Vaticanus - Sinaiticus shared errors (other than omissions and additions)

Steven Avery

Administrator
Mark 1:2. Another error still retained in the NASB, ESV and NIV is found in this verse. The
KJB reads: "As it is written IN THE PROPHETS, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face,
which shall prepare thy way BEFORE THEE. The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare
ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight."
Here we have two different prophets quoted. One is Malachi and the other Isaiah. That is why it
says prophets - plural. It is the reading of the Majority of Greek texts. It is found in many ancient
versions and quoted by Ireneaus and Tertullian who lived 150 years before Aleph and B ever saw
the light of day. The NASB, ESV and NIV say, "as it is written in ISAIAH..." but only part of
the quote is from Isaiah (40:3); the other part is from Malachi (3:1).
In Mark 1:1-2, both Aleph and B change “the prophets” to “Isaiah”, and both omit the words
"before thee". Sinaiticus omits THE SON OF GOD from verse 1, but it is found in Vaticanus.

BLUNDER
Mark 6:22 "And when the daughter of THE SAID (autns tns) Herodias came in, and danced, and
pleased Herod..." both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus read, "And when HIS daugher Herodias came in
"and when HIS daughter Herodias came in..."
and danced", thus making Herodias the daughter of Herod.
The Nestle-Aland Greek texts previously read like the King James Bible and the Majority of all
Greek texts: When the daughter OF THE SAME (or 'the said' autns tns) Herodias came in and
danced...". However in the latest Nestle-Aland critical texts they once again have changed their
Greek reading and decided to go with that found in Sinaiticus, Vaticanus and D which reads
The fickle nature of the "science" of textual criticism is seen in the following versions. Reading
like the King James Bible that this was the daughter of Herodias by her previous marriage to
Phillip (as the context, as well as Matthew 14:6-11 clearly show)- "the daughter of Herodias" v.
6, "instructed of her mother" v.8 "she brought it to her mother" v. 11) - are the RV, ASV, RSV,
NKJV, NASB, NIV, ISV, Holman, and the ESV. However the NRSV of 1989 actually says:
"When HIS DAUGHTER Herodias came in and danced, she pleased Herod." Notice that the
RSV of 1952 went with the KJB reading. Then the NRSV followed Sin/Vat. and then again the
ESV of 2003 went back to the KJB reading.
But wait! There's more. Now Dr. Daniel Wallace and company in their NET bible version also
follow this bogus reading of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus and their ongoing train wreck reads:
"When HIS DAUGHTER Herodias came in and danced, she pleased Herod and his dinner
guests."Likewise the Catholic versions are in their usual disarray. The NIV 1984 reads like the
KJB here - "the daughter of Herodias" but then the NIV of 2011 came out and though it still
reads like the KJB, it now has a footnote that did not appear in the 1984 edition. The NIV 2011
footnote now says: "Some early manuscipts 'When his daughter'."This is just another bogus
minority reading found in the Vatican mss. that contradicts the clear teaching of other Scriptures
and should be rejected immediately

SINAITICUS BLUNDER
Luke 1:26 "And the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of GALILEE, named
Nazareth." Sinaiticus reads "a city of JUDEA, named Nazareth" - a clear geographical error (one
of many). Nazareth is in Galilee, not Judea

VATICANUS BLUNDER
Luke 10:1 "After these things the Lord appointed other SEVENTY also, and sent them two and
two before his face." Here, B reads 72 sent and so do the NIV, ESV, Douay and Wallace's NET
version but Aleph reads 70, and so do the NKJV,RV, ASV, RSV, NRSV, and NASB.

VATICANUS BLUNDER OMISSION
Luke 11:11 "If a son shall ask bread..."
In Luke 11:11 we read: "If a son shall ask BREAD of any of you that is a father, WILL HE
GIVE HIM A STONE? OR IF HE ASK a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent?"
All of the capitalized letters are omitted in the NASB and NIV. The NASB says :" Now suppose
one of you fathers is asked by his son for a FISH (not bread), he will not give him a snake
instead of a fish, will he?" There is no "now suppose" in any text; they have changed the active
verb "ask" to the passive "is asked" and they have omitted "WILL HE GIVE HIM A STONE,
OR IF HE ASK". The NIV is similar to the NASB. This is because Vaticanus does not have
these words and Vaticanus (B) has substitued "Fish" for "bread". P45 and P75 are also in
disagreement with each other, as well as the Majority of all Greek texts. P45, agreeing with
Vaticanus, has "FISH" (ixthun not BREAD - arton) BUT P75 has a unique reading not found in
any bible version I know of. P75 actually has a completely different word here - isxun -
STRENGTH, or MIGHT. These two partial, paprus manuscripts often differ one from the other,
sometimes following Vaticanus and at others Siniaticus, and sometimes going their own separate
ways. For example, both P45 & 75 omit "neither under a bushel" in verse 33, yet the NASB, NIV
include these words because they are found in both Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.
The reading of the King James Bible in Luke 11:11 is that found in the Majority of all
manuscripts including A, C, D and Siniaticus - one of the "oldest and best" (according to modern
scholarolatry).
It is of great interest to note that the
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
Luke 14:5 “an ass” or “a son” or “a sheep”?

Sinaiticus error
John 4:1-3 and the ever changing NIVs and UBS Greek texts –

Sinaiticus BLUNDER
John 7:8-10 Here we read of Jesus telling his brethren to go up unto a feast and He says: "I go
NOT up YET unto this feast; f
John 9:4 - "I must do the works of him that sent ME, while it is day: the night cometh, when no
man can work." So read the Majority of all Greek texts. However both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus
differ from each other in this single verse. Reading "I" must work' are the majority of all texts,
as well as Sinaiticus correction, A and C, while Vaticanus, P66 and P75 say "WE must work",
but when we get to the latter part of this same phrase, reading "him that sent ME" are the
Majority as well as Vaticanus, while Sinaiticus, P66 and P75 say "him that sent US"
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
Vaticanus Blunder
John 17:15- "I pray not that thou shouldest take them OUT OF THE WORLD". Vaticanus says:
"I do not pray that you should take them FROM THE EVIL ONE."

Vaticanus BLunder
Acts 10:19 “three men”, “two men” or just “ some men”?
Further textual confusion both by Westcott

check
Acts 12:25 - The Devil is in the Details
In Acts 12:25 we read: “And Barnabas and Saul returned FROM (ex) Jerusalem, when they had
fulfilled their ministry, and took with them John, whose surname was Mark

Vaticanus blunder
Acts 17:28. An interesting textual blunder is found here in the Vaticanus manuscript, but no
version I am aware of has followed this unusual reading. In the context the apostle Paul is
speaking to the Athenians and he quotes from their own poets. He says: "For in him we live, and
move, and have our being; as certain also of YOUR own poets have said, For we are also his
offspring

Vaticanus and Sinaiticus blunder
Acts 19:16
In Acts 19 we are told of SEVEN sons of Sceva, who were vagabond Jews, exorcists, which
"took upon them to call over them which had evil spirits the name of the Lord Jesus, saying, WE
adjure you by Jesus whom Paul preacheth". There are two blunders found here in the "oldest and
best" texts of both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, against the majority of all others


Vaticanus blunder
Acts 27:37 - “216 souls” or “about 76”?
Vaticanus alone has a silly reading in this verse.
 
Top