This weekend at Faith Church we looked at Mark 7:1-23, a passage that not only points out that all food is clean (verse 19), but also that we are all unclean because of the sin that comes from our heart (see Mark 7:21-23). This leads us to see our need for the cleansing power of Jesus as he, not following rituals or regulations, can cleanse our hearts!
Something interesting and maybe even confusing about this passage you may discover when reading it closely in one of the most popular contemporary English translations (e.g., NIV, ESV, NLT, and CSB) is that there is no verse 16 – it jumps from verse 15 to verse 17. While not having verse 16 in the main text, those translations do include it in a footnote (a good reminder that it might be wise to check the footnotes when you read your Bible!) along with a brief note essentially saying that it appears in some manuscripts and reads “If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear.” The only common translations that include Mark 7:16 in the text is the King James Version (KJV) and New King James Version (NKJV), with the NKJV version including a footnote stating that these words are not found in the Greek text most other translations use as the source for their English translation.
This peculiarity is not unique, as there are a few other places in the Bible where you will also come across a “missing verse” that is featured in a footnote that discusses manuscripts. I discussed another one of these situations a few years ago in a post on Matthew 18:11 and earlier this year had a post about Mark 16:9-20, where something similar but slightly different occurs (words in brackets with a note). I thought it wise to review the overarching issues noted there as well as the particularities of this verse to show why this “missing verse” should not cause us to doubt or wonder about the reliability of our Bibles or the accuracy of our English translations.
Zooming Out – New Testament Manuscripts in General
The comment about manuscripts in the footnote on Mark 7:16 is a good reminder that we don’t have the author’s original copy of any of the books of the Bible or a single manuscript. Rather, we have handwritten copies of the books of the Bible. It is common not to have the original copy of a work as writing materials from 2,000 years ago were extremely perishable; most ancient works survive only in copies (that might be copies of copies), and these naturally were handwritten in the age before the printing press.
What is uncommon, though, is the amount and date of the copies that we have of the New Testament writings. There are more than 5,000 Greek manuscripts that feature passages in the New Testament. Some of these manuscripts only feature a portion of the text, but others are complete, and if you only look at the number of complete (or near complete) manuscripts, it is still a pretty amazing number. How close the date of these copies are to the original writing is also uncommon in the ancient world. For example, for the Gospel of Mark, we have a portion of it from the late second century (probably 100-150 years after it was written) and then a whole manuscript that is from the 4th century (so approximately 300 years after it was written). While that date may seem late to us, it is remarkably early for an ancient work.
The original writings and earliest copies were written in all capital letters and did not have verses (which were added later by editors to help people locate passages) or spaces. Those factors would make it easy for even a trained copyist to skip a word or a line when there are similar words. Thus you will find some variations between these manuscripts, with scholars analyzing the various readings to determine what they thought the original was most likely to read. This work is known as textual criticism and is done, but rarely discussed, on every ancient text of which there are multiple copies. When it comes to the New Testament, in the vast majority of cases – basically anywhere you don’t see a footnote about manuscripts in English translations – there really is no question of what the text read as there are either no variations in the manuscripts or ones easily explained as copyists errors. Don’t let the few cases, such as Mark 7:16, let you forget how few they are in comparison to the number of words we have in the New Testament!
Zooming In – The Manuscript Evidence of Mark 7:16
The footnote after Mark 7:15 states that some manuscripts include the words of verse 16; that also means that some do not. When there is a difference like this, how does one decide? This is when scholars look more closely at the evidence, thinking about things such as the date of the manuscripts, their places of origin, potential connections to other manuscripts (as they could copy the same original), and other factors. The manuscripts that do not feature the words of v. 16 include some from 4th, 5th, 7th, 9th, 11th, and 13th/14th centuries. Those that feature it include manuscripts from the 5th, 9th, and 10th centuries as well as the majority of manuscripts that come from a much later date. Thus, there are more that have it, but the earliest ones do not, with scholars often leaning towards the earlier reading even if it is not the majority. I should note that these early manuscripts lacking the phrase were discovered after the publication of the King James Version, which is why they include the phrase without any note.
Another question that scholars consider is possible explanations for the origin of either reading. In this case, what might be an explanation for its omission (if included in the original) or its addition (if the original did not). In this particular case, scholars have pointed out that the words of Mark 7:16 also appear in Mark 4:9, 23, a passage in which Jesus explains a parable. While Mark 7 does not feature what we would call a parable, the disciples use that term “parable” to describe Jesus’s teaching in Mark 7:17 and ask for understanding. Most scholars think it is more likely that a copyist would add this line under the influence of the previous passage, as it provides a fitting conclusion in a similar context. In contrast, there is not a great explanation for why this common phrase would be omitted in its entirety. These are the primary reasons why modern translations include it in a footnote and not in the main text.
Zoom Back Out – Reflecting on What This Means
Knowing that this discussion can be pretty detailed and tedious, I want now to zoom back out to reflect upon the significance of the differences found in the manuscripts of this passage and elsewhere in the New Testament, highlighting three key truths.
First, we need to remember that the inclusion or exclusion of the words “he who has ears to hear, let him hear” does not have any impact on the interpretation of this particular passage. Thus, in a certain sense, this whole discussion is about something that doesn’t make a difference! I point this out not to say that you and I have wasted our time in talking about this, but rather to note that this is the case when it comes to these matters of textual variations. No key doctrine of the Christian faith is based on a text in which there is some question and most places where there is any sort of question is on very minor matters like this one. Thus, those that say you can’t trust your Bible because there are places where wording is debated are really seeking to make mountains out of molehills.
Second, we see these types of footnotes in the Bible should not diminish our trust in the Bible but instead increase our confidence in it and in those who are studying it. As I noted above, conversations about the differences in the Bible should remind us that we have a large number of manuscripts of the New Testament. It is less amazing that there are differences and more amazing how few differences there are when we start looking at them! In addition, the sheer number of them in comparison to many other ancient works shows us that we should have more confidence in the Bible than in other ancient works. iIf people applied the same skepticism to other works that they apply to the Bible, we would say that there is nothing we can study from the ancient world that is original. That the translators of the Bible have shown us the places where there is some question or debate shows that they are not trying to hide things from us or change things without us knowing, they are being upfront and honest in their work and their own limitations in judgment. In fact, while they have to make a decision about where to include disputed words, the footnotes they give show that others could come to a different conclusion.
Third, we have these variations in the manuscript tradition as a reminder that God uses normal humans and normal processes to pass along His Word to the world. Those that copied the Bible were humans who did their best, but even the best effort will always be imperfect. Recognizing this reality gave me comfort, making me realize it is okay to make mistakes and that I will never be perfect in my service to Him, but that even in the midst of human imperfections, His Word will go out. God loves working in and through our limitations and mistakes. Therefore, these variants should not lead us to doubt the trustworthiness of His Word, but rather lead us to have confidence that He can and will use us.
Questions about the Bible or theology? Email them to Pastor Brian at Theology@WeAreFaith.org. You can also request to receive weekly emails with our blog posts by filling out the information on the right side.
