The "Science" of Textual Criticism - Gospel of Matthew. 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, UBS, Nestle-Aland/Vatican critical 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. Any modern bible version that is based on the UBS (United Bible Society) critical Greek text or the Nestle-Aland 27th edition critical text is in fact and undeniably a "Catholic" Vatican Version.
See the undeniable proof of this in their own words here -
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 SUSPECION 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 1:7-10. ESV errors from corrupt texts
Matthew chapter one lists the genealogy of our Lord Jesus Christ from the kingly line of David and Solomon.
KJB (NASB, NIV, NET, Holman Standard) "And Solomon begat Roboam; and Roboam begat Abia; and Abia begat ASA ; and ASA begat Josaphat"(v.10) And Ezekias begat Manasses; and Manasses begat AMON and AMON begat Josias."
ESV - "and Solomon the father of (Here the ESV changed the verb found in all Greek texts "begat" to a noun not found in ANY Greek text (the father of) Rehoboam, and Rehoboam the father of Abijah, and Abijah the father of ASAPH, and ASAPH the father of Jehoshaphat"(v.10) And Hezekiah the father of Manasseh and Manasseh the father of AMOS and AMOS the father of Josiah."
These different names - ASA versus ASAPH, and AMON versus AMOS are TEXTUAL differences. They are not variations in spelling the same names, but are totally different names that come from very different Greek texts. And the texts followed by the ESV here in verses 7, 8 and 10 are the WRONG names.
Simply go back to 1 Chronicles 3:10-14 in either the Hebrew Scriptures or even the so called Greek Septuagint and they both read the same. ASA was the son of Abia, and AMON was the son of Manasseh. Even the ESV tells you this in 1 Chronicles 3:10-14.
The ESV has followed the Westcott-Hort, UBS critical Greek text in these places where they have the wrong names. There were at least three men names Asaph and two names Amos, but neither one of them is listed anywhere in the Bible as being in the lineage of the man Jesus Christ.
The Majority of all Greek manuscripts, the Hebrew Scriptures, Lamsa’s translation of the Syriac Peshitta and even the so called Greek Septuagint read as does the King James Bible with ASA and AMON.
So where did the ESV get the names of ASAPH and AMOS? They come from Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. Instead of just recognizing that these are two of the most corrupt manuscripts in existence, they have chosen to go against all historical evidence to the contrary and have two guys in the lineage of our Saviour who simply do NOT belong there.
What is interesting here is that not even the NASB, NIV, Holman Standard, The Voice, the Orthodox Jewish Bible 2011 or even Dan Wallace's NET version followed the UBS, Nestle-Aland critical Greek texts here that falsely read Asaph and Amos, but went instead with the Traditional Greek texts of the Reformation Bibles and the KJB and they all correctly read ASA and AMON instead of the ESV's ASAPH and AMOS.
The other perverted bibles would be the previous RSV where they correctly have ASA in verses 7 and 8 but then footnote that "the Greek says ASAPH", which is not true at all. Only a very few corrupt Greek manuscripts like Sinaiticus and Vaticanus read this way, while the vast majority of them have it right. But the RSV then went with the false reading of AMOS in verse 10, and then footnotes "others read Amon".
Then came along the NRSV of 1989 and it changed BOTH names to ASAPH and AMOS, just like the ESV 2001-2011 has it. These are TEXTUAL errors that result in two of the wrong men being placed into the lineage of the Lord Jesus Christ, and even the NASB, NIV, Holman and NET translators had enough sense to see that these are the wrong names and they went back to the Traditional Greek text in these two instances.
God is a God of absolute Truth; He cannot lie. If you find lies and falsehood in a book that purports to be the words of the living God and they are false, then this bible version is false and cannot be trusted.
For many bare false witness against him, but their witness agreed not together. Mark 14:56
Matthew 1:20 “the” angel of the Lord, or “an” angel of the Lord.
A brother who says he is in correspondence with Doug Kutilek (who is a rabid anti-KJB critic) asks about Matthew 1:20 and why the King James Bible says “the angel of the Lord” when there is no definite article here in the Greek.
My Response -
Hi Phil. Doug Kutilek is just another unbeliever in the existence of any Bible in any language that he can show us as being the complete and inerrant words of God. He is his own authority and not a very good one at that.
Just ask him this question and see how he responds to it, if he answers it at all - which most bible agnostics do not do.
Is there ANY Bible in any language you can SHOW US - including “the” Greek and “the” Hebrew original languages - that you honestly believe is now or ever was the complete and inerrant (100% true) words of God?
IF Yes, can you give us a link to where we can see it and know what it says?
IF No, then are you honest enough to admit it?
Or if you just don’t know, that at least would be an honest answer.
He probably won’t answer the question, but if he does, you can be sure he will NOT show you a copy of this inerrant Bible he may profess to believe in.
As for he being is own authority, one of his major complaints against the KJB is in that he thinks the KJB borders on blasphemy in Romans 8:16 when it refers to “the Spirit itself”. The guy has not done his homework and really does not know what he is talking about.
Secondly, I think this article will be of some help to you on the issue of Matthew 1:20.
The Greek Definite Article is not used in the same way as the English Definite Article.
In regards to Matthew 1:20 “the angel of the Lord” the definite article IS in verse 24, but not in verse 20 and obviously they are both referring to the same angel who appeared to Joseph.
The expression in verse 20 of “the” angel of the Lord does not mean that there is ONLY ONE angel of the Lord; we know that there are thousands of them, but it just points out this one as being the one who brought this message to Joseph.
Just as “the prophet” in v. 22 does not mean that there is only ONE prophet in the whole Old Testament.
Not only does the KJB read “the angel of the Lord” in 1:20 but so too do the following Bible translations - Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1524, Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew’s Bible 1549, the Bishops’ bible1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, the Beza New Testament 1599, Whiston’s N.T. 1745, the Third Millennium bible 1998,
the Tomson New Testament 2002 - https://geneva97.tripod.com/tnt/matthew.htm
the Resurrection Life N.T. 2005 - https://www.centralcal.com/matt.htm,
and The Far Above All Translation 2022 - https://www.faraboveall.com/050_BibleTranslation/h_NT01U_Matthew.html,
the Jubilee Bible 2010, The New American Bible 2010, the New Matthew Bible 2016, The Modern English Version 2014 - “the angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream” and The Revised Geneva Bible 2019.
John Gill on Matthew 1:20 - "behold the Angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream; probably the same Angel which appeared to Zacharias, and brought him tidings that his wife should have a son, and who also appeared to Mary, and acquainted her that she should conceive, and bring forth the Messiah, Whose name was Gabriel, Luke 1:11. If we will believe the Jews, this Angel must be Gabriel, since he is the Angel who they say "is appointed over dreams"; for he appeared to. Joseph in a dream, which is one of the ways and methods in which the Lord, or an Angel of his, has appeared to the saints formerly, and has answered them, see Genesis 31:11 and is reckoned by the Jews as one of the degrees or kinds of prophecy: and so the Angel here encourages Joseph to take to him his wife"
Matthew 1:25 her FIRSTBORN son - Is your bible one of the new Vatican Versions?
In Matthew 1:25 we read of the birth of the Saviour Jesus who would save His people from their sins. Here it is recorded that Joseph, the husband of the virgin Mary “knew her not till she had brought forth her FIRSTBORN son: and he called his name JESUS.”
Mary was a virgin when Jesus was born - “she was found with child of the Holy Ghost” (Matthew 1:18)
However after the birth of Jesus, Mary also had other children; at least 7 other children. We see this as recorded in Matthew 13:55-56 when those astonished at His teaching in the synagogue ask: “Is not this the carpenter’s son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? And his sisters, are they not ALL (not “both”) with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?”
However the Catholic church teaches that the virgin Mary was perpetually a virgin. The Catholic St. Joseph New American Bible 1970, which also omits the word “firstborn” from Matthew 1:25, has a footnote in reference to the brothers and sisters of the Lord Jesus. They tell us: “The question about the brothers of Jesus and his sisters cannot easily be decided on linguistic grounds. Greek-speaking Semites used the terms adelphos and adelphe, not only in the ordinary sense of blood brother or sister, but also for nephew, niece, half-brother, half-sister, and cousin. The question of meaning here would not have arisen but for the faith of the church in Mary’s perpetual virginity.” page 48 St. Joseph NAB.
The textual support for the reading in Matthew 1:25 of “knew her not till she had brought forth her FIRSTBORN son” is massive and widespread. It is the reading found in the Majority of all remaining Greek manuscripts and many uncial copies (capital letters) including C, D, E, K, L, M, S, U, V, W, Gamma, Delta, Pi, Sigma and Omega.
It is also the reading found in numerous early church Lectionaries, the Old Latin copies of aur, d, f, ff1, g2, q, the Vulgate, the Syriac Peshitta, Harclean, Armenian, Slavonic and Ethiopic ancient versions. It is also so quoted by many early church witnesses including the Diatessaron, Cyril of Jerusalem, Didymus, Epiphanius, Chrysostom, Proclus, Jerome and Augustine.
However the reading of THE FIRSTBORN is omitted in both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus and a few others. The modern versions that omit the word FIRSTBORN and merely say something like: “But but knew her not until she had given birth to a son.” are the NIV, ESV, RSV, NRSV, NASB, NET, Jehovah Witness NWT, Holman and the Common English Bible - all the new Vatican Versions.
The Catholic Connection
The Catholic bibles are interesting in that they continue to change their underlying texts from one edition to the next. The previous Douay-Rheims of 1582 as well as the Douay version of 1950 both included the phrase, saying: “And he knew her not till she brought forth her FIRSTBORN son: and he called his name JESUS.”
However the Douay-Rheims gives this lengthy footnote to try to explain away the clear meaning of the verse. They tell us: “[25] Till she brought forth her firstborn son: From these words Helvidius and other heretics most impiously inferred that the blessed Virgin Mary had other children besides Christ; but St. Jerome shews, by divers examples, that this expression of the Evangelist was a manner of speaking usual among the Hebrews, to denote by the word until, only what is done, without any regard to the future...St. Jerome also proves by Scripture examples, that an only begotten son, was also called firstborn, or first begotten: because according to the law, the firstborn males were to be consecrated to God; Sanctify unto me, saith the Lord, every firstborn that openeth the womb among the children of Israel, etc. Ex. 13. 2.”
Well, to get rid of this “problem” and the convoluted, Jesuit reasoning used to try to dismiss what the text clearly says, the more modern Catholic versions like the Jerusalem bible of 1968, the St. Joseph NAB of 1970 and the New Jerusalem bible of 1985 simply omit the word “firstborn” altogether as also do the other Vatican Versions like the NIV, ESV, NASB, ISV, NET, Jehovah Witness NWT, Holman, etc.
They now read: “he had not had intercourse with her when she gave birth to a son.” (New Jerusalem bible 1985)
But wait a minute; there’s more. The 2009 The Sacred Bible Catholic Public Domain Version has now put the word back into their text! It now reads: “And he knew her not, yet she bore her son, THE FIRSTBORN. And he called his name JESUS.” And so does The Revised Douay-Rheims Bible of 2012.
Bibles that agree with the King James Bible reading of “her FIRSTBORN son” are the following: the Latin Vulgate of 382 A.D. - et non cognoscebat eam donec peperit filium suum primogenitum et vocavit nomen eius Iesum., the Anglo-Saxon gospels by Aelfric Manuscript 140 dated to about 1000 A.D. - "hyre frum-cennedan sunu", Lamsa's translation of the Syriac Peshitta - "And he did not know her until she gave birth to her first-born son; and she called his name Jesus.", Wycliffe 1395 - "til she hadde borun her firste bigete sone", Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, Cranmer's bible 1540, the Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587 - "til she had broght forth her first borne sonne, & he called his name Iesus.", the Beza N.T. 1599, Mace's N.T. 1729, Wesley's translation 1755, Webster's translation 1833, Darby 1890, Youngs 1898, the NKJV 1982, the Amplified Bible 1997, the Third Millennium Bible 1998, the Natural Israelite Bible 2012, Hebrew Names Bible 2014, The Modern English Version 2014.
Foreign Language Bibles
Among foreign language bibles that read like the King James Bible with "her FIRSTBORN son" are the following: the Chinese Union Traditional bible, the French Martin 1744, the French Ostervald 1996 and French Louis Second 2007 - "ce qu'elle eût enfanté son FILS PREMIER-NE", Luther's German Bible 1545 and the German Schlachter of 2000 - "ERSTGEBORENEN Sohn", the Italian Diodati 1649 and Nuovo Diodati of 1991 - "il suo figliuol PRIMOGENITO" the the Dutch Staten Vertaling Bible, the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras of 1569, Spanish Reina Valera of 1909, 1960, 1995 and the 2010 Reina Valera Gómez - "hasta que parió á su hijo PRIMOGENITO", the Portuguese Almeida Corregida 2009 and the Portuguese A Biblia Sagrada deu à luz seu filho, O PRIMOGENITO", the Polish Updated Gdansk Bible 2013 - "Ale nie obcowa? z ni?, dopóki nie urodzi?a swego pierworodnego syna, któremu nada? imi? Jezus.", the Hungarian Karoli Bible, the Russian Synodal Version, the Czech BKR Bible - "Ale nepoznal jí, a? i porodila Syna svého prvorozeného, a nazvala jméno jeho Je?í?.", the Smith and Van Dyke Arabic Bible
the Modern Greek N.T. as well as the Greek texts used by the Orthodox Churches all over the world today -
And the Modern Hebrew Bible
Matthew 2:16 "slew all the children", "all the boys" or "all the male children"?
Some Bible critic, who himself does not believe that any Bible in any language is now or ever was the complete and inerrant words of God, criticizes the King James Bible (and many others as well) for what it says in Matthew 2:16 that Herod slew all the CHILDREN under two years old.
Matthew 2:16 KJB - "Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew ALL THE CHILDREN that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently inquired of the wise men."
This Bible critic writes - "Eventually, almost 300 years later, the other Christian bibles corrected the error in the King James Version, saying it was NOT all the children, meaning boys and girls, it was ONLY the males. For example, from the New International Version (NIV):
NIV - "When Herod realized that he had been outwitted by the Magi, he was furious, and he gave orders to kill ALL THE BOYS in Bethlehem and its vicinity who were two years old and under, in accordance with the time he had learned from the Magi."
NKJV (NASB, ESV, Holman Standard) - "all the male children"
The Bible critic continues - "The error had been made; the bell had been rung. If a Christian missionary went to country that had no religion, or its own religion, and these missionaries gave the people in this 3rd world country the King James Version bible, what message would these people receive? That King Herod killed all the boys and girls under the age of three."
(End of Bible critic's comments)
So, how do we respond to this criticism?
It's not that difficult to explain. First of all, our Bible critic did not bother to do his homework very well. Had he done so, he would have realized that he is wrong in affirming that "almost 300 years later English bibles corrected the error."
Had he bothered to do some basic research he would have found out that the Geneva Bible of 1587 and the Catholic Douay-Rheims of 1582 both read: "and slew all THE MALE CHILDREN."
The KJB translators were obviously aware of this possible translation, but they deliberately chose to reject it, and instead went with simply "all the CHILDREN", as also did Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, The Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549 and the Bishops' bible 1568.
We need to look at the whole context and the meaning of the Greek words used in this passage of Scripture.
In Matthew 2:16 where the KJB and many others as we shall soon see, read - "and slew all the children" the underlying Greek word here is pais and this word has several meanings including "children, servant, son, young man, child, maid and maiden."
The word can refer to either males or females or both at the same time. Even the NIV and the other modern versions translate this same word as both "children" and as "maiden" or "girl"
Matthew 21:15 KJV
And when the chief priests and scribes saw the wonderful things that he did, and THE CHILDREN (pais) crying in the temple, and saying, Hosanna to the son of David; they were sore displeased.
Also reading CHILDREN in this verse are the NIV, NASB, ESV, NKJV, Holman Standard, Geneva bible, Darby, Young's.
Luke 8:51 KJV, speaking of the daughter of the ruler of the synagogue, says:
And when he came into the house, he suffered no man to go in, save Peter, and James, and John, and the father and the mother of THE MAIDEN. (pais)
Luke 8:54 KJV
And he put them all out, and took her by the hand, and called, saying, MAID, arise. (pais)
MAIDEN - Tyndale, Coverdale, Great Bible, Matthew's bible, Bishops' bible, the Geneva bible, Revised Version, ASV, Jubilee Bible 2010
Girl - NASB, NKJV, The Voice
Young girl - ISV
Child - NIV, ESV, Holman, NET.
It is of interest that the context, here, is clearly that of "the daughter" (a female) of the ruler of the synagogue, yet the NIV, ESV, NET and Holman refer to her as "the child".
Could we not then equally apply the use of the word "children" in Matthew chapter 2 to the CONTEXT and assume that it refers to the male children?
It is only an assumption on the part of this King James Bible critic that King Herod only killed the boy babies. He may very well have killed ALL the children, both male and female, that were two years old and under. Herod was well known for his cruelty and may well have wanted all the Jewish families with children to suffer his wrath.
As one brother pointed out, "Maybe children under two wore similar clothing and it was not easy to distinguish sex. Maybe the soldiers didn't have time to strip them and make a determination. So Herod figured, "just kill 'em all." Any young child in the vicinity of two years old or less. Take no chances. No quick attempt of avoidance by disguising the sex of the children. Butcher them, one and all."
Or, we can simply follow the context of Matthew 2 where it is talking about the Christ (messiah) to be born, and take the view that the "children" that were slain would have been the males. But, this is only by assuming that Herod was a rational man to some degree, rather than a sadistic tyrant who slew ALL the children from two years old and under.
In either case, the word "children" fits the context. The TEXT itself does not explicitly clear up the matter one way or the other.
There IS a specific Greek word that means "male", but God did not use it in this context of Matthew chapter 2.
The specific word for "male" is #142 arseen, and it is used in Luke 2:23 KJV where we read:
"As it is written in the law of the LORD, Every MALE that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord."
God could have used this specific word in recording the events of Matthew chapter 2, had He wanted to emphasize or point out that these included only the MALE children, but He didn't do that. Instead He used the generic word for "children"
IF we follow on in the context of Matthew 2 and just read the very next 2 verses, we see that Herod's killing the children was the fulfillment of a prophecy:
Matthew 2:17-18 KJV
17 Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet, saying,
18 In Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for HER CHILDREN, and would not be comforted, because they are not.
Here, the underlying Greek word is teknon, and this is the general word for "children" of both sexes.
Matthew 2:16 KJV
Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew ALL THE CHILDREN that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently inquired of the wise men.
Agreeing with the translation found in the KJV of "and slew all the CHILDREN" are the following Bible translations - Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, The Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549 and the Bishops' bible 1568, Whiston's N.T. 1745, The Clark N.T. 1745, Sawyer N.T. 1858, The Revised N.T. 1862, The Sharpe Bible 1883, the NRSV 1989, The Revised Webster Bible 1995, God's First Truth 1999, Dan Wallace's NET version 2006, The Mebust Bible 2007, The Christogenea N.T. 2009, the Jubilee Bible 2010, The Hebrew Transliteration Scriptures 2010, the Common English Bible 2011, The Far Above All Translation 2014, The Pioneer's N.T. 2014, and The New Matthew Bible 2016 - "and slew all THE CHILDREN that were in Bethlehem"
Matthew 5:27 KJB - "Ye have heard it said BY THEM OF OLD TIME, Thou shalt not commit adultery." ESV (NIV, NASB, NET, Jehovah Witness NWT, Catholic St. Joseph NAB, Holman Standard) - "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery.'" "by them of old time" is a minority reading but it has manuscript, patristic and ancient version support. It is found in the Textus Receptus, and manuscripts L, Delta, Theta, 233, f13, 33, 579, 892, 1010 and others (Pickering says about 10% of the Greek mss. read this way) and is in the Latin Vulgate 405 A.D, the Syriac Curetonian, some Syriac Harclean ancient versions and is so quoted by Origen, Eusebius and Cyril among the early church writers. The Catholic Connection The phrase is found in the older Catholic versions like the Douay-Rheims 1582 and the Douay Version of 1950, but in more recent times the Catholic versions like the St. Joseph NAB 1970 and the New Jerusalem bible 1985 have omitted these words. Bibles that read like the KJB- BY THEM OF OLD TIME are Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, The Great bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549, the Bishops' bible 1568, the Douay-Rheims 1582, the Geneva bible 1587, the Beza N.T. 1599, Worsley N.T. 1770, Haweis N.T. 1795, the Boothroyd bible 1853, The Revised N.T. 1862, Smith Bible 1876, The Revised English Bible 1877, Young's 1898, the Clarke N.T. 1913, New Life Version 1969, the NKJV 1982, The Koster Scriptures 1998, The Lawrie N.T. 1998, Third Millennium bible 1998, God?s First Truth 1999, the Tomson N.T. 2002, The Apostolic Polyglot bible 2003, Resurrection Life N.T. 2005, the Mebust Bible 2007, Jubilee bible 2010, The Work of God?s Children Bible 2011, The Voice 2012 - "long ago", The Modern English Version 2014 The Hebrew Roots Bible 2015 and the New Matthew Bible 2016. Foreign Language bibles = KJB The Latin Vulgate 405 A.D. - "audistis quia dictum est antiquis non moechaberisthe", The Clementime Vulgate, the Spanish Las Sagradas Escrituras 1569, Cipriano do Valera 1602 and the Reina Valera Gómez - "Oísteis que fue dicho a los antiguos: No adulterarás.", Italian Diodati 1649 and La Nuova Diodati 1991 - "Voi avete udito che fu detto agli antichi: Non commettere adulterio.", the French Martin bible 1744, French Ostervald 1996 - "qu'il a été dit aux Anciens", Luther's German Bible 1545 and the German Schlachter bible 2000 - "Ihr habt gehört, daß zu den Alten gesagt ist: "Du sollst nicht ehebrechen.", the Portuguese A Biblia Sagradq, and the Almeida Corrigida - "Ouvistes que foi dito aos antigos: No cometers adultrio.", the Hungarian Karoli bible - "hogy megmondatott a régieknek", the Russian Synodal Version, the Smith & Van Dyke Arabic bible and the Dutch Staten Vertaling bible. And in The Greek Modern Translation - And The Modern Hebrew Bible -
Once again it comes down to the difference between the Reformation Bible text or the new Vatican supervised Text Versions.
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."
All the words in capital letters are found in the Majority of remaining Greek manuscripts including D, E, K, L, M, S, U, W, Delta, Theta, Pi, Sigma and Omega. They are also found in the Old Latin copies of c, d, f, h and m. They are included in the Syriac Peshitta, Harclean, Palestinian, and in the Gothic, Ethiopic and Armenian ancient versions.
All these words are omitted in basically two manuscripts, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.
English Bibles prior to the Westcott-Hort creation of a new text contained all these words. These include the Anglo-Saxon Gospels of 990 A.D., Wycliffe's Bible of 1395 - "But Y seie to you, loue ye youre enemyes, do ye wel to hem that hatiden you, and preye ye for hem that pursuen, and sclaundren you", Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible (Cranmer) 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549, the Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587 - "But I say vnto you, Loue your enemies: blesse them that curse you: doe good to them that hate you, and pray for them which hurt you, and persecute you", The Beza N.T. 1599, Mace's N.T. 1729, Whiston's Primitive N.T. 1745, John Wesley's translation 1755, Worseley Version 1770, The Etheridge translation of the Syriac 1849, Murdock's translation of the Syriac 1852 and Lamsa's 1936 translation of the Syriac Peshitta, the Emphatic Diaglott 1865, The Revised English Bible 1877, The Sharpe Bible 1883, Darby 1890, Young's 1898, the NKJV 1982, The Word of Yah 1993, Third Millennium Bible 1998, the Lawrie Translation 1998, The Koster Scriptures 1998, The Last Days Bible 1999, God's First Truth 1999, Tomson N.T. 2002, the Complete Apostle's Bible 2003, The Pickering N.T. 2005, A Conservative Version 2005, Online Interlinear 2010 (André de Mol), the English Jubilee Bible 2010, the Biblos Interlinear Bible 2011, Conservative Bible 2011, The Aramaic New Testament 2011, the Knox Bible of 2012, The Hebraic Roots Bible 2012, The World English Bible 2012, The Natural Israelite Bible 2012, the Interlinear Hebrew-Greek Scriptures 2012 (Mebust), the Hebrew Names Version 2014, The Modern Literal N.T. 2014, and The Modern English Version 2014.
Foreign Language Bibles
Among foreign language translations that include all these words in the text are the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569, the Spanish Reina Valera of 1602, 1909-1995 and the 2010 R.V. Gómez Bible - "Mas yo os digo: Amad a vuestros enemigos, bendecid a los que os maldicen, haced bien a los que os aborrecen, y orad por los que os calumnian y os persiguen the French Martin 1744 and French Ostervald 1996 - "Mais moi je vous dis : aimez vos ennemis, et bénissez ceux qui vous maudissent, faites du bien à ceux qui vous haïssent, et priez pour ceux qui vous courent sus, et vous persécutent.", the Italian Diodati 1649 and La Nuova Diodati 1991 and the Italian Riveduta 2006 - "Ma io vi dico: Amate i vostri nemici, benedite coloro che vi maledicono, fate bene a coloro che vi odiano, e pregate per coloro che vi fanno torto, e vi perseguitano", Luther's German bible 1545 and the German Schlachter Bible of 2000, the Afrikaans Bible 1953, the Dutch Staten Vertaling, the Romanian Fidela Bible 2014, the Portuguese A Biblia Sagrada em Portugués 1671 and the Portuguese Almeida Corrigida 2009 - "Eu, porém, vos digo: Amai a vossos inimigos, bendizei os que vos maldizem, fazei bem aos que vos odeiam, e orai pelos que vos maltratam e vos perseguem", the Basque N.T., the Czech BKR Bible, the Smith & Van Dyke Arabic Bible ., and the Polish Updated Gdansk Bible 2013
English Bible versions generally did not begin to omit these 15 words from Matthew 5:44 until the Westcott-Hort Revised Version came out in 1885.
Since then others that also omit all these words are the ASV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, NIV, NASB, ISV, NET, Holman Standard and the Jehovah Witness NWT.
The ESV is typical of these Critical text modern Vatican Versions. It reads: "But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you."
The Catholic Connection.
Of interest are the Catholic versions. Both the 1610 Douay Rheims and the 1950 contained many of the words that are now omitted by the more modern Catholic versions. They both read: "But I say to you, Love your enemies: DO GOOD TO THEM THAT HATE YOU: and pray for them that persecute AND CALUMNIATE YOU."
The only part of the Scripture they omitted are the words "BLESS THEM THAT CURSE YOU"; they included the other words of the text.
But now the St. Joseph NAB 1970 and the New Jerusalem bible 1985 read just like the ESV, NIV, NASB, etc. The New Jerusalem bible says: "But I say this to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you."
So too reads the Jehovah Witness New World Translation.
But hold on.
The Catholic church is not done yet. Now the 2009 Catholic Public Domain Version has come out they have gone back to the previous Douay reading. It once again adds most of the words back to the text saying: "But I say to you: Love your enemies. DO GOOD TO THOSE WHO HATE YOU. And pray for those who persecute AND SLANDER you."
Matthew 6:1 ALMS or RIGHTEOUSNESS?
KJB - "Take heed that ye do not your ALMS before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven."
ESV (NASB, NIV, NET, Holman, Catholic versions, Jehovah Witness NWT) - "Beware of practicing your RIGHTEOUSNESS before other people in order to be seen by them, for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven."
The reading of ALMS (eleemosunee) is that found in the Majority of all manuscripts including E, K, L, M, S, U, W, Z, Delta, Theta, Pi, Sigma, Omega, the Old Latin f, k, and the Syriac Peshitta, Harclean, Gothic, Armenian and Ethiopic ancient versions.
The Aramaic Scriptures - "your almsgiving"
Wilbur Pickering notes that 99% of the Greek manuscripts we have read "ALMS".
That of RIGHTEOUSNESS is found in Sinaiticus, Vaticanus and D.
Agreeing with ALMS, as found in the KJB and other Reformation bibles, are Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew's bible 1549, the Bishops' bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, Beza's N.T. 1599, Haweis N.T. 1795, Darby 1890, Lamsa's translation of the Syriac Peshitta, the NKJV 1982, Third Millennium bible, World English Bible, the Tomson N.T. 2002, A Conservative Version 2005, Complete Apostle's bible 2005, Wilbur Pickering N.T., Orthodox Jewish Bible 2011 (charity giving), Hebrew Names Version, Jubilee Bible 2010, The Hebrew Transliteration Scriptures 2010 (charity giving), the Modern English Version 2014 (charitable deeds), New Matthew Bible 2016 - alms.
Foreign Language Bibles = ALMS
Italian Diodati 1991 -Guardatevi dal fare la vostra ELEMOSINA davanti agli uomini.
French Martin 1744, Ostervald 1996 - votre AUMONE - and The French Louis Segond 2007 - Gardez-vous bien de faire des DONS devant les hommes
The Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569, Cipriano de Valera 1602 and the Reina Valera Gomez bible (NOT the Reina Valera) - Mirad que no hagáis vuestras LIMOSNAS delante de los hombres.
The Portuguese A Biblia Sagrada and Portuguese Almeida - Guardai-vos de fazer a vossa ESMOLA diante dos homens
Luther’s German bible 1545 and the German Schlachter bible 2000 - Habt acht auf eure ALMOSEN
The Dutch Staten Vertaling bible - dat gij uw AALMOES
The Romanian Fidela Bible 2015 - face'i milosteniile voastre
Once again, it is the difference between the Reformation Bible text or the Vatican Versions. Either one is the inspired text and the other is not or they are both wrong, but they cannot both be right at the same time.
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, The Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549, Bishop's Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, Wesley 1755, Worsley bible 1770, Webster's 1833, Young's, the NKJV 1982, the KJV 21st Century 1994, the Third Millennium Bible 1998, the Hebrew Names Version, World English Bible, the New Berkeley Version 1969, the 1987 Amplified Version all read: " For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen." 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 Africaans Bible 1953, the Albanian, Armenian, Basque, Bulgarian, Czech BKR, Chinese Traditional Union Version, Croatian, Danish, Dutch Staten Vertaling, Finnish bible of 1776 and 1938, French Louis Segond 1910, French Martin 1744, French Oservald 1996, Gaelic, Greek Orthodox Bible, Hungarian Karoli, Lithuanian, Luther's German 1545, German Schlachter 1951, the Modern Greek N.T. used throughout the Greek Orthodox churches all over the world, Gypsy Rhomanese, Hatian Creole, Modern Hebrew, Hungarian, Icelandic, the Italian Diodati 1649, the New Diodati 1991, Korean, Latvian, Maori bible, Norwegian Det Norsk 1930, Polish Bible Gdanska, Portuguese Almeida, Romanian Cornilescu, the Russian Synodal and Zhuromsky translations, the Shuar translation, the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569, the Spanish Reina Valera 1909, 1960, 1995, La Nueva Biblia de los Hispanos 2005 (Lockman), Swahili N.T., Tagalog Ang Dating bible, Turkish, Ukranian, Uma N.T., and Vietnamese N.T. 1934.
The New Testament from Aramaic, copyright 1940 reads like the King James Bible saying: "Because thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory for ever and ever. Amen."
But in the USA we have such versions that omit these words as the NIV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, ISV, and the New Living Translation.
Bible "scholars" are all over the board. What one affirms another just as confidently denies. Some argue for the legitimacy of these words and others deny they are part of Scripture, in spite of the massive evidence in favor of these inspired words.
John Calvin includes all these words in his Latin translation and then comments: "For thine is the kingdom"- It is surprising that this clause, which agrees so well with the rest of the prayer, has been left out by the Latins for it was not added merely for the purpose of kindling our hearts to seek the glory of God, and of reminding us what ought to be the object of our prayers; but likewise to teach us, that our prayers, which are here dictated to us, are founded on God alone, that we may not rely on our own merits."
Adam Clarke also says regarding the Doxology - "It should not, in my opinion, be left out of the text"
Barnes' Notes on the New Testament includes all these words with no hint that they are spurious and he expounds upon them in great detail.
David Guzik's Commentary on the Bible concludes - "we should regard it as Jesus truly said it."
Likewise Matthew Henry says - "Observe, how full this doxology is, The kingdom, and the power, and the glory, it is all thine." and then proceeds to expound upon them in great detail.
John Wesley believed these words form part of inspired Scripture and he both expounded upon them in his commentary and included them in his own translation made in 1755 - "And lead 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." (Wesley translation 1755)
Octavius Winslow comments on these words in Matthew 6:13 - "We see no just reason, however, to question its integrity. Found as it is in the Syriac copy, the most ancient version of the New Testament--standing as it does in close harmony with the very first petition of the prayer--and maintaining a strict analogy with the whole tenor of God's Word, we feel no difficulty in accepting it as genuine."
A.W. Pink expounds upon the passage and includes the Doxology as inspired Scripture. He states: "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen." Thus the family prayer closes with a doxology or an ascription of that glory which is due unto God, thereby teaching us that prayer and praise should always go together. It is to be carefully noted that this doxology of the Divine perfections is made use of as a plea to enforce the preceding petitions: "deliver us from evil for Thine is the kingdom," etc....The concluding "Amen" expresses both a fervent desire, "so be it," and an avowal to faith, "it shall be so."
Bible "scholars" are all over the board. What one affirms another just as confidently denies. Some argue for the legitimacy of these words and others deny they are part of Scripture, in spite of the massive evidence in favor of these inspired words.
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 6:22 - If thine eye be SINGLE
Matthew 6:22 KJB - The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be SINGLE, thy whole body shall be full of light.
NKJV (Holman) - The lamp of the body is the eye. If therefore your eye is GOOD, your whole body will be full of light.
NIV (NET, ESV) - The eye is the lamp of the body. If your eyes are HEALTHY, your whole body will be full of light.
NASB (MEV) - The eye is the lamp of the body; so then if your eye is CLEAR, your whole body will be full of light.
Moffat Translation 1926 - The eye is the lamp of the body: so, if your Eye is GENEROUS, the whole of your body will be illumined.
Lexham English Bible 2012 - "The eye is the lamp of the body. Therefore if your eye is SINCERE, your whole body will be full of light.
The King James Bible, as always, is right and many modern versions are not.
The English word “single” is defined in Webster’s modern dictionary as meaning “only one, without another or others, not double, compound or multitude.”
The Greek word used both here in Matthew 6:22 and Luke 11:34 where the Lord Jesus says: “when thine eye is SINGLE” is haplous
The Greek Lexicons tell us that the word means “single”.
Liddell & Scott Greek-English Lexicon, Oxford Press 1968, page 190 defines the Greek word haplous as meaning 1. single. 2. simple
Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon 1889 page 57 defines it as “simple or single”.
Bauer, Arndt & Gingrich Greek-English Lexicon, University of Chicago Press 1957 page 85 defines it as: “single, simple, sincere.”
Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, page 1058 tells us that the Greek word means “simple, single - used in the moral sense. Singleness of purpose keeps us from the snare of having double treasure and consequently a divided heart.”
The noun form of this adjective is # 572 haplotees and is translated in Ephesians 6:5 "in SINGLENESS of your heart, as unto Christ." and in Colossians 3:22 as "obey in all things....in SINGLENESS of heart, fearing God."
The word does NOT mean "good" as the NKJV has it. There is an entirely different word for "good" which is agathos. The verse is not talking about having "good eyesight" as opposed to bad eyesight, but rather it refers to having a single focus on the things of God.
"if therefore thine eye be SINGLE"
Not only does the King James Bible correctly translate this phrase as “if therefore thine eye be SINGLE”, meaning that we are focused on one particular goal, and NOT that we have “good eyesight”, but so also do the following Bible translations.
Tyndale 1524, Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew’s Bible 1549, the Bishops’ Bible 1568, The Douay-Rheims 1582, the Geneva Bible 1587, The Beza N.T. 1599, Whiston’s N.T. 1745, Wesley’s N.T. 1755, Webster’s Bible 1833, The Commonly Received Version 1851, The Revised N.T. 1862, The Alford New Testament 1870, The Smith Bible 1876, The Revised Version 1885, Darby Translation 1890, the ASV 1901, The Clarke N.T. 1913, The Word of Yah Bible 1993, The KJV 21st Century Version 1994, God’s First Truth Translation 1999, The Yah Sacred Scriptures 2001, The Revised Geneva Bible 2005, The Conservative Bible 2010, The Bond Slave Version 2012, The Disciples’ Literal N.T. 2011 - “if your eye is SINGLE, your whole body will be full-of-light.”, and The Pioneer’s New Testament 2014.
Matthew 6:27 "Which of you by taking thought can add ONE CUBIT UNTO HIS STATURE?"
Here is an interesting case of modern version flights of fancy. All Greek texts read the same here and clearly use the word "cubit". A cubit is a unit of about 18 inches and is used to measure physical height, length or thickness. The Greek word for cubit is # 4083 peekus and it is only found 4 times in the entire New Testament and every time it refers to "a length of 18 inches".
Matthew 6:21 and Luke 12:25 - "can add ONE CUBIT to his stature"; John 21:8 "And the other disciples came in a little ship; (for they were not far from land, but as it were two hundred CUBITS) dragging the net with fishes." and Revelation 21:17 "And he measured the wall thereof, an hundred and forty and four CUBITS, according to the measure of a man, that is, of the angel."
"ADD ONE CUBIT UNTO HIS STATURE"
Bible translations that correctly read "add one cubit unto his stature" are the following: Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, Bishops' Bible 1568, Douay-Rheims 1582, the Geneva Bible 1587, The Beza N.T. 1599, the Bill Bible 1671, Whiston N.T 1745, the Worsley Version 1770, Haweis N.T. 1795, The Revised Translation 1815, Webster Bible 1833, The Pickering N.T. 1840, The Hewett N.T. 1850, The Commonly Received Version 1851, The Boothroyd Bible 1853, Sawyer N.T. 1858, The Revised N.T. 1862, The American Bible Union N.T. 1865, the Smith Bible 1876 - "can add one cubit to his size", The Sharpe Bible 1883, The Dillard N.T. 1885, the Revised Version 1885, Darby 1890, Rotherham's Emphasized Bible 1902, Worrell N.T. 1904, The Clarke N.T. 1913, Lamsa's 1936 translation of the Syriac Peshitta, the NKJV 1982, The Word of Yah 1993, Interlinear Greek N.T. 1997 (Larry Pierce), the Third Millennium Bible 1998, the Lawrie Translation 1998, God's First Truth 1999, The Tomson N.T. 2002, The Apostolic Polyglot Bible 2003, Green's Literal 2005, The Pickering New Testament 2005, the Holman Standard 2009, The English Majority Text Version 2009, The Faithful N.T. 2009, the Bond Slave Version 2009, The Holy Scriptures VW Edition 2010, Jubilee Bible 2010, Online Interlinear 2010 (André de Mol), The New European Version - "can add one CUBIT TO HIS STATURE?", The Far Above All Translation 2011, The Work of God's Children Bible 2011, The Mounce Interlinear N. T. 2011, the Knox Bible 2012, the Hebrew Names Bible 2014, The Pioneer's N.T. 2014 - "ONE CUBIT TO HIS STATURE", The Modern Literal N.T. 2014 and The Modern English Version 2014.
The Last Days Bible 1999 - "Which of you by worry and anxious care can add 18 inches to his height?"
Weymouth N.T. 1912 missed it by 6 inches - "can add a single FOOT TO HIS HEIGHT?"
Versions that paraphrase the Greek but end up with basically the same meaning as found in the KJB are the New Life Bible, New English Bible 1970, and the Message which reads: "Has anyone by fussing in front of the mirror ever gotten taller by so much as an inch?", while the Bible in Basic English has: "And which of you by taking thought is able to make himself a cubit taller?" Even Weymouth had "can add a single foot to his height?"
Foreign Language Bibles
Foreign Language Bibles that also say "add one CUBIT to his STATURE" are the French Martin 1744 and French Ostervald 1996 - "ajouter une coudée à sa taille?", the Italian Diodati 1649 and the 1991 New Diodati - "aggiungere alla sua statura pure un cubito?" and the Riveduta 1927, the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569 and the Reina Valera 1960, 1995 and the Reina Valera Gómez 2010 - "¿Y quién de vosotros podrá, por mucho que se afane, añadir a su estatura un codo?", the Portuguese A Biblia Sagrada em Portugués and the Portuguese Almeida Corrigida 2009 - "acrescentar um côvado à sua estatura?"
The Ever Changing NASBs.
The NASBs present an interesting case. From 1963 to 1977 the NASB editions read: "add A CUBIT TO HIS LIFE SPAN".
Then after 32 years it may have dawned on the NASB translators that since a cubit is always used for a measurement of height or distance, and never as a length of time, that their reading didn't make much sense. So, in 1995 they have once again changed their "bible" to now read along with the NIV, RSV, NET, ISV and ESV: "add AN HOUR TO HIS LIFE SPAN".
Oh, but wait. The NASBs are not done changing yet. NOW the NASB 2020 edition has come out and they have changed it yet again. It now reads : "And which of you by worrying can add A SINGLE DAY to his life?s span?
So now a cubit has grown from an hour to a single day, and that is how these eminent "scholars" have translated the word cubit in this place.
Of course, there is no Greek text on this earth that reads "AN HOUR" or A SINGLE DAY, and even the NASB online edition itself footnotes "F114 Lit. cubit (approx 18 in.)". We could well ask ourselves at this point how "an hour" "a single day" somehow equals 18 inches but the NASB guys have never been sticklers for consistency or accuracy.
Young’s 1898 also missed it, with: “And who of you, being anxious, is able to add to his AGE one cubit?” (Again, a cubit is not a measurement of time but of length or height.)
The critical text Common English Bible of 2012 paraphrases and misses the point with: "Who among you by worrying can add a SINGLE MOMENT TO YOUR LIFE?" In this modern paraphrase the 18 inch cubit had dropped from the NASB, NIV, ESVs "hour" or "a single day" (NASB 2020) to a "single moment". They just keep getting better and better, don't they?
YES, indeedy, we have made "wonderful advances in modern scholarship and now we are very close to what the originals actually said!" ;-)
The Catholic Connection
We see the same confusion in the Catholic versions. The older Douay-Rheims of 1582 and the 1950 Douay both correctly read as does the KJB with "And which of you by taking thought, can add TO HIS STATURE ONE CUBIT?".
Then the 1968 Jerusalem bible and the 1985 New Jerusalem bible both have the nonsensical reading of "add a SINGLE CUBIT TO YOUR SPAN OF LIFE?" (Keep in mind that a cubit is NOT a measure of time) and the 1970 St. Joseph New American Bible has "add A MOMENT TO HIS LIFE SPAN?"
But, not to fear. Now the latest Catholic version to come down the pike, called the Catholic Public Domain Version of 2009, has once again gone back to reading "and which of you, by thinking, is able to ADD ONE CUBIT TO HIS STATURE?" and so has The Revised Douay-Rheims Bible of 2012.
Get yourself a copy of the King James Bible and stick to it. Don't settle for an inferior bible version that NOBODY seriously believes is the inerrant words of God.
For proof of the fickle nature of the ever changing NASBs please see my article - 'The ever-changing "literal" NASB' here:
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, Amplified bible 1987, the NASB 1995, NIV 1982 - 2011, Lexham English bible 2012, Dan Wallace's NET version and the Jehovah Witness New World Translation 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: the Anglo Saxon Gospels 1000 A.D. - "Eornestlice secheð ærest GODES riche. & hys rihtwysnesse.", Wycliffe 1395 - "Therfor seke ye first the kyngdom of God, and his riytfulnesse", the Great Bible 1540, Bishop's Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, Wesley 1755, Webster's 1833, Living Oracles 1835, Murdock's 1852 and Lamsa's 1933 translations of the Syriac Peshitta, Douay 1950, Hebrew Names Version, the Holman Standard 2003, 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.
The Catholic Connection
The previous Douay-Rheims 1582 and the Douay of 1950 both read "Seek first the kingdom OF GOD and his righteousness." But then they omitted the words "kingdom OF GOD" for "HIS kingdom" in the 1968 Jerusalem bible, the 1970 St. Joseph NAB and the New Jerusalem bible 1985.
But, not to fear, now once again in the 2009 Catholic Public Domain Version they have gone back to "Seek first the kingdom OF GOD, and his righteousness."
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 2001 - 2011, Good News Bible, New American Bible 1970, Contemporary English Version 1991, The Message 2002, Today's English Version 1992, Holman Christian Standard 2003, the ISV, the Common English Bible 2011 and the Voice 2012.
Matthew 7:14 is the way that leads to life NARROW or HARD?
Matthew 7:13-14 KJB - “Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
14 Because strait is the gate, and NARROW is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.”
ESV (RSV, Revised Standard Version CATHOLIC Edition 1966, NRSV) - “Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. 14 For the gate is narrow and the way is HARD that leads to life, and those who find it are few.”
The NKJV 1982, Holman Standard, NET - “DIFFICULT is the way which leads to life” (NKJV- the marijuana version;-)
Well, I guess it’s much harder when you are using one of the fake Vatican supervised versions like the ever changing ESV, but the way to life is not hard at all. All we have to do is believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. But the way IS narrow. There is only one door, not many, and that door is the Lord Jesus Christ himself.
I am the door; by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved. John 10:9
Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. John 5:24.
The Greek word translated here in Matthew 7:14 as NARROW is thlibo and it literally means “to press together” “to hem in” (Kittle’s Theological Dictionary of the N.T. page 139.
Liddell and Scott’s Lexicon says that the perfect participle (which this is) means HEMMED IN, CONFINED, NARROW. (Liddell and Scott?s Greek-English Lexicon, 17th edition 1887, page 319)
Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament tells us on page 291 that the perfect participle (which this is here in Matthew 7:14) means: “a compressed way, i.e. NARROW, STRAITENED, CONTRACTED.”
The Bauer, Arndt and Gingrich Greek-English Lexicon tells us on page 362 that the passive participle (which this is) means: “pressed together, compressed, MADE NARROW”
And even Vine’s Expository Dictionary of the N.T. says that the perfect participle is “Literally NARROWED, i.e. hemmed in, like a mountain gorge; the way is rendered NARROW by the Divine conditions.”
The Catholic Connection
The older Douay-Rheims 1582 said “narrow is the gate, and STRAIT (not crooked, not bent) is the way that leadeth to life”. Then the 1950 Douay has a similar meaning saying: “narrow is the gate and CLOSE (narrow) the way that leads to life”.
BUT now the St. Joseph New American bible 1970 has: “how narrow is the gate that leads to life, HOW ROUGH the road” and the 1968 Jerusalem and the 1985 New Jerusalem bibles now read like the ESV with “it is a narrow gate and A HARD ROAD that leads to life, and only a few find it.”
Other Versions -
The International Standard Version 2014, Green’s Literal 2005 and New American Bible 2010 have ?how CONSTRICTED is the road that leads to life”
Young’s 1898 - “and COMPRESSED the way that is leading to life”
Worldwide English N.T. 1998 - “The gate is small and the road IS NOT WIDE that goes to life. Not many people find it.”
World English Bible 2000 - “How narrow is the gate, and RESTRICTED is the way that leads to life! Few are those who find it.”
Jubilee Bible 2010 and Lexham English bible 2012 - “and CONFINED is the way which leads to life”
The New European Version 2010 - “For narrow is the gate and STRAIGHT the road that leads to life, but few are they that find it.”
New Testament for Everyone 2011 - “But the gate leading to life is narrow, and the road going there IS A TIGHT SQUEEZE.”
Biblos Bible 2013 - “and COMPRESSED the way leading to life”
English Majority Text N.T. 2013 - “and CONFINED is the way which leads to life”
Hebrew Names Version 2014 - and RESTRICTED is the way that leads to life
NARROW is the way, that leadeth unto life
Agreeing with the King James Bible are Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, The Great Bible 1540, Matthew’s Bible 1549, the Bishops’ Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, The Beza N.T. 1599, Mace N.T. 1729, Whiston’s N.T. 1745, Wesley N.T. 1755, Haweis N.T. 1795, The Thomson Bible 1808, The Revised Translation 1815, Living Oracles N.T. 1826, The Pickering N.T. 1840, The Revised N.T. 1862, Notes N.T. 1869, Twentieth Century N.T. 1901, the Clarke N.T. 1913, New English Bible 1970, Living Bible 1971, The Word of Yah Bible 1993, the NASB 1995, The Revised Webster Bible 1995, Third Millennium Bible 1998, God’s First Truth 1999, The Tomson N.T. 2002, the New Century Version 2005, The Conservative Bible 2010, The Hebrew Transliteration Bible 2010, The Aramaic N.T. 2011 “and NARROW is the road”, the NIV 2011, The Voice 2012, The Translator’s Bible 2014, the Modern English Version 2014, and the New International Reader’s Version 2014.
The King James Bible is always right. Get used to it.
The ever changing ESVs are one of the new Vatican Versions. Get used to that, as well.
The Ever Changing ESVs 2001, 2007, 2011 and 2016 editions = just another Vatican Version
Matthew 9:13 - KJB - But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners TO REPENTANCE.
ESV, NIV, NASB, Jehovah Witness NWT and modern Catholic versions like the St. Joseph NAB and the New Jerusalem bible 1985 -
Go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy, and not sacrifice.’ For I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.”
The words “TO REPENTANCE” - εἰς μετανοιάν - are found in the Majority of all Greek manuscripts as well as C,K,L, Theta, f13, 579, 700, 892, 1424,the Old Latin c and gl, some Syriac versions, the Coptic Sahidic and Coptic Boharic ancient versions.
The words “to repentance” are found in the Greek texts of Erasmus, Stephanus 1550, Beza 1598, Scrivener 1894, Elziever 1624 and the Majority Text by Hodges and Farstad 1982.
They are also in the Modern Greek New Testament.
Matthew 9:13 - Υπαγετε δε και μαθετε τι ειναι, Ελεον θελω και ουχι θυσιαν. Διοτι δεν ηλθον δια να καλεσω δικαιους αλλα αμαρτωλους εις μετανοιαν.
https://newchristianbiblestudy.org/bible/greek-modern/matthew/9/
The words “to repentance” are omitted by Vaticanus and Sinaiticus and a few others.
This is the reading of the Reformation bibles. The words “sinners TO REPENTANCE” are found in Tyndale 1524, Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew’s Bible 1549, the Bishops’ bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, Beza’s N.T. 1599, Wesley’s N.T. 1755, Worsley N.T. 1770, Haweis N.T. 1795, the World English Bible, Young’s 1898 (sinners to reformation), the NKJV 1982,The Third Millennium Bible 1998, the Koster Scriptures 1998, the Tomson N.T. 2002,the Complete Apostles’ bible 2005, the Resurrection Life N.T. 2005, the Wilbur Pickering New Testament, the Mebust Bible 2007, the Jubilee Bible 2010, God’s First Truth, the Modern English Version 2014, the Robinson Pierpont Majority Text 2018, The Modern Literal Version 2021, the Far Above All Translation 2022 and A Faithful Version 2022 - “not to call the righteous but sinners TO REPENTANCE.”
Matthew 10:4 Simon the CANAANITE or Simon the ZEALOT?
KJB (Beza, Geneva, NKJV) - Simon the CANAANITE, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him.
ESV (NIV, NASB, NET, Catholic New Jerusalem) - Simon the ZEALOT, and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him.
Other Critical Text Versions - Matthew 10:4
Revised Version, ASV 1901, Weymouth N.T. 1902, RSV 1971 - “Simon the CANANAEAN, and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him.”
There is great confusion both among the underlying Greek texts and the translations of both Matthew 10:4 and Mark 3:18, where we read as well “and Simon THE CANAANITE.”
In Luke 6:15 he is called Simon Zelotes
That Simon the Canaanite was also called Simon Zelotes is usually thought to mean that at one time he was a member of the political movement that wanted to overthrow Roman rule, called the Zealots.
Others think that it just means that he was very “zealous” in his faith.
The Greek words are completely different.
Matthew 10:4 - - Simon the Canaanite
In Matthew 10:4 Simon the CANAANITE is not only the reading found in the KJB, the Majority of all remaining Greek mss. but also in SINAITICUS.
However the Vaticanus mss. reads Simon the CANANAEAN - and many modern Vatican supervised Critical text versions have “interpreted” this to mean “Simon the ZEALOT” because one theory is that the word Cananaean is an Aramaic word (somehow tossed into the middle of a Greek text) that means “Zealot”.
Another theory is that Simon was from Cana of Galilee, and that is why he was called “the Canaanite”, even though (if that were true) he would probably have been referred to as the Canite instead of the Canaanite.
Matthew Henry mentions both of these theories, saying: “Simon is called the Canaanite, or rather the Canite, from Cana of Galilee, where probably he was born; or Simon the Zealot, which some make to be the signification of Kananiteµs.”
John Gill mentions three different views and he disagrees with Matthew Henry. The commentators can’t seem to agree among themselves.
Another explanation is that he really was a Canaanite (just as God’s Book says he was) whose family had been converted to the Jewish faith and he was brought up as a believer in the true God of Israel, who is Jehovah.
We have a similar example in the Old Testament with Uriah the Hittite who was one of David’s mighty men and the husband of Bathsheba. Yet the Hittites were one of the nations the children of Israel were told to destroy out of the land. He was a Hittite but he was a believer in the one true God.
There is another example right here in Matthew of a person being referred to as “a woman of Canaan”.
In Matthew 15:22 we read: “And, behold, a woman of CANAAN came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil.”
But, as is often the case, not even the so called “oldest and best manuscripts” agree with each other. Nor do the Critical Text versions agree on how to translate the passage in Matthew 10:4, nor do the commentators agree among themselves on what the verse means.
In Mark 3:18 we have another example of textual confusion because the TR, the Majority of all manuscripts, including Alexandrinus, once again read “Simon the Canaanite”, but this time Sinaiticus changes gears and goes with the Vatican mss.
Versions like the ESV, NIV, NASB, and the modern Catholic versions read: “and Simon the Zealot”, Footnote - Greek kananaios, meaning zealots.
Back to Matthew 10:4 - and Simon the Canaanite
Wycliffe 1380 - Simon Canaanite
The Great bible 1540 - Simon of Canaan
Reading (correctly) that he is Simon the Canaanite are The Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, The Beza N.T. 1599, Whiston?s N.T. 1745, John Wesley’s N.T. 1755, The Thomson Bible 1808, The Pickering N.T. 1840, Youngs 1898, the NKJV 1982, The Koster Scriptures 1998 - “Shim'on the Kena'anite”, The Third Millennium Bible 1998, World English bible 2000, The Tomson N.T. 2002, Apostolic Bible Polyglot Greek 2003, The Word of Yah Bible 1993, A Conservative Version Interlinear 2005 “Simon the Canaanite”, The Pickering New Testament 2005, The Context Group Version 2007, The Jubilee Bible 2010, The Conservative Bible 2010, The New European Version 2010, the Aramaic New Testament 2011 - “Simon THE CANAANITE”, The Bond Slave Version 2012, The Natural Israelite Bible 2012, The Concordant Version 2012, The Far Above All Translation 2014, The Pioneer’s N.T. 2014 and The Modern Literal New Testament 2014 - “Simon the CANAANITE”.
Foreign Language Bibles = KJB
The French Martin 1744, Ostervald 1998, Louis Segond 2007 - Simon le Cananite
Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569, Cipriano de Valera 1602, Reina Valera 1995 - Simón, el cananita
Italian Diodato 1649, la Nuova Diodati 1991 - Simone il Cananeo
The German Schlachter bible 2000 - Simon der Kananiter
The Dutch Staten Vertaling bible - Simon Kananites
The Afrikaans bible 1953 - Simon Kananítes
The Czech BKR Bible - Simon Kananitský
The Romanian Fidela Bible 2015 - Simon Canaanitul
The Modern Greek Bible - = Simon the Canaanite
The King James Bible is always right. Get used to it.
Matthew 12:35 "the good treasure OF THE HEART"
These words are found in the Textus Receptus, but not in the Majority text nor in the Critical Text.
Manuscripts L and F1 say "of his heart". The phrase is found in manuscript 33, the Old Latin aur, and in the Syriac Sinaiticus and Curetonian ancient versions.
Greek Texts that read like the KJB are Stephanus 1550, Beza 1598, Elzevir 1624, Scrivener 1894.
Reading "the good treasure OF THE HEART" are the following Bible translations - Tyndale 1524, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew’s bible 1549, Bishops's bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, Beza’s N.T. 1599, Worsley N.T. 1770, Haweis N.T. 1795, Thomson Translation 1808, Webster Bible 1833, Julia Smith Translation 1876, Young's 1898, J.B. Phillips N.T. 1972, NKJV 1982, Green's Literal 1993, the Koster Scriptures 1998, Worldwide English N.T. 1998, the Tomson N.T. 2002, the Common Editions N.T., the Resurrection Life N.T. 2005, the Apostolic Polyglot Bible Greek N.T. 2005, New Century Version 2005, the Mebust Bible 2007, Jubilee Bible 2010, Expanded Bible 2011, Modern English Version 2014, International Children’s Bible 2015, New Living Translation 2015, New Matthew Bible 2016, The Passion Translation 2017, Revised Geneva Translation 2019, and A Faithful Version 2020.
Foreign Language Bibles that contain the phrase "the good treasure OF THE HEART", Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569, the Spanish Cipriano de Valera of 1602 -del buen tesoro DEL CORAZON, the Spanish Reina Valera 1960-1995, Luther?s German Bible 1545 and the German Schlachter Bible 2000, the Italian Diodati Bible 1649 and La Nuova Diodati 1991, the Dutch Statenvertaling Bible, the French Martin Bible 1744 and the French Ostervald Bible 1996, the Portuguese A Biblia Sagrada - do bom tesouro do seu corao, the Afrikaans Bible 1953, the Romanian Fidela bible 2015.
Even though the English NIV omits the phrase, the Spanish NIV, Mateo 12:35 Nueva Versión Internacional, contains it - la bondad que atesora en el corazón.
Matthew 12:40 - a WHALE, a FISH, Sea Creature or a SEA MONSTER?
"For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the WHALE'S belly: so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth."
The Greek word correctly translated in the King James Bible as "Whale" is ketos. I have a modern Greek dictionary called Diury's Modern English-Greek and Greek-English Dicionary 1974. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the Bible. It's just a Greek/English dictionary. If you look up the Greek word ketos it simply says WHALE. If you look up whale, it says ketos.
Here is an easy to use online Greek-English dictionary. Just type in the word "whale" on the English to Greek side, or kitos on the Greek to English side and see what you come up with - WHALE, not a fish. http://www.kypros.org/cgi-bin/lexicon
The Greek Septuagint (LXX). Even though I do not at all believe the so called Septuagint is inspired Scripture, yet we can learn some valuable information about the meaning of Greek words from these texts. In Genesis 1:21 the King James Bible as well as many other translations in English and foreign languages tell us that "God created GREAT WHALES". The Septuagint version uses this very word ketos here and the English translation of the LXX is "And God made GREAT WHALES". That IS the meaning of the Greek word ketos.
In Websters dictionary 1999 edition, there are two Englsih words listed which come from this Greek word ketos. Cetus is the constellation of the Whale. Cetology is the branch of zoology dealing with whales and dolphins. These are both English words derived from ketos. This word occurs only one time in the New Testament. The word is not "fish", which is an entirely different Greek word - ixthus.
Jonah 1:17 refers to a "great fish" which the LORD had prepared to swallow the errant prophet Jonah. The whale, though by today's man-made "scientific" classification is a mammal, has a fishlike body, and the word fish is defined in all dictionaries as including any aquatic animal with a fishlike body. This "scientific" classification was unknown in the days of Jonah and of Jesus, and is of no relevance to the way God classifies His creatures. Most people even today, when they see a whale, say: "Wow, that's one big fish!" That is, until some pedantic type says: No, that's a mammal.
God's classification system differs from that of man's. In 1 Corinthians 15:39 we read: "All flesh is not the same flesh; but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds."
THE WHALE'S BELLY
Bible versions that have correctly translated this word as WHALE are the Anglo-Saxon Gospels Corpus Christi mss. circa 1000 A.D - "hwæles", Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549, the Bishops' Bible 1568, the Douay-Rheims of 1582, the Geneva Bible 1587, Beza's N.T. 1599, Mace's N.T. 1729, Whiston's N.T. 1745, Worsley version 1770, Thomas Haweis N.T. 1795, Clarke N.T. 1795, Webster's Bible 1833, The New Covenant N.T. 1836, the Pickering N.T 1840, the Hammond N.T. 1845, the Morgan N.T. 1848, Hewett N.T. 1850, The Commonly Received Version 1851, Julia Smith Translation 1855, The Revised N.T. 1862, The Alford New Testament 1870 -"the belly of the WHALE", the Davidson N.T. 1876, the Smith Bible 1876, The Revised English Bible 1877, The Sharpe Bible 1883, The Dillard N.T. 1885 the Revised Version 1885, the American Standard Version of 1901, Godbey's N.T. 1902, the Clarke N.T. 1913, James Moffatt N.T. 1913, Goodspeed's N.T. 1923, Riverside N.T. 1923, Lamsa's 1933 translation of the Syriac Peshitta, The Evidence Bible 2003, Apostolic Polyglot English Bible 2003, the Revised Standard Version 1952, the New American Bible of 1970, Williams N.T. 1972, the KJV 21st Century 1994, the Third Millennium Bible 1998, God's First Truth 1999, the Updated Bible version 2004, the Bond Slave Version 2009, the Faithful New Testament 2009 (William Zeltler), the Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010.
Other English Bible that correctly have "the WHALE'S belly" are The Word of Yah 1993, the New Heart English Bible 2000, the World English Bible 2000 - "in the belly of the WHALE.", The Sacred Scriptures Family of Yah 2001, The Revised Geneva Bible 2005, The Jubilee Bible 2010, The New European Version 2010, The Common English Bible 2011, the Far Above All Translation 2011 and the Hebrew Names Version 2014.
Foreign Language Bibles
Among foreign language Bible that correctly have "whale" are Luther's German bible 1545, German Elberfelder 1871 - "Walfisches Bauch" (Whales belly), the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569, Cipriano de Valera 1602, the Reina Valera of 1858 and 1909 - "LA BALLENA", the 2005 Reina Valera Gomez "LA BALLENA", the Italian Diodati 1649 - "della BALENA", the Portuguese de Almeida of 1681, the Portuguese A Bíblia Sagrada and Almeida Corregida 2009 - "como Jonas esteve três dias e três noites no ventre DA BALEIA", the French La Bible de Geneva 1669 and the French Martin 1744 - "LA BALEINE", the Tagalog Ang Salita ng Diyos 1998 - "BALYENA" and the 2009 Romanian Fidela Bible -"BALENEI".
What big fish would have swallowed up Jonah alive except a whale? Or was it the NASB's SEA MONSTER?
The NASB along with the Amplified bible 1987, the Complete Jewish bible 1998 and the Catholic Jerusalem bible of 1968, the New Jerusalem bible 1985 all tell us that Jonah was swallowed by a SEA MONSTER! The Knox bible of 2012 tells us it was a SEA BEAST, and the 2008 ISV says it was a SEA CREATURE! (That pretty well narrows it down, doesn't it?!)
Perhaps in an attempt to appear scientific rather than correctly translating what the Greek word really means, the NKJV, Holman Standard and ESV have "the great fish"; the NIV, NET have "the huge fish"
The ever revolving door of modern scholarship can't seem to get its act together. The RSV, NRSV, and ESV are all revisions of each other, yet the RSV says "a whale", the NRSV has "a sea monster" and the ESV reads "the great fish".
The Catholic versions are in their usual disarray with the 1582 Douay-Rheims reading "Whale", while the 1950 Douay has "fish", then the 1968 Jerusalem bible went with "sea monster", then the St. Joseph NAB of 1970 went back to "whale", and the 1985 New Jerusalem has "sea monster" but the latest 2009 Catholic Public Domain Version has once again gone back to "whale".
The Greek word itself means "a whale"; it does not mean a fish nor much less a sea monster. The Lord Jesus Christ said Jonah was swallowed by a whale and the King James Bible is correct while the NKJV, NIV, ESV and NASB are in error.
Science vs. religion clash: is a whale a fish?
In 1818, a whale oil dealer refused to pay a fish-product fine on whale oil, because a whale isn't a fish. The inspector insisted on the tax, and a spirited court and public battle played out.
Ultimately a jury ruled that a "whale is a fish," until the New York legislature settled the matter by voting that whales are not fish. I knew we could count on NY.
This fascinating tale comes from D. Graham Burnett in Trying Leviathan: The Nineteenth-Century New York Court Case That Put the Whale on Trial and Challenged the Order of Nature.
The Princeton University website says this about the book:
In Moby-Dick, Ishmael declares, "Be it known that, waiving all argument, I take the good old fashioned ground that a whale is a fish, and call upon holy Jonah to back me." Few readers today know just how much argument Ishmael is waiving aside. In fact, Melville's antihero here takes sides in one of the great controversies of the early nineteenth century--one that ultimately had to be resolved in the courts of New York City. In Trying Leviathan, D. Graham Burnett recovers the strange story of Maurice v. Judd, an 1818 trial that pitted the new sciences of taxonomy against the then-popular--and biblically sanctioned--view that the whale was a fish. The immediate dispute was mundane: whether whale oil was fish oil and therefore subject to state inspection. But the trial fueled a sensational public debate in which nothing less than the order of nature--and how we know it--was at stake. Burnett vividly re-creates the trial, during which a parade of experts--pea-coated whalemen, pompous philosophers, Jacobin lawyers--took the witness stand, brandishing books, drawings, and anatomical reports, and telling tall tales from whaling voyages. Falling in the middle of the century between Linnaeus and Darwin, the trial dramatized a revolutionary period that saw radical transformations in the understanding of the natural world. Out went comfortable biblical categories, and in came new sorting methods based on the minutiae of interior anatomy--and louche details about the sexual behaviors of God's creatures.
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.
The Catholic Versions
A similar fickle fate is found in the Catholic versions. The Douay-Rheims bible of 1582 and the 1950 Douay version contain 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 originally omitted the entire verse from their Greek text, all on the basis of the Vaticanus manuscript. But neither the Revised Version of 1881 nor the ASV of 1901 agreed with them. They both include the entire verse.
Later on, the newer editors of the Nestle-Aland text decided to put it back in without brackets; It is in the Nestle's 4th edition 1934 with NO brackets. but then later still (Nestle's 21st edition 1975), 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, NET, 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.
Though Vaticanus (one of those "oldest and best manuscripts" don't ya know) omits the entire verse, even Dan Wallace comments: "early scribes probably omitted the verse through homoioteleuton. The following verses make little sense without v. 47; its omission is too hard a reading. Thus v. 47 was most likely part of the original text."
You see, Dan Wallace and most Christians today have a "most likely" bible.
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.
Get yourself the Bible God has born witness to in so many ways and the only one seriously believed by thousands of God's redeemed people to be the complete and inerrant words of God - The King James Holy Bible.
Don't settle for a "bible" version that even the scholars refer to as a "most likely" version of what God inspired.
Matthew 14:30 "But when he (Peter) saw the wind BOISTEROUS (iskupon), he was afraid".
The Constant Merry Go Round of Modern Textual Criticism.
The word "boisterous" is in the Majority of all manuscripts including Vaticanus correction, C, D, E, F, G, K, L, P, W, X, Delta, Theta, Pi, Sigma, the Old Latin copies, Syriac Peshitta, Harclean, Palestinian, Armenian, Georgian and Slavonic ancient versions.
Basically the only mss. that omits this word is Sinaiticus.
Westcott and Hort originally omitted this word and so did the Nestle 4th edition 1934 and the Nestle 21st edition 1975. However now the Nestle-Aland Critical text includes the word but in [brackets].
The Critical text versions themselves are in disagreement with each other.
Critical text versions that include the word "boisterous", "mighty" or "strong" are the NRSV 1989, New English bible 1970, J.B. Phillips 1972, Good News Translation 1992, Contemporary English Version 1995, NET 2006, Common English bible 2011, Names of God Version 2011, Mounce Interlinear 2011, International Standard Version 2014, New Living Translation 2015, Holman Standard 2017, Evangelical Heritage Version 2017.
"But when he saw the wind, he was afraid."
Critical text Versions that omit the word "boisterous, mighty or strong" are the RSV, ESV 2001-2016, NIV, NASB, Jehovah Witness NWT, Tree of Life Version 2015.
Notice that the RSV omitted the word, the NRSV 1989 put it in, and then then ESV took it out again.
Inconsistent NIVs
Even though the English NIV omits the word and says: "But when he saw the wind, he was afraid and, beginning to sink, cried out, "Lord, save me!"
Yet the NIV Spanish version 2015, Nueva Versión Internacional (NVI) keeps the word in the text - "Pero, al sentir el viento FUERTE, tuvo miedo y comenzó a hundirse. Entonces gritó:¡Señor, sálvame!"
The Catholic Connection
The previous Catholic versions like the Douay-Rheims 1582, Douay 1950 and the St. Joseph New American bible 1970 all contain the word.
BUT the New Jerusalem bible 1985 omits it and reads like the NASB, NIV, ESV and the Jehovah Witness NWT.
The Reformation Bibles in all languages include this reading. This includes Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale, Coverdale, The Great bible, Matthew's bible, the Bishops' bible, the Geneva Bible, Young's, NKJV, and a multitude of other Bibles in all languages.
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 Millennium 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, Holman Standard, Dan Wallace's NET version and the Modern Catholic versions continue to include these two verses in their versions.
Dan Wallace's NET version doesn't even have a footnote letting us know that Matthew 16:2-3 are not found in his "oldest and best manuscripts". Not a peep.
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, Rotherham's Emphasized Bible 1902 and the 1989 Revised English Bible which actually reads: Matthew 16:2 He answered: 16:4 "It is a wicked, godless generation that asks for a sign...." Verse 2 merely says: "He answered." Then they skip verse 3 entirely and then pick up with verse four.
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 volumes, 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 16:2-3 are found in virtually every Bible translation ever made, in spite of the fact that BOTH Sinaiticus and Vaticanus completely omit them. They are found in all Reformation Bibles in all languages including the Modern Greek Bible and the Modern Hebrew Bible.
Matthew 17:4 "Let us make" versus "I will make"
Another bogus reading found in the modern Vatican Versions is found in Matthew 17:4 when the Lord Jesus is transfigured on the mount in the presence of Peter, James and John. Here the Lord appears with Moses and Elijah and Peter says: "Lord, it is good for us to be here: if thou wilt, LET US MAKE here three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses and one for Elias."
The Majority of all Greek texts, as well as C, D, the Old Latin, the Syriac Peshitta and the inspired accounts of this same event found in Mark 9:5 and in Luke 9:33 all have Peter say "LET US MAKE here..."
However, Vaticanus and Sinaiticus have Peter say "I WILL MAKE here...", yet they still have Peter saying "LET US MAKE three tabernacles" in both Mark 9:5 and in Luke 9:33 -
Even the older Catholic versions like the 1582 Douay-Rheims and the 1950 Douay version read like the KJB and the Majority of all texts with "Let us make here...". However the more recent Vatican versions like the 1970 St. Joseph NAB, the New Jerusalem bible of 1985, and the new Vatican Versions like the ESV, NIV, NASB, NET, Holman Standard versions have now adopted this false reading of not only contradicts virtually all Reformation Bibles in all languages, but even the other synoptic gospel accounts as found in Mark 9 and Luke 9.
Matthew 17:15-21 Lunatick, Epileptic or Afflicted with Seizures?
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 Millennium 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.
Matthew 17:20 - "And Jesus said unto them, Because of your UNBELIEF"
"unbelief"
versus
"little faith"
KJB - 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; and nothing shall be impossible unto you.
ESV (NIV, NASB, NET, Holman, Jehovah Witness NWT, Catholic St. Joseph NAB) - “He said to them, Because of YOUR LITTLE FAITH. For truly, I say to you, if you have faith like a grain of mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, “Move from here to there”, and it will move, and nothing will be impossible for you.”
An error still retained in the NASB, ESV, NET, Holman Standard, NIV, Jehovah Witness NWT and the more modern Catholic Versions is the result of following Vaticanus and Sinaiticus and the new Vatican supervised Nestle-Aland critical Greek texts.
When the disciples could not cast out a devil they ask Jesus why. The Lord tells 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."
In this instance they had NO FAITH AT ALL and Jesus tells them that if they had just a little bit of faith they could remove mountains.
The reading of "UNbelief" or "NO faith" is that found in the Majority of all remaining Greek manuscripts including C, D, E, F, G, H, K, L, M, S, U, V, W, X, Y as well as the Old Latin a, aur, b, c, d, e, f, ff1, 2, g1, 1, the Syriac Peshitta, Harclean, Sinaitic and Slavonic ancient versions.
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; and nothing shall be impossible unto you."
"Because of YOUR UNBELIEF"
Agreeing with the reading found in the King James Bible of "Because of YOUR UNBELIEF" are the following Bible translations: Wycliffe 1395 - "Jhesus seith to hem, For youre vnbileue.", Tyndale 1325 - "Iesus sayd vnto the: Because of youre vnbelefe", Coverdale 1535, Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, the Beza N.T. 1599, The Bill Bible 1671, Mace N.T. 1729, Whiston's N.T. 1745, Wesley's translation 1755, Worsley Version 1770, Haweis N.T. 1795, The Improved N.T. 1809, The Revised Translation 1815, the Kneeland N.T. 1823, The Pickering N.T. 1840, The Morgan N.T. 1848, the Hewett N.T. 1850, The Commonly Received Version 1851, Sawyer N.T. 1858, Noyes Translation 1869, the Smith Bible 1876, Darby 1890, Youngs 1898 - "your want of faith", Godbey N.T. 1902, The Clarke N.T. 1913, Lamsa's translation of the Syriac Peshitta, the NKJV 1982, The Word of Yah 1993, the Third Millennium Bible 1998, The Koster Scriptures 1998, The Lawrie N.T. 1998, God's First Truth 1999, The Last Days N.T. 1999, The World English Bible 2000, The Tomson N.T. 2002, The Apostolic Polyglot Bible 2003 - "because of your UNBELIEF", Green's literal 2005, The Pickering N.T. 2005, The Resurrection Life N.T. 2005, The Faithful N.T. 2009, The Conservative Bible 2010, Jubilee Bible 2010, The Hebrew Transliteration Scripture 2010, Online Interliner 2010 (André de Mol), The Work of God's Children Bible 2011, The Aramaic N.T. 2011, The Hebraic Roots Bible 2012, The English Majority Text N.T. 2013 - "because of your UNBELIEF", The Far Above All Translation 2014, the Hebrew Names Bible 2014, The Modern Literal New Testament 2014 and The Modern English Version 2014.
Foreign Language Bibles
Among foreign language Bibles that agree with the King James Bible's "Because of your UNBELIEF" are the French Martin 1744 and the French Ostervald 1996 - "Et Jésus leur répondit : c'est à cause de votre incrédulité", Luther's German Bible 1545 and the 2000 Schlachter Bible - "Um eures Unglaubens willen.", the Russian Victor Zhuromsky Bible , the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569, the Reina Valera 1909 (but the 1960, 1995 have been "revised" to now read "por vuestra poca fe" = because of your little faith), the Cipriano de Valera 1602, 1865 and the 2010 Reina Valera Gómez - " Y Jesús les dijo: Por vuestra incredulidad" = "Because of your unbelief", the Italian Diodati 1649 and the New Diodati 1991 - "E Gesú disse loro: «Per la vostra incredulità", the Afrikaans Bible 1953, the Czech BKR Bible, Hungarian Karoli Bible, the Smith & Van Dyke Arabic Bible, the Romanian Fidela Bible 2014, the Maori Bible, the Norwegian Det Norsk Bibelselskap bible, The Polish Updated Gdansk Bible 2013, and the Russian Synodal Version - "because of your UNBELIEF."
Vatican Version Contradiction
However both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus read "Because of your LITTLE FAITH" instead of ?Because of your UNBELIEF", and so the NASB, RSV, ESV, NET, Holman, Jehovah Witness NWT, Catholic St. Joseph, New Jerusalem and NIV read: "He replied, "Because you have SO LITTLE FAITH. I tell you the truth, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there' and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you." (NIV).
If they had a little bit of faith to begin with, it doesn't make sense to tell them they only need a mustard seed of faith to accomplish great things. But if they had NO faith, then Jesus's words make sense.
As John Wesley stated in his commentary: "Because of your unbelief - Because in this particular they had not faith. If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed - That is, the least measure of it"
The Catholic Connection
The older Catholic versions like the 1582 Douay-Rheims and the 1950 Douay read like the KJB with "because of your UNBELIEF" (NO faith)
But the more modern Catholic Versions like the St. Joseph NAB 1970 and the New Jerusalem 1985 now agree with the false reading found in the NIV, ESV, NASB, NET and Holman Vatican Versions.
This is because they are ALL based on the same Vatican "interconfessional" UBS (United Bible Society) New Testament texts. Oh, but wait! Now the latest Catholic Public Domain version has come out in 2009 and it has gone back to the reading found in the King James Bible again. It reads: "Jesus said to them: Because of your UNBELIEF."
Matthew 17:21 KJB - "Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting."
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 Millennium 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.
Matthew 17:21
254 A.D. Early Church Fathers - Ante-Nicene Fathers - Volume 9 - Origen's Commentary on Matthew. - Book 13. - The Power of Faith. But let us also attend to this, "This kind goeth not out save by prayer and fasting," in order that if at any time it is necessary that we should be engaged in the healing of one suffering from such a disorder, we may not adjure, nor put questions, nor speak to the impure spirit as if it heard, but devoting ourselves to prayer and fasting, may be successful as we pray for the sufferer, and by our own fasting may thrust out the unclean spirit from him.
354-430 A.D. Early Church Fathers - Nicene & Post-Nicene Fathers - First Series - Volume 6 - St. Augustin: - Book II - Chapter LVIII - Of the Man Who Brought Before Him His Son, Whom the Disciples Were Unable to Heal; And of the Question Concerning the Agreement Between These Three Evangelists Also in the Matter of the Order of Narration Here.
116. Matthew goes on in the following terms: "And when He was come to the multitude, there came to Him a certain man, kneeling down before Him, and saying, Lord, have mercy on my son; for he is lunatic, and sore vexed;" and so on, down to the words, "Howbeit this kind is not cast out but by prayer and fasting." Both Mark and Luke record this incident, and that, too, in the same order, without any suspicion of a want of harmony.
354-430 A.D. Early Church Fathers - Nicene & Post-Nicene Fathers - First Series - Volume 6 - St. Augustin: Sermon on the Mount, Harmony of the Gospels, Homilies on the Gospels - Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament. - Sermon XXX - On the words of the Gospel, Matt. 17:19, Why could not we cast it out? etc., and on prayer.
3. Wherefore, see how the Lord in this passage exhorted His disciples to prayer, when He said, "Ye could not cast out this devil because of your unbelief.? For then exhorting them to prayer He ended thus; ?this kind is not cast out but by prayer and fasting."
347-420 A.D. Early Church Fathers - Nicene & Post-Nicene Fathers - Second Series - Volume 6 - St. Jerome: Letters and Select Works - Treatises. - Against Jovinianus. - Book II
But the Lord Himself consecrated His baptism by a forty days' fast, and He taught us that the more violent devils cannot be overcome, except by prayer and fasting.
397 A.D. Early Church Fathers - Nicene & Post-Nicene Fathers - Second Series - Volume 10 - Ambrose: Select Works and Letters - Selections from the Letters of St. Ambrose. - Epistle LXIII: To the Church at Vercell.
And since they say that we ought not to fast, let them prove for what cause Christ fasted, unless it were that His fast might be an example to us. Lastly, in His later words He taught us that evil cannot be easily overcome except by our fasting, saying: "This kind of devils is not cast out but by prayer and fasting."
Patristic Evidentiary Support for the Genuineness of the above Passage
c.130? AD Pseudo-Clement of Rome, Concerning Virginity (1 8:59) refers to this passage
c.254 AD Origen, Matthew (1 10:479) refers to this passage
c.397 AD Ambrose, Letters (iii 10:459) refers to this passage
Source: Early Church Fathers and the A.V. by Jack Moorman
ref: from the Ante-Nicene Early Church Fathers 38vol set (1 =set; 10=vol; 122=page)
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, the Armenian and Ethiopic ancient versions. It is also found in the Old Latin copies a, aur, b, d, f, ff2, g1, l, n, q, r1 and r2.
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, NET, Common English Bible, The Message, CEV, New Living Translation, and the more modern Catholic bible versions.
The Catholic Connection
The Catholic Douay-Rheims of 1582 and the Douay of 1950 both contained the whole verse without brackets, but the newer Catholic versions like the St. Joseph New American Bible 1970 and the New Jerusalem Bible 1985 and both omit the verse entirely.
BUT now the 2009 Catholic Public Domain Version has come out and they put the whole verse back in their text and not even in brackets. It reads: "For the Son of man has come to save what had been lost."
The Jehovah Witness New World Translation likewise omits the entire verse from the Bible.
The NASB puts the verse in the text but again in [brackets], indicating doubt as to its authenticity, and so does the 2003 Holman Christian Standard and also The Voice of 2012 - [The Son of Man has come to save all those who are lost.]
However the whole verse is included as inspired Scripture spoken by our Lord Jesus Christ in the following Bibles: The Vulgate 425 A.D.
Though it is almost impossible to read because it is the Anglo-Saxon Gospels written around 1000 A.D. yet the verse is clearly there - "Mat 18:11 Soðlice mannes sune com to ge-hælenne þæt for-wærð."
It is also found in Wycliffe's Bible 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540 - "For þe sonne of man is come to saue that whych was lost.", Matthew's Bible 1549, Bishop's Bible 1568, Geneva Bible 1599, Mace's N.T. 1729, Wesley's Translation 1755, Worsley Version 1770, Webster's Translation 1833, Living Oracles 1835, Etheridge Translation of the Syriac, Young's 1898, Darby 1890, Hebrew Names Version, New Life Bible 1969, NKJV 1982, KJV 21st Century 1994, Third Millennium Bible 1998, Green's Modern KJV, and it is placed back in the text without brackets by the International Standard Version 2014.
It is also the found in the Orthodox Jewish Bible of 2011 - "For the Ben HaAdam [Moshiach] came to save that which was lost." and in the Jubilee Bible 2010 - "For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost." and in the Modern English Version 2014.
Other English Bibles that contain Matthew 18:11 are The Word of Yah 1993, The Interlinear Greek New Testament 1997 (Larry Pierce), The Lawrie Translation 1998, The Evidence Bible 2003, Green's Literal 2005, The Resurrection Life New Testament 2005 (Vince Garcia), Bond Slave Version 2009, The Voice 2012 (another critical text version), the Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010, the Biblos Interlinear Bible 2011, The Orthodox Jewish Bible 2011, The Far Above All Translation 2011, The Work of God's Children Illustrated Bible 2011, the Interlinear Hebrew-Greek Scriptures 2012 (Mebust), and the World English Bible 2012.
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 Martin, Ostervald and Louis Segond 2007 - "En effet, le Fils de l'homme est venu sauver ce qui était perdu.", Gaelic, German Luther and Schlachter Bible 2000, the Modern Greek Bible, Gypsy Rhomanese, Hatian Creole Bible, Hungarian Karoli Bible, Icelandic, Italian Diodati 1649, 1991, Italian Riveduta 2006 - "Poiché il Figlio dell?uomo è venuto a salvare ciò che era perduto.",
The Korean Bible, Latvian, Norwegian, Portuguese Almeida and O Livro 2000 - "Porque o Filho do homem veio salvar o que se havia perdido.", Rumanian Cornilescu and Fidela 2014, Russian Synodal Version and the Russian Victor Zhuromsky bible, Spanish Reina Valeras 1602-1995, Tagalog Ang Salita ng Diyos 1998 - "Ito ay sapagkat ang Anak ng Tao ay naparito upang iligtas ang nawawala.",Turkish, Ukranian, Chinese Union Traditional Bible -and Vietnamese bibles.
The NIV in foreign languages -
It is typical of the fickle nature of the so called "science" of textual criticism, that though the English version of the NIVs omit Matthew 18:11, yet when they translated the NIV into Portugues, they included the verse -Nova Versão Internacional 1999 - " O Filho do homem veio para salvar o que se havia perdido." and the NIV did the same thing in their Spanish Version called Nueva Versión Internacional (Castilian)- "El Hijo del hombre vino a salvar lo que se había perdido."
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 passage. 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 Matthew 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 KJB "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."
ESV (NIV, NASB, NET, Holman, Catholic versions, Jehovah Witness NWT) - "And behold, a man came up to him, saying, "Teacher, what good deed must I do to have eternal life?"And he said to him, "WHY DO YOU ASK ME ABOUT WHAT IS GOOD? There is only one who is good. If you would enter 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 many of the Old Latin copies.
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, Jehovah Witness NWT 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."
The words "GOOD master" are found in the Majority of all remaining Greek manuscripts plus C, E, F, G, H, K, W, Delta,Theta, Xi, the Old Latin air, b, c, f, ff2, g1, l, q, the Vulgate, the Syriac Peshitta, Curetonian, Palestinian and Sinaitic as well as the Coptic Sahidic, Boharic, Armenian, Ethiopian, Georgian, Slavonic ancient versions as well as the Diatessaron. But it is omitted in Sinaiticus, Vativanus and D.
Both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus have very different wording in verse 17. Whereas the Majority of all manuscripts read "WHY CALLEST THOU ME GOOD, THERE IS NONE GOOD BUT ONE, THAT IS GOD" -
Sinaiticus and Vaticanus read "Why DO YOU ASK ME ABOUT WHAT IS GOOD. ONE IS GOOD." and they omit the phrase "THAT IS, GOD."
This meaning contradicts the other two accounts found in Mark and Luke, where the same event is recorded, even in the NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV, NET 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?
The reading of"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." in Matthew 19:16-17 is also that found in the following Bible translations -
Tyndale 1524, Coverdale 1535, The Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549, the Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, the Beza N.T. 1599, Wesley N.T. 1755, Worsley N.T. 1770, Haweis N.T. 1795, the Thomson Bible 1808, Webster Bible 1833, Living Oracles 1835, The Longman Version 1841, the Boothroyd Bible 1853, Julia Smith Translation 1855, The Revised N.T. 1862, The Smith Bible 1876, The Revised English Bible 1877, Young's 1898, The Clarke N.T. 1913, Lamsa's 1933 translation of the Syriac Peshitta, the NKJV 1982, The Koster Scriptures 1998, The Laurie N.T. 1998, Third Millennium Bible 1998, the World English Bible 2000, The Tomson N.T. 2002, The Apostolic Polyglot Bible 2003, A Conservative Version 2005, Complete Apostle's Bible 2005, The Pickering N.T. 2005, The Resurrection Life N.T. 2005, The Conservative Bible 2010, The Hebrew Transliteration Bible 2010, The English Majority Text N.T. 2013, The Modern English Version 2014, The Modern Literal New Testament 2014, The Hebraic Roots Bible 2015, the New Matthew's Bible 2016 and The Passion Translation 2017.
Foreign Language Bibles
Foreign Language Bibles that follow the same readings as the KJB are the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569, Cipriano de Valera 1602, the Spanish Reina Valera 1960, 1977 and 1995 editions - "Maestro bueno, ¿qué bien haré para tener la vida eterna? 17 El le dijo: ¿Por qué me llamas bueno? Ninguno hay bueno sino uno: Dios.", The Italian Diodati 1649 and La Nuova Diodati 1991 - "«Maestro buono, che devo fare di buono per avere la vita eterna?» 17 Ed egli disse: «Perché mi chiami buono? Nessuno è buono, se non uno solo, cioè: Dio.", the Portuguese Almeida Corrigida 2009 - "Bom Mestre, que bem farei, para conseguir a vida eterna? 17 E ele disse-lhe: Por que me chamas bom? Não há bom, senão um só que é Deus.",The French Martin Bible 1744 and the French Ostervald 1996, Luther's German Bible 1545 and the German Schlachter Bible 2000 - "Guter Meister, was soll ich Gutes tun, um das ewige Leben zu erlangen? 17 Er aber sprach zu ihm: Was nennst du mich gut? Niemand ist gut als Gott allein!" and the Romanian Fidela Bible 2014.
As well as the Modern Greek Bible
And the Modern Hebrew Bible -
So once again, it comes down to either the Reformation text as found in the King James Bible is God's true words or it is one of the constantly changing Vatican Versions. You pick.
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 pierced 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.
Matthew 19:29 "or wife" or not; "an hundredfold" or "many times as much"?
The utter confusion of the so called "oldest and best" manuscripts.
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 words "or wife" are found in most texts including Sinaiticus, C, E, F, G, H, K, L, W, X, Y, Delta, Theta, the Old Latin, Vulgate, Syriac Peshitta, Harclean, Coptic Sahidic, Boharic, Armenian, Ethiopian, Georgian and Slavonic ancient versions. The King James Bible along with the foreign language Reformation bibles include the word "wife" along with the word "hundredfold".
Just a few of the Bibles that read just like the KJB are Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549, the Bishops' bible 1568 and the Geneva Bible, Young's, World English bible 2000, NKJV and the Modern English Bible 2014 - plus many more. BUT Vaticanus, virtually all by itself, omits these two words - "OR WIFE" and so do the NASB, NIV, ESV, NET, Jehovah Witness NWT and the Holman Standard. The second important textual variant is the difference between AN HUNDREDFOLD and MANY TIMES AS MUCH. These are two very different Greek words. One literally has the word "a hundred" in it and the other one literally has the word "many" The vast majority of all manuscripts as well as the ancient versions read "AN HUNDREDFOLD". This includes Sinaiticus, C, D, E, F, G, H, K, W, X, Delta, Theta, the Old Latin copies, the Vulgate, Syriac Peshitta, Coptic Boharic, Armenian, Ethiopian, Georgian and Slavonic ancient versions. BUT, once again, virtually all by itself Vaticanus reads "MANY TIMES AS MUCH". The Critical text of Westcott and Hort used to read this way. I have hard copies of the Nestle 4th edition 1934 and the Nestle 21st edition 1975 and both read MANY TIMES AS MUCH.
BUT later on, the Nestle-Aland/UBS Vatican supervised Critical text changed this reading for the other one that is found in Sinaiticus and most others, and NOW the Nestle-Aland/UBS texts read "a HUNDREDFOLD"
And they did all this, not because they discovered some new textual evidence. They just changed their minds. Not even the Revised Version 1881 nor the ASV of 1901 went along with Westcott and Hort on this one, but still read "an hundredfold", as also do the RSV, NRSV, ESV, NET, NIV, Holman, NKJV, etc. BUT the NASB, virtually all by itself except for the Jehovah Witness New World Translation STILL has the Vatican reading here and says: "And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or farms for My name's sake, will receive MANY TIMES AS MUCH, and will inherit eternal life."
The Catholic Confusion The Douay-Rheims of 1582 as well as the Douay Version 1950 both read exactly like the KJB has it. - "And every one that hath left house, 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 possess life everlasting."
BUT the St. Joseph New American bible 1970 includes the word WIFE but has MANY TIMES AS MUCH instead of "an hundredfold" And then the New Jerusalem bible of 1985 reverses itself and it now omits the word WIFE AND goes with A HUNDRED TIMES AS MUCH.
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 rigamarole the ?science" of textual criticism!
FOR MANY BE CALLED, BUT FEW CHOSEN. Matthew 20:16
This parable about the kingdom of heaven being likened unto a husbandman who hired laborers into his vineyard and paid them all the same, ends with the words: So the last shall be first, and the first last; FOR MANY BE CALLED, BUT FEW CHOSEN.
This is the reading found in the Majority of all manuscripts including C, D, E, F, G, H, O, W, Delta, the Old Latin aur, b, c, d, e, f, ff1, ff2, g1, h, l, n, q, the Latin Vulgate, the Syriac Peshitta, Sinaitic, Palestinian and Harclean, the Armenian, Ethiopic, Georgian and Slavonic ancient versions.
These words are found in Wycliffe 1395, The Anglo Saxon Gospels 990 A.D., Tyndale, Coverdale, the Great Bible, Matthew's Bible, the Bishops' Bible, the Geneva Bible, the older Catholic Douay-Rheims 1582 and Douay 1950, Beza?s N.T. 1599, Lamsa's translation of Syriac Peshitta 1933, the NKJV 1982, The World English Bible 2000, The Apostolic Polyglot Bible 2003, The Jubilee Bible 2010, The Hebraic Transliteration Scriptures 2010, The Conservative Version 2010, The International Standard Version 2014, Modern English Version 2014, and The Hebrew Roots Bible 2014 to name but a few.
Foreign Language Bibles
Foreign language Bibles that contain the words FOR MANY BE CALLED, BUT FEW CHOSEN are the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569, the Reina Valera 1995, the Portuguese Almeida 2009, the Italian Diodati 1649 and La Nuova Diodati 1991, the Italian Nuova Riveduta 2006, the French Martin 1944, the French Ostervald 1998 and the French Louis Segond 2007, Martin Luther's German bible 1545 and the German Schlachter Bible 2000, the Polish Updated Gdansk bible 2013, the Smith & Van Dyke Arabic bible, the Czech BKR bible, the Dutch Staten Vertaling Bible, the Hungarian Karoli Bible, the Chinese Union Traditional bible, and the Romanian Fidela Bible 2014
But the words FOR MANY BE CALLED, BUT FEW CHOSEN are omitted by Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, and so too do the modern Catholic versions like the St. Joseph New American bible 1970, the New Jerusalem bible 1985, the Jehovah Witness New World Translation and the ESV, NIV, NASB, NET, Holman and NET versions.
That is because the Nestle-Aland, every changing Critical text that is under the direct supervision of the Vatican is the basis for all these new translations.
Undeniable Proof the ESV, NIV, NASB, Holman Standard, NET, Jehovah Witness NWT etc. are the new "Vatican Versions"
Matthew 21:28-31 The Two Sons of the Father and the Bible Babble Buffet in Action.
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."
Go here to see the entire article on these verses -
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.
Matthew 23:35 Zachariah the son of Berechiah or Zechariah the son of Jehoiada?
Is there a copyist error in ALL texts and in ALL Bibles as many claim?
There is a textual reading found in the recorded words of our Lord Jesus Christ in Matthew 23:35 where the Lord is rehearsing the long, sad history of the rebellion of the children of Israel.
In Matthew 23:34-36 we read: 34 Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city: 35 that upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of BARACHIAS, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar. 36 Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.
The "problem" many see in this text is that though there are about 27 different people called Zechariah in the Old Testament, it is not recorded that Zacharias the son of BARACHIAS (Berechiah) was killed in this way, but there IS a similar death recorded of Zechariah the son of JEHOIADA in 2 Chronicles 24:20-22.
Here we read: "20 And the Spirit of God came upon Zechariah the son of JEHOIADA the priest, which stood above the people, and said unto them, Thus saith God, Why transgress ye the commandments of the Lord, that ye cannot prosper because ye have forsaken the Lord, he hath also forsaken you. 21 And they conspired against him, and stoned him with stones at the commandment of the king in the court of the house of the Lord. 22 Thus Joash the king remembered not the kindness which Jehoiada his father had done to him, but slew his son. And when he died, he said, The Lord look upon it, and require it."
A surprising number of Bible commentators tell us that this is a TEXTUAL ERROR that was either originally made by Matthew himself or that some later scribe misread the text and thus ALL the Greek manuscripts repeated this error.
Typical of this claim of TEXTUAL ERROR is The Expositor's Greek Testament, which says:"(son of Berechiah), the designation of the last but one of the minor prophets, applied here to the other Zechariah, BY INADVERTENCE EITHER OF THE EVANGELIST (Matthew himself) OR OF AN EARLY COPYIST."
And Robertson's Word Pictures in The New Testament says: "The usual explanation is that the reference is to Zachariah the son of Jehoiada the priest who was slain in the court of the temple (2 Chronicles 24:20.). HOW THE WORDS, "THE SON OF BARACHIAH" GOT INTO MATTHEW Matthew WE DO NOT KNOW."
Many Bible commentators and even some books that attempt to explain alleged "contradictions" in the Bible, just omit any reference to this verse. They apparently cannot give a reasonable explanation.
ALL Bibles in all languages of the world I have looked at read the same here in Matthew 23:35 - Zechariah the son of BERECHIAH, and not Zechariah the son of Jehoiada.
A professing Christian who does not believe his Bible - ANY Bible - is the inerrant words of God, posts at one of our Facebook forums:
"Do you want more examples of error in the Bible? Here the name Jehoiada is wrongly given as Barachias - Mat. 23:35 That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.
Compare to - 2 Chron. 24:20 And the Spirit of God came upon Zechariah the son of Jehoiada the priest, which stood above the people, and said unto them, Thus saith God, Why transgress ye the commandments of the LORD, that ye cannot prosper? because ye have forsaken the LORD, he hath also forsaken you." (End of Bible critic's comments)
Is there a way to explain this apparent contradiction without resorting to the claim that the Bible is simply wrong?
Yes, there is. First of all, there IS a prophet named Zechariah who was the son of Berechiah and he is found in the book of Zechariah. What a coincidence!
Zechariah 1:1-3 KJB - "In the eighth month, in the second year of Darius, came the word of the Lord unto Zechariah, the son of BERECHIAH, the son of Iddo the prophet, saying, 2 The Lord hath been sore displeased with your fathers. 3 Therefore say thou unto them, Thus saith the Lord of hosts; Turn ye unto me, saith the Lord of hosts, and I will turn unto you, saith the Lord of hosts."
Secondly, the Lord Jesus is drawing a contrast between the first and the last of the men of God whom wicked men had slain. He begins with Abel and ends with Zechariah the son of Berechiah.
Matthew 23:35 - "That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, FROM the blood of righteous Abel UNTO the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar."
The Zechariah the son of Jehoiada recorded in 2 Chronicles 24 lived died around 800 B.C. and was by no means the last of the Old Testament martyrs.
Gleason Archer points this out in his book Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, 1982, Zondervan Corporation, pages 337-338. He says: "Hence he makes a poor balance to Abel, who certainly was the first."
Mr. Archer then goes on to say: "The obvious solution is to start all over again and assume that Matthew 23:35 correctly reports the words of Jesus, and that He knew what He was talking about.
If so, then we discover that the Zechariah He was referring to was indeed the son of Berechiah (NOT Jehoiada), and that he was indeed the last of the Old Testament martyrs mentioned in the Hebrew Scriptures."
Mr. Archer goes on to note that Christ is recalling to His audience the circumstances of the death of Zechariah, the son of Berechiah (Zechariah 1:1) whose ministry began some three centuries later than that of the other Zechariah mentioned in 2 Chronicles 24.
We are not told in the O.T. Scriptures how this later prophet, Zechariah the son of Berechiah, died. It is simply not recorded, but that does not mean it did not happen the way the Lord Jesus said it did.
There are several things the N.T. reveals that are not recorded in the Old Testament.
For example, the names of the Egyptian magicians Jannes and Jambres as found in 2 Timothy 3:8. Or how "Lot vexed his righteous soul from day to day" in 2 Peter 2:7-8. Or how that Michael the archangel contended with the devil about the body of Moses in Jude 1:9.
One difference between the two different Zechariahs is that the one referred to in 2 Chronicles was stoned IN THE COURT OF THE HOUSE OF THE LORD, but the Zechariah the son of Berachiah Jesus refers to in Matthew 23 was slain BETWEEN THE TEMPLE AND THE ALTAR.
Mr. Archer concludes with these words, saying: "In the absence of any other information as to how the prophet Zechariah died, we may as well conclude that Jesus has given a true account of it and add him to the roster of the noble martyrs of biblical times."
Most Bible commentators either tell us this is a textual error in Matthew 23:35 or they just skip over it because they don't know how to explain it.
But I did find one Bible commentator who agrees with our view.
Peter Pett says in his Commentary on the Bible - "For the blood of "Zachariah the son of Berechiah" we probably have to look to the Jewish tradition of the time of Jesus, which sadly is not available to us. For this was probably the Zechariah, son of Berechiah, of Zechariah 1. Certainly we know that he had many dangerous opponents whom he had outfaced (Zechariah 10:3; Zechariah 11:8), and his words had undoubtedly stirred up deep antagonism against him (Zechariah 11:8; Zechariah 11:12-14; Zechariah 13:7), as he described them as worthless shepherds (Matthew 11:16-17) so such a death is quite likely to have happened to him and to have been remembered in the tradition. He may thus well have been the last prophet to have been martyred. The description "between the sanctuary and the altar" is specific and suggests some specific and well known tradition. This makes it unlikely that this refers to Zechariah the "son" (probably grandson, and therefore he could have been a son of Berechiah, which was not an uncommon name, compare 1 Chronicles 6:39) of Jehoiada, who while he was slain in the courtyard of the Lord's house (2 Chronicles 24:21), was not said to have been slain in this specific place (the priestly section of the courtyard)."
You either believe the Book or you do not, and this particular bible critic who brought up this objection in our Facebook forum, clearly is just another professing Christian who does NOT believe the Bible - ANY Bible - IS the complete and inerrant words of God.
Matthew 25:13 KJB - Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour WHEREIN THE SON OF MAN COMETH.?
Vatican Versions like the NASB, ESV, NIV, NET, Holman Standard, Jehovah Witness NWT and the Catholic versions all omit these last 6 words. The words are omitted in Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, D, L and a few other manuscripts.
But they are found in the Majority of all remaining Greek manuscripts as well as several Uncial copies like C3rd correction, E, F, G, H, M, S, U, V, Gamma and Omega.
Once again, it is the difference between the Reformation Bibles in all languages and the new Vatican supervised Critical text Versions.
Reading like the KJB and including the words WHEREIN THE SON OF MAN COMETH are the following Bible translations -
Tyndale 1524s, Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew’s Bible 1549, the Bishops’ Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, Beza’s N.T. 1599, Haweis N.T. 1745, Worsley N.T. 1770, Thomson Translation 1808, Young’s 1898, World English Bible, NKJV 1982, Third Millennium bible 1998, the Koster Scriptures 1998 - the hour in which the Son of Adam is coming, Green’s Literal 2000, the Tomson N.T. 2002, the Complete Apostle’s Bible 2005, Jubilee Bible 2010, Wilbur Pickering N.T., Hebrew Names Version, The Resurrection Life N.T. 2005, New Century Version 2005, Easy to Read Version 2006, the Mebust Bible 2007, the English Majority Text Version 2009, Expanded Bible 2011, The Voice 2012, The Amplified Bible 2015, International Children?s Bible 2015, A Faithful Version 2021, New Life Bible 1969 and 2003 editions, Modern English Version 2014, New Matthew Bible 2016, Revised Geneva Bible 2019.
The Hebrew Transliteration Scriptures 2010 - the hour wherein BEN ADAM comes.
And the New International Reader’s Version 2014 has - or the hour that the groom will come.
The Passion Translation says - or hour when the Bridegroom will appear. Then it Footnotes Matthew 25:13 As translated from the Hebrew Matthew.
Foreign Language Bibles that read like the KJB are -
Spanish Las Sagradas Escrituras 1569 - la hora en que el Hijo del hombre ha de venir., 1602 Cipriano de Valera, and the Reina Valera 1960-1995, The Italian Diodati 1649 and La Nuova Diodati 1991 and the Italian Nuova Riveduta 2006 - né l'ora in cui il Figlio dell'uomo verrà», Luther’s German Bible 1545, the German Schlachter Bible 2000 - in welcher der Sohn des Menschen kommen wird., the French Martin 1744, the French Ostervald 1998 and the French Louis Segond 2007 - ni l'heure où le Fils de l'homme viendra., The Hungarian Karoli Bible, Finnish Bible 1776, the Contemporary Bulgarian Bible, the Dutch Statenvertaling bible, the Polish Updated Gdansk Bible 2013, the Romanian Fidela Bible 2015 - ora în care vine Fiul omului., and the Portuguese Easy-to-Read Version 1999 and the Portugues Almeida Revista e Corrigida 2009 - a hora em que o Filho do Homem há de vir., and the Russian Synodal bible.
Again, the choice is between the Reformation Bibles or the Vatican Versions.
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".
Matthew 27:16 Barabbas or JESUS Barabbas?
KJB - "And they had then a notable prisoner, called Barabbas."
So read the Geneva bible, NKJV 1982, NASB 1995, ESV 2011, Holman 2009, New European Version 2010, The Voice 2012 and the NIVs 1973, 1975 and 1984 editions.
BUT now the NIV 2011 edition reads; "At that time they had a well-known prisoner whose name was JESUS BARABBAS."
Then it footnotes: "Many manuscripts do not have JESUS. also verse 17."
The single name Barabbas is found in virtually every manuscript in existence, including Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, A, D, E, F, the Old Latin, Syriac Peshitta, Coptic Sahidic and Boharic, the Ethiopian, Gothic, Georgian and Slavonic ancient versions.
As pointed out, even the THREE previous NIV editions of 1973, 1975 and 1984 all read the single name of Barabbas.
So what manuscripts says Jesus Barabbas? Basically it is one Greek mss. called Theta. The previous Nestle-Aland critical text versions like the 4th edition 1934, 21st edition 1975 only had Barabbas - But now the Nestle-Aland 27th and 28 editions place the name JESUS in the Greek text but in [brackets] indicating doubt about its authenticity.
And the Critical Text (Vatican supervised) Society of Biblical Literature Greek New Testament 2010 places both names in the text with NO brackets.
And our nutter "scholar", Dan (anything but the KJB) Wallace's NET version also includes this extra name (big surprise) reading - "At that time they had in custody a notorious prisoner named Jesus Barabbas."
It is of interest to compare the RSV 1946, 1972 and the NRSV 1989 and then the ESV 2011 editions, which are all revisions of one another.
The RSV merely had "called Barabbas." Then it footnoted - "Other ancient authorities read JESUS BARABBAS."
Then the NRSV came out in 1989 and it read: "At that time they had a notorious prisoner, called JESUS Barabbas." And this time they footnote - "Other ancient authorities lack Jesus."
But now they have come out with the ESV 2001-2011 and once again they omitted the extra name of JESUS and went back to "And they had then a notorious prisoner called BARABBAS." with NO footnotes this time.
This is how the "science" of textual criticism works, folks.
The reading is not in the Vulgate, nor in the Syriac Peshitta nor any Catholic bible version, nor any Reformation Bible I looked at, nor in any modern version either - except the NIV 2011 edition and now also Dan Wallace's NET version (We can always count on "Doctor Dan", can't we ;-) and the 2012 Lexham English bible.
It is kind of interesting that, though the Catholic versions still read like the KJB and the traditional text, the Roman Catholic New Jerusalem bible 1985 has this footnote after Matthew 27:16 - "Here and in v. 17, variant JESUS Barabbas, which would give peculiar point to Pilate's question BUT APPEARS TO HAVE ITS ORIGIN IN AN APOCRYPHAL TRADITION."
But now Dan "the Man" Wallace, who seems to like ANY weird reading out there, and the new NIV 2011 have put it in the text of their fake (apocrypha = of doubtful authenticity) "bible" versions.
Want to learn more about this Dan Wallace character? See "Dan Wallace is Messing with The Book - Big Time!" -
To see many more examples like this in the NIVs See -
"What about the NIV 2011?"
As Wilbur Pickering, ThM. PhD. points out in his book The Identity of the New Testament Text, 2014 -
"Bruce Metzger said, "It is understandable that in some cases different scholars will come to different evaluations of the significance of the evidence".4 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). IT THUS APPEARS THAT IN THE SPACE OF THREE YEARS ('68-'71), WITH NO SIGNIFICANT ACCRETION OF NEW EVIDENCE, THE SAME GROUP OF FIVE SCHOLARS CHANGED THEIR MIND IN OVER 500 PLACES. IT IS HARD TO RESIST THE SUSPICION THAT THEY WERE GUESSING."
Matthew 27:42 KJB - "He saved others; himself he cannot save. IF he be the King of Israel, let him now come down from the cross, and we will believe him."
NIV (NET, NASB, ESV, Holman Standard, Jehovah Witness New World Translation, Catholic St. Joseph New American bible 1970, New Jerusalem bible 1985) - "He saved others," they said, "but he can't save himself! He's the king of Israel! Let him come down now from the cross, and we will believe in him."
The Catholic Connection
The previous Douay-Rheims 1582 and the Douay Version 1950 both read like the KJB and the Reformation Bibles - "IF he is the King of Israel, let him come down now from the cross, and we ill believe him."
BUT the St. Joseph New American bible 1970 and the New Jerusalem bible 1985 read like the NIV, ESV, NET, NASB, etc. and say: "He is the king of Israel; let him come down now from the cross, and we will believe in him."
This is a textual issue; not just a translational issue. That little and all important word IF in the phrase "IF he be the King of Israel" is found in the Majority of all remaining Greek manuscripts as well as Alexandrinus, E, F, G, H, K, W, Delta, Theta, Pi, Sigma, the Old Latin a, aur, b, c, f, ff1, ff2, g1, l, q, r1, the Latin Vulgate, the Syriac Sinaitic, Peshitta, Harclean, Palestinian, the Coptic Boharic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Georgian and Slavonic ancient versions, as well as the Greek Diatessaron 175 A.D. And it is so quoted by such early church writers as Eusebius, Ambrose, Chrysostom, Augustine and Cyril.
The manuscripts that OMIT that little word IF are the usual suspects of those notoriously corrupt Sinaiticus and Vaticanus mss. as well as D.
If you don't know (and most people do not) how corrupt and contradictory even to each other these so called "oldest and best manuscripts" are, then see -
The true character of the so called "Oldest and Best Manuscripts" Part One - Matthew thru Luke.
https://brandplucked.webs.com/oldest-and-best-one
The True Character of the so called "oldest and best" manuscripts Part Two - John to Revelation.
https://brandplucked.webs.com/oldest-and-best-part-2
Agreeing with the King James Bible's "IF he be the King of Israel, let him now come down from the cross" are the following Bible translations:
The Anglo-Saxon Gospels 990 A.D., Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, The Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549, the Bishops' bible 1568, the Douay-Rheims 1582, the Geneva Bible 1587, The Beza N.T. 1599, Mace N.T. 1729, Haweis N.T. 175, John Wesley's N.T. 1755, Worsley N.T. 1770, the Thomson Bible 1808, The Revised Translation 1815, the Living Oracles 1835, The Pickering N.T. 1840, Sawyer N.T. 1858, The Revised N.T. 1862, Young?s 1898, Godbey N.T. 1902, The Clarke N.T. 1913, Lamsa's 1933 translation of the Syraic Peshitta, New Life Version 1969, the J.B. Phillips N.T. 1972, the NKJV 1982, Worldwide English N.T. 1998, The Koster Scriptures 1998, The Lawrie N.T. 1998, God's First Truth Translation 1999, The Last Days N.T. 1999, the World English Bible 2000, the Tomson N.T. 2002, The Apostolic Polyglot Bible 2003, Green?s Literal 2005, The Pickering N.T. 2005, the Complete Apostle's Bible 2005, The Resurrection Life N.T. 2005, Easy-to-Read Version 2006, The Mebust Bible 2007, The Conservative Bible 2010, the Jubilee Bible 2010, New Heart English Bible 2010, The Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010 - "If he be the Melekh Yisrael, let Him now come down", The New European Version 2010, The Aramaic New Testament 2011, The Work of God's Children Bible 2011, The Bond Slave Version 2012, The Voice 2012, The Far Above All Translation 2014, The Hebrew Names Version 2014, The Modern Literal N.T.2014 and the Modern English Version 2014.
Foreign Language Bibles = the KJB
"IF he is the King of Israel, let him come down from the cross"
The Spanish Sagards Escrimeras 1569, Cipriano de Valera 1602, Reina Valera 1909- 1995 - "Si es el Rey de Israel, que descienda ahora de la cruz, y creeremos en él.", the French Martin bible 1744, French Ostervald 1998 and French Louis Segond 2007 - "S'il est roi d'Israël, qu'il descende maintenant de la croix et nous croirons en lui.", the Italian Diodati 1649 and La Nuova Diodati 1994 - "Se lui è il re d'Israele, scenda ora giú dalla croce, e noi crederemo in lui.", and the Portuguese Almeida Corrigida 2009 - "Se é o Rei de Israel, desça, agora, da cruz, e creremos nele", Luther's German bible 1545 and the German Schlachter Bible 2000 - "Ist er der König Israels, so steige er nun vom Kreuz, so wollen wir ihm glauben.
The Modern Greek Translation -
And the Modern Hebrew Bible -
All of grace, believing the Book - the King James Bible.
Will Kinney