Todays Gospel ommiting verses


Why has the Catholic Bibles omitted verses in this Sundays Gospel?

The King James version has these extra verses-

and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of.
56: For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them

I went into the Catholic bookshop and all their Bibles didn't have these verses.

Didn't Christ warn about removing or adding words to Scripture?


Since when is the King James Version the standard of what should and should not appear in the Word of God?

It also shows the following doxology in Matthew 6:13 to the Our Father, which is not found in the oldest and best manuscripts of that passage.

13] And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.

That doxology is only found in the The Didache and is a copyist error from that non canonical source. It is included in the Mass as a separate prayer, but is not part of the text or the prayer as found in the Gospel.

Our Blessed Lord did indeed warn against such things, but the more relevant question you might consider is why then did many n-C groups allow 7 books that have been canonical since the canon was set in the 4th century to be removed in the mid 1800s?

You might have a look at 5 Myths about 7 Books


Until 10 mintues ago I knew nothing about Byzantine and Alexandrian texts of the New Testament.

So it seems the West follows the Alexandrian texts and the King James version is from the Byzantine tradition.

Well I didn't know that Church Militant.

If anybody here can help me understand or accept better the Alexandrian position over the Byzantine id be happy and feel less worried as I felt during Mass this morning when in fact I walked out after the Gospel because I was shocked to believe Catholics were omitting verses from the Bible.


The Greek texts used for the KJV were not the best available, and contain many variants (such as mentioned by Church Militant). The KJV has it’s uses (such as when witnessing to Mormons), but there are better translations.

As far as the deuterocanonical books, that is not the topic of this thread, so I won’t comment on it.

For some good info on the KJV, go here for some articles and a power point presentation about the KJV (this should be very helpful). FYI - this is a Protestant site, but the articles deal specifically with the KJV version.

Hope this help!


Looking on the net im finding sites that are saying the Alexandrian texts which are used by Catholics are corrupt…and that the KJV versions are more complete…


Well, I've done a bit of trawling and investigating and it appears to moi at least, that the 'Alexandrian' has the edge over the 'Byzantine':

In my travels I came across this interesting post:

The assertion that the so-called "Textus Recepticus" is of the Byzantine text type is just that, a bare assertion; It was made up from Second Millenium lectionaries that were convenient to Erasmus's Rotterdam home, not from any scholarly assemblage of first millenium manuscripts. Erasmus was unable to locate any Greek version of The Revelation so he simply translated from the Vulgate Latin into Greek.

In "Misquoting Jesus" Ehrman gives a better description of the process of analysis that leads to the conclusion that The Alexandrian Text type is the most reliable of the four identified text types; In brief, manuscripts are arranged into "families" based on identifiable similarities in their variants, and then as variants are determined to be older and younger a "family tree" can be arranged, with definite signs of "descent" showing where a variant became fixed into the "lineage". In brief, the Alexandria scriptorium shows clear evidence of higher quality control than the other scriptroria; This is to not surprising as history indicates that the Christian Community of Alexandria also enjoyed greater security and stability than the other communities of the pre-Constantinian Roman Empire.

Also, interestingly, the two oldest 'complete' manuscripts Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are both Alexandrian.


Many places that omit or add, both could be original. The same author could have written more than one copy, which I strongly believe. Whose to say that the same author did not expand a little as he hand wrote multiple copies. For some reason the "scholars" seem to assume that Biblical authors, when writing an account that was to be spread abroad to many people speaking various languages only wrote one copy in one language?! I believe its highly possible that they wrote more than one copy and in at least 2 languages, in Greek and Aramaic, and probably in Hebrew in a few cases.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit