The Western Non-Interpolations

Contents: Introduction *The Major Western Non-Interpolations *Other Possible Western Non-Interpolations *Outside the Gospels

Introduction

The textual theory of Westcott and Hort recognized four text-types --the Neutral, the Alexandrian (these two really being different phasesof the same type, and now generally called "Alexandrian"),the Syrian (what we call the Byzantine), and the Western.

Of these types, in their view, the Alexandrian is restrained, the"Western" is marked by extensive paraphrase and expansion,and the Byzantine is a smooth combination of the two.

It is a good rule of criticism that, when manuscripts go against theirtendencies, the significance of this reading is increased. So, for instance,when the "Western" text preserves a short reading, thatreading is more likely to be original than when it preserves a longerreading. This is the basis on which Hort isolated the "WesternNon-interpolations."

If Hort's theory is to be believed, the "Western Non-interpolations"are in fact places in which readings have been interpolated into the Neutraltext (and usually the Byzantine text as well). Although Hort usually rejects"Western" readings, in this case he regards them as original,placing the common reading of the Neutral text in double brackets, [[ ]].The non-interpolations are described in §240-242of Hort's Introduction [and] Appendix.

The "Western Non-interpolations" actually fall into two classes.The first are the full-fledged non-interpolations, of which there are nine(all placed in double brackets by Hort). All of these are supported byD^ea (Codex Bezae)and the Old Latins, and inall cases Hort regards the words as "superfluous, and in some casesintrinsically suspicious" (§240). The second class consists ofreadings which, due either to shifts in the manuscript evidence or todifferences in the way he assesses them, Hort regards as doubtful enoughto place in brackets but not to reject as clearly spurious.

The force of Hort's argument was so strong that for three-quartersof a century most editions and translations (including the RevisedStandard Version and the New English Bible) omitted these nine passages.Then P⁷⁵was found (which included all the "non-interpolations"for which it was extant). Such was the respect for this manuscript thatthe passages began to re-assert their place in the editions -- notably inUBS/GNT and its follower the New Revised Standard Version.E. C. Colwell, however, in "Hort Redivivus: A Plea and a Program,"offers this assessment of the case:

[Aland] reverses Westcott and Hort on the Westernnon-interpolations because P⁷⁵ disagrees with them in agreeingwith Codex Vaticanus. But there is nothing in that agreementthat is novel to Hort's theory. Hort did not possess P⁷⁵, buthe imagined it. He insisted that there was a very early ancestorof his Neutral text, that the common ancestor of Vaticanus andSinaiticus was a remote ancestor, not a close ancestor. P⁷⁵validates Hort's reconstruction of the history, but P⁷⁵ doesnot add a new argument for or against that theory.

To put it another way, P⁷⁵ -- despite its age -- is just anotherAlexandrian witness. Its existence does not alter the case thatthe "Western Non-interpolations" are just that. They arestill present in the Alexandrian text and missing in the "Western."The student may well feel that they belong in the text, but the existenceof P⁷⁵ should not sway this decision.

The list below gives the nine full-fledged Non-interpolations; this isfollowed by a list of some of the more questionable interpolations. In eachcase the support for the shorter reading is listed. It is noteworthy thateight of the nine Non-interpolations are in Luke (and the remaining oneis not a true example of the form). If the Non-interpolations are notaccepted as original, their presence should offer strong evidence forthe theory that D is an edited text -- at least in Luke.

The Major Western Non-Interpolations

• Matt. 27:49 --αλλος δελαβων λογχηνενυξεν αυτουτην πλευραν,και εξηλθενυδωρ και αιμα(This is not a true non-interpolation;the reading -- derived from John 19:34 -- is found inℵ B C L UΓ 1010 1293dubl ept^margkenan lich mac-regol mull mae slav,but is omitted by all other texts, including A D E F G H K M S WΔ Θ Σ Byzit am cav ful hub tol cur pesh hark sa bo arm geo)
• Luke 22:19b-20 --το υπερ υμωνδιδομενον...²⁰ το υπερυμωνεκχυννομενονomitted by D a (b e have the order 19a, 17, 18)d ff² i l (cur omits only verse 20; the order is 19, 17, 18) (sin has a modifiedform of 19, 20a, 17, 20b, 18) (pesh omits 17, 18 but includes 19, 20)
• Luke 24:3 --του κυριουΙησουomitted byD a b d e ff² l r¹ (579 1071 1241 cur sin pesh haveτου Ιησου but omitκυριου)
• Luke 24:6 --ουκ εστιν ωδεαλλ(α) ηγερθηomitted by D a b d e ff² l r¹ arm^mss geo^B
• Luke 24:12 -- entire verse omitted by D a b d e l r¹
• Luke 24:36 --και λεγειαυτοις ειρηνηυμινomitted by D a b d e ff² l r¹
• Luke 24:40 --και τουτοειπων εδειξεναυτοις ταςχαιρας καιτους ποδαςomitted by D a b d e ff² l r¹ sin cur
• Luke 24:51 --και ανεφερετοεις τον ουρανονomitted by ℵ* D a b d e ff² l (hiat r¹) sin (hiat cur) geo¹
• Luke 24:52 --προσκυνησαντεςαυτονomitted by D a b d e ff² l (hiat r¹) sin (hiat cur) geo²

Other Possible Non-Interpolations

The following readings are omitted in certain authorities (especially the Latins)which may be considered "Western," and are placed in single brackets byWestcott & Hort as possible "Western Non-interpolations." As above,the support for the shorter reading is listed, as are lacunae in certainof the major "Western" witnesses (D, the Old Syriac, a b e k and sometimesothers of the Latins; recall that k contains Matthew and Mark only, so it is notmentioned for Luke or John).

• Matt. 6:15 --τα παραπτωματα αυτωνomitted byℵ D 1-118-205-209-1582 22 892* a aur c ff¹ g¹ h k l am fulpesh mae bo^part Augustine (hiat e sin)
• Matt. 6:25 -- η τι πιητε (vl και τι πιητε)omitted by ℵ 1-1582 22 892 l2211 a b ff¹ k l vg cur pal sa^mss arm^mss(hiat D e sin)
• Matt. 9:34 -- οι δεφαρισαιοιελεγον εν τωαρχοντιτων δαιμωνιωνεκβαλλει ταδαιμονιαomitted by D a d k sin Hilary (hiat e cur)
• Matt. 13:33 -- ελαλησεναυτοιςomitted by D d (k) sin cur
• Matt. 21:44 -- entire verse omitted by D 33 a b d e ff¹ ff²r¹ sin Irenaeus^lat Origen (hiat k)
• Matt. 23:26 -- και τηςπαροψιδος(found in ℵ B C L W33 Byz cop but omitted by UBS/GNT) omitted by D Θ 1-118-209-1582 700a d e ff¹ r¹ sin geo Irenaeus^lat Clement (hiat b cur)
• Mark 2:22 --αλλα οινον νεονεις ασκουςκαινουςomitted byD 2427 a b d e ff² i r¹ t bo^ms(hiat k cur)
• Mark 10:2 --προσελθοντεςΦαρισαιοι(orπροσελθοντεςοι Φαρισαιοι; word order varies)omitted byD a b d k r¹ sin (sa^mss) (hiat e cur)
• Mark 14:39 --τον αυτον λογονειπωνomitted byD a b c d ff² k (hiat e cur)
• Luke 5:39 -- entire verse omitted by D a b c d e ff² l r¹(hiat sin cur)
• Luke 10:41-42 -- forμεριμνας καιθορυβζη περιπολλα ολιγωνδε εστιν χρεια ηενος ⁴² Μαριαμγαρthe Westcott-Hort margin readsθορυβζη Μαριαμwith(D has Μαρια) (a b d e ff² i l r¹ sinAmbrose omitθορυβζη)
• Luke 12:19 --κειμενα εις ετηπολλα αναπαυουφαγε πιεomitted by D a b c e (ff²)
• Luke 12:21 -- entire verse omitted by D a b d
• Luke 12:39 -- for εγρηγορησεναν και ουκ(found inℵ** A B E L Q W Θ 33 Byz aur f l q) the Westcott-Hortmargin (followed by UBS/GNT) readsουκ ανwith P⁷⁵ ℵ* (D) (d) e i cur sin sa^mss ach arm (Note that,in the light of the current evidence, this is not a purely "Western"reading)
• Luke 22:62 -- entire verse omitted by (0171 does not appear to leavespace) a b e ff² i l r¹
• Luke 24:9 --απο τουμνημειουomitted by Da b c d e ff² l r¹ arm geo
• John 3:31 --επανω παντωνεστιν(omitted in theWestcott-Hort margin, with additional variations in verse 32) omitted byP⁷⁵ ℵ* D 1-118-205-209-1582 22 565 a b d e ff² j l r¹ arm geo⁽²⁾cur sa Origin^part Eusebius (this is clearly another reading that is not purely"Western")
• John 4:9 -- ου γαρ συνχρωνταιιουδαιοισαμαρειταιςomitted by ℵ* D a b d e j fay

Outside the Gospels

Westcott and Hort did not extend the concept of the "Non-interpolations"outside the Gospels. Such caution was probably justified in the case of Acts, wherethe text of Codex Bezae is extraordinarily wild. But the "Western" textof Paul (as represented by D F G Old Latin with some support from 629 Vulgate) ismuch more restrained. The possibility of such "non-interpolations" mustbe conceded. A few candidates are listed below (this list is not comprehensive,and includes weak as well as strong candidates. Most of these deserve to berejected, although at least two have very strong cases. The others I leave forthe reader to judge). I have listed only readings whichare at least two Greek words long and which do not have support from the majoruncial witnesses P⁴⁶ℵ A B Cor from the Byzantine text. If B is omitted fromthis list, we find a few other candidates, e.g. Rom. 5:2, Eph. 6:1).

• Rom. 1:7 -- εν ρωμηomitted by G g 1739^margin(hiat D F (but in D^abs)); cf. Rom. 1:15
• Rom. 6:16 -- εις θανατονomitted by D 1739* d ram pesh sa arm^mss Ambrosiaster (I must admit that I think the case for theoriginality of this reading extremely strong)
• Rom. 10:21 --και αντιλεγονταomitted byF G g Ambrosiaster Hilary
• Rom. 16:20 --η χαρις τουκυριυ ημωνιησου (Χριστου)μεθ υμωνomitted by D*^vid F G d f g m bodlAmbrosiaster Pelagius^ms
• Rom. 16:25-27 -- verses omitted by F G 629 d**? g goth? Jerome^mss
• 1 Cor. 15:3 --ο και παρελαβονomitted byb Ambrosiaster Irenaeus^lat Tertullian?
• 1 Cor. 15:15 --ειπερ αρα νεκροιουκ εγειρονταιomitted byD a b r bam ful** harl* kar mon reg val* pesh Ambrosiaster Irenaeus^latTertullian?
• 2 Cor. 10:12-13 --ου συιασιν¹³ ημεις δεomitted byD* F G a b d f(429? s am cav dem ful hub tol val omitου συιασιν) Ambrosiaster(h.a. ?)
• Eph. 4:13 --του υιουomitted by F G b f? g Clement^partLucifer (h.a. ?)
• Eph. 4:16 --κατ ενεργειανomitted by F G b d f g armIrenaeus^lat Ambrosiaster Lucifer
• Col. 1:28 --παντα ανθρωπονomitted by D* F G 027833 88 330 614 629 b d f ful mon reg tol (pesh) Clement Ambrosiaster
• Col. 4:2 --εν ευχαριστιαomitted by D* d AmbrosiasterCyprian?
• 1 Tim. 3:14 -- προς σεomitted byF G 6 263 424** 1739 1881 sa pal arm (181 g? vg^cl have the phrase in different poitions)(This is another instance where the case for the shorter reading is very good. Note thatP⁴⁶ and B are both defective here. Since the short reading is supported by both 1739 and sa,it is highly likely that their text would have omitted. And there is no basis for scribalerror.)
• 1 Tim. 5:19 --εκτος ει μη επιδυο η τριωνμαρτυρωνomitted by b Ambrosiaster Pelagius Cyprian?
• Titus 3:10 --και δευτερανomitted by b 1739Irenaeus^lat Tertullian Cyprian Ambrosiaster Speculum (D Ψ 1505 1881 harkinclude the words afterνουθεσιαν)