Christian Publishing House Blog
Apologetic Defense of the faith, the Bible, and Christianity
There is a textual issue with the passage, which concerns a difference in verb tense between the majority of manuscripts and several early manuscripts (𝔓74 𝔓100 א) B. The majority of manuscripts use the aorist subjunctive, while (𝔓74 𝔓100 א) B uses the future indicative.
The textual variants of James 4:12 demonstrate the complex process of the transmission of the texts and how scribes and copyists have attempted to update and clarify the meaning of the texts in light of their own understanding and context. This verse serves as an example of the importance of Textual Criticism in understanding the development of the texts and the nuances of the meaning.
Textual scholar Philip W. Comfort is below in detail, but in short he argues that “and the one marrying the divorced woman commits adultery” is the original wording. This is found in (𝔓25 B C* W Z), as well as 078 Maj, but omitted in א L. He feels that the textual evidence supports the inclusion of the clause, even though it is suspected of having been borrowed from Matthew 5:32. Is he correct?
The original text contains Matthew 9:34, according to the earliest and most trusted manuscripts (א B C L W). However, it is omitted in (D ita,d,k syr Hilary). Numerous scholars say that this is an assimilation to Matthew 12:24 and the parallel account in Luke 11:15.
This verse is included in WH NU but is bracketed to signal the editors’ doubts about it being a part of Matthew’s original composition. The inclusion of the verse has good documentary support, the kind that would usually affirm legitimacy for most textual variants.
All Greek manuscripts except D testify to the presence of Luke 22:19b–20 in the account of the Last Supper. Very likely, the Bezaean editor (D) was puzzled by the cup/bread/cup sequence, and therefore deleted this portion, but in so doing, the text was left with the cup/bread sequence, contrary to Matt 26:26–28; Mark 14:22–24; and 1 Cor 11:23–26.
Luke 24:12 is included in very early trusted and diverse manuscripts (𝔓75 א B W Δ 070 079 syrc,s cop A L Θ Ψ f,1,13) Maj. However, it is omitted from (D it). WH contended that it is a consolidated insertion from John 20:3-10. However, the scribe of 𝔓75 seldom inserted from distant parallels, and the scribe of B did so only periodically.
Westcott and Hort (1882, 72) considered the longer text to be a scribal interpolation (see note on 24:3) borrowed from John 20:20. But Luke and John seemed to have used many of the same sources for their resurrection narratives; thus, this verbal equivalence is not unusual.
This phrase, which also appears in Acts 5:39, does not appear in the earliest and best resources—p74 א A B C (original hand) E Ψ. Latin, Syriac, and others—and does not appear until H L and P (all 9th century). As the original verse ended with a question, it is suspected that this phrase was taken from 5:39 to serve as an answer. Even before the KJV, it was omitted in the Wycliffe and Douay-Rheims versions. It was omitted from editions of the Greek New Testament at least as far back as 1729, in Daniel Mace's edition.
The KJV passage, with its explicit mention of Gentiles interested in the events of the next Sabbath, is a sort of proof text for those denominations that adhere to Seventh Day worship. For example, Benjamin G. Wilkinson, in his 1930 book, Our Authorized Bible Vindicated, says “The Authorized Version pictures to us the congregation, composed of Jews and Gentiles. By this distinction it reveals that a number of the Gentiles were present... All this is lost in the Revised Version by failing to mention the Jews and the Gentiles. ... Does not this affect fundamental doctrine?” However, the RV's text is that of the earliest and most esteemed MSS - p74, א A B C D and many others, including the Vulgate and other ancient versions.