Strange Bedfellows in Acts 4:12

     The Textus Receptus – the base-text of the New Testament in the King James Version – usually is precisely the same as the Byzantine Text, the New Testament text used by Greek-reading churches for over a thousand years, and represented in over 85% of Greek manuscripts (at least in Matthew-Jude).  But occasionally – 1,005 times, not counting differences involving the spelling of nomina sacra – the Textus Receptus has a reading that is not the same as what is printed in the 2005 Robinson-Pierpont Byzantine Textform or the Hodges-Farstad Majority Text, and agrees instead with the mainly Alexandrian Text found in the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece compilation.  Acts 4:12 contains such a variant-unit.

Καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν ἐν ἄλλῳ οὐδενὶ ἡ σωτηρία οὐτὲ γὰρ ὄνομά ἐστιν ἕτερον ὑπὸ τὸν οὐρανὸν τὸ δεδομένον ἐν ἀνθρώποις ἐν ᾧ δεῖ σωθῆναι ἡμᾶς 

The TR and the Nestle-Aland/UBS compilation both read  οὐδὲ instead of οὐτὲ, but the more significant agreement is that both include the words ὑπὸ τὸν οὐρανὸν, which are absent from the Byzantine Text, resulting in the absence of the words “under heaven” in the majority-based World English Bible.  Zooming in on this part of the verse we see a remarkable variety of readings after γὰρ and before τὸ δεδομένον (nomina sacra contractions are not noted here):

ἐστιν ἕτερον ὑπὸ τὸν οὐρανὸν:  03 05 1505 2147

ἕτερον ἐστιν ὑπὸ τὸν οὐρανὸν:  02 08 044 33 104 1175 1739

ἐστιν ἕτερον:  056 330 547

ἕτερον ἐστιν:  69 (ἐστι) 330

1611 reads ἕτερον ἐστι τὸ δεδομένον ἐν ἀνθρώποις ὑπὸ τὸν οὐρανὸν

Codex Sinaiticus has a unique word-order:   ἕτερον ὄνομά ἐστιν ὑπὸ τὸν οὐρανὸν.

Codex Vaticanus agrees with the TR but reads ὐμᾶς instead of ἡμᾶς at the end of the verse.

Unraveling the likely mechanisms that led to each rival reading would be an interesting exercise and provide a basis for a family tree of witnesses, but here let’s be content to defend the original reading and account for the shorter Byzantine reading.  Internal probability commends Καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν ἐν ἄλλῳ οὐδενὶ ἡ σωτηρία οὐτὲ γὰρ ὄνομά ἐστιν ἕτερον ὑπὸ τὸν οὐρανὸν τὸ δεδομένον ἐν ἀνθρώποις ἐν ᾧ δεῖ σωθῆναι ἡμᾶς.  The words ὑπὸ τὸν οὐρανὸν were dropped accidentally when an early scribe’s line of sight drifted from -ον in ἕτερον to -ον in οὐρανὸν.    

Mark 16:9-20 - Taking It to the Streets

More than one publishing-house and more than one Christian commentator have refused to quietly correct the mistakes in their commentaries and similar books.  So I shall do so publicly:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfbSjIkCIF0

In this 48-minute video I expose some commentators' errors about Mark 16:9-20 such as the popular (but erroneous) claim about doubt-conveying asterisks and obeli.

When doing apologetics and wielding the sword of the Spirit . . . make sure its metal hasn't been weakened before going into battle. First Timothy 5:20

Proverbs 18:9

Fact-checking Bart Ehrman's Skepticism Course about the Gospel of Mark

The tradition about the origin of the Gospel of Mark is that Mark composed it in Rome to preserve a record of Peter's remembrances about Jesus.  I see no reason not to subscribe to that.

Bart Ehrman  

Dr. Bart Ehrman has recently focused on this, asking his readers about the Gospel of Mark's author, date, and purpose.  Let's put some of his claims under my analytical magnifying glass.

He called Sinaiticus and Vaticanus "our oldest two manuscripts, assigning them both to "toward the end of the fourth century  (around 375 CE)."  In real life Papyrus 45 is older.  And Vaticanus probably dates from the early 300s, not the later 300s (by which the Eusebian Sections had become very popular among scribes transcribing the Gospels).

He also stated that "they have the shortest titles," but in real life Sinaiticus has the longer form of the subscription to the Gospel of Mark (see picture).

"The titles were added by a later scribe (in a different hand" he state, and this is correct - but "later" in this case may simply be a matter of days; the diorthotes (supervisor/proofreader) acting as scribe as he finished approving the codex book by book via the addition of the closing titles.

Ehrman then claimed "the manuscripts that the authors of both these 4^th century manuscripts used apparently didn’t have titles at all (since they lacked them until the later scribe added them)."  At this point Dr. Ehrman was over-extrapolating and making little sense.   It is simply baseless to look at a systematic approach to adding page-titles and book subscriptions and conclude that it is an echo of exemplars rather than simply show tighter compartamentalization of the labor assigned to the transcription team of scribes. 

Ehrman supposes that it's anyone's guess whether the titles were added a year after 01 and 03 were made, but in real life it would require less than a minute before manuscript-readers of the Gospels in the 300s would encounter no book-titles and no subscriptions before they would demand a refund and/or send it back to the scriptorium to be finished.

For some reason - probably an irrational adherence to skepticism - Ehrman questions the testimony of Papias about Mark's authorship.  First he claims "There’s no way of knowing for certain that he’s talking about our Mark.  I’m not just being overly skeptical here."

Bart Ehrman certainly is being overly skeptical, as usual.  It's not as if there were multiple small books floating around Rome in the late 100s and reporting testimony about Jesus.  Papias' report made sense to subsequent generations.  If Ehrman really considers it "odd" that second-century writers prior to Irenaeus did not make their reports of the origins of the Gospels more explicit I invite him to consider that they were writing for audiences informed by oral tradition, not for atheistic readers 1900 years later.  

Papias wasn't throwing down words from the clear blue sky.  As Eusebius of Caesarea wrote, "he shows by the words which he uses that he received the doctrines of the faith from those who were their friends."  Papias wrote that he "learned carefully from the elders and carefully remembered" what he heard.   

For those new to Papias, I remind everyone what Timothy Mitchell pointed out in 2016, :  Papias perpetuated an older tradition when he wrote "And the elder used to say this: "Mark, having become Peter's interpreter, wrote down accurately everything he remembered - though not in  systematic order - about the things said or done by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him.  But afterward, as I said, he followed Peter, who adapted his teachings as needed but had no intention of giving an ordered account of the Lord's discourses. Consequently Mark did nothing wrong by writing down some things as he remembered them, for he made it his primary concern not to omit anything which he heard, and to avoid making any false statement in them."  This is preserved in Eusebius' Church History Book 3:39.  

(I mention in passing that this does not seem to be how anyone would describe Mark's Gospel without 16:9-20.)

Ehrman wrote, "Earlier authors who appear to quote Mark (e.g., Justin in 150 CE) - "

Allow me to pause and consider Ehrman's needless nebulosity.  Justin Martyr utilized Mark 3:16-17 when he mentioned that Jesus changed the moniker of the sons of Zebedee to Boanerges (in Dialogue with Trypho 106).   

Ehrman claimed that "If we look for any evidence in the Gospel itself that it was written by Mark or from provides Peter’s perspective on Jesus, there’s really nothing there."  He is incorrect again, as a thoughtful reading of Broadus' commentary on the Gospel of Mark demonstrates. [Take ten minutes and use the embedded link to obtain this wonderful resource.]

Ehrman assumed that Peter didn't know what Jesus prayed in the Garden of Gethsemane - as if Peter and Jesus could not have discussed the subject when Peter and Jesus were eating during the 40 days following Jesus' resurrection.  That's his atheism talking.

Ehrman correctly observed that "Peter is not portrayed in a positive light in the Gospel: he cannot understand who Jesus is, he puts his foot in his mouth, he denies him three times, and at one point Jesus calls him Satan."  So what?  Peter did not want to brag about himself; he honestly pointed out some of his faults to his Roman audience.  Of course he wanted to point to Jesus and Mark in his Gospel recorded Peter's accounts.  

Ehrman's irrational skepticism is on display when he wrote that Mark "almost certainly could not have written this kind of subtle and elaborate account in Greek" on the grounds that Mark's native tongue was Aramaic.   Dr. Ehrman simply underestimated how thoroughly being raised in a bilingual society - in this case, Judea-Samaria-Galilee - produced a literate mind such as that of Mark.  His incredulosity that Mark produced his Gospel (totaling 52 page if written in a tidy little book today) in the course of his lifetime is hard to understand anything other than a theatrical effect.  

Ehrman claimed that to compose Mark's little Greek book "was highly unusual."  Considering the educational system organized by Queen Salome Alexandra that was already in place when Mark was born this assumption is unwarranted.  The Septuagint was in play.  Many Jews in Roman-occupied Judea were literate in Greek.

When Ehrman asked why the Gospel of Mark was attributed to Mark he seems to overlook the historical reason that the Christians at Rome who knew Peter and Mark were aware that Mark was writing a composition to preserve Peter's recollections about Jesus, and when Mark passed his work along to them it was simply the natural thing to do.  

Like most liberals, Ehrman assigned the Gospel of Mark to "maybe" 70-75.  Being a skeptic who denies the miraculous he seemingly considers certain sayings of Jesus foreseeing the destruction of Jerusalem as if they were concocted after the fact.  A production-date in the mid-60s (not to put too fine a line on it but I suspect 68) seems to me more probable, with earlier stages of the composition being accessible to Christians such as Luke.  (Independent records of early apostolic traditions about Jesus were also circulating as Luke attested in the opening verses of his Gospel).  

Ehrman didn't go far enough when he observed that in the Gospel of Mark "Jesus repeatedly declares he has to die for others and not even his closest intimates can get their minds around it."  Peter and his fellow apostles didn't have an accurate idea of Jesus' mission prior to the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ - but afterwards, following the coming of the Holy Spirit, they did.  Their enlightenment didn't start with the composition of Mark's Gospel; Mark's Gospel echoes Peter's education.  Considering that Peter died as a crucified martyr rather than deny Christ, that ought to say something about his integrity and the truthfulness of his testimony about Jesus as written by Mark.

Meet GA 0206

GA 0206 was found and catalogued by Grenfell and Hunt and was featured in Volume XI of their series  Oxyrhynchus Papyri.  Its text of from First Peter 5 has been assigned to the 300s, and when Don Barker re-read its page-number as 829 instead of 229 (the second digit is basically a toss-up between 10 and 20 (Ι and Κ), it became clear that 0206 is what remains of quite a hefty volume; possibly a pandect like Codex Sinaiticus.  

 
At Wikipedia one can read details about its text.  

 ● 5:8a – 0206 reads ο before διαβολος along with p72 and 33, disagreeing with NA27 and the Byzantine Text.

● 5:8b – after ζητων 0206 lacks τινα, agreeing with Codex Vaticanus, and disagreeing with the Byzantine Text.   NA 27 has τινα in brackets.

 ●5:9b – 0206 lacks τω, agreeing with the Byzantine text and disagreeing with Papyrus 72 and Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.  Again the NA27 uselessly resorted to brackets.

 ● 5:9c – 0206 reads επιτελεισθαι (to be experiencing) along with the majority,  disagreeing with Papyrus 72 (επειτελειται) and with Vaticanus and Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus and  (επιτελεισθε) (you are experiencing).

● 5:10 – 0206 lacks τω agreeing with the Byzantine Text, disagreeing with Papyrus 72 and Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.

 ● 5:10 – 0206 lacks the nomina sacra for “Jesus” agreeing with Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.  NA27 resorts to brackets.

 ● 5:10 – 0206 reads καταρτιει (an orthographic error, probably elicited by the scribe's line of sight drifting ahead in the text of his exemplar.  The word υμας is not included, disagreeing with the Byzantine text.

 ● 5:10 – the final word of the verse θεμελιώσει is absent, a parableptic error elicited by homoeoteleuton.  

 ● 5:11a – 0206 reads αυτω κρατος (to whom [is to be attributed] dominion), agreeing with NA27 and Papyrus 72 02 03, disagreeing with the longer Byzantine reading αυτω η δοξα και το κρατος.   (A liturgical flourish appears to be have been added to the Byzantine text here.)

 ● 5:11b – 0206 reads εις τους αιωνας των αιωνων αμην (to the ages of the ages, Amen), agreeing with the Byzantine text and disagreeing with the more economical Papyrus 72 and Vaticanus and NA27 (εις τους αιωνας αμην) (to the ages Amen).  Simple parablepsis accounts for the shorter reading.

 ● 5:12 – 0206 lacks the του after χαριν, agreeing with Papyrus and disagreeing with the Byzantine text and NA27.

Not only does this fragment excavated in Egypt show that Byzantine readings were floating around in Egypt in the 300s in a large multi-book manuscript, but this analysis shows that the editors of NA27 were, in this particular passage. seem to have been timidly averse to doing their job.

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

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

Bruce Manning Metzger

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

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

 

         Now let’s zoom in on some patristic witnesses. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks to Jonathan Borland for sharing his insightful research.

The Interpolation in Matthew 27:49: Why?

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

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

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

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

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

            Let us take a closer today.

 

From Westcott & Hort's 1881 Greek text

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

   

Picture from the Rabbula Gospels

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Looking into the Alexandrian Text at John 12:12

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  

Matthew 21:31 - Who Did the Father's Will?

            “Overall this is a very difficult problem.”  Thus wrote Wieland Willker, in his Textual Commentary on the Greek Gospels, about the variation-units in Matthew 21:29-31, to which he devoted eight pages of analysis before concluding that “a fully convincing solution is currently not available.”

            “Verses 29-31 involve a rather complex and difficult textual problem.”  Thus begins the NET’s note on the same subject – one of the longest notes in the NET.

            But you wouldn’t know that there is a very tough textual variant here from most of our English Bibles.  The CSB, ESV, NASB, NIV, NLT, EHV, MEV, NRSV, and NKJV all say that the answer to Jesus’ question was “The first,” and they have no footnote here.  (The EOB-NT is a rare exception; the EOB-NT has “The first” in the text and a footnote says, “A few manuscripts, notably D, read “the second” which is unlikely but presents the Jews as spoiling the parable by giving (seemingly deliberately) the wrong answer.”  The EOB’s note could be improved, though, by replacing “the second” with “the last.”)   

            I think one has to go back to J.B. Phillips’ version to find, in English, anything other than “the first” (or, in the CEV, “the older one”) as the answer that was given to Jesus’ question in Matthew 21:31.  (In Phillips’ version, the answer is given as “The second one,” echoing the variant δευτερω.  A different reading, ὁ ὕστερος, was in the text of the 25^th edition of the Nestle-Aland compilation, and was also adopted by Westcott & Hort and Tregelles.  (The 1881 Revised Version reads “The first.”  Perhaps the Revision Committee was unimpressed with Westcott and Hort’s divided opinion.)     (The Tyndale House GNT deviates from Tregelles’ compilation, adopting the usual reading ὁ πρῶτος, with an exceptionally thorough apparatus-entry.)    

            Hort, in 1881, devoted over two full pages (in Notes on Select Readings) to Mt. 21:28-31, and mentioned the view of Lachmann that the Jews’ answer to Jesus in Mt. 21:31 is “an early interpolation” (along with the four words which follow it).  Westcott inserted a note of his own into Hort’s analysis, stating, “Considering the difficulty of the Western combination of readings it seems not unlikely that Lachmann is substantially right.”

            The array of readings in this passage is interesting:  first comes a contest in verse 29:  οὐ θέλω, ὔστερον δέ μεταμεληθεὶς ἀπῆλθεν is read by the Byzantine Text, and by C L M W Π 157 565 579; À* has almost the same reading but without the δέ).  Codex Vaticanus has, instead, ἐγώ κε καὶ οὐκ ἀπῆλθεν (“I go, lord, and did not go”).  Third, f¹³ and 700 (Hoskier’s 604) read ὕπαγω κύριε καὶ οὐκ ἀπῆλθεν.  Fourth, Θ (038) has ὕπαγω καὶ οὐκ ἀπῆλθεν.  Fifth, Codex Bezae (05) reads οὐ θέλω ὔστερον δέ μεταμεληθεὶς ἀπῆλθεν but adds εἰς τὸν ἀμπελωνα (repeating the words from v. 28).       

            There are other textual contests (Byzantine witnesses have και before προσελθὼν; Alexandrian witnesses tend to have προσελθὼν δε, and the scribe of À skipped ὁ δὲ ἀποκριθεὶς ειπεν in v. 30), but the main contest near the beginning of v. 30 is between ἑτέρω (another) and δευτέρω (second). 

          Δευτέρω (second) is supported by B L M S Ω and by most Greek manuscripts, and by 28 33 700 892 and 1424.  The Byzantine Textform is somewhat split here, though:  δευτέρω is in the text and ἑτέρω is in the margin.  

            Ἡτέρω (the other) is supported by À*, D, Q, K, Π, W, Y, Δ, 157, 565, 579, et al.  In Codex À, someone creatively changed ἑτέρω by putting δ in the left margin and υ between the first  ε and τ, thus producing the variant δευτέρω. 

            Those two textual contests must be kept in mind as we approach the main textual contest in verse 31, where we see (after another variation-unit in v. 31:  after λεγουσιν, most MSS have αυτω but not B À L D Θ 33 f¹³ 788) the answer that Jesus’ listeners gave:

            Codex B and some Ethiopic copies support ὁ ὕστερος (“the later [one]”).

            Almost all manuscripts support ὁ πρῶτος (“the first”).

           Codex D and Θ 700 f¹³ and several Old Latin copies (a, b, d, e, ff², h, l) and the Sinaitic Syriac and the Armenian version support ὁ ἔσχατος (“the last”).    

            Let’s remember one of the canons of textual criticism:  prefer the more difficult reading.  The reading of Codex Bezae is the more difficult reading here – but it also makes Jesus’ hearers appear idiotic; it is obvious that the son who told his father that he would go, but did not go, did not do what the father wanted him to do.

            Jerome’s Vulgate supports ὁ πρῶτος.  But in his Commentary on Matthew, Jerome said something about the variant in verse 31: “one should know that with respect to what follows: ‘Which of the two did the father’s will? And they said, ‘the last,’ the authentic copies do not have ‘the last’ but ‘the first.’”  Jerome proposed that “If we want to read ‘the last,’ the interpretation is plain.  We would say that the Jews indeed understood the truth, but they are evasive and do not want to say what they think.”  In other words, to Jerome, the reading ὁ ἔσχατος (“the last”) makes the Jews seem not stupid, but duplicitous. 

            Bruce Metzger, in his Textual Commentary, rejected the very difficult reading of Codex Bezae, stating that “it is not only difficult, it is nonsensical” – and explained that the UBS committee judged that D’s reading originated “due to copyists who either committed a transcriptional blunder or who were motivated by anti-Pharisaic bias.”  Whatever the mechanism was, the range of its effect must have extended not only to Codex D but to several Latin copies, to the Sinaitic Syriac, and to Jerome’s “authentic” Latin manuscripts – most of which are major representatives of the Western Text.

[But not the Curetonian Syriac.  As Willker notes, the Curetonian Syriac was erroneously cited in NA27 as if it supports ὁ ἔσχατος.  Willker supplies Peter Williams’ rendering of the Curetonian Syriac, which concludes with “The first/former”.] 

[Another oddity in the apparatus of NA27 is that Θ is assigned two readings in v. 31:   ἔσχατος and ὕστερος.] 

[A mistake might have been made by Kurt and Barbara Aland in their Text of the New Testament where they took a close look at this passage (beginning on p. 233), and they zoom in on Mt. 21:31 (beginning on page 235).  The Alands stated that ὁ ὕστερος is supported by Codex Vaticanus “and other Greek manuscripts as well as in some Sahidic manuscripts and the whole Bohairic tradition.”  What are the “other Greek manuscripts” here?  The apparatus of NA27 lists  B Θ f¹³ 700 al; however, this seems to refer to the reading ὕστερον near the end of v. 30; Swanson gives ὁ ἔσχατος as the reading of Θ f¹³ 700 in v. 31 before λέγει.  If there are any other Greek manuscripts that read ὁ ὕστερος other than Codex Vaticanus, I do not know what they are.  If anyone knows of any, please mention them in the comments.]      

            Now let’s apply another canon:  prefer the variant which accounts for its rivals better than they account for it.  The reading in Mt. 21:31 adopted in the UBS compilation – ὁ πρῶτος – does not explain ὁ ὕστερος.  And ὁ ὕστερος can account for ὁ πρῶτος and  ὁ ἔσχατος. 

            As as answer to Jesus’ question, ὁ ὕστερος is a somewhat fluid answer; to someone whose first language was Latin, ὁ ὕστερος might be misunderstood as if it means “the latter.”  And such a misunderstanding explains the origin of the Western reading; there is no need to suppose that an “anti-Pharisaic bias” was involved here.     

            Ὁ ὕστερος also explains ὁ πρῶτος:  The answer “The later one” refers to the first son, not initially (when he said that he would not go), but later (after he changed his mind).  An early scribe who perceived that ὁ ὕστερος could be misunderstood as a reference to the second son could easily avoid the misunderstanding that mars the Western Text by making the wording clearer, and he did so, creating the reading ὁ πρῶτος.

            This internal evidence – (1) ὁ ὕστερος is difficult but not nonsensical, and (2) ὁ ὕστερος accounts for ὁ πρῶτος better than ὁ πρῶτος accounts for ὁ ὕστερος, and (3)  ὁ ὕστερος accounts for ὁ ἔσχατος – compels the adoption of ὁ ὕστερος. 

NA 25

            Whatever other shortcomings Vaticanus’ Gospels-text has, here in Matthew 21:31, it preserves the original wording.   This was the verdict of Tregelles, and it should be the reading in future editions. 

            By the way, I adopted ὁ ὕστερος over a decade ago in my Equitable Eclectic English Edition of the Gospel of Matthew, rendered as “The later one.”   EEEE Matthew, as I call it, is available as a Kindle e-book on Amazon for $1.99.

             In closing, I recommend that that the Armenian and Ethiopic evidence in Matthew 21:31 should be double-checked.