Mark 2:16 and the silliness of the so called “oldest and best manuscripts”.
In the true Bible we read: “And when the scribes AND (kai hoi) the Pharisees saw him eat with PUBLICANS and SINNERS, they said unto his disciples, HOW IS IT (ti hoti) that he eateth AND DRINKETH with publicans and sinners.”

So read the Majority of all Greek texts as well as Alexandrinus and C. Also agreeing with every inspired word as well as the word order are Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, Bishops’s Bible 1568 and the Geneva Bible 1587-1602, and even the Douay-Rheims bible.

Foreign language Bibles that agree with the King James Bible are Luther’s German bible 1545, the Spanish Reina Valera 1909, 1960 and 1995, the Italian Diodati 1649 and the Rivudeta 1927, the French Martin 1744, Louis Segond 1902 and the French Ostervald 1996, as well as the Modern Greek texts used throughout the Orthodox churches today.

However the so called “oldest and best mss.” (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus) are at odds not only with the Majority of Greek texts but with each other, and STILL the modern versions don’t even agree with each other.

Instead of reading “and when the scribes AND THE (kai hoi) Pharisees” Vaticanus says “the scribes OF (twn) the Pharisees” and so do Westcott and Hort, the NASB, RSV, ESV and NIV. However Daniel Wallace’s NET version does not, and instead in this place (but not the others) follows the KJB reading of “the scribes AND THE Pharisees.” Sinaiticus adds and extra word KAI here but nobody follows it since it makes no sense.

Then instead of reading in both places the word order of “PUBLICANS AND SINNERS” Vaticanus reverses the word order and has “SINNERS and PUBLICANS” in the first part, and “publicans and sinners” in the second part, even though Sinaiticus as well as the Majority of all texts read “publicans and sinners” in both places.

The question the Pharisees ask is all mixed up in the various texts. “HOW IS IT THAT” (Ti hoti) becomes only “that” (hoti) in Vaticanus, while Sinaiticus has “Why” (dia ti), but Westcott and Hort, and now Nestles chose to follow Vaticanus here and not Sinaiticus, nor the Textus Receptus texts that underly the King James Bible.

But more importantly in the question “HOW IS IT that he eateth AND DRINKETH with publicans and sinners.” - Vaticanus omits the words AND DRINKETH (kai pinei) which are found in the majority of all Greek texts as well as A and C. However Sinaiticus not only omits the words “and drinketh” BUT it also ADDS extra words not found in either Vaticanus or the majority of texts. Sinaiticus says: “YOUR TEACHER EATS (esthei ho didaskalos humoon) with publicans and sinners.” But so far, nobody has followed the Sinaiticus reading.

But the amazing thing is that even though Westcott and Hort, along with the modern critical texts of Nestles-Aland, and UBS still omit the words “AND DRINKETH” from their texts, yet the new versions still do not agree with each other.

Those versions that follow the Critical Texts, as opposed to the texts that underlie the King James Bible, that have altered both the Textus Receptus and the Majority Text FOUR TIMES IN THIS ONE VERSE by following Vaticanus (even though all four examples are different in Sinaiticus) and yet still do not follow the Critical text when it comes to omitting the words “and drinketh” but instead include “AND DRINK” are the Revised Version, the American Standard Version, the NASB, the Amplified bible and the ISV (International Standard Version).

However versions like the RSV, NRSV, ESV, Holman Standard and the NIV omit the words “and drinketh”, as well as altering the Greek text in the other three places by following Vaticanus - and this is only in ONE verse!

For many other examples of the silliness of what is erroneously called “the science of textual criticism” see some of my other studies here:

http://brandplucked.webs.com/scienceoftextcrit.htm

Will Kinney

Amen! Thanks Will! Riplinger's new book, Hazardous Materials, gives alot more detail on the men behind alot of this silliness, too.

Textual critics are SILLY?!? Oh NO! Joe, say it ain't so!

The original textual critic! (see Genesis 3:1)

Amen!

John 1:1,14 – “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.”

Can't get much simpler that that, now can it?