#2 Missing Verses?

I think there is strong evidence for the inclusion of Mt. 23:14, even though its essence is found elsewhere (cf. Mk. 12:40; Lk. 20:47).

The verse, according to the vast majority of documents, was originally located between Mt. 23:12 & 23:13 (i.e., the verse omitted, Mt. 23:14, actually comes before 23:13, and this fact is significant for the accidental scribal omission of the verse demonstraded below.

Anyway, because of its location, and due to the same beginning words of consecutive verses, the verse was omitted by accident due an error caused by homoioteleuton, i.e., an early scribe wrote "But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because" -- and then his eye skipped to the exact same words of the next verse and continued writing, but thus he omitted all the material in between, i.e., Mt. 23:14.

The verse was thus not omitted by any foul intent, but rather by mere accident, as is the case most of the time.

However, I'll now post a case of an omitted verse where foul intrigue indeed played a part........MUHAHAHAHAHA!

Yours,

Bluefalcon

 

Mt. 18:11 - "For the Son of Man came to save that which was lost."

The verse is "missing" (not in the text) in the NIV, CEV, NLT, and The Message, but is included with brackets in the HCSB and NASB, and is included without brackets in the KJV, NKJV, Darby's, etc.

Those who say the verse is spurious say scribal harmonization to Lk. 19:10 somehow caused it to find its way into 98% of all Greek MSS. Three insurmountable problems with this assessment are:

(1) Actually only 2% of Greek MSS properly harmonize Mt. 18:11 to Lk. 19:10 ("For the Son of Man came to seek and to save that which was lost."). The words in bold are not in 96% of Greek MSS in Matthew. If the verse is original, only 2% of Greek MSS in Matthew are guilty of harmonization by adding "to seek and" in the middle of the verse, while the other 96% faithfully transmitted the original.

(2) The 2% or less Greek MSS that omit the passage are all from one locality. In addition, there is no evidence of any nature that suggests the verse was omitted before the 4th c. except for Origen in the 3rd, but his testimony is counteracted by the presence of the verse in the Diatessaron almost a century earlier. Thus the present state of MS evidence is exactly what we should expect to find, namely, a few self-perpetuating MSS from the locality where the omission occurred vs. the vast majority of self-perpetuating MSS from everywhere else. Even versional testimony is basically Egyptian/African for the omission, with only 2 Old Latin MSS (vs. 11 that include it), 1 Early Syriac (vs. 1 that includes it), 3 Egyptian Coptic (vs. part of 1 that includes it).

(3) The reason to omit the verse is greater than the reason to add the verse. The place in which the verse occurs in Matthew is not in harmony with the place in which it occurs in Luke, and therefore, to some with shallow notions, either Matthew put this saying of Jesus in the wrong place or Luke did. Otherwise, too much of a contradiction between the synoptic accounts is present, at least for those with feeble faith.

Yours,

Bluefalcon

 

Of course the Harmony of the Gospels just might "authoritize" the inclusion, but that might upset some one's agenda.

Simply, Jesus came seeking to save sinners, that is understood, and since Luke was NOT of the original 12 disciples, though he was speaking under inspiration, not according to the MSS available as men of today can dispute. That alone would be enough for inclusion.

Men in their idealogical mindset, have to have "proof", but the Proof is still in the pudding; either the Truth is given in the text, or it is not, that is where and why so many newer versions fail of Canonization, except to the congratulations of men and their devices.

 

Ed, do you agree that the omission and the inclusion of a verse cannot both be original? Then when the editors put verses in the text like in Mt. 16:2-3 (without brackets or some other distinguishment indicating a high level of doubt) they believe them to be original; when they put them in the footnotes like in Mt. 18:11 in some versions, they doubt their originality. This has become almost universally the practice, and is usually indicated as such in the introduction to any version. Verses deemed authentic go in the text; those deemed inauthentic (i.e. "missing") go in the footnotes.

This is only one factor of many, and one that is demonstrably fallacious. For example, hundreds of MSS copied after the 11th century are more accurate in excluding an addition to Mt. 27:49 introduced by MSS 800 years earlier (Mt. 27:49: "The rest said, Let be, let us see whether Elijah will come to save him. But another man, when he had taken a spear, pierced his side, and water and blood came out.") The text in bold is the inaccurate addition of text by the so called "earliest and best" manuscripts. And so the earliest MSS many times have the later text, and the later MSS have the earlier (i.e. original) text.

Other factors include provenance of a reading, versions supporting a reading and their provenance, Fathers supporting a reading and their provenance, catholicity, internal factors, general character of individual MSS (more trustworthy MSS should be given more weight than less trustworthy ones), historical factors, etc.

Yours,

Bluefalcon

 

Mt. 17:21 - "But this kind does not come out except through prayer and fasting."

The verse is "missing" (i.e. not in the text) of the NIV, NLT, ESV, CEV, and The Message, included in brackets (indicating doubt as to its authenticity) in the NASB, HCSB, and included without brackets in the KJV, NKJV, etc.

The evidence for omitting Mt. 17:21 is almost identical with that for omitting Mt. 18:11, so please refer to that post for info.

The earliest witness of any nature for omitting the verse is the 4th c. testimony of Eusebius of Caesarea, and then only 3 Greek MSS from before the 9th c. For the inclusion of the verse is a host of Fathers and 99% of all Greek MSS including at least 5 from before the 9th c. Testimony for the verse's authenticity include the 2nd c. Diatessaron, 3rd c. Origen, 4th c. Hilary, Basil, Ambrose, and 5th c. Chrysostom and Augustine.

Nearly all the witnesses that exclude the verse, just as in Mt. 18:11, are localized to one place, i.e. Egypt, and thus represent a secondary reading with limited self-propagation.

It is hard to believe the verse could have been omitted by accident, but any remnants of Marcionism, which thrived in Egypt, BTW, may have been enough for one to remove the verse as spurious (as it is not included in the highly esteemed account of Luke). So we may see harmonization actually did play a role here, but in adding but rather in subtracting the verse!

Yours,

Bluefalcon

 

There is another reason someone like a Marcionite who praised much of Paul's writings might subtract Mt. 17:21 from its location in Matthew. Just after the extraordinary account of the power of "faith" in Mt. 17:20, the addition of what might be considered by some to be works, i.e. prayer and fasting, is then said to be required in certain circumstances (i.e., faith alone is not enough). Such might seem a blatant contradiction to other Scriptures, especially Paul.

Such a seeming contradiction is enough for someone to think the verse was out of place or spurious altogether and then to omit it from his exemplar. Lucky the textual corruption was localized and couldn't overtake the entire NT textual tradition! In Mk 9:29 the omission of "and fasting" by only 4 Greek MSS and 1 Old Latin MS is so insignificant that the omission stands against all other Greek MSS and versions and Fathers, and this corruption can also be attributed to the same unwise intention, although in this case only the more pronounced "work" of fasting is deleted, prayer being deemed appropriate enough to stay in the text.

Yours,

Bluefalcon

 

And the earliest Greek MSS from any region except Egypt tend to be Byzantine, as does the majority of all Greek MSS ever found. But even the earliest Egyptian papryi, except P75 and a few others, tend to have at least as many exclusively Byzantine readings as exclusively Codex Vaticanus readings, when collation is done between the three (papyrus | Vaticanus | Byzantine).

The topic is omitted verses. Let's discuss the ones already posted. Is there any strong textual evidence for omitting the verses? It seems all the strong evidence is for including the verses.

Yours,

Bluefalcon

 

RE: "Missing verses", or as some might say "removed conflations"

Found online in the public domain at: http://members.aol.com/DrTHolland/Chapter10.html

Personally, I feel that the jury is still out concerning the accuracy of the Alexandrian vs, Byzantine type texts.

HankD

 

Thomas Holland quote: "However, papyrologist and textual scholar Dr. Carsten Peter Thiede has redated P64 (the Magdalen papyrus) from the early third century to 66 AD...Thiede has likewise redated P67 from the third century to around 70 AD....If his position is correct, these would be the oldest existing manuscripts..."

The "if" is a BIG one....

Holland (an unreliable TR/KJVO source) *fails* to mention that virtually *no* other scholar agrees with his dating of the Magdalen papyrus to AD 66 (let alone the claim that this papyrus is probably the "autograph" of Matthew). P52 remains the oldest NT fragment, and it dates at best to the 2nd quarter of the second century.

 

True he is KJVO, but he's the best they have as one who desn't go over into the lunatic fringe (English corrects the Greek, "advanced revelation", etc).

HankD

 

HankD: "he's the best they have"

Along with Waite?
Along with Moorman?

It would be nice if the "best they have" were at least *honest* and *accurate* with the *facts* that can clearly be proven or disproven.

I would suggest that they be called into question at *any* point where the facts contradict their assertions.

 

True he is KJVO, but he's the best they have as one who desn't go over into the lunatic fringe (English corrects the Greek, "advanced revelation", etc).

HankD </font>[/QUOTE]Hmm? Lunatick fringe? Isn't that just a matter of opinion? Isn't that sort of judgementalism and the only excuse some use in their timid and daunted way of making any remark to try and disqualify another?

Man's "opinions" do not the Word of God make, neither do they establish the Canon.

 

True, but might I remind you that you yourself gave no documentation in response to the documentation I posted. You gave your opinion backed by an undocumented assertion yourself.

Now I know you are a worthy scholar so please, one citation aginst Holland's premise of such early dating will be fine (and yes it is a rather "bizzare date" with allusions to the original).

Yes it is my opinion, however, I have on more than one occassion produced documentation from their works (which I consider "lunatick") and publications to the effect that one man alone claims to have the the key to the "advanced revelations" of the KJV (or at least the knowledge to expound them) which were at one time considered "errors" of translation but have now been discovered to be part of and extra-biblical "advanced revelation" given by God in 1611 and expounded in the 20-21st centuries by Dr. Ruckman. I know "lunatick" is a harsh term but the "H" word is not allowed on the BB in this case.

But, in deference to the sensitive souls here at the BB I'll tame it down from "lunatick fringe" to the "bizzare" of some of Holland's dates.

HankD

 

True he is KJVO, but he's the best they have as one who desn't go over into the lunatic fringe (English corrects the Greek, "advanced revelation", etc).

HankD </font>[/QUOTE]Sounds similar top Mormonism except that the new English translation of the B of M corrects the Old English "original". Many times that is.