NASB and Matt 1:25

Matt 1:25

The Traditional Greek Text reads that Mary "brought forth her fisrt-born Son." The NASB reads, 'she gave birth to a son.' This omission of first-born has the authority of only two old manuscripts Aleph and B(both of which were unknown to the Christian world as a whole until about 1860, except for the Coptic Church of Egypt). The words first-born have been alleged to have been brought across(interpolated) into Matt. 1:25 from Luke 2:7. But two points must be considered; first textual. Is it even barely credible that the interpolation of fist-born managed to corrupt the whole stream of Christian tradition, not only in early manuscripts whose origins are at least as old as Aleph and B, but in Greek, Latin and Syriac churches? The implication from the wide range of evidence favouring first-born is that the word goes back to Matthew's autograph. Secondly, there is a docturinal point. Even the Roman Catholic Church (witnessed by the Latin Vulgate) accepted the word first-born iin spite of the Roman doctrine of "the perpetual virginity of Mary." The dropping of first-born from Aleph and B is corruption reflectiing Egyptian inclinations. To the Arians, for example, the Lord Jesus did not truly reflect God, because to them He was "a creature of God" (See Prov. 8:22). But to them neither could the Lord Jesus be a true human being, because he was of God-generation, not human generation. The addition of first-born suggest, not just that our Lord Jesus had brothers and sisters, but that HE was a genuine human being, the first family of children. IN Luke 2 there is an interesting point about Codex W (probably 4th century). It was quite probably pieced together from surviving parts of the Four Gospels put together as a complete book after the destruction of Scriptures during persecution. In Matthew's Gospel Codex W is Byzantine, and of course includes first-born. BUT in Codex W the first eight chapters of St. Luke are Alexandrian. So here in Luke 2:7, Codex W is the only Greek manuscript to OMIT first-born as part of Luke's Gospel. This is the tip an iceburg. We can confidently affirm (including Pastor Larry) that a whole group of Egyptian manuscripts (nearly all now perished) OMITTED first-born from Matt. 1:25, BUT ALSO from Luke 2:7. In other words, the very weakly supported omission of first-born in the NASB is due to heretical tampering with the text.

Pages 330-331 in "UnHoly Hands on the Bible Volume II"

 

Obviously someone is lying. It would be interesting to get to the bottom of this.

 

Family 1 --> 12th-14th century
33 --> 9th Century
Codex Theta -->9th century
071 ??
f13 ??

Maybe the author was speaking about early translations.