A Critique of New Age Bible Versions, Part 6

February 29, 2024 at 9:58 pm (Textual Criticism)

The last part of her first table has a simple of list of verses that the KJV has and the new versions omit. One of the important things to say right off the bat here is that if the modern versions had nefarious motivations at heart, then why would they all put these omitted verses in the footnotes such that the preacher can decide for himself? It is more than a little bit misleading simply to say that modern versions omit, when in fact they include the verse in the footnotes, but in such a way that they are also clear where their own position is on the manuscript evidence. Some nuance here would have greatly increased her accuracy. Also, she lists 1 John 5:7 twice on this table, which indicates sloppiness or padding on her part. Part of this post will start to sound like a broken record, because the same arguments in one place hold true for others. She offers absolutely no argumentation as to why the plus is more likely to be original than the minus. She simply assumes the TR, and then castigates the modern versions for omitting. She blames this on one world government people (though I know of no one holding to the critical text who is a one-worlder). As I have said before, it is quite difficult to blame this conspiracy on 4th and 5th century copyists. The editors of the NA text, for example, are basing their readings on how they interpret the existing manuscript data.

Matthew 17:21 is present in the majority of manuscripts. A good case can be made for its inclusion on this basis, though it also has to be noted that the parallel with Mark 9:29 gives us a reason why it might have been inserted into an originally minus text. There doesn’t seem to be a good reason why it would have been omitted if originally genuine (see Metzger’s commentary). The modern versions include this verse in their footnotes.

A nearly identical story is true for Matthew 18:11. The majority is in favor of the text, but the parallel with Luke 19:10 would give us a good reason why it might have been added, but we don’t have a good reason why it should have been omitted if originally genuine. The verse is included in modern versions’ footnotes.

Matthew 23:14 is very similar as well. The modern versions have a footnote alerting the reader to the variant. The manuscripts that have the verse are divided as to its location, with some of them having the verse after verse 13, and others after verse 12.

Mark 7:16 is an oft-repeated phrase in Jesus’ vocabulary. It is more than usually difficult to understand how it is that the scribes copying this were operating under Satan’s auspices. Modern versions have the verse in the footnotes.

Mark 9:44 is yet another instance where Riplinger fails to read the modern versions in context. The verse that is a minus already appears in the exact same form just a few verses later in verse 48. Therefore, it may be interpreted as applying to the previous verses. The modern versions include the verse in the footnotes, thereby ensuring that they are saying pretty much the same thing as the KJV. The same is true of verse 46.

In Mark 11:26, the parallel at Matthew 6:15 gives us a good reason why the verse might have been added, but there is no good reason why it would have been omitted, if genuine. Again the modern versions have the verse in a footnote.

Mark 15:28 has a parallel in Luke 22:37 which puts it into the same category as the above verses. Modern versions footnote the verse.

Luke 17:36 has its parallel in Matthew 24:40, thus making it more likely that a scribe would assimilate it to the Matthew passage, when there is less probability of accidental omission (see Metzger’s commentary). Modern versions have it in the footnotes.

Luke 23:17 is an explanation of what is also in Matthew 27:15 and Mark 15:6. If it is a conspiracy, then how come the other texts remain without a hint of being omitted in ANY manuscript? This conspiracy has to be the worst executed conspiracy in history, which makes it puzzling why Riplinger is so afraid of it.

In John 5:4, it is quite difficult to see how it is that one-worlders would benefit from taking out a historical background comment about why people wanted to get into the pool.

Acts 8:37 is a difficult case. I am not sure I find Metzger’s commentary convincing, to be honest. The passage reads smoothly either way. Metzger is correct in arguing that there doesn’t seem to be a good reason why it should be omitted, but his reason for explaining why it might have been added seems weak. On the other hand, the evidence for its inclusion goes all the way back to Irenaeus, making the plus a very old reading indeed. Modern versions include the verse in a footnote.

Acts 15:34, according to Metzger, was added in order to explain why Silas was present in Antioch. Possibly. The textual evidence favors the minus by a very wide majority. The plus is in the footnotes of the modern versions. Again, why would one-worlders be interested in trying to hide a reason why Silas was in Antioch?

Acts 24:7’s minus in the modern versions is only given a B rating in Metzger’s commentary. The internal evidence is quite murky. Again the modern versions have the plus in a footnote. What possible effect could Lysias’ actions have on a one-world religion? I hope the reader can see a pattern here. The verses she typically brings out for her argument are extremely detailed, often incidental verses. One-world religion promoters would want to take anything major out of the text that indicated the core differences of Christianity with other religions. That is not typically the kind of verses that are in dispute. The majority of them are either already implied in the context, or have little to do with the main point of the passage.

Acts 28:29 is a similar case to many others in that it has to do with whether the Jews argued amongst themselves. A friend of mine who is of Jewish ethnicity is fond of telling me that Jews love to argue. Apparently this bit of their identity hasn’t changed much! Why would this matter to one-worlders?

Romans 16:24 is another highly pedantic move on Riplinger’s part that ignores the context of the almost identical blessing already being present in verse 20. Why would one-worlders cut it in the one place and not in the other?

In short, some good arguments can be made for the pluses in a few of these cases. She doesn’t make the arguments, though. She apparently thinks that omission is by itself sufficient evidence of this conspiracy. To put it mildly, I remain unconvinced.