Missing Verses in Modern Translations

Matthew 17:21

KJV: Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting.

Reason: The verse closely resembles Mark 9:29, but it is lacking in Matthew in א (original handwriting), B, θ, some Italic & Syriac & Coptic & Ethiopic manuscripts. It is, however, found in this place in some Greek mss not quite so ancient – C, D, K, L – as well as some other mss of the ancient versions. It is believed to have been assimilated from Mark.^[13]

Matthew 18:11

KJV: For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.

Reason: This verse is lacking in א,B,L (original handwriting), θ, ƒ¹, ƒ¹³, some old Italic & Syriac & Coptic & Georgian mss, and such ancient sources as the Apostolic Canons, Eusebius, Jerome, and others. It is found in some other sources, not quite so ancient, such as D,K,W,X, and the Latin Vulgate. It is not found in any manuscript before the 5th century.^[14] According to Bruce Metzger, “There can be little doubt that the words … are spurious here, being omitted by the earliest witnesses representing several textual types… [This verse was] manifestly borrowed by copyists from Luke 19:10.”^[15]

Matthew 20:16 (b)

KJV: 16 … for many be called, but few chosen.

RV: (omitted without a footnote).

These familiar words are not in א, B,L,Z, several cursives, Sahidic, and some Boharic and Ethiopic mss, but appear in slightly more recent mss such as C,D,W,θ, and Latin mss. Apparently Tischendorff’s 1841 Greek NT was the first printed edition to omit this clause. The same words appear in Matthew 22:14.

Matthew 23:14

KJV: Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows’ houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.

Reason: This verse is very similar to Mark 12:40 and Luke 20:47. This verse is lacking altogether in א,B,D,L,Z,θ, ƒ¹, Ethiopic, Armenian, several Italic, and Syrian and Coptic mss, and the writings of several early Church Fathers. It appears before verse 13 in K,W, and several minuscules. It appears after verse 13 in ƒ¹³, some Italic and Syriac and Coptic mss. The fact that it is absent from the most ancient sources of multiple text types and that the sources that do contain the verse disagree about its placement, as well as the fact that it is a repetition of verses found elsewhere, show “that verse 14 is an interpolation derived from the parallel in Mark 12:40 or Luke 20:47 is clear.”^[15]

Mark 6:11 (b)

KJV: 6:11 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrah in the Day of Judgement, than for that city.

6:12 And they went out, and preached that men should repent.

RV: (omits second sentence of verse 11).

Reason: 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). It was already doubted even before the KJV; this sentence does not appear in Wycliff (1380), the Bishops’ Bible (1568), and the Rheims (1582). Westcott and Hort omitted it and did not even mention it in their Appendix volume, nor is it mentioned in Scrivener’s Plain Introduction to Criticism of the New Testament, nor is it mentioned in Metzger’s Commentary, nor does it get even a footnote in the Souter or UBS Greek New Testament. Henry Alford’s edition of the New Testament includes this sentence in the main text, but bracketed and italicized, with the brief footnote: “omitted in most ancient authorities: probably inserted here from Matthew 10:15.”[67] The same two sentences do appear, without any quibbling about their authenticity, in Matthew 10:14–15, and it is plausible that some very early copyist assimilated the sentence into Mark, perhaps as a sidenote subsequently copied into the main text. In any case, its omission from Mark 6:11 does not affect its unchallenged presence in Matthew 10:15.

Mark 7:16

KJV: If any man have ears to hear, let him hear.

Reason: This verse is nearly identical with verses 4:9 and 4:23. This verse here is lacking in א,B,L,Δ (original handwriting), some Coptic mss. It is included in mss only slightly less ancient, A,D,K,W,ƒ¹,ƒ¹³, Italic mss, the Vulgate, some other ancient versions. As it is missing in the very oldest resources and yet is identical to verses that remain, many editors seem confident in omitting its appearance here.

Mark 9:44 & 9:46

KJV: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. .. (Both verses identical to each other, and to 9:48, which is still in the main text)

Reason: Both verses 44 and 46 are duplicates of verse 48, which remains in the text. Verses 44 and 46 are both lacking in א,B,C,L,W,ƒ¹, and some mss of the ancient versions, but appear in somewhat later sources such as A,D,K,θ, some Italic mss and the Vulgate. It is possible that verse 48 was repeated by a copyist as an epistrophe, for an oratorical flourish.^[16] The UBS text assigns this omission a confidence rating of A.

Mark 11:26

KJV: But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses.

Reason: This verse is very similar to Matthew 6:15. This verse appeared in the Complutensian Polyglot and most Textus Receptus editions but Erasmus omitted it and noted that it was missing from ‘most’ Greek manuscripts.^[17] The verse is not in א,B,L,W,Δ,Ψ, some Italic, Vulgate, Syriac, and Coptic manuscripts, and the Armenian and Georgian versions. The UBS edition gave the omission of this verse a confidence rating of A.

Mark 15:28

KJV: And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, “And he was numbered with the transgressors.”

Reasons: This verse is similar to Luke 22:37. It does not appear here in any New Testament ms prior to the end of the 6th century.^[18]

Mark 16:9–20

KJV: ₉ Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils.
₁₀ And she went and told them that had been with him, as they mourned and wept.
₁₁ And they, when they had heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her, believed not.
₁₂ After that he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country.
₁₃ And they went and told it unto the residue: neither believed they them.
₁₄ Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart,
because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen.
₁₅ And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
₁₆ He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
₁₇ And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
₁₈ They shall take up serpents;^[80] and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.
₁₉ So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.
₂₀ And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.^[81]

Luke 4:8 (b)

KJV: And Jesus answered and said unto to him, Get thee behind me, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

RV: (omits to translate the words Get thee behind me, Satan:).

Reason: 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. It is believed probable that the clause was inserted here by assimilation because the corresponding version of this narrative, in Matthew, contains a somewhat similar rebuke to the Devil (in the KJV, “Get thee hence, Satan,”; Matthew 4:10, which is the way this rebuke reads in Luke 4:8 in the Tyndale [1534], Great Bible (also called the Cranmer Bible) [1539], and Geneva [1557] versions), whose authenticity is not disputed, and because the very same words are used in a different situation in Matthew 16:23 and Mark 8:33. The omission of this clause from Luke 4:8 in critical texts is so well-established that no comment about the omission appears in the Appendix to Westcott & Hort, in Scrivener’s Plain Introduction to Textual Criticism, or in the UBS New Testament.

Luke 9:55–56

KJV: 55″But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of.

56For the Son of man is not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them. And they went to another village.”

RV: 55But he turned and rebuked them. 56And they went to another village.

[the Revised Version has a marginal note:

“Some ancient authorities add ‘ and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of.’ Some, but fewer, add also: ‘ For the Son of man came not to destroy men’s lives, but to save them.’ “

Many modern versions omit these words without a note.]

Reasons: 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,p45,75, 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). The UBS gives the omission of the doubted phrases a confidence rating of only C, and Westcott and Hort “thought it safer” to have the words in the main text but enclosed in single brackets.[68] The two passages were omitted from printed Greek New Testaments as early as Griesbach’s first edition in 1774. Both passages occur in the Majority Text editions but the Robinson & Pierpont edition encloses them with brackets, and the Hodges and Farsted edition has a footnote to the effect that the words are from the Textus Receptus but not found in some of the Majority text sources.

Luke 17:36

KJV: Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.

Reason: It is possible that this verse is a repetition of Matthew 24:40. Even the King James Version had doubts about this verse, as it provided (in the original 1611 edition and still in many high-quality editions) a sidenote that said, “This 36th verse is wanting in most of the Greek copies.” This verse is missing from Tyndale’s version (1534) and the Geneva Bible (1557). Among major Textus Receptus editions, this verse does not appear in the editions of Erasmus (1516–1535), Aldus (1518), Colinaeus (1534), Stephanus 1st – 3rd eds (1546–1550), but it did appear in the Complutensian (1514), and in the margins of Stephanus 4th ed (1551), and all of Elzivir’s and Beza’s eds (1565–1604).^[19] In modern conservative Greek editions it is also omitted from the main text of Scrivener‘s Greek NT according to the Textus Receptus, and the two Majority Text editions. Verse 36 is included by very few Greek manuscripts of the Western text-type and by Old-Latin and Vulgate manuscripts.^[20][21]

Luke 23:17

KJV: (For of necessity he must release one unto them at the feast.)

(The Good News Bible, as a footnote, gave this as: At every Passover Festival Pilate had to set free one prisoner for them.)

Reasons: 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,ƒ^{1, 13}, and some Syriac and Bohairic mss, which indicates that its assimilation into Luke had begun at a fairly early time. However, D, the Ethiopic version, and some Italic and Syriac mss put this verse after what is called verse 18, which may further indicate that it was an insertion rather than part of the authorial text.^[69] Moffatt characterized this verse as “an explanatory and harmonistic gloss.”^[70] The verse in Luke does differ from the contexts of the similar verses at Matthew 27:15 and Mark 15:6, where releasing a prisoner on Passover is a “habit” or “custom” of Pilate, and at John 18:39 is a custom of the Jews – but in its appearance in Luke it becomes a necessity for Pilate regardless of his habits or preferences, “to comply with a law which never existed.”^[71] Aland lays stress on the differences among the Gospel accounts and says, “Even though א reads the insertion, the evidence for … omission is stronger by far.”^[72][73]

John 5:3–4

Main article: John 5 § Interpolation (verses 3b-4)

KJV: ₃ . . . waiting for the moving of the water.
₄ For an Angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had.

(Note: not only is verse 4 omitted, but also the tail end of verse 3.)

Reason: It is considered unlikely that these words were in the original text of the Gospel. They are lacking in the “earliest and best witnesses”, and several ancient Greek mss that do contain them enclose them with markings indicating doubts about their authenticity, the passage contains words or expressions that appear nowhere else in John (such as the Greek words for “at a certain season [= occasionally]” and “stirring” and “diseases”), and the mss that contain this verse differ among themselves as to the wording.^[22] The UBS text gave the omission of this verse a confidence rating of A. This verse was omitted from Edward Harwood’s Greek NT (1776), marked as doubtful in Griesbach’s editions (1777), and thereafter generally relegated to a footnote, enclosed in brackets, or omitted completely.

Henry Alford wrote, “The spuriousness of this controverted passage can hardly be questioned.”^[23] Without the words at issue the context simply states that a swimming or bathing pool in or near Jerusalem was a gathering place for sick and crippled people, some of whom sought to get into the pool (either for physical comfort or for ritual cleansing) and it was there that Jesus performed miraculous healing. But the words quoted above complicate this story by asserting that miraculous cures were already taking place at this pool in the absence of Jesus, owing to the unpredictable intervention of an (apparently invisible) angel. This passage in John 5 is the only mention of this pool – no such miraculous pool is mentioned in Josephus or other histories^[24] The words in question do not appear in the oldest manuscripts, and in those manuscripts that contain them they are sometimes marked as doubtful, and differ from manuscript to manuscript “with that extreme variation in the reading which so often indicates grounds for suspicion”.^[25]

The italicized words do not appear at all in p^{66, 75}, א, A(original hand), B, C(original hand), L, and some Italic, Syriac, Coptic, and Latin Vulgate manuscripts, and in quotations of the story by several early Greek Fathers. Verse 4 (“For an angel …”) appears but without the concluding words of verse 3 (‘waiting for the stirring of the water …”) in A (where it says the angel “bathed in the water” rather than “descended into the water”), L, 18 (fourteenth century), and an Egyptian manuscript. The concluding words of verse 3 but not any of verse 4 appear in D, 33 (ninth century), and some Latin manuscripts. The entire italicized passage appears in C(third hand), K (also with the angel “bathed in the water”), Δ,Θ,Ψ, and numerous other manuscripts, and some Italic, Syriac, Coptic, and Armenian manuscripts, and several Latin Fathers, Some manuscripts – S,Λ,Π, and a few others – contain the words enclosed by marks of doubt. Among the manuscripts that contain this sentence-and-a-half, there are many variations and permutations.^[26]

The Revised Version (1881) omitted the italicized words from its main text, making the passage read: “… a multitude of them that were sick, blind, halt, withered. [5] And a certain man was there …”, and as a side-note, “Many ancient authorities insert, wholly or in part,” and here present the italicized words exactly as they appeared in the KJV. Several modern versions similarly relegate those words to a footnote, and some others (such as Moffatt) include the words in the main text but are enclosed in brackets with an explanation in a footnote.

John 7:53-8:11

53 And every man went unto his own house.

8 Jesus went unto the mount of Olives.

2 And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them.

3 And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,

4 They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.

5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?

6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.

7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

8 And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.

9 And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.

10 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?

11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

Acts 8:37

Main article: Acts 8 § Verse 37

KJV: And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

Modern versions: Either sidelined to a footnote (e.g., ESV, RV, RSV, NRSV, NIV, Hodges & Farstad Majority Text) or omitted altogether (e.g., Moffatt, Goodspeed, Schonfield, Robinson & Pierpont Majority Text).

Reason: The earliest Greek manuscript (E^a/E₂) of the New Testament to include this verse dates from the late sixth or early seventh century^[27][28] and it is only found in Western witnesses to the text with many minor variations.^[29] The majority of Greek manuscripts copied after 600 AD and the majority of translations made after 600 AD do not include the verse.^{[30][31][32][33]} The tradition of the confession was current in the time of Irenaeus^[34] as it is cited by him (c. 180)^[35] and Cyprian (c. 250)^[36]

Possible Scribe Commentary

This verse appears in E (specifically, a portion from a codex consisting of Acts, dated to the 6th century, once owned by Archbishop William Laud and therefore called the Codex Laudianus, sometimes designated E₂ or E^a) and several cursives dating after the 9th century (showing many variants), “manuscripts of good character, but quite inadequate to prove the authenticity of the verse,” according to F.H.A. Scrivener.^[37] This verse was not found in the Syriac Peshitta, with the result that a printed edition of the Peshitta inserted the verse translated into Syriac by the editors,^[37] It is similarly missing from p^{45, 74}, א, A,B,C,P,Ψ, and a multitude of other codices and cursives. Its omission has a UBS confidence rating of A.^[38] But, as Kurt Aland noted, “The external evidence [for the inclusion of this verse] is so weak that the Nestle apparatus cited only the support for insertion and not for the original omission… The voice which speaks in Acts 8:37 is from a later age, with an interest in the detailed justification of the [Ethiopian] treasurerer’s desire for baptism.”^[39] It was omitted in the Complutensian edition, and included in Erasmus’s editions only because he found it as a late note in the margin of a secondary manuscript and, from Erasmus, it found its way into other Textus Receptus editions and then the KJV.^[40] As Scrivener said, “We cannot safely question the spuriousness of this verse, which all the critical editors condemn. …”^[37]

“For although in the Acts of the Apostles the eunuch is described as at once baptized by Philip, because “he believed with his whole heart,” this is not a fair parallel. For he was a Jew, and as he came from the temple of the Lord he was reading the prophet Isaiah,” (Cyprian)^[36] and is found in the Old Latin (2nd/3rd century) and the Vulgate (380–400). In his notes Erasmus says that he took this reading from the margin of manuscript 4ap (15th century) and incorporated it into the Textus Receptus.^[41] J. A. Alexander (1857) suggested that this verse, though genuine, was omitted by many scribes, “as unfriendly to the practice of delaying baptism, which had become common, if not prevalent, before the end of the 3rd century.”^[42]

Acts 9:5–6

KJV: 5 And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.

6 And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.

(All in bold type omitted in modern versions)

RV: 5 … ‘I am Jesus whom thou persecutest; 6 but rise, and enter into the city, and

it shall be told thee what thou must do.’ …

Entirely omitted words: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him,

Reason: 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). [74] The 18th century Bible scholar, Johann David Michaelis, wrote (c. 1749), “[This] long passage … has been found in not a single Greek manuscript, not even in those which have been lately [ca. 1785] collated by Matthai. It is likewise wanting in the Complutensian edition; but it was inserted by Erasmus [translating it from the Latin Vulgate], and upon his authority it has been adopted by the other editors of the Greek Testament…This passage then, which later editors have copied from Erasmus, and which is contained in our common editions, is not only spurious, but was not even taken from a Greek manuscript.”[75] The passage does not appear in the Complutensian Polyglot (1516) and noted as doubtful in Wettstein’s 1763 London edition, and since then it scarcely appeared in the main text and sometimes not even as a footnote in editions of the Greek New Testament and modern translations.

Acts 9:6

King James Version
6 And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.

English Standard Version
6 But rise and enter the city, and you will be told what you are to do.”

Acts 13:42

KJV: And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next Sabbath.

(all in bold type omitted in modern versions)

RV: And as they went out, they besought that these words might be spoken to them the next sabbath.

Reasons: 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?”[76] 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 appearance of the words for Jews and for Gentiles (ethna) occurs in Codices Ψ and P (both ninth cent.) and a number of later mss. A possible reason for the rewriting of this verse is that the original is awkward and ambiguous—the Greek text says “they went out … they requested”, without any further identification; it is not clear who the two “they” are, whether they are the same or different groups. Bishops Westcott and Hort describe the original (RV) reading as “the obscure and improbable language of the text as it stands.”[77] Even before the KJV, the Wycliffe version (1380) and the Douay-Rheims version (1582) had renderings that resembled the original (Revised Version) text. The ambiguity of the original reading has motivated some modern interpretations to attempt to identify “they”—e.g., the Good News Bible, the New American Standard, the NIV, and the New RSV, have Paul and Barnabas going out and ‘the people’ inviting them to repeat or expand on their preaching.

Acts 15:34

KJV: Notwithstanding it pleased Silas to abide there still.

Reason: Although this verse, or something similar to it, is quite old, it does not appear in the oldest manuscripts, and the manuscripts that do contain it are inconsistent about its text. It does not appear at all in א, A,B,E,L,P,Ψ, and other mss, some Italic, Syriac, Coptic, Slavonic, the best mss of the Latin Vulgate, and other versions, and quotations of this paragraph in Chrysostom.

The verse as it appears in the KJV is found in less ancient Greek mss (cursives, after the 9th century) and some other Italic, Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic, and other versions. However some other, equally old resources, such as the C codex, and several cursives, change one word to make the verse read, “Notwithstanding it pleased Silas that they should abide there still.”

Several other sources, such as Codex D (Codex Bezae) and some Italic mss, extend the verse with the ending, “and Judas traveled alone”; and a couple of Italic and Latin mss add to that, “to Jerusalem.”^[43] Erasmus annotated this verse with the comment that the reference to Judas did not appear in any Greek ms known to him.^[44]

As F.H.A. Scrivener put it, “No doubt this verse is an unauthorised addition, self-condemned indeed by its numerous variations. … [It must have begun as] a marginal gloss, designed to explain how … Silas was at hand in verse 40, conveniently for Saint Paul to choose him as a companion in travel.^[45]

This verse was omitted from the Revised Version and most modern versions, but many versions include it in a footnote.

Acts 23:9 (b)

KJV: Let us not fight against God.

RV: (omitted without a note)

Reasons: 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.[78]

Acts 24:6–8

KJV: ₆ Who also hath gone about to profane the temple: whom we took, and would have judged according to our law.
₇ But the chief captain Lysias came upon us, and with great violence took him away out of our hands,
₈ Commanding his accusers to come unto thee: by examining of whom thyself mayest take knowledge of all these things, whereof we accuse him.

      (Note above that not only is verse 7 omitted, but also some of verse 6 and verse 8.)

To clarify, only verse 7 is omitted entirely, and leaving out the beginning of verse 6 and most of verse 8. The resulting text looks like this (from the Revised Version):

RV: ₆ Who moreover assayed to profane the temple; on whom we also laid hold;
₈ from whom thou wilt be able, by examining him thyself, to take knowledge of all these things, whereof we accuse him.

Reason: These words are not found in the oldest sources – p⁷⁴,א, A, B, P, several minuscules, some mss of the Italic, Vulgate, Coptic, and Georgian versions. The words are found in sources not quite as old – E,Ψ, some minuscules (with many variants), some Italic mss, and the Armenian and Ethiopic versions. The absence of these words from the earliest resources, and the several variations in the resources in which they appear, made their exclusion probable but not a certainty (the UBS assigned the omission a confidence rating of only D).^[46] While verse 7 is omitted in its entirety, parts of verse 6 and verse 8 are also omitted.

Name of soldier due to tradition, commentary

Acts 28:29

KJV: And when he had said these words, the Jews departed, and had great reasoning among themselves.

RV: (verse omitted from main text, in footnote with comment, “Some ancient authorities insert verse 29”)

Reason: This verse is lacking in the oldest sources – p⁷⁴, א, A,B,E,ψ, several minuscules, some Italic, Vulgate, Syriac, Ethiopic, and Coptic mss, and the Armenian and Georgian versions. They appear only in later sources such as P (9th century) and several minuscules, and a smattering of Italic mss.. The UBS gave the omission of this verse a confidence rating of B. Erasmus of Rotterdam, in working up the very first printed Greek New Testament from a multitude of manuscripts, included this note for this verse: “I did not find the words in several old manuscripts.”^[47]

Romans 16:24

KJV: The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.

RV: (omitted from main text, in footnote)

Reason: This verse occurs twice in the KJV in this chapter; once as the conclusion to verse 20 and again as verse 24, which is the occurrence omitted from modern versions. The first occurrence (as part of verse 20) is very well supported by ancient resources, including p⁴⁶, א, A,B,C,P,Ψ, and several ancient versions (although some omit ‘Christ’ and some omit ‘Amen’); its inclusion in verse 20 got a UBS confidence rating of B. However, its recurrence as verse 24 is not so well supported. It does not occur after verse 23 in p^{46 & 61}, א, A,B,C, several minuscules and some other sources; it does appear in D,G,Ψ, minuscule 629 (although G,Ψ, and 629—and both leading compilations of the so-called Majority Text—end the Epistle with this verse and do not follow it with verses 25–27) and several later minuscules; P and some minuscules do not have it as verse 24 but move it to the very end of the Epistle, after verse 27. Westcott and Hort said of the recurrence as verse 24, “This last combination, which rests on hardly any authority, and is due to late conflation, was adopted by Erasmus from the Latin and is preserved in the ‘Received Text’.”^[48] The verses immediately before verse 24, the verse 24 itself, and the verses following verse 24 show many variations in the surviving manuscripts. An abbreviated history of the passage is that the conclusion of the Epistle to the Romans was known in several different versions: About the year 144, Marcion made radical changes in the ending of the Epistle to the Romans, breaking it off with chapter 14. At about the same time someone else made in other manuscripts the addition of verses 16:24 and 16:25–27. despite the existence of a concluding benediction at 16:20 (whose purpose was obscured by the greetings appended at 16:21–23). This resulted in a proliferation of readings (at least 15 different permutations among the surviving resources).^[49] Because of its absence from the oldest sources and the confusion about its appearance in several of the sources containing it, its omission after verse 23 got a UBS confidence rating of B.^[50]

1 Thess 5:28

1 John 5:7–8

KJV: ₇ For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the holy Ghost, and these three are one.
₈ And there are three that bear witness in earth, …

Modern versions: (omitted from main text and not in a footnote)

Reason: A multitude of books have been devoted to just this verse, including: A Vindication of I John V, 7 from the Objections of M. Griesbach [by Thomas Burgess] (1821, London); Das Comma Ioanneum: Auf Seine Hewrkunft Untersucht [The Johannine Comma, an examination of its origin] by Karl Künstle (1905, Frieburg, Switz.); An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture by Sir Isaac Newton (published posthumously 1785); Letters to Mr. Archdeacon [George] Travis in answer to his Defence of the Three Heavenly Witnesses by Richard Porson (1790, London); A New Plea for the Authenticity of the Text of the Three Heavenly Witnesses or Porson’s Letters to Travis Eclectically Examined by Rev. Charles Forster (1867, London), Memoir of The Controversy respecting the Three Heavenly Witnesses, I John V.7 ˈ by ‘Criticus’ [Rev. William Orme] (1830, London), reprinted (1872, Boston, “a new edition, with notes and an appendix by Ezra Abbot” ); and The Three Witnesses – the disputed text in St. John, considerations new and old by Henry T. Armfield (1893, London); and many more.^[51] Eberhard Nestle, writing in Germany at the end of 19th century, said, “The fact that it [the Comma Johanneum] is still defended even from the Protestant side is interesting only from a pathological point of view.”^[52] F.H.A. Scrivener, usually regarded as a defender of the KJV text, said of this verse, “The authenticity of [this verse] will, perhaps, no longer be maintained by anyone whose judgment ought to have weight; but this result has been arrived at after a long and memorable controversy, which helped keep alive, especially in England, some interest in Biblical studies. …”^[53] The UBS gives this omission a confidence rating of A.

Early Church Fathers did not mention this verse, even when gathering verses to support the Doctrine of the Trinity.^[54] This verse first appears, not in a New Testament manuscript, but in a fifth century Confession of Faith, and after that it was assimilated into mss of the Latin Vulgate, but it was (because of the lack of Greek documentary support) omitted from the first two “Textus Receptus” printed editions of the New Testament (namely those edited by Erasmus, 1516 and 1519),^[55] as well as some other very early Textus Receptus editions, such as Aldus 1518, Gerbelius 1521, Cephalius 1524 and 1526, and Colinaeus 1534.^[56] Stephanus (Robert Estienne), in his influential Editio Regia of 1550 (which was the model edition of the Textus Receptus in England),^[57] was the first to provide an apparatus showing variant readings and showed this verse was lacking in seven Greek manuscripts.^[58] Martin Luther rejected this verse as a forgery and excluded it from his German translation of the Bible while he lived – it was inserted into the text by other hands after his death.^[59] The first appearance of the Comma in the main text of a Greek New Testament manuscript is no earlier than the 15th century.^[60]

Doubts about its genuineness were indicated in printed Greek New Testaments as early as that of the first two editions (1515 & 1519) of Erasmus of Rotterdam, who simply left the verse out because he could not find a Greek ms containing it – and provided a comment that “this is all I find in the Greek manuscripts”.^[61] Expressions of doubt also appeared in the edition of Stephen Courcelles (Étienne de Courcelles), in 1658, and from Johann Jakob Griesbach‘s edition of 1775. Most critical editions relegated the Comma to a footnote or otherwise marked it as doubtful.^[62] The American Bible Union,^[63] a Baptist organization, omitted this verse from the new English translation of the New Testament it published in 1865. The Roman Catholic Church was a bit more resistant about yielding up this verse; an 1897 decision of the Holy Inquisition forbade a Catholic “to deny or even express doubt about the authenticity of” the Johannine Comma, but this was effectively reversed by a declaration of the Holy Office on June 2, 1927, which allows scholars to express doubts and even denials of the genuineness of the Comma, tempered by the fact that the Vatican would have the final authority.^[64] and, e.g., the 1966 Jerusalem Bible omits the Comma without a footnote. The spurious nature of this verse is so notorious^[65] that even the Revised Version of 1881 did not bother to include nor provide a footnote for this verse, and many other modern versions do likewise. Ezra Abbot wrote, “It may be said that the question [of excluding this verse] is obsolete; that the spuriousness of the disputed passage had long been conceded by all intelligent and fair-minded scholars. This is true, but a little investigation will show that great ignorance still exists on the subject among the less-informed in the Christian community.”^[66] Even the two leading editions of the so-called Majority Text (Robinson & Pierpont, and Hodges & Farstad) omit this verse (the Hodges & Farstad edition acknowledge the ‘Textus Receptus’ version of this verse in a footnote).