301 Matt. 10:3 “Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus” (TR & AV) {A} Preliminary Textual Discussion. Scribes sometimes missed short words. E.g., here at Matt. 10:3 in Lectionary 1968, the “ o (the) tou ([son] of)” before “ Alphaiou (Alphaeus),” is omitted. But for our purposes this does not affect the relevant reading we are considering. Principal Textual Discussion. At Matt. 10:3 the TR’s Greek reading, “Lebbaios (Lebbaeus) o (who) epikletheis (was surnamed) Thaddaios (Thaddaeus),” i.e., “Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus,” is supported by the majority Byzantine Text e.g., W 032 (5th century, which is Byzantine in Matt. 1-28; Luke 8:13-24:53), Sigma 042 (late 5th / 6th century, with diverse spelling, “Lebbeos ”), N 022 (6th century, with diverse spellings, “ Lebbeos ” and “ Thaddeos ”); Minuscules 1010 (12th century) and 597 (13th century); and Lectionary 1968 (1544 A.D.). It is also supported as Latin, “ Lebbeus (Lebbaeus) qui (who) nominatur (is named) Taddeus (Thaddaeus ),” in old Latin Version f (6th century). It is further supported by the ancient church Greek writers, the Apostolic Constitutions (3rd or 4th century) and Chrysostom (d. 407). However another reading, Variant 1 , may be reconstructed from the Latin as Greek, “Thaddaios (Thaddaeus)” (cf. Variant 2 Greek and Latin forms). It is followed as Latin, “Thaddaeus ” in Jerome’s Latin Vulgate (5th century), and as Latin, “ Thaddeus ” in old Latin Versions aur (7th century), 1 (7th / 8th century), ff1 (10th / 11th century), and c (12th / 13th century). It is also followed by the ancient church Latin writers, Jerome (d. 420) and Augustine (d. 430). From the Latin support for this reading, the Vulgate’s reading is manifested in the Clementine Vulgate (1592). Yet another reading, Variant 2 , reads only, Greek, “ Lebbaios (Lebbaeus).” Variant 2 is followed as Latin, “ Lebbeus ” in old Latin Version d (5th century). It is also followed by the ancient church Greek writer, Origen (d. 254) in a Latin translation, and is found in a manuscript according to the ancient church Latin writer, Augustine (d. 430). Another reading, Latin, “ Iebbacus ,” Variant 3 , is followed by old Latin Version k (4th / 5th centuries). Another reading, Latin, “ Iudas (Judas) Zelotes (Zealotes) et (and) Thomas (Thomas),” Variant 4 , is followed by old Latin Versions a (4th century), b (5th century), and q (6th / 7th century). Another reading, Latin, “Iudas (Judas) Zelotes (Zealotes), Variant 5 , is followed in old Latin Versions h (5th century) and g1 (8th / 9th century) 1. There is no good textual argument against the representative Byzantine reading which is therefore correct. The origins of Variant 1 , 2, 3, and 4 are speculative. It is possible that Variant’s 1 and 2 were accidental, resulting from ellipsis in the “ eus ” endings of Latin 1 Indicating a failure to understand the context, the UBS textual apparatus combines Variants 4 and 5 as one variant, i.e., simply, Iudas Zelotes . With qualification, one can say Variant 4 supports the basic reading of Variant 5, with respect to the words, Iudas Zelotes , or vice versa , but this is not what the UBS textual apparatus says. 302 “Lebbeus ” and “ Thaddeus. ” If the Variants originated in the Greek and not the Latin, the same issue of ellipsis could explain how the “ aois ” endings of “ Lebbaios ” and “ Thaddaios ” confused different fatigued or inattentive scribes in different ways, so that in one instance, “Lebbaios (Lebbaeus) o (who) epikletheis (was surnamed)” was lost, when a scribe reading forward, and then looking back, and remembering he was up to the “ aois ” ending wrote down “Thaddaios (Thaddaeus)” and kept going (Variant 1 ); whereas in another instance, a scribe first writing down “ Lebbaios (Lebbaeus)” then looked forward in the passages and back to the “ aois ” ending of “ Thaddaios (Thaddaeus),” and kept writing ( Variant 2 ). Of course, it is also possible that these were deliberate “stylistic improvements.” We simply so not know for sure. We only know that somehow these errors arose. Variant 3 may have originated from a paper loss or fade. The original manuscript probably contained Variant 2 . But the “ Lebbeus ” may have appeared as “ :ebb::us ” and the scribe then wrongly “reconstructed” this as “ Iebbacus .” If so, there is a sense in which Variant 3 may be said to be the same as Variant 2 . Variant 4 may have originated from a paper loss or fade. The original manuscript probably contained the TR’s reading. But the “ Lebbeus qui nominatur Taddeus ” may have appeared as “ ::::::::s ::::::o::::::t::::T:::::::s .” The scribe may have “reconstructed” this as “Iudas (Judas)” with reference to the “ Iudas (Judas) Scarioth (Iscariot)” of the next verse; and then thinking a surname was required to distinguish it from “ Scarioth (Iscariot),” “reconstructed” the “ Zelotes ” by interpreting “ Chananaeus ” (old Latin a) or “ Cananeus ” (old Latin b and q), as Simon “Cananaean” with the meaning, “Zealot” (see Matt. 10:4, infra ). He may then have concluded that “ et Thomas ” was the only thing that could be left, and gotten this from the previous “ Thomas ” in the same verse after “ Bartholomeus ,” wrongly thinking that a previous scribe had somehow inadvertently put the name in twice. Hence, he may then removed the earlier reference to “Thomas.” Thus with some incompetence, this may have given rise to a “reconstruction” in old Latin a (4th century), b (5th century), q (6th / 7th century), that omitted the first “ Thomas ,” and reads, of “ Iudas (Judas) Zelotes (Zealotes) et (and) Thomas (Thomas)” ( Variant 4 ). A later assimilation by another Latin scribe of this reading with other Latin readings containing the earlier “ Thomas ,” may then account for the fact that the earlier “ Thomas ” is present in old Latin h (5th century) and g1 (8th / 9th century), which then omit the “ et (and) Thomas (Thomas)” of Variant 4 , while retaining the Iudas (Judas) Zelotes (Zealotes) ( Variant 5 ). If so, there is a qualified sense in which Variants 4 and 5 may be said to support the reading of the TR. The TR’s reading has strong support from the Greek, including St. Chrysostom, and some minority support in the Latin; with no good textual argument against it. On the one hand, we cannot be sure as to the origins of Variants 1-4; but on the other hand, Variants 1 and 2 look like typical examples of ellipsis, and Variants 3 and 4 look like typical examples of “reconstructions” following paper fades or losses. Though the Latin favours Variants 1-4; it seems to me that this is a good example of the superiority of the maxim, The Greek improves the Latin . On the system of rating textual readings A to E, I would give the TR’s reading at Matt. 10:3 an “A” i.e., the text of the TR is the correct reading and has a high level of certainty. Textual History Outside the Closed Class of Three Witnesses. 303 Outside the closed class of sources the correct reading at Matt. 10:3, “Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus,” is found in (the mixed text type) Codex L 019 (8th century), (the independent) Codex Delta 037 (9th century), and (the mixed text type) Codex Theta 038 (9th century). It is also found in Minuscules 33 (9th century, mixed text in the Gospels), 565 (9th century, independent), 700 (11th century, independent), 157 (12th century, independent), 180 (12th century, Byzantine other than in Acts), 1071 (12th century, independent), 1243 (independent text outside of the non-Byzantine General Epistles’ text, 11th century), 579 (13th century, mixed text type), 1292 (13th century, Byzantine outside of the General Epistles), and 205 (15th century, independent in the Gospels & Revelation); as well as the Family 1 Manuscripts , which contain Minuscules 1 (12th century, independent text in the Gospels, Byzantine elsewhere), 1582 (12th century, independent Matt.-Jude), 209 (14th century, independent in the Gospels and Revelation, Byzantine elsewhere), et al . It is further found in the Syriac Pesitto (first half 5th century) and Harclean h (616) Versions, and some independent manuscripts of the Syriac Palestinian Version; as well as the Georgian Version (5th century); Slavic Version (9th century); and Ethiopic Version (Dillmann, 18th / 19th centuries). Variant 1 , “Thaddaeus,” is found in the two leading Alexandrian texts, Rome Vaticanus (4th century) and London Sinaiticus (4th century). It is also found in Minuscule 892 (9th century, mixed text type); and the Family 13 Manuscripts, which contain Minuscules 788 (11th century, independent text), 346 (12th century, independent), 543 (12th century, independent), 826 (12th century, independent), 828 (12th century, independent), 983 (12th century, independent), 13 (13th century, independent), et al . It is further found in the Egyptian Coptic Sahidic (3rd century), Middle Egyptian (3rd century), and Bohairic (3rd century) Versions. Variant 2 , “Lebbaeus,” is found in the leading representative of the Western text, Codex D 05 (5th century). Setting aside the TR’s reading which (we know on projections from the reasonable samples of von Soden’s over 90% Byzantine text K group of c. 1,000 manuscripts in Robinson and Pierpont, or von Soden’s over 85% Byzantine text I and K groups of c. 1,500 manuscripts in Hodges and Farstad,) enjoys the support of several thousand high quality Byzantine manuscripts dating from the 5th to 16th centuries, with further support from the 3rd or 4th century in Apostolic Constitutions ; like earlier neo-Alexandrian text composers, the NU Text Committee was evidently impressed by the fact that both of the two leading Alexandrian manuscripts from the 4th century followed Variant 1 . This followed the earlier Nestle’s 21st edition (1952), which has Thaddaios ( Variant 1 ) in the main text, with a footnote referring to Variant 2 , the TR, et al . Variant 1 was adopted by the NU Text et al .