Though the Vatican and Sinai codices are saturated with 'blunders' they seem to have unusual difficulty with names of places and names of people. I would remind you at the onset of this article that these are the codices that are hailed as the "oldest and best manuscripts". With this in mind I would like for us to look briefly at Luke 3:32. I trust that I will be able to present this in a way so as not to confuse the reader. This is a difficult task because anytime you begin to deal with the "oldest and best manuscripts" it tends to get confusing trying to sort out all their different readings.
Here in Luke 3:32 the Traditional Text reads, tou Iessai tou Wbhd tou Booz tou Salmwn tou Naasswn. Likewise, our Authorized Version agrees in reading "Which was the son of Jesse, which was the son of Obed, which was the son of Booz, which was the son of Salmon, which was the son of Naasson". So far there is no problem because this is the way the Majority (M) text reads. However, when we begin to examine Aleph (N) and B it is a whole different story. First, I should say that the W-H/N-A/UBS Greek texts all read, tou Iessai tou Iwbhd tou BooV tou Sala tou Naasswn. For comparison sake look at this simple table:
|Traditional Reading||W-H/N-A/UBS reading|
So, why do these Greek texts read so different? Let me see if I can untangle this ball of confusion for you. We will address the variants one by one in order to determine just how the W-H/N-A/UBS (i.e. the Neologian) Greek texts arrived at their texts.
The first variant is "Iobed" in place of "Obed". The Neologian texts have adopted this reading (Iobed) even though it is the 'minority' reading AND despite the fact that N and B have a different reading. This is a noteworthy decision. Though proclaimed as the "best" manuscripts, here N and B abandon the whole host of Greek manuscripts in reading "Iobel". A reading so obviously corrupt that Hort, who utterly worshipped B, was not willing to follow them. Again, we see how the 'scholars' pick and choose between these two manuscripts. Though they rejected N and B at this point they still chose the minority reading that is only witnessed to by A, L, Gamma, Delta, Psi and a few cursives. As far as I know, all modern versions read 'Obed' despite the fact that their Greek text exhibits 'Iobed'.
The second variant is "Boos" in place of "Booz". Once again we see that the Neologian texts have rejected the Traditional reading in favor of a minority reading (Boos). Though "Booz" is the M reading W-H et al. have followed B in reading Boos. One must ask, If B was not to be believed in the previous name what makes us believe that it can be trusted with this name? Matter of factly speaking---it cannot and should not be trusted. However, our strangest occurance lies ahead of us. Oddly, Aleph ventures out all alone with the absurd reading of "Balls". Not one other Greek manuscript is so disfigured. And we are to believe that these are the "best" manuscripts. We read and marvel.
The last variant is "Sala" in place of "Salmon". As before the Neologian texts have rejected the Traditional reading in favor of a minority reading. Not only is "Salmon" the Traditional reading it is the M reading. Among the manuscripts with this reading we find A, D, L, Theta, Psi, ALL the Old Latin and Bohairic. This time those two habitual liars (i.e. N and B) have conspired together to read "Sala". Likewise, the Neologian texts have adopted this as the 'original' reading eventhough they only garner the support of ONE other papyri---p4. It is also of some interest to note that Aleph has been corrected and now testifies to the Traditional reading. Again we must ask, If N and B were both wrong in the first variant (Iobel instead of Obed) and Aleph witnessed to the absurd reading "Balls" in the second variant, what on earth makes us believe they are right when they practically stand alone in reading "Sala"? Again, the answer is 'they are not'! However, they have once again deceived our textual critics.
As you well know these codices are touted as the "best" manuscripts extant. With N and B disfigured at nearly every verse; With the type of shoddy 'scholarship' just demonstrated; it is certain that you cannot trust the Neologian Greek texts nor can you trust any translation based on them. Selah!
Last time we looked at Luke 3:32. This time I want to look at the very next verse--Luke 3:33.
The Traditional reading is as follows: "tou aminadab tou aram tou esrwm tou fareV tou iouda" Accordingly, our Authorized Version reads, "Which was the son of Aminadab, which was the son of Aram, which was the son of Esrom, which was the son of Phares, which was the son of Juda,".
The W-H Greek text reads, "tou admin tou arni tou esrwm tou fareV tou iouda"
In virtual agreement with W-H, the N-A reads, "tou Aminadab tou Admin tou Arni tou Esrwm tou FareV tou Iouda"
Again, let's look at a table to see a comparison:
|Traditional Reading||Westcott/Hort Reading||Nestle/Aland Reading|
Our first variant is "Aminadab". Both the Traditional and N-A allow this man his rightful place. However, W-H have plotted to have him removed from his place of recognition. And what might this weighty evidence be that would remove such a man from his place in Christ's genealogy? Why none other than the sole codex Vaticanus! That's right, the Vatican codex is the ONLY manuscript that strips this man of his rightful place in Luke 3:33. On the basis of ONE manuscript W-H have omitted "Aminadab" in this verse. What 'blind superstition' our modern scholars have for this codex!
The second variant is "Aram". Both W-H and N-A agree in rejecting this valiant man. Despite their opinion of this man he is witnessed to by EVERY manuscript except N, B, 1241 and a few others. Like his father, Aminadab, he has met with an untimely fate at the hands of our 'scholars' (sic). I am thankful for our Authorized Version that has allowed this man to retain his prominent position.
Our next variant is "Admin". The Traditional text does not allow him a place in this verse because he simply does not exist! This friendless stranger was befriended by the scribe of Aleph when for "Adminadam" he copied "Admin" and "Adam". Thus creating two imaginary gentlemen. I guess we could say that "Adminadam" had a 'split personality' :-D. Since that time these two imaginary foreigners have gained citizenship and have been assigned a place in the genealogy of Jesus Christ. Joining Aleph in welcoming these two new strangers is B, L, X, f13, and 1241 along with a few others. Astoundingly, with only these witnesses "Admin" is promoted to the biblical text. We must ask, If they are to promote "Admin" then why reject his twin brother "Adam"?? I say again--we read and marvel!
Our last variant is "Arni". Again, this stranger finds no place in the Traditional text. As before, he finds his existence only in the pen of the scribes of B and Aleph. Agreeing with them this time we have Theta, L, X, 1, 0102 and 1241. Which, as you can see, are the same dissenters that agreed in promoting "Admin", the imaginery stranger, to citizenship in our prior example. I would hardly call these manuscripts reliable in either instance. So, once again, we find that after nearly 1800 years these three hapless strangers find a final resting place in our modern Greek texts and our modern versions. To pass on!
All of the Early English versions agree with the Traditional reading.
Wycliffe- that was of amynadab, that was of aaram, that was of esrom, that was of fares, that was of judas.
Geneva- Which was the sonne of Aminadab which was the sonne of Aram, which ws the sonne of Esrom, which was the sonne of Phares, which was the sonne of Iuda.
Even the Catholic Rheims reads, "vvho vvas of Aminadab, vvho vvas of Aram, vvho vvas of Esron, vvho vvas of Phares, vvho vvas of Iudas,"
Once again we see that we cannont trust N and/or B to present us with accurate information concerning these names. Likewise, we cannot trust our modern Greek texts nor our modern versions.