Jesus as the Alpha and Omega, The First and the Last

Buy on Amazon for only 99 cents by clicking here - see a local listing for this here

Jesus as the Alpha and Omega, The First and the Last - From Scripture Proofs and Scriptural Illustrations of Unitarianism By John Wilson

Rev. i. 8: “I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, “saith the Lord, who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty.” 

Rev. i. 11 : “I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last.” 

Rev. i. 17, 18: “And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto “me, Fear not; I am the first and the last : [I am] he that liveth, and “was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore.”

Rev. ii. 8: These things saith the first and the last, who was dead, “and is alive.” 

Rev. xxii. 13: “I [am] Alpha and Omega, the first and the last, “the beginning and the end” (Griesbach). 

TRINITARIAN ARGUMENT. – The First and the Last; that is, the one, eternal God, who is from ever. lasting to everlasting. — John Wesley on Rev. i. 17.

These divine titles [Alpha and Omega, the First and the Last] can only be applied to an eternal being. —Dr. Hawker: Sermons on the Divinity of Christ, p. 178.

OBSERVATIONS. – According to GRIESBACH, the word God should be inserted after Lord in Rev. i. 8; — a passage which will therefore have an exclusive reference to the Father; for these titles, “Lord God,” “He who is, who was, and is to come,” “the Almighty,” are never in Scripture attributed to Jesus Christ (m). With regard to the eleventh verse of the same chapter, there can be no question that Christ is represented as the speaker; but it is observable, that that part of the verse which we have quoted is undoubtedly an interpolation, being rejected by GRIESBACH, and other eminent critics.

From the other texts, however, we have no hesitation in believing, that Jesus characterised himself as Alpha and Omega, the first and the last, &c. Yet, as he had been subject to the power of death, these titles cannot signify eternity of existence, but more probably refer to him as “the author and finisher of our faith” (n) — the best and the greatest of all the prophets, to whom the spirit was given without measure (0) — appointed by the Deity to carry on the great scheme of man's deliverance from sin and suffering, till the consummation of all things, when he will render up his authority to the Father, and God shall be all in all (p). Perhaps, merely, Christ is called the last, on account of his having been rejected by his countrymen, and exposed to suffer the ignominious death of the cross; and the first, because he was the first human being raised from the dead to enjoy immortal existence (q). This interpretation seems to be countenanced by those passages in which our Lord is spoken of-conjointly with the expression, “the first and the last"—as “he that liveth, and was dead” (r). However this may be, it is evident that Christ was mortal; and it is equally evident that the eternal God cannot die. The same being, too, who had been crucified, received a revelation from God (s); but nothing can be imparted to the blessed and all-wise Governor of the universe.

(m) Rev. i. 4, 5: Grace [be] unto you, and peace, from Him who is, and who was, and who is to come, .... and from Jesus Christ, &c. — See chap. iv. 8; xi. 17; xv. 3; xvi. 5, 7, 14; xviii. 8; xix. 6, 15; xxi. 22; xxii. 5, 6. 2 Cor. vi. 18.

(n) Heb. xii. 2: Jesus, the author and finisher of [our] faith ; who, for the joy that was set before him, endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

(o) See Matt. iii. 11, 17. John iii. 30–35; viii. 29. et al.

(p) l Cor. xv. 28: When all things shall be subdued unto him, THEN SHALL THE SON ALsO HIMSELF BE SUBJECT UNTO HIM THAT PUT ALL THINGS UNDER HIM, that God may be all in all.

(q) Rev. i. 4, 5: Grace [be] unto you .... from Jesus Christ, [who is] the faithful witness, [and] the first-begotten of the dead, and the Prince of the kings of the earth.

(r) Rev. i. 17, 18; ii. 8, as quoted in Nos. 7, 8, preceding page.

(s) Rev. i. 1: The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to show, &c.

Quotations That the Son of God is absolutely the first, none will venture to assert, who maintain that the Father is the first person of the Trinity. — B. Wissowatius, in Racovian Catechism, p. 161.

The terms, Alpha and Omega, beginning and end, are, in a finite sense, justly applicable to Jesus as the first of all created existences, and the last of those who will be required to resign the authority with which he is invested by the Father. — Rammohun Roy on Rev. xxii. 13: Second Appeal, Appendix, No. 2.

These words [in Rev. i. 17] are spoken by our Lord concerning himself; who, being the representative, the ambassador of God, is frequently honoured in Scripture with the same titles as his Father. By this declaration, Jesus must mean, that he was the beginning and the end, the foundation and the corner-stone, of God's religious dispensations to mankind. He was the object of the purposes of Providence in the constitution of the ages, Heb. xii. 2: he was the consummation of them, the ARCHGOS KAI TELEIWTHS. — WAKEFIELD: Inquiry into the Opinions of Christian Writers, pp. 103, 104.

When the Almighty is said to be the first and the last, the meaning of the expression is, that he is contemporary with the earliest and the latest events in that chain of causes and effects, by which he accomplishes his stupendous counsels. .... The expressions contained in both these passages [Rev. i. 17; xxii. 13] are the words of Christ. They ought to be interpreted in the sense which we have just given to them when ascribed to the Supreme Being. They signify that Jesus Christ is contemporary with the earliest and the latest events in that dispensation over which he has been ordained by the Almighty to preside; and that he is consequently qualified for all the honours, the exertions, and the duties of his august station. — YATES: Vindication of Unitarianism, pp. 200, 201.

It is clear that this language denotes not an eternity of being; for whoever is literally “the first and the last” exists in time. As clearly, the phrase, when we meet with it in the Scriptures, describes not any thing or any individual peculiar in its kind; since we behold no example of its bearing such an import. Consequently, we must explain it by the clause or clauses, the verse or verses, with which it happens to be associated. When employed in the Old Testament respecting Almighty God [Isa. xli. 4; xliv. 6; xlviii. 12), it designates him as the Source of great public and religious changes, and as the End to which they must be referred, and whither they point. It has no relation to his nature, essence, or everlasting being. So, when applied here to Jesus Christ, it depicts what he now is, and what he was, and must be interpreted by the clause, “I am he that liveth, and was dead,” &c. — once the most abject and despised, at present the head of God's creation. — KENTISH on Rev. i. 17.

Buy: And the Word was a god: A New Book on the Most Disputed Text in the New Testament - John 1:1  and The Dark History of the Trinity, is now available on Amazon by clicking here...and both are only 99 cents

The New World Translation and Hebrews 1:8

"The New World Translation is an incredibly biased translation" Reasoning from the Scriptures with the Jehovah's Witnesses by Ron Rhodes

"It is no more 'full of heresies' than any other translation" Bible Translations and how to choose between them by Alan S. Duthie

In the verse preceding his statement, Ron Rhodes says that the NWT rendering of Hebrews 1:8 is unacceptable. Mr. Rhodes likes the New International Version (NIV) and the New American Standard Version (NASB).

Hebrews 1:8 says in the NWT: "But with reference to the Son: 'God is your throne forever and ever, and [the] scepter of your kingdom is the scepter of uprightness."

The NASB says: "But of the Son he says, THY THRONE O GOD IS FOREVER AND EVER, AND THE RIGHTEOUS SCEPTER IS THE SCEPTER OF HIS KINGDOM."
The NIV reads similarly.

So which one is right? The NASB's translation reads like the Son is God, the NWT's does not. This scripture is quoting Psalms 45:6,7. What Mr Rhodes fails to mention in this regard is that Psalms here is referring to a human king, probably King Solomon. Was King Solomon "God"? NO! That is why the Revised Standard Version translates Psalms 45:6,7 as "Your divine throne endures forever and ever" which is different from the way it translated it for Hebrews 1:8. Hebrews 1:8 equates Jesus (the Son) with King Solomon in Psalms. Both are subordinate to God, both are Kings. The Tanakh Holy Scriptures (the New Jewish Publication Society Translation) translates Ps 45:7 as "Your -divine throne- is everlasting. and then it encourages the reader to read 1 Chronicles 29:23 which says: "Solomon successfully took over the throne of the LORD as king instead of his father." Solomon, like Jesus sits/sat on Jehovah's throne.

“'God is thy throne,' that is, God is the support of thy throne."—Sykes, S. Clarke, Lindsey, Christie, Belsham, &c.

"No mode of language is more customary in Scripture than to call God our rock; and as the address here is to a king, it figuratively employs the idea of throne, to express that he shall never be deposed — that he shall endure eternally." -Firmin Abanzit.

So a little investigation will go a long way to uncover the truth behind attacks on the NWT.

Origen and the Trinity Doctrine

This Kindle book, The Dark History of the Trinity, is now available on Amazon by clicking here...and it is only 99 cents

See a local listing for this book here

The webpage at https://carm.org/early-trinitarian-quotes has a few quotes where they are trying to show that the early Church Fathers believed in the Trinity Doctrine. They started off with Polycarp, then Justin Martyr, then Ignatius, then Irenaeus, then Tertullian, and now we turn to Origen and his Trinitarian quotes:

"If anyone would say that the Word of God or the Wisdom of God had a beginning, let him beware lest he direct his impiety rather against the unbegotten Father, since he denies that he was always Father, and that he has always begotten the Word, and that he always had wisdom in all previous times or ages or whatever can be imagined in priority . . . There can be no more ancient title of almighty God than that of Father, and it is through the Son that he is Father" (De Princ. 1.2.; PG 11.132).

"For if [the Holy Spirit were not eternally as He is, and had received knowledge at some time and then became the Holy Spirit] this were the case, the Holy Spirit would never be reckoned in the unity of the Trinity, i.e., along with the unchangeable Father and His Son, unless He had always been the Holy Spirit." (Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds., The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975 rpt., Vol. 4, p. 253, de Principiis, 1.111.4)

"Moreover, nothing in the Trinity can be called greater or less, since the fountain of divinity alone contains all things by His word and reason, and by the Spirit of His mouth sanctifies all things which are worthy of sanctification . . . " (Roberts and Donaldson, Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 4, p. 255, de Principii., I. iii. 7).

Reply: It seems with this entry we now have full blown Trinitarianism. But anyone who has a deeper knowledge of Origen knows that this is not true. When I go to the wikipedia entry called "Trinitarianism in the Church Fathers" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinitarianism_in_the_Church_Fathers) it adds a caveat in regards to Origen: "Some see Origen as holding what many scholars refer to as a "subordinist" Christology: in Origen, 'the Son and Spirit are always in some sense derivative of, less than, and subordinate to their source, the one God, that is, the Father':[2]
The God and Father, who holds the universe together, is superior to every being that exists, for he imparts to each one from his own existence that which each one is; the Son, being less than the Father, is superior to rational creatures alone (for he is second to the Father); the Holy Spirit is still less, and dwells within the saints alone. So that in this way the power of the Father is greater than that of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and that of the Son is more than that of the Holy Spirit... (Origen, First, 33-4 [I.3]) From this, it is argued that Origen was in fact unitarian.[2]"

Origen is also added to the Subordinationism wikipedia entry (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subordinationism): "Origen taught that Jesus was deuteros theos (secondary god),[8] a notion borrowed from Hellenistic philosophy. He also said the Son was "distinct" from the Father.[9] Finally Origen insisted that the Son is other in substance than the Father.[10] It should be noticed that some of these same references are used to defend the concept of the Trinity. However, subordinationism is not a differentiation or distinction between persons in the Trinity. In this regard they agree. Subordinationism rather suggests that the Son (and Spirit) are other in substance than the Father.[10]"

Alvan Lamson adds: But let us listen to Origen himself. In his commentaries on John, he pronounces "God the Logos," or Son, to be "surpassed by the God of the universe." Commenting on John i. 3, "All things were made by him," he observes, that the particle by or through (DIA), is never referred to the primary agent, but only to the secondary and subordinate; and he takes, as an example, Heb. i. 2, "By whom also he made the worlds," or ages. By this expression, he says, Paul meant to teach us that "God made the ages by the Son" as an instrument. So he adds, in the place under consideration, "If all things were made (DIA) through the Logos, they were not made (UPO) by him" (that is, as the primary cause), "but by a greater and better; and who can that be but the Father?" Again: Jesus is called the "true light"; and in "proportion as God, the Father of truth, is greater than truth, and the Father of wisdom is more noble and excellent than wisdom, — in the same proportion," says Origen, "he excels the true light." Again: the Son and Spirit, he says, "are excelled by the Father, as much or more than they excel other beings." — "He is in no respect to be compared with the Father; for he is the image of his goodness, and the effulgence, not of God, but of his glory and of his eternal light; and a ray, not of the Father, but of his power, and a pure emanation of his most powerful glory, and a spotless mirror of his energy." Again: "The Father, who sent him (Jesus), is alone good, and greater than he who was sent."
https://newworldtranslation.blogspot.com/2018/02/origens-subordinationist-trinity-by.html

Joseph Priestley noted: Origen, quoted by Dr. Clarke, says, "Hence we may solve the scruple of many pious persons, who, through fear lest they should make two Gods, fall into false and wicked notions....We must tell them that he who is of himself God, (AUTOQEOS) is that God (hO QEOS) (as our Saviour, in his prayer to his Father says, that they may know thee, the only true God;) but that whatever is God besides that self-existent person, being so only by communication of his divinity, cannot so properly be styled (hO QEOS) that God, but rather (QEOS) a divine person." The same observation had before been made by Clemens Alexandrinus, who also calls the Son a creature, and the work of God? Origen also says, "According to our doctrine, the God and Father of all is not alone great; for he has communicated of his greatness to the first-begotten of all the creation" (PRWTOTOKOS PASHS KTISEWS).
https://newworldtranslation.blogspot.com/2018/11/the-supremacy-of-father-in-early-church.html

With all of the above in view, someone noted back in 1839 that: "It certainly, therefore, requires no peculiar profundity of scholarship, nor any remarkable honesty of criticism, to perceive that Origen was not 'orthodox' in respect to the person of Jesus Christ, distinguishing perspicuously the Saviour, even in his highest condition, from the Supreme Deity."
https://tinyurl.com/y3tpn46v

Tertullian and the Trinity Doctrine

This Kindle book, The Dark History of the Trinity, is now available on Amazon by clicking here...and it is only 99 cents

See a local listing for this book here

The webpage at https://carm.org/early-trinitarian-quotes has a few quotes where they are trying to show that the early Church Fathers believed in the Trinity Doctrine. They started off with Polycarp, then Justin Martyr, then Ignatius, then Irenaeus and now we turn to Tertullian:

"We define that there are two, the Father and the Son, and three with the Holy Spirit, and this number is made by the pattern of salvation . . . [which] brings about unity in trinity, interrelating the three, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.  They are three, not in dignity, but in degree, not in substance but in form, not in power but in kind.  They are of one substance and power, because there is one God from whom these degrees, forms and kinds devolve in the name of Father, Son and Holy Spirit." (Adv. Prax. 23; PL 2.156-7).

Reply: Finally we have the word "trinity" though oddly enough, unlike the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, the word was not capitalized. This leads me to think that he viewed the trinity differently that later trinitarians.

We can see this by looking at the wikipedia entry on Subordinationism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subordinationism) where Tertullian is listed as a Subordinationist:

Tertullian (AD 165-225): professed that the Father, Son, and Spirit "are inseparable from each other." His "assertion is that the Father is one, and the Son one, and the Spirit one, and that They are distinct from Each Other. This statement," according to Tertullian, "is taken in a wrong sense by every uneducated as well as every perversely disposed person, as if it predicated [...] a separation among the Father, [...] Son, and [...] Spirit." Tertullian said "it is not by [...] diversity that the Son differs from the Father, but by distribution: it is not by division [...] but by distinction; [...] they differ one from the other in the mode of their being. For the Father is the entire substance, but the Son is a derivation and portion of the whole, [...] Thus the Father is distinct from the Son, being greater than the Son, inasmuch as He who begets is one, and He who is begotten is another; He [...] who sends is one, and He who is sent is another; and He [...] who makes is one, and He through whom the thing is made is another." Moreover, "their names represent [...] what they are [...] called; and the distinction indicated by the names does not [...] admit [...] confusion, because there is none in the things which they designate."[22]

Also: "Next came Tertullian, one of the most eminent and mighty of the Fathers, a Latin, who lived in Carthage about A.d. 192, who taught that the Logos, having existed from eternity with the Father, came down to earth and inhabited the person of Jesus, so that he was an eternal though subordinate being. But he did not say for an instant that the New Testament teaches the equality of Jesus. He takes those passages where Jesus says, "I and my Father are one," and interprets them just as I should to-day in connection with the passage immediately by it, where Jesus says that he is one with his disciples in the same manner that he is one with his Father, — that this only means oneness of purpose, affection, heart." Minot Savage 1891
https://newworldtranslation.blogspot.com/2018/12/the-problem-of-trinity-by-minot-savage.html

Tertullian writes, A.d. 200, "That God was not always a Father or a Judge, since he could not be a Father before he had a Son, nor a Judge before there was sin, and there was a time when both sin and the Son were not."
https://newworldtranslation.blogspot.com/2018/09/uncomfortable-thoughts-and-facts-on.html

Justin quotes from the Septuagint version the passage in Proverbs, in which Wisdom, by which he supposes is meant the Son, is represented as saying, "The Lord created me the beginning of his ways to his works: before the ages he founded me; in the beginning, before he made the earth or the abyss, before the hills, he begat me." [Prov. viii. 22-36: "The Lord created me the beginning of his ways," etc. So Origen and Tertullian, as well as Justin, understood the passage. See Otto, in he., notes 1 and 12. Tertullian (Adv. Hermog., c. 8) saye expressly, "There was a time when the Son was not."] This Wisdom Justin regarded as God's offspring, produced as above described; and him, this first of his productions, he supposes God to address, when he says (Gen. i. 26), "Let us make man in our own image." [Dial., pp. 158, 159; Thirlby, pp. 266, 268; Otto, c. 62.]
https://newworldtranslation.blogspot.com/2018/04/justin-martyr-on-logos-and-trinity.html

In the beginning of the third century, we find Tertullian saying: "If the Father and the Son are to be named together, I call the Father God, and Jesus Christ, Lord; though I can call Christ God, when speaking of himself alone." "The Son is derived from the Father," he adds, "as the branch from the root, the stream from the fountain, the ray from the sun." [Adv. Prax. c. 8; c. 13.]
https://newworldtranslation.blogspot.com/2018/03/trinitarianism-and-unitarianism-in.html

Buy on Amazon for only 99 cents by clicking here - see a local listing for this here

Irenaeus and the Trinity Doctrine

This Kindle book, The Dark History of the Trinity, is now available on Amazon by clicking here...and it is only 99 cents

See a local listing for this book here

The webpage at https://carm.org/early-trinitarian-quotes has a few quotes where they are trying to show that the early Church Fathers believed in the Trinity Doctrine. They started off with Polycarp, then Justin Martyr, then Ignatius and now we turn to Irenaeus:

"The Church, though dispersed throughout the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith: . . . one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations of God, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and His manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father ‘to gather all things in one,' and to raise up anew all flesh of the whole human race, in order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Savior, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father, ‘every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess; to him, and that He should execute just judgment towards all . . . '" (Against Heresies X.l)

Reply: Simply mentioning the three (Father, Christ and spirit) together does not mean they share a substance, essence or ousia, nor does it imply an equality shared in one body. And, if simply mentioning the 3 together ensures triunity, then God, and the Son and the angels must be regarded as some mysterious triad, as they are mentioned together more often, (Matt 18:10,11; Matt 16:27; Matt 24:36; Mk 8:38; Mk 13:32; Luk 9:26; 12:8; Jn 1:51; 1Cor 4:9, 10; 1 Tim:21; Heb 1:6; Heb 2:9; 1 Pet 3:22; Rev 14: 21,22)...or even Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (Gen 50:24; Ex 2:24; 3:6, 15,16; 4:5; 6:3, 8; 33:1; Lev 26:42; Num 32:11; Deut 1:8; 6:10; 9:5, 27; 29:13; 2 Kings 13:23; Jer 33:26; etc).

The quote from Irenaeus above also calls the Father the "one God" and "almighty." While Jesus is also referred to as "God" he is obviously a god of a different sort. Remember that the early Fathers referred to themselves and men as gods:

"We have learned that those only are deified who have lived near to God in holiness and virtue."-Justin Martyr, The First Apology Of Justin, chapter XXI (21); ANF, Vol. I, p. 170.

"For we cast blame upon Him, because we have not been made gods from the beginning, but at first merely men, then at length gods;"-Irenaeus, Irenaeus Against Heresies, Book IV (4), chapter XXXVIII (38), § 4; ANF, Vol. I, p. 52

"[the Son] having bestowed on us the truly great, divine, and inalienable inheritance of the Father, deifying man by heavenly teaching,"-Clement of Alexandria, Exhortation To The Heathen (or, The Greeks, or, The Gentiles), chapter XI (11); ANF, Vol. II, p. 203.

"But let us, O children of the Father-nurslings of the good Instructor [Christ]-fulfil the Father's will ... and meditating on the heavenly mode of life according to which we have been deified, let us anoint ourselves with the perennial, immortal bloom of gladness."-Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor (Peadagogus), Book I, chapter XII (12); ANF, Vol. II, p. 234.

"The Creator did not wish to make him [mankind] a god, and failed in His aim; nor an angel-be not deceived-but a man. For if He had wished to make thee a god, He could have done so. Thou hast the example of the Logos [the Word, the Son]"-Hippolytus, The Refutation Of All Heresies, Book X (10), chapter XXIX (29); ANF, Vol. V (5), p. 151.

"And thou shalt be a companion of the Deity, and a co-heir with Christ, no longer enslaved by lusts or passions, and never again wasted by disease. For thou hast become God ... For the Deity, (by condescension,) does not diminish aught of the dignity of His divine perfection; having made thee even God unto His glory!"-ibid., chapter XXX (30); ibid., p. 153.

"If, therefore, man has become immortal, he will also be God. And if he is made God by water and by the Holy Spirit after the regeneration of the laver he is found to be also joint-heir with Christ after the resurrection of the dead."-Hippolytus, Discourse On The Holy Theophany, § 8; ANF, Vol. V, p. 237.

"For He [the Son of God] was made man that we might be made God."-Athanasisus, Incarnation Of The Word, (De Incarnatione Verbi Dei), The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Edinburgh, T&T Clark; Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.; Second Series, Vol. IV (4), p. 65,  reprinting of October,  1987.
   
"For He has become Man, that He might deify us in  Himself,  and  He has been  born  of a  woman,  and  begotten  of  a Virgin in order to transfer to Himself our erring generation, and that we may become henceforth a holy race, and 'partakers of the Divine Nature,' as blessed Peter  wrote. (2 Peter 1:4)-Athanasius, Letters of Athanasius, (Lx. Ad Adelphiun), 60.4; ibid., p. 576.

"With the exception of Athanasius virtually every theologian, East and West, accepted some form of subordinationism at least up the year 355; subordinationism might indeed, until the denouement of the controversy, have been described as accepted orthodoxy." (Hanson, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God, p.xix)

We can see this by looking at the wikipedia entry on Subordinationism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subordinationism) where Irenaeus is listed as a Subordinationist:

"Irenaeus (AD 115-200) is the earliest surviving witness to recognize all four gospels as essential.[3] He is perhaps the most clear in his language defining the relationships between the Father and the Son. "...the Father himself is alone called God...the Scriptures acknowledge him alone as God; and yet again...the Lord confesses him alone as his own Father, and knows no other."[4] | " . . this is sure and steadfast, that no other God or Lord was announced by the Spirit, except him who, as God, rules over all, together with his Word, and those who receive the spirit of adoption, that is, those who believe in the one and true God, and in Jesus Christ the Son of God; and likewise that the apostles did of themselves term no one else God, or name no other as Lord; and, what is much more important, since it is true that our Lord acted likewise, who did also command us to confess no one as Father, except he who is in the heavens, who is the one God and the one Father."[5] | "This, therefore, having been clearly demonstrated here (and it shall yet be so still more clearly), that neither the prophets, nor the apostles, nor the Lord Christ in His own person, did acknowledge any other Lord or God, but the God and Lord supreme: the prophets and the apostles confessing the Father and the Son; but naming no other as God, and confessing no other as Lord: and the Lord Himself handing down to His disciples, that He, the Father, is the only God and Lord, who alone is God and ruler of all;" [6] | Irenaeus also refers to John "...proclaiming one God, the Almighty, and one Jesus Christ, the only-begotten, by whom all things were made." [7]"

Buy on Amazon for only 99 cents by clicking here - see a local listing for this here

Codex Sinaiticus, Vaticanus & Alexandrinus Greek, 70 Books to Download

Only $5.00 -  You can pay using the Cash App by sending money to $HeinzSchmitz and send me an email at theoldcdbookshop@gmail.com with your email for the download. You can also pay using Facebook Pay in Messenger

Books Scanned from the Originals into PDF format

For a list of all of my digital books click here - Contact theoldcdbookshop@gmail.com for questions

Books are in the public domain. I will take checks or money orders as well.

Contents:

Codex Sinaiticus New Testament Greek Manuscript in a 295 page PDF (Acrobat) file

Codex Vaticanus New Testament Greek Manuscript in a 285 page PDF (Acrobat) file

Codex Alexandrinus New Testament by B.H. Cowper 1860

The New Testament Translated from the Sinaitic manuscript by Henry Tomkins Anderson 1918

A Full Collation of the Codex Sinaiticus with the Received Text of the New Testament by FHA Scrivener 1864

The Old Testament in Greek according to the text of Codex Vaticanus Supplemented from other uncial manuscripts, with a critical apparatus containing the variants of the chief ancient authorities for the text of the Septuagint 1906, Volume 1 part 1 by Alan England Brooke 1906

The Old Testament in Greek according to the text of Codex Vaticanus Supplemented from other uncial manuscripts, with a critical apparatus containing the variants of the chief ancient authorities for the text of the Septuagint 1906, Volume 1 part 2 by Alan England Brooke 1906

The Old Testament in Greek according to the text of Codex Vaticanus Supplemented from other uncial manuscripts, with a critical apparatus containing the variants of the chief ancient authorities for the text of the Septuagint 1906, Volume 1 part 3 by Alan England Brooke 1906

The Old Testament in Greek according to the text of Codex Vaticanus Supplemented from other uncial manuscripts, with a critical apparatus containing the variants of the chief ancient authorities for the text of the Septuagint 1906, Volume 1 part 4 by Alan England Brooke 1906

The Old Testament in Greek according to the text of Codex Vaticanus Supplemented from other uncial manuscripts, with a critical apparatus containing the variants of the chief ancient authorities for the text of the Septuagint 1906, Volume 2 part 1 by Alan England Brooke 1906

The Old Testament in Greek according to the text of Codex Vaticanus Supplemented from other uncial manuscripts, with a critical apparatus containing the variants of the chief ancient authorities for the text of the Septuagint 1906, Volume 2 part 2 by Alan England Brooke 1906

The Old Testament in Greek according to the text of Codex Vaticanus Supplemented from other uncial manuscripts, with a critical apparatus containing the variants of the chief ancient authorities for the text of the Septuagint 1906, Volume 2 part 3 by Alan England Brooke 1906

The Old Testament in Greek according to the text of Codex Vaticanus Supplemented from other uncial manuscripts, with a critical apparatus containing the variants of the chief ancient authorities for the text of the Septuagint 1906, Volume 2 part 4 by Alan England Brooke 1906

The Old Testament in Greek according to the text of Codex Vaticanus Supplemented from other uncial manuscripts, with a critical apparatus containing the variants of the chief ancient authorities for the text of the Septuagint 1906, Volume 3 part 1 by Alan England Brooke 1906

The Book of Isaiah according to the Septuagint (Codex Alexandrinus) by Richard Ottley, Volume 1 1909

The Book of Judges in Greek according to the text of Codex Alexandrinus by AE Brooke 1897

A Handy Concordance of the Septuagint, giving various readings from Codices Vaticanus, Alexandrinus, Sinaiticus, and Ephraemi 1887

How the Codex was found by Agnes Smith Lewis 1897

Light on the Four Gospels from the Sinai Palimpsest by Agnes Smith Lewis 1913

The New Testament Authorized Version with Various Readings from the 3 most Celebrated Manuscripts of the Original Greek Text by Constantine Tischendorf 1870

The Vatican MS - article in The Journal of Sacred Literature and Biblical Record 1859 ("Those of our readers who have been aware of the extraordinary estimation in which this ancient Ms. has been held by the most famous critics of the day, will hear with some surprise that it contains a vast number of egregious blunders.)

Codex B and its Allies, Volume 1 by HC Hoskier 1914

Codex B and its Allies, Volume 2 by HC Hoskier 1914

Origen's Hexapla, Volume 1 1875

Origen's Hexapla, Volume 2 1875

Some Thoughts on the Textual Criticism of the New Testament by George Salmon 1897

The Oxford Debate on the Textual Criticism of the New Testament held at New College 1897  - William Sanday and Edward Miller

Textual Criticism of the New Testament for English Bible students, Being a Succint Comparison of the Authorized Versions with the Critical texts of Greisbach, Scholz, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, alford and the Uncial Mss. by Clarence Esmé Stuart 1876

An Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament 1886 by B.B. Warfield

Recent developments in textual criticism by Albert C Clark 1914

Six Lectures on the Text of the New Testament and the Ancient Manuscripts which Contain it by FHA Scrivener 1875

Is the Last Clause of John 3:13 Genuine? by Rev. A. Welch 1895

The Codex Montfortianus...with the Greek Text of Wetstein by Orlando Dobbin 1854

The Origin of the Leicester Codex of the New Testament by J Rendel Harris 1887

The New Testament Manuscripts in the Freer Collection by Henry A Sanders 1918

New Criticisms on the Celebrated Text, 1 John 5:7 "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one." by Francis Antony Knittel 1829

Literary Forgeries by JA Farrer 1907 (deals at length with the Sinaitic Codex)

Canon and Text of the New Testament by Caspar Rene Gregory - 1907

Contributions to the Criticism of the Greek New Testament, being the introduction to an edition of the Codex Augiensis and 50 Other Manuscripts by FHA Scrivener 1859

The history of the printed Greek text of the New Testament by Willett L. Adye - 1865

Memoir of the Controversy Respecting the Three Heavenly Witnesses by Ezra Abbot 1830

The Emphatic Diaglott containing the original Greek text of what is Commonly Styled the New Testament (according to the recension of J.J. Griesbach) with an Interlineary Word for Word English translation, a new Emphatic Version, based on the Interlineary Translation on the renderings of eminent critics, and on the various readings of the Vatican Manuscript no. 1209 in the Vatican Library by Benjamin Wilson 1864

The Old Testament in Greek according to the Text of Codex Vaticanus by Alan England Brooke, Volume 1, 1906

The Old Testament in Greek according to the Text of Codex Vaticanus by Alan England Brooke, Volume 2, 1906

The Old Testament in Greek according to the Text of Codex Vaticanus by Alan England Brooke, Volume 3, 1906

The Greek New Testament edited from Ancient Authorities, with the Latin version of Jerome, from the Codex Amiatinus by S.P. Tregelles 1870

The New Testament in the Original Greek by Westcott and Hort 1881 ("The Sinaitic and the Vatican MSS. are by far the most important for antiquity, completeness, and value.")

Codex Zacynthius: Greek Palimpsest Fragments of the Gospel of Saint Luke by Samuel Prideaux Tregelles 1861

The Doctrine of the Greek article applied to the Criticism and illustration of the New Testament By Thomas Fanshawe Middleton 1833

Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts by Sir Frederic George Kenyon - 1897

History of Ancient Manuscripts by William Forsyth 1872

The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English, Volume 1 by RH Charles 1913

The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English, Volume 2 by RH Charles 1913

The Apocrypha of the Old Testament by Edwin Cone Bissell 1899

A Full Account and Collation of the Greek Cursive Codex Evangelium 604 by Herman C Hoskier 1890

Ecclesiasticus - the Greek text of Codex 248 by JHA Hart, 1909

The Old Syriac Element in the text of Codex Bezae by FH Chase 1893

Variations of the Alexandrian, Vatican, and Sinaitic Manuscripts of the New Testament by Robert Young 1912

The Late Professor Tischendorf by Ezra Abbot 1875

ON THE COMPARATIVE ANTIQUITY OF THE SINAITIC AND VATICAN MANUSCRIPTS OF THE GREEK BIBLE by Ezra Abbot 1872

Historical Account of Some of the More Important Versions and Editions of the Bible by Charles William Darling - 1894

The Revisers and the Greek Text of the New Testament by CJ Ellicott 1882

A Critical and Historical Enquiry Into the Origin of the Third Gospel by PC Sense 1901

Bezae Codex Cantabrigiensis, Being and Exact Copy in Ordinary Type of the Celebrated Uncial Graeco-Latin Manuscript of the 4 Gospels and Acts of the Apostles by FHS Scrivener 1864

A Collation of the Athos Codex of the Shepherd of Hermas by JA Robinson 1888

The Variorum Edition of the New Testament by Robert Lowes Clarke, Alfred Goodwin, William Sanday - 1881

The New Testament: Translated from the Greek Text of Tischendorf by George R Noyes 1869

Tischendorfs Greek Testament article in The Quarterly Review 1895

An English version of the New Testament, from the text of the Vatican Manuscript by Herman Heinfetter 1864

Corrections of the copies of the New Testament portion of the Vatican Mansucript by Herman Heinfetter 1866

Companion to the Revised Version of the New Testament by Alexander Robert 1881

Join my Facebook Group

Visit A Tribute to my Beloved Dog Teddy

When Your Interlinear Bible Deceives You

I have several Greek-English Interlinear New Testaments on my bookshelf and while leafing through them I noticed something that shouldn't be there: the indefinite article "a." Now Greek does not have an indefinite article. Greek only has the definite article, 24 forms of the definite article in fact. But, just like the biblehub image above, practically all of my Interlinears include the "a" page after page. This is deceptive as it leads the reader to believe that the indefinite article belongs in places where it is placed in the Greek interlinear translation, and where it is not included the reader then concludes that it is not supposed to be there. For instance, the example above is from John 4:19 where we have a nominative before the verb. The word-for-word English should read: "I understand that prophet are."*  Now, if you take the same Greek-English interlinears (biblehub, Marshall, George Ricker Berry, Jay P. Green etc) and turn to John 1:1c where it also has a nominative before the verb, the "a" is excluded.

What this means is that your interlinear is making a interpretive theological decision for you.

I only have one interlinear that properly omits the indefinite article "a" at both John 1:1c and John 4:19, and most everywhere else in the word-for-word translation, and that is the Kingdom Interlinear Translation.

* [A proper non-interlinear translation would of course include the "a" in such a construction.]

Buy: And the Word was a god: Conversations on the Most Disputed Text in the New Testament - John 1:1 on Amazon for only 99 cents