Is Mark 7:16 the words of Jesus?

[Love Fountain]

Hello All,

Is Mark 7:16 the words of Jesus?

Many Bibles omit it, many Bibles have it, many Bibles cast doubt on its authenticity with brackets or footnotes and many remove it from the main body of text to only showing it in the footnote.

Which of the following Bibles is correct? How do you know?

Here's the NET Bible

14, Then he called the crowd again and said to them, “Listen to me, everyone, and
understand.
15, There is nothing outside of a person that can defile him by going into him. Rather, it is
what comes out of a person that defiles him.”1
16, (Omitted)


Here's the Geneva Bible

14, Then he called the whole multitude vnto him, and sayd vnto them, Hearken you all vnto
me, and vnderstand.
15, There is nothing without a man, that can defile him, when it entreth into him: but the
things which proceede out of him, are they which defile the man.
16, If any haue eares to heare, let him heare.


What say ye? How do ye know?

Are the following the words of Jesus as shown in the Geneva Bible and others as Mark 7:16?

"If any haue eares to heare, let him heare" - Geneva Bible


Blessings,
Love Fountain

 

[Soyeong]

Hello All,

Is Mark 7:16 the words of Jesus?

Many Bibles omit it, many Bibles have it, many Bibles cast doubt on its authenticity with brackets or footnotes and many remove it from the main body of text to only showing it in the footnote.

Which of the following Bibles is correct? How do you know?

Here's the NET Bible

14, Then he called the crowd again and said to them, “Listen to me, everyone, and
understand.
15, There is nothing outside of a person that can defile him by going into him. Rather, it is
what comes out of a person that defiles him.”1
16, (Omitted)


Here's the Geneva Bible

14, Then he called the whole multitude vnto him, and sayd vnto them, Hearken you all vnto
me, and vnderstand.
15, There is nothing without a man, that can defile him, when it entreth into him: but the
things which proceede out of him, are they which defile the man.
16, If any haue eares to heare, let him heare.


What say ye? How do ye know?

Are the following the words of Jesus as shown in the Geneva Bible and others as Mark 7:16?

"If any haue eares to heare, let him heare" - Geneva Bible


Blessings,
Love Fountain

That verse would indicate that Jesus had just told a parable.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Hello All,

Is Mark 7:16 the words of Jesus?

Many Bibles omit it, many Bibles have it, many Bibles cast doubt on its authenticity with brackets or footnotes and many remove it from the main body of text to only showing it in the footnote.

Which of the following Bibles is correct? How do you know?

Here's the NET Bible

14, Then he called the crowd again and said to them, “Listen to me, everyone, and
understand.
15, There is nothing outside of a person that can defile him by going into him. Rather, it is
what comes out of a person that defiles him.”1
16, (Omitted)


Here's the Geneva Bible

14, Then he called the whole multitude vnto him, and sayd vnto them, Hearken you all vnto
me, and vnderstand.
15, There is nothing without a man, that can defile him, when it entreth into him: but the
things which proceede out of him, are they which defile the man.
16, If any haue eares to heare, let him heare.


What say ye? How do ye know?

Are the following the words of Jesus as shown in the Geneva Bible and others as Mark 7:16?

"If any haue eares to heare, let him heare" - Geneva Bible


Blessings,
Love Fountain

Is it in the Vulgate?

 

[Leaf473]

Is it in the Vulgate?

Yes, it looks like it's in the Vulgate
Latin Vulgate New Testament Bible - Mark 7

 

[chevyontheriver]

Yes, it looks like it's in the Vulgate
Latin Vulgate New Testament Bible - Mark 7

Then it’s good. AFAIC.

 

[Leaf473]

Hello All,

Is Mark 7:16 the words of Jesus?

Many Bibles omit it, many Bibles have it, many Bibles cast doubt on its authenticity with brackets or footnotes and many remove it from the main body of text to only showing it in the footnote.

Which of the following Bibles is correct? How do you know?

Here's the NET Bible

14, Then he called the crowd again and said to them, “Listen to me, everyone, and
understand.
15, There is nothing outside of a person that can defile him by going into him. Rather, it is
what comes out of a person that defiles him.”1
16, (Omitted)


Here's the Geneva Bible

14, Then he called the whole multitude vnto him, and sayd vnto them, Hearken you all vnto
me, and vnderstand.
15, There is nothing without a man, that can defile him, when it entreth into him: but the
things which proceede out of him, are they which defile the man.
16, If any haue eares to heare, let him heare.


What say ye? How do ye know?

Are the following the words of Jesus as shown in the Geneva Bible and others as Mark 7:16?

"If any haue eares to heare, let him heare" - Geneva Bible


Blessings,
Love Fountain

I don't think there's any way to know for sure. That's true of other parts of the bible as well.

The saying does occur in other places where there's no real question. It's something Jesus frequently said imo.

 

[tampasteve]

The earliest manuscripts seem to lack it, but it is consistent with the way Jesus ended parables. It does not contain theology or alter the text in any real way, so whether it was said or not in reality is not super relevant.

There were many teachings and things said by Jesus that were not recorded, so it is entirely reasonable to assume that the earliest manuscripts do not contain it, but it is also most probably that Jesus said something at that point, it was likely something similar to what later scribes seem to have added.

 

[SkyWriting]

That verse would indicate that Jesus had just told a parable.

Some manuscripts include it, other don't....is usually the issue.

 

[Love Fountain]

That verse would indicate that Jesus had just told a parable.

Hello Soyeong,



Jesus tells many parables and doesn’t always say, "If any haue eares to heare, let him heare" - Geneva Bible


In fact, only 7 times Jesus says in many Bibles this saying, “If any haue eares to heare, let him heare” - Geneva Bible



Upon each instance of this saying by Jesus, He is speaking to those whose ears have been opened by Him to hear and understand. Obviously it’s a very important saying but that’s not the point of this thread.



In Bible versions like the NET as shown in the original post, and the following Bible versions quoted below, the NRS, NIV, ESV or NLT it would only be 6 times Jesus says this saying since the NET and all the versions below appear to have removed the words of Jesus from their Bible version as showing on the website links below each of the following quotes.



Is it a big deal to remove the very words of Jesus from the Bible?





Mark 7.14-17

14 Then he called the crowd again and said to them, "Listen to me, all of you, and understand:

15 there is nothing outside a person that by going in can defile, but the things that come out are what defile."

16

17 When he had left the crowd and entered the house, his disciples asked him about the parable. NRS

Mark 7 - NRS Bible - Bible Study Tools


Mark 7.14-17

14 Again Jesus called the crowd to him and said, “Listen to me, everyone, and understand this.

15 Nothing outside a person can defile them by going into them. Rather, it is what comes out of a person that defiles them.f”

17 After he had left the crowd and entered the house, his disciples asked him about this parable. NIV

Mark 7 - NIV Bible - The Pharisees and some of the teachers of the law ...


Mark 7.14-17

14 And he called the people to him again and said to them, 19"Hear me, all of you, and understand:

15 20There is nothing outside a person that by going into him can defile him, but the things that come out of a person are what defile him."e

17 And when he had entered 21the house and left the people, 22his disciples asked him about the parable. ESV

Mark 7 - ESV Bible - Bible Study Tools



Mark 7.14-17

14 Then Jesus called to the crowd to come and hear. “All of you listen,” he said, “and try to understand.

15 It’s not what goes into your body that defiles you; you are defiled by what comes from your heart. ”

16

17 Then Jesus went into a house to get away from the crowd, and his disciples asked him what he meant by the parable he had just used. NLT

Mark 7 - NLT Bible - Bible Study Tools



Soyeong, are the words, “If any haue eares to heare, let him heare” as showing in Mark 7:16 the words of Jesus?





Blessings,

Love Fountain

 

[Davy]

Hello All,

Is Mark 7:16 the words of Jesus?

Many Bibles omit it, many Bibles have it, many Bibles cast doubt on its authenticity with brackets or footnotes and many remove it from the main body of text to only showing it in the footnote.

Which of the following Bibles is correct? How do you know?

Here's the NET Bible

14, Then he called the crowd again and said to them, “Listen to me, everyone, and
understand.
15, There is nothing outside of a person that can defile him by going into him. Rather, it is
what comes out of a person that defiles him.”1
16, (Omitted)


Here's the Geneva Bible

14, Then he called the whole multitude vnto him, and sayd vnto them, Hearken you all vnto
me, and vnderstand.
15, There is nothing without a man, that can defile him, when it entreth into him: but the
things which proceede out of him, are they which defile the man.
16, If any haue eares to heare, let him heare.


What say ye? How do ye know?

Are the following the words of Jesus as shown in the Geneva Bible and others as Mark 7:16?

"If any haue eares to heare, let him heare" - Geneva Bible


Blessings,
Love Fountain

As I have said elsewhere on this forum, your wondering gets into the field of 'textual criticism'. Those Bible critics began to defame the Greek texts used for the 1611 KJV Bible, and instead try to replace it with different Greek manuscripts they claimed were older, and thus supposedly better, than what was used for the KJV New Testament. Their replacement manuscripts are mainly the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, which actually have not been proven to be the oldest Greek texts. All later modern New Testaments are based on those later manuscripts, and omit much Scripture that the Received Texts (majority of Greek NT manuscripts) used for the KJV maintains.

See the scholarly documentary Bridge to Babylon, it's on YouTube.

 

[Love Fountain]

Is it in the Vulgate?

Hello chevyontheriver,

Thank you for your question!

We agree that Mark 7:16 are the words of Jesus.

Yes, Mark 7:16 is in the Vulgate translation as follows.

Mark 7:14, et advocans iterum turbam dicebat illis audite me omnes et intellegite

15, nihil est extra hominem introiens in eum quod possit eum coinquinare sed quae de homine procedunt illa sunt quae communicant hominem

16, si quis habet aures audiendi audiat

Then it’s good. AFAIC. - chevyontheriver

Kind of interesting to completely accept something true as far as your concerned based only on the Vulgate translation whether something is there or not without further review or regard?

How about Matthew 23:14, are they the words of Jesus? Like many other translations that leave out Mark 7:16, Matthew 23:14 is not in the Vulgate and has been omitted/left out as follows.

Matt 23:12, qui autem se exaltaverit humiliabitur et qui se humiliaverit exaltabitur

13, vae autem vobis scribae et Pharisaei hypocritae quia clauditis regnum caelorum ante homines vos enim non intratis nec introeuntes sinitis intrare

14, (Omitted)

15, vae vobis scribae et Pharisaei hypocritae quia circuitis mare et aridam ut faciatis unum proselytum et cum fuerit factus facitis eum filium gehennae duplo quam vos


Are you familiar with the 8 “Beatitudes” in Matthew 5 “Blessed” and did you know each Beatitude has an exact opposite in Matthew 23 called “The Woes”?


That’s right, each Beatitude has an exact opposite Woe, there is no loose ends in the word of God, unless man removes/omits/leaves out words from the Bible as in Matt 23:14 as in the Vulgate!


Here’s a link for you to see for your self.

The Eight Beatitudes of Matthew 5, And The Eight Woes of Matthew 23.

Is the Vulgate correct to leave out Matthew 23:14 which is “the mourners distressed” and have no balance to the beatitude in Matthew 5:4 “comfort for the mourners”?

Clearly the Vulgate is in error!

Will you agree with the Vulgate translation that has omitted Matthew 23:14, "the mourners distressed" which are the words of Jesus himself and accept their omitting of the words of Jesus merely because it’s not in their translation?

Would God have 8 Beatitudes and 7 Woes, wouldn't that be chaos or a loose end instead of balance and harmony? Is God the author of chaos or is it obvious yet who would prefer to have an imbalanced chaos to the Word of God by omitting Matthew 23:14?

Blessings,
Love Fountain

 

[Leaf473]

Hello chevyontheriver,

Thank you for your question!

We agree that Mark 7:16 are the words of Jesus.

Yes, Mark 7:16 is in the Vulgate translation as follows.

Mark 7:14, et advocans iterum turbam dicebat illis audite me omnes et intellegite

15, nihil est extra hominem introiens in eum quod possit eum coinquinare sed quae de homine procedunt illa sunt quae communicant hominem

16, si quis habet aures audiendi audiat




Kind of interesting to completely accept something true as far as your concerned based only on the Vulgate translation whether something is there or not without further review or regard?

How about Matthew 23:14, are they the words of Jesus? Like many other translations that leave out Mark 7:16, Matthew 23:14 is not in the Vulgate and has been omitted/left out as follows.

Matt 23:12, qui autem se exaltaverit humiliabitur et qui se humiliaverit exaltabitur

13, vae autem vobis scribae et Pharisaei hypocritae quia clauditis regnum caelorum ante homines vos enim non intratis nec introeuntes sinitis intrare

14, (Omitted)

15, vae vobis scribae et Pharisaei hypocritae quia circuitis mare et aridam ut faciatis unum proselytum et cum fuerit factus facitis eum filium gehennae duplo quam vos


Are you familiar with the 8 “Beatitudes” in Matthew 5 “Blessed” and did you know each Beatitude has an exact opposite in Matthew 23 called “The Woes”?


That’s right, each Beatitude has an exact opposite Woe, there is no loose ends in the word of God, unless man removes/omits/leaves out words from the Bible as in Matt 23:14 as in the Vulgate!


Here’s a link for you to see for your self.

The Eight Beatitudes of Matthew 5, And The Eight Woes of Matthew 23.

Is the Vulgate correct to leave out Matthew 23:14 which is “the mourners distressed” and have no balance to the beatitude in Matthew 5:4 “comfort for the mourners”?

Clearly the Vulgate is in error!

Will you agree with the Vulgate translation that has omitted Matthew 23:14, "the mourners distressed" which are the words of Jesus himself and accept their omitting of the words of Jesus merely because it’s not in their translation?

Would God have 8 Beatitudes and 7 Woes, wouldn't that be chaos or a loose end instead of balance and harmony? Is God the author of chaos or is it obvious yet who would prefer to have an imbalanced chaos to the Word of God by omitting Matthew 23:14?

Blessings,
Love Fountain

I'm not trying to speak for anyone else, but I'd like to jump in here. One reason I could see why a person would choose to simply go with the Vulgate is that it is basically endorsed by the Catholic Church.

Why would a person choose to take that approach? It's a way of dealing with situations where there is no absolute, clear answer.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Is it a big deal to remove the very words of Jesus from the Bible?

Considering that not all of the words of Jesus made it into the Bible, maybe not.

 

[chevyontheriver]

I'm not trying to speak for anyone else, but I'd like to jump in here. One reason I could see why a person would choose to simply go with the Vulgate is that it is basically endorsed by the Catholic Church.

Why would a person choose to take that approach? It's a way of dealing with situations where there is no absolute, clear answer.

What going with the Vulgate does here is puts the question far ahead chronologically of all the Protestant and higher critical issues raised in the last 500 years. The Peshita or the recognized Orthodox versions would pretty much do the same thing. But yes, it also puts the authority of the Catholic Church behind that verse, that chapter, that book, and the whole Bible. If you do not want to recognize that authority then you can figure out some other way to determine if that verse, chapter, book, and whole collection of books belong in your personal Bible.

 

[Love Fountain]

I don't think there's any way to know for sure. That's true of other parts of the bible as well.

The saying does occur in other places where there's no real question. It's something Jesus frequently said imo.

Hello Leaf473,

Thank you for your response! We appear to agree Mark 7:16 are indeed the words of Jesus!

God establishes and protects His word, no matter all the tarnishing God allows man to do with it!

There is a way to know for sure regarding Mark 7:16 and we'll have to get to that later.

Blessings,
Love Fountain

 

[Love Fountain]

I'm not trying to speak for anyone else, but I'd like to jump in here. One reason I could see why a person would choose to simply go with the Vulgate is that it is basically endorsed by the Catholic Church.

Why would a person choose to take that approach? It's a way of dealing with situations where there is no absolute, clear answer.

Hello Leaf473,

There are clear answers, would God leave a person without a clue?

Does God provide a place for fence straddling and luke warm beliefs?

Of a certainty man prefers their denominations and for various reasons, peer pressure, acceptance, belief in error as truth, without having to work and learn what is true according to as God intended and many more! For this, is there not a strong delusion upon many because they have not a love for the truth and dive into the errors and doctrines of men and mans traditions?

Over and over throughout the Bible, people are warned about the leaven of the religious separatists!

The Vulgate has omitted Matt 23:14 and the Roman Catholic Douay-Rheims Version of 1899 includes it as follows:

Matt 23:14, Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you devour the houses of widows, praying long prayers. For this you shall receive the greater judgment.

Roman Catholic versions don't agree. Lol

We even have a follower of them suggesting it's ok to remove the very words of Jesus from the Bible as if it's ok to do!?

So which Catholic version is correct in the including (Douay-Rheims) or omitting (Vulgate) of Matthew 23:14?

Fence straddling is luke warm, admitting to really not being sure is humility, self justification of no clear answer to support ones own not knowing, well....

Blessings,
Love Fountain

 

[chevyontheriver]

Kind of interesting to completely accept something true as far as your concerned based only on the Vulgate translation whether something is there or not without further review or regard?

Not exactly. For the issue of textual criticism still exists, and has existed with the Vulgate for a long time. Thus the well known Sixto-Clementine corrections to the Vulgate and the current Novo-Vulgate. It's not like there can be no changes to the Vulgate, or that the original Vulgate is an inspired translation. It is not an inspired translation but it is an authorized translation, and is generally accepted as accurate enough.

I'm not against pure textual criticism, but I do think that much which the textual critics claim to know can be opinion. Given that, the argument from authority of the Church outweighs the argument from authority from opinionated critics. If the critics have proof, fine. But deciding whether something belongs in the Bible is often canonical criticism, which is more specious than textual criticism.

I do treat with skepticism the whole KJV-onlyism movement, as well as the neo-Marcionists. The former treat a particular translation as inspired it every word. The latter are quite happy to form their own, and often much shorter, canon of their personal Bibles. The Vulgate approach is more moderate. The Vulgate was an authorized and commissioned work of the Church by Jerome to correct the Vetus Latina, a deeply flawed collection of impromptu translations from the Greek NT. So it had it's founding in textual criticism. It was never perfect itself, which is why it is still being revised even after the massive Sixto-Clementine revisions.

My current version of choice is an ESV-Catholic edition, a complete Bible judged adequate by Catholic authority. A pretty good Bible even if I have not evaluated it word for word for insertions or deletions. And there may be some for all I know.

The only translation that has a real claim to being inspired is the Septuagent. It was the translation quoted repeatedly in the NT. And of course Greek speaking Orthodox use a Greek NT and the LXX OT, whether their NT is a version of Aland, or Nestle, or someone else. But then the Orthodox texts would be up to Orthodox authorities to endorse.

So, I think if the Vulgate has it, it's probably the words of Jesus. The Sixto-Clementine Vulgate is a safer text than any synthetic Greek NT, even Kurt Aland's highly regarded best. Regardless, it is safe according to the authority of the Church. Textual critics can sometimes prove their case, and thus the texts might improve, but not all criticism is harmless and thus caution is in order.

 

[Love Fountain]

Considering that not all of the words of Jesus made it into the Bible, maybe not.

Hello chevyontheriver,

Why would Jesus respond to satan, "it is written" if what God has written in the Bible is not important enough to have regard with it being removed or not?

Why would Jesus quote Deuteronomy and tell satan that man "shall live on every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God" if every single word is not important?

Would Jesus say one single word that is not important?

Quite interesting the lack of regard for the very words of Jesus himself!?

Even answering for Soyeong who disappeared and couldn't answer, in my opinion, a very simple question?

Perhaps you agree with tampasteve who implies "in his reality" the words of Jesus are "not super relevant" regarding if Mark 7:16 and if they are the very words of Jesus himself?

...whether it was said or not in reality is not super relevant.-tampasteve

Blessings,
Love Fountain

 

[Leaf473]

Hello Leaf473,

Thank you for your response! We appear to agree Mark 7:16 are indeed the words of Jesus!

God establishes and protects His word, no matter all the tarnishing God allows man to do with it!

There is a way to know for sure regarding Mark 7:16 and we'll have to get to that later.

Blessings,
Love Fountain

Sounds interesting! Please let me know when you post the way to know for sure.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Why would Jesus respond to satan, "it is written" if what God has written in the Bible is not important enough to have regard with it being removed or not?

Why would Jesus quote Deuteronomy and tell satan that man "shall live on every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God" if every single word is not important?

Would Jesus say one single word that is not important?

Then every word Jesus ever said should be in the Bible!

But even the Bible says that not every word Jesus spoke is recorded in the Bible?

So which is it? Are the words Jesus spoke important even if not recorded in the Bible?

Quite interesting the lack of regard for the very words of Jesus himself if you are a Sola Scriptura person and deliberately exclude words Jesus spoke but were not recorded in the Bible. I think you have to account for every word of Jesus, in the Bible or not in the Bible. Or else you don't consider the words Jesus spoke to be important.