On some textual variants in the Gospels

  • Thread starter Thread starter patrick457
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
patrick457 said:
I’d be happy if someone brought up the so-called Western Non-Interpolations (which admittedly isn’t the very best term in the world). 😃
Click to expand...
I’m gonna do it meself. 😃

10.) Western Non-Interpolations

When Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort published their work The New Testament in the Original Greek in 1881, they divided existing Greek 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 types of text that we know today: the Alexandrian, the Byzantine, and the Western. (Some scholars have also proposed a fourth text, the Caesarean, but its very existence soon came into question by others.)

The Alexandrian text is associated with Egypt and is the one that predominates in most of the earliest surviving manuscripts (many of which admittedly came from Egypt, where hot and dry conditions helped preserve ancient texts which would normally have rotted away) and in Coptic versions. It was also the version used by the Alexandrian fathers such as Origen, Clement, St. Athanasius, Didymus the Blind, and St. Cyril. Out of the textual versions the Alexandrian is the most restrained: its readings tend to be shorter, and have a lower tendency to expand or paraphrase.

The Western text is mainly associated with the Latin West (north Africa, Italy, Gaul), although some manuscripts and versions exhibiting this text have also been found in the East such as Egypt and Syria. The version is apparent in the gospels, Acts, and the Pauline epistles; general epistles and Revelation probably did not have a Western form of text. In Greek, the text is found chiefly in manuscripts that also contain the text in Latin (such as Codex Bezae and [Codex Claromontanus](Codex Claromontanus); cf. also the later Augiensis and Boernerianus). In Latin, it is attested in Vetus Latina translations as well as Latin writers (such as Marcion, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyprian, Augustine, Jerome, Ambrose, Pelagius; but cf. also Justin Martyr). One of the definingcharacteristics of this version is how it plays loose with the text, favoring extensive paraphrase and expansion.

The Byzantine text is the form found in the largest number of surviving manuscripts, though not in the oldest: there are six manuscripts earlier than the 9th century which conform to the Byzantine text, but in most instances they only attest to the version in the gospels (cf. Codex Alexandrinus). The first writers to have cited the Byzantine text substantial New Testament quotations is St. John Chrysostom (ca. 349-407) and the Arian Asterius the Sophist (died ca. 341), although some Byzantine readings could already be found among earlier witnesses (who otherwise followed other text-types or none). This version seems to also underlie the Gothic translation by Ulfilas (d. 383) and the Syriac Peshitta (ca. 5th century), although both also exhibit Alexandrian and/or Western readings. The Byzantine text is a smooth combination of the characteristics of the Alexandrian and the Western texts. Byzantine readings tend to show a greater tendency toward smooth and well-formed Greek and display fewer instances of textual variation between parallel synoptic passages, being less likely to present difficult passages and more likely to harmonize.

The Caesarean text is a bit sketchy because there are no ‘pure’ Caesarean texts; instead what we have are manuscripts which display a consistent pattern of variant readings that are not found in other text-types but which otherwise ‘belong’ to the other texts. The existence of the Caesarean text is based mainly on the testimony of Origen (who settled in Caesarea after he was banished from Alexandria), who wrote about manuscripts of Matthew available to him in Caesarea reading “Jesus Barabbas” instead of simply “Barabbas” (which I’ve talked about in an earlier post). Otherwise the Caesarean readings have a mildly paraphrastic tendency that seems to place them between the more concise Alexandrian and the more expansive Western texts. Since we have no evidence for any common distinctive readings in the other books of NT, the Caesarean - if it does exist - might be limited only to the gospels.
 
As everybody knows, 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, 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. 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.”
 
patrick457 said:
As everybody knows, 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, 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. 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.”
Click to expand...
I have a copy of Westcott and Horts The New Testament in the Original Greek dated 1887. Is it more reliable than another Greek text I have called The Emphatic Diaglott according to the recension of Dr J J Griesbach?
 
Darryl_B said:
I have a copy of Westcott and Horts The New Testament in the Original Greek dated 1887. Is it more reliable than another Greek text I have called The Emphatic Diaglott according to the recension of Dr J J Griesbach?
Click to expand...
Griesbach’s is way older methinks; his critical edition of the New Testament was published in 1774-1775. I haven’t read either of these works so I can’t say which is more ‘reliable’.

Returning to topic:
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. 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.”
Click to expand...
Make that “longer ‘Neutral’/Alexandrian readings.” For the record I actually already introduced a Western Non-interpolation in this thread - in fact, it’s the very first variant I mentioned: the placement of the spear thrust before Jesus’ death in Alexandrian manuscripts of Matthew.

If we believe Hort’s theory, these “Non-interpolations” are in fact places in which readings have been interpolated into the ‘Neutral’ text (and usually the Byzantine text as well). Although Hort usually rejects Western readings, in this case he regards them as original, placing the reading of the Neutral text in double brackets.

There are 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 Codex Bezae and Vetus Latina versions, and in all cases Hort regards the extra words as “superfluous, and in some cases intrinsically suspicious.” These are (in bold):

Matthew 27:49 “And another, having taken a spear, pierced his side, and there came out water and blood.”

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 “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.”

The force of Hort’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.
 
11.) "Father, forgive them…"



And when they came to the place that is called The Skull, there they crucified him, and the criminals, one on his right and one on his left. And Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.”
  • Luke 23:33-34
Jesus’ prayer there I bet would be familiar to most Christians, since it holds the distinction of being the first of the so-called ‘Seven Last Words’. But here’s the thing: some manuscripts of Luke, including a number of early ones, do not have this saying.

The manuscripts which omit these words include Papyrus 75, the first corrector of Codex Sinaiticus (more specifically, the corrector deleted the words by curved marks; the second corrector reintroduced the reading), Vaticanus, the Greek text of Bezae (although the second corrector introduced the reading), and Washingtonianus. The Syriac Sinaiticus (late 4th century) and Coptic (Sahidic and Bohairic) manuscripts also omit the reading, as does Vetus Latina witnesses such as Codex Vercellensis (a, 4th century) and the Latin text of Bezae. Manuscripts and versions which have the reading meanwhile include Alexandrinus, Ephraemi, Sangallensis, Guelferbytanus B (Q, 5th century), Regius, Monacensis, Athous Lavrensis, the Curetonian Syriac, the Harklean Syriac.

In addition, witnesses which support the reading include the Diatessaron, the Latin version of Irenaeus, Origen, Eusebius, Hippolytus, the Didascalia Apostolorum, John Chrysostom, Jerome, Ambrose, and Cyril of Alexandria. (See Wieland Willker’s Commentary on Luke, TVU 380, for a full listing of the manuscripts and witnesses and possible quotes and allusions from the Fathers and other sources.) A curious thing is that a few writers who quote the saying, such as Epiphanius, Gregory of Nyssa and Philagathus of Cerami (10th century) have the word synchōrēson autois (“grant them,” “permit them,” “yield to them”) instead of aphes autois “forgive them.”

Stephen’s last words in Acts 7:60 (the sequel to Luke) is widely recognized as being highly similar to this saying:

And as they were stoning Stephen, whe called out, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” And falling to his knees he cried out with a loud voice, “Lord, do not hold this sin against them.” And when he had said this, he fell asleep.

In addition, Eusebius relates the story of the stoning of James the Just (Church History 2.23) taken from Hegesippus (ca. 110-180):

The aforesaid Scribes and Pharisees therefore placed James upon the pinnacle of the temple, and cried out to him and said: ‘You just one, in whom we ought all to have confidence, forasmuch as the people are led astray after Jesus, the crucified one, declare to us, what is the gate of Jesus.’ And he answered with a loud voice, ‘Why do you ask me concerning Jesus, the Son of Man? He himself sits in heaven at the right hand of the great Power, and is about to come upon the clouds of heaven.’

And when many were fully convinced and gloried in the testimony of James, and said, ‘Hosanna to the Son of David,’ these same Scribes and Pharisees said again to one another, ‘We have done badly in supplying such testimony to Jesus. But let us go up and throw him down, in order that they may be afraid to believe him.’ And they cried out, saying, ‘Oh! Oh! The just man is also in error.’ And they fulfilled the Scripture written in Isaiah, ‘Let us take away the just man, because he is troublesome to us: therefore they shall eat the fruit of their doings.’

So they went up and threw down the just man, and said to each other, ‘Let us stone James the Just.’ And they began to stone him, for he was not killed by the fall; but he turned and knelt down and said, 'I entreat you, Lord God our Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.'

And while they were thus stoning him one of the priests of the sons of Rechab, the son of the Rechabites, who are mentioned by Jeremiah the prophet, cried out, saying, ‘Stop. What are you doing? The just one prays for you.’ And one of them, who was a fuller, took the club with which he beat out clothes and struck the just man on the head. And thus he suffered martyrdom. And they buried him on the spot, by the temple, and his monument still remains by the temple. He became a true witness, both to Jews and Greeks, that Jesus is the Christ. And immediately Vespasian besieged them.

Epiphanius (Panarion 78.14.5) relates the same story of James’ death; interestingly, in this instance he also has synchōrēson autois instead of aphes autois: “And [James] knelt in prayer for those who had thrown him down and said: ‘Yield to them, for they know not what they do.’”
 
(Continued)

Early Christians were at a conundrum of sorts: Jesus’ plea for forgiveness was widely interpreted as referring to the Jews (Jewish Christian gospels such as the ‘Gospel of the Nazarenes’ and the ‘Gospel of the Hebrews’ supposedly make reference to thousands of Jews who became believers after witnessing Jesus make this prayer on the cross!), but at the same time there was also the idea that the siege of Jerusalem in AD 70 was divine retribution against the Jews for Jesus’ death. Did God not then listen to Jesus’ prayer? One of the solutions proposed to get around this difficulty is to interpret the siege of Jerusalem as a punishment not so much for Jesus’ death, but that of James the Just, something we can see in Eusebius’ quotation of Hegesippus’ account above, where he finishes the account of James’ death with a comment:

These things are related at length by Hegesippus, who is in agreement with Clement. James was so admirable a man and so celebrated among all for his justice, that the more sensible even of the Jews were of the opinion that this was the cause of the siege of Jerusalem, which happened to them immediately after his martyrdom for no other reason than their daring act against him.

In context, the vocabulary is typically Lukan and basically fits Luke’s thinking and motives - particularly the emphasis on forgiveness. It can also be noted that Luke uses Pater as an address in prayer several times, two more times in the passion narrative (22:42, 23:46). Those who then believe that the passage is original to Luke then believe that the passage is intentionally omitted in some manuscripts due to a number of factors, including the difficulty mentioned above - if Jesus asked that His Father forgive the Jews, why then did God still punish them? If Jesus predicted that judgment will fall upon Jerusalem (cf. Luke 19:41-44; 23:29-31), why would He choose to avert that judgment? - as well as the anti-Judaism prevalent in early Christianity. (I recommend here Nathan Eubank’s A Disconcerting Prayer: On the Originality of Luke 23:34a for more detailed arguments for the authenticity of the passage.)

The implication that Jesus absolved the Jews would have been very offensive to many Christians at that time in light of the strong anti-Jewish sentiments. So there were quite a number of patristic interpretations which try to tone down the impact of this hard saying, for example by proposing that the prayer did secure an opportunity for the Jews to repent, but their continued obstinacy demanded that punishment visit them anyway. Another is to linking the Jews with either Esau or the Pharaoh, while Jesus is connected with Jacob or Moses: Jesus showed compassion for the Jews just as Jacob showed pity for Esau and Moses to the Pharaoh, but both Esau and Pharaoh did not receive forgiveness in the end and are rejected. A third strategy is to juxtapose the prayer with Psalm 58 (59):5 LXX, which was interpreted by some Christians as David’s attempt to dissuade God from forgiving the Jews. As Theodoret (393-460) summed it, David “with the eyes of inspiration” saw the crucified Jesus asking forgiveness; loathing “the extraordinary degree of [the Jews’] impiety,” the horrified David in turn composes the psalm which begs: “And you, Lord God of hosts, God of Israel, pay attention to visiting all the nations; pity none of those who practice lawlessness,” which Theodoret interprets to mean as David “[begging] the Lord of hosts and God of Israel to leave the Jews to their own devices and transfer all his providence to the nations, illuminating them with the light of the knowledge of God.” As Eubanks comments:

Theodoret does not say whether he expects David’s prayer to countermand Jesus’ prayer successfully. Indeed, answering this question directly would doubtless produce an unsatisfactory result; surely Jesus’ prayer would trump David’s. Instead, Theodoret leaves the contradictory prayers suspended in their conflict, weakening the force of the prayer of the son of David by juxtaposing it to the prayer of David.

The variant reading “yield to them” instead of “forgive them” could also be motivated by these sentiments: the standard verb for forgiving in the Septuagint, the New Testament and subsequent writings was aphiēmi; by contrast, synchōreō never describes forgiveness in Christian literature. While there is some overlap between the two words (both words are used to describe leaving someone alone or allowing someone to do something), the reading synchōrēson autois had the ‘advantage’ of avoiding the suggestion that Jesus forgave (gasp!) the Jews, something more evident in the reading aphes autois. Eventually, this came to the point that Jesus is praised for His patience rather than His showing forgiveness on the cross.
 
Others, however, think that the passage’s emphasis on forgiveness would make it difficult to explain why scribes would choose to omit it. F.J.A. Hort for example opined:

Its omission, on the hypothesis of its genuineness, cannot be explained in any reasonable manner. Willful excision, on account of the love and forgiveness shown to the Lord’s own murderers, is absolutely incredible: no various reading in the NT gives evidence of having arisen from any such cause. …] Few verses of the Gospels bear in themselves a surer witness to the truth of what they record than this first of the Words from the Cross: but it need not therefore have belonged originally to the book in which it is now included. … Nevertheless … it has exceptional claims to be permanently retained, with the necessary safeguards, in its accustomed place.

The problem then is to come up with a good explanation for a secondary addition of the words. Some have suggested that perhaps the words were taken from either Stephen’s last words in Acts 7:60 or from Hegesippus’ account of James the Just’s death. But the difficulty is, why was this passage interpolated only in Luke and not also in Matthew and Mark, which are very similar at this point? And why (in the case of Stephen) with a different wording?

The only real difficulty in the text which points in favor of the shorter reading is that the prayer interrupts the flow of the narrative - the implied subjects of the verbs both before and after the prayer are Jesus’ (Roman) executioners. To be sure, the shift from the soldiers to Jesus and then back to the soldiers is a bit abrupt, which could suggest that a secondary source for the reading. On the other hand, supporters of the longer reading do agree that the saying is in some sense secondary - being inserted by Luke into his putative source/s, even if somewhat awkwardly.

Two others, who were criminals, were led away to be put to death with him. And when they came to the place that is called The Skull, there they crucified him, and the criminals, one on his right and one on his left. And Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.” And they cast lots to divide his garments. And the people stood by, watching, but the rulers scoffed at him, saying, “He saved others; let him save himself, if he is the Christ of God, his Chosen One!”

From a narrative point of view, Jesus words are probably directed to the Roman soldiers (the subjects before and after the passage in question), who obviously do not understand what is happening but is just doing their job. Nevertheless the early Christians as mentioned consistently read the verse as referring to the Jewish people; Philagathus of Cerami is one of the few writers who sees the soldiers as being the ones to whom Jesus is talking about, but then again he is quite late (11th century). Occasionally early commentators universalized the sin of the crucifixion, but if a specific culprit is mentioned, it is invariably the Jews.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top