Gospel of Mark - a study of conflicting versions

Hi brother Jim, you mentioned: But Will, like Pastor Larry said he does in another thread, just go to the MSS when the versions differ.
Which of course is a bit hard for the average Christian since we don't have any Hebrew and Greek training."

Yes, it is a bit funny to see Larry's remark. So, if I go to seminary and learn all those textual issues, then will I too be able to come out with another conflicting bible version which differs in both text and meaning from all the others?

Yeah, probably so. Maybe I can make a pile of money on it too and gain world wide fame. What a deal.

What Larry overlooks is all those guys have the same training yet they come up with different results and conclusions. Modern day Bible Babel in action. It seems they have forgotten the promises of God to preserve His words till heaven and earth pass away, and are instead focused on man and his methods.

Thanks, brother.

In His hands,

Will

 

Hi Orvie, thanks for your comments. I'm glad to see you understand a little better where I am coming from on this issue. Sorry the posts are a bit long, but I would have to break up the chapters otherwise. I can do that though if it would be better.

God bless,

Will K

 

Hi brother Precepts, I thank you for your remarks and your interest in this little study. The comparative notes on Mark chapter 8 are not too long, I hope.

God bless,


Mark 8:21 and 23. The two examples here may be considered by some to be minor in nature, but they reveal the fickleness of modern translators in going back and forth between the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus readings when these two disagree with each other.

In Mark 8:21 the reading of the Majority of texts, the Textus Receptus and Vaticanus is: "And he said unto them, HOW IS IT that ye do NOT understand?" (pws ou). So reads the NKJV, Lamsa's translation of the Syriac Peshitta, and all previous English versions based on the TR. But Sinaiticus reads "NOT YET" (oupw) instead of "how is it ye do not", and the NASB, NIV, ESV here reject the Vaticanus reading and go with Sinaiticus.

They read "Do you NOT YET understand?"

But then when we get to Mark 8:23 and the Lord begins to heal the blind man by spitting on his eyes and laying His hands on him, "he asked him IF HE SAW OUGHT." This again is the reading found in the Majority of all texts, the Syriac Peshitta, Alexandrinus and Sinaiticus. Even the Douay version reads as does the KJB - (ei ti blepei). But Vaticanus reads differently with one letter being added that changes the subject of the sentence from third person (he) to second person (you).

The NASB, NIV, ESV this time reject the Sinaiticus reading they had followed in verse 21, and now reverse themselves and follow Vaticanus, which says: "he asked him, Do YOU SEE anything?"

Mark 8:26 "And he sent him away to his house, saying, Neither go into the town, NOR TELL IT TO ANY IN THE TOWN."

These last few words "nor tell it to any in the town" again are found in the Majority of all texts, as well as Alexandrinus and C, the Syriac Peshitta, and even the Douay version. However both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus omit these words and so do the NASB, NIV, ESV, and Holman Standard. But wait just a minute. The new ISV has put this phrase back in their bible version!

Will Kinney

 

Mark chapter 9

Mark 9:24 "And straightway the father of the child cried out, and said WITH TEARS, LORD, I believe; help thou mine unbelief."

Here the words "with tears" and "Lord" are found in the majority of all Greek texts, but because Sin-Vat omit them, so do the NASB, NIV, ESV. However the new ISV has now put "with tears" back in the text, but it still omits the word "Lord".

Mark 9:29 "And he said unto them, This kind can come forth by nothing, but by prayer AND FASTING."

The words "and fasting" again are in the Majority texts, as well as Sinaiticus correction, C, D, and P45 which predates them all. The words are also found in the Old Latin, Syriac, Coptic, and the Douay version. Yet because Vaticanus omits them, the NASB, NIV, ESV also omit "with fasting". But now the new Holman Christian Standard has put "with fasting" back in the text but in brackets, while the ISV again includes "with fasting" and no brackets.

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."

This is a peculiar example of corruption in some texts and versions. The words "in my name" are found in the Majority of texts, as well as Sinaiticus original, D, the Old Latin, the NIV, and the Holman Christian Standard !

However Vaticanus contains the words "in name" but omits the word "my". The NASB says: "whoever gives you a cup of water to drink BECAUSE OF YOUR NAME (as followers) of Christ...he shall not lose his reward." There is no word "your" in any text.

But the ESV and the ISV disagree with both the NASB, and NIV, and omits even the word "name" (onomati) by saying: "whoever gives you a cup of water to drink because you belong to Christ will by no means lose his reward."

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 words IN ME are found in the majority of texts and Vaticanus. They are also in the RV, ASV, RSV, ESV, and NIV. However, Sinaiticus omits "in me" and so does the NASB!

Mark 9:44 "WHERE THEIR WORM DIETH NOT, AND THE FIRE IS NOT QUENCHED."

This entire verse is found in the majority of all texts, as well as A, D, the Syriac, Old Latin and even in the Douay version. But the NASB, NIV, ESV omit it because not in the Sin-Vat manuscripts. But wait, the ISV and the Holman Standard put the verse back in the text!

Mark 9:45 "...it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, INTO THE FIRE THAT NEVER SHALL BE QUENCHED."

These last words are in the majority of texts, A, D, the Old Latin and Syriac Harkelian, but are omitted from the NASB, NIV, ESV, because of the usual suspects. This time the ISV still omits these words, but the Holman Christian Standard puts them back in the text!

Mark 9:46 "WHERE THEIR WORM DIETH NOT, AND THE FIRE IS NOT QUENCHED." Again, same as verse 44, found in most texts and versions, but omitted by the NASB, NIV, ESV. But again the ISV and the Holman Standard have put this whole verse back in the text.

Mark 9:49 "For every one shall be salted with fire, AND EVERY SACRIFICE SHALL BE SALTED WITH SALT."

These last words are again in the Majority of texts, including A, C, D, the Old Latin, Syriac Peshitta, Harkelian, some Coptic, the Gothic and Ethiopian ancient versions. But again, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus omit them and so do the NASB, NIV, and ESV. But now the ISV has included these words in the text once again, but the Holman Standard still omits them.


Will K

 

Hi Michelle, thank you for the kind words of encouragement. May God be pleased to open more eyes to where His inerrant words are found today.


Mark 10:16-26 Amazing inconsistency in the Modern Versions!

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 texts, including A and D. However both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus omit this word and so does the UBS, Nestle Greek text. The Revised Version and the American Standard Version also omit this word.

BUT, the word GOD is included in the NASB (italics), and now back in the texts of the NIV, and ESV.

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

The words "and cleave to his wife" are missing from Sinaiticus and Vaticanus AND the NASB. The previous Nestle's text also omitted these words. The new Holman Christian Standard puts these words in brackets. However all these words are found in the Majority of all texts including A and C, and are now back in the Nestle text and they are again included in the NIV, ESV, and the ISV (International Standard Version 2004)!!

Do you see how the "scholars" can't agree with each other and their own Greek texts keep changing? They have no settled words of God, and what one group of scholars gives, another group takes away.

Mark 10:21 "...sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor: and come, TAKE UP THE CROSS, and follow me."

The words "take up the cross" are in the majority of all texts, and Alexandrinus, the Syriac, Coptic, Gothic, Old Latin, but the NASB, NIV, ESV omit them because not in Sin/Vat.

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

The whole meaning of the verse is changed by omitting these words. Based on Sinaiticus and Vaticanus omitting them, versions like the NASB, ESV, NIV read: "Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God!" No, it is quite easy to enter the kingdom of God. Repent and believe the gospel.

All these words - "for them that trust in riches" - are found in the majority of all texts, including A, C, D, plus at least 21 other uncial copies, the Syriac Peshitta, Harkelian, Old Latin, Coptic Boharic, Gothic, Armenian, and Ethiopian versions. The previous Revised Version and the American Standard Version included these words!! They are even found in the Douay version, but then later Catholic bibles also omitted these words. Even the Catholics can't agree among themselves in their bible versions.

What is of interest here is that there are two new versions coming out on the market - the Holman Christian Standard, put out by the Southern Baptists, and the ISV (International Standard Version). Well, the Holman version still omits "for them that trust in riches", but guess what? The ISV puts them back in!! So the RV, ASV, and ISV include "for them that trust in riches", but the RSV, NIV, NASB, ESV, and Holman omit them, and yet all these versions are put out by scholars who reject the Traditional Texts as found in the King James Bible.

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

The reading of "among themselves" is found in the majority of all texts, A, D, the Old Latin, Syriac, the Douay version, and even in the Nestle Greek texts. However Sinaiticus and Vaticanus read: "saying TO HIM" (that is, to Jesus), instead of "saying among themselves" and so do the RSV, NASB, and the ESV. However the NIV, and the two new ones coming out now, the Holman Standard and the ISV read "saying among themselves" like the King James Bible.

Will Kinney

 

Mark chapter 11 - more of the same confusion

Mark 11:3 The meaning of this verse is changed in many modern versions by the addition of one word (palin) "again."

In the King James Bible, as well as many others like Tyndale, Geneva, Young's, the NKJV we have our Lord say regarding their loosing and bringing the colt tied in the village: "And if any man say unto you, Why do ye this? say ye that the Lord hath need of him; and straightway he will send him hither."

The clear meaning is that the man who asks about the colt will send the colt with the disciples to Jesus. This is also the reading of the Majority of all texts, and of the Syriac Peshitta by Lamsa, the Spanish 1909, NKJV, and even the Douay version.

However Sinaiticus and Vaticanus add that extra word "again" (or 'back') and now have translated this verse as though it is the Lord who will return the colt again immediately. In the NASB, NIV, ESV we read: "If anyone says to you, Why are you doing this? say, The Lord has need of it and will send it BACK here immediately."

Mark 11:8 "And many spread their garments in the way: and others cut down branches off THE TREES, AND STRAWED THEM IN THE WAY."

This is the reading of the Majority of texts as well as A, D, the Old Latin, the Syriac Peshitta, Harkelian, the Spanish, and even the Douay version.

However Vaticanus and Sinaiticus change "trees" to "fields" and omit "and strawed them in the way." The ESV, NASB, NIV read: "...and others spread leafy branches that they had cut from THE FIELDS."

Here I want to mention in passing the silly and useless textual notes often found in the NKJV. The NKJV editors say they added the notes so each person can decide for himself about the various readings, yet these "notes" are often ridiculous. For example, the NKJV footnotes verse 11:4 "And they went their way and found THE colt tied by the door..." In the NKJV footnote it mentions that the Nestle, UBS, and Majority texts read A colt, instead of THE colt. But when we get to verse 8 where the UBS text changes "trees" to "fields" and omits the whole phrase "and strawed them in the way" the NKJV has no footnote at all, as though the difference between "a colt" and "the colt" is of great importance, but the other is not worth mentioning at all. This is the type of "textual helps" we frequently find in the NKJV.

Mark 11:10 "Blessed be the kingdom of our father David, that cometh IN THE NAME OF THE LORD: Hosanna in the highest." So read the Majority of texts and A, and the NKJV, but the NASB, NIV, ESV omit the words "in the name of the Lord".

Mark 11:26 "BUT IF YE DO NOT FORGIVE, NEITHER WILL YOUR FATHER WHICH IS IN HEAVEN FORGIVE YOUR TRESPASSES."

This entire verse is missing from the NIV, RSV, ESV versions. The NASB omitted it from 1960 to 1972, but then in 1977 and again in 1995 put it back in the text, but in brackets. The two new upcoming versions, the Holman Christian Standard and the International Standard Version have now put the verse back in the text too!

Sinaiticus and Vaticanus omit the whole verse, but it is found in the Majority of all texts including A, C, and D plus at least 21 other uncial copies, the Old Latin, the Syriac Peshitta, Harkelian, Gothic, Armenian, Ethiopian, and some Coptic ancient versions. It is also found in the Spanish versions and the Catholic Douay version. It is in Wycliffe, Tyndale, Geneva, Bishop's, Young's, and the NKJV. The point is, Christ either said this or He didn't. It is either part of God's inerrant words or it is not. All "bibles" are not the same.

Will Kinney

 

Hi Orvie, you asked: "Bro Will-This is where ya lost me. What's the big deal about textual notes? Aren't they just being honest to let one know other readings? I have a friend who is T.R. only and he still uses the NKJV b/c (in part) he sees these differences as proof the T.R. is right and the Critical is corrupt. BTW, your one example, at least to me shows the one place where the translators dropped the ball(I'm sure they did elsewhere too).
Do you have a problem w/ the Original 1611 having alternate readings? "


Orvie, what I was trying to point out about the NKJV footnotes, is that they are frequently useless and silly. There are a whole bunch of textual differences they don't even mention far more important than "the colt" verses "a colt", and besides all versions frequently use the definite article when none exists or drop it when it does. The NKJV note is silly.

As for alternate readings in the 1611, I only defend the actual text, not the marginal notes or the preface or their theology, though I agree with much of it. Only the text of the KJB is what I believe God intended us to use.

Thanks for your interest.

Will K

 

Hi gb, you mention; "Will,
I read some of the things on your website. You never stated why "ho theos" was added in the text in the KJV and not in the MV’s in Mark 10:6.


No, I am not discussing every textual change. In Mark 10:6 "God" is not "added by the KJV". The word "God" is in the majority of all texts as well as A and D. It is also in the RSV, ESV, NIV, and the NASB puts it in brackets. The previous RV, ASVs omitted it, following Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.

No consistency at all for the WH texts.

Will