At MSN Groups, I had a conversation with the moderator about the NIV translation.

You can read it all here.

I would not today stand behind everything that I said then, more than two years ago.

In particular, since then, I have learned that the Greek text behind the NIV's New Testament is not the same as that behind the NAB's. I have learned that the NIV translators used their own eclectic Greek text for their New Testament work. This modern trend, which they themselves anticipated, results in no current consensus on the Greek NT text.

I believe that the moderator is the Catholic equivalent of a "King-James-Only" Protestant in his sole devotion to the Vulgate.

A form of traditionalism that I just do not understand, this idea that the Vulgate is still viable and the only version of the Scriptures that a Catholic may lawfully own. That mentality may be on the horizon, but to my knowledge, is not the state of affairs today and certainly wasn't true two years ago. My NAB comes with approval from the USCCB and, well, I'm an American, so ... why can't I trust the NAB, the Bible version that we read at Mass every day?

I think that I make some valid points, especially at the end. I point out the inherent danger in taking a good version, like the Vulgate or the King James, and making it the absolute and only good version at the expense of other good versions. That narrowness can result in an over-corrective action whereby the absolute is banned, confiscated and destroyed either out of geniune concern or raw jealousy. So, that is my warning to those of us with these tendencies: they can backfire.

We start off the point / counterpoint with the initial, original post from the moderator:

The NIV drops out entire verses from the Bible text. Footnotes indicate that this was done intentionally. Beware. Here are some examples.

Matthew 17:21, saying that the demon removed by Christ could only be driven-out with prayer and fasting, is simply GONE!

Matthew 18:11, saying that the Son of Man came to save that which was lost, is simply GONE!

Mark 7:16, saying that if any man has ears to hear, let him hear, is simply GONE!

Mark 9:46, describing the mercilessness of Hell, is simply GONE!

A banished group member points out that the online version of the NAB also omits those four verses.

Here's my first reply:

As has already been noted, the NAB also omits these and similar such verses for the simple reason that these verses are merely harmonizing interpolations from parallel Gospel passages, introduced either intentionally or accidentally, during the transmission of the New Testament text.

If you fear that the “removal” of these spurious verses may in any way affect biblical theology, recall the Synoptic parallel passages from which this material was originally drawn. How many times a belief or teaching is articulated in Scripture has no impact on its validity. Even if Jesus said something only once, it is “gospel”.

I have problems with the NIV translation myself but my problems do not stem from any doubt that the translators worked faithfully from the most up-to-date, critical Greek text, as did our translators.

A reply to me:

Be cautious about referring to a verse as "spurious." Clearly, in the judgment of those who dropped the verses, the verses are, indeed, "spurious." But this attitude frequently changes with time, and with input. So far, I am not impressed.

My further argument:

Look, this matter is very plain and very clear:

The biblical scholars agree that those four verses you cited and many others like them are indeed spurious, drawn from parallel passages, intentionally or accidentally, towards a harmonizing effect.

It's important that criticism in this forum leveled against cherished English translations, like the NIV, be factual. Would you want someone to charge Catholics falsely about dropping Bible verses? The NIV is not suppressing verses.

May you now appreciate the problem that textual critics encounter when they set about correcting sacred texts: someone becomes offended when beloved passages are changed. I do not deny that scholarly opinion may change. Obviously it changed enough to remove those verses within the last forty or fifty years and, if new evidence surfaces in the form of older manuscripts, then the pendulum may swing again. But this is the present state of the matter, and suspicion that opinion may revert is no reason to disregard current opinion.

He tips his hand:

Matthew 17:21 is in Jerome's Vulgate translation...

hoc autem genus non eicitur nisi per orationem et ieiunium

Matthew 18:11 is in Jerome's Vulgate translation...

venit enim Filius hominis salvare quod perierat

Mark 7:16 is in Jerome's Vulgate translation...

si quis habet aures audiendi audiat

Mark 9:46 is in Jerome's Vulgate translation...

ubi vermis eorum non moritur et ignis non extinguitur

This is why I am cautious about adopting a modern translator's characterization of a verse as "spurious." Frequently, such translations find themselves at war with the thinking of the Church Fathers, who were 17 to 19 centuries closer to the gospel writers than we are.

My final plea:

Please, buy a new bible. Obstinacy such as yours led to the Inquisition.

Taking a cue from lex orandi, lex credendi, I checked the liturgical use of the verses in question and share with you the following:

Matthew 17:21 is omitted completely, between two weekdays, Saturday of 18th week (Gospel reading is Matthew 17:14-20) and Monday of 19th week (Gospel reading is Matthew 17:22-27), under both the 1970 Lectionary and the Revised Weekday Lectionary of 2002.

Matthew 18:11 is omitted from the weekday liturgy of Tuesday of 19th week (Gospel reading is Matthew 18:1-5, 10, 12-14), under both the 1970 Lectionary and the Revised Weekday Lectionary of 2002.

Mark 7:16 was omitted from the weekday liturgy of Wednesday of 5th week (Gospel reading is Mark 7:14-23) as a result of the recent revisions. That is to say, Mark 7:16, “Let everyone heed what he hears!” appears in the 1970 Lectionary but not in the 2002 revision. Very significant, IMO. Again, Mark 7:1-8, 14-15, 1-23 is read on the 22nd Sunday in Ordinary Time (Cycle B), and interestingly, 7:16 is included in the 1970 Lectionary but not in the 1998 revision.

Mark 9:46 is omitted from the weekday liturgy of Thursday of 7th week (Gospel reading is Mark 9:41-50), under both the 1970 Lectionary and the Revised Weekday Lectionary of 2002. Likewise, Mark 9:38-43, 45, 47-48 is read on the 26th Sunday in Ordinary Time (Cycle B); verse 46 does not appear in either the 1970 Lectionary or in the 1998 revision.

My Scripture index to the Divine Office is too inadequate to allow me to check its use of these verses, but the Gospels are little used in this liturgy as a whole, so the inclusion of these disputed verses is unlikely.

If any of these four verses was included in the Roman Catholic liturgy (American-style), I would concede that the Catholic Church considers the verses to be a proper part of Sacred Scripture. Even though their absence does not prove conclusively the legitimacy of their removal from the Gospels, it is quite telling, especially when one considers the recent revisions. Frankly, I haven’t any idea how to proceed with my point to you who seem to accept no authority, not the approving signature of the Archbishop of Washington, not the CCD, not the USCCB.

You believe that the Vulgate you own comes from Jerome’s 4th century hand? You might consider this article on the Vulgate’s revision at the turn of the last century:

Revision of the Vulgate

Excerpts for the article:

“It is to determine as accurately as possible the text of St. Jerome's Latin translation, made in the fourth century. Substantially, no doubt, the present authentic Clementine text represents that which St. Jerome produced in the fourth century, but no less certainly it, the printed text, stands in need of close examination and much correction to make it agree with the translation of St. Jerome. No copy of the actual text is known to exist; and the corruptions introduced by scribes, etc., in the centuries posterior to St. Jerome, and even the well intentioned work of the various correctors, have rendered the labours of trying to recover the exact text from existing MSS. both difficult and delicate. This, however, is the work which must be done as the first step in the revision of the Vulgate. It is consequently the aim of the present commission to determine with all possible exactitude the Latin text of St. Jerome …”

Since the ancient text of the Vulgate suffered from the exact same copyist errors as the Greek manuscripts, the same textual criticism applied today to the Greek NT manuscripts was called for by Pope Pius X and was applied on the Vulgate!

Want a safe bet? Go with the version of the Scriptures presently promulgated by the Vatican. Buy yourself a new bible and spare us all from having our cherished books confiscated and burned.