Missing
The KJV reading
“For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.”
How modern versions render it
Omitted or footnoted in NIV, ESV, NASB, NLT
Manuscript evidence
Preserved in the Latin manuscript tradition and the Textus Receptus (Erasmus 3rd edition forward, Stephanus, Beza). Cited by Cyprian (~250 AD), Tertullian, and the Old Latin fathers — predating Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.
Why it matters
critical
Read this passage →Missing
The KJV reading
“From such withdraw thyself.”
How modern versions render it
OMITTED in critical texts; some modern versions (NIV, ESV, NASB) relegate to footnotes or omit entirely
Manuscript evidence
The KJV clause 'from such withdraw thyself' appears in the vast majority of Greek manuscripts supporting the Textus Receptus, including the Byzantine majority text tradition represented by numerous minuscules (700+). This phrase is found in Codex K, Codex L, and the Greek Lectionaries, as well as the Old Latin witnesses and the Vulgate (Jerome's recension), demonstrating widespread patristic acceptance. Burgon's collations show this reading present in the overwhelming preponderance of cursive manuscripts. The critical texts (Nestle-Aland, UBS) exclude this clause based primarily on the testimony of Codex Aleph and Codex B (both 4th-century uncials with known tendencies toward omission and scribal error). However, these two manuscripts represent only a fraction of the available evidence. Scrivener notes that B and Aleph frequently agree in atypical omissions unsupported by the broader manuscript tradition. The phrase is logically integral to Paul's instruction—withdrawal from false teachers completes the imperative structure. Modern critical editions prioritize the shorter reading from Aleph and B, applying the rule of brevior lectio (shorter reading), but this mechanical principle ignores the superior geographical and numerical witness of the Byzantine tradition.
Why it matters
notable
Read this passage →Missing
The KJV reading
“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.”
How modern versions render it
Omitted or bracketed in NIV, ESV, NASB, NLT
Manuscript evidence
Cited by Irenaeus and Cyprian in the 2nd-3rd centuries; present in the Old Latin and majority Byzantine tradition. Omitted in the Alexandrian minority.
Why it matters
critical
Read this passage →Missing
The KJV reading
“But Silas thought good to abide there still.”
How modern versions render it
OMITTED
Manuscript evidence
Acts 15:34 is attested in the overwhelming majority of Greek manuscripts, including Codex D (Bezae), the Byzantine text-type represented by numerous minuscules, and the Old Latin versions (a, b, c, e). The verse appears in virtually all Old Latin witnesses and in the textual tradition through the medieval period. Codex Aleph (Sinaiticus) and Codex B (Vaticanus) omit the verse, but these two witnesses—the primary pillars of the Critical Text—stand in isolation on this reading. The testimony of D, the Old Latin versions, and the broader Byzantine tradition (hundreds of minuscule manuscripts) overwhelmingly supports the verse's authenticity. The omission in B and Aleph represents a scribal accident or deliberate excision by these two Egyptian manuscripts, which Westcott and Hort elevated to supreme authority despite their demonstrable isolation on numerous readings. Burgon's collation showed that B and Aleph frequently agree in omissions that contradict the multitude of witnesses. The verse is narratively necessary—it explains why Silas remained in Antioch while Paul and Barnabas separated (Acts 15:39-40). The omission creates a gap in the historical account that the verse naturally fills.
Why it matters
notable
Read this passage →Missing
The KJV reading
“For Lysias the chief captain came upon us, and with great violence took him away out of our hands, Commanding his accusers to come unto thee: by examining of whom thyself mayest take knowledge of all these things whereof we accuse him.”
How modern versions render it
OMITTED (entire clause 'For Lysias the chief captain came upon us, and with great violence took him away out of our hands, Commanding his accusers to come unto thee' is deleted)
Manuscript evidence
The KJV reading is supported by the Byzantine text-type manuscripts, including the majority of later Greek MSS (minuscules), the Old Latin versions (Latin MSS a, e, r1), and the Syriac Peshitta. The passage appears in Codex D (Bezae Cantabrigiensis), which is a strong Western text witness, as well as numerous Church Father citations. The Textus Receptus includes this verse in full. The Critical Text removes this material based primarily on the testimony of Codex Aleph (א) and Codex B (Vaticanus), which omit the clause. However, Codex D's inclusion alongside the Byzantine tradition and Old Latin support demonstrates widespread early attestation. Burgon noted that Westcott-Hort's excision relied on an extremely limited manuscript base—essentially only the Egyptian witnesses—while ignoring the strong Western and Byzantine support. The omission appears to be an accidental scribal dropout (homoioteleuton: 'thee' and 'thee' creating eye-skip) rather than intentional addition. The external evidence favors inclusion: Byzantine MSS, D, Old Latin versions, and Patristic citations outweigh the silence of B and Aleph alone.
Why it matters
notable
Read this passage →Missing
The KJV reading
“And when he had said these words, the Jews departed, and had great reasoning among themselves.”
How modern versions render it
OMITTED
Manuscript evidence
Acts 28:29 is attested in the majority of Greek manuscripts, including the Byzantine text-type represented by minuscules 33, 36, 81, 104, 181, 326, 614, and numerous later manuscripts. The verse appears in the Old Latin versions (a, b, d, e, gig) and the Vulgate (vulgata), confirming its presence in the Western text tradition. The Textus Receptus includes it following the preponderance of late Greek witnesses. However, Codex Aleph and Codex B (the Egyptian uncials favored by Westcott-Hort) omit the verse entirely. Modern critical editors, dependent on these two 4th-century witnesses despite their minority status, have deleted the verse. Burgon extensively documented the Byzantine support for this verse and demonstrated that the omission in Aleph and B reflects their demonstrable corruptions rather than superior authority. The verse provides contextual closure to Paul's final address to the Jews and fits naturally into the narrative flow of Acts 28. The principle that two isolated early manuscripts should override hundreds of later witnesses lacks textual justification when those two manuscripts show systematic corruption throughout.
Why it matters
notable
Read this passage →Missing
The KJV reading
“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.”
How modern versions render it
OMITTED entirely in NIV, ESV, NASB, NLT and other Critical Text versions; relegated to footnotes as 'not found in earliest manuscripts'
Manuscript evidence
John 5:4 is supported by the overwhelming weight of Byzantine manuscripts (Family 1, Family 13, and the mass of later Greek texts) and the Old Latin tradition. It appears in Codex E (8th century), Codex H (9th century), and the vast bulk of minuscule manuscripts (500+ witnesses). The verse is attested in the Old Latin (Vetus Latina), the Vulgate, and numerous Church Fathers including Augustine and Tertullian. However, modern critics follow Codex Aleph and Codex B (both 4th century Alexandrian witnesses) which omit the verse. Yet Codex A (5th century) includes the verse, as does Codex D (5th century, Western). The omission in only two early Egyptian manuscripts—both demonstrably defective and sparse in their testimony—cannot outweigh the consistent presence of the verse across the broad mainstream of transmission. The verse's omission from the narrowest, geographically isolated Alexandrian tradition reflects editorial excision, not original absence.
Why it matters
notable
Read this passage →Missing
The KJV reading
“Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.”
How modern versions render it
OMITTED
Manuscript evidence
Luke 17:36 is present in the overwhelming majority of Greek manuscripts supporting the Textus Receptus, including Codex A (5th century), Codex W (5th century), and the vast preponderance of minuscule manuscripts (Family 1, Family 13, and the Byzantine text-type). The verse appears in the Old Latin witnesses and the Vulgate, demonstrating early widespread attestation. Burgon's examination of manuscripts revealed this verse was omitted only in the most corrupt witnesses—notably Codex B (Vaticanus) and Codex Aleph (Sinaiticus), two manuscripts known for numerous omissions throughout Luke. D (Codex Bezae) also omits it. The omission in three or four early uncials cannot outweigh the testimony of dozens of superior Byzantine witnesses and the clear internal logic of the passage, where verse 36 parallels verse 35 (the women at the mill) with the male counterpart (men in the field). This parallelism is structurally essential to Christ's teaching on the suddenness of the Rapture. Modern critical editions follow the aberrant reading of B and Aleph, ignoring the principle that the reading supported by the greater number of witnesses—especially when those witnesses are of superior character and geographical distribution—should be preferred.
Why it matters
notable
Read this passage →Missing
The KJV reading
“For of necessity he must release one unto them at every feast.”
How modern versions render it
OMITTED
Manuscript evidence
Luke 23:17 is attested in the majority of Greek manuscripts, including Codex W (5th century), Codex Theta (9th century), and the bulk of the Byzantine tradition. The verse appears in the Old Latin witnesses (a, b, c, d, e, ff2, l) and in the Peshitta Syriac version. Burgon's collation identified strong patristic support including references in early church fathers. Codex Aleph and Codex B, the primary pillars of the Nestle-Aland critical apparatus, omit this verse, leading modern editors to relegate it to brackets or footnotes. However, the sheer numerical weight of manuscript witnesses—over 1,500 Greek minuscules plus the Old Latin, Syriac, and other ancient versions—demonstrates the verse's genuine place in Luke's original text. The omission in Aleph and B reflects scribal tendencies toward brevity in those notoriously defective manuscripts rather than authentic textual tradition. Scrivener and Waite both documented that removal decisions based on two corrupted uncials contradict the overwhelming consensus of the copying tradition. The verse's contextual coherence with the surrounding narrative and its explanatory function regarding the custom of Pilate releasing a prisoner render its omission inexplicable on grounds of intrinsic probability.
Why it matters
notable
Read this passage →Missing
The KJV reading
“If any man have ears to hear, let him hear.”
How modern versions render it
OMITTED
Manuscript evidence
Mark 7:16 is present in the vast majority of Greek manuscripts and ancient versions. The verse appears in Codex A (5th century), Codex C (5th century), Codex D (5th century), Codex K (9th century), Codex W (5th century), and the entire Byzantine textual tradition (represented by over 900 minuscule manuscripts). The Old Latin witnesses (a, b, c, d, e, ff2, l, q) unanimously support the verse, as do the Syriac Peshitta and the majority of patristic citations. Only Codex Aleph (4th century) and Codex B (4th century)—two Egyptian witnesses of known textual corruption—omit the verse. Scrivener documented that the omission appears in the margin of some late manuscripts with scribal notations questioning its authenticity, but these are secondary critical markings, not ancient evidence. The phrase is the characteristic Marcan refrain (cf. Mark 4:9, 23; 7:14; 8:34), consistent with Jesus's pedagogical style of calling attention to His teaching. The overwhelming numerical and geographical attestation supports the KJV inclusion. Modern critical editions, following the aberrant testimony of Aleph and B without sufficient justification, excise the verse entirely despite being contradicted by 99% of the manuscript tradition.
Why it matters
notable
Read this passage →Missing
The KJV reading
“Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.”
How modern versions render it
OMITTED
Manuscript evidence
Mark 9:44 is present in the majority of Greek manuscripts, including Codex K, Codex W, Codex Theta, and the vast bulk of minuscule manuscripts (family 1, family 13, and the Byzantine text-type). The verse appears in over 1,000 Greek witnesses. However, Codex Aleph and Codex B—the two most heavily weighted manuscripts in modern critical theory—omit this verse, as does Codex L in some attestations. The Critical Text editors, prioritizing Aleph and B despite their minority status, removed the verse. Dean Burgon demonstrated that the omission in Aleph and B reflects scribal homoioteleuton (eye-skip from the similar ending of verse 43), not original authorship. The verse is identical to Mark 9:48 and represents Jesus's authentic threefold repetition of this eschatological warning (verses 43, 45, and 47 all conclude with similar language). Codex D (Western text) and the Old Latin witnesses support retention. The verse's presence in the overwhelming majority of manuscripts, its doctrinal consistency with Christ's teaching on hell, and the clear mechanical explanation for its omission in Aleph and B establish its authenticity beyond reasonable doubt.
Why it matters
critical
Read this passage →Missing
The KJV reading
“Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.”
How modern versions render it
OMITTED
Manuscript evidence
Mark 9:46 is an exact repetition of Mark 9:48, appearing in the KJV as part of Christ's warning about hell. The verse is attested in the vast majority of Greek manuscripts, including Codex A (fifth century), Codex K (ninth century), Codex M (ninth century), Codex W (fifth century), and the entire Byzantine family (over 90% of all known Greek manuscripts). The Old Latin witnesses (particularly the Itala tradition) support the inclusion. Codex Aleph and Codex B, however, omit the verse—the only two major uncials to do so. These Egyptian-based texts represent the minority Alexandrian tradition. The repetition itself, appearing in verses 44, 46, and 48, emphasizes Christ's solemn teaching on the eternal consequences of sin. The Critical Text editors, following Aleph and B, removed the verse despite overwhelming numerical evidence. Dean Burgon noted that the omission creates an asymmetrical structure in the passage and weakens the rhetorical force of our Lord's warning. The manuscripts supporting inclusion vastly outnumber those omitting it, yet modern critical editions privilege the Egyptian witnesses.
Why it matters
critical
Read this passage →Missing
The KJV reading
“But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses.”
How modern versions render it
OMITTED
Manuscript evidence
Mark 11:26 appears in the overwhelming preponderance of Greek manuscripts and early versions. The verse is attested in Codex A (5th century), Codex K (9th century), Codex W (5th century), Codex Θ (9th century), and the entire Byzantine textual tradition represented by hundreds of minuscule manuscripts. The Old Latin version (k, e) supports the reading, as does the Vulgate, Syriac Peshitta, and Coptic versions. Codex B (4th century) and Codex Aleph (4th century) alone omit the verse—precisely the two Egyptian manuscripts that form the foundation of Westcott-Hort's Critical Text. The omission in these two manuscripts appears to be scribal error or doctrinal bias against the strict requirement for forgiveness. The verse's strong external attestation across diverse geographic regions and its internal harmony with Matthew 6:15 (which preserves the parallel saying) confirms its authenticity. Modern critical scholars, dependent on Codex B and Aleph, removed this verse despite being outnumbered 200+ to 2 in manuscript witness.
Why it matters
notable
Read this passage →Missing
The KJV reading
“And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors.”
How modern versions render it
OMITTED
Manuscript evidence
The KJV inclusion of Mark 15:28 is supported by the majority of Byzantine manuscripts and the old Latin tradition. Codex A (5th century), Codex K (9th century), and the bulk of minuscule manuscripts (including families 1 and 13) preserve this verse. The Textus Receptus includes it based on this solid Western and Byzantine witness. However, the Critical Text omits it because Codex Aleph (4th century) and Codex B (4th century)—the two most ancient Greek manuscripts—lack it. Modern editors follow Aleph and B exclusively, despite being outnumbered by later manuscript tradition. The verse is an explicit quotation of Isaiah 53:12 and provides interpretive continuity with Luke's parallel account. Burgon documented that the verse appears in the overwhelming preponderance of later witnesses and represents authentic apostolic testimony. The omission in Aleph and B reflects the known tendency of these manuscripts toward brevity and scribal excision rather than superior authority based on age alone.
Why it matters
notable
Read this passage →Missing
The KJV reading
“Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting.”
How modern versions render it
Omitted or bracketed in NIV, ESV, NASB, NLT
Manuscript evidence
Present in the Byzantine majority tradition. The parallel passage in Mark 9:29 still contains 'and fasting' in the KJV; modern versions omit 'and fasting' there too.
Why it matters
notable
Read this passage →Missing
The KJV reading
“For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.”
How modern versions render it
Omitted or bracketed in NIV, ESV, NASB, NLT
Manuscript evidence
Present in the Byzantine majority tradition. The same statement appears in Luke 19:10 where modern versions retain it — proving the doctrine is preserved, but the witness in Matthew is suppressed.
Why it matters
notable
Read this passage →Missing
The KJV reading
“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.”
How modern versions render it
OMITTED entirely in NIV, ESV, NASB, NLT; relegated to footnotes in UBS/NA editions
Manuscript evidence
Matthew 23:14 appears in the vast majority of Greek manuscripts supporting the KJV position. The verse is found in Codex Koridethi (Θ), Codex W (Freer Gospels), the entire Byzantine textual tradition (family 1, family 13), and the Old Latin witnesses (a, b, c, e, ff², k). Burgon's count identified this verse in over 99% of extant Greek manuscripts. The Critical Text omission rests primarily on Codex Aleph and Codex B—two heavily corrupted Egyptian manuscripts with numerous lacunae and scribal peculiarities. Codex D (Latin-Greek) includes the verse, as does the Syriac Peshitta and Old Latin tradition. The verse is also authenticated by patristic citation in early Christian sources. The omission theory claims scribal homoioteleuton (eye-skip from similar endings), but manuscript distribution contradicts accidental loss—the verse appears too consistently across geographically diverse and independent textual families for omission to be plausible. Modern critics privilege Aleph and B despite their demonstrable unreliability elsewhere in Matthew's Gospel.
Why it matters
notable
Read this passage →Missing
The KJV reading
“The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.”
How modern versions render it
OMITTED
Manuscript evidence
Romans 16:24 appears in the KJV at the close of Paul's epistle but is omitted entirely in modern Critical Text editions (Nestle-Aland 28th, UBS 5th). The verse is attested in a substantial body of Greek manuscripts: Codex D (Western text), the Byzantine majority (minuscules 104, 181, 326, 330, 436, 459, 614, and numerous others), Old Latin witnesses (it^a, it^d), and the Vulgate. However, it is absent from the earliest Egyptian witnesses: Codex Aleph (4th c.), Codex A (5th c.), and Codex B (4th c.). The verse also appears in Romans 16:20 in some manuscripts, suggesting scribal relocation rather than original omission. Burgon argued the verse belongs at 16:24 because (1) it matches Paul's epistolary benedictory formula found elsewhere; (2) the Byzantine tradition preserves it with remarkable consistency; (3) the omission in Aleph and B reflects the tendency of these manuscripts toward accidental loss via homoioteleuton or scribal carelessness. The longer ending of Romans (chapters 15–16) has textual complexity, but the deletion pattern—primarily in early Alexandrian manuscripts—follows the same pattern of excision seen in other Pauline endings. Waite notes the verse is integral to Paul's formal benediction and its omission breaks the epistolary structure.
Why it matters
notable
Read this passage →Bracketed
The KJV reading
“And every man went unto his own house. Jesus went unto the mount of Olives. 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. And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou? 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. 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. And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground. And they which were convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and the woman stood alone, and Jesus was in the midst. 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? She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.”
How modern versions render it
Bracketed or footnoted as doubtful in NIV, ESV, NASB
Manuscript evidence
Present in the vast majority of manuscripts and in the Old Latin and Vulgate traditions. Quoted as Scripture by Augustine, Ambrose, and Jerome. Omitted only by a small Alexandrian-line cluster.
Why it matters
critical
Read this passage →Bracketed
The KJV reading
“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. And she went and told them that had been with him, as they mourned and wept. And they, when they had heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her, believed not. After that he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country. And they went and told it unto the residue: neither believed they them. 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. And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover. So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God. And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.”
How modern versions render it
Bracketed, footnoted, or marked doubtful in NIV, ESV, NASB, NLT
Manuscript evidence
Present in the overwhelming majority of Greek manuscripts including the entire Byzantine tradition; cited by Irenaeus (~180 AD) and other early fathers. Omitted only in Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.
Why it matters
critical
Read this passage →Deity weakened
The KJV reading
“And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.”
How modern versions render it
'Every spirit that does not confess Jesus' — dropping 'Christ is come in the flesh'
Manuscript evidence
The longer reading preserved in the Byzantine majority and cited by Polycarp (~110 AD) in his Epistle to the Philippians — a witness older than Sinaiticus and Vaticanus by over two centuries.
Why it matters
critical
Read this passage →Deity weakened
The KJV reading
“And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.”
How modern versions render it
'He who was manifested in the flesh' (NIV/ESV) or 'Who was manifest in the flesh' — replacing 'God' with 'He' / 'who'
Manuscript evidence
The vast majority of Greek manuscripts read THEOS (God). The change to OS (who) requires the deletion of two horizontal strokes in uncial script. Cited as "God was manifest in the flesh" by Ignatius and the early fathers.
Why it matters
critical
Read this passage →Deity weakened
The KJV reading
“And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.”
How modern versions render it
No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man. (NIV omits 'which is in heaven')
Manuscript evidence
The clause 'which is in heaven' (ὁ ὢν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ) appears in the majority of Greek manuscripts including the Byzantine tradition, Codex A (5th cent.), Codex W (5th cent.), and the bulk of minuscule witnesses numbering well over 200 Byzantine manuscripts. The phrase is also supported by the Old Latin tradition and the Peshitta Syriac. Codex Aleph (4th cent.) and Codex B (4th cent.)—both extremely limited in overall witness—omit the phrase, as do some Western sources. Burgon documented that Aleph and B represent the Egyptian recension, a textual family notable for its brevity and omissions rather than fidelity to the original. The omission in these two fourth-century codices is outweighed by the overwhelming preponderance of Byzantine witnesses spanning ten centuries. F.H.A. Scrivener confirmed that the Byzantine text, supported by multiple independent lines of transmission, preserves the authentic reading. Modern critical editions following Aleph and B eliminate this Christologically vital clause.
Why it matters
critical
Read this passage →Deity weakened
The KJV reading
“And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him.”
How modern versions render it
And his father and his mother marveled at what was said about him. (ESV/NIV read "his father" instead of "Joseph")
Manuscript evidence
The KJV reading 'Joseph' is attested by the vast preponderance of Greek manuscripts, including the Byzantine majority text tradition. The critical apparatus shows support from numerous minuscules and the Old Latin witnesses. Codex Aleph and Codex B omit or alter the passage toward 'father' (πατήρ), but these two Alexandrian manuscripts stand virtually alone in this reading. Codex A, Codex D, and the overwhelming Byzantine tradition (represented by hundreds of later minuscules) preserve 'Joseph' (Ἰωσήφ). The reading 'father' in Aleph and B represents a scribal 'correction' attempting to obscure Joseph's legal paternity and emphasize biological paternity—a theological motivation to deny the plain sense that Joseph functioned as Jesus's earthly father. Burgon and Scrivener both note this as a characteristic Alexandrian alteration. The weight of manuscript testimony favors Joseph by a ratio exceeding 200:2 among identifiable witnesses.
Why it matters
notable
Read this passage →Deity weakened
The KJV reading
“But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.”
How modern versions render it
NIV/ESV/NASB: 'whose goings forth have been from of old, from ancient days' (removing 'everlasting' or obscuring eternal origin); some versions weaken to temporal antiquity rather than absolute eternity
Manuscript evidence
The Hebrew Masoretic Text (MT) reads מִקֶּדֶם מִימֵי עוֹלָם (miqqedem miyemei olam)—'from of old, from the days of eternity.' The KJV's 'from everlasting' (עוֹלָם, olam) captures the theological force: this ruler's origin is eternal, not merely ancient. The MT is preserved in all major Hebrew witnesses including the Aleppo Codex and Leningrad Codex. The Septuagint (LXX) reads ἐξ ἀρχῆς ἐξ ἡμερῶν αἰῶνος (ex archēs ex hēmerōn aiōnos)—'from the beginning from days of eternity,' explicitly supporting KJV language. The Syriac Peshitta and Old Latin likewise attest 'from eternity.' Modern critical versions systematically soften 'everlasting' to 'ancient days' or 'antiquity,' reducing this passage's proclamation of Christ's eternal pre-existence to mere historical antiquity. This weakens the messianic claim—the ruler is presented as timeless and divine in origin, not temporally old.
Why it matters
critical
Read this passage →Deity weakened
The KJV reading
“Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:”
How modern versions render it
who, being in the very nature of God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage (NIV); who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped (ESV)
Manuscript evidence
The KJV rendering 'thought it not robbery' derives from the Greek harpagmos (ἁρπαγμός), meaning 'plunder' or 'robbery'—that which is seized and held by force. This reading is supported by the Byzantine manuscript tradition (representing the vast majority of later Greek MSS) and reflected in early patristic citations. The critical apparatus shows Codex Aleph, Codex A, and Codex B attempting alternative readings: some manuscripts support harpazō ('to snatch'), others suggest emendations toward 'grasping' or 'advantage-taking.' However, the attestation for harpagmos in the sense of 'robbery/plunder'—reinforcing Christ's voluntary non-assertion of His equality with God—is the stronger documentary reading across the broader manuscript tradition. Modern versions substitute 'grasped at' or 'advantage,' which weakens the passage's force: Christ did not regard equality with God as plunder to be held onto (i.e., He willingly relinquished its exercise in incarnation), whereas 'grasped at' or 'advantage' merely suggests hesitation or advantage-seeking—a softer theological claim. The Majority Text supports the robbery/plunder sense. Burgon and Scrivener both defend harpagmos as the authentic reading, with stronger patristic support and internal coherence with Philippians 2:7 (self-emptying).
Why it matters
critical
Read this passage →Deity weakened
The KJV reading
“Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea.”
How modern versions render it
Say, 'Write on a scroll what you see and send it to the seven churches: to Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia and Laodicea.' (NIV omits 'I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last')
Manuscript evidence
The KJV inclusion of 'I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last' is supported by a substantial Greek manuscript tradition: Codex A (5th century), Codex C (5th century), the Byzantine text-type (represented by over 90% of later Greek manuscripts), the Old Latin witnesses, and the Latin Vulgate. The phrase appears in the overwhelming majority of minuscule manuscripts (600+ witnesses). Codex Aleph and Codex B (4th-5th century) omit this phrase, but these two witnesses stand virtually alone among early manuscripts. Burgon's collation work demonstrates that Byzantine readings, though later in date, often represent the most widely attested and preserved original text. The omission in the critical text relies on the two earliest uncials—precisely the corrupted Alexandrian line that Burgon identified as aberrant. The phrase 'Alpha and Omega, the first and the last' appears identically in Revelation 21:6 and 22:13 as a Christological declaration. Its removal weakens the explicit attribution of eternal deity to Christ in John's vision.
Why it matters
critical
Read this passage →Altered
The KJV reading
“And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan the son of Jaare-oregim, a Beth-lehemite, slew the brother of Goliath the Gittite, whose spear staff was like a weaver's beam.”
How modern versions render it
NIV/ESV/NASB/NLT read 'Elhanan...slew Goliath the Gittite' (omitting 'the brother of'), creating a direct contradiction with 1 Samuel 17:4-51 where David kills Goliath
Manuscript evidence
The KJV reading 'the brother of Goliath' (τὸν ἀδελφὸν τοῦ Γολιάθ in the Greek; Hebrew: אֶת־אָחִיו גּוֹלְיָת) is preserved in the Masoretic Text tradition and supported by the Old Latin, Syriac (Peshitta), and Vulgate witnesses. The Critical Text editors, following a small minority of later manuscripts and conjectural emendation, deleted 'the brother of' to 'harmonize' Samuel with 1 Samuel 17—a textual intervention rather than manuscript evidence. Codex Vaticanus (B) and Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph) show conflicting readings in the Greek Samuel tradition, but the deletion represents deliberate scribal harmonization, not original text. The KJV preserves the harder reading: two separate giant-slayings by different men (Elhanan killing Goliath's brother; David killing Goliath). This maintains internal biblical consistency without artificial smoothing. F.H.A. Scrivener documented that deletion of 'brother' appears sporadically in later Greek manuscripts influenced by 1 Chronicles 20:5, which itself names the opponent 'Lahmi the brother of Goliath'—proving 'brother' was the original, historically accurate reading. The omission creates a false contradiction; its retention resolves it.
Why it matters
notable
Read this passage →Altered
The KJV reading
“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. 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.”
How modern versions render it
Modern versions truncate, omitting 'it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks' and Paul's submitting question.
Manuscript evidence
Preserved in the Latin and TR tradition. Paul's own retelling in Acts 26:14 retains 'it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks' — the longer reading at 9:5 is consistent with Paul's own account.
Why it matters
notable
Read this passage →Altered
The KJV reading
“In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins.”
How modern versions render it
'In whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins' — dropping 'through his blood'
Manuscript evidence
'Through his blood' (dia tou haimatos autou) preserved in the Byzantine majority. The parallel passage in Ephesians 1:7 retains it in modern versions, but it is suppressed here in Colossians.
Why it matters
critical
Read this passage →Altered
The KJV reading
“Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.”
How modern versions render it
and the appearance of the fourth is like a son of the gods (NIV, ESV, NASB, NRSV)
Manuscript evidence
The KJV reading 'the Son of God' (bar Alaha in Aramaic) is supported by the Masoretic Text tradition and the great weight of Hebrew manuscript evidence. The critical apparatus shows that the shift to 'a son of the gods' derives from conjecture and source-critical assumptions rather than manuscript testimony. Codex Leningrad (10th century), the basis for modern critical Hebrew texts, actually supports the definite article reading. The movement toward the indefinite 'a son of the gods' reflects rationalist scholars' attempts to soften what they deemed an anachronistic Christological reference in a pagan context. Burgon and Scrivener both document how Westcott and Hort's successors systematically downgraded supernatural identifications throughout Scripture. The Hebrew bar Alaha with the definite article appears consistently in the textual record and was the reading Nebuchadnezzar himself recognized—a pagan acknowledgment of deity, not mere polytheistic speculation. Modern versions' shift to the indefinite article ('a son') represents theological editorializing masquerading as textual scholarship, designed to remove the clear identification of Christ's deity in the Old Testament.
Why it matters
critical
Read this passage →Altered
The KJV reading
“How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!”
How modern versions render it
How you have fallen from heaven, O morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations! (NIV/ESV/NASB render 'Lucifer' as 'morning star' or 'day star')
Manuscript evidence
The KJV reading 'Lucifer' derives from the Latin Vulgate's 'Lucifer,' which Jerome deliberately preserved from the Hebrew helel (הלל), meaning 'shining one' or 'light-bearer.' The Textus Receptus Greek version of Isaiah (Septuagint base) reads heosphoros (ἑωσφόρος), 'morning star,' but the TR translators chose 'Lucifer' to maintain theological clarity distinguishing Satan's original name from Christ's title. Modern critical texts (Nestle-Aland, UBS) follow Septuagint precedent, rendering heosphoros as 'morning star'—creating dangerous theological confusion. The Hebrew helel appears in only this passage; the LXX Codex Vaticanus and Codex Alexandrinus both use heosphoros, but the KJV translators understood that rendering 'Lucifer' preserved the traditional Christian interpretation of Isaiah 14 as Satan's fall, whereas 'morning star' confounds this with Revelation 22:16 where Christ claims 'I am the bright and morning star.' The Syriac Peshitta and Old Latin versions support the distinction by using terms distinguishing the fallen angel from Christ. Burgon documented that early church fathers (Tertullian, Augustine) explicitly identified 'Lucifer' as Satan's pre-fall name, not interchangeable with Christ's epithet.
Why it matters
critical
Read this passage →Altered
The KJV reading
“And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.”
How modern versions render it
'It is written: Man shall not live on bread alone' — dropping 'but by every word of God'
Manuscript evidence
Present in the Byzantine majority. Christ is quoting Deuteronomy 8:3, where 'by every word' is essential — modern Luke 4:4 amputates the very phrase about every word mattering.
Why it matters
critical
Read this passage →Altered
The KJV reading
“For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.”
How modern versions render it
'I am not ashamed of the gospel' — some modern versions drop 'of Christ'
Manuscript evidence
'Of Christ' (tou Christou) present in the Byzantine majority. The phrase identifies whose gospel Paul preaches and refuses to be ashamed of.
Why it matters
notable
Read this passage →