Translations of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus

Some resources for folks doing Bible translation research.

English translation of Vaticanus.

• A Literal Translation of the New Testament of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, on Definite Rules of Translation, from the Text of the Vatican Manuscript, 6th edition, Herman Heinfetter [Pseudonym of Frederick Parker]. London: Evan Evans, 1863.

English translation of Sinaiticus.

• The New Testament: Translated from the Sinaitic Manuscript Discovered by Constantine Tischendorf at Mt. Sinai, Henry Tompkins Anderson. Cincinnati, OH: Standard Publishing Company, 1916.

Other stuff.

• Four Hundred Years of University Printing and Publishing in Cambridge 1584-1984: Catalogue of the Exhibition in the University Library, Cambridge, David McKitterick. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984
• Greek Interlinear Bible (NT) (F. H. A. Scrivener 1894 Textus Receptus and the Authorized King James Version translation)

Panin, Westcott, and Hort

In strange circumstances, Ivan Panin attempted to recreate, based on numerics, what he believed would be the original Greek text of the New Testament. He started with “...Westcott & Hort’s Greek edition (which the writer has used throughout)...” Not only was his “numerics” approach faulty, his allegiance to the Westcott & Hort was contradictory.

On one hand, Panin says the Westcott and Hort text “on the whole approaches the autographs nearer than any extant copy of the New Testament” and speaks of the “twenty-eight years’ faithful toil of these two lovers of Holy Writ.” (“Preface,” The New Testament from the Greek Text as Established by Bible Numerics, p. v.)

On the other hand, Panin says that the work of the revisers “has some grievous faults, since no one can handle the Book other than lamely who is not convinced to his very bones that the Bible is God-breathed, inspired in its every letter.” He points out that the revisers “as a body did not believe” in inspiration and that “two of its noblest members…go out of their way to speak in print against Verbal Inspiration.” (“Preface,” The New Testament from the Greek Text as Established by Bible Numerics, p. vi)

Ivan Panin’s whole mathematical approach is faulty, but he evidently believed his math could overcome the flaws he started with. He was wrong.

Also by Ivan Panin: The Writings of Ivan Panin, New Haven, CT: Wilson H. Lee Company, 1918.

---

Note:

The method of settling the text by means of NUMERICS is expounded in the Introduction, which is to form the Second Part of this edition, as well as in numerous monographs by the writer printed elsewhere. The standard used for comparison was: for the Greek, the Revision by Westcott & Hort; and, for the English, the American Revised Version. In spite of the onslaught thereon by Dean Burgon, Westcott & Hort (with the exception of some spellings, and of all but two of their fifteen double-bracketed passages stamped by them as ‘Interpolations’) present a text which on the whole approaches the autographs nearer than any extant copy of the New Testament. So that, humanly speaking, but for the twenty-eight years’ faithful toil of these two lovers of Holy Writ, with their excellent clearing of the ground for him, the writer could have hardly furnished at last an indisputable New Testament text.

The New Testament from the Greek Text as established by Bible Numerics, Ivan Panin, Editor. Ontario: Bible Numerics, 1914 (1990 reprint)

1 Peter 5:13

When folks look for arguments against the King James Bible, one verse they use is 1 Peter 5:13. Several arguments may be thrown in, like the kitchen sink, including “following the Vulgate instead of the Greek,” and that the NKJV better translates the TR. Notice the difference in the AKJV and the NKJV, including church that is is in italics in the King James translation.

• AKJV: The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my son.
• NKJV: She who is in Babylon, elect together with you, greets you; and so does Mark my son.

The relevant Greek text is: ασπαζεται υμας η εν βαβυλωνι συνεκλεκτη και μαρκος ο υιος μου

Shown in a Greek-English Interlinear fashion:

Instead of “followed the Vulgate” perhaps the simpler explanation has been overlooked. The King James translators followed the English translation tradition that precedes them, as well as translation rule #1: “1. The Ordinary Bible read in the Church, commonly called the Bishop’s Bible, is to be followed, and as little altered as the Truth of the originals will permit.”

1 Peter 5:13 in the 1602 Bishops Bible

“Church” is in the Bishop’s Bible. Evidently the King James translators believed that what they had there agreed with the truth of the originals, if not the literal wording (i.e., “she” = “church”). The Geneva Bible has church; it is congregation in the Great Bible; Tyndale has “the congregacion that is gaddered tegedder at Babilon.” The prior English translation tradition was to substitute a noun for the pronoun.

Aside from what we might think is “best,” the more direct or closest source for the word church is keeping what was already in the Bishops Bible – in contrast to any suggestion that the reading had to come from the Old Latin, Syriac, Sinaiticus, or Beza’s Latin translation.

I am not sure when “church” was first put in italics, but it was in differentiated type (in roman where the base was blackletter) at least in the 1639/1640 Cambridge printing of Buck & Daniel (NT page has 1639; cover page has 1640).

This might be much ado about nothing were it not for the apparent joy that some people get from arguing for or against the King James Bible.

---

Note: Theodore Beza explains it this way in his 1598 Greek New Testament:

“Vobiscum electa [Ecclesia] συνεκλεκτὴ Ecclesiae nomen omittit, ut in vocabulis communiusu tritis fieri saepe solet.”

“The word ‘chosen with you’ [συνεκλεκτὴ] omits the name ‘Church’, as is often the case in commonly used terms.”

Or, in other words, “church” would be commonly understood as who she is.

Hebrews 10:13, footstool

A recent Facebook inquisitor claimed that the King James Bible does not accurately translate Hebrews 10:13, and that the NASB is to be preferred.[i] 

• AKJV: from henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.
• NASB: waiting from that time onward until His enemies are made a footstool for His feet.[ii] 

Let us consider the matter.

“Literal” translation.

One obvious difference is “footstool” versus “footstool for his feet.” The argument is that the NASB has an equivalent English word for the Greek words, and that the KJV does not. Let’s look at it in a Greek-English interlinear fashion to demonstrate that. [Note that this is a translational issue; the Critical Text and Textus Receptus are the same in this place.]

Greek-English Interlinear:

When you see it placed like this, we can also see that even the NASB does not “literally” have an equivalent of every word that is in the Greek. Translation just does not consistently work that way! The Greek has 12 words. The KJV translates these 12 with 10 English words. The NASB translates these 12 with 15 English words! It is not a matter of adding to or taking away from the word – it is a matter of translating the sense of one language into the sense of another language. Does the KJV maintain, contain, and retain the meaning of the Greek? Yes, it does! I would say that the NASB does as well, but creates a redundancy in the English language – “a footstool for His feet.”

Footstool definition.

Footstool, noun. 

1. (Literally) A stool to rest the feet upon while sitting; a low stool for supporting the feet; anything serving that same use.

2. (Figuratively) A person or thing that is trodden upon or made subservient., dependent, or tool.

Other translation comparisons.

• AKJV: from henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.
• YLT: as to the rest, expecting till He may place his enemies [as] his footstool,
• CSB: He is now waiting until his enemies are made his footstool.
• NIV: and since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool.
• RSV: then to wait until his enemies should be made a stool for his feet.
• ESV: waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet.

Several translations opt for “footstool for his feet,” “stool for his feet,” or something like that. However, even Robert Young in his literal translation of was satisfied with simply “footstool” as a literal rendering of ὑποπόδιον τῶν ποδῶν αὐτοῦ.

The NASB is at least consistent in comparison to other modern translations, translating the verse quoted, Psalm 110:1, also with “a footstool for Your feet.”[iii] Several translations that have the idea of “footstool for feet” in Hebrews 10:23 only has “footstool” in Psalm 110:1 (e.g., ESV, NET, RSV). They are inconsistent with this in other places as well.[iv]

Final thoughts.

“His footstool” means in English means the same thing ὑποπόδιον τῶν ποδῶν αὐτοῦ means in Greek. It is unnecessary to say “of his feet” since that is contained in the very meaning of the English word footstool. The KJV rendering of “footstool” is better than the NASB’s rendering – it is accurate, conveys the meaning into the receptor language, and is not redundant.[v] It better suits the idiomatic or figurative contextual use as well. Anyone who thinks that to be accurate there must always be one word in the receptor language to match every one word in the original language, should never use any translation. 

---

[i] The same is true of Hebrews 1:13. ὑποπόδιον τῶν ποδῶν appears there as well. This discussion exposes some of the numbskullery reached when folks are bound and determined to find some fault in the King James translation just to use against King James “Onlyists”. The same argument would need to be made against most English translations. Additionally “footstool for his feet” is the same kind of “wooden literalism” some of the same people often complain of regarding the NASB; at least until they think it helps them argue against the KJV.

[ii] The Small Caps is the NASB style for Old Testament quotations.
[iii] Hebrew הֲדֹם לְרַגְלֶיךָ (hăḏōm reḡel) .
[iv] For example the ESV has “footstool for your feet” in Hebrews 10:13 and 1:13, yet translated as just plain "footstool" in Matthew 5:35 (ὑποπόδιόν ἐστιν τῶν ποδῶν αὐτοῦ), Luke 20:43 (ὑποπόδιον τῶν ποδῶν σου), Acts 2:35 (ὑποπόδιον τῶν ποδῶν σου) and Acts 7:49 (ὑποπόδιον τῶν ποδῶν μου).
[v] “Footstool for His feet” is not “wrong,” just “unnecessary.”

Greek “Majority” Texts

These links below are provided for the purpose of research and readily locating links to English translations of what are “Majority Text” Greek texts. When I was young it was not uncommon to refer in a sort of “shorthand” manner to the Textus Receptus (TR) traditional texts as “majority text” in contrast to the “critical text,” whose readings were often based on a small minority of Greek texts (often only two manuscripts in the places it chose to depart from the TR). The rise of actual printed texts called “Majority” texts created a need to clarify what is meant when one says “majority text.” (To me it seems not uncommon for older folks to still refer to the TR as “majority text.”)

There are a several English Bible translations that are based on a modern Greek Majority Text. I believe there are three Greek texts generally considered “Majority” Texts.

The World English Bible (WEB) is a revision of the 1901 ASV, made to conform to the “Majority Text” in places where it did not, by consulting Hodges-Farstad Majority Text and Robinson Pierpont Byzantine Textform. There are a number of derivatives of the WEB which would also be considered Majority Text Bibles, such as the World Messianic Bible (WMB).

New Testament Byzantine Text Version by Adam Boyd is based on the Robinson-Pierpoint Greek text. The Analytical Literal Translation (ALT) by Gary Zeolla is also based on the Robinson-Pierpont text, I believe.

The English Majority Text Version (EMTV) by Paul Esposito is based on the Hodges-Farstad Majority Text. “The Sovereign Creator Has Spoken” is a translation of Wilbur Pickering’s Greek text based on Family 35.

English Translations.

• Analytical-Literal Translation by Gary F. Zeolla
• Byzantine Text Version New Testament(2021) by Robert Adam Boyd
• English Majority Text Version New Testament translated by Paul W. Esposito
• The Sovereign Creator Has Spoken (4th Edition) by Wilbur Pickering
• World English Bible by Michael Paul Johnson
• Information from ByzantineText.com

Greek Texts.

• The Greek New Testament According to Family 35 (3rd Edition) by Wilburn N. Pickering
• The Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text (2nd Edition) by Zane Hodges and Arthur Farstad
• The New Testament in the Original Greek, Byzantine Textform (2005) by Maurice A. Robinson and William G. Pierpont

Some might argue that the Greek Patriarchal text of the Orthodox Church is a Majority Text. It is certainly Byzantine. I am including the text and a translation as a matter of reference.

• Eastern / Greek Orthodox English New Testament (2007)
• The New Testament, Approved by the Great Church of Christ, 1904 (Greek)

The Pauline Subscriptions in Vaticanus

Below are the subscriptions to Paul’s epistles as found in Codex Vaticanus. I have looked previously at these notes as they appear in some manuscripts, the Textus Receptus, and traditional-text English translations, such as the Geneva and King James Bibles.

Be aware:

1. Codex Vaticanus does not have the epistles to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon, neither the end of Hebrews. Therefore, there are no subscriptions for these.
2. The information reflects my attempt to (1) slog through the Majuscule writing (all caps all jammed together), and (2) translate what I thought I saw. They may need to be taken with a grain of salt!
3. I did not readily find a list of these subscriptions re Vaticanus, so I looked at the manuscript on the Vatican Library (DigiVatLib) website. Better transcriptions and translations may exist elsewhere.
4. The general consensus is that the subscriptions are not original to this manuscript, but added by a later scribe.

The Vaticanus Subscriptions of the Epistles of Paul.

• Romans - Unto the Romans written from Corinth
• 1 Corinthians - Unto the Corinthians (first) written from Ephesus
• 2 Corinthians - Unto the Corinthians (second) written from Philippi
• Galatians - Unto the Galatians written from Rome
• Ephesians - Unto the Ephesians written from Rome
• Philippians - Unto the Philippians written from Rome
• Colossians - Unto the Colossians written from Rome
• 1 Thessalonians - Unto the Thessalonians (first) written from Athens
• 2 Thessalonians - Unto the Thessalonians (second) written from Athens

Subscription from 1 Corinthians in Vaticanus

Subscription from 1 Corinthians in the 1519 Erasmus TR

[Note: this is not a recommendation of Vaticanus or its subscriptions. This is a matter of research and comparison.]

Tertullian, John 5:3-4

John 5:3b-4 ...waiting for the moving of the water. For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had.

Though the above text is in the majority of Greek manuscripts, the critical text and many modern translations omit it because it is not in early manuscripts such as א. However, notice that Tertullian, who lived circa AD 155 to 220 (before א), had this text in his Bible, and addressed it in his writing on baptism.

If it seems a novelty for an angel to be present in waters, an example of what was to come to pass has forerun. An angel, by his intervention, was wont to stir the pool at Bethsaida. They who were complaining of ill-health used to watch for him; for whoever had been the first to descend into them, after his washing, ceased to complain.

Tertullian, in De Baptismo (On Baptism, chapter 5)

Himes on Providential Preservation

Saving this here. Comments by John R. Himes, grandson of Sword of the Lord editor John R. Rice. He seems to be a supporter of the Byzantine text generally, and not of the Textus Receptus specifically.

Has God providentially preserved His Word in the original languages? I believe He has. There is not much debate over the text of the Hebrew Old Testament (the Masoretic text), but criteria that to me are fulfilled by the Byzantine textform include:

1. It was the most widely dispersed and thus widely used of the early church. I know, I know, the Alexandrian text type has earlier mss, but then those early mss were not copied by Christians much.

2. It is the most coherent text with the best Greek. It seems to me that the Lord would inspire and preserve good grammar. This is not much of an argument on its own, though.

3. It is the text used most by those to whom Greek was a first language. In the Alexandrian and Western areas, where those two text types were preserved, the Byzantine area (including Antioch) is where Greek was usually the first language of the copyists. Being fluent in Japanese as my second language, I know how easy it is to make semantic mistakes and copy errors in one’s second language, even if one’s grammar is perfect. Caveat: I realize there were probably Greeks living in Alexandria, but the MSS we know to be copied in that area (Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, etc.) are noted for copyist errors.

4. The Byzantine is right in the middle linguistically between the Alexandrian and Western text types. That is, the Alexandrian has fewer words and the Western has more. Thus, it makes sense to me to call it a neutral text (no apologies to Westcott and Hort) by virtue of its centrally located content, if I may phrase it that way. Remember that there is a curse on those who add to or take away from Revelation (22: 18-20), though I do not say that means a careless copyist or printer is headed for Hell!

John 1:1 in Sinaiticus

The following is the text copied from the Codex Sinaiticus website (with a picture below), regarding John 1:1.

[I am unable to type exactly in the style of the uncial, especially the macron or line above the nomina sacra. The last two letters in the last line are the first two letters of the word in verse 2.]

ΕΝΑΡΧΗΗΝΟΛΟΓΟC 
ΚΑΙΟΛΟΓΟCΗΝ 
ΠΡΟCΤΟΝΘΝΚΑΙ 
ΘCΗΝΟΛΟΓΟCΟΥ

Which we read in modern printed texts as:

εν αρχη ην ο λογος και ο λογος ην προς τον θεον και θεος ην ο λογος

I have read and heard some claims that that the differences in John 1:1 (e.g., a god instead of God) are because of Codex Sinaiticus. I am no fan of Sinaiticus; I think it is a bad manuscript that should not be followed. However, as far as John 1:1 is concerned, Sinaiticus appears to have the same text in that verse as the Stephanus, Scrivener, Westcott-Hort, NU, SBLGNT, etc.

If someone is translating this verse differently, it is a translation issue rather than textual.

Dan Wallace on his NKJV work

The following is my transcription of Daniel Wallace’s comments on the New King James Bible in his lecture “Which Translation is Best” (comments on the NKJV start about 18 minutes and 14 seconds in).

“The New King James Version, done in 1982, is a curiosity. Now, I’m going to say some things that are negative about it. But the reason I’m saying this is because I worked on it. I was Arthur Farstad’s assistant for quite some time. He was the senior editor of the New King James Bible, and I did a lot of proofreading and a little bit of editing. And basically, the New King James takes exactly the same Greek and Hebrew texts as the King James Bible took, and gives them a modern translation. The kind of translation (they had a lot of scholars, a lot of these scholars worked on some of these other translations), the basic kind of translation that the New King James Version has is along the lines of the New American Standard. It’s not as elegant as the ESV; it’s not quite as rigid as the New American Standard Bible. The problem with it is its textual basis is so bad. Now, it’s not that it is heretical, it’s just -- why use a Bible that in 5000 places isn’t the word of God, when you can use one that is the word of God in those 5000 places? It just makes no sense to me, and yet Christian after Christian loves the New King James Bible and say – ‘Oh, but I just love this translation I know it’s inferior in terms of textual basis, but wherever it’s translated it’s really good.’ Then use an ESV and you have a much better textual basis and you’ve got great notes. It just troubles me that we want these things just because of how it sounds rather than because of the textual basis, on which it’s based. Again, I worked on the New King James Version. In fact, I was kind of the watchdog to make sure the translators were translating from the Textus Receptus. In one or two places they weren’t, they used a modern Greek text and I really nailed these guys. I said, ‘No, that’s not right. You’ve got to do the TR.’ So, not a single one of the translators, not a single one of the editors of the New King James Bible thinks that the Greek text that they translated is the best one available today. Not one of them. And over 100 scholars worked on this. They just wanted to do it so it was in line with the old King James, so, it’s a throwback, it’s a nostalgia thing that I just think we need to get past.” [18:14-20:24]

Next is the transcript provided by BiblicalTraining.org to go with the lesson. From that you can see that the above transcription is a spoken and expanded version of this:

“The New King James version of 1982 is a curiosity. I am going to say some negative things about it and I can say this because I worked on it. This Bible takes the same Greek and Hebrew text as the King James Bible and gives it a modern translation. The basic kind of translation that the New King James Version has is similar to the New American Standard. It isn’t as elegant as the ESV or as rigid as the NASB. The problem with it; its textual basis is so bad. Interestingly, none of the translators involved with the NKJV thought the manuscripts which they used were the best manuscripts to use and over a hundred scholars worked on this translation. They wanted it done in line with the old King James Version. It was a nostalgia thing that we need to get past.”

This material is worth considering because Daniel Wallace, who at the time worked on the NKJV as an assistant to the senior editor Arthur Farstad, relates some of its history and work-in-progress, even pointing out that none of the NKJV translators believed the Greek text basis they were using was really what they should use – and some even tried to use something other than what they were instructed to use. I have previously pointed out that the NKJV and NIV has several translators in common. Wallace indicates that some NKJV translators worked on more than just that one modern translation.

Dan Wallace is obviously very biased against the NKJV, and some of what he says needs to be seasoned with a few grains of salt. The (then) young whippersnapper’s assessment that “I really nailed these guys” trying to use the CT must be judged in light of the product – there are several places where the NKJV translation better matches other modern translations based on the Critical Text than the King James Version based on the Textus Receptus. Some of his “nails” apparently did not hold.

Correcting the Internet: 1881, not 1894

From time to time, I run across factual errors in the realm of theology or church history on the World Wide Web. If I think it is egregious and possibly influential, I try to contact the web site owner or owners to suggest a correction. Sometimes the suggestions are met with appreciation, sometimes with ambivalence, sometimes with anger, and sometimes with silence. I intend (Lord willing) to start a series “Correcting the Internet” for the times I meet with these issues.

The following correction is to an article section titled “Addendum I: The King James Version” on the textual criticism site of Robert B. Waltz. In this case the “silence” is because I could not contact the owner. The site no longer has a valid contact e-mail and my message was returned undeliverable. There are several things on the site to which I object, but some are matters of opinion which I will overlook for the time being. I note two things.

The Greek Text of the King James Bible

The 2nd paragraph of the article states, “Scrivener reconstructed the text of the KJV in 1894, finding some 250 differences from Stephanus.”

This seems to be a common misconception. The original publication is 1881 rather than 1894. It seems that the 1894 publication of F. H. A. Scrivener’s The New Testament in the Original Greek is the best known, and the edition that was reprinted. Nevertheless, it was first published in 1881. F. H. A. Scrivener was commissioned to compile this work as part of the English Bible revision project. He served on the revision committee with B. F. Westcott, F. J. A. Hort, Charles J. Ellicott, and others. It came out the same year as the New Testament translation The scan of this book available at Google Books verifies the 1881 date.

The New Testament in the Original Greek, According to the Text Followed by the Authorised Version (1881)

This is a simple correction, easily verified in numerous sources.

The Reception of the King James Bible

The next to last paragraph in the article has this statement: “…at the time of its publication, the KJV was greeted with something less than enthusiasm, and for the first few decades of its life, the Geneva Bible remained the more popular work…”

Regarding the reception of the new King James Bible, this is a common misconception. It is not that this has no ring of truth. Rather, the Geneva vs. KJV embellishment is often simply passed on without scrutiny. (I have dealt with this is a few places, e.g., HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, and HERE.) In this manner the overstatement exerts a wide and powerful influence on what people think about the reception of the KJV without inspecting the details. The King James Bible was a dud. People would not have used it if King James had not made them. There is a Geneva Bible partisanship running through the WWW, in both scholarly and popular circles, that rushes to judgment.[i] If we take a breath and do some research, we find that this idea encompasses some confirmation bias.

• As might be expected, the new translation faced early and weighty competition with the Geneva Bible. 
• The popular use of the Geneva Bible continued, though in decline, through the first half of the 17th century. 
• For many it was the commentary, the “study notes,” that kept their continued loyalty more than a dislike of the new translation.[ii]
• In the Puritan Commonwealth Oliver Cromwell favored the King James Bible, which was printed by John Field, first Printer to Parliament and “one of His Hignes [i.e. Cromwell’s] Printers.”
• The last known printing of the Geneva Bible occurred in Amsterdam in 1644.

In “Ten Fallacies about the King James Version” (Southern Baptist Journal of Theology, Vol. 15, No. 4, Winter 2011, p. 9), Leland Ryken calls this “Fallacy #5: The KJV Fell Flat And Was Ignored When It Was First Published,” writing:

“It is true that the release of the KJV was surrounded by misfortunes that could easily have subverted the entire publishing venture. The first printer of the KJV found himself in almost immediate financial difficulty, and the early years of printing were bound up in litigation…the new translation was in immediate competition with the entrenched best-selling Bible of the day, the Geneva Bible…Despite this, the KJ V did very well. In its first five years of existence, readers called for seventeen editions, compared with six editions of the Geneva Bible during those same years. Expanding the time frame, in the first 35 years of its existence the KJV went through a whopping 182 editions. The KJV supplanted the Geneva Bible within fifty years of its publication, very good indeed.”[iii] 

There is no doubt that a new translation would not immediately supplant a popular and entrenched Bible, but it was far from a publishing failure.

---

[i] Some of this is exacerbated by a rush to oppose King James Onlyism, and the historical facts are left to die in the gutter. It keeps getting repeated without scrutiny.
[ii] This may be seen in the fact that King James’s Bibles were printed with Geneva notes in 1649, 1679, 1708, and 1715.
[iii] Ryken served as a literary consultant for the English Standard Version, so he is obviously no KJVO partisan. See also The Bible in the Making, Geddes MacGregor, London: Murray, 1961; and “Introduction: the King James Bible and its reception history,” Hannibal Hamlin and Norman W. Jones, in The King James Bible After Four Hundred Years: Literary, Linguistic, and Cultural Influences, edited by Hamlin and Jones, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010. See especially “Birth and Early Reception of a Masterpiece: Some Lose Ends and Common Misconceptions,” Mordechai Feingold, Chapter 1 in Labourers in the Vineyard of the Lord: Erudition and the Making of the King James Version of the Bible (Brill, 2018). For example, “As in the case of any new contribution to knowledge, a phase of acculturation was required before the KJV could establish itself as the paramount vernacular version of the Bible—assisted by commercial incentives of interest published. However, scholars and the reading public more widely began engaging seriously and approvingly with the KJV from the start” (p. 27).

LXX or Septuagint: Thoughts of John Owen

Some extremists, perhaps due to their angry wailing, bitter spirit, and sometimes unfounded animadversions, have made any hint of uncertainty concerning the LXX to be anathema to the “scholars” – especially the wanna-be (think-they-are) scholars. This should not be. All who think there is likelihood of versions of the Greek Old Testament created in early church history do not belong on the quack list. Consider the words of John Owen (1616-1683), who is generally respected in Reformed and Western evangelical circles (at least when he is not writing too dogmatically about the Bible).

“Hence some, not understanding whence this testimony was cited by the apostle, have inserted his words into the Greek Bible…” p. 107

“14. First, it is evident that they are exceedingly mistaken who affirm that the apostle cites all his testimonies out of the translation of the LXX, as we intimated is by some pleaded, in the close of the preceding discourse. The words he useth, in very few of them agree exactly with the Greek version of the Old Testament that is now extant,—though apparently, since the writing of this Epistle, it hath grown in its verbal conformity unto the allegations as reported in the New; and in most of them he varieth from it, either in the use of his own liberty, or in a more exact rendering of the original text. Should he have had any respect unto that translation, it were impossible to give any tolerable account whence he should so much differ from it almost in every quotation, as is plain that he doth. 

“15. It is also undeniably manifest, from this view of his words, that the apostle did not scrupulously confine himself unto the precise words either of the original or any translation whatever,—if any other translation, or targum, were then extant besides that of the LXX. Observing and expressing the sense of the testimonies which he thought meet to produce and make use of, he used with great liberty, as did other holy writers of the New Testament, according to the guidance of the Holy Ghost, by who inspiration he wrote, in expressing them by words of his own. And who shall blame him for so doing? Who should bind him to the rules of quotations, which sometimes necessity, sometimes curiosity, sometimes the cavils of other men, impose upon us in our writings? Herein the apostle used that liberty which the Holy Ghost gave unto him, without the least prejudice unto truth of the faith of the church... pp. 113-114

“19. I say, then, it is highly probable that the apostle, according to his wonted manner, which appears in almost all the citations used by him in this Epistle, reporting the sense and importance of the places in words of his own, the Christian transcribers of the Greek Bible inserted his expressions into the text; either as judging them a more proper version of the original, whereof they were ignorant, than that of the LXX., or out of a preposterous zeal to take away the appearance of a diversity between the text and the apostle’s citation of it. And thus, in those testimonies where there is a real variation from the Hebrew original, the apostle took not his words from the translation of the LXX., but his words were afterward inserted into that translation. And this, as we have partly made to appear already in sundry instances, so it shall now briefly be further confirmed; for,—

“20. First, Whereas the reasons of the apostle for his application of the testimonies used by him in his words and expressions are evident, as shall in particular be made to appear; so no reason can be assigned why the LXX (if any such LXX. there were) who translated the Old Testament, or any other translators of it, should so render the words of the Hebrew text.” 

“Exercitation V. Testimonies Cited By the Apostle Out of the Old Testament,” An Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews, Volume I, John Owen (W. H. Gould, editor), Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1980, pp. 113-115.

Commenting on “I regarded them not” in Hebrews 8:9, Owen writes:

“But expositors do find or make great difficulties herein. It is generally supposed that the apostle followed the translation of the LXX. in the present copy whereof the words are so expressed; but how they came to render בָּעַ֥לְתִּי by ἠμέλησα, they are not agreed. Some say the original copies might differ in some letters from those we now enjoy. Therefore it is thought they might read, as some think, ָּבָּחֱלְתִּי, ‘neglexi,’ or נְעַ֥לְתִּי, ‘fastidivi,’—‘I neglected,’ or ‘loathed them.’ And those who speak most modestly, suppose that the copy which the LXX. made use of, had one of these words instead of בָּעַ֥לְתִּי, which yet is the truer reading; but because this did not belong to the substance of the argument which he had in hand, the apostle would not depart from that translation which was then in use amongst the Hellenistical Jews.

“But the best of these conjectures are uncertain, and some of them by no means to be admitted. Uncertain it is that the apostle made any of his quotations out of the translation of the LXX.; yea, the contrary is certain enough, and easy to be demonstrated. Neither did he write this epistle unto the Hellenistical Jews, or those who lived in or belonged unto their dispersions, wherein they made use of the Greek tongue; but unto the inhabitants of Jerusalem and Judea principally and in the first place, who made no use of that translation. He expressed the mind of the Scripture, as he was directed by the Holy Ghost, in words of his own. And the coincidence of these words with those in the present copies of the LXX. hath been accounted for in our Exercitations.

Dangerous it is, as well as untrue, to allow of alterations in the original text, and then upon our conjectures to supply other words into it than what are contained in it. That is not to explain, but to corrupt the Scripture.

An Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews, Volume VI, John Owen (1616-1683), (W. H. Gould, editor),Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1980, p. 130.

John Owen was no dufus. If I am reading him correctly, he believed the extant LXX words of the 4th & 5th century manuscripts did not necessarily predate the writing of the New Testament (therefore could have been conformed to match the New Testament).

LXX or Septuagint: Scattered thoughts

The LXX and Septuagint are names for Greek versions (translations) of the Hebrew Old Testament. Ryan Reeves offers what might be considered a “typical” Western Evangelical view of the LXX: 

“The Septuagint is quite possibly the most important translation of the Bible. It is the oldest translation of the OT into another language...most of the direct citations of the OT in the NT match the Septuagint, not the Hebrew Bible (or Masoretic Text [MT]).”

Many, if not most, Western evangelicals believe that a somewhat “official” Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament harks back to the 3rd-century B.C. Reeves recognizes, however, that there is no such thing as the Septuagint, but that what is available are rather eclectic critical texts (e.g. Brenton, Rahlfs) that attempt to reconstruct what they believe was the original Greek Old Testament, using the extant Greek manuscripts of the Old Testament.

On the other extreme are those who believe that the LXX or Septuagint is a Christian-era development – that is, no LXX (Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament) existed before perhaps the 1st-century A.D. 

Frank Welte, a writer at Hope for Israel Ministries, a radical and heretical (denying the deity of Jesus) Hebrew Roots movement, says:

“So the only LXX we have today stands exposed as a corrupt forgery!”[i]

Several “King James Onlyists” agree with this view of the LXX, without holding the other odd and heretical views of Hope for Israel Ministries – which ministries is not a KJVO group. Welte also states that, “A translation from the original text CANNOT possibly be better than the original.”

Samuel C. Gipp represents a view held by some King James Onlyists. In “Was There a BC Septuagint,” he asks and answers:

“QUESTION: What is the LXX?

“ANSWER: A figment of someone’s imagination.”

Doubtless many KJVOs are influenced on this point by Peter Ruckman. In 1996, he published The Mythological Septuagint. In it he rails against an early LXX, but also admits to two B.C. fragments, writing:

“Ryland Papyrus 458 and Fouad 266 are the only ‘B.C.’ fragments found in 2,400 years of babbling about a B.C. LXX which ‘the apostles quoted’: none of them quoted Rylands 458 or Fouad 266. (The Mythological Septuagint, Peter S. Ruckman. Pensacola, FL: BB Bookstore, 1996, p. 55.)

Earlier in The Christian’s Handbook of Manuscript Evidence (Peter S. Ruckman, Pensacola, FL: BB Bookstore, 1970, pp. 48-51), he only mentioned the Ryland fragment as early. I think that Ruckman is correct that there are no New Testament quotes from anything in the Rylands fragment (but there might be one to consider in the Fouad fragment).

As best I can find, in general scholars seem to think there are about 10 fragments of part of Greek Old Testament translation that predate the time of Christ. LXX scholar Alfred Rahlfs (1865-1935) system identifies and numbers 10 manuscripts that are believed to be from the centuries before Christ. In his numbering system these are older manuscripts: 801, 802, 803, 804, 805, 819 (4Q LXXDeut), 847, 848, 942 (Fouad 266), and 957 (Rylands 458). 801-805 are fragments of, respectively, Leviticus 26:2–16; Leviticus 1:11, 2:3–6:5; Numbers 3:39–4:16; Baruch 6:43–44; Exodus 28:4–7. 819 is a fragment of Deuteronomy 11:4. 847 is fragments of Deuteronomy 10:22; 11:1, 10,11, 16; 31:26–19; 32:2,4; 33:14–19, 22–23, 26–27. 848 is fragments of Deuteronomy 17:14 to 33:29. 942 is fragments of Genesis 3:10–12; 4:5–7, 23; 7:17–20; 37:34–38:1; 38:10–12. 957 is fragments of Deuteronomy 23:24–24:3; 25:1–3; 26:12; 26:17–19; 28:31–33; 27:15; 28:2. The manuscripts are paleographically dated (i.e., by analysis of the writing), the oldest being Rylands 458 (2nd century BC) and Fouad 266 (1st century BC).[ii] I have not checked to see whether anything that can be read on these scraps of papyri varies from the Hebrew Old Testament and have been quoted in the New Testament, though I do not expect it.

The complete and almost complete manuscripts of the Greek translation of the Old Testament are from the 4th and 5th centuries (Codices Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, and Alexandrinus).[iii] They did not exist as such at the time the New Testament books were written. I have shown in an earlier post that the Vaticanus LXX corrupts Psalm 14 by adding into it verses that Paul quoted in Romans 3 from various books of the Bible.[iv]

In between the extremes stands those who suspect that some books of the Old Testament (especially that Pentateuch) were translated before the time of Jesus Christ, while recognizing that the current full manuscripts are at best edited versions of earlier translations. I will look at the comments of one important Reformed scholar tomorrow (John Owen). Today I conclude with some comments about the view of Paul Ernst Kahle (1875-1964). Paul Kahle was certainly no King James Bible man, and likely not even conservative. He was a German scholar of Semitic philology, Near Eastern and Far Eastern cultures and languages (an “orientalist”) who edited later editions (1937, et al.) of Rudolf Kittel’s Biblia Hebraica. He was a high-class scholar whose view on the LXX is out of step with other high-class scholars and many wanna-be scholars. I could not find his original, but take these comments from John Reumann:

“One of the most intriguing theories is that of the late Professor Paul Kahle, a renowned Semitics scholar (1875-1964), who argued that there never was any LXX, at least until Christian times, and that our Letter of Aristeas is propaganda for a revision of the Greek Bible which was made in Alexandria. Kahle claimed that there were no ‘official’ translation undertakings in Judaism such as Aristeas suggests, but rather a number of local attempts—in Alexandria, in Ephesus, in any town with a sizable group of Greek-speaking Jews. These translations naturally differed in quality, and there was no standardization. But about 130 B. C., the theory continues, Jews in Alexandria revised the competing ragged renderings which were circulating in their area of Egypt, and put out a sort of ‘Revised Standard Version,’ intended to be the norm thereafter. The Letter of Aristeas was an attempt to give this revision authority by cloaking it with antiquity. Hence also the curse on anyone who would change a word of it. But even this attempt at standardization, Kahle thought, did not bring order from the chaos. Different Greek renderings continued to circulate. And so, when Christians (who increasingly after the year A.D. 50 were Greeks who knew little or no Hebrew) employed the Old Testament, they inevitably borrowed from the varied Jewish Greek translations—the Pentateuch as it had been revised at Alexandria, the book of Daniel as it had been translated at Ephesus, and so forth, until they put together an Old Testament in Greek, complete now, which they called the ‘Septuagint,’ after the title from the Aristeas legend. On this reading of the evidence, the LXX is a Christian compilation, and The Letter of Aristeas is a fiction designed to further the use of a revision in Alexandria about 130 B.C.” (The Romance of Bible Scripts and Scholars: Chapters in the History of Bible Transmission and Translation, John H. P. Reumann. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1965, pp. 15-16.)

Kahle’s view is interesting, and could account for some of the early fragments, while recognizing that the LXX as it currently stands is a revision from early Christian times. Whether any LXX existed before Christ or not, or whether any New Testament writer quoted from such (if he did), is of no great consequence to me. If God chose to inspire a writer to quote (or say the same way) as some previous translator, that is God’s prerogative to do, and mine to accept. However, I think most claims of NT quotes from the LXX relate to what is found in the 4th-century manuscripts, which could have been edited to match the New Testament (Psalm 14:3 certainly was). Let’s see what John Owen has to say on the morrow.

---

[i] The Septuagint – Is It a Fraud or Forgery? by Frank W. Nelte.
[ii] For the sake of discussion, I accept the papyri dating as likely reasonably accurate.
[iii] I realize there is a vocal, and perhaps large, element within King James Onlyism who believe Sinaiticus is a late forgery. I leave this for others to argue about. It is a bad manuscript, whether it is from the 4th century or was forged by Constantine Simonides.
[iv] This is one of the more egregious examples of meddling with the Old Testament translation. In commenting on Psalm 14:3, John Gill writes, “Here follows in the Septuagint version, according to the Vatican copy, all those passages quoted by the apostle, Romans 3:13-18; which have been generally supposed to have been taken from different parts of Scripture; so the Syriac scholiast says, in some ancient Greek copies are found eight more verses, and these are they, ‘Their throat,’ &c.” When he comments on Romans 3:13-18, Gill takes no notice of the LXX, but rather shows where the verses are quoted from in the Old Testament (Psalm 5:9; Psalm 140:3; Psalm 10:7; Isaiah 59:7-8; Psalm 36:1).

It’s the same Greek word.

Often one says of the meaning behind certain Greek language words that have been translated into English, “It’s the same Greek word.” By this they state or imply that the words in those places must mean the same thing and therefore the word must also be translated by the same English (it should be  the same English word in all places). Such assertion assumes that the particular Greek word (whichever one is under discussion) does not have any range of meaning but always means only one thing. 

However, most words have some range of meaning, and some range so far as to mean opposite things. For example, consider the range of meaning of the English word “cleave.” So, for example, if we translate “cleave” into Spanish, we might translate it as adherirse or dividirse (considering the context of the English).

If someone did what we are talking about, they could say adherirse and dividirse both mean the same thing, since they are both translated from the word cleave. Nevertheless, they do not mean the same thing. Admittedly this may be an extreme example, but I think the extreme helps make the general point. 

I hope this musing out loud makes sense. This is an issue some raise when a Bible translates the same Greek or Hebrew word in more than one way.

The Acts 21:37 Test: ἑλληνιστὶ γινώσκεις

“And as Paul was to be led into the castle, he said unto the chief captain, May I speak unto thee? Who said, Canst thou speak Greek?”

The Acts 21:37 Test. Do you know Greek?

We often, in Christian circles, banter around the words “know Greek” or “read Greek.” Most often that only means we have had some Greek courses and can “read” Greek in a minor sense – that we know the letters (alphabet), how they make words, know some of the words (vocabulary), some things about mood, tense, voice (conjugation), and so on. With the help of good tools, we can figure out what sentences in the Greek New Testament say. This is not really reading Greek. It is a good skill and a good tool, but honesty calls us to admit that we are doing a lot of studying with helps (in itself, not a bad thing) and not much reading. I have had a little study in five different languages, and I can only read and speak one – English (and not always well, at that).

Without looking at or using any helps, write the Greek words or phrases that correspond with the following common English words or phrases:

1. Maybe                  ______________
2. Table                     ______________
3. Wolf                       ______________
4. Eight                      ______________
5. Chicken                ______________
6. Yellow                   ______________
7. Hot                         ______________
8. Elbow                    ______________
9. To shout               ______________
10. To swim                ______________
11. Bonus: “Goodbye, God bless you.” _______________________________

(With acknowledgement to Daniel Streett for the idea)

Without looking at or using any helps, read, understand, and translate the following sentence:

Πᾶς δὲ ὁ ἐρχόμενος ἐν ὀνόματι κυρίου δεχθήτω· ἔπειτα δὲ δοκιμάσαντες αὐτὸν γνώσεσθε, σύνεσιν γὰρ ἕξετε δεξιὰν καὶ ἀριστεράν.

Don’t post your results. There is no way we can know whether you worked from what was in your head, or used tools to cheat (from lexicons to online translators), or some combination of both. Just be honest with yourself and maybe benefit from the exercise. This is for personal growth; only in a live setting would we know for sure of the results.

The results for most of us should make us aware of at least two things.

• We should not represent ourselves as seeming to know more than we really know.
• If we have a limited knowledge of a language we cannot read or speak, we may lead ourselves or others astray with what we think we know.

Text critics opening the canon

Bible-believing Baptists teach and preach a “closed canon.” In regards to the Bible, a closed canon means that God inspired Scripture up to a certain point of time and text, and then concluded. All scripture is inspired; all written in finished. The canon of Scripture closed when God gave the last word of the New Testament (which we believe was the last word in the book of Revelation). At this point God stopped giving Scripture. Every book of the Bible from the first to the last is written. The Scriptures are complete. 39 books in the Old Testament, 27 books in the New Testament, making 66 books in the entire Bible – no more and no less.

In modern times, textual critics – especially or most particularly the editors of the NA-UBS Greek NT – are opening the canon and adding Scripture. Surely not, you say? How so?

Here’s how. I noted in a post on August 15, 2023 that in a debate Thomas Ross said:

There are mere handfuls of words hundreds of times in the UBS that look like no manuscript on the face of the Earth…As for whole verses, groups of verses, or larger sections of text, the portion of the UBS/NA text that looks like exactly zero manuscripts on the earth grows exponentially.

What is Ross talking about? This – these critical text editors mine this manuscript and that manuscript, pulling words from this one and that one to create new sentences, new verses, new sections of text that have never existed in any known manuscript. They are writing Scripture themselves, even though God has closed Scripture!

On October 4th I linked to a video in which Adam Boyd focuses on one text and demonstrates how this “new inspiration” [my words, not his] creates a new text with wording that does not appear in any extant manuscript.

This phenomenon that some are calling “Frankentext” is opening or has the effect of opening the closed canon and giving us new Scripture – scripture readings that have never before existed. God stopped giving scripture. Text critics have not!

And sought to slay him

John 5:16 (KJV) And therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus, and sought to slay him, because he had done these things on the sabbath day.

John 5:16 (ESV) And this was why the Jews were persecuting Jesus, because he was doing these things on the Sabbath.

John 5:16 reveals another variant which the light of theological study and biblical context will help explain. The Textus Receptus includes the words και εζητουν αυτον αποκτειναι – which are left out the NA & UBS Critical Texts. Which is correct? The Textus Receptus. Notice the context and meaning by reading John 5:16-18 –

And therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus, and sought to slay him, because he had done these things on the sabbath day. But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work. Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.

The answer is found in comparing verses 16 and 18. The former says the Jews “sought to slay him” and the latter says “the Jews sought the more to kill him.” In context the phrasing of verse 18 supports the Textus Receptus reading και εζητουν αυτον αποκτειναι (and sought to slay him). Why? It explains that adding the accusation blasphemy to breaking the Sabbath, the Jews sought “the more” (all the more, additionally, even harder) to kill Jesus.

• KJV: Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him
• ESV: This was why the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him,
• NET: For this reason the Jewish leaders were trying even harder to kill him
• NIV: For this reason they tried all the more to kill him

“All the more” means more seeking to kill Jesus than has previously been mentioned. However, in the Critical Text it has NOT previously been mentioned (i.e. και εζητουν αυτον αποκτειναι is missing). “All the more” refers back and connects to nothing if και εζητουν αυτον αποκτειναι (and sought to slay him) is removed. So much for touting “neutral” textual criticism done academically “as if God does not exist.” Such an approach removes theological tools that are needed to understand why certain words do or do not belong in the Bible.

Oldest is Best?

Q. Should we assume an older manuscript is a better text than a more recent one? Is there a biblical basis for this?

A. “Oldest is best” or “earliest and best” are expressions of an eclectic theory of textual criticism, in which the Greek manuscripts of the New Testament that are dated chronologically as the oldest are also thought to be the best (i.e., by “best” they mean closest to or most like the original words written by a biblical author). For example, discussing Acts 8:37 Edward D. Andrews (Critical Text supporter and chief translator of the Updated American Standard Version) begins, “The earliest and best Greek manuscripts [emp. mine] … do not contain vs. 37.”

The oldest manuscript (i.e., first) is the original autograph. It was first in time, first chronologically. When God finished inspiring and Isaiah had written down his prophecies, that was the first and oldest manuscript of Isaiah. When God finished inspiring and Paul completed his letter to the Galatians, that was the first and oldest manuscript of Galatians. However, none of these original autographs are extant (that is, the media on which these words were written no longer exists). All manuscripts, authentical or inauthentic, are copies of the original autograph, it being the first.[i] At first blush someone might think, “Well, it seems like the first copy made (i.e., oldest) would be the best.” That is a logical fallacy, and even if that were true, the oldest copies we have are not the first copies of the originals.

There is no biblical reason to think the older the manuscript, the better it is, or that it is the best. Neither is there any logical reason why it should be said that an older manuscript is better. The prevailing mantra of textual criticism asserts that the older is better because it is closer in time to the original autographs. If it is actually older, then all that can be said is that it is older, that is, is closer in time to the autographs.[ii] However, the age of a manuscript does not equal or necessarily reflect the age of its text. A newer manuscript could be a copy of an older text. Or a newer manuscript could be a copy of the same text from which the older manuscript was copied, but accomplished with no or fewer errors. Which would be more accurate? Closer in time to the original does not equal closer in accuracy to the original. An older inaccurate manuscript is not better than a newer more accurate one. 

Consider this illustration. Ten years ago (November 7, 2013) I write out on a piece of paper all the information that is on my birth certificate. In doing so, I make some mistakes. Today (November 7, 2023) I write out on a piece of paper all the information that is on my birth certificate. In doing so, I make no mistakes. Which copy is older? Which copy is better?[iii]

---

[i] That is, they all in some sense go back to the original or first writing. Obviously we recognize there are copies of the original, copies of copies of the original, and so on.

[ii] Text critics who reject eclectic text theories – for example, Maurice Robinson (who promotes majority text theory) – have succinctly and successfully pointed out “the fallacy of the oldest.” Older manuscripts and versions, as well as references by early church writers, demonstrate a terminus a quo for a particular reading, that is, a time or date at which the reading can be “no later than.” For example, if around AD 175 Irenaeus mentions what we know are Mark 16:19, then we know that in or around AD 175, Mark 16:19 was in the Gospel of Mark used by Irenaeus. This establishes the existence of a given reading at a given date. It arose “no later than” that. Authenticity is a different debate not established by time or dating.
[iii] Even those who dismiss providential preservation must accept the logic of this illustration. Even if I made a mistake in the more recent copy, were it to have fewer mistakes than the older copy, it is still the better copy. Age does not determine accuracy.

Comparing verses missing from the KJV, using the TR and CT

AN APPENDIX – MISSING TEXTS, TR (Received Text) vs. NA (Critical Text)

Unless otherwise noted, the variant listed represents an omission from the Traditional Text.[1] The King James wording, based on the Received Text, is in [brackets]. This represents the text as translated in the King James Version, which is usually missing in modern English translations based on the Critical Text. In instances of an addition of a word or words not in the KJV/TR reading, the addition from the critical text is in {braces} with the English as found in the NIV. Some differences are matters of translation, and not listed here. For example, though both underlying Greek texts in Acts 7:2 have ανδρες αδελφοι και πατερες, the KJV has “Men, brethren, and fathers” while the NIV has “Brothers and fathers...”

1:4                   [with them]

1:14                 [and supplication]

1:15                 [disciples] (vs. brethren)

1:25                 [part]

2:1                   [with one accord]

2:7                   [all]

2:7                   [one to another]

2:23                 [have taken]

2.30                 [according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ]

2:31                 [his soul]

2:33                 [now]

2:38                 {your}

2:41                 [gladly]

2:42                 [and] [the 2^nd “and”]

2:47                 [the church]

3:1                   [together]

3:6                   [rise up and]

3:11                 [the lame man]

3:20                 [text, Jesus Christ vs. Christ, Jesus] {translation, preached vs. appointed}

Note: verses 19-20 are arranged somewhat differently in each text

3:21                 [all] [the “all” before “his holy prophets”]

3:22                 [unto the fathers]

3:24                 [foretold; προκατηγγειλαν vs. κατηγγειλαν]

3:26                 [Son Jesus]

4:8                   [of Israel]

4:17                 [straitly threaten]

4:24                 [thou art God] (2^nd use)

4:25                 {our father} {through the Holy Spirit}

4:27                 {in this city}

5:5                   [these things]

5:23                 [without]

5:24                 [the high priest and] 

5:25                 [saying]

5:32                 [his]

5:33                 [took counsel]

5:34                 [apostles] (vs. men)

5:41                 [his name] (vs. the name)

6:3                   [Holy]

6:8                   [faith]

6:13                 [blasphemous]

7:11                 [land of]

7:16                 [the father of ]

7:17                 [sworn]

7:18                 {in Egypt}

7:30                 [of the Lord]

7:31                 [unto him]

7:32                 [the God] [2^nd and 3^rd uses]

7:37                 [the Lord your]

7:37                 [him shall ye hear]

7:46                 [the God of Jacob] (vs. the house of Jacob)

7:48                 [temples]

8:10                 [the great power of God] (vs. the power of God that is called great)

8:13                 [the things]

8:18                 [Holy]

8:22                 [God] (vs. the Lord)

8:37                 [And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.] i.e., the entire verse is omitted.

9:5-6                [it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him]

9:19                 [Saul] (vs. he) [2]

9:20                 [Christ] (usually changed to {Jesus})

9:29                 [Jesus] (and this is part of verse 28 in the CT)

9:31                 [churches] (vs. singular “church”)

10:6                 [he shall tell thee what thou oughtest to do]

10:7                 [Cornelius]

10:11               [unto him] [knit] [and]

10:12               [and wild beasts]

10:21               [which were sent unto him from Cornelius]

10:23               [Peter] (vs. he) ²³³

10:30               [I was fasting until this hour; and]

10:32               [who, when he cometh, shall speak unto thee]

10:33               [God] (vs. the Lord)

10:48               [of the Lord] (vs. of Jesus Christ)

11:9                 [me]

11:12               [doubting nothing] (vs. making no distinction)

11:28               [Caesar]

12:5                 [without ceasing] (vs. earnestly/fervently)

12:23               [the] in “the glory”

12:25               [to Jerusalem] (vs. from Jerusalem)

13:6                 {the whole island} (vs. the isle)

13:20               [And after that] [3]

13:26               [to you] (vs. to us)

13:42               [the Jews]

                        [out of the synagogue, the Gentiles]

13:44               [to God] (vs. of the Lord)

14:17               [gave us; our hearts] (vs. gave you; your hearts)

15:7                 [among us] (vs. among you)

15.11               [Lord Jesus Christ] (vs. Lord Jesus]

15:18               [unto God are all his works] 

15:24               [saying, Ye must be circumcised and keep the law]

15:33               [unto the apostles] (vs. to those who had sent them)

15:34               [Notwithstanding it pleased Silas to abide there still] i.e., this verse is omitted

15:40               [of God] (vs. of the Lord)

16:7                 [the Spirit] (vs. the Spirit of Jesus)

16:13               [the city] (vs. the gate)

[where prayer was wont to be made] (vs. where we supposed there was a place of prayer)

16:17               [unto us] (vs. to you)

16.31               [Lord Jesus Christ] (vs. Lord Jesus)

17:5                 [which believed not]

17:14               [to go as it were to the sea] (vs. to go as far as to the sea)

17:18               [unto them]

17:26               [blood]

                        [hath determined the times before appointed] (vs. having determined appointed seasons)

17:27               [the Lord] (vs. God)

18:5                 [in the spirit] (vs. by the word)

18:7                 [Justus] (vs. {Titus} Justus)

18:17               [the Greeks]

18:19               [he came] (vs. they came/arrived]

18:20               [with them]

18:21               [I must by all means keep this feast that cometh in Jerusalem]

18:25               [the Lord] (vs. Jesus)

19:4                 [Christ Jesus] (vs. Jesus)

19:10               [Lord Jesus] (vs. Lord)

19:13               [We adjure] (vs. I adjure)

19:29               [whole]

19:35               [goddess]

19:37               [your] (vs. our)

19:40               [there being no cause whereby we may give an account] (vs. no cause for it, on account of which we will not be able)

20:1                 [embraced them] (vs. encouraged them)

20:4                 [into Asia]

[Sopater of Berea] (vs. Sopater {son of Pyrrhus} from Berea)

20:7                 [the disciples] (vs. we)

20:8                 [they] (vs. we)

20:15               [and tarried at Trogyllium]

20:21               [Christ]

20:24               [But none of these things move me, neither count I my life dear unto myself] (vs. But I do not account my life of any value nor as precious to myself)

[with joy]

20:25               [of God]

20:32               [brethren]

20:34               [Yea]

21:4                 [disciples] (vs. {the} disciples)

21:8                 [that were of Paul’s company]

21:15               [we took up our carriages] (vs. we got ready)

21:20               [Lord] (vs. God)

21:22               [the multitude must needs come together]

21:25               [that they observe no such thing, save]

22:9                 [and were afraid]

22:16               [the name of the Lord] (vs. his name)

22:20               [unto his death]

22:26               [Take heed what thou doest] (vs. What are you about to do?)

22:30               [from his bands]

23:9                 [the scribes] (vs. {some of} the scribes)

                        [let us not fight against God]

23:11               [Paul]

23:12               [certain of the Jews] (vs. the Jews)

23.15               [to morrow]

23:30               [how that the Jews]

[Farewell]

24:1                 [the elders] (vs. {some of} the elders]

24:2                 [worthy deeds] (vs. reforms)

24:6-8              [and would have judged according to our law. But the chief captain Lysias came upon us, and with great violence took him away out of our hands, commanding his accusers to come unto thee] i.e., the last part of verse 6, all of verse 7, and the first part of verse 8 are omitted

24:9                 [assented] [συνεθεντο] (vs. συνεπεθεντο)

24:13               [prove] (vs. prove {to you})

24:15               [of the dead]

24:20               [if they found] (“if” is changed to “what”]

24:22               [heard these things]

24:23               [or come unto him]

24:26               [that he might loose him]

25:6                 [more than ten days] (vs. not more than eight or ten days)

25:7                 [round about] (vs. round about {him})

                        [Paul] (vs. him)

25:16               [to die]

25:18               [such things] (vs. evils/evil deeds)

26:7                 [King Agrippa] (vs. O king)

26:17               [now I] (vs. I)

26:18               [to turn them] (vs. that they may turn)

26:30               [when he had thus spoken]

27:14               [Euroclydon, i.e., a southeast wind] (vs. Euraquilo, i.e., a northeast wind)

27:16               [Clauda] (vs. Cauda)

27:17               [the quicksands] (vs. the Syrtis) [4]

27:19               [we cast out] (vs. they threw/cast out)

27:34               [hair fall] (vs. hair perish)

28:1                 [they were escaped, then they knew] (vs. we escaped & we knew)

28:16               [the centurion delivered the prisoners to the captain of the guard: but]

28:25               [our] (vs. your)

28:29               [And when he had said these words, the Jews departed, and had great reasoning among themselves] i.e., all of this verse is omitted

---

[1] Some sources for comparison include Anderson, G. W. & S. E. A Textual Key, pp. 9-10; “Textual Variants in The New Testament,” Gary F. Zeolla | https://www.zeolla.org/christian/alt/main/variants.htm, and KJV Parallel Bible.org, Differences between Scrivener’s Textus Receptus/the KJV, and the Critical Text | https://kjvparallelbible.org/. 

[2] The noun/pronoun difference is common in the texts of Acts, and many more could be listed.

[3] The different placement of και μετα ταυτα seems to make the translations refer to a different events.

[4] την συρτιν in both TR and CT, but KJV translates it into English while many modern versions do not.