Mark 9:44 & 46: the refrain of the undying worm
Some modern Bibles omit Mark 9:44 and 9:46 because they follow witnesses with the refrain only at verse 48; other witnesses repeat it at all three verses. The APB keeps the disputed repetitions in brackets.
The APB text at this verse
The manuscripts, editions, and versions
The committee record at this verse
The APB is translated by a committee of language models that works blind. The translators are never told they are translating the Bible, never given a book name or a verse number, and never shown the witnesses listed above. Where the manuscripts disagree, the choice between readings is made before translation by the same kind of translator working the same way: it sees the competing readings and the witnesses by age and class, but never a reference or a manuscript name. There are 14,877 such places. For APB 4.0 every one was decided again in October 2026. GPT-6.1 Sol decided every one first. Claude Fable 5.1, from another model family, decided 2,483 of them second, including every place where the first translator left the base text. A departure from the base text needs both translators to agree and the first to be at least 0.8 confident. There is no third translator, so the base text stands when the two disagree. APB 4.0 is translated over those decisions. Whatever was done at this verse was done on the language and the evidence alone, and the record is public.
Mark 9:44-46: set in brackets as a disputed passage, wording kept.
“This passage is not in the earliest copies of the text. The committee judged it a later addition and keeps it in brackets rather than removing it. The sentence looks like a refrain copied in to balance the parallel sayings. The early evidence is strongly for its absence here.”
“The base text reads γέενναν. The copies also carry γέενναν εἰς τὸ πῦρ τὸ ἄσβεστον 46 ὅπου ὁ σκώληξ αὐτῶν οὐ τελευτᾷ καὶ τὸ πῦρ οὐ σβέννυται [early greek manuscript tradition; later majority tradition]; the committee kept the base text. The expansion has early attestation, but the default better explains the evidence.”
“The base text reads σε. The copies also carry the omission [later majority tradition]; the committee kept the base text. The early evidence strongly favors retaining the explicit pronoun.”
“The base text reads (nothing). The copies also carry εἰς τὸ πῦρ τὸ ἄσβεστον. [greek majuscule; early greek manuscript tradition; later majority tradition]; the committee kept the base text. Both kinds of evidence favor the default absence.”
“The base text reads σε. The copies also carry σοι [later majority tradition]; the committee kept the base text. The external evidence securely favors the default despite the location ambiguity.”
The APB 4.0 committee decided to retain the disputed refrain in brackets. Its note says: "The committee judged it a later addition and keeps it in brackets rather than removing it." GPT-6.1 Sol (OpenAI) served as the first translator, and Claude Fable 5.1 (Anthropic) served as the second translator. The committee’s printed text includes the worm-and-fire sentence in brackets at both Mark 9:44 and Mark 9:46. At Mark 9:45, it keeps the shorter wording ending with Gehenna.
The argument for each reading
If the refrain sounded once
The case for a single refrain rests on its absence at verses 44 and 46 in the earliest witnesses, as described by Westcott-Hort. Westcott-Hort and NA28 retain the refrain at verse 48. This gives the warnings a shared ending without repeating the same sentence after each one.
The parallel sayings also offer an explanation for the longer reading: a copyist could repeat the closing refrain to give each warning the same ending. The committee’s textual note identifies that possibility. On this reading, the warning about the undying worm remains in the passage. The difference concerns how often it sounds and how the repeated warnings lead toward it.
If it tolled three times
The case for the repeated refrain begins with its attestation. Tregelles prints it at verses 44, 46, and 48, and the apparatus places Treg and RP on the expanded side at Mark 9:45. The committee’s textual note also acknowledges early attestation for the expansion. The longer form therefore has support beyond the appeal of its repeated wording.
With the refrain after each warning, each saying carries the same explicit ending about the worm and the fire. That repetition gives the passage a recurring cadence. Its fit with the parallel sayings helps explain the force of this reading, although that fit alone cannot establish whether the refrain was repeated from the beginning or copied into the earlier positions.
The surviving forms leave a question about repetition: did the refrain originally close each warning, or was it extended into the earlier sayings? Early attestation for the expansion and early support for its absence both belong in the discussion. Both readings retain the refrain at verse 48, so the imagery remains either way. The variant changes its frequency and placement; it does not by itself settle doctrine about judgment.
Related entries
Witness readings for critical editions are quoted from the SBLGNT apparatus (CC BY 4.0); Hebrew text from the Westminster Leningrad Codex (Open Scriptures Hebrew Bible). Readings of ancient manuscripts and versions are cited from the sources linked above.