Resources to be tweaked
One goal is to put together a master list of ECW references, short and long versions (full quotes when possible.)

There is a lot of duplication with an earlier thread, the Parallelism element is important there, otherwise generally this is stronger.
sister thread to combine:
Luke 23:34 - Father, forgive them
BCHF Nov, 2018 thread to review

Referenced in first 4 pages

Clement of Alexandria
Origen by Rufinus
Clement of Rome
( Tertullian Epiphanius complex 2nd)
Archelaus Acts of the Disputation with the Heresiarch Manes
Gospel of Nicodemus (The Acts of Pilate)
Pseudo-Justin -
History of the Passion of the Lord -
( Ephrem and Diatessaron )






James Snapp in 2017 went through some of the early church writer references, working with the material from Wieland Willker:

Luke 23:34a-
Answering the Apologists
James Snapp Jr. Good Friday, 2017

James was following up on our posts as you can see here:

And that thread has additional information, including Daniel Wallace and "inauthentic literarily " to be added here.

James was utilizing information from Wieland Willker:

A Textual Commentary on the Greek Gospels - Vol 3 Luke
Wieland Willker


Facebook and YouTube resources (This post, further down, has one of mine in full.)

Facebook - PureBible - Feb, 2016
From the Lips of Jesus or a Scribal Hand? "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they...

Facebook - PureBible - Nov, 2015
Is Luke 23:34 another biblical CORRUPTION?

Facebook - PureBible - Dec 2017
A James White Christmas Carol on Father Forgive Them in Luke 23:34

YouTube - Jonathan Sheffield

Additional on King James Bible Debate and NT Textual Criticis on Facebook and other spots.
My 2014 study is on Facebook, Will Kinney's article is above, on the Facebook thread, although he likely has a regular spot:

Facebook - King James Bible Debate
Luke 23:34
Then said Jesus,
Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.
And they parted his raiment, and cast lots.


Now, the evidence for this full verse, with the prayer, is absolutely overwhelming, only a person groping deep in the hortian fog can get as confused and rebellious against the pure word of God has James White. Burgon has a superb section on the verse, we will look for new material here.

Textual criticism of the New Testament (1897)
George Salmon
In these and several other cases of omission, a student who examines the evidence for himself, without having mastered WH's principles of dealing with it, would be likely to think that a bad reading had been adopted in the teeth of evidence, overpowering both in respect of the number and the antiquity of the witnesses in favour of the reading which the Church for many centuries had received. Nay, it would seem as if in the judgment of the new editors any evidence was good enough to justify an omission.

The evidence is overpowering.


Even Ehrman accepts the verse, referring to the full verse:

"It appears, then, that Luke: 23:34 was part of Luke's original text." - Misquoting Jesus, p. 160

Also the SBLGNT, one of the textcrit endeavors:

1. [verified: SBLGNT includes "ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς ἔλεγεν · Πάτερ, ἄφες αὐτοῖς, οὐ γὰρ οἴδασιν τί ποιοῦσιν" in text, but it is actually enclosed with Unicode half-brackets indicating that a variant reading (in this case omission) has been noted in the SBL apparatus - Ben]

From the Nazaroo site, from James Snapp, 2010


The former different confused position of James White is here:

King James Only Controversy (2009)

"profound theological implications ... What is highly significant here is the breadth of witnesses not containing this text. ... This witness at least should be kept in mind when placing theological weight upon this passage."


While the breadth of witnesses for inclusion is far broader, and omitting text is trivially easy, while adding text over various textlines and times and languages and regions is extremely difficult.

Ironically, White uses this verse as his springboard for criticizing "long-distance mind-reading" of the scribes. This would be a timely warning, except that it is something that James White himself does do, as James Snapp pointed out, on the Mark ending, see p. 320 for an example. Ironically, here White criticizes Ehrman, who has this verse right.

Remember, the hypocrite James White lauded Burgon's argumentation on 1 Timothy 3:16, yet the evidence here is that much more powerful from Burgon. Even many in the textual academy agree on this one, despite all the indoctrination.

The following was written by a scholar who was under Ehrman. A library trip will be necessary for the ... part.

Guardians of Letters: Literacy, Power, and the Transmitters of Early Christian Literature (2000)
Kim Haines-Eitzen

"... Constitutions of the Holy Apostles (2.3.16; 5.3.14), Gospel of Nicodemus (10), and the Acts of Philip also cite this verse. Marcion's Luke and Tatian's Diatessaron include the prayer in Luke's Gospel. These witnesses demonstrate that the prayer was known in the second century in Gaul, Alexandria, Palestine, Syria, and Rome."

"the prayer was known in the second century in Gaul, Alexandria, Palestine, Syria, and Rome."

This is only explainable by ... authenticity.


Even the supposed Alexandrian Origen is often focused upon as yet another key early witness. He has two references (maybe more per the review by Peter R. Rodgers of the Haines-Eitzen material).

[textualcriticism] Luke 23:34a - Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do
Sept 8, 2010
In that post, I highlight how the textual criticism mentality can lead to confusion.

Origen is in Peri Pascha, and:

Homily 2 on Leviticus
But it is said of the sin of the congregation, “if they are ignorant and the word concealed from their eyes and they do one thing of all the commands of the Lord which they ought not do,” (Cf. Lev 4.13) then it is also apparent that “the entire congregation” can sin through ignorance. The Lord also confirms this in the Gospels when he says, “Father, forgive them for they do not know what they are doing.”

Wieland has some here, with text, and some of these with multiple references. Take a look at these confirmed references, tons from the Ante-Nicene period.

A Textual Commentary on the Greek Gospels

Gospel of the Hebrews, Gospel of the Nazarenes, Diatessaron, Ignatius, Irenaeus, Marcion, Clement of Alexandria, Origen above and Peri Pascha, Hippolytus, Didascalia, Apostolic Constitutions, Eusebius, Pseudo-Basileus of Caesarea, Ambrose, Gregory of Nyssa, Hilarius, Acts of Philip, Pseudo-Clement, Acta Archelai/Hegemonius, Chrysostom, Pseudo-Justin, Hesychius of Jerusalem, Jerome, Cyril of Alexandria, Philogathus and a number of solid allusions.

Let's lay it out:

Gospel of the Hebrews
Gospel of the Nazarenes
Clement of Alexandria
Origen above and Peri Pascha
Apostolic Constitutions
Pseudo-Basileus of Caesarea
Gregory of Nyssa
Acts of Philip
Acta Archelai/Hegemonius
Hesychius of Jerusalem
Cyril of Alexandria
and a number of solid allusions

"The problem is to come up with a good explanation for a secondary addition of the words." (As we often see, as with the Mark ending, there is no sensible addition theory, not over such a wide range of languages and lines.)

The evidences are massive everywhere, mss and ECW. When there are a plethora of early witnesses, a few mss with an omission mean nothing, and they are, even if 3rd (P75) or 4th century, simply far too late to have any weight. Internal evidences are very fluid, reasons for omission are easy to conjecture, so that gets a lot of the modern ink. However, mind-reading the scribes is really not even necessary to understand the authenticity.

Another resource mentioned by Wieland is:

"A Disconcerting Prayer: On the Originality of Luke 23:34a" by Nathan Eubank
JBL 129, no. 3 (2010): 521-536

"In this essay I shall review the external evidence, arguing that proponents of the shorter reading have exaggerated their case. Then, after examining the formidable intrinsic evidence in favor of the longer reading, I shall turn to neglected transcriptional evidence that shows that Luke 23:34a was a problem passage in early Christianity."

The article is available from the author on request in 2010, not sure now.

Wieland is another textual criticism aficionado de facto agreeing that this is an omission corruption, shared by P75 and Vaticanus.

[textualcriticism] New article on Luke 23:34a
Wieland Willker - Sept, 2010

"Overall Lk 23:34 together with Lk 22:43-44 are two of the most important variants in the Gospels, perhaps THE two most important. If we accept these words to be genuine, which I am inclined to do (still with a big question mark, of course), then we must accept that P75/B suffered from some strange, selective, but serious recensional activity."

The fact that Wieland, knowing the evidences as above, stays a tad equivocal in favoring authenticity shows you how deep are the hortian deceptions.

One next step that would be helpful is to increase Will Kinney's already large number of ECW references .

My summary: easily a textbook case of the textual absurdity behind the modern versions, who follow the NA-UBS Critical Text in omitting the verses (or including them, often in the margin, and claiming they are not authentic.) Similar to the Mark ending in significance and overwhelming evidentiary support for the pure Bible.

Psalm 119:140
Thy word is very pure:
therefore thy servant loveth it.

Steven Avery