• In verse 32, parts of the tradition suggest reordering the words referring to Peter, the pronoun object of his rebuke. Order of words makes too little difference to argue the point.
• In the next verse (33) some redactors would insert an article before Peter's name or a second person pronoun addressing Peter. Perhaps, although, again, it makes little difference in the meaning of the reading.
• Then, in verse 34, some editors would replace the singular "anyone" or "a person" with a more nearly definite pronoun, "whoever" or "whosoever". Perhaps, if the former is too vague and the variant makes it a little more pointed. However, many more witnesses prefer staying with the text as received. Then, some Uncials and others want to change the verb "akolouthein" to read "elthein" while still others prefer to use both verbs, "elthein kai apokolouthein". However, the most reliable witnesses would retain the Textus Receptus.
• Verse 35 finds a few editors wanting to change the order and the pronouns of those "wanting to save their lives" to focus more on the ones possessing "their lives". Well, possibly, although there are only a few who have that idea. The second part of that verse (35) brings us many more suggested emendations. A few witnesses want to change "apolesei" to "apolese", and "ten psuchen autou" to be reordered to "ten eautou psuchen" with that change in the pronoun from "autou" to "eautou". The verb change from future active indicative to aorist active subjunctive might make sense and get closer to the original intended. Also, the alteration to make the pronoun more specific might as well. Another revision wants to change the genetive pronoun "autou" to an accusative "auten". I doubt it was that way originally. Most editors want to retain the text as received. Finally in this verse (35), some redactors omit the final 2 words in the clause, "emou kai" tou euaggeliou". The longer inclusion is more likely to have been the original intention.
• Verse 36's first redaction comes in the first verb, "ofelei". Some uncials and a majority of others would see the verb read, "ofelesei". Still others prefer to read, "ofelethesetai". Still many more reliable editors would retain the text as received. Thereafter, though would alter the pronoun we read as the subject of the enquiry, "anthropon", into a nomnitive case, "anthropos". That reading makes more sense as we read it that way anyway. Still, others suggest different readings of the words, "kerdesai" and zemiwthenai". The emendations could seem original, but the meanings would change little, regardless.
• Then, in verse 37, editors find different tenses of the verb "doi" preferable. Subjunctive or future or as is printed, they all convey similar if not identical nuances of the word. Changes are unnecessary.
• In the final (38th) verse, some parts of the tradition would omit "logous". Metzger (TCGNT) notes that "the reading without the word "logous" gives good sense . . , it is easier to account for the origin of the shorter reading as dues to accidental omission, facilitated by the similarity of the of the ending of the words "emous logous" than to account for the insertion of the word in a wide variety of different types of texts." Then some redactors would change the order of the words, "taute te moichalidi" while others would change a vocabulary word, "hamartolo" to read
• ponera". Well, possibly, since "ponera" does seem a little more graphic, if not extreme, as the text seems to indicate would be appropriate.
• Then near the end of that verse (38) a small part of the tradition would replace "meta" with "kai". Again, Metzger says that such a reading "appears to have arisen from scribal inattentiveness, or from the assimilation to the parallel in Lk 9.26."

(v. 31) And he began to teach them that it is necessary the son of man many things to suffer and to be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes and to be killed and after three days to rise. (v. 32) And with plainness the word he was speaking. And Peter having taken hold (of) him began to rebuke him. (v. 33) But he having turned and having seen the disciples of him rebuked Peter and says: lead under here behind me, Satan, because not are you thinking the things of God but the things of people. (v.34) And having summoned the crowd with the disciples of him he said to them: if anyone wishes behind me to follow let that one deny himself/herself and lift up the cross of him/her (pronoun links to the anyone) and follow me. (v. 35) For who wishes the soul of him to save will lose her; and who loses the soul of him for the sake of me and the gospel will save her. (v. 36) For what profits it a human the whole cosmos to gain and to cause loss to oneself with respect to the soul of him? (v. 37) For what might a human give with respect to exchange of the soul of him? (v. 38) For who if he/she may be ashamed with respect to me and my words in this generation the adulterous and sinful one, also the son of man will be ashamed with respect to him when he may come in the glory of the father of him with the angels the holy ones.

And he began to teach (LE - instruct) them that it is necessary (LE - inevitable that) the son of man greatly suffer (LE - endure) and to be rejected by the elders and the head priests and the scribes and to be killed and after three days to be raised up (LE - raise up). And with confidence/boldness/plainness of speech (LE - publicly) the word he was speaking. And having taken hold (LE - aside) him Peter began to criticize/express disapproval/rebuke (LE - rebuked) him. Having turned around and having seen (LE - turning and seeing) his disciples he rebuked Peter and says (LE - saying), "Go away behind me, Satan, because not are you thinking/understanding (LE - mind) the things of God, but the things of man/humanity." And having summoned (LE - calling) the crowd to come near, including his disciples, he said to them, "If anyone (LE - whoever) desires (LE - chooses) to follow (LE - come) after me let him (=that person) choose to live in a selfless way (LE - renounce himself) and let him (that person) take up his (that person's) cross and follow me. For whoever, at any time (LE - who for ever), desires (LE - chooses) to save his own soul/life he shall lose it. But rather whoever loses (LE - may lose) his soul/life for the sake of me and the gospel/good news will save it. For what may a man(one) benefit (LE - profit) the whole world to gain and to forfeit (LE - damage) his life? For what may a man (one) give in exchange for the his life? Whoever, at any time (LE - who for ever), is (LE - may be) ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the son of man will also be ashamed of him when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.