Gospel of Mark
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.”
“Moved with compassion” is the reading found in the Majority of Greek texts including Sinaiticus, and Vaticanus, and is the reading of the NKJV, NASB, NIV, ESV, RSV, NRSV and Holman. However both manuscript D and the brand new 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 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.oocities.org/avdefense1611/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 Millenium 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: "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 and the American Standard Version. When the Nestle text first came out, they omitted these words, but later put them back in. The first English version to omit these words was the RSV and the NIV also omits "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, ESV, the upcoming ISV and Holman Christian Standard versions.
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://www.oocities.org/brandplucked/oldbest.html
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."
Gospel of Luke
Luke 4:44 Geographical blunder in many modern versions
In Luke 4:44 we read: "And he preached in the synagogues of GALILEE." The immediate context clearly shows that the Lord Jesus was in Galilee, which is far north of the region of Judea. In fact, the very next verse tells us: "And it came to pass, that, as the people pressed upon him to hear the word of God, he stood by the lake of Gennesaret." Gennesaret is another name for the Sea of Galilee. See Matthew 4:18 and Mark 1:16.
Galilee and Judea are two distinct and separate regions in the land of Israel, with Decapolis and Samaria standing between them. (See Matthew 4:25; 19:1; Mark 3:7; Luke 2:4; 3:1; 5:17; John 4:3 and Acts 9:31)
"He preached in the synagogues of GALILEE" is the reading found in the vast Majority of all Greek manuscripts, including A and D, and the Old Latin copies of a, aur, b, c, d, e, f, ff2, l, q, and r1. It is also the reading of the Vulgate, the Syriac Peshitta, the Gothic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Georgian, many Coptic, and the Slavonic ancient versions.
However the Westcott-Hort text, as well as the Nestle-Aland and UBS Critical texts actually read: "and he preached in the synagogues of JUDEA." So read the RSV, NRSV, ESV, NASB, the Catholic New American Bible and Jerusalem bible, and the NIV. This is a clear geographical blunder. This erroneous reading is found in P75, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, the so called "oldest and best" manuscripts which differ from each other in significant ways more than 3000 times in the gospels alone.
It is of more than passing interest that even the Revised Version of 1881 and the American Standard Version of 1901, both of which generally followed the W-H texts and omitted some 4000 words from the New Testament, did not follow the Westcott-Hort text in this place, but rather saw the blatant blunder of this false reading, and instead went with "in the synagogues of GALILEE."
Not only this, but now there are three more modern bible versions that have recently come down the pike, and which are also based on the UBS critical text. All three have now gone back to the correct reading of "in the synagogues of GALILEE". These are the Holman Standard of 2003, the Message 2002 and the 2004 ISV (International Standard Version)
Agreeing with the correct reading of "he preached in the synagogues of GALILEE" are Wycliffe, Tyndale, Coverdale, Bishops' Bible, the Geneva Bible, the NKJV, RV, ASV, Douay, Bible in Basic English, Young's, Weymouth, Darby, New Life Bible, Spanish Reina Valera, Italian Diodati, German Luther, French Louis Segond, and the Modern Greek versions.
Among the silly reasons for adopting the bogus reading of "the synagogues of JUDEA", Daniel Wallace of Dallas Theological Seminary, whose NET version also reads this way, says: "Judea is probably the original reading since it is both the harder reading and supported by the best witnesses. “Galilee” is an assimilation to Mark 1:39 and Matt 4:23."
Now this is interesting. According to Mr. Wallace, we should adopt this "probably original reading" because it is the harder reading and supported by the "best witnesses" which disagree with each other literally thousands of times in the N.T. alone. The reading of "Judea" is not only "the harder reading" but it is the IMPOSSIBLE reading. It is just flat out wrong. According to men like Daniel Wallace, if the reading doesn't make any sense and is contrary to all historical evidence, then it must be right! Go figure.
Luke 8:43 "And a woman having an issue of blood twelve years, WHICH HAD SPENT ALL HER LIVING UPON PHYSICIANS, neither could be healed of any..."
All the words in capital letters are missing only in Vaticanus and 2 other manuscripts (P75 and D, though D also contains readings in this verse not found in any of the others), and are omitted by the RSV 1952, NASB 1963-1995, the NIV 1982 and the TNIV of 2005. Other versions that omit these words are the New English Bible of 1970, the Catholic Jerusalem bible of 1968 and the New Jerusalem bible of 1985. The earlier Catholic versions like the Douay and the Douay-Rheims include them.
Daniel Wallace and company's NET bible version also omits all these words, and then the good Doctor informs us in his footnotes: " Uncertainty over its authenticity is due primarily to the fact that certain important witnesses do not have the phrase. This evidence alone renders its authenticity unlikely. It may have been intentionally added by later scribes in order to harmonize Luke’s account with similar material in Mark 5:26. NA 27 includes the words in brackets, indicating doubt as to their authenticity."
Of course Mr. Wallace fails to mention the fact that the overwhelming witnesses of ancient versions, manuscripts (including his beloved Sinaiticus), and even many modern English versions disagree with his "uncertainty over its authenticity", and the Greek found in Mark 5:26 doesn't match that found in Luke 8:43, but if you follow men like Wallace, this is all you end up with - uncertainty.
However all these words are found in the majority of all texts including Sinaiticus, A, C, the Old Latin copies of aur,b, c, ff2, l, and q, the Syriac Peshitta and Harkelian, the Vulgate, some Coptic, the Ethiopic, Slavonic and the Gothic ancient versions.
Even though Westcott and Hort and all earlier editions of the Nestle-Aland critical Greek texts completely omitted these words, the Revised Version of 1881 and the American Standard Version of 1901 included them anyway. The first major version to omit them was the liberal RSV of 1952, and now the NASB, NIV and TNIV follow suite. The most recent Nestle-Aland, UBS Critical Greek texts have once again changed their texts and now include these five Greek words, but place them in [brackets] indicating doubt as to their authenticity.
The NIV is not always the same when translated into foreign languages. The Portuguese Nova Versao International of 2000 now includes all these words that the English NIV omits! It reads: "E estava ali certa mulher que havia doze anos vinha sofrendo de uma hemorragia E GASTATA TUDO O QUE TINHA COM OS MEDICOS; mas ninguém pudera curá-la."
But wait. There's more. Now many of the other modern versions coming on the scene are going back to including the words "which had spent all her living on physicians". Among these modern and previous Bible versions are the following: Wycliffe ,Tyndale, Coverdale, Bishops' Bible, the Geneva Bible, RV, ASV, Weymouth, Young's, Darby, Hebrew Names Version, World English Bible, New Life Bible 1969, Amplified version, the Contemporary English Version, the New Living Bible 1996, Bible in Basic English 1961, the NRSV 1989, the ESV 2001, NKJV, Holman Standard Version 2003, The Message 2003, and the ISV of 2005.
Yet many of these newer versions continue in the main to follow the Westcott-Hort texts. Even the footnotes are deceptive. The NASB omits all these words and then tells us in a footnote "SOME mss. add...", while the NIV says "MANY mss. add..." Isn't scholarship a kick in the head!?!
Luke 9:2 "And he sent them to preach the kingdom of God and to heal THE SICK." Again we see the same fickleness in the "science of textual criticism" as before. The words "the sick" are "tous asthenountas" and they are found in every known manuscript including Sinaiticus except ONE, and that is Vaticanus. The words "to heal THE SICK" are found in the RV, ASV, NIV, ISV, Holman, but the RSV, NASB and ESV all continue to omit "the sick", based on one manuscript. The earlier Nestle text omitted the words but now they are back in their text again.
70 or 72?
Luke 10:1 "After these things the Lord appointed other SEVENTY also, and sent them two and two before his face into every city and place, whither he himself would come."
The reading of 70 is found in the Majority of all Greek texts as well as Sinaiticus, A, and C. It is also the reading of the Syriac Peshitta, Harkelian, Gothic, many Old Latin copies, Ethiopic, and Slavonic ancient versions.
However Vaticanus reads: "After these things the Lord appointed SEVENTY TWO and sent them...." So, which is it, 70 or 72? The confusion is seen not only in the various English translations but in the Nestle-Aland texts as well. The reading of 72 was first included in the Westcott-Hort text of 1881, but later the Nestle-Aland text read 70. I have a NA 4th edition 1934 edition and it reads just like the King James Bible - 70. But later on, the Nestle-Aland text once again changed and now the more recent NA text read 72 with the number two in brackets.
The confusion is further seen by the different translations that in the main follow the ever-changing Nestle-Aland critical texts. The reading of 70 is found in the RV 1881, ASV 1901, NASB 1963-1995, RSV 1952, NRSV 1989, Holman Standard Version 2003, Weymouth, New Life Version 1969, Bible in Basic English 1961, The Complete Jewish Bible 1998, The Message 2002, and the ISV (International Standard Version) of 2005.
However, the NIV, TNIV, ESV of 2001, the Catholic versions and Daniel Wallace's NET version all read SEVENTY TWO. Both numbers obviously cannot be what God inspired. Either the KJB, RV, ASV, NASB, RSV, NRSV, Holman, and ISV have the correct number, or the NIV, ESV do. You can't have it both ways.
Luke 10:41-42 "And Jesus answered and said unto her, Martha, Martha, thou art careful about many things, BUT ONE THING IS NEEDFUL, and Mary hath chosen that good part, which shall not be taken away from her."
"but one thing is needful" is the majority reading of all texts including P45, P75 and Alexandrinus, but a curious thing happens when we look at both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. Instead of saying "but one thing is needful", these two "oldest and best" read: "but few things are needful, the one". ONLY the NASB from 1960 to 1977 and the Amplified version read: "BUT ONLY A FEW THINGS ARE NECESSARY, REALLY ONLY ONE, for Mary has chosen the good part."
Not even the RV, ASV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, NIV, ISV read as does the NASB from 1963 through 7 revisions to 1977. Ah, but then in 1995 the NASB scholars decided to go back to the other reading of "but one thing is needful" and so now the 1995 NASB Update reads like all the others. Likewise the older Nestle-Aland texts used to read: "but FEW THINGS are needful, THE ONE", but now have once again changed their NA critical texts to read as does the King James Bible. But wait! It gets worse. Now that the latest Nestle-Aland critical texts have gone back to the KJB reading, the brand new 2005 Today's NIV has instead reverted back to the previous Nestle-Aland text and now reads: "FEW THINGS ARE NEEDED - REALLY ONLY ONE". It just gets better and better, doesn't it?!?
A few additional notes on Luke 10:38-41. In 10:38 we read: "and a certain woman named Martha received him INTO HER HOUSE (eis ton oikon autees). The words "into her house" are found in the Majority of all texts, including Sinaiticus, A and C. Even the earlier Nestle-Aland texts included these words, and so do the RV, ASV, NKJV, NASB, RSV, ESV, and NIV. However, Vaticanus omits these words and now the Nestle-Aland text has once again changed and they now omit them from their text. In other words, not even the modern versions are "up to date" with the latest "scientific" changes.
Two other similar changes are found in verses 39 and 41. In both verses we read: "and sat at JESUS' feet" and "JESUS answered and said unto her, Martha, Martha...". In both verses the word JESUS is found in the Majority of all texts including Vaticanus, but Sinaiticus reads LORD instead of JESUS, and this time the NASB, RSV, ESV, Holman and NIV decided to follow Sinaiticus instead of Vaticanus and put LORD.
Then in Luke 11:2-4 modern versions like the NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV, Holman omit all the capital lettered words: OUR Father, WHICH ART IN HEAVEN, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. THY WILL BE DONE, AS IN HEAVEN, SO IN EARTH....And lead us not into temptation; BUT DELIVER US FROM EVIL." All these words are found in the vast Majority of all remaining Greek texts, and in Tyndale, Coverdale, Bishops' Bible, Geneva Bible, Lamsa's translation of the ancient Syriac Peshitta, the NKJV, Youngs, the Spanish Reina Valera, German Luther, Italian Diodati, the Hebrew Names Version, and the Third Millenium Bible.
Of the 45 Greek words found in Luke 11:1-4, among the so called "oldest and best" manuscripts of Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, A and C, no two are alike in 32 out of the 45 words! For example, the words "Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth" are found in the Majority of all texts including Sinaiticus, A, C and D, but because Vaticanus omits them so do versions like the NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV, Holman and all Catholic bible versions. This is the true nature of "the science of textual criticism".
Luke 11:11 "If a son shall ask BREAD of any of you that is a father, WILL HE GIVE HIM A STONE? OR IF HE ASK a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent."
This is the reading found in the majority of all texts, as well as Sinaiticus, A, C, D, the Syriac Peshitta, Revised Version, American Standard Version, and the brand new International Standard Version. Keep in mind that the RV, ASV and ISV are all generally based on the Westcott-Hort texts.
However Vaticanus omits all the capitalized words above and so do the NASB, NIV, and ESV. The NASB reads: "Now suppose one of you fathers is asked by his son for a fish; he will not give him a snake instead of a fish, will he?"
Luke 12:39 "if the good man of the house had known what hour the thief would come, he would HAVE WATCHED AND not have suffered his house to be broken through." "he WOULD HAVE WATCHED" is found in the Majority and Vaticanus, and is the reading of the RV, ASV and again the new ISV. However Sinaiticus omits these words and so do the NASB, NIV and ESV. Even Westcott and Hort originally retained these words, but later on, the Nestle text decided to omit them, but now they are appearing once again in the ISV. Our noted modern versions scholars are nothing if not consistently inconsistent.
Luke 14:5 "Which of you shall have AN ASS or an ox fallen into a pit, and will not straightway pull him out on the sabbath day?" AN ASS (onos) is the reading of the traditional Textus Receptus, and Sinaiticus. Even the first English revisions based primarily on the Westcott-Hort texts continued to follow the reading of "ass" and so read the RV 1881, the ASV 1901 and even the RSV of 1952. This has been the traditional reading of Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale, Bishops' Bible, the Geneva Bible, Young's, the NKJV, the Spanish Reina Valera, Italian Diodati, Bible in Basic English, the Douay version 1950, and the Third Millenium Bible 1998.
Manuscript D has neither "ass" nor "son" but "sheep" (probaton). However Vaticanus reads SON (huios) instead of "an ass" and the NASB, NIV, Holman, ISV, and ESV read: "Which of you having a SON or an ox that has fallen into a well..." The earlier Catholic Douay read "ass", but the newer ones agree with the NASB, NIV and have "son".
Luke 15:21 - A significant testimony to the total fickleness and absurdity of the so called "science of textual criticism" is the next verse of Luke 15:21. Here we read: And the son said unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and in thy sight, and am no more worthy to be called thy son."
So read the Majority of all Greek texts, the Old Latin and the Syriac Peshitta. Even the modern versions that have omitted or added literally THOUSANDS of words from the New Testament, based mainly on the readings or omissions found in either Sinaiticus, Vaticanus or D - Codex Bezae, such as the NASB, NIV, RSV, ASV, ESV, and Holman Standard, still read the same way as does the King James Bible.
However, it should be noted that not just one or two, but all three of these perverted texts - Sinaiticus, Vaticanus and D - ALL conspire to add several more words to this verse. All three of these "textus corruptus" manuscripts add the additional words: "MAKE ME AS ONE OF YOUR HIRED SERVANTS", yet none of the modern versions adopts this reading.
Westcott and Hort originally included these extra seven Greek words in their text, but not even the Revisers adopted this reading, and the later Nestle-Aland critical texts omitted them too. The only version I have seen so far that included this bogus reading is Rotherham's 1902 Emphasized bible, which was based on the Westcott-Hort text. All versions from that time to the present continue to omit these extra words found in those "oldest and best manusripts" we hear so much about today.
It should logically and consistently be asked: Why have they omitted thousands of other words based on one or more of these same "oldest and best" texts, and yet here they all fail to follow their idols in this place? Such is the nature of the "science" they call textual criticism.
Luke 23:17 "FOR OF NECESSITY HE MUST RELEASE ONE UNTO THEM AT THE FEAST."
This entire verse is found in the Majority of all texts including Sinaiticus. However Vaticanus omits the whole verse and so do the ASV, NIV,TNIV, RSV, ESV, Wallace's NET version. The NASB pulls its usual trick, and from 1960 to 1972 the NASB likewise omitted the verse, but then in 1977 and again in 1995 the NASB scholars decided to put the verse back in the text, even though the UBS, Nestle-Aland critical text still omits the verse from their text.
The whole verse is found in the Old Latin as well as the Latin Vulgate 380 A.D., and the Syriac Peshitta. The verse is in Tyndale, Geneva, NKJV, Hebrew Names Bible, Modern Greek, Hebrew New Testament, Luther, Spanish Reina Valera, Chinese, Russian, French Louis Segond, Italian Diodati, and an host of other foreign language bibles. But wait! Now the brand new ISV and Holman Christian Standard also retain the verse and place it in their versions. Aren't you glad we have the latest sure findings of modern scholarship to help us find out what God REALLY said?
Luke chapter 24 is a real mess, especially 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 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 and the NASB from 1960 through 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 95 Udate I have still omits them, but I have heard that other NASBs 1995 now place the words back in.
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 manuscript (D) the RSV omitted the entire verse as well as the NASBs from 1960 through 1972. Then in 1977 the NASB put this whole verse back in their version. The NRSV, ESV and NIV do contain this verse.
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 manuscript - D again. Yet the RSV as well as the NASBs from 1960 through 1977 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 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 edition and all seven editions of the NASB from 1963 to 1977.
These words are found in P75, Majority, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. Only manuscript D omits these words. The Critical Texts again are in a state of constant change. Wescott and Hort originally double bracketed the words “and carried up into heaven” and “worshipped him and” in the next verse. Then in 1961 the Nestle-Aland critical text COMPLETELY REMOVED from their texts all these words. But once again in the latest Nestle-Aland 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 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 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 does 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 manuscript lacks all these words and whole verses, all of which are omitted by the RSV, NEB (New English Bible 1970) and most were omitted by the NASB from 1960 till either 1972 or 1977. That single manuscript is D. Dear saints, it should be obvious that this mysterious process is not a "science" but the strange brew of modern-day textual alchemists.