I couldn’t find an appropriate category in which to post this. Perhaps there should be a category entitled “Bibliology.”

Some good Christian people are concerned that the “liberal, modernistic, translations” of the Bible “omit” part of Luke 9:56 and all of Matthew 18:11. They think these passages are omitted because these “modernistic” translators want to deny the Saviour. However, this is not the case.

With regards to Luke 9:56, the NKJV has:

“For the Son of Man did not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them." And they went on to another village.

And similarly with related translations such as the AV and RWebster.

I’m sure every true Christian fully agrees that the first sentence is true. However, there is evidence that Luke did not write those words in his gospel. Unfortunately none of the original manuscripts of any part of the New Testament have survived.

I am blessed to possess a book that contains all the transcripts of all extant New Testament manuscripts that were copied prior to the year 300 A.D. Only two of these contain Luke 9:56, namely papyrus 45, which was copied in the early 200s, and papyrus 75, which was copied in the late 100s. Those manuscripts have only, “And they went to another village,” and do not contain the quote ascribed to our Lord, “For the Son of Man did not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them.”

In 1844, Constantin von Tischendorf discovered the world’s oldest and most complete Bible dating from 325, with the complete New Testament not discovered before. This Bible is called Codex Sinaiticus, after the St. Catherine’s Monastery at Mt. Sinai, where Tischendorf discovered it. It also lacks the questionable sentence from Luke 9:56. This sentence is also lacking in the two other major codices, Codex Vaticinus, also from the 4th century, and Codex Alexandrinus from the 5th century.

The fact that Matt 18:11 is not present in some translations has been questioned also.

*For the Son of Man has come to save that which was lost (NKJV). *

Unfortunately, no extant manuscript prior to 300 A.D. Contains the 18th chapter of Matthew.

And again, it is absent in both Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus. I am not sure about Codex Alexandrinus.

To be honest, I was wondering the same thing… I must be missing something, because I don’t see the problem. I mean, I see what you are saying, and I believe it, but I don’t see the implications. Can you elaborate?

There is no problem.

Perhaps you are really asking why I bothered to post these facts. I thought I explained that in my opening words.

There are people who presume that there is a fault in modern translations which, from their point of view, are omitting parts of “the word of God” in this case, a deliberate attempt to discredit what Jesus said by omitting his words. I tried to show that this is not what the modern translators are doing, but rather are attempting to translate in accordance with the earlier, and probably more reliable manuscripts.

So you are saying the entire 18th chapter may be an interpolation? You mean just the 11th verse right?

He only means there’s no way to check pre-300 texts for whether the verse is in Matt 18 or not.

(We do need a category called Scriptology for textual transmission and other technical issues related to the scriptures. I’ll see what I can do about getting one set up soon. )

The rebuke in GosLuke (which also spans the end of verse 55) does fit ultimately with the gist of the previous material in the Markan and Matthean parallels, since the warning about being thrown in Gehenna in those texts is aimed at the apostles themselves (which Luke omits here and reports in a different context elsewhere more briefly – although he does save part of that rebuke, still aimed at the disciples, as the immediate followup to the story of the Rich Man and Lazarus in hades!) Not even counting the explicit warning finishing out Matthew 18, aimed at Simon Peter and the other disciples: “In just the same way My Father in the heavens will do to each of you*, if you are not forgiving your brother in your heart.”

Anyway, the part of the rebuke from verse 56 still survives in an undisputable way in GosLuke, as the conclusion to the (main?) story of the conversion of Zaccheus, at GosLuke 19:10.

(I say “main” because Luke goes on to to report the mina-servant warning immediately afterward with a transition explicitly stating He told this parable during the Zaccheus incident. Perhaps not incidentally, just like its parallel parable about the talentons in GosMatt 25, right before the judgment of the sheep and the baby goats, that judgment warning is aimed at professed servants of Christ with some authority, even if not with the more major levels of authority as the version told directly to the disciples in GosMatt! So thematically, one definitely original version of “seek and save the lost” is attached to a fatal rebuke warning aimed at Christ’s own servants; and the other two dubiously transmitted occurrences of “seek and save the lost” are attached to other fatal rebuke warnings aimed at Christ’s own apostles and chief disciples. The saying may not be original to Matt 18 and Luke 9, but it certainly fits there!)*

Paidion, I added more detail to the thread title so readers checking the title lists would have a better idea what the thread is about.

Thank you, Jason, for considering the possible addition of a category called “scripturology.”

Okay. You have explained why you added to the title of this thread, and I don’t object.

However, I just want you to know that I used the brief title “Added or Deleted” deliberately, thinking, since the readers wouldn’t know what it was about, that it would be more likely to arouse curiosity.

Right. When I said, “Unfortunately, no extant manuscript prior to 300 A.D. contains the 18th chapter of Matthew,” I was indicating that since the entire chapter does not exist in any extant pre-300 A.D. manuscript, then it is impossible to find verse 18 in any pre-300 A.D. manuscript that is available to us at this time.

The fact that no one presently possesses a manuscript containing chapter 18 that predates the year 300, in no way implies that no such manuscript existed prior to 300 A.D.

Forgive me my ignorance but where did the scriptures in question come from when our canon was established?

I was on the codex sinaiticus site they showed chapter 18

codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx?book=33&chapter=18&lid=en&side=r&verse=6&zoomSlider=0

Yes, Chapter 18 is in Sinaiticus. I was wrong. What I should have written is that verse 11 of chapter 18 is not found in Sinaiticus.
Because of what you wrote, I thought I’d better check out Vaticanus as well. I was also wrong about it. It, too, contains chapter 18.

However, no manuscript prior to 300 A.D. contains that chapter.

I am not finding any citations for Matthew 18 being completely absent in early manuscripts. Could you point me in the right direction?

For instance,

biblequery.org/mtmss.htm

I see no mention beyond 18:11 and a few variants in a half dozen other verses.

Certainly.

There are many papyri in existence (dated prior to A.D. 300): 1,4,5,9,13,15,16,18,20,23,24,27,29,30,32,37,38,39,45,47,48,4,52,53,64,65,66,67,69,70,72,75,87,90,92,95,98,100,101,102,104,108,109,110,111,114,
115, also some early uncials prior to A.D. 300 are extant, namely: 0162,0171,0189.

However, many of these papyri are but fragments. None of them contain the complete writings of the New Testament.

For example, Papyrus 1 contains only Matthew 1:1-9, 12, 14-20. That’s it! Not only is Matthew 18 completely absent but also Matthew Chapters 2-28, and all the rest of the books of the New Testament.

Papyrus 9 contains only 1 John 4:11-12, 14-17

One of the the oldest manuscripts with considerable content is Papyrus 66 which has been dated in the 100s. It contains most (not all) of the Gospel of John, and nothing else. I possess copies of the actual Papyrus 66 in Greek, all in capital letters and no spaces between words. Papyrus 75 is almost as old. It contains quite a bit of Luke and some of John. Papyrus 46 is dated in the 100s and contains parts of Paul’s letters, and Hebrews.

As far as I know, none of these papyri contains all parts of any Biblical book. So it is not at all surprising that Matthew 18 is missing from ALL of them.

No not surprising, and not as likely to lead to a conclusion that Mt 18 is an interpolation, but I would be interested to see what other chapters are likewise missing from all of them.

Actually, it never entered my head that Matthew 18 was an interpolation. However, it may be the case that verse 11 is. But even if it is, that doesn’t prove that Jesus didn’t utter the sentence. John wrote:“Now there are also many other things that Jesus did. Were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.” (Last verse of John’s “gospel”)

Some things that Jesus said or did may have been added later by those who obtained the information from a different source. For example, the story of the woman taken in adultery was not originally in John’ s gospel. Yet I believe it is a true account, and that someone added it later when John’s gospel was copied. Many have placed it elsewhere. For example, the copier of one manuscript has placed it after John 21:25, another after Luke 24:53. According to Eusebius’s Church History, the story was found in “The Gospel to the Hebrews.”

Since I have copies of ALL of them, I can answer that question.
The following chapters are missing from all of them:
Matthew 7,8,9,15-19,22,27,28
Mark 1-3,10,13-16
Luke 19-21
John (none is missing)
Acts 1,20,21,22,24,25,27,28
Romans 7
1 Corinthians 14,15,16
2 Corinthians (none is missing)
Galatians (none)
Ephesians (none)
Philippians (none)
Colossians (none)
1 Thessalonians 3
2 Thessalonians 3
1 Timothy (all is missing)
2 Timothy (all is missing)
Titus 3
Philemon (none is missing)
Hebrews (none)
James (none)
1 Peter (none)
2 Peter (none)
1 John 1,2,3,5
2 John (all is missing)
3 John (all)
Jude (none)
Revelation 18-20

This gives you more information, but not complete information. Even the chapters that are NOT missing have verses missing in many cases.

So the - for some - controversial chapter 8 of John - is IN all of those sources?

Thanks, very interesting.

No.
In response to Eaglesway’s expressed desire to know what other chapters were missing in ALL the pre-300 available manuscripts , I listed the chapters that were missing in ALL of them. “None is missing” indicated that there is no chapter of John that is missing in ALL the pre-300 available manuscripts.

Ok, got it!