On some textual variants in the Gospels

[Gorgias]

“The complete books of the old and the new Testament with all their parts, as they are listed in the decree of the said council and as they are found in the old Latin Vulgate edition, are to be received as sacred and canonical.” - First Vatican Council, Session 3, 2:5-6

All of the verses as contained in the Latin Vulgate at the Council of Trent are Holy Scripture. The Church has spoken.

Hmm… your statement and 1VC’s statement aren’t saying the same things. 1VC talks about books and lists (of books) and an example of a canonical edition. Your statement, however, speaks of verses. Apples and oranges, my friend. You can’t use 1VC’s statement to make a claim about text at the verse level. If you do, then it isn’t ‘the Church has spoken’, but rather, ‘Zekariya has spoken’ …

 

[patrick457]

(Continued)

The next best thing are the uncial manuscripts from the 4th century or later like Codex Vaticanus (B), Codex Sinaiticus (א) or Codex Alexandrinus (A, ca. 400-440). Because we only have three papyri of Mark (all incomplete, with only one dating from before the 4th century), our knowledge of the text of this gospel is more dependent on the uncials than is the case with the other gospels, where early papyri and more substantial comments in the writings of the Church Fathers supplement the uncial texts. And here we begin to see some variance.

Both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus lack any ending and end with 16:8. To be more exact, Sinaiticus ends on a page which is part of a four-page replacement-sheet on which the text of Mark 14:54-Luke 1:56 was written by the proof-reader of the manuscript. The text on these four pages was not written by the scribe who wrote the text on most other pages (known as Scribe A); the pages containing Mark 14:54-Luke 1:56 written by that copyist were removed, and are not extant.*

(A little footnote. Modern analysis identifies at least three or four scribes who worked on Sinaiticus: Scribe A (who was responsible for most of the OT and NT and the Epistle of Barnabas), Scribe B (who wrote the Prophets and the Shepherd of Hermas), and Scribe D (responsible for Tobit and Judith, the first half of 4 Maccabees, the first 2/3 of the Psalms, and the first five verses of Revelation). More recently, it has been argued that ‘Scribe B’ may actually be two people: B2 (who wrote the Minor Prophets and Hermas) and B1 (responsible for all the other work attributed to B). The one who wrote the replacement sheet for Mark 14:54-Luke 1:56 is Scribe D.)

On the replacement-pages, Scribe D first writes normally, but he then switches to compact lettering until Mark 15:19. At that point, the lettering begins to be stretched out until the end of Mark 16:8 in column 10. The text of Luke 1:1-56, by contrast is written in very compact lettering. This indicates that the copyist who made these four replacement-pages in Sinaiticus began by writing the text from Luke and then went back to add the text from Mark. After accidentally omitting 15:47-16:1 (amounting to about five lines of text), he had to stretch his lettering to avoid leaving a blank column between Mark 16:8 and Luke 1:1. Apparently the scribe was concerned to fill in the column, which is why he added a decorative design at the end.

http://img823.imageshack.us/img823/818/marcusct.jpg
Folio 227b, showing Mark 16:2-8-Luke 1:1-17. Note the second column with the decoration and the title euangelion kata Markon.
One might be tempted to say: what if Scribe A originally wrote one of the different endings to Mark, which prompted D to rewrite the whole section? The thing is, even if one is compressing the text, the space is not sufficient to include the Longer Ending. This means that it is practically certain that the reason for the cancel sheet was not to remove the ending from the text.

Codex Vaticanus meanwhile has a rather unusual blank column after ending at 16:8 and the title kata Markon (“according to Mark”). There are three other blank columns in Vaticanus (in the Old Testament section) but they are each due to incidental factors in the production of the codex - a change to the column-format, a change of scribes, and the conclusion of the Old Testament portion of the text - whereas the blank column between Mark 16:8 and the beginning of Luke seems to be deliberately placed. It is possible that the scribe who worked on the text knew of different possible endings, but deliberately chose to omit it - although he seems to have allowed for the possibility of a later insertion of one or the other longer endings.

http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/3623/jpgs068markending.jpg

 

[Zekariya]

Hmm… your statement and 1VC’s statement aren’t saying the same things. 1VC talks about books and lists (of books) and an example of a canonical edition. Your statement, however, speaks of verses. Apples and oranges, my friend. You can’t use 1VC’s statement to make a claim about text at the verse level. If you do, then it isn’t ‘the Church has spoken’, but rather, ‘Zekariya has spoken’ …

Rather… You forgot to read the statement of the Council.

“If anyone does not receive as sacred and canonical the complete books of sacred scripture with all their parts, as the holy council of Trent listed them, or denies that they were divinely inspired : let him be anathema.” - First Vatican Council, Canon 1:2

“Now this supernatural revelation, according to the belief of the universal church, as declared by the sacred council of Trent, is contained in written books and unwritten traditions, which were received by the apostles from the lips of Christ himself, or came to the apostles by the dictation of the holy Spirit, and were passed on as it were from hand to hand until they reached us. The complete books of the old and the new Testament with all their parts, as they are listed in the decree of the said council and as they are found in the old Latin Vulgate edition, are to be received as sacred and canonical.” - First Vatican Council, Session 3, 2:5-6

 

[patrick457]

(Continuing)

Now when he rose early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, from whom he had cast out seven demons. She went and told those who had been with him, as they mourned and wept. But when they heard that he was alive and had been seen by her, they would not believe it.
After these things he appeared in another form to two of them, as they were walking into the country. And they went back and told the rest, but they did not believe them.
Afterward he appeared to the eleven themselves as they were reclining at table, and he rebuked them for their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they had not believed those who saw him after he had risen. And he said to them, “Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. And these signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up serpents with their hands; and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover.”
So then the Lord Jesus, after he had spoken to them, was taken up into heaven and sat down at the right hand of God. And they went out and preached everywhere, while the Lord worked with them and confirmed the message by accompanying signs. (Mark 16:9-20 ESV)

We could ask, why would the scribes of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus choose to reject the inclusion of the longer ending? One possible answer could be found in Eusebius of Caesarea’s (yes, the Eusebius who wrote Church History) response to the questions of Marinus (which is repeated by St. Jerome in his response to Hedibia, as well as in comments appearing in Victor of Antioch) about the gospels. Marinus had expressed his concern that Mark 16:9 contradicts Matthew 28:1, to which Eusebius replies:

This can be solved in two ways. The person not wishing to accept [these verses] will say that it is not contained in all copies of the Gospel according to Mark. Indeed the accurate copies conclude the story according to Mark in the words of the young man seen by the women and saying to them, Do not be afraid. You seek Jesus …] they were afraid. For the end is here in nearly all the copies of Mark. What follows is found but seldom, in some copies but by no means in all. It could be considered superfluous, especially if it should turn out to contradict the witness of the other evangelists. This would be a response that avoided and altogether set aside an unnecessary question.

But another [solution], on no account daring to reject anything whatever which is, under whatever circumstances, met with in the text of the Gospels, will say that here are two readings (as is so often the case elsewhere); and that both are to be received, - inasmuch as by the faithful and pious, this reading is not held to be genuine rather than that; nor that than this.

Jerome repeats essentially what Eusebius had said:

Why is it that the evangelists narrate matters relating to the resurrection and appearance of the Lord differently? … There are two ways of solving this question. Either we do not receive the testimony of Mark because it is found in few Gospel books, nearly all Greek books lacking this final chapter - especially since it seems to narrate matters different from and contrary to the other Gospels - or we reply that both are true.

In other words, some 4th-century readers might have expressed concern about certain elements in the Longer Ending involving chronology, location and events which were in seeming contradiction to statements appearing in other gospels.

… That’s it for today. I’ll continue tomorrow, or maybe later. (There’s still lots to talk about concerning this issue.) Steve, you’ve just given me a chore here. It may not be so obvious (especially from these longwinded posts) but I’ve got a life too, you know!

 

[Gorgias]

Rather… You forgot to read the statement of the Council.

“If anyone does not receive as sacred and canonical the complete books of sacred scripture with all their parts, as the holy council of Trent listed them, or denies that they were divinely inspired : let him be anathema.” - First Vatican Council, Canon 1:2

I thought of including this notion in my original post.

In any case, “with all their parts” would seem to include consideration of attempted omissions or additions (e.g., on the level of Marcan endings, perhaps), but would not speak to textual variants. In other words, at the level of a word or a verse, the council seems not to be making the statement that you’re making.

In fact, if you want to play that game, then it’s necessary to look at 20th century magisterial documents:

“when Our Predecessor published the Encyclical Letter Providentissimus Deus, hardly a single place in Palestine had begun to be explored by means of relevant excavations. Now, however, … codices of the Sacred Books have been found and edited with discerning thoroughness” (Divino Afflante Spiritu, 11-12)

“The great importance which should be attached to this kind of criticism was aptly pointed out by Augustine, when, among the precepts to be recommended to the student of the Sacred Books, he put in the first place the care to possess a corrected text. ‘The correction of the codices’ - so says this most distinguished Doctor of the Church - ‘should first of all engage the attention of those who wish to know the Divine Scripture so that the uncollected may give place to the corrected.’ In the present day indeed this art, which is called textual criticism and which is used with great and praiseworthy results in the editions of profane writings, is also quite rightly employed in the case of the Sacred Books, because of that very reverence which is due to the Divine Oracles. For its very purpose is to insure that the sacred text be restored, as perfectly as possible, be purified from the corruptions due to the carelessness of the copyists and be freed, as far as may be done, from glosses and omissions, from the interchange and repetition of words and from all other kinds of mistakes, which are wont to make their way gradually into writings handed down through many centuries.” (Ibid., 17)

So, if you’re asserting that 1VC is telling us to stick only to the Vulgate of that day, I think it’s fair to say that 1VC isn’t saying what you think it’s saying…

 

[Zekariya]

I thought of including this notion in my original post.

In any case, “with all their parts” would seem to include consideration of attempted omissions or additions (e.g., on the level of Marcan endings, perhaps), but would not speak to textual variants. In other words, at the level of a word or a verse, the council seems not to be making the statement that you’re making.

In fact, if you want to play that game, then it’s necessary to look at 20th century magisterial documents:

“when Our Predecessor published the Encyclical Letter Providentissimus Deus, hardly a single place in Palestine had begun to be explored by means of relevant excavations. Now, however, … codices of the Sacred Books have been found and edited with discerning thoroughness” (Divino Afflante Spiritu, 11-12)

“The great importance which should be attached to this kind of criticism was aptly pointed out by Augustine, when, among the precepts to be recommended to the student of the Sacred Books, he put in the first place the care to possess a corrected text. ‘The correction of the codices’ - so says this most distinguished Doctor of the Church - ‘should first of all engage the attention of those who wish to know the Divine Scripture so that the uncollected may give place to the corrected.’ In the present day indeed this art, which is called textual criticism and which is used with great and praiseworthy results in the editions of profane writings, is also quite rightly employed in the case of the Sacred Books, because of that very reverence which is due to the Divine Oracles. For its very purpose is to insure that the sacred text be restored, as perfectly as possible, be purified from the corruptions due to the carelessness of the copyists and be freed, as far as may be done, from glosses and omissions, from the interchange and repetition of words and from all other kinds of mistakes, which are wont to make their way gradually into writings handed down through many centuries.” (Ibid., 17)

So, if you’re asserting that 1VC is telling us to stick only to the Vulgate of that day, I think it’s fair to say that 1VC isn’t saying what you think it’s saying…

I am not at all discounting the study of extent manuscripts. My post was partly in jest about Vatican I having already decided what we are to consider Scripture. I didn’t mean to discount textual studies at all.

 

[patrick457]

In other words, some 4th-century readers might have expressed concern about certain elements in the Longer Ending involving chronology, location and events which were in seeming contradiction to statements appearing in other gospels.

Picking up where I left off:



Specifically, Marinus had asked Eusebius that “[h]ow is it, that according to Matthew [28:1], the Savior appears to have risen ‘in the end of the Sabbath;’ but according to Mark [16:9], ‘early the first day of the week’?” Jerome in his turn was also replying to pretty much the same question:

Here you [Hedibia] ask first why Matthew said that, “But when the evening of the Sabbath had begun to dawn, on the first day of the following week the Lord rose again”, and Mark relates that his resurrection happened in the morning, thus writing, “However when he rose again, on the first day of the week, in the morning Mary Magdalen arrived, from whom he had expelled seven demons: and she departing announced to those who were mourning and weeping with her. And these hearing that he was alive, and that she had seen him, did not believe in him”.

A third writer who repeated what Eusebius said is Victor of Antioch (ca. AD 425), author of a commentary on Mark:

In certain copies of Mark’s gospel, next comes, ‘Now when [Jesus] was risen early the first day of the week, He appeared to Mary Magdalene,’ a statement which seems inconsistent with Matthew’s narrative. This might be met by asserting, that the conclusion of Mark’s gospel, though found in certain copies, is spurious. However, that we may not seem to betake ourselves to an off-hand answer, we propose to read the place thus: ‘Now when [Jesus] was risen:’ then, after a comma, to go on, ‘early the first day of the week He appeared to Mary Magdalene.’ In this way we refer [Mark’s] ‘Now when [Jesus] was risen’ to Matthew’s ‘in the end of the sabbath,’ (for then we believe Him to have risen) and all that comes after, expressive as it is of a different notion, we connect with what follows. Mark relates that He who ‘arose (according to Matthew) in the end of the Sabbath,’ was seen by Mary Magdalene ‘early’.

You’d notice that both Eusebius, Jerome and Victor speak as if there weren’t too many manuscripts containing the Longer Ending in their day. (In fact, Eusebius says that “the accurate copies conclude” at 16:8.) Which would of course be the reverse of the situation now: most copies of Mark in Greek we have today contain it.

A second possibility for the rejection of the inclusion of the Longer Ending might be due to perceived difficulties if certain “sign gifts” might be claimed in support of some revived form of prophetic leadership, partcularly neo-Montanism. Since such groups might use the passage as proof-text to bolster their claims of miraculous signs and advanced prophetic revelation over against established orthodoxy, removal or replacement of the passage might have been seen by some as the optimal solution.

 

[patrick457]

(Continued)

Let’s now move to manuscripts containing the Longer Ending, shall we?

As I said earlier, most manuscripts and versions we have today contain it. The earliest of these are uncials from the 5th century: Codex Alexandrinus, Codex Bezae (D), and Codex Washingtonianus (W, aka the Freer Gospel). Codex Ephraemi also once contained the Longer Ending (something proved by counting the lines), but the page containing it is now lost.

http://img706.imageshack.us/img706/6451/alexandrinus.jpg
Page from Codex Alexandrinus showing Mark 15:37-16:16 (Longer Ending marked).

http://img560.imageshack.us/img560/3217/freer.jpg
Mark 16:1-12 from Codex Washingtonianus.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Mark 16:6-15 from Codex Bezae. The Longer Ending begins at line 11.

In some manuscripts, the Longer Ending is actually preceded by introductory comments noting to the effect that some earlier copies do not have it, such as “There are also these things being carried after ‘for they were afraid’” or “In certain of the copies the Evangelist up to here is finished; up to here also Eusebius the Pamphylian canonized (or, ‘measured’; this is in reference to the Eusebian Canons originally containing no provision for verses 9-20); then in others, these things also are carried.” (See picture below)

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
An annotation, followed by Mark 16:9-13 from Minuscule 1
Fifty-nine commentary manuscripts also contain a comment by Victor of Antioch:

Notwithstanding that in very many copies of the present Gospel, the passage beginning, ‘Now when [Jesus] was risen early the first day of the week, He appeared first to Mary Magdalene,’ be not found (certain individuals having supposed it to be spurious), yet we, at all events, inasmuch as in very many we have discovered it to exist, have, out of accurate copies, subjoined also the account of our Lord’s Ascension (following the words ‘for they were afraid’), in conformity with the Palestinian exemplar of Mark which exhibits the Gospel verity: that is to say, from the words, ‘Now when [Jesus] was risen early the first day of the week,’ etc., down to ‘with signs following. Amen.’

 

[patrick457]

(Continued)

The version of the Longer Ending contained in Washingtonianus (aka the Freer Gospel) is to be noted, because it contains a very curious reading. If anyone of you has read the NAB, you probably already know this one.

[But] later, as the eleven were at table, he appeared to them and rebuked them for their unbelief and hardness of heart because they had not believed those who saw him after he had been raised. (“And they excused themselves, saying, ‘This age of lawlessness and unbelief is under Satan, who does not allow the truth and power of God to prevail over the unclean things dominated by the spirits [or, does not allow the unclean things dominated by the spirits to grasp the truth and power of God]. Therefore reveal your righteousness now.’ They spoke to Christ. And Christ responded to them, ‘The limit of the years of Satan’s power is completed, but other terrible things draw near. And for those who sinned I was handed over to death, that they might return to the truth and no longer sin, in order that they might inherit the spiritual and incorruptible heavenly glory of righteousness. But) [g]o into the whole world and proclaim the gospel to every creature. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved; whoever does not believe will be condemned. These signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will drive out demons, they will speak new languages. They will pick up serpents [with their hands], and if they drink any deadly thing, it will not harm them. They will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover.” (Mark 16:14-18 NAB)

The so-called Freer Logion is also known to St. Jerome, who quoted part of it in Against the Pelagians 2.15:

In certain manuscripts, and especially in the Greek codices, next to Mark, at the end of his gospel, it is written: Afterward, when the eleven were reclining, he appeared to them, and he reproached their incredulity and their hardness of heart, because they did not believe those who had seen him risen. And they made excuses, saying: This age of iniquity and incredulity is {under Satan}, who through unclean spirits does not allow the true power of God to be apprehended. For this reason, reveal your righteousness now.

Note that Codex Washingtonianus is our only surviving independent attestation of the reading apart from Jerome’s testimony, although there seems to have been more copies containing the variant in his day, as the quote implies. That being said, while the variant is interesting, it most likely has no claim to be original. Instead, it is thought to be the work of a scribe (most likely from the 2nd or 3rd century) who wanted to soften Jesus’ rebuke of the Eleven in 16:14.

http://img827.imageshack.us/img827/4967/freer02.jpg
Mark 16:12-17 from Codex Washingtonianus (Freer Logion underlined)

Κακεινοι απελογουντε λεγοντες οτι, Ο αιων ουτος της ανομιας και της απιστιας υπο τον Σαταναν εστιν, ο μη εων τα υπο των πνευματων ακαθαρτα την αληθειαν του θεου καταλαβεσθαι δυναμιν· δια τουτο αποκαλυψον σου την δικαιοσυνην ηδη· εκεινοι ελεγον τω Χριστω και ο Χριστος εκεινοις προσελεγεν οτι, Πεπληρωται ο ορος των ετων την εξουσιας του Σατανα, αλλα εγγεζει αλλα δινα, και υπερ ων εγω αμαρτησαντων παρεδοθην εις θανατον, ινα υποστρεψωσιν εις την αληθειαν και μηκετι αμαρτησωσιν, ινα την εν τω ουρανω πνευματικην και αφθαρτον την δικαιοσυνης δοξαν κληρονομησωσιν. Ἀλλά …

… Once again, I’ll take a break here and leave the rest for tomorrow. Y’all happy now?

 

[patrick457]

… Once again, I’ll take a break here and leave the rest for tomorrow. Y’all happy now?

Not exactly tomorrow , but I’ll continue, if just to give this a proper closure and we all can rest.

The other ending is the so-called Shorter Ending (aka the Intermediate Ending, if you consider the conclusion at 16:8 to be the ‘short ending’), which goes something like (ESV):

But they reported briefly to Peter and those with him all that they had been told. And after this, Jesus himself sent out by means of them, from east to west, the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation.

This ending is found in a few witnesses: in fact, in most of the copies which have the Shorter Ending, it precedes the Longer Ending. The one exception is the Latin (Vetus Latina) Codex Bobiensis (k), dating from the 4th century but is based on a much earlier text (the text shows paleographic marks of having been copied from a 2nd-century papyrus). The manuscript has the Shorter Ending (in a somewhat garbled form, as one can see from the transcription below) but not the Longer Ending. More specifically, Bobiensis omits verse 8b (“and they said nothing to anyone for they were afraid”), linking the ending directly with the earlier half of the verse.



Omnia autem quaecumque praecepta erant et qui cum puero (= petro) erant breuiter exposuerunt posthaec et ipse · *h[esus] adparuit et ab oriente[m] · usque · usque in orientem (= occidentem) · misit per illos · sanctam · et incorruptam · ha [praedicationis (= praedicationem)] · salutis aeternae · amen ·

Now all the things which they had been commanded they reported briefly to those who also were with (Peter). And after these things (Jesus) himself appeared; he sent out through them, from east to (west), the holy and imperishable (proclamation) of eternal salvation, Amen.

If one wants to get technical, there is some slight variation among the wording of the Shorter Ending across different manuscripts. One noteworthy variant are the words ephanē (autois) (“appeared (to them)”), thereby yielding: “And after this, Jesus appeared (to them), sending out through them…” Notice also Codex Bobiensis’ adparuit.

Speaking of Bobbiensis, this particular manuscript also has a unique reading between 16:3 and 16:4 describing the resurrected Jesus ascending to heaven with angels:

et sabbato exacto abierunt et adtulerunt aromata ut eum unguerent et uenerunt prima sabbati mane dicentes quis nobis reuoluet lapidem ab osteo Subito · autem ad horam tertiam tenebrae diei factae sunt per totum orbem terrae et descenderunt de caelis angeli et surgent (-ntes?, -nte eo?, surgit?) in claritate uiui d[e]i simul ascenderunt cum eo et continuo lux facta est Tunc illae accesserunt ad monimentum et uident reuolutum lapidem fuit enim magnus nimis

And the sabbath having passed, they went away and brought spices to anoint him. And they came early in the first of the sabbaths, saying, “Who will roll away for us the stone out of the entrance?” But suddenly, at the third hour of the day, there was darkness throughout the world, and angels descended from the heavens, and rising (or “as he was rising,” reading surgente eo) in the glory of the living God they ascended together with him; and immediately it became light. Then they approach the tomb, and they see that the stone has been rolled away - for it was very large…

This interpolation is somewhat reminiscent of the resurrection account in the apocryphal Gospel of Peter:

But during the night (the dawning of the Lord’s Day), as the soldiers were keeping guard two by two every watch, there was a great voice from the heaven, and they saw the heavens open up, and two men coming down having much light and approaching the burial-place. Now the stone which had been cast against the entrance, having rolled away on its own, made way in part, and the burial-place was opened and both the young men entered in. When therefore the soldiers saw, they awakened the centurion and the elders (because they were also there, keeping guard), and, while reporting what they had seen, again they see three men coming out of the tomb, and the two supporting one, and a cross following them; and of the two the head reached as far as heaven, but that of the one being led out by the hand by them surpassing the heavens. And they were hearing a voice from the heavens, saying, “Have you preached to those who are sleeping?” and obedience was heard from the cross: “Yes.”

 

[patrick457]

If I may add: out of these two, almost no one thinks that the Shorter Ending is ‘original’. For one, it is not attested in any Patristic writing (by contrast, there are some references - both claimed and definite - to the Longer Ending in the writings of some Church Fathers). Plus, the very first sentence - “[the women] reported briefly to Peter and those with him all that they had been told” - seemingly contradicts the verse immediately preceding it (“they said nothing to anyone for they were afraid”). As we have seen, Codex Bobiensis attempts to smoothen out this problem by eliminating verse 8b altogether. So therefore, when it comes to the ending of Mark, more focus is given on the Longer Ending.

There is actually a book specifically dedicated to this very topic: Perspectives on the Ending of Mark: Four Views. You have four different authors presenting different opinions on the whole matter. Again, Wieland Willker’s very comprehensive paper.

 

[patrick457]

5.) Jesus Barabbas

Now on the occasion of the feast the governor was accustomed to release to the crowd one prisoner whom they wished. And at that time they had a notorious prisoner called [Jesus] Barabbas. So when they had assembled, Pilate said to them, “Which one do you want me to release to you, [Jesus] Barabbas, or Jesus called Messiah?” For he knew that it was out of envy that they had handed him over.

(Matthew 27:15-18 NAB-RE)

In a few manuscripts of Matthew at this point, Barabbas is given the name “Jesus.” (Iēsoun [ton] Barabban) In a way this kind of makes sense, since Barabbas is a simple patronymic (“son of 'Abba,” which could serve as a pun with the phrase “son of [the] father”). A footnote in the New English Translation (NET) for verses 16 and 17 say:

tc Although the external evidence for the inclusion of “Jesus” before “Barabbas” (in vv. 16 and 17) is rather sparse, being restricted virtually to the Caesarean text (Θ 1f 700* pc sy[sup]s[/sup]), the omission of the Lord’s name in apposition to “Barabbas” is such a strongly motivated reading that it can hardly be original. There is no good explanation for a scribe unintentionally adding ᾿Ιησοῦν (Iēsoun) before Βαραββᾶν (Barabban), especially since Barabbas is mentioned first in each verse (thus dittography is ruled out). Further, the addition of τὸν λεγόμενον Χριστόν (ton legomenon Christon, “who is called Christ”) to ᾿Ιησοῦν in v. 17 makes better sense if Barabbas is also called “Jesus” (otherwise, a mere “Jesus” would have been a sufficient appellation to distinguish the two).

tc Again, as in v. 16, the name “Jesus” is supplied before “Barabbas” in Θ f1 700* pc sy[sup]s[/sup] Or[sup]mss[/sup] (Θ 700* lack the article τόν ton] before Βαραββᾶν Barabban]). The same argument for accepting the inclusion of “Jesus” as original in the previous verse applies here as well.

This particular variant is known to Origen. In his Commentary on Matthew (Patrologia Graeca 13, col. 1772), Origen shows his familiarity with manuscripts reading “Jesus Barabbas” in his day (there were apparently more such copies than we have now), and even then, he dismissed it on theological grounds as an heretical scribal error, arguing defensively that no sinner or evildoer could have ever been called ‘Jesus’ in Scripture:

In many copies it is not contained that Barabbas was also called Jesus, and perhaps rightly, so that the name of Jesus may not be suited to any of the unrighteous. For in such a great multitude of Scriptures we know of no Jesus who was a sinner, as we find in other names of righteous men, so that unrighteous men also are found of the same name, as for instance the apostle Judas the Zealot and Judas the patriarch, and Judas Maccabaeus, all praiseworthy men - but Judas the traitor!

In a few copies, there is a marginal comment for verse 16 reading (also appearing in Patrologia Graeca 17, col. 307), reading in part:

In many ancient copies which I have met with I found Barabbas himself likewise called Jesus; that is, the question of Pilate stood there as follows, “Whom do you want me to release to you: Jesus Barabbas, or Jesus who is called Christ;” for apparently the paternal name of the robber was Barabbas, which is interpreted, ‘son of the teacher’.

Who actually authored this small note is uncertain: it has been variously attributed to Anastasius of Antioch, St. John Chrysostom, and (in one manuscript) Origen.

 

[patrick457]

6.) "Why have you reviled me?"

http://img521.imageshack.us/img521/403/psalm2b22.jpg

And when the sixth hour had come, there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour. And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, “Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?” which means, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (Mark 15:33-34 ESV)

Believe it or not, there is actually a difficult variant at this point which, instead of “why have you forsaken me?” reads, “why have you reviled me?” (ōneidisas “reproach/revile/insult” instead of egkateleipes “abandon”)

The manuscript support for this reading isn’t too many. It is only found in Codex Bezae (D, as ōnidisas; the Latin text has the majority reading dereliquisti), as well as three Vetus Latina manuscripts: Codex Colbertinus (c; exprobasti), Vindobonensis Lat. 1235 (i, in opprobrium dedisti), and - here it is again! - Bobiensis (k, maledixisti - this reading is changed into dereliquisti by a corrector). This reading is cited however in the Apocriticus by Macarius Magnes, representing the thoughts of the anti-Christian Neoplatonist philosopher Porphyry (cited as “the Philosopher”), which might suggest that manuscripts containing this reading were once more numerous than at present:

The Philosopher.

But he with bitterness, and with very grim look, bent forward and declared to us yet more savagely that the Evangelists were inventors and not historians of the events concerning Jesus. For each of them wrote an account of the Passion which was not harmonious but as contradictory as could be. For one records that, when he was crucified, a certain man filled a sponge with vinegar and brought it to him (Mark xv. 36). But another says in a different way, “When they had come to the place Golgotha, they gave him to drink wine mingled with gall, and when he had tasted it, he would not drink” (Matt. xxvii. 33). And a little further, “And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice saying, Eloim, Eloim, lama sabachthani? That is, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” This is Matthew (v. 46). And another says, “Now there was set a vessel full of vinegar. Having therefore bound a vessel full of the vinegar with a reed, they offered it to his mouth. When therefore he had taken the vinegar, Jesus said, It is finished, and having bowed his head, he gave up the ghost” (John xix. 29). But another says, “And he cried out with a loud voice and said, Father, into thy hands I will commend my spirit.” This happens to be Luke (Luke xxiii. 46). For if one says “Into thy hands I will commend my spirit,” and another “It is finished,” and another “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” and another “My God, my God, why didst thou reproach me?” it is plain that this is a discordant invention, and either points to many who were crucified, or one who died hard and did not give a clear view of his passion to those who were present. But if these men were not able to tell the manner of his death in a truthful way, and simply repeated it by rote, neither did they leave any clear record concerning the rest of the narrative.

There are the following possibilities:

(1) “Abandon” was deemed to be too harsh a word (despite it being found in Psalm 22 (21) and in Matthew 27:46), leading scribes to substitute “reviled” in its place, perhaps under influence of 15:32b (“Those who were crucified with him also reviled (ōneidizon) him.”) As per the reading, just as Jesus was “reviled” by His opponents, so too He bore the “reproach” of God Himself.

(2) The change to “reviled” may have been due to some docetists holding the idea that the divine Christ had ‘abandoned’ its human shell on the cross, an interpretation which could be encouraged by the normal reading (cf. the Gospel of Peter’s “My Power, O Power, you have forsaken me!”)

(3) Alternatively, “reviled” is the original Markan reading, while “abandoned” is an early harmonization influenced by Psalm 22 and Matthew (interestingly, there are no variants in the Matthean parallel). In support for this possibility, some have argued that ōneidisas fits the context, where everyone reviles Jesus (this produces the rather disconcerting image of Jesus complaining to God that He (God) is mocking Him as well). Mark, under the idea, deliberately changed “abandoned” into “reviled” hermeneutically (which is not a translation of the Aramaic sabachthani). Since the word oneidismos (“reproach”) was a technical term in earliest Christianity (usually referring to Christ’s being reviled at His passion and by extension, the reproaches the believer suffers for Christ’s sake; cf. Matthew 5:11; Luke 6:22; Acts 5:41; 1 Peter 4:14; Hebrews 11:26, 13:13), supporters of the reading argue that ōneidisas represents the earliest and probably correct interpretation of the exclamation on the cross.

(4) Contra 3, it could also be argued that Matthew had as much reason as Mark to stress the mockery of Jesus at the Passion - why then did he not make the change as Mark supposedly did? Moreover, in both synoptic accounts the phrase egkateleipes/ōneidisas me is presented as a translation of the Scriptural quote given first in Hebrew/Aramaic. Presumably Mark knew as well as Matthew that sabachthani does not mean “revile me.” Why then, does he bother to preserve the Aramaic form of the cry?

 

[Jerry-Jet]

patrick457: One thing I don’t like about modern bibles is that they get shorter and shorter and shorter.

Whenever there is a problem about whether to accept one variant or another–“modern scholarship’s” way is to either accept the shorter variant or exclude BOTH variants.

How much shorter is the bible now compared to what it was right AFTER Jerome?

 

[dronald]

Irenaeus quoted the long ending of Mark in the year 177. Obviously there must have been some Gospels of Mark floating around before that then no?

 

[57Bill]

patrick457 ( I hope this is not off-topic)

Thanks for the “Mark” variant.

I have one about Gospel According to John 8: 1-11(?)

I have read that this was not in earliest manuscripts?

can you shed any light?

 

[patrick457]

patrick457: One thing I don’t like about modern bibles is that they get shorter and shorter and shorter.

Whenever there is a problem about whether to accept one variant or another–“modern scholarship’s” way is to either accept the shorter variant or exclude BOTH variants.

How much shorter is the bible now compared to what it was right AFTER Jerome?

A common cliche is that a shorter reading is more likely to be early and thus, more original than a longer reading, because (so the idea goes) people are more likely to add than delete something. While this idea does have some truth in it, it isn’t always the case that the shorter reading is more original (remember the different versions of Tobit?)

 

[patrick457]

Irenaeus quoted the long ending of Mark in the year 177. Obviously there must have been some Gospels of Mark floating around before that then no?

Thanks for the reminder. Patristic quotes of the LE are addressed in the links I posted earlier.

 

[patrick457]

patrick457 ( I hope this is not off-topic)

Thanks for the “Mark” variant.

I have one about Gospel According to John 8: 1-11(?)

I have read that this was not in earliest manuscripts?

can you shed any light?

The Pericope Adulterae? Yes, that’s another famous variant. I’ll probably write about it next.

 

[patrick457]

7.) The Pericope Adulterae

About the middle of the feast [of Booths] Jesus went up into the temple and began teaching.
The Jews therefore marveled, saying, “How is it that this man has learning, when he has never studied?”
So Jesus answered them, “My teaching is not mine, but his who sent me. If anyone’s will is to do God’s will, he will know whether the teaching is from God or whether I am speaking on my own authority. The one who speaks on his own authority seeks his own glory; but the one who seeks the glory of him who sent him is true, and in him there is no falsehood. Has not Moses given you the law? Yet none of you keeps the law. Why do you seek to kill me?”
The crowd answered, “You have a demon! Who is seeking to kill you?”
Jesus answered them, “I did one work, and you all marvel at it. Moses gave you circumcision (not that it is from Moses, but from the fathers), and you circumcise a man on the Sabbath. If on the Sabbath a man receives circumcision, so that the law of Moses may not be broken, are you angry with me because on the Sabbath I made a man’s whole body well? Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment.”

Some of the people of Jerusalem therefore said, “Is not this the man whom they seek to kill? And here he is, speaking openly, and they say nothing to him! Can it be that the authorities really know that this is the Christ? But we know where this man comes from, and when the Christ appears, no one will know where he comes from.”
So Jesus proclaimed, as he taught in the temple, “You know me, and you know where I come from. But I have not come of my own accord. He who sent me is true, and him you do not know. I know him, for I come from him, and he sent me.”
So they were seeking to arrest him, but no one laid a hand on him, because his hour had not yet come. Yet many of the people believed in him. They said, “When the Christ appears, will he do more signs than this man has done?”

The Pharisees heard the crowd muttering these things about him, and the chief priests and Pharisees sent officers to arrest him.
Jesus then said, “I will be with you a little longer, and then I am going to him who sent me. You will seek me and you will not find me. Where I am you cannot come.”
The Jews said to one another, “Where does this man intend to go that we will not find him? Does he intend to go to the Dispersion among the Greeks and teach the Greeks? What does he mean by saying, ‘You will seek me and you will not find me,’ and, ‘Where I am you cannot come’?”

http://img109.imageshack.us/img109/7206/temple6.png

On the last day of the feast, the great day, Jesus stood up and cried out, “If anyone thirsts, let him come to me and drink. Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, ‘Out of his heart will flow rivers of living water.’”
Now this he said about the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were to receive, for as yet the Spirit had not been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.

When they heard these words, some of the people said, “This really is the Prophet.”
Others said, “This is the Christ.”
But some said, “Is the Christ to come from Galilee? Has not the Scripture said that the Christ comes from the offspring of David, and comes from Bethlehem, the village where David was?”
So there was a division among the people over him. Some of them wanted to arrest him, but no one laid hands on him.

The officers then came to the chief priests and Pharisees, who said to them, “Why did you not bring him?”
The officers answered, “No one ever spoke like this man!”
The Pharisees answered them, “Have you also been deceived? Have any of the authorities or the Pharisees believed in him? But this crowd that does not know the law is accursed.”
Nicodemus, who had gone to him before, and who was one of them, said to them, “Does our law judge a man without first giving him a hearing and learning what he does?”
They replied, “Are you from Galilee too? Search and see that no prophet arises from Galilee.”

Again Jesus spoke to them, saying, “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.”
So the Pharisees said to him, “You are bearing witness about yourself; your testimony is not true.”
Jesus answered, “Even if I do bear witness about myself, my testimony is true, for I know where I came from and where I am going, but you do not know where I come from or where I am going. You judge according to the flesh; I judge no one. Yet even if I do judge, my judgment is true, for it is not I alone who judge, but I and the Father who sent me. In your Law it is written that the testimony of two people is true. I am the one who bears witness about myself, and the Father who sent me bears witness about me.”
They said to him therefore, “Where is your Father?”
Jesus answered, “You know neither me nor my Father. If you knew me, you would know my Father also.”
These words he spoke in the treasury, as he taught in the temple; but no one arrested him, because his hour had not yet come.

(John 7:14-52; 8:12-20 ESV)