When
someone asks, “What’s a text-critically
interesting verse in the Gospels?” the typical answer is not likely to be “Luke 11:33.” The differences between the meanings of the
rival variants in this verse are not very consequential: basically, some manuscripts have the phrase, οὐδὲ
ὑπὸ τὸν μόδιον, that is, “or under a bushel-basket,” and some do not; also,
near the end of the verse, in some Greek manuscripts the Greek word rendered
“light” in English is φῶς, while in other manuscripts, it is φέγγος.
Yet it is
probably safe to say that Luke 11:33 is a strong contender for the title “Verse Most Likely to Be Changed from One
Critical Edition to Another.” Here
is how some recent Greek compilations have treated Luke 11:33:
●
Nestle-Aland NTG 27: brackets οὐδὲ ὑπὸ
τὸν μόδιον and adopts φῶς.
●
Robinson-Pierpont 2005: includes οὐδὲ
ὑπὸ τὸν μόδιον and adopts φέγγος.
● SBLGNT
2011: includes οὐδὲ ὑπὸ τὸν μόδιον and
adopts φέγγος.
● Tyndale
House GNT 2017: does not include οὐδὲ
ὑπὸ τὸν μόδιον and adopts φῶς.
The vast
majority of Greek manuscripts, including the two flagship representatives of
the Alexandrian Text, Vaticanus (B) and Sinaiticus (ℵ), and the best Greek
representative of the Western Text, Codex D, support the inclusion of οὐδὲ ὑπὸ
τὸν μόδιον. Exploring the evidence more
closely, we see that ℵ A B C D K M W X Δ Θ Π Ψ and the Curetonian Syriac, the
Peshitta, the Bohairic, and all Latin witnesses, are allies of the Byzantine
Text; they all support the inclusion of οὐδὲ ὑπὸ τὸν μόδιον. (The Gothic version, alas, is not extant for
this part of Luke.)
Luke 11:33: at the end of col. 1 and the start of col. 2. |
Let’s examine
the text nearby in search of similar arrays of variants supporting shorter
readings.
● (1) In Luke 11:11, P45, P75, and B, 1241, and the
Armenian version, along with the Sinaitic Syriac, support the non-inclusion of ἄρτον
μὴ λίθον ἐπιδώσει αὐτῷ; ἣ καὶ ἰχθύν, which has very abundant support, with some
slight variations, in A C D (which, with 124, adds αἰτήσει after ἰχθύν) F G Y K
M U W X Γ Δ Θ Λ Π Ψ f1 f13 1 1582* 1424
(in ℵ, L, 28, 157, and 700, ἄρτον μὴ λίθον ἐπιδώσει αὐτῷ; ἣ ἰχθύν, lacking the
καὶ) – “bread, will he give to him a
stone? And if a fish.”
The
minuscules 69 and 788 (along with 565) do not include the second part of the
verse, that is, they have ἄρτον μὴ λίθον ἐπιδώσει αὐτῷ but not the rest of the
verse, as if they echo an ancestor-manuscript in which the copyist’s line of
sight drifted from this occurrence of ἐπιδώσει αὐτῷ to the recurrence of the
same words at the end of the verse, skipping the words in between.
Upon comparing
the witnesses for the main shorter reading in 11:11 and 11:33, we see that
several of them are the same: P45, P75,
1241, Sinaitic Syriac, Sahidic, Armenian.
And a couple of witnesses for the other shorter reading in 11:33 (69
788) also support the shorter reading in 11:33.
It should
not be overlooked that 157 omits all of 11:12, and 579 omits everything before
μὴ. Also in 11:12, where the normal
reading is ᾠόν (egg), P45 reads ἄρτον (bread).
● (2) In Luke 11:14, P45 P75 ℵ B A* L 1 33 157 788 1241
1582* Sinaitic Syriac and the Armenian version are among the group of witnesses
that support the non-inclusion of καὶ αὐτὸ ἧν (and it was).
● (3) In Luke 11:44, P45 P75 ℵ B C L 33 f1
157 579 and the Sinaitic Syriac, Curetonian Syriac, and the Armenian, Georgian,
and Sahidic versions do not include γραμματεις καὶ Φαρισαιοι, υποκριταί
(Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites). Most
manuscripts (such as A K M Γ Δ Θ Π Ψ 69 157 565 579 700 788) include the words,
but D omits υποκριταί.
● (4) At the end of Luke 11:48, P75 ℵ B D L 579 do
not include αυτων τα μνημεια (“their tombs”).
Family 1 and 157 read instead τους τάφους αυτων. (P45 is not extant for this verse.)
● (5) In Luke 11:53:
P75 reads
Κακειθεν εξελθόντες αυτου
ℵ B C L 33
69 579 788 1241 read Κακειθεν εξελθόντος αυτου
P45 reads
Κακειθεν εξελθόντος (apparently without αυτου); Willker mentions that the
manuscript is damaged but space-considerations rule out the inclusion of αυτου.
A K M Π W Γ
Δ Ψ f1
565 read Λέγοντος δε ταυτα προς αυτους, which is supported by most manuscripts.
D Θ 157 agree with A but continue with ενωπιον παντος του λαου; this reading has considerable Old Latin and Armenian support; especially interesting is that this reading is also supported by the Curetonian Syriac and the Sinaitic Syriac.
D Θ 157 agree with A but continue with ενωπιον παντος του λαου; this reading has considerable Old Latin and Armenian support; especially interesting is that this reading is also supported by the Curetonian Syriac and the Sinaitic Syriac.
Meanwhile
69 and 788 simply read Και before ηρξαντο.
● (6) and (7) In Luke 11:54:
P45 P75 B L
f1
579, with Coptic support, begin the verse with ενεδρεύοντες αυτον before
θηρευσαι.
ℵ begins
the verse with ενεδρεύοντες before θηρευσαι.
Most
manuscripts, including C K Π M f1
157 565 700, with support from the Vulgate and the Peshitta, read ενεδρεύοντες
αυτον ζητουντες at the beginning of the verse, and read ινα κατηγορήσωσιν αυτου
at the end of the verse. A W* Δ f13
differ only slightly at the end of the verse, reading ινα κατηγορήσουσιν
αυτου.
D’s text is
quite different: ζητουντες αφορην τινα
λαβειν αυτου ινα ευρωσιν κατηγορησαι αυτου.
This is supported by the Sinaitic Syriac and Curetonian Syriac, and is
imperfectly supported by the Old Latin.
Θ reads ενεδρεύοντες before τι
θηρευσαι at the beginning of the verse; it agrees with most manuscripts at the
end of the verse.
Without
attempting to offer a full analysis of all seven of these textual contests
here, I offer brief explanations vindicating the longer reading in six cases:
● (1) In Luke 11:11, the shorter reading originated when a copyist skipped a line of text but nevertheless produced a coherent sentence; the reading of P45 in verse 12 (ἄρτον instead of ᾠόν) is a vestige of the scribe’s recollection of the original longer reading. Harmonization to Matthew 7:9 was limited to the addition of αυτου after υιος mainly in Caesarean witnesses.
● (1) In Luke 11:11, the shorter reading originated when a copyist skipped a line of text but nevertheless produced a coherent sentence; the reading of P45 in verse 12 (ἄρτον instead of ᾠόν) is a vestige of the scribe’s recollection of the original longer reading. Harmonization to Matthew 7:9 was limited to the addition of αυτου after υιος mainly in Caesarean witnesses.
● (2) In Luke 11:14, the shorter reading in P45 P75
ℵ B 1241 et al is a slight stylistic
refinement; as Metzger noted, καὶ αὐτὸ ἧν
κωφόν “appears to be a Semitism in the Lukan style. The chance seems low that a scribe would
sense a need to shift from “He was casting out a dumb demon” to “He was casting
out a demon and it was dumb,” and happen to fit Lukan style.
● (3) In Luke 11:44, the shorter rreading – that is,
the removal of the explicit identification of the scribes and Pharisees –
originated when a scribe wondered why the lawyers would feel that they were
being criticized by a rebuke specifically aimed at others.
● (4) At the end of Luke 11:48, the Byzantine
reading makes explicit what is implied without an object. Family 1 and family 13 do likewise, but their
wording is different. The shorter
reading here is original.
● (5) In Luke 11:53, the Alexandrian Text has
non-Lukan wording; κακειθεν appears only here in Luke, and εξελθόντος appears
elsewhere in Luke only in 11:14 (contested by εκβληθέντος in A C L f13
69) where a demon’s departure is being described. Willker suggests that the Byzantine reading
was introduced because it avoids raising the question of where was the “there;” the exact location being
unmentioned in the lection that begins at 11:47. However, the Byzantine reading raises a
question of its own, that is, who is the “them”
– for at 11:46, Jesus begins criticizing not the scribes and Pharisees, but the
specialists in the Law. The Alexandrian way
around this problem was to rewrite the introductory phrase, which happens to
correspond to the beginning of Mark 9:30.
The Western
Text’s inclusion of ενωπιον παντος του λαου echoes Luke 8:47; this reading must
be extremely early (as demonstrated by support from the Sinaitic Syriac and Old
Latin Codex Vercellensis), and shows that some copyists had a tendency to
expand later parts of the Gospel with verbiage taken from earlier parts.
● (6) In Luke 11:54a: the shorter reading
originated when an early copyist’s line of sight drifted from the letters
–οντες in ενεδρεύοντες to the same letters in ζητουντες. In most copies descended from the exemplar
that contained this mistake, it is partly corrected (via the addition of αυτον
– but 28 and 1424 read instead αυτω) but not in ℵ and Θ.
● (7) In Luke 11:54b, the shorter reading originated when an early copyist’s line of
sight drifted from the αυτου after στόματος to the same word after κατηγορήσωσιν,
accidentally skipping the words in between.
The
inclusion of ευρωσιν in D’s text here is interesting; D thus echoes (albeit
inexactly) the end of Luke 6:7. This
again illustrates some scribe’s tendency to expand later parts of a book by introducing
elements they had encountered in earlier parts.
Luke 11:33 in GA 1241. |
In short,
except for minuscule 28, the harmonizations that appear in Luke 11:33 look like
they have been based on Luke 8:16, not Matthew 5:15. If a copyist were to introduce “under the bushel-basket” into a form of
Luke 11:33 that did not have the phrase, the natural place to put it would be before the reference to putting the lamp
in a secret place, thus corresponding to the gist of Mark 4:21 and the gist of
Luke 8:16; I mean that in both Mark 4:21 and Luke 8:16, the reference to the
lamp being covered precedes whatever
else is said.
If οὐδὲ ὑπὸ
τὸν μόδιον is not a partial harmonization to Matthew 5:15, it is original – in
which case, how does one account for its absence in P45 P75 L 788 et al, while
also accounting for its presence in ℵ B A C D K Π W? There are two factors which do this: (1) Scribes’ recollection of Luke 8:16, in which
τίθησιν is followed immediately by αλλ’ επι λυχνίας. (2) A simple homoioteleuton error. Single-letter homoioteleuton is rare but it
does sometimes happen: all that is
needed for οὐδὲ ὑπὸ τὸν μόδιον to disappear is for a scribe’s line of sight to
drift from the ν at the end of τιθησιν to the ν at the end of μόδιον. Adding to the ease of such an occurrence is
that the scribe would have written τίθησιν αλλ’ επι λυχνίας (or, τίθησιν αλλ’ επι λυχνίαν) a few chapters
earlier.
There is
still the other variant-unit in Luke 11:33 to consider: φως or φέγγος? Φως looks like a harmonization to Luke 8:16,
especially in 118 f13 69 788.
Φέγγος is the rarer word, and considering the presence of φως in the
parallel-passages, there would be little impetus to replace φως with φέγγος;
meanwhile familiarity with Luke 8:16 would tend to elicit a harmonization from
φέγγος to φως. The reading of P45,
φέγγος, should be adopted. Here we have
an ancient reading which is not Alexandrian (for P75 ℵ B 33 read φως) nor Western (for D also reads φως) nor Caesarean (for f1 reads φως
and f13
also reads φως, transposed). The Byzantine Text, and the Byzantine Text alone (but with
support from the back-up team of L, Γ, 124, 565 and 700), besides the usual
Byzantine witnesses Α Κ Μ W Δ Λ Π etc,, displays the original reading here, defying
the theory that it is merely an amalgamation of the other text-forms, and
supporting the theory that the Byzantine Text contains a stratum of ancient and
independent readings.
Readers are invited to double-check the data in this post.
Hi James, you state "Single-letter homoioteleuton is rare but it does sometimes happen".
ReplyDeleteI would agree that it is rarely pointed out or asserted, but I don't believe that the single-letter variety (HT) are indeed that "rare" in comparison to other types of scribal error. They are definitely less common than the two or three letter type (HT) and I can understand why one wouldn't press too hard in affirming a possible/probable instance (I use to actually mark all of them with a "?" unless they were singular readings).
My intent therefore is not to disagree with you, indeed they are rare relatively speaking,--And yet I've found hundreds of them and would estimate that they make up approx. 10-15% (+or-) of all hom.tel. errors in general...and so, they may not be quite as rare as was once thought.
It's actually not a bushel, but that is a matter of translation, not textual criticism.
ReplyDelete