Verse:
| Matthew 5.22 |
Textus Receptus/Byzantine Text:
| But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment… (Matthew 5:22 Authorised Version) |
Nestle Aland 27:
| But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment (Mat 5:22 NIV). [COMMENT: note that the Nestle-Aland Critical Text omits the all-important Greek word εἰκῆ, which means ‘without cause’. The Critical Text thus makes all anger with one’s brother sinful, even anger against sinful behaviour on the part of a brother.]
|
Manuscript/Patristic Support:
| The Nestle-Aland Text, which omits the Greek word for ‘without a cause’ is supported by 𝔓64, Codex Sinaiticus, and Codex Vaticanus. The Byzantine Text, which includes the Greek word for εἰκῆ for ‘without cause’, is supported by Cyprian, an early 3rd century father, and by Irenaeus, another 3rd century father.[ii] Moreover, ‘without cause’ is the universal reading of the Byzantine Text.
|
Doctrinal Difference | In Mark 3.5 we read, And when he had looked round about on them with anger, being grieved for the hardness of their hearts, he saith unto the man, Stretch forth thine hand. And he stretched it out: and his hand was restored whole as the other. But the Critical Text in this verse (Matthew 5.22) has Christ forbidding anyone to be angry with his brother at any time. Here the Critical Text makes Christ to have sinned by being angry. Since Christ is God and therefore holy, his anger was righteous anger: and therefore, all anger against one’s brother cannot be wrong. Therefore, the reading of the Byzantine Text, that to be angry without cause is a sin, must be the correct one. We therefore know that the reading in the Critical Text is wrong because Christ cannot have sinned. |
Cyprian, ANF05, Fathers of the Third Century, The Treatises of Cyprian, ‘Testimonies’, Sect. 8.
[ii] Irenaeus, ANF01, Against Heresies, Bk. 4, Chapt. XIII.
I love these textual breakdowns, but I’m a little ignorant about your site’s mission, purpose, and goal. It seems like you’re strongly in favor of the Textus Receptus, and you seem to be less supportive of the Codex Sinaiticus, and Codex Vaticanus. Is that true?
I’ve also heard that there are several Textus Receptus’ and I was a little thrown off by that argument-> I do know that it has Byzantine origins, but how was it formulated? Regardless, I LOVE the sources you provide that indicate who used/applied specific words from the various texts.
Final question- What is your view on the 2nd half of Mark 16. Do you endorse it’s inclusion? Thank you!
Vaticanus & Sinaiticus teach the doctrinal heresies of Arianism & Gnosticism as does the Critical Text. The Textus Receptus doesnt teach doctrinal heresy. The differences between the TRs dont teach doctrinal heresies either. The Longer Ending of Mark, the woman taken in adultery, and 1 John 5:7 are all Scripture. Denying them as Scripture, is to call the Holy Ghost a liar.