Characteristics of the Sinaitic and Vatican texts, Difference in Translation
Will Kenny says that most of the more than 5,000 differences in the New Testament are found between the King James Version of the Bible on the one hand, and between modern editions of the Bible such as the NASB (New American Standard Version), NIV (New International Version), RSV (Revised Standard Version), Life Edition, and others. I repeat again that most of the differences between the different translations result from the fundamental differences between these two manuscripts, the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, which are likely to date back to the fourth century AD.
The reader of the science of biblical manuscripts knows that the Sinaiticus is symbolized by the letter Aleph, and the Vaticanus by the letter B. Dean John William Burgon
compared the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus manuscripts in his book (The Revised Version) published in 1881, and mentioned in it a list containing certain facts that no scholar has denied about these two manuscripts. Mr. Burgon
states on page 11 that it is strange to say that the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts have in the past twenty years occupied the supremacy of the imagination of textual critics, which could be a myth, without any basis in reality or truth. It does not matter that it has been discovered that they differ radically not only by 99% from the Masoretic text , but that they also differ from each other.
In the New Testament, and we mention specifically the Gospels alone, the Vatican manuscript deleted at least 2877 words , added 536 , replaced 935 words with others, moved the positions of 2098 words , and changed the meaning of 1132 words , i.e. 7578 words were distorted , which is the total of the above!!
As for the Sinaiticus , it deleted 3455 words, added 839 words, replaced 1114 words, moved 2299 words from their positions, and changed the meaning of 1265 words, i.e. 8972 words were distorted , which is the total of the above!!
Taking into consideration that the deletion, addition, replacement, distortion of meaning, or change of word position did not target the same words in both versions. And it is easier to find two contradictory sentences than to search for two sentences that agree completely with each other.
On page 319 he notes: “ The four Gospels of the Vatican Codex alone have 589 different readings of their own, affecting the meaning of 858 words. In the Sinaiticus there are 1,460 different readings affecting the meaning of 2,640 words .”
The purpose of this study and the presentation of some of the many examples is to show how different and conflicting the two oldest manuscripts of the New Testament are. They differ from the traditional Greek text , which is adopted by the King James Version, issued in 1611. Thousands of words have been deleted from the King James text, based on the revision that was made based on these two manuscripts: Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. As for the modern versions, they do not follow a rational or logical model, they have included specific readings from one version and excluded others.
Under the heading of Subverted or Deleted Passages, Will Keamy says :
The SinaiticusThe following sentences are completely omitted , while the Vatican volume includes them: (Matthew 24:35)
has been omitted , which says: ( 35Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away .) Also omitted from
Sinaiticus: (Luke 10:32) ( 32And likewise a Levite also, when he was at the place, came and saw, and passed by on the other side .) Also omitted from Sinaiticus: (Luke 17:35) ( 35There shall be two women grinding together; one shall be taken, and the other left .) Also omitted from Sinaiticus: (John 9:38) ( 38And he said, “Lord, I believe.” And he worshipped him .) Also omitted from Sinaiticus: (John 16:15) ( 15Every What the Father has is Mine. Therefore I said, He will take of what is Mine and will declare it to you .) Also omitted from Sinaiticus: (John 21:25) ( 25And there are many other things that Jesus did, which if they were written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. Amen .) Also omitted from Sinaiticus: (1 Corinthians 13:2) which says: ( 2And if I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries, And all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing .) And if the Lord said: ( 18For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or dot will pass from the law until all is accomplished .) Matthew 5:18, this is enough to invalidate their claim that these manuscripts were inspired to their copyists. If they believe that not a single point of the Lord’s words has been lost, then this means that this manuscript from which several paragraphs have been lost is not the Lord’s words. Otherwise, we would accuse the Lord of not being able to preserve his words, just as he failed to preserve his clothes at the time of the crucifixion, and even failed to preserve his dignity or his life!! The Vatican Codex omits the following sentences , because they are not sacred to it and were not inspired by the Lord, while the Sinai Codex includes them, because the Lord inspired them to its writers: They were deleted from it: They were deleted from the Vatican Codex: (Matthew 12:47) ( 47And someone said to him, “Behold, your mother and your brothers are standing outside, seeking to speak to you.” ) And they were also deleted from the Vatican Codex: (Luke 23:17) (17And he was compelled to release one to them at every feast .) This last text was also deleted from the NASB and the NIV, while the Sinai Codex includes it.
And the majority of the Greek texts, because it is necessary to confirm the doctrine of Communion and justify it in writing.”
The Vatican also omits from the original Book of the Lord (Luke 23:34) ( 34And Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they do .”), while the Sinaiticus, the New American Standard Version (NASB) and the New International Version (NIV) mention it.
The Vatican and Sinaiticus agree in deleting the following sentences:
Matthew 17:21 ( 21But this kind does not go out except by prayer and fasting .) Indeed, the inclusion of this text in the text of some of the current Gospels is to disgrace the disciples, and thus cast doubt on their knowledge and what tradition has transmitted about them. If this unclean kind of demons does not go out except by prayer and fasting, and the disciples failed to cast it out, this is evidence that they were not among those who prayed or fasted. This takes them out of the circle of faith and into the circle of disbelief or disobedience, or both.
Matthew 18:11 ( 11For the Son of Man has come to save that which was lost. ) In fact, if we assume that the Son of Man here refers to Jesus, then in his capacity as the Father he sacrificed himself in his capacity as the Son in order to be able to forgive the sin of humanity that no one committed, and to leave the main perpetrator. This is nothing but suicide and salvation from himself. Suicide is despair and an escape from solving the problem, not salvation from it.
Also, this does not solve the problem, and is not a sound solution to a crime. For he solved the crime with another crime, and only a stupid, short-sighted, or resourceful person would do that. All of this negates the attribute of divinity from the Lord, in favor of Satan!!
And after the Lord committed suicide (in order for two people to eat from a forbidden tree), did the crime disappear and peace prevail on earth? No. The crime still exists, and millions still disobey God Almighty. The Lord knows this and said that the sons of Adam are sinners, ( for there is no man who does not sin ) 2 Chronicles 6:36; so why would He kill His son or commit suicide to forgive humans for a crime they did not commit and which He pinned on them?
Matthew 23:27 ( Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs, which indeed appear beautiful on the outside, but within are full of dead men’s bones and all uncleanness .)
Mark 7:16 ( 16If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear .)
Mark 9:44,46 ( 44Where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched. )
Mark 11:26 ( 26And if you do not forgive, neither will your Father who is in heaven forgive your trespasses .)
Mark 15:28 ( 28So the Scripture is fulfilled which says, “And he was numbered with the transgressors.” )
Luke 9:55-56 (55But he turned and rebuked them, saying, “You do not know what kind of spirit you are of. 56For the Son of Man did not come to destroy people’s lives, but to save them.” And they went to another village .
Luke 17:36 ( 36 “Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other will be left .”)
Luke 23:17 ( 17And he had to release one to them at every feast .)
John 5:4 ( 4For an angel went down at a certain time into the pool and stirred up the water. And whoever stepped in first after the stirring of the water was made well of whatever disease he had. It is strange
that you find all these deleted paragraphs in most of the remaining Greek texts we have today.
It is worth noting that the NASB, 1972 edition, deleted them, but they were brought back in the 1977 edition. Then they deleted them and they are still not found in its modern editions!
Therefore, the Christian should buy every edition of the Bible so that he knows the latest developments in deletion and addition, and so that he does not think that what the Church deleted from the Bible remained sacred!!
Is there any justification for this except that the Book of the Lord is subject to the whims of textual scholars and those behind them?
Is there any logic other than that these texts were written by people who were not inspired?
Is it part of faith for a person to doubt the ability of the Lord to do a flawless work, and not to tolerate even the slightest possible error, or to accuse the Lord of negligence or leaving His Book as a toy in the hands of people?
Here are some other examples indicating the distance of these manuscripts from the Lord’s inspiration or protection of them:
Example 1:
Matthew 6:13 (... For thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen .)
It is well known that Jesus' prayer ends with this saying, but you find it omitted in 990 manuscripts, and it is only mentioned in ten manuscripts! That is, its presence represents the majority of 99% of a thousand manuscripts. So what kind of person, driven by the spirit of Satan, has omitted a text that represents the majority?
However, its absence in this small number of manuscripts indicates that the Lord did not pledge to preserve these manuscripts, and that the composition of the book that they sanctify is subject to the decision of the senior men of the church!!
It was mentioned in the Didache (150 AD) and the Diatessaron (170 AD), i.e. 200 years before the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, and it was also mentioned in the following ancient versions: the Old Latin version (200 AD), the Syriac Peshitta (250 AD), the Harclean, the Curetonian, the Palestinian, the Coptic, the Gothic, the Armenian, and the Ethiopic.
However, the Sinaiticus, the Vaticanus, the Modern International Version, the Jesuit Fathers’ translation, and the Common Arabic translation omitted it, while the Revised American Standard Version mentions it in parentheses.
What is the Lord’s standard for selecting texts from among these manuscripts?
What is the standard that Bible scholars set for selecting texts that they consider sacred and inspired by God?
Which version is the most correct and which was inspired by the Lord?
If the Sinaitic or Vatican version is the revelation of God, then what is the fate of those who believe in the Coptic or Armenian version or other versions as the revelation of God?
If the oldest versions were inspired by the Lord, then what is the fate of those Christians who currently believe in the translations that depend on these two manuscripts?
If this difference is only in the Lord’s Prayer, then what kind of preservation did the Lord give to His book and His words?
I keep repeating this question: Is the Lord who was unable to preserve His life, and was crying out in frustration at His God, despairing of Him, reproaching Him, crying out: (Why have you forsaken me?) able to preserve His book?
Is the God who was imprisoned by Satan for forty days in the desert able to protect His book from Satan and his helpers?
Is the God whose clothes they cast lots for, able to preserve His words or His book? And here we have seen examples of God’s failure to preserve what they call His book!!
If this difference is only in the Lord’s Prayer, then what kind of preservation did the Lord give to His book and His words?
I keep repeating this question: Is the Lord who was unable to preserve His life, and was crying out in frustration at His God, despairing of Him, reproaching Him, crying out: (Why have you forsaken me?) able to preserve His book?
Is the God who was imprisoned by Satan for forty days in the desert able to protect His book from Satan and his helpers?
Is the God whose clothes they cast lots for, able to preserve His words or His book? And here we have seen examples of God’s failure to preserve what they call His book!!
It was also deleted by the Jesuit Fathers’ translation and the joint Arabic translation.
Example 2:
Matthew 6:2-3 ( 2So when you do a charitable deed, do not sound a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory from men. Truly I say to you, they have received their reward. 3But when you do a charitable deed, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing .)
The Vatican and Sinaiticus omits most of the second sentence and all of the third, but the New American Revised Standard Version lists these words without any reference to them, as does the New American Revised Standard Version. The common Arabic and the translation of the Jesuit Fathers. While the modern international version stated in the bottom margin of the page that these words “ do not exist in some ancient manuscripts .”
The Jesuit translation and the common Arabic translation kept them.
Example 3:
Matthew 17:20 ( 20And Jesus said to them, “Because of your unbelief. For truly I say to you, if you have faith as a mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move, and nothing will be impossible for you .”)
There is an error that is still circulating in the New American Standard Version and the New International Version, and this error came as a result of what was mentioned in the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus versions. When the disciples were unable to cast out the demons, they asked Jesus why, and He told them, “ Because of your unbelief . For truly I say to you, if you have faith as a grain of mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move, and nothing will be impossible for you .” Matthew 17:20
This situation portrays them as having absolutely no faith , and He made that clear by denying that they had faith as small as a grain of mustard seed . However, both the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus use the word ( for your little faith ) instead of ( for your unbelief ), and so say the New American Standard Version, the New International Version, the Jesuit Fathers’ Version, and the Common Arabic Translation.
If their faith was very little, then there were those who could do this work, because Jesus tells them that they only need the amount of ( a mustard seed ) of faith to do these works, and of course the little mentioned by the modern translations was enough for them for this work, because it is in any case more than the weight of an atom. Therefore, the modern translations that followed the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus versions made Jesus’ words a joke of no value. The closest thing to the truth is that they could not do these works because they did not believe at all!!
The Jesuit translation and the joint Arabic translation agreed to change the phrase ( for your lack of faith ) to ( for your little faith ), and thus this edition placed itself in a contradiction: How can they have little faith, when it denies...After that, even the size of a mustard seed?
Example 4:
Here there is a major error in the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus manuscripts, which is that they state that “another one came and pierced his side with a spear, and immediately there came out water and blood.
” The New American Revised Standard Version, the New International Version, the Revised Standard Version, the Common Arabic Translation, and the Jesuit Fathers’ Translation avoided this error. However, the Revised Standard Version mentions it in the margin of the bottom page, saying: “ Some ancient manuscripts add: ‘another one came and pierced his side with a spear, and immediately there came out water and blood .’”
The Sinaiticus and Vaticanus readings confirm that there was a man who killed the Lord, in addition to the Lord having willingly surrendered His spirit into the hand of His Father. This reading confirms that Jesus was killed at that very moment, but we see from the following passages and from the other Gospels that he was still alive and continuing to speak, saying: ( 46And Jesus cried with a loud voice, “Father, into your hands I commend my spirit.” And when he had said this, he gave up his spirit. )
And saying: ( 30So when Jesus had received the vinegar, he said, “It is finished.” And he bowed his head and gave up his spirit .) John 19:30, so here we see that Jesus had voluntarily given up his spirit to its Creator.
But we continue reading in John 19:34 ( 34 But one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and immediately there came out blood and water . ).
It is evident that some careless writer took this reading from John and put it in Matthew 27:49, where it is of no value. It is generally not found in the Van Dyck, the Jesuit, or the Common Arabic editions.
Now this reading is found in the two oldest and best manuscripts, on which most modern translations have been based.
Example 5:
Mark 1:2 (2 As it is written in the prophets, “Behold, I send my messenger before your face, who will prepare your way before you .”)
The Jesuit Fathers’ translation and the common Arabic translation say that it is written in the book of Isaiah and not in the prophets as the Jesuit Fathers’ translation says: (2 It is written in the book of the prophet Isaiah, “Behold, I send my messenger before you, to prepare your way .”)
The King James Version says: ( As it is written in the prophets, “Behold, I send my messenger before your face, to prepare your way before you...” ) And here we have two different prophets, one of them is the prophet Malachi, and the other is the prophet Isaiah. This is the reason why they wrote it ( the prophets ) on The plural, and this is the reading of most Greek texts. It is found in many ancient copies, and was cited by Irenaeus and Tertullian, who date back to 150 years before the Codex Sinaiticus or Vaticanus saw the light.
However, the Revised American Standard Version and the New International Version always mention this passage as the prophecy coming from Isaiah, as the Jesuit translation and the Common Arabic translation say, although part of this citation came from Isaiah and the other part came from Malachi.
This error, which modern translations have fallen into, originates in the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. These two manuscripts replace the word ( the prophets ) with the word ( Isaiah ) and delete (before your face).
The Sinaiticus is unique in deleting the phrase ( the Son of God ) from the first paragraph, and the Vaticanus keeps it. Although the translation of the Jesuit Fathers says about it after placing it from the body of the text: “‘Son of God’ does not occur in all manuscripts. But in any case it expresses the thought of Mark. Although God revealed it ( 1/11 and 9/7 ) and the demons broadcast it ( 3/11 and 5/7 ), it must have remained hidden. But Jesus accepted it during his trial ( 14/61-62 ), and it was mentioned by a pagan man after the death of Jesus ( 15/39 ).
The margin of the joint Arabic translation said: “ We do not find the phrase ‘ Son of God ’ in some manuscripts.”
So although this title does not appear in all manuscripts, and this expresses Mark’s thought, and the demons are the ones who broadcast it and it was mentioned by a pagan man, it is part of the Holy Bible, they put it on the tongue of the Lord, and it became part of his speech!!
If we think deeply about the demons’ broadcasting to him: ( 41And demons also came out of many, crying out and saying, “You are the Christ, the Son of God!” And he rebuked them and would not allow them to speak, because they knew that he was the Christ. ) Luke 4:41, and we ponder whether the demons do good or tell the truth? Of course not.
If the truth is that Jesus is the Son of God, why did he want to hide the truth from people? The demons were then more righteous and wiser than him!!
If Jesus is truly the Son of God, then the manuscripts you rely on have been distorted by deleting this word from them, and this came in confirmation of what Jesus asked of the demons. Accordingly, the copyists who deleted this phrase were obedient to Jesus!!
The absence of the word (Son of God) in all the manuscripts indicates that the book that you sanctify has been distorted by adding it to it, and saying what Jesus forbade the demons from doing!!
If the demons wanted to mislead people by doing this, then you have been misled and said what they said and what Jesus forbade them from doing!!
Example 6:
Mark 6:22 ( 22 Herodias’ daughter came in and danced, and pleased Herod and those who reclined with him. Then the king said to the girl, “Ask me whatever you wish, and I will give it to you .”)
Anyone who follows the text will find that the one who entered upon Herod was Herodias’ daughter, whom he married and because of whom John the Baptist was killed. The Common Arabic Translation and the translation of the Jesuit Fathers followed suit. However, the latter translation stated in the margin of the page “ a different reading: ‘His daughter Herodias’ ,” and the margin of the Common Arabic Translation is similar to that.
However, the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus versions state that the one who entered upon him was (His daughter Herodias). That is, they made Herodias the daughter of Herod.
Example 7: The
Van Dyke translation says: Luke 1:26 (26And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth)
and the Sinaiticus and the Common Arabic Translation agreed with this translation. However, the Sinaiticus version mentions it (a city of the cities of Judea, named Nazareth), and this is a clear geographical error, which made the Common Arabic Translation and the translation of the Fathers of the Sinaiticus refrain from it. It is one geographical error among many errors that confirm that these Gospels were not written by a person who knew Palestine. Nazareth is currently located in Galilee, and not in Judea as the Sinaiticus version said. It should also be taken into consideration that Nazareth was not a city but a village.
But was there a village or city with this name at the time of Jesus?
Matthew says: (23And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, “He shall be called a Nazarene.”) Matthew 2:23, and there is no such prophecy in the Old Testament or in all the books of the prophets. Was it present according to Jesus’ words and then deleted? If this were the case, we would say: The Lord was unable to preserve His words, but the hand of Satan intervened to prove the lie of Jesus’ prophecy!! And if it did not exist in the first place, then Jesus or the writers of the Gospels lied, and we are not permitted to say that the Lord’s book was distorted, since these books have nothing to do with the Lord in the first place!!
The margin of the translation of Einheitsübersetzung says: (There is no such prophecy in the Old or New Testament).
The Applied Commentary on the Bible, p. 1871, says: (The Old Testament does not specifically record this phrase “he will be called a Nazarene,” and yet many scholars believe that Matthew was referring to a prophecy not recorded in the book.) To this matter, Barnes responds in his commentary on this text from the e-Sword website that this statement is not convincing. The
****** translation, p. 40, says: (It is difficult for us to know exactly what text Matthew is relying on, as the term used does not refer to one of the residents of Nazareth or one of the members of the Nazarene sect. Rather, Matthew sees in it a term equivalent to the term Galilee (26/96). We may understand here: “who is in Nazareth” (21/11), and see John 1/45 and Acts 10/38). Perhaps Matthew wanted to refer to the ideal “Holy One of God,” to the “Nazarene” (Judges 13:5, see 16:17 and Mark 1:24).
The Common Arabic Translation, p. 6, says: (Nazarene: in reference to Nazareth. This is the name given to Jesus (21:11) and the first Christians (Acts 24:5).
As for archaeology, it does not recognize the existence of such a biblical village at the time of the mission of Christ Jesus, son of Mary, peace be upon him. It was never mentioned in the Old Testament, although the Book of Joshua 19:10-16 mentioned twelve cities and six villages as the share of the tribe of Zebulun. However, nothing is known about Nazareth, and it is not found in the writings of the rabbis.
It also did not appear in the writings of those who wrote about the history and geography of Palestine until the fourth century AD. Philo, the Jewish philosopher of Alexandria, did not mention it, nor did the Jewish historian Josephus know anything about it. You find him mentioning a lot about Galilee (900 square miles), but he does not know anything about this city. He mentioned 45 cities and villages in Galilee, both important and unimportant, in his books “The Jewish Wars” and “History of the Jews.” He also mentions the village of Jaffa, located south of Nazareth, one mile to the southwest, where he himself lived.
It is worth noting that these two historians were contemporaries of Jesus, peace be upon him.
We do not find it in any of Paul’s letters, or the rest of the books of the New Testament that were written before the time of the Gospels.
The Talmud did not know anything about it, although it mentioned 63 cities in Galilee. Its name also did not appear in rabbinic literature. You find that the letters of Rabbi Sollys mentioned Jesus 221 times, but did not mention Nazareth once.
Likewise, none of the ancient historians or geographers knew about it, and it was not mentioned until the fourth century AD.
Likewise, the sites mentioned below say that the city of Nazareth is located on the western shore of Lake Tiberias. While Jesus, peace be upon him, lived in another city east of Lake Tiberias. We can see this, for example, from Matthew’s saying: (34And when they had crossed over, they came to the land of Gennesaret) Matthew 14:34 and similarly (Mark 6:53). It is known that Gennesaret is located west of the lake, which means that his town is located east of the lake, where the Golan Heights are.
Luke says: (1 Then Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan and was led by the Spirit into the wilderness. . . . . 14 And Jesus returned in the power of the Spirit into Galilee, and news of him went out throughout all the surrounding region.) Luke 4:1, 14.
This means that he lived near the shore of the Sea of Galilee.
In addition, the people tried to throw him from the top of one of the mountains there: (28And all who were in the synagogue were filled with wrath when they heard these things. 29And they rose up and threw him out of the city, and brought him to the brow of the mountain on which their city was built, in order to throw him down. 30But he passed through the midst of them and departed.) Luke 4:28-30
These two signs are not available in the city of Nazareth (as Brigadier Engineer Jamal al-Din says) Sharqawi), as the distance between it and the shore of the lake is no less than two days’ journey up and down the heights, which the person coming from Nazareth to the lake crosses. The Gospels also explicitly tell us that Christ, peace be upon him, after his baptism by the Baptist, returned to Galilee and lived in the town of Capernaum (Matthew 4:13; Mark 2:1, 9:33). In (Matthew 9:1) it is mentioned that the name of Jesus’ town is Capernaum, close to the shore of the lake, and located in a mountainous area as well, but it is also west of the lake.
When we go back to the origin of the Greek word, we find it (N S R), and thus it refers to the name of a place (Nazareth), and we have proven that such a place did not exist during the life of Jesus, peace be upon him, until the beginning of the fourth century, or it refers to the support of the disciples and their advocacy of him, and this did not happen, as they abandoned him in all his serious positions, as they did not support him when the Jews tried to throw him from the top of the mountain, and they abandoned him when he was arrested, or it refers to the support of the city and its people for him, and this also did not happen, as he did not enter it after his message except once (according to the Gospels), and they wanted to kill him there by throwing him from the top of the mountain (Luke 4: 28-30), or it refers to the name of a religion, so Jesus the Christian. In this case, he is another person from the followers of Christianity and not Jesus, son of Mary, the Prophet and Messenger of God, the founder of Christianity (?).
Therefore, the disciples of Jesus, peace be upon him, were Christians , which were translated as Nazarenes, meaning they were from the city of Nazareth (Acts 24:5), although none of them were from a city called Nazareth. Historical documents attest that Jesus was known as Jesus the Christian, not the Nazarene.
See the ISBE Dictionary’s commentary on the word (Nazirite), the word (Nazarene), and the word (Nazareth).
See also: http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/nazareth.html
See also the books of A.M. Gamal El-Din Sharqawi (Jesus the Christian, the Messiah of Paul) and (New Issues in Christianity and Islam, Part 2, pp. 7-17)
The eighth example:
The Van Dyke translation says: Luke 10:1 (1And after these things the Lord appointed seventy others also, and sent them two by two before his face into every city and place where he himself was about to come.)
The common Arabic translation and the translation of the ****** fathers differed from it and mentioned it (seventy-two), and they agreed with the Vatican version, which also mentions it (72), and the modern international translation agreed with it, and they differed with the Septuagint, which differs here from the Vatican, so it mentions it (70), and the modern American Standard Revised Version agreed with it.
The translation of the ****** Fathers said in its margin, commenting on this confusion: “In many manuscripts, ‘seventy’ (and also in verse 17). There is no doubt that the evidence indicates the number of the pagan nations, as the Jewish religion finds in Genesis 10, according to the Hebrew text (70) or the Greek text (72). Luke follows the latter text, knowing that the message to the pagans will not begin until after Passover and Pentecost (24/47 and Acts 1/8), but he wants here to draw a symbolic pre-image of that message.”
In fact, it is a disaster expressed by the difference in manuscripts, for what you find in Hebrew as 70 is added to it in Greek and becomes 72, and Luke chooses what he likes, and then the translators also choose what they like to include in their translations. The commentators philosophize that Luke wanted symbolism, and they forgot that this should be the Lord’s revelation. If the Lord wanted symbolism, he would have mentioned it 72 times. If he had mentioned it 70 times, the Lord would have made a mistake in what he meant, or the translators and copyists would have distorted the Lord’s book!! So who among them is mistaken: the Lord, Luke, the copyists, or everyone?
The ninth example:
The Van Dyke translation says: John 7:8-10 (8You go up to this feast; I am not yet going up to this feast, for my time is not yet fulfilled. 9He said these things to them and stayed in Galilee. 10And when his brothers had gone up, then he also went up to the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret.) The Common English Translation and the ****** Fathers agreed with it.
Jesus decided not to go up to the feast, but he did go up after his brothers had gone up. The Sinaiticus and the King James Version both say that he went up to the feast, and the New International Version, Vaticanus, and the New American Standard Version confirm this. Thus they have made Jesus a liar.
In these three passages we see that the word “this” in “this feast” is omitted in the Vatican, while the Sinaiticus, the New American Standard, and the New International remain. Another difference is that the Vatican and the New American Standard have the word “theirs,” while the Septuagint and the New International omit it.
Likewise the Vatican and the New American Standard have the word “as if,” while the Septuagint and the New International omit it. The joint Arabic translation and the translation of the ****** fathers did the same, as the ****** said: (10And when his brothers went up to the feast, he also went up secretly, not openly)
Example 10:
The Van Dyck translation says: John 17:15 (15I do not ask that you take them out of the world, but that you keep them from the evil one.), and the joint Arabic translation and the translation of the ****** fathers agreed with it. However, the Vatican manuscript mentions it by saying (I do not ask you to take them from the evil one)!! You can imagine the difference between the two meanings. The first asks God to protect them from Satan, and the Vatican asks Him to leave them to Satan!!
Example 11:
The Van Dyke translation says: 1 Corinthians 13:3 (3And if I give away all my possessions to feed the poor, and if I deliver my body to be burned, but
do not have love, it profits me nothing.) The translation of the ****** fathers says: (3And if I give away all my possessions to feed the poor, and if I deliver my body to be burned, but do not have love, it profits me nothing.)
The common Arabic translation says: (3And if I give away all my possessions, and deliver my body to boast, but do not have love, it profits me nothing.)
The difference is clear in the different Arabic translations and does not need comment. However, the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus mention it (I give my body that I may boast), agreeing with the Common Arabic Translation only.
The twelfth example:
The Van Dyke translation says: 1 Corinthians 13:5 (5And does not behave unseemly, nor seeks its own, is not provoked, nor thinks evil)
, and the translation of the ****** fathers says: (5And does not do what is dishonorable, nor seeks its own, is not angry, nor thinks evil,)
and the Common Arabic Translation says: (5Love does not behave badly, nor seeks its own, is not provoked, nor thinks evil.)
There is a difference in the Arabic translation between “do not think ill”, meaning do not let bad thoughts come out of you, and “do not care about the evil that already exists and that others have committed against you or others!!
The Sinaitic version says it (love is not seeking its own benefit), while the Vatican is unique in saying it: (love is seeking what is not its own), and thus the Vatican has turned the meaning upside down, and wanted the complete opposite.
Example 13:
The Van Dyke translation says: 1 Corinthians 15:51 (51Behold, I tell you
a mystery: We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed) and the ****** translation says: (51And I tell you a mystery: We shall not all die, but we shall all be changed)
and the Common Arabic Translation says: (And hear this mystery: We shall not all die, but we shall all be changed)
and the Sinaiticus says this secret in the exact opposite way, saying: (We shall all sleep, but we shall not all be changed)
So what is the one manuscript that they committed to translating from? Is not the process of selecting from the different manuscripts that they do evidence that they do not agree on the full content of each manuscript and do not acknowledge what is in it except after selecting, changing, and moving from one manuscript to another, until they find what they are looking for? Isn't this an extension of what the corrupt copyists were doing?
Example 14:
The Van Dyke translation says: 1 Corinthians 15:54-55 (54And when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory. 55O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?)
The translation of the ****** Fathers: (54And when this corruptible being shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal being shall have put on immortality, then shall be fulfilled the saying of The Scripture: ((Death is swallowed up by victory)) So where, O death, is your victory? And where, O
death, is your sting? The Common Arabic Translation says: (54And when this mortal has put on the immortal, and this mortal has put on the imperishable, the saying of the Scripture is fulfilled: “Death has swallowed up victory.” So where, O death, is your victory? And where, O death, is your sting?) The Sinaiticus version confirms these translations, except that the Vatican manuscript has a different reading that says: (Death is swallowed up in argument. Where, O death, is your sting? Where, O courage, is your argument?)
Example fifteen:
The Van Dyck translation says: 1 Thessalonians 2:7 (7But we were gentle among you, as you raise up The nursing mother (the wet nurse)
and the Arabic version says: (7Although it was our right to impose ourselves because we are apostles of Christ. But we were kind to you as a nursing
mother embraces her children.) The common Arabic version says: (7Although we had a right over you because we are apostles of Christ, yet we were kind to you as a mother is kind to her children.)
The difference between these three translations is noticeable, as Al-Fandyk did not mention “apostles of Christ” or “we have a right over you.” The simile according to Al-Fandyk and Al-Fandyk is “the wet nurse,” while in the common translation it was “the mother.” In addition, Al-Fandyk said “she raises,” and Al-Fandyk said “she embraces,” and the common translation said “tenderness.”
Of course, the word “non-nursing mother”, even if we ignore this word because of the similarity, which is tenderness, we will not ignore the word “messengers of Christ”, which the Van Dyck translation does not know. So what is the word that the Lord uttered and inspired to those who wrote these manuscripts?
However, the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus agreed on another text, which is: (But we are infants among you), and this is completely different from the concept written in the three previous translations. Here they are not messengers of Christ, but rather they are like children. Instead of being the tender mothers who are tender to their children, they were the children, whom their mothers are tender to. The meaning has changed 180 degrees.
Example 16:
The Van Dyke translation says: 2 Peter 3:10 (10But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, when the heavens will pass away with a roar, and the elements will be dissolved with fervent heat, and the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up.)
The ****** translation says: (10But the day of the Lord will come as a thief, and in that day the heavens will pass away with a roar, and the elements will be dissolved with fervent heat, and the earth and the works that are in it will be judged.)
The Common Translation says: (10But The day of the Lord will come as a thief comes, and the heavens will pass away in that day with a thunderbolt, and the elements will be dissolved by fire, and the earth and the works that are in it will be judged.)
First, the difference is clear between the Van Dyck and the common translation on the one hand, which makes the elements dissolve by burning, and ****** on the other hand, which makes them dissolve by raging. Then between the Van Dyck, which makes the earth burn with the coming of the Lord of love, and the last two translations, which make the day of the Lord’s coming the day of judgment for the earth and everything on it, thus refuting Paul’s statement that makes faith in Jesus and Him crucified the reason for eternity in heaven, thereby nullifying the good works, which Jesus and His apostles after Him were always emphasizing.
Paul says: (16Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by faith in Jesus, and not by the works of the law. For by the works of the law no flesh will be justified.) Galatians 2:16
(5But to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited to him who justifies the ungodly. (Righteousness.) Romans 4:5
(4You have become estranged from Christ, you who are justified by the law; you have fallen from grace. 5For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith. 6For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but faith working through love.) Galatians 5:4-6
(20For by the works of the law no flesh is He is justified in his sight, because through the law came the knowledge of sin. 21But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets.) Romans 3:20-21
While the Lord says: (26Cursed is everyone who does not establish the words of this law to do them. And all the people will say, Amen.) Deuteronomy 27:26
And he says: (The law of the Lord is without fault) Psalm 18:7
And he says: (The law of the Lord is perfect) Psalm 19:7
While Jesus says: (17“Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will in no way pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19So whoever breaks one of these commandments
(12So whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them, for this is the law and the prophets.) Matthew 7:12 Rather, he attacked the scribes and Pharisees in defense of the law
, saying: (23Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees! (The hypocrites, because you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith.) Matthew 23:23 And
the leader of the disciples, James, says: (10For whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he hath become guilty of all. 11For he that said, Thou shalt not commit adultery, said also, Thou shalt not murder.) (If you do not commit adultery, but kill, you have become a transgressor of the law.) James 2:10-11
While the Van Dyck translation agreed that the earth and everything on it will be burned up when the Lord comes, the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus versions say that when the Lord comes, “the works on it will be found”!!
Seventeenth example:
We must note that the Vatican volume lacks the entire Book of Revelation, as well as the First and Second Letters to Timothy, Thetus, and from the middle of the ninth chapter of the Book of Hebrews to the end. However, we find strange readings in the Epistle of Revelation in the Sinaiticus.
The Van Dyke translation says: Revelation 4:8 (8And the four living creatures had six wings all around, and were full of eyes within; and they did not cease day and night, saying, “Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord God Almighty, who was and is and is to come.”)
The NIV translation says: (And each of the four living creatures had six wings, and they were full of eyes all around. And from within, they never cease to say day and night: “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God Almighty, who was, is, and is to come.”
The Common Arabic Translation says: “And each of these four living creatures has six wings studded with eyes all around and within them, and they never cease to praise day and night: “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God Almighty, who was, is, and is to come.”
But the Sinaiticus manuscript says: “Holy, holy, holy, holy, holy .” The Lord God Almighty...)
Eighteenth example:
The Van Dyke translation says: Revelation 7:4 and 14:3 (4And I heard the number of those who were sealed, a hundred and forty and four thousand, sealed out of every tribe of the children of Israel)
and the ****** translation says that they are also 144,000 of the tribes of the children of Israel.
The Common English Translation says that they are also 144,000 of the tribes of the children of Israel.
However, the Sinaiticus manuscript confirms that they are only 140,000 in Revelation 7:4, while in Revelation 14:3 (141,000)
Example 19:
The Van Dyke translation says: Revelation 10:1 (1 Then I saw another strong angel coming down from heaven, clothed with a cloud, and on his head was a rainbow, and his face was like the sun, and his feet were like pillars of fire)
and the ****** translation says: (1 Then I saw another strong angel coming down from heaven, clothed with a cloud, and on his head was a halo, and his face was like (Like the sun, and his feet were like pillars
of fire), and the common Arabic translation says: (1And I saw another mighty angel descending from heaven, clothed with a cloud, and on his head was a rainbow, and his face was like the sun, and his feet were like pillars of fire),
and if we ignore the cloud and the mists and if he was clothed with a cloud or clothed with a cloud, and say that this is a weakness in the translation. But we will not ignore what was on this angel who descended from heaven. Was it a halo or a rainbow?
And if you know that the Sinaiticus mentions that what was on his head was hair, does this not prove that the manuscripts were distorted?
Example 20:
The Van Dyke translation says: Revelation 21:4 (4And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; and death shall be no more, neither shall there be sorrow nor crying nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away.)
The ****** translation says: (4And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; and death shall be no more, neither shall there be sorrow nor crying nor pain anymore, for the old world has passed away.) The Common Arabic Translation says: (4And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; and death shall be no more, neither shall there be sorrow nor crying nor pain anymore, for the old world has passed away.)
The Common Arabic Translation says: (4And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; and death shall be no more, neither shall there be sorrow nor crying nor pain anymore, for the old world has passed away.) A tear shall flow from their eyes. Death shall no longer be, nor mourning, nor crying, nor pain; for the old things have passed away.
Regardless of whether what has passed away are the old things or matters, the ****** translation states that the old world has passed away. Is this a prophecy about the passing away of the Old Testament and the salvation of the Jews, the coming of a new earth and a new heaven, and the imminent emergence of the Messiah with his new and final covenant?
In any case, this is not our topic, as we are dealing with the characteristics of the text of the two oldest complete manuscripts. The Sinaiticus states here that the one who will pass away is the “Lamb”!!!
Here I stop and ask: How will the Lord (the Lamb according to Revelation 17:14) wipe away people’s tears, and then pass away Himself? Isn’t the Lord an eternal God?
Example 21:
The Van Dyke translation says: Revelation 21:5 (5And he that sat on the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said to me, Write, for these words are true and faithful.)
The ****** translation says: (5 And he who sat on the throne said, ((Behold, I make all things new)) and said, ((Write: These words are trustworthy and true)))
The common Arabic translation says: (5 And he who sat on the throne said, ((Behold, I make all things new)) and said to me, ((Write: These words are trustworthy and true)))
So while the Lord himself says that he will renew all things, he says in Sinaiticus that he (will make all things void)
I relied in this article to a large extent on everything that was written in the article on the following site:
http://ecclesia.org/truth/vaticanus.html
Van Dyke translation says: Luke 1:26 (26And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth)
and the Sinaiticus and the Common Arabic Translation agreed with this translation. However, the Sinaiticus version mentions it (a city of the cities of Judea, named Nazareth), and this is a clear geographical error, which made the Common Arabic Translation and the translation of the Fathers of the Sinaiticus refrain from it. It is one geographical error among many errors that confirm that these Gospels were not written by a person who knew Palestine. Nazareth is currently located in Galilee, and not in Judea as the Sinaiticus version said. It should also be taken into consideration that Nazareth was not a city but a village.
But was there a village or city with this name at the time of Jesus?
Matthew says: (23And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, “He shall be called a Nazarene.”) Matthew 2:23, and there is no such prophecy in the Old Testament or in all the books of the prophets. Was it present according to Jesus’ words and then deleted? If this were the case, we would say: The Lord was unable to preserve His words, but the hand of Satan intervened to prove the lie of Jesus’ prophecy!! And if it did not exist in the first place, then Jesus or the writers of the Gospels lied, and we are not permitted to say that the Lord’s book was distorted, since these books have nothing to do with the Lord in the first place!!
The margin of the translation of Einheitsübersetzung says: (There is no such prophecy in the Old or New Testament).
The Applied Commentary on the Bible, p. 1871, says: (The Old Testament does not specifically record this phrase “he will be called a Nazarene,” and yet many scholars believe that Matthew was referring to a prophecy not recorded in the book.) To this matter, Barnes responds in his commentary on this text from the e-Sword website that this statement is not convincing. The
****** translation, p. 40, says: (It is difficult for us to know exactly what text Matthew is relying on, as the term used does not refer to one of the residents of Nazareth or one of the members of the Nazarene sect. Rather, Matthew sees in it a term equivalent to the term Galilee (26/96). We may understand here: “who is in Nazareth” (21/11), and see John 1/45 and Acts 10/38). Perhaps Matthew wanted to refer to the ideal “Holy One of God,” to the “Nazarene” (Judges 13:5, see 16:17 and Mark 1:24).
The Common Arabic Translation, p. 6, says: (Nazarene: in reference to Nazareth. This is the name given to Jesus (21:11) and the first Christians (Acts 24:5).
As for archaeology, it does not recognize the existence of such a biblical village at the time of the mission of Christ Jesus, son of Mary, peace be upon him. It was never mentioned in the Old Testament, although the Book of Joshua 19:10-16 mentioned twelve cities and six villages as the share of the tribe of Zebulun. However, nothing is known about Nazareth, and it is not found in the writings of the rabbis.
It also did not appear in the writings of those who wrote about the history and geography of Palestine until the fourth century AD. Philo, the Jewish philosopher of Alexandria, did not mention it, nor did the Jewish historian Josephus know anything about it. You find him mentioning a lot about Galilee (900 square miles), but he does not know anything about this city. He mentioned 45 cities and villages in Galilee, both important and unimportant, in his books “The Jewish Wars” and “History of the Jews.” He also mentions the village of Jaffa, located south of Nazareth, one mile to the southwest, where he himself lived.
It is worth noting that these two historians were contemporaries of Jesus, peace be upon him.
We do not find it in any of Paul’s letters, or the rest of the books of the New Testament that were written before the time of the Gospels.
The Talmud did not know anything about it, although it mentioned 63 cities in Galilee. Its name also did not appear in rabbinic literature. You find that the letters of Rabbi Sollys mentioned Jesus 221 times, but did not mention Nazareth once.
Likewise, none of the ancient historians or geographers knew about it, and it was not mentioned until the fourth century AD.
Likewise, the sites mentioned below say that the city of Nazareth is located on the western shore of Lake Tiberias. While Jesus, peace be upon him, lived in another city east of Lake Tiberias. We can see this, for example, from Matthew’s saying: (34And when they had crossed over, they came to the land of Gennesaret) Matthew 14:34 and similarly (Mark 6:53). It is known that Gennesaret is located west of the lake, which means that his town is located east of the lake, where the Golan Heights are.
Luke says: (1 Then Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan and was led by the Spirit into the wilderness. . . . . 14 And Jesus returned in the power of the Spirit into Galilee, and news of him went out throughout all the surrounding region.) Luke 4:1, 14.
This means that he lived near the shore of the Sea of Galilee.
In addition, the people tried to throw him from the top of one of the mountains there: (28And all who were in the synagogue were filled with wrath when they heard these things. 29And they rose up and threw him out of the city, and brought him to the brow of the mountain on which their city was built, in order to throw him down. 30But he passed through the midst of them and departed.) Luke 4:28-30
These two signs are not available in the city of Nazareth (as Brigadier Engineer Jamal al-Din says) Sharqawi), as the distance between it and the shore of the lake is no less than two days’ journey up and down the heights, which the person coming from Nazareth to the lake crosses. The Gospels also explicitly tell us that Christ, peace be upon him, after his baptism by the Baptist, returned to Galilee and lived in the town of Capernaum (Matthew 4:13; Mark 2:1, 9:33). In (Matthew 9:1) it is mentioned that the name of Jesus’ town is Capernaum, close to the shore of the lake, and located in a mountainous area as well, but it is also west of the lake.
When we go back to the origin of the Greek word, we find it (N S R), and thus it refers to the name of a place (Nazareth), and we have proven that such a place did not exist during the life of Jesus, peace be upon him, until the beginning of the fourth century, or it refers to the support of the disciples and their advocacy of him, and this did not happen, as they abandoned him in all his serious positions, as they did not support him when the Jews tried to throw him from the top of the mountain, and they abandoned him when he was arrested, or it refers to the support of the city and its people for him, and this also did not happen, as he did not enter it after his message except once (according to the Gospels), and they wanted to kill him there by throwing him from the top of the mountain (Luke 4: 28-30), or it refers to the name of a religion, so Jesus the Christian. In this case, he is another person from the followers of Christianity and not Jesus, son of Mary, the Prophet and Messenger of God, the founder of Christianity (?).
Therefore, the disciples of Jesus, peace be upon him, were Christians , which were translated as Nazarenes, meaning they were from the city of Nazareth (Acts 24:5), although none of them were from a city called Nazareth. Historical documents attest that Jesus was known as Jesus the Christian, not the Nazarene.
See the ISBE Dictionary’s commentary on the word (Nazirite), the word (Nazarene), and the word (Nazareth).
See also: http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/nazareth.html
See also the books of A.M. Gamal El-Din Sharqawi (Jesus the Christian, the Messiah of Paul) and (New Issues in Christianity and Islam, Part 2, pp. 7-17)
The eighth example:
The Van Dyke translation says: Luke 10:1 (1And after these things the Lord appointed seventy others also, and sent them two by two before his face into every city and place where he himself was about to come.)
The common Arabic translation and the translation of the ****** fathers differed from it and mentioned it (seventy-two), and they agreed with the Vatican version, which also mentions it (72), and the modern international translation agreed with it, and they differed with the Septuagint, which differs here from the Vatican, so it mentions it (70), and the modern American Standard Revised Version agreed with it.
The translation of the ****** Fathers said in its margin, commenting on this confusion: “In many manuscripts, ‘seventy’ (and also in verse 17). There is no doubt that the evidence indicates the number of the pagan nations, as the Jewish religion finds in Genesis 10, according to the Hebrew text (70) or the Greek text (72). Luke follows the latter text, knowing that the message to the pagans will not begin until after Passover and Pentecost (24/47 and Acts 1/8), but he wants here to draw a symbolic pre-image of that message.”
In fact, it is a disaster expressed by the difference in manuscripts, for what you find in Hebrew as 70 is added to it in Greek and becomes 72, and Luke chooses what he likes, and then the translators also choose what they like to include in their translations. The commentators philosophize that Luke wanted symbolism, and they forgot that this should be the Lord’s revelation. If the Lord wanted symbolism, he would have mentioned it 72 times. If he had mentioned it 70 times, the Lord would have made a mistake in what he meant, or the translators and copyists would have distorted the Lord’s book!! So who among them is mistaken: the Lord, Luke, the copyists, or everyone?
The ninth example:
The Van Dyke translation says: John 7:8-10 (8You go up to this feast; I am not yet going up to this feast, for my time is not yet fulfilled. 9He said these things to them and stayed in Galilee. 10And when his brothers had gone up, then he also went up to the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret.) The Common English Translation and the ****** Fathers agreed with it.
Jesus decided not to go up to the feast, but he did go up after his brothers had gone up. The Sinaiticus and the King James Version both say that he went up to the feast, and the New International Version, Vaticanus, and the New American Standard Version confirm this. Thus they have made Jesus a liar.
In these three passages we see that the word “this” in “this feast” is omitted in the Vatican, while the Sinaiticus, the New American Standard, and the New International remain. Another difference is that the Vatican and the New American Standard have the word “theirs,” while the Septuagint and the New International omit it.
Likewise the Vatican and the New American Standard have the word “as if,” while the Septuagint and the New International omit it. The joint Arabic translation and the translation of the ****** fathers did the same, as the ****** said: (10And when his brothers went up to the feast, he also went up secretly, not openly)
Example 10:
The Van Dyck translation says: John 17:15 (15I do not ask that you take them out of the world, but that you keep them from the evil one.), and the joint Arabic translation and the translation of the ****** fathers agreed with it. However, the Vatican manuscript mentions it by saying (I do not ask you to take them from the evil one)!! You can imagine the difference between the two meanings. The first asks God to protect them from Satan, and the Vatican asks Him to leave them to Satan!!
Example 11:
The Van Dyke translation says: 1 Corinthians 13:3 (3And if I give away all my possessions to feed the poor, and if I deliver my body to be burned, but
do not have love, it profits me nothing.) The translation of the ****** fathers says: (3And if I give away all my possessions to feed the poor, and if I deliver my body to be burned, but do not have love, it profits me nothing.)
The common Arabic translation says: (3And if I give away all my possessions, and deliver my body to boast, but do not have love, it profits me nothing.)
The difference is clear in the different Arabic translations and does not need comment. However, the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus mention it (I give my body that I may boast), agreeing with the Common Arabic Translation only.
The twelfth example:
The Van Dyke translation says: 1 Corinthians 13:5 (5And does not behave unseemly, nor seeks its own, is not provoked, nor thinks evil)
, and the translation of the ****** fathers says: (5And does not do what is dishonorable, nor seeks its own, is not angry, nor thinks evil,)
and the Common Arabic Translation says: (5Love does not behave badly, nor seeks its own, is not provoked, nor thinks evil.)
There is a difference in the Arabic translation between “do not think ill”, meaning do not let bad thoughts come out of you, and “do not care about the evil that already exists and that others have committed against you or others!!
The Sinaitic version says it (love is not seeking its own benefit), while the Vatican is unique in saying it: (love is seeking what is not its own), and thus the Vatican has turned the meaning upside down, and wanted the complete opposite.
Example 13:
The Van Dyke translation says: 1 Corinthians 15:51 (51Behold, I tell you
a mystery: We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed) and the ****** translation says: (51And I tell you a mystery: We shall not all die, but we shall all be changed)
and the Common Arabic Translation says: (And hear this mystery: We shall not all die, but we shall all be changed)
and the Sinaiticus says this secret in the exact opposite way, saying: (We shall all sleep, but we shall not all be changed)
So what is the one manuscript that they committed to translating from? Is not the process of selecting from the different manuscripts that they do evidence that they do not agree on the full content of each manuscript and do not acknowledge what is in it except after selecting, changing, and moving from one manuscript to another, until they find what they are looking for? Isn't this an extension of what the corrupt copyists were doing?
Example 14:
The Van Dyke translation says: 1 Corinthians 15:54-55 (54And when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory. 55O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?)
The translation of the ****** Fathers: (54And when this corruptible being shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal being shall have put on immortality, then shall be fulfilled the saying of The Scripture: ((Death is swallowed up by victory)) So where, O death, is your victory? And where, O
death, is your sting? The Common Arabic Translation says: (54And when this mortal has put on the immortal, and this mortal has put on the imperishable, the saying of the Scripture is fulfilled: “Death has swallowed up victory.” So where, O death, is your victory? And where, O death, is your sting?) The Sinaiticus version confirms these translations, except that the Vatican manuscript has a different reading that says: (Death is swallowed up in argument. Where, O death, is your sting? Where, O courage, is your argument?)
Example fifteen:
The Van Dyck translation says: 1 Thessalonians 2:7 (7But we were gentle among you, as you raise up The nursing mother (the wet nurse)
and the Arabic version says: (7Although it was our right to impose ourselves because we are apostles of Christ. But we were kind to you as a nursing
mother embraces her children.) The common Arabic version says: (7Although we had a right over you because we are apostles of Christ, yet we were kind to you as a mother is kind to her children.)
The difference between these three translations is noticeable, as Al-Fandyk did not mention “apostles of Christ” or “we have a right over you.” The simile according to Al-Fandyk and Al-Fandyk is “the wet nurse,” while in the common translation it was “the mother.” In addition, Al-Fandyk said “she raises,” and Al-Fandyk said “she embraces,” and the common translation said “tenderness.”
Of course, the word “non-nursing mother”, even if we ignore this word because of the similarity, which is tenderness, we will not ignore the word “messengers of Christ”, which the Van Dyck translation does not know. So what is the word that the Lord uttered and inspired to those who wrote these manuscripts?
However, the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus agreed on another text, which is: (But we are infants among you), and this is completely different from the concept written in the three previous translations. Here they are not messengers of Christ, but rather they are like children. Instead of being the tender mothers who are tender to their children, they were the children, whom their mothers are tender to. The meaning has changed 180 degrees.
Example 16:
The Van Dyke translation says: 2 Peter 3:10 (10But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, when the heavens will pass away with a roar, and the elements will be dissolved with fervent heat, and the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up.)
The ****** translation says: (10But the day of the Lord will come as a thief, and in that day the heavens will pass away with a roar, and the elements will be dissolved with fervent heat, and the earth and the works that are in it will be judged.)
The Common Translation says: (10But The day of the Lord will come as a thief comes, and the heavens will pass away in that day with a thunderbolt, and the elements will be dissolved by fire, and the earth and the works that are in it will be judged.)
First, the difference is clear between the Van Dyck and the common translation on the one hand, which makes the elements dissolve by burning, and ****** on the other hand, which makes them dissolve by raging. Then between the Van Dyck, which makes the earth burn with the coming of the Lord of love, and the last two translations, which make the day of the Lord’s coming the day of judgment for the earth and everything on it, thus refuting Paul’s statement that makes faith in Jesus and Him crucified the reason for eternity in heaven, thereby nullifying the good works, which Jesus and His apostles after Him were always emphasizing.
Paul says: (16Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by faith in Jesus, and not by the works of the law. For by the works of the law no flesh will be justified.) Galatians 2:16
(5But to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited to him who justifies the ungodly. (Righteousness.) Romans 4:5
(4You have become estranged from Christ, you who are justified by the law; you have fallen from grace. 5For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith. 6For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but faith working through love.) Galatians 5:4-6
(20For by the works of the law no flesh is He is justified in his sight, because through the law came the knowledge of sin. 21But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets.) Romans 3:20-21
While the Lord says: (26Cursed is everyone who does not establish the words of this law to do them. And all the people will say, Amen.) Deuteronomy 27:26
And he says: (The law of the Lord is without fault) Psalm 18:7
And he says: (The law of the Lord is perfect) Psalm 19:7
While Jesus says: (17“Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will in no way pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19So whoever breaks one of these commandments
(12So whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them, for this is the law and the prophets.) Matthew 7:12 Rather, he attacked the scribes and Pharisees in defense of the law
, saying: (23Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees! (The hypocrites, because you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith.) Matthew 23:23 And
the leader of the disciples, James, says: (10For whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he hath become guilty of all. 11For he that said, Thou shalt not commit adultery, said also, Thou shalt not murder.) (If you do not commit adultery, but kill, you have become a transgressor of the law.) James 2:10-11
While the Van Dyck translation agreed that the earth and everything on it will be burned up when the Lord comes, the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus versions say that when the Lord comes, “the works on it will be found”!!
Seventeenth example:
We must note that the Vatican volume lacks the entire Book of Revelation, as well as the First and Second Letters to Timothy, Thetus, and from the middle of the ninth chapter of the Book of Hebrews to the end. However, we find strange readings in the Epistle of Revelation in the Sinaiticus.
The Van Dyke translation says: Revelation 4:8 (8And the four living creatures had six wings all around, and were full of eyes within; and they did not cease day and night, saying, “Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord God Almighty, who was and is and is to come.”)
The NIV translation says: (And each of the four living creatures had six wings, and they were full of eyes all around. And from within, they never cease to say day and night: “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God Almighty, who was, is, and is to come.”
The Common Arabic Translation says: “And each of these four living creatures has six wings studded with eyes all around and within them, and they never cease to praise day and night: “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God Almighty, who was, is, and is to come.”
But the Sinaiticus manuscript says: “Holy, holy, holy, holy, holy .” The Lord God Almighty...)
Eighteenth example:
The Van Dyke translation says: Revelation 7:4 and 14:3 (4And I heard the number of those who were sealed, a hundred and forty and four thousand, sealed out of every tribe of the children of Israel)
and the ****** translation says that they are also 144,000 of the tribes of the children of Israel.
The Common English Translation says that they are also 144,000 of the tribes of the children of Israel.
However, the Sinaiticus manuscript confirms that they are only 140,000 in Revelation 7:4, while in Revelation 14:3 (141,000)
Example 19:
The Van Dyke translation says: Revelation 10:1 (1 Then I saw another strong angel coming down from heaven, clothed with a cloud, and on his head was a rainbow, and his face was like the sun, and his feet were like pillars of fire)
and the ****** translation says: (1 Then I saw another strong angel coming down from heaven, clothed with a cloud, and on his head was a halo, and his face was like (Like the sun, and his feet were like pillars
of fire), and the common Arabic translation says: (1And I saw another mighty angel descending from heaven, clothed with a cloud, and on his head was a rainbow, and his face was like the sun, and his feet were like pillars of fire),
and if we ignore the cloud and the mists and if he was clothed with a cloud or clothed with a cloud, and say that this is a weakness in the translation. But we will not ignore what was on this angel who descended from heaven. Was it a halo or a rainbow?
And if you know that the Sinaiticus mentions that what was on his head was hair, does this not prove that the manuscripts were distorted?
Example 20:
The Van Dyke translation says: Revelation 21:4 (4And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; and death shall be no more, neither shall there be sorrow nor crying nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away.)
The ****** translation says: (4And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; and death shall be no more, neither shall there be sorrow nor crying nor pain anymore, for the old world has passed away.) The Common Arabic Translation says: (4And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; and death shall be no more, neither shall there be sorrow nor crying nor pain anymore, for the old world has passed away.)
The Common Arabic Translation says: (4And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; and death shall be no more, neither shall there be sorrow nor crying nor pain anymore, for the old world has passed away.) A tear shall flow from their eyes. Death shall no longer be, nor mourning, nor crying, nor pain; for the old things have passed away.
Regardless of whether what has passed away are the old things or matters, the ****** translation states that the old world has passed away. Is this a prophecy about the passing away of the Old Testament and the salvation of the Jews, the coming of a new earth and a new heaven, and the imminent emergence of the Messiah with his new and final covenant?
In any case, this is not our topic, as we are dealing with the characteristics of the text of the two oldest complete manuscripts. The Sinaiticus states here that the one who will pass away is the “Lamb”!!!
Here I stop and ask: How will the Lord (the Lamb according to Revelation 17:14) wipe away people’s tears, and then pass away Himself? Isn’t the Lord an eternal God?
Example 21:
The Van Dyke translation says: Revelation 21:5 (5And he that sat on the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said to me, Write, for these words are true and faithful.)
The ****** translation says: (5 And he who sat on the throne said, ((Behold, I make all things new)) and said, ((Write: These words are trustworthy and true)))
The common Arabic translation says: (5 And he who sat on the throne said, ((Behold, I make all things new)) and said to me, ((Write: These words are trustworthy and true)))
So while the Lord himself says that he will renew all things, he says in Sinaiticus that he (will make all things void)
I relied in this article to a large extent on everything that was written in the article on the following site:
http://ecclesia.org/truth/vaticanus.html
| John 5:3-4 text |
Van Dyck's version:
In these lay a multitude of sick persons, blind, lame, withered: waiting for the moving of the water And an angel of the Lord descended at certain times into the pond and the water was moved. And he that went down first into the pond after the motion of the water was made whole of whatsoever infirmity he lay under Red text is present ____ __________ _____
| John 7_53:8_11 |
Van Dyck's version:
The story of the adulterous woman is found . And the scribes and Pharisees brought to him a woman caught in adultery. And when they had set her in the midst ... she said, "No one, Lord!" And Jesus said to her, "Neither do I condemn you. Go, and sin no more." Sinaiticus text: John 7:53 – 8:11 is not found in the Sinaiticus Not found Vatican text: Not found Latin text: The story is found ____ __________ ____
| John 3_13: |
Van Dyck's version:
And no one has ascended into heaven but he that came down from heaven, the Son of man, who is in heaven.
Sinaiticus text: And no one has ascended
into heaven but he that came down from heaven, the Son of man. The phrase
is present. Vatican text: And no one has ascended into heaven but he that came down from heaven, the Son of man. The phrase is not present. Latin text: And no man hath ascended into heaven, but he that descended from heaven, the Son of man who is in heaven. The phrase is present. ____________________________________ _
| Matthew 18_11: |
Van Dyck translation:
For the Son of man has come to save
that which is lost Sinaitic text :
The phrase is present Vatican text: The phrase is not present Latin text: For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost The phrase is present ____________________________________ __________ _____
| Matthew 19_9: |
And
I say unto you, whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away
, committeth adultery The text in red is missing Vatican text: And
I say unto you, whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery The text is missing ____ __________ ____
| Matthew 19:17: |
Van Dyck's version:
And he said to him: ((Why dost thou call me good? No one is good except One, that is, God . But if you would enter into life, keep the commandments))
Sinaiticus text:
And he said to him: Why dost thou ask me about the good? One is good. But if you wilt enter into life, keep the commandments
The phrase is missing
Vatican text:
Then Jesus said unto him: Why askest thou me, concerning the good, One that is good there is.
But if you wisht into the life to have entered, keep the commandments
The phrase is missing Latin text: Who said to him: Why askest thou me concerning good? One is good, God. But if you wilt enter into life, keep the commandments The phrase is missing ____________________________________ __________ _____
| Matthew 27_35: |
And having crucified him, they parted his garments, casting a lot
Latin text:
And after they had crucified him
, they divided his garments, casting lots; that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying: They divided my garments among them ; and upon my vesture they cast lots The phrase is present ____
__________
__________
| Matthew 1_25: |
Van Dyck translation:
And he knew her not till she had brought forth a son ; and he called his name Jesus.
Sinaiticus text:
And he knew her not till she had brought forth a son; and he called his name Jesus
.
Vaticanus text:
Yet was not knowing her. Until she brought forth a son, and he called his name Jesus.
Latin text: And he knew her not till she brought forth her first born son: and he called his name Jesus .
| when 5_44 |
Van Dyck translation:
But I say to you, Love your enemies: do good to them that hate you : and pray for them
that persecute you . The text in red is missing. Vatican text: that I say unto you, love your enemies, and pray for them that persecute you. The text in red is missing. Latin text :
But I say to you, Love your enemies: do good to them that hate you: and pray for them that persecute and calumniate you. The text is present. ____________________________________ __________ ______________
| Matthew 6:13: |
Van Dyck's translation:
And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil. For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever. Amen
Sinaiticus text:
and lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one
The phrase in red is missing Vaticanus text: and thou wouldest not have brought us, into temptation by withholding from us thy favor therefore deliver us from the evil The phrase in red is missing, but there is another phrase (in blue) that is not in Sinaiticus or Van Dyck's Latin text: And lead us not into temptation. But deliver us from evil. Amen Agrees with Sinaiticus text ____ __________ ________________
Dance 1_1: |
Van Dyck translation:
The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, a Son of God
The word Son of God is absent Vatican text: A
commencement of the gospel of Jesus Christ, a Son of God The word Son of God is present Latin text: The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God The word Son of God is present ____________________________________ ________
| Mark 6_11: |
And whoever will not receive you, nor hear you, departing hence, shake off the dust that is under your feet for a testimony against them.
Verily , I say to you, it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than for that city. Sinaiticus text:
And whatever place shall not have received you nor heard you, when you go out thence, shake off the dust that is under your feet, for a testimony against them. The text
in red is missing. Vaticanus text: And whoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, departing hence, shake off the dust that is under your feet for a testimony against them. The text in red is missing. Latin text: And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you; going forth from thence, shake off the dust from your feet for a testimony to them. The text in red is missing .
| Mark 7_8: |
Van Dyke translation:
For leaving the commandment
of God, you hold the tradition of men, the washing of pots and of cups: and many other things you do like to these The text in red is missing The Vatican
text: having laid asaide the commandments of the God, ye hold the tradition of men The text in red is missing The Latin text: For leaving the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men, the washing of pots and of cups: and many other things you do like to these The text in red is missing
| Mark 7_16: |
Van Dyck translation:
If any man have ears to hear, let him hear
The Sinaitic text:
The phrase is not in its entirety Vatican text: The phrase is not in its entirety Latin text: If any man have ears to hear, let him hear The phrase is in its entirety ____ __________ __________________
| Mark 10_21: |
And Jesus looking upon him loved him, and said to him: One thing thou lackest: go, sell whatever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven, and come, take up the cross . The
text in red is missing. Vatican text: Then Jesus having beheld him, he loved him, and said unto him, One thing robs thee, depart, whatsoever thou hast, sell and give to the poor: and thou shalt have treasure in heaven. And come, follow me The text in red is missing. The text in red is missing . Latin
text
: And Jesus, looking on him, loved him and said to him: One thing is wanting unto thee. Go, sell whatsoever thou hast and give to the poor: and thou shalt have treasure in heaven . And come, follow me The text in red is missing .
| Mark 10_24: |
And the disciples were astonished at his words, so the Jesus again having answered, he saith unto them Children, how hard it is for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God.
The text in red is missing
. The text in red is missing . The text in red is missing . The text in Latin is missing .
| Mark 14_24: |
And he said to them: This is my blood of the covenant ,
which is poured out for many. The word is missing. The Vatican
text : And he said, this ceremony exists to man,keeps in remembrance my blood that is the covenant that unrestrictedly flows for many. The word is missing. The Latin text:
| Mark 15_28: |
Van Dyke translation:
And the Scripture was fulfilled,
which saith:
And with the wicked he was reputed The phrase
is present ____________________________________ __________ _______________
| Mark 9_29: |
And
he said unto them, This kind of power, by nothing, is able to have come forth, but by
prayer The word is not present The Latin
text: And he said to them : This kind can go out by nothing, but by prayer and fasting The word is present
| Mark 16_9:20: |
(End of the Gospel of Mark)
Van Dyck translation:
Mark 16_9:20 present
Sinaiticus:
Paragraph not present Vaticanus: Paragraph not present Latin text: Paragraph present ____ __________ _____________
| Luke 1_28: |
And coming in to her, the angel said:
Hail, highly favored, the Lord is with thee The text in red is missing Vatican text: And having come in to her, he said, hail, having been highly favored thou art, the Lord with thee is The text in red is missing
Latin text : And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. The text is missing ____ __________ _______________
| Luke 4:4: |
And Jesus answered him:
It is written
that not by bread alone shall man live The phrase in red is missing The Vatican text: And Jesus answered him:
It is written that Man liveth not by bread alone, but by every word of God The phrase in red is missing The Latin text : And Jesus answered him: It is written that Man liveth not by bread alone, but by every word of God The phrase is missing ____ __________ _____________
| Luke 4:8: |
And Jesus answered and said to him
: It is written: Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve The phrase is missing Vatican text
: that having answered him, Jesus said, it hath been written, thou shalt worship Jehovah thy God, and thou shalt serve him only The phrase is missing Latin text: And Jesus answering said
to him. It is written: Thou shalt adore the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve The phrase is missing ____ __________ ____
| Luke 9:55-56: |
But
he turned and rebuked them, saying:
you know not of what spirit you are The Son of man came not to destroy souls, but
to save . And they went into another town The phrase in red is present ____________________________________ __________ __________________ Now, we have seen how the Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and Latin texts often differ from each other, as they differ greatly with Van Dyck’s translation. The difference is not a difference in translation as Christian defenders claim, but a difference in the existence of missing and added texts and words. Thus, we respond to those who claim that the Sinaiticus text is the closest to the original (which does not exist). If this is the case, why is Van Dyck’s version not modified according to the Sinaiticus text? What is important and certain now is that the four texts differ, and there are no two identical texts, as is the case with all (thousands) of manuscripts. My favorite question is: Can you name a complete or nearly complete manuscript that matches any of the modern translations?
.png)
Comments
Post a Comment