Another King James Bible Believer

Luke 24 and the "science" of textual criticism in action

Luke 24 and the true nature of the Merry Go Round the Bible agnostics call the "science" of Textual Criticism

Luke chapter 24 is a confused mess created by the Bible agnostics with their so called "science of textual criticism", especially in the ever changing NASBs. Watch specifically for what the NASBs do in verses 12, 36, 40, 51 and 52.  Several of the textual variants addressed here in Luke chapter 24 are due to only one Greek manuscript called D. The vast majority of all others read as does the King James Bible and the Traditional Greek texts used for centuries. 

In this article I will address some examples of textual corruption found in several modern versions.  The readings found in the King James Bible in this chapter are the same readings that were in Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549, Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587 and are still found in most Bible translations in numerous foreign languages all over the world today.

The first textual variant that we find is in the first verse. In the King James Bible we read: "Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulchre, bringing the spices which they had prepared, AND CERTAIN OTHERS WITH THEM." This last phrase "and certain others with them" is omitted by such modern versions that are based on the every changing UBS, Nestle-Aland critical text. These words are omitted by versions like the ESV, NIV, NASB, NET and Holman Standard.  However the words are found in the Majority of all remaining Greek manuscripts as well as Alexandrinus, C correction and other uncial copies, the Old Latin f,q, r1, the ancient Syriac and in some Coptic Boharic copies.

They are found in Tyndale 1525 - "brought the odoures which they had prepared and other wemen with them", Coverdale 1535, Cranmer's Bible 1539, the Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, Mace's N.T. 1729, Wesley's translation 1755, Webster's translation 1833, Youngs, Lamsa's translation of the Syriac Peshitta - "and brought the spices which they had prepared; and there were with them other women.", Green's literal 2000, the KJV 21st Century 1994 and the Third Millenium Bible 1998. 

Among foreign language Bible that contain the words "and certain others with them" are the French Martin 1744, the French Ostervaled 1996 - "et quelques personnes les accompagnaient.", the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569, the Reina Valera 1909, 1960 and 1995 - "y algunas otras mujeres con ellas.", the Italian New Riveduta of 2006 - "esse e altre donne con loro", the Portuguese Almeida Corrigida E Fiel and A Biblia Sagrada em Portgués - "e algumas outras com elas."  the Hungarian Karoli Bible - "és némely más asszonyok is velök.", the 2009 Romanian Fideli Bible - "si pe altefemei impreuna cu ele.",  Martin Luther's German Bible 1545, Elberfelder 1871 and the 2000 German Schlachter Bible - "und etliche mit ihnen.", the Dutch Staten Vertaling Bible - "en sommigen met haar.",  the Russian Synodal Translation 1876 - "пришли они ко гробу, и вместе с ними некоторые другие; the Traditional Greek text used by the Greek Orthodox Churches all over the world - "φέρουσαι ἃ ἡτοίμασαν ἀρώματα, καί τινες σὺν αὐταῖς." and the Modern Greek Bible - "και αλλαι τινες μετ' αυτων."

Commentators are all over the board as usual. What one denies another confidently affirms. But John Gill notes: "and certain others with them; that is, other women; besides Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of Joses, and Salome, and other Galilean women, there were other Jerusalem women, or of Bethany, it may be, Mary, and Martha, the sisters of Lazarus."

Matthew Henry also believed these words were Scripture, commenting: "Notice is also taken of certain others with them, v. 1, and again, v. 10. These, who had not joined in preparing the spices, would yet go along with them to the sepulchre."

John Wesley also believe it was Scripture saying: "Certain others with them - Who had not come from Galilee. Matt. xxviii, 1; Mark xvi, 1; John xx, 1

John Calvin also believed these words were inspired Scripture. He included them in his own Latin translation and comments: "So far as regards the narrative, Matthew says only that the two Marys came to see the sepulcher; Mark adds a third, Salome, and says that they bought spices to anoint the body; and from Luke we infer, that not two or three only, but many women came. But we know that it is customary with the sacred writers, when speaking of a great number, to name but a few of them."

 In Luke 24:3 we read: "And they entered in and found not the body OF THE LORD JESUS."  These words are omitted by the RSV 1973, NRSV 1989, Rotherham's Emphasized bible of 1902 and the New English Bible of 1970; but they are included in the Revised Version 1885, the ASV 1901, NRSV 1989 the ESV 2001, the NASB, NIV and NKJV.  There is basically just one Greek manuscript that omits these words - D, and yet several critical text translations omitted them from the Sacred Text of Scripture.

 In Luke 24:6 we read: "HE IS NOT HERE BUT IS RISEN: remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee."  The RSV, NRSV, Rotherham's Emphasized bible, the  New English Bible 1970 and the Revised English Bible 1989 all omit the words "he is not here but is risen" but they are found in the ESV, NIV, NASB and NKJV. But the NASB footnote says: "SOME ancient manuscripts omit: "He is not here, but He has risen." The footnote in the 1989 Revised English bible says: "some witnesses add "He is not here; he has been raised." SOME?  There is ONLY ONE Greek manuscript listed that omits these words, and that is D.  Yet all these words are included in the Majority of all Greek texts as well as Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, A, C and P75.

The utter fickleness of modern versions like the 1989 Revised English Bible is seen in that based ON THE SAME TEXTUAL EVIDENCE, it now includes the words "of the Lord Jesus" in verse 3, but still omits "He is not here but is risen" in verse 6, omits all of verse 12, omits the words "and saith unto them, Peace be unto you." in verse 36. The 1989 Revised English Bible still omits all of verse 40, and omits "was carried up into heaven" in verse 51 and "worshipped him" from verse 52.  So, the ONLY thing they changed in 1989 was to put the words "of the Lord Jesus" back into verse 6.  All the other times they still followed the omissions of phrases and even whole verses as found in just ONE Greek manuscript against all others.  And they call this stuff "science"!!! 

In Luke 24:12 we read: "Then arose Peter, and ran unto the sepulchre; and stooping down, he beheld the linen clothes laid by themselves, and departed, wondering in himself at that which was come to pass."

However the RSV 1973, Rotherham's Emphasized bible, the New English Bible 1970 and the Revised English Bible of 1989  all omit this entire verse from the text.  The NASB's of 1963, 1972, 1973 and 1977 placed it in [brackets] indicating doubt as to its being Scripture or not, but then in 1995 they removed the [brackets].

Once again the NASB gives us this very misleading footnote saying: "SOME ancient mss. omit verse 12."  The 1989 Revised English Bible also footnotes: "Some witnesses add...."!!! The whole verse is in the RV, ASV,  NRSV of 1989, the ESV and the NIV, as well as all English bibles since the days of John Wycliffe in 1395 on through Tyndale, the Geneva Bible and of course the King James Holy Bible. What these very misleading footnotes don't tell you when they says either "SOME witnesses add" or that "SOME ancient mss. omit" is that there is ONLY ONE Greek manuscript that OMITS the verse, and this is mss. D. 

The entire verse is found in the Majority of all Greek manuscripts including P75, Sinaiticus, Vaticanus and Alexandrinus and is in virtually every known ancient versions like the Old Latin, the Syraic Peshitta, Harclean, Curetonian, Palestinian, the Latin Vulgate, Coptic Boharic and Sahidic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Georgian and Slavonic ancient versions.  Why have this footnote of doubt in the NASB?

Luke 24:36 "And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, AND SAITH UNTO THEM, PEACE BE UNTO YOU."  

This is the reading found in all texts, including Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. Only ONE Greek manuscript omits the words "and saith unto them, peace be unto you" and that is the notorious manuscript D. Yet on the basis of this one manuscript the RSV, New English Bible 1970, Rotherham's Emphasized bible,  the Revised English Bible of 1989 AND the NASBs in 1963, 1972, 1973 and 1977 omitted all these words. The whole phrase is retained in the RV, ASV, NRSV, ESV and the NIV. Then in 1995 SOME of the NASBs decided to put them back in the text. The particular NASB 1995 Update printed version I have still omits the words "and saith unto them, peace be unto you", but I have heard that other NASBs 1995 now place the words back in.  The online version includes them but the printed, hard copies of the NASB 1995 still omit these words.

Luke 24:40 "AND WHEN HE HAD THUS SPOKEN, HE SHEWED THEM HIS HANDS AND HIS FEET." Again, ALL texts, including Sinaiticus and Vaticanus contain this verse, but on the basis of only one Greek manuscript (D) Rotherham's Emphasized bible 1902, the RSV 1946 - 1973, the NEB 1970, the Revised English Bible 1989 omit the entire verse as well as the NASBs of 1963, 1972 and 1973.  I have copies of each of these different NASBs.  All of these NASBs entirely omit the whole verse from the TEXT. Then the different NASBs give us very misleading and highly inaccurate footnotes. 

The 1972 NASB hard copy that I have right here in front of me omits Verse 40 from the text. Then it footnotes: "SOME mss. add" verse 40.  Then in 1977 the NASB put this whole verse back in their version but in [brackets] and then in 1995 they removed the brackets! The Revised Version, ASV 1901, the NRSV 1989, ESV 2001 and NIV do contain this verse, as have all major Bible translations for centuries. 

But wait. There's more. You are not going to believe this, but it is absolutely true and verifiable. When the Westcott-Hort critical text first came out they put [the entire verse 40 in brackets], thus indicating doubt as to it's right to be part of inspired Scripture. The Nestle critical Greek 4th edition 1934 text continued to retain all of verse 40 in their text but with [[double brackets]], indicating serious doubt about it forming part of Scripture. BUT in the Nestle 21st edition of 1975 (I have a hard copy right here in my study) THEY COMPLETELY REMOVED THE ENTIRE VERSE from the text. Then sometime after 1975 the Nestle Greek text once again PUT THE WHOLE VERSE BACK IN THEIR TEXT and this time not even in brackets!  And people like James White have the gall and chutzpah to call this whole, willy-nilly scholars' game  "the SCIENCE of textual criticism"!!!


Luke 24:42 KJB - "And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, AND OF AN HONEYCOMB."

ESV (NIV, NASB, NET, Holman)  - "They gave him a piece of broiled fish."

“AND OF AN HONEYCOMB” is the reading found in the Majority of all Greek manuscripts, including E, H, K, N, Delta, Psi, the Old Latin copies of b, q, and the Syriac Peshitta, Curetonian, Harclean, Palestinian, Coptic Boharic and Ethiopian ancient versions.

It is also found in the Latin Vulgate 404 A.D. - “et favum mellis.” It is the reading found in the Reformation Bibles in all languages as well as the Modern Greek Bible - “Οι δε εδωκαν εις αυτον μερος οπτου ιχθυος και απο κηρηθραν μελιτος.” and the Modern Hebrew Bible - ויתנו לפניו חלק דג צלוי ומעט צוף דבש׃

However the modern Vatican Versions like the St. Joseph NAB 1970, the New Jerusalem bible 1985, and the UBS/Nestle-Aland/Vatican critical text versions like the ESV, NIV, NASB, NET, Holman Standard, ISV and Jehovah Witness New World Translation omit these words based primarily on P75, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus and D.

The words “AND OF AN HONEYCOMB” are found in Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1534, Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew’s Bible 1549, the Bishops’ Bible 1568, Douay-Rheims 1582, KJB 1611, Mace N.T. 1729, John Wesley’s N.T. 1755, Worsley Version 1770,  Webster’s 1833, Living Oracles 1835, Murdock’s translation of the Syriac 1852, Julia Smith 1855, Emphatic Diaglott N.T. 1864,  Darby 1890, Young’s 1898, J.B. Phillips N.T. 1962 - “broiled fish and part of a honeycomb”, New Life Version 1969, the NKJV 1982, Third Millennium Bible 1998, Analytical Literal Translation 1999, Apostolic Bible Polyglot Greek 2003, Green’s Literal Translation, American Bible Union N.T.,  A Conservative Version 2005 - “and from a bees honeycomb”, the 2010 English Jubilee Bible and the Natural Israelite Bible 2012 - “So they gave Him a piece of a broiled fish AND SOME HONEYCOMB.”

Among foreign language Bibles that include “and of an honeycomb” are the Anglo-Saxon Gospels 1000 A.D. - “& heom sealde.” Luther’s German bible 1545 and the 2000 German Schlachter Bible - “und Honigseims.”, the French Martin 1744, Ostervald 1996 and French Louis Segond 2007 - “et d'un rayon de miel”, the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569, Cipriano de Valera 1602, and the Spanish Reina Valera Gómez 2010 and the Reina Valeras from 1909 to 1995 - “y un panal de miel.”, the Italian Diodati 1649, La Nuova Diodati 1991 and La Nuova Riveduta 2006 - “e di un fiale di miele.” and the Portuguese Almeida Corregida and A Biblia Sagrada em Portugués - “e um favor de mel."

This is also the reading of the Russian Synodal Version - “ печеной рыбы и сотового меда.”, the Czech Kralicka Bible - “a plástu strdi.”, the Tagalog Ang Salita ng Diyos Bible 1998 - “Binigyan nila siya ng bahagi ng inihaw na isda at pulot.”, Chinese Union Traditional - “ “,  the 2013 Updated Polish Gdansk Bible - “i plaster miodu.”, the Afrikaans Bible 1953 - “en 'n stuk heuningkoek.”, the Romanian Cornilescu Bible and the 2014 Romanian Fidela Bible - “şi un fagur de miere.”, the Norwegian Det Norsk Bibelselskap - “me te honi.”, Veren’s Comtemporary Bulgarian Bible - “и парче медна пита”, the Maori Bible - “me te honi.”, the Dutch Staten Vertaling Bible - “en van honigraten.” and the Smith and Van Dyke Arabic Bible - فناولوه جزءا من سمك مشوي وشيئا من شهد عسل.


The Catholic Connection

The earlier Douay Rheims 1582 as well as the Douay Version of 1950 both contained the reading: - “And they offered him a piece of a broiled fish AND A HONEYCOMB.” But then the St. Joseph New American bible 1979 and the 1985 New Jerusalem omitted it. BUT now the 2009 Catholic The Sacred Scriptures have come out and they have once again included the phrase - “And they offered him a piece of roasted fish AND A HONEYCOMB.”  

And once again we see that it comes down to the difference between the Traditional Reformation Bibles versus the ever changing Vatican Versions that NOBODY seriously believes are the complete and infallible words of the living God.


Luke 24:51-52 "And it came to pass, while he blessed them, he was parted from them, AND CARRIED UP INTO HEAVEN. And they WORSHIPPED HIM AND returned to Jerusalem with great joy." Once more, all the words "and carried up into heaven" and "worshipped him and" are found in all texts except one Greek manuscript - D again. Yet the RSVs 1946 to 1973,  the New English Bible 1970, the Revised English Bible 1989, Rotherham's Emphasized bible, AS WELL AS the  NASBs 1963, 1972, 1973 and 1977 editions all omitted these words. Then in 1995 the NASB added them back to the text. They have always been in the RV, ASV, and they are in the NRSV, ESV, NIV as well as the NKJV.  

Verse 51. “And it came to pass, while he blessed them, he was parted from them, AND CARRIED UP INTO HEAVEN.” These last 5 words, “and carried up into heaven” are found in Wycliffe, Tyndale, Coverdale, Bishops, the Geneva Bible, the NIV, the Revised Version, the ASV, NRSV, ESV and the Holman. But they are omitted by the RSV 1952 (I have a hard copy), the NEB 1970, the 1989 Revised English Bible with the Apocrypha AND ALL SEVEN EDITIONS OF THE NASB from 1963 to 1977, and the NASBs once again give us this very misleading footnote saying: "SOME manuscripts add "and was carried up into heaven."

These words are found in P75, Majority, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. Only one Greek manuscript (D) omits these words. The Critical Texts again are in a state of constant change. Westcott and Hort originally [[double bracketed]] the words “and carried up into heaven” and “worshipped him and” in the next verse. The Nestle critical Greek text 4th edition 1934 [[double brackets the same words]] but later on the Nestle-Aland critical text COMPLETELY REMOVED from their texts all these words.  I have a hard copy of the Nestle 21st edition 1975 and the words "and carried up into heaven" in Verse 51 as well as "worshipped him, and" in Verse 52 are completely gone from the text. But once again in the latest Nestle-Aland 28th edition they have put all these words back in their texts and this time not even in brackets! Go figure.

Yet the NASB’s first seven editions from 1963 to 1977 omitted the fact of the ascension of our Lord by removing the words “and carried up into heaven” and removed the words “and worshipped Him” from verse 52. The RSV of 1952, Rotherham's Emphasized bible 1902, the 1989 Revised English Bible, and the 1970 New English Bible still omit all the words “and was carried up into heaven” and “and worshipped Him”.

But wait, now the 1995 edition of the new and improved NA$B has put them back in for us. Now we can get the late$t in $cholar$hip. So, were all the previous NASBs not the inspired words of God, but now in 1995 it is?

We are not quite done beholding the marvels of modern scholarship. Just a couple more brief examples.

In the next verse the reaction of the disciples at seeing our risen Lord ascend into heaven was that “they WORSHIPPED HIM AND, returned to Jerusalem with great joy.” Here again the NASBs from 1963 to 1977 (Seven distinct editions) omitted the words WORSHIPPED HIM AND, and have merely “And they returned to Jerusalem with great joy.”

Nothing about worshipping Jesus Christ, which of course is a strong testimony to the fact that He is God in the flesh, because we may only worship God. The RSV 1952 also omits this phrase and so do Rotherham's Emphasized bible, the Revised English Bible 1989 and the NEB 1970, but the NRSV, ESV and Holman put it back in and so does the 1995 NASB. Again only D omits these words.

The new ISV (International Standard Version) still manages to sow confusion and doubt by the notes found within the text. Notice these verses: 24:3: but when they went in, they didn't find the body of the Lord Jesus. (Other mss. lack of the Lord Jesus) Lk 24:6: He is not here but has been raised. (Other mss. lack He is not here, but has been raised) Lk 24:12: Peter, however, got up and ran to the tomb. He stooped down and saw only the linen cloths. Then he went home wondering about what had happened. (Other mss. lack verse 12.) Lk 24:36: Jesus Appears to the Disciples While they were talking about this, Jesus himself stood among them and said to them, “Peace be with you.” (Other mss. lack and said to them, “Peace be with you.”) Lk 24:40: After he had said this, he showed them his hands and his feet. (Other mss. lack verse 40).  

The truth of the matter is that only one Greek manuscript (D) lacks all these words and whole verses, plus a few but not all Old Latin copies, and all of these words and whole verses are omitted by modern versions like  the RSV, NEB (New English Bible 1970) and the 1989 Revised English Bible, and most were omitted by the NASB from 1960 until either 1972 or 1977. That single manuscript is D. Dear saints, it should be obvious that this mysterious process is not a "science" at all but rather the strange brew of modern-day textual alchemists.  Manuscript D, also called Codex Bezae because it was discovered by Theodore Bezae, is one of the foulest and most corrupt manuscripts in existence, and if you are using ANY Bible version based on the constantly changing UBS (United Bible Society) Nestle-Aland critical Greek texts, then you are using what are in fact the new Vatican Versions and you have NO settled and infallible words of God. 

Get yourself the Bible God has clearly set His mark on as being the true "book of the LORD"- the Authorized King James Holy Bible. It is always right.  God bless.

For Indisputable Proof that modern versions like the ESV, NIV, NASB are in fact the new Vatican Versions see this in depth documentation and verse comparison study here -

Another Mind Blower - Mark 1:41 and the NIV 2010 

Before I get into this example, I want to mention that Brother Steven Avery did some research on Manuscript D and provided us with the following information.  Theodore Beza himself, in his letter to Cambridge, comments as follows: Some years ago I acquired a Greek-Latin manuscript (copy) of the four Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles from the monastery of St Irenaeus in Lyons; it is somewhat incomplete, and not very correctly copied from beginning to end, nor kept with sufficient care ... I have found such a great discrepancy between this manuscript and any others however old that I would think that it is better to store it than to publish it ..." -- Beyond What is Written, p. 229, Jan Krans, 2206 

The corruption of this manuscript is well known. Even while Fenton Hort lifted up this manuscript in his confused theories, he referred to the "prodigious amount of error which D contains"

The New Testament in the Original Greek (1881)

Westcott and Hort 

And Dean John Burgon did an entire study on this very corrupt manuscript, proving it to be one of the absolute worst in existence.

Codex D (Bezae) - abject textual and scribal corruption in one package 08-29-2010

Thus, with a little study, you can easily see how worthless this manuscript is for any sensible textual theory.


 Mark 1:41 and the NIV 2010.


In Mark 1:40-41 we read the following: "And there came a leper to him, beseeching him, and kneeling down to him, and saying unto him, If thou wilt, thou canst make me clean. And Jesus MOVED WITH COMPASSION, put forth his hand, and touched him, and saith unto him, I will; be thou clean."


"Moved with compassion" is the reading found in all Greek texts including the Majority, Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, A, C, as well as the Syriac, most Old Latin copies, the Vulgate 405, the Armenian, Ethiopian, Georgian and Slavonic ancient versions.  It is also the reading found in Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549, Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, the RV 1885, ASV 1901, the NKJV 1982, NASB 1963 thru 1995, the RSV, NRSV 1989, ESV 2001, Holman Standard 2003 and even in the NIV 1973 and 1984 editions.


 However, based on one very corrupt Greek manuscript (D) the 2010 NIV has now come out and follows this ridiculous reading and instead of Jesus having compassion on the leper, He is now angry.  The NIV 2010 edition now actually says: Mark 1:41 (New International Version, ©2011)

Mark 1:40-41 "A man with leprosy came to him and begged him on his knees, “If you are willing, you can make me clean.”Jesus WAS INDIGNANT.[a] He reached out his hand and touched the man. “I am willing,” he said. “Be clean!”


Mark 1:41 Many manuscripts Jesus was filled with compassion.


The bible agnostic's hero, Bruce Metzger, had this to say about the passage (as found on the NET version website footnotes, though the NET itself follows the traditional reading of "moved with compassion") - "The reading found in almost the entire NT ms tradition is σπλαγχνισθείς (splancnisqei", “moved with compassion”). Codex Bezae (D), {1358}, and a few Latin mss (a ff2 r1*) here read ὀργισθείς (ojrgisqei", “moved with anger”). It is more difficult to account for a change from “moved with compassion” to “moved with anger” than it is for a copyist to soften “moved with anger” to “moved with compassion,” making the decision quite difficult. B. M. Metzger (TCGNT 65) suggests that “moved with anger” could have been prompted by 1:43, “Jesus sent the man away with a very strong warning.” It also could have been prompted by the man’s seeming doubt about Jesus’ desire to heal him (v. 40)."


And the 1989 The Revised English Bible with the Apocrypha itself reads in Mark 1:41 - "Jesus WAS MOVED TO ANGER; he stretched out his hand, touched him, and said, I will; be clean." 


The bible agnostic versions just keep getting better and better, huh?;-) 


 Will Kinney

Return to Articles -