Secular Pinoy

While using a free bible software program, I noticed that there are several verses missing in the RSV, all in the New Testament. Now usually missing verses imply that the earliest, or the most credible, manuscripts of the NT do not have these verses. Is that the case with the RSV? I don't have a hard copy of the RSV so I don't know if there are footnotes indicating the reason for the missing verses, or whether those missing verses are in the footnotes themselves, and not in the main body of the text. I found these verses to be missing:

Matt 17:21
Matt 18:11
Matt 23:14
Mark 7:16
Mark 11:26
Mark 15:28
Luke 17:36
Luke 23:17
John 5:4
Acts 8:37
Acts 15:34
Acts 24:7
Acts 28:29
Rom 16:24

Can anyone with a hard copy RSV check out whether these verses are indeed not printed (maybe the software writer was sloppy in transcribing the verses), and to see the footnotes for their exclusion. Thanks.

BTW, I compared the RSV with the NRSV in my bible program, and the NRSV had these verses. Are there other verses that are missing in the RSV that I've overlooked? Not counting those in Psalms, where the RSV/NRSV does not have the same verses as with the KJV.

Doctor X

I pulled out my Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament [Cue Thunderclap.--Ed.]--and Gospel Parallels--which uses the RSV as its English translation. In the RSV at the first example is a "break" in the page. The RSV criticus apparatus--which is not much--has, "Other ancient authorities insert verse 21, 'But this kind never comes out except by prayer and fasting'"

Now, looking at the Greek--which contains references to the variants in its criticus apparatus--argues that it is an insertion based on the textual witnesses:

Text:
א*
B
Θ

Insertion:
א2
C
D
L
W

plus others.

א is Codex Sinaiticus--and should be a Hebrew "Aleph" rather than a "?"--and is generally first class as a witness. The "*" in the Nestle-Aland refers to the first scribe and the "2" means this phrase was written in the hand of a subsequent scribe--who added in the insertion.

B is Codex Vaticanus and--according to my notes--is a first class text though often third for the gospels. The Aland reference judges it more harshly for being "Byzantine" which, as my notes put it should be "class 129!"

Θ is Koridethi Codex is an interesting codex. My notes grade it as second class as does the Aland reference, and rather good, but "written by someone who just copied Greek"--as in the scribe did not know what he was writing!

Now, for the other readings:

C is Codex Ephraemi and is a difficult one because it was "erased" in the twelth century by a scribe and used to record something else! Fourth Class

D is Codex Bezae and is classed as fourth.

W is Washington Codex is considered third class.

L is Codex Angelicus and is Fourth Class.

So you can see how they grade the readings. Now, using the "rules" of textual criticism, it is more likely that someone would add this phrase than remove it. The witnesses are better for its non-existence--and note the scribe adding it in Sinaticus.

--J.D.

References:

Nestle-Aland Greek-English New Testament, 3rd Edition.

Aland K and Aland B. The Text of the New Testament. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1998.

Throckmorton BH. Gospel Parallels: A Synopsis of the First Three Gospels, 4th Ed., Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1979.

Secular Pinoy

Thanks for the info. I wouldn't want you to do an in-depth study of every verse I've listed, so I was wondering if you have a print RSV and do a quick search to see if these verses are all missing, and if they are footnoted explaining the missing verses. =)

CX

Matt 17:21
Matt 18:11
Matt 23:14
Mark 7:16
Mark 11:26
Mark 15:28
Luke 17:36
Luke 23:17
John 5:4
Acts 8:37
Acts 15:34
Acts 24:7
Acts 28:29
Rom 16:24

A quick perusal of the NA27 suggests that these are all insertions supported by inferior witnesses.

Secular Pinoy

So the RSV translators never bothered to put them in? They could at least have put them in brackets, or added them in the footnotes. The NRSV has those verses.

Doctor X

Well, the RSV I have has them in there rather scant criticus apparatus on the bottom.

I do not have the NRSV and have wondered if it is a "better" translation. I recall a course where the professor demonstrated how--in successive editions of the RSV--readings move from the text to the bottom and back with the same textual support because of theological reasons!

I suppose I should just learn Greek . . . and Hebrew . . . and Latin . . . and . . . and. . . .

--J.D.