THE EARLIEST GREEK TEXT

by
Scott Jones

In spite of the naked assertions by modern bible scholars to the contrary, the earliest New Testament Greek Text is that Greek Text which underlies the Authorised Version.

This is the Greek Text which was penned by the Apostles and transmitted faithfully under God's superintendence until it was employed as the Greek Text that launched the Reformation. The evidence for the antiquity and the pedigree of this Greek Text - that is, the evidence for the antiquity and the pedigree of the Greek Text which underlies the Authorised Version - is mountainous; so mountainous, in fact, that the textual critic whose notice it escapes has to be so willfully blind that he must needs be likened to an explorer who traveled to a far land whereupon he intentionally had both eyes put out and then summarily refused any help from the local natives to guide him along the way. This whole matter is that plain.

I intend to be very brief. Accordingly, the purpose of this short paper is to simply let the born again Christian know that the clap-trap that continues to emanate from mainstream biblical scholarship concerning "text types" is merely a fountain of deliberate propaganda springing from a veritable ocean of apostasy. Nothing less; nothing more. And perforce it will become quickly evident to the seeker of truth herein why this generation of bible scholars will go down as the most inept and incompetent generation of bible scholars in the history of Christianity.

The motivation behind this current era of apostasy concerning God's Written Word cannot be better characterized than the following description which flowed from the pen of John Burgon little more than a hundred years ago when he refuted the Westcott-Hort Greek Text, which continues to serve as the base for most modern bibles -

"Claiming to be an attempt to determine the Truth of Scripture on scientific principles, the work before us may be regarded as the latest outcome of that violent recoil from the Traditional Greek Text - that strange impatience of its authority - or rather denial that it possesses any authority at all - which began with Lachmann just 50 years ago (viz. in 1831), and has prevailed ever since." Revision Revised, p 241-242

The Text of the Reformation - the Traditional Greek Text that mainstream biblical scholarship has prosecuted a vendetta against ever since its appearance on the printed page, the very Text that reached its culmination in the Authorised Version - is the most despised Text in Satan's kingdom, and every man born of the Spirit of Jesus Christ and who has grown beyond "the first principles of the oracles of God" knows this. This truth is simply elementary for the born again Christian who possesses even the slightest degree of experience in true spiritual warfare. Naturally, those who do battle in the vanity of their minds - that is, those who think they are engaging in spiritual warfare when in fact they are merely "intruding into those things which they have not seen" - cannot find any more purchase in this simple truth concerning Satan's hatred of the Traditional Text than the scholars who have corrupted God's Word, even though it is clear to the Holy Spirit and to us who are truly born again that the modern scholar's denigration of the Traditional Text is merely the extension of Satan's own hatred of it in the first place.

The fact is, those who possess genuine experience in true spiritual warfare know beyond certainty that the Text of the Reformation is a Text which is not only the most despised Text in the world by Satan, but is also at the same time the very Word of God without mixture. The regenerate Christian has many infallible proofs that tells him this is so.

For example, every truly born again Christian who possesses genuine experience in spiritual warfare knows from the Lord Jesus Himself that the concluding phrase in John 3:13, which is omitted in most modern bibles, but which is found in the Authorised Version - "even the Son of man which is in heaven" - is authentic. The truly born again Christian knows that this is exactly what John wrote when he penned his Gospel, for this clause is THE cornerstone of true spiritual warfare, and the truly born again believer who has wrestled with God and who has unseated princes of the power of the air so that the spiritual eye could behold "Satan as lightning fall from heaven," this believer, I say, knows that it is inconceivable that either Jesus or John could have omitted this phrase. This phrase is simply not expendable - not in the slightest degree expendable - and every one born of the Spirit of Jesus Christ who has feasted on that meat "that ye know not of" in true spiritual combat is aware of this fact, for he knows that he could not succeed in even the smallest degree in spiritual warfare unless this verse were true when Jesus was in the flesh.

Examples of this kind abound. In short, those scholars who have deleted this and other particular passages from God's Word have given an incontrovertible testimony of their own unregeneracy. The young or newly born again believer can take that as axiomatic. No man born of the Spirit of Jesus Christ and mature in the Lord could omit a great many of the phrases that modern bibles and modern scholars omit. The young or newly born again believer should therefore beware, for he will soon learn - if he remains faithful to the Lord Jesus - that there are certain utterances of the Spirit, like the one above, that are absolutely mandatory - especially in certain matters related to maintaining authority in intercession before the throne of grace (similar to what the old-timers used to call "praying ground") - and the truly born again believer knows this by a revelation which "the gates of hell shall not prevail against." Simply put, it would be easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for certain of the phrases omitted by modern bibles and modern scholars to have been omitted by the Holy Ghost in the Autographs, and he who has experience "praying in the Holy Ghost" knows this with a divine certainty.

The material evidence for the veracity and antiquity of the Traditional Text is likewise conclusive.

The two manuscripts that have controlled the hearts and minds of bible scholars for the past one hundred and fifty years; aye, the two manuscripts which have literally taken captive the imaginations of bible scholars for the past one hundred and fifty years, are Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus (pronounced "Aleph"). These two Egyptian witnesses - the very lifeblood of the Alexandrian heresies of old - are the foundation of the Greek Text which most modern bibles are based on.

Now, it requires to be stated at the outset what the first rule of evidence is. Strange as it may seem, the first rule of evidence is so basic that one might think it superfluous to even mention it. However, in light of modern biblical scholarship's ignorance of this most fundamental of rules, we must nevertheless mention it. To wit, the first rule of evidence is simply this - one must actually examine the evidence. That's it. Before one can comment intelligently on the evidence, one must actually examine the evidence. Simple.

Not one living scholar that I'm aware of has ever collated Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus . For the record, comparing references in a Critical Apparatus doesn't even remotely qualify as "examining" the evidence. The fact that seminary students these days think they can get an accurate read on the character of a manuscript from a Critical Apparatus is just further proof of the gross shallowness of modern biblical scholarship. In other words, these scholars who claim to be "scientific" have not even taken the first step in a legitimate investigation of the matter. These scholars who pride themselves on being "scientific" have not even examined the evidence. Which is just one of the many reasons - to reaffirm - why this generation of bible scholars will go down as the most inept and incompetent generation of bible scholars in the history of Christianity. Further, the patient investigator will discover that this incompetence in mainstream biblical scholarship is the rule rather than the exception. The patient investigator will discover that the methodology of mainstream biblical scholarship is this shoddy and this sloppy - in a word, this amateurish - throughout.

Conversely, I have collated both manuscripts. I actually know what these two manuscripts contain.

To begin with, the Greek in these two manuscripts is the most corrupt form of Greek in the history of Greek literature. It becomes readily apparent - to someone who actually examines the evidence, that is - that the scribes of these two manuscripts not only knew very, very little Greek, but that they were radically - yes, radically - careless in their transcription. That is simply not debatable, as anyone may see for himself. In fact, John Burgon and Herman Hoskier - both of whom meticulously collated Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, and both of whom were absolute masters in Greek, Latin, and other languages - ardently testified to the depravity of the Greek language and the utterly careless transcription in these two witnesses. Both men lamented time and again both the philological incompetence and the utterly pathetic lack of knowledge of the Greek language by the scribes who crafted these two manuscripts. Which begs the question -

Did the writers of the New Testament have such a horrible command of the Greek language that they could hardly put three sentences together without committing egregious grammatical and philological blunders? Were the writers of the New Testament so unfamiliar with simple Greek constructions that much of the time they couldn't even communicate grammatically and philologically on a grade school level? Worse still, did the Holy Ghost who inspired the writers of the New Testament - the same Holy Ghost Who confused the tongues at Babel and Who gave unfaltering utterance in foreign languages to one hundred and twenty disciples on the day of Pentecost - did He not have a firm grasp of the Greek tongue Himself? Such a notion is preposterous, isn't it?

And yet, this is exactly what these two manuscripts and the scholars who swear by them assert - and much more besides. If these two manuscripts are representative of the Autographs, then the writers of the New Testament were woefully unskilled in the Greek language. Take heed, Christian, for this is the very principle that modern scholars have founded modern bibles on, for modern bibles produced by modern scholars are based on these two manuscripts.

In addition to the above proof of the depravity of these two manuscripts (whoever has ears to hear, let him hear), these two witnesses also can't get the geography of Palestine right much of the time. In other words, both manuscripts are permeated with geographical references which are not only inaccurate, but in many cases are simply absurd. Which once again begs the question -

Did the Apostles who wrote the New Testament not know the geography of the land in which they lived? Even more, did the Holy Ghost Who inspired the writers of the New Testament not understand the geography of Palestine? Were the writers of the New Testament not aware of the vast differences between Caesarea and Samaria? Between Judea and Galilee? Were the writers of the New Testament not aware that Capernaum and Nazareth, for example, were not in Judea, but in Galilee? Were the writers of the New Testament not aware that lake Gennesaret was actually on the north shore of the Sea of Galilee and not way down south in Judea? Were the writers of the New Testament not aware that Bethsaida was in Galilee instead of Judea? Ad infinitum? Such a notion is preposterous, isn't it?

And yet, this is exactly what these two manuscripts and the scholars who swear by them assert - and much more besides. If these two manuscripts are representative of the Autographs, then the writers of the New Testament were woefully ignorant of the geography of Palestine. Take heed, Christian, for this is the very principle that modern scholars have founded modern bibles on, for modern bibles produced by modern scholars are based on these two manuscripts.

As if the foregoing weren't enough, these two manuscripts botch simple historical references with boring regularity. In other words, both manuscripts are saturated with historical references which are not only inaccurate, but in some cases are simply absurd. Which begs the question -

Were the writers of the New Testament so confused about the pedigree of the Lord Jesus Christ - the very Sovereign of Whom they were writing - that even under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit they couldn't accurately produce the lists of genealogies from which He in the flesh was descended? Because in both Matthew and Luke, Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus concoct a register of names that is so hopelessly confused and so historically inaccurate that it looks like the work of an illiterate orangutan. That is no exaggeration; it is literally that bad. And that's just the beginning. The examples of historical inaccuracies in these two witnesses begin in the first Gospel and continue on endlessly. Some of the inaccuracies are small; some of them are severe - but no matter the degree, the text of these two manuscripts is infused with these types of blunders on virtually every page, some of it due to careless transcription, some of it due to rapt ignorance. Is such work the product of the writers of the New Testament? Is this the work of the Holy Ghost in His Hallowed Testimony of the Eternal Son of God? Such a notion is preposterous, isn't it?

And yet, this is exactly what these two manuscripts and the scholars who swear by them assert - and much more besides. If these two manuscripts are representative of the Autographs, then the writers of the New Testament were woefully ignorant of both the history of God's people, as well as fundamental historical facts, to boot. Take heed, Christian, for this is the very principle that modern scholars have founded modern bibles on, for modern bibles produced by modern scholars are based on these two manuscripts.

It gets worse. These two manuscripts are positively bursting at the seams with blasphemies and heresies. In other words, both manuscripts take habitual leave - from beginning to end - to degrade, devalue, blaspheme, and mock the Eternal Son of God, even the Lord Jesus Christ.

Accordingly, did the writers of the New Testament reverse the declaration of Jesus when He stated that He would die supernaturally of His own accord, and that no man would take His life from Him, that He had power to lay it down, and power to take it up again? For Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus , resurrecting one of the most popular Gnostic Alexandrian heresies of all, testify in Matthew 27:49 that Jesus was killed by someone with a spear. According to these two witnesses, Jesus did not die supernaturally as He promised. Is this the testimony of the Holy Ghost?

On another turn, did Jesus Christ, the Lord of Glory - God in the flesh - really borrow a colt? This is not only sheer, unadulterated blasphemy, but one which modern bibles have actually incorporated into their text, thus further testifying to the unregeneracy of those who produced modern bibles. (See Mark 11:3) I mention this blasphemy specifically because I doubt any but the true watchman will even consider just how degrading and serious this particular offense is. Nevertheless, make no mistake - the Holy Spirit verily testifies - yes, the Holy Ghost Himself testifies to the truly born again believer - that this passage mocks Jesus Christ just as surely as Pilate's soldiers mocked Him.

In short, the blasphemies in these two manuscripts - Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus - cover the entire spectrum, and it would take many pages to enumerate all the passages that these two depraved witnesses deploy against the Eternal Son of God. Would the Holy Ghost inspire a verse which denigrates, blasphemes, devalues or mocks the Lord Jesus Christ? Such a notion is preposterous, isn't it?

And yet, this is exactly what these two manuscripts and the scholars who swear by them assert - and much more besides. If these two manuscripts are representative of the Autographs, then the writers of the New Testament were engaged in blaspheming and denigrating the Judge of all the earth. Take heed, Christian, for this is the very principle that modern scholars have founded modern bibles on, for modern bibles produced by modern scholars are based on these two manuscripts.

We could continue with additional categories, but for time's sake we'll defer. Before moving on, however, we must affirm that the truly born again Christian needs no further testimony concerning these manuscripts. You see, when the truly born again Christian discovers that Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus have inserted into Matthew 27:49 the hellish lie that the proximate cause of Jesus' death was a spear, the truly born again Christian has heard all he needs to hear, has seen all he needs to see. Jesus Christ has been blasphemed. That is enough. For the man who is truly born of Jesus Christ, that single lie is enough. If that were the only blasphemy in the entire manuscript, it would be enough for the truly born again Christian to brand the entire codex as utterly untrustworthy. More importantly - and take heed how ye hear - the Holy Spirit brooks overflowing indignation at such an entry, and every one born of the Holy Spirit is aware of it. There are no exceptions. If Jesus did not die supernaturally, then there is no resurrection, there is no redemption, there is no truth at all.

Of course, the truly born again Christian knows that Jesus did die supernaturally, and that Jesus did rise from the grave bodily, and that Jesus did ascend into heaven physically, where He now sits at the right hand of power. The born again believer knows this more certainly than he knows that the atmosphere contains air, because the truly born again Christian is himself a witness to the resurrection of Jesus Christ. The truly born again Christian has experienced the resurrection power of Jesus Christ in the new birth; the truly born again Christian has met the risen Christ through the new birth, and therefore knows not only that "He is risen," but that Jesus Christ is He "that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, is alive for evermore, Amen; and has the keys of hell and of death." Again, there are no exceptions, for there are certain fundamental truths that all believers share in common, and this particular truth is foundational, as it is written, "So is EVERY ONE that is born of the Spirit." John 3:8.

Are you born again?

"Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his." Romans 8:9

Are you certain you're born again?

"Give someone an electric shock and I guarantee he will know it, but if he has the Holy Ghost, he will know it much more... All those who are true disciples of Christ have felt a divinely supernatural power working upon them... The Spirit of God came upon us, and we were awakened, aroused, and made alive. Do you remember that?" Charles, Spurgeon, What The Spirit Does In A Believer's Life, p 111, 120

Unless you can make God foreswear Himself, you won't set foot in the kingdom of Jesus Christ without being born again. Faith that is taught today is not the faith of the Bible. Faith that is taught today is a counterfeit faith; a non-efficacious faith that produces mere will-worship, not in any wise the new birth, and its leaven is paving the road to hell for untold millions.

Have you experienced the new birth? If you are not born again, the wrath of God abides upon you. It matters not how righteous you seem to be; it matters not how highly you appear to exalt God in your life or with your lips; it matters not how big and successful your ministry appears to be; it matters not how much charity you provide - if you are not born again, you are dead in your trespasses and sins, and you will not inherit the kingdom of heaven.

Have you met the risen Christ in the experience of the new birth? Are you certain? Are you certain beyond any doubt whatsoever? If not, call on the name of the Lord. The name of the Lord is Jesus, and there is none other name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved.

Do not call on the Father if you are not born again, for the Father will not hear you. Do not call on the Holy Spirit if you are not born again, for the Holy Spirit will not come to you. The Father will not hear you until you are covered in righteous blood. The Holy Spirit will not come to you until He is sent. If you would go to heaven, call on Jesus, for it is Jesus Who executes the power to save you. Jesus Christ quickens whom He will. Yes, it is true that both the Father and the Holy Spirit are instrumental in the salvation of every soul, but the Captain of Salvation is Jesus Christ, and none other. If you would go to heaven, it is Jesus you must come to. If you would go to heaven, It is Jesus you must implore. Not the Father, not the Spirit - Jesus, and Jesus alone, for it is Jesus Who was lifted up from the earth and Who will draw all men unto Himself in judgment. And it is Jesus - and none other - Who is "the resurrection and the life."

If you would be born again, cry to Jesus just as blind Bartimaeus cried to Jesus. If you would be born again, approach Jesus just as the Syrophenician woman approached Jesus. If you would be born again, look on Jesus just as he with the withered hand looked on Jesus. If you would be born again, pursue Jesus just as the woman with the issue of blood pursued Jesus.

Jesus Christ will verily quicken all who call upon Him in truth, but the hypocrites and the proud and those who corrupt His Word have neither place nor portion in His kingdom, but only a fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour all who have never experienced the new birth.

"Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." John 3:3

Within the brief scope of this paper (and I won't detain you much longer), we will refer to the Greek Text which underlies the Authorised Version as the Traditional Text. We will refer to the Greek Text which underlies most modern bibles, based on readings attested by the depraved codices Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus , as the Alexandrian Text.

Thus, here's how they line up against each other -

If, like modern bible scholars (their hypocritical lip-service notwithstanding), a man believes that the New Testament is ultimately just the work of men, then such a man would probably avow that the Alexandrian Text is representative of the Autographs.

On the other hand, if a man truly believes that the New Testament is a supernatural production - that "holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost" - then such a man realizes with absolutely unshakable conviction that the Traditional Text not only accurately and fully reflects the Autographs, but was in fact preserved and superintended by the Lord Jesus Christ all along, the Holy Ghost bearing witness also. Yes, the Holy Ghost bearing witness to the truly born again man.

As a further indictment, we must also point out an additional fatal flaw in Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus . You see, not only do these two witnesses disagree with the Traditional Text, but they also disagree vehemently with each other. In fact, these two depraved specimens disagree with each other more than they disagree individually with the Traditional Text. In proof of this, Herman Hoskier, who has provided the most detailed and meticulous collation of these two specimens, demonstrated that Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus disagree with each over three thousand times in the Gospels alone! And these are real, substantial differences. Hoskier enumerated about seventeen categories which he did not include in his tabulation. Had he taken every single variant into consideration, the number would run much higher.

So let's briefly recap - Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus are composed of notoriously corrupt Greek grammar and philology; are inundated with geographical inaccuracies; are saturated with historical inaccuracies; are riddled with blasphemies and heresies that cut to the core of Christianity; are crippled with vagaries that compel them to disagree with each other more than they agree.

In other words, these two witnesses are chronic, habitual liars. And yet, modern scholars have for many years now been engaged in a rabid, unholy crusade to promote the testimony of these habitual liars over the purity of the Traditional Text -  thus exhibiting that "strange impatience of the Traditional Text's authority," as Burgon so aptly characterized it, "or rather denial that the Traditional Text has any authority at all," even though the Traditional Text is the very Text of the Reformation, the very Reformation wherewith the Spirit of Jesus Christ was poured out with such volume and such grace that its like was never seen in any corner of heaven or earth - not before or since - God Himself therefore bearing witness to the purity of the Traditional Text, and bearing witness in all three Persons of His Godhead - yet, this Text - the Text of the Reformation - is the very Text that the scholars have assailed with a vengeance, and have instead placed all their faith and confidence in two habitual liars whose testimony is not any more trustworthy than a certain long-ago Serpent in a garden called Eden. This is the state of affairs concerning mainstream biblical scholarship. Let its fruit - riddled with inaccuracies and inconsistencies so numerous that they can't be counted - speak for itself. Mainstream biblical scholarship has modern bibles to show for its fruit, distilled ever so cleverly from two of the most corrupt codices extant - Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus - and shamelessly cooked up in the labs of trendy higher criticism.

John Burgon had this to say about Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus - "The task of laboriously collating the five 'old uncials' throughout the Gospels, occupied me for five-and-a-half years, and taxed me severely. But I was rewarded. I rose from the investigation profoundly convinced that, however important they may be as instruments of Criticism, codices B C D are among the most corrupt documents extant." Revision Revised, p 376

And also - “Aleph B D are three of the most scandalously corrupt copies extant: exhibit the most shamefully mutilated texts which are anywhere to be met with: have become, by whatever process (for their history is wholly unknown), the depositories of the largest amount of fabricated readings, ancient blunders, and intentional perversions of Truth which are discoverable in any known copies of the Word of God.” Revision Revised, p 16

John Burgon actually examined the evidence. John Burgon actually knew what he was talking about. 

So did Herman Hoskier. His collation of these two witnesses is a meticulous masterpiece, a masterpiece which every textual critic should study, but one which I am certain most have never even laid eyes on. Here's Hoskier's observation - "The claims put forward by us are that B does not exhibit a neutral text... That B is guilty of laches, of a tendency to improve, and of sunstroke amounting to doctrinal bias. That the maligned Textus Receptus served in large measure as the base which B tampered with and changed, and that the Church at large recognised all this until the year 1881 -- when Hortism (in other words Alexandrianism) was allowed free play -- and has not since retraced the path to sound tradition." Codex B & Its Allies, Vol I, p 464

And again - "The text printed by Westcott and Hort [based almost exclusively on B and Aleph] has been accepted as the true text, and grammars, works on the synoptic problem, works on higher criticism, and others, have been grounded on this text. If the Hort text makes the evangelists appear inconsistent [and it does], then such and such an evangelist errs. Those who accept the W-H text are basing their accusations of untruth as to the Gospellists upon an Egyptian revision current 200 to 450 AD and abandoned between 500 to 1881, merely revived in our day and stamped as genuine." Codex B & Its Allies, Vol I, p 468

Perhaps Hoskier's most prescient statement is the following rebuke he offers to those who sat by and watched it all happen, when they should have known better - "Finally, observe that up to the time of Westcott and Hort the lower criticism had kept itself quite apart from so-called higher criticism. Since the publication of Hort's text, however, and of that of the Revisers, much of the heresy of our time has fallen back upon the supposed results acquired by the lower criticism to bolster up their views. By a policy of indecision in the matter of fundamental truths of the Christian religion - truths specifically set forth by its Founder - and by a decided policy, on the other hand, of decision in the matter of heresy in the field of lower criticism, the beliefs of many have been shaken not only to their foundations, but they have been offered free scope to play the Marcion and excise whatever appeared extra-ordinary or unintelligible to them. Many, who should have raised their voices against the mischief wrought, have sat by in apathy or have willfully fostered these heresies." Codex B & Its Allies, Vol I, p 422

Those pastors and scholars today - who should have been watchmen - but have instead sat by and stayed out of the fray, are no better than the lukewarm Laodiceans, for God's Word is the most valuable treasure on this earth, and those who have determined among themselves to sacrifice the integrity of God's Word for the sake of their ministry, or their standing, or what-have-you, will verily answer for it at the judgment seat of Jesus Christ. Unless they repent, of course.

Those who don't see any corruption of God's Word by mainstream biblical scholarship are merely blind followers of the blind. The ditch they have fallen into is bottomless, and one from which they will never escape. Unless they receive grace to become born again, of course.

In any case, there was another facet to Burgon and Hoskier's collation of manuscripts, a facet which is often overlooked. You see, John Burgon and Herman Hoskier also believed that the New Testament was inspired by the Holy Ghost. John Burgon and Herman Hoskier believed that only heretics would deny - either by mouth or by action - the Divine inspiration of the Holy Scriptures. John Burgon and Herman Hoskier took the position that all truly born again Christians take.

To wit, like Burgon and Hoskier, the truly born again Christian believes that when Matthew and Luke penned their Gospels under the unction of the Holy Ghost, that Matthew and Luke actually recorded accurately the two genealogies of Jesus Christ. The born again Christian believes that both men wrote without error, and thus the truly born again believer understands that any manuscript which is filled to overflowing with errors in these two genealogies could not possibly have been the work of either Matthew or Luke. The truly born again Christian likewise believes that the writers of the New Testament, moved by the Holy Ghost, and actually living and traveling in the lands they wrote about, accurately recorded the geography of all the regions they described, and thus the truly born again believer understands that any manuscript which is filled with geographical inaccuracies could not possibly have been the work of any of the writers of the New Testament. The truly born again Christian also knows that it is impossible - not improbable - but impossible for any of the writers of the New Testament to have engaged in blasphemies and heresies against the Lord of Glory, and thus the truly born again believer understands that any manuscript which is saturated with blasphemies and heresies against the Eternal Son of God could not possibly have been the work of any of the writers of the New Testament. Ad infinitum.

This is the exact opposite of mainstream biblical scholarship's view, and the exact opposite of the view of those who have followed the Alexandrian Text. Many of those who promote the Alexandrian Text give lip-service to Divine inspiration, but their actions expose them for the hypocrites they are, for it is impossible to believe that Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus are two of the best representatives of the Autographs of the New Testament and still hold to Divine verbal plenary inspiration and inerrancy. It is simply impossible because both manuscripts are overflowing - on every single page - with gross inaccuracies. That is not a matter of opinion; it is a demonstrable fact. Thus, such men are liars. They are false prophets in sheep's clothing, and the young believer should beware, for such men are not only unregenerate, but they have come "but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy." John 10:10

Lest someone be overcome with the myth that all manuscripts contain similar errors or depravities, let us hear from Hoskier once again, a man who most probably collated more manuscripts than any scholar in recent history - "There remains one argument to be dealt with, and that concerns the possibility of someone saying that, after all, the variations of B are few in number and probably less than in most MSS. That is hardly so. If the reader wants a tenth-century example of a MS true to the Church type let him examine Matthaei's k, a most beautiful and neat MS, one of our very early cursives, and in this MS will be found a true exponent of the Koine. Had Erasmus used this, no fault could have been found, and yet but little difference is to be found between Codex k and the textus receptus, while codex b and his group differ infinitely more among themselves at a period much more remote." Codex B & Its Allies, Vol I, p 456

The fact is, the Traditional Text is largely homogeneous, and that is a fact that modern scholars have spent many years trying to overcome. They have invented elaborate theory after elaborate theory in an effort to make the obvious implication go away, the obvious implication, of course, being the simple fact that the Traditional Text is a mirror of the Autographs, that Jesus Christ has preserved His Word, exactly as He promised He would, promises that He made throughout both the Old and New Testaments. Then again, mainstream bible scholars don't truly believe in inspiration, so it is no wonder that they don't believe in preservation, another doctrine that they argue tooth and nail over in an effort to undermine.

In any case, the manuscripts which comprise the Traditional Text come from every corner of ancient Christendom, from different time periods and different countries, from different scribes in different provinces, and yet, they are so numerous and they agree together so closely that this phenomenon is unparalleled in the history of literature. Further, each manuscript has differences in philology and other minor provincial distinctions so as to prove that each of these manuscripts is an orphan; that is, each of them was copied from a different exemplar, thus dispelling any notion of collusion. Yet, they exhibit the same text.

In contrast, as we saw, the Alexandrian Text, comprised of roughly one percent of the extant Greek manuscripts, not only disagrees with the Traditional Text by a radical margin, but the manuscripts within the Alexandrian "Family" also radically disagree with each other. Moreover - and very much unlike the Traditional Text - the Alexandrian manuscripts do not come from every corner of ancient Christendom; the Alexandrian manuscripts come from basically the same region, a region, we might add, which is infamous for Gnosticism. And even though these manuscripts are literally exploding with Gnostic heresies throughout, the mainstream bible scholar will maintain that these manuscripts aren't corrupt, that even though their text comes from the very center of Gnosticism itself - Alexandria - these manuscripts nevertheless escaped any Gnostic tampering... even though they're saturated with Gnostic blasphemies, such as Jesus dying by the spear... yet they escaped Gnostic tampering, according to mainstream biblical scholars...

In essence, mainstream bible scholars assert that it was faithful Christians who corrupted God's Word, and that's why - according to modern bible scholars - the Traditional Text is so homogeneous. In other words, according to mainstream biblical scholarship, all the errors, blasphemies, heresies, grammatical solecisms, historical inaccuracies, geographical inaccuracies, and other notable inaccuracies in Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus - these actually represent the true literary output of the writers of the New Testament - according to mainstream biblical scholarship, that is. Conversely, all the truths, exaltations, high Christology, literary accuracies, geographical accuracies, historical accuracies, and doctrinal accuracies in the Traditional Text - these were all progressively supplied by the faithful - were in fact molded over time by true believers until the Traditional Text became uniform and thereby sculpted into the present state in which we find it, thus salvaging the reputations of the Apostles who wrote the New Testament, as well as the Holy Spirit Who inspired them.

This is the philosophy of mainstream biblical scholarship in a nutshell.

Of course, all this (and much more besides) simply serves as proof upon proof upon proof of the rampant unregeneracy of modern bible scholars, and a man must himself be unregenerate to miss it. In fact, it is really so plain that even an earnest reprobate could spot it.

Thus, when Jesus Christ is deleted as the Creator in Ephesians 3:9 in modern bibles, it is because of the testimony of the Alexandrian Text, headed up by Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus . Likewise, when Jesus Christ is snatched out of heaven in John 3:13, it is because of the testimony of the Alexandrian Text, headed up by Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus . See the Bible Chart on this site for further examples. In short, two habitual liars are responsible for the deletion of Jesus Christ as the Creator in Ephesians 3:9; two habitual liars are responsible for snatching Jesus Christ from heaven in John 3:13, ad nauseam.

And lest my words be wrested, this is not to say that these two manuscripts are the only manuscripts that prosecute these deletions. In some cases they have additional support; in some cases they have no support whatsoever. However, the testimony of the Alexandrian Text, headed up by two chronic, habitual liars named Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus , is the controlling factor, and without their testimony the vast, vast majority of these alterations could not stand. Thus, all the assaults on Jesus Christ in modern bibles, all the deletions in modern bibles, all the alterations in modern bibles - in short, all of the corruptions of God's Word by modern bibles and modern scholars can be laid at the adulterous feet of two representatives of the Man of Sin - Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus .

Although we have barely scratched the surface, more than enough - much more than enough - has been proffered for the truly born again Christian. In that vein, I encourage you - if you are born again - to live closer to the Lord Jesus and His Word than ever before, because the deception is only going to get worse. These are those times of which the "Spirit speaketh expressly" (1 Timothy 4:1).

If you are not born again, but yet desire to be - then give the Lord of Glory, even the Lord Jesus Christ, no rest until He clothes you with salvation. Yea, call on Him - and keep calling on Him until He answers you, for He will answer if you call upon Him in truth, for He is faithful. If you don't know how to call upon Him, if you think you've lost your way to even seek Him out, then inquire at the Word of God - in English, that's the Authorised Version - for the Word of God is a road map that never errs, and all paths in the true Word of God lead directly to Jesus Christ.

Finally, I bid every Pilgrim to take Peter's exhortation to heart: "Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall." 2 Peter 1:10

Farewell.