I can't wait until all those nameless souls who gave their lives to copying out the Bible are recognized by Him and given their proper rewards! I mean, have you SEEN how long the Bible is? Can you imagine copying that by hand, in ink, by candlelight? It's extraordinary!
There are some underground websites too that make sure every country can read online using different web protocols. I'd guess there is some risk to the site owners.
They probably did the copy work in the daylight. No reason to think they were forced to work at night by candle light. Candles and oil lamps were expensive. Day light is cheap. Copying the Bible was their day job. Once the sun went down they were probably on their way to bed.
I am not KJVO! I enjoy reading some of the more modern versions. I think at times, they can lead to clearer understanding. Further, Pastor Everhard, it is well to remember that the Roman Church has historically not used the longer ending of The Lord's prayer. I do not think it is in the Douay Rheims Bible either. However, the Eastern Church does use a form of the longer ending. I have read that there is at least one manuscript that contains an ending, which is currently in use in the Eastern Orthodox Liturgy. I think the Ultimate, behind the scenes Goal, is to stir up mistrust of the Bible in general. And many Theological Seminaries are leading this charge! I cannot, believing as I am, that the Critical Text is anything other than a tool for Apostasy!
You don't have to be a KJVonlyist to not like Vaticanus :P There are a number of other textual positions that don't see Vaticanus as important as the modern text critical methodologies. It would be interesting to talk to someone to find out WHY Vaticanus is seen as important, certainly it has to be more than it's apparent age. Either way, I had this great conversation with Stephen Boyce about the Doxology in the Lord's prayer, he's convinced it's scripture and gives some of the reasons here. I'm sure you wouldn't mind me sharing it :) ua-cam.com/video/YsYRLorqvoY/v-deo.html
I’m handwriting a copy of the Psalms using the ASV 1901. And yes, it is very easy to miss a verse when copying. I’m up to Psalm 22. I did this once before years ago with the book Ecclesiastes.
Pastor Matthew, I’ve heard all of these theories about how mistakes or additions could have been made. In effect none have been proven to have occurred. Personally the idea behind the majority text makes more sense to me then the shortest text. Oldest makes sense only if you have the original to me, after all oldest are still copies and anything is possible at that point. Since we don’t have any of them the majority witness seems like a safe place to be. Doug Wilson thinks that the Lord would not have left the Greek manuscripts hidden for some 1500 years if indeed the Alexandrian texts are the most faithful Greek manuscripts. Further I’m told that the Church fathers all quoted from the Byzantine texts. If that is true then I would be very careful in making any claims for the authenticity of the critical text.
Quick question, what is the manuscript data for the Didache itself, since you relied on it quite heavily. If the manuscripts of the Didache are late, then would that change your conclusion? Thanks!
There is just one complete Greek copy and it is 11th c. There is a papyrus fragment too, but not of the prayer. The key is that the doxology in the Didache differs from and, therefore, cannot have been derived from later copies of Matthew 6:13.
Pastor Matthew thank you for taking on this Longer Ending issue! I'm glad to learn that the benediction in the Lord's Prayer has Didache 8 as a strong support. Actually I'd rather think the scripture supports itself, either by scripture readings (e.g., 1 Chr 29:11) giving mutual support, or through the recognition by the church through the history. The Holy Spirit has guided the formation of canons and later, the reformation (including the translation of the Bible from Textus Receptus). Clearly, without the benediction, the Lord's Prayer would end strangely without echoing to the main theme of Matthew (the "Kingdom", of which Lord Jesus is the King), and it would simply read much worse. Besides, it is linked with a strong spiritual tradition left by the Puritans - how many glorious sermons have been preached on Mt 6:13? One has to face this question: which text is the authentic text? If the majority text (including TR), clearly under the providence of God, has been preserved by God and used by the church over centuries, what can we say about the /effort/ in leaving out this long ending (along with other "missing verses") in the CT and modern translations? Am I a conspiracy theorist? I dare say, if it is not man's conspiracy, it is the Devil's! If altering God’s word is not conspiracy, I don’t know what is. And if CT is correct, how can we explain the inclusion of the verse in MT? How would God allow such a "pious" addition to the scriptures - an addition to the Lord's Prayer, something taught personally by the Lord, on speaking to God? What kind of "pious" scribes / Christians - if there were any - would they be? Even if this was done by a “pious” Christian, it cannot be done by many - MT scrolls are numerous and scattered among many locations. Neither God nor Christians would have allowed this “pious addition” to occur if we believe God's presence has been constant with the church! Furthermore, how would God allow it to make its way into the MT, then Luther’s Bibel, Tyndall’s translation, Geneva Bible, KJV, and NKJV, and be used by the reformers, puritans, and millions nowadays? Let’s not forget, there’s a way out, that is, CT is an inferior combination of secondary texts! There isn’t a single scroll of CT, full stop. On the bottom line, I would choose to err on the side of caution, steering away from modern CT-based translations, but standing alongside Luther and the puritans, and holding onto their old book!
I read the NAS95 and it does bracket many of the disputed passages (Matt. 6:13; Mk. 16:9-20 & a secondary verse connected with Mk. 16:8 or 16:20; and Jn. 7:53-8:11), yet it does not include the disputed 1 John 5:7-8 extended reading. When I see my NASB95 make distinctions like that over various disputed passages, I think they have a very good, scholarly reason to bracket one and not include the other.
footnoting extra/removed verses affects during public reading - how often are footnotes mentioned in this case? ... those omissions far too often flow into subsequent exposition / sermon. footnoting verses [usually reduced to tiny fonts due to competition for limited space] seems are purposely designed not only to dissuade reading and exposition (if not even presented specifically in a format to-be ignored-even-shunned); while still "included" to fulfil perception of detailed textual completeness for critical review. OIOW - purposely formatted as lepers at all cost should be kept off the streets though tolerated to creep out and look for food scraps in the alleyways during small hours of the night. footnoting verses is fine for academics and the trained slowing down to study the Word - a failure (if not genuine purposed hindrance) for general / public reading and [lazy?] exposition again: footnoting is fine for those trained to study (and review Bibles) - but fails general usage. ... anyone asking people to 'read the word for themselves' should also demanding of publishers in-line bracketing as a minimal textual standard Please remember that, - consider ordinary people (not scholarly readers) - when reviewing/recommending Bibles for them.
Important discussion! I had a dive into this a while ago. It might be an idea to check out the ancient versions of 4th and 5th centuries. Most have the longer ending. Ancient translations testify to the content of the base Greek text used. Chrysostom, who read from a Greek manuscript, comments on the longer ending (Homily 19). In addition to the Didache, the Diatessaron, Apostolic Constitutions also contain longer endings. BTW, I am happy that you left out Hilary as a father who did not include the longer ending (he appears in the 3rd edition of Metzger's apparatus). As far as I can determine, Hilary did not comment on the Lord's prayer, but simply referred people to Tertullian and Cyprian. Most of the Latin Fathers used the Vulgate, a translation of B. In conclusions, if 1 Chronicles 29:11 was the inspiration for the longer ending, there is no reason to think that therefore Jesus did not incorporate it himself (it all is his word, after all). Regards.
I have been studying this myself over the years. The claim is the Textus Receptus is not as old, so not as reliable as say the Codex Sinaiticus. When Desiderius Erasmus published the Textus Receptus in 1516 he gathered manuscripts from different parts that bibles were based off of from as far back as 100 to 150 AD. Much like the Bible: Peshitta (AD150) or the Old Latin Vulgate (AD157) and so on. The manuscripts Erasmus gathered, line up with these ancient bibles. My study in this continues from time to time.
If Matthew 6:13 in the ESV text is the original from 2001 and then it's probably correct and if it is cause your comparing to the newer bibles then your taking it out of text.
Punctuation. Sentence. Hebrew and Greek actual and not printed in a book don't have them. Having seen a few original papyrus it looked like a huge string which would have been a challenge to translation. Geneva and Bishop would have made me bald.
I feel like many of the people responsible for the "critical" texts are either Catholic or secular and therefore have an axe to grind. Rather than favoring what appears to be older or shorter, I believe the longer readings are almost always the original ones, except when they are blatant interpolations (e.g., Mt 20.16b), or it's _obvious_ they weren't written in the original languages (e.g., 1 Jn 5.7b-8a).
Fnjesusfreak, I think one thing you are not considering that in this case, at least, the ending of the Lord's Prayer is part of the Mass. If it were originally part of the Bible, why would the Catholic Church take it out of the Bible and leave it in the Mass? It makes no sense.
@@fnjesusfreak it's still an important part of the Mass, and still shows that the Catholic Church would have no reason to remove it from the Bible. And it's in the Divine Library, too
Well done, thank you! I might add that it's possible the ESV committee may have had in mind that the MT are generally copies of the same root texts, so having 500 copies of the same manuscript, so to speak, might not fairly carry the weight to say "most manuscripts." But who knows. An interesting point you could ask Bill Mounce about. Blessings to you!
Thanks for a great insight on situations where translations can leave us scratching our heads at times! I currently use the KJV translation. I recently have begun to understand how recent discoveries of new manuscripts have uncovered more accurate documents concerning the scriptures. In light of this, I have been intrigued with the ESV translation which is also a word for word translation. I was watching a few of your previous videos highlighting your acceptance and use of the ESV along with your reasons why. In one of the recordings, you were talking about updated editions of the study bible. You named a specific edition that you preferred that I can't recall for some reason. I want to say it was the 2014 edition? I just wanted to confirm that, because I am getting ready to purchase one. Thanks for your presence on UA-cam. I pray God continues to bless your calling. Your friend from North Carolina. Marc
This is an excellent and helpful discussion. One thing, though, you didn't discuss is whether the ending of the Lord's Prayer actually came from the early liturgy.
Mark Ward does a LOT of excellent work on dispelling the myths of KJV Onlyism. Also, for those asking, Pastor Everhard uploaded a video very recently (end of April maybe) about the didache entitled "The Didache: The Earliest Christian Writing After the Bible". It should answer a lot of questions.
@@trappedcat3615 Some of them teach that you cannot be saved unless it is through the KJV. Some of them teach that if you don't speak English, you have to learn Jacobean English to be able to understand the KJV before you can be saved. Some believe that God had to rewrite the Bible in 1611 because new revelation was needed. "Cultist" is pretty apt here.
the hebrew gospels, vat. ebr. 100, and syriac peshitta also do not contain the longer ending of the lord's prayer. are you aware of the vatican folio #140 containing an almost complete copy of the 4 gospels in aramaic? the scribal colophon indicates that it was transcribed in edessa under the authority of the third bishop of edessa on the 5th day of the week, 18th of canun prior in the year of the greeks 389 (78ad). this was found by joseph simon assemani in 1712 at the chaldean patriarchate in baghdad and transferred to the vatican library. does it still exist in the vatican or was it permanently stolen by napoleon and deposited in the louvre, bibliotheque nationale, or the french archives, or worse, lost and destroyed forever? does a copy of it exist in the chaldean patriarchate? ua-cam.com/video/I94Ky6tDxEI/v-deo.html
The Complutensian Polyglot has a marginal notes explaining how the liturgical response at the end of the prayer made it's way into the text, and this is why the ending is not included in the text.
I can't wait until all those nameless souls who gave their lives to copying out the Bible are recognized by Him and given their proper rewards! I mean, have you SEEN how long the Bible is? Can you imagine copying that by hand, in ink, by candlelight? It's extraordinary!
There are some underground websites too that make sure every country can read online using different web protocols. I'd guess there is some risk to the site owners.
They probably did the copy work in the daylight. No reason to think they were forced to work at night by candle light. Candles and oil lamps were expensive. Day light is cheap. Copying the Bible was their day job. Once the sun went down they were probably on their way to bed.
I am not KJVO! I enjoy reading some of the more modern versions. I think at times, they can lead to clearer understanding.
Further, Pastor Everhard, it is well to remember that the Roman Church has historically not used the longer ending of The Lord's prayer. I do not think it is in the Douay Rheims Bible either.
However, the Eastern Church does use a form of the longer ending. I have read that there is at least one manuscript that contains an ending, which is currently in use in the Eastern Orthodox Liturgy.
I think the Ultimate, behind the scenes Goal, is to stir up mistrust of the Bible in general. And many Theological Seminaries are leading this charge!
I cannot, believing as I am, that the Critical Text is anything other than a tool for Apostasy!
You don't have to be a KJVonlyist to not like Vaticanus :P There are a number of other textual positions that don't see Vaticanus as important as the modern text critical methodologies. It would be interesting to talk to someone to find out WHY Vaticanus is seen as important, certainly it has to be more than it's apparent age.
Either way, I had this great conversation with Stephen Boyce about the Doxology in the Lord's prayer, he's convinced it's scripture and gives some of the reasons here. I'm sure you wouldn't mind me sharing it :)
ua-cam.com/video/YsYRLorqvoY/v-deo.html
Pastor Dwayne, didn't you say that you and Pastor Matthew were planning on doing a video together?
The pic was Sinaiticus. Just a small error.
I’m handwriting a copy of the Psalms using the ASV 1901. And yes, it is very easy to miss a verse when copying. I’m up to Psalm 22.
I did this once before years ago with the book Ecclesiastes.
Even if later manuscripts have the longer ending, we simply don’t know how old the manuscripts were that they were copied from.
Pastor Matthew, I’ve heard all of these theories about how mistakes or additions could have been made. In effect none have been proven to have occurred. Personally the idea behind the majority text makes more sense to me then the shortest text. Oldest makes sense only if you have the original to me, after all oldest are still copies and anything is possible at that point. Since we don’t have any of them the majority witness seems like a safe place to be. Doug Wilson thinks that the Lord would not have left the Greek manuscripts hidden for some 1500 years if indeed the Alexandrian texts are the most faithful Greek manuscripts. Further I’m told that the Church fathers all quoted from the Byzantine texts. If that is true then I would be very careful in making any claims for the authenticity of the critical text.
My 2020 NASB says late mss add ….
That is a bit deceptive even though I very much like this one
Quick question, what is the manuscript data for the Didache itself, since you relied on it quite heavily. If the manuscripts of the Didache are late, then would that change your conclusion? Thanks!
There is just one complete Greek copy and it is 11th c. There is a papyrus fragment too, but not of the prayer. The key is that the doxology in the Didache differs from and, therefore, cannot have been derived from later copies of Matthew 6:13.
Great Question!
Pastor Matthew thank you for taking on this Longer Ending issue! I'm glad to learn that the benediction in the Lord's Prayer has Didache 8 as a strong support. Actually I'd rather think the scripture supports itself, either by scripture readings (e.g., 1 Chr 29:11) giving mutual support, or through the recognition by the church through the history. The Holy Spirit has guided the formation of canons and later, the reformation (including the translation of the Bible from Textus Receptus). Clearly, without the benediction, the Lord's Prayer would end strangely without echoing to the main theme of Matthew (the "Kingdom", of which Lord Jesus is the King), and it would simply read much worse. Besides, it is linked with a strong spiritual tradition left by the Puritans - how many glorious sermons have been preached on Mt 6:13?
One has to face this question: which text is the authentic text? If the majority text (including TR), clearly under the providence of God, has been preserved by God and used by the church over centuries, what can we say about the /effort/ in leaving out this long ending (along with other "missing verses") in the CT and modern translations? Am I a conspiracy theorist? I dare say, if it is not man's conspiracy, it is the Devil's! If altering God’s word is not conspiracy, I don’t know what is.
And if CT is correct, how can we explain the inclusion of the verse in MT? How would God allow such a "pious" addition to the scriptures - an addition to the Lord's Prayer, something taught personally by the Lord, on speaking to God? What kind of "pious" scribes / Christians - if there were any - would they be? Even if this was done by a “pious” Christian, it cannot be done by many - MT scrolls are numerous and scattered among many locations. Neither God nor Christians would have allowed this “pious addition” to occur if we believe God's presence has been constant with the church! Furthermore, how would God allow it to make its way into the MT, then Luther’s Bibel, Tyndall’s translation, Geneva Bible, KJV, and NKJV, and be used by the reformers, puritans, and millions nowadays?
Let’s not forget, there’s a way out, that is, CT is an inferior combination of secondary texts! There isn’t a single scroll of CT, full stop.
On the bottom line, I would choose to err on the side of caution, steering away from modern CT-based translations, but standing alongside Luther and the puritans, and holding onto their old book!
I read the NAS95 and it does bracket many of the disputed passages (Matt. 6:13; Mk. 16:9-20 & a secondary verse connected with Mk. 16:8 or 16:20; and Jn. 7:53-8:11), yet it does not include the disputed 1 John 5:7-8 extended reading. When I see my NASB95 make distinctions like that over various disputed passages, I think they have a very good, scholarly reason to bracket one and not include the other.
In the Greek Orthodox church the congregation recites the Lord's Prayer but only the priest intones the final line. Interesting.
Thank you Pastor Matt. I hope you do more of these "Missing Verses". Reminds me of RC Sproul's, Hard Sayings of The Bible.
footnoting extra/removed verses affects during public reading - how often are footnotes mentioned in this case? ... those omissions far too often flow into subsequent exposition / sermon.
footnoting verses [usually reduced to tiny fonts due to competition for limited space] seems are purposely designed not only to dissuade reading and exposition (if not even presented specifically in a format to-be ignored-even-shunned); while still "included" to fulfil perception of detailed textual completeness for critical review.
OIOW - purposely formatted as lepers at all cost should be kept off the streets though tolerated to creep out and look for food scraps in the alleyways during small hours of the night.
footnoting verses is fine for academics and the trained slowing down to study the Word - a failure (if not genuine purposed hindrance) for general / public reading and [lazy?] exposition
again: footnoting is fine for those trained to study (and review Bibles) - but fails general usage.
... anyone asking people to 'read the word for themselves' should also demanding of publishers in-line bracketing as a minimal textual standard
Please remember that, - consider ordinary people (not scholarly readers) - when reviewing/recommending Bibles for them.
Would the majority text change depending on what century you live in ?
Technically it would, yes.
Important discussion! I had a dive into this a while ago. It might be an idea to check out the ancient versions of 4th and 5th centuries. Most have the longer ending. Ancient translations testify to the content of the base Greek text used. Chrysostom, who read from a Greek manuscript, comments on the longer ending (Homily 19). In addition to the Didache, the Diatessaron, Apostolic Constitutions also contain longer endings. BTW, I am happy that you left out Hilary as a father who did not include the longer ending (he appears in the 3rd edition of Metzger's apparatus). As far as I can determine, Hilary did not comment on the Lord's prayer, but simply referred people to Tertullian and Cyprian. Most of the Latin Fathers used the Vulgate, a translation of B. In conclusions, if 1 Chronicles 29:11 was the inspiration for the longer ending, there is no reason to think that therefore Jesus did not incorporate it himself (it all is his word, after all). Regards.
I have been studying this myself over the years. The claim is the Textus Receptus is not as old, so not as reliable as say the Codex Sinaiticus.
When Desiderius Erasmus published the Textus Receptus in 1516 he gathered manuscripts from different parts that bibles were based off of from as far back as 100 to 150 AD.
Much like the Bible: Peshitta (AD150) or the Old Latin Vulgate (AD157) and so on. The manuscripts Erasmus gathered, line up with these ancient bibles.
My study in this continues from time to time.
If Matthew 6:13 in the ESV text is the original from 2001 and then it's probably correct and if it is cause your comparing to the newer bibles then your taking it out of text.
Next, lets look at Septuagint vs Masoretic. I'd say Masoretic is missing a lot :)
Punctuation. Sentence. Hebrew and Greek actual and not printed in a book don't have them. Having seen a few original papyrus it looked like a huge string which would have been a challenge to translation. Geneva and Bishop would have made me bald.
I feel like many of the people responsible for the "critical" texts are either Catholic or secular and therefore have an axe to grind. Rather than favoring what appears to be older or shorter, I believe the longer readings are almost always the original ones, except when they are blatant interpolations (e.g., Mt 20.16b), or it's _obvious_ they weren't written in the original languages (e.g., 1 Jn 5.7b-8a).
Fnjesusfreak, I think one thing you are not considering that in this case, at least, the ending of the Lord's Prayer is part of the Mass. If it were originally part of the Bible, why would the Catholic Church take it out of the Bible and leave it in the Mass? It makes no sense.
@@jimmu2008 It's not connected _to_ the prayer in the mass; there's a little bit in the middle that detaches it.
@@fnjesusfreak it's still an important part of the Mass, and still shows that the Catholic Church would have no reason to remove it from the Bible. And it's in the Divine Library, too
What's the oldest Didache manuscript we have? Since you quoted it
Well done, thank you! I might add that it's possible the ESV committee may have had in mind that the MT are generally copies of the same root texts, so having 500 copies of the same manuscript, so to speak, might not fairly carry the weight to say "most manuscripts." But who knows. An interesting point you could ask Bill Mounce about. Blessings to you!
Thanks for a great insight on situations where translations can leave us scratching our heads at times! I currently use the KJV translation. I recently have begun to understand how recent discoveries of new manuscripts have uncovered more accurate documents concerning the scriptures. In light of this, I have been intrigued with the ESV translation which is also a word for word translation. I was watching a few of your previous videos highlighting your acceptance and use of the ESV along with your reasons why. In one of the recordings, you were talking about updated editions of the study bible. You named a specific edition that you preferred that I can't recall for some reason. I want to say it was the 2014 edition? I just wanted to confirm that, because I am getting ready to purchase one. Thanks for your presence on UA-cam. I pray God continues to bless your calling. Your friend from North Carolina. Marc
Given the provenance of both Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, the RCC, I still have lingering doubts of their authenticity ... 🤔
What doubts?
Sinaiticus came from the Orthodox Church, not the RCC.
This is an excellent and helpful discussion. One thing, though, you didn't discuss is whether the ending of the Lord's Prayer actually came from the early liturgy.
The NKJV has a footnote that says modern translations leave it out.
It says "NU Text", not modern translations
@@craigime true I was just thinking off the top of my head.
You will always find the Modern English language missing verses in the KJV or NKJV.
Just read about this in my NET Bible. It had notes explaining what you mentioned. Thank you for the message.
Loved the catch-up 😂
Thank you for this amazing explanation!
Suggestion for your next video in this series 1 John 5:6-8
Verse not there!? Just go to the KJV or NKJV and you won’t have any ;)
Mark Ward does a LOT of excellent work on dispelling the myths of KJV Onlyism. Also, for those asking, Pastor Everhard uploaded a video very recently (end of April maybe) about the didache entitled "The Didache: The Earliest Christian Writing After the Bible". It should answer a lot of questions.
Why would you even want to do this?
The KJO cultists are so disturbing. I had no idea this was even a thing, until I started seeing it online.
Let's not call them cultists. That's a bit extreme, don't you think?
Think about it. You are calling Christians cultists.
@@trappedcat3615 Some of them teach that you cannot be saved unless it is through the KJV. Some of them teach that if you don't speak English, you have to learn Jacobean English to be able to understand the KJV before you can be saved. Some believe that God had to rewrite the Bible in 1611 because new revelation was needed. "Cultist" is pretty apt here.
@@fnjesusfreak You are a liar.
the hebrew gospels, vat. ebr. 100, and syriac peshitta also do not contain the longer ending of the lord's prayer.
are you aware of the vatican folio #140 containing an almost complete copy of the 4 gospels in aramaic? the scribal colophon indicates that it was transcribed in edessa under the authority of the third bishop of edessa on the 5th day of the week, 18th of canun prior in the year of the greeks 389 (78ad). this was found by joseph simon assemani in 1712 at the chaldean patriarchate in baghdad and transferred to the vatican library. does it still exist in the vatican or was it permanently stolen by napoleon and deposited in the louvre, bibliotheque nationale, or the french archives, or worse, lost and destroyed forever? does a copy of it exist in the chaldean patriarchate?
ua-cam.com/video/I94Ky6tDxEI/v-deo.html
We added the longer version to the Mass in the 60's.
The Lord's prayer
Is Matthew 6:9-13
Luke 11:2
Oddly, Luke was only in one verse..
Could he been a gentile?
Can you give me a link to purchase a majority text in Greek please
Trinitarian Bible Society
@@jayjankowski8244 That's TR, which isn't the same thing.
Yeah, you got me.
Zane C. Hodges and Arthur L. Farstad have one you might like.
@@jayjankowski8244 Also Maurice Robinson
The Complutensian Polyglot has a marginal notes explaining how the liturgical response at the end of the prayer made it's way into the text, and this is why the ending is not included in the text.
I'm in time out for live.
Say vati conus
Not vatic anus
Sinaticus
Codex Sinaiticus
Uh guss tinn.