One of the common complaints that I hear about the King James Version is how poor its textual basis is. That is true. The textual basis of many of the other versions, however, is worse. Consider the ending of Mark.
The Gospel of Mark has a number of endings in the manuscripts. Many prefer to follow the readings of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, the two earliest complete manuscripts of the New Testament. Both of these manuscripts are missing Mark 16:9-20. They are not, however, the earliest witnesses to the passage. That distinction belongs to Irenaeus. In his Contra Haeresis 3.10.5, Irenaeus quotes the beginning of the gospel and the end of the gospel (Mark 16:20). Elsewhere (Contra Haeresis 2.20.3) he quotes from Mark 16:17-18. Thus the entire long ending was known in the second century, which is much earlier than the fourth century manuscripts that omit it. So what verses of Mark 16:9-20 show up in our selection of translations?
KJV: 9-20
ESV: [[9-20]] (marked in double brackets indicating that it should be deleted)
NRSV: 9-20
NIV: 9-20
NLT: both shorter and longer versions given and marked.
NKJV: 9-20
NIrV: 9-20
In this case the English Standard Version uses an inferior text to the King James Version. For this passage, it is a worse translation. Sadly, the BYU New Testament Commentary also follows the inferior text.
