For Herod feared John, knowing that he was a just man and an holy, and observed him; and when he heard him, he did many things, and heard him gladly.
(Mark 6.20)

Revised Version, 1881 — he was much perplexed, and he heard him gladly.

New English Bible, 1961 — He liked to listen to him, although the listening left him greatly perplexed.

In this verse most of the modern version discard “he did many things”, and put instead, “he was greatly perplexed”, or an expression of equivalent meaning. Modern scholars endeavor to justify the alteration on the ground that newly discovered manuscripts not available to the translators of the Authorised Version in 1604-1611 make the change imperative. The impression is given that since 1611 thousands of documents have been discovered and that they support the new reading. It is true that thousands of documents have been discovered during this period, but it is also true that the vast majority of them support the reading preserved in the Authorised Version. A very small minority of the documents can be quoted in support of the new reading.

The Documentary Evidence

According to the “critical apparatus” in the edition of the Greek text prepared by Dr. Erwin Nestle and Professor G. D. Kilpatrick, and published in 1958, the “Received Text” EPOIEI is supported by the Codex Alexandrinus, Coxdex Bezae, most of the other manuscripts, all of the Latin versions, including the Old Latin, and all of the Syriac versions. Against this torrent of favourable testimony the textual critics quote the Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus, Codex Freerianus, and a 9th century copy of the Gospels designated by the Greek letter theta. These four documents have the Greek EPOREI which by the variation of two letters lays for the foundation for the changed rendering of this verse found in modern versions. Although it is not our purpose to strengthen the critics’ case, we can afford also to mention that the 8th century Paris Codex L and the Coptic version contain this incorrect reading.

The Attitude of “Modern Scholarship”

The great weight of this evidence discovered since 1611 is without doubt favourable to the translation of this verse as it now stands in our Authorised Version. For too long the “science” of Textual Criticism has been in bondage to the authority of a small class of ancient manuscripts, with the Sinai and Vatican copies at their head, which are in thousands of instances at variance with the Greek Text preserved in the great majority of the documents now available for ascertaining the true text. Profession Westcott and Professor Hort in the 19th century propounded an elaborate theory with the object of elevating these and a few similar documents to a position of pre-eminent authority. Their theories gained wide acceptance among British and American scholars and have been retailed in the universities and colleges on both sides of the Atlantic for three quarters of a century. The result has been that even in the “evangelical” seminaries generations of theological students have been encouraged to accept without question theories which involve the rejection of the historical text and the adoption of an abbreviated and defective text cast in the mould of the Vatican and Sinai copies.

How the Error Originated

How can we account for the error in these ancient copies? Among the copyists there was an alarming tendency to assimilate one Gospel to another, and to attempt to correct in this way what they may have imagined to be discrepancies in the parallel narratives. There was also a tendency to repeat familiar phrases out of their true context. A comparison of similar passages in different Gospels sometimes shows how an error of this kind may have arisen. The ancient copies are by no means equally reliable, and it has been said that the practice of assimilation prevailed to an extent which baffles arithmetic.

The Tendency of Early Copyists to “Assimilate” One Narrative to Another

The error of the Vatican and Sinai copies in Mark 6.20 is an outstanding case. The statement of Mark regarding Herod and John the Baptist has been assimilated to another and quite separate statement of Luke referring to Herod and our Lord (Luke 9.7). In this place Luke records how the news of the great miracles wrought by our Lord spread throughout the country after John the Baptist had been put to death. Luke then declares that when Herod heard “all things that were done by Him (Jesus), he was much perplexed”.

There was a marked tendency in the 2nd century, and later, to represent Mark as saying:

“Harod, having heard of many things which the Baptist did, etc.”

Several of the ancient version, including the Anglo Saxon, have some such reading as this “and he heard that he wrought many wonders, and he gladly heard him”. In these cases the mistake was to attach “many things” to John rather than to Herod, and it is probable that the error in Sinai and Vatican copies arose in this way. It seems to have been the scribe’s intention to connect POLLA (many things, much) with AKOUSAS (heard), rather than EPOREI. The Coptic and Arabic versions have something akin to this — “He heard many things about him and was perplexed”.

There are incorrect readings arising out of the assimilation of Mark 6.20 and Luke 9.7, which is evident also in the Sinai and Vatican copies. It is fortunate, or should we say providential, that the error survives in so few of the copies. It is unfortunate that the few should be seized upon today and regarded as infallible oracles.

The Critics Have Disregarded Evidence Hostile to Their Theory

The critics have disinterred a long-forgotten fabrication and have used it to displace the true text which was rightly received and read by the Church of God for more than 1800 years. There are no good grounds for believing that the A.V. exhibits “plain and clear error” in this place or that there is “decidedly preponderating evidence” in favour of the new reading.

The text as it stands in the A.V. is supported by all the uncial copies except five. It is supported by the vast majority of the cursive copies, by the Old Latin of the 2nd century, by the Peshito Syriac and Philoxenian Syriac, by the Armenian, Ethiopic, Slavonian, and Georgian versions. The Curetonian Syriac is not complete and does not contain this passage. The early Greek and Latin writers are not known to have quoted or commented on this verse, so we cannot include evidence from their pens.

Evidence From the 2nd Century

In Tatian’s harmony of the Gospels, known as the Diatessaron, we read in section 18, verse 9, “Herod feared John … and he used to keep him safe, and hear him much, and do, and obey him gladly”. This preserves the sense of the passage as we have it in the Authorised Version, that Herod “did many things” in obedience to John’s preaching, which he heard gladly. Tatian is a witness from the 2nd century. Bishop Lightfoot places his literary activity between A.D. 155 and A.D. 170, and Westcott places it between A.D. 150 and A.D.175. The exact date of the Diatessaron is uncertain, but it is at least 150 years earlier than either the Codex Sinaiticus or the Codex Vaticanus.

The evidence demonstrates that the Holy Ghost inspired Mark to record that when Herod heard John the Baptist speak, “he did many things, and heard him gladly”. The meaning is that Herod did many things in conformity with the Baptist’s preaching. This reading is preserved in the Authorised Version, and we should retain it, because we certainly have no warrant to remove it or to alter it, either in the English version or in any other language.

The Critics Have Violated Their Own “Canons of Criticism”

The new reading violates the “laws of Textual Criticism” which the critics themselves have propounded and sometimes seem disposed to accept only when favourable to their case. One of the rules of internal evidence is expressed by Bengel in the words, Proclivi scriptioni praestate ardua, meaning that where the manuscripts differ the more difficult the reading, the more likely it is to be genuine. It would seem more probable that a copyist would be inclined to change a difficult reading in order to make it more readily comprehensible, than that he would change an already simple statement to make it appear more difficult.

This rule can only be safely applied where manuscripts and versions give support to the harder reading. “To force readings into the text merely because they are difficult … is to obtrude upon the reader of Scripture the solecism of a faltering copyist in the place of the Word of God”. One would think that the present case was one in which the critics might be prepared to apply their acknowledged rule of criticism — The harder the reading is more likely to be correct. “He did many things” is certainly the harder reading, and it is difficult to imagine that a copyist would find in his original document the simple phrase, “was much perplexed” and deliberately alter it to “did many things”. It is much more likely that the copyists responsible for the Vatican and Sinai copies found “did many things” in their original documents, and found it difficult to understand, and tried to improve the expression by referring to a similar statement in Luke about Herod and our Lord, where they found the expression, “He was perplexed”.

Admittedly the critics have been more than a little uncertain about the validity of their “canons of criticism”, which a nineteenth century scholar aptly described as “general averages operating like a probability based upon a calculation of chances … A chance is always open that a particular instance is one of the exceptions”.

Why then did the critics forsake their own law in this instance? The great weight of the manuscripts and versions support the harder reading as found in the Authorised Version. Why depart from the acknowledged rule and why reject the mass of the documentary evidence? There is one answer. Namely that since the middle of the 19th century many who have pursued the “science of textual criticism” have allowed their judgment to be ruled by a small group of ancient and defective manuscripts which the church as a whole wisely and rightly rejected in the 4th century as being not truly representative of that Divine Revelation which was first give, “not in words which wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth”.

This article was first published in Quarterly Record 415.