But which Lord’s Prayer?

When the disciples asked Jesus to teach them to pray, he taught them one, single prayer.  That prayer came to be called “the Lord’s Prayer”.  Could there be any better prayer for Christians to be using?  If it comes from Jesus Himself, why then do we have two different versions?  A Protestant version and a Roman Catholic version (with the Eastern Orthodox Churches and the Greek Orthodox Church using the same traditional version as the Roman Church)?   Which version should we be using?

How did the variations come in?

The “Catholic version” ends with lead us not into temptation but deliver us from evil. Protestant churches have an additional line for thine is the kingdom, the power and the glory, for ever and ever. 

Introduction

The Our Father is found in Matthew chapter 6 where Jesus teaches the disciples how to pray. The version in Luke is shorter and Mark has no version of his own.  The history behind the extra verse in Protestant Bibles is a little complicated but worth working through.  There is a longstanding tradition behind the Catholic position although among some fundamentalist Protestants, among common allegations is that the Catholics exclude parts of the Bible, with no real explanation of why they might do that. 

Passions can sometimes run high because of the centrality of these prayers in the lives of believers.  Often it is the only prayer in which people can participate in public services.  They then find out that the Romans in the congregation will finish early and Protestants finish off with an extra line.  What should we do?  Does it matter?  Perhaps a brief exploration of the background to these differences will assist us in making our decision.

According to the Bible

The first thing to note is that the prayer differs even between the gospels themselves. Although the form in Matthew is the one used by nearly all Christians today, a shorter version is recorded by Luke in chapter 11 where it ends with “lead us not into temptation” (Lk. 11:4). So technically, one would be completely biblically justified in simply ending the prayer there.

Secondly, the verse in question is not to be found in any of the oldest and most reliable biblical texts.  It is for this reason, most biblical scholars, both Protestant and Catholic, do not include the additional line in their translations. Modern Bibles usually put the extra line in brackets or include it in a footnote.  Keeping the technical language it would be useful for us to begin by looking at the venerable King James Bible, a Protestant mainstay.

Some Technical details are necessary

 The King James Version of the Bible is based on something called the Textus Receptus which itself was not based on the oldest manuscripts we have today. Textus Receptus means "received text." It is the name given to the Greek New Testament published by Erasmus (b.1466).

The problem with Erasmus was that he only used just three manuscripts. In fact, the manuscript Erasmus used for the Book of Revelation lacked the last leaf. He was in a rush to get his Greek New Testament published because he knew there were others trying to get their editions out.

It is supposed that it was his haste that led him to back-translating from his defective copy of the Latin Vulgate into Greek for the last six verses of Revelation. In the process, he created twenty new textual variants that have not been found in any other manuscripts—except a few that were based on what he did several years later.

Textus Receptus is the Greek text that stands behind the King James Bible. Contrary to what its name suggests, it is not the text received and accepted by everyone. Even Erasmus was not pleased with the production. He never liked it. He admitted it was rushed, that it was “precipitated rather than produced”, eight years of work and he was far from content with the output.

In the late 1800s, Frederick Scrivener an English a renowned textual scholar of the New Testament wrote there was no book he had ever seen “with as many errors” as the first edition of Erasmus's Greek New Testament!

Neither Codex Sinaiticus nor Vaticanus contains the verse – in fact, the earliest witness we have to the longer ending is a late fourth or early fifth-century parchment called Codex Washingtonensis.

Codex Sinaiticus is the earliest known manuscript of the Bible, compiled in the 4th century A.D.

In 1844, 43 leaves of a 4th-century biblical codex (a collection of single pages bound together along one side) were discovered at St. Catherine’s Monastery at the foot of Mount Sinai (hence the name Sinaiticus).

The German biblical scholar Konstantin von Tischendorf (1815–74) found several hundred additional leaves, constituting the majority of the present manuscript, at the monastery in 1859. Tischendorf persuaded the monks to give the precious manuscript to Tsar Alexander II of Russia in exchange for the needed protection of their abbey. Tischendorf subsequently published the Codex Sinaiticus at Leipzig and then presented it to the tsar.

Codex Sinaiticus consists mostly of the text of the Septuagint, the Greek-language Old Testament. Some 800 of the original 1,400 handwritten vellum pages remain. Though about half of the Hebrew Bible is missing, a complete 4th-century New Testament is preserved, along with the Letter of Barnabas (c. mid-2nd century) and most of the Shepherd of Hermas, a 2nd-century Christian writer. There were probably four scribes who contributed to the original text.

The Codex Vaticanus is a 4th century manuscript of the Septuagint and the New Testament, and, along with the Codex Sinaiticus, is one of the two surviving 4th century manuscripts of the Old and New Testament in Greek, the language used by the early Christians.

Some experts estimate the date of the Codex Vaticanus as slightly prior to the Codex Sinaiticus. The Codex Vaticanus was written on sheets of parchment in a three-column format without word division, punctuation or pagination, by two or three different scribes.  

Quires (questions raised about the text) are numbered in the margin. Its page format is considerably smaller than the Codex Sinaiticus, with its pages currently measuring 27 x 27 cm. Its place of origin is uncertain; Rome, southern Italy, Alexandria, and Caesarea have been proposed.

Originally the manuscript must have been composed of 820 parchment leaves, but it appears that 71 leaves have been lost.

Currently, the Old Testament consists of 617 sheets and the New Testament of 142 sheets. Pages 1519-1536 containing Hebrews 9:14 through Revelation, were lost and replaced by a 15th-century minuscule supplement (a "minuscule" refers to a New Testament manuscript written in lowercase, cursive Greek script, which developed from uncial script and dates from the 9th to 15th century).

Back to the Lord’s Prayer

The English wording of the Our Father Protestants use today reflects the English version of the Bible produced by Tyndale in 1525.  Tyndale’s version was not traditional in the liturgical tradition of Western Christendom until it was found in the 1637 Scottish Book of Common Prayer.

Finally, although the longer ending remains popular in use today, there are many Bibles that do not include it. Catholic Bible translations (e.g., the Vulgate, the Douay-Rheims, or the New American) have never included it, and today most Protestant Bibles do not either (e.g., the ASV, CEV, ESV, GWT, GNT, NET, NIV, NIRV, NLT, and TNIV do not include the phrase, and others such as the HCSB, NASB, and NCV often bracket the phrase to set it off from the original text). Even modern versions of the King James Version include a footnote stating that the phrase is omitted in older manuscripts.

Some insights from Tradition

Although early Church Fathers such as Jerome (main writings 382 and 404), Gregory the Great (writing 590 to 604), Ambrose (writing between 374 and 397), and Augustine (writing 396 to 426) all wrote of the importance and beauty of the “Our Father” prayer, although none of them included the phrase when they writing about the Lord’s Prayer.

The commentaries on the prayer by Tertullian (197 to 220), Origen (185/6 and 254/5), and Cyprian (246 and 258) do not include it either. John Chrysostom did discuss the phrase in his 4th-century homily St. Matthew (19:10).

When we turn from Scripture commentary to Church Tradition, we find this phrase (which resembles 1 Chronicles 29:11… Yours, O Lord, are the greatness, the power, the glory, the victory, and the majesty; for all that is in the heavens and on the earth is yours; yours is the kingdom, O Lord, and you are exalted as head above all) in ancient liturgical use as a short doxology (praise response) to the Lord’s Prayer.

The Christian manual known as the Didache (c. 95 A.D.) has a short version of the doxology after “Our Father” in chapter 8, and the longer reading is found in the 4th century Apostolic Constitutions (7.24). From there it was incorporated into the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom as well. Thus, it seems that this phrase might very well have been a doxology – a liturgical addition to the original prayer that Jesus instructed his disciples to say.  It then found its way into the text of the Lord’s Prayer itself. 

Scriptural and traditional evidence points to a 4th-century addition of the phrase to the original prayer. It is likely that around this time, a scribe familiar with the liturgy added the doxology to Sacred Scripture while copying the “Our Father” passage, and it found its way into later translations of the Bible itself. These scriptural variants eventually outnumbered the more ancient documents, and the phrase was included in the gospels in the majority of ancient Bible manuscripts from that point onwards.

According to Protestantism

When early Protestants produced their own Bible translations in the 16th century (The first complete Protestant Bible, combining portions of Luther's and Zurich Bibles, was published in 1529 by Peter Schöffer in Worms) they used the majority text as their source.

The result was that their translations included the phrase as if it were part of the original gospel writings.

 In England, Tyndale’s translation included it, and when Henry VIII split from the Catholic Church, he decreed its inclusion in worship.

Finally, the virulently anti-Catholic Queen Elizabeth had it included in the Anglican Book of Common Prayer. Once it was brought over to America by the Puritans, the phrase’s addition was further solidified.

Conclusion

Ironically, what might at first seem to Protestants as an illegitimate subtraction from the Word of God due to Church tradition, is in truth more faithful to both the scripture and the tradition.  Although Protestants have corrected many of their modern Bible translations, it seems their tradition(!) of adding a Catholic doxology to the scriptural Lord’s Prayer may take a bit more time to overcome.

Differences Between the Majority Text and the Textus Receptus

For those who are interested in more of the technical stuff

Deciding on what Greek text is the best text for our translations into English is a challenging aspect of our biblical sciences.  While most of us would find it next to impossible to engage in these things directly, we use the fruits of their ongoing labours.  When looking at our reflections on the ending of the Lord’s Prayer, it helps to know some of the textual background to the various versions. 

There is a wealth of information out there and I have made use of material mostly from the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry, doing my best to present its summaries in a more readable form. 

The Majority Text and the Textus Receptus

It is extremely common for King James advocates to blend the “Majority Text” (M-Text) with the “Textus Receptus” (TR), or the tradition of printed Greek texts behind the King James Version.

Many Evangelical commentators will directly claim that the TR is the M-Text or will say that the TR represents “the vast majority of Greek manuscripts.”  Neither of these are true statements.

The TR is based on only a handful of Greek manuscripts.  Most of these manuscripts, being late medieval Byzantine texts (1261–1453), are a tertiary part of the larger M-Text tradition, but the TR is not representative of that tradition. Some of its readings have support in only a few late manuscripts. Indeed, it contains several readings that came in through other avenues besides Greek manuscripts and which are not found in any Greek manuscript at all!

The TR is, thus, a distinct textual tradition that differs from both the M-Text and the Modern Critical Text. It is a composite of both majority and minority readings along with back-translations from the Latin Vulgate and Textual emendations by its compilers.

While it would be impossible to give an exhaustive list of all the differences between the M-Text and TR, it is worth noting just a few of the more important variants and a sample list of some examples representing the different kinds of variants that occur, both significant and trivial.

The Modern Critical Text (MT) represents a scholarly approach to establishing the New Testament Greek text, prioritising textual criticism and relying on early manuscripts like Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus to arrive at a text believed to be closer to the original composition.  A majority of manuscript readings, and also the Byzantine text-type. 

Scholars using this text-critical method aim to present a text based on the best available evidence, reflecting an ongoing scholarly effort to reconstruct the original writing.  It is the text used by all major biblical scholars and translators.

There are several reasons why these studies are important.  Firstly, they illustrate the way the English texts of the Bible are going to vary, sometimes significantly, but mostly in insignificant ways.  Secondly, it helps us understand why our reflections on the ending of the Lord’s Prayer can make sense. It all comes down to the text we choose to use in our translations.

Three examples of how this works – skip this if too technical

Perhaps the most famous place where the TR goes against the M-Text is in 1 John 5:7-8. Indeed, this is one of the main verses to which KJV Only mob will turn to show supposed problems with modern translations. Most modern translations are based on a modern Critical Text platform often known as the Nestle-Aland/UBS (NU) platform. It is the text I was taught to use at the Biblicum University and still use today.

This is an eclectic text compiled from diverse manuscripts, but one that often gives weight to the earliest manuscripts even when they are in the minority. Thus, the NU (Nestle-Aland/UBS) often differs from the M-Text, but is almost always based on how early and/or diverse the testimony for the minority reading is.

 In the case of 1 John 5:7-8, however, the NU and the M-text are in perfect agreement. This is because both the earliest manuscripts AND the majority of all manuscripts read the same way here. They simply say:

“For there are three that testify: the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement,” (1 John 5:7-8, NASB – New American Standard Bible).

The TR, and thus the KJV, contain a much longer reading:

For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.  And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one, (1 John 5:7-8, KJV).

The problem is that there is no Greek manuscript evidence for this longer reading prior to around the 16th century. It seems to be a carry over from the Latin, where it was perhaps added as an interpolation (referring to the insertion of text or ideas into a text that was not originally part of the original author's composition).  

Whatever the origin of the reading, it is not by any stretch of the imagination a part of the Majority Text. This is a good example of a stark and significant difference between the TR and M-text.

Book of Life

Revelation 22 is an important chapter in any discussion of the TR. When Erasmus compiled the first edition of what later came to be known as the TR, he had only one manuscript of Revelation. This manuscript was missing the last six verses, and so Erasmus was forced to translate from the Latin Vulgate into Greek to fill in this section of the text. In so doing, Erasmus created a number of Greek readings that had never been seen in any manuscript before. While many such readings were corrected in later editions, others persisted throughout the TR tradition and thus found their way into the KJV. The most famous among these readings is in verse nineteen:

And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book,” (Revelation 22:19, KJV).

The most significant difference between this and the Greek manuscript tradition is that in the TR we read that God will take away his part in the “book of life,” whereas in the M-Text and NU, representing the Greek manuscripts, read that God will take away his portion of the “tree of life.”  

The Latin Vulgate reads “book” here rather than “tree,” which is where Erasmus’ got the reading, but before Erasmus’ the reading was unknown in the original Greek and certainly does not represent the Majority Text.

Now to Him, that is of power

In the Book of Romans, the KJV reads at the end of chapter 14 through the beginning of chapter 15:

“And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin. We then that are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak, and not to please ourselves,” (Romans 14:23-15:1).

Later, in chapter 16, it ends with the verses:

“Now to him, that is of power to establish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began, But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith: To God only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ for ever. Amen,” (Romans 16:25-27).

The NU (and thus modern translations based on it) agree with the KJV here. In the majority of Greek manuscripts, however, these verses are in a different order.

 What the KJV and all major modern translations call Romans 16:25-27 is not found at the end of Chapter 16 but instead is written in between 14:23 and 15:1.

Thus, in the M-Text, we would read all together at the end of Chapter 14 on into 15 something like:

“But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and whatever is not from faith is sin. Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began, But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith: To God only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ for ever. Amen Now we who are strong ought to bear the weaknesses of those without strength and not just please ourselves.”

Thus, this is a place where the TR agrees with modern textual critics that the minority of witnesses are here more reliable than the majority and that the reading found in the Byzantine tradition (and thus in the M-Text) is incorrect.

Resisting incontestable facts and authority

Acts 9 recounts for us the conversion of Saul on the road to Damascus. During that story, the KJV tells us:

“And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do,” (Acts 9:5-6, KJV).

However, the Majority Text is much shorter in this passage. Here, again, the M-Text agrees with the NU, which reads:

“And he said, ‘Who are You, Lord?’ And He said, ‘I am Jesus whom you are persecuting, but get up and enter the city, and it will be told you what you must do,’” (Acts 9:5-6, NASB).

Note that this reading begins and ends the same as the TR but lacks the whole section in the middle “it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him.” 

So, where did this longer reading come from? It seems to be a harmonization with a passage later in the book. In Acts 26, Saul recounts the story of his conversion. In this second telling of the story, the words are found (even in the M-Text and the NU).

“And when we had all fallen to the ground, I heard a voice saying to me in the Hebrew dialect, ‘Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads.’ And I said, ‘Who are You, Lord?’ And the Lord said, ‘I am Jesus whom you are persecuting,” (Acts 26:14-15).

Thus, it’s not that most manuscripts lack this information, they just don’t have it twice. They all have it in Acts 26:14-15, but the majority do not have it in Acts 9:5-6.

Some other sample readings

One should always note that most of the differences between the TR and the M-Text (as with most differences between any manuscripts) are inconsequential and often can’t even be translated. Even among those that can be translated, most are simple matters of word order (like “Christ Jesus” versus “Jesus Christ”) or mere spelling conventions, often of names (“Bethsphage” versus “Bethphage” or “Barsabbas” versus “Barsabas”).

Many others, though they do affect the wording of the translation, have little effect on the meaning. Still, King James Only literature often cites such inconsequential differences between the KJV and modern translations and either tries to make them seem more significant than they are or else points out that, since every single word of Scripture is inspired, even minor differences that have little to no impact on the meaning of the text are still a very big deal because God inspired not only the meaning but also the precise wording or Scripture.

Thus, if even minor differences are to be taken seriously when discussing modern translations, they are also worth noting here. There are also some passages of significant length or substance (as with those mentioned above) but even these do not undermine any doctrine of the Christian faith.

 If one were to apply the same interpretive approach to the NU, the M-text, and the TR, one would walk away with the exact same theology. So, this question matters because every word that God has spoken does matter, but there is simply not a vast chasm between these various texts as the KJV Onlysists would often lead you to believe.

The following list is not given to say that the Majority Text is always right in these readings and the TR always wrong. It is given only to help demonstrate that the TR is not the same thing as the Majority Text and thus Majority Text arguments do not, in fact, favour the KJV.

This list is far from exhaustive but is representative of many of the various types of differences that occur. It also helps to show how often, on the one hand, the M-Text and the NU agree against the TR and, on the other hand, how often the TR agrees with the NU (and thus with modern translations) in favouring a minority reading over against the Majority Text.

It should also be noted that all three of these texts agree far more often than they disagree and that the vast majority of the New Testament will read the same way no matter which text you end up siding with.

The following list is not given to say that the Majority Text is always right in these readings and the TR always wrong. It is given only to help demonstrate that the TR is not the same thing as the Majority Text and thus Majority Text arguments do not, in fact, favour the KJV.

This list is far from exhaustive but is representative of many of the various types of differences that occur. It also helps to show how often, on the one hand, the M-Text and the NU agree against the TR and, on the other hand, how often the TR agrees with the NU (and thus with modern translations) in favouring a minority reading over against the Majority Text. It should also be noted that all of these texts agree far more often than they disagree and that the vast majority of the New Testament will read the same way no matter which text you end up siding with.

• Matthew 3:11 M-Text omits “and fire”

• Matthew 4:10 M-Text “Get behind me! ” instead of “Away with you!”

• Matthew 5:47 M-Text “Friends” instead of “Brethren”

• Matthew 6:18 M-Text and NU both omit “openly”

• Matthew 7:14 M-text and NU both read “How narrow” instead of “Because narrow”

• Matthew 8:15 M-text and NU both read “him” rather than “them”

• Matthew 9:36 M-text and NU both read “harassed/distressed” rather than “weary”

• Matthew 10:8 M-text omits “raise the dead”

• Matthew 10:25 M-text and NU both read “beelzabul” rather than “beelzebub”

• Matthew 12:5 M-text and NU both omit “even”

• Matthew 12:24 M-text and NU both read “beelzabul” rather than “beelsebub”

• Matthew 13:15 M-text and NU both read “would” rather than “should”

• Matthew 18:19 M-text and NU read “assuredly I say” instead of just “I say”

• Matthew 21:1 M-text reads “bethsphage” rather than “bethphage”

• Matthew 23:21 M-text reads “dwelt” rather than “dwells”

• Matthew 23:25 M-text reads “unrighteousness” rather than “self-indulgence”

• Matthew 25:44 M-text and NU both omit “him”

• Matthew 26:26 M-text reads “gave thanks for” rather than “blessed”

• Matthew 26:52 M-text reads “die” rather than “perish”

• Matthew 27:35 M-text and NU both lack “that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet: ‘They divided My garments among them, And for My clothing they cast lots.'”

• Matthew 27:41 M-text says “the Pharisees” between “the scribes” and “the elders”

• Matthew 27:42 M-text and NU both read “believe in Him” rather than “believe Him”

• Matthew 28:19 M-text lacks “therefore”

• Mark 4:4 M-text and NU both lack “of the air”

• Mark 4:9 M-text and NU both lack “to them”

• Mark 6:15 M-text and NU both read “a prophet, like one of the prophets” rather than “the Prophet, or like one of the prophets”

• Mark 6:33 M-text and NU both read “they” instead of “the multitudes”

• Mark 6:44 M-text and NU both lack “about”

• Mark 8:14 M-text and NU both read “they” instead of “the disciples”

• Mark 9:40 M-text reads “you” and “your” rather than “us” and “our”

• Mark 11:1 M-text reads “Bethsphage” rather than “Bethphage”

• Mark 11:4 M-text and NU both read “a colt” rather than “the colt”

• Mark 13:9 M-text and NU both read “stand” rather than “be brought”

• Mark 15:32 M-text reads “believe Him” rather than just “believe”

• Mark 16:8 M-text and NU both lack “quickly”

• Luke 3:2 M-text and NU both read “in the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas” rather than “while Annas and Caiaphas were high priests”

• Luke 4:8 M-text and NU both lack “for”

• Luke 6:9 M-text reads “to kill” rather than “to destroy”

• Luke 6:10 M-text and NU both read “him” rather than “the man”

• Luke 6:26 M-text and NU both lack “to you,” M-text also lacks “all”

• Luke 7:31 M-text and NU both lack “and the Lord said”

• Luke 8:3 M-text and NU both read “them” rather than “Him”

• Luke 9:23 M-text lacks “daily”

• Luke 10:12 M-text and NU both lack “but”

• Luke 10:20 M-text and NU both lack “rather”

• Luke 10:22 M-text reads “and turning to His disciples He said” before “All things have been delivered…”

• Luke 11:15 M-text and NU both read “Beelzebul” rather than “Beelzebub”

• Luke 13:15 M-text and NU both read “hypocrites” rather than “hypocrite”

• Luke 13:35 M-text and NU both lack “assuredly”

• Luke 14:5 M-text and NU both read “son” rather than “donkey”

• Luke 14:15 M-text reads “dinner” rather than “bread”

• Luke 17:4 M-text lacks “to you”

• Luke 17:9 M-text lacks “Him” while NU lacks “Him? I think not.”

• Luke 17:36 M-text and NU both lack this entire verse

• Luke 19:29 M-text reads “Bethsphage” rather than “Bethphage”

• Luke 20:5 M-text and NU both lack “then”

• Luke 20:19 M-text reads “were afraid” rather than “feared the people”

• Luke 20:31 M-text and NU both read “also left no children” rather than “also; and they left no children”

• Luke 22:60 M-text and NU both read “a rooster” rather than “the rooster”

• Luke 23:25 M-text and NU both lack “to them”

• John 1:28 M-text and NU both read “Bethany” rather than “Bethabara”

• John 2:17 M-text and NU both read “will eat” rather than “has eaten”

• John 2:22 M-text and NU both lack “to them”

• John 6:45 M–text reads “hears and had learned” rather than “has heard and learned”

• John 7:16 M-text and NU both read “So Jesus” rather than just “Jesus”

• John 7:29 M-text and NU both lack “but”

• John 7:33 M-text and NU both lack “to them”

• John 8:2 M-text reads “very early” rather than just “early”

• John 8:4 M-text reads “we found this woman” rather than “this woman was caught”

• John 8:5 M-text and NU both read “to stone such” rather than “that such should be stoned.” M-text also reads “in our law Moses commanded” rather than “Moses, in the law, commanded,” and “What do you say about her?” rather than just “What do you say?”

• John 8:6 M-text and NU both lack “as though he did not hear”

• John 8:7 M-text reads “He looked up” rather than “He raised Himself up”

• John 8:9 M-text and NU both lack “being convicted by their conscience”

• John 8:10 M-text reads “He saw her and said” rather than “and saw no one but the woman, He said” (the NU lacks this clause entirely), M-text and NU both lack “of yours” after “accusers”

• John 8:11 M-text and NU both read “go, and from now on sin no more” rather than just “go and sin no more”

• John 8:54 M-text and NU both read “our” instead of “your”

• John 10:8 M-text lacks “before me”

• John 13:25 M-text and NU both read “thus back” rather than just “back”

• John 16:3 M-text and NU both lack “to you”

• John 16:15 M-text and NU both read “takes of Mine and will declare” rather than “will take of mine and declare”

• John 16:33 M-text and NU both read “you have tribulation” rather than “you will have tribulation”

• John 17:2 M-text reads “shall give eternal life” rather than “should give eternal life”

• John 17:11 M-text and NU both read “keep them through Your name which You have given me” rather than “keep through Your name those whom you have given me”

• John 17:20 M-text and NU both read “those who believe” rather than “those who will believe”

• John 18:15 M-text reads “the other” rather than “another”

• John 19:28 M-text reads “seeing” rather than “knowing”

• John 20:29 M-text and NU both lack “Thomas”

• Acts 3:20 M-text and NU both read “Christ Jesus” rather than “Jesus Christ” and “ordained for you before” rather than “preached to you before”

• Acts 5:23 M-text and NU both lack “outside”

• Acts 5:25 M-text and NU both lack “saying”

• Acts 5:41 M-text reads “the name of Jesus” rather than “His name” (NU reads “the name”)

• Acts 7:37 M-text and NU both lack “Him you shall hear”

• Acts 8:37 M-text and NU both lack this entire verse

• Acts 9:5-6 M-text and NU both lack “‘it is hard for you to kick against the goads.’ So he, trembling and astonished, said, ‘Lord, what do You want me to do?’ Then the Lord said to him'”

• Acts 9:17 M-text lacks “Jesus”

• Acts 10:6 M-text and NU both lack “He will tell you what you must do”

• Acts 10:21 M-text and NU both lack “who had been sent to him from Cornelius”

• Acts 10:39 M-text and NU both read “they also” rather than just “they”

• Acts 12:25 M-text and NU both read “to Jerusalem” rather than “From Jerusalem”

• Acts 13:17 M-text lack “Israel”

• Acts 13:23 M-text reads “salvation” rather than “a Savior – Jesus”

• Acts 15:11 M-text and NU both lack “Christ”

• Acts 15:22 M-text and NU both read “Barsabbas” rather than “Barsabas”

• Acts 15:34 M-text and NU both lack this entire verse

• Acts 17:5 M-text lacks “becoming envious”

• Acts 17:18 M-text and NU both read “Also” rather than “then”

• Acts 19:16 M-text reads “and they overpowered them” rather than just “overpowered them”

• Acts 20:8 M-text and NU both read “we” rather than “they”

• Acts 20:28 M-text reads “of the Lord and God” rather just “of God”

• Acts 20:34 M-text and NU both lack “Yes”

• Acts 21:29 M-text omits “previously”

• Acts 24:9 M-text and NU both read “joined the attack” rather than “assented”

• Acts 24:20 M-text and NU both read “what wrongdoing they found” rather than “if they found any wrongdoing”

• Acts 26:17 M-text and NU lack “now”

• Acts 27:17 M-text reads “Syrtes” rather than “Syrtis”

• M-text places Romans 16:25-27 between Romans 14:23 and 15:1

• Romans 15:7 M-text and NU both read “you” rather than “us”

• Romans 15:14 M-text reads “others” rather than “one another”

• Romans 16:18 M-text and NU both lack “Jesus”

• 1 Corinthians 11:15 M-text lacks “her”

• 1 Corinthians 11:27 M-text and NU read “the blood” rather than just “blood”

• 1 Corinthians 12:2 M-text and NU both read “that when you were” rather than just “that you were”

• 1 Corinthians 15:39 M-text and NU both lack “of flesh”

• 1 Corinthians 15:49 M-text reads “let us also bear” rather than “we shall also bear”

• 2 Corinthians 1:11 M-text reads “your behalf” rather than “our behalf”

• 2 Corinthians 2:17 M-text reads “the rest” rather than “so many”

• 2 Corinthians 8:4 M-text and NU both read “urgency for the favor and fellowship” rather than “urgency that we would receive the gift and the fellowship”

• 2 Corinthians 8:24 M-text and NU lack “and”

• Galatians 4:24 M-text and NU both read “two covenants” rather than “the two covenants”

• Ephesians 1:10 M-text and NU both lack “both”

• Ephesians 1:18 M-text and NU read “hearts” rather than “understanding”

• Ephesians 3:9 M-text and NU both read “stewardship” rather than “fellowship”

• Ephesians 4:6 M-text reads “us” rather than “you” (NU has no pronoun here)

• Philippians 1:23 M-text and NU both read “but” rather than “for”

• Philippians 3:3 M-text and NU both read “in the spirit of God” rather than “God in Spirit”

• Philippians 4:3 M-text and NU both read “Yes” rather than “and”

• Colossians 1:6 M-text and NU both read “bringing forth fruit and growing” rather than just “bringing forth fruit”

• Colossians 1:14 M-text and NU both lack “through His blood”

• Colossians 1:27 M-text reads “who” rather than “which”

• Colossians 2:20 M-text and NU both lack “therefore”

• 1 Thessalonians 2:2 M-text and NU both lack “even”

• 1 Thessalonians 2:11 M-text and NU read “implored” rather than “charged”

• 2 Thessalonians 1:10 M-text and NU read “have believed” rather than “believe”

• 2 Thessalonians 3:6 M-text and NU both read “they” rather than “he”

• 1 Timothy 5:4 M-text and NU both lack “good and”

• 1 Timothy 6:5 M-text and NU both read “constant friction” rather than “useless wrangling”

• 2 Timothy 1:1 M-text and NU both read “Christ Jesus” rather than “Jesus Christ”

• 2 Timothy 1:18 M-text and NU both lack “unto me”

• 2 Timothy 2:19 M-text and NU both read “the Lord” rather than “Christ”

• Titus 2:8 M-text and NU both read “us” rather than “you”

• Philemon 6 M-text and NU read “us” rather than “you”

• Philemon 7 M-text reads “thanksgiving” rather than “joy”

• Hebrews 2:7 M-text and NU both lack “And set him over the works of Your hands”

• Hebrews 4:2 M-text and NU both read “since they were not united by faith with those who heeded it” rather than “not being mixed with faith in those who heard it.”

• Hebrews 6:3 M-text reads “let us do” rather than “we will do”

• Hebrews 6:18 M-text lacks “might”

• Hebrews 10:9 M-text and NU both lack “O God”

• Hebrews 11:13 M-text and NU both lack “were assured of them”

• Hebrews 11:26 M-text and NU both read “of Egypt” rather than “in Egypt”

• Hebrews 12:7 M-text and NU both read “It is for discipline that you endure” rather than “If ye endure chastising”

• Hebrews 12:20 M-text and NU both lack “or thrust through with a dart”

• Hebrews 12:28 M-text lacks “may”

• Hebrews 13:9 M-text and NU both read “away” rather than “about”

• Hebrews 13:21 M-text and NU both read “us” rather than “you”

• James 4:2 M-text and NU both lack “yet”

• James 4:12 M-text and NU both read “but who” rather than just “who”

• James 4:13 M-text reads “let us” rather than “we will”

• James 5:9 M-text and NU both read “judged” rather than “condemned”

• James 5:12 M-text reads “hypocrisy” rather than “judgment”

• 1 Peter 1:8 M-text reads “known” rather than “seen”

• 1 Peter 1:12 M-text and NU both read “you” rather than “us”

• 1 Peter 2:21 M-text and NU both read “you” rather than “us”

• 1 Peter 3:18 M-text and NU both read “you” rather than “us”

• 1 Peter 5:8 M-text and NU both lack “because”

• 1 Peter 5:10 M-text and NU both read “you” rather than “us”

• 2 Peter 2:3 M-text reads “will not” rather than “does not”

• 2 Peter 3:2 M-text reads “the apostles of your Lord and Savior” or “your apostles of the Lord and Savior” rather than “the apostles of the Lord and Saviour”

• 1 John 1:4 M-text and NU both read “our” rather than “your”

• 1 John 3:1 M-text reads “you” rather than “us”

• 1 John 3:23 M-text lacks “us”

• 1 John 5:4 M-text reads “your” rather than “our”

• 1 John 5:7-8 M-text and NU both lack all of verse 7, begin verse 8 with “there are three” and lack the words “in earth”

• 2 John 1:2 M-text and NU both read “us” rather than “you”

• 3 John 1:11 M-text and NU both lack “but”

• Jude 12 M-text and NU both read “along” rather than “about”

• Jude 24 M-test reads “them” rather than “you”

• Revelation 1:5 M-text reads “loves us and washed us” rather than “loved us and washed us” (NU reads “loves us and freed us).

• Revelation 1:6 M-text and NU both read “a kingdom” rather than “kings”

• Revelation 1:8 M-text and NU both lack “the beginning and the end” and read “the Lord God” rather than just “the Lord”

• Revelation 1:9 M-text and NU both lack “both”

• Revelation 1:11 M-text and NU both lack “‘I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last,’ and” and also lack “which are in Asia”

• Revelation 1:19 M-text and NU both read “Therefore write” rather than just “Write”

• Revelation 1:20 M-text and NU both lack “which you saw”

• Revelation 2:15 M-text and NU both lack “which thing I hate”

• Revelation 2:19 M-text and NU both read “faith, and service” rather than “service, and faith”

• Revelation 2:20 M-text reads “your wife Jezebel” rather than “that woman Jezebel”, M-test and NU both read “teaches and seduces” rather than “to teach and seduce”

• Revelation 2:21 M-text and NU both read “and she does not want to repent of her sexual immorality” rather than “of her fornication, and she repented not”

• Revelation 2:22 M-text and NU both read “her” rather than “their”

• Revelation 2:24 M-text and NU both lack “and” before “unto the rest in Thyatira” and “will” before “put upon you”

• Revelation 3:2 M-text and NU both read “My God” rather than just “God”

• Revelation 3:4 M-text and NU both “Nevertheless, thou” rather than just “Thou” and lack “even” before “in Sardis”

• Revelation 3:8 M-text and NU both read “which no one can shut” rather than “and no man can shut it”

• Revelation 3:11 M-text and NU both lack “Behold”

• Revelation 3:14 M-text and NU both read “in Laodicea” rather than “of the Laodiceans”

• Revelation 3:16 M-text and NU both read “hot nor cold” rather than “cold nor hot”

• Revelation 4:3 M-text lacks “And he that sat was,” [thus making the description in the verse about the throne rather than the one sitting on it]

• Revelation 4:4 M-text and NU both read “with crowns” rather than “and they had crowns”

• Revelation 4:5 M-text and NU both read “voices and thunderings” rather than “thunderings and voices,” M-text also lacks “the” before “seven Spirits of God”

• Revelation 4:6 M-text and NU both read “something like a sea of glass” rather than just “a sea of glass”

• Revelation 4:8 M-text has “holy” nine times rather than three

• Revelation 4:11 M-text and NU both read “our Lord and God” rather than “O Lord” and “existed” rather than “exist”

• Revelation 5:4 M-text and NU both lack “and read”

• Revelation 5:5 M-text and NU both lack “to loose”

• Revelation 5:6 M-text and NU both read “I saw in the midst” rather than “and, lo, in the midst,” and “a lamb standing” rather than “stood a lamb”

• Revelation 5:10 M-text and NU both read “them” rather than “us” and “they” rather than “we”

• Revelation 5:13 M-text concludes the verse with “Amen”

• Revelation 5:14 M-text and NU both lack “twenty-four” and “Him who liveth for ever and ever”

• Revelation 6:1 M-text and NU both read “seven seals” rather than just “seals”

• Revelation 6:3 M-text and NU both lack “and see”

• Revelation 6:12 M-text and NU both lack “behold” and read “the whole moon” rather than just “the moon”

• Revelation 6:15 M-text and NU both read “the chief captains, the rich men” rather than “the rich men, the chief captains”

• Revelation 7:5-8 M-text and NU both lack “were sealed” in all but the first and last instance.

• Revelation 7:14 M-text and NU both read “my lord” rather than “sir”

• Revelation 7:17 M-text and NU both read “fountains of the water of life” rather than “living fountains of waters”

• Revelation 8:7 M-text and NU both read “and a third of the earth was burned up” after “and cast it into the earth.”

• Revelation 8:13 M-text and NU both read “eagle” rather than “angel”

• Revelation 9:19 M-text and NU both read “the power of the horses” rather than “their power”

• Revelation 9:21 M-text and NU both read “their drugs” or “their magic potions” rather than “their sorceries”

• Revelation 10:4 M-text and NU both read “sounded” rather than “uttered” and also lack “unto me” after “from heaven saying”

• Revelation 10:5 M-text and NU both read right hand” rather than just “hand”

• Revelation 10:11 M-text and NU both read “they” rather than “he”

• Revelation 11:1 M-text and NU both lack “and the angel stood”

• Revelation 11:4 M-text and NU both read “Lord” rather than “God”

• Revelation 11:8 M-text and NU both read “their” rather than “our”

• Revelation 11:9 M-text and NU both read “see” rather than “will see” and, on the other hand, read “will not allow” rather than just “not allow”

• Revelation 11:12 M-text reads “I” rather than “they”

• Revelation 11:17 M-text and NU both lack “and art to come”

• Revelation 11:19 M-text reads “the testament of the Lord” rather than “His testament”

• Revelation 12:8 M-text reads “him” rather than “them”

• Revelation 12:17 M-text and NU both read “Jesus” rather than “Jesus Christ”

• Revelation 13:1 M-text and NU both read “ten horns and seven heads” rather than “seven heads and ten horns”

• Revelation 13:5 M-text reads “make war” rather than “continue”

• Revelation 13:7 M-text and NU both read “kindred and people, tongue and nation” rather than just “kindreds, and tongues, and nations”

• Revelation 13:14 M-text reads “my own people” rather than “those”

• Revelation 13:17 M-text and NU both read “the mark, the name” rather than “The mark or the name”

• Revelation 14:1 M-text and NU both read “the Lamb” rather than “a Lamb” and also “having His name and His Father’s name” rather than just “having His Father’s name”

• Revelation 14:4 M-text reads “redeemed by Jesus” rather than just “redeemed”

• Revelation 14:5 M-text and NU both read “falsehood” rather than “guile” and both lack the phrase “before the throne of God”

• Revelation 14:8 M-text reads “Babylon the great is fallen. She has made” rather than “Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great city, because she has made.” (NU reads “Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, which has made”)

• Revelation 14:12 M-text and NU both lack “here are they“

• Revelation 14:13 M-text and NU both lack “unto me“

• Revelation 14:15 M-text and NU both lack “for thee“

• Revelation 15:2 M-text and NU both lack “over his mark“

• Revelation 15:3 M-text and NU both read “nations” rather than “saints”

• Revelation 15:5 M-text and NU both lack “behold“

• Revelation 16:1 M-text and NU both read “seven vials” rather than just “vials”

• Revelation 16:5 M-text and NU both lack “O Lord” and both read “the Holy One” rather than “and shalt be” (as did all editions of the TR prior to Theodore Beza).

• Revelation 16:6 M-text and NU both lack “For”

• Revelation 16:7 M-text and NU both lack “another out of”

• Revelation 16:14 M-text and NU both lack “of the earth and”

• Revelation 16:16 M-text reads “Megiddo” rather than “Mount Megiddo”

• Revelation 17:1 M-text and NU both lack “unto me”

• Revelation 17:8 M-text and NU both read “shall be present” rather than “yet is”

• Revelation 17:16 M-text and NU both read “and the beast” rather than “on the beast”

• Revelation 18:2 M-text and M-text both lack “mightily”

• Revelation 18:5 M-text and M-text both read “have been heaped up” rather than “have reached unto”

• Revelation 18:6 M-text and NU both lack “you” after “she rewarded”

• Revelation 18:8 M-text and NU both read “has judged” rather than “judgeth”

• Revelation 18:14 M-text and NU both read “been lost to thee” rather than “are departed from thee”

• Revelation 18:20 M-text and NU both read “saints and apostles” rather than “holy apostles and prophets”

• Revelation 19:1 M-text and NU both say “something like a great voice” rather than just “a great voice” and they also both “our God” rather than “the Lord our God”

• Revelation 19:5 M-text and NU both lack “both”

• Revelation 19:6 M-text and NU both read “our Lord” rather than “the Lord”

• Revelation 19:12 M-text reads “names written, and a name written” rather than just “a name written”

• Revelation 19:14 M-text and NU both read “pure white linen” rather than “fine linen, white and clean”

• Revelation 19:15 M-text reads “sharp two-edged sword” rather than just “sharp sword”

• Revelation 19:17 M-text and NU both read “great supper of God” rather than “supper of the great God”

• Revelation 19:18 M-text and NU both read “both free and slave” rather than just “free and slave”

• Revelation 20:4 M-text reads “the thousand years” rather than “a thousand years”

• Revelation 20:10 M-text and NU both read “where also” rather than just “where”

• Revelation 20:12 M-text and NU both read “the throne” rather than “God”

• Revelation 20:14 M-text and NU both read “death, the lake of fire” rather than just “death”

• Revelation 21:2 M-text and NU both lack “John”

• Revelation 21:5 M-text and NU both lack “unto me”

• Revelation 21:6 M-text lacks “It is done”

• Revelation 21:7 M-text reads “I shall give him these things” rather than “shall inherit these things”

• Revelation 21:8 M-text adds “and sinners” between “unbelieving” and “abominable”

• Revelation 21:9 M-text and NU both lack “unto me,” M-text also reads “woman, the Lamb’s bride” rather than “bride, the Lamb’s wife”

• Revelation 21:10 M-text and NU both lack “great” before “city” and read “holy city, Jerusalem” rather than “holy Jerusalem”

• Revelation 21:14 M-text and NU both read “twelve names” rather than just “the names”

• Revelation 21:23 M-text reads “the very glory of God” rather than just “the glory of God”

• Revelation 21:24 M-text and NU both lack “of them which are saved “

• Revelation 21:26 M-text contains the phrase “that they may enter in” at the end of the verse, which is lacking in both the TR and the NU

• Revelation 21:27 M-text and NU both read “anything profane, nor one who causes an abomination” rather than “anything that defiles or causes an abomination”

• Revelation 22:1 M-text and NU both lack “pure”

• Revelation 22:6 M-text and NU both read “spirits of the prophets” rather than “holy prophets”

• Revelation 22:8 M-text and NU both read “am the one who heard and saw” rather than just “saw and heard”

• Revelation 22:11 M-text and NU both read “do right” rather than “be righteous still”

• Revelation 22:13 M-text and NU both read “First and the Last, the Beginning and the End” rather than “the Beginning and the End, the First and the Last”

• Revelation 22:15 M-text and NU both lack “But”

• Revelation 22:18 M-text and NU both lack “For,” M-text also reads “may God add” rather than “God will add”

• Revelation 22:19 M-text reads “may God take away” rather than “God shall take away.” M-text and NU both read “tree of life” rather than “book of life”

• Revelation 22:21 M-text reads “with all the saints” rather than “with you all” (NU simply reads “with all”)

  
  

None of this undermines the integrity or truthfulness of the Bibles that we have. What it does is remind us that there is much more involved in coming to a faithful listening to the Word of God in the scriptures than just picking it up and reading a single version.  Our faith in the work of the Holy Spirit has guaranteed that we will hear the voice of God through those texts.  The more we work on it, the more we seek the aid of that Spirit in listening to God speaking, and the better we will come to discern His will.