Verses that were added to or altered in the Bible

  • Thread starter Thread starter TodayJunior
  • Start date Start date
  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Mark 16 NIV - Jesus Has Risen - When the Sabbath was - Bible Gateway

According to this link, Mark 16:9-20 doesn't appear in the earliest manuscripts.
Does this mean it should still be considered part of the Word or not? Which begs
the question, what other parts were added or altered later by human hands?

It is missing from some early manuscripts and also seems to be missing when you challenge someone who believes in tongues to go and drink a glass of bleach as well! It is amazing how it pops in and out when it suits those who teach tongues, yet doesn't apply when challenged with the above challenge!
 
I was just reading this passage yesterday, but I had no idea about the discrepancy, though I'm not surprised. I've been frustrated at times with this issue. I want an interlinear Bible, but all of them seem to be either Hebrew, Latin, or Greek the whole way through. Then we get idiots who claim the NT was really written in Hebrew originally. It's like no, some knucklehead just thought they'd be cool to make it be English and Hebrew only the whole Bible, instead of original languages.

If we look back, most NT scriptures were written individually and sent to be read at different church locals, and they were all collected and translated into Greek(if that wasn't the original) and Latin. The idea of Rome, was that people were too stupid to bother them with scripture, they just taught obedience to priests who had years of training in what Rome wanted the Bible to say. It seems like the same idea is still predominant- that I don't need to see a copy of the original with a transliteration, because I'm too stupid to compare it with the English. What kind of nonsense is that?

If you ever wanna twist your head all up, try comparing the Catholic Bible to the NIV and KJV and the three will be such a contrast, that you will understand why people argue so bitterly.

The Jewish religious authority tried the same thing by setting up a bunch of rules designed to keep people from any question of cleanliness, but we aren't supposed to trust in anything but God, and their rules made it so people didn't have to go ask God on their own. Now people want to say, the KJV is the only accurate one, put all your trust in my interpretation of the KJV only. They're no different.

Also, this verse isn't adding anything that if we take it away we couldn't find it in other passages (except for the poison?), but it does seem to emphasize trusting what people tell you, now why would a religious authority want that emphasized......=P

Also, this is the number one most used passage by the false prophet I encountered, who said that because they heal people and speak in tongues that they are the only real Christians.

It makes me wanna make my own version. With YHWH written not Jahovah and not LORD. With an interlinear or parallel showing the actual original (so what if my book has 6 languages?), and something to indicate when they stick in a word that has no good English translation, that points to the original word so I can look it up, and not just pick whatever word makes the sentence flow. That way I don't have to own a home and have copies there of 60 different books to study from, and I can more easily refute false doctrine. Why is there no such thing? I can't be the only one who want's this.

The problem is that when these seeds of doubt come, the enemy exploits it, and when you disagree with something or are offended because you find guilt in yourself by a verse, and he says, maybe it wasn't in the original, maybe it was added by man. And even though it might be true, it sets you to studying to find a loophole, instead of getting to know God, and some people say scripture is so messed with that they don't even want to read it. It's obvious that the enemy, knowing scripture better than we do, would love to mess it up, but I don't think he can hurt it much.

Praise God that he will be faithful to those who want to hear his Word. He will preserve it, that it doesn't return to him void.
 
here is a link to a few scholar's footnotes regarding the end of Mark (with bias towards it's inclusion):

The Ending of Mark (Mark 16:9-20)

the general consensus is that the original last page of Mark was lost in the 1st or or early in the 2nd century, and that v.9-20 (and variations in other manuscripts) was added to complete the book, which seems obviously not concluded with v.8
the 9-20 that we have today was quoted in the mid 2nd century by a few church writers, so we know the addition was very early and accepted by the church.

there's a similar case with John 7:53-8:11 (the story of the adultress brought to Jesus, where he challeneged her accusers "whoever is without sin, let them cast the first stone"
here's a link to textual criticism (again with a bias towards inclusion, from the same site -- my own bias is in agreement with this site but take from it what you will):

The Story of the Adulteress
 
Praise God that he will be faithful to those who want to hear his Word. He will preserve it, that it doesn't return to him void.

Amen!!

So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth:
it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please,
and it shall prosper in the thingwhereto I sent it.

(Isaiah 55:11)
 
It is also found in some of the earliest and most dependable MSS.

Bruce Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2nd edition, (Hendrickson Publishers, 2005), 123.

"Clement of Alexandria and Origen [early third century] show no knowledge of the existence of these verses; furthermore Eusebius and Jerome attest that the passage was absent from almost all Greek copies of Mark known to them."

"The last twelve verses of the commonly received text of Mark are absent from the two oldest Greek manuscripts (? and B), 20 from the Old Latin codex Bobiensis, the Sinaitic Syriac manuscript, about one hundred Armenian manuscripts, 21 and the two oldest Georgian manuscripts (written a.d. 897 and a.d. 913)."
 

there's a similar case with John 7:53-8:11 (the story of the adultress brought to Jesus, where he challeneged her accusers "whoever is without sin, let them cast the first stone"
here's a link to textual criticism (again with a bias towards inclusion, from the same site -- my own bias is in agreement with this site but take from it what you will):

The Story of the Adulteress

"According to the majority of Bible scholars, the story of the woman taken in adultery was a later addition by another anonymous author centuries later, who made the story up and added it to propagate a theological position regarding the judging of others by likewise imperfect beings. The message is certainly a very useful and positive one, however it is more than likely not the message of the original author of John.

Within all of the earliest manuscripts relating to the Gospel in question, such a story makes no appearance. In fact, the earliest manuscript to contain this story dates from around the late 4th to early 5th centuries within the Latin Codex ‘Bezae’, 200-300 years after the Gospel’s original production. Prior to this there was no mention of the story within the earliest and most reliable eastern manuscripts; the ‘Codex Sinaiticus’, the ‘Codex Vaticanus’ or the ‘Codex Alexandrinus’, nor in the earliest papyrus’ which were witnesses to the Gospel of John, known as ‘P 66’ and ‘P 75’. As mentioned, the story first makes an appearance within the Western, or Latin Codices which Bible scholars agree, are later and generally speaking less reliable than their Eastern counterparts.

The Biblical scholar, James M. Robinson, in his work, ‘The Gospel of Jesus: A Historical Search for the Original Good News’, says:

But the basic problem with this story is that it was not part of the original New Testament. It is not in the oldest and best manuscripts, but was added, at various places, by later scribes.

However, since it ended up in the medieval manuscripts used by the King James translators, we are familiar with it, in a way that we are not familiar with most late additions to and alterations of the original text (namely, those absent from the manuscripts used by King James's translators). Most modern translations either leave it out or indicate in some way that it is not part of the original text. (The New Revised Standard Version uses double square brackets and a footnote saying, "The most ancient authorities lack 7:53-8:11.")[1]

Once again referring to the works of Professor Bart D. Ehrman, we read:

It is a brilliant story, filled with pathos and a clever twist in which Jesus uses his wits to get himself—not to mention the poor woman— off the hook. Of course, to a careful reader, the story raises numerous questions. If this woman was caught in the act of adultery, for example, where is the man she was caught with? Both of them are to be stoned, according to the Law of Moses (see Lev. 20:10). Moreover, when Jesus wrote on the ground, what exactly was he writing? (According to one ancient tradition, he was writing the sins of the accusers, who seeing that their own transgressions were known, left in embarrassment!) And even if Jesus did teach a message of love, did he really think that the Law of God given by Moses was no longer in force and should not be obeyed? Did he think sins should not be punished at all?

Despite the brilliance of the story, its captivating quality, and its inherent intrigue, there is one other enormous problem that it poses.

As it turns out, it was not originally in the Gospel of John. In fact, it was not originally part of any of the Gospels. It was added by later scribes.
[2]

[1] James M. Robinson. The Gospel of Jesus: A Historical Search for the Original Good News. Harper Collins, (2005) Pg., 65.

[2]Bart D Ehrman. Misquoting Jesus. Harper San Francisco. (2005). Pg. 64."
 
This is not a "fun" topic but IMO a very important one, as I want the truth, bottom line, and sometimes it takes much study to get to the truth.
 
So the most well know forgery in all of Scripture:

1 Yahchanan (John) Verses 5:7-8 --

In the King James Version and later renditions of the Latin Vulgate, the received Greek and Latin texts include the words: “...In heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth... ”. This text concerning the heavenly witness is not contained in any authentic Greek manuscript written earlier than the Fifteenth Century of this current era. It does not appear in any of the oldest Greek manuscripts; neither does it even appear in the earliest Latin translations. This text is not cited by any of the Greek or early Latin writers, even when the subject they wrote of would naturally have led them to appeal to its authority. The Emphatic Diaglott by Benjamin Wilson, Page 803, The Jerusalem Bible, New Testament, Page 419. Other scholars and researchers have frankly admitted that these words are a deliberate forgery that was never a part of the original inspired Holy Scriptures.
 
and probably the least know forgery in all Scripture, John 6:4,

John 6:3-5, " And Jesus went up into a mountain, and there he sat with his disciples. And the passover, a feast of the Jews, was nigh. When Jesus then lifted up his eyes, and saw a great company come unto him, he saith unto Philip, Whence shall we buy bread, that these may eat? "

This is not in the oldest manuscripts, but is in the majority. Not only does the word seem added, but not historian before the 4th century commented or historical had this "extra year" in Messiah's ministry.
 
and the most prolific forgery:

The Masorites added vowel points to the manuscripts and sadi YHWH is not to be pronounced as written but to be pronounced with their added vowel points, as Adonai. English and Latin speakers did not understand this when translating and came up with a mixture of the 2: Jehovah.

New Revised Standard Version - Preface
"Careful readers will notice that here and there in the Old Testament the word Lord (or in certain cases God) is printed in capital letters. This represents the traditional manner in English versions of rendering the Divine Name, the "Tetragrammaton" (see the notes on Exodus 3.14, 15), following the precedent of the ancient Greek and Latin translators and the long established practice in the reading of the Hebrew Scriptures in the synagogue. While it is almost if not quite certain that the Name was originally pronounced "Yahweh," this pronunciation was not indicated when the Masoretes added vowel sounds to the consonantal Hebrew text. To the four consonants YHWH of the Name, which had come to be regarded as too sacred to be pronounced, they attached vowel signs indicating that in its place should be read the Hebrew word Adonai meaning "Lord" (or Elohim meaning "God"). Ancient Greek translators employed the word Kyrios ("Lord") for the Name. The Vulgate likewise used the Latin word Dominus ("Lord"). The form "Jehovah" is of late medieval origin; it is a combination of the consonants of the Divine Name and the vowels attached to it by the Masoretes but belonging to an entirely different word. Although the American Standard Version (1901) had used "Jehovah" to render the Tetragrammaton (the sound of Y being represented by J and the sound of W by V, as in Latin), for two reasons the Committees that produced the RSV and the NRSV returned to the more familiar usage of the King James Version. (1) The word "Jehovah" does not accurately represent any form of the Name ever used in Hebrew. (2) The use of any proper name for the one and only God, as though there were other gods from whom the true God had to be distinguished, began to be discontinued in Judaism before the Christian era and is inappropriate for the universal faith of the Christian Church."

The Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible, Supplementary Volume, page 717
The earliest instance where a word in the biblical text was not read, but another was pronounced in its stead, is that of the TETRAGRAMMATON (YHWH). The prohibition of pronouncing "The Name," and the obligation of substituting in perpetuity a term that expresses the divine majesty, are explicitly recognized in the Babylonian Talmud (Pes. 50a): "Said the Holy One, blessed be He: not as I am written, am I read. I am written (yodh-he, i.e., the Tetragrammaton), but I am read (aleph-daleth, i.e., Adonai)." The antiquity of this prohibition is evident from the fact that the Hebrew Tetragrammaton was not translated in the most ancient recensions of the lxx, where it appears only in Hebrew script. Later it was rendered into Greek by (Lord), which conveys the sense of the Hebrew Adonai. In the Greek text, at the beginning, the same procedure was followed as in the Hebrew, namely, the equivalent of the divine name was first abbreviated, through reverence, into the form , then, in later texts and under Christian influence, it came to be written out fully. In the same way, the Babylonian Targ. on the Pentateuch (Targ. Onkelos) systematically renders the Tetra-grammaton into Aramaic by the abbreviation (the arithmetic equivalent of which __26__ is the same as that of the Tetragrammaton fully written in its Hebrew form).
This ancient prohibition of pronouncing the divine name persisted orally until the introduction of the Hebrew vocalic system, where the vowels written under the Tetragrammaton are those of the substitute word Adonai. Its antiquity clearly shows that it originated in the oldest Jewish oral traditions that accompanied the transmission (masora) of the sacred text from the beginning. In contrast to the qere perpetuum, substituted orally for the Tetragrammaton, the Masoretic tradition, as a precautionary measure, indicated in the margin of later mss, in the form of a statistical note (=134), the number of times in the text where God is explicitly designated by the title (cf. Gen. 18:3 and passim). In this way, they sought to forestall any change in the form of the sacred text that might be made by an overhasty scribe.

Slide30.jpg
 
Bruce Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2nd edition, (Hendrickson Publishers, 2005), 123.

"Clement of Alexandria and Origen [early third century] show no knowledge of the existence of these verses; furthermore Eusebius and Jerome attest that the passage was absent from almost all Greek copies of Mark known to them."

"The last twelve verses of the commonly received text of Mark are absent from the two oldest Greek manuscripts (? and B), 20 from the Old Latin codex Bobiensis, the Sinaitic Syriac manuscript, about one hundred Armenian manuscripts, 21 and the two oldest Georgian manuscripts (written a.d. 897 and a.d. 913)."


  • In Favor of Mark 16:9-20Codex Alexandrinus (A) - (5th c. uncial, Byzantine in Gospels)
    Ephraemi Rescriptus (C) - (5th c. uncial, Alexandrian)
    Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis (D) - (5th/6th c. uncial, Western)
    K (9th c. uncial, Byzantine)
    W (5th c. uncial, generally thought to be Caesarean in Mark 5:31-16:20)
    X (10th c. uncial, Alexandrian)
    Delta (9th c. uncial, Alexandrian)
    Theta (9th c. uncial, Caesarean)
    Pi (9th c. uncial, Byzantine)
    f
    1 and f13 (total of 16 Caesarean texts, 11th-14th c.)
    28 (11th c. minuscule, Caesarean)
    33 (9th c. minuscule, Alexandrian)
    565 (9th c. minuscule, Caesarean)
    700 (11th c. minuscule, Caesarean)
    892 (9th c. minuscule, Alexandrian)
    1010 (12th c. minuscule, Byzantine)

    The Byzantine textual set some of the Greek lectionaries opposed to Mark 16:9-20


  • Codex Sinaiticus (À) - (4th c. uncial, Alexandrian)
    Codex Vaticanus (B) - (4th c. uncial, Alexandrian)
    304 (12th c. minuscule, Byzantine)
    2386 (11th c. minuscule, Byzantine)
    Most of the Greek lectionaries (see discussion below)


The textual evidence in support of the longer reading far outweighs the support for the omission of it.
 
Last edited:
The oldest extant manuscripts stop at verse 8. Later manuscripts end in a variety of ways, not just the above-mentioned longer ending. Apart from the fact that we don't know who wrote the original (thus encounter difficulty in justifying authority or even historical credibility if the text is interpreted as history), we don't have the original document and it is clear from the manuscript evidence that scribes were happy to change things as they saw fit.

Who knows what the original looked like, or -- on an historical interpretation -- how historically accurate it was?
 
The oldest extant manuscripts stop at verse 8. Later manuscripts end in a variety of ways, not just the above-mentioned longer ending. Apart from the fact that we don't know who wrote the original (thus encounter difficulty in justifying authority or even historical credibility if the text is interpreted as history), we don't have the original document and it is clear from the manuscript evidence that scribes were happy to change things as they saw fit.

Who knows what the original looked like, or -- on an historical interpretation -- how historically accurate it was?

If you are looking for a deeper understanding of textual variants, I recommend you log into B-greek and pose this question there. That is where you will encounter the real Greek scholars.
 
  • In Favor of Mark 16:9-20Codex Alexandrinus (A) - (5th c. uncial, Byzantine in Gospels)
    Ephraemi Rescriptus (C) - (5th c. uncial, Alexandrian)
    Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis (D) - (5th/6th c. uncial, Western)
    K (9th c. uncial, Byzantine)
    W (5th c. uncial, generally thought to be Caesarean in Mark 5:31-16:20)
    X (10th c. uncial, Alexandrian)
    Delta (9th c. uncial, Alexandrian)
    Theta (9th c. uncial, Caesarean)
    Pi (9th c. uncial, Byzantine)
    f
    1 and f13 (total of 16 Caesarean texts, 11th-14th c.)
    28 (11th c. minuscule, Caesarean)
    33 (9th c. minuscule, Alexandrian)
    565 (9th c. minuscule, Caesarean)
    700 (11th c. minuscule, Caesarean)
    892 (9th c. minuscule, Alexandrian)
    1010 (12th c. minuscule, Byzantine)

    The Byzantine textual set some of the Greek lectionaries opposed to Mark 16:9-20


  • Codex Sinaiticus (À) - (4th c. uncial, Alexandrian)
    Codex Vaticanus (B) - (4th c. uncial, Alexandrian)
    304 (12th c. minuscule, Byzantine)
    2386 (11th c. minuscule, Byzantine)
    Most of the Greek lectionaries (see discussion below)


The textual evidence in support of the longer reading far outweighs the support for the omission of it.


Is that how they determine what is valid and what isn't? If it's in more manuscripts then that version "wins"?

Shouldn't the oldest manuscripts matter more in determining which version was the original?

I thought that was a rule of thumb in Bible studies. The earliest manuscripts are preferred.
 
it's not always true that the oldest known manuscript is the most reliable simply by virtue of it being old,
nor is it true that the oldest known writers (for example Origen) had the best manuscripts themselves, or that their opinions on unclear matters of doctrine or the accuracy of manuscripts was the best, simply by virtue of them being the earliest writers.

there are a lot of things that make judging the best & most complete picture of the scripture difficult. scholarship 1,000 and 2,000 years ago wasn't what it is like today - it wasn't easy to cross reference and check documents from one monastery, library or collection in one place against another, everything was copied by hand, there were inadvertent errors, deliberate changes, and errors could be propagated accidentally or purposefully. besides having a lot of small variations between manuscripts of the same age from different areas, everything was stored on paper and untold numbers of documents were lost to fires, floods, or were hidden away during times of war & persecution, and have never been found.

the story is more complicated than just finding the oldest documents. it's true that it may be a general rule of thumb, but it's not necessarily true as a rule.
if the idea still doesn't make sense to you, well look at the 1611 KJV -- the earliest English language translation, but there are many points of translation that one could argue are better in more recent versions of the bible in English. so first isn't necessarily most accurate, and we don't have the actual letters in Paul or John or whomever's own handwriting.