A Disconcerting Prayer: On the Originality of Luke 23:34a

Abstract

Listen

Translate article

(ProQuest: ... denotes non-US-ASCII text omitted.) Luke 23:34a (Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing), one of famous seven last words of Jesus, is enclosed by double brackets in NA27 and UBS4, indicating that logion is known not to be a part of original text.1 In reality, however, a vigorous debate rages on, with proponents of shorter reading tending to emphasize external evidence, and defenders of longer reading focusing on intrinsic probability. Both sides have claimed victory in transcriptional arena but have paid little, if any, attention to early Christian interpretations of prayer, giving this aspect of debate a regrettably speculative flavor.2 In this essay I shall review external evidence, arguing that proponents of shorter reading have exaggerated their case. Then, after examining formidable intrinsic evidence in favor of longer reading, I shall turn to neglected transcriptional evidence that shows that Luke 23:34a was a problem passage in early Christianity. I. EXTERNAL EVIDENCE The evidence for spuriousness of Luke 23:34a is both early and diverse. The prayer is missing from arguably two strongest Alexandrian witnesses, p75 and Codex Vaticanus, as well as from 579 and Sahidic version. It is missing also from important witnesses-most notably, first hand of Codex Bezae and Old Latin manuscripts a and d-and from Caesarean manuscript Codex Koridethi. Finally, it is missing from Byzantine manuscripts stretching from Codex W in late fourth century to 597 in thirteenth century. Although it lacks august company of an early papyrus, long reading also enjoys early and diverse attestation. Jason A. Whitlark and Mikeal C. Parsons have attempted to characterize prayer as a distinctively reading, claiming that the evidence for inclusion of Luke 23.34a is restricted to text prior to fourth century.3 Yet only pre-fourth-century witnesses to text of Luke are p75 and a handful of church fathers, hardly enough evidence to justify speaking of a variant being confined to a particular text type. Moreover, one of these pre-fourth-century witnesses is Origen (ca. 185-254), whose citations of Luke consistently support Alexandrian text.4Whitlark and Parsons dismiss Origen's testimony, claiming that his writings evidence many distinctly readings, but they make no attempt to explain why one should presume that Origen used a text when writing De Pascha (2.43.7-14) and Homiliae in Leviticum (2.1.5), both of which quote prayer. Having thus characterized pre-fourth-century evidence, Whitlark and Parsons assert that presence of logion in Codex Sinaiticus is due to mixture with text, citing Westcott and Hort's claim that Western readings [in Codex Sinaiticus] are specially numerous in St John's Gospel, and in parts of St Luke.5 Surprisingly, Whitlark and Parsons do not attempt to explain why Luke 23 should be considered one of parts identified by Hort, thereby demoting an important Alexandrian witness to a text without an argument. This treatment of evidence is particularly unfortunate in light of absence of readings in Sinaiticus at end of Luke, an absence that suggests that Sinaiticus retains its Alexandrian character here. Apart from a few very minor exceptions, such as omission of ?δη in v. 44, Sinaiticus never agrees with Bezae against p75 or Vaticanus in Luke 23. Moreover, Sinaiticus disagrees with Bezae on every major variant in Luke 23, and lacks non-interpolations.6 Other Alexandrian witnesses to Luke 23:34a are Codex Regius and Bohairic Coptic version, as well as Didymus Blind.7 The Palestinian Syriac version, thought to be based on a Caesarean Vorlage,8 also contains prayer, as do a number of witnesses, including Old Latin versions (itaur, b, c, e, f, ff2, 1, r1), Vulgate, and Old Syriac. …