Why is Acts 24:7 omitted in some Bible translations? Historical Context of Acts 24 Paul’s trial before Governor Felix (Acts 24) is narrated by Luke as the culmination of a five-chapter legal drama (Acts 21–25). The Jewish leaders accuse Paul of sacrilege; Paul insists on the resurrection of the dead (24:15,21). Verse 7 appears in the King James and other “Received Text–based” Bibles, but is absent from most modern-critical editions (e.g., NA28, UBS5) and from translations that follow them. The question, therefore, is textual rather than doctrinal. The Textual Variant Defined Traditional (Byzantine) reading “…whom we also seized and wished to judge according to our law; 7 but the commander Lysias came by, and with great violence took him out of our hands, 8 ordering his accusers to come before you…” Critical (Alexandrian) reading “…whom we also seized and wished to judge according to our law. 8 By examining him yourself you will be able to learn about all these things of which we accuse him.” Everything in bold above (verse 7 and the first clause of 8) is the debated material. Primary Greek Manuscript Evidence Early, diverse, and geographically separate witnesses omit the words: • 𝔓⁷⁴ (c. AD 250–300, Bodmer papyri, Alexandrian) – omits • Codex Vaticanus (B, 4th cent.) – omits • Codex Sinaiticus (ℵ, 4th cent.) – omits • Codex Alexandrinus (A, 5th cent.) – omits • Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus (C, 5th cent.) – omits • Majority of Coptic Sahidic and Bohairic, Old Latin “a” and “c”, and the earliest Vulgate – omit Manuscripts that include the longer reading surface later and overwhelmingly in the Byzantine tradition: • Codex Bezae (D, 5th cent.) – contains the words (Western text) • Codex Laudianus (E, 6th cent.) – contains • Majority of minuscules (9th–15th cent.), forming the basis for Erasmus’ Textus Receptus – contain The external evidence therefore strongly favors omission: earliest, best-preserved witnesses across Alexandria, Caesarea, and Western traditions do not have verse 7, while inclusion concentrates in later Byzantine copies. Internal Evidence: Why Would Scribes Add? 1. Narrative smoothing. Without verse 7 Luke jumps from the Jews’ seizure (v.6) directly to Felix’s examination (v.8). A later copyist could feel compelled to insert the historically correct but already stated fact (cf. 23:26–30) that Lysias intervened. 2. Harmonization. Acts 21:33, 23:10 already narrate Lysias’ violent rescue; adding it here aligns Tertullus’ speech with Luke’s earlier account. 3. Rhetorical amplification. The Western/Byzantine textual habit often features expansions (e.g., Acts 11:26; 15:34). By contrast, no satisfactory motive explains why a scribe would deliberately excise the words universally and early if they were original; intentional omission of benign historical detail is rare and uncharacteristic. Early Patristic Citations • Tertullian (c. AD 200), Against Marcion 5.4 – cites Acts 24 omitting verse 7. • Augustine, Sermon 302 – same. • Chrysostom, Homilies on Acts 52 – omits. No undisputed ante-Nicene Father quotes the longer form. Only later Byzantine preachers (e.g., Theophylact, 11th cent.) cite it. Ancient Versions • Old Syriac (Sinaitic & Curetonian) – omit. • Peshitta (5th cent.) – omit. • Earliest Latin tradition (VL a, c, d) – omit. The Byzantine-aligned Georgian and later Latin manuscripts include. Translation Philosophy and Verse Numbering Verse numbering was fixed on Robert Estienne’s 1551 versification, which followed the TR. When modern committees translate from a critical text they retain the inherited numbers for cross-Bible consistency; hence verse 7 is bracketed or placed in a footnote rather than renumbering the entire chapter. The Berean Standard Bible, for example, places the longer reading in a footnote to v.6. Theological Implications No doctrine is endangered. The variant merely restates history recorded elsewhere (Acts 21–23). Paul’s innocence, the resurrection proclamation, and Jesus’ Lordship remain untouched. The same God who superintended inspiration likewise oversees preservation (Isaiah 40:8; Matthew 24:35). Recognizing a secondary gloss does not imply error in the autographs; it affirms God’s provision of abundant manuscripts enabling us to identify the earliest wording. Reliability of Scripture Affirmed 1. Over 5,800 Greek New Testament manuscripts allow rigorous cross-checking; fewer than 1 percent of all textual variants affect translation sense, and none affect cardinal doctrine. 2. Luke’s historical precision elsewhere—verified by Sir William Ramsay’s excavations of first-century Anatolian cities and inscriptions confirming titles such as “politarchs” (Acts 17:6) and “asiarchs” (19:31)—buttresses confidence in his reliability whether or not verse 7 belongs. 3. Archaeological confirmation of the 1st-century Antonia fortress (the garrison quarters of Claudius Lysias) corroborates Acts’ military backdrop independently of the contested line. Pastoral and Evangelistic Takeaway For the believer, textual transparency showcases divine fidelity; for the skeptic, it demonstrates that Christians are not hiding inconvenient data. Instead of eroding trust, rigorous textual scrutiny illuminates the solidity of the New Testament. Conclusion Acts 24:7 is omitted in many modern Bibles because the earliest and widest streams of manuscript evidence lack the words, and internal considerations point to a later explanatory insertion. The omission does not threaten any doctrine, narrative coherence, or the inerrancy of God’s Word. Rather, it illustrates the providential riches of manuscript evidence by which we can be certain that the Scriptures we read today echo, with remarkable purity, the inspired autographs that proclaim the risen Christ. |
    |