Text Receptus vs Alexandrian Codices

[courtesy Eternal Answers Ministry]

A great deal has been written & said regarding the "King James Only" controversy. There are those who claim newer translations make the Bible more understandable to the average reader. However, often this claim is made under the naive assumption that the new translators just took the old English Bible & rewrote it with newer, more up to date words. Nothing could be further from the truth. There are more than 60,000 changes in modern renderings beyond the simple changes in vocabulary ("thee" to "you," etc.), many greatly impacting doctrine & historicity within the text actually leading to greater confusion especially for the novice reader. The committee of scholars that created the King James or Authorized Version of the Bible (KJV) were all committed to the proposition that the 66 books contained therein were the inspired, unerring Word of God. While they knew they did not have any autographed originals (no one ever has had such a collection) they diligently scrutinized and compared over 5000 copies they did have of Hebrew, Latin and Greek documents dating from as early as the 5th Century AD to as late as the 12th. While no translation is perfect, we can be assured that at least these priests and scholars were dedicated to conveying God's Word accurately into the English language with as little distortion or personal bias as possible over which collectively and individually prayer was constantly engaged. Further, they were not influenced by commercial considerations (there were no royalties to be had as is the case with many modern translations) nor was sensationalism a factor. In short, these words were considered "holy" (specially recognized as possessing sacred authority; consecrated, devoted to the service of God; having a spiritually pure quality) and they were treated as such. When the KJV translators set to their work, they gathered all the original Hebrew, Greek & Latin sources that they could draw upon, the previously mentioned collection of 5000 documents dating from the 5th to the 12th century AD.

Most of these texts were harmonious but some differed on personal pronouns, proper names, etc. From these they attempted to write a reconciled version that was later to become known as the Textus Receptus or "Received Texts."

Then, in the 1800's, two previously unknown or unrecognized texts of the New Testament appeared. These were called Vaticanus & Sinaiticus since they were found in the Vatican Library & a monastery in the Sinai respectively. These texts were dated to the late 3rd - early 4th century (i.e. before any official canonization) & were in excellent condition. However, neither was in the original Greek language, but in a Coptic translation, an early Egyptian language. Coptic placed the origin of these two texts in the region of Alexandria, Egypt. Hence they became known collectively as the Alexandrian Codices. Two British scholars of Greek named Westcott & Hort undertook the translation of these Coptic copies back into their original Greek language. It was theorized that since these two texts were older than any of the 5000 that had been used by the 1611 King James committee, they might reveal a more authoritative text, being closer in time to the events described in the New Testament.

Indeed, startling & shocking differences did seem to suddenly appear. Gone was the resurrection story in the book of Mark (the last twelve verses of the KJV). Gone was Acts 8:37 where the Ethiopian eunuch confesses Jesus as the Son of God, along with many other passages. Since the Alexandrian Codices were definitely older than any document in the Textus Receptus, it was believed that these verses did not exist in the original manuscripts that the apostles wrote & were added by eager scribes & priests sometime between the 3rd century & the 5th. This was the prevailing theory up until the 1960's. All the modern translations which were written during this time are based on the Westcott & Hort Greek text including the American Standard Version (ASV), the New International Version (NIV), the New World Translation (NWT) & even the New KJV (NKJV), because the codices were considered more accurate.

Even today, look for Acts 8:37 in most of these Bibles & you will see that it skips directly from 8:36 to 8:38 without the proclamation of the deity of Christ by the Ethiopian.

The Oxford Papyri - This fragment known as the Oxford Papyri or P-64, may be the oldest NT text ever found. For centuries scholars have believed that the NT Gospels were not written by the Apostles in the 1st century, but were passed on by word of mouth from generation to generation for 100 years to be finally penned by scribes some time in the 2nd century AD. This papyrus text dated around AD50, a mere 20 years after the crucifixion, seems to provide proof that at least the Gospel of Matthew was an eyewitness account, written by a disciple who lived during the days when Christ Himself was on earth.

However, since Westcott & Hort's time, some 150 years of scholarship & textual discoveries have taken place. Currently there now exist over 24,000 fragments & complete texts of the New Testament, many dating to even earlier than the Alexandrian Codices.

There is even a tiny fragment of the Gospel of Matthew dating to around AD 50, a mere twenty or so years after the crucifixion of Christ. From this assemblage of 24,000 documents, scholars have constructed what is now called The Majority Text, with each book, passage & quote rated with a percentage of how many of the 24,000 agree with each reading.

By & large, with 90%+ certainty, the Textus Receptus & therefore the KJV has been vindicated as the more authoritative text. To date, the Vaticanis & the Sinaiticus are unique in their reading in toto. In fact, it has been discovered that many, if not all of the passages altered or missing from these codices were in fact quoted by the early church fathers as far back as the late 1st century. For instance, if one reads Irenaeus' Against Heresies 3.10.5-6, he states, "Furthermore, near the end of his Gospel, Mark says: 'thus, after the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, he was taken up into heaven, and sits on the right hand of God." quoting Mark 16:19. Irenaeus wrote this in AD 180, some 200 years before the Alexandrian Codices, yet he quotes word for word all the verses from the missing part of Mark which were supposedly not to have been added until the 4th or 5th centuries. How could this be? Discounting the notion that Iranaeus was psychic, how could he quote a passage that supposedly did not yet exist? Why was this clearly existing passage missing from the "more authoritative" Alexandrian texts? Scholars, scratching their heads, still debate, but an explanation has come forward. With the discovery of the Nag Hammadi Gnostic Library in the 1940's, it became clear that the early unorthodox sect known as the "Gnostics" did not believe in the deity of Jesus Christ. Nor did they really believe in His humanity either. They believed He was a "guiding spirit" sent to earth by the "True God" (not the YHWH of the Old Testament, incidently, whom they considered to be a blind, insane angel who created the material world against Sophia's or "Wisdom" i.e. the True God's will). Jesus' mission according to the Gnostics, was to impart special knowledge or "Gnosis" to spirits trapped in this material world seeking release. Thus, Jesus never died on the cross, was never resurrected, was not God, nor was He human. Mysteriously, but rather conveniently, all the altered or missing texts in the Alexandrian Codices always happen to involve one or a combination of these subjects. Consider: where was the center of operations for this unorthodox sect? Alexandria, Egypt.

Now, the pieces fall into place. All these "missing" verses were in the original texts written by the apostles. The older manuscripts & the many quotes from the 1st and 2nd century church fathers more than confirm that as fact. However, since these verses did not agree with the theology being taught by the Gnostics, when they made their own Coptic copies of the Greek originals, they conveniently altered or deleted them to suit their own ideas of what God should say. Westcott & Hort, along with many in Victorian Era England such as Arthur Conan Doyle, Charles Darwin (a divinity school graduate) & HG Wells, were caught up in the occult, spiritism & secular humanist questioning of the validity of orthodox Christianity typical of the time. These corrupted Coptic texts easily appealed to Westcott & Hort's own sensibilities (as testified to by their surviving correspondence with each other). Nevertheless, they did indeed make an excellent Greek translation of what knowingly or unknowingly was a horrendous, blasphemous, heavily edited & thus corrupted Coptic translation of a Greek original.

[...]All in all, the work of the Authorized Version [KJV] is considered to be the highest achievement in the English language & has held its own for these 400 years. Nowhere else will you find the majesty & depth of language worthy of the Word of God.

How to spot a counterfeit

According to Terry Watkins there are several ways to spot a conterfeit, that is, a Bible whose words have been adulterated. Check your Bible and see if you find any of the following 25 counterfeits: [The links will show the KJV, non adulterated translation]

Genesis 22:8 Instead of ". . . My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering:. . ." to distort the prophesy that God would become the Lamb. The counterfeit reads, "God will provide for Himself the lamb. . ." or "God himself will provide the lamb for the burnt offering". The fulfillment of Genesis 22:8 is found in John 1:29.

Isaiah 14:12 Most counterfeit versions confuse the Lord Jesus Christ with Lucifer. They replace the word "Lucifer" with "morning star, day star, star of the morning". Morning star is a title reserved for the Lord Jesus in Revelation 22:16. This is also the only time the word "Lucifer" is found in the Word of God. In Isaiah 14:15 the counterfeit does not send Lucifer to "hell" but only to the confusing "Sheol", or the "grave".

Matthew 20:20 Many counterfeits remove the words "worshipping him" and rob worship from the Lord Jesus Christ. Some will replace "worshipping him" with "kneeling down" or "kneeling before", but just simply "kneeling" is not worship.

Matthew 26:28 Many counterfeits replace the phrase "new testament" with the generic phrase "new agreement" or "new covenant". This is an obvious attack on the written Word of God. It’s interesting, even though the counterfeits remove the phrase "new testament", they do not title their New Testaments as "New Agreement" or "New Covenant". Why? The counterfeiters know they could not sell their counterfeit bearing the title "New Agreement" or "New Covenant" on the cover, so like any good counterfeiter, they disguise it.

Mark 3:29 The counterfeits change the serious consequences of blaspheme against the Holy Ghost from "eternal damnation" to "eternal sin" or "eternal condemnation".

Luke 4:4 Many counterfeits remove the last half of Luke 4:4, ". . . but by every word of God" This is another assault on the Word of God. In Luke 4:4, the Lord Jesus Christ is quoting Deuteronomy 8:3. Do the counterfeiters believe the Lord Jesus does not know what Deuteronomy 8:3 says?

Luke 4:8 Many counterfeits remove the words "get thee behind me, Satan". Here the Lord Jesus Christ openly rebukes Satan – but the counterfeits do not rebuke Satan.

Luke 16:23 Many counterfeits refuse to translate the Greek word "haides". Rather than translate "haides" to the word "hell", the counterfeit will transliterate the Greek word "haides" into the English "hades". By this trick the counterfeit attempts to extinguish the flames of hell. Hades is not "hell". Hell is flames, torments, weeping and wailing, complete darkness – forever. Hades is a new-age place of purification, or a fantasy place in Greek mythology. The Assyrian Hades is an abode of blessedness with silver skies called Happy Fields.

John 4:24 Many counterfeits change "God is a spirit" to "God is spirit". By removing the critical article "a", the counterfeits teach an impersonal, formless, esoteric, new-age "spirit god".

John 14:16 Many counterfeits change the Holy Spirit from a loving, concerned "Comforter" to simply another "Helper, Counselor".

Acts 2:47 Many counterfeits change the completed act of "saved" to the working, in progress "being saved". With this change, the counterfeits deny the complete and finished salvation in the blood of Jesus Christ to a progressive, salvation by works. You are no longer "saved" but in the process of "being saved". See also in 1 Corinthian 1:18 and 2 Corinthians 2:15.

Acts 4:27 Many counterfeits abort the Lord Jesus Christ as the Father’s "holy child" to His "holy servant". A subtle (see Genesis 3:1) and clever denial of the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ. The counterfeits do this again in Acts 4:30.

Acts 8:37 Some counterfeits completely remove this wonderful verse (and several others). Acts 8:37 is the Ethiopian eunuch getting saved. The counterfeits stop him from getting saved. Some counterfeits are a little more subtle. They do not remove the verse from the text, but will add a footnote questioning the verse and plant a seed of doubt. Sound familiar? "Yea, hath God said. . .?" Many counterfeits also remove: Matthew 17:21, 18:11, 23:14, Mark 7:16, 9:44, 9:46, Mark 11:26, 15:28, Luke 17:36, 23:17, John 5:4, Acts 8:37, 15:34, 24:7, 28:28, Romans 16:24 and 1 John 5:7!

Acts 17:29 The counterfeits change "Godhead" to the new age doctrine of "Divine Nature" or "Divine Being".

Romans 6:22 Many counterfeits demote Christians from the voluntary, loving "servants of God" to cruel "enslaved" or "slaves of God". The counterfeits describe my Father as a "slave owner" and His precious children as "slaves". Oh how contrary and wicked to the character of my loving and wonderful Heavenly Father! This is done many times in the counterfeits. It's amazing because the first part of Romans 6:22 reads ". . . being made free from sin,. . ." and according to the counterfeits we now are slaves!

1 Corinthians 1:21 Many counterfeits change ". . .the foolishness of preaching. . ." to the "foolishness of what was preached" or "foolishness of the message preached". The deceitful counterfeits change the object of "foolishness" from the act of "preaching" to the "message" of preaching – the gospel of the Lord Jesus. There’s nothing "foolish" about the "message" of Jesus Christ – it’s the greatest and most reasonable message in the history of the universe! 1 Corinthians 1:18, shines some eye-opening light on the counterfeiters. 1 Corinthians 1:18 says ". . . the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God." It makes you wonder. . . are the publishers of these counterfeits saved?

1 Corinthians 6:9 The counterfeits change the word "effeminate" to "homosexual" or "male prostitutes". This dilutes the serious warning of just the appearance or mannerism (effeminate) to the sexual act of homosexuals.

2 Corinthians 2:17 The counterfeits change the word "corrupt the word of God" to "peddling (or selling) the word of God". An apparent attempt by the counterfeiters to hide the fact they are "corrupting the word of God". It won’t work. . . God knows what they are doing.

2 Corinthians 10:5 The counterfeits change "imaginations" to "arguments" or "obstacles" or "speculations". This change lines the counterfeit up with the new age religion, as the new age is built upon "imaging" and "imaginations". It also removes the spiritual identification to where sin begins – in our imaginations.

Colossians 1:14 Many counterfeits remove the phrase "through his blood". Salvation is only "through his blood". Without shedding of blood is no remission of sins (Hebrews 9:22)

1 Thessalonians 5:22 The counterfeits change "all appearance of evil" to "every form (or kind) of evil".

1 Timothy 3:16 Many counterfeits change the crucial word "God" to the unmodified, vague pronoun "he". This is the clearest verse in the Bible stating that Jesus Christ was "God manifest in the flesh" and the counterfeits destroy it.

1 Timothy 6:10 The counterfeits add the words "kinds of". This addition dilutes the conclusive statement, ". . .the love of money is the root of all evil" to the subjective ". . .the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil".

2 Timothy 2:15 The counterfeits remove the word "study". The counterfeits do not want you to study your Bible. You might just find out they are mutilating it.

Revelation 1:5 Many counterfeits change the wonderful words "washed us from our sins in his own blood," to "loosed" or "freed" us from our sins. Revelation 1:5 is the only verse in the Bible that says you are washed in the blood – and the counterfeits destroy it. What can wash away my sin? Nothing but the blood of Jesus.

[Check HERE for table of contradictions and omissions in modern Bible translations]

Greek Nuggets or Fool's Gold?

by Dr. Herb Evans

Bible believers are constantly bombarded by Greek experts, who claim to have special insight to the hidden nuggets of the Greek N.T., which cannot be found in the plain, ordinary English of the King James Bible. Most believers, not proficient in the Greek, may lack a refuting authority for such claims. Fortunately, most Bible believers are wisely either skeptical or suspicious regarding that which they cannot read, trusting only in that which they can read, thus escaping the pitfalls of blindly following after the claims of the new age Rosicrucians

Just as the King James Bible is rich in synonyms (purposely according to its translators), the Greek N.T. is also rich in synonyms. Both Greek and English synonyms fit into different contexts or blend into the rhythm of the text more suitably than others. Sometimes, one Greek word is translated by more than one English synonym; at other times, multiple Greek synonyms a retranslated by one English word.

W.E. Vine, Bible Corrector First Class, confesses, and admits, regarding the Greek word for "love" (AGAPAO), "enquiry into its use (AGAPAO), whether in Greek literature or in the Septuagint throws but little light upon its distinctive meaning in the N.T." In other words any distinction must be found within the N.T., for it cannot be found in other Greek literature. It is not always easy to confine Bible correctors to the scriptures. Thank you, Mr. Vine!

The following passages test both the Greek Bible teachers/experts' honesty and accuracy, as they claim there is a radical distinction between the Greek noun "AGAPE" & the Greek verb "AGAPAO" as opposed to the Greek verb "PHILEO," all translated "love" in the King James Bible, (with the exception of where the Greek noun "AGAPE" is translated "charity"). AGAPE (noun) and AGAPAO (verb) * "I loved ('AHAB) Jacob." — Malachi 1:2 * "Jacob have I loved (AGAPAO)" — Romans 9:13 * "Thou shalt love (AGAPAO) the Lord thy God with all thy heart . . . Thou shalt love (AGAPAO) thy neighbour as thyself." — Matthew 22:37-39 * "thou shalt love ('AHAB) thy neighbour as thyself." — Leviticus 19:18 * "thou shalt love ('AHAB) the LORD thy God with all thine heart." — Deuteronomy 6:5 * "Demas hath forsaken me having loved (AGAPAO) this present world." — 2 Timothy 4:10 * "men loved (AGAPAO) darkness rather than light." — John 3:19 * "For they loved (AGAPAO) the praise of men more than the praise of God." — John 12:43 * "sinners also love (AGAPAO) those that love them." — Luke 6:32The theories, which we have heard regarding the word "AGAPE" (which some tell us is the highest form of love) are many, i.e., selfless love, intimate love, moral love, spiritual love, Christian love. Could Demas actually have had a selfless or spiritual or Christian or moral love for this present world? Is it possible for sinners to have the same kind of selfless, moral, spiritual love that saved people have? Can darkness (John 3:19), praise of men (John 12:43), masters (Matthew 6:4),the world (1 John 2:15; 2 Timothy 4:10) nations (Luke 7:5), creditors (Luke 7:42), wages of unrighteousness (2 Peter 2:15), life (1 Peter 3:10). be loved in such away? Strong tells us that the Hebrew word for love, "'AHAB" (Leviticus 19:18), means "to have affection for (sexually or otherwise). .

."Could Matthew (Matthew 22:37-39) have mis-rendered the Hebrew word for "love" of God and one's neighbour? Or is the "original" Hebrew word for "love" in error (for one's neighbor — Leviticus 19:18 or for God —Deuteronomy 6:5 or for women — 2 Samuel 13:1; 1 Kings 11:1; 2 Chronicles 26:10)? Could Paul have mis-rendered the Hebrew word for love regarding Jacob (Malachi 1:2 and Romans 9:13)? Are the Hebrew and the English words for love too inclusive and in need of correction? PHILEO * "the Father himself loveth (PHILEO) you, because ye have loved (PHILEO) me." — John 16:27 * "If any man love (PHILEO) not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema." — 1 Corinthians 16:22 * "For the Father loveth (PHILEO) the Son." — John 5:20 * "Greet them that love (PHILEO) us in the faith." — Titus 3:15 We are told by the Greek experts that the Greek word "PHILEO" means only a casual or friendly type of love. Does God love the saints casually because they love His Son casually? Should we love our brothers in the faith casually? Should we love the Lord Jesus Christ casually? Does the Father love the Son or us casually? Is love in the faith casual? PUZZLING GREEK CROSS-REFERENCES * "Then Peter . . .seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved (AGAPAO)" — John 21:20 (19:26; 21:7) * "She. . .cometh . . .to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved (PHILEO)" — John 20:2 * "For whom the Lord loveth (AGAPAO) he chasteneth." — Hebrews 12:6 * "As many as I love (PHILEO), I rebuke and chasten" — Revelation 3:19 * "ye love (AGAPAO) the uppermost seats in the synagogues, and greetings in the markets." — Luke 11:43 * "love (PHILEO) greetings in the markets, and the highest seats in the synagogues" — Luke 20:46 Why would John tell us that Jesus loved that disciple intimately, deeply, selflessly, and spiritually in one place but tell us in another that Jesus loved him only casually? Why would Luke tell us that the Pharisees loved "greetings" and "uppermost seats" in the synagogue intimately, deeply, selflessly, morally, or spiritually in one place but tell us in another place that they only loved these things casually? IS PHILEO LOVE OR AGAPE LOVE "BROTHERLY" LOVE? * "But as touching brotherly love (Philadelphia) . . . ye yourselves are taught of God to love (AGAPAO) one another." — 1 Thessalonians 4:9 * "obeying the truth. . . unto unfeigned love of the brethren (Philadelphia), see that ye love (AGAPAO) one another." — 1 Peter 1:22 If our Bible correcting friends are correct, it would seem that the word for brotherly love or love for the brethren would be based on the higher, more intimate, deep, selfless, spiritual Greek word "AGAPAO," rather than on the casual Greek word "PHILEO, "but this is not the case. But then, King James Onlys are ignorant and don't understand. Or do we? AGAPE or PHILEO Thou Me? "Jesus saith to Simon Peter. . . lovest (AGAPAO) thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love (PHILEO) thee...He saith to him again the second time . . . lovest (AGAPAO) thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thoughtless that I love (PHILEO) thee. . . He saith unto him the THIRD time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest (PHILEO) thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the THIRD time, Lovest (PHILEO) thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love (PHILEO) thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep." — John 21:15-17 Self styled Greek expositors go bonkers with this passage, seeking to get something out of the passage that is not there, while they miss the main point that Peter was asked this question three times because he denied his Lord three times. Their idea, however, is that Jesus was asking Peter, with the higher Greek word (AGAPAO), if he loved Him deeply and intimately. Supposing that Jesus thought Peter fudged by using the lower Greek love word (PHILEO), Jesus repeated the question three times to Peter. But Bible correctors have missed something. . . It says that Jesus said to Peter the "THIRD TIME, Lovest (PHILEO) thou me?" Now, poor ignorant Bible believers understand this to mean that the first and second time were the same as the third time.

Either the Greek matching words are in error or it doesn't make a hill of beans worth a difference which Greek words, "AGAPAO" or "PHILEO," are used in either place. Selah!