The case of the missing Bible verses…
By admin • Nov 14th, 2007 • Category: NewsI had recently been reading a direct greek translation of the Bible and had been switching back and forth between the ESV and NIV. I started to notice that something was not quite right and then I found….the missing verses! It seems that the NLT, ESV and NIV remove certain verses and move them to the bottom of the Bible or completely in some cases.
I have been reading the Bible my whole life and NEVER noticed this. This makes me wonder just how hard I have been reading it and with what dedication. I have since switched to the NKJV version which does not leave them out. You can also read the KJV but for me the NKJV is easier to read.
Some of the missing Bible verses change the context and meaning of the verse entirely so check them out:
Matthew 17:21
Matthew 18:11
Matthew 23:14
Mark 7:16
Mark 9:44,46
Mark 11:26
Mark 15:28
Luke 17:36
Luke 23:17
John 5:4
Acts 8:37
Acts 24:7
Acts 28:29
Romans 16:24
It is always fun to go to a Bible study and say, “can someone please turn to Acts 8:37 and read that for me…” 
it definitely get’s a good conversation going.
May we continue to Fight the Fight and Run the Race to Win!
God Bless!
PS. I bet you are gonna check these verses out
admin is
Email this author | All posts by admin
Actually, what the KJV and NKJV have in common is that they are both reliant upon a faulty manuscript tradition, the Textus Receptus. This tradition gives weight to what the majority of manuscripts say rather than what the earliest manuscripts say. But since manuscripts were copied by hand, it’s pretty easy to trace the errors as they got copied from one manuscript to the next.
The ESV and NIV Bibles you’ve referenced actually reflect what is probably the original reading. The KJV and NKJV reflect additions to the text added generations after the original writings.
How do you know this information about NIV/ESV compared to the NKJV/KJV to be accurate? What I find interesting about the missing verses is that if you read the entire section where they are left out many of them integrate exactly into the context of the chapter/section. In many cases the verses work seamlessly with the text so I find this to be very intriguing that they would be inaccurate.
I know because I’ve studied the issue (textual criticism) at a formal level. I took an entire class devoted to the subject at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky a number of years ago, and I’ve continued to study the issue further since.
If you’re interested, I’d recommend you check out the book, The Text of the New Testament: It’s Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration by Bruce Metzger.
You’re absolutely right that many of the added verses integrate well. This is so because monk often tried to smooth out sections, sometimes harmonizing one gospel with another or adding information here or there to make a passage more understandable. The NIV and ESV and most other modern translations are based upon the older Greek manuscripts that are a closer representation of what was originally written.
[…] admin placed an observative post today on The case of the missing Bible versesâ
I am currently reading the NKJV. When I first became a Christian I read the NIV and the KJV. After finding the NASB I felt that I found a good translation. My NASB (Thompson Chain Ref) includes the verses listed above but has them highlighted with comments like “older manuscripts do not have this section.” I was wondering what you thought about the trustworthiness of the NASB.
rmansield, if the Alexandrian Manuscripts are so reliable, why do they contain a scientific error, and at least 3 contradictions with other undisputed passages? To wit:
Luke 23:45
The Alexandrian Manuscripts use the word “eklipontos” to describe the sun going dark. They are trying to teach the darkening of the sun while Jesus was on the cross was due to a solar eclipse. Jesus was crucified the day after Passover, which always takes place at full moon (which is why the date for Easter shifts around.) A solar eclipse at this time is scientifically impossible. This was an early teaching of heretics, and Origen and his goons put it in their corrupted New Testament.
In Matthew 10:10 and Luke 9:3, the Alexandrian Manuscripts record Jesus as telling his disciples not to take “a staff.” This contradicts Mark 6:8, where he instructed them to take a staff. No such problem exists in the Textus Receptus, where Jesus instructed his disciples, in Matthew 10:10 and Luke 9:3, not to take “staffs” on their journey - meaning only one, not an extra one. He commanded them to take only one of everything they needed on this journey.
In Luke 4:44, the Alexandrian Manuscripts list Jesus as being in Judea, while the Textus Receptus has him in Galilee. The parallel verse in Mark 1:39, both sets of manuscripts list him in Galilee.
The Alexandrian Manuscripts formed the basis for Jerome’s Latin Vulgate. This is exactly the Bible the leaders of the Protestant Reformation were rebelling against. They did so because they believed the Textus Receptus to be the true New Testament. Virtually every group of true Christians, that have protested Rome, down through the centuries have used the Textus Receptus, or something closely akin to it.
The Textus Receptus is by far the most reliable manuscript tradition, and KJV and NKJV are the only versions currently available in English that use it. admin, go right ahead and read your New King James Version. It should be your authoritative text in the New Testament. rmansfield, you should ask for a refund on that class you took, because your teachers were wrong. I am posting some websites below for further reference.
http://www.greeknewtestament.com/
This is an interlinear, to check the Greek text
http://www.biblegateway.com/
You can look up any Bible version you want to here.
http://www.temcat.com/Wilkinson/AuthorizedBibleTOC.htm
This book is copyright 1930. The author was defending the King James Version (this was before the NKJV was published), but as it is mostly about the history of the Textus Receptus, it works just as well for the NKJV.
Thanks Brian.
This is why I love Christianity 2.0, a place to discuss and correct/explain Christianity and Christian beliefs and too learn more and grow ever closer to unity in Christ!
God Bless!
Brian, I just saw your comments. A few brief notes, but I can discuss further if you want.
Luke 23:45–you’re reading WAY too much into this. The gospel writer was NOT trying to teach the darkening of the sun was an eclipse. ἐκλείπω simply meant “to fail, darken.” And it was often used as a synonym for σκοτίζω.
Regarding the issue of the staff (or no staff!) in Matt 10:10; Luke 9:3 and Mark 6:8, there’s NO contradiction if the proper context is considered. Here is an excerpt from Hard Sayings of the Bible:
In Matthew 10:5-6 Jesus commissioned His twelve disciples to go out on an Evangelistic tour of the cities of Israel, preaching the arrival of the kingdom of heaven, and healing the sick and the demon possessed. Then He cautioned them in regards to their equipment for this journey: “Do not acquire [ktesesthe] gold and silver or bronze for your money belts; or a bag [peran, “knapsack”] for your journey, or even two tunics, or sandals, or a staff; for the worker is worthy of his support” (Matt. 10:9-10). The parallel in Luke 10 mentions other articles for the journey in Christ’s commission to seventy, but this must have been a later episode. At any rate the word “staff” is not used at all. But in Mark 6:7-9, where His commission to the Twelve is likewise recorded, we read in vv. 8–9 “And He instructed them that they should take nothing [meden airosin] for their journey, except a mere staff [ei me rabdon monon]; no bread, no bag, no money in their belt; but to wear sandals; and he added, “Do not put on two tunics’” (NASB).
Both Matthew 10 and Mark 6 agree that Christ directed the disciple to take along no extra equipment of any kind for this journey but simply to go on their mission with what they already had. Luke 9:3 agrees in part with the wording of Mark 6:8, using the same verb airo (“take”); but then, like Matthew, adds: “neither a staff, nor a bag, nor bread, nor money; do not even have two tunics apiece.” But Matthew 10:10 includes what was apparently a further clarification: they were not to acquire a staff as a part of their special equipment for the tour. Mark 6:8 seems to indicate that this did not involve their necessarily discarding or leaving behind even the walking stick they normally took with them wherever they went, while they were following Jesus during His teaching ministry. As Lange (Commentary on Mark, p. 56) says, “They were to go forth with their staff, as they had it at the time; but they we not to seek one carefully, or make it a condition of their travelling.” Lange then sums up the paragraph as follows: “The fundamental idea is this, that they were to go forth with the slightest provision, and in dependence upon being provided for by the way….We find in them [i.e., Mark’s expressions] no other than a more express view of their pilgrimage state, burdened with the least possible encumbrance, and as free as might be from all care.” So understood, there is no real discrepancy between the two passages.
Finally regarding Mark 1:39, and Luke 4:44, the note in the NIV Study Bible is very helpful: “In writing to a Gentile (see Introduction: Recipient and Purpose), Luke possibly used “Judea” to refer to the whole of Palestine, the land of the Jews (23:5; Ac 10:37; 11:1,29; 26:20).”
All of these in proper context make sense. I find it humorous Brian that you take the later harmonizations of the Gospels by meddling monks to be proof of superiority for the Byzantine tradition, when in fact, the opposite is true.
I’ll bypass your Catholic red herring of an argument because it is irrelevant in the end to the issue at large here. The Reformers used the Textus Receptus because it was the best manuscript tradition of its day. But it’s day has come and gone.
rmansfield,
What does Colossians 4:15 really say? His or Her house? It seems to be contradictory depending on which version you are using? You should really read the article at http://www.temcat.com/Wilkinson/AuthorizedBibleTOC.htm did you read it? Please post some helpful resources on your end as well, it would be great!
I hope we all are “spreading the Good News daily!”
God Bless
It’s difficult to be dogmatic about Col 4:15, even based on the manuscript evidence. I’d be inclined to believe the standard Greek text is correct, however, and that the reading is “her” house. For one, my hunch is that Νύμφα is the correct name as opposed to Νυμφᾶς (it’s obscured by the fact that the name is in the accusative and ends with a nu: Νύμφαν). But the feminine version is well-attested in Greek literature, and the masculine form is not. In fact, according to the BDAG lexicon, if the name is masculine is must be shortened from Νυμφόδωρος and the end result would still be a “boy named Sue” to borrow from Johnny Cash.
The Anchor Bible Dictionary has this to say about the issue:
“Nympha’s place in the NT as a female Christian has been retained only at the cost of some debate. While her gender is assumed to be feminine by the RSV, since her name in Greek is cited only in the accusative case, Nymphan, which could refer to a woman named Nympha or a man named Nymphas, other translations have variously interpreted this person. The issue has been complicated by variations in manuscripts for the possessive pronoun modifying “house” in Col 4:15. Some texts read autēs, “her,” others autou, “his,” still others, autōn, “their.” Since the feminine reading is the hardest to explain, it is most likely to be the original. The masculine form was probably a correction of the feminine by copyists who could not envision a woman in such a leadership role. The reading “their” could have been substituted when scribes included in the pronoun the earlier mention of “brethren” in Col 4:15.
The fact that a woman would have a church in her house doesn’t seem that odd to me in light of 2 John.
As for the article, I skimmed it yesterday. I’ll be honest, and I rarely am so blunt in my characterizations, but it’s KJV-only (and anti-Catholic) nonsense. I’ve read stuff like it before, and this type of rhetoric is used to defend the use of the KJV as the only proper scripture. You realize those boys wouldn’t approve of your NKJV either, don’t you?
By the way, if you want helpful (and serious) sources on this issue, I’d recommend two books by Bruce Metzger:
A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament
and
The Text of the New Testament: It’s Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration
rmansfield,
Were you able to read the link to the article about the KVJ? I appreciate your explanation of Colossians 4:15, it is always nice to see other perspectives.
thanks so much for your input, and I will def. need to take a look at the books
Yes, see my last paragraph in the longer comment I left today regarding the article.
rmansfield, since you (apparently) didn’t bother to read the sources I cited, I’ll have to quote from them to correct the errors you insist on continuing to make.
No, Luke was not trying to teach an eclipse of the sun - but the people who produced the corrupt Alexandrian manuscripts were. That this heresy was taught very early is evident from a citation in Josh McDowell’s book The New Evidence That Demands A Verdict. Julius Africanus, writing A.D. 221, cites Thallus, from A.D. 52, arguing that this darkness was due to an eclipse of the sun. Julius Africanus said that this was “without reason,” since a solar eclipse cannot take place at the time of the full moon.
If “eklipontos” is merely another word for darkening, why have at least 8 versions translated it as “eclipsed”? No such translation has ever been made from the word used in the TR.
Had you bothered to read Our Authorized Bible Vindicated, you would have discovered that the King James translators knew about at least 3 of the 5 manuscripts that form the basis of the so-called modern critical text. They rejected them as reliable guides to the true text of the New Testament. On the contrary, the leadership of the Reformation was quite convinced that the Textus Receptus was the genuine New Testament.
Why do you believe that it was Christians, rather than heretics, who changed the text of the New Testament? Men of God do not change the words of God.
The Catholic issue was NOT a red herring. Please read chapter 13 of OABV for confirmation that the modern critical text conforms to the Latin Vulgate.
[sigh]
Brian, your insistence that Luke 23:45 is an issue here is laughable to be honest. I can just see “the conspirators” sitting around a table saying, “Shall we corrupt their New Testament manuscripts?” “Yes, yes!” the throng agrees. “What shall we do first–change something that denies the deity of Christ?” “No, no, let’s change the word ἐσκοτίσθη to ἐκλιπόντος to really mess with their heads!”
Come on.
If you look at the first comment under my blog post at http://tinyurl.com/33gcyz you will see the concern of one gentleman who says knowing Greek isn’t enough. We have to understand philology, too. That is the understanding of how language is used in different contexts and how it changes over time. Does the English word eclipse come from the Greek word, ἐκλείπω? Yes, but that doesn’t mean that it should be translated as eclipse anymore than δύναμις should be translated as dynamite although I’ve heard preachers mistakenly make this claim.
However, I’ll concede to you that ἐκλείπω was sometimes understood as the verb eclipse, but to speak in terms of philology, never in the context of the the Koine Greek in the New Testament. In fact in the standard Greek lexicon that translators and Greek students and scholars use today,–A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Early Christian Literature, revised and edited by William Frederick Danker (commonly known as the BDAG)–there are four suggestions for understanding ἐκλείπω in English, and not one of them–NOT ONE–uses the word eclipse. Instead, you find,
1. to be no longer in existence, fail, give out, be gone
2. to go away from a place, depart
3. to cease as state or event, fail, die out
4. to be deficient in one’s appearance, be inferior
The problem is this is what the later monks did not understand. These Byzantine monks (God bless them) didn’t understand philological matters and saw ἐκλιπόντος as “eclipse” and for the same reasons you describe, this caused problems for them.
But this is the word that Luke, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, used. And for the Byzantine monks to change Luke’s writing from ἐκλιπόντος to ἐσκοτίσθη is simply wrong.
Consider the explanation of this issue from the NET Bible, which has the best set of textual notes of any English translation I know:
The wording “the sun’s light failed” is a translation of τοῦ ἡλίου ἐκλιπόντος/ ἐκλείποντος (tou hēliou eklipontos/ ekleipontos), a reading found in the earliest and best witnesses (among them P75 ℵ B C✱vid L 070 579 2542 pc) as well as several ancient versions. The majority of MSS (A C3 [D] W Θ Ψ ƒ1, 13 M lat sy) have the flatter, less dramatic term, “the sun was darkened” (ἐσκοτίσθη, eskotisthe), a reading that avoids the problem of implying an eclipse (see … below). This alternative thus looks secondary because it is a more common word and less likely to be misunderstood as referring to a solar eclipse. That it appears in later witnesses rather than the earliest ones adds confirmatory testimony to its inauthentic character.
This imagery has parallels to the Day of the Lord: Joel 2:10; Amos 8:9; Zeph 1:15. Some students of the NT see in Luke’s statement the sun’s light failed (eklipontos) an obvious blunder in his otherwise meticulous historical accuracy. The reason for claiming such an error on the author’s part is due to an understanding of the verb as indicating a solar eclipse when such would be an astronomical impossibility during a full moon. There are generally two ways to resolve this difficulty: (a) adopt a different reading (“the sun was darkened”) that smoothes over the problem (discussed in the [textual comment] problem above), or (b) understand the verb eklipontos in a general way (such as “the sun’s light failed”) rather than as a technical term, “the sun was eclipsed.” The problem with the first solution is that it is too convenient, for the Christian scribes who, over the centuries, copied Luke’s Gospel would have thought the same thing. That is, they too would have sensed a problem in the wording and felt that some earlier scribe had incorrectly written down what Luke penned. The fact that the reading “was darkened” shows up in the later and generally inferior witnesses does not bolster one’s confidence that this is the right solution. But second solution, if taken to its logical conclusion, proves too much for it would nullify the argument against the first solution: If the term did not refer to an eclipse, then why would scribes feel compelled to change it to a more general term? The solution to the problem is that ekleipo did in fact sometimes refer to an eclipse, but it did not always do so. (BDAG 306 s.v. ἐκλείπω notes that the verb is used in Hellenistic Greek “Of the sun cease to shine.” In MM it is argued that “it seems more than doubtful that in Lk 23:45 any reference is intended to an eclipse. To find such a reference is to involve the Evangelist in a needless blunder, as an eclipse is impossible at full moon, and to run counter to his general usage of the verb = ‘fail’…” [p. 195]. They enlist Luke 16:9; 22:32; and Heb 1:12 for the general meaning “fail,” and further cite several contemporaneous examples from papyri of this meaning [195-96]) Thus, the very fact that the verb can refer to an eclipse would be a sufficient basis for later scribes altering the text out of pious motives; conversely, the very fact that the verb does not always refer to an eclipse and, in fact, does not normally do so, is enough of a basis to exonerate Luke of wholly uncharacteristic carelessness.
Finally, you point out that 8 (count ‘em, eight) translations based on the standard eclectic text that have translated ἐκλιπόντος as “eclipse.” Did you make this number up? No translation that I use and no major contemporary translation uses the word eclipse in Luke 23:45. I don’t care if the Moffatt translation used eclipse. Nobody uses that translation today, and it did not win wide use when it was published.
Consider the following versions as evidence that your so-called “8 translations” was nothing more than a straw man argument:
“he sun’s light failing: and the veil of the temple was rent in the midst.” (ASV)
“while the sun’s light failed. And the curtain of the temple was torn in two.” (ESV)
“because the sun’s light failed. The curtain of the sanctuary was split down the middle.” (HCSB)
“the sun being obscured; and the veil of the temple was torn in two.” (NASB)
“because the sun was obscured; and the veil of the temple was torn in two.” (NASB ‘95 update)
“The sun had stopped shining. The curtain in the temple was split in two.” (GWT)
“because the sun’s light failed. The temple curtain was torn in two.” (NET)
“The light from the sun was gone. And suddenly, the thick veil hanging in the Temple was torn apart.” (NLT1)
“The light from the sun was gone. And suddenly, the curtain in the sanctuary of the Temple was torn down the middle.” (NLTse)
“for the sun stopped shining. And the curtain of the temple was torn in two.” (NIV)
“for the sun stopped shining. And the curtain of the temple was torn in two.” (TNIV)
“while the sun’s light failed; and the curtain of the temple was torn in two.” (NRSV)
“a total blackout. The Temple curtain split right down the middle.” (MESSAGE)
“the sun’s light failed. And the curtain of the temple was torn in two.” (REB)
“when the sun stopped shining … and the curtain hanging in the Temple was torn in two.” (TEV)
As you can see above, NOBODY is translating ἐκλιπόντος as eclipse because that’s simply not what the word meant in the Koine Greek of the NT. Anyone who does translate it this was is producing a bad and uninformed rendering.
By the way, the standard eclectic text is based upon more than five manuscripts. Whoever told you this is uninformed.
The leadership of the Reformation used the Textus Receptus because it was the best tradition of its day. Heck, if I’d been around at that time, I would have used it, too. We’re better informed now.
Why would I believe that Christians (and not heretics) would change the Word of God? Because there are always Christians who simply are uninformed to certain principles of translation, such as the philological issues surrounding a word like ἐκλείπω. There were also Christian scribes who misread a word (or misheard for those instances where it was being dictated) and copied down an incorrect one. I’m not accusing any scribe of meaning to harm the words of the NT writers. I’m sure they they either made natural mistakes or thought they were working in the best interest of the reading. Again, I would refer you to Metzger’s book, The Text of the New Testament: It’s Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration for a complete listing of the kind of errors that led to those found in the Byzantine tradition.
Finally, in regard to the Vulgate and ch. 13 of OABV, I believe you are misreading your sources, and yes, I still call this a red herring. That chapter has to do with the 1881 Revised Version of the Bible. This was a translation that was widely rejected by protestants of the English speaking world and corrected 20 years later in the ASV. I don’t care whether the RV agreed with the Vulgate or not. I don’t rely on the RV any more than I’d rely on the Westcott Hort Greek New Testament (which incidentally Hendrickson recently republished). We’ve come a long way since both of those editions and our understanding of the Greek text, the manuscripts that support it, and how to render it in English has greatly increased.