Here is a excellent explanation of what Westcott & Hort picked up...

"When the KJV translators set to their work, they gathered all the original Hebrew, Greek & Latin sources that they could draw upon, the previously mentioned collection of 5000 documents dating from the 5th century AD to the 12th. Most of these texts were harmonious but some differed on personal pronouns, proper names, etc. From these they attempted to write a reconciled version that was later to become known as the Textus Receptus or "Received Texts."

Then, in the 1800's, two previously unknown or unrecognized texts of the New Testament appeared. These were called Vaticanus & Sinaiticus since they were found in the Vatican Library & a monastery in the Sinai respectively. These texts were dated to the late 3rd-early 4th century (i.e. before any official canonization) & were in excellent condition. However, neither was in the original Greek language, but in a Coptic translation, an early Egyptian language. Coptic placed the origin of these two texts in the region of Alexandria, Egypt. Hence they became known collectively as the Alexandrian Codices. Two British scholars of Greek named Westcott & Hort undertook the translation of these Coptic copies back into their original Greek language. It was theorized that since these two texts were older than any of the 5000 that had been used by the 1611 King James committee, they might reveal a more authoritative text, being closer in time to the events described in the New Testament.

Indeed, startling & shocking differences did seem to suddenly appear. Gone was the resurrection story in the book of Mark (the last twelve verses of the KJV). Gone was Acts 8:37 where the Ethiopian eunuch confesses Jesus as the Son of God along with many other passages. Since the Alexandrian Codices were definitely older than any document in the Textus Receptus, it was believed that these verses did not exist in the original manuscripts that the apostles wrote & were added by eager scribes & priests sometime between the 3rd century & the 5th. This was the prevailing theory up until the 1960's. All the modern translations which were written during this time are based on the Westcott & Hort Greek text including the American Standard Version (ASV), the New International Version (NIV), the New World Translation (NWT) & even the New KJV (NKJV)1, because the codices were considered more accurate. Even today, look for Acts 8:37 in most of these Bibles & you will see that it skips directly from 8:36 to 8:38 without the proclamation of the deity of Christ by the Ethiopian...

However, since Westcott & Hort's time, some 150 years of scholarship & textual discoveries have taken place. Currently there now exist over 24,000 fragments & complete texts of the New Testament, many dating to even earlier than the Alexandrian Codices. There is even a tiny fragment of the Gospel of Matthew dating to cAD 50 (see photo), a mere twenty or so years after the crucifixion of Christ. From this assemblage of 24,000 documents, scholars have constructed what is now called The Majority Text, with each book, passage & quote rated with a percentage of how many of the 24,000 agree with each reading. By & large, with 90%+ certainty, the Textus Receptus & therefore the KJV has been vindicated as the more authoritative text. To date, the Vaticanis & the Sinaiticus are unique in their reading in toto. In fact, it has been discovered that many, if not all of the passages altered or missing from these codices were in fact quoted by the early church fathers as far back as the late 1st century. For instance, if one reads Irenaeus' Against Heresies 3.10.5-6, he states, "Furthermore, near the end of his Gospel, Mark says: 'thus, after the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, he was taken up into heaven, and sits on the right hand of God.'" quoting Mark 16:19. Irenaeus wrote this in AD180, some 200 years before the Alexandrian Codices, yet he quotes word for word all the verses from the missing part of Mark which were supposedly not to have been added until the 4th or 5th centuries.....

With the discovery of the Nag Hammadi Gnostic Library in the 1940's, it became clear that the early unorthodox sect known as the "Gnostics" did not believe in the deity of Jesus Christ....

They believed He was a "guiding spirit" sent to earth by the "True God" (not the YHWH of the Old Testament, incidently, whom they considered to be a blind, insane angel who created the material world against Sophia's or "Wisdom" i.e. the True God's will). Jesus' mission according to the Gnostics, was to impart special knowledge or "Gnosis" to spirits trapped in this material world seeking release. Thus, Jesus never died on the cross, was never resurrected, was not God, nor was He human. Mysteriously, but rather conveniently, all the altered or missing texts in the Alexandrian Codices always happen to involve one or a combination of these subjects.


Now, the pieces fall into place. All these "missing" verses were in the original texts written by the apostles. The older manuscripts & the many quotes from the 1st and 2nd century church fathers more than confirm that as fact. However, since these verses did not agree with the theology being taught by the Gnostics, when they made their own Coptic copies of the Greek originals, they conveniently altered or deleted them to suit their own ideas of what God should say."
http://eternalanswersministry.blogspot.com/2009/06/textus-receptus-vs-alexandrian-codices.html

Now the KJV is not perfect but......

"The King James Translation is not without its flaws & shortcomings, not the least of which is its translation of the language used of future technologies into what is now archaic 1611 terminology. Ezekiel 39:3 is an excellant example of this. The passage, especially when cross-referenced with Jeremiah 50:9, clearly indicates a technology similar to today's "smart" missles. However, the KJV translators rendered a Hebrew word for "missle" as "arrow" since an arrow was pretty much the most advanced missle of the time. Similarly, the Hebrew word for a "launcher" is rendered as "bow" since that was the launching device for an arrow. The whole picture in Hebrew is of a projectile shot from a launching device. The Hebrew is not as specific as "arrow" or "bow." Thus, today, this text mightly justifiably be rendered as: "And I will smite thy launcher out of thy left hand, and will cause thine missles to fall out of thy right hand." Importantly, however, these flaws & shortcomings, having been studied for almost 400 years, are well known, documented & amazingly few & far between, numbering perhaps ten with only one potentially impacting doctrine.

All in all, the work of the Authorized Version is considered to be the highest achievement in the English language & has held its own for these 400 years."

Some textual comparisons focusing on Gnostic influences on the Alexandrian Texts....

"Matthew 8:29

Textus Receptus - kai idou, ekraxan legonteV, Ti hmin kai soi, Ihsou, uie tou Qeou; hlqeV wde pro kairou basanisai hmaV.

(And behold, they cried out, saying, What have we to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God? art thou come hither to torment us before the time? - KJV)

NA 21 - kai idou ekraxan legonteV, ti hmin kai soi, uie tou Qeou, hlqeV wde pro kairou basanisai hmaV.

("What do you want with us, Son of God?" they shouted. "Have you come here to torture us before the appointed time?" - NIV)

The support for the CT reading here is from Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus, and Ephraemi Rescriptus. The TR reading is supported by the vast majority of Byzantine mss. and the rest of the textual sets.

In the Alexandrian reading at this point, it should be noted that the demons being cast out of the swine by Jesus Christ are not denying that their exorciser is the "Son of God," only that He is JESUS the Son of God. This alternate reading seems to promote the sort of Gnosticism which is exemplified in The Gospel of Peter. This vein of Gnosticism believed that Jesus Christ was a dualistic being, having an earthly nature (Jesus) and a heavenly nature (Christ). The heavenly Christ descended into the material world from the spiritual realm of the Everlasting, and became temporarily united with the earthly Jesus, a creature of the material world of creation. This fits the general Gnostic teaching of the "alien man" sent from above to call the lost portions of the Light back out of the material realm into unity with the Everlasting in the realm of Light.33 In The Gospel of Peter, the separation of the heavenly Christ from the earthly Jesus is depicted in that work's account of the crucifixion,


"Many went around with lamps; they thought it was night. They fell. And the Lord cried out, "My power, my power, you have left me." He said this and was taken up. That same hour the veil of the Jerusalem Temple was split in two."34
Here is depicted Christ being taken up, while Jesus is later shown to be placed in the tomb.

The Alexandrian change at this point seems to reflect the attempt by Gnostics in the Roman world to draw a distinction between the earthly Jesus and the heavenly Christ, which would include the understanding that the "Son of God," being from the realm of Light above, would not be addressed using the name "Jesus," which represented the earthly, material (and therefore intranscendant, corrupt, and imprisoning) body.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Matthew 19:17

Textus Receptus - o de eipen autw, Ti me legeiV agaqon; oudeiV agaqoV, ei mh eiV, o QeoV. ei de qeleiV [eiselqein eiV thn zwhn]1, thrhson taV entolaV.

(And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. - KJV)

NA 21 - (o de eipen autw)2. ti me erwtaV peri tou agaqou; eiV estin o agaqoV. ei de qeleiV eiV thn zwhn eiselqein threi taV entolaV.

("Why do you ask me about what is good?" Jesus replied. "There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, obey the commandments." - NIV)

1 - Rearranged in NA21 as [2-3-4-1]
2 - Appears as part of verse 16 in the NA21.


Support for TR reading

Ephraemi Rescriptus (5th c. uncial, Alex.)

K (9th c.)

W. (5th c., Byz. in Matthew)

Delta (9th c., Alex.)

f13 (11th-13th c. family of mss., Caes.)

28 (11th c. miniscule, Caes.)

33 (9th c. miniscule, Alex.)

565 (9th c. miniscule, Caes.)

1010 (12th c. miniscule)

The large majority of Byzantine texts

The large majority of Greek lectionaries

Two Old Latin mss.

The Peshitta Syriac mss. set (5th c.)

The Harclean Syriac mss. set (7th c.)

The Southern Coptic mss. set (3rd c.)

Some Northern Coptic mss. (4th c.)

Support for the Critical Text Reading

Codex Sinaiticus (4th c. uncial)

Codex Vaticanus (4th c. uncial)

Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis [D] (5th-6th c. uncial, West.)

L (8th c. uncial, Alex.)

Theta (9th c. uncial, Caes.)

f1 (12th-14th c. family of mss., Caes.)

700 (11th c. miniscule, Caes.)

892 (9th c. miniscule, Alex.)

Two Old Latin mss.

The Sinaitic Syriac mss. set (4th c.)

Some Palestinian Syriac mss. (5th c.)
Additionally, there exists an apparently conflated reading which seems to combine the two readings under discussion to say "Why do you ask me about what [is] good? There is [only] One who is good, [that is], God." thus retaining most of the character of the Alexandrian reading, but yet including the explicit statement about God being the one who is good which is enunciated in the Byzantine reading. This reading is supported by:


The majority of the Old Latin mss. set

The Latin Vulgate mss. set

The Curetonian Syriac mss. set (4th c.)

Some of the Palestinian Syriac mss. (5th c.)

Most of the Northern Coptic mss. (4th c.)
In this passage, usually pointed to as a proof text for the deity of Christ, we see that the wording is changed to subvert the implicit testimony of Christ to Himself as being good, and hence, God. It should be noted first, of course, that "God" is removed from being "good," which is in line with the interpretation often held by Gnostics that the name "God" was to be equated with the Old Testament God (distinct from the New Testament Father), and hence, the Demiurge, whom the Gnostics certainly did not view to be "good."

Further, we note that this passage also would lend support to the often-held Gnostic notion of the "saved Savior." In many speculative systems, the alien Savior who enters the material realm in his quest to bring gnosis to the lost pneumatic spirits of men and aid them to escape the material cosmos often becomes "poisoned" or "entrapped" by the material world itself, and himself becomes lost. Thus, the Savior himself becomes impure, lost, asleep, and intoxicated, and in need of rescuing from the evil of the material realm.35 Jesus' separation of Himself from the "One who is good" could be taken as a testimony to His own need to be restored from the evil material world.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mark 1:1

Textus Receptus - Arch tou euaggeliou Ihsou Cristou, uiou tou Qeou.

(The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. - KJV)

NA 21 - Arch tou euaggeliou Ihsou Cristou.

(The beginning of the gospel about Jesus Christ, the Son of God. - NIV, with note reading "Some manuscripts do not have the Son of God")


Support for the TR Reading:

A 4th century corrector of Codex Sinaiticus

Codex Alexandrinus (5th c. uncial)

Codex Vaticanus (4th c. uncial)

Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis (5th-6th c. uncial)

K (9th c. uncial)

L (8th c. uncial, Alex.)

W (5th c. uncial, West. in Mark 1:1-5:30)

Delta (9th c. uncial, Alex.)

Pi (9th c. uncial)

f1 (12th-14th c. family of mss., Caes.)

f13 (11th-13th c. family of mss., Caes.)

33 (9th c. miniscule, Alex.)

565 (9th c. miniscule, Caes.)

700 (11th c. miniscule, Caes.)

892 (9th c. miniscule, Alex.)

1010 (12th c. miniscule)

The large majority of the Byzantine mss. set

The large majority of the Greek lectionaries

The Old Latin mss. set

The Latin Vulgate mss. set

The Peshitta Syriac mss. set (5th c.)

The Harclean Syriac mss. set (7th c.)

The Coptic mss sets (3rd-5th c.)

Support for the CT reading:

Codex Sinaiticus (4th c. uncial)

Theta (9th c. uncial, Caes.)

28 (11th c. miniscule, Caes.)

The Palestinian Syriac mss. set (5th c.)
This omission is not reflected in the actual text of the NIV and other modern English versions, though it IS omitted from the various Greek editions underlying these translations. Modern versions usually include a comment in the notes to the effect that "some early mss. omit Son of God."

The alternative Alexandrian reading here (not supported, as is seen, by the full set) seems to reflect a later corruption of the reading, dating from the 4th century. It appears in the 4th century Codex Sinaiticus, but this is antedated by the appearance of the Byzantine reading in the Old Latin tradition (translated around the middle of the 2nd century) and in the Sahidic Coptic manuscript set (3rd century). The Bohairic manuscript set agrees with the Byzantine reading, and dates from the 4th century. A scribal correction to Sinaiticus, also said to date to the 4th century, seems to suggest that a scribe from that time was aware that the original Sinaiticus reading was in error, and attempted an appropriate change.

The deletion of "the Son of God" would be acceptable to many Gnostic groups as it would remove a reference to the docetic "Jesus Christ" combination being "the Son of God," which (in the cases of some speculative systems where "God" was not referring to the Demiurge) was reserved for the heavenly and spiritual alien Savior, Christ, alone. Concurrently, it would still allow them to persist in speculations about the duality of an earthly Jesus and heavenly Christ in the alien Savior.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Luke 4:4

Textus Receptus - Kai apekriqh [IhsouV proV auton]1, legwn, Gegraptai oti Ouk ep artw monw zhsetai o anqrwpoV, all epi panti rhmati Qeou.

(And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God. - KJV)

NA 21- kai apekriqh proV auton o IhsouV, gegraptai oti ouk ep artw monw zhsetai o anqrwpoV.

(Jesus answered, "It is written: Man does not live on bread alone." - NIV)

1- Rearranged in NA 21 as [2-3-o-1].

Support for the omission made in the Critical Text is found on in Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus. The inclusion found in the TR is present in the vast majority of the rest of the Greek mss., including Codex Alexandrinus.

This alteration removes Luke's record that Christ referred to and relied upon the Old Testament scriptures as "the Word of God." In this passage, Jesus quotes Deuteronomy 8:3 as being authoritative scripture from God, and in turn certifies this body of scripture as being "the Word of God." The alteration weakens this clear statement, and points to the influence of a semi-Gnostic sect which was started by Marcion in Rome around 144 AD, but which continued in the East for several centuries afterward. Beginning with Cerdo, said by Irenaeus to have come to Rome during the episcopate of Hyginus (138-142 AD)36, the teaching was propagated that the God of the Old Testament was a known God of unmerciful justice, while the Father of Jesus Christ was an unknown God of mercy and benevolence. Marcion took this interpretation a step further and taught that the God of the Old Testament was inferior to the Father of Jesus Christ, and was in fact the author of evil, the Cosmocrator, the Lord of the cosmos comprising the inferior created world. Irenaeus remarks about the followers of Marcion,


"Marcion of Pontus succeeded him, and developed his doctrine. In so doing, he advanced the most daring blasphemy against Him who is proclaimed as God by the law and the prophets, declaring Him to be the author of evils, to take delight in war, to be infirm of purpose, and even to be contrary to Himself. But Jesus being derived from that father who is above the God that made the world, and coming into Judaea in the times of Pontius Pilate the governor, who was the procurator of Tiberius Caesar, was manifested in the form of a man to those who were in Judaea, abolishing the prophets and the law, and all the works of that God who made the world, whom also he calls Cosmocrator. Besides this, he mutilates the Gospel which is according to Luke, removing all that is written respecting the generation of the Lord, and setting aside a great deal of the teaching of the Lord, in which the Lord is recorded as most dearly confessing that the Maker of this universe is His Father. He likewise persuaded his disciples that he himself was more worthy of credit than are those apostles who have handed down the Gospel to us, furnishing them not with the Gospel, but merely a fragment of it. In like manner, too, he dismembered the Epistles of Paul, removing all that is said by the apostle respecting that God who made the world, to the effect that He is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and also those passages from the prophetical writings which the apostle quotes, in order to teach us that they announced beforehand the coming of the Lord."37
That the Alexandrian alteration effectively negates Christ's reliance upon the word of the Old Testament which God gave through Moses seems reflective of anti-Semitic Marcionite tendencies, which were characterized by a strong disdain for the Hebrew scriptures and the denial that God in the Old Testament is the same as the Father of Jesus Christ in the New Testament. From the standpoint of Marcion and his followers, Jesus would not have quoted from Hebrew scriptures handed down by the inferior Jewish god of evil, nor specifically called them "the Word of God."



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Luke 22:43-44

Textus Receptus - wfqh de autw aggeloV ap ouranou eniscuwn auton. kai genomenoV en agwnia, ektenesteron proshuceto, egeneto de o idrwV autou wsei qromboi aimatos katabainonteV epi thn ghn.

(And there appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him. And being in an agony he prayed the more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground. - KJV)

NA 21 - [wfqh de autw aggeloV ap ouranou eniscuwn auton. kai genomenoV en agwnia, ektenesteron proshuceto, kai egeneto o idrwV autou wsei qromboi aimatoV katabainonteV epi thn ghn.]

(An angel from heaven appeared and strengthened him. And being in anguish, he prayed more earnestly, and his sweat was like drops of blood falling to the ground. - NIV, with note reading "Some early manuscripts do not have verses 43 and 44")

The verses are bracketed in the NIV, and are excluded from many later Critical Text editions.


Support for the inclusion of these verses, as found in the TR:

Codex Sinaiticus (4th c. uncial)

Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis (5th-6th c. uncial, West.)

K (9th c. uncial)

L (8th c. uncial, Alex.)

X (10th c. uncial, Alex.)

Delta (9th c. uncial, Alex.)

Theta (9th c. uncial, Caes.)

Pi (9th c. uncial)

Psi (8th-9th c. uncial, Alex.)

0171 (4th c. uncial, West.)

f1 (12th-14th c. mss. family set, Caes.)

565 (9th c. miniscule, Caes.)

700 (11th c. miniscule, Caes.)

892 (9th c. miniscule, Alex.)

1010 (12th c. miniscule)

1241 (12th c. miniscule, Alex.)

The large majority of the Byzantine mss. set

Most of the Old Latin mss.

The large majority of Latin Vulgate mss.

The Curetonian Syriac mss. set (4th c.)

The Peshitta Syriac mss. set (5th c.)

The Harclean Syriac mss. set (7th c.)

The Palestinian Syriac mss. set (5th c.)

Some Northern Coptic mss. (4th c.)

Support for the omission of these verses:

p69vid (3rd c.) - apparent, ms. difficult to ascertain at this point

p75 (3rd c.)

4th century correction to Codex Sinaiticus

Codex Alexandrinus (5th c. uncial)

Codex Vaticanus (4th c. uncial)

T (5th c. uncial, Alex.)

W (5th c. uncial, Byz. in Luke 8:13-24:53)

Some of the Greek lectionaries

One Old Latin ms.

The Sinaitic Syriac mss. set (4th c.)

Most of the Coptic mss. (3rd-5th c.)
Further, some of the Greek lectionaries, as well as f13 (11th-13th c. family of Caesarean mss.), insert these two verses after Matthew 26:39, rather than in Luke's Gospel.

The omission of these verses is suggestive of the strain of Gnosticism heavily influenced by docetism which taught that Christ did not have a physical body, but spiritual only. Certain Gnostics even taught that Christ left no footprints when He walked, as indicative of His spiritual nature and complete separation from the physical, material realm.38 Given the context of this passage, that the Savior had just before addressed His prayer to the Father (v. 42), from a Gnostic viewpoint, this passage would have to be dealing with the prayer of the purely spiritual, pneumatic Christ. Sweating great drops falling to the ground, as well as enduring human frailty such that He needed the strengthening of angels, thus demonstrating humanity and physical existence, would be incompatible with the Gnostic view of the pneumatic, heavenly Savior separated from material creation. Likewise, the interaction of Christ with the material world, demonstrated in the falling of these drops of bloody sweat to the ground, would have been unacceptable to many Gnostic speculative systems.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

John 1:18

Textus Receptus - Qeon oudeiV ewrake pwpote. o monogenhV uioV, o wn eiV ton kolpon tou patroV, ekeinoV exhghsato.

(No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. - KJV)

NA 21 - Qeon oudeiV ewraken pwpote. monogenhV qeoV o wn eiV ton kolpon tou patroV, ekeinoV exhghsato.

(No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known. - NIV)


Support for TR reading

Codex Alexandrinus (5th c. uncial, Byz. in Gospels)

9th c. correction to Ephraemi Rescriptus (Codex C)

Codex K (9th c. uncial)

Codex X (10th c. uncial, Alex. in Gospels)

Codex W (5th c. uncial, Alex. in John)

Delta (9th c. uncial, Alex.)

Theta (9th c. uncial, Caes.)

Pi (9th c. uncial)

Psi (8th/9th c. uncial)

f1 (12-14th c. group of mss., Caes.)

f13 (11th-13th c. group of mss., Caes.)

28 (11th c. miniscule, Caes.)

565 (9th c. miniscule, Caes.)

700 (11th. c. miniscule, Caes.)

892 (9th c. miniscule, Alex.)

1010 (12th c. miniscule)

1241 (12th c. miniscule, Alex.)

The vast majority of the Byzantine text body

The majority of Greek lectionaries

Most of the Old Latin mss. body

Most of the Latin Vulgate mss. body

The Curetonian Syriac mss. set (4th c.)

The Harclean Syriac mss. set (7th c.)

The Palestinian Syriac mss. set (5th c.)

Support for the Critical Text reading

p66 (c. 200 AD)

p75 (3rd c.)

Codex Sinaiticus (4th c. uncial)

Codex Vaticanus (4th c. uncial)

Ephraemi Rescriptus (5th c. uncial)

Codex L (8th c. uncial, Alex.)

33 (9th c. miniscule, Alex.)

Peshitta Syriac mss. set (5th c.)

Northern Coptic mss. set (4th c.)
Additional readings of importance: The Southern Coptic mss. (3rd c.) set testifies to the reading "...the only unique Son, God, who is in the bosom..."

The change in red above involves the alteration of the word uioV ("Son") to qeoV ("God"). The reading of "Son" is supported by the body of the Majority Text set and Codex Alexandrinus, while the minority reading "God" is supported by the Critical Text set (Aleph, Vaticanus, E. Rescriptus, p66, and p75). Despite the somewhat confused rendering in the NIV, the change really amounts to altering "only begotten Son" to "only begotten God." This alteration supports the Gnostic theological view in that it removes from the text the Sonship and pre-existence of the Lord Jesus Christ, hallmarks of Christian theology. Many Gnostic groups taught that Jesus Christ was a created being, called an Aeon, who emanated from the original and unknowable Father, thus he was not a pre-existent being (or, as the Valentinian and other systems taught, that Jesus and Christ were two separate of such!). In the Gnostic speculative systems, the aeons were viewed as subordinate gods. The changing of "Son" to "God" reflects this as it does not necessarily indicate an attempt to strengthen the doctrine of the deity of Christ, but rather an alteration of His eternal Sonship (as taught in the Scriptures) to that of an emanated and created subordinate god, originating from the Everlasting Father.

Holland points out39 that in the writings of many "Christian" Gnostics, as well as other heretics (such as Tatian, Arius, and the Valentinians), this textual variant appeared. Likewise, in the writings of orthodox heresiologists, the traditional Byzantine reading of monogenes huios is cited (Irenaeus, Gregory of Nyssa, Tertullian, John Chrysostom). While on the face of it, the simple change from "Son" to "God" would not seem to be especially indicative of Gnosticism, the sharp contrast between heresiarch and heresiologist on this passage demonstrates that the "only begotten God" reading was a trademark of Gnostic speculations as far as their view of Jesus Christ is concerned, and that it was understood to be so by the early churches. The appearance of this alteration in a small body of texts originating from the veritable capital of Gnosticism, Alexandria, would suggest that the Gnostics made their mark in these texts and at this verse.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

John 3:13

Textus Receptus - kai oudeiV anabebhken eiV ton ouranon, ei mh o ek tou ouranou katabaV, o uioV tou anqrwpou o wn en tw ouranw.

(And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven. - KJV)

NA 21 - kai oudeiV anabebhken eiV ton ouranon ei mh o ek tou ouranou katabaV, o uioV tou anqrwpou.

("No one has ever gone into heaven, except the one who came from heaven - the Son of Man." - NIV)


Support for the Textus Receptus reading

Codex Alexandrinus (5th c. uncial)

K (9th c. uncial)

Delta (9th c. uncial, Alex.)

Theta (9th c. uncial, Caes.)

Pi (9th c. uncial)

Psi (8th-9th c. uncial, Byz. in John)

f1 (12th-14th c. family of mss.)

f13 (11th-13th c. family of mss.)

28 (11th c. miniscule, Caes.)

565 (9th c. miniscule, Caes.)

700 (11th c. miniscule, Caes.)

892 (9th c. miniscule, Alex.)

The large majority of the Byzantine textual set

The large majority of the Greek lectionaries

Most of the Old Latin mss.

The Latin Vulgate mss. set

The Peshitta Syriac mss. set (5th c.)

The Harclean Syriac mss. set (7th c.)

Possibly in the Palestinian Syriac mss. set (5th c.) - unconfirmed

Some Northern Coptic mss. (4th c.)

Support for the Critical Text reading

p66 (c. 200 AD)

p75 (3rd c.)

Codex Sinaiticus (4th c. uncial)

Codex Vaticanus (4th c. uncial)

L (8th c. uncial, Alex. in Gospels)

W (5th c. uncial, Alex. in John)

083 (6th-7th c. uncial)

086 (6th c. uncial)

0113 (5th c. uncial)

33 (9th c. miniscule, Alex.)

1010 (12th c. miniscule)

1241 (12th c. miniscule, Alex.)

Most of the Coptic mss. sets (3rd-5th c.)
This alteration involves the removal of a statement of omnipresence concerning the Lord Jesus Christ while He was on the earth. While both affirm that Christ came down from heaven, the Alexandrian reading removes the statement about the Son being concurrently IN heaven. This reflects the general Gnostic view that while the Savior "alien god" was in the material world, he was completely separated from the Unknown Everlasting in the realm of Light, just as were the lost bits of Light within each man and woman whom the alien Savior came to restore to the realm of Light.40 In Gnostic theorization, the Savior had to be separated completely from the Everlasting Father to be able to enter into the realm of the material world, and the Byzantine reading of this verse would suggest just the opposite, that the Savior was both on earth in His physical body, yet also contemporaneously in heaven.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

John 9:35

Textus Receptus - Hkousen o IhsouV oti exebalon auton exw. kai eurwn auton, eipen autw, Su pisteueiV eiV ton uion tou Qeou.

(Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when he had found him, he said unto him, Dost thou believe on the Son of God? - KJV)

NA 21 - Hkousen IhsouV oti exebalon auton exw, kai eurwn auton eipen, su pisteueiV eiV ton uion tou anqrwpou.

(Jesus heard that they had thrown him out, and when he found him, he said, "Do you believe in the Son of Man?" - NIV)


Support for the TR reading:

Codex Alexandrinus (5th c. uncial)

K (9th c. uncial)

L (8th c. uncial, Alex.)

X (10th c. uncial, Alex.)

Delta (9th c. uncial, Alex.)

Theta (9th c. uncial, Caes.)

Psi (8th-9th c. uncial, Alex.)

0124 (6th c. uncial)

f1 (12th-14th c. family of mss.)

f13 (11th-13th c. family of mss.)

28 (11th c. miniscule, Caes.)

33 (9th c. miniscule, Alex.)

565 (9th c. miniscule, Caes.)

700 (11th c. miniscule, Caes.)

892 (9th c. miniscule, Alex.)

1010 (12th c. miniscule)

1241 (12th c. miniscule, Alex.)

The large majority of Byzantine mss.

The large majority of the Greek lectionaries

Most of the Old Latin mss.

The Latin Vulgate mss. body

The Peshitta Syriac mss. set (5th c.)

The Harclean Syriac mss. set (7th c.)

The Palestinian Syriac mss. set (5th c.)

Most of the Northern Coptic mss. set (4th c.)

Support for the CT reading:

p66 (200 AD)

p75 (3rd c.)

Codex Sinaiticus (4th c. uncial)

Codex Vaticanus (4th c. uncial)

Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis (5th-6th c. uncial)

W (5th c. uncial, Alex. in John)

The Sinaitic Syriac mss. set (4th c.)

One Northern Coptic ms. (4th c.)

The Southern Coptic mss. set (3rd c.)
The difference in these readings seems suggestive of a clarification on the part of the Gnostics. Though "God" and "Man" in most speculative systems could be understood as referring to the Father of all, often the preferred term was "Man," as the Eternal was often represented as being a "Primal Man" or "First Man." The term "God" was often, though certainly not always, reserved for Gnostic treatment of the Demiurge, who was often depicted as the God of the Old Testament, "ignorantly" believing Himself to be the highest power in existence. While this change in reading appears more or less innocent to us, to a reader in the early church familiar with Gnostic systems, the particular choice to change "God" to "Man" would bespeak a definite attempt at making the verse more acceptable to Gnosticism.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

John 10:14-15

Textus Receptus - egw eimi o poimhn o kaloV, kai ginwskw ta ema, kai ginwskomai upo twn emwn. kaqwV ginwskei me o pathr, kagw ginwskw ton patera. kai thn yuchn mou tiqhmi uper twn probatwn.

(I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine. As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father, and I lay down my life for the sheep. - KJV)

NA 21 - egw eimi o poimhn o kaloV, kai ginwskw ta ema, kai ginwskousi me ta ema, kaqwV ginwskei me o pathr, kagw ginwskw ton patera, kai thn yuchn mou tiqhmi uper twn probatwn.

("I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me - Just as the Father knows me and I know the Father - and I lay down my life for the sheep." - NIV)

The support for the alteration is from p45, p66, p75vid, Codex Sinaiticus, and Codex Vaticanus. In favor of the TR reading is Codex Alexandrinus and the Byzantine majority text set.

The change in this passage centers about the alteration of ginwskomai upo twn emwn to ginwskousi me ta ema. This involves changing the declension of the verb ginwskw from a 1st person singular middle/passive indicative construction to a 3rd person plural active indicative construction. What this essentially means is that the shift in emphasis on the knowledge of Christ is changed from being passively had "through" Christ (denoting the agency of Christ acting through the sheep because of their testimony for Him) to being actively obtained by the sheep themselves. This would seem to conflict with other Scripture such as John 6:44, John 6:65, Romans 3:11, etc. where it is taught that the knowledge of God cannot and would not be obtained by man without the aid and providence of God.

This then appears to be a Gnostic alteration to the text because the whole object of Gnosticism was for man to learn, understand, and then seek out the knowledge of the Eternal through his own efforts and desire to obtain gnosis. The alien Savior came into the material world to give the call to mankind to gnosis. However, the responsibility and power to obtain this heavenly knowledge lay with man himself, who was said to have an inner spark of the divine nature himself, and thus could actively awake himself from his slumber and seek out and respond to the Eternal's call. This was largely the reason why the in many Gnostic speculative systems, it was not only acceptable, but actually encouraged, for individual teachers to produce their own variable speculations, each more involved and intricate than the one before.41



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Acts 2:30

Textus Receptus - profhthV oun uparcwn, kai eidwV oti orkw wmosen autw o QeoV, ek karpou thV osfuoV autou to kata sarka anasthsein ton Criston, kaqisai epi tou qronou autou,

(Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne. - KJV)

NA 21 - profhthV oun uparcwn kai eidwV oti orkw wmosen autw o qeoV ek karpou thV osfuoV autou kaqisai epi ton qronon autou

(But he was a prophet and knew that God had promised him on oath that he would place one of his descendants on his throne. - NIV)

The only opposition which the reading found in the Textus Receptus has is from Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Alexandrinus, Codex Vaticanus, and Ephraemi Rescriptus. Otherwise, the TR reading is supported by the majority Byzantine text set, as well as other versions.

This is a clear-cut example of the removal of a biblical statement concerning the literal incarnation and physical descent of Jesus Christ from David. This is in line with many Gnostic systems which viewed Christ as a purely spiritual being, an aeon emanated from the Everlasting. The reading presented in the traditional text, where Christ in the flesh is said to be in physical descend from David, would be antithetical to these speculative systems.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I Corinthians 15:47

Textus Receptus - o prwtoV anqrwpoV ek ghV, coikoV. o deuteroV anqrwpoV, o KurioV ex ouranou.

(The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven. - KJV)

NA 21 - o prwtoV anqrwpoV ek ghV coikoV, o deuteroV anqrwpoV ex ouranou.

(The first man was from the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven. - NIV)

The only support for the omission of "the Lord" is from Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus, and Ephraemi Rescriptus. The vast majority of remaining Greek mss., including Codex Alexandrinus, contain this phrase. Interestingly, p46 replaces "the Lord" with "the spiritual" (pneumatikoV).

The deletion of "the Lord" from this verse subverts the Christian doctrine of Christ coming in the likeness of sinful humanity to serve as the Savior for the creature made in God's image (see Romans 8:3, Philippians 2:7, Hebrews 2:14). The emended reading, in conjunction with the statement of I Corinthians 15:45, then becomes a passage which would very strongly support the Gnostic teaching about the creation of man which is found in The Apocryphon of John, said by many scholars to be the locus classicus of the Christian Gnostic mythological systems.

As the traditional reading goes, this passage in I Corinthians 15 speaks of the incarnation of Christ in the likeness of sinful man, and points to the truth that a man who is saved will one day bear the heavenly image of Christ after his full redemption and glorification (from v. 49). From v. 45 comes the teaching that Christ is the Second Adam, the incarnation of God Himself from heaven in the form of sinful man who has the power to reverse the power of sin and death over the life of the one who believes on Him (see also Romans 5:12-21).

By removing the reference to the Lord, this passage becomes uncannily similar to the sort of anthropology taught by The Apocryphon of John. That document records that the Demiurge, Ialdabaoth, endeavored to replicate the image of "the First Man," the "perfect Father," by creating a psychical replicant (Adam), which was unable to move until Ialdabaoth was tricked into introducing a pneumatic element into his creation by Christos, disguised as an archon of Light, thus enabling Adam to move and be a fully completed creature. This also enabled Adam to be "saved," that is, to have the pneumatic element in him restored to the Father through gnosis.42 Rudolph explains this chain of events in greater detail,


"First of all we have the 'psychic Adam', whom the demiurge Jaldabaoth with his 'seven emissaries' (Genesis 1.26 is drawn upon here also) creates after the image, reflected in the water of chaos, of the 'holy perfect Father, the first man in the form of a man'. Thus the device of imitation is again made to serve the powers of darkness, but of necessity it must be imperfect and finally needs the help of the powers of light, who thereby are able to ensure the fulfilment of the secret purpose of the plan of salvation. Our text is a particularly impressive example of the opposition of the two basic powers, since every move on the one side is matched by a countermove on the other, until in the course of the development a certain pendulum effect is established. Corresponding to the ancient idea of the part played by the planets in the formation of the psychic body of man, the seven powers contribute from their own elements the following 'souls' for Adam: the 'bone-soul', the 'sinew-soul', the 'flesh-soul', the 'marrow-soul', the 'blood-soul', the 'skin-soul', and the 'hair-soul'. These 'souls of the body' correspond, as is frequently the case in gnostic thought, to macrocosmic powers (providence, divinity, lordship, fire, kingdom, insight, wisdom). Behind this evidently lies the idea of the psychic capacities of man, belonging to the earthly intellectual (immaterial) sphere, in contrast to the supramundane intellectual element which is a gracious gift from the world above. In spite of the skill devoted to the formation of this psychic body it remains immobile and it is not possible to make him stand upright. This gives 'Wisdom' (sophia) opportunity to intervene in order to win back the power which through her error she had lost to her son the Demiurge. She prays 'the Father of the all' for help; he has recourse to deception (this is evidently quite permissible in dealing with the evil powers): 'By a holy decree he sent the 'self-originate' (autogenes) and the four lights in the form of the angels of the first archon. They gave him advice, that they might bring out from him the power of the mother. They said to him: 'Breathe into his face (something) of the spirit (pneuma) which is in you, and the thing will raise itself up'. 'And (so) he breathed into him of his spirit—it is the power from the mother—into the body, and it moved at once...' In this way the pneumatic seed finds its way into the psychic Adam, and is thus no longer subject exclusively to the control of the powers of darkness."43
In much of Gnostic speculation, there seems to be some confounding of the purely physical and the "psychical" parts of man, which refer to the animation of his being through his appetites and desires. Both of these parts of man's makeup are the result of the corrupted and dark material world in which he was created, and serve to envelope and intoxicate the "pneumatic," the spiritual, part of man which must be liberated by gnosis and restored to the Father above. The Apocryphon seems to treat the physical and psychical parts of man interdependently in this case.

As such, by removing the reference to the Lord, and making the resultant revision of this verse read simply as a second man being from heaven (without the Christian specification), it would quite easily make v. 45...


"And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit."
...read as if it were speaking of the Gnostic teaching found in the Apocryphon, namely, that the first Adam was created with soul (psyche), and the last was created with spirit (pneumatos). Concurrently then, v. 47 would support the notion that the first man, the psychical, was an earthy and earthly creation of the Demiurge, but that the second man, formed from the injection of pneuma, was from heaven, since in the Gnostic speculation, all pneuma originated from the Father above and was of heavenly origin. The evidence from the reading of "the spiritual" in p46 in place of "the Lord" would seem to lend additional credence to this supposition, and further alter this passage from a Christian Christological to a Gnostic anthropological perspective.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

II Corinthians 4:6

Textus Receptus - oti o QeoV o eipwn ek skotouV fwV lamyai, oV elamyen en taiV kardiaiV hmwn, proV fwtismon thV gnwsewV thV doxhV tou Qeou en proswpw Ihsou Cristou.

(For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. - KJV)

NA 21 - oti o qeoV o eipwn ek skotouV fwV lamyei, oV elamyen en taiV kardiaiV hmwn, proV fwtismon thV gnwsewV thV doxhV tou qeou en proswpw Cristou.

(For God, who said, "Let light shine out of darkness," made his light shine in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ. - NIV)


Support for the TR reading:

p46 (200 AD)

Codex Sinaiticus (4th c. uncial)

Ephraemi Rescriptus (5th c. uncial)

H (9th c. uncial)

K (9th c. uncial)

L (8th c. uncial, Alex.)

P (6th c. uncial)

Psi (8th-9th c. uncial, Alex.)

The majority of Byzantine mss. (Maj)

One Old Latin ms.

Some Latin Vulgate mss.

The Peshitta Syriac mss. set (5th c.)

The Harclean Syriac mss. set (7th c.)

The Northern Coptic mss. set (4th c.)

Support for the CT reading:

Codex Alexandrinus (5th c. uncial)

Codex Vaticanus (4th c. uncial)

33 (9th c. miniscule, Alex.)

1739 (10th c. miniscule, Alex. in Pauline epistles) - unconfirmed

The Southern Coptic mss. set (3rd c.)
Additionally, a TR-supportive reading which merely reverses the final phrase to say "Christ Jesus" is found in:


Codex Claromontanus (6th c. uncial, West.)

F (9th c. uncial, West.)

G (Codex Boernerianus, 9th c. uncial, West.)

630 (14th c. miniscule)

A copy of 1739 (a 10th c. miniscule, Alex.) - unconfirmed

1881 (14th c. miniscule)

Two Old Latin mss.

Most of the Latin vulgate mss.
This omission would tend again to separate the earthly "Jesus" from the heavenly "Christ," another example of the docetic and Gnostic tendency. According to many Gnostic speculations, Christ, but not Jesus, came to bring illumination to mankind who is separated from the Everlasting Father of Light.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Galatians 6:17

Textus Receptus - Tou loipou, kopouV moi mhdeiV parecetw. egw gar ta stigmata tou Kuriou Ihsou en tw swmati mou bastazw.

(From henceforth let no man trouble me: for I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus. - KJV)

NA 21 - Tou loipou kopouV moi mhdeiV parecetw. egw gar ta stigmata tou Ihsou en tw swmati mou bastazw.

(Finally, let no one cause me trouble, for I bear on my body the marks of Jesus. - NIV)

The support for the CT reading is found in Codex Vaticanus, Codex Alexandrinus, Ephraemi Rescriptus, and p46. The entire Byzantine mss. body contains the TR reading. Further, Sinaiticus contains the reading "The Lord Jesus Christ" (Kuriou Ihsou Cristou), which may be supportive of the notion that "Christ" was added in an attempt to clarify the Gnostic view that the earthly Jesus could not be "the Lord," but that the heavenly, spiritual "Christ" was, serving to justify the appearance of the term "Lord."

This seems a clear example of docetism on the part of the Alexandrian texts, since we see an apparent attempt to divorce the term of deity "Lord" from the "earthly Jesus." In this sort of speculative system, "Lord," denoting the alien Savior from the Realm of Light, would not rightly be applied to the earthly Jesus. Further, the "Lord," viewed as a purely spiritual creature, would not have any marks in his body for Paul to bear in similitude.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ephesians 3:9

Textus Receptus - kai fwtisai pantaV tiV h koinwnia tou musthriou tou apokekrummenou apo twn aiwnwn en tw Qew tw ta panta ktisanti dia Ihsou Cristou,

(And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ. - KJV)

NA 21 - kai fwtisai tiV h oikonomia tou musthriou tou apokekrummenou apo twn aiwnwn en tw qew tw ta panta ktisanti,

(..and to make plain to everyone the administration of this mystery, which for ages past was kept hidden in God, who created all things. - NIV)

The only opposition to the TR reading here is from p46, Codex Alexandrinus, Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus, and Ephraemi Rescriptus.

The pertinent alteration in this case involves the removal of dia Ihsou Cristou (by [or through] Jesus Christ). This change essentially removes from this passage the affirmation that Jesus Christ was the agent by which Creation was brought into existence. This fits into Gnostic cosmogony quite well. Christ, as an emanation of the eternal Father, was therefore completely outside of the material cosmos, only entering it as a representative of the "alien god" who sought to bring out the souls of men (also parts of the eternal Father, and thus alien to the cosmos) away from the material world. As such, Christ would not have been involved in the creation of the material world, which was viewed as the work of the evil Demiurge (Ialdabaoth, etc.) who was opposed to the eternal Father and his efforts to restore the lost light to himself. The removal of "by Jesus Christ" from Ephesians 3:9 supports this cosmogony as it removes Christ (and by implication the Father) from the the role of Creator, and more easily makes the passage to be understood as referring to the Demiurge as God in creation. In many Gnostic systems, it was taught that the Demiurge was the "World-Artificer," the one who fashioned the existing material world. The Demiurge often is depicted as ignorant of the existence of powers higher than himself, and falls into conceit about his supremacy. For example, Hippolytus cites the belief system of the heresiarch Basilides,


"For there ruled the great Archon, whose dominion extends to the firmament, who believes that he is the only God and that there is none above him."44
Further, Irenaeus relates another permutation of this theme found among the Gnostics,


"He boasted of what was taking place at his feet and said, 'I am Father and God, and there is none above me....Do not lie, Ialdabaoth: there is above thee the Father of all, the First Man, and Man the Son of Man."45
The Gnostics would rely upon Old Testament statements of God's supremacy, such as Isaiah 45:5, to present their claims that the God of the Old Testament was the Demiurge who makes these sorts of boastful claims, and that the Father of Christ in the New Testament is the Father over all. Hence, to remove reference to Christ as the agent of creation in such a blatant manner would point to the overlaying of Gnostic cosmogony onto this verse.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I Timothy 3:16

Textus Receptus - kai omologoumenwV mega esti to thV eusebeiaV musthrion. QeoV efanerwqh en sarki, edikaiwqh en pneumati, wfqh aggeloiV, ekhrucqh en eqnesin, episteuqh en kosmw, anelhfqh en doxh.

(And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory. - KJV)

NA 21 - kai omologoumenwV mega estin to thV eusebeiaV musthrion. oV efanerwqh en sarki, edikaiwqh en pneumati, wfqh aggeloiV, ekhrucqh en eqnesin, episteuqh en kosmw, anelhmfqh en doxh.

(Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is great: He appeared in a body, was vindicated by the Spirit, was seen by angels, was preached among the nations, was believed on in the world, was taken up in glory. - NIV)


Support for the Textus Receptus Reading

4th c. (poss. 7th c.) corrector of Codex Sinaiticus

5th c. corrector of Codex Alexandrinus

6th c. corrector of Ephraemi Rescriptus

9th c. copy of Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis [D]

K (9th c. uncial)

L (9th c. uncial, Byz.)

P (9th c. uncial, Alex.)

Psi (8th-9th c. uncial, Alex.)

81 (9th c. miniscule, Alex.)

104 (11th c. miniscule, Alex.)

614 (13th c. miniscule, West.)

630 (14th c. miniscule)

1241 (12th c. miniscule, Alex.)

1739 (10th c. miniscule, Alex.)

1881 (14th c. miniscule)

2495 (14th-15th c. miniscule)

The large majority of the Byzantine text set

The large majority of the Greek lectionaries

Support for the Critical Text Reading

Codex Sinaiticus (4th c. uncial)

Codex Alexandrinus (5th c. uncial)

Ephraemi Rescriptus (5th c. uncial)

G (9th c. uncial, West.)

33 (9th c. miniscule, Alex.)

The Palestinian Syriac mss. set (5th c.)

Possibly the Peshitta Syriac mss. set (5th c.) - unconfirmed

Possibly the Harclean Syriac mss. set (7th c.) - unconfirmed

Possibly in the Coptic textual sets (3rd-5th c.) - unconfirmed
This alteration seems pretty straightforward. By changing "God" to the more general "he," the potentially offensive (to Gnostics) idea that the Demiurge would be incarnated into the world and "justified in the Spirit," "received up into glory," etc. is diverted. Thus, the alteration avoids casting the Demiurge into the role which should be fulfilled by the heavenly alien Savior. On the other hand, if one wishes to consider "God" in this passage (from a minority Gnostic point of view) as referring to the Eternal Father, then this change is equally supportive of Gnostic theology. The truth of the voluntary incarnation of the eternal God into His own creation is weakened, and replaced with language which could still support the entry of Jesus Christ, as a created aeon, into the material world.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I John 4:3

Textus Receptus - kai pan pneuma o mh omologei ton Ihsoun Criston en sarki elhluqota, ek tou Qeou ouk esti. kai touto esti to tou anticristou, o akhkoate oti ercetai, kai nun en tw kosmw estin hdh.

(And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is in the world. - KJV)

NA 21 - kai pan pneuma o mh omologei ton Ihsoun ek tou qeou ouk estin. kai touto estin to tou anticristou, o akhkoate oti ercetai kai nun en tw kosmw estin hdh.

(..but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world. - NIV)

The only support for the omission of this clause comes from Codex Vaticanus and Codex Alexandrinus. This clause is contained in Codex Sinaiticus, except that the phrase "Jesus Christ" Ihsoun Criston is changed to "Jesus Lord" Ihsoun Kurion.

This is a straightforward example of a change made to support the docetic aspect of certain Gnostic beliefs. The traditional reading says that if a person refuses to believe that Jesus Christ came in the flesh, they are of the spirit of antichrist. This reading is changed in the Alexandrian texts in two ways which both reflect Gnostic tampering. In Alexandrinus and Vaticanus, the clause is simply deleted. They now say that if one "denies Jesus" (without the stipulation of acknowledging His literal incarnation), they are not of God, which is something that both Gnostic and Christian would agree upon in a general sense, though the Gnostic can still freely reject the fleshly incarnation of the spiritual, heavenly Christ. Essentially the same sort of change is made in Sinaiticus, which retains the clause, but replaces "Christ" with "Lord," making this passage a Gnostically more acceptable statement concerning the coming of the earthly Jesus in the flesh. This proceeds then without casting the heavenly, spiritual Christ into that material role, which would be unacceptable to many of the speculative systems of the Gnostics."


http://www.studytoanswer.net/bibleversions/gnostic.html

Maybe you'll flush out the answer later?

Lengthy posts and not adequately answering people's questions.... you're gonna lose me...

Maybe you'll flush out the answer later?

Lengthy posts and not adequately answering people's questions.... you're gonna lose me...
[/quote]Sorry, I was running to work and hit post and didnt see how long it was.....

Well from memory I think the dead sea scrolls agree with the Textus Receptus as the vast majority of the Dead Sea Scrolls were simply copies of books of the Old Testament from 250-150 B.C. A copy or portion of nearly every Old Testament book was found in Qumran. There were extra-biblical and apocryphal books found as well, but again, the vast majority of the scrolls were copies of the Hebrew Old Testament.

Can we please keep our posts to a REASONABLE length? Riduculously long posts serve no purpose in moving the discussion forward.

What point is a long post trying to support or make?

Who has the time to read such long posts?

By the time one wades through the post they have lost track of the thrust of the thread, since most of it does not apply to the argument at hand anyway.

Have a little respect for those of us who have day jobs and families that also take our time. This is a DISCUSSION BOARD, not a LECTURE HALL.

JAK, these long posts are sort of like the book of Chronicals. There are people who find that it just bogs them down, yet there are some fantastic studies from people who are able to take the time to study them. Skip over the long texts if they don't help you, and for those who want to study the detail allow them to look at the evidence. That is what I do.

Green Cochoa: I see that there have been a number of posts since I posted my sources last night. I just want to know if you saw that post and it made it easier to understand where I'm coming from.

Basically, while I have also read information on Dr. Wilkinson on line and in articles in journals, and even was aquainted with a family where the mother had been his secretary and they were huge fans of his, however, what I said in my post came from what Graham Maxwell told a group, and what I read in the actual letters between the Whites and Dr. Wilkinson and others in his school of though in the White estate vault. And that the Brother and Sister Wilkinson of the letters you quoted was a different Wilkinson since Dr. Wilkinson would have been a baby at the time the letters you quoted from were written.

Sorry, Kevin. This is a DISCUSSION board, where people DISCUSS. If I want "fantastic studies" I can read a book. But I see that this concept, like most, eludes you.

Actually JAK you do have a point as there are longer posts here where I am not following which side of the argument the poster is trying to support, so point taken. I was just impressed with the e-mail that a friend had just sent me and thought that people would find it useful here and thought that it could generate discussion, I'm sorry that it did not work. I hope that you can find the time to take a look at it but if not I'll try to be more careful in the future.