Why not rain fire on them?

Going through Stapp's blog of variants, cometh a cluster around Luke 9:54 then 55-6. This is where James and John axe Jesus to pull fire from heaven upon a recalcitrant town. The KJV adds "as Elijah did" to v. 54, and injects "For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them" between vv. 55 and 56. Also KJV includes the Red Letter logion "you know not of what spirit you are" in v. 55.

Stapp supports KJV on Christ's words, but would footnote the other two. I think he's right... for Luke. Luke makes a to-do of the Spirit, even concocting the Pentecost story with that; the old creed, 1 Corinthians 15, had that it was Christ. So Christ talking gnomically of "spirit" in life fits Luke's thought well. But it also would make the anecdote difficult to readers.

Enter Stapp's homilists. They would relate the Apostles-to-be as like Elijah; and make clear why Jesus as secret-Christ on Earth was not (yet). The homilists were working from the para-Acts understanding of the great miracles of the first Saints, like in Hegesippus and in Mark 16:15-18, when Christ Himself perhaps was not known as present on Earth pre-Crucifixion. At the same time, the homilists must contend against the Infancy Gospel of Thomas which had Christ decidedly on Earth, putting opponents to death.

But I have another thought. The whole anecdote is (canonically) hapax to Luke and to those quoting from that Gospel. Luke like Hegesippus wants a unified Apostolate, which Luke would imbue with the Spirit; so there's no real motive to name names for disciples axin' stuupid queschins. But Luke had sources: Mark, ultimately, and probably Matthew too, who each did have disciples just-axin' (and getting slapped for it). Why not more?

Extant is Oxy 4009, which has bled into some Lukan MSS and fed the ancient homily "2 Clement". Also extant is Oxy 5575 which came to Justin. A pro-Petrine Gospel would support an anecdote as to make John and James more foolish.

Luke supplied the "spirit" comment, per Stapp. "Peter" would have had a wholly different comment. "For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them" will do. If so, that variant now in KJV is a harmony.