Matthew Chapter 23

[dcingoranelli]

I just noticed in reading Matt 23 that there is no verse 14. So this may be a silly question, but I am wondering why that is the case.

 

[Publisher]

Depends on which translation you’re reading…some of the newer translations do not include verse 14 as it’s not in some of the older/best manuscripts.

Usually those verses that have a number but no text that has been ommited is found in a foot note.

 

[patrick457]

I just noticed in reading Matt 23 that there is no verse 14. So this may be a silly question, but I am wondering why that is the case.

What Publisher said. The NET footnote for the missing verse says:

The most important mss (א B D L Z Θ Ë1 33 892* pc and several versional witnesses) do not have 23:14 “Woe to you experts in the law and you Pharisees, hypocrites! You devour widows’ property, and as a show you pray long prayers! Therefore you will receive a more severe punishment.” Part or all of the verse is contained (either after v. 12 or after v. 13) in W 0102 0107 Ë13 Ï and several versions, but it is almost certainly not original. The present translation follows NA27 in omitting the verse number as well, a procedure also followed by a number of other modern translations. Note also that Mark 12:40 and Luke 20:47 are very similar in wording and are not disputed textually.

 

[Todd_Easton]

We don’t have the original Bible texts, only copies of copies manually transcribed by error-prone Catholics. Understandably, no two copies are exactly alike. By comparing the available copies, Bible scholars try to separate the wheat of the original Bible texts from the chaff of the transcribers errors to create a version as close to the original Bible texts as possible. Numbers assigned to Bible verses to such a created version back in the 1550s by Robert Estienne became the modern standard. However, Bible scholarship has improved over the years and some of the verses originally assigned numbers back in the 1550s have since been judged to be additions due to transcription error, perhaps notes written in the margin of a copy that a later transcriber incorporated into the text of his copy. Modern Bibles sometimes remove those verses judged to be erroneous additions, leaving the holes in the numbering of the verses that you have noticed, such as 1, 2, 4, 5.

Additionally, some verses assigned standard numbers back in the 1550s have since been judged to be out of their original order due to transcription error. Modern Bibles sometimes rearrange those verses back to what has been judged their original order but retain their old assigned verse numbers so that verses numbers appear out of order, such as 1, 2, 4, 3, 5.

I think these inconveniences (missing verse numbers and out of order verse numbers) are small compared to the confusion that would arise from the introduction of two or more competing verse numbering systems.

 

[COPLAND_3]

My theory is that many of the authors wrote more than one copy of their accounts, which means that some of those additions could have been from the same author, but sort of their own interpolation. The ending to the Gospel of Mark comes to mind, since its a lengthy portion that is left out of some manuscripts. Who’s to say Mark didn’t actually make more than one copy, and in more than one language. I would have if I was writing such an important account. And there is no doubt that I would have added some things the more copies that I made.

 

[patrick457]

My theory is that many of the authors wrote more than one copy of their accounts, which means that some of those additions could have been from the same author, but sort of their own interpolation. The ending to the Gospel of Mark comes to mind, since its a lengthy portion that is left out of some manuscripts. Who’s to say Mark didn’t actually make more than one copy, and in more than one language. I would have if I was writing such an important account. And there is no doubt that I would have added some things the more copies that I made.

I’m more of the opinion that Mark did intend to end at 16:8, but otherwise my own thinking is very close. While we often think of the Biblical text in terms of an original ur-text from which sprung different text families, in reality the further you go back in its literary history the less uniformity there is: there was diversity before uniformity set in, when a standard was set. In other words there might not be an original text at all, but original texts.

 

[farpinho]

I’m more of the opinion that Mark did intend to end at 16:8, but otherwise my own thinking is very close. While we often think of the Biblical text in terms of an original ur-text from which sprung different text families, in reality the further you go back in its literary history the less uniformity there is: there was diversity before uniformity set in, when a standard was set. In other words there might not be an original text at all, but original texts.

I agree that both the short ending and the long ending don’t seem to fit the rest of the Gospel, the endings seem inconsistent with the whole rest of the text… but, on the other hand, doesn’t it also seem that the Gospel ends too suddenly, as if it had a “cliffhanger” the way it ends?

 

[PJM]

=dcingoranelli;9700524]I just noticed in reading Matt 23 that there is no verse 14. So this may be a silly question, but I am wondering why that is the case.

I think its your bible?

From The Douay
Matt 23:
[11] He that is the greatest among you shall be your servant. [12] And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be humbled: and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted. [13] But woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you shut the kingdom of heaven against men, for you yourselves do not enter in; and those that are going in, you suffer not to enter. 14] Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites: because you devour the houses of widows, praying long prayers. For this you shall receive the greater judgment. [15] Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you go round about the sea and the land to make one proselyte; and when he is made, you make him the child of hell twofold more than yourselves.

God Bless,
Pat/PJM

 

[patrick457]

I agree that both the short ending and the long ending don’t seem to fit the rest of the Gospel, the endings seem inconsistent with the whole rest of the text… but, on the other hand, doesn’t it also seem that the Gospel ends too suddenly, as if it had a “cliffhanger” the way it ends?

In which case it’s very consistent with the themes that have been expressed throughout the gospel. Quoting myself from the other thread:

Three of the women Mark had introduced just a while ago in the narrative figure prominently in this final pericope: Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome, all of whom watched the dying Jesus “from a distance,” and two of whom saw where Joseph of Arimathaea buried Him. The women go to the tomb intending to anoint Jesus’ body, but all they find inside was a young man in white claiming that “Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified…has been raised.” (Ēgerthē, the so-called ‘divine passive’ which we also see in 14:28; some translations like the ESV above unfortunately obscure this by turning the aorist passive into an active: “he is risen.”) The young man also adds that “the disciples and Peter” will “see” (one of those words in Mark’s gospel which is pregnant in meaning; cf. 13:26) Jesus again in the Galilee. The followers of Jesus who have repeatedly failed to understand anything throughout the course of the story, the disciples who ran away at Gethsemane and the Peter who disowned Jesus in the high priest’s courtyard (note the order the young man names them) are now to be given a fresh start: they will meet Jesus again in the place where it all began (1:16-20).

Once again, however, a dark cloud seems to loom over this great promise: the women are so struck with “fear” that they run away and fail to relay the young man’s words. And the irony (there it is again!) goes two ways, which harkens back to two overall themes of the gospel. Whereas back when Jesus forbade people to proclaim who He was or what He did they did so anyway, now when the young man explicitly orders the women to tell the male disciples news of Jesus’ resurrection, they could not even say a word. Also, Jesus never appears in person to confirm what the young man has claimed. We are told that He was raised, but Jesus has disappeared from the narrative, seemingly for good. This is why I’ve described Mark’s ending as a literal cliffhanger: the narrative moves at such a rapid pace (as mentioned, Mark sure does love using the words “and immediately” a lot) that when we get to the ending, we have to catch our breath to keep ourselves from falling off the figurative cliff.

Mark’s gospel thus ends enigmatically in confusing ambiguity. Just as Jesus has been isolated throughout the gospel yet continually puzzling everyone around Him, the gospel itself concludes by compounding the mystery, as if it were challenging the audience with the same questions Jesus posed to His disciples. Richard A. Burridge (Four Gospels, One Jesus? A Symbolic Reading) once said: “Mark’s narrative as we have it now ends as abruptly as it began. There was no introduction or background to Jesus’ arrival, and none for his departure. No one knew where he came from; no one knows where he has gone; and not many understood him when he was here.” By the end of the gospel, Mark encourages his listeners to carefully reflect on everything they have just heard, implicating the audience into the story (again quoting Burridge): “Mark’s story of Jesus becomes the story of his followers, and their story becomes the story of the readers. Whether they will follow or desert, believe or misunderstand, see him in Galilee or remain staring blindly into an empty tomb, depends on us.”