Matthew 21:44, the stone that crushes: original, or from Luke?
Matthew 21:44 is transmitted both with the stone-and-crushing verse and with its omission; the evidence presented here leaves the question open. The wording closely matches Luke 20:18.
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 Καὶ … αὐτόν. The copies also carry the omission [greek majuscule; early greek manuscript tradition]; the committee kept the base text. The evidence favors the default wording, but the competing omission has enough early and multiple later support that another reader would be useful.”
The APB 3.5 committee kept the base text at Matthew 21:44. Its note begins, "The base text reads Καὶ … αὐτόν." The three readers worked blind, seeing readings and witnesses only by class and date. The same note says, "The evidence favors the default wording, but the competing omission has enough early and multiple later support that another reader would be useful." The pericope audit verdict is "clean."
The argument for each reading
If Matthew wrote it
Reading A has broad stated support: NA28 prints the verse, and its witness row says that all four editions print it. The raw apparatus likewise places the full wording on the side marked by WH, Treg, NA28, and RP. Within Matthew 21:33-46, the sentence supplies a further saying about falling on the stone and the stone falling on someone. The APB printed text also includes Matthew 21:44 between 21:43 and 21:45. Its wording has a close counterpart in the APB's Luke 20:18, which can be read as parallel preservation of a saying found in both pericopes. The Westcott-Hort margin's recorded doubt shows that this printed support was accompanied by a recognized question about the verse.
If it arrived from Luke
Reading B rests on a small but weighty omission group: Papyrus 104, Bezae, and Old Latin are listed as lacking the verse. The witness row specifically says that the earliest papyrus of the passage appears to lack it, alongside the Western tradition. The raw apparatus records the omission with the Westcott-Hort margin. If the omission represents Matthew's ending, the parable moves from 21:43 directly to 21:45, without the additional stone saying. The exact resemblance of the disputed sentence to Luke 20:18 gives the omission a concrete textual question: a reader can ask whether wording familiar from Luke came to stand at this point in Matthew. The packet records the question without resolving its direction.
The uncertainty concerns whether Matthew 21:44 belonged between 21:43 and 21:45, or whether the parable ended without it. The packet presents a close parallel in Luke 20:18, whose APB printed wording remains present regardless of the decision at Matthew. No doctrine can be decided from this unit alone; broader doctrines rest on many passages. The listed evidence permits the two cases to be weighed without turning the registry into a verdict.
Common questions
Is Matthew 21:44 original?
The packet records both possibilities: most listed support prints the verse, while Papyrus 104, Bezae, and Old Latin omit it. It does not provide a final verdict.
Why is Matthew 21:44 compared with Luke 20:18?
The APB printed texts place closely matching stone-and-crushing sayings at Matthew 21:44 and Luke 20:18. That resemblance is part of the question raised by the omission.
What did the APB committee print?
APB prints Matthew 21:44 between 21:43 and 21:45. Its 3.5 decision kept the base text while noting early and later support for the omission.
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.