# Missing verses from ESV and other Bibles



## Claudiu

Why do the more modern translations delete certain verses, or part of verses, from the Bible. I was never able to understand that. The reason I initially switched over to the KJV 4 years ago was because I was being cheated from not having the full Bible. I was getting only parts of the Bible, with random parts just missing. 

Some verses that are taken out, that many people don't notice (I didn't either at first) are:

Matthew 17:21
Luke 11:2-4 (cuts prayer) [in some version only I think]
Mark 10:21 (omits "take up cross") [which I find rather important to that text]
Matthew 6:13b (omits last part of prayer)
Luke 17:36
Luke 23:17
John 5:4
Matthew 18:11
Mark 7:16
Mark 9:44
Mark 15:28
Romans 16:24
and many more


The list is different versions, not necessarily just one. But I don't understand why verses should be tampered with?

What do you guys think?


----------



## Davidius

It's not quite as simple as labeling modern translations "Swiss cheese versions." Have you read anything on manuscript transmission and textual criticism?


----------



## Hippo

I could say "Why oh why does the AV add verses to the bible, why did they tamper with the text?". This approach is not very helpful in either direction because it presuposes the original text.

It is a question of fact as to what was the original text that has to be decided, after that it is possible to consider whether a version adds to or deletes from the original.


----------



## raekwon

Davidius said:


> It's not quite as simple as labeling modern translations "Swiss cheese versions." Have you read anything on manuscript transmission and textual criticism?





Despite what we might like to think sometimes, the KJV isn't the standard by which we should be judging a translation's accuracy.


----------



## Claudiu

Davidius said:


> It's not quite as simple as labeling modern translations "Swiss cheese versions." Have you read anything on manuscript transmission and textual criticism?



No I haven't read...I ought to now, and I will. Any good suggestions?

-----Added 3/28/2009 at 05:01:22 EST-----



Hippo said:


> I could say "Why oh why does the AV add verses to the bible, why did they tamper with the text?". This approach is not very helpful in either direction because it presuposes the original text.
> 
> It is a question of fact as to what was the original text that has to be decided, after that it is possible to consider whether a version adds to or deletes from the original.



My ignorance...Thanks for your input though. So it is the original that has to be looked at. I guess I was upholding the KJV, without even seeing what the original texts say, and see whether anything has been added, or taken away.


----------



## Davidius

Yeah, the fact of the matter is that editors, whether in 1611 or today, have to sort through thousands of (mostly) medieval manuscripts to see what has come down through scribal transmission. 


Most of what I know concerns the transmission of classical literature, but there are lots of others here who will be able to make good recommendations.


----------



## Claudiu

raekwon said:


> Davidius said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not quite as simple as labeling modern translations "Swiss cheese versions." Have you read anything on manuscript transmission and textual criticism?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Despite what we might like to think sometimes, the KJV isn't the standard by which we should be judging a translation's accuracy.
Click to expand...


The KJV certainly isn't the standard.

I appreciate the posts guys. I will look into this translation business some more. However, what version do you guys think has a modern tone, yet close to what the original says. Many people seem to recommend the ESV...would you guys stand by that?

-----Added 3/28/2009 at 05:05:55 EST-----



Davidius said:


> It's not quite as simple as labeling modern translations "Swiss cheese versions." Have you read anything on manuscript transmission and textual criticism?



I took the swiss cheese part out, came off too rash


----------



## Davidius

cecat90 said:


> raekwon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Davidius said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not quite as simple as labeling modern translations "Swiss cheese versions." Have you read anything on manuscript transmission and textual criticism?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Despite what we might like to think sometimes, the KJV isn't the standard by which we should be judging a translation's accuracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The KJV certainly isn't the standard.
> 
> I appreciate the posts guys. I will look into this translation business some more. However, what version do you guys think has a modern tone, yet close to what the original says. Many people seem to recommend the ESV...would you guys stand by that?
Click to expand...


The problem is that the terminology of "original" is misleading. There is no "original." Even if you go buy a Greek New Testament, you are still not looking at the "original." It is still only something that has been put together by editors who have combed through the manuscripts and put together what they think is the best combination of them all in an attempt to "reconstruct" the original (the goal of the science of Textual Criticism). And if you look at a "critical" edition, you will see that half of each page is taken up by (usually insignificant) variants in the text.


----------



## The Deeps

Brother Claudiu you might like this site it is not full of the inflammatory rhetoric  that many books and sites are full of. 
Fundamentally Reformed


----------



## Hippo

For the Puritan Board this is a very divisive topic that has of late rather remarkably taken over from baptism to be the surest way to create a huge and largely unprofitable arguement.

The various positions can be seen in this thread:

http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/calvin-hodges-dl-43526/ 

It is both a vital and an interesting topic, but probably one not suited to the enviroment of a board such as this.


----------



## Claudiu

The Deeps said:


> Brother Claudiu you might like this site it is not full of the inflammatory rhetoric  that many books and sites are full of.
> Fundamentally Reformed




I will take a look. Thanks!

-----Added 3/28/2009 at 05:23:08 EST-----



Hippo said:


> For the Puritan Board this is a very divisive topic that has of late rather remarkably taken over from baptism to be the surest way to create a huge and largely unprofitable arguement.
> 
> The various positions can be seen in this thread:
> 
> http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/calvin-hodges-dl-43526/
> 
> It is both a vital and an interesting topic, but probably one not suited to the enviroment of a board such as this.



I will take a look at this as well. Thanks Mike!


----------



## BlackCalvinist

A little info on textual criticism and how translations are made should help you understand the issue better.





*Other Articles*: What Is A Text Type ?



*Other Articles*: How Is a Translation Made ?



*Other Articles*: What Does A Greek New Testament Look Like ?



*Other Articles*: Has The Text of the Bible Been Preserved ? (with emphasis on the NT)

I wrote these all about 8-10 years ago (maybe more).


----------



## forgivenmuch

I've heard Paul Wegner's A Student's Guide to Textual Criticism of the Bible: Its History, Methods and Results is a pretty good start, but I can't vouch for it personally.


----------



## Grymir

Hi cecat90!

There are also good reasons that they should be included. I'm also a KJV user. Here's a good link on a book that will give the other side of the story, on why we can trust the KJV. The King James Verison Defended by Edward F. Hills

It is good to know what is going on in the realm. I just wanted to get a great read into your hands.


----------



## JM

Forever Settled - Introduction and Table Of Contents


----------



## Marrow Man

Try D.A. Carson's _The King James Version Debate: A Plea for Realism_

Daniel Wallace has several articles (mixed in among others) here.


----------



## DonP

Simply, the Textus Receptus, or received text, is the, and was taken from the longest standing texts held in and by the churches. So if we believe God preserved His word for all of His churches through all of the ages we use the TR as a basis for translation. 
If we think finding other manuscripts from all over and piecing them together year after year trusting scholars who often are not reformed, is a reliable method then you may consider the critical text translations that have left out verses the TR contains. 
Basically it isn't a matter of salvation which you use and as long as you are sound in the historic doctrines of the church I don't think either will mess you up too much. 
So that leaves you with what is a readable accurate translation. Then if you are not using the KJV or NKJV just check with one of them from time to time. 

The NKJV though based on the TR does include some marginal notes mentioning the Critical or Majority text decisions if you care to consider them. 

So it may be a version to consider. And also it is beneficial to stay with the version you have memorized most for easiest referencing. 

In His Service,


----------



## TimV

> Simply, the Textus Receptus, or received text, is the, and was taken from the longest standing texts held in and by the churches. So if we believe God preserved His word for all of His churches through all of the ages we use the TR as a basis for translation.





> The NKJV though based on the TR does include some marginal notes mentioning the Critical or Majority text decisions if you care to consider them.




Your statement is both false and contradictory. It is false that the TR was taken from the longest standing texts held....if anything, that has to go to the MT, so by your reasoning you should avoid the TR in favor of the MT.


----------



## DonP

Sorry I didn't mean oldest pieces of texts in terms of age, I meant oldest in terms of complete letters held by churches in safe keeping and recognized by the churches. 

That is my understanding of the history of the TR and Byzantine texts. Articles on the Trinitarian Bible Society site confirm this. now maybe one can disagree with their history, Fine

And if the Critical text is still growing as new pieces are found then this stands as fact cine the CT or MT is not yet complete it is still under construction and stands for further correction and adjustment. 

I don't want to argue the issue. As I said I think the translation we choose is more important. I read several of them consistently in my study and compare them constantly. So I am not opposed to someone using the critical text if they feel they are scholarly enough in the languages and culture to benefit from it. 

I prefer to trust in the historic providence of God to have from at one point to canonize and preserved His word in total, rather than in modern liberal scholars continually finding His word and re canonizing it, in my opinion, so if there was a variant I would go with the TR. 
Not that so far it matters that much. And hopefully if it ever did that old text in a trash can would be rejected as inconsistent.
Its just a choice based on my study of the issue and if one differs fine.


----------



## Whitefield

Is _Textus Receptus_ singular or plural?


----------



## DonP

Whitefield said:


> Is _Textus Receptus_ singular or plural?



I am not good with latin, would that be Recepti?
Thanks for the lightener


----------



## Whitefield

PeaceMaker said:


> Whitefield said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is _Textus Receptus_ singular or plural?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not good with latin, would that be Recepti?
> Thanks for the lightener
Click to expand...


It is both singular and plural. But the real question is, is the TR the cloth Eramus wove, or the several sources (threads) he used to weave that cloth. Also, if the TR is the providentially preserved text (either as the woven cloth or the various threads) how do we reconcile that with the issue of the last 6 verses of Revelation?


----------



## DonP

None of them is perfect. 

I only go by what seems to have preserved and used consistently by the churches and has the most longstanding history. 

Canonization is a very interesting concept since it didn't even happen during apostolic times. Hmmmm. ..


----------



## Whitefield

PeaceMaker said:


> I only go by what seems to have preserved and used consistently by the churches and has the most longstanding history.



Based on this criterion alone, you would have to go with the Vulgate.


----------



## TimV

> Sorry I didn't mean oldest pieces of texts in terms of age, I meant oldest in terms of complete letters held by churches in safe keeping and recognized by the churches.
> 
> That is my understanding of the history of the TR and Byzantine texts.



And your understanding is wrong. It's been gone over here so much that most won't even post on these threads, but there are places in the TR that have no Byzantine backing at all.

The TR is just another Bible version, and that's all.


----------



## Parsifal23

Hippo said:


> For the Puritan Board this is a very divisive topic that has of late rather remarkably taken over from baptism to be the surest way to create a huge and largely unprofitable arguement.
> 
> The various positions can be seen in this thread:
> 
> http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/calvin-hodges-dl-43526/
> 
> It is both a vital and an interesting topic, but probably one not suited to the enviroment of a board such as this.



I know hat you mean I find textual criticism interesting but I don't understand it well enough to probably engage the topic with the amount of knowledge that would be nursery that being said I prefer The New American Standered Version partially because it really really ticks of Gail Riplinger and Peter Ruckmen  but seriously I feel The NASB is probably one of the best translations out there do to it's textual pedigree and close adherence to the original languages.


----------



## DonP

Do you believe this is all false information 
http://www.trinitarianbiblesociety.org/site/articles/ahnkjv1.pdf


----------



## TimV

Are you addressing me? And are you asking if everything contained in those 36 pages are all true or all false?


----------



## bookslover

PeaceMaker said:


> Whitefield said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is _Textus Receptus_ singular or plural?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not good with latin, would that be Recepti?
> Thanks for the lightener
Click to expand...


Keep in mind that the phrase "textus receptus" was, basically, the equivalent of a dust jacket "blurb" to advertise the publication of (I think) Erasmus's text. As far as I know, there was no time when a group of individuals, or of churches, got together and pronounced those particular texts to be the only "acceptable" ones for use in translating the Bible, in some official way.

In other words, some publisher's ad man made it up!


----------



## Der Pilger

I'm surprised nobody has recommended James White's _The King James Only Controversy_. It was of great help to me in making sense of this issue. He goes into considerable detail about KJV-only arguments, textual criticism, comparison of translations, the history and formation of the KJV, the textus receptus, Erasmus, etc.


----------



## puritanpilgrim

> Simply, the Textus Receptus, or received text, is the, and was taken from the longest standing texts held in and by the churches. So if we believe God preserved His word for all of His churches through all of the ages we use the TR as a basis for translation.



If only it were that simple...but it's not.


----------



## PresbyDane

Thank you all for all the good book and site recommendations


----------



## ADKing

Der Pilger said:


> I'm surprised nobody has recommended James White's _The King James Only Controversy_. It was of great help to me in making sense of this issue. He goes into considerable detail about KJV-only arguments, textual criticism, comparison of translations, the history and formation of the KJV, the textus receptus, Erasmus, etc.



White's book is not a very reliable presentation in my humble opinion. See Theodore Letis' review here. (Sorry for the odd format--it would be nice if it were all on one site).

http://www.holywordcafe.com/bible/images/white01b.gif
http://www.holywordcafe.com/bible/images/white02b.gif
http://www.holywordcafe.com/bible/images/white03b.gif
http://www.holywordcafe.com/bible/images/white04b.gif
http://www.holywordcafe.com/bible/images/white05b.gif
http://www.holywordcafe.com/bible/images/white06b.gif
http://www.holywordcafe.com/bible/images/white07b.gif
http://www.holywordcafe.com/bible/images/white08b.gif
http://www.holywordcafe.com/bible/images/white09b.gif
http://www.holywordcafe.com/bible/images/white10b.gif
http://www.holywordcafe.com/bible/images/white11b.gif


----------



## puritanpilgrim

this is a nice book:

The Journey from Texts to Translations: The Origin and Development of the Bible @ CenturyOne Bookstore


----------



## SolaScriptura

Responding only to the title of this thread:

It isn't that the ESV (and other Bibles) are missing verses... it is that other versions added them.


----------



## cih1355

cecat90 said:


> Why do the more modern translations delete certain verses, or part of verses, from the Bible. I was never able to understand that. The reason I initially switched over to the KJV 4 years ago was because I was being cheated from not having the full Bible. I was getting only parts of the Bible, with random parts just missing.
> 
> Some verses that are taken out, that many people don't notice (I didn't either at first) are:
> 
> Matthew 17:21
> Luke 11:2-4 (cuts prayer) [in some version only I think]
> Mark 10:21 (omits "take up cross") [which I find rather important to that text]
> Matthew 6:13b (omits last part of prayer)
> Luke 17:36
> Luke 23:17
> John 5:4
> Matthew 18:11
> Mark 7:16
> Mark 9:44
> Mark 15:28
> Romans 16:24
> and many more
> 
> 
> The list is different versions, not necessarily just one. But I don't understand why verses should be tampered with?
> 
> What do you guys think?



The reason why modern translations of the Bible such as the NASB do not have the verses you mentioned is because the KJV and modern translations of the Bible were not translated from the same Greek manuscripts. 

Some Greek manuscripts contain the verses you mentioned and some do not.


----------



## DMcFadden

Put in simple bullets . . .

* The vast majority of the 5,700+ manuscripts of the Greek NT are of what is now called the Byzantine type (aka "Majority").

* In 1516 Erasmus published a "critical text" of the New Testament using six of these (in this case late) manuscripts that were available to him. This was the basis for Luther's translation, the Geneva Bible, and (ultimately) the KJV.

* In the middle of the 19th century, two manuscripts of Egyptian provenance were discovered. One was called Sinaiticus (for the location of the moastery where it was found, aka Aleph) and the other Vaticanus (for the location where it was re-discovered in storage, aka B). They are commonly dated to the 4th century.

* Many scholars quickly concluded that the two Egyptian manuscripts (aka Alexandrian) were the "oldest and most reliable" copies of the Greek NT. Even though they differ from each other in more than 3,000 places, they have received pride-of-place among most NT scholars of all stripes (right to left).

* The early scholars who used the Alexandrian texts as the "oldest and most reliable" published a critical text that was strongly Alexandrian (i.e., it relied upon Aleph and B).

* In the last decades NT scholars have adopted a more eclectic approach, assessing each textual variant on its own merits, whether Alexandrian or Byzantine, and attempting to determine by means of internal and external criteria what is the most likely reading of the original at that juncture in the text.

* ALL of the major modern English translations (except the NKJV) are based on this reasoned ecclecticism that is now reflected in the Nestle-Aland 27th edition and the UBS 4th edition of the Greek NT.

* A vocal minority of scholars prefer the Majority Text (not exactly the same as the KJV) and often recommend the NKJV as a translation. More than removing the "thees" and "thous," it "corrects" the text of the Erasmian text in line with the MANY more manuscripts that have been discovered since 1611. Maurice Robinson is one of the most articulate living defenders of this majority text view (other names associated with it were Zane Hodges and Arthur Farstad).

* An even more vocal (and much smaller) minority still defends the KJV as the most accurate Bible. Many base their defense upon notions of divine preservation. Some go so far as to say that where the KJV differs from the majority of the Byzantine manuscripts, the KJV translators were providentially protected from error and directed toward the reading that the Lord wanted in his Bible. James White is one of the most articulate Reformed objectors to the KJVonlyists.

* If you are a KJV onlyist, then your only English option is the . . . KJV (duh!).

* If you subscribe to the arguments for the majority textual tradition, then you probably be happiest with the NKJV.

* If you hold to the vast majority of scholars today, you will chose among the MANY translations based upon an ecclectic critical text. Here your choices will be determined more by translation theory than by original Greek. The NAS is regarded as the most literal (to a fault) formal correspondence ("word for word") translation (in the same "family" would be the ESV, RSV, and HCSB); the "dynammic equivalent" (recasting grammatical forms into modern idiomatic English) family is most often represented by the NIV, TNIV, or NLT; the paraphrases include the Living Bible, TEV, and The Message.

I prefer the NKJV, the ESV, and the HCSB (one excellent translation from the majority and two from the eclectic tradition). Blessedly, the Reformation Study Bible (edited by Sproul) comes in both the ESV and the NKJV versions!!!


----------



## Robert Truelove

The KJV and NKJV represent the Byzantine manuscripts while the ESV, NASB, NIV, etc. represent the Alexandrian manuscripts...the difference between them does not effect a single point of biblical doctrine.

My point being...whether someone falls out on the Byzantine (Traditional Text) side of the isle or the Alexandrian (Critical Text), the fact that these represent two completely different textual traditions and yet contain every single doctrine of the Christian faith is a sign of God's providential preservation of the text. 

Not that this point solves the problem of variants but it does put it into perspective. On the other hand, when Bart Erhman says the textual variants overthrow divine inspiration of Scripture he is "taking a trip into cloud land".


----------



## Jimmy the Greek

To the OP. I find the NKJV especially helpful in identifying variant readings in its notes. It will show the differences between the Received Text (KJV-NKJV basis), Critical Text (NA-UBS), and Majority Text (generally Byzantine).


----------



## Robert Truelove

I agree. I believe every English speaking Christian should own a NKJV just for the footnotes if nothing else (I don't say that to knock the translation...but in the event the NKJV isn't the reader's version of choice). It makes most of the primary textual variants and their general sources easily discernible in a non-biased way.



Gomarus said:


> To the OP. I find the NKJV especially helpful in identifying variant readings in its notes. It will show the differences between the Received Text (KJV basis), Critical Text (NA-UBS), and Majority Text (generally Byzantine).


----------



## Robert Truelove

Yes, this has been knocked around hasn't it? 

The answer is that the Confession does not teach that preservation requires word for word certainty regarding every manuscript variant but that the word has been "kept pure in all ages". 

Now what does that mean? The confession goes on to say..."are therefore authentical; so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them."

How pure has the text been preserved in all ages? To the degree that in all ages the text has been sufficiently preserved so as to be authentic. The final word in all controversies of religion.

When one states that not a single doctrine is called into question by the problem of manuscript variants, this is in conformity with the Confession's statement about the text being "kept pure in all ages". 

To press against that too hard will undermine the Confession and the Scriptures themselves. If "kept pure in all ages" requires 100% textual accuracy, then the word was made impure shortly after it was committed to writing as no two manuscripts are 100% identical.

In regards to the Westminster divines, I find it highly unlikely that "kept pure in all ages" meant to them what some TR advocates claim it means. For instance, in some of the writings of a few of the Westminster Divines I have found statements made in favor of a particular textual variant that is not a Traditional Text reading.

Calvin (yes, I know, he predates the Westminster assembly) in numerous places in his commentaries differs with Traditional Text readings and sometimes to the point of absurdity. For instance, he says this of 1 John 2:14...

_"14 'I have written unto you, fathers' -- These repetitions I deem superfluous; and it is probable that when unskillful readers falsely thought that he spoke twice of little children, they rashly introduced the other two clauses. It might at the same time be that John himself, for the sake of amplifying, inserted the second time the sentence respecting the young men, (for he adds, that they were strong, which he had not said before) but that the copyists presumptuously filled up the number."
_
He makes this claim based upon his evaluation of the internal evidence with no manuscript support whatsoever. (I don't agree with him on this verse as I believe any arguments regarding variants must be made from actual extant manuscripts.) Calvin does this sort of thing in numerous places throughout his commentaries. Would you therefore say that Calvin did not believe the Word of God has been "kept pure in all ages"? From his own writings in numerous places he clearly defends the purity and authority of the Scriptures while at the same time makes arguments like I just demonstrated. He did not see the two as a contradiction and neither do I.

I don't know if you find that a compelling explanation or not but there it is.

My apologies if I am getting this thread 







ADKing said:


> Robert Truelove said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...the difference between them does not effect a single point of biblical doctrine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know that this subject has been debated numerous times here and I do not intend to go through all the same arguments again myself. There are men that can (and have) done a far better job than myself in explaining their positions (on boths sides). But I see the claim made above to be very misleading though often made. Besides the fact that there are numerous single verses, the differences in which actually do affect the point a particular passage itself is teaching, there is at least one doctrine that is substantially at stake as found in WCF 1.8 _The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, *and by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical*; so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them._
> I have never seen a compelling explanation how the critical text approach can affirm that the word was kept pure in all ages.
Click to expand...


----------



## wturri78

DMcFadden said:


> I prefer the NKJV, the ESV, and the HCSB (one excellent translation from the majority and two from the eclectic tradition). Blessedly, the Reformation Study Bible (edited by Sproul) comes in both the ESV and the NKJV versions!!!



I've never used the HCSB, but have found the NKJV and ESV very easy to read, and the translation differences between them often help to bring some clarity to the meaning of the text.

I do not believe that the KJV translators were providentially prevented from making errors. However the notes in the Reformation Study Bible _were_ divinely kept free from error. This is the view of the vast majority of a few people


----------

