Thoughts on the Textus Receptus
text
The Greek text of the New Testament (NT), the Textus Receptus, is a
controversial text today. This was not always the case, as when it
was first published in 1516 and later revised versions of it
maintained its dominance as the generally accepted and reliable
Greek text until the 19th century. The dominance of the Textus
Receptus began to be challenged by the New Testament translations of
the 19th century, which were based on the corrupt New Testament
texts of Alexandria. Westcott and Hort's NT text was completed in
1881. It finally replaced the dominance of the Textus Receptus.
Hort was a well-known and proven
occultist. The corrupt New Testament texts of Alexandria formed the
basis of Westcott and Hort's Greek text. The Byzantine Textus
Receptus is still today a better and more biblical textual authority
than that of Westcott and Hort. The Textus Receptus is said to have
some problematic points. I will address some of these in this
writing. It is good to know that the Textus Receptus has only a few
problems. But Westcott and Hort is full of problematic passages that
do not correspond to the original Greek NT texts.
Some say that the Textus Receptus of Acts 8:37 is not part of the
original message of the original texts. Others say: Textus Receptus
1 John 5:8 is an extra addition that does not belong to the original
message of the NT. What is the correct truth is hotly debated
between the Alexandrian and Byzantine texts, and between supporters
of certain doctrines and those who oppose their teachings. Some say
that only those who have studied ecclesiastical theology can say
what is true. This is not true, however, because the text of the
Bible and the context of the text are an indication of what is part
of the original text and what is an addition that is not part of the
original text. God has not left the proper understanding of His Word
to church theologians. Many of them have distorted God's Word
through religious traditions over the centuries. God has left the
testimony of the truth in His own Word, the whole of the revelation,
the context and meaning of the text proves what is the truth, which
the Holy Spirit reveals as the truth to the human heart. Examine and
test my writing by the truth of God's Word with prayer.
Contents:
Foreword
Acts 8:37
Comma Johanneum
The Lord added to His congregation
If you believe with all your heart that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, it is lawful for you to be baptized in water
Byzantine text
Foreword
It is good to begin with a few remarks. Kurt Aland, one of the
editors of Nestle-Aland, from which most modern translations of the
Bible have been translated, says this about the Greek manuscripts:
"... tthe greatest number of manuscripts, comprising the bloc of
Majority text witnesses in most instances, are always the same —
they are manuscripts with a Byzantine text. The representatives of
this text type are extremely homogeneous, exhibiting a high ratio of
agreement among themselves. For manuscripts with the fewest Majority
readings, that is, most of the early manuscripts, exactly the
opposite is true. Even the most closely related among them generally
show agreement ratios of between 60 and 70 percent. (Aland,The Text
of the NT)."
The Alexandrian and Byzantine texts were originally compiled from
fragments of existing NT texts, and more than 5000 of them have been
discovered. The Alexandrian texts, as the first manuscripts of the
NT (the complete NT), were made from the original copies of the
existing NT texts. The texts of the Alexandrian family are only
60-70% identical, have omissions of verses, words and phrases, and
have been altered by the addition of thousands of extra words.
On page 45 of the Nestle-Aland 27 (Novum Testamentum Graece - Text
of the New Testament) edition, it is said to have been produced by
mutual agreement with the Vatican and the United Bible Societies.
This work is the basis for new translations, which will be
translated and revised together under the supervision of the Vatican
and the United Bible Societies. They also say that Nestle-Aland is
not the definitive text, but a stimulus for defining and verifying
the text of the New Testament.
The Nestle-Aland manuscripts are based on a text that has not yet
been definitively verified (not infallible) and is manipulated by
the Vatican to support its own heresies. The Vatican (papal church)
has always tampered with the Bible manuscripts it favours. This is
why the Vatican 'manuscripts' contain many changes, in other words,
distortions of the Bible. Anyone who trusts Nestle-Aland's text is
in this respect an agent of the Vatican. Even if he is otherwise
opposed to the Roman Catholic Church and its teachings. In this way
the spread of Catholicism is promoted. More and more new
translations of the Bible are being made under Catholic control.
The Byzantine texts were compiled later than the Alexandrian texts
from the existing original NT texts. However, the Byzantine texts
agree with each other about 85-90%. This means that there are very
few differences between them and that they correspond exactly to the
message of the copies of the original texts. Under the Roman papacy,
the Roman Catholic Church edited, modified and twisted the
Alexandrian texts. It is clear that, under the control of the
Vatican, the Alexandrian texts and the translations of the Bible
made from them have made the translations more favourable to
Catholic heretics. The Byzantine texts, on the other hand, are the
best existing copies of the original New Testament texts. There are
few differences in the Byzantine texts, but the text and context are
an indication of what was in the original NT text and what was not.
In my writing I use the word
congregation as it is used in the Old Testament, for example, when
the Bible speaks of the Lord's congregation:
1 Ch 28:8 Now therefore in
the sight of all Israel the congregation of the LORD,
and in the audience of our God, keep and seek for all the
commandments of the LORD your God: that ye may possess this good
land, and leave [it] for an inheritance for your children after you
for ever.
For example, when I write about the
Catholic Church, I use the word church. But for the congregation of
God, I use the word congregation.
In this writing, I will go through
Acts 8:37 twice, but from slightly different point of view.
Acts 8:37
Acts 8:
34 And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray you, of whom
speaks the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man?
35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture,
and preached to him Jesus.
36 And as they went on their way, they came to a certain water: and
the eunuch said, See, here is water; what does hinder me to be
baptized?
37 And Philip said, If you believe with all your heart, you may. And
he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down
both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.
Apt 8:
34 αποκριθεις δε ο ευνουχος τω φιλιππω ειπεν δεομαι σου περι τινος ο
προφητης λεγει τουτο περι εαυτου η περι ετερου τινος
35 ανοιξας δε ο φιλιππος το στομα αυτου και αρξαμενος απο της γραφης
ταυτης ευηγγελισατο αυτω τον ιησουν
36 ως δε επορευοντο κατα την οδον ηλθον επι τι υδωρ και φησιν ο
ευνουχος ιδου υδωρ τι κωλυει με βαπτισθηναι
37 ειπεν δε ο φιλιππος ει πιστευεις εξ ολης της καρδιας εξεστιν
αποκριθεις δε ειπεν πιστευω τον υιον του θεου ειναι τον ιησουν
χριστον
38 και εκελευσεν στηναι το αρμα και κατεβησαν αμφοτεροι εις το υδωρ
ο τε φιλιππος και ο ευνουχος και εβαπτισεν αυτον -
Textus Receptus
Many modern liberal Bible scholars say that Acts 8:37 is not part of
the original NT text because it is not found in the Alexandrian
texts.
The text and the context will tell us whether or not verse 37 is
part of the original text. If the verse is not part of the original
text, then the missing verse is out of context and is inconsistent
with the events of the textual context.
When the eunuch asks, "See, here is water, which hinders me from
baptising," it would be very strange if Philip did not answer the
question put to him, but without answering simply began to baptise
the eunuch. The context makes it clear that the missing verse is not
the way in which the events are supposed to take place.
If we look at the context in the light of the text of the Textus
Receptus, the events take place in the following way. The eunuch
asks, "See, here is water, what hinders me from being baptised?
Philip said, if you believe with all your heart, it is lawful (the
word exesti in the original text means lawful). The eunuch replied,
"I believe in Jesus Christ as the Son of God. Philip then baptised
him.
The context of the Textus Receptus gives the correct answer to the
question which justifies and authorises baptism. There is clear
evidence that the verse in the Textus Receptus, Acts 8:37, is part
of the original text.
Textus Receptus Acts 8:37 provides
undeniable and clear evidence that in the early congregation it was
not lawful to baptise anyone except those who had come to faith and
had received baptism because they had come to faith. This truth
refutes church (Catholic, Lutheran, Orthodox) infant baptism, and
therefore some scholars erroneously claim that Acts 8:37 does not
belong in the original texts, but the context and meaning of the
text reveal that it does belong in the original NT texts.
Furthermore, elsewhere in the Bible it
is clear that no one should be baptised unless they first believed:
Acts 10:
43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name
whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.
44 ¶ While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all
them which heard the word.
45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as
many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was
poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then
answered Peter,
47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized,
which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord.
Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.
When the Gentiles came to believe in the Lord Jesus in the house of
Cornelius, Peter said: "You cannot forbid them to be baptised,
because they too have received the Holy Spirit, just as the Jewish
disciples of Jesus had received it. This also shows that in the
early congregation it was forbidden to baptise anyone except those
who had first come to faith.
Acts 2:
40 And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save
yourselves from this untoward generation.
41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the
same day there were added to them about three thousand souls.
Acts 2 makes it clear that only those who believed in the Gospel of
the Lord Jesus were baptised in water. This passage also proves that
Acts 8:37 is in accordance with the whole teaching of the Bible.
Comma Johanneum
1 John 5:
3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and
his commandments are not grievous.
4 For whatever is born of God overcomes the world: and this is the
victory that overcomes the world, even our faith.
5 Who is he that overcomes the world, but he that believes that
Jesus is the Son of God?
6 ¶ This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not
by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that
bears witness, because the Spirit is truth.
7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the
Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and
the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
9 If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater:
for this is the witness of God which he has testified of his Son.
1 John 5:
7 οτι τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες
8 το πνευμα και το υδωρ και το αιμα και οι τρεις εις το εν εισιν
9 ει την μαρτυριαν των ανθρωπων λαμβανομεν η μαρτυρια του θεου
μειζων εστιν οτι αυτη εστιν η μαρτυρια του θεου ην μεμαρτυρηκεν περι
του υιου αυτου The Byzantine text
1 John 5:
3 αυτη γαρ εστιν η αγαπη του θεου ινα τας εντολας αυτου τηρωμεν και
αι εντολαι αυτου βαρειαι ουκ εισιν
4 οτι παν το γεγεννημενον εκ του θεου νικα τον κοσμον και αυτη εστιν
η νικη η νικησασα τον κοσμον η πιστις ημων
5 τις εστιν ο νικων τον κοσμον ει μη ο πιστευων οτι ιησους εστιν ο
υιος του θεου
6 ουτος εστιν ο ελθων δι υδατος και αιματος ιησους ο χριστος ουκ εν
τω υδατι μονον αλλ εν τω υδατι και τω αιματι και το πνευμα εστιν το
μαρτυρουν οτι το πνευμα εστιν η αληθεια
7 οτι τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες εν τω ουρανω ο πατηρ ο λογος και
το αγιον πνευμα και ουτοι οι τρεις εν εισιν
8 και τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες εν τη γη το πνευμα και το υδωρ και
το αιμα και οι τρεις εις το εν εισιν
9 ει την μαρτυριαν των ανθρωπων λαμβανομεν η μαρτυρια του θεου
μειζων εστιν οτι αυτη εστιν η μαρτυρια του θεου ην μεμαρτυρηκεν περι
του υιου αυτου Textus Receptus
The Textus Receptus is a good Greek text, but in 1 John 5:7,8 there
are additions which are not part of the original text. When we
examine the context and text of 1 John 5:3-9 of the Textus Receptus,
we find that verses 7 and 8 do not fit the context of the whole text.
I would like to give a brief background to 1 John 5:7,8 before we
examine 1 John 5:3-9 in detail.
In the Byzantine text there are no words for the three witnesses in
heaven: the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and the three are
one. The Byzantine text correctly reads 1 John 5:7,8: For there are
three that bear witness, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood,
and the three are one.
God does not leave His word of truth to be found only through a
comparison of all the existing New Testament texts, but through
reliable copies of the original texts. The Textus Receptus is based
on the Byzantine texts. These are the most accurate copies of the
authentic and original New Testament text.
Desiderius Erasmus of Rotterdam was a Dutchman who was a Catholic
monk and a priest. Erasmus translated the New Testament directly
from Greek into Latin. Erasmus' Latin New Testament differed greatly
from the Catholic Church's official Vulgate translation. Erasmus
received much opposition from theologians in the Catholic Church for
this. In 1516 he published a new edition (Novum Instrumentum Omne)
of the New Testament in Greek with an annotated text and a Latin
translation.
The fact that the Catholic Vulgate is not faithful to the original
Greek texts is evidenced by the significant difference between the
Greek text of Erasmus' New Testament and the Catholic Church's
official Vulgate translation. The Vulgate is translated from the
texts of the Alexandrian texts (Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus).
This means that the texts of Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus
differ greatly from the Byzantine text, since the Byzantine texts
agree with each other almost 90%. This evidence is proof beyond
doubt that the Alexandrian texts are not reliable texts.
Erasmus showed respect and appreciation for Luther by withdrawing
from church politics and not participating in the slander of Luther
and others. However, Erasmus remained a Catholic until his death.
The Greek text of Erasmus is known as the Textus Receptus.
As a source for the Textus Receptus,
Erasmus mainly used the Byzantine text. It is truly extraordinary
that Erasmus, a Catholic, based his Greek New Testament on the
Byzantine texts, a textual construction that Catholics still reject
because it differs greatly from the Vulgate, which is based on the
Alexandrian texts. The Roman Catholic gospel is largely based on
pagan teachings. It is therefore quite clear that the Alexandrian
texts are also trying to support false teachings. This is also a
proof that the Byzantine text is the most original manuscript of the
New Testament.
In 1 John 5:7 Erasmus added the words in heaven: 'The Father, the
Word and the Holy Spirit, and the three are one'. This has led many
to reject the Textus Receptus as untrustworthy. The Latin-Spanish
writer Priscillian first wrote about the Father, Son and Holy Spirit
in heaven in 1 John 5:7. None of the original Greek papyri and
parchments have been found to contain the words of 1 John 5:7 that
were used by Priscillianus and Erasmus. It is an undeniable fact
that this is an addition and not part of the original text. So why
did Erasmus choose to include it in his text? Erasmus had said that
he would be willing to add it to the text if a single Greek
manuscript of 1 John 5:7 could be found which said, "In heaven are
the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and the three are one".
Erasmus was deceived, because a Greek manuscript, translated from
the Latin, was brought to him as a 'proof', and this addition was in
it. So Erasmus was forced to do what he had promised.
The Bible teaches one God in both the Old Testament and the New
Testament. Although the New Testament teaches that there is one God
in the Father, the Lord Jesus and the Holy Spirit, and although we
clearly see this triune nature, the Bible never presents God
numerically as three. Even in this light, there is an addition at
this point that is not part of the original text.
This in no way diminishes the value of the Textus Receptus. The
Alexandrian texts contain more and more serious errors than the
Textus Receptus.
It was under 'pressure' from the Roman
Catholic Church that Erasmus added 1 John 5:7 to his edition of the
text. Since then, the Catholics have been attacking the Textus
Receptus, using 1 John 5:7 very strongly as an argument against the
errors in the Textus Receptus. This shows in the most vicious way
the insidious nature of the Church of Rome, first offering the wrong
thing and demanding to be accepted, and when this is accepted, the
Church of Rome accuses the Textus Receptus and tries to slander, to
stain the reputation of the text through the passage which she
herself wanted to have in the text. The action of the Roman Church
in this respect was diabolical, for it wanted the addition only to
have a reason to slander the text. It was a deliberate plot against
the Textus Receptus, for even the Vulgate (Jerome 405 A.D.) does not
have a Textus Receptus addition to 1 John 5:7, yet the Catholics
insisted on it in the Textus Receptus text. It was a diabolical act
by which they defamed the text of the Textus Receptus. The Catholic
Church has done this defamation for several hundred years, using 1
John 5:7 as a weapon against the Textus Receptus. On 2 June 1927 the
Roman Catholic Church issued a decree that the Comma Johanneum
passage should be avoided.
Jerome's Vulgate became Rome's official Latin Bible in 405 A.D.
Jerome 405 A.D. did not include 1 John 5:7 For there are three that
bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and
these three are one; because it does not appear in the sources that
Catholics trusted and considered original. It is noteworthy that
Jerome's 405 A.D. is the first official translation recognised and
accepted by the Catholic Church. However, when this addition was
smuggled into the Textus Receptus, they attacked it with an addition
they later introduced into their own version (Clementine 1590-1592).
The Clementine Vulgate was not published until 1590. A second
version was published in 1592, several decades after the Textus
Receptus. In the light of this, it is obvious that the Catholics
wanted a part of the Textus Receptus that did not represent their
textual tradition. In other words, contrary to their own official
text, they wanted to add to the Textus Receptus something which did
not appear in the Vulgate of 405 A.D. or in the Byzantine text.
This is an indication of how treacherous the Church of Rome is.
First it attacks the Textus Receptus and then it introduces the same
thing, which is not part of the original texts. It is clear that the
Catholic Church wanted to corrupt the Textus Receptus and add to it
in accordance with its own theology, which it has done.
The Roman Catholic Church does not accept the Textus Receptus and
does not consider it to be a good text. The Roman Catholic Church
has little influence on the Textus Receptus. Most of the text of the
Textus Receptus is based on the Byzantine text, which the Roman
Church does not consider to be the original text, and therefore
attack against it, as well as the Textus Receptus, which is mainly
based on the Byzantine text. That is why Hort also said that (Westcott
and Hort) their text, which is based on the Alexandrian texts, is
not uglified by the Byzantine errors. As a matter of fact, the text
of the Greek New Testament of Westcott and Hort is based on the
corrupted Alexandrian texts.
Erasmus has been seen as a man who was completely on the leash of
the Catholic Church, but this is not at all the case. The Roman
Catholic Church was very critical of Erasmus because he refused to
translate the text of the Vulgate. Erasmus thought that translations
from the Alexandrian texts, such as the Vulgate, were corrupt. He
therefore refused to use them. Erasmus translated the Textus
Receptus in a way that differed from the texts of the Roman church.
This means: The text of the Textus Receptus is also very different
from what the Roman Catholic Church teaches. This is the reason why
the attack on the Textus Receptus by the Catholics was so fierce.
The Textus Receptus breaks down the teaching of the Roman Church and
the authority of the Alexandrian texts and of the works that are
based on them.
The Textus Receptus is a complete
departure from the Vulgate (Jerome 405 A.D.), since much of the
Textus Receptus was translated from the Byzantine text, so Erasmus
was not entirely under the leash of the Catholic Church. If Erasmus
had been completely under the control of the Catholic Church, the
text of the Textus Receptus would be the same as the Vulgate. But it
is not, and it is very different. We must understand that the Textus
Receptus is much more like the Byzantine text than, for example, the
Vulgate, which is based on the Alexandrian texts and therefore does
not resemble the Byzantine text.
I am not defending the Textus Receptus addition of 1 John 5:7
because it is an addition that does not belong to the Byzantine text.
So I am not defending its existence. Nor do I consider it to be an
original text. I am not saying that the Textus Receptus is free of
errors, it does have errors, but it is a purer word than the
translations of the Vulgate and the texts that are based on the
Alexandrian texts, such as Wescott and Hort and so on. Of course,
the Textus Receptus is a much better work than the works that are
based on the Alexandrian texts.
The Textus Receptus also contrasts
with the Byzantine text in Rev 22:19, where the Byzantine text
speaks of the Tree of Life and the Textus Receptus speaks of the
Book of Life. The few errors in the Textus Receptus do not make it
an unreliable text, since it is based on the Byzantine text. The
Textus Receptus has only a few errors, whereas, for example, the
Alexandrian family of texts differs greatly from the Byzantine text.
Many of the so-called liberal works based on the Wescott and Hort
text have omitted many words and even verses from the original NT
text. The Textus Receptus is therefore a much more reliable text
than the Westcott and Hort text, which is based on the Alexandrian
texts.
Up until the 1800s, the Textus Receptus was mainly used. The King
James Version and Luther's translation followed the Textus Receptus.
The text of the Textus Receptus is based on Byzantine texts dating
from the 300th century and later. The Textus Receptus is a good and
reliable basis for the New Testament text of the Bible, but it has
some problems. These are not a problem if we know and are aware of
them and do not believe anything that is not part of the original
Greek text of the New Testament.
For example, it was from the Greek text of Erasmus that Martin
Luther translated his German Bible. The Greek text of Erasmus is
known as the Textus Receptus. The Byzantine text, known as the text
accepted by the majority, is the basis of the Textus Receptus. The
name comes from the fact that its texts are written from the
majority of the existing original texts of the New Testament. This
again makes the Byzantine text superior to other manuscripts.
Bible manuscripts are generally divided into the Byzantine and
Alexandrian texts. The texts of these two differ significantly in
many passages that deal with the core truths of the Bible. In the
Byzantine text, these passages correspond to the core biblical
truths, while the Alexandrian text omits the core biblical truths in
many passages.
The Alexandrian texts are favoured by the Vatican. They are in its
possession. The differences between the Alexandrian and Byzantine
texts can be seen by studying and comparing them. Today, many of the
newer translations of the Bible are translated from the Alexandrian
texts. As a result of this, the Vatican injects Catholic theology
into the new translations.
The Byzantine text is the original text and is much more reliable
than the Alexandrian texts, which we will find out when we examine
the Alexandrian texts in more detail.
In 1844, the Codex Sinaiticus was discovered in St Catherine's
Monastery. Sinaiticus contains texts not found in the New Testament,
such as the letter of Barnabas to the shepherd Hermas.
Some parts of Sinaiticus are written on sheep and goat skins. The
original New Testament texts were written on papyrus and parchment.
There are 9,000 passages in Sinaiticus that differ from those in the
Textus Receptus. Sinaiticus omits 4000 words from the Gospels and
adds 1000 words. Sinaiticus is also very different from Vaticanus.
The text of Sinaiticus is carelessly
written, with letters, words and even whole sentences being written
twice, and with the omission of sentences. Sinaiticus was corrected
several hundred years after it was written. According to Dr
Scrivener, a Greek scholar, Sinaiticus was systematically corrected
(modified) between the 600s and 700s. Sinaiticus was dismissed by
many as a worthless work because of its impurity.
The Codex Sinaiticus, promoted by the Roman Catholic Church, is not
a faithful manuscript of the New Testament Bible. Its text has been
corrected and altered many times.
The text of the Vaticanus was found in Rome in 1481 in the Vatican
Library. There are 1,491 words and phrases omitted from the original
NT text in the Vaticanus text. The Vaticanus text has been added,
deleted and corrected (changed). The Vaticanus text has many
omissions of important passages of Scripture. For example, the
Vaticanus completely omits the passages after Hebrews 9:14 - 13:25,
i.e. the entire end of Hebrews. Vaticanus, which is favoured by the
Catholic Church, omits the end of Hebrews because, for example:
Hebrews 10:10-12 completely refutes the Catholic Church's doctrine
of purgatory. This is why Vaticanus omits the rest of Hebrews.
Because it refutes the Catholic Church's doctrine of purgatory. It
is obvious that the additions, deletions, corrections and
modifications of the Vaticanus were made to support the unbiblical
teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. The manuscript of the Roman
Church had to be manipulated to conform to its heresies, since the
doctrines of the Roman Church are not found in the Bible. The book
of Revelation, the letter of Paul to Philemon and the pastoral
letters are completely omitted from the Vaticanus.
The text of Vaticanus is only 50% identical with the Textus Receptus
and differs from it in almost 8,000 places. Vaticanus omits several
thousand key words of the Gospel and leaves out 1000 phrases and 500
pages. Vaticanus adds about 500 extra words, replaces or changes
almost 2000 words and changes the original word order in about 2000
places. According to linguists, the text of Vaticanus is Classical
and Platonic Greek, not Koine Greek, the language of New Testament
Greek. The Vaticanus was only discovered in 1481, so where has it
been hiding for over a thousand years?
The additions, deletions, corrections and alterations to the text of
the Vaticanus make it a questionable and bad manuscript whose
distortions have been used to support the heresies of the Roman
Church. The text of Vaticanus does not represent the authentic and
original text of the New Testament, but represents the views of
people who do not respect and believe in God as the Bible teaches.
The Westminister Bible Dictionary writes on page 624 of Vaticanus
that there is no other manuscript like it with so many misspellings,
poor grammar and omissions (of words in sentences). In the Gospel
books (Matt, Mark, Luke, John) Vaticanus omits 237 words, 452 page
sentences and 748 sentences.
Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus are not the original texts of
the New Testament. They are partially copied from it, omitting much
of the original by correcting and modifying the text. It is very
clear that the manuscripts of the Alexandrian texts are not reliable
manuscripts and should not be supported and based on faith in any
way, as they are corrupt manuscripts in the possession of the Roman
Church. Any sincere seeker of the truth can see for himself that the
Alexandrian texts are not the original texts of the New Testament.
The Lord added to His congregation
Acts 2:
47 (BYZ) αινουντες τον θεον και εχοντες χαριν προς ολον τον λαον ο
δε κυριος προσετιθει τους σωζομενους καθ ημεραν τη εκκλησια
47 (WH) αινουντες τον θεον και εχοντες χαριν προς ολον τον λαον ο δε
κυριος προσετιθει τους σωζομενους καθ ημεραν επι το αυτο
47 (VULGATE) conlaudantes deum et habentes gratiam ad omnem plebem
dominus autem augebat qui salvi fierent cotidie in id ipsum
The Byzantine text says at the end of the verse that the Lord added
daily to the congregation (ekklesia) those who were saved. The
Wescott and Hort and the Vulgate have omitted the word congregation
(ekklesia) from the text. The Alexandrian text, Sinaiticus, also
omits the word congregation.
The omission of the word "congregation"
in Acts 2:47 in the Alexandrian texts is in support of the Vatican
doctrine of church membership through the sacrament of water baptism,
even though God Himself adds believers to His congregation through
salvation. The Vatican has distorted the biblical teaching on how
God adds the believer to the congregation when he receives salvation.
For this reason the word congregation, which is found in the
Byzantine texts, has been omitted from the Alexandrian texts.
The Alexandrian texts wrongly say that the Lord added those who were
saved to the company of the saved. The text thus gives support to
the false doctrine of baptism in water as a means of entering into
the congregation. The Byzantine text in Acts 2:47 agrees with the
teaching of the Bible, for all believers are baptised in the Holy
Spirit into the congregation of God, for God has placed the seal of
the Holy Spirit on the believer's heart, and when he has heard the
Gospel of salvation and has believed by the grace of God, the Lord
adds the believer to His congregation (the congregation of God) (1
Corinthians 12:13; Ephesians 1:13).
If you believe with all your heart that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, it is lawful for you to be baptized in water
Acts 8:37 ειπεν δε ο φιλιππος ει πιστευεις εξ ολης της καρδιας εξεστιν
αποκριθεις δε ειπεν πιστευω τον υιον του θεου ειναι τον ιησουν
χριστον Textus Receptus
The verse Acts 8:37 is completely missing from the Byzantine
Majority Greek text, the WH text, the Vulgate and the Sinaiticus. It
is found in Textus Receptus, which is a Byzantine text. There is no
consensus on the verse in Acts 8:37 in the Byzantine texts. However,
the verse used by the Textus Receptus is certainly authentic and
original.
On the road to Gaza, Philip meets the eunuch of Candace, who is
reading Isaiah 53. Philip asked the eunuch if he understood what he
was reading, to which the eunuch replied how he could understand
unless someone guided him. Philip explained to him chapter 53 of the
book of Isaiah, which tells of the atoning work of Jesus. The eunuch
heard the Gospel of Jesus, believed and was baptised. In verse 36
the eunuch asks, "What is hindering me from being baptised? It seems
rather strange that Philip did not answer such a direct question.
Instead, he remained silent and baptised the eunuch without an
answer and without hearing the eunuch's confession of faith in the
Lord Jesus.
In Acts chapter 8 and verse 37 there is the Greek word exesti which
means lawful or something is lawful and is almost always translated
elsewhere in the Bible as lawful. The eunuch asks if there is
anything that hinders him from being baptised, and Philip replies, "If
you believe with all your heart, it is lawful. Since Philip baptised
the eunuch only after he had confessed his faith in Jesus, the
context of verse 37 proves that it is original.
The difference between the Byzantine texts at this point does not
make the Byzantine texts unreliable. They only differ by about
85-90%, but they maintain the integrity of the Bible. The
Alexandrian texts, on the other hand, agree with each other only
about 60-70%, and in many places teach contrary to the core truths
of the Bible.
The complete absence of Acts 8:37 from
the Alexandrian texts is proof that it has been completely removed
from the Alexandrian texts because it does not fit into the Vatican
theology of water baptism.
Byzantine text
The origin of the Byzantine text is disputed, some say it was
written in the 300s, others in the 400s. The Byzantine text was
written from most of the original Greek texts of the New Testament
that have survived. This is also an indication that it is the most
accurate and original. Some say that the Byzantine text is even
older than the Alexandrian texts. The Byzantine Text is copied from
the original New Testament texts, which means that the Byzantine
Text contains the original Greek texts.
Even if the Byzantine text is later than the Egyptian manuscripts (Codex
Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus), this does not prove that it is not
more original than the Alexandrians. All the manuscripts of the New
Testament have been compiled from the more than 5,366 original
manuscripts of the New Testament that exist, written on papyrus and
parchment. The originality of the texts is therefore not determined
by how old they are or how young they are, but by how faithfully the
manuscripts have been copied from the existing original NT texts.
Many people are misled into thinking that the Greek manuscript of
the New Testament is always an exact copy of the original. There is
strong evidence that the Alexandrian texts (Codex Vaticanus, Codex
Sinaiticus) do not correspond exactly to the authentic original NT
papyrus and parchments. They differ greatly from them.
An important point to note is that the early congregation, in its
early years, spread the Gospel to the countries from which the
Byzantine texts were compiled. This is important evidence. It shows
that the Byzantine text is the most original text. Even before any
textual authority had been compiled, the descendants of the early
Christians were reading these original texts based on the Byzantine
text. This also means that the earliest manuscript is not
necessarily the most original. It is not if it is not based on
almost all the original texts that exist. It is not the age of a
manuscript that determines its originality. It is the fact that it
has been assembled from almost all the existing fragments of the
original text. For example, the text of the Textus Receptus, which
is based on the Byzantine text, is found in 95% of the existing
texts, while the corresponding figure for the translations that
belong to the Alexandrian texts is 5%.
The text of the Bible translations
that are based on the Byzantine texts is therefore in agreement with
95% of all the existing original texts of the NT. In the case of
translations based on the Alexandrian texts, the agreement with the
extant original texts is about 5%. In this light, it is clear that
translations based on the Byzantine text are overwhelmingly more
consistent with the original NT than translations based on the
Alexandrian texts.
The origin of the Byzantine text proves that it is an early and
original text. Even if the Byzantine text was compiled later than
the Alexandrian texts.
Let me give you an example to illustrate this. Suppose an ancient
writer had written 100 books. They would have had to be copied over
and over again because they do not survive forever and would have
had to be preserved for posterity. Let's say there were two schools
of thought that disagreed about what was contained in those 100
books. The first school would be this author's family. I call them
the a-team. The second school would be called the b-team. The a-team
manages to copy the 95 existing books exactly because they want the
author's work and the message of the books to remain virtually
unchanged. Team B is less interested in the message of the books,
because it interprets them differently from Team A, and Team B does
not want to pass on the message of the author's book as authentic,
but wants to bring its own interpretation to it. This is the reason
why Team B chooses only five books out of a hundred.
The b-team would complete their collection more quickly. The a-team
would publish their collection several decades after the b-team.
Historically, many scholars would say that the collection of the
b-team is more in line with the originals because it is older and
earlier than the collection of the a-team. However, the truth is
that the A collection is more original and much closer to the truth
than the B collection. Although the A collection was published later,
the text is 95% authentic. It is based on the original texts.
The above example also tells us why the Byzantine text is the
original text and why it is much more reliable than the Alexandrian
texts.
The Byzantine texts were compiled later than the Alexandrian texts
from the existing original NT texts. However, the Byzantine texts
agree with each other about 85-90%. This means that they differ
little and correspond exactly to what was said in the original texts.
The Roman Catholic Church has edited and modified the Alexandrian
texts. This means that the Catholic Church has falsified its Bible,
the Vulgate, which is based on the corrupted Alexandrian texts. It
is clear that under the Vatican, the Alexandrian texts and the
Bibles translated from them have made the translations favourable to
Catholic heresies, and there is also a Gnostic influence. The
Byzantine text, on the other hand, has not been corrupted by
Catholicism. The Byzantine text is the only authentic text of the
Bible, based on the true original text of the Greek New Testament.
Petri Paavola 9.5.2024 (I have compiled this article from several
articles I have written in Finnish, which can be found on my Finnish
website)
Sources:
Raamattu 33/38
Biblia 1776
King James Version 1769
Textus Receptus
Byzantine Text
Wescott and Hort Greek New Testament
kotipetripaavola.com/ Raamatun kasikirjoitukset
kotipetripaavola.com/ vatikaanin vaaristamat kasikirjoitukset
kotipetripaavola.com/ comma johanneum
kotipetripaavola.com/ kalvinismi Raamatun
kasikirjoitukset
kotipetripaavola.com/ textus receptuksen tekstista
codexsinaiticus.org/
1 John 5:7,8
greeknewtestament.net/
1jn5-7
archive.org/ kurt aland and barbara aland the text of the new testament an introduction
us.archive.org/ erasmus textus receptus 1st edition 1516
archive.org/ erasmus textus receptus 2nd edition 1518
archive.org/ erasmus textus receptus third edition 1522
ewtn.com/catholicism/ library/Cyprian de ecclesiae catholicae
unitate
newadvent.org/
fathers/050701
Raymond Edward Brown - The Epistles of John
newchristianbiblestudy.org/ bible/ greek byzantine 2000
kotipetripaavola.com/ Raamatun kasikirjoitukset
kotipetripaavola.com/ vatikaanin vaaristamat kasikirjoitukset
newadvent.org/ fathers/0103310
newadvent.org/
fathers/100253
newadvent.org/
fathers/100255
kotipetripaavola.com/ Uuden Testamentin Kaanon
finbible.fi/ Toivo Koilo Suuri Ilosanoma
studybible.info/version/
Green Literal Version
does the bible teach predestination james white vs darryl barksdale
brandplucked.webs.com/ realcatholicbibles
calvinistcorner.com
brandplucked.webs.com/ jameswhiteppopevv
brandplucked.webs.com/ acts1011isa1910fish
brandplucked.webs.com/ westcotthortjameswhite
codexsinaiticus.org/ en/manuscript
archive.org/stream/ lifelettershort
archive.org/stream/ brookefosswestcott
Arthur Hort Life And Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort Vol 2
archive.org/ lifelettershortvol1txt
archive.org/ brookefosswestcottvol1txt
archive.org/ westcottvol2txt
|
|
