John 14:14 - Praying to the Son?

          In John 14:14 there is an interesting translation-impacting textual puzzle:  did Jesus tell his followers to pray to him?

ESV:   If you ask me^[a] anything in my name, I will do it. [footnote:  Some manuscripts omit me]

NIV:  You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it.
CSB:  If you ask me^[a] anything in my name, I will do it.^[b]  [footnotes:  Other mss omit me - Other mss omit all of v. 14
NASB:   If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it.
NLT:  Yes, ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it!
EHV:  If you ask me^[a] for anything in my name, I will do it. [footnote:  Some witnesses to the text omit me.]

WEB:  If you will ask anything in my name, I will do it.

KJV:   If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.

EOB:  “If you will ask anything in my name, I will accomplish it.”  [footnote:  Several ancient authorities (P66, ﬡ, B, W, D, Q read: “whatever you ask me in my Name”]

          The Byzantine Text is not uniform.  2005 Robinson-Pierpont Byzantine Textform has με in the text and non-inclusion noted in the side-margin.  The Hodges-Farstad 1982 Majority Text does not have με in the text; inclusion is noted in the apparatus.  Antoniades’ 1904 compilation does not have με.

          What’s the external evidence say?  Did John write εάν τι αἰτήσητέ με ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί μου ἐγὼ ποιήσω, or  εάν τι αἰτήσητέ ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί μου ἐγὼ ποιήσω?

          A, D, G, K, L, M, P, Ψ, 69, 157, 706 866 100 114 129 164 177 184 200 204 205 236 237 238 239 260 275 276 298 299 1071 1241 and 1424 and Coptic versions do not have με.

          In addition, X, L*, 0141, f¹, 565, pc, b, vg^ms, the Sinaitic Syriac and the  Palestinian Aramaic and Armenian versions omit the entire verse – which I regard as an effect of simple parablepsis.

Old Latin witnesses suporting non-inclusion:  a, aur, b, d, e, q, r1 vg^mss .

A smattering of witnesses replace με with a reference to the Father, mimicing John 16:23.  GA 167 uniquely reads, after μου, ἐγω ποιήσω ἵνα δοξάσθη ὁ πατὴρ ἐν τῷ υίῷ.

After μου Codex M/021 (Campianus) has the conflate reading ἐγὼ τοῦτο.

P66c reads τοῦτο ἐγὼ (a different conflate reading).  

Witnesses supporting με include p⁶⁶ א B E H S U W Δ Θ 060 f¹³ 28 33 579 700 892 1006 1230^vid 1242 1342 1646 some lectionaries (including 64, 284, 329, 514, 547, 672, 813, 1231)  and it^c it^f vg syr^p syr^h and the Gothic version and Fulgentius.

          There is an issue regarding the testimony of P75.  A sizeable lacuna prevents the firm establishment of the testimony of P75 for either inclusion or non-inclusion.

          Considering that in John 15:16, Jesus says plainly “The Father will give you whatever you ask him in my name,” and the meaning of this passage is uniform in all transmission-streams, it is unlikely that John would represent Jesus saying both things – with the Father, and himself, as the person to whom the apostles were to address their prayers.  (John 16:23 affirms the same point.)   The possibility exists that με originated deliberately, due to a desire to enhance the deity of Christ – augmenting the Son’s role in answering prayer.  An alternative explanation is that με originated as an error of dittography – a careless repetition of the final syllable of αἰτήσητέ – and instead of correcting via the simple removal of the extra τέ, it was changed to με.  However this early error arose, it managed to affect Byzantine and Alexandrian witnesses.

          Some people may accuse those who use versions without “me” in John 14:14 of downplaying the Trinity.  However, historically both forms of the verse have been used by champions of orthodoxy.  Chrysostom, in Homily 74 on the Gospel of John, utilized a text without με.  

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.

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.

 

Video Lecture 20: Luke 22:43-44: Jesus in Gethsemane

 

The 20th video lecture in the series Introduction to NT Textual Criticism is accessible at YouTube and at Bitchute.  This lecture is 32 minutes long.  Here's an extract:

            Justin Martyr, who was martyred in the 160s, used this text in his composition Dialogue With Trypho, chapter 103.  Commenting on Psalm 22, verse 14, he wrote, “In the memoirs which, I say, were drawn up by His apostles and those who followed them, it is recorded that His sweat fell down like drops of blood while He was praying.”

             Reckoning that the Gospel of Luke was not written before the early 60s, this implies that Justin’s copy of the Gospel of Luke was separated from the autograph of the Gospel of Luke by less than a century.

            About two decades after Justin, Irenaeus wrote the Third Book of his composition Against Heresies.  In the 22^nd chapter, Irenaeus used Luke 22:44, mentioning that if Jesus had taken nothing of Mary, that is, if He had not experienced a physical human nature, he would not have eaten food harvested from the earth, He would not have become hungry, or weary, “Nor would He have sweated great drops of blood.” 

            Irenaeus’ contemporary Tatian included Luke 22:43-44 in his Diatessaron, around the year 172.  Around the year 360, as Ephrem Syrus composed his commentary on the Diatessaron, he also mentioned the detail about Jesus’ sweat becoming like drops of blood. 

            Also, in Ephrem’s Carmina Nisibena, in Hymn 35, part 18, Ephrem pictures the devil saying about Jesus, “While He was praying I saw Him and was glad, because He changed color and was afraid:  His sweat was as drops of blood, because He felt that His day had come.”

            In the early 200s, the writer Hippolytus referred to Luke 22:44, near the beginning of chapter 18 of Against Noetus.  In the course of giving examples of the contrast between Jesus’ divinity and humanity, Hippolytus wrote that “In agony He sweats blood, and is strengthened by an angel.”

            The first patristic writer to mention manuscripts that do not support Luke 22:43-44 is Hilary of Poitiers.  Around 350, in Book 10 of his Latin composition De Trinitate, in part 41, Hilary wrote, “We cannot overlook that in very many Greek and Latin codices nothing is recorded about the angel’s coming, and the sweat like blood.” 

            Despite acknowledging such manuscripts, Hilary does not offer a judgment on whether the passage has been omitted in the copies where it is absent, or interpolated in the copies in which it is found.  He seems to have been less concerned about reaching a correct verdict on the textual question and more concerned about promoting correct theology.

            He said that heretics should not be encourage by the idea that Jesus’ weakness is confirmed by the need for an angel to strengthen Him, and that His sweat should not be construed as a sign of weakness.  And like Irenaeus, he points out that the bloody sweat demonstrated the reality of Jesus’ physical body.  When he states, “We are forced to the conclusion that all this happened on our account.” He seems content to use the text.

            In 374, Epiphanius of Salamis made some very interesting statements about Luke 22:43-44.  In Panarion 19:4, he quoted these verses an example of passages that Arians use to show that Jesus sometimes needed assistance from others, or that He was inferior to the Father:  “And it says in the Gospel according to Luke, ‘There appeared an angel of the Lord strengthening Him when He was in agony, and He sweat; and His sweat was as it were drops of blood, when He went out to pray before His betrayal.” 

            It should be noticed that Epiphanius quoted verse 43 with the reading “angel of the Lord.”  

            In Panarion 61, Epiphanius used the passage again in the same way.  He used the passage for doctrinal purposes, and stated that without the display of agony and sweat pouring from His body, the Manichaeans and Marcionites might seem reasonable in their theory that Christ was an apparition, and not completely real.”  He emphasizes how Jesus’ sweat like blood showed that “His flesh was real, and not an apparition.”

            Epiphanius claims in Panarion that Arius cited this very passage from the Gospel of Luke in an attempt to demonstrate the subordination of the Son to the Father.

            So far, we could read Epiphanius’ remarks and think that the only form of the text he knew included verses 43 and 44.  But in Ancoratus, chapter 31, Epiphanius wrote that the passage “is found in the Gospel according to Luke in unrevised copies.”  Then he said, “The orthodox have removed the passage, frightened and not thinking about its significance.”  Coming from someone who seemed ready to blame heretics for bad weather, this is a remarkable statement.

            Epiphanius uses Luke 22:43-44 again in Ancoratus chapter 37 as evidence that Jesus was truly human, and that His sweat shows that He was physical.    

            Around the year 405 in Asia Minor, Macarius Magnes, in the third part of the work Apocriticus, quoted from a pagan writer, probably Hierocles, a student of Porphyry.  Hierocles lived in the late 200s and early 300s. 
            When this pagan writer objected to Jesus’ statement, “Do not fear those who kill the body,” he wrote that Jesus Himself, “being in agony,” prayed that His sufferings should pass from Him.”  The term “being in agony” here is probably a recollection of Luke 22:43, because this term is used there, but not in the parallel-passages.          

            For the testimony of Amphilochius of Iconium, who lived from about 340 to about 400, we rely on a collection of extracts in the medieval manuscript Athous Vatopedi 507, from the 1100s.  A note simply says:  “Of Amphilochius bishop of Iconium, on the Gospel of Luke:  it states there, “Being in agony, He prayed more earnestly.”

            There is some reason to wonder whether Didymus the Blind, or someone else, was the author of the Greek composition called De Trinitate that is attributed him.  Some interpretations of the author are different from interpretations expressed by Didymus in some other works.  But, theologians do sometimes change their views.  Whoever wrote De Trinitate, he made an accurate quotation of Luke  22:43 in Book 3, Part 21.

             Ambrose of Milan, in the late 300s, in his commentary on Luke, seems to use a text that did not include verses 43-44; he does not mention the appearance of an angel and he does not mention that Jesus’ sweat became like drops of blood.

            John Chrysostom is yet another patristic writer who used Luke 22:43-44.  Once he did so in a comment on Psalm 109.  And once he did so in the course of his 83^rd Homily on the Gospel of Matthew, which covers the parallel-material in Matthew 26:36-38.

            In Homily 83 on Matthew, Chrysostom does not say that he has put down the text of Matthew and has turned to the text of Luke.  But after referring to Jesus’ prediction of Peter’s denials, and Peter’s insistence that he will never deny Jesus, Chrysostom transitions to the contents of Luke 22:43, stating, “And He prays with earnestness, in order that the thing might not seem to be acting.  And sweat flows over Him for the same cause again, even that the heretics might not say this, that His agony was a pretense.  Therefore there is a sweat like blood, and an angel appeared strengthening Him, and a thousand sure signs of fear.”
            After interpreting this for several sentences, Chrysostom returns to the text of Matthew 26:40.

            We will reconsider the significance of this after we have seen the testimony of the cluster of manuscripts known as family 13.

            For now, let’s go on to the next patristic reference.

            The testimony of John Cassian should not be overlooked, even though his name does not appear in the textual apparatus for Luke 22:43-44 in the UBS Greek New Testament or the Nestle-Aland compilation.  John Cassian traveled widely:  to the Holy Land, to Egypt, and to Rome, before residing in what is now France in about 415.  In his First Conference of Abbot Isaac on Prayer, also known as the Ninth Conference, in chapter 25, Cassian states that the Lord, “in an agony of prayer, even shed forth drops of blood.”

            Jerome, in Against the Pelagians, Book 2, part 16, shows that he was aware of some copies that had Luke 22:43-44, and some copies that did not.  In 383, he included this passage in the Vulgate.  Later, in Against the Pelagians, he wrote that these words – the words we know as Luke 22:43-44 – are “In some copies, Greek as well as Latin, written by Luke,” which implies that Jerome also knew of copies in which the verses were not included.

           Theodore of Mopsuestia, a contemporary of Jerome who worked mainly in Syria and Cilicia, also had Luke 22:43-44 in his Gospels-text.  In 1882, the researcher H. B. Swete published a collection of some fragments from Theodore’s works, and one of them includes a full quotation of Luke 22:43-44.

            Only slightly later comes Theodoret of Cyrrhus, who famously oversaw the withdraw of 200 copies of the Diatessaron in his churches.  In 453, Theodoret wrote Haereticarum Fabularum Compendium, and in this work, after presenting Jesus’ statement in John 12:27, he says that Luke taught more clearly how Jesus was indeed suffering, when He was in agony, and he proceeds to use part of verse 44.   

            Now we come to the testimony of Cyril of Alexandria, who died in the year 444.  In Cyril of Alexandria’s Sermon 146 and Sermon 147 on the Gospel of Luke, Cyril describes the events in Gethsemane in Luke 22, but he does not mention the appearance of an angel, and he does not mention Jesus being in agony or shedding drops of sweat like blood.  

            He states, “Everywhere we find Jesus praying alone, you may also learn that we ought to talk with God over all with a quiet mind, and a heart calm and free from all disturbance.”  This is not the sort of thing one says when one is reading a text that says that Jesus is praying in agony, and sweating huge drops of blood.

            Cyril says in Sermon 147,  “Let no man of understanding say that He offered these supplications as being in need of strength or help from another – for He is Himself the Father’s almighty strength and power.”  Cyril does not come out and say that he rejects the idea that an angel appeared and strengthened Jesus, but he comes very close to doing so.

            Severus of Antioch, in the first half of the 500s, supplies some additional information about the text used by Cyril.  In an extract from the third letter of the sixth book that he wrote to “the glorious Caesaria,” Severus stated the following:

            “Regarding the passage about the sweat and the drops of blood, know that in the divine and evangelical Scriptures that are at Alexandria, it is not written.  Wherefore also the holy Cyril, in the twelfth book written by him on behalf of Christianity against the impious demon-worshipper Julian, plainly stated the following: 

            “‘But, since he said that the divine Luke inserted among his own words the statement that an angel stood and strengthened Jesus, and his sweat dripped like blood-drops or blood, let him learn from us that we have found nothing of this kind inserted in Luke’s work, unless perhaps an interpolation has been made from outside which is not genuine. 

            The books therefore that are among us contain nothing whatever of this kind.  And so I consider it madness for us to say anything to him about these things.  And it is a superfluous thing to oppose him regarding things that are not stated at all, and we shall be very justly condemned to be laughed at.’”

            Then Severus says:  “In the books therefore that are at Antioch and in other countries, it is written, and some of the fathers mention it.”  He names “Gregory the Theologian” and John Chrysostom as two examples.  Then he says that he himself used this text, “in the sixty-fourth homily.”

            In this way, Severus drew his reader’s attention to Emperor Julian’s use of the passage in the mid-300s, and to Cyril of Alexandria’s rejection of the passage in the early 400s, and to the acceptance of the passage in Antioch, and by Gregory of Nazianzus, by John Chrysostom, and by Severus himself. 

            Severus’ testimony is particularly significant because he specifies that the copies in Alexandria lacked the passage.    

            Later, in the 600’s, a writer named Athanasius, Abbot of Sinai, is credited with yet another text-critically relevant statement about Luke 22:43-44.  Amy Donaldson, in her 2009 dissertation, Explicit References to New Testament Variant Readings Among Greek and Latin Church Fathers,  included his statement: 

            “Be aware that some attempted to delete the drops of blood, the sweat of Christ, from the Gospel of Luke and were not able.  For those copies that lack the section are disproved by many and various gospels that have it; for in all the gospels of the nations it remains, and in most of the Greek.”

            There is also a marginal note, preserved in minuscule 34, that states that “the report about the sweat-drops is not in some copies, but Dionysius the Areopagite, Gennadius of Constantinople, Epiphanius of Cyprus, and other holy fathers testify to it being in the text.” 

            We could examine more patristic support for Luke 22:43-44, from Augustine and Nestorius, for example.  But let’s go back to the evidence from Chrysostom. 

            Why, in Homily 83 on Matthew, does he take a detour to comment on Luke 22:43-44?  It cannot be absolutely ruled out that he just wanted to cover a parallel-passage.  But another possibility is that by the time John Chrysostom wrote Homily 83 on Matthew, it was already customary that when the lector read the Gospels-reading for the Thursday of Holy Week, after reading Matthew 26:39, he also read Luke 22:43-44.

            John’s brief detour into Luke 22 interlocks very snugly with this custom.  In addition, in Codex C, a secondary hand has written the text of Luke 22:43-44 in the margin near Matthew 26:39. 

            This brings us to the evidence from the cluster of manuscripts known as family 13.  In most members of family-13, Luke 22:43-44 appears in Luke, either in the text or margin after Luke 22:42.  Most of the members of family 13 also have these two verses embedded in the text of Matthew after 26:39. 
            The evidence from minuscule 1689, a member of family 13, is very helpful.  This manuscript was lost for several years, but has been found safe and sound in the city of Prague.  It has Luke 22:43-44 in the text of Luke, and alongside Matthew 26:39, there is a margin-note instructing the lector to jump to Section 283 in the Gospel of Luke – that is, to jump to Luke 22:43-44.

            Many other manuscripts have similar notes in the margin at this point, as part of the lectionary apparatus.
            It does not require a long leap to deduce what has happened in family 13:  instead of resorting exclusively to margin-notes to instruct the lector to jump from Matthew 26:39 to Luke 22:43-44 and then return to Matthew 26:40, someone whose work influenced members of family 13 simplified things for the lector, by combining the parts of the lection in order within the text of Matthew. 

             Some commentaries have misrepresented this as if it implies that the passage is not genuine.  But the evidence in family 13 just shows that a passage that was regarded as part of the text of Luke was embedded into the text of Matthew after 26:39 for liturgical purposes.

            On a related point:  when Luke 22:43-44 is accompanied by one or more asterisks, such as in minuscule 1216, the default deduction should not be that the purpose of the asterisks was to express scribal doubt, but to serve as part of the lectionary apparatus, drawing attention to the two verses that were to be read after Matthew 26:39 in the lection for Maundy Thursday. 

            So:  was Luke 22:43-44 initially present, or initially absent?  The passage is supported by a broad array of manuscripts, plus the manuscripts of over 20 patristic writers, and a couple of non-Christian writers.  Four patristic writers – Hilary, Epiphanius, Jerome, and Athanasius of Sinai – show that they were aware that verses 43-44 were not supported in all copies, but nevertheless they favored the inclusion of the verses.        Epiphanius even said that orthodox individuals had attempted to remove the passage.

            One Latin writer – Ambrose of Milan – did not have verses 43 and 44 in his text of Luke 22. 

            And one Greek writer, Cyril of Alexandria, from the 400s, definitely did not have verses 43-44 in his text.

            The most ancient evidence, from Justin, Tatian, and Irenaeus, includes the passage.  The most geographically diverse support points in the same direction.  And support for these verses does not come only from authors with only one doctrinal view.

            Plus, internally, nothing in the surrounding material calls for the insertion of additional material.  Bart Ehrman has proposed that verses 43-44 do not look like something Luke would write, on the grounds that Luke had an interest in portraying Jesus as “imperturbable.”  However, Luke reports about several actions of Jesus in which His disposition is far from stoical or disinterested, including His criticism of the synagogue-ruler in chapter 13, and His weeping over the city of Jerusalem in chapter 19.  There is no substantial case based on internal evidence for the idea that verses 43-44 could not originate with Luke.

            When we look at the external evidence that supports Luke 22:43-44, the question should not be “Did someone remove these verses from the text of Luke,” but “Why did someone remove these verses from the text of Luke?”

            It is virtually unique to see a Christian writer assert that “the orthodox” tampered with the Gospels-text, and to imply that some orthodox believers revised the text in a way that was influenced by their fear.

            In the 100s, the second-century writer Celsus, in a statement preserved by Origen, claimed that some believers “alter the original text of the gospel three or four or several times over, and they change its character to enable them to deny difficulties in face of criticism.”

            There’s no way to tell if Celsus saw what he says he saw, but it can’t be ruled out that he did indeed notice Christians making changes to the Gospels-text, and that because some of those changes appeared to him to relieve perceived difficulties in the text, he naturally believed that this was the motivation for the changes.

            However, he might have seen, and misunderstood, something else:  textual adjustments that were not made to minimize interpretive difficulties, but to render the text easier to use when it was read in church-services.

            One of those adjustments may have involved a liturgical feature pointed out by John Burgon in The Revision Revised.   Here I slightly paraphrase his observations: 

            “In every known Greek Gospels lectionary, verses 43-44 of Luke 22 follow Matthew 26:39 in the reading for Maundy Thursday.  In the same lectionaries, these verses are omitted from the reading for the Tuesday after Sexagesima – the Tuesday of the Cheese-eaters, as the those in the East call that day, when Luke 22:39-23:1 used to be read.

            Furthermore, in all ancient copies of the Gospels which have been accommodated to ecclesiastical use, the reader of Luke 22 is invariably directed by a marginal note to skip over these two verses, and to proceed from verse 42 to verse 45.

            What is more obvious, therefore, than that the removal of verses 43 and 44 from their proper place is explained as a side-effect of a lection-cycle of the early church?

            Many manuscripts have been discovered since the time of Burgon, but in general, what he describes is accurate:  Luke 22:43-44 is embedded after Matthew 26:39 in the lection for Maundy Thursday, and it is left out of the lection assigned to the Tuesday after Sexagesima Sunday. 

            The customary transfer of Luke 22:43-44 into the text of Matthew, when the text was read during Easter-week, may explain the sudden detour that Chrysostom took into this passage in the course of his Homily 83.

            A scenario that explains the most evidence in the fewest steps is that when an attempt was made to revise the text for liturgical reading, one group of liturgical revisors took verses 43 and 44 out of Luke 22, but failed to re-insert them into Matthew 26.  As soon as these verses dropped out of the text, the shorter reading was defended along the same lines that we see Cyril of Alexandria use to defend it.

            We do not have hard evidence of this particular liturgical step of revision being undertaken in the second century, but the elegance of Burgon’s explanation is a strong factor in its favor.  Plus, this theory accounts for the correspondence between this particular feature in the Easter-time lections, and the very similar contrast between forms of the text with and without the passage.

            So:  I conclude that Luke 22:43-44 was an original part of the Gospel of Luke. 

             I also conclude that its removal, in the second century, was probably not the result of some copyist’s desire to get rid of what he considered a problematic passage; nor was it the result of a heretic’s desire to remove a text that demonstrated the physicality of Jesus’ body.  Instead, it occurred when orthodox believers transferred verses 43 and 44 into Matthew, after 26:39, conforming to their Easter-time custom, but failed to retain it in Luke, again reflecting their early Eastertime liturgy.  As a result, these two verses fell out of the text. 

            This influenced texts known to Hilary, to Ambrose, and especially  Cyril of Alexandria.  It affected the text that was translated into Sahidic, and the Greek text that was translated into Armenian, and the Armenian text that was translated into Georgian.  But as Athanasius the Abbot of Sinai stated, although some attempted to delete the drops of blood from the Gospel of Luke, the legitimacy of the passage is shown by the “many and various Gospels-manuscripts in which the passage is read.”

            Luke 22:43-44 should therefore be respected and cherished for what it is:  part of the Word of God.

 

Video Lecture: Luke 23:34a - Father, Forgive Them

 The 19th video lecture in the series Introduction to NT Textual Criticism is accessible at YouTube and at Bitchute.  This lecture is almost 34 minutes long.  Here's an extract:

            Hilary of Poitiers, known as the “Athanasius of the West,” around the year 360, wrote his Twelve Books on the Trinity, and in that work he quoted Luke 24:34a three times.  It might be worthwhile to show some of the context of his statements:

            In Book 1, As Hilary takes his theological opponents to task for perverting the meaning of the words of Christ, he emphasizes the importance of interpreting each passage in light of its context.  In Part 32, he says that his opponents commit blasphemy when they misinterpret the words of Christ, “Father, into Your hands I commend My spirit,” and, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.”   Hilary writes, “Their narrow minds plunge into blasphemy in the attempt at explanation.”

            In Book 10, Part 48, as Hilar illustrates the fearlessness and power of Christ shown in the Gospels, he mentions that “He prayed for His persecutors while the nails were driven through Him.”

  

            And near the end of Book 10, in Part 71, Hilary writes, “Christ prayed for His persecutors, because they knew not what they did.” 

             ● Ambrose of Milan, in the 380s, in his Commentary on Job, Part Two, Section 6, in the course of offering a rather unlikely interpretation of Job 9:5, quotes Luke 23:34a.  He cites the passage again in Part 5, Section 12, stating that he is quoting what the Lord Jesus says in the Gospel.

            Ambrose also explicitly quotes Luke 23:34a in The Prayer of Job and David. 

             ● Gregory of Nyssa, working in the late 300s in what is now east-central Turkey, wrote a book On Christian Perfection, and in it, he presented Christ as a model of longsuffering:  Gregory of Nyssa pointed out that the longsuffering of Christ was displayed when He endured chains and whips and various physical injuries, and nails, and His response was “Father, bear with them, for they know not what they do.”

             ● In the fourth-century story called the Acts of Philip, at one point in the story, persecutors hang Philip by his ankles, and it looks like he is about to die. Philip escapes by cursing his persecutors, causing them to all be swallowed up by the earth.  But before he pronounces the curse, his companions John and Barthlomew and Mariamne try to persuade him no to do it:  they say, “Our Master was beaten, and scourged, and was stretched out on the cross, and was made to drink gall and vinegar, and said, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.”

 

            ● A composition known as the Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions, from the mid-300s, uses Luke 23:34a near the beginning of the fifth part of its sixth book, preserved in Latin by Jerome’s contemporary Rufinus: 

            “The Master Himself, when He was being led to the cross by those who knew Him not, petitioned the Father for His murderers, and said, ‘Father, forgive their sin, for they know not what they do.’”  The author’s memory does not seem to have been having its best day, considering that this statement was given while Jesus was on the cross, not while He was being led to the cross.

            ● In the Pseudo-Clementine Homilies, which is basically a different form of the Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions, Luke 23:34a is utilized, specifically in Homily XI, Part 20, where the author wrote:  “The Teacher Himself, being nailed to the cross, prayed to the Father that the sin of those who slew Him might be forgiven, saying, ‘Father, forgive them their sins, for they know not what they do.’”

             ● Amphilochius of Iconium, who lived from about 340 to about 400, is traditionally identified as the author of a brief sermon called Oration #5, On the Holy Sabbath.  In this text, which has been translated by J. H. Barkhuizen, after briefly contrasting the divine nature of Christ with His sufferings during His trials and crucifixion, Amphilochius says, “While suffering these things for the sake of those who were crucifying Him, He prayed as follows: ‘Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.’  He conquers the evil through goodness.  He speaks in defense of the Christ-murderers while drawing them in His net toward salvation.  He brings to naught the accusation by blaming their ignorance.”

            ● The heresy-hunter Epiphanius of Salamis, in the late 300s, also quoted Luke 23:34a, in Panarion, also called The Medicine-Chest; in Part 77, which is about the errors of the Antidicomanians.  Epiphanius slightly tweaked the text, replacing the reference to “forgive” with a different word that means “bear with.”   The same word was used by Gregory of Nyssa.

            Epiphanius also reports that James, the Lord’s brother, was martyred in Jerusalem when he was thrown down from the pinnacle of the temple, but survived, and knelt and prayed, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do,” and he was then struck on the head with a fuller’s rod, and he died. 

            Epiphanius’ main source for this material was probably Eusebius’ work Ecclesiastical History, Book Two, Part 23.  Eusebius acknowledged his own sources for the story:  first, Eusebius says that Clement was his source for the report that James was thrown from the pinnacle of the temple and then beaten to death with a club.  Then he mentions the fifth book of the Ánecdotes of “Hegesippus, whom lived immediately after the apostles,” as his source for a more detailed account. 

 

            According to Eusebius, Hegesippus specified that it was the scribes and Pharisees who opposed James the Just, and that after he survived the fall from the temple, they began to stone him, at which point he said, “I entreat You, Lord God our Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.”

 

            ● John Chrysostom, who became archbishop of Constantinople in 397 after serving at Antioch for about 20 years, quoted Luke 23:34a several times.  In Against Marcionists and Manichaeans, Chrysostom wrote, “He commanded men to pray for their enemies; and He teaches this through His actions, for when He had ascended the cross, He said, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.”

            In Homily 7 on the Epistle to the Ephesians, as Chrysostom describes the grace given to Israel, he says, “And after He was crucified, what were His words? ‘Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.’  He was cruelly treated before this, and even cruelly treated after this, even to the very last breath.  For them He did everything; He prayed in their behalf.”
            Chrysostom also says in Homily 14 on the Epistle to the Ephesians that the Son of God prayed for those who crucified Him, and shed His blood for those who hated Him.

            In Homily 79 on Matthew, Chrysostom mention that among the ways in which displayed His meekness, “on the very cross, He was crying aloud, “Father, forgive them their sin.”

 

            In the sixth chapter of The Cross and the Thief, Chrysostom states that during the time when Christ was being nailed to the cross, and His garments were being divided, He did not get angry or have guile in His heart against them; instead, “Hear Him declaring, ‘My Father, forgive them because they do not know what they are doing.’”

            Or does he?  The author of The Thief on the Cross is probably not Chrysostom, but Theophilus, who served as the patriarch of Alexandria from 384 to 412.  Or it might be an anonymous author who attributed his own work to Theophilus. 

            In favor of the idea that the author was in a locale where a Coptic form of the text was in use is the observation that in its ninth chapter, the text says that the lost will be swallowed up in the abyss, and go down to the place of their brother Nineveh.  A mangled form of the name “Nineveh,” without its first syllable, is the name given to the rich man, in the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus, in Luke 16:19 in Papyrus 75, and the interpolation “named ‘Nineveh’” also appears in this verse in some later Arabic manuscripts.   

             ● Another author, like Chrysostom, whose name was transferred to material written by someone else, was the second-century writer Justin Martyr.  The composition known as Questions and Answers for the Orthodox was attributed to Justin, but it probably comes from Theodoret of Cyrrhus, who died in 457.

             The 108^th Question in this composition begins something like this:  If the Jews were forgiven, then why did the ancient Jews, who crucified Christ out of ignorance, suffer many unbelievable afflictions, as Josephus testifies in his account of the fall of Jerusalem?  And why have those who refuse to obey Christ now been expelled from their homeland?” And it goes on to say, “Wasn’t the Lord aware of their condition, when He said, "Father, I say, forgive them, for they do not know what they do"?  And doesn’t the Apostle say, "If they had known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory?”

            The odds that the author is Theodoret of Cyrrhus are increased when we compare this to Theodoret’s Commentary on the Letters of Paul, and see that when he comments on First Corinthians 2:8, he interprets it through the filter of Luke 23:34a, stating that Pilate, Herod, Annas, Caiaphas, and the other rulers of the Jews were unaware of the divine mystery, and that is why they crucified the Lord.  Theodoret writes, “Surely, this is why the Lord, on the cross, also said, “Father, forgive them; they do not know what they are doing.”  Theodoret goes on to say that after the resurrection, and the ascension, and the coming of the Holy Spirit, and the apostles’ miracles, they persisted in unbelief, and so He delivered them to be besieged.

           ● Jerome is another patristic writer whose use of Luke 24:34a should not be overlooked, even though we have already seen that he included this text in the Vulgate.  In his composition Ad Hedibiam, produced around the year 400, Jerome goes off on a little tangent, and writes, “We should not be surprised that after the death of the Savior, Jerusalem is called ‘the holy city.’ 

            “For before it was completely ruined, the apostles did not have a problem entering the temple, and observing the ceremonies of the law, in order not to offend those among the Jews who had embraced the faith of Jesus Christ.

            “We even see that the Savior loved this city so much that the disasters with which it was threatened drew tears from His eyes, and when He was on the cross, He said to His Father, ‘Forgive them, My Father, for they do not know what they are doing.’”              Jerome continues:  “So his prayer was answered, since shortly after His death, the Jews believed in Him by the thousands, and God gave this unhappy city forty-two years to repent.  But in the end, when its citizens  had not taken advantage of the opportunity, and still persisted in their malice, Vespasian and Titus, like the two bears of which the Scriptures speak, ‘came out of the middle of the woods, and killed and mauled those children who blasphemed and insulted the true Elisha, when he went up to the house of God.’”

            The same line of reasoning that is used by Jerome, specifically mentioning Vespasian and Titus, is used in the composition In Principium Actorum, which is often attributed to Chrysostom.

             ● Augustine, in North Africa in the early 400s, wrote the following in his Sermon 382:  “Did He not say, as He hung on the cross, ‘Father, forgive them, because they do not know what they are doing?’”  And he continues:  “When He was praying as He hung on the cross, He could see and foresee.  He could see all His enemies.  He could foresee that many of them would become His friends.  That is why He was interceding for them all.  They were raging, but He was praying.  They were saying to Pilate, ‘Crucify,’ but He was crying out, ‘Father, forgive.’”

And from near the end:

The reason why Luke 23:34a is supported by such a vast array of evidence is that it is original.  It was removed in an early transmission-line that influenced not only the text of Codex Bezae and the Sinaitic Syriac, but also Papyrus 75, and Codex Vaticanus, and the Sahidic version.

         There was a strong motivation to make this excision:  a desire to avoid the impression that Jesus had prayed for the Jewish nation, and His prayer had been rejected.

            About 40 years after Jesus’ crucifixion, Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans, and it was devastated again in the Bar Kokhba Revolt.  Hundreds of thousands of Jews were killed.  The pagan jibe can easily be written:  “Is this what happens when Jesus asks for people to be forgiven?  Their city is laid waste, and they and their families are slain or enslaved.  His intercession does not seem very effective.” 

            Even without a pagan around to express the objection, an ordinary reader could perceive a difficulty when comparing Jesus’ prayer to the history of the Jews in the century that followed.

            When we look at how the passage is approached by patristic writers, we see that addressing this misconception is a high priority.  Almost all of the patristic writers who comment on the passage regarded it as a petition regarding the Jewish people. 

            The author of the Diascalía Apostolorum slightly modified the prayer, framing it with the words “if it be possible.”  Epiphanius and Gregory of Nyssa added a slight interpretive nuance, replacing the term “forgive” with the term “bear with.”     

            Later writers approached the problem thoughtfully, perceiving that the Jews as a nation had been forgiven for what had been done at Calvary, but this did not mean that they were forgiven for later offenses of unbelief.

            But to a reckless early Western copyist, the statement that Jesus asked the Father to forgive those who engineered His death appeared to contradict what they saw God do to the Jewish nation historically.  And to such a copyist, the easiest way to resolve the tension was to excise the sentence.

            Hort’s objection to this is not a good example of his acuity; he basically argues that such a thing can’t have happened because such a thing never happened.  Similarly, Metzger’s claim, that the shorter reading here “can scarcely be explained as a deliberate excision,” is more of a decree than an argument.

            The effects of anti-Judaic tendencies on the part of some copyists show up occasionally in the form of the text that is seen in the Old Latin version, the Sinaitic Syriac, and Codex Bezae. 

            Despite its name, the Western Text was known and used in the east, in Egypt.  Contrary to the claim that the text in all of the New Testament papyri discovered in Egypt is Alexandrian, Papyri 37, 38, and 48 support the Western text-form.

            The Glazier Codex, also known as G-67, written in Coptic in the 400s, strongly supports the Western Text.  The anti-Judaic sympathies of its text’s

producers occasionally manifest themselves; this does not mean that the copyist of this particular manuscript had such views, but they were held somewhere further back in the text’s ancestry.

            For instance, in Acts 10:39, it is not enough for the Western Text to say simply that “they” killed Jesus.  In the Glazier Codex, the text in this verse is changed, so as to specify that the Jews rejected Him and killed Him.  According to Eldon Epp, this reading is supported by the Old Latin Codex Legionensis, Old Latin MS 67. 

            It appears that very early in the history of the text of the Gospels in Egypt, a witness that was corrupted with readings that expressed an anti-Judaic prejudice, existed along with some much better copies.  But although those better copies generally were preferred, here and there a reading supported by this witness was preferred. 

             As a result, one of those corruptions – the removal of Luke 23:34a – was adopted into the transmission-stream from which came Papyrus 75, Codex Vaticanus, the Sahidic version, and a few other witnesses.   

            This may also be the case at other points of textual variation where we see major Alexandrian witnesses agree with the text represented in the Sinaitic Syriac manuscript, and disagree with both the vast majority of early patristic testimony and the vast majority of manuscripts and versions representing a variety of locales.  But this is a more general point that invites separate investigation.

            Although Papyrus 75 and Codex Vaticanus are widely regarded as representatives of a generally reliable transmission-line, this does not make them immune from occasional corruptions, and we should vigilantly avoid giving them an oracular status that they do not deserve. 

            Inasmuch as Luke’s reference to Jesus’ saying, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do,” is inspired Scripture, we should not cause Bible-readers to perpetually question its authority by introducing  vague footnotes that raise more questions than they solve, pretending that concise footnotes do justice to the evidence. 

            We should acknowledge that Luke 23:34a is original.  And as part of the original text of the New Testament, it was not given so that we could doubt it.  It was given to be profitable to us, to teach us, to rebuke us, to correct us, and to instruct us.