NIVEL DE CALIDAD DE SERVICIO

When evaluating the relevant evidence for a variant reading it is best to begin with external evidence. This is because external evidence provides concrete data. It reveals the variant readings which exist and require serious consideration. Often, the determining factor for considering the importance of a variant reading is the witness or witnesses in which it is found. This chapter, then, presents a list of witnesses that support the long variant readings and short variant readings. Also included is a discussion of important issues that pertain to the manuscript evidence.

This chapter is divided into four sections. The first section is called A Preliminary

Discussion. Here I describe what constitutes external evidence. I discuss the types of

witnesses useful in the study of the Western non-interpolations, such as papyri, majuscules, minuscules, versions, early Christian writings and lectionaries. Also included in this section is a discussion of specific witnesses important in determining the status of a variant reading, in particular P75, Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Bezae and Marcion.

The next section is titled CollectingandExplaining the Evidence. Presented here

are the resources that I have consulted to create a list of witnesses for our variant readings. In the field of textual criticism a witness may be represented by a number, letter, sign and/or abbreviation. Therefore, this section includes tables that assist in the quick identification of witnesses by these means. These tables should be consulted if one wishes to be informed of the date and lacunae of a particular witness. The tables work best in conjunction with the next section, which lists the external evidence for each variant reading.

The third section of the chapter is titled The Variants. This section not only lists

the external evidence for each of the variant readings, but also includes a Comment

subsection which, as the title suggests, provides a commentary on the evidence for each

individual variant reading. The final section of the chapter is titled Conclusion:

Interpreting the Evidence. This last section is a collective interpretation of the evidence

presented in The Variants section. It is argued that the external evidence supports the

thesis that Luke wrote two editions of the Gospel, the first of which contained the short variant readings, the second the long variant readings.

A Preliminary Discussion

The term “external evidence” pertains to the many extant artefacts that can be used as witnesses to the variant reading in question. The artefacts may come in the form of a manuscript, document, ostracon, talisman, or any other object that contains a written text or inscription. For the Western non-interpolations the most important of the artefacts are the Greek manuscripts of Luke’s Gospel.

The earliest New Testament books were written on papyrus and many of them are dated prior to the fourth century. Dated a little later than the papyrus manuscripts are those written on parchment. These manuscripts are dated from the fourth century onwards. The earliest papyri and parchment Greek New Testament manuscripts were

written in majuscule continuous script.1

In regards to Luke’s Gospel, six pre-fourth-century papyri witnesses are extant.2

      

1 _{Datings of extant manuscripts have been assigned on palaeographical grounds and should be recognised}

as being approximate.

2 _{Juan Hernández, Jr., “The Early Text of Luke,” in The Early Text of the New Testament, ed. Charles E.}

These are P4, P7, P45, P69, P75 and P111. None of these contain the complete text of Luke’s Gospel, as they survive in fragmentary form. Of these, only P75, which was written sometime during the late second century or early third century, is relevant for the study of the Western non-interpolations. Fortunately, in P75, Luke 24 survives intact. On the other hand, Luke 22, which is found on leaf 42, recto, survives as a fragment. A careful analysis of leaf 42, recto, shows that there is good reason to believe that P75 did originally have the long variant reading of Luke 22:19b–20. The editors of P75 have transcribed the state of Luke 22:19–20 in the following way:

Lacunae of Luke 22:19–20 in leaf 42, recto, of P753

19a_[καὶ] λαβ[ὼνἄρτονεὐ]χαρ[ιστήσαςἔκλασεν] καὶ [ἔ]δωκ[εναὐ]τοῖςλέγων [τοῦτό] ἐστ[ιν] τὸσῶ[μά] μου19b_{τὸὑπὲρὑ[μῶν} δι]δόμενο[ν το]ῦτοποιεῖτεεἰς [τὴν ἐμ]ὴνἀνάμ[νησιν] 20_{καὶτ[ὸπ]οτή[ριονὡ} σαύ]τωςμε[τὰτὸδε]ιπν[ῆσαι, λ]έγω[ν τοῦτο] τὸπ[οτήριο]νἡκ[αιν]ὴδι[α θήκηἐν τῷαἵματί] μουτ[ὸὑπὲρὑ μῶνἐκχυννόμενον]

The letters enclosed in square brackets indicate where there is a lacuna. The bold font which is underlined indicates that the letter partially appears in P75. Normal font letters are those which appear clearly. There are enough visible letters, spaced appropriately, to indicate that verses 19b–20 were originally part of the P75 text.

Manuscripts written on parchment outnumber those written on papyri. There have been three important parchment manuscripts that have influenced many editors of our popular critical editions of the Greek New Testament. The most influential is the

      

3 _{Victor Martin and Rodolphe Kasser, eds., Papyrus Bodmer XIV-XV: Evangiles de Luc et Jean, Tome 1:}

fourth-century manuscript Codex Vaticanus (B, 03). Its contents are that of the Hebrew

Scriptures (Septuagint)4 _{and the New Testament. The provenance of Codex Vaticanus is}

unknown.5

Codex Sinaiticus (א, 01) is also dated to the fourth century. It is the earliest and most complete extant Bible of the Hebrew Scriptures (Septuagint) and the New

Testament. It was discovered by Constantin von Tischendorf in the middle of the nineteenth century. It is a manuscript written in four columns. Tischendorf was heavily influenced by Codex Sinaiticus during the production of his critical editions. However, according to Kurt Aland, Codex Sinaiticus is inferior to Codex Vaticanus and

Tischendorf overrated its value.6

Also of importance is Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis (D, 05) which is dated to the fifth century. Codex Bezae is a bilingual parchment manuscript, with the left hand page written in Greek and the right hand page written in Latin. It contains four Gospels and Acts, although the order of the Gospels appears in the “Western” order of Matthew,

John, Luke and Mark. The Latin translation in Codex Bezae is the Old Latin version itd_.

Of Codex Bezae, Aland says that it is “the most controversial of the New

      

4 _{The Septuagint is the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible.}

5 _{Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland, The Text of the New Testament: An Introduction to the Critical Editions}

and to the Theory and Practice of Modern Textual Criticism, 2nd ed., trans. Erroll F. Rhodes (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1989), 109. The first known recorded mention of Codex Vaticanus is from the sixteenth century. David Parker says that “Codex Vaticanus is first mentioned in a letter to Erasmus by Bombasius, Prefect of the Vatican Library, in 1521. But it was to be another two and a half centuries before more than a small part of its readings were to become available.” David C. Parker, “The Majuscule Manuscripts of the New Testament,” in Manuscripts, Texts, Theology: Collected Papers 1977-2007 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2009), 37. We do not have any other information about Codex Vaticanus prior to the sixteenth century. This makes it difficult to say anything with certainty about its provenance.

6 _{Aland and Aland, Text of the New Testament, 107. For the history behind Codex Sinaiticus and}

characteristics of its text see David C. Parker, Codex Sinaiticus: The Story of the World’s Oldest Bible (London: Hendrickson, 2010).

Testament uncials, the principal witness of the text called ‘Western’.”7 _{The term}

“Western” is an ambiguous one. When Westcott and Hort used the term “Western” they did not mean for it to indicate a type of text that arose in, and was confined to, Western Christendom. They did say that the Western type of text may have arisen “in North- western Syria or Asia Minor, and that it was soon carried to Rome, and thence spread in

different directions to North Africa and most countries of Europe.”8 _{Westcott and Hort}

acknowledged that this was only based upon speculation.9

In regards to the Western type of text, a problem greater than locating its

provenance exists. Westcott and Hort accepted the view that the Western readings were of early origin. For them, the Western readings could be dated as early as the second

century.10 _{This of course included the Western readings of Codex Bezae. Nowadays such}

a premise is questionable. After analysing a series of relevant variant readings of Codex Bezae, J. Neville Birdsall makes the following conclusion:

I share common ground with the recent critics of Westcott and Hort, that the text of Codex Bezae cannot be identified with any entity of the second

century tout simple: if “Western Text” means “the text of the Codex

Bezae,” then it is not to be found in the second century.11

David Parker, who does not abandon the view that Codex Bezae is derived from a Greek base text from the “second-to-third-century,” agrees that there are unresolved

      

7 _{Aland and Aland, Text of the New Testament, 109.}

8 _{Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort, Introduction to the New Testament in the}

Original Greek with Notes on Selected Readings (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2003), 108.

9 _{Westcott and Hort, Introduction, 108. Modern-day theories in relation to the place of origin for Codex}

Bezae include Jerusalem, Berytus (modern day Beirut), North Africa, possibly Egypt and the Rhône valley. See David C. Parker, “Codex Bezae and other Greek New Testament Manuscripts in Cambridge University Library,” in Manuscripts, Texts, Theology: Collected Papers 1977-2007 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2009), 67-8.

10 _{Westcott and Hort, Introduction, 122.}

11 _{J. Neville Birdsall, “The Western Text in the Second Century,” in Gospel Traditions in the Second}

Century: Origins, Recensions, Text, and Transmission, ed. William L. Petersen (Notre Dame, London: University of Notre Dame Press, 1989), 3-17.

difficulties among those manuscripts considered Western.12 _{He writes that “it has long}

been said, the main thing that the manuscripts of this [Western] type have in common is that while they differ from those of other types, they differ from each other almost as

much.”13 _{Parker observes the lack of consistency among the manuscripts designated}

Western. Therefore, we should be cautious in automatically presuming that a Western variant reading either originated, or if earlier, was circulating, during the second century. Some variant readings may have been present as early as the second century, but as to which ones, we cannot always be sure.

For this thesis of mine to have any credibility it must be shown that the short variant readings were in existence during the second century, at the very least. The long variant readings can be said to be circulating during the second century thanks to P75. In regards to the short variant readings the fifth-century Codex Bezae is the only known Greek manuscript that is witness to all eight. Of the several Old Latin manuscripts

which are witnesses to the short variant reading, the earliest is Codex Vercellensis (ita₎

which is dated to the fourth century. True, the Old Latin Version is believed to have

originated in the second century,14 _{and it}a _{may be a surviving witness to it. However, like}

Codex Bezae, this does not prove that all variant readings associated with this

manuscript, or any other related Old Latin Version for that matter, such as itb. d. e. ff². l. r¹_,

derive from the second century. As has been argued by Birdsall, associating variant

readings of Codex Bezae with the Western text is not enough to prove a second-century

      

12 _{David C. Parker, An Introduction to the New Testament Manuscripts and Their Texts (Cambridge:}

Cambridge University Press, 2008), 326.   13 _{Parker, Introduction, 171.}

date. The same can be said of the Old Latin Versions.15

Fortunately we do not have to rely upon the theories of the Western text and its association with Codex Bezae and that of the Old Latin manuscripts to prove that the short variant readings were circulating during the second century. Birdsall may be correct that many of the Western readings of Codex Bezae show no evidence of a second century date. However, he would not be correct to place the eight short variant readings within this category. In regards to the eight short variant readings Birdsall has missed an important witness, or as he likes to call it, entity, that can corroborate a second-century date for the eight short variant readings of Codex Bezae and the Old Latin manuscripts. This corroborating witness, or entity, is Marcion.

Marcion is one of several witnesses from the patristic period who is cited in this

thesis.16 _{Marcion was born at Sinope, in the Pontus region of Asia Minor (today’s North-}

eastern Turkey). Scholars have given a date range for his birth somewhere between the

late first century and early second century.17 _{He was active in Rome sometime during the}

mid-second century. Christoph Markschies says that Marcion joined the Christian

      

15 _{Birdsall, “The Western Text in the Second Century,” 16.} 

16 _{When I speak of the patristic period I have in mind the second century to mid-fifth century.} 17 _{Adolf Harnack suggests a birth date of 85 CE.Adolf von Harnack, Marcion: The Gospel of the Alien}

God, trans. John E. Steely and Lyle D. Bierma (Durham, NC: Labyrinth, 1989), 15; trans. of Marcion, das Evangelium vom fremden Gott: Eine Monographie zur Geschichte der Grundlegung der katholischen Kirche. Neue Studien zu Marcion, 2nd ed. (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1924). More recently R. Joseph Hoffmann has argued for a date of 70 CE. R. Joseph Hoffmann, Marcion: On the Restitution of Christianity: An Essay on the Development of Radical Paulinist Theology in the Second Century, AARAS 46 (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1984), xi. Alternatively, Sebastian Moll suggests a date somewhere between 100 and 110 CE. Sebastian Moll, The Arch-Heretic Marcion, Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 250 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010), 26. As Marcion’s influence grew when in Rome sometime during the mid-second century, a later date seems plausible as this would put Marcion somewhere in the 30’s or 40’s age bracket, rather than the 60’s or 70’s age bracket of Harnack or 70’s or 80’s age bracket of Hoffmann. In regards to Harnack’s dating, Moll (Arch-Heretic, 26) has written that “Marcion would have been (almost) sixty when he arrived in Rome, and it seems simply improbable that a sixty year old man would start a revolution as Marcion did.” Moll (Arch-Heretic, 37-38) persuasively argues that Harnack’s earlier date for the birth of Marcion is based upon a misinterpretation of Clement of Alexandria’s Stromata, 7.17, 106-107.

community in Rome around the year 140 CE, a date supported by Adolf von Harnack.18

Sebastian Moll suggests a date of ca. 144/145 CE.19

It is clear that Marcion split from the proto-orthodox church while in Rome. According to Tertullian, when in Rome, Marcion donated a sum of 200,000 sesterces to the Roman church. Once his theological views were understood and rejected by the

Roman church, the money was returned in full.20 _{Tertullian’s view seems to have some}

credibility. The Marcionites regarded the split between Marcion and the Roman church as the birth of their church. They counted this split as occurring 115 years and 6½

months from Christ’s crucifixion and resurrection.21 _{This places the split in the fifth}

decade of the second century.22 _{It also supports the notion that Marcion’s activity in}

Rome was in the 140’s.

Marcion believed that there was an irreconcilable dichotomy between law and

grace. Of Marcion, Tertullian said separatio legis et euangelii proprium et principale

opus est Marcionis (“the separation of Law and Gospel is the actual and principal work

of Marcion”).23 _{For Marcion the Hebrew Scriptures revealed a creator and law-giving}

God. In addition to this “legalistic” God of the Jews, Marcion believed there was another God hidden from all humanity. It was Jesus who made known this hidden, divine being

      

18 _{Christoph Markschies, Gnosis: An Introduction, trans. John Bowden (London: T&T Clark, 2003), 86;}

and Harnack, Alien God, 19.

19 _{For his arguments see Moll, Arch-Heretic, 31-35.} 20 _{Tertullian, De praescriptione haereticorum, 30.2.}

21 _{See Harnack, Alien God, 19; and Moll, Arch-Heretic, 34-35.}

22 _{Based upon these figures Harnack gives the exact date of July, 144 CE for the split. Harnack, Alien God,}

19. So do Markschies, Gnosis, 86; and E. C. Blackman, Marcion and His Influence (London: SPCK, 1948), 3. However, it appears that Markschies and Blackman are both following Harnack with little critical reflection.

23 _{Tertullian, Adversus Marcionem, 1.19.4. Latin text from René Braun, ed., Tertullien: Contre Marcion,}

of grace, love and mercy.24 _{Marcion understood this God of Jesus to be superior to the}

God of the Jews. The logical consequence of this was that the created order, the product of the Hebrew God, was inferior to the spiritual concept of grace as revealed by Jesus.

Marcion was accused of being a literalist when it came to biblical interpretation. According to Tertullian, Marcion believed that Jesus was the Messiah of the hidden God,

based upon a literal interpretation of Luke 9:20.25 _{Whether Marcion consistently}

interpreted his bible in a literal way is unclear. What is clear is that his bible greatly

influenced his belief. As Moll says, the bible of Marcion was “the source and at the same

time the result of his doctrine.”26

The bible which Marcion accepted as authoritative was instrumental for his

theological views.27 _{Marcion’s bible was composed of one Gospel (Evangelion) and ten}

Pauline letters (Apostolikon). The order of the books of the Apostolikon was Galatians,

First Corinthians, Second Corinthians, Romans, First Thessalonians, Second

Thessalonians, Ephesians (known to Marcion as Laodiceans), Colossians, Philippians

and Philemon.28 _{With Paul’s focus on grace, it is no wonder that Marcion was especially}

concerned with the relationship between law and grace.

It is the Evangelion which is important for this thesis. Even though Marcion did

      

24 _{Harry Y. Gamble, The New Testament Canon: Its Making and Meaning (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985),}

59.

25 _{Tertullian, Adversus Marcionem, 4.21.7. Luke 9:20 has the phrase τὸνχριστὸντοῦθεοῦ (“the Christ of}

God”). According to Tertullian Marcion took these words to literally mean that Jesus was the Christ/Messiah of God.

26 _{Moll, Arch-Heretic, 77. Emphasis his.}

27 _{Marcion has been credited with being the first to put together a Christian canon. See H.}

Campenhausen, “Marcion et les origines du canon néotestamentaire,” RHPR 20 (1966): 213-26; and Gamble, New Testament Canon, 59-60. Theodor Zahn claims that the first canon came from the proto- orthodox faction and pre-dates Marcion’s canon. Theodor Zahn, Geschichte des Neutestamentlichen Kanons (Leipzig: Böhme, 1890), 434-35.

28 _{Gamble, New Testament Canon, 41. For Marcion’s Apostolikon I recommend Ulrich Schmid, Marcion}

not give a name to his Evangelion, the second-century heresiologist Irenaeus recognised

In document Propuesta de un modelo de gestión pública de referencia contrareferencia para optimizar la calidad de servicio al paciente en una microred hospitalaria de Lima ciudad 2017 (página 53-64)