Is this "Science" or Hocus-Pocus?
Most modern versions like the NASB, NIV, ESV (the 2001 English Standard Version) are based on the Westcott-Hort Greek text, which omits or substitutes some 5000 words and many whole verses from the New Testament Greek text that the King James Bible is derived from.
The W-H text is based primarily on two manuscripts called Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. These two texts disagree significantly with each other, let alone with the vast majority of all other texts, in over 3000 places in the gospels alone, and over 1000 times in the rest of the New Testament. Yet they form the textual basis of most modern bible versions.
Bruce Metzger, the chief editor of the United Bible Society eclectic critical Greek text, says, "It is understandable that in some cases different scholars will come to different evaluations of the significance of the evidence." B.M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament (London: Oxford University Press, 1964), p. 210.
A cursory review of the writings of textual scholars suggests that Metzger's "in some cases" is decidedly an understatement. In fact, even the same scholars will vacillate, as demonstrated by the "more than five hundred changes" introduced into the third edition of the Greek text produced by the United Bible Societies as compared with the second edition. The same committee of five editors prepared both!!!
W. M. Pickering significantly notes that in the space of three years (1975-1978), "with no significant addition of new evidence, the same group of five scholars changed their minds in over five hundred places. It is hard to resist the suspicion that they are just guessing." - The Identity of the New Testament Text, revised edition, Thomas Nelson, Nashville, p. 209, footnote 5 for chapter 1.
In case you are under the impression that all bibles are 99% the same, I highly recommend you take a look at this site called Westcott and Hort's magic marker. There are two parts to this, but it is very easy to follow and will probably shock you to actually see just how different the two basic New Testament texts really are.
http://av1611.com/kjbp/charts/themagicmarker.html
In this study we will be looking at some of the places where the readings found in most modern versions are based on only one, two or a small handful of manuscripts as opposed to the overwhelming majority of all other Greek copies. You will also find many examples of where the Nestle-Aland, UBS critical Greek texts continue to change from one edition to the next. The Modern Multiple-Choice, X Files (the truth is out there somewhere) Bible of the Month Club's contradictory versions have no settled and final text. The main versions referred to in this study are the King James Bible, NKJV, NASB, NIV and the ESV. Of these 5 versions, the NASB, NIV and ESV are primarily based on the Westcott-Hort Alexandrian Greek text, while the KJB and NKJV are based on the Traditional Text of the Greek speaking churches.
Gospel of Matthew
Matthew 6:13 "And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: FOR THINE IS THE KINGDOM, AND THE POWER, AND THE GLORY, FOR EVER. AMEN."
One of the most notable differences between the Catholic bible versions and the Protestant Reformation Bibles has been the ending of what is commonly referred to as the Lord's Prayer. These last words: "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen" are found in the vast Majority of all Greek texts, as well as in four copies of the Old Latin (k,f, g, and q), which predates anything we have in Greek. All these words are also found in the ancient Syriac Peshitta, Harkelian, Curetonian, and Palestinian, as well as the Coptic Boharic and Sahidic, the Georgian, Armenian, Slavonian, and Ethiopian ancient versions. In fact, of over 1000 Greek manuscripts that contain this section of Matthew's gospel, these words are found in all but 10 manuscripts. Dean Burgon mentions emphatically the 100 to one ratio in favor of the King James reading.
The modern English versions present a confused picture even among themselves as to the authenticity of these words. Such modern versions as the NIV, RSV, ESV, Darby, CEV, and the 2003 ISV omit these precious words, as do all Catholic versions.
However the NASB, and the 2003 Holman Christian Standard, include the words but place them in brackets, indicating doubt as to their inspiration.
Other modern versions, which are still based primarily on the UBS, Westcott-Hort texts which omit hundreds and hundreds of words from the New Testament, have gone back to including these words without brackets. Among these are the New Life Bible (Lockman foundation 1969), World English Bible, the Hebrew Names Version, and the 1998 Complete Jewish Bible.
The 2002 version called The Message includes the words but paraphrases them to such a degree that they are virtually unrecognizable. It says: "Keep us safe from ourselves and the Devil. You're in charge! You can do anything you want! You're ablaze in beauty! Yes. Yes. Yes."
The confusion is seen in the two most recent "evangelical" versions to come out. The 2003 International Standard Version omits all these words, while the 2003 Holman Standard contains them.
Even the footnotes found in the modern versions that omit these words give conflicting evidence.
The RSV omits the words as does the NIV, but the RSV footnotes that the reading is found in "Other authorities, some ancient", whereas the NIV footnote is completely false and presents a distorted view of the evidence. The NIV footnotes tells us: "Some late manuscripts" include the verse. SOME?! Is the ratio of 100 to 1 fairly considered as "SOME"? As for "late manuscripts", they apparently do not want you to know the reading is found in copies of SEVERAL ancient Bible versions that predate the very few manuscripts that omit these words. This is not scholarship but sleight of hand.
The ancient Syriac Peshitta reads: " And bring us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever and ever: Amen.?
These words are also found in the following English Bible versions: Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, Bishop's Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, Wesley 1755, Webster's 1833, Young's, the NKJV 1982, the KJV 21st Century, Third Millenium Bible, and Green's Modern KJV.
The list of foreign language Bibles that include the words "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen" is quite impressive. Among them are: the Albanian, Bulgarian, Chinese, Croatian, Danish, Dutch, French Louis Segond, Gaelic, Luther's German, Modern Greek, Gypsy Rhomanese, Hatian Creole, Modern Hebrew, Hungarian, Icelandic, Korean, Latvian, Norwegian, Portuguese, Romanian, Russian, Spanish Reina Valera, Swahili, Turkish, Ukranian, and Vietnamese Bibles.
But in the USA we have such versions that omit these words as the NIV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, ISV, and the New Living Translation.
Some Bible critics I have run into try to tell us that the Doxology found in Matthew 6:13 should be omitted because it is not found in a similar prayer recorded in Luke 11:1-4. These critics fail to notice the obvious. The context of Luke chapter 11is very different from the context of Matthew chapter 6. In Matthew the Lord is giving the sermon on the mount to a great multitude. In Luke it is the disciples who come to our Lord at a different time and request that He teach them how to pray.
There are also some very serious textual changes found in the prayer pattern found in Luke 11:2-4. In the King James Holy Bible we read: "And it came to pass, that, as he was praying in a certain place, when he ceased, one of his disciples said unto him, Lord, teach us to pray, as John also taught his disciples. And he said unto them, When ye pray, say, OUR Father, WHICH ART IN HEAVEN, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. THY WILL BE DONE, AS IN HEAVEN, SO IN EARTH. Give us day by day our daily bread. And forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation; BUT DELIVER US FROM EVIL."
All the capital lettered words have been omitted in such versions as the NIV, RSV, NASB, ESV. Every one of these omitted words are found in the vast Majority of all Greek manuscripts. The NIV, NASB and ESV omit them primarily on the basis of 4 manuscripts, yet among these four "oldest and best", out of the 45 Greek words found within just three verses, no two of them agree with each other in 32 out of the 45 words found here! And the new version editors call this a "science"!
The Lord Jesus Christ either said all these words and they are inspired Scripture, or they are not. Not all bible versions say or teach the same things.
Matthew 6:33
"But seek ye first the kingdom OF GOD, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you."
The modern scholars continue to change both their Greek texts and their translations. They have no settled and firm words of God and continue to disagree with each other about what God wrote and how to translate it.
The words OF GOD (tou theou)in the phrase "the kingdom of God" are found in the Majority of all Greek texts, the Old Latin 150 A.D., which predates by 200 years anything we have in Greek, the Syriac Peshitta 250 A.D., Harkelian, Curetonian, Palestinian, Coptic, Georgian, Armenian, Ethiopian, and Slavonic ancient versions. These all read as does the King James Bible.
The RV, ASV, RSV 1952, NASB, NIV and the 2001 TNIV all omit the words OF GOD, and say: "Seek first His kingdom and His righteousness..."
According to the UBS critical text itself, ONLY Sinaiticus and Vaticanus omit the words OF GOD, and these two "oldest and best manuscripts" even disagree with each other! Sinaiticus says "the kingdom and his righteousness", while Vaticanus reverses the reading and has: "the righteousness and his kingdom", and these are supposedly the "best", even though they differ from each other over 3000 times in the gospels alone.
Bible versions that correctly read as the King James Bible - "Seek ye first the kingdom OF GOD, and his righteousness" are: Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, Bishop's, Geneva 1599, Wesley 1755, Webster's 1833, Douay 1950, Hebrew Names Version, and the brand new Holman Christian Standard, and the 2002 International Standard Version.
The former Nestle-Aland critical Greek text, upon which most modern versions are based, omitted the words OF GOD, but now they have put them back in their Greek text but still in brackets, indicating doubt as to their authenticity.
However as newer versions roll off the presses they keep changing the way Scripture reads. Other modern versions still based primarily on the Westcott-Hort text but having put the words OF GOD back into the English text include the NRSV 1989, ESV 2002, Good News Bible, New American Bible 1970, Contemporary English Version 1991, The Message 2002, Today's English Version 1992, Holman Christian Standard 2002, and the ISV.
Matthew 12:47 "Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee."
This entire verse is found in the Majority of all Greek manuscripts, including C, D, Sinaiticus correction, the Old Latin, and the Syriac Peshitta. However this whole verse is missing from Vaticanus, and the modern versions are in disagreement with each other. It was originally missing from Sinaiticus also, but later was corrected and the verse was put back in the text of Sinaiticus.
The Revised Standard Version of 1952 was the first version to omit the whole verse, but then in 1989 the New Revised Standard put the verse back in their New Testament. But wait! In 2001 the English Standard Version once again removed this whole verse and the ESV jumps from Matthew 12:46 to 12:48. Goodspeed also omitted this verse in 1942 from his translation, and now in 1998 the brand new Complete Jewish Bible has come out and it too omits the entire verse jumping from 12:46 to 12:48.
So we see the RSV omitted it; the NRSV put it back in; and the ESV has once again removed it.
A similar fickle fate is found in the Catholic versions. The 1950 Douay version contains the verse. Then in 1968 The Jerusalem Bible removed it. Then in the St. Joseph New American Bible of 1970 it was placed back in the Catholic bible, but then in 1985 the New Jerusalem Bible once again removed the verse!
Westcott and Hort origianlly omitted the entire verse from their Greek text, all on the basis of the Vaticanus manuscript. Later on, the newer editors of the Nestle-Aland text decided to put it back in without brackets; but then later still, they decided to put brackets around it, thus indicating doubt as to its authenticity.
Other modern versions still include the whole verse. Among these are the NASB, NIV, ISV, NKJV, and the Holman Christian Standard. It is either inspired Scripture or it isn't, but the scholars today can't seem to make up their minds and they disagree among themselves. I don't know why it doesn't occur to them that the reason for such confusion is that the two so called oldest and best manuscripts - Sinaiticus and Vaticanus - are hopelessly corrupt and should be abandoned immediately.
Matthew 14:30 "But when he (Peter) saw the wind BOISTEROUS (iskupon), he was afraid".
The word "boisterous" is in the Majority, Vaticanus correction, C, D, the Old Latin, Syriac, Douay, NRSV, NKJV 1989, NEB 1970 and the brand new Holman Standard and the 2001 ISV. The previous Nestle's text omitted the word, but now they placed it back in their texts in brackets. The NASB, NIV and ESV continue to omit this word. It is interesting that the RSV omitted it, the NRSV then put it back in, and then the ESV took it out again. How is that for consistency?
Matthew 16:2-3. Here we see an example of how ridiculous it is to call modern textual criticism a "science" in any legitimate sense at all. Modern textual criticism has more in common with Voodoo or the Ouija board than science.
In Matthew 16:2-3 we read: "He answered and said unto them, WHEN IT IS EVENING, YE SAY, IT WILL BE FAIR WEATHER; FOR THE SKY IS RED. AND IN THE MORNING, IT WILL BE FOUL WEATHER TO DAY; FOR THE SKY IS RED AND LOWRING. O YE HYPOCRITES, YE CAN DISCERN THE FACE OF THE SKY; BUT CAN YE NOT DISCERN THE SIGNS OF THE TIMES?"
Before we get into the textual matters, I want to address the word "lowring". This is not an archaic word. Webster's 1999 dictionary defines it as meaning "frowning; dark and threatening, gloomy, or sullen." Lowring is also the English word found here in the RV, ASV, Wesley's translation, Geneva Bible, Douay, Darby, Webster's translation, the KJV 21st Century, Third Millenium Bible and even in the 2003 Updated Bible Version. Now, to address the textual issues.
All these words in capital letters from "When"...to "of the times?" are found in the Majority of all Greek texts, including C, D, the Syriac Peshitta and the Old Latin copies. However BOTH Sinaiticus and Vaticanus completely omit all 32 Greek words in these sentences.
The total inconsistency of modern textual criticism is seen here in all its absurdity. There are literally hundreds and hundreds of words and many whole verses omitted from most modern versions based primarily on the omissions found in Sinaiticus and/or Vaticanus, yet right here in Matthew 16:2-3, even though BOTH Sinaiticus and Vaticanus omit all these words, versions like the NASB, NIV, RSV, RV, ASV, ESV, ISV and the Holman Standard, continue to include these two verses in their versions.
Actually, there are a few modern versions that do omit all these 32 words from their translations. These include the New English Bible of 1970, Goodspeed's translation of 1942, and Rotherham's Emphasized Bible 1902.
Even in these two verses another absurdity is SIGNIFICANTLY to be observed. The words "O YE HYPOCRITES" is in all the Greek texts and versions mentioned before, except Sinaiticus and Vaticanus (which omit ALL the words), and manuscript D, which omits the words "O ye hypocrites" but contains all the other 31 words. So what do the NASB, NIV, ESV, ISV etc. do based on one manuscript that included all the other words but omitted the word "hypocrites"? They omit it too! If ever the omission of a reading spoke volumns, this is it. The words "O ye hypocrites" are missing from these modern versions. Do you think there might be a chance these "bible translators" will hear them loud and clear from the mouth of the Lord God Almighty in a coming day?
Matthew 17:15-21 Lunatick, Unbelief, Prayer and Fasting
This section of the gospel of Matthew is really messed up in many modern versions. There is one translational problem (lunatick), and two textual problems - 1. Unbelief versus Little Faith, and 2. all of verse 21 "Howbeit, this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting."
In 17:14-15 we read: "And when they were come to the multitude, there came to him a certain man, kneeling down to him, and saying, Lord, have mercy on my son: for HE IS A LUNATICK, and sore vexed..."
This man's son was possessed of a devil, which caused the lad's mental illness. Jesus then casts out the devil and the boy is cured in that very hour. The word correctly translated as LUNATICK is the Greek word from which we get the word "moon" or "luna". Thus in English we have the lunar cycle. Lunatick means literally "moon-struck", and has to do with mental illness or madness. It is not the physical affliction of epilepsy.
Bible versions that correctly translate this word as Lunatick are the Vulgate in 425 A.D, Wycliffe 1395, Coverdale 1535, Bishop's Bible 1568, Geneva Bible 1599, Wesley's translation 1755, Webster's 1833, the Douay-Rheims, Rotherham's Emphasized bible 1902, Darby, Young's, the KJV 21, Third Millenium Bible, and Green's Modern KJV.
The NASB is interesting in that from 1960 to 1972 it translated this word as "for he is AN EPILEPTIC", with a footnote telling us that the word literally means moonstruck. But then in 1977 and again in the 1995 Update, the NASB now reads "he is a LUNATIC".
Many modern versions tell us the boy was an EPILEPTIC, including the NKJV, RSV, ISV, Holman Standard, and the ESV. The NIV in 1977 said: "he is an epileptic", but then in 1984 changed this to "he has seizures".
In case you miss the obvious, a lunatick is not the same thing as an epileptic. This boy's lunacy was a mental affliction caused by a devil. Epilepsy is a physical disease, and epileptics are not generally considered to be lunaticks. All bibles do not say the same things but with different words.
The next two problems are textual. The disciples ask why they could not cast out the devil and Jesus tells them the reason in Matthew 17:20. "And Jesus said unto them, Because of your UNBELIEF: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove."
The disciples had no faith in regards to healing this boy. The word found in the Majority of all texts including C, D, and translated as "unbelief" in the Old Latin, and the Syriac Peshitta is apistian, which means NO Faith, or "unbelief". Bible versions that correctly read that the disciples suffered from UNBELIEF are Wycliffe, Tyndale, Coverdale, Geneva, Bishop's, Wesley, Webster, Youngs, Darby, NKJV, KJV 21, TMB, MKJV, and even the Catholic Douay version.
However both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus have an obvious blunder and this error is carried over into the modern versions based on these corrupt texts. Instead of reading "because of your unbelief", Sinaiticus and Vaticanus read "because of your LITTLE FAITH".
"Little faith" would mean they had some faith but not enough. The word is quite different from apistian (no faith). It is oligopistian which means little faith. The versions that read this way are the NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV, ISV, Holman Standard and many others.
The reason it is a blunder is because if they had just a little bit of faith and not enough to cure this boy, then it makes no sense for Jesus to then tell them if they had faith as a grain of mustard seed, they would be able to remove mountains. Faith as a grain of mustard seed IS "a little bit of faith". Their problem was they had NO faith. The King James reading is correct; the other one is not.
The third problem in this section is the whole of verse of 17:21. Here we read Jesus saying: "Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting."
This entire verse is found in the Majority of all Greek texts, including C, D, and Sinaiticus correction. It is also found in at least 12 Old Latin copies as well as the Syriac Peshitta and Harclean ancient versions.
However Vaticanus and a few others omit the entire verse. Versions that omit the verse from the text of the Bible are the RV, ASV, RSV, NIV 1984, ESV 2001, The Message 2002, and the New Living Bible 1996.
The NASB includes the verse but puts it in brackets, indicating doubt as to its authenticity and so does the Holman Christian Standard. However the 2003 ISV (International Standard Version) puts the whole verse back in the text.
The whole verse is found in all the older versions that preceded the King James Bible, including the Latin Vulgate 425 A.D, Wycliffe 1295, Tyndale, Coverdale, Bishop's Bible, the Geneva Bible, and is found in such versions as the NKJV, New Life Version, Douay-Rheims (though the more modern Catholic versions omit it), Webster's, Young's, Darby, World English Bible, KJV 21 and the Third Millenium Bible.
The verse is either inspired Scripture spoken by our Lord Jesus Christ or it is not. The Lord said heaven and earth would pass away but His words would not pass away. All these bible versions cannot equally be the complete, inspired, infallible words of God. Some of them have either added to the words of God or taken away from His inspired words.
The "science" of textual criticism can't seem to get its act together and the various versions conflict with each other in both texts and meaning. The question to ask yourself is: Do we have a perfect Holy Bible today, or have some of God's words been lost or mixed up to where we cannot be sure about what He inspired to be written? Do we have an inspired Bible or just a mixture of conflicting readings that may or may not approximate what God might have said?
Matthew 18:11 "For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost."
This entire verse is found in the Majority of all Greek texts, including D and at least 21 other uncial (capital letter) copies. It is also found in the Syriac Peshitta, Harkelian, Curetonian, and in some Coptic Boharic, as well as at least 13 Old Latin copies.
Westcott and Hort omitted the entire verse on the basis of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, and now the whole verse is missing from the texts of the NIV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, The Message, CEV, New Living Translation, and the more modern Catholic bible versions.
The Catholic Douay, and Douay-Rheims versions contain the whole verse without brackets, but the newer Catholic versions, the Jerusalem Bible and St. Joseph New American Bible, both omit the verse entirely.
The NASB puts the verse in the text but again in {brackets}, indicating doubt as to its authenticity, and so does the 2002 Holman Christian Standard.
However the whole verse is included as inspired Scripture spoken by our Lord Jesus Christ in the following Bibles: The Vulgate 425 A.D., Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, Bishop's Bible 1568, Geneva Bible 1599, Wesley 1755, Webster's 1833, Young's, Darby's, World English Bible, Hebrew Names Version, New Life Bible 1969, NKJV, KJV 21, TMB, Green's Modern KJV, and it is placed back in the text without brackets by the new 2003 International Standard Version.
Again, we see the total inconsistency of the modern "scientific" scholars. What one denies as inspired Scripture, another affirms to be the very words of God.
Among the foreign language Bible versions that contain the whole verse of Matthew 18:11 "For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost." are: the Albanian, Arabic, Bulgarian, Chinese, Danish, Dutch, French Louis Segond, Gaelic, German Luther, Modern Greek, Gypsy Rhomanese, Hatian Creole Bible, Modern Hebrew, Hungarian, Icelandic, Italian, Korean, Latvian, Norwegian, Portuguese, Rumanian, Russian, Spanish, Turkish, Ukranian, and Vietnamese bibles.
To demonstrate the fickleness and inconsistency of the modern version in following or not the variant readings of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, we will consider a few minor examples found in this same chapter of Matthew 18.
In Matthew 18:15 we read: "Moreover if thy brother sin AGAINST THEE (eis se), go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone." The words "against thee" are missing from both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, but they are found in the Majority of all Greek texts and in the Old Latin and the Syriac. The Nestles Greek text used to omit these two words entirely, but later they added them but put them in {brackets}.
In spite of the words "sin AGAINST YOU" being omitted by Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, only the NASB and the Jehovah Witness versions omit these words. Obviously their omission changes the meaning and application of the passgage. The NASB reads: "If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private."
On the other hand, versions like the NIV, NKJV, RSV, ESV, ISV, and the Holman Standard all reject in this place the two texts which are responsible for the omission of hundreds of other words in their New Testament versions, and here follow the Traditional textual reading of the King James Bible - "If your brother sins AGAINST YOU, go and tell him his fault." And they call this willy-nilly process the "science of textual criticism".
In Matthew 18:19 Vaticanus adds an additional word which would make the beginning of the sentence say: "Again VERILY (amen) I say unto you...". But this extra word is not found in Sinaiticus and this time the NASB, NIV, RSV, RV, ASV do not follow Vaticanus, but omit the word.
In Matthew 18:26 we read: "The servant therefore fell down and worshipped him, saying, LORD, have patience with me, and I will pay thee all."
Here the word LORD is found in the Majority of all texts including Sinaiticus, and so read the Revised Version, American Standard Version, and the Revised Standard Version. But because Vaticanus omits the word "Lord", the NASB, NIV, ESV, ISV, and Holman omit it. Why was it "scientific" for the RV, ASV, RSV to include the word based on the same evidence, and then "scientific" for the NASB, ESV and NIV to omit it, still based on the same evidence? Go figure.
Finally in 18:34 we read: "And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due UNTO HIM." The words "unto him" are found in the Majority of all texts including Sinaiticus and the NASB. But Vaticanus omits these last two words and so does the NIV.
Do you see how both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus constantly differ from each other (over 3000 times in the gospels alone) and the modern versions are totally inconsistent in which text they chose to follow and they end up contradicting each other? If you focus on man and his faulty abilities, you will never have the sure words of God. Only if you believe God is faithful to keep His promises to preserve His infallible words, and has providentially done so in the King James Bible will you ever be able to say with confidence "Thus saith the Lord".
Matthew 19:16-17 "And, behold, one came and said unto him, GOOD Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? And he said unto him, WHY CALLEST THOU ME GOOD? there is NONE good but one, THAT IS, GOD: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments."
This same event is found three times in the holy gospels. It is also found in Mark 10:17 and in Luke 18:18 where even the NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV, and ISV say the same thing as recorded here - Matthew 19:17 - in the King James Bible. The reading found in the King James Bible is that of the Majority of all texts, including C plus at least 17 other uncial copies. It is also the reading of the Syriac Peshitta, Curetonian, Harkelian, the Coptic Sahidic, some Boharic, and the Old Latin copies of f and q.
However Sinaiticus and Vaticanus again are responsible for a very different reading which is followed by the Catholic versions and the NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV, ISV and the Holman Standard versions. Instead of the man calling Christ GOOD Master, and the Lord responding with: "WHY CALLEST THOU ME GOOD? there is NONE good but one, THAT IS, GOD", Sinaiticus and Vaticanus omit the word "good" in verse 16 and in verse 17 unite in reading: "WHY ARE YOU ASKING ME ABOUT WHAT IS GOOD? There is only One who is good." This meaning contradicts the other two accounts found in Mark and Luke, where the same event is recorded, even in the NASB, NIV, RSV, and ISV.
Is it "textual science" for these modern versions to follow Sinaiticus and Vaticanus in Matthew 19:17 against virtually all other manuscripts, and yet to not follow these same two "oldest and best" in Matthew 16:2-3 where they omit almost two whole verses, but the NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV include them?
Or how about Matthew 27:49? A very serious error occurs here in both of these manuscripts, which is not used by the NASB, NIV, ESV, ISV or the RSV, though the reading is noted in the RSV footnote as, *Other ancient authorities insert - "And another took a spear and pierced his side and there came out water and blood." This is the reading of both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. It has a man killing our Lord rather than He Himself commending His spirit into the hands of the Father and voluntarily giving up the ghost.
This reading has Christ being put to death at this time, yet we see from the very next verse and the other gospels that He continues to speak! In Luke 23:44-46 Jesus says, "Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit", and John 19:30 says, "When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost".
It is not until AFTER our Lord said all these things, and He Himself voluntarily gave up His own life that we read in John 19:34, "one of the soldiers with a spear piered his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water".
Obviously some very careless scribes took this reading from John's gospel and placed it in Matthew 27:49, where it is completely out of order. Yet this reading is found in both of these "oldest and best" manuscripts upon which most modern versions are based.
In Matthew 19:20 we read: "The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept FROM MY YOUTH UP: what lack I yet?" The words "from my youth up" (ek neoteetos mou) are again found in the Majority of all texts, including C, D, and even Sinaiticus correction. They are also in the Old Latin and the Syriac texts. But once again, Vaticanus omits these words and so do the RSV, NASB, NIV, ESV, and ISV.
The Catholic Douay-Rheims retains the words "from my youth", but the Douay omits them as do the other modern Catholic versions. The words "from my youth up" are found in Wycliffe, Tyndale, Coverdale, Bishop's, Geneva, Wesley, Webster, KJV 21, NKJV, MKJV, TMB, World English Bible, Hebrew Names Version, and Young's.
To again show the fickleness and inconsistency of the modern versions and the texts they are based on, we will take a quick look at Matthew 19:29.
Matthew 19:29 "And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, OR WIFE, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive AN HUNDREDFOLD, and shall inherit everlasting life."
Here the word "wife" is found in most texts including Sinaiticus, but Vaticanus omits this word and so do the NASB, NIV, ESV. Likewise the word "hundredfold" (hekatontaplasiona) is found in all texts including Sinaiticus, and "hundredfold" is the reading of the NIV, RSV, ISV, ESV, RV, ASV etc; but Vaticanus reads "many times as much" (pollaplastonta) and only the NASB follows the Vaticanus reading in this verse.
So, in this one verse alone, both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus differ from each other twice, and most of the modern versions follow Vaticanus in one instance and Sinaiticus in the other, - but not all. The NASB differs from the others. And they call this "science"!
Matthew 21:28-31 "But what think ye? A certain man had two sons; and he came to the first, and said, Son, go work to day in my vineyard. He answered and said I WILL NOT; BUT AFTERWARD HE REPENTED, AND WENT. And he came to the second, and said likewise. And he answered and said, I GO, SIR; AND WENT NOT. Whether of the twain did the will of his father? They say unto him, THE FIRST."
This is the reading found in the Majority of all texts including Sinaiticus and is the reading not only of the KJB but also of the RV, ASV, RSV, ESV, NIV, NKJV. However the case with the NASB is quite interesting. From 1960 through 1977, a period of 9 revisions, the NASB followed the Vaticanus manuscript which reverses these two sons, but then in 1995 the NASB reversed themselves again from the previous NASBs and changed their readings back to match that of all the other versions. The NASB 95 Update now reads like the KJB.
From 1960 through 1977 the NASB read: "he came to the first and said, Son go work in the vineyard. And he answered and said, I WILL SIR, AND HE DID NOT GO. And he came to the second and said the same thing. But he answered and said, I WILL NOT, YET AFTERWARD HE REGRETTED IT AND WENT. Which of the two did the will of his father? They say, THE LATTER."
Matthew 23:4 "For they bind heavy burdens AND GRIEVOUS TO BE BORNE, and lay them on men's shoulders." All texts read "and grievous to be borne", (kai dusbastakta) including Vaticanus, except Sinaiticus which omits these words. Here the NASB and NIV chose to follow ONE manuscript (Sinaiticus) and omit these words; yet "and grievous to be borne" is found in the Revised Version, the ASV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, and the NKJV.
One last verse of interest in Matthew is 27:24 where Pilate washes his hands and says: "I am innocent of the blood of this JUST PERSON." The reading of this "just person" (tou dikaiou toutou) is in all Greek manuscripts including Sinaiticus; only three manuscripts omit the word "just" or "righteous", two very minor and Vaticanus. Even when the Westcott-Hort text first came out, the Revised Version and the American Standard Version kept this word in their texts and read as the KJB, Douay, NKJV, Lamsa's translation of the ancient Syriac, Tyndale, Geneva, and Wycliffe. The first English version to omit this word "just" was the liberal RSV and from then on the NASB, NIV, and ESV followed suit and now omit the word because of Vaticanus. So the NASB, NIV now read: "I am innocent of this man's blood", leaving out the testimony of Pilate that He was a "JUST PERSON".