Was Acts 13:42 in the Original Acts of the Apostles?

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?” 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.

Why Have Modern Bibles Removed a Portion of Acts 9:5-6?

The portion of 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).

Why Can’t Luke 23:17 Be Found In Our Modern Bible Translations?

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.

Why is Luke 9:55-56 Omitted From Our Modern Bibles?

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 P75, 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).

Was Luke 4:8 In the Original Gospel of Luke?

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.

Is Mark 6:11 a Copyist Insertion into Our New Testament?

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).

Was Matthew 20:16 in the Original Gospel of Matthew?

The words πολλοὶ γάρ εἰσιν κλητοί, ὀλίγοι δὲ ἐκλεκτοί (for many are called but few chosen) have probably been added at the end of this verse by copyists who remembered another parable which has these words at the end (see 22:14). It is possible, but less likely, that these additional words are original and were accidentally omitted by a copyist whose eye jumped from the end of the word ἔσχατοι to the end of the word ἐκλεκτοί.

Why Has Acts 24:6-8 Been Removed From the Modern Bibles?

P74 א A B H L P 049 cop lack the following from vss 6-8, which read, according to (E) Ψ Maj 33 614 1739 it (syr): “We wanted to judge him according to our own Law. 7 But Lysias the commander came along, and with much violence took him out of our hands, 8 ordering his accusers to come before you.” The earliest and most reliable manuscripts have the shorter reading. The interpolation is a classic example of a scribe trying to fill in what he perceives to be gaps in the text.

Why Did They Remove Acts 15:34 from the Bible?

Verse 34 is not contained in the earliest and diverse manuscripts (P74 א A B E Ψ Maj syrp copbo), while vs. 34 is contained in two different forms in other manuscripts (C 33 614 1739 syr** copsa) “But it seemed good to Silas to remain there” and (P127vid D it,w) “But it seemed good to Silas to remain with them, so Judas traveled alone.”

Powered by WordPress.com.

Up ↑