Matthew 20:16

[G4m]

Why do some translations drop the "for many be called, but few chosen" part of the verse? I feel like I'm missing something totally obvious here!

KJV:
Matthew 20
16 So the last shall be first, and the first last: for many be called, but few chosen.

NKJV:
Matthew 20
16So the last will be first, and the first last. For many are called, but few chosen."

YLT:
Matthew 20
16 So the last shall be first, and the first last, for many are called, and few chosen.'

NIV:
Matthew 20
16"So the last will be first, and the first will be last."

NASB:
Matthew 20
16 "So the last shall be first, and the first last."

 

[karla]

The phrase "For many are called, but few are chosen can be found in Matthew 22:14

 

[daveleau]

Well, you have to look at the Greek pf both the MT and CT to see if maybe that was an addition by the translators. After that, there's no way to know (as a lay-person) if it was an addition or deletion. So, you have aptly pointed out that the NIV or NASB are either right or wrong.

The MT Greek does include this phrase. The CT Greek does not include this. So, it is a difference between the Greek texts that has caused this issue.

 

[G4m]

Well, you have to look at the Greek pf both the MT and CT to see if maybe that was an addition by the translators. After that, there's no way to know (as a lay-person) if it was an addition or deletion. So, you have aptly pointed out that the NIV or NASB are either right or wrong.

The MT Greek does include this phrase. The CT Greek does not include this. So, it is a difference between the Greek texts that has caused this issue.

Thanks for your input. I've been searching for some specific details on this verse, but mostly all that comes up is stuff on KJV vs other translations!

I did find this, however, but I haven't fully read up on all the manuscripts to understand what's going on yet:

"for many be called, but few chosen"

is omitted by RV, Ne, NIV, NKJV marg., RSV, GN, LB, NASV, NEB, NWT, JB. AMP italicises the words.

Ruckman (54) p 14, states that the words are found in the Byzantine manuscripts. Berry's Greek text supports this passage.

from: http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/manuscript_evidence.html

 

[Crazy Liz]

The Byzantine groups of manuscripts contain many insertions in the gospels of quotations from other gospels or from other parts of the same gospel. Most likely, these were originally marginal notes made as cross-references, that were, at some point, copied into the main text of the manuscript.

"For many are called but few are chose" is a true saying of Jesus, but Matthew originally recorded it in chapter 22, not chapter 20.

 

[G4m]

The Byzantine groups of manuscripts contain many insertions in the gospels of quotations from other gospels or from other parts of the same gospel. Most likely, these were originally marginal notes made as cross-references, that were, at some point, copied into the main text of the manuscript.

"For many are called but few are chose" is a true saying of Jesus, but Matthew originally recorded it in chapter 22, not chapter 20.

OK, thanks for your insight on this! Can you point me to some references please?

 

[aesthetic]

The Byzantine groups of manuscripts contain many insertions in the gospels of quotations from other gospels or from other parts of the same gospel. Most likely, these were originally marginal notes made as cross-references, that were, at some point, copied into the main text of the manuscript.

"For many are called but few are chose" is a true saying of Jesus, but Matthew originally recorded it in chapter 22, not chapter 20.

This is a matter of opinion, not a proven fact.

 

[Crazy Liz]

It is not a proven fact, but it is not mere opinion, either. It is a well-substantiated theory. The verse G4m cited is one example.

A couple of other examples (in English translations):

Matthew 9:13 and Mark 2:17, where "to repentance" is added, to conform the saying to Luke 5:32.

Matthew 18:11, adding a saying from Luke 19:10.

There are others. These are a few examples.

Metzger's Textual Commentary is a good reference on the variations between NT manuscripts. Another title organized in a topical and historical way, rather than as a commentary, also by Metzger, is The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption and Restoration

 

[aesthetic]

It is not a proven fact, but it is not mere opinion, either. It is a well-substantiated theory.

True, I should have said "learned opinion". There are good arguments on both sides of this position, though those in support of the Majority Text, or Received Text are in the minority. But there are enough quotes from some of the early church fathers, and some support from the old vulgate translations that give credence to the TR. Obviously, being Orthodox, I trust the tradition behind the TR.

 

[Crazy Liz]

I have no major problems with the TR. In most instances, the glosses that made it into the text of the gospels do not change the meaning.

In Paul's letters, extra words in the TR often appear to be "borrowed" from the preceding text, which makes some sense when dividing up the scriptures into shorter liturgical readings. It's difficult to delimit a short passage for liturgical reading when a chapter and a half are all one sentence.

I think the tradition behind the TR is trustworthy, too. I'm not accusing anyone of deliberately sabotaging the scriptures. However, I think we can often understand the scriptures better by being aware of the differences between manuscripts and trying to understand how the variations may have come about. In approaching questions of text criticism, I think it's wisest to assume that the copyists were people of good faith who either made slight errors or had reasons for what they did based on good faith, sometimes coming from tradition.

I don't buy the argument that one text is "pure" and all others are worthlessly corrupt. This is something that I really should have said in response to the OP. As I understand it, the question wasn't necessarily, "Which is right and which is wrong?" but "Why do some English versions contain the phrase and others omit it?"

My answer is that the phrase in question is indeed a Jesus saying, but the manuscripts disagree about whether it originally was part of the text at this particular point.