Notes on the KJV Preface
Responding to the Mis-use of the 1611 KJV Preface - by Textual Critics
We have received a few emails from those who were concerned about the 1611 Preface and its possible implications concerning the accuracy of the KJV. We have responded to these concerns, point by point. Let us know what you think and if this helps. We think that some of these points are already addressed on our site, but we have added material here which may be helpful.
TOC of This Page
1.The KJV Translators and the "Critical Text"
2.The KJV Translators and the Septuagint
3.The KJV Translators used the real Majority Text, not the new "Majority Text" of Hodges and Farstad
4. The KJV Translators and the Latin Vulgate
5. The KJV Translators, their willingness to give credit to the "Church Fathers", but not the Roman Catholic Church Fathers
6. The Council of Nicea of 325 A.D. Not a Roman Catholic Council
7. KJV Translators recognize that other Bibles translated from the same Manuscripts as theirs are also the Valid Word of God
9. The KJV Translators and the Septuagint - More Clarification
10. The KJV Translation: Protestant Translations Not altered and KJV is proof of this
11. The KJV Translators were working for the King - and the People.
12. The KJV Translators UNLIKE Modern Version Translators: NOT trying to make a "new" version
13. The KJV Translators Defend ACCURATE marginal notes, and not simply ANY (or misleading) marginal notes
14. The INTERNET only a beginning place
---------
First Concerns stated:
"It appears from the preface of the KJV that those translators were not discounting the critical text, and even mention in good light the Septuagint. I wonder now about the Majority Text which would include NKJV. I am asking because I have yet to find a defense of the KJV in light of the preface but find in some commentaries - material that appears to refute King James only (KJVO) WITH the preface of the KJV translators in the 1611 KJV."
Our reply:
Let's take each statement - one at a time.
The KJV Translators and the "Critical Text"
It appears from the preface of the KJV that those translators were not discounting the critical text, and even mention in good light the Septuagint.
Our reply:
There was no "Critical Text" at that time, in the modern sense of the word. The only critical text was the Textus Receptus, that of Stephens of 1550 and the Textus Receptus of Elzevier of 1624 (and we offer copies of Both). For more information on this, please visit our page "KJV & Critical Text"
The KJV Translators and the Septuagint
As to the "Septuagint", the translators themselves were not completely sure what the "Septuagint" was. We now know that the Septuagint is actually the invention of Origen, and that the ancient texts pretending to be the Septuagint are not the actual septuagint at all, but are copies of the corrupted version of the New Testament that Origen came up with.
The story of the Septuagint (full of contradictions) comes from one ancient Apocryphal and Rejected book called the Letter of Aristeas. There is no historic, archeological or forensic basis for the septuagint and its manuscrips. When Bible Attackers in the 1800s were attempting to replace the Protestant Bible, they turned to corrupt versions of the Greek New Testament, and simply called them "the septuagint". That gave those Bible attackers additional credibility, by simply claiming that They - had found the Septuagint.
Other Bible Critics immediately joined in, Wanting to believe that another Bible was true, that would overthrow the Protestant Bible. The result was the newly acclaimed "Septuagint". In truth, that is simply Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, which is what the so-called Septuagint really is.
At the time of the KJV in 1611, the Septuagint had been referred to, because others - prior to them - had referred to it (the Septuagint) as well. For example, Jerome - the Catholic author of the corrupt Latin Vulgate - referred to the septuagint, supposing that it had been the work of Hebrew Translators. Actually though, it was only the corrupted work of Origen.
The KJV translators mentioned the Septuagint because it was
a) undefined
b) not fixed and
c) some ancient authors referred to it.
But it would be a mistake to conclude that the KJV Translators had accepted the premise that Protestant texts were flawed and corrupt. Yet, THAT is the FIRST premise of Textual Critics.
In fact, the KJV translators did NOT accept the premise that the Manuscripts which Protestant Bibles were used - had been corrupted, because it is clear that these manuscripts are the same ones that the KJV Translators themselves used for the King James Version. Further those manuscripts are also the ones that earlier Protestants had also used to translate the New Testament from Greek to English, namely the Textus Receptus. Furthermore, the KJV Translators had spoken out against the corruptions found in the Catholic Bibles, and viewed the Roman Catholic Church as an apostate Church, which had departed from the teachings of Christ given to HIS true Church, which the Roman Catholic Popes were falsely claiming their denomination to be.
3. The KJV Translators used the real Majority Text, not the new "Majority Text" of Hodges and Farstad
You can see the specifics of the Textual Critics on our site (under the Textual Critics section).
The NKJV is NOT the same text as the KJV.
The NKJV is also NOT the historical Majority Text.
The Historical Majority Text IS the Textus Receptus.
The NKJV - the New King James Version ...
follows the so-called "Majority Text" of Hodges & Farstad, and That is different.
For information on this, see our site at:
http://www.exorthodoxforchrist.com/hodges-farstad_mt.htm
4. The KJV Translators and the Latin Vulgate
The translators admonishment of Jerome and his Latin Vulgate. From the preface: "Again they were not out of the Hebrew fountain (we speak of the Latin Translations of the Old Testament) but out of the Greek stream, therefore the Greek being not altogether clear, the Latin derived from it must needs be muddy. This moved S. Jerome a most learned father, and the best linguist without controversy, of his age, or of any that went before him, to undertake the translating of the Old Testament, out of the very fountain with that evidence of great learning, judgment, industry, and faithfulness, that he had forever bound the Church unto him, in a debt of special remembrance and thankfulness"
Our reply:
Well, that is a nice reference to Jerome. However, the KJV translators used the right manuscripts that were not derived from Jerome. The Textus Receptus comes from the Greek. the Latin Vulgate is written in Latin. the KJV Translators rejected the Latin Vulgate of Jerome.
IF they thought that the Latin Vulgate was accurate, they would have used it in the KJV. But this is not the case. This issue of which Latin text was already addressed by the KJV Translators in that they leaned upon the Greek Textus Receptus. They Chose the Greek Textus Receptus, and not the Catholic Latin Vulgate.
While the Catholic Church has tried to claim every ancient Christian author as its own, this continues to become a problem (for the RCC today) in that laymen today have much easier access to those early Christian writers, who were Christian without being Roman Catholic.
Now that we know the pattern, we can turn more specifically to St. Jerome (of course the catholic Church declared him a saint).
St. Jerome was the inventor of the Catholic Latin Vulgate Bible. But what we now know is that there was an earlier Bible written in Latin, which was called the Vetus Itala (the Italic version), and which was in Old Latin.
of the Catholic Latin Vulgate Bible. But what we now know is that there was an earlier Bible written in Latin, which was called the Vetus Itala (the Italic version), and which was in Old Latin.The VETUS ITALA is the real version of the Bible in Latin. But the Roman Catholic Church rejected the real versions of the Bible. They had turned to the manuscripts of Origen, and now Jerome - working as an RCC official - was about to repeat the same mistakes. Jerome used the Codex Vaticanus and its family of manuscripts to translate his Latin Vulgate.
Several decades before the effort KJV, the Latin Vulgate had already been rejected by the Protestant Reformers as a corrupted text, because they had seen several different editions of the Latin Vulgate, some with certain verses included, and others with those verses omitted. It was the work of Theodore Beza who addressed this in the 1500s when he published his Latin New Testament. This New Testament agrees with the Greek Textus Receptus (and with the Old Latin version of the Bible that came before the corrupted Latin Vulgate).
The KJV Translators did not have full access to the facts on Jerome, because those were being kept by the Catholic Church. But they decided to give Jerome the benefit of the doubt. Today however, we have more information on Jerome, and his translation was not an affirmation of the Bible, but rather an attempt to edit and replace it with the false Bibles of Origen.
Whether anyone wishes to believe that the choice of manuscript (to translate from) is merely the choice of the KJV translators, or whether it is that they chose those manuscripts solely because of the Holy Spirit is not something we can conclusively pass judgement on. However, we believe that the KJV translators used their best judgement, and we also believe that the Holy Spirit was working through them.
5. The KJV Translators, their willingness to give credit to the "Church Fathers", but not the Roman Catholic Church Fathers
We have to keep in mind that the verdict on the Early Church Fathers those early Christians was not yet in. A lot of information about the RCC and how it was started had still not come to light, and the Protestants in the 1600s were very reluctant to agree that all "Church Fathers" were Roman Catholic.
The protestants of the 1600s knew that "something" was wrong, but they did not always know what. Now today we know.
The Roman Catholic Church just like the Eastern Orthodox has a habit of simply designating someone as a "Church Father", intending to imply [through that designation] that the person in question was a person who had consciously and knowingly joined the Roman Catholic Church, accepted its jurisdiction and its teachings, and further was a willing cooperator with the Roman Catholic Church.
That is simply a clever tactic, but we should not go and confuse this either with truth or with the actual Historical record.
The Roman Catholic church has many people that she names "Church Fathers" who would have had Nothing to do with the Roman Catholic Church, one of those being Tertullian, for example. But by simply designating an ancient author as "Roman Catholic", this is a clever trick to convince Catholic laymen that the Roman Catholic existed long before 325 A.D.. After, "they Had to exist...because the Church Fathers of that time were Roman Catholic".
Today, we know more about Early Christianity and the Early Church than many people did in the 1600s. Or maybe we should put it another way: those in the 1600s were familiar with Certain aspects of Early Christianity, and not familiar with others. Today, we have a much more comprehensive view of the Early Church.
The reason is because modern scholars have combined their efforts from all over the world, share which editions of which books, and which parchments belonged to which "Church Father" or ancient author. Now we have a much more complete picture on this specific issue than the KJV translators had.
While the Catholic Church has tried to claim every ancient Christian author as its own, this continues to become a problem in that laymen today have much easier access to those early Christian writers, who were Christian without being Roman Catholic.
Now that we know the pattern (of the false claims of the Roman Catholic Church), we can turn more specifically to St. Jerome (of course the catholic Church declared him a saint).
St. Jerome was the inventor of the Catholic Latin Vulgate Bible. But what we now know is that there was an earlier Bible written in Latin, which was called the Vetus Itala (the Italic version), and which was in Old Latin.
This is the real version of the Bible in Latin. But the Roman Catholic Church rejected the original and real versions of the Bible. They had turned to the manuscripts of Origen, and now Jerome was about to repeat the same mistakes. Jerome used the Codex Vaticanus and its family of manuscripts to translate his Latin Vulgate.
According to the Roman Catholic Church, the Codex Vaticanus is one of the 50 corrupt Bibles that Eusebius had been commissioned to make by the Roman Emperor Constantine. We agree !!! The problem comes when we understand that Eusebius tried to use the materials of Origen in his Bible translations and introduce the teachings of Arius into the newly formed Roman Catholic Church (which had been formed after 325 A.D).
6. The Council of Nicea of 325 A.D. Not a Roman Catholic Council
Eusebius and the RCC has cleverly muddied the waters. The impression often left today, is that the worldwide Christian Church came together in 325 A.D. in order to refute the false teachings of Arius.
What actually happened is that the Christian Church DID come together in 325 A.D, and it Did refute the teachings of Arius, but this was Not "because of" Eusebius, but rather in spite of Eusebius.
Eusebius decided after the Council of Nicea to implement his own plan to subvert and co-opt Christianity to serve the Roman Emperors. But since Christians who read the Bible were not likely to cooperate with Rome in many things, Eusebius decided to change the manuscripts.
The Early true Christian Church fought off the teachings of Arius only because those 318 Pastors at the Council of Nicea knew their doctrines and their Bibles their doctrines and their Bibles very well. But if Arius was the Public Face of false teachings, Eusebius was the private face.
Arius and Eusebius agreed that Arius had to be officially banned, because this was going to happen in anycase. This was because true and faithful Pastors around the Roman Empire were speaking out against it. There was no way to oppose them. True and faithful Christians were still too many. But Eusebius according to historians was a follower of Arius and the false doctrines of Arius Also. And what Catholic historians often omit, is that
Eusebius and Arius used to work together for many years, and in fact were trained by the same Bishop. They had been friends for many years.
The teachings of Arius diminished after the Council of Nicea, but it was not at all a "done deal". Many Bishops who had not attended the Council of Nicea were still committed to Arius, and his teachings persisted into the 500s and 600s. One can see the growth of the teachings of Arius in the Roman Empire - in the work that Chrysostom actually had to do in Constantinople (75 Years after the Council of Nicea), where he was combating the Gothic Church itself which had absorbed the teachings of Arius [however, even the Bible in Gothic, the Bible of Wulfilas was faithful to the old Latin text (Vetus Itala) and the Textus Receptus (in Greek). And this is because when Wulfilas was working with the Biblical text, the textual adoptions and corruptions of the Bible of Eusebius and Arius had not reached him (because he was working in the more remote parts of the Roman World) ].
When the KJV translators state that they are willing to give Jerome the benefit of the doubt (which is essentially what they are saying), it is because they did not understand the link between the original corruptions of Origen, and how false manuscripts of the Bible had originated. If memory serves, the KJV translators in the same preface did not condemn Origen. Yet today, conservative Christian scholars know that Origen was a heretic, while Origen was a heretic, while Westcott/Hort and the RCC approve of Origen and speak highly of him.
The fact that the KJV translators were willing to speak high of Jerome proves nothing. This is borne out by the overwhelming condemnation of the Roman Catholic Church, and Roman Catholic Bibles. And you can find examples from that time period on our site,by looking at the Protestant Characterizations of the Roman Catholic Church in the 1600s.
See for example the characterization of Protestant Leaders in the 1600s referring to the Roman Catholic Church as the Whore of Babylon mentioned in Revelation.
You can find that on our site at: http://www.exorthodoxforchrist.com/2_babylons_-_hislop.htm
Does the reference to Jerome in the KJV Preface demonstrate that the KJV Translators either used his work ? No, and there is every evidence to the contrary.
In other words, the KJV translators had already understood the problems of the Roman Catholic Bible and Roman Catholic Teachings. But they did not yet understand the work of Jerome nor the work of Origen, and how their corrupted manuscripts had played a part in the overall corruption of manuscripts, or corruption in the original teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, which were much closer to the Bible [originally] than they have become since.
The Eastern Orthodox Church has used the same methods, such as claiming that Chrysostom was Eastern Orthodox and creating the impression that Chrysostom would today favor Eastern Orthodox theology. He was "Eastern Orthodox", but not at all in the sense of what Eastern Orthodoxy has become 1600 years later. The fact is that Chrysostom and his theology is much closer to Evangelical Protestantism, than it is to the Eastern Orthodoxy of today. And the KJV translators spoke well of Chrysostom also. Thanfully on that one, they were closer to the mark.
Here is what we previously posted on our site on the Latin Vulgate:
http://www.exorthodoxforchrist.com/latin_vulgate.htm
7. KJV Translators recognize that other Bibles translated from the same Manuscripts as theirs are also the Valid Word of God
KJV translators admission that other manuscripts and versions ARE the word of God. From the preface: "Now to the latter we answer; that we do not deny, nay we affirm and avow, that the very meanest [best] translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession, (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God. As the King's speech, which he uttereth in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian, and Latin, is still the King's speech, though it be not interpreted by every Translator with the like grace, nor peradventure so fitly for phrase, nor so expressly for sense, everywhere."
Our reply:
Exactly, and this is one more reason why teaching that the KJV is the ONLY correct version in the whole entire world may be well motivated but is not a totally accurate teaching. But as we have said here in other places, most people who are labelled as "KJVO" [King James Version Only] are labelled that way by the Bible Attackers and Textual Critics. It is not that those who know that the KJV is the right Bible (Which it is and remains) - have said that the KJV is - literally - the ONLY Bible. Obviously it could not be the case, since the Textus Receptus is just as valid as the KJV, and those who are KJVO also understand and admit this.
Therefore the only truthful and honest conclusion, is that those who are labelled KJVO are actually misunderstood, and that Modern Version advocates and Bible Attackers do not want the Public to know - that those who are called "KJVO" are actually standing up for the right Bible, and speaking out AGAINST the MODERN VERSIONS.
We have addressed the issue of PRO-KJV Translations in other languages, previously on our site at: http://www.exorthodoxforchrist.com/foreign_language_kjvs.htm
8. The KJV Translators knew of other Valid Protestant Bibles, and they said so. Modern KJVOs know this also, and have made the same point.
ONLY the Modern Versions of today are NOT Valid Versions, and Neither are they Protestant !!!
In order to know the background of this, we should know the history of Protestant Bible translations during the 1600s. Why would the KJV be the only "right" version ? The translators of the KJV knew of other Valid Protestant Versions, in many languages. That does not INVALIDATE their work - It Rather AFFIRMS it. It says that they wanted a Translation of the Bible, that was just as valid in English as those already available to those who spoke other languages. Examples of Evangelical Protestant translations of the 1500s & 1600s:
The Latin New Testament of Beza comes from the same Greek manuscripts as those used for the KJV
The Geneva Bible in French comes from the same Greek manuscripts as those used for the KJV
The Geneva Bible in English comes from the same Greek manuscripts as those used for the KJV
The French Bible of Olivetain (relative of Calvin) comes from the same Greek manuscripts as those used for the KJV
The Italian Bible of Diodatti comes from the same Greek manuscripts as those used for the KJV
The German Bible of Luther comes from the same Greek manuscripts as those used for the KJV
It is not KJVOs (so-called) who have a problem with Foreign Versions of the Bible. It is that modern Bible Attackers insist on promoting their false Greek Manuscripts, AS IF they were the Historic Bible, which they know it is NOT.
9. The KJV Translators and the Septuagint - More Clarification
Regarding LXX. the translators agree that there are problems with this translation but say the following: "The translation of the Seventy [the Septuagint] dissenteth from the Original in many places, neither doth it come near it, for perspicuity, gravity, majesty; yet which of the Apostles did condemn it? Condemn it? Nay, they used it, (as it is apparent, and as Saint Jerome and most learned men do confess) which they would not have done, nor by their example of using it, so grace and commend it to the Church, if it had been unworthy of the appellation and name of the word of God. "
Our reply:
Yes, the KJV translators say that because many people - in their day - were referring to the LXX but no one was defining was was meant by the term "Septuagint". For a long time, the Bible attackers (Bible critics) refused to elaborate on this, and then it became clear what the LXX text was: the Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Vaticanus (which had been the basis for Jerome in the 400s and the Rheims-Douay Catholic Bible in English of 1610). The Septuagint that the Early Church was presumed to have used by the KJV Translators - was NOT the same identical corrupted Greek Manuscripts (of Westcott & Hort) that is called the Septuagint today.
The Septuagint MAY have existed, but what is given to us today as the septuagint - is the corrupted Bible of Origen, and that is what is to be found in Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. If we have not clarified this point by now, email us about it.
10. The KJV Translation: Protestant Translations not altered and KJV is proof of this
The translators were condemned by the RC church for making a better translation of the bible and putting in the "vulgar tongue" (English). Are we as "KJVO" doing the same thing as the Catholics? From the preface: "Yet before we end, we must answer a third cavil and objection of theirs against us (us Protestants), for altering and amending our Translations so oft; wherein truly they deal hardly, and strangely with us. "
Our reply:
They DID answer the Catholic Objection: They produced a Bible for all to see and read. It was a frequent charge by the Catholic Inquisition (which operated in the 1600s and still into the 1800s), that Non-Catholics were distorting the Bible through their substandard translation. But the Roman Catholic Church continuously refused to teach non-priests how to read, and further refused to translate the Bible into Any language for the people to have access to it. They wanted to keep it for themselves, and thereby prevent others from comparing 1) the actions of the Roman Catholic Church and its priests with 2) the teachings of Jesus and the Bible.
And that is one of the points to be made about the KJV translators. They were almost all Professors from either Cambridge or Oxford, fluent in many languages and with the highest credentials. From that point on, it was impossible for the Roman Catholic Church to pretend that Protestant versions lacked competence.
11. The KJV Translators were working for the King - and the People.
Also In the Preface, the KJV Translators also were answering their Protestant critics who were saying that the Geneva Bible was good enough. We agree with both the KJV translators and their Protestant Critics. The Geneva Bible and the KJV are both Fine Bibles, and certainly extremely close to each other. The main distinction between the two is that the Geneva Bible openly attacked the right of Kings to rule over subjects without their consent. For this reason, King James did not want to see it officially aproved in England, but still wanted an accurate translation of the Bible. The KJV was the result. Both the Geneva Bible and the King James Version are good, solid and correct translations.
12. The KJV Translators UNLIKE Modern Version Translators: NOT trying to make a "new" version
Another place in the preface regarding better a translation:(good Christian Reader) we never thought from the beginning, that we should need to make a new Translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one, (for then the imputation of [Pope] Sixtus had been true in some sort, that our people had been fed with gall of Dragons instead of wine, with whey instead of milk:) but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principal good one, not justly to be excepted against; that hath been our endeavor, that our mark"
Our reply:
And this paragraph is simply the clarification to the Protestants. The KJV translators were explaining that they were NOT trying to replace the Bibles based on correct Greek Manuscripts such as Geneva Bible, or the Bibles of Coverdale or Cranmer. Rather they were simply trying to fulfill their duties to make the best translation possible. Note that the KJV Translators were NOT trying to make a new Translation. That is the Exact OPPOSITE of what Modern Version Advocates & Translators have done: which is to try and not only make New Translations but pass fraudulent Greek Manuscripts as though they were the real ones.
13. The KJV Translators Defend ACCURATE marginal notes, and not simply ANY (or misleading) marginal notes
Marginal notes and clarification is not needed. I have heard and believed this as a KJ only stand. From the preface:"There be many words in the Scriptures, which be never found there but once, (having neither brother or neighbor, as the Hebrews speak) so that we cannot be holpen by conference of places. Again, there be many rare names of certain birds, beasts and precious stones, etc. concerning the Hebrews themselves are so divided among themselves for judgment, that they may seem to have defined this or that, rather because they would say something, than because they were sure of that which they said, as S. Jerome somewhere saith of the Septuagint. Now in such a case, doth not a margin do well to admonish the Reader to seek further, and not to conclude or dogmatize upon this or that peremptorily? "
Our reply:
Yes, notes are fine and appropriate, especially in the case of synonyms, but not explicit word changes - in the notes - that are Contradictory (which is what Modern Versions do). The reason for a new notes in the KJV is that the KJV notes were an amplification of what the main text itself contained, most of the time. However Westcott and Hort changed this in two ways:
1. They used marginal notes to attack the text itself and place doubt in the minds of the audience,
and
2. They actually cut out portions of the main text of the Bible, replaced this with their corrupted verses in the Main Body of the Text, and then left the actual Bible verses in the notes. This gave the impression to scholars that W/H were being accurate and careful. Actually, the effect was that most people simply never read the footnotes and accepted the false changes of Westcott & Hort within the main body of the text...as if THAT were the actual Bible.
If you want to know more about the Bible and the Manuscripts, and the false work of Westcott & Hort, we strongly encourage you to get the following books:
1. The Revision Revised by John William Burgon
http://www.exorthodoxforchrist.com/Textual%20Crit%20Bks.htm
2. Which Version by Mauro
3. The Cannon of the O.T. and N.T
http://www.exorthodoxforchrist.com/canon%20bks.htm
The INTERNET only a beginning place - must be followed up
Most of your concerns while very legitimate have been thoroughly addressed in these books. The Internet provides only a "Beginning place" for people to do research. But it cannot take the place of the depth and comprehensiveness that exist in the books, along with the footnotes and sources that are listed in those books. There are hundreds of books on these topics that never make their way onto the Internet. It is mainly because of the cumbersome nature of the task. Even we only put up less than 10% of what we have available for the same reason.
If you are a Pastor, we also encourage you to visit our Pastors Corner at:
http://www.exorthodoxforchrist.com/pastor's_corner.htm
And we encourage you to give us feedback, about other information that might be useful for you and other pastors who have questions on these issues. Our goal is to closely with Pastors, and Christian leaders - if they are seeking truth (something which many Pastors these days are no longer doing - sadly).
Maybe you can turn some of these topics and questions into Inductive Bible Studies for you and some of the leaders at your church (just a thought).
We hope this answers some of your questions. Keep asking questions, seeking answers and doing your own research ( by writing to us or studying books, and Not by taking the word of Textual Critics)..
XOFC Staff
Scofield Never Agreed with Westcott and Hort
FREE For WINDOWS P.C. - MAC - VISTA - LINUX -
FREE EBOOKS
[
CFree
Ebooks
P
]
- DOWNLOAD
EBOOKS
IN PDF 
FORMAT
We would love to hear from you at our E Mail Address HERE
What are you doing for Jesus ?
XOFC: Truth
& Education for the Skeptical Mind
We also Offer some books on Textual Criticism and what has happened with New Testament Manuscripts. You may want to check these out:
Support this Ministry - Buy a Book !
Purchase one of the books we offer and support this ministry !
Please
Note: We do try to be accurate. If you see anything which you believe
Is not
correct on our website, please do bring it to our attention.
Thank you
(XOFC Staff)