What’s In A Name?
By Martin A. Shue
If you frequent any Christian supply store you
have no doubt seen the large displays promoting the
“newest” Bible. Practically every time I visit my local
bookstore there is a new Bible being promoted either by the
salesclerks or by a publishing house display. Without fail they
say that this “new, updated, revised” version is the
Bible that YOU need. “It is the closest to the autographs
and in the most modern English”, they say. The odd thing
about it is that if you will visit that same store several months
later they will be promoting another Bible that is “newer
and more updated” than the one you just bought. Even though
there haven’t been any new manuscript discoveries in the
last several months, and the ‘originals’ certainly
haven’t been discovered, they will again tell you that this
“newer and more updated” version is “closer”
to the autographs than the one you bought just months ago. Do you
see just how absurd this issue has become? What the
‘scholars’ (sic) tell you is closest to the originals
today will most likely not be the same in a few months. They are
constantly changing, constantly thinking of new ways to alter
God’s words. The Nestle-Aland (N-A) Greek text is now on
their 27th edition and the United Bible Society (UBS) Greek text
is now on its 4th edition. What I want to do in this article is
start a short series of articles dealing with some of the
blunders in either the modern versions themselves or the Greek
texts that directly underlie them. Often times what is said of
the Greek text can be said of the modern versions. I will also be
dealing a great deal with Codex Vaticanus (B) and Codex
Sinaiticus (Aleph; symbol = N). These, as you may know, are
practically worshipped by modern scholarship and are considered
by them to be the “oldest and best manuscripts”. I
believe by the time I am finished with this series of articles
you will easily be able to see that these codices are certainly
not the ‘best’ neither are they the ‘oldest’.
I have titled this series “What’s In a Name?”
because a lot of what I will be discussing will have to do with
names. I proceed now to look at our first example, that being
Luke 4:44.
This first verse I want to discuss happens to be a geographical
blunder that is not only in Aleph(N), B, N-A and UBS but it has
also found its way into many modern verions. Here in Luke 4 Jesus
has been and still is preaching in Galilee. In fact we read in
4:14 "And Jesus returned in the power of the Spirit into
Galilee:". Then we read in v. 31 "And came down to
Capernaum, a city of Galilee,". Again, we see that Jesus is
still preaching in Galilee. Now, this is where we find our
typical Alexandrian blunder. We look at v. 44 where N and B read
"ths Ioudaias" (of Judea). Likewise we find this to be
the reading of nearly every modern version (NIV, NASV, NRSV, CEV
etc.). What's wrong with this, you ask? Nothing other than the
fact that Jesus was clearly preaching in Galilee and NOT Judea!
It is yet another Alexandrian error--plain and simple, and our
modern versions have slavishly followed those two 'scandalously
corrupt' codices. This they have done despite the fact that the
overwhelming majority of Greek witnesses read “ths
Galilaias” (of Galilee). It should also be noted that this
is also the reading of all the Latin manuscripts.
It is certain that Galilee was not part of Judea. Neither was
Judea part of Galilee. Accordingly, our Authorized Version
renders the verse "And he preached in the synagogues of
Galilee." Again, we see that God has watched over His words
and has providentially preserved them in the AV. Joining our AV
in reading "of Galilee" is Wycliffe, Tyndale, Cranmer
and the Geneva Bible. To further solidify the matter we read in
5:1 (the very next verse) that Jesus "stood by the lake of
Gennesaret,". Again, why is this important? Well, perhaps
you know this "lake" by its more common name----THE SEA
OF GALILEE! And this ‘sea of Galilee’ is nestled deep
in the hills of Galilee NOT Judea!
The most common argument for this obvious blunder is that
“Galilee and Judea are one in the same”. But was
Galilee and Judea really considered to be the same place?
Consider the following verses of Scripture:
Matt. 19:1 (NIV) When Jesus had finished saying these things, he
left Galilee and went into the region of Judea to the other side
of the Jordan.
I use the NIV here purposely to show that even in the modern
versions we see a clear distinction between GALILEE and "the
region of Judea". If they were one in the same then why the
distinction?
Luke 5:17 (NIV) One day as he was teaching, Pharisees and
teachers of the law, who had come from every village of Galilee
and from Judea and Jerusalem, were sitting there.
Again, we see a clear difference between GALILEE and JUDEA.
John 4:3 (NIV) When the Lord learned of this, he left Judea and
went back once more to Galilee.
If "Judea" included "Galilee", as they feign,
then how is it that Jesus could *leave* "Judea" and go
"back once more to GALILEE"??? The reason, of course,
is because these individuals know not what they are talking
about. "Judea" is not "Galilee" and
"Galilee" is certainly not "Judea". These
were separate and distinct regions! In fact, Holman Bible
Dictionary says "By New Testament times the land had been
divided into provincial designations, "Judea,"
"Samaria," "Galilee,". Later in that same
entry, "Three divisions are evident: Judea, Samaria,
Galilee." These regions had very defined boundaries and they
defended these boundaries vigorously. What makes their claims
even more ridiculous is that the Judeans would have taken
exception to the thought of the 'Galileans', or the Samaritans,
being numbered among them. Likewise, I am sure that the Galileans
and the Samaritans would have taken exception to the Judeans
being considered among them. Most everyone, I am sure, knows of
the deep hatred the Jews had for the Samaritans. Though not near
the same degree, the Judeans had a distrust for the Galileans as
well. In fact Galilee was composed of predominantly *Gentiles*!
They were even recognizable by their distinguishable speech.
Again, the Holman Bible Dict. says, "Galileans had a
reputation for rebellion and disregard of Jewish law (Acts 5:37),
so they could be regarded as sinners (Luke 13:2)." It is
ludicrous to imagine that the Judeans would go along with this
"argument" that Judea and Galilee were considered as
part of each other. [sic]
Galilee was the NORTHERN most region of Palestine. Judea was the
SOUTHERN most region of Palestine. Now, get this--situated
BETWEEN these two regions was the hated region of SAMARIA. In
fact Nelson's New Illustrated Bible Dictionary says, "In the
time of Jesus, Palestine west of the Jordan River was divided
into three provinces of Galilee, Samaria, and Judea…
Situated between Galilee and Judea, Samaria was the natural route
for traveling between those two provinces." So, how in the
world anyone could make the claim that Judea and Galilee were one
in the same is beyond me. Clearly the regions were separated by
Samaria and could not have been recognized as one region.
Yet again it has been demonstrated why you cannot trust the
modern versions. They are in obvious error in reading “of
Judea” and their feeble attempt to cover up their blunder is
mockery. We will continue this series on “What’s In A
Name?” in our next mailing. I trust you have found this
article informative. As always stick with our Authorized Version
and you will not be disappointed.
"He that hath ears to hear, let him hear" and "let him that readeth understand".