Why is Luke 23:17 omitted in some Bible translations? Entry Heading: Luke 23:17—Textual Omission in Some Translations Verse in Question “Now he was obliged to release to them at the feast one prisoner.” (Luke 23:17, Berean Standard Bible) Synopsis of the Issue Several modern English versions (e.g., ESV, NIV, CSB) place Luke 23:17 in the margin or omit it from the body text, while others (KJV, NKJV, MEV) retain it. The matter revolves around a single textual variant: whether Luke originally included this explanatory note about Pilate’s Passover amnesty custom. External Evidence: Manuscripts That Omit the Verse • P75 (c. AD 175–225) • Codex Vaticanus B (4th cent.) • Codex Sinaiticus ℵ (4th cent.) • Codex Alexandrinus A (5th cent.) • Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus C (5th cent.) • Codex Bezae D (5th cent., Western) • Early Syriac (Sinaitic, Curetonian) and Sahidic Coptic versions These witnesses are among the oldest extant Greek, Syriac, and Coptic authorities and represent the Alexandrian and Western text-types. External Evidence: Manuscripts That Include the Verse • Codex W (4th/5th cent.) • Codex Theta Θ (9th cent.) • The vast majority of Byzantine manuscripts (9th cent. onward) • Old Latin it a, b, ff2, l • The lectionary tradition The Byzantine-Majority text underlies the KJV and NKJV and reflects the text received and read in the Greek-speaking church for centuries. Patristic Citations Eusebius of Caesarea (Dem. Ev. 10.8) and Ambrose (Exp. Luc. 10.119) reference the release custom, but do not explicitly quote Luke 23:17. The first unambiguous patristic citation of the exact wording appears in the 5th-century writings of Hesychius of Jerusalem. Internal Evidence: Likely Scribal Motives • Harmonization: Scribes familiar with Matthew 27:15; Mark 15:6; John 18:39 could add the explanatory sentence to Luke for consistency. • Liturgical Considerations: Lectionary practice desired an explicit statement so a public reading of Luke 23 flowed without confusion. • Structural Observation: Verse 17 breaks the Luke narrative between vv. 16 and 18; its removal does not disturb grammar or flow, suggesting addition is more probable than accidental omission. Counter-Argument for Authenticity • Luke’s method: He frequently inserts parenthetical asides (e.g., Luke 9:55–56, 23:34 short addition). Verse 17 fits that narrative habit. • Early Latin and Byzantine preservation: While later, their unanimity may reflect an archetype predating their divergence. • Statistical Probability: Singular omission in multiple traditions could theoretically arise from early homoeoteleuton (similar endings of vv. 16 and 17 in some exemplars). Translation Philosophy and Editorial Decisions • Eclectic/Critical (e.g., NA/UBS): Weight oldest, geographically diverse witnesses → relegate v. 17 to margin. • Majority/Textus Receptus: Weight numerical preponderance and ecclesiastical use → retain v. 17. • Berean Standard Bible: Opts for inclusion, marking variant in footnote, reflecting both readings and honoring liturgical heritage. Practical Takeaways for Faith and Witness • Believers can confidently cite the Passover custom regardless of translation choice, using parallel texts for clarity. • When discussing Bible reliability, highlight that only about 1 percent of NT wording is disputed, none touching central tenets. • The empty tomb and eyewitness resurrection reports (Luke 24; 1 Corinthians 15) carry far more evidential weight than any minor textual variant. Summary Statement Luke 23:17 is omitted in some modern translations because the earliest and most geographically diverse manuscripts lack the sentence, suggesting it may be a later liturgical or harmonizing addition. The verse’s presence in the majority medieval manuscripts and its harmony with other Gospel accounts, however, justifies its retention in translations committed to the Byzantine textual tradition. Either way, the historical reality it describes—and every essential doctrine of the faith—remains fully attested elsewhere in Scripture. |
    |