Why is Mark 7:16 omitted in some Bible translations? Passage in Question Mark 7:16 (BSB, as printed in the Textus Receptus tradition): “If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear.” Location Within the Context The sentence appears between Jesus’ declaration about what truly defiles a person (v. 15) and the disciples’ request for clarification (v. 17). With or without v. 16, the flow of thought—defilement proceeds from the heart—remains unchanged. Representative English Renderings • Included: KJV, NKJV, MEV, NASB 1995. • Bracketed or foot-noted: CSB, LSB, ESV, NIV 1984. • Omitted in the main text: ESV, NIV 2011, NLT, NET, NASB 2020. Early Greek Manuscript Evidence • Absent: Codex Sinaiticus (ℵ 01, 4th c.), Codex Vaticanus (B 03, 4th c.), Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus (C 04, 5th c.), Codex Bezae (D 05, 5th c.), Codex Washingtonianus (W 032, 5th c.), 0286 (8th c.). • Present: Codex Alexandrinus (A 02, 5th c.), Codex Koridethi (Θ 038, 9th c.), Majority/Byzantine manuscripts (from the 9th c. onward), family 13, minuscules 33, 579, 892, 1241. • Earliest papyri: The relevant section is missing in P45 (3rd c.). No surviving papyrus from Mark 7 contains the line. Versional and Patristic Witness • Old Latin: Codex Vercellensis (it-a, 4th c.) omits; Codex Bezae’s Latin side includes. • Vulgate (Jerome, 4th c.): present, but some early Vulgate MSS omit. • Syriac: Peshitta (5th c.) and Harklean include; Curetonian and Sinaitic omit. • Coptic: Sahidic and Bohairic omit. • Church Fathers: No undisputed citation of v. 16 prior to the 6th century; later Byzantine homilists quote it freely. Why Modern Critical Editions Omit the Verse 1. Weight of the Earliest Witnesses – The oldest, most widely separated Alexandrian manuscripts lack the sentence. 2. Geographical Spread of the Omission – Absence is confirmed in Egypt (ℵ, B, C, Sahidic), the Western tradition (D greek, Old Latin a), and early Syriac, indicating an early common exemplar without the verse. 3. Internal Probability – Scribes often inserted well-known refrains (“If anyone has ears…”) to smooth the transition or harmonize with Mark 4:9; 4:23 and Matthew 11:15. It is easier to explain an addition than a deliberate excision with no doctrinal payoff. 4. Text-Critical Principles (Canons) – The shorter reading is preferred when it best explains the origin of the longer; the harder reading is preferred when both make sense. Here, an explanatory addition is more likely than a needless deletion. Why the Verse Appears in the Majority Text and KJV Erasmus’ 1516 Greek New Testament relied mainly on a handful of late Byzantine manuscripts, all of which included the line. The King James translators (1611) followed that printed base. The majority of extant manuscripts hail from the medieval period; they were produced under Byzantine liturgical influence that favored full, harmonized readings. Do Variants Threaten Inspiration or Inerrancy? No. 1) The Holy Spirit superintended not only inspiration but providential preservation (Isaiah 40:8; Matthew 24:35). 2) Variants like this one concern wording, never core doctrine. 3) Every substantive variant is cataloged; less than one-half of one percent touches meaning; none alters any article of faith (see Metzger & Ehrman, 2005, yet even skeptical scholars concede this). Parallel Call-to-Listen Motif Mark employs the identical admonition in 4:9 and 4:23. Even when v. 16 is omitted in 7:16, the thematic summons to hear the word echoes throughout the Gospel, underscoring a key Markan emphasis on receptive hearing (cf. Romans 10:17). Illustration From Manuscript Studies Codex Sinaiticus—discovered by Constantin von Tischendorf at St. Catherine’s in 1844—contains the entire New Testament in uncial script. At Mark 7 it transitions straight from v. 15 to v. 17 without a gap; no marginal correction adds v. 16. This shows the omission predates the 4th century, long before any medieval copyist influences. Archaeological Corroboration of Early Mark Ink-analysis of ℵ 01 and multispectral imaging confirm no erased text where v. 16 would be. Similarly, Vaticanus uses its well-known “umlauts” (double dots) to flag variants; none appear at this point, indicating ancient scribes knew no alternative here. Such findings bolster confidence in the early text’s integrity. Theological Impact • Truth Unchanged – Whether explicit or implicit, listeners are still commanded to heed Christ. • No Loss of Doctrine – The deity, atonement, and resurrection of Christ are unaffected. • Providential Transparency – God has allowed us to see the process; textual variants testify to real history rather than staged uniformity, thereby strengthening trust in Scripture’s authenticity. Practical Lesson for Believers • Learn to read footnotes; they guide you to the manuscript data. • Embrace the historical faith that is evidentially anchored (Luke 1:1-4; Acts 26:25-26). • Understand that textual criticism is the friend, not the foe, of inerrancy: by comparing thousands of witnesses, we draw ever closer to the autographs God breathed out (2 Timothy 3:16). Response to the Skeptic Ask: “If we have so transparent a record that we can debate a single twelve-word sentence, does that not argue for, rather than against, the Scripture’s preservation?” Offer the evidence above. Point to the empty tomb and 1 Corinthians 15’s early creed as the bedrock; textual minutiae pale beside the historically verified resurrection. Conclusion Mark 7:16’s presence in later manuscripts reflects a reverent desire to echo Christ’s frequent invitation to hear. Its omission in the oldest copies is well attested and poses no threat to biblical reliability. Whether read or foot-noted, the command stands: “If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear.” |
    |