DOCSLIB.ORG

The Angel and the Sweat Like “Drops of Blood” (Lk 22:43–44): ∏69 and F13

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Angel and the Sweat Like “Drops of Blood” (Lk 22:43–44): ∏69 and F13 The Angel and the Sweat Like “Drops of Blood” (Lk 22:43–44): ∏69 and f13 Claire Clivaz University of Lausanne, Switzerland It is impossible to write except by making a palimpsest of a rediscovered manuscript. Umberto Eco Introduction Eldon J. Epp recently asserted that “the greater the ambiguity in the variant readings in a given variation unit, the more clearly we are able to grasp the concerns of the early church.”1 I agree with this principle and submit that the famous text-critical problem regarding the authenticity of Luke 22:43–44—the agony of Jesus on the Mount of Olives, which mentions the angel and the sweat “like drops of blood”—has not yet yielded its store of information about early Christianity, particularly in Alex- andria. This article has the modest purpose of presenting two technical notes on the complex question of the external evidence (from the manuscripts) bearing on Luke 22:43–44. These fi ndings provide some of the groundworkfor a reappraisal of the Lukan account of Jesus’ prayer on the Mount of Olives.2 This article has the modest purpose of presenting two technical notes on the complex question of the external evidence in the manuscripts bearing on Luke 22:43–44. I begin by reviewing recent research on the disputed verses, and I shall argue that it is necessary to re-examine the external evidence of Luke 22:43–44. In the second section, I shall consider ∏69, a mid-third century manuscript that omits not just Luke 22:43–44, but the entire detailed content of Jesus’ prayer in Luke 22: 42–45a. I suggest that we can make sense of this larger omission by treating ∏69 1Eldon J. Epp, “Issues in New Testament Textual Criticism: Moving from the Nineteenth Cen- tury to the Twenty-First Century,” in Rethinking New Testament Textual Criticism (ed. David Alan Black; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002) 60. 2Such a reappraisal is the task of my nearly completed Ph.D. dissertation on Luke 22:39–46 (directed by Prof. Daniel Marguerat, University of Lausanne, Switzerland; written in French). HTR 98:4 (2005) 419–440 420 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW as a witness to a Marcionite edition of Luke’s gospel. In the third section, I shall examine Family 13 (f13), a class of manuscripts that appear to transfer Luke 22: 43–44 to a position after Matt 26:39. I shall demonstrate that the transposition of these verses in the manuscripts of f13 cannot be used to prove that Luke 22:43–44 stems from another literary source. I Reconsidering the External Evidence for Luke 22:43–44 At the beginning of the last century, Adolf von Harnack campaigned strongly for the authenticity of Luke 22:43–44, emphasizing that there was no evidence for the omission of these verses before 300 C.E.3 The discovery of ∏75, a third-century manuscript that omits the verses, reopened the question of their authenticity.4 In the last twenty-five years, the authenticity of the verses has been postulatedby Jerome H. Neyrey and strongly defended by Raymond E. Brown.5 But the most infl uential position remains the one advanced in 1983 by Bart D. Ehrman and Mark A. Plunkett, who consider the verses as a later interpolation.6 The authorsunderlined thecom- plexity of the matter, saying, “no one argument yields a defi nitive solution. Rather, the cumulative force of a group of arguments must be assessed, and even then the critic is left with a probability-judgment.”7 This cautious position seems to have 3Adolf von Harnack, “Probleme im Texte der Leidengeschichte Jesu,” Sitzungsberichte der königlich preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin 11 (1901) 253. 4Joseph A. Fitzmyer, “Papyrus Bodmer XIV: Some Features of our Oldest Text of Luke,” CBQ 24 (1962) 178. See also Bart D. Ehrman and Mark A.Plunkett, “The Angel and the Agony: The Textual Problem of Luke 22:43–44,” CBQ 45 (1983)407 n. 20. The“ ∏75-effect” reserves surprises: in The Text of the New Testament, Kurt and Barbara Aland offer two different dates for ∏75, the third century or “the early second century” (The Text of the New Testament: An Introduction to the Critical Editions and to the Theory and Practice of Modern Textual Criticism [trans. Erroll F. Rhodes; 2d ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1989] compare 57, 101 with 91). 5Jerome H. Neyrey, “The Absence of Jesus’ Emotions—The Lucan Redaction of Lk 22:39–46,” Bib 61 (1980) 153–71; Raymond E. Brown, The Death of the Messiah: From Gethsemane to the Grave: A Commentary on the Passion Narratives in the Four Gospels (2 vols.; ABRL; New York: Doubleday, 1994) 1:184–90. See also Jean Duplacy, “La préhistoire du texte en Luc 22:43–44,” in New Testament Textual Criticism: Essays in Honour of Bruce M. Metzgerr (ed. Eldon J. Epp and Gordon D. Fee; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1981) 78–86; and Joel B. Green, “Jesus on the Mount of Olives,” JSNT 26 (1986) 33–47. Recent publications include Jerome Murphy-O’Connor, “What Really Happened at Gethsemane?” Bible Review 14 (1998) 28–39, 52; Michael Patella, The Death of Jesus: The Diabolic Force and the Ministering Angel (CahRB 43; Paris: Gabalda et Cie, 1999) 9–15; Rainer Riesner, “Versuchung und Verklärung (Lukas 4,1–13; 9,28–36; 10,17–20; 22,39–53 und Johannes 12,20–36),” TBei 33 (2002) 197–207; Christopher M. Tuckett, “Luke 22,43–44. The ‘Agony’ in the Garden and Luke’s Gospel,” in New Testament Textual Criticism and Exegesis (ed. Adelbert Denaux; BEThL 161; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2002) 131–44; and François Bovon in the forthcomingfinal volume ofhis commentary on the end of Luke’s Gospel. Prof. Bovon kindly shared with me his manuscript commentary on Luke 22:39–46. He has published three volumes ofhis commentary on the Gospel of Luke (up to Luke 19:27) in French (Genève: Labor et Fides, 1991–) andin German (Zürich: Benziger Verlag; Neukirchener-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1989–); the first volume has also appeared in English (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2002). 6See Ehrman and Plunkett, “The Angel and the Agony,” 401–16. 7Ibid., 416. CLAIRE CLIVAZ 421 been abandonedby Ehrman himself, who assertedin a lecture deliveredin 1997, that the chiasmus in Luke 22:40–46 is “nearly impossible to overlook.”8 Although he had admitted in 1993, “one can fi nd a structure wherever one looks.”9 Many scholars have been convinced by the literary argument made by Ehrman and Plunkett,10 which they reinforced with a theological argument.11 I suggest that the widespread acceptance of their 1983 article can be traced by examining the shift in the UBS editorial team’s assessment of the disputed verses. In 1983, UBS3 hesitantly included the verses, rating the decision with a “C” on a scale of A to D, but in 1994, UBS4 recommended omitting the verses, rating that decision with an “A.”12 Enthusiasm for Ehrman and Plunkett’s literary and theological arguments, however, seems to have overshadowed the lingering questions posedby the exter- nal evidence. The general attitude toward the textual evidence for the verses that describe the angel and the bloody sweat seems to be summed up in two statements: fi rst, Luke 22:43–44 is found, “generally speaking,”13 in Western witnesses but not in Alexandrian; second, “the arguments over external evidence are unable to decide the issue,” even if theygive to the shorter text a “slight edge.”14 This second, and prudent, observation, however, sometimes gives way to a very positive estimation 8Bart D. Ehrman, “Text and Traditions: The Role of New Testament Manuscripts in Early Chris- tian Studies. Lecture One: Text and Interpretation: The Exegetical Significance of the ‘Original’ Text,” TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism 5 (2000) §38. Online: http://rosetta.reltech.org/ TC/vol05/Ehrman2000a.html. 9Bart D. Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993) 205. On the criticism of the chiasmus argument, see also Green, “Jesus,” 36; and Patella, The Death of Jesus, 11: “Here, specifically, Ehrman and Plunkett’s ‘concise chiasmus’ would still standby extending D to include the strengthening angel and sweating ofblood.” 10See, for example, John Nolland, Luke (3 vols.; WBC 35; Dallas: Word, 1993) 3:1081; Craig A. Smith, “A Comparative Study of The Prayer of Gethsemane,” Irish BiblicalStudies 22 (2000) 101; and Gregory E. Sterling, “Mors philosophi: The Death of Jesus in Luke,” HTR 94 (2001) 396. 11In their article, Ehrman and Plunkett posed as the key question in this debate, “Which read- ing is more readily explained as originating in the theological climate of the second century?” (“The Angel,” 407). Ehrman pursued this theological approach in 1997, saying that “the Jesus of Luke goes to his death calm andin control. Only the longer text of 22:43–44 stands out as anomalous” (“Text and Tradition,” §42). Sterling developed this point of view in 2001 (“Mors,” esp. 397–98); see also David C. Parker, The Living Text of the Gospels (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997) 158. 12See The Greek New Testamentt (ed. Kurt Aland et al.; 3d ed.; Stuttgart: United Bible Societies, 1983) 305, and The Greek New Testamentt (4th ed.; Stuttgart: United Bible Societies, 1993) 297. Tuckett also noted the change (“Luke 22,43–44,” 131 n. 2). Also, the decision of the online The- saurus Linguae Graece not to include the verses should be mentioned: Luke 22:43–44 disappeared from the Lukan Gospel in the online edition (http://www.tlg.uci.edu).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Textus Receptus
    ENGLISH SUMMARY Chapter I. The Discovery of Family 13 XVIth–XVIIth cent.: A Settled Text, the “Textus Receptus” As the history of the printed text of the Greek New Testament starts at the beginning of the XVIth century, and as the rst mention of a Family 13 witness dates back to the end of the XVIIth century, we provide here, as an introduction, some of the high points of those two centuries. Considering the rst printed editions of the Bible, it is noteworthy to keep in mind the Alcalà Polyglot (or Complutensian), and the Antwerp, Paris and London Polyglots. It seems that none of the known Family 13 members were ever used by those editors and we could suggest a similar judgment for the editions published by Simon de Colines and Henri and Robert Estienne. The “Textus Receptus”, as printed in the Elzeviers’ 1624 edition, is rmly settled in the Greek New Testament editions of the XVIth and XVIIth centuries. 1700–1788: The First Witnesses (Minuscules 13, 69, 124) The rst Family 13 witness to be mentioned, in a printed catalogue of Greek manuscripts, was min. 124 (Vienna, Österreichische Nationalbiblio- thek, Theol. gr. 188), in 1670, by Pierre Lambeck of Hamburg. The manuscript is briey described, without textual features, and remains for the next few decades in the shadow of Lambeck’s physical description. Around the same date, possibly before then, another Family 13 manuscript was well-known, studied and celebrated for its peculiar readings: min. 69 (Leicester, The Record O ce for Leicestershire, Leicester & Rutland, 6 D 32/1).
    [Show full text]
  • The Significance of Split Text-Types for the Recovery of the Original Text of the Greek New Testament
    THE SIGNIFICANCE OF SPLIT TEXT-TYPES FOR THE RECOVERY OF THE ORIGINAL TEXT OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT LESLIE McFALL* The significance of splits in text-types has been overlooked in Majority text (hereafter MT) studies. It will be shown in this paper that when any text-type splits, one party to the split will retain the reading of the Majority text (MT), at the place where the other party diverges from it. List 1 was the key research that led to this paper. It gives every instance in the Gospel of Matthew where the unsplit Caesarean text-type is different from the Majority text. The Caesarean text is made up of two families of manuscripts, Family 1 and Family 13. List 1 is a register of 176 differences which gives us the earliest state of the Caesarean text in Matthew before the split occurred.1 It so happens that the Egyptian text fully agrees with the Caesarean text in these 176 differences.2 Given that the Egyptian text-type (as represented by the Aleph-B text) differs from the Byzantine text (as represented by von Soden’s Koine text and Robinson-Pierpont’s text), and that the Caesarean text agrees fully with the Egyptian in List 1, it would appear from this list, taken on its own, that the Caesarean text is a strong supporter of the Egyptian text. However, this would be a misleading conclusion to draw from this one list. Elsewhere, the united Caesarean text agrees with the Byzantine text in opposition to the Egyptian text-type, 1,629 times, in the Gospel of Matthew, showing just how close the Caesarean text was, and is, to the Byzantine text.3 * Leslie McFall resides at 25 Hillfield Road, Comberton, Cambridgeshire, England CB23 7DB.
    [Show full text]
  • Commentaries, Catenae and Biblical Tradition Houghton, Hugh
    University of Birmingham Commentaries, Catenae and Biblical Tradition Houghton, Hugh License: Creative Commons: Attribution (CC BY) Document Version Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record Citation for published version (Harvard): Houghton, H 2016, Commentaries, Catenae and Biblical Tradition. Texts and Studies (Third Series), vol. 13, Gorgias Press, Piscataway NJ. <http://gorgiaspress.com/bookshop/download/Commentaries,%20Catenae%20and%20Biblical%20Tradition.pdf > Link to publication on Research at Birmingham portal Publisher Rights Statement: Eligibility for repository: Checked on 10/5/2016 General rights Unless a licence is specified above, all rights (including copyright and moral rights) in this document are retained by the authors and/or the copyright holders. The express permission of the copyright holder must be obtained for any use of this material other than for purposes permitted by law. •Users may freely distribute the URL that is used to identify this publication. •Users may download and/or print one copy of the publication from the University of Birmingham research portal for the purpose of private study or non-commercial research. •User may use extracts from the document in line with the concept of ‘fair dealing’ under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (?) •Users may not further distribute the material nor use it for the purposes of commercial gain. Where a licence is displayed above, please note the terms and conditions of the licence govern your use of this document. When citing, please reference the published version. Take down policy While the University of Birmingham exercises care and attention in making items available there are rare occasions when an item has been uploaded in error or has been deemed to be commercially or otherwise sensitive.
    [Show full text]
  • Babelao 8, 2019
    BABELAO Electronic Journal for Ancient and Oriental Studies 8 (2019) C. LECOMPTE et A. VAN DE SANDE, Une petite tablette néo-sumérienne d'Umma de la collection Van de Sande (p. 1-4) Cl. OBSOMER, La troisième statue de Sésostris III au musée de Khartoum (p. 5-6) Cl. OBSOMER, Mersa Gaouasis sur la mer Rouge et les expéditions vers Pount au Moyen Empire (p. 7-66) E. VAN QUICKELBERGE, La mention de la ville de Ura dans les sceaux de Nerikkaili ? (p. 67-76) L. PINCHARD, The Pericope Adulterae and the Golden Calf: A Case for Intertextuality between Codex Bezae and the Jewish Scriptures (p. 77-96) C. BAY, Pseudo-Hegesippus at Antioch ? Testing a Hypothesis for the Provenance of the De Excidio Hierosolymitano (p. 97-128) N. ATAS, D. PHILLIPS, Fl. RUANI, Ḥ nanisho‘ de Beth Qoqa, Lettre : édition du texte et traduction (p. 129-139) J.-Cl. HAELEWYCK, The Old Syriac Versions of the Gospels. A Status Quaestionis (From 1842 to the Present Day) (p. 141-179) ACADÉMIE BELGE POUR L’ÉTUDE DES LANGUES ANCIENNES ET ORIENTALES (ABELAO) UNIVERSITÉ CATHOLIQUE DE LOUVAIN BABELAO Electronic Journal for Ancient and Oriental Studies General Editors / Directeurs Prof. Jean-Claude Haelewyck (Louvain-la-Neuve), Prof. Claude Obsomer (Louvain-la-Neuve) Assistant Editors / Secrétaires Marianne Michel (Louvain-la-Neuve), David Phillips (Louvain-la-Neuve) Editorial Committee / Comité de rédaction Alessandro Bausi (Hamburg), Anne Boud’hors (Paris), Antoine Cavigneaux (Genève), Sabino Chialà (Bose), Bernard Coulie (Louvain-la-Neuve), Alain Delattre (Bruxelles), Johannes Den Heijer (Louvain-la-Neuve), Didier Devauchelle (Lille), Jean-Charles Ducène (Bruxelles), James Keith Elliott (Leeds), Jean-Daniel Macchi (Genève), Michael Marx (Berlin), Claude Obsomer (Louvain-la-Neuve), Agnès Ouzounian (Paris), Tamara Pataridzé (Louvain-la-Neuve), Paul-Hubert Poirier (Laval, Québec), Véronique Somers (Paris, Louvain- la-Neuve), David Taylor (Oxford), Anton Vojtenko (Moscou).
    [Show full text]
  • The Textual Criticism of Luke 24:53 and Its Implications
    Inhalt PREFACE 7 A MODEST EXPLANATION FOR THE LAYMAN OF IDEAS RELATED TO DETERMING THE TEXT OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 8 Abstract 8 Introduction: on paper, ink and writing styles 8 What New Testament manuscript groups exist today 11 Why there are differences between manuscripts 11 The two main texttypes 13 The eclectic approach to recovering the original text 14 The basics of Byzantine priority 16 How we evaluate internal evidence 17 How we evaluate external evidence 20 Some objections to the theory of Byzantine priority addressed 23 Summary and conclusion 25 Glossary 26 Bibliography 29 SCRIBAL HABITS AND THE NEW TESTAMENT TEXT 30 Studies into Scribal Habits 30 Objections 37 The History of the Transcriptional Canons 41 Scribal Habits and the History of the Text 44 Corrections and the History of the Text 46 Scribal Habits and the Praxis of Textual Criticism 49 Prospect 50 20140318 Festschrift.indb 1 18.03.2014 21:25:57 A TRANSLATOR TAKES A LINGUISTIC LOOK AT MARK’S GOSPEL 52 Introduction 52 Discourse Analysis 52 Using Discourse Analysis in the Textual Criticism of the Gospel of Mark 54 Conclusion 59 Works Cited 59 EARLY TEXTUAL RECENSION IN ALEXANDRIA 62 Introduction 62 Summary of Fee’s arguments 63 Evaluation 65 References 66 THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE VATICANUS UMLAUTS TO FAMILY 1 68 The Make-up and Textual History of Family 1 71 The Date of Family 1 and its Ancestors 73 An Evaluation of the Data 75 Establishing a Connection between Vaticanus and Family 1 79 Conclusion 86 VARIETIES OF NEW TESTAMENT TEXT 87 Introduction 87 The Hand Copying
    [Show full text]
  • Rethinking the Western Non-Interpolations: a Case for Luke Re-Editing His Gospel
    Rethinking the Western Non-interpolations: A Case For Luke Re-editing His Gospel by Giuseppe Capuana BA (Mus), GradDipEd, BTheol (Hons) A thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Philosophy University of Divinity 2018 Abstract This thesis presents a new paradigm for understanding the Western non-interpolations. It argues that when Luke originally wrote his Gospel it did not contain 22:19b–20; 24:3b, 6a, 12, 36b, 40, 51b and 52a. However, at a later time, around the time Luke wrote Acts, he returned to his Gospel creating a second edition which contained these readings. My thesis makes the case that the paradigm of scribal interpolation is problematic. Working under this paradigm the results of external and internal evidence appear conflicting and scholars are generally forced to give greater preference to one set of evidence over the other. However, a balanced weighting of the external and internal evidence points us towards the notion that Luke was responsible for both the absence and the inclusion of 22:19b–20; 24:3b, 6a, 12, 36b, 40, 51b and 52a. Chapter one introduces the Western non-interpolations. It also makes the case that the quest for the original text of Luke’s Gospel should not be abandoned. Chapter two is on the history, theory and methodology of the Western non-interpolations. It begins with an overview of the text-critical scholarship emerging during the nineteenth century, particularly the influence of Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort. It also covers the period after Westcott and Hort to the present.
    [Show full text]
  • The Text of the New Testament 2Nd Edit
    THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration BY BRUCE M. METZGER Professor of Mew Testament Language and Literature Princeton Theological Seminary SECOND EDITION OXFORD AT THE CLARENDON PRESS Preface to the Second Edition During the four years that have elapsed since the initial publication of this book in 1964, a great amount of textual research has continued to come from the presses in both Europe and America. References to some of these publications were included in the German translation of the volume issued in 1966 under the title Der Text des Neuen Test- aments; Einftihrung in die neutestamentliche Textkritik (Kohlhammer Verlag, Stuttgart) . The second printing of the English edition provides opportunity to introduce a variety of small alterations throughout the volume as well as to include references to more than one hundred and fifty books and articles dealing with Greek manuscripts, early versions, and textual studies of recently discovered witnesses to the text of the New Testament. In order not to disturb the pagination, most of the new material has been placed at the close of the book (pp. 261-73), to which the reader's attention is directed by appropriate cross references. BRUCE M. METZGER February ig68 Preface The necessity of applying textual criticism to the books of the New Testament arises from two circumstances : (a) none of the original documents is extant, and (b) the existing copies differ from one another. The textual critic seeks to ascer- tain from the divergent copies which form of the text should be regarded as most nearly conforming to the original.
    [Show full text]