You have to be born again Jesus said John3:7;

Be Born Again

Jesus said to Nicodemus, “You must be born again” (John 3:7). Everyone has sinned. You must repent of your sins and ask God to forgive you. Commit yourself to follow Jesus for the rest of your life. This way you will be save. As it is written:

There is no one righteous, no, not one. (Romans 3:10)

For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God. (Romans 3:23)

Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned; (Romans 5:12)

But God commended His love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. (Romans 5:8)

For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. (Romans 6:23)

For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. (Romans 10:13)

That if you shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. (Romans 10:9-10)

Pray this way: Lord God Almighty, I believe that Jesus Christ is your Son. I believe that You raised Him from the dead on the third day. I believe that He sits at Your right hand in heaven. I believe that Jesus had to die on the cross and shed His holy blood for my sins. Father, I thank You for this awesome sacrifice. I am not worthy of it, Lord. I confess to You that I am a sinner and now I repent of my sins. I ask You to forgive me for my unbelief, and for all the wrong that I have said or done. I ask Father, that Jesus would come into my life and my heart and cleanse me, make me a new person and be the Lord of my life. I want to follow Jesus all the days of my life. Thank You for saving me. In the name of Jesus I pray. Amen.

Be Baptized by Immersion

Jesus did it. Why not you? Find a place where you can be baptized by immersion. There is no other choice.

Now when all the people were baptized, it came to pass, that Jesus also being baptized, and praying, the heaven was opened, and the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon Him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased. (Luke 3:21-22)

Be Baptized in the Holy Spirit (Holy Ghost)

The baptism of, or in, the Holy Spirit was promised by God since the time of the prophet Joel:

And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions: and also upon the servants and the handmaids in those days will I pour out my Spirit. (Joel 2:28-29)

Jesus also promised it:

And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Comforter, that He may abide with you forever. (John 14:16)

These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with you. But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, He shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. (John 14:25-26)

And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith He, ye have heard of me. But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth. (Acts 1:4, 8)

And the day of the promise came:

And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. (Acts 2: 1-4)

Ask the Lord to baptize you in the Holy Spirit. Seek it until you receive it.
Asmodeus represents lust. The demon is also mentioned in some Talmudic legends; for instance, in the story of the construction of the Temple of Solomon.

He was supposed by some RenaissanceChristians[who?] to be the King of the Nine Hells.[citation needed] Asmodeus also is referred to as one of the seven princes ofHell. In Binsfeld’s classification of demons, each one of these princes represents one of the seven deadly sins(lust, gluttony, greed, sloth, wrath, envy, and pride).

It is said in Asmodeus; Or, The Devil on Two Sticks that people who fall to Asmodeus’ ways will be sentenced to an eternity in the second level of hell.[5]

Etymology

The name Asmodai is believed to derive from Avestan language *aēšma-daēva, where aēšma means “wrath”, and daēvasignifies “demon”. While the daēvaAēšma is thus Zoroastrianism’s demon of wrath and is also well attested as such, the compound aēšma-daēva is not attested in scripture. It is nonetheless likely that such a form did exist, and that the Book of Tobit’s “Asmodaios” (Ἀσμοδαῖος) and the Talmud’s “Ashmedai” (אשמדאי) reflect it.[6] In theZoroastrian and Middle Persiandemonology, there did exist the conjuncted form khashm-dev, where the word dev was the same of daeva.[7]

The spellings Asmodai,[8][9] Asmodee(also Asmodée),[10][11] Osmodeus,[12][13]and Osmodai[14][15] have also been used. The name is alternatively spelled in thebastardized forms (based on the basic consonants אשמדאי, ʾŠMDʾY) Hashmedai(חַשְמְדּאָי, Hašmədʾāy; also Hashmodai, Hasmodai, Khashmodai, Khasmodai),[16][17][18][19] Hammadai (חַמַּדּאָי, Hammadʾāy; also Khammadai),[20][21] Shamdon (שַׁמְדּוֹן,Šamdōn),[22] and Shidonai (שִׁדֹנאָי,Šidonʾāy).[21] Some traditions have subsequently identified Shamdon as the father of Asmodeus.[22]

The Jewish Encyclopedia of 1906 rejects the otherwise accepted etymological relation between the Persian “Æshma-dæva” and Judaism’s “Ashmodai” claiming that the particle “-dæva” could not have become “-dai” and that Æshma-dæva as such—a compound name—never appears in Persian sacred texts. Still, the encyclopedia proposes that the “Asmodeus” from the Apocrypha and the Testament of Solomon are not only related somewhat to Aeshma but have similar behaviour, appearance and roles,[23] to conclude in another article under the entry “Aeshma”, in the paragraph “Influence of Persian Beliefs on Judaism”[24] that Persian Zoroastrian beliefs could have heavily influenced Judaism’s theology on the long term, bearing in mind that in some texts there are crucial conceptual differences while in others there seems to be a great deal of similarity, proposing a pattern of influence over folk beliefs that would extend further to the mythology itself in general. However, the Jewish Encyclopedia asserts that ‘though Æshma does not occur in the Avesta in conjunction with dæva, it is probable that a fuller form, such as Æshmo-dæus, has existed, since it is paralleled by the later Pahlavi-form “Khashm-dev”.[25]Furthermore it is stated that ‘Asmodeus (Ashmedai) embodies an expression of the influence that the Persian religion or Persian popular beliefs have exercised on the Jewish’.[26]

In the texts

In The Bible

The full name “Ashmedai” is not found, but in 2 Kings 17:30, a certain Ashimaappears as the false god for whom the Syrian Hamathites made an idol. Not only does this name better resemble that of the Persian daeva Aeshma, but the name (אֲשִׁימָא) also greatly resembles the name Ashmedai (אַשְמְדּאָי) in Hebrew.

In the Book of Tobit

The Asmodeus of the Book of Tobit is hostile to Sarah, Raguel’s daughter, (Tobit 6:13); and slays seven successive husbands on their wedding nights, impeding the sexual consummation of the marriages. He is described as ‘the worst of demons’. When the young Tobias is about to marry her, Asmodeus proposes the same fate for him, but Tobias is enabled, through the counsels of his attendant angelRaphael, to render him innocuous. By placing a fish’s heart and liver on red-hot cinders, Tobias produces a smoky vapour that causes the demon to flee toEgypt, where Raphael binds him (Tobit 8:2-3). According to some translations Asmodeus is strangled.

Perhaps Asmodeus punishes the suitors for their carnal desire, since Tobias prays to be free from such desire and is kept safe. Asmodeus is also described as an evil spirit in general: ‘Ασμοδαίος τὸ πονηρὸν δαιμόνιον or τõ δαιμόνιον πονηρόν, and πνεῦμα ἀκάθαρτον (Tobit 3:8; Tobit 3:17; Tobit 6:13; Tobit 8:3).

In the Talmud

The figure of Ashmedai in the Talmud is less malign in character than the Asmodeus of Tobit. In the former, he appears repeatedly in the light of a good-natured and humorous fellow. But besides that, there is one feature in which he parallels Asmodeus, inasmuch as his desires turn upon Solomon’s wives and Bath-sheba.

Another Talmudic legend has King Solomon tricking Asmodai into collaborating in the construction of theTemple of Jerusalem[3] (see: The Story of King Solomon and Ashmedai).

Another legend depicts Asmodai throwing king Solomon over 400 leagues away from the capital by putting one wing on the ground and the other stretched skyward. He then changed places for some years with King Solomon. When King Solomon returned, Asmodai fled from his wrath.[27] Similar legends can be found in Islamic folklore. There Asmodeus is called Sakhr (Arabic:صخر‎ the Rock or the Stony One), because in Islamic lore, Solomon banished him into a rock, after he takes his kingdom back from him. There he counts as the king of the jinn.[28]

Another passage describes him as marrying Lilith, who became his queen.[29]

In the Testament of Solomon

In the Testament of Solomon, a 1st–3rd century text, the king invokes Asmodeus to aid in the construction of the Temple. The demon appears and predicts Solomon’s kingdom will one day be divided (Testament of Solomon, verse 21–25).[30] When Solomon interrogates Asmodeus further, the king learns that Asmodeus is thwarted by the angelRaphael, as well as by sheatfish found in the rivers of Assyria. He also admits to hating water and birds because both remind him of God.

In the Malleus Maleficarum

In the Malleus Maleficarum (1486), Asmodeus was considered the demon oflust.[31] Sebastien Michaelis said that his adversary is St. John. Some demonologists of the 16th century assigned a month to a demon and considered November to be the month in which Asmodai’s power was strongest. Other demonologists asserted that hiszodiacal sign was Aquarius but only between the dates of January 30 and February 8.

He has 72 legions of demons under his command. He is one of the Kings of Hell under Lucifer the emperor. He incites gambling, and is the overseer of all the gambling houses in the court of Hell. Some Catholic theologians compared him with Abaddon. Yet other authors considered Asmodeus a prince of revenge.

In the Dictionnaire Infernal

In the Dictionnaire Infernal by Collin de Plancy, Asmodeus is depicted with the breast of a man, a cock leg, serpent tail, three heads (one of a man spitting fire, one of a sheep, and one of a bull), riding a lion with dragon wings and neck, all of these animals being associated with either lascivity, lust or revenge.[citation needed] The Archbishop of Paris approved his portrait.[32]

In the Lesser Key of Solomon

Asmodai appears as the king ‘Asmoday’ in the Ars Goetia, where he is said to have a seal in gold and is listed as number thirty-two according to respective rank.[33]

He “is strong, powerful and appears with three heads; the first is like a bull, the second like a man, and the third like a ram; the tail of a serpent, and from his mouth issue flames of fire.”[34] Also, he sits upon an infernal dragon, holds a lance with a banner and, amongst the Legions of Amaymon, Asmoday governs seventy two legions of inferior spirits.[33]

In The Magus

Asmodeus is referred to in Book Two, Chapter Eight of The Magus (1801) byFrancis Barrett.[35]

Later depictions

In Christian thought

Asmodeus was named as an angel of theOrder of Thrones by Gregory the Great.[36]

Asmodeus was cited by the nuns of Loudun in the Loudun possessions of 1634.[37]

Asmodeus’ reputation as the personification of lust continued into later writings, as he was known as the “Prince of Lechery” in the 16th century romance Friar Rush.[38] The French Benedictine Augustin Calmet equated his name with fine dress.[38] The 16th century Dutch demonologist Johann Weyer described him as the banker at thebaccarat table in hell, and overseer of earthly gambling houses.[39]

In 1641, the Spanish playwright and novelist Luis Velez de Guevara published the satirical novel El diablo cojuelo, where Asmodeus is represented as a mischievous demon endowed with a playful and satirical genius. The plot presents a rascal student that hides in an astrologer’s mansard. He frees a devil from a bottle. As an acknowledgement the devil shows him the apartments of Madrid and the tricks, miseries and mischiefs of their inhabitants.[40][41] The French novelist Alain-René Lesageadapted the Spanish source in his 1707 novel le Diable boiteux,[38] where he likened him to Cupid. In the book, he is rescued from an enchanted glass bottle by a Spanish student Don Cleophas Leandro Zambullo. Grateful, he joins with the young man on a series of adventures before being recaptured. Asmodeus is portrayed in a sympathetic light as good-natured, and a canny satirist and critic of human society.[38] In another episode Asmodeus takes Don Cleophas for a night flight, and removes the roofs from the houses of a village to show him the secrets of what passes in private lives. Following Lesage’s work, he was depicted in a number of novels and periodicals, mainly in France but also London and New York.[42]

Asmodeus was widely depicted as having a handsome visage, good manners and an engaging nature; however, he was portrayed as walking with a limp and one leg was either clawed or that of a rooster. He walks aided by two walking sticks in Lesage’s work, and this gave rise to the English title The Devil on Two Sticks[32] (also later translated The Limping Devil and The Lame Devil). Lesage attributes his lameness to falling from the sky after fighting with another devil.[43]

On 18 February 1865, author Evert A. Duyckinck sent President Abraham Lincoln a letter, apparently mailed from Quincy. Duyckinck signed the letter “Asmodeus”, with his initials below his pseudonym. His letter enclosed a newspaper clipping about an inappropriate joke allegedly told by Lincoln at the Hampton Roads Peace Conference. The purpose of Duyckinck’s letter was to advise Lincoln of “an important omission” about the history of the conference. He advised that the newspaper clipping be added to the “Archives of the Nation”.[44]

In the Kabbalah

According to the Kabbalah and the school of Shlomo ibn Aderet, Asmodeus is a cambion born as the result of a union between Agrat bat Mahlat, a succubus, and King David.[45]

In Islamic culture

The story of Asmodeus and Solomon has a reappearance in Islamic lore. Asmodeus is commonly named Sakhr(rock) probably a reference to his fate in common Islam-related belief, there, afterSolomon defeated him, Asmodeus was imprisoned inside a box of rock, chained with iron, and thrown it into the sea.[46] In his work Annals of al-Tabari, the famousPersian Quran exegete (224–310 AH; 839–923 AD) Tabari, referred to Asmodeus in Surah 38:34. Accordingly, the puppet is actually Asmodeus who took on the shape of Solomon for forty days, before Solomon defeated him.[47]

Asmodeus is consulted by a young Jewish boy, who tried to find the Islamic prophet Muhammad, in The Nights. During their conversation, he asked about hell, thereupon Asmodeus describes the different layers of hell.[48]

In popular media

Asmodeus portrayal in Dungeons and Dragons

Asmodeus is a recurring antagonist in the thirteenth season of The CW seriesSupernatural, portrayed primarily byJeffrey Vincent Parise. Created by Luciferhimself, Asmodeus was originally a Prince of Hell alongside siblings Azazel,Dagon, and Ramiel. Upon the death ofCrowley, Asmodeus succeeds him as the King of Hell despite being Lucifer’s weakest creation. Asmodeus is killed in the episode “Bring ’em Back Alive” by the archangel Gabriel, whose grace Asmodeus had been feeding on to make himself stronger.[49]

In Geoffrey Household’s 1939 spy thrillerRogue Male, the protagonist names a cat he forms a strong bond with Asmodeus.

The character ‘Asmodai’ in A.L. Mengel’s supernatural series The Tales of Tartarus(2013-2016) is based on the demon Asmodeus. The demon haunts the main protagonist, Antoine, through the series of novels.

Asmodeus appears in the television series The Librarians (season 4 episode 10) as a blue-skinned, growling demon in knight’s armor and sword.

Asmodeus also features heavily in the lore of the game Dungeons & Dragons as the ruler of the Nine Hells, formerly the greatest of the angels since the earliest editions (though his name was edited out in same releases of the Second Edition alongside all references to demons and devils). He resides in the lowest layer of Hell, Nessus, and all the other layer’s Archdevils owe fealty to him, even though they would like nothing more than to depose him and take his place. Asmodeus cleverly plays them against each other and he has plans within plans millennia in the making. In certain editions, he is mentioned to have been an angel of law who was tasked by the gods to punish sinful mortals, and he took it upon himself to gain power to fight the demonic hordes of the Abyss by creating Hell and tempting mortals to sin so he has souls to power his armies. While good gods don’t like Asmodeus, the lawful deities accept him as a necessary evil who plays a role in creation’s great cycle. Asmodeus is always depicted wearing his Ruby Rod, a powerful artifact of rulership. His secret goal is to either defeat or subjugate the demons of the Abyss and then to conquer the Upper Planes.

Asmodeus is also present in thePathfinder Roleplaying Game in a similar role to his D&D one. The main difference is that his church is widespread on Golarion, and this has elevated him to actual godhood.

Asmodeus appears as Magnus Bane’s father and Prince of Hell otherwise known as Edom on the third season of Freeform’s Shadowhunters television series based on Cassandra Clare’s popular book series The Mortal Instruments. He is portrayed by Jack J. Yang.

Asmodeus appears in the bookAsmodeus – a Forkful of Tales from Devil’s Peak by Alex D’Angelo (Author), Tony Grogan (Illustrator) Tafelberg Publishers Ltd 1997. One story “Asmodeus and the Bottler of Djinns” is included in the anthology Favorite African Folktales edited by Nelson Mandela, published by Norton and available as an audio book.

Asmodeus appears in Seven Mortal Sinsas one of the Demon Lords, hosting orgies at the beach during the day, while running a nightclub at night.

Asmodeus appears in the first episode of the second season of Netflix’s Chilling Adventures of Sabrina. He invokes the “minions of plague” (rats) to feast on the flesh of Sabrina, the protagonist of the series, whom he refers to as a “bastard witch.” By “bastard witch,” he references the fact that Sabrina is the orphaned child of a warlock father and mortal mother, although in the common sense of a “bastard” being an illegitimate offspring, it is inaccurate, since Sabrina’s parents were married to each other. Sabrina successfully survives the encounter by invoking a spell of banishment against Asmodeus.

CHRIST JESUS IS OUR MARINE CAPTAIN ” Joshua 5:13-14

*CHRIST JESUS IS THE CHIEF MARINE CAPTAIN I’M HIS TWO EYESEE* Joshua 5:13-15
*@NIGERIAN MERCHANT MARINE TRANSPORT SAFETY CORPS RC30810*
Joshua 5:14 And he said, Nay; but as captain of the host of the LORD am
I now come. And Joshua fell on his face to the earth, and did worship,
and said unto him, What saith my lord unto his servant?
http://www.merchantmarinecorps.org.ng

Introduction: The Bible is like a mirror.

It reflects yourself, showing the natural man and the washing and work
that he needs.

It also reflects the Savior, showing the God-man and the worship that He
deserves.

Luke 24:27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded
unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

As Jesus went through the Old Testament showing from the scriptures the
things concerning Himself, so have we been doing this each week.

As Joshua prepared to take the city of Jericho, God opened his eyes for
a moment, and he saw an unnamed character, the Captain of the Lord’s
host. This captain would not be seen, but He would give Joshua the
victory.

Tonight’s message is titled,

JESUS IS THE CAPTAIN

1 Corinthians 15:57 But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory
through our Lord Jesus Christ.

A captain is someone who is in charge of something(2 Sam. 18:5) – team
captains, department captains, as well as in charge of military troops.
As such, JESUS IS THE CAPTAIN!

I. JESUS IS THE CAPTAIN OF SALVATION

Hebrews 2:10 For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are
all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of
their salvation perfect through sufferings.

A. He provided salvation

B. He purchased salvation

C. He perpetuates salvation

II. JESUS IS THE CAPTAIN OF THE SAINTS

Saul was captain over the Old Testament saints of Israel:

1 Samuel 9:15-16 Now the LORD had told Samuel in his ear a day before
Saul came, saying, 16 To morrow about this time I will send thee a man
out of the land of Benjamin, and thou shalt anoint him to be captain
over my people Israel, that he may save my people out of the hand of the
Philistines: for I have looked upon my people, because their cry is come
unto me.

Then he was replaced by David:

2 Samuel 5:1-2 Then came all the tribes of Israel to David unto Hebron,
and spake, saying, Behold, we are thy bone and thy flesh. 2 Also in time
past, when Saul was king over us, thou wast he that leddest out and
broughtest in Israel: and the LORD said to thee, Thou shalt feed my
people Israel, and thou shalt be a captain over Israel.

A. Jesus purchased us with His blood

B. Jesus puts us into His body

III. JESUS IS THE CAPTAIN OF THE SOLDIERS

2 Chronicles 13:12 And, behold, God himself is with us for our captain,
and his priests with sounding trumpets to cry alarm against you. O
children of Israel, fight ye not against the LORD God of your fathers;
for ye shall not prosper.

A. He enlists the soldiers

B. He equips the soldiers

C. He engages the soldiers into
war

IV. JESUS IS THE CAPTAIN OF THE SPIRITS,
OR ANGELS

Joshua 5:14 And he said, Nay; but as captain of the host of the LORD am
I now come. And Joshua fell on his face to the earth, and did worship,
and said unto him, What saith my lord unto his servant?

A. They are ministers – ministering
to Him and for Him

B. They are messengers

V. JESUS IS THE CAPTAIN OF THE SEA
AND OF THE STORM

Matthew 8:24-27 And, behold, there arose a great tempest in the sea,
insomuch that the ship was covered with the waves: but he was asleep. 25
And his disciples came to him, and awoke him, saying, Lord, save us: we
perish. 26 And he saith unto them, Why are ye fearful, O ye of little
faith? Then he arose, and rebuked the winds and the sea; and there was a
great calm. 27 But the men marvelled, saying, What manner of man is
this, that even the winds and the sea obey him!

JESUS IS IN CHARGE!

A. He continues through the storm
1. Sleeping with the waves
2. Stepping on the waves

B. He calms down the storm in
His time

VI. JESUS IS THE CAPTAIN OF THE SHIP

Luke 5:3 And he entered into one of the ships, which was Simon’s, and
prayed him that he would thrust out a little from the land. And he sat
down, and taught the people out of the ship.

God’s people, the church, are like:

A. A sailing vessel

B. A searching vessel
1. For fish
2. For drowning souls

C. A scholastic vessel
1. Jesus teaches from the ship!

VII. JESUS IS THE CAPTAIN OF THE SKY

Titus 2:13 Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of
the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;

Jesus is in charge

A. Of darkness and sunlight
1. He changes the times and seasons –
Dan. 2:21
2. The seasons are in His power –
Acts 1:7

B. Of drought and showers

C. Of His descent and second coming
1. The graves will open
2. The ground will release its bodies
3. Gravity will be defied
4. The great God and our Savior Jesus
Christ will be glorified and
magnified!

List of New Testament verses not included in modern English translations
These are mentioned to show that the omission of the doubtful verse did not cause the loss of the teaching it expressed.
The sixteen omitted verses
(1) Matthew 17:21
KJV: Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting.
Reason: The verse closely resembles Mark 9:29, but it is lacking in Matthew in א (original handwriting), B, θ, some Italic & Syriac & Coptic & Ethiopic mss. It is, however, found in this place in some Greek mss not quite so ancient – C, D, K, L – as well as some other mss of the ancient versions. It is believed to have been assimilated from Mark.[15]
(2) Matthew 18:11
KJV: For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.
Reason: This verse is lacking in א,B,L (original handwriting), θ, ƒ1, ƒ13, some old Italic & Syriac & Coptic & Georgian mss, and such ancient sources as the Apostolic Canons, Eusebius, Jerome, and others. It is found in some other sources, not quite so ancient, such as D,K,W,X, and the Latin Vulgate. It is not found in any manuscript before the 5th century.[16] According to Bruce Metzger, “There can be little doubt that the words … are spurious here, being omitted by the earliest witnesses representing several textual types… [This verse was] manifestly borrowed by copyists from Luke 19:10.”[17]
(3) Matthew 23:14
KJV: Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows’ houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.
Reason: This verse is very similar to Mark 12:40 and Luke 20:47. This verse is lacking altogether in א,B,D,L,Z,θ, ƒ1, Ethiopic, Armenian, several Italic and Syrian and Coptic mss, and the writings of several early Church Fathers. It appears before verse 13 in K,W, and several minuscules. It appears after verse 13 in ƒ13, some Italic and Syriac and Coptic mss. The fact that it is absent from the most ancient sources of multiple text types and that the sources that do contain the verse disagree about its placement, as well as the fact that it is a repetition of verses found elsewhere, show “that verse 14 is an interpolation derived from the parallel in Mark 12:40 or Luke 20:47 is clear.”[17]
(4) Mark 7:16
KJV: If any man have ears to hear, let him hear.
Reason: This verse is nearly identical with verses 4:9 and 4:23. This verse here is lacking in א,B,L,Δ (original handwriting), some Coptic mss. It is included in mss only slightly less ancient, A,D,K,W,ƒ1,ƒ13, Italic mss, the Vulgate, some other ancient versions. As it is missing in the very oldest resources and yet is identical to verses that remain, many editors seem confident in omitting its appearance here.
(5 & 6) Mark 9:44 & 9:46
KJV: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. .. (Both verses identical to each other, and to 9:48, which is still in the main text)
Reason: Both verses 44 and 46 are duplicates of verse 48, which remains in the text. Verses 44 and 46 are both lacking in א,B,C,L,W,ƒ1, and some mss of the ancient versions, but appear in somewhat later sources such as A,D,K,θ, some Italic mss and the Vulgate. It is possible that verse 48 was repeated by a copyist as an epistrophe, for an oratorical flourish.[18] The UBS text assigns this omission a confidence rating of A.
(7) Mark 11:26
KJV: But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses.
Reason: This verse is very similar to Matthew 6:15. This verse appeared in the Complutensian Polyglot and most Textus Receptus editions but Erasmus noted that it was missing from ‘most’ Greek manuscripts.[19] The UBS edition gave the omission of this verse a confidence rating of A.
(8) Mark 15:28
KJV: And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, “And he was numbered with the transgressors.”
Reasons: This verse is similar to Luke 22:37. It does not appear here in any New Testament ms prior to the end of the 6th century.[20]
(9) Luke 17:36
KJV: Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
Reason: It is possible that this verse is a repetition of Matthew 24:40. Even the King James Version had doubts about this verse, as it provided (in the original 1611 edition and still in many high quality editions) a sidenote that said, “This 36th verse is wanting in most of the Greek copies.” This verse is missing from Tyndale’s version (1534) and the Geneva Bible (1557). Among major Textus Receptus editions, this verse does not appear in the editions of Erasmus (1516–1535), Aldus (1518), Colinaeus (1534), Stephanus 1st – 3rd eds (1546–1550), but it did appear in the Complutensian (1514), and in the margins of Stephanus 4th ed (1551), and all of Elzivir’s and Beza’s eds (1565–1604).[21] In modern conservative Greek editions it is also omitted from the main text of Scrivener’s Greek NT according to the Textus Receptus, and the two Majority Text editions. Verse 36 is included by very few Greek manuscripts of the Western text-type and by Old-Latin and Vulgate manuscripts.[22][23]
(10) John 5:3–4
Main article: John 5 § Interpolation (verses 3b-4)
KJV: 3 . . . waiting for the moving of the water.
4 For an Angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had.
(Note: not only is verse 4 omitted, but also the tail end of verse 3.)
Reason: It is considered unlikely that these words were in the original text of the Gospel. They are lacking in the “earliest and best witnesses”, and several ancient Greek mss that do contain them enclose them with markings indicating doubts about their authenticity, the passage contains words or expressions that appear nowhere else in John (such as the Greek words for “at a certain season [= occasionally]” and “stirring” and “diseases”), and the mss that contain this verse differ among themselves as to the wording.[24] The UBS text gave the omission of this verse a confidence rating of A. This verse was omitted from Edward Harwood’s Greek NT (1776), marked as doubtful in Griesbach’s editions (1777), and thereafter generally relegated to a footnote, enclosed in brackets, or omitted completely.
Henry Alford wrote, “The spuriousness of this controverted passage can hardly be questioned.”[25] Without the words at issue the context simply states that a swimming or bathing pool in or near Jerusalem was a gathering place for sick and crippled people, some of whom sought to get into the pool (either for physical comfort or for ritual cleansing) and it was there that Jesus performed a miraculous healing. But the words quoted above complicate this story by asserting that miraculous cures were already taking place at this pool in the absence of Jesus, owing to the unpredictable intervention of an (apparently invisible) angel. This passage in John 5 is the only mention of this pool – no such miraculous pool is mentioned in Josephus or other histories[26] The words in question do not appear in the oldest manuscripts, and in those manuscripts that contain them they are sometimes marked as doubtful, and differ from manuscript to manuscript “with that extreme variation in the reading which so often indicates grounds for suspicion”.[27]
The italicized words do not appear at all in p66, 75, א, A(original hand), B, C(original hand), L, and some Italic, Syriac, Coptic, and Latin Vulgate manuscripts, and in quotations of the story by several early Greek Fathers. Verse 4 (“For an angel …”) appears but without the concluding words of verse 3 (‘waiting for the stirring of the water …”) in A (where it says the angel “bathed in the water” rather than “descended into the water”), L, 18 (fourteenth century), and an Egyptian manuscript. The concluding words of verse 3 but not any of verse 4 appear in D, 33 (ninth century), and some Latin manuscripts. The entire italicized passage appears in C(third hand), K (also with the angel “bathed in the water”), Δ,Θ,Ψ, and numerous other manuscripts, and some Italic, Syriac, Coptic, and Armenian manuscripts, and several Latin Fathers, Some manuscripts – S,Λ,Π, and a few others – contain the words enclosed by marks of doubt. Among the manuscripts that contain this sentence-and-a-half, there are many variations and permutations.[28]
The Revised Version (1881) omitted the italicized words from its main text, making the passage read: “… a multitude of them that were sick, blind, halt, withered. [5] And a certain man was there …”, and as a side-note, “Many ancient authorities insert, wholly or in part,” and here present the italicized words exactly as they appeared in the KJV. Several modern versions similarly relegate those words to a footnote, and some others (such as Moffatt) include the words in the main text but enclosed in brackets with an explanation in a footnote.
(11) Acts 8:37
Main article: Acts 8 § Verse 37
KJV: And Philip said, “If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest.” And he [the Eunuch] answered and said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”
Modern versions: Either sidelined to a footnote (e.g., RV, RSV, NRSV, NIV, Hodges & Farstad Majority Text), or omitted altogether (e.g., Moffatt, Goodspeed, Schonfield, Robinson & Pierpont Majority Text).
Reason: The earliest Greek manuscript (Ea/E2) of the New Testament to include this verse dates from the late sixth or early seventh century[29][30] and it is only found in Western witnesses to the text with many minor variations.[31] The majority of Greek manuscripts copied after 600 AD and the majority of translations made after 600 AD do not include the verse.[32][33][34][35] The tradition of the confession was current in the time of Irenaeus[36] as it is cited by him (c. 180)[37] and Cyprian (c. 250)[38]
This verse appears in E (specifically, a portion from a codex consisting of Acts, dated to the 6th century, once owned by Archbishop William Laud and therefore called the Codex Laudianus, sometimes designated E2 or Ea) and several cursives dating after the 9th century (showing many variants), “manuscripts of good character, but quite inadequate to prove the authenticity of the verse,” according to F.H.A. Scrivener.[39] This verse was not found in the Syriac Peshetta, with the result that a printed edition of the Peshetta inserted the verse translated into Syriac by the editors,[39] It is similarly missing from p45, 74, א, A,B,C,P,Ψ, and a multitude of other codices and cursives. Its omission has a USB confidence rating of A.[40] But, as Kurt Aland noted, “The external evidence [for the inclusion of this verse] is so weak that the Nestle apparatus cited only the support for insertion and not for the original omission… The voice which speaks in Acts 8:37 is from a later age, with an interest in the detailed justification of the [Ethiopian] treasurerer’s desire for baptism.”[41] It was omitted in the Complutensian edition, and included in Erasmus’s editions only because he found it as a late note in the margin of a secondary manuscript and, from Erasmus, it found its way into other Textus Receptus editions and then the KJV.[42] As Scrivener said, “We cannot safely question the spuriousness of this verse, which all the critical editors condemn. …”[39]
“For although in the Acts of the Apostles the eunuch is described as at once baptized by Philip, because “he believed with his whole heart,” this is not a fair parallel. For he was a Jew, and as he came from the temple of the Lord he was reading the prophet Isaiah,” (Cyprian)[38] and is found in the Old Latin (2nd/3rd century) and the Vulgate (380–400). In his notes Erasmus says that he took this reading from the margin of 4ap and incorporated it into the Textus Receptus.[43] J. A. Alexander (1857) suggested that this verse, though genuine, was omitted by many scribes, “as unfriendly to the practice of delaying baptism, which had become common, if not prevalent, before the end of the 3rd century.”[44]
(12) Acts 15:34
KJV: Notwithstanding it pleased Silas to abide there still.
Reason: Although this verse, or something similar to it, is quite old, it does not appear in the oldest manuscripts, and the manuscripts that do contain it are inconsistent about its text. It does not appear at all in א, A,B,E,L,P,Ψ, and other mss, some Italic, Syriac, Coptic, Slavonic, the best mss of the Latin Vulgate, and other versions, and quotations of this paragraph in Chrysostom.
The verse as it appears in the KJV is found in less ancient Greek mss (cursives, after the 9th century) and some other Italic, Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic, and other versions. However some other, equally old resources, such as the C codex, and several cursives, change one word to make the verse read, “Notwithstanding it pleased Silas that they should abide there still.”
Several other sources, such as Codex D (Codex Bezae) and some Italic mss, extend the verse with the ending, “and Judas traveled alone”; and a couple of Italic and Latin mss add to that, “to Jerusalem.”[45] Erasmus annotated this verse with the comment that the reference to Judas did not appear in any Greek ms known to him.[46]
As F.H.A. Scrivener put it, “No doubt this verse is an unauthorised addition, self-condemned indeed by its numerous variations. … [It must have begun as] a marginal gloss, designed to explain how … Silas was at hand in verse 40, conveniently for Saint Paul to choose him as a companion in travel.[47]
This verse was omitted from the Revised Version and most modern versions, but many versions include it in a footnote.
(13) Acts 24:6–8
KJV: 6 Who also hath gone about to profane the Temple, whom we took, and would have judged according to our law.
7 But the chief captain, Lysias, came upon us, and with great violence took him away out of our hands,
8 Commanding his accusers to come unto thee, by examining of whom thyself mayest take knowledge of all these things, whereof we accuse him.
(Note above that not only is verse 7 omitted, but also the end of verse 6 and beginning of verse 8.)
To clarify, only the emphasized words are omitted, removing all of verse 7, but leaving the beginning of verse 6 and most of verse 8. The resulting text looks like this (from the Revised Version):
RV: 6 Who moreover assayed to profane the temple; on whom we also laid hold;
8 from whom thou wilt be able, by examining him thyself, to take knowledge of all these things, whereof we accuse him.
Reason: These words are not found in the oldest sources – p74,א, A, B, P, several minuscules, some mss of the Italic, Vulgate, Coptic, and Georgian versions. The words are found in sources not quite as old – E,Ψ, some minuscules (with many variants), some Italic mss, and the Armenian and Ethiopic versions. The absence of these words from the earliest resources, and the several variations in the resources in which they appear, made their exclusion probable but not a certainty (the UBS assigned the omission a confidence rating of only D).[48] While verse 7 is omitted in its entirety, parts of verse 6 and verse 8 are also omitted.
(14) Acts 28:29
KJV: And when he had said these words, the Jews departed, and had great reasoning [arguing] among themselves.
RV: (verse omitted from main text, in footnote with comment, “Some ancient authorities insert verse 29”)
Reason: This verse is lacking in the oldest sources – p74, א, A,B,E,ψ, several minuscules, some Italic, Vulgate, Syriac, Ethiopic, and Coptic mss, and the Armenian and Georgian versions. They appear only in later sources such as P (9th century) and several minuscules, and a smattering of Italic mss.. The UBS gave the omission of this verse a confidence rating of B. Erasmus of Rotterdam, in working up the very first printed Greek New Testament from a multitude of manuscripts, included this note for this verse: “I did not find the words in several old manuscripts.”[49]
(15) Romans 16:24
KJV: The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.
RV: (omitted from main text, in footnote)
Reason: This verse occurs twice in the KJV in this chapter; once as the conclusion to verse 20 and again as verse 24, which is the occurrence omitted from modern versions. The first occurrence (as part of verse 20) is very well supported by ancient resources, including p46, א, A,B,C,P,Ψ, and several ancient versions (although some omit ‘Christ’ and some omit ‘Amen’); its inclusion got a UBS confidence rating of B. However, its recurrence as verse 24 is not so well supported. It does not occur after verse 23 in p46 & 61, א, A,B,C, several minuscules and some other sources; it does appear in D,G,Ψ, minuscule 629 (although G,Ψ, and 629—and both leading compilations of the so-called Majority Text—end the Epistle with this verse and do not follow it with verses 25–27) and several later minuscules; P and some minuscules do not have it as verse 24 but move it to the very end of the Epistle, after verse 27. Westcott and Hort said of the recurrence as verse 24, “This last combination, which rests on hardly any authority, and is due to late conflation, was adopted by Erasmus from the Latin and is preserved in the ‘Received Text’.”[50] The verses immediately before verse 24, the verse 24 itself, and the verses following verse 24 show many variations in the surviving manuscripts. An abbreviated history of the passage is that the conclusion of the Epistle to the Romans was known in several different versions: About the year 144, Marcion made radical changes in the ending of the Epistle to the Romans, breaking it off with chapter 14. At about the same time someone else made in other manuscripts the addition of verses 16:24 and 16:25–27. despite the existence of a concluding benediction at 16:20 (whose purpose was obscured by the greetings appended at 16:21–23). This resulted in a proliferation of readings (at least 15 different permutations among the surviving resources).[51] Because of its absence from the oldest sources and the confusion about its appearance in several of the sources containing it, its omission after verse 23 got a UBS confidence rating of B.[52]
(16) 1 John 5:7–8
Main article: Comma Johanneum
KJV: 7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the holy Ghost, and these three are one.
8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, …
RV: (omitted from main text and not in a footnote)
Reason: A multitude of books have been devoted to just this verse, including: A Vindication of I John V, 7 from the Objections of M. Griesbach [by Thomas Burgess] (1821, London); Das Comma Ioanneum: Auf Seine Hewrkunft Untersucht [The Johannine Comma, an examination of its origin] by Karl Künstle (1905, Frieburg, Switz.); Letters to Mr. Archdeacon [George] Travis in answer to his Defence of the Three Heavenly Witnesses by Richard Porson (1790, London); A New Plea for the Authenticity of the Text of the Three Heavenly Witnesses or Porson’s Letters to Travis Eclectically Examined by Rev. Charles Forster (1867, London), Memoir of The Controversy respecting the Three Heavenly Witnesses, I John V.7 ˈ by ‘Criticus’ [Rev. William Orme] (1830, London), reprinted (1872, Boston, “a new edition, with notes and an appendix by Ezra Abbot” ); and The Three Witnesses – the disputed text in St. John, considerations new and old by Henry T. Armfield (1893, London); and many more.[53] Eberhard Nestle, writing in Germany at the end of 19th century, said, “The fact that it [the Comma Johanneum] is still defended even from the Protestant side is interesting only from a pathological point of view.”[54] F.H.A. Scrivener, usually regarded as a defender of the KJV text, said of this verse, “The authenticity of [this verse] will, perhaps, no longer be maintained by anyone whose judgment ought to have weight; but this result has been arrived at after a long and memorable controversy, which helped keep alive, especially in England, some interest in Biblical studies. …”[55]
Early Church Fathers did not mention this verse, even when eagerly scraping together verses to support the Doctrine of the Trinity.[56] This verse first appears, not in a New Testament manuscript, but in a fifth century Confession of Faith, and after that it was assimilated into mss of the Latin Vulgate, but it was (because of the lack of Greek documentary support) omitted from the first two “Textus Receptus” printed editions of the New Testament (namely those edited by Erasmus, 1516 and 1519),[57] as well as some other very early Textus Receptus editions, such as Aldus 1518, Gerbelius 1521, Cephalius 1524 and 1526, and Colinaeus 1534.[58] Stephanus (Robert Estienne), in his influential Editio Regia of 1550 (which was the model edition of the Textus Receptus in England),[59] was the first to provide an apparatus showing variant readings and showed this verse was lacking in seven Greek manuscripts.[60] Martin Luther rejected this verse as a forgery and excluded it from his German translation of the Bible while he lived – it was inserted into the text by other hands after his death.[61] The first appearance of the Comma in a Greek New Testament manuscript is no earlier than the 15th century.[62]
Doubts about its genuineness were indicated in printed Greek New Testaments as early as that of the first two editions (1515 & 1519) of Erasmus of Rotterdam, who simply left the verse out because he could not find a Greek ms containing it – and provided a comment that “this is all I find in the Greek manuscripts”.[63] Expressions of doubt also appeared in the edition of Stephen Courcelles (Étienne de Courcelles), in 1658, and from Johann Jakob Griesbach’s edition of 1775. Most critical editions relegated the Comma to a footnote or otherwise marked it as doubtful.[64] The American Bible Union,[65] a Baptist organization, omitted this verse from the new English translations of the New Testament it published in the 1860s. The Roman Catholic Church was a bit more resistant about yielding up this verse; an 1897 decision of the Holy Inquisition forbade a Catholic “to deny or even express doubt about the authenticity of” the Johannine Comma, but this was effectively reversed by a declaration of the Holy Office on June 2, 1927, which allows scholars to express doubts and even denials of the genuineness of the Comma, tempered by the fact that the Vatican would have the final authority.[66] and, e.g., the 1966 Jerusalem Bible omits the Comma without a footnote. The spurious nature of this verse is so notorious[67] that even the Revised Version of 1881 did not bother to include nor provide a footnote for this verse, and many other modern versions do likewise. Ezra Abbot wrote, “It may be said that the question [of excluding this verse] is obsolete; that the spuriousness of the disputed passage had long been conceded by all intelligent and fair-minded scholars. This is true, but a little investigation will show that great ignorance still exists on the subject among the less-informed in the Christian community.”[68] Even the two leading editions of the so-called Majority Text (Robinson & Pierpont, and Hodges & Farstad) omit this verse (the Hodges & Farstad edition acknowledge the ‘Textus Receptus’ version of this verse in a footnote).
Some other omitted verses
Matthew 20:16 (b)
KJV: 16 … for many be called, but few chosen.
RV: (omitted without a footnote).
These familiar words are not in א, B,L,Z, several cursives, Sahidic, and some Boharic and Ethiopic mss, but appear in slightly more recent mss such as C,D,W,θ, and Latin mss. Apparently Tischendorff’s 1841 Greek NT was the first printed edition to omit this clause. The same words appear in Matthew 22:14.
Mark 6:11 (b)
KJV: 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 Gomorrah in the Day of Judgement, than for that city. 6:12 And they
went out, and preached …
RV: (omits the emphasized words, without a footnote).
Reason: Many (perhaps most) modern versions emulate the Revised Version and simply omit the sentence in question, without any explanatory comment. This is a complete sentence and yet it did not receive, in the Textus Receptus editions, a verse number of its own. It does not appear here in the majority of important codices, such as א,B,C,D,L,W,Δ,Θ, and Latin, Sahidic, and some Syriac and Boharic manuscripts. It does, however, appear in some significant manuscripts, including ƒ1,13, A, two very old Latin manuscripts, and some Syriac and Boharic manuscripts, and with slight differences in minuscule 33 (9th century). It was already doubted even before the KJV; this sentence does not appear in Wycliff (1380), the Bishops’ Bible (1568), and the Rheims (1582). Westcott and Hort omitted it and did not even mention it in their Appendix volume, nor is it mentioned in Scrivener’s Plain Introduction to Criticism of the New Testament, nor is it mentioned in Metzger’s Commentary, nor does it get even a footnote in the [| Souter] or UBS Greek New Testament. Henry Alford’s edition of the New Testament includes this sentence in the main text, but bracketed and italicized, with the brief footnote: “omitted in most ancient authorities: probably inserted here from Matthew 10:15.”[69] The same two sentences do appear, without any quibbling about their authenticity, in Matthew 10:14–15, and it is plausible that some very early copyist assimilated the sentence into Mark, perhaps as a sidenote subsequently copied into the main text. In any case, its omission from Mark 6:11 does not effect its unchallenged presence in Matthew 10:15.
Luke 4:8 (b)
KJV: “And Jesus answered and said unto to him [the Devil], ‘ Get thee behind me, Satan, for it is written, …’
RV: (omits the emphasized words, without a footnote).
Reason: The emphasized words, although by now a very familiar quotation, are omitted from the RV and most other modern versions; it was also omitted by the Wycliffe (1380) and Rheims (1582) versions. This clause is not found in א,B,D,L,W,Ξ, ƒ1, several cursives, and Latin, Sahidic, and many Syriac and Boharic mss. It is present in A,Θ,Ψ,ƒ13, and some Italic mss. It is believed probable that the clause was inserted here by assimilation because the corresponding version of this narrative, in Matthew, contains a somewhat similar rebuke to the Devil (in the KJV, “Get thee hence, Satan,”; Matthew 4:10, which is the way this rebuke reads in Luke 4:8 in the Tyndale [1534], Great Bible (also called the Cranmer Bible) [1539], and Geneva [1557] versions), whose authenticity is not disputed, and because the very same words are used in a different situation in Matthew 16:23 and Mark 8:33. The omission of this clause from Luke 4:8 in critical texts is so well-established that no comment about the omission appears in the Appendix to Westcott & Hort, in Scrivener’s Plain Introduction to Textual Criticism, or in the UBS New Testament.
Luke 9:55–56
KJV: 55″But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of.
56For the Son of man is not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them. And they went to another village.”
RV: 55But he turned and rebuked them. 56And they went to another village.
[the Revised Version has a marginal note:
“Some ancient authorities add ‘ and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of.’ Some, but fewer, add also: ‘ For the Son of man came not to destroy men’s lives, but to save them.’ “
Many modern versions omit these words without a note.]
Reasons: The shorter version is found in very early manuscripts, although the longer version is used by most Latin manuscripts, which is why it is also present in early English translations. The shorter version, omitting the doubted phrases in both verses, appears in א,A,B,C,L,W,X,Δ,Ξ,Ψ,p45,75, but the words do appear (with minor variants) in some slightly later authorities, such as D and K (D contains the phrase in verse 55, but not the phrase in verse 56). The UBS gives the omission of the doubted phrases a confidence rating of only C, and Westcott and Hort “thought it safer” to have the words in the main text but enclosed in single brackets.[70]
Luke 23:17
KJV: For of necessity he must release one unto them at the feast.
(The GNB, as a footnote, gave this as: At every Passover Festival Pilate had to set free one prisoner for them.)
Reasons: The same verse or a very similar verse appears (and is preserved) as Matthew 27:15 and as Mark 15:6. This verse is suspected of having been assimilated into Luke at a very early date. But it is missing from Luke in such early manuscripts as p75 (early Third century),A,B,K,L, the Sahidic version, a Bohairic ms, and an Italic ms. On the other hand, it does appear in א,W,ƒ1, 13, and some Syriac and Bohairic mss, which indicates that its assimilation into Luke had begun at a fairly early time. However, D, the Ethiopic version, and some Italic and Syriac mss put this verse after what is called verse 18, which may further indicate that it was an insertion rather than part of the authorial text.[71] Moffatt characterized this verse as “an explanatory and harmonistic gloss.”[72] The verse in Luke does differ from the contexts of the similar verses at Matthew 27:15 and Mark 15:6, where releasing a prisoner on Passover is a “habit” or “custom” of Pilate, and at John 18:39 is a custom of the Jews – but in its appearance in Luke it becomes a necessity for Pilate regardless of his habits or preferences, “to comply with a law which never existed.”[73] Aland lays stress on the differences among the Gospel accounts and says, “Even though א reads the insertion, the evidence for … omission is stronger by far.”[74][75]
Acts 9:5–6
KJV: 5 And he [Paul] said, ‘Who art thou Lord?’ and the Lord said, ‘I am Jesus whom
thou persecutest. It is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.’
6 And he, trembling and astonished, said, ‘Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?’ And the Lord said
unto him, ‘Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.’
(All in bold type omitted in modern versions)
RV: 5 … ‘I am Jesus whom thou persecutest; 6 but rise, and enter into the city, and
it shall be told thee what thou must do.’ …
Reason: The passage in question is omitted from virtually all modern versions (including both Majority Text editions), frequently without even a footnote. The reason for its omission is quite persuasive. As Bruce M. Metzger puts it, “So far as is known, no Greek witness reads these words at this place; they have been taken from [Acts] 26:14 and 22:10, and are found here in codices of the Vulgate. … The spurious passage came into the Textus Receptus when Erasmus translated it from the Latin Vulgate and inserted it in his first edition of the Greek New Testament (Basel, 1516). [76] The 18th century Bible scholar, Johann David Michaelis, wrote (c. 1749), “[This] long passage … has been found in not a single Greek manuscript, not even in those which have been lately [ca. 1785] collated by Matthai. It is likewise wanting in the Complutensian edition; but it was inserted by Erasmus [translating it from the Latin Vulgate], and upon his authority it has been adopted by the other editors of the Greek Testament…This passage then, which later editors have copied from Erasmus, and which is contained in our common editions, is not only spurious, but was not even taken from a Greek manuscript.”[77] The passage does not appear in the Complutensian Polyglot (1516) and noted as doubtful in Wettstein’s 1763 London edition, and since then it scarcely appeared in the main text and sometimes not even as a footnote in editions of the Greek New Testament and modern translations.
Acts 13:42
KJV: And when the Jews were gone out of the Synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next Sabbath.
(all in bold type omitted in modern versions)
RV: And as they went out, they besought that these words might be spoken to them the next sabbath.
Reasons: The KJV passage, with its explicit mention of Gentiles interested in the events of the next Sabbath, is a sort of proof text for those denominations that adhere to Seventh Day worship. For example, Benjamin G. Wilkinson, in his 1930 book, Our Authorized Bible Vindicated, says “The Authorized Version pictures to us the congregation, composed of Jews and Gentiles. By this distinction it reveals that a number of the Gentiles were present… All this is lost in the Revised Version by failing to mention the Jews and the Gentiles. … Does not this affect fundamental doctrine?”[78] However, the RV’s text is that of the earliest and most esteemed mss – p74, א,A,B,C,D, and many others, including the Vulgate and other ancient versions; the appearance of the words for Jews and for Gentiles (ethna) occurs in Codices Ψ and P (both ninth cent.) and a number of later mss. A possible reason for the rewriting of this verse is that the original is awkward and ambiguous—the Greek text says “they went out … they requested”, without any further identification; it is not clear who the two “they” are, whether they are the same or different groups. Bishops Westcott and Hort describe the original (RV) reading as “the obscure and improbable language of the text as it stands.”[79] Even before the KJV, the Wycliffe version (1380) and the Douay-Rheims version (1582) had renderings that resembled the original (Revised Version) text. The ambiguity of the original reading has motivated some modern interpretations to attempt to identify “they”—e.g., the Good News Bible, the New American Standard, the NIV, and the New RSV, have Paul and Barnabas going out and ‘the people’ inviting them to repeat or expand on their preaching.
Acts 23:9 (b)
KJV: Let us not fight against God.
RV: (omitted without a note)
Reasons: This phrase, which also appears in Acts 5:39, does not appear in the earliest and best resources – p74, א,A,B,C (original hand),E,Ψ. Latin, Syriac, and others – and does not appear until H,L, and P (all 9th century). As the original verse ended with a question, it is suspected that this phrase was taken from 5:39 to serve as an answer. Even before the KJV, it was omitted in the Wycliffe and Douay-Rheims versions. It was omitted from editions of the Greek New Testament at least as far back as 1729, in Daniel Mace’s edition. [80]
Not omitted but boxed
There are two passages (both 12 verses long) that continue to appear in the main text of most of the modern versions, but distinguished in some way from the rest of the text, such as being enclosed in brackets or printed in different typeface or relegated to a footnote. These are passages which are well supported by a wide variety of sources of great antiquity and yet there is strong reason to doubt that the words were part of the original text of the Gospels. In the words of Philip Schaff, “According to the judgment of the best critics, these two important sections are additions to the original text from apostolic tradition.”[81]
Mark 16:9–20
Main article: Mark 16
KJV: 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;[82] 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.
This section is written like a personal reflection, personal essay, or argumentative essay that states a Wikipedia editor’s personal feelings or presents an original argument about a topic. Please help improve it by rewriting it in an encyclopedic style. (April 2018) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
Reasons: Entire volumes have been written about these twelve verses,[83] and considerable attention is paid to these verses in many (or most) texts on textual criticism of the New Testament, and many articles in learned journals. According to Reuss, the 1849 Greek New Testament of Tischendorf was the first to remove these verses from the main text.[84]
The twelve verses shown in the KJV, called the “longer ending” of Mark, usually are retained[85] in modern versions, although sometimes separated from verse 8 by an extra space, or enclosed in brackets, or relegated to a footnote, and accompanied by a note to the effect that this ending is not found in the very oldest Greek mss but it is found in sources almost as old.
The RV of 1881 put an extra space between verse 8 and this verse 9 and included a marginal note to that effect, a practice followed by many subsequent English versions. The RSV edition of 1947 ends its main text at verse 8 and then in a footnote provides this ending with the note that “other texts and versions” include it; but the revised RSV of 1971 and the NRSV reverted to the practice of the RV.
Although the Longer Ending appears in 99% of the surviving Greek mss and most ancient versions,[86] there is strong evidence, both external and internal, for concluding that it was not part of the original text of the Gospel.
The preceding portion of chapter 16 tells how Mary Magdalene and two other women came to the tomb, found it opened and Jesus’s body missing, and were told by a young man in a white robe to convey a message to Peter and the other disciples, but the women fled and said nothing to anyone because they were frightened. The last words of verse 8 are, in Greek, έφοβούντο γάρ, usually translated “for they were afraid”. It is nowadays widely accepted that these are the last remaining verses written by St. Mark.[87] The Gospel of St. Mark ends (somewhat abruptly) at end of verse 8 (“for they were afraid.”) in א and B (both 4th century) and some much later Greek mss, a few mss of the ancient versions (Syriac, Coptic, Armenian), and is specifically mentioned in the writings of such Church Fathers as Eusebius and Jerome explicitly doubted the authenticity of the verses after verse 8, most other Church Fathers don’t quote from this ending. No papyrus contains any portion of the 12 verses.[88]
On the other hand, these 12 verses occur in slightly less ancient Greek mss, A,C,D,K,θ,ƒ13, and a “vast number” of others,[89] and a great many mss of the ancient versions, and is quoted by some other Church Fathers, the earliest being Irenaeus (although his quotations are imprecise).[90] So it would appear, initially, that the evidence was nearly in equipoise.
Yet other ancient sources include this longer ending – but mark it with asterisks or other signs or notations indicating the copyists had doubts about its authenticity, most notably ƒ1 and several minuscules (all twelfth century or later), according to the UBS notes and Bruce Metzger.[89]
Although this Longer Ending is of great antiquity, some early Church Fathers were familiar with mss that lacked it. Eusebius, in the first half of the fourth century, wrote, in response to a query from a man named Marinus, about how Matthew 28:1 conflicts with the Longer Ending on which day Jesus rose from the dead, with the comment, “He who is for getting rid of the entire passage [at the end of Mark] will say that it is not met with in all the copies of Mark’s Gospel; the accurate copies, at all events, making the end of Mark’s narrative come after the words … ‘… for they were afraid.’ [verse 8] For at those words, in almost all copies of the Gospel According to Mark, comes the end. What follows, which is met with seldom, [and only] in some copies, certainly not in all, might be dispensed with; especially if it should prove to contradict the record of the other Evangelists. This, then, is what a person will say who is for evading and entirely getting rid of a gratuitous problem.” Eusebius goes on to try to reconcile the Longer Ending with the other Gospel accounts, if the Longer Ending were to be regarded as authentic.[91] St. Jerome, in the first half of the fifth century, received a very similar query from a lady named Hedibia and responded, “Either we should reject the testimony of Mark, which is met with in scarcely any copies of the Gospel, – almost all the Greek codices being without this passage, – especially since it seems to narrate what contradicts the other Gospels; – or else, we shall reply that both Evangelists state what is true.”[92] This might be thought an authoritative statement but Jerome compromised it by including the Longer Ending, without any apparent notation about doubting it, in his Latin Vulgate, and Burgon (among others) thinks this inclusion is an endorsement of its authenticity.[93] It has been suggested or suspected that Jerome’s expression of doubt was actually a rehash of the similar comment by Eusebius,[94] but, to the contrary, it is possible that Jerome was unaware of this particular opinion of Eusebius, considering that it was utterly unknown to modern scholars until its fortuitous discovery in 1825. Burgon also found a patristic comment previously attributed to Gregory of Nyssa (of the late fourth century), but which he suspected was more likely written by Hesychius of Jerusalem (middle of the fifth century) or Severus of Antioch (middle sixth century), again answering the same sort of query, and saying, “In the more accurate copies, the Gospel according to Mark has its end at ‘for they were afraid.’ In some copies, however, this also is added – ‘Now when He was risen early [on] the first day of the week, He appeared first to Mary Magdalene …’.” In this instance Gregory of Nyssa (or Hesychius or Severus) goes on to eliminate the problem by suggesting the imposition of punctuation different from that used in any of the Greek manuscripts (the earliest had no punctuation at all, the later mss had little more than commas and periods) or in the KJV, to make the first verse of the Longer Ending appear to be “Now when He was risen: Early on the first day of the week He appeared first to Mary Magdalene …” In other words, that Jesus had risen presumably at the end of the Sabbath, as suggested in the other Gospels, but He did not appear to Mary Magdalene until the next day.[95]
Actually, Greek codex W (also known as the Freer Gospels or the Codex Washingtonianus), dating from the fourth or fifth century, is the oldest known Greek ms that sets forth the Longer Ending[96] and it contains a lengthy addition (which appears nowhere else), known as the Freer Logion, between the familiar verses 14 and 15.[97] The addition in Codex W is included in James Moffatt’s 1935 translation, with a note indicating Moffatt’s belief[98] that it was part of the original text of the longer ending “but was excised for some reason at an early date.” It was not included in the RSV, but is set forth in a footnote to verse 14 in the NRSV with the comment that “other ancient authorities [sic plural] add, in whole or part”. The addition, as translated by Moffatt:
But they excused themselves saying, “This age of lawlessness and unbelief lies under the sway of Satan,
who will not allow what lies under the unclean spirits to understand the truth and power of God;
therefore,” they said to Christ, “reveal your righteousness now.”
Christ answered them, “The term of years for Satan’s power has now expired, but other terrors are at hand.
I was delivered to death on behalf of sinners, that they might return to the truth and sin no more,
that they might inherit that glory of righteousness which is spiritual and imperishable in heaven.”
In 1891, Frederick Cornwallis Conybeare, while collating several ancient Armenian manuscripts in the library of the monastery at Ećmiadzin, at the foot of Mount Ararat, in what is now Turkey, found a uncial codex written in the year 986, bound with ivory front and back covers. As Conybeare described it:[99] “Now in this codex the Gospel of Mark is copied out as far as έφοβούντο γάρ [i.e., the end of 16:8]. Then a space of two lines is left, after which, in the same uncial hand, only in red, is written “Ariston Eritzou.” which means “Of the Presbyter Ariston.” This title occupies one whole line (the book is written in double columns) and then follow the last twelve verses [i.e., the Longer Ending] still in the same hand. They begin near the bottom of the second column of a verse, and are continued on the recto of the next folio.” The text in this Armenian codex is a literal translation of the Longer Ending from the Greek mss.[100] In other words, the Longer Ending was attributed, in this tenth century Armenian codex, to a “Presbyter Ariston”. Conybeare theorized that Ariston was the Armenian version of the Greek name Aristion. Of a number of Aristions known to history, Conybeare favored the Aristion who had traveled with the original Disciples and was known to Papias, a famous Bishop of the early 2nd century; a quotation from Papias, mentioning Aristion as a Disciple, is found in the Historia Ecclesiastica of Eusebius, 3:39:4.[101] Other candidates includes an Aristo of Pella, who flourished around the year 140, also mentioned by Eusebius in the Historia Ecclesiastica, 4:6:3, favored by Alfred Resch,[102] but Conybeare considered him too late to have written the Longer Ending in time for it to have achieved its widespread acceptance.[103] An examination of 220 Armenian mss of Mark showed that 88 contained the Longer Ending as a regular part of the text, 99 stop at verse 8, and 33 contained the Longer Ending as a subsequent insertion into the mss.[104] It may be significant that where the Armenian mss do reproduce the Longer Ending, some have conspicuous variants from the Greek version,[105] and a few Armenian mss put the Longer Ending elsewhere than at the end of Mark – of the 220 Armenian mss studied, two put the Longer Ending at the end of the Gospel of John, and one puts it at the end of Luke, and one ms has the Longer Ending at the end of Mark and the Shorter Ending at the end of the Gospel of Luke.[106] Even into the 17th century, some Armenian copyists were omitting the Longer Ending or including it with a note doubting its genuineness.[107]
But this situation is a bit more complicated. Some other ancient sources have an entirely different ending to Mark, after verse 8, known as the “Shorter Ending”. The RV of 1881 contained a footnote attesting to the existence of this Shorter Ending but its text did not appear in a popular edition of the Bible until somewhat later.[108] It appeared in the footnote at this place in the RSV and then in brackets in the main text of the NRSV:
RSV & NRSV: But they reported briefly to Peter and those with him all that they had been told.
After this, Jesus himself sent out by means of them,
from east to west, the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation.
This Shorter Ending appears, by itself, after verse 8, in only one ms, an Italic ms (Codex Bobbiensis, “k”), of the 4th or 5th century. But there are a handful of other sources that contain the Shorter Ending then add the longer ending after it.[89] The Shorter Ending is found in Greek in Fragment Sinaiticum (“0112”) (7th century), Fragment Parisiense (“099”) (8th cent.), Codex Regius (“L”) (8th cent.) and Codex Athous Laurae (“Ψ”) (8th or 9th century); in the first three it is preceded with a copyist’s note about being found in only some mss, in Ψ it follows verse 8 without such a note, and in all four the Shorter Ending is followed by the Longer Ending.[109] It is also reported to appear similarly (first shorter, then longer ending) in some ancient versions. Wherever the Shorter Ending appears, even when combined with the Longer Ending, there is some separation in the text (decoration or a copyist’s notation) immediately after verse 8; the only exception being Codex Ψ, which treats the Shorter Ending as the proper continuation after verse 8 – but then inserts a copyist’s note before providing the Longer Ending.[110]
As a result, there are five possible endings to the Gospel of Mark: (1) An abrupt ending at end of verse 8; (2) the Longer Ending following verse 8; (3) the Longer Ending including the “Freer Logion”; (4) the Shorter Ending following verse 8; and (5) the Shorter and Longer endings combined (and we could add as a sixth possible ending, anything after verse 8 enclosed in brackets or otherwise distinguished with indicia of doubt).[111]
It would appear that the longer ending does not fit precisely with the preceding portion of chapter 16. For example, verse 9 says Jesus appeared to Mary Magdalene on “the first day of the week”, yet verse 2 said that same day Mary Magdalene did not see Jesus. Perhaps more significantly, verse 9 finds it necessary to identify Mary Magdalene as the woman who had been freed of seven demons, as if she had not been named before, yet she was mentioned without that detail being mentioned in 15:47 and 16:1.[112] Verse 9 in Greek does not mention Jesus by name or title, but only says “Having arisen … he appeared …” (the KJV’s inclusion of the name Jesus was an editorial emendation as indicated by the use of italic typeface) – and, in fact, Jesus is not expressly named until verses 19 and 20 (“the Lord” in both verses); a lengthy use of a pronoun without identification.[113] Additionally, the style and vocabulary of the longer ending appear not to be in the same style as the rest of the Gospel. The Greek text used by the KJV translators is 166 words long, using a vocabulary of (very approximately) 140 words.[114] Yet, out of that small number, 16 words do not appear elsewhere in the Gospel of Mark, 5 words are used here in a different way than used elsewhere in Mark, and 4 phrases do not appear elsewhere in Mark.[115] The shorter ending, in Greek, is approximately (depending on the variants) 32 words long,[116] of which 7 words do not appear elsewhere in Mark.[117] The Freer Logion consists of 89 words,[118] of which 8 words do not appear elsewhere in Mark.[117] The stylistic differences suggest that none of these was written by the author of the Gospel of St. Mark. Metzger speaks of the “inconcinnities” [sic] between the first 8 verses of chapter 16 and the longer ending, and suggests, “all these features indicate that the section was added by someone who knew a form of Mark that ended abruptly with verse 8 and who wished to supply a more appropriate conclusion.”[119] Plummer puts it very strongly, “The twelve verses not only do not belong to Mark, they quite clearly belong to some other document. While Mark has no proper ending, these verses have no proper beginning. … Not only does verse 9 not fit onto verse 8, but the texture of what follows is quite different from the texture of what precedes. A piece torn from a bit of satin is appended to the torn end of roll of homespun.”[113]
The preceding verse, verse 16:8. ends abruptly. Although the KJV and most English translations render this as the end of a complete sentence (“for they were afraid.”), the Greek words έφοβούντο γάρ suggest that the sentence is incomplete. The word γάρ is a sort of conjunction and rarely occurs at the end of a sentence.[120] The word έφοβούντο does not mean merely “afraid” but suggests a mention to the cause of the fear, as if to say “they were afraid of – – -“, but this cause of fear is not stated in the verse.[121] The attachment of neither the Longer nor Shorter Ending (nor both of them) smooth this “ragged edge to an imperfect document.”[122] There is also a problem with the narrative; verses 6 and 7, whose genuineness is undoubted, says that Jesus is “not here” (in Jerusalem) but will appear to them and the disciples in Galilee. The Shorter Ending does not contradict this, but the Longer Ending, in verse 9, immediately contradicts this by having Jesus appear to Mary Magdalene while in Jerusalem, and in verse 12 to two disciples apparently not yet in Galilee. This inconsistency has been considered significant by some.[123]
Although the Longer Ending was included, without any indication of doubt, as part of chapter 16 of the Gospel of St. Mark in the various Textus Receptus editions, the editor of the first published Textus Receptus edition, namely Erasmus of Rotterdam, discovered (evidently after his fifth and final edition of 1535) that the Codex Vaticanus ended the Gospel at verse 8, whereupon he mentioned doubts about the Longer Ending in a manuscript which lay unpublished until modern times.[124] The omission of the Longer Ending in the Codex Vaticanus apparently was not realized again until rediscovered in 1801 by the Danish scholar Andreas Birch (whose discovery got very little publicity owing to a fire that destroyed his newly published book before it could be much distributed).[124] After that, the omission was again rediscovered by Johann Jakob Griesbach, and was reflected in his third edition (1803) of the Greek New Testament, where he ended the Gospel at verse 8 and separated the Longer Ending and enclosed it in brackets,[124] very much as most modern editions of the Greek text and most modern English versions continue to do.
A commonly accepted theory for the condition of the last chapter of the Gospel of Mark is that the words actually written by St. Mark end, somewhat abruptly, with verse 8. This abrupt ending may have been a deliberate choice of St. Mark or because the last part of his writing (after verse 8) was somehow separated from the rest of his manuscript and was lost (an alternative theory is that St. Mark died before finishing his Gospel). From the incomplete manuscript the copies that end abruptly at verse 8 were directly or remotely copied. At some point, two other people, dissatisfied with the abrupt ending at verse 8, and writing independently of each other, supplied the Longer and the Shorter endings.[125] The longer ending was written perhaps as early as the last decade of the First Century and acquired some popularity, and the shorter ending could have been written even as late as a few centuries later. The “lost page” theory has gotten wide acceptance,[126] other theories have suggested that the last page was not lost by accident but was deliberately suppressed, perhaps because something in St. Mark’s original conclusion was troublesome to certain Christians.[127] No matter how or why the original and genuine conclusion to the Gospel disappeared, the fact remains that neither the Longer nor Shorter endings provides an authentic ending to verse 8.[119] Explanations aside, it is now widely (although not unanimously) accepted that St. Mark’s own words end with verse 8 and anything after that was written by someone else at a later date.[128]
John 7:53–8:11
Main article: Pericope adulterae
KJV: 7:53 And every man went unto his own house.
8:1 Jesus went unto the Mount of Olives;
2 And early in the morning he came again unto the Temple, and all the people came unto him, and he sat down, and taught them.
3 And the Scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery, and when they had set her in the midst,
4 They say unto him, “Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.
5 Now Moses in the Law commanded us that such should be stoned, but what sayest thou?”
6 This they said, tempting [testing] him, that they might have to [be able to] accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground[129] as though he heard them not.
7 So when they continued asking him, he lift up himself, and said unto them, “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.”
8 And again, he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.[130]
9 And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last, and Jesus was left alone, and [with] the woman standing in the midst.
10 When Jesus had lift up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, “Woman, where are thine accusers? Hath no man condemned thee?”
11 She said, “No man, Lord.” And Jesus said unto her, “Neither do I condemn thee. Go, and sin no more.”
Reason: This familiar story of the adulteress saved by Jesus is a special case. These dozen verses have been the subject of a number of books, including Chris Keith, The Pericope Adulterae, the Gospel of John, and the Literacy of Jesus (2009, Leiden & Boston, E.J. Brill); David Alan Black & Jacob N. Cerone, eds., The Pericope of the Adulteress in Contemporary Research (2016, London & NY, Bloomsbury T&T Clark); and John David Punch, The Pericope Adulterae: Theories of Insertion & Omission (2012, Saarbruken, Lap Lambert Academic Publ’g.). The principal problem affecting this paragraph is that, although it appears in many ancient manuscripts, it does not consistently appear in this place in chapter 8 nor even in the Gospel of John. Moreover, in the various manuscripts in which the passage appears, it presents a much greater number of variations[131] than an equal portion of the New Testament – so much so, that it would seem that there are three distinct versions of the pericope.[132]
By its own context, this paragraph appears misplaced; in the verse preceding this pericope (namely verse 7:52) Jesus is conversing or arguing with a group of men, and in the verse following this pericope (verse 8:12) he is speaking “again unto them”, even though verses 8:9–10 would indicate he was alone in the Temple courtyard and also that a day has passed. It would seem possible that, originally, 7:52 was immediately followed by 8:12, and somehow this pericope was inserted between them, interrupting the narrative.[133]
The pericope does not appear in the oldest Codexes – א, A,B,C,L,N,T,W,X,Δ,θ,Ψ – nor in papyri p66 or p75, nor in minuscules 33, 157, 565, 892, 1241, or ƒ1424 nor in the Peshitta.[134] Scrivener lists more than 50 minuscules that lack the pericope, and several more in which the original scribe omitted it but a later hand inserted it. It is also missing from the Syriac and Sahidic versions and some Egyptian versions. The earliest Greek Codex showing this pericope at all is D (Codex Bezae), of the 5th or 6th century, and some Old Latin manuscripts no older than the 5th century, and many subsequent Greek and Latin mss all at the familiar location following John 7:52. The first Greek Church Father to mention the pericope in its familiar place was Euthymius, of the 12th century.
Westcott and Hort summarized the evidence as follows:
“Not only is [the section on the Woman taken in Adultery] passed over in silence in every Greek commentary of which we have any knowledge, down to that of Theophylact inclusive (11th–12th centuries); but with the exception of a reference in the Apostolic Constitutions (? 4th century), and a statement by an obscure Nicon (10th century or later) that it was expunged by the Armenians, not the slightest allusion to it has yet been discovered in the whole of Greek theology before the 12th century. The earliest Greek mss containing it, except the Western Codex Bezae [5th century], are of the 8th century. … It has no right to a place in the Fourth Gospel, yet it is evidently from an ancient source, and it could not now without serious loss be entirely banished from the New Testament.”[135]
However, one minuscule (ms. 225) placed the pericope after John 7:36. Several – ƒ1 – placed it at the very end of the Gospel of John, and Scrivener adds several more that have so placed a shorter pericope beginning at verse 8:3. Another handful of minuscules – ƒ13 – put it after Luke 21:38. Some manuscripts – S,E,Λ – had it in the familiar place but enclosed the pericope with marks of doubt (asterisks or some other glyph), and Scrivener lists more than 40 minuscules that also apply marks of doubt to the pericope.[136]
Some scholars have suggested that the pericope is not written in the same style as the rest of the Fourth Gospel, and have suggested it is written more in the style of the Gospel of Luke, a suggestion supported by the fact that the ƒ13 manuscripts actually put the pericope into the Gospel of Luke.[137] For example, nowhere else does the Fourth Gospel mention by name the Mount of Olives, and where a new place is mentioned in the Fourth Gospel some explanatory remarks are attached, nor does the Fourth Gospel mention ‘the Scribes’ elsewhere.[138] A theory shared by several scholars is that this pericope represents some very early tradition or folktale about Jesus, not originally found in any of the canonical Gospels, which was so popular or compelling that it was deliberately inserted into a Gospel;[139] a variant on this theory is that this anecdote was written down as a note for a sermon, perhaps in the margin of a codex or on a scrap inserted between the pages of a codex, and a subsequent copyist mistakenly incorporated it in the main text when working up a new copy. Its source might be indicated by Eusebius (early 4th century), in his Historia Ecclesia, book 3, sec. 39, where he says, “Papias [2nd century] … reproduces a story about a woman falsely accused before the Lord of many sins. This is to be found in the Gospel of the Hebrews.”[140]
This pericope was framed with marks of doubt in Johann Jakob Wettstein’s 1751 Greek New Testament and some earlier Greek editions contained notes doubting its authenticity.[141] The evidence that the pericope, although a much-beloved story, does not belong in the place assigned it by many late manuscripts, and, further, that it might not be part of the original text of any of the Gospels, caused the Revised Version (1881) to enclose it within brackets, in its familiar place after John 7:52, with the sidenote, “Most of the ancient authorities omit John 7:53–8:11. Those which contain it vary much from each other.” This practice has been imitated in most of the English versions since then. The Westcott & Hort Greek New Testament omitted the pericope from the main text and places it as an appendix after the end of the Fourth Gospel, with this explanation:[142] “It has no right to a place in the text of the Four Gospels; yet it is evidently from an ancient source, and it could not now without serious loss be entirely banished from the New Testament. … As it forms an independent narrative, it seems to stand best alone at the end of the Gospels with double brackets to show its inferior authority …” Some English translations based on Westcott & Hort imitate this practice of appending the pericope at the end of the Gospel (e.g., The Twentieth Century New Testament), while others simply omit it altogether (e.g., Goodspeed, Ferrar Fenton, the 2013 revision of The New World Version). The Nestle-Aland and UBS Greek editions enclose it in double brackets. The two ‘Majority Text’ Greek editions set forth the pericope in the main text (varying slightly from each other) but provide extensive notes elsewhere[143] attesting to the lack of uniformity in the text of the pericope and doubts about its origin.
Other English translations
O = omitted in main text.
B = bracketed in the main text – The translation team and most biblical scholars today believe were not part of the original text. However, these texts have been retained in brackets in the NASB and the Holman CSB.[144]
F = omission noted in the footnote.
Bible translation
Passage NIV NASB NKJV NRSV ESV HCSB NET NLT WEB REB HCSB AMP CEB CJB CEV ERV GW EXB GNT Knox LEB MSG Mounce NET NIrV NLV OJB
Matthew 9:34 F
Matthew 12:47 F F F F F F O F F F
Matthew 17:21 F B F O F B O F F B F O O O F O O O O O
Matthew 18:11 F B F O F B O O F B F O O O O F O O O O O
Matthew 21:44 F F B F F B F O F F F F O
Matthew 23:14 F B F O F B O O F B F O O O O F O O O O O
Mark 7:16 F B F O F B O O F B F O O O F F O O O O O
Mark 9:44 F B F O F B O O F B O O O O O F O O O O O
Mark 9:46 F B F O F B O O F B O O O O O F O O O O O
Mark 11:26 F B F O F B O O F B O O O O F O O O O O B
Mark 15:28 F B F O F B O O F B F O O O O F O O O O O B
Mark 16:9–20 B B F F B B B B F B F F B F B B B B
Luke 17:36 F B F O F B O O F F B F O O O O F O O O O O
Luke 22:20 F F F F F O
Luke 22:43 B F F B B F B F F F B+F B
Luke 22:44 B F F B B F B F F F F B+F B
Luke 23:17 F B F O F B O O F B F O O F O O F O O O O O B
Luke 24:12 F F O F
Luke 24:40 F F F
John 5:4 F B F O F B O O F B O O O O F O O O O O B B
John 7:53–8:11 B F F B B B B F B B+F B
Acts 8:37 F B F F F B O O F F B F O O O O F O O O O O B B
Acts 15:34 F B F O F O O O F F O F O O O O F O O O O O B
Acts 24:7 F B F O F B O O F F B O O O O O O O O B
Acts 28:29 F B F O F B O O F B F O O O O F O O O O O B
Romans 16:24 F B F O F B O O F B F O O O O F O O O O B
Versification differences
Some English translations have minor versification differences compared with the KJV.
Romans 14 and 16
The KJV ends the Epistle to the Romans with these verses as 16:25–27:
KJV: 25 Now to him that is of power to establish you according to my Gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began:
26 But now is made manifest, and by the Scriptures of the Prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith,
27 To God, only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ, for ever. Amen.

[Note: Different editions of the KJV show various treatments of the punctuation, especially at the end of the verses, and of capitalization, especially at the beginning of the verses. The quotation above uses the punctuation and capitalization of the original 1611 edition of the KJV.]
The KJV has 23 verses in chapter 14 and 33 verses in chapter 15 of Romans.
Most translations follow KJV (based on Textus Receptus) versification and have Romans 16:25–27 and Romans 14:24–26 do not exist.
The WEB bible, however, moves Romans 16:25–27 (end of chapter verses) to Romans 14:24–26 (also end of chapter verses).
WEB explains with a footnote in Romans 16:
Textus Receptus places Romans 14:24–26 at the end of Romans instead of at the end of chapter 14, and numbers these verses 16:25–27
2 Corinthians 13:14
The KJV has:
12 Greet one another with an holy kiss.
13 All the saints salute you.
14 The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God,
and the communion of the Holy Ghost, [be] with you all. Amen.
In some translations, verse 13 is combined with verse 12, leaving verse 14 renumbered as verse 13.[145]
3 John 15
3 John 14–15 ESV are merged as a single verse in the KJV. Thus verse 15 does not exist in the KJV.
The KJV is quoted as having 31,102 verses. This is an exact figure.
The ESV, however, is quoted as having 31,103. This is solely because of this difference. The figure 31,103 is achieved by adding up the last verse for each and every chapter which is why it is impacted by end of chapter differences. The figure 31,103 does not account for the “missing verses” referred to above which are missing mid-chapter. Thus the actual number of verses in the ESV is less than 31,103.
Note that in relation to 2 Corinthians 13:14, another end of chapter anomaly (as opposed to mid-chapter), the ESV and KJV agree.
Revelation 12:18
In the KJV, this is treated as the first half of 13:1:
KJV: And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up …
Some versions, including pre-KJV versions such as the Tyndale Bible, the Geneva Bible, and the Bishops Bible, treat the italicized words as a complete verse and numbered as 12:18, with similar words.
In several modern versions, this is treated as a continuation of 12:17 or as a complete verse numbered 12:18:
RV: And he stood upon the sand of the sea.
(Some say “it stood” – the he or it being the Dragon mentioned in the preceding verses) Among pre-KJV versions, the Great Bible and the Rheims version also have “he stood”.
Reasons: The earliest resources – including p47, א, A,C, several minuscules, several Italic mss, the Vulgate, the Armenian and Ethiopic versions, and quotation in some early Church Fathers – support “he stood” (or “it stood”). The KJV and TR follow codex P (9th century) and a smattering of other (mostly late) resources in reading “I stood”. Metzger suggests that the TR text is the result of copyists’ assimilation to the verb form in 13:1 (“I saw a beast”).[146]
Psalms
This segment deals with part of the Old Testament. The verse numbers used in Hebrew (Jewish) editions of the Old Testament are usually the same numbers as used in the KJV, inasmuch as both used the chapter and verse numbers employed in early printed editions of the Latin Vulgate, but there are exceptions.[147] A table of the places in the Old Testament where the KJV verse numbering differs from that used in printed Hebrew editions is presented, for example, in Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance to the Bible in the appendix on the page following his Hebrew dictionary.[148] Another such table appears in the appendix to The Jewish Study Bible.[149]
The part of the Old Testament where the differences in verse numbering is most conspicuous and frequent is the Book of Psalms (in Hebrew, Tehillim), because the title lines of each Psalm are not assigned a number in the Hebrew editions, whereas in the KJV they are always numbered as 1, and the first lyric verse of the Psalm is numbered as 2. The vast majority of English translations adhere to English KJV verse numbering. However, a few translations vary somewhat.
This list is based on Psalm 51.
Complete Jewish Bible (adheres to Jewish verse numbering)
Douay-Rheims
NABRE (adheres to Jewish verse numbering)
Orthodox Jewish Bible (adheres to English verse numbering but notes Jewish verse numbering also)
The Passion Translation (merges verse numbering)
Tree of Life Version (adheres to Jewish verse numbering)
Second Esdras
This segment deals with a part of the Old Testament Apocrypha, which appeared in the original edition of the KJV (and still appears in some ‘complete’ editions). In the KJV text of chapter 7 of the Second Book of Esdras (this book is also known, in the Latin Vulgate, as Fourth Esdras, or Fourth Ezra, because the Vulgate named the canonical books of Ezra and Nehemiah as First and Second Esdras) the following passage occurs:
KJV: 7:35 [An angel is speaking to Ezra:] “And the work shall follow, and the reward shall be shown,
and the good deeds shall be of force, and wicked deeds shall bear no rule.” ♦ 7:36 Then said I, “Abraham
prayed first for the Sodomites, and Moses for the fathers that sinned in the wilderness…”

This was translated from the available printed editions of the Latin Vulgate, and this is how the text stood in every printed edition of the Vulgate of that time and for nearly three centuries afterward. However, the Second Book of Esdras existed also in non-Latin versions – Arabic, Syriac, Ethiopic, Armenian – and those versions exhibited a lengthy additional text of the between the two verses above, in the spot indicated by the lozenge (♦). This additional text had been noticed, possibly for the first time, in a 14th century Arabic version in the mid-17th century by Oxford scholar John Gregory, and it appeared in print in German books published in the second quarter of the 18th century and it thereafter was translated into English. But this lengthy passage seemed not to appear in any Latin manuscript. And then, around 1826, Professor John Palmer (1769–1840), professor of Arabic at St. John’s College, Cambridge, found a 9th or 10th century Latin manuscript in Alcala, Spain – the Codex Complutensis – which contained the passage. He copied the Latin text but did not make it public and it was kept among his papers at Cambridge after his death. Some 37 years later it was found among his papers and published in the Journal of Philology. However, by that time, Professor Robert L. Bensly of Cambridge had independently found that same passage in another Latin manuscript of the 9th century – the manuscript was Codex Ambianensis, at Amiens, France. In 1865, Professor Johann Gildemeister, of the University of Bonn, discovered that in the oldest Latin manuscript of Second Esdras, the Codex Sangermanensis I, written in 822, formerly kept at the Benedictine Abbey of St. Germain des Prés in Paris and by then kept in the Bibliothèque Nationale, the page between the two verses quoted above – the page on which the missing passage would have appeared – had been cut out and the evidence showed that the page had been deliberately cut out in early times and that virtually all the existing Latin manuscripts of Second Esdras had been copied or derived from that codex after that mutilation. Even now only a handful of Latin manuscripts have been found that contain the “Missing Fragment”. Robert Bensly published a full history of the detective work that discovered the missing passage and the reason it was missing in a book published in 1875.[150]
Bensly was subsequently appointed to the Apocrypha Committee of the Revised Version of the English Bible (he was a published authority on Sirach and Maccabees as well as Second Esdras). He died in 1893, the year before the Revised Version of the Apocrypha was published, but the text set forth the “Missing Fragment” immediately after verse 35, with its own verses numbered inside square brackets, beginning with verse [36] until the end of the Missing Fragment at verse [105], where the previously known text resumes with verse 36 (modern versions differ on how they number the remaining verses in chapter 7). The Revised version presents the verses before and after the Missing Fragment this way (the lozenge ♦ marks the transition):

RV: 7:35 “And the word shall follow, and the reward shall be shewed,
and good deeds shall awake, and wicked deeds shall not sleep. ♦ 7:[36] And the
pit of torment shall appear, and over against it shall be the place of rest; and the furnace
of hell shall be shewed, and over against it the paradise of delight. …
The Missing Fragment adds seventy verses to the text previously known to English-language readers. The Revised Version contained a side-note: “The passage from verse [36] to verse [105], formerly missing, has been restored to the text.” The seventy added verses prophecy a horrifying image of Judgment Day, in which the vast majority of mankind will be damned, and no one will be left to pray for mercy for them. The text that was available in the KJV resumes after verse [105]:

RV: 7:[105] … so never shall anyone pray for another in that day, neither
shall one lay a burden on another, for then shall all bear every one his own righteousness
or unrighteousness.” ♦ 7:36 And I answered and said, “How do we now find
that first Abraham prayed for the people of Sodom, and Moses for the fathers that sinned …”
This disturbing image may be the reason that the page was cut out from the Codex Sangermanensis.[151]
See also

Bible portal
Authority (textual criticism)
Bible version debate
Biblical manuscript
Categories of New Testament manuscripts
An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture
King James Only movement
List of major textual variants in the New Testament
Modern English Bible translations
Textual criticism
Textual variants in the New Testament
Western non-interpolations
References
^ Example, Benjamin G. Wilkinson, Our Authorized Bible Vindicated (1930).
^ Example, J.J. Ray, God Wrote Only One Bible (1955); http://www.asureguidetoheaven.org/onebible.pdf.
^ Example, http://christianboydiary.blogspot.com/2010/01/verses-omitted-from-niv-and-good-news.html .
^ E.g., Alexander Gordon, Christian Doctrine in the Light of New Testament Revision (1882, London)[esp. pages 5–6]; Benjamin G. Wilkinson, Our Authorized Bible Vindicated (1930, Washington, DC)[and often reprinted].
^ E.g., Jaspar James Ray, God Wrote Only One Bible (1955, Junction City, Ore.) [1]; Peter J. Thuesen, In Discordance with the Scriptures: American Protestant Battles over Translating the Bible (1999, Oxford Univ. Press).
^ For example, [2]; [3]; [4]; [5]; [6]; and many more; to which can be added numerous internet videos, such as: [7]; [8]; [9]; [10]; etc.
^ Alexander Souter, Novvm Testamentvm Graece (1910, Oxford, Clarendon Press)(using as its main text the Greek text underlying the RV, edited by Archdeacon Edwin Palmer, with an apparatus worked up by Souter)
^ Eberhard and Erwin Nestle (early editions) and Kurt and Barbara Aland, et al. (recent revisions), Novum Testamentum Graece, (26th ed. 1979, 27th ed. 1993, 28th ed. 2012, Stuttgart, Germany, Deutsche Bibelgeselischaft)
^ Kurt Aland, et al., edd., The Greek New Testament (2nd ed. 1968, 3rd ed. 1976, 4th ed. 1993, 5th ed. 2014, Stuttgart, Germany, United Bible Societies)(the mss citations are virtually unchanged from edition to edition but the confidence ratings for the choices made for the main text are sometimes revised; the confidence ratings also appear in Metzger’s Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament cited below).
^ See, generally, Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland, The Text of The New Testament (rev. ed. 1989, Grand Rapids, Mich., Eerdmans).
^ These references are primarily obtained from the catalog of Eduard Reuss, Bibliotheca Novi Testamenti Graeci (1872, Brunswick). One reason for including this information is to refute the accusations made by some KJVOs that Bishops Westcott and Hort were the originators and instigators of all the omissions occurring in modern versions.
^ Samuel T. Bloomfield, The Greek New Testament (first ed. 1832, Cambridge) vol.2, page 128.
^ E.g., Sixteen verses discovered missing from the word of GOD!; http://kjv.landmarkbiblebaptist.net/missing-verses.html;http://www.missingverses.com/.
^ E.g., Missing Verses & changed words in modern Bibles compared to the KJV?; The NIV leaves out 16 entire verses!.
^ .Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament A Companion Volume to the UBS Greek New Testament (1971, United Bible Societies) loc.cit (this book focuses on the ‘problem’ passages in terms of translation or editing, and is particularly helpful in explaining the likelihood or unlikelihood of scribal errors).
^ Lincoln H. Blumell, A Text-critical comparison of the King James New Testament with certain modern translations, Studies in the Bible and Antiquity, vol. 3 (2011) page 80.
^ a b Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament A Companion Volume to the UBS Greek New Testament (1971, United Bible Societies) loc.cit.
^ Lincoln H. Blumell, A Text-critical comparison of the King James New Testament with certain modern translations, Studies in the Bible and Antiquity, vol. 3 (2011) page 86.
^ Lincoln H. Blumell, A Text-critical comparison of the King James New Testament with certain modern translations, Studies in the Bible and Antiquity, vol. 3 (2011) pages 87–88.
^ Lincoln H. Blumell, A Text-critical comparison of the King James New Testament with certain modern translations, Studies in the Bible and Antiquity, vol. 3 (2011) page 88.
^ Herman C. Hoskier, A Full Account and Collation of the Codex Evangelium 604 (1890, London) App. B, page 5; Lincoln H. Blumell, A Text-critical comparison of the King James New Testament with certain modern translations, Studies in the Bible and Antiquity, vol. 3 (2011) page 95; F.H.A. Scrivener, Novum Testamentum, textus Stephanici (1902, London) loc.cit.; Eduard Reuss, Biblioteca Novi Testamenti Geaeci …, (1872, Brunswick) passim.
^ NA27, p. 218
^ Metzger, Bruce M. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. p. 142–143.
^ [[Frederick Henry [Ambrose] Scrivener]], A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament (3d ed. 1883, London) pages 607–609; Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament A Companion Volume to the UBS Greek New Testament (1971, United Bible Societies) loc.cit.
^ Henry Alford, The New Testament for English Readers (1863, London) vol. 1, part ii, loc.cit.
^ E. W. G. Masterman, The Pool of Bethesda, The Biblical World, vol. 25, nr. 2 (Feb 1905) page 88.
^ [[Frederick Henry [Ambrose] Scrivener]], A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament (3d ed. 1883, London) page 607.
^ [[Frederick Henry [Ambrose] Scrivener]], A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament (3d ed. 1883, London) pages 607–609; Brooke Foss Westcott & Fenton John Anthony Hort, The New Testament in the Original Greek (1881, Cambridge & London, Macmillan & Co.) vol. 2 (Appendix) page 77; Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament A Companion Volume to the UBS Greek New Testament (1971, United Bible Societies) loc.cit.; UBS, loc.cit.; Kurt Aland & Barbara Aland, The Text of the New Testament (2nd ed.1989, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans) page 303.
^ Metzger 1964, p. 52.
^ Lincoln H. Blumell, A Text-critical comparison of the King James New Testament with certain modern translations, Studies in the Bible and Antiquity, vol. 3 (2011) page 114.
^ Metzger, Bruce M. (1971). A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. Stuttgart: United Bible Societies. p. 359.
^ Becker, Siegbert W., Verbal Inspiration and the Variant Readings (PDF), archived from the original (PDF) on September 30, 2015, The fact is that all truly ancient manuscripts omit it entirely, and that almost all very late manuscripts omit it in whole or in part.
^ “Acts 8:37 – Why Omitted in NIV?”. WELS Topical Q&A. Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod. Archived from the original on 2 January 2008.
^ “Acts 8:37 – Decision Theology?”. WELS Topical Q&A. Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod. Archived from the original on 2 January 2008. The NIV places Acts 8:37 in a footnote because the preponderance of manuscript evidence indicates that these words are not part of the original text of Acts. None of the Greek manuscripts of the NT include these words before 600 A.D. None of the early translations of the NT include these words before 600 A.D. Only a couple Greek manuscripts copied after 600 A.D. and only a couple translations made after 600 A.D. include these words. The majority of Greek manuscripts copied after 600 A.D. and the majority of translations made after 600 A.D. do not include these words. It is most unlikely, therefore, that these words are really part of the Bible.
^ “Acts 8:37 – Faith Before Baptism Omitted in NIV”. WELS Topical Q&A. Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod. Archived from the original on 2 January 2008. Acts 8:37 is omitted because the early witnesses to the New Testament text indicate that this was added to the text by someone for some reason between 500 and 700 A.D. The many witnesses we have to the NT text before that time do not include these words.
^ Metzger 1971, p. 360.
^Irenaeus. Against Heresies . Book III, Chapter XII. [Philip declared] that this was Jesus, and that the Scripture was fulfilled in Him; as did also the believing eunuch himself: and, immediately requesting to be baptized, he said, “I believe Jesus Christ to be the Son of God.” This man was also sent into the regions of Ethiopia, to preach what he had himself believed, that there was one God preached by the prophets, but that the Son of this [God] had already made [His] appearance in human nature (secundum hominem).
^ a b Cyprian, qtd. in Pontius the Deacon. The Life and Passion of Cyprian, Bishop and Martyr . Translated by Wallis, Robert Ernest. paragraph 3. For although in the Acts of the Apostles the eunuch is described as at once baptized by Philip, because he believed with his whole heart, this is not a fair parallel. For he was a Jew, and as he came from the temple of the Lord he was reading the prophet Isaiah.
^ a b c [[Frederick Henry [Ambrose] Scrivener]], A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament (3d ed. 1883, London) page 615.
^ Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament A Companion Volume to the UBS Greek New Testament (1971, United Bible Societies) loc.cit.; USB version loc.cit.
^ Kurt Aland & Barbara Aland, The Text of The New Testament (rev. ed. 1987, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans) pages 303–304.
^ Brooke Foss Westcott & Fenton John Anthony Hort, The New Testament in the Original Greek (1881, Cambridge & London, Macmillan & Co.) vol. 2 (Appendix) page 93.
^ Edward F. Hills (1912–1981), “The King James Version Defended: A Christian View of the New Testament Manuscripts” (1956). Chapter 8, The Christian Research Press; 4th edition (August 1997) ISBN 0915923009ISBN 978-0915923007
^ Alexander, J. A. (1967). The Acts of the Apostles. vol. 1. New York: Scribner. p. 349–350.
^ Brooke Foss Westcott & Fenton John Anthony Hort, The New Testament in the Original Greek (1881, Cambridge & London, Macmillan & Co.) vol. 2 (Appendix) page 96; [[Frederick Henry [Ambrose] Scrivener]], A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament (3d ed. 1883, London) pages 619–620; Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament A Companion Volume to the UBS Greek New Testament (1971, United Bible Societies), loc.cit.; UBS loc.cit..
^ Lincoln H. Blumell, A Text-critical comparison of the King James New Testament with certain modern translations, Studies in the Bible and Antiquity, vol. 3 (2011) page 116.
^ [[Frederick Henry [Ambrose] Scrivener]], A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament (3d ed. 1883, London) page 620.
^ Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament A Companion Volume to the UBS Greek New Testament (1971, United Bible Societies) loc.cit.; Lincoln H. Blumell, A Text-critical comparison of the King James New Testament with certain modern translations, Studies in the Bible and Antiquity, vol. 3 (2011) pages 116–117.
^ Lincoln H. Blumell, A Text-critical comparison of the King James New Testament with certain modern translations, Studies in the Bible and Antiquity, vol. 3 (2011) page 118.
^ Brooke Foss Westcott & Fenton John Anthony Hort, The New Testament in the Original Greek (1881, Cambridge & London, Macmillan & Co.) vol. 2 (Appendix) page 113.
^ Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland, The Text of The New Testament (rev. ed. 1989, Grand Rapids, Mich., Eerdmans) pages 295–296.
^ Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament A Companion Volume to the UBS Greek New Testament (1971, United Bible Societies) loc.cit.; Lincoln H. Blumell, A Text-critical comparison of the King James New Testament with certain modern translations, Studies in the Bible and Antiquity, vol. 3 (2011) pages 118–119.
^ A list of 46 “Treatises on the genuineness of the disputed clause in I John V.7,8” appears in “An Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures” by Thomas Hartwell Horne (2nd ed. 1836, Philadelphia) vol. 2, Part II, Chap. III, page 80–83.
^ Eberhard Nestle, Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the Greek New Testament (transl. by William Edie from the 2nd ed. [1899, Gottingen, page 260]) (1901, London) page 327.
^ [[Frederick Henry [Ambrose] Scrivener]], A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament (3d ed. 1883, London) page 648.
^ [[Frederick Henry [Ambrose] Scrivener]], A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament (3d ed. 1883, London) page 651.
^ Andrew Dickson White, A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology (1896, NY, Appleton) vol. 2, page 304; Henk Jan de Jonge, Erasmus and the Comma Johanneum, Ephermerides Theologicae Lovanienses, vol. 56, nr. 4 (1980) page 381; Margalit Finkelberg, The Original versus the Received Text with Special Emphasis on the case of the Comma Johanneum, International Journal of Classical Tradition, vol. 21, nr. 3 (Oct. 2014) pages 192–194 (with quotations from Erasmus’s notes); Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament A Companion Volume to the UBS Greek New Testament (1971, United Bible Societies) loc.cit.
^ Sir Isaac Newton, Two Letters of Sir Isaac Newton to Mr. [Jean] Le Clerc” (1754 London) page 44.
^ Kurt Aland & Barbara Aland, The Text of The New Testament (rev. ed. 1987, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans) page 6.
^ Sir Isaac Newton, Two Letters of Sir Isaac Newton to Mr. [Jean] Le Clerc” (1754 London) page 46.
^ Criticus, Memoir …, op.cit. page 42; Andrew Dickson White, A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology (1896, NY, Appleton) vol. 2, page 304.
^ Margalit Finkelberg, The Original versus the Received Text with Special Emphasis on the case of the Comma Johanneum, International Journal of Classical Tradition, vol. 21, nr. 3 (Oct. 2014) page 193; Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament A Companion Volume to the UBS Greek New Testament (1971, United Bible Societies) loc.cit.
^ Margalit Finkelberg, The Original versus the Received Text with Special Emphasis on the Case of the Comma Johanneum, International Jl. of the Classical Tradition, vol. 21, nr. 3 (Oct. 2014) page 193 (citing Erasmus, Novum Instrumentum Omne, 1st ed., 1516, page 618). And when Erasmus added the verse because it appeared in a suspiciously recent Greek ms, he added the note, “we have transferred from a British manuscript what had been said to be missing in our manuscripts … Yet I suspect that it is corrected against our manuscripts.” op.cit., page 194 (quoting Erasmi Roterdami in Novum Testamentum ab eodem tertio recignitum Annotationes, 1511, Basel).
^ Eduardus Reuss, Bibliotheca Novi Testamenti Graeci (1872, Brunswick) pages 130, 197 and following. See also, Frederick Cornwallis Conybeare, History of New Testament Criticism (1910, NY, Knickerbocker Press) pages 91–98.
^ Bible editions of the American Bible Union, [11].
^ Pontificae Commissionis de re Biblica Edita, Enchiridon Biblicum (11961, Rome) page 63, sections 135–136; Caspar René Gregory, Critical Note: I John 5:7,8, American Jl. of Theology, vol. 11, nr. 1 (Jan. 1907) page 131.
^ Caspar René Gregory, Critical Note: I John 5:7,8, American Jl. of Theology, vol. 11, nr. 1 (Jan. 1907) page 131, “… the spurious character of which is beyond doubt …”
^ Criticus, Memoir …, op.cit., page iv.
^ Henry Alford, The New Testament for English Readers (1863, London) vol. 1, part i, loc.cit.
^ Brooke Foss Westcott & Fenton John Anthony Hort, The New Testament in the Original Greek (1881, Cambridge & London, Macmillan & Co.) vol. 2 (Appendix) page 60.
^ UBS loc.cit., Nestle-Aland loc.cit., Souter loc.cit.
^ Moffatt, loc.cit., footnote.
^ Paul Winter, A Letter from Pontius Pilate, Novum Testamentum, vol. 7, nr. 1 (March 1964) page 42.
^ Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland, The Text of The New Testament (rev. ed. 1989, Grand Rapids, Mich., Eerdmans) page 303.
^ An additional complication is that no such “privilegium paschale” is mentioned in historical or Jewish literature, and some doubt that such a prisoner release was an actual tradition. Hyman E. Goldin, The Case of the Nazarene Reopened (1948, NYC, Exposition Press) pages 342–343; Horace Abram Rigg, Jr., Barabbas, Journal of Biblical Literature, vol. 64, nr.4 (Dec. 1945) pages 421–424; Robert L. Merritt, Jesus Barabbas and the Paschal Pardon, Journal of Biblical Literature, vol. 104, nr.1 (March 1985) pages 57–68; Paul Winter, On the Trial of Jesus (1961, Berlin, Walter de Guyter) pages 91–99.
^ Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament A Companion Volume to the UBS Greek New Testament (1971, United Bible Societies) loc.cit.. Erasmus himself admitted adding the passage in his Annotations; cf. David M Whitford, Yielding to the Prejudices of His Time: Erasmus and the Comma Johanneum, Church History and Religious Culture, vol. 95, nr. 1 (2015) page 23, so its origin was never a secret nor disputable.
^ John David Michaelis, Introduction to the New Testament, transl. Herbert Marsh (4th ed., 1823, London) vol. 2, part 1, pages 496–498.
^ Benjamin A. Wilkinson, Our Authorized Bible Vindicated 1930 and often reprinted, chapter 11.
^ Brooke Foss Westcott & Fenton John Anthony Hort, The New Testament in the Original Greek (1881, Cambridge & London, Macmillan & Co.) vol. 2 (Appendix) page 95; Alford gives a similar explanation. Henry Alford, The New Testament for English Readers (1863, London) vol. 1 part 2.
^ Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament A Companion Volume to the UBS Greek New Testament (1971, United Bible Societies) loc.cit..
^ Philip Schaff, A Companion to the Greek New Testament and the English Version (1883, NY, Harper & Bros.) page 431.
^ This verse – “They shall take up serpents” – has become controversial because it has become the proof-text of the sect of snake handling churches, begun around 1910 and found mostly in Appalachia, wherein poisonous snakes are taken from cages, carried aloft by hand for several minutes and then returned alive to the cages. But, oddly enough, although the Greek word here, αρούσίν (root: αίρω), usually means “to lift upward” or “to pick up”, as it appears here in the KJV and virtually all subsequent translations, the pre-KJV English versions translated the same root as it is used in John 19:15 and Luke 23:18 and Acts 21:36 and elsewhere, in the sense of killing or removing (in the KJV translated as “Away with him”). Some Greek mss include the words “with their hands”. The opening words (in modernized spelling) of Mark 16:18 were translated in the Wycliffe version (1382 & 1395) as “They shall do away [with] serpents”, and in the Tyndale version (1525) as “shall kill serpents” (and similarly in Martin Luther’s German version), and in the Coverdale version (1534), Great Bible (1539), and Bishops’ Bible (1568) as “they shall drive away serpents”, and in Geneva Bible (1560) and Rheims (1582) as “shall take away serpents”. The difference from the KJV’s rendering seems significant.

CHRIST JESUS IS OUR MARINE CAPTAIN ” Joshua 5:13-14

*CHRIST JESUS IS THE CHIEF MARINE CAPTAIN I’M HIS TWO EYESEE* Joshua 5:13-15
*@NIGERIAN MERCHANT MARINE TRANSPORT SAFETY CORPS RC30810*
Joshua 5:14 And he said, Nay; but as captain of the host of the LORD am
I now come. And Joshua fell on his face to the earth, and did worship,
and said unto him, What saith my lord unto his servant?
http://www.merchantmarinecorps.org.ng

Introduction: The Bible is like a mirror.

It reflects yourself, showing the natural man and the washing and work
that he needs.

It also reflects the Savior, showing the God-man and the worship that He
deserves.

Luke 24:27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded
unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

As Jesus went through the Old Testament showing from the scriptures the
things concerning Himself, so have we been doing this each week.

As Joshua prepared to take the city of Jericho, God opened his eyes for
a moment, and he saw an unnamed character, the Captain of the Lord’s
host. This captain would not be seen, but He would give Joshua the
victory.

Tonight’s message is titled,

JESUS IS THE CAPTAIN

1 Corinthians 15:57 But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory
through our Lord Jesus Christ.

A captain is someone who is in charge of something(2 Sam. 18:5) – team
captains, department captains, as well as in charge of military troops.
As such, JESUS IS THE CAPTAIN!

I. JESUS IS THE CAPTAIN OF SALVATION

Hebrews 2:10 For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are
all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of
their salvation perfect through sufferings.

A. He provided salvation

B. He purchased salvation

C. He perpetuates salvation

II. JESUS IS THE CAPTAIN OF THE SAINTS

Saul was captain over the Old Testament saints of Israel:

1 Samuel 9:15-16 Now the LORD had told Samuel in his ear a day before
Saul came, saying, 16 To morrow about this time I will send thee a man
out of the land of Benjamin, and thou shalt anoint him to be captain
over my people Israel, that he may save my people out of the hand of the
Philistines: for I have looked upon my people, because their cry is come
unto me.

Then he was replaced by David:

2 Samuel 5:1-2 Then came all the tribes of Israel to David unto Hebron,
and spake, saying, Behold, we are thy bone and thy flesh. 2 Also in time
past, when Saul was king over us, thou wast he that leddest out and
broughtest in Israel: and the LORD said to thee, Thou shalt feed my
people Israel, and thou shalt be a captain over Israel.

A. Jesus purchased us with His blood

B. Jesus puts us into His body

III. JESUS IS THE CAPTAIN OF THE SOLDIERS

2 Chronicles 13:12 And, behold, God himself is with us for our captain,
and his priests with sounding trumpets to cry alarm against you. O
children of Israel, fight ye not against the LORD God of your fathers;
for ye shall not prosper.

A. He enlists the soldiers

B. He equips the soldiers

C. He engages the soldiers into
war

IV. JESUS IS THE CAPTAIN OF THE SPIRITS,
OR ANGELS

Joshua 5:14 And he said, Nay; but as captain of the host of the LORD am
I now come. And Joshua fell on his face to the earth, and did worship,
and said unto him, What saith my lord unto his servant?

A. They are ministers – ministering
to Him and for Him

B. They are messengers

V. JESUS IS THE CAPTAIN OF THE SEA
AND OF THE STORM

Matthew 8:24-27 And, behold, there arose a great tempest in the sea,
insomuch that the ship was covered with the waves: but he was asleep. 25
And his disciples came to him, and awoke him, saying, Lord, save us: we
perish. 26 And he saith unto them, Why are ye fearful, O ye of little
faith? Then he arose, and rebuked the winds and the sea; and there was a
great calm. 27 But the men marvelled, saying, What manner of man is
this, that even the winds and the sea obey him!

JESUS IS IN CHARGE!

A. He continues through the storm
1. Sleeping with the waves
2. Stepping on the waves

B. He calms down the storm in
His time

VI. JESUS IS THE CAPTAIN OF THE SHIP

Luke 5:3 And he entered into one of the ships, which was Simon’s, and
prayed him that he would thrust out a little from the land. And he sat
down, and taught the people out of the ship.

God’s people, the church, are like:

A. A sailing vessel

B. A searching vessel
1. For fish
2. For drowning souls

C. A scholastic vessel
1. Jesus teaches from the ship!

VII. JESUS IS THE CAPTAIN OF THE SKY

Titus 2:13 Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of
the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;

Jesus is in charge

A. Of darkness and sunlight
1. He changes the times and seasons –
Dan. 2:21
2. The seasons are in His power –
Acts 1:7

B. Of drought and showers

C. Of His descent and second coming
1. The graves will open
2. The ground will release its bodies
3. Gravity will be defied
4. The great God and our Savior Jesus
Christ will be glorified and
magnified!

List of New Testament verses not included in modern English translations
These are mentioned to show that the omission of the doubtful verse did not cause the loss of the teaching it expressed.
The sixteen omitted verses
(1) Matthew 17:21
KJV: Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting.
Reason: The verse closely resembles Mark 9:29, but it is lacking in Matthew in א (original handwriting), B, θ, some Italic & Syriac & Coptic & Ethiopic mss. It is, however, found in this place in some Greek mss not quite so ancient – C, D, K, L – as well as some other mss of the ancient versions. It is believed to have been assimilated from Mark.[15]
(2) Matthew 18:11
KJV: For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.
Reason: This verse is lacking in א,B,L (original handwriting), θ, ƒ1, ƒ13, some old Italic & Syriac & Coptic & Georgian mss, and such ancient sources as the Apostolic Canons, Eusebius, Jerome, and others. It is found in some other sources, not quite so ancient, such as D,K,W,X, and the Latin Vulgate. It is not found in any manuscript before the 5th century.[16] According to Bruce Metzger, “There can be little doubt that the words … are spurious here, being omitted by the earliest witnesses representing several textual types… [This verse was] manifestly borrowed by copyists from Luke 19:10.”[17]
(3) Matthew 23:14
KJV: Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows’ houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.
Reason: This verse is very similar to Mark 12:40 and Luke 20:47. This verse is lacking altogether in א,B,D,L,Z,θ, ƒ1, Ethiopic, Armenian, several Italic and Syrian and Coptic mss, and the writings of several early Church Fathers. It appears before verse 13 in K,W, and several minuscules. It appears after verse 13 in ƒ13, some Italic and Syriac and Coptic mss. The fact that it is absent from the most ancient sources of multiple text types and that the sources that do contain the verse disagree about its placement, as well as the fact that it is a repetition of verses found elsewhere, show “that verse 14 is an interpolation derived from the parallel in Mark 12:40 or Luke 20:47 is clear.”[17]
(4) Mark 7:16
KJV: If any man have ears to hear, let him hear.
Reason: This verse is nearly identical with verses 4:9 and 4:23. This verse here is lacking in א,B,L,Δ (original handwriting), some Coptic mss. It is included in mss only slightly less ancient, A,D,K,W,ƒ1,ƒ13, Italic mss, the Vulgate, some other ancient versions. As it is missing in the very oldest resources and yet is identical to verses that remain, many editors seem confident in omitting its appearance here.
(5 & 6) Mark 9:44 & 9:46
KJV: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. .. (Both verses identical to each other, and to 9:48, which is still in the main text)
Reason: Both verses 44 and 46 are duplicates of verse 48, which remains in the text. Verses 44 and 46 are both lacking in א,B,C,L,W,ƒ1, and some mss of the ancient versions, but appear in somewhat later sources such as A,D,K,θ, some Italic mss and the Vulgate. It is possible that verse 48 was repeated by a copyist as an epistrophe, for an oratorical flourish.[18] The UBS text assigns this omission a confidence rating of A.
(7) Mark 11:26
KJV: But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses.
Reason: This verse is very similar to Matthew 6:15. This verse appeared in the Complutensian Polyglot and most Textus Receptus editions but Erasmus noted that it was missing from ‘most’ Greek manuscripts.[19] The UBS edition gave the omission of this verse a confidence rating of A.
(8) Mark 15:28
KJV: And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, “And he was numbered with the transgressors.”
Reasons: This verse is similar to Luke 22:37. It does not appear here in any New Testament ms prior to the end of the 6th century.[20]
(9) Luke 17:36
KJV: Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
Reason: It is possible that this verse is a repetition of Matthew 24:40. Even the King James Version had doubts about this verse, as it provided (in the original 1611 edition and still in many high quality editions) a sidenote that said, “This 36th verse is wanting in most of the Greek copies.” This verse is missing from Tyndale’s version (1534) and the Geneva Bible (1557). Among major Textus Receptus editions, this verse does not appear in the editions of Erasmus (1516–1535), Aldus (1518), Colinaeus (1534), Stephanus 1st – 3rd eds (1546–1550), but it did appear in the Complutensian (1514), and in the margins of Stephanus 4th ed (1551), and all of Elzivir’s and Beza’s eds (1565–1604).[21] In modern conservative Greek editions it is also omitted from the main text of Scrivener’s Greek NT according to the Textus Receptus, and the two Majority Text editions. Verse 36 is included by very few Greek manuscripts of the Western text-type and by Old-Latin and Vulgate manuscripts.[22][23]
(10) John 5:3–4
Main article: John 5 § Interpolation (verses 3b-4)
KJV: 3 . . . waiting for the moving of the water.
4 For an Angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had.
(Note: not only is verse 4 omitted, but also the tail end of verse 3.)
Reason: It is considered unlikely that these words were in the original text of the Gospel. They are lacking in the “earliest and best witnesses”, and several ancient Greek mss that do contain them enclose them with markings indicating doubts about their authenticity, the passage contains words or expressions that appear nowhere else in John (such as the Greek words for “at a certain season [= occasionally]” and “stirring” and “diseases”), and the mss that contain this verse differ among themselves as to the wording.[24] The UBS text gave the omission of this verse a confidence rating of A. This verse was omitted from Edward Harwood’s Greek NT (1776), marked as doubtful in Griesbach’s editions (1777), and thereafter generally relegated to a footnote, enclosed in brackets, or omitted completely.
Henry Alford wrote, “The spuriousness of this controverted passage can hardly be questioned.”[25] Without the words at issue the context simply states that a swimming or bathing pool in or near Jerusalem was a gathering place for sick and crippled people, some of whom sought to get into the pool (either for physical comfort or for ritual cleansing) and it was there that Jesus performed a miraculous healing. But the words quoted above complicate this story by asserting that miraculous cures were already taking place at this pool in the absence of Jesus, owing to the unpredictable intervention of an (apparently invisible) angel. This passage in John 5 is the only mention of this pool – no such miraculous pool is mentioned in Josephus or other histories[26] The words in question do not appear in the oldest manuscripts, and in those manuscripts that contain them they are sometimes marked as doubtful, and differ from manuscript to manuscript “with that extreme variation in the reading which so often indicates grounds for suspicion”.[27]
The italicized words do not appear at all in p66, 75, א, A(original hand), B, C(original hand), L, and some Italic, Syriac, Coptic, and Latin Vulgate manuscripts, and in quotations of the story by several early Greek Fathers. Verse 4 (“For an angel …”) appears but without the concluding words of verse 3 (‘waiting for the stirring of the water …”) in A (where it says the angel “bathed in the water” rather than “descended into the water”), L, 18 (fourteenth century), and an Egyptian manuscript. The concluding words of verse 3 but not any of verse 4 appear in D, 33 (ninth century), and some Latin manuscripts. The entire italicized passage appears in C(third hand), K (also with the angel “bathed in the water”), Δ,Θ,Ψ, and numerous other manuscripts, and some Italic, Syriac, Coptic, and Armenian manuscripts, and several Latin Fathers, Some manuscripts – S,Λ,Π, and a few others – contain the words enclosed by marks of doubt. Among the manuscripts that contain this sentence-and-a-half, there are many variations and permutations.[28]
The Revised Version (1881) omitted the italicized words from its main text, making the passage read: “… a multitude of them that were sick, blind, halt, withered. [5] And a certain man was there …”, and as a side-note, “Many ancient authorities insert, wholly or in part,” and here present the italicized words exactly as they appeared in the KJV. Several modern versions similarly relegate those words to a footnote, and some others (such as Moffatt) include the words in the main text but enclosed in brackets with an explanation in a footnote.
(11) Acts 8:37
Main article: Acts 8 § Verse 37
KJV: And Philip said, “If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest.” And he [the Eunuch] answered and said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”
Modern versions: Either sidelined to a footnote (e.g., RV, RSV, NRSV, NIV, Hodges & Farstad Majority Text), or omitted altogether (e.g., Moffatt, Goodspeed, Schonfield, Robinson & Pierpont Majority Text).
Reason: The earliest Greek manuscript (Ea/E2) of the New Testament to include this verse dates from the late sixth or early seventh century[29][30] and it is only found in Western witnesses to the text with many minor variations.[31] The majority of Greek manuscripts copied after 600 AD and the majority of translations made after 600 AD do not include the verse.[32][33][34][35] The tradition of the confession was current in the time of Irenaeus[36] as it is cited by him (c. 180)[37] and Cyprian (c. 250)[38]
This verse appears in E (specifically, a portion from a codex consisting of Acts, dated to the 6th century, once owned by Archbishop William Laud and therefore called the Codex Laudianus, sometimes designated E2 or Ea) and several cursives dating after the 9th century (showing many variants), “manuscripts of good character, but quite inadequate to prove the authenticity of the verse,” according to F.H.A. Scrivener.[39] This verse was not found in the Syriac Peshetta, with the result that a printed edition of the Peshetta inserted the verse translated into Syriac by the editors,[39] It is similarly missing from p45, 74, א, A,B,C,P,Ψ, and a multitude of other codices and cursives. Its omission has a USB confidence rating of A.[40] But, as Kurt Aland noted, “The external evidence [for the inclusion of this verse] is so weak that the Nestle apparatus cited only the support for insertion and not for the original omission… The voice which speaks in Acts 8:37 is from a later age, with an interest in the detailed justification of the [Ethiopian] treasurerer’s desire for baptism.”[41] It was omitted in the Complutensian edition, and included in Erasmus’s editions only because he found it as a late note in the margin of a secondary manuscript and, from Erasmus, it found its way into other Textus Receptus editions and then the KJV.[42] As Scrivener said, “We cannot safely question the spuriousness of this verse, which all the critical editors condemn. …”[39]
“For although in the Acts of the Apostles the eunuch is described as at once baptized by Philip, because “he believed with his whole heart,” this is not a fair parallel. For he was a Jew, and as he came from the temple of the Lord he was reading the prophet Isaiah,” (Cyprian)[38] and is found in the Old Latin (2nd/3rd century) and the Vulgate (380–400). In his notes Erasmus says that he took this reading from the margin of 4ap and incorporated it into the Textus Receptus.[43] J. A. Alexander (1857) suggested that this verse, though genuine, was omitted by many scribes, “as unfriendly to the practice of delaying baptism, which had become common, if not prevalent, before the end of the 3rd century.”[44]
(12) Acts 15:34
KJV: Notwithstanding it pleased Silas to abide there still.
Reason: Although this verse, or something similar to it, is quite old, it does not appear in the oldest manuscripts, and the manuscripts that do contain it are inconsistent about its text. It does not appear at all in א, A,B,E,L,P,Ψ, and other mss, some Italic, Syriac, Coptic, Slavonic, the best mss of the Latin Vulgate, and other versions, and quotations of this paragraph in Chrysostom.
The verse as it appears in the KJV is found in less ancient Greek mss (cursives, after the 9th century) and some other Italic, Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic, and other versions. However some other, equally old resources, such as the C codex, and several cursives, change one word to make the verse read, “Notwithstanding it pleased Silas that they should abide there still.”
Several other sources, such as Codex D (Codex Bezae) and some Italic mss, extend the verse with the ending, “and Judas traveled alone”; and a couple of Italic and Latin mss add to that, “to Jerusalem.”[45] Erasmus annotated this verse with the comment that the reference to Judas did not appear in any Greek ms known to him.[46]
As F.H.A. Scrivener put it, “No doubt this verse is an unauthorised addition, self-condemned indeed by its numerous variations. … [It must have begun as] a marginal gloss, designed to explain how … Silas was at hand in verse 40, conveniently for Saint Paul to choose him as a companion in travel.[47]
This verse was omitted from the Revised Version and most modern versions, but many versions include it in a footnote.
(13) Acts 24:6–8
KJV: 6 Who also hath gone about to profane the Temple, whom we took, and would have judged according to our law.
7 But the chief captain, Lysias, came upon us, and with great violence took him away out of our hands,
8 Commanding his accusers to come unto thee, by examining of whom thyself mayest take knowledge of all these things, whereof we accuse him.
(Note above that not only is verse 7 omitted, but also the end of verse 6 and beginning of verse 8.)
To clarify, only the emphasized words are omitted, removing all of verse 7, but leaving the beginning of verse 6 and most of verse 8. The resulting text looks like this (from the Revised Version):
RV: 6 Who moreover assayed to profane the temple; on whom we also laid hold;
8 from whom thou wilt be able, by examining him thyself, to take knowledge of all these things, whereof we accuse him.
Reason: These words are not found in the oldest sources – p74,א, A, B, P, several minuscules, some mss of the Italic, Vulgate, Coptic, and Georgian versions. The words are found in sources not quite as old – E,Ψ, some minuscules (with many variants), some Italic mss, and the Armenian and Ethiopic versions. The absence of these words from the earliest resources, and the several variations in the resources in which they appear, made their exclusion probable but not a certainty (the UBS assigned the omission a confidence rating of only D).[48] While verse 7 is omitted in its entirety, parts of verse 6 and verse 8 are also omitted.
(14) Acts 28:29
KJV: And when he had said these words, the Jews departed, and had great reasoning [arguing] among themselves.
RV: (verse omitted from main text, in footnote with comment, “Some ancient authorities insert verse 29”)
Reason: This verse is lacking in the oldest sources – p74, א, A,B,E,ψ, several minuscules, some Italic, Vulgate, Syriac, Ethiopic, and Coptic mss, and the Armenian and Georgian versions. They appear only in later sources such as P (9th century) and several minuscules, and a smattering of Italic mss.. The UBS gave the omission of this verse a confidence rating of B. Erasmus of Rotterdam, in working up the very first printed Greek New Testament from a multitude of manuscripts, included this note for this verse: “I did not find the words in several old manuscripts.”[49]
(15) Romans 16:24
KJV: The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.
RV: (omitted from main text, in footnote)
Reason: This verse occurs twice in the KJV in this chapter; once as the conclusion to verse 20 and again as verse 24, which is the occurrence omitted from modern versions. The first occurrence (as part of verse 20) is very well supported by ancient resources, including p46, א, A,B,C,P,Ψ, and several ancient versions (although some omit ‘Christ’ and some omit ‘Amen’); its inclusion got a UBS confidence rating of B. However, its recurrence as verse 24 is not so well supported. It does not occur after verse 23 in p46 & 61, א, A,B,C, several minuscules and some other sources; it does appear in D,G,Ψ, minuscule 629 (although G,Ψ, and 629—and both leading compilations of the so-called Majority Text—end the Epistle with this verse and do not follow it with verses 25–27) and several later minuscules; P and some minuscules do not have it as verse 24 but move it to the very end of the Epistle, after verse 27. Westcott and Hort said of the recurrence as verse 24, “This last combination, which rests on hardly any authority, and is due to late conflation, was adopted by Erasmus from the Latin and is preserved in the ‘Received Text’.”[50] The verses immediately before verse 24, the verse 24 itself, and the verses following verse 24 show many variations in the surviving manuscripts. An abbreviated history of the passage is that the conclusion of the Epistle to the Romans was known in several different versions: About the year 144, Marcion made radical changes in the ending of the Epistle to the Romans, breaking it off with chapter 14. At about the same time someone else made in other manuscripts the addition of verses 16:24 and 16:25–27. despite the existence of a concluding benediction at 16:20 (whose purpose was obscured by the greetings appended at 16:21–23). This resulted in a proliferation of readings (at least 15 different permutations among the surviving resources).[51] Because of its absence from the oldest sources and the confusion about its appearance in several of the sources containing it, its omission after verse 23 got a UBS confidence rating of B.[52]
(16) 1 John 5:7–8
Main article: Comma Johanneum
KJV: 7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the holy Ghost, and these three are one.
8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, …
RV: (omitted from main text and not in a footnote)
Reason: A multitude of books have been devoted to just this verse, including: A Vindication of I John V, 7 from the Objections of M. Griesbach [by Thomas Burgess] (1821, London); Das Comma Ioanneum: Auf Seine Hewrkunft Untersucht [The Johannine Comma, an examination of its origin] by Karl Künstle (1905, Frieburg, Switz.); Letters to Mr. Archdeacon [George] Travis in answer to his Defence of the Three Heavenly Witnesses by Richard Porson (1790, London); A New Plea for the Authenticity of the Text of the Three Heavenly Witnesses or Porson’s Letters to Travis Eclectically Examined by Rev. Charles Forster (1867, London), Memoir of The Controversy respecting the Three Heavenly Witnesses, I John V.7 ˈ by ‘Criticus’ [Rev. William Orme] (1830, London), reprinted (1872, Boston, “a new edition, with notes and an appendix by Ezra Abbot” ); and The Three Witnesses – the disputed text in St. John, considerations new and old by Henry T. Armfield (1893, London); and many more.[53] Eberhard Nestle, writing in Germany at the end of 19th century, said, “The fact that it [the Comma Johanneum] is still defended even from the Protestant side is interesting only from a pathological point of view.”[54] F.H.A. Scrivener, usually regarded as a defender of the KJV text, said of this verse, “The authenticity of [this verse] will, perhaps, no longer be maintained by anyone whose judgment ought to have weight; but this result has been arrived at after a long and memorable controversy, which helped keep alive, especially in England, some interest in Biblical studies. …”[55]
Early Church Fathers did not mention this verse, even when eagerly scraping together verses to support the Doctrine of the Trinity.[56] This verse first appears, not in a New Testament manuscript, but in a fifth century Confession of Faith, and after that it was assimilated into mss of the Latin Vulgate, but it was (because of the lack of Greek documentary support) omitted from the first two “Textus Receptus” printed editions of the New Testament (namely those edited by Erasmus, 1516 and 1519),[57] as well as some other very early Textus Receptus editions, such as Aldus 1518, Gerbelius 1521, Cephalius 1524 and 1526, and Colinaeus 1534.[58] Stephanus (Robert Estienne), in his influential Editio Regia of 1550 (which was the model edition of the Textus Receptus in England),[59] was the first to provide an apparatus showing variant readings and showed this verse was lacking in seven Greek manuscripts.[60] Martin Luther rejected this verse as a forgery and excluded it from his German translation of the Bible while he lived – it was inserted into the text by other hands after his death.[61] The first appearance of the Comma in a Greek New Testament manuscript is no earlier than the 15th century.[62]
Doubts about its genuineness were indicated in printed Greek New Testaments as early as that of the first two editions (1515 & 1519) of Erasmus of Rotterdam, who simply left the verse out because he could not find a Greek ms containing it – and provided a comment that “this is all I find in the Greek manuscripts”.[63] Expressions of doubt also appeared in the edition of Stephen Courcelles (Étienne de Courcelles), in 1658, and from Johann Jakob Griesbach’s edition of 1775. Most critical editions relegated the Comma to a footnote or otherwise marked it as doubtful.[64] The American Bible Union,[65] a Baptist organization, omitted this verse from the new English translations of the New Testament it published in the 1860s. The Roman Catholic Church was a bit more resistant about yielding up this verse; an 1897 decision of the Holy Inquisition forbade a Catholic “to deny or even express doubt about the authenticity of” the Johannine Comma, but this was effectively reversed by a declaration of the Holy Office on June 2, 1927, which allows scholars to express doubts and even denials of the genuineness of the Comma, tempered by the fact that the Vatican would have the final authority.[66] and, e.g., the 1966 Jerusalem Bible omits the Comma without a footnote. The spurious nature of this verse is so notorious[67] that even the Revised Version of 1881 did not bother to include nor provide a footnote for this verse, and many other modern versions do likewise. Ezra Abbot wrote, “It may be said that the question [of excluding this verse] is obsolete; that the spuriousness of the disputed passage had long been conceded by all intelligent and fair-minded scholars. This is true, but a little investigation will show that great ignorance still exists on the subject among the less-informed in the Christian community.”[68] Even the two leading editions of the so-called Majority Text (Robinson & Pierpont, and Hodges & Farstad) omit this verse (the Hodges & Farstad edition acknowledge the ‘Textus Receptus’ version of this verse in a footnote).
Some other omitted verses
Matthew 20:16 (b)
KJV: 16 … for many be called, but few chosen.
RV: (omitted without a footnote).
These familiar words are not in א, B,L,Z, several cursives, Sahidic, and some Boharic and Ethiopic mss, but appear in slightly more recent mss such as C,D,W,θ, and Latin mss. Apparently Tischendorff’s 1841 Greek NT was the first printed edition to omit this clause. The same words appear in Matthew 22:14.
Mark 6:11 (b)
KJV: 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 Gomorrah in the Day of Judgement, than for that city. 6:12 And they
went out, and preached …
RV: (omits the emphasized words, without a footnote).
Reason: Many (perhaps most) modern versions emulate the Revised Version and simply omit the sentence in question, without any explanatory comment. This is a complete sentence and yet it did not receive, in the Textus Receptus editions, a verse number of its own. It does not appear here in the majority of important codices, such as א,B,C,D,L,W,Δ,Θ, and Latin, Sahidic, and some Syriac and Boharic manuscripts. It does, however, appear in some significant manuscripts, including ƒ1,13, A, two very old Latin manuscripts, and some Syriac and Boharic manuscripts, and with slight differences in minuscule 33 (9th century). It was already doubted even before the KJV; this sentence does not appear in Wycliff (1380), the Bishops’ Bible (1568), and the Rheims (1582). Westcott and Hort omitted it and did not even mention it in their Appendix volume, nor is it mentioned in Scrivener’s Plain Introduction to Criticism of the New Testament, nor is it mentioned in Metzger’s Commentary, nor does it get even a footnote in the [| Souter] or UBS Greek New Testament. Henry Alford’s edition of the New Testament includes this sentence in the main text, but bracketed and italicized, with the brief footnote: “omitted in most ancient authorities: probably inserted here from Matthew 10:15.”[69] The same two sentences do appear, without any quibbling about their authenticity, in Matthew 10:14–15, and it is plausible that some very early copyist assimilated the sentence into Mark, perhaps as a sidenote subsequently copied into the main text. In any case, its omission from Mark 6:11 does not effect its unchallenged presence in Matthew 10:15.
Luke 4:8 (b)
KJV: “And Jesus answered and said unto to him [the Devil], ‘ Get thee behind me, Satan, for it is written, …’
RV: (omits the emphasized words, without a footnote).
Reason: The emphasized words, although by now a very familiar quotation, are omitted from the RV and most other modern versions; it was also omitted by the Wycliffe (1380) and Rheims (1582) versions. This clause is not found in א,B,D,L,W,Ξ, ƒ1, several cursives, and Latin, Sahidic, and many Syriac and Boharic mss. It is present in A,Θ,Ψ,ƒ13, and some Italic mss. It is believed probable that the clause was inserted here by assimilation because the corresponding version of this narrative, in Matthew, contains a somewhat similar rebuke to the Devil (in the KJV, “Get thee hence, Satan,”; Matthew 4:10, which is the way this rebuke reads in Luke 4:8 in the Tyndale [1534], Great Bible (also called the Cranmer Bible) [1539], and Geneva [1557] versions), whose authenticity is not disputed, and because the very same words are used in a different situation in Matthew 16:23 and Mark 8:33. The omission of this clause from Luke 4:8 in critical texts is so well-established that no comment about the omission appears in the Appendix to Westcott & Hort, in Scrivener’s Plain Introduction to Textual Criticism, or in the UBS New Testament.
Luke 9:55–56
KJV: 55″But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of.
56For the Son of man is not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them. And they went to another village.”
RV: 55But he turned and rebuked them. 56And they went to another village.
[the Revised Version has a marginal note:
“Some ancient authorities add ‘ and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of.’ Some, but fewer, add also: ‘ For the Son of man came not to destroy men’s lives, but to save them.’ “
Many modern versions omit these words without a note.]
Reasons: The shorter version is found in very early manuscripts, although the longer version is used by most Latin manuscripts, which is why it is also present in early English translations. The shorter version, omitting the doubted phrases in both verses, appears in א,A,B,C,L,W,X,Δ,Ξ,Ψ,p45,75, but the words do appear (with minor variants) in some slightly later authorities, such as D and K (D contains the phrase in verse 55, but not the phrase in verse 56). The UBS gives the omission of the doubted phrases a confidence rating of only C, and Westcott and Hort “thought it safer” to have the words in the main text but enclosed in single brackets.[70]
Luke 23:17
KJV: For of necessity he must release one unto them at the feast.
(The GNB, as a footnote, gave this as: At every Passover Festival Pilate had to set free one prisoner for them.)
Reasons: The same verse or a very similar verse appears (and is preserved) as Matthew 27:15 and as Mark 15:6. This verse is suspected of having been assimilated into Luke at a very early date. But it is missing from Luke in such early manuscripts as p75 (early Third century),A,B,K,L, the Sahidic version, a Bohairic ms, and an Italic ms. On the other hand, it does appear in א,W,ƒ1, 13, and some Syriac and Bohairic mss, which indicates that its assimilation into Luke had begun at a fairly early time. However, D, the Ethiopic version, and some Italic and Syriac mss put this verse after what is called verse 18, which may further indicate that it was an insertion rather than part of the authorial text.[71] Moffatt characterized this verse as “an explanatory and harmonistic gloss.”[72] The verse in Luke does differ from the contexts of the similar verses at Matthew 27:15 and Mark 15:6, where releasing a prisoner on Passover is a “habit” or “custom” of Pilate, and at John 18:39 is a custom of the Jews – but in its appearance in Luke it becomes a necessity for Pilate regardless of his habits or preferences, “to comply with a law which never existed.”[73] Aland lays stress on the differences among the Gospel accounts and says, “Even though א reads the insertion, the evidence for … omission is stronger by far.”[74][75]
Acts 9:5–6
KJV: 5 And he [Paul] said, ‘Who art thou Lord?’ and the Lord said, ‘I am Jesus whom
thou persecutest. It is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.’
6 And he, trembling and astonished, said, ‘Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?’ And the Lord said
unto him, ‘Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.’
(All in bold type omitted in modern versions)
RV: 5 … ‘I am Jesus whom thou persecutest; 6 but rise, and enter into the city, and
it shall be told thee what thou must do.’ …
Reason: The passage in question is omitted from virtually all modern versions (including both Majority Text editions), frequently without even a footnote. The reason for its omission is quite persuasive. As Bruce M. Metzger puts it, “So far as is known, no Greek witness reads these words at this place; they have been taken from [Acts] 26:14 and 22:10, and are found here in codices of the Vulgate. … The spurious passage came into the Textus Receptus when Erasmus translated it from the Latin Vulgate and inserted it in his first edition of the Greek New Testament (Basel, 1516). [76] The 18th century Bible scholar, Johann David Michaelis, wrote (c. 1749), “[This] long passage … has been found in not a single Greek manuscript, not even in those which have been lately [ca. 1785] collated by Matthai. It is likewise wanting in the Complutensian edition; but it was inserted by Erasmus [translating it from the Latin Vulgate], and upon his authority it has been adopted by the other editors of the Greek Testament…This passage then, which later editors have copied from Erasmus, and which is contained in our common editions, is not only spurious, but was not even taken from a Greek manuscript.”[77] The passage does not appear in the Complutensian Polyglot (1516) and noted as doubtful in Wettstein’s 1763 London edition, and since then it scarcely appeared in the main text and sometimes not even as a footnote in editions of the Greek New Testament and modern translations.
Acts 13:42
KJV: And when the Jews were gone out of the Synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next Sabbath.
(all in bold type omitted in modern versions)
RV: And as they went out, they besought that these words might be spoken to them the next sabbath.
Reasons: The KJV passage, with its explicit mention of Gentiles interested in the events of the next Sabbath, is a sort of proof text for those denominations that adhere to Seventh Day worship. For example, Benjamin G. Wilkinson, in his 1930 book, Our Authorized Bible Vindicated, says “The Authorized Version pictures to us the congregation, composed of Jews and Gentiles. By this distinction it reveals that a number of the Gentiles were present… All this is lost in the Revised Version by failing to mention the Jews and the Gentiles. … Does not this affect fundamental doctrine?”[78] However, the RV’s text is that of the earliest and most esteemed mss – p74, א,A,B,C,D, and many others, including the Vulgate and other ancient versions; the appearance of the words for Jews and for Gentiles (ethna) occurs in Codices Ψ and P (both ninth cent.) and a number of later mss. A possible reason for the rewriting of this verse is that the original is awkward and ambiguous—the Greek text says “they went out … they requested”, without any further identification; it is not clear who the two “they” are, whether they are the same or different groups. Bishops Westcott and Hort describe the original (RV) reading as “the obscure and improbable language of the text as it stands.”[79] Even before the KJV, the Wycliffe version (1380) and the Douay-Rheims version (1582) had renderings that resembled the original (Revised Version) text. The ambiguity of the original reading has motivated some modern interpretations to attempt to identify “they”—e.g., the Good News Bible, the New American Standard, the NIV, and the New RSV, have Paul and Barnabas going out and ‘the people’ inviting them to repeat or expand on their preaching.
Acts 23:9 (b)
KJV: Let us not fight against God.
RV: (omitted without a note)
Reasons: This phrase, which also appears in Acts 5:39, does not appear in the earliest and best resources – p74, א,A,B,C (original hand),E,Ψ. Latin, Syriac, and others – and does not appear until H,L, and P (all 9th century). As the original verse ended with a question, it is suspected that this phrase was taken from 5:39 to serve as an answer. Even before the KJV, it was omitted in the Wycliffe and Douay-Rheims versions. It was omitted from editions of the Greek New Testament at least as far back as 1729, in Daniel Mace’s edition. [80]
Not omitted but boxed
There are two passages (both 12 verses long) that continue to appear in the main text of most of the modern versions, but distinguished in some way from the rest of the text, such as being enclosed in brackets or printed in different typeface or relegated to a footnote. These are passages which are well supported by a wide variety of sources of great antiquity and yet there is strong reason to doubt that the words were part of the original text of the Gospels. In the words of Philip Schaff, “According to the judgment of the best critics, these two important sections are additions to the original text from apostolic tradition.”[81]
Mark 16:9–20
Main article: Mark 16
KJV: 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;[82] 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.
This section is written like a personal reflection, personal essay, or argumentative essay that states a Wikipedia editor’s personal feelings or presents an original argument about a topic. Please help improve it by rewriting it in an encyclopedic style. (April 2018) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
Reasons: Entire volumes have been written about these twelve verses,[83] and considerable attention is paid to these verses in many (or most) texts on textual criticism of the New Testament, and many articles in learned journals. According to Reuss, the 1849 Greek New Testament of Tischendorf was the first to remove these verses from the main text.[84]
The twelve verses shown in the KJV, called the “longer ending” of Mark, usually are retained[85] in modern versions, although sometimes separated from verse 8 by an extra space, or enclosed in brackets, or relegated to a footnote, and accompanied by a note to the effect that this ending is not found in the very oldest Greek mss but it is found in sources almost as old.
The RV of 1881 put an extra space between verse 8 and this verse 9 and included a marginal note to that effect, a practice followed by many subsequent English versions. The RSV edition of 1947 ends its main text at verse 8 and then in a footnote provides this ending with the note that “other texts and versions” include it; but the revised RSV of 1971 and the NRSV reverted to the practice of the RV.
Although the Longer Ending appears in 99% of the surviving Greek mss and most ancient versions,[86] there is strong evidence, both external and internal, for concluding that it was not part of the original text of the Gospel.
The preceding portion of chapter 16 tells how Mary Magdalene and two other women came to the tomb, found it opened and Jesus’s body missing, and were told by a young man in a white robe to convey a message to Peter and the other disciples, but the women fled and said nothing to anyone because they were frightened. The last words of verse 8 are, in Greek, έφοβούντο γάρ, usually translated “for they were afraid”. It is nowadays widely accepted that these are the last remaining verses written by St. Mark.[87] The Gospel of St. Mark ends (somewhat abruptly) at end of verse 8 (“for they were afraid.”) in א and B (both 4th century) and some much later Greek mss, a few mss of the ancient versions (Syriac, Coptic, Armenian), and is specifically mentioned in the writings of such Church Fathers as Eusebius and Jerome explicitly doubted the authenticity of the verses after verse 8, most other Church Fathers don’t quote from this ending. No papyrus contains any portion of the 12 verses.[88]
On the other hand, these 12 verses occur in slightly less ancient Greek mss, A,C,D,K,θ,ƒ13, and a “vast number” of others,[89] and a great many mss of the ancient versions, and is quoted by some other Church Fathers, the earliest being Irenaeus (although his quotations are imprecise).[90] So it would appear, initially, that the evidence was nearly in equipoise.
Yet other ancient sources include this longer ending – but mark it with asterisks or other signs or notations indicating the copyists had doubts about its authenticity, most notably ƒ1 and several minuscules (all twelfth century or later), according to the UBS notes and Bruce Metzger.[89]
Although this Longer Ending is of great antiquity, some early Church Fathers were familiar with mss that lacked it. Eusebius, in the first half of the fourth century, wrote, in response to a query from a man named Marinus, about how Matthew 28:1 conflicts with the Longer Ending on which day Jesus rose from the dead, with the comment, “He who is for getting rid of the entire passage [at the end of Mark] will say that it is not met with in all the copies of Mark’s Gospel; the accurate copies, at all events, making the end of Mark’s narrative come after the words … ‘… for they were afraid.’ [verse 8] For at those words, in almost all copies of the Gospel According to Mark, comes the end. What follows, which is met with seldom, [and only] in some copies, certainly not in all, might be dispensed with; especially if it should prove to contradict the record of the other Evangelists. This, then, is what a person will say who is for evading and entirely getting rid of a gratuitous problem.” Eusebius goes on to try to reconcile the Longer Ending with the other Gospel accounts, if the Longer Ending were to be regarded as authentic.[91] St. Jerome, in the first half of the fifth century, received a very similar query from a lady named Hedibia and responded, “Either we should reject the testimony of Mark, which is met with in scarcely any copies of the Gospel, – almost all the Greek codices being without this passage, – especially since it seems to narrate what contradicts the other Gospels; – or else, we shall reply that both Evangelists state what is true.”[92] This might be thought an authoritative statement but Jerome compromised it by including the Longer Ending, without any apparent notation about doubting it, in his Latin Vulgate, and Burgon (among others) thinks this inclusion is an endorsement of its authenticity.[93] It has been suggested or suspected that Jerome’s expression of doubt was actually a rehash of the similar comment by Eusebius,[94] but, to the contrary, it is possible that Jerome was unaware of this particular opinion of Eusebius, considering that it was utterly unknown to modern scholars until its fortuitous discovery in 1825. Burgon also found a patristic comment previously attributed to Gregory of Nyssa (of the late fourth century), but which he suspected was more likely written by Hesychius of Jerusalem (middle of the fifth century) or Severus of Antioch (middle sixth century), again answering the same sort of query, and saying, “In the more accurate copies, the Gospel according to Mark has its end at ‘for they were afraid.’ In some copies, however, this also is added – ‘Now when He was risen early [on] the first day of the week, He appeared first to Mary Magdalene …’.” In this instance Gregory of Nyssa (or Hesychius or Severus) goes on to eliminate the problem by suggesting the imposition of punctuation different from that used in any of the Greek manuscripts (the earliest had no punctuation at all, the later mss had little more than commas and periods) or in the KJV, to make the first verse of the Longer Ending appear to be “Now when He was risen: Early on the first day of the week He appeared first to Mary Magdalene …” In other words, that Jesus had risen presumably at the end of the Sabbath, as suggested in the other Gospels, but He did not appear to Mary Magdalene until the next day.[95]
Actually, Greek codex W (also known as the Freer Gospels or the Codex Washingtonianus), dating from the fourth or fifth century, is the oldest known Greek ms that sets forth the Longer Ending[96] and it contains a lengthy addition (which appears nowhere else), known as the Freer Logion, between the familiar verses 14 and 15.[97] The addition in Codex W is included in James Moffatt’s 1935 translation, with a note indicating Moffatt’s belief[98] that it was part of the original text of the longer ending “but was excised for some reason at an early date.” It was not included in the RSV, but is set forth in a footnote to verse 14 in the NRSV with the comment that “other ancient authorities [sic plural] add, in whole or part”. The addition, as translated by Moffatt:
But they excused themselves saying, “This age of lawlessness and unbelief lies under the sway of Satan,
who will not allow what lies under the unclean spirits to understand the truth and power of God;
therefore,” they said to Christ, “reveal your righteousness now.”
Christ answered them, “The term of years for Satan’s power has now expired, but other terrors are at hand.
I was delivered to death on behalf of sinners, that they might return to the truth and sin no more,
that they might inherit that glory of righteousness which is spiritual and imperishable in heaven.”
In 1891, Frederick Cornwallis Conybeare, while collating several ancient Armenian manuscripts in the library of the monastery at Ećmiadzin, at the foot of Mount Ararat, in what is now Turkey, found a uncial codex written in the year 986, bound with ivory front and back covers. As Conybeare described it:[99] “Now in this codex the Gospel of Mark is copied out as far as έφοβούντο γάρ [i.e., the end of 16:8]. Then a space of two lines is left, after which, in the same uncial hand, only in red, is written “Ariston Eritzou.” which means “Of the Presbyter Ariston.” This title occupies one whole line (the book is written in double columns) and then follow the last twelve verses [i.e., the Longer Ending] still in the same hand. They begin near the bottom of the second column of a verse, and are continued on the recto of the next folio.” The text in this Armenian codex is a literal translation of the Longer Ending from the Greek mss.[100] In other words, the Longer Ending was attributed, in this tenth century Armenian codex, to a “Presbyter Ariston”. Conybeare theorized that Ariston was the Armenian version of the Greek name Aristion. Of a number of Aristions known to history, Conybeare favored the Aristion who had traveled with the original Disciples and was known to Papias, a famous Bishop of the early 2nd century; a quotation from Papias, mentioning Aristion as a Disciple, is found in the Historia Ecclesiastica of Eusebius, 3:39:4.[101] Other candidates includes an Aristo of Pella, who flourished around the year 140, also mentioned by Eusebius in the Historia Ecclesiastica, 4:6:3, favored by Alfred Resch,[102] but Conybeare considered him too late to have written the Longer Ending in time for it to have achieved its widespread acceptance.[103] An examination of 220 Armenian mss of Mark showed that 88 contained the Longer Ending as a regular part of the text, 99 stop at verse 8, and 33 contained the Longer Ending as a subsequent insertion into the mss.[104] It may be significant that where the Armenian mss do reproduce the Longer Ending, some have conspicuous variants from the Greek version,[105] and a few Armenian mss put the Longer Ending elsewhere than at the end of Mark – of the 220 Armenian mss studied, two put the Longer Ending at the end of the Gospel of John, and one puts it at the end of Luke, and one ms has the Longer Ending at the end of Mark and the Shorter Ending at the end of the Gospel of Luke.[106] Even into the 17th century, some Armenian copyists were omitting the Longer Ending or including it with a note doubting its genuineness.[107]
But this situation is a bit more complicated. Some other ancient sources have an entirely different ending to Mark, after verse 8, known as the “Shorter Ending”. The RV of 1881 contained a footnote attesting to the existence of this Shorter Ending but its text did not appear in a popular edition of the Bible until somewhat later.[108] It appeared in the footnote at this place in the RSV and then in brackets in the main text of the NRSV:
RSV & NRSV: But they reported briefly to Peter and those with him all that they had been told.
After this, Jesus himself sent out by means of them,
from east to west, the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation.
This Shorter Ending appears, by itself, after verse 8, in only one ms, an Italic ms (Codex Bobbiensis, “k”), of the 4th or 5th century. But there are a handful of other sources that contain the Shorter Ending then add the longer ending after it.[89] The Shorter Ending is found in Greek in Fragment Sinaiticum (“0112”) (7th century), Fragment Parisiense (“099”) (8th cent.), Codex Regius (“L”) (8th cent.) and Codex Athous Laurae (“Ψ”) (8th or 9th century); in the first three it is preceded with a copyist’s note about being found in only some mss, in Ψ it follows verse 8 without such a note, and in all four the Shorter Ending is followed by the Longer Ending.[109] It is also reported to appear similarly (first shorter, then longer ending) in some ancient versions. Wherever the Shorter Ending appears, even when combined with the Longer Ending, there is some separation in the text (decoration or a copyist’s notation) immediately after verse 8; the only exception being Codex Ψ, which treats the Shorter Ending as the proper continuation after verse 8 – but then inserts a copyist’s note before providing the Longer Ending.[110]
As a result, there are five possible endings to the Gospel of Mark: (1) An abrupt ending at end of verse 8; (2) the Longer Ending following verse 8; (3) the Longer Ending including the “Freer Logion”; (4) the Shorter Ending following verse 8; and (5) the Shorter and Longer endings combined (and we could add as a sixth possible ending, anything after verse 8 enclosed in brackets or otherwise distinguished with indicia of doubt).[111]
It would appear that the longer ending does not fit precisely with the preceding portion of chapter 16. For example, verse 9 says Jesus appeared to Mary Magdalene on “the first day of the week”, yet verse 2 said that same day Mary Magdalene did not see Jesus. Perhaps more significantly, verse 9 finds it necessary to identify Mary Magdalene as the woman who had been freed of seven demons, as if she had not been named before, yet she was mentioned without that detail being mentioned in 15:47 and 16:1.[112] Verse 9 in Greek does not mention Jesus by name or title, but only says “Having arisen … he appeared …” (the KJV’s inclusion of the name Jesus was an editorial emendation as indicated by the use of italic typeface) – and, in fact, Jesus is not expressly named until verses 19 and 20 (“the Lord” in both verses); a lengthy use of a pronoun without identification.[113] Additionally, the style and vocabulary of the longer ending appear not to be in the same style as the rest of the Gospel. The Greek text used by the KJV translators is 166 words long, using a vocabulary of (very approximately) 140 words.[114] Yet, out of that small number, 16 words do not appear elsewhere in the Gospel of Mark, 5 words are used here in a different way than used elsewhere in Mark, and 4 phrases do not appear elsewhere in Mark.[115] The shorter ending, in Greek, is approximately (depending on the variants) 32 words long,[116] of which 7 words do not appear elsewhere in Mark.[117] The Freer Logion consists of 89 words,[118] of which 8 words do not appear elsewhere in Mark.[117] The stylistic differences suggest that none of these was written by the author of the Gospel of St. Mark. Metzger speaks of the “inconcinnities” [sic] between the first 8 verses of chapter 16 and the longer ending, and suggests, “all these features indicate that the section was added by someone who knew a form of Mark that ended abruptly with verse 8 and who wished to supply a more appropriate conclusion.”[119] Plummer puts it very strongly, “The twelve verses not only do not belong to Mark, they quite clearly belong to some other document. While Mark has no proper ending, these verses have no proper beginning. … Not only does verse 9 not fit onto verse 8, but the texture of what follows is quite different from the texture of what precedes. A piece torn from a bit of satin is appended to the torn end of roll of homespun.”[113]
The preceding verse, verse 16:8. ends abruptly. Although the KJV and most English translations render this as the end of a complete sentence (“for they were afraid.”), the Greek words έφοβούντο γάρ suggest that the sentence is incomplete. The word γάρ is a sort of conjunction and rarely occurs at the end of a sentence.[120] The word έφοβούντο does not mean merely “afraid” but suggests a mention to the cause of the fear, as if to say “they were afraid of – – -“, but this cause of fear is not stated in the verse.[121] The attachment of neither the Longer nor Shorter Ending (nor both of them) smooth this “ragged edge to an imperfect document.”[122] There is also a problem with the narrative; verses 6 and 7, whose genuineness is undoubted, says that Jesus is “not here” (in Jerusalem) but will appear to them and the disciples in Galilee. The Shorter Ending does not contradict this, but the Longer Ending, in verse 9, immediately contradicts this by having Jesus appear to Mary Magdalene while in Jerusalem, and in verse 12 to two disciples apparently not yet in Galilee. This inconsistency has been considered significant by some.[123]
Although the Longer Ending was included, without any indication of doubt, as part of chapter 16 of the Gospel of St. Mark in the various Textus Receptus editions, the editor of the first published Textus Receptus edition, namely Erasmus of Rotterdam, discovered (evidently after his fifth and final edition of 1535) that the Codex Vaticanus ended the Gospel at verse 8, whereupon he mentioned doubts about the Longer Ending in a manuscript which lay unpublished until modern times.[124] The omission of the Longer Ending in the Codex Vaticanus apparently was not realized again until rediscovered in 1801 by the Danish scholar Andreas Birch (whose discovery got very little publicity owing to a fire that destroyed his newly published book before it could be much distributed).[124] After that, the omission was again rediscovered by Johann Jakob Griesbach, and was reflected in his third edition (1803) of the Greek New Testament, where he ended the Gospel at verse 8 and separated the Longer Ending and enclosed it in brackets,[124] very much as most modern editions of the Greek text and most modern English versions continue to do.
A commonly accepted theory for the condition of the last chapter of the Gospel of Mark is that the words actually written by St. Mark end, somewhat abruptly, with verse 8. This abrupt ending may have been a deliberate choice of St. Mark or because the last part of his writing (after verse 8) was somehow separated from the rest of his manuscript and was lost (an alternative theory is that St. Mark died before finishing his Gospel). From the incomplete manuscript the copies that end abruptly at verse 8 were directly or remotely copied. At some point, two other people, dissatisfied with the abrupt ending at verse 8, and writing independently of each other, supplied the Longer and the Shorter endings.[125] The longer ending was written perhaps as early as the last decade of the First Century and acquired some popularity, and the shorter ending could have been written even as late as a few centuries later. The “lost page” theory has gotten wide acceptance,[126] other theories have suggested that the last page was not lost by accident but was deliberately suppressed, perhaps because something in St. Mark’s original conclusion was troublesome to certain Christians.[127] No matter how or why the original and genuine conclusion to the Gospel disappeared, the fact remains that neither the Longer nor Shorter endings provides an authentic ending to verse 8.[119] Explanations aside, it is now widely (although not unanimously) accepted that St. Mark’s own words end with verse 8 and anything after that was written by someone else at a later date.[128]
John 7:53–8:11
Main article: Pericope adulterae
KJV: 7:53 And every man went unto his own house.
8:1 Jesus went unto the Mount of Olives;
2 And early in the morning he came again unto the Temple, and all the people came unto him, and he sat down, and taught them.
3 And the Scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery, and when they had set her in the midst,
4 They say unto him, “Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.
5 Now Moses in the Law commanded us that such should be stoned, but what sayest thou?”
6 This they said, tempting [testing] him, that they might have to [be able to] accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground[129] as though he heard them not.
7 So when they continued asking him, he lift up himself, and said unto them, “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.”
8 And again, he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.[130]
9 And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last, and Jesus was left alone, and [with] the woman standing in the midst.
10 When Jesus had lift up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, “Woman, where are thine accusers? Hath no man condemned thee?”
11 She said, “No man, Lord.” And Jesus said unto her, “Neither do I condemn thee. Go, and sin no more.”
Reason: This familiar story of the adulteress saved by Jesus is a special case. These dozen verses have been the subject of a number of books, including Chris Keith, The Pericope Adulterae, the Gospel of John, and the Literacy of Jesus (2009, Leiden & Boston, E.J. Brill); David Alan Black & Jacob N. Cerone, eds., The Pericope of the Adulteress in Contemporary Research (2016, London & NY, Bloomsbury T&T Clark); and John David Punch, The Pericope Adulterae: Theories of Insertion & Omission (2012, Saarbruken, Lap Lambert Academic Publ’g.). The principal problem affecting this paragraph is that, although it appears in many ancient manuscripts, it does not consistently appear in this place in chapter 8 nor even in the Gospel of John. Moreover, in the various manuscripts in which the passage appears, it presents a much greater number of variations[131] than an equal portion of the New Testament – so much so, that it would seem that there are three distinct versions of the pericope.[132]
By its own context, this paragraph appears misplaced; in the verse preceding this pericope (namely verse 7:52) Jesus is conversing or arguing with a group of men, and in the verse following this pericope (verse 8:12) he is speaking “again unto them”, even though verses 8:9–10 would indicate he was alone in the Temple courtyard and also that a day has passed. It would seem possible that, originally, 7:52 was immediately followed by 8:12, and somehow this pericope was inserted between them, interrupting the narrative.[133]
The pericope does not appear in the oldest Codexes – א, A,B,C,L,N,T,W,X,Δ,θ,Ψ – nor in papyri p66 or p75, nor in minuscules 33, 157, 565, 892, 1241, or ƒ1424 nor in the Peshitta.[134] Scrivener lists more than 50 minuscules that lack the pericope, and several more in which the original scribe omitted it but a later hand inserted it. It is also missing from the Syriac and Sahidic versions and some Egyptian versions. The earliest Greek Codex showing this pericope at all is D (Codex Bezae), of the 5th or 6th century, and some Old Latin manuscripts no older than the 5th century, and many subsequent Greek and Latin mss all at the familiar location following John 7:52. The first Greek Church Father to mention the pericope in its familiar place was Euthymius, of the 12th century.
Westcott and Hort summarized the evidence as follows:
“Not only is [the section on the Woman taken in Adultery] passed over in silence in every Greek commentary of which we have any knowledge, down to that of Theophylact inclusive (11th–12th centuries); but with the exception of a reference in the Apostolic Constitutions (? 4th century), and a statement by an obscure Nicon (10th century or later) that it was expunged by the Armenians, not the slightest allusion to it has yet been discovered in the whole of Greek theology before the 12th century. The earliest Greek mss containing it, except the Western Codex Bezae [5th century], are of the 8th century. … It has no right to a place in the Fourth Gospel, yet it is evidently from an ancient source, and it could not now without serious loss be entirely banished from the New Testament.”[135]
However, one minuscule (ms. 225) placed the pericope after John 7:36. Several – ƒ1 – placed it at the very end of the Gospel of John, and Scrivener adds several more that have so placed a shorter pericope beginning at verse 8:3. Another handful of minuscules – ƒ13 – put it after Luke 21:38. Some manuscripts – S,E,Λ – had it in the familiar place but enclosed the pericope with marks of doubt (asterisks or some other glyph), and Scrivener lists more than 40 minuscules that also apply marks of doubt to the pericope.[136]
Some scholars have suggested that the pericope is not written in the same style as the rest of the Fourth Gospel, and have suggested it is written more in the style of the Gospel of Luke, a suggestion supported by the fact that the ƒ13 manuscripts actually put the pericope into the Gospel of Luke.[137] For example, nowhere else does the Fourth Gospel mention by name the Mount of Olives, and where a new place is mentioned in the Fourth Gospel some explanatory remarks are attached, nor does the Fourth Gospel mention ‘the Scribes’ elsewhere.[138] A theory shared by several scholars is that this pericope represents some very early tradition or folktale about Jesus, not originally found in any of the canonical Gospels, which was so popular or compelling that it was deliberately inserted into a Gospel;[139] a variant on this theory is that this anecdote was written down as a note for a sermon, perhaps in the margin of a codex or on a scrap inserted between the pages of a codex, and a subsequent copyist mistakenly incorporated it in the main text when working up a new copy. Its source might be indicated by Eusebius (early 4th century), in his Historia Ecclesia, book 3, sec. 39, where he says, “Papias [2nd century] … reproduces a story about a woman falsely accused before the Lord of many sins. This is to be found in the Gospel of the Hebrews.”[140]
This pericope was framed with marks of doubt in Johann Jakob Wettstein’s 1751 Greek New Testament and some earlier Greek editions contained notes doubting its authenticity.[141] The evidence that the pericope, although a much-beloved story, does not belong in the place assigned it by many late manuscripts, and, further, that it might not be part of the original text of any of the Gospels, caused the Revised Version (1881) to enclose it within brackets, in its familiar place after John 7:52, with the sidenote, “Most of the ancient authorities omit John 7:53–8:11. Those which contain it vary much from each other.” This practice has been imitated in most of the English versions since then. The Westcott & Hort Greek New Testament omitted the pericope from the main text and places it as an appendix after the end of the Fourth Gospel, with this explanation:[142] “It has no right to a place in the text of the Four Gospels; yet it is evidently from an ancient source, and it could not now without serious loss be entirely banished from the New Testament. … As it forms an independent narrative, it seems to stand best alone at the end of the Gospels with double brackets to show its inferior authority …” Some English translations based on Westcott & Hort imitate this practice of appending the pericope at the end of the Gospel (e.g., The Twentieth Century New Testament), while others simply omit it altogether (e.g., Goodspeed, Ferrar Fenton, the 2013 revision of The New World Version). The Nestle-Aland and UBS Greek editions enclose it in double brackets. The two ‘Majority Text’ Greek editions set forth the pericope in the main text (varying slightly from each other) but provide extensive notes elsewhere[143] attesting to the lack of uniformity in the text of the pericope and doubts about its origin.
Other English translations
O = omitted in main text.
B = bracketed in the main text – The translation team and most biblical scholars today believe were not part of the original text. However, these texts have been retained in brackets in the NASB and the Holman CSB.[144]
F = omission noted in the footnote.
Bible translation
Passage NIV NASB NKJV NRSV ESV HCSB NET NLT WEB REB HCSB AMP CEB CJB CEV ERV GW EXB GNT Knox LEB MSG Mounce NET NIrV NLV OJB
Matthew 9:34 F
Matthew 12:47 F F F F F F O F F F
Matthew 17:21 F B F O F B O F F B F O O O F O O O O O
Matthew 18:11 F B F O F B O O F B F O O O O F O O O O O
Matthew 21:44 F F B F F B F O F F F F O
Matthew 23:14 F B F O F B O O F B F O O O O F O O O O O
Mark 7:16 F B F O F B O O F B F O O O F F O O O O O
Mark 9:44 F B F O F B O O F B O O O O O F O O O O O
Mark 9:46 F B F O F B O O F B O O O O O F O O O O O
Mark 11:26 F B F O F B O O F B O O O O F O O O O O B
Mark 15:28 F B F O F B O O F B F O O O O F O O O O O B
Mark 16:9–20 B B F F B B B B F B F F B F B B B B
Luke 17:36 F B F O F B O O F F B F O O O O F O O O O O
Luke 22:20 F F F F F O
Luke 22:43 B F F B B F B F F F B+F B
Luke 22:44 B F F B B F B F F F F B+F B
Luke 23:17 F B F O F B O O F B F O O F O O F O O O O O B
Luke 24:12 F F O F
Luke 24:40 F F F
John 5:4 F B F O F B O O F B O O O O F O O O O O B B
John 7:53–8:11 B F F B B B B F B B+F B
Acts 8:37 F B F F F B O O F F B F O O O O F O O O O O B B
Acts 15:34 F B F O F O O O F F O F O O O O F O O O O O B
Acts 24:7 F B F O F B O O F F B O O O O O O O O B
Acts 28:29 F B F O F B O O F B F O O O O F O O O O O B
Romans 16:24 F B F O F B O O F B F O O O O F O O O O B
Versification differences
Some English translations have minor versification differences compared with the KJV.
Romans 14 and 16
The KJV ends the Epistle to the Romans with these verses as 16:25–27:
KJV: 25 Now to him that is of power to establish you according to my Gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began:
26 But now is made manifest, and by the Scriptures of the Prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith,
27 To God, only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ, for ever. Amen.

[Note: Different editions of the KJV show various treatments of the punctuation, especially at the end of the verses, and of capitalization, especially at the beginning of the verses. The quotation above uses the punctuation and capitalization of the original 1611 edition of the KJV.]
The KJV has 23 verses in chapter 14 and 33 verses in chapter 15 of Romans.
Most translations follow KJV (based on Textus Receptus) versification and have Romans 16:25–27 and Romans 14:24–26 do not exist.
The WEB bible, however, moves Romans 16:25–27 (end of chapter verses) to Romans 14:24–26 (also end of chapter verses).
WEB explains with a footnote in Romans 16:
Textus Receptus places Romans 14:24–26 at the end of Romans instead of at the end of chapter 14, and numbers these verses 16:25–27
2 Corinthians 13:14
The KJV has:
12 Greet one another with an holy kiss.
13 All the saints salute you.
14 The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God,
and the communion of the Holy Ghost, [be] with you all. Amen.
In some translations, verse 13 is combined with verse 12, leaving verse 14 renumbered as verse 13.[145]
3 John 15
3 John 14–15 ESV are merged as a single verse in the KJV. Thus verse 15 does not exist in the KJV.
The KJV is quoted as having 31,102 verses. This is an exact figure.
The ESV, however, is quoted as having 31,103. This is solely because of this difference. The figure 31,103 is achieved by adding up the last verse for each and every chapter which is why it is impacted by end of chapter differences. The figure 31,103 does not account for the “missing verses” referred to above which are missing mid-chapter. Thus the actual number of verses in the ESV is less than 31,103.
Note that in relation to 2 Corinthians 13:14, another end of chapter anomaly (as opposed to mid-chapter), the ESV and KJV agree.
Revelation 12:18
In the KJV, this is treated as the first half of 13:1:
KJV: And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up …
Some versions, including pre-KJV versions such as the Tyndale Bible, the Geneva Bible, and the Bishops Bible, treat the italicized words as a complete verse and numbered as 12:18, with similar words.
In several modern versions, this is treated as a continuation of 12:17 or as a complete verse numbered 12:18:
RV: And he stood upon the sand of the sea.
(Some say “it stood” – the he or it being the Dragon mentioned in the preceding verses) Among pre-KJV versions, the Great Bible and the Rheims version also have “he stood”.
Reasons: The earliest resources – including p47, א, A,C, several minuscules, several Italic mss, the Vulgate, the Armenian and Ethiopic versions, and quotation in some early Church Fathers – support “he stood” (or “it stood”). The KJV and TR follow codex P (9th century) and a smattering of other (mostly late) resources in reading “I stood”. Metzger suggests that the TR text is the result of copyists’ assimilation to the verb form in 13:1 (“I saw a beast”).[146]
Psalms
This segment deals with part of the Old Testament. The verse numbers used in Hebrew (Jewish) editions of the Old Testament are usually the same numbers as used in the KJV, inasmuch as both used the chapter and verse numbers employed in early printed editions of the Latin Vulgate, but there are exceptions.[147] A table of the places in the Old Testament where the KJV verse numbering differs from that used in printed Hebrew editions is presented, for example, in Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance to the Bible in the appendix on the page following his Hebrew dictionary.[148] Another such table appears in the appendix to The Jewish Study Bible.[149]
The part of the Old Testament where the differences in verse numbering is most conspicuous and frequent is the Book of Psalms (in Hebrew, Tehillim), because the title lines of each Psalm are not assigned a number in the Hebrew editions, whereas in the KJV they are always numbered as 1, and the first lyric verse of the Psalm is numbered as 2. The vast majority of English translations adhere to English KJV verse numbering. However, a few translations vary somewhat.
This list is based on Psalm 51.
Complete Jewish Bible (adheres to Jewish verse numbering)
Douay-Rheims
NABRE (adheres to Jewish verse numbering)
Orthodox Jewish Bible (adheres to English verse numbering but notes Jewish verse numbering also)
The Passion Translation (merges verse numbering)
Tree of Life Version (adheres to Jewish verse numbering)
Second Esdras
This segment deals with a part of the Old Testament Apocrypha, which appeared in the original edition of the KJV (and still appears in some ‘complete’ editions). In the KJV text of chapter 7 of the Second Book of Esdras (this book is also known, in the Latin Vulgate, as Fourth Esdras, or Fourth Ezra, because the Vulgate named the canonical books of Ezra and Nehemiah as First and Second Esdras) the following passage occurs:
KJV: 7:35 [An angel is speaking to Ezra:] “And the work shall follow, and the reward shall be shown,
and the good deeds shall be of force, and wicked deeds shall bear no rule.” ♦ 7:36 Then said I, “Abraham
prayed first for the Sodomites, and Moses for the fathers that sinned in the wilderness…”

This was translated from the available printed editions of the Latin Vulgate, and this is how the text stood in every printed edition of the Vulgate of that time and for nearly three centuries afterward. However, the Second Book of Esdras existed also in non-Latin versions – Arabic, Syriac, Ethiopic, Armenian – and those versions exhibited a lengthy additional text of the between the two verses above, in the spot indicated by the lozenge (♦). This additional text had been noticed, possibly for the first time, in a 14th century Arabic version in the mid-17th century by Oxford scholar John Gregory, and it appeared in print in German books published in the second quarter of the 18th century and it thereafter was translated into English. But this lengthy passage seemed not to appear in any Latin manuscript. And then, around 1826, Professor John Palmer (1769–1840), professor of Arabic at St. John’s College, Cambridge, found a 9th or 10th century Latin manuscript in Alcala, Spain – the Codex Complutensis – which contained the passage. He copied the Latin text but did not make it public and it was kept among his papers at Cambridge after his death. Some 37 years later it was found among his papers and published in the Journal of Philology. However, by that time, Professor Robert L. Bensly of Cambridge had independently found that same passage in another Latin manuscript of the 9th century – the manuscript was Codex Ambianensis, at Amiens, France. In 1865, Professor Johann Gildemeister, of the University of Bonn, discovered that in the oldest Latin manuscript of Second Esdras, the Codex Sangermanensis I, written in 822, formerly kept at the Benedictine Abbey of St. Germain des Prés in Paris and by then kept in the Bibliothèque Nationale, the page between the two verses quoted above – the page on which the missing passage would have appeared – had been cut out and the evidence showed that the page had been deliberately cut out in early times and that virtually all the existing Latin manuscripts of Second Esdras had been copied or derived from that codex after that mutilation. Even now only a handful of Latin manuscripts have been found that contain the “Missing Fragment”. Robert Bensly published a full history of the detective work that discovered the missing passage and the reason it was missing in a book published in 1875.[150]
Bensly was subsequently appointed to the Apocrypha Committee of the Revised Version of the English Bible (he was a published authority on Sirach and Maccabees as well as Second Esdras). He died in 1893, the year before the Revised Version of the Apocrypha was published, but the text set forth the “Missing Fragment” immediately after verse 35, with its own verses numbered inside square brackets, beginning with verse [36] until the end of the Missing Fragment at verse [105], where the previously known text resumes with verse 36 (modern versions differ on how they number the remaining verses in chapter 7). The Revised version presents the verses before and after the Missing Fragment this way (the lozenge ♦ marks the transition):

RV: 7:35 “And the word shall follow, and the reward shall be shewed,
and good deeds shall awake, and wicked deeds shall not sleep. ♦ 7:[36] And the
pit of torment shall appear, and over against it shall be the place of rest; and the furnace
of hell shall be shewed, and over against it the paradise of delight. …
The Missing Fragment adds seventy verses to the text previously known to English-language readers. The Revised Version contained a side-note: “The passage from verse [36] to verse [105], formerly missing, has been restored to the text.” The seventy added verses prophecy a horrifying image of Judgment Day, in which the vast majority of mankind will be damned, and no one will be left to pray for mercy for them. The text that was available in the KJV resumes after verse [105]:

RV: 7:[105] … so never shall anyone pray for another in that day, neither
shall one lay a burden on another, for then shall all bear every one his own righteousness
or unrighteousness.” ♦ 7:36 And I answered and said, “How do we now find
that first Abraham prayed for the people of Sodom, and Moses for the fathers that sinned …”
This disturbing image may be the reason that the page was cut out from the Codex Sangermanensis.[151]
See also

Bible portal
Authority (textual criticism)
Bible version debate
Biblical manuscript
Categories of New Testament manuscripts
An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture
King James Only movement
List of major textual variants in the New Testament
Modern English Bible translations
Textual criticism
Textual variants in the New Testament
Western non-interpolations
References
^ Example, Benjamin G. Wilkinson, Our Authorized Bible Vindicated (1930).
^ Example, J.J. Ray, God Wrote Only One Bible (1955); http://www.asureguidetoheaven.org/onebible.pdf.
^ Example, http://christianboydiary.blogspot.com/2010/01/verses-omitted-from-niv-and-good-news.html .
^ E.g., Alexander Gordon, Christian Doctrine in the Light of New Testament Revision (1882, London)[esp. pages 5–6]; Benjamin G. Wilkinson, Our Authorized Bible Vindicated (1930, Washington, DC)[and often reprinted].
^ E.g., Jaspar James Ray, God Wrote Only One Bible (1955, Junction City, Ore.) [1]; Peter J. Thuesen, In Discordance with the Scriptures: American Protestant Battles over Translating the Bible (1999, Oxford Univ. Press).
^ For example, [2]; [3]; [4]; [5]; [6]; and many more; to which can be added numerous internet videos, such as: [7]; [8]; [9]; [10]; etc.
^ Alexander Souter, Novvm Testamentvm Graece (1910, Oxford, Clarendon Press)(using as its main text the Greek text underlying the RV, edited by Archdeacon Edwin Palmer, with an apparatus worked up by Souter)
^ Eberhard and Erwin Nestle (early editions) and Kurt and Barbara Aland, et al. (recent revisions), Novum Testamentum Graece, (26th ed. 1979, 27th ed. 1993, 28th ed. 2012, Stuttgart, Germany, Deutsche Bibelgeselischaft)
^ Kurt Aland, et al., edd., The Greek New Testament (2nd ed. 1968, 3rd ed. 1976, 4th ed. 1993, 5th ed. 2014, Stuttgart, Germany, United Bible Societies)(the mss citations are virtually unchanged from edition to edition but the confidence ratings for the choices made for the main text are sometimes revised; the confidence ratings also appear in Metzger’s Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament cited below).
^ See, generally, Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland, The Text of The New Testament (rev. ed. 1989, Grand Rapids, Mich., Eerdmans).
^ These references are primarily obtained from the catalog of Eduard Reuss, Bibliotheca Novi Testamenti Graeci (1872, Brunswick). One reason for including this information is to refute the accusations made by some KJVOs that Bishops Westcott and Hort were the originators and instigators of all the omissions occurring in modern versions.
^ Samuel T. Bloomfield, The Greek New Testament (first ed. 1832, Cambridge) vol.2, page 128.
^ E.g., Sixteen verses discovered missing from the word of GOD!; http://kjv.landmarkbiblebaptist.net/missing-verses.html;http://www.missingverses.com/.
^ E.g., Missing Verses & changed words in modern Bibles compared to the KJV?; The NIV leaves out 16 entire verses!.
^ .Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament A Companion Volume to the UBS Greek New Testament (1971, United Bible Societies) loc.cit (this book focuses on the ‘problem’ passages in terms of translation or editing, and is particularly helpful in explaining the likelihood or unlikelihood of scribal errors).
^ Lincoln H. Blumell, A Text-critical comparison of the King James New Testament with certain modern translations, Studies in the Bible and Antiquity, vol. 3 (2011) page 80.
^ a b Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament A Companion Volume to the UBS Greek New Testament (1971, United Bible Societies) loc.cit.
^ Lincoln H. Blumell, A Text-critical comparison of the King James New Testament with certain modern translations, Studies in the Bible and Antiquity, vol. 3 (2011) page 86.
^ Lincoln H. Blumell, A Text-critical comparison of the King James New Testament with certain modern translations, Studies in the Bible and Antiquity, vol. 3 (2011) pages 87–88.
^ Lincoln H. Blumell, A Text-critical comparison of the King James New Testament with certain modern translations, Studies in the Bible and Antiquity, vol. 3 (2011) page 88.
^ Herman C. Hoskier, A Full Account and Collation of the Codex Evangelium 604 (1890, London) App. B, page 5; Lincoln H. Blumell, A Text-critical comparison of the King James New Testament with certain modern translations, Studies in the Bible and Antiquity, vol. 3 (2011) page 95; F.H.A. Scrivener, Novum Testamentum, textus Stephanici (1902, London) loc.cit.; Eduard Reuss, Biblioteca Novi Testamenti Geaeci …, (1872, Brunswick) passim.
^ NA27, p. 218
^ Metzger, Bruce M. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. p. 142–143.
^ [[Frederick Henry [Ambrose] Scrivener]], A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament (3d ed. 1883, London) pages 607–609; Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament A Companion Volume to the UBS Greek New Testament (1971, United Bible Societies) loc.cit.
^ Henry Alford, The New Testament for English Readers (1863, London) vol. 1, part ii, loc.cit.
^ E. W. G. Masterman, The Pool of Bethesda, The Biblical World, vol. 25, nr. 2 (Feb 1905) page 88.
^ [[Frederick Henry [Ambrose] Scrivener]], A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament (3d ed. 1883, London) page 607.
^ [[Frederick Henry [Ambrose] Scrivener]], A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament (3d ed. 1883, London) pages 607–609; Brooke Foss Westcott & Fenton John Anthony Hort, The New Testament in the Original Greek (1881, Cambridge & London, Macmillan & Co.) vol. 2 (Appendix) page 77; Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament A Companion Volume to the UBS Greek New Testament (1971, United Bible Societies) loc.cit.; UBS, loc.cit.; Kurt Aland & Barbara Aland, The Text of the New Testament (2nd ed.1989, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans) page 303.
^ Metzger 1964, p. 52.
^ Lincoln H. Blumell, A Text-critical comparison of the King James New Testament with certain modern translations, Studies in the Bible and Antiquity, vol. 3 (2011) page 114.
^ Metzger, Bruce M. (1971). A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. Stuttgart: United Bible Societies. p. 359.
^ Becker, Siegbert W., Verbal Inspiration and the Variant Readings (PDF), archived from the original (PDF) on September 30, 2015, The fact is that all truly ancient manuscripts omit it entirely, and that almost all very late manuscripts omit it in whole or in part.
^ “Acts 8:37 – Why Omitted in NIV?”. WELS Topical Q&A. Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod. Archived from the original on 2 January 2008.
^ “Acts 8:37 – Decision Theology?”. WELS Topical Q&A. Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod. Archived from the original on 2 January 2008. The NIV places Acts 8:37 in a footnote because the preponderance of manuscript evidence indicates that these words are not part of the original text of Acts. None of the Greek manuscripts of the NT include these words before 600 A.D. None of the early translations of the NT include these words before 600 A.D. Only a couple Greek manuscripts copied after 600 A.D. and only a couple translations made after 600 A.D. include these words. The majority of Greek manuscripts copied after 600 A.D. and the majority of translations made after 600 A.D. do not include these words. It is most unlikely, therefore, that these words are really part of the Bible.
^ “Acts 8:37 – Faith Before Baptism Omitted in NIV”. WELS Topical Q&A. Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod. Archived from the original on 2 January 2008. Acts 8:37 is omitted because the early witnesses to the New Testament text indicate that this was added to the text by someone for some reason between 500 and 700 A.D. The many witnesses we have to the NT text before that time do not include these words.
^ Metzger 1971, p. 360.
^Irenaeus. Against Heresies . Book III, Chapter XII. [Philip declared] that this was Jesus, and that the Scripture was fulfilled in Him; as did also the believing eunuch himself: and, immediately requesting to be baptized, he said, “I believe Jesus Christ to be the Son of God.” This man was also sent into the regions of Ethiopia, to preach what he had himself believed, that there was one God preached by the prophets, but that the Son of this [God] had already made [His] appearance in human nature (secundum hominem).
^ a b Cyprian, qtd. in Pontius the Deacon. The Life and Passion of Cyprian, Bishop and Martyr . Translated by Wallis, Robert Ernest. paragraph 3. For although in the Acts of the Apostles the eunuch is described as at once baptized by Philip, because he believed with his whole heart, this is not a fair parallel. For he was a Jew, and as he came from the temple of the Lord he was reading the prophet Isaiah.
^ a b c [[Frederick Henry [Ambrose] Scrivener]], A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament (3d ed. 1883, London) page 615.
^ Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament A Companion Volume to the UBS Greek New Testament (1971, United Bible Societies) loc.cit.; USB version loc.cit.
^ Kurt Aland & Barbara Aland, The Text of The New Testament (rev. ed. 1987, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans) pages 303–304.
^ Brooke Foss Westcott & Fenton John Anthony Hort, The New Testament in the Original Greek (1881, Cambridge & London, Macmillan & Co.) vol. 2 (Appendix) page 93.
^ Edward F. Hills (1912–1981), “The King James Version Defended: A Christian View of the New Testament Manuscripts” (1956). Chapter 8, The Christian Research Press; 4th edition (August 1997) ISBN 0915923009ISBN 978-0915923007
^ Alexander, J. A. (1967). The Acts of the Apostles. vol. 1. New York: Scribner. p. 349–350.
^ Brooke Foss Westcott & Fenton John Anthony Hort, The New Testament in the Original Greek (1881, Cambridge & London, Macmillan & Co.) vol. 2 (Appendix) page 96; [[Frederick Henry [Ambrose] Scrivener]], A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament (3d ed. 1883, London) pages 619–620; Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament A Companion Volume to the UBS Greek New Testament (1971, United Bible Societies), loc.cit.; UBS loc.cit..
^ Lincoln H. Blumell, A Text-critical comparison of the King James New Testament with certain modern translations, Studies in the Bible and Antiquity, vol. 3 (2011) page 116.
^ [[Frederick Henry [Ambrose] Scrivener]], A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament (3d ed. 1883, London) page 620.
^ Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament A Companion Volume to the UBS Greek New Testament (1971, United Bible Societies) loc.cit.; Lincoln H. Blumell, A Text-critical comparison of the King James New Testament with certain modern translations, Studies in the Bible and Antiquity, vol. 3 (2011) pages 116–117.
^ Lincoln H. Blumell, A Text-critical comparison of the King James New Testament with certain modern translations, Studies in the Bible and Antiquity, vol. 3 (2011) page 118.
^ Brooke Foss Westcott & Fenton John Anthony Hort, The New Testament in the Original Greek (1881, Cambridge & London, Macmillan & Co.) vol. 2 (Appendix) page 113.
^ Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland, The Text of The New Testament (rev. ed. 1989, Grand Rapids, Mich., Eerdmans) pages 295–296.
^ Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament A Companion Volume to the UBS Greek New Testament (1971, United Bible Societies) loc.cit.; Lincoln H. Blumell, A Text-critical comparison of the King James New Testament with certain modern translations, Studies in the Bible and Antiquity, vol. 3 (2011) pages 118–119.
^ A list of 46 “Treatises on the genuineness of the disputed clause in I John V.7,8” appears in “An Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures” by Thomas Hartwell Horne (2nd ed. 1836, Philadelphia) vol. 2, Part II, Chap. III, page 80–83.
^ Eberhard Nestle, Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the Greek New Testament (transl. by William Edie from the 2nd ed. [1899, Gottingen, page 260]) (1901, London) page 327.
^ [[Frederick Henry [Ambrose] Scrivener]], A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament (3d ed. 1883, London) page 648.
^ [[Frederick Henry [Ambrose] Scrivener]], A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament (3d ed. 1883, London) page 651.
^ Andrew Dickson White, A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology (1896, NY, Appleton) vol. 2, page 304; Henk Jan de Jonge, Erasmus and the Comma Johanneum, Ephermerides Theologicae Lovanienses, vol. 56, nr. 4 (1980) page 381; Margalit Finkelberg, The Original versus the Received Text with Special Emphasis on the case of the Comma Johanneum, International Journal of Classical Tradition, vol. 21, nr. 3 (Oct. 2014) pages 192–194 (with quotations from Erasmus’s notes); Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament A Companion Volume to the UBS Greek New Testament (1971, United Bible Societies) loc.cit.
^ Sir Isaac Newton, Two Letters of Sir Isaac Newton to Mr. [Jean] Le Clerc” (1754 London) page 44.
^ Kurt Aland & Barbara Aland, The Text of The New Testament (rev. ed. 1987, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans) page 6.
^ Sir Isaac Newton, Two Letters of Sir Isaac Newton to Mr. [Jean] Le Clerc” (1754 London) page 46.
^ Criticus, Memoir …, op.cit. page 42; Andrew Dickson White, A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology (1896, NY, Appleton) vol. 2, page 304.
^ Margalit Finkelberg, The Original versus the Received Text with Special Emphasis on the case of the Comma Johanneum, International Journal of Classical Tradition, vol. 21, nr. 3 (Oct. 2014) page 193; Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament A Companion Volume to the UBS Greek New Testament (1971, United Bible Societies) loc.cit.
^ Margalit Finkelberg, The Original versus the Received Text with Special Emphasis on the Case of the Comma Johanneum, International Jl. of the Classical Tradition, vol. 21, nr. 3 (Oct. 2014) page 193 (citing Erasmus, Novum Instrumentum Omne, 1st ed., 1516, page 618). And when Erasmus added the verse because it appeared in a suspiciously recent Greek ms, he added the note, “we have transferred from a British manuscript what had been said to be missing in our manuscripts … Yet I suspect that it is corrected against our manuscripts.” op.cit., page 194 (quoting Erasmi Roterdami in Novum Testamentum ab eodem tertio recignitum Annotationes, 1511, Basel).
^ Eduardus Reuss, Bibliotheca Novi Testamenti Graeci (1872, Brunswick) pages 130, 197 and following. See also, Frederick Cornwallis Conybeare, History of New Testament Criticism (1910, NY, Knickerbocker Press) pages 91–98.
^ Bible editions of the American Bible Union, [11].
^ Pontificae Commissionis de re Biblica Edita, Enchiridon Biblicum (11961, Rome) page 63, sections 135–136; Caspar René Gregory, Critical Note: I John 5:7,8, American Jl. of Theology, vol. 11, nr. 1 (Jan. 1907) page 131.
^ Caspar René Gregory, Critical Note: I John 5:7,8, American Jl. of Theology, vol. 11, nr. 1 (Jan. 1907) page 131, “… the spurious character of which is beyond doubt …”
^ Criticus, Memoir …, op.cit., page iv.
^ Henry Alford, The New Testament for English Readers (1863, London) vol. 1, part i, loc.cit.
^ Brooke Foss Westcott & Fenton John Anthony Hort, The New Testament in the Original Greek (1881, Cambridge & London, Macmillan & Co.) vol. 2 (Appendix) page 60.
^ UBS loc.cit., Nestle-Aland loc.cit., Souter loc.cit.
^ Moffatt, loc.cit., footnote.
^ Paul Winter, A Letter from Pontius Pilate, Novum Testamentum, vol. 7, nr. 1 (March 1964) page 42.
^ Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland, The Text of The New Testament (rev. ed. 1989, Grand Rapids, Mich., Eerdmans) page 303.
^ An additional complication is that no such “privilegium paschale” is mentioned in historical or Jewish literature, and some doubt that such a prisoner release was an actual tradition. Hyman E. Goldin, The Case of the Nazarene Reopened (1948, NYC, Exposition Press) pages 342–343; Horace Abram Rigg, Jr., Barabbas, Journal of Biblical Literature, vol. 64, nr.4 (Dec. 1945) pages 421–424; Robert L. Merritt, Jesus Barabbas and the Paschal Pardon, Journal of Biblical Literature, vol. 104, nr.1 (March 1985) pages 57–68; Paul Winter, On the Trial of Jesus (1961, Berlin, Walter de Guyter) pages 91–99.
^ Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament A Companion Volume to the UBS Greek New Testament (1971, United Bible Societies) loc.cit.. Erasmus himself admitted adding the passage in his Annotations; cf. David M Whitford, Yielding to the Prejudices of His Time: Erasmus and the Comma Johanneum, Church History and Religious Culture, vol. 95, nr. 1 (2015) page 23, so its origin was never a secret nor disputable.
^ John David Michaelis, Introduction to the New Testament, transl. Herbert Marsh (4th ed., 1823, London) vol. 2, part 1, pages 496–498.
^ Benjamin A. Wilkinson, Our Authorized Bible Vindicated 1930 and often reprinted, chapter 11.
^ Brooke Foss Westcott & Fenton John Anthony Hort, The New Testament in the Original Greek (1881, Cambridge & London, Macmillan & Co.) vol. 2 (Appendix) page 95; Alford gives a similar explanation. Henry Alford, The New Testament for English Readers (1863, London) vol. 1 part 2.
^ Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament A Companion Volume to the UBS Greek New Testament (1971, United Bible Societies) loc.cit..
^ Philip Schaff, A Companion to the Greek New Testament and the English Version (1883, NY, Harper & Bros.) page 431.
^ This verse – “They shall take up serpents” – has become controversial because it has become the proof-text of the sect of snake handling churches, begun around 1910 and found mostly in Appalachia, wherein poisonous snakes are taken from cages, carried aloft by hand for several minutes and then returned alive to the cages. But, oddly enough, although the Greek word here, αρούσίν (root: αίρω), usually means “to lift upward” or “to pick up”, as it appears here in the KJV and virtually all subsequent translations, the pre-KJV English versions translated the same root as it is used in John 19:15 and Luke 23:18 and Acts 21:36 and elsewhere, in the sense of killing or removing (in the KJV translated as “Away with him”). Some Greek mss include the words “with their hands”. The opening words (in modernized spelling) of Mark 16:18 were translated in the Wycliffe version (1382 & 1395) as “They shall do away [with] serpents”, and in the Tyndale version (1525) as “shall kill serpents” (and similarly in Martin Luther’s German version), and in the Coverdale version (1534), Great Bible (1539), and Bishops’ Bible (1568) as “they shall drive away serpents”, and in Geneva Bible (1560) and Rheims (1582) as “shall take away serpents”. The difference from the KJV’s rendering seems significant.

*EXPOSING 3 LEVEL OF SATAN’S SPIRIT* BY THE HOLY SPIRIT Vide His Revelation Power psalm for CHRISLAM Warfare Psalm149:6-9;27; 91; 23; 17; 18; @Quran111; Sura104; Sura106:4; All Muslims Note Sura-Imran3:111; Sura113;114 ( I Evangelist Isa Omofo Johnbest aka Kumfariji Kunfayakun ) ” I’m among the people of the book which the prophet of Al-lah Who is Almighty Al-Ilah Ruh Bara raised from Dead ( #Wafffika Wa raafi) Sura3:55-58; 4:157-159 Al-lah Now made Kalimat to be spiritual light to his Ruh-Ulla which is Christ Jesus Sura4::171,174; vide Kum-fariji POWER BEHIND RELIGION IS DEMONS CALL #BAAL/ #MOLECK EVIL BEHIND SATANIC religious Doctrines to Separate God’s children Jugde2:13; Number 22:41-45; Judge 6:25; Prophets of Baal Religious doctrines Rev2: 14-15; 1king18:19 *#WHITEWITCHES England/ Western witchcraft, #BLACKWITCH & #REDWITCHES #African Witches of 36 Decans Formed by #Nimrod; Seconded by #pharaoh Gen10:8-9; Chronicles 1:10;& gen12:18* NOTE A WITCH IS A WITCH I marine Capt. Omofo Johnbest aka Kumfariji Kunfayakun Asah Bara Yatzar* I’m not a witch I’m a #WATERMAN/#MARINE gen1:2; a CHRISLAM Believer in Christ Jesus ( Isa AlMasih The only God and Teach and finished work of salvation and hope who unite the world in his flesh Eph2: 13-18; vide Trinity God which is One Seen and unseen God Almighty through Christ Jesus Rev1:8; John10:30; Deut6:4; COL1: 16-23* *I Hates All form of Religious witchcrafts* Rev2:14-15; 2peter2:1-3! 2Thes2:9; etc* *#3Realms of Witches Exposed by the blood of the lamb which is Christ Jesus Isa AlMasih Immanuel* *#JezebelSpirit–Is-Satanic-Occult-Spirit-Isaiah 47- jezebel spirit is a feminine spirit. it is a woman type spirit. She is also called the lady of the kingdoms. She is coming down in dust in Jesus name. Daughter of jezebel, daughter of #Chaldeans also called the daughter of babylon. Jezebelic spirits in white witchcraft has an assignment to destroy marriage. It kills sexual appetite in marriage. I; EVANG. (MARINE CAPT.) ISA JOHNBEST OMOFO I’M HEAD OF AL-ILAH RUH BARA CAPRICORN #Star888 Orion Hunter Regiments through Christ Jesus Amos5:8; col2:14-15; Acts26:13; *(#BEWARE OF FALSEPROPHETS DOING LYING WONDERS 2thes2:9; Rev13:13-18; STOP SEARCHING . SEEKING FOR MIRACLES AND GOING FROM CHURCH TO CHURCH)* False prophets or agents of SATAN With Approval of Lucifer ( morning star / The God of the Earth ) 1kings22:22-23*Rev22:16-18* They are agents of the devil. False prophets, #diviners, #enchanters, #witchdoctors, #sorcerers, #witches operate under red witchcraft. ( Always pray against #Redwitchcraft The most effective way to deal with them is to pray against the red witchcraft; this way you are dealing with them right in their kingdom. #Janes and the #jambres They withstood Moses during the days of Moses removing the children of Israel from Egypt to the Promised Land. The janes and jambres in witchcraft are called Capricorns. They are small, short human beings, they are so short that they reach just around the knees or slightly above the knees. They don’t walk in singles, they walk in multitudes. They are so many that if they surround you, whenever you try to go, you can’t go because your legs are not moving. They are so wicked that in your spirit you will be feeling you are feeling breakthrough; you are feeling that God is taking you somewhere but your legs are not getting you there. When Capricorns surround you, you cannot enter into your possession. Today we destroy them in Jesus name. ( * Account of How Redwitchcraft Deceived Your Mighty Moses Leading Almighty Al-Ilah God of gods Killed & Buried moses deut34:4-5; Gen12:7; 26:3; 28:13; Numb12:7-8; Deut32:50* ) #Dreams #Animals #Man #SexualDream https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=3751353854878613&id=100000121079164 https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=3751878668159465&id=100000121079164 Witchcraft can manifest it’s self in several ways. Let’s start with what to do when you have demonic dreams. You need to pray against those demonic dreams and even sometimes pray and fast until you feel a relief; until you feel in your spirit that you have overcome the purpose of the devil. Most of the dreams have animals, some of them have got monkeys, they call them chimpanzee. Some of you think that monkeys are ok because some of you were taught in university that human beings came from monkeys so you imagine there are some characteristics between human beings and monkeys which look alike. I don’t care that there is any characteristics which look alike, I don’t look like a monkey and they don’t look like me the fact that they can eat a banana does not mean that they look like human beings. #Sorcerers and #witches come and manifest in the spiritual realm in form of dreams. Destroy them and scatter them in the name of Jesus Christ. Many other wicked dreams including sexual dreams also manifest. Sexual dreams are very defiling dreams. some of you have this sexual being that comes to have sex with you in the dreams and yet maybe you are single and even if you are married, you know this spiritual being is not your spouse and you know that after such a dream you feel so defiled like you really committed sin. In the spiritual realm there is a sin committed, and that is why when we renounce covenants with satan, we renounce those that we know and those that we do not know. Sexual dreams are dangerous. You can be praying for a breakthrough and may be you pray and fast yet the prayers are not manifesting because you are already defiled. The sin of defilement is the worst because once you are defiled, it doesn’t matter how much you are defiled but you are still defiled. Some of these spiritual beings that comes to have sex with human beings at night, some of them are spiritual husbands and wives. These spiritual husbands and spiritual wives are so jealous, so jealous that even if you force your way and get married, you will never enjoy your marriage. They are always there defiling you, they torment, they frustrate you and you end up a very depressed person, they are also so jealous that if you are single you remain single so that they keep on visiting you. They don’t want you to enter marriage; they want you to remain theirs. Today burry them so that they will never resurrect, the grave they dug for us , we are putting them inside, once these spiritual beings are destroyed people will start enjoying their marriage. #Freemasonry They operate under the red witches, that is why you find them in churches because the power of God is being made manifest in the church and once you keep them in church they kill the power of God in church. That is why we have nice churches on nice building yet no power of God in those churches. If there is a symbol of masonic spirit in church, it must be brought down, the church must guard against the powers of freemasonry. The free masonry believes that they must be very influential, the want to hold the best jobs and positions, best leadership positions in the nation. Free masonry curse people through masonic curses. We must pray against masonic curses. They release their curses and when they release their curses, these curses are supposed to bring you down to just destroy what you are doing, second, to kill your influence through rumour mongering and gossiping about you, that is why when you see servants of the God attacked and rumours are going round, don’t join those rumours because the author of those rumours had a target. Once you start becoming influential, you become the target of freemasons and therefore you must pray every day against the Masonic people, against their tongues, against their sacrifices, almost every day. The Masonic curses destroy your finances, your businesses, they devastate you in a way that you become so discouraged you start hating your own job and you want to come out of your own job, yet a promotion is right away and you want to come out of your job! Ephesians 6 says after you have done all, stand. You can’t be running from one place to another because some people said something negative about you. Masonic curses are real and if you expect to prosper, to rise up to the top, you must deal with them because within their own circle, they favour the people of their own brotherhood; the people of their own association so for you to prosper you must deal with Masonic spirits. We must pray against the queen of the heaven, it is a child of the prince of the air. Queen of the heaven works very closely with free masons creating lack and want; if find that you are lacking money for school fees, you don’t have enough money to pay all bills, and there is always a shortage in your life! yet we read psalm 23 the Lord is my shepherd I shall not be in want! Today you must enter into rest in the name of Jesus Christ. The forces of darkness do not operate seasonally, they are always there and you therefore must keep on praying every day. Pray perpetually! Caging Caging that is done over people’s life so that they do not progress in life. They make people become stagnant. Caging also comes in properties that are supposed to be occupied and nobody wants to posses and all over sudden the building is covered with darkness. Guarding spirit They are demonic spirits that watch over the souls for example the souls of people who are not born again so that they will not get born again and if they get born again they backslide. That is why once we lead people to the Lord, we must watch over them and ensure that they remain saved. They have an assignment to keep the names of people in the book of death but we have an assignment to remove those names from the book of death and put them in the book of life by leading people to the kingdom of God. They use tongues to destroy people. Pray against them, cut off their tongues, and nullify them in the name of Jesus Christ. White witchcraft works with a lot of discouragement and accusing the brethren, it uses the tongues to destroy people, to spread malice. spirits of babylon The kingdom of babylon is a parent to kingdom of jezebel. White witchcraft is so concealed by the time you know, it has done some damage. Rumours against you. The Bible calls it the daughter of Babylon, daughter of Chaldean, the Bible further says that she will know widowhood meaning that nobody will comfort her, she will also be childless meaning that she operates with others. But she will be destroyed. Prayer points Blood of Jesus destroy every witchcraft. Every demonic covenant be destroyed by the blood of Jesus Christ. Heavenly Father, You are always fighting for us, You send Your angels to guard over us wherever we go. We are continuously covered under the purest Blood of the precious Lamb who sits upon the throne, against all evils of this world. As we charge into battle, we fasten ourselves with Your full Armor that allows us to fight against witchcraft and the evil spirits that lurk in every dark corner of the land. Leviticus 19:31 Do not turn to mediums or necromancers; do not seek them out, and so make yourselves unclean by them: I am the Lord your God… Acts 19:19 And a number of those who had practiced magic arts brought their books together and burned them in the sight of all. And they counted the value of them and found it came to fifty thousand pieces of silver. We plead the Blood We plead the precious Blood over ourselves, our families and our friends. Break down these barriers, Oh Lord, that try to separate us from You and Your will for our lives. Protect us from every weapon formed against us, whether invoked or controlled by witches, warlocks, or satanists. I break the power of all curses, spells, hexes, charms, vows, incantations, obeah, all witchcraft, voodoo, jinxes, potions, bewitchments, death, destruction, demons, torment. I declare that they CANNOT prosper against me and my family, for You are powerful, You are awesome and You are mighty to save! Psalm 1:1 Blessed is the man who walks not in the counsel of the wicked, nor stands in the way of sinners, nor sits in the seat of scoffers; 2 Kings 21:6 – And he made his son pass through the fire, and observed times, and used enchantments, and dealt with familiar spirits and wizards: he wrought much wickedness in the sight of the LORD, to provoke him to anger. Bind and curse out every evil entity We bind and curse out every evil entity that prevents us from becoming closer to You, oh God. They shall not prosper! They shall not prevail! We shall not be moved Lord, as You break every chain. We resist the works of the devil and his followers as they try to win the battle. But, according to You, it’s already won. For You wear the victor’s crown. We are victorious through Christ Jesus, for by His blood we are saved and by his stripes we are healed. In Jesus’ mighty name, Amen! Recommended Reading. Get your copy of: Overcoming Witchcraft (Combatting Spiritual Strongholds) Leviticus 20:27 – A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones: their blood shall be upon them. 1 Samuel 15:23 – For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word of the LORD, he hath also rejected thee from being king. Psalm 1:2-3 But his delight is in the law of the Lord; and in his law does he meditate day and night. And he shall be like a tree planted by the rivers of water, that brings forth his fruit in his season; his leaf also shall not wither; and whatsoever he does shall prosper. #SEXUAL Sin Kills The God in Man The demons Responsible is from the 32Spiritual Decans of Satan Name #Asmodin Www.merchantmarinecorps.org.ng

J.E.S.U.S. MEANS HOPE FOR THE HOPPLES J.E.S.U.S- is Same as I.S.A.- Same as-J-O.S.H.U.A.*

*J.E.S.U.S- is Same as I.S.A.- Same as-J-O.S.H.U.A.*
tionRating

JESUS

Just Enough Salvation U See
Jesus Exactly Suits Us Sinners

JESUS

Just Eating Sins for Ur Souls

JESUS

Just Endure Struggles Until Salvation
What Does the Name ‘Jesus’ Mean?

The name Jesus means “Savior.” It is the same name as Joshua in the Old Testament. And it is given to our Lord because “He saves His people from their sins,” (Matthew 1:21).
Jesus is a very encouraging name to weighted-down sinners. He, who is the King of kings and the Lord of lords, might lawfully have taken some more high-sounding title. But He does not do so. The rulers of this world have often called themselves great, conquerors, bold, magnificent, and the like. The Son of God is content to call Himself Savior.
Where the Name Jesus Came From: Hebrew and Greek Origins
According to Easton’s Bible Dictionary, the name Jesus is the Greek form of the Hebrew name Joshua, which was originally Hoshea (Numbers 13:8, Numbers 13:16). Moses changed this version into Jehoshua (Numbers 13:16, 1 Chronicles 7:27 ), or Joshua. Then, after Israel’s exile to Babylon, it assumed the form Jeshua, from which we get the Greek form Jesus. It was given to our Lord to denote the object of his mission, to save (Matthew 1:21).
The Importance of Jesus’ Title as Christ
Many people have been named Jesus before and since the biblical Jesus. But only this Jesus is referred to as Jesus Christ or Christ Jesus. The word Christ further signifies his unique identity and mission.
Christ means anointed, according to Easton’s Bible Dictionary. Anointed is the Greek word for the Hebrew “Messiah,” which is Jesus’ official title. In the New Testament, this title is linked with Jesus 514 times. Here are a few examples: Acts 17:3, Acts 18:5, Matthew 16:15-16.
This Christ/Anointed/Messiah part of Jesus’ name is significant because of the Old Testament prophesies about the Messiah.
A Messiah was prophesied throughout the Old Testament (Psalm 22, Deuteronomy 18:15-18, Genesis 3:15), specifically calling him anointed in Isaiah 61, Psalm 2:2, Daniel 9:24-26.
The Meaning of Jesus’ Name as Savior
As stated above, Jesus means savior. This is His special role. He saves his people from the guilt of sin, by cleansing them in His own atoning blood. He saves them from the dominion of sin by putting in their hearts the sanctifying Spirit. He saves them from the presence of sin, when He takes them out of this world to rest with Him. He will save them from all the consequences of sin, when He shall give them a glorious body at the last day.
Those seeking salvation may draw near to the Father with boldness and have access with confidence through Christ. It is His role and His delight to show mercy. “For God didn’t send his Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world should be saved through him,” (John 3:17).
Jesus is a name, which is especially sweet and precious to believers. It has often done them good. It has given them what money cannot buy – that is, inward peace. It has eased their wearied consciences and given rest to their heavy hearts. The Song of Solomon describes the experience of many, when it says, “Your name is oil poured forth” (Song of Solomon 1:3). Happy is the person who trusts not merely in vague notions of God’s mercy and goodness, but in “Jesus.”
.
“To pray a prayer in Jesus name is to recognize that we’re coming in the righteousness of Christ, not our own. We don’t deserve to be heard by God, but Jesus does, and we come in his name.
“It also means that we are coming and asking what we believe Jesus would ask if he were in or situation. So that’s a lesser truth to the greater truth that we come in the righteousness of Christ. God hears us because of Jesus.”
Listen to the rest here.
What Does it Mean to Take the Name of Jesus in Vain?
Commandment number three of the 10 Commandments says not to take God’s name in vain (Exodus 20:7). The words “in vain” mean “empty, idle, insincere, or frivolous.” So to take God’s name in vain means to say it in a way that is empty, idle, insincere, or frivolous. And one of the most obvious ways this is done is through the use of profanity. We all have heard people use the name of Jesus to punctuate a point. Because Christians believe in the divine nature of Jesus, taking his name in vain is taking God’s name in vain.
Philippians 2:9-11 reminds us, “Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”
The name of Jesus has power. God wants His people – His followers to never take His name in vain, but to honor it instead.
This content was adapted from