Why are the newer translations of the Bible missing verses?

Other Versions. As soon as one is fairly familiar with the text of our authorized version, it is very desirable to get one or more versions. The original Greek or Hebrew can be rendered of course in different ways, and yet the translation be faithful. It is this diversity of translation which proves so helpful as one advances in Bible knowledge. The way a sentence is translated, the different words used, or their arrangement, often prove a very suggestive help. Back of this is the question of the text, particularly of the New Testament which, as is well known, has been more or less improved by the discovery of ancient manuscripts since the time our admirable "Authorized" version was made. As we have already said, none need be disturbed at the thought that the text has been altered in certain places. If we remember that our Bibles were, for many centuries before the discovery of printing, copied by the slow and laborious means of handwriting, we may be sure that many little slips occurred, no matter how careful the copyist might be. It is worthy of note, however, that amongst the hundreds of manuscripts which are in existence, in the most faulty of these, not a single doctrine of divine truth has been affected, if we take the Bible as a whole. The vast majority of these errors are so manifest and of such unimportant character that their correction raises no question.

A number of passages in Scripture, however, have been rendered obscure by this faulty copying. Occasionally, too, the copyist has dropped out a word, phrase, or even a sentence which is found in other manuscripts; and occasionally what was evidently a marginal note or explanation has been incorporated into the text by a succession of copyists who have apparently thought it helpful to the understanding of the passage. Thus, the familiar passage which found its way into our version (1 John 5:7-8) is an interpolation which was probably introduced by some monk copyist more than a thousand years after Christ, and does not exist in any manuscript that can be considered for a moment as authoritative on such matters. There are very few passages so glaring as this, but quite a few where the text has been more or less affected, and where a judicious and reverent scholarship has, by faithful research, found out the more ancient reading and the exact original wording.

While upon the subject of the infallible inspiration of Scripture, I will say a few words upon the texts, versions, etc. To be very simple, you know that until a late date all copies were made by pen. The accuracy of these copies depended, of course, upon the care of the copyist. But, even with the greatest care, it was impossible, humanly speaking, to keep out all errors. We find, therefore, that among the hundreds of manuscripts there are a large number of small variations. Most of these scarcely affect the meaning at all, being slight omissions or insertions of letters, small words, etc. Other cases occur where the meaning of a certain verse may be altered; but I think I am safe in saying that in no one manuscript is there embodied a false doctrine, or a true one eliminated. It is certainly a great mercy of God that He has preserved His truth uncontaminated through all these centuries.

The version ordinarily in use was made from a text based chiefly on manuscripts of a late date. Since that time much earlier manuscripts have been discovered or examined. Other things being equal, the earlier the date of the manuscript, the greater its accuracy. Careful study examines all the manuscripts and reaches a text which is best supported by the oldest and most reliable authorities. Our knowledge of the text has therefore improved since the King James version was made.

In like manner, occasionally a word or phrase has been omitted from the text, as in Eph. 6:9, where the margin supplies the added thought that the Master in heaven is Lord both of servant and master. In 1 John 2:23, the latter half of the verse has justly been added, having been omitted from the comparatively recent manuscript from which the translation was made. These must suffice as illustrations of what will prove a most helpful exercise.

People who want to find discrepancies here will find plenty; those who want food will get it. God has permitted it that there have been faults of transcribers, and the Revisers had 30,000 various readings to choose from. People might think such a task almost hopeless, but God had been watching over it, and in the great bulk of it they could easily see how the mistakes had come in. A copyist might leave out a word, or skip a verse; or sometimes someone put a note in the margin; the next one who makes a copy from that roll, perhaps 100 years after, sees this note in the margin, and embodies it in the text. In this way we can easily see how a vast number of these readings occur.

It must be borne in mind that from the time the New Testament was originally written till about A.D. 1452, when printing was invented, copies could only be multiplied by being written with the pen, and that all the ancient copies are in manuscript, and all vary more or less from each other, no two copies being exactly alike. This is not to be wondered at when we consider how difficult it is for lengthy subjects to be copied without mistakes being made; and if they are not discovered and rectified, it can easily be understood how the errors would increase — each copyist adding to the list. Therefore the more ancient the manuscript the more value is placed upon its readings, not that any particular one could, however, be followed entirely.

But though our modern chapters and verses are not found in the oldest manuscripts, yet they possess other divisions which we have not now. There were at first divisions marked in the margin, breaking a book into portions. But in these divisions the manuscripts do not agree. For instance, in the Codex Vaticanus, Matthew is divided into 170 parts, Mark 62, Luke 152, John 80, etc. It will be seen that these portions are much shorter than our chapters. By whom they are made is not known.

Another mistake made was to alter the quotations from the Old Testament in the New, generally by adding to them.

Thus in Luke 4:18 the words "to heal the broken in heart" is an addition of this sort. And in Romans 13:9 the words "Thou shalt not bear false witness" are also an addition. Some doubtless thought that the quotations would be better if made fuller, and so to rectify what they judged to be omissions they added the pieces named.

These many causes of variations will give the reader some idea of the actual state of the manuscripts still in existence. Thus having many manuscripts is a great blessing; because they correct one another. A variation may be in a few copies only; and there may be abundant evidence to prove that it is not the correct reading. Everything is very earnestly to be avoided that in any way unsettles the word of God; but carefully and prayerfully attending to the variations is not to unsettle the word of God, but to settle it. It is surely not the work of every one nor of many; but it is the work of those whom God has gifted and called to the work. We enter into their labours and reap the fruit. Still it is important to know that everything respecting the word of God will bear the fullest investigation, when set about in a right and reverent spirit. Nothing has to be avoided; nothing to be hidden. The word of God has come to us through the various vicissitudes attending ancient books in general; each manuscript has its mistakes, which are corrected in a similar manner as in other books, by comparing copy with copy. But, as we have seen, its Author lives and has watched over and preserved His book from the beginning.

The above named editors of the New Testament have also made diligent use of these means in order to ascertain the text as exactly and perfectly as possible, and it is remarkable that, except a few passages which remain uncertain, in spite of the different systems and theories existing with regard to the manuscripts, they are agreed in almost all material alterations. The providence of God has, notwithstanding the weakness of man, watched over His word, so that while few manuscripts even of the most celebrated and widely read classics could be found (as for example only about six of Virgil), of the New Testament (little read by and unknown to the world) we have already become possessed of about six hundred codices. And even the fact that these manuscripts, preserved in convents and public libraries, have remained unused, has been the means of their coming the more safely and unaltered into our hands. Thanks be to God! The worst and most carelessly written manuscript contains the whole truth, and all that is necessary unalloyed, and the errors that have crept in through copying are almost all set aside by the comparison of so great a number. Besides these evident and apparent mistakes, others have arisen from words, introduced as marginal notes (in order to make certain passages of the text more easily understood by a clearer expression), becoming by degrees incorporated in the text. Some of the manuscripts are from 1,200 to 1,300 years old.

So far we can thank God for the alterations made; but in two passages, while not omitted, so much doubt, and very unnecessarily in our judgment, is thrown upon them, that it will lead in many minds to their positive rejection. The first of these is the narrative of the woman taken in adultery. (John 7:53 - 8:1-11.) It is freely conceded that this passage is not found in some very important manuscripts. It should be borne in mind, however, that the most ancient manuscripts do not reach back further than the time of Constantine; and Augustine expressly says that it was left out "for fear of allowing immorality." One can readily perceive, how that those who failed to understand the significance of this striking scripture, and the characteristic position of the Lord in it, should thus miss the mind of God, and be animated by such motives of prudence; but the spiritual mind, not governed by human feelings, but by the Spirit of God, will have no difficulty in rejecting their action, and in regarding the scripture as a precious unfolding of divine truth, of the Person, indeed, of our blessed Lord. The other passage alluded to is the close of St. Mark's gospel (Mark 16:9-20), which, as the revisers inform us, is omitted "by the two oldest Greek manuscripts," etc. Even the casual reader will perceive that this passage does not follow on with the narrative, but forms a kind of appendix to the gospel itself, as it gives a general account of the special manifestations of the Lord to His own after His resurrection. This, no doubt, occasioned the difficulty; it would be sure to perplex human wisdom, and hence the attempt to obviate it. The source of much controversy of this kind has been the confusion of the question of authenticity with that of inspiration; that is, if the authorship of a part of any of the books of Scripture has been thought doubtful, the temptation has arisen to reject it. So here, instead of asking whether this close of the gospel were inspired, they discussed whether Mark penned it. Now it is quite clear, from many books of Scripture, that inspired additions may be made by those who were not their authors. (See Deut. 34; Jer. 52 etc.) Remarks of this kind need not therefore trouble simple souls.

These have been briefly considered under the word BIBLE, but as the subject is important more detail is here added, confining attention however to the N.T. 'Readings' must be distinguished from different 'translations.' Thus, for instance, the Revised Version omits a part of the verse in John 5:3, and the whole of the verse in John 5:4, placing it in the margin with the words, "Many ancient authorities insert wholly or in part, 'Waiting for the moving of the water,'" etc.