Why is Mark 9:46 omitted in some Bible translations? Mark 9:46 – Textual Entry Canonical Text Mark 9:43–48, with critical footnotes, reads: 43 “If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than to have two hands and go into hell, into the unquenchable fire. 44 45 And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than to have two feet and be thrown into hell. 46 47 And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell, 48 where ‘their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.’” Verse 46 (and the parallel variant in v. 44) repeats a clause that certainly belongs in v. 48. The question is whether Mark originally repeated the Isaiah 66:24 quotation three times or only once. Later scribes often expanded parallel sayings for clarity or liturgical cadence; earlier manuscripts tend to preserve the single occurrence. Irenaeus (Against Heresies 4.28.2, c. AD 180) quotes only the single line from Isaiah, paralleling v. 48. Origen and Cyprian likewise cite one occurrence. By contrast, later liturgical materials (e.g., Apostolic Constitutions 8.5) show the triple refrain, reflecting an expanded Byzantine text. All forms of the text anchor Jesus’ warning in Isaiah’s final vision: “They will go out and see the corpses of the men who have transgressed against Me; for their worm will not die, and their fire will not be quenched.” Mark’s inclusion—whether once or thrice—unambiguously affirms eternal conscious punishment and the same doctrine stands intact whichever reading is preferred. 1. Liturgical Harmonization: Repetition aids public reading and rhetoric. 2. Eye-Skip (parablepsis): Copyists’ eyes may skip from identical phrases; a scribe noticing a perceived omission could re-insert the phrase in earlier parallel lines, creating duplication. 3. Marginal Glosses: A reader may have added Isaiah’s line in the margin beside v. 44; later copyists, uncertain where it belonged, inserted it at both v. 44 and v. 46. Translations following the Nestle-Aland and UBS critical texts (e.g., ESV, NIV, CSB, NASB 2020) omit v. 46 because the earliest and most geographically diverse witnesses lack it. Versions derived from the Textus Receptus (e.g., KJV, NKJV) retain it because Erasmus’ 16th-century base manuscripts were late Byzantine copies that included the repetition. The warning motif—self-sacrifice over sin, and hell’s unquenchable fire—appears in Matthew 5:29-30 and 18:8-9, always tied to Isaiah 66:24. Whether Mark repeats the quotation once or thrice, the harmony of the Synoptics remains. Over 5,800 Greek manuscripts, 10,000 Latin, and 9,000 other versions give a textual base unrivaled in ancient literature. Less than one percent of the New Testament text is in doubt, and no variant affects any core teaching (cf. Wallace, “The Majority Text Theory”). Statistical analyses show 99.9 % certainty for the wording of Mark. Thus the omission of 9:46 in some editions reflects standard, transparent textual methodology, not corruption of Scripture. • Honesty about variants demonstrates intellectual integrity, removing a common stumbling block for seekers. • The very warning Jesus issues—eternal consequences—drives home the urgency of repentance and points directly to the cross and resurrection as the only rescue (Romans 10:9). • Believers can assure skeptics that textual criticism, far from undermining faith, confirms the stability of God’s Word and magnifies His providence in preserving the gospel message intact across millennia. |
    |