Updated American Standard Version
Giving Bible readers what God said not what translators think God meant
Textual scholar Philip W. Comfort is below in detail, but in short he argues that “and the one marrying the divorced woman commits adultery” is the original wording. This is found in (𝔓25 B C* W Z), as well as 078 Maj, but omitted in א L. He feels that the textual evidence supports the inclusion of the clause, even though it is suspected of having been borrowed from Matthew 5:32. Is he correct?
The original text contains Matthew 9:34, according to the earliest and most trusted manuscripts (א B C L W). However, it is omitted in (D ita,d,k syr Hilary). Numerous scholars say that this is an assimilation to Matthew 12:24 and the parallel account in Luke 11:15.
This verse is included in WH NU but is bracketed to signal the editors’ doubts about it being a part of Matthew’s original composition. The inclusion of the verse has good documentary support, the kind that would usually affirm legitimacy for most textual variants.
Luke 24:12 is included in very early trusted and diverse manuscripts (𝔓75 א B W Δ 070 079 syrc,s cop A L Θ Ψ f,1,13) Maj. However, it is omitted from (D it). WH contended that it is a consolidated insertion from John 20:3-10. However, the scribe of 𝔓75 seldom inserted from distant parallels, and the scribe of B did so only periodically.
Westcott and Hort (1882, 72) considered the longer text to be a scribal interpolation (see note on 24:3) borrowed from John 20:20. But Luke and John seemed to have used many of the same sources for their resurrection narratives; thus, this verbal equivalence is not unusual.
There can only be one reading, which is the original reading. The reading that the other reading(s) most likely came from is likely the original. This is the fundamental principle of textual criticism.
The Byzantine text family that makes up the Textus Receptus, which is behind the KJV, and the NKJV is 80-85% in agreement with the Alexandrian text family that is behind almost all modern translations. The King James Version Onlyists (KJVOists) & the Textus Receptus Onlyists (TROists) call the differences omissions in the Westcott & Hort 1881 Greek New Testament (WH) and the Nestle-Aland 28th edition Greek New Testament (NA). They would argue that many of the differences are actually additions to the original texts, which have now been restored to their original form by removing spurious interpolations. Who is correct?
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.
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.
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).