John 7:46 - Neither Shortest Nor Longest

In his obsolete Textual Commentary of the Greek New Testament, regarding the end of John 7:46 Bruce Metzger briefly stated, "The crisp brevity of the reading supported by p^{66c, 75} B L T W copt^bo al was expanded for the sake of greater explicitness in various ways, none of which, if original, would account for the rise of the others."  

Let's test that.

Following ἄνθρωπος, we see the following variety: 

ὡς οὗτος ὁ ἄνθρωπος - Byz K M N U Γ Δ Θ Λ Π Ψ  f¹ f¹³ 2 28 33 69 124 157 565 579 1071 1424 1505

ὡς οὗτος λαλει ὁ ἄνθρωπος  - P66* 01* (There is an itacism in 01 and P66*, and 01 has a singular reading at the beginning of the verse, pictured.)

ὡς οὗτος λαλει (after ἄνθρωπος ἐλάλησεν) - 05

That's not a lot of variety.   03 P66^c 019 T and 032 appear to be the only manuscripts which support the reading adopted in UBS4.

Meanwhile, support for a longer reading comes not only from all other Greek manuscripts (with GA 13 dissenting due to a scribal error, initially failing to include ἐλάλησεν earlier in the verse, and with a transposition - ἐλάλησεν οὗτως - in N Ψ 33 1071 1241) but also from the Sahidic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Georgian, and Syriac (Sinaitic, Curetonian, Peshitta, and Harklean) versions, as well as the Palestinian Aramaic and the Vulgate.  A very impressive array.

While some commentators point out that the Byzantine text displays a tendency to clarify via embellishment, one should also be aware of the opposite tendency in the Alexandrian text to economize via abbreviation - i.e., to attempt to express the same idea using fewer words.  

If one were to treat the reading supported by the vast majority of manuscripts and versions as original here, the reading of 03 and allies is readily explained as either the result of a parableptic leap from the first ἄνθρωπος to the second ἄνθρωπος., or as an intentional attempt to eliminate superfluity.  

An early scribe could conceivably consider the Alexandrian reading in need of embellishment, and add "like this" or "like this man."  On the other hand, the addition of "like this" and "like this man" adds nothing that anyone could not figure out in a moment.  If John wrote ὡς οὗτος ὁ ἄνθρωπος, his reason for doing so would be obvious:  that is what he overheard the soldiers say.  In addition, the reading in P66* and 01 is accounted for as a conflation of the Byzantine reading and the reading in 05.

Instead of defending the Alexandrian reading by assigning to scribes a desire to make a frivolous embellishment, it is better in this case to regard the reading of 03 and allies as an accidental or intentional truncation of what John wrote.

One medieval scribe - the copyist of 2483(2866) - illustrated that a scribe in the Middle Ages could commit dittography while copying John 7:46-47.  And where dittography is possible, parablepsis tends to be possible too.

For those who may be interesting in how English versions treat this variant:  KJV NKJV MEV RSV Message NASB95 NET NIV EHV EOB all support the longer reading, demolishing any  assumption that those who reject Metzger’s premise here must harbor a pro-Byzantine prejudice.    

(Thanks to Ben Crawford for sharing this photo of GA 2483 from the Benjamin Crawford Collection, Alabama.)

0    

Lectionary 1043

Lectionary 1043 is a fragment assigned to the 400s, making it among the earliest lectionaries in existence.  It resides in Vienna at the Austrian National Library (P.Vindob. G 2324).  It contains, in whole or in part, ten lections from the Gospels:  (1) from the end of Mt. 7:16-7:20  (2) Mt. 10:39  to the end of 10:43 (2) Mt 10:37-42 (3) from Mt. 3:7-3:12 (end of Sect 12) (4) Mt 3:13-17, (5) Mt 7:13 - (6) Mk. 6:(18)-6:29 (7) Lk. 2:1-20 (8) Lk. 11:27-32 (9) Lk. 24:36 - ??? (10) Jn. 20:2-13.

(1)  MATTHEW 7

1.  Mt 7:19 – OUN

X.  Mt 10:37 – uncontracted UION

2.  Mt 10:41 – LHMPSETAI

3.  Mt 10:41 – LHMPSETAI

4.  Mt 10:42 – EAN 

In this lection we see Alexandrian orthography in 10:41, an agreement with the Byzantine text (and 01 and 019) in 10:42, and an agreement with 019 in verse 19.

(2)  MATTHEW 3

5.  Mt. 3:7 - AUTOU is absent, as in 01 and 03.

6.  Mt. 3:10 - begins HDH DE KAI H as in the Byzantine Text, disagreeing with 01 03 05 032) 

7.  Mt 3:10 - the very rare reading TO before PUR

8.  Mt 3:11 - UMAS BAPTISMA, agreeing with 01 032 and family 1.

9.  Mt 3:11 - AUTOU after UPODHMATA 

10.  Mt 3:11 - includes KAI PURI

11.  Mt 3:14 - IWANNHS is absent after O DE, agreeing with 01 and 03. 

12.  Mt 3:16 - BAPTISQEIS DE, agreeing with 01 and 03 instead of the Byzantine KAI BAPTISQEIS

13.  Mt 3:16 - agrees with 01 and 03 in the word-order of EUTHUS ANEBH

14.  Mt 3:16 - HNEWCHQHSAN before OI OURANOI, agreeing with 03. 

15, 16.  Mt 3:16 - TO PNA TOU, agreeing with the Byzantine text in both the inclusion of TO and the inclusion of TOU

X.  Mt 3:17 - UION is not contracted

17. - Mt 3:17 - HUDOKHSA, agreeing with C L P W 118 and a correction in 01.

(3)  MATTHEW 4:23-5:12

18. - 4:23 – EN OLH TH GALILAIA

19. - 4:24 – includes KAI before DAIMONIZOMENOUS

20.  5:1 – PROSHLQON

21.  5:2 – E before TO STOMA

22.  5:2 – ENDIDASKEN (?)

23.  5:3 – AUTON

24.  5:6 – PINWNTES

X.  5:8 – uncontracted QEON

25.  5:9 – does not have AUTOI after OTI

26.  5:10 – has THS after ENEKEN (agreeing with Codex C)

27.  5:11 – does not have RHMA

28.  5:11 –only has PSEUDOMENOI after ENEKEN EMOU

(5) MATTHEW 7 

29.  7:13 –DIERCHOMENOI

30.  7:14 – OTI [no DE]

31.  7:15 – DE

32.  7:16 – STAPHULAS

Up to this point Lectionary 1043 is roughly twice as Alexandrian as it is Byzantine:  seven readings are Byzantine, eleven are Alexandrian, and thirteen favor neither the Alexandrian nor the Byzantine text.   But in Mark 6 we see a startling shift in favor of the Alexandrian text:

(6)  MARK 6

33.  6:20 – HPOREI (not EPOIEI) (with 01 03 019)

34.  6:21 – EPOIHSEN (not EPOIEI) (with 01 03 019)

35.  6:22 –AUTHS after QUGATROS (with 032)

36.  6:22 –HRESEN (P45 and Byz: αρεσάσης) (with 01 03 019)

37.  6:23 – AUTH (not POLLA) – (notice the conflation in UBS)

38.  6:23 – AN (not EAN) (with 05)

39.  6:23 – O DE BASILEUS EIPEN (Byz & P45: ειπεν ο βασιλευς) (with 01 03 019)

40.  6:24 –AITHSWMAI (with 01 03 019)

41.  6:24 –BAPTIZONTOS (with 01 03 019)

42.  6:25–EUQUS (with 01 03)

43.  6:25 –ECHAUTHS DWS MOI (with 01 03 019)

44.  :26 –SUNANAKEIMENOUS (with 05 Byz)

45.  6:27 –EUQUS (with 01 03 019)

46.  6:27 –KAIPHALHN

47.  6:28 –KAI (not O DE) (with 03)

48.  6:28–TW before KORASION

(8)  LUKE 11

49.  27 – FWNHN GUNH

50.  28 –MENOUN GE

51.  29 – ZHTEI

52.  29 – does not have TOU PROFHTOU

53.  30 –TOIS NINEUITAIS SHMEION

(9) LUKE 24

54.  36 – LOUNTWN (missing LA-)

55.  36 – does not include O IHSOUS

(10) JOHN 20

56.  6 – KAI after OUN

57.  10 – TOUS after PROS (instead of AUTOUS or EAUTOUS)

58.  11 – MNHMEIW (instead of MNHMEION)

59.  11 – EXW KLAIOUSA

Out of 59 notable readings, when the 18 miscellaneous readings that are not supported by the flagship MSS of any text-type are set aside, the remaining 41 variation-units produce these simple ratios: 29/41 Alexandrian (70.7%) and 8/41 (19.5%) Byzantine.

Alexandrian dominance is particularly stunning in Mark 6.  A future post zooming in on Mark Mk. 6:19-6:29 is planned.  In the meantime, the strong affinity of Lectionary 1043 with the Alexandrian text should be noted, as well as two remarkable readings:  AUTHS in Mark 6:22 and EUDOKIA in Luke 2:14 - diverging from 01 and 03!  

The non-contraction of UION and QEON in Lectionary 1043 suggests an extraordinarily ancient production-date for its exemplar.

Lectionary 1043 should be treated as a witness of the first order in future compilations of the text of the Gospels.

This post is dedicated to the memory of James Roth.

 

How (And How Not) to Define a Text-type

 In the ninth lecture in my online introduction to New Testament textual criticism, I describe text-types.  There has been a recent wave of resistance in academia to affirm the reality of text-types, on the grounds that only the Byzantine text has an archetype capable of confident reconstruction.  This resistance is due to a failure to acknowledge the proper way to define a text-type.  Instead of profiling entire collections of readings in separate genres of the New Testament (Gospels, Acts, General Epistles, Pauline Epistles, Revelation) , a constellation of 50 or less distinct readings is all that is needed to separate manuscripts into the traditionally recognized text-types (Alexandrian, Byzantine, Western, Caesarean).  

Because of pervasive mixture and each manuscript's scribe's uniqueness, once each text-type's distinct variants - the stars in the constellation, so to speak - are identified, 45 out of 50 variants, rather than 50 out of 50, sufficiently shows the type of text a manuscript contains.

This approach is applicable to the full text across a genre; it does not apply to small fragmentary manuscripts, the classification of which should be made and which should also be considered provisional.   Why provisional?  Because block-mixture is real.  It was once proposed that a small sample is sufficient to show the text-type of a manuscript:  the text-type of the extant sample was extrapolated to apply hypothetically to the non-extant portion.   The logic seemed sound:  if you open a jar and stick a spoon inside and pull it out full of grape jelly, it's reasonable to conclude that the whole jar is full of grape jelly.

But sometimes there's a jar like Smucker's Goober-Grape.  One small spoon is an insufficient basis to ascertain the jar's contents.  Some manuscript are like that.  The textual character of Codex Washingtoniensis, 032, varies widely in different segments of text.  Codex Regius, 019, shifts from being predominantly Byzantine at the beginning of Matthew to being mainly Alexandrian by the end of John.  The large manuscripts that only survive as small fragments might have been like that too.  

When we have the text of a full genre preserved in a manuscript, its text can be validly assigned to a type.  Over a century ago, Edward Ardron Hutton, assisted by F. C. Burkitt,  helpfully wrote An Atlas of Textual Criticism in which he presented (or re-presented) a valid basis for dividing groups of manuscripts' text into families.  Hutton affirmed that "The test of antiquity is decidedly against the Syrian," i.e., against the Byzantine text.  Built into his statement is the assumption that we can identify what the Byzantine text is.

Hutton observed that the same kind of close relationship seen in family 13 (see the diagram here) can exists - at a lesser degree of magnification - between larger groups of manuscripts.  He proceeded to list "Triple readings" - variation-units which are so to speak a three-horse race and the three horses are Byzantine ("S"), Alexandrian ("A"), and Western (W").

The text of a non-fragmentary manuscript can easily be assigned to a text-type, or be recognized as mixed, on the basis of Hutton's Triple Readings.  There is no need to add comets and fireflies to the constellation while the stars are blazing bright.

Matthew 17:21 - What's the Early Evidence Say?

In the Evangelical Heritage Version, Matthew 17:21 says, "But this kind does not go out except by prayer and fasting.”  The KJV, NKJV, EOB-NT, MEV, WEB, and 1995 NASB read similarly.  In the RV 1881, ASV, ESV, NIV, NLT, and NRSV, however, there is no such verse; the versification jumps from 20 to 22.  What has happened?

Bruce Manning Metzger

          Bruce Metzger did not spend many words explaining:  “Since there is no good reason why the passage, if originally present in Mathew, should have been omitted, and since copyists frequently inserted material derived from another Gospel, it appears that most manuscripts have been assimilated to the parallel in Mk. 9.29.”  (Textual Commentary on the GNT, p. 43)  His concise treatment is unsatisfactory for at least three reasons, first of which is the consideration that Matthew himself when using Mark’s Gospel (or something closely resembling it) had no discernible reason to skip over this statement of Jesus. 

          Second, the external evidence merits a closer look.  Neither the apparatus in the UBS GNT nor the Nestle-Aland NTG is sufficient.  We begin with their data, supplemented by Swanson:  verse 21 is absent in À* B Q 579 788 892* l253 it^e  ff¹ the Sinaitic Syriac, the Curetonian Syriac, Palestinian Aramaic, the Sahidic version, some Bohairic witnesses, an Ethiopic witness, and an early strata of the Old Georgian version.    Everything else favors the inclusion of τοῦτο δὲ τό γένος ούκ ἐκπορεύεται εἰ μὴ ἐν προσευχῇ καὶ νηστείᾳ (À^c reads ἐκβάλλεται instead of ἐκπορεύεται, 118 reads ἐξέρχεται, and 205 1505 l1074 read εξέρχεται) – including C D F G H K L Y O W Y Δ Σ Φ 0281 f¹ f¹³ 28 157 180 565 597 678 700 892^c 1006 1010 1071 1241 1243 1292 1342 1424 Byz Lect it^a it^aur it^b it^c it^d itf it^ff2 it^g1 it¹ itⁿ it^q Vulgate Peshitta Harklean Syriac Armenian some Georgian, and the patristic evidence is lopsided in favor of inclusion:  Origen Asterius Basil-of-Caesarea Chrysostom Hilary Ambrose Jerome Augustine.  Hort noted that daemonii is sometimes added in Old Latin witnesses.  The writer of an article at NeverThirsty stated, “The verse is not included in the newer Bibles because the older and better manuscripts of Matthew do not include it” and “Apparently in the process of copying the manuscripts, someone at a much later date copied the verse from the Gospel of Mark and added it to the Matthew account. “

 

         Now let’s zoom in on some patristic witnesses. 

          In 2010 Jonathan C. Borland presented a paper titled “THE AUTHENTICITY AND INTERPRETATION OF MATTHEW 17:21” at a gathering of the Evangelical Theological Society in Atlanta, Georgia.  He noted that 1604 2680 should be added to the list of MSS favoring non-inclusion, and that the percentage of Greek MSS favoring inclusion is 99.4%.  He also took a close look at some patristic witnesses:

          ● The author known as Pseudo-Clement, in Letters on Virginity (1:12) did not specify which Gospel he was quoting but the wording looks more like Matthew 17:21 than  Mark 9:29 when he wrote against individuals who “do not act with true faith, according to the teaching of our Lord, who hath said: ‘This kind goeth not out but by fasting and prayer,' offered unceasingly and with earnest mind.’”

          ● Clement of Alexandria, c. 200, in Extracts from the Prophets, wrote, “The Savior plainly declared to the believing apostles that prayer was stronger than faith in the case of a certain demoniac, whom they could not cleanse, when he said, ‘Such things are accomplished successfully through prayer.’”

          ● Tertullian, in de Jejun 8:2-3, without specifying whether he was citing Matthew or Mark, wrote the following:  “After that, he prescribed that fasting should be carried out without sadness.  For why should what is beneficial be sad? He taught also to fight against the more fierce demons by means of fasting. For is it surprising that the Holy Spirit is lead in through the same means by which the sinful spirit is lead out?”

          ● Origen, in his Commentary on Matthew (13:6-7) wrote, “That those, then, who suffer from what is called lunacy sometimes fall into the water is evident, and that they also fall into the fire, less frequently indeed, yet it does happen; and it is evident that this disorder is very difficult to cure, so that those who have the power to cure demoniacs sometimes fail in respect of this, and sometimes with fastings and supplications and more toils, succeed.”  And, “But let us also attend to this, ‘This kind goeth not out save by prayer and fasting,’ in order that if at any time it is necessary that we should be engaged in the healing of one suffering from such a disorder, we may not adjure, nor put questions, nor speak to the impure spirit as if it heard, but devoting ourselves to prayer and fasting, may be successful as we pray for the sufferer, and by our own fasting may thrust out the unclean spirit from him.”

          ● The Latin writer Juvencus wrote in Book 3 of Libri evangeliorum quattuor, “For by means of limitless prayers it is faith and much fasting of determined soul that drive off this kind of illness.”

          Although defenders of modern versions have claimed that “The verse is not included in the newer Bibles because the older and better manuscripts of Matthew do not include it,” antiquity in this case favors inclusion:  the oldest witness for inclusion is older than the oldest witness for non-inclusion.

          The scope of attestation also favors inclusion at least as much as it favors non-inclusion:  Western witnesses for inclusion far outnumber the Western witnesses for non-inclusion, and they are geographically widespread.

          We are left with the appeal to the “best” manuscripts as the basis for rejecting the verse.  But this is circular reasoning; the real question is “What are the best witnesses at this specific point?”, and generalizations simply do not answer that question. It is like deciding which football team wins the ballgame when the score is tied by asking which kicker has made the most field goals, instead of by actually scoring more points than the other team.  

          Third, this supposed harmonization doesn’t yield a tight harmony.  Let’s compare the text of Matthew 17:21 to Mark 9:29.  Mark wrote, τοῦτο  τό γένος ἐν οὐδενὶ δύναται ἐξελθειν εἰ μὴ ἐν προσευχῇ καὶ νηστείᾳ.  (Regarding the Alexandrian text’s non-inclusion of καὶ νηστείᾳ, see my earlier analysis.)  Metzger’s plea that Mark 9:29 was transplanted into Matthew 17 is complicated by the distinct lack of verbal similarity:

          Matthew:  τοῦτο δὲ τό γένος ούκ ἐκπορεύεται εἰ μὴ ἐν προσευχῇ καὶ νηστείᾳ.

          Mark:  τοῦτο τό γένος ἐν οὐδενὶ δύναται ἐξελθειν εἰ μὴ ἐν προσευχῇ καὶ νηστείᾳ.

          This is not a verbatim harmonization – out of 12 words (in Matthew 17:21), nine are identical – and Metzger’s comment that “copyists frequently inserted material derived from another Gospel” fails to explain why a scribe with Mark 9:29 in front of him would change 25% of its wording when inserting it into the text of the Gospel of Matthew.  It should also be noted that the kind of harmonization Metzger referred to usually involved harmonization to the text of Matthew in Mark and Luke, not the other way around (the harmonization of Matthew 9:13 and Mark 2:17 to Luke 5:32 being a notable exception).

          I propose that an early Western scribe intentionally omitted the material we know as Matthew 17:21 out of concern that readers might think that the ability of the Son of God was limited depending on whether he fasted or not.  (The same concern motivated the omission of καὶ νηστείᾳ in Mark 9:29.)  This exclusion was subsequently adopted by scribes in the Alexandrian transmission-line, which led to the reading (or non-reading) in À B Q et al.

          Matthew 17:21 should be regarded as an authentic part of the Gospel of Matthew.  The oldest evidence, the most geographically diverse evidence, and the vast majority of evidence all point in favor of its inclusion.  The NIV, ESV, etc. should be corrected accordingly.

Thanks to Jonathan Borland for sharing his insightful research.

The Interpolation in Matthew 27:49: Why?

             “Two suppositions alone are compatible with the whole evidence.   First, the words ἄλλος δὲ κ. τ. λ. may belong to the genuine text of the extant form of Mt, and have been early omitted (originally by the Western text) on account of the obvioous difficulty.  Or, secondly, they may be a very early interpolation, absent in the first instance from the Western text only, and thus resembling the Non-Western interpolations in Luke xxii xxiv except in its failure to to obtain admission into the prevalent texts of the third and fourth centuries. 

            “The prima facie difficulty of the second supposition is lightened by the absence of the words from all the earlier versions, though the defectiveness of African Latin, Old Syriac, and Thebaic evidence somewhat weakens the force of this consideration.  We have thought it on the whole right to give expression to this view by including the words in double brackets, though we did not feel justified in removing them from the text, and are not prepared to reject altogether the alternative supposition.”

            (Hort, Notes on Select Readings, p. 22)

             What was F.J.A. Hort talking about?  Most Americans who are acquainted with the NIV, ESV, CSB, and NASB have no clue, because these versions have no footnote at Matthew 27:49.  The Tyndale House Greek New Testament does not have an apparatus-listing at Matthew 27:49.  (Dr. Dirk Jongkind, Tyndale House GNT editor, discussed it in February 2018 at the Evangelical Textual Criticism blog).  

            The CSB is particularly strange in this regard, because it features a textual footnote pointing out trivial textual variants nearby, but not for this one which involves a drastic change in meaning and in doctrine.

            Let us take a closer today.

 

From Westcott & Hort's 1881 Greek text

ἄλλος δὲ λαβὼν λόγχην ἔνυξεν αὐτοῦ τὴν πλευρὰν καὶ ἐξῆλθεν ὕδωρ καὶ αἷμα is supported by Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, C L U Γ and by about 35 minuscules MSS (specifically, 5 26 48 67 115 127 160 175 364 782 871 1010 1011 1057 1300 1392 1416 1448 1555 1566 1701 1780 2117 2126 2139 2283 2585 2586 2622 2680 2766 2787).  The first hand of minuscule 2437 (previously examined here in 2018) should be included in this list, despite having had the words erased by a corrector.

            Also supporting the inclusion of these words (in some cases with ὕδωρ and αἷμα transposed) are Palestinian Aramaic copies, the Ethiopic version, Middle Egyptian, quite a few Irish Vulgate and Old Latin copies (the list includes the Book of Mulling and the Book of Kells and the Book of Dimma).
            I will not review the details of what Hort, in 1881, and more recently, Willker has written regarding Macedonius and Chrysostom and Severus and the ancient (alleged) autograph of the Gospel of Matthew found on Cyprus in the late 400s.
            The Revision Committee in 1881 heeded Hort’s advice somewhat, and as a result the 1881 RV featured a margin-note linked to Matthew 27:49 which stated, “Many ancient authorities add And another took a spear and pierced his side, and there came out water and blood.   See John xix. 34.”                   If the men who translated and edited the 1984 NIV had done what they did 99% of the time – i.e., follow the Nestle-Aland compilation – then the NIV, too, would say “And someone else, taking a spear, pierced his side and there came out water and blood” in Matthew 27:49.  The same can be said regarding the creators of the NASB, ESV, NNIV (that’s how I refer to the 2011 NIV, which varies drastically from the 1984 NIV), and CSB.   I cannot of course judge their motives but they seem awfully fickle at this particular point.

            Perhaps their fickleness is due to reluctance to admit into the text, even in double brackets or in a footnote, a textual variant which would destroy the doctrine of inerrrancy (which I have already discussed here).  Philip Comfort acknowledgd  in Encountering the Manuscripts (2005) that the inclusion of ἄλλος δὲ λαβὼν λόγχην ἔνυξεν αὐτοῦ τὴν πλευρὰν καὶ ἐξῆλθεν ὕδωρ καὶ αἷμα would appear to create “a jarring contradiction.”

            (Notice, by the way, that there is no distigmai in Vaticanus here – because Sepulveda would not have pointed out to Erasmus such an erroneous reading in his (Sepulveda’s) prized ancient codex.)

            Operating on the premise that editors of the NIV, ESV, CSB, etc., have held (that it is an interpolation), what would motivate an early scribe to create and into the text these words?

            A desire to show that some Romans, or some Jews, were merciful to Jesus as he was dying on the cross.  Crucifixion is a painful experience.  It can last for days.  A person who ended Jesus’ torture would be understood by his contemporaries to be acting mercifully.

            There is a slight anti-Judaic tendency in the Western text of Acts.  I propose that there was a slight pro-Jewish tendency at work in the Alexandrian Greek transmission-line, which carried over into the Old Latin transmission-line that is represented in some Irish Old Latin copies of the Gospel of Matthew.  

            Before the four Gospels were collected together, our interpolator could point to his interpolation and say “Look!  Not all of the Jews on the scene were bad.  Sure, God destroyed Jerusalem forty years later, but there was a remnant there on Calvary; there was at least one noble Jew who defied the Romans and showed mercy to Jesus on the cross – not giving him a drink to prolong his suffering, but spearing him, in defiance of the Roman soldiers, in order to end his suffering.”

            Or, the interpolation might have been made by an early pro-Roman scribe, who wished to convey that the Romans who crucified Jesus were just following orders, and had no personal vendetta against Jesus (something most first-century readers of Matthew would naturally assume), and that one of them, in an act of insubordination, speared Jesus, causing his immediate death and an end to his sufferings.

   

Picture from the Rabbula Gospels

         The traditions about Saint Longinus may thus become more relevant – was he Roman, or Jewish?  Or both?

             The earliest traditions about Longinus consistently portray him as a Roman centurion, as far as I can tell.  On that premise, the interpolation in the Alexandrian text of Matthew 27:49 was created in order to excuse the Romans.  The Romans could argue that as legitimate agents of the Roman Empire, they should be forgiven for crucifying Jesus – and, with this interpolation, offer an extra consideration:  they didn’t even allow Jesus to suffer on the cross longer than what was required to carry out the orders of Pontius Pilate – barely enough time to crucify Jesus, and enough time to allow all the bystanders to read the inscription Pilate ordered them to post on the cross, and enough time to finish gambling.

             (As it turned out, it only took Jesus six hours to suffer and die for the sins of the whole world, but the Roman soldiers couldn’t have known that.)

             I consider it very likely that John, when he wrote the fourth Gospel in Ephesus, was aware of this interpolation and either read it, or heard about it.

             Notice the explicit words of John 19:35  - “The one who saw it [i.e., John] has testified , and his testimony is true.  He knows that he is telling the truth, so that you also may believe.”  What could be the motivation for such explicitness, except to respond to an interpolation that John detected in his own copy of the Gospel of Matthew, or a copy that someone had told him about?

              So:  after walking through the external and internal evidence carefully and slowly, I conclude that the words ἄλλος δὲ λαβὼν λόγχην ἔνυξεν αὐτοῦ τὴν πλευρὰν καὶ ἐξῆλθεν ὕδωρ καὶ αἷμα in the Alexandrian text (and whatever other texts) are an interpolation, and may confidently be treated as the interpolation they are.  That is, they are an interesting display of an early scribe’s concern, but as a representation of the autograph of the Greek text of the Gospel of Matthew, they should be entirely ignored.

 

John 5:3b-4: Original or Not?

            Metzger’s observation that 5:3b contains two “non-Johannine” words is lightweight, considering that John had few other occasions to use either ἐκδέχεσθαι or κίνησις.

            (I commend to readers both the article written by Zane Hodges in 1979 in Bibliotheca Sacra 136, pp. 25-39, and the article by Gordon Fee which appeared in Evangelical Quarterly 54 (pp. 207-218.)              

            Before reaching a conclusion about John 5:3b, let’s investigate 5:4.  Dr. Bill Mounce addressed this variant briefly, but his treatment is extremely oversimplified.  More is required.  First, we must get an idea of how much textual variation there is within this verse.  In A K L Y Δ Π, κυρίου (ΚΥ) appears after αγγελος γαρ (or, in L, αγγελος δε).  And instead of κατέβεινεν, A K Π Ψ 579 have ἐλούετο.  And A (supported by some Bohairic manuscripts) has ουν between δήποτ’ and κατείχετο.  Instead of δήποτε, K and Π have δ’ αν.  In C^c H M U Y Δ Λ Π 078 and at least 17 lectionaries, instead of ἐτάρασσεν, the text reads ἐταράσσετο.  The Ethiopic version also supports ἐταράσσετο.   Swanson erroneously lists Δ as if it reads ἐταράσσετο and ἐτάρασσεν; a check of the manuscript show that it supports ἐταράσσε το (the το being the το before ὕδωρ).  

            Plus, in S Λ Π 047, and 72 minuscules, the passage is marked with asterisks.  The Harklean Syriac also features the verse marked with asterisks.

             The external evidence mostly aligns with the external evidence for 5:3b – but not quite. D W^supp 33, 2718, and the Armenian and Georgian versions, which include 4:3b, do not imclude 5:4.  5:4 is supported by Tatian’s Diatessaron (as demonstrated by a comment by Ephrem in his commentary ), by Ambrose, by Tertullian, by Chrysostom (who was listed in UBS1 as a witness for both inclusion and non-inclusion), and Cyril.  

            Tertullian, in De Baptismo 5, near the end of the chapter, wrote, “If it seems an unheard-of thing that an angel should interfere with water, there was a precedent for that which was to be. The pool of Bethsaida ‘was stirred’ by the intervention of ‘an angel.’  Those who complained of their health used to watch for him. For anyone who had first descended there ceased to complain after a bath. This picture of bodily cure was prophetic of spiritual cure, according to the practice by which things carnal always precede, being a picture of things spiritual. As, therefore, the grace of God spread among men, greater power was added to the waters and the angel.”

            Tertullian goes on to say, “Those who healed bodily defects now heal the spirit.  Those who worked temporal salvation now restore for us everlasting salvation.  Those who freed one once a year, [this indicates how Tertullian understood κατά καιρόν] now daily save communities, death being destroyed by the washing away of sins.”  Tertullian clearly had no problem reading this verse and applying it to the life of the church.

            Chrysostom commented on 5:3b-4 in detail in his commentary on John, perceiving in the paralytic’s healing a thematic template of baptism and salvation. 

            Tertullian, in Latin, and Chrysostom, in Greek, demonstrate the antiquity of the passage in the text, as early as two papyri from c. 200 and c. 400 would.  Chrysostom also shows that John 5:4 was read in the text of the church in Byzantium during his bishopric.  Amphilochius of Iconium (340-403; bishop after 374) – cousin of Gregory of Nazianzus – does not include 5:4 in the text he used.  Both the non-inclusion and inclusion of 5:4 are very early readings.

            What phenomenon, occurring sometime between 90 (when the Gospel of John was written – unless John Robinson’s redating to pre-70 – in light of (among other things) 5:2 – is adopted) and 200, could elicit one transmission-stream to include John 5:4 (in the case of Tertullian’s text of John), and another transmission-stream to not include John 5:4 (in the case of P75, À, and B)? 

            I am willing to posit that an anomaly in the autograph of the Gospel of John itself elicited different treatments of John 5:3b-4.  Picture John reading chapter 5 to his listeners from the autograph for the very first time – without 5:3b-4.  Inevitably, someone would ask, “John, why were these sick, blind, lame, and paralyzed people waiting near the pool instead of swimming in its water?”  And I can imagine that John added an explanatory note in the margin, “waiting for the moving of the waters.”

            And then someone asked, “What agitated the pool’s water?”.  And John, realizing that his listeners in Ephesus were oblivious to the background of the pool at Bethesda, added another note – and thus verse 4 came into existence as a second marginal note.  When John died, the autograph was entrusted to the Christian community at Ephesus – and they treated the annotations in three different ways in the next generation:

            In the ancestor of Byzantine manuscripts, the notes were either blended into the main text (as John 21 has been), or else copies just the way they appeared in the autograph, in the margin with symbols to connect them to John 5:3-5.  In the ancestor of Alexandrian manuscripts, receiving the text of the autograph slightly later (being in Egypt, not Ephesus), the notes were assumed to have originated with someone other than John, and were therefore not considered worthy to be included in either the main text or in the margin. 

            Another consideration might have been in play in the mind of the early Alexandrian scribe who decided not to include verse 4:  a desire to protect John from the charge of promoting superstition.  A scribe who thought he knew that water in the pool of Bethesda was agitated by entirely natural forces could easily persuade himself that the marginal note in his exemplar, stating that an angel of the Lord bathed in the pool of Bethesda, could not have been written by an inspired author; in addition, he did not wish to appear to commend Asklepieions.

            The testimony of P and its relatives which have John 5:4 with asterisks commends family P as an excellent representative of the autograph of the text of the Gospels.  The form of verse 4 that appears in Codex P is the form which should be adopted, instead of the readings found in the majority of manuscripts.

            An addition question is sure to be asked:  what should English Bible editors do with John 5:3-4?  I have no objection to the inclusion of 5:3-4 in the main text, or in the margin, with a note stating that the passage appears in the margin, or not at all, in a few early manuscripts.  But to omit it entirely would guarantee that English readers would perpetually ask, as John’s first listeners did, “Why weren’t they all swimming?” or, “Who or what stirred up the waters?”

            Another question may be on the minds of some readers:  Would an inspired author expand on his own narrative in this way, adding marginalia?  I see no reason why not.  Many a Spirit-led preacher reading from a manuscript he wrote has spontaneously clarified himself mid-sermon.  Even Saint Paul, in First Corinthians 1:16, clarified that he had baptized the household of Stephanas (who, according to tradition, was the jailor in Acts 16), right after saying, “I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius.”  I Cor. 1:16 may have originally been a note in the margin added by Paul as he proof-read the letter; no one at Corinth, however, would have doubted its veracity.

 

Looking into the Alexandrian Text at John 12:12

            War – what is it good for?  “Absolutely nothing,” many have answered.

            And when the question is asked, “What is the Alexandrian text good for?”, quite a few people have responded with the same answer.  Independent Fundamentalist Baptists tend to insistently subscribe to the Textus Receptus, and some KJV-Onlyists even make it a formal condition of church fellowship to use the KJV or versions in languages other than English that conform to the meaning of the KJV New Testament.

            Simultaneously you might think, listening to other folks, that the Alexandrian text is the greatest invention since sliced bread.  The text of the New Testament portion of the ESV, NIV, CSB, and NRSV are all based primarily on the Alexandrian Text – the “critical text” that is published in the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece and the UBS Greek New Testament.  (And why is this compilation referred to as the critical text?  Weren’t all compilations critical, i.e., thoughtfully compiled?  Are we supposed to be given the impression that other compilations are not critical, and merely reproduce the text found in a particular manuscript??) 

            I reckon that 99% of American preachers who promote English versions based on the NA/UBS compilation(s) still get their justification for using it, at any given point of variation, from Bruce Metzger’s Textual Commentary of the Greek New Testament – apparently never realizing that Metzger’s Textual Commentary was made with the intention of promoting the UBS compilation.  (So if you’re looking for an objective textual commentary, Metzger-readers, or for one written by an author who wasn’t writing under the influence of the Lucianic recension delusion, you’re digging in the wrong place.)

            Meanwhile, advocates of the Byzantine Text tend to reject the Alexandrian text as a matter of course; if they didn’t, they wouldn’t be majority-text advocates. 

            I would argue, though, that the Alexandrian text excels in at least one area:  the preservation of the original grammar.  For example:  there’s a little variation-unit in John 12:12 that doesn’t get attention often, because its effect on translation is so slight:  between τη επαύριον and ἐλθὼν, did John write ὄχλος πολὺς ὁ or ὁ ὄχλος πολὺς ὁ or simply ὄχλος πολὺς?  The Byzantine text has ὄχλος πολὺς ὁ, and its allies include Codex Alexandrinus, D K W X Π Ψ f¹ 579 700 1424 (etc.) plus the Peshitta, the Sahidic version, and the Gothic version.  Even Origen is cited in the UBS GNT as support for ὄχλος πολὺς ὁ – apparently the only patristic reference the editors considered worth mentioning.  Papyrus 2^vid, assigned to the 500s, also supports ὄχλος πολὺς ὁ.

            Codex Sinaiticus initially read ὄχλος πολὺς but a corrector has conformed its text to the  Byzantine/Western/Caesarean reading.  D 565 892 and 1195 agree with À’s initial reading.  But that’s not the true Alexandrian reading.   The Alexandrian reading here is what Vaticanus has:  ὁ ὄχλος πολὺς ὁ.  And Codex B is allied with P75 P66^vid B L 1241, the Sinaitic Syriac, and the Bohairic version.  (The UBS apparatus listed f¹³ as if it supports ὁ ὄχλος πολὺς ὁ; Swanson lists f¹³ as support for ὄχλος πολὺς ὁ).

            Bruce Metzger, a few verses earlier, treated support from multiple transmission-streams as a strong indicator of a reading’s genuineness (“the overwhelming manuscript support for the verse seemed to a majority of the Committee to justify retaining it in the text,” wrote Metzger).  That’s a general principle with which I enthusiastically agree.  But in this case, despite the shallowness of the external evidence in favor of the minority reading, there’s a valid reason for favoring it:  the internal evidence.  It’s the reading more likely to have been written by John, and it’s the reading more likely to have been altered by scribes.    

            Metzger’s colleagues seem to have had some misgivings about the Alexandrian reading here, giving their decision a “C” rating.  Metzger wrote, “The expression ὁ ὄχλος πολὺς serving as the subject of a verb [in verse 9] is such unusual Greek (with πολὺς in the predicate position) that serious doubts arise whether the evangelist could have written it thus.”  The counter-argument should be obvious:  are later scribes likely to have changed the text from ὄχλος πολὺς ὁ to ὁ ὄχλος πολὺς ὁ?

            Granting that some Alexandrian scribes were not particularly attentive in the vicinity of this variant-unit (P75’s scribe skipped the second part of verse 8), I am content to accept the Alexandrian reading, not on the grounds that its external support is stronger, but on the grounds than internal considerations are in its favor.  There are many other examples that could be selected to show the Alexandrian tendency to preserve original grammatical quirks – not errors; just grammatical quirks, like when a baseball umpire correctly says, “That ain’t a strike” – but this one may suffice for today.