200 deleted verses in modern critical Greek NT

Yes, I think we are aware of the theory that most supposed 'additions' (the texts in dispute) were semi-accidentally (mistakenly or mechanically) turned into text from marginal notes. The problem is, there has only ever been one demonstrable case of such, and that occurred in the 14th century! We have not only posted the details on this peculiar but famous case here, but the lack of power of this case in explaining 1,500 years of alleged 'accumulation' of scribal glosses has been discussed repeatedly by many.

Dr. Krans on GA-3

When the Exception doesn't Prove the Rule Pt. I

The story of 'marginal glosses' being incorporated into the text has no early textual support whatever, and remains glaringly unconvincing as an explanation for the 50 apparent omissions in Aleph/B listed below.

I'm afraid you've lost me here. I'm not at all sure what you are referring to, or what "doesn't make a whole lot of sense".

I've thought about the fact that almost universally, scribes tended to accidentally omit significant material more often than they accidentally added it (there are of course agreed upon examples of each).

The key point is, if scribes did omit accidentally, even occasionally, and these errors were regularly promulgated in all other text-types, why haven't any cases been 'found' in the Uncials Aleph/B, excepting the few obvious 1st generation singular errors? Do Hortians seriously want us to believe that the transmission line for Aleph/B miraculously never committed any omissions whatsoever? Even when it is widely acknowledged by all modern critics that they plainly also made the same mistakes as found in other text-types (such as the some 23 possible "Western non-interpolations" etc.)? ...and that every other text-type did make those mistakes?

Why hasn't a single one of the omissions found in Aleph/B been acknowledged by modern Hortian critics as a probable or even possible accidental homoeoteleuton error? Obviously some bias is in operation there.

If you're going to claim this is "simply false", you'll have to do better than mere gainsaying.

Two doctrines have clearly been heavily discussed in the literature for at least 100 years, and have also been clearly modified and re-stated by various parties and denominations in the last 50 years.

(1) Verbal Plenary Inspiration is one doctrine which has clearly been heavily modifed, if not practically invented in the last century, as a direct result of claims and counter-claims regarding the Biblical text.

(2) Verbal Inerrancy is another similar doctrine which has very modern roots, and certainly does not resemble in the least the ideas and sentiments of the early Protestant reformers, as expressed in the Common Book of Prayer, the 39 Articles, or even the Westminster Confession.

Typically, Textual Critics like Daniel Wallace articulate a position in which only the original autographs are given 'inspired' status and are stated to be "without error".

(2) Providential Preservation is another obvious doctrine which has suffered the same fate.

All three of these doctrines have been re-written and in some cases completely freshly articulated to the point where they would be unrecognizable to the first generation of Reformers. To claim that Christians held these beliefs "all along" is simply historical revisionism at work.

Whether or not the current formulations are "rational" and reasonable, or even true, is irrelevant to the point that they are *new* formulations unknown to the last 2,000 years worth of Christian believers.

But that is beside the point in this thread, because we are here concerned rather with the scientific plausibility of all of the chosen omissions in the modern 'critical' Greek text being original, and the thesis that all the 'additions' are non-original interpolations, insertions, scribal glosses etc.

The actual evidence suggests that at least some of these, if not many, are actually just scribal errors accumulated in the Alexandrian textual transmission-line behind Aleph and B.

Lets look at Luke. Here we have about 50 omissions, amounting to about three whole pages of deleted text. When examined closely however, almost a third of them have all the appearance of simple accidental homoeoteleuton errors. Are we to believe that not a single one of these, even the ones with blatant homoeoteleuton features, is an accidental error?

Your question is wrongheaded, if we are really doing textual criticism for the purpose of reconstructing the original NT text, or determining the original readings.

We don't "follow" manuscripts. We analyze them and come to conclusions about the most probable original readings. That other kind of thinking is the kind of thinking that got textual critics into trouble in the first place regarding how best to reconstruct the text. In the last 100 years, a lot has been learned by some, and blindly setting up favourite individual manuscripts as a 'short-cut' to the original text is now known by most to be a naive approach and a practical disaster.

I'm not suggesting anything at the moment but evaluating Variation Units, and collections of groupable Variation Units, for plausibility and probability as to which variants within each are the most likely readings to be original. When the physical features and textual evidence preponderates in the direction of indicating that a 'shorter reading' is not a case of a deliberate addition of a 'scribal gloss' from a conjectural margin, but rather a simple and common omission by haplographic error, we should probably go with that evidence, until there is some compelling reason to do otherwise.

The days of "following favourite manuscripts" is long over.

Citing Colwell's Data and Findings, not Colwell

Not sure what your point is. Mine is clear. Colwell's data and findings support the probability that the longer readings of the traditional text are original, with much more probability than the omissions of Aleph/B, especially those with homoeoteleuton features.

Your phraseology however seems to fall into the perennial problem of personality cults rather than science. The opinions of scholars are held to be more important, somehow, than their actual data and findings, even when they are not based on science, or contradict their own findings.

Who cares what textual critics think? What evidence do they have, and what does it really mean? That is the relevant question.

I couldn't "skip Colwell", since I wanted his data. The data is valid. Colwell isn't relevant to anything, except insofar as he hands over scientific information. Then we can send him packing.

See below:

Your statements here are good as far as they go, but they miss the whole point of reliable scientific inquiry. Who cares what Colwell thinks for instance? I don't quote his opinions for support or at all, because they are essentially worthless without scientific data.
I reference Colwell's data and findings, because they qualify as scientific and useful facts.

Being able to parse the difference between these ideas is the essence of doing science, as opposed to putting fallible men on pedestals, and giving credence to opinion over unverified facts.

For me and every other scientist, "scholarly support" doesn't mean "scholarly opinion", which is superfluous and often misleading. "scholarly support" means, what data and reliable scientific findings did the scholars publish, that are independently verifiable, for instance through independent collation and inspection of photographs and texts.

I not only meant to say that there is "scholarly support" in the scientific sense for the traditional text, but I demonstrated that scholarly support by linking to scholarly facts and findings published by scholars. Whether or not those same scholars openly or privately agree or disagree with my conclusions about their data is an entirely different question, and one that is irrelevant to the facts and what they mean in regard to the traditional text.

If you want to debate, or especially challenge my claim regarding the traditional text, then let us by all means discuss the relevant facts and findings, and whether or not they support my claim or not. Lets talk about the actual texts, and their physical features. Lets talk about evidence of readings and plausibility of textual history.

But there is no point in discussing the opinions of textual critics, because their opinions are regularly without any scientific foundation, and they often make statements that are out of their area of expertise and knowledge or experience. To put it bluntly, who cares what textual critics think? What we want to know is what work they have done and what facts have they found, not what opinions they think they want to express.

Real science isn't about the cult of academia, its about seeking truth above reputations, political interests, or ideological concerns.

I don't think you realize the full gravity of the situation.

Its not even that critical Greek texts omit dozens of half-verses. Its that they do this without telling the reader, the translators, or the public the extent of the alterations.

The very definition of "reliable" means honesty, openness, and transparency regarding purpose and motives. All of these are entirely missing from the work of textual critics and editors of the New Testament.

Their very work demonstrates beyond doubt that they are NOT reliable, and can't be trusted to report honestly about what they are foisting on the public and Christian readers.

Here's a sample of the completely undocumented mutilations of the NT text, which find their way readily into modern versions, also without so much as a footnote indicating text has been ripped out or drastically altered. In the following list "MV" means Modern Versions collectively, although one or two might have a note where the majority have nothing at all:

Matt. 15:8 UBS2 undocumented ΤΩ ΣΤΟΜΑΤΙ αυτων και
Matt. 20:7 UBS2 undocumented και ο εαν η δικαιον ληψεσθε
Matt. 20:16 UBS2 undocumented πολλοι γαρ εισιν κλητοι ολιγοι δε εκλεκτοι
Matt. 20:22 UBS2 undocumented το βαπτισμα ο εγω βαπτιζομαι βαπτισθηναι...
και το βαπτισμα ο εγω βαπτιζομαι βαπτισθησεσθε

Mark 11:8 UBS2 undocumented KΑI ΕΣTΡΩNNΥON ΕIΣ THN OΔON
Mark 12:33 UBS2 undocumented KΑI ΕΞ OΛHΣ THΣ ΨΥXH

Luke 4:5 UBS2 undocumented O ΔIΑΒOΛOΣ ΕIΣ OΡOΣ ΥΨHΛON
Luke 17:9 UBS2 undocumented (αυτω)
Luke 19:45 UBS2 undocumented εν αυτω και αγοραζοντας
Luke 22:68 MV undocumented μοι η απολυσητε

John 5:16 UBS2 undocumented και  εζητουν αυτον αποκτειναι
John 6:11 UBS2 undocumented τοις μαθηταις οι δε μαθηται
John 8:59-9:2 MV undocumented και διελθων δια μεσου αυτων [επορευετο] και παρηγεν ουτως
John 11:41 UBS2 undocumented ου ην  ο τεθνηκως  κειμενος
John 17:12 UBS2 undocumented εν τω κοσμω

BY THE WAY, ALL OF THE ABOVE EXAMPLES ARE HOMOEOTELEUTON ERRORS.

Instead of spouting how 'unlikely' it might be for scholars to be wrong, dishonest, or have a hidden agenda, instead of seeking the opinions of "scholars", try this:

Read the mutilations for yourself, and answer the question for yourself if these deletions and mutilations are "significant" or not. Don't rely on modern academia.

Use your own brain, man. Use your own mind. If you're skeptical about Wikipedia, then you should be doubly skeptical about modern academia.

Yes. Its crazy to think that modern academics mutilate the Bible unknowingly.

Its also crazy to think they do this without an anti-Christian agenda.

Just ask Bart Ehrman, a great example of what modern academia regards as authoritative, and will put in a position of power to publish [Edited].

Don't think for a minute that these are the bulk of the story. These are only a small sample. I can find twice that many in the rest of the NT.

Why? Why would these editors knowingly (for they can't have deleted all these half-verses while sleep-walking) follow readings that are all HOMOEOTELEUTON errors, and at the same time keep it a carefully guarded secret?

Because if public attention was called to these, it would suddenly become obvious that the SOURCE of these boners were not the "oldest and best" MSS that Hort claimed, and their "agreement" would only mean what opponents have been saying for years:

Agreements between Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are agreements in error, pointing to a common archetype all right, but reducing their "independent witness" to one early error-ridden piece of Alexandrian "moo flap".

The truth is, Hort was greedy. In his rush to "dethrone" the Textus Receptus, he overdid it, incorporating every omission he could find and justify by a lot of handwaving, no matter how ludicrous the example was.

He would have been more successful, and more convincing as an expert textual critic, if only he hadn't padded his case with a bunch of blatantly stupid extras.
He could have quietly sabotaged the Protestant world with much less effort, and more lasting results.

But he was essentially stupid. His talent was more suited to checkers than chess.

completely undocumented mutilations of the NT text, which find their way readily into modern versions, also without so much as a footnote indicating text has been ripped out or drastically altered. In the following list "MV" means Modern Versions collectively, although one or two might have a note where the majority have nothing at all:

Matt. 15:8 UBS2 undocumented ΤΩ ΣΤΟΜΑΤΙ αυτων και
Matt. 20:7 UBS2 undocumented και ο εαν η δικαιον ληψεσθε
Matt. 20:16 UBS2 undocumented πολλοι γαρ εισιν κλητοι ολιγοι δε εκλεκτοι
Matt. 20:22 UBS2 undocumented το βαπτισμα ο εγω βαπτιζομαι βαπτισθηναι...
και το βαπτισμα ο εγω βαπτιζομαι βαπτισθησεσθε

Mark 11:8 UBS2 undocumented KΑI ΕΣTΡΩNNΥON ΕIΣ THN OΔON
Mark 12:33 UBS2 undocumented KΑI ΕΞ OΛHΣ THΣ ΨΥXH

Luke 4:5 UBS2 undocumented O ΔIΑΒOΛOΣ ΕIΣ OΡOΣ ΥΨHΛON
Luke 17:9 UBS2 undocumented (αυτω)
Luke 19:45 UBS2 undocumented εν αυτω και αγοραζοντας
Luke 22:68 MV undocumented μοι η απολυσητε

John 5:16 UBS2 undocumented και  εζητουν αυτον αποκτειναι
John 6:11 UBS2 undocumented τοις μαθηταις οι δε μαθηται
John 8:59-9:2 MV undocumented και διελθων δια μεσου αυτων [επορευετο] και παρηγεν ουτως
John 11:41 UBS2 undocumented ου ην  ο τεθνηκως  κειμενος
John 17:12 UBS2 undocumented εν τω κοσμω

BY THE WAY, ALL OF THE ABOVE EXAMPLES ARE HOMOEOTELEUTON ERRORS.

Instead of spouting how 'unlikely' it might be for scholars to be wrong, dishonest, or have a hidden agenda,

Open a copy of the UBS text, and see if they deleted the half-verses or not.
Check the apparatus, and see if they documented the alterations or not.

Check for yourself, and answer the question for yourself.

These aren't just Majority Text and Byzantine text-type readings.

They are readings that have been in the NT text in both Greek and Latin for 1000 years.

The point still stands:

Its not that they altered the verses: its that they altered the verses without telling the reader.

What is your definition of honest?

uh oh, it looks like we're headed toward misdirection again.

Lets try again to describe clearly and concisely the problem(s).

(1) In the 1600s, collators of hand-copies who were preparing printed versions noticed some variant readings among the manuscripts being used as master-copies, and began studying them and collecting readings along with their support in the form of manuscripts, patristic quotations and 'versions' (early translations).

(2) By the 1800s, the Germans and English rationalists (mainly Unitarians) voiced a concern that the traditional Christian text had been corrupted, presumably by Roman Catholics and Trinitarians. They set about looking for versions and readings that would support the reconstruction of an Alternate Text, which they expected would be free of "Romish superstitions" and of course, Trinitarian readings.

(3) Assuming that most of the alleged ancient alterations were in the form of deliberate theologically motivated additions (supporting the Deity of Christ, Trinitarian Deism, the Eucharist etc.), these 19th century critics formulated rules or canons like "Prefer the shorter reading" and "Prefer older reading" for the purpose of easily ejecting traditional readings in favour of newly discovered variants in old manuscripts.

(4) The shortest possible text that could be reconstructed, presumably most free from "Romish" and Trinitarian interpolations, but still based on "hard evidence" (i.e., ancient manuscripts) was constructed, by Westcott & Hort (1881) and used as the basis of the Revised Version (1882).

(5) In the end however, this text wasn't much different from the Traditional text that had been in use for a thousand years, and appeared just as "corrupt" as the text used by the KJV translators (the Textus Receptus). Unitarians and Deists then essentially either abandoned Christianity entirely and became agnostics or atheists, or else fled back into the arms of Rome. The Anglican Church was essentially gutted, as believers formed new denominations and doubters became secular humanists.

(6) Protestants regrouped and backed the new "critical Greek text", because it appeared to have been made based on rational and historical-critical principles (this however, was actually false). This new (early 20th century) generation of Protestants intended to forge a new "Rational Christianity" in which Christianity would not be portrayed as a religion full of superstitious and incomprehensible notions, but would be a kind of new objective philosophy, based partly on revelation and partly on reason.

(7) Reason was emphasized, especially by the American Protestants like the Presbyterians and evolving Evangelist movement. Suddenly, what were formerly considered essential and mainstream doctrines became "optional" viewpoints, not worth breaking fellowship for. Many standard Christian doctrines were simply left up to the individual conscience, like the Trinity, the Deity of Christ, Atonement, Original Sin, Ransom, the Eucharist, etc.

(8) The new Ecumenical Movement emphasized unity over doctrinal quarrels and questions, and left most Christians in a very tolerant, but ill-defined limbo.

Given this historical background, the behavior of those seeking to edit and modify the Bible is a very important topic, because textual criticism was not a 'benign', undirected activity and open investigative procedure, but rather a very directed, driven group of people with a very purposeful agenda, which involved a much larger sympathy for Unitarian theories and doctrines, fringe semi-Christian sects, and of course a desire for Ecumenical unity or at least mutual tolerance between competing ideological factions and denominational parties.

This is where we must part company with your fuzzy thinking.

When someone openly proposes to edit the text used by Christians for a thousand years, any changes they make to the text must absolutely be documented, to prevent confusion over what parts of the text are agreed upon and not under dispute, and those parts of the text which someone wishes to change. Its the only scientific, open, and transparent way to operate.

We don't presuppose anything at all. We investigate the evidence, in particular, what is known about scribal habits and common errors, and choose the explanations which account for the evidence on the basis of the highest probability, likelihood, or ability to account most completely for all the variants known to exist.

Sorry, Chip, but I really have to draw the line on this remark.

(1) I'm not "basing my entire argument" on any assumptions at all. As a scientist, I may begin an investigation with some reasonable assumptions for purposes of efficiency and in the hope of fruitful discovery. I never base conclusions on assumptions however, or attempt to debate using them. I prefer historical, scientific, and logical evidences. The only 'assumptions' I habitually use are of the most general kind, and involve an objective reality that most scientists believe they share with all realists. My current arguments are based on the facts of the textual evidence alone.

(2) I'm not by any stretch of the imagination "King James Only", and I do not have any interest in defending the 'TR'. I make no assumptions about those texts, nor do I push them on others. I don't even use the KJV myself. I personally prefer to 'rely on' the original languages, Hebrew and Greek, but heavily consult the translations of others into English, because that historically is my "first language". My preference among English translations is Young's Literal translation, which is more than adequate for most purposes. However I often in specific cases do my own translating, at least for myself.

(3) I couldn't care less what KJO advocates do. But I know what I do. I don't rely upon or debate with, or sell assumptions. I use scientific investigation methods to determine the probability of various historical explanations of existing evidence, like variant readings, and printed texts.

(4) I have no interest in using the 'TR' as a standard of quality against which to measure other texts, critical or otherwise. If I had to align myself with any position at all, it would be something like that of Sturz or more recently Dr. Maurice Robinson, who both have come to recognize the value of the Byzantine text-type, against the attitude prevailing among some textual critics, particularly in the past 80 years. Like those two researchers, I began with a skeptical attitude toward the Traditional (Byzantine) text-type, but have come to the conclusion that it is much more reliable and accurate than it is often given credit for. My opinion however, is not based on any ideological or religious position, but simply upon the textual evidence as found. Like Dr. Robinson, I began with a cautious and skeptical view of variant readings and various explanations, but began to make tentative conclusions through the results of analysis.

(5) The popular text most used by Christians between 600 - 1600 A.D. is not in serious dispute. It is acknowledged that however few MSS Erasmus used for his 'TR', they were as it turns out quite representative of the majority of MSS produced in the period in question. Likewise, although the Latin Vulgate may differ in a few places from the TR, it is all but identical to it, especially in regard to the some 200 verses and half-verses of which this thread is all about. The Latins produced some 10,000 copies of the NT in Latin, the vast majority of which agree substantially with the TR with only a few exceptions, and these MSS go back to the 2nd century. It is therefore very misdirecting or disengenious of you to suggest that the TR might not represent the basic Christian text used by Christians all over the Empire for the last thousand years before the printed Bible era, and this includes both Greek and Latin readers.

(6) But that is not even my argument, or the purpose of this thread, and for you to misdirect the discussion to this issue, is just an attempt to derail the thread and turn it into a "KJVOnly Debate", which has nothing to do with my thread or my purpose. A poor, misguided, and ultimately unsuccessful attack, as far as I can determine.

(7) Adopting the Byzantine Text as a base is scientifically the most intelligent and efficient choice. This has nothing to do with the quality of the Byzantine text, and everything to do with efficient scientific method. If we are going to collate all the evidence, including manuscripts, early Christian writers, and versions, then adopting the "Majority Text" as a base is the only intelligent thing to do. Not that I care if you want to be unintelligent and unefficient, you can do what you like with your own time and energy. Why would I care?

If you want to know why adopting a 'minority text' as a base is stupid, read the scientific arguments here:

Why Use a Base-text, and what to Choose <- - Click Here.

I don't want to say what Peter might have "whipped out" and when, but I find your language crude and offensive. It serves no constructive purpose for this discussion.

This I think is a moot point, because the discrepancy is not very large.

It is a quite fair and accurate statement to estimate the number of whole/half verses as 200 in the critical Greek texts, although a few are bracketed rather than relegated to footnotes.

It is also quite fair to estimate that the average modern version follows suit about 90% of the time, giving on average 180 missing chunks of text, or about 3 and a half pages, in some cases approximating an entire short letter of Paul.

Far too much text to pretend that no questions are raised, or no harm is done to people's faith and viewpoint, especially when these deletions are for the most part accompanied with uninformative but doubt-inspiring footnotes as to the authenticity of the text under dispute.

We still seem to be struggling with a heavy smokescreen, obscuring the view.

Here below for instance, you have completely misunderstood what I said, although I have to admit your 1984-speak is incredibly clever:

Aaron's Remarkable Synthesis:

Wow! Nice magic trick.

Let me spell it out:

(1) Its NOT that the discrepancy is small between the ESV and KJV for instance, because that discrepancy is not small but LARGE.

but I meant something entirely different:

(2) The discrepancy between modern versions like the ESV and the UBS4 Greek Text is not very large, meaning they follow the modern critical Greek text almost always, except in a few cases where deleting the verses would raise a storm of protest.

Nice shot at misdirection under the heading of "Digest".

This really I think misses the point. Why are some 200 half-verses being put in brackets or in footnotes, when the evidence suggests that the omissions are accidental errors? This procedure was a clumsy, extreme alteration of the Christian text without a good reason.

You know, I kind of think I understand. If the state, condition, and ongoing alterations to the NT text, many undocumented, are not a big deal to you, then of course I think we could sum up with a Digest:

Alterations to the Christian text are not a big deal.

This is certainly true for most of secular society. I guess you are suggesting we join them.

peace
Nazaroo

Actually the phrase "half-verse" is quite reasonable, since the issue is not 'the criterion used',
but what the size of the bulk of the omissions actually is.
Looking directly at the copious list shows that the bulk of omissions are indeed about the length of an average verse. Playing with words or sampling changes nothing.

The amount of actual Greek and English material omitted is a large quantity,
amounting to the equivalent of two whole letters, such as Peter and Jude.
To pretend that the quantity of the omissions in modern critical texts and English translations
is small really is a misdirection attempt, and bickering about definitions is a waste of time.

For instance, look at the size of the amount of just half the material omitted from Mark and Luke. Double that for Matthew and John, and add the same again for Acts/Epistles:

υιουτουθεου τηςβασιλειας ειποντοςαυτου υγιηςωςηαλλη θεραπευειντ αςνοσουςκαι αμηνλεγωυμινανε κτοτερονεσταισο δομοιςηγομορροι ςενημερακρισεως ητηπολειεκεινη καισυνηλθο νπροςαυτον ουκεχουσιν εμεμψαντο βαπτισμουςξεστω νκαιποτηριωνκαια λλαπαρομοιατοιαυ ταπολλαποιειτε ειτιςεχειωταα κουεινακουετω οιφαγοντες μηδεειπηςτ ινιεντηκωμη καινηστεια οςουκακολουθειημινed. οπουοσκωληξαυτ ωνουτελευτακαιτ οπυρουσβεννυται ειςτοπυρτοασβεστ ονοπουοσκωληξαυ τωνουτελευτακαι τοπυρουσβεννυται καιπασαθυσιαα λιαλισθησεται καιπροσκολληθησεται προςτηνγυναικααυτου αραςτονσταυρον τουςπεποιθοτας επιτοιςχρημασιν καιεστρωννυο νειςτηνοδον ενονοματικυριου οεανειπη ειδευμειςουκαφ ιετεουδεοπατηρ υμωνοεντοιςουρ ανοιςαφησειταπ αραπτωματαυμων οταναναστωσινIn πασωντωνεντολων αυτηπρωτηεντολη καιεξοληςτηςψυχης μηδεμελετατε τορηθενυποδαν ιηλτουπροφητουh.t. καιαλλοςμητιεγω ενεμοιεντη νυκτιταυτη καιαλεκτωρεφωνησενIn καιηλαλιασ ουομοιαζειIn αυτοςδεουδε ναπεκρινατο καιεπληρωθηηγραφ ηηλεγουσακαιμετ αανομωνελογισθη ευλογημενησυενγυναιξιν ιδουσαδιεταραχθη ειςιεροσολυμα αλλεπιπαντιρηματιθυ οδιαβολοςειςοροςυψηλον υπαγεοπισωμουσατανα ιασασθαιτουςσυντετρ ιμμενουςτηνκαρδιαν καιαμφοτεροισυντηρουνται θησαυρουτηςκαρδιαςαυτου ειπενδεοκς ἰατροῖςπροσαναλώσασαὅλοντὸνβίον καιοιμεταυτου καιλεγειςτιςοαψαμενοςμου θαρσει εκβαλωνεξωπανταςκαι τοπονερημον ωςκαιηλιαςεποιησεν καιειπενουκοιδατεοιουπνε υματοςεστευμειςογαρυιοςτ ουανθρωπουουκηλθενψυχαςα νθρωπωναπολεσαιαλλασωσαι ειςτονοικοναυτης οεντοιςουρανοις γενηθητωτοθελημασουως ενουρανωκαιεπιτηςγης αλλαρυσαιημαςαποτουπονηρου αρτονμηλιθονεπιδωσειαυτωει γραμματειςκαιφαρισαιοιυποκριται ινακατηγορησωσιναυτου εγρηγορησενανκαι αυτωουδοκω εντηημερααυτου δυοεσονταιεντω αγρωοειςπαραλη φθησεταικαιοετ εροςαφεθησεται περιλυπονγενομενον εναυτωκαιαγοραζοντας ιδοντες τιμεπειραζετε τηνγυναικακαιουτο ςαπεθανενατεκνος τουπερυμωνδιδομενοντουτο ποιειτεειςτηνεμηναναμνησιν ωσαυτωςκαιτοποτηριονμετα τοδειπνησαιλεγωντουτοτο ποτηριονηκαινηδιαθηκη εντωαιματιμουτο υπερυμωνεκχυνομενον ειπενδεοκυριος ωφθηδεαυτωαγγελοςαπουρανουενισχυωναυτοναιγενομενοςεναγωνιαεκτενεστερονπροσηυχετοεγενετοδεοιδρωςαυτουωσειθρομβοιαιματοςκαταβαινοντεςεπιτηνγην αυτονετυπτοναυτουτοπροσωπονκαι ηαπολυσητε αναγκηνδεειχεναπολυε ιναυτοιςκαταεορτηνενα καιτωναρχιερεων γραμμασινελληνικοιςκαιρω μαικοιςκαιεβραικοιςουτος καιτινεςσυναυταιςδεπετροςανασταςεδραμενεπιτομνημειονκαιπαρακυψαςβλεπειταοθονιακειμεναμονακαιαπηλθενπροςεαυτονθαυμαζωντογεγονος καιλεγειαυτοιςειρηνηυμιν καιτουτοειπωνεπεδειξεναυτοιςταςχειραςκαιτουςποδας καιαπομελισσιουκηριου καιουτωςεδει καιανεφερετοειςτονουρανον προσκυνήσαντεςαὐτὸν
υιουτουθεου τηςβασιλειας ειποντοςαυτου υγιηςωςηαλλη θεραπευειντ αςνοσουςκαι αμηνλεγωυμινανε κτοτερονεσταισο δομοιςηγομορροι ςενημερακρισεως ητηπολειεκεινη καισυνηλθο νπροςαυτον ουκεχουσιν εμεμψαντο βαπτισμουςξεστω νκαιποτηριωνκαια λλαπαρομοιατοιαυ ταπολλαποιειτε ειτιςεχειωταα κουεινακουετω οιφαγοντες μηδεειπηςτ ινιεντηκωμη καινηστεια οςουκακολουθειημινed. οπουοσκωληξαυτ ωνουτελευτακαιτ οπυρουσβεννυται ειςτοπυρτοασβεστ ονοπουοσκωληξαυ τωνουτελευτακαι τοπυρουσβεννυται καιπασαθυσιαα λιαλισθησεται καιπροσκολληθησεται προςτηνγυναικααυτου αραςτονσταυρον τουςπεποιθοτας επιτοιςχρημασιν καιεστρωννυο νειςτηνοδον ενονοματικυριου οεανειπη ειδευμειςουκαφ ιετεουδεοπατηρ υμωνοεντοιςουρ ανοιςαφησειταπ αραπτωματαυμων οταναναστωσινIn πασωντωνεντολων αυτηπρωτηεντολη καιεξοληςτηςψυχης μηδεμελετατε τορηθενυποδαν ιηλτουπροφητουh.t. καιαλλοςμητιεγω ενεμοιεντη νυκτιταυτη καιαλεκτωρεφωνησενIn καιηλαλιασ ουομοιαζειIn αυτοςδεουδε ναπεκρινατο καιεπληρωθηηγραφ ηηλεγουσακαιμετ αανομωνελογισθη ευλογημενησυενγυναιξιν ιδουσαδιεταραχθη ειςιεροσολυμα αλλεπιπαντιρηματιθυ οδιαβολοςειςοροςυψηλον υπαγεοπισωμουσατανα ιασασθαιτουςσυντετρ ιμμενουςτηνκαρδιαν καιαμφοτεροισυντηρουνται θησαυρουτηςκαρδιαςαυτου ειπενδεοκς ἰατροῖςπροσαναλώσασαὅλοντὸνβίον καιοιμεταυτου καιλεγειςτιςοαψαμενοςμου θαρσει εκβαλωνεξωπανταςκαι τοπονερημον ωςκαιηλιαςεποιησεν καιειπενουκοιδατεοιουπνε υματοςεστευμειςογαρυιοςτ ουανθρωπουουκηλθενψυχαςα νθρωπωναπολεσαιαλλασωσαι ειςτονοικοναυτης οεντ

There is a limit of 8,000 characters to posts here, but the material is way over that.
You can see that quite a lot of material has been deleted. There is no point in hiding it.

peace
Nazaroo

Probably the bulk of the undocumented changes amounts to less than a third of the changes made to the traditional text and adopted by the UBS text for instance. In this case, however, there are a lot more undocumented changes than you might expect, because there are also thousands of changes in spelling and minor grammatical structure/morphology that has no or little effect on translation.

The question of "sneaky" involves a proper consideration of the real-life context in which modern versions are used.

It is probably safe to say that the majority of Christians would not even know what the acronym NA27 or TR means. Nor would they have any acquaintance with a Greek NT text. Certainly more people do today than in 1950, but these 'counts' must be adjusted according to population growth, and fads / enrollment in seminaries and changes of university curriculum over time, and then interpreted with caution.

However, most Christians have a natural and wholesome respect and awe for the word of God in the Holy Scriptures. When asked, I have found that most Christians I have talked to are very concerned that the Bible had many more verses in it for the last thousand-year period than typical modern versions do today. When I explain why they were removed, and who did it on what authority, they often take a real interest in how this has come about in the last 100 years.

Most Christians I've talked to (and most of these were Protestants) don't believe that the Holy scriptures were corrupted for a thousand years, only to be restored by a couple of Anglican academics of dubious Christian commitment. That scenario, in which the "true text" was 'miraculously' discovered by luke-warm archaeologists and academics in manuscripts lost for 1300 years just doesn't fly. Even those who believe the Roman Catholic church was indeed corrupted severely in the Middle Ages (i.e., the Inquisition, Witchhunts etc.) don't believe that the Bible was falsified by ecclesiastics for a thousand years.

The average Christian layperson thinks that claims by fringe groups like the Mormons or the JWs or the SDAs are exaggerated, and they don't buy the popular myth that Constantine or some early power-group forged or mutilated the fundamental documents of christianity.

Its far more plausible to the people I've talked to in detail, with the current evidences in view, that some manuscripts were corrupted early, but that the 'church' (meaning the bulk of Christians) handled the text conscientiously and it was preserved far better in its circulation among Christians throughout the centuries than it has in various abandoned early copies.