"Textus Receptus"

Erasmus' Third edition of his own "Greek Manuscripts"

The foundation to the King James Bible and many others

Posted - 5/15/2009

Textus Receptus - What is it?

Textus Receptus (Latin: "received text") is the name subsequently given to the succession of printed Greek texts of the New Testament which constituted the translation base for the original German Luther Bible, for the translation of the New Testament into English by William Tyndale, the King James Version, and for most other Reformation-era New Testament translations throughout Western and Central Europe. The series originated with the first printed Greek New Testament to be published; a work undertaken in Basel by the Dutch Catholic scholar and humanist Desiderius Erasmus in 1516, on the basis of some six manuscripts, containing between them not quite the whole of the New Testament. Although based mainly on late manuscripts [not early manuscripts] of the Byzantine text-type, Erasmus's edition differed markedly from the classic form of that text.

History of the Textus Receptus

The Dutch humanist Erasmus had been working for years on two projects: a collation of Greek texts and a fresh Latin New Testament. In 1512, he began his work on a fresh Latin New Testament. He collected all the Vulgate manuscripts he could find to create a critical edition. Then he polished the Latin. He declared, "It is only fair that Paul should address the Romans in somewhat better Latin." In the earlier phases of the project, he never mentioned a Greek text: "My mind is so excited at the thought of emending Jerome’s text, with notes, that I seem to myself inspired by some god [OY OY OY!]. I have already almost finished emending him by collating a large number of ancient manuscripts, and this I am doing at enormous personal expense.

While his intentions for publishing a fresh Latin translation are clear, it is less clear why he included the Greek text. Though some speculate that he intended on producing a critical Greek text or that he wanted to beat the Complutensian Polyglot into print, there is no evidence to support this. Rather his motivations seems to be simpler: he included the Greek text to prove the superiority of his Latin version. He wrote, "There remains the New Testament translated by me, with the Greek facing, and notes on it by me. He further demonstrated the reason for the inclusion of the Greek text when defending his work: "But one thing the facts cry out, and it can be clear, as they say, even to a blind man, that often through the translator’s clumsiness or inattention the Greek has been wrongly rendered; often the true and genuine reading has been corrupted by ignorant scribes, which we see occur every day, or altered by scribes who are half-taught and half-asleep." Erasmus's new work was published by Froben of Basel in 1516 and thence became the first published Greek New Testament, the Novum Instrumentum omne, diligenter ab Erasmo Rot. Recognitum et Emendatum. He used manuscripts: 1, 1rK, 2e, 2ap, 4ap, 7, 817.[5] The second edition used the more familiar term Testamentum instead of Instrumentum, and eventually became a major source for Luther's German translation. In second edition (1519) Erasmus used also Minuscule 3.

Typographical errors (attributed to the rush to complete the work) abounded in the published text. Erasmus also lacked a complete copy of the book of Revelation and was forced to translate the last six verses back into Greek from the Latin Vulgate in order to finish his edition. Erasmus adjusted the text in many places to correspond with readings found in the Vulgate, or as quoted in the Church Fathers; and consequently, although the Textus Receptus is classified by scholars as a late Byzantine text, it differs in nearly two thousand readings from standard form of that text-type; as represented by the "Majority Text" of Hodges and Farstad (Wallace 1989). The edition was a sell-out commercial success; and was reprinted in 1519, with most—though not all—the typographical errors corrected.

Erasmus had been studying Greek New Testament manuscripts for many years, in the Netherlands, France, England and Switzerland, noting their many variants; but he only had six Greek manuscripts immediately accessible to him in Basel. They all dated from the 12th Century or later, and only one came from outside the mainstream Byzantine tradition. Consequently, most modern scholars consider his text to be of dubious quality [In other words, any honest student of scripture, or university, college or seminary, should not bother to look at the Textus Receptus for honest reliability to far earlier Greek manuscripts that proceeded it 1,100 years. For Erasmus admits he did not transcribe the Greek manuscripts word for word, but altered it. A honest scribe would have listed all the various renderings of a certain verse, not pick one certain text from them all or invent a new rendering based on the Latin Vulgate or from one's own views].

With the third edition of Erasmus' Greek text (1522) the Comma Johanneum [see below] was included, because a single 16th-century Greek manuscript (Codex Montfortianus) had subsequently been found to contain it, though Erasmus had expressed doubt as to the authenticity of the passage in his Annotations. In fact, in his writings he claims that the passage did not exist in any of the texts he came across, but the passage was given to him from a Catholic monk, priest or person of influence from that denomination. Popular demand for Greek New Testaments led to a flurry of further authorized and unauthorized editions in the early sixteenth century; almost all of which were based on Erasmus's work and incorporated his particular readings, although typically also making a number of minor changes of their own.

The overwhelming success of Erasmus' Greek New Testament completely overshadowed the Latin text upon which he had focused. Many other publishers produced their own versions of the Greek New Testament over the next several centuries. Rather than doing their own critical work, most just relied on the well-known Erasmian text.

Robert Estienne, known as Stefanus (1503-1559), a printer from Paris, edited four times the Greek New Testament, 1546, 1549, 1550, and 1551, the last in Geneva. The first two are among the neatest Greek texts known, and are called O mirificam; the third edition is a splendid masterpiece of typographical skill. It has critical apparatus in which quoted manuscripts referred to the text. Manuscripts were marked by symbols (from α to ις). He used Polyglotta Complutensis (symbolized by α) and 15 Greek manuscripts. In this number manuscripts: Codex Bezae, Codex Regius, minuscules 4, 5, 6, 2817, 8, 9. The first step towards to modern Textual Criticism was made. The third edition is known as the Editio Regia; the edition of 1551 contains the Latin translation of Erasmus and the Vulgate, is not nearly as fine as the other three, and is exceedingly rare. It was in this edition that the division of the New Testament into verses was for the first time introduced.

The third edition of Estienne was used by Theodore Beza (1519-1605), who edited it nine times between 1565 and 1604. In the critical apparatus of the second edition he used the Codex Claromontanus and the Syriac New Testament published by Emmanuel Tremellius in 1569. Codex Bezae was twice referenced (as Codex Bezae and β' of Estienne).

The origin of the term "Textus Receptus" comes from the publisher's preface to the 1633 edition produced by Bonaventure and Abraham Elzevir, two brothers and printers at Leiden: textum ergo habes, nunc ab omnibus receptum, in quo nihil immulatum aut corruptum damus, translated "so you hold the text, now received by all, in which nothing corrupt." The two words, textum and receptum, were modified from the accusative to the nominative case to render textus receptus. Over time, this term has been retroactively applied to Erasmus' editions, as his work served as the basis of the others.

Textual criticism and the Textus Receptus

John Mill (1645-1707), collated textual variants from 82 Greek manuscripts. In his Novum Testamentum Graecum, cum lectionibus variantibus MSS (Oxford 1707) he reprinted the unchanged text of the Editio Regia, but in the index he enumerated 30,000 textual variants.

Shortly after Mill published his edition, Daniel Whitby (1638-1725), attacked his work. He claimed that the autographs of the New Testament were identical to the Textus Receptus, and that the text had never been corrupted. He believed the text of the Holy Scripture was endangered by the 30,000 variants in Mill's edition. Whitby claimed that every part of the New Testament should be defended against these variants. [THIS GUY IS AN AGENDA PUSHER, NOT A TRUE SEEKER OF TRUTH]

Johann Albrecht Bengel (1687-1752), in 1725 edited Prodromus Novi Testamenti Graeci Rectè Cautèque Adornandi, in 1734 edited Novum Testamentum Graecum. Bengel divided manuscripts into families and subfamilies. He favoured (lectio difficilior potior).

Johann Jakob Wettstein. His Apparatus was fuller than of any previous editor. He introduced the practice of indicating the ancient manuscripts by capital Roman letters and the later manuscripts by Arabic numerals. He published in Basel Prolegomena ad Novi Testamenti Graeci (1731).

J. J. Griesbach (1745-1812) combined the principles of Bengel and Wettstein. He enlarged the Apparatus by a more citations from the Fathers, and various versions, such as the Gothic, the Armenian, and the Philoxenian. Griesbach distinguished a Western, an Alexandrian, and a Byzantine Recension. Christian Friedrich Matthaei (1744-1811) was a Griesbach opponent.

Karl Lachmann (1793-1851), was the first who broke with the Textus Receptus. His object was to restore the text to the form in which it had been read in the ancient Church about A.D. 380. He used the oldest known Greek and Latin manuscripts.

Westcott and Hort, The New Testament in the Original Greek (1881).

The majority of textual critical scholars since the late 19th Century, have adopted an eclectic approach to the Greek New Testament; with the most weight given to the earliest extant manuscripts which tend mainly to be Alexandrian in character; the resulting eclectic Greek text departing from the Textus Receptus in around 6,000 readings. A significant minority of textual scholars, however, maintain the priority of the Byzantine text-type; and consequently prefer the "Majority Text". No school of textual scholarship now continues to defend the priority of the Textus Receptus; although this position does still find adherents amongst the King-James-Only Movement, and other Protestant groups hostile to the whole discipline of text criticism—as applied to scripture; and suspicious of any departure from Reformation traditions.

Defense of the Textus Receptus

Frederick von Nolan, a 19th century historian and Greek and Latin scholar, spent 28 years attempting to trace the Textus Receptus to apostolic origins. He was an ardent advocate of the supremacy of the Textus Receptus over all other editions of the Greek New Testament, and argued that the first editors of the printed Greek New Testament intentionally selected the texts they did because of their superiority and disregarded other texts which represented other text-types because of their inferiority.

It is not to be conceived that the original editors of the [Greek] New Testament were wholly destitute of plan in selecting those manuscripts, out of which they were to form the text of their printed editions. In the sequel it will appear, that they were not altogether ignorant of two classes of manuscripts; one of which contains the text which we have adopted from them; and the other that text which has been adopted by M. Griesbach.

Regarding Erasmus, Nolan stated:

Nor let it be conceived in disparagement of the great undertaking of Erasmus, that he was merely by utter chance right. Had he barely undertaken to perpetuate the tradition on which he received the sacred text he would have done as much as could be required of him, and more than sufficient to put to shame the puny efforts of those who have vainly labored to improve upon his design. [...] With respect to Manuscripts, it is indisputable that he was acquainted with every variety which is known to us, having distributed them into two principal classes, one of which corresponds with the Complutensian edition, the other with the Vatican manuscript. And he has specified the positive grounds on which he received the one and rejected the other.

Textus Receptus was defended by Burgon in his The Revision Revised (1881), by Edward Miller in A Guide to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament. According to Burgon Codex Alexandrinus, and Codex Ephraemi are older than Sinaiticus, and Vaticanus. Peshitta originated from 2nd century. Miller was more careful in his defense.

Relationship to the Byzantine text

Textus Receptus was established on a basis of the Byzantine text-type, called also 'Majority text', and usually is identified with him by his followers. But Textus Receptus has some additions and variants which did not exist in the Byzantine text before the 16th century. The Comma Johanneum in 1 John 5:7 is well known example, but there are also other texts like: Matt 10:8; 27:35; Luke 17:36; John 3:25; Acts 8:37; 9:5; and some readings ("book of life" instead of "tree of life" in Revelation 22:19) which the Byzantine text did not have. In these cases the majority of manuscripts agree with the Alexandrian text-type against the Textus Receptus.

F.H.A. Scrivener (1813-1891) remarked that Matt. 22:28, 23:25, 27:52, 28:3, 4, 19, 20; Mark 7:18, 19, 26, 10:1, 12:22, 15:46; Luke 1:16, 61, 2:43, 9:1, 15, 11:49; John 1:28, 10:8, 13:20 are under the influence of Minuscule 1 (Caesarean text-type).[15] Scrivener showed that some textes were incorporated from the Vulgate (f.e. Acts 9:6; Rev 17:4.8). Daniel Wallace enumerated that in 1,838 places (1005 are translatable) Textus Receptus differs from the Byzantine text-type.[16]

Comma Johanneum

All honest scholars acknowledge that the Comma Johanneum is a certain passage that was added to 1 John 5:7 by Erasmus himself, in his third edition of his published Greek manuscripts. Whereas this particular passage or verse does not appear in any Greek manuscript before 1522 when his third edition was published.

All Greek manuscripts of 1 John 5:6-8 that pre-date the life of Erasmus all state this type of wording in their texts:

[V6] This is the One who came by water and blood, Jesus Christ; not with the water only, but with the water

      ουτος εστιν ο ελθων δι υδατος και αιματος ιησους χριστος ουκ εν τω υδατι μονον αλλ εν τω υδατι

      and with the blood. It is the Spirit who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth.

      και τω αιματι και το πνευμα εστιν το μαρτυρουν οτι το πνευμα εστιν η αληθεια  

[V7] For there are three that testify:

      οτι τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες

[V8] the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.

      το πνευμα και το υδωρ και το αιμα και οι τρεις εις το εν εισιν

Whereas this is what the Textus Receptus states:

[V6]  This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood.

       ουτος εστιν ο ελθων δι υδατος και αιματος ιησους χριστος ουκ εν τω υδατι μονον αλλ εν τω υδατι και τω αιματι

       And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth.

          και το πνευμα εστιν το μαρτυρουν οτι το πνευμα εστιν η αληθεια

[V7] For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost:

      οτι τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες εν τω ουρανω ο πατηρ ο λογος και το αγιον πνευμα

      and these three are one.

      και ουτοι οι τρεις εν εισιν

[V8] And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood:

     και τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες εν τη γη το πνευμα και το υδωρ και το αιμα

      and these three agree in one.

      και οι τρεις εις το εν εισιν

 

All these translations follow the Textus Receptus:

King James Bible [1611 CE]

Webster's Bible Translation

Young's Literal Translation

Tyndale New Testament [1525 CE]

Miles Coverdale Bible [1535 CE]

The Bishop's Bible [1568 CE]

The Geneva Bible [1587 CE]

Daniel Mace New Testament [1729 CE]

The New King James Version

The reason this passage is significant is because Judaism, the faith of the prophets and of the Jewish people, of Jesus teaches against the Trinity and has never taught such a belief. Whereas, this verse in the Textus Receptus boldly promotes the existence of some Trinity god. Yet, not even in the Jerome Bible, commonly called the "Latin Vulgate" that was commissioned around 382 CE does not contain the "Comma Johanneum." This is significant, because in 325 CE the Nicene Council took place in order to debate whether or not Jesus was/is divine or not. The Catholic 'orthodox' said that he was, whereas other bishops that opposed them said that "he was not," but was a "creature" as Paul states in Col 1:15 and that he is the "firstborn" of all that came into existence - before all else. These anti-divine proponents paralleled John's writings as well by saying, "he is the only begotten of Him." "How," they said, "can the 'God of Heaven' be 'begotten' like every other child if the God of Heaven is eternal and never had a beginning?" The reason for pointing out these debats at the Nicene Council and other places at the time, the "orthodox" would have used such a verse when fighting against Arianism and many others that taught that Jesus was not divine.

The Emperors went back and forth in what denomination the state church should be or what the state sponsored church should be, from the Catholic church to Arianism and back again. Arianism was actually more accurate to Judaic theology in regards to the messiah himself, but not very much in anything else. Whereas the Catholics are considered idolaters according to Judaic theology. The Arians were more accurate by saying that the Jewish messiah is not the God of the Jewish prophets, rather he is His greatest servant, not that he is Him Himself.

Even John says this in Revelation 3:14 by saying that Jesus is the very first/head/beginning of  "God's" creation. None-the-less, the Arians still had their tri-theology and quirks, thus still making them pagan in the eyes of Judaism, because they could not understand the context surrounding the various passages that contained the word "SPIRIT" in them.

Let me explain Judaic thought:

The God of Israel is the only Eternal Spirit, but the moshiach is a made spirit, being the greatest spirit of all the spirits that serve the Eternal Spirit - the Eternal Spirit being the God of Israel Whose name is Yehowah. Thus, there are only two main spirits in Judaism - the Father and His son, not that there is a third SPIRIT or a third person called the "Holy Spirit." When determining "who" the particular person might be when coming across a certain verse, it all depends on the context. For example: if a passage is clearly a prophecy surrounding the Jewish messiah and it says, "the SPIRIT, Yehowah, is upon me to preach....," this particular 'SPIRIT' is non-other than the God of Israel falling upon His servant - the messiah. But, when you see a spiritual being/person being invited to sit down at the right hand of the God of Israel in Psalm 110, this is clearly the moshiach. Again, when David says, "take not your spirit from me" he is referring to the moshiach. Why? Because David is also the one saying Psalm 110 and he said that the one being invited to sit down at Yehowah's right side is his personal master or instructor, by using the word "my" in the phrase, "Yehowah said to my...." Again, Solomon does the same thing in Pro 8, by saying "he who finds me finds life and shall obtain favor from Yehowah [Pro 8:35].

This is why the Textus Receptus is purely a "Satanic" and "corrupt" text, because it promotes the Trinity and that Jesus is the God of Heaven, when he isn't.

Judaism has never taught that their messiah is their God. Don't view Judaism as merely another religion in case you are doing this. Rather, what I mean is that the prophets that spoke in Yehowah's very holy name NEVER taught that he is our Eternal God. Quite the opposite actually, they taught that he is His greatest servant "My righteous servant shall justify many [Isa 53:11]." Or, "he [the messiah] shall speak to them [the Israelites] all that I [Yehowah] shall command him [Deut 18:18]."

What I tell people is this, "If you want to teach that your messiah is your God, that is your purgative, but don't hijack our holy writings and say that our holy writings promote such things. I will go on to say, "Make your own bible, like the Mormons did, or like the Muslims did, but don't use our bible. Either represent our Holy writings correctly or don't use them at all." That is the truth. Mainstream "Christianity" has very little to do with Jewish thought and the early "church" did not preserve the writings of the apostles themselves. All four gospels are written by Gentiles that never knew Jesus personally, nor ever heard him speak. All their gospels are solely based on "Hear-say" and they contain hundreds of contradictions. Therefore, one cannot know with certainty, what Jesus really said or did or where he went and when. Let me give you a clear example of how the four gospels contradict each other and even with the book of Acts:

Where and when did Jesus ascend to heaven?

1. According to Matthew Jesus "apparently" ascends to heaven from some mountain in Galilee (Matt 28:16). It does not say "when " this took place, but it apparently was the shortest amount of time possible from the resurrection to however long it took to travel from Jerusalem to Galilee. One particular possible problem about this is that Jesus resurrected on the 17th of the Jewish month called Aviv (Abib - Exodus 12:2, 13:4), but according to the law of the prophets all the men were to be in Jerusalem until the 21st day of the month according to Exodus 23:14-15. Nonetheless, the point being - this took place long before 40 days went by and it was in Galilee.

2. According to Mark Jesus ascends to Heaven from within Jerusalem at the place where the discples were eating food before Jesus appeared to them [Mark 16:14, 19]. This apparently took place on the day of his resurrection, on the 17th of Aviv, or possibly on the 18th, since the Jewish 24 hour day starts at sunset, not midnight. So, depending how long they talked, it could have stretched passed sunset in Jerusalem.

3. According to Luke, Jesus leads the disciples out to Bethany, to a place about 2 miles south of Jerusalem, and it is there that Jesus ascends to heaven. The 'exact' timing of this ascenion is not precisely stated as to the exact hour, but it is in regards to the time frame of what 'day' it might have occurred on. According to Luke, this occurred on either on the 17th of Aviv, though according to Luke's own wording it is highly unlikely it took place on the 17th of Aviv, but sometime during the 18th of Aviv. The reason for this is for these reasons:

In Luke 24, Luke mentions that Jesus walked with two of his disciples [Luke 24:15] as they went on their way to Emmaus [Luke 24:13] from Jerusalem and this occurred on the same day that he resurrected [Luke 24:22]. This then would make it the 17th of Aviv, on Sunday. As the three talked the two disciples, not knowing it was Jesus, invited Jesus to stay with them in Emmaus, for the evening was "far spent," for they thought he was going beyond Emmaus. So, according to Luke Jesus went into their home, or whoever's home it was, possibly just one of the two disciples or their mother's or.... As they were there they cooked some bread and they did eat. Keep in mind that in Spring time, at Passover and during the days of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, sunset is around 6 PM. This is without using "Daylight Saviings Time," which people never observed during those days. Another footnote is this: back in those days they did not have "self-rising"  flour, rather, their yeast came from spoiled flour. However, if this were truly the 17th of Aviv, it was still the Feast of Unleavened Bread until sunset on the 21st of Aviv. The reason I am pointing this out is so that we can understand the "timing" of things. During these days, they obviously would have cooked unleavened bread called Matzah, which only takes minutes to cook vs. over an hour for leavened bread. Likewise, they did not have gas stoves and the like in those days, so they also had to take the time to get a fire going. Unless, of course they bought their bread or already had it cooked in their home. For the text does not say "where" they got their bread or "who" cooked it and "when" it was cooked. Well, after they broke bread together, after Jesus gave thanks and gave them some he vanished [Luke 24:31]. At that point, being shocked their beloved rabbi liveth, in the "same hour [Luke 24:33]" they returned to Jerusalem. Mind you what I said earlier I said that the day was "far spent." So what time is it now? When did they actually return to Jerusalem? The text does not say. But, keep this is mind, the Jewish calendar is easy to keep track of even if you were not to look at a calendar for a long time. This is because our days are written in the heavens. The first quarter after the "new moon' is approximately the 7th day of the month [the light on the moon faces West], full moon is approximately the 15th day, the third quarter is approximaely the 21st day [the light of the moon faces East]. Well, being that it was the 17th of the month, the moon was still very full, thus they could probably still travel after the sun went down because of how bright the moon's light still was, especially in places like the desert terrian of Israel. Keep in might that they did not have street lights at that time, nor flashlights. So, the question is, did they make it back to Jerusalem before night fall or afterwards. It most likely was now the 18th considering all that occurred before they returned to Jerusalem and that the the day was already "far spent" at the time they invited Jesus to stay with them. Besides, how far is Emmaus? According to scholars Emmaus lies some 13 miles to the West of Jerusalem. So for them to turn around "in the same hour" and head back to Jerusalem from their home in Emmaus, would have taken a few hours. Even if they had a horse it would still have taken awhile. Let's move on... As the two disciples were telling the apostles their particular story Jesus himself suddenly and wonderfully stood among them [Luke 24 36], shocking them all. After this point, according to Luke, he led them out all the way to Bethany, which is another two miles from Jerusalem, to the south. When they arrived there Jesus ascended to heaven. Thus, this was most likely either during the night of the 18th or the next mornnig. Or, if it was 'somehow' still the 17th, which would seem hightly unlikely, it would have to be extremely late in the day. Thus, he ascended during the 17th or 18th, but for obvious reasons I lean toward the 18th of Aviv when it comes to Luke's account, but not as far as my personal beliefs go. I rely on John's account in regards to "where" and "when" this took place; which was in the morning, on the 17th, right outside of his tomb, outside of Jerusalem after he talked with Mary Magdalene.

4. Yet, in Luke's second account, he contradicts himself very remarkablely, in his book called "The Acts of the Apostles." In the book of Acts Luke has the "ascention" take place just a mere 600 or so feet from the Temple mount in Jerusalem, not from Bethany which lies 2 miles south of Jerusalem. Traditionally, when people read Acts 1, they think that this "ascention" took place on the 40th day after his resurrection, though Luke does not say "resurrection" he says "passion [Acts 1:3]." In my opinion, however, I see Acts 1:3 as a big parentesis inserted within the story to shed more light on those days following the "passion." For Luke does not say, "Jesus ascended to heaven on the 40th day after his passion." Rather, he only states that Jesus was only and merely "seen" over a period of forty or so days after his passion, in order to give "many infallible proofs" that he was now alive. For if the traditions of men, were correct, this would counter his earlier claims even more so than the existing blantant contradictions. Again, in the Gospel of Luke he says that Jesus ascended immediately after his resurrection, by stating that Jesus walked with two of his disciples as they were walking to Emmaus on the very day he resurrected, being the 17th of Aviv, in the evening. After Jesus vanished from their midst the two disciples went to tell the apostles of their account in Jerusalem and while they were telling their account to them Jesus appeared to them all. After this point Jesus lead them to Bethany and then ascended to heaven from there. So, if those traditions were true, even though Luke does not imply such things, then you would have Jesus either ascending to heaven 40 days after his passion vs. on the very day of his resurrection, being the 17th of Aviv, or possibly on the 18th when you consider the time for doing the things that Luke writes about. However, regardless of "when" Jesus ascended into heaven, Luke blantantly contradicts himself on "where" his ascention took place. Was it Bethany or the Mt. of Olives? Or was it Galilee according to Matthew? Or, was it within Jerusalem according to Mark?

5. According to the "Gospel of John" Jesus ascends to heaven, apparently, right after talking with Mary Magdalene [John 20:17]. And if this were truly the case this would have taken place outside of Jerusalem vs. within it as Mark says and in Judea vs. what Matthew says. Likewise, according to the "John" account no one witnessed his ascention to heaven, except for possibly Daniel in Daniel 7:13-14. To go along with what I am say, according to "John's gospel" this took place in the morning.

Now, because Jesus ascends from 5 countering locations and at different times, we cannot "know" with any genuine certainty where and when he ascended into heaven. Thus, none of the five accounts are really reliable. One thing is reliable, however, it is this: according to Daniel 7:13-14 and Psalm 110, Jesus did ascend and currently sits at Yehowah's right hand on his own princely throne. Princely, because all sons of a monarch are princes and Jesus is the son of the Only Monarch, the God of Israel. There Jesus remains until the God of Israel shall command him to go out and conquer the earth and tread it down under foot and sit on the theocratic throne of King David where only the Torah observant shall remain alive.

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

So, with all that being said it is bad enough that there are already hundreds of contradictions between the gospels and the epistles and in the Tanach all by themselves without Erasmus compounding the problem by inserting brand new passages or changing them altogether or adding or subtracting from them. OY!!

Therefore, one should not read any bible that is based on the Testus Receptus!!!

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

Here is my second example of why we should not use any bible that is based on the Textus Receptus:

Again, the Textus Receptus states another "divinity" passage that goes against all the teachings and doctrines found in the Tanach [erroneously called the "old testament."] This passage is found in 1 Timothy 3:16, here is what it says:

And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in

και ομολογουμενως μεγα εστιν το της ευσεβειας μυστηριον θεος εφανερωθη εν σαρκι εδικαιωθη εν

the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

πνευματι ωφθη αγγελοις εκηρυχθη εν εθνεσιν επιστευθη εν κοσμω ανεληφθη εν δοξη

Whereas, this is what Greek Manuscripts say that pre-date 450 CE

And without controversy great is the mystery of righteousness; [he] was manifested in the flesh, justified in the

και ομολογουμενως μεγα εστιν το της ευσεβειας μυστηριον ος εφανερωθη εν σαρκι εδικαιωθη εν

spirit, seen of angels, preached among the nations, believed on in the world, received up in glory.

πνευματι ωφθη αγγελοις εκηρυχθη εν εθνεσιν επιστευθη εν κοσμω ανελημφθη εν δοξη.

So, as we can clearly see, in the Textus Receptus there is a conveniently two extra letters to the ος to render it

θεος. Not only does this make it to have an entirely different word, but it gives it an entirely different meaning behind the passage.

Again, not even in the Jerome Bible, or the Latin Vulgate, contains the wording that the Textus Receptus has. Keep in mind the the Jerome Bible pre-dates the Textus Receptus 1,100 years. Here is the passage from the Latin Vulgate or the Jerome Bible.

et manifeste magnum est pietatis sacramentum quod [which was] manifestatum est in carne iustificatum est in spiritu apparuit angelis praedicatum est gentibus creditum est in mundo adsumptum est in gloria.

By having the word "he" instead of "God" makes this very significant, because it is an extremely different statement of theology. Because in Judaism the messiah is a made being, yet clearly exists in the days of David, Abraham and even Adam as I have pointed out, even as we see in Prov 30:4. With that the prophets of Israel prophecied that not only shall he come down for a length of time vs. for only a few minutes and hours as at other times, as in the days of Adam, Abraham, Moses, Samuel, Solomon and..., but that the God of Israel will in fact dis-rank [Psalm 8:5] this person from his powers and insert him [his spirit - for he is only a spirit] within the conception process of a couple having natural and normal intercourse. The husband of that holy couple was the very descendant of the royal line of King David and over a dozen other Judaic kings of long ago. Normally, when a human is conceived in the womb, the God of Israel creates the spirit of that man right then and there, but as for the case of His greatest servant, the moshiach, He inserted him into that process, because he already existed. Thus, when the word "he" exists in the actual text of 1 Timothy 3:16, this parallels Judaic theology.

However, if the word is "theos / God" then it makes it makes the statement or passage very idolarous according to the ancient teachings of the holy prophets, because the messiah is not the God of Israel to them, but he is His greatest servant. Again, it is very blasphemous to call a servant or a made being "God."

As we have seen, the older the Greek text is - the more accurate that text parallels Judaic theology [at least we hope] and with that comes far less tamperings with the original text or manuscripts. But like some scholars have said, we do not have the originals anymore, thus we cannot even compare them to those originals to see how far off our current existing texts are. This is why the quest for the very oldest text is paramount! One problem, however, with this notion is this: scholars are assuming that the further back you get to the source of the  originals, the more authentic it is. But what do you do if the originals are totally anti-Judaic in their theology from the start? In this case, the originals wouldn't even matter anyway, because they are heretical from the very start, take for an example of the five competing locations of 'where' Jesus ascended into heaven as I just mentioned above..

Yet, as any wise man that knows about Judaism and as every Jewish researcher knows, if Jesus were in fact the greatest prophet to have ever walked this earth [which he was], his teachings, doctrines and mannerisms must reflect those of the prophets that lived before him. If he did not do these very things he is a false 'messiah.' Therefore, Judaism is the basic foundation of "who" the messiah must really be.

What I find amazing and shocking is this: many prophets before Jesus gave us their writings - though only a handful of them survive to this day. However, even though he did not live as far back in time as the other prophets, those others writings survive to this very day, yet not a single passage or verse, let alone a whole book, nor a saying engraved in stone exists from this great and holy man. This also includes any written document from his 11 apostles who might have wrote about his life, except for the 'apparent' notes that did exist from John's writings that helped the author of the"Gospel of John [John 21:24]" to make or form his book.

The reason I just said, "for the apparent notes that did exist from John's writings" is because if you read the Gospel of John very carefully it never says, "I, John," or "we went" or... Quite the opposite actually. At the last few verses of the book the author claims that he is apparently copying John's notes, with that he might be elaborating on those notes from the oral teachings that John said over the years of his preaching, or what others might have heard him say, but who really knows. In truth, however, the "Gospel of John" is not from John's own hand except for possibly the first 18 verses, because in verse 1:14 the word "we" is listed and this is the only place in all of John that I can find where it would include the actual author. For here is what some of that verse say, "we beheld his glory." This little snippet is most likely referring to the "transfiguation" in Mattew 17:1-2 or what Peter is refering to in 2 Peter 1:16-17.

Here is what the end of "John" says in John 21:24, "This is the disciple which testifies of these matters, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true. And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which. if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen."

So, all wise people should drop any "Bible" that is based on the Textus Receptus.

Now for more details on the "Gospel of John," to reveal "who" the real author is, PLEASE CLICK HERE.

Thank you,

HSG

Everything in "bold" font has been added to the Textus Receptus or changed to make it fit

The text in blue is exactly the same to act like it belongs there. This is clearly a forgery.