Mark 6:11 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.The underlined portion of our text has fallen, like in so many other places, under the blades of those two "oldest and best" manuscripts, i.e., Aleph and B. The warning of our LORD is removed entirely from them, as well as Codices CDLWDQ, a few cursives, as well as a few copies of the Old Latin, including the Vulgate. The only pre-1611 English Bibles that lack the sentence are Wycliffe's and the Rheims(no surprise). What is the reason for this instance of yet another mutilation of the Sacred Text...a mutilation not deserving of so much as a FOOTNOTE, explaining it's removal from the NIV? "Assimilation," according to the critics...meaning, the scribe had the parallel verse in mind when he copied Mark 6:11, hence his apparent familiarity of a place he wasn't copying, coupled with his inattentiveness to the place he WAS copying, caused him to ascribe the words of one Evangelist to another. Consequently, critics who believe such nonsense, and who are notorious for ascribing error to everyone but themselves, have chosen to "fix" the text by removing those 15 inspired words of Scripture. But have they, in fact, "fixed" anything? Lets' find out.... The critics of the past, --Griesbach, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford, Westcott and Hort--, as well as those of today, say that the words amhn legw umin anektoteron estai SodomoiV h GomorroiV en hmera krisewV h th polei ekeinh have found their place in the Traditional text, and the KJV, because of an importation from the parallel place in Matt 10:15. Let's have a look:
Matthew 10:15 Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.At first glance, the presumption of the critics, i.e., that the reading of Matt 10:15 was assimilated into Mark 6:11, looks like a plausible one, doesn't it? AU CONTRAIRE my friends! This is impossible! Critics today, who love to correct the King James English with the Greek of corrupt mansucripts, in this instance and others, conveniently change the "rules" and look only at the English, that they may foist upon the Church yet another blunder! Therefore, because Matthew reads the same as Mark in English, the reading in Mark MUST be an uninspired repetition of what Matthew said, never mind the testimony of the manuscripts, from whence all Bibles come! Against these critics' naturalistic views of the Holy Scriptures, prompted by their superstitious reverence for Codices Aleph and B, is the very thing that holds them captive to those two worthless documents in the first place...antiquity! All down the ages, the words in Matthew 10:15 have been amhn legw umin anektoteron estai gh Sodomwn kai Gomorrwn en hmera krisewV h th polei ekeinh. Can you see the subtle difference, no doubt a trap set by God Himself, to entangle those who will have no King but Caesar? Scholars with no final authority are always seeking to dethrone the Authorized Version by publishing "new and improved," "up-to-date" English Bibles, but never able to give us a PERFECT one. They are doubling the damage by putting out these new bibles by translating them from corrupt manuscripts! Look at the subtle difference between the reading of Mark 6:11 and Matthew 10:15. In Mark, we see: SodomOIS H GomorrOIS, and in Matthew: GH SodomWN KAI GomorrWN. Those two DIFFERENT readings have been so from the beginning, and are independent of each other! They exist in that form in every known copy of the Gospels, except those mentioned above. Had "assimilation" (the way the critics see it) been the cause of the supposed addition of those15 precious words of our Saviour Jesus Christ, "Sodom and Gomorrah" would read identical in both places, --for surely the scribe would have been exposed speedily for such a grievous error while handling the very words of God! An assimilation, indeed, ocurred-- and Dean Burgon will be heard regarding it:
"The process of Assimilation therefore has been actively at work here, although not in the way which some critics suppose. It has resulted, not in the insertion of words in dispute in the case of the very many copies; but on the contrary in their omission from the very few." (Causes of Corruption, pg 119)In other words, the assimilation was NOT from Matthew to Mark in the Traditional Text, as the "scholars" would have us believe, but from Luke to Mark in those few corrupt codices mentioned above! In Luke 9:5,6 we read:
Luke 9:5,6 And whosoever will not receive you, when ye go out of that city, shake off the very dust from your feet for a testimony against them. And they departed, and went through the towns, preaching the gospel, and healing every where.There is nothing between Matt 10:5 and Mark 6:11 that corresponds to this place in Luke, and, as a result, the scribe of Aleph and B thought it noble to "assimilate" the absence of it in Luke 9, and "correct" Mark 6 accordingly. Let the scribes of the Traditional text be vindicated from all charges of adding those 15 words to Mark 6, via assimilation from Matthew,-- for we now see what caused the blunder! There is absolutely NO DOUBT as to the genuiness of the dire warning we see in Mark 6:11, given by our LORD Himself, to those who refused to receive His words...words that were preached by the Apostles in the first century, and words most certainly applicable to OUR century! Aleph and B are not trustworthy manuscripts friends. Seeing all these blunders committed by the "oldest and best," how can any truly born-again Saint of God come to any conclusion, but that these two codices certainly cannot be from the Hand of God, and are not deserving of anything but the flames of a furnace? In fact, as Dean Burgon has pointed out so many times, in so many examples throughout his various works, Aleph and B "will be found never to conspire together exclusively except to mislead!" And he is absolutely right. The devil hasn't been idle friends....he's been doing the same thing he did from the beginning. If only Christians today could see this. He that hath ears to hear, let him hear...