Why is Matthew 18:11 omitted in some Bible translations? Matthew 18:11 in the Berean Standard Bible “For the Son of Man has come to save that which was lost.” The verse is placed in the main text of the because the follows the traditional Byzantine/majority reading but notes the textual debate in its apparatus. Where the Verse Appears and Where It Does Not • Included without brackets: KJV, NKJV, MEV, LSB, World English Bible • Placed in brackets or footnoted: NASB 95/NASB 20, HCSB/CSB, NET, NLT • Omitted from the running text but footnoted: NIV, ESV, RSV, NRSV, CEB Earliest Greek Witnesses • 𝔐 Codex Vaticanus (B, 4th c.) – omits • 𝔐 Codex Sinaiticus (א, 4th c.) – omits • Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus (C, 5th c.) – lacuna at this point • Codex Bezae (D, 5th c.) – omits • Codex Washingtonianus (W, 5th c.) – includes • Family 1, Family 13, and most Byzantine minuscules (9th c. onward) – include Papyrus evidence is inconclusive; the oldest continuous papyri for Matthew (𝔓37, 𝔓45) do not preserve this portion. Thus, the earliest complete codices largely lack the verse, while the later majority of manuscripts contain it. Ancient Versions and Patristic Citations • Old Latin it a, it b, it c – omit • Vulgate (Jerome, c. AD 405) – includes • Syriac Peshitta (5th c.) – includes • Sahidic Coptic (3rd–4th c.) – omits • Church Fathers: Origen (c. AD 240) omits when commenting, John Chrysostom (c. AD 400) quotes it. The mixture shows the Byzantine tradition embracing the verse, while earlier Egyptian witnesses generally do not. Likely Scribal Path Internal evidence suggests harmonization. Luke 19:10 reads, “For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost.” . A marginal note clarifying Jesus’ mission in Matthew 18 may have been copied into the text by a later scribe familiar with Luke, then spread through the majority line. This is a common scribal tendency catalogued by Metzger and supported by the Coherence-Based Genealogical Method (2017). Translation Philosophy Behind Modern Omissions Most twentieth-century committees relied on a critical eclectic text (Nestle-Aland 28/UBS 5). They ranked external evidence (age, geographical spread, multiple text-types) higher than sheer numerical support. Because the earliest extant witnesses omit the clause, critical editions print it in the apparatus; translations following those editions do likewise. Theological and Doctrinal Impact Removing or retaining Matthew 18:11 does not touch any doctrine. The statement is taught beyond dispute in Luke 19:10, John 3:17, 1 Timothy 1:15, and elsewhere. Inspiration applies to the original autographs; textual criticism refines our access to them. Every extant variant in the New Testament affects no cardinal doctrine—as documented by Daniel B. Wallace’s CSNTM collation of 5,800+ Greek MSS and Gary Habermas’s survey of gospel essentials. Consistency with a High View of Scripture 1. The variant illustrates God’s providential preservation: even scribal additions are harmonious with inspired truth. 2. No textual variant overturns the reality of Christ’s atoning death and bodily resurrection, attested by 1 Corinthians 15:3-7, an indisputable early creed recognized by atheist historian Gerd Lüdemann and defended exhaustively by Habermas. 3. Archaeological corroborations—e.g., the first-century “Magdala Stone,” Pilate’s inscription at Caesarea, and the Nazareth house under the Church of the Annunciation—reinforce the historical matrix in which such verses emerged. Why Many Conservative Translations Keep the Verse The Majority Text tradition relies on roughly 90 percent of all Greek manuscripts. Statistically, that mass cannot be dismissed. The Textus Receptus, produced from a handful of Byzantine witnesses available to Erasmus (1516), became the basis of the KJV and thus of modern translations in its line. Conservative committees often prefer the reading they consider ecclesiastically received and theologically richest, especially when the variant is benign and edifying. Practical Counsel for Teachers and Evangelists • When reading from a Bible that omits the verse, feel free to read it aloud from the margin; it is Scripture in harmony with Scripture. • When skeptics raise the omission as an argument against inerrancy, point to the transparency of modern editions—nothing is hidden; every line of data is published. • Use the opportunity to pivot to Luke 19:10 and the gospel: Jesus’ mission is rescue. That message, unchanged, invites repentance and faith today. Frequently Asked Questions Q: “Does the omission prove the Bible was changed?” A: No. All variants are documented. The underlying message is unchanged. What we possess Isaiah 99+ percent certain. Q: “Which reading is ‘original’?” A: On balance, critical scholars lean toward omission; majority advocates argue inclusion. Either position fits a high view of inspiration and providential preservation. Conclusion Matthew 18:11’s variable placement arises from honest textual differences between early Alexandrian witnesses and later Byzantine copies. Its content is doctrinally sound, corroborated by Luke and other texts. Whether printed in the main text or margin, it proclaims the same saving mission that culminated in Christ’s resurrection—history’s most substantiated miracle and the cornerstone of our hope. |
    |