God was manifest in the flesh

George Sayles Bishop on the Revision Version of 1885.

The Revision weakens and removes the Deity of Christ in many places—I will mention five: 

…

I Tim. 3:1—“Great is the mystery of godliness, God was manifest in the flesh.” The Revision leaves out θεὸς God, and renders it “Great is the mystery of godliness, He who was manifest in the flesh,”—i. e., the manifested One was only one phase—the highest—of godliness, the precise rendering for which all the Unitarians have been contending for the last 1,800 years…Dr. Scrivener says his senses report it Theos. “I have examined it twenty times within as many years,” he declares, “and seeing (as every man must do for himself with my own eyes, I have always felt convinced that Codex ‘A’ reads Theos.” That conviction of Dr. Scrivener is my conviction and on the very same grounds—a conviction so deep that I will never yield it, nor admit as a text of my faith a Book pretending to be a Revelation from God which leaves that word out. The Holy Ghost has written it—let no man dare touch it—Great is the mystery of godliness, God was manifest in the flesh.

“Oh, but it is only one word!” yes, but one word of Scripture of which it is said “Thou has magnified Thy Word above all Thy Name!” “Only one Word!” But that word “God.” Better the whole living church of God should perish than that that one word should perish. If any take away from the words of the book of this prophecy God shall take away his part.” Let criticism pause. The principle at stake is solemn.

George Sayles Bishop, “The Principles and the Tendency of the Revision Examined,” in The Doctrines of Grace: and Kindred Themes, New York, NY: Gospel Publishing House, 1910, pp. 78-80.

Acts 24:6-9

Chapter 24 divides into three parts – 1-9 Ananias and Tertullus, against Paul; 10-21 Paul answers for himself; 22-27 the responses of Felix.

In this chapter Luke records both Tertullus and Paul speaking to the governor, Felix, then concludes with the varied responses of Felix.

A textual variant not in modern translations.

Verses 6-8: “who also hath gone about to profane the temple: whom we took, 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: by examining of whom thyself mayest take knowledge of all these things, whereof we accuse him.” 

Most modern English translations do not include the bolded portion. It is in the King James Bible, the Textus Receptus Greek New Testament, Codices Laudianus (E, 6th century), Athous Laurae (Ψ, 8th century) and the Latin Vulgate (4th century). It explains the situation, from the accusers’ standpoint, which is left somewhat vague otherwise. Internal evidence supports the reading. The fact that Felix wanted to hear more from Lysias (v. 22) supports the reading, because a reference to Lysias is made by Tertullus and Felix would need to look into that.

Verse 9: The other Jews present testified to their agreement with the charges Tertullus made against Paul.

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!

Redemption through his blood

Extol the Lamb of God,
The all-atoning Lamb;
Redemption through his blood
Throughout the world proclaim: 
The Year of jubilee is come;
Return, ye ransomed sinners, home.
(Charles Wesley, No. 3, Hymns for New-Year’s-Day, 1750)

Poor Charles Wesley and his “ignorant” hymn writing. [i] Colossians 1:14 has a major variation between the King James Bible and modern translations based on the critical texts. “redemption through his blood” is in the King James translation, but not in the CSB, ESV, LEB, NASB, NET, NIV, RSV, et al.

• Colossians 1:14 KJV in whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
• Colossians 1:14 NET in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.

I found the note in the NET Bible intriguing.

26 tc διὰ τοῦ αἵματος αὐτοῦ (dia tou haimatos autou, “through his blood”) is read at this juncture by several minuscule MSS (614 630 1505 2464) as well as a few, mostly secondary, versional and patristic witnesses. But the reading was prompted by the parallel in Eph 1:7 where the wording is solid. If these words had been in the original of Colossians, why would scribes omit them here but not in Eph 1:7? Further, the testimony on behalf of the shorter reading is quite overwhelming: א A B C D F G Ψ 075 0150 6 33 1739 1881 𝕸 latt co as well as several other versions and fathers. The conviction that “through his blood” is not authentic in Col 1:14 is as strong as the conviction that these words are authentic in Eph 1:7.

• Ephesians 1:7 in whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;

“If these words had been in the original of Colossians, why would scribes omit them here but not in Eph 1:7?” Um… because they made a scribal error? Miscopied it? I realize the issue is more complicated than this, but it is mind-boggling to me that textual critics make and put weight in such an argument! Otherwise they are constantly and consistently arguing for scribal errors, and yet suddenly scribes could not have made an error here unless they also made an error in Ephesians 1:7? To quote President Biden, “Come on, man.” Who can believe this stuff?

Conversely, we might wonder, if a scribe were deliberately paralleling the statement in Ephesians, why didn’t he also add “according to the riches of his grace”?

This is not a critical answer to the critical text guys. Nevertheless, I am often bumfuzzled by the sorts of arguments that might satisfy them.

---

[i] Colossians 1:14 in the John Wesley New Testament translation: In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins: John Wesley was the brother of Charles Wesley.

Do evangelical scholars believe in the orthodox corruption of Scripture?

In his book The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, Bart D. Ehrman asserts as an historical fact that orthodox Christian scribes altered the New Testament texts in order to conform them to orthodox Christian beliefs. Or, put another way, because of various unorthodox views in early Christianity (such as teaching that Jesus was a man and not God), the scribes might alter original passages in order to strengthen the orthodox teaching against heretical teachings. Boiled to its essence, the idea of “Orthodox Corruption of Scripture” claims that early Christian scribes made changes, that the changes were deliberate, and that these changes were in favor of orthodoxy against heterodoxy (i.e., heresy).

Consider the New English Translation Bible (NET) footnotes concerning some passages of Scripture.[i]

John 7:8-10 in the NET

You go up to the feast yourselves. I am not going up to this feast[s] because my time has not yet fully arrived.” When he had said this, he remained in Galilee. But when his brothers had gone up to the feast, then Jesus himself also went up, not openly but in secret.

NET footnote “s.”

Most MSS (P^66,75 B L T W Θ Ψ 070 0105 0250 ƒ^1,13 M sa), including most of the better witnesses, have “not yet” (οὔπω, oupō) here. Those with the reading οὐκ are not as impressive (א D K 1241 al lat), but οὐκ is the more difficult reading here, especially because it stands in tension with v. 10. On the one hand, it is possible that οὐκ arose because of homoioarcton: A copyist who saw oupw wrote ouk. However, it is more likely that οὔπω was introduced early on to harmonize with what is said two verses later. As for Jesus’ refusal to go up to the feast in v. 8, the statement does not preclude action of a different kind at a later point. Jesus may simply have been refusing to accompany his brothers with the rest of the group of pilgrims, preferring to travel separately and “in secret” (v. 10) with his disciples.

In contrast to “not go up” in modern translations from the critical text, the King James Bible and Textus Receptus says “not yet” – “Go ye up unto this feast: I go not up yet unto this feast…” How does the NET footnote explain the variant? By charging most manuscripts with being the victim of “orthodox corruption of Scripture.” Their thought is that οὐκ/not go is correct, and that the most likely explanation of what happened is “that οὔπω was introduced early on to harmonize with what is said two verses later.”

So, they say, copyists saw a problem in the meaning of the text. They fixed it. Is that not, in effect, Bart Ehrman’s principle of “the orthodox corruption of Scripture”?

Below see two other examples where the notes in the NET Bible indicate that they think that the Byzantine text tradition was infiltrated by “the orthodox corruption of Scripture.”[ii] 

Mark 1:2 in the NET

As it is written in the prophet Isaiah,[d] “Look, I am sending my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way,

NET footnote “d.”

“…the reading of the later MSS [“in the prophets”] seems motivated by a desire to resolve this difficulty [i.e. ‘written in the prophet Isaiah’ immediately followed by a reference to the prophet Malachi]”

1 Timothy 3:16 in the NET

And we all agree, our religion contains amazing revelation: He[x] was revealed in the flesh, vindicated by the Spirit, seen by angels, proclaimed among Gentiles, believed on in the world, taken up in glory.

NET footnote “x.”

“It appears that sometime after the 2nd century the θεός [God] reading came into existence, either via confusion with ὅς [who] or as an intentional alteration to magnify Christ and clear up the syntax at the same time.”

In both the second and third examples, the NET Bible footnote suggests, at the least, a possible intentional change (“motivated by a desire,” “an intentional alteration”) from the original reading to one that is more “orthodox.” 

Do evangelical scholars believe in the orthodox corruption of Scripture? Yes. I would say so, that some of them do, based on these representative examples from the footnotes in the NET Bible.

---

[i] Matthew 19:17 is another example of the charge of intentional alteration by scribes: “There is only one who is good…” (NET). They believe that copyists added “God” to the text (although they generally ascribe it to clarification rather than specifically doctrinal reasons). Many other evangelicals make these same kinds of claims. I am using the NET Bible because their notes are online and handy. Positionally, the NET editors are representative of other evangelical scholars. 

[ii] These editors and others are careful how they state their opinions. They are evangelicals who claim to hold the inerrancy of Scripture. Bart Ehrman is an agnostic and does not need to appear to support the inerrancy of Scripture. This admits a difference in degree between such evangelicals and Ehrman, but not a difference in kind. Saying scribes deliberately altered some places in Scripture for “orthodox” purposes is saying scribes deliberately altered some places in Scripture for “orthodox” purposes – regardless of who says it and what explanation give for it after saying it.

Spirit or Light? Ephesians 5:9

It is to be expected that when we write polemically, we try to put our own position in the best light. Some Bible translations write their text-critical notes to put their position in the best light. While I expect them to believe what they produce, nevertheless it seems that text-critical notes should be aimed more at education than disputation. What am I talking about?

This is often seen in comments on Mark 16:9-20, where it is pointed out that this text is “not in the oldest and best manuscripts.” They most often do not clarify they are only talking about two manuscripts, both of which have quirks at the end of Mark. See, for example, Odd Features at the Ending of Mark in Codex Sinaiticus.

This type of diversion can be seen in the text-critical note on Ephesians 5:9 in the New English Translation (NET) by Biblical Studies Press, L.L.C. The traditional reading is “Spirit,” while most modern translations have “light” instead

• NET: for the fruit of the light consists in all goodness, righteousness, and truth—
• KJV: for the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness and righteousness and truth;

The Textus Receptus and Critical Texts differ in one word.

• CT: ὁ γὰρ καρπὸς τοῦ φωτὸς ἐν πάσῃ ἀγαθωσύνῃ καὶ δικαιοσύνῃ καὶ ἀληθείᾳ
• TR: ὁ γὰρ καρπὸς τοῦ πνεύματος ἐν πάσῃ ἀγαθωσύνῃ καὶ δικαιοσύνῃ καὶ ἀληθείᾳ

Excerpted from the NET Bible®:

Ephesians 5:9 tc Several mss (P⁴⁶ D² Ψ 1175* 1505 M) have πνεύματος (pneumatos, “Spirit”) instead of φωτός (phōtos, “light”) ... Further, the external evidence for φωτός is quite compelling (P⁴⁹ א A B D* F G P 33 81 1175^c 1739 1881 2464 latt co).

Notice how that, according to the NET, “Several mss” have “Spirit” (6 are listed), but the “external evidence for φωτός is quite compelling” – and over twice as many MSS are listed in support of that reading. This could impress the uninitiated that the majority of manuscripts support the reading φωτός/light. Nevertheless, the majority of extant manuscripts actually support the traditional reading – πνεύματος/Spirit. See, for example, the Majority Text of Robinson-Pierpont, which agrees with the Textus Receptus:

ὁ γὰρ καρπὸς τοῦ πνεύματος ἐν πάσῃ ἀγαθωσύνῃ καὶ δικαιοσύνῃ καὶ ἀληθείᾳ —

In my opinion, Critical Text advocates often find their tales in cracks and try to skew the evidence polemically toward their viewpoint rather than educationally pointing out the facts for readers to consider and make a choice. Again, I am not opposed to disputation in polemical fields of discussion. Nevertheless, text-critical notes in Bibles are not the place for such sleight-of-hand magic tricks!

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.

I must work

Q. “Why do modern Bible versions use ‘We’ rather than ‘I’ in John 9:4?”

• KJV: I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work.
• ESV: We must work the works of him who sent me while it is day; night is coming, when no one can work.

A. The short answer is because most modern translations are translating based on the NA-UBS Critical Text, which has the third person plural (ημας) instead of the first person singular (εμε) which is in the Textus Receptus. Most modern translations translate that way (we). Generically all do not, such as MEV, NKJV, and WEB, since they are consulting the TR tradition. This is not a TR issue only. The Majority Text also has εμε, and any Majority Text English translation will have the translation “I” as well.

This variant in John 9:4 (I/εμε vs. we/ημας) demonstrates the problem of exempting text criticism from the light of biblical theology. Who is this “we” that “must work the works of him who sent me”? My first inclination, were I thinking “we” is correct, would be that “we” means the Divine Trinity (i.e., Father, Son, and Holy Ghost). However, that interpretation does not fit how Jesus ties that statement together – with “the works of him that sent me.” Also, the singular nominative “I” better matches the singular predicate “me” (though I don’t consider that conclusive in itself). Using the “we” text as his base, Everett F. Harrison says Jesus was “linking the disciples with himself.” (So, to Harrison, “we” is Jesus and his disciples. The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, p. 1093) Jesus has just said that the works of God will be displayed in this blind man. The “we” of “Jesus and the disciples” together did not work the work, but rather the “I” of Jesus alone. 

• v. 4 “I must work”
• v. 5 “I am in the world”
• v. 5 “I am the light of the world”
• v. 6 “he had thus spoken”
• v. 6 “he spat on the ground” 
• v. 6 “and [he] made clay of the spittle
• v. 6 “he anointed the eyes of the blind man
• v. 7 “and [he] said”
• v. 11 “A man that is called Jesus…”
• vs. 35-37 “the Son of God…Jesus said…Thou hast both seen him, and it is he that talketh with thee.”
• v. 39 “I am come into this world, that they which see not might see”

These disciples, after asking Jesus the question recorded in verse 2, do not again come in sight in this chapter. Jesus is the light of the world who gives this blind man light (sight). “I” represents the theological and contextual fit. “We” does not.

1 John 2:23

1 John 2:23 Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: [but] he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.

In a blog post last November, I asserted that “it is past time that publishers remove the italics in 1 John 2:23 in new printings of the King James Bible. They are unnecessary, and the generally understood meaning of italics in the King James translation makes their presence here in 1 John 2:23 confusing.”

In this post I am primarily reproducing the same material, simply making a stand-alone post just on 1 John 2:23. Because of what we have been told about italics, when a person reads 1 John 2:23 in the King James Bible with an entire clause in italics, a solemn question arises in the reader’s mind. If the words in italics are those added by the translators simply to make a sentence clear (i.e., read correctly in the target language), how could they have added an entire clause?

The King James translators did not create the second half of 1 John 2:23 out of thin air, or from “implied” words. If you check English translations, the majority also have this clause. Early church writers mention it, and it is in Greek manuscripts.

The King James New Testament translation is based on what we call the Greek Textus Receptus. Some differences existed in this verse in Greek manuscripts and even in the TR tradition.

The 1519 Desiderius Erasmus and 1550 Robert Stephanus Greek New Testaments have the following as Ιωαννου Α 2:23 -

πας ο αρνουμενος τον υιον, ουδε τον πατερα εχει.

On the other hand, the 1598 Theodore Beza New Testament has the following for Ιωαννου Α 2:23 -

Πας ο αρνουμενος τον υιον, ουδε τον πατερα εχει ο ομολογων τον υιον, και τον πατερα εχει.

The Latin in Beza’s New Testament reads, “Quisquis negat Filium, nec Patrem habet: qui profitetur Filium, etiam Patrem habet.” Beza’s Greek and Latin texts may be translated to read “Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father; [but] whoever confesses the Son has also the Father,”or, in other words, as the King James Bible has it, “Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: but he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.”

Beza gives the following explanation concerning verse 23:

qui profitetur, ο ομολογων Restitui in Graecis hoe membrum ex quatuor manuser codicum, veteris Latini, & Syri interpretis auctoritate sic etiam affeuto Ioanne istis oppositionibus contrariorum uti quam saepissime. Vide Matth. 10:32.

Beza explains (translated into English, however poorly I may have done so):

“Whosoever confesses,” I restored to the Greek this statement on the authority of four Greek manuscripts, [and] consulting versions of the old Latin and Syriac. John, who was fond of these opposites, used them as often as possible. See Matthew 10:32.

In his explanation, Beza refers to external and internal evidence – Greek manuscripts and John’s typical style of writing.

The King James translators’ use of distinguishing type in the concluding clause of I John 2:23 indicates that they were following a minority TR reading in this verse (which they believed was the correct reading). Distinguishing this clause demonstrates their careful attention to detail in order to accurately convey what they were doing. However, the italics in modern King James printings of the Bible do not convey the intent of the translators to the reader. In modern times readers assume it means a few words added to complete the meaning and smooth out the translation in the target language. Therefore, I conclude the removal of the italics would better serve the modern reader and avoid confusion.

What is Textual Criticism?

Bart Ehrman usually isn’t my “go-to” guy to quote. He is theologically on the other side of the world from me. However, in some of my recent reading I saw that he made a comment I felt worth repeating. I often mention text criticism (textual criticism) and text critics (textual critics). However, I am not sure it has occurred to me to define it, just assuming my readers are familiar with the term! Ehrman replied to a question he received about textual criticism, and, unlike me, began by clarifying what the term meant. Here is what he wrote:

“Textual criticism is the attempt to establish what an author originally wrote whenever there is some uncertainty about it. For example, if Dante wrote the Inferno by hand, and we don’t actually have the hand-written copy he produced, and different surviving copies of the work have differences among them – which one is most like what he actually wrote? That is especially a big issue, for example, for Shakespeare (massively important for Hamlet and other plays) and … well, and the New Testament.”

So, textual criticism in the biblical context is the branch of textual scholarship that attempts to establish what is the original reading of the Bible. The textual critic engages in the work of textual criticism, using evidence in the attempt to recover the original text. This, then, is what these guys are doing, whether or not we agree with their purpose or their research.

[Note: much of biblical textual criticism has now devolved into speaking of determining (rather than the text of the original autograph) the Ausgangtext – “a hypothetical, reconstructed text, as it presumably existed, according to the hypothesis, before the beginning of its copying.” Additionally, we providential preservationists believe we have God’s word and that it does not need recovering.]

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.