“But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.” – Matthew 4:4 (KJV)
“And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.” – Luke 4:4 (KJV)
What beautiful verses! Right off the bat, even a cursory glace sees the heart of reliance on God, hunger for his word, and radical ranking of priorities clear in this quotation. These verses stand in sharp contrast to the natural appetite of mankind. They are a powerful display of the faith and paradigm shift that characterizes believers in God. But does it show more? What else can we learn from them?
The Divided Implications
These are important for a number of reasons regarding our perception of the Word of God. A fundamental aspect of the KJVO/TRO[1] case is derived from two words in these quotes. In 2003, Hyles Publications released a book titled "The Need for an Every-word Bible."[2] This title references an argument often put forth by King James Only advocates. The argument itself can be outlined as follows:
1. God wants us to know "every word" of his word.
2. If any Bible changes, adds, or deletes individual words, it is deviating from the "perfect standard" that God wants for his people.
3. Thus, any Bible that changes any word from what we know as the "perfect text" is corrupted and worthy of rejection.
James Rasbeary sums the argument up like this: “Any attack on THE faith is an attack on MY faith. I do not need anyone messing with my faith. I want to know God and serve Him "...acceptably with reverence and godly fear" (Heb 12:28). To do that, I must have the words of God – all of them. (Mat 4:4) "But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." The Bible is my bread and my drinking water. It is essential to my very life”[3] (Bold is original)
This, naturally, sounds very logically consistent and ideal. However, the wording of the argument, and much of the seeming support, is based on these two verses, as well as Matthew 5:18. Matthew 4:4 seems, for some reason, to be the more commonly cited one, and thus, will be the primary text we examine today.
For being so confidently cited by some, other expositors would sharply disagree with Hyles and Rasbeary. One, for example, wrote this:
“…to suggest that the passage is teaching some kind of verbal preservation based on the phrase “every word” in Mat. 4:4 is to fundamentally miss the point that this word of the phrase is not itself a part of the Hebrew text of Deut. 8:3. It is an addition from the LXX translation of the Hebrew text into Greek. To take an instance where the OT Hebrew text has been changed in translation, which translation is then quoted in the NT, and then to use that very change itself as the basis of a doctrine which asserts that the text could never be changed is beyond absurd. Absurd is probably too kind a word. It is in fact the very definition of shooting oneself in the foot.”[4]
That’s no small claim! What does he mean by all of that? Who is correct in this debate? Most importantly, what does the Bible tell us here? Does the context shed any light on this hotly debated topic? Let’s take a look.
Historical and Literary Context
This particular narrative details the events of Jesus being in the wilderness and then being tempted by Satan three times. The events are recorded in Matthew 4:1-11, Luke 4:1-13, and Mark 1:12-13. The latter Gospel, however, quickly sums up the event, editing out all dialog, and is therefore obviously not cited on the subject of Biblical Preservation. While Luke and Matthew both record the same events, the final two temptations reverse order between the accounts and there are minor dialog and quotation differences.[5] The latter, being the quotations differences, curiously, is an unexpected and rarely dealt with factor within this discussion. While we will focus our attention on Matthews account, relevant differences will be dealt with when appropriate.[6]
The Temptation Narrative as a whole follows on the heels of Jesus baptism at the hands of John the Baptist. (While Matthew continues straight to the Temptation, Luke inserts his genealogy here.) To this point, in these Gospel accounts, Jesus was not yet engaging in his public ministry. In Matthew’s account, Jesus is baptized, then tempted, then hears of John’s arrest, and only then begins to preach in Capernaum and call his disciples. It is also interesting that the three quotations of Jesus in this narrative are the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th time he speaks in Matthew’s Gospel. However, even the first (Matt 3:15) still displays Christ’s humble submission to the law and to God’s purpose for him, a theme carried forward into the following Temptation.
Leading into the Temptation Narrative, Matthew began his Gospel with the extended account of Jesus’ birth. He opens with a genealogy, then the historical details of Joseph and Mary’s relationship and the angelic visitor to Joseph. The second chapter opens with Jesus’ birth and the visit of the wise men. The title “King of the Jews” is used repeatedly, hammering home, as the genealogy before it did, the authority and qualifications Jesus had to be the Messiah. Matthew’s Gospel frequently quotes from the Old Testament, with 60 quotations, and even more allusions. Central to that usage are the 10 “fulfillment passages” that highlight the things done to fulfill the prophecy that is then quoted.[7] What is interesting, as Joseph and his family return from Egypt, is the specific OT fulfilment passage noted in Matthew 2:15.
“And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son.”
Here begins an important theme which Matthew, in his arrangement of the story, continues for some time. The original context of Hosea 11:1 shows the “son” is referring to Israel as a whole, not necessarily one individual or even the messiah.[8] The entire verse, even without context, makes this clear: “When Israel was a child, then I loved him, And called my son out of Egypt.”
Rather than be turned off at this, Matthew beautifully weaves the idea that Jesus is not only the “King of the Jews” (A title echoed often in Matthew’s Gospel) but also uses this theme of Jesus reenacting the beginning of Israel’s history, in a sense, yet doing so without the failure and sin of Israel.
Continuing his account, chapter 3 of Matthew details Jesus’ baptism, then chapter 4 launches him into the wilderness. In one sense, this echoes the “baptism” of Israel crossing the Red Sea, then themselves entering into the wilderness wonderings. (Both wilderness experiences being in time increments of 40.)
Carson details this parallel well: “The Parallels with historic Israel continue. Jesus’ fast (doubtless total abstinence from food but not from drink; Luke 4:2) of forty days and nights reflected Israel’s forty-year wandering (Duet. 8:2). Both Israel’s and Jesus’ hunger taught a lesson (Duet. 8:3); both spent time in in the desert preparatory to their respective tasks. The main point is that both “sons” were tested by God’s design (Duet. 8:3, 5; cf. Ex. 4:22), the one after being redeemed from Egypt and the other after his baptism, to prove their obedience and loyalty in preparation for their appointed work. The one “son” failed but pointed to the “Son” who would never fail (see comments at 2:15). In this sense, the temptations legitimized Jesus as God’s true Son.”[9]
This is appropriate, as, again, it immediately follows Jesus’ baptism and the Voice from Heaven declaring “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” (Matt 3:17) Now, that relationship, and just how pleasing Jesus will be, are under test. Will Jesus triumph where Israel fell?
Exposition and Interpretation
The first temptation in Matthew’s order is the familiar request to turn stones into bread. Jesus has been fasting for forty days when “The Tempter” arrives and claims “If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread.” These words tempt Jesus into tapping into his Divine strength to satisfy his bodily hunger. Through that, The Tempter is also mocking his rank, throwing shade at his really being God’s Son, and trying to insult both Jesus’ human weaknesses (hunger) and perhaps even try to poke his pride. (by doubting who he really was.) Jesus, however, simply refuses and quotes a portion of Scripture in reply.
In conclusion on this temptation, one commentor wrote: “True, the Son of God is able enough to turn stones into bread: but what the Son of God is able to do is not the present question, but what is Man’s duty under want of the necessaries of life. And as Israel’s condition in the wilderness did not justify their unbelieving murmurings and frequent desperation, so neither would mine warrant the exercise of the power of the Son of God in snatching despairingly at unwarranted relief. As man, therefore, I will await divine supply, nothing doubting that at the fitting time it will arrive.[10]”
While that quote is quite a mouthful, one of the church fathers summarized the idea like this: “Christ’s purpose was to vanquish by humility;[11]”
This supports the conclusion that the temptation episodes are demonstrations proving the humility of Christ to submit to God’s plan, both in the end purpose of Jesus’ first coming (death on the cross) and in faithful obedience to the Torah. This emphasis, while not remotely foreign, still has quite a difference from the oft repeated idea that Jesus is simply quoting Scripture to make Satan run away. It was not the quoting itself, as Satan himself repeated the words of Holy Writ in the second temptation, but rather, the humility and stubborn obedience to God’s will that at last frustrated the Tempter.
What is very curious about this Gospel passage is the somewhat odd conclusions a few, as noted above, derive from the text. These teachers, in their zeal to maintain the idea of a “word-perfect” Bible, make much of Satan’s altering of his quotation, yet totally miss some very important changes that Jesus himself makes.
In Matthew 4:6, in the second temptation of Matthew’s order, Satan opens his mouth and quotes a portion of a Psalm. This event takes place “on a pinnacle of the temple.” The entire verse in Matthew reads “And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.”
This stands in contrast, however, to the text in the Old Testament, omitting a phrase, which reads:
“For he shall give his angels charge over thee,
To keep thee in all thy ways.
They shall bear thee up in their hands,
Lest thou dash thy foot against a stone.” (Psalm 91:11-12)[12]
While small wording differences are apparent throughout, Satan’s quote is notably missing the entire second line. “Satan, as well as Jesus, quotes the Bible (in this instance, Ps. 91:11–12). But Satan did not quote accurately, for he omitted a phrase that was not suited to his purpose (“in all your ways”).”[13] This is clarified by Carson: “The omission itself does not prove he handled the Scriptures deceitfully (contra Walvoord), since the quotation is well within the range of common NT citation patterns.”[14]
It seems then, the issue with Satan’s quotation was a lack of interpreting according to the context and theme of the Psalm, rather than simply omitting a phrase. Satan was attempting to apply the verse to say God will keep him in any way or path, not the way that he should be in. (I. E. God’s way) But what does Carson mean by the latter phrase regarding common patterns? That’s the part where many KJVOnlyists miss the mark. While a fuller discussion of NT quotes of OT passages is outside the scope of this work, we will address the issues particular to this passage.
Being an account recorded by two Gospel writers, it is worth our time to compare again the two accounts of this key exchange:
“But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.” – Matthew 4:4
“And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.” – Luke 4:4
“…that proceedeth out of the mouth…” is omitted by Luke. Should, then, the mere elimination of material from a quote be deception and heresy, as the condemnation of Satan is based on, we must also equally condemn a Gospel writer. It is important to note that, not only did verse and chapter divisions not exist at the time, but also, that it was common practice for NT authors to edit phrases out, and even into, their OT quotes. Quotations also do not strictly follow the Hebrew text, either in wording, form, or phrasing. As Allen, when commenting on this phenomenon in general, noted “The major point is that while Paul makes use of both the MT (Hebrew) and the Septuagint for his quotations, Luke seldom quotes from the MT, and the author of Hebrews never quotes from it.”[15] This kind of statement is only possible when the quoted texts differ enough from the Masoretic Text that those differences may be detected and then compared with the extant copies of the LXX. When these matches are found, it becomes obvious that the NT authors had no qualms with quoting from a translation that did not perfectly match the original source in every word or phrase.
However, the plot thickens when both of these quotations are compared to the original quote from the KJV rendering of Deuteronomy 8:3. Since many KJVOnlyists insist on absolute word-perfection, and to allow otherwise undermines their position, we shall see how the translators themselves measure up to that standard. (For example: David Cloud emphasizes this in his formatting of the quote: “Luke 4:4--“And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by EVERY WORD OF GOD.” (See also Matthew 4:4.)”)[16]
“And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live.” – Duet 8:3
Should Satan be condemned for removing part of a quote, as mentioned above, the same shame ought then to be piled on Jesus in Luke’s Gospel. (Or, more appropriately, on Luke, as he edited done Jesus’ reply.) In fact, both Gospel writers cut the quote before the end of the original sentence. Both NT versions have “shall not live” while the OT has “doth not live,” and while the OT has “bread only” the NT has “bread alone.” These latter two tiny wording differences are best explained as the English resulting from coming from two different languages, yet, when examining the OT quote in it’s entirety for an “Every Exact Word” quotation, both Matthew and Luke already cause question. While KJVOnlyists balk at the idea of changing a single word of their favorite translation, it seems the inspired NT writers had no such qualms, nor did the KJV translators themselves bother to match the OT wording to the NT, even when doing so could still be faithful and accurate. “Bread alone” and “bread only” come to mind as renderings that easily could be harmonized without loss of meaning yet are not.
However, there is more. As noted by Timothy Berg’s quotation above, the very phrase “every word” (παντὶ ῥήματι) is not actually totally present in the OT quote. While “every word” is in the LXX, the Hebrew text does not have “word”. This is easily confirmed by noting that “word” in Duet 8:3 is in italics in the KJV, the sadly sometimes misunderstood tool implemented by those translators to inform readers that particular words and phrases were added by the translators.
This is answered by Sam Gipp as follows: “While you ponder these important questions, we will note that Jesus also quoted from what appears to have been a King James Bible. We find Him quoting a word that wasn't in the "originals". In fact, a word that only exists in the italics found in the pages of the King James Bible. Read below, please, Deuteronomy 8:3. "And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live." You will note that the word "word" is in italics, meaning of course, that it was not in the Hebrew text. Upon examination of Deuteronomy 8:3 in Hebrew one will find that the word "dabar" which is Hebrew for "word" is not found anywhere in the verse. Yet in His contest with Satan we find Jesus quoting Deuteronomy 9:3 as follows in Matthew 4:4.”[17]
However, Gipp misses the point of the passage. Not only does he seem to hint that the Hebrew text is at fault here, and the Greek NT and KJV correct it, (Leading to speculation of what other problems are in the Hebrew text) but then claims Jesus is quoting a “King James Bible” rather than realizing that Jesus’ quote came first, and the KJV many, many years later.
Additionally, the unwarranted addition, rather than clearing the meaning of the OT quote, actually muddies it, as noted by Keil: “That which “proceedeth out of the mouth of Jehovah” is not the word of the law, as the Rabbins suppose, but, as the word כֹּל (all, every) shows, “the word” generally, the revealed will of God to preserve the life of man in whatever way (Schultz): hence all means designed and appointed by the Lord for the sustenance of life. In this sense Christ quotes these words in reply to the tempter (Mat_4:4), not to say to him, The Messiah lives not by (material) bread only, but by the fulfilment of the will of God (Usteri, Ullmann), or by trusting in the sustaining word of God (Olshausen); but that He left it to God to care for the sustenance of His life, as God could sustain His life in extraordinary ways, even without the common supplies of food, by the power of His almighty word and will.[18]”
The ultimate twist of irony is that even the KJV translators added words to Bible, just as the LXX translators did before them, yet KJVOnlyists still insist that any addition or subtraction of material is heresy by using the very words that were added! While they make statements such as “A lost man would laugh at the suggestion that a particular text could be promoted as the same text with even one alteration.”[19] and “If words are changed, it is not the King James Version. It is another Bible”[20] Yet, their own Bible disproves that idea.
Again, to quote the relevant portion of Scripture: “but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live.” – Deut 8:3
The ESV’s rendering of that phrase goes “but man lives by every word that comes from the mouth of the LORD.”[21] Yet includes a footnote after “word” explaining “Hebrew by all” This is represented in the NASB rendering “but man lives by everything that proceeds out of the mouth of the LORD.”[22] This is also seen in the LEB’s “in order to make you know that not by bread alone but by all that goes out of the mouth of Yahweh humankind shall live.”[23]
In Deut 8, Vs. 3-4 note the ways God provided, not just bread, but also in preserving their clothing and their feet. Vs. 2 and 6 provide inclusios to the text, as well as the focus on God’s commands. The first notes “whether thou wouldest keep his commandments, or no.” and the latter “Therefore thou shalt keep the commandments of the LORD thy God.” This displays the emphasis of the passage, and more than justifies the idea of the “every word” specification. However, while the emphasis is correct, the fact remains that the word “word” is simply not present in the Hebrew. To insist, then, that adding or removing one word from a translation, that has added far more itself, when that very phrase is recording an added word, is ironic. It seems, then, to insist on a word-perfect translation, and an “every word” Bible is not within the scope of even how Jesus himself, or his disciples, used translations and Scripture quotations. Yet, we still have one final temptation to go.
The third and final temptation in Matthew takes place on an “exceeding high mountain.” For context sake, here is the entire account:
“Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me. Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. Then the devil leaveth him, and, behold, angels came and ministered unto him.” (Matthew 4:7-11 KJV)
Once again, we see wording differences from the OT quote.
Jesus is quoted as saying: “for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.” – Matthew 4:10
Yet the original quote reads: “Thou shalt fear the LORD thy God, and serve him, and shalt swear by his name.” - Deuteronomy 6:13
The differences are quite apparent. Again, the last phrase is omitted by Jesus, who then adds “only” and changes “LORD” (Hebrew: YHWH) to “Lord” (Κύριον) changing the Divine name to a simple title and shifting “fear” to “worship.” (Though the latter can be a justifiable translation difference, the others cannot be, especially under the “every word” insistence.)
Needless to say, the numerous wording changes, omissions, additions, and tweaks cannot simply be handwaved off by those that also rip two words out of a phrase and turn it into an entire doctrine. If they are that concerned about the tiniest detail, they sure missed a few here.
Language Details
Speaking of details, even if this passage is a command regarding holding to “every word” philosophy, the very definition of “word” has a specific meaning that also defeats the KJVOnly interpretation.
Mounce defines the word as “from the Hebrew, a thing, Mat_4:4; Luk_4:4;” The closest he comes to the “word as individual unit of speech” type of definition is “that which is spoken; declaration, saying, speech, word, Mat_12:36; Mat_26:75; Mar_9:32; Mar_14:72;”[24] Also, the two main definitions of Thayer are “1) that which is or has been uttered by the living voice, thing spoken, word” and “2) subject matter of speech, thing spoken of”[25]
That Greek word shows up in Matthew in several forms. For example, Matt 26:75 uses “the word of Jesus” then proceeds to quote, not a single word, but nine. (In the KJV) Additionally, even the English word “Word” is use to speak of sayings, utterances, and commandments as a whole. This meaning of “message” as opposed to “verbal unit” is preserved in even modern usage like somebody asking his boss “Any word on that Christmas bonus yet?” For the English word, in Matthew alone, 2:8, 2:13, 8:8, 13:19-23, 26:75, 28:8, all use “word” to mean news, sayings or commands as a whole; messages that would obviously require far more than a single word could possibly convey.
Thus, to dogmatically assert that this usage here refers to a verbal unit, when other usages obviously are not. Besides Matt 12:32, which specifies “a word” (which could still be a saying, or utterance) and Matt 12:36’s “every idle word.” (which is the same as above) and 27:14’s “never a word.” (which is the same) In short, neither the Greek word, nor the English word, in the book of Matthew require the induvial verbal definition of “word.”
Also, even if this interpretation did stand beyond all the other issues, it never specifies which text is that “every word” nor does it provide any mechanism to discern which text happens to contain that “every word.” Thus, such an assertation is hardly helpful, as any text could be the “every word text.” Which, then of the nearly 30 TR editions is it? Or of the many KJV’s? “It is also a fact that the closest manuscripts within a textual tradition average about six to ten variants per chapter.”[26] This cannot aid the KJVO cause at any stage.
Conclusion
This temptation narrative is a beautiful and powerful picture of Christ overcoming temptation through submission to God and his plans and ways. It is a wonderful reminder that God will provide and give victory to those who faithfully follow his commands. It reveals the worthiness and purity of the Savior and the necessary attitude of knowing and obeying the Scripture. However, to stretch the meaning of two words, not only far out of the context of the Gospel account, but even more so out of their original Old Testament meaning, to form an altogether contradictory doctrine that cannot even agree with the methods of the Gospel writers in the very quotation it is drawn from is the height of illogical reasoning.
Since the demands of an “Every Word” Bible, in quotation and translation, are not fulfilled by even the Gospel writers, nor the KJV translators, nor any translators of any time, to hold to such a view is foolish. Additionally, even if such a view could stand, there is no biblical indication that the text championed by the KJVOnlyists is that text, nor is there biblical approval of any translation beside the LXX, (by virtue of the NT writers using it) which is distinct enough from the Hebrew Masoretic Text that quotations can be easily traced to one or the other. To condemn a translation for altering words, adding or removing phrases, or rearranging material in a limited degree, while preserving the message of God’s commands, is to condemn the Gospel writers, the entire early church, the only translation that God ever showed direct approval of, as well as their own beloved KJV.
The passage has incredible truths, but to become side-tracked by an illogical, inconsistent, and ignorant doctrine is to replace God’s beautiful life-giving message and truths with the ugly, ineffectual, and utterly unsustainable lies of men. Such a raping of God’s Word ought never be found on the lips or in the writings, of those that claim to love God’s Law.
Bibliography:
Allen, David L. Lukan Authorship of Hebrews. B & H Academic, 2010. Page 150
Berg, Timothy. “Matthew 4:4 and the KJV (Part II).” Blogging the Word, 17 Jan. 2018, bloggingtheword.com/the-blog/matthew-4-4-and-the-kjv-part-ii.
Brown, David, A. R. Fausset, and Robert Jamieson. A Commentary, Critical, Experimental, and Practical, on the Old and New Testaments: Matthew–John. V. London; Glasgow: William Collins, Sons, & Company, Limited. Print.
Carson, D. A. “Matthew.” The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Matthew, Mark, Luke. Ed. Frank E. Gaebelein. Vol. 8. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1984. 113. Print.
Carson, The King James Controversy, 68.
Chisholm, Robert B., Jr. “Hosea.” The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures. Ed. J. F. Walvoord and R. B. Zuck. Vol. 1. Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1985. 1402. Print.
Cloud, David W. The Bible Version Question-Answer Database: Answering the Myths Promoted by Modern Version Defenders. Way of Life Literature, 2005. Page 29
Gipp, Sam. The Answer Book. DayStar Publishing, 2003. Page 39
Grady, William P. Final Authority: a Christian's Guide to the King James Bible. Grady Publications, 1993. Page 311
Harris, W. Hall, III et al., eds. The Lexham English Bible. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2012. Print.
Hyles, Jack. The Need for an Every-Word Bible. Hyles Publications, 2003.
Keil, Carl Friedrich, The Pentateuch translated from the German by James Martin. Grand Rapids, Mich. W. Eerdmans, 1956.
Metzger, Bruce M. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. 2 Revised ed. Hendrickson Publishers, 2005. Print.
Mounce, William D. The Analytical Lexicon to the Greek New Testament. Zondervan Publishing House, 1993.
New American Standard Bible: 1995 Update. La Habra, CA: The Lockman Foundation, 1995. Print.
Osborne, Grant R. Matthew. Zondervan, 2010. P. 38
Rasbeary, James. What's Wrong with the Old Black Book?. Lulu.com, 2009, p. 27-28
Reece, Dave. The Book No One Can Read. Morningstar, Inc, 1982. Page 56
Ryrie, Charles Caldwell. Ryrie Study Bible: New American Standard Bible, 1995 Update. Expanded ed. Chicago: Moody Press, 1995. Print.
Thayer, Joseph Henry., et al. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Being Grimm's Wilke's Clavis Novi Testamenti. Hendrickson Pub., 1999.
The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2016. Print.
The Holy Bible: King James Version. Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009. Print.
Thomas Aquinas. Catena Aurea: Commentary on the Four Gospels, Collected out of the Works of the Fathers: St. Matthew. Ed. John Henry Newman. Vol. 1. Oxford: John Henry Parker, 1841. Print.
ENDNOTES
[1] The abbreviations stand for the King James Version Only, and Textus Receptus Only, positions respectively. [2] Hyles, Jack. The Need for an Every-Word Bible. Hyles Publications, 2003. [3] Rasbeary, James. What's Wrong with the Old Black Book?. Lulu.com, 2009, p. 27-28 [4] Berg, Timothy. “Matthew 4:4 and the KJV (Part II).” Blogging the Word, 17 Jan. 2018, bloggingtheword.com/the-blog/matthew-4-4-and-the-kjv-part-ii. [5] “Luke reverses the order of the last two temptations for topographical reasons. Matthew’s order is almost certainly original (Schweizer; Walvoord).” Carson, D. A. “Matthew.” The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Matthew, Mark, Luke. Ed. Frank E. Gaebelein. Vol. 8. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1984. 111. Print. [6] This is due to Matthew 4:4 being the far more referenced one, in my experience, as well as the fact that Luke 4:4 contains a textual variant that leads some to remove the phrase “but by every word of God.” from the text in Luke’s Gospel. For information on the textual variant, see Metzger, Bruce M. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. 2 Revised ed. Hendrickson Publishers, 2005. Print. [7] Osborne, Grant R. Matthew. Zondervan, 2010. P. 38 [8] Chisholm, Robert B., Jr. “Hosea.” The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures. Ed. J. F. Walvoord and R. B. Zuck. Vol. 1. Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1985. 1402. Print. [9] Carson, D. A. “Matthew.” The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Matthew, Mark, Luke. Ed. Frank E. Gaebelein. Vol. 8. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1984. 113. Print. pg. 141. [10] Brown, David, A. R. Fausset, and Robert Jamieson. A Commentary, Critical, Experimental, and Practical, on the Old and New Testaments: Matthew–John. V. London; Glasgow: William Collins, Sons, & Company, Limited. Print. [11] The church father being Jerome. Cited by Thomas Aquinas. Catena Aurea: Commentary on the Four Gospels, Collected out of the Works of the Fathers: St. Matthew. Ed. John Henry Newman. Vol. 1. Oxford: John Henry Parker, 1841. Print. [12] The Holy Bible: King James Version. Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009. Print. [13] Ryrie, Charles Caldwell. Ryrie Study Bible: New American Standard Bible, 1995 Update. Expanded ed. Chicago: Moody Press, 1995. Print. [14] Carson, D. A. “Matthew.” The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Matthew, Mark, Luke. Ed. Frank E. Gaebelein. Vol. 8. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1984. 113. Print. [15] Allen, David L. Lukan Authorship of Hebrews. B & H Academic, 2010. Page 150 [16] Bold and caps are from Cloud’s formatting. Cloud, David W. The Bible Version Question-Answer Database: Answering the Myths Promoted by Modern Version Defenders. Way of Life Literature, 2005. Page 29 [17] Gipp, Sam. The Answer Book. DayStar Publishing, 2003. Page 39 [18] Keil, Carl Friedrich, The Pentateuch translated from the German by James Martin. Grand Rapids, Mich. W. Eerdmans, 1956. [19] Grady, William P. Final Authority: a Christian's Guide to the King James Bible. Grady Publications, 1993. Page 311 [20] Reece, Dave. The Book No One Can Read. Morningstar, Inc, 1982. Page 56 [21] The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2016. Print. [22] New American Standard Bible: 1995 Update. La Habra, CA: The Lockman Foundation, 1995. Print. [23] Harris, W. Hall, III et al., eds. The Lexham English Bible. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2012. Print. [24] Mounce, William D. The Analytical Lexicon to the Greek New Testament. Zondervan Publishing House, 1993. [25] Thayer, Joseph Henry., et al. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Being Grimm's Wilke's Clavis Novi Testamenti. Hendrickson Pub., 1999. [26] Carson, The King James Controversy, 68.
Comentários