I would like to however add this. The NASB which I consider one the better based on the critical text, is also filled with question marks and so is no better. For example, the NASB as with all other CT based versions go on the ASSUMPTION that their Westcott/Hort hodge podge made up by blending together the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus texts (both heavily replete with editorial marks, deleting some passages and adding to others) is an error. These two are neither our oldest examples nor do their deletions always weigh out. The earliest church leaders for example quote from passages they delete (claiming they were not in the originals) from the copies of the texts handed down by the Apostles themselves...these two differ from one another in many places, end at different places, and include different sets of books...
For example they claim Mark 16:18-20 was an add in yet Iranaeus in Against Heresies quotes Mark 16:19..and no one rebuked him or accused him of adding something...in many places he uses the wording ONLY found in what we now call the Majority Text...Vaticanus (whose final edit took place in the 12th century) leaves a space for this section of Mark which sticks out like a sore thumb...Sinaiticus ends Hebrews in chapter 9 and so on...no these two are neither the oldest OR the best (Sinaiticus was thrown away)...and the only slightly younger Alexandrinus contains all of Mark 16:18-20....so Iranaeus from 100s of years before Sinaiticus or Vaticanus quotes from this section and considers it scripture....Alexandrinus contains it all....as does the Majority Text (called Majority for a reason), Vaticanus either deleted it or was going to insert it, so that leaves only Sinaiticus (with all its problems) that disregards it...
These verses however, also are fully present in the more ancient versions of the Old Latin, and the Syriac Peshita (2nd Century A.D.)! Scholars have noted note that these verses were intentionally removed from an early Docetic revision which is imitated in the Latin Manuscript k (which I suppose is the original source of Sinaiticus). The Docetists were deemed to be heretics very early on.
Marcion’s followers, practiced deleting what was not useful to their purpose (also from Rome), or contrary to their agenda. We see the exact same Marcion technique used today in the New World Translation of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, and in the Jesus Seminar’s creation of “the Gospel of Q“!
Examples of questionable changes...
Matt. 5:22
Irenaeus - Against Heresies, Book. V, XVI, 5 and Cyprian - Treatise XII, Book 3, 8…the Majority Text (MT) says "angry with his brother without a cause" while the Critical Text (CT) says "angry with his brother"
Matt. 6:9-13
Didache – VIII (from around 110 A.D, about 10 years after John died) has the long version found in the MT but the CT has a shorter version...why?
Matt. 17:21
Tertulian - On Fasting, VIII has "...this kind goes not out but by prayer and fasting" like in the MT, but he CT removes “and fasting” here
Matt. 19:16,17
Origen - Against Celsus, Book V, XI, has the MT’s "...Good master, ...Why do you call me good, there is none good, but one, that is, God." The CT has "...Teacher, ... Why do you ask me about what is good?"
Matt. 26:28
Cyprian - Epistle LXII, identifies the "New Covenant" with Jer. 31:31-34 calling it the New Covenant, the CT disconnects this identification with Christ by calling it simply “the covenant."
Matt. 27:24
Constitutions of the Holy Apostles - Book V, XIX…"the blood of this just person" as opposed to "this man's blood" deleting that Pilate considered or called Jesus “just”…
Mark 1:2
Irenaeus - Book III, XVI, 3 again reflects the MT where he says "the prophets" (plural) where the CT says "Isaiah the prophet" which implies a possible error because Mark goes on to mention Malachi and Isaiah…the CT scholars would have you believe Mark made the error yet allegedly under the unction from the Holy Spirit (I beckon all who read this to reject their fallacious notion).
Mark 2:17 [also Matt. 9:13]
Barnabas – V (from the late 1st or early 2nd century) has the MTs "call...sinners to repentance" while the Ct has only "call...sinners". Their proponents called this “to repentance” an add in (a scribal redaction)…they lied, the CT deleted repentance.
Mark 16:9-20
Irenaeus - Book III, X, 5 and Constitutions - Book VIII, 1, both infer this, in Against Heresies quotes verse 19, and the MT and Alexandrinus fully include it, but the CT brackets it (even though one of their sources excludes it entirely and has the alleged shorter version, and the other leaves a blank space where it goes or where it was…but Westcott himself omitted it without proper explanation.
Luke 2:14
Gregory - Twelve Topics on the Faith, Topic XII and Methodius - Oration Concerning Simeon and Anna, and Constitutions of the Holy Apostles - Book VII, XLVII, all have the MT’s "good will toward men" while the CT writes "peace to men on whom his favor rests", a wording not even in the text…
Luke 10:1,17
Irenaeus - Book II, XXI, 1, and Tertullian - Against Marcion, Book IV, XXIV, have the MT rendering "seventy" as opposed to the CTs "seventy-two" (again not in the Text)
Luke 21:4
Irenaeus - Book IV, XVIII, 2, and Cyprian’s - Treatise VIII, 15, have it as the MTs "offerings of God" the CT omits this entirely
John 1:18
Irenaeus - Book III, XI, 6; Tertulian - Against Praxeas, XV; Origen - Against Celcus, LXXI; Hippolytus - Against Noetus, 5; Archelaus - Disputation with Manes, 32; Alexander of Alexandria - Epistles on the Arian Heresy, 4 say "Only begotten Son" just like the MT, but the CT writes "Only begotten God." Adding to and taking away from is a definite no no according to God all through the Bible...
John 3:13
St. Cyprian includes "which is in heaven" like the MT rendition, but the CT totally omits this phrase
John 6:69
Cyprian - Epistle LXVIII, 8, writes "Thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God" but the CT rephrases as "you are the holy One of God" (see Mark 1:24 and Luke 4:34 and you will see only demons use this title)
John 9:4
Tertullian - Against Praxeas, XXII, says "I must work" but the CT says "we must work"
Acts 8:37
Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Bk. III, xii.8 and Cyprian’s - Treatise XII, Book III, 43, include the MT Ethiopian Eunuch's confession and the CT omits it entirely
Rom. 1:16
Tertullian - On Prescription Against Heretics, XXIII, has "...the gospel of Christ" while the CT omits “of Christ”
Rom. 10:15
Irenaeus - Book III, XIII, insists "gospel of peace" here but Wescott and Hort’s CT rephrases as simply "good news", which it is, but this is not what is said in Paul’s letter
1 Cor. 5:7
Though both Clement of Alexandria’s - Stromata, X, and Tertullian’s - Against Marcion, VII, declare "Christ our passover is sacrificed for us" the CT takes out “for us” Why?
Eph. 5:30
Irenaeus - Book V, II, 3] [Methodius - Banquet of the Ten Virgins, Discourse III, I, has the MT’s "of his body, of his flesh and of his bones" but the CT edits to "of his body" (which could be misconstrued to allegorically imply us, the church and is preached so in some ECUSA pulpits)
Phil. 4:13
Origen - De Principiis, Book III, II, 5, again agrees with the MT ("...Christ, who strengthens me") where the CT puts "...him who gives me strength." An alternative wording not found anywhere before them.
Col. 2:18
In Origen’s - Against Celcus, VIII, he writes the MT version "...he hath not seen” when the CT says "...he has seen." Which will you trust?
Col. 3:6
Clement of Alexandria and others include "on the children (or sons) of disobedience" but the CT takes it right out! Think about it as you read the passage elsewhere....
1 Tim. 6:5
Cyprian - Epistle XXXIX, 6, and in Epistle LXXIII,3 which includes the MT "from such withdraw thyself" is likewise omitted
Heb. 11:37
When both Clement of Alexandria - Stromata, XVI, and Origen – in Against Celcus, VII, both of the Alexandrian school, quote the passage including the MTs “were tempted"…the CT appears to delete this as well
1 John 4:3
Polycarp - Epistle, VII, Tertulian - On Prescription Against Heretics, XXXIII, as well as in, On the Flesh of Christ, XXIV, infer or include "Christ in the flesh" (utterly gone from the CT)
1 John 5:7
Tertullian - Against Praxeas XXV; Cyprian - Epistle LXXII, 12; Cyprian - Treatise I, 6, imply “...the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one” where the VT takes this out
Please note that all these men are drawing from the accepted text of the church in their time (within the first 2 centuries) and all existed more than a century or two or three before S (A) or V (B)…
For me the witness of the fathers from centuries before the alleged basis texts of the NASB speak loudly...
Now having said that I want to say the Textus Receptus of KJV fame also has some differences from the Majority Text but is much closer to the earlier and better texts handed down (Mark started ministering in Alexandria from Peter and Paul in Rome, Iranaeus was a student of Polycarp who was taught and appointed to his office by John the Apostle...others followed what was received from Ignatius of Antioch another student of John who was under Peter when He was bishop there, Justin a student of the Palestinian church, and so on)
In His love
Paul
