APPENDIX B
FURTHER CORRUPTIONS FOUND IN THE NEW TESTAMENT
Note: The following is taken from “Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture” (part 4: ff. 70–83), “The Third Letter,” Newton Project, www.newtonproject.ox.ac.uk/view/texts/diplomatic/THEM00263.
1) John 3:6: “That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the spirit is spirit.” But Ambrose cites several contemporary texts: “That which is born of the flesh is flesh because it is born of flesh and that which is born of the spirit is spirit because the spirit is God”; this reading is found neither in all the Greek manuscripts nor in all the versions both ancient and modern.
2) Philippians 3:3: “For we are the true circumcision, who worship God in spirit, and glory in Christ Jesus, and put no confidence in the flesh.” But Ambrose, in De Spiritu Sancto, book 2, has “worship God the holy spirit” for “worship God in the spirit.” Augustine admitted both versions could be found but said he favored the latter. Numerous Greek mss. and early Syriac, Ethiopian, and Arabic versions contain the former.
3) 1 John 5:20: This passage has virtually disappeared from the modern Bible. But Hilary in De Trinitate, and Basil, Cyrill, Ambrose, and others quote scripture saying here that Christ is “the true God.”
4) Luke 19:41: “And when he [Christ] drew near and saw the city [Jerusalem] he wept over it.” Epiphanius reveals, in Anacorato, chap. 31, that near the beginning of the Arian controversy the Catholic Church struck this passage from the Bible, fearing it because it shows Christ’s human weaknesses, and claiming that it was a corruption. But both Irenaeus and Origen had [in the previous century] commented on this passage.
5) Luke 22:43–44: “And there appeared to him an angel from heaven, strengthening him. And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly; and his sweat became like great drops of blood falling down upon the ground.” The Catholics also sought to strike this passage from the Bible, for the same reasons given in example 4. Sir Isaac writes: “These words are now found in all Greek & Latin manuscripts & in all versions, but Hilary tells us that in his age, they wanted in very many copies both Greek & Latin, & Jerome that they were only extant in some.” Even today, this text appears only as a footnote to the Revised Standard Version.
6) Matthew 19:16–17: “And he said to him ‘Why do you ask me about what is good? Over there is one who is good. If you would enter life, keep the commandments.’” Sir Isaac notes that many ancient versions contained, “Why askest thou me of a good one? There is one who is good.”
7) Matthew 24:36: “But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only.” Origen, Chysostom, Theophylact, Hilary, Augustine, and Cyrill all testify to the existence of this passage. Mark copied it in toto into his Gospel, and it appears in some ancient Greek and Latin copies and in the Ethiopic versions. But Ambrose (and others) testify to the fact that at the time of the Eusebian controversy (early fourth century) the Catholics struck out the phrase “nor the son” so as not to bring attention to the difference in knowledge (and therefore in being) of God and Christ.
8) Ephesians 3:14–15: “For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named.” The words, “of our Lord Jesus Christ,” were added after.
9) Ephesians 3:9: “and to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things.” In Sir Isaac’s time, the reading generally received was the added, “Who created all things by Jesus Christ.” Sir Isaac writes: “But the last words by Jesus Christ have been added by the Greeks. For they are still wanting in the oldest Greek MSS the Alexandrin & the Claromontan, gr & lat. That of S. Germ. One of M. Colbert & in the Syriac Latin & Ethiopick Versions: nor did Tertullian nor Jerome nor Ambrose read them.”
10) Apocalypse 1:8: “‘I am the Alpha and the Omega,’ says the Lord God, who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.” To prove the omnipotence of Christ, Ambrose substituted “the Lord Jesus” for “the Lord God.”
11) Corinthians 10:9: “We must not put the Lord to the test, as some of them did and were destroyed by serpents.” The Greek mss. and most of the old versions read, “We must not put Christ to the test.” Yet the Lord was in “Theodorets MSS & is still conserved in the MS of Lincoln College in Oxford & in one of Dr. Covels MSS. In the Alexandrine MS & Ethiopick Version ’tis, “Neither let us tempt God.”
12) Jude 1:5:“having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not.” The Alexandrine mss. and some others, and the Latin and Arabic versions, had, “Jesus having saved the people.” Almost all the early manuscripts, and the Syriack and Arabic versions, had, “The Lord having saved the people.”
13) 1 John 4:3: “and every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God,” was, “Every spirit that separates Jesus is not of God.”
14) John 19:40: “They took the body of Jesus, and bound it in linen clothes with the spices, as is the burial custom of the Jews.” In the Alexandrine ms., the reading is, “Then they took the body of God.” (Changes of only one or two characters in the Greek text can effect these changes.)
15) Acts 13:41: “Behold, you despisers, and wonder, and perish; for I work a work in your days, a work which you shall in no wise believe, though a man declare it unto you.” In a ms. of New College, “because God is crucified” is inserted after “a work in your days.”
16) 2 Thessalonians 1:9: “Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and the glory of his power.” In a ms. in Lincoln College, Oxford, the word “God” has been placed after the word “Lord.”
17) Acts 20:28: “Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over which the Holy Spirit hath made you overseers, to feed the Church of God which he hath purchased with his own blood of his own son.” Footnotes in the Revised Standard Version: (1) Other ancient authorities read “of the Lord”; (2) Greek: “with the blood of his Own or with his Own blood” (or “one church of Christ”).
18) 1 John 3:16: “By this we know love, that he has laid down his life for us.” In the Vulgar Latin Version, someone has inserted the word Dei [of God] after love, thereby changing the sense to: “Here[by we know] the love of God because he [that is, God] laid down his life for us.” All the ancient Greek mss. have the former Sir Isaac: “By this and other instances it appears that the Spanish Divines in their edition of the Bible have corrected the Greek Testament by the Vulgar Latin.”
19) Jude 1:4: “For admission has been secretly gained by some who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly persons who pervert the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.” Newton cites ten important ancient manuscripts leave out “ungodly persons who pervert the grace of our God into licentiousness,” thus suggesting to the unwary reader that God and Christ are one. Other important ancient texts make the sense ambiguous by saying, “denying the only God and master even our Lord Jesus Christ.” The Ethiopic version has, “denying the only God Jesus Christ.”
20) Philippians 4:13: “I can do all things through him who strengtheneth me.” “Him” means “God.” This reading is found in most of the important texts, but some have added one word in Greek that changes the sense to, “through Christ who strength-eneth me.” This seems to conflate Christ and God.
21) Romans 15:32: “So that by God’s will I may come to you with joy and be refreshed in your company.” Sir Isaac says: “Some have changed the will of God into the will of Christ Jesus.”
22) Colossians 3:15: “And let the peace of God rule your hearts, to the which also you were called in one body; and be thankful.” Newton remarks, “Some have changed the peace of God into the peace of Christ.”
23) Apocalypse 1:11: “Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last.” Newton says in “Apoc. 1:11, the wor
ds of the son of man, I am Alpha & Omega the first & the last have crept erroneously into some few Greek MSS. . . . God is called ye first & ye last to signify not his eternity but that it is he who sits upon the throne in the beginning & end of the prophecy: which some not understanding have applied here to Christ to prove his Eternity.”
24) 2 Peter 3:18: “But grow in grace and in the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, and of God the Father. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen.” Sir Isaac says: “[Some] MSS & versions have left out the words & of God the father, that the Doxology may refer to Christ.”
25) Romans 9:5: “Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.” The ancient “Syriack version” had “Who is God over all to whom be praises and blessings forever. Amen.” Newton thought the Syriack originally had “to him who is God over all be praises.”
26) Hebrews 2:9: “But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour, that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.” Newton says that “[The corrupted Syriac] version now hath For God himself by his Grace tasted death for all men corruptly for That He by the Grace of God should taste death for all men.”
27) Philippians 2:6: “Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God.” Newton says that this passage “was anciently understood in another sense . . . which makes me suspect some of the other versions have been tampered with.”
APPENDIX C
NEWTON’S TWENTY-THREE QUERIES CONCERNING THE WORD ὁμοούσιος
Query 1. Whether Christ sent his apostles to preach metaphysics to the unlearned common people, and to their wives and children.
Query 2. Whether the word ὁμοούσιος ever was in any creed before the Nicene; or any creed was produced by any one bishop at the Council of Nice [Nicaea] for authorizing the use of that word.
Query 3. Whether the introducing the use of that word is not contrary to the Apostles’ rule of holding fast the form of sound words.
Query 4. Whether the use of that word was not pressed upon the Council of Nice against the inclination of the major part of the Council.
Query 5. Whether it was not pressed upon them by the emperor Constantine the Great, a catechumen not yet baptized, and no member of the Council.
Query 6. Whether it was not agreed by the Council that that word should, when applied to the Word of God, signify nothing more than that Christ was the express image of the Father, and whether many of the bishops, in pursuance of that interpretation of the word allowed by the Council, did not, in their subscriptions, by way of caution, add τουτ᾽ ἐστιν ὁμοιούσιος?
Query 7. Whether Hosius (or whoever translated that Creed into Latin) did not impose upon the Western Churches by translating ὁμοούσιος by the words unius substantiæ, instead of consubstantialis, and whether by that translation the Latin Churches were not drawn into an opinion that the Father and Son had one common substance, called by the Greeks Hypostasis, and whether they did not thereby give occasion to the Eastern Churches to cry out, presently after the Council of Sardica, that the Western Churches were become Sabellian.
Query 8. Whether the Greeks, in opposition to this notion and language, did not use the language of three hypostases, and whether in those days the word hypostasis did not signify a substance.
Query 9. Whether the Latins did not at that time accuse all those of Arianism who used the language of three hypostases, and thereby charge Arianism upon the Council of Nice, without knowing the true meaning of the Nicene Creed.
Query 10. Whether the Latins were not convinced, in the Council of Ariminum, that the Council of Nice, by the word ὁμοούσιος, understood nothing more than that the son was the express image of the father;—the acts of the Council of Nice were not produced for convincing them. And whether, upon producing the acts of that Council for proving this, the Macedonians, and some others, did not accuse the bishops of hypocrisy, who, in subscribing these acts, had interpreted them by the word ὁμοιούσιος in their subscriptions.
Query 11. Whether Athanasius, Hilary, and in general the Greeks and Latins, did not, from the time of the reign of Julian the Apostate, acknowledge the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost to be three substances, and continue to do so till the school men changed the signification of the word hypostasis, and brought in the notion of three persons in one single substance.
Query 12. Whether the opinion of the equality of the three substances was not first set on foot in the reign of Julian the Apostate, by Athanasius, Hilary, etc.
Query 13. Whether the worship of the Holy Ghost was not first set on foot presently after the Council of Sardica?
Query 14. Whether the Council of Sardica was not the first Council which declared for the doctrine of the consubstantial Trinity and whether the Council did not affirm that there was but one hypostasis of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.
Query 15. Whether the Bishop of Rome, five years after the death of Constantine the Great, AD 341, did not receive appeals from the Greek Councils, and thereby begin to usurp the universal bishopric.
Query 16. Whether the Bishop of Rome, in absolving the appellants from excommunication, and communicating with them, did not excommunicate himself, and begin a quarrel with the Greek Church.
Query 17. Whether the Bishop of Rome, in summoning all the bishops of the Greek Church to appear at the next Council of Rome, AD 342, did not challenge dominion over them, and begin to make war upon them for obtaining it.
Query 18. Whether that Council of Rome, in receiving the appellants into communion, did not excommunicate themselves, and support the Bishop of Rome in claiming appeals from all the world.
Query 19. Whether the Council of Sardica, in receiving the appellants into communion, and decreeing appeals from all the churches to the Bishop of Rome, did not excommunicate themselves, and become guilty of the schism which followed there-upon, and set up Popery in all the West.
Query 20. Whether the emperor Constantius did not, by calling the Council of Millain and Aquileia, AD 365, abolish Popery and whether Hilary, Lucifer, were not banished for adhering to the authority of the Pope to receive appeals from the Greek Councils.
Query 21. Whether the emperor Gratian, AD 379, did not, by his edict, restore the universal bishopric of Rome over all the west and whether this authority of the Bishop of Rome hath not continued ever since.
Query 22. Whether Hosius, Saint Athanasius, Saint Hilary, Saint Ambrose, Saint Hierome, Saint Austin were not Papists.
Query 23. Whether the Western Bishops upon being convinced that the Council of Nice by the word ὁμοούσιος did.
APPENDIX D
NEWTON ON GOD’S ANTI-TRINITARIAN INTRODUCTION TO JOHN’S BOOK OF REVELATION
Note: From Newton’s “Untitled Treatise on Revelation” (section 1.4), Yahuda MS. 1.4, National Library of Israel, Jerusalem, Israel. Newton Project, www.newtonproject.sussex.ac.uk/view/texts/normalized/THEM00182. Text begins under the heading 156r, “Of the Lambs taking the Book.”
Having thus framed a conception of the heavenly court, you are in the next place to consider what was done there by way of preparation to these visions: & this was the Lamb’s taking a sealed book out of the hand of him that sat on the throne, which none in heaven or earth or under the earth besides the Lamb was found worthy to open & read; & upon his doing this he is celebrated for his worthiness, first by a double commemoration of it as if he became worthy by the merits of his death, & then by a doxology hereupon given him together with him that sat on the Throne, & this is followed with a higher degree of worship given to him only which sate upon the throne.
The Book you may conceive rolled up & sealed in such a manner that the opening of every seal may undo some of the leaves so that more & more of the book may be opened by steps till the whole be open. And the contents of it you must conceive of so transcendent excellency tha
t they were fit to be communicated to none but the Lamb. You are not to imagine that this is the book of the Apocalypse written by Saint John, but rather a book representing that plenary revelation which the great God imparted to our Saviour after his resurrection & to none but him. For first it was a book written within & on the backside, that is a book containing the knowledge of things past as well as to come whereas the Apocalypse contained only things to come, Apoc. 1.1, 3 & 22.6, 10; & accordingly the visions thereof were represented concomitant to the opening of the seals for the Lamb to look on the inside after he had viewed the backside, as you may conceive. Secondly there is nothing in the Apocalypse which can be pretended to be a transcript of this book: for there is nothing set down there but certain visions which Saint John saw concomitant to the opening of the Seals, & those too such as by the motions of some & voices of others, & also by Saint John’s being called by the four beasts to go from place to place to see them, were manifestly no flat pictures in the book, but appearances to the life, such as (like those made to Daniel in his visions) had the full proportions, dimensions & gestures of the things they were a shew of, as if they had been those real things. And Thirdly it is expressly said, not only that none but the Lamb was worthy to take & open the book, but also that none but he were worthy to read it or to look thereon: & if so, then Saint John himself was not worthy to read it, & much less was the world worthy to whom the full contents of this book should be made public to be read by all, bad as well as good. I might add also, that the great emphasis laid upon this book, first by the solemn declaration with a loud voice that none in heaven nor in earth nor under the earth were found worthy to open it, so as to make Saint John weep thereat; & then by the following celebrations of the Lamb for his worthiness to receive wisdom & all other perfections, after he appeared to take & open it: is an intimation plain enough that this book signifies one of the greatest treasures that he who sat upon the Throne ever conferred upon the Lamb, & consequently nothing less then all that fullness of knowledge of things past & to come which God gave him after his resurrection. This is certain, that it signifies such knowledge as the Lamb had not received before the Apocalypse it self being a new revelation to him Apoc. 1.1: & why it should signify less then all that knowledge communicated to him at that time when he received this knowledge, I see no reason. But further this book . . . This book is an emblem of the Revelation as it was made by God to the Lamb, & it cannot be thought that God would give him a revelation in obscure types & figures such as the Apocalypse consists of. The Apocalypse is called indeed the revelation of Jesus Christ which God gave him: but it is not to be supposed that it is all the revelation which God gave him, or that God gave it him in those obscure terms in which we have it, but rather that God gave him a full & clear revelation, & that he gave us only so much of that revelation as was fit for us to have, & that too wrapped up in obscurity. Wherefore since the sealed book signifies the revelation as it was given by God to the Lamb, & not as it was given by the Lamb to us (for God gave it to the Lamb but the Lamb gave it not to Saint John) it must signify a full & perspicuous revelation, such an one as eminently contains the revelation made to us. And therefore you are to conceive that the Lamb opened the book for his own perusal only & that the concomitant visions which appeared to Saint John were but general & dark emblems of what was particularly & perspicuously revealed to the Lamb in this book.
The Metaphysical World of Isaac Newton Page 41