Luke 23:34, “Father, forgive them” on probation
Whether “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do” is original to Luke remains disputed: Πάτερ, ἄφες αὐτοῖς stands in one reading, while — omits it. The witnesses divide over a sentence of unusual force.
The APB text at this verse
The manuscripts, editions, and versions
The committee record at this verse
The APB's translation committee works blind: it is never told it is translating the Bible, never given a book name or a verse number, and it never sees the witnesses above. Since revision 3.5, the places where the manuscripts disagree are decided before translation by three readers, Grok 4.3, GPT-6 Astra, and Claude Fable 5.1, who see the readings and the witnesses by age and class but never a reference or a manuscript name. Whatever was done at this verse was done on the language and the evidence alone, and the record is public.
“The base text reads ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς ἔλεγεν· πάτερ, ἄφες αὐτοῖς· οὐ γὰρ οἴδασιν τί ποιοῦσιν. The copies also carry the omission [greek majuscule; greek papyrus; early greek manuscript tradition]; the committee kept the base text. The evidence is balanced enough that a second reader would be welcome.”
“The base text reads (nothing). The copies also carry κλήρους. [greek majuscule; early greek manuscript tradition]; the committee kept the base text. The evidence favors the omission, but the early support for κλήρους. is not negligible, so a second reader is desirable.”
“The base text reads ὁ δὲ … ποιοῦσιν. The copies also carry ⟦⟧ [greek majuscule; greek papyrus; early greek manuscript tradition]; the committee kept the base text. The evidence is close; the early witnesses for ⟦⟧ are numerous, but the independent early Greek manuscript tradition for ὁ δὲ … ποιοῦσιν and the internal likelihood of omission tip the balance toward ὁ δὲ … ποιοῦσιν.”
“The base text reads κλήρους. The copies also carry κλῆρον [greek majuscule; greek papyrus; early greek manuscript tradition; later majority tradition]; the committee kept the base text. External support is numerically against κλήρους, yet it has early and independent attestation, and the strong pull of the parallel wording ἔβαλον κλῆρον makes κλῆρον the expected corruption rather than the original. The committee keeps the default κλήρους with moderate confidence; another reader weighing the breadth of early support for κλῆρον more heavily could reasonably differ.”
The APB 3.5 decision kept the base text containing the prayer, and the committee’s printed text includes it at Luke 23:34. Its stated rationale is: “The evidence is close; the early witnesses for ⟦⟧ are numerous, but the independent early Greek manuscript tradition for ὁ δὲ … ποιοῦσιν and the internal likelihood of omission tip the balance toward ὁ δὲ … ποιοῦσιν.” The pericope audit verdict is “clean.”
The argument for each reading
If the prayer is original
Reading A retains Πάτερ, ἄφες αὐτοῖς, placing the prayer within Luke’s crucifixion narrative before the casting of lots. Tregelles, NA28, and the Byzantine text keep the sentence, and the apparatus records ὁ δὲ … ποιοῦσιν for Treg NA28 RP. The committee’s 3.5 decision also kept this base text. Its note treats the evidence as close, while identifying an “independent early Greek manuscript tradition” for the longer wording and considering omission internally likely. Westcott-Hort’s double brackets show that retention has also been printed with visible reservation. The case for A therefore rests on continuing textual support across the listed editions and traditions, alongside the possibility that some copies came to omit a difficult or distinctive sentence.
If it entered later
Reading B lets the narrative proceed from the crucifixion without the prayer. Papyrus 75, Vaticanus, and Bezae are listed with the omission, and the packet describes their agreement as an unusually broad early alliance. That combination gives the shorter text substantial early support rather than leaving it as an isolated absence. The committee’s records include a formulation in which “The evidence favors the omission,” while also saying that support for the competing reading is not negligible. Westcott-Hort’s double brackets likewise register caution about printing the prayer straightforwardly. The case for B takes seriously that early copies can preserve a narrative without this sentence and that the reason for the divergence remains uncertain.
The uncertainty concerns whether Luke’s crucifixion narrative originally included this particular prayer and why some early copies lack it. Its presence changes the words attributed to Jesus at this point; its absence changes the immediate narrative’s wording. No doctrine can be decided from this unit alone, and most doctrines rest on many passages. The listed evidence leaves room for readers to weigh the early omission and the retained wording differently.
Related entries
Witness readings for critical editions are quoted from the SBLGNT apparatus (CC BY 4.0); Hebrew text from the Westminster Leningrad Codex (Open Scriptures Hebrew Bible). Readings of ancient manuscripts and versions are cited as published scholarly fact with their sources linked above. The page does not declare which reading is original.
The registry gives no verdict
The registry does not say which reading is original. Each page lists the witnesses, shows what the committee did with the same text, and leaves the judgment to the reader.