Matthew 18:11 — “for the Son of Man came to save the lost”
Matthew 18:11 is missing from some modern Bibles because reading A joins verse 10 directly to verse 12, while reading B includes the sentence. The witnesses and apparatus preserve both arrangements.
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.
“Included from the Faithlife/SBLGNT apparatus at Matthew 18:10 as a traditional verse addition. Witnesses: RP.”
The blind committee recorded the item as a traditional verse addition and identified RP in its witness note. Its record says, “Included from the Faithlife/SBLGNT apparatus at Matthew 18:10 as a traditional verse addition.” The audit verdict for the pericope is clean.
The case for each reading.
If borrowed from Luke
Reading A treats Matthew 18:10 as joining directly to verse 12, so the lost-sheep parable follows without an intervening sentence. Westcott-Hort (1881) is listed for this arrangement, and its row says the critical editions lack the verse, with the earliest witnesses. The raw apparatus places WH, Treg, and NA28 with the text at the end of verse 10, rather than marking an added verse there. The supplied difference also notes that the sentence is at home in Luke 19:10. On this account, the later appearance in Matthew can be understood as one Gospel completing another.
If Matthew wrote it
Reading B retains Ἦλθεν γὰρ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου σῶσαι τὸ ἀπολωλός as Matthew 18:11, between verse 10 and the parable. Robinson-Pierpont Byzantine Textform (2005) supports this reading and says the verse stands. The raw apparatus likewise records an addition at this point with RP. The wording makes a compact statement about the Son of Man and what was lost; in this reading, that statement belongs in Matthew’s sequence before the lost-sheep parable. The supplied comparison with Luke 19:10 identifies the central question: whether Matthew wrote the sentence or it entered Matthew’s later manuscripts.
The packet preserves a real disagreement about whether this sentence belongs between Matthew 18:10 and the lost-sheep parable. It does not settle that question. No doctrine is decided by this one line: doctrines rest on many passages, while this crux concerns the wording and sequence at this location.
Asked plainly.
Why do some Bibles omit Matthew 18:11?
They follow reading A, where verse 10 joins directly to verse 12. Reading B instead includes Matthew 18:11 before the lost-sheep parable.
Which witnesses support the two readings?
Westcott-Hort (1881) supports reading A. Robinson-Pierpont Byzantine Textform (2005) supports reading B. The raw apparatus also aligns WH, Treg, and NA28 with reading A and RP with the addition.
What did the blind committee do with Matthew 18:11?
The committee included it from the apparatus as a traditional verse addition, identified RP in its note, and recorded a clean audit verdict for the pericope.
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.