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.

Codex Sinaiticus and Sloppy Sensationalism

Question for the Biblical Archaeological Society staff:  do you know what you’re doing?

Earlier this month, a small article at the website of the Biblical Archaeology Society about Codex Sinaiticus (an important early Greek manuscript of the Bible) was released.  The authors, it seems, were not very concerned about getting their facts straight.  

The errors in the BAS article’s “visual comparison” of the KJV and Codex Sinaiticus include the following:  

(1)  The article’s title for the ending of Mark is titled “The Markan Resurrection (Mark 16:1–14)” but the reference should be to Mark 16:1-20.  

(2)  The article states that Codex Sinaiticus begins Mark 16:1 by stating, “And when the sabbath was past,” but in the manuscript, the copyist made a mistake when he accidentally skipped from Mary Magdalene’s name in Mark 15:47 to her name in 16:1, skipping the words in between. 

(3)  The article stated that Codex Sinaiticus refers to “Jesus of Nazareth” in Mark 16:6, but in Codex Sinaiticus, the words “of Nazareth” are not in the text.

(4)  The article quotes Matthew 6:9 without its opening phrase (“In this manner, therefore, pray”).

(5)  The article stated that Codex Sinaiticus lacks the Greek words on which the phrase, “who art in heaven” is based in Matthew 6:9.  However, the words are in the manuscript’s text of Matthew 6:9, plain as day.

(6, 7)  By translating the text of Codex Sinaiticus differently than the KJV, the article-writers make it appear as if Codex Sinaiticus’ text is different from the Greek base-text of the KJV in Matthew 6:10 (KJV:  “Give us this day our daily bread” – Sinaiticus:  “Give us day by day our daily bread”) and 6:11a (KJV:  “And forgive us our debts” – Sinaiticus:  “And forgive us our sins”).  The two Greek texts are identical, except for a spelling-variation in the word for “our.” (The normal spelling is umeiV; Codex Sinaiticus’ copyist spelled it as umiV.)

(8)  The article stated that Codex Sinaiticus, in the part of Matthew 6:11 that parallels the KJV’s phrase, “as we forgive our debtors,” says, instead, “as we ourselves also forgive every one that is indebted to us.”  In real life, the text of Codex Sinaiticus has the Greek equivalent of “as we have forgiven our debtors.”   

(9)  The BAS article describes the story of the woman caught in adultery as “John 8:3-11.”  This would be amusing in the work of a novice student; in the work of influential scholars, it is disturbing.  The passage in question – a rather well-known passage – begins at John 7:53, not John 8:3.

(10)  The BAS article states that Codex Sinaiticus is missing all of Luke 9:55-56, as if the entire passage is missing.  In the KJV, this passage runs as follows:  “But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of.  For the Son of man is not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them.  And they went to another village.”  In Codex Sinaiticus, the BAS article claims, this is “Not present.”

Codex Sinaiticus does not include the part of this passage that contains a direct quotation from Jesus, but the manuscript contains Greek text from Luke 9:55-56 that runs, in English, as follows:  “But he turned, and rebuked them, and they went to another village.”  (Without detouring to discuss the passage further, I note that the full reading is in several Old Latin manuscripts, including Codex Vercellensis, a copy that was probably made in the 370’s.)

 

Mark 1:41 in Codex Sinaiticus:  the Greek word for
"filled with compassion" occupies one line
of the manuscript's narrow columns.

(11)  The BAS article states that Codex Sinaiticus has Jesus’ name in Mark 1:41.  A simple consultation of the manuscript – page-views are online – shows that this is not true.

(12)  The BAS article states that instead of referring to Jesus being filled with compassion, Codex Sinaiticus says that Jesus was “angry” when he stretched out his hand to heal a leper.  However, the one Greek manuscript with that reading is not Codex Sinaiticus; it is Codex Bezae, a Greek-Latin manuscript known for its anomalies.  (In this case, Codex Bezae’s unusual Greek reading probably originated as a retro-translation of an early translator’s attempt to render the Greek word splangchnistheis, which means “filled with compassion” but, interpreted over-literally, can be rendered as moved-in-the-guts.)  Codex Sinaiticus, along with Codex Vaticanus and Codex Alexandrinus and Codex Washingtoniensis and 1,600 other Greek manuscripts, reads splangchnistheis – “filled with compassion.”

Caveat lector!  (Reader, beware!)