Why do some Bibles omit some verses?

Which Bible is more reliable? Why are verses omitted?

A reader sends us the following interesting question:

“Hello, my name is J.F. and I have come across something that has made me shake a lot in my Christian faith: verses omitted from the New World translation of the Holy Scriptures or Bible of Jehovah’s Witnesses, such as:

I was surprised that they are also missing from the Good News Bible / Dios Habla Hoy version; and Acts 28:29 is missing from the Biblia Latinoamericana (Catholic) version… There are curses on those who add or remove something from the Bible; So on whom do the curses fall? Which is the most reliable Bible and why? What about 1 John 5:7 of the Reina – Valera version? Is it that it doesn’t appear anywhere else?

Att: J. F. V. – Christian Mission Church to the World
Charismatic Community of Love
Cali Section, Colombia – Spearhead Ministry”

Dear J.F.V.: I think your question is very interesting, because it gives us the opportunity to explain how the biblical text appeared, or rather, where we get the text of the Holy Scriptures today, in the 21st century. I think your question is asked by many other people who read the Bible, so I will try to explain the situation as best as possible, albeit briefly and in simple language.

You have found that the different versions of the Bible do not completely agree regarding whether or not to include certain verses. (Incidentally, they also do not agree on the number of books they contain, since the Catholic Church accepts as canonical some books that the Protestants call “apocryphal”; but we cannot dwell on that matter now: we go directly to the topic at hand.)

The “original” Bible

As we know, the books of Scripture were inspired by God to the sacred authors, so that we call each and every word of the Bible: “Word of God.”

But it was not God who wrote the Book of Books directly: God inspired certain men, in a mysterious way, what He wanted them to put in writing. The Bible is, therefore, a “theandric” book, a Greek word that means “made by God and man.” The sacred writer did not lose his consciousness or enter into ecstasy when he wrote: he acted in full control of his intellectual, physical, and emotional faculties; but in a mysterious way it was God the one who inspired what they should write.

The books of the Bible were written over a period of more than a thousand years, by many different authors, in the languages ​​Hebrew, Greek and a few pieces in Aramaic, which is very similar to Hebrew. The root of the question that concerns us now lies in the fact – of which there is no doubt – that the originals of the text no longer exist. That is to say: the document written in the handwriting of the sacred authors is not preserved; not even a part, nothing.

When the authors composed their books (and some of them, especially in the Old Testament, had various editions before reaching the text as we know it) more or less immediately began tocopy that text, because it was considered very useful, or prophecy, or apostolic, etc. Remember that there was no such thing as a printing press, and even few could write or read.

Let’s take an example: Paul writes a letter to the Christians of Rome. It is a physical letter, made of a certain material, size, etc. That letter arrives in Rome, it is read, it is re-read, it goes from one community to another… and it disappears, as so many things disappear with time, accidents, use, etc. The fact is that this letter is not preserved. But Before it was lost, copies were made of it: perhaps the Romans themselves copied it to read it in new communities, or they sent it to their relatives, or those who were passing through Rome copied it to take with them back to their homeland, etc. etc etc And attention, we can now talk about “copy of a copy”: Not everything was copied from the original (that is, from the physical and concrete letter that Paul sent), but also from the copies that were already circulating. This is exactly how not only the letter to the Romans was transmitted, but also all the rest of the writings of the New Testament. Something similar happened with the Old Testament.

Another thing that was done at the beginning of the life of the Church was translate the apostolic letters, the gospels, etc. into the languages ​​of the new Christian communities: Syriac, Aramaic, etc. Translations that were made either from an original, or – in most cases – from circulating copies of sacred texts.

The lectionaries and codices: the “text variants” appear.

Things being like this, little by little they began to appear collections of apostolic letters, gospels and other sacred literature. They are the so-called codices. Collections of texts also emerged for reading in Christian assemblies: they are the so-called lectionaries, as they are still used today in Catholic and Orthodox churches.

Both the “loose” copies, the “codices” and the “lectionaries” are works of copyists, that is, people who knew how to read and write and who wanted to transmit the sacred text for community and personal reading.

God inspired the sacred author to write the text, as we know, but it did not inspire the copyist to copy without error… “But how,” someone will say, “wouldn’t God also have inspired the copyist to transmit his Word without error?” We respond with a clear NO. How do you know this? Simply because today There are hundreds of copies from the first centuries that are not the same, that is, they bring the text of the Scriptures with more or less differences. Without a doubt, God assisted the process of transmitting the text of the Bible, since it is a proven fact that the differences (between those copies) that lead to different meanings are few. Yes, there are many differences without importance for the meaning of the text, while several differences change the meaning of the text, although without importance for the content.

Incidentally, of other ancient works (such as the works of Homer) we do not have originals either, and the copies that have come down to us are much later (by centuries!) than the original writing, while of the New Testament we have fragments from the 2nd century, entire texts from the 3rd, entire codices from the 4th… The Bible is, without a doubt, the best transmitted book of antiquity.

Differences between copies of the sacred text, between one codex and another, or between lectionaries, etc., are technically called “variants.”

This being the case, we have to believe that Christians of the 21st century have not received the “original” text of the Scriptures, but “copies, with many variants” -although with very high fidelity-, transmitted in codices, lectionaries, translations, etc.

The manuscripts and codices can be seen in the libraries and museums where they are preserved (Vatican, London, Paris, St. Petersburg, etc. etc. etc.), although access to them is allowed only to scholars. In general, we work with photocopies made on microfilm and other methods, so as not to ruin the manuscript.

Critical editions of the Bible

This is the real, current situation. Now, when someone translates a Bible, for example, into Spanish (as in the case of the New World Translation, Good News Bible / Dios Habla Hoy, Biblia Latinoamericana, etc., which you mention in your question), the first thing the translator has to do is ask himself: where do I get the “original” text?

Today there are several works by people who “spent their lives” studying those manuscripts of codices, lectionaries, papyrus fragments, etc., to compare them, analyze them, and give them a value. I cannot now expand much on the subject, as it would be never-ending. The point is that today there are editions of the biblical text, both the Old and the New Testament in Hebrew and Greek, made by serious scholars, in which, for example, the letter to the Romans appears according to the oldest and most serious codices and papyri, while the “variants” with respect to that text are mentioned in the footnote. It is what is called a “critical edition of the Bible” (for both the Old and New Testaments, but for reasons of time we will give only the New Testament as an example).

So the translator, to do his job, must first acquire a good critical edition of the New Testament, from which he can translate into Spanish, since it is impossible for each translator to obtain and read all the manuscripts that exist in the world (more than five thousand, scattered across the five continents in museums, libraries, etc.). That work has already been done by other people, namely those who prepared the critical edition. Today there are several critical editions. For the Old Testament, the best known is the so-called Stuttgartensia Bible, although it is not the only one. For the New Testament there are several; the best known are Nestle-Aland, Merk, and others.

A question of trust

The translators, with the critical edition before their eyes, read the text that the editors of the work propose as a safer text, but they also compare it with the variants at the footer… and they must make a decision: do I keep the text as transmitted by this or that codex, or in this case do I follow what another says? Obviously this is not a purely subjective judgment, like someone saying “I like it better if it says this or that.” There are rules, and decisions must be based on these scientific rules. This is one of the great differences between all the translations that exist today, and the reader of a translation is left with nothing but rely who did the translation. That is why your question “which is the most reliable Bible and why?” is correct.

In reality, we all must rely that the authors of the critical editions have done a good job… And those who do not know the original languages ​​should rely in which the translators did not want to “bring water to their own mill” by making a biased translation… That is why in the Catholic Church there is the “nihil obstat”, which is an official approval that the Church gives to a certain translation, after serious examination of it, and which allows the simple reader to rest assured that the translation is substantially correct. Who does not trust the Church in this field will have to rely in your own sense of smell, or in the Christian community that recommends this or that Bible, or in the translator whom you probably don’t know, etc.

And here is another observation: How do I know if the so-called “deuterocanonical” that Catholics accept as the Word of God are or are not the Word of God? Finally, I must rely that they are, or that they are not… I can go see the history of the biblical canon, of course, but… will I have all the data to decide on my own whether or not such a book was inspired by God? Is personal smell the ultimate criterion?

How important it is to know who to trust!

Are verses missing… or were they added?

After this very succinct and necessary explanation, we return to the topic of your question, to answer it more specifically. I have consulted a critical edition of the New Testament (Nestle-Aland, 1999) regarding each of the verses to which you draw attention. In all of them, indeed, there is a problem of text transmission. Let me explain.

The science of textual criticism has made many discoveries and advances over the past century: we are now in a better position to recognize what the “original” text of the Bible might be than our brethren of the 10th, or 15th, or 17th century were. Because? Because codices (of the entire Bible, or almost all), lectionaries and papyri (of an entire letter, or part) have been discovered!much older than those a few centuries ago! In this way, today we can say, for example, that such a verse, which until now appeared in the majority of the Bibles, or in the Vulgata Bible, etc., does not actually appear in the most reliable or oldest manuscripts… Or we can make decisions regarding the variants of the texts based on a larger quantity or higher quality of very ancient “copies.”

All the verses that you quote to me have been excluded from the text of the critical edition of Nestle-Aland, which is why many translations also omit them; At the footer of the critical edition, however, the “missing” text appears, for the translator’s knowledge. Why was it decided to remove that verse from the text and put it only at the foot of the page? Because the manuscripts (the “copies”) that they don’t bring that verse are more important or older than those manuscripts that they bring it. The translator, however, can still decide whether to put that text or not, or to put a part of it. But as I told you before, there are quite safe and scientific laws that do not allow us to put in or take out at will, but rather respecting the laws of the transmission of the text: when we see that a translation excludes or includes those verses for ideological reasons, that translation loses value among scholars, and therefore among churches. Although that is another topic, very interesting but that we cannot cover here.

You mention to me the Jehovah’s Witnesses Bible: Regarding the “omission” of those verses, there is no problem, as was made clear in the preceding paragraphs. The issue with that Bible is that in many other places they have translated it so partial, undoubtedly bringing “water to his mill”. The followers of the Watchtower trust in that their translators have translated well… But except for them, NO ONE ELSE accepts that translation as reliable, because it is a total manipulation of the text. And how can the simple Christian who does not know the original languages ​​realize it?

In conclusion, the fact that those versions that you tell me do not have those verses is nothing strange, nor worthy of any “curse”, or anything like that. Simply put, the verse in question seems more like it had been “added” by the copyist, for one reason or another. When the Bible was divided into verses, the most important edition was Vulgata (Latin, 4th century). Nowadays we can say that this or that verse that Vulgata brought does not actually belong to the Scriptures: since we cannot change the entire numbering of a book or letter of the Bible every time we decide to omit a verse (rest assured, this does not happen every day), then the number of the omitted verse is put in parentheses (and sometimes the Bibles clarify below which verse is “missing” and why, although not always).

Let’s also say that the discoveries continue, and it would not be strange if other manuscripts were discovered as old or older than the ones we have (as happened in the Dead Sea desert, in the caves of Qumran, a few years ago), and we have to continue changing, adapting, removing or perhaps adding the odd word or verse; It is not about “changing the Bible”, but on the contrary, about purifying it from the errors of the copyists or the clarifications that they themselves added, etc.

I hope I have been able to clarify the issue a little for you. I know it may seem a little complicated, but it is actually simple: men, when copying the biblical text, did so with errors, voluntary at times, involuntary most of the time. The science so-called “textual criticism” helps us purify the biblical text to get as close as possible to the “original.”

If you want my advice, the Jerusalem Bible can help you in your study, since it follows the most recent manuscripts, and has many explanatory notes, as well as parallels, a thematic index, etc. But there are other reliable editions in Spanish. I can guarantee those that carry the “nihil obstat” of the Church: the rest are the responsibility of whoever wants to trust them.

I will gladly answer any doubts, requests for clarification, or questions that you, or any reader, send me on this topic (Apologetica@IVE.org).

God bless you,

Author: Rev. Fr. Juan Carlos Sack
Source: Apologetica.org