This article has been translated from the Hebrew Textual Key. To read the Textual Key in Hebrew, click here.

Hebrew readers who are familiar with both the older classical Hebrew Delitzsch and the Modern Hebrew New Testaments will have noticed that there are significant differences between the two texts. It is the purpose of this Textual Key to identify those differences and to give some information about the important issues of what constitutes the complete body (full text) of the Holy Scriptures. Today the Hebrew NT version most widely used by Hebrew speakers is the Modern Hebrew NT first published in 1976 by the Bible Society in Israel under the auspices of the United Bible Societies. This version uses Modern Hebrew and is translated from the Greek ‘Critical Text’, as opposed to the older classical version of Franz Delitzsch translated from the Greek ‘Textus Receptus’ (The Received Text). The differences between the two underlying Greek texts are the main reason for differences between the two translations. Many Jewish readers use the Modern Hebrew New Testament, but may not be aware that there are two principal Greek Texts both claiming to be the most authentic. The Key records 650 major differences in between the two texts: 556 of these are found in the Modern Hebrew Text and are listed in the Key. In total there are some 6,000 differences between the two texts.

The Received Text vs the Critical Text

The key is a useful tool to assess any version of the New Testament showing to what extent a translation departs from the Traditional Greek Text known also as the Received Text. The Hebrew version of the Key has been amended to make it more relevant to the need of Hebrew readers.

The ‘United Bible Societies’, support worldwide NT translations based on the Critical Greek Text. These translations may have as much as 15% of omissions and changes compared with versions based on the Received Text such as the Delitzsch Hebrew NT (DHNT). This is the reason why readers of the MHNT will find many words and whole verses missing from this translation. It is important that these matters are discussed, studied and understood.

The Greek text which is known as the ‘Textus Receptus’ or ‘Received Text’ was compiled in 16^th century. A small number of Byzantine MS came into the hands of Scholars following the fall of Constantinople to the Islamic Ottoman Turks in 1453. Greek scribes with their NT manuscripts fled to Europe. These manuscripts agree with the text found in the majority of existing manuscripts of which there are some 5,700 at the present time. This ‘Majority Text’ is some times called the ‘Byzantine Text’ because it was found in MS from all over the Byzantine Empire. This Empire lasted more than 1,000 years, encompassing the whole of what is now Turkey, Syria, Palestine and North Africa extending to the West Coast of Spain, together with Italy, Greece and the Balkans. The Empire boasted a population at some periods of around 26,000,000. Many thousands of MS, copied in these regions were used and worn out during this time. There is little doubt that the text copied in these MS is that which is now found in the majority of the existing 5,700 MS. In order to justify the claim of the advocates of the Critical Text, we would have to charge the majority of Greek scribes with copying the wrong text for more than a thousand years; and the Church also, with failing in their duty to hand down the correct text. Can we really believe that God allowed His complete text to be set aside and not used by the Churches for a millennium?

The Unity, Inspiration and Preservation of the Scriptures

The Scripture is one united whole. If we are to get a clear grasp of the doctrines of God’s Word, then we need to compare spiritual things with spiritual things in the whole Word of God. No one part of Scripture is of higher authority than the other, it is all the Word of God. There is equality in the authority of ‘All Scripture’ and the spiritual unity of the church with its doctrine and practice is promoted by the existence and use of one text. The Church has not been given two Bibles, nor two NT’s. There is one revelation and one Lord Jesus Christ the same yesterday, today and forever (Hebrews 13.8).The Scriptures themselves lay considerable emphasis on the Unity of the Church. 'Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment' (1 Corinthians 1.10).

Philosophical movements such as Higher Criticism, Literary Criticism and Evolutionary theories undermined the faith of centuries and fostered doubt in many regarding the authority of the Word of God.One text type, that is, the Byzantine or the majority text, was in general use in the church for 1850 years. In the mid-19^th century new text was complied, the Critical Text. Since that time this text and translations based on it have introduced divisions in the church.

Modern translations of the Bible seek to help the reader understand the Word more easily. This is a commendable objective. The language is more simple and more user friendly, BUT many translations contain serious faults. Bible publishers often do not explain to readers why there are whole verses and parts of verses missing. Some examples of whole verses omitted from the Modern Hebrew NT include, Matthew 17.21, Matthew 18.11, Matthew 23.14, Mark 7.16, Mark 9.44, Mark 9.46, Mark 11.26, Mark 16.9-20 (brackets) Luke 17.36, Luke 23.17, John 5.4, Acts 8.37, Acts 15.34, Acts 28.29, Romans 16.24.

The Critics assert that no important doctrine is affected by the omissions and variants. This is not true. For example, title ‘Messiah’ is omitted at least 26 times from the Modern Hebrew Text. Each occurrence of the name has a theological context and doctrine is affected. For example John 6.69 in the Delitzsch text reads: ‘Thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God’. The Modern Hebrew text, in this one verse, removes reference the Messiahship, the Deity and Sonship of the Lord Jesus Christ. Surely these are important doctrines. The Critical Text exhibits a Unitarian bias with a widespread undermining of the Deity of Christ.

The Biblical Doctrine of Inspiration

There is little understanding of the Biblical doctrine of Divine inspiration in the Churches; and yet it is vitally important and must be held fast by believers and especially translators. If this doctrine is not kept firmly in view whilst translating the Bible, the translation will not be a faithful translation of the Word of God. No translation is perfect, but a translation should be a ‘faithful’ translation of the Word of God from the original language. The Holy Scripture is called the Word of God, because it is given by inspiration of God. What do we mean by inspiration?

1) Some say it was a mere supervision of the writers to prevent gross errors.

2) Some say the writers had a special light, but were left to their own judgment as to subjects and words.

3) Some say the Bible is only partly inspired. These are incorrect ideas of inspiration and there are others.

What does the Bible itself say about inspiration?

It reveals only one kind of inspiration that is the full or complete inspiration of all parts of Scripture, sometimes referred to as ‘Plenary Inspiration’. In the OT the nature of inspiration is revealed; ‘And the LORD said unto me, behold, I have put my words in thy mouth’ (Jeremiah 1.9) and ‘Behold, I will make my words in thy mouth fire’ (Jeremiah 5.14). In Isaiah 51.15 God declares His glorious name and then adds in verse 16, ‘And I have put my word in thy mouth'. Likewise in Deuteronomy 18.18-19, God addresses Moses with a promise of the Messiah. ‘I will raise them up a prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and He shall speak unto them all that I shall command him. And it shall come to pass that whosoever shall not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him.’

In the NT the same divine authority is asserted. ‘All Scripture is given by inspiration of God (i.e. inspired or God breathed, in Greek ‘theopneustos’) and is profitable, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness’ (2 Timothy 3.16). ‘We also have a more sure word of prophecy whereunto ye do well to take heed, as unto a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the daystar arise in your hearts’ (2 Peter 1.19). The Word is not a fable or something devised by men. It is more sure than the voice of God which Peter, James and John heard on the mount of transfiguration, ‘This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him.’ ‘For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit’ (2 Peter 1.21). In the Greek NT the noun 'Scripture' is never used of writings in general, but only of the sacred Scriptures. The Greek word, ‘theopneustos’ meaning - God-inspired, or God breathed equates with God putting in His Word, as distinct from the common usage of the word inspiration whereby an artist or musician takes in an idea. ‘All Scripture is God-inspired,’ not only the Old Testament, in which Timothy was taught from a child, but also the New Testament books. The doctrine of inspiration has been well defined as ‘an extraordinary divine agency upon teachers while giving instruction, whether oral or written, by which they were taught how and what they should speak or write’ (compare 2 Samuel 23.1-2, Acts 4.24-25 and 2 Peter 1.21). Inspiration gives divine authority to all the words of Scripture. Verbal inspiration does not mean mechanical dictation, but all Scripture is (so) inspired by God, that everything it contains, the narratives, prophecies, citations, ideas, phrases, and words—are such as God determined should be there.

The Providential Preservation of the Greek and Hebrew Text

It is every believer's duty to do his or her utmost to safeguard the Scripture and to hand down the Word of God to succeeding generations. The Church is to take great care of even the smallest part of Scripture. In both the OT and NT there are solemn warnings not to add or remove anything from the Word. This clearly implies that we know, or can know what the Scripture is, how many books of the Bible there are and that we know the text they contain. 'Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it' (Deuteronomy 4.2). This warning acts like a protecting fence around the Scriptures. The word translated diminish (English AV) is ‘ 'גרעwhich, in Biblical Hebrew means to scratch or scrape away. We are not to reduce anything, not a book, not a chapter, not a verse, not the smallest word, not the smallest letter, not one jot or title. Notice the expression ‘the word which I command you’. This speaks of Divine authority. It is ‘Commanded’ of the הקנון . The canon of Scripture is now closed. There is to be no adding and no taking away.

Matthew Henry’s Commentary on Deuteronomy 4.2

‘The Jews understand it as prohibiting the alteration of the text or letter of the law, even in the least jot or title; and to their great care and exactness herein, we are very much indebted, under God, for the purity and integrity of the Hebrew code. We find a similar fence made around the New Testament text: ‘And if any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book. And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life (Revelation 22.18,19)’.

Matthew Henry’s Commentary on Revelation 22.19

‘It is confirmed by a most solemn sanction, condemning and cursing all who should dare to corrupt or change the word of God, either by adding to it or taking from it. He that adds to the word of God draws down upon himself all the plagues written in this book; and he who takes anything away from it, cuts himself off from all the promises and privileges of it. This sanction is like a flaming sword, to guard the canon of the scripture from profane hands. Such a fence as this, God set about the law (Deuteronomy 4.2), and the whole Old Testament (Malachi 4.4), and now in the most solemn manner about the whole Bible, assuring us that it is a book of the most sacred nature, divine authority, and of the highest importance, and therefore the peculiar care of the great God’.

What are we then to think of the debate between the Critical and Received Texts? Either there has been an adding or a taking away. The Critical Text supporters allege that there has been an adding. But, who did the adding and when? The Greek scribes copied the New Testament all over the vast Byzantine Empire. For hundreds of years the text copied was the same text in the majority of manuscripts. Various theories have been advanced to support the Critics claim that the Byzantine text was created by combining different text types, but no evidence and no proof has ever been produced. The Critical Scholars Westcott and Hort produced a text which they chose according to their own subjective views. This text omitted some 15% of the traditional New Testament text.

Jesus in many places refers to the Scriptures as a complete unchanging text. He asked the two disciples on the road to Emmaus, ‘What manner of communications are these that ye have one to another, as ye walk, and are sad?' (Luke 24.17). 'Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken: Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory? And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself' (Luke 24.25-27). ‘And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the Prophets, and in the Psalms, concerning me. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the Scriptures. And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day: And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. And ye are witnesses of these things’ (Luke 24.44-48).

The Old Testament or Tanach has been preserved in the Hebrew Masoretic Text. The New Testament has been given by God in the Koine Greek language and has been preserved in the ‘Traditional’ or ‘Received Text’. In conformity to God’s purpose, promise, and command, faithful and accurate copies of God’s law were to be made. The civil powers (state) and religious powers were ordained to be one entity during the time of the Tanach. Concerning the installation of the Kings of Israel we read in the Torah, 'And it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this law in a book out of that which is before the priests the Levites: And it shall be with him, and he shall read therein all the days of his life: that he may learn to fear the LORD his God, to keep all the words of this law and these statutes, to do them' (Deuteronomy 17.18-19).

The Jews were used in the Preservation of the Biblical text. 'What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God' (Romans 3.1-2). By the word 'committed' it is important to understand that they were given the solemn responsibility to guard the Holy Scripture. ‘Concerning thy testimonies, I have known of old that thou hast founded them for ever' (Psalm 119.152). ‘For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled’ (Matthew 5.18 & Matthew 24.35). The NT text carries the same authority as that of the OT; ‘Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away’ (Matthew 24.35). ‘For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away: But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you' (1 Peter 1.24,25).

How did the Jews preserve the biblical text? One device was the ‘Masorah’ which is the small writing in the margin and above and below the text. The Masorah was designed to preserve the external form of the text. The Masorah is not a commentary. How does the Masorah preserve the text? The Masorah records how many times, and where, all the important words and combinations of words occur, and not only this, but the number of times that each letter of the alphabet occurs, in each division, in each book, and in the whole Bible. The middle verse (and word) of each book and of the whole Bible is carefully noted. All this labour is for the express purpose of safeguarding the text.

The NT text is as important as the Old. Is it not our duty to guard and watch over God’s Holy Word in the NT, with at least equal zeal as the Sopherim and Masorites? They were safeguarding the jots and tittles, whilst the large body of the Christian Church has been ready to allow 15% of the NT text to be lost as though it were never part of the inspired text. The NT text is preserved in the majority of MS and is therefore properly described as the ‘Majority Text’. Among the 5,700 MS there are mistakes and errors, but the testimony of the majority bears witness to the text preserved by God. The Critical Text, on the other hand, was compiled in the 19^th century by the subjective choice of a few Scholars and is based principally on two MS; the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus, with a few others. It was the choice of the Critical Scholars Westcott and Hort to prefer the testimony of these few MS to the clear witness of the majority. They set aside the witness of 995 MS out of every thousand in favour of a text drawn from a few. Why? One reason, they argued, is that the older the MS, the more authentic. MS were worn out with use but some which had many mistakes were set aside, buried or stored and not used. For this reason, a very old and fairly complete MS is more to be suspected than otherwise. For example: A 9^th century MS may have been copied from a 3^rd century MS, which was a copy of the original. On the other hand, a 5^th century MS may have been copied 100 times between the 1^st and 3^rd century. Therefore in such a case the 9^th century MS has a text which is nearer the original than the older 5^th century MS. Therefore, age does not mean a MS is more authentic.

Would God allow His Word to be lost or even partly lost for 1850 years? …One statement of faith declares that the Scriptures, ‘being immediately inspired by God, and by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical…’ (See the Westminster Confession Faith in Hebrew Ch.1 sect.8). Another well-known statement declares that: declares that: ‘Almighty God not only provided that His word, which is a power to everyone who believes, should be committed to writing through Moses, the Prophets, and Apostles, but also has watched over it with a fatherly care up to the present time, and guarded it lest it might be corrupted by the craft of Satan or any fraud of man’ (Swiss Declaration of 1675). One theologian, states that 'The providence of God hath manifested itself as no less concerned in the preservation of the writings than of the doctrine contained in them…' (John Owen on The Divine Original of Scripture).

Conclusion

The evidence as to which text is God’s Word in its entirety, clearly demonstrates that the ‘Traditional Text’ known to us as the ‘Received Text’ is the inspired Word, providentially preserved by God in the majority of MS. The ‘Critical Text’, on the other hand, is manifestly a text chosen in accordance with subjective opinion of men. It depends principally on two unreliable MS, the Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Vaticanus. The former (found in a waste paper basket), is full of scribal errors, whilst the latter, the ‘Codex Vaticanus,’ lay buried and unused in the Vatican archives for hundreds of years. The Critical Text does not represent the complete Word of God and translations of the NT based upon it are defective in many respects.