What Do Jory Micah and Ijaz Ahmad Have in Common? A Textual-Critical Heavy Dividing Line

Ran in here, forgot a book. It's in my bag. You know where I put my bag? It's in the very back of the bag. It's Bart Ehrman's book. I left it in the other room. Sorry, too many things going on. Actually, I think I entered a password I shouldn't have entered.

And now my poor little computer here is going. You know, there's only a few people in the audience who can understand this, but it's running like an 8088. Yeah, yeah, that bad. Thank you very much. That's why you don't do this alone, because if you do it alone, you just walk out and it's sort of dead air, dead camera.

Is that what it'd be? I know dead air and radio, but dead camera, I guess. I don't know. Hey, welcome to the program today. We've got a lot to get to, and this is the last program. Are you playing anything?

You haven't talked to me about doing anything. Dividing lines. I'm leaving, remember? I'm going bye-bye. Got some stuff going on? It's all good? Okay, all right. Heading for Brisbane, Sydney in Australia and Wellington, New Zealand.

Do not get back until the 7th of November, which for me will be like a 36-hour day or even, no, longer than that. It'll be ridiculous. It'll be like this massive, huge day. But Friday will be like gone, like just a few hours long.

Anyway, that's what happens when you play with international date lines and 14-hour airline flights and stuff like that. But heading down there, looking forward to seeing the Saints down there. It's been a while since we have been in Australia.

Really looking forward to the dialogue with Abdullah Kunda on how to have peace with God, a Christian-Muslim dialogue on that subject. That should be extremely useful and helpful and so on and so forth.

So this is it until then, for me anyway. And got some interesting stuff that no one else is gonna be touching with a 10-foot pole. Nothing, absolutely nothing whatsoever. How did that get up there? I have no earthly idea.

Nothing to do with politics. Don't have any interest in saying anything more. I guess that one program, just all sorts of people just all wanna talk about politics. I don't. So I've done said my piece, as they say.

And if that's not enough for you, well, then maybe you like politics a whole lot more than I do. Most people do. Anyway, what I wanted to get to today, and as you can see, I'm still trying to get everything set up properly on the computers, which just, again, are just moving very slowly.

Textual Criticism, John 9, and John 20:28

This is gonna be a very strange conjunction. My intention, when I got up this morning, was to do a deep TC program, textual critical program. Now, I realize there are some of you that are reaching for the quit button right now.

Okay. But don't for just a moment, okay? Hear me out. Some of you saw the video that I posted a couple days ago, where I responded to Ijaz Ahmed on about a seven-minute video that he had put up where he claims to prove conclusively that the New Testament is unreliable.

Conclusively. Now, those are big words. And that the text is based upon conjecture. And then he tied that in with Surah 4, 157. They have nothing but conjecture, speculation. And so I put up a video, and he was dealing with a textual variant right at the end of chapter nine in the Gospel of John, which is a textual variant.

I've been seeing, I haven't had time. It's busy week, okay? You know, when you're getting ready to go out of town for 18 days, not out of town, out of the country for 18 days, you got a few things you gotta take care of.

And so in the process, I stumbled across comments made on Ijaz's page in regards to his video. Now, there were immediately some Muslims that said, wow, Ijaz got his head handed to him on a platter with my response, which I found interesting.

I'm sorry, I'm really not up on the... These lights are really bright. Man, they are bright. I'm gonna be sitting here like this the whole day and I'm gonna have a headache really quick. So, oh, thank you.

Life is better now. And I looked like I hadn't seen the sun in two weeks, for two months, two years. I was just all washed out there. I was like, ah, who is that guy up there? Anyway, that and the squinting is probably a bad thing.

Anyway, oh yeah, this computer just said, 568 files added to your Dropbox. I understand, computer, you're working hard. I said, yeah, we should have fired you up earlier. Anyway, so I'm reading these comments and it seems, I can't keep up with all the inter-Muslim rivalries or people who like or dislike other Muslims or stuff like that.

I don't know exactly who's on what side and all the rest of that stuff. So I'm not sure if some of that's involved in this, but in the original video, Ijaz dealt with two things, John 9 and John 2028.

Those two things should be separated out because, well, they never should have been put together in the first place, to be honest with you. One is a genuine textual variant in the sense that it addresses the issue of viability.

Now, what does that mean? Well, when we talk about a textual variant, there are viable and non-viable textual variants. If we have a single 13th century manuscript that has an exceptionally unusual reading in it, I'm only talking New Testament here, has an exceptionally unusual reading in it that has never been seen before in the Greek manuscript tradition, that manuscript is not like 1739 or 1881 where we can tell that while these are after 1000 AD, the scribe is copying from a very, very, very early manuscript, 2nd, 3rd, 4th century.

It's not like that. And it has no versional, V-E-R-S-I-O-N-A-L, versional, in other words, there's no translations into other languages, whether it be Coptic, Sahitic, Boheric, whatever, Latin, any of the early translations, there's no support there.

That's not a viable textual variant. In other words, there isn't any chance that it actually represents the original. And so a large portion of textual variants in the New Testament are not themselves viable as alternatives, as being possibly the original text.

And so when we look at John 9, 38, as I discussed it in the video, and I'm not gonna go back over all that, I would say if you want, I mentioned to people on Twitter and Facebook, if you wanna get the most out of today, watch that ScreenFlow video first, because that'll give you a lot more information.

The John 9 text with the worship of Jesus. Now, again, proskuneo is not a common Johannine term. Jesus receives proskuneo in the Synoptic Gospels. You know, if Muslims are gonna try to argue that Jews never received worship, what set of arguments are you gonna use here?

Y 'all seem to just wanna pick and choose from which one or the other. If John's the last, why are you even worried about this? I mean, even Bart Ehrman recognizes it's John's intention to present Jesus as the us.

I mean, this is sort of obvious. So I've just never heard anyone make John 9, the end of chapter 9, the focus of John's presentation of the deity of Christ. It's not. I mean, you know, you got John 1, 1, you've got John chapter 10, you've got John chapter, we can start going through John and the references are too many to even count.

But I saw some people actually disputing with the Ijaz as to whether that's even a textual variant based on their English translations. And I'm like, whoa, whoa, wait a minute. If many Christians are ignorant of textual critical issues, Muslims much more so.

The text notes in an ESV or an NIV or whatever are relatively few and certainly do not even represent what you would have. I don't have a UBS text just sitting nearby, at least not that I'm aware of or can grab quickly, but most English translations won't even provide the number of variants that UBS does.

And UBS text is primarily focused upon providing variants that could be directly relevant to the translation into other languages of the New Testament. And certainly none of them get anywhere close to the number of variations noted in the Nessialan 28th edition.

This is 27, but big deal. So your English translations only giving you a small number just because it doesn't mention a variant doesn't mean there's not a variant there. And I even saw in one of the people that was responding to Ijaz.

In other words, I'm agreeing with Ijaz on this part where his friends or his people writing to him are just don't understand what they're talking about. There is no question that there is a variant and it's an important variant at the end of John 9.

No one disputes that. Well, no one, I certainly don't dispute that. No serious biblical scholar is going to dispute that. I mean, facts are facts, it's right there. You just look it up, it's right there.

And I find it to be a particularly relevant one. One of the guys that was responding to saying, oh, but there's that, all these minuscule manuscripts contain it and all these things is basically making a majority text argument.

The reason it is a very significant variant, even though it's a very small number of manuscripts that do not contain it is because they happen to be the earliest exemplars, the earliest examples of at least two of the major manuscript families.

In other words, it's representing a wider geographical distribution than if it was just the Alexandria manuscripts versus the Byzantine or something like that. Codex Washingtonianus does not have it. That's relevant.

Now, when you have that smaller number of manuscripts that don't have it, then you have to start looking for things like Homo Etelyatan and things like that. Would there be something about the text that could lend to its being accidentally omitted?

And that's one of the issues you have to examine in regards to that particular variant, but it has to be noted. And it is there. That does not make the New Testament unreliable. And this is one thing that I think Ejaz really needs to seriously give contemplation to.

Ejaz is doing a tremendous amount of reading in textual critical information. That's obvious. He can't do that same amount of reading in textual critical information about the Quran. And he knows that.

The programs that we have, the databases, the number of manuscripts, you just can't do that with the Quran. And the Quran's a younger document. It has a much less complex transmission history prior to printing.

So one of my, you've all heard me say it before, but I am like the man searching for the honest person with the lamp in the darkness. I'm searching for the consistent Islamic apologist who will apply the same standards to his own text that he applies to the New Testament and the Old Testament.

And in this particular instance, I've yet to encounter somebody like that, especially when it comes to this. And I think Ejaz has some serious issues in this area. He happens to be right about John 9, wrong about the conclusion that this means somehow the presence of textual variation somehow, you know, that's the Bart Ehrman thesis, but Bart Ehrman won't defend the theology behind that, which is if God inspired it, then he would never allow any textual variance at all.

Hell, there are textual variants in the Quran. Everybody I've debated on that. Well, everybody, well, Yusuf Ismail, Shabir Ali, they've all admitted it. I could guarantee you some of the Muslims that I've debated would never admit that.

Now that I think about it, didn't necessarily come up with them though. But it's a known fact. I mean, we can show them to you. We can put it up on the screen. Here's what this manuscript says. And so from Bart Ehrman's perspective, though he's loathe to talk about this because he has such disrespect for Islam, that remember, I've got it on here someplace, but remember when he was asked, why haven't you written a book about Muhammad in the Quran?

It's because I want to stay alive. That was meant to be a joke, but I would be shocked if any of our Muslim friends took that as being a compliment in any way, shape or form. Anyway, so John 9 set aside, we need to set that apart.

The other part of his video was about John 20, 28. And I had never heard this approach before. And there's a reason for it. It's really vacuous and bad. But the documentation of it being really bad will help a lot of people to understand something about the history of the New Testament, the history of the manuscripts, and how you do textual criticism.

And I'm gonna try to do my best to explain that and make that understandable to folks because I think it's important. And what does any of this have to do with Mrs. Peterson, also known as Jory Mikan?

I'm sure she just really does not like being called Mrs. Peterson, but she's married to a man named Peterson. So that makes her Mrs. Peterson. When I was growing up, that was Mrs. Peterson. And so, anyway, you know, did you actually, you didn't turn the microphone on for that.

Okay, good. That's probably best. Yeah, I've never really listened closely to just how much you can actually hear, but someone may find a way of running a filter and pulling all this stuff. I'm sure Jack Bauer could do it.

No, what's her face? What's her name? The lady that could do anything with computers in 24. Chloe, Chloe. Chloe could pull it up. Chloe could tell everybody. Yeah, yeah, yeah, something. Or your phone or your sunglasses, something.

Yeah, she'd find a way. That's Chloe. Anyway, I miss Chloe. Because Chloe reminded me of one of my favorite cartoon characters, Eeyore. Eeyore. Isn't there a connection between Chloe and Eeyore? I see one.

I see a very close one. Anyway, Jory Micah, aka Mrs. Peterson. Red goatee. Is Dr. Lee taking calls today? Not from you or anybody else. I guess you started getting contacts about this. And so I just asked Summer, I said, has Jory Micah said something about this?

And like 30 seconds later, beep, there it was. So I was using Summer as Facebook Google, I guess you might call it. But sometime recently, popped this thing into, is this Twitter? No, no wonder I couldn't find it on Twitter.

This is Facebook. On Facebook. I believe that the original Bible was inspired by God. But I think that patriarchal translators and theologians have hijacked it and changed things and left things out to exclude and marginalize women.

Well, there you go. It always, it always happens that when your biblical argumentation just isn't all that convincing, you know, it just, you can't, you know, in the non-debate that I did with Steve Tassi, and I finally had the opportunity of doing what he refused to do, which was to actually explain John chapter six, you know, there are just certain times you just let the word of God go.

And it just, wow, it overwhelms people when you just let it say what it needs to say. And, you know, when it comes to proving the deity of Christ and things like that, you just, the word can just be absolutely overwhelming.

Yeah, not so much for Jory and Micah's pet peeves. And so what you eventually have to start doing is, well, you know, I believe the Bible was inspired, but, you know, it's been changed. What does she mean by this?

What is a patriarchal translator? Does that mean we need to have more women translators? That they would have gotten it better? We have the original languages. Why would translators be relevant? Theologians, they've hijacked it and changed things.

How do you change things? You know, this kind of just general, vague accusation, you know, just throwing stuff out there, very common for, you know, the folks on the road out of the faith, out into the outer reaches, the Rachel Held, she's just land of liberalism, which is another religion, basically.

But what's the connection here? Well, I'm sure that this could possibly cause Ijaz some physical difficulties, but yes, I'm connecting him with Jory Micah. Sorry, Ijaz, I'm really not trying to offend you here.

But in both instances, you have an overriding tradition that ends up causing a person on different levels to question the reality, accuracy, and the sufficiency of scripture. It is her liberalism and away from a Christian worldview and biblical worldview and so on and so forth, off into the secular wasteland of dead liberal religion.

And that's where a lot of people already are, and that's where they're headed. For Ijaz Ahmed, it is, of course, Islam. And it is his recognition, I think, of the fundamental problem that Islam faces.

Islam, in its founding document, cannot avoid dealing with the Al-Al-Anjil, the people of the gospel. Cannot avoid dealing with the Al-Kitab, the people of the book. The Kitab is there. The Anjil, the Torah, they are Nitzal.

They're sent down. They contain light and guidance. They have to deal with this. And the problem is that it's plain as the nose on anybody's face that the author of the Quran provides no meaningful interaction with the New Testament, especially as it exists today.

There's just, there's no interaction. There's no understanding of the argument of Hebrews or Colossians or John or anything. And they can't just get rid of it because not only are we told to judge by what's contained therein, but then you've got those nasty little problem of the prophecies of Muhammad.

And if you're gonna go to John 14 to try to come up with the Parakletas, actually being the Periklutas, being Ahmed, you can't just get rid of John. You can't just pick and choose. And so that's the problem.

And Ijaz has realized, well, the best way to approach this is to go after the text because the vast majority of Christians don't know anything about it. And you know what? He's exactly right. Vast majority don't.

Now we've been doing our best for a very long time to try to change that around here. We've done entire programs on a single textual variant that no one else was talking about. So we're doing our best.

But by presenting this theory of his and doing it in the language of conclusively, when you say this proves something conclusively, you are setting yourself up for, and we did that already. Noted, now, again, Ijaz has some medical issues.

I don't know the nature of them. He hasn't shared them with me, but he has some medical issues. And I was willing to hold this off, but when he posted an article, specifically, again, sort of throwing a little something my direction, and I saw all the comments were being made and the interaction he was having with other folks, it's an important issue needs to be dealt with even before we leave.

So I thought, well, let's use the last dividing line to deal with this and then pick it up when we get back. In his article, he says, nonetheless, the second argument I received was that no other variant of John 2028 existed post P66.

Although I did point out that this was the case in Codex Beze, as minor of a variant as it is, the challenge that not one variant exists has thoroughly been debunked. For those unread, the variant was eventually edited by a scribe.

And I assume he's referring to me, but he missed my point. What I said in the article is when it comes to what to put in, well, let me show you. You've got the keynote. Okay, all right. I just realized that this is way zoomed, way too big.

Let's boom. There we go. Okay, this folks is a biblical manuscript. I love biblical manuscripts. I love papyri. They're a gift from God. I know most of you think that makes me very weird. I'm weird in many ways.

And my weirdness is a benefit to you. And by the way, may I say once again, I'm going to be responding to Ijaz. But Ijaz, I pray for you. I want you to come to know Christ. I want Christ to comfort you in your sickness, to restore you to health and to draw you to himself.

And so I want my words to you to be seasoned with grace. And I ask the listening audience to pray for Ijaz Ahmed as well. And to not respond to him, unfortunately, as some people do with anger and vitriol, but to show the love of Christ.

And even in disagreement, Ijaz, we care for you. Here's the argument. And I thought it was fascinating. And that's why I rushed to do the video that I did, even though we're in the midst of a lot of preparation here.

All right, let's minimize that for a second. Yeah, I'll tell you when to bring her up again. Papyri is not the world's most durable substance. It's a lot more durable than you might think. Most of our books will have turned to complete dust in 1800 years.

But thankfully, in the dry desert heat of Egypt, in areas like that, Syria, in some areas of Syria, not all, Iraq, places like that, you can have lengthy preservation of organic material because papyri is obviously from the papyrus plant.

It's leaves the papyrus plant. And unlike the Quran, this is one of the major issues that when we get back, if Ijaz is up to it, it'd be good to have a discussion on the program about these things and other things.

Unlike the Quran, from especially the middle of the third century with Diocletian and then the adoption of a empire-wide Christianity, you have tremendous persecution for at least 63 years there. And despite certain Notre Dame scholars who I don't know ever even mentioned this particular papyri that I was looking at even before my debate with Bart Ehrman, where we have documents that provided from Rome, from the Roman authorities of the sacking of a church and how many documents they took and destroyed from that particular church.

That wasn't happening with the Quran. Well, not in the same way. We do have the Uthmanic revision. That's a whole nother issue that is very, very, very important and very relevant here, but we can't get into it today.

The point is that the fact that we have any papyri that date before the peace of the church in 313 is, I view it as a gift from God. It's a wonderful thing. And P66 is one of the most important of these.

Now, I noticed that Ijaz is enamored with the, well, hyper-skepticism. And Ijaz, you just, you have to understand, I really doubt that when it comes to the dating of Quranic manuscripts, you engage in hyper-skepticism.

I really doubt when it comes to the examination of the London Quran or the Paris 328a or even the Su 'ana manuscripts. I doubt that you engage in hyper-skepticism. I haven't seen what you've said about that, but I would be interested.

Because if you're consistent, then you're gonna be taking the absolutely latest dates for Su 'ana and all those. There's no way that you with a straight face could buy into any type of pre-Uthmanic date for any Quranic manuscript at all, given the sources that I saw you using to try to move the papyri as far away from the New Testament time period as possible.

Again, it's this really constant problem that Islamic apologists have of being fair and using equal scales. If you're gonna go with the most, nah, nah, nah, that's even into the third century, fourth century type of argumentation regarding these papyri, then you're gonna have to do the same thing with Quran.

Right? And if not, why not? P66 and P75, along with P52, which is just a fragment, though an important fragment, from John chapter 18. I've shown you P52 many, many times. P52 is the small credit card size manuscript.

Let me, hello, keynote. Okay, I'll go up to here. Let me see if I can grab it real quick here just for an illustration, real quick. Well, of course, right now, well, you don't wanna do that. Let's watch it opening the file, especially because I can hear the fan running.

When the fan kicks in, that means the CPU is going, oh no, not again. I've never seen this thing open so very slowly. Wow, man, that was painfully slow. We do have, hopefully, it won't even let me scroll.

Okay, this brief pause brought to you by the fact that I've done something to my, this is a 2011 Mac. It will be replaced fairly soon. And it's just going slowly. Okay, here's, here she is now. Here's, that should be in the same window area.

Here's P52. And it is a credit card size scrap, but it's probably the earliest section of, the New Testament that we have, at least currently. And when you think about it, there's one of two ways of looking at something like this.

This contains just a portion of John 18, 31 through 34, and then 37 to 38. It's written on both sides. Like I said, it's about the size of a credit card. Yeah, you get bigger. Now, there's two ways of looking at it.

Here, by the way, is what it looked like if you had the text wrapped around it. And stuff like that. The hyperskeptic looks at it and says, we don't know what was around it. We can't tell. How useful is that?

Up until this time period, the vast majority of people looked at it and said, wow, I mean, 125 AD, maybe 150 at the latest. That's amazing to have this kind of evidence of the existence of the book of John at that time.

For many reasons. One of the main reasons is the average, for any work written around this time period, on average, you have five to 900 years before the first copy of almost any other type of book that's written at this time.

Historical works, works of philosophy, whatever. Five, 900 years. Something like this, absolutely unheard of. It's amazing. It really is amazing. And the fact that it contains the same text, it's not some different text.

It's not a book about somebody other than Jesus. It's the gospel of John. I mean, it's not something else. You know, these ideas of all these redactions and all the rest of the stuff, there's just no evidence of it.

So when Ejaz comes up with the idea that, well, here's P66 at John 2028. Now, for most of P66, it's complete. I mean, I have shown one particular picture. Well, I just minimized it, didn't I? Dee, dee, dee.

I have used this picture for a long, long time of P66. Move it to where you can see it there. There's P66. That's what the entire, this is before the pages are separated out. You can see how it was bound, what a book looked like.

That's from John 1 .1. That's pretty complete. I mean, you've got your standard damage, especially lower corners here get damaged. That's what happens to books, upper corner here. But this is pretty complete.

I mean, you're gonna have some places down here where there's a few letters missing or half a word or a word or something like that. But that's in really good shape. And so to get down to the end of John and it looks like that, well, obviously toward the end of the book, those last pages can get damaged over time as they did.

And so we only have portions of the last sheets. And so what I showed in the video was that right here, let me, all right, right here, you can see the word apokrythe right there, answer it and then whoever answered their name starts right there, that's Tomas.

And what happened, so Tomas answered and said, and then alto to him, there's the last two letters of alto, so the margin goes out over here, ha, and then right here, you see two letters, looks like a K and a C in English, okay?

Now the C is the final form sigma. This is called majuscule, sometimes called unseal, but more technically correctly, majuscule Greek. And there you see the indicator of the nominus sacra. This is the nominus sacra for kurios, Lord.

Said to him, ha kurios, and then you can see mu. You can see the upsilon, right? What's left of the, even though it's broken there, you can see mu. And then I'll move this out of the way. You can see the beginning and to see how, I'm sorry for those of you listening, I apologize.

This is a rather graphically oriented program. I apologize, you might actually find it worthwhile to watch this one on YouTube. Notice how there's a little bit of an uptick and notice how even in this is, I have what's called the P46 SL font.

On my Mac, I've had it for years and it's based upon the standard. You can see another capita down here. See how there's the same thing here? There's same thing here. And so there's what the font says.

Most of the time, this particular scribe, this is what it looked like, okay? So you can see how that sort of goes right there. Fits right to it. So you can tell. Now, obviously the problem is that the character spacing is gonna be really difficult.

That's gonna depend on which page and what time of the day it was and how long the scribe had been copying and stuff like that. So it's an approximation, but it's very good approximation. So you can see how Hakuri Asumu Kai Hathe Asumu and then Legai Alto Yesus right here is the Nomina Sacra for Jesus.

And then I guess there's the Alto. And then because you have seen, because you've seen me, have you believed? You can put that right there. And then the next line, blessed are those who having not seen, who believe, so on and so forth.

So the text that is found everywhere else in manuscript after manuscript after manuscript fits perfectly into what's called the lacuna, the hole in the manuscript. Now, Ijaz talks about conjecturing what fits into the spaces when you have damaged manuscripts.

There's two kinds of reconstruction of a page like this. If this is a work and we have no other example of it, then that's pure conjecture. If we don't have other manuscripts like this, then yeah, you're conjecturing what went in there.

We have lots of other manuscripts like this. We have lots of other manuscripts like this. So what you have is P66. No one can seriously question that the gospel of John as contained in P66 is for all intents and purposes the exact same gospel we have today.

Are there textual variants? Yes. Is it the same message? Absolutely, absolutely. No question about it. And so it's the gospel of John. It's way back in this time period. And what was the focus? What was the reason why Ijaz was focused upon this?

Well, put the two together, bring John 9 back in, in the video itself. This is used as evidence that the early Christians believed that Jesus was a God. Well, he didn't, not a God, but God, God in human flesh.

As John 1, 14 says in P66, the word became flesh. Can show you that. I've got it on another screen here. The word became flesh, dwelt among us. We beheld his glory. These are things that no Muslim could ever say about Jesus.

There is no, to even begin to try to make the apostle John a proto-Muslim. It's just, you can't go there. And this is the problem. Because there's no question that John is a first century document. There's no question it goes back to that same time period.

It's not like gospel of Thomas, right? The rest of this silliness in the second and third centuries. It has a deep historical basis. It's knowledge of geography, place names, so on and so forth. Very consistent.

This is what early Christians believed about Jesus. And it's the same gospel that you're dependent upon for your one fulfillment of Muhammad in the New Testament. So to say that it is conjecture that the New Testament scriptures are unreliable conclusively because the last few pages of P66 got damaged, what?

How does that conclusively prove something? And I point out, that's why no one argues this way. So what happens is, Ejaz writes what I wrote to you, what I read to you about Codex Beze. Now, Codex Beze, go ahead and take that down if you would, please.

Codex Beze, Codex Beze Cantabrigiensis is the name of the document. And I want to see if I can bring something up here. Again, I may not be able to simply because my computer is just not wanting to do anything in particularly, anything that's particularly challenging at all right now.

But let me see if I do have it here. This particular manuscript, I've mentioned it a number of times before. It's 2009, let's see if we can find it here. Yeah, yeah, here we go. Let's see if this is what I want.

This manuscript, when it was given to Beza, that's where its name comes from. Codex Beze Cantabrigiensis comes from Beza himself, who was Calvin's successor at Geneva. When he donated it to the university, he donated it with a page that basically said, this particular manuscript is more worthy of being stored than read.

It wants to, I don't know if you can bring this up or not, but when Theodore Beza gave the manuscript to the University of Cambridge, he wrote it on the 18th of May, 1852. In the letter, recognizing the widely divergent text it contains on the whole to be stored up than to be published.

The most striking feature of Codex D is its perpetual tendency to interpolation, by which term we understand the practice of adding to the received text passages, often of some length, which whether most critics, it may be feared that the obvious faults and palpable glosses, so especially conspicuous in this one book have engendered a natural but not very reasonable habit of unduly disparaging our venerable document as a whole.

Codex D, no known New Testament manuscript contains so many distinctive readings, chiefly the free addition and occasional omission of words, sentences, according to Bruce Metzger. When D supports the early tradition, the manuscript has a genuine significance, but it, as well as its precursors and followers, should be examined most carefully when it opposes the early tradition, Kurt and Barbara Alland in their statement.

And then D .C. Parker has written an entire book on Codex Bézé. The fact is that the longer I studied it, the more I was only rarely deserve serious. What does that mean? What that means is that Codex Bézé can't describe was not trying to simply copy, interpreting, even correcting at times.

And so, especially when Bézé is alone in its reading, then it just simply is not to be overly trusted in what it has to say. Well, not overly shockingly, the manuscript to which Ijaz Ahmed pointed as a rebuttal of my statement, there weren't any textual variants here.

And what was I referring to? I was referring to the fact that, what's the one thing that Ijaz was focused upon? The use of the word God of Jesus. That's why he talked about Jesus being worshiped. And the whole reason he brought up P66 is that the phrase don't have Kai as in put in there.