Of course. Here you go.
CSB
Some mss include v. 11: For the Son of Man has come to save the lost.
NIV
Some manuscripts include here the words of Luke 19:10. For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost.’
NASB
Late mss add (traditionally v 11): For the Son of Man has come to save that which was lost
NET
The most significant mss, along with others (א B L* Θ* ƒ1, 13 33 892* e ff1 sys sa), do not include 18:11 “For the Son of Man came to save the lost.” The verse is included in D Lmg N W Γ Δ Θc 078vid 565 579 700 892c 1241 1424 M lat syc,p,h, but is almost certainly not original, being borrowed from the parallel in Luke 19:10. The present translation follows NA28 in omitting the verse number as well, a procedure also followed by a number of other modern translations.
My faith is not so weak that it can be destroyed by knowing some manuscripts differ.
I like the honesty and reality printed in the versions above because I study The Bible.
CSB
Some mss include v. 11: For the Son of Man has come to save the lost.
NIV
Some manuscripts include here the words of Luke 19:10. For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost.’
NASB
Late mss add (traditionally v 11): For the Son of Man has come to save that which was lost
NET
The most significant mss, along with others (א B L* Θ* ƒ1, 13 33 892* e ff1 sys sa), do not include 18:11 “For the Son of Man came to save the lost.” The verse is included in D Lmg N W Γ Δ Θc 078vid 565 579 700 892c 1241 1424 M lat syc,p,h, but is almost certainly not original, being borrowed from the parallel in Luke 19:10. The present translation follows NA28 in omitting the verse number as well, a procedure also followed by a number of other modern translations.
My faith is not so weak that it can be destroyed by knowing some manuscripts differ.
I like the honesty and reality printed in the versions above because I study The Bible.
Except it is the KJV that adds verses, words and passages. Anyone who has studied the Byzantine Greek manuscripts can point to the time each new word or verse was added, incorporated in the text and passed down to the next generation of a Bibles. These Byzantine Greek texts sprang from nothing in the 8th -10th centuries AD. Then they were recopied by monks and dedicated women (according to Daniel Wallace, who has studied the actual manuscripts in Greece and Constantinople !)! The scribes copied off of an older manuscripts, or being dictated the older manuscripts where errors crept in. Things like not hearing the text clearly, visual mistakes and the margin scribbling incorporated into the new manuscripts. These people were Greek, although later than Koine, and there was a big push to copy as many manuscripts as possible, with Saladin & other Muslims trying to take back Jerusalem, or defending it, depending upon when the manuscripts were written, before ot after several Crusades makes a difference.
So the scribes were rushing and hurrying to copy more manuscripts which also caused sloppy Greek and/or poor penmanship to read a thousand years later!
I trust by far the earlier manuscripts, dating from the 2nd century AD! The Byzantine texts are a translator's worst nightmare! These older manuscripts are in families, are much more accurate than the later, mistake ridden Byzantine copies. In the other hand, the Jews were very strong on destroying any scrolls with a single mistake! This is good, because the later manuscripts were based on following the earlier Hebrew scrolls. This is also bad, because the Jews also destroyed most of the earlier scrolls. Even a perfectly written scroll would wear out from being used frequently and even losing letters or words. So, almost no early Hebrew scrolls still exist. That's why the Desd Sea scrolls
At Qumran were so important. They were written before Jesus was even born. A scroll of Isaiah was almost identical to the Masoretic manuscripts!
- 1
- 1
- Show all