Aleph (ayh´-leff)—1: A codification designation for the fourth century Codex Sinaiticus, discovered by Friedrich Constantine von Tischendorf in 1844 in St. Catherine’s Monastery/Convent on Mount Sinai. It is dated to approximately 325-360 AD. Aleph (seven percent) and Vaticanus B (ninety percent) under gird approximately 97 percent of the Greek source text for nearly every modern Bible version; 2: The first letter of the Hebrew alphabet (‫)א‬.

Alexandrian—A classification term used to categorize biblical source manuscripts having specific characteristics identifying them with the general area of Alexandria, Egypt. (Alexandria was the epicenter of early heresy.) Some examples of Alexandrian text-type members are codices Aleph, Alexandrinus and Vaticanus, the three most-revered extant Christian codices by most contemporary biblical text critics.

Alexandrinus—The highly significant fifth century codex (also codified as “Codex A”) to which naturalistic biblical scholars often refer, often as an un ­ derlying support manuscript for the modern “critical editions” under girding most modern Bibles. It is dated to approximately 400-440 AD. (Alexandrinus is “Alexandrian” in the gospels and “Byzantine” in the Pauline Epistles.)

Alford, Henry—An English (London) churchman, theologian, biblical text critic, and scholar, as well as a hymnodist, poet, and writer, Alford (18101871) was a graduate of Trinity College (College of the Holy, Undivided Trinity), Cambridge, and in the employ of the Anglican Church. A modernistleaning biblical text critic, he is best-known for his monumental edition of the eight-volume New Testament in Greek, on which he worked from 1841 to 1861. This work was more “philological” (linguistically oriented) than theological in character, however. It involved “a careful collation of readings of the chief manuscripts and the researches of the ripest continental scholarship of his day” (theological modernism). Subsequently, Alford published the four-volume New Testament for English Readers (1868).

American Standard Version (ASV)—A modernism-based Bible version publicly introduced in 1901. The ASV was an “Americanized” version of the notorious English Revised Version (ERV) of 1881 (NT only). The ASV translation was partially presided over by Unitarians.

Antiochian (ant-ee-ock´-ee-uhn)—1: A term referring to things associated with the city of Antioch in Syria. The Holy Spirit first indwelt believers on a large scale (3,000) in Syria, as recorded in Acts 2; 2: a term sometimes used to refer to the Majority (“Byzantine”) text.

Argos (ahr-gōs´)—A Greek word meaning “unprofitable” or “inactive.”

Armenian—A fifth century Scripture version produced from a new alphabet, by Mesrob and some assistants, based on Bibles of Rome and Syria.

Asceticism—From the Greek askēsis (ass-kay-sis), a strict system of spiritual discipline whose chief preoccupation is the renunciation of the world and the flesh as part of the great struggle against the devil: primarily poverty, chastity, and godly obedience. Although this rigorous ritualistic system flourished in early Christian times, it rightfully became recognized—based on Scripture—as excessive in its motives and implementation.

Assimilation—A modern textual-criticism term used to described the process that critics believed biblical writers and scribes used to ensure consistent reading between or among two or more portions of Scripture. (e.g., changing wording to assure parallelism between two verses.)

Asthenes (ass-then-ace´)—A Greek word meaning “without strength,” “weak,” “sick,” “impotent,” or “more feeble.”

Autos (ow-tos´)—The Greek reflexive pronoun self, used of the first and third persons—their, it, one, the other, my own, these things, this, together, very, which.

AV (Authorized Version)—The British (UK) nomenclature for the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible. (See “KJV” definition on Page 48.)

B Beza (bayz´-uh)—1: Codex Bezae (“D”) of the fifth century, a Greek-Latin diglot, is representative of the “Western” text group. Codex D is recognized by many scholars as among the most-corrupt Koine Greek New Testament uncial manuscripts extant. Some modern, liberal scholars embrace D, because of its age, as supportive of their “critical text”; 2: Swiss scholar Theodore Beza (1519-1604) of the sixteenth century, generally regarded by orthodox scholars as among the most-learned biblical scholars and theologians, and God-fearing persons, of his day. (Codex Bezae [D] was named after Beza because this book once was in his possession; but he did not use it significantly in producing any of his ten Greek text editions, from 1562 to 1604.)

Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (1967/1977/1983)—An Old Testament Hebrew version succeeding the Biblia Hebraica (1906, 1912, 1937). David W. Cloud reports that conservative biblical scholar D. A. Waite estimates that 20,000 to 30,000 changes were made between the versions of 1912 and 1937.

Both the 1937 BH and the BHS (Stuttgartensia) are based upon the Codex B19a (“Leningradensis”), one of the oldest extant Hebrew biblical manuscripts, dated to 1008 or 1009 AD—the complete OT text. The Biblia Hebraica (not Stuttgartensia) was originated by Eberhard Nestle (1851-1913) in 1898, and he presided over its development, along with Rudolf Kittel (1853-1929), until Nestle’s death in 1913. Eberhard’s son, Erwin (1883-1972), succeeded his father with the BH, and his successors gradually diverged from the original BH text to the BHS through the years, eventually switching to the Leningradensis (BHL) as its sole OT base.

Bohairic (bow-hayr´-ick)—A “Northern” (“Lower”—geographic south) Egypt dialect of the Coptic language dating to the third or fourth century characterized “by a number of reasonably full manuscripts.” Bohairic tends to support the Byzantine-text tradition, and it is the only Coptic dialect that remains active in liturgical use within the Coptic Orthodox Church. The Bohairic was the the language of the common people during its time.

Bomberg Editions—Daniel Bomberg’s (d. 1549) 1516-1517 First Rabbinic Bible and in his 1524-1525 Second Rabbinic Bible, both of whose text long was copied and presided over by the ben Asher Levite Jewish order, from the sixth through eleventh centuries, after which the ben Chayyim order succeeded it. A descendant of this order, Rabbi Jacob ben Chayyim, served as editor for the second Bible, preceded by Rabbi Felix Pratensis, who compiled this second Bible. Although the Bomberg Bibles—and their underlying text—generally are regarded as the OT basis for both modern and KJVlegacy Bibles, it has been proven that this claim is not applicable to the OT texts of the modern versions. ( See “Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia,” immediately above.) The traditional Masoretic Text is based upon an older (tenth century) family of the Aleppo Codex, the OT basis for Reformation Bibles.

Byzantine (biz´-uhn-teen)—1: A term used to refer to the “Majority text” group of manuscripts, comprising at least eight-five percent of extant (existing and usable) Greek NT manuscripts; 2: a period of Greek dominance—the “Byzantine Empire” (“Eastern Roman Empire” during the Middle Ages)— ranging approximately from 476 AD to 1453 AD and peaking in 550 AD under Emperor Justinian. The Byzantine Empire, with its capital in Constantinople (previously Byzantium and now Istanbul), ruled the known civilized world under the first governmental Christian influence. Emperor Flavius Constantinus I (“the Great”) drastically altered the legacy of powerful Greco-Roman authority by becoming the first such champion of Christianity. Constantine I succeeded the abominable persecution of Christians under Diocletian’s ruthless rule. (Constantine I’s mother, Helena, became an eminent Christian champion following his death in 337.) Constantine, however, was not entirely orthodox in his Christian views and conduct, and he originated the union of church and state.

C Caesarean (sayz-air-ee´-uhn)—A text-type being a hybrid of the Byzantine and Alexandrian types—a midway point between the two. (e.g., cursive Lake Family 1 and minuscule Ferrar Group 13).

Campianus (kam-pee-ann´-us)—Codex “M” (Gk. 48) is an elegantly copied, well-preserved manuscript of the late ninth century. “M” also contains some lectionary content in the marginalia, and it contains the “debated” pericope de adultera (the parable of the adulteress) which modernists maintain is a late interpolation (false addition), yet appears in the vast majority of extant Greek NT manuscripts. Campianus is largely of the Byzantine text-type.

Christology—The study of the divinity, humanity, significance and mission of Jesus Christ—all things pertaining to Him. Church Father—Strictly speaking, an early ecclesiastical authority of the second through fifth centuries, some of whose writings are extant, and whose opinions and authorship helped develop and further influence early Christian church doctrine. Examples: Justin Martyr, 2nd—Greek; Irenaeus, 2nd— Greek; Origen Adamantius (“Origen”), 2 nd/3rd—Greek/Latin; Tertullian, 2nd/3rd— Greek/Latin; Clement of Alexandria, 2 nd/3rd— Greek; Chrysostom, 3rd/4th —Greek; Augustine, 4th/5th—Latin. (The “Apostolic Fathers” were those who lived within two generations of Jesus’ Twelve Apostles.)

Codex—A collection of biblical manuscripts which is bound, on one edge, to form a “book.” The codex was the successor to the papyrus scrolls whose sheets first were made from the aquatic plant most dense in the Nile River. (Singular sheets were glued together horizontally to form the scroll.) During the Reformation, codices were produced in three different formats: folio—10 in. by 13.5 in.” to 11 in. by 15.5 in.” per page; quarto—6.5 in. by 8.5 in. to 9 in. by 12.5 in.; octavo—5 in. by 8 in. to 6 in. by 9 in.

Complutensian Polyglot—The first printed polyglot (adjacent languages appearing on the same page) of the Bible, this title was initiated, financed, and at least partially translated and edited by Cardinal Francisco Jimenez de Cisneros and finished in 1517. The New Testament, which has parallel Greek and Latin Vulgate columns per page and comprises Volume Five of a six-volume set, was finished in 1514. The Old Testament, which was completed in 1517, consists of four volumes, with each page displaying three columns of text—Hebrew (outside), Latin Vulgate (middle), and the Greek Septuagint (inside).

However, on each page of the Pentateuch (first five books of the Old Testament), the Aramaic text (Targum Onkelos) and its own translation of the Latin Vulgate, were added at the bottom. The sixth and final volume of the set comprises various Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek dictionaries and study aids.

Critical text—Typically any version of a modernistically produced and edited New Testament based most-frequently on a minority of the most-ancient extant manuscripts—e.g., codices Aleph, A, B, C, D and papyrus manuscripts P 45, P46, P66, P67, P72, P75—and founded upon naturalistic text-critical theories. (e.g., numerous biblical scholars of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries assembled and/or edited such texts, such as Johann Jakob Wettstein [18th], Johann Jakob Griesbach [18th], Samuel Prideaux Tregelles [19 th], Friedrich Constantine von Tischendorf [19th], and B. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort [19th].) Uncial, cursive, versional, lectionary, and Church Father support also often is used adroitly to argue against Byzantine text evidence.

Curetonian—A version of the Syriac—in a “bundle of manuscripts”—dating back to the fifth century that is much-characterized by Sinaitic (4 th) readings such as those also appearing in Codex Aleph. The Curetonian was discovered in the Nitrian Desert (Egypt), in a monastery dedicated to St. Mary Deipara, by William Cureton, and still is considered by some moderns to be the “Old Syriac”—a title that belies the later date of its origin.

Cursive—A term synonymous with “minuscule”: A lowercase, “cursive”-type form of writing used in later biblical manuscripts, predominantly beginning in the ninth century. Letters were strung together, as in common handwriting, using capitals for proper nouns and at the start of sentences.

D Diglot (dig´-lot)—A biblical text having a translation of two languages—e.g., Greek and Latin: parallel per page, or matching on contiguous pages. (i.e., Greek on one page, then matching Latin translation on the succeeding one, or vice versa.)

Dittography—The scribal process of error by which a letter, word or phrase was replicated in succeeding text during copying, caused by distraction, fatigue, or incompetence. It has been historically proven that some scribes (Egyptian) even were unable to read Greek, thus copied letter by letter.

Docetism (dos´-eh-tyz-um)—Characteristic of Gnosticism and some other early heretical belief systems (e.g., Adoptionism, Marcionism), the belief that Christ appeared as a phantom form on the earth, exhibiting the appearance of flesh. Hence, holders of this doctrine believed Christ’s death was not suffered by a bodily Christ, thus had no real significance for mankind. Docetism originated in the first century AD, along with many other major heresies.

E Ecumenical—1: An interdenominational approach to Bible translation and other “unification”-based, Christian-specific activities. Essentially, unity is embraced, if necessary, to the exclusion of pure scriptural truth; 2: General, non-specific; 3: Church-related.

Ellicott, Charles—A prominent, modernistic English Christian theologian, academician, and churchman (1819-1905) who served as a cleric at three Christian institutions during the nineteenth century. Ellicott embraced conflicting views on the Greek New Testament text, first admitting that the Byzantine text-type dated back to at least the fourth century, then serving as the chairman for the English Revised Version (ERV) of the Bible. This version was finished in 1885 and, practically, was designed to replace the King James Version (KJV), despite the officially stated purpose of the translation committee.

Elzevir (Elsevier/Elzevier)—1: A celebrated Dutch family (“House of Elzevir”) of printers of the seventeen and eighteen centuries; 2: Dutch cousins Abraham (1592-1652) and Bonaventura (1583-1652), of the seventeenth-century publishing firm Bonaventure and Abraham, who edited and published two Greek editions of the New Testament; 3: Elzevir Greek New Testament versions of 1624 and 1633, the latter originating the term “Textus Receptus” by including it on the title page as a reference to the actual production.

English Revised Version—The first printed Bible version based on a new breed of recently discovered manuscripts largely of “Alexandrian” (Egyptian) origin. The “ERV” (or “RV”) New Testament publicly was released in 1881, and the Old Testament in 1885, the former after 11 years of highly secretive deliberations by a Unitarian-led chair and functional heretical subversives (all recorded historical fact).

Ephraemi (eff-reh´-mee) Rescriptus—The designation given to the fifth-century “Codex C,” a manuscript upon which modernistic biblical scholars and text critics sometimes rely, because it occasionally supports some textual variants (words, phrases, verses, and/or passages) of the “critical apparatus” assembled and edited by liberal scholars—an assemblage under girding nearly every New Testament version produced since 1881. Ephraemi has been codified as being diversely representative of the Alexandrian (gospels), Byzantine (Pauline epistles) and Caesarean (hybrid) text-types. (The designation “rescriptus”—or “palimpsest”—refers to a manuscript whose original text was erased and replaced by scribal copying at a later time. This usually was done because of the rare availability—at times—of parchment [animal skins] used for manuscript production in the post-papyrus period.)

Episkenoo (ep-ee-skay-nó-ō)—The Greek word meaning “to tent upon,” “abide with,” “rest upon,” or “enter or take up residence in” (2 Corinthians 12:9).

Estienne, Robert (French: et-yen)—The French printer, master typographer, classical scholar, and New Testament translator (1503-1559)—also known as Stephens (English) or Stephanus (Latin)—who produced the first printed edition of the Greek New Testament, published in 1516. Estienne was bestknown for his four Greek editions of the New Testament, in 1546, 1549, 1550 (“editio regia”—Royal Edition), and 1551 (Greek/Latin polyglot). The third version currently is the standard version of the “Textus Receptus” (“received text”) used for most such TR-based NT translations today. The last version contains verse numbering—the first Greek New Testament ever to contain such divisions. Estienne was given the title “Printer in Greek to the king” (King Henry II) in 1539. A notoriously prolific and ingenious printer who produced several highly elegant works, Estienne also was renowned for printing numerous classic French and Latin titles, and grammatical and other school works. He started out as a Roman Catholic, but became a Protestant later in life. Estienne’s father, Henri, and all three of his sons, also were celebrated printers.

Ethiopic—A fourth-century (?) or sixth-century (?) Bible produced by two missionaries from Alexandria, Egypt.

Exemplar (eggs-em´-plär)—The manuscript used by a scribe, as a source, in producing a new copy.

Extant (eggs-tont´)—1: A text-criticism term referring to a manuscript which is existing, documented, and usable; 2: existing.

F Fragment—A small or even tiny portion of an ancient biblical manuscript. Major extant Greek fragments have been dated to the third century AD. Several Hebrew fragments, however, have been dated to before the birth of Christ.

Friderico-Augustanus—The Greek Old Testament codex of the fourth century discovered by Friedrich Constantine von Tischendorf—in 1844—in the St. Catherine’s Monastery/Convent, at the foot of Mt. Sinai (Egypt), in a bundle of waste papers destined to be used as fire fodder by monks there. This collection of 43 leaves—a subset of the Codex Vaticanus (B)—chiefly comprises the OT books 1 Chronicles and Jeremiah, plus Nehemiah and Esther.

The codex was named after the king of Saxony, Frederick Augustus II, Tischendorf’s governmental sovereign, to whom he gave the manuscript.

G Gennao (ghen-nah´-oh)—A Greek word meaning “to bear,” “beget,” “bring forth,” “conceive,” “regenerate,” “be born,” “make,” or “father.” (Used to describe God the Father’s “generation” of Christ in the flesh: “For unto which of the angels said he at any time, ‘Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee’?”—Hebrews 1:5a) Gnosticism (noss´-ty-syz-um)—From the Greek root word gnosis, meaning “knowledge” or “science.” Gnosticism was an early heretical movement proclaiming that only privileged individuals could attain eternal life through a “special, secret knowledge” of spiritual things which ordinary persons did not have. This movement originated in the first century AD, but reached its peak in the second and third centuries. Gnosticism was the product of syncretism among Jewish, pagan and Oriental beliefs. (The apostle Paul warned against such “empty words” in Ephesians 5:6.)

Gothic—A fourth-century Scripture version translated using manuscripts largely of the Byzantine text-type, created by Ulfilas, a missionary to the Goths, using a new alphabet he generated from Greek and Latin characters. The Goths were a warrior-class people who eventually conquered Rome in 410 AD, having originally migrated from Scandinavia. The source Greek texts he used witness to the early antiquity of the Byzantine text.

Griesbach, Johann Jakob—A German, rationalistic biblical text critic whose first critical edition of the Greek New Testament was published, in three volumes, in 1774-75. Griesbach (1745-1812), an astute disciple of “the father of German rationalism,” J. S. Semler, originated the term and theory of the Synoptic Gospels, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, as being highly parallel in content, aside from John. He also formulated what formerly was called the “Griesbach hypothesis,” which now is referred to as the “two-gospel hypothesis”: that Matthew was written before Luke, and that both were authored before Mark. (Historically, conservative biblical scholars have believed that Mark was written first, followed by Matthew and Luke.) Griesbach, who served much of his life as a professor at the University of Jena (Germany), rejected the divinity of Christ and the supernatural infallibility of Holy Scripture. He also was the first to declare Mark 16:9-20 as spurious, and he omitted it from his 1796 Greek NT critical edition.

H Haidou (hay´-doo)—From the Greek word “haides” (hah´-dace), meaning “Hades,” “Hell,” the “grave,” or “the unseen place (state) of departed souls.”

(OT Hebrews believed in a single place for the dead, beneath the earth—“Sheol” (sheh-olé), or Hades. “The abode or world of the dead, hades, orcus. . . .

According to the notions of the Hebrews, Hades was a vast subterranean receptacle where the souls of the dead existed in a separate state until the resur ­ rection of their bodies” (Strong’s Complete Word Study Concordance). The early Greeks believed in the upper part, for the souls of the good, as specifically named “Elysium,” with “Tartarus” being the lying place for the evil. (See Ephesians 4:9—Christ going down “into the lower parts of the earth” before His ascension into heaven, to release all souls of the OT dispensation, to heaven or hell, accordingly.)

Haplography—The scribal process of error by which a letter, word or phrase was omitted in the text of a copied manuscript, due to the copyist skipping —accidentally or advertently—the appertaining content from the exemplar. (Modernistic scholars assert that this process was mostly or always attributable to inadvertent scribal error rather than deliberate omission. But a twentieth-century scientific test proved that scribes were much more likely to omit content rather than to add it [interpolation], verifying that the Majority/Byzantine and Textus Receptus, which are 2,135 and 2,577 words longer, respectively [than the Nestle-Aland27], were not intentionally lengthened through faulty interpolation.)

Harclean (hark´-lee-uhn)—A seventh-century Syriac Bible version being a revision of its immediate predecessor, the Syriac Philoxenian (508 AD)—the Philoxenian representing a late successor to the Syriac Peshitta. The Harclean (or “Harclean”) is purported to have been a seventh-century (616 AD) vari­ ation of the Philoxenian, by Thomas of Harkel (Heraclea), in Mesopotamia. Other Syriac versions are the Sinaitic (fourth century) the Curetonian (fifth century), and the Palestinian (sixth century—??). The Harclean quite closely resembles the Peshitta and is extant in only about 60 manuscripts.

Harmonization—A modernistic theory among biblical text critics postulating that some scribes—usually ones who addressed earlier manuscripts— adapted phrases or verses to match those elsewhere in New Testament Scripture. (Also called “parallelization.”) This has been used particularly to apply to gospel phrases and verses.

Hodges-Farstad (text)—A modern edition of the Majority text edited by Zane C. Hodges (d. 2008) and Arthur L. Farstad (d. 1998), both of Dallas Theological Seminary, The Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text, first was published in 1982, then revised and released in 1985. This text still remains the most popular edition of the Majority text, and required seven years of labor to produce. Both men later served as two of the five editors of the 2007 release The Majority Text Greek New Testament Interlinear. Earlier, Farstad was executive editor of The New King James Version, published in 1982. This text differs from its chief contemporary competitor, The New Testament in the Original Greek According to the Byzantine Majority Textform (Robinson-Pierpont), largely based on different interpretations of the same textual data, as well as on orthography (language writing methodology), vocabulary, and word division.

Hort, F. J. A.—Fenton John Anthony Hort was the lead force behind the infamous 1857-1870 New Testament—co-edited by B. F. Westcott—that under girded the final 1881 English Revised Version (ERV or “RV”) New Testament. The ERV spearheaded a new, modern influx of Bible New Testaments based largely on older but doctrinally inferior fourth- and fifth-century uncial manuscripts. A confirmed heretic Hort held such beliefs as salvation through the vicarious life of Christ, rather than His death, that Christ, Himself, was not deity (but a created being), a spiritualized resurrection, scriptural error, and much more.

I Ide (id´-ayh)—A Greek word meaning “lo,” “behold,” “see,” or “surprise.”

Interpolation—A scribal addition (insertion) to a manuscript. This is a deliberate individual effort to alter the content exhibited in the exemplar (immediate copyist source) manuscript. Scribes did this either to incorporate their own interpretation of existing manuscript content, or simply to append their manuscript with doctrinal or phraseological falsities elsewhere proclaimed—representations of their own beliefs.

J Jacobean—1: The era in English and Scottish history that coincides with the reign of King James VI of Scottland (1567-1625)—also known as King James I of England. The Jacobean succeeds the Elizabethan era and precedes the Carolinean era; 2: a style very close to the “biblical” English used in the King James Version (KJV), or “Authorized Version,” of the Holy Bible; 3: derived from the Latin Jacobus, meaning “James.”

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary—A conservative-orthodox, classic, authoritative, devotional and thorough Bible commentary originally published in 1871—with a revision published in 1901—by authors Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset, and David Brown. This complete commentary is available in a three-volume set (two Old Testament and one New Testament), and includes incisive explanatory remarks on most Bible verses.

K Kai (ka-hee´)—A Greek primary participle (kai) meaning “and,” “also,” “even,” “indeed,” or “but.”

Kenoo (ken-ah´-oh)—A Greek word meaning “to make empty,” “abase,” “neutralize,” “falsify,” or “be in vain.”

KJV (King James Version)—Also referred to as the Authorized Version (in the UK), this is the landmark Bible petitioned for by thousands of ecclesiastical leaders in England, and sanctioned—not officially authorized—by King James I of England. Unofficial work on the translation began in 1604, by just a few persons, but highly organized sub-committees—totaling 50-54 scholars in all—commenced work in 1607. The final first version was presented to the King in 1611. The KJV was produced by among the most-qualified linguists and biblical scholars in Europe and England. Its content is derived from Textus Receptus-based manuscripts and Bibles—those generated by leading Reformation theologians.

Koine (coin´-ayh)—A term for the “common” Greek vernacular, the language of nearly the entire New Testament, designed for practical spiritual enlightenment for the laity—non-clerical persons. (Also called “vulgate,” which means “common.”) The Koine Greek originated during the postClassical antiquity period, between 300 BC and 300 AD.

L Lachmann, Karl (Konrad Friedrich Wilhelm)—A German philologist (specialist in the study of language in written historical sources) and text critic who was the first major editor to deviate from using the Textus Receptus in producing his own edition of the Greek New Testament. Lachmann (17931851) used the Alexandrian text-type in generating his first critical Greek New Testament in 1831, followed by his second edition, in two volumes (18421845?), and his third, in 1846. He also focused on using Western manuscripts and those of the Old Latin. Lachmann also was the founder of a critical and philological society, in 1811, in conjunction with three others, in Lower Saxony, Germany.

Lacunose—An adjective describing a manuscript, some portion of whose original contents are absent. (e.g., “lacunose,” or “highly lacunose.”) See Appendix III, Page 1, bottom, for application.

Lake Group, The—Also known as “Family 1”—abbreviated “Ë1”—originally a group of five (5) Greek Gospel manuscripts dating from the twelfth to fifteen centuries. These manuscripts have a distinctive and independent character and have been codified by NT Greek text critic Kirsopp Lake as Category III, or “mixed” (“electic”). More-recent text critics have referred to these manuscripts as “Caesarean”—something of a cross-breed between Byzantine and Alexandrian. (For purposes of pure definition, a Family 1 manuscript—according to A “Survey of Manuscripts Used in Editions of the Greek New Testament,” by James Keith Elliott—may be “assigned to this group for only part of the NT.” However, technically speaking, in this document,only the original five assigned to this group are noted as such.) Family 1 strictly comprises cursives 1, 118, 131, 209, and 1582. (However, minuscule 205 and its copy, “205abs,” very closely resemble 1, and have been paired with 209 by Frederick Wisse.)

Latin Vulgate—1: A frequently-corrupt Latin Bible version, finished about 405 AD, which was translated by Jerome—allegedly reluctantly—from the Old Latin by commission of Pope Damasus. Ten Thousand manuscripts of the Latin Vulgate are extant. (The Vulgate’s genesis is in the works of the pseudo-Christian “Church Father” Origen.); 2: Biblical manuscripts whose content is in the common Latin.

Lectionary—An assemblage of Scripture designated for the lection (liturgy) during OT synagogue and NT church worship services. Extant NT lectionar­ ies date back to the seventh century. (Also called “Synaxaria.” Gospel-specific lectionaries are referred to as “Evangelistaria,” while the Pauline-specific ones are referred to as “Apostolos,” or “Praxapostolos.” Synaxaria also were daily lectionaries prepared for the entire calendar year.)

Lowring—An antiquated English word meaning “to be gloomy and overcast with clouds.” (Used in the King James Version.)

M Majority text—A general term assigned to an overwhelming majority of extant Koine Greek NT manuscripts whose readings are nearly identical and represent the Byzantine text-type. The Majority text also is referred to—with greater specificity to its “text-type”—as the Byzantine, Traditional, Antio ­ chian, Constantinopolitan, or Ecclesiastical text. The Majority text accounts for at least 85 percent of extant Greek NT manuscripts among: 2,882 cursives (lowercase script); 2,453 lectionaries; 311 uncials; and 127 papyri (total of 5,773). With the addition of the commonly known and codified early Church fathers’ quotations (239), a conservative estimate of the Majority represents at least 5,411 of the extant 6,012 Greek NT manuscripts (90 percent)—5,172 (86 percent) without the contemporarily accepted quotations. (See chart and accompanying notes below it.)

Majuscule—An ancient NT Greek manuscript—in biblical terms also called an “uncial”—comprising all capital letters, and usually containing no punctuation (especially the earlier manuscripts) or spaces between words. Majuscules were the prominent NT Greek letter form until the ninth century.

Manuscript (“MS/MSS” and “ms/mss”)—The term applied to a partial or complete series of “leaves” (four pages/one fold) comprising a book or books of the Bible. All extant manuscripts have been “codified” via specific formulas, for identification: e.g., ancient “uncial” (all capital letters) “codices” dated as late as the ninth century were designated alphabetically, alpha-numerically, or by the “0” system. See the following table for various classification examples:

CLASS. TYPE

MANUSCRIPT TYPE

TIME SPAN

EXAMPLES

# EXTANT LANGUAGE

Alphabetical

Uncial (uppercase)

4th through 10th centuries

A (V), B (IV), C (V), D (V), E (VI), F (IX)

45

Greek

“0” (beg. 20 cent.)

Uncials (beg. with “0”)

3 through 14 centuries

048 (V), 0106 (VII), 0233 (VIII), 0142 (X)

266

(311 total)

Library: numerical

Minuscules (cursives)

9th through 17th centuries

Cod. 3—Regius 84, Cod. 18—Paris Nat’l Gk. 47

2882

Greek

th

rd

nd

h

th

45

75

P (papyrus)

Uncial fragment

2 through 7 centuries

Ì (Gospels/Acts, 225 AD), Ì (Paulines, 200 AD)

127

Greek

None

Patristic fathers’ quotations

1st through 7th centuries

Tertullian (44), Cyprian (32), Origen (31)

239¬

Greek

L (e.g., L1)

Lectionaries

4th through 17th centuries^

Various/anonymous Church Fathers/elders

2453@

Greek

Language/dialect

Version (uncial/cursive)

2nd through 9th centuries

Syriac Peshitta, Coptic (Egypt.), Gothic (Scan.), Old Latin, Latin Vulgate (10,000), Armenian

19,030 (approx.)

Various

TOTAL GREEK >>

5773 (excl. quotes/versions)

¬ John W. Burgon assembled a massive collection of quotations by early Patristic Fathers. Associate Edward Miller subsequently tallied and logged the assemblage of 86,489 quota­ tions by seventy-six Patristic Fathers in a sixteen-volume, folio-sized (12 in. by 16 in.) set, by author. This mammoth Byzantine testimony currently resides in the British Museum.

Obviously, this vast total is excluded from the conventionally accepted sum of 239 fathers’ quotations, as cited above. Evidently, no one has researched and matched the logged references to the appertaining documents, and/or the vast majority of the original documents referred to are not extant, for reference. Furthermore, modernistic text critics do not recognize the validity of these additional referenced quotations. (In the second case, why would Burgon and Miller have lied? Both were highly respected conservative-orthodox scholars of their time.)

Marginalia (mar-jin-ayh´-lee-ah)—User notes inserted into the margins of biblical manuscripts. These notes generally consisted of scribbles and editorial comments made in the margin of a book—not to be confused with “scholia” (singular: “scholum”), which are grammatical, critical, or explanatory comments, either being original or extracted from a preexisting commentary. (Scholia are marginal remarks which were made to manuscripts by ancient writers.)

Melchisedek (mel-kiz´-uh-dek)—The first biblical high priest, who presided over Abram (Abraham) and his people in OT Salem (later Jerusalem).

Melchisedek was a “type” (“shadow” or forerunner) of Jesus Christ, the latter being the Christian’s sole high priest, forever making intercession between God the Father and every believer, for his or her sins.

Minuscule—The term synonymous with a Bible “cursive” manuscript—written in lowercase script characters. “Minuscules” began replacing the all-caps “uncials,” as the primary biblical letter form, in the ninth century. This typographical form does include capital letters, as well, and punctuation eventually appeared much more frequently with the passage of time.

Modernism—A comprehensive cultural movement affecting all aspects of American life, chiefly beginning here in the nineteenth century, which challenged traditional manners and methods of thought, behavior and morality while emphasizing mankind’s ability to improve his own character and conditions apart from God. Modernism essentially is a secularized, humanistic alteration of man’s perspective toward God, shifting from man’s reliance on God to his reliance on himself. (Essentially, the same movement now is referred to as “postmodernism,” and is characterized more by materialism.)

Monogenes (mon-ah-jen-ace)— A Greek word meaning “only-born” or “only,” specifically in the sense referring to the unique identity of God’s Son, Jesus Christ: “God’s ‘only begotten’ Son.” (e.g., John 1:18.)

Moorman, J. A.—A long-time English, Baptist evangelist who has operated in the United Kingdom and third-world countries, who also is a conservative Christian theologian and author, having distributed thousands of Bibles and gospel tracts in London, Europe, South Africa, and elsewhere. Moorman also has been involved in church planting and Bible institute teaching. Moorman, of the Bible for Today Baptist Church (New Jersey), is author of Early Manuscripts, Church Fathers, and the Authorized Version, a comprehensive work that “ . . . places before the reader an entire range of evidence, and demonstrates how the early manuscripts, versions, and fathers bear witness to the doctrinal heart of the Authorized Version,” according to Paragraph 3 of the “Preface, Acknowledgment, Dedication” in the text. This title explores modern textual criticism and ecumenism, ancient NT manuscript evidence, and provides a thorough—though now somewhat outdated—manuscript digest providing support for the KJV versus the NIV (1984) and NASB (pre1995), and the manuscript sources for the latter two, in addressing 356 doctrinal passages in the Bible. He also has authored When the King James Bible Departs from the Majority Text, 8,000 Differences between the Textus Receptus and the Critical Text, and several other books. Bible for Today Director Dr. D. A. Waite has referred to Moorman as “. . . the world’s greatest living scholar who is defending the King James Bible and its underlying Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Words.”

N Nekros (nek-rōce´)—A Greek adjective meaning “dead,” or a noun meaning “dead body” or “dead person.”

Nestle-Aland (“NA”)—Also called Novum Testamentum Graece (Latin), this is a Koine Greek “critical text” (edition) of the New Testament, having been assembled first by Eberhard Nestle in 1898. (His son, Erwin [d. 1972], succeeded his father [d. 1913] in perpetuating this apparatus.) Now in its 28 th edition (late 2012), the “NA” is more recently based upon earlier critical editions penned by modernistic biblical scholars of the nineteenth century—B. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort (1870), Friedrich Constantine von Tischendorf (last/eighth in 1872) and Bernhard Weiss (1901, third edition). Numerous other theologically modernistic biblical scholars and theologians also created their own critical texts, officially dating back to the eighteenth century.

Previously, the most-ancient extant Greek NT manuscripts, codices Aleph and B (both fourth century), largely were used as the foundation for all of the critical editions. (Aleph and B continue as the keystone sources for nearly every New Testament published since 1881, via the “NU” apparatus.) The nearly identical UBS—the latter now in its fourth edition—also originally was founded by Eberhard Nestle [1898] upon the critical apparatuses of Westcott and Hort, Tischendorf and Richard Weymouth (first and second editions). The NA 3 version subsequently was switched from Weymouth to Weiss as a portion of its foundation.) The NA and UBS texts essentially differ in paragraphing, capitalization, punctuation and spelling. These apparatuses also differ in their target market: NA—institutional teaching, more marginal material; UBS—translation. Hence, the NA is marketed for more-general use, while the UBS is more-specifically designated for a smaller audience—mainly the missionary field.

New Analytical Greek Lexicon, The (±tagged “NAGL”)—A revision of George V. Wigram’s Analytical Greek Lexicon of the New Testament (1852), this resource (eleventh printing—2010)—subsequently replaced by the current Analytical Lexicon of New Testament Greek, Revised and Updated (first printing—April 2012)—contains “every word and inflection of the Greek New Testament arranged alphabetically and with grammatical analyses: a complete series of Greek paradigms, with grammatical remarks and explanations,” edited by Wesley J. Perschbacher.

O Old Latin—A mixed text extant in only fifty-five to sixty partially corrupt manuscripts and fragments, with origins in Syrian Antioch (Byzantine type— purer) and North Africa (Western type—less pure). The Byzantine form of the Old Latin text, called the “Itala,” is a purer text having been used by the Waldenses, a people of Southern France and Northern Italy who were brutally persecuted by the Roman Catholic Church during the twelfth through seventeenth centuries. According to the early Church Father Tertullian (160-220 AD), the Old Latin dates back to the second century (157 AD). Old Latin was the primary Latin form until Jerome, under charge of the Roman Catholic Church, first translated the much-corrupted Latin “Vulgate” (common) in the late fourth century, finishing around 405 AD. (Jerome purportedly was disinclined to produce this version because of his confidence in the fidelity of the Old Latin.) The Waldenses/Albigenses, who were nearly entirely destroyed—as well as their records—by barbaric Roman Catholic conquests, used the Byzantine Old Latin throughout their history, despite Rome’s adherence to the Latin Vulgate—the Vulgate still largely serving as the textual foundation for Catholic Bibles to date (also manifested in the English Rheims-Duoay version of 1582 [NT] and 1609 [OT] and its underlying manuscripts). The records of the Waldenses today only exist in just a few bound volumes because of the Roman Catholic near-genocide of these people.

Old uncials—A term of honor conferred by naturalistic, modernistic biblical text critics on five (5) early codices believed to be of paramount value and credibility to the Greek New Testament text. Comprising this quintet are codices: Aleph (Sinaiticus/ ‫)א‬, ca. 325-360 AD; Alexandrinus (“A”), ca. 400; Vaticanus (“B”), ca. 325-360; Ephraemi Rescriptus (“C”), ca. late fifth century; and Bezae (“D”), ca. 440.

Origen—Origen Adamantius (185-254) of Alexandria, Egypt, was an abominably heretical but highly scholarly, contemporarily well-esteemed “Early Church Father” who, despite his martyrdom “for the Christian faith” in Caesarea, was among the most egregiously non-biblical, pseudo-Christian figures of the early centuries AD. Origen was an early editor of the Septuagint (Greek New Testament) and the compiler of the Hexapla (“sixfold”)—six parallel translations (two Hebrew and four Greek) of the Old Testament in one volume. Although certainly among the most-learned theological scholars and such fertile writers throughout history, Origen held numerous non-canonical beliefs: 1) allegorical interpretation of Scripture; 2) denial of literal bodily resurrection; 3) textual criticism (first unofficial, prolific practitioner—editing several NT manuscripts); 4) Arianism (Jesus being a created entity); 5) infant baptism; 6) Universalism (all are saved, including Satan); 7) salvation partially by works; 8) baptismal regeneration; 9) prayers to the deceased “Saints”; 10) purgatory; 11) prayers to the “dead in purgatory”; and others.

P Palestinian—A Syriac version of the Scriptures purportedly dating back to the sixth century, according to Syriac biblical manuscript and Syrian language authority Arthur Voobus, of the Republic of Estonia (near Finland). The Syriac Palestinian comes from “an Aramaic dialect used in Palestine during the earlier centuries of the Christian era,” and exists in only a bare manuscript witness. This version’s character most closely resembles the Greek Byzantine type, yet also displays disparate leanings.

Papyrus (puh-pie´-russ)—1: Properly, the pulp from an aquatic plant, most notably having grown in the Nile River, but in stagnant river areas throughout Egypt and in southern Europe; 2: an aquatic plant growing to as high as fifteen feet; 3: strips of dried aquatic pulp glued criss-cross to form sheets of “papyrus,” which were used as “paper” for document production, used with a reed pen; 4: papyrus-plant biblical manuscript sheets dating from the third century BC through about the fourth century AD. (All but about eight of the 118 extant biblical papyri are small-to-tiny fragments. After single-sheet papyrus manuscripts were used in the late pre-Christ era and the earliest NT times, separate sheets were glued side-by-side to form scrolls.)

Peshitta—The earliest extant Syriac version of the Scriptures, dating back to the second century (some modernistic scholars saying fourth) and siding largely with the Byzantine (Majority) text-type. According to C. R. Gregory’s list dated to 1902, 300 Peshitta manuscripts then were extant. However, according to J. A. Moorman, in Early Manuscripts, Church Fathers, and the Authorized Version, “Their number is now known to be much higher.”

Philoxenian—The sixth-century Syriac-version translation of the Gospels apparently was commissioned by Mar Philoxenus, bishop of Mabbug (southwestern Asia Minor), and was translated from Greek and finished in 508 AD. (Thomas of Harkel, more than a century later, collated two or three Greek manuscripts and produced a more-reliable and complete NT translation called the Harclean.)

Phos (fōce)—A Greek word meaning “light,” “luminousness,” “fire,” “the heavenly sphere,” or “moral or spiritual light and knowledge which illumines the mind, soul or conscience.” (For the latter example, see 1 John 1:7.)

Pneuma (noó-muh)—A Greek word meaning “wind,” “breath,” “life,” “soul,” or “Spirit” (of God).

Poole, Matthew—An English, Presbyterian nonconformist theologian and author (1624-1679) during and beyond the Protestant Reformation (15171648). Poole edited and produced a condensation of the Critica Sacri (1660, London)—a nine-volume collection of disjointed, verbose Latin commentaries by various writers—called (in Latin) the Synopsis Criticorum (five volumes), his version originally published in 1669. (Three other authors also produced editions of the Critica Sacri.) He also authored the two-volume English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683)—the second edition published in 1685 by some of his nonconformist brethren, with the final edition having been completed by others in 1840. Subsequently, this work has been published under the title A Commentary on the Holy Bible (three volumes). (The Studylight.org website writes of the latter, “Perhaps the only true rival to Matthew Henry! A standard for more than 400 years, Poole’s insightful commentary continues to be a trusted resource for pastors and laypeople.

Offering verse-by-verse exposition, he also includes summaries for each chapter and book, questions and answers, information on cultural context, historical impact, and cross-references. Practical, readable, and applicable.”) Poole also published a tract against noted nontrinitarian and Unitarian John Biddle (1658), but he was best known for his Synopsis Criticorum Biblicorum (five volumes fol., 1669-1676), in which he summarizes the views of 150 biblical critics. Poole authored other titles, as well.

Proto-Bohairic—Also known as Codex Bodmer III, or Papyrus Bodmer III (after founder John Martin Bodmer of Geneva, Switzerland), a single uncial manuscript dating to the early fourth century—the earliest of the Bohairic type. This manuscript most-closely represents the Alexandrian text-type, according to Bruce M. Metzger. (Many of the Bohairic more-closely represented the Byzantine type.) Originally containing the entire Gospel of John and numbering some 239 pages, the first 22 pages are damaged, and only fragments remain, including those of the Book of Genesis and a one of the Epistle to the Philippians—the latter in the Sahidic (southern) Egypt dialect.

Q No entries.

R Rationalism—The doctrine that human reason, unaided by divine revelation, is an adequate or the sole guide to all attainable religious truth.

Regius (L)—Codex L (Gk. 62) is a poorly preserved uncial manuscript of the eighth century containing only the four Gospels, less five such passages and sections. It also includes “lectionaries,” scriptural assemblages for use during worship services, produced herein as marginalia. Codex L was used, minimally, in the development of the modernistic “critical editions” (NA-UBS, or “NU”)—accounting for less than one-half of one percent of this apparatus. Writes F. H. A. Scrivener, a premier biblical and conservative orthodox critical scholar of the nineteenth century, “It is but carelessly written, and abounds with errors of the ignorant scribe, who was more probably an Egyptian than a native Greek.” Also according to Scrivener, L has a “strong resemblance to Cod. B.” (Codex M represents the Alexandrian [Egyptian] text-type.)

Rescriptus—A biblical manuscript whose original penned words have been erased and replaced with later writing. (e.g., Codex Ephraemi [“Codex C”] of the fifth century.) The erasure process was achieved by scraping the writing off the medium used for penning. (“Reeds”—and later “quills”—were used for transferring ancient black or brown inks onto papyrus or animal skin.)

Robinson-Pierpont (text)—Properly titled The New Testament in the Original Greek According to the Byzantine Majority Textform, this modern edition of the Majority text first was produced in 1991 by co-editors Maurice A. Robinson and William G. Pierpont (d. 2003), followed by the second edition in 2005. Although it is based upon the same NT Greek textual apparatus—Hermann Freiherr Von Soden (414 manuscripts) and Herman C. Hoskier (about 200 manuscripts of Revelation)—as that of the The Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text, its chief contemporary competitor, it differs from this alternative edition much in data interpretation and not using the “stemmatic approach” (or “stemmatics”). (“Stemmatics” refers to the use of a lineage—manuscript descendents—to compare manuscripts in establishing similarity or disparity of readings [textual variation].)

S Seirais zophou (sih-rahee´-iss dzoff´-ooh)—A Greek phrase literally meaning “chains of darkness.” “Zophos” means “gloom,” “blackness,” “darkness,” or “mist.”

Septuagint (sept-oó-a-jint)—The Greek version of the Old Testament, whose origin has been dated by some scholars to be as early as 250 BC. Others date this version to as late as 250 AD. Those who believe in its validity according to commonly predicated theory hold that the Septuagint was the result of the copying of the Hebrew Old Testament by Hellenistic (Greek-speaking) Jews, to Greek, during the Babylonian Captivity of the kingdom of Judah, which began in 586 BC. (It is popularly believed that during their long-term bondage under Babylonian authority, their original Hebrew language was abandoned by necessity; thus these Jews learned Greek, and, subsequently, adopted Greek as their own language during the five decades of their captivity. Following Cyrus the Great of Persia’s overthrow of Babylonia in 537 BC, the Jews were released, and some forty thousand are said to have dispersed. (It also is noteworthy that some twentieth-century biblical scholars have rejected the Septuagint’s traditional validity, instead asserting that this Greek OT translation simply is a fabricated text first penned sometime during the first three centuries AD, then used as the framework for a corrupt text underlying or resulting from Origen’s Hexapla, and, in turn, serving as the foundation for the skewed New Testament versions of modern Bible translations.

Simon, Richard—A French Roman Catholic priest, long-time Oratorian (self-governing communal society of priests), orientalist, and controversialist who questioned the Bible’s authority and was the “forerunner of modern biblical criticism” (Catholic Encylopedia, Vol. 4, p. 492). Simon (1638-1712) was ordained a priest in 1670, and taught philosophy and rhetoric at the College of Juilly (commune of Juilly), in Seine-et-Marne, France. An adherent to the non-canonical views of Isaac Le Peyrère—imminent Messianic earthly reign in liberating the Holy Land, rebuilding the Temple, and ruling via the king of France (Prince of Condé) as regent—Simon later became renowned as a “father of higher (biblical) criticism” (calligraphy, dating, and authorship of ancient biblical manuscripts). He denied Moses’ authorship of the Pentateuch, his Histoire critique du Vieux Testament (Historical Critique of the Old Testament, 1685) was seized and destroyed via a decree by the Royal Council, the charge of Jesuitism was brought against him, and he was expelled from the Oratory in 1678.

Sinaitic—1: A fourth-century form of the Syriac language—as pertains to the New Testament—characterized by numerous biblically doctrinally unsound readings (approx. 15 percent), ones much-representing those of Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph). (Codex B, or “Vaticanus,” is another representative of this texttype of NT manuscripts.) 2: An informal title for the famous/infamous Codex Aleph, or “Sinaiticus,” a complete Bible manuscript dating to approximately 325-340 AD—the “Sinaitic manuscript.” Many of the readings of this class of NT manuscripts reduce Christ’s divinity, contain inferior Greek variants, and have translation errors and omissions, among other flaws.

Syriac—An ancient language spoken by Arab natives residing in what is now the Syrian Arab Republic, in Southwest Asia. “Syrian Antioch” was a city in Turkey, near the northern border of Syria, located near the eastern coast of the Mediterranean Sea. This city now is called Antakya. In the early Christian era, Antioch had the third-largest population in the civilized world (400,000), behind Rome and Alexandria, but now only has approximately 145,000 residents.

T Text-type—One of arguably two to four designations applied by biblical text critics to a manuscript(s) based on specific criteria, such as phraseology, calligraphy, place of origin, scribe style and manuscript markings: Byzantine (region near what is now Istanbul, down to Syrian Antioch [modern Antakya]); Alexandrian (Egyptian); Western (west of Alexandria); Caesarean (hybrid Byzantine-Alexandrian). (Many biblical text critics now recognize only the Byzantine and Alexandrian as legitimate text-types. Some traditional biblical scholars of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries rejected this categorization theory entirely, insisting that, rather than being characteristic of specific text-types, some manuscripts simply had similar kinds of readings —not remarkably divergent types en mass. Many contemporary biblical scholars agree with the latter theory.)

Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, A (ʡtagged “TCGNT”)—A companion volume to the fourth edition of the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament (UBS 4), published by the German Bible Society and authored by notorious naturalistic text critic Bruce M. Metzger (d. 2012).

“One of the chief purposes of the commentary is to set forth the reasons that led the committee, or a majority of the members of the committee, to adopt certain variant readings for inclusion in the text and to relegate certain other readings to the apparatus.”

Textual criticism (naturalistic)—The science of applying modern analytical theories to the discovery and analysis of biblical manuscripts. Textual criti ­ cism’s tenets include—but are not limited to—creating and editing (altering) modern “critical editions” (texts), critiquing ancient manuscripts/books (co ­ dices), and proposing theories about ancient manuscript/book creation and alteration, all of which ultimately culminate in insistence that, essentially, the oldest manuscripts are purer and more reliable. Naturalistic textual criticism is applied without regard for God’s verbal (plenary) inspiration of the human instruments chosen by Him to pen the canonical books of the Bible, hence rejecting the Majority (Antiochian, Ecclesiastical, Traditional, Byzantine) text and the Textus Receptus. The Byzantine and the TR essentially were the universally accepted Greek basis for the New Testament until the mid-to-late 1800s—hence of all published Bibles until the ERV of 1881 (NT). Spiritual textual criticism, contrarily, recognizes God’s verbal inspiration and fully ac­ cepts the Majority text and/or the Textus Receptus as the God-ordained basis for the New Testament. It sanctions no “critical apparatus” (e.g., NA or UBS), nor any other NT version succeeding the 1678 TR of the Elzevir cousins, Abraham and Bonaventure. (The standard TR versions used today are the Robert Estienne 1550/1551 and the Theodore Beza 1598. It is commonly believed that the 1598 of Beza was much-consulted by the KJV translators for production of the original AV of 1611.)

Textus Receptus—The Latin term meaning “received text.” The “TR” became the evolving Koine (common) Greek NT source text underlying all printed English Bible versions produced until the ERV of 1881 (NT). Numerous variations of the Textus Receptus—all differing slightly from one another—were penned by conservative orthodox biblical scholars during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, beginning with Desiderius Erasmus’ landmark Greek text in 1516—the very first printed Greek New Testament. Erasmus followed with subsequent published versions in 1519, 1522, 1527, and 1535. The eminent Robert Stephens (Estienne/Stephanus) produced “TR” versions in 1546, 1549, 1550 and 1551, and the renowned Theodore Beza followed with 10 of his own, from 1562 through 1604 (all based on Estienne versions of 1550 and 1551). Subsequently, the Elzevir cousins—Abraham and Bonaventure—published seven Greek versions from 1624 to 1678 (all primarily based on the 1565 Beza). The 1633 (second) Elzevir text was the first such version ever to officially claim and use the term “Textus Receptus.” Stephanus’ 1550 version is said to be the most-popular Textus Receptus in use today, closely trailed by Beza’s 1598 “folio” (large) edition.

Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (»tagged “TDNT”)—The most comprehensive Greek lexicon available, contained in a ten-volume hardcover set, or published Abridged in One Volume (1356 pages), originally compiled and edited by Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich. Current editor Geoffrey W. Bromiley translated the work from German. Following the preface are the “Table of Greek Keywords” (transliterated letter by letter directly from Greek) and the “Table of English Keywords,” allowing the user to search by Greek or English. Included terms contain explanatory references to usage inside and outside the New Testament, as well as in the Septuaguint, the Old Testament, and other contexts, as applicable.

Tischendorf, (Lobegott) Friedrich Constantine von—The discoverer of the world’s oldest extant complete Bible, Codex Aleph Sinaiticus (325-360 AD), in 1844 in St. Catherine’s Monastery, Tischendorf (1815-1874) was a leading Greek New Testament text critic and theologian of his time. He published 21 editions (including reprints and minor editions) of his own Greek New Testament critical edition, the first in the winter of 1849.

Tischendorf’s magnum opus was his Critical Edition of the New Testament, which he referred to as editio viii (Eighth Edition), published in 1869-1872.

Of the leading modernistic camp which believed that this Alexandrian NT text-type represented a purer biblical text than the traditional Byzantine manuscripts, he borrowed 43 OT “leaves” (four-page [two bound sheets of paper—four sides] section inserts) of the Septuagint—by mutual agreement with the monks of St. Catherine’s, from his initial finding of 129 or 130 (depending upon his conflicting accounts) leaves. During his third visit to the Monastery, in 1859, he borrowed (on loan) 303½ leaves—the bulk of the NT content—for Russian publication, but never returned them to the monks at Mt. Sinai, Egypt. Tischendorf presented them to Russian Czar Alexander II for publication and eventual archiving in the Imperial Library in St. Petersburg (four-volume luxury edition, 1862). (The Czar awarded Tischendorf the “style” of von, signifying nobility.) Tischendorf gained his academic degree and international acclaim by deciphering Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus (“C”), the famed fifth-century manuscript, in the 1840s.

Transliteration—The process or the result of converting language characters (e.g., Greek) into those of another language (e.g., English) for the purpose of practical reader usage. Transliteration allows the end user to, for example, look up the target word (here “break”) in a Greek dictionary (lexicon) to find the Greek-language equivalent. A transliteration example: the Greek word sunqlasqήsetai (break) converted to “sunthlasthesetai.” (This is opposed to the process of “translation,” which involves direct conversion into the target language word meaning: here “break.” For the above example in this document, see Page 8, Matthew 21:44, within the NET notes.)

Tregelles, Samuel P.—Largely a modernistic and naturalistic English textual critic (1813-1875) who also was a Bible scholar and theologian. Although he was reared as a Quaker, then associated with the Plymouth Brethren, and later in life became a Presbyterian, Tregelles adopted the text-critical mindset of the day, deciding that “the Textus Receptus did not rely on ancient authority.” He ventured forth by publishing an edition of the Greek New Testament that relied largely on the still-coveted ancient biblical codices Vaticanus and Sinaiticus and many citations of Early Church Fathers. This work—18571872—thus paralleled that of German philologist Karl Lachmann, who produced his own such text in 1831. Rather a theological conundrum, Tregelles was loyal to the highly corrupt manuscripts B and Aleph, but many of the readings that he inserted in his Greek New Testament mirrored those produced by conservative biblical scholars and such text critics of the day. He was evangelical in heart and mission, and he wrote many Christian hymns, yet he embraced the faulty text-critical theories of the day. (As a ninteenth-century biblical text critic, Tregelles, however, was fairly conservative.)

U Uncial—A biblical manuscript penned entirely in uppercase letters. New Testament uncials (also called “majuscules”), varying in number of columns per page from one (later) to four (earlier), are extant from the fourth through tenth centuries. Beginning in the ninth century, uncials largely were replaced by “minuscules” (also called “cursives”), the latter being in uppercase and lowercase script characters. Today, extant cursives outnumber uncials 2,882 to 311. (See chart under “Manuscript” definition, p. 48.) Most uncials contain little or no punctuation.

Unitarianism—A theology based on the core belief in God as having one person, excluding Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit as the second and third per­ sons. This belief system also holds that Jesus was an exceptional teacher and human being, and a prophet—the earthly “exemplar” of Christianity.

Unitarians believe in Jesus’ moral authority, but not in his divinity.

United Bible Societies (UBS)—An (allegedly) non-profit, ecumenical conglomeration—a “fellowship,” according to the UBS website—of 145 separate Bible societies in 200 countries worldwide that publishes and distributes “Bibles” and “New Testaments.” The major component organizations in the UBS are the British and Foreign Bible Society (BFBS—1804) and the American Bible Society (ABS—1816). The historical fact is, the BFBS was founded in a pub in London, and it included members who were Unitarians—believing that Jesus is not deity. Twelve years later, in 1816, some BFBS members branched out to form the ABS. This organization also included some Unitarians. Hence, because some conservative orthodox members of the ABS were exasperated with the Unitarian folly, they, in turn, established an orthodox, Bible-based organization called the Trinitarian Bible Society (TBS), which was formed in 1831. The TBS ardently labored to support and promulgate Trinitarian doctrine (the Triune God), in opposition to the Unitarianism that had become so prevalent in the nineteenth century. (Today the TBS is the copyright owner—since 1976—of the 1550 Robert Estienne version of the Textus Receptus.)

V Vaticanus—The fourth-century codex (also called “Codex B”) whose earliest known reference goes back to 1444, when it was donated to the Vatican Library. In 1475, Codex B is listed as having been the first registry entry of the Vatican Library. Codex B (Gk. 03 1209) is the single most-coveted ancient biblical manuscript used by modernists as largely the basis (about ninety percent) for nearly every NT translation having been produced since before 1881. Vaticanus is of the “Alexandrian” text-type. It is a pristine manuscript dated to approximately 325-360 AD, written in uncials (all caps)— three columns per page.

Verbal (plenary) inspiration—The belief that the Bible consists of precisely God’s words directly given to and operating divinely through His chosen instruments, the writers of the various canonical books of the Protestant Bible. This belief also is consistent with investment in God’s preservation of His Word in the form of the Majority text, then in the more-refined Textus Receptus (personal belief). Some scholars believe in general divine inspiration of the Bible, others in verbal inspiration, and still others hold that if the Bible has been plenarily inspired, then, consequently, by necessity, it also must be precisely divinely preserved.

Vulgate (vull´-gate)—1: From the Latin word meaning common; 2: The term typically applied to the voluminously extant common-language Latin biblical manuscripts (about ten thousand); 3: Any common-language version of the Bible or its underlying texts, regardless of language or dialect—e.g., the “Latin Vulgate.” The common Greek is called “Koine,” but also is the “vulgate” [lowercase] Greek—the Greek of the “common people,” as opposed to Classical Greek.

W Western—A relatively scarcely supported classification for NT biblical manuscripts having specific characteristics. Most manuscripts of the Old Latin text—which were translated from Greek—purportedly (for those who accept the Western text-type) are of the Western type, as well as are the quotations of several early Church Fathers of the second and third centuries. The Western text-form displays a tendency toward paraphrase and marked replacement of words, clauses and entire sentences—the latter sometimes with an inclination toward “harmonization.” Many such Western-codified works as Codex D (Bezae) clearly display the aforementioned characteristics, yet others (European) do not.

X No entries.

Y No entries.

Z Zondervan Greek and English Interlinear New Testament (NASB/NIV)—Now in its second edition, this NT interlinear was edited and arranged by William D. and Robert H. Mounce, and published by Zondervan. It uses the contemporary critically acclaimed UBS4 Greek text, and deliberately has been arranged to comply as closely as possible to the NET Bible. (This is a profit-driven, strategically arranged association by a company widely known for its promotional emphasis.) This Greek interlinear has the English equivalents of the Greek words arranged immediately below them, with the Strong’s Reference Numbers (SRN) below the English, and the term’s basic linguistic morphology at the bottom of each line of Scripture. William Mounce is a popular author and NT professor who has a long-running relationship with Zondervan, the company that also publishes the NIV. This title occasionally strays from its own Greek source text and displays ≈inserted English words or both inserted English and ╗Greek words that do not appear in its own Greek. [See pages 5, 33, and 37.] Its preface promotes one of William Mounces Zondervan titles, and the “Technical Comments” section plugs modernistic text critics Bruce Metzger (d. 2008), Gordon Fee, and Daniel B. Wallace, as well as mentions another Zondervan Bible, the TNIV. This “Bible” also implements the typical modernistic trick of referring to a majority of NT Greek manuscripts as “some manuscripts,” and other, similar methods of deception used by nearly every modern Bible. In terms of learning tools, this NT interlinear is quite helpful to the user. (The user just needs to be aware that he is the target of marketing hype and is being baited into the trap of modern textual criticism!)

^ Wikipedia, “List of New Testament lectionaries” (1,000 select) @ Wikipedia,

“List of New Testament lectionaries,” latest figure calculated by the Institute for New Testament Textual Research (Münich)

Appendix I Ú The Greek Alphabet Ú (Basic sounds excluding “diphthongs”—double-vowel sounds—and special sounds)

CHARACTER

TRANSLITERATION

PHONETIC SOUND

UPPERCASE

LOWERCASE

NAME

A B G D E Z H

a b g d

Alpha

A, a

Ă

Beta

B, b

Buh

Gamma

G, g

Guh

Delta

D, d

Duh

Epsilon

E, e

Ĕ

Zeta

Z, z

Zuh

Ēta

Ē, ē

Ā

Theta

Th, th

Thuh

Iōta

I, i

Ē

Kappa

K, k

Kuh

Lambda

L, l

Luh

Mu

M, m

Muh

Nu

N, n

Nuh

Xi

X, x

Xss

Omicron

O, o

Aah

Pi

P, p

Puh

Rho

R, r

Rhr

Sigma

S, s

Sss

Q I K L M N X O P R S T U F C Y W

e z h q i k l m n x o p r s

t u f

Tau

T, t

Tuh

Upsilon

U, u

Uh

Phi

Ph, ph

Fuh

c

Chi

Ch, ch

Khh (soft)

y w

Psi

Ps, ps

Pss

Ōmega

Ō, ō

Oh

Appendix II Ú The Nestle-Aland27 (NA27) Critical Apparatus Ú Standard Referenced Signs & Witnesses (in this document) CRITICAL SIGNS SIGN

MEANING MEANING

Ï

Byzantine Majority text

vid

Reading not absolutely certain

123

1st, 2nd, or 3rd corrector

abc

1st, 2nd, or 3rd copyist

pc al vg latt lat(t) lat it syp sys syc sypal syphi syh sa bo bopt Í

Ì ℓ

REFERENCED WITNESSES

Few Byz. MSS differing from Ï Some Byz. MSS differing from Ï Latin Vulgate All Latin in support of Greek All Latin with a few exceptions All Latin Vulgate & many of Old Latin Most or all Old Latin (“Itala”) Syriac Peshitta (2nd century) << Syriac Sinaitic (4th century) Syriac Curetonian (5th century) Syriac Palestinian (6th century—???)

Syriac Philoxenian (6th century) Syriac Harclean (7th century) Sahidic Coptic (Egyptian/3rd or 4th) Bohairic Coptic (Egyptian/3rd or 4th) Five or more Bohairic witnesses Codex Aleph (Sinaiticus) Papyrus manuscript Lectionary (“Lect”—liturgy)

GREEK PAPYRI 13

Ì Ì36 Ì37 Ì45 Ì46 Ì49 Ì63 Ì64 Ì66 Ì72 Ì75

UNCIALS Aleph (01) A (02), B (03) C (04), D (05)

CURSIVES 1

Ë (5 manu.) Ë13 (13 manu.)

1 E (07), F (010) 6 G (011), H (013) 28 I (016), K (018) 33 L (019), M (021) 69 N (022), P (024) 81 R (027), S (028) 323 T (029), U (030) 365 V (031), W (032) 565 X (033), Y (034), Z (035) 579 G (036), D (037) 614 Q (038), L (039) 629, 630 X (040), P (041) 700 S (042), F (043) 892 Y (044), 046 945 048, 049, 050, 056 1071, 1175 070, 075, 078 1241 083, 085, 086 1424 0102, 0104, 0107 1505, 1506 0130, 0142 1582 0150, 0151 1739 0171, 0178 1852, 1881 0209, 0233 2127, 2211 0243, 0245, 0250 2412, 2426 0274, 0278, 0281 2427 (forgery) 0285, 0298 2464, 2542

LATIN

SYRIAC

COPTIC

LECTIONARIES ( ℓ ) 844 ( ℓ ) 2211

Old Latin Latin Vulgate

Peshitta (2rd) Proto-Bohairic (4th) Sinaitic (4th) Bohairic (4th) Sahidic (3rd) ff1 (Codex Corbeiensis I) Curetonian (5th) Palestinian (6th—???) ^^ Philoxenian (6th)

Harclean (7th)

<< Traditional date for Peshitta, not modern. ^^ Arthur Voobus’ projection.

Appendix III Ú Referenced Manuscript Data Ú Witnesses mentioned in this document TYPE Papyrus Papyrus Papyrus

MATERIAL

NOMENCLATURE 13

Papyrus Papyrus

ORIGIN

SCRIPTURE

NOTES

225-250 AD

Egypt

➢ Hebrews 2-5; 12

➢ 2 -largest NT papyrus; Alexandrian type

Ì

36

ca. 550 AD

Egypt

➢ John 3 

➢ Caesarean type

Ì

37

ca. 250-260

Egypt (?)

➢ Matthew 26:19-52

➢ Mostly Western; also Alexandrian/Egyptian ➢ Mixed text; damaged and fragmented

Ì —Oxyrhynchus 657

Papyrus

DATE

45

nd

Papyrus

Papyrus

Ì (Chester Beatty collection)

ca. 250 AD

Egypt

➢ Matt; Mk; Lk; Jn; Acts 

Papyrus

Papyrus

Ì46 (Chester Beatty)

175-225 AD

Egypt

➢ Rom; 1 & 2 Cor; Gal; Eph; ➢ Alexandrian; among earliest papyri extant Php; Col; 1 Th; Heb 

Papyrus

Papyrus

Ì49

ca. 250 AD

Egypt

➢ Ephesians 4, 5

➢ Text very close to Sinaiticus & Vaticanus

Papyrus

63

ca. 500 AD

Egypt

➢ John 3, 4

➢ Alexandrian; some Byzantine readings

ca. 200 AD

Egypt

➢ Matthew 3, 5, 26

➢ Alexandrian text-type; highly fragmentary

➢ John 

➢ Near-complete Alex. MS; close to Ì75/B

➢ 1 & 2 Peter; Jude

➢ Alexandrian type; earliest of these ep.

➢ Lk 3-18, 22-24; Jn 1-15

➢ Precursor of Codex B; close to Ì66/0162

Papyrus Papyrus

Ì 64

Papyrus

Ì

Papyrus

Papyrus

66

Ì (Martin Bodmer I collection)

ca. 200 AD

Egypt

Papyrus

Papyrus

Ì72 (Bodmer VIII)

ca. 300 AD

?

Papyrus

Papyrus

75

175-225 AD

Egypt

Uncial

Vellum

Codex Sinaiticus (Í)—Aleph (01)

330-360 AD

Egypt (?)

➢ OT; Gos; Acts; Paul; Cath; ➢ 7% of modern NT; Tischenforf find at St. Catherine’s in 1844; never returned (sold) Rev

Uncial

Vellum

Codex Alexandrinus (A)—(02)

400-440 AD

Egypt

➢ OT; Gos; Acts; Paul; Cath; ➢ Alex./Byz. hybrid: most Septuagint & NT Rev

Uncial

Vellum

Codex Vaticanus (B)—(03)

325-350 AD

Egypt (?)

➢ OT; Gos; Acts; Paul; Cath

➢ 90% of modern NT; Alex.; close to Ì66/Ì75

Uncial

Vellum

Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus (C)—(04) ca. 450 AD

Egypt (?)

➢ OT; Gos; Acts; Paul; Rev

➢ Mixed text: Alex./some Byz.; palimpsest

ca. 400 AD

Italy (?)

➢ Gospels; Acts

➢ Western (principal); Gk./Lat.; corrupt

Uncial

Vellum

(“Magdalen” [College])

Ì (Bodmer XIV-XV)

ea

Codex Bezae (D )—(05) p

ca. 550 AD

France (?)

➢ Pauline epistles

➢ Western type; Gk./Lat. (“diglot”)

e

VIII

Italy

➢ Pauline epistles

➢ Classic Byzantine MS; carefully written

a

VI

Sardinia, Italy

➢ Acts

➢ Western Gk./Lat. (oldest with Acts 8:37)

Uncial

Vellum

Uncial

Parchment

Uncial

Parchment

Uncial

Parchment

Uncial

Parchment

Codex Augiensis (F )—(010)

Uncial

Parchment

Codex Seidelianus I (Ge)—(011)

IX

Uncial

Vellum

Codex Boernerianus (Ge)—(012)

ca. 850-900

Uncial

Parchment

Codex Seidelianus II (He)—(013)

IX

Constantinople (?) ➢ Gospels

➢ Highly lacunose Byzantine; 194 leaves

IX

Constantinople (?) ➢ Acts

➢ Classic Byzantine; lacunose; 43 leaves

Uncial

Parchment

Codex Claromontanus (D )—(06) Codex Basilensis (E )—(07) Codex Laudianus (E )—(08) e

Codex Boreelianus (F )—(09) p

a

Codex Mutinensis (H )—(014)

ca. 875-975 Constantinople (?) ➢ Gospels ca. 850

?

➢ Pauline epistles

Constantinople (?) ➢ Gospels

Switzerland

➢ Pauline epistles

➢ An elegant, carefully written Byzantine MS ➢ Western Greek-Latin diglot; 136 leaves ➢ Coarse Byzantine manuscript; 252 leaves ➢ Western Greek-Latin diglot

Uncial

Parchment

Codex Coislinianus (Hp)—(015)

Uncial

Vellum

Codex Freerianus (I)—(016)

Uncial Uncial Uncial

Parchment Parchment Parchment

e

Codex Cyprius (K )—(017) ap

Codex Mosquensis I (K )—(018) e

Codex Regius (L )—(019) ap

VI

Caesarea

➢ Pauline epistles

➢ Alex./many Byz. readings; marginalia

ca. 450

Egypt (?)

➢ Pauline epistles; Hebrews

➢ Alex. similar to Í, A, C, and 33

IX

Greece (?)

➢ Gospels

➢ Classic complete Byz.; 267 leaves

IX

Greece (?)

➢ Acts; Paulines

➢ Classic Byz.; lacunose; 288 leaves

VIII

Egypt

➢ Gospels

➢ Alex. text; poorly written; marginalia

Uncial

Parchment

Codex Angelicus (L )—(020)

VIII

Constantinople (?) ➢ Acts; Paulines

➢ Lacunose Byzantine; liturgical; 189 leaves

Uncial

Parchment

Codex Campianus (M)—(021)

IX

Constantinople (?) ➢ Gospels

➢ Elegant/complete Byz.; marginalia

Uncial

Vellum

Codex Petropolitanus Purp. (N)—(022)

VI

Constantinople ➢ Gospels

➢ Purple, lacunose Byz.; 462 leaves

VI

Constantinople (?) ➢ Gospels

➢ Fragmentary Byzantine palimpsest

Uncial

Parchment

e

Codex Guelferbytanus A (P )—(024) apr

IX

?

Uncial

Parchment

Codex Porphyrianus (P )—(025)

Uncial

Parchment

Codex Nitriensis (R)—(027)

Uncial

Parchment

Codex Vaticanus 354 (S)—(028)

Uncial

Parchment

Codex Borgianus (T)—(029)

V

Egypt

Uncial

Parchment

Codex Nanianus (U)—(030)

IX

Uncial

Parchment

Codex Mosquensis II (V)—(031)

Uncial

Vellum

Codex Washingtonianus (W)—(032)

Uncial

Parchment

Codex Monacensis (X)—(033)

Uncial

Parchment

Uncial

➢ Acts; Paul; Cath; Rev

ca. 550 AD Constantinople (?) ➢ Luke; Illiad; Euclid’s Ele. 949 AD

Constantinople (?) ➢ Gospels

➢ Mostly Alex./Byz.; all of Rev.; 327 leaves ➢ Early fragmentary Byzantine MS ➢ Byz.: Monk Michael; March 5, 12 p.m.

➢ Luke; John

➢ Alex. Greek-Sahidic diglot; close to B

?

➢ Gospels

➢ Carefully written Byz.; full marginalia

IX

Greece

➢ Gospels

➢ Lacunose Byz.; uncial & cursive script

ca. 400 AD

Caesarea

➢ Gospels

➢ Electic (highly mixed); painted wood cover

IX/X

?

➢ Gospels

➢ Lacunose Byzantine; elegantly written

Codex Macedoniensis (Y)—(034)

IX

Greece (?)

➢ Gospels

➢ Long, lacunose Byzantine (309 leaves)

Parchment

Codex Dublinensis (Z)—(035)

VI

Egypt

Uncial

Parchment

Codex Tischendorfianus IV (G)—(036)

IX/X

?

Uncial

Parchment

Codex Sangallensis 48 (D)—(037)

IX

Uncial

Parchment

Codex Coridethianus (Q)—(038)

IX

Caesarea

Uncial

Vellum

Codex Zacynthius (X)—(040)

ca. 550 AD

Greece

Uncial

Parchment

Codex Petropolitanus (P)—(041)

IX

Asia Minor

Uncial

Parchment

Codex Rossanensis (S)—(042)

VI

Italy

Uncial

Parchment

Codex Purpureus Beratinus (F)—(043)

VI

Uncial

Parchment

Codex Athous Lavrensis (Y)—(044)

Uncial

Vellum

Codex Vaticanus 2066—(046)

IX/X

Uncial

Parchment

Codex Vaticanus 2061—(048)

V

?

➢ Acts; Paulines; Catholic ep. ➢ Alex. double palimp.; homilies; Strabo

Uncial

Parchment

049

IX

Greece (?)

➢ Acts; Paulines; Catholic ep. ➢ Byzantine; poor parchment; brown ink

Uncial

Parchment

050

IX

Greece

Uncial

Parchment

056

X

Greece (?)

Uncial

Parchment

063

IX

?

VIII/IX

➢ Matt. 1-2, 4-8, 10-15, 17-26 ➢ Fragmentary Alex.; precise; lacunose ➢ Gospels

Switzerland (?) ➢ Gospels

➢ Alex./Byz. Greek-Latin diglot (interlinear)

➢ Gospels

➢ Inelegant, rough Caesarean/Byzantine

➢ Luke

➢ Alex. Palimpsest; text close to Codex B

➢ Gospels

➢ Lacunose Byz.; close to Alexandrinus

➢ Matthew; Mark

➢ Illuminated Byz. (illust., reddish, silver ink)

Patmos, Greece (?) ➢ Matthew; Mark

Greece (?)

➢ Long, lacunose Byzantine (257 leaves)

➢ Gospels; Acts; Paulines

Constantinople (?) ➢ Revelation

➢ Purple Byz. codex/silver ink; 190 leaves ➢ Eclectic/mixed text; marginalia ➢ Byzantine codex: Revelation entire

➢ John

➢ Lacunose eclectic; fragmentary; 19 leaves

➢ Acts; Paulines

➢ Complete Byz./continuous commentary

➢ Luke; John

➢ Liturgical Byzantine; 20 leaves

Uncial

Parchment

070

VI

Egypt

Uncial

Parchment

075

X

Uncial

Parchment

078

VI

Uncial

Parchment

083

V/VI

Uncial

Parchment

085

VI

Egypt

Uncial

Parchment

086

VI

Egypt (?)

Uncial

Parchment

0102

VII

?

Uncial

Parchment

0104

VI

Uncial

Parchment

0107

VII

Sinai (?)

Uncial

Parchment

0130—Sangallensis 18

IX

?

Uncial

Parchment

0142

X

Uncial

Parchment

0150

IX

?

➢ Paulines

➢ Mostly Byz./some Alex.; commentary

Uncial

Parchment

0151

IX

?

➢ Paulines

➢ Byzantine; 192 leaves; commentary

Uncial

Vellum

0171

III/IV

Uncial

Parchment

0178 (from 070)

VI

Egypt

Uncial

Parchment

0209

VII

Uncial

Parchment

0233

Uncial

Parchment

Uncial

➢ Luke; John

➢ Highly lacunose Alex. Greek-Coptic diglot

?

➢ Paulines

➢ Mostly Byz., some Alex.; monk Sabbas

?

➢ Matthew; Luke; John

➢ Mixed-text palimpsest (overwritten)

Sinai (Egypt) ? ➢ Mark 13, 14-16; John 1-4

➢ Alexandrian fragment; 6 leaves

➢ Matthew 20, 22

➢ Alex. MS written in a Coptic monastery

➢ John 1, 3, 4

➢ Mixed Coptic palimpsest diglot (bilingual)

➢ Luke 3, 4

➢ Alex.; liturgical markings added later

Constantinople (?) ➢ Matthew 23; Mark 13, 14  ➢ Byzantine palimpsest used for liturgy

➢ Matthew 22, 23; Mark 4, 5

➢ Mixed text; poor readability; freq. errors

➢ Mark 1, 2; Luke 1, 2 

➢ Mixed Byz. palimpsest Greek/Latin Vulgate

Constantinople (?) ➢ Acts; Paul; Catholic ep.

Southern Egypt ➢ Matthew 10; Luke 22

➢ Complete Byzantine MS (381 leaves)

➢ Western Egyptian fragment; 2 leaves

➢ Luke 16:4-12

➢ Fragmented Alex. Greek-Coptic diglot

?

➢ Rom; 2 Cor; 2 Peter

➢ Fragmentary mixed palimpsest (8 leaves)

VIII

?

➢ Gospels

➢ Mixed text on 93 leaves; minuscule hand

0243

X

Egypt (?)

➢ 1 Cor 13 – 2 Cor. 13

➢ Complete Alexandrian manuscript

Parchment

0245

VI

Egypt (?)

➢ 1 John 3, 4

➢ Alexandrian fragment (1 leaf)

Uncial

Parchment

0250—Climaci Rescriptus

VI-VIII

?

➢ Gospels/Aramaic OT 

➢ Mixed—also Christian Palest. Aramaic OT

Uncial

Parchment

0274

V

Egypt

➢ Mark 6-10 

➢ Alexandrian fragment (4 leaves)

Uncial

Parchment

0278

IX

Sinai (?)

➢ Paulines

➢ Unclassified palimpsest; with theo. writing.

Uncial

Parchment

0281

VII/VIII

Sinai

➢ Matthew 6-27 

➢ Alexandrian palimpsest; 47 leaves

Uncial

Parchment

0285

VI

Sinai

➢ Paulines 

➢ Fragmentary Alexandrian MS; 20 leaves

Uncial

Parchment

0298

VIII/IX

?

➢ Matthew 26

➢ Unclassified Greek-Coptic MS; 1 leaf

Uncial

Parchment

0298

VIII/IX

?

➢ Matthew 26

➢ Unclassified Greek-Coptic MS; 1 leaf

Minuscule

Parchment

1 (First member of the Ë Lake Family)

XII

Caesarea

➢ Gos; Acts; Paul; Cath

➢ One of five (5) Kirsopp Lake cursives

Minuscule

Parchment

6

XIII

?

➢ Gos; Acts; Paul; Cath

➢ Elegantly written Alex./Byz.; full margin.

Minuscule

Vellum

28

XI

?

➢ Gospels

➢ Caesarian/Byz.; marginalia; 292 leaves

Minuscule

Parchment

33

IX

Egypt (?)

➢ Gos; Acts; Paul; Cath

➢ Alexandrian; “The Great Cursive”

XV

Caesarea

➢ Gos; Acts; Paul; Cath; Rev ➢ One of 13 Kirsopp Lake cursives

1

13

Minuscule

Parchment

69 (First member of the Ë Lake Group)

Minuscule

Parchment

81

Minuscule

Parchment

323 (sister of 322)

ca. 1044 AD Alexandria (Eg.) ➢ Acts; Paulines; Catholic ep. ➢ Sign. modern support for critical editions XII

Egypt (?)

➢ Acts; Paulines; Catholic ep. ➢ Alex./strong Byz. element; Family 1739

Minuscule

Parchment

365

XII

?

Minuscule

Parchment

565

IX

Minuscule

Parchment

579

Minuscule

Parchment

Minuscule

➢ Gos; Acts; Paul; Cath; Ps.

➢ Mixed/Byz. with Psalms; Family 2127

Caesarea

➢ Gospels

➢ Ceasarean; purple parchment; 392 leaves

XIII

?

➢ Gospels

➢ Mixed/Alex.; portions missing (lacunose)

629

XIV

Caesarea

➢ Acts; Paulines; Catholic ep. ➢ Vulgate/Byz./mixed; Latin-Greek diglot

Paper

630

XIV

Caesarea

➢ Acts; Paulines; Catholic ep. ➢ Mixed text; lacunose (missing portions)

Minuscule

Parchment

700

XI

Caesarea

➢ Gospels

➢ Complete Caesarean; Family 1 member

Minuscule

Parchment

892

IX

Egypt (?)

➢ Gospels

➢ Complete Alexandrian; 353 leaves

Minuscule

Parchment

945

XI

Minuscule

Parchment

1071

XII

?

Minuscule

Parchment

1175

ca. 1050 AD

Alexandria (?)

Minuscule

Parchment

1241

XII

?

➢ Gospels; Acts; Paul; Cath

➢ Mixed text (Caesarean/Alexandrian)

Minuscule

Parchment

1505

XII

Caesarea

➢ Gospels; Acts; Paul; Cath

➢ Falsely dated at 1084 in colophon

Minuscule

Parchment

1506

ca. 1320 AD

Caesarea

➢ Gospels; Paulines

➢ Mixed text—Gos, Byz.; Paul, Alex.

Minuscule

Parchment

1582

ca. 949 AD

?

➢ Gospels

➢ Mixed (Alex.-Byz.) text

Minuscule

Parchment

1739

X

Alexandria

➢ Acts; Paul; Cath

➢ Modern support for crit. editions (Ì46 & B)

Minuscule

Parchment

1881

XIV

Alexandria

➢ Paulines; Cathlic ep.

➢ Strong affinities with Aleph and B

Minuscule

Parchment

2127

XII

Alexandria

➢ Gos; Acts; Paul; Cath

➢ Almost entirely Byzantine

Minuscule

Parchment

2412

XII

Caesarea

➢ Gos; Paul; Cath

➢ Apparently of the Ceasarean type

Minuscule

Parchment

2427 (forgery)

XII

Alexandria

➢ Mark

➢ A forgery of no earlier than 1864

Minuscule

Parchment

2464

IX/X

Alexandria (?) ?

1

Constantinople (?) ➢ Gos; Acts; Paul; Cath

➢ Gospels

➢ Complete Byz./Cae.; Family 1424 (20+) ➢ Mixed (Alex.-Byz.) text

➢ Acts; Paulines; Catholic ep. ➢ Alexandrian text

➢ Acts; Paulines; Catholic ep. ➢ Alexandrian; some Byz.; 213 leaves

Minuscule

Vellum

ff —Codex Corbeiensis I

ca. 750 AD

Uncial

Parchment

Lectionary ( ℓ ) 844

ca. 861/862 Constantinople (?) ➢ Gospels

➢ Byzantine text-type

Uncial

Parchment

Lectionary ( ℓ ) 2211

ca. 995/996 Constantinople (?) ➢ Gospels

➢ Byzantine text-type (Greek-Arabic)

 A small portion(s) of a book or chapter.

➢ Matthew

➢ Important Old Latin manuscript

Appendix IV Ú Textual Criticism Text-Types Ú TYPE NAME

REGION OF ORIGIN

EXTANT MANUSCRIPT NUMBER PAPYRI

➢ Alexandrian

➢ Alexandria/Egypt

➢ 77

UNCIALS ➢ 74

CURSIVES ➢ 38

LECTIONARIES ➢ 0

CHARACTERISTICS TOTAL ➢ 189 (3.6%)

➢ Byzantine

➢ Caesarean

➢ Western

➢ Antioch (Syria) to Istanbul ➢ 1 (formerly Byzantium)

➢ 75

➢ Caesarea area (N.W. Of Jerusalem

➢ 30

➢ 6

➢ West of Alexandria, Egypt ➢ 7

➢ 2594

➢ 2208

➢ 4958 (94.9%)

➢ 4

➢ 1

➢ 41 (0.78%)

➢ 8

➢ 23

➢ 0

➢ 38 (0.72%)

TOTAL

➢ Shorter/abrupt readings; verse omissions; greater variation among synoptic readings; older extant witnesses; more “difficult” readings; small minority of extant readings ➢ Smooth, better-formed Greek; fewer exegetically “difficult” readings; early extant witnesses; vast majority of extant witnesses ➢ Hybrid of Alexandrian and Byzantine readings; most readings assimilated from Byzantine; no “pure” extant witnesses ➢ Many highly paraphrased readings; type of text derived from Old Latin translated into Greek; word and clause transposition

➢ 5226a

a Excludes “eclectic” (mixed), unknown/unclassified manuscripts, lectionaries (liturgies), and Greek writings of the early Church Fathers—total of 5,773 Gk. mss.

Data collected from several Wikipedia.org pages.

Appendix V Ú Sinaiticus (‫) א‬, Vaticanus (B), and Alexandrinus (A) Alterations to the KJV Text Ú

As Recorded in Tischendorf’s AV New Testament with Variants* (Personally counted and categorized totals by Edward E. Scott)

S/V/A ALTERATION TOTALS ALTERATION TYPES CORRECTIONS/OMISSIONS+ ➢ 777

DIVINITY OF CHRIST^

REVISED TRANSLATIONS~

➢ 64

➢ 185

TOTAL

TRANSLATION ERRORS= ➢ 17 1,043†

* Variants tabulated from the book The New Testament: The Authorized Version; With Introduction, And Various Readings From The Three Most Celebrated Manuscripts Of The Original Greek Text (Leipzig, Ger.: Bernhard Tauchnitz, 1869. Reprint by The Bible Reader’s Museum, 2007.)

+ Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and Alexandrinus corrections to and omissions from the Authorized Version (AV edition undisclosed and undiscovered). ~ Phrases or verses in the KJV “revised” by Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and/or Alexandrinus. ^ Words, phrases, or verses revised by Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, or Alexandrinus that affect the divinity of Christ. = Translation errors in Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, or Alexandrinus that were identified by Tischendorf as such. † Totals for corrections, omissions, and deletions differ vastly from those cataloged by orthodox critic Herman C. Hoskier (d. 1938). For example, to illustrate the inconsistencies between Codices Sinaiticus (Aleph) and Vaticanus B, the two essentially foundational NT Greek manuscripts for contemporary New Testaments, Hoskier counted and documented 3,036 textual variations in the gospels alone: 656 in Matthew; 567 in Mark; 791 in Luke; 1022 in John. The traditional consensus on Greek variants between the Nestle-Aland 27 critical text underlying modern New Testaments and the Greek of the 1611 King James Bible is about 5,600. But J. A. Moorman, in his book 8,000 Differences between the NT Greek Words of the King James Bible and the Modern Versions , asserts that this total actually is 8,032 “variation units.” (The Aleph-Vaticanus differences have been used by conservative orthodox scholars to show the unreliability of the NA textual foundation.)

Appendix VI  S/V/A Alterations Affecting the Divinity of Christ  As Recorded in “Tischendorf’s AV New Testament with Variants”* (Meticulously tabulated and recounted by the author of this document) S/V/A ALTERATION BREAKDOWN

(185: 109 in gospels)

LOWER CHRISTOLOGY TYPES

INSTANCES

Personal pronoun for Christ

➢ ➢ ➢ ➢

“He” for “Jesus” — 56 times “He” for “the Lord” — 1 time “Him” for “Jesus” — 9 times “His” for “Jesus’’” — 1 time

Reduced divinity

➢ ➢ ➢ ➢ ➢ ➢

“A son” for “firstborn son” — 1 time “Lord” omitted — 17 times “Jesus” omitted — 8 times “Christ Jesus” omitted — 1 time “Jesus Christ” omitted — 1 time “Lord Jesus Christ” omitted — 1 time

Partial divinity

➢ ➢ ➢ ➢ ➢ ➢ ➢ ➢ ➢ ➢ ➢ ➢ ➢ ➢ ➢

“Jesus” for “Jesus Christ” — 4 times “Christ” for “Jesus Christ” (or “Jesus the Christ”) — 5 times “Lord Jesus” for “Lord Jesus Christ” — 14 times “Jesus his son” for “Jesus Christ his son” — 2 times “Lord” for “Lord Jesus Christ” — 2 times “Jesus Christ” for “Lord Jesus Christ” — 2 times “In Jesus” or “in Christ” for “of Jesus Christ” — 1 time “The Saviour” for “Jesus” — 1 time “Lord” for “Lord Jesus” — 2 times “Jesus” for “Christ Jesus” — 1 time “Jesus Christ” for “Jesus Christ our Lord” — 1 time “The Lord” for “Lord Jesus” — 1 time “Jesus” for “Lord Jesus” — 2 times “Lord” for “Christ” — 1 time “Jesus our Lord” for “Jesus Christ our Lord” — 1 time

Contextual omission/alteration

➢ ➢ ➢ ➢ ➢ ➢ ➢ ➢ ➢ ➢ ➢ ➢ ➢ ➢ ➢ ➢ ➢ ➢ ➢ ➢ ➢ ➢ ➢ ➢ ➢ ➢ ➢ ➢ ➢ ➢ ➢ ➢ ➢ ➢ ➢ ➢ ➢ ➢

(SV+) “Good” omitted before “Master” — Matt. 19:16 (V) “Just” omitted before “person” — Matt. 27:24 (S) “The Son of God” omitted after “Jesus Christ” — Mark 1:1 (SV) “Jesus” omitted in altered verse — Mark 6:34 (A) “God” for “Son” — Mark 14:61 (S) “Of the Blessed: of God” for “the Son of the Blessed” — Mark 14:61 (SV) “Christ” omitted before “the Son of God” — Luke 4:41 (SVA) “Son of Man” omitted — Luke 9:56 (S) “Lord” omitted from “And they said, Lord . . .” — Luke 22:38 ^ (S2 V) “Jesus” omitted by verse removal — Luke 23:34a (S) “And carried up into heaven” omitted — Luke 24:51 (SV) “Only begotten God” for “only begotten Son” — John 1:18 (S) “Chosen of God” for “son of God” — John 1:34 (S) “Jesus” omitted in altered translation — John 2:2, 3 (SV) “Which is in heaven” omitted after “the Son of Man” — John 3:12 (SV) “The Christ” omitted before “the Saviour of the world” — John 4:42 (SV) “The holy one of God” for “that Christ, the Son of the living God” — John 6:69 (S) “He that came to Jesus by night” omitted — John 7:50 (SV) “Jesus” omitted by passage removal (4) — John 7:53-8:11 (SV) “Going through the midst of them, and so passed by” omitted — John 8:59 (S) “Lord” omitted by verse removal — John 9:38 (VA) “The things which Jesus did” omitted — John 11:45 (A) “And the Father in me” omitted — John 14:11 (SV) “Because I go to the Father” omitted — John 16:16 “Him” (S) or “his body” (V) for “the body of Jesus” — John 19:38 (S) “Jesus” omitted by verse removal — John 21:25 (S) “Lord” omitted by verse removal — Acts 2:21 (SVA) “Christ” omitted by removal of “according to the flesh he would raise up Christ” — Acts 2:30 (SVA) “On his name” for “on the name of the Lord” — Acts 22:16 (S) “Through Jesus Christ” omitted after “God” — Romans 1:8 (SVA) “Of Christ” omitted after “gospel” — Romans 1:16 (SVA) “Lord Jesus Christ” omitted — 1 Cor. 1:8 (SVA) “Of Christ” omitted after “gospel” — 1 Cor. 9:18 (SVA) “The body” for “the Lord’s body” — 1 Cor. 11:29 (SV) “From heaven” for “the Lord from heaven” — 1 Cor. 14:47 (A) “In the Lord” omitted — 1 Cor. 16:19 (V) “Faith of God and Christ” for “faith of the Son of God” — Gal. 2:20 (SVA) “In Christ” omitted after “God” — Gal. 3:17

(SVA) “Heir through God” for “heir of God through Christ” — Gal. 4:17 (S) “Jesus” and “himself” omitted flanking “Christ” — Eph. 2:20 (SVA) “Of our Lord Jesus Christ” omitted after “the Father” — Eph. 3:14 (S) “Of Christ” omitted after “gospel” — Phil. 1:27 (A) “And the Father of the Lord” for “and in the Lord Jesus Christ” — 1 Thess. 1:1 (V) “From God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ” omitted —1 Thess. 1:1 (SVA) “Day of the Lord” for “day of Christ” — 1 Thess. 2:2 (A) “In Christ” omitted after “the truth” — 1 Tim. 2:7 (SV) “For ever after the order of Melchizedec” omitted — Heb. 7:21 (V) “Of Christ” omitted after “the Spirit” — 1 Peter 1:11 (A) “Before the Lord” omitted after “accusation against them” — 2 Peter 2:11 (SVA) “In heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one . . . witness in earth” omitted — 1 John 5:7, 8 ➢ (A) “Jesus Christ” omitted after “in his Son” — 1 John 5:20 ➢ (SVA) “In Christ” omitted after “doctrine” — 2 John 9

➢ ➢ ➢ ➢ ➢ ➢ ➢ ➢ ➢ ➢ ➢ ➢

Divine self-judgment

➢ (SV) “Without a cause” omission subjects Jesus to his own judgment — Matt. 5:22

Person replacement (“God” for “Jesus,” or “Christ”)

➢ (S) “The body of God” for “the body of Jesus” — John 19:40 ➢ (S) “Love of God” for “love of Christ” — Romans 8:35 ➢ (SVA) “Judgment seat of God” for “judgment seat of Christ” — Romans 14:10 ➢ (S) “Word of the Lord” for “Word of Christ” — Col. 3:16 ➢ (A) “Word of God” for “Word of Christ” — Col. 3:16 ➢ (V) “Mystery of God” for “mystery of Christ” — Col. 4:3 ➢ (S) “Witness of God” for “witness of Jesus” — Rev. 20:4

Admitted errors in SVA

(A) “Entered into the synagogue” for “entered into the castle” — Acts 23:16 (“a mere error”) (V) “In the ship about” for “in the ship two hundred” — Acts 27:37 (“a mere error”) (A) “To whom pertaineth the adoption . . . and the promises” omitted — Romans 9:4 (“a mere error”) (A) “Righteousness of the faith” for “righteousness of the law” — Romans 10:5 (“a mere error”) (A) Romans 11:12 omitted (“a mere error”) (A) “Ye have reigned as kings without us” omitted — 1 Cor. 4:8 (“a mere error”) (A) 1 Cor. 9:2 omitted (“a mere error”) (A) “For from you sounded out the word of the Lord not only in Macedonia and achaia” omitted — 1 Thess. 1:8 (“a mere error”) ➢ (VA) “He called us” for “he called you” — 2 Thess. 2:14 (“a mere error”) ➢ (A) “And if we know that he hear us” omitted — 1 John 5:15 (“a mere error”) ➢ (A) “I would that thou were cold or hot” omitted — Rev. 3:15 (“a mere error”) ➢ (A) Rev. 5:4 omitted — “a mere error” ➢ (A) “Was called the Immortal” in Rev. 6:8 — “an error” ➢ (A) “And it was given unto him . . . to overcome them” omitted — Rev. 13:7 ➢ (A) “And an angel took up a mighty stone like a great stone” — Rev. 18:21 (“a mere error”) ➢ (S) “But the rest of the dead . . . years were finished” omitted — Rev. 20:5 (“a mere error”) ➢ ➢ ➢ ➢ ➢ ➢ ➢ ➢

* Variants tabulated from the book The New Testament: The Authorized Version; With Introduction, And Various Readings From The Three Most Celebrated Manuscripts Of The Original Greek Text (Leipzig, Ger.: Bernhard Tauchnitz, 1869. Reprint by The Bible Reader’s Museum, 2007.) + “S” denotes the Sinaiticus (Aleph [Í]) manuscript, “V” the Vaticanus (B), and “A” the Alexandrinus. These have been categorized by Casper René Gregory’s (1846-1917) system as Koine Greek NT manuscripts 01, 03, and 02, respectively. Aleph and Alexandrinus are located in the British Library (London), while Vaticanus is housed in the Vatican Library (Vatican City, Rome). Codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus have been dated to about 350 AD, while Alexandrinus has been dated to about 400 AD. ^

“S2” denotes the second-corrected (hand of the second corrector) copy of the Sinaiticus manuscript, circa seventh century.

1

David Otis Fuller, “Which Bible?” in Floyd Nolen Jones, Which Version is the Bible?, 19th ed., rev. and enlarged (The Woodlands, Tex.: KingsWord Press, 1999), p. 120.

2

John W. Burgon, “The Traditional Text” in Floyd Nolen Jones, Which Version is the Bible?, 19th ed., rev. and enlarged (The Woodlands, Tex.: KingsWord Press, 2006), p. 105.

3

“The Catholic Encyclopedia” in David W. Cloud, Faith Vs. the Modern Bible Versions (Port Huron, Mich.: Way of Life Literature, 2005), p. 257.

4

Marvin Vincent, “A History of Textual Criticism of the New Testament” in David W. Cloud, The Modern Bible Version Hall of Shame (Port Huron, Mich.: Way of Life Literature, 2005), p. 87.

5

Bruce Metzger, “The Text of the New Testament” in David W. Cloud, The Modern Bible Version Hall of Shame (Port Huron, Mich.: Way of Life Literature, 2005), p. 78.

6

John W. Burgon, The Revision Revised, Centennial Edition [1883-1983] (Fort Worth, Tex.: A.G. Hobbs Publications, 1991), p. 364.

7

James Bentley, Secrets of Mount Sinai: The Story of Finding the World’s Oldest Bible — Codex Sinaiticus (London: Orbis Publishing, 1985), p. 86.

8

Frederick H. A. Scrivener, A Plain Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism, 4th ed. (Collingswood,, N.J.: The Bible for Today, 1985), p. 88.

9

James Bentley, Secrets of Mount Sinai: The Story of Finding the World’s Oldest Bible — Codex Sinaiticus (London: Orbis Publishing, 1985), p. 98.

10

James Bentley, Secrets of Mount Sinai: The Story of Finding the World’s Oldest Bible — Codex Sinaiticus (London: Orbis Publishing, 1985), pp. 84-85.

11

William Henry Paine Hatch, The Principal Uncial Manuscripts of the New Testament (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1933), Plate XIV.

12

Wilbur N. Pickering, “The Identity of the New Testament Text” in Floyd Nolen Jones, Which Version is the Bible?, 19th ed., rev. and enlarged (Goodyear, Ariz.: KingsWord Press, 2006), p. 163.

13

Floyd Nolen Jones, Which Version is the Bible?, 19th ed., rev. and enlarged (Goodyear, Ariz.: KingsWord Press, 2006), p. 178.

14

Ira M. Price, “The Ancestry of Our English Bible” in David W. Cloud, Faith Vs. the Modern Bible Versions (Port Huron, Mich.: Way of Life Literature, 2005), p. 577.

15

David Daniell, The Bible in English (London: Yale University Press, 2003), p. 289.

16

J. A. Moorman, 8,000 Differences between the N.T. Greek Words of the King James Bible and the Modern Versions (Collingswood, N.J.: The Bible for Today, and Dean Burgon Society, 2006), p. vi.

17

Moorman, 8,000 Differences, vi.

18

Jay P. Green Sr., Interlinear Hebrew-Greek-English Bible, Vol. 4, 2nd ed. (Lafayette, Ind.: Sovereign Grace Publishers, 1985), p. xii.

19

J. A. Moorman, Early Manuscripts, Church Fathers and the Authorized Version (Collingswood, N.J.: The Bible for Today Press, 2005), p. 170.

20

Jones, Which Version is the Bible?, 31.

21

Jones, Which Version is the Bible?, 31.

22

David W. Cloud, The Bible Version Question/Answer Database (Port Huron, Mich.: Way of Life Literature, 2005), p. 161.

23

Preserved Smith, “Erasmus: A Study of His Life, Ideals, and Place in History” in David W. Cloud, The Bible Version Question/Answer Database (Port Huron, Mich.: Way of Life Literature, 2005), p. 183.

24

Frederic Kenyon, “Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts” in David W. Cloud, The Bible Version Question/Answer Database (Port Huron, Mich.: Way of Life Literature, 2005), p. 184.

25

Adam Nicholson, “God’s Secretaries” in David W. Cloud, Faith Vs. the Modern Bible Versions (Port Huron, Mich.: Way of Life Literature, 2005), p. 540.

26

Moorman, 8,000 Differences, vi.

27

Cloud, The Bible Version Question/Answer Database, 411.

Bentley, James. Secrets of Mount Sinai: The Story of Finding the World’s Oldest Bible — Codex Sinaiticus. London: Orbis Publishing, 1985.

Burgon, John W. The Revision Revised, Centennial Edition [1883-1983]. Fort Worth, Tex.: A.G. Hobbs Publications, 1991.

Cloud, David W. The Modern Bible Version Hall of Shame. Port Huron, Mich.: Way of Life Literature, 2005.

Cloud, David W. The Bible Version Question/Answer Database. Port Huron, Mich.: Way of Life Literature, 2005.

Cloud, David W. Faith Vs. the Modern Bible Versions. Port Huron, Mich.: Way of Life Literature, 2005.

Comfort, Phillip W. Essential Guide to Bible Versions. Wheaton, Ill.: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., 2000.+ Dewey, David. A User’s Guide to Bible Translations: Making the Most of Different Versions. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2004.# Fuller, David Otis, ed. Which Bible? Grand Rapids, Mich.: Institute for Biblical Textual Studies, 1990.

Green, Jay P. Sr. Interlinear Hebrew-Greek-English Bible, 2nd ed., rev. Lafayette, Ind.: Sovereign Grace Publishers, 1985.

Green, Jay P. Sr. Unholy Hands on the Bible, Vol. II: A Comparison between Six Major Bible Versions. Lafayette, Ind.: Sovereign Grace Trust Fund, 1992.

Hatch, William Henry Paine. The Principal Uncial Manuscripts of the New Testament. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1933.

Hills, Edward F. The King James Version Defended, 4th ed. Des Moines, Ill.: The Christian Research Press, 1984.

Jones, Floyd Nolen. The Septuagint: A Critical Analysis, 2nd ed., rev. and enlarged. The Woodlands, Tex.: KingsWord Press, 2000.

Jones, Floyd Nolen. Which Version is the Bible?, 19th ed., rev. and enlarged. Goodyear, Ariz.: KingsWord Press, 2006.

Miller, Edward. A Guide to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament. Collingswood, N.J.: Dean Burgon Society Press, 1979.

Moorman, J. A. Early Manuscripts, Church Fathers, and the Authorized Version. Collingswood, N.J.: The Bible for Today, and The Dean Burgon Society, 2006.

Moorman, J. A. When the KJV Departs from the “Majority” Text. Collingswood, N.J.: The Bible for Today, 1988.

Price, Ira M., William A. Irwin and Allen P. Wikgren, eds. The Ancestry of Our English Bible, 2nd rev. edition. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1953.

Scrivener, Frederick H. A. A Plain Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism, 4th ed. Collingswood,, N.J.: The Bible for Today, 1894 (reprint).

Waite, D. A. Theological Heresies of Westcott & Hort: Man’s Liberal Attack upon God’s Word. (Item #595) Collingswood, N.J.: The Bible for Today, 2001.

+ Warning: The author of this title is a modernist, and his contemporary, “new evangelistic” views are highly evident in this text. Please do not read this book until you have read at least some of the others listed above. (Tyndale House, Inc. also is known for producing NU-based “Bibles” and “New Testaments,” and this publisher is located in Wheaton, Ill., the home of the modernistic Wheaton College. Even some contemporary “Bibles” include marketing material in them, for other products made by the same publisher (Zondervan, for example). A Bible should not contain such salesmanship! (The Bible is God’s Word!) Comfort’s book, on the copyright page, reads (at the top), “Visit Tyndale’s exciting Web site at www.tyndale.com.” (Why not simply list the URL at the top of the page?) This book should serve as an opposing view exemplifying modernistic viewpoints and operation—versus an orthodox view.

# Warning: The author of this title also is a modernist, and his contemporary, “new evangelistic” views also are very evident in this text. Please do not read this book until you have read at least some of the others listed above. This book also should serve as an opposing view exemplifying modernistic viewpoints and operation—unorthodox.

he assembler, writer, and editor of this document is Edward E. Scott, age 49, a native of Jamestown, N.Y., and a current resident of Jefferson City, Mo. Mr. Scott is a humble, biblically based believer in the Lord Jesus Christ who has exhausted much of the past several years in extensively and intensively researching, reading, and studying the following urgent, complementary issues:

V English and versional (different languages/dialects) Bible history V Bible manuscript history and characteristics (genealogies, paleography, writing and recording materials, etc.)

V Textual criticism (“higher” and “lower”) V Christian church history V Early heretical movements V Content of modern Bibles (beginning with the controversial English Revised Version New Testament of 1881) V Biblical and theological scholarship in the modern age V Theological modernism’s early mass movement in the nineteenth century To wit, Mr. Scott has read 38 books and papers during recent years about the above issues, while also undertaking much critical Greek word study. Furthermore, during early stages of the doument (87 verses/passages) both Dr. Floyd Nolen Jones, a leading authority on OT chronology and events (The Chronology of The Old Testament), and Dr. D. A. Waite, an eminent Greek scholar and prodigious author, provided encouraging reviews of the work.

He currently is a freelance computer graphics specialist, writer, and photographer, and one who has written published CG feature articles, product reviews, and columns for online content providers, as well as on professional athletes for newspapers and magazines.

Mr. Scott once produced 3D, still, and motion graphics for the US Marine Corps, and he has done some post visual effects for film. He has worked with computer graphics in numerous applications since 1995, and he has been a professional published writer since 1989.

It is the writer’s goal—only God willing—to publish further material similar and complementary to that contained in this document.

This assemblage partially may represent a capsulization of future bound works exposing the truth behind the translation, emergence, promulgation, and pervasive public use of contemporary “pseudo-Bibles.” All honor and glory go to the Lord Jesus Christ, and I thank Him for implanting the insatiable desire to consume and apply the aforementioned content. God be praised.

I am grateful for and indebted to the following publications: The Revision Revised, Centennial Edition [1883-1983] (Fort Worth, Tex.: A.G. Hobbs Publications, 1991); Which Version is the Bible?, 19th ed., rev. and enlarged (Goodyear, Ariz.: KingsWord Press, 2006); The Interlinear HebrewGreek-English Bible, Vol. 4, 2nd ed. (Lafayette, Ind.: Sovereign Grace Publishers, 1985) ; Early Manuscripts, Church Fathers, and the Authorized Version (Collingswood, N.J.: The Bible for Today Press, 2005); Faith Vs. the Modern Bible Versions (Port Huron, Mich.: Way of Life Literature, 2005); Thayer’s GreekEnglish Lexicon of the New Testament (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, 2007); The Majority Text Greek New Testament Interlinear (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 2007); Strong’s Complete Word Study Concordance (Chattanooga: AMG Publishers, 2004); theWord Bible software (Greece: Costas Stergiou, 2012); Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Abridged in One Volume (Grand Rapids, Mich.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1985); NestleAland Novum Testamentum Graece, 27th Edition (Stuttgart, Ger.: Deutsch Bibelgesellschaft, 2006); The Greek New Testament, the United Bible Societies Fourth Revised Edition (Stuttgart, Ger.: Deutsch Bibelgesellschaft, 2001); and several others.

May god richly bless you in all your affairs as you endeavor to please and honor Him. Yours in Christ,

A

B

A (Codex), 10-26, 28-30, 33-34, 36-38, 40, 46, 61 Abraham, 28, 43, 49 Abram (Abraham), 32 Academic (s), 8, 39, 46, 55 Acts (The Book of), 2, 10, 20, 24, 44, 50, 60-63, 67, 69 Adamantius, Origen, 4, 23-25, 40, 45, 49-50, 52, 54 Agathe (Gk.: -a), 8, 25 Agioi (Gk.), 10, 36 Aionion (Gk.), 23 Aland (Nestle-Aland), 5, 7, 9, 16, 39-42, 48, 51, 59, 65, 72 Aleph (Codex), 2, 4-8, 10-17, 19-22, 26-28, 30-31, 34-35, 38, 40, 42-44, 46, 51-52, 54-56, 59-60, 63, 65 Aleppo (Codex), 41, 45 Alexander, the coppersmith, 2 Alexandria, 44-45, 47, 52, 54, 62-64 Alexandrian, 5, 11, 13-17, 19, 22-23, 33-34, 37-38, 40-41, 43-45, 47, 49, 53-56, 60, 62-64 Alexandrinus (Codex A), 24, 32, 40, 44, 52, 60-61, 65, 69 Alford, Henry, 37, 44 American Bible Society (ABS), 56 Amplified, Bible the, 39 Angry, 4 Antichrist, 19 Antioch (-ian), 16, 41, 44, 50, 52, 54-55, 64 Apistian (Gk.), 7 Armenian, 28, 44, 50 Astrology, 2 Authorized Version, the, 2, 35, 39, 41, 44, 49, 51-52, 65, 69 Auto (Gk.), 20, 23, 37-38, 44 B (Codex), 2, 4-30, 33-40, 54, 56, 59-60, 65 Babylonian, 51 Basel, 43 Bentley, James, 2, 70-71 Berry, G. R. (George Ricker), 42 Beza(e), Codex, 4, 8, 11, 21, 40, 45, 52, 57, 60 Theodore, 17, 22, 35, 39, 41, 43, 45, 55 Bible, 2, 4-8, 10, 12-13, 21, 23, 25, 28, 32, 37, 39-57, 70-72 Biblia Hebraica, 45 Bohairic, 5-24, 28-30, 32, 34-38, 45, 53, 59 Bombasius, Paulus, 43

C

Bomberg, 45 Book, The, 43 British and Foreign Bible Society (BFBS), 56 British Museum, 50 Burgon, John W., 2, 43, 50, 70-71 Byzantine (Byz.), 4-12, 14-41, 44-50, 52-55, 59-64 C (Codex), 5-10, 13-20, 22-28, 32, 34-38, 46, 50, 61 C2, 12-13, 23-24, 26, 31, 34 C3, 5, 7, 22-23, 26-28 Caesarea (Caes., -n), 5, 8-10, 13-14, 20, 22, 28, 45, 47, 49, 52, 54, 60-64 Campianus (Codex M), 45, 61 Capernaum, 6 Catholic (Roman, -ism), 2, 29, 32, 39-40, 43, 47, 52, 54, 61-63, 70 Chayyim, Jacob ben, 45 Children, 14, 19, 30, 33 Chosen, 8, 12, 17, 28, 32, 67 Chrema (Gk.), 14 Chrisma (Gk.), 37 Christ (’s), 4-5, 8-14, 16-17, 19, 22-33, 35-38, 44-48, 49, 50-52, 54, 56, 65-68 Christian (’s), 2, 4, 35, 37, 43-46, 49-52, 54, 56, 62 Christology, 5, 24, 26, 29, 37, 45 Church, 2, 4, 11, 13, 23-24, 30-32, 34, 39, 43-46, 49-52, 56-57, 64 Cleanse (s), 37 Cleopas, 15 Cloud, 6, 17 David, 43-44, 70-71 Codex (codice[s]), 4-5, 7-8, 11, 16-17, 21, 24-25, 29, 32, 34, 36, 39-47, 42, 44, 46, 50-57, 59-61, 63, 65, 69 Colophon, 3, 63 Commandments, 38 Conceive, 32-33, 47 Conclusion, 3, 8, 40, 42 Constantine, 43, 45 Constantinople, 45, 60-63 Contemporary, 2, 4, 6, 8, 13, 17-18, 20-21, 23, 30, 34, 37, 39-41, 44, 48, 53-54, 57, 65, 71-72 Constantinopolitan, 16, 41, 50 Convent, 40, 44, 47 Coptic (Egyptian), 4, 6, 8-9, 11, 13-19, 21-23, 25-36, 38, 45, 50, 59, 62

Covenant, 10, 28, 37 Coverdale, 39, 41, 43 Critic (s), 2, 4, 12-13, 15, 18, 21, 27, 29, 37-38, 40-42, 44, 47-50, 52-57, 65 Critical text (edition/apparatus), 2-5, 10-11, 13, 15, 18, 20-22, 2627, 32-34, 39-40, 42, 44-48, 51, 53, 55, 59, 62, 65 Cross, 14 Curetonian (Syriac), 5-7, 9, 18, 20-23, 46, 48, 59 Curse, 5 Cursive (minuscule), 5, 7-11, 13-33, 35-39, 45-46, 49-51, 56, 59, 61-62, 64 Cyrus the Great, 54

Ephesians, 19, 29, 47-48, 60 Ephraemi Rescriptus (Codex C), 47, 52-53, 55, 60 Erasmus, Desiderius, 17, 22, 30, 35-36, 38-39, 41, 43, 55, 70 Estienne (Stephanus), Robert, 22, 30, 35, 41, 47, 55-56 Ethiopic, 25, 47 Eurethesetai (Gk.), 36 Exemplar, 17, 32, 38, 47-48, 56 Extant, 4, 6-13, 15-17, 19-20, 23-28, 34-35, 38, 42, 44-52, 55-56, 60, 64

F F (Codex), 17, 21, 25-31, 50, 59 Faith (-ful, -fulness), 7, 19, 31, 33-34, 39, 43, 52, 67, 69 Family 1 and/or 13, 5, 16-18, 45, 49, 62-63 1424, 63 Farstad, Arthur L., 41, 48 Father God, 8-9, 14, 16, 18, 20, 22, 26, 30, 32, 47, 50, 67-68 Church, 2, 4, 11, 24, 29-32, 34, 45-46, 49-50, 52, 56-57, 64 Feet (anatomy), 21, 25 Ferrar (Group), 20, 45 Fifteenth (century), 40 Fifth (century), 13, 43-48, 52-53, 55 5th, 5,7, 9-10, 18, 21-22, 24, 30, 45, 59 First (century), 39, 44, 46-47, 50 (1st), 59 (1st) Firstborn, 4, 66 First Rabbinic Bible, 45 Flesh, 22, 24-25, 29, 31-32, 36, 38, 44, 46-47, 67 Forgive (-ness), 10, 12, 14, 20, 22, 27 Fornication, 7 Fourth (century), 2, 15, 34, 39, 43-48, 51-54, 56 4th, 5, 9, 12, 14, 18-19, 21, 23-24, 30, 35, 37, 45-46, 50, 59 Functional equivalence, 42

D D (Codex), 4-26, 29-31, 33, 39-40, 45-46, 48, 50, 57, 59-60 D1, 25-26, 30, 32, 34 D2, 4, 20, 25-27, 29, 31-33 Daimonion (Gk.), 12 Damnable, 2, 12 Danger, 4, 12 Darkness, 24, 36, 54 Delta (D), 5, 9, 11-14, 17, 23, 58 Didaskale (Gk.), 8 Diglot, 45-46, 60-63 Dittography, 25, 46 Docetist (-ism), 28, 46 Doctrine (-ally), 2, 8, 12, 16, 28, 31-32, 39, 43-46, 48, 53, 56, 68 Document (s, -ed), 2-4, 12, 40-41, 43, 47, 49-50, 52, 55, 65 Document Glossary, 3, 44 Diocletian, 45 Doxes (Gk.), 10 Drink, 10, 27

E E (Codex), 17, 21, 50 Ecclesiastical, 16, 41, 45, 49-50, 55 Ecumenical, 42, 46, 56 Egeneto (Gk. ginomai), 19 Egyptian (Egypt., Eg.) , 2, 4-5, 13-14, 17, 20, 25, 33-34, 37, 43-47, 50, 52-55, 59-64 Ekenose (Gk. kenóō), 30 Elzevir (s), 17, 22, 46, 55 Empire, 45 Emperor, 45 English Revised Version (ERV), 2, 4, 15-16, 36, 39-40, 44, 46-48, 55, 72 Ennoian (Gk.), 36 Eparoton (Gk.), 20

G G (Codex), 17, 21, 25-31, 59-60 Ghost (Holy), 12, 36, 68 Glory, 2, 4, 10, 16, 27, 31-32 Ginomai (Gk.), 19 Gnosticism, 2, 26, 32, 37, 46-47 Gnostic, 22, 28, 44 God, 2, 4-9, 11-12, 14-17, 19-20, 22-24, 26-32, 34, 36-40, 42, 4345, 47, 50-51, 53, 55-56, 67-68 Godliness, 29, 31 Gothic (version), 47, 50 Grace, 19, 25, 27, 30

Greek, 2-65, 69, 72 Apparatus (-es), 5-10, 12, 16, 18, 20-42, 44 (Alford), 45 (BH/BHS), 46 (misc.), 48 (Griesbach), 49 (Lachmann), 51, 53-57, 59, 65 Manuscripts, 2, 4, 8-9, 11, 16, 23, 25, 31, 39-40, 42 MS/MSS, 4-31, 33-38, 43, 50, 59-62, 64 NT, 6, 9, 11, 15, 18-19, 24, 28, 31, 40, 42, 50, 57, 65 Source, 4-5, 8, 10, 12-13, 18, 21, 23, 25-26, 29, 31, 33, 35, 37, 39, 42, 44, 57 Text (s), 4, 6, 10, 12-13, 16, 32, 35, 38-39, 45, 47, 49, 55, 57 Griesbach, Johann Jakob, 9, 38, 40, 46, 48

J

H

I

H (Codex), 17, 21, 30, 32-33, 59-61 Hades, 6, 48 Haplography, 7, 32, 48 Harclean (or “Harklean”), 4-7, 9-18, 20-27, 29-30, 34, 36, 48, 52, 59 Heaven (s, -ly), 6, 9-10, 14, 18-19, 22, 26, 32-33, 36, 48, 52, 6768 Hebrew, 2, 10, 28, 39, 41, 44-47, 51-52, 54 Hebrews, 10, 32-34, 47-48, 60-61 Hell, 6, 13, 30, 36, 48 Heresy, 2, 22, 29, 44 Heretic (-al,), 2, 4, 23, 39, 46-48, 52, 72 Hexapla, 52-54 Holy, 2, 10, 12, 16, 29, 36-37, 41, 44, 48-49, 53-54, 56, 67-68 Hodges, Zane C., 17, 41, 48 Hort, Fenton John Anthony, 39-40, 46, 48, 51 Hoskier, Herman C., 2, 38, 43, 53, 65 Hymenaeus, 2 Hypocrite (s), 6, 9 Hippolytus, 2 I (Codex), 28, 30, 59-61 Ide (Gk. ido, idou), 5-6, 8, 11, 48 Identical (-ly), 4-5, 7, 13, 22, 25, 30-31, 39, 50-51 Illumines, 52 Image, 32 Immorality, 7 Impotent, 7, 25, 44 Inactive, 34, 44 Insert (s, -ed, -ion), 4, 7-8, 10, 12-13, 15-17, 23-27, 30-35, 38, 48, 50, 55-57 Inspiration, 2, 9, 34, 43, 55-56 Intentionally, 48

K

Interdenominational, 39, 42, 46 International Bible Society (IBS), 39 Interpret (-ed, -ers, -ation, mis-), 6, 23, 29, 37, 39, 43, 48, 52-53 Interpolation (s), 15, 17, 25, 42, 45, 48 Instrument (s), 28, 32, 43, 55-56 Irenaeus, 2, 11, 45 James An apostle (brother of Jesus or “James the Lesser”), 4 King (England), 39, 43, 49 Book of, 34 Jeremiah, 47 Jerome, 29, 49, 52 Jerusalem, 16, 22, 50, 64 Jesus (Christ), 4-12, 14-17, 19-20, 22-32, 37-38, 44-45, 50-52, 56, 66-68 Jew (s, -ish), 8, 33, 45, 47, 54 John The apostle, 37 Jesus’ step-brother, 4 The Baptist, 11 The Gospel (Book), 21-24, 26, 28, 48, 51, 53, 60-62, 65-68 Jones, Floyd Nolen, 2, 72 Joseph, 4, 16 Joses (Joseph), Jesus’ half-brother, 4 Judah, 54 Judas (Jude, Jesus’ half-brother), 4 Judgment, 4, 12, 26-27, 36-37, 43 Justifiy (-ies, -ied, -cation), 5, 9, 17, 19, 28, 31 Justinian, 45 K (Codex), 9-10, 17, 20-21, 25, 27, 29-31, 33-38, 59, 61 Kai (Gk.), 5, 8, 12, 20-22, 29, 33-34, 37, 49 Kairos (Gk.), 25 Kardias (Gk.), 35 Kata (Gk.), 6, 9, 25 Katharas (Gk.), 35 Kathegetes (Gk.), 9 Kenoo (Gk.), 30 Kingdom, 8-9, 11, 14, 18, 29, 54 King James Version (KJV), 3-4, 6-7, 12, 14-16, 19-23, 25, 29-31, 33-36, 38-39, 41-43, 55 Kriseos (Gk.), 12

L L (Codex), 5-17, 15-18, 20, 22-24, 27, 30, 33, 35, 39-40, 53, 59, 61 Lachmann, Karl, 9, 40 Lamb, 38 Lamentations, 10 Language (s), 9, 13, 25, 31, 35, 40, 42-43, 48, 55 Latin, 6-7, 9-10, 12-13, 19, 22-24, 26, 31, 33-35, 40, 47, 53, 60-63 Latin, Old (OL), 4-9, 11, 13-15, 17-18, 20-21, 23-27, 30, 3334, 36, 50, 63 Latin Vulgate (common), 4-8, 11, 13-15, 17-18, 20-21, 23-24, 26, 31-36, 38, 50, 62-63 Vulgate (common), 5-8, 11, 13-15, 17, 20-21, 23-24, 26, 3336, 63 Law (s, -less), 15, 26-28 Lection, 26 Lectionary ( ℓ ), 11, 50, 53, 64 Leningradensis (Codex), 39 Liberal, 4, 8-9, 39-40 Light (s), 24, 29, 37 Lord, 2, 5, 16-17, 19, 23, 26-27, 30-32, 35-36, 42, 66-69, 72 Love, 5, 16, 35, 68 Lowring, 6, 49 Lucian, 41 Luke The apostle, 5, 42 The Gospel (Book) of, 5, 7-10, 13-22, 24, 31, 48, 61-62 Luminous (-ness), 29, 52 Luther, Martin, 43

M M (Codex), 21, 40, 53, 59, 61 Magus, Simon, 2 Majority (text, [ Ï ]), 4-6, 8-12, 14-39, 41-45, 48, 50-53, 55-56, 59, 71-72 Majuscules (uncials), 10, 16, 20, 35, 50, 56 Man, Son of, 7, 10, 17, 19, 22, 67 Manuscript (s), 2-26, 29-57, 59-60, 62-65, 69-72 MS/MSS, 4-31, 33-38, 43, 48 Marcionism, 46 Marginalia, 45, 50, 53, 61-62 Mark, the Gospel (Book of), 5, 7, 9, 11-15, 17, 20, 42, 48, 61-63, 65, 67 Mary Mother of Jesus, 4, 16 Magdalene, 15

Marry (-ies, -ieth), 7, 26 Masoretic, 41, 45 Master (s, -ful), 8-9, 13, 38, 40, 47, 67 Matthew The apostle, 9 The Gospel (Book) of, 4-10, 12-14, 17-18, 20, 42-43, 48, 55, 60-63, 65 Matthew’s Bible, 39, 41, 43 Melchisedec, 32 Mesrob, 44 Messiah, 24, 32 Metzger, Bruce, 9, 43, 53-54, 57, 70 Miller, Edward, 2, 43, 50, 71 Millstone, 13 Minority (text), 2, 4-7, 9-12, 14-16, 18-22, 24-27, 31-32, 34-37, 64 Minuscule (s), 9, 12-14, 18, 20, 23, 27, 32, 34-35, 38, 45-46, 4951, 56, 62-63, 74 Modern (s, -ism, -ist, -istic, -istically), 2, 4-40, 42-48, 50-57, 5960, 62-63, 65, 70-72 Moichatai (Gk.), 7 Monastery, 2, 40, 44, 46-47, 55, 62 Monogenes (Gk.), 22, 51 Moorman, J. A., 21, 35, 38, 41, 51-52, 65, 70-71 Mother, 6, 16, 45 Mounce Robert, 42, 57 William (Bill), 15, 37, 42, 57

N N (Codex), 5, 19, 59, 61 NA (Nestle-Aland), 3-9, 11-27, 30, 33-40, 51, 53, 55, 59, 65 Name, 4, 18, 22, 33, 40, 67 Nation (s), 9, 22, 31 Naturalistic (-ally), 4, 6, 20, 39-44, 46, 52, 54-56 Never, 2, 12, 36, 40, 43, 55, 60 New Testament, 2, 4-5, 8, 13, 15, 20-22, 25, 27, 29, 34, 36-37, 3942, 44-49, 51-57, 65-66, 69, 70-71 Nile River, 46, 52 Nineteenth, 2, 37, 40, 43, 46, 51, 53-54, 56, 72 NT, 2, 4, 6, 9, 11-12, 14, 17-19, 21, 24, 27-28, 31, 35, 38-45, 4757, 60, 65, 69 NU (NA/UBS text), 5-13, 15-18, 20-33, 35-39, 42, 51, 53, 71 Number (s, -ed, -ing) 6-7, 14-15, 24, 37-38, 41, 45, 47, 52-53, 5657, 64 Numerous, 4-5, 17, 21, 40-41, 46-47, 51-52, 54-55, 72

O Obedience, 14, 30, 35, 44 Oinon (Gk.), 10 Oldest, 15, 17, 19, 31, 35, 45, 55, 60, 70-71 Old Testament, 10, 40-41, 45-49, 52, 54-55, 72 Omission (s), 4-5, 7, 9, 11-14, 16-17, 19-21, 23-24, 26-29, 31, 3336, 42, 48, 54, 64-65, 67-68 Omit (s, -ted, -ting), 5-10, 12-21, 23-28, 32-34-38, 48, 66-69 One (s), 5-6, 8-9, 13-15, 17, 20, 22-25, 27-28, 32-33, 35-37, 40, 44, 53, 56, 62, 67-68 Only, 4-9, 13-24, 26-31, 33-40, 42-43, 45, 47-49, 52-54, 69 Oppose (s, -d, -ing ), 6-7, 9, 11-13, 16-18, 21-22, 24, 26, 28-31, 33, 35-38, 55-56, 71 Osei (Gk.), 19 OT, 11, 15, 17, 29, 41, 45, 47, 49-50, 54-55, 62, 72 Oxos (Gk.), 10

P P (Codex), 17, 24-25, 27-29, 32-38, 59 Pagan, 2, 47 Paleography, 72 Palestinian, Syriac, 26, 30, 32, 48, 52, 59 Panta (Gk., -es), 18, 27, 37 Papyrus (-ri) Papyri, 15, 17, 23-24, 34, 50, 52, 64 Papyrus, 4, 19, 21-22, 35, 46-47, 50, 52-53, 59-60 Parable, 8, 45 Paradothenai (Gk.), 11 Parakupsas (Gk.), 21 Parallel (-ed, -ism, -ization), 5, 20, 40-41, 44, 46, 48, 52, 56 Parchment, 47, 60-63 Parents, 16 Partial (-ly), 13, 35-37, 44, 46, 50, 52, 72 Pass (-ed), 19, 21, 24, 27, 33, 36 Passage, 5, 11, 15, 18-19, 31, 33, 42-43, 47, 51, 53, 67 Patristic, 29, 50 Paul, the apostle, 2, 25-26, 28-31, 47 Pauline (s), 29, 44, 47, 49-50, 60-63 Peace, 16, 25, 30 Pen (-ned, -ning), 2, 30, 51-56 Penalty, 13 Penance, 22 Pentateuch, Samarian, 46, 54 People, 2, 16, 26, 28, 31, 34, 45, 47, 50, 52, 56

Percent (%), 2, 4-16, 18-19, 24, 26-28, 30, 38, 40-41, 43-45, 48, 50, 53-54, 56, 60, 64 Perfect (-ed, -ion), 12, 27, 33, 35 Pericope (Lat.), 45 Perish, 23 Perpetual, 4 Persecute (-d, -ion, -ing), 5, 19, 31, 34, 45, 52 Persia (â&#x20AC;&#x2122;s), 54 Person (s), 2, 28, 32, 42, 44-45, 47, 49, 51, 56 Peshitta, Syriac, 4-7, 9-18, 21-24, 26, 29-30, 34-37, 48, 50, 52, 59 Pestilence (s), 9 Peter The apostle, 2, 18, 21, 35 1 Peter, 31, 35-36, 60, 68 2 Peter, 2, 36, 60, 62, 68 Phantom, 41, 46 Pharisees, 8-9 Philetus, 2 Philoxenian, Syriac, 36, 48, 59 Philological, 40, 49 Philosophy, 2, 54 Phos (Gk.), 29 Physician (s), 12, 42 Pieces, 8 Pisteuon (Gk.), 23 Pit (s), 36 Plenary (-ily), 43, 52 Pneuma (Gk.), 29 Polyglot, 47 Complutensian, 17, 41, 46 Poor (-ly), 14, 21, 26-27, 31, 35, 38, 53, 61-62 Popular (-ly, -ity, -ized), 4, 40-42, 48, 54, 57 Population, 51 Porneia (Gk.) 7 Portion (s), 4-5, 8, 12, 14-15, 17, 20, 22-25, 30, 32, 36, 39, 41, 44, 47, 49, 51, 63 Positivism, 39 Possession (s), 18, 33, 40, 45 Pour (-ed), 10 Power (-full, -less), 12-13, 19, 23-25, 27, 32, 40, 45 Powder, 8 Pratensis, Rabbi Felix, 45 Prepare (-ed), 11, 49 Preserve (-d), 43, 53, 56

Preservation, 43, 56 Preside (-d), 44-45, 50 Pretense, 9 Priest (s, -ly), 32-33, 40, 50, 54 Print (-ed, -er, -ing), 41, 43, 46-47, 51, 55 Prison (-ers), 11, 33 Pray (-er, -ers), 5, 9, 13, 15, 18-19, 52 Preach (-ed, -ing), 11, 22, 25, 31, 42 Process, 9, 29, 39-40, 43-44, 46, 48, 53, 55 Prodigy, 40 Produce (-d, -tion, -ing), 2, 4, 21, 29-30, 40-49, 50-53, 55-56, 7172 Proegraphe (Gk.), 27 Profane, 2 Profit, 31, 39, 57 Promise (s, -d), 10, 24, 28, 33, 69 Prophecy, 10-11, 15, 36 Prophet (s), 2, 11, 24, 56 Propheteuson (Gk.), 20 Proponent, 40 Propose (-d, -ing), 55 Proseuchesthe, 5 Prosopon (Gk.), 20 Protestant, 39, 47, 53, 56 Prove (-d, -n), 2, 4, 12, 20, 39, 45-46, 48 Proverbs, 14, 43 Provide (s, -d, -ing), 4, 9, 15-16, 19, 23, 25, 32, 36, 41-43, 51, 72 Providential (-ly), 43 Psalm (s), 10, 43, 63 Pseudo-, 2, 4, 49, 52 Psi, 13-17, 19-20, 24, 26-31, 33-38, 58 Public (-ly), 18, 27, 39, 43-44, 47 Publication, 39, 55 Publish (-ed, -er, -ing), 2, 16, 39, 41, 44, 46-49, 51, 53-57 Pulp, 52 Pure (-r), 27, 34-35, 39, 41, 46, 49, 52, 55 Purgatory, 52 Purged, 32 Purify (-ied, -ies, -icational), 29, 32, 35, 37 Purpose (s), 10, 36-37 Purrazi (Gk.), 6

Q Quarto, 46 Quenched, 13 Quote (-ation, -ations), 11, 17, 23, 25, 35, 39, 50, 57

R R (Codex), 17, 59, 61 Rabbi, 9, 45 Rabbinic, First Bible, 45 Second Bible, 45 Radiance, 32 Raise, 24, 67 Rapture, 19 Ratified, 28 Rationalism, 40, 48 Reader (s, -ship), 5-12, 14, 17-18, 20-21, 24, 26, 28, 30, 36-37, 39, 51, 55 Reading (s), 3-5, 7-42, 44, 46, 50, 56, 60-61, 64-65, 69, 72 Real, 2, 16, 46 Realm, 41, 44 Rebuke (s), 31 Receive (-d), 9, 28, 31, 33 Receptacle, 48 Receptor (decoding), 42 Receptus, Textus, 4, 6, 10, 16, 23-24, 29, 33, 35, 37, 39, 41, 43, 4649, 51, 55-56 Record (s, -ed), 16, 44, 47, 52, 65-66 Redeemed, 4, 19, 27 Reduce (s), 5, 14, 54 Refer (s, -red, -ring), 4, 7, 9-11, 13-18, 20-23, 25, 28-30, 33-34, 37-38, 40, 44-45, 47-51, 53, 55, 57 Reference (s, -d, -ing), 2-3, 13, 17, 19-20, 22, 24, 26-28, 33, 35, 37-38, 41-42, 46, 50, 55-57, 59-60 Regenerate (s, -ion), 26-27, 39, 52 Region, 41 Reign (s), 33, 43, 49, 54, 69 Reject (-ed, -ion, -ing), 2, 8, 12, 48, 54 Release, 2, 4, 39-40, 47-48, 54 Reliable (-ility), 12, 55 Reformation, 22, 39, 43, 45-46, 49, 53 Rejoice, 16 Remain (s, -ed, -ing, -der), 2, 12, 17-18, 22-23, 27, 33, 45, 48, 53 Remembrance, 26 Remiss, 4

Remission, 10, 22 Remove (s, -ed, -al), 5, 7-9, 11, 13, 16, 20-24, 26, 29, 31-32, 3738, 67 Repetition, 13, 25, 30-31 Repent (-ance), 5, 22, 32, 35 Replace (s, -ed, -ing, -ment), 4-5, 10-11, 17, 23, 28, 31-32, 34, 4041, 46-47, 51, 53, 56-57, 68 Represent (s, -ed, -ation, -ative, -ativeness), 2, 4, 10, 15, 21, 25, 28, 32-33, 35, 37, 39, 41, 45, 47-48, 50, 53-55, 72 Reproach (-ed), 31 Reputation, 30 Research (-ed), 31 Rescension, Antiochian (Lucianic), 41 Rescriptus, Ephraemi (Codex C), 47, 52, 55, 60 Reserved, 36 Residence, 27, 47 Resident (s), 54, 72 Respect (-ive, -ively), 15, 27, 29, 35, 43, 48, 50, 69 Rest (s), 6, 15-17, 27, 69 Resurrection, 15, 29, 48, 52 Revelation (Rev.), The Book of, 19, 26, 32, 38, 53, 60-62, 68-69 Reveal (-ed, -ing), 6, 21, 31, 39 Revere (-d), 13, 21 Reverence, 11, 27 Revile (-ing), 31, 35 Revise (-ion), 48-49, 51, 65 Revoke, 12 Rheims-Duoay (Bible), 52 Rhoizedon (Gk.), 36 Rich (-es), 14, 39 Righteous (-ness), 5, 29, 33, 35, 69 Rise, 9, 38 Roar (-ing), 36 Robbery, 30 Robes, 38 Rodgers, John, 39, 41 Roman Catholic (-ism), 2, 29, 39-40, 43, 47, 52, 54 Roman Empire, Eastern, 45 Romans, The Book of, 25-26, 28, 67-69 Rome (’s), 44, 47, 52, 54, 69

S S (Codex), 17, 21, 59 Sacred, 2, 11 Sacrifice, 5, 28, 32, 42 Saducees, 8 Sahidic, 5-17, 19-21, 23-24, 30, 32, 34-35, 37-38, 53, 59, 61 Saint (St.) Catherine’s Monastery/Convent, 2, 40, 44, 47, 55, 60 Salem, 50 Salvation, 8, 14, 22, 28, 32-33, 35, 42, 48, 52 Samuel, II, The Book of, 24 Sanctify (-ied), 19 Sara (Sarah), 33 Satan, 13, 24, 27, 31, 52 Save (-d), 7-8, 16-17, 19, 26, 35, 52 Savior (-iour), 19, 31, 35, 66-67 Sawn, 34 Say (s, -ing), 4-5, 7, 9-10, 12, 15-18, 20, 23, 25, 28, 32-33, 52 Saxony, 47-49 Scandinavia (Scan.), 47, 50 Science, 2, 47 Scholar (s, -ly, -ship), 2, 4, 8-9, 13, 15, 17-18, 23-25, 37, 39-56, 65, 72 Scribe (s, -al), 2, 4-9, 11-17, 23-32, 35, 37-38, 40-41, 44, 46-48, 53-54 Scripture (s, -al), 2, 9, 12, 14-15, 17, 20, 28, 32, 34-35, 37, 39, 4142, 44, 47-49, 52, 57 Scrivener, F. H. A., 2, 43, 53, 70-71 Seat, 24, 26, 68 Second Coming, 26 Secret (-ly, -ive), 2, 40, 47, 70-71 Sect (s), 2 Seed (s), 7, 16, 28, 33 Seirais (Gk., -ois, -os), 36 Selective, 12 Semler, J. S., 40, 48 Send The Light (STL), 39 Separate (-d, -ing, -ist), 5, 27, 31, 37, 48, 52, 56 Septuagint, 8, 10, 37, 40, 46, 52, 54-55, 60, 71 Sepulchre, 15, 21 Sepúlveda, Juan Ginés de, 43 Servant, 28, 30 Seventeen (-th, 17th), 39-40, 46, 50, 52, 55 Seventh (7th), 2, 4-5, 7, 9-10, 13, 24-26, 30-32, 34, 36, 40, 48-49, 50, 59, 69 Sheepskins, 34

Show (s, -ed), 4, 7, 21, 23, 33, 35, 37-38, 65 Sick (-ness, -nesses), 12, 25, 44 Significant (-ance), 4-5, 7, 11-13, 15, 17, 21-24, 28-29, 34-36, 39, 42, 44-46 Silvanus (Silas), 30 Simon, Richard, 40, 54 Sin (s, -ned, -ner, -ful), 7, 10, 12-14, 22, 25, 32, 34-37, 48, 50 Sinai (Mt.), 2, 40, 44, 47, 55, 62, 70-71 Sinaitic Sinaiticus (Aleph), 2, 4, 16-17, 32, 34, 38, 40, 42-44, 52, 5456, 59-60, 65, 69-71 Syriac, 5-10, 12, 14-15, 17-22, 24, 46, 48, 54, 59 Sixteenth, 4, 41, 45, 55 Skandalise (Gk.), 13 Slain, 34 Slave, 28, 30 Smote, 20 Society, American Bible (ABS), 56 British and Foreign Bible (BFBS), 56 Dean Burgon, 70-71 German Bible, 54 International Bible (IBS), 39 Trinitarian Bible Society (TBS), 41, 56 Sodom, 12 Son (s), 4-5, 7, 9-11, 17, 19, 22, 24, 26, 28, 30, 32, 37-38, 45, 47, 51, 66-68 Soul (s), 6, 35, 37, 48, 52-53 Source (s), 4-8, 10, 12-14, 16-19, 21-26, 29, 31-33, 35-42, 44, 4749, 51, 55, 57 Sovereign Grace Publishers, 41, 70-72 Spare (-d), 36 Special, 2, 47 Specific (-ally), 11, 15, 17-18, 21-22, 24-26, 30, 38, 44, 48, 50-51, 54, 57 Specified, 20-22, 24-26, 29-32, 35-38 Spirit, 8, 10, 12, 16-17, 19, 25, 29, 31, 35-36, 38, 44, 56, 68 Spiritual (-ly, -ized), 2, 4, 26-27, 29, 35, 37, 39, 42, 44, 47-49, 52, 55 Spoiling, 33 Spoke (-n), 2, 21, 28, 36, 54 Status, 2, 5, 17, 22, 44 Stauron (Gk.), 14 Stephanus (Stephens), Robert, 35, 41, 47, 55 Stereo (Gk.), 31

Stone (s, -d), 8, 13, 24, 34, 69 Strength (-ening), 19, 25, 27, 33, 40, 44 Strongâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s (concordance, ref. num.), 6, 22, 24-25, 32, 37, 41, 48, 57, 72 Struck, 20 Stugnazo (Gk.), 6 Stuttgartensia, Biblia Hebraica, 45 Stylist (s, -ic), 20, 26 Stylized, 39 Subject (s, -ed, -ive, -ively), 4, 13, 18, 68 Substance, 10, 23, 33 Substitute (-d, -ing, -ion), 6, 11, 28, 31, 34-36 Suffer (-ed, -ing, -ings), 19, 31, 33-34, 36, 46 Sufficient, 27, 30 Sugkleronomai (Gk.), 28 Support (s, -ed, -ers, -ing, -ive), 4-39, 43-47, 56-57, 59, 62-63 Sware, 32 Sweat, 19 Swiss, 45 Sword, 34 Sworn, 24 Synaxaria, 49 Syncretism, 2, 47 Synoptic, 42, 48 Syria, 44, 54 Syriac, 4-23, 25-28, 30-38, 46, 48, 52, 54 Syrian, 52, 54

T T (Codex), 19-20, 22-23, 61 Ta (Gk.), 27 Tabernacle, 33 Take (s, -n, -ing), 11, 14, 19, 26-27, 31, 47 Tanta (Gk.), 27 Tarried, 16 Tartarus, 36 Tartarosas (Gk.), 36 Tatian, 24 Tas (Gk.), 12 Tavernerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s, 39 Teacher (s), 2, 8-9, 31, 37, 56 Teaching (s), 2, 42, 51 Teleioteras (Gk.), 33 Tell, 4-5, 7, 23-24 Temple, 8, 24, 54 Tempted, 34

Tent, 33, 47 Tertullian, 2, 24, 45, 52 Testament (s) New, 2, 4-5, 8, 13-15, 20-22, 25, 27, 29, 34, 36-37, 39-42, 4449, 51-57, 65-66, 69-72 Old, 10, 40-41, 45-47, 49, 52, 54-55, 72 Testamentum, Novum (Graece), 16, 41-42, 51, 72 Testimony, 18-20, 26-34, 36, 38, 50 Text (s, ’s), 2-57, 59-65, 69-72 Alexandrian, 5, 11, 13-17, 22-23, 25, 33-34, 37-38, 41, 43-45, 47, 49, 53-55, 60, 62-64 Byzantine (Byz.), 4-12, 14-41, 45-50, 52-55, 59-64 Caesarean, 8, 13-14, 28, 47, 51, 61, 63 Critical, 2-5, 7, 10-11, 13, 15, 18, 21-22, 25-27, 32-33, 39-40, 42, 48-49, 51, 55, 59, 62, 65 Majority ( Ï ), 4-39, 41-45, 48, 50-53, 55-56, 59, 71-72 Masoretic, 41, 45 Received, 47, 55 Western, 8, 19, 21, 25, 28-29, 41, 45, 49, 52, 54, 57, 60, 62, 64 Text-type (s), 3, 17, 28, 41, 44-47, 49-50, 52-57, 60, 63-64 Textual (-ly), 4, 15, 23-24, 26, 29, 42, 47-48, 52-54, 56, 65 Textual criticism, 3, 23, 39-42, 44, 51-52, 55, 57, 64, 70-71 Textus Receptus (TR), 4, 6, 10, 12, 16-17, 20, 22-24, 29-31, 35-39, 41-43, 46-49, 51, 55-56 Thanks, 26, 43 Thelemate (Gk.), 36 Theologian (s), 23, 37, 40, 44-46, 49, 51, 53, 55-56 Theological (-ly), 4, 22-23, 26-28, 39-40, 43-44, 48, 51-52, 55-56, 71-72 Theopneustos (Gk.), 40 Theory (-ies, -etical, -izing), 4-5, 12, 15, 17-18, 20, 29, 40-41, 46, 48, 54-56 Therefore, 24-25, 27-28, 34, 36 Thessalonians The Books of (1,2), 30 The church of, 30 Theta ([Θ ] Codex), 4-20, 22-24, 36 Thief, 36 Thing (s), 8-9, 11, 14-15, 19, 25-33, 35-37, 44, 47, 67 Third, 20, 26, 28, 38, 40, 42, 44, 47, 49, 51, 54-56 Century (3rd), 2, 17, 28, 34, 41, 44-45, 47, 52, 57 Throne, 10, 24, 29 Throne, Great White, 26 Throw, 6, 24 Thrown, 6, 13

Time (s, -ly), 2, 5-6, 8, 14-15, 19, 23, 25, 32-33, 35 (one-time), 36, 43-45, 47, 50-52, 54 (long-time), 55, 66 Timothy (Timotheus) The apostle, 2, 30 The Books of (1,2), 2, 31, 39, 43 Tis (Gk.), 27 Tischendorf, (Lobegott) Friedrich Constantine von, 2, 9, 14, 16, 21-22, 38, 40, 44, 46-47, 51, 55, 65-66 Titus, the Book of, 2 Today, 2, 6, 10, 14, 23, 32, 39, 41-43, 47, 51-52, 55-56, 70-72 Toil (-ing), 31 Tomb (s), 21 Took, 24, 30, 33, 69 Torment (-ed), 5, 34 Total (-ing), 10-11, 19, 28, 40, 43, 49-50, 64-65 Touch, 31 Traditional (-ly), 16, 39, 41, 43, 45, 50-51, 54-55, 59, 65, 70 Translate (s, -d), 5-6, 8, 10, 20, 27-28, 30, 34-35, 38-39, 41, 46-47, 49, 52, 55, 57, 64 Translation (s), 4-8, 11, 13, 15-22, 27-27, 29-31, 33, 35-36, 38-44, 46-47, 49, 51-52, 54-56, 65, 67, 71-72 Translator (s), 2, 6-8, 10-16, 20-26, 28-30, 34-39, 43, 47, 55 Transpose (s, -d), 13-14, 28, 33, 35 Tree, 38 Tregelles, Samuel P., 21, 37-38, 40, 46, 56 Tribulation, the Great, 19 Trinitarian, 56 Trinitarian Bible Society, 41, 56 Triune, 56 Troubled, 23 Truly, 7-8, 23, 41 Truncate (-d), 17, 25, 38 Truth, 2, 7, 10-11, 13-14, 23, 27, 29, 31, 35, 37, 42-43, 46, 53, 68, 72 Turkey, 54 Twentieth (century), 2, 48, 54 Tyndale (’s), 17, 30, 36, 39, 41, 43

U U (Codex), 17, 21, 59, 61 Ulfilas, 47 Ultimate (-ly), 12, 39-40, 43, 55 Unadulterated, 41 Unanswered (-able), 2 Unbeliever (s, -ing), 23, 26, 30, 35, 39 Uncertain (-ty), 10, 12

Uncial (s), 2, 4-6, 8-9, 11, 13-24, 26-36, 40, 42, 45-46, 48, 50-53, 56, 59-64, 70-71 Uncircumcision, 29 Unclean, 31 Unction, 37 Underlying, 2, 4, 8, 18, 22, 30, 39, 41, 44-45, 51-52, 54-56, 65 Undermine, 4, 40 Underneath, 5, 20 Understand (-ing), 7-8, 15, 37, 39, 42 Understatement, 17-18 Undertaking, 72 Underwent, 39 Undignified, 29 Unfaithfulness, 7 Unfashionable, 13 Unfeigned, 35 Ungodly, 25 Unholy, 4, 71 Unification, 42, 46 Unique (-ly), 22, 27, 36, 39, 51 Unitarian (s, -ism), 44, 47, 53, 56 United Bible Societies (UBS), 5, 7, 9, 16, 20-24, 29-30, 35, 37, 3941, 53-57, 72 Unity, 46 Universal (-ly, -ism), 2, 52, 55 Unofficial, 49, 52 Unorthodox, 71 Unproven, 18 Unregenerate, 26 Unseen, 48 Unsound, 2, 54 Unsubstantiated, 38, 41 Unworthily, 27 Updated, 6, 39, 41 Uper (Gk., [h]uper), 5, 26 Upholding, 32 Upper, 48 Uppercase, 50, 56, 58 Urgent, 72 URL, 71 Usable, 15, 45, 47 Usage, 8, 22, 55 Useless, 34

V V (Codex), 17, 21, 59, 61 Vacancy, 42 Vacillate (-ing), 33, 39 Vain, 2, 34, 49 Valid, 25 Validity, 14-15, 23, 30, 50, 54 Variant (s), 9, 11, 15-16, 21-25, 30, 32, 39, 47, 54, 65-66, 69 Variation (s), 12, 16-17, 20, 37, 48, 53, 55, 64-65 Various (-ly), 2, 9, 23, 28, 44, 46, 50, 53, 56, 65, 69 Vast (-ly), 5, 8-11, 13-15, 17-19, 22, 24, 26-30, 33, 35-38, 40, 42, 45, 48, 50, 64-65 Vatican, 2, 40, 56, 69 Vaticanus (Codex B), 2, 4, 9, 11, 16, 31-32, 34, 38, 40, 42-44, 47, 52, 54, 56, 60, 65, 69 Verbal (-ly), 2, 34, 37, 43, 55-56 Verily, 7, 12, 23 Verse (s), 3-26, 28-30, 32-34, 36-38, 41-44, 47-49, 53, 64-65, 67, 72 Version (â&#x20AC;&#x2122;s, s), 2, 4-5, 8-9, 12-15, 17, 19-28, 31-56, 65, 69-72 American Standard (ASV), 16, 39-40 English Revised (ERV), 2, 4, 15-16, 36, 39-40, 44, 46-48, 55, 72 King James (KJV), 3-4, 6-7, 12, 14-16, 19-23, 25, 29-31, 3336, 38-39, 41-43, 55 New American Standard (NASB), 4-9, 11-13, 15-21, 24, 27, 30-31, 33, 37-39, 41-42 New English Translation (NET), 4-13, 18-22, 24-32, 34-35, 37-41, 55 New International (NIV), 4-11, 13, 18-22, 25, 29, 32-33, 37, 39, 41-42 Versional, 35, 38 Vessel (s), 12, 43 Vicarious, 28 View (s), 23, 53 Vincent, Marvin, 70 Vinegar, 10 Virgin (-ity), 4, 16 Virtually, 4, 42 Vocabulary, 48 Voice, 17 Volume (s), 22, 41, 48, 50 (sixteen-volume), 53 (nine-volume, twovolume) Vulgate (Latin), 4-8, 11, 13-15, 17-18, 20-21, 23-24, 26, 31-36, 38, 50, 62-63

W

X W (Codex), 5-14, 16-18, 20, 22-24, 59 Waite, D. A., 2, 71-72 Walk (-ing), 25, 37 Wallace, Daniel B., 43 Wandered, 34 Weather, 6 Wealth, 14 Western (text-type), 8, 19, 21, 25, 28-29, 41, 45, 49, 52, 54, 57, 60, 62, 64 Wettstein, Johann Jakob, 46 Wanton, 39 Wash, 38 Watch (-ful, -fulness), 15, 19 Water (s), 23 Weak (-ness), 23, 25-27, 44 Weight (-y), 6, 18, 35, 37-38 Weiss, Bernhard, 16, 22, 51 Westcott (’s), B. F., 36, 40-41, 46, 48, 51, 71 Weymouth, Richard, 51 Wheaton, 71 Whittingham (’s), William, 41 Whole (-ly), 17, 23, 37 Whosoever, 4, 7-8, 13, 23, 34 Wicked, 36 Widows’, 9 Wife, 7, 26 Wind, 29, 53 Wine, 10 Wisdom, 2, 13, 37 Witness (-es), 7, 9-13, 15-16, 20, 22-26, 28-29, 31, 34, 37-38, 47, 51-52, 59-60, 64, 68 Woe, 9 Woman (-en), 7, 16, 26 Word of God, 2, 6, 17, 28-29, 32, 37, 42-43, 56, 68, 71 Jesus Christ (Word in the flesh), 68 Works, 6, 32, 34-36, 40, 42, 47, 49, 52, 57, 72 World, 19, 26, 31, 34, 38-39, 42, 44-45, 48, 51, 54-55, 67, 70-71 Worm, 13 Worthy, 19 Wrath, 19, 30, 38 Wretched, 37 Written, 2, 11, 17, 25, 27, 48-49, 51, 53, 56, 60-62, 72 Wrong (-ly, -ful, -fully), 8, 12, 20, 24-25, 27-30, 34-35, 38, 43

X (Codex), 6, 17, 21, 50, 61

Y Ye, 5-7, 9, 14-15, 18-19, 27, 31, 33-35, 37-38, 42, 69 Year (s), 2, 4, 15, 28, 39-40, 43, 45, 47-49, 53, 56, 69, 72 Yield, 2, 27 Yonder, 7

Z Z (Codex), 4, 6-10, 61 Zoen (Gk.), 23 Zondervan (’s), 5, 8, 20-21, 33, 37, 39, 42, 57, 71 Zophou (Gk.), 36, 54