Bibliography And Glossary


Josiahs Scott,,

10/2 – 10/19/09; 11/25 – 12/30/09; 1/16/10; 3/25/10; 4/1/10-7/9/10; 9/27/10-9/29/10; 10/5/10-11/24/10; 12/1/10-12/6/10; 12/9/10; 12/13/10; 12/18/10; 12/24/10-12/25/10; 1/8/11; 1/12/11-1/15/11; 2/11/11; 2/15/11-2/17/11; 3/1/11-3/2/11; 3/22/11; 3/31/11; 4/16/11; 4/27/11; (5/11/11-5/12/11); 5/13/11; 7/29/11; 8/19/11-8/20/11; 8/29/11; 9/23/11; 10/25/11; 2/13/12; 10/1/12


Note: this work is particularly prone to change drastically depending on what year you view and or print it. Please keep checking back online for the most official and up-to-date version of this Bibliography.



Bibliography And Glossary. 1

General Explanations. 1

Bible Book Abbreviations. 1

Bible Versions, in General 2

Original Language Texts and Ancient Language Translations. 2

LXX.. 3

MT.. 4

DSS – The Dead Sea Scrolls. 5

DSS Bible. 6

HOT.. 6

GNT – Greek New Testament 6

IGNT.. 7

HNT.. 8

Latin Vulgate. 8

Finding the Old Testament - Which Source Text to use. 8

Purpose and Explanation. 8

How to Decide Which Source Text to Use. 8

An Explanation On The Nature And Current State Of The Data So Far 9

An Explanation for the Following Chart 9

Book by Book OT Source Text Summary. 9

Data Arranged by New Testament Agreement 13

Bible Translations and Versions. 13

Jos.Trans. 14

Geneva Bible. 14

KJV.. 14

KJVA.. 14

KJV-1611. 14

KJB.. 14


KJ2000. 14

NKJV.. 15

NIV, TNIV, NIrV.. 15

ESV.. 15

HCSB – Holman Christian Standard Bible. 15

EMTV.. 15

CAB.. 16

DRB.. 16

Darby. 16

Brenton. 17

Bishops. 17

ASV.. 17


ALT.. 17

YLT.. 17

WEB.. 17

MKJV.. 17

LITV.. 17

SRV.. 17

NAB.. 17

NETS. 18

GLB.. 18

Bible Paraphrases. 18

Paraphrases, In General 19

What Are Paraphrases?. 19

TLB.. 20

NLT.. 20

MSG.. 20

GNB, TEV.. 21

CEV.. 21

“GOD'S WORD”. 21

NCV – New Century Version. 21

Dictionaries and Encyclopedias. 22

Strong’s. 22

How to Read Strong’s. 22

Berry Greek-English Lexicon. 22

Word Study. 22

RMAC.. 23

ALS. 23

Latin to English. 24

Webster's Dictionary. 24

MLA.. 24

Vine’s. 24

A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs. 24

The Catholic Encyclopedia. 25

Wikipedia. 25

Commentaries. 25

Talmud. 25

Barnes. 25

Clarke. 25

Lightfoot 25

Geneva. 26

Gill 26

Henry. 26

JFB.. 26

K&D.. 26

PNT.. 26

Psalms. 26

RWP. 26

Scofield. 26

TSK.. 26

WEN.. 26

Early Church Resources. 26

The Ante-Nicene Fathers. 26

Others. 27

General Glossary of Terminology Used. 27

Apocrypha / Deuterocanonical Books. 27

De-education. 27

e-Sword. 27

e-Sword – Free Resources. 27

e-Sword Compatible. 27

Koine Greek. 28

Lexicon. 28

Martin Luther 28

NT.. 30

Origen. 30

OT – Old Testament 30

Pseudonym.. 30

Proprietary Bible Versions. 30



>> Additions/ TODO!


>> read more on HCSB & NCV

>> add Geneva Bible 1599 – Calvinistic (as opposed o the KJV)

>> move Mat_4: to a basic beginning statement


General Explanations

Purpose Statement

This is my universal Bibliography and Glossary for all of my Scriptural projects; it is a general, overall definer of many of the resources and terminology that I often use in my Scriptural studies and writings. What started out as a simple bibliography, became almost a “Bible Study” in and of itself, especially in terms of studying the over-all representation of the Bible in English. I aspire for these things to be of benefit to anyone interested in knowing over-all truth about versions of the Bible, as well as critical resources and terms for studying it.


Only the Bible Has My Complete Approval

In general, please don’t take any of my use or quotations of any of the following resources to be an indication of an over-all approval of any of them at all. Sometimes works are useful for information, while the vessel that was used to compile that information was significantly defiled. In general, the only works that you should understand to have my complete approval are those that I consider perfectly Divine: I attribute absolute and complete Divine approval to the original Hebrew and Greek Old and New Testaments. Other versions, dictionaries, and or commentaries about these things are very often imperfect or downright tainted representations of these things in English or other languages.


The Use of Quotes from e-Sword

When listing and defining the resources in this bibliography that are used in my writings, I use many quotations from the information that is available through e-Sword (especially from the “Bible,” “Commentary” and “Dictionary” dropdown menus, under “Information”). These e-Sword quotations sometimes have a few formatting changes, and/or added links to define terminology as laid out in this bibliography, and all of these quotes found through e-Sword are marked with an asterisk (*).



I am not done researching on every entry in this bibliography. Although I am convinced that I am preaching the Gospel even in the midst of this bibliography, my goal is to constantly be eager towards truth, so please contact me if you think that you may have found more complete answers to some of the challenging difficulties that I have presented here.


Back to TOP


Bible Book Abbreviations

This may often be taken for granted, but one of the most basic “tools” in studying and referencing the Scriptures, is the abbreviating of the names of the books of the Bible. For the sake of those who are not used to these types of practices, I give here the common abbreviations that I use for referencing the books of the Bible throughout my writings:


e-Sword Format

Josiahs' Preferred Format

Book Name



























1 Samuel



2 Samuel



1 Kings



2 Kings



1 Chronicles



2 Chronicles
























Song of Solomon








































































1 Corinthians



2 Corinthians















1 Thessalonians



2 Thessalonians



1 Timothy



2 Timothy















1 Peter



2 Peter



1 John



2 John



3 John
























1 Maccabees



2 Maccabees


Back to TOP


Bible Versions, in General

Most of the Bible versions that I may use and compare most frequently are freely available in e-Sword Bible Software. Below, I have included the notes about the e-Sword versions I use at times (some more than others), as well as the other versions that I may use from time to time which are not yet available through this software.


Original Language Texts and Ancient Language Translations

The entries that follow attempt to present some of the basics about the original and the ancient versions of the Bible in other languages that help reveal to us what the most accurate representation of the Scriptures is for us in English today. While I think I cover many exciting and detailed insights about these original and ancient texts, the main thing that I want to do before I present the information in the following entries, is to give you some preliminary thoughts about the text of the Old Testament.

    I have had the difficulty of running into many challenges when researching the ancient source texts of the Old Testament, and in a few places, I am forced to pass on some of these difficult questions to my readers as well.  As a result of these challenges in seeking to find the most accurate text of the Old Testament, I often have to use different versions of the Old Testament than what most people are commonly using today, particularly when the New Testament quotes from them instead of what we usually use.

    Some of the following entries in this bibliography are aimed at explaining some of the choices within my Bible projects that I have been compelled to make. Probably one of the most defining of these choices that I have had to make when quoting the Old Testament is to frequently prioritize (or “prefer”) the reading of the LXX (Greek Old Testament) over the MT (the current standard version of the Hebrew Old Testament).



- the oldest documents (Palio Hebrew)

- modern christianity is following is still mostly in the footsteps of the wicked reformers, and the church has left it up to secular researchers to correct the protestant idea that the 70 messed up the translation

- Even though the dead sea scrolls have proved the reformers dead wrong, we still continue to use the MT

- LXX is oldest complete copy of OT in any language

- people debate how much of the lxx was originally included, and some (with the Jewish Talmud) affirm that it was only the torah, but Jesus, Paul  and the rest of the apostles approved of books well beyond the first 5 books, on into the contents of the Maccabees

- “Many of the oldest Biblical fragments among the Dead Sea Scrolls, particularly those in Aramaic, correspond more closely with the LXX than with the Masoretic text (although the majority of these variations are extremely minor, e.g. grammatical changes, spelling differences or missing words, and do not affect the meaning of sentences and paragraphs)”


The LXX, or Septuagint, is the first, official Koine Greek Translation of The ancient Hebrew Old Testament, (including most of what Protestants call “the Apocrypha”), and it is by far the oldest version of the entire Old Testament that we still have available to us today.

    Like the Latin term “Septuagint” (Interpretatio septuaginta virorum), “LXX” is the Roman number “70,” and both of these references to “70” stand for the 70* Jewish scribes who were sent as a delegation of the leading translators of Israel to Alexandria Egypt by royal request of Ptolemy, King of Egypt, around roughly 200 BC, to translate the original Hebrew into the first official and complete Greek Old Testament. [* note: some sources say it was 72 translators].

    Contrary to the shallow and unreasonable claims and conclusions of much of modern uninformed and de-educating critique, this official work of translating the ancient Hebrew Old Testament was done with the most scrupulous, diligent, accurate, and even Divine care, as originally believed by the Jews, and even taught by Jesus (see Greek of Mat_5:18 as quoted below under “MT”), and then confirmed by the special use of Jesus and the Apostles, and reaffirmed by the consistent testimony of essentially every truly respectable early Church leader.

    We have this great approval for the LXX, at least in its original form. And although the current versions we use today have apparently had changes introduced into at least many of the books just as well as the MT (Masoretic Text), still, even in its present form (with apparently even a few books added to the so-called “Apocrypha” in some cases) when compared with all of the other available ancient versions of the OT, the LXX still most closely matches the majority of the NT quotes of the OT. When it comes to Jesus and the Apostles, the New Testament most often quotes directly from the Greek Septuagint (not the Hebrew MT that we usually use) whenever quoting the Old Testament, and this can become particularly noticeable when there are significant differences between the two, and the New Testament still prefers to use what we now only commonly find in the Greek Old Testament and sometimes in a number of other confirming texts!


If (at least in the original form) Jesus, all of the Apostles, and their immediate successors put their approval on this most esteemed translation, how can we not?


One of many examples where The New Testament References or Quotes the LXX over the MT is Found in Acts 15


Act_15:13, Act_15:15-16 KJV …James answered, saying… 15  …as it is written,  16  After this I will return…


New Testament

LXX  (Greek)

Old Testament

MT  (Hebrew)

Old Testament

Act_15:17 KJV That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.

Amo_9:12 CAB  that the remnant of men, and all the Gentiles upon whom My name is called, may earnestly seek Me, says the Lord who does all these things.

Amo_9:12 KJV  That they may possess the remnant of Edom, and of all the heathen, which are called by my name, saith the LORD that doeth this.



Adam Clark Does a very Good Job Explaining This Discrepancy


“That the residue of men might seek - Instead of this, the Hebrew has, That they may possess the remnant of Edom. Now it is evident that, in the copy from which the Seventy translated, they found ידרשו  yidreshu, they might seek, instead of יירשו  yireshu, they may possess, where the whole difference between the two words is the change of the י  yod for a ד  daleth, which might be easily done; and they found אדם  adam, man, or men, instead of אדום  Edom, the Idumeans, which differs from the other only by the insertion of ו  vau between the two last letters. None of the MSS. collated by Kennicott and De Rossi confirm these readings, in which the Septuagint, Arabic, and St. James agree. It shows, however, that even in Jerusalem, and in the early part of the apostolic age, the Septuagint version was quoted in preference to the Hebrew text; or, what is tantamount, was quoted in cases where we would have thought the Hebrew text should have been preferred… But God was evidently preparing the way of the Gospel by bringing this venerable version into general credit and use; which was to be the means of conveying the truths of Christianity to the whole Gentile world. How precious should this august and most important version be to every Christian, and especially to every Christian minister! A version, without which no man ever did or ever can critically understand the New Testament. And I may add that, without the assistance afforded by this version, there never could have been a correct translation of the Hebrew text, since that language ceased to be vernacular, into any language. Without it, even St. Jerome could have done little in translating the Old Testament into Latin; and how much all the modern versions owe to St. Jerome’s Vulgate, which owes so much to the Septuagint, most Biblical scholars know.”

(Clarke on Act_15:17)


>> should I also add Psalm 14 here as an obvious example??



We should take note that this posture of preferring the LXX over the MT (as we have just seen in Act_15:16-17) is repeated over and over again with the majority of all quotes throughout the New Testament.


At this point, it can be very helpful if you make sure to read what I’ve written in this bibliography on the MT to get the rest of the story on the LXX in light of the MT.


The Septuagint versions that I use and reference are:

(1) “Greek Old Testament, the Septuagint (LXX), edited by Alfred Rahlfs*;


(2) Other LXX variations;


(3) Although I do not necessarily think it to be the most accurate version of the LXX, I also look directly at the original “Codex Sinaiticus” at times.



English Translations of the LXX:

The primary ways to view the LXX for those who cannot read Greek is through English translations such as Brenton (1851), The Apostle’s Bible, and the NETS (New English Translation of the Septuagint). All three of these English versions of the LXX are specifically discussed later in this bibliography. In addition to these three, there is also that of Charles Thomson (1808) and the update to this by C. A. Muses (1954).


View the Greek of the LXX at:


Get the LXX in Greek for e-Sword as a free download at:



MT, HOT, Brenton, CAB, NETS, ALS,



When referring to the Old Testament “MT” is an abbreviation for “Masoretic Text,” which is the current standard version of the Hebrew Old Testament. This means that the MT is used as the Hebrew source text for the Old Testament with the vast majority of all Bible versions in use today.


While Hebrew is indeed the original language of the Old Testament, the “Masoretic Text” is the current version of such Hebrew texts most commonly used today as the Hebrew Old Testament.

    While the extreme scrupulousness of Hebrew scribes has been practiced for many, many years, and seems to surpass any other effort in history to preserve any other text, tragically, such diligence has not existed at every stage of textual transmission. At some point long before the diligence of the Masoretes and their diligent predecessors, at a time before even the New Testament was written, variations were introduced into the Hebrew text so that, to this day, the current Hebrew Text (the Masoretic Text) is in many places still inconsistent with the generally more accurate copies of the LXX, and as a result of this, New Testament quotes of the Old Testament often don’t exactly match when referring to the current Hebrew Old Testament. So although the Masoretes seem to have been very diligent to copy the Hebrew Old Testament, they unfortunately copied some of the wrong things because of the variations that were introduced previous to their efforts. They seem to have accurately reproduced what they had but what they had was not completely accurate to begin with. The New Testament proves this when quoting the OT, (and I have illustrated this under “LXX” previously)

    Though there are exceptions to the normal practice, it was the LXX (or its Hebrew source text) in most cases which was preferred by Jesus, the Apostles, the early Church, and even most of the earlier versions of Judaism, when teaching on the Old Testament. Originally, writers frequently preferred a Hebrew source text closer to the LXX (as can often be seen throughout the Gospel of Matthew and the book of Hebrews, which were both reportedly written originally in Hebrew), or else they even eventually preferred the respected LXX itself, rather than using a Hebrew text with the variations we now have in the Masoretic Text.

    It is evident that these earlier alternative Hebrew versions of what we now have as the Masoretic Text became officially standardized among the Jews at what is called, “the Council of Jamnia” (around 90 AD), during which they also decided to corporately and officially oppose the early Christians by excommunicating them from their synagogues. These two verdicts seem to have somewhat been carried out in conjunction with each other: (1) get rid of the Christians (2) get rid of the Bible version that supports their message, and this seems to have been done even against the Old Testament itself at least partly because (as a number of early church writers somewhat put it) the LXX (including its “extra books”) was evidently too successful and potent at confirming Jesus to be the Christ when compared to alternative Hebrew texts.

    It wasn’t until Judaism corporately and officially rejected Christianity that a Hebrew source text was officially standardized for use among the Jews, which was different from the LXX, and was eventually used for making a somewhat less “Christian-friendly” Greek translation of the Old Testament to replace the LXX among the Jews. This newer Greek translation came to be called, “Aquila” because it was translated by Aquila of Sinope around 130 AD.

    So during the earliest years of original Christianity, at the close of the times of the last of the twelve Apostles, the Jews standardized the wrong version of the Hebrew Old Testament, and tragically, the Masoretes diligently copied this text, and as a result, it has been handed down through the Jews to us unto this day. After Christianity apostated into Catholicism (especially after the early 300s) the church eventually started preferring the MT by means of the Latten Vulgate (after the early 400s). This is why we have eventually come to the point that we do not commonly use an Old Testament that matches the LXX (like more ancient Judaism, original Christianity and the New Testament did), and this is why our New Testament quotes of the Old Testament now often clearly don’t match.

    It is difficult to say exactly how, why or when the Masoretic Text became different from the Hebrew source text that the LXX was translated from, and this is even more challenging because the LXX has also changed over the years, although not as much as the Masoretic Text.  <<textual variation is part of God’s Judgment rather than having the standard in the temple that Moses spoke of: Deu_31:24-26; 2Ch_34:14, 2Ch_34:15-28>> But somehow, after this, the Hebrew text that the LXX was based on was pushed to the side, forgotten, and essentially lost.

    I have not yet been able to determine if this shift away from an LXX type of Hebrew text happened simply because the Masoretic Text was standardized (around 90 AD), or if the LXX Hebrew was largely lost about 20 years previous to these “Jamnia meetings” when Jerusalem was destroyed (70 AD). Could both of these types of factors (and or other unknown details) have come into play in losing the Hebrew source behind the LXX? Whatever the case, all of this has left us with only parts of the type of Hebrew source text that was used by the LXX to be discovered among the Dead Sea Scrolls (and in a few other places). This evidence in support of a Hebrew original behind the LXX, to a great deal includes many of the older Hebrew fragments (in “Paleo-Hebrew”) of the OT found in this archeological discovery, and this evidence is much greater than some people have misrepresented it at times:


These manuscripts have also helped to realign scholars' assessments of the value of the ancient Septuagint translation. Traditionally, when the Septuagint differed from the Masoretic Text (which had been considered the Hebrew original), the Septuagint was routinely thought to be a “free” translation (or even a paraphrase, or just plain wrong). The Hebrew manuscripts of Samuel found at Qumran, however, very often agree with the Septuagint when it differs from the Masoretic Text. This demonstrates that the Septuagint was translated from a Hebrew text form similar to that of the Qumran manuscripts. The problem in assessing the Septuagint, as with so many historical documents, had been with scholars’ vision and criteria, not with the data. The Septuagint, of course, just like the Masoretic Text, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and every other ancient manuscript tradition, does have its share of errors. But the important lesson here is that the Septuagint is not a free or false rendering, but rather a generally faithful translation of its Hebrew source.

(DSS Bible, Samuel [Introduction], p. 214, second paragraph)


And this discovery helps at least partly confirm that original Christianity was right all along in defending the LXX, even though they did not have this evidence to support their stance. Things became difficult for the early Christians when these discrepancies became an increasing issue with the Jews mocking the Christians and accusing them of using a poorly mistranslated version to prove that Jesus was the Christ (initially starting after 90 AD, and it seems to be even more so in the 200s and 300s). But though Jesus’ original assemblies of disciples uniformly stood faithfully without this evidence, we should stand even more firmly with it.

>> and perhaps the New Testament quotes of the Old Testament as well?

    I am convinced that there is a more complete Hebrew source text that would agree more precisely with the LXX (and naturally, the New Testament) since this is certainly what Jesus is referring to in reference to the Hebrew and Greek of the Law (“ἰῶτα ἓνμία κεραία οὐ μὴ παρέλθῃ ἀπὸ τοῦ νόμου” - Mat_5:18).  But while I believe that such a Hebrew text exists somewhere, I have not found it yet, and am still searching for it, and it seems that others are too.

    Everything that I have read about source texts and their variations seems to universally confirm all of these basic facts that I have presented to you in the previous paragraphs, yet to this day, contrary to early Church practice, most everyone, christian, Jew and most others alike, consider the Masoretic Text to be the primary source text that people ought to use and translate from, as though they simply ignored all of these factors.


>> Personal Notes: make above Mat quote more clear /\





Also Compare:

(and see declaimers under “Wikipedia” herein)


DSS – The Dead Sea Scrolls

The Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) are a very important collection of about 972 ancient documents discovered from 1946 to 1956 that were preserved in eleven caves in the Judean desert around Qumran (northwest of the Dead Sea), by a strict sect of Judaism. Other than the LXX, these Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek discoveries are the oldest known copies of books from the Bible and ancient Judaism, since most people date the documents long before the New Testament, as early as 150 BC (although some think that some of the findings are as late as 70 AD). These documents are made up of many (but not all) of the books of the Old Testament [“40%”], including what Protestants call “the Apocrypha,” and books like Enoch [“30%”], as well as a significant portion of extra psalms and songs, community rules (for living a strict community life) and many other documents [“30%”].

    This strict sect may be generically referred to as the Qumran Community since most all people consider the documents associated with the settlement in Qumran, but specifically, most people have identified this community with a group called the Essenes, which is mentioned throughout history. This group has many teachings and themes of serious (“Hard-core”) Judaism throughout their writings which are naturally consistent and incorporated within the ultimate revolution brought on by Jesus and His Apostles. Perhaps one of the most striking parallels are the very specific similarities between the Qumran Community and John the Baptist.


A very significant amount of evidence in the DSS supports the original Hebrew behind the LXX which is different than the MT:


Major Parallel themes include

Both talked about being a part of The New Covenant


Long before John The Baptist and Jesus ever called divorce and remarriage adultery, the Qumran Community opposed this, by saying they are caught in one of the three main nets that satan traps people:


 “by…taking two wives during their lifetimes… but the foundation of the creation… is, ‘Male and female created He them’”


(Damascus Document, Near the end of column 4, translated from a copy of the document discovered earlier by S. Schechter in 1910)


Note: It is also clear from this quote that remarriage is always wrong based on the fundamental fact that polygamy is always wrong. This is the background teaching from which Jesus calls divorce and remarriage adultery.


Extra that I need to sure up the translation:

They are ensnared by two: by fornication



Major Documents that I quote and use are

The Damascus Document



…like the Community Rule, War Scroll, Pesher on Habakkuk (Hebrew pesher פשר = "Commentary"), and the Rule of the Blessing, which comprise roughly 30% of the identified scrolls



Printed DSS Resources


The Dead Sea scrolls Bible: the oldest known Bible Translated for the First Time into English

By Martin G. Abegg, Peter W. Flint, Eugene Charles Ulrich

Copyright © 1999 By Martin Abegg, Jr., Peter Flint, and Eugene Ulrich. All rights Reserved.

Format: Hardcover, 649pp.
ISBN: 9780060600631
Publisher: Harper San Francisco
Pub. Date: December 1999

[Buy it on eBay]


The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English

Revised Edition by Géza Vermès,.

(Oldest versions Titled: Dead Sea Scrolls in English)

Newest edition: 2004 (buy the one with white cover, not the old red cover edition)

ISBN-13: 9781850755630

ISBN-10: 1850755639

Publisher: Some say, “Penguin Books, 1962-2004” and others say, “Sheffield Academic Press”

Page Count: 391

[Buy it on eBay]


The Dead Sea Scrolls, A New Translation

Revised Edition by Michael O. Wise, Martin G. Abegg, Jr., and Edward M. Cook, HarperSanFrancisco, 1996, 2005.

ISBN-13: 9780060766627

ISBN-10: 006076662X

Publisher: HarperOne

Date: November 2005

Page Count: 662

[Buy it on eBay]

Generic eBay Link


The Dead Sea scrolls translated: the Qumran texts in English

Florentino García Martínez, W. G. E. Watson

ISBN-13: 9789004105898

ISBN-10: 9004105891

Publisher: Brill Academic Publishers

Date: March 1996

Page Count: 519

[Buy it on eBay]


The Dead Sea scrolls study edition

Florentino García Martínez, Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar

Very interesting, with “a critical text of the Dead Sea Scrolls (Hebrew and English),” but too expensive


Discoveries from the Judaean Desert Series

Considered a very authoritative set of books in a large 40 volume series, but too expensive




Holman QuickSource

Guide to The Dead Sea Scrolls

I cannot recommend this resource because it has pornography in it (that is, mostly “classical” “renaissance,” hypocritical-religious male pornography).

$15 at BAM


Also see

C:\Files\ComputerOperation\Shortcuts\Research\DSS Dead Sea Scroles


DSS Bible

DSS Bible is my way of abbreviating, “The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible.” For all of the details about this, see the “Printed DSS Resources” under DSS.



When quoting the Bible, the abbreviation “HOT” stands for the Hebrew Old Testament, which is also called the “Tanach” or “Tanakh” by Rabbinic Judaism. The word “Tanakh” comes from a Hebrew acronym for:


Torah (Law)

Neviim (Prophets), and

Ketuvim (Writings)


This is an ancient division and order of the Old Testament that is still used by the Jews today.





GNT – Greek New Testament

> Codex Alexandrinus (A), Codex Vaticanus (B), and Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph)

The abbreviation “GNT” stands for the Koine “Greek New Testament”; (See “Koine


” as defined later in the Glossary). There are basically three major “Textual Traditions” or “types” or “versions” of the GNT in use today as a basis for translations:

(1) Textus Receptus

(2) Byzantine Majority Text

(3) Alexandrian Text

(1) Textus Receptus

The Textus Receptus is Latin for the “Received Text,” and is frequently abbreviated as “TR” (or sometimes “T”). The Textus Receptus was basically one of the very first standardized and printed Greek New Testaments, being first printed in 1516. The name “Textus Receptus,” or “Received Text” implies that this is the text that we have “received” which has been passed down to us. What is not specified in this name is that it is the first major “critical text” to examine many major documents of the GNT and attempt to determine and compile the most correct readings out of all of the textual variations available. This is what is called a Critical Text.

    After it was compiled, the Textus Receptus became the standard Greek New Testament Text used by Luther, Calvin, Tyndale, the KJV, and most of the rest of the reformers, and it continued to be considered the standard for the New Testament from the 16th to the nineteenth century. In more recent years other texts have been considered more authoritative by the majority of all scholars and theologians.

The Primary Versions of the Textus Receptus Include:

Erasmus1 (Novum Instrumentum omne) – 1516, 1519, 1522, and 1527

Stephanus2 – 1550 1546, 1549, 1550 [“Editio Regia”] and 1551 [Latin translation of Erasmus & Vulgate; NT versification added]

Beza3 – 1598, (revised nine times between 1565 and 1604)

Elzevir4 – 1624, 1633 (the version that coined the term, “Textus Receptus”)

Scrivener5 – 1894 (tried to reconstruct a Greek text behind the KJV)

1. Erasmus – Desiderius Erasmus Roterodamus (1466-1536) – a wicked, ant-christian, humanist critic;

2. Stephanus – French: Robert I Estienne (Paris 1503-Geneva, 1559); Latin: Robertus Stephanus; English: Robert Stephens;

3. Beza – Theodore Beza (1519-1605); French: Théodore de Bèze or de Besze; (a disciple, defender, and successor of John Calvin)

4. Elzevir – Esp. referring to Abraham and Bonaventure

5. Scrivener – Frederick Henry Ambrose Scrivener (1813-1891)

(2) Byzantine Majority Text

The Byzantine Majority Text is commonly known as the “Byzantine Text,” “Majority Text,” “Traditional Text,” “Syrian Text,” and or “Antiochian Text.” The Byzantine Majority Text is Similar to the Textus Receptus, but is a somewhat different method for determining and compiling the most accurate Greek text of the New Testament. This is especially represented by the Greek Texts compiled by “Maurice A. Robinson and William G. Pierpont” and or that done by “Hodges and Farstad.” Whenever comparing this with the Textus Receptus (number 1), or Alexandrian Text (number 3), I may abbreviate the Byzantine Text as “Byz,” “B-Text,” or simply, “B.”

One of the primary differences with the Byz and the “Textus Receptus” is that the Byz does not seem to give as much weight to non-Greek texts (such as the Latin Vulgate)

(3) Alexandrian Text

Following in the footsteps of an increasing number of scholars, “Westcott and Hort” (1881) particularly helped start the trend of prioritizing Alexandrian Greek texts with their promotion of Codex Vaticanus. This tendency was even more energized with the discovery of Codex Sinaiticus in 1859 by Constantin von Tischendorf (1815-1874). Because of this, the Alexandrian texts are especially represented by Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus which (although they have many disagreements) have been compiled into new, modern, standard Greek New Testaments, and the primary examples of this can be seen in “that of modern critical editions such as those published by the United Bible Societies or the various Nestle-Aland editions.” see Footnote such as, Westcott and Hort, Nestle-Aland, the United Bible Societies, (and more recently) the Society of Biblical Literature (i.e. the SBLGNT), and a few others.

> remember DivRem for this last sentence

    It is important to note that though the majority of all the historically recognized Greek texts we have of the New Testament disagree with these Alexandrian texts, yet the majority of all modern bibles today are based on them because they are considered older and more relyable by most “scholars.”

    Whenever comparing this with the first two texts mentioned (numbers 1 and 2) I may abbreviate the Alexandrian Texts as “A-Text” (or “A”) whenever they do not disagree with each other. Wherever they do disagree, then I try to speak specifically by naming “Vaticanus” and or “Sinaiticus” when appropriate.

GNT Variations, in General

Between these three versions of the GNT there are differences in the Greek of the New Testament. Many of these differences are due to spelling, word order, and other small things that do not change the meaning of a passage, or many times even show up in translation, since they are so small. But out of all of these big and small variations, the Preface to the NKJV says that the New Testament is in “eighty-five percent” agreement between all three of them, since the text is mostly exactly the same. The same things are reported by others as well:

“…well over 85% of the text of ALL Greek New Testament editions remains identical, regardless of which text is followed… The significant translatable differences between the modern critical texts [that is, mostly the Alexandrian Text Type], the Authorized Version [that is, the Textus Receptus], and the Byzantine Textform are most clearly presented in the NU-text and M-text footnotes appended to editions of the ‘New King James Version,’ published by Thomas Nelson Co….”see Footnote

Although I’ve studied these things for countless hours over many years, I’ve not yet found anyone who can give a thorough, reliable, complete answer for which Greek text to prefer. Especially until God may have mercy and help me with this need, I constantly seek to be conscientious of all the textual variations and to prioritize where they all agree.

Typically I use the Byzantine/Majority Greek New Testament or the Textus Receptus. While I also try to pay attention and take note of the variations in the Alexandrian Text Types, as far as I have researched so far, I have not considered them as authoritative as I do the others.


Some of the previous quotes are taken from:


The Greek Text Edited by
Maurice A. Robinson and William G. Pierpont”*

You can view the GNT on my website at:


Koine Greek, LXX, Strong’s, RMAC


“IGNT” is an abbreviation for an Interlinear Greek-English New Testament. This usually sets a direct word for word English translation right next to or underneath the original Greek of the New Testament.

A classic version of this which I read is:

Interlinear Greek-English New Testament

With A Greek-English Lexicon And New Testament Synonyms* By

George Ricker Berry

[* As seen under “Berry Greek-English Lexicon”]

(Reprinted by Baker Book House)

This was originally known as:

“The Interlinear Literal Translation of the Greek New Testament” by George Ricker Berry

Although it is typically available in print at an affordable price, it is also freely available to view online or download as a PDF from Google books.


“Hebrew New Testament translated by 19th century German scholar Franz Delitzsch (1813-1890), co-author of the famed multi-volume Keil and Delitzsch Commentary of the Old Testament.”*

This may be useful for theoretically considering what the original Hebrew versions of Matthew and Hebrews may have said.

Latin Vulgate

“Jerome's 405 A.D. Latin Vulgate w/ Deuterocanon using Gallican Psalter” *

This is the main historical translation of the Early Greek New Testament into Latin. It serves as an ancient Latin witness, which in many ways confirms the accuracy of the GNT that we have today. In some cases, it also speaks to a somewhat earlier form of the Hebrew MT as well.

One of the main ways to read this in English is by using the DRB.


(and see declaimers under “Wikipedia” herein)

Back to TOP

Finding the Old Testament - Which Source Text to use

An application of the previous section, interjected here before proceeding with Bible versions

Purpose and Explanation

As seen in the previous section, the question as to what we should do about the variations in the different copies of the Old Testament is a very difficult question for those who are honest with the facts that have been previously set before us. Because of this the ultimate goal for this section is to determine which source text of the Old Testament to draw from, translate, and quote when referencing the OT. In the mean time, I have initially needed to compile this as an explanation as to which text I use for the OT, and why. Whatever we do, we should diligently seek to mimic the patterns laid down for us by Jesus and the Apostles, because we know they wrote down perfect examples for us to follow.

    So to somewhat draw this altogether: This section is my “Source-Text Bibliography” for the Old Testament – it is an ever-developing research project, which briefly identifies and summarizes the New Testament proof (and related evidence) that I have found so far for the source text behind each book of the Old Testament which we should prefer and use. If you have more evidence and or proof to consider, please do let me know!

Initially, as a starting point, I have generally recompiled and used some very useful analytical data about the LXX and MT from a very useful website:

©2000 by R. Grant Jones

I have especially used and recompile information from the articles entitled:

(1) “The Septuagint in the New Testament”

(2) “Agreement in Meaning Between the New Testament Quotations and the Hebrew Old Testament”

I have represented the data that I have collected from this website in gray, and whatever content I have added is in black or other colors. R. Grant Jones (the author of this website) has given a number of disclaimers as to the limitations of his research and the room for inaccuracies in judgment calls that he has made, but none the less he has provided some basic data that should have already been given to us by more thorough teams of students and researchers. And no one can complain about the limitations of this research until they have first provided a better alternative (which I am praying for on a regular basis).

>> I long to analyze even the illusions to the OT, and for that matter, I long for a way to find a text that perfectly agrees with the NT!

>> This is a tool and centralized location for me to compile, digest and analyze all of my research to find the OT

How to Decide Which Source Text to Use

Although the base data that I have used here was specifically concerned with comparing the LXX with the MT for each of the NT quotes of the OT, the conclusions that I summarize afterwards also consider evidence even where the NT does not quote the OT. I am concerned here with answering which source texts are accurate for each book, and the NT quotes are certainly the place to start, but I have also taken into consideration other evidence (including things such as the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS), etc.) when the NT does not specifically address every source text need.

    Additionally, when grappling with the fundamental consideration between the LXX and the MT, whenever there are difficult questions about a certain book or passage where New Testament evidence is lacking (that is, there are not enough New Testament quotes to determine which source text is to be preferred), in such cases, whenever the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) or other Hebrew texts reaffirm a reading in the LXX, this generally suggests that the textual variations existed in Hebrew before being translated into the Greek of the LXX.  In such cases, the evidence generally suggests a scenario where the New Testament would approve of the LXX and DSS reading.  This is because (as documented and seen in the previous section) we can basically conclude from the New Testament that the original form of the LXX was completely reliable.  Therefore, if textual variations existed in the Hebrew of an original LXX book before they were translated into Greek, and we find evidence for this in the Hebrew of the DSS, then this generally represents a textual tradition which the New Testament has already given amazing approval to. 

    The only major possibility of an LXX and DSS agreement against the MT that would still be wrong, is if someone around the time of the DSS back-translated the LXX into DSS Hebrew.  This is unlikely as a whole, and so far I have not found any evidence for this, and furthermore, it is even less likely given the fact that much of the Hebrew evidence supporting the LXX is in the older Palio-Hebrew form, which generally ceased to be commonly used long before the time of the LXX. So, when the DSS agree with the LXX against the MT, the LXX and the DSS are most likely the correct variation.

    So the primary need lies in determining how the New Testament deals with the two primary source texts to consider for the Old Testament (