Many modern versions of the New Testament have annoying brackets around certain verses, and disparaging footnotes in the margins which cast doubt upon various traditional verses and phrases.
Typically, such footnotes take the form,
"*the oldest and best manuscripts omit these verses" or some similar expression.
(1) Upon reading such a note, the student can be forgiven for thinking that by 'oldest' the note means that the verses were somehow added later than the date of the manuscript. But this is completely misleading, since ALL READINGS are demonstrably old, and most are far older than the oldest complete manuscripts.
(2) The student can also naturally be excused for thinking that by 'best' or 'better' the note means that these manuscripts referred to are remarkably good and accurate copies of the original text of the New Testament. Again, nothing could be further from the objective truth. While a manuscript like for instance Codex Vaticanus (B) is excellent in the sense of being made from high quality sheepskin, and containing remarkably neat calligraphic writing, the text itself is notoriously corrupt and perverse.
A typical case is the Last twelve verses of Mark, where such a note usually appears. What the note doesn't say, is that while the two Ancient 5th century manuscripts Vaticanus and Sinaiticus do indeed omit the verses, they clearly knew about their existance, because they carefully left a space for the verses to be copied in, if so desired!
Have a look at the attached photos,and you will see that the footnotes in most modern versions can only be described as a (not so very) pious fraud.
The only version with a footnote even approaching adequate on this verse is the New Revised Standard Version, which takes a large paragraph to explain the complex nature of the conflicting evidence regarding these verses!
Typically, such footnotes take the form,
"*the oldest and best manuscripts omit these verses" or some similar expression.
(1) Upon reading such a note, the student can be forgiven for thinking that by 'oldest' the note means that the verses were somehow added later than the date of the manuscript. But this is completely misleading, since ALL READINGS are demonstrably old, and most are far older than the oldest complete manuscripts.
(2) The student can also naturally be excused for thinking that by 'best' or 'better' the note means that these manuscripts referred to are remarkably good and accurate copies of the original text of the New Testament. Again, nothing could be further from the objective truth. While a manuscript like for instance Codex Vaticanus (B) is excellent in the sense of being made from high quality sheepskin, and containing remarkably neat calligraphic writing, the text itself is notoriously corrupt and perverse.
A typical case is the Last twelve verses of Mark, where such a note usually appears. What the note doesn't say, is that while the two Ancient 5th century manuscripts Vaticanus and Sinaiticus do indeed omit the verses, they clearly knew about their existance, because they carefully left a space for the verses to be copied in, if so desired!
Have a look at the attached photos,and you will see that the footnotes in most modern versions can only be described as a (not so very) pious fraud.
The only version with a footnote even approaching adequate on this verse is the New Revised Standard Version, which takes a large paragraph to explain the complex nature of the conflicting evidence regarding these verses!
