What you write in reference to Luke 24:42-43 is true. Whether the Lord ate part of a fish or not, it's not the all important issue that some anti-vegetarians have made it out to be. However, here is the text in 3 different forms:
1. They gave him a piece of broiled fish, and he took it and ate before them. Lk 24:42-43 RSV
Number 1 is the wording favored by NIV and most modern versions which have followed the text of Westcott and Hort. It is the one that drops any reference to the honeycomb.
oi de epedwkan autw ichthuoj optow meroj kai labwn enwpion autwn efagen.
2. And they gave him a pece of a broyled fisshe and of an hony combe. And he toke it and ate it before them. Lk 24:42-43 Tyndale
And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb. And he took it, and did eat before them. Lk 24:42-43 King James Version
Number 2 is the wording in the so- called "Byzantine text" or Majority text, and was the one used by the translators of KJV as well as Young's Literal Translation. Here are a couple variants of it:
I. oi de epedwkan autw ichthuoj optow meroj kai apo melissiou khriou kai labwn enwpion autwn efagen. II. oi de epedwkan autw ichthuoj optow meroj kai apo melissiou khrion kai labwn enwpion autwn efagen.
3. And they offered him a piece of a broiled fish, and a honeycomb. And when he had eaten before them, taking the remains, he gave to them. Lk 24:42-43 Douay-Rheims
And they proffered to him a part of a fish roasted, and an honeycomb. And when he had eaten before them, he took that that (was) left, and gave to them; Lk 24:42-43 Wycliffe
Number 3 is the wording in the so-called "Caesarean" Greek text, as well as the Latin Vulgate. Athanasius, the 4th century champion of the doctrine of the Trinity quotes the verse in this form. Here are some of the variants of the last part of this verse: I. kai fagwn enwpion autwn labwn ta epiloipa edwken autoij
II. kai ta epiloipa edwken autoij
III. kai pasin labwn edwken autoij
IV. labwn ta epiloipa edwken autoij
Perhaps there are even more variants. Why all the variants of this passage? One can only speculate. In any case, it is an interesting question.
A. J. Fecko