A Brief Clip from Texxe Marrs then More Textual Criticism

Webcasting around the world from the desert metropolis of Phoenix, Arizona. This is the dividing line

The Apostle Peter commanded Christians to be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within us Yet to give that answer with gentleness and reverence

Our host is dr. James White director of Alpha Omega ministries and an elder at the Phoenix reformed

Baptist Church This is a live program and we invite your participation. If you'd like to talk with dr.

White call now. It's 602 973 4602 or toll -free across the

United States. It's 1 877 7 5 3 3 3 4 1 And now with today's topic here is

James White Let's jump in the way back machine, let's go back to 1994 as I recall

Austin, Texas Listen to this Mars Taxi there.

I am Dale and it's been good to hear your voice on the radio. Thank you You know, I enjoy seeing your a television program as well and and Wanda sends her best also.

Okay, that's right Tex Mars used to go to our church and what church you going to now

Tex? Well, we have our own group now as you know We live way on the other side of town, but I still have great love for Christ Memorial Charles Bullock as a pastor there he's doing great things and Well, I just want y 'all to continue in your great success.

Okay, and your comments to to the debate here Yes, they'll uh, I just want to compliment.

Dr. Wait on Defending God's Word the King James Bible. I did

Maybe he could let people know how to get his book because I have a copy of it and it's tremendous

But my specific question And one of the things that I'm heartbroken about the new versions and what they've done to pervert

God's Word to three things Specific maybe dr. Waite could comment on is it true?

Dr. Waite that the new versions have totally eliminated The statements by Jesus for example get thee behind me

Satan Another one when Jesus told to take up the cross and follow me

Evidently those are missing from the new versions and also what about the Lord's Prayer?

I I recently read the NIV the NAS the the two versions of the

Lord's Prayer I found out that they were horribly gutted and entire lines were totally missing in the new version

And maybe you could comment on that Okay, be glad to comment and of course, mr.

White would want to comment equally The statement For the

Mars as far as the take up that cross and follow me It is eliminated in one of the

Gospels in the Westcott and Hort type text and that's a long text be an olive text It is however found in some of the others not the

Gospels But at least in that area that one portion it is taken away as far as the

Lord's Prayer thy kingdom come I will be done by certain parts of it that are omitted and there's no question about that either and as far as The other one get thee behind me

Satan that is left out also in that portion of the of the gospel there

And certainly we feel that the King James Bible is superior in the keeping of these areas and these portions that Are in line with the truth and in line with doctrine and the line with correctness in all ways

I Would like to comment on each of those in regards to get thee behind me Satan that is found of course in Matthew chapter 16

Verse 23 in the New International Version This Mars when you were on KXCG last week commenting on the

Lord's Prayer You were referring only to the Gospel of Luke many of the things that you said were deleted are actually in the Gospel of Matthew And we're not actually taken out take up the cross that occurs

Four times the King James Version occurs three times in the modern text. The only place where it's removed is mark 10 21

Because it's not in many of the early manuscripts and interestingly enough It is not in the parallel passages where Matthew and Luke record the same instance as mark 10 21 specifically

Matthew 19 21 Luke 18 22 So there is very good reason why it is not found in many of the modern translations.

I would like to ask mr. Mars Yes, second Timothy 2 24 through 26

Is is indeed found in your Bible where it talks about how we're to address these particular issues of?

how we're to Refute those who contradict us the scriptures says in the Lord's bond servant must not be quarrelsome

But be kind to all able to teach patient when wrong with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition if perhaps

God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of The truth and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil having been held captive by him to do

His will When I sent you information on the errors in Gail's Ripley and Gail Riplinger's book you wrote me a letter back

It began don't write me again unless in sincere repentance You are a devil plain and simple and I understand well

Why mrs. Riplinger does not respond to your ridiculous assertions? Why dignify the lying claims of a servant of Satan?

Would you maybe explain? Why you identify someone as a devil and a servant of Satan in light of second Timothy chapter 2 verses 24 through 26

Because James you are attacking the Word of God Also, because what you have done

For example is name your ministry Alpha and Omega and yet in Revelation 1 1 some of the new versions

Take out the words Alpha and Omega and yet you have the audacity To give your ministry that name and by the way

Well, I just want to I just wanted to correct what you had just said you're confusing people

It's not revelation text. It's not like to answer your question James. Go ahead All right, as far as you're being a researcher

I Received your treatise about Gail Riplinger's book and I noticed you misspelled her name throughout it

You can't spell her name, right? And all you had to do was call her up or call me or call

Any one of a thousand bookstores that have her name if we can't trust the fact that you can't even spell them authors name

Right, how can we trust any other? Supposed scholar in it. By the way, I read your 40 -page sniffle

But it was it was full of errors and I really think that you need to get down And read some books.

Dr. Waite's book. Dr. Hansen Fuller Fuller's book Ripplinger's book excellent books and they're much needed by Christians today.

Well text might apply a few things First of all, it's not revelation one one It's revelation 111 that you're attempting to refer to there and I provided you a full response to that in the letter

Sir, sir. No, I'm sir. I'm gonna answer your question text. I'm answer your question now Revelation 111 not revelation one one and I explained that excuse me.

It's revelation 111 I said revelation one one one revelation 111 Actually, sir on the front of the last letter you sent me where you sent back my fax with red lighting on red

Excuse me text Excuse me,

I'm part of in defense of faith and your text you would have to let James respond now You have to be quiet.

They're going to turn you down Dr. Waite is the guy you debated not me. I'm good.

I'm gonna let you get me and go. Okay I have one question for you

Okay, if I could respond to that first of all, I sent a letter to doctor to text

Mars explaining Responding to his letter to me. He sent my fax back with red ink across it saying he didn't want any more my evil trash

And interestingly enough, he just tried to say he didn't say revelation one one The front of the envelope has revelation one one

Right here. I'll show it to you written on the front not 111 Secondly if I could finish responding to what he was saying

When he says I attacked the Bible. No, I do not. I love God's Word I preach God's Word a couple of you

Dale were were there today as I as I opened God's Word and and spoke that word.

I love God's Word I do not attack it in any way shape or form But I do attack those who would attempt to limit

God's Word to a 17th century Anglican translation and that just simply is Those are the problems with what mr.

Mars said and you'll notice he did not respond to my citations second Timothy 2 24 through 26 to explain why he would identify someone as a

Servant of Satan that is not how Christians are to discuss this issue I have respect for a person who can handle a discussion of this issue on a rational basis without resorting to names

But so mr. Mars obviously is not one of those individuals who can resort deal with this issue What he said about get thee behind me take up the cross

Lord's Prayer in each of those things There are there are you know, we could have a good discussion on those things, but he's an error about many of the things

Now that was like I said 1994 and I I I'll never forget, you know

He kept talking about Revelation 1 1 and he was actually talking about a text of variant Revelation 1 11 that where the majority text actually

Splits and but but the fact matter is text Mars doesn't know anything about the majority text, you know, so I think you couldn't read a

Greek Epistle if it hit him in the face and so he you know, he just would not accept any any correction

He had sent me this letter, you know with all this nasty stuff written all over it You know, you're a you're a you know servant of Satan and all this type of stuff and and then he puts next to Alpha Omega ministries, he puts

Revelation 1 1 and so he calls in he says Revelation 1 1 then when I finally correct him

Well, that's what I said Revelation 1 1 1 There is actually a guy in the in the studio like where rich is now and he was laughing so hard That I turned around and looked through the window and I see two feet in the air

Waving back and forth because he's on the ground on his back laughing so hard at this at this man and and and it's foolishness of His inability to interact with anything that I had just that I had just said to him is just absolutely incredible and by the way,

I didn't didn't respond to it then but I'm gonna be putting this by the way I think sometime over the weekend the blog article that has a clip from the

Ankerberg program It has that audio clip and it also has the page. It has the envelope from from text

Mars with Revelation 1 1 on it I Didn't respond to it at that time, but I mentioned it in the blog article that he was exactly right

When Rippling or first put her book out it had only one name on it GA Rippling er and she did so so that people wouldn't know she was a woman so that she would get a wider audience and so I had to guess at the name

Gail and there's more than one way to spell Gail and I spelled it G a YLE and it's actually

G a I L and That is about the most substantive argument the text

Mars has ever come up with on anything any subject whatsoever Is he even around anymore? I have not heard anything about him for a long long time but there you you probably barely caught it, but I was pointing out the erroneous nature of the

Argumentation he was making by saying the modern versions of taking this out and taking that out and actually when you start looking at what?

They're actually talking about they're either talking about variants that are clearly parallel corruptions between the synoptic

Gospels and They don't know anything about the text Mars obviously doesn't know anything about the manuscript

Evidence that would be behind these things nothing like that but unfortunately that is often how the textual data is addressed and That's that's a shame in of itself because it really deserves far more

Careful examination than these people are willing to to give to it But as it may we are continuing of course with the discussion of textual criticism the program need to press on and to try to get at least through the the symbols of the

Nestle all in text if you are following along if you have The Nestle all in 27th edition.

I'm starting on page 52 if you do not Then hopefully you have downloaded the na 27

PDF And in fact, I'm looking at that I'll be trying to follow that along because I can blow the font up larger in the

PDF than I can in my In my na 27 text itself, and I forgot to bring my large print with me today

So we'll be using the na 27 PDF and the last time we were together we had noted initially

Probably some of the most common Symbols and these are symbols that you need to be able to understand to utilize the

Nestle on text and the rich Variety of information it provides to you We had looked at the superscript circle

Which is the indication that the single word following that is omitted by the witnesses cited we had looked over at Mark to see how that looked what it looked like then right at the end of the program

We were starting to talk about the superscript square and then the the superscript backslash

That indicates that the words clauses or sentences following in the text are omitted by the witnesses

Cited the backslash the superscript backslash sign marks the end of the omitted text

So in other words you use the circle when you've got one word if you've got more than one word You've got a phrase or maybe even a sentence.

That's fairly unusual Then you will use the square and then the backslash will indicate the end and then when you look down at the bottom of page

You'll be able to see which witnesses omit the words that are cited at that point Then we have what sort of looks like half of a capital

T again. It's going to be superscript. It's a half of a bracket Indicating that the word following in the text is replaced with one or more words

By the witnesses cited so obviously when you look down at the bottom of page if it's one word Then you'll have the one word given if it's multiple words

And we'll give you the multiple words that replace the singular word that is used in the text that point and then you have

Not sure how to describe these sort of a quarter bracket. I guess superscripted going to different directions and this symbol indicates that the the words in the following text are replaced with other words by the witnesses cited and it forms somewhat of a bracket around this and Sometimes that that will indicate that the variant you're looking at will have multiple words and they'll be in transposed order and so at that point they'll give you a

Means of knowing what the order of the words in the variant are in the witnesses that are cited

Then you have what looks like a capital T Which is really more of an insert mark and this this again these will be superscript

They're not could be right on the same line with the Greek text This sign marks location where one or more words sometimes a whole verse is

Inserted by the witnesses cited. So in other words now, you've got something in that's

Probably in the text itself It's not going to be included But they're trying to tell you that we feel that the included text which is in these witnesses down here is not

Original since they've not included in the text But they give you that information at the bottom of the page that you know that in certain witnesses

There is material inserted at that particular point in time Then you have the superscript looks a little bit like an

S and then a backwards S That indicates the words following the text are transposed by the witnesses cited.

So there is a word order issue raised there the raised colon indicates a variant form of punctuation which you know, we've we've mentioned in the past there was no punctuation originally and Therefore what would that really refer to?

well, sometimes where you break and how you see a break in the text does have a

Some meaning to it as far as the meaning of the text goes and so that is indicated for you

And then there's some other transposition Citations given to you then is explained to you as well

That if there is more than one kind of a variant Omission insertion transposition, whatever in a verse which

Rarely happens. It's not not common, but it does happen once in a while there will be a 1 or a 2 placed next to the

The symbol to give you an indication so when you look down you can find the proper Citation material in the in the end note and I don't think

I've ever seen a 3 So I think the most you is 2 it's possible But it would be very rare to have quite that many variants within one particular verse and The same thing with the the use of ellipses there for a lengthy

Transposition or variant that is found there on page 53 You're told about the the large bold dot

Which is in the Nestle all and in the UBS they they break each variant into its own paragraph

But again, what's the primary purpose of the na -27 to put as much stuff on the page as you can get on the page?

Really try to cram it in as small space as possible and so instead of breaking each variant off They just run it all together in one paragraph the bottom of the page and so the way to know

Where your next variant starts is with the the bold dot that gives you the verse the verse breaks then you the solid line a

Solid vertical line separates the instances of a variation from each other within a single verse or section of the apparatus

We looked at that last time and then a broken line separates the various alternative readings from each other within a single instance of variation

The the letters TXT italics this sign meaning text us actually

Introduces the list of witnesses supporting the text of this edition so in other words in this one, you'll you'll see first the variant and Then you'll see the witnesses for the text that has been provided in the nestle and the portion itself

Let's see here, let's go on down to the next page You'll have a parentheses where witnesses would show only minor differences are noted in parentheses

We saw that in Marks chapter 16 There were some parentheses used to give you this manuscript pretty much follows this variant

But it has this one one variant itself within it And that'll give you extra information as to the reading that is considered there

Parentheses and close the appropriate superscript sign when the first hand or a later corrector of a manuscript

Witnesses some minor variation So in other words, if you have all if with parentheses and an asterix parentheses closed

That's saying that there is a minor variant very Later firsthand later corrector of a manuscript witnesses some minor variation that is found.

And again, these are not overly regular regular signs you'd be looking at brackets

And I'm moving through these fairly quickly because I want to get into the text itself because the only way to actually see how these work Is to start looking at them and seeing them and they make more sense when you actually see them

Brackets and close conjectures with regard to both the text and its punctuation now That makes a lot of people nervous as as it should in some sentences

Conjecture why would you need to conjecture about something? Well for example textual conjectures are identified either by their author for example when you have

Commentators if it's Probably something coming from another text something along like that.

Sometimes you'll just see CJ for can conjecture and That's some sometimes people have made changes

Beza, for example, Luke 222 makes a conjectural emendation he's conjecturing that the original looked like this, but he's never seen a manuscript that reads that way and I don't believe that there are any main text readings in Either of the

UBS or any 27 that are actually based upon conjectures But they do let you know that there are some of those that are in commentaries and things like that we've already mentioned in the presentation of the witnesses

That when you have an asterisk that indicates the original reading when a correction has been made then you have the

C Indicates a correction made by a later hand, but sometimes also by the first hand

Sometimes somebody went back believe it or not. Sometimes people actually go back and check their own work as a teacher.

I go. Yeah, right But sometimes they would go back and check their own work and and you can see where they have made a correction themselves

One two, and three identify as a correction made by the first second or third corrector page 55 in the text right now

Then you have such things as VL for veria lectio It indicates a reading record in a manuscript as an alternative reading.

So sometimes and You know, we understand why this is remember you're copying somebody else's manuscript and They may be dead

And so you may be looking at a word and you you can't figure it out And so sometimes they were stuck and they would go.

Okay. This is my best reading here But maybe above it they might indicate and it might be this too and they're just not a position for some reason

Maybe this is the only manuscript they have they can copy of knowing which one is there And so since they can't read the original they'll put the two possibilities there

Sometimes that is able to be found and that is indicated with the VL The TXT as a superscript sign not as a full -size sign

Indicates the reading in the text of manuscript which also records an alternative reading So if there's alternatives the main text is given with TXT and then the alternative is indicated with other means

MG is important because remember if you look at some of the graphics I've provided for you

Especially if you're making a change in those things you're writing on vellum you're writing on leather

This is precious material. If you're gonna be making a change, you're gonna be putting it in the margin the problem is also if you make a notation you can put in the margin and Later people copying that Looking at what's in the margin.

Do they include it as a marginal note something that you commented on the text? Or do they put it in the text that becomes important in passages like?

John chapter 5 for example But MG indicates a marginal

Reading as a supplemental reading if there's something indicated at the end of the manuscript a supplement vid vid

That one's important because quite honestly there are times you can't tell and as I said sometimes vid will refer to the fact that It cannot be determined with absolute certainty

But there's enough evidence upon which to at least cite it, but it cannot be cited with its regular full authority

Why would that be well on papyri Sometimes what's written is just difficult to read over the time including many centuries

Things happen the the ink fades the papyri degrades you can have holes develop the edges fall off become brittle and fall off and so There's all sorts of things that can happen

But if you're looking at for example a variant where the difference is between a word that's

Three letters long and a word that's five letters long, and there's a hole in your manuscript

But you know how large this person writes letters anyways and the hole would only allow for three letters

But it wouldn't allow for five letters to put in there Then you can probably tell what the word was in that manuscript

And it's gonna it's gonna be placed in the three -letter category rather than the five -letter category But it's gonna have the VID next to it because the words actually not there

But you can sort of tell or for example if the edge of the manuscripts falls off But you know how wide that column was and again you can count the number of letters

You can cite that manuscript as having left enough space for one particular reading, but not another particular reading see that's how some of those things

Happen in your examination of these particular these particular texts then we have the big

M the the the frac tour M meaning majority text including the

Byzantine coin a text and please note please note They are not the same thing in fact in one of the video clips

I'm gonna post I think over the weekend or early next week one of the two on the blog

I have Dan Wallace actually making reference to the fact that there are about seventeen eighteen hundred differences between the majority text and the

TR and The Byzantine text is almost always the same as the majority text, but remember there are times especially in the

Book of Revelation we're preaching through the Book of Revelation and Sunday mornings right now at PRVC and There was a pretty major variant at the end of Roman a revelation chapter 5 and I had forgotten about it.

I did remember it once I saw it, but I had forgotten about the rather large variant there and Very frequently in the

Book of Revelation the Book of Revelation has the most unique Textual history of any book in the

New Testament no question about it. It just breaks all the norms for everybody else and so It was it was it in that particular text you will and studying

Revelation. You'll always be finding Part of the M text the majority text reads this part reads it.

They've even identified consistent parts of the majority text that go together in their reading of the

Book of Revelation, so you'll see that M Breaking up in the

Book of Revelation into different classes and families But you will see that M as an indicator of the majority text type and it'll be found

Very frequently just a couple others be that you know that they're a little bit difficult sometimes for English speakers to grasp hold of mainly because of the the fact that we have

Little exposure to Latin so a PM for example does not mean a private message in a chat room it means

Paramounte and it is used in place of the M sign the majority sign when the witness the majority text is divided in fairly equal strength between two rarely three variant readings the abbreviation

PM appears then with both majority text readings if One of these readings is an agreement with the tax nap rest does not list support for it the sign

PM appears only once and the support of consistently sided witnesses the second order may be inferred for the tax just as with M variants when the support for TXT is not shown etc.

Etc PC means palsy a few manuscripts So if there's a few manuscripts of a translation for example or others, you'll see

PC Al for Ali Some manuscripts other than those explicitly mentioned for giving reading which differ from the majority text

We saw PM above Rel the rest of the manuscript tradition, etc, etc

Just a few others that I'll mention here such as HT for homeboy tell you time with meaning similar endings

We saw that in first John 3 1 and then you can you can come back to these and look at these as references

When you encounter them if you're doing a fairly in -depth study of a particular passage because you would want to be looking at them and so with that let's

Let's take a look at page 4 of NA27 .pdf

If you have the Nestle all in text 27th edition, this would be pages 148 and 149 and this is the largest of the textual variants in a

New Testament largest in the sense of the amount of text Sometimes you'll hear people talking about major variants.

Well, there's different ways of defining what major means major in the sense of having a real

Impact as far as meaning Then I would say texts like John 118 are major variants, but they're actually only one word there in this instance we're talking about the largest block of text where there is a variation and in fact all of the text on pages 148 and 149 is involved in the variant and That this of course is the what's called the longer ending of Mark now when you think about it when you actually look at G the actual how many how many sentences do we have here?

Well sentences, of course are Defined by modern editors but using

Their particular division we have what here what one two, three four

Five six Seven eight what maybe ten eleven sentences grand total just sort of speed it up there for a second it's if this is the largest one and it is then you are currently looking at the largest block of text about which there is

Any is any question and is the longer ending of Mark? now My purpose here is not so much to argue the issues of the longer ending of Mark As it is to utilize this as a means of examining the textual apparatus and You will notice that on the right -hand page.

There is a fair amount of information That is given to you at this particular point in time

This is actually probably wasn't the best way to start because It looks really really confusing and especially to a person who doesn't read a whole lot of Greek it looks very very confusing because You have a

Insertion of an incredibly long section of Greek about well starts almost exactly halfway through this this paragraph of textual data and If you don't bother trying to translate that just go down to the very end of it

Right before it goes into Latin. You will see the one manuscript codex Washingtonius which contains this

Lengthy Insertion this medium ending that is found to Mark's gospel if you if you take that out

Then and you'll you'll notice that's inserted in verse 14 then this paragraph doesn't look quite as as Shall we say

Intimidating but let's go ahead and go back to the go back to the top and you'll see the listing of Mark 16 9 through 20 and the double brackets and You will see that it is

OM is omitted Omitted by Olive B 304

K sys essay manuscripts that is sahidic manuscripts Armenian manuscripts Eusebius manuscripts according to Eusebius and manuscripts of Hie our

Egyptian origin now You might stop immediately and go hmm, that's not a long list

And you might be tempted to go wow we have 5 ,300 manuscripts of the Greek New Testament stop right there before you do that because you see the immediate thing that people think of when they see this is

They go hmm one two three three three manuscripts three out of five thousand three hundred

That's not many a couple things first of all they're not five thousand three hundred manuscripts the gospel of Mark When people think of manuscripts in the

New Testament they automatically make the mistake and I know I've already addressed this but let me Address it again because a lot of this stuff goes fairly quickly 5 ,300 manuscripts means 5 ,300 full manuscripts.

Yeah, there's full manuscripts, especially after 1 ,000 in the medieval period shirt There are full manuscripts there. There are four manuscripts in you know,

Sinaiticus and stuff like that, but Most are not that way, especially the early manuscripts are much more fragmentary.

They might be just with the Gospels They might just be a Paul John, whatever So you don't have 5 ,300 manuscripts of the gospel of Mark you might have 1 ,500 or 2 ,000 something like that But still people are gonna go.

Wait a minute. Wait, wait, wait, you only have three unseals That read this way.

Why aren't there any papyri? Well, we don't have any papyri of The end of the gospel of Mark at this particular point in time.

It'd be nice to find some But we we don't we don't have any And so you go well

Three is just not enough. Well, if that's all there was if it was just three that didn't have it we could hypothesize things like Final pages falling off and stuff like that.

We could hypothesize that that the the particular manuscripts used for Sinaiticus and Vaticanus At the time

Constantine had lost the last page of The gospel of Mark and therefore that's why this wasn't there and that's right before the last page

You got verse 8 That's where it ends. And so we could just sort of dismiss at that point

But that's not the only thing that this this scan this piece of information in front of us is giving to us

Because of a number of other things you will note that providing 16 9 through 20 and then as soon as you start trying to go down that line

You start seeing all sorts of variants within it You see for example in the fourth line after 16 8 you have sort of a short ending that's found in L and Psi and a couple other unseals and you have all sorts of variants and Interestingly enough the translations split every which direction at this point

Notice notice just you've got the the Syriac with a superscript s cited omitting it and Then on the next line

You have the the Heraklion Syriac in a margin

Mentioned and then you have in the next line C P and H mentioned for a different variant and It's all over the place and There's the same thing happens with the sahidic certain manuscripts sa mss is is certain manuscripts of the sahidic the

Boharic when you have this explosion of Variants going every which direction like you have here.

That is a sure sign of a disruption of the manuscript tradition at a very very very very early point in in the in the transmission of the

Gospel of Mark very very early on and A lot of scholars would say yeah because the way that mark ends without finishing the story

There would be an absolutely overwhelming desire To fill it in and remember let's let's back up the truck here.

This may take me a long time But it's important because this is this feeds into The series

I'm going to be doing responding to the Brian Fleming stuff on the blog and that is When mark is writing the gospel is already known

When Marcus mark is writing he's he's writing and he knows that the apostolic proclamation has already been made

It's been around for decades. All the Christians know this. Yes, and So you see the people who see this if the story stops before when they want it to stop

Which is all the post -resurrection appearances and everything else. They say something's missing

And so we're gonna fill it in and So it was filled in and at least just glancing at the thing here at least three or four different ways

Codex, Washingtonius has its form and the longer ending we have here in a little short length ending That you find in LM sigh and some sahidic manuscripts and Boheric manuscripts and and then you know

Some that's squish all that together and have variants and so on so that the fact that there's this explosion of variance

Tells us that there was there was a desire for something more past verse 8 and Some people say well, yeah, that's the longer ending.

That's that's part of the text Well, if that was there from the beginning, then why did this happen? Why do you have not just in olive and beef?

200 years down the road 250 years down the road, you know 325 or so if you know

Where you put mark about 270 years down the road, why do they not have it and why do these the

Armenian the Armenian Yeah, Jacob Arminius, yes the

Armenian it's a you try to finally say Armenian you can that can't even Sarah certain manuscripts of the

Armenian why Why do they also likewise not have this at that early period of time?

There just doesn't doesn't make any sense no other No other manuscripts or books

Suffer from this same type of situation if the longer ending was original Then the longer ending would not have room for all these other things that have developed over the course of time and Since the gospel had already been proclaimed and the resurrection had already been proclaimed and there would be lots of people go hey, we know the rest of story and that rest of story needs to be there and so there would be a basis from which they would draw to create this longer ending and so when we look at the the the subject here

And again, my argument isn't so much to discuss the the arguments about well, you know you know the third line gives you the rest of the text and you've got

AC DW theta family 13 the majority text type, etc, etc. Yeah, it does but That doesn't explain the existence of all these other endings.

It doesn't explain the deletion. It doesn't explain the translations. It doesn't explain Codex Washingtonius, it doesn't explain the variations within this

It doesn't explain the fact that the language used by mark is very different In the rest of the gospel has found these last

Few verses last 11 verses and longer ending so on so forth and the only main reason

I put this here was so that you could take a look at it and Go, wow, this can get really confusing

I mean look at the number of double brackets and the number of superscript numbers and everything else There's there's a lot of variation the vast majority of the pages of the

New Testament looking at aren't gonna look anything like this At all, there's just there's just not that level of a variation

We sort of started with the worst one If you if you keep going after this, then you can't be scared away in essence is is sort of what?

We're looking at here, but you can see anyways Sort of the outline of how you can put a whole lot of information into a pretty small space

Utilizing the mechanism of the Nestle all in text I like I said, it wasn't my intention to walk through the whole thing about mark 16 9 to 20

But that just gives you an indication. I think it'd be a little bit easier to look at variants that are not quite as challenging as that and so in fact, let's

Let's let's go to the We'll come back to the next let's go let's go to the sixth page of the

PDF page 6 Which is from 1st Timothy chapter 3. This one is a very very important Text a very important variant.

It's over on the right hand side There are some interesting texts we can look at on the other side too, but we're trying to avoid them

Let's look over on the right hand side toward the bottom of the page here you have the the great variant of 1st

Timothy 3 16 and the text you will notice gives you a

Formatting in verse 16 that places it in the form of poetry That is because many scholars believe that when when he says this

Great is by common confession great is the the the mystery of godliness

What you have following this is an early Confessional statement of the church may be

Hymnic in in a sense because people have always known if you want to remember something put it in a in a poetic form or in a musical form because you're going to remember it if it's set in that way and The very first word of the poetic section in the

Nessie Allen 27 edition is Haas Haas which means he who was manifest phaneraho in sarks sarky flesh

He was manifest in the flesh and Then justified by spirits and and gazed upon by angels also as You know

The variant we if you'll notice right before Haas There is a symbol now go back to 16.

You'll see the word Chi and then right before the next word you have the indicator of A variant here where you have a different word being used in certain witnesses

So if we go down to verse 16, it's the third line of the variants at the bottom of the page You will see that same symbol followed by the variant and it's a fairly minor variant found in The original hand of D 1175 and a few others

But then You'll notice that there is a second variant that goes along the same line and it has a little dot placed in it and that's the one that we want to we want to look at and that is we have

Haas is the main reading and In the Nessie on the evidence for the main reading will be given at the end of the variant

So if you you look at the last line of the third chapter variants there, which is the second last line on the page you'll see

VG and then MS and then the the broken divider bar and then you have

TXT and that gives you the evidence for The textual reading of the Nessie on 27th, which is the original hand of Aleph The original hand of a the original hand of C FG 33 365 a few others

And then you have a few variants from there and two early church fathers that are cited but as you probably know, this is the difference between God was manifest in the flesh they asked and he who was manifest in the flesh the reading here is he who and Then right above that you will see that the other two variants.

There's actually three variants here In in some of the Latin manuscripts and in D Which is a

Greek Latin manuscript and the Latin very strongly influenced the Greek You you have ha the neuter instead of Haas the masculine

That's one of the variants. They're not a overly major variant, but anyway, then you have the word that us

God and that is given by the Corrector of all if the corrector of a the corrector of C the corrector of DX is second -hand

C and second -hand D PSI 1739 1881 the majority text and manuscripts of the

Vulgate is what that line of Reading is found there now.

I Forgot to bring it up and it's gonna take me a second to do so But if you will go back to the blog for a moment, and I know that many of you read this

Via a long time later, so I'll try to give you the the specific date so we can take a look at it once again, but if you'll go back to the blog to February of 2007 and It's not any longer on the front page if you're listening live today so you're gonna have to scroll down to the bottom of the page and You're gonna have to go to the missed it when it was there check the archives then go to February of 2007 and then go scrolling because I've been going

YouTube nuts and there's all sorts of pretty stuff to look at there, isn't it wonderful and finally we get down to Graphics related textual critical series under the 6th of February You will see a beautiful column from Codex Sinaiticus, but we're not looking at that We're looking at the two little graphics two tiny graphics in the

February 6th entry graphics related to the textual critical series I cannot tell you how long

I sat up getting you these two graphics folks. I Think I think

I went through about two hours worth of work to get you those two graphics Yeah, I could have gotten you some cheesier ones

But I wanted something that looked good and something that looked consistent so you could have a good idea of what we're looking at here

Why? Well, here's here's yeah, someone has just posted in channel the actual numbering it's item idea 1734 in the blog if you can look on that basis, too, but here's

Here's what we're looking at and here's one of the problems This is one of the drawbacks, but it you know, the the writers are assuming scholars basically are using this when you look at that variant in the

Nessie Olin text and You look at what's in the text you see Haas and then you look down and you see the

Haas You go. Yes, there's a there's a lot of difference between those two. I mean, okay, the

Haas ends with Omicron Sigma and that's what it's what's there and so the thought is yeah, that's still a big thing and and we could if we wanted to dig up all sorts of sermons and writings from King James only advocates just spinning this thing and talking about how how people are trying to deny the deity of Christ and Taking out the deity of Christ all the rest of stuff.

What I want you to see here is what the difference would have been in the unsealed text between Haas and the

Haas and That's what those two little graphics give you and they happened in my screen.

Anyways to be lining up right above one another The first graphic gives you the awesome remember the

Haas is one of the Nomina sacred one of the sacred names it was abbreviated

So it was just Theta and then final form Sigma which looks like a like a capital C with a line above the two

Haas would be Omicron Sigma final form Sigma, which again looks like the capital C And what

I'm giving you here are examples of what they would have looked like out of Codex Alexandrinus because there's the

Codex Alexandrinus had a very good scribe who wrote very very cleanly so Vaticanus and Sinaiticus as well as well

But notice those two graphics There is not some huge difference between the two now.

I got the cleanest clearest Versions of this that I could find

The cleanest versions of these that I could that I was able to pull out is what

I gave to you here In this particular instance, but remember you this is a professional scribe on vellum

This was a project that obviously had money behind it And so it had good quality vellum a good quality writer

But the fact is the earlier papyri manuscripts just don't show this kind of penmanship they don't have the same kind of material to write on and so again

It seems to me that especially if you were copying somebody else if you were copying somebody else and There had been some smudging of the manuscript if you're copying somebody else and you don't have an opportunity to ask them something

That to try to read a huge conspiracy Into this and especially think that think of this that line over top of the word

What if that's close to the word immediately above it Remember you're writing in lines here.

I mean look at just just look at the the really nice scan that I provided you there of Sinaiticus right next to these

Very high quality, but even then anything that is above those lines is very close to the line above it and So you're writing along the difference between the two the the

Whether you have the ass or Haas does not change the meaning in the sense of the grammar both make sense and so the only difference you have between the two is the line across the theta and the line above Now remember we're talking about things like papyri which has lines all over the place leather which has lines all over the place and if time has passed if you know it might have been that the leather that the original scribe was writing on was very clean and There is no question about he wrote what he wrote but over time

Dust settles in it and a line that was clean before a line in the leather was clean before Collects something in it and now what was that written there originally?

Is that how it could have gone from Haas to Theos or the other direction and I remember reading in Bergen in Dean Bergen a discussion of What Sinaiticus actually reads there and he was saying in under certain light

There are those who are certain that it reads Theos In the original hand and and that it's been

Corrected away from that and and there there can be arguments about that. But the point of all of this is

I Want to know that first of all, I Want to know what the manuscripts read

Secondly, I am NOT going to use first Timothy 316 as a primary proof text of the deity of Christ. I can't

Not if I'm honest to myself. I Can't do that Because there is a question as to whether it says

Theos or Haas Thankfully we can know that we should not hide this information from people.

I Reject completely the mindset of people who say don't tell anybody about this because it might make them doubt things

You know, I understand that I understand the mentality But it is it is a dangerous mentality because it ends up meaning that you have to give the text to some some priestly

Cult in essence, it's going to control it and then you have to believe whatever they have to say and That's not a good thing at all

But there is no reason to insert into a text like this some huge grand

Conspiracy theory When the reason there would be a difference between these two readings is apparent to us if we will but transport ourselves back to the original context to the original form to the unseal text and see what the differences are and I gotta admit probably one of the reasons that there are

There's not more discussion of this kind of stuff Is up until recent times it wouldn't have been all that easy in the context of the church to illustrate this stuff

Just think of what we're doing right now how absolutely almost unheard of in church history What we are doing right now is

I am sitting in Phoenix, Arizona I see people all across the United States and outside the

United States in my chat channel who are listening to me live right now We're all looking at the same color images in digital form

Some people are snowed in right now. It's about 70 degrees where I am and sunny we're in different geographical locations were spread about all over the the the world literally and Yet, we're all able to look at the same thing if I were teaching in a class situation

I would be projecting this on the wall in a digital format and I can understand until you could do this kind of thing at least have a overhead.

It would be pretty hard To have meaningful discussions this outside of just simply academia

But folks how many times have I said this what we can use for good the enemy can use for evil and The enemies of our faith are utilizing the very same technology that allows us to speak about the truth here to present falsehoods about the same stuff and So we have to know these things

You say man, you've gotten into some really complicated stuff day It wasn't I'm sure we've got some people aren't really even listening anymore right now

Waiting for me to get done with this stuff because they're just as it's over my head. It's too much But the

Muslims are talking about this stuff You know Shabir Ali is giving lectures where he mentions a variant that's found in one

Latin manuscript How would you find out? How would you be? How would you verify these things?

Well, we can just always call into the dividing line. Well, maybe not That that that freedom may not be ours for forever in the future

And so we need to be able to look into these things be able to see why the variance arose

We can certainly see why the variance arose there When we look at the textual data that's cited here we certainly see that the the original hands of each of these manuscripts now and and to be honest with you that That's a little bit difficult to determine how do you know that I Mean it would be very easy

To change Haas to Theos. It's the addition of two lines. How do you change it from Theos to Haas?

erasing stuff's a whole lot different than just adding something and While sometimes we can very clearly tell the difference between the inks that were used by different People writing let's face it the lines that would be provided here would be so small that it would be somewhat difficult to necessarily tell and So I don't

I do not believe in any way shape or form that it's impossible that Theos is the original reading But we have to be straightforward and say there's a variant here

It could have been Haas. Haas does not result in some Gibberish, it makes perfect sense and Give all that information now, and here's here's where people sometimes lose their balance

They might say yeah, but people can misuse that information. There is no truth that cannot be abused

By the mind that wants to believe falsehood Are we gonna stop speaking the truth just because of that?

Yeah, it bothers me when I see people misusing this field of textual criticism and things like that sure of course

But that doesn't mean that we stop talking about just because they're gonna be people who are gonna take these things and misuse them

We instead have to know them well enough to correct the misuse. See that's where it's a that's where it comes from and so we need to study these things we need to be prepared to deal with these things and We have been given tremendous amount of information in for example the

Nessie Allen text to be able to Answer those things so what we'll be doing. I'm gonna try to wrap things up and start taking some phone calls

How does that sound on a Tuesday because I know I'm not gonna be here Thursday of next week So we need to start trying to wrap this thing up So we'll be looking at the variant in the

John chapter 8 which is page 5 of NA 27 PDF Another one of the larger ones and try to start wrapping things up here on the textual criticism series.

Thanks for listening We'll be back next time god bless Crossroads let this moment away

We need a new Reformation Today The dividing line has been brought to you by Alpha and Omega Ministries if you'd like to contact us call us at 602 973 460 to or write us at PO box 3 7 1 0 6

Phoenix, Arizona 8 5 0 6 9 You can also find us on the world wide web at a omen org

That's a o m i n dot o RG where you'll find a complete listing of James White's books tapes debates and tracks