Why is Luke 9:55 omitted in some Bible translations? Passage Under Review (Berean Standard Bible, Majority Reading) Luke 9:55–56 : “But Jesus turned and rebuked them, and He said, ‘You do not know what kind of spirit you are; for the Son of Man did not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them.’ And they went on to another village.” The Shorter Critical Reading In the Nestle-Aland/UBS text the verse appears simply as: v. 55 “But He turned and rebuked them.” v. 56 “And they went on to another village.” The rest of the wording is relegated to a footnote or omitted entirely in versions that follow this critical text (e.g., ESV, NIV). Why Some Modern Translations Omit the Longer Clause The additional sentence (“You do not know… but to save them”) is absent from a cluster of early Alexandrian witnesses (א [Sinaiticus] ¹, B [Vaticanus], L, Θ, Ξ, 33, 579, 892, the Sahidic Coptic, and some Bohairic mss.). Because eclectic critical editions favor the earliest extant witnesses, translations that depend on those editions adopt the shorter reading or bracket the words. Early Patristic Witness • Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.14.8 (ca. A.D. 180) paraphrases the longer clause. • Ambrose (4th cent.) quotes it verbatim in De Spiritu Sancto 2.119. • Didymus the Blind and Cyril of Alexandria cite the thought that the Son of Man “did not come to destroy but to save,” connecting it to this very context. These citations pre-date or parallel the earliest extant manuscripts and corroborate the wording’s antiquity within the Church. Internal (Intrinsic) Evidence 1. Lukan Style: “Son of Man” plus an infinitive of purpose (“to save”) forms a phrase Luke employs elsewhere (cf. 19:10). 2. Contextual Fit: The disciples demanded fire from heaven (v.54). Jesus’ explanatory rebuke (“You do not know what kind of spirit you are; for the Son of Man did not come to destroy…”) answers their misguided zeal and bridges naturally to the next pericope. 3. Motivation for Omission: Scribes copying quickly from exemplar to exemplar commonly dropped lines through parablepsis (eye-skip) when identical endings occur. Here, verses 55–56 share the same Greek ending – “them” (αὐτούς). The longer sentence could be lost accidently between repeated endings. 4. Less Likely Addition: Creating a theologically balanced saying is possible, yet adding an echo of 19:10 would not explain why scribes in multiple text-types enacted the same expansion while others never inserted it. Theological Implications The inclusion harmonizes seamlessly with Jesus’ mission statement elsewhere (John 3:17; Luke 19:10). Even if omitted, no doctrine is lost: numerous passages declare Christ came to save, not to destroy. The integrity of inspiration is unaffected, for either reading affirms Jesus’ rebuke and mercy. The variant instead showcases God’s providence in preserving His word through a multitude of witnesses (Psalm 12:6-7). Conservative Assessment of Authenticity Given (a) strong patristic attestation predating the earliest uncials, (b) widespread geographic support, (c) internal coherence with Luke’s purpose clause formula, and (d) plausible accidental omission, the longer reading has every right to stand in the main text. Hence the Berean Standard Bible, NKJV, MEV, and other Majority-based translations retain it. Practical Takeaways for the Reader • Variants exist in the apparatus, not because Scripture is unreliable, but because God has granted us an embarrassment of manuscript riches—over 5,800 Greek NT copies—allowing textual confidence well above any other ancient work. • The substance of Christian faith does not pivot on a single variant; rather, every major doctrine appears multiplied across uncontested passages. • Luke 9:55, whether read short or long, leads believers toward the same application: zeal must be tempered by the Spirit of Christ, whose purpose is salvation. Concluding Summary Luke 9:55’s fuller wording appears in the vast majority of Greek manuscripts, numerous early versions, and Church Fathers as early as Irenaeus. A minority of highly prized but geographically restricted Alexandrian codices lack it, leading critical editions—and therefore some modern translations—to omit or footnote the words. Textual, historical, and theological considerations, however, strongly commend its authenticity, reflecting Jesus’ consistent mission to redeem rather than destroy. |
    |