The Majority Text & Textus Receptus Compared to the Critical Text Editions and the Modern Bible Versions

uring the last several years of the life of the apostle Paul (Hebrew “Saul Paulus,” c. 2-68 AD), heresy already was developing a
stronghold in an attempt to thwart the sacred teachings and doctrines as the very books of the New Testament of the Holy Scriptures
were being penned through the verbal inspiration of God. Wrote Paul about six to seven years before his martyrdom, “O Timothy,
keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called” (1
Timothy 6:20). Paul also spoke against several heretics, among them Hymenaeus and Philetus (2 Timothy 2:17), and Alexander the coppersmith
(2 Timothy 4:14). In Titus 3:10 Paul wrote, “A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject.” And also the apostle Peter (c.
1 BC to 68 AD), who wrote in 2 Peter 2:1, “But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among
you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.”
Some of these “heretics” represented the early yield of “Gnosticism,” a movement comprising an amalgamation of various sects whose
chief belief was that special secret knowledge was apportioned to some elect persons, who thereby were allocated special spiritual status and
glory.a
The word gnosis means knowledgeb
(or science), hence Paul’s early reference to a “science falsely so called.” Thriving during the second
and third centuries, Gnosticism was designated by second century Church Fathers Irenaeus (c. 130-202), Tertullian (c. 160-220), and Hippolytus
(c. 170-236) as an aberrant Christian teaching resulting from the syncretism of unsound Christian doctrine with pagan philosophy, or even
astrology and Greek mystery religions. These three Church Fathers attributed Gnosticism to the magician Simon Magus, who is mentioned in
Acts 8.c
By the fourth century, however, 37 Fathers’ written contributions outweighed those represented in the misguidedly celebrated Greek ma
nuscripts Aleph (Sinaiticus) and B (Vaticanus), dated 325-360 AD, by 65.7 percent to 34.3 percent.d
Nevertheless, heretical teachings based on
this tiny sampling of tainted documents (about 43 all told, eventually) evolved into not only the accepted Christian teachings of the day, but also
the official establishment of the fledgling Roman Catholic Church (fourth century). However, this false doctrine embedded within this minuscule
collection of manuscripts was abandoned almost entirely by the Church Universal by about the end of the seventh century. Hence, the
manuscripts and critical text editions underlying nearly every contemporary Bible version published today were abandoned from the seventh
century until a text critic named Friedrich Constantine von Tischendorf (1815-1874) first discovered the NT manuscript Aleph in a waste heap in
the St. Catherine’s Monastery, on Mt. Sinai in Egypt, in 1844.e
Vaticanus B was the first entry appearing in the Vatican Library, back in 1475.f
Now these 43 or so minority manuscripts, represented foremostly by Aleph and B, remain the foundation of critically edited Greek
versions used by modern translators to produce contemporary Bibles. This has been the case since the release of the first new-age pseudo-Bible
in 1881, the English Revised Version (or “RV”) New Testament.g
Most modern biblical text critics remain entangled in the fourth century web
perpetuated by some heretics and scribes of that time, but the inspired real truth of God’s Word has incontrovertibly been proved. Never has any
opponent triumphed over God’s wisdom having appeared in the “unanswered and unanswerable” arguments of the few stalwart orthodox
Christian scholars of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries—John W. Burgon (1813-1888), Edward Miller (1825-1901), Frederick Henry
Ambrose Scrivener (1813-1891), Herman C. Hoskier (1864-1938), Edward F. Hills (1912-1981), Floyd Nolen Jones, Donald A.Waite, and
others.
a
J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines (Peabody, Mass.: Prince Press, Hendrickson Publishers, 2004), p. 22.
b
Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 22.
c
Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 22.
d
J. A. Moorman, Early Manuscripts, Church Fathers and the Authorized Version (Collingswood, N.J.: The Bible for Today Press, 2005), p. 116.
e
James Bentley, Secrets of Mount Sinai: The Story of Finding the World’s Oldest Bible — Codex Sinaiticus (London: Orbis Publishing, 1985), p. 86.
f
William Henry Paine Hatch, The Principal Uncial Manuscripts of the New Testament (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1933), Plate XIV.
g
Wilbur N. Pickering, “The Identity of the New Testament Text” in Floyd Nolen Jones, Which Version is the Bible?, 19th
ed., rev. and enlarged (Goodyear, Ariz.:
KingsWord Press, 2006), p. 163.

xTable of Contents
I. Cover Page ..................................................................................................... 1
II. Preface ............................................................................................................ 2
III. Introduction .................................................................................................... 4
IV. Verse Comparison .......................................................................................... 4
V. Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 39
VI. Explanatory Notes .......................................................................................... 40
VII. Document Glossary ........................................................................................ 44
XIII. Endnotes ......................................................................................................... 58
XIX. Suggested Reading ......................................................................................... 59
X. Colophon ........................................................................................................ 60
XI. Index .............................................................................................................. 61

6The Majority Text & Textus Receptus Vs. the Critical Text6
Editions and the Modern Bible Versions: ESV (5th Edition, Revised)
By EDWARD E. SCOTT
This notated comparison document serves to clearly identify and clarify some of the documented differences—here in 105 selected verses/passages—existing
between the King James Version—and its “legacy” precursors—and virtually every other New Testament version commercially available since the controversial
1881 release of the English Revised Version (ERV). Many of these alterations have been noted previously by both liberal and conservative theological scholars of
the past and present. The author of this document has invested portions of more than two years in conducting research, inputting data, and proofing, editing, and
augmenting this document. This comparison assemblage has been produced to the glory of God and for the edification of redeemed believers through Jesus Christ,
that the latter may be enlightened about the long-standing, well-disguised and -hidden activities transpiring beneath the massive, deceptive and misguided
overarching mechanisms of modern Bible translation and the Bible societies. Since largely the eighteenth century, liberal, naturalistic and spiritually remiss biblical
and theological scholars have attempted to undermine and even overturn the NT “Byzantine” text underlying classical Bibles—the KJV and those preceding it in the
sixteenth century. Many of these modern theological “naturalists” simply have perpetuated the twisted theories and the deplorable manuscripts and texts which led to the
alarming production of the new-age pseudo-Bible, the ERV. From this unholy spring has flowed the multitudinous new tradition of false Bibles. For this comparison
the ESV (2011), NASB (1995), and NIV (2011) were selected for contrast to the KJV (and its underlying Greek texts) because of their popularity, contemporary
representativeness, and identical NT textual base. (Other editions of this document have been produced to include modern alternatives to the ESV version.)
(The columns below illustrate the textual—and often doctrinal—differences among numerous selected verses of the New Testament. Analysis is in blue and red.)
KJV ESV NASB NIV PROBLEM
Matthew 1:25 — “And [Joseph]
knew her not till she had brought
forth her firstborn son: and he
called his name JESUS.”
(“Joseph” inserted to replace “he”
for clarity only.)
ESV reads: “. . . but knew her
not until she had given birth to a
son. And he called his name
Jesus.”
(Although “but knew her not” is
correct, the minority Greek source
text ignores the fact that Jesus was
Mary’s firstborn son! “Mariam”
later had four additional sons with
Joseph.)
NASB reads: “. . . but kept her a
virgin until she gave birth to a
Son; and he called His name Je
sus.”
(The Greek ouk eginōsken, “had
no carnal knowledge” [did not
know her], is the same for the
NASB and the NIV, yet “kept her
a virgin” and “had no union with
her,” both dynamic equivalents,
are used.)
NIV reads: “But he did not con
summate their marriage until she
gave birth to a son. And he gave
him the name Jesus.”
(The proven corrupt Greek manu
scripts Aleph [Sinaiticus] and Vat
icanus [B], ca. 325-360 AD, other
Greek Z, 071, and 33, plus most
Old Latin, much of the Syriac and
Coptic, and Families 1 & 13, vie
against at least 85% of the extant
[existing & usable] Greek mss.)
The Bible clearly identifies, in
five places in the New Testa
ment, that Jesus had four other
brothers (step): James; John;
Joses; Judas (Jude) [Matt., 2;
Mk., 3]. Support exists in the
Majority Greek text, five signi
ficant uncials, and in the Syriac
Peshitta (2nd
cent.) and Harc
lean (7th
), plus the Latin Vul
gate. A few other Byzantines
against these support belief in
Mary’s perpetual virginity.
Matthew 5:22 — “But I say
unto you, That whosoever is an
gry with his brother without
cause shall be in danger of the
judgment . . .”
(Underscored, italicized and/or red
text has been so presented for em
phasis and/or comparative argu
ment. [Some italicized text was so
emphasized in its source.])
ESV: “But I say to you that
everyone who is angry with his
brother3
will be liable to judg
ment;” . . . “3
Some manuscripts
insert without cause.”
(The ESV footnote implies that
“without cause” is a late interpo
lation [addition] by a scribe. The
vast majority of existing and
usable manuscripts disagree! [See
proof texts at far right.])
NASB: “But, I say to you that
everyone who is angry with his
brother shall be guilty before the
court . . .”
(The NA27
states that eikń, “with
out cause,” is an insertion accord
ing to Codices Í2
[Aleph-2/7th
cent.], D [Bezae], L, W, Theta [Θ],
Families 1 and 13 [Ë1 .,
13
], 0233,
and many more. Modern biblical
text critics often cite these mss to
support their preferred readings!)
NIV: “But I tell you that anyone
who is angry with a brother or
sister47 will be subject to judg
ment. . . .” Footnote: “47Some
manuscripts brother or sister
without cause.”
(Only Ì64
[papyrus], Aleph [‫א‬], B,
D2
[6th
], all the Vulgate, a few Byz.
manuscripts, the margin of 1424
[ca. 900], and Origen—the most
heretical “Church Father” in
Christian history—support the
omission of “without cause.”)
Omission of the clause “with
out cause” makes Jesus subject
to His own judgment, because
He, Himself, showed anger!
Support for the inclusion of
“without cause” comprise the
Majority Greek text [Ï]—at
least 85 percent—most of the
Old Latin (most = “it” or
“Itala”), all the Syriac, and all
the Coptic (Egyptian). “Some
manuscripts” (NIV) severely
misrepresents!

Matthew 5:44 — “But I say
unto you, Love your enemies,
bless them that curse you, do
good to them that hate you, and
pray for them which despitefully
use you, and persecute you.”
(Also see Luke 6:27, 28.)
Reads: “But I say to you, ‘Love
your enemies and pray for those
who persecute you.’”
(No footnote exists to notify the
reader that the verse—as accord
ing to the Nestle-Aland [27] &
United Bible Societies [4] Greek
apparatuses—ends at “who perse
cute you.” This is very deceptive,
hiding from the reader how the
vast majority of existing and
usable [“extant”] manuscripts
read!)
Reads: “But I say to you, love
your enemies and pray for those
who persecute you.”
(. . . Eulogeite tous katarōmenous
[h]umas, “bless those who curse
you,” kalōs poieite tois misousin
[h]umas, “do good to those who
hate you,” and proseuchesthe
[h]uper tōn epēreazontōn [h]umas
kai, “pray for those who despite
fully use you and . . . ,” despite
being labeled a “motivated read
ing” by the NET, nevertheless is
backed by the vast majority.)
Reads: “But I tell you, love your
enemies and pray for those who
persecute you.” Removed note:
“Some late manuscripts enemies,
bless those who curse you, do
good to those who hate you.”
(Minority source text support ex
ists only in uncials [all caps] Aleph
and B, Family 1 [Caesarean], the
Syriac Sinaitic [4th
] and Curetoni
an [5th
], the Sahidic [Egyptian]
some Bohairic [Egyptian], a few
Byz. mss, and one Old Latin.)
The Majority (85+%—at least
4,856 mss) Greek says: “But I
say to you, love your enemies,
bless those cursing you, do well
to the ones hating you, and pray
for the ones mistreating you
and persecuting you.” Most Ï
manuscripts are later; “some”
is inaccurate. But other Major
ity support exists in uncials D
(5th
), W (5th
), L (9th
), and Theta
(9th
), plus 33 (9th
), Ë13
(11th
-15th
/
13 mss), some OL and all the
Latin Vulgate (“vg”), and the
Peshitta and Harclean.
Matthew 8:29 — “And, behold,
[the demons] cried out, ‘What
have we to do with thee, Jesus,
thou Son of God? Art thou come
hither to torment us before the
time.’”
(Author replaced “they” with “the
demons” for clarification purposes
only.)
(Also see Mark 5:7.)
ESV reads: “And behold, they
cried out, ‘What have you to do
with us, O Son of God? Have you
come here to torment us before
the time?’”
(As in Mark 5:7, the parallel pas
sage among the gospels, Jesus is
removed, based on a different
Greek source text—“lower Chris
tology.” The NET footnote states
the Greek idou was not translated
“because it has no exact English
equivalent here.” This is absolut
ely false! Idou means “behold,”
“see,” “look,” or “surprise.” Also,
the translators used “you . . . us”
rather than “we . . . you.”
NASB reads: “And they cried
out, saying, ‘What business do
we have with each other, Son of
God? Have You come here to
torment us before the time?’”
(The word “business,” being a
modernistic attempt to appease an
allegedly incapable reader, does
not appear in their source Greek.
Do most people not know what
“have to do with” means? This
obviously is simply relational
association. Note how the NASB
does retain legonteς, “saying,”
unlike all other translations here.)
NIV reads: “‘What do you want
with us, Son of God?’they shout
ed. ‘Have you come here to tor
ture us before the appointed
time?’”
(Again, “Jesus” is removed, based
on a source text largely underlain
by corrupt Alexandrian Codices
Aleph [‫א‬] and B—possibly a
scribal effort to subtly degrade
Christ’s divine status. This also
has been done numerous times in
the New Testament by separating
“Lord” from “Jesus” or “Jesus
Christ,” or “Christ” from “Jesus,”
etc.—as is done in the NA27
.)
The main issue here is that the
minority of early MSS separate
“Jesus” from “Son of God”—
an attempt to denigrate Christ.
Supporting this denigration are
uncials ‫א‬, B, C (5th
), and L,
plus cursives Ë1
(five mss), 33,
892, numerous Byz. mss, three
Old Latin, the Syriac Sinaitic,
and part of the Bohairic. But
backing the KJV are the Ï text
(Byz.), uncials C3
(ca. 9th
), W,
Θ (Theta), Ë13
(13 mss), most of
the OL, the Syriac Peshitta (2nd
)
and Harclean (7th
), the Sahidic
(southern Egypt), and part of
the Bohairic (northern Egypt).
Matthew 9:13 — “But go ye
and learn what that meaneth, I
will have mercy, and not sacri
fice: for I am not come to call the
righteous, but sinners to repent
ance.”
(Also see Mark 2:17.)
ESV reads: “. . . For I came not
to call the righteous, but sin
ners.”
(NOTE: In The English-Greek
Reverse Interlinear New Testa
ment, English Standard Version,
the Greek source does not include
“to repentance.” The Revised
Standard Version [RSV], has pre
cisely the same reading, as, ac
cording to the ESV preface, “ . . .
with the 1971 RSV text providing
the starting point for our work.”)
NASB reads: “. . . for I did not
come to call the righteous, but
sinners.”
(Despite its omission from the
minority source Greek for both the
NASB and the NIV, the Zonder
van Greek and English Interlinear
New Testament (NASB/NIV) in
cludes ≈“to repentance,” in
English, underneath the interlinear
portion. Why?)
NIV reads: “For I have not come
to call the righteous, but sinners.”
(The minority [Nestle-Aland/
United Bible Societies] text has
very broad and diverse testimony:
‫א‬; B; D; N; W; D [Delta]; 0233;
Ë1
; 33; 565; numerous Byzantines
slightly different from the Ï
[“pm”]; most Old Latin [OL] and
all the Vulgate; the Peshitta and
Harclean; and part of the Bohairic
[“bo
pt
”—
five or more MSS].)
No 1: Modern versions fail to
include “to repentance.” It does
not appear in their own Greek
source text. No. 2: The Major
ity (85+% of Greek) is sup
ported by C, L, Theta, 0281,
Ë13
, the Syriac Sinaitic, the Sa
hidic, and part of the Bohairic.
“To repentance” possibly was
omitted to reduce the severity
of the message! Most are not
amenable to the fact that their
intrinsic, depraved nature re
quires repentance before God
for justification.

Matthew 11:23 — “And thou,
Capernaum, which art exalted
unto heaven, shall be brought
down to hell . . .”
(Only the KJV here precisely
translated the correct Greek
katabibasqhse [kah-tah-bib-
os-thay´-seh], “to cause to go
down,” “to bring down,” or “to
thrust down.” [Strong’s Exhaustive
Concordance of the Bible, Updat
ed Edition, p. 1638] The etymo
logy is from the Greek kata and
bathos, meaning “after the manner
of going down to the great
depths.” Only the KJV here uses
the future passive indicative form.)
Reads: “And you, Capernaum,
will you be exalted to heaven?
You will be brought down to
Hades.”
(The minority Greek poses a ques
tion in the first portion. But the
Byz. text states the fact that Ca
pernaum had been exalted. The
Majority text reads, “And you, Ca
pernaum, the one having been ex
alted to heaven . . . ” Note vv. 20
and 21, which are referred to as
having benefited from great works
by Jesus. This clarifies.)
will not be exalted to heaven,
will you? You will descend to
Hades; . . .”
(“Hadou” is the literal translation,
from the Greek root word hades
[hah´-dace]. From Strong’s Com
plete Word Study Concordance [p.
2013], “. . . The place [state] of
departed souls—grave, hell.” In
this context, the correct translation
is [h]adou, “Hell” is an idiomatic
—but effectively correct—tran
slation. Anything but “hadou” [or
“hell,” though idiomatic] is ambig
uous, deceptive, and “palatable.”)
will you be lifted up to the hea
vens? No, you will go down to
Hades.”
(Again, the NU Greek poses a
question. The NIV translators did,
however, replace “the depths” with
“Hades” in the 2011 edition. The
NU also uses the future middle
deponent form, katabhsh [kah-
tah-bay´-say], rather than the future
passive indicative. All other
translations but the KJV use
[h]uψwqhsh, the future passive
indicative of “to exalt,” rather than
[h]uψwqeisa, the aorist passive
participle.)
Greek text, word form, and
translation issues exist. But the
evidentiary testimony resolves
the problems. “Having been
exalted to heaven” is supported
by the Ï text (at least 85%),
Ë13
, 33, most of the Syriac, and
three OL. Opposing are ‫א‬, B,
D, W, Θ, most of the Latin, the
Syriac Curetonian, and the
Coptic. Supporting “. . . will be
thrown down” are the Ï text,
‫א‬, C, L, Θ, Ë1 , 13
, 33, the Pe
shitta and Harclean, and the
Bohairic. Against are B, D, W,
all Latin, the Sinaitic and Cure
tonian (5th
), and the Sahidic.
Matthew 12:47 — “Then one
said unto him, ‘Behold, thy
mother and thy brethren stand
without, desiring to speak with
thee.’”
(The Greek [transliteration] echō
[ekh´-o] here means “out,” or
“outside” [“without”].)
The ESV omits v. 47: “Some
manuscripts insert verse 47:
Someone told him, ‘Your mother
and your brothers are standing
outside, asking to speak to you.’”
(The ESV does a relatively rare
thing by excising the verse. Al
most all modern versions include
v. 47, then footnote about other
mss adding it. Here, also, the ESV
follows the RSV—which the 2005
does in 91 percent of its wording.)
NASB reads: “Someone said to
him, ‘Behold, Your mother and
Your brothers are standing outside
seeking to speak to You.’”60
Footnote: 6012:47 This verse is not
found in early mss.”
(The NA27
apparatus reveals that
this verse is omitted by and char
acterized as doubtful by ‫א‬, B, L,
Gamma [Γ], a few Byz. mss, two
OL, the Syriac Sinaitic and Cure
tonian, and the Sahidic. Gamma
[10th
], L (9th
), and the Byzantines
[12th
-17th
?] are not “early mss.”)
NIV reads: “Someone told him,
‘Your mother and brothers are
standing outside, wanting to speak
to you.’” Removed note: “g47
Some manuscripts do not have
verse 47.”
(The footnote is nothing but con
fusing: What other manuscripts?
This was a modernistic scholarly
means of casting doubt on God’s
Word. Removal is appropriate. But
why the removal of idou [be
hold], which is in the NA-UBS
Greek?)
Divisive, confusing and decep
tive footnotes accompany the
modern versions here. (And
“early mss” is somewhat mis
representative.) Support for the
KJV includes overwhelming
evidence: the Majority Greek
(85+%); uncials Í1
, C, D, W,
Z, Theta (Θ); Ë1 , 13
; 33; most
Old Latin and all the Vulgate
(“lat”); the Peshitta and Harc
lean; and the Bohairic. Manu
script weight and number favor
the KJV.
Matthew 16:3 — “And in the
morning, ‘It will be foul weather
to day: for the sky is red and
lowring.’ O ye hypocrites, ye can
discern the face of the sky; but
can ye not discern the signs of
the times?”
(The KJV translators unnecessarily
added “O ye,” which does not
appear in the Majority Greek text
or the Textus Receptus. Lowring
means “to be gloomy and overcast
with clouds.”)
Reads: “‘And in the morning, ‘It
will be stormy today, for the sky is
red and threatening.’You know
how to interpret the appearance of
the sky, but you cannot interpret
the signs of the times.” Removed
note: “Some manuscripts omit the
following words to the end of
verse 3.”
(The minority Greek text omits
[h]upokritai, “hypocrites.” At least
85 percent of extant NT Greek mss
include it; yet, modernists’ two
favorites, Aleph and B, do not.
Reads: “And in the morning,
‘[There will be] a storm today, for
the sky is red and threatening.’
Do you know how to discern the
appearance of the sky, but cannot
[discern] the signs of the times?”
(The Greek purrazi gar stugnazō
[poo-rodd´-zee | garr | stoog-nod-
zō], “being overcast,” is not the
equivalent of “threatening.” This is
a bit of a stretch. Contemporary
idiom here increases severity to
emphasize a “sign of the times.”)
Reads: “. . . and in the morning,
‘Today it will be stormy, for the
sky is red and overcast.’You
know how to interpret the ap
pearance of the sky, but you can
not interpret the signs of the
times.”4 Footnote: “4Some early
manuscripts do not have When
evening comes … of the times.”
(Nevertheless, the source apparat
us contains these verses! And
“some early” is an adroit attempt
to leverage the alleged weight of
moderns’ favorite uncials!)
The NIV footnote indicts the
NU text and the scribes of its
sources by admitting that only
“And he answered and said”
appears in v. 2—the rest of vv.
2-3 being questioned as doubt
ful. (??) Also supporting this
nonsense are uncials X and Γ,
Ë13
, 579, a few Byz., the Sinai
tic and Curetonian, the Sahidic,
and part of the Bohairic. Sup
porting the Ï are C, D, L, W,
Θ, Ë1
, 33, all Latin (“latt”), the
Peshitta/Harclean, and bopt
.

Matthew 17:20 — “And Jesus
said unto them, ‘Because of your
unbelief: for verily I say unto
you, If ye have faith as a grain of
mustard seed, ye shall say unto
this mountain, “Remove thee
hence to yonder place;” and it
shall remove; and nothing shall
be impossible unto you.’”
ESV reads: “He said to them,
‘Because of your little faith. For
truly, I say to you, if you have
faith like a grain of mustard seed,
you will say to this mountain,
“Move from here to there,” and it
will move, and nothing will be
impossible for you.’”
(“Little faith” must be erroneous
because Jesus said that even tiny
faith—like that of a “grain of mus
tard seed”—will move a moun
tain!)
NASB reads: “And He said to
them, ‘Because of the littleness of
your faith; for truly I say to you,
if you have faith the size of a
mustard seed, you will say to this
mountain, “Move from here to
there,” and it will move; and
nothing will be impossible . . .’”
(“Littleness of your faith” is literal
from the Nestle-Aland27
Greek, but
is incorrect. “Size of” was inserted
by the translators.)
NIV reads: “He replied, ‘Because
you have so little faith. Truly I tell
you, if you have faith as small as
a mustard seed, you can say to
this mountain, “Move from here
to there,” and it will move.
Nothing will be . . .’”
(The NA-UBS read identically
with the Byzantine majority, os
kokkon sinapeōs, “like [or “as”] a
grain of mustard [seed],” yet the
translators add “small” for un
necessary clarity.)
Notice also that the NU reads
“He said,” rather than “Jesus
said.” The Ï text (at least
85% of Greek) reads Iēsous
eipen (“Jesus said”) and apist
ian (“unbelief”). Also sup
porting “Jesus” are C, L, W, Ë1
,
six OL, and the Peshitta and
Harclean. The same, minus
three OL, Ë1
, and the Peshitta,
support eipen. “Unbelief” is
supported by the Ï, C, D, L,
W, all Latin, and most Syriac.
All of these are opposed by Í,
B, D, Θ, Ë13
, 33, and more.
Matthew 18:11 — “For the Son
of Man is come to save that
which was lost.”
(Also see Luke 19:10.)
Omits the entire verse: “4
Some
manuscripts add verse 11: For the
Son of Man came to save the
lost.”
(The “NA27
-UBS4
” [or “NU”]
texts, supported by their Greek
sources, do not include verse 11.
Once again, “some” is a gross
understatement of ms evidence!
[See testimony at far right.] Also
note that “add” implies scribal
interpolation.)
NASB: [“57For the Son of Man
has come to save that which was
lost.]” Footnote: “57Early MSS do
not contain this v.”
(“[ ]”—in the NA apparatus and the
NASB text—means “questionable.”
Yet the NA omits the verse, then
brackets the number below. The two
also divide over “early MSS.” The
NA admits that D [5th
] and W [5th
]
support the Byz., then tosses in two
OL manuscripts.)
NIV: “40Some manuscripts
include here the words of Luke
19:10.”
(Why is there no explanation ac
companying verse 11’s omission
and footnoted content? And des
pite the overwhelming evidence
for inclusion of the verse, the
translators do not even so much as
include the verse in brackets!)
The Ï text (85%+) includes v.
11: “For the Son of Man came
to save the lost.” The Byz. also
is supported by D, W, Θc
, 078,
most OL and all the Vulgate
(“lat”), most of the Syriac, and
part of the Bohairic (bopt
). NA
support comprises Í, B, L, Θ,
Ë1 ,13
, 33, 892, a few Byz., two
OL, the Sinaitic, and the bopt
.
Matthew 18:15 — “Moreover if
thy brother shall trespass against
thee, go and tell him his fault
between thee and him alone: if he
shall hear thee, thou has gained
they brother.”
(Eis, as in “unto,” also can mean
“against,” as here and in the Ï.)
Reads: “If your brother sins
against you, go and tell him his
fault, between you and him alone.
If he listens to you, you have
gained your brother.”
(As with all other modern transla
tions herein, the Greek de—more
over, and, but, etc.—has been
dropped as a primary particle.)
Reads: “If your brother sins59 , go
and60 show him his fault in pri
vate; if he listens to you, you have
won your brother.” Footnotes: “59
Late mss add against you 60Or
reprove.”
(The minority Greek lacks
“against you,” but is outnumbered
by more than 9 to 1!)
Reads: “If your brother or sister
sins42, go and point out their fault,
just between the two of you. If
they listen to you, you have won
them over.” “42Some manuscripts
sins against you.”
(Gender-inclusive language has
been added to the 2011 edition.
The Greek reads “brother” only!)
The Ï (85%+) reads eis se,
“against you.” “Late mss” is
irrelevant because of over
whelming witness: D; L; W; Θ;
078; Ë13
; 33; all Latin (“latt”);
all Syriac; bopt
. Only Aleph and
B, Alex. 0281 and 579, Ë1
, the
Sahidic, a few Byz. cursives,
and part of the Bohairic, defy.
Matthew 19:9 — “And I say
unto you, Whosoever shall put
away his wife, except [it be] for
fornication, and shall marry an
other, committeth adultery: and
whoso marrieth her which is put
away doth commit adultery.”
(Also see Mark 10: 11, 12, and
Luke 16:18.)
ESV reads: “And I say to you:
whoever divorces his wife, except
for sexual immorality, and marries
another, commits adultery.”1
Footnote: “1
Some manuscripts add
and whoever marries a divorced
woman commits adultery; other
manuscripts except for sexual
immorality, makes her commit
adultery, and whoever marries . . .”
(“Some” is an abominable lie: A
staggering majority of Greek mss
include the last verse portion!)
NASB reads: “And I say to you,
whoever divorces his wife, except
for immorality, and marries another
woman commits adultery.31”
Footnote: “31Some early mss add
and he who marries a divorced
woman commits adultery.”
(“Immorality” long had been used to
mean “sexual immorality.” Immorality
is underlain by the Greek porneia. A
more accurate word is “fornicat
ion.” Moichatai means “commits adul
tery.” Notice stress on “early mss.”)
NIV reads: “I tell you that anyone
who divorces his wife, except for
sexual immorality, and marries
another woman commits adult
ery.” (No note for ending!)
(“Marital unfaithfulness” was
replaced with “sexual immorality”
in the NIV 2011. It simply is
“fornication,” or “adultery.” God
does not take this lightly! Notice,
again, the absence of the final
independent clause in the KJV.)
Overwhelming evidence favors
the KJV reading: Ï text; B; C;
W; Z; Θ; Ë1 , 13
; 078; 33; almost
all Latin; the Peshitta and Harc
lean; and the Bohairic. Why
have the moderns abandoned
Codex B? Because not doing so
would not sell their “Bibles”?
Opposing: Í; C3
; D; L; 1241; a
few Byz.; the Old Latin (55-60
mss); the Sinaitic/Curetonian;
and the Sahidic.

Matthew 19:16 — “And behold,
one came and said unto him,
‘Good Master, what good thing
shall I do, that I may have eternal
life?’”
(Also see Luke 18:18. Note that
“thing” does not appear in either
Greek source text, but, rather, has
been inserted—unnecessarily—by
translators for clarity. “Master” is
clearly a better translation here
than “teacher,” as in these modern
versions.)
ESV reads: “And behold, a man
came up to him, saying, ‘Teach
er, what good deed must I do to
have eternal life?’”
(It is interesting that the minority
Greek source text underlying this
version leaves out “Good”
[agathē ]. This omission confuses
the meaning of the immediately
subsequent verse.)
NASB reads: “And someone
came to Him and said, ‘Teacher,
what good thing shall I do that I
may obtain eternal life?’”
(As always, no footnote exists for
the Majority reading. Because
modernists hold that the “best”
manuscripts are the “earliest” or
“early,” these translators withhold
mention of the vast majority of
Greek MSS outnumbering them.
Inferior doctrine defies “best”!)
NIV reads: “Just then a man
came up to Jesus and asked,
‘Teacher what good thing must I
do to get eternal life?’”
(Notice how “good” [agathē ] has
been omitted from all three mo
dern translations—absent from
their Greek. See their unconvinc
ing evidence at right. [Also note
that 10 Old Latin—50-55 extant—
support the Byz. Ï cursives, plus
C, W, Θ, Ë13
, 33, most Latin, all
Syriac, the Sahidic, and the bopt
.])
Majority text (Ï) reads Didas
kale agathe, “Good Teacher.”
“Good” is necessary here be
cause it speaks to God being
good: If Christ is not God, then
God (the Father) is not good—
God thus being a liar. Under
lying the NU reading are the
substantially doctrinally corrupt
Aleph [‫א‬ ], B, D, and L, plus Ë1
,
892 (850 AD), a few Byzan
tines, three Old Latin, and part
of the Bohairic (bopt
). If “good”
is omitted, then v. 17a, b—as in
the NU—must be omitted.
Matthew 20:16 — “So the last
shall be first, and the first last: for
many be called but few chosen.”
(The “called” are those who have
been invited, while the “chosen”
are those who have been genuinely
saved. —Jamieson-Fausset-Brown
Bible Commentary, Vol. 3, p. 100)
(Eklektoi means “chosen” or
“elect”: those who have been “cal
led” by the Spirit and have come to
Christ for salvation.)
Reads: “So i the last will be first,
and the first last.”
(No footnote at all for witness
testimony, etc. Further, the note mark
in the text refers to the identical
Matthew 19:30, to which they
unnecessarily have added “[that are]”
and [shall be]” in that verse—often
not bracketed when they should be.
Also in the RSV, which the ESV
practically is intended to replace
and/or provide a “smoother-reading”
alternative for, the latter portion is
omitted—again, without footnote.)
Reads: “So the last shall be first,
and the first last.”
(The first portion of v. 16 calls for
a further conclusion. It seems in
complete. “This and that are true,
so something else must follow.”
This is not simply a retelling of the
earlier parable in Matt. 19:30.
[Moderns’ only recourse are ‫א‬, B,
L, Z, 085, 892, 1424, the Sahidic,
Lectionary [ℓ] 844, a few Byz.
mss, and part of the Bohairic.])
Reads: “So the last will be first,
and the first will be last.”
(The NA27
implies that the last
portion of the verse is a [later] in
sertion—based on Matthew 22:14
—according to the following: C;
D; W; Theta [Θ]; Caesarean group
Families 1 and 13 [Ë1 , 13
]; “the
great cursive” 33; the Ï; all Latin;
all Syriac; more. So, moderns
essentially stand on Aleph and B.
But against 90%-plus of the mss?)
The last portion has been re
moved from nearly every mo
dern Bible version: A failure to
respond positively to the Gospel
does not sell, and moderns stand
by their favored MSS. Again,
the vast majority of witnesses
support inclusion: Ï text (at
least 4,800 mss); all Latin (10k+
ms); all Syriac (“sy”/ hundreds);
Ë1 , 13
(18 mss); uncials C, D, W,
Theta (Θ), and Delta (D); 579,
565, 1241 and 1505; plus 10
other “numericals.”
Matthew 21:44 — “And whoso
ever shall fall on this stone shall
be broken: but on whomsoever it
shall fall, it will grind him to
powder.”
(The “spiritual builders” of Jesus’
time, the Pharisees, Saducees and
scribes, personally were being
“broken” by “falling” on [reject
ing] the keystone of the kingdom
of God—Christ. Similarly, in their
final rejection of Christ, these Jew
ish leaders would be “ground to
powder.” “The Kingdom of God is
here a temple . . . .” —Jamieson-
Fausset-Brown Bible Comment
ary, Vol 3, p. 104)
Reads: “And the one who falls on
this stone will be broken to pie
ces; and when it falls on anyone,
it will crush him.” 5
Footnote:
“5
Some manuscripts omit verse
44.” (See evidence in NIV.)
(Again, why confuse the reader
with a partial truth: “Some ma
nuscripts . . . ”? “The majority of
Greek manuscripts” is the plain
and simple truth. This is another
attempt to foist a proven corrupt
text upon a wanton public which is
easily wooed by “modern scholar
ship.” In addition, the NU Greek
does not read, “and when if falls,”
nor does it read “anyone.”)
NASB: “And he who falls on this
stone will be broken to pieces; but
on whomever it falls, it will scat
ter him like dust.” The footnote,
“Some manuscripts do not have
verse 44,” has been removed from
the 95 Update edition.
(Verse 44 is omitted from the in
terlinear Greek in The Zondervan
Greek and English Interlinear
New Testament [NASB/NIV]. As
for “to scatter like dust,” this is a
usage mentioned in Thayer’s
Greek-English Lexicon of the New
Testament, but it is one prefaced
by “in a sense unknown to prof.
auth. [professional authorities],”
and it does not carry “like dust.”
[References to the Septuagint.])
NIV: “Anyone who falls on this
stone will be broken to pieces;
anyone on whom it falls will be
crushed.”
(According to the NA27
, only D,
cursive 33, many Old Latin, and
the Syriac Sinaitic do not contain
this verse! Hence, the NIV trans
lators included it. Even ‫א‬, B, C, L,
and W include the verse, as do Z,
0102, Ë1 , 13
, some Old Latin and
all the Vulgate, most of the Syriac,
and all the Coptic. Why have the
translators repented and included
this verse when they did not in
versions of the NIV previous to
the 2011? [The voice should be
active rather than passive: “it will
crush him.]” “And” should begin.)
The Majority text (Ï) includes
the verse (85%+ of extant
Greek) but, more interestingly,
modern scholars’ two favorite
MSS, uncials Aleph and B, also
include the verse. The only
“early” uncial that does not
include this verse is the notor
iously corrupt Codex D (Be
zae/Western). That’s right, the
academics have defied Aleph
and B. Why? (The verse even
has been removed in the Greek,
from a recent interlinear.) The
“harsh” tone? Doesn’t sell.
Also notice the ESV footnote:
“Some manuscripts.” This is
absolute falsehood and decep
tion, as the vast majority of all
manuscripts contain the verse
—not just the Greek!

Matthew 23:8 — “But be not ye
called Rabbi: for one is your
Master, [even] Christ; and all ye
are brethren.”
(The Greek kathēgētēs [koth-ay´-
gate-ace] means “teacher,” or
“master”—most appropriately the
latter in this context. The opposing
text reads didaskalos, “teacher”
only. “O” in Greek means “the,”
not “even.”)
ESV reads: “But you are not to be
called rabbi, for you have one
teacher, and you are all brothers.”3
Footnote: “3
Or brothers and
sisters.”
(The footnote contradicts the NA-
UBS Greek, which, as seen above,
reads “brothers” [Gk. adelphoi ].
None of the Greek source texts
reads “brothers and sisters,” so this
suggestion means to neuter the
reading. The traditional meaning is
inclusive of all persons in Christ.)
NASB reads: “But do not be
called Rabbi; for One is your
Teacher, and you are all brothers.”
(The NA27
labels kaqhghthς,
“teacher,” or “master,” as an
alternative reading, based on ‫,א‬
Í2
, D, L, Theta [Θ], “zero uncials”
0102 and 0107, f 1 . 13
, and the Ï
text! Why? Mostly because Í1
, B
[Vaticanus], 892, 33, and some
Byz. slightly differing from the Ï
support didaskalos, “teacher.”)
NIV reads: “But you are not to be
called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have one
Teacher, and you are all brothers.”
(The NIV committee has been im
prudent in translating kathēgētēs as
“teacher,” and this version still is
largely based on the substantially
corrupt minority text. Hence, pre
cisely as the other modern versions
here, it omits “the Christ. In pre
vious NIV editions, “Master” was
used rather than “Teacher.” Why the
change?)
The words “the Christ” (o
Cristoς) appear in the Maj
ority Greek—at least 85% of
cursives. These words also are
included in manuscripts K (9th
),
Gamma (Γ/10th
), Delta (Δ/9th
),
0102 (650 AD), 579 (1200), 700
(1050), 892c
(3rd
copyist/ 850),
1241 (1150), and 1424 (9th
/10th
),
as well as in the Syriac Cureto
nian (5th
) and the Harclean (7th
).
Again, see NASB for minimal
NU support of “Teacher.”
Matthew 23:14 — “Woe unto
you, scribes and Pharisees, hypo
crites! for ye devour widows’
houses, and for a pretense make
long prayer: therefore ye shall
receive the greater damnation.”
(Also see Mark 12:40, Luke 20:47.)
The verse is excluded entirely.
Footnote: “4
Some manuscripts
add here (or after verse 12) verse
14: Woe to you, scribes and
Pharisees, hypocrites! For you
devour widows’houses and for a
pretense you make long prayers;
therefore you will receive the
greater condemnation.”
(“Some” manuscripts do not add
the remainder of this verse! They
include it as authentic; and they
number the vast majority!)
Puts verse 14 in brackets to indi
cate suspicion about authenticity,
then adds footnote: “46
This v not
found in early mss.”
(Three of the earliest NT Greek
uncials omit this verse: Í; B; D.
Also supporting the NU text are L,
Z, Θ, Ë1
, 33, 892, five Old Latin, a
few Byz. mss, the Syriac Sinaitic,
the Sahidic, part of the Bohairic.
Testimony is diverse and broad,
but does not offset the Ï text.)
Omits verse 14 and adds footnote:
“
40
Some manuscripts include here
words similar to Mark 12:40 and
Luke 20:47.
(The above hints at “harmoniza
tion”. But no proof exists—just
modernistic theory. These mss are
clarified in the NA27
apparatus: W;
0102; 0107; 892; Ë13
; the Itala
[many Old Latin]; the Peshitta and
Harclean; the Syriac Curetonian;
part of the Bohairic. But why would
any scribe add words of Christ He
did not say?)
The vast majority of manu
scripts have verse 14—includ
ing at least 85 percent of the
Greek. This comprises approx
imately 90 percent of NT min
uscules (cursives/9th
cent. and
later), and—according to lead
ing modernistic scholars Aland
and Metzger (both deceased)
—24.2 percent of Greek un
cials (4th
-9th
centuries). (Per
centage is based on my per
sonal count of categorized ex
tant manuscripts.)
Matthew 24:7 — “For nation
shall rise against nation, and
kingdom against kingdom: and
there shall be famines, and pesti
lences, and earthquakes, in
divers places.”
(The Greek kata [kah-tah´] means
—among other things—“against”
or “in diverse” [manifold] places.”
ESV reads: “For nation will rise
against nation, and kingdom
against kingdom, and there will
be famines and earthquakes in
various places.”
(As in the other versions fol
lowing, “pestilences” is omitted.
But isn’t the world being ravaged
by pestilences even now?)
NASB reads: “For nation will rise
against kingdom, and in various
places there will be famines and
earthquakes.”
(The NA27
posits that “and pesti
lences, and earthquakes” has been
harmonized to Luke 21:11, but the
only match is “pestilence,” itself!
Moderns uphold TC rules beyond
testimony—and reason.)
NIV reads: “Nation will rise
against kingdom. There will be
famines and earthquakes in vari
ous places.”
(In the face of overwhelming
manuscript testimony, the NIV
rides the NA27
in defiance. Also
among the minority evidence are a
few Byz. mss, the Syriac Sinaitic,
and the Coptic Sahidic.)
The Ï (85+% of existing Greek)
reads loimoi (plague, disease,
pestilence). Also supporting the
Byz. Ï text are C, Θ, 0102
(Alex.), f 1,13
, two Old Latin, and
the Peshitta and Harclean. Sup
port for the NU text comprises
modern favorite B, D, 892, a few
Byz., five OL, and the Syriac
Sinaitic and Sahidic—substantial
witness, but easily overwhelmed.
Matthew 24:36 — “But of that
day and hour knoweth no [man],
no, not the angels of heaven, but
my Father only.” (Also see Mark
13:32.) (“Man” should be “one.”)
(Remember that Jesus is co-equal
to God the Father—hence, Mat
thew’s not alluding to “the Son.”
“Even,” after “not,” was omitted.)
ESV: “But concerning that day
and hour no one knows, not even
the angels of heaven, nor the Son,
but the Father only.” 2
Footnote:
“2
Some manuscripts omit nor the
son.”
(Once again, not “some” mss, but
the vast majority, including 90%-
plus of the Greek cursives!)
Reads: “But of that day and hour
no one knows, not even the angels
of heaven, nor the Son, but the
Father alone.”
(Testimony for the NA27
reading
are Í and Í2
, B, D, Theta [Θ], Ë13
,
a few Byz., and the Itala, others.
[See far right for more support.])
Reads: “But about that day or hour
no one knows, not even the angels
in heaven, nor the Son,
37
but only
the Father.” Footnote: “
37
Some
manuscripts do not have nor . . .”
(“Some manuscripts”? No! Clearly the
vast majority of Greek and otherwise!
Look at the paltry support for inclu
sion of oude o uioς, at left.)
The vast majority of Greek MSS
(90%+) support the reading of
the Byzantine Majority text:
omission of [h]oude o [h]uios.
The Ï text is backed by Í1
, L,
W, Ë1
, 33, 1 (1150/Caesarean),
all the Vulgate, all the Syriac,
and all the Coptic (Bohairic and
Sahidic).

Matthew 25:31 — “When the
Son of man shall come[s] in his
glory, and all the holy angels
with him, then shall he sit upon
the throne of his glory.”
(The modern Greek text [NU], the
Majority text, and the Textus Re
ceptus each read qronou doxeς,
which correctly is translated
“glorious throne” rather than
“throne of his glory.” Doxēs [dox-
āce], a singular feminine noun,
also can be used as an adjective, as
in “glorious,” to describe throne.)
ESV reads: “When the Son of
Man comes in his glory, and all
the angels with him, then he will
sit on his glorious throne.”
(The ESV, based on the 1971 RSV,
reads precisely as the NASB, be
ing founded upon identical Greek
minority texts. Each built upon the
previous version, as well—RSV
NT [1946] upon the ASV [1901,
after ERV], and NASB NT [1966]
upon the RSV.)
NASB reads: “But when the Son
of Man comes in His glory, and
all the angels with Him, then He
will sit on His glorious throne.”
(This is the correct reading here,
except for the absence of “holy,”
according to the Ï text and the
TR. The overall majority of mss
support the NU reading—without
agioi—but not the overall num
erical Greek testimony. The over
all majority is misleading because
10,000 are of the Latin Vulgate.)
NIV reads: “When the Son of
Man comes in his glory, and all
the angels with him, he will sit
on his glorious throne.”
(“Glorious throne” is an improve
ment upon the previous NIV’s “on
his throne in heavenly glory.” The
NA reads, “But when the Son of
Man comes in his glory and all the
angels with him, then He will sit
down upon his glorious throne.”
All that is missing here is the
conjunctive particle “when.”)
The Byzantine (at least 85% of
extant Greek) reads agioi
(holy) before “angels.” The Ï
text is supported by A, W, Ë13
(11th
-15th
/13 mss), one OL, the
Syriac Peshitta and Harclean,
and part of the Bohairic. The NU
text of modern Bibles is sup
ported by minority-text staples
Í, B, D, L, and 33, plus Ë1
, Θ,
565, a few Byzantines, nearly
all the Latin, the Sahidic, and
part of the Bohairic—a diverse
and broad testimony, but not
enough to offset the Ï.
Matthew 26:28 — “For this is
my blood of the new testament,
which is shed for many for the
remission of sins.”
(Also see Mark 14:24 and Luke
22:20.)
Reads: “. . . for this is my blood
of the3
covenant, which is
poured out for many for the
forgiveness of sins.” Footnote:
“3
Some manuscripts insert new.”
(“Some manuscripts”? Nearly all
mss! Again, “insert” implies a late
scribal interpolation—an addition.)
Reads: “. . . for this is my blood
of the covenant, which is poured
out for many for the forgiveness
of sins.”
(Jesus’ blood was not shed for the
old covenant. It had to be for the
“new” covenant—an eternal prom
ise replacing a temporal one!
Kainῆς, “new,” appears in the Ï,
A, C, D, W, Ë1 , 13
, all the Syriac, all
the Latin [“latt”], the Sahidic, and
the Bohairic.)
NIV: “This is my blood of the54
covenant, which is poured out for
many for the forgiveness of sins.”
Footnote: “
54
Some manuscripts
the new.”
(“Some manuscripts”? No! The
overwhelming majority—at least
85 percent of the total extant
Greek minuscule [cursive] manu
scripts included. The translators
did not want to “confuse the read
ers with the facts”!)
The vast majority of Greek
manuscripts include “new.”
Jesus is referring to the “new
covenant,” which, as ment
ioned in Hebrews 8:6-13, ex
plicitly replaces the old cove
nant as being a better one! Mo
derns boast about the supre
macy of the NU witness, led by
their preferred Aleph, B, and
33, but these are substantially
corrupt! Also supporting the
minority Greek are Ì37
and
Ì45
, L, Z (Alex.), Theta (Θ),
0298 (Caes.), and a few Byz.
Matthew 27:34 — “They gave
him vinegar to drink mingled
with gall: and when he had tasted
thereof, he would not drink.”
(“Gall” is bile secreted from the
liver, and, as such, a bitter sub
stance which biblically is used to
denote bitterness of spirit [Acts
8:23, Lamentations 3:19].)
(By the most-accurate definition,
hqelen [ēthelen] here means
Jesus “did not want” to drink it, or
“did not intend” to drink it.
Reads “. . . they offered him
wine to drink, mixed with gall,
but when he tasted it, he would
not drink it.”
(“Offer” is a stretch of the Greek
edwkan [from didomi), which
means “to give,” “to bestow” [as a
gift], “to supply, furnish” [neces
sary things], “to deliver,” “to reach
out, extend, present,” “to entrust,
commit,” or “to pay.” None of
these meanings equates to “offer”
in this context.)
Reads “wine” rather than “vine
gar.”
(The problem with the Greek word
used here in the “NU” text, oinon,
is that, though it is a fermented
drink [wine], it is not sour wine.
The Greek oxos is correct: sour
wine—vinegar. Even the Septua
gint, the Greek Old Testament—
which many moderns highly favor
above the Hebrew—reads oxoς
[Ps. 69:21], “vinegar.” The NU
text source is outnumbered, but
moderns use the Byz. to their
advantage when possible—K, The
ta, and Pi being such. [See NIV.])
Reads “wine” rather than “vine
gar.”
(See note at immediate left.)
(Moderns stand by Í, B, and D,
plus K, L, Theta [Θ], Ë1 , 13
, 33,
some Byz. different slightly from
the Majority text [al ], most of the
Latin, the Sinaitic, the Sahidic, and
the Bohairic. Diversity and broad
ness of support are won by the NU
Greek, but oinon simply is incor
rect.)
“Oinon,” fermented drink, is
incorrect! “Oxos,” rather, is
sour wine—vinegar. “Vinegar”
fulfills prophecy in Psalm
69:21: “They also gave me gall
in my food; and in my thirst
they gave me vinegar to drink.”
Ï and specified uncial support:
A (5th
); E (8th
); F (9th
); G (9th
);
H (9th
); N (6th
); W (5th
); Δ (Del
ta—037/ 9th
); Σ (Sigma—042/
6th
); Φ (Phi—044/9th
); 0250
(750 AD); 0281 (7th
-8th
). Other
support are four Old Latin (2nd
),
and the Syriac Peshitta (2nd
)
and Harclean (7th
). (The UBS4
does not even notate the text.)

Mark 1:1 — “The beginning of
the gospel of Jesus Christ, the
Son of God; . . .”
Reads: “The beginning of the
gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of
God.”1
Footnote: “1
Some manu
scripts omit the Son of God.”
(Why do modern text critics cast
doubt on the overwhelming major
ity of manuscripts by adding this
confusing tidbit? Shameless. At
most, less than one quarter of the
total NT Greek testimony omits
this phrase! [See majority testi
mony in “Problem,” far right.])
gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of
God.”
(The NA27
modern critical appa
ratus states that Í, Theta [Θ],
uncial 28 [Byz./ca. 950], a few
more Byzantine mss, Lectionary [ℓ]
2211, and one Sahidic MS do not
include “Son of God.” So the com
mittee was correct in leaving the
reading unmolested. They know—
or at least have manifested—the
truth, here.)
good news about Jesus the Mes
siah,the Son of God,”33 Footnote:
“33Some manuscripts do not have
the Son of God.”
(The NIV translators changed
“gospel” to “good news” and
“Christ” to “the Messiah.” Why?
Firstly, “gospel” is traditional and
a biblical term. Secondly, the Ï/
TR and NU texts all read Cris
toς, not Messiaς. [See footnote
at right for testimony against
“Some manuscripts.”])
At least 4,400 of the extant
5,700-plus (76%) total NT
Greek manuscripts (incl. lec
tionaries) contain “Son of
God”! Also containing these
words are Í1
, Codex Vaticanus
(B), Codex Bezae (D), L, W,
2427, a few Byz., and all the
Latin, Syriac, and Coptic.
Opposing are no more than a
dozen or so manuscripts
(NASB note). Evidence for
[h]uiou Theou thus is thor
oughly overwhelming.
Mark 1:2 — “As it is written in
the prophets, ‘Behold, I send my
messenger before thy face, which
shall prepare thy way before
thee.’”
(It is critical to note that this OT
quotation appears in two passages,
and by different prophets: Isaiah
40:3 AND Malachi 3:1. Both
verses speak of John the Baptist,
but it is two prophets—not Isaiah
alone—who proclaim this OT
prophecy!)
ESV reads: “As it is written in
Isaiah the prophet,2
‘Behold, I
send my messenger before your
face, who will prepare your
way,’” . . . Footnote: “2
Some
manuscripts in the prophets.”
(The NA Greek reading “Isaiah the
prophet” is incorrect according to
the manuscript evidence. Correct
is en tois prophētais, “in the pro-
phets.” [See evidence testimony at
far right.])
NASB reads: “As it is written in
Isaiah the prophet: ‘BEHOLD, I
SEND MY MESSENGER 49 AHEAD OF
YOU, WHO WILL PREPARE YOUR
WAY;’” Footnote: 49 Lit before
your face.”
(No footnote appears to mention
any other reading. This is decep
tion, and the translators probably
did not include the Byzantine
reading because of their favorite
evidence: Í, B, and D. To many
moderns, the corrupt Aleph and B
are tantamount to absolute truth!)
NIV reads: “As it is written in
Isaiah the prophet: ‘I will send
my messenger ahead of you, who
will prepare your way’”34
—
Footnote: “34
Mal. 3:1.”
(The NET refers to its nine speci
fic MSS witnesses as “early,” but
six are no earlier than 850 AD! As
for “ahead of you,” the Greek is
the same, but pro proswpou
sou does not mean “ahead of
you.” It means “before thy face.”
And note how the NIV removes
idou, “behold,” “look,” “see,” or
“surprise.” Why?)
“Isaiah the prophet” probably
is a scribal error. The NU has
substantial support beyond the
NASB witnesses: Delta (D); Θ;
Ë1
; 205; 565; 700; 892; 1071;
1241; 1243; 2427; some Byz.
cursives; the Peshitta; Harclean
margin; Palestinian; all Coptic.
But the Ï text has much the
same: A; W; 28; 180; 579; 597;
1006; 1010; 1292; 1342; 1424;
1505; [E; F; G; H; P; Σ]
(disputed); f 13
; Lect; the Harc
lean. Yet, the Byz. Greek ma
jority and Malachi’s prophecy
derail the opposition.
Mark 1:14 — “Now after that
John was put into prison, Jesus
came into Galilee, preaching the
gospel of the kingdom of
God, . . .”
(What is missing in these modern
translations is the clarifier “king
dom of God,” which is specifically
the type of “good news” or “gos
pel” being preached!)
ESV: “Now after John was ar-
rested, Jesus came into Galilee,
proclaiming the gospel of
God,” . . .
(Obviously, “kingdom of God” is
omitted here. Furthermore, the
word here translated “arrested”
comes from the Greek parado
thēnai, meaning “to commit,” “to
deliver up,” “to put in prison,” “to
give over or give up.” Hence, the
Greek has not been transmitted
absolutely literally here. And the
essence of this independent clause is
not just the arrest—imprisonment!)
NASB: “Now after John had been
56 taken into custody, Jesus came
into Galilee, 57 preaching the gos
pel of God, . . .” Footnotes: “56 Lit
delivered up 57Or proclaiming.”
(“Taken into custody” is literal
from the Greek paradothēnai [par-
a-doth-ay´-nahee]. However,
“imprisoned” or “put into prison”
more accurately, effectively, and
illustratively describes the event.
“Gospel of God” less fully descri
bes the type of good news being
preached. Interesting that footnotes
fail to mention the Ï/TR ending.)
NIV: “After John was put in pris
on, Jesus went into Galilee, pro
claiming the good news of God.”
(“Good news” and “gospel” have
the same meaning, according to
the Greek euaggelíō [you-ang-gel-
ee´-ō]. Nevertheless, the gospel of
Jesus Christ is a sacred thing, so to
replace it with the pedantic “good
news” certainly seems irrespon
sible and disrespectful. Where is
the sense of godly reverence in
these NIV translators? And what
about the longer ending?)
“Kingdom of God” is the read
ing in the profound majority of
mss: a vast majority of the
Byzantines; A; D; W; the Pe
shitta; most Old Latin and all
of the Vulgate; and part of the
Bohairic (bopt
)‡. The NU
Greek is supported by very
broad and diverse evidence: ‫א‬;
B; L; Θ; Ë1 ,13
; 28; 33; 565;
579; 892; 2427; a few Byz.;
four OL; the Harclean; the
Sinaitic; the Sahidic; and ‡bopt
(5 or more mss); others. But the
Ï text—at least 85% of Greek
—still carries the day.

Mark 3:15 — “And to have
power to heal sicknesses, and to
cast out devils: . . .”
(In this particular case, the KJV
translators chose the best Greek
word, daimonion (demon), but op
ted for the less-appropriate English
word, “devils,” rather than “de
mons.” The Greek daimon also
could have been used.)
ESV reads: “. . . and have
authority to cast out demons.”
(Excluding “to heal sicknesses”—
without footnote, especially—is
extremely irresponsible in the least
and, more likely, a modernistic ef
fort to revoke Jesus’ and his dis
ciples’ power over bodily afflic
tions—for whatever reason. Most
moderns manipulate the source
texts, centrally using the “NU,”
but also using Byz. readings when
essential and/or convenient. [The
committee removed the word “to”
before “have.” ??])
NASB reads: “. . . and to have
authority to cast out demons.”
(The NASB translators are being
selective about their footnoting.
Have they attempted to denigrate
the divinity of Christ by failing to
footnote, here—“power to heal
sicknesses”? Are only our physi
cians, with modern technology,
able to heal sicknesses? Have
God’s chosen vessels no power to
do so—those given the gift of
healing by the Holy Spirit?)
NIV reads: “. . . and to have au
thority to drive out demons.”
(The NA27
apparatus states that “to
heal sicknesses” is an insertion,
according to nearly all available
manuscript evidence: Ï; A; C2
; D;
W; Θ; Ë1 . 13
; 33; 579; 700; 1424;
2542; and most of the Latin and
Syriac Harclean [the latter two
with some slight variation].)
Some scribe(s) made a serious
error of omission here, leaving
out a key phrase in this verse.
It does not appear in the min
ority Greek—here far less than
one percent of extant NT mss.
But the Majority text includes
erapeuein tas nosouθ ς
kai (“to heal sicknesses and”),
as does more than 99% of all
other extant manuscript testi
mony. (See Matt. 10:1 and
16:18, and 1 Cor. 12:9.) Why
do modern text critics doubt
the authenticity of this verse?
Mark 3:29 — “But he that shall
blaspheme against the Holy
Ghost hath never forgiveness,
but is in danger of eternal dam
nation: . . .”
(The KJV translators chose to
leave out “in this age” [eternally]
after “forgiveness,” evidently
having decided that “in this age”
might confuse readers. But eiς
ton aiwna, “in this age,”
appears in both the Ï & TR. They
both also have “has not” after
“Ghost” [Spirit].)
Reads: “. . . But whoever blas
phemes against the Holy Spirit
never has forgiveness, but is
guilty of an eternal sin.”
(The NA27
Greek source reads
amartēmatos [or amartias ], “sin,”
rather than kriseōs, “damnation,”
or “judgment.” Moderns do not
seem to distinguish between “sin”
and “damnation,” based on the
absence of any footnote. “Sin” [or
“missing the mark” (of God’s per
fection)] has significant support in
‫א‬, B, L, Delta [D], Θ, 28, 33, 565,
892, and 2427 [19th
].)
Reads: “. . . but whoever blas
never has forgiveness ⸁, but is
(⸁ The NA27
states that “in this
age”—see far left—is omitted by
D, W, Θ, 1 [ca. 1150], 28 [ca. 950],
565 [ca. 850], 700 [ca. 1050], 2542
[ca. 1250], many Byz. mss, most
or all of the Old Latin, and the
Syriac Sinaitic. But sin must be
wrong because “blasphemy against
the Holy Spirit” ultimately means
rejection of Christ!)
Reads: “. . . but whoever blas
will never be forgiven; they are
(Again, no footnote to mark the
different final word. Further, could
not “eternal sin” simply mean to
readers—however confusingly—a
sin that lasts forever [all other sin
being forgotten], rather than one
that is eternally punishable, hence
warranting damnation? For the
2011 NIV “he” also has been
changed to “they” for gender-
inclusive purposes. Incorrect!)
Modern versions mitigate the
severity of the sense: “eternal
sin” rather than “eternal damn
ation”—different Greek words:
amarthmatoς(sin) vs. kris
ewς (damnation). The Ï also
reads—as noted at far left
—“has not” after “Ghost.”
“Damnation” is supported by:
Ï (at least 85%); A; C2
; Ë1
;
1424; two OL; the Peshitta and
Harclean; part of the Bohairic.
But damnation doesn’t sell
their “Bibles.” Most people do
not want to know and hear
about damnable sin.
Mark 6:11b — “Verily I say
unto you, It shall be more toler
able for Sodom and Gomorrha in
the day of judgment, than for
that city.”
(Also see Matthew 10:15.)
ESV: This last portion of verse
11 is completely omitted from
the NU text.
(This is done despite the paltry MS
evidence against the Majority
reading, etc.: moderns’ sacred “old
uncials,” Aleph [‫א‬], B, C, and D,
plus four other uncials and several
other lesser witnesses. [See NU
testimony in NIV notes, at right.])
NASB: Verse 11b, at far left, is
omitted without footnote.
(Omission without at least the typ
ical designation “other mss” is
negligence! This exclusion evid
ently is based on “harmonization,”
or “parallel influence,” the theor
etical scribal practice of copying
Scripture from one Gospel—in
this case from Matthew, in 10:15
—to another to ensure consistency.
Moderns uphold this theory.)
NIV: Verse 11b is omitted with
out footnote.
(The NA27
credits the Majority
reading with additional support by
A, Ë1 , 13
, 33, three Old Latin, the
Syriac Peshitta and Harclean, and
part of the Bohairic. On the NU
side, primary witnesses Í, B, D,
and L have proven themselves sub
stantially corrupt based on sub
standard biblical doctrine and other
factors. Minuscule 2427 is a for
gery made no earlier than 1874!)
Again, the NU Greek text
makes a decent case here, with
a majority of 70% or fewer of
Greek mss opposing its read
ing. It also has broad and di
verse testimony on its side. Yet,
a substantial majority of the
Byzantines do read as the KJV.
When combined with the rela
tive reliability of witnesses A,
Ë1 , 13
, and the Peshitta, the Ï
reading still is more credible.
And the same reading remains
in Matthew.

Mark 9:29 — “And he said unto
them, ‘This kind can come forth
by nothing, but by prayer and
fasting.’”
Reads: “And he said to them,
‘This kind cannot be driven out
by anything but prayer.’”5
Footnote: “5
Some manuscripts add
and fasting.”
(The NA-UBS [“NU”] Greek text
simply fails to include these two
critical words at the end of the
verse. Again, “some” is an abhor
rent distortion of truth! [See NASB
and NIV proofs.])
Reads: “And He said to them,
‘This kind cannot come out by
anything but prayer.’”
(The vast majority of the Greek—
at least 85%—text includes “and
fasting,” as do Ì75
, Í2
, A, C, D, L,
W, Θ, Y [Psi], Families 1 and 13
[Ë1 , 13
], 33, most Old Latin and all
the Vulgate, the Syriac Harclean,
and some of the Coptic. No foot
note here for “longer ending.”)
Omits “and fasting.” Footnote:
“39Some manuscripts prayer and
fasting.”
(Only most modern scholars’
ancient duo of Aleph [‫א‬] and B op
pose, along with 0274, 2427, and
one Old Latin manuscript. Con
temporary text critics’ lynch pin is
the ‫/א‬B combo. The modern criti
cal apparatus’ foundation is upon
these two. [Remember that minus
cule 2427 is a forgery.])
On the basis of only five ex
isting manuscripts, “and fast
ing” is removed from this verse
by nearly every modern
“Bible” version. Is fasting now
unfashionable? Is it no longer
deemed important? The an
swers seem obvious. (The sig
nificance of fasting with prayer
is self-denial to enhance focus
on Christ and the invocation of
His healing power through
purity.)
Mark 9:42 — “And whosoever
shall offend one of these little
ones that believe in me, it is
better for him that a millstone
were hanged about his neck, and
he were cast into the sea.”
(Missing here is “if anyone” after
“And” and replacing “whosoever.”
(The Greek lίqoς[lee´-thos] is
used just thrice in the New Testa
ment to mean “millstone”—a
heavy, flat stone.)
(Also see Matthew 18:6 and Luke
17:2.)
Reads: “Whoever causes one of
these little ones who believe in
me to sin,7
it would be better for
him if a great millstone were hung
around his neck and he were
thrown into the sea.” Footnote:
“7
Greek to stumble; . . .”
(The minority Greek includes
“great” [onikos ] before millstone.
The Greek skandalisē means “to
stumble, “to offend,” “to entice to
sin.” Correct: “If anyone who
should entice to sin any one of
these little ones . . .”—Byz./TR
[Or, “shall offend,” or “shall cause
to stumble.”])
Reads: “Whoever causes one of
these little ones who believe to
stumble, it 71 would be better for
him if, with a heavy millstone
hung around his neck, he had been
cast into the sea.” Footnote:
“71 . . . turned by a donkey . . .”
(The Greek omission of eis éme, “in
me,” is founded upon only uncials
Aleph, C, and D, the cursive Delta
[9th
], four Old Latin manuscripts,
and about five Bohairic mss [bopt
].
Note that the NA25
[1963] includes
eiς έme, “in me.” “And” should
begin this verse, according to the
NU text. The NU does bracket eis
éme.)
Reads: “If anyone causes one of
these little ones—who believe in
me—to stumble, it would be better
for them if a large millstone were
hung around their neck and they
were thrown into the sea.”
(The NIV translators have done
rightly by not footnoting with a ref
erence to “some mss” or “early mss”
excluding “in me.” Rare wisdom for
them. But they did remove “and” at
the beginning. However, they rightly
changed “sin” to “stumble,” and
rearranged order of “a large . . .” and
“he [they ] were thrown . . . .” Note
the wrongful substitution of “them”
and “their” for “him” and “he.”)
Both Greek sources read “And
whoever entices to sin one of
these little ones,” yet the mo
dern versions have transposed
the first clause with “believing
in me.” (“Entices to sin” is
clearly the correct translation
of skandalise here—not
“causes . . . to sin.”) “In me” is
supported by the Ï, A, B, C2
,
L, W, Θ, Y, Ë1 , 13
, almost all
Latin, all Syriac, the Sahidic,
bopt
, and 19 numerical majus
cules and minuscules, includ
ing 28, 565, 579, 892, and
1241.
Mark 9:44 — “Where their
worm dieth not, and the fire is
not quenched.” (Also repeated in
verses 46 and 48. —Author)
Based on the modern Greek criti
cal text, the “NU,” the ESV com
pletely deletes verses 44 and 46.
Footnote: “9
Some manuscripts
add verses 44 and 46 (which are
identical with verse 48).”
(Essentially, modern critics have
foregone the true Greek reading—in
the face of enormous evidence
against such—because of their two
most-beloved MSS, Aleph and B.
Another of their preferred sources,
C, opposes, as do others. Moderns
also are absolutely convinced that
any repetition is falsity. The UBS4
has no references to vv. 44 and 46 at
all! NA27
has removed the verses.)
NASB reads: “[74 where THEIR
WORM DOES NOT DIE, AND THE FIRE
IS NOT QUENCHED.] Footnote:
“74 Vv 44 and 46, which are iden
tical to v 48, are not found in the
early mss.” (—Author emphasis)
(The translators write “the early
MSS” in reference to only Í, B,
and C—three of the five “old un
cials”—plus W [5th
], again appeal
ing to moderns’ liberal futility.
Also supporting omission are Delta
and Psi, f 1
, two later uncials and
two minuscules [cursives], the
Coptic, and some others.)
NIV omits the verse: Footnote:
“42Some manuscripts include here
the words of verse 48.”
(The NIV committee chose to be even
more irresponsible than that of the
NASB by deleting the verse entirely—
more deceptive and sinister activity by
the NIV translators. Removal here, in
effect, minimizes the penalty of eternal
damnation—but it corresponds pre
cisely to the revered Í and B. This is
decadent by the committee, whose
previous edition included, “
44
where
their worm does not die, and the fire is
not quenched.
45
Some manuscripts
hell,where their worm does not die,
and the fire is not quenched.”)
Translators distort the truth in
the NASB footnote, as two
fifth century “old uncials”—A
and D—include the verse. Al
so, the words appear in Theta
(9th
), f 13
, some Old Latin and
all of the Vulgate, and the Sy
riac Peshitta (2nd
)and Harclean
(7th
). The verse also appears in
the Ï text. Translators seem to
disapprove of the “repetition”
of this phrase, as well as of the
foreboding tone. Some early
scribes also took liberties in
their copying by “removing
repetition.” Satan is a master of
partial truths—seen here!

Mark 10:21 — “. . . ‘One thing
thou lackest: go thy way, sell
whatsoever thou hast, and give to
the poor, and thou shalt have
treasure in heaven: and come,
take up thy cross, and follow
me.’”
(Note that the KJV does transpose
the final two clauses, “follow me,”
and “taking up thy cross,” also
changing the tense.)
(See Matthew 16:24, Luke 9:23.)
ESV: “. . . ‘You lack one thing:
go, sell all that you have and give
to the poor, and you will have
treasure in heaven; and come,
follow me.’”
(The Greek in both the Ï text and
the “NU” is identical, including
word order, yet the ESV committee
transposes “You lack” and “one
thing”—wholly unnecessary med
dling. Active sentence form ideally
is preferred academically, but this
is God’s Word—and contemporary
writing calls for a mix of voices.)
The independent clause “take up
thy cross” is omitted.
(The minority Greek omits the key
phrase apas ton stauron [or apas
ton stauron sou ], “taking up thy
cross.” The cross here is the daily
burden of obedience to God’s
Word—a command most unwel
come to today’s “lukewarm”
believers!)
The independent clause “take up
thy cross” is omitted.
(The minority text’s opposition is
very substantial, according to the
NA27
: Aleph; B; C; D; Delta [D]; Θ
[Theta]; Ψ [Psi]; three Greek un
cials; two cursives; a few Byzan
tines slightly different from the Ï
[pc ]; some Old Latin and all the
Vulgate; the Egyptian Bohairic;
others.)
Despite the vast majority of
manuscripts (85%+) supporting
the inclusion of “taking up thy
cross” after “and follow me,”
modern versions have omitted
the former. Omission reduces
the burden of discipleship.
How convenient for the mo
dernistic critical translators and
their readers. Supporting the
Byz. text are A, W, f 13
, some
cursives (+ sou [thy]), and all
the Syriac.
Mark 10:24 — “And the dis
ciples were astonished at his
words. But Jesus answereth
again, and saith unto them,
‘Children, how hard is it for
them that trust in riches to enter
into the kingdom of God!’”
(Also see Matthew 19:24, Mark
10:25, and Luke 18:25.)
ESV reads: “. . . ‘Children, how
difficult it is 2
to enter the king
dom of God!’” Footnote: “2
Some
manuscripts add for those who
trust in riches.”
(The translators omitted “answer
ing” before “said.” In the ESV re
verse interlinear, the Greek apo
kritheis [apokriΘeiς] appears,
but is not translated in English.
What message are the translators
and publishers trying to commun
icate here? Objectivity? This
would be unusual for the ESV.)
NASB reads: “. . . ‘Children,
how hard it is to enter the
kingdom of God!’”
(The bases for the omission of the
clause “for them that trust in
riches” are only Í [Aleph], B, Delta
[9th
], Psi [8th
or 9th
], the Sahidic
Coptic [3rd
or 4th
], and a few of the
Bohairic Coptic [3rd
or 4th
].)
NIV reads: “. . . ‘Children, how
hard it is to enter the kingdom of
God.’”
(Jesus mentions money and riches
at least 31 times in the New Testa
ment—one of His most-emphas
ized topics. Yet, in a critical verse,
here, a modernistic text apparatus
based on a minority of corrupt
manuscripts is used to defy one of
the most-profound points in Scrip
ture: that a preoccupation with
wealth often precludes salvation
by distracting a person from other
wise turning to the Savior.)
The Majority text reads, “for
the ones having put trust in
riches (chré-ma) to enter into
the kingdom of God.” The
NA27
, largely based on the W-H
1870 NT and Tischendorf’s
1872 NT, omits “for them hav
ing put trust in riches.” Uncials
A, C, D, and Θ include this
phrase, as well as f 1 , 13
, some
Old Latin and all the Vulgate,
all the Syriac, plus part of the
Bohairic. Including the omitted
portion would indeed offend
today’s wealthy. The true read
ing wouldn’t sell.
Mark 11:26 — “‘But if ye do
not forgive, neither will your
Father which is in heaven forgive
your trespasses.’”
(Also see in Matthew 6:15, and
similar in Proverbs 21:13.)
This verse is omitted by the ESV.
Footnote: “4
Some manuscripts
add verse 26: But if you do not
forgive, neither will your Father
who is in heaven forgive your
trespasses.”
(The NA-UBS exclude this verse
despite its importance: The Father
will not forgive one’s sins until he/
she first forgives those of others
against him/her habitually, as a
true follower of Christ. Support for
inclusion partially comprises K, X,
Pi, 28, 1010, 1241, and most lect
ionaries. [See more—far right.])
Verse 26 is bracketed to indicate
suspicion about validity.
Footnote: “33 Early mss do not
contain this v.”
(The minority text’s omission is
supported by nine uncials—‫א‬, B,
L, W, D, Ψ, 565, 700, and 892—
and one minuscule, the forged
2427, plus a few Byzantines differ
ing slightly from the Ï, two Old
Latin, the Syriac Sinaitic, and part
of the Bohairic.)
Verse 26 is omitted. Footnote:
“26 Some manuscripts include here
words similar to Matt. 6:15.”
(The NIV 2011 translators changed
tactics, here, going from the decep
tive “some manuscripts include this
verse” to more modernistic theory:
the aforementioned “harmoniza
tion.” Were some of the committee
members also on the NET team, or
did they simply take a hint from
this version? Likely both. Modern
Bible translators have a habit of
working on multiple versions—
sometimes simultaneously. You
see, they get paid more this way.)
Only 10 Greek mss, plus a few
cursives, two OL, the Syriac
Sinaitic, the Sahidic, and part
of the Bohairic, do not include
this verse. The two earliest
manuscripts (ca. 325-360 AD),
excluding “fragments,” do not
include this verse (‫א‬, B). How
ever, three of the earliest five
manuscripts (A, C, D) include
the verse. Again, “some manu
scripts” is a major distortion of
the truth! Also supporting the
Ï are Theta, f 1 ,13
, 33, some
OL and all Vulgate, the Peshitta
and Harclean, and the bopt
.

Mark 13:33 — “Take ye heed,
watch and pray: for ye know not
when the time is.”
(The KJV actually is a bit idiomat
ic here. The literal translation from
the Majority text is: “Be watchful,
stay awake [or “be attentive,” or
“be ready”], and pray; for you do
not know when the time is.”)
ESV reads: “Be on guard, keep
awake.1
For you do not know
when the time will come.”
Footnote: “1
Some manuscripts
add and pray.”
(The ESV translators have chang-
ed the tense in English. The Byz.,
Textus Receptus and critical texts
each read kairos estin, “time is.”
Obviously, this is a change for al
leged “easier reading,” but it is in
correct. The time when something
“is” is the time it will occur!)
NASB reads: “Take heed, keep
on the alert; for you do not know
when the [appointed] time will
come.”
(The liberty was taken to add
“appointed” here. Why do scholars
think they have the authority to
tamper with the Word of God? Bill
Mounce explains one tenet in
Greek for the Rest of Us: “The
translators are trying to help you
understand not only the words, but
what the words mean.” [This is
modern translation theory.])
NIV reads: “Be on guard! Be
alert23! You do not know when
that time will come.” Footnote:
“23Some manuscripts alert and
pray.”
(The Greek blēpetē [blay´-peh-
tay] means “behold,” “beware,”
“see,” “take heed,” “perceive,” or
“look on” [or “to”], not “be on
guard.” Agrupnite means “to keep
awake,” or “to watch.” The NU
does not contain kai proseuches
thē, “and pray.” “Some” mss?)
The Ï text under girds the
KJV, as do seven significant
uncials (incl. L &W), f 1 ,13
,
some Old Latin and all Vulgate,
plus ‫,א‬ A, C, Θ, Ψ, and all the
Syriac and Coptic! Thus,
“some” is outright deception!
(Most would be correct.) Do
these committees and their
corporate owners not want
people to pray? Minority de
fense exists only in uncials B
and D, 2427, a few Byz. mss,
and three Old Latin.
Mark 15:28 — “And the Scrip
ture was fulfilled, which saith,
‘And he was numbered with the
transgressors.’”
(Modern critics argue that this
verse is an interpolation, a late
insertion by a misled scribe. But
the verse fulfills OT prophecy
directly stated in Scripture—Isaiah
53:12b!)
The ESV omits this verse, just
placing a footnote, despite the fact
that the verse fulfills the prophecy
of Isaiah 53:12. Footnote:
“5
Some manuscripts insert verse
28: And the Scripture was fulfilled
that says, ‘He was numbered with
the transgressors.’”
(The footnote does not even allude
to Isaiah 53:12! Omission and
failure to acknowledge Isaiah 53:
12 is egregious, outrightly denying
fulfillment of this Scripture!)
NASB contains the verse, with
question: “[49 And the Scripture
was fulfilled which says, ‘And he
was numbered with transgres
sors.’”] Footnote: “49 Early mss do
not contain this v.”
(Yes, the few “earliest” extant—
existing and usable—manuscripts,
from the second and fourth centur
ies [papyri and uncials], do not
contain this verse. But the Byz
antine majority dates back to at
least the fourth century!)
NIV omits the verse. Footnote:
“27
Some manuscripts include here
words similar to Luke 22:37.
(Bishop Charles Ellicott, who ser
ved as the chairman of the 1881-
85 ERV translation committee, yet
earlier admitted that the Byzantine
text dates back to at least the
fourth century. [See NASB note.]
“Some” is disingenuous! See the
evidence at far right.)
All five “old uncials” omit, as
do Psi (Ψ), 2427 (19th
), a few
Byz., one OL, the Syriac Sin
aitic, the Sahidic, and part of
the Bohairic. But the Ï text (at
least 85%), L, Θ, 083 (6th
) and
0250 (8th
), Families 1 & 13
(Ë1 , 13
), 33, most OL and all
Vulgate, and the Peshitta and
Harclean, do include this verse.
Again, moderns hypothesize
about the verse’s alleged
“assimilation” from Luke 22:37
(NET).
Mark 16:9-20 — This passage
details the appearance of Jesus
after His resurrection: first to
Mary Magdalene, then to Cleo
pas and to another disciple, fol
lowed by to all the disciples—
minus Thomas once—on three
occasions.
(Without this “longer ending,” the
Gospel of Mark would end with,
“[They] fled from the sepulchre;
for they trembled and were
amazed; neither said they any
thing to any man; for they were
afraid”!)
The ESV includes the entire pas
sage, but inside double brackets,
to seriously question its validity
as “highly doubtful.” A note
header immediately precedes
verse 9 in the ESV reverse inter
linear New Testament. The note
header reads: “[SOME OF THE
EARLIEST MANUSCRIPTS DO NOT
INCLUDE 16:9-20.]1
” (“Some” are
two.)
(The footnote, whose marker
appears after verse 20, partially
reads:“1
Some manuscripts end the
book with 16:8; others include ver
ses 9-20 immediately after verse
8. . .” Again, “some” are just two!)
The NASB includes the passage
but, but in brackets. Footnote:
“9 Later mss add vv 9-20.”
(“Add” refers to moderns’ belief
that some scribe[s] inserted the
words into manuscripts normally
dating back no further than about
the tenth or eleventh centuries. In
his A Student’s Guide to New Test
ament Textual Variants [1998],
Bruce Terry—in “APPENDIX:
The Style of the Long Ending of
Mark”—debunks common mo
dernistic theories most frequently
used to discredit vv. 9-20. He suc
cessfully refutes the focal four ar
guments, and more.)
The NIV also includes the pas
sage, but questions its authenticity
by placing the entire passage in
italics. Removed note: “The ear
liest manuscripts and some other
ancient witnesses do not have
Mark 16:9-20.”
(In the NA27
critical apparatus,
moderns use 25 notation lines to
discredit the last 12 verses. All
manner of theories and postula
tions, however, do not overturn the
bottom line: overwhelming evi
dence of authenticity. The vast ma
jority of NT Greek, 29 specific un
cials [incl. A C D], nine OL, the
Vulgate, most Syriac, all Coptic,
and four versions confirm them.
[Italics question authenticity!])
The fact is, yes, the two oldest
manuscripts (excluding frag
ments) do not include this pas
sage. But out of the extant 5,700-
plus NT Greek witnesses, only
Aleph and B, one cursive, the
Sinaitic, and several other MSS,
do not have this passage. What is
more, three of the earliest five
manuscripts do include the pas
sage! “Earliest manuscripts” re
fers to what conservative biblical
scholars (for 500 years) have lab
eled, in fact, as two of the three
most-corrupt extant “old un
cials”—Aleph and B. Aleph and
B are the only uncials omitting
these verses.

Luke 1:28 — “And the angel
came in unto her, and said, ‘Hail,
thou that art highly favoured, the
Lord is with thee: blessed art
thou among women.’”
(Actually, “thou that art highly
favored” is not entirely accurate
according to the Ï text. “Highly”
is optional and unnecessary, and
“thou that art” simply is not in the
Greek. This obviously was an
effort by the KJV reviser, Benja
min Blayney [1769 Oxford edi
tion], to add majesty to the verse.
This is the standard version, and
“is reproduced almost unchanged
in most current printings.”)
ESV reads: “. . .‘Greetings, O
favored one, the Lord is with
you!’”3
Footnote: “3
Some manu
scripts add Blessed are you among
women.”
(The Greek chaire means “be
well,” “God speed,” “greeting,”
“hail,” or “rejoice.” It is obvious,
here, that “hail,” or “rejoice”
clearly is more suitable. “Greet
ings” to the woman who bore
God’s Son hardly is worthy. Also,
“blessed” is based on a different
Greek word: eulogētos [eulogh
menh]. The NU Greek actually
begins with,“And he came to her
and said . . .” Authn refers to the
angel Gabriel, who in v. 19 had
spoken to Zechariah about the up
coming birth of John the Baptist.)
NASB reads: “. . . ‘Greetings63
favored one! The Lord is with
you.’” Footnote: “63
Or woman
richly blessed.”
(Based mostly on the Westcott-Hort
1870 text, Tischendorf’s 1872
[eighth], and Bernhard Weiss’ 1903
[NA3
], the Nestle-Aland [Novum
Testamentum Graece] text was
formed. Eberhard Nestle published
the first edition in 1898. Essentially,
the content of this text was based
upon Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus [Í].
But the W-H text was used to
formulate the 1881 ERV, the 1901
ASV, the 1946 RSV [among 14
others]—then, later, the NASB.
Thus the last sentence absent from
corrupt mss!)
NIV reads: “. . . ‘Greetings, you
who are highly favored! The
Lord is with you.’”
(The minority texts’ only recourse
for omission of eulogēmenē sou
en gunaizin, “blessed art thou
among women,” are Aleph, B, L
[9th
], W [5th
], Psi [8th
or 9th
], Family
1 [five mss], uncial 579 [ca. 1250],
three numerical majuscules, a few
Byzantine mss, and all the Coptic.
Meanwhile, supporting the Ï text
are: uncials A, C, D, and Theta; f 13
;
Alexandrian cursive 33; all Latin;
all Syriac.
The Majority text reads: “. . .
Rejoice, favored woman, the
Lord is with you, blessed are
you among women.” “The
angel” even is omitted by the
NA text. But 16 other uncials—
not mentioned in the NA appa
ratus because of their alleged
unimportance—also support
the former clause. Uncials B,
L, W, Theta, X, Y, plus 565,
1241, a few cursives, all Sahi
dic, and part of the Bohairic
support omission of “the an
gel.” When including the Ma
jority text, the evidence for
inclusion of both aforemen
tioned is conclusive.
Luke 2:14 — “Glory to God in
the highest, and on earth peace,
good will toward men.”
(The Greek in both the NU and
Byz. [Maj.]/Textus Receptus reads
anqr poiώ ς [an-thrō-puh-eece]:
“men” or “mankind”—that is,
“people.” [But people is wholly
undignified in this context.])
Reads: “Glory to God in the high
est, and on earth peace among
those with whom he is pleased!”3
Footnote: “3
Some manuscripts
peace, goodwill among people.”
(“People” is truly undignified!)
(The overwhelming evidence against
the NU text not only includes 90-95
percent of the extant Greek, but also
12 significant uncials, Families 1
and 13, the Peshitta, and more.
“Heaven” was removed after “high
est,” in the 2011 revision, and “those
whom he favors” replaced.)
Reads: “. . . Glory to God in the
highest, and on earth peace
among men 54 with whom He is
pleased.” Footnote: “54 Lit of good
pleasure; or of good will.”
(The NA27
refers to the majority
reading as “an alternative rea
ding.” It records that “good will
toward men” appears in Í2
, B2
, L,
Θ, X [Xi], Y, Ë1 ., 13
, and in all
Syriac and Bohairic, as well as in
the Ï text.)
Reads: “. . . Glory to God in the
highest heaven, and on earth
peace to those on whom his favor
rests.”
(Supporting the NA-UBS texts are
only Aleph [Í], A, B, D, W, a few
Byzantine mss, and the Sahidic
[with some variation]. For the 2011
NIV, the translators added “heaven”
to “highest,” which is not the mean
ing here for [h]uphistois. They also
replaced “men” with “those” for
gender inclusion.)
Firstly, the majority of mss
have Greek text very closely
matching the KJV reading.
Secondly, the “modern” read
ing, derived from four of the
earliest five MSS, is incorrect,
simply based on biblical doct
rine. God wishes good will to
ALL PEOPLE! (See Matt.
18:11; Luke 19:10; Rom. 5:6;
2 Cor. 5:14, 15; 1 Tim. 2:1; 4,
6.)
Luke 2:43 — “And when they
had fulfilled the days, as they re
turned, the child Jesus tarried be
hind in Jerusalem; and Joseph
and his mother knew not of it.”
(Also in verse 33.)
ESV: “And when the feast was
ended, as they were returning, the
boy Jesus stayed behind in Jeru
salem. His parents did not know
it, . . . ”
(“. . . The feast was ended” is not
correct according to the minority
Greek. The NU text in the ESV re
verse interlinear New Testament
reads kai tas hēmeras teleiosanton,
“and when they had completed the
time [of the feast] . . .” “Other
mss” include only about 5-10% of
Gk.)
The NASB, also relying on co
dices Aleph and B (plus only el
even others), provides another
loose “translation”: “But his par
ents were unaware of it,” . . .
(All three Greek texts read the same,
yet the translators evidently have
inserted “feast” in verse 43 to clarify
the circumstances—not the mean
ing. The NA refers to Iēsous o pais,
“the boy Jesus,” as an “alternative
reading”! [Ouk egnwsan more
properly means “did not know”
rather than “were unaware.”])
The NIV is equally divergent from
its own source texts: “After the
festival was over, while his par
ents were returning home, . . .”
(The NU text reads goneis, “par
ents,” but the Byz. text, 85%-plus
of extant Greek, holds the fort,
plus: A; C; Psi; 0130 [ca. 850]);
Ë13
; the OL; the Syriac Peshitta and
Harclean. Opposing are: Í; B; D; L;
W & Θ; Ë1
; 33, 579, 700 & 1241;
the OL/Vulgate [“latt”]; the Sahidic;
more. [H]hmeraςdoes not mean
“feast” or “festival,” but “days”!)
The “Majority text” (also
“Byzantine,” “Traditional,”
“Antiochian,” “Constantino
politan,” or “Ecclesiastical”)
reads “Joseph and his mother ,”
as it should. Joseph was NOT
Jesus’ real father! God the
Father is Jesus’ father! (“Par
ents” is probably a ruse to es
cape controversy, as some var
iants read “father.”) Mary
birthed Jesus. Joseph was an
earthly surrogate father. The
Holy Spirit provided the "seed!

Luke 4:4 — “And Jesus an
swered him, saying, ‘It is written,
“That man shall not live by bread
alone, but by every word of
God.”’”
(Also see Matthew 4:3, 4.)
(“Utterances,” or “sayings,” is a
more-accurate translation here, be
cause the Greek is rhmati [rhē
mati (ray-mah-tee)], which does
not mean Christ [logos ] or speci
fic Scripture, but Scripture in gen
eral.)
ESV reads: “And Jesus answered
him, ‘It is written, “Man shall
not live by bread alone.”’”
(With no support but the mod
ernistically critically acclaimed
MSS Aleph [Sinaitic] and Vatican
[B], plus L and W, some Greek
cursives, the Syriac Sinaitic [4th
],
the Sahidic, the Sinaitic and some
of the Bohairic, the remainder,
nevertheless, is omitted. Notice no
footnote about the longer reading.)
NASB reads: “And Jesus answer
ed him, ‘It is written, “MAN SHALL
NOT LIVE ON BREAD ALONE.”’”
(The absence of “but by every
word of God” possibly might be
an error of haplography—a scribal
error of omission because of dis
traction from copying, or simple
fatigue. Otherwise, it is either a
direct copying from a corrupt scri
bal exemplar [source mss], or a
scribal interpretation [deletion]
based on belief. No footnote about
the longer reading!)
NIV reads: “Jesus answered, ‘It is
written: “Man shall not live on
bread alone.”32 ’” Footnote:
“32 Deut. 8:3.”
(Again, the footnote only attributes
the quotation to its scriptural origin
in Deut. 8:3. But the OT scriptural
reference is truncated! Deut. 8:3
reads, “man does not live by bread
only, but by every word that pro
ceeds out of the mouth of the LORD
does man live.” “Shall” replaces
“does” from the previous NIV ver
sion. No footnote about the longer
reading!)
Two of the oldest five extant
Greek NT MSS, Í and B, omit
“but by every word of God.”
However, another two of the
earliest five, A and D, include
the phrase. The Ï text includes
the phrase. Without these
words the meaning is incom
plete: What else does he live
by? Man certainly must live by
the Word of God, lest he be
hopelessly lost. Also support
ing the Ï are Θ, Ψ, and 0102,
plus the Peshitta/Harclean, all
Latin, Ë1 ,13
, cursive 33, more.
Luke 9:35 — “And there came a
voice out of the cloud, saying,
‘This is my beloved Son: hear
him.’”
Reads: “. . . ‘This is my Son, my
Chosen One;3
listen to him!’”
Footnote: “3
Some manuscripts
my Beloved.”
(It may be that many modern crit
ics view this scribal error as a ref
erence to Isaiah 42:1 [“. . . my
chosen one in whom my soul de
lights”], but Matt. 3:17, Mk. 1:11,
Lk. 3:22 and 1 Peter 1:17 refer to
Jesus as “beloved Son.” Neverthe
less, the Majority reading is sup
ported by moderns’ favored co
dices A and C, plus W, Ë13
, 33, and
many of the OL.)
Reads: “. . . ‘This is my Son, [My]
Chosen One; listen to Him.’”
(The NA27
labels agapētos
[beloved] as an alternative reading.
As always, the modernistic transla
tion committees do not wish to
confuse the readers with the facts
—only to present the Word of God
based on their own skewed theor
ies, beliefs, and preferences. For
whatever reason “My” has been
designated as added [] when it
already is in the Greek—“mou”
[mou].)
Reads: “. . . ‘This is my Son,
whom I have chosen; listen to
him.’”
(Simply a more contemporary but
slightly less accurate, longer, and
less “biblical” variation of the
NASB reading.)
(Note: Numerous Greek uncials
often are not mentioned—evi
dently based on spatial consid
erations—in the NA because mo
derns consider them unimportant:
e.g., E, F, G, H, K, P, R, S, U, Y, X,
and several others.)
Only five significant Greek
uncials—Ì45 , 75
, Aleph, B, and
L(Alex.)—plus X, four OL, the
Syriac Sinaitic (sys
), all Coptic
(Egyptian—Sahidic/Bohairic),
four other Greek mss, and a
few Byzantine mss, replace
“beloved” with some variation
of “chosen.” The Ï text, along
with uncials A, C, W, E, G, H,
P, and D, Ë13
, 33 and 12 other
“numerics,” most OL, and the
Peshitta and Harclean, read
“beloved.”
Luke 9:56 — “For the Son of
man is not come to destroy men’s
lives, but to save [them]. And
they went on to another village.”
(Also see Matthew 18:11 and Luke
19:10.)
(The Hodges-Farstad Majority text
version [1985] includes the first
sentence unmolested. However,
the Robinson-Pierpont version
[2005] encloses it in single brac
kets to indicate doubt about its
authenticity. [??])
ESV: “And they went on to an
other village.” Removed note:
(after verse 55): “6
Some manu
scripts add and he said, ‘You do
not know what manner of spirit
you are of; . . .’” (—Author trunc.)
(Many among the Byzantine text-
type of mss—not an overwhelming
majority—include this verse in its
entirety, plus: the TR; seven uncials;
Ë1 . 13
; several Old Latin [2nd
]; the
Peshitta; others. TR/other versions
containing this portion include:
Erasmus/1516; Stephens/1550;
Beza/1598; Elzevir/1633; plus the
Geneva NT/1557; Tyndale/1526; the
1514/1517 Complutensian Polyglot;
others.)
NASB: Questions the authenti
city of the last portion of verse
55 and all of verse 56 by sur
rounding with brackets. Foot
note: “32Early mss do not contain
bracketed portion.”
(Single bracketing by modern
scholars denotes suspicion about
verse/passage validity. Double
bracketing means the material in
side is considered “highly doubt
ful” in validity, or wholly inau
thentic.)
NIV: The last portion of verse 55
and all of verse 56 are omitted.
Removed note: d
55, 56 Some
manuscripts them And he said,
‘You do not know what kind of
spirit you are of, for the Son of
Man did not come to destroy
men’s lives, but to save them.’
56
And”
(Once again, the NIV continues to
deteriorate via degradation of
God’s true word, as prescribed in
the Ï and TR. Also note the con
text of this verse, which clearly
justifies its appearance.)
Again, “some manuscripts” is a
profound understatement. The
verse is in a “great many” (pm)
Byz. cursives (UBS4
, “Byz
pt
”—
“part” [??]), Ë1 , 13
, 8 OL, the
Vulgate, almost all Syriac, 11
specified uncials, more. No sup
port specifically is listed in eith
er the NA27
or UBS4
for omission
of the last portion of verse 55
and all of verse 56! (Support, by
implication, of course, is “some”
to “many” [“part”] of the Byzan
tines.) The evidence proclaims as
profound a Ï/TR victory here as
anywhere else in this document!
Yet, text critics still cast doubt.

The Majority Text & Textus Receptus Compared to the Critical Text Editions and the Modern Bible Versions

The Majority Text & Textus Receptus Compared to the Critical Text Editions and the Modern Bible Versions

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to The Majority Text & Textus Receptus Compared to the Critical Text Editions and the Modern Bible Versions

Similar to The Majority Text & Textus Receptus Compared to the Critical Text Editions and the Modern Bible Versions (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

The Majority Text & Textus Receptus Compared to the Critical Text Editions and the Modern Bible Versions