My priest asked me to read and reflect on today’s Gospel as my penance yesterday in confession. I chose to read all of Luke Ch. 9 and ran across something that has perplexed me.
In an effort to be thorough, I pulled out several Study Bibles, because I find reading the various notes help me a great deal to understand the passages I’m reading. By reading the notes from multiple study Bibles, I often find that one will really speak to me.
I was dismayed to find that two of my Study Bibles contained a longer version of Luke 9:56 than the others.
The short version reads (9:55)“Jesus turned and rebuked them. (9:56)and they journeyed to another village.” (NAB-RE)- which reads quite similarly in the NIV and the RSV-2CE. None of these study Bibles made any note of a longer version being present in other texts (which normally they do make note of, if omitted, giving the reason why whether it be textual variant, later scribal addition or other and usually will list the variant text in the footnotes.)
The long version reads (9:55)“And turning, he rebuked them, saying: You know not of what spirit you are. (9:56) The Son of man came not to destroy souls, but to save. And they went to another town.” (Douay-Rheims) - which reads similarly in the Orthodox Study Bible and also the KJV.
Having done some online research, the general argument appears to be that the longer text is a later addition and isn’t included in the more modern translations because it shouldn’t be there. But what bothers me most is that it’s present in the Douay Rheims, which so many people here seem to hold in extremely high esteem. There seems to be either some borrowing from the KJV for the Douay Rheims, or vice-versa (The Douay Rheims was published 2 years before the KJV) or that they both used the same source which would appear to be the Latin Vulgate translated by St. Jerome which has been declared by the Church to be free of doctrinal and moral error…but perhaps not of textual error? Wiki says that the Orthodox Study Bible borrowed the NT from the KJV (which I must admit astounds me just on the basis that it seems lazy and why would the Orthodox faith depend on a translation by the protestants?)
Does anyone have any insight or thoughts about this? I’m perfectly aware that textual variants occur throughout the Bible but am accustomed to the Study Bibles making note of that in the notes with an explanation. In this instance, they all seem to completely ignore it.
And while I’m aware that doctrinally this probably makes no difference, it bothers me when I feel I can’t fully trust the text of a respected Catholic translation. I would have thought that at least among Catholic translations there would be continuity, and it makes me wonder what else is different among them that goes uncommented on.