Dr. Theodore P. Letis:

As for the footnotes in the modern versions, they seem to be questioning the authenticity of every other verse with comments such as “not found in some ancient manuscripts” or “some manuscripts add,” without offering any explanation as to the value of these optional readings, or the various manuscripts they come from.

This tends to leave the average reader (unconsciously perhaps) with a doubtful attitude regarding what he can consider authoritative and in some sense final.

That rhetoric sounds great, until you remember that the original King James Version had this very thing. Luke 17:36 is a hotly debated passage and in its original 1611 printing of the King James Version, we read this:

This 36 verse is wanting in most of the Greek copies.

Here’s a scan that proves this. If there’s one thing I can’t stand, it’s when people use an argument to defend a point of view that on its own grounds cannibalizes their contention.