Gospel of John
John 7:8-10 Is Jesus Christ a liar?
John 7:8-10 Here we read of Jesus telling his brethren to go up unto a feast and He says: "I go NOT up YET unto this feast; for my time is not yet full come. When he had said these words unto them, he abode still in Gallilee. But when his brethren were gone up, then went he also up unto the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret." He did in fact go up to the feast.
Vaticanus, as well as P66, 75, and the majority of all texts read as does the KJB with: "I go not up YET unto this feast", and so do the Revised Version 1881, Geneva, Tyndale, Bishops', Coverdale, the NIV, Holman Standard, the 2005 ISV (International Standard Version), Young, Weymouth, Rotherham's Emphasized Bible 1902.
However Sinaiticus says: "I DO NOT GO to this feast", and so do the NASB, ASV, RSV, ESV and Wallace's NET version thus making our Lord a liar. The fickle nature of this so called "science" is also seen in that Westcott and Hort originally read "NOT YET" and so did the previous Nestle-Aland critical texts up until a few years ago. But the more recent ones have "scientifically" changed to now read "I do NOT go to this feast."
Daniel Wallace's NET version has the Lord saying He is NOT going to the feast, and then going. But the thinking of such "scholars" is revealed in his own footnotes where he says: " Most mss (66,75 B L T W 070 0105 0250 1,13, sa), including most of the better witnesses, have "not yet" here. Those with the reading "not" (ouk) are not as impressive ( D K 1241 al lat), but "ouk" is the more difficult reading here, especially because it stands in tension with v. 10." So, in other words, because it absurdly makes our Lord Jesus a liar, it must be right!
Wilbur Pickering, who himself is not even a KJB onlyist, comments on this blunder: Serious Anomalies/Aberrations -John 7:8 oupw--P66,75,B,E,F,G,H,L,N,T,W,X,D,Q,Y 070,0105,0141,0250,f1,13,Byz,Lect,syrp,h,pal,cosa "NOT YET" ; ouk --,D,K,P,lat,syrs,c,cobo "NOT" Problem: Since Jesus did in fact go to the feast (and doubtless knew what He was going to do), the UBS text has the effect of ascribing a falsehood to Him.
Discussion: Since the UBS editors usually attach the highest value to P75 and B, isn't it strange that they reject them in this case? Here is Metzger's explanation: "The reading ["not yet"] was introduced at an early date (it is attested by P66,75) in order to alleviate the inconsistency between ver. 8 and ver. 10" (p. 216). So, they rejected P66,75 and B (as well as 99% of the MSS) because they preferred the "inconsistency". NASB, RSV, NEB and TEV stay with the eclectic text here. (end of comments by Dr. Pickering.)
Also in just these three verses we see that the word "this" of THIS FEAST is omitted by B but found in Aleph, but the NASB and NIV both omit the word, while "UNTO THEM" is in the NASB and B, but not in the NIV or Aleph, and "AS IT WERE" is in B and the NASB, but not in Aleph and the NIV. This is the character of these two manuscripts and bible versions in a nutshell.
John 7:53-8:11 - the woman taken in adultery. These entire 12 verses are included in the Majority of all texts, the Old Latin and the Syriac Peshitta translated by Lamsa; as well as the Coptic Boharic, Armenian and Ethiopic ancient versions. However both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus omit these 12 entire verses and so does the Revised Standard Version. At least the RSV was being consistent in their method of adopting the Westcott-Hort Greek text. However the NASB, NIV and ESV all include these verses in their versions. Why? If they already have rejected 14 other entire verses in the New Testament on the basis of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, then why retain these extra twelve?
The NASB, NIV and ESV all contain footnotes for these verses saying: "The earliest and most reliable manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53-8:11" (NIV 1978 edition.) However, the NIV Scofield edition 1982 says: "Although not found is some ancient manuscripts, the immediate context, beginning with Christ's declaration, "I am the light of the world" (8:12) seems clearly to have its occasion in the conviction wrought in the hearts of the Pharisees as recorded in 8:9, and also helps to explain the Pharisees' word in 8:41. It is therefore to be considered a genuine part of the Gospel."
If the NASB, NIV, ESV scholars really believe Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are the best and most reliable texts, then they should follow them and not include these 12 verses in their versions. Why omit some 5000 words from the New Testament primarily because of Sinaiticus-Vaticanus, not follow them in Mark 16:9-20 and John 7:53-8:11, and then call this whole textual process "scientific"?
The 2003 Holman Christian Standard bible tells us in their Introduction: "In a few places in the N.T., large square brackets indicate texts that the HCSB translation team and most biblical scholars today believe WERE NOT PART OF THE ORIGINAL TEXT." They say they include them for "their undeniable antiquity" and their "value for tradition".
These "few places in the N.T." include at least 39 entire verses that, by their own admission, "were not part of the original text"!!! Among these are Matthew 17:21; 18:11; 23:14; Mark 7:16; 15:28; 16:9-20; Luke 17:36; 22:43-44; 23:17; John 5:3-4; 7:53-8:11; Acts 8:37; 24:6-7, and Romans 16:24.
If the HCSB people are so committed to inerrancy and are "champions for absolute truth against any compromise with inaccuracy" (as they claim), then why do they include in their new version at least 39 entire verses that they don't think were "part of the original text"? These Scriptures are either inspired of God and belong in the Holy Bible, or they are spurious additions that have no place in any bible version at all.
John 8:16 - “And if I judge, my judgment is true: for I am not alone, but I and THE FATHER that sent me.”
The purpose of this little study is not so much to point out a huge difference in the meaning of the text, but rather to expose the fickleness upon which the so called “science of textual criticism” is based. This is just one of a hundred typical examples found in the New Testament.
There is a very definite textual difference in the reading of this verse. The words “the Father” are found in the vast Majority of all Greek texts as well as in P39, 66 and 75, and in the Sinaiticus correction, Vaticanus, many Old Latin copies, as well as the ancient versions like the Syriac Peshitta, Harkelian, Palestinian, Coptic Boharic and Sahidic, Armenian, Ethiopian, Georgian, Latin Vulgate and Slavonic. So one would naturally think that there should be absolutely no doubt about the inclusion of the words “the Father” in this text.
However, Sinaiticus original (which was later corrected to include the words) as well as manuscript D (well known for its numerous oddities) omit the words “the Father” and so do a number of modern versions. The interesting thing is that the Nestle-Aland critical texts keep on changing every few years and so does the NASB, which is based upon them.
When Westcott and Hort came out with their new critical text, they originally put the Greek words for “the Father” [in brackets], indicating doubt about their inspiration. Then in many later editions of the Nestle-Aland critical texts, they completely omitted the words “the Father” from their text. BUT now, based upon the same evidence they have ALWAYS had, the critical text ‘scholar’s’ have put the words “the Father” back into the text, and this time not even in brackets. That makes for THREE changes in the critical text editions over the years concerning just one word in the Greek - Father - pater.
The words “but I and THE FATHER that sent me” are found in the following Bible translations: Wycliffe 1395, Coverdale 1535, Bishops’ Bible1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, the KJB, Douay, Darby, Youngs, the Revised Version of 1881 (though WH bracketed the words, the RV included them in their version), the ASV of 1901, the “Rock of Biblical Honesty” [What a joke!] of the NASB, the NKJV, NIV, NRSV 1989, and the ESV of 2004.
As for foreign language Bibles, the words “the Father” are found in Luther’s German, the French Louis Segond, Martin, and Ostervald, the Spanish Reina Valera, the Portuguese Almeida and the Italian Diodati, just to name a few.
However, the NASB omitted the words “the Father” from all 8 of their revisions dating from 1963 till 1977. For all those years the NASB read: “for I am not alone in it, but I and HE WHO sent Me.” In other words, the NASB “scholars”, in spite of all the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, omitted the word “Father” and followed the reading of manuscript D in this place. But wait! Now once again in 1995 the NASB has changed and it now includes the word. The 1995 edition of the NASB now reads: “but I and THE FATHER who sent Me.”
Other bible versions that omit the words “the Father” and read things like “the One who” or “he who sent me” are the Revised Standard Version (but the later NRSV, and ESV put the words “the Father” back in), the Revised English Bible of 1989, the New English Bible of 1970, the Catholic versions of New American bible 1970, the Jerusalem bible 1969 and the New Jerusalem bible 1985, the New Berkeley version, and the up and coming ISV - International Standard Version. These guys just can’t seem to get their act together, can they.
This one example serves to illustrate the fickle and ever-changing nature of what the Bible Agnostics like to call the “science” of textual criticism.
John 8:38-39 "I speak that which I have seen with MY Father; and ye do that which ye have SEEN with YOUR father. They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye WERE Abraham's children, YE WOULD DO the works of Abraham."
There are two spiritual families. The children of God and the children of the devil. In John 8:44 the Lord Jesus tells these same Pharisees: "Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do."
The readings found in the King James Bible in verses 38-39 are those of the Majority of all Greek texts, and those found in Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, Bishops' Bible 1568, Geneva Bible 1599, King James Bible, the NKJV 1982, Darby, Young's, Green's Modern KJV, Hebrew Names Bible, the Spanish Reina Valera and Lamsa's 1936 translation of the Syriac Peshitta.
However the so called "oldest and best" manuscripts upon which most modern versions are based are in continual disagreement among themselves and so are the modern versions based on them.
"I speak that which I have seen with MY Father" is the reading of the Majority of all texts including Sinaiticus. However Vaticanus omits "MY" (mou) and reads "THE" Father (tw).
"Ye do that which YE HAVE SEEN" (heoorake) is the Majority reading plus that of P66 and Sinaiticus. However Vaticanus reads: "you DO that which you HAVE HEARD" (eekousate), while P75 says "you SPEAK what you have heard"
"that which ye have seen with YOUR father" (humoon)is the Majority reading plus Sinaiticus, but Vaticanus reads "THE father" (tou).
"IF YE WERE Abraham's seed, YE WOULD DO the works of Abraham." The words "if ye were" (ean eete) are in the subjunctive mood in the Majority and C texts, and this means that they are NOT Abraham's seed. It is a contrary to fact construction. However Sinaiticus and Vaticanus read in the indicative mood "If you are" (ei este).
Then in the second part of this verse the words "YE WOULD DO" (epoiete) again imply "contrary to fact" and agree with the previous verb in the subjunctive mood. So read the Majority, P75 and Sinaiticus, plus the Vaticanus correction. However Vaticanus original and P66 read "YOU DO" (poiete) in the indicative mood, and make it a command "DO". The older Nestle-Aland texts used to read like the KJB and Majority with "ye would do", but they recently have once again changed their Greek texts to now read as a command "DO", but not all the modern versions follow this present reading.
MODERN VERSION CONFUSION
The NET version by Daniel Wallace of Dallas Theological Seminary - "I am telling you the things I have seen while with THE Father; as for you, PRACTICE the things you have HEARD from THE Father!" They answered him, (omits "and said") "Abraham is our father!" Jesus replied, (omits "unto them") "If you ARE Abraham's children, you WOULD BE DOING the deeds of Abraham."
ASV - "Jesus saith unto them, IF YE WERE Abraham's children, YE WOULD DO the works of Abraham."
NIV - "I am telling you what I have seen in THE Father's presence, and you do what you HAVE HEARD from YOUR father. "Abraham is our father," they answered. "IF YOU WERE Abraham's children," said Jesus, "then YOU WOULD DO the things Abraham did."
NASB - "I speak the things which I have seen with [MY] Father; therefore you also do the things which you HEARD from [YOUR] father." They answered and said to Him, "Abraham is our father." Jesus said to them, "IF YOU ARE Abraham's children, DO the deeds of Abraham."
RSV - "I speak of what I have seen with MY Father, and you do what you have HEARD from YOUR father." They answered him, "Abraham is our father." Jesus said to them, "IF YOU WERE Abraham's children, YOU WOULD DO what Abraham did."
NRSV - "I declare what I have seen in THE Father's presence; as for you, you SHOULD DO what you have HEARD from THE Father." They answered him, "Abraham is our father." Jesus said to them, "IF YOU WERE Abraham's children, you WOULD BE DOING what Abraham did."
ESV - "I speak of what I have seen with MY Father, and you do what you have HEARD from YOUR father." They answered him, "Abraham is our father." Jesus said to them, "IF YOU WERE Abraham's children, YOU WOULD BE DOING what Abraham did."
Holman Standard - "I speak what I have seen in the presence of THE Father, and therefore you do what you have heard from YOUR father." "Our father is Abraham!" they replied."IF YOU WERE Abraham's children," Jesus told them, "YOU WOULD DO what Abraham did."
COMPARISONS
MY Father - KJB, NKJV, NASB, RSV, ESV - Sinaiticus
THE Father - NIV, NRSV, Holman - Vaticanus
SEEN - KJB, NKJV, Tyndale, Geneva, Youngs, Darby - P66, Sinaiticus
HEARD - NIV, NASB, RSV, NRSV, ESV, Holman - P75, Vaticanus
YOUR father - KJB, NKJV, NIV, NASB, RSV, ESV, Holman - Sinaiticus
THE Father - NRSV, NET version (Daniel Wallace)- Vaticanus
IF YE WERE...YE WOULD DO --- Contrary to fact. They are not Abrahams seed. - KJB, NKJV, NIV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, Holman - "ye would do" -Sinaiticus
IF YOU ARE....DO --- Not contrary to fact. They are so they should do. - NASB, NET version. - "do" - Vaticanus
John 9:4 "I must do the works of him that sent ME, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work." Both "I" must do the works, and "him that sent ME" is the reading in the Majority of all texts as well as Sinaiticus correction, A, C, the Syriac Peshitta, Old Latin, Coptic, Gothic, Arminian and Ethiopic ancient versions. However the NASB, NIV, ESV scholars got themselves in a bit of a bind here because their "oldest and most reliable" texts are in total disarray.
The NASB, NIV, ESV say: "WE must work the works of him that sent US." They came up with this reading because Vaticanus says "WE must work"; but then Vaticanus also ends with "him that sent ME", while Sinaiticus has "him that sent US". So they adopted the scientific method of winging it as long as it differs from the King James Bible. But now the new ISV is coming out and guess what? They have gone back to the KJB reading of "I must do the works of him that sent ME."
John 10:17-18 "Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. No man TAKETH it from me, but I lay it down of myself."
Here obviously the Lord Jesus is still alive and He states that no man would take His life but that He would lay it down of Himself. "No man TAKETH it from me", (present tense - aipei) is found in all texts including Sinaiticus, except two, one of which is Vaticanus. "No man taketh it from me" is the reading of the RV, ASV, NIV, ESV, RSV, and ISV. The Vaticanus reading is absurd but that didn't stop the previousNestle-Aland scholars from following Vaticanus in their text. ONLY the NASB has adopted the Vaticanus reading which puts this verb in the past tense (eeren) and says: "No one HAS TAKEN IT AWAY from me, but I lay it down..." Duh, wouldn't it be obvious that no man had taken His life is He were still alive and speaking to them? The NASB 95 still reads this way, but the Nestle text has once again changed their scholarly opinions and gone back to the KJB reading.
The following is just a sampling of some of the divergent readings found in the few conflicting manuscripts that many modern scholars follow in their attempt to overthrow the traditional Received Text of the New Testament.
This handful of older manuscripts are often in complete disagreement among themselves. The ones I will mention are Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, P66, P75, and sometimes C or D too.
In John 3:3 we read "Jesus answered AND SAID UNTO HIM". So reads Vaticanus, but Sinaiticus omits the words "and said unto him". In John 3:8 we read "so is every one that is born of the Spirit", but Sinaiticus says: "BORN OF WATER and of the Spirit". In John 3:5 "he cannot ENTER into the kingdom of GOD", but Sinaiticus says "he cannot SEE the kingdom of HEAVEN."
In John 3:20 Sinaiticus omits the words "neither cometh to the light" and it omits all of verse 21: "But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.", but they are found in Vaticanus.
In John 3:25 there was a question with THE JEWS (Sinaiticus), but Vaticanus says it was with A JEW.
In John 3:28 we read Jesus's words saying: "Ye yourselves bear ME witness", and so read P66, Vaticanus, A and D, along with the NASB, but Sinaiticus and P75 omit this word and so does the NIV.
In John 3:31 the Majority, Vaticanus and P66 say "he that cometh from heaven IS ABOVE ALL", but Sinaiticus original and P75 omit these words.
In John 3:34 we read that "GOD giveth not THE SPIRIT by measure unto him", yet Vaticanus, Sinaiticus omit the word GOD and so does the NASB, but the NIV retains it, and Vaticanus omits the words THE SPIRIT, but Sinaiticus and the others retain it.
In John 4:1 we read that THE LORD knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus baptized, and this is the reading of P66, P75 and Vaticanus along with the NASB, but Sinaiticus says JESUS and so does the NIV.
In John 4:41 we read: "...his servants met him, AND TOLD HIM, saying THY son liveth." P75 and Vaticanus omit the words "and told him" and the NASB omits them too, but they are found in the Majority of texts, Sinaiticus and P66 and are included in the NIV. "THY son liveth" is the Majority reading, as well as that of P66 correction, but P75, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus read HIS son lives, and so too the NASB, NIV.
John 5:17 - "But JESUS answered them...". So read the Majority, P66, A, C, and D and the NIV, but P75, Sin and Vat omit "Jesus" and the NASB simply says "he". This may seem minor, but the inconsistency is seen in John 5:19 where again we read: "Then answered JESUS and said unto them...". This time the word JESUS is in the Majority, P66 and A, while Vaticanus and P75 omit the word JESUS again, but this time the NASB decided to keep it in. They just reversed themselves in their "scientific" method of textual criticism.
John 5:30 "but the will of THE FATHER which hath sent me." So read the Majority and P66, but Sinaiticus and Vaticanus omit "the Father" and so do the NASB, NIV.
John 5:44 - "and seek not the honour that cometh from GOD only." Here Vaticanus, P66 and P75 all unite in omitting the word GOD, yet it is in Sinaiticus, A and D and this time the NASB, NIV include it too!
John 6:69 - "we believe and are sure that thou art THE CHRIST, THE SON OF THE LIVING GOD." So read the Majority of all texts including at least 17 uncials, the Old Latin copies, Syriac, Peshitta, Harkelian, Palestinian, some Coptic Boharic, the Gothic, Armenian and Ethiopic ancient versions. However P66 reads "THE CHRIST, the HOLY ONE OF GOD", while P75, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus all omit "the Christ" and have instead "the holy one of God". So read the NASB, NIV.
John 7:8 - Here the Lord says: "I go not up YET unto this feast; for my time is not yet come." So read the Majority of all texts including P66, P75 and Vaticanus, and so too does the NIV. However the NASB makes Jesus a liar by following the Sinaiticus reading where it says "I go NOT to this feast" and yet two verses later He does indeed go up to the feast.
John 7:10 - "then went he also up unto the feast, not openly, but AS IT WERE, in secret." So read the Majority, Vaticanus, P66 and P75 and the NASB. But this time Sinaiticus omits the words "as it were" and so does the NIV.
John 7:39 "...for the HOLY Ghost was not yet given". So read the Majority of Greek texts, plus P66 correction and Vaticanus. However Sinaiticus and P75 omit the word "holy" and so too do the NASB, NIV.
John 7:53 all the way through John 8:11. These entire 12 verses are missing from Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, though they are found in the vast Majority of all Greek texts including D plus at least 15 other uncials, many Old Latin copies, the Vulgate, Syriac Palestinian, Lamsa's translation of the Syriac Peshitta, some Coptic Boharic, and the Ethiopian versions. It is quoted or referred to by many early church Fathers. However since P66, P75, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus all omit these entire 12 verses, we can well ask, Why do the NASB, NIV, ESV, and Holamn versions all keep them in their bibles?. Why not be consistent and delete all 12 verses from their texts just like the old RSV did? Hello? Is any body there?
John 8:16 - "for I am not alone, but I and THE FATHER that sent me." Here the reading of THE FATHER is found in Vaticanus, P66, and P75 and in the NIV. But the NASB used to follow Sinaiticus and D which omit "the Father" and from 1963 to 1977 the NASB simply said "HE who sent me." But now in 1995 the NASB has changed once again and now adopts the reading of "the Father that sent me."
John 8:28 - "Then said Jesus UNTO THEM, When ye have lifted up..." The words "unto them" are found in the Majority, P66, P75, and Sinaiticus, but Vaticanus omits them and this time the NASB, NIV go along with the Vaticanus reading instead and omit the words.
John 8:28 Again -Then in the very same verse, the "scientific" method of textual criticism has led the NASB, NIV people to completely reverse themselves just a few words later. Here we read: �but as MY Father hath taught me, I speak these things." MY Father is the reading of the Majority of texts and Vaticanus. But P66, P75 and Sinaiticus omit the word "my" and this time the NASB, NIV reverse themselves180 degrees and now reject the reading found in Vaticanus, whose text they just got done accepting for the first part of the verse, while rejecting the others. Go figure.
John 8:38 - "I speak that which I have seen with MY Father: and you do that which ye have SEEN with YOUR Father.". So read the Majority of all texts, but the "oldest and best" are all over the board. MY Father is found in Sinaiticus, but P66, 75 and Vaticanus omit it and so too the NIV, with the NASB putting "MY" in italics. Then SEEN is the reading of Sinaiticus and P66, while Vaticanus and P75 say HEARD, and the NASB, NIV go for this errant reading. YOUR Father is found in the Majority and Sinaiticus, but Vaticanus, P66 and 74 omit it and end up with the ridiculous reading like the one found in the NRSV and the NET versions with "you do that which you have heard with THE father."!!!
Daniel Wallace's goofy NET version actually reads like this: "I am telling you the things I have seen while with the Father; as for you, practice the things you have heard from the Father!"
John 8:39 - "If ye WERE Abraham's children, YE WOULD DO the works of Abraham." Clearly Jesus is telling the Pharisees that they are children of the devil and not of God, and that they are not the children of Abraham. "If ye were" is contrary to fact; they weren't Abraham's children. YE WOULD DO is also contrary to fact and is the reading in the Majority, P75 and Sinaiticus. But Vaticanus original and P66 say DO, and the NASB has adopted this reading "If you ARE the children of Abraham, DO the deeds of Abraham." Not even the NIV reads this way but says: "If you WERE Abraham's children, then YOU WOULD DO the things Abraham did."
John 8:54 - "it is my Father that honoureth me; of whom ye say, that he is YOUR God." YOUR God is found in Sinaiticus, Vaticanus and P66 original, and in the NIV, RV, ASV, Douay, RSV, NKJV and of course the KJB. However P75 and P66 third correction read OUR God, and so the NASB now reads: "of whom you say, He is OUR God."
John 8:57 - "Thou art not yet fifty years old, and HAST THOU SEEN ABRAHAM?" So read the Majority, Vaticanus and P66, but P75 and Sinaiticus actually read: "AND HAS ABRAHAM SEEN YOU?"
John 9:4 " I must work the works of him that sent ME, while it is day." Both "I" and "him that sent ME" are the Majority reading, and Sinaiticus correction, A and C, but P66, 75, Sinaiticus original and Vaticanus say "WE must work the works...." The NASB, NIV have adopted this reading. But wait. Instead of "him that sent ME" which is even the reading of Vaticanus (and so in the NASB, NIV), the Sinaiticus, P66 and 75 actually say " of him that sent US."
John 9:38 - "And he said, Lord, I believe. And he worshipped him." This entire verse is omitted by Sinaiticus original and P75, yet it is found in the Majority, Vaticanus and P66. So far as I know, only Daniel Wallace proposes getting rid of this entire verse. It is still found in the NASB, NIV.
John 10:10 - "All that ever came BEFORE ME are thieves and robbers." The words BEFORE ME are in Vaticanus and P66 and the NASB, NIV, but Sinaiticus and P75 omit them.
John 10:26 - "But ye believe not, because ye are not my sheep, AS I SAID UNTO YOU." So read the Majority of texts including P66, A and D, but Sinaiticus, Vaticanus and P75 omit these words and so do the NASB, NIV.
John 10:29 - "My Father, WHICH GAVE THEM ME, IS GREATER THAN ALL." So read the Majority, Sinaiticus, and P66. So to the NASB, NIV. However Vaticanus reads: "WHAT MY FATHER HAS GIVEN ME IS GREATER THAN ALL ELSE" and this is actually the reading found in the NRSV.
John 11:50 - "Nor consider that it is expedient FOR US, that one man should die for the people." So read the Majority and A. However Sinaiticus omits the words "for us" altogether, and Vaticanus and P66 read "it is expedient FOR YOU", and so the NASB, NIV.
John 12:1 - "came to Bethany, where Lazarus was WHICH HAD BEEN DEAD." So read the Majority, D and A and P66. But Sinaiticus and Vaticanus omit these words and so do the NASB, NIV.
John 12:28 - "Father, glorify THY name." So read most texts including Sinaiticus and the NASB, NIV, but Vaticanus says: "Glorify MY name". So far no one has followed this reading yet.
John 13:6 and 9 - Peter saith unto him, LORD, dost thou wash my feet?...LORD, not my feet only..." In both these places Sinaiticus omits the important word LORD, but it is in Vaticanus.
John 13:18 - "He that eateth bread WITH ME hath lifted up his heel against me." So read the Majority of texts including P66, A, D and Sinaiticus. However Vaticanus reads "he that eats MY bread" and so do the NASB, NIV.
John 13:32 - "IF GOD BE GLORIFIED IN HIM, God shall also glorify him in himself, and shall straightway glorify him." This is an interesting case. It is the reading of the Majority of texts, A, and Sinaiticus correction. These words are still found in the NASB, NIV, but the previous Revised Version and American Standard Versions omitted all these words because not found in Vaticanus, D or P66. So why do the NASB, NIV now go back to including them?
John 14:11 - "or else believe ME for the very works' sake." So read the Majority, A and Vaticanus. So too did the Revised version, and so do the RSV, NRSV, ESV and the brand new ISV. However P66, 75 and Sinaiticus omit the word ME and so do the NASB, NIV and Holman Standard. And they dare call this "science".
John 14:17 - "for he dwelleth with you, and SHALL BE in you." The future tense verb is found in the Majority and P75 and Sinaiticus. So read the NASB, NIV. However Vaticanus and P66 have a present tense verb which would make the sentence read: "for he dwells with you, and IS in you."
John 15:18 - "If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated YOU." So read the Majority and Vaticanus and the NASB, but Sinaiticus omits the word YOU and so does the NIV.
John 16:27 - "because ye have loved me, and have believed that I came out from GOD." So read the Majority, Sinaiticus correction, P 5 which dates from the 3rd century, A and the NIV, ESV, NRSV and Holman. However Vaticanus and D read THE FATHER and so does the NASB and the RSV.
John 17:7 - "Now THEY have known that all things whatsoever thou hast given me are of thee." Sinaiticus reads: "Now I have known...."
John 17:12 - "While I was with them IN THE WORLD (Vat and Sin omit and so too the NASB, NIV) I KEPT THEM IN THY NAME; THOSE that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost..."
"THOSE THAT THOU GAVEST ME I have kept" is the Majority reading, A and D, but Vaticanus has a very different reading and the NASB, NIV have adopted this, saying: "While I was with them, I was keeping them in Your NAME WHICH YOU HAVE GIVEN ME." In the meantime, Sinaiticus original and P66 omit the words "those thou gavest me" from the text entirely.
John 17:17 - "Sanctify them through thy truth: THY WORD IS TRUTH." Sinaiticus omits these last words "Thy word is truth".
John 17:21 - "...that they also may be ONE in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me." The important word ONE is in the Majority, A, C and Sinaiticus, but Vaticanus and P66 omit it and so do the NASB, NIV.
John 17:24 = "Father, I will that THEY also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am. So read the Majority of texts, but both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus say "I will that THAT also, whom you have given me, be with me where I am" but neither the NASB, NIV has yet to adopt this strange reading.
John 18:5 - "JESUS SAITH UNTO THEM, I AM HE." So read the Majority, A, C and Sinaiticus. The NIV also followed this reading. Vaticanus reads: "HE SAYS TO THEM, I AM JESUS", but nobody has yet followed this reading. The NASB instead chose to follow D saying: "HE SAID TO THEM, I AM HE."
John 19:16 - "And they took Jesus, AND LED HIM AWAY." So read the Majority of texts including A and Sinaiticus. However Vaticanus omits the words "and led him away" and so do the NASB, NIV.
John 19:20-21. Sinaiticus original was missing all of these two whole verses, but they are found in Vaticanus. Sinaiticus was also missing the words: "When Jesus therefore saw his mother" from John 19:26.
In John 19:30 we read: "When JESUS therefore had received the vinegar...". JESUS is in Sinaiticus and the NIV, but not in Vaticanus nor the NASB. But then when we get to John 19:39 we see Nicodemos which "at the first came to JESUS by night". Here JESUS is in the Majority and Sinaiticus and the NIV, but Vaticanus omit JESUS and so does the NASB.
Likewise Sinaiticus omits the words "AND CAME TO THE SEPULCHRE" in John 20:3 and the words "AND THE OTHER DISCIPLE" from John 20:4, but they are found in Vaticanus.
John 21:16 - "He saith to him again THE SECOND TIME, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me?" Here Sinaiticus omits the word "the second time" and so does the NIV, but it is found in Vaticanus and in the NASB.
John 21:23 - "If I will that he tarry till I come, WHAT IS THAT TO THEE?". Sinaiticus omitted these last capitalized words as well as omitting the entire last verse of the gospel of the evangelist - John 21:25, but they are found in the Vaticanus copy.
If these "oldest and best manuscripts" are in fact the best, then we are in a world of hurt and God has failed to preserve His pure words anywhere on this earth in a true Book of the LORD, which is in any real way the complete, inerrant and perfect words of God. You either believe the King James Bible is the pure and perfect words of God or you simply do not believe in the inerrancy of any Bible in any language on the face of this earth.
Acts of the Apostles
Acts 3:6 "Then Peter said, Silver and gold have I none; but such as I have give I thee: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, RISE UP AND walk."
Here the words "rise up and" (eyeire kai) are found in the Majority of all texts, including A, C, the Syriac Peshitta, Old Latin, Coptic, and Armenian ancient versions. Sinaiticus and Vaticanus omit these words and so do the RSV, NASB, NIV, and the ISV. The Nestle-Aland text originally omitted these words too, but then later added them back to the text again. The words "rise up and" are now included in the NRSV, ESV, and even in the upcoming Holman Christian Standard. Are you beginning to get the picture of how our scientific scholars constantly disagree among themselves?
Acts 7:46 "Who found favor before God, and desired to find a tabernacle for the GOD of Jacob."
Here the reading "GOD of Jacob" is found in the majority of all texts, including Sinaiticus correction, A, C and many ancient versions like the Old Latin, Syriac Peshitta, Coptic Boharic, Sahidic, Ethiopian, Georgian and Armenian. The "GOD of Jacob" is the reading of the RV, ASV, NIV, NASB, and ESV. But again Vaticanus reads differently and says: "to find a tabernacle for the HOUSE of Jacob." The NASB, even though it reads "God of Jacob", has this footnote: "the earliest mss. read 'house' and not 'God'". Well, if they think this is the closest to the original reading, why not put it in their version? Ah, but wait, the NRSV and the upcoming ISV have done just that and now read "for the HOUSE of Jacob."
Acts 9:12 - "And hath seen IN A VISION a man named Ananias coming in, and putting his hand on him, that he might receive his sight." The words "in a vision" are in the majority of Greek texts as well as in Vaticanus and C. They are also found in Tyndale, Coverdale, Bishops' bible and the Geneva Bible.
However the words "in a vision" are omitted by Sinaiticus and A. The new versions are all over the board. Westcott and Hort originally put the words in brackets. Then later Nestle -Aland editions took it out, but then later on they put it back in again, but in brackets. That's their "science" at work.
The RV, ASV, RSV all omit the words, but then the NASB, NRSV and ESV put them back in. Typical bungling nonsense of today's Bible Agnostics.
More on Acts 9:12 and the mindless mumblings of today's textual scholars. Daniel Wallace and company's goofy NET version reveals the double minded uncertainty behind what passes as the "science" of textual criticism.
Wallace's NET version includes the words, but notice his mind bending footnotes of "explanation". The NET version reads: "9:12 and he has seen IN A VISION (26) a man named Ananias come in and place his hands on him so that he may see again."
Then we see his footnote 26 where he says: - "The words (en oramati, "in a vision") are not found in some of the earliest and best mss (74 A 81 pc lat sa bo), but are implied from the context. The phrase is included, although sometimes in a different order with (andra, "man") or omitting altogether, by B C E 33 1175 1739 . The order of words in NA27 is supported only by B C 1175. Generally speaking, when there are three or more variants, with one an omission and the others involving rearrangements, the longer readings are later scribal additions. Further, the reading looks like a clarifying note, for an earlier vision is explicitly mentioned in v. 10. On the other hand, it is possible that some scribes deleted the words because of perceived repetition, though this is unlikely since it is a different vision two verses back...Perhaps the best argument for the authenticity of the phrase is that B C 1175 preserve a rare, distinctively Lukan word order, but this is not nearly as harsh or unusual as what Luke does elsewhere. A decision is difficult in this case, but on balance the omission of the phrase seems to be authentic. The words are nevertheless added in the translation because of contextual considerations. NA27 places the words in brackets, indicating doubts as to their authenticity."
Well, I'm certainly glad ol' Dan Wallace cleared that up for us! "looks like a clarifying note", "possible some scribes deleted the words", "perhaps...authenticity"; "omission seems be authentic"; "the words are added because of contextual considerations", "doubts as to their authenticity" - Who really knows or even cares?
Acts 10:19 "three men", "two men" or just " some men"?
Further textual confusion both by Westcott-Hort and the two so called "oldest and best" manuscripts is further seen in Acts 10:19. In the King James Bible we read: "While Peter thought on the vision, the Spirit said unto him, Behold, THREE men seek thee." The three men refers back to verses 10:7-8 where we read that Cornelius "called TWO of his household servants, AND a devout soldier of them that waited on him continually...he sent THEM to Joppa." Thus there were three men altogether who went to find Peter.
The reading of "THREE men" is again confirmed in chapter eleven verse eleven where Peter is rehearsing the events that previously occurred in chapter ten. There Peter relates: "And, behold, immediately there were THREE men already come unto the house where I was, sent from Caesarea unto me."
THREE men (andres treis) is the reading found in the TR, Stephanus, Beza, Elziever, Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, C, E, many Old Latin copies, Coptic Sahidic, Boharic, Syriac, Georgian, Vulgate and the Ethiopian ancient versions. It is also the reading of Spanish Reina Valera and the Modern Greek N.T.
THREE men is also the reading found in Wycliffe 1395, Bishops' bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, Revised Version 1881, ASV 1901, RSV, NRSV, ESV, NASB, NKJV, NIV and the Holman Standard.
Quite a few manuscripts completely omit any number here and simply say "Men seek thee". Among these are D, L, P and a few Old Latin copies. Among those versions that omit any number at all are Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535 and the New English Bible 1970.
However where the real confusion comes in is when we look at the Vaticanus manuscript and the early Westcott-Hort, Nestle Aland critical texts. ONLY the Vaticanus copy reads TWO men (andres duo) and Westcott and Hort as well as the Nestle 4th edition 1934 and the Nestle-Aland 1962 editions read "TWO men seek thee", all based solely on the Vaticanus mss.
Later on the Nestle-Aland crtical text once again changed their previous reading and the current one now reads "THREE men", and so too do the NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV and Holman Standard.
There are only two bible translations I have found so far that actually contain the Vaticanus reading of "two men". One is Rotherham's 1902 Emphasized bible that says: "Behold, TWO men seek thee.", and the other one is the Catholic New American Bible St. Joseph 1970 which reads: "There are TWO men in search of you."
The Catholic versions present us with the usual hodge-podge of confusion, with the previous Douay 1950 correctly reading "three men", then the 1968 Jerusalem bible came out with the reading "SOME men". Then in 1970 the St. Joseph NAB 1970 went with the Vaticanus reading of "TWO men", but now the latest Catholic bible, the New Jerusalem bible of 1985, has come out and it just omits the number altogether and once again reads: "SOME men have come to see you."
This is the fickle nature of the so called "oldest and best manuscripts" and the men who support them.
Acts 12:25 - The Devil is in the Details
In Acts 12:25 we read: "And Barnabas and Saul returned FROM (ex) Jerusalem, when they had fulfilled their ministry, and took with them John, whose surname was Mark."
This is the reading found in a multitude of Greek manuscripts and Bible versions including P74, Alexandrinus, the Textus Receptus, the Modern Greek N.T., the Vulgate 425, Wycliffe 1395, the Geneva Bible 1599, the Italian Diodati 1649, Riveduta 1927, French Martin 1744, Louis Segond 1910, Ostervald 1996, the Spanish Reina Valera 1602 - 1995, the Revised Version 1881, ASV 1901, Weymouth, Lamsa's translation of the Syriac 1933, Douay 1950, Darby, Young's, the NKJV 1982, NASB 1963-1995, RSV 1952, ESV 2003, The Message, Bible in Basic English, New English Bible, the NIV 1984, and the TNIV 2005.
Clearly the whole context tells us that Barnabas and Paul had already gone TO Jerusalem and had now returned FROM Jerusalem. In Acts 11:29-30 we read: "Then the disciples, every man according to his ability, determined to send relief unto the brethren which dwelt in Judea: Which also they did, and sent it to the elders by the hands of BARNABAS AND SAUL."
Then in 13:1 we again pick up with both Saul (Paul) and Barnabas already at Antioch, and not in Jerusalem. "Now there were at Antioch certain prophets and teachers: as Barnabas....and Saul."
However the corrupt manuscripts of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus tell us in Acts 12:25 that both Barnabas and Saul (Paul) now returned TO Jerusalem, even though they had already been there as recorded in Acts 11:29-30, and were now in Antioch as found in Acts 13:1.
The total fickleness and inconsistency of the modern Critical text is seen in that Westcott and Hort originally went with the erroneous reading of "returned TO Jerusalem" (eis), but then the Nestle text 4th edition 1934 and the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece 1962 both read "returned FROM Jerusalem (ex). But wait; it gets worse. Now the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum 27th edition and the UBS 4th edition have once again rejected the previous Nestle critical text and have gone back to the reading originally adopted by Westcott and Hort. The UBS 4th edition once again says: "returned TO (eis) Jerusalem."
Versions that contain this erroneous reading - "returned TO Jerusalem" - and thus contradict the whole context of Acts 11 through 13 are Tyndale 1525 - one of many reasons why Tyndale was not the perfect English Bible - see http://www.oocities.org/brandplucked/TynTRoKJB.html , Coverdale 1535, Bishops' bible 1568, and in modern times Rotherham's Emphasized bible 1902, the Catholic St. Joseph New American Bible 1970, the NRSV 1989, Holman Christian Standard Version 2003, the ISV (International Standard Version 2003), and Daniel Wallace's NET version. Notice that the RSV 1952 and the ESV 2001 both read "FROM Jerusalem" but the NRSV 1989 read "TO Jerusalem". These three are revisions of each other. Can't seem to make up their minds, can they?
Acts 19:16
In Acts 19 we are told of SEVEN sons of Sceva, who were vagabond Jews, exorcists, which "took upon them to call over them which had evil spirits the name of the Lord Jesus, saying, WE adjure you by Jesus whom Paul preacheth". There are two blunders found here in the "oldest and best" texts of both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, against the majority of all others. The Majority of all texts, as well as the Syriac Peshitta, read as does the KJB with these seven sons saying "WE adjure you by Jesus". The word "we" is obviously plural, and the evil spirit answers in verse 15 "Jesus I know, and Paul I know, but who are YE?". Now, the word "ye" is plural in all texts answering to the plural "we" of "We adjure thee".
However Sinaiticus and Vaticanus both have only one individual saying: "I" adjure you by Jesus, and so read the NASB, NIV, and ESV. Nevertheless, the evil spirit still answers addressing a plural number of persons rather than one individual even in the corrupted Sinaiticus and Vaticanus manuscripts.
The more striking blunder is found in Acts 19:16. There we read: "And the man in whom the evil spirit was leaped on them, and overcame THEM, (autoon) and prevailed against them, so that they fled out of that house naked and wounded." There were seven sons and the spirit leaped on THEM.
The single word "them" is the reading of the majority of all texts. However both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus tell us that the evil spirit "overcame BOTH OF THEM, (amphoteros autwn) and prevailed against them."
The Amplified bible brings out this errant reading and even tries to tell us that it is found "in the best texts". The Amplified reads: "Then the man in whom the evil spirit dwelt leaped upon them, mastering TWO OF THEM, and was so violent against them that they dashed out of that house in fear, stripped naked and wounded." Then in a footnote is says: "The best texts read "both of them."
The word for "both" is amphoteros, and always means "both". Yet the word "both" can only refer to the number two, not the SEVEN sons of Sceva. In fact, the NASBs from 1963 through 1972 read "and overcame BOTH OF THEM", and so also do the Revised Version 1881 and ASV 1901.
Not even the RSV, NRSV or ESV followed this bogus reading found in the "oldest and best manuscripts", though they do mention it in their footnotes. The RSV and ESV read "mastered ALL of them", but then footnote: "Or BOTH of them." Even to this day the ever changing Nestle-Aland critical Greek text used in making up most modern versions still reads "overcame BOTH of them".
Finally, after several years and numerous editions, it apparently occured to the NASB scholars that there was a clear blunder in their "oldest and most reliable texts", so in 1977 and again in 1995 the NASB changed their versions to read that the evil spirit overcame "ALL OF THEM" instead of "both of them". The NIV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, Holman Standard also say "all of them". Actually, the word "all" is not found in any text whatsoever, but the NIV, NASB, RSV, ESV put the extra word in anyway.
Again, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are clearly wrong. The NKJV correctly footnotes that the Nestle and UBS text says "both of them" instead of "overcame them".
Acts 20:28
"Feed the church of GOD, which he hath purchased with HIS OWN BLOOD."
This verse is under attack by many modern versions because it clearly shows that the Lord Jesus Christ is GOD, and that GOD shed His blood to purchase the church. Those who oppose the full Godhead of the Lord Jesus Christ will alter this verse in several ways to either change, hide, or obscure the truth that it was GOD'S blood that purchased the church.
The Traditional Byzantine Text that underlies the King James Bible says: poimainein thn ekklhsian tou qeou hn periepoihsato dia tou idiou aimatoV - feed the church of God which He purchased with His own blood."
The Westcott-Hort text has a slight variation which says:dia tou aimatoV tou idiou- by the blood of His own", which opens the door to several of the renderings we will see in some modern versions based on the Westcott-Hort text.
There are a wide variety of readings found for this verse. Many texts say "the church of THE LORD AND GOD", and this is actually the reading of the Hebrew Names Version, and the World English Version. Then there is Lamsa's 1936 translation of the Syriac which reads: "feed the church OF CHRIST which he has purchased with his blood." Many other texts have the absurd reading of: "the church of THE LORD OF GOD", while Alexandrinus, C original, D and P74 read "the church OF THE LORD which he purchased with his own blood." This last reading would say it was only the Lord (not God) who shed his blood, and thus not clearly teach the deity of Christ.
In fact, this last reading is found in the American Standard Version of 1901 based on the Westcott-Hort texts, the Revised Standard Version of 1952, the Worldwide English New Testament, and the New English Bible of 1970. They say: "Feed the church OF THE LORD which he obtained by his own blood." The new ISV (International Standard Version) shows both readings with this: "to be shepherds of God's (Other mss. read the Lord's) church, which he purchased with his own blood."
It should be of interest here to point out that when the English Bible was first being "revised" by the Westcott-Hort committee, the Revised Version of 1881 actually came out reading exactly like the King James Bible - "feed the church of GOD, which he purchased with his own blood". However it was the American committee of the ASV 1901 that first changed this traditional reading instead to that of "feed the church of the LORD, which he purchased with his own blood."
Other versions deny the full deity of Christ by keeping the word "God" in the phrase "the church of God", but they add an extra word to the sentence, not found in any Greek text, and thus again deny the Godhead of Christ. Among these are the modern versions like the Jehovah Witness New World Translation (based on the Westcott-Hort texts), the New Revised Standard of 1989, the New Jerusalem Bible, the 21st Century New Testament, The Contemporary English Version 1991 by the American Bible Society, Today's English Version 1992 put out by the American Bible Society and the United Bible Society, which also publish the Westcott-Hort Greek text that underlies most modern versions like the NASB, NIV, ESV.
The NRSV, Jehovah Witness' New World Translation, Today's English Version, the Good News Translation, the New Jerusalem Bible, and the Contemporary English Version all say: "Feed the church of God which he obtained by the blood OF HIS SON". This fabricated reading denies that it was the blood of GOD which purchased the church, but affirms only the blood of His Son. The word "Son" does not occur in any manuscript at all.
The Bible versions that correctly read "Feed the church OF GOD which he purchased with HIS OWN BLOOD", are Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, Bishops' bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, the King James Bible, NKJV, Revised Version of 1881, NASB, NIV, the Modern Greek N.T. used by the Greek Orthodox church today, Green's Modern KJV, Webster's translation, the KJV 21, Third Millenium Bible, and the ESV. This is the reading of the Tradtional Byzantine texts that underlies the King James Bible. It is also the reading found in Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, the Old Latin, Syriac Harclean, Vulgate, some Coptic versions, the Italian Diodati, the Spanish Antigua Version of 1569, and Luther's German Bible.
Notice that the RSV, NRSV and ESV, all of which are revisions of each other, each gives a different rendering of this same verse, and the ASV differs from both the Revised Version 1881 and the NASB's from 1963 to 1995. Isn't modern scholarship exciting to watch! Hey, all bible versions have the same "message", and no doctrines are changed, right?
Acts 27:37 - "216 souls" or "about 76"?
Vaticanus alone has a silly reading in this verse. The Holy Ghost is relating the shipwreck that occured when Paul was on his way to Rome. The Scripture says: "And we were in all the ship two hundred and sixteen souls."
So read the majority of all texts as well as Sinaiticus and C. Alexandrinus uniquely reads "275" instead of "276", but Vaticanus alone reads "we were in all the ship ABOUT 76 souls". Now, you can have about 200 or about 300, but it is more than a little silly to say ABOUT 76. The number 76 is an exact number, not a round number.
Westcott and Hort initially followed the erroneous reading of Vaticanus and placed "about 76 souls" in their critical Greek text, but later revisors decided to reject this unique reading, and changed their texts to read 276 souls.
The only version I am aware of that actually followed this bogus reading found in the Vaticanus manuscript is Rotherham's Emphasized bible of 1902. It reads: "Now we were, in the ship, in all, ABOUT SEVENTY-SIX souls."
Acts 28:29 "AND WHEN HE HAD SAID THESE WORDS, THE JEWS DEPARTED, AND HAD GREAT REASONING AMONG THEMSELVES."
This entire verse is found in the Majority of all texts, as well as the Old Latin, and the Syriac Peshitta, both of which predate Sinaiticus and Vaticanus which omit this whole verse. What is of interest here is that while the NIV, RSV, ESV omit the verse, the NASB put it back in the text in 1977 and again in 1995, whereas from 1960 to 1972 they had omitted it. Now the new Holman Christian Standard version is coming out and it includes the verse while the ISV does not! If you get ten scholars in a room, you will come out with 12 different opinions.