The "Critical Text" Criticized

Red Sky at Morning

Superstar
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
13,963
Yeah had a piece of it last week, pretty good you get past the rocks in it..



That link generally shuts them down just like it did you.
My dear @Third Eye - the only reason why such material “shuts them down” is that “they” realise they are spending time discussing important issues with someone with at best a gentle hold on reality.

Sadly this quote is too close to the truth…

50ADE4DC-F132-45F9-9789-156E6B3EE769.jpeg
 

Red Sky at Morning

Superstar
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
13,963
Rounding up the points above, even if a dialogue was not possible, I am interested in external evidences that support the reliability of the Bible. If the scriptures connect to true, bricks and mortar history and can be shown to be written at the time they are claimed, the critic has a problem….


Of Jesus, C.S. Lewis famously proposed a “trichotomy” of “Liar, lunatic or Lord”. Liberal scholars wriggled and added legend to the list. That fourth position is becoming increasingly intellectually untenable.


More and more people who begin looking into these questions come to the greatest question of all, asked of Peter by Jesus…

“Who do YOU say that I am?”
 
Last edited:

Red Sky at Morning

Superstar
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
13,963
From a Facebook group I follow:

“I would like to give my thoughts on this debate concerning the Ending of Mark's gospel. More specifically Mark 16:9-20. Dr. Jeff Riddle affirms and defends the position that this passage is an authentic reading. Dr. James white denies that this passage is an authentic reading.
This is an incredibly important debate because the stakes are very high.
Why? Because it has to do with the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ which is an essential doctrine for any orthodox Conservative Christian.
I am going to come out and tell you all who i personally believe won this debate.. Dr. Jeff Riddle won this debate hands down. Just my humble opinion.

Here are my thoughts on this controversial textual issue which really shouldn't be controversial at all..

Mark 16:9-20 (The last twelve verses of Mark)
This passage is referred to as the "Longer Ending" of Mark. Many textual critics doubt its authenticity, believing it was an addition made in the second century. It often appears in modern versions in brackets with footnotes questioning its authenticity. Most textual scholars believe that the text abruptly ends after verse eight. Even the so-called "Shorter Ending" that is added after verse eight is considered to have originated in the second century. The shorter ending reads:

"But they reported briefly to Peter and those with him all that they had been bold. And after this, Jesus himself sent out by means of them, from east to west, the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation."

Most scholars believe the original ending to Mark's Gospel has been lost. If this is true, the concept of preserving the words of Scripture is forever annihilated. The words cannot be preserved and lost at the same time. However, textual scholars usually call for its inclusion even if they question its originality. Dr. Bruce Metzger departs from the maxim of modern textual critics, Brevior lectio potior (the shorter reading is preferable), and supports the longer ending even though admittedly he does not regard the passage as genuine. He considers it to be a legitimate part of the New Testament because of its traditional significance to the body of Christendom. The passage is not contained in the Alexandrian texts, minuscule 2386, the Syrian Sinaitic Version, and a few other translations.

However, it is in many of the Greek uncials (A, C, D, K, X, D, Q, and P) dating between the fifth and ninth centuries. It is also contained in later dated Greek minuscules (137, 138, 1110, 1210, 1215, 1216, 1217, 1221, and 1582). It is the reading found in the majority of Old Latin texts as well as the Coptic versions and other early translations. Finally, it is cited (at least in part) by many of the early church fathers such as Justin (165 AD), Tertullian (220 AD), Hippolytus (235 AD), Ambrose (397 AD) and Augustine (430 AD).

In 177 AD Irenaeus wrote Against Heresies. In it he cites from Mark 16:19, establishing that the longer reading was in existence at this time and was considered canonical, at least by Irenaeus:

"Also, towards the conclusion of his Gospel, Mark says: "So then, after the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God; " confirming what had been spoken by the prophet: "The LORD said to my Lord, Sit Thou on My right hand, until I make Thy foes Thy footstool." Thus God and the Father are truly one and the same; He who was announced by the prophets, and handed down by the true Gospel; whom we Christians worship and love with the whole heart, as the Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things therein." (3:10:5).

The difference here is extremely important. If we conclude that this passage is not authentic, then we must question what happened to the original ending of Mark. It is not logical that the Gospel would end at this place so abruptly. Nor is it likely, as some scholars have suggested, that the Gospel was never finished, calling biblical inspiration into question. The conclusion held by most textual scholars, whether liberal or conservative, that the original ending has been lost over the passage of time certainly denies the doctrine of biblical preservation. If we allow that a passage of inspired Scripture has been lost from this section of the Bible, what stops us from making the same application to other passages of scripture? It is certainly within the realm of scholastic studies to note any and all textual differences. But once we open the possibility that this or that passage has been lost, we are now trusting in the understanding of men over the biblical promises of God. Certainly it is better to embrace the textual evidence and hold to the promise of preservation.

So my conclusion is that there is NO reason to doubt the Authenticity of Mark 16:9-20.
There is is NO reason to doubt the Inspiration of God's Word. There is NO reason to doubt the Preservation of God's Word. And there is certainly No Reason to call into question an essential reading that contains the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

 

Red Sky at Morning

Superstar
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
13,963
P.s. @Daze

Is There Evidence of Tampering by Gnostics in Alexandrian Greek Texts?

by Dr. L. Bednar

When a comparison of similar biblical-manuscript texts indicates a passage present in one is lacking, or reads in a very different sense in another, corruption appears. Text critics assume all texts are corrupt to a degree, and should consider all possibilities; however they simply operate on the notion that conservative scribes wanted to make the text look as good as possible, so they assume such scribes changed a text to make it read as well as possible, often lengthening it. They ignore any suggestions of passage distortion due to hostile intent, including subtraction from the text, something likely to be indulged in by meddlers disliking some biblical teachings. Their view of texts was adopted just because Westcott & Hort, who championed Alexandrian texts, claimed there is no evidence of falsification for dogmatic purposes in New Testament texts.

Tampering of types favorable to Gnostic dogma potentially accounts for much of the difference between Greek Alexandrian texts and the Traditional-Text ancestor of the Received Text. A notable number of Traditional-Text passages hostile to Gnosticism are absent in Alexandrian texts, and Alexandria, Egypt was an active center of Gnostic heresy in the first few centuries of the church era. In Alexandrian texts, the Johannine Comma portion of 1 John 5:7,8 and the through his blood portion of the Col.1:14 pass- age on redemption by the Savior are particularly contradictory to Gnostic dogma (Essay 4a,b), and their absence in such texts must be contrasted with the textual proof of their authenticity; the critics show no evidence of interest in doing so (this website offers such evidence). Another factor here is consideration of reasons for confinement of these portions in a small minority of Traditional-Text manuscripts. Gnosticism was so potent in early centuries it threatened to overthrow the church, and would likely influence unbiblical churches that eventually became the dominant large ones in the eastern church where the Traditional Text originated.

 

Red Sky at Morning

Superstar
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
13,963
“So what is wrong with modern bible versions...The issue is fundamentally textual and not translational. That is, the debate is not whether one likes one translation more than another. Neither is the issue whether some translations are (allegedly) easier to understand than others. Nor is the issue whether one translation is supposedly more accurate than others. The basic issue is the text which underlies the versions. There are two different Greek texts of the New Testament. That assertion often comes as a surprise, even to men who have a degree in Bible.” David H. Sorenson, The Faithful Word, pp.181-182
 

Red Sky at Morning

Superstar
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
13,963
The Aramaic Pashita text - an early witness to the readings of the Textus Receptus and a key witness against the primacy of the Critical Text…

“One of the earliest complete manuscripts of Peshitta is Khabouris Codex (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khaboris_Codex) which is carbon-dated to 4th century but colophon states that it is a copy from older manuscript written in 164 AD. Apart of manuscripts there are found inscriptions on walls written in Estrangelo script which are dated to around 150 AD and are identical with what is found in Khabouris and other Peshitta codexes.

Khabouris is written in Aramaic. If you're interested in Syriac, then there is something you should know. There are at least two versions of pure syriac texts which are both younger by a few centuries from Khabouris. First version is tranlation from Aramaic Peshitta and second version is translation of Greek and Latin texts - probably even from Textus Receptus. This second version was created by European monks when they ventured from Europe to Asia to spread Christianity and they didn't know that Christianity was already there. They didn't understand ancient Aramaic but they've known Syriac and so they translated Greek and Latin into Syriac while ignoring already existing Peshitta. This is one of reasons of many misunderstandings about who was translating who.”
 

Red Sky at Morning

Superstar
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
13,963
Irenaeus (130 - 202 AD)
Also, towards the conclusion of his Gospel, Mark says: “So then, after the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God;” confirming what had been spoken by the prophet: “The Lord said to my Lord, Sit Thou on My right hand, until I make Thy foes Thy footstool.”

Thus God and the Father are truly one and the same; He who was announced by the prophets, and handed down by the true Gospel; whom we Christians worship and love with the whole heart, as the Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things therein.

Source: Against Heresies, Book III, Chapter 10, Paragraph 5
 

Red Sky at Morning

Superstar
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
13,963
THE WESTCOTT AND HORT LUCIAN RECENSION THEORY

To establish the supremacy of their new Alexandrian text in 1881, Westcott, and Hort argued that the Byzantine textual tradition (which includes the Textus Receptus) did not originate before the mid-fourth century and that it was the result of merging earlier corrupt texts. This so-called recension of the text was theorized to have been perpetrated by Lucian of Antioch.

They further argued that this text was taken to Constantinople, where it became popular and spread throughout the Byzantine Empire. Westcott and Hort also theorized that such a prevailing text type could only have happened if it was sanctioned by the church.

All of these claim were made without a single shred of historical evidence for this supposed empire-wide church council, these men simply picked out a place (Antioch), and a time (250-350 AD) and a coordinator (Lucian) and concocted a theory. All this sounds impressive but to this day, there is not one piece of historical evidence to support any of this theory.

Westcott and Hort rewrote the history of the text with their "Lucian Recension". For the most part liberals, today reject the validity of the Westcott-Hort Lucian theory. However, this does not repair the damage already done by this fairytale.

One of the most striking revelations is the paradox of textual criticism insisting that manuscripts be extant while being all too willing to theorize why the Byzantine texts were so prolific in the 4th century without even the slightest piece of extant historical evidence.

The Westcott and Hort Lucian Recension is just the first of a series of rationalizations and theories that critical text advocates have produced over the years, to try and explain the situation from their point of view. One such theory is called: "Method in Establishing the Nature of Text-Types of New Testament Manuscripts —Ernest C. Colwell." All of these theories have failed to produce any historical support for their theories and fail to sufficiently account for the widespread dominance of the Byzantine texts among churches in the 4th century.

So widespread was the Byzantine text by the 4th century that it would have taken 100-200 years to become so well established across the known world. It therefore stands to reason, the Byzantine text is much older than many critical-text advocates would have people believe. The New Testament was not complete until the end of the 1st century and so it makes greater sense to conclude that the Byzantine text has been there from the very beginning.
 

Red Sky at Morning

Superstar
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
13,963
FE331792-E73C-4A58-87AB-BE30B22C1C8A.jpeg

“Wounds in thine hands?”

 
Last edited:

Red Sky at Morning

Superstar
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
13,963
2 Peter 2:15 - Jude 1:3 - et al - conflations with only Latin and/or late sources for one variant

ABSTRACT OF THIS PAGE

Where there is a word or phrase in Sinaiticus that is a textual conflation, Sinaiticus can only be produced AFTER both elements of the conflation. Here are two verses where there is very little early Greek evidence for one element of the conflation. Ergo, the terminus post quem for the Sinaiticus text is pushed up hundreds of years from the 4th century fantasy consensus, more clearly in the Jude verse.

This is one of many evidences that helps to falsify the early Sinaiticus date, leaving the study to be, was Sinaiticus awkwardly produced around AD 800 (yet with a 4th century main script)? Or was it produced in AD 1840 (when the 4th century script is a deliberate attempt to give an appearance of age.)?

Much more can be studied. Additional conflations. Singular readings, that may have come from the Latin. Amazing studies about correctors matching particular manuscripts. All of this is unique to Sinaiticus. Why? The simplest answer: it was produced at Mount Athos c. AD 1840.

 

Red Sky at Morning

Superstar
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
13,963
JOHN BURGON ON SINAITICUS AND VATICANUS In short, these two codices are old simply because, first, they were written on extremely expensive and durable antelope skins, and secondly, they were so full of errors, alterations, and deletions, that they were never used by true believers and seldom even by their own custodians. Thus they had little chance of wearing away….And be it remembered that the omissions, additions, substitutions, transpositions, and modifications, are by no means the same in both. It is, in fact, easier to find two consecutive verses in which these two mss. differ the one from the other, than two consecutive verses in which they entirely agree."


Here are some factual examples of what the so called "oldest and best manuscripts" Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are really like.
 

Steven Avery

Rookie
Joined
Dec 30, 2017
Messages
37

A new paper on Codex Sinaiticus showed up out of Bulgaria!

Borislav Borisov - Bulgarian paper - epigraphy, graphology, palaeography, codicoligy, calligraphy
https://www.purebibleforum.com/index.php?threads/borislav-borisov-bulgarian-paper-epigraphy-graphology-palaeography-codicoligy-calligraphy.3023/

We have an English translation there, and are working on our summary and analysis.
 

Red Sky at Morning

Superstar
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
13,963
A new paper on Codex Sinaiticus showed up out of Bulgaria!

Borislav Borisov - Bulgarian paper - epigraphy, graphology, palaeography, codicoligy, calligraphy
https://www.purebibleforum.com/index.php?threads/borislav-borisov-bulgarian-paper-epigraphy-graphology-palaeography-codicoligy-calligraphy.3023/

We have an English translation there, and are working on our summary and analysis.
Nice to have you here again Steven!

Quick note - (I think this still stands) any Bulgarian speakers would be greatly valued in helping translate some of the finer points of grammar and wording in this paper!!!
 

Red Sky at Morning

Superstar
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
13,963
Why this topic matters, illustrated by variations between the Byzantine text and the Sinaiticus text in Matthew:


In the interest of brevity, I will limit this comparison to the text of the Gospel of Matthew (and I will not make all the comparisons that could be made). I will add some comments, but for the most part I will let these comparisons speak for themselves.

● 1. Was Asaph a descendant of David? (see Matthew 1:8)
Byzantine Text: no; Asa was a descendant of David.
Sinaiticus: yes.

To avoid attributing a bad error to Matthew, the person who uses sound exegetical methods will perceive that the Alexandrian Text actually refers to Asa but resorts to a non-standard spelling that happens to produce the same name as the name of a contemporary of David (Asaph) to whom several Psalms are attributed.

● 2. Was Amos a descendant of David? (see Matthew 1:10)
Byzantine Text: no; Amon was a descendant of David.
Sinaiticus: yes.

To avoid attributing a bad error to Matthew, the person who uses sound exegetical methods will perceive that the Alexandrian Text actually refers to Amon but resorts to a non-standard spelling that happens to produce the same name as the name of an Old Testament prophet (Amos).

● 3. In Matthew 5:22, did Jesus prohibit being angry with a brother, unless there was a reason, or did Jesus prohibit being angry with a brother, without qualification?
Byzantine Text: Jesus prohibited being angry with a brother without a cause
Sinaiticus: Jesus prohibited being angry with a brother, without qualification.

Inasmuch as Jesus is plainly said to be angry in Mark 3:5, those who utilize both sound exegetical methods and the Alexandrian Text are left with the task of defending the premise that Jesus was consistent with His own teachings. Perhaps their sound exegetical methods will involve considering the nuances of the Aramaic terms for “anger” that Jesus used.

● 4.. In Matthew 5:19, did Jesus affirm that the person who does what the law says, and teaches others to do so, shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven?
Byzantine Text: yes
Sinaiticus: no.

The text of À skips the second half of the verse, very likely because the scribe of À’s line of sight drifted from the first occurrence of “in the kingdom of heaven” in the verse to its second occurrence, skipping all the words in between.

● 5. Did Jesus instruct His disciples to pray, “For Yours is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory forever,” or not? (See Matthew 6:13)
Byzantine Text: yes, Jesus did this.
Sinaiticus: no, Jesus did not do this.

● 6. In Matthew 7:27, did Jesus mention that “the floods came”?
Byzantine Text: yes
Sinaiticus: no

The scribe of À accidentally skipped the phrase due to a parableptic error (when his line of sight shifted from the letters -μοι at the end of ποταμοι to the same letters at the end of ανεμοι).

● 7. In Matthew 8:3, did Matthew mention that the leper was cleansed immediately when Jesus touched him?
Byzantine Text: yes
Sinaiticus: no

● 8. Did Matthew report in 8:13 that the centurion went to his house and found that the servant had been healed?
Byzantine Text: no
Sinaiticus: yes

● 9. Where did Matthew say that the demoniacs were encountered in 8:28?
Byzantine Text: the country of the Gergesenes
Sinaiticus: the country of the Gazarenes
The reading in the Byzantine Text is supported by Origen in the 200s, before Sinaiticus was produced. “Gazarenes” (Γαζαρηνων) appears exclusively in Codex Sinaiticus.

● 10. In Matthew 8:29, did the demoniacs address Jesus by name?
Byzantine Text: yes
Sinaiticus: no

● 11. In Matthew 9:15, did Jesus say, “But days will come when the bridegroom will be taken away from them”?
Byzantine Text: yes
Sinaiticus: no.

The scribe of À carelessly skipped some text again, skipping from the first occurrence of νυμφιος in this verse to the second occurrence of the same word.

● 12. Did Matthew report (in 9:24) that the people at the home of the young girl who had died knew that she was dead?
Byzantine Text: no
Sinaiticus: yes

● 13. Does Matthew 9:35 say that people followed Jesus after He healed them?
Byzantine Text: no
Sinaiticus: yes

● 14. Does Matthew 10:3 affirm that Lebbaeus was also named Thaddeus?
Byzantine Text: yes
Sinaiticus: no

● 15. Did Jesus tell the apostles not to provide themselves with silver as He sent them to preach inMathew 10:9?
Byzantine Text: yes
Sinaiticus: no

● 16. Does Matthew 10:12 say that Jesus told the apostles, when entering a house, to greet those within with the blessing, “Peace to this house”?
Byzantine Text: no
Sinaiticus: yes

● 17. Did Matthew record (in 10:39) that Jesus said, “He who finds his life will lose it”?
Byzantine Text: yes
Sinaiticus: no

● 18. Did Jesus say, in Matthew 11:29, “Take My yoke upon you, and learn of Me,” or merely “Take My yoke upon you, and learn”?
Byzantine Text: “learn of Me.”
Sinaiticus: “Learn.”

● 19. In Matthew 12:13, when Matthew described how Jesus healed the man with the withered hand, did he say that the hand that had been withered became as whole as the other?
Byzantine Text: yes
Sinaiticus: no

● 20. Did Matthew say that one of Jesus’ disciples told Him, as He was speaking to the crowds, that His mother and brothers stood outside waiting to see Him? Or to put it another way: does Matthew 12:47belong in the text?
Byzantine Text: yes
Sinaiticus: no

● 21. Does Matthew 13:35 say that the prophet Isaiah wrote Psalm 72?
Byzantine Text: no.
Sinaiticus: yes.

In Matthew 13:35, Sinaiticus’ text says that Isaiah the prophet is being quoted. The quotation that is given, however, is from Psalm 78. Now, there is another passage – Mark 1:2 – where Isaiah’s name appears in the Alexandrian Text where it does not belong, and in that case, “sound exegetical methods” provide a sort of loophole, so that even though the first part of the quotation is from Malachi rather than Isaiah, eagle-eyed exegetes can perceive that Mark combined two prophetic passages, and only named the more prominent of the two; Malachi’s material being connected in a thematic way.

Here in Matthew 13:35, however, there is no such loophole, for the Psalms are not the domain of Isaiah, and are not bundled together with Isaiah’s book. The author of Psalm 78 is explicitly identified as Asaph. Thus the person who applies sound exegetical methods to the text faces an irreconcilable contradiction in the text of Codex Sinaiticus, and down falls the doctrine of inerrancy. (I propose in a series of detailed posts about Mark 1:2 that a better option is to realize that some early copyists occasionally added Isaiah’s name where it didn’t belong, and that Mark 1:2 and Matthew 13:35 are two of those places.)

● 22. Did Jesus explain, in Matthew 13:39, that the harvest is the end of the age?
Byzantine Text: yes
Sinaiticus: no

● 23. Did Matthew record, in Matthew 13:41, that Jesus said that the angels are “His” angels?
Byzantine Text: yes
Sinaiticus: no

This is an interesting reading in À, because there is no readily obvious mechanism to elicit it. Vaticanus and other Alexandrian witnesses include “his” (αυτου).

● 24. Did Jesus immediately make His disciples get in the boat after the feeding of the five thousand, according to Matthew 14:22?
Byzantine Text: yes
Sinaiticus: no

Like the preceding comparison, this one shows another passage in which the scribe of À seems to have arbitrarily dropped a word that was not essential to the sense of the sentence. Vaticanus and other Alexandrian witnesses include “immediately” (ευθεως).

● 25. Did Jesus send the crowds away before went up a mountain to pray in Matthew 14:23?
Byzantine Text: yes
Sinaiticus; no

● 26. In Matthew 14:30, was Peter intimidated when he saw that the wind was boisterous, or simply when he saw the wind?
Byzantine Text: when he saw that the wind was boisterous
Sinaiticus: when he saw the wind

The Alexandrian Text’s core witnesses share a parableptic error; an early copyist’s line of sight skipped from the letters -ον in ανεμον (“wind”) to the identical letters at the end of the next word, ισχυρον (“boisterous”).

● 27. In Matthew 15:31, did the multitudes marvel when they saw that the maimed were made whole?
Byzantine Text: yes
Sinaiticus: there is no mention of this (another parableptic error)

● 28. In Matthew 16:2-3, did Jesus rebuke the Pharisees and Sadducees because they could discern the meaning of certain weather patterns, but could not discern the signs of the times?
Byzantine Text: yes
Sinaiticus: no

● 29. In Matthew 17:15, did the father of the boy with an unclean spirit address Jesus as “Lord”?
Byzantine Text: yes
Sinaiticus: no

● 30. In Matthew 17:21, did Jesus tell His disciples, “But this kind does not come out except by prayer and fasting”?
Byzantine Text: yes
Sinaiticus: no; the entire verse is absent

● 31. In Matthew 18:11, did Jesus say, “For the Son of Man has come to save that which was lost”?
Byzantine Text: yes
Sinaiticus: no; the entire verse is absent

● 32. In Matthew 18:12, in the parable of the lost sheep, does Jesus mention that the shepherd leaves the ninety-nine sheep upon the mountain when he goes to search for the lost sheep?
Byzantine Text: yes
Sinaiticus: no; there is no mention of “upon the mountain”

● 33. In Matthew 19:9, did Jesus say, “And whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery”?
Byzantine Text: yes
Sinaiticus: no. The final sentence of the verse is absent

● 34. In Matthew 19:18, does Jesus include “Do not commit adultery, do not steal” among the commandments that one should keep?
Byzantine Text: yes
Sinaiticus: no

● 35. In Matthew 19:20, does the young man say that he has kept the commandments since his youth?
Byzantine Text: yes
Sinaiticus: no

● 36. In Matthew 20:7, as Jesus told the parable of the laborers in the vineyard, did he repeat the master’s statement, “And what is right, you shall receive”?
Byzantine Text: yes
Sinaiticus: no

● 37. In Matthew 20:16, does Jesus say, “For many are called, but few are chosen”?
Byzantine Text: yes
Sinaiticus: no

● 38. In Matthew 20:22, does Jesus ask James and John if they are able to be baptized with the baptism with which He is baptized? And does Jesus affirm in 20:23 that they will be baptized with the baptism with which He is baptized?
Byzantine Text: yes
Sinaiticus: no

● 39. In Matthew 20:30, did the two blind men at Jericho address Jesus as “Lord”?
Byzantine Text: yes
Sinaiticus: no

● 40. In Matthew 21:12, does Matthew refer to the temple as “the temple of God” or simply as “the temple”?
Byzantine Text: the temple of God
Sinaiticus: the temple

● 41. Does Matthew 22:15 mention that the Pharisees plotted how they might trap Jesus in His words?
Byzantine Text: yes
Sinaiticus: no

● 42. In Matthew 23:4 did Jesus say that the scribes and Pharisees devised burdens that were “hard to bear”?
Byzantine Text: yes
Sinaiticus: no

● 43. In Matthew 23:8, did Jesus forbid His disciples to be called “Rabbi”?
Byzantine Text: yes
Sinaiticus: no; the first part of the verse is absent.

● 44. In Matthew 23:35, is Zechariah identified as the son of Berechiah?
Byzantine Text: yes
Sinaiticus: no

This comparison is particularly interesting, because it catches the scribe of an old witness (Sinaiticus) removing a difficulty, whereas the vast majority of Byzantine scribes left it untouched.

● 45. In Matthew 24:7, what does Jesus say will happen before the end of the world?
Byzantine Text: famines, pestilences, and earthquakes
Sinaiticus: earthquakes and famines

● 46. In Matthew 24:10, did Jesus say that in the last days, many will hate one another?
Byzantine Text: yes
Sinaiticus: no. Sinaiticus, rather uniquely, says that people will hand over one another to tribulation and then verse 11 commences.

● 47. Did Jesus say in Matthew 24:35, “Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will by no means pass away”?
Byzantine Text: yes
Sinaiticus: no; the verse is absent.

● 48. In Matthew 24:36, did Jesus specifically acknowledge that the Son does not know the day of His return?
Byzantine Text: no
Sinaiticus: yes

● 49. In Matthew 25:22, does the servant address his master as “Lord”?
Byzantine Text: yes
Sinaiticus: no

● 50. In Matthew 25:42, does the King tell the goats, “I was naked, and you did not clothe Me”?
Byzantine Text: yes
Sinaiticus: no (another parableptic error)

● 51. As Jesus instituted the Lord’s Supper in Matthew 26:28, did He say, “This is My blood of the new covenant,” or “this is My blood of the covenant”?
Byzantine Text: new covenant
Sinaiticus: covenant

Although the Byzantine Text’s reference to the “new covenant” can be accounted for as a harmonization to First Corinthians 11:25, it is a very widespread and very early reading. The Alexandrian reading interlocks suspiciously well with Marcionite theology.

● 52. In Matthew 26:62, what does the high priest say to Jesus?
Byzantine Text: “Do You answer nothing? What is it that these men testify against You?”
Sinaiticus: nothing; the second half of the verse is absent.

● 53. In Matthew 26:63, does Matthew say that Jesus was silent when questioned by the high priest?
Byzantine Text: yes

Sinaiticus: no; the first half of the verse is absent. (This is the result of another parableptic error; the copyist of À accidentally skipped from “said to Him” in 26:62 to the identical phrase in 26:63, losing all the words in between).

● 54. Does Matthew 27:45 specify that there was darkness “over all the land”?
Byzantine Text: yes
Sinaiticus: no

● 55. Does Matthew 27:49 state that Jesus was pierced with a spear before He died, and that water and blood came forth from Jesus’ body before He died?
Byzantine Text: no.
Sinaiticus: yes.

In Matthew 27:49 – when Jesus is on the cross, and has cried out, “My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?” – Codex Sinaiticus includes a passage which says that one of the soldiers took a spear and pierced His side, and that water and blood flowed from the wound. After this, in Matthew 27:50, Jesus cries out again with a loud voice, and dies. This contradicts what is stated in John 19:30-34: John reports that Jesus died (in 19:30), and that the soldiers pierced His side afterwards, confirming that He was already dead. A person who applies sound exegetical methods to the text of Codex Sinaiticus cannot maintain the doctrine of inerrancy, whereas a person reading the Byzantine Text can.

● 56. Does Matthew 27:52 report that when the earth quaked and the rocks were split, the graves were opened?
Byzantine Text: yes
Sinaiticus: no

● 57. Does Matthew 27:56 name Mary Magdalene as one of the women who witnessed Jesus’ crucifixion from afar?
Byzantine Text: yes
Sinaiticus: no

● 58. In Matthew 28:6, does the angel invite the women at the empty tomb to “Come, see the place where He lay,” or, “Come, see the place where the Lord lay”?

Byzantine Text: Come, see where the Lord lay.
Sinaiticus: Come, see where He lay.

● 59. Does Matthew 28:9 begin by mentioning that “As they went to tell His disciples,” Jesus met the women?
Byzantine Text: yes
Sinaiticus: no

● 60. Does Matthew 28:17 specify that when the disciples saw Jesus, they worshiped Him, or does it simply say that they worshiped?
Byzantine Text: they worshiped Him
Sinaiticus: they worshiped

It should be obvious from this comparison that the sermons of a Christian preacher in the early church using a copy of the Byzantine Text of the Gospel of Matthew certainly would not and could not be the same as the sermons prepared by a preacher who used Codex Sinaiticus, even if their methods of exegesis were identical. Not only would they be different regarding a variety of details, but a preacher using Sinaiticus’ errant text of Matthew 13:35 and 27:49 would not reach the same conclusion about the veracity of the text as a preacher using the inerrant Byzantine text of Matthew 13:35 and 27:49. And in passages such as Matthew 5:19, 6:13, 9:15, 10:39, 12:47, 15:31, 17:21, 18:11, 19:9, 20:16, 23:8, 24:10, 24:35, and 26:62-63, the difference between what was written by the copyist of Sinaiticus and what was written by Byzantine scribes is the difference between no text and a text.

Similarly, a sermon preached by a preacher using Codex Sinaiticus would differ from a sermon preached by a preacher using the Byzantine Text because the Byzantine Text does not contain the harmonizations and expansions that corrupt the text of Codex Sinaiticus in passages such as Matthew 8:13, 9:24, 9:35, 10:12, 13:35, and 27:49. The idea that anyone, however sound their exegetical methods may be, will interpret nothing the same way he would interpret something, and draw the same conclusions, is absurd. This is particularly true when one reading conveys an error and a rival reading does not (as is the case in Matthew 13:35 and 27:49).

 

Red Sky at Morning

Superstar
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
13,963
IMG_4249.jpeg

The Rise of the corrupted 1901 American Standard Bible Version.

Phillip Schaff: In order to truly understand the corrupted critical text found in your modern Bible translations, you must first understand the nefarious apostates who are associated with it, and who created it.

Philip Schaff, The New Age ecumenical spiritualist who embraced all world pagan religions, and who lead the committee that created your modern American Standard Bible translation, the (ASV) Version in 1901. The American Standard Bible, a text that was regretfully based off the corrupted Alexandrian critical text, which Schaff adopted from the heretics Westcott and Hort.

The corrupted Westcott and Hort Greek Text which they conjured up based off their unfounded textual theory that had absolutely no historical validity to support their false claims. That is the corrupted Alexandrian critical text that came to be in your modern bible Translations.

Phillip Schaff, a man who stated that he was “promoting the germs of a new theology.” Schaff also met privately with Pope Gregory 16th and admitted to kissing the Pope’s red slipper.

Phillip Schaff was one of the principal founders of the (Parliament of World Religions) that embraced all the world’s false pagan religions. All pagan religions such as Christian science, New Age spiritualism, Buddhists, Hinduism, Shintoism, and Islam, they were all invited to participate in the 1893 one world ecumenical extravaganza.
The 1893 Parliament of World Religions first meeting got started by changing the Lord’s prayer, and was (re-titled) the “universal prayer…”

But the Satanically inspired ecumenical fun was just getting stated.

The first speaker at the opening of the Parliament of World Religions was none other than well-known Luciferian occultist Annie Besant, who was also involved with the magazine (Lucifer).

Yes… these are the apostate heretics who were involved in the development of your 1901 American Standard Version. You can easily follow the apostacy of the corrupted critical text, and the nefarious people who are closely connected to it, all the way back through history.
 
Joined
Jun 26, 2022
Messages
2,264
View attachment 91854

The Rise of the corrupted 1901 American Standard Bible Version.

Phillip Schaff: In order to truly understand the corrupted critical text found in your modern Bible translations, you must first understand the nefarious apostates who are associated with it, and who created it.

Philip Schaff, The New Age ecumenical spiritualist who embraced all world pagan religions, and who lead the committee that created your modern American Standard Bible translation, the (ASV) Version in 1901. The American Standard Bible, a text that was regretfully based off the corrupted Alexandrian critical text, which Schaff adopted from the heretics Westcott and Hort.

The corrupted Westcott and Hort Greek Text which they conjured up based off their unfounded textual theory that had absolutely no historical validity to support their false claims. That is the corrupted Alexandrian critical text that came to be in your modern bible Translations.

Phillip Schaff, a man who stated that he was “promoting the germs of a new theology.” Schaff also met privately with Pope Gregory 16th and admitted to kissing the Pope’s red slipper.

Phillip Schaff was one of the principal founders of the (Parliament of World Religions) that embraced all the world’s false pagan religions. All pagan religions such as Christian science, New Age spiritualism, Buddhists, Hinduism, Shintoism, and Islam, they were all invited to participate in the 1893 one world ecumenical extravaganza.
The 1893 Parliament of World Religions first meeting got started by changing the Lord’s prayer, and was (re-titled) the “universal prayer…”


But the Satanically inspired ecumenical fun was just getting stated.

The first speaker at the opening of the Parliament of World Religions was none other than well-known Luciferian occultist Annie Besant, who was also involved with the magazine (Lucifer).

Yes… these are the apostate heretics who were involved in the development of your 1901 American Standard Version. You can easily follow the apostacy of the corrupted critical text, and the nefarious people who are closely connected to it, all the way back through history.
Are you familiar with the book new age Bible versions by gail riplinger?

It had a whole chapter on how they changed the Lord's prayer.
 

Red Sky at Morning

Superstar
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
13,963
Are you familiar with the book new age Bible versions by gail riplinger?

It had a whole chapter on how they changed the Lord's prayer.
I will have to take a look at this one…

I just looked at the Message Bible’s attempt at rendering the Lord’s Prayer:

Our Father in heaven,
Reveal who you are.
Set the world right;
Do what’s best—
as above, so below.
Keep us alive with three square meals.
Keep us forgiven with you and forgiving others.
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.

#SMH
 
Top