Why is Mark 15:28 omitted in some Bible translations? Subject And Scope Mark 15:28 appears in the Textus Receptus and translations that follow it (e.g., KJV, NKJV) as: “And the Scripture was fulfilled that says, ‘He was numbered with the transgressors.’ ” Modern versions based on the critical Greek text (e.g., ESV, NIV, CSB, NASB 95/2020) omit the line, moving directly from verse 27 to verse 29. The question is why a statement affirming Christ’s fulfillment of Isaiah 53:12 is absent in many editions. The Verse Itself (Bsb Composite Rendering) Because the Berean Standard Bible is based on the critical text, the verse does not appear in its running text but is supplied in a footnote: 15:28 “Some later manuscripts add: ‘And the Scripture was fulfilled that says, “He was numbered with the transgressors.” ’ ” External Manuscript Evidence • Earliest witnesses omitting the verse: 𝔓^75 (early 3rd c. for Luke, indirectly establishing the MSS family), Codex Vaticanus (B, 4th c.), Codex Sinaiticus (א, 4th c.), Codex Washingtonianus (W, early 5th c.), Codex Koridethi (Θ, 9th c.), and a broad range of uncial and minuscule manuscripts. • Earliest witnesses containing the verse: Codex Alexandrinus (A, 5th c.), Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus (C, 5th c.), the majority of later Byzantine minuscules, and all printed editions of the Textus Receptus beginning with Erasmus (1516). • Patristic citations: Certain later Fathers (e.g., Victor of Antioch, 5th–6th c.) quote the words; earlier Fathers writing on the Passion (e.g., Origen, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian) do not. The broad, geographical spread of early manuscripts lacking the reading—Alexandrian, Caesarean, and Western—argues that the shorter text is original. Internal Evidence: How The Variant Arose A. Harmonization with Luke 22:37. In Luke, Jesus Himself quotes Isaiah 53:12 (“He was numbered with the transgressors”) as a prophecy shortly before Gethsemane: “For I tell you that this Scripture must be fulfilled in Me: ‘And He was numbered with the transgressors.’ ” (Luke 22:37). A scribe copying Mark could readily insert the identical fulfillment note where the crucifixion narrative naturally prompts it. B. Liturgical marginalia. Early church lectionaries regularly appended fulfillment formulas for public reading. Marginal notes sometimes migrated into the text (a phenomenon well-documented in Luke 6:1; John 5:4; Acts 8:37; 1 John 5:7–8). C. Stylistic incongruity. Mark normally announces fulfilled Scripture implicitly (15:24//Ps 22:18; 15:34//Ps 22:1) rather than by formula. A sudden “And the Scripture was fulfilled that says…” is foreign to Mark’s rapid, narrative style yet perfectly Lucan. This argues against originality. Translational Decisions Modern translation committees weigh evidence by (1) age and diversity of witnesses, (2) probability of scribal causes, (3) authorial style, and (4) context. With overwhelming early and diverse evidence lacking verse 28, the critical text places the words in footnotes. The numbering gap is retained so readers of older versions can correlate passages. Does The Omission Threaten Inerrancy? No. Inerrancy applies to what the Spirit inspired, not to every later scribal addition. Where bona fide additions are identified, responsible translations distinguish text from note, guarding readers from conflating the two. Scripture’s unity remains intact: • Isaiah 53:12 foretells that the Servant would be “numbered with the transgressors.” • Luke 22:37 records Jesus affirming that prophecy before His arrest. • Mark 15:27, 29-32 show the fulfillment in action: He is crucified between robbers and reviled as a criminal. Thus the theological content conveyed by the disputed verse is present even without its explicit wording in Mark. Harmony Of The Gospels The fourfold Gospel record often supplies complementary details. John records the soldiers casting lots, explaining how Psalm 22:18 was fulfilled (John 19:24). Matthew notes the criminal aspect by calling the robbers “rebels” (Matthew 27:38). The flow of revelation is cumulative: omitting the gloss in Mark in no way diminishes the picture of prophetic fulfillment. Historical And Archaeological Corroboration • Crucifixion evidence: The 1968 discovery of Yehohanan’s ossuary at Giv’at ha-Mivtar confirms Roman crucifixion practices in 1st-century Judea, matching the Gospel depiction (nails through heel bones, bent knees). • Isaiah Scroll (1QIsᵃ): The Dead Sea Scrolls (c. 125 BC) preserve Isaiah 53:12 virtually identical to the Masoretic reading Jesus cites. This textual stability lends weight to fulfillment claims. • Pilate Stone (1961, Caesarea Maritima): Confirms the historicity of Pontius Pilate, aligning with Mark 15:1-15. Reliable history undergirds reliable theology. The Providence Of Variants God’s providence in preserving Scripture involves (1) a vast, geographically dispersed manuscript base that prevents wholesale corruption and (2) variations that drive scholars to examine evidence, ultimately increasing confidence. Mark 15:28 is a textbook example: a harmless explanatory gloss easily identified by standard critical methods. Pastoral And Evangelistic Use When skeptics point to “missing verses,” one may: 1. Acknowledge the variant openly—integrity invites credibility. 2. Show that Christian doctrine does not rest on any one variant; every doctrine appears multiply attested. 3. Demonstrate manuscript abundance: over 5,800 Greek NT manuscripts, 10,000 Latin, and 9,300 in other ancient languages—orders of magnitude more than any classical work—making the text history’s best-attested document. 4. Pivot to fulfilled prophecy: whether in the main text (Mark’s narrative) or as a marginal note (verse 28), Isaiah 53 remains fulfilled in Christ, underscoring that God “declares the end from the beginning” (Isaiah 46:10). Summary Answer Mark 15:28 is omitted in many modern translations because the earliest, most diverse Greek manuscripts do not contain it, and internal considerations show it likely entered the tradition through scribal harmonization with Luke 22:37. The verse’s theological truth is uncontested and already implicit in Mark’s context, so no doctrine is affected. Far from undermining confidence, the transparent handling of such variants showcases the unrivaled trustworthiness of God’s written word. |
    |