Issue Number: 581 – October to December 2007 An Examination of the NEW KING JAMES VERSION PART 1 by A. Hembd, MACS Reformation International Theological Seminary A consultant to the Society

HIS article is the first part of a review The intention is to clarify the 1611 of the New King James Version of the translation by the use of current TBible. In this review, we examine the words, grammar, idioms, and original language texts of Scripture which sentence structure so that this the New King James uses for its translation, edition of the King James Version the alternate readings from the Nestle- will speak to the individual reader in Aland/UBS critical Greek text and the a clear and accurate manner. The Hodges-Farstad majority Greek text which it intention is not to take from or alter supplies in its footnotes, and the actual the basic communication of the 1611 translation work itself. Is the New King edition but to transfer the James a mere update of the Authorised Elizabethan word forms into (King James) Version, or is it a new twentieth century English.1 translation? Thus we see that Thomas Nelson initially In a statement of purpose for the New proposed a mere language update of the King James Version, the Thomas Nelson Authorised Version (though this certainly Publishing Company set forth this aim, was not the result, as shall become obvious). among others: The preface to the New King James to produce an updated English Version tells us that the NKJV translates the Version that follows the sentence Old Testament from the Hebrew Masoretic structure of the 1611 Authorized Text, as did the Authorised Version. It also Version as closely as possible. As tells us that the NKJV uses the Textus much of the original King James Receptus in the Greek for its New Testament Version as possible will be preserved. translation.2 9 Trinitarian Bible Society – Quarterly Record

Relatively speaking, the New King James impact of the changes made by the NKJV is Version is better than the other modern heightened when one considers the versions because its actual text is not based inclusion of the readings of the Nestle- on the modern critical Greek text. Yet we Aland/UBS text in the NKJV margin. These must also state firmly that we do not deem marginal readings make potential doctrinal it a faithful translation. Indeed, we cannot impacts upon key doctrines such as the recommend it at all. We must to the incarnation of Christ and His eternal contrary note its following grave defects: Godhead, as we shall itemise.

In the New Testament, the NKJV presents We now consider the New King James a textual apparatus, alongside its translation, Version translators’ equivocal and with readings from the Nestle-Aland critical duplicitous commitment to the Textus Greek text, the text from which the New Receptus of the Greek. We quote the International Version, the New American following from David Cloud’s Web site Standard Bible, the Revised Standard article entitled What about the New King Version and the vast majority of modern James Version? It should be noted that we do versions are translated. The textual apparatus not personally endorse all that Mr Cloud also includes variant readings from the so- has to say concerning the Providential called Byzantine majority text which is an preservation of the text. Nonetheless, we edition of the Greek text edited by must take note of what he relates below Zane Hodges and Arthur Farstad (Dr Farstad concerning the executive editor of the Old was also the editor of the New King James Testament of the NKJV, and how that editor Version). The presentation of these views the Received Text of the New variant readings would make it appear Testament: that the Textus Receptus is not reliable, and that therefore, by implication, the We have corresponded with the Authorised Version, which used the executive editor of the Old Testament Textus Receptus in Greek for its New portion of the NKJV, Dr James Price. Testament translation, is itself suspect. In April of 1996 he admitted to me that he is not committed to the Instead of staying as close to the text of Received Text and that he supports the Authorised Version as possible, as the the modern critical text in general: guidelines originally stated, the New King James translators made many unnecessary ‘I am not a TR advocate. I happen translational changes and mostly for the to believe that God has preserved the worse, as we shall demonstrate. Contrary to autographic text in the whole body of what the original purpose was stated to be, evidence that He has preserved, not the NKJV is a new translation, not a mere merely through the textual decisions language update. Not only that, the of a committee of fallible men based translation changes impact key doctrines of on a handful of late manuscripts. The the Scripture, such as the eternal modern critical texts like NA26/27 punishment of the lost in hell. The doctrinal [Nestle-Aland] and UBS [United 10 Issue Number: 581 – October to December 2007

Bible Societies] provide a list of the For about a century most have variations that have entered the followed a Critical Text (so called manuscript traditions, and they because it is edited according to provide the evidence that supports specific principles of textual the different variants. In the criticism) which depends heavily apparatus they have left nothing out, upon the Alexandrian type of text. the evidence is there. The apparatus More recently many have abandoned indicates where possible additions, this Critical Text (which is quite omissions, and alterations have similar to the one edited by Westcott occurred… I am not at war with the and Hort) for one that is more conservative modern versions [such eclectic. Finally, a small but growing as the New International Version and number of scholars prefer the the New American Standard majority text, which is close to the Version]’. (James Price, e-mail to traditional text except in the David Cloud, April 30, 1996).3 Revelation.5

So there you have it. The executive editor Thus, we see that Dr Farstad deprecates of the Old Testament of the New King James the Textus Receptus. New Testament textual Version does not advocate the Greek Textus criticism is in a state of flux, he tells us; the Receptus at all; he is an advocate of the old is no longer good, he implies. Very few Nestle-Aland critical Greek text, by his own scholars still favour that old-fashioned Textus admission. Not only that, the principal Receptus, which was once universally editor overall of the New King James recognised by the Church as the Version, Arthur L. Farstad, was also co- Providentially preserved and pure text of all principal editor, along with Zane Hodges, of ages, and which once held universal sway as the Hodges-Farstad majority text, a Greek the Byzantine text for 1,400 years, the last text that makes nearly 1,900 changes to nearly five hundred years as the printed the Textus Receptus.4 No wonder the Textus Receptus.6 But no, we must now set editors of the New King James wish to aside that old-fashioned text; we must turn present us with their textual apparatus of instead to the Greek texts favoured by the alternate Greek readings; they do not believe real scholars: either to the critical text, in the Textus Receptus, they advocate other which is favoured by most, or to the new so- Greek texts! Says Dr Farstad in his preface called Byzantine majority text which is to the New King James: favoured by an increasing minority of scholars. Thus, the editors of the NKJV will Today, scholars agree that the science now do us a great favour by setting forth to of New Testament textual criticism is us these better readings in the margin, these in a state of flux. Very few scholars better readings which they have given in still favor the Textus Receptus as English in the margin, these better readings such, and then often for its historical which overthrow and undermine the prestige as the text of Luther, Calvin, authority of the translation from the Textus Tyndale, and the King James Version. Receptus we see in the main body of the text. 11 Trinitarian Bible Society – Quarterly Record

What we have just said is no especially from his work Codex B and its overstatement, but is a necessary Allies,7 as well as from other sources. We consequence of what Dr Farstad has said. shall demonstrate that the Egyptian or Apparently the Textus Receptus is no longer Alexandrian text was corrupted by the to be regarded as the Providentially following things, among others: (1) it was preserved Greek text because it was corrupted by the superimposition of Coptic compiled by a ‘committee of fallible men’ (i.e., Egyptian) spellings, grammatical using ‘a few late manuscripts’, as Dr Price structures, and word order upon the text; has told us. If, as we are told by Dr Farstad (2) it was corrupted in many places by the (who was co-editor of the Hodges-Farstad re-editing of the Apostolic Greek text to majority Greek text which is at major make it match the Coptic (Egyptian) text; variance with the Textus Receptus in over (3) it was corrupted by the critical work of 1,000 places), that scholars today hold for the early Church Father Origen and his the most part to either the critical text or followers, who often critically amended the the majority text and therefore those texts text according to their mystical/allegorical are better than the Textus Receptus, then interpretations of passages of Scripture; and one of those texts and a translation finally, (4) it was corrupted by heretics in made from one of those texts should be Egypt who emasculated the text in key places. what we read. Therefore, it follows that the Textus Receptus, and its faithful translation, 2. In the second place, we shall demonstrate the Authorised Version, should be set aside. how the Church at large, after the persecutions of the 2nd and 3rd centuries, and particularly after the Council of Nicea Statement of the overall in the 4th century, began to revise their purpose of this paper manuscript copies universally to the standard of the faithful apographs (copies We endeavour, the Lord helping us, to descended directly from the originals) that address the matters set forth above, along were yet maintained in the apostolic with the translational problems of the NKJV, churches of Asia Minor (which was the in the following manner: Byzantine Empire) and of Rome, and hence, set forth the rise of the Byzantine text to the 1. We shall show the critical text for what it ascendancy, and the universal rejection of is: a recovery of the Alexandrian text of the the Egyptian text for the next 1,400 years. 4th century AD, which is an Egyptian revision and corruption of the Apostolic text. 3. In the third place, we shall show how the Therefore, we will affirm that it is wrong for Textus Receptus was the result of faithful the New King James Version to include text- men who laboured to see that the best text critical notes in its margin from this very from the copies of the traditional text found corrupt text. We shall demonstrate the very its way into the printed editions, that many corrupt state of the Egyptian text, by eyes were on the text to correct it, and that utilising the meticulous textual the Reformation fathers were right in eight examinations of it by Herman Hoskier, passages in the Textus Receptus to follow a 12 Issue Number: 581 – October to December 2007

Greek minority reading8 when that reading with the marginal notes, they impact key was backed with nearly universal Latin doctrines of the Word of God: doctrines support; and that thereby, through such as the hypostatic union of the two consulting an overwhelming Latin witness, natures in Christ, the incarnation, the the true readings were restored universally eternal generation of the Person of the Son, on the printed page. the divinity of Christ, and the eternal punishment of the wicked in hell. 4. We in the fourth place shall show that the so-called Byzantine majority texts of both 6. In the last place, we shall exhort our Hodges and Farstad, and Pierpont and readers to cling to the tried and proven Robinson, are fatally flawed, in that, by their Authorised Version, and, where difficulties own confession,9 their editors relied are encountered with archaic language, primarily upon the work of Baron simply to use a commentary like Matthew Hermann von Soden and his text of 1913. Henry’s (which is now free online) to Herman Hoskier, an advocate of the determine the meaning. traditional text, cites in his 1914 review of von Soden’s text in the Journal of In this instalment, we hope to cover the Theological Studies indisputable proof that first two points. We shall cover them in a von Soden’s Greek text is, in his words, panoramic history of the text, and then we ‘honeycombed with errors’.10 Similarly shall enlarge on point one, namely, the Frederick Wisse, who is himself very corruption of the Egyptian text, and with it sympathetic of von Soden’s aims though the Nestle-Aland/UBS text, by frank about his inaccuracies, says that demonstrating its corruption from the ‘…von Soden’s inaccuracies cannot be Egyptian translations of the New Testament, tolerated for any purpose. His apparatus is by demonstrating the corrupting influence useless for a reconstruction of the text of of Origen upon that text, and by the MSS he used’.11 Accordingly, we shall demonstrating the emasculating influences cite specific instances from both Hoskier of heretics upon certain of its texts. We now and Wisse that fully demonstrate the errors proceed, and may the Lord help us in this and inaccuracies of the von Soden text, and most important endeavour. therefore also of the Hodges-Farstad majority text and the Pierpont-Robinson majority text. Therefore, we must censure The corruption of the the New King James Version for including Egyptian text proven the error-riddled readings of the so-called majority text in its margins. First, we consider the corruption of the Egyptian text, which is commonly called the 5. We shall then, as enabled, address the Alexandrian text, after Alexandria, Egypt, translational flaws of the NKJV in both the which was a centre of Greek learning and of Old and New Testaments. We shall textual criticism, it being founded by demonstrate that these flaws are not minor Alexander the Great on the coast of the in nature, but that, to the contrary, together Mediterranean. 13 Trinitarian Bible Society – Quarterly Record

The corruption of the Egyptian Greek instituted in the Word of God, and church texts can be seen in many ways—by the discipline rightly maintained. high numbers of contradicting variations among its own texts, by the high numbers of 2. The promise that the Lord makes to Zion Coptic (Egyptian) spellings, by the is that His words, which He has put in their imposition of Egyptian word order on the mouth, shall not depart out of their mouth, text, by the Greek text being made to follow nor out of the mouth of their seed, nor their the Coptic (especially the Sahidic or seed’s seed, from henceforth, even for ever. Southern Coptic); and by its being Likewise, His Spirit which is upon them deliberately altered by Origen and his shall abide with them for ever. followers and by outright heretics. But before we consider these material 3. The significance of the Lord’s words evidences, we must consider the most sure being in their mouth is that His Word, His witness—the Word of God itself. What does inspired Word, would be confessed publicly the Word of God say of its own preservation by them, and fed upon by them, with the and how this preservation would come to mouth of faith, and that in all generations. be? Do we not have a ‘thus saith the LORD’? Now, we note that the above promise is We consider, then, Isaiah 59.20–21: ‘And not made to individual believers, the Redeemer shall come to Zion, and unto considered as individual believers per se. them that turn from transgression in Jacob, The promise is rather made to Zion, to the saith the LORD. As for me, this is my Church. Thus, though there may have been covenant with them, saith the LORD; My individual true believers, particularly spirit that is upon thee, and my words which during the times of persecution, who did I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out not have the purest text, yet the purest text of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy remained in Zion as a whole. In time that seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed’s text prevailed over the other texts, we might seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and say, as Aaron’s rod prevailed over the rods of for ever’. the magicians of Egypt. Thus it is that, though we see distinctive (and corrupted) We may notice the following from the text: textual readings in the papyri and uncial (similar to capital letters) texts—in what 1. The Redeemer Christ the Lord is we now call the Alexandrian and Western promised to come to Zion, the Church, to text families—which were preserved in the them that turn from transgression in Jacob. sands of Egypt from the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th We must understand by Zion both the centuries, yet by the end of the 4th century Church Invisible and Visible—both as the the text which we call the Byzantine text Church which is composed of true, born- ascended and prevailed over all the others. again believers, and also as that Zion which The Church Fathers from Chrysostom of the has an outward form, with ordinances, more 4th century AD onward we find universally or less pure: the faithful preaching of the quoting the Byzantine text, the text that Word, the keeping of the sacraments as prevailed in the area we now call Asia 14 Issue Number: 581 – October to December 2007

Minor, then called the Byzantine Empire, Italy, you have Rome, from which over which Byzantium was the capital. It there comes even into our own hands was this locale where most of the churches the very authority (of apostles founded by the apostles themselves were— themselves).12 [emphasis added.] Colossae, Thessalonica, Ephesus, Philippi and Corinth. We may believe that this was Notice that Tertullian speaks of the the text that prevailed amongst those very apostolic churches—Philippi, Corinth, churches. Indeed, this was so because, as Thessalonica, Ephesus, Rome—where the Tertullian of Carthage tells us in the ‘thrones of the apostles are still eminent’, beginning of the 3rd century, faithful which is to say, where there were still apographs, precise copies of the apostolic faithful presbyters who were pastors over originals, were maintained in the apostolic those congregations and who were yet churches as the standard for all copies. teaching and preaching the apostolic doctrine. Not only that: notice also that In his famous The Prescription against Tertullian tells us that the authentic Heretics, Tertullian says: writings of the apostles themselves were still read in those churches. Chapter XXXVI. The Apostolic Churches the Voice of the Apostles. What does Tertullian mean by ‘authentic Let the Heretics Examine Their writings’? He means that there were yet Apostolic Claims, in Each Case, faithful apographs, that is, precise copies, Indisputable. The Church of Rome or perhaps even the autographs or original Doubly Apostolic; Its Early Eminence copies themselves, in those churches, and and Excellence. Heresy, as Perverting which the presbyters read from every the Truth, is Connected Therewith. Lord’s Day.

Come now, you who would indulge Given that the Church Fathers even in a better curiosity, if you would apply Tertullian’s day found many variations in it to the business of your salvation, their texts through copyists’ errors, to run over the apostolic churches, in whence do we think they would have looked which the very thrones of the apostles to correct their copies? Why, of course: to are still pre-eminent in their places, the ‘authentic copies’ which were yet in which their own authentic maintained in ‘the apostolic churches’. writings are read, uttering the voice and representing the face of each of And where were these apostolic them severally. Achaia is very near churches? Outside of Rome, they were all you, (in which) you find Corinth. in the area of the Byzantine Empire. Since you are not far from Macedonia, you have Philippi; (and there too) you From the writings of Tertullian we have have the Thessalonians. Since you are extant, we know that he was fluent in able to cross to Asia, you get Ephesus. Greek, but that, he being from Africa— Since, moreover, you are close upon from Carthage—his New Testament copies 15 Trinitarian Bible Society – Quarterly Record were primarily of a ‘Western’ text-type.13 The Old Latin versions came from northern What do we mean by the terms Africa, and worked their way up into ‘Alexandrian’ or ‘Western’? Europe, as C. P. Hallihan well notes in the Quarterly Record.15) The Alexandrian text, with its distinctive readings, came primarily from Alexandria, Tertullian had copies that primarily Egypt, though its origin was actually from reflected a Western text, as were most of the southern Egypt—near the Nag Hammadi copies in northern Africa where he lived. libraries, where the Sahidic or Southern But Tertullian was very limited in his choice dialect of the Egyptian or Coptic language of text. The age in which he lived—the late was spoken. We know this because of the 2nd and early 3rd centuries AD—saw times affinity of the Alexandrian text for the early of great persecution. Many were martyred. Sahidic Coptic translation of the Bible. In Christians were not free to travel. Believers, many instances, we may believe that verses particularly in Egypt and Africa, did not were directly translated from the Sahidic have free access to the authentic copies that Coptic back into the Greek, and we shall were yet maintained in the apostolic give instances of this shortly. churches within the Byzantine Empire. Thus, corruptions entered the manuscripts The Western text was so called, not for a time, particularly in Egypt and Africa, because it was from the west but rather through copyist errors, through outright because it is a text that also came from emendations of the text, and through Alexandria, Egypt, from a different school heretics who wilfully corrupted the Sacred of textual criticism within that city. But that Text. But always, the saints like Tertullian text-type ended up being translated into pointed to what standard? To the ‘authentic the Old Latin versions and into the Latin copies’, as he called them, which were stored Vulgate, which were then used by most of in the apostolic churches in the area around the churches of the Latin west after the 5th Byzantium. That he did so, we see from his century AD. We see the early Church Father own words in Prescription against Heresies Clement of Alexandria, in the 3rd century which we already have quoted. Thus, a very AD, primarily quoting a Western text; strong case can be made for believing that hence, we know the origin of that family of Tertullian himself would much have text to have been from Alexandria.14 (The approved the Church’s return to the Western text may also have been influenced Byzantine text readings which began in by the Old Latin versions that were then the 4th century AD. current in northern Africa.) But we also know that the Latin versions were subsequently all related to this text, and A misunderstanding by because the Latin versions became the Dr Harry Sturz cleared up Bible used by the western churches of Europe for a time, that text family came to At this point, we must address a statement be known as the Western text. (The earliest by Dr Harry Sturz concerning the Biblical Latin versions came from Africa, not Rome. doctrine of Providential preservation. 16 Issue Number: 581 – October to December 2007

Dr Sturz is a refreshing voice in many rather with believers considered ways amongst modern Biblical textual corporately as Zion—the Church of God. critics. He at least would give the Byzantine It was with this Church (that is with Zion) text a fair hearing. We certainly must that God made this covenant, for the warmly commend his work entitled The Redeemer’s sake, and it is with this Church Byzantine Text-Type and New Testament that God fulfilled that covenant. Textual Criticism, where he lists 150 specific instances of Byzantine readings in the We have seen how Tertullian used a Egyptian papyri which are extant from the Western text primarily, and yet Tertullian first four centuries. That said, however, it is also clearly pointed to the Byzantine text clear from his book that he does not maintained in the apostolic churches in the completely understand the Scriptures (he authentic copies as being the true standard. certainly did not understand Thus, we must be persuaded that Tertullian Isaiah 59.20–21) and what they say himself, and not only Tertullian but also concerning their own preservation. Irenaeus (but not Origen, as the reader will shortly see for himself) would have Dr Sturz says (in trying to respond to favoured the movement of the Church in quoted statements of Dr Edward Hills): the 4th century to restandardise all the copies to conform to the faithful apographs One is tempted to ask: how can God’s maintained in the apostolic churches (which providence be limited to men of the were, for the most part, within the Byzantine area? For example, there is Byzantine Empire). no question about the belief of Irenaeus, Origen, and Augustine in There were several factors that had the inspiration of the Scriptures. But previously prevented the standardisation of Irenaeus used a ‘corrupt’ Western text, the Greek text, several of them political and and Origen and Augustine are ecclesiastical in nature. There were certainly painfully aware of variants in their the ten persecutions against the Christians manuscripts. Athanasius was carried out by the Roman emperors in the certainly orthodox, and he used a first three centuries and in the beginning of Greek text, yet it was Alexandrian and the fourth—the last one, that of Diocletian, different from the text of Antioch of being the worst. There was also the Arian the 4th century. These men were heresy, which had dominion in the universal believers and took a supernatural Church for about forty years after the view of the text of Scripture, and yet, persecutions and which continued to be a in God’s providence, they used texts dominant force in the Church until the other than the Byzantine.16 Emperor Justinian crushed it by conquering the Lombards, the Vandals and the In answer to this, we must say that, as we Ostrogoths—three Arian kingdoms—in have shown from Isaiah 59.20–21, God AD 533.17 Prior to this, there had been an made a covenant to preserve His word, not Arian influence upon the copies of the New with every individual true believer, but Testament in Egypt, as we shall see. 17 Trinitarian Bible Society – Quarterly Record

There was also the influence of Origen the 5th century for refusing to comply with and the Origenists, which had favoured a the Council of Chalcedon. mystical/allegorical interpretation of the Scriptures, and which also had modified the We are thus persuaded that the early texts to favour their interpretations. The Church universally embraced the standard Byzantine emperor Justinian also brought of Tertullian—namely, that the true an end to the influence of Origenism when readings of New Testament Scripture were he called the council of Constantinople in to be found in the faithful apographs or AD 543, which condemned Origen and copies of the apostolic congregations, where Origenism, particularly Origen’s heresy of the apostolic pastorates were still in place. universal redemption (that all souls, after a We believe that, after the persecutions thousand years of purgatory, would be ceased, and Arianism, Nestorianism, saved). Certainly, the facts that: (1) the Monophysitism and Origenism were routed, Egyptian text differed from the apographs the Byzantine text rightly gained the which had been maintained in the ascendancy and that permanently, thus Byzantine apostolic churches; (2) Egypt, manifesting itself to be the text that would notwithstanding that there were champions be the Scriptures in the true Church’s of orthodoxy within her midst, nonetheless mouth, from generation to generation, even also had many heretics within her who were for ever, in accordance with the promise of known to have tampered with the text; (3) it Isaiah 59.20–21. was well known that Origen had altered the Egyptian text, and that he with his followers had just been condemned by a Council in The Egyptian text cannot be Byzantium in AD 543; and (4) the entire the Providentially preserved Coptic (that is, Egyptian) Church was excommunicated from the communion of text, because it was not the orthodox churches in the 5th century preserved in all generations because of their monophysitism18 (which they have named miaphysitism19)—these nor in the Church’s mouth facts, we affirm, would have caused the in all ages orthodox churches to look askance, and rightly so, at the Egyptian text. So, during We have shown that the true text, the words the 5th century, all hands agree that the of God promised in Isaiah 59.20–21, would Byzantine text gained dominance20—the be that which would be in the mouth of the Church began to shelve the Egyptian text, true Church, in the mouth of her seed and and to promote copies after the apostolic, her seed’s seed, from henceforth and for Byzantine standard—and that by the 9th ever. Thus, any text that was obliterated and century all remnants of the Alexandrian text forgotten for 1,400 years cannot by in essence died out. It was no longer in the Scriptural standards be the Providentially mouth of any segment of the Church at all, preserved words of God, because it was not save the Coptic Church and her allies, who the text that was in the Church’s mouth, that had universally been excommunicated in is, in her profession and in her feeding upon 18 Issue Number: 581 – October to December 2007 it as it was being expounded from her the editors of the New King James Version pulpits from generation to generation. Of in putting variant readings from the course, where the Alexandrian and Western Nestle-Aland/United Bible Societies Greek texts agree with the Byzantine text, those text in their margin. We stated at the readings were preserved, those words were outset of our article that ‘We shall show preserved—but not the distinctive the critical text (i.e., the Nestle- Alexandrian or Western readings. They were Aland/UBS Greek text, among others) for not preserved from generation to generation what it is: a recovery of the Alexandrian in the Church’s mouth, in her confession and text, which is an Egyptian revision and preaching, because they simply were not the corruption of the apostolic text. Providentially preserved words of God. Therefore, we will affirm that it is wrong for the New King James Version to include Thus, the Egyptian text cannot be the text-critical notes in its margin from this Providentially preserved words of God, save very corrupt text’. where it agrees with the Byzantine text. The critical text—the Nestle- Accordingly, the New King James Aland/United Bible Societies text—is Version of the Bible is wrong for essentially, with few changes, the Greek text incorporating these corrupt readings that was prepared by Brooke Westcott and into the margin of its translation of the Fenton Anthony John Hort in 1881. Michael Holy Scriptures, thus making it appear that Marlowe, himself an advocate of the these readings might be valid when they modern critical text, says that the Nestle- were rightly rejected by the historic Aland text of 1979 is 85% in agreement apostolic church. The NKJV is especially with the Westcott-Hort text.22 It is likely wrong in including the heretical readings more than that, if one excludes the as footnotes, such as the ‘only begotten God’ insignificant spelling and grammatical reading of John 1.18,21 which we shall differences that do not impact the examine more closely when we discuss meaning; he would find that the N-A/UBS heretical readings in the Egyptian text. (We text is over 90% in agreement with shall also discuss there more thoroughly, as Westcott-Hort. Eldon Jay Epp, a noted enabled, the meaning of the Greek word textual critic of the modern rationalist monogenes.) bent, makes this comment on the similarity of the N-A/UBS text to the The Nestle-Aland text Westcott-Hort text: based on the Egyptian text, An earlier comparison of significant variants in the Marcan especially upon Vaticanus text of Westcott-Hort with those of (Codex B) the Nestle-Aland/Merk/Bover cluster yielded the following To remind our readers, we are results: Bover showed demonstrating the unreasonableness of 160 differences from Westcott- 19 Trinitarian Bible Society – Quarterly Record Hort; Merk 128; but Nestle-Aland Herman Hoskier’s only 65 differences from Westcott-Hort [Vogels showed work showing the 239 variations and may serve as a Coptic/Alexandrian control] . The conclusion is clear: these three most widely used Greek corruption of Codex B or New Testaments of the mid- twentieth century (Nestle-Aland, Vaticanus, the Egyptian Merk, and Bover) ‘show little main exemplar for the change from Westcott-Hort and only rarely present a significant Nestle-Aland/UBS variant.23 Greek text

The influence of the Westcott Hort text Several scholars in addition to Herman upon the Nestle-Aland/UBS text is most Hoskier, the famed collator of all the strongly seen in the N-A/UBS text’s text- manuscripts of Revelation, have noted critical apparatus, in which it almost Vaticanus’ Egyptian characteristics and that always cites Codex B (Vaticanus) as a accordingly it is an Egyptian or Alexandrian primary authority. (Vaticanus is an manuscript. These include scholars Kurt uncial manuscript from the 4th century Aland,25 Frederick Kenyon26 and Bruce AD which is stored in the Vatican Library. Metzger.27 The Nestle-Aland/UBS text cites Vaticanus so much, one could well Frederick Kenyon in his book The Text of deem it a corrected edition of the Greek Bible—a Handbook for Students Vaticanus.) gives the following proofs for Vaticanus’s being of Egyptian origin: As noted by several authors, many of them modern textual critics themselves, With regards to its place, Hort was Vaticanus clearly has an Egyptian text and inclined to assign it to Rome, and shows a strong influence from the Coptic others to southern Italy or Caesarea; versions. By means of Vaticanus and but the association of its text with the Sinaiticus (a manuscript discovered in a Coptic text, and with Origen, and the monastery on Mount Sinai which is also an style of writing (notably the Coptic Egyptian manuscript), many Egyptian forms used in some of the titles), readings have found their way into the point rather to Egypt and to Nestle-Aland critical text. So much is this so Alexandria.28 that it may be safely said that the Westcott- Hort and the Nestle-Aland text are in So Kenyon shows us that Vaticanus is substance a recreation of the 4th century necessarily of Egyptian origin because of its Alexandrian text, as Herman Hoskier noted affinity for the Coptic translation of the of the Westcott-Hort text and the Oxford Bible. He also says that the evidences of text in 1914.24 Origen’s influence over it manifest it to be of 20 Issue Number: 581 – October to December 2007

Egyptian origin, because Origen himself the two of them in volume two of his was from Alexandria, Egypt. Note also that famous work, Codex B and its Allies. On Kenyon points out that Vaticanus uses ‘Coptic page 1 of volume 2, he gives us the following forms in some of the titles’, and that overall summary of the variants between ) ‘the style of writing’ points to its being an (Sinaiticus) and B (Vaticanus). Egyptian or Alexandrian manuscript. I have tabulated the major part of We proceed now to discuss Herman these differences between ) and B in Hoskier, and his observations concerning the Gospels and given the supporting the Egyptian characteristics of Vaticanus. authorities on each side. They amount to— Herman Hoskier was universally recognised amongst Biblical textual scholars Matt. 656+ as ‘unsurpassed’ in the quality and quantity Mark 567+ of his textual collation work.29 (Kirsopp Luke 791+ Lake said Hoskier was ‘almost John 1,022+ supernaturally accurate’.30) His work in Total 3,03633 single-handedly collating all the known manuscripts of the book of Revelation is The high degree of these variants totally unequalled amongst textual scholars. What manifests the unreliability of ) and B, and does Hoskier say of Vaticanus? yet these two texts are primarily what the modern critical text is built upon. Hoskier ‘It is high time that the bubble of Codex also shows us something very interesting B should be pricked’.31 about ) and B when they agree. When they agree, they often also agree with the Coptic Why does he say this? Because he had version. It appears that B follows the Sahidic just completed an entire collation of the Coptic and ) the Old Bohairic (northern four Gospels that specifically compared Egypt) Coptic, and, though the Sahidic and Vaticanus and its sister manuscript, the Old Bohairic are often different, yet Sinaiticus, Tischendorf’s famous find often they agree. (which, according to Tischendorf’s own words, he rescued from being consigned to That Vaticanus often agrees with the the furnace32). Hoskier not only collated Sahidic is openly acknowledged by many Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, he also compared authorities.34 We have already also cited the readings of those two manuscripts with Kenyon’s observation that many of the titles the other major uncial texts and with the in B follow the Coptic forms. ancient Syriac, Latin and Coptic versions. But now we look at Hoskier’s proofs of And what did he find? He found that the Sahidic corruption of B. Vaticanus and Sinaiticus contradicted each other in 3,036 places in the four Gospels One very telling verse which Hoskier lists alone! He cites every single variant between under ‘As to B and Coptic Sympathy’35 is 21 Trinitarian Bible Society – Quarterly Record

Matthew 7.26. Our Authorised Version well genitive of possession following the noun it translates it as ‘And every one that heareth modifies, as in ‘the house of him’? these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which It has happened because this is the built his house upon the sand’. We will now normal word order in Coptic. The Sahidic focus on the words ‘which built his house’. Coptic in Matthew 7.26 reads pai ntaFhwt \mpeFhi,36 transliterated in The Textus Receptus correctly reads: English pai ntafyot m’pefyi, literally, ‘this ostij wkodomhse thn oikian autou. In one who built his house’. Now the word English, this could be transliterated hostis \mpeFhi is comprised of the following okodomese ten oikian autou. Literally, this components: the \m is a direct object marker reads ‘which built the house of him’. This is that indicates the word is a direct object. the normal and regular way of using the The p or p is a definitive article. The eF is Greek genitive to show possession, that is, ‘of a masculine third person pronoun for ‘he’. him’ following the noun. The component hi is yi, which means ‘house’. The construction of the definite However, Vaticanus reads as follows article p + the pronoun eF means ‘his’.37 (along with the Nestle-Aland critical text): Thus, the entire word means ‘his house’, ostij wkodomhsen autou thn oikian. instead of ‘the house of him’, as the Biblical There is a change in word order here. Ten Greek normally says it. The same oikian autou—the house of him—has just grammatical structure is found in the become autou ten oikian—in English, ‘his Sahidic Coptic in Matthew 18.31 (as in house’. The ‘of him’ has been placed before other places). In these places, Vaticanus ‘the house’. In this word order, a few follows the Coptic word order over and Egyptian uncials and the Sahidic and against the vast majority of the Greek Bohairic agree with Vaticanus, against the manuscripts. overwhelming majority of Greek manuscripts. There is a similar inversion of We realise that this discussion has been word order for the possessive in Matthew quite technical. However, let it be said that, 18.31 in Vaticanus. For the words ‘his with the use of Coptic headings in titles as fellowservants’, Vaticanus has idontej oun Kenyon notes, plus the use of Coptic autou oi sundouloi, thus saying ‘so transliterations of Hebrew names which seeing his fellowservants’—again using the occur in Vaticanus—Daveid for David, Coptic word order. In Greek only Vaticanus Yobed for Obed, Ameinadab for Aminadab, has this word order, with the Sahidic and etc.38—and combined with the imposition Bohairic Coptic, against all other authorities of Coptic word order upon the Greek, these including Sinaiticus. (Not even the UBS things show that it was the Coptic that Greek text follows Vaticanus here.) influenced Vaticanus, and not Vaticanus the Coptic versions. Either Vaticanus Why has this inversion occurred? Why copied directly from the Coptic, or has this rendering of the possessive taken Vaticanus used Greek manuscripts that place over the normal order with the had themselves copied from the Coptic. 22 Issue Number: 581 – October to December 2007

Thus, we must affirm that Vaticanus and Again we must ask: why have the New its allies are Coptic corruptions of the King James Version translators opted to Apostolic originals, not faithful apographs include these corrupt, Coptic-influenced or copies. Accordingly, we must agree with readings in their textual apparatus? Why not Hoskier: ‘It is high time that the bubble of stay by the proven and true, the Textus Codex B should be pricked’—even so. Also Receptus? we must say that it is time that we see the modern Nestle-Aland/UBS text for what it is: a faithful reproduction of the corrupt We answer an objection of Coptic editions of the Greek text of the Dr Harry Sturz 4th century. It is a reproduction of an Egyptian corruption of the New Testament In a footnote in his book The Byzantine Greek text that rightly had been put to rest Text-Type and New Testament Textual by the historic Church. Criticism, Dr Harry Sturz makes the following statements against Herman In all, with respect to the Coptic Hoskier’s charges that Vaticanus was corruption of Vaticanus, Hoskier reveals the influenced in its text form by the Coptic and following numbers of verses (by this Old Latin versions. The prospect of finding reviewer’s count) where there is evidence of the origin of Byzantine readings in the old Coptic influence on Vaticanus’s readings: Sinaitic Syriac

In Matt. 71 instances. now appears to be as unlikely as In Mark 83 instances (98 if you count Hoskier’s attempt to derive distinctive where the Coptic and Latin both readings of B from the Coptic and Old influence the text) Latin versions. Hoskier may have In Luke 89 instances, but 99 if you include borrowed this idea from Burkitt in the Coptic/Latin influences the first place. There appears to be In John 72 instances, but 125, if you no question as to the Egyptian include the Coptic/Latin character and locale of the Vatican Total: 315, not counting where the MS; but Hoskier’s ‘proofs that B was Coptic and Latin conspire to influenced in its text form by the influence Vaticanus, but 393 if Coptic and Old Latin versions’ fall you count the Coptic/Latin. short of demonstration. In Hoskier’s work Codex B…there are Thus, Hoskier finds several hundred numerous instances where he cites Coptic influences upon Vaticanus, and that B supported by one of the Coptic just in the four Gospels. So we must ask: versions alone, and holds this as how can this be the Apostolic text, evidence that it was the Coptic preserved in all generations? It cannot. version which influenced the text A text full of Coptic readings must of B. In many of these places one of needs be an Egyptian revision of the the papyri, either p66 or p75 can be Apostolic text. added to the same reading. This 23 Trinitarian Bible Society – Quarterly Record

indicates that the Alexandrian genitive of possession before the noun recension goes back into the instead of after, as is the case in the vast 2nd century. It is more reasonable to majority of Greek manuscripts. We have assume that it was the Coptic also shown Hoskier’s listing of many verses recensions which followed the Greek in which Vaticanus and maybe one or two in these readings, and not vice versa; other Egyptian uncials agree with the so also with the Syriac and Greek Coptic version against the vast majority of agreements at Antioch.39 [emphases other Greek manuscripts. added.] But Dr Sturz also fails to realise that First of all, we very much agree with Coptic readings clearly found their way into Dr Sturz that there was indeed a recension p75, and we only need to cite the liberal of the Egyptian Greek text to the Coptic, rationalist textual critic Bruce Metzger back in the late 2nd and early 3rd to demonstrate this. Through p75, or texts centuries. We also note with approval his like it, Coptic readings found their way into acknowledgment of the Egyptian character Vaticanus (though Vaticanus clearly has and locale of Vaticanus. However, we must distinctive Sahidic readings of its own, politely take issue with him as to his apart from p75, as instanced by the Coptic assertion that it was the Egyptian version order in titles noted by Frederick Kenyon). of the Greek text that influenced the But Metzger has found distinctively Sahidic Coptic, and not the other way around. Coptic readings in p75. By the way, Metzger, a (p75 is a partial copy of the Gospels that member of the committee which approved was found in the sands of southern Egypt the readings for the Nestle-Aland text, and dates back to about AD 200, during the versions 26 and 27, did not believe in the days of Origen. It predates Vaticanus by divine inspiration of the original about 150 years. This is also the case with autographs of Scripture.40 That p66. p66 is quite different from Vaticanus in notwithstanding, we have no reason to many respects, but p75 is famous for its doubt Metzger’s proofs of Sahidic readings similarity to B.) in p75; to the contrary, we confirm them below with the original sources, as the We have already noted that Coptic reader may shortly see. readings found their way into Vaticanus in that there are proper names spelled as they Returning to Metzger and how he finds are in the Sahidic Coptic version (which is readings from the Sahidic Coptic in p75, he not necessarily significant of itself, but is tells us the following in his book The Text of significant when taken together with all the the New Testament: other affinities in Vaticanus to the Sahidic Coptic). Moreover, we have shown where the The textual significance of this newly Greek text in Vaticanus has been made to acquired witness [p75] is hard to follow the natural order of the Coptic, citing overestimate, presenting, as it does a in particular two instances in which the form of text very similar to that of order of the Greek was inverted to put the codex Vaticanus. Occasionally, the 24 Issue Number: 581 – October to December 2007

codex is the only known Greek At a very early date the Greek New witness which agrees with the Testament was translated into Sahidic version in supporting Sahidic, and some of the distinctive several interesting readings. Thus, readings of this Sahidic version are at John x.7, instead of the traditional found in p75, thus supporting the text, ‘I am the door of the sheep’, p75 contention of Hoskier (1914) that replaces ‘door’ (h qura) by ‘shepherd’ the Alexandrian text was (o poimhn). What is still more ‘tremendously influenced’ by the remarkable is the addition at Sahidic version.44 [emphasis Luke xvi.19, where in Jesus’ account added.] of the Rich Man and Lazarus this new witness inserts after plousiouj the So then, the discovery of p75, far from words onomati Neuhj… The disproving Hoskier’s contention that the Sahidic version agrees with a rather Alexandrian text was heavily influenced by widespread tradition among ancient the Coptic, quite to the contrary proves it, catechists of the Coptic Church that as Hills rightly notes. To the contrary, p75 the name of the Rich Man was was itself influenced and corrupted by the Ninevah, a name which had become Sahidic Coptic. We are persuaded that the the symbol of dissolute riches. copyist of Vaticanus used either p75 or a Obviously the scribe of p75 was manuscript much like it, along with the familiar with this tradition, and by Coptic version (or perhaps he had a accidental haplography wrote ‘Neve’ Greek/Coptic diglot), so as to reinforce in for ‘Ninevah’ (Neuhj for itself the recension of p75 to the Sahidic Nineuhj).41 [emphasis added] Coptic. Indeed, the other papyri do not follow the Sahidic Coptic in the way that This author has confirmed, using p75 and Vaticanus do; they tend toward Horner’s edition of the Sahidic Coptic an Alexandrian/Western mixed text, version of the New Testament, that indeed with interspersed Byzantine readings the Ninevah reading is there.42 He has also (like p66).45 confirmed the Neuhj reading in p75.43 The rich man in the Coptic in Luke 16.19 is The evidence clearly proves that the called Ninevah, and p75 is the only Coptic influenced Vaticanus—both directly manuscript to agree with the Sahidic and by other Greek manuscripts that had Coptic in this. It has also been confirmed also been influenced and revised by it. that the ‘I am the shepherd of the sheep’ reading for John 10.7 is an instance where So we must ask ourselves again: why both the Sahidic Coptic and p75 agree does the New King James Version include against all other manuscripts. readings from the Nestle-Aland edition of the Egyptian text in its margin? That such a Edward Hills, in his citation of what text cannot possibly be the Apostolic text is Metzger says above, correctly notes the fully evinced by the obvious Egyptian following: influences that permeate it. The Apostles 25 Trinitarian Bible Society – Quarterly Record themselves were not Egyptians! But we go his concept of what constitutes a ‘word’ was on to demonstrate Origen’s influence on the different from ours. To Origen, a ‘word’ was Egyptian text. a logical unit of thought. A word to Origen could have been a passage in the Scriptures, as we shall see from Dr Hills in Origen’s influence corrupted just a moment. Thus, Origen, if he thought the Alexandrian text he understood what a passage really meant, felt at liberty to change the individual words Unquestionably, there were many baneful of the text before him to make them say influences upon the Egyptian text. We shall what he understood the passage to be now consider that of Origen. saying. In other words, he took many liberties to make critical amendments to the According to the Catholic Encyclopedia text. It is quite likely that some of Origen’s online,46 Origin was born in AD 185 and died emendations found their way into the in AD 232. Origen was a brilliant thinker and Alexandrian text.47 We may think this a prolific writer. His writings number over six because (although there is not a perfect thousand. He wrote commentaries on many agreement) overall the distinctive books of the Bible, homilies and exegeses of Alexandrian readings compared with passages of Scripture, and he drafted the Origen’s citations of Scripture passages are famous Hexapla—an attempt to correct the in accord against the traditional or Septuagint, which had already grown quite Byzantine text.48 Origen lived during the corrupt. The Hexapla had six columns, with time that p66 and p75 were written. the Old Testament rendered in six different readings. The first two columns were in Hoskier, in his book Codex B and its Hebrew and the remaining four columns Allies, cites Canon Cook’s assessment of the presented four different Greek translations. character and person of Origen: The first Hebrew column presented the Hebrew in unpointed letters, the next column In his criticism of the New Testament was the Hebrew transliterated into Greek Origen had great advantages, and he letters. Next came a Greek translation by used them with greater success. Aquila, which was rather literal; after that Every available source of information came a version by Symmachus, which was he studied carefully. Manuscripts and quite free in paraphrasing. After that came versions were before him; both the Septuagint. We only have fragments of manuscripts and versions he the work today, but it is obvious that Origen examined, and brought out the was much given to textual criticism and that results of his researches with accordingly he exercised a very strong unrivalled power. But no one who influence over the New Testament Greek text considers the peculiar character of in Egypt. his genius, his subtlety, his restless curiosity, his audacity in Although Origen believed that the speculation, his love of innovation, Scriptures were inspired in all their ‘words’, will be disposed to deny the extreme 26 Issue Number: 581 – October to December 2007

risk of adopting any conclusion, any specimen of the New Testament reading, which rests on his authority, textual criticism which was carried unless it is supported by the on in Alexandria about 225 A.D. independent testimony of earlier or Origen reasons that Jesus could not contemporary Fathers and Versions. have concluded his list of God’s The points in which we are specially commandments with the entitled to look for innovations are: comprehensive requirement, Thou 1) curious and ingenious readings, shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. For such, for instance, as those which we the reply of the young man was, All have noticed in St Mark and St Luke; these things have I kept from my 2) the removal of words, clauses, or youth up, and Jesus evidently entire sentences which a man of accepted this statement as true. But if fastidious taste might regard as the young man had loved his superfluities or repetitions; 3) a neighbor as himself, he would have fearless and speculative mode of been perfect, for Paul says that the dealing with portions of the New whole law is summed up in this Testament which might contain saying, Thou shalt love thy neighbor statements opposed to his as thyself. But Jesus answered, If thou prepossessions or present difficulties wilt be perfect, etc., implying that the even his ingenuity might be unable young man was not yet perfect. to resolve…’49 [emphases added.] Therefore, Origen argued, the commandment Thou shalt love thy So we see that Origen was highly neighbor as thyself, could not have skilled in amassing various readings and been spoken by Jesus on this comparing them, but also that his occasion, and was not part of the ‘audacity in speculation’ and his ‘love of text of Matthew. This clause, he innovation’ made him extremely believed, was added by some unreliable for determining the real tasteless scribe.51 [emphasis added.] reading of a passage. We see that Origen was indeed given to novel readings and to Thus it is clear that this removing words, clauses, and even entire renowned Father was not content to sentences when he deemed them to be abide by the text which he had superfluous.50 received but freely engaged in the boldest sort of conjectural Edward Hills in his book The King James emendation. And there were other Version Defended gives us the following critics less restrained than he who specific example of Origen’s propensities deleted many readings of the toward ‘the boldest sort of conjectural original New Testament and thus emendation’. produced the abbreviated text found in the papyri and in the In his comment on this passage manuscripts Aleph and B.52 [Matthew 19.19] Origen gives us a [emphases added.] 27 Trinitarian Bible Society – Quarterly Record

Thus we see that Origen felt that the holding to the doctrine of universal phrase ‘Thou shalt love thy neighbour as redemption, that is, the final salvation of all thyself’ should be deleted from the souls, including the devil’s. The Catholic passage, and Hills tells us that, at that time Encyclopedia cites Origen as saying in his Origen was one of the more restrained in De Principia that ‘We think that the his views regarding altering the text. Hills goodness of God, through the mediation of points out rightly that many of the Christ, will bring all creatures to one and deletions and omissions we find in the same end’ (De princip., I, vi, 1–3).55 The Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, which phrase ‘will bring all creatures to one and accordingly have found their way into the the same end’ shows us that, apparently, Nestle-Aland/UBS text, can likely be traced Origen thought even the devil would to the hands of Origen and his followers. ultimately be saved at the very last. The Yet the New King James lists these same article tells us about Origen’s being omissions as possibly valid readings! excommunicated from Alexandria for holding to this doctrine. Certainly, we David Cloud cites forty-four omissions cannot trust the hand of a man upon the of complete verses and ninety-five partial Sacred Text who held to such heterodox omissions from the Nestle-Aland/UBS views as these. text that are footnoted as possibly valid readings by the New King James, many of Origen’s followers went to even wilder which can be traced directly to the hand of excesses. Finally, at the Second Council of Origen and his contemporaries. For a listing Constantinople in AD 543 (the Council of these omissions, see Cloud’s Web site.53 called by the Emperor Justinian), the errors Some of the more significant omissions by of Origenism were condemned.56 The three the critical text (though these were not errors for which the Origenists were necessarily Origen’s work) include: Matthew condemned—and all three of these errors 17.21 (‘Howbeit this kind goeth not out but had their seminal beginnings in Origen by prayer and fasting’), John 7.53–8.11 on himself—were:57 the woman caught in adultery, Acts 8.37 (‘And Philip said, If thou believest with all Allegorism in the interpretation of thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered Scripture and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God’), and 1 John 5.7. For a list of Subordination of the Divine Persons hundreds of such omissions by the Nestle- Aland/UBS critical text throughout the New The theory of successive trials and a Testament, see the Society’s article A Textual final restoration Key to the New Testament: A List of Omissions and Changes.54 We have already seen Origen’s propensity toward allegorising the Add to this that Origen in many ways Scripture. With respect to ‘subordination of was quite unsound in doctrine. Origen was the Divine Persons’, although Origen was a excommunicated from Alexandria for Trinitarian, yet he strongly taught that 28 Issue Number: 581 – October to December 2007 there was a hierarchy of the Divine Egyptian heretics corrupted Persons, with the Son under the Father, and the Spirit under the Father and the the Egyptian text Son. He taught this to the weakening of the equality of the three Persons. His teaching We come now to consider the profound this back in the 2nd and 3rd centuries influence that heretical sects in Egypt paved the way for Arius’s later errors, exercised upon the copies of the Sacred Writ wherein Arius denied outright the which were there. That the Egypt of the 2nd Godhead of Christ, saying that Christ was a and 3rd centuries—the age of most of the spirit-being created by God, the firstborn papyri or parchment readings that modern of the creation, and therefore totally textual critics delight in—was full of subordinate to the Father in every way. heretics is openly acknowledged by the noted textual critic Dr Bruce Metzger: Origen’s theory of successive trials and final restoration basically came to this: Among Christian documents which Origen believed that, during the during the 2nd century either Millennium, all souls that had sinned, originated in Egypt or circulated there including those of devils themselves, among both the orthodox and would be punished in purgatory. At the Gnostics are numerous apocryphal end of the Millennium, all would be gospels, acts, epistles, and redeemed. This is certainly an execrable apocalypses… There are also heresy, and for holding to it himself fragments of exegetical and dogmatic Origen was rightly excommunicated from works composed by Alexandrian the Church. Christians, chiefly Gnostics, during the 2nd century. We know, for example, of It is clear that Origen had a such teachers as Basilides and his son contaminating effect upon Egyptian Isidore, and of Valentinus, Ptolemaeus, Christianity and no doubt upon the text of Heracleon, and Pantaenus. All but the the Holy Scriptures—his influence was so last-mentioned were unorthodox in strong over the text of Egypt that the one respect or another. In fact, to judge Alexandrian text is often known as the by the comments made by Clement of Origenistic text.58 Alexandria, almost every deviant Christian sect was represented in Again, we must ask ourselves: why has Egypt during the 2nd century; the New King James Version, then, chosen to Clement mentions the Valentinians, revive the long-rejected, Origenistic text of the Basilidians, the Marcionites, the Alexandria in its marginal notes? How can a Peratae, the Encratites, the Docetists, text which has been subject to the the Maimetites, the Cainites, the extravagant critical emendations of Origen Ophites, the Simonians, and the and his followers be the genuine Apostolic Eutychites. What proportion of text, preserved of God in all generations, as Christians in Egypt during the 2nd promised in Isaiah 59.20–21? century were orthodox is not known.59 29 Trinitarian Bible Society – Quarterly Record

The early Church Father Tertullian, who order to restore to its natural himself was from Carthage, Africa, tells us soundness anything which is that these early heretics willingly corrupted contrary to it, and contained in the the copies of the Scriptures with ‘both pen Scriptures? [5] What we are ourselves, and knife’. Tertullian speaks of this in his that also the Scriptures are (and have work Prescription against Heresies. (By his been) from the beginning. Of them use of the term ‘Catholics’, of course, we have our being, before there was Tertullian means the communion of the any other way, before they were orthodox churches of the 2nd and 3rd interpolated by you. [6] Now, centuries; he is not referring to popery.) inasmuch as all interpolation must be believed to be a later process, for the Chapter XXXVIII.-Harmony of the express reason that it proceeds from Church and the Scriptures. Heretics rivalry which is never in any case Have Tampered with the Scriptures, previous to nor home-born with that and Mutilated, and Altered Them. which it emulates, it is as incredible Catholics Never Change the Scriptures, to every man of sense that we should Which Always Testify for Them. seem to have introduced any corrupt text into the Scriptures, existing, as [1] Where diversity of doctrine is we have been, from the very first, and found, there, then, must the being the first, as it is that they have corruption both of the Scriptures and not in fact introduced it who are both the expositions thereof be regarded as later in date and opposed (to the existing. [2] On those whose purpose Scriptures). [7] One man perverts it was to teach differently, lay the the Scriptures with his hand, necessity of differently arranging the another their meaning by his instruments of doctrine. [3] They exposition. [8] For although could not possibly have effected their Valentinus seems to use the entire diversity of teaching in any other way volume, he has none the less laid than by having a difference in the violent hands on the truth only with a means whereby they taught. As in more cunning mind and skill than their case, corruption in doctrine Marcion. [9] Marcion expressly and could not possibly have succeeded openly used the knife, not the pen, without a corruption also of its since he made such an excision of instruments, so to ourselves also the Scriptures as suited his own integrity of doctrine could not have subject-matter. [10] Valentinus, accrued, without integrity in those however, abstained from such means by which doctrine is managed. excision, because he did not invent [4] Now, what is there in our Scriptures to square with his own Scriptures which is contrary to us? subject-matter, but adapted his What of our own have we introduced, matter to the Scriptures; and yet he that we should have to take it away took away more, and added more, by again, or else add to it, or alter it, in removing the proper meaning of 30 Issue Number: 581 – October to December 2007

every particular word, and adding qeoj in its marginal note on John 1.18, fantastic arrangements of things rendering it, as they do, ‘only begotten God’? which have no real existence.60 And is saying that Christ is the only [emphases added.] begotten God really such a bad thing? We affirm that it is a bad thing, as will be We note from the above that Tertullian shown below. We also affirm that the words openly testifies (as also did Irenaeus) that monogenhj qeoj can only be translated as Marcion cut away texts from the Scriptures ‘only begotten God’; it cannot be translated that did not agree with him.61 He tells us ‘the only and unique God’, and we offer our also that Valentinus did not appear to have reasonings for this below also. We will show excised texts, but that he overloaded words how this reading was introduced into the of Scripture with new and novel meanings, Egyptian text by early Gnostic heretics. We as well as adding many new doctrines of his shall then censure the New King James own. He also implies that other heretics Version for including this reading, whom he does not name here did indeed introduced as it was by heretics in the alter the text. However, John Burgon, the Egyptian text, in its marginal notes, as famous champion of the traditional text, though it were a possibly valid reading. shows us that Valentinus and his followers, Finally we shall reprove the NKJV for who were from Egypt, plainly did alter key including other readings influenced by texts of Scripture, particularly John 1.18. heretics from the Egyptian text in its notes.

But before we deal with Burgon’s testimony on how a very early Christian The ‘one and only God’ or writer, the author of Excerpta Theodoti in the ‘only begotten Son’? the 2nd century, explicitly testified how the Valentinians used a corrupted form of First of all, let us openly state that we find John 1.18 to defend their heretical the overwhelming majority of Greek doctrines, we must consider a controversy manuscripts of the New Testament using from John 1.18. Does the reading monogenhj monogenhj uioj (monogenes huios, qeoj (monogenes theos) which occurs in meaning either ‘the only begotten Son’ or ‘the Vaticanus mean ‘the only begotten God’, as only and unique Son’), and not monogenhj the New King James Version renders it in its qeoj in John 1.18.62 We will affirm, with the marginal note and the New American Nicene Fathers, that monogenes huios Standard Version translates it in its text? Or properly means ‘the only begotten Son’. For does it mean ‘God the one and only’, as the indeed, monogenes properly means ‘an only New International Version translates it? offspring’, and monogenes huios means ‘an only offspring son’. That concept could be To come nearer to the point: is it really so communicated as either ‘the only begotten bad that Vaticanus reads (as did the Son’ or ‘the only Son’. However, we will Valentinians) monogenhj qeoj (monogenes demonstrate that monogenes theos is an theos), instead of ‘the only begotten Son’? altogether unacceptable rendering, and that Does the NKJV mistranslate monogenhj that would mean either ‘the only begotten 31 Trinitarian Bible Society – Quarterly Record

God’ (as both the New King James Version which we get the word ‘genus’, in its literal margin and the New American Standard sense refers to the offspring of an ancestor; Version text have rendered it), ‘the only and thus we see in the Greek of the New unique offspring God’ or ‘the God who has Testament, Christ is referred to as the genos the quality of being an only offspring’. of David, that is, the offspring of David. We also see Israel referred to as the ‘stock’ or A modern scholar, Richard Longenecker, offspring of Abraham in Acts 13.26: ‘Men has stated that monogenes in the Greek and brethren, children of the stock of means ‘one and only of a kind’. He states Abraham’, begins Paul in his address to the this in the chapter entitled ‘The One and synagogue in Antioch of Pisidia. The word Only Son’ in the book The NIV: the Making used for ‘stock’ is our word genos. He is of a Contemporary Translation.63 calling them the offspring of David. We shall Longenecker argues that monogenes is list the various readings of genos from the formed of two Greek words (which it is), New Testament in a moment. with monos meaning ‘one’ or ‘only’ and genos ‘kind’. Thus, says he, monogenhj properly Genos may also refer to an offspring of a means ‘one of a kind’ or a ‘unique kind’. prototype, figuratively speaking, and thus to Where we see monogenes huios, it properly a ‘kind’. However, whenever genos is used to means to Longenecker ‘the only and unique mean ‘kind’, it always means that it is a Son’, whereas, monogenes theos means to figurative offspring, figuratively him, ‘the only and unique God’. Thus, descended from a prototype of some sort. according to Longenecker and men of like Our English word for ‘kind’ also follows this sentiments with him, John 1.18 should principle. Our word ‘kind’ comes from the follow the Greek of Vaticanus, but Germanic word kind (pronounced kint), translating it in this way: ‘No man hath seen which means ‘a child’. Thus, our word ‘kind’ God at any time; the only and unique God, properly means a figurative child, that is, ‘a who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath child of a prototype’. declared him’. 2. But now in coming to the term While we must commend Longenecker monogenes, that term always means ‘only for seeing the impropriety of the ‘only offspring’. That term always is used in the begotten God’ rendering, we cannot agree New Testament to denote an only child, as with his defence of Vaticanus’s reading of we shall shortly prove by citing all nine monogenes theos, and that, for the following occurrences of the word in the New three reasons: Testament. Michael Marlowe, though himself an advocate generally of the critical 1. Genos (genoj) properly refers to an text, has also written a paper in which he offspring, whether literal or figurative. shows that monogenes means ‘only Thus monogenes would mean ‘a unique begotten’.64 offspring’, which also would then mean (as it always means in the New Testament) ‘only 3. Athanasius and the Nicene Fathers, who begotten’. The Greek word genos, from knew the Greek of the New Testament far 32 Issue Number: 581 – October to December 2007 better than modern scholars do, being much claim. We shall shortly see that the very first nearer the period when that language was reference to this ‘only begotten God’ reading spoken, regularly referred to John 1.14, occurs in the writings of a follower of John 1.18 and John 3.16 as speaking of Christ Valentinus, who was a very wicked heretic. as the only begotten Son. In speaking of Christ The Valentinians believed that Monogenes, as the monogenes huios, the Nicene Fathers the only begotten, was a god, and that he referred to Christ as the only and unique proceeded from Bythos. But they believed offspring of the Father, and sometimes simply that the Son was another god, yet who was as the offspring of the Father.65 formed by Monogenes. Their wicked heresies were well exposed to all eternity by 4. This being the case, along with the fact the godly Irenaeus.67 that genos always refers to an offspring of some sort, monogenes could never refer to But we proceed first to establish our God, for in no sense is God the offspring of point, namely that genos properly means another. God is not a kind descended from ‘offspring’, by listing all the occurrences of it some other prototype, for He is indeed the in the Greek New Testament. We see this First Cause and Primary Mover of all things, literal rendering of the word in the as Aquinas rightly noted. Nor is the following verses: Godhead of Christ begotten. It is properly only His Person which is begotten. Thus, Acts 17.28: ‘For in him we live, and monogenes theos, as the Nicene Fathers move, and have our being; as certain also of rightly understood, cannot mean ‘the only your own poets have said, For we are also and unique God’. Rather, it would mean ‘the his offspring’. The word here for ‘offspring’ only offspring God’, or ‘the only begotten is genos. We, as God’s image-bearers by God’—and this phrase is at best a very nature, are His children in a sense, though harsh catachresis, and cannot but be fallen and estranged from Him and under offensive to orthodox ears.66 His wrath and curse until actually redeemed by a true faith in Christ. But even The early saints in Egypt and Africa who as estranged, we are in some sense His were orthodox, but who had an inferior text offspring. and who would have encountered the ‘only begotten God’ or ‘the only and unique So also, then, in Acts 17.29: ‘Forasmuch offspring God’ reading, would have then as we are the offspring of God, we interpreted it as a catachresis: they would ought not to think that the Godhead is like have stated it to mean ‘the divine Person unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art who is an offspring but Who also is God’. and man’s device’. The word again here for But the heretics referenced this reading as it ‘offspring’ is genos. literally stands; they said that it means that the very Godhead of Christ is an offspring Now we look at Philippians 3.5: of the Father, and that therefore Christ was ‘Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of not really God, but only ‘a god’ as the Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew modern Arians, the Jehovah’s Witnesses, of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a 33 Trinitarian Bible Society – Quarterly Record

Pharisee’. The Greek word, the word in the Matthew 17.21: Howbeit this kind original language, for ‘stock’ is genos, again. goeth not out but by prayer and fasting. The phrase could well be translated ‘of the [emphasis added.] offspring of Israel’. There are only three other instances We also consider 1 Peter 2.9: ‘But ye are a of the word genos which are used in chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an this way, that is, to mean ‘kind’, and they holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye are 1 Corinthians 12.10 and 28, and should shew forth the praises of him who 1 Corinthians 14.10. hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light’. The word here for In all, there are twelve instances of ‘generation’ is again genos—‘offspring’. ‘Ye the Greek word genos in the New are a chosen offspring’, Peter is saying. Testament which mean ‘offspring’ or ‘kindred’ in a literal sense. There are five Next, we look at Revelation 22.16: ‘I am instances in which it can be rendered ‘kind’ the root and the offspring of David’. Again, although, as we pointed out, even here it the Greek word is genos. properly means ‘the offspring of a prototype’. Thus, the normal, literal meaning of genos is ‘offspring’. Thus, genos properly means an offspring, usually a literal offspring but sometimes a In a clear majority of instances, genos metaphorical offspring. Therefore, means a literal offspring in some sense, monogenes properly means ‘an only whether we in English should translate it offspring’, and this indeed is what it always ‘offspring’, ‘countrymen’, ‘nation’, ‘kindred’ means in the Greek New Testament. We now or ‘stock’. Such are the instances we find list all nine occurrences of monogenes in the in the following verses: Mark 7.26 Greek New Testament. (‘nation’), Acts 4.6 (‘kindred’), Acts 4.36 (‘country’), Acts 7.13, 19 (‘kindred’), Luke 7.12: ‘Now when he came nigh to 2 Corinthians 11.26 (‘countrymen’), the gate of the city, behold, there was a dead Galatians 1.14 (‘nation’). All of these man carried out, the only son of his instances could be fairly rendered either mother’. The words for ‘only son’ in the ‘offspring’ or ‘kindred’. Greek are uioj monogenhj (huios monogenes), an ‘only begotten son’, or, more But now we look at two instances in literally, ‘a son [who is] an only offspring’, which genos means ‘a kind’, a metaphorical which means the same thing. child of a prototype. Luke 8.42: ‘For he had one only Matthew 13.47: ‘Again, the kingdom of daughter, about twelve years of age’. The heaven is like unto a net, that was cast into words for ‘one only daughter’ in the Greek the sea, and gathered of every kind’. are qugathr monogenhj (thugater [emphasis added.] monogenes), which is literally, ‘a daughter, an 34 Issue Number: 581 – October to December 2007 only offspring’. This certainly may be uion autou ton monogenh, ‘his only translated ‘an only begotten daughter’. offspring Son’, which again, is exactly the same as saying ‘his only begotten Son’. Luke 9.38: ‘And, behold, a man of the company cried out, saying, Master, I beseech John 3.18: ‘because he hath not believed thee, look upon my son: for he is mine only in the name of the only begotten Son of child’. The words in Greek for ‘he is mine God’. Again, the Greek words for ‘only only child’ are monogenhj esti moi begotten Son’ are tou monogenouj uiou, (monogenes esti moi), which literally means ‘the only offspring Son’. ‘he is my only offspring’. Hebrews 11.17: ‘By faith Abraham, when John 1.14: ‘And the Word was made he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld had received the promises offered up his his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of only begotten son’. The Greek words for ‘his the Father,) full of grace and truth’. The only begotten’ (‘son’ does not occur in the Greek words for ‘only begotten of the Father’ Greek) are ton monogenh, which means are monogenouj para patroj literally ‘his only offspring’, the possessive (monogenous para patros), which means pronoun ‘his’ being necessarily implied by literally ‘the only offspring of the Father’. the Greek grammatical construction. This, by the way, is continually how Athanasius refers to Christ, and how the 1 John 4.9: ‘In this was manifested the Nicene Council referred to Him68—as the love of God toward us, because that God ‘only offspring from the Father’. ‘Only sent his only begotten Son into the world’. begotten’ means exactly the same thing. The Greek words for ‘his only begotten Son’ are ton uion auto u ton monogenh, which John 1.18: ‘No man hath seen God at any is more emphatic: ‘his only begotten Son’, time; the only begotten Son, which is in the placing emphasis on its being His only Son bosom of the Father, he hath declared him’. which He has given, His all-in-all. The Greek words for ‘the only begotten Son’ are o monogenhj uioj ‘the only offspring What is the import of all this? The [which is a] son’, which again, means the import is that God, properly speaking, same thing as ‘the only begotten Son’. cannot be monogenes, because He is in no Vaticanus’s monogenhj qeoj reading would wise the offspring of any other and because mean ‘the only offspring God’, which is He is not descended from any other in any indeed the same as saying ‘the only begotten way. Accordingly, in the very least, the ‘only God’, as the NKJV margin and the NASB begotten God’ reading is a very harsh correctly translate it, and also as the NIV catachresis. But we shall argue this reading shows in its marginal note. to be a heretical one, not only because of what it imports when taken literally, but John 3.16: ‘For God so loved the world, also because of its origin. We must deem that he gave his only begotten Son’. The it to be a heretical reading because in fact it Greek words for ‘only begotten Son’ are ton originated with heretics and was refuted by 35 Trinitarian Bible Society – Quarterly Record the orthodox author of a very early work in that is, to ‘the Son’ so that by the ‘Son’ the second century, as John Burgon shows the ‘Father’ might be known. Then us. (We shall cite this work shortly.) they say that while ‘the only begotten Son’ abode ‘in the bosom of the John Burgon, the famous defender of the Father’, He caused that there on traditional text and of the doctrine of the earth should be seen one ‘as the Providential preservation of the Scriptures, only begotten Son’ (alluding to His in his book The Causes of Corruption of the being made flesh in verse 14). New Testament Text, tells us that But note that the author of It will be remembered that S. John in Excerpta Theodoti (also a 2nd his grand preface does not rise to the century production) reads S. John full height of his sublime argument 1.18 as we do.69 [emphases added.] until he reaches the eighteenth verse. In verse 14 he had said that ‘The Please note the following: Word was made flesh’, etc.; a statement which Valentinus was 1. The Valentinians admitted that the Word willing to admit. But the heretic was made flesh, but they denied that the and his followers denied that the Word is also the Son of God. Word is also the Son of God. As if to bar the door against this pretence, 2. They taught that the only begotten, the S. John in verse 18 announces that Monogenes, was another entity altogether ‘the only begotten Son, who is in the from the Son—that he was ‘the Beginning’, bosom of the Father, He has declared and that he was God.70 Him’. So he establishes the identity of the Word and the Only 3. They taught that the Monogenes, who was begotten Son. What else could the the Word and also the only begotten Gnosis Valentinians do with so plain a or ‘secret knowledge’, was the one who was statement, but to seek to deprave it? in the bosom of the Father from eternity, Accordingly, the very first time John but not the Son. 1.18 is quoted by any of the ancients, it is accompanied by the statement 4. They taught that this begotten Gnosis that the Valentinians appeal to the then caused the creation of Christ, who was words ‘the only begotten GOD who is ‘as’ the only begotten Son, but who was not in the bosom of the Father’— Himself God, because He had flesh, and seeking to prove that the only flesh to the Gnostics was inherently begotten is ‘the Beginning’, and is defective and evil. ‘GOD’. They say that inasmuch as the Father willed to become known 5. But Burgon points out that the early to the worlds, the Spirit of Gnosis writer who exposes the Valentinians in the produced the ‘only begotten Gnosis’, 2nd century himself read John 1.18 just as and therefore gave birth to ‘Gnosis’, does the Textus Receptus. 36 Issue Number: 581 – October to December 2007

Indeed, the earliest Church Father which the third and fourth editions of the UBS The traditional text reading Greek text cite for proof of the ‘only of John 1.18 an ancient begotten God’ reading in the Greek is Heracleon, a noted heretical follower of landmark and a bulwark Valentinus who wrote a commentary on against heretics John, and who was confronted for his corrupt commentary by Origen.71 The The traditional text reading of John 1.18, Arians used this reading of the text to which reads ‘the only begotten Son’, is an promote their own heresy, as do also the ancient landmark, one set by the Church of modern-day Arians, the Russelites the 4th century when it recovered the (Jehovah’s Witnesses), namely to promote Byzantine text from the authentic copies of their heretical view that Christ is not really the Scriptures which had been faithfully kept God, but is of a similar essence as God; in the apostolic congregations. The correct hence, he is ‘a god’, but not actually God. reading of this verse was a powerful engine Hence, He is to them a ‘begotten God’. against Arius and his heretical arguments before the Nicene Council.72 Proverbs 22.28 Arius used this argument in Alexandria says, ‘Remove not the ancient landmark, and then before the Council of Nicea, and it which thy fathers have set’. was there that Athanasius set forth the genuine reading for John 1.18, which is ‘the In resurrecting the ‘only begotten God’ only begotten Son’. This author suspects that reading of the corrupt Egyptian text and by it could well have been this very text that citing it in its margins, the editors of the provoked the Greek Fathers of the Nicene New King James Version have in essence Council to encourage a close examination of toppled an ancient landmark set up by the the copies of the New Testament that were Church. They have allowed a foothold for then current, to have new ones conformed to heretics to find a haven in their Bible. the authentic copies yet stored in the ‘Remove not the ancient landmark, which apostolic churches in the Byzantine Empire. thy fathers have set’. We must point out that the overwhelming majority of Greek manuscripts read ‘only Other variant readings begotten Son’ in John 1.18. with origins in the In conclusion, the origin of the ‘only begotten God’ reading of John 1.18 is tamperings of heretics as traceable to the Valentinians of the found in the marginal 2nd century. Valentinus and the bulk of his followers were from Egypt and Valentinus notes of the New King was himself taught in Alexandria. This James Version same reading was then utilised by Arius and his wicked horde (and is still used by In his book The King James Version their ilk today). Defended, Edward Hills lists a number of 37 Trinitarian Bible Society – Quarterly Record omissions in the Alexandrian text which was anti-Semitic and who would have were almost certainly the work of heretics to opposed Christ’s praying for the Jews. weaken the doctrines of Christ’s Incarnation Again, the New King James enters this and Divinity.73 The New King James puts footnote on Luke 23.34: ‘NU-Text all these omissions in its marginal notes brackets the first sentence as a later as potentially valid. These verses include: addition’, again with no comment on the corruptness of the Alexandrian text which Luke 22.43–44: ‘And there appeared an the Nestle-Aland/UBS text uses. So again angel unto him from heaven, strengthening the editors of the NKJV would have us to him. And being in an agony he prayed more think that possibly Christ’s prayer on the earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great cross for His enemies does not belong in drops of blood falling down to the ground’. the Holy Writ! These words, Hills tells us, are omitted from p75, Vaticanus, the Coptic Version, and five We do not have time to itemise fully other Alexandrian uncials. They are other verses in the Alexandrian text likely included in the vast majority of Greek tampered with by heretics. However, Hills manuscripts. The Church Fathers of the on pages 135–138 of The King James Version 4th century onward all cited these verses. In Defended lists John 6.68–69, Mark 1.1, our opinion, Hills is right to trace this Luke 23.42, John 3.13, John 9.35, omission to the Docetists (who denied the John 9.38–39, John 19.5, Romans 14.10, humanity of Christ) of the 2nd century. The 1 Timothy 3.16 (which is dealt with at great Docetists primarily lived in Egypt. The UBS length by Burgon74), Mark 9.29, Acts 10.30, Greek text, both the third and fourth 1 Corinthians 7.5, and 1 Corinthians 11.24, editions, include this text, but they bracket it all of which show signs of tampering and as doubtful. The New King James enters which all are footnoted as worthy of this footnote on Luke 23.43–44: ‘NU-Text possible credence in the New King brackets verses 43 and 44 as not in the James Version. original text’. The inclusion of this reading from the ‘NU-Text’ shows that the editors of Conclusions the NKJV are willing to give this omission some credence! Thus the editors of the We must now draw to a close with our first NKJV would have us to be willing to instalment of this review of the New King consider that the testimony of Christ’s James Version. We have demonstrated that sweating great drops of blood does not the editors of the New King James Version belong in the Bible! are wrong for including the corrupt readings of the Egyptian text in their Luke 23.34: ‘Then said Jesus, Father, marginal notes, as though they were forgive them; for they know not what they potentially valid. They are wrong in do’. Again, this verse is omitted by disdaining the Providentially preserved text, Vaticanus and its allies. Hills believes, with the Textus Receptus. They are very wrong in others (Streeter and Rendel Harris), that including heretical readings from the this excision was made by Marcion, who Alexandrian text in their marginal notes, 38 Issue Number: 581 – October to December 2007 enabling a heretic to find refuge in the 3. We shall demonstrate the many NKJV from these notes. We have also translational deficiencies of the New King demonstrated why the early Church was James, and we shall show the seriousness of right in universally restandardising their the doctrinal impact these deficiencies have, manuscript copies, beginning in the especially when combined with the readings 4th century, to conform to the apostolic from the Nestle-Aland critical text—how Byzantine copies which were yet stored in these changes necessarily weaken sound the apostolic churches of the area within the doctrine in that version. Byzantine empire. We have been forced to defend the Textus We hope, God willing, to address the Receptus, and that because of an attack following matters in a further instalment. upon it from a supposed friend. The New King James Version may well have 1. We will address why the Reformed translated its New Testament from the forefathers were right in following Greek Textus Receptus, but it has done so in such a minority readings in eight places of the way that it has attacked that text’s purity by Scripture where those readings have setting up the readings of the Alexandrian overwhelming Latin support—the Textus text and of the so-called majority text of Receptus here does the right thing in Hodges-Farstad as implicitly superior. The recovering the original apostolic text. preface to the New King James Version Therefore the false accusations against the attacks the Textus Receptus as being not Textus Receptus, namely that it corrupted very scholarly, and then includes for us the the Byzantine text with Latin readings, is readings that ‘most scholars hold to’, thus patently false. implying that these readings are better.

2. We will address the manifold In including the very corrupt readings of inaccuracies of the von Soden critical text the resurrected Alexandrian text in the upon which both the Hodges-Farstad and marginal notes—the text which was put to Pierpont-Robinson Byzantine majority rest by the Church for fourteen centuries texts are based, and which readings the and that rightly so—the New King James New King James has deemed fit to has thrown down ancient landmarks and footnote in its textual apparatus. We shall made their translation of the Bible a show that the discrepancies that these so- potential haven for heretics by including called Byzantine majority texts have heretical readings from the Alexandrian text against the Textus Receptus are the fault of as footnoes. Had they held to the ‘good old the shoddy workmanship of those who paths’ laid down by the forefathers of the have produced these texts, in their historic Church, these same heretics would misguided reliance on the error-riddled have found no quarter whatsoever in their critical text of Hermann von Soden. version. Therefore, we will necessarily argue that Christians are much better advised to stay It is hoped that our remarks concerning with the Received Text. the method in which Providence preserved 39 Trinitarian Bible Society – Quarterly Record the authentic readings of Scripture will have 5. Farstad, New King James Version, p. vii. been helpful to the reader, namely in 6. Nolan says, ‘If we must receive the Corrected Text of demonstrating how the early Church M. Griesbach, to the exclusion of the Greek Vulgate recovered the best text by referring to the [i.e., the Textus Receptus], we must accept it as a authentic copies stored in the apostolic demonstrative proof of the general corruption of the sacred text, and of the faithlessness of the traditionary churches in Byzantium. testimony on which it is supported, for a period extending from the apostolical to the present age’ May the Lord bless our feeble (Frederick Nolan, An Inquiry into the Integrity of the endeavours thus far. In the meantime, I Greek Vulgate or Received Text of the New Testament encourage all who read this to hold fast to [London, England: R & R Gilbert, 1815], p. ix). This work may be obtained on CD from the good old paths: to the Textus Receptus http://www.solascripturapublishing.com. and to the Authorised Version, which is the 7. Herman C. Hoskier, Codex B and its Allies: a Study most faithful English translation of the and an Indictment, 2 vols. (London, England: Providentially preserved text. Bernard Quaritch, 1914). 8. There appear to be only two instances in which the Jeremiah 6.16 ‘Thus saith the LORD, Stand Textus Receptus actually incorporated a Latin reading ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old into the Greek text. Those are Acts 9.5 and paths, where is the good way, and walk Revelation 22.19 (although the Authorised Version does therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls’. put the majority Greek reading for Revelation 22.19 in the marginal notes). There also appear to be two spelling errors, one which makes for an actual change in meaning. One spelling error is found in Endnotes Revelation 17.4, where the copyist spelled ‘unclean’ as akaqarthtoj instead of akaqarta. This little 1. Arthur L. Farstad, The New King James Version in the blemish in no wise impacts the meaning of the verse. Great Tradition (Nashville, TN, USA: Thomas Nelson The other verse in which the spelling error does impact Publishers, 1989), p. 34. the meaning slightly, and which is a typographical 2. Holy Bible: New King James Version (Nashville, TN, error, is found in Revelation 17.8. The error is found in USA: Thomas Nelson, Inc., 1982), p. vi. the words ‘the beast which was, and is not, and yet is’. The words for ‘yet is’ are kaiper estin where the 3. David Cloud, What about the New King James reading should be kai parestai. (The words were Version? http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/ broken in the wrong place.) kai parestai is the whatabout-nkjv.html. reading of all the Greek manuscripts. This changes the 4. Ibid. Daniel Wallace cites 1,858 differences which he phrase to read ‘the beast which was, and is not, and is counted (Bible.org, ‘Some Second Thoughts on the about to be’. We agree with Dr Edward Hills when he Majority Text’, http://www.bible.org/ says that this very minor blemish could be remedied page.php?page_id=673). Michael Marlowe says that with a mere footnote (King James Version Defended there are 1,005 meaningful differences between the [Des Moines, Iowa USA: Christian Research Press, Hodge-Farstad majority text and the Textus Receptus, 2000], p. 202). These four very minor blemishes in although he does not tell us which edition of the Textus the Textus Receptus (often made much of by modern Receptus he employed (Bible Research, ‘What about the textual critics) are nothing to be compared with the Majority Text?’, http://www.bible-researcher.com/ thousands of errors one encounters in the Egyptian majority.html). Mr Cloud’s count probably includes texts, nor with the Coptic readings (which number in stylistic and spelling differences, along with the hundreds in the four Gospels alone) and readings grammatical differences which do not impact the tinctured by heretics which are found even in the meaning of the text. Still, 1,005 meaningful differences Nestle-Aland/UBS text. We shall be enlarging upon the is a significant change! Coptic corruption of the Egyptian text, and how the 40 Issue Number: 581 – October to December 2007

Nestle-Aland/UBS text is a resurrection of the Egyptian 17. Timothy E. Gregory, A History of Byzantium text of the 4th century, during the course of this article. (Oxford, England: Blackwell Publishing, 2005), pp. 135–139. 9. Zane C. Hodges and Arthur L. Farstad, The Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text, 2nd ed. 18. Matthias F. Wahba ‘Monophysitism: Reconsidered’, (Nashville, TN, USA: Thomas Nelson, Inc., 1985), p. xv. CopNet, http://www.coptic.net/articles/ The editors say: ‘For the evidence of the Majority text, MonophysitismReconsidered.txt. In this online article, the present edition rests heavily upon the information Father Wahba, who introduces himself as ‘a priest of furnished by Hermann von Soden in his Die Schriften the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria’, asserts that des Neuen Testaments’. Also reference is made to Pope Dioscorus of Alexandria in AD 451 refused to William G. Pierpont and Maurice A. Robinson, The New affirm at the Council of Chalcedon the ‘in two natures’ Testament in the Original Greek According to the and insisted on the ‘from two natures’. That is, he Byzantine/Majority Textform (Rosewell, GA, USA: refused to affirm that Christ is one divine Person Who Original Word Publishers, 1991), p. xiii, ‘The present has two natures, one divine and one human, but rather Byzantine/Majority Text was jointly edited and refined tenaciously asserted that one new nature, the Logos by Maurice A. Robinson and William G. Pierpont Incarnate, arose ‘from two natures’. The Coptic during the period 1976–1991. The primary textual Orthodox Church, with all the Oriental Orthodox apparatuses utilised in the preparation of this edition Churches, are monophysite to this very day. were those of Hermann Freiherr von Soden and 19. ‘Miaphysitism’, Wikipedia, Herman C. Hoskier’. These same apparatuses were http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miaphysitism. utilised by Zane C. Hodges and Arthur L. Farstad in their majority text edition of the Greek New Testament. 20. B. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort, Introduction to the Von Soden was utilised almost exclusively by both New Testament in the Original Greek (Peabody, MA, these editions for all books except Revelation, where USA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1988), p. 92, cited in Hoskier was consulted, although in a critical fashion. Maurice A. Robinson, ‘New Testament Textual Criticism: the Case for Byzantine Priority’, 10. H. C. Hoskier, ‘Von Soden’s Text of the New TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism, Testament’, Journal of Theological Studies 15 http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/vol06/Robinson2001.html (April 1914): 307. This is available on microfiche at #footnote155. Dallas Theological Seminary. 21. The New King James Version, p. 1220. 11. Frederick Wisse, The Profile Method for the Classification and Evaluation of Manuscript Evidence as 22. Michael Marlowe, ‘A Statistical Comparison of Applied to the continuous Greek text of the Gospel of Editions of the Greek New Testament’, Bible Luke (Grand Rapids, MI, USA: Wm. B. Eerdmans, Research, http://www.bible-researcher.com/ 1962), pp. 16–17. Here Wisse reviews von Soden’s very stats.html. Marlowe states in his last paragraph great inaccuracies in collating the evidence in Luke 1. entitled ‘Some Observations on the Findings’: ‘From 12. Tertullian, ‘Prescription against Heresies— these findings it may be seen that where the critical Tertullian’, Peter Holmes, trans., Public Service Projects texts diverge from the sixteenth-century Textus Index, http://www.mb-soft.com/believe/txv/ Receptus, they largely agree with one another. tertulle.htm. 72% of the translatable differences from the Textus Receptus were agreed upon by Tregelles and 13. Edward F. Hills, The King James Version Defended Tischendorf long before the publication of the (DesMoines, IO, USA: The Christian Research Press, Westcott-Hort text. The Westcott-Hort text (1881) 1984), pp. 120–121. departs furthest from the TR. The Nestle text (1979), 14. Hoskier, Codex B and its Allies, 1:8. though it largely corresponds with the Westcott-Hort text, differs from it in 551 places. In 295 (54%) of 15. C. P. Hallihan, ‘The Latin Vulgate’, Quarterly Record these places it returns to the readings of the TR. The (April–June 2007), 579:8. Nestle text also has the highest percentage 16. Harry A. Sturz, The Byzantine Text-Type and New agreement with each of the others, ranging from Testament Textual Criticism (Nashville, TN, USA: 78% with Tregelles to 85% agreement with Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1984), pp. 40–41. Westcott & Hort’. [emphasis added.] 41 Trinitarian Bible Society – Quarterly Record

23. Eldon Jay Epp, ‘The Twentieth Century Interlude in has an Egyptian sort of text. In the Gospels it is clearly New Testament Textual Criticism’, The Journal of Alexandrian, although it is sometimes considered to Biblical Literature, no. 3 (Sept 1974), 93:389. have “Western” variants, especially in John. (There are, in fact, occasional “Western” readings in the 24. Hoskier, Codex B and its Allies, 1.7–8. manuscripts, but no pattern of Western influence. Most 25. Kurt Aland, ‘The Present Position of New Testament of the so-called “Western” variants also have Textual Criticism’, Studia Evangelica (Berlin, Germany: Alexandrian support.) As between B and ), the Sahidic Akademie-Verlag, 1959), p. 730. Dr Aland confesses is clearly closer to the former—and if anything even that the Greek text of Egypt prior to the 4th century closer to p75. It is also close to T (a close ally of was a ‘Mischtext’, a mixed-text, and that accordingly p75/B)—as indeed one would expect, since T is a the Alexandrian uncials of the 4th century were the Greek/Sahidic diglot’. He says that the Sahidic Coptic is result of recensions. He says, ‘[w]e cannot return to the far closer to Vaticanus (B) than to ) or Sinaiticus. But principles of Westcott-Hort any more than to those of he also notes that the Sahidic is very close to p75 and to von Soden’. He means by this that the textual critic can T, a Greek/Coptic polyglot. The Encyclopedia of New no longer embrace Hort’s opinion that Vaticanus was a Testament Textual Criticism, http://www.skypoint.com/ ‘neutral’ text, just as the textual critic also must reject members/waltzmn/Versions.html#Sahidic. von Soden’s ‘I-H-K’ classification of the manuscripts, 35. Hoskier, Codex B and its Allies, 1.20. which was fraught with mistakes. 36. George Horner, The Coptic Version of the New 26. Frederick G. Kenyon, ‘Hesychius and the Text of the Testament in the Southern Dialect, Otherwise Called New Testament’, Memorial LaGrange, J Gabalda et al, Sahidic and Thebaic (London, England: at the eds. (Paris, France: Libraire LeCoffre, 1940), p. 248. Kenyon denies the likelihood that Vaticanus was a Clarendon Press, 1910). recension of the martyr Hesychius of the late 2nd and 37. See Thomas O. Lambdin, Introduction to Sahidic early 3rd centuries, as von Soden to the contrary Coptic (Macon, GA, USA: Mercer University Press, thought to deduce from the writings of Jerome. 2000), pp. 11–12, for the explanation of this. However, Kenyon fully admits that ‘Bousset is almost 38. For the reading of the Coptic spellings of these certainly right in regarding it [i.e., Vaticanus] as an proper names in the Sahidic Coptic Version of the New Egyptian text’. Testament, see Horner on Matthew 1. For the identical 27. Bruce Metzger, The Text of the New Testament spelling of them which Vaticanus uses, in exact (London, England: Oxford University Press, 1964), p. 48. conformity to the transliterations of the Sahidic Coptic, 28. Kenyon, The Text of the Greek Bible—a Handbook see Tischendorf’s edition of Vaticanus in Novum for Students (London, England: Gerald Duckworth and Testamentum Vaticanus, 1868, available on CD from Co. Ltd, 1958). http://www.solascripturapublishing.com. 29. For example, Wilbur Pickering, The Identity of the 39. Sturz, Byzantine Text-Type, p. 68, footnote 30. New Testament Text II, 3rd ed. (Eugene, OR, USA: Wipf 40. Bruce Metzger, Text of the New Testament, p. 206. On and Stock Publishers, 2002), p. 22. this page, Metzger tells us, ‘Another instance of a 30. Kirsopp Lake, The Text of the New Testament, manifestly erroneous reading is ei tij splagxna 6th ed. (London, England: Rivingtons, 1928), p. 76. kai oiktirmoi at Phil. ii. I, which could have arisen when the original amanuensis misunderstood 31. Hoskier, Codex B and its Allies, 1.i. Paul’s pronunciation of ei ti splagxna…’ 32. Constantin von Tischendorf, ‘The Discovery of the (emphasis added). Now, if indeed the amanuensis Sinaitic Manuscript’, TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual misunderstood Paul, as Metzger postulates he could Criticism, http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/extras/ have, then an error was written into the original tischendorf-sinaiticus.html. autograph, and the original writing would thus not have been inspired and inerrant! This author 33. Ibid. borrowed this book from Dallas Theological Seminary; 34. Note what Robert Waltz, a strong critical text I give worthy commendation of a previous reader who supporter, says: ‘Like all the Coptic versions, the Sahidic wrote ‘NO!’ in the margin. By the way, the Textus 42 Issue Number: 581 – October to December 2007

Receptus correctly renders the phrase ei tina and even whole verses. If a text follows consistently a splagxna kai oiktirmoi, which translates ‘if certain pattern of omission, it is an indication that the [there be] any bowels of mercy and compassion’, where text belongs to a certain text-type. There are about 100 Vaticanus says ‘if any one bowels of mercy and cases of important omissions in the 400 verses of compassion’. But Metzger is so addicted to Vaticanus, Origen’s quotations from Matthew alone’. he would rather deny the infallibility of the autographs 51. Hills, King James Version Defended, p. 144. than say that the Textus Receptus is right and Vaticanus wrong! 52. Hills cites Origenes Werke, ed. E. Preuschen (Leipzig, Germany: n.p., 1903), 10.385–388. By Aleph and B, 41. Ibid., pp. 41–42. (By ‘haplography’, Metzger means Hills refers to Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. that the copyist confused and accidentally omitted certain letters; see pages 188–189.) Metzger reiterates 53. Cloud, What about the New King James Version?. that Ninevah was written into p75 from the Sahidic Coptic Again, we do not embrace every view of Mr Cloud’s in his book The Early Versions of the New Testament without reservation. However, he has here most (Oxford, England: Clarendon Press, 1977), p. 136. accurately listed all the omissions of the Nestle- Aland/UBS text as they are indeed footnoted in the 42. Horner, Coptic Version, p. 314. New King James Version itself. See 43. Philip W. Comfort and David P. Barrett, The Text of http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/whatabout-nkjv.html the Earliest Greek Manuscripts (Wheaton, IL, USA: for the full listing. Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., 2001), p. 551, where the 54. Trinitarian Bible Society, A Textual Key to the New authors have transcribed the text, with the lacunae (the Testament, http://www.trinitarianbiblesociety.org/ missing portions), into minuscule Greek letters and the site/articles/a100.pdf. text for Luke 16.19 is there displayed. 55. The Catholic Encyclopedia, in paragraph entitled 44. Hills, King James Version Defended, pp. 128–129. ‘Universality of the Redemption and the Final Hills here notes the Ninevah reading in the Coptic Restoration’. which Metzger points out in p75. Hills also notes other Coptic readings in p75. 56. See ‘The Second Council of Constantinople’, Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ 45. Aland, ‘Present Position’, p. 730. Second_Council_of_Constantinople. 46. ‘Origen and Origenism’, Catholic Encyclopedia, 57. The Catholic Encyclopedia, ‘Origen’. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11306b.htm. 58. See Nolan, Inquiry, pp. 4–5. Dr Nolan reviews the 47. Hoskier, Codex B and its Allies, 1.8–9 work of M. Griesbach, who sought to revise the New 48. Note the following quote from Edward F. Hills, ‘A Testament Greek in the early 19th century to the New Approach to the Old Egyptian Text’, Journal of standard of the long-rejected Alexandrian Greek text, Biblical Literature, no. 4 (December 1950), 69:345: which Griesbach ‘determines by the authority of Origen’. ‘In 1771 Griesbach published a careful study of the 59. Bruce Metzger, The Early Versions, p. 101 on ‘The quotations of Origen which indicated the affinity of Introduction of Christianity into Egypt’. that father to codices B, C, and L’. All three of these uncials are Alexandrian. Hills then cites J. J. Griesbach, 60. Tertullian, chapter 38. Opuscula Academics, J. P. Gabler ed. (Jena, Germany: 61. For more on Marcion’s excisions and mutilations of Frommann, 1824), 1.226–317. the New Testament, see ‘Marcionites’, Catholic 49. Hoskier, Codex B and its Allies,1.9–10. Encyclopedia, http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/ 09645c.htm, which sums up what was written 50. Note the following quote from ‘The Matthaen Text concerning him by the early Fathers Irenaeus and of Origen in His Commentary on Matthew’ by Tertullian and others. K.W.Kim (Journal of Biblical Literature, no. 2, [June 1949], 68:133). ‘In the course of my study I have 62. Some believe that the source of the difference discovered that Origen usually prefers shorter readings. between God and Son is a nomen sacrum, a device used He omits quite often some important pronouns, in the early church in which the sacred names were prepositions, articles, conjunctions, particles, clauses, abbreviated with a line over them indicating the 43 Trinitarian Bible Society – Quarterly Record abbreviation. In its use, as Edward Hills points out, all A copy of this book is available on CD at one has to do in the Greek is but alter one letter used in http://www.solascripturapublishing.com. the nomina sacra for Son and one has the abbreviation 70. Irenaeus, Against Heresies. for God (King James Version, p. 134). The most recognised of these is 1 Timothy 3.16, ‘God was 71. Kurt Aland, Matthew Black, Carlo Martini, manifest’, in which ‘God’ is found in some manuscripts Bruce Metzger, and Allen Wikgren, The Greek New as a nomen sacrum. The great majority of the Greek Testament, 3rd ed. corrected (Stuttgart, Germany: manuscripts have ‘God was manifest’ and very few United Bible Societies, 1983), p. 322, in a footnote on indeed have ‘who’ or ‘which’ (God was Manifest in the John 1.18. Arius is also cited as an authority on this Flesh, A103 [London, England: Trinitarian Bible reading. Though some sound authors also quoted the Society, 1993], p. 12). text this way, they were all from Egypt or Africa, save for Irenaeus who was in Gaul (now Lyons, France), and 63. Richard Longenecker, ‘The One and Only Son’, doubtless had a text of a Western family after the The NIV: The Making of a Contemporary Translation, fashion of the Latin text that was current in that area of George Barker ed. (Grand Rapids, MI, USA: Academie Europe at the time. As we have said, Irenaeus and Books, Zondervan Publishing House, 1986), Clement of Alexander cited the ‘only begotten God’ pp. 119–126, cited in Michael Marlowe, ‘The Only catachretically because it was the only text they had to Begotten Son (o monogenhj uioj)’, Bible Research, hand at the time and ‘unto the pure all things are pure’ http://www.bible-researcher.com/only-begotten.html. (Titus 1.15), which is to say, they made good use of a In his article, Marlowe asserts that monogenes means bad text. However, Heracleon and Arius used the ‘only begotten’. Marlowe’s article is also peerless in its reading to promote their heresies. exposure of the many mistakes Longenecker makes in his article, especially in understanding and citing 72. Marlowe states: ‘Athanasius in his Defence of the Nicene ancient Greek authors and the Septuagint. Definition (ca. 353), points to the word monogenhj in John 1.14 as one Scriptural proof for the teaching. 64. Marlowe, ‘The only Begotten Son’. It has been shown above, and must be believed 65. Athanasius, ‘Defence of the Nicene Definition’, as true, that the Word is from the Father, and Athanasius: Select Works and Letters in Select Library of the only Offspring proper to Him and natural. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Philip Schaff, ed., For whence may one conceive the Son to be, http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf204.html, who is the Wisdom and the Word, in whom all pp. 361ff. things came to be, but from God Himself? 66. A catachresis is an improper mode of speaking or However, the Scriptures also teach us this… misapplication of words, as when the Scripture speaks John in saying, “The Only-begotten Son which of God purchasing the Church with his blood in is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared Acts 20.28. God, properly speaking, is a Spirit, and does Him”, spoke of what He [sic] had learned from not have flesh or blood—though God in the Person of the Saviour. Besides, what else does “in the the Son has a human body with blood, so we must bosom” intimate, but the Son’s genuine understand Acts 20.28 as speaking in a way that generation from the Father?’ transfers the human characteristics of Christ to His Marlowe cites as his source A. Robertson, Athanasius: divinity. ‘…The church of God, which he hath Select Works and Letters in The Nicene and Post Nicene purchased with his own blood’, the Authorised Version Fathers, 4.364. (Marlowe, ‘Only Begotten’.) rightly translates it. 73. Hills, King James Version Defended, pp. 129–138. 67. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, The Apostolic Fathers 74. John Burgon, ‘Proof of the Genuineness of God with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, Philip Schaff, ed., Manifested in the Flesh’, The Revision Revised http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.html, 1.450–455. (Paradise, PA, USA: Conservative Classics, n.d.), 68. Athanasius, Defence. pp. 98–108, 424–501. This book is available on CD from http://www.solascripturapublishing.com. 69. John Burgon, The Causes of the Corruption of the Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels (London, Koptos font used by kind permission of Peter J. Gentry England: George Bell and Sons, 1896), pp. 215–217. and Andrew M. Fountain. 44