Jesus' Words Only

 

2 Peter 1:10: Good Works Make Sure One's Salvation

 

The Douay-Rheims alone in English makes any mention of "good works" is what "makes sure" your calling and election in 2 Peter 1:10: 

 

Wherefore, brethren, labour the more, that by good works you may make sure your calling and election. For doing these things, you shall not sin at any time. (Douay-Rheims.)  

Why is it alone in English? See the 30 English Bibles quoted of this one verse at this Bible Hub link. 

We will explore here that there is only one explanation. This travesty was exposed almost 300 years ago by Daniel Whitby - a major Protestant theologian of his day. Silence and ignoring him was the response. It has worked so far.

Will it continue?  More on that below.

 

The Oldest Greek and Latin Manuscripts

 

The oldest Codex at the time of the King James was the Codex Bezae dating to circa 400 AD. The Codex Bezae versions -- two of them -- included in the Textus Receptus used by the KJV show 2 Peter 1:10 says that "good works" make sure your salvation. Despite this being available to the King James translators, they ignored it. (They ignored other verses like Luke 3:22 for obviously biased reasons as well. See Baptismal Account of Jesus.)  Despite this fact, only one translation in English preserves this original source for the Textus Receptus: the Douay-Rheims.

 

Incidentally, this is a Bible translation by Catholic sources. This means 100% of all our Protestant English Bibles omit "good works" -- at least as far as the top 30 English Protestant Bibles are concerned. Ironically, only the Catholics have a correct verse at 2 Peter 1:10. 

 

Let's quote the Douay-Rheims once more: 

Wherefore, brethren, labour the more, that by good works you may make sure your calling and election. For doing these things, you shall not sin at any time. (Douay-Rheims.)  

The Sinaiticus -- now the oldest extent New Testament  discovered in the 1850s which dates to about 340 AD (60 years earlier than the Codex Bezae) -- likewise has "good works." So too the Latin Vulgate from 405 AD. Also the Alexandrinus from the 400s -- the earliest source of the Alexandrian tradition. (The Greek manuscripts that came later in the Byzantine tradition are sucessors to this version. So if they vary, they are considered to have strayed from this oldest edition.)

 

We read commentary linked at Biblehub.com to 2 Peter 1:10 mention the following:

Two ancient manuscripts, the Alexandrine and the Sinaitic[us] insert here, "Through your good works." (Pulpit Commentary.)

"by good works", as the Vulgate Latin version and two copies of Beza’s read; or "by your good works" (Gill’s Exposition)

Despite this overwhelming manuscript evidence, every English version but Douay-Rheims reads otherwise. The American Standard Version is typical, with "more diligence" appearing with no object of "by good works," thereby leaving hanging "these things" to point at nothing: 

Wherefore, brethren, give the more diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never stumble: (2 Peter 1:10 ASV.)

 

Why isn't the fact every oldest text to support the Greek Textus Receptus' Codex Beza, including the Sinaiticus, Vulgate, and Alexandrinus version each has "good works" not enough to compel correction? 

 

Even those  who recompiled the Greek New Testament and called it the Textus Receptus using the best sources had "good works" as well. See Textus Receptus of Stephanus (1550) - 61 years prior to the KJV; as well as Scrivener (1894) - 120 years prior to all our modern Bible versions. These were each top scholarly assessments on what was the original.

 

Why is it also not enough that the Critical Text of 1896 by Walcott Hort -- the ultimate inspiration for the Nestle-Aland line of Greek compilation editions behind the NIV -- has "good works" not enough? Yet, the NIV will not budge and did not restore "good works."

 

As already mentioned, in our modern editions we see the words "by good works" ommited, leaving "these things" later in the sentence left to point at nothing congruent, such as in the NIV.

 

The Latin Vulgate of 405 AD also has "good works" (bona opera) but silence everywhere else other than the Douay-Rheims. This is predictable because it is an English Bible prepared by Catholics as was the Vulgate.

 

While I am a Protestant, I also can see truth. Can the well-known Protestant majority belief in faith alone be dictating an unquestionable bold deletion?

 

What else other than such doctrine explains why the King James has "be diligent" stand alone, rendering incongruous and unexplained why later Peter calls that action "these things"?

 

What else explains why the KJV reads that way despite supposedly being based upon the Codex Bezae within the Textus Receptus editions? Both editions of the Codex Bezae says "good works" as Gil above confessed. The KJV translators had no alternative that was from any younger and presumably a more legitimate text. Nor could the KJV translators turn to the Latin Vulgate as an excuse for it too had "good works."

 

More oddly, no one even claims some later Greek manuscripts are missing "good works." It appears simply a deletion to something that offends ones ears. Our "Faith Alone" Protestant forefathers were apparently not angels.

 

Their obvious deletion of "by good works" is proof that their "faith alone" view is the only reason they would do such a treacherous thing. Ironically, that belief excused them from thinking sin like this could ever be damning. They all patted themselves on the back as eternally secure by faith alone. They could have bad works and based upon faith alone "knew" they were just as secure even if they removed words unquestionably present in 2 Peter 1:10.

 

Doctrine crushed Peter's words.

 

Regardless of our ancestors' bravado to delete what they acknowledged and sincerely believed was God's inerrant word at that time, we are no longer censors, are we?

 

We had a recent chance post-KJV to fix this. But why was the Sinaiticus discovery in the 1800s of a text from about 340 AD not enough to compound the proof that the earliest text read "good works?" That finally we would fix the error of our Protestant over-zealous ancestors?

 

Oh yes, modern "faith-not works" doctrine would be impinged. Doctrine is still the blockade from truth. We are still all confident that we are promised by Paul that our security in Christ comes only by believing in the facts of Jesus' atoning death, burial and resurrection. Paul assures us we "shall" be saved if we hold those facts about Jesus's life-events "steadfastly" in "our minds." (1 Cor. 15:1-5.) Hence, the fact Peter disagrees should be left a secret only a few should ever know.

 

Perhaps this article will finally cause reconsideration.  

 

How do we know for certain that it is bias to protect Paul's doctrine of faith alone that explains this? Could our present Bible scholars not know about this by some freakish fluke? Has no one reputable ever before exposed this "mistake"? Is it only the JWO website that has ever seen this?

 

A Reputable Scholar Has Been Ignored For Almost 300 Years

 

We know this apparent blockade has to be due to bias because Daniel Whitby who died in 1726 -- a well-respected Protestant scholar whose research was impeccable -- exposed this almost 300 years ago. The evidence has only gotten stronger since then in light of the find of the Sinaiticus Bible in 1859 -- the oldest Christian New Testament from about 340 AD.  

 

Daniel Whitby (1638-1726) explained in his work Election and Reprobation, Discourse I 3:1 (1801) at page 43 that there are words in 2 Peter 1:10 that we do not see in the KJV (and now the NIV et al.) but are supported by every ancient source imaginable, including the context:

 

“[Our final election] is to be made sure unto us, ‘by good works,’ according to that exhortation of St. Peter, (2 Pet. 1:10) ‘give diligence to make your calling and election sure, BY GOOD WORKS,’ as both the Fathers, the Syriac, the Vulgar [i.e., Vulgate], the Ethiopic, and many ancient copies read, and as the text requires, as the words following, being these, 'for if you do these things you shall never fall....”

 

"As the text requires" means that "good works" is necessary to precede so as to make sense of "if you do these things."

 

Thus, Whitby -- a major Protestant voice in his day -- is saying the Syriac and Ethiopic Greek manuscripts and the Latin Vulgate all have by good works in the sentence. And 2 Peter 1:10 was quoted by the earliest Patristic writings of the so-called Fathers to include the phrase by good works. So what it actually says is “give diligence to make your calling and election sure by good works.” Now you can see why the KJV and NIV simply refuse to honor the text. It runs afoul of Paul's words when he says that security of one's salvation -- one's election -- comes solely by a one-time faith, and not by good works. See Ephesians 2:8-9.

 

Despite a major Protestant figure exposing this over 300 years ago, nothing has been done to fix an obvious deletion by our KJV translators and others of that era. This is as transparent a crime against the text as can be imagined. It was obviously due to bias. Any exposure by Darby was treated with silence. Those peddling Bibles in the distant past of Darby's day could not fix this, or they would lose sales. Time has now compounded their greed. Most Bible translators today likely have no idea about this any more, if any of them do.

 

Silence long pursued as a strategy of deflection will work when all voices of exposure die off.  Faith alone advocates have played a long game of attrition -- relying upon a power once achieved can never afford to weaken to make room for truth.

 

But once this article circulates, as I hope it will, it surely will reach modern Bible translators. Will they let more centuries of generations continue in ignorance? I trust not. For if they trust God as they truly claim, and put truth above greed, then their consciences should not let them do so. There must be one among so many Protestant Bibles which will break through to the other side -- to the side of truth?

 

We shall see if any Bible is brave enough to do what should have been done centuries ago: fix this.

 

Any Protestant Bible that wishes to be noted for fixing this, please let me know, and I will post your decision right at this point:

 

Bible #1 to Fix 2 Peter 1:10 -- ????? 

 

Bible #2 to Fix Peter 1:10 - ????   

 

[First posting: 6/29/2020.   Latest update 7/26/2020.]

 

 

The Moral of the Story.

 

Finally, the best way to defeat mistranslations is to defy them. Obey Peter's instructions to make your election and calling sure by good works.

 

Some of our spiritual Protestant ancestors over 300 years ago did not do this, committing a grievous sin towards this text. As their souls await judgment, I am pretty confident they are now cognizant how wrong they were to mislead millions -- perhaps billions -- of Protestant souls over the last 300 years on how to make their calling and election sure by good works. All the Protestant souls that could have been led to heaven by a correct translation are now tallied among all thes translators' sins. They now know Paul was wrong that they shall go to heaven for just believing in the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus, as they incessantly preached from 1 Cor. 15:1-4 for decades. For these deluded or greedy transgressors from 300 years ago, Jesus already told us what happens to them -- a torment worse than being dropped into the darkest depth of the ocean with the heaviest weight about their neck:

42 “If anyone causes one of these little ones—those

who believe in me—to stumble, it would be better

for them if a large millstone were hung around

their neck and they were thrown into the

sea. (Mark 9:42-47 NIV.)