Luke 23:34 — “Father, forgive them” on probation
Neither reading A nor reading B can be ruled out from the supplied evidence: A includes the prayer, while B omits it. The sentence stands in several editions and is absent from an unusually broad early alliance.
What the APB prints.
Every witness, on the record.
What a blind committee did here.
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. Whatever it did at this verse, it did on the language alone — and its record is public.
The blind committee’s displayed APB text includes the prayer in Luke 23:34: Jesus speaks before the casting of lots. No rationale note matches this crux. For the wider pericope, the committee record gives the audit verdict as "'clean'". The record supplies no explanation for why the APB prints the sentence.
The case for each reading.
If the prayer is original
The case for reading A begins with its retention in Tregelles, NA28, and the Byzantine text. The supplied apparatus line also places Treg, NA28, and RP together for the span running through ποιοῦσιν. The APB prints the prayer in Luke 23:34 before the casting of lots, so its displayed text presents a continuous sequence from crucifixion in Luke 23:33 to the crowd and rulers in Luke 23:35. Westcott-Hort’s double brackets show that even an edition which prints the words marks them as disputed. Reading A therefore has explicit editorial support in the supplied material, while also carrying a visible note of uncertainty in WH.
If it entered later
The case for reading B rests on the absence of the sentence in P75 B D*. The witness row calls this an unusually broad early alliance and dates the manuscripts 3rd-5th century A.D. On this reading, Luke 23:34 runs without the prayer, leaving the crucifixion narrative without that sentence before the notice about casting lots. The supplied material does not give a reason for the omission or explain the relationship among these witnesses. It does, however, make the absence concrete and substantial: this is not presented as a solitary witness, but as a group including P75, Vaticanus, and Bezae.
The supplied evidence leaves the reason for the difference unresolved. Reading A changes whether the prayer appears in Luke 23:34; reading B leaves the narrative without it. This crux does not alter the wording of Luke 23:33 or Luke 23:35 as printed in the APB. No conclusion about the origin of either reading follows from the packet alone.
Asked plainly.
Is the forgiveness prayer in Luke 23:34 disputed?
Yes. Reading A includes the prayer, while reading B omits it. Tregelles, NA28, and the Byzantine text keep it; P75 B D* lack it.
Which witnesses omit Luke 23:34’s prayer?
The supplied witness row lists P75 B D* as lacking the sentence and describes them as an unusually broad early alliance.
Did the APB print the prayer?
Yes. The APB text for Luke 23:34 includes the prayer before the casting of lots. The pericope audit verdict is "'clean'", and no rationale note matches this crux.
More places where the manuscripts argue.
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. Nothing on this page declares a winner — the evidence is the point.
Weigh it yourself.
The registry doesn't tell you which reading is true. It puts every witness on one page, shows what a blind committee did with the same language, and leaves the verdict where it belongs — with the reader.