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

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

SOME EARLY EVIDENCE FOR THE TWELVE VERSES

ST. MARK 16:9-20.

 

by Charles Taylor

 

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

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

 

 

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

 

1. IRENAEUS

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

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

 2. JUSTIN MARTYR

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

          Mk 16:9                         Apol. 1:67                      Trypho 138

          ἀναστάς                          ανέστη                            ἀναστάς

          πρώτῃ                             πρώτη                            πρώτης

          ἐπάνη                             φανείς                            ἐπάνη

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

3. THE EPISTLE OF BARNABAS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     4. THE QUARTODECIMAN CONTROVERSY

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

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

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

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

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

       5. CLEMENT OF ROME

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

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

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

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

 

C. TAYLOR

 

Hippolytus and Mark 16:9-20

 

Hippolytus (d. 235) was a leader of the church in the city of Rome in the early 200s.  He had an interesting career, challenging some decisions which he saw as indicators of laxity on the part of the bishop of Rome.  Hippolytus eloquently opposed the false doctrine of modalism no matter where it originated.  Near the end of his life, Hippolytus even let himself be considered an alternative to Urban I and Pontian I, and then Roman persecutors stepped in and sent Hippolytus and Pontian both to the mines on the island of Sardinia.  There Hippolytus died, but not before being recognized as a brother by his fellow-saints in Rome; his body was brought in peace to a Roman cemetery in 236.    

            Several compositions are attributed to Hippolytus, including Apostolic Tradition, Against Noetus, On Christ and Antichrist, Peri Charismaton (About the Gifts), Commentary on Daniel, and segments of some works better known by different titles, such as the composite Apostolic Constitutions.   Hippolytus is known for proposing December 25th as the day of Christ's birth.

Hippolytus    

            Hippolytus, like Irenaeus and Tatian, has been effectively ignored by Bible footnote-writers who refer to two manuscripts made in the 300s but fail to mention earlier patristic support for Mark 16:9-20.  What does Hippolytus say about Mark 16:9-20?  Several things.

            First, Hippolytus made a strong allusion to Mark 16:18 in Apostolic Tradition 32:1:  “Let every one of the believers be sure to partake of communion before he eats anything else. For if he partakes with faith, even if something deadly were given to him, after this it cannot hurt him.”

            The evidence for Apostolic Tradition 32:1 is not limited to works in which it has been absorbed and edited. This particular part of the composition is extant in four non-Greek transmission-lines of the text of Apostolic Tradition: in Latin, in Ethiopic, in Sahidic, and in Arabic. (When Hort formed his opinion of the authorship of this part of the text, he was not aware of this.)  Apostolic Tradition 32:1 is also preserved in Greek.  In the 1992 edition of Gregory Dix’s book on Apostolic Tradition, revised by Henry Chadwick, the reader is informed of the following:

            “Two new Greek fragments have to be reported here. The first is preserved in a dogmatic florilegium of patristic quotations contained in two manuscripts, cod. Ochrid.86 (saec. XIII) f.192 and Paris.gr.900 (saec. XV) f. 112. The discoverer, Professor Marcel Richard, printed the excerpt from the Apostolic Tradition in Symbolae Osloenses 38 (1963), page 79 . . . . This new fragment preserves the original Greek of chapter xxxii.1 (= Botte 36):

            ’Εκ των διατάξεων των αγίων αποστόλων∙ 

            πας δε πιστος πειράσθω, προ του τινος γεύσασθαι,

            ευχαριστίας μεταλαμβάνειν

            · ει γαρ πίστει μεταλάβοι [v. l.: μεταλάβη], ουδ’ αν θανάσιμόν τις

            δώη αυτω μετα τουτο, ου κατισχύσειαυτου (cf. Mark xvi. 18).”

            The term θανάσιμόν, which refers to a “deadly thing,” is the same word that is used in Mark 16:18.  It appears nowhere else in the New Testament.

            In the 1870s, John Burgon regarded a statement made by Hippolytus in On Christ and Antichrist, part 46, as if it includes a reference to Mark 16:19.  In Homily on Noetus, Hippolytus wrote, “This is the One who breathes upon the disciples, and gives them the Spirit, and comes in among them when the doors are shut, and is taken up by a cloud into the heavens while the disciples gaze at Him, and is set down on the right hand of the Father, and comes again as the Judge of the living and the dead.”  This looks like a simple credal statement, but Burgon claimed, “In the creeds, Christ is invariably spoken of as ανελθόντα: in the Scriptures, invariably as αναληφθέντα. So that when Hippolytus says of Him, αναλαμβάνεται εις ουρανους και εκ δεξιων Πατρος καθίζεται, the reference must needs be to St. Mark 16:19.”

            Hippolytus also quoted Mark 16:16-18 in material incorporated into the beginning of Book Eight of Apostolic Constitutions (which was put together mainly as an edited combination of already-existing materials in 380).: “With good reason did he say to all of us together, when we were perfected concerning those gifts which were given from him by the Spirit, ‘Now these signs shall follow those who have believed: in my name they shall cast out demons; they shall speak with new tongues; they shall take up serpents; and if they happen to drink any deadly thing, it shall by no means hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.’ These gifts were first bestowed on us the apostles when we were about to preach the gospel to every creature.”

            Samuel Tregelles commented about this: “Amongst the works of Hippolytus, enumerated as his on the ancient marble monument now in the Vatican, is the book περι χαρισμάτων αποστολικη παραδοκις [Peri Charismaton Apostolike Paradokis], in which this part of St. Mark’s Gospel is distinctly quoted: (apostoli loquuntur) ως αν τετελειωμένων ημων φησιν [ο κύριος] πασιν αμα περι των εξ αυτου δια του πνεύματος διδομένων χαρισμάτων,” followed by the Greek text of Mark 16:17 through 18 (with καιναις transposed before λαλησουσιν, and without και εν ταις χερσιν at the beginning of verse 18).

            Tregelles maintained that although a later writer, in the course of incorporating Hippolytus’ work into the fourth-century work known as Apostolic Constitutions so as to make it all appear to consist of words spoken by the apostles, “The introductory treatise is certainly, in the main, genuine,” and, “This citation is almost essential to introduce what follows,” and, “I see no occasion for supposing that the compiler made other changes in this treatise, except putting it into the first person plural, as if the apostles unitedly spoke.”

            Hort disagreed, stating, “Even on the precarious hypothesis that the early chapters of the Eighth Book were founded to some extent on the lost work, the quotation is untouched by it, being introduced in direct reference to the fictitious claim to apostolic authorship which pervades the Constitutions themselves (τούτων των χαρισμάτων προτέρον μεν ημιν δοθέντων τοις αποστόλοις μέλλουσι το ευαγγέλιον καταγγέλλειν πάση τη κτίσει κ.τ.λ.).”

            To allow a full understanding of this disagreement between Tregelles and Hort, the paragraph from Book Eight of Apostolic Constitutions which Tregelles and Hort quoted is provided here in English:

            “With good reason did he say to all of us together, when we were perfected concerning those gifts which were given from him by the Spirit, ‘Now these signs shall follow those who have believed: in my name they shall cast out demons; they shall speak with new tongues; they shall take up serpents; and if they happen to drink any deadly thing, it shall by no means hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.’ These gifts were first bestowed on us the apostles when we were about to preach the gospel to every creature, and afterwards were of necessity afforded to those who had by our means believed, not for the advantage of those who perform them, but for the conviction of unbelievers.”

            Tregelles’ point seems valid to me:  erase the features of this text which give it the appearance of being an address from the apostles, and the quotation of Mark 16:17-18 are still entirely appropriate in a treatise on spiritual gifts. Hort’s objection is not a strong one, because the second sentence is more plausible a reworked statement rather than an insertion. In other words, Hort’s objection does not stand in the way of the idea that Hippolytus cited Mark 16:17-18 and commented on it by saying something like, “These gifts were first bestowed to the apostles when they were about to preach the gospel to every creature,” etc., and that this was reworded in Apostolic Constitutions.

            Although it is currently impossible to separate the voice of Hippolytus from the mild  interference that has been introduced by those who altered his compositions, the evidence from On Christ and Antichrist, Homily on Noetus, the reworked opening paragraph of Apostolic Constitutions, and Apostolic Tradition 32:1 effectively shows that Hippolytus knew and used Mark 16:9-20.

            Hippolytus’ comment in Apostolic Tradition 32:1 may reflect a sentiment that is also found in the writings of Justin Martyr:  that for a Christian who is sincerely resolved in his heart and aware of his sanctification, no experience, not even suffering and death, can be ultimately harmful.

 

 

A New Book About the Text of Codex Bezae

Peter Lorenz

           You might think that there would be little more to say about the text of Codex Bezae after D. C. Parker’s 1992 Codex Bezae - An Early Christian Manuscript and Its Text.  But Peter Lorenz has a lot more to say in his new book, A History of Codex Bezae’s Text in the Gospel of Mark.  Readers of Dr. Lorenz’s blog will be aware that he has been studying Codex Bezae for some time.  His new book is based on the dissertation that he successfully defended in July of 2020.

          Lorenz calls into question the idea that Codex Bezae’s distinctive Greek text of the Gospels and Acts represents an ancient native Greek tradition that begat the Old Latin version(s).  Lorenz argues that the Greek text found in Codex Bezae should be assigned to the late 300s, immediately prior to the production of the manuscript, and represents the conformation of a Greek text to a Latin model (different from the Latin text preserved in the manuscript itself). 

          Here are ten intriguing implications of Lorenz’s analysis, in his own words:

● (1) there are very few parallels between Bezae’s distinctive text and Justin Martyr or Marcion, certainly not enough to justify the view that they knew a text like Bezae’s,

● (2) Bezae’s parallels with Irenaeus appear to be secondary relative to this author’s text, 

● (3) Bezae’s nomina sacra reflect Latin practice in the choice and representation of sacred names,

● (4) Bezae’s Greek and Latin columns are independent of each other, i.e. in general, the Greek text has not been corrected to the Latin column and the Latin column is not a translation of the Greek text,

● (5) Bezae’s text does not seem to represent the source of the Latin version or, at least, this version does not require a text like Bezae’s to account for its distinctive readings,

● (6) much of Bezae’s text is quite close to the Greek “mainstream”, much more than is generally observed, it is certainly not a “paraphrase,”

● (7) Bezae’s text appears to contain erroneously copied corrections suggesting that its text derives from heavily corrected exemplar,

● (8) Bezae’s distinctive parallels with the Latin version apparently reflect instances of borrowing from the Latin version, i.e. like Jerome’s revision of the Old Latin version to Greek copies, only in reverse,

● (9) Bezae’s distinctive variations are not evenly distributed throughout its text but tend to concentrate in certain places,

● (10) Bezae’s producers seem not to have been native speakers of either Greek or Latin. 

          Incidentally, Lorenz’s research (already released in the Tyndale Bulletin and described at his blog in October 2021) does not bode well at all for the 2011 NIV’s adoption of οργισθεις in its base-text of Mark 1:41.  Bill Mounce, take note! 

           A History of Codex Bezae’s Text in the Gospel of Mark is available as a hardcover at Amazon for $150 – just in time for Christmas!

 

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.