Article: Gospel of Mark - a Modern Version Mix-up by Will Kinney

From Textus Receptus

Jump to: navigation, search


A Comparative Study of the Gospel of Mark


The purpose of this study is to show some of the textual differences that exist in the various bible versions that are popular today. We will see that the so called "oldest and best" manuscripts, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, often disagree with each other. We will also observe that the Nestle-Aland (Westcott-Hort) Greek texts, upon which most modern versions are based, is continually changing, and that the various modern versions are inconsistent. Some will follow one reading, while others a different one. If you are a modern version proponent, the only logical conclusion is that there is no settled text and no certainty as to what God's words really are.


The confusion begins in the very first verse of the gospel of Mark.


Mark 1:1 "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, THE SON OF GOD."


The words "the Son of God" are found in the Majority of all texts, including Vaticanus, Alexandrinus and D, but Sinaiticus omits them. The ESV, NASB, NIV all cast doubt on their validity by a footnote that says: "Some manuscripts do not have 'the Son of God' ."


Mark 1:2-3 "As it is written IN THE PROPHETS, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way BEFORE THEE. The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight."


The quotes here come from two different prophets, and that is why the King James reading is correct. "The prophets" is the reading found in the Majority of all texts including Alexandrinus, and the ancient Syriac Harkelian version. It is also the reading of the Coptic Boharic, Armenian, and Ethiopian ancient versions and is so quoted by Iraeneus in 202 A.D. and by Tertullian in 220, long before anything we have in the Greek copies. The Nestle-Aland Greek text apparatus lists one of the Old Latin texts "r" as reading "in Isaiah and in the prophets".


It also receives Patristic citations from Church Fathers such as Irenaeus (202 AD), Photius (895 AD), and Theophylact (1077 AD). Irenaeus writes:


"Wherefore also Mark, the interpreter and follower of Peter, does thus commence his Gospel narrative: "The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God; as it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send My messenger before Thy face, which shall prepare Thy way". . . Plainly does the commencement of the Gospel quote the words of the holy prophets, and point out Him at once, whom they confessed as God and Lord;" (Against Heresies, 3:10:5)


"Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee" comes from Malachi 3:1, and "The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord..." comes from the prophet Isaiah in chapter 40:3 - thus the correct reading of "IN THE PROPHETS". This is also the reading of Tyndale, Coverdale, Bishop's Bible, the Geneva Bible, and the NKJV.


However Vaticanus and Sinaiticus say "Isaiah the prophet" and so the ESV, NASB, NIV read in Mark 1:2: "As it is written IN ISAIAH THE PROPHET, Behold, I send my messenger...."


In the last part of this verse we read in the KJB: "which shall prepare thy way BEFORE THEE." So read the Majority of all texts including Alexandrinus, but Sinaiticus and Vaticanus omit these two words and so do the ESV, NASB, NIV. The versions also disagree with each other in their footnotes. The NASB says "MANY manuscripts omit "before thee", while the ESV, NIV tell us "SOME manuscripts omit "before thee".


Mark 1:14 "Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee preaching the gospel OF THE KINGDOM of God."


The words "of the kingdom" are found in the Majority of all texts, A and D, and in the Old Latin, the Syriac, and even in the Douay version. However Sinaiticus and Vaticanus omit these words and so do the ESV, NIV, NASB. But now the new ISV (International Standard Version) is coming out and it has put "the kingdom" back in the text.


Mark 2:16 "And when the scribes and Pharisees say him eat with publicans and sinners, they said unto his disciples, How is it that he eateth AND DRINKETH with publicans and sinners?"


"he eateth AND DRINKETH with publicans and sinners" is the reading found in the Majority of all texts, including A, the Old Latin and the Syriac versions. However Sinaiticus and Vaticanus differ from each other and so do the modern versions.


Vaticanus omits "and drinketh" (kai pinei) and so do the ESV, RSV, Holman Christian Standard, and NIV. Sinaiticus reads differently than all the others and it says: "but your teacher eats with publicans", adding "your teacher" and omitting "drinketh", but the versions don't follow Sinaiticus here. However the Revised Version, American Standard Version, the NASB and the ISV all reject the Vaticanus reading in this place and follow the KJB reading by saying: "Why is he eating AND DRINKING with publicans and sinners?". Notice the two newest versions differ from each other, with the Holman Standard omitting "drinks" and the ISV retaining it.


Mark 2:17 "When Jesus heard it, he saith unto them, They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners UNTO REPENTANCE."


So read the Majority of all texts including the Old Latin, but Sinaiticus and Vaticanus omit "unto repentance" and so do the ESV, NASB, NIV.


I am not listing all the textual variants that occur in this short gospel of Mark, but just a few of them by way of example. A real mess occurs in Mark 3:14 to 16. In the King James Bible we read: "And he ordained twelve * that they should be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach. And to have power TO HEAL SICKNESSES, and to cast out devils: * And Simon he surnamed Peter."


This again is the reading of the Majority of all Greek texts. However in verse 14 there are several additional words added in some modern versions not in others. The original Nestle-Aland texts did not add these extra words, but later on they changed again and added them. In the ESV and NIV we read: "And he appointed twelve (WHOM HE ALSO NAMED APOSTLES)". These extra words come from Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, yet not even the RV, ASV, NASB nor the Revised Standard Version contain this reading.


Then in verse 15 the words "to heal sicknesses" are omitted because not found in Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, and this time even the NASB, RV, and ASV follow the very texts they just rejected in the previous verse. So now the NASB, NIV and ESV all omit "to heal sicknesses" even though they are found in the Majority of all texts as well as the Old Latin and the Syriac versions.


Then again in verse 16 the ESV, NIV and NASB add these words from Sinaiticus and Vaticanus: "THEN HE APPOINTED THE TWELVE, and Simon he surnamed Peter." Yet these extra words are not found in the RV, ASV, nor even the RSV. These extra words are not found in the Majority of all Greek texts, nor Alexandrinus, nor the Old Latin nor the Syriac ancient versions.


If this all sounds confusing, that's because it is confusing.


Mark 3:29 "But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal DAMNATION."


Damnation is a very strong word and is found in Tyndale, Geneva Bible, Bishop's Bible, Wesley's 1755 translation, Webster's 1833 translation, the KJV 21, and the Third Millenium Bible. The NKJV tones down the word "damnation" to "condemnation". In fact, the NKJV eliminates the words "damned" and "damnation" altogether in the New Testament.


The reading of "is in danger of eternal DAMNATION" is found in the Majority of all texts, as well as A, C correction, some Old Latin and the ancient Syriac. However Sinaiticus and Vaticanus read along with the ESV, NIV, NASB "is in danger of eternal SIN." Eternal damnation I understand, but what exactly is an eternal sin?


Mark chapter four.


I will briefly list the words omitted by such versions as the RSV, ESV, NASB, NIV because of Sinaiticus/Vaticanus, but found in the Majority of all texts. The words not found in these versions are highlighted in capital letters.


Mark 4:4 "...and the fowls OF THE AIR came and devoured them."


Mark 4:11 "Unto you it is given TO KNOW the mystery of the kingdom of God."


Mark 4:12 "Lest at any time they should be converted, and THEIR SINS should be forgiven them."


Mark 4:15 "Satan cometh immediately, and taketh away the word that was sown IN THEIR HEARTS."


Mark 4:24 "and UNTO YOU THAT HEAR shall more be given."


Mark 5 relates the events of the man who had the unclean spirit and his healing. We are told that he lived among the tombs; had often been bound with fetters and chains, but he had broken these asunder and no man could tame him. Mark 5:5 "And always, night and day, he was in the mountains, and in the tombs, crying, and CUTTING HIMSELF with stones."


The RV, ASV, NKJV, KJB, and NIV all tell us he was CUTTING himself with stones. Even the NASB says he was "gashing himself" with stones, but the RSV, ESV say he was "BRUISING HIMSELF" with stones. This is a "minor change", but there is a difference in meaning. The Holman and ISV go back to "cutting himself with stones".


What is more significant is that this man, when he saw Jesus coming out of the ship, ran "AND WORSHIPPED HIM." Mark 5:6. The verb used here is the usual word for "worship" and is so translated by all versions many times. Those that read of this man coming to Jesus and worshipping Him are the RV, ASV, NKJV, Tyndale, Geneva, and even the RSV.


Matthew Henry remarks: "When he saw Jesus afar off, coming ashore, he ran, and worshipped him. He usually ran upon others with rage, but he ran to Christ with reverence... the poor man came, and worshipped Christ, in a sense of the need he had of his help, the power of Satan in and over him being, for this instant, suspended."


This devil possessed man recognized the Deity of Christ and worshipped Him as God. The passage also is sometimes looked at as though the unclean spirit recognized who Christ was and trembled before his Creator. Either way, the use of the term "worshipped him" implies His deity.


However the NASB, ESV say merely that he "BOWED DOWN TO him", while the NIV has: "he FELL ON HIS KNEES". The ISV says "he fell down in front of him." None of these is what the Greek texts say, and they downplay the recognized deity of the Lord Jesus.


Mark 6:11 "And WHOSOEVER shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. VERILY I SAY UNTO YOU, IT SHALL BE MORE TOLERABLE FOR SODOM AND GOMORRHA IN THE DAY OF JUDGMENT, THAN FOR THAT CITY."


The reading of "and whosoever shall not receive you" is that of the majority of all texts, as well as A, C, D, 33 the Old Latin, Syriac, and even the Douay version, but later Catholic versions are more like the NASB. Sinaiticus and Vaticanus change this to "and whatsover PLACE shall not hear you", and so read the NASB, RSV, ESV, NIV, the more modern Catholic versions like the New Jerusalem version.


Of greater concern is the whole latter part of this verse. The NASB, ESV, NIV omit all these words because not found in Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, C or D, yet they are in the Majority of all texts, plus at least 19 uncial copies, as well as the Old Latin, Syriac Peshitta, Harclean, some Coptic Boharic copies, the Gothic and Ethiopian ancient versions.


Mark 6:14 "And king Herod heard of him: (for his name was spread abroad:) and HE SAID, That John the Baptist was risen from the dead."


The reading of HE SAID is that of the Majority as well as Sinaiticus, A, and C. Even the Revised Version and the ASV followed this reading, as well as the Catholic Douay version and now the ISV does too. However only Vaticanus and a couple of other minor copies read "THEY SAID", and the NASB has "PEOPLE were saying", while the ESV, NIV, and the other new Holman Christian Standard have "Some said". The more modern Catholic versions have also changed this to "Some said". Then in a misleading footnote they tell us "SOME early copies read 'he said' ". How about all copies and many ancient versions read "he said", except 2 or 3. This would be a tad more truthful.


Just wait a second and you will see how "reliable" our "oldest and best" copies really are.


Mark 6:20 "For Herod feared John, knowing that he was a just man and an holy, and OBSERVED HIM; and when he heard him, HE DID MANY THINGS, and heard him gladly.


There are two problems with this verse in the new versions. First of all, James White criticizes the translation of "observed him", and the NKJV goes along with the NASB, NIV, ESV by saying "he protected him".


You can see my article about this at: http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/turtle.html


There I deal with three of James White's criticisms of the KJB. The Turtle, Observed, and Pineth Away.


The second problem with this verse is the reading of "he did many things". This is the reading found in the Majority of all texts inluding A, C, and D, the Old Latin and the Syriac ancient versions. It is even the reading of the Douay version, and that of the NKJV, Tyndale, Geneva, etc., and now the brand new ISV (International Standard Version) has gone back to this reading too, but the Holman Christian Standard does not.


However Sinaiticus and Vaticanus read differently with "he was much perplexed" and so read the NASB, NIV, ESV, RSV, and the more modern Catholic versions like the New Jerusalem.


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


The vast majority of all texts read this way, including A and C, but Sinaiticus and Vaticanus actually say that Herodias was Herod's daughter! The reading found even in the UBS text says: "and when HIS DAUGHTER HERODIAS came in and danced..."


However not even the NASB, NIV, or ESV followed their "oldest and best texts" here.


Additional textual differences in this chapter are:


Mark 6:33 "And the people saw them departing, and many knew HIM (referring to Jesus)...AND CAME TOGETHER UNTO HIM."


"HIM" is the Majority reading again, but Vaticanus omits the word, while Sinaiticus has "THEM" and so read the NASB, NIV, ESV. The words "and came together unto him" are omitted in the NASB, NIV, ESV because not in Sin/Vat, but they are in the Majority texts.


Mark 6:36 "Send them away, that they may go into the country round about, and into the villages, and buy themselves BREAD: FOR THEY HAVE NOTHING TO EAT."


This is the Majority reading as well as Alexandrinus, and the NKJV, but Sinaiticus and Vaticanus differ even from each other. Sinaiticus says "buy some foods to eat" and omits "for they have nothing to eat", while Vaticanus says "buy something to eat" and omits the latter phrase. The NIV, RSV, NASB, ESV follow the Vaticanus reading here.


Mark 6:51 "And he went up unto them into the ship; and the wind ceased: and they were sore amazed in themselves BEYOND MEASURE, AND WONDERED."


So read the majority of texts as well as A and D, but Sinaiticus, Vaticanus omit "beyond measure and wondered", and so do the NASB, NIV, ESV. In fact, even though the words "in themselves" are found in their own texts, the NASB, NIV, and ESV have omitted these as well.


Mark 7:2 "And when they saw some of his disciples eat bread with defiled, that is to say, with unwashen, hands, THEY FOUND FAULT."


"THEY FOUND FAULT" is in the Majority of all texts as well as the Syriac and the Douay version, but Sinaiticus, Vaticanus and A omit these words and so do the NASB, NIV, ESV. Though "they found fault" is in the Catholic Douay version, the later Catholic versions now omit these words too.


Mark 7:4 "...And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing of cups, and pots, brasen vessels, AND OF TABLES."


This is another case of constant change among the versions. The previous Nestle text omitted these words because not in Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and so are omitted in the NASB, NIV. BUT the Nestle text has added them back in and the newer ISV, Holman Standard, and the ESV now include them! The NKJV gives an erroneous reading of "couches", even though the context is things they washed, while the ISV has "dinner tables".


Mark 7:8 "For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, AS THE WASHING OF POTS AND CUPS: AND MANY OTHER SUCH LIKE THINGS YE DO."


This whole last part is found in the Majority, and Alexandrinus, the Syriac, and even the Douay version, but the NASB, NIV, ESV omit all these words because not in Sinaiticus, Vaticanus. The later Catholic versions now omit them too.


Mark 7:16 "IF ANY MAN HAVE EARS TO HEAR, LET HIM HEAR."


This entire verse is found in the Majority, A, D, Old Latin, Lamsa's Syriac translation, and the Douay version, but Sin-Vat omit it and so do the NASB, NIV, ESV. But wait, the Holman Christian Standard has now put the verse back in the text, but not the ISV!


Mark 7:18-19 Here a big change in the meaning of the verse occurs because of the corrupt manuscripts followed by most modern versions.


In the King James Bible, as well as Tyndale, Geneva and the earlier versions we read: "...whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him: Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, AND GOETH OUT INTO THE DRAUGHT, PURGING ALL MEATS."


The simple meaning of the verse is that the food (meats) goes into the belly, and then goes into the toilet (draught), and in this way the wastes are purged from the body.


John Gill comments: "but into the belly; - it is taken in at the mouth, goes down the throat, and is received into the stomach, and from thence it passes through the bowels: and goeth into the draught;- "the private house", as the Jews call it, without going into the heart at all: purging all meats; - that which it leaves behind, is pure and nourishing; and whatever is gross and impure, is carried with it into the draught, so that nothing remains in the man that is defiling."


"goeth out into the draught" is what all Greek texts say {eis ton aphedroona ekporeuetai), and the "archaic word" draught (pronounced draft), is found in the RV, ASV, Tyndale, Coverdale, Bishop's, Geneva, Darby, Rotherham's Emphasized Bible, and Webster's 1833 translation. Other versions like Young's, Douay, and Third Millenium Bible say "goeth into the drain." The Hebrew Names Version says "goes into the latrine".


The NKJV has paraphrased this expression and added the word "thus" which is not found in any text. In this way it slants itself toward the meaning found in the NIV, NASB. The NKJV reads: "and IS ELIMINATED, thus purifying all foods."


However, the NASB, NIV, ESV have followed a different reading found in Sinaiticus, Vaticanus and have added words to even their own Greek texts in order to have the verse make sense. Yet the resultant meaning is very different from that of the KJB and others.


The ESV says: "Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him, since it enters not his heart, but his stomach, and is expelled? (THUS HE DECLARED ALL FOODS CLEAN.)


The NIV is similar with "it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach and then out of his body. IN SAYING THIS, JESUS DECLARED ALL FOODS CLEAN."


Both these versions have added several words not found in any text, and have totally changed the meaning of what the Lord said. That foods are cleansed from the body by the natuaral process of digestion, OR that Jesus declared all foods clean, are NOT the same thing. Both readings cannot be what God inspired.


Mark 7:22 Here the Lord is telling us what evil things come out of the heart of man and defile him. Among these things listed are: "wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, AN EVIL EYE, blasphemy..."


All Greek texts read the same here with "an evil eye" (Ofthalmos poneros). This is literally what the text says and so read the KJB, NKJV, RV, ASV, Young's, Darby, Geneva and several others. However beginning with the RSV, and now in the NASB, NIV, ESV, they have changed this to "ENVY".


An evil eye is not the same thing as envy. There are many passages in both testaments that speak of an evil eye, and in none of them is it referring to envy. According to Webster's dictionary, an evil eye is a glance held to be capable of inflicting harm or injury because of the malice of the person looking. The primary motive of an evil eye is malice, not envy.


Here is just one of the many uses of this phrase - "an evil eye". Deuteronomy 15:9 "Beware that there be not a thought in thy wicked heart, saying, The seventh year, the year of release, is at hand; and THINE EYE BE EVIL against thy poor brother, and thou givest him not..."


The intent is malice, not envy. Not only have the NASB, NIV, ESV, RSV mistranslated the words here but have missed the intended meaning.


Mark 7:24 "And from thence he arose, and went into the borders of Tyre AND SIDON."


"AND SIDON" is found in the Majority as well as Sinaticus and Vaticanus, but not in D. The Revised Version, ASV, RSV, the new ESV, Holman Standard, and ISV include these words, but the NASB, NIV, NRSV omit them. Go Figure.


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! The new ISV has put this phrase back in their bible version!


Mark 9:23 In the context of this verse, a man had brought his son, who had been tormented by a dumb spirit from a child, to Jesus and His disciples to be healed. The man says: "And ofttimes it hath cast him into the fire, and into the waters, to destroy him: but if thou canst do any thing, have compassion on us, and help us."


verse 23 "Jesus said unto him, If thou canst BELIEVE, all things are possible to him that believeth."


The new versions based on the Westcott-Hort text have created a very awkward sentence that disconnects from the natural flow of the passage, and they don't even agree among themselves on how to translate it. Sinaiticus and Vaticanus both omit the word "believe", even though this word is found in the Majority of all Greek texts, including A, C, D, 33, the Old Latin, Syriac, and even the Douay version.


After the father of the boy says "but if thou canst do any thing, help us" the NASB, ESV have: "And Jesus said to him, IF YOU CAN! (exclamation point) All things are possible for one who believes." The NIV and the ISV have: "IF YOU CAN? said Jesus. (question mark) Everything is possible for him who believes."


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.


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 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 10:21 "...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 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 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 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.


Mark 12:4 "And again he sent unto them another servant; AND AT HIM THEY CAST STONES, and wounded him in the head, AND SENT HIM AWAY shamefully handled."


All the capital lettered words are found in the majority of texts, including A, C, the Syriac Peshitta, Harkelian, but Sinaiticus-Vaticanus omit them and so do the NASB, NIV, ESV.


Mark 12:10 "And have ye not read this scripture; The stone which the builders rejected is become THE HEAD OF THE CORNER."


The Revised Version, American Standard Version, Geneva Bible and many others read literally "the head of the corner", and even though the NRSV, ESV read "cornerstone", they both tell us in a footnote that the literal Greek is "head of the corner" (Kephaleen gwvias).


The NKJV, and NASB both read "CHIEF cornerSTONE", and though not literally what the texts say, at least they give the idea that Christ is the foundation of the building. However the NIV actually says: "has become THE CAPSTONE". Now, the capstone is the final stone placed on the top of the building; not the foundation. This is the opposite meaning than the one intended.


Mark 12:19 "Master, Moses wrote unto us, If a man's brother die, and leave his wife behind him, and leave no CHILDREN (plural), that his brother should take his wife..."


The Majority of texts as well as Sinaiticus, A, C, Old Latin, Syriac and the NIV read "CHILDREN", but Vaticanus has the singular "child" and so do the NASB, ESV.


Mark 12:23 "In the resurrection THEREFORE, WHEN THEY SHALL RISE, whose wife shall she be of them?"


The phrase "when they shall rise" (hotan anastoosi) is found in the Majority of all texts, A, Old Latin, Syriac, AND in the Nestle, UBS Greek texts. It is also the reading found in the NASB, ESV, and the Holman Christian Standard.


However, Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, C, and D omit this phrase and it is omitted by the ASV, NIV, RSV, NRSV, and the upcoming ISV. So we see the old RSV omitted it, but the ESV revision puts it back in; The upcoming Holman version puts it in, but the upcoming ISV does not!


Mark 12:29-30 "And Jesus answered him, The first OF ALL THE COMMANDMENTS, is Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord: and thou shal love the Lord thy God with all thy heart...and with all thy strength: THIS IS THE FIRST COMMANDMENT."


The capitalized words are found in the majority of all texts, including A, C, the Old Latin, Syriac and even the Catholic Douay version. However Sinaiticus and Vaticanus omit them and so do the NASB, NIV, ESV and the newer Catholic versions too.


Mark 12:32 "And the scribe said unto him, Well, Master, thou hast well said the truth: for there is one GOD: and there is none other but he."


Here the word GOD is found in many manuscripts and ancient versions like the Old Latin, the Syriac Sinaitic, Curetonian, Palestinian, Coptic Sahadic and Boharic, Armenian, Georgian, and in the Spanish too. Even the NIV, and the new ISV include the words "there is one GOD".


However Siniaticus, A, and Vaticanus omit the word GOD and so do the NASB, RSV, ESV, and the upcoming Holman version. The NASB reads: "HE is one, and there is no one else besides him."


Mark 12:33 "And to love him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, AND WITH ALL THE SOUL...is more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices."


The words "and with all the soul" are found in the majority of all texts, including A, and D, the Syriac and Old Latin. They are also in the Douay version, but later Catholic versions now omit these words. Sinaiticus and Vaticanus omit them and so do the RSV, NASB, NIV, ESV.


Mark 12:37 "...And THE COMMON PEOPLE heard him gladly."


What was true then, is still true today. The common people hear Him gladly. The example here is one of translation, not textual. The Greek texts have: ho polus oxlos. Versions like the NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV have translated this as "THE GREAT THRONG" (RSV, ESV) or THE LARGE CROWD heard him gladly (NASB, NIV). This translation misses the point that they were the common people as opposed to the Pharisees and Herodians, the religious leaders of the day mentioned in verse 13, who came to catch Him in His words.


The placement of the word polus affects the meaning. The "great multitude" or "the great crowd" is ho oxlos polus, and this is found in places like John 12:9, 12; and Rev. 7:9. However, when the word polus is placed before the word oxlos (people), the meaning changes. Many versions have missed this distinction, but among the versions that correctly have "THE COMMON PEOPLE heard him gladly" are the NKJV, Webster's, the Douay version (though later Catholic versions now follow the RSV reading), the Spanish Reina Valera of 1909 (but not the 1960 version), the Hebrew Names Version, World English Bible, the Bible in Basic English 1970, the KJV 21, and the Third Millenium Bible.


Mark 13:8 "For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be earthquakes in divers places, and there shall be famines AND TROUBLES: these are the beginnings of SORROWS."


There are two problems in this verse - one is textual and the other is translational. The words "and troubles" are found in the majority of all texts, Alexandrinus, some Old Latin, the Syriac and the NKJV, and Spanish translations. However Siniaticus and Vaticanus omit them and so do the NASB, NIV, ESV.


The translational problems has to do with the word "sorrows". Sorrows would be the personal afflictions and difficulties faced by the people themselves. Versions that correctly translate this word as sorrows are Tyndale, Geneva, Young's, Douay, Bishop's Bible, Webster, Third Millenium Bible and the NKJV.


The word translated in the KJB as "sorrows" is also used in the LXX to translate "sorrows" in Exodus 15:14; Psalms 18:4, 5 "the sorrows of death compassed me...the sorrows of hell compassed me about", and as "anguish" in Deut. 2:25 "and be in anguish because of thee".


Other versions have variations of the same meaning. For example: "the beginnings of SUFFERING" RSV, Throes - Darby, travail - RV, ASV; beginnings of troubles - Bible in Basic English, Contemporary English Version; "the horrors to come" - New Living Translation; "but these are nothing compared to what is coming" - the Message.


However the NASB, NIV, ESV have introduced a New Age buzz word by translating this as: "these are the beginnings of BIRTH PANGS." This phrase is often used by New Agers to describe the coming New Age of Christ Consciousness and personal godhood. In fact, the New English Bible 1970 says: "these are the birth pangs of the new age."


Mark 13:14 "But when ye see the abomination of desolation SPOKEN OF BY DANIEL THE PROPHET, standing where it ought not, (let him that readeth understand,) then let them that be in Judea flee to the mountains."


The whole phrase "spoken of by Daniel the prophet" and to which the Lord refers when He says "let him that readeth understand" is found in the majority of all texts as well as Alexandrinus, the Old Latin, the Syriac, Armenian, Ethiopian, and at least 24 other uncial copies. However Sinaiticus and Vaticanus omit this phrase and so do the NASB, NIV, ESV.


Mark 13:17 "But woe to them THAT ARE WITH CHILD, and to them that give suck in those days!"


An interesting and very subtle change has taken place in the modern versions here. They have now become abortion friendly. All the older versions read: "to them that are WITH CHILD" including Tyndale, Geneva, the Revised Version, American Standard Version, even the RSV, and Young's, Darby, Douay, and the Hebrew Names Version.


The NASB read "those that ARE WITH CHILD" from 1960 up through 1977, but then in 1995 the NASB update version changed the reading to: "THOSE THAT ARE PREGNANT", instead of "those that are WITH CHILD".


A modern woman wouldn't think twice about terminating her "pregnancy", but tell her she is terminating HER CHILD and she might reconsider. Now the NKJV, ESV, NIV, ISV, Holman, and the NASB 95 all read: "them that are pregnant".


Mark 13:23 "But take ye heed: BEHOLD , I have foretold you all things."


This little word BEHOLD (idou) is found in the majority of all texts AND Sinaiticus, as well as A and C. It is in the NKJV, the Catholic Douay, Lamsa's translation of the Syriac Peshitta, and in the Revised Version, the American Standard Version, and the NASB.


However Vaticanus omits this little word, and so do the NIV, ESV, and the more modern Catholic versions like the New Jerusalem.


Mark 13:27 "And he shall send HIS (autou) angels, and shall gather together his elect from the four winds..."


This little word HIS is found in the majority of all texts AND in Sinaiticus again, as well as A, C, Old Latin, Syriac, the Catholic Douay, and in the NIV and the upcoming ISV.


However Vaticanus omits the word "his" and this time the NASB, ESV, and later Catholic versions follow Vaticanus and reject Sinaiticus by saying "the angels" instead of His angels.


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


The words "and pray" are in the majority of all texts including Sinaiticus, A, C, the Old Latin, Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopian, Slavonic, and in the Revised Version and the American Standard Version, as well as the Catholic Douay version.


But Vaticanus omits the words "and pray" and so too do the NASB, NIV, ESV, ISV, and the more modern Catholic versions. Nothing like being consistently inconsistent, is there?


Mark 14:68 AND THE COCK CREW


To appreciate the importance of these inspired words, we need to look at what the Lord had specifically predicted in this chapter. In verse 30 we read: "And Jesus saith unto him, Verily I say unto thee, That this day, even in this night, before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice."


Then in verse 68 one of the maids of the high priest sees Peter in the palace grounds and says to him: "And thou also wast with Jesus of Nazareth. But he denied, saying, I know not, neither understand I what thou sayest. And he went out into the porch; AND THE COCK CREW." (The first of the two times the cock crows).


In verses 69-71 twice more Peter is accused of being one of Jesus' disciples and twice more he denies it. Then we read in verse 72 "And THE SECOND TIME THE COCK CREW. And Peter called to mind the word that Jesus said unto him, Before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice. And when he thought thereon, he wept."


In verse 68 the words "AND THE COCK CREW" are found in the Majority of all texts including A, C, and D. They are also in the Old Latin, the Syriac Peshitta, Harkelian, Gothic, Armenian, Georgian, and Ethiopian ancient versions.


These words are also found in Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, Bishop's Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, and of course in the Authorized King James Holy Bible. In more modern times these words are in the NKJV, Young's, the Revised Version, American Standard Version, the Douay, New Jerusalem Bible, the NRSV, ESV, Holman Christian Standard, and the ISV. They are even in the modern paraphrase called the Message.


However, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus omit these words and so do the RSV, NASB, NIV and the TNIV. Older versions of the Nestle-Aland Greek text omitted these words (4th edition, 1934), but now (27th edition, and UBS 3 and 4) they put them back in again! So, the RV, ASV, NRSV, ESV, ISV include these words, but the RSV, NASB, NIV, TNIV omit them.


In the King James Bible and many others we have our Lord predicting the cock shall crow TWICE and Peter will deny Him thrice. In the RSV, NASB, NIV, TNIV the first time the cock crows is missing.


Some will say, but the "oldest and best manuscripts" (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus) omit these words. Well, looking at verse 72 we read "And THE SECOND TIME the cock crew. And Peter called to mind the word that Jesus said unto him, Before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice. And when he thought thereon, he wept." Here we see that Sinaiticus omits even these words "the second time", but they are found in Vaticanus!!


These are the two so called "oldest and best" manuscripts, which disagree with each thousands of times in the New Testament, and are the primary reason for the omission of some 3000 words and at least 15 whole verses in most modern versions like the NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV, ISV.


For a further look at what Sinaiticus and Vaticanus actually say, please see my article at:


http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/oldbest.html


The following comparative textual study is from this same chapter of Mark 14.


Mark 14:19 "And they began to be sorrowful, and to say unto him one by one, Is it I? AND ANOTHER SAID, IS IT I?"


These last words "And another said, is it I?" are found in the majority of all texts including A and D and some Old Latin copies, and in the Spanish Reina Valera, NKJV, Tyndale, Geneva, Coverdale, Bishop's Bible, and others.


However Sinaiticus, Vaticanus and C omit these words and so do the NASB, NIV, ESV, ISV.


Mark 14:22 "And as they did eat, JESUS took bread, and blessed, and brake it, and gave to them, and said, Take, EAT: this is my body."


The word JESUS is in the majority of all texts as well as Sinaiticus, A and C, and Jesus is in the NIV and the ISV. However Vaticanus omits the word JESUS and so do the NASB, ESV, and the Holman Standard.


The word EAT (fagete) is in the majority of texts plus at least 18 uncials, the Old Latin and some Coptic Boharic versions, and the NKJV, but the Alexandrian texts omit this word and so do the NASB, NIV, ESV, ISV.


Mark 14:24 "And he said unto them, This is my blood of the NEW testament, which is shed for many."


Here the word NEW, as in the NEW testament, is in the majority of all texts, A, the Old Latin, Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, and the Catholic Douay versions. But Sinaiticus, Vaticanus and C omit the word "new" and so do the more recent Catholic versions and the NASB, NIV, ESV, ISV.


Mark 14:27 "And Jesus saith unto them, All ye shall be offended BECAUSE OF ME THIS NIGHT: for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered."


There are two problems in this verse. First of all, the KJB as well as Tyndale, Geneva, the Revised Version and the American Standard Version correctly translate this phrase as "shall be offended" - that is, they shall stumble. In fact, the NKJV puts it this way. But beginning with the RSV, the NASB, NIV, and ESV all say "you will FALL AWAY", as though they would commit apostasy and forever be lost. The new ISV now paraphrases this as "you will turn against me", while the Holman Standard says: "you will fall" and then footnotes "or stumble".


The second problem is textual. The words "because of me this night" are in the majority of all texts including A, C correction, the Old Latin, Syriac Peshitta, Harkelian, Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopian and even in the Douay version. But Sinaiticus and Vaticanus omit these words and so do the more recent Catholic versions and the NASB, NIV, ESV, ISV.


Mark 14:41 And he cometh the third time, and saith unto them, SLEEP ON NOW, AND TAKE YOUR REST; it is enough, the hour is come: behold, the Son of man is betrayed into the hands of sinners."


This verse is of interest in that ALL TEXTS, including the Majority, the Textus Receptus and even the UBS, Nestle - Aland texts show these words as a STATEMENT, not as a QUESTION. "Sleep on now, and take your rest" is a statement, and is so translated by Geneva, Tyndale, the Revised Version, American Standard Version, Darby, Young's, Douay, Green's interlinear, Bible in Basic English, Weymouth, and the Catholic Douay.


Some commentators see these words as spoken in irony or as a reproach. I understand them to be highly significant in a spiritual sense. The Lord Jesus Christ was in the midst of establishing the New Covenant with the sacrifice of Himself and the shedding of His own blood for the sins of His people.


We are told in Isaiah 59:16 "And he saw that there was no man, and wondered that there was no intercessor: therefore his arm brought salvation unto him; and his righteousness, it sustained him." Likewise in the prototypical covenant that God first made with Abraham our father, we read in Genesis 15:12-18 that Abraham WAS ASLEEP while God Himself made the covenant. Abraham had no part in the making of this covenant, and we have no part in making the New Covenant.


Genesis 15:12 "And when the sun was going down, A DEEP SLEEP fell upon Abram...and behold a smoking furnace, and a burning lamp that passed between those pieces (the divided bodies of the heifer, goat and ram offered unto God)...In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram."


I understand the words of the Lord "Sleep on now and take your rest" to mean that they would have no active part in the making of the New Covenant but that they would enter into the Rest of an accomplished redemption because of Christ's sacrificial death in our place. See Hebrews chapter four where it speaks of the rest for the people of God and those who enter by faith into this rest have ceased from their own works.


In any event, instead of having these words "sleep on now and take your rest" as a statement, the NKJV, NIV, NASB, ESV, and ISV have all changed this to a question, saying "Are you still sleeping and resting?" - NKJV.


MARK 15:28 -He was numbered with the transgressors


Mark 15:27-28 "And with him they crucify two thieves; the one on his right hand, and the other on his left. AND THE SCRIPTURE WAS FULFILLED, WHICH SAITH, AND HE WAS NUMBERED WITH THE TRANSGRESSORS."


This verse is a fulfillment of the predictions of the crucified Messiah spoken by the prophet Isaiah in chapter 53 - "...because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors." Isaiah 53:12.


The whole of verse 28 "and the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors." is missing from Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, A, C, and D. It is omitted entirely from the text in such versions as the RV, ASV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, NIV, The Message, and the Jehovah Witness New World Translation.


The NASB omitted the whole verse from its text from 1960 to 1972, but in 1977 and again in 1995 they placed it back in the text but in brackets, signifying it is probably not in the originals. Of the three new versions coming out, The Complete Jewish Bible omits the verse, the Holman Christian Standard places it in the text but in brackets, while the ISV (International Standard Version) puts the whole verse back in the text with no brackets. How is that for consistency?


The Catholic Douay Version 1950 contains the entire verse while later Catholic bibles like St. Joseph New American Bible, and the New Jerusalem omit the verse. The Catholic versions also disagree among themselves.


The entire verse is found in the Majority of all Greek texts including at least 24 uncials (capital letter manuscripts), the Old Latin, which is a version predating anything we have in the Greek copies, the Syriac Peshitta, Harkelian, Palestinian, some Coptic Boharic copies, the Gothic, Armenian, and Ethiopian ancient versions.


The English Bibles that include this verse are Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, Bishop's Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, Wesley's 1755, Webster's 1833, the King James Bible, Young's, the NKJV 1982, KJV 21st Century, World English Bible, Hebrew Names Version, Third Millenium Bible, and the ISV.


I checked out the foreign language Bible versions and Mark 15:28 is found in the following: the Albanian, Arabic, Bulgarian, Cebuano Bible, Chinese, Danish, Dutch, French Darby and French Louis Segond, Gaelic, German, Modern Greek, Gypsy Rhomanese, Haitian Creole Bible, Modern Hebrew, Hungarian, Icelandic, Italian Diodati, Latvian, Maori Bible, Norwegian, Portuguese, Rumanian, Russian, Shuar N.T., Spanish, Turkish, Ukranian, Uma N.T., and the Vietnamese.


This verse in the New Testament is either inspired Scripture or it isn't.


Mark 15:34 "And at the ninth hour JESUS cried with a loud voice, SAYING (legwn), Eloi, Eloi, lamasabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, MY GOD, why hast thou forsaken me?"


I have highlighted the words "Jesus" and the second "My God" for a reason. Remember that the whole of verse 28 is omitted in the NASB, NIV, ESV because of Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, A, C, and D, yet these "oldest and best manuscripts" disagree with each other in literally thousands of places.


In 15:34 manuscript D omits the word "Jesus", but it is found in the others. On the other hand, Vaticanus omits the second "MY GOD", but the others have it and this time the NASB, NIV, ESV do not follow Vaticanus but the others instead.


Then in Mark 15:39 we read: "And when the centurion, which stood over against him, saw that he so CRIED OUT (kraksas), and gave up the ghost, he said, Truly this man was the Son of God."


Here the verb "cried out" is in the majority of all texts as well as A, C, D, and the Old Latin, the Syriac, Douay, AND in the NIV, AND the brand new ISV (International Standard Version). However Sinaiticus and Vaticanus omit the words "cried out" and so do the NASB, ESV, and the Holman Standard.


It is obvious the "scholars" don't agree among themselves by the conflicting versions they keep producing. I trust God and believe He has kept His promises to preserve His inerrant words and has done so in the time tested, God approved King James Bible. How about you?


Mark 16:9-20 Huge textual differences between Sinaiticus, Vaticanus and all other texts.


Modern scholarship has cast serious doubt as to the authenticity of the last 12 verses in the gospel of Mark.


Mark 16


9 Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils. 10 And she went and told them that had been with him, as they mourned and wept. 11 And they, when they had heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her, believed not. 12 After that he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country. 13 And they went and told it unto the residue: neither believed they them. 14 Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen. 15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. 16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. 17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; 18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover. 19 So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God. 20 And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.


There are many articles on the internet showing the overwhelming textual evidence supporting the authenticity of these twelve verses. I will discuss it a little, but for those interested in seeing more, here is a good article about it.


http://www.purewords.org/kjb1611/html/mark16_9.htm


All 12 verses are omitted by both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, and it is these two manuscripts that are primarily responsible for the omission of some 3000 words and at least 15 whole verses in the New Testament in such versions as the RV, ASV, NASB, NIV, RSV, and ESV.


However these twelve verses are found in the vast Majority of all texts. Dean Burgon says they are present in 618 of 620 known manuscripts in his day. They are also in Alexandrinus, C, D, the Old Latin, which predates anything we have in Greek, the Syriac Peshitta, Harclean, Curetonian, Palestinian versions, the Coptic Sahidic and Boharic, the Gothic, Armenian, and Ethiopian ancient versions.


Dean Burgon, in his book The Last Twelve Verses of Mark, shows 12 church fathers who lived before the end of the 3rd century who quoted from this section of Scripture, including Irenaeus 202 A.D., Hippolytus, Tertullian, and Justin Martyr.


In his book, Which Bible, David Otis Fuller cites Dean John Burgon as saying: "I insist and am prepared to prove that the text of these two Codexes (Vaticanus or B, and Sinaiticus also called Aleph) is very nearly the foulest in existence," (Pp. 126-127) and "That they exhibit fabricated texts is demonstrable....B and Aleph are covered all over with blots -- Aleph even more than B....We suspect that these two manuscripts are indebted for their preservation, SOLELY TO THEIR ASCERTAINED EVIL CHARACTER." (Pg. 93, 128)


See my short article on "the oldest and best manuscripts" that reveals what Sinaiticus and Vaticanus really say:


http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/oldbest.html


Dean Burgon in his book Revision Revised also says: "What we are just now insisting upon is only the depraved text of codices A, B, C, D, -- especially of B, D, and Aleph. And because this is a matter which lies at root of the whole controversy, and because we cannot afford that there shall exist in our reader's mind the slightest doubt on this part of the subject...We venture to assure him, without a particle of hesitation, that B, D , and Aleph (Sinaiticus), are three of the most scandalously corrupt copies extant: -- exhibit the most shamefully mutilated texts which are anywhere to be met with: -- have become, by whatever process (for their history is wholly unknown), the depositories of the largest amount of fabricated readings, ancient blunders, and intentional perversions of Truth, -- which are discoverable in any known copies of the Word of GOD." (Revision Revised p.15, 16)


When you see the footnote the "oldest and best manuscripts" know that they are referring to Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.


The confusion and doubt thrown upon these inspired verses of Scripture can be seen in the modern versions themselves. The RSV of 1952 actually omits all twelve verses from their text and places them in small italicized letters at the bottom of the page. Then the NRSV, and the ESV (both revisions of the RSV) have put them back in the text in brackets and separated from the rest of the chapter and with a note: "SOME of the earliest manuscripts do not include 16:9-20."


SOME!?! I thought "some" meant several, not TWO! The NASB is interesting in that it continues to change from one edition to the next. The 1960 NASB brackets verses 9-20 and footnotes "Some of the oldest mss. omit." Then it adds another ending to Mark. Addition "And they promptly reported all these instructions to Peter and his companions. And after that, Jesus Himself sent out through them from east to west the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation."


Then in 1972 the NASB omitted this alternate ending, but in 1977 they put it back in. Then in 1995 they once again took it out!


The NIV 1978 edition draws a line between verse 8 and 9 and then notes: "The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not contain verses 9-20." But the 1984 Scofield NIV edition also draws a line and separates these 12 verses and footnotes: "Verses 9-20 are not found in the two most ancient manuscripts, the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus...but it is quoted by Irenaeus and Hippolytus in the second century." So are Sinaiticus and Vaticanus "the most reliable", or have they now been downgraded to "the most ancient"? Neither of which is true at all. They certainly are not the most reliable neither are they the earliest manuscripts.


But now the 2001 TNIV (Today's New International Version) has also drawn a line between these verses and the others; tells us "The earliest manuscripts and some other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20" and then in smaller italicized letters print the last twelve verses, thus casting serious doubt as to their validity.


Doesn't it seem just a tad unscholarly and hypocritical for the NASB, NIV, ESV to include these 12 verses in their "bibles", and yet to omit the other THOUSANDS of words from the New Testament based primarily on these same two manuscripts?


I hope this study on the gospel of Mark has been beneficial for you. You should be able to clearly see that modern scholarship is constantly changing and they have no settled text of God's inerrant words. The modern versions disagree among themselves and create doubt and uncertainty as to what our Lord really says in His inerrant words of truth and life.


Believe God's promises. Get yourself an Authorized King James Holy Bible, and rest in the faithfulness of Almighty God to preserve His pure and everlasting words.


"The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen" Revelation 22:21


External Link

Personal tools