Taken from appendix 2, III: “O Biblios The Book,” by Allan O’Reilly
Note: When reading this and you see Byzantine Text, TR, Textus Receptus, or Text Received, Berry’s Greek text is taken from the above. Remember that it is speaking of over 5000 manuscripts that remarkably agree with each other the very overwhelming majority of the time. In other words, the list of supporting manuscript evidence would be much too large to add here.]
Scroll or page down to see the evidence on any of the follow verses which are in Biblical order, starting with the first occurrence of the corruption:
Matthew 1:25, 2:11, 9:18, 14:33, 20:20, Mark 5:6
Matthew 5:22,44, 6:13,33, 11:23, 16:3, 17:21, 18:11, 19:16-17, 20:7,16,22,23, 21:44, 22:30, 23:14, 26:31,33, 27:35
Mark 1:1,2, 6:11,20, 7:16, 9:29,44,46,4, 10:24, 11:3,8, 13:14, 14:68, 15:28,39, 16:9-20
Luke 1:28, 2:14,22,33, 4:4,8, 6:48, 8:45, 9:54-56, 11:2-4,54, 12:31, 17:36, 22:19-20,43-44, 23:34,38,42,45, 24:3,6,12,36,40,42, 51-52
John 1:14,18, 3:16,18, 3:13, 5:3b,4, 6:69, 7:53-8:11, 8:6, 9:35, 10:14-15,29, 18:36, 1 John 4:9
Acts 1:3, 2:30,47, 7:45, 8:37, 9:5,6, 15:34, 17:26, 18:7, 20:28, 23:9
Romans 5:1, 8:1, 9:5, 10:15, 13:9, 14:10
1 Corinthians 5:4, 10:20,28, 11:24, 11:29, 13:3, 15:47
2 Corinthians 4:6
Ephesians 3:9, 5:9
Colossians 1:2,14, 2:18,23
1 Timothy 3:16
2 Timothy 3:16
Hebrews 3:6
James 5:16
1 Peter 1:22
2 Peter 3:10
1 John 5:7-8,18
Revelation 13:18, 22:14, 22:1
Burgon (14), p 123, states that only 3 uncials, Aleph (Sinaiticus), B (Vaticanus), Z and two cursives omit “firstborn.” Ruckman (54), p 12, states that the word is found in the “Egyptian” family of manuscripts (e.g. C), the “Western” (D) and the “Byzantine” (i.e. the Receptus). He states that it is also found in Tatian’s Diatessaron, a Syrian translation of the Gospels, circa 170 AD, (2) p 80.
Burgon cites the Latin Vulgate, Peshitta and Philoxenian Syriac, the Ethiopic, Armenian, Georgian, and Slavonian Versions in favour of the AV161 1 reading, (14) p9, 123; (2) p 80-1. Burgon, (14) p 123, also cites the following “Fathers” as bearing witness to the word: 2nd Century: Tatian; 4th Century: Ambrose, Athanasius, Augustine, Basil, Cyril of Jerusalem, Chrysostom, Didymus, Ephraem Syrus, Epiphanius, Gregory of Nyssa; 5th Century: Isidorus Pelus, Proclus; 8th Century: John Damascene; 9th Century: Photius.
Ruckman (2) p 152, states that the word for “worship” (i.e. “proskun”) is in ALL Greek manuscripts. Note its use in Matthew 4:10, Luke 4:8, John 4:21, 23, 24, Hebrews 1:6, Revelation 4:10, 5:14, 7:11, 11:16, 14:7, 19:4, 10, 22:9. This is the word found in Berry’s Greek text in all five places, although he only translates it as “worship” in Matthew 14:33.
Burgon, (14), p 359-60, states that the omission of these words was originally the work of Origen (184-254), preserved in a writing of Jerome. Commenting on Matthew 5:22 in relation to Ephesians 4:31, Origen assumed the text he had in front of him was wrong, indicating it included the words as found in the AVl611!
Burgon reveals that only Codices Aleph and B omit the words. ALL other uncial copies have them. Fuller (32), p 38-9, and Ruckman (57 Matthew) p 91 state that the words are found in the Byzantine Text, embodying the majority of the Greek manuscripts. Burgon states that every extant copy of the Old Latin, Syriac, Coptic, Gothic and Armenian versions contain the words. The TBS, (58) July-September 1985 p 16, states that only about 10 Greek manuscripts omit the words, including Aleph and B and indicates that this is a very small number compared with those that include them.
Burgon, p 359-60, Cites the following fathers in support of the AV161 1 reading: 2nd Century: Irenaeus, Justin Martyr; 3rd Century: Cyprian, Origen; 4th Century: Augustine, Basil, Chrysostom, Ephraem Syrus, Epiphanius, Eusebius, Gregory of Nyssa, Hilary, Lucifer; 5th Century: Cyril of Alexandria, Isidorus, Theodore of Mops, Theodoret; 6th Century: Severus; 7th Century: Antiochus the monk, Maximus; 8th Century: John Damascene; 9th Century: Photius; 11th Century: Theophylactus; 12th Century: Euthymius Zigahenus.
Ruckman (31) p 427, states that all the Greek uncials except Aleph and B agree with the AV16l 1. He adds that all the cursives-over 200-agree with this passage except 7 and(54) p 13, that the Gothic version of Ulfilas (330 AD) contains this passage reading, pre-dating B by twenty years. The TBS (58) July-September 1985, p 18, states that about 12 Greek manuscripts omit the words, supported by the Sinaitic and Curetonian Syriac and Coptic versions and one 4th century Old Latin copy but that 99% of the manuscripts support the AVl611. The remaining Old Latin copies-there are about 50 in total, (38) p 42-the Peshitta Syriac, Ethiopian and Gothic versions support this passage.
Burgon p410-l1, cites the following fathers in support of the AV: 2nd Century: Athenagoras, Clemens Alexandrinus, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Theophilus Antiochus; 3rd Century: Apostolic Constitutions, Origen; 4th Century: Anibrose, Augustine, Chrysostom, Eusebius, Gregory of Nyssa, Hilary, Lucifer; 5th Century: Cyril of Alexandria, Isidorus, Theodoret. Burgon states that there are “many more” fathers in support of the Majority Text, p411.
Fuller (32) p 108, citing Burgon, states that of more than 500 relevant (Greek) manuscripts, all but nine contain the AVl611 reading. Hills (3) p 118 and (38) p 146, states that uncials B, Aleph, D, Z and 6 cursives omit the words, together with 9 manuscripts of the Old Latin and all of Jerome’s Vulgate. The TBS (58) “The Power and the Glory” have an extremely detailed compilation on this text as follows:
Evidence for the authenticity of the AV 1611 reading: 1st Century: 2 Timothy 4:1 8b (cross reference); 2nd Century: Didache (document of Apostolic Teaching, discovered 1875, (38) p 117), Tatian’s Diatessaron, Old Syriac version (Peshitta); 3rd Century: Coptic and Sahidic (i.e. Egyptian) versions; 4th Century: Apostolic Constitutions, Old Latin manuscript k, Gothic (Ulfilas (5) p 208) and Armenian versions; 5th Century: Uncial W, Chrysostom, Isidore of Pelusium ((3) p 147), Georgian version; 6th Century: Uncials Sigma, Phi; Ethiopic version; Palestinian, Harcican and Curetonian Syriac((3)p 118); 8th Century: Uncials E, L; 9th Century: Uncials G, K, M, U, V, Delta, Phi, Pi; Old Latin f, g; Cursives 33, 565, 892; 10th Century: Cursive 1079; 11th Century: Cursives 28, 124, 174, 230, 700, 788, 1216; 12th Century: Cursives 346,543, 1010, 1071, 1195, 1230, 1241, 1365, 1646; 13th Century: Cursives 13, 1009, 1242, 1546; 14th Century: Cursives 2148,2174; 15th Century: Cursives 69, 1253.
The TBS (ibid) states that the majority of the “very numerous” ‘Byzantine’” copies, including lectionaries, contain the AVl611 reading. The evidence against the AVl611 reading is as follows: 2nd Century: Cyprian, Origen, Tertullian, who all fail to mention the words-as do later writers listed below; 3rd Century: Some Coptic manuscripts; 4th Century: Aleph, B, Old Latin a, Caesarius Nazarene, Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory Nyssa, Hilary; 5th Century: Uncial D, Old Latin b, h; Chromatics, Augustine; 6th Century: Uncial Z, Cursive 0170; 7th Century: Old Latin 1; 9th Century: Old Latin g2; 10-11th Centuries: Old Latin ff.;12-l3th Centuries: Cursive 1, 118, Lectionary 547, Old Latin c; 14-15th Centuries: Cursives 131,209, 17, 130. Clearly, the available evidence vastly favours the AV 1611 reading.
Ruckman (54) p 14, states that “God” appears in the Old Latin and Old Syriac of the 2nd and 3rd centuries and in the vast majority of manuscripts. “God” appears in Berry’s Greek text.
Burgon (14) p 55, indicates that only uncials Aleph, B, C, together with copies of the Old Latin, Curetonian Syriac, Coptic and Ethiopian versions have the interrogative form. Supporting the AVI611 are 14 uncials and all the cursives, together with the Peshitta and Gothic versions. The only fathers who quote the verse, or Luke 10:15, the cross reference, are Chrysostom (4th cent.), Caesarius, Cyril of Alexandria and Theodoret (all of the 5th Century). These support the AVl6l1, as does Berry’s Greek text.
Burgon (14) p 91, 206 states that every extant uncial except Aleph and B and every extant cursive except one contain the verse. Of the versions, the Old Latin, Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Georgian, Ethiopic and Slavonic attest to the verse, with only the Curetonian Syriac and Sahidic omitting it. He cites additional ancient authorities including: 2nd Century: Tertullian; 3rd Century: Origen; 4th Century: Ambrose, Athanasius, Augustine, Basil, Chrysostom, Hilary, Juvencus; 8th Century: Clement of Syria, John Damascene.
Burgon also cites the Syriac version of the Canons of Eusebius and the readings of the entire Eastern Church on the l0th Sunday after Pentecost from the earliest period, in favour of the verse. Berry’s Greek text supports this passage.
Burgon (14) p 92, states that the verse is attested by every known uncial except Aleph, B, L and every known cursive except three. Also bearing witness to the verse are the Old Latin, Peshitta, Curetonian and Philoxenian Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Georgian and Slavonic versions. Of the fathers citing the verse, Burgon lists: 2nd Century: Tertullian; 3rd Century: Origen; 4th Century: Ambrose, Augustine, Chrysostom, pope Damasus, Hilary, Jerome, Theodorus Heracl.
Burgon adds that the verse was read in the Universal Eastern Church on the day following Pentecost, from the beginning. Berry’s Greek text also contains the verse.
Fuller (4) p 131, citing Burgon, states that Aleph, B, D and L omit “good” in verse 16 but that the word is found in nearly 30 other sources, including a number of fathers, yielding six witnesses of the 2nd century, three of the third, fourteen of the fourth, four of the fifth and two of the sixth. Hills (3) p 142-3, (38) p 119-20, states that eleven Greek manuscripts have the modern reading, which is also found in the Old Latin and Old Syriac versions and cited by Origen, Eusebius and Augustine. However, he also states that Uncial W and the vast majority of Greek manuscripts agree with the AVl6l 1, together with the Peshitta and Sahidic versions and the 2nd century writers, Irenaeus, Hippolytus and Justin Martyr. Berry’s Greek text supports this passage.
Ruckman (54) p 14, states that AV1611 reading is found in the Byzantine, i.e. Majority, manuscripts. Berry’s Greek text supports this passage.
Ruckman (54) p 14, states that the words are found in the Byzantine manuscripts. Berry’s Greek text supports this passage.
Ruckman (54) p 14, states that the AV1611 reading for verse 22 is found in the Byzantine manuscripts and Berry supports the AVl6l1 in both verses.
Ruckman (31) p428, states that the verse is found in Aleph, B, C, D, E, F, 0, H, L, K, M, S, U, V, Delta and cited by Tatian (180 AD) and Origen (200 AD). Berry’s Greek text supports this passage.
Ruckman (54) p 15, cites Tatian’s Diatessaron (180 AD) as containing the verse. Berry’s Greek text supports the AV16l1.
Reviewing the evidence in support of the AVl611 readings for Matthew 20:7-22:30, one should bear in mind the comments of Hodges in Part 3 about the rise, dominance and comparative uniformity of the Byzantine Text, together with its ancient support from the writings of Tatian.
Ruckman (2) p 102, (54) p 15, states that the omission can be traced to Origen, whose influence is responsible for the omission of the verse in the Alexandrian manuscripts. Berry’s Greek text contains verse 14, although transposing it with verse 13.
Ruckman (54) p 60-1, states that “offended” is the correct rendering of “skandalisthesthe,” found in this place in Aleph, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N etc. and papyrus fragments P1, 2, 3 etc. “Fall away” is “apostasia,” as in 2 Thess. 2:3 and hence most of the modern textual critics have the wrong sense. The correct sense-as the Greek word suggests-is to be scandalized, or offended as in the AV1611. “Stumble” is a possible alternative but undoubtedly inferior to the stronger word “offended.”
This reading is one of the few in the AV1611 which is not supported by the majority of Greek manuscripts, although it is found in the Textus Receptus editions, including Berry’s Greek text. Hills (3) p 200, (38) p 197, states that this passage reading is found in Uncial 1 and other manuscripts of the “Caesarean” family, a group similar to the Byzantine manuscripts but having circulated in Egypt, (3) p 125. (See also Ruckman (16) p4, who explains that the “Caesarean” family was invented (1920-30) to help disguise the fact that the vast majority of manuscripts usually do support this passage). Other witnesses cited by Hills in support of this passage reading are the Old Latin, Harclean Syriac and Eusebius (325 AD).
Hills (3) p 136, (38) p 76, states that the words are omitted only by Aleph, Theta, 28 (cursive) and 255 (cursive) and the Palestinian Syriac. Burgon (14) p 132, states that apart from the sources listed, every uncial, cursive and version contains the words, which are cited by the following fathers: 2nd Century: Irenaeus; 4th Century: Ambrose, Augustine; 5th Century: Cyril of Alexandria, Victor of Antioch. Burgon indicates this list is not exhaustive and that “the supposed adverse testimony” of several fathers is “a mistake.”
The scripture uses the plural noun “prophets” to allow Mark 1:2 to be quoted from Malachi 3:1, and Mark 1:3 to be quoted from Isaiah 40:3. These are two quotations from two different prophets, not just Isaiah! The modern versions simply lie about this quote being from both Isaiah and Malachi.
Ruckman (54) p 38, states that this passage reading is found in all four families of manuscripts (Alexandrian, Byzantine, “Caesarean,” Western) plus citations dating from 202 AD. Berry’s Greek text supports this passage. Note that the term “families” is used for convenience only. The detailed discussion in Part 3 shows that the family classification of manuscripts is a HOAX.
Burgon (14) p 137, 409, states that this passage reading is attested by 11 uncials and the whole body of cursives, with only nine manuscripts in total omitting the words, including six corrupt Alexandrian uncials (p 410). This passage reading is also attested (ibid) by the Peshitta and Philoxenian Syriac Versions, the Old Latin, Coptic, Ethiopic and Gothic Versions, Ireneus (2nd Century) and Victor of Antioch (5th Century). See also Fuller (32) p 149, citing Burgon. Berry’s Greek text supports this passage.
Burgon (14) p 69, states that the evidence against this passage reading is only Aleph, B, L and the Coptic version. All other Greek copies, uncial and cursive, favour this passage, together with the Old Latin (2nd Century), Peshitta and Philoxenian Syriac, Armenian, Ethiopic, Slavonic and Georgian versions. Burgon adds that the Thebale, Gothic and Curetonian Syriac “are defective here.”
More recently, the TBS (58) “Many Things,” have cited 5 uncials as the evidence against this passage. However, the TBS cites as favourable to this passage, Codices A and Bezae (D) and most other manuscripts, including the vast majority of cursives. Besides the versions listed by Burgon, they include Tatian’s Diatessaron (2nd century) as supporting this passage. Berry’s Greek text supports this passage.
Although this passage is not of major doctrinal import, it does illustrate the lengths to which the modem textual critics will go to defy the Majority Text.
Ruckman (54) p 16, cites D (6th Century), Tatian’s Diatessaron (180 AD) and the Gothic version of Ulfilas (320 AD) as the earliest authorities for this verse. Berry’s Greek text supports this passage.
Hills (3) p 138, states that Aleph, B and the other Alexandrian manuscripts omit the words, probably owing to the influence of Alexandrian Gnostics. Berry’s Greek text, reflecting the majority of manuscripts, retains the words.
Ruckman (2) p 122, states that A, D, K, X, Theta, Pi and the majority of Receptus Greek manuscripts support this passage. The verses were omitted in the manuscripts of Origen and Eusebius (i.e. Aleph and B). Berry’s Greek text supports this passage.
Ruckman (54) p 17, states that the words are found in all four families of manuscripts (Western, Caesarean, Byzantine and Hesychian (Alexandrian)) and in the writings of 180 AD, i.e. Tatian’s Diatessaron.
Burgon (14) p 260, states that Aleph, B, L and Delta omit the words but that they are attested by A, C, D, N and 12 other uncials plus the whole body of cursives, the Italic (presumably Old Latin, ibid p 258-61), Vulgate, both Syriac (presumably Peshitta and Harklensian, Ibid p 258-61), Coptic, Gothic, Armenian and Ethiopic versions. Victor of Antioch (5th Century) also cites the words. Berry’s Greek text supports this passage.
Ruckman (54) p 17, states that the words are found in all four families of manuscripts. Berry’s Greek text supports this passage.
Burgon states (14) p 57-8, that the modern reading is found in Aleph, B, C, D, L, Delta, about a dozen cursives, ‘also of depraved type” and the Ethiopic version. In support of this passage he cites the vast body of manuscripts, beginning with A, the Peshitta and Philoxenian Syriac, the Old Latin and the Vulgate, the Egyptian (i.e. Coptic and Sahidic), the Gothic and Armenian versions. Berry’s Greek text supports this passage.
Burgon (14) p 59-60, indicates that the modern reading is supported by Aleph, B, C, L, Delta, about 4 other uncials and the two Egyptian versions. Supporting this passage are fourteen uncials, including A and D, the whole body of cursives, the Peshitta and Philoxenian Syriac, the Italic (Old Latin), Vulgate, Gothic, Gothic, Armenian, Georgian, Ethiopic and Slavonic versions. Berry’s Greek text supports this passage.
This and preceding example illustrate once again how eager the modern textual critics are to alter the Majority Text where they can.
Ruckman (2) p 110, (54) p 18, states that the verse is found in the vast majority of manuscripts and in the Old Latin and Old Syriac of the 2nd and 3rd centuries respectively. Berry’s Greek text supports this passage.
Burgon (14) p 72, states that Aleph, B, and L are the only manuscripts which omit these words. Berry’s Greek text, representing the majority of manuscripts, supports this passage.
The evidence in favour of the authenticity of Mark 16:9-20 is overwhelming. The TBS publication (58) “The Authenticity of The Last Twelve Verses of…Mark” is an excellent summary, drawing mainly from Burgon, (14) p 36-40, 422-4 and Burgon’s work cited by Fuller (33) p 25-130. See also Burton (5) p 62-3, Fuller (4) p 168-9, Hills (3) p 161-2, (38) p 133-4, Ruckman (2) p 132.
The TBS publication-see above-states that only 2 Greek manuscripts (Aleph and B) out of a total of 620 which contain the Gospel of Mark, omit the verses. See Burgon, cited by Fuller (33) p 60-1. Moreover, Burgon, ibid p 67, states that a blank space has been left in B, where the verses should have been but where the scribe obviously omitted them.
As further evidence in favour of the verses, Burgon (14) p423, (3) p 169, cites: 2nd Century: Old Latin and Peshitta Syriac versions, Papias, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian; 3rd Century: Coptic and Sahidic versions, Hippolytus, Vincentius, ‘Acta Pilati’-by an unknown author, Apostolic Constitutions; 4th Century: Curetonian Syriac and Gothic versions, Syriac table of Canons, Eusebius, Macarius Magnes, Aphraates, Didymus, The Syriac “Acts of the Apostles,” Epiphanius, Leontius, Ephraem, Ambrose, Chrysostom, Jerome, Augustine; 5th Century: Armenian version (some copies), Codices A and C, Leo, Nestorius, Cyril of Alexandria, Victor of Antioch, Patricius, Marius Mercator; 6th and 7th Centuries: Codex D, Georgian and Ethiopic versions, Hesychius, Gregentius, Prosper, Archbishop John of Thessalonica, Bishop Modestus of Jerusalem.
The TBS also cites the Philoxenian Syriac of the 5th century as containing the verses. Hills and Ruckman also cite Tatian (2nd century) as quoting the verses. Hills (3) p 162, (38) p 134, states that besides Aleph and B, the Sinaitic Syriac-from the same source as Aleph, 2 manuscripts of the Georgian version and 62 of the Armenian version omit the verses. The Old Latin manuscript k has the “short conclusion” instead of verses 9-20. See notes for NEB, NWT. Burgon (33) p 81-2, explains how this short ending has been obtained solely from Codex L, an 8th or 9th century manuscript “with an exceedingly vicious text” (ibid). Hills explains the omission of verses 9-20 from the above handful of documents as indicative of the work of heretics, especially docetists who sought to de-emphasise post resurrection appearances of the Lord from the Gospel record, ibid p 166-8, p 138-41.
Burgon (33) p 49-60 also demonstrated that the supposed adverse testimony of ancient writers is spurious, resting on a quotation from Eusebius which does NOT deny verses 9-20. Berry’s Greek text supports this passage.
Let’s take a look at the two “oldest and best” manuscripts that delete the last twelve verses of Mark 16. The Vaticanus (Codex B) and Sinaiticus (Codex Aleph):
The Vatican copy stops short at the end of Mark 16, verse eight. But the copiest left a blank space sufficient to accommodate the twelve missing verses! This is the only vacant column in the whole Vaticanus manuscript! It seems that the copyist knew that there was a portion missing in the copy before him. Dean John William Burgon draws the obvious conclusion that the scribe who prepared Vaticanus “was instructed to leave them out, and he obeyed; but he prudently left a blank space in memoriam rei. Never was blank more intelligible! Never was silence more eloquent!” (op. cit., p. 67, “Last Twelve Verses of St. Mark,” 1871).
As for the Sinaiticus manuscript, it is written in the same-size letters throughout until you come to the place where the last twelve verses of Mark belong, then the letters become large and spread out, taking up enough extra space to allow the last twelve verses of Mark to appear in the smaller letters that had been used up until this time. The double page containing the end of Mark and the beginning of Luke was removed at an early date and replaced with the four sides rewritten to exclude Mark 16:9-21! By slightly increasing the size of the letters and spaces, the writer was able to extend his shortened version to the top of the column preceding Luke one. Tischendorf, the discoverer of the Sinaiticus copy, alleged that these pages were written by the copyists of the Vaticanus manuscript.
So much for the so-called evidence from the two “oldest” manuscripts; if anything they testify to the authenticity of the last twelve verses of Mark.
The evidence in favour of this passage against the modern textual critics is cited by Burgon (14) p 42-3, 422-3, by Fuller quoting Burgon (32) p96 and the TBS (58) “Good Will Toward Men.” Only five codices (Aleph, A, B, D, W) support the modern textual critics, against every existing copy of the Gospels, amounting to many hundreds” (Fuller, ibid).
Although the Latin, Sahidic and Gothic versions support the modern textual Critics, this passage reading is supported by: 2nd Century: Syriac versions, Irenaeus; 3rd Century: Coptic version, Origen, Apostolical Constitutions; 4th Century: Eusebius, Aphraates the Persian, Titus of Bostra, Didymus, Gregory of Nazianzus, Cyril of Jerusalem, Epiphanius, Gregory of Nyssa, Ephraem Syrus, Philo, Bishop of Carpasus, Chrysostom; 5th Century: Armenian version, Cyril of Alexandria, Theodoret, Theodotus of Ancyra, Proclus, Paulus of Emesa, Basil of Seleucia, the Eastern bishops of Ephesus collectively; 6th Century: Georgian and Ethiopic versions, Cosmos, Anastasius Sinaita, Eulogius, Archbishop of Alexandria; 7th Century: Andreas of Crete; 8th Century: Cosmos, Bishop of Maiuma, John Damascene, Germanus, Archbishop of Consttantinople, pope Martinus. Berry’s Greek text supports this passage.
Hills (3) p 221, (38) p 208, states that the modem reading is found in the majority of manuscripts and the Editions of Erasmus and Stephanus (including Berry’s Greek text.) This passage reading is found in the Editions of Beza and Elzevir, the Complutensian Polyglot (printed at Acala, Spain, under the direction of Cardinal Ximenes and published 1522), No. 76 and a few other Greek cursives. This is one of the few occasions when the AV1611 departs from the majority of manuscripts (Hills, ibid, discusses the handful of other instances) but inspection of Leviticus 12 proves that this passage reading is-as always-correct.
Ruckman (24) p 43, states that this passage reading is found in an 8th century manuscript, in two from the 9th century and one from the 10th century plus “nearly all” the Caesarian type texts and Old Latin witnesses. Fuller (4) p 220, indicates that the modern reading comes from Jerome, using the corrupt text (i.e. Aleph and B) of Eusebius. Berry’s Greek text supports this passage.
Ruckman (54) p 18, states that the words are found in three families of manuscripts (Western, Caesarean, Byzantine) and in Tatian’s Diatessaron (2nd Century). Aleph and B and their associates omit the words, together with the Boharic (North African) and Coptic versions. Berry’s Greek text supports this passage.
Ruckman (54) p 19, states that the words are found in the vast majority of-Greek manuscripts. Berry’s Greek text supports this passage.
1 Corinthians 10:4, 1 Peter 2:6-8 reveal that the modern reading obscures THE LORD JESUS CHRIST. Burgon (14) p 110, states that this passage reading is supported by A, C, D, 12 other uncials and the whole body of cursives, the Syriac, Latin and Gothic versions. The modern reading has been derived from Aleph and B, ibid p 315. Berry’s Greek text supports this passage.
Berry’s text supports this passage with respect to both clauses. Burgon (14) p 401-2, states that the second clause is attested by A, C, D, P, R, X, Gamma, Delta, Xi, Lambda, Pi and every other known uncial except three “of bad character,” every known cursive hut four, by the Old Latin and Vulgate, by all four Syriac versions, by the Gothic and Ethiopic versions and Tatian and Chrysostom.
Burgon (14) p 316, cites Aleph and B as the authorities for the omissions, in company with a few other corrupt mss. Berry’s Greek text supports this passage.
Burgon (14) p 34-5, states that the modern omissions can be traced back to Marcion the heretic (150 AD). Aleph and B alone omit “but deliver us from evil”, ibid p 317. Berry’s Greek text supports this passage.
Ruckman (31) p428, states that while the Majority Text is rejected by Nestle, it is supported by A, C, E, F, L, M, N, P, R, S, T, Phi, Delta, Sigma and 800 cursives.
Hills (3) p 126, states that this passage reading (i.e. “Seek ye the kingdom of God”) is found in the Traditional (i.e. Majority) Text and Papyrus 45 (3rd Century). The modern reading is found in Aleph and B. See also remarks under Matthew 6:33. Berry’s Greek text supports this passage.
Hills (3) p 221, (38) p 208, states that the verse is lacking in the editions of Erasmus, in the first three editions of Stephanus and in the majority of manuscripts. Hence it is not found in Berry’s Greek text. The verse is found in the 4th edition of Stephanus, in the editions of Beza and Elzevir, in D, the Latin Vulgate, the Peshitta, Curetonian and Sinaitic Syriac. That the verse merits inclusion in Luke is demonstrated by the cross reference, Matthew 24:40.
Subsequently, Papyrus 75 (200 AD), one of the Bodmer Papyrii published 1956-62 (3) p 116, was also found to contain ALL EIGHT of the “Western Omissions,” thus undermining the testimony of D. Hence-at this point-the critics did an abrupt “about face” and in consequence the 1971 Edition of the RSV conforms to the Majority Text in Luke 22:19-20. See Preface to the 1971 Edition of the RSV, for an entertaining account of how this farcical situation was glossed over in scholarly style. The NIV and the other versions published during the 1960’s and 70’s, have also been made to conform to the evidence of P’S (and the Majority Text!), except the NEB. (Perhaps the English were slow to react!) This sequence of events surely illustrates the untrustworthiness of modern translators in their basic attitude to Holy Scripture. They are obviously uncertain of just what “Holy Scripture” actually is!
Burgon (14) p 79-81, states that the verses are absent only from A, B, R, T. All the remaining manuscripts, uncial and cursive, contain them, together with every ancient version (Old Latin, Peshitta and Palestinian Syriac, some copies of the Armenian and Coptic versions (Hills (3) p 130, (38) p 73.) Of the fathers who refer to the verses, Burgon cites: 2nd Century: Irenaeus, Justin Martyr; 3rd Century: Dionysius of Alexandria, Hippolytus, Tatian (c); 4th Century: Arius, Athanasius, Chrysostom, Didymus, Dionysius Areopagus, Ephraem Syrus, Epiphanius, Eusebius, Gregory of Nazianzus, Hilary, Jerome, Leontius; 5th Century: Caesarius (c), Cyril of Alexandria, Gennadius, Julian the heretic, Nestorius, Paulus, bishop of Emesa, Theodoret, Theodorus Mops, several Oriental bishops; 6th Century: Anastasius Sinaita, Facundus; 7th Century: Maximus; 8th Century: John Damascene; 9th Century: Photius.N.B. (c) denotes cited by another writer.
Hills (3) p 130-1, (38) p 72-3, states that Papyrus 75, N and W also omit the verses, together with a group of Caesarean manuscripts called “Family 13 (!)” One copy of the Old Latin, the Sinaitic Syriac and some copies of the Coptic and Armenian versions omit the verses. Hills explains, ibid p 132, p 74, how this handful of negative evidence could well have been the result of the corrupting influence of docetic heretics. See also Fuller (32) p 138, (33) p 66. Berry’s Greek text supports this passage.
Burgon (14) p 83-5, states that the words are found in every known uncial except B, D, in every known cursive except 38, 435, a, b, d and in every ancient version except one of the Egyptian texts. Burgon also cites: 2nd Century: Hegesippus, Irenaeus; 3rd Century: Apostolic Constitutions, Clementine Homilies, disputation of Archelaus with Manes, Hippolytus, Origen, Tatian; 4th: Century: Acta Apostt. (Syrian Acts of the Apostles), Acta Philippi, Acta Pilati, Ambrose, Athanasius, Augustine, Basil, Chrysostom, Dionysius Areopagus, Ephraem Syrus, Ephraim, Eusebius, Gregory Nyssa, Hilary, Ignatius (c), Jerome, Justin Martyr (c), Theodorus; 5th Century: Cyril of Alexandria, Eutherius, Theodoret; 6th Century: Anastasius Sinaita, Hesychius; 7th Century: Andreas Cretensis, Antiochus the monk, Maximus; 8th Century: Amphilochius (c), Chrysostom (c), John Damascene. See also Fuller (32) p 139. Hills (3) p 132, (38) p 74, states that the words are omitted by Papyrus 75, B, D, W, Theta, 38, 435, some copies of the Old Latin, the Sinaitic Syriac and the Coptic versions but retained by the vast majority of Greek manuscripts, including Aleph, A, C, L, N, certain manuscripts of the Old Latin, the Curetonian, Peshitta, Hardean and Philoxenian Syriac. Berry’s Greek text supports this passage.
Burgon (14) p 85, states that the words are omitted by B, C, L, the Egyptian versions and the Curetonian Syriac. They are retained by Aleph, A, D, Q, R, 13 other uncials, all cursive copies, the Latin, Peshitta and Philoxenian Syriac, Armenian, Ethiopic and Georgian versions. Eusebius (4th century) and Cyril of Alexandria (5th century) also cite the words. Berry’s Greek text supports this passage.
Hills (3) p 136, states that the Majority Text (see Berry), the Old Latin and the Sinaitic Syriac versions support this passage, while the modern reading is found only in Papyrus 75, Aleph, B, C, L and the Sahidic version. Ruckman (54) p 50, states that no less than 80 uncials and 70 cursives have this passage reading. Both Hills and Ruckman (see also (24) p 38) explain how the modern reading is properly attributed to the corrupting influence of docetic heretics.
None of the modern textual critics achieve the correct sense where they differ from the Majority Text. Any wording that could even suggest an eclipse, e.g. NKJV marg., is erroneous because it detracts from the supernatural darkening of the sun which took place at the crucifixion and is indeed impossible because at Passover time, the moon was full (Hills (3) p 127.) The other alternatives, e.g. NIV, are paraphrases and thus cannot be said to be accurate translations-see Berry for the precise rendering, which is identical with this passage.
Hills (3) p 127, shows that this passage reading is opposed only by Papyrus 75, Aleph, B, C, Land the Coptic version. Burgon (14) p 63, indicates that “only…eleven lectionaries” support Aleph etc. All other manuscripts-uncial and cursive-support the AVt6I 1. Also in support of the AVi6l I (Burgon (14) p 61-2) are the Old Latin, Vulgate, Peshitta, Curetonian and Philoxenian Syriac, Armenian, Ethiopic, Georgian and Slavonic versions. The favourable evidence from the fathers includes: 2nd Century: Hippolytus, Marcion (!),Tertullian; 3rd Century: Julius Africanus, Origen; 4th Century: Acta Pilati, Athanasius, Chrysostom, Ephraem Syrus, Gregory of Nazianzus, Marcus Magnus, Syrian Acts of the Apostles; 5th Century: Cyril of Alexandria, Theodore Mops.
The following deals mainly with the remainder of the “Western Omissions” in Luke 24, perpetrated by Marcion the heretic. See remarks under Luke 22:19, 20. In all these places, Berry’s text supports this passage.
“Only begotten” is “monogenes” and this reading is found in the vast majority of manuscripts (TBS (58) “The Only Begotten Son”). The TBS. ibid, states that “only begotten” is the correct reading, supported by the Latin “unigenitus,” found in Codex Harleianus, a 10th century copy of the 2nd century Old Latin. Hills (3) p 133, (38), states in his discussion on 1:18 that the Latin versions and Curetonian Syriac support this passage. Ruckman (2) p 110 states that the removal of “begotten” from John 3:16 was achieved in the Alexandrian manuscripts (Papyrii 66, 75, Aleph, B) by erasing “his” and thus weakening the emphasis which would yield “only begotten.” The reading “only begotten God” has been traced by Burgon to Valentinus, a 2nd century heretic who no doubt influenced Origen. It is preserved in Papyrus 66, Aleph, B, C, L and the Peshitta (Hills, ibid). Ruckman (31) p 369, states that Papyrus 75 and the “4th correcter” of Aleph added the “the” as found in the NASV. Ruckman (2) p 119, also states that Tertullian (150 AD), Athanasius (325 AD) and Chrysostom (345) rejected the reading as found in Aleph, B etc. Berry’s Greek text supports this passage.
See also the extensive discussion in Part 3 on John 1:18, in opposition to Dr. Oakley’s support for the heretical reading of the NIV.
Hills (3) p 136, (38) p 76, states that Papyri 66, 75, Aleph, B, L, the Sahidic version, some Bohairic copies (Egyptian) and the Diatessaron omit the words. Burgon (14) p 1334, states that every Greek manuscript of John 3 contains the words, “except five of bad character,” as do all the Latin and Syriac versions, the Coptic, Ethiopic, Georgian and Armenian versions. Of the fathers in support of this passage, he cites: 2nd Century: Hippolytus; 3rd Century: Dionysius of Alexandria (c), Novatian, Origen; 4th Century: Artibrose, Aphraates the Persian, Athanasius, Augustine, Basil, Chrysostom, Didymus, Epiphanius, Hilary, Jerome, Lucifer, Theodorus Herad; 5th Century: Cyril of Alexandria, Marius Mecator, Nonnus, Paulus, Bishop of Emesa, Theodoret, Theodorus Mops, Victorinus (possibly 4th cent.); 6th Century: Severus; 8th Century: Amphilochus, Cosmas, John Damascene. See also Fuller (32) p 109-10. Berry’s Greek text supports this passage.
The excellent TBS publication (58) “The Pool of Bethesda” gives by far the most detailed summary of the evidence for and against the passage. Verse 3b is omitted by Papyri 66, 75, uncials Aleph, A, B, C, L, 0125, Old Latin q, Curetonian Syriac, Coptic, Sahidic, Bohairic and Diatessaron 1. Verse 3b is found in uncials D, A2, C3, K, W supp, X com, Delta, Theta, Pi*, Psi, 078; cursives Fl, F13, 28, 33, 565, 700, 892, 1009, 1010, 1071, 1079, 1195, 1216, 1230, 1241, 1242, 1253, 1344, 1365, 1546, 1646, 2148, 2178, the Byzantine majority text and Lectionaries, the Old Latin a (4th c), aur (7th), b (5th), d (5th), j (6th), 1(7/8th), rl (7th), c (12/13th), e (5th), f (6th), f~ (5th), the Syriac (Harkelian, Peshitta, Philoxenian), the Latin Vulgate, Armenian, Ethiopic and Georgian versions, some copies of the Coptic-Bohairic, Diatessaron a, Tertullian (220 AD), Ambrose (397 AD), Chrysostom (407 AD), Cyril (444 AD).
Verse 4 is omitted by Papyrii 66, 75, uncials Aleph, B, C*, D, W supp, 0125, 0141, cursive 33, Old Latin d, f, 1, q, Curetonian Syriac, some manuscripts of the Coptic-Sahidic-Bohairic versions, the Georgian and Latin Vulgate versions. Verse 4 is found (with variations) in uncials A, C3, K, L, Pi, X comm, Delta, Theta, Psi, 047, 063, 078, cursives 28, 565, 700, 892, 1009, 1010, 1071, 1079, 1195, 1216, 1230, 1241, 1242, 1253, 1344, 1365, 1546, 1646,2148, 2174, Byzantine majority text and Lectionaries, Old Latin a (4th c), aur (7th), b (5th), c (12/13th), e (5th), f12 (5th),j (6th), rl (7th), the Syriac (Harkelian, Peshitta, Philoxenian, 3rd- 7th c), some manuscripts of the Coptic-Bohairic, the Armenian version; Diatessaron a, e arm, 1, n; Tertullian (220 AD), Ambrose (397 AD), Didymus (398 AD), Chrysostom (407 AD), Cyril (444 AD).
Ruckman (2) p 217, states that the Diatessaron copies (2nd century) attesting to the passage number over 200. Ruckman, ibid and Hills (3) p 146, (38) p 122, state that the passage is virtually intact in the vast majority of Greek manuscripts. See Fuller (33) p 157-8. Berry’s Greek text supports this passage.
Hills (3) p 135, (38) p76, states that the modern reading is found in Papyrus 75, Aleph, B, C, D, L, W, the Sahidic and with the addition of “the Christ,” in Papyrus 66, some copies of the Sahidic and the Bohairic version. In support of this passage is the Traditional text, the Peshitta and Hardean Syriac and some copies of the Old Latin. See also Ruckman (54) p 29. Berry’s Greek text supports this passage.
The AMP notes in the margin the omission from the older manuscripts but indicates it ought nevertheless to be retained. The NASV brackets the verses and notes in the margin that most of the old manuscripts do not contain them. The NSRB notes in the margin that the passage is not found in some ancient manuscripts but accepts it as genuine. The NEB displaces verses to the end of John’s Gospel. The NWT places the passage in the margin. The JB notes in the margin that on the basis of style, the author is not John and that the oldest manuscripts do not contain the passage.
Fuller (4) p 1234, (33) p 155, cites Burgon as stating that of 73 copies of John’s Gospel in the British Museum, 61 contain John 7:53-8:11 as found in this passage. Burgon (33) p 155, indicates that this proportioning would be typical for any collection of manuscript copies of John. He also cites, (33) p 149, a further 60 copies, from three distinct lines of ancestry, which agree with this passage. He alludes to 35 of the BM copies which contain a marginal note stating that verses 1-11 are not to be read on Whitsunday. Thus he explains how the Lectionary practice of the early church would have accounted for the omission of the verses from some of the seventy cursives from which they are absent. He also states, (33) p 148, that the subject matter itself would have been sufficient for deletion of the words from many copies, including the oldest uncials, Aleph and B. The verses are also absent from A (5th century), L (8th century), T (5th century) and Delta (9th century) but Codex A has two leaves missing, which in Burgon’s considered view would have contained the verses, while L and Delta exhibit blank spaces which are witnesses FOR, not against, the validity of the verses. See remarks on B in relation to Mark 16:9-20. This leaves only T in agreement with Aleph and B, both notoriously untrustworthy. Burgon, ibid p 156, states that the verses are to be found in the large majority of later copies (i.e. over 900 manuscripts, as the NKJV so obligingly notes.)
Hills (3) p 159, (38) p 131, states that Papyri 66 and 75 and W omit the verses, in addition to the sources cited by Burgon. D however (6th century), contains them. Burgon (33) p 145-6, 1534, also cites in favour of the passage as found in this passage: Codex D and the Old Latin codices b, c, e ff, g, h, j-see notes under John 5:3b-4 for dates. Note that the Old Latin TEXT dates from the 2nd Century, (17) p77 Jerome (385 AD), who included it in the Vulgate after surveying older Greek copies, stating it was found “in many copies both Greek and Latin”, before 415 AD, (17) p 134 The Ethiopic (5th century), Palestinian Syriac (5th Century), Georgian (5/6th century), some copies of the Armenian (4/5th century), Slavonic, Arabic and Persian versions Ambrose (374 AD), Augustine (396), Chrysologus (433), Faustus (400), Gelasius (492), Pacian (370), Rufinus (400), Sedulius (434), Victorius (457), Vigilius (484) and others The Lectionary practice of the Eastern Church, from earliest times (i.e. the 2nd century.)
Burgon, ibid p 147, states that the dislocation of John 7:53-8:11 (see notes under RSV and GN) is attributable to four cursives, 13, 69, 124, 346, all evidently from one ancient and corrupt copy.
Ruckman (2) p 134, cites in favour of the passage, the Didache (3rd century document of Apostolic Teachings), Apostolic Constitutions (4th century) and Eusebius (324 AD) citing Papias (150 AD) as recognizing the passage. The Montanists (2nd century) were also aware of the passage. Ruckman (31) p 333, also cites besides D, uncials M, S and Gamma from the 5th, 8th and 9th centuries in favour of this passage. Concerning authorship of the passage (see note under JB), Hills (38) p 130, states that “arguments from style are notoriously weak.” Berry’s Greek text supports this passage.
The words are in italics in the AV1611 and hence absent from Berry’s text. Hills (38) p 207, states that the AV1611 translators followed the Bishops’ Bible and added the clause to the 1611 Text. The clause is found in uncials E, G, H, K and many other manuscripts, in the Complutensian Polyglot and in the first two editions of Stephanus (Berry’s is the 3rd). All editions of the AV1611 since 1769 have retained the clause in italics.
Hills (3) p 136-7, (38) p 76, states that the AV1611 is supported by the Traditional Text (see Berry) and the Old Latin. The modern reading is derived from Papyri 66 and 75, Aleph, B, D, and the Sinaitic Syriac and probably represents an attack on the Deity of Christ by heretics. Ruckman (54) p 31. states that this passage reading is cited by Origen (200 AD) and Tertullian (220 AD) and found in Ulfilas’ Gothic Bible (330 AD).
The objection to the modern rendering is that it equates the knowledge of the Lord by the believer to that which is enjoyed by the Father. The result is either to deify man or humanize God, either tendency being heresy.
Burgon (14) p 220-1, states that the proportion of manuscripts of John which support this passage is “996 out of a 1000.” He states that the modern reading-unquestionably the work of heretics-is found only in Aleph, B, D, L. this passage is also supported by the Syriac, Chrysostom, Gregory of Nazianzus, Macarius (4th century), Cyril of Alexandria, Theodoret (5th century) and Maximus (7th century). See also Fuller (32) p 158-9. Ruckman (31) p418, cites only Aleph, B, D, L as against this passage and A, Theta, E, F, K, M, P, Phi, Sigma, Delta in support. Berry’s Greek text supports the AV1611.
Although not in the text of the JB, the marginal alternative confers supreme power on the CHURCH, rather than on God. It is a reading “tailor-made” for Catholic supremacy and Hills (3) p 128, quotes Westcott as saying, “The faithful, regarded in their unity, are stronger than every opposing power.” Hills, ibid, states that the AV1611 is supported by the Traditional Text (see Berry), Papyrii 66 and 75, while the marginal reading is found only in Aleph and B.
Omission of the word “church” is objectionable on the grounds that it eliminates the cross references to Acts 5:14, 11:24 and thus obscures the fact that the “Body of Christ” (Colossians 1:18, 24) began in Acts 2. “Ekklesia” is found in Berry’s Greek text, underlying its presence in the Majority Text.
The TBS (58) “Acts 2:47 states that the evidence against this passage reading is uncials Aleph, A, B, C, G, cursive 81 (1044 AD), some manuscripts of the Old Latin, the Vulgate, the Egyptian, Armenian and Ethiopic versions and quotations in the writings of Cyril and Lucifer. These hostile witnesses are few and vastly offset by the evidence supporting this passage. Standing in favour of this passage reading are uncials D, E (both 6th century), P (9th century) 049,056,0142; the man’ stream of the very numerous Byzantine manuscripts” pint independent” copies of the Byzantine group including no’s 33, 1739, 181, 436, 451, 945, 104, 88, 326, 330, 1241,2412,2127,614, 2492, 1877, 629, 630, 2495. The TBS (ibid) affirm that the Byzantine readings correspond to a 4th century text. Also in favour of this passage are the Old Latin rnanuscripts c, d (each 415th century), the Peshitta and Harkelian Syriac. The TBS affirms that these versions represent a 2nd century text.
Ruckman (31) p 338, states that every Greek manuscript that contains Acts 7:45 (whether Uncial, Papyrus or Cursive), reads “Iesou“, meaning JESUS.
Hills (3) p 201, (38) p 197, explains that the verse is absent from most Greek manuscripts because the practice of delaying baptism following profession of faith had become common before the end of the 3rd century. However, the verse is found in uncial E (6/7th century), the Old Latin (2nd century), the Vulgate (5th century) and is cited by Irenaeus (180 AD) and Cyprian (250 AD). See also Ruckman (31) p 331, (54) p 19-20. Ruckman (57) Acts p 291 also cites Tertullian (2nd century), Pacian (370 AD), Ambrose and Augustine (4th century) as knowing of the verse. Even though the verse is not in the Majority Text, Berry’s Greek text supports this passage, indicating the familiarity of the 16th century editors with the ancient evidence in support of the verse. See Part 3 of this work for further discussion.
Hills (3) p 197, (38) p 201 and Ruckman (31) p 331-2, state that although the words are absent from most of the Greek manuscripts, they are found in uncial E, 431, the Old Latin (200 AD), the Vulgate and the Peshitta (200 AD). Ruckman (57) Acts p 299-300, also cites Ambrose (397 AD), Ephraem (378) and Lucifer of Cagliari (371) as quoting the passage. Berry’s Greek text supports this passage, following the insight of Erasmus (Hills, ibid) with respect to the evidence in favour of the verse.
Ruckman (57) Acts p 442, states that Aleph and B omit the verse. It is found in the Syriac and Byzantine manuscripts, in D (Western family), in C (Alexandrian family) and in the Old Latin. Berry’s Greek text supports this passage.
Ruckman (57) Acts p 505, states that “blood” is found in all four families of manuscripts, in the majority of manuscripts and cited in writings dating from the 2nd century. The modern reading is an ecumenical, political, internationalist, integrationist EXPEDIENT. Berry’s Greek text supports this passage.
Burgon (14) p 534, describes how the modern substitution came about through sheer accident-the alteration in an uncial copy of “TIIOY” (the last letter of “name” and the first three letters of “Justus”) to “TITOY“-“Titus.” Aleph, E and the Coptic version read “Titus Justus” and a compounding of the original error has yielded “Titius” in B-and in B alone! All other copies of Acts, including A, D, G, H, L, P read as this passage, as does the quotation from Chrysostom, the only ancient Greek writer to refer to the passage. Berry’s Greek text supports this passage. Although not of tremendous doctrinal import, this example does help to illustrate the general carelessness of the modern textual critics.
Either in the margin (NIV, NKJV, GN) or in the text (Ne, RSV, AMP, NEB, NWT) several modern translations have weakened testimony to these fundamental doctrines by alteration of “God” to “Lord” and “his own blood” to “blood of his own” or “blood of his own son” or similar.
Hills (3) p 201, (38) p 198, states that “church of the Lord and God” is the reading of the Majority Text but that editors of the Textus Receptus (see Berry’s Greek text) followed Jerome (who no doubt followed the Old Latin) plus “Aleph, B and other ancient witnesses” in adopting “church of God.” Thus the unequivocal testimony to the Deity of the Lord Jesus Christ was providentially preserved in the Majority Text. 1. (Whilst this example may appear to show Aleph and B in a favourable light, one should remember the old maxim that exceptions prove the rule, they do not overthrow it.)
Ruckman (54) p 32, indicates that this passage reading is found in the vast majority of Greek manuscripts. Berry’s Greek text supports this passage.
The TBS (58) Article 28, on the J.B. Phillips Translation, state that the reading “let us have” is derived from Aleph, B and their small group of allies, against the majority of manuscripts of the Byzantine Text, which underlies this passage. Berry’s Greek text supports this passage.
Ruckman (54) p 68, states that the words are found in all four families of manuscripts and in the majority of uncials and cursives. Berry’s Greek text supports this passage.
Burgon (14) p21 1-3, states that ALL the oldest codices, plus the entire body of cursives deny the modern alternatives to this passage reading. Every ancient version does likewise, as indeed does every father who quotes the passage: 2nd Century: Irenaeus; 3rd Century: Apostolic Constitutions, Dionysius of Alexandria (c), Hippolytus, Malchion on behalf of six Bishops at Antioch (296 AD), Methodius, Novatian, Origen; 4th Century: Ambrose, Athanasius, Augustine, Basil, Chrysostom, Didymus, Epiphanius, Ferrandus, Gregory of Nyssa; 5th Century: Cassian, Caesarius, Cyril of Alexandria, Gelasius of Cyzicus, Gennadius, Hilary, Jereme, Leo, Marius Mecator, Nestorius, Palladius, Paulus, bishop of Emesa; Proclus, Theodoret, Theodorus Mops, Theodotus of Ancrya, Victorinus (possibly 4th century); 6th Century: Eulogias, Facundus, Fulgentius, Severus; 8th Century: Amphilochius (i.e. no later).
On this occasion, the NKJV, AMP, NASV and JB yield the correct reading and even the NWT reading is superior to that of the RSV!. Berry’s Greek text unequivocally supports the AV1611. As Burgon indicates, ibid, the modern alternatives to this passage are purely scholarly conjecture. See also Fuller (32) p 109.
Ruckman (24) p 83, states that the oldest manuscripts in three families support the AV1611. Berry’s Greek text supports this passage.
Ruckman (54) p 21, states that Aleph, frequently used by modern translators to alter this passage, has the words, which are also cited by Origen (200 AD). Berry’s Greek text supports this passage.
Hills (3) p 137, states that this passage reading is not only the majority reading (see Berry’s Greek text) but it is cited by Polycarp (1st/2nd century), Tertullian and Marcion (both 2nd century). The modern alteration comes from Aleph, B, D2 plus other Western and Alexandrian texts and is almost certainly a deliberate heretical substitution.
Ruckman (2) p 98, states that the bases for the omissions are B (4th cent.), A and D (each 5th cent.) against Papyrus 46 (3rd cent.), Aleph (4th cent.), G (10th cent.), the majority of remaining uncials, the Receptus (see Berry’s Greek text), the Old Latin and Old Syriac (a dozen 3rd-5th century copies.
Ruckman (24) p 79, states that Papyrus 46 (3rd cent.), Aleph (4th cent.), A (5th cent.) support this passage. The authority for the alteration is B, which is not surprising, since the “mass” is a SACRIFICE.
Ruckman (54) p 32. indicates that this passage reading is found in the vast majority of manuscripts, in all four families and in citations from Origen (200 AD).
The TBS (58) “Broken For You” has again produced an excellent summary of the evidence for and against this passage.
“Broken” is omitted by Aleph, B (4th cent.), A, C (5th cent.), cursives 33 (9th cent.), 1739 (10th cent.). Also omitting the word are citations by the Armenian of Zohrab, Origen (3nd cent.), Cyril of Alexandria, Pelagius (both 5th cent.) and Fulgentius (6th cent.).
“Broken” is reinserted by correctors of Aleph and C and retained by the “Abschrift” (9th Cent. copy of D), G, K, P (all 8/9th cent.), the majority of the Byzantine manuscripts, the majority of ancient Lectionary copies and a considerable number of “independent” Byzantine cursives. 81, 88, 104, 181, 326, 330,436, 451, 614, 629, 630, 1241, 1739 mg. (ic. margin), 1877, 1881, 1962, 1984, 1985,2127, 2492, 2495. “Broken” is also found in copies of the Peshitta and Harcleian Syriac, the Old Latin (Claromontanus and Palatinus of the 5th cent., Boernerianus of the 9th), in Ulfilas’ Gothic version (4th cent.) and in the Armenian of Uscan. The word is cited by Ambrosiaster. Basil and Chrysostom (all 4th cent.), Euthalius and Theodoret (both 5th cent.) and John of Damascus (8th cent.). The TBS states that these writers had access to manuscripts older than any now in existence. “Given” (LB) appears to have been derived from some copies of the Old Latin, Vulgate and Coptic. The word does not appear in any Greek manuscript. Berry’s Greek text supports this passage. See also Hills (3) p 138 and Ruckman (24), p 80.
Ruckman (2) p 98-9, (24) p 80-1, states that the sources of the modern alternative are Papyrus 46, Aleph, A, B, C, E, F, Origen and Tertullian (2nd cent.). D, G, L support the Receptus and on this occasion, have to take precedence over “the oldest and best manuscripts” so that the modern texts can be made make sense! As Dr. Ruckman indicates, truly a remarkable scholarly inconsistency! The Byzantine Text supports the Majority Text-see Berry.
See comments under 1 Corinthians 10:28. Ruckman affirms, (31) p 429, that “the Lord” is in the texts of Aleph, B and Origen.
Ruckman (24) p 78, states that Origen and Marcion (i.e. the HERETIC) were responsible for the Omission, perpetuated only in A (5th cent.) and B (4th cent.). Papyrus 46 (3rd cent., i.e. MORE ANCIENT even than B) and Aleph (contemporaneous with B) both support the AV1611. This example illustrates the awe in which the VATICAN manuscript is held by many modern translators, Revelation 17:2. Berry’s Greek text supports this passage.
The remaining Pauline Epistles, the Jewish Epistles and the Book of Revelation have suffered less at the hands of the modern textual critics than the rest of the New Testament but there are some notable exceptions. The evidence concludes with these.
Ruckman (57) Colossians p 473-5, has an excellent discussion on these words. He attributes their omission to the work of Origen’s minions, who thought that redemption and hence salvation, depended on forgiveness of sins obtained via the CONFESSIONAL-i.e. not the blood of Christ. Ruckman indicates that, contrary to the NIV note, the witnesses attesting to this passage date from the 2nd century. Berry’s Greek text supports this passage.
Burgon (14) p 355-6, states that “not” is omitted by Aleph, A, B, D, the Coptic and one or two others. “Not” is found in the “whole mass of copies,” the Syriac, Vulgate, Gothic, Georgian, Slavonic, Ethiopic, Arabian and Armenian versions and cited by Irenaeus (2nd cent.), Origen-at least once (3rd cent.), Augustine, Chrysostom, Jerome (all 4th cent.), Theodoret and Theordorus Mops (each 5th cent.) and John Damascene (8th cent~). Berry’s Greek text supports this passage.
Berry’s Greek text conforms to this passage, though his English rendering for the first clause is “voluntary worship,” which alters the sense. Ruckman (54) p 57-9, (57) Colossians p 56644, has an extensive discussion of why the readings found in most of the modern textual critics, with few variations, have been invented, for they have NO manuscript authority. None of the modern alternatives conforms to any Greek manuscript, papyrus, uncial or cursive; or ancient translation. In particular this passage rendering for the first clause was altered for the same reason Romans 1:18, 21, 25 were altered (e.g. NIV, NASV)- to cover up SIN (Job 31:33). The modern translators worship their WILLS by WILLFULLY altering the living words of the living God (Jeremiah 23:36) to conform to that which is “feigned out of their own hearts”, Nehemiah 6:8, Jeremiah 17:9. In this respect, modern translators-and their supporters-are no different from unregenerate Greek philosophers (Ruckman, ibid.).
The alteration of “God” to “He” or “Who” obviously constitutes an attack on the Deity of Jesus Christ by the modern textual critics. This alteration has been discussed exhaustively by Burgon (14) pp 101-5, 424-504, whose researches have been summarized by the TBS (58) “God was Manifest in the Flesh.” See also Fuller, citing the TBS, (32) p 24A1. The TBS, ibid, state that all the early Greek editions of the New Testament (Ximenes, Erasmus, Beza, Stephens-see Berry’s Greek text, the Elzevirs) read “God was manifest in the flesh” and hence this must have been the reading of the manuscripts available to those editors. The wording of their editions is reflected in all the early English translations (Tyndale 1534, Great Bible 1539, Geneva 1557, Bishops’ 1568) except the surviving copies of Wyclif (1380) derived in part from the Vulgate. Moreover, the European versions associated with true Bible believers (Italian (Diodati), French (Osterwald), Spanish (Valera), German (Luther), Portuguese (Almeida)) all concur with this passage.
However, the 19th and 20th century Greek editions of the New Testament, culminating in those of Westcott and Hort and Nestle, all rejected “God” in 1 Tim. 3:16 in favour of “who.” These corrupt texts form the basis for most of the modern translations. According to Burgon, p 443, the only ancient witness in support of “who” is Aleph (4th cent.), while D (6th cent.) has “which.” C (5th cent.) and F and G (9th cent.) are indistinct in this place and their testimony therefore equivocal, while Codex B does not contain 1 Timothy. In addition, Burgon p 99, cites only one cursive copy of Paul’s Epistles, designated “Paul 17,” as reading “who” in 1 Tim. 3:16. (“Paul 73,” a second copy, was thought to be possibly in agreement with “Paul 17” but Burgon, p 99, states it is actually an abridgment of Ecumenius’ citation-see later, which reads “God.”) Burgon p 483, states that of the ancient versions, only the Gothic (4th cent.) unequivocally witnesses to “who.”
Agreeing with D in exhibiting “which” in 1 Tim. 3:16 are the Old Latin (2nd cent.), Vulgate (4th cent.), Peshitta Syriac (2nd cent.) Coptic and Sahidic (3rd and 4th cent.) and Ethiopic (6/7th cent.) versions. The Armenian and Arabic versions are indeterminate in this place (Burgon, ibid p454).
The only fathers in opposition to “God” arc Gelasius of Cyzicus (476 AD), who cites “which” and an unknown author of uncertain date, who also cites “which.”
The TBS ibid p 8, state that the Latin, Peshitta and other versions may well have been influenced by the erroneous reading in D, of the “Western” family. Later copies of the Peshitta (4th cent.) may have been influenced by the views of Nestorius, who evidently denied that Christ was both God and man. It is probable therefore, that the earliest copies of the Peshitta, now non-extant, in fact read “God,” rather than “who.”
The most ancient Greek uncial in favour of “God” in 1 Tim. 3:16, is Codex A (5th cent.). Burgon (p 432-436) cites in detail the witnesses who attest to the horizontal stroke of “Theta” in “Theos” being clearly visible up to the mid 18th century. The TBS pamphlet provides an excellent Summary. In support of A are uncials K, L and P, (“Mosquensis,” “Angelicus” and “Porphyrianus” resp.) all of the 9th century.
The extant cursive copies of Paul’s letters number 300, of which 254 (designated “Paul 1” to “Paul 301”) contain 1 Tim. 3:16. Of these, no less than 252 read “God,” in agreement with this passage. (The two exceptions, which have already been discussed, are “Paul 17” and “Paul 73,” of which the latter is a doubtful witness.) Added to this favourable testimony are 29 out of 32 Lectionary copies from the Eastern Church, reaching back to earliest times t.e. before Aleph, which support the reading “God.” (Burgon, p 478, declares the 3 exceptions to be “Western documents of suspicious character.”)
Burgon p 450, 454, 489-90. also cites the Georgian (6th century), Harkleian Syriac (616 AD) and the Slavonic (9th cent.) versions as reading “God.” The fathers in support of this passage are as follows (Burgon, p 486-90):
1st Century: Bamabus, Ignatius (90 AD); 2nd Century: Hippolytus (190 AD); 3rd Century: Apostolic Constitutions, Epistle ascribed to Dionysius of Alexandria (264 AD), Gregory Thaumaturgus; 4th Century: Basil the Great (355 AD), Chrysostom (380 AD), Didymus (325 AD), Diodorus (370 AD), Gregory of Nazianzus (355 AD), Gregory of Nyssa (370 AD). “Euthalian” chapter title of I Tim. 3, attesting to “God in the flesh.”; 5th Century: Anon. citation in works of Athanasius (430 AD), Cyril of Alexandria (410 AD), Euthalius (458 AD), Macedonius 11(496 AD), Theodoret (420 AD); 6th Century: Severus, Bishop of Antioch (512 AD); 8th Century: Epiphanius of Catana (787 AD), John Damascene (730 AD), Theodorus Studita (790 AD); 10th Century: Ecumenius (990 AD); 11th Century: Theophylact (1077 AD); 12th Century: Euthymius (1116 AD).
See also Fuller (4) p 110-1, (32) p98, 260 (summarizing Burgon’s final findings as 300 Greek manuscripts (uncial, cursive, lectionary), reading “God” in 1 Tim. 3:16, vs. 7 which do not), Hills (3) p 137-8, Ruckman (31)See also Part 3 for further discussion on the evidence for this passage reading for this verse.
Burgon (14) p 208-9, attributes this alternative (stemming from the 1881 Revision), to sheer unbelief. He cites Tertullian (2nd cent.), Clement, Origen (each 3rd cent.), Basil, Chrysostom, the “Dialogus” and Gregory of Nyssa (all 4th cent.), Cyril and Theodoret (each 5th cent.) in favour of this passage. Berry’s Greek text supports this passage.
Ruckman (57) Hebrews p 70, states that B and Papyrus 46 are the “authorities” for the omission. The words are found in all four families of manuscripts-including Aleph, the old Itala (i.e. Latin), the Vulgate (oldest copies), three families of the Syriac and in the Armenian, Coptic and Ethiopic versions. Berry’s Greek text supports this passage.
Ruckman (2) p 100-1, (24) p 79-80, indicates that “paraptomata” (“faults”) is in ALL extant Greek manuscripts containing the passage and states that “hamartias” (“sins”) has NO manuscript authority whatsoever. This example shows how the progenitors of the modern textual critics (Westcott, Hort, Nestle) will willfully (see comments on Col. 2:23) alter the words of God to accommodate Roman Catholicism-in this case the heinous Confessional.
Ruckman (24) p 82, indicates that the authority for the omissions is B. However, this passage is found in Papyrus 72, written 80 years before B, as well as in the Receptus-see Berry’s Greek text.
Burgon (14) p 355-6, states that the modern alternatives stem from C (5th cent.), the Syriac and one Egyptian version. In support of this passage are the vast majority of manuscripts, the Latin, Coptic, Harkleian Syriac and Ethiopic versions. The only fathers who quote the text, Cyril (5th cent.) and John Damascene (8th cent.) support this passage. Berry’s Greek text supports this passage.
The passage known as the “Johannine Comma” is lacking from most of the Greek manuscripts. However, it is found in Codex 61 of the 15-16th century, kept in Dublin and known as the Montfort manuscript, Codex Ravianus (Wizanburgensis) of the 8th century and in the margins of 88 and 629.
The main authorities for the passage are the Old Latin text of the 2nd century, including manuscript r (5/6th cent.) and the “Speculum,” a treatise containing the Old Latin text, and several fathers. Fuller (4) p 213, citing Wilkinson, states that the passage was found in the Old Latin Bibles of the Waldenses, whose text pre-dated Jerome’s Vulgate. See also Ray (15) p 98, who states that this “Italic” Bible dates from 157 AD. The Old Latin text carried sufficient weight to influence the later copies of the Vulgate, most of which from 800 AD onward incorporated the passage.
The fathers who cite the passage are Tertullian (2nd cent.), Cyprian (250 AD), Priscillian (385 AD), Idacius Clatus (385 AD), several African writers of the 5th century and Cassiodorus (480-570 AD).
The combined influence of these authorities, together with grammatical difficulties which arise if the Comma is omitted, was sufficient to ensure its place in most editions of the Textus Receptus-see Berry’s text- where it undoubtedly belongs.
See Hills (3) p 209, (38) p 210, the TBS (58) “Notes on the Vindication of I John 5:7” and Ruckman (2) p 128-9, (31) p 334. The omission of the Comma from the majority of the manuscripts most likely stems from the influence of Origen and some of his supporters, who did not accept the doctrine of the Trinity. This text is also discussed at length in Part 3.
Burgon (14) p 347-8, shows how the alteration of “himself’ to “him” by the Revisers leads to the inevitable wording evident in most of the modern textual critics. The Son of God has been substituted for the born-again believer in verse 18, completely altering the sense of the verse and clearly introducing an error. Burgon states that nowhere in the New Testament is the Lord referred to as “he that is begotten of God” and cites John 1:13, 3:3, 5,6, 7,8; 1 John 2:29,3:9,4:7, 5:1,4, 18; which all refer to the born again believer, not Jesus Christ.
Burgon states that the sole authorities for the alteration are B and cursive 105. Codex A originally had the modern reading but the scribe corrected it. Supporting this passage are all the remaining Greek copies of 1 John (in excess of 500, according to the TBS- correspondence with author, 9/4/85), the Latin, Syriac, Coptic, Sahidic, Georgian, Armenian and Ethiopic versions. Of the fathers who quote the passage, all support the AV1611. These include Origen (3rd cent.), Didymus, Ephraem Syrus (each 4th cent.), Severus (6th cent.), Ecumenius (l0th cent.), Theophylact (11th cent.).
Burgon (14) p 135-7, (32) p 110, 148, states that the authorities for the alternative reading consist only of uncial C, cursive 11 and one father, Tichonius (4th cent.). All other copies of Revelation and all versions support the reading “666,” which is also confirmed by Irenaeus (170 AD), Origen and Hippolytus (each 3rd cent.), Eusebius (4th cent.), Victorinus (5th cent), Primasius (6th cent.) and Andreas (7th cent.) and Arethas (l0th cent.).
Again the TBS (58), Article 38 “Revelation 22:14 have provided an excellent resume of the evidence.
In favour of the modern textual critics are Aleph (4th cent.), A (5th cent.), about 15 cursives including 104 and 1006 (11th cent.), 2053 (12th) and 2020 (15th), the Coptic (Sahidic), Ethiopic and Latin Vulgate versions of the 4th-6th centuries and 5 Old Latin copies of the 9th-l3th centuries. The following fathers also support the modern reading: Athanasius (373 AD), Fulgentius (533 AD), Apringius (551 AD), Primasius (552 AD), a 6th century Ambrose and Haymo (841 AD).
The manuscripts which read “do his commandments” consist of the vast majority, including uncial 046, cursives 1, 82, 94, 1611, 1854, 1859, 2042, 2065, 2073, 2138, 2329, 2432 and more than 150 others. Also supporting this passage are the Coptic (Bohairic) 3/4th cent.; the Harkelian and Philoxenian Syriac (6/7th cent.) and the Armenian (5th cent.) versions. Fathers in support of this passage include Tertullian (220 AD), Cyprian (258 AD), Tyconius (380 AD), Andrew (614 AD) and Arethas (914 AD).
Obviously the weight of evidence vindicates this passage reading, which is supported by Berry’s Greek text.
Hills (3) p 202, (38) p 198, indicates that this passage reading is found only in one or two Greek manuscripts, including Codex 141. All the remaining Greek manuscripts read with the modern textual critics, although Ruckman (57) Revelation p 606, refers to the modern reading as a non-existent “Alexandrian Conjecture.” Hills states that this passage reading is supported by the Latin Vulgate, including a very old manuscript designated F, the Bohairic version, Ambrose (397 AD) and the commentaries of Primasius (6th cent.) and Haymo (9th cent.).
Ruckman, however, (21) p 70, states that the reading “book of life” is found in the Bibles of the Waldenses, Albigenses and Gothic Christians (2nd-4th cent.). Thus, like the Johannine Comma, it merited its place in the Textus Receptus.
以下的年代是根据创世记前两章的创造是按照字面解释，神在第六天创造了人。根据创世记5和11章的记载，推论神是在主前3954年创造亚当。
亚当活在这个时期。农村和牧养生活。南地北部有地底下的住处，长方型的建筑，开始使用铜，初型的神庙，葬礼使用骨盒(ossuaries)。典型遗址：Teleilat Ghassul (死海东北), 隐基底古庙, Nahal Mishmar, Gilat (南地西面), Azor (近特拉维夫)
诺亚活在这个时期，洪水发生在主前2294年。埃及和米索不达米亚出现文字。主前3000年开始，以色列地出现有城牆城镇(沿海地区的基色；约旦河谷的Beth Yerah，南地的亚拉得)。神庙和皇宫。与埃及和米索不达米亚贸易带来文化的影响和交流。典型遗址：南地的亚拉得、加利利海西南的Khirbet Kerak/Beth Yerah。
族长时期(亚伯拉罕、以撒、雅各)。围牆城镇再兴起，独立城国，字母开始于迦南和西乃，开始冶炼青铜(铜和锡)，希克索斯人(Hyksos)统治下埃及，引进战马和战车，亚摩士一世驱赶希克索斯人(1550)，重掌埃及地。典型遗址：埃及尼罗河三角洲的Tell el-Yehudia、耶路撒冷。
摩西和出埃及，约书亚带领以色列人进入迦南地。士师记的年代。埃及统冶迦南地，亚玛拿书信，赫人和何为人帝国。
扫罗和大卫作王。非利士人(海人)征服沿海地区，字母和铁器技术扩散。大部份居处没有城牆。
大卫征服耶路撒冷(1003)。联合王国。所罗门建第一圣殿(960)。以色列扩展：政治、经济、地理。南北两国(930)。城市建有城牆。行政地区(别是巴、夏琐、米吉多、基色)。
南北两国(930)。腓尼基和亚兰文明高潮。以色列和犹大文明发展。亚述帝国兴起。
亚述王提革拉．毗列色攻打以色列(734-732)，撒马利亚沦陷(722)。
南国独守巴勒斯坦地。西拿基立攻打犹大(701)。希西家引水道。先知以赛亚和耶利米。约西亚国家改革(622)。巴比伦王尼布甲尼撒攻打耶路撒冷(586)。犹大被掳。
馀剩的犹大人。基大利作犹大地总督。波斯征服巴比伦(539)
犹大地成为 Yehud 犹大省。最早的货币出现。複杂的公路系统。古列作王时被掳犹太人回归(538)。以斯拉和尼西米。兴建第二圣殿，由大祭司和公会(Great assembly)管理。
亚历山大大帝征服波斯和近东(332)。亚历山大死(323)。托勒密统治埃及(Ptolemaics)，塞留古(Seleucids)统治叙利亚。希腊城市低加波利(Decapolis)。犹大地被希腊化。希伯来文圣经希腊文翻译本《七十士译本》(Septuagint)面世。
哈斯莫尼家族(Hasmonean)革命成功(167)。Antiochus Epiphanes洗劫耶路撒冷和劫掠圣殿。哈斯莫尼再征服耶路撒冷，重献圣殿(164)。两约之间文学。哈斯莫尼王朝 (167-63，又称马加比Maccabean)，犹太人独立约一百年，直至庞贝攻取耶路撒冷(63)。
罗马庞贝将军攻取耶路撒冷(63)。希律大帝成为罗马任命的犹大王(主前37-主后70)。以色列地成为罗马省份。罗马文代影响。第二圣殿重修加建(20)。文质上发展，人心动盪期。耶稣出生、传道并死和复活。希律逝世(4)。罗马总督本丢(procurator)以该撒利亚Caesarea为基地，统治犹大地(主后6)。第一次犹太人革命(66-70)，耶路撒冷圣殿被毁(70)，马撒大沦陷(73)。
Simon Bar Kochba起义，第二次犹太人革命(132-135)。哈德良攻佔耶路撒冷，兴建外邦人罗马城市Aelia Capitolina (135)。犹大地改名为「巴勒斯坦」。犹太人城市和会堂在加利利兴旺时期。Mishnah犹太人口传法典编纂。戴克里先迫害教会(303-312)。
康斯坦丁开始基督教时期(326)。西罗马帝国灭亡(476)。犹太教的法典他拉目Talmud。撒玛利亚起义(529)。波斯人入侵(614)。穆罕默德(570-632)。伊斯兰教徒在Yarmuk之战打败基督教徒(636)。奥马尔入主耶路撒冷(638)。
伍玛亚德Ummayad, 阿巴斯Abbasid, 法密德Fatimid王朝。伍玛亚德于大马士革统治(661-750)。Dome of the Rock 磐石穹顶清真寺(691)、el-Aqsa亚沙清真寺 (715)。阿巴斯于巴格达(750-974)。法密德于北非(975-1171)。卡里发Hakim 毁坏圣墓堂(1009)。卡里发即伊斯兰教中穆罕默德的继承人。教会东西大分裂(Great Schism; 1054)。Seljuk Turks 佔据耶路撒冷(1071)，阻碍基督徒朝圣，引致教皇Urban二世呼吁十字军释放圣地(1095)。
十字军佔领耶路撒冷(1099)。五次十字军进攻圣地。萨拉丁(Saladin)于Horns of Hattin大败十字军(1187)。萨拉丁的Ayyubid后人统治埃及与巴勒斯坦(1169-1252)。开罗的Bahri Mamluks马穆鲁克推翻萨拉丁的Ayyubid王朝，开始一连串的战役，攻取十字军的最后据点亚柯(Acre/Acco)，十字军于巴勒斯坦地的统治正式告终。
Sultan Baybars统治埃及与巴勒斯坦地。大兴土木，伊斯兰学校和大学。
苏丹苏莱曼Sultan Suleiman the Magnificent建筑旧城城牆(1536-41)。(苏丹是某些回教国家统治者的称号，是旧时土耳其的君主)。农庄和沙漠堡垒。初期圣地探险家，认定某些圣经地点。初期考古探索。伊斯坦堡的奥土曼人于第一次世界大战支持德国，成为战败国。1869/11 苏伊士运河开放。国际联盟League of Nations (1917) 委任英国统治巴勒斯坦地。
犹太人移民进入巴勒斯坦。设立初期的基布兹kibbutzim (合作农庄)。开始有规模考古发掘工作。因英国偏袒以色列，本地亚拉伯人抗拒英国统治。
联合国将巴勒斯坦划分为以色列国和亚拉伯国家(1947/11/29)。以色列独立战争(1948/5/14; 巴勒斯坦人之「浩劫」[Al-Nakba]; 1948/5/15；巴人被种族清洗，750,000巴人成难民)。苏伊士运河危机(1956)。巴勒斯坦解放组织成立(Palestine Liberation Organization; PLO; 1964/5/29)。
六日战争或六日闪电战，以军取得西岸、哥兰高地和西乃半岛(1967/6/5-10; 巴勒斯坦人之「浩劫」[Al-Naksa])。以色列开始在佔领区建非法殖民区。埃及叙利亚联合向以开战，埃意图收复西乃，叙意图取回哥兰，引发赎罪日战争(Yom Kippur War, 1973/10/6-25; 亚拉伯称「斋月之战」[Ramadan War]；埃及称「十月战争」)。以埃签署和约(1979/3/26)。以将西乃半岛归还埃及(1982)。第一次黎巴嫩战争(以色列对真主党[Hezbollah]; 1982)。
巴勒斯坦第一次起义(First Intifada; 1987-1993)。波斯湾战争(1990-91)。伊拉克导弹 Iraqi Scuds袭击以色列 (1991)。奥斯陆协议Oslo Accords，成立巴勒斯坦自治区，由亚拉法Yasser Arafat治理(1993/9/13)。以色列约旦签署和约(1994/7/25)。以色列总理拉宾(Yitzhak Rabin)被右翼锡安激进者Yigal Amir刺杀死亡(1995/11/4)。
巴勒斯坦第二次起义(Second Intifada; 2000-2004)。以色列开始建筑隔离围牆(2002)。第二次黎巴嫩战争(以色列对真主党; 2006)。哈马斯政党(Hamas)在加沙得势，打败属PLO法他(Fatah)政党，引发Fatah-Hamas冲突(2007/6/10-15)。以色列埃及联合对加沙进行经济封锁(blockade)，地下坠道成为加沙的生命线。以色列袭加沙铸铅行动(Operation Cast Lead; 2008-2009)。以色列袭加沙云柱行动(Operation Pillar of Cloud/Defense; 2012)。巴勒斯坦成为联合国「非会员观察国」(2012/11/29)。
