Searching the Background of the Question

Many have asked why certain modern Bible translations differ from older versions when it comes to specific words or verses. Some readers consult older editions and find familiar passages—such as Matthew 18:11 or Luke 17:36—absent or placed in brackets in newer translations. These differences can prompt concerns about whether modern translators are subtracting from Scripture. Observers might wonder if this is a sign of unfaithfulness to God’s Word, or evidence that biblical truth is being hidden. Others see the textual decisions as part of restoring Scripture to its original form.

The heart of the matter lies in how modern Bible translators determine which words authentically belong to the original text. When we read or study an English translation, we rely on a long chain of transmission going back to first-century Christians who preserved the New Testament. Scholars strive to sift through thousands of ancient manuscripts, seeking the best possible reconstruction of the original writings. Their process reveals that a number of words, phrases, sentences, and occasionally whole verses found in certain older translations—like the King James Version—likely do not belong in the text. Modern translators have removed or placed these questionable readings in footnotes or brackets to convey that they were absent from the earliest and best manuscripts. Far from subtracting Scripture, they strive to return to the authentic words penned by Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, James, Peter, and Jude.

Some individuals, however, argue that removing these verses violates the warnings in Deuteronomy 4:2 and Revelation 22:18-19, which forbid taking away from the inspired text. Yet if the disputed phrases were never present in the first-century manuscripts, it is the scribes who once introduced them who stand under condemnation. As Deuteronomy 4:2 states: “You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it.” If copyists centuries ago expanded a passage by harmonizing it with another Gospel, or by inserting marginal notes into the main text, modern translators who remove these additions are actually preserving Scripture rather than truncating it.

This question is especially heated when it comes to older translations, such as the King James Version, which was based on a limited number of late Greek manuscripts. Readers might note that verses like Matthew 23:14, Luke 17:36, or Mark 7:16 appear in the King James Version but not in many modern translations. Are today’s translators ignoring God’s Word? Or are they following a more accurate manuscript tradition? By taking a closer look, one learns that the earliest manuscripts—often dating back to within a few centuries of the original authors—lack these disputed words. In effect, modern scholarship reveals that older, more reliable textual evidence points to the conclusion that such verses represent later additions. This exploration centers on how the text was copied, how scribes sometimes took liberties, and how modern textual critics establish which readings are genuine.

Considering the Transmission of the Text

Jesus charged the apostles with spreading the good news (Matthew 28:19-20). In the centuries following, believers hand-copied the Gospels and letters of Paul, James, Peter, John, and Jude. Because printing did not exist at that time, scribes carefully produced handwritten manuscripts to be distributed among various congregations. However, each time a scribe copied the text, the potential for human error existed. Some scribes were well-trained professionals, others were semi-professionals, and still others were devout but less experienced. A scribe might inadvertently miss a line, repeat a phrase, or misread a word. Occasionally, well-intentioned scribes introduced expansions or marginal notes.

Early Greek manuscripts of the New Testament range widely in date and quality. According to scholars, there are over five thousand extant Greek manuscripts in whole or in part, alongside tens of thousands of manuscripts in ancient versions such as Latin, Syriac, Coptic, and more. Not all these manuscripts are equally reliable. The witness of earlier copies that display careful copying practices is usually preferred over much later or less carefully made manuscripts. For example, certain papyri discovered in Egypt date to the second or third century C.E., bringing us close to the time when the originals were penned.

When modern translators approach the question, “Which reading is correct?” they compare manuscripts from different locations and time periods. If an older manuscript from the early centuries lacks a given verse, but a twelfth-century manuscript includes it, questions arise as to whether the verse is an addition. In many cases, textual critics can see that the verse is borrowed from a parallel passage in another Gospel. If a scribe, for instance, noticed that Mark’s account of an event was missing a statement found in Matthew, he might add it, believing he was helping the text. Yet from a conservative vantage point, we ask: did the Holy Spirit direct Mark to include that sentence, or did Mark intentionally leave it out? Preserving the distinctive qualities of each inspired author is paramount.

Because Scripture warns us not to add or subtract (Deuteronomy 4:2), we should remove later insertions that do not belong to the earliest text. Modern Bible translators, guided by discoveries of ancient manuscripts, have concluded that certain verses were not in the autographs. Their removal from the main text in some modern versions is an effort to restore the Bible to its original state. Far from ignoring the warnings in Revelation 22:18-19, these translators are heeding them by trimming away human additions that came centuries after the apostles.

Examples of Disputed Texts

Matthew 17:21

One verse that sparks questions is Matthew 17:21, which reads in the King James Version: “Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting.” Many modern translations either omit it or place it in brackets. The reason is that the earliest and best manuscripts (such as Vaticanus and Sinaiticus) lack this verse. Scholars generally conclude that it was imported from Mark 9:29, where Jesus indeed mentions “prayer.” Some later manuscripts expanded Mark’s statement to “prayer and fasting” and then inserted the same statement into Matthew’s parallel passage. Since the reading in Matthew 17:21 is absent from older manuscripts, modern translators rightly exclude it from the main text.

Matthew 18:11

This verse in the King James Version states: “For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.” Yet prominent early manuscripts do not contain that statement in Matthew 18. Rather, it appears in Luke 19:10. Many textual critics believe that scribes, noticing the partial parallel between Luke 19:10 and Matthew 18, inserted Luke’s wording to unify the message. Subsequent copying then perpetuated the addition. Because the earliest manuscript evidence omits the verse in Matthew, most modern translations remove or footnote it. The principle is simple: “If it was not in the original text, it should not remain in our Bibles.”

Matthew 23:14

The King James Version includes, “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.” Yet older witnesses to Matthew’s Gospel omit it, while Mark 12:40 and Luke 20:47 preserve the statement in those contexts. Likely a scribe took the line from Mark or Luke and inserted it into Matthew to align the three Synoptic Gospels more closely. The earliest manuscripts of Matthew do not contain it, prompting translators to exclude it from modern versions.

Luke 17:36

Luke 17:36 in the King James Version reads: “Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.” But evidence shows that the best early manuscripts (including P75, Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, and others) lack this verse. A scribe may have borrowed it from Matthew 24:40, where it reads “Then there shall be two men in the field; one is taken and one is left.” Consequently, modern English translations do not include Luke 17:36 in the main text. Even some older English Bibles, like Tyndale’s, omitted it as well.

Acts 8:37

In the King James Version, the Ethiopian eunuch asks Philip: “See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?” and Philip answers, “If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest…” This exchange, with the eunuch’s confession, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God,” is missing from the earliest and best Greek manuscripts. The reading likely originated in the margin as a baptismal confession and was later inserted into the main text. Because it is absent from second- and third-century manuscripts, modern translations place Acts 8:37 in brackets or drop it entirely.

Mark 16:9-20 and John 7:53–8:11

Two longer passages—Mark 16:9-20 and John 7:53–8:11—often appear with brackets or footnotes. The earliest manuscripts end Mark’s Gospel at 16:8. A longer ending (and even a shorter ending) surfaced in later manuscripts, possibly because early copyists felt the Gospel concluded abruptly. Likewise, the account of the woman caught in adultery in John 8 is missing from the earliest sources, and it appears in different places in some later manuscripts. Though many have a great love for these passages, textual scholars note that they are likely additions from an early period. Modern Bibles usually indicate the disputed status of these longer texts so readers can decide whether they are original or later expansions.

1 John 5:7-8

Known as the “Johannine Comma,” this reading in the King James Version states: “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.” The earliest Greek manuscripts (including Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Alexandrinus) omit the phrase. The reading seems to have originated in Latin manuscripts, then found its way into the Greek tradition in a handful of late manuscripts. Because it is absent from all early evidence and does not appear in early Christian discussions of the Trinity, modern translations omit it, concluding it is not John’s writing.

Cautioning Against Adding to the Text

Passages like Deuteronomy 4:2 and Revelation 22:18-19 warn against tampering with God’s Word. Some worry that modern translations violate these commands by removing verses. However, it is the scribes who originally inserted these expansions who appear to have erred. If the Holy Spirit did not direct Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John to pen these verses, then to add them centuries later represents a human alteration. Modern translators who remove these disputed words, phrases, or verses are therefore restoring, not subtracting. They demonstrate obedience to preserve the text as the original authors wrote it.

Scribes Who Took Liberties

Many copyists in ancient times tried to be faithful. Yet some inadvertently allowed expansions. For instance, if a scribe was used to reading the fuller version of the Lord’s Prayer in Matthew 6, he might unconsciously add “who is in heaven” to Luke 11:2. Another scribe might add statements for clarity’s sake, hoping to harmonize parallel Gospel accounts. People who memorize a certain version sometimes insert that wording into a parallel passage. Yet over time, these expansions become part of the manuscript tradition. Textual critics, armed with earlier manuscripts, can detect that such phrases were not in the original.

This phenomenon is well-known in textual scholarship. Some expansions are single words or short phrases; others are entire lines. In Mark 9:44 and Mark 9:46, copyists simply repeated verse 48 (“where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched”) into those two places, so older manuscripts label verses 44 and 46 as absent. Another example is John 5:3b-4, which describes “an angel” stirring the pool. The earliest manuscripts do not contain that explanation. Scribes apparently added it later to explain verse 7, where the paralyzed man mentions water being stirred.

Earlier Printed Editions and the “Received Text”

Many older English translations, such as the King James Version, relied on a limited number of Greek manuscripts. Desiderius Erasmus, publishing his first Greek New Testament in 1516, had only a handful of late manuscripts at his disposal, none containing the entire New Testament. In some passages, he translated verses from the Latin Vulgate back into Greek to fill in gaps. The resulting text, eventually called the Textus Receptus (“Received Text”), formed the basis of the King James Version. However, a wealth of earlier, more accurate manuscripts were unknown to Erasmus, or not yet discovered. These earlier sources—papyri and major uncials like Sinaiticus or Vaticanus—often show that certain lines in the Textus Receptus were late additions.

Over the centuries, textual scholars uncovered these ancient witnesses and realized that the “Received Text” included readings not present in the best manuscript evidence. So from the 1880s onward, as knowledge of textual criticism advanced, numerous translations in English and other languages began to correct these additions. This is why modern translations differ from the King James Version in some places: they return the text to the earliest, most authoritative state we can reconstruct.

Restoration Rather Than Subtraction

Modern translations that omit or bracket verses like Matthew 18:11 or Luke 17:36 are not quietly removing original Scripture. Rather, they reflect a scholarly consensus that these lines were never part of the originals at all. If an older translation places them in the main text, the difference is explained by that older translation’s reliance on later, less reliable manuscripts. Conservative scholars who hold to divine inspiration and inerrancy often support removing these verses because they want the text to reflect exactly what the Holy Spirit inspired. They contend that discarding scribal additions is necessary for preserving a faithful text.

When some disclaimers appear in Bibles stating, “Not found in the earliest manuscripts,” the aim is transparency. Translators encourage informed reading of Scripture. By providing footnotes or marginal notes, they reveal why a verse is suspect, which manuscripts contain it, and how the scholars arrived at their conclusion. The objective is not to hide Scripture but to clarify which words have genuine apostolic authority. Indeed, many newer translations place these disputed verses in footnotes specifically because they have been read in Christian history for a long time.

Why Does This Matter?

God assures us that “All Scripture is inspired of God” (2 Timothy 3:16), meaning the text penned by the original authors. Our Christian confidence rests on the knowledge that the New Testament message has not been lost. Thanks to the discovery of thousands of manuscripts and the diligent work of textual critics, believers can access a Greek New Testament that overwhelmingly reflects the words first written. The fact that a fraction of verses have come into question underscores the care with which Scripture has been copied and preserved. We see that even though scribes occasionally introduced expansions, these were recognized and removed when earlier manuscripts came to light.

When we remove spurious additions, we improve accuracy. This does not threaten Christian doctrine or practice. In many cases, the removed line exists in a parallel passage. God’s truths remain in the biblical text. For instance, removing “For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost” from Matthew 18:11 does not eliminate the teaching that Jesus came to save the lost (Luke 19:10). Similarly, removing the longer ending of Mark does not negate the resurrection accounts found in Matthew, Luke, and John.

Jesus prayed that his followers be sanctified by the truth (John 17:17). That aim requires that we have as clear an understanding as possible of what the Holy Spirit inspired. Removing later additions that do not appear in the earliest manuscripts is in harmony with that prayer. Although older translations remain venerable and were used by generations of faithful believers, the continuing progress of textual study refines our understanding of which words are genuine.

The Role of the Historical-Grammatical Approach

Those who follow a historical-grammatical approach to interpretation, focusing on the literal sense of the text within its historical context, welcome improvements in accuracy. If a verse was imported from a parallel passage, it may distort that Gospel writer’s distinct perspective. By eliminating harmonizations that scribes introduced, we preserve the unique emphasis placed by each evangelist. This approach respects that God used different writers to communicate a single message in complementary ways.

The final result is a Greek text that stands closer to what Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John wrote. In line with this principle, modern translations might place a disputed reading in a footnote, stating briefly, “Some manuscripts include verse X,” or “Earlier manuscripts omit these words.” By flagging the issue, translators demonstrate a commitment to letting readers know why the text is less certain here. This is not a display of skepticism but an honest reflection of where the manuscript evidence stands.

Safeguarding Our Faith in Scripture

Believers might initially feel unsettled upon discovering these variations. Yet our faith need not waver. Romans 10:17 indicates that “faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.” That word endures, as assured by Isaiah 40:8: “The word of our God stands forever.” Jehovah has guided the preservation of Scripture through faithful copyists across centuries. Even though a small percentage of verses have faced interpolation, textual scholarship ensures that these additions do not mislead devout readers indefinitely. Over time, through diligent study, the text is refined and restored.

A prime example is 1 John 5:7-8, where the King James Version references “three in heaven,” a reading not found in the earliest Greek manuscripts. Churches for centuries championed the Trinity without relying on that verse. Hence, removing the spurious phrase does not alter essential doctrine. Rather, it keeps us anchored in the actual words penned by the apostle John. This reveals that no fundamental truths are jeopardized by the removal of scribal expansions. The changes revolve around textual clarity, not doctrinal revision.

Scholarly Consensus and the UBS Text

Today, many translators rely on Greek editions produced by leading scholars, such as the United Bible Societies’ (UBS) text or the Nestle-Aland text. These reference works employ a rating system to express confidence in various readings. When the evidence strongly supports an omission, the editors classify it accordingly. Translators then use this data to determine how to handle a verse in English. They evaluate the date, quality, and geographical distribution of manuscripts supporting a reading. If manuscripts across diverse regions and early centuries agree that a word or verse is missing, the decision to exclude or bracket the reading becomes clear.

Concluding Thoughts on Modern Omissions

Modern translators have not discarded Scripture or shown disrespect to God’s Word by removing certain words, phrases, or verses. Rather, they have diligently compared ancient manuscripts to identify and remove later additions. Such expansions are especially found in places where scribes tried to harmonize parallel accounts or clarify difficult passages. By removing them, scholars fulfill Deuteronomy 4:2 and Revelation 22:18-19 in principle, guarding against altering Scripture.

John 16:13 does not apply to all Christians but was said to the apostles, and it is through the Spirit-inspired Word that believers are led into truth. That same Spirit is at work through the centuries, ensuring that we can recover an accurate text. Believers today benefit from the careful textual criticism begun in earnest by scholars like Karl Lachmann, F. J. A. Hort, B. F. Westcott, C. von Tischendorf, and others. Over the past two centuries, this rigorous process has allowed us to approach the original text in a fuller measure than any single manuscript tradition alone could provide.

We can trust that the Scriptures we have today, faithfully translated from a refined Greek text, mirror the inspired writings. While older translations like the King James Version served God’s people admirably, new findings and improved analysis refine our grasp of the original text. None of this undermines the authority of Scripture. When we see verses missing, bracketed, or footnoted in modern translations, we are witnessing a labor of love: the constant striving to preserve the text precisely as written under divine inspiration. Indeed, “the word of God is living and active” (Hebrews 4:12), and that living word has been preserved with extraordinary care across the centuries.

You May Also Enjoy

How Can We Defend the Authority and Trustworthiness of Scripture in a Skeptical World?

About the Author

Online Guided Bible Study Courses

SCROLL THROUGH THE DIFFERENT CATEGORIES BELOW

BIBLE TRANSLATION AND TEXTUAL CRITICISM

BIBLICAL STUDIES / BIBLE BACKGROUND / HISTORY OF THE BIBLE/ INTERPRETATION

EARLY CHRISTIANITY

HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY

CHRISTIAN APOLOGETIC EVANGELISM

TECHNOLOGY AND THE CHRISTIAN

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

CHRISTIAN DEVOTIONALS

CHRISTIAN FICTION