Why is Acts 15:34 omitted in some Bible translations? Text of Acts 15:34 “But it seemed good to Silas to remain there.” Observance of Omission in Some English Versions Older English versions that were translated from Erasmus’ 1516 Greek Textus Receptus (KJV, NKJV, MEV) print the verse as part of the running text. Most modern translations that follow the critical editions of the Greek New Testament (NASB 1995/2020, ESV, NIV, CSB, NET, NLT, NRSV, LSB) either relegate the words to a marginal note or omit them entirely, usually with a footnote such as “Some manuscripts add verse 34, ‘But it seemed good to Silas to remain there.’ ” Ancient Versions and Patristic Citations • Vulgate (Jerome, late 4th c.) omits. • Sahidic and Bohairic Coptic omit. • Earliest Syriac (Syriac Peshitta, 5th c.) omits; the later Harclean revision (7th c.) inserts the line, showing awareness of variant tradition. • No firm quotation of the verse appears in any pre-Byzantine Church Father. Chrysostom (4th c.) reads the passage without it; Oecumenius (6th c.) is the earliest Father to cite the line, matching the time-frame in which the Byzantine text crystallized. Transcriptional and Internal Considerations 1. Scribal Motive. Acts 15:33 reports that “after spending some time there, they were sent off in peace by the brothers to those who had sent them.” Verse 40, however, pictures Silas still in Antioch, now departing with Paul. A well-meaning scribe likely supplied verse 34 to smooth that apparent tension: Silas agrees to stay behind even though formally dismissed. 2. Difficulty Principle (lectio difficilior potior). A narrative that looks contradictory is less likely to be the product of editorial emendation, more likely to be original. The harder reading—Silas somehow ends up in Antioch again—is therefore preferred, and the easier reading (verse 34) judged secondary. 3. Stylistic Seam. Luke’s regular pattern when he adds a clarifying parenthesis elsewhere uses ὁ δὲ (“but he”) plus an aorist participle; verse 34’s infinitival construction (δοκῆσαι followed by infinitive) does not match that pattern, suggesting foreign insertion. Narrative Coherence and Historical Plausibility The ancient Mediterranean postal system allowed messengers to make the 500-mile Jerusalem–Antioch trip in roughly 15 days. Silas could have returned to Jerusalem with Judas (v. 33), reported formally to the apostles, then willingly traveled back to Antioch in time for Paul’s second journey. Luke records many similar journeys (Acts 18:22-23) without spelling out every leg. Thus verse 34 is unnecessary for coherence, and its omission poses no historical problem. Translation Philosophy and Critical Editions • Textus Receptus: derived from a half-dozen late Byzantine manuscripts. Erasmus (1516) lacked Acts 15:34 in one exemplar but found it in another; he printed it, thereby fixing it in the Reformation-era vernacular Bibles. • Nestle-Aland 28 / United Bible Societies 5: weigh age, geographical spread, and transcriptional probabilities. They assign verse 34 a rating of “A” for omission, meaning the editors are virtually certain the words were not in the autograph. • Majority Text editions (Hodges-Farstad, Robinson-Pierpont) retain the verse because they count manuscripts rather than weigh them. Modern translations that use these editions (NKJV, MEV) naturally keep it. Reliability of Scripture Affirmed • Statistical analyses (Zimmermann et al., 2019) show that less than one percent of New Testament text is in genuine doubt; none of those places affects core Christian claims such as creation, incarnation, atonement, or resurrection. • Dead Sea Scroll discoveries (e.g., Great Isaiah Scroll, 1QIsᵃ) illustrate God’s pattern of preserving texts with remarkable fidelity across millennia, reinforcing trust that He likewise guarded the New Testament corpus. • Archaeological synchronisms—Gallio Inscription at Delphi (Acts 18:12-17) dates Paul’s Corinthian ministry to A.D. 51-52; Sergius Paulus inscription at Soli (Acts 13:7)—confirm Luke as a meticulous historian. The scribe who added verse 34 therefore did so to clarify, not deceive, and the surrounding historical accuracies remain uncontested. Summary and Takeaways Acts 15:34 is absent from the earliest, most geographically diverse manuscripts and versions. Internal considerations show it was likely added to smooth an assumed narrative difficulty. Because the modern goal is to reproduce Luke’s autograph as closely as possible, most contemporary translations omit the line or place it in a marginal note. The variant carries no doctrinal weight and instead provides a living illustration of how God has abundantly supplied manuscript evidence so that believers may test all things, hold fast what is good (1 Thessalonians 5:21), and remain confident that “the word of our God stands forever” (Isaiah 40:8). |
    |