John 17:9 - A Glitch in the Matrix

          In John 17:8 there is an interesting textual variant which, as far as I know, receives no attention in the footnotes of any major English translation.  It is not noticed in the UBS Greek New Testament (4^th edition), although Metzger made a brief commend about it in his Textual Commentary on the GNT.

          Following ἔλαβον, the words καὶ ἔγνωσαν (“and knew”) are absent in ﬡ*, A, D, W, 0211, pc, a, d, e, q, ac², vg^ms, pbo, and the Gothic version.  The Old Latin presented with Beuron numbers = VL 3 (Vercellensis), VL 5 (Bezae), VL 2 (Palatinus) VL 13 (Frisingensis/Monacensis) and VL 16 (Fragmenta Curiensa).

          This has to have been a very early variant, considering that it somehow spread to early representatives of Alexandrian, Western, and Byzantine transmission-lines. Since there is more or less no way to connect these particular witnesses closely through a textual relationship, logic seems to require positing a scenario in which the omission of καὶ ἔγνωσαν was elicited in the minds of two or more scribes independently in separate transmission-lines.  In other words, more than one early scribe fell to the temptation to relieve a perceived difficulty by removing the ostensibly problematic text.  The suspicion of Marie-Joseph Lagrange – that καὶ ἔγνωσαν was omitted because it seemed to collide with John 6:69 – is probably correct.

John 17:1 - "The Son" or "Your Son"?

There’s a small textual variant in John 17:1 that impacts translation.  At the beginning of his high priestly prayer, did Jesus say, “Glorify your Son that the Son may glorify you,” or did he say “Glorify your Son that your Son may glorify you”?

          Did John write ὁ υἱος or did he write καὶ ὁ υἱος σου or did he write ὁ υἱος σου?
          The English versions are not in unison:

 ESV:  “Glorify your Son that the Son may glorify you,”

CSB:  “Glorify your Son so that the Son may glorify you”

NASB 95:   “Glorify Your Son, so that the Son may glorify You”

NRSV:  “Glorify Your Son so that the Son may glorify You.” 

EHV:  “Glorify your Son so that your Son may glorify you”

NET:  “Glorify your Son, so that your Son may glorify you – ”

NIV:  “Glorify your Son, that your Son may glorify you.”

 

KJV:   “glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee”

NKJV:  “Glorify Your Son, that Your Son also may glorify You”

EOB:  “Glorify your Son, so that your Son may also glorify you”

WEB:  “Glorify your Son, that your Son may also glorify you.”

(The NLT blurs the translation as if a pronoun is in the base-text, yielding “NLT:  “Glorify your Son so he can give glory back to you.”)

 

          In his Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Bruce Metzger defended the UBS Committee’s choice by  stating, “On the basis of the weight of p60^vid ﬡ B C* W 0109 it d e ff² al the shorter text is preferred.”

          [Papyrus 60, assigned to the 600s/700s, was found at  Nessana (Nitzana, on the border of Egypt and Israel).  GA 0109 is assigned to the 600s/700s.]

          In favor of reading ὁ υἱος we have a smattering of witnesses:  P60^vid ﬡ B C* W 0109 it^d it^e it^ff2  Origen (1 of 2) Victorinus of Rome Hilary of Poitiers (4/6) Ambrose (2/4), and Augustine (1/10).

          Weighing in for ὁ υἱος σου we have A D Θ 0250 1 579 it^{a aur b c f r1} Vulgate Sinaitic Syriac Peshitta Palestinian Aramaic Sahidic Bohairic Achmimic² Armenian Georgian Slavic Origen (½). 

           In favor of καὶ ὁ υἱος σου:  C³ G K L M N S U Γ Δ Λ Π Ψ 0141 f13 2 28 33 118 157 180 205 597 700 1006 1010 1071 1241 1243 1292 1342 1424 1505 Byz [E H] Lect it^q some Vulgate copies Ethiopic Origen (½) (Lat ½) Didymus^dub Chrysostom Cyril Theodoret Ambrose (1/4) Quodvultdeus Varimadum Pseudo-Vigilius.

           We begin with two possibilities:  either scribes unnecessarily added σου, or scribes unnecessarily removed σου.  I think that scribes removed σου, considering it superfluous so close to σου τὸν υἱον.   

          Καὶ was either added or removed twice in the verse, after οὐρανον and before ὁ υἱος σου.  Apparently an early scribe – early enough to affect the Alexandrian and Western transmission-lines – economized by removing the και before ὁ υἱος, regarding it as unnecessary to preserve the meaning of the sentence.  An opposite tendency was also at work in the early Byzantine transmission-line – και was added after οὐρανον.

          The same Alexandrian tendency to economize the text elicited the omission of  σου, but it was never popular in Egypt, as the support for σου from the Sahidic version and all copies other than ﬡ B C* W shows.       

          The UBS Committee appears (again) to have too easily embraced the shorter reading.

____________________

This post is dedicated to James Bechtel.

Acts 20:28 – Smuggling in an Emendation?

          Two textual issues in Acts 20:28 have impacted translations of the verse:  First:   did Luke refer to the church as the “church of God,” the “church of the Lord,” or the “church of the Lord and God”?  Second, at the end of the verse, did Luke write that the church was obtained through his blood, or through the blood of his Son?

          Let’s review the external evidence:
          Greek Support for ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ θεοῦ includes ﬡ B 056 614 1175 1611 104 2147 1505 Byz, Lectionary 60, l592, l598, l603, l1021, and l1439.  Versional support is provided by the Vulgate, the Peshitta, the Harklean Syriac, the Georgian version, and it^{ar, c, dem, ph, ro, w} and a Bohairic copy.  Patristic support for ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ θεοῦ is supplied by Athanasius, Basil, Epiphanius, Chrysostom, Cyril, and Ambrose.    

          Greek support for ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ κυρίου includes P74 A C* D E Ψ 33 181 307 453 547 610 945 945 1678 1739 1891 2344 2464 and l599.  Versional support for ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ κυρίου is supplied by it^{d, e, gig, p} the margin of the Harklean Syriac, Sahidic, Bohairic, and Armenian versions.  Patristic support for ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ κυρίου comes from Irenaeus (in Latin), Didymus (in Latin), Theodoret, Ambrosiaster, Jerome, and Pelagius.      

          Greek support for ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ κυρίου καί θεοῦ includes H L P C³ 049 1 69 88 226 323 330 440 618 927 1241 1245 1270 1828 1854 2492 and most lectionaries.  Versional support is limited to a Slavic lectionary copy.

          (In addition, Swanson recorded GA 1837’s ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ κυ ιυ καί θῦ.)

          The KJV, reflecting the Textus Receptus, reads “Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.” [emphasis added here, and in the following quotations]

           Similarly, the Christian Standard Bible reads “shepherd the church of God, which he purchased with his own blood.”  The Evangelical Heritage Version reads “shepherd the church of God, which he purchased with his own blood.”  The ESV reads “care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood.”  The NIV reads “shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood.” 

          The World English Bible, following the Byzantine Text, reads, “Take heed, therefore, to yourselves, and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the assembly of the Lord and God which he purchased with his own blood.”

          Modern versions render Acts 20:28 in quite diverse ways:  usually the base-text τοῦ θεοῦ is followed, not only in the English Standard Version, NIV, EHV and CSB but also in the NET, RSV, NRSV, CEB, and CEV.

          The New World Translation (a translation produced for the cult known as “Jehovah’s Witnesses,” also known as the Watchtower Society) reads “Pay attention to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the holy spirit has appointed you overseers, to shepherd the congregation of God, which he purchased with the blood of his own Son.”           Inasmuch as no manuscript of Acts reads “of his own Son,” it appears that the modern Arian cult has added to the words of God.  But the Jehovah’s Witnesses Bible butchers are not alone in this respect.  The NET also renders Acts 20:28 with an appeal “to shepherd the church of God that he obtained with the blood of his own Son.”

          Likewise  the NRSV (including the compromised Updated Edition) have Paul tell the Ephesian elders to “shepherd the church of God that he obtained with the blood of his own Son” – echoing the RSV, which reads, “care for the church of God which he obtained with the blood of his own Son.”  The relatively recent Common English Bible reads “shepherd God’s church, which he obtained with the death of his own Son.”  The CEV (Contemporary English Version) reads, “Be like shepherds to God’s church. It is the flock he bought with the blood of his own Son.”  

          The Lexham English Bible likewise reads, “shepherd the church of God which he obtained through the blood of his own Son.”  The Complete Jewish Bible reads “shepherd God’s Messianic community, which he won for himself at the cost of his own Son’s blood.”  The Good News Translation reads “shepherds of the church of God, which he made his own through the blood of his Son.”  The New Century Version says “You must be like shepherds to the church of God, which he bought with the death of his own son.”  The Mounce Reverse Interlinear New Testament reads, “shepherd the church of God, which he purchased with the blood of his own Son.”  The Voice says “Shepherd the church of God, this precious church which He made His own through the blood of His own Son.” 

          English versions which end Acts 20:28 with a clear reference to the blood of God’s Son – even though the Greek equivalent of the word “son” is not in the base-text – include the NWT, NET, RSV, NRSV, CEV, Lexham, GNT, Mounce, The Voice, and CEB.

          In 1881 Hort wrote over three columns of his Notes on Select Readings about Acts 20:28 and concluded that “It is by no means impossible that ΥΙΟΥ dropped out after ΤΟΥΙΔΙΟΥ at some very early transcription affecting all existing documents.  Its insertion leaves the whole passage free from difficulty of any kind.”  Metzger mentioned that Hort’s proposal is not necessary – but no less than nine modern English versions appear to be conformed to Hort’s proposed emendation!

Metzger dismissed the majority reading as “obviously conflate.”  The  Byzantine reading τοῦ κυρίου καί θεοῦ may account for both of the longer readings, however, if early scribes committed parablepsis, skipping from the –ou of κυρίου to the –ου of θεοῦ (producing ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ κυρίου), and some subsequently substituting θεοῦ in place of κυρίου, resisting the idea of God having blood.   

          The Tyndale House Greek New Testament reads “ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ κυρίου” and concludes with “αἵματος τοῦ ἰδίου.”  Holmes’ SBL-GNT reads “ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ θεοῦ” and concludes the verse with “αἵματος τοῦ ἰδίου.” 

          It may be worthwhile to consider the thoughts of some who have approached the textual issue from a pastoral perspective – for example Bob Luginbill, Sam Shamoun, and the La Vista Church of Christ (near Omaha Nebraska).

          Considering that the longer reading’s earliest appearance is relatively late, and that ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ θεοῦ is supported by the Peshitta, the Vulgate, Chrysostom and Athanasius, ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ θεοῦ should be adopted, being early, geographically widely supported, and attested in multiple transmission-lines.  GA 1739’s text may be adopted for the entire verse.   

          English readers should be aware that at least eight modern versions essentially echo a conjectural emendation in this verse.

Charles Taylor's 1893 Analysis of Second-century Support for Mark 16:9-20

In 1893 the following material (slightly adjusted to American orthography) was published in The Expositor journal.   It remains an effective counterweight against those who still wish to belittle the testimony of Justin Martyr and to employ the name of Clement as a witness against Mark 16:9-20.

SOME EARLY EVIDENCE FOR THE TWELVE VERSES

ST. MARK 16:9-20.

 

by Charles Taylor

 

Originally published on pages 71-78 of The Expositor, Volume 8, 

edited by Robertson Nicholl. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1893.

 

 

          It has been said that in the whole Greek ante-Nicene literature there are at most but two traces of St. Mark 16:9-20.  My purpose in these notes is to show by a few instances that the early evidence for the disputed twelve verses has perhaps been understated.

 

1. IRENAEUS

          “Irenaeus (188) clearly cites 16:19 as St. Mark’s own (In fine autem evangelii ait Marcus, corresponding to Marcus interpres et sectator Petri initium evangelicae conscriptionis fecit sic) ; and the fidelity of the Latin text is supported by a Greek scholium” (W. H., App. 39). See lib. 3:11.6 in Harvey’s Irenaeus (vol. II. p. 39).

          Irenaeus writes that St. Mark’s “beginning of the Gospel” (1:1) was fulfilment of prophecy; and that in accordance with this beginning he writes at the end, So then the Lord Jesus, after He had spoken unto them, was received up into heaven, and sat down at the right hand of God; thus confirming the prophecy of Psalm 90:  “The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thy enemies thy footstool.”

 2. JUSTIN MARTYR

          Having such testimony to the disputed twelve verses in the latter half of the second century, we may go back a generation to Justin Martyr, and seek for traces of them in his acknowledged writings, without any presumption against the possibility of his acquaintance with them.  The New Testament will in general be cited in Greek from Westcott and Hort’s edition, and in English from the Revised Version of 1881.  Before seeking traces of verses 9-20 we must notice what are their characteristics, not neglecting the previous labors of learned assailants of the verses, who have duly emphasized some of their peculiarities of thought and diction, and thus made it the easier to recognize allusions to them.

          Mark 16:9. Now when he was risen early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene. When He was risen (ἀναστάς), on the first day (πρώτῃ), He appeared (ἐπάνη).  Each of the words ἀναστάς , πρώτῃ, ἐπάνη is in a sense peculiar to this verse, as is also the statement that Christ rose on the first day.  In Matthew 28:6 we find only, “He is not here; for He is risen, even as He said,” risen before the arrival of the women, who came “late on the Sabbath day as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week” (ver. 1).  Some – notice the harmonistic rendering of the Authorized Version – have found this hard to reconcile with St. Mark’s ἀναστάς πρώτῃ, and have suspected that Mark 16:9 must be spurious:  see Eusebius to Marinus in W. H., App. 31: others condemn the self-same verse for its “otiose triple repetition.”  But we have not as yet found, except in that verse, express testimony to His rising on the first day, nor do I know that other such Gospel testimony is to be found.  That “He hath been raised on the third day” is of itself indecisive of the day of the week.  Early fathers dwell upon the Lord’s rising on a Sunday as a cardinal historic fact, and if in so doing they express themselves more or less in terms of the disputed verse 9, we may think (unless reason can be shown to the contrary) that they accepted it as part of the Gospel as it had come down to them.

          In Mark 16:2, 9, 14 three Greek words are represented by “was risen” (R.V.). In Matthew 28:6 the Greek for “He was risen” is ἠγέρθη,and this word, and not ἀναστή, is used throughout the Gospel narratives properly so-called of the Resurrection-that is to say, excluding the predictive δεῖ άναστῆνει – except in Mark 16:9, where we have the latter word in the participial form ἀναστάς.  This is therefore in a sense distinctly characteristic of that verse.

          No less characteristic is its expression πρώτῃ for “on the first day,” which is alleged as proof of the spuriousness of the verse.  The evening and the morning were “day one (μία)”; and this Hebraism is used in the Gospels for the first day of the week, except in Mark 16:9, where it is called-as some say by a Latinism, pointing to the Roman origin of the section-not the “one” but the “first” day.

          A third word, peculiar in a sense to the same verse is ἐπάνη, “he appeared,” which is found there only of appearances of the Lord after the Resurrection.  The words for “appear” (R.V.) in Acts 1:3 and 1 Corinthians 15:5-8 are different.  Thus we have found four things peculiar in a sense to Mark 16:9, namely, its distinct specification of the day of the Resurrection, and the two words which express

this, and the word expressing that “He appeared” on that day.

          Justin, in Trypho § 138, speaks of the “day eighth in number, in which our Christ appeared (ἐπάνη), when He was risen (ἀναστάς) from the dead, but in rank ever first (πρώτης),” laying stress upon the word “first” to which special attention is always called in discussions of the twelve verses.

          In Apol. 1: 67 he tells us that “On Sunday so-called there is an assemblage of all, whether resident in town or country, and the Memoirs of the Apostles or the writings of the Prophets are read (p. 98 D).  And on Sunday it is that we all assemble, since it is the first (πρώτη) day, on which God changed the darkness and matter and made cosmos, and Jesus Christ our Saviour on the same day rose

(ανέστη) from the dead; for on the day before Saturday they crucified Him, and on Sunday, the day after Saturday, He appeared (φανείς) to His apostles and disciples and taught these things” (p. 99 A, B).

          In each case Justin states expressly and emphatically that Christ rose on the first day, and in each he has a threefold verbal agreement with St. Mark as tabulated below:

          Mk 16:9                         Apol. 1:67                      Trypho 138

          ἀναστάς                          ανέστη                            ἀναστάς

          πρώτῃ                             πρώτη                            πρώτης

          ἐπάνη                             φανείς                            ἐπάνη

 

Hence (1) the verse Mark 16:9, or something closely resembling it, must have formed part of his “Memoirs of the Apostles,” and (2) it must have been much relied upon as Gospel authority for the fact of the Resurrection upon a Sunday, and for the consequent observance of the first day of the week as the Lord’s Day.

 

Mark 16:17.  And these signs shall follow them that believe: in My name shall they cast out devils.

          On this and the following verse it has been said, that they “contain suspicious circumstances-an excessive love of the miraculous. Miracles and the power of performing them are attributed to all believers.”  This again is a criticism which I welcome as serviceable for my present purpose, since it sets in strong relief the powers assigned to the faithful as such, one of which was the power to exorcise δαιμόνια.  Akin to these verses is Matthew 7:22, “Many will say to Me in that day, Lord, Lord, did we not by Thy name cast out devils, and by Thy name do many mighty works?”  But peculiar to Mark 16:17 is its place in a narrative of the Lord's Resurrection and Ascension, and its express promise of the power named to “them that believe.”

          The assertion that this power was possessed by such persons is a salient feature in the writings of Justin.  In Trypho § 85 he writes that by the name of Him who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and arose (ἀναστάντος) from the dead, and went up to heaven every devil (δαιμόνιον) when exorcised is vanquished and made subject.

          In Trypho § 76 he quotes Matthew 7:22 (p. 301 D), and adds that now we that believe (οἱ πιστεύοντες) in our Lord Jesus, who was crucified, have all devils (δαιμόνια) and evil spirits subject to us by exorcism.

          These and other passages in his works ascribe to believers the power of casting out devils by the name of Christ, and they connect this power with the Lord’s Resurrection and Ascension.  The express mention of οἱ πιστεύοντες as having this power, and some other things in the passages in question, point again to Mark 16:9 sq. as one of Justin’s sources.

Mark 16:20.  And they went forth, and preached everywhere (ἐξελθόντες ἐκρύξαν πανταχοῦ), the Lord working with them, and confirming the word by the signs that followed.

“The Greek patristic evidence for vv. 9-20 perhaps begins with Justin (Ap. i. 45), who interprets Psalm 110:3 as predictive τοῦ λόγου τοῦ ἰσχυροῦ ὄν ἀπὸ Ιερουσαλήμ οἱ ἀπόστολοι αὐτοῦ ἐξελθόντες πανταχοῦ ἐκρύξαν  . . . . On both sides the evidence is slight, and decision seems impossible” (W. H., App. 39).

          With reference to this apparent quotation from our verse 20 “the word which . . . they went forth and preached everywhere,” Dr. Samuel Davidson remarks that “probably Justin Martyr” had the disputed twelve verses before him (1868). Scrivener, following Burgon, judged that they were cited “unquestionably by Justin Martyr” (1874).

          The late Dean Alford, perhaps not thinking of Apol. 1: 45, asserted that Justin took no notice of the verses.  To Westcott and Hort “decision seems impossible”: that is to say from Apol. 1:45 only.  

          But what has been said above on other passages, and in The Witness of Hermas to the Four Gospels on that passage, may to some readers seem to suffice to turn the scale.  If not, there is still much more to be said in proof that Justin knew the so-called appendix to St. Mark’s Gospel. It seems to me that he was well acquainted with it; knew it (like Irenaeus) as part of one of the Gospels customarily read in his own day on Sunday; and has frequent allusions to things in it, some of which are not mentioned in these notes.

 

3. THE EPISTLE OF BARNABAS

          The Epistle of Barnabas was perhaps written about 120 A.D.  Its parallelisms with Justin’s works are of such a nature that the two writers can scarcely have been wholly independent of one another.  If Justin did not quote

Barnabas, the ideas common to them must have been drawn in part from the Church teaching of their day.  They speak in like terms of the Christian observance of the “eighth day,” and had presumably the same Gospel authority for holding it in honor as the day of the Resurrection.

          In Epist. Barn. 15:9, we read:  “Wherefore also we celebrate the eighth day unto gladness, whereon Jesus arose (ἀνέστη) from the dead, and was manifested (ἐφανερώθη), and went up to the heavens.”  The word eighth implies the use of  πρώτη as by Justin and St. Mark ; the word arose, and the fact of the ascent to heaven, are common to the Evangelist and Barnabas : and these agree in two other points which must now be mentioned.

          St. Mark 16:12-14:  And after these things He was manifested (ἐφανερώθη) in another form unto two of them as they walked. And afterward He was manifested (ἐφανερώθη) unto the eleven themselves as they sat at meat.  Here ἐφανερώθη is used twice of appearances of the Lord after the Resurrection. It is so used again once only in the New Testament, namely, in John 21:14, “This is now the third time that Jesus was manifested to the disciples after that He was risen from the dead.”   St. John indeed uses also ἐφανερώθη ἑαυτόv in the like sense, He manifested Himself, but it remains that ἐφανερώθη, He was manifested, may be said to be characteristic of the disputed twelve verses. We may therefore reckon φανερώθεις, having been manifested, in the passage from Barnabas, as a perhaps not undesigned coincidence with St. Mark.

          Again, Mr. Rendal quotes from the book Supernatural Religion:  “In making the Resurrection, appearances to the disciples, and the Ascension take place in one day, the author [of Epist. Barn.] is in agreement with Justin Martyr, who made use of a Gospel different from ours.”

          The statement is open to criticism. Were it in part true, we might say that Barnabas and Justin had the twelve verses for their authority, interpreted them hastily, and so were led to express themselves as they have done; for in the

said verses there is no palpable break between the Resurrection and the Ascension. A short summary of Mk. 16:9-19 is “On the first day He arose; He was manifested; He ascended to heaven.”  And this is what Barnabas says, agreeing in substance with the eleven verses, and, except as regards the Ascension, with their phraseology; for his “eighth” implies πρώτη (rather than μία) for “first” day. The hypothesis that they were acquainted with the ending of St. Mark’s Gospel, accounts for the passage quoted from Barnabas as well as for the parallels in Justin.

          We have seen that there are other indications that Justin knew the passage; and when we go back some three decades to the earlier writer, who has such striking coincidences with Justin, we do not need any great mass or evidence to make it probable, or not improbable, that he knew what was known to Justin.  Their singular agreement in the matter of the “eighth” day at once raises a presumption that they rested upon the same authority for its religious observance perhaps to show other traces of them in his Epistle.

          Of  such actual or possible traces, I will here mention one only.  If he knew Mark 16:17, with its promise of miraculous powers to true believers indiscriminately, this would certainly have appealed strongly to a writer of his individualizing bias, and we might have expected to find some trace of the verse in his writings. Further, we might have anticipated, from his inveterate habit of spiritualizing, that he would have been tempted to explain away the outward fact of demoniacal possession and make the “devils” tendencies in the heart of man. Accordingly, in Epist. Barn. 16:7, we read:  “Before we believed (πιστεῦσαι) our heart was truly a temple made by hand, for it was full of idolatry, and a house of devils (δαιμονίων), because we did whatsoever things were contrary to God.  But it shall be built upon the name of the Lord.”  This is his way of saying, They that believe do thereby cast out devils in the name of the Lord Jesus.

     4. THE QUARTODECIMAN CONTROVERSY

          The late Bishop Lightfoot wrote of Polycarp of Smyrna, who flourished not very long before the date to which we have traced the twelve verses:

          “In the closing years of his life he paid a visit to Rome, where he conferred with the Bishop Anicetus.  They had other points of difference to discuss, but one main subject of their conference was. the time of celebrating the Passion.

Polycarp pleaded the practice of St. John, and the other Apostles with whom he had conversed, for observing the actual day of the Jewish Passover, the 14th Nisan, without respect to the day of the week. On the other hand, Anicetus could point to the fact that his predecessors, at least as far back as Xystus, who succeeded to the see soon after the beginning of the century, had always kept the anniversary of the Passion on a Friday, and that of the Resurrection on a Sunday, thus making the day of the month give place to the day of the week.”

          The weekly observance of the first day as the day of the Lord’s Resurrection prepared the way for the decision of this controversy in the above sense. If St. Mark's “when He was risen on the first day” was the most obvious Gospel authority for the Christian observance of Sunday in each week, it would have served as an argument for keeping Easter always on a first day; and the argument

would have commended itself all the more to a bishop of Rome if the verse was found in a Gospel traditionally associated with that city.  St. Mark’s Gospel generally satisfies this condition; and in the twelve verses, the very expression “first” day (as above remarked) has been thought by some to be a sign of their Roman origin.  Can we confirm the hypothesis that one of the twelve verses decided the Quartodeciman controversy by adducing evidence that they were known at Rome before or about, the end of the first century'?

       5. CLEMENT OF ROME

         Clem. R. § 42 runs thus in the translation in Lightfoot’s edition: – “The Apostles received the Gospel for us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ was sent forth from God.  So then Christ is from God, and the apostles are from Christ.

         Having therefore received a charge, and having been fully assured through the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and confirmed in the word of God with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth (ἐξελθον) with the glad tidings that the kingdom of God should come.  So preaching (κηρύσσοντες) everywhere in country and town, they appointed their firstfruits, when they had proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons unto them that should believe.”

          Thus the Roman Clement, for St. Mark’s ἐξελθόντες πανταχοῦ ἐκρύξαν, has ἐξελθόν κηρύσσοντες, with a paraphrase for the word πανταχοῦ, which he had used in the previous chapter of his Epistle.

          If St. Clement knew the twelve verses, they must have been known to Anicetus, and cited by him against Polycarp’s authorities for regulating the date of Easter by the Jewish calendar. If he so cited them, they must have contributed not a little to a decision which has governed the usage of the Church from that day till now. That decision was the logical sequel to the disestablishment of the Sabbath by the hebdomadal observance of the First Day.

 

C. TAYLOR

 

Revelation 20:9 - Concluding the Final Battle

 

          Revelation 20 related the culmination of rebellion against God – and a concise description of the consequences of such rebellion:  the final defeat of Satan and his demonic allies and the commencing of Judgment Day.  Today we shall consider a small variant in verse 9:  does the fire that destroys the forces of Satan fall explicitly come from God (ἀπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ) or not?  The Byzantine text includes ἀπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ.  Codex Alexandrinus and about 25 minuscules, as Metzger stated in his Textual Commentary on the GNT, do not; nor did a text read by Tyconius, Augustine, and Primasius.  The Vulgate as represented by Novum Testamentum Latine (1906 Stuttgart) includes “a Deo,” supporting ἀπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ. Metzger granted that about 120 minuscules support ἀπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ, as do Jerome, Aspringius and Beatus.  Codex Gigas also supports the inclusion of ἀπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ although there is inconsistency about whether it should appear before or after ἐκ τοῦ ὸὐρανοῦ.  Augustine’s testimony is inconsistent; he apparently read “a Deo” on one occasion. 

          Versional evidence favoring the inclusion of ἀπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ includes the Old Latin represented by Codex Gigas, the Sahidic version, Harklean Syriac, the Armenian version, and some Ethiopic copies.  

          The testimony of Codex Sinaiticus is somewhat diminished by the scribe’s initial omission of much of Revelation 20:9-10; in the margin a corrector has added the missing passage including ἀπὸ τοῦ Θῦ.

          Our modern English versions are not consistent.  The KJV, Living Oracles (1826), Living Bible, MEV, NKJV, WEB, and EHV include “from God.”  The 1881 Revised Version, ESV, CEV, CSB, NASB, NET, NIV, NLT, and NRSV do not include “from God.”

          Metzger argued for the non-inclusion of ἀπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ on the grounds that it originated as an “imitation of 21.2 and 21.10.”  On the other hand, a scribe could consider it superfluous, or simply omit it accidentally when his line of sight drifted from the end of the contracted ουνου to the end of Θῦ.

           My view is that ἀπὸ τοῦ Θῦ should be retained after εκ τοῦ ουνου.  Readers who can provide additional thoughts are welcome to share them in the comments.

Hand to Hand Combat: 03 versus 017 in John 9:1-9

 John 9:1-9 is a memorable episode in the ministry of Christ, beginning John's account of the healing of the man born blind.  Let’s compare how two important majuscules – Codex Vaticanus (B/03) and Codex Cyprius (K/017) – present this segment of John’s Gospel.  First we will use NA27 as the basis of comparison.

Codex Vaticanus (B) compared to NA27

1 – no variants

2 – has οι after οι (+2)

2 – Ῥαββεί inistead of Ῥαββί (+1)

3 – no variants

4 – εργάζεσθε instead of εργάζεσθαι (+2, -1)

5 – no variants

6 – επέθηκεν instead of επέχρισεν (+3, - 4)

7 – does not include ουν και ενίψατο και ηλθεν (-22)

8 – no variants

9 – αλλ instead of αλλα (-1)

 Compared to NA27, Vaticanus has 8 non-original letters and is missing 28 original letters, for a total of 36 letters’ worth of corruption.

Codex Cyprius (K/017) compared to NA27

1 – παραγον instead of παραγων (+1, -1)

1 – γεννητης instead of γενητης (+1)

2 – no variants

3 – no variants

4 – εμε instead of ημας (+2, -3)

5 – no variants

6 – does not have αυτου (-5)

6 – has του τυφλου after οφθαλμους (+9)

7 – no variants

8 – no variants

9 – does not have ελεγον ουχι αλλα (-14)

Compared to NA27, Cyprius has 13 non-original letters and is missing 23 original letters, for a total of 36 letters’ worth of corruption.

Now let’s compare using the Byzantine Textform as the standard of comparison.

Codex Vaticanus (B) compared to RP-Byz

1 – no variants

2 – has οι after οι (+2)

2 – Ῥαββεί inistead of Ῥαββί (-1)

3 – no variants

4 – ημας instead of εμε (+3, -2)

4 – εργάζεσθε instead of εργάζεσθαι (+2, -1)

5 – no variants

6 – επέθηκεν instead of επέχρισεν (+3, - 4)

6 – has αυτου (+5)

6 – does not have του τυφλου after οφθαλμους (-9)

7 – ερμηνεύετε instead of ερμηνεύεται (+1, -2)

7 – does not include ουν και ενίψατο και ηλθεν (-22). A parableptic error.

8 – προσαίτης instead of τυφλος (+8 , -5 )

9 – does not have δε οτι (-5)

9 – ελεγον ουχι αλλ after αλλοι (+13)

Compared to Byz, 03 has 37 non-original letters, and is missing 51 original letters, for a total of 88 letters’ worth of corruption.

Codex Cyprius compared to RP Byz

1 – παραγον instead of παραγων (+1, -1)

2 – no variants

3 – no variants

4 – no variants

5 – no variants

6 – no variants

7 – no variants

8 – προσαίτης instead of τυφλος after οτι (+8, -5)

8 – προσαίτης instead of τυφλος after οτι (+8, -5)

9 – δε after εκεινος (+2)

Compared to Byz, 017 has 19 non-original letters and is missing 11 original letters, for a total of 30 letters of corruption.

In 9:4, ημας δει and πέμψαντός με both received D ratings from the UBS Committee; πέμψαντός ημας is supported by P66 P75 ﬡ* L W.

Whatever yardstick one employs, 017 is at least as accurate as 03 in this particular passage.  Rather than being dismissed as irrelevant, it should be given much more weight than it was given by those who compiled the NA/UBS compilation.

Luke 9:55-56 - What a Knot!

           Having seen that a scribal note at the end of Luke 9:54 became extremely popular and eventually dominated over 99.5% of extant manuscripts, let’s move along to the fascinating cluster of variants in verses 55-56 – one of the most difficult variant-units in the New Testament.   Metzger’s six-line dismissal of the longer readings has been augmented in online studies by several researchers including Robert Clifton Robinson and the NET’s annotator.  Zooming in on verse 55 first, we see that the Textus Receptus, the Byzantine Textform, and the Majority Text and quite a few MSS read (after αὐτοἷς) καὶ εἶπεν οὐκ οἴδατε οίου πνεύματός ἐστε ὑμεις” and verse 56 begins with ὁ γὰρ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου οὐκ ῆλθεν ψυχὰς ἀνθρώπων ἀπολέσαι άλλὰ σῶσαι. – that is (in the EOB New Testament) “You do not know of what kind of spirit you are.  The Son of Man did not come to destroy people’s  lives but to save them.”

          Weighing in for non-inclusion are P45 P75 À A B C E G H L S V W D X Y Ω and about 430 minuscules including 28 33 157 565 892 1424 etc.   The Sinaitic Syriac and the Sahidic version do not include the material.  Cyprian supports the inclusion of "the Son of Man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them" (in Letter 58:2 - thanks to Demian Moscofian for this reference).  Chrysostom supports the inclusion of εἶπεν οὐκ οἴδατε οίου πνεύματός ἐστε ὑμεις and non-inclusion of ὁ γὰρ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου οὐκ ῆλθεν ψυχὰς ἀνθρώπων ἀπολέσαι άλλὰ σῶσαι.  Epiphanius supports inclusion.  Basil weighs in for non-inclusion.

Majuscules that support inclusion (with minor variations) include D (although D does not include ὑμεις at the end of v. 55 and 56a) Y M K U Γ Θ Λ Π,  and the 1,300 minuscules that include the longer reading include f¹ f¹³ 124 180 205 597 700 1006 1243 1292 1505.  Willker noticed that 240 minuscules read ποίου instead of οίου (agreeing with D), and that 33 minuscules have the first segment of verse 56 before the last segment of verse 55.  Latin support for non-inclusion includes a, aur, b, c, e, f, q, r¹ and the Clementine and Wordsworth’s edition of the Vulgate. Nestle’s Novum Testamentum Latine reads “Et conversus increpavit illos, dicens :  Nescitis euius spiritus estis.  Filius hominis non venit animas perdere, sed salvare.”   I have not verified the claim that Codex Fuldensis supports non-inclusion.  The Curetonian Syriac, the Peshitta, and Harklean Syriac support inclusion and so do the Armenian and Gothic versions.  Ambrose and Ambrosiaster both support the longer reading.

            (GA 579 has a unique expansion which I will ignore here.)

            Early readers might have wondered know what Jesus said when he rebuked James and John.  But would they be willing to invent a response from Jesus and present it as if it originated with Jesus?  Is it likely that a scribe would add this sentence knowing that it was not originally part of Luke’s Gospel?

            On the other hand, if Luke wrote καὶ εἶπεν οὐκ οἴδατε οίου πνεύματός ἐστε ὑμεις  ὁ γὰρ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου οὐκ ῆλθεν ψυχὰς ἀνθρώπων ἀπολέσαι άλλὰ σῶσαι, what possible motive would any scribe have to remove these words?  Luke preserved Jesus’ saying (in 19:10) that the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost – so why add a similar statement here?

            A very bad case of parablepsis could account for the loss of καὶ εἶπεν οὐκ οἴδατε οίου πνεύματός ἐστε ὑμεις  ὁ γὰρ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου οὐκ ῆλθεν ψυχὰς ἀνθρώπων ἀπολέσαι άλλὰ σῶσαι if a scribe’s line of sight drifted from the καὶ after αὐτοῖς to the καὶ before ἐπορεύθησαν.  However this seems unlikely for several reasons.  First, due to the large amount of lost material.  Second, because a proof-reader would almost certainly correct the omission.  Third, because the attestation for non-inclusion are from Alexandrian (P75 À B Sahidic), Western (Old Latin a b c r¹ ), and Byzantine (A S Ω 1424) transmission-lines.  

            Let’s take a closer look at a few of Chrysostom’s utilizations of Luke 9:55-56.   Near the end of Homily on Matthew 29 he cited 9:55b plainly.  Ini his 51^st Homily on John he utilized 9:55b again.  And he did so again in Homily on First Corinthians 33 when commenting on I Cor. 13:5, writing, “Wherefore also when the disciples besought that fire might come down, even as in the case of Elijah, ‘You know not,’ says Christ, ‘what manner of spirit you are of.’” 

            We are looking at two variants here, not just one:  (1) the addition of καὶ εἶπεν οὐκ οἴδατε οίου πνεύματός ἐστε ὑμεις and (2) the inclusion of ὁ γὰρ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου οὐκ ῆλθεν ψυχὰς ἀνθρώπων ἀπολέσαι άλλὰ σῶσαι.  We are also looking at several strata in the transmission of the text.

           I suspect we are dealing with a phenomenon involving marginalia in the autograph.  Whether the marginalia was added by Luke, or by a later scribe, is very difficult to determine.  Imagine the main text of verses 55-56 looking like it does in Codex S (028).  Then picture καὶ εἶπεν οὐκ οἴδατε οίου πνεύματός ἐστε ὑμεις in the margin to the left, and ὁ γὰρ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου οὐκ ῆλθεν ψυχὰς ἀνθρώπων ἀπολέσαι άλλὰ σῶσαι in the margin to the right.  Scribes coming to this could interpret it in different ways.  To encapusulate the hypothetical history of the text at this point, I will name alphabetically the scribes who treated it differently:

          Alex and Bill perpetuate only the main text, thinking that the marginalia is all secondary and non-Lukan.
          Cecil perpetuates the main text and includes all the marginalia as the text in the copy he produces.

           Dexter perpetuates the main text and includes 55b in the main text of the copy he produces.

          Later, using exemplar based on the ones made by Bill and Cecil, Edward made a copy resembling most Byzantine MSS, with 55b and 56a indiscernible from the rest of the text.

          Fred similarly made a copy including 55b and 56a, but in a different order.

           How should modern English versions handle this?  I would be content with what we see in the New American Standard Bible (1995), but with brackets only around 56b:  “But He turned and rebuked them, and said, “You do not know what kind of spirit you are of [for the Son of Man did not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them.”] And they went on to another village.”  Let’s see an array of different treatments:

            Modern English versions have handled this variants in a variety of ways:

          NIV:  But Jesus turned and rebuked them. Then he and his disciples went to another village. (no footnote)

          NLT:  But Jesus turned and rebuked them.^a  The footnote reads:  “Some manuscripts add an expanded conclusion to verse 55 and an additional sentence in verse 56: And he said, “You don’t realize what your hearts are like. ⁵⁶ For the Son of Man has not come to destroy people’s lives, but to save them.””
          ESV:  But he turned and rebuked them.^a  The footnote reads:  “Luke 9:55 Some manuscripts add And he said, “You do not know what manner of spirit you are of; ⁵⁶for the Son of Man came not to destroy people's lives but to save them.”

          WEB:  But he turned and rebuked them, “You don’t know of what kind of spirit you are.  For the Son of Man didn’t come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them.”

          EHV:  But he turned and rebuked them. “You don’t know what kind of spirit is influencing you.  For the Son of Man did not come to destroy people’s souls, but to save them.”^a  Then they went to another village.  The footnote reads “Luke 9:56 Some witnesses to the text omit this quotation.”

          The Message hyper-paraphrase:  “Jesus turned on them: “Of course not!” And they traveled on to another village.”

          Christian Standard Bible:  “and they went to another village.” (Footnote:  Other mss add and said, “You don’t know what kind of spirit you belong to. 56 For the Son of Man did not come to destroy people’s lives but to save them,”)

In conclusion, with the present state of evidence, the best option is to include καὶ εἶπεν οὐκ οἴδατε οίου πνεύματός ἐστε ὑμεις in the text and ὁ γὰρ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου οὐκ ῆλθεν ψυχὰς ἀνθρώπων ἀπολέσαι άλλὰ σῶσαι in a footnote.