Another King James Bible Believer

Subtitle

The so called "Science" of Textual Criticism - Gospel of Mark



Gospel of Mark - "science" of textual criticism


Mark 1:41 “A Leper in the Hands of an Angry Jesus”


One of the more curious changes Mr.Bart Ehrman thinks should be made in the Bible is found in this verse. The context is a leper coming to Jesus, kneeling down before Him and saying ‘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.”


 However both manuscript D and the brand new NIV and TNIV tell us that instead of Jesus having compassion, HE WAS ANGRY. Ehrman thinks this is the true reading, and Daniel Wallace said he is thinking of changing his NET version to read this same way too.



 Mark 1:41 and the NIV 2011.


 

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 with him.  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!”


Footnotes:

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

 

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

 

Mark 2:16 and the silliness of the so called “oldest and best manuscripts”.

 

In the true Bible we read: “And when the scribes AND (kai hoi) the Pharisees saw him eat with PUBLICANS and SINNERS, they said unto his disciples, HOW IS IT (ti hoti) that he eateth AND DRINKETH with publicans and sinners.”


So read the Majority of all Greek texts as well as Alexandrinus and C. Also agreeing with every inspired word as well as the word order are Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, Bishops’s Bible 1568 and the Geneva Bible 1587-1602, and even the Douay-Rheims bible.


Foreign language Bibles that agree with the King James Bible are Luther’s German bible 1545,  the Spanish Reina Valera 1909, 1960 and 1995, the Italian Diodati  1649 and the Rivudeta 1927,  the French  Martin 1744, Louis Segond 1902 and the French Ostervald 1996, as well as the Modern Greek texts used throughout the Orthodox churches today.


However the so called “oldest and best mss.” (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus) are at odds not only with the Majority of Greek texts but with each other, and STILL the modern versions don’t even agree with each other.


Instead of reading “and when the scribes AND THE (kai hoi) Pharisees” Vaticanus says “the scribes OF (twn) the Pharisees” and so do Westcott and Hort, the NASB, RSV, ESV and NIV.  However Daniel Wallace’s NET version does not, and instead in this place (but not the others) follows the KJB reading of “the scribes AND THE Pharisees.”   Sinaiticus adds and extra word KAI here but nobody follows it since it makes no sense.


Then instead of reading in both places the word order of “PUBLICANS AND SINNERS” Vaticanus reverses the word order and has “SINNERS and PUBLICANS” in the first part, and “publicans and sinners” in the second part, even though Sinaiticus as well as the Majority of all texts read “publicans and sinners” in both places.  


The question the Pharisees ask is all mixed up in the various texts.  “HOW IS IT THAT” (Ti hoti) becomes only “that” (hoti) in Vaticanus, while Sinaiticus has “Why” (dia ti), but Westcott and Hort, and now Nestles chose to follow Vaticanus here and not Sinaiticus, nor the Textus Receptus texts that underly the King James Bible.


But more importantly in the question “HOW IS IT that he eateth AND DRINKETH with  publicans and sinners.” - Vaticanus omits the words AND DRINKETH (kai pinei) which are found in the majority of all Greek texts as well as A and C.  However Sinaiticus not only omits the words “and drinketh” BUT it also ADDS extra words not found in either Vaticanus or the majority of texts.  Sinaiticus says: “YOUR TEACHER EATS (esthei ho didaskalos humoon) with publicans and sinners.” But so far, nobody has followed the Sinaiticus reading.


But the amazing thing is that even though Westcott and Hort, along with the modern critical texts of Nestles-Aland, and UBS still omit the words “AND DRINKETH” from their texts, yet the new versions still do not agree with each other.  


Those versions that follow the Critical Texts, as opposed to the texts that underlie the King James Bible, that have altered both the Textus Receptus and the Majority Text FOUR TIMES IN THIS ONE VERSE by following Vaticanus (even though all four examples are different in Sinaiticus) and yet still do not follow the Critical text when it comes to omitting the words “and drinketh” but instead include “AND DRINK” are the Revised Version, the American Standard Version, the NASB, the Amplified bible and the ISV (International Standard Version).


However versions like the RSV, NRSV, ESV, Holman Standard and the NIV omit the words “and drinketh”, as well as altering the Greek text in the other three places by following Vaticanus - and this is only in ONE verse!


 

 

Mark 6:22 - The Daughter of Herodias or Herod's daughter Herodias? - The Ever Changing Lunacy of Modern Textual Criticism

 

 

In Mark 6:22 we read: "And when the daughter OF the said HERODIAS (mentioned in verses 17 and 19) came in, and danced, and pleased Herod...the king said...Ask of me whatsoever thou wilt, and I will give it thee." 

 

Common English Bible 2011 - "Herod’s daughter Herodias came in and danced...

 

Dan Wallace's NET version - "WHEN HIS DAUGHTER HERODIAS came in and danced, she pleased Herod..."

 

The 2003 Holman Standard reads: "When Herodias’s own daughter[a] came in and danced..."

 

And then footnotes - Mark 6:22 Other mss read "When HIS DAUGHTER HERODIAS"

 

In the Lexham English Bible 2012 we see the same thing. It rejects the latest “scholarship” of the UBS/Nestle-Aland editors and goes with Traditional reading of the KJB. 

 

It says: And when THE DAUGHTER OF HERODIAS HERSELF came in and danced and pleased Herod and his dinner guests, the king said to the girl, “Ask me for whatever you want, and I will give it to you.”  

 

Then it footnotes: In place of “the daughter of Herodias herself” some manuscripts have “his daughter Herodias”. And what exactly are these “some manuscripts”?  They are our old “friends” Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. Two of the most corrupt manuscripts to see the light of day, that not only contradict the Traditional Text of the Reformation Bibles but contradict each other literally thousands of times.

 

To see the true nature of these so called “oldest and best manuscripts” upon which most modern Vatican Versions like the ESV, NIV, NASB, NET, Holman, the Jehovah Witness NWT and the modern Catholic versions are based, see my article here -


http://brandplucked.webs.com/oldestandbestmss.htm

 

Herodias was previously the wife of Phillip, the brother of Herod, and she had a daughter by Phillip.  At some point Herod took Herodias, his brother's wife, to be his own and John the Baptist reproved Herod for this. "For Herod himself had sent forth and laid hold upon John, and bound him in prison for Herodias' sake, his brother Phillip's wife; for he had married her. For John had said unto Herod, It is not lawful for thee to have thy brother's wife." Mark 6:17-18.

 

Matthew 14:6 clearly tells us: "But when Herod's birthday was kept, THE DAUGHTER OF HERODIAS danced before them, and pleased Herod."

 

The reading that repeats the information and tells us that this girl who danced at Herod's birthday party was THE DAUGHTER OF HERODIAS is that of the Majority of all Greek texts as well as Alexandrinus and C.

 

However the so called "oldest and best manuscripts" of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus actually say that this was Herod's daughter named Herodias, instead of saying that it was Herodias' daughter and not mentioning her name.

 

Obviously the two readings cannot both be inspired by God at the same time, and the reading found here in Mark 6:22 in Sinaiticus and Vaticanus (the so called oldest and best upon which most modern versions are based) obviously contradicts what Matthew 14:6 tells us about this girl being "the daughter of Herodias".

 

Part of what makes this obvious textual blunder of such interest is to see how the critical text "scholars" have dealt with it. The textual differences are quite obvious in the Greek. The Traditional Greek text and that of almost every Bible version in all languages in history that tells us this was the daughter of Herodias is "τῆς θυγατρὸς αὐτῆς τῆς Ἡρῳδιάδος " whereas the Vatican mss. reads  "τῆς θυγατρὸς αὐτοῦ Ἡρῳδιάδος" = HIS DAUGHTER HERODIAS.

 

THE CONSTANTLY CHANGING CRITICAL TEXT EDITIONS 

 

Westcott and Hort originally adopted this strange variant reading because of their blind devotion to the Vatican manuscript, but not even the Revised Version of 1885 or the ASV of 1901 followed this strange and contradictory reading, but stayed with the traditional - "when THE DAUGHTER OF HERODIAS HERSELF came in and danced".

 

However later on the Nestle critical Greek text 4th edition 1934 and the Nestle 21st edition of 1975 both read like the King James Bible and the traditional Greek text. They did NOT adopt the Vatican/Sinaitic reading. 

 

But then again the latest Nestle-Aland critical Greek texts 27th and the most recent 28th edition have once again changed their Greek text and have gone back to the one first followed by Westcott and Hort. The most recent Nestle Aland critical Greek texts now read "HIS DAUGHTER HERODIAS" =  τῆς θυγατρὸς αὐτοῦ Ἡρῳδιάδος

 

We can see part of this fickle change in the RSV, NRSV and the revision of the revision of the revision called the ESV.  The RSV read -" For when HERODIAS' DAUGHTER CAME IN" but the NRSV of 1989 said: "WHEN HIS DAUGHTER HERODIAS came in and danced," and then the ESV 2011 went back to reading: For when HERODIAS'S DAUGHTER came in and danced..."  

 

This means that the ESV, along with the NIV and NASB are not even following the latest musical chairs reading found in the last few printings of the "updated" UBS/Nestle-Aland critical text editions.

 

Agreeing with the correct reading that this was "the daughter of Herodias" and not "Herod's daughter Herodias" are  Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549, the  Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, Darby 1890, Young's 1898, the RV 1881, ASV 1901 - "when the daughter of Herodias herself came in and danced", Living Bible 1971, NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV, Holman Standard 2009, NKJV 1982, Complete Jewish Bible 1998, Easy-to-Read Version 2006, the ISV 2014.

 

 Those following the corrupt Vaticanus-Sinaiticus, United Bible Society/Vatican/Nestle-Aland 28th edition and that tell us this girl was Herod's daughter and her name was Herodias are Daniel Wallace and company's NET version, the latest critical text version called The Common English Version of 2011, the NRSV of 1989, The New Living Translation 2007, and the Disciples New Literal N.T. 2011.

The Living Bible 1971 followed the Traditional text, but this latest "update" has now gone for this blunder found in the Vatican manuscripts.

 

The New Living Translation 2007 now says: - "Then HIS DAUGTER, ALSO NAMED HERODIAS, came in and performed a dance".  

 

Since the ever changing critical text scholars have lately adopted this obvious blunder as their preferred Greek text I suppose we will see some more in the future.


 

Mark 9:23-24 KJB - "Jesus said unto him, If thou canst BELIEVE, all things are possible to him that believeth.  And straightway the father of the child cried out, and said WITH TEARS, LORD, I believe; help thou mine unbelief."

 

ESV - "And Jesus said to him, "If YOU CAN!" All things are possible for one who believes." Immediately the father of the child cried out and said, "I believe; help my unbelief."  

 

NIV - "If YOU CAN?" said Jesus. "Everything is possible for one who believes." Immediately the boy's father exclaimed, "I do believe; help me overcome my unbelief."  

 

The most obvious differences are the omissions of several words in the modern Vatican Versions. The ESV, NIV, NASB, NET, Holman and the modern Catholic versions omit the words "BELIEVE", "WITH TEARS" and most importantly perhaps the word "LORD".

 

 Yet all the capitalized words "believe", "with tears" and "Lord" are found in the Majority of all remaining Greek manuscripts and is the traditional reading of the Reformation Bibles in the major languages of the world, and of the Greek Bible used by the Greek speaking Orthodox churches today.

 

"If thou canst BELIEVE" (εἰ δύνασαι πιστεῦσαι) is in the Majority of all texts including A, C correction, Sinaiticus correction, D and the Syriac Peshitta. But the word "believe" is omitted in the Vatican mss. and read "if you can"  (εἰ δύνῃ) and thus we have the ESV, NIV, NASB, NET reading where they don't even agree with each other.  The ESV has an exclamation "If you can!", while the NIV makes it a question with "If you can?"  

 

The words "WITH TEARS" (μετὰ δακρύων) are again found in the Majority of all manuscripts as well as A and C corrections, D and the Syriac Peshitta.  

 

And the all important word LORD (κύριε), which this father uses to recognize that this man Jesus was none other than the LORD, is again found in the Majority of all manuscripts, C correction, E, F, G, H, K, M, N, S, U, V, X, Y, Gamma, Delta, Pi, Sigma, Omega, the Old Latin copies a, aur, b, c, f,  and g2 but the UBS, Nestle Aland critical texts don't even mention it in their critical footnotes!  Not a peep about it being the Majority reading.

 

The Catholic version give us their usual confusion. Both the earlier Douay-Rheims of 1582 and the 1950 Douay had the words "believe" and "with tears" but omitted the word "Lord".  They both read: "And Jesus saith to him: If thou canst BELIEVE, all things are possible to him that believeth. And immediately the father of the boy crying out, WITH TEARS said: I do believe, Lord. Help my unbelief."  

 

But then the 1968 Jerusalem bible, the 1970 St. Joseph NAB and the 1985 New Jerusalem all read like the (surprise!) ESV, NIV, NASB (omitting "believe", "with tears" and "Lord"), saying: "Jesus said, "If you can? Everything is possible to a man who trusts."  The boy's father immediately exclaimed, "I do believe! Help my lack of trust."

 

Oh, but wait!  Now the 2009 Catholic Public Domain Version has come out and it goes back to the Traditional reading as found in the KJB saying: 

 

"But Jesus said to him, “If you are able to BELIEVE: all things are possible to one who believes.”  And immediately the father of the boy, crying out WITH TEARS, said: “I do believe, LORD. Help my unbelief.”

 

 

Agreeing with the King James Bible are Wycliffe 1395 - "And Jhesus seide to hym, If thou maiste BILEUE, alle thingis ben possible to man that bileueth. And anoon the fadir of the child cried WITH TEERIS, and seide, LORD, Y bileue; Lord, helpe thou myn vnbileue.", Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535 - "Iesus sayde vnto him: Yf thou couldest BELEUE: All thinges are possible vnto him that beleueth. And immediatly the father of the childe cried WITH TEARES, and sayde: LORDE I beleue: O helpe thou myne vnbeleue.", the Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549, the Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587 - "And Iesus said vnto him, If thou canst BELEEUE it, al things are possible to him that beleeueth.  And straightway the father of the childe crying WITH TEARES, saide, LORDE, I beleeue: helpe my vnbeliefe.", Wesley's N.T. 1755, Worsley's N.T. 1770, Webster's Bible 1833, Young's 1898, the NKJV 1982, Green's literal, the Third Millennium Bible 1998 and the Jubilee Bible 2000.


Foreign language Bibles that read like the King James Bible and the Traditional Reformation texts are the French Martin Bible 1744 and French Ostervald 1996 - "Alors Jésus lui dit : si tu le peux croire, toutes choses sont possibles au croyant.  Et aussitôt le père de l'enfant s'écriant avec larmes, dit : Je crois, Seigneur! aide-moi dans mon incrédulité.", the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569, Cipriano de Valera 1602, Reina Valera 1909-1995  - "Jesús le dijo: Si puedes creer esto, al que cree todo es possible. Y luego el padre del muchacho dijo clamando con lágrimas: Creo, Señor, ayuda a mi incredulidad.", Luther's German bible 1545 and German Schlachter of 2000 - "Jesus aber sprach zu ihm: Wenn du könntet glauben! Alle Dinge sind möglich dem, der da glaubet.Und alsbald schrie des Kindes Vater mit Tränen und sprach: Ich glaube, lieber HERR; hilf meinem Unglauben!", the Italian Diodati 1649 and Nuova Diodati 1991 and the Italian Riveduta 2006 - "E Gesú gli disse: «Se tu puoi credere, ogni cosa è possibile a chi crede». Subito il padre del fanciullo, gridando con lacrime, disse: «Io credo Signore, sovvieni alla mia incredulità.", the Portuguese Almeida Corrigida E Fiel 1681 and A Biblia Sagrada em Portugués - " E Jesus disse-lhes: Se tu podes crer, tudo é possível ao que crê.  E logo o pai do menino, clamando com lágrimas, disse: Eu creio, Senhor! Ajuda a minha incredulidade." and the Modern Greek Bible, just to name a few.

 

 The King James Bible is always right.

 


 

Mark 9:41 - "For whosoever shall give you a cup of water to drink IN MY NAME, because ye belong to Christ, verily I say unto you, he shall not lose his reward."


"IN MY NAME" is the reading found in the Majority of all Greek texts as well as Sinaiticus original, C correction and D. This is also the reading of Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, Darby, Young's, the Hebrew Names Bible, the NKJV and the Spanish Reina Valera.


The NIV, TNIV 2005 also include the reading as do the Holman Standard 2003: "anyone who gives you a cup of water IN MY NAME because you belong to Christ..."


However, the NASB omits the word MY and adds the word YOUR which is not found in any text, saying: "For whoever gives you a cup of water to drink because of YOUR name as followers of Christ..."


The ASV simply omits the whole phrase and so do the ESV, ISV saying: "For whosoever shall give you a cup of water to drink, because ye are Christ's, verily I say unto you, he shall in no wise lose his reward."


The previous RSV includes the word "name" but rearranges the words and adds the verb "you bear" which is not found in any text, saying: "whoever gives you a cup of water to drink because YOU BEAR THE NAME of Christ..."



Mark 9:42 - "And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe IN ME, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea."



The all important words "believes IN ME" are again found in the Majority of all texts including Vaticanus, A, the Old Latin, Syraic, Gothic, Armenian, Georgian, Slavonic and Ethiopic ancient versions. The words "in me" are omitted by Sinaiticus and D, but D reads differently than all other texts in that it says "has faith" instead of "believes". 


The Westcott-Hort text and the previous Nestle-Aland critical texts used to omit these words from their text but more recently have once again "changed their minds" and restored them to their critical Greek texts, though still placing them in {brackets}.



Among the versions that contain these words and read "one of these little ones that believe IN ME" are: Wycliffe, Tyndale, Coverdale, Bishops's Bible, Geneva Bible, Youngs, the RV, ASV, NKJV, NIV, TNIV, RSV, NRSV, ESV and Holman. Even Wallace's NET version includes the words "believes in me".


However the NASB stands practically all alone in omitting these two words and reads: "Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe to stumble..."


Mark 10:6 -"But from the beginning of the creation GOD made them male and female."


The word GOD is found in the Majority of all Greek texts as well as A and D, and the Old Latin, Vulgate, Syraic, Georgian, Slavonic and Gothic ancient versions.


Sinaiticus and Vaticanus omit the word GOD AND so do the Westcott-Hort, Nestle-Aland critical texts, yet most of the versions based on this ever changing eclectical text do not follow it in this instance.


The Revised Version, ASV and now the ESV and Wallaces NET version all omit the word God and say: "Male and female made HE them.", but the NASB, NIV, RSV, NRSV, Holman Standard, NKJV, Hebrew Names Bible, Complete Jewish Bible, Tyndale, Wycliffe, Bishops', Geneva, Youngs and the Spanish Reina Valera all include the word and say "GOD made them male and female", thus not even following their own critical text.



Notice how the RV, ASV previously omitted the word but now the NASB includes it, but then the previous RSV, NRSV included it but the newer ESV omits it - just the reverse in the ever changing process of "revision".



Mark 10:7 - "For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, AND CLEAVE UNTO HIS WIFE."



The fickleness of the modern versionists is seen in how they deal with the textual issues of this verse. The words "and cleave unto his wife" are found in the the vast Majority of all Greek texts as well as A, C, D, the Old Latin, Vulgate, Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Gorgian, Slavonic and Ethiopic ancient versions.


However Sinaiticus and Vaticanus omit all these words, and so did Westcott-Hort and the previous Nestle-Aland critical texts. But now once more they have changed their minds and put these words back into their Greek text but {within brackets}.


Basically the only versions that OMIT all these words are the NASB and Daniel Wallace's NET version.


The Bible versions that contain the words "and cleave unto his wife" are the following: Geneva, Tyndale, Coverdale, Bishops', the Revised Version, American Standard Version 1901, Weymouth, Youngs, Darby, Spanish Reina Valera, the NKJV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, Holman, NIV, TNIV and the brand new ISV.



Mark 10:24 - "...But Jesus answereth again, and saith unto them, Children, how hard is it FOR THEM THAT TRUST IN RICHES to enter the kingdom of God."


Brother Marty Shue has written an excellent article dealing with this verse. It can be found at his King James Bible defense site here:

http://www.avdefense.webs.com/terribly.html 



"For them that trust in riches" - This is the reading found in the Majority of all Greek texts including Alexandrinus, D and C, the Old Latin copies which witness to a text written long before Sinaiticus and Vaticanus saw the light of day, the Latin Vulgate of 382 A.D. and 425 A.D., the Syriac, Coptic Boharic, Gothic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Georgian and Slavonic ancient versions.



The first major English version to come out that omitted these words was the liberal RSV of 1952. Not even the previous "revisions" based on the Westcott-Hort critical text went along with this innovation. The Revised Version of 1881 and the American Standard Version of 1901 BOTH kept these words in their English texts.



The whole meaning of the passage is radically changed when omitted by such versions as the NASB, NIV, RSV, NRSV, ESV and Holman Standard. They end up saying: "Children, how hard is it to enter the kingdom of God." It is not hard at all; we enter the kingdom by faith in our Lord Jesus Christ.


The phrase "for them that trust in riches" is also found in the following Bible translations: Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, Wesley's N.T. 1755, Weymouth 1913, Douay 1950, Hebrew Names Version, Darby, Young's, the New Life Bible 1969, Bible in Basic English 1960, the NKJV 1982, KJV 21st Century 1994, Third Millennium Bible 1998, and Green's MKJV 2000.


It is also found in a multitude of foreign language Bibles including Luther's German, the French Louis Segond, the Portuguese Almeida, the Spanish Reina Valera, the New Italian Diodati 1991, and the Modern Greek New Testament.


What is funny to see is how even some of the more modern versions that usually follow the Westcott-Hort texts are now rejecting the Sin-Vat readings and going back to the Traditional text used in the King James Bible. The Amplified bible of 1987, which is put out by the same Lockman Foundation that prints the NASB, includes the phrase "those who trust in riches", and now there is a brand new bible version coming down the pike that usually follows the W-H texts called the ISV (International Standard Version) of 2006. Guess what. It has now put these words back into the text where they belong reading: ""Children, how hard it is FOR THOSE WHO TRUST IN THEIR WEALTH to get into the kingdom of God!"


"Scholarship" is an amazing thing to behold, isn't it.


Mark 10:26 Who's talking to whom?


In Mark 10:26 we read: "And they were astonished out of measure, saying AMONG THEMSELVES, Who then can be saved?"


So read the Majority text, Alexandrinus, D ( codex Bezae), the Old Latin, Syriac, and the Gothic ancient versions. Agreeing with the reading of "among themselves" are Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, Bishops's Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1687, Wesley 1755, Weymouth 1913, and today we have in more modern times the NKJV 1982, NIV 1984, TNIV 2005, Holman Standard 2003, and the brand new 2006 ISV (International Standard Version) that isn't even finished yet.



However when Westcott and Hort first came out with their totally revised N.T. Greek, they originally followed the very different reading found in Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, though later on in the 4th edition of the Nestle-Aland text, and today in the 27th edition they decided to go back to the reading found in the King James Bible.


The versions that still follow this very different reading of W-H, but is not even the text of the latest Nestle-Aland editions are the NASB, RSV, NRSV and the 2001 ESV. In these versions we read: "And they were even more astonished and said TO HIM (not "among themselves"), Then who can be saved?" (NASB).


This is just one more of literally hundreds of examples of where the modern versionists are in disagreement among themselves as to which readings are truly inspired of God.


Mark 13:33 "Take heed, watch AND PRAY; for ye know not when the time is."


The words "and pray" are found in all texts including Sinaiticus. Only three are listed as omitting these words, two very minor and Vaticanus. The Revised Version, ASV, Catholic Douay, Lamsa's Syriac translation, NKJV all contain the words "and pray". But following the RSV the NASB, NIV, ESV now omit these words mainly because of Vaticanus. 

 

Mark 14:68. I mention this one because it is of interest to see the changing nature of what the modern scholars like to call "the science of textual criticism". Here we read:


Mark 14:68 - "But he denied, saying, I know not, neither understand I what thou sayest. And he went out into the porch; AND THE COCK CREW."


These last words "and the cock crew" are found in the majority of all texts including A, C and D, the ancient Syriac, Gothic, Armenian, Ethiopic and Georgian versions. They are also in the Revised Version 1885 and the American Standard Version of 1901. 


They are found in Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, the KJB 1611, Darby, Weymouth, Youngs and Douay Rheims to name but a few. When Westcott and Hort and the Nestle text first came out, they omitted these words (at least past 1934), but later on put them [in brackets]. 


The first English version to omit these words was the RSV and the NIVs 1984, 2010 also omit "and the cock crew". 


The NASB again is interesting in that from 1960 to 1977 they omitted these four words, but then in 1995 the NASB put them back in and so does the NRSV 1989, ESV 2001, the upcoming ISV, the NET version and Holman Christian Standard versions.


The words are inspired Scripture.  In Mark 14:30 Jesus said to Peter that "before the cock crow TWICE, thou shalt deny me thrice".  Then in 14:68 "and the cock crew", but in 14:72 we read in all texts "And THE SECOND TIME the cock crew."


 The words "and the cock crew" ARE found in the French Martin 1744, Louis Segond 1901, Ostervald 1996, the Italian Diodati 1649, New Diodati 1991, the Portuguese O Livro 2000, and the Spanish Reina Valera 1909, 1960, 1995.

 

What is a point of great curiosity here is that it is both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus that omit the words "and the cock crew". Now the modern versions are starting to put these words back in the New Testament but they still omit literally thousands of words and several whole verses precisely because of the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus omissions. Does this make any kind of rational sense to you?  


You see the modern versions have no settled text at all but it is in a state of constant change and flux. If the bibles didn't change from one edition to the next, then the professional scribes would all be out of work and would have to get a real job.


  

Mark 14:72 "And THE SECOND TIME the cock crew. And Peter called to mind the word that Jesus had said unto him, Before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice. And WHEN HE THOUGHT THEREON, he wept." 

 

Two things to notice about this verse. The words "the second time" are found in Vaticanus and the majority, yet they are omitted by Sinaiticus, but most versions retain the reading. 


Secondly, the words "when he thought thereon" (epibaloon) are found in all texts, including Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, yet omitted by manuscript D. This manuscript D says "he began to weep" thus adding the word "began" and omitting "when he thought thereon".


 ONLY the NASB omits "when he thought thereon" which is found in the RV, ASV, NKJV and the upcoming Holman Christian Standard. The NASB simply says: "And he began to weep." 


 

The NIV, RSV and ESV have retained the reading of epibaloon and not followed D with its "BEGAN to weep", but they translate the whole phrase differently by saying: "And he broke down and wept." Here it is only the NASB that follows D and rejects all the others, including Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. 


Mark 16 verses 9-20. These last 12 verses are entirely omitted by the RSV and many other modern versions either place these 12 entire verses in brackets (NASB) or with a footnote telling us "The most reliable early manuscripts do not contain Mark 16:9-20" (NIV). The truth is only three manuscripts, Sinaiticus, Vaticanus and one obscure witness omit these words while they are found in over 2000 manuscripts, lectionaries, ancient versions and early Church Fathers.

  

For my article showing the true nature of these two "most reliable early manuscripts" see

  http://brandplucked.webs.com/oldestandbestmss.htm



Dean Burgon wrote a book called The Last 12 Verses of Mark 16 which utterly destroys the arguments for omitting or questioning these words. Brother Marty Shue has written a brief article showing the overwhelming proof that these verses are authentic. Here is his article: http://www.avdefense.com/mark16.html  


If the new versionists were honest and consistent in their "science of textual criticism", they would either not include these 12 verses in such versions as the NASB, NIV, ESV, ISV because they are not in Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, or else they would properly include them and then restore the other 14 entire verses and multiple whole sections which they have deleted from the New Testament based on the readings found in Sinaiticus and or Vaticanus. It is that simple. As Dr. Gordon H. Clark wrote, "If a version brackets these verses, than you know that they are not going by the evidence."  


ALL of grace, believing the Book - the King James Holy Bible.


Will Kinney


Return to Articles -


https://brandplucked.webs.com/kjbarticles.htm