The Role of Tradition in New Testament Textual Criticism

            Yesterday, Joshua Gibbs of the Talking Christianity podcast hosted a round-table discussion on the subject of the role of tradition in New Testament textual criticism, with guests Jeff Riddle (representing a Confessional Bibliologist approach), Peter Gurry (representing a Reasoned Eclectic app, and myself (representing an Equitable Eclectic approach).  A looong discussion commenced.  Here it is in two parts.  (At one point my internet connection died, but then it got better.)

Part One:

And Part Two: 

Sit back, grab some popcorn, and enjoy!

Here is the text of my closing statement:

          In closing, I’d like to briefly consider three different approaches to the role of tradition in the compilation of the text of the New Testament. 

          One view is to look at how much agreement there is, along all transmission-lines, and conclude, “Textual variants do not matter.  Everyone agrees that you’ve got the basics of the gospel if you use the Textus Receptus.  So let’s use that, for the sake of stability.” 

          Another approach is to focus on the disagreements.  A person might say, “This is very complicated, and we just can’t tell what the original readings are.  The safest course of action is to just go on using what the church has traditionally used.” 

          If one defines “the church” in terms of what emerged from the Reformation, that approach will provoke the adoption of the Textus Receptus.  If one defines “the church” in a wider sense, the traditional Greek text is the Byzantine Text.  Ecclesiastical approval is on its side.

          But both of those approaches are basically appeals to authority:  authority in the form of tradition.  And an appeal to authority is not the same as an appeal to evidence.  A reading is authoritative because it is original – not simply because it is thought to be original.  Except for scribal blunders, practically all major readings were thought to be original by somebody; that is why they are in the manuscripts.  It takes more than being accepted by someone to vindicate a reading.

          When dogmatic statements are used instead of arguments from evidence, it’s like saying, “We have been using mumpsimus, so mumpsimus is what should be said.”  But readings do not become authoritative by being used.  An original reading is authoritative at the point of its inspired creation.   And scribal corruptions are never authoritative, because they are not inspired – no matter how many people like them.       

          There is also a third view, in which someone says, “If ecclesiastical usage is what endows a reading with authority, then all readings are valid, because they all have at least a little bit of ecclesiastical usage in their favor,” and this provokes a temptation to clutter the margins with a multitude of textual variants.  Not only does this render the text more unstable than ever, inviting readers to pick and choose, but it is the exact opposite of what textual critics are supposed to do, which is, make decisions about textual contests. 

          I suggest that tradition does have a valid role, though, in certain cases:

          ● if two competing textual variants both have strong external support, and

          ● they convey two different messages, and

          ● neither is shown by internal considerations to be non-original, and

          ● one or both readings says something that is not confirmed in other passages,

that is a situation that merits a footnote. 

          But which reading goes into the text, and which one goes into the margin?  After those qualifications are met, there is something to be said for the principle that possession is nine-tenth of the law.   If one reading consistently dominates the other, in terms of widespread and longstanding use, then, instead of having a relatively brief Council of Bishops to break the tie, we have a very long Council of Use.  This approach might not resolve every case, but it will help keep textual instability to a minimum, without giving tradition the right to veto the original text.

Meet GA 804: A Pocketful of Surprises

            When a team of researchers from the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts visited Greece this past winter, they photographed a particularly interesting little Gospels-manuscript that resides at the Library of the Hellenic Parliament, in Athens.  And I do mean little:  this codex is approximately just 5.25 inches tall and 4 inches wide.  That’s smaller than a Kindle e-reader, although 804 is much thicker (a bit over two inches).  

            It would be natural to think that such a small manuscript could contain the basic text of the Gospels, and not much else – but a close examination shows that 804, while far from being a deluxe manuscript, contains Eusebian Canon-tables, Eusebius’ Ad Carpianus (an explanation of how to use the Canons and Section-numbers as a cross-reference system for the Gospels), chapter-lists for each Gospel, monochromatic icons of each Evangelist, headpieces (of which one, for Matthew, is in a quatrefoil shape), titloi at the head and foot of many pages, red initials usually at section-breaks, and lectionary-related notes, including identification of the lections for Saturdays and Sundays (and of the Eastertime readings and the eleven Heothina lections), incipit-phrases, and crimson αρχη and τελος and υπερβαλε and αρξου symbols (meaning “start,” “stop,” “jump ahead,” and “resume,” respectively) throughout the text, appearing not as later additions but with space reserved to contain them. Substantial quotations from the Old Testament are accompanied in the margin by columns of double diple-marks (>>), one in black (or brown) ink, and one in red.

            Also, before the icon of Saint John, on what was probably a blank page when the manuscript was produced, someone has written (very sloppily) a brief note describing the apostle John, identifying him as the author of the fourth Gospel, a Jew, the son of Zebedee and Salome, and brother of James.  A large smudge has removed most of the rest of the note.        

            As surprising as it may be to find such so many supplements in such a small manuscript, much more remarkable is the feature that appears in 804 before the text of Matthew begins:  after the last page of the kephalaia for Matthew (a page that has been badly torn, but carefully repaired with a series of neat stitches), the next ten pages constitute a different manuscript altogether:  they are from a lectionary, and they contain (with introductory notes and titles) excerpts from Galatians 4, First Corinthians 9, First Corinthians 10, Titus 2, Titus 3, Hebrews 7, and Hebrews 2.  Very unusually, the last page with text from Hebrews 2 (still plainly visible for three lines, after which it is only perceptible) was used to contain the icon of Saint Matthew.  Such a pictorial palimpsest is, I think, completely unique.    

            The text of 804 – extant from Matthew 1:1 to midway through John 15:19 – is interesting and merits further investigation.  Although the manuscript has been assigned to the 1000s, it echoes the earliest recoverable stratum of the Byzantine Text, often agreeing with uncials (especially K and Π, but also A and Y) against the majority of minuscules. 

            In Matthew, 804’s text’s affinities with K and/or Π pop up infrequently near the beginning, at points such as 4:20 (δικτυα αυτων, also attested by W 118 565) and 5:12 (προφήτας προ υμων), and with greater frequency near the end, at points such as 26:40 (λέγει αυτοις instead of λέγει τω Πέτρω), 26:43 (ευρεν αυτους παλιν), 26:47 (without ηλθεν) and 26:52 (μαχαίρα απολουνται) and 26:69 (without πάντων).    

            Turning to the first four chapters of Mark, 804 continues to agree with the Byzantine Text more often than it agrees with K and Π where they diverge from the usual Byzantine reading, but there are plenty of agreements with K and Π which diverge from the majority-reading.  Examples: 

            1:12 – 804 agrees with A K Π* 700:  ευθεως           

            1:13 – 804 agrees with K Π* 1:  ην εκει ημερας 

            1:15 – 804 agrees with K Π B W:  Και before λέγων

            1:16 – 804 agrees with E^c M Y Π^c 157 1424:  βάλλοντας

            1:19 – 804 agrees with C^c K M Π 157:  δικτυα αυτων

            1:35 – 804 agrees with A E Y K M U Π 157 700:  εννυχον λίαν, without ο Ιησους

            1:42 – 804 agrees with A C K Π* 157 565:  η λέπρα απ’ αυτου

            1:43 – 804 agrees with A C D K Π* 157:  εν / ην / πάντοθεν  

            2:7 – 804 agrees with A C K Π 579:  ουτω

            2:9 – 804 agrees with A B C K Π 579:  τον κραβαττον σου

            2:21 – 804 agrees with A K Π:  μήγε αιρει αυτου το πλήρωμα

            3:7 – 804 agrees with A K Π 579 700:  ηκολούθησεν αυτω   

            3:31 – 804 agrees with A K Π:  Ερχονται ουν οι αδελφοι αυτου

            3:32 – 804 agrees with A B C K Π W 33 700:  περι αυτον οχλος

            3:32 – 804 agrees with B À K Π W 1424:  without και αι αδελφαι σου

            3:34 – 804 agrees with A Y K Π f1:  λεγει ιδου

            4:1 – 804 agrees with K Π Y M f1 157:  εις πλοιον

            4:11 – 804 agrees with K Π Y D W:  παραβολαις παντα

            4:30-31 – 804 agrees with Y Π 157:  παραβάλωμεν αυτην ως κόκκω

In Luke chapter 10, 804 shares eight unusual readings with K and Π:

            10:1 – 804 agrees with B Y K Π 565:  δυο δυο

            10:1-2 – 804 agrees with Y K S Π 565:  εμελλεν / ουν

            10:2 – 804 agrees with Y K M Π:  αν εκβαλη

            10:11 – 804 agrees with A C K L M Π W^c 579 700:  includes εις τους ποδας ημων 

            10:22 – 804 agrees with P45 P75 B À D Π 579 700:  without και στραφεις προς τους μαθητας ειπεν

            10:35 – 804 agrees with Y K Π:  και ο τι δ’αν

            10:40 – 804 agrees with P75 À Y Π 157 565^supp 579 700:  κατέλιπεν

            10:40 – 804 agrees with D K Π 565^supp:  ο Ις ειπεν αυτη 

I also noticed that in Luke 14:5, 804’s text agrees with A D Y K Π by reading Και ειπεν προς αυτους and by reading ονος (with À K L Π Y 579 f1) instead of υιος.   And in Luke 19:8, 804 agrees with G K M Π 118 f13, reading προς τον Ιν.

In Luke 20, 804’s text has a detectable trace of KΠ readings:

            20:10 – 804 agrees with K Π:  απέστειλαν 

            20:19 – 804 agrees with B A K L M Π f1:  γραμματεις και οι αρχιερεις

            20:36 – 804 agrees with M Π f1:  και υιοι του Θυ (without εισιν)

            20:37 – 804 agrees with B Y K L Π W 579:  Μωϋσης 

            20:41 – 804 agrees with A Y K M Π:  τινες τον Χν

            20:44 – 804 agrees with B A K M Π 157 f1:  πως αυτου υιος εστιν  

In John chapter 3, there are only about 12 points where Κ’s readings stand out from the Byzantine text; 804 displays five of them:

            3:5 – 804 agrees with K M Π f13 1424:  απεκρίθη Ις και ειπεν αυτω

            3:14 – 804 agrees with P66 P75 B À Y K L Π 579:  Μωϋσης 

            3:16 – 804 agrees with P63 P66 À A K Π f1 565:  αλλ’ εχη   

            3:26 – 804 agrees with F K L M 157 579 700:  ειπον / ραββι

            3:28 – 804 agrees with P66 B A D Y K L Π 157 579 700:  υμοις μοι    

In John chapter 7, about a third of Π’s non-Byzantine readings appear in 804:

            7:1 – 804 agrees with P66 À* D Y K L Π f1 565:  μετα ταυτα περιεπάτει ο Ις   

            7:3-4 – 804 agrees with Κ Π L N:  τα εργα σου α / τι εν κρυπτω

            7:12 – 804 agrees with K Π:  ουχι

            7:26 – 804 agrees with P66 P75 B À D N K L Π 565:  without αληθως

            7:29 – 804 agrees with P66 À D Y N Π f1 565:  εγω δε οιδα   

            7:31 – 804 agrees with P66 P75 B À K L N Π 157 565:  without τουτων

            7:32 – 804 agrees with Y K M N Π f1 565:  Ηκουσαν ουν

            7:32 – 804 agrees with P75 K L N W Π f1 33 565:  οι φαρισαιοι υπηρέτας ινα

            7:39 – 804 agrees with P66 P75 B À D N Π f1 565:  λόγων τουτον [sic – itacism in 804]

            7:50 – 804 agrees with Y K 157:  ο ελθων προς αυτον νυκτός εις

            7:53 – 804 agrees with P66 P75 B À D Y K N W Π:  ουκ εγειρεται

            Occasionally, 804’s text is neither Byzantine nor family-Π.  For example, in Luke 7:31, where the Byzantine text begins the verse with Πολλοι δε εκ του οχλου and K Π read Εκ του οχλου ουν πολλοι, 804 matches up perfectly with B’s reading, Εκ του οχλου δε πολλοι. 

            804 has an interesting feature in Mark 11:26 – a verse which does not appear at all in the Alexandrian Text.  The loss of this verse was due to a simple mistake, caused when an early copyist’s line of sight drifted from the words τα παραπτώματα υμων at the end of verse 25 to the same words at the end of verse 26.  While this verse was lost in the Alexandrian text-stream, it underwent expansion elsewhere:  Codex M, 346 (a member of f13), 579, and 713 (the Algerina Peckover Codex), agreeing with some lectionaries, augment the verse with a repetition of the contents of Matthew 7:7.  In 804, the text that continues after the end of v. 26 runs as follows:  λεγω δε υμιν, Αιτειτε και δοθησεται υμιν.  Ζητειτε, και ευρήσετε.  Κρούετε και ανοιγησεται υμιν.  Πας γαρ ο αιτων λαμβάνει, και ο ζητων ευρισκει, και  τω κρούοντι ανοιγήσεται.  In 804, faint marks for “stop here” and “start here” are visible in the margins after the interpolation, and a fresh red “start here” mark is also present – and thus this interpolation is accounted for as a concluding flourish for a lection.  Not far away, in Mark 11:29, 804 continues to display family-Π readings, with καγω υμας after επερωτήσω, and in 11:33 αποκριθεις ο Ις, and in 12:2, δουλον τω καιρω.

            It may be fitting to mention a few more readings in 804:

            ● Matthew 6:13 includes the doxology of the Lord’s model prayer.

            ● Matthew 16:2-3 is present, and an obelus symbol (⁒) at the end of verse 3 is linked to a margin-note which reads δοκιμάζειν, a reading which appears after δύνασθε in G M N U and 33. 

            ● Matthew 17:21 is present. 

            ● Matthew 25:13 ends with “in which the Son of Man comes.”

            ● Matthew 26:39 is followed by a red υπερβαλε symbol, and a lengthy red note appears in the margin; although most of the note has been rubbed away, the word “Luke” has survived, indicating that Luke 22:43-44 was introduced here in the liturgical reading at Eastertime.

            ● Mark 15:28 is present.  A red υπερβαλε symbol appears before the beginning of the verse, and a red αρξου (“resume here”) symbol appears after the end of the verse.  

            ● Mark 16:9-20 is present, and in the lower margin an annotation identifies it as the third Heothina-lection; its usual incipit-phrase is also provided.  In the outer margin, section-breaks occur at 16:9 (214, although the preceding section-number is 233) and 16:10 (215).   

            ● Luke 14:24 includes, after δείπνου, πολλοι γαρ εισιν κλητοι ολιγοι δε εκλεκτοι (“For many are called, but few are chosen”), added as a flourish to end a lection.

            ● Luke 17:36 is not present.  

            ● Luke 22:43-44 is present, and red notes instruct the reader to resume the reading for the Maundy Thursday service at this point (having turned here from Matthew 26:39).

            ● Luke 23:17 is present.

            ● Luke 23:34 includes Jesus’ prayer for the Father to forgive those who did not know what they were doing.

            ● Luke 24:42 mentions the honeycomb.

            ● John 3:13 includes ο ων εν τω ουνω (“who is in heaven”).

            ● John 5:4 is present (with Κυ after γαρ) but most of the verse is accompanied in the outer margin by black and red double-diples (>>), which seem to have been intended to indicate that the verse is either questionable in some way, or else should be understood as a quotation.

            ● John 7:40-41 is marred by parablepsis, caused when a copyist’s line of sight drifted from the ελεγον in verse 40 to the second ελεγον in verse 41; an obelus (⁒) in the text is linked to the correction in the upper margin.  This is particularly interesting because 579 omits the same words that are supplied in 804’s correction; meanwhile, Codex M (which with 579 shares 804’s unusual reading at Mark 11:26) also has an omission in verse 41, skipping from the first ελεγον in verse 41 to the second ελεγον in verse 41, thus bypassing the words Ουτος εστιν ο Χς οι δε ελεγον. 

            ● John 7:8 reads ουπω, and further along in the verse reads ο καιρος ο εμος ουπω.

            ● John 7:53-8:11 is present, in a form very similar to the text in the Robinson-Pierpont Byzantine Textform.  A red υπερβαλε symbol appears between 7:52 and 7:53 – indicating that the lector was to jump to 8:12 for the Pentecost-lection.  A red αρχη (“start here”) symbol appears at the beginning of 8:3, signifying the beginning of the lection for September 8.  In the lower margin this date is given and is described as the feast-day of Saint Pelagia.  The incipit-phrase for the lection is also provided – the beginning of verse 3 without δε.  A red τελος (stop here) symbol appears at the end of verse 11, signifying the end of the lection for Saint Pelagia’s Day. 

            John 8:12 begins on the next line, and is accompanied in the outer margin by instruction to resume the lection for Pentecost at this point.  A red τελος symbol appears at the end of verse 12, signifying the end of the lection for Pentecost.  A very faint αρχη symbol appears at the beginning of verse 12, signifying the beginning of the lection for the fifth day of the fourth week after Eastertime; this lection concludes at the end of 8:20 where accordingly a red τελος symbol appears in the text.  The lection for the fifth day of the fourth week after Eastertime is identified in the upper margin, where its incipit-phrase is also provided, all in red.

            All in all, 804 is perhaps the most significant manuscript in Greece that has been digitized by the researchers at the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts.   Digital photographs of the entire manuscript, indexed page by page, are available to view at the CSNTM website.

Readers are invited to double-check the data in this post, and to explore the embedded links for additional resources.

Luke 7:31 - A Non-original Phrase in the Textus Receptus

MS 270 does not have "And the Lord said"
in Luke 7:31.  The verse begins a lection
and a Eusebian Section (#73/5).

          The Textus Receptus – the Greek text from which the New Testament was translated in the King James Version, the New King James Version, and the Modern English Version (and others) – contains an introductory phrase at the beginning of Luke 7:31:  “And the Lord said” (in Greek, ειπεν δε ο κυριος).  An investigation of this little phrase may have a significant impact not only on an accurate reconstruction of the text of this particular verse, but also on a larger issue involving the King James Version.

          The phrase “And the Lord said” is not in Luke 7:31 in most major recently-made translations of the New Testament.  This is not surprising, because instead of being based on the Textus Receptus, the NIV, NASB, NRSV, ESV, etc. are based primarily on the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece compilation, which relies very heavily on the Alexandrian Text – a text that is transmitted by a relatively small number of manuscripts, but which many researchers consider to be of higher quality than the Byzantine Text, which is supported by a much higher number of manuscripts.  The Alexandrian Text does not contain this phrase.

MS 10 does not have "And the Lord said" in Luke 7:31.
A "telos" in the text means that a lection ends at this point.
The lection-note in the lower margin means,
"Lection for Friday of the third week [after New Year's Day]
- begin with 'The Lord said, "To what shall I liken."'"

          The Textus Receptus usually agrees with the Byzantine Text.  In the Gospel of Luke, there are 220 disagreements between the Textus Receptus and the Byzantine Text (these sums are based on a comparison of Scrivener’s 1881 reconstruction of the Textus Receptus, and the Robinson-Pierpont 2005 Byzantine Textform).   When one sets aside variations involving the spelling of names, and the benign interchange of similarly-pronounced vowels (a kind of variant called itacism, due to the frequent interchange of the Greek vowel iota), and word-spacing, the number of disagreements shrinks to 188.  

          If one then sets aside instances of word-order differences that do not affect the meaning of the sentence in which they occur, the number of differences between the Textus Receptus and the Byzantine Text in the Gospel of Luke is reduced to 172.   In the chapters of the Gospel of Luke that come before the reading in Luke 7:31 that is our focus, 18 differences between Scrivener’s 1881 reconstruction of the Textus Receptus and the Byzantine Text occur which are capable of having an impact on translation.  They are:

1:35 – The Textus Receptus has εκ σου (of thee).  (The NKJV does not have these words; its editors used a very slightly different form of the Reformation-era text than the KJV’s translators used)

2:12 – The Textus Receptus has τη before φατνη (the manger).  (The KJV nevertheless has “a manger.”)

2:21 – The Textus Receptus has το παιδιον (the child), clarifying the Byzantine Text’s αυτον (the pronoun “him”) which is found in the Byzantine Text.

2:22 – The Textus Receptus has αυτης (her); the Byzantine Text has αυτων (their). 

3:19 – The Textus Receptus has φιλιππου (Philip), naming the brother of Herod; the Byzantine Text does not.

4:8 – The Textus Receptus has γαρ (For); the Byzantine Text does not.

4:42 – The Textus Receptus has εζητουν (sought); the Byzantine Text has επεζητουν (sought for, sought after).

5:19 – The Textus Receptus has δια (by); the Byzantine Text does not.

5:30 – The Textus Receptus does not have των (the) before τελωνων (tax collectors).

5:36 – The Textus Receptus has επιβλημα (piece) near the end of the verse, instead of just once.

6:7 – The Textus Receptus has αυτον (him) in the opening phrase.

6:9 – The Textus Receptus ends the verse with απολεσαι (destroy); the Byzantine Text has, instead, αποκτειναι (kill).  (Here the NA/UBS compilation agrees with the TR.)

6:10 – The Textus Receptus has τω ανθρωπω (the man), clarifying the Byzantine reading αυτω (him).

6:10 – The Textus Receptus has ουτως (so); the Byzantine Text does not.

6:26 – The Textus Receptus has υμιν (unto you) in the opening phrase; the Byzantine Text does not.

6:26 – The Textus Receptus has παντες (all) before οι ανθρωποι (men).  (A significant minority of manuscripts includes this word, and here the NA/UBS compilation agrees with the TR).

6:28 – The Textus Receptus has και (and) before προσευχεσθε (pray).

6:37 – The Textus Receptus does not have και (and) before μη κρινετε (you shall not be judged).  (The 1550 compilation by Stephanus, however, includes και). 

MS 490 does not have "And the Lord said"
in Luke 7:31.

          Except for the variations at Luke 1:35, 2:22, 3:19, 6:9, and 6:26, even the translatable differences in chapters 1-7 express the same ideas, just at different degrees of clarity.  This is also true of the textual variant at the beginning of Luke 7:31 – except this variant is noticeably larger, consisting of four words:  the Textus Receptus begins Luke 7:31 with the phrase, “And the Lord said” (in Greek, ειπεν δε ο κυριος).

          There is so little support for ειπεν δε ο κυριος that even though this variant is four words long, it is not listed in the UBS Greek New Testament’s apparatus, or in the Nestle-Aland-27 apparatus.  It is covered in the newly expanded 2015 edition of Wieland Willker’s Textual Commentary on the Greek Gospels.  I have not found this exact phrase in the text of any Greek manuscripts, and although my research is not exhaustive (I checked over 20 manuscripts, sampling various Byzantine sub-groups), I suspect that it may have entered the Textus Receptus as a retro-translation from the Latin phrase “Ait autem Dominus,” found in the Clementine edition of the Vulgate (but not found in most earlier Vulgate manuscripts such as the Book of Kells and the Moutier-Grandval Bible – although the phrase “Tunc Iesus dixit” (Then Jesus said) appears here in Codex Perusinus, a fragmentary Vulgate manuscript made in the 500’s or 600’s).

MS 119 does not have "And the Lord said" 
in Luke 7:31.

          This variant is one of many exceptions to the often-repeated generalization that the Textus Receptus echoes the majority of Greek manuscripts.  Jack McElroy, in the pro-KJV book, Which Bible Would Jesus Use, states that the Byzantine text “is the form found in the largest number of surviving manuscripts and underlies the Received Text” (p. 49) – but here in Luke 7:31, the inclusion of ειπεν δε ο κυριος is opposed by the vast majority of Greek manuscripts.   The 2005 Robinson-Pierpont edition of the Byzantine Textform does not include ειπεν δε ο κυριος in Luke 7:31.  Neither does Wilbur Pickering’s compilation of the family-35 text.  And neither does the 1904 compilation by Antoniades.

The words "And the Lord said" are not in 
the text of MS 2407, but a barely visible 
lection-note in the upper margin has the words 
"The Lord said" as part of an incipit-phrase.

          So why, one might ask, are these four words in the KJV, NKJV, and MEV?  Why were they included in the Textus Receptus?  They are there in order to make the meaning of the text more obvious to ordinary readers.  The preceding two verses (Luke 7:29-30) are a parenthetical statement by Luke, but without this opening phrase in verse 31, English readers – before the use of quotation-marks was widely adopted – might think that verses 29-30 are a continuation of Jesus’ words, as if Jesus thus described the people who heard John the Baptist.  Although the original text did not have ειπεν δε ο κυριος, its presence (or, in English, the presence of “And the Lord said”) helps ensure a correct understanding of the passage.

          Even without the phrase “And the Lord said,” versions such as the HCSB, NASB, NLT, 1984 NIV, and ESV make it clear that verses 29-30 are a parenthetical comment by Luke.  In these versions, verse 31 thus resumes Jesus’ words with no introductory phrase.  The transition is obvious in modern English thanks to punctuation and quotation-marks (and, in some cases, the use of parentheses).

          In ancient Greek, however, written without quotation-marks, and with only sporadic punctuation, verses 29-30 could be interpreted as part of Jesus’ discourse.  To help readers understand that verses 29-30 are not part of Jesus’ discourse, a phrase was added from the lectionary-incipits – that is, the phrases which were used to introduce passages from the Gospels when selections were read in church-services.  The phrase “ειπεν ο κυριος” was one such phrase, and it was used in the church-services to introduce Luke 7:31-35 when the passage was annually read on the third Friday after New Year’s Day.

In Codex M, a lection-note (highlighted in yellow)  in the outer margin 
identifies Luke 7:31-35 as the lection for the Friday of the third week 
(after New Year's Day), and provides the incipit-phrase,
"The Lord said, 'To what shall I liken.'" 

          Codex Campianus (M, 021 – an important uncial from the 800’s) provides an example of this.  In Luke 7:31, an asterisk in the text guides the reader to the margin, where there is a note that does two things.  First, it identified Luke 7:31 as the beginning of the lection for the Friday of the third week after New Year’s Day.  Second, it instructs the lector to begin reading the lection with the words, ειπεν ο κυριος [using the usual contraction, κς] τινι ομοιωςω, that is, “The Lord said, ‘To what shall I liken.’”  (It is worth noticing that the word “therefore” has been left out.)  The same instructions to the lector can be observed in the margins of minuscules 8, 10, 261, 2399, 2407, and some other manuscripts that have the Byzantine lectionary-apparatus with incipit-phrases in the margins.

A faded lection-note in the upper margin of MS 8
is similar to the note in Codex M, giving the date
for the lection that begins at Luke 7:31,
with the incipit-phrase,
"the Lord said, 'To what therefore shall I liken.'"

          What the Textus Receptus conveys via the addition of four Greek words, modern English versions (based on compilations without those four words) convey via the addition of quotation-marks and parentheses.  The 2011 NIV even resorts to the same sort of thing we see in the Textus Receptus; in the 2011 NIV, Luke 7:31 begins, “Jesus went on to say.”

          This little investigation should teach us three things. 

           

● First:  most of the Textus Receptus’ deviations from the Byzantine Text do not affect translation.

● Second:  in cases where the Textus Receptus’ minority-readings affect translation, they usually have a clarifying or magnifying effect, bringing the original text’s meaning into sharper focus, rather than introducing some new idea.

● Third:  the Textus Receptus does not constitute the original text in its pristine form.  Here in Luke 7:31 the Textus Receptus contains an accretion – benign and helpful though it be – which can be clearly traced to the lectionary-apparatus.  Some Christians believe that the Textus Receptus is the original text, preserved in the same form in which it was written.  Some of these individuals adhere to a creed known as the Westminster Confession, which affirms in the eighth part of its first section that the New Testament, being immediately inspired by God, has been “by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages.”  The manuscript-evidence for Luke 7:31 (and other passages) compels the conclusion that if such an affirmation is to be retained, it must be with the understanding that the purity which has been providentially maintained in the Greek New Testament is an aspect of the message of the Greek text used by the church, and not its exact verbal form.


[The Holy Bible, New International Version®, NIV®. is Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984, 2011 by Biblica, Inc.™  Used by permission of Zondervan.  All rights reserved worldwide.]