I recently wrote a post relating to textual criticism – please click here to see it. Shrode commented and asked for an example of how I might address the issue of a missing verse while preaching on the passage. Relatively simple, gracious and trust-building was the request. Here’s my attempt (okay, so length may be slightly longer than I’d prefer for a post, but there is content that may not be necessary in the last two paragraphs – and it takes 2.5 minutes more or less):
If you look carefully you’ll notice that verse 4 is missing in this chapter. Uh oh! Looks like our Bibles have a problem!? Actually, no, I would suggest this is a good thing. We don’t tend to think about them, but there are a whole lot of archeologists and scholars who are constantly at work trying to make sure we have the most accurate and trustworthy Bibles possible. Let me put it to you this way – we don’t have the original letters that Paul wrote, or the original gospels, or the original books of Moses, etc.
That sounds like a problem, but actually, they were probably destroyed precisely to avoid a problem. You see, over time, manuscripts would fade and curl at the edges and get worn out. But if perfect copies were made, why keep a fading original? Well, over time imperfections crept into the copies of copies of copies. Over the past centuries archeologists have continued to find more and more manuscripts and biblical quotes in manuscripts. Gradually they are finding more and more of those copies of copies. This means that experts can then weigh the evidence to work out what the original actually said. So when you see a verse number (here verse 4), but no text, this means that evidence has proved that the text in older translations was very likely added later on, rather than being original.
Just in case you are thinking that this really undermines our Bibles, after all, can we trust these people . . . what if they have an agenda? Actually, I’d point out that as well as some who are very evangelical and conservative Bible believing Christians, there are also many who have no specific belief in the God of the Bible, and some who perhaps are anti the God of the Bible. Yet despite these differences there is a good concensus that the original text our modern translations are translated from is actually very, very, accurate. Any discrepancies in the manuscript evidence now only add up to less then 2% of the text, and none of those texts change any of the main teachings of the Bible. Should it be “Jesus Christ” or “Lord Jesus Christ” . . . that probably doesn’t change much in the book of Acts, for example.
Oh, and one last thing, some people will try to tell you that the Bible has been translated hundreds, or thousands of times . . . like a giant historical chain of chinese whispers [only refer to this if people use that label for the game]. The truth is that actually your modern English Bible has been translated only once, direct from the best original text ever available in the history of Bible translation. Verse 4 is missing, and rightly so, it shouldn’t have been added in the first place. We can really and truly trust our English Bibles. I’d be happy to chat more about this issue if you are concerned.
Now, back to the passage…
Biblical Preaching 
Love that Peter. Excellent my friend. Most want to ignore what you have treated with grace and scholarship. And you did it with clarity. Thanks man!
Thanks for that example. Have you tried this in a sermon? And how did you find it went? While I would want my congregation to learn this stuff, I would worry that it would distract them from the point of the sermon…unless the point of the sermon is that we can trust our Bibles. What are your thoughts around that?
Peter,
Thank you so much for this.
This is good.
The best part may be your tone. Very nicely done. Thank you. I think you can use this….
AndyD – I haven’t used this particular and specific text, but I have used similar wording and think it went over well (can we ever be certain how something has been received by a mixed group, or even with those that give feedback?)
I agree with your concern. There is always the danger that extra information will distract from the main point of the sermon (I think we could improve our preaching if we took that truth seriously). I suppose I would look at it this way: If the omission of verse 4 would undermine their confidence in their Bible, then that needs to be addressed in some way or else the main point of the sermon (and subsequent sermons) is already undermined. The same would be true with the added references to “earliest” manuscripts in John 8 and Mark 16. In a church context, I think it is vital that we build their confidence in their Bibles, irrespective of whether the message is primarily focused on that issue (recognizing the danger of undermining the main point of the message).