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 did not
consummate their marriage 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
(Only Ì64 [papyrus], Aleph [‫] א‬, B, = “it” or “Itala”), all the Syriac,
D2 [6th], all the Vulgate, a few Byz. and all the Coptic (Egyptian).
“Some manuscripts” (NIV)
manuscripts, the margin of 1424
severely misrepresents! Note
[ca. 900], and Origen—the most
that an NET footnote provides
heretical “Church Father” in
two possible scribal error types
Christian history—support the
to offset its evidential defeat.
omission of “without cause.”)

NIV: “But I tell you that anyone
who is angry with his brother or
sister will be subject to judg­
ment.” Removed footnote: “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.” Removed note:
“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?’”

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.”

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 (5th), 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.)

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?’”

NIV reads: “For I have not come No 1: Modern versions fail to
to call the righteous, but sinners.” include “to repentance.” It does
not appear in their own Greek
source text. No. 2: The Major­
(The minority [Nestle-Aland/
ity (85+% of Greek) is sup­
United Bible Societies] text has
(Despite its omission from the
ported by C, L, Theta, 0281,
minority source Greek for both the very broad and diverse testimony: Ë13, the Syriac Sinaitic, the Sa­
‫ ;א‬B; D; N; W; D [Delta]; 0233;
NASB and the NIV, the Zonder­
hidic, and part of the Bohairic.
van Greek and English Interlinear Ë1; 33; 565; numerous Byzantines; “To repentance” possibly was
omitted to reduce the severity
New Testament (NASB/NIV) in­
most OL and all the Vulgate; the
Peshitta and Harclean; and part of of the message! Most are not
cludes ≈“to repentance,” in
amenable to the fact that their
English, underneath the interlinear the Bohairic [“bopt”—five or more intrinsic, depraved nature re­
portion, but nowhere else. Why?) MSS].)
quires repentance before God
for justification.

KJV

NET

NASB

NIV

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 . . .”

Reads: “And you, Capernaum,
will you be lifted up to the hea­
vens? No, you will go down 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 Christ. 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.”)

(Again, the NU Greek poses a
question. The NIV translators did,
however, replace “the depths” with
“Hades” in the 2011 edition. The
NU also uses the future middle
deponent form, katabhsh [kahtah-bay´-say], rather than the future
passive indicative. All other
translations but the KJV use
[h]uψwqhsh, the future passive
indicative of “to exalt,” rather than
[h]uψwqeisa, the aorist passive
participle.)

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 outside
seeking to speak to You.’”55
Removed note: 5512:47 This verse
is not found in early mss.”

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

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.”

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?”

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.” Removed note: “a 2 Some
early manuscripts do not have the
rest of verse 2 and all of verse 3.”

(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?”

PROBLEM
Greek text, word form, and
translation issues exist. But the
evidential testimony resolves
the problems. “. . . Having
been exalted to heaven” is sup­
ported by the Ï text (at least
85%), Ë13, 33, most of the Sy­
riac, and three OL. Opposing
are ‫א‬, B, D, W, Θ, most of the
Latin, the Syriac Curetonian,
and the Coptic. Supporting “. . .
will be thrown down” are the
Ï text, ‫א‬, C, L, Θ, Ë1 . 13, 33,
the Peshitta and Harclean, and
the Bohairic. Against are B, D,
W, all Latin, the Sinaitic and
Curetonian, and the Sahidic.

Divisive, confusing and decep­
tive footnotes accompany the
modern versions here. (And
“early mss” is misrepresent­
ative.) Support for the KJV
(The NET translation committee
includes overwhelming evi­
cherry-picks when to use the
dence: the Majority Greek
Greek idou, preferring not to
27
(85+%); uncials Í1, C, D, W,
(The
NA
apparatus
reveals
that
(The
footnote
is
nothing
but
con­
translate it when it best translates
this verse is omitted by and char­ fusing: “What other manuscripts? Z, Theta (Θ); Ë1 . 13; 33; most
as “behold”—a rather majestic
acterized as doubtful by ‫א‬, B, L,
This is none other than a natural­ Old Latin and all the Vulgate;
term. Here they use “look.” The
Gamma [Γ ], a few Byz. mss, two istic, modernistic scholarly means the Peshitta and Harclean; and
committee did choose wisely in
the Bohairic. Manuscript
translating this verse, which in the OL, the Syriac Sinaitic and Cure­ of casting doubt on what previ­
NA text defies the brackets indic­ tonian, and the Sahidic. “Seeking” ously was accepted as the irrefut­ weight and number favor the
is preferred over “desiring.”)
KJV.
able Word of God.)
ating suspicion of authenticity.)

(The Greek purrazi gar stugnazō
[poo-rodd´-zee | garr | stoog-nod(The KJV translators unnecessarily (The minority Greek text omits
zō], “being overcast,” is not the
[h]upokritai,
“hypocrites.”
At
least
added “O ye,” which does not
equivalent of “threatening.” This is
appear in the Majority Greek text 85 percent of extant NT Greek
a bit of a stretch. Contemporary
MSS include it; yet, modernists’
or the Textus Receptus. Lowring
idiom here increases severity to
two
favorites,
Aleph
and
B,
do
not
means “to be gloomy and overcast
emphasize a “sign of the times.”)
contain it. More modern bias.)
with clouds.”)

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

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. . . .”

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
(“Little faith” must be erroneous:
Jesus said that even tiny faith—like nothing will be. . . . ’”
a “grain of mustard seed”—will
(“Littleness of your faith” is literal
move a mountain! Unbelief and
from the Nestle-Aland27 Greek, but
little faith are not synonymous.
[The translators admit to not direct­ is incorrect. “Size of” was inserted
by the translators.)
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.”
s
1
(Also see Luke 19:10.)

33 892* pc e ff sy sa) do not in­
clude 18:11. . . .” (Om.: [[EMPTY]].)

(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.)

[“32 For the Son of Man has come
to save that which was lost.]”
Removed note: “32Early MSS do
not contain this v.”

(“[ ]”—in the NA apparatus and the
NASB text—means “highly quest­
(The NA -UBS texts, supported ionable.” Yet the NA omits the
by their Greek mss, do not include verse, then brackets the number be­
verse 11. Aleph and B are among
low. The two also divide over
the most-corrupt MSS extant! A
“early MSS.” The NA admits that D
note reads that the NET follows the [5th] and W [5th] support the Byz.,
omission as do “a number of mo­ then tosses in two OL manuscripts,
dern translations.”)
too.)
27

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.”

NASB

4

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 . . . ”

Reads: “If your brother sins34 , go
and 35 show him his fault in pri­
vate; if he listens to you, you have
won your brother.” Removed
34
(One note reads “3 tc ‡ The earliest notes:35 “ Late MSS add against
you Or reprove.”
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!)
NASB reads: “And I say to you,
whoever divorces his wife, except
for immorality, and marries another
woman commits adultery.20 ” Re­
moved note: “20Some early mss add
and he who marries a
divorced . . .”

NIV

PROBLEM

NIV reads: “He replied, ‘Because
you have so little faith. Truly I tell
you, 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 “Jesus” 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
kokkon sinapeōs, “like [or “as”] a
grain of mustard [seed], yet the
translators add “small” for un­
necessary clarity.)

Verse 11 is omitted from the text. The Ï text (85%+) includes v.
Removed note: “The Son of Man 11: “For the Son of Man came
to save the lost.” The Byz. also
came to save what was lost.”
is supported by 078, most OL
(Why is there no explanation ac­ and all the Vulgate, most of the
Syriac, and part of the Bohairic
companying verse 11’s footnoted
(bopt). (See NET note for op­
content? Did the NIV committee
posing witnesses.) And note the
seek public disclosure approval,
NET footnote insists upon har­
yet hope that readers would not
monization with Luke 19:10.
understand the significance of
When it suits them moderns
this?)
insist the scribes are in error!)
Reads: “If your brother or sister
sinsb, go and point out their fault,
just between the two of you. If
they listen to you, you have won
them over.” Removed note: “15
Some manuscripts do not have
against you.”
(Gender-inclusive language has
been added to the 2011 edition.)

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
ing testimony are Í, C3, D, L,
(“Marital
unfaithfulness”
is
an
(“Immorality” long had been used to
between source texts. The last
mean “sexual immorality.” Immorality impotent term for violation of the 1241, a few Byz. mss, the Old
independent clause is supported
is underlain by the Greek porneia. A Seventh Commandment! It simply Latin (55-60 mss), the Syriac
by the Ï, B, C, W, Z, Θ, Ë1 . 13, 078, more accurate word is “fornicat­
is “fornication,” or “adultery,” and Sinaitic and Curetonian, and
33, almost all Latin, the Peshitta
ion.” Moichatai means “commits
God does not take this lightly!)
the Sahidic.
and Harclean, and the Bohairic.)
adultery.”)

NET: “Now I say to you that who­
ever 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.”

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

NIV

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.

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

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.)

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

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

NIV: “Anyone who falls on this
stone will be broken to pieces;
anyone on whom it falls will be
crushed.”

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)

(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.])

NASB: “And he who falls on this
stone will be broken to pieces; but
on whomever it falls, it will scat­
ter him like dust.” The footnote,
“Some manuscripts do not have
verse 44,” has been removed from
(The Greek sunqlasqh/setai, the 95 Update edition.
sunthlasthēsetai [soong-thlasthay´-seh-tahee] means “to
(Verse 44 is omitted from the in­
crush,” “to shatter,” “to break” [to terlinear Greek in The Zondervan
Greek and English Interlinear
pieces]. The Greek likmάsei
[lik-muh´-sigh], means “to pulver­ New Testament [NASB/NIV]. As
for “to scatter like dust,” this is a
ize,” “to grind to powder,” “to
usage mentioned in Thayer’s
crush.” It also can mean “to
Greek-English Lexicon of the New
winnow,” or “to scatter.” So the
Testament, but it is one prefaced
NET translators did not alter the
by “in a sense unknown to prof.
auth. [professional authorities],”
words or meaning of the text.)
and it does not carry “like dust.”
[References to the Septuagint.])

(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?)

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
(According to the NA27, only D,
“early” uncial that does not
include this verse is the notor­
cursive 33, many Old Latin, and
the Syriac Sinaitic do not contain iously corrupt Codex D (Be­
this verse! Hence, the NIV trans­ zae/Western). That’s right, the
academics have defied Aleph
lators included it. Even ‫א‬, B, C, L, and B. Why? (The verse even
and W include the verse, as do Z, has been removed in the Greek,
from a recent interlinear.) The
0102, Ë1 . 13, some Old Latin and
all the Vulgate, most of the Syriac, “harsh” tone? Doesn’t sell.
and all the Coptic. Why have the Also notice the NIV footnote,
at left: “some manuscripts.”
translators repented and included This is absolute falsehood and
this verse when they did not in
deception, as the vast majority
versions of the NIV previous to
of all manuscripts contain the
verse—not just the Greek!
the 2011?)

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 [koth-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

NIV reads: “But you are not to be The words “the Christ” (o
called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have one Cristoς) appear in the Maj­
Teacher and you are all brothers.” ority Greek—at least 85% of
cursives. These words also are
(The NIV committee has been
included in manuscripts K (9th),
imprudent in translating kathē­
Gamma (Γ/10th), Delta (Δ/9th),
gētēs as “teacher,” and this ver­
0102 (650 AD), 579 (1200), 700
sion still is largely based on the
c
rd
substantially corrupt minority text. (1050), 892 (3 copyist/ 850),
Hence, precisely as the other mo­ and 1241 (1150), as wellthas in
dern versions here, it omits “even the Syriac Curetonian (5 ) and
th
Christ. In previous NIV editions, the Harclean (7 ). Again, no
witnesses are listed against it.
“Master” was used rather than
Why?
“Teacher.” Why the change?)

Puts verse 14 in brackets to indi­ Omits verse 14 and only makes
cate suspicion about authenticity, six Scripture references to this
and related material.
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 “nor the Son,” but pro­ Adds “nor the Son.” Removed
vides no footnote evidence for its note: “Some manuscripts do not
appearance as an alternate variant have nor the Son.”
to the Majority reading.
(“Some manuscripts”? No! Clearly
(The NET states that Matthew
the vast majority of Greek and
generally softened “Mark’s harsh
27
(Testimony for the NA reading
otherwise!
Look at the paltry
statements,” and corrected his own
2
13
error by removing “nor the Son”! are Í and Í , B, D, Theta [Θ], Ë , support for inclusion of oude o
uioς, at immediate left.)
a few Byz., and the Itala.)
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

NASB

PROBLEM

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

Matthew 25:31 — “When the
Son of man shall come[s] 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.”

Omits “new.”

NIV: “This is my blood of the
covenant, which is poured out
(Jesus’ blood was not shed for the for many for the forgiveness of
old covenant. It had to be for the sins.” Removed note: “Some
(First, the NET footnotes that “the “new” covenant—an eternal prom­ manuscripts the new.”
ise replacing a temporal one!
blood” was added before “of the
covenant” to clarify that the suc­
Kainῆς, “new,” appears in the Ï, (“Some manuscripts”? No! The
ceeding phrase modifies blood.
A, C, D, W, Ë1 . 13, all the Syriac, all overwhelming majority—at least
This is absurd, as this truth is ob­
85 percent of the total extant
vious to the reader! This simply is the Latin, the Sahidic, and the
Greek minuscule [cursive] manu­
Bohairic.)
heavy-handed editing! “New” was
scripts included. The translators
omitted because of alleged and
did not want to “confuse the
“motivated” “parallelism” with
readers with the facts”! Why have
Luke 22:20, and the support of
they removed the footnote?)
“diverse witnesses”—hardly that.)

The vast majority of Greek
manuscripts include “new.”
Jesus is referring to the “new
covenant,” which, as mention­
ed in Hebrews 8:6-13, explicit­
ly replaces the old covenant as
being a better one! Moderns
boast about the supremacy of
the NU witness, led by their
preferred Aleph, B, and 33, but
these are substantially corrupt!
Also supporting the minority
Greek are Ì37 and Ì45, L, Z
(Alex.), Theta (Θ), 0298
(Caes.), and a few Byzantines.

Reads “. . . and offered Jesus
wine mixed with gall to drink.
But after tasting it, he would not
drink it.”

Reads “wine” rather than “vine­
gar.”

“Oinon,” fermented drink, is
incorrect! “Oxos,” rather, is
sour wine—vinegar. “Vine­
gar” fulfills prophecy in
Psalm 69:21: “They also gave
me gall in my food; and in my
thirst they gave me vinegar to
drink.” Supporting the Ï are
A (5th/Alex.), W (5th/mixed),
0250 (Caes./750 AD), 0281
(7th-8th/ mixed), four Old
Latin (2nd), and the Syriac
Peshitta (2nd) and Harclean
(7th). (The NU does not even
note the text.)

(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].)

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

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
Syriac Peshitta and Harclean,
(This is the correct reading here, (“. . . Glorious throne” is an
and part of the Bohairic. The NU
except for the absence of “holy,” improvement upon the previous
text of modern Bibles is sup­
according to the Ï text and the
NIV’s “on his throne in heavenly ported by minority-text staples
TR. The overall majority of MSS glory.” The NA reads, “But when Í, B, D, L, and 33, plus Ë1, Θ,
support the NU reading—without the Son of Man comes in his glory 565, a few Byzantines, nearly
agioi—but not the overall num­ and all the angels with him, then all the Latin, the Sahidic, and
erical Greek testimony. The over­ He will sit down upon his glorious part of the Bohairic—a diverse
all majority is misleading because throne.” All that is missing here is and broad testimony, but not
10,000 are of the Latin Vulgate.) the conjunctive particle “when.”) enough to offset the Ï.

(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.”
(See note at immediate left.)
(Moderns stand by Í, B, and D,
plus K, L, Theta [Θ], Ë1 . 13, 33,
some Byz. different slightly from
the Majority text [al ], most of the
Latin, the Sinaitic, the Sahidic, and
the Bohairic. Diversity and broad­
ness of support are won by the NU
Greek, but oinon simply is incor­
rect.)

KJV

NET

Mark 1:1 — “The beginning of Reads: “The beginning of the
gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of
the gospel of Jesus Christ, the
God.”
Son of God; . . .”
(In the footnote the NET commit­
tee admits that uiou Θeou
[“Son of God”] most likely is the
correct reading, based on the over­
whelming evidence. This defies
the NA27 text, which questions
authenticity with brackets, and as
an alternate reading. The note also
argues against the inclusion of
“tou” [of], which appears in A,
Ë1 13, 33, and the Majority [Ï ].)
.

NASB

NIV

Reads: “The beginning of the
Reads: “The beginning of the
gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of good news about Jesus the Mes­
siah, the Son of God.” Removed
God.”
note: “Some manuscripts do not
have the Son of God.”
(The NA27 modern critical appa­
ratus states that Í, Theta [Θ],
(The NIV translators changed
uncial 28 [Byz./ca. 950], a few
“gospel” to “good news” and
more Byzantine mss, Lectionary [ℓ] “Christ” to “the Messiah.” Why?
2211, and one Sahidic MS do not Firstly, “gospel” is traditional and
include “Son of God.” So the com­ a biblical term. Secondly, the Ï/
mittee was correct in leaving the
TR and NU texts all read Cris­
reading unmolested. They know— toς, not Messiaς. [See footnote
or at least have manifested—the
at right for testimony against
truth, here.)
“Some 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 By., 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.

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.’”

NASB reads: “As it is written in
NET reads: “As it is written in
Isaiah the prophet, ‘Look, I am Isaiah the prophet: ‘BEHOLD, I
sending my messenger ahead of SEND MY MESSENGER 20 AHEAD OF
you, who will prepare your way . YOU, WHO WILL PREPARE YOUR
. .’”
WAY;’” Removed note: 20Lit
before your face.”
(A
footnote
defends
the
reading
(It is critical to note that this OT
using three of the moderns’ fav­
quotation appears in two passages, orite five old uncials—Aleph, B, D (No footnote appears to mention
any other reading. This is decep­
and by different prophets: Isaiah
—and the second-century Greek
tion, and the translators probably
40:3 AND Malachi 3:1. Both
testimony of Church Father Iren­
did not include the Byzantine
verses speak of John the Baptist, aeus. Further, another corrupt
reading because of their favorite
but it is two prophets—not Isaiah Alexandrian MSS, Codex L, is
th
evidence: Í, B, and D. To many
used, plus 33 [9 ] and several
alone—who proclaim this OT
moderns,
the corrupt Aleph and B
“geographically
widespread”
but
prophecy!)
essentially Alexandrian witnesses.) are tantamount to absolute truth!)

“Isaiah the prophet” probably
is a scribal error. The NU has
substantial support beyond the
NASB witnesses: Delta (D); Θ;
Ë1; 205; 565; 700; 892; 1071;
1241; 1243; 2427; many Byz.
(The NET refers to its nine speci­ cursives; the Peshitta; Harclean
margin; Palestinian; all Coptic.
fic MSS witnesses as “early,” but
But the Ï text has much the
six are no earlier than 850 AD! As same: A; W; 28; 180; 579; 597;
for “ahead of you,” the Greek is
1006; 1010; 1292; 1342; 1424;
the same, but pro proswpou
1505; [E; F; G; H; P; Σ] disput­
sou does not mean “ahead of
ed; Lect; the Harclean. Yet, the
you.” It means “before thy face.” Byz. Greek majority and Mal­
achi’s prophecy derail the
And note how the NIV removes
idou, “behold,” “look,” or “see.”) opposition.

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

NIV: “After John was put in pris­ “. . . Kingdom of God” is the
on, Jesus went into Galilee, pro­ reading in the profound major­
claiming the good news of God.” ity of mss: a vast majority of
the Byzantines; A; D; W; the
Peshitta; most Old Latin and all
(“Good news” and “gospel” have of the Vulgate; and part of the
the same meaning, according to
Bohairic (bopt)‡. The NU
the Greek euaggelíō [you-ang-gel- Greek is supported by very
ee´-ō]. Nevertheless, the gospel of broad and diverse evidence: ‫;א‬
Jesus Christ is a sacred thing, so to B; L; Θ; Ë1 .13; 28; 33; 565;
replace it with the pedantic “good 579; 892; 2427; a few Byz.;
four OL; the Harclean; the
news” certainly seems irrespon­
Sinaitic; the Sahidic; and ‡bopt
sible and disrespectful. Where is
(5 or more mss); others. But the
the sense of godly reverence in
Ï text—at least 85% of Greek
these NIV translators?)
—still carries the day.

NET: “Now after John was im­ NASB: “Now after John had been
prisoned, Jesus went into Galilee 27 taken into custody, Jesus came
into Galilee, 28 preaching the
and proclaimed the gospel of
gospel of God, . . .” Removed
God.”
notes: “ 27Lit delivered up 28Or
proclaiming.”
(Despite the overwhelming
(What is missing in these modern numerical testimony against this
(“. . . Taken into custody” is literal
translations is the clarifier “king­ reading, the NET translators have from the Greek paradothēnai [pardom of God,” which is specifically the gall to insist that the external a-doth-ay´-nahee]. However,
“imprisoned” or “put into prison”
the type of “good news” or “gos­ manuscript evidence [mss] is
“significantly stronger.” No! See more-accurately, -effectively, and
pel” being preached!)
the evidence at far right. Also, the illustratively describes the event.
committee here uses more modern As for “gospel of God,” this
text-critical gymnastics created to phrase less fully describes the type
support their favored manuscripts.) of good news being preached.)

NIV reads: “As it is written in
Isaiah the prophet: ‘I will send
my messenger ahead of you, who
will prepare your way’”b—
Removed note: “1:2 Mal. 3:1.”

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 and
as does more than 99% of all
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? For the
wrong because “blasphemy against 2011 NIV “he” also has been
their “Bibles.” Most people do
the Holy Spirit” ultimately means changed to “they” for gendernot want to know and hear
rejection of Christ!)
inclusive purposes.)
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; they are
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.’”

NET

NASB

(Also see Matthew 17:21.)

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

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.”

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.”

NIV
Omits “and fasting.” Removed
note: “Some manuscripts prayer
and fasting.”

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

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: “If anyone causes one of
these little ones—who believe in
me—to stumble, it would be better
for them if a large millstone were
hung around their neck and they
were thrown into the sea.”

(The Greek omission of eis éme,
(The Greek lίqoς [lee´-thos] is
(The Greek skandalίsh [scan- “in me,” is founded upon only
uncials Aleph, C, and D, the curused just thrice in the New Testa­ da-lee´-say] means “to stumble,
th
ment to mean “millstone”—a
“to offend,” “to entice to sin,” so sive Delta [9 ], four Old Latin
manuscripts,
and about five Bo­
heavy, flat stone.)
this is nearly correct, except for
pt
hairic
mss
[
bo
]. Note that the
word order, which would have
25
(Also see Matthew 18:6 and Luke been a bit awkward—but correct NA [1963] includes eiς έme, “in
—as “causes to sin one . . .”)
me.”)
17:2.)

(The NIV translators have done
rightly by not footnoting with a ref­
erence to “some mss” or “early mss”
excluding “in me.” Rare wisdom for
them. But they did remove “and” at
the beginning. However, they rightly
changed “sin” to “stumble,” and
rearranged order of “a large . . .” and
“he [they ] were thrown . . . .”)

Based on the NA27 critical appa­ NASB reads: “[where THEIR
ratus, the NET deletes verses 44 WORM DOES NOT DIE, AND THE FIRE
and 46. “[[EMPTY]]” is inserted IS NOT QUENCHED.] Removed note:
for these verses.
“Vv 44 and 46, which are iden­
tical to v 48, are not found in the
(The committee admits that the
(Parenthetical material, above, ad­ vast majority of extant witnesses early mss.” (Emphasis mine.)
ded by author.)
—Greek and versions [other
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.)
appears to be a scribal addition
and C—three of the five “old
from v. 48 and is almost certainly uncials”—plus W [5th], again
a part of the Greek text of Mark,”
appealing to moderns’ liberal futil­
the footnote reads. Because of the
omission are
moderns’ preferred ancient MSS, ity. Also supporting
1
Aleph, B, and C, plus L, three Caes­ Delta and Psi, f , two later uncials
and two minuscules [cursives], the
arean [11th-15th], six more Alex­
andrian/Egyptian mss, and a pau­ Coptic, and some others.)
city of Coptic, the NET defies.)

NIV omits the verse. Removed
note: “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.”

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

PROBLEM

(The NIV committee chose to be
even more irresponsible than that
of the NASB by deleting the verse
entirely—more deceptive and sin­
ister activity by the NIV translat­
ors. Removal here, in effect, minimizes the penalty of eternal damn­
ation—but it corresponds precisely
with the revered Í and B.)

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, most 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
(9th), f 13, some Old Latin and
all of the Vulgate, and the Sy­
riac Peshitta (2nd) and Harclean
(7th). The verse also appears in
the Ï text. Translators seem to
disapprove of the “repetition”
of this phrase, as well as of the
foreboding tone. Some early
scribes also took liberties in
their copying by “removing
repetition.” Satan is a master of
partial truths—seen here!

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 10:24b — “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
NIV reads: “Children, how hard The Majority text reads, “for
NASB reads: “Children, how
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
come to today’s “lukewarm” be­
their readers. Supporting the
Vulgate; the Egyptian Bohairic;
lievers!)
Byz. text are A, W, f 13, some
others.)
cursives (+ sou [thy]), and all
the Syriac.

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

This verse is omitted from the
NIV. Removed note: “Some manu­
scripts add verse 26, But if you do
not forgive, neither will your
father who is in heaven forgive
your sins.”

(The minority text’s omission is
supported by nine uncials—‫א‬, B,
L, W, D, Ψ, 565, 700, and 892—
and one minuscule, the forged
2427, plus a few Byzantines, two
Old Latin, the Syriac Sinaitic, and
part of the Bohairic.)

(“Some” manuscripts? No! Only a
few hundred manuscripts, at the
very most, omit this verse! This is
absolute deception and simple
untruth! And those manuscripts that
have it, include it; they do not add it.
It appears that, for the 2011 NIV, the
committee decided: 1) It did not
want to confuse readers with “tech­
nical” footnotes; 2) it wanted to eli­
minate doubt about its source text;
or 3) it wanted to be modern.)

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),
excluding “fragments,” do not
include this verse (‫א‬, B). How­
ever, three of the earliest five
manuscripts (A, C, D) include
the verse. Again, “some manu­
scripts” is major distortion of
the truth! Also supporting the
Ï are Theta, f 1 . 13, 33, some
OL and all Vulgate, the
Peshitta/Harclean, and bopt.

KJV

NET

NASB

NIV

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
when the time is.”
the time will come.”
come.”
(The KJV actually is a bit idiomat­
ic here. The literal translation from
the Majority text is: “Be watchful,
stay awake [or “be attentive,” or
“be ready”], and pray; for you do
not know when the time is.”)

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!)

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 reads: “Be on guard! Be
alert! You do not know when
that time will come.” Removed
note: “Some manuscripts alert
and pray.”
(The translators admit that the
(The translators took the liberty of
adding
“appointed”
here.
Why
do
“vast majority” of witnesses
these scholars think they have the (The Greek blēpetē [blay´-pehinclude “and pray,” but again
authority to tamper with the Word tay] means “behold,” “beware,”
ascribe it to harmonization to
of God? Bill Mounce explains one “see,” “take heed,” “perceive,” or
Mark 14:38 and Luke 21:36. This tenet in Greek for the Rest of Us:
“look on” [or “to”], not “be on
“motivated reading” does not
“The translators are trying to help guard.” Agrupnite means “to keep
appear in their favored B, and D.) you understand not only the words, awake,” or “to watch.” The NU
but what the words mean.” [This is does not contain kai proseuch­
modern translation theory.])
esthē, “and pray.”)
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
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,
“some” is outright deception!
(Most would be correct.) Do
these committees and their
corporate owners not want
people to pray? Minority de­
fense exists only in uncials B
and D, 2427, a few Byz. mss,
and three Old Latin.

NIV omits the verse. Removed
note: “27Some manuscripts left,
28
and the scripture was fulfilled
which says, ‘He was counted
with the lawless ones.’” (Isaiah
53:12)

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
antine majority dates back to at
text dates back to at least the
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.’]
Removed note: “Early mss do not
contain this v.”

The NET includes the entire pas­ The NASB includes the passage
sage, but inside double brackets, but, but in brackets. Removed
to designate it as almost certainly note: “Later mss add vv 9-20.”
false.
(“Add” refers to moderns’ belief
(A portion of the footnote reads,
“All of this evidence strongly sug­ that some scribe[s] inserted the
gests that as time went on scribes words into manuscripts normally
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
The Style of the Long Ending of
MSS
include
the
“longer
ending.”
chre; for they trembled and were
Mark”—debunks common mo­
Further,
the
footnote
also
provides
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.)

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 entire passage in
quotes. Removed note: “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
Ë13, and 33 oppose their reading!) absent 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 [5th], 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.)

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.

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 35 with whom He is
pleased.” Footnote reads “35Lit of
(The note concedes that the major­ good pleasure; or of good will.”
ity—a varied one—reads as the
(The Greek in both the NU and
Byz. [Maj.]/Textus Receptus reads KJV, yet cites four of its “old un­ (The NA27 refers to the majority
to support the modern view
anqrώpoiς [an-thrō-puh-eece]: cials”
reading as “an alternative rea­
that God loves only His saved—
ding.” It records that “good will
“men” or “mankind”—that is,
not all people [ʡ“TCGNT 111”].
toward men” appears in Í2, B2, L,
“people.”)
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
the Ï text.)
“more difficult” variant.)

Reads: “. . . Glory to God in the
Firstly, the majority of MSS
highest heaven, and on earth
have Greek text very closely
peace to those on whom his favor matching the KJV reading.
rests.”
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,
W, a few Byzantine mss, and the
simply based on biblical doct­
Sahidic [with some variation]. For rine. God wishes good will to
the 2011 NIV, the translators added
“heaven” to “highest,” which is not ALL PEOPLE! (See Matt.
the meaning here for [h]uphistois. 18:11; Luke 19:10; Rom. 5:6;
2 Cor. 5:14, 15; 1 Tim. 2:1; 4,
They also replaced “men” with
6.)
“those” for gender inclusion.)

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 “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
of extant Greek, holds the fort,
Father is Jesus’ father! (“Par­
plus: A; C; Psi; 0130 [ca. 850]);
ents” is probably a ruse to es­
Ë13; the OL; the Syriac Peshitta
and Harclean. Opposing are: Í; B; cape controversy, as some var­
D; L; W & Θ; Ë1 ; 33, 579, 700 & iants read “father.”) Mary
1241; the OL/Vulgate [“latt”]; the birthed Jesus. Joseph was an
earthly surrogate father. He did
Sahidic; more. [H]hmeraς does
not mean “feast” or “festival,” but not provide the “seed” of
Christ; the Holy Spirit did!
“days”!)

(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”!)

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

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.”

NIV

PROBLEM

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
(By only the support of MSS Aleph ALONE.”’”
[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
[rhēmati (ray-mah-tee)], which
direct copying from a corrupt
ilation to Matt. 4:4.” The note also
does not mean Christ [logos ] or
scribal exemplar [source ms], or a
specific Scripture, but Scripture in includes, “There is no good reason scribal interpolation [insertion]
why
the
scribes
would
omit
the
rest
general.)
based on personal belief.)
of the quotation here.” [??])

NIV reads: “Jesus answered, ‘It Two of the oldest five extant
is written: “Man shall 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
the LORD does man live.” “Shall” supporting the Ï are Θ, Ψ, and
replaces “does” from the previous 0102, plus the Peshitta/Harc­
lean, all Latin, Ë1 . 13, cursive
NIV version.)
33, and more.

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

Reads: “. . . This is my Son,
whom I have chosen; listen to
him.”

(Also see Matthew 3:17.)

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.)

Reads: “. . . This is my Son, My
Chosen One; listen to Him.”
(The NA27 labels agapētos [belov­
ed] as an alternative reading. As
always, the modernistic translation
committees do not wish to confuse
the readers with the facts—only to
present the Word of God based on
their own skewed theories, beliefs,
and preferences.)

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.)

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.”

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

Only five significant Greek
uncials—Ì45 . 75, Aleph, B, and
L(Alex.)—plus X, four OL, the
s
(Simply a more contemporary but Syriac Sinaitic (sy ), all Coptic
slightly less accurate, longer and (Egyptian—Sahidic/Bohairic),
less “biblical” variation of the
four other Greek mss, and a
NASB reading.)
few Byzantine mss, replace
“beloved” with some variation
(Note: Numerous Greek uncials
of “chosen.” The Ï text, along
often are not mentioned—evi­
with
uncials A, C, W, E, G, H,
dently based on spatial consid­
P,
and
D, Ë 13, 33 and 12 other
erations—in the NA because mo­
derns consider them unimportant: numerics, most OL, and the
e.g., E, F, G, H, K, P, R, S, U, Y, X, Peshitta and Harclean, read
and several others.)
“beloved.”
NIV: “d Then he and his disciples
went to another village.”
Removed note: 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.’
56
And”

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;
(Also note the context of this
D. Also uncials E, G, H, L, S,
verse, which clearly justifies its
V, X, Delta [D], Xi [X], Psi [Y],
appearance. Also, “Then he and
his disciples” replaces “and they.”) 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: “36 Father,
hallowed be your name. . . .”’”
Removed note: “36Later MSS add
(The committee again refers to the phrases from Matt 6:9-13 to make
overall majority of MSS as “most the two passages closely similar.”
mss,” then states “including later
majority [Ï].” These include sev­ (This subjective remark in the
eral uncials and cursives usually
footnote is little more than mod­
used for minority defense. About ernistic conjecture—nothing more
10 MSS are called “more weigh­
ty,” and harmonization to Matt. 6:9 than an unproven theory regarding
is cited—all to defy “which art in gospel “harmonization”!)
heaven.”)

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

NASB: “Your kingdom come.”
Removed note: “Later MSS add
(The committee relegates 11:2b to phrases from Matt 6:9-13 to
harmonization to Matt. 6:10! Then make the two passages closely
comes the modernistic attestation 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
monization.” Modernists have
arising from the longer reading.”
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
Removed note: b 2 Some manu­
scripts come. May your will be
done on earth as it is in heaven.”

NASB reads: “Peter said, ‘Be­
hold, we have left 22 our own
[homes] and followed you.’”
Removed note: “22Lit our own
(The Greek source reads, “See [or things.”
“look,” “lo,” or “behold], we have
left our homes and followed you.” (“Our own,” as attested to by the
The essential difference here is the Greek ta idia, refers to poss­
use of idia [“our own,” “our
essions. Opposingly, panta
homes,” “our possessions”] in the simply means “all”—possessions,
NU Greek versus panta [“all”] in relationships, way of life, philo­
the Ï. Hence, “everything we
sophies, etc. In the NASB, “our
own,” although a condensed En­ own [homes]” does not specifi­
glish equivalent, is not a literal
cally refer to “all things” in one’s
translation. Further, no footnote
life. And the addition of “homes”
exists to cite the evidence for the by the translators is an abominably
opposing readings. What is to be weak attempt to more specifically
made of this evidential absence?) render an incorrect Greek reading.)

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

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

PROBLEM

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 33vid
reading. But it is supported by
(some doubt) and many Old
overwhelming testimony! Only
Ì75, ‫א‬, B, L, uncials 1 and 700, Ë1, Latin, 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 alternative
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.)

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.
This is a compromise between the ed by Í, A, W, Y, 33, two Old
Greek terms, one that soothes the Latin, the Latin Vulgate, and
the Peshitta and Harclean.
contemporary reader’s mind—a
less direct and extreme termino­
Supporting the critical text are
logy and message. A shameful
Í2, B, L, 892 (9th), three Old
concession to a “lukewarm”
Latin, a few Byz. cursives,
public.)
and the Coptic Bohairic.

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])

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

(The 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
cushte [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 hea­
ven appeared to him and strength­
ened him. And in his anguish he
prayed more earnestly, and his
sweat was like drops of blood
falling to the ground.]”

(Bracketing indicates suspicion
about authenticity. The Greek
qromboi [thromboi ] means “a
(“As it were,” in this context, does large thick drop, esp. of clotted
blood.” [See left.] These verses are
not signify that the intensity of
Christ’s angst compares his sweat included in ‫[ א‬Aleph] and Aleph-2,
drops to blood, as a simile, based D, L, Delta [D], Theta [Θ], Psi [Ψ],
on the subjunctive tense. Rather,
0171 [Western, 4th cent.]), Ë1, Ï,
the Greek word egeneto [from
and more. TC rules invalidate,
ginomai]—combined with
despite the admission “. . . It is very
thromboi, “great blood drop”—
likely that such verses recount a
means His sweat literally “be­
part of the actual suffering of our
came” blood, or mingled with it.) Lord.”

(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 kataxiw­
qhte, “to be accounted worthy.”)

PROBLEM

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).

Yes, some early manuscripts,
including at least three of the
oldest (including two ancient
papyrus fragments), omit these
verses—among a total of tenplus Greek in opposition to the
(“Most early mss” [extant] is cor­
Byzantine. But the vast major­
rect. However, numerical mss 13,
ity include the verses, including
157, 180, 205, 565, 597, 700, 828,
two of the earliest five Greek
892, 1006, 1010, 1071, 1241,
(Minority support for omission
1243, 1292, 1342, 1424, and 1505 comprises: Aleph-1; Ì45; A; B; N; MSS. Jesus was God, but He
also was such in human form:
—from the 8th to 13th centuries—do T; W; uncials 579 [ca. 1250 AD]
contain these words. Others: E; F; and 1071 [ca. 1150]; and ℓ 844 [ca. 100% divine and 100% human.
G; H; Q; 11 OL; the Vulgate; all
In His humanity, he felt angst
861]; and a few Byzantine mss
Syriac; part of the Bohairic.)
slightly different from the Major­ and needed strength. This did
not render Him less than God.
27
(The NA includes vv. 43-44, but ity. Versional support comes from
the Sahidic [3rd or 4th], part of the Other support comes from most
puts them in double brackets to
of the Latin, most of the Syriac,
indicate certainty that they are
Bohairic [3rd or 4th], and one Old
and part of the Bohairic.
spurious.)
Latin manuscript.)

Reads: “26 Now an angel from
heaven appeared to Him, strength­
ening Him.” Removed note: “26
Most early mss do not contain vv
43 and 44.”

Reads: “An angel from heaven
appeared to him and strengthened
him. And being in anguish, he
prayed more earnestly, and his
sweat was like drops of blood
falling to the ground.” Removed
note: “Some early manuscripts do
not have verses 43 and 44.”

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 com­
mittee, it makes as many contemp­
(Also see Matthew 26:68 and
orary stylistic changes as possible,
Mark 14:65.)
here: It removes the conjunction
kai [stylization]; changes the voice
(Note that the KJV committee fail­ and tense of epērōtōn [“asked
ed to precisely correctly translate
repeatedly”]; and omits legontes
this verse, adding “they” in the
[redundant]. On the positive side, a
first instance, and also adding
“study note” [sn] is included that
“when.” The team also used the
reads, “Who hit you? This is a
wrong tenses for “blindfolded”
and “struck.” “. . . Were striking” variation of one of three ancient
is correct [etupton]—imperfect games that involved blindfolds.”
third-person plural indicative;
The NET often does include
“having blindfolded” [perika­ interesting informative notes such
luφanteς] is correct—aorist
as this one—yet it neglects script­
third-person plural participle.)
ural 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.”
(NKJV footnote reads: “NU-Text
brackets the first sentence as a lat­
er edition.” NU refers to the cur­
rent, naturalistic “critical text,” an
apparatus containing editorial
changes incorporated into the
Scriptures by modernists of the
18th, 19th,, 20th, and 21st centuries.)

NET: [But Jesus said, ‘Father,
forgive them, for they don’t know
what they are doing.’] Then they
threw dice to divide his clothes.”
(Bracketing indicates modernistic
suspicion of authenticity. In part
the footnote reads, “Many im­
portant MSS [Ì75 Í1 B D* W Θ
070 579 1241 pc sys sa] lack v.
34a.” Again, many is a superlative
exaggeration! “Important”? The
notators insist that Ì75 [Aleph
pred.], Í1, B, D, W, Theta, 070 [ca.
550], 579 [ca. 1250], 1241 [ca.
1150], pc [“a few” Byz. cursives],
the Syriac Sinaitic, and the Sahidic
are “many”—and that their “eclec­
ticism” combines to establish their
supremacy. No! They argue both
ways, then state, “Further, there is
the great difficulty of explaining
why early and diverse witnesses
lack the saying.” Readers must be
confused by this introduced
doubt!)

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.)

NIV

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“proφhteuson” (pro­
face and were asking Him,
phēteuson — prof-ay΄-too-sun),
saying . . .” Only eight speci­
meaning “prophesy,” the trans­
lators chose the word “tell”—how fied Greek uncials of the 5,700pedestrian and inappropriate.
plus extant Greek mss support
Within this context the English
the modern reading, plus some
word prophesy is clearly the cor­ cursives differing from the
rect translation. Furthermore, the
NA27 reads that “they were strik­ Byz. Uncials A, W, Theta (Θ),
ing him on the face and” is a para­ Psi (Y), Ferrar Group 13
(Ë13/Caesarean), most OL and
llelism to Matt. 26:67, 68 and
Mark 14:65. Harmonization is
all the Vulgate, and the Syriac
implied. It also reads that “were
Harclean, support the Ï. The
asking him saying” is an alterna­
central support are Ì75
tive reading. But both are support­ NA’s
rd
(3 ), Aleph, and B, plus K, L,
ed by overwhelming manuscript
testimony.)
T, and 1241. Also the Bohairic.

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.” Removed note: “e 34
Some early manuscripts do not
(Note the consistency, by absence, have this sentence.”
between this verse and Mark
11:26: The modern versions omit (The footnote indicates the entire
first part of verse 34 [a] is lacking
the Luke 23:34a reference to Je­
sus’ forgiveness of His murderers, in some mss. The result is that
as well as omit Mark 11:16, God’s only the “b” portion, the second
charge for humans to forgive one half, “And they divided up his
another. The NA27 apparatus says clothes by casting lots,” exists in
that v. 23a is a parallelism—to
these aforementioned manuscripts.
Acts 7:60, according to a NET
This is a heinous omission! Critics
note—based on all of the minority assert that the first portion was
witnesses listed at immediate left.
added to what otherwise are mul­
But, again, this modernistic theory
tiple
verses, elsewhere, having just
is just that, and has no basis in
part “b”—Matt. 27:35 and Mk.
actual proof! This verse can be
only an extremely vague reference 15:24. This is the theory—and
to Stephen’s plea for mercy to his nothing more—of “paralleliz­
ation.” Why the note’s removal?)
murderers!)
NASB: “30 But Jesus was saying,
‘Father, forgive them; for they do
not know what they are
doing.’ . . .” Removed note:
“30Some early mss do not contain
But Jesus was saying . . . doing.”

PROBLEM

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’ for­
giveness for His murderers,
then by omitting a reference to
biblical human forgiveness of
one another. The overwhelm­
ing lot of the Majority cursives
here are supported by uncials
‫ א‬and Í2, A, C, D2 (2nd correct­
ed), L, Psi, 0250 (ca. 750), Ë1 .
13
, modernists’ favorite cursive,
33 (9th), 17 other numerics, 8
Old Latin and all the Vulgate,
almost all Syriac, and part of
the Bohairic (northern Egypt­
ian). This overall testimony 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 apēlthen, “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.”

NIV

PROBLEM

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.” Removed note:
“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
(The Greek parakupsas [par-akorite manuscripts, Aleph (Í)
oop´-sos] means both “to stoop
and B, plus their highly est­
down” and “to look into.” “Only” (“Some manuscripts”? Yes—
eemed Ì75 papyrus. In addition,
27
is a poor translation of mόna
according to the NA [D, Itala]
codices A (5th), E (6th), F (9th),
[muh´-nah], which means “alone.” and Moorman’s digest [D, a few
G (9th), H (9th), K (9th), L (9th),
“Wrappings” is a poor translation Byz. cursives, six OL]. According M (8th), S (10th), U (9th), V (9th),
4
W (5th) and X (10th) support the
of oθ onia, which means “linen to the UBS , however, only D
27
Majority text reading, as well
omits the verse. The NA notes
clothes,” “pieces of linen,” or
“strips of linen cloth for swathing that numerous MSS have the verse as nine other specified Greek
Peshitta and
with minor variants—such as in­ mss, plus the
the dead.” [Thayer’s Greek1.13
Harclean,
Ë
, the Sahidic and
clusion or omission of keimena
English Lexicon of the New
Bohairic, three OL, all the Vul­
[kigh´-meh-nah], “laying” [“linen gate, and more. Only “some”
Testament])
cloth”]. Why the removed note?)
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?)

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

NASB

NET

NIV

PROBLEM

NASB: “. . . and that repentance
for forgiveness of sins would be
proclaimed in His name to all the
nations, beginning from Jerus­
alem.” Removed note: “33Later
manuscripts read and forgive­
ness.”
(Despite the fact that the NA27
reads kai [here “and,” but always a
conjunction], the translators use
“for” between repentance and for­
giveness. Why? Because their cor­
rupt 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!)

Although the Greek reading
(kai ) underlying these modern
versions is the same, notice
how the NET and NASB de­
viate. Without repentance and
(The NIV translators have defied
remission of sins, the intima­
27
the NA edition—which reads
identically to the Byz./ TR here— tion is that “acts of penance,”
for their translation. “For” between apart from forgiveness of sins,
can achieve salvation. Repen­
repentance and forgiveness is
tance and remission are dif­
incorrect! [The UBS4 reads eij
[“for”] rather than kai [“and”].
ferent acts! The Ï cursives,
The reason for this discrepancy is uncials A, C, D, L, W, Θ, Ψ, Ë1
that the UBS is less-critical. For
. 13
, all the Latin, and the Harc­
this updated version, the trans­
lean
and Sinaitic, dominate.
lators have substituted “for” for
Only
Í, B, Ì75, the Peshitta,
“and.” Why? To conform to other
and the Coptic, oppose.
modern translations?)

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
the Father, He has explained
(Two footnotes use 564 words to
Him.”
justify alteration of “only begotten”
[monogenēs ] to the inaccurate
(“ . . . God” is incorrect here. As for
(The Greek monogenes means
“only one.” The note reads that
“only-born” or “only,” specifically monogenēs [H]uios [“only begotton the Byz. reading, most editions of
in the sense referring to the unique Son”] is incorrect, despite the vast the Majority text err here by using
majority of evidence for it. What
the term “explained” rather than
identity of God’s Son—p. 2116,
opposes? Moderns’ Ì75, [Í* ?]
“revealed.” The KJV’s “declared”
Strong’s Complete Word Study
(original), Í1, [B ?], [C ?], [D* ?], is closer to precisely correct. How­
Concordance.)
[L ?], 33, and a few cursives only.
ever, in this unique context, accord­
“Himself God” is not explained.
ing to the Theological Dictionary
The note reads, “Internally, al­
of the New Testament [one volume,
though uáoς fits the immediate
abridged], only here is the correct
context more readily, Qeoς is
usage “revealed” [no object].)
much more difficult.” [?])

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’
unique status as God’s incar­
nate Son in the flesh (according
(The only opposition to the Ma­
to Greek). No. 2: “Only begot­
jority and its supporters here are
ten God” originates from early
Ì66, [Ì75 ?], Aleph, [Aleph-1
(Í1) ?], B, C, L, [33 ?], and a few Gnostic heresy about types of
lower deities (“aeons”) and the
Byz. cursives. This verse is a
dramatically different translation belief that Jesus was a “created
deity.” No. 3: “God the one and
from the previous NIV edition,
including removal of “God” before Only” does not uniquely refer to
“the one,” and addition of “Son.”) Jesus as God the Father’s Son.

(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.)

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

33

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.”

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.)

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

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

NIV reads: “No one has ever seen
God, but the one and Only Son,
who is himself God and is in
closest relationship with the
Father, has made him known.”
Removed notes: “14,18 Or the
only begotten. 18 Some manu­
scripts but the only (or only
begotten) Son.”

Reads: “No one has ever gone into
heaven except the one who came
from heaven—the Son of Man.d ”
Removed note: “d 13 Some manu­
scripts Man, who is in heaven.”

The minority Greek removes
reference to the fact that since
His ascension, Jesus has been
and will remain in heaven for­
evermore. Support for the KJV:
(Part of the note reads, “Most wit­ (Only 10 specified Greek MSS
Ï text; 18 significant uncials
nesses, including a few important support this reading: Ì66 . 75 [3rd];
(The NU Greek reads anabebēken, (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]; “ascended,” and katabas´, “de­
(Caes./18 mss); the Syriac
syc,p,h], have at the end of this
Peshitta, Harclean, and Cure­
verse “the one who is in heaven . . 083 [ca. 600]; 086 [ca. 550]; and scended,” yet the English is so
1241 [ca. 1150]—plus a few of the pedantic—“gone” and “came.”
tonian (5th), and part of the Bo­
. .” Yet the “longer reading” is
Katabaς means “descended.”) hairic (bopt).
cursives, and the Coptic.)
called “too hard.” [??])

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
21 believes will in Him have
who believes in him may have
eternal life.”
eternal life.” Removed note:
21Or believes in him will have
(Critical substance in the note
(“Should,” “may” or “will” [have] reads, “Some interpreters extend eternal life.”
the quotation of Jesus’ words to v.
—Gk. έχω [ekh´-ō]— are used
(“. . . Will in him” is incorrect
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 mē 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]
absence of “should not perish.”)
have life eternal,” is lit. correct.)

NIV

PROBLEM

The modern versions’ Greek
source text reads: “So that
everyone who believes in Him
may have eternal life.” The ab­
27
(The NA again overemphasizes sence of the words “should not
the importance of its favorite two perish . . .” mitigates the sense,
uncials, other Alexandrian uncials, seeming less harsh for those
and same papyri—‫ א‬and B lever­ who do not believe in Christ.
Only 29+ of the extant 5,700aged as the best. Ì66 . 75 and Ì36
(6th), L, T, four numeric uncials, Ë1, plus Greek MSS support this
reading. The Ï text (cursives)
two OL, the Curetonian, Coptic,
th
63
and a few Byz. mss pitted against is supported by13Ì (6 ), A, Θ,
Ψ, 016, 063, Ë , most OL and
the Ï. The translators also have
transposed “may . . . life” and “in all the Vulgate, and nearly all
Him,” defying their source Greek.) Syriac.

NIV reads: “That everyone who
believes may have eternal life in
Him.”

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.”

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.

The last portion of v. 3 and all of
v. 4 are bracketed to indicate sus­
picion about validity. Removed
note: “13Early mss do not contain
the remainder of v 3, nor v 4.”

This verse omitted. Just a blank
space where the verse should
appear. Removed note: “Some
less important manuscripts para­
lyzed—and they waited for the
moving of the waters. From time
to time an angel of the Lord
(This designation is fallacious. The (This notorious omission, depen­
would come down and stir up the
dent
largely
upon
four
of
the
five
note defends the correct reading:
66
waters. The first one into the pool
“The majority of later MSS [C3 Θ “old uncials” [‫ א‬B C D], plus Ì
75
1 . 13
Ψ 078 Ë
Ï] add [the words].” and Ì , is a fortuitous opportunity after each such disturbance
for theological modernists simply would be cured of whatever dis­
But the note degrades the Ï with
“later mss,” despite defense by Θ Ψ to deny the miraculous in the Bible. ease he had.”
Ë1 . 13, MSS moderns often use for Many contemporary biblical scho­
their defense. “Few textual scholars lars and theologians embrace this (The footnote not only denies
unbelieving position. Other support God’s divine power, but also refers
today would accept . . . any por­
to the Majority text as “less im­
tion . . . for they are not found in
are 33, 3 OL, the Curetonian, the
the earliest and best witnesses
portant manuscripts”! Both the
Coptic, a few cursives differing
from the Byz.)
[Ì66.75 ‫ א‬B C* T pc co] . . . .”)
NA27 and the UBS4 omit v. 4.)

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

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

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.)

(Notators admit that “most wit­
nesses . . . have ‘in me’ . . . . ,” but
they call them “predictable var­
iants” motivated by scribal ten­
dencies “toward greater explicit­
ness.” They usually argue for the
accuracy of scribal copying, but
when “errors” suit their position,
they criticize the copyists. Further,
three of moderns’ hallowed MSS,
A, D, and 33, support the Byz.)

(The NA27 apparatus indicates that
eiς eme [“in me”] is an insertion
based upon what amounts to the
overwhelming majority of extant
witnesses! It is interesting that the
UBS4—apparently in the face of
the monumentally defiant evidence
—has no note or symbol at all to
flag this so-called “insertion.”)

(Text-critical scholars use five of
their favorite Greek MSS to de­
fend their reading: Ì66 . 75 vid; ‫ ;א‬B;
and C—plus L, T, W, Θ, and uncial
892 [ca. 850]. Note that the critical
sign “vid” follows Papyri 75 [Ì75],
meaning that “the reading of a
witness cannot be determined with
absolute certainty.” They refer to
these MSS as the “earliest and
best.” Changed from “I tell you the
truth. . . .”)

KJV

NET

NASB

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

Reads: “Therefore they picked up
Reads: “Then they picked up
stones to throw at him, but Jesus stones to throw at Him, but Jesus
hid himself and went out from the 39 hid Himself and went out of the
temple area.”
39
temple.” Foot.: Lit. was hidden.
(The NA27 text omits “going
(Essential opposition to the Ma­
(Also see Luke 4:30.)
through the midst of them, and so
papyri Ì66 . 75,
passed by.” This is critical because jority comes from
th
(Why did the translators not use
Í, B, D, W [5 ], and Theta [Θ, 9th].
this verse portion indicates that
the aorist passive indicative “was Jesus’ supernatural power allowed Nine Old Latin and all the Vulgate
th
hidden” instead of “hid”? “Was
him to leave unmolested. The NET [“vg”], the Sinaitic (4 ), the Sahi­
hidden” not only is literally cor­
dic and the Proto-Bohairic, plus
rect, but it also is consistent with uses four—see NASB—of “the
“going through the midst of them,” best and earliest witnesses” [?] to some Byz., also support the minor­
which indicates that Jesus became establish their position that scribes ity Greek. But they are outnumber­
used “amplification” and “paral­ ed by the vast majority of NT
invisible to avoid capture and
lelism” for the longer reading.)
death.)
Greek and more.)

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

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

(The KJV here is the only version
that does not transpose “straight­
away [immediately]” [euΘuς]
and “glorify him” [doxasei
auton].)

(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?)

14

NASB reads: “. . . if God is
glorified in Him, God will also
glorify Him in Himself, and will
glorify Him immediately.”
14
Removed note: Most early mss
do not contain this phrase.”
(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.)

NET: “So then, because he was a Reads: “And so, because he was a
prophet and knew that GOD HAD
prophet and knew that God had
sworn to him with an oath to seat SWORN TO HIM WITH AN OATH TO
SEAT [one] 47 OF HIS DESCENDENTS
one of his descendants on his
ON HIS THRONE,” Footnote: “47Lit.
throne . . .”
of the fruit of his loins.”
(The NA27 calls “his loins” an
“alternative reading,” then marks (The omission of “raise up Christ”
all after loins to be a textual inser­ is traced to the ancient argument
that Christ will return in the flesh—
tion. About the Greek osφuς,
(This verse is a reference to 2
great divide between light and
“the hip,” or “the loins” [“(by ex­ adarkness
. . . between God and
Samuel 12—God telling David the tension)] procreative power”], the
Satan. It also is interesting that in
Messiah will emerge from his
NET committee writes, “A literal the 1881 ERV, based on the West­
bloodline. “Loins” signify “procre­ rendering like ‘one who came
cott-Hort Greek text, only “ac­
ative power,” according to
from his genital organs’ would be cording to the flesh” was removed.
regarded as too specific . . . even Note that the footnote admits to a
Strong’s Complete Word Study
vulgar by many . . . readers.”)
Concordance, p. 2125.)
non-literal translation.)

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.”

NIV

PROBLEM

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

Ï text: “Therefore they picked
up stones so that they might
throw at Him; but Jesus was
hidden and went out of the
(It is significant that Codex Alex­ temple, having gone through
andrinus [A], of the 5th century, is their midst, and passed by
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
Families
and supports it with copious evi­ fied uncials (incl. A),
c
dence—some contrary to NA27— 1/13, 2 OL, and Θ (3rd copy­
for several variants: some by unre­ ist). Opposition is diverse but
liable sources, such as Origen.)
outnumbered and outclassed.
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.” Removed note: “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
(Based on the Westcott-Hort and (10th), the Harclean, and a few
NU texts, “according to the flesh, other Byz. Most of the Early
to raise up the Christ” is omitted. Church Fathers oppose. But,
Not only is this translation wrong­ Tertullian (Latin, d. 220),
ful in omitting words, but it is not whose extant writings number
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
Tatian (77) has more extant
port from: Í; A; B; C; Dc; 81;
writings. Early Fathers (pre1175; most OL and all Vulgate
[“lat”]; a few Byz.; Peshitta; Sahi­ 400) favored the Byzantine 3 to
dic; Bohairic.)
2—60% to 40%.

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

NET reads: “For while we were
Romans 5:6 — “For when we
were yet without strength, in due still helpless, at the right time
Christ died for the ungodly.”
time Christ died for the ungodly.”
(The NET English reading is very
close to being absolutely correct.
(The Majority text, from the Byz­ Kata kairon [kah-tah’\ kigh’antine Greek, reads, “For yet
ron], these two words together,
Christ, when we were weak, in due 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
Concordance, p. 2596 [kata ], “[B]
have most translators, doing so
essentially literally and based upon Of time, i.e., of a period or point
of time . . . occasion, season,
the Majority text.)
opportune time, in due time.” As
for “still helpless,” this essentially
is the meaning, but a lesserpreferred reading.)

NASB

NIV

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

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

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 . . .”
(Only in this instance, in the New (The NIV slightly misleads with
Modern translators have been
“still powerless,” based on the
careful to abandon this reading
Testament, may the Greek word
27
NA Greek. The meaning of
here, because support for this
asthenes—note at far right—be
“asthenes” does not so much con­ variant is minimal. The Greek
properly used in this context. As
note a condition of varying power word asthenes means “without
for “the right time,” this is a cor­ —a term usually associated with strength,” “weak,” “sick,” “im­
rect translation, as well. [However, advantage—as it does of passive
potent,” “more feeble,” and,
weakness, or lack of strength.)
parallel to a lost sinner
note that the NIV, at immediate
(»TDNT, abridged, p. 84),
right, wrongly includes “just”
(The 1870 Wescott-Hort [W-H]
“helpless.” So, evidentially,
before “the right time”—just not
New Testament, which is the
listing witnesses essentially is
appearing in the Greek or being
essential base for the NU, reads as irrelevant, because nearly every
carried with another Greek word.]) B, ei ge, “if indeed.” This W-H
extant MS is identical in the
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.

Reads: “There is therefore now no Reads: “Therefore there is now no Reads: “Therefore, there is now
condemnation for those who are condemnation for those who are in no condemnation for those who
Christ Jesus.”
in Christ Jesus.”
are in Christ Jesus.” Removed
a
(Footnote: “The earliest and best
(The minority text has substantial note: “ 1 Some later manuscripts
Jesus, who do not live according
witnesses”—primarily ‫א‬, B, D—of support in nine specific Greek
to the sinful nature but according
the Alexandrian [Egypt. Gk.] and mss, two Old Latin, all Coptic,
to the Spirit.”
Western
[known
for
additions/
plus a few Byz. cursives—the
(Thomas Holland explains that Al­
transpositions]
and
some
others
latter
just
two,
evidently,
according
exandrians believe[d] that “ditto­
27
truncate the verse after “Christ.”)
to the NA26. The specified Greek (The NA also lists the Greek mss
graphy”—the repetition of text—
“The scribes were evidently mot­ are: ‫ ;א‬B; D; F; G; 6 [13th]; 1506; 6, 1506, 1739, 1881, and a “few
accounts for the final 10 words: a
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
supporting the minority.)
MSS to support its case!)
4 to v. 1—major slip by moderns?) terized too much by grace.”)

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.”

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.”
(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

Reads: “Just as it is written, ‘HOW
NET: “As it is written, ‘How
timely is the arrival of those who BEAUTIFUL ARE THE FEET OF THOSE
26 WHO BRING GOOD NEWS OF GOOD
proclaim the good news.’”
THINGS.’” Footnote: 26Or preach
(The NET points out that the
the gospel.”
Greek oraioi [oraioi ] means
“beautiful,” as well as “timely,”
(Tωn euggelizomenωn eirη­
but it does not mean plainly
nηn, “preaching the gospel of
“attractive, welcome,” as it says. peace,” is omitted from the NU
But it asserts a valid argument
texts, based on a relative paucity
when it says, “The metaphorical
of evidence: Ì46; ‫ ;א‬A; B; C; 81;
nuance of ‘beautiful feet’ is that
630; 1506; 1739; 1881; a few Byz.
such represent timely news.”)
mss; and all the Coptic.)

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

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.

KJV

NET

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], “judg­
the Father judgeth no man, but
ment seat of God,” is in the mino­
hath committed all judgment unto
rity text, but it simply is textually
the Son.” Modern translations in­
and theologically incorrect! [See
clude this verse, unchanged, yet
note at left.] It should read Cris­
they omit the above reference to
tou# [krisʹ-too] instead of Qeou.)
Christ!)

NASB

NIV

NASB reads: “For we will all
NIV reads: “For we will all stand
stand before the judgment seat of before God’s judgment seat.”
God.”
(The NA27 designates God as an
(Christ will be performing both
“alternative reading” in its critical
judgments. Rev. 20:11, 12 de­
apparatus, using mainly ‫א‬, A, B, C,
scribes the “Great White Throne
and D to defend this reading. It also
Judgment,” that for the con­
lists ‫א‬c [third copyist], C2 [2nd cor­
demned. It details how earth and rected], Ψ, 33, and three other
heaven will flee from Jesus. Re­
Greek, plus all Syriac, as support­
miniscent of unbelievers hiding at ing the Ï reading. Changed from
“judgment seat of God.”)
the Second Coming.)

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 hus­
band 44 is dead, she is free to be
married to whom she wishes, only
in the Lord.” Removed note:
44Lit falls asleep.

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
for you; . . .”
for you; . . .”
is for you; . . .’”
(NU evidence for “This is . . . ” is (In both Greek source texts, the
(“Take, eat” also appears in Matt. substantial, yet outnumbered: Ì46; word [h]upēr [hoop-ayr´] appears,
but a clearly poor contextual tran­
26:26. The NA27 marks “Take, eat” Í; A; B; C; D; F; G; 33; 81; 12
other numeric Greek; six Old Latin; slation is made by moderns: “for”
as an insertion here according to
Coptic; the Palestinian. NU test­ is used, rather than “on the part of”
the majority of evidence! Myster­ the
imony for “for you” is less convin­ or “for the sake of.” Is this an
27
iously, the NA evidently has
cing still: Ì46; Í; A; B; C; 33; 424; effort to conserve words? To sim­
1739; the Palestinian [6th?].)
dropped 17 mss from the NA26.)
plify?)

PROBLEM
The vast majority of extant mss
read “Christ.” Modern transla­
tors adopt the minority reading
because it is upheld by all of
their beloved “old uncials,”
plus F, G, 630, 1506, 1739, a
few Byz., most Latin, and Cop­
tic. (This may originate from
lower Christology’s genesis in
first-century Gnosticism.) Also
for the Ï are 048, 0209, 33,
1881, and all Syriac.

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
ting “by law” removes a speci­
(Again, what is missing in the
(Nómō ephi, “by law,” is not in the (In the translators’ opinion, the
fic reference to God’s law (Sev­
modern
versions
is
the
Greek
nom­
27
NA . The NET does not explain testimony of four of the five “old
on [nom´-on], “regulation,” “law,” enth Commandment). Other
uncials”
—plus
four
favored
cur­
its absence, but the NA apparatus
minority support: Ì46; 0278; 6;
sives, among others—outweighs the “principle.” “Belong” also is in­
marks it as an insertion based on Greek Majority and outstanding
correct—the Greek monon mean­ 33; 81; 1175; 1739; 1881; a
the vast majority of manuscript
few Byz.; some OL and all the
ing “only” or “alone.” “Wife” is
overall witness, it seems. “Koi­
evidence.)
mhqh” meta. means “to die.”)
Vulgate.
the better translation here!)

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, and all the Syriac and
Coptic. Opposing are Ì46,
th
(“Possible” is not in the Greek. Did Aleph (Í), A, B, 1739 (10 ),
(The simple omission of ōs [as]
here, most probably, is an accidental (The spiritually unregenerate—and the committee or stylists think that plus most OL and all the Vul­
without this word readers would
gate, and a few Byz. cursives.
scribal error, but it changes meaning even some regenerate—may not
confuse the meaning with the com­ (Paul became like-minded with
dramatically! The NET scoffs at the comprehend the difference be­
mon phrase used to convey a mo­ the weak to relate to them; he
difference, without a note. The NA27 tween “weak” and “as weak.”
dern sense of certainty? Unneces­
did not “backslide” to become
Might worldly translators fail to
calls ως an insertion according to
sary tampering cited. “Men” has
weak!)
properly discern, as well?)
the majority evidence.)
been changed to “people.”)

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

The Ï text (85%+) has “Take,
eat . . . ,” as do C3 (ca. 9th), Ψ,
12 specified Greek, lections
(maj.), and the Peshitta and
Harclean. The Majority text
also reads “broken,” as do Í2,
C3, D2, F, G, Ψ, 20 specified
Greek, four OL, and the Pe­
shitta and Harclean.

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 reverence for our Lord.”)

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.”

NET

NASB

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.”

(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.)

NIV

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
(The NU Greek reads “brings
cipating without due reverence
condemnation when not discerning for Christ, and without forgive­
the body.” Note how different this
Sup­
literal translation is from the modern ness of one’s fellow2 man.
porting the Ï are Í , C3, D, F,
versions herein. Changed from
G, Ψ, 1881, all Latin, and all
“anyone,” “recognizing,” and
“himself.”)
the Syriac.

NIV reads: “For those who eat
and drink without discerning the
body of Christ eat and drink
judgment on themselves.”

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
(The NU text has substantial sup­ has spiritually regenerated and
same in Greek, tis, but the NU
port in Ì46, Í, B, C, and D, plus F, redeemed every believer from
Greek has kaina gegonon, “the
G, uncials 048 and 0243, and four otherwise eternal ramifications
new has come,” rather than go­
numeric cursives. All Coptic and a of his/her depraved nature. In
the regenerate, all is new! Sup­
gone kaina ta panta, “all things
evidential testimony, despite the fact few Greek cursives also support
have become new.” The NET will that it does read ta panta. Instead, it the minority text. “. . . He is a new porting the Byz. Majority are:
2
not yield to the vast majority of
prefers to quibble over which MSS creation” has been changed to “the D ; K; L; P; Psi; 33; 81; 10
mss, including its favorite minus­ have “new” [kaina] before or after new creation has come,” and “. . . other numerics; most other
cursives; 2 OL; the Harclean.
cule, 33, and L, and Psi.)
has come!” to “. . . is here!”)
“all things.”)

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, 20 [he is] a new creature:
the old things passed away;
behold, new things have come.”
Removed note: “20Or there is a
new creation.”
(Again, the NU text omits ta
panta, “all things.” It also does
not list the Majority text [Ï] in the

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

The NU text has substantial testi­
mony, yet remains clearly over­
whelmed by 85%+ of extant
Greek. The HCSB and NASB are
gravely erroneous: Not any pow­
er “is made perfect in weakness,”
but only Christ’s power! (Greek
episkenÒωin this unique con­
text means “to enter or take up
(The NA27 critical apparatus cate­ residence”—not “rest upon” or
(Note the Greek word episkenóō
gorizes “my” as a scribal insertion! “work through,” etc.) Ï support:
(The NET has done its homework (Omission—the most common
has unique meaning in this NT
These text critics use four of their Í2; A; D2; Ψ; 33; 81; 1241;
scribal error—of just the Greek
context, according to the Theolo­ here. It has properly translated
five favorite uncials in reasoning, 1739; 20 other numericals; Lect;
mon [“my”] between “for” and
gical Dictionary of the New Testa­ episkenóō to mean “reside in”
the Peshitta and Harclean; the
“Scribes probably added the
rather than “rest upon.” [See left.]) “power” makes all the difference.) pronoun for clarity . . . .” [NET]) bopt.
ment [Abridged], p. 1043.)

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 weaknes­
ses, so that Christ’s power may
rest on 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 crucified!”

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.

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 pro­
mise.”

NIV reads: “The promises were
spoken to Abraham and to his
seed. 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, introduc­
ed 430 years later, does not set
aside the covenant previously
established by God and thus do
away with the promise.”

(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 his child, 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; Itala; Greek mss are supported by Í2
all of the Vulgate [10,000]; the
[Aleph-2], C3, D, 0278, and the
Bohairic. Hence, the total numer­ Armenian and all Syriac. “. . . A
ical witness is more than 10,200, son” has been changed to “. . . his
but only six of these are Greek.
child” for the NIV 2011 “NIV2.”)
[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 the new
creation.”

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. “. . . A new” changed to
“. . . the new” for the NIV 2011—
not a better reading.)
(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
the “agent” of activity in the be­ [and, but, or, etc.] to improve
“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.”
(NU textual authority for this read­
ing comprises Ì46, Í, A, and B,
four numeric uncials, three such
cursives, 1 Old Latin, all the Cop­
tic, and a few other Greek cur­
sives. This against the Majority,
Í2, D, F, G, K, Ψ, 17 numerics, 7
Old Latin and all the Latin Vul­
gate, the Syriac Peshitta and Harc­
lean, and the Lect [maj. lections].)

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
NASB reads: “. . . who, although
He existed in the form of God,
did not regard equality with God
a thing to be grasped, 7 but
emptied himself . . .”

Philippians 2:6, 7 — “Who, be­
ing in the form of God, thought it
not robbery to be equal with
God: 7 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, 7 but
emptied himself by taking on the
form of a slave, by looking like
other men, and by sharing in
human nature.”

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

Reads: “Because of these things Reads: “For it is because of these
things that the wrath of God will
the wrath of God is coming on
come upon the sons of disobe­
the sons of disobedience.”
dience.” Removed note:
(The NET committee, despite its “13Two early manuscripts do not
contain upon the sons of disobed­
confusing and opposing reason­
ience.”
ings, is wise in retaining the last
five words. It uses its favored Ì46
(The footnote casts doubt—only
and B for support, but acknow­
two specific MSS—on the validity
ledges the testimony of several
of the reading. Wrongfully confus­
uncials, some Old Latin and all
The NU refers to Ì46 [3rd], B
Vulgate, some cursives, all Syriac. ing!
th
Yet they still write “The decision [4 ]—the latter moderns’ “sacred”
manuscript—and one OL, plus the
to retain the words in the text is
less than certain.” B’s influence.) Sahidic and Syriac Palestinian.)

NIV

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
(The underlined portion is from
[ek-en´-oce-ay] here—“emptied.”) He is co-equal to God—and He
means “the act of seizing or
did not need to “cling to” or
the NU Greek, identical to the
(The Majority and TR both use the Byz./TR. But the phraseology eas­
“grasp” it. As for “nothing” here, robbing.” Hence, “not grasp­
word ekénosē (from kenóō ), “to ily can be misconstrued to mean
this is a contextual misuse of the ing to be equal” might seem to
be a more appropriate “modern
Greek kenóō. Christ “emptied
empty or abase,” in verse 7, but
that Christ did not strive to attain
translation.” Instead, moderns
himself”
by
taking
“the
form
of
a
equality
with
God—as
if
He
were
the KJV committee produced a
servant.”
Changed
from
“some­
have opted for ambiguous
not
equal!
Also,
“made
in
the
like­
more idiomatic translation.)
thing to be grasped.”)
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.”

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!”

(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”?)

NIV reads: “Who, being in very
nature God, did not consider
equality with God something to
be used to his own advantage; 7
rather, he made himself
nothing; . . .”

(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, uncial 0150, and 20 specified
cursives [UBS4]. Additional Byz.
support comes from some OL and
all Vulgate, the Peshitta/Harclean,
and the Bohairic.)

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?

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.”
Removed note: “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],
th
th
th
th
Vulgate; the Syriac Peshitta [2nd]; P [6 or 9 ], 048 [6 ], 049 [9 ],
th
th
rd
th
plus 056 [10 ], 075 [10 ], 0142
the Coptic Sahidic [3 or 4 ].)
[10th], 0150 [9th], and 0151 [9th].)

The Majority contains the
entire last sentence (1b).
Aleph, A, (Dvid—some
doubt), I (5th), 33, one OL
(mvid—some doubt), the Sy­
riac 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 “eliminate repetition,” as
done, historically, by scribes,
some Fathers, and by some
modern translators.

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.”

Reads: “Because of these, the
wrath of God is coming.”
Removed note: “Some early
manuscripts coming on those
who are disobedient.”

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 oj 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
apesterηmέnωn. 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 16 vindicated in the Spirit,
seen by angels, proclaimed among
the nations, believed on in the
world, taken up in glory.”
Removed note: “16Or justified.”

(Based on 784 words in an NET
footnote, the committee has altered
this reading dramatically. The first
four words are a plainly ignoble
translation, “our . . . revelation” is
a repugnant substitute, and “vin­
dicated” is incorrect. Ï is over­
turned primarily by Í* A* C* F G
33—not B! [* Denotes original.])

(Some other Greek manuscripts
read “He who,” as shown here, but
these are among the fewest extant.
“Who” has significant support in Í,
A, C, F, and G, plus 33, 365 [Byz.],
1175 [Alex.], and 2127 [Byz.], and
a few Byz. But the Ï Greek out­
weighs and outnumbers. “Vindicat­
ed” is incorrect here!)

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
(Not only is “appeared in a body”
incorrect according to the Greek, but Matt. 11:19 and Luke 7:29.
it also is plainly ignoble! And “He” This is the foremost passage
[ὅ] only is supported by D, just sev­ clearly establishing God’s
flesh. The
en Old Latin, all the Vulgate, a few manifestation in the
c
2
early Church Fathers, and possibly Ï is backed by Í (ca. 7th), A ,
2
2
th
th
061. From “from . . . great” has
C (ca. 6 ), D (ca. 9 ), Ψ, 075,
been changed dramatically!)
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 NIV also mitigates the con­
notation with “strive.”

Reads: “Beyond all question, the
mystery from which true godli­
ness springs is great: He appeared
in the flesh, was vindicated by the
Spirit, was seen by angels, was
preached among the nations, was
believed on in the world, was
taken up in glory.” Removed note:
“c16 Some manuscripts God. d16
Or in the flesh.”

(The minority Greek source reads,
“toiling [kup-ee-ah´-ō] and strug­
gling [a´-gonid´-zuh-mahee]”
rather than “labour and suffer
(Neither Greek reads “in fact,”
which is a poor transition anyway. reproach.” These are very different
meanings. To “suffer reproach,” or
The Greek oneidichómetha “to
suffer reproach,” is replaced with “to be reviled” addresses the plight
of believers’ persecution!)
agonizómetha, “to struggle.”)

(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.)

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.”

NIV reads: “. . . and constant
friction between people of corrupt
mind, who have been robbed of
the truth and who think that god­
liness is a means to financial
gain.”

NASB: “. . . and constant friction
between men of depraved mind
and deprived of the truth, who
suppose that 14 godliness is a
means of gain.” Removed note:
(The notators admit the majority of “14Or religion.” (No! Incorrect.)
MSS have “from such withdraw
thyself.” They state that no good
(The Greek apesterēménōn means
reason seems to exist to remove the both “destitute” and “deprived”—
last phrase “in some of the oldest
the compound root words being
and best witnesses,” so, “it is likely
apo, “to separate,” and steréo, “to
that it crept into the text early,
perhaps as a marginal comment.” deprive.” Hence, combining the
NU support is strong for omission words, in effect, enhances the
potency of the Greek word. Greek
of the last phrase: ‫א‬, A, D, F, G,
eight specified Greek, a few Byz., is a language of emphasis through
repetition and the use of double
some OL and all Vulgate, and all
Coptic. But the Ï opposes.)
positives and double negatives.)

(“Robbed” is both a legitimate
meaning and a suitable application
of the word apesterēménōn in this
context. As for “financial gain,”
this is incorrect. The Greek
porismon specifically denotes an
“acquisition,” or a “source of
gain”—not financial. Wrote Mat­
thew Henry, “Some account Christ­
ianity an advantageous profession
in this world. Those that make a
trade of it . . . will be disappointed .
. . .” “Men” changed to “people.”)

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.
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
Syriac. Some miffed scribe(s)
probably was/were offended by
the separatist doctrine pre­
scribed by God through Paul
—“‘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

NASB

NET
24

NIV

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.”

Reads: “ And He is the radiance
of His glory and the exact repre­
sentation of His nature, and up­
holds all things by the word of His
power. When He had made purifi­
cation of sins, He sat down at the
right hand of the Majesty on high .
24
. .” Removed note: “ Lit Who
being.”

Reads: “The Son is the radiance
of God’s glory and the exact re­
presentation of his being, sus­
taining all things by his powerful
word. After he had provided puri­
fication for sins, he sat down at
the right hand of the Majesty in
heaven.”

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
did God ever say, “You are my
gels did He ever say, ‘YOU ARE
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
testimony for “God.” “God” has
NU Greek text, “God,” in fact, is
been inserted for “he” “for cla­
not included here, but, rather,
rity,” according to an NET foot­
“he.” In multiple interlinears the
note. Another footnote states that word “God” is inserted into the
the literal Greek reads “I have
Greek—obviously for clarity. But
begotten you.” So why the change the context makes this entirely
unnecessary!)
to “fathered [you]”?)

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

(Neither the NA27 nor the UBS4
marks this verse.)

PROBLEM

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
(“The Son” is not in either Greek
(“Word of his power” and “pow­
(Sinaiticus [Í], Alexandrinus [A],
through His vicarious sacrifice.
1
th
text, but, rather, an unnecessary
Vaticanus [B], D [ca. 7 ], H, P, and erful word” differ. “The Word” is
clarifier for “he.” [“Son” appears in Ψ support this reading, along with from the Son’s authority: It is not This variant could be the result
v. 2.] A note explains the Greek
33 [9th], 81 [11th], 629 [14th], 1175 just a “powerful word,” but also a of early Gnosticism, promoting
actually reads “Word of his power,” [11th], 2464 [9th], 075, and 0150,
“Word of His power.” —JFB Bible the Catholic doctrine that
but an incorrect alternative is cho­ and some Byz. minuscules, plus
Commentary, Vol. 3, p. 527. “The works are part of salvation.
sen. [H] eautou, “himself,” is
Some of the “revered” early
some Old Latin, all the Vulgate,
Son” is not in the NU Greek.
not in the NU, but is critical here!) and the Syriac Palestinian.)
Church Fathers believed in this.
Neither is “God’s.”)
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).

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,
(Melchisedec was Abram’s and the (Vaticanus, C, and Ì46, 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
Other support is in all Syriac
0150, a few Byz. Greek slightly
(The first half of the minority text Christ has replaced him to repres­ differing from the majority, three and part of the Bohairic. It
reads as the Majority, but it has
ent all believers now! Jesus’ “ante- Old Latin and all the Vulgate, the seems clear, here, that some
been removed here. Because the
type,” Melchisedec, here is simply Sahidic [Coptic], part of the Bo­
scribe committed the error of
(Remember God’s warning, in
NU source does not contain “You left out of the priestly line that
hairic [Coptic], and the Syriac Pal­ haplography: accidentally
Revelation, against “adding to” or
are a priest . . . ,” this portion is
estinian [6th?], testify to the NU
omitting words he thought
“taking away from” God’s words. omitted. The NU marks the last as ends with Christ.)
text.)
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

PROBLEM

NASB: “But when Christ ap­
peared [as] a high priest of the
good things to come, [He entered]
through the greater and more
perfect tabernacle, not made with
hands, that is to say, not of this
creation; . . .” (Removed note.)

Reads: “But when Christ came as
high priest of the good things that
are now already here . . .” Re­
moved note: “Some early manu­
scripts are to come.”

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 . . .”
The “good things” to which the
author of Hebrews refers are “. .
. pardon, reconciliation, right­
eousness, holiness, adoption,
and glorious salvation,” accord­
ing to Matthew Poole, as well
as believers’ eternal inheritance.
The modern readings are sup­
ported by B, D, 1739, a few
Byz. manuscripts, and almost
all of the Syriac.

(The NRSV—herein not included—
footnote reads “Other ancient author­
ities read good things to come.” Yes,
(The translators here ignore the
again, the vast majority! The Byz. text
27
NA text and insert “He entered,” reads so, along with “old uncials” ‫א‬,
which neither appears in any
A, plus D2. Other Byz. support are un­
Greek text, nor is necessary for
cials K, L, and P, 075, 0150, and
conveying the correct meaning.
0278, cursives 33, 81, 1241, and
This not only is incorrect Greek,
but it also is redundant, unneces­ 1881 [and 15 others], plus some OL
and all the Vulgate, and all the Coptic.
sarily emphasizing “to come,”
which stands correctly on its own.) “Now” added before “already.”)

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
(The moderns have fairly substan­ basis of the older but corrupt
Alexandrian (Egyptian) manu­
(“For you showed sympathy to the tial support; yet they remain over­
scripts Ì13 . 46, ‫א‬, D, and H, plus
whelmingly
outnumbered.
“Com­
(The NU text literally reads “For
prisoners . . .” is incorrect accord­
passion on me” is opposed by A, D, 33, 1739, most Latin, and all
indeed you felt sympathy for those ing to the NU Greek! The Greek
H, 6, 33, 81, 1739, most Latin, and Coptic, the “critical text” reigns
(The KJV reading does transpose
in bonds, and you accepted the
preposition/conjunction kai is
more. En ouranoiς, “in heaven,” supreme in the modern ver­
the Majority text’s and Textus
spoiling of your possessions joy­
absent, and the verb “showed” is is opposed by Ì13 . 46, ‫א‬, A, D, H,
sions, hereby supporting the
Receptus’ “and remaining posses­ fully because you knew that you
not in the Greek. None of these
omission of “in heaven.” But
33, most Latin, all Coptic, and
sion” and “in the heavens.”)
had better substance, and abiding.” modern versions accurately
without these words, the “en­
more. “Suffered along” replaces
during substance” is neglected!
The Majority reads “in my bonds.”) represents its own Greek.)
“sympathized” in NIV 2011.)

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.”

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 suffered along
with those in prison and joyfully
accepted the confiscation of your
property, because you knew that
you yourselves had better and
lasting possessions.”

The Ï loosely supports the
KJV reading. The NET
faithfully adheres to the NU,
while the others vacillate. Note
how the NIV includes “barren”
but bases the passage on
(The NIV 2011 [“NIV2”] complet­ Abraham. “Gave birth” (Gk.
by the
(The NU refers to Sarah only; yet (The Zondervan NASB/NIV inter­ ely changes direction, following the eteken) is supported
2
2
Majority
text,
Í
,
D
,
one
OL,
NA-UBS
Greek—albeit
a
bit
loose­
(“* Or, ‘bore a child.’” [eteken] Abraham is mentioned as “he.”
linear inserts into the running in­
ly—this time, replacing emphasis and all the Syriac. Omission of
[Author’s note.] Eteken literally Nearly this entire translation has no terlinear English “Abraham was
eteken does have substantial
on Abraham with it on Sarah.
means “gave birth,” so the KJV is basis in either Greek source text!
enabled to become a father . . . ,”
13 . 46
;
Notice how “eteken,” “bore a
Why? External pressure? But like and diverse testimony: Ì
not entirely literal here. There is
despite the NA Greek’s reference
is absent without comment only to Sarah by name! Then, in the the KJV, it transposes clauses—
‫ ;א‬A; D; Ψ; 6; 33; 81; 1739;
no reason it should not be! The Ï child,”
[Ì13 . 46 ‫ א‬A D Psi 33 81 most Latin, English column, only Sarah is
second and third, varying in each. 1881; most Latin; all Coptic.
Greek reads “and when past the
all Coptic, more]. There is no foot­ mentioned! This translation is a
The Greek also does not explicitly But the Ï—based on 5,700suitable age gave birth,” or “and
note anywhere about anything.)
plus Greek—still dominates.
hybrid of the Ï and the NU.)
past the [fit] time of life. . .”)
refer to “childbearing age.”)

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 jud­
ged him faithful who had promis­
ed.”

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.”

Reads: “By faith even Sarah her­
self received 22 ability to conceive,
even beyond the proper time of
life, since she considered Him
faithful who had promised.”
Removed note: “22Lit power for
the laying down of seed.”

Reads: “And by faith even Sarah,
who was past childbearing age,
was enabled to bear children be­
cause she considered him faithful
who had made the promise.”

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 put to death
by stoning they were sawed in
two they were killed by the sword.
They went about in sheepskins
and goatskins, destitute, persecut­
ed and mistreated—” Removed
note: “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 person, do you
want evidence that faith without
deeds is useless?” Removed note:
“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.”

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.”

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

(The minority Greek reads moi­
chalides [adulteresses], omitting
moichoi kai [adulterers and] before,
with the NA27 calling it an inser­
tion. The translators have replaced
their Greek with, “So whoever de­
cides . . . ,” which is acceptable—
as would be “purposes.”

(Per the indications at far left, bou­
lēthē here has been translated cor­
rectly, based on precisely the same
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].)

Reads: “They were stoned, they
were sawn in two, 42 they were
tempted, they were put to death
with the sword; they went about
in sheepskins, in goatskins, being
destitute, afflicted, ill-treated . . .”
Removed note: “42 One early MS
does not contain they were tempt­
(The NET note even states that the ed.” (That is, Ì46.)
“They were murdered [or “killed”] 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
the Sahidic; and two [five] Church English here! Also,27despite its ab­
Fathers. [Moderns stand mostly on sence from the NA Greek, epeirásthēsan, “they were tempted,”
the testimony of Ì46.])
has been added in the English.)

PROBLEM

The Ï text supports the KJV,
as do Ì13vid, A, D2 (6th or 7th) Ψ
(Psi), 1739, 1881, 18 other
numerics, four OL and all the
Vulgate, the Bohairic, and the
lection majority. Most moderns
do not believe in “verbal” in­
spiration—the actual words of
God in the pure Scriptures.
(Because the Byzantine manuscript This allows them to manipulate
tradition dates back to at least the and mix texts—even denigrate
fourth century [and likely earlier
the supernatural. (This despite
still], “some” probably is incorrect lip service, by many, to verbal
—with “early” referring to MSS
inspiration.) Note here that not
[uncials or papyri] of the seventh
century or before. “. . . Put to death only does the Ï text support
by stoning” is okay. “Mistreated” the KJV, but also a broad and
diverse testimony from the
technically is correct, but it is a
poor translation here!)
third to fourteenth centuries.

The Majority reading is “dead”
(Gk. “nek-rōs´”), including
one of the modern “critical
text” keystones, Codex Sinai­
ticus (Aleph). A and C-2 (2nd
Greek qeleiϛ de gnomai means
(Only two of the “earliest” [or
(Out
of
5,700-plus
Greek
mss,
only
corrected) also support the
“Would you like to know?” Yet, it
“early”] manuscripts, codices B
Majority reading, plus Psi, 15
uses “evidence.” They also openly the corrupt B, plus C, support the
minority text, along with six num­ and C, read the Greek argē´,
other major uncials, Lect (lect­
admit that nearly all extant wit­
“unprofitable,” “inactive,” or
nesses read “dead,” yet argue that it erics, led by 1739. Also, two OL,
ions maj.), the Peshitta and
is an assimilation from vv. 17 and two Vulgate, and the Sahidic, pay “useless.” [For the “some” manu­ Harclean, and the Sahidic.
26. Support: Vaticanus [B] and C
misguided homage to the Alexand­ scripts, see immediate right.]
Note that dead and useless
read “useless,” argή.)
rian [Egypt] Vaticanus.)
have very different meanings!
“Man” changed to “person.”)

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

The Majority supports “adulter­
ers and adulteresses,” as does
Aleph-2, as do Í2 (ca. 7th), K
(9th), L (8th), P (6th), Ψ (9th), 16
minuscules, and the Harclean.
Note how only the NIV agrees,
in meaning, with the KJV and
the Byzantine text-type—but not
in the Greek. As for two moderns
(Minority Greek support exists
here, “hostility” is a contempor­
100
more diversely in Ì , Aleph, A, ary substitute for a biblical term
B, 33, 81, 1241, and 1739, plus a
—“enmity.” Two moderns use
few of the Byzantine mss, all the “wishes” and “chooses” for
Latin, all Coptic, and the Peshitta. boulhθh, which are perfectly
“Is” changed to “means” from
acceptable translations. As for
“hostility” (NASB), it replaces a
previous version, and “hatred
biblical term—“enmity.”
toward” to “enmity against.”)

NIV reads: “You adulterous
people, don’t you know that
friendship with the world means
enmity against God? Therefore,
anyone who chooses to be a
friend of the world becomes an
enemy of God.”

KJV

NET

NASB

NIV

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.”

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 37 the heart.” Removed
note: “37Two early MSS read a
clean heart.”

Reads: “Now that you have puri­
fied yourselves by obeying the
truth so that you have sincere love
for each other, love one another
deeply, from the heart.” Removed
note: “Some early manuscripts
from a pure heart.”

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

NASB: “. . . like newborn babies,
NET: “And yearn like newborn
infants for pure, spiritual milk, so long for the pure 37 milk of the
word, so that by it you may grow
that by it you may grow up to
38 in respect to salvation,”
salvation . . .”
notes: “37Or spiritual
(The NA text reads “. . . by it you Removed
38
may grow up to (or “into”) salva­ milk. Or up to salvation.”
tion.” Peter’s letter targeted recent
(The NA text reads “. . . by it you
Gentile Christian converts, those
who already knew Christ. Thus, he may grow up to (or “into”) sal­
vation.” The translators appear to
was exhorting these “newborn
babes” in Christ to grow in the love be unsure as to the spiritual state of
and knowledge of the Savior by
Peter’s readers, hence substituting
reading existing Scripture. Peter
“in respect to” for “up in your . . .”
was not—as the NET and its pre­
The English translation does not
sent brethren indicate—com­
match the minority source. Also,
manding unbelievers to become
saved by reading Scripture! Salva­ the translators appear to have
tion of the soul comes only through reached a hybrid compromise with
personal interaction with Christ: sin “in respect to” substituted for “up
confession; repentance; and accep­ to” or “up into,” bridging the gap
between the Byz./TR and minority
tance of Christ as sovereign Lord
readings.)
over one’s life.)

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

PROBLEM

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
4
27
ity text includes it, as do K, L,
(Both
the
NA
and
the
UBS
and versions do support omission (The minority has excellent support
question the authenticity of kath­
P, and seven cursives. Katharas
(“Having purified” [hgnikoteς] of “through the Spirit.” But “in
in four significant uncials and
aras, “pure,” using single brackets. kardias, “pure heart,” also is in
72
order to show” does not appear in many Byz. cursives, Ì , cursives But the text apparatus of each fails
is correct, as nowhere seen here.
the Byz. text. Recall that the
Of 47 instances of the root word in the NA27! This leaves a potentially 33 [9th], 81 [11th], 323 [11th], 945
to mention why. [??] In the NIV
Greek always holds the greatest
[11th], 1241 [12th], and 1739 [10th], 2011 “each other” replaces “your
the NT, only this occasion uses the suspicious gap between “truth”
weight because it is the origi­
and “unfeigned.” No accounting is plus all the Vulgate, Syriac, and
brothers.” “. . . Sincere brotherly
perfect active participial form.)
love” is literally correct here.)
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.” )

(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 un­
believer; and this still would repre­
sent 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 clas­
sic salvation by works altera­
tion which despite its uncial
and versional support cannot
possibly be right.” Indeed, the
NU text reads, “. . . by it you
may grow into salvation.” (Sal­
vation is a one-time event at a
fixed moment!) The Ï, L (9th),
and Byz. uncials 049, 056, and
0142 back the KJV. NU sup­
port is vast and diverse—but
see Moorman quote—for this
doctrinally wrong source read­
ing. Supporting the NU are
Ì72, majuscules ‫א‬, A, B, C, K,
P, and Ψ, cursives 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 signifi­
cance of the righteous believer
being falsely accused. The NU
only notates omission of its
opening clause, morphological
differences in “to speak
(The
NASB
includes
“with
gentle­
(The NET transposes word order:
(The NA27 actually reads, “But with against,” and “eis” instead of
“so . . . slander” and “your . . . you.” ness and reverence”—as in NIV
“en” before “Christ.” Majority
(“Behavior” inserted by author for Neither the NA27 nor the UBS4
note—as part of Verse 15. Minor­ gentleness and reverence, having a testimony for “as of evildoers”
clarification of antiquated meaning addresses the omission of oς
ity witnesses for exclusion of “as good conscience, regarding he who is massive: the Ï; ‫ ;א‬A; C; K;
for “conversation.”)
kakapoiωn, “as of evildoers.” of evildoers” comprise just Ì72, Ψ, is spoken against, those may be
P; 049; 056; 0142; part of the
some Byz. cursives, the Sahidic,
ashamed who accuse falsely your
But the evidential testimony is
Vulgate; 3 OL; the Peshitta; the
26
available from the NA . See right.) and possibly others.)
good behavior in Christ.”)
Coptic Bohairic.

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
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. . . .”

NET
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 . . .”

NASB
Reads: “Therefore, since Christ
has 16 suffered in the flesh, arm
yourselves also with the same
purpose, because he who has
suffered in the flesh has ceased
from sin.” Removed note: “16 i.e.
suffered death.”

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

NIV

PROBLEM

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
(The NA27 provides no opposing
you” exists only in Greek cur­
evidence for the omission of “for”
sives 69 (15th), 1505 (11th), a
[or “on behalf of”] us,” but only for
few
Byzantines, a single Vul­
“for you” rather than “for us.” “Suf­
gate
MS, and the Syriac Peshitta
fered” is incorrect, as is “whoever
(2nd), according to the NA27.
suffers” and “the.”)

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

NIV: “For prophecy never had its
origin in the human will, but pro­
phets, though human, spoke from
God as they were carried along by
the Holy Spirit.”
(A more literal translation from
(The NA27 reads thelēmati, “will,” (The Majority text has agioi,
(Word order is wrong in every trans­
slightly different Greek. “From” is “resolve,” “purpose,” or “design” “holy.” The NA omits “holy,” and
lation here. More accurate: “ Be­
not in the vast majority of MSS.
—not “was ever made.” “For no
adds apo, “from.” “. . . Had its
cause no man chose to bring pro­
prophecy ever came by the will of origin” is not literal from the NU;
phecy of old, but, by the Holy Spirit, “Impulse” is an inaccurate trans­
lation of qelhmati [will]. The NU man, but, by the Holy Spirit, holy neither are “prophets,” “human will”
holy men were led to speak by
omits “holy” before “men.”)
God.”)
men of God spoke” bests all these.) and “though human.”)

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).

2 Peter 1:21 — “For the prophecy
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,”

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 in
chains of darkness to be held for
judgment; . . .”

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.”
Removed note: “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 done
in it will be laid bare.” Removed
note: “Some manuscripts be
burned up.” (No! The majority!)

(The Greek word rhoizedon
[rhoyd-zeh-donn] here literally
means “loud noise,” and is used
uniquely in this context in the New
Testament. It also means “with a
great noise,” “whizzingly [hissing]
with a crash,” or “with roaring
speed.”)

(The Greek eurethēsetai, meaning
“will be discovered/found, ob­
served or gathered,” here is substi­
tuted in the NIV—and other mod­
ern versions—for katakaēsetai,
meaning “burned up,” in the KJV,
TR, and Byz. NIV 2011 adds
(6th).
“done” after “everything.”)

(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.)

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.”

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

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
(“.
.
.
Into
gloomy
dungeons”
was
(The
Greek
seirais zophou means
best testimony favors the Ï
(The Greek paredwken
changed
to
“in
chains
of
dark­
“chains of darkness”—period. Yet
reading: Ì72; P; Psi; 33; 1739;
ness”—correct.
But
“sent”
should
be
[paredōken] means “to give over
some use the Greek reading ap­
“cast,”
and
“putting”
“delivered.”
to,” “to deliver up,” or “to com­
Vulgate; Syriac. Some moderns
pearing in the partial source of the
write such things as, “. . . In prof.
mit,” not “to lock up”! “3 tn” in the 1881 ERV—Westcott’s & Hort’s— Similar to seirois, at left, Í, and a
seirois, the masculine form. Sei­ few Byz. read sirois. A, B, C, and 81 writ. is a pit” (Thayer). Vincent
NET even reads “Grk. ‘handed
wrote, “The best texts . . . sub­
read seiroiς [masculine plural].
them over.’” [Tartarus is the Greek roς, reflected in the NASB
stitute . . . pits or caverns.” ???
This is an improvement.)
place for the wicked dead.])
English, is a pit, den, or cave.)

(“Celestial bodies” [or “heavenly
bodies”] is correct, from the Greek
stoicheia. But “laid bare”—
(The KJV translators used “great eureqhsetai—is different
The translation is inaccu­
noise” and “shall melt with fervent Greek.”
rate because the committee found
heat.” “. . . Burning with intense
the last portion of the verse non­
heat, will be destroyed,” is a more sensical. They then concluded that
accurate rendering. “Terrible
all must be destroyed from the
noise” originated from Tyndale.) earth to leave men’s deeds bare.)

The Ï reads “. . . heavens will
pass away with a great noise
(rhoizedon), 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
discovered [or ‘exposed’].” The
Byz. is supported by A, 048, 33,
81, 1505, nine other specified
Greek, much of the Syriac
(Harc./Pal.), and the Coptic Bo­
hairic. Opposing are Í, B, K, P,
six specified Greek, a few Byz.
mss, and the Syriac Philoxenian

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
(Removed note: “ 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]. Also: P [024/Byz./6th]; “phōs”: luminescence. They
also capitalized Light, as if to
323 [Caes./mixed/12th]; 630
indicate it might represent the
[mixed/ 14th]; 945 [Byz./11th];
Holy Spirit, or some manifest­
th
1505 [mixed (Alex./Byz.)/12 ].
ation thereof, or some other
[See NET notes for further Alex­
“divine entity.” The Ï is sup­
andrian and other support.])
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.” Removed
note: “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
Henry [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

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.”

NASB: “. . . for the great day of
their wrath has come, and who is
able to stand?”
(The NA27 fails to mention vital
details about particular Revelation
MS evidence. But in two books, J.
A. Moorman addresses this ma­
terial. In When the KJV Departs
from the Majority Text, he meti­
culously describes the source for
the Ï/TR Revelation: H. C. Hos­
kier’s masterful collation of nearly
200 Greek MSS. This work is
based upon Greek MS groups 046
[Alex.] and the Andreas [Byz.],
each comprising about 80 MSS.
These support the Majority.)

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

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
(“Christ” [Criston] is omitted
dern interlinear shows inclu­
(Note
that
v.
2,
immediately
those who do not acknowledge
by the NU, as is “is [has] come in
proceeding, reads, in the Ï, “By sion of “having come in the
Christ as God’s Son, and as such
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
who
idolized
Aleph
Sinaiticus
[‫א‬
]
of antichrist. “But tὸn ᾿Ιhsoun
Every spirit that confesses Jesus
them in the accompanying text.
—and
Westcott
and
Hort
[1870]
[‘Jesus’] is well supported by A B
Christ as having come in the flesh Supporting the vast majority of
omit both, as well. [Westcott and is of God . . .” According to the
Ψ 33 81 1739 al, and internally
Greek in reading “Christ” are
best explains the rise of the
Hort idolized Vaticanus B, as well practice of many ancient scribes, K, L, 049, 056, 0142, and
p,h
others,” an NET note reads. Mo­
as did influential critic Johann
“as having come in the flesh” may 0245, plus the Sy . As for
dernism. However, the NA27 trun­ Jakob Griesbach.] Tregelles’
“having
come
in
the
flesh,” the
have been removed deliberately
cates opposing evidence by omit­ Greek edition also omitted both
Ï
,
‫א‬,
Ψ
,
33,
and
all
Syriac
sup­
from the exemplar [copying
ting testimony listed in another
port. Opposing are A, B, seven
Christon
and
en
sarki
elēluthota
source] with the thought that this specified Greek, a few Byz.
digest: six specific Byz.; one Alex­
[el-ay-loo-thuh-tah], “has come in clause accidentally was inserted
andrian [L]; much more. [See
mss, all the Vulgate (vg), and all
the flesh.”)
into v. 3 by an earlier hand.)
other evidence at far right].)
the 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
of their wrath has come, and who
great day of his wrath is come;
and who shall be able to stand?” is able to withstand it?”
(The NET committee has the
unmitigated, unsubstantiated gall
to insist that most Greek MSS were
changed to ensure consistency
between vv. 16 and 17! They have
so much confidence in Í, C, five
Alexandrian cursives, and two
versions that often deny their own
readings, and so much disdain for
the Byz. Ï text, that they defy
reason here. “Withstand it” also
defies the NU Greek, staqhnai,
simply “to stand.”)
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.”

NASB

(Related to the note at immediate
left, for the NASB, very little
Greek manuscript evidence is ex­
tant. For example, unfortunately,
Erasmus—who used only about
nine select MSS for his 1516 Greek
NT translation—had few Revela­
tion Greek MSS available to him.
Hence, for most of the book, he was
forced to translate available Latin
Vulgate into Koine Greek. “Stand”
has been changed to “withstand it,”
following the modern tide of Bib­
les: NCV; CEV; The Message.)

The Ï text (at least 85%),
joined by A, P, 046, more, under
gird the KJV reading. The
Greek word “autos” (ow-tos´),
is a personal pronoun used for
both the first- (my) and thirdperson (his/their) cases, but note
the previous verse, 6:16, which
refers to “the wrath of the
Lamb” immediately before v.
17 begins. Conclusive. None of
the five minuscules opposing
the Ï reading—again, all
Alexandrian—is older than the
tenth century. (Greek-witness
diversity is poor: only Alex.)

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.”

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.”

KJV

NET

NASB

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. Further­
more, for the 1995 update, 43
footnotes, among the 106 verses
here, have been removed.

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!

NIV

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.)
In addition, with the 2011 NIV, 39
footnotes have been removed, and
First released in 1966 by the Lock­ 40-plus textual changes have been
man Foundation, supposedly a
introduced, largely resulting in an
“nonprofit, interdenominational
even more worldly version!
ministry dedicated to the transla­
tion, publication and distribution The original NIV Bible was first
of the New American Standard
published in 1978 by the Interna­
Bible, the Amplified Bible . . . ,” tional Bible Society, then in 1984.
the NASB also underwent a signif­ Currently, Zondervan—a leader in
icant update in 1995. According to contemporary, modernistic Bible
the Lockman Foundation website, translation—uses Bible “databases”
“In 1995 the NASB was updated, owned by the International Bible
increasing clarity and readability. Society (IBS). The NIV’s modern­
Vocabulary, grammar, and sen­
istic associations are examples of
tence structure were carefully re­ the complexity and profit that have
viewed for greater understanding infiltrated the Bible-publishing
and smoother reading. . . .” (Au­
business: For more than 200 years
thor’s underlining.) It is certain
the IBS had been “sharing God’s
that the changes, being modern­
Word around the world.” But in
istic, have further degraded God’s 2007, the IBS adjoined the STL
Word. Just look at the quote.
(Send The Light) to become Bib­
Among the modern translations
lica. Space is prohibitive to fully
addressed herein, this one under­ describe how commercialized the
went the fewest update changes— Zondervan-NIV relationship has
but most are significant.
become.

PROBLEM
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.
Note that, according to the
“Biblica” web site, now repres­
enting the merged IBS and
“Send the Light” organizations,
more than 100 scholars repres­
enting 20 denominations trans­
lated the NIV “Bible.” The
same source states that for 30
years the Committee on Bible
Translation (CBT) “has labored
to bring the Word of God to
people in contemporary Eng­
lish.” (That is, pedantic, sim­
plistic, diluted and mistrans­
lated.)
Now nearly every modern
translation states it is based on
the “most ancient and best ma­
nuscripts,” and “according to
accepted principles of New
Testament textual criticism.”
These modernistic methods yet
have an opponent in the spir­
itual form of textual criticism:
one well-supported since the
sixteenth 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 (17451812), 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 of the contrasting readings in Codex Aleph,
F. J. A. Hort
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. 4 of 4 of this
virtually any modern
complete interlinear Bible): “So it may be clearly seen that our aim is exact correspondence between the English word and the original
‘Bible’ version and you’ll
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 alive today.”18
glean significant
(Emphasis mine.) The second sentence from this excerpt is a quite accurate description of the current trend in Bible translation: “dynamic
understanding of how
equivalence,” or “functional equivalence,” which is a “thought-for-thought” translation methodology based on Eugene Nida’s new-age
these large intercommunication 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, ecumenical translation committees
denominational,
operate. Said operational models in the prefaces of these “new-age” “Bibles” describe how interdenominational translation committees,
‘ecumenical’ translation
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 “in today’s language”—ones that sacrifice scriptural
committees operate.
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, Herman Charles Hoskier (d.
1938), and Edward F. Hills (d. 1981), most 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
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
A friend of
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
Geneva Bible (1560); 7) a few of the Greek MSS used by Erasmus. 25 (Erasmus, a Reformation humanist—one dedicated to learning and
and, based on
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´-lott)—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 (Grihz´-bock)—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 (kenn-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-jinn-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-jenn-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 fifth edition (2014)—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 (noo´-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-oo´-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

s |j

Sigma

S, s

Sss

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

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

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

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 Ferrar 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 U.S. 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

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

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
Friderico-Augustanus, 40, 47
Functional equivalence, 42
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
Justify (-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 (’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
Preservation, 43, 56

Preserve (-d), 43, 53, 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
Strong’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, 48
Tartarosas (Gk.), 36
Tas (Gk.), 12
Tatian, 24
Taverner’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 (’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