The Lord is missing

What is going on here in Luke 23:42. In most of the translations people use today the word Lord is not in the verse. Using the KJV 1900 it is there. Online the KJV 1611 has it also. The interlinear has the word Lord in the 1900, but not in the ESV or NASB. Open Text does not have the word Lord either. Is it a manuscript issue?

Mike

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

JT (alabama24)

Is it a manuscript issue?

Yes. See HERE.

Francis

This is precisely what the issue is. The KJV tradition of translations is based on the so-called Majority Text (right in the image below, with the added word kurie, which means 'Lord') and which is absent from the Westcott-Hort tradition translations as represented in the Nestle-Aland or UBS Greek New Testament (on the left in the picture):

Dan Francis

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/749357#Comment_749357

"The Lord is missing"… Jesus promised to return we just do not know when. [;)]

-Dan

PS: I am sorry for this bad joke on a serious question but it is the first thing that popped in my head when I read the title.

PPS:Then this picture.

mab

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/749428#Comment_749428

Of course we still have all those books telling us about the search for the historical Jesus. Even with Logos, the scholars can't seem to find Him.

Michael Wert

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/749356#Comment_749356

Thank you for enlighten me about the Textual Notes! Looks like a great resource.

Mike

Michael Wert

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/749357#Comment_749357

Do you have an opinion as to which is better? I have no idea. I am sure there are pros and cons to both. Do I need to loose sleep over this?

Mike

Michael Wert

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/749428#Comment_749428

Thanks. I love this kind of stuff. I missed Him the first time I quickly looked at your posting this AM.

Mike

Dave Moser

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/749551#Comment_749551

Do you have an opinion as to which is better?

This is probably on the border of what is allowed on the Logos forums. That being said, most textual critics agree:

The older reading is preferred. (Kind of obvious.)
The better-attested reading is preferred. (Also kind of obvious.)
The shorter reading is preferred. (It is more likely that scribes added clarifying words - as here - than removed them.)
The more difficult reading is preferred. (It is more likely that scribes "smoothed out" a difficult reading than introduced one.)

There is, however, a whole school of thought which prefers the "majority text" as a unit. That's another can of worms, especially because you really need to do text criticism within that tradition. Anyway, these are the mostly-agreed-upon factors for weighing textual variants.

Michael Wert

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/749571#Comment_749571

Thanks, the Lord is found!

You have given me the basic terminology needed to find an article in Logos.

The ‘Majority Text Debate’: New Form of an Old Issue Themelios: Volume 8, No. 2, September 1982/January 1983

Michael Holmes is Professor of Biblical Studies and Early Christianity; Chair, Department of Biblical and Theological Studies at Bethel College, Minnesota

Mike