The Waldenses faced the threat of entire extinction by the hand of the papal power. Although they were constantly under attack, the Lord allowed them to preserve the Word of God throughout the Dark Ages. GodReply: I am getting the message here that the appearance of these manuscripts are due to some sinister Catholic plot to undermine the Textus Receptus. If this was so, then why were the monks at St. Catherine’s “Monastery” trying to burn it when it was found by Tischendorf?
never allowed the light of His Word to go out completely. As noted earlier, there are approximately 5000 Greek manuscripts available today. This was made possible, to a large degree, by the work of these faithful
Waldenses in copying by hand the sacred pages of Scripture. God designed that His Word would be kept pure from corruption even during the darkest time of this earth’s history. Satan, however, was not asleep through all of this. He endeavored to corrupt the pure Word of God by altering important verses and deleting phrases and verses entirely. This purpose was accomplished by the production of two Greek manuscripts that stand in variance with all the rest of the Greek manuscripts in several thousand instances. These two Greek manuscripts are said to be the oldest and most reliable, however much of their history is unknown. These two Greek manuscripts are known as the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus (otherwise known as Codex B and Codex Aleph, respectively).The Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts
Regarding the Vaticanus manuscript, Easton’s Bible Dictionary states,
"VATICANUS, CODEX is said to be the oldest extant vellum manuscript. It and the Codex Sinaiticus are the two oldest uncial manuscripts. They were probably written in the fourth century. The Vaticanus was placed in
the Vatican Library at Rome by Pope Nicolas V in 1448, its previous history being unknown." (Easton’s Bible Dictionary, article: "Vaticanus, Codex")
It is claimed that the Vaticanus manuscript was probably written in the fourth century, but that cannot be proven since there is no known history of that manuscript until 1448 when it appeared in the Vatican
Library at Rome. The Sinaiticus manuscript has a similar history being found in the convent of St. Catherine in 1859; its previous history remains unknown.
Regarding the Sinaiticus manuscript, Easton’s Bible Dictionary states, "SINAITICUS, CODEX usually designated by the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet, is one of the most valuable of ancient MSS. of the Greek New Testament. On the occasion of a third visit to the convent of St.Catherine, on Mount Sinai, in 1859, it was discovered by Dr. Tischendorf." (Easton’s Bible Dictionary, article: "Sinaiticus, Codex")Reply: There is nothing strange about the appearance of Vaticanus. The Catholic Church did not even use it for manuscript evidence until the 20th century, and a reproduction was not allowed to be made of it until 1889-90. If there is a Catholic conspiracy, then it was to suppress this manuscript.
It is very interesting to note the time in which these manuscripts first appeared, especially in light of the fact that they stand at variance with the rest of the Greek manuscripts in thousands of significant places. Just 68 years before the Vaticanus was discovered John Wyckliffe translated the first complete Bible into English in A.D. 1380. (See Revised Easton’s Bible Dictionary, article: "Version"). The strange appearance of the Vaticanus manuscript has caused some to question its origin and validity.
“Secretariat of the Congregation of the Holy Office of the Inquisition. Concerning the authenticity of the text of 1 John V. 7. (Wednesday, Jan. 12, 1897).Pope Leo, in 1902 re-established a commission to study the Comma more closely. Because the report was unfavorable to the earlier decree it had to be put aside, but the pope continued to be worried by the situation right up to his death. Some Roman Catholic scholars began to ignore the decree. Dr. Vogels omitted the text from his Greek Testament published in 1920. Others were at first more cautious. In the Roman Catholic Westminster Version of the New Testament published in 1931 the footnote to 1 John 5:7, 8 after calling attention to its omission in the original text continues,
“In a General Congregation of the Holy Roman Inquisition . . . the following doubtful question was presented:
“‘Whether we may safely deny, or even treat as a matter of doubt, the authenticity of that text (1 John V. 7). . . ’
“All things having been most diligently examined and weighed, and the opinion of the Lords Consultors having been taken, the aforesaid Most Eminent Cardinals gave out ‘the answer is in the negative.’ On Friday the 15th of the aforesaid month and year, in the usual audience granted to reverend father the lord Assessor of the Holy Office, after that he had made an exact report of the aforesaid proceedings to our Most Holy Lord Pope Leo XIII, His Holiness approved and confirmed the resolution of these Most Eminent Fathers . . . ”—Acta Sanctae Sedis, vol. 29. 1896-7. p. 637.
“Until further action be taken by the Holy See it is not open to Catholic editors to eliminate the words from a version made for the use of the faithful.”But in the same version republished as one volume in 1947 the interpolation is omitted, editor Cuthbert Lattey citing the Greek text published by Jesuit scholar A. Merk, which also omits it.
“We need not hesitate to declare our conviction that the disputed words were not written by St. John: that they were originally brought into Latin copies in Africa from the margin, where they had been placed as a pious and orthodox gloss on ver. 8: that from the Latin they crept into two or three late Greek codices, and thence into the printed Greek text, a place to which they had no rightful claim.” A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament by F. H. A. Scrivener, 4th edition, 1894, volume 2, page 407.And yet, these words “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one” are still included in the NKJV, Green’s Literal Translation, Green’s Modern KJV, Webster’s Bible, even though it is NOT in the majority of manuscripts, the Byzantine text, or even in the first two editions of Erasmus Greek text.
There are basically two types of Greek Bibles from which we get all of our English Bibles today—those that agree with the two Catholic manuscripts (the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus), and those that agree with the "Textus Receptus" (Received Text). The "Textus Receptus" is the name given to the majority of Greek manuscripts which are almost entirely in harmony with one another.Reply: The above paragraph is somewhat devious in truth and intent.
To also prove that the KJV/Textus Receptus is basically Catholic is
proven by the background of Erasmus himself. The Encyclopedia of Philosophy,
Vol 3, pp. 42, 43, states that he was an Augustinian friar who was ordained
a priest in 1492, he was granted a dispensation by Pope Leo X to live in
the world. The aforesaid work says that Pope Paul III wanted to make him
a
cardinal, and that may have accounted for his refusal to leave the
Church of Rome. It also says that Erasmus remained within the Church, and
told Luther,
"I always freely submit my judgement to the decisions of the Church whetherErasmus died a faithful Roman Catholic! (see The New Encyclopedia Britannica, 15th ed. [1997], Vol. 26, p. 887, and Schaff, History, Vol. VII, p. 411, 423)
I grasp or not the reasons which she prescribes."
Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D., Department of Biblical Studies and Languages, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary wrote the following introduction for the Online Bible computer software concerning theReply: The irony is that the Received Text is not actually a single edition, but a sort of text-type of its own consisting of hundreds of extremely similar but not identical editions. Nor do any of its various flavors agree exactly with any extant text-type or manuscript. Thus the need, when referring to the Received Text, to specify which received text we refer to.
Stephens 1550 edition of the "Textus Receptus":
"The Stephens 1550 edition of the so-called ‘Textus Receptus’ (Received Text) reflects a general agreement with other early printed Greek texts also (erroneously) called by that name. These include editions such as that of Erasmus 1516, Beza 1598, and (the only one actually termed ‘Textus Receptus’) Elzevir 1633. Berry correctly notes that ‘In the main they are one and the same; and [any] of them may be referred to as the Textus Receptus.’ (George Ricker Berry, Interlinear Greek-English New Testament, page ii, New York: Hinds & Noble, 1897.)
"All these early printed Greek New Testaments closely parallel the text of the English-language Authorized (or King James) version of 1611, since that version was based closely upon Beza 1598, which differed
little from its ‘Textus Receptus’ predecessors. These early ‘TR’ editions generally reflect (but not completely) the ‘Byzantine Textform,’ otherwise called the ‘Majority’ or ‘Traditional’ text, which predominated throughout the period of manual copying of Greek New Testament manuscripts.
Will the real TR please stand up. Is it Stephanus's or Beza's. F.H.A. Scrivener studied the matter in detail, concluded that it was none of these. Rather, it is a mixed/eclectic text, closest to Beza, with Stephanus in second place, but not clearly affiliated with any edition. ( the influence of the Vulgate, and of early English translations, is also felt here.) Scrivener reconstructed the text of the KJV in 1894, finding some 250 differences from Stephanus. Jay P. Green, states that Scrivener’s edition does not agree entirely with the KJV, listing differences at Matt. 12:24, 27; John 8:21, 10:16 (? -- this may be translational); 1 Cor. 14:10, 16:1; compare also Mark 8:14, 9:42; John 8:6; Acts 1:4; 1 John 3:16, where Scrivener includes words found in the KJV in italics as missing from their primary text.
"The user should note that the Stephens 1550 TR edition does NOT agree with the Wescott-Hort Greek text nor with modern critical editions such as that published by the United Bible Societies or the various Nestle editions. All those editions follow a predominately ‘Alexandrian’ Greek text, as opposed to the Byzantine Textform which generally underlies all TR editions. Note, however, that 85%+ of the text of ALL Greek New Testament editions IS identical." (Specialized Introduction: The Stephens 1550 edition of the Textus Receptus, Online Bible Version 6.13, March 20, 1995, file: Gnt.doc, prepared by Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D.—bold emphasis supplied)Reply: The fact is, Bible manuscripts provide great testimony to the purity of God’s Word. How loving our creator is to keep his word basically untainted in spite of the opposition against it. 85% is quite a low figure. Dr Daniel Wallace puts it as high as 98%, and Bruce M. Metzger (author of The Text of the New Testament-It’s Transmission, Corruption and Restoration) , in the book “The Case for Christ” by Lee Strobel, p. 65 , in answer to the query, “So the variations, when they occur, tend to be minor rather than substantive?” , replies ‘Yes, yes, that’s correct, and scholars work very carefully to try to resolve them by getting back to the original meaning….Any good Bible will have notes that will alert the reader to variant readings of any consequence. But again, these are rare.’ So rare that scholars Norman Geisler and William Nix conclude, ‘The New Testament, then, has not only survived in more manuscripts than any other book from antiquity, but it has in a purer form than any other book- a form that is 99.5 % pure.’”
It may be somewhat comforting to realize that all the Greek New Testament editions are identical 85% of the time. Yet that indicates that some editions vary 15% of the time. The Greek editions Robinson referred to as varying from the Textus Receptus 15% of the time are evidently the two Greek manuscripts known as the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.
Robinson continues: "One should also recognize that NO printed Receptus Greek edition agrees 100% with the aggregate Byzantine manuscript tradition (Majority/Traditional Text), nor with the Greek text presumed to underlie the Authorized Version. However, all printed Receptus texts DO approximate the Byzantine Textform closely enough (around 98% agreement) to claim a near-identity of reading between those Receptus forms and the majority of all manuscripts." (Ibid.—bold emphasis supplied) It is amazing how the Lord preserved His Word to such a highdegree of accuracy.Reply: In fact, as we have seen above, all manuscripts agree to a high degree exceeding 98%. This is amazing when you consider the shoddy work Erasmus did compiling a Greek text:
Is it any wonder that the Textus Receptus "was not based on early manuscripts, not reliably edited, and consequently not trustworthy." N. Geisler/W. Nix A General Introduction to the Bible
The 1881 Westcott - Hort Greek textReply: Fact is, Vaticanus and Sinaiticus do not stand alone, and to say otherwise is a lie, and provides fodder for atheists and other satanic attacks on the Bible. When we look at the many thousands of early versions, alone with the quotations of the early church fathers, we see that these agree with the earlier, more superior Alexandrian Text-type. The early Church Fathers almost always use the older Alexandrian text type. In fact, Gordon Fee, who is one of the leading patristic authorities, wrote:In 1881 Brook Westcott and Fenton Hort produced their New Testament in the Original Greek. This Greek text had a considerable influence upon the production of the Revised Standard Version (RSV) and the American
Standard Version (ASV), along with many of the new translations.
The Westcott-Hort Greek text has approximately 6000 significant alterations. That is very disturbing considering the fact that many of the newer translations are based upon the Westcott-Hort Greek text.Robinson continues, "Westcott and Hort opted in regard to many orthographical variants to follow the specific spellings of Codex
Vaticanus and/or Codex Sinaiticus even if such manuscripts stood virtually alone in the peculiarity of their spelling.… Wescott and Hort... relied primarily on joint testimony of Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph) and Codex Vaticanus (B) in contradistinction to the assimilation of readings from manuscripts of other texttypes." (Ibid.—bold emphasis supplied)
This statement is extremely significant when we consider that these two manuscripts (the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus) stand alone with over 6000 significant alterations as compared to over 5000 other Greek manuscripts which are almost entirely in harmony with one another. That is a ratio of 2 to 5000, and Westcott and Hort chose to side with the two Greek manuscripts rather than using the testimony of 5000 other Greek manuscripts that differed with these two manuscripts.
"Over the past eight years I have been collecting the Greek patristic evidence for Luke and John for the International Greek New Testament Project. In all of this material I have found one invariable: a good critical edition of a father's text, or the discovery of early MSS, always moves the father's text of the NT away from the TR and closer toas quoted in Daniel Wallaces' The Majority Text and the Original Text: Are They Identical?
the text of our modern critical editions. In other words when critical study is made
of a church father's text or when early copies of a church father's writings are
discovered, the majority text is found wanting. The early fathers had a text that
keeps looking more like modern critical editions and less like the majority text."
Many Byzantine readings, or "Textus Receptus" Greek manuscripts, are "(now shown to be ancient by many early papyri)… these supposedly ‘late’ readings (so deprecated by Westcott and Hort) are now proven to be earlyReply: As is shown by Gordon Fee, this really is not the case. While there may appear to be some distinctly Byzantine readings found early on, the fact is, these same witnesses show many more distinctly Alexandrian readings.
thanks to their discovery in various early papyrus documents." (Ibid.)
“even with all the allowances made in the direction of the majority text, i.e., combining percentages of readings which (a) support the majority text against the Alexandrian text and those which (b) support the majority text as well as the Alexandrian text, one finds that: Marcion (c. 160?) supported MT 28% of the time (18% against the Alexandrian); Irenaeus (d. 202) supported MT 33% (16.5% against Alexandrian); Clement of Alexandria (d. 215) supported MT 44% (15% against Alexandrian); Origen (d. 254) supported MT 45% (17% against Alexandrian); Hippolytus (d. 235) supported MT 50% (19% against Alexandrian); Methodius (280?) supported MT 50% (19% against Alexandrian); Adamantius (d. 300) supported MT 52% (31% against Alexandrian); Asterius (d. 341) supported MT 90% (50% against Alexandrian); Basil (d. 379) supported MT 79% (40% against Alexandrian); Apostolic Constitutions (380?) supported MT 74% (41% against Alexandrian); Epiphanius (d. 403) supported MT 74% (41% against Alexandrian); Chrysostom (d. 407) supported MT 88.5% (40.5% against Alexandrian); etc. Whether these writers used the Egyptian text is not the issue here; indeed, perhaps Aland makes too much of this (and Pickering ably points this out). But to suppose that they used the Byzantine text as their primary texttype is demonstrably not true before A.D. 341. (Compare Asterius, above, with his predecessors.) Third, Pickering argues that "any claim that Aland makes for the Egyptian text, on the basis of these Fathers, is a claim that can be made even more strongly for the Majority text" (p. 3). But this would only be true if the Fathers' support of the majority text readings were support of distinctive majority text readings. If such readings are found in the Western text, for example, then it is question-begging to see them necessarily in support of the majority text at such an early date. In this connection it is significant that Hort argued that no distinctive Byzantine reading had been found in the Fathers in the first three centuries, a point that Fee echoed.”
How reliable are the new translations?Reply: Thank you for the above, but while checking my NASV, I found that they included the entire passage in question. There was a footnote, but only for verse 20, and verse 20 only. Verse 20 was still included. My NIV still included the entire verses in question, but with the comment. “The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20.” So what are the other ancient witnesses? It is omitted by Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Sinaitic, Syriac Codex and the Ethiopic and Armenian versions. Manuscript L 019 (Codex Regius, 8th Cent) gives both the long AND short endings much like the newer versions based on the older more reliable manuscripts Interestingly, the Catholic Vulgate does contain it. Eusebius wrote that the longer ending was not in the “accurate copies,” for “at this point [Mr 16 verse 8] the end of the Gospel according to Mark is determined in nearly all the copies of the Gospel according to Mark.” And Jerome said that “nearly all Greek MSS. have not got this passage.”One of the most popular of the new translations is the New International Version (NIV). This version was completed in 1978 by a committee of scholars who consulted many Greek manuscripts but relied heavily upon
the Westcott and Hort Greek text which was based upon the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. The translators of the NIV inserted a note after Mark 16:8. The note reads as follows: "The two most reliable early manuscripts do not have
Mark 16:9-20." It is obvious where the translators of this new version placed their trust when they made this translation. They claimed that the two most reliable early manuscripts are the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. The translators of the New American Standard Version (NASV) inserted a note after Mark 16:8 similar to the note inserted in the NIV. The note reads as follows: "Some of the oldest mss. omit from verse 9 through 20." The translators of the NASV claim that some of the oldest mss. omit this portion of scripture but they would have been more accurate to state "two" rather than "some." Two Greek texts in comparison to 5000 can hardly be interpreted as "some."
It is very sad that people would attempt to make alterations to the Word of God. John solemnly warned against this when he wrote, "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book." (Revelation 22:18, 19)Reply: I agree. It is sad that the KJV, NKJV, MKJV and other Bibles based on the Textus Receptus/Byzantine text contain readings that are in absolutely NO Greek manuscript whatsoever. Even in Revelation 22, the KJV the reading “tree of life” has NO Greek manuscript support. Erasmus here used the Catholic Latin Vulgate to complete the reading (as he had No Greek manuscript for the last 6 scriptures of Revelation). Other examples are Hebrews 2:16, Ephesians 1:18 and 3:9 to name but a few. The Comma Johannuem at 1 John 5:7, 8 has no Greek manuscript support earlier than the middle ages, and even then, only a scant few. So much for “Majority” text.
Green sums up the evidence, stating, "not only is Mark 16:9-20 vindicated, but codices B and Aleph [Vaticanus and Sinaiticus] stand convicted of containing poison. They also contain the poison (mentionedReply: I will let Alan Duthie respond to Green here:
above) in Matthew 1:7 and 10, Matthew 1:18, Mark 6:22, Luke 3:33 and Luke 23:45, John 1:18 and 1 Corinthians 5:1. Does this not diminish their credibility as witnesses?" (Ibid.)
"Green evidently thinks it was just words that God breathed, but not clauses, sentences, paragraphs, and indeed the whole of Scripture! He should be reminded 'not to dispute-about- words for nothing useful, to the casting down of those hearing.' [2Tim. 2:14 KJ2]How to Choose Your Bible Wisely, p.58 [Duthie has an MA in Greek and Hebrew, a PhD in Linguistics and a BD from the University of London]
The KJV translators had this to say: 'For is the kingdom of God become words and syllables? ... Add hereunto, that niceness in words was always counted the next step to trifling.'"
How to test a Bible translationReply: To be fair, there are actually 4 types of Greek texts,As before noted, there are two types of Greek texts. One type agrees with the majority, or "Textus Receptus" Greek manuscripts, and one type that agrees with the two questionable Greek manuscripts—the Vaticanus
and Sinaiticus. Every translation of the Scriptures comes from one or the other of these types of Greek manuscripts. There are a few verses you can use to determine whether a version is reliable or not. This is a
very simple test and can be applied to any Bible version.
In this test we will simply compare the NIV with the KJV (King James Version). We will use Romans 8:1 for our test. The KJV reads: "There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." The NIV reads: "Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus." Notice that half the verse is missing. The translators insert a note for this verse which reads, "Some later manuscripts Jesus, who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit." They would be more accurate to have said, "5000 manuscripts" rather than "some manuscripts." The NASB note on Mark 16:9 calls the two corrupt Greek manuscripts (Vaticanus and Sinaiticus) "some," and the NIV calls the remaining 5000 Greek manuscripts "some." This usage is very misleading.Reply: It is interesting to note, that even without Westcott/Hort and the findings of a later age, J. J. Griesbach, (who had access to the Patristic evidence and hundreds of Greek manuscripts that had become available toward the end of the 18th century published in 1796-1806 a Greek text was the basis for Sharpe's English translation in 1840 and is the Greek text printed in The Emphatic Diaglott, first published complete in 1864) also does not include the longer reading at Romans 8:1. The reading in the KJV appears to be an interpolation of Rom 8:4 (which you will find in practically all Bibles so nothing is lost). We have already dealt with Mark 16:9 above, but the Emphatic Diaglott has this to say,
"From this verse to the end of the chapter is wanting in ...many other ancient copies. Grisbach (sic) marks the whole passage of very doubtful authenticity, but retains it in the text."It is simply a fact that the oldest mansucripts, AND NOT JUST 2 of them do not have the embellishment and additions of a later age. Those that have added to the scriptures (as we see with the Byzantine/TR text type) will be punished for what they did.
It is easy to determine if a Bible version follows the two corrupt Greek manuscripts (the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus) or the remaining 5000 Greek manuscripts collectively referred to as the "Textus Receptus." If the Bible version you are examining contains only half of Romans 8:1 you know it is following the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts, and it has thousands of other errors in it. We have a list of over 200 of these significant alterations which you may obtain by contacting us and requesting the 200 Omissions pamphlet.Reply: But again, is it just "TWO?" Let us look at all the evidence against the Textus Receptus.
Another easy test is found in Revelation 22:14. Again we will compare the NIV with the KJV. The KJV reads, "Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city." The NIV reads, "Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and may go through the gates into the city." There is a vast difference between doing God’s commandments, and washing robes. This alteration conveniently eliminates the requirement of doing God’sReply: This is getting silly. {Greek a/r: poiountes tas entolas autou TO the other: plunontes tas stolas autown} If you read Rev 7:14, "These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb", then you see that symbolically, surviving the great tribulation entails the washing. Again, the NIV reading is attested to by thousands of early witnesses.
commandments to enter into the holy city and eat of the tree of life.
Another easy test is found in John 1:18. In this test we will compare the NASV with the KJV. The KJV reads, "No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him." The NASV reads, "No man has seen God at any time; the only begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him." The translators included a footnote stating, "Some later mss. read, Son." Again, the translators refer to the testimony of 5000 manuscripts as "some" in comparison to the two corrupted Greek
manuscripts the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. They also state that these 5000 manuscripts are "later." Later than what? Later than the supposed date that the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus were written, which date we cannot be sure of due to their questionable origin and unknown history.
Reply: **Here is the
manuscript support for each rendering**
Rendering Number One (Only-begotten One)
In favor of number 1 are some manuscripts of the Vulgate, possibly
the old Syriac, the Diatessaron of Tatian, Cyril of Jerusalem, Nonnus,
and Nestorius.
Rendering Number Two (Only-begotten Son)
In favor of number 2 are the Codex Alexandrinus, one of the correctors
of Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus, Family I, many later uncials, the Latin Versions,
the Curetonian, Harcleian, the Palestinian old Syriac, the Armenian, the
Ethiopian Versians, two out of five quotations of the passage in Clement
of Alexandria, sex out of seven in Eusebius, seven out of seven in Athanasius,
Gregory Nazianzen, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Chrysostom, two out of three
quotations in the Latin translation of Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hilary, seven
out of seven quotations in Victorinus, and finally, two out of three quotations
in Ambrosiaster.
Rendering Number Three (Only-begotten God)
Having the greatest manuscript support is number 3, which has to its
favor, the Codex Sinaiticus, the Codex Vaticanus, the original scribe of
Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus, Codex Regius, the original scribe of the Washington
Codex, the Codex Koridethianus, possibly minuscule 33, the Syriac Peshitto,
the Syriac Harcleian (in its margin), the Egyptian Versions, one codex
of the Ethiopic Version and Ambrosiaster on one occasion confuse the two
readings. ‘The only begotten God’ is read by Valentinus as as cited by
Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria, three out of five quotations in Clement
of Alexandria, all of Origen, Didymus, Epiphanius, Gregory of Nyssa, Cyril,
one out of three quotations in the Latin version of Irenaeus, and finally,
Jerome.
But again, nothing is changed by the addition or omission of any of the above. I personally like the reading "only-begotten Son", but it may be a reading that a scribe inserted feeling the familiarity with similar readings at Jn 1:14 and John 3:16.
It is a serious thing to remove Christ as "the only begotten Son of God." This fact is the believer’s assurance of overcoming the world. John wrote, "Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?" (1 John 5:5) The translators of the NIV have attempted to hide the fact that Jesus is "the only begotten Son of God." (John 3:18) The phrase, "only begotten" cannot be found in the NIV, in its place we find the term, "one and only." It is sad that this version is so misleading, yet they are not alone in their attempt to hide the fact that Jesus Christ is "the only begotten Son of God." The NASV rightly uses the term "only begotten"Reply: I agree with much of the above. I never recomment the NIV to anyone, and I also think that people are much better off with Green's Interlinear Bible. I especially love the way he has restored the name Jehovah to its righful place. I also think "only-begotten" is a much better translation than "one and only" or "unique". But this is a translational issue, not a manuscript one, as both the Textus Receptus and the critical texts have MONOGENHS. There are many Bibles based on the critical texts that still render MONOGENHS as "only begotten" such as the Revised Version, ASV, NASB, New World Translation, Montgomery NT, Rotherham, Recovery Version and any Interlinear Bible etc.
referring to Christ, but the translators have inserted a note in John 3:16 referring to the term "only begotten." The note reads, "Or, unique, only one of His kind." Notice they do not give the Greek text as the authority for this assertion. This is quite appropriate because, even though the NASV translators rely heavily on the two corrupt Greek manuscripts (the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus) they do not even have them to fall back on in this case. All of the "Textus Receptus" manuscripts contain the Greek word monogenh 3439 (only begotten). The Vaticanus and
Sinaiti- cus also contain the exact same word and the spelling in this verse.Yet some will still claim that the Greek word monogenh actually means "unique." However, this assertion is not accurate, which we will see as we examine the Scriptures. The Greek word monogenh is made up of the two
Greek words monoV 3441 and ginomai 1096. The Greek word monoV means, "alone (without a companion), only." (Thayer’s Greek Lexicon) The vast majority of times the New Testament writers wanted to indicate "only," or "alone," they used either the Greek word monoV or its companion monon. The Greek word ginomai means, "to come into existence, begin to be, receive being." (Thayer’s Greek Lexicon)The Greek word monogenh was never used to merely indicate "only, or unique." Every time monogenh was used in the Bible it refers to children. This Greek word was used nine times in the New Testament, five times it refers to Christ, and the remaining four refer to other children. Some people maintain that since monogenh is used in Hebrews 11:17 referring to Isaac that it cannot possibly mean "only begotten" because Isaac was not Abraham’s only son. This argument would hold some validity if the thought ended in verse 17. However, verse 18 continues
the thought making the intention clear. The verses read, "By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son, Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called." (Hebrews 11:17, 18) It is not true that Isaac was Abraham’s "only begotten Son," but it is true that Isaac was Abraham’s "only begotten Son, of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called." As you can see, the use of this verse to disprove the fact that Jesus is "the only begotten Son of God" has no
foundation.It is a sad day when Christians will try to prove that Jesus Christ is not "the only begotten Son of God." Yet it is even more sad when Bible translators take it upon themselves to twist the Bible and make it say
something it does not say.
The best way to study the Scriptures is to know the original languages in which they were written. However, to most people this is not practical. Yet the Lord has provided tools whereby we can examine the Scriptures in their original languages without the need of knowing those languages. The first and most important tool is the Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance. This handy tool allows you to discover the original Greek and Hebrew words behind each English word in your Bible and find a brief definition of each word. This book is based on the "Textus Receptus," and is most commonly found for the KJV. This book is available in most Christian bookstores.
Reply: I also agree that
everyone should own a Strong's Exhaustive Concordance. My Strong's also
lets me know with astericks and obelisks the very minor changes in the
Revised and the American Standard Versions. I see that you also use the
excellent Thayer's Greek Lexicon. Mine is under copyright to Jay P. Green
(1974) and it includes, interestingly, readings from the Greek texts
of Westcott/Hort, Tregelles, Lachmann and Tischendorf.
Please be aware of the Bible version you choose to read. Using the tests outlined in this paper I have determined several translations that follow the "Textus Receptus" Greek manuscripts. Here are some of them: KJV (also known as AV-Authorized Version), NKJV, 1898 Young’s Literal Translation, Green’s Literal Translation, Green’s Modern KJV, the Spanish 1909 Reina-Valera, 1995 Revised Webster’s Bible, 1833 Webster’sReply: Your list includes some great Bibles. Here is a partial list of translations that will greatly complement your list, ASV, (N)RSV, Bible in Basic English, Darby Translation, RSV, NASV, Weymouth NT, the Good News Bible, Greek Westcott-Hort, Greek Nestle etc.
Bible.
I will now allow the great scholar Ezra Abbot conclude with his remarks on the authenticity of the Bible testimony and variant readings:
"of these again, it will appear, on examination, that nineteen out of twenty are of no sort of consequence as affecting the sense; they relate to questions of orthography, or grammatical construction, or the order of words, or such other matters as have been mentioned above, in speaking of unimportant variations. They concern only the form of expression, not the essential meaning. This reduces the number to perhaps 400 which involve a difference in meaning, often very slight, or the omission or addition of a few words, sufficient to render them objects of some curiosity and interest, while a few among them be relatively important."Critical Essays, Ezra Abbot, p.209 (1888)