Talk:List of New Testament verses not included in modern English translations

after AfD

Still needs renaming as everyone seemed to agree on that (i can only think of really long titles though, so not doing it myself) and sourcing not only from primary sources (I'm not versed in this field, so only added the OR template). --Minimaki (talk) 11:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree it needs a name change as well. When I created this article, I didn't think "omitted" was the right word but couldn't think of anything else. If anyone sees a better title, please go ahead and change it. Tavix (talk) 01:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The intro notes to the TALK section say that in 2008 this article barely survived a vote for deletion. I am of the opinion that this is an important topic. I had, in my misspent youth, acquired many books and booklets denouncing all modern Bible versions - anything other than the KJV - on the flimsiest and most unscientific of pretexts, including the omission of phrases and verses which were very obviously unsupported by manuscript evidence. I firmly believe that Wikipedia ought to provide some resource with which to meet the pinheads on those claims. Sussmanbern (talk) 04:06, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Proposed Names

Doing a cut and paste of names proposed during the AfD.

• Textual differences;
• Bible verses not included in modern translations;
• List of King James Bible verses not in contemporary versions;
• List of Bible versed not included in all translations;
• Differences between the KJV and NIV translations;
• Bible Verses found only in the King James version. ;
• KJV-NIV differences;
• Textual differences in the Bible;
• Verse differences in the Bible;

Any other proposals to throw into the fray?jonathon (talk) 11:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I prefer the last two personally. Textual differences would be best, because it would leave room for further additions, changes. If no one objects, I'll change it this weekend. Tavix (talk) 02:57, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

"Verse differences" is a bad idea - it suggests a variation in verse numbering, but this is a separate issue, and unrelated to textual differences. "Textual differences" has its own problems - it makes the list much, much longer - there will be several thousand items that could be included. "Omitted verses" has the benefit of narrowing the list down to a convenient size, as well as providing a means of deciding whether the difference is significant or not. And as the lead paragraph in the article currently states, some verses have indeed been "omitted" in the sense that a verse number has been reserved for them. StAnselm (talk) 04:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Omitted Verses implies a standard that does not exist. jonathon (talk) 20:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, for example, we could go with Metzger's Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament and look at all the times he puts "omit verse". StAnselm (talk) 23:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Whilst more than slightly unfair to ask, where does that leave 3 John 1:15, or Esther 9:19a? v11n schemes? If so, how will that article differ from this article? jonathon (talk) 23:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Original Research

It takes me roughly 30 minutes to spit out a comparison of two translations of the Bible that gives omitted verses, or more than 5% difference in length. Between the copyright issue, and getting tagged as OR, I'm not sure how to add the data,so that it remains in the article.jonathon (talk) 11:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

My concern is mainly - where does the information come from? If it's from a book/paper/article, that should be said and a reference added (see WP:PSTS about using only the actual verses as primary source). --Minimaki (talk) 11:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

One of the lesser known functions of the Bible Study Software I use generates lists of textual differences between translations. IOW, anybody can duplicate it, using either the same software as I use, or one of its major competitors.jonathon (talk) 09:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I see. Maybe mention that in the article, with a reference to the used software. WP:V says The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question. The current sources allow readers to check the particular verses, but not to check if this indeed are the only ones - which is what the article claims. --Minimaki (talk) 13:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Not OR

This subject is simple and well covered in academic sources. Using primary sources doesn't always mean OR. I don't see NIV footnotes as PS. --Witr (talk) 17:43, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Phrases

Whilst the difference in phrases can be interesting, it is essentially subjective. (Gen 1:1 in the KJV omits a phrase that is found in the NIV. An omission that has profound theological implications.) It is fairly easy to work from Genesis to 4 Maccabees, and Matthew, through Didache to show that the two translations have missing phrases in most of those 42K odd verses. (Ignoring for the time being whether or not the NIV should be listed as "missing' entire books, because the complete Anagignoskomena is not included in any currently available editions of the NIV.).jonathon (talk) 02:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The list now even includes differences in individual words, and has become a wholly subjective list. (i.e. WP:Original Research). It should be pruned back to the entire verses listed in reliable secondary sources. Peter Ballard (talk) 03:36, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Besides which, if you go down to differences in individual words (which the article does in some cases), you'd probably need to list more than half the verses in the New Testament. Peter Ballard (talk) 12:00, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the "Phrases" section. It should not be restored without a secondary reference, explaining why the listed phrases are relevant but that thousands of other differences are not listed. Peter Ballard (talk) 03:36, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I like to know which policy justify your deletion, or is it a question of too much faith? You are always welcome to improve the article. --Witr (talk) 00:59, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

The section needs cleaning but not extermination. --Witr (talk) 01:20, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Deleted on the basis of it being WP:Original Research. Peter Ballard (talk) 08:17, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

There are too many Bible verses being used as refs in Wp to list here. If it sourced, it can't be OR. Anyway, I like how the article is now, full stop. --Witr (talk) 17:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Referencing a primary document (the Bible) doesn't stop the work from being WP:OR. See Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources. Peter Ballard (talk) 00:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC) (Modified for politeness Peter Ballard (talk) 01:20, 26 November 2008 (UTC))

"(Gen 1:1 in the KJV omits a phrase that is found in the NIV. An omission that has profound theological implications.)"

No, it doesn't:

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. – Gen 1:1, KJV

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. – Gen 1:1, NIV

Except for using heavens in the plural, rather than the singular, the NIV is identical to the KJV. 64.85.240.22 (talk) 08:04, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

While a study of the changes/omissions of some individual words or phrases in modern versions would doubtless be interesting, the number of such instances numbers in (literally) the many hundreds in the NT, and the entire topic can be readily understood by almost anyone who has read just one good book on textual criticism of the NT and applies the lessons to almost any critical edition of the Greek NT. This article is for the very beginners who have not yet studied the topic of textual criticism, and serves as a sort of appetizer, and that is why I prefer to see it confined to the smaller topic of entire verses, and not even all the entire verses omitted from modern versions but the more famous list(s) of "Sixteen Verses" used by the KJVOs. Sussmanbern (talk) 07:23, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Interpolations or omissions

It is rather list of Byzantine and Erasmian interpolations. The KJV is not original text of New Testament. Some interpolations were inserted by Erasmus, and they did not exist in Greek text of New Testament before. It is list of differences between KJV and RSV. Title of the article is not neutral. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 02:38, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

The name is not accurate. Would support "Bible verses not included in modern translations" instead. --Witr (talk) 01:27, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

This has been discussed before, of course. In my mind, the key lies that the verse numbers have been reserved. So in modern translations the verse number is actually skipped - e.g. in the NIV, the numbering in Matthew 17 jumps from verse 20 to verse 22. Hence, we can talk about "omitted verses" without prejudice to the question of whether the words are original or not. But the section "List of omitted Bible words and phrases" is more recent, and really does not belong. I'd be happy if that was deleted. StAnselm (talk) 02:06, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

In fact, I've gone ahead and deleted it. Should've kept a closer eye on this article and removed it earlier. StAnselm (talk) 02:13, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with deletion of phrases. This list pertains to verse numberings that have been reserved and not what words have been "omitted". Besides, its subjunctive material as well. Who decides if a word is actually left out or if it is a translational difference in which the sentence still maintains original meaning. Tavix (talk) 20:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment: We have access to the respective Greek Texts (Textus Receptus for the King James, United Bible Societies or something very similar for the modern translations), so we know when the underlying Greek is different. The problem is that there are many, many thousands of differences, and deciding which to include is subjective (i.e. is WP:Original Research). Peter Ballard (talk) 11:34, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you understand what OR is. --Witr (talk) 18:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

NRSV omissions

The NRSV does not in fact omit 2 Corinthians 13:14 nor James 1:8, but simply folds them into the preceeding verses (2Cor 13:13 and James 1:7). I think the RSV does the same thing for James 1:8. Evercat (talk) 20:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Some modern versions of the New Testament do not omit all these verses. Some translations retain some of these verses in the main text (but with footnotes indicating doubts about them, sometimes). The UBS edition indicates that some of the omissions from the main text were decided by narrow votes, while other omissions were decided by unanimous votes. Sussmanbern (talk) 08:04, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I have serious doubts about the inclusion of PSALMS as a part of this article, inasmuch as this article is devoted to New Testament verses. Moreover the comment is that verse numbering in Psalms is different in Jewish versions -- this is too simplistic to bother with. It is hardly a secret that Hebrew editions (and therefore Jewish translations) count the title of each chapter of Psalms (not only chapter 51) as verse 1, while Christian versions do not count the titles as verses. Further, the "Jewish" versions listed appear to be "Messianic", not real Jewish versions, altho the effect would be the same if the cited editions were, e.g., the Ginsburg Hebrew edition, the Letteris edition, the Stuttgart Biblia Hebraica, the Hebrew University Jerusalem Crown, the Koren edition, etc. Sussmanbern (talk) 08:04, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I know that some modern versions have verses and phrases that are not in the KJV. Essentially the opposite of the topic of this article - stuff in modern versions that isn't in the KJV. And I think that might be worth a Wiki article (but with my track record, I am not gonna start it). Sussmanbern (talk) 13:44, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Latest Editing War

Over the past couple of days, User:Tonyjustme has been attempting to edit the page; but, User:Hrafn and User:PMDrive1061 have been reverting User:Tonyjustme's additions. From my inspection of the history, it appears that User:Tonyjustme is adding information documented in the NKJV's footnotes (see What does NU-Text and M-Text mean in the footnotes?).

User:Hrafn and User:PMDrive1061, rather than treating these edits as vandalism, why not engage User:Tonyjustme in a discussion and coach him/her through the process of robustly adding information to a WP entry? Your deletionist behaviour is very abrasive to new WP contributors, and doesn't do anything to encourage new contributors to join in and improve WP.

Christopher Rath (talk) 18:04, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Christopher: (i) I was not "treating these edits as vandalism". As my edit summary: "Unsourced" indicated, I was reverting because no citations were given. This is standard practice (see for example {{Uw-unsourced2}}). (ii) Without any additional information, the redlinked 'NU-Text's and 'M-Text's would simply confuse the average reader. If you want to provide proper citations for the material, and/or explanations of what these two terms mean, then you're welcome to do so. However, it is unreasonable of you to expect editors to make a comment on talk every time they revert unsourced additions. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:55, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Bernard Sussman: I am VERY dissatisfied with the very few "Reasons" offered for any of the non-inclusions. At least three of them state the reason is that the verse in this Gospel seems to be duplicative of a verse in another Gospel; that, standing alone, is an absurd reason. Any two or three biographies or histories of the same person would be expected to have parallel passages at many places. I would like to add reasons based on textual criticism -- manuscript evidence, linguistic evidence, etc. - culled from serious texts on the subject. Naturally, I will get cranky if someone comes along and erases my stuff, so I am saying now (Dec. 16th 2017): If anyone has any objections to me doing this, speak up ASAP! I figure I'll spend a week or so preparing and then start adding "reasons" to the various entries. Considering that the previous missives on this topic end six years ago, I don't expect much opposition. Sussmanbern (talk) 03:57, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

"I would like to add reasons based on textual criticism -- manuscript evidence, linguistic evidence, etc. - culled from serious texts on the subject. "

As long as you cite the relevant sources, there should be no problem. Previous edit wars concerned addition without citations. Dimadick (talk) 12:51, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

I am Very Grateful that Dimadick has responded, and so quickly and so courteously, to my agony post. If left to my devices I intend to do the following: Provide some comments for each verse on the manuscript evidence for its omission from critical editions, any comments that I can find or which seem appropriate on the origin of the maverick verse, and possibly some insight on arguments that may have existed back-and-forth over its authenticity or omission. (It's a little odd that KJVOs complain about the omission of Mark 9:44 & 9:46 when 9:48 remains, and they complain about the omission of Luke 17:36 when the first ed of the KJV itself contained a sidenote raising doubts about the verse and Martin Luther omitted it from his German version.) I might change the list of omitted verses somewhat; other lists floating on the internet, posted by KJVOs, have some additional verses mentioned. Additionally I would move Mark 16 (the longer - KJV - ending of Mark) and John 7 (the pericope adulterae) to a separate section of "not omitted but boxed" - in the sense of being printed but enclosed in brackets or some such; with commentary. And maybe throw in, for giggles, a section on verses not found in the KJV but added in modern editions - offhand cannot think of any except the 70 verses restored to the Apocryphia, Second Esdras (but it's a start). However, I would be grateful if you (and others) would be so kind as to describe for me the gist of the previous edit wars, so I know what to avoid doing. Sussmanbern (talk) 19:35, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

I think Dimadick has provided a pretty good summary of what to avoid doing. "As long as you cite the relevant sources, there should be no problem. Previous edit wars concerned addition without citations." Alephb (talk) 08:23, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

I can appreciate the problem of additions without source citations. I myself come to this specific topic with my mind cluttered with decades of reading on just this sort of stuff - having amused myself in my youth by finding fault with the KJVOs - and while I can recite many ways the KJVOs are wrong I cannot always remember WHERE I got this particular nugget of information. Sussmanbern (talk) 15:36, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

I think I can guess why the previous attempts at this article amounted to a "war". The Reason for the omission of Mark 9:44 & 9:46 mentions these two omitted verses "are identical to Mark 9:48" - and some busybody with too much time on his hands added the unwelcome comment "citation needed". WTF, anyone with two brain cells, even without any knowledge of Greek - or even of English, can look at the page of the New Testament (in Greek or in English) and see, plain as day, that verses 44 & 46 are duplicates of verse 48. No citation is needed. It's painfully obvious. If people are going to pick at someone's work that way no wonder this article has been dormant for six years. Sussmanbern (talk) 04:22, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Editing war is right! This article was neglected by everyone for at least five years, during which time it was conspicuously incomplete, uninformative and useless. I made a good faith effort to fill it out, make it useful, and at least one busybody couldn't leave it alone for five days but kept erasing my stuff even as I was writing it, and then whining to the Admins that I don't play well with others. He couldn't even get my name right. Someone seems to have forgotten that I was a volunteer and that I was trying to do some good. But now I quit. The person who was sabotaging my efforts can finish this article to his satisfaction ... while I play the critic. Sussmanbern (talk) 09:13, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

The person who was sabotaging my efforts can finish this article to his satisfaction ... while I play the critic. I request that you strike this statement using <s></s> tags. The implied threat is not appropriate to the collaborative environment of Wikipedia. Alephb (talk) 23:48, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Alibi

The word "alibi" is used wrongly here. It means "elsewhere" in Latin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.200 (talk) 12:53, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

The word "alibi" has been replaced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.200 (talk) 11:56, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Lead Section doubts and comments

I have the following concerns:

1. Modern translations are not "based on the Alexandrian-type manuscripts". Bruce Metzger wrote in 1964 "they [scholars] are still inclined to regard the Alexandrian text as on the whole the best ancient recension and the one most nearly approximating to the original" (The Text of the New Testament, p.216), but this is a conclusion rather than a starting point. Furthermore, he emphasises the important of internal evidence in deciding the text and this has nothing at all to do with the manuscript type - see his Textual Commentary on the New Testament (UBS:1974).
2. To say that "verse numbers have been reserved" even in translations seems to imply that the translation is considering the possibility of reinstating them. It is unsourced and there is a very much simpler explanation: to renumber the remaining verses in a chapter after an omission would cause enormous confusion and many difficulties.
3. It is totally illogical to restrict this listing to single verses. The groups of verses omitted are significant and on a similar footing. I suggest adding at least, Mark 16:9-end; John 7:53-8:12 and 1 John 5:7^b-8

Finally on a more general level, the article may well be in breach of copyright by citing the NIV. Jpacobb (talk) 20:23, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, the New American Standard Bible was not "commissioned by the Catholic church," as is stated in the opening paragraph. It was commissioned by F. Dewey Lockman, a Baptist, and it has never included the Apocrypha or the deuterocanonical books or been issued in a Catholic edition. Someone has obviously confused it with the New American Bible, which IS a Catholic version (but was not "revised in 1977"). I have no idea which version contains the verses discussed in this article. Crassiodorus (talk) 04:40, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe it is necessary (or desirable) to bring up sophisticated (and disputable) details of advanced textual criticism such as the families of Greek mss - Alexandrian or Byzantine or Western or Neutral - it is enough to point to the chronology of the sources - simply that the oldest sources in Greek and in some other languages lack these verses, and possibly the fact that the verse does not show up until such-and-such century. As I have said, this article is for beginners in textual criticism (because anyone who is more than a beginner wouldn't need this particular article). I think it is also desirable to point out Greek or English versions published prior to 1881 (i.e., before the RV and before Westcott & Hort) to show that the doubts about various verses are not recent and not confined to W&H and their successors. The temptation is strong to rely on Metzger's Commentary over and over again, as he has something to say for every verse in this article, but I suggest a heavy assortment of other textual critics, especially including F.H.A. Scrivener (because he was commonly considered a KJV-sympathizer and also commented on most of these verses). Sussmanbern (talk) 06:34, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Acts 8:37 - recent addition

I considered removing Alexander's suggestion as giving undue weight to an isolated and improbable explanation. To eliminate the support for immediate baptism in favour of delaying it, one would have to omit vv 36,38 and 39a as well. It should also be noted that (i) the multiple minor variations in the alleged insertion suggest that different copyists sensed the need for an insertion and probably followed local liturgical precedents; (ii) the use of the definite article before "Jesus Christ" in v.37 though not evident in the ET is never found in Acts. I favour removing the insertion unless it can be shown to have been taken up seriously by a respectable number of reliable sources. Jpacobb (talk) 18:26, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Why not mention Mark 6:11, second part, which is rarely found in modern translations of the bible: Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city. 214.2.208.246 (talk) 00:56, 9 April 2014 (UTC)bill34543@yahoo.com (sorry if I am not using this correctly.)

Now added as 2.1. Sussmanbern (talk) 19:18, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

The article stops with the end of the Acts, but I know that a list of affected verses goes well beyond that. I used to collect KJVO (KJV Onlyist) propaganda and these are crammed with lists (usually the same in all publications) of phrases or verses found in the KJV and not found in some or most (or all) modern versions. This would include Romans 8:1 & 11:6 & 14:6 & 16:24, First Corinthians 6:20, First Peter 4:14, First John 5:7 & 5:13, Revelation 1:11. This is just the multiword 'omissions'. I have not checked to see which modern versions omit them (the lists usually are built from the RSV or NIV) or the editorial reason for the omission, but I am sure that there are appropriate verses after Acts. Sussmanbern (talk) 19:00, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Title change

Looking back, an editor thought that (among other article titles) that one of the following makes more sense. The current title sounds like modern people have thrown out material because they Just Didn't Like It, or because we are into fabrication or censorship. More truthful would be:

• List of King James Bible verses not in contemporary versions;
• Differences between the KJV and NIV translations;
• Bible Verses found only in the King James version. ;
• KJV-NIV differences;

Student7 (talk) 20:24, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

The KJVOs repeatedly circulate and republish a list of "Sixteen Missing Verses" -- always sixteen -- usually in attacks on the NIV, altho in previous generations the same list was used on the TEV and the RSV. As that list is probably the primary reason anyone would look up this article, I strenuously suggest that the title somehow mention the "16". Sussmanbern (talk) 16:13, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Matthew 23:13 or 14?

I compared various versions including Greek, Aramaic, and translations. Some of them have the two verses switched.

• The Majority Text has "κατεσθιετε τας οικιας των χηρων" (you devour widows' houses) in 13 and "κλειετε την βασιλειαν των ουρανων εμπροσθεν των ανθρωπων" (you shut the Kingdom of Heaven in front of men) in 14. A footnote says that "δε" is missing from the TR and the entire verse 13 is missing from א, B, and Cr (Nestle-Aland/UBS). It doesn't say anything about the TR switching the verses.
• The AENT Aramaic text has "דאכלין אנתון בתא דארמלתא" (you eat widows' houses) in 13 and "דאחידין אנתון מלכותא דשמיא קדם בני אנשא" (you keep the Kingdom of Heaven from sons of men) in 14.
• The AENT translation, though, has "you shut up the Kingdom of Heaven before the sons of men" in 13 and "you consume the houses of widows" in 14. Neither verse has a footnote.
• The Reina-Valera Siglo XXI has "cerráis el reino de los cielos ante los hombres" (you close the Kingdom of Heaven before men) in 13 and "devoráis las casas de las viudas" (you devour the widows' houses) in 14. Verse 14 is in brackets.

All of them agree, if they say anything, that if a verse is missing, it's "you eat widows' houses", but who switched the verses? phma (talk) 05:23, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

2018 effort at revision

Starting in January and probably continuing until about Valentine's Day 2018, I will be revising this article. That will include, among other things, reorganizing the article, providing comments and citations explaining WHY various verses were omitted or sidelined in modern versions, tracking down and linking relevant Wiki articles, and (this is something I thought was important) providing notes as to editions of the Greek NT that omitted or sidelined the same verses (because I am really cranked that KJVOs blame it all on Westcott & Hort's edition). I will also include some citations to KJVO propaganda about this same topic. Therefore, I would be very grateful if nobody would tamper with my deathless prose until Valentine's Day 2018, by which time I will leave off my tinkering on this article. But your suggestions or comments are invited! On some previous Wiki articles elsewhere I got truly cranked with some energetic types who were actually erasing my stuff even as I was adding it (reminded me of a scene out of Planet of the Apes). I am sure that by Feb. 15th you all will have plenty of criticism to heave at me. Sussmanbern (talk) 05:36, 3 January 2018 (UTC) By golly, someone came along and did exactly what I asked them not to - namely erased a good deal of what I had written even while I was writing it. This is why they wrote the Second Amendment. Sussmanbern (talk) 19:54, 7 January 2018 (UTC) This article was totally ignored for six years but as soon as I start working on it ....Sussmanbern (talk) 01:04, 8 January 2018 (UTC)!

I am eliminating most refs to the NIV because this version is still an actively ongoing franchise, having been markedly revised (some of the footnoted verses vanished altogether) in 2011. Be calm, the omissions and sidelining of the NIV are dupicated in the TEV, RSV and NRSV, and several other modern versions - even the RV of 1881 - so nothing will be skipped. Sussmanbern (talk) 06:17, 3 January 2018 (UTC) I am also trying to avoid technical talk (such as about manuscript families) usual with textual criticism, as this article would not be needed by anyone familiar with that much of the jargon but would only be sought by (and be helpful to) beginners. Sussmanbern (talk) 16:17, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

IF ANYONE HAS SUGGESTIONS OR COMMENTS, NOW is the time to make them. Your suggestions/comments are solicited. Here. Sussmanbern (talk) 00:09, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I have reconfigured the article to conform to the usual KJVO list of "Sixteen Missing Verses", a list usually used in attacks on the NIV altho it applies equally to most modern versions. This was done simply to make this article seem more responsive to the probable reason for looking it up. It may be desirable to retitle the article accordingly. Sussmanbern (talk) 16:09, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I give up. Further comments in the section on Edit Wars. Sussmanbern (talk) 10:01, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

A Reminder about WP:V

User:Sussmanbern, as we discussed when you brought up the issue on my talk page, Wikipedia editors are expected to follow WP:V. I'll quote it again to be clear: "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source." Your first revert was contrary to Wikipedia policy, and I told you so. You ignored the Wikipedia policy, and have added the unsourced material back in. This second revert is worse, because it is done after you have been clearly told that unsourced material cannot be added back in.

This is not a judgment call, a matter of me wanting the article one way and you wanting it another way. This is about basic Wikipedia policy. Unless you're willing to conform to basic Wikipedia policies, I'll be seeking some form of dispute resolution here. Removing the material now will save us all unnecessary trouble.

If you want to work on material that is not yet ready for publication on Wikipedia, you have a sandbox. Feel free to work there, and once you have found reliable sources for your claims, then you are absolutely free to add your material back in.

Could you please let me know whether you are now willing to work within Wikipedia guidelines or not, so that I know what my next steps should be? Alephb (talk) 01:36, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Sussmanbern, I am taking the fact that you are continuing to edit without discussing the policy violations as an implicit statement that you do not intend to edit in a way that complies with WP:V. Our next step is some form of dispute resolution. Do you have any suggestions about which form of dispute resolution you'd like to begin with? 02:05, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

A List of Things Still Unsourced

The following things are unsourced and can be removed until someone finds the sources. If they are removed, WP:V requires that they not be added back in until sources are added first.

Introduction

For several decades . . . no source indicating its been this long. "Sixteen Missing Verses" or "Sixteen Omitted Verses" — no source uses either quoted title. There is a citation at the end of this, but it doesn't cover everything in the sentence it is attached to. The rest of this paragraph is completely uncited.

"In point of fact, a good many more than sixteen complete verses from KJV are usually lacking in the main text of modern versions, as well as hundreds of phrases or words in verses that otherwise remain in the text" — we have no reliable source for this. Also, no citation directly supporting that the verses have "obtained a certain notoriety."

"As a spoiler . . ." This paragraph has a citation for the quote in includes, but nothing for its other claims.

"The usual theories …" This whole paragraph is unsourced.

"Most of the modern versions …" This whole paragraph is unsourced.

"For several decades ..." We can start with Burgon's The Revision Revised, which appeared even before the Revised Version of 1881. Everything else is based on my reading including a substantial collection of KJVO emphemera, such as leaflets and sermons, for which citations would be both bulky and unhelpful. Sussmanbern (talk) 04:11, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

The "Sixteen Missing Verses

Matthew 17:21 — the whole "Reason" section is unsourced.

Mark 7:16 — the whole "Reason" section is unsourced.

Mark 9:44 & 46 — the whole reasons section is unsourced, with the partial exception for the last sentence, which references "the UBS text" but does not say which UBS text.

Mark 11:26 — It may be true that this verse is very similar to Matthew 6:15; nevertheless, we have no reliable source saying that this is why editors omit it. [see my comment please. Sussmanbern (talk) 22:44, 8 May 2018 (UTC)]

First John 5:7 — The words from "The omission of this verse" to "the doctrine of the Trinity" are unsourced. [no longer present. Sussmanbern (talk) 22:41, 8 May 2018 (UTC)]

The recurring comments to the effect that "This verse resembles such-and-such verse (that remains in the text)" serves two purposes: The most important one is to show that the omission or deletion of the particular verse being discussed does not cause a Biblical teaching to disappear because the same teaching survives elsewhere in the Bible, and this might help quiet the hysterical attacks on the modern versions. The second purpose might explain how the verse managed to show up here, in the place where it doesn't belong and from which it will be deleted - because it appeared somewhere else in Scripture and might have been written in the margin of a manuscript as a sermon note and thereafter copied into the main text by mistake. Therefor I want the comments about "This verse resembles that verse" to remain, because they serve a useful function. Sussmanbern (talk) 22:38, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I can appreciate the complaint that many/most of the Reasons for omitting the 16 verses are unsourced. I can, however, clairvoyantly identify the sources with some accuracy -- they're all the same: Metzger's Textual Commentary, and a recent UBS and or Nestle-Aland edition of the Greek NT. (The last couple of editions don't differ much.) The reasons usually fall into the same category with slightly different details - a lack of evidence in the most ancient scrolls, the oldest versions, the earliest sermons, for the doubted reading. Although the reading might have crept into the text by the time of the Crusades and become much admired by readers to the present day, it wasn't written by the original Apostles. Sussmanbern (talk) 22:54, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Some other "missing verses"

This first paragraph is still unsourced.

Not "missing" but "boxed"

The first paragraph here is unsourced.

True that it is unsourced here, but the paragraph simply makes a statement which is demonstrated (with references) in the two passages in this category. Sussmanbern (talk) 23:39, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Mark 16:9-20

There is a Bible quote here, but the version it comes from is not sourced.

Now it is sourced, from the KJV. Sussmanbern (talk) 23:40, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

After working on this subsection for an extended period, working like a horse to fill it up with useful and serious information, I find that someone in authority has slapped a critical label on it disparaging it as sounding like "personal opinion". Well, yes! My point was to explain and justify the omission of these verses from modern editions. There are plenty of internet websites/videos arguing the other way, usually with slipshod assertions. I am reminded of Winston Churchill's explanation for his bias in running a govt newspaper during the General Strike, "In reporting a fire, I do not intend to be impartial between the fire and the fire brigade." Reading up on textual criticism was always an interest of mine but trying to pretend that there is an equipoise of evidence where there isn't is like those 'impartial' TV presentations about global climate change that try to make the opinion of a mere handful of scientists sound as impressive as the overwhelming consensus of 98% of the world's scientists. I leave it to someone else to 'blandify' my work. Sussmanbern (talk) 14:59, 12 April 2018 (UTC) Really, please, someone attempt a rewrite of my stuff so that 'broomstick' comment can be eliminated. Sussmanbern (talk) 23:43, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

John 7:53-8:11

The Bible quote is unsourced (no version given), and so is the incomplete sentence immediately following the quote. Alephb (talk) 03:37, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

The sources - in terms of ancient manuscripts and versions listed - were named in the Introduction; such as Souter's edition, the Nestle-Aland edition, etc.

By removing the Reasons in which I had already researched and written out the material you seriously vandalized my work.

The article itself pretty much made clear that Bible quotations were from the KJV, and if, while rearranging stuff, I did not also rewrite it, I would hope for some patience on your part.

This entire article lay neglected for more than five years and yet you cannot leave my efforts alone for five days! Perhaps you ought to undertake revising this article! Sussmanbern (talk) 04:56, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Name-dropping a few sources in an introduction is not a substitute for citing specific claims. Although I've already referred you several times to WP:V, I'll quote it again. "All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed. Please immediately remove contentious material about living people that is unsourced or poorly sourced." In other words, if material lacking an inline citation is removed, it should not be restored without an inline citation. This is a very simple requirement, and I'm not sure how I can repeat it differently to get it to stick. If you're looking for editors to be more patient, they've been trying to tell you you need to source your claims since at least December 17th. My recommendation would be to work in a sandbox somewhere until you have text that conforms to WP:V, and then add it to your hearts contempt. There is no problem with creating your own draft material that doesn't meet WP:V yet. The problem is putting that material in mainspace, over and over, despite being told that there are policies here at Wikipedia that govern what can and what can't be restored to an article. If you want me to, I would be happy to put all the material I deleted either here on the talk page or else in your sandbox so you can work with it until it is ready to be added to an actual article. Alephb (talk) 05:05, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I am gratified that someone else is making contributions to this article, in the subsection devoted to 3rd John .... but his lines about "number of verses in KJV/ ESV is reported as --" is (1) unsourced, and (2) the apparent logic that there is a difference of one verse in the total of verses in the KJV vs ESV is because of the unification of what had been two sentences does not make sense because ESV should not have differed from KJV only in that verse but should have also, for example, omitted at least the Johannine Comma. Sussmanbern (talk) 07:13, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Most of the unsourced comments are my contribution, and I did not provide sources for a couple of reasons, at least one of which is disagreeable to recount. But I did add a comment in the opening paragraph that identifies the principal critical editions and says these are the editions referenced throughout, which may eliminate the need for constant, and cumbersome, referencing that otherwise might occur scores of times throughout this whole article. The brief "Reasons" that are there now are undeniable facts which ANYBODY who bothers to fill out those sections will have to include in some way. Sussmanbern (talk) 06:00, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

I have now expanded this subsection and it is fairly complete. My purpose, of course, is to show that there were valid reasons to doubt the authenticity of these verses and I intended my contribution to emphasize this rather than 'balance' it by rehashing some (mostly sentimental) KJVO arguments for its inclusion. If someone wants to 'blandify' it to make it more in the style of an encyclopedia, be my guest. If someone wants to troll me for filling in sections that had been neglected for years, I have a different suggestion. Sussmanbern (talk) 00:55, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Comment

The intro section contains a lot of text about the article/WP itself, this is not ideal. While some mention of an article's scope can be helpful (see for example at the top of Intelligent Design), IMO this should mostly be reworked into relevant wikilinks in the right places.

"This article is intended to clarify the circumstances surrounding those 16 verses."

"The real topic of this article is textual criticism of the New Testament text, a topic touched on by many other Wikipedia articles and rather than be redundant, this article will simply present the list of 16 verses, cite only four or five of the leading examples of the textual evidence (in terms of ancient manuscript sources) for the inclusion or exclusion of the verse, and briefly summarize the reasons for the verse's omission from the main text of modern versions."

"Wikipedia provides articles identifying the ancient uncials, and minuscules. It is also significant that some Greek editions published well before the 1881 Revised Version made similar omissions. [10]"

Also, text like "The verse closely resembles Mark 9:29, but it is lacking in Matthew in א (original handwriting),B,θ, some Italic & Syriac & Coptic & Ethipic mss. 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." is very hard for me as a reader to understand. We can´t expect a general reader to now what things like א,B,θ,C,D,K,L, mss means in this context. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:33, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I think part of the reason for the lengthy "talking-about-the-article" content is that the previous contributor was trying to move things in a direction different from the one suggested by the title. As the article said before I started removing some unsourced assertions, "In point of fact, a good many more than sixteen complete verses from KJV are usually lacking in the main text of modern versions, as well as hundreds of phrases or words in verses that otherwise remain in the text, but this list of sixteen verses has obtained a certain noteriety of its own. This article is intended to clarify the circumstances surrounding those 16 verses." I don't know if the content of that unsourced bit is true, but if it is, then the title would suggest an article on the phenomenon of "missing verses" in general, while the contributor (before the recent unpleasantness) was intended to make the article simply about sixteen particular verses that hold a certain fascination for KJV-Onlyists.

If the article is to turn out well, I think a necessary thing would be deciding whether the article is about "missing verses" in general, or a collection of 16 missing verses. Alephb (talk) 17:37, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

The article was deliberately intended for beginners in textual criticism - because anyone who has studied it wouldn't need this article at all. For that reason, I decided to focus primarily on the infamous "16 verses" which are repeatedly bandied about by KJVOs - altho at the same time I left room for discussion of some other verses. And there already is another Wikipedia article covering several other verses and some in this article.
Number of "missing verses" I deleted from this article as it stood before I started on it -- zero. Number I added -- two, with the possibility open to add more.
Even while I was adding quotes, citations, and factoids to a paragraph someone else was deleting the entire paragraph out from under me. If I had been left undisturbed for a day or two you might have seen flesh start to appear on the skeleton. Considering this article lay dormant for years, that sort of sabotage seems to be purely spiteful like a schoolyard bully. So let's see if the bully boy can do a better job of it. Sussmanbern (talk) 20:10, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

1. I thought you were done. 2. Cut the personal attacks or you will be blocked. --Tarage (talk) 20:12, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to take this opportunity to deny that I've engaged in sabotage out of nefarious motives. I would also like to clarify that (unless I made a mistake somewhere) my aim was simply to remove unsourced content, and that I was perfectly happy to see content added back in after inline citations were found for it, per WP:V. I also offered, repeatedly, to move the deleted content to this talk page or any of Sussberman's userpages that they chose, so I was in no way preventing Sussberman from producing cited content. Alephb (talk) 23:39, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Just saw the 'second amendment' comment above. How did I miss that. What an absolute waste of time this has been. --Tarage (talk) 01:29, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I totally missed that one, too. Good thing I use a pseudonym here. Alephb (talk) 01:39, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Having abandoned this article, I wish to leave, for anyone rugged enough to finish the task, some SUGGESTIONS. These are only suggestions, not the start of arguments; ignore them as you wish.

• (1) This article should be aimed at rank beginners in the topic of textual criticism of the NT (New Testament). Anyone who has read even one serious book on the topic or who knows how to read the apparatus criticus of any critical edition of the Greek NT would not need, nor coming looking for, this article. Therefore it should be aimed at complete beginners in the topic, with plenty of links and refs to helpful Wiki articles.

• (2) Altho there are plenty of complete verses, and hundreds of parts of verses, left out of modern Bible versions, the number Sixteen is somehow notorious in this topic, lists of "Sixteen missing verses" having been circulated by various antagonists to one or more of the modern versions since the appearance of the RSV (not all such lists are completely identical), so I suggest that the mention of "Sixteen verses" be prominent in the article, even though the article itself may provide info on many more than 16 verses. And, of course, there is an opportunity elsewhere in the article to include (an endless supply of) additional verses.

• (3) The most recent KJVO-type literature talks of these verses missing from the NIV - but the same (or nearly the same) list of verses is also missing from the Revised Version of 1881, the American Standard of 1901, the Revised Standard of 1947, the TEV of 1966, etc. and occasionally some KJVO literature does take it back to the RV of 1881, with accusations and insinuations about participants in the RV and their motives. I suggest, therefore, taking the matter of the omission of these verses (or at least serious doubts about their authenticity) going back well before the RV. Toward that end, Reuss's catalog of Greek NT editions (1872) is very helpful in spotting when certain verses were omitted. F.H.A. Scrivener's Plain Introduction to Textual Criticism (3d ed 1886 - the last ed entirely written by Scrivener - but citing Scrivener's 1st ed has nearly the same material and definitely predates the RV) is also very persuasive; Scrivener was an expert/editor of the KJV text and also of the Textus Receptus Greek NT, and is commonly regarded as sympathetic to the Textus Receptus text, yet he dealt with many of the same omitted verses is a straightforward way, writing for a non-technical readership that he knew was entirely habituated to the KJV text. Westcott & Hort's second volume (which I think has only rarely been reprinted since 1882) contains detailed discussion of some of the same verses, but W&H are (by KJVOs) regarded as villains.

• (4) The apparatus criticus of the UBS Greek NT is especially helpful. The UBS edition is distinguished by limiting its apparatus to just the "problem" verses, including the places where KJV verses are omitted in newer versions, and there its listing of ancient sources is usually more extensive than Nestle's or Souter's editions. Also Bruce Metzger's 1993 Textual Commentary to the third edition of the UBS Greek NT.

• (5) I think it is well worth mentioning that, in several of these instances, the omission of a verse in one place left a (nearly identical) duplicate of the same verse in another place in the NT, so that the omission did not cause a teaching or article of faith to disappear (this fact would defuse a lot of the KJVO propaganda).

• (6) I also suggest some attention to not-quite-omitted verses, such as the ending of the Gospel of Mark, or the story of the woman about to be stoned for adultery (usually John 8), frequently included but somehow set apart (e.g. enclosed in brackets) in most modern versions.

• (7) The point should be made that the omissions were entirely motivated by an effort to reflect the text as it had been written by its original authors - there being good reason to suspect that these verses had not been part of the original text but had been inserted later - rather than any ideological objection to the content of the verse.

And, when it's all done, know for a certainty that not everyone will appreciate your very considerable efforts.Sussmanbern (talk) 18:36, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

@Sussmanbern: I've reformatted your comment to improve readability.

You really should consider striking the snide remark you ended with, which was totally unnecessary, and a violation of assume good faith. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:15, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

@Sussmanbern: Especially considering that you just escaped from an indef block by the skin of your teeth, I don't think you should be sailing as close to the wind as you are. Find another article you'd like to edit and give it a try, the probability is that, if you approach it right, there won't be any problems. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:21, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

@Sussmanbern: Fixing second ping - see previous remark. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:21, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

In slightly related news, Ken, you may have accidentally deleted a whole other conversation while reformatting the comment above. I'm assuming it was an accident -- I didn't see anything there that warranted deletion. Alephb (talk) 03:26, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Yup, my bad, I've restored it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:05, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Ken, as soon as I saw your comment I tried to comply but that was the very moment that my internet connection went down for more than an hour (a curse upon Mediacom!). I made a point of trying to include helpful links to internet postings of the books I mentioned, the links are now gone but readers should know those books are findable on the internet for free. I wish strength to whomever takes on this project. Sussmanbern (talk) 05:59, 11 January 2018 (UTC) And I add that RationalWiki has a relevant article: http://rationa.wiki.org/wiki/Bible_interpolation . Sussmanbern (talk) 10:29, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

I have worked on the subsection on First John 5:7, until I was satisfied that it was pretty thorough, and well-documented, and I hope that much of my work meets with someone's approval. I deliberately emphasized expressions of doubt about the verse that predated the 1881 Revised Version and Westcott & Hort, since those are played up as the villains in KJVO propaganda. And, having done that one subsection and hoping that it might be good enough to serve as a model, I leave the rest of this article for others to fill out. Sussmanbern (talk) 05:03, 23 January 2018 (UTC) ¶ I believe that I have hit on the secret for minimizing ugliness about people erasing my stuff for lack of references while I am still working on it: namely, write out one sentences with at least one ref at a time. Bit by bit the article goes up, each sentence or half-sentence supported by a single source citation. Afterward, visit the text again and add more source citations where appropriate and maybe do some fine tuning on the statements. I am adding a subsection on the conclusion of the Gospel of St, Mark, accumulating the source material is fascinating. Sussmanbern (talk) 21:03, 9 February 2018 (UTC) ¶ An apology for not being properly identified in the History page for some of my additions. I managed to screw up my computer in such a way that all the websites that used to remain open and recognize me once I signed in, no longer do that but they close up on me and require re-logging in every accursed time I return to them. I have to develop entirely new habits. Sussmanbern (talk) 06:44, 12 February 2018 (UTC) In the subsection on Romans 16, I have added the verses in question from the KJV. Sussmanbern (talk) 23:56, 28 February 2018 (UTC) I have worked long and hard on the subsection on the "boxed" ending of Mark 16, which involved a considerable amount of research. I hope that the quality of this work will redeem me in the eyes of at least a few readers. Sussmanbern (talk) 01:55, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
After a considerable amount of effort, I ceased to labor on this article and I am not going to try to protect or defend my choice of words. Already other people have been tinkering with what I wrote and they are welcome to it. Remarkably one individual in particular is not among the tinkerers. Sussmanbern (talk) 01:18, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Question regarding the use of "verses" in the title

I was wondering whether the title's implicit assumption that the Bible has always been in verses might be problematic. Maybe, and this is just a maybe, a more neutral title might be something like "variant forms of the New Testament" or "variant readings ..." or something similar. Also I guess I should acknowledge my own personal ignorance about whether there have ever been different breaks between verses over the years. If there have, that might have to be specified somewhere. John Carter (talk) 22:41, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Entirely reasonable. But the variants in single words or phrases of only two words must number in the high thousands, while variants as simple as the outright inclusion or exclusion of entire sentences are much fewer (perhaps a few dozen) - a number much easier to wrestle with for an article intended for beginners to textual criticism. Sussmanbern (talk) 23:29, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

A more general article about variant readings should probably be written, if it hasn't been written already. But I think there's also a place for an article like this one, which concerns individual verses. The presence or absence of whole verses is a pretty well-discussed phenomenon, and my vote would be for this particular article to continue focusing on verses. It might be worth adding language to the article somewhere about the verse divisions of the New Testament being a much later addition to the text, though. And yes, here and there differences in verse numberings and divisions do exist. Speaking generally, though, there's one "big system" of verse divisions that everyone has used since the invention of verses and chapters, with minor differences here and there. Alephb (talk) 23:37, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Understood. But, FWIW, I think that the really minor variations you mention could be discussed in the individual articles about those verses or groups of verses, with maybe a passing mention to that effect here. John Carter (talk) 23:42, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. Alephb (talk) 23:50, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

• How about List of New Testament passages not included in modern English translations? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:48, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I very much want to thank Walter Gorlitz, whom I do not know otherwise, for painstakingly correcting my many formatting errors without detracting or altering my deathless prose. - Sussmanbern (talk) 23:39, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
I am keenly aware that literally hundreds of verses and phrases in the KJV do not appear in (many) modern versions - and this article presents only a relative handful of those hundreds. Including all or most of those omissions and explaining the editing reasons would make this article prohibitively bulky. Suffice it to say that the reasoning behind the editorial omissions discussed here would apply to the vast majority of those hundreds of other omissions from modern versions. The KJV was translated from Greek editions that made use of manuscripts worked up in relatively recent times (not earlier than the tenth century), and had accumulated an accretion of copyist errors of various sorts. The recognition and examination of much older manuscripts provides a text much closer to that of the original authors, which is what modern versions strive to convey. Sussmanbern (talk) 20:42, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Lede paragraph

That lede seriously needs to be re-written. It's like a college-freshman thesis. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:18, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

I've taken a crack at it. It may need additional references or more tweaking. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:37, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Possible rename

The article title seems to be a bit unweildy. Could we perhaps rename the article something simpler like "Disputed verses of the New Testament". It means functionally the same thing, but it would maske parsing the title and finding the article much easier. --Jayron32 16:12, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

<br> or <br />

User:Walter_Görlitz, you reverted my edit (where I undid the previous editor's change of <br/> to <br>) and then quoted the WP editing guide, "As of April 2019, the rather common form <br> also causes this incorrect display in some of them, and is thus better avoided for the time being." (emphasis mine). You then told me to stop changing <br/> to <br>, but you are the one making that change. What gives? Christopher Rath (talk) 14:20, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

That's because it's not an imperative and only affects one tool where the author decided to (incorrectly) enforce XHTML breaks and refuses to change to change it back. It does not affect readers or the render engine. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:48, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm so glad to know that there's no point in following WP's coding guidelines. Christopher Rath (talk) 02:54, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

That's why it's a guideline and not a requirement or rule. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:10, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Psalms and 2 Esdras

The main page is about verse in the New Testament, so the subsections about Psalms and 2 Esdras are inappropriate here. DFH (talk) 16:51, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Just removed both subsections. DFH (talk) 16:54, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Agree. Hadn't noticed that before. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:16, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Disputed explanation for the removal of Acts 8:37

The reasons given for the removal of the verse are questionable. The verse is attested very early by Irenaeus (2nd century), way before any of the cited Greek manuscripts. The Majority Text contains the verse, which means that the majority of the Greek sources contain the verse so this explanation is doubtful:

The majority of Greek manuscripts copied after 600 AD and the majority of translations made after 600 AD do not include the verse.

Early "Vetus Latina" manuscripts, like Codex Laudianus also contains Acts 8:37. Given there are these early witnesses, how can it be said that the verse was not contained in the original text?

These are only factual hints, but consider also if the text makes sense. If the verse is omitted, then the Eunuch asks Philipp a question and instead of replying, he goes on to baptize him without a word. Do you believe Philipp would not answer the question he was asked by the Eunuch? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruben Noemen (talk • contribs) 09:46, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

I would suggest that you're reading into this something that isn't there. The "reason" section is stating what the given reasons were/are for modern versions not including this text, NOT an argument of whether it should or should not be excluded. ButlerBlog (talk) 17:38, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

The text gives many reasons for omitting the verse which are incorrect. I could write a book and say that this verse was excluded because God told me it was not in the original. When I would add this to the "reason" section you would surely not let this pass. Likewise the other incorrect reasons this section brings up should be removed. Ruben Noemen (talk) 19:16, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

The sixteen and the other omitted verses

Can someone please add a clarification on the distinction between "the sixteen omitted verses" and those listed as "other missing verses"? - BobKilcoyne (talk) 12:24, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Notably, attacks on some modern Bible versions - the RSV, the NIV, and others - have included a list of "Sixteen Missing Verses" -- always sixteen and the list hardly changes, even though more expansive attacks on a modern version might somewhere mention even more verses. The list of sixteen, by itself, is something of a monument, so I began this article with that list and then added many more verses that appeared in the KJV but not in (some) modern versions. Sussmanbern (talk) 06:47, 23 April 2024 (UTC) I made a point, with the list of 16, to demonstrate that the "missing verse" nearly always appeared elsewhere, in an undoubted place in the New Testament, so that its omission did not obliterate the teaching of the verse since the verse did appear elsewhere. I could do this with most of the list of 16 verses but could not always do it with some of the other verses mentioned in other parts of the article. Sussmanbern (talk) 17:24, 26 April 2024 (UTC)