#2 Missing Verses?

Discussion in '2005 Archive' started by Ed Edwards, Jan 27, 2005.

  1. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Please refrain from commenting unless you have a verse
    to share that might be construed as "missing" from one
    version to another. If you only have one version you
    use, you should refrain from posting in this topic; this
    topic is for comparing two or more versions.

    After today's verse i will have 12 more to share. I can
    only do this one verse a day. So i need this topic to
    last a couple of weeks (or maybe start a #3).
    I think my Brothers and Sisters in Christ for refraining
    from commenting save to share a "missing" verse from
    multiple versions of the Bible. I thank in advance the
    PTB (powers that be, i.e. the topic cops) for keeping this
    topic open long enough that i can accomplish something.
     
  2. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Matthew 23:14 might be missing from some Bibles?
    But the idea there is NOT missing from the Bible,
    God's written word for us is also contained in
    Mark 12:40 and Luke 20:47.

    Matthew 23:14 (KJV1611):
    Woe vnto you Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites;
    for yee deuoure widowes houses,
    and for a pretence make long prayer;
    therefore ye shall receiue the greater damnation.


    Mark 12:40 (Geneva Bible):

    Which deuoure widowes houses,
    euen vnder a colour of long prayers.
    These shall receiue the greater damnation.

    Mark 12:40 (KJV1611):
    Which deuoure widowes houses,
    and for a pretence make long prayers:
    These shall receiue greater damnation.


    Mark 12:40 (KJV1769):
    They devour widows' houses
    and say long prayers just for show.
    These will receive harsher punishment.

    Luke 20:47 (KJV1611):
    Which deuoure widowes houses
    and for a shew make long prayers:
    the same shall receiue greater damnation


    How can a Bible that omitts Matt 23:14 have
    had a motive other than trying to adhere to their
    source texts? The don't "get rid of" this verse
    (which may damn them) for it appears twice already
    in the scripture.
     
  3. Bluefalcon

    Bluefalcon
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2004
    Messages:
    914
    Likes Received:
    4
    I think there is strong evidence for the inclusion of Mt. 23:14, even though its essence is found elsewhere (cf. Mk. 12:40; Lk. 20:47).

    The verse, according to the vast majority of documents, was originally located between Mt. 23:12 & 23:13 (i.e., the verse omitted, Mt. 23:14, actually comes before 23:13, and this fact is significant for the accidental scribal omission of the verse demonstraded below.

    Anyway, because of its location, and due to the same beginning words of consecutive verses, the verse was omitted by accident due an error caused by homoioteleuton, i.e., an early scribe wrote "But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because" -- and then his eye skipped to the exact same words of the next verse and continued writing, but thus he omitted all the material in between, i.e., Mt. 23:14.

    The verse was thus not omitted by any foul intent, but rather by mere accident, as is the case most of the time.

    However, I'll now post a case of an omitted verse where foul intrigue indeed played a part........MUHAHAHAHAHA!

    Yours,

    Bluefalcon
     
  4. Bluefalcon

    Bluefalcon
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2004
    Messages:
    914
    Likes Received:
    4
    Mt. 18:11 - "For the Son of Man came to save that which was lost."

    The verse is "missing" (not in the text) in the NIV, CEV, NLT, and The Message, but is included with brackets in the HCSB and NASB, and is included without brackets in the KJV, NKJV, Darby's, etc.

    Those who say the verse is spurious say scribal harmonization to Lk. 19:10 somehow caused it to find its way into 98% of all Greek MSS. Three insurmountable problems with this assessment are:

    (1) Actually only 2% of Greek MSS properly harmonize Mt. 18:11 to Lk. 19:10 ("For the Son of Man came to seek and to save that which was lost."). The words in bold are not in 96% of Greek MSS in Matthew. If the verse is original, only 2% of Greek MSS in Matthew are guilty of harmonization by adding "to seek and" in the middle of the verse, while the other 96% faithfully transmitted the original.

    (2) The 2% or less Greek MSS that omit the passage are all from one locality. In addition, there is no evidence of any nature that suggests the verse was omitted before the 4th c. except for Origen in the 3rd, but his testimony is counteracted by the presence of the verse in the Diatessaron almost a century earlier. Thus the present state of MS evidence is exactly what we should expect to find, namely, a few self-perpetuating MSS from the locality where the omission occurred vs. the vast majority of self-perpetuating MSS from everywhere else. Even versional testimony is basically Egyptian/African for the omission, with only 2 Old Latin MSS (vs. 11 that include it), 1 Early Syriac (vs. 1 that includes it), 3 Egyptian Coptic (vs. part of 1 that includes it).

    (3) The reason to omit the verse is greater than the reason to add the verse. The place in which the verse occurs in Matthew is not in harmony with the place in which it occurs in Luke, and therefore, to some with shallow notions, either Matthew put this saying of Jesus in the wrong place or Luke did. Otherwise, too much of a contradiction between the synoptic accounts is present, at least for those with feeble faith.

    Yours,

    Bluefalcon
     
  5. Plain ol' Ralph

    Plain ol' Ralph
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Messages:
    686
    Likes Received:
    0
    Of course the Harmony of the Gospels just might "authoritize" the inclusion, but that might upset some one's agenda.

    Simply, Jesus came seeking to save sinners, that is understood, and since Luke was NOT of the original 12 disciples, though he was speaking under inspiration, not according to the MSS available as men of today can dispute. That alone would be enough for inclusion.

    Men in their idealogical mindset, have to have "proof", but the Proof is still in the pudding; either the Truth is given in the text, or it is not, that is where and why so many newer versions fail of Canonization, except to the congratulations of men and their devices. [​IMG]
     
  6. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    In reference to Matthew 18:11 Bluefalcon said:
    "The verse is "missing" (not in the text) in the NIV, CEV, NLT, and The Message, but is included with brackets in the HCSB and NASB, and is included without brackets in the KJV, NKJV, Darby's, etc.//

    I'll agree to continously disagree with you.
    I beleive the translator footnote which explain
    the reality of the significane of the verses
    to be INERRANT. Therefore, this verse is NOT
    missing from these Bibles.

    Without discussing specific source texts, it is
    hard to figure out what when amiss here.
    Generally one compares the earliest with the later
    and gives more weight to the earlier.
     
  7. Bluefalcon

    Bluefalcon
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2004
    Messages:
    914
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ed, do you agree that the omission and the inclusion of a verse cannot both be original? Then when the editors put verses in the text like in Mt. 16:2-3 (without brackets or some other distinguishment indicating a high level of doubt) they believe them to be original; when they put them in the footnotes like in Mt. 18:11 in some versions, they doubt their originality. This has become almost universally the practice, and is usually indicated as such in the introduction to any version. Verses deemed authentic go in the text; those deemed inauthentic (i.e. "missing") go in the footnotes.

    This is only one factor of many, and one that is demonstrably fallacious. For example, hundreds of MSS copied after the 11th century are more accurate in excluding an addition to Mt. 27:49 introduced by MSS 800 years earlier (Mt. 27:49: "The rest said, Let be, let us see whether Elijah will come to save him. But another man, when he had taken a spear, pierced his side, and water and blood came out.") The text in bold is the inaccurate addition of text by the so called "earliest and best" manuscripts. And so the earliest MSS many times have the later text, and the later MSS have the earlier (i.e. original) text.

    Other factors include provenance of a reading, versions supporting a reading and their provenance, Fathers supporting a reading and their provenance, catholicity, internal factors, general character of individual MSS (more trustworthy MSS should be given more weight than less trustworthy ones), historical factors, etc.

    Yours,

    Bluefalcon
     
  8. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thank you brother Bluefalcon for disuccsing
    Matthew 18:11. I'll scratch it off my list.

    I just think it is a Double Standard
    to say a verse is "missing" when i cannot find
    a single place where Matthew 18:11 is missing.
    This is, of course, by my more reasonable
    definition of "missing".

    I find another Double Standard where no differentation
    is made beween a footonote only Bible like
    the ESV and an inclusion marked Bible like the HCSB.

    ESV footnote at the end of Matthew 18:10:
    Some manuscripts add verse 11:
    for the Son of Man came to save the lost

    Matthew 18:11 (HCSB):
    [11 For the Son of Man has come to save the lost.]*

    *HCSB Footnote: Other mss omit bracketed text.

    In neither case is something "missing".
     
  9. Bluefalcon

    Bluefalcon
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2004
    Messages:
    914
    Likes Received:
    4
    Mt. 17:21 - "But this kind does not come out except through prayer and fasting."

    The verse is "missing" (i.e. not in the text) of the NIV, NLT, ESV, CEV, and The Message, included in brackets (indicating doubt as to its authenticity) in the NASB, HCSB, and included without brackets in the KJV, NKJV, etc.

    The evidence for omitting Mt. 17:21 is almost identical with that for omitting Mt. 18:11, so please refer to that post for info.

    The earliest witness of any nature for omitting the verse is the 4th c. testimony of Eusebius of Caesarea, and then only 3 Greek MSS from before the 9th c. For the inclusion of the verse is a host of Fathers and 99% of all Greek MSS including at least 5 from before the 9th c. Testimony for the verse's authenticity include the 2nd c. Diatessaron, 3rd c. Origen, 4th c. Hilary, Basil, Ambrose, and 5th c. Chrysostom and Augustine.

    Nearly all the witnesses that exclude the verse, just as in Mt. 18:11, are localized to one place, i.e. Egypt, and thus represent a secondary reading with limited self-propagation.

    It is hard to believe the verse could have been omitted by accident, but any remnants of Marcionism, which thrived in Egypt, BTW, may have been enough for one to remove the verse as spurious (as it is not included in the highly esteemed account of Luke). So we may see harmonization actually did play a role here, but in adding but rather in subtracting the verse!

    Yours,

    Bluefalcon
     
  10. Bluefalcon

    Bluefalcon
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2004
    Messages:
    914
    Likes Received:
    4
    There is another reason someone like a Marcionite who praised much of Paul's writings might subtract Mt. 17:21 from its location in Matthew. Just after the extraordinary account of the power of "faith" in Mt. 17:20, the addition of what might be considered by some to be works, i.e. prayer and fasting, is then said to be required in certain circumstances (i.e., faith alone is not enough). Such might seem a blatant contradiction to other Scriptures, especially Paul.

    Such a seeming contradiction is enough for someone to think the verse was out of place or spurious altogether and then to omit it from his exemplar. Lucky the textual corruption was localized and couldn't overtake the entire NT textual tradition! In Mk 9:29 the omission of "and fasting" by only 4 Greek MSS and 1 Old Latin MS is so insignificant that the omission stands against all other Greek MSS and versions and Fathers, and this corruption can also be attributed to the same unwise intention, although in this case only the more pronounced "work" of fasting is deleted, prayer being deemed appropriate enough to stay in the text.

    Yours,

    Bluefalcon
     
  11. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Matthew 17:21 is missing from THE MESSAGE (Navpress,
    1995). The Message has no margin notes at all. The
    Message has no verse numbers.

    The New World Translation (NWT) has "21 ---".
    The margin notes in the NWT are all cross references.

    Both The Message and the NWT i do not consider
    faithful translations. Plese do not report to me
    about their contents or lack of them in this
    topic. Thank you.

    Introduction to 2003 version of HCSB:

    "In a few places in the NT, large square brackets indicate
    texts that the HCSB translation team and most
    biblical scholars today believe were not part
    of the original text. However, these texts have been
    retained in brackets in the HCSB
    because of thier undeniable
    antiquity and their value for tradtion and th
    ehistory of NT interpretatin in the church. The
    HCSB uses traditional verse divisions found
    in most Protestant Bibles."

    There are no Bible Bashers posting on this topic.
    I invited them no to come.
    I do not like it when the Bible Bashers denigarate
    my HCSB by:

    1. Claiming that the HCSB is just like the
    other MVs especially aledged versions that are not
    worthy bibles like The Message and the NWT.

    2. Claiming that the HCSB is just like the
    other MVs (as NIV, NLT, ESV, and CEV) that
    exclude verses from the text yet include them
    in the margin notes.

    3. Failing to praise the HCSB for it's stand noted
    above and treating the HCSB just like other
    MVs.

    4. Dissing the KJV1611 for it's margin notes.
     
  12. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    And choices are made for inclusion/exclusion of any verse, as pointed out, based on Greek readings.

    Let's say I have 6 manuscripts, all dated 300 CE. I have 6000 manuscripts, all copies of copies of copies, but dated from 1000 CE.

    I would accept the readings of the 6 over 6000 99.99% of the time. That's my choice.
     
  13. Bluefalcon

    Bluefalcon
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2004
    Messages:
    914
    Likes Received:
    4
    And the earliest Greek MSS from any region except Egypt tend to be Byzantine, as does the majority of all Greek MSS ever found. But even the earliest Egyptian papryi, except P75 and a few others, tend to have at least as many exclusively Byzantine readings as exclusively Codex Vaticanus readings, when collation is done between the three (papyrus | Vaticanus | Byzantine).

    The topic is omitted verses. Let's discuss the ones already posted. Is there any strong textual evidence for omitting the verses? It seems all the strong evidence is for including the verses.

    Yours,

    Bluefalcon
     
  14. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,118
    Likes Received:
    319
    RE: "Missing verses", or as some might say "removed conflations"

    Found online in the public domain at: http://members.aol.com/DrTHolland/Chapter10.html

    Personally, I feel that the jury is still out concerning the accuracy of the Alexandrian vs, Byzantine type texts.

    HankD
     
  15. Ziggy

    Ziggy
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2004
    Messages:
    532
    Likes Received:
    2
    Thomas Holland quote: "However, papyrologist and textual scholar Dr. Carsten Peter Thiede has redated P64 (the Magdalen papyrus) from the early third century to 66 AD...Thiede has likewise redated P67 from the third century to around 70 AD....If his position is correct, these would be the oldest existing manuscripts..."

    The "if" is a BIG one....

    Holland (an unreliable TR/KJVO source) *fails* to mention that virtually *no* other scholar agrees with his dating of the Magdalen papyrus to AD 66 (let alone the claim that this papyrus is probably the "autograph" of Matthew). P52 remains the oldest NT fragment, and it dates at best to the 2nd quarter of the second century.
     
  16. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,118
    Likes Received:
    319
    True he is KJVO, but he's the best they have as one who desn't go over into the lunatic fringe (English corrects the Greek, "advanced revelation", etc).

    HankD
     
  17. Ziggy

    Ziggy
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2004
    Messages:
    532
    Likes Received:
    2
    HankD: "he's the best they have"

    Along with Waite? ;)
    Along with Moorman? [​IMG]

    It would be nice if the "best they have" were at least *honest* and *accurate* with the *facts* that can clearly be proven or disproven.

    I would suggest that they be called into question at *any* point where the facts contradict their assertions.
     
  18. Plain ol' Ralph

    Plain ol' Ralph
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Messages:
    686
    Likes Received:
    0
    True he is KJVO, but he's the best they have as one who desn't go over into the lunatic fringe (English corrects the Greek, "advanced revelation", etc).

    HankD
    </font>[/QUOTE]Hmm? Lunatick fringe? Isn't that just a matter of opinion? Isn't that sort of judgementalism and the only excuse some use in their timid and daunted way of making any remark to try and disqualify another?

    Man's "opinions" do not the Word of God make, neither do they establish the Canon.
     
  19. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,118
    Likes Received:
    319
    True, but might I remind you that you yourself gave no documentation in response to the documentation I posted. You gave your opinion backed by an undocumented assertion yourself.

    Now I know you are a worthy scholar so please, one citation aginst Holland's premise of such early dating will be fine (and yes it is a rather "bizzare date" with allusions to the original).

    Yes it is my opinion, however, I have on more than one occassion produced documentation from their works (which I consider "lunatick") and publications to the effect that one man alone claims to have the the key to the "advanced revelations" of the KJV (or at least the knowledge to expound them) which were at one time considered "errors" of translation but have now been discovered to be part of and extra-biblical "advanced revelation" given by God in 1611 and expounded in the 20-21st centuries by Dr. Ruckman. I know "lunatick" is a harsh term but the "H" word is not allowed on the BB in this case.

    But, in deference to the sensitive souls here at the BB I'll tame it down from "lunatick fringe" to the "bizzare" of some of Holland's dates.

    HankD
     
  20. gb93433

    gb93433
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,496
    Likes Received:
    6
    True he is KJVO, but he's the best they have as one who desn't go over into the lunatic fringe (English corrects the Greek, "advanced revelation", etc).

    HankD
    </font>[/QUOTE]Sounds similar top Mormonism except that the new English translation of the B of M corrects the Old English "original". Many times that is.
     

Share This Page

Loading...