Missing Verses in Old Manuscripts

[patrick457]

I will never believe that the disciples were illiterate and incapable of writing down their eyewitness accounts.

A real Matthew wrote what he saw as an eye witness–same for John.

Mark was mostly from Peter and Luke was mostly from Paul–Peter was also an eyewitness and Paul knew the disciples as well as many other christians who were eyewitnesses.

I should note that the ancient idea of ‘writing’ something is different from ours. When you composed a document or a letter in the ancient world, usually you wouldn’t it write it out by your own hand: you would dictate it to a hired professional scribe (an amanuensis) who would jot it down for you. We know for instance St. Paul employed a guy named Tertius to write the letter to the Romans (16:22), and we can infer from some of his other letters that he was not the one who was personally writing them as well (cf. Galatians 6:11) - perhaps he was again using Tertius or some other scribe. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to assume that maybe the other NT authors also have had scribes handy: in the Eastern Church, there’s also a popular tradition that the deacon Prochorus (Acts 6:5) acted in that capacity to John.

Plus I think the whole excuse about how the Aramaic-speaking, peasant ‘illiterate’ apostles could not have composed the Greek gospels is overused.* (In fact, I’d question the idea some scholars have about ‘illiteracy’ in the ancient world.) Personally I would allow for the idea of multiple ‘authors’ being involved (i.e. the ultimate ideas behind the gospels derive from eyewitnesses like Matthew or John themselves, even if the ones who actually put down the gospel into papyrus and published it were other people, perhaps their disciples - which might explain things like the eloquent Greek of John’s gospel). I don’t think that necessarily compromises the belief that the gospels were by Matthew, Mark, Luke or John, any more than Paul using amanuenses would compromise his authorship of his letters.

• The meaning of agrammatoi (‘unlettered’) in Acts 4:13 is not so much that Peter and John could not read or write, but rather, that they were ‘not formally educated’; i.e. they had no formal rabbinic training. The council interrogating them would not have immediately known from the brief verbal exchange whether these men could read or write, nor was that the focus of their amazement. The source of their amazement rather is that they, who were not formally trained scholars, could hold their own in argument with some of the experts of the nation.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

I can agree that that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John could have used scribes–I would guess that maybe Matthew could read and write–I don’t think that the Romans would have hired illiterate tax collectors?

I could also see where maybe the letter to the Hebrews might have had some of Paul’s thoughts–but was changed by a very literate scribe…maybe Barnabas or Apollos–maybe they were like co-authors with Paul?

Hebrews has the most literate writing in the new Testament–it tells why Jesus died and why His sacrifice for us is perfect.

The shrinkage of the bible I think is problematic–when do you quit saying that this or that is and added gloss?

The same people who argue that the gospels were written by more than just the disciple witnesses are the same people who will say that glosses were added to the original multiplicity of authors! They want to have it both ways!

Maybe some people out there would like to list bible verses that have been taken out that they like.

My favorite that has nothing to do with doctrine is in Tobit where the dog wags his tail!

And when they do what is the result–the bible gets smaller and smaller.

Are there such things as glosses–of course–are there as many as modern scriptural scholars say there is–I think not.

Those same time of biblical scripture scholars would eliminate the longer ending of Mark. What if Mark did indeed write the addition a few years later–are you telling me that addition would not be inspired? The Catholic Church believes that the longer ending of Mark is inspired. Many Protestant scholars don’t believe it is–who do you trust–the Catholic Church or anybody else?

Of course there are many areas where the Catholic Church hasn’t definitively spoken–in those areas there is freedom for theologians to have a range of views.

As a convert I like the part at the pool of Bethsaida where it says an angel stirred the waters.

I also like where Jesus says “this kind can only be driven out with fasting and prayer.”

If modern scripture scholars were never reined in you would wind up with truncated gospels like what Thomas Jefferson produced. Take out whatever you want to give you the bible you want.

My favorite translation of all is where St. Jerome in the Our Father says "give us this day our “supersubstantial” bread.

While “daily bread” makes the most sense–I like the truth conveyed in “supersubstantial”.

If supersubstantial was prayed and believed by everyone during the the time of the Reformation–how would things be different today?

How would thing be different if Luther hadn’t added “alone” to justification by faith?

That is one case where and “addition” to the scriptures makes a big difference.

I think that the subtractions to the scriptures over the years in newer an newer bible translations have been more harmful that additions–though both can cause harm.

All of these are my opinions. Others might have different opinions. Sometimes maybe all of us should say more than we currently do–“I just don’t know–maybe we’ll learn the answer when we’re in heaven”.

I just noticed how some of my sentences and paragraph 6 and 7 s got into a different order when I edited them–I guess I’m not good at arranging my own material.

Now a person might say that since a sentence didn’t seem to make sense in that order that it must be an addition and taken out–the truth is I just didn’t put it in the right place when I was typing–now if that is possible–it seems to me that the same thing could have happened when people we transcribing the originally written gospels.

We wind up with verses being thrown out where at least parts of them were the original thoughts of the gospel writers!

Could such a thing be possible?

 

[steve53]

Writing was a big deal in those days.

Parchment and papyrus were VERY expensive.

People just didn’t make careless mistakes.

Especially concerning religion.

On other boards, people parse things through these ancient documents and suggest that someone mis-copied something, or wrote a word that they didn’t mean to. Then they build a whole speculative edifice in that assumption.

Heck, people have made careers out of speculation of this nature.

Big waste of time.

Like I said, writing was a venerated activity and only the best, brightest, and most well-trained were allowed to do it.

They didn’t make mistakes.

 

[nmgauss]

Writing was a big deal in those days.

Parchment and papyrus were VERY expensive.

People just didn’t make careless mistakes.

Like I said, writing was a venerated activity and only the best, brightest, and most well-trained were allowed to do it.

They didn’t make mistakes.

There is one ancient document that was written on recycled parchment. The original text was erased and a new one written over the top of the old one.

Scribing was a very mind-dulling activity, and in the first few centuries of Christianity, scribes of quality were hard to find. Often the only available scribes were commissioned to produce new copies no matter their qualifications and were not trained specially for this kind of task. As a result, scholars have detected a lot of sloppy work. Later on, when monasteries took on the task of producing copies, their scribes were specially trained and the quality of their work improved. Of course, theological views of the monasteries could get inserted.

Sometimes the theological views of the scribes got inserted into the text. Or at the request of the commissioners, their theological views got inserted.

 

[steve53]

What is your source for the information on early Christian copiers?

I was talking more about the second temple period and before, and the routine they developed.

 

[nmgauss]

What is your source for the information on early Christian copiers?

I was talking more about the second temple period and before, and the routine they developed.

Sidnie White Crawford in her book, “Rewriting Scripture in Second Temple Times” is reviewed as follows:
The biblical manuscripts found at Qumran, contends Sidnie White Crawford, reflect a spectrum of text movement from authoritative scriptural traditions to completely new compositions. Treating six major groups of texts, she shows how differences in the texts result from a particular understanding of the work of the scribe—not merely to copy but also to interpret, update, and make relevant the Scripture for the contemporary Jewish community of the time.

This scribal practice led to texts that were “rewritten” or “reworked” and considered no less important or accurate than the originals. Propounding a new theory of how these texts cohere as a group, Crawford offers an original and provocative work for readers interested in the Second Temple period.
logos.com/product/17005/rewriting-scripture-in-second-temple-times

Notice that she says that differences in the texts of the Second Temple period resulted from scribes not merely copying but also interpreting, updating, and making the Scripture relevant for the contemporary Jewish community of the time.

This phenomenon has been detected in Christian scribe work. Thus later editions of the Gospels were not necessarily the same as the originals because of scribal alterations, either on purpose or inadvertently.

 

[steve53]

Hm.

Well, it would take a gutsy copiest to change the text of Isaiah, say. Or any religious text in the Second Temple period.

In a new and growing religion like Christianity, where there were no rules and no real central governing body for the first century or so, it is more understandable.

My central point is that these scribes did not misspell words, use sloppy grammar, or make mistakes.

If you argue that point to some end, you have to be on VERY firm grounds- i.e. discussing the TF.

But I’m done with this topic.

 

[nmgauss]

Well, it would take a gutsy copiest to change the text of Isaiah, say. Or any religious text in the Second Temple period.

This comes from Wikipedia on Isaiah:
The exact relationship between the Book of Isaiah and any such historical Isaiah remains the subject of ongoing scholarly discussion.[a] One widespread view sees parts of the first half of the book (chapters 1–39) as originating with the historical prophet, interspersed with prose commentaries written in the time of King Josiah a hundred years later; with the remainder of the book dating from immediately before and immediately after the end of the exile in Babylon, almost two centuries after the time of the original prophet

Two references cited are the following:
De Jong, Matthijs J., Isaiah Among The Ancient Near Eastern Prophets: A Comparative Study of the Earliest Stages of the Isaiah Tradition and the Neo-Assyrian Prophecies, BRILL, 2007, p. 13–17 [1]
JPS Hebrew English Tanakh, Jewish Publication Society, 2000

In a new and growing religion like Christianity, where there were no rules and no real central governing body for the first century or so, it is more understandable.

Indeed before the Christian Church was confirmed as the official Roman Catholic Church, anybody could write anything, but the change did not happen until Emperor Theodosius the Great established Catholicism as the official state church about 350 years after Jesus death. Since Christians far outnumbered Jews, there was a whole lot of writing going on.

My central point is that these scribes did not misspell words, use sloppy grammar, or make mistakes.

Since the number of copies of Jewish scripture was miniscule compared to the number of copies eventually created of Christian scriptures, there was much less opportunity to screw things up.

 

[patrick457]

-The shrinkage of the bible I think is problematic–when do you quit saying that this or that is and added gloss?

The same people who argue that the gospels were written by more than just the disciple witnesses are the same people who will say that glosses were added to the original multiplicity of authors! They want to have it both ways!

-Maybe some people out there would like to list bible verses that have been taken out that they like.

My favorite that has nothing to do with doctrine is in Tobit where the dog wags his tail!

And when they do what is the result–the bible gets smaller and smaller.

I believe I’ve pointed out once how that really appears in only one particular version (out of many) of Tobit: Jerome’s. So nothing’s been ‘taken out’ in that sense. If you’re reading a translation Tobit made from the Vulgate and you didn’t find the bit about the dog’s tail, you might say that the translator omitted something, but if you’re reading a translation of one or more of the Greek versions (as many modern Bibles like the NAB or the RSV or the NJB do), it obviously wouldn’t contain the bit about the dog’s tail wagging because it was never in those versions in the first place. So I don’t think this is a good example to use here.

Are there such things as glosses–of course–are there as many as modern scriptural scholars say there is–I think not.

Those same time of biblical scripture scholars would eliminate the longer ending of Mark. What if Mark did indeed write the addition a few years later–are you telling me that addition would not be inspired? The Catholic Church believes that the longer ending of Mark is inspired. Many Protestant scholars don’t believe it is–who do you trust–the Catholic Church or anybody else?

I think you’re confusing ‘inspired’ here with ‘authentic’ (i.e. written by the same author). Sure, the longer ending of Mark is not ‘authentic’ in the sense that it was probably not composed by the same person who wrote 1:1 to 16:8, but whether it is ‘inspired’ or not is a whole other category entirely. So when people discuss Mark 16:9-20 or even the story of the adulteress in John 8, the issue is usually about the authenticity of those passages, not their inspiration. The latter issue is a religious matter, which is really outside the field of expertise of most scholars today.

Of course there are many areas where the Catholic Church hasn’t definitively spoken–in those areas there is freedom for theologians to have a range of views.

As a convert I like the part at the pool of Bethsaida where it says an angel stirred the waters.

Here’s the deal. As you might know, most manuscripts have it, others - which happens to include the early surviving ones we have - don’t, still others have only part of it (the second half of verse 3) while omitting the other part (verse 4). That there are some manuscripts which have that bit of verse 3 (“waiting for the stirring of the water”) but not verse 4 might suggest that these were originally two separate interpolations.

Now Tertullian (3rd century), St. Ephrem the Syrian and Didymus the Blind (4th century) did know about the angel, but Didymus notably contradicts the passage we have: in the version of the explanation he knew, the water was stirred by the angel only once a year. That, and due to there not being any single verbal correspondence to John 5:4 with his reference in the original Greek suggests that while he knew of the tradition, he was not acquainted with the actual text containing that tradition.

My favorite translation of all is where St. Jerome in the Our Father says "give us this day our “supersubstantial” bread.

While “daily bread” makes the most sense–I like the truth conveyed in “supersubstantial”.

If supersubstantial was prayed and believed by everyone during the the time of the Reformation–how would things be different today?

Nitpick: the version of the Our Father used in prayer and the Liturgy is a different, older translation from the one produced by Jerome. So, while in Vulgate Matthew you read panem nostrum supersubstantialem, in the Mass you say panem nostrum cotidianum/quotidianum. It’s the same reason why we say Gloria in excelsis Deo although Jerome’s translation of Luke reads Gloria in altissimis Deo - the older translations were retained in the Liturgy.

How would thing be different if Luther hadn’t added “alone” to justification by faith?

Well, we’re really talking about the man who translated “Jesus wept” as “Jesus’ eyes overflowed.”

All of these are my opinions. Others might have different opinions. Sometimes maybe all of us should say more than we currently do–“I just don’t know–maybe we’ll learn the answer when we’re in heaven”.

Amen.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

patrick457: just curious–are there any verses that are commonly taken out of the text of the bible in translations after the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls that you believe belong there?

 

[patrick457]

patrick457: just curious–are there any verses that are commonly taken out of the text of the bible in translations after the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls that you believe belong there?

I do of a few verses which some manuscripts from Qumran omit, but so far I don’t know of any version which decided to omit ‘important’ verses here and there just because they aren’t found in the DSS. (I’ll still have to look.) Now I do know of a case where a few Bibles added a passage. This is how 1 Samuel 10:27-11:1 appears in the received Masoretic (Hebrew) text (ESV):

(10:26) Saul also went to his home at Gibeah, and with him went men of valor whose hearts God had touched. (27) But some worthless fellows said, “How can this man save us?” And they despised him and brought him no present. But he held his peace. (11:1) Then Nahash the Ammonite went up and besieged Jabesh-gilead, and all the men of Jabesh said to Nahash, “Make a treaty with us, and we will serve you.” (2) But Nahash the Ammonite said to them, “On this condition I will make a treaty with you, that I gouge out all your right eyes, and thus bring disgrace on all Israel.” (3) The elders of Jabesh said to him, “Give us seven days’ respite that we may send messengers through all the territory of Israel. Then, if there is no one to save us, we will give ourselves up to you.” (4) When the messengers came to Gibeah of Saul, they reported the matter in the ears of the people, and all the people wept aloud.

You would notice that the narrative switches abruptly from Samuel’s reluctant appointment of Saul as king (10:19-27) to Nahash’s siege of Jabesh (11:1ff). Now one of the manuscripts of Samuel found in Qumran - 4QSam[sup]a[/sup]/4Q51, from Cave 4 - has an additional full paragraph (this time I’m quoting the NRSV):

(10:26) Saul also went to his home at Gibeah, and with him went warriors whose hearts God had touched. (27) But some worthless fellows said, ‘How can this man save us?’ They despised him and brought him no present. But he held his peace. Now Nahash, king of the Ammonites, had been grievously oppressing the Gadites and the Reubenites. He would gouge out the right eye of each of them and would not grant Israel a deliverer. No one was left of the Israelites across the Jordan whose right eye Nahash, king of the Ammonites, had not gouged out. But there were seven thousand men who had escaped from the Ammonites and had entered Jabesh-gilead. About a month later, (11:1) Nahash the Ammonite went up and besieged Jabesh-gilead; and all the men of Jabesh said to Nahash, ‘Make a treaty with us, and we will serve you.’

Before the Dead Sea Scrolls were found, this passage was virtually unknown (it isn’t found in any other version or manuscript), except for a reference to it by Josephus (Antiquities 6.68-71) - which would suggest that Josephus’ copy of Samuel perhaps had the additional episode as well.

A month later, however, [Saoul’s] war against Naas, king of the Ammanites, was the beginning of universal honor for him. For this king had inflicted many calamities on those Judeans living across the Jordan river, invading them with a large and bellicose army. He reduced their cities to slavery, subduing them for the present by strength and violence. Moreover, by his astuteness and cunning, he weakened them so that they would be unable thereafter to escape from their slavery to him by revolting. For he cut out the right eyes of those who surrendered to him under oath and those whom he took by the law of war. He did this, so that, when their left eye was covered by their shields, they would be completely helpless.

When he had done these things to those beyond the Jordan, the king of the Ammanites campaigned against those called the Galadenes and pitched camp at the mother-city of the enemy, that is Iabis = Jabesh]. He sent messengers to direct them to give themselves up on the condition that their right eyes would be gouged out. Otherwise, he threatened to lay siege to and wreck their cities. The choice was theirs: did they prefer to have only a small part of their bodies cut off, or be slain completely?

If there’s an example of difference in the OT, it’s gotta be Jeremiah. To explain, the Septuagint (Greek) version of Jeremiah is on the whole about one-eighths shorter than the Masoretic (Hebrew) version: verses and sections are either omitted or arranged differently. It is now thought that they really reflect two versions of the work: the older, shorter version underlying the Greek translation, and the later, expanded version which became the basis for the Masoretic version. Now two out of nine manuscripts of Jeremiah found in Qumran agree with the Greek version rather than the Hebrew in that they contain the ‘shorter’ version (two others, meanwhile, agree with the Masoretic). AFAIK there’s no popular Bible which gives the shorter version of Jeremiah though. They all still follow the Masoretic.

 

[patrick457]

To illustrate what I just said, here’s Jeremiah 10 for example (again from the ESV):

(10:1) Hear the word that the LORD speaks to you, O house of Israel. (2) Thus says the LORD:
“Learn not the way of the nations,
nor be dismayed at the signs of the heavens
because the nations are dismayed at them,
(3) for the customs of the peoples are vanity.
A tree from the forest is cut down
and worked with an axe by the hands of a craftsman.
(4) They decorate it with silver and gold;
they fasten it with hammer and nails
so that it cannot move.
(5) Their idols are like scarecrows in a cucumber field,
and they cannot speak;
they have to be carried,
for they cannot walk.
Do not be afraid of them,
for they cannot do evil,
neither is it in them to do good.”

(6) There is none like you, O LORD;
you are great, and your name is great in might.
(7) Who would not fear you, O King of the nations?
For this is your due;
for among all the wise ones of the nations
and in all their kingdoms
there is none like you.
(8) They are both stupid and foolish;
the instruction of idols is but wood!

(9) Beaten silver is brought from Tarshish,
and gold from Uphaz.
They are the work of the craftsman and of the hands of the goldsmith;
their clothing is violet and purple;
they are all the work of skilled men.

(10) But the LORD is the true God;
he is the living God and the everlasting King.
At his wrath the earth quakes,
and the nations cannot endure his indignation.

(11) Thus shall you say to them: “The gods who did not make the heavens and the earth shall perish from the earth and from under the heavens.”

The Septuagint (and those two DSS manuscripts of Jeremiah) omit the verses - 6-8 and 10 - in bold.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

I don’t say if in doubt throw it out–but if in doubt–leave it in.

Should Catholic bible translation teams have this philosophy?

I think that most of the time the Septuagint should be relied on but not always.

The real hard part in translation is deciding when to follow what.

I will say this–if the Catholic Church can universally have the same lectionary–hopefully one day it can have the same scriptures for personal study and the liturgy.

The NABRE is attempting to do this for the Latin Rite in the US–they’re going to make one more translation of the New Testament and a light edit of the whole bible.

It may take years–hopefully they will be successful.

 

[nmgauss]

Here is a list verses that were not originally in the New Testament:
Source: Misquoting Jesus, by Dr. Bart Ehrman, pages 265-266
1 John 5:7—There are three that bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one.

John 8:7— Let the one who is without sin among you be the first to cast a stone at her.

John 8:11— Neither do I condemn you. Go and sin no more.

Luke 22:44 — In his anguish Jesus began to pray more earnestly, and his sweat became like great drops of blood falling to the ground.

Luke 22:20 — And in the same way after supper Jesus look the cup and said, “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.”

Mark 16:17 — These signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will cast out demons and they will speak with new tongues.

Mark 16:18 — And they will take up snakes in their hands, and if the drink any poison, it will not harm them, and they will lay their hands on the sick and they will become well.

John 5:4 — For an angel of the Lord went down at certain times into the pool and disturbed the waters; and whoever was the firs to step in when the water was disturbed was healed of whatever disease he had.

Luke 24:12 — But Peter rose up and ran to the tomb, and stooping down to look in, he saw the linen clothes by themselves. And he went away to his own home, marveling at what had happened.

Luke 24:51 — And when Jesus blessed them he departed from them and he was taken up into heaven.

If these 10 verses are not in the oldest copies of the Gospels, then it makes sense to delete them from the Bible.

 

[patrick457]

Here is a list verses that were not originally in the New Testament:
Source: Misquoting Jesus, by Dr. Bart Ehrman, pages 265-266
1 John 5:7—There are three that bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one.

Now this is the so-called Johannine Comma. And yeah, pretty much almost everyone agrees that this is an obvious interpolation.

John 8:7— Let the one who is without sin among you be the first to cast a stone at her.

John 8:11— Neither do I condemn you. Go and sin no more.

Mark 16:17 — These signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will cast out demons and they will speak with new tongues.

Mark 16:18 — And they will take up snakes in their hands, and if the drink any poison, it will not harm them, and they will lay their hands on the sick and they will become well.

These aren’t so much verses but sections - the longer ending (Mark 16:9-20) and the pericope adulterae (John 7:52-8:11). And yes, they’re also two of the more famous ones.

 

[patrick457]

(Continued)

Luke 22:20 — And in the same way after supper Jesus look the cup and said, “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.”

…]

Luke 24:12 — But Peter rose up and ran to the tomb, and stooping down to look in, he saw the linen clothes by themselves. And he went away to his own home, marveling at what had happened.

Luke 24:51 — And when Jesus blessed them he departed from them and he was taken up into heaven.

Now these ones are a bit more tricky. These are three of the so-called ‘Western non-interpolations’.

Let me explain. When Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort published The New Testament in the Original Greek in 1881, they classified existing manuscripts of the NT into four text-types: the Neutral, the Alexandrian, the Syrian, and the Western. Eventually it was recognized that ‘Neutral’ and ‘Alexandrian’ are just two names for the same thing (specifically, two phases of the same text), and the ‘Syrian’ text was relabelled, thereby giving us the three versions of NT manuscripts that we know today: the Alexandrian, the Byzantine (Westcott-Hort’s ‘Syrian’ text), and the Western. (Some scholars have also proposed a fourth text, the Caesarean, but its very existence soon came into question by others.) Generally speaking, the Alexandrian text - the version that predominates in most of the earliest surviving manuscripts we have (many of which came from Egypt, where the hot and dry conditions helped preserve ancient texts which would normally have rotted away) - has a tendency to have the shorter readings out of the different versions, while the Western text has a freer, looser approach, favoring extensive paraphrase and expansion. (The Byzantine is midway between the two.)

Now Westcott and Hort heavily preferred what they called the ‘Neutral’ text exhibited by Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus (which would now be grouped under the ‘Alexandrian’ rubric). They relied on the principle of lectio brevior est potior, the idea that since scribes would have showed more tendency to embellish and add than delete and subtract, the shorter reading is more likely to be closer to the original than a longer one. However, they soon found out that while the ‘Neutral’ text generally exhibits the shorter readings and the Western the longer ones, there are some places in the New Testament where these two text-types seem to go against their natural tendencies. In other words, in these particular places the ‘Neutral’ text has a longer reading than the Western. It is a good rule of criticism that, when manuscripts go against their tendencies, the significance of this reading is increased.

This is where Westcott and Hort are at a dilemma: under the rule of lectio brevior, when the “Western” text preserves a short reading, that reading is more likely to be original than the longer ‘Neutral’/Alexandrian reading - which they considered to be interpolations. But apparently they couldn’t admit that their favored manuscripts would exhibit secondary readings, they gave these shorter Western readings a quite cumbersome name: “Western Non-interpolations” instead of “Neutral/Alexandrian Interpolations.”

The force of Hort and Westcott’s argument was so strong that for three-quarters of a century most editions and translations (including the RSV and the New English Bible) had omitted the nine main non-interpolations. Then the early 3rd century Papyrus 75 (containing text from Luke and John) was found, which included all the non-interpolations for which it was extant. Such was the respect for this manuscript (for one, it’s ancient) that in 1968 the editorial committee of the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament decided to abandon the theory altogether, resulting in the passages re-asserting their place in critical editions and translations.

 

[patrick457]

(Continued)

Hort distinguished between two classes of ‘Western Non-interpolations’. The first are the full-fledged ‘non-interpolations’, of which there are nine (all placed in double brackets by Hort). Omissions of these readings are supported by the Greek-Latin manuscript Codex Bezae and Vetus Latina (Latin translations made before St. Jerome’s Vulgate) versions, and in all cases Hort regards the extra words as “superfluous, and in some cases intrinsically suspicious.” These are (in bold):

(Matthew 27:48-50) And one of them at once ran and took a sponge, filled it with lsour wine, and put it on a reed and gave it to him to drink. But the others said, “Wait, let us see whether Elijah will come to save him.” And another, took a spear and pierced his side, and there came out water and blood. And Jesus cried out again with a loud voice and yielded up his spirit.

(Luke 22:19b-20) And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.”

(Luke 24:2-3) And they found the stone rolled away from the tomb, but when they went in they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus.

(Luke 24:6) Why do you seek the living among the dead? He is not here, but has risen.

(Luke 24:12) But Peter rose and ran to the tomb; stooping and looking in, he saw the linen cloths by themselves; and he went home marveling at what had happened.

(Luke 24:36) As they were talking about these things, Jesus himself stood among them, and said to them, “Peace to you!”

(Luke 24:40) And when he had said this, he showed them his hands and his feet.

(Luke 24:51-52) While he blessed them, he parted from them and was carried up into heaven. And they worshiped him and returned to Jerusalem with great joy…

The second class consists of readings which, due either to shifts in the manuscript evidence or to differences in the way he assesses them, Hort regards as doubtful enough to place in single brackets but not to reject as clearly spurious. I’m not going to list all of them here (a fuller list can be found on this page), but some are:

Matthew 6:15 “For if you forgive others their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you, but if you do not forgive others their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.”

Matthew 13:33 “He told them another parable. “The kingdom of heaven is like leaven that a woman took and hid in three measures of flour, till it was all leavened.””

Matthew 21:44 “And the one who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces; and when it falls on anyone, it will crush him.”

Matthew 23:36 “You blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and the plate, that the outside also may be clean.”

Mark 2:22 “And no one puts new wine into old wineskins. If he does, the wine will burst the skins—and the wine is destroyed, and so are the skins. But new wine is for fresh wineskins.”

Mark 10:2 “And [the] Pharisees came up and in order to test him asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?””

Mark 14:39 “And again he went away and prayed, saying the same words.”

Luke 5:39 “And no one after drinking old wine desires new, for he says, ‘The old is good.’”

Luke 10:41-42 “Martha, Martha, you are anxious and troubled about many things, but one thing is necessary. Mary has chosen the good portion, which will not be taken away from her.”

Luke 12:21 “So is the one who lays up treasure for himself and is not rich toward God.”

Luke 22:62 “And he went out and wept bitterly.”

Luke 24:9 “And they remembered his words, and returning from the tomb they told all these things to the eleven and to all the rest.”

John 4:9 “For Jews have no dealings with Samaritans.”

 

[patrick457]

If these 10 verses are not in the oldest copies of the Gospels, then it makes sense to delete them from the Bible.

It really depends. Everyone thinks that ‘older is better’ and that ‘shorter is better’, but that may not always be the case. (Especially in the case of the latter, the principle of lectio brevior is actually not true in some cases: I’d point out the issue surrounding the book of Tobit for example, where the longer version is probably more ‘original’ than the shorter one.)

This may be unfamiliar to you, but the whole issue regarding critical editions of the NT really reminds me of the issues surrounding the critical edition of the Ramayana. I think the same issue there might apply also here: should we be thinking of reconstructing the ‘original’ version of a given work, or should we have an inclusive view of the tradition as multivocal and ever-evolving - which would allow for the existence of much of these later disputed verses?

BTW we should really talk about these manuscripts some time. (Or we could do so now, if you want to. ) As you can see I can’t shut up about them.