bradmc
This past Sunday morning a call to worship was read in a local church. The selected passage was Phil 2 which included verses 5 and 6. My bible had the reading:
“Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:“
but that was not what was read. No, a very different word was delivered to the gathered saints. It was this:
“Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,“
These two statements are not just grammatically different but are actually saying opposite things:
  1. The KJV says that Jesus “thought it not robbery to be equal with God”
  2. The ESV says that Jesus “did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped”
Those are opposing arguments. One must be true and one must be false. Can we determine which one? Well, when we look at the historical data we can see that one is original. One is what the church has always had and taught.
In “Exhortation to Heathen” Clement of Alexandria quotes the verse “who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God, but humbled himself”

Tertullian quoted Phil 2:6 in “On the Resurrection of the Flesh” stating it accurately “thought it not robbery to be equal to God” and again in “Against Praxeas” he quotes the whole verse: “who, being in the form of God  thought it not robbery to be equal to God”

In “Origen De Principiis”  Origen quotes it accurately  “who, being in the form of God  thought it not robbery to be equal to God”
All of these quotes are prior to 325 AD and additionally, there are no Ante-Nicene fathers who quote the Novum Testamentum Graece or NU  version (as read in the ESV “did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped“). Since these two versions state the opposite premises one must be correct and the other must be an error. 
-more about the NU link
-more about the TR link
Not only do we have historical reasons to conclude that the NU reading is inaccurate but the word itself disagrees with NU when it declares that Jesus did in fact think that equality with God was something to be grasped. 
  • He used his equality with God to do miracles: Mt 9:6 
  • He allowed himself to be worshiped: Luke 19:40 
  • He proclaimed it plainly: 
    • In John 10:30 both the KJV (TR representative) and the ESV (NU representative) deliver the quote by Jesus “I and my Father are one” KJV and “I and the Father are one” ESV
    • John 8:58 “Before Abraham was, I am.” KJV and ESV
    • John 12:45 Jesus equates seeing him with seeing the Father.
There are other references that defend Jesus as God but that is not the issue with the Phil 2:6 reading.  The issue is the assertion by the NU that Jesus did not think of his equality with God as something to be taken hold of. Other readings in the NU clearly agree with the TR that Jesus did consider his equality a thing to be grasped, used, and proclaimed. So the TR is consistent while the NU is at odds with itself. 
Biblical inerrancy demands a higher standard than the NU Phil 2:6 reading allows.  I am not one that claims the KJV in all its varieties is perfect in its wording or even choice in English words since those meanings can change but I do believe in the Doctrines of Preservation and Inerrancy as clearly taught by the word. If God’s claims about His word and indeed about Himself are to be believed then we must reject the NU and the bibles who base their translations upon it. 

In light of the historical evidence and careful discernment, it becomes evident that the reading of Philippians 2:6 from the Novum Testamentum Graece (NU) version, as reflected in the ESV translation, carries inconsistencies and contradicts the coherent theological framework maintained by the Textus Receptus (TR) reading, as found in the King James Version (KJV). The diverse citations from early Church Fathers such as Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and Origen, who consistently uphold the TR reading, provide a strong case for the authenticity of “thought it not robbery to be equal with God” as opposed to the NU’s “did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped.”

Furthermore, a comprehensive examination of Jesus’ teachings and actions throughout the New Testament underscores the notion that Jesus not only considered his equality with God to be intrinsic but also demonstrated this understanding through his miracles, acceptance of worship, and explicit statements regarding his divine identity. The consistency of these references aligns with the TR reading and portrays a coherent picture of Jesus’ self-perception as God.

As believers uphold the principles of biblical inerrancy and preservation, it is crucial to hold translations to a higher standard, one that is fully consistent with the theological tenets expressed in the original text. The conclusion drawn here emphasizes that the evidence points towards the TR reading as more faithfully representing the intended message of Philippians 2:6 and maintains the vital doctrines of Preservation and Inerrancy, which are foundational to the Christian faith. Thus, based on historical and theological considerations, it is prudent to reject the NU Philippians 2:6 reading and the translations that align with it in favor of preserving the doctrinal integrity of the Christian Scriptures.

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

——————————————-

[Variations from the traditional text generally represent the Alexandrian or Egyptian type of text described previously in “The New Testament Text.” They are found in the Critical Text published in the twenty-sixth edition of the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament (N) and in the United Bible Societies’ third edition (U), hence the acronym, “NU-Text.”] -NKJV preface

 

for a list of places where the new bibles based on the NU cause error LINK

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather