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 phases of the same type, and now generally called "Alexandrian"), the Syrian (what we call the Byzantine), and the Western.

When they compares these types, they concluded that 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 their tendencies, the significance of this reading is increased. (Hence the canon of criticism "That reading is best which goes against the habitual practice of particular manuscripts.") So, for instance, when the "Western" text preserves a short reading, that reading is more likely to be original than when it preserves a longer reading. This is the basis on which Hort isolated the "Western Non-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 Neutral text (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 §240-242 of 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 by D^ea (Codex Bezae) and the Old Latins, and in all cases Hort regards the words as "superfluous, and in some cases intrinsically suspicious" (§240). The second class consists of readings which, due either to shifts in the manuscript evidence or to differences in the way he assesses them, Hort regards as doubtful enough to place in brackets but not to reject as clearly spurious.

The force of Hort's argument was so strong that for three-quarters of a century most editions and translations (including the Revised Standard Version and the New English Bible) omitted these nine passages. Then 𝔓⁷⁵ was found (which included all the "non-interpolations" for which it was extant). Such was the respect for this manuscript that the passages began to re-assert their place in the editions -- notably in UBS/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 Western non-interpolations because 𝔓⁷⁵ disagrees with them in agreeing with Codex Vaticanus. But there is nothing in that agreement that is novel to Hort's theory. Hort did not possess 𝔓⁷⁵, but he imagined it. He insisted that there was a very early ancestor of his Neutral text, that the common ancestor of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus was a remote ancestor, not a close ancestor. 𝔓⁷⁵ validates Hort's reconstruction of the history, but 𝔓⁷⁵ does not add a new argument for or against that theory.

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

A good case could be made that Hort's list is not really a unity -- some of the non-interpolations are so short that they could be accidental omissions, others seem as if they are more deliberate. So they perhaps deserve individual assessment,

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

The Major Western Non-Interpolations

• Matt. 27:49 -- αλλος δε λαβων λογχην ενυξεν αυτου την πλευραν, και εξηλθεν υδωρ και αιμα (This is not a true non-interpolation; the reading -- derived from John 19:34 -- is found in ℵ B C L U Γ 1010 1293 dubl ept^marg kenan lich mac-regol mull mae slav, but is omitted by all other texts, including A D E F G H K M S W Δ Θ Σ Byz it am cav ful hub tol cur pesh hark sa bo arm geo)
• Luke 22:19b-20 -- το υπερ υμων διδομενον... ²⁰ το υπερ υμων εκχυννομενον omitted 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 modified form of 19, 20a, 17, 20b, 18) (pesh omits 17, 18 but includes 19, 20)
• Luke 24:3 -- του κυριου Ιησου omitted by D a b d e ff² l r¹ (579 1071 1241 cur sin pesh have του Ιησου but omit κυριου)
• Luke 24:6 -- ουκ εστιν ωδε αλλ(α) ηγερθη omitted 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 λεγει αυτοις ειρηνη υμιν omitted by D a b d e ff² l r¹
• Luke 24:40 -- και τουτο ειπων εδειξεν αυτοις τας χαιρας και τους ποδας omitted by D a b d e ff² l r¹ sin cur
• Luke 24:51 -- και ανεφερετο εις τον ουρανον omitted by ℵ* D a b d e ff² l (hiat r¹) sin (hiat cur) geo¹
• Luke 24:52 -- προσκυνησαντες αυτον omitted 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 by Westcott & Hort as possible "Western Non-interpolations." As above, the support for the shorter reading is listed, as are lacunae in certain of the major "Western" witnesses (D, the Old Syriac, a b e k and sometimes others of the Latins; recall that k contains Matthew and Mark only, so it is not mentioned for Luke or John).

• Matt. 6:15 -- τα παραπτωματα αυτων omitted by ℵ D 1-118-205-209-1582 22 892* a aur c ff¹ g¹ h k l am ful pesh 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 δε φαρισαιοι ελεγον εν τω αρχοντι των δαιμωνιων εκβαλλει τα δαιμονια omitted by D a d k sin Hilary (hiat e cur)
• Matt. 13:33 -- ελαλησεν αυτοις omitted by D d (k) sin cur
• Matt. 21:44 -- entire verse omitted by D 33 a b d e ff¹ ff² r¹ sin Irenaeus^lat Origen (hiat k)
• Matt. 23:26 -- και της παροψιδος (found in ℵ B C L W 33 Byz cop but omitted by UBS/GNT) omitted by D Θ 1-118-209-1582 700 a d e ff¹ r¹ sin geo Irenaeus^lat Clement (hiat b cur)
• Mark 2:22 -- αλλα οινον νεον εις ασκους καινου omitted by D 2427 a b d e ff² i r¹ t bo^ms (hiat k cur)
• Mark 10:2 -- προσελθοντες Φαρισαιοι (or προσελθοντες οι Φαρισαιοι; word order varies) omitted by D a b d k r¹ sin (sa^mss) (hiat e cur)
• Mark 14:39 -- τον αυτον λογον ειπων omitted by D 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 -- for μεριμνας και θορυβζη περι πολλα ολιγων δε εστιν χρεια η ενος ⁴² Μαριαμ γαρ the Westcott-Hort margin reads θορυβζη Μαριαμ with (D has Μαρια) (a b d e ff² i l r¹ sin Ambrose omit θορυβζη)
• Luke 12:19 -- κειμενα εις ετη πολλα αναπαυου φαγε πιε omitted by D a b c e (ff²)
• Luke 12:21 -- entire verse omitted by D a b d
• Luke 12:39 -- for εγρηγορησεν αν και ουκ (found in ℵ** A B E L Q W Θ 33 Byz aur f l q) the Westcott-Hort margin (followed by UBS/GNT) reads ουκ αν with 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 leave space) a b e ff² i l r¹
• Luke 24:9 -- απο του μνημειου omitted by D a b c d e ff² l r¹ arm geo
• John 3:31 -- επανω παντων εστιν (omitted in the Westcott-Hort margin, with additional variations in verse 32) omitted by 𝔓⁷⁵ 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 συνχρωνται ιουδαιοι σαμαρειταις omitted 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, where the text of Codex Bezae is extraordinarily wild (though it might have been worth looking at the Old Latins). But the "Western" text of Paul (as represented by D F G Old Latin with some support from 629 Vulgate) is much more restrained. The possibility of such "non-interpolations" must be 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 be rejected, although at least two have very strong cases. The others I leave for the reader to judge). I have listed only readings which are at least two Greek words long and where the shorter reading does not have support from the major uncial witnesses 𝔓⁴⁶ ℵ A B C or from the Byzantine text. If B is omitted from that list, we find a few other candidates, e.g. Rom. 5:2, Eph. 6:1).

• Rom. 1:7 -- εν ρωμη omitted by G g 1739^margin (hiat D F (but in D^abs)); cf. Rom. 1:15
• Rom. 6:16 -- εις θανατον omitted by D 1739* d r am pesh sa arm^mss Ambrosiaster (I must admit that I think the case for the originality of this reading extremely strong)
• Rom. 10:21 -- και αντιλεγοντα omitted by F G g Ambrosiaster Hilary
• Rom. 16:20 -- η χαρις του κυριυ ημων ιησου (Χριστου) μεθ υμων omitted by D*^vid F G d f g m bodl Ambrosiaster Pelagius^ms
• Rom. 16:25-27 -- verses omitted by F G 629 d**? g goth? Jerome^mss
• 1 Cor. 15:3 -- ο και παρελαβον omitted by b Ambrosiaster Irenaeus^lat Tertullian?
• 1 Cor. 15:15 -- ειπερ αρα νεκροι ουκ εγειρονται omitted by D a b r bam ful** harl* kar mon reg val* pesh Ambrosiaster Irenaeus^lat Tertullian?
• 2 Cor. 10:12-13 -- ου συιασιν ¹³ ημεις δε omitted byD* F G a b d f (429? s am cav dem ful hub tol val omit ου συιασιν) Ambrosiaster (h.a. ?)
• Eph. 4:13 -- του υιου omitted by F G b f? g Clement^part Lucifer (h.a. ?)
• Eph. 4:16 -- κατ ενεργειαν omitted by F G b d f g arm Irenaeus^lat Ambrosiaster Lucifer
• Col. 1:28 -- παντα ανθρωπον omitted by D* F G 0278 33 88 330 614 629 b d f ful mon reg tol (pesh) Clement Ambrosiaster
• Col. 4:2 -- εν ευχαριστια omitted by D* d Ambrosiaster Cyprian?
• 1 Tim. 3:14 -- προς σε omitted by F 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 that 𝔓⁴⁶ 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 scribal error.)
• 1 Tim. 5:19 -- εκτος ει μη επι δυο η τριων μαρτυρων omitted by b Ambrosiaster Pelagius Cyprian?
• Titus 3:10 -- και δευτεραν omitted by b 1739 Irenaeus^lat Tertullian Cyprian Ambrosiaster Speculum (D Ψ 1505 1881 hark include the words after νουθεσιαν)

In the Catholic Epistles and the Apocalypse, there is the problem that there are no Greek witnesses to the "Western" type, so any "non-interpolations" must be sought among the Old Latins -- or even, for some books, among the Fathers. Are there any candidates?

In compiling this list, I have ignored patristic readings, since I don't trust omissions in that context. I have required a reading to be at least two words long and to significantly alter meaning (an exception: 1 John 5:17 is just one word long, but it definitely alters the meaning!). I generally haven't paid much attention to omission of conjunctions.

• James 1:3 της πιστεως omitted by B^c ff Didymus
• James 5:14 της εκκλησιας omitted by ff s sa^ms
• James 5:19/20 γινωσκετω οτι omitted by 𝔓⁷⁴ ff sa (Ψ omits γινωσκετω but has οτι)
• 1 Peter 1:4 (και) αμαραντον omitted by s harl Orosius (ℵ αμαραντον και αμιαντον for αμιαντον και αμαραντον)
• 1 Peter 2:25 ητε γαρ omitted by B r
• 1 Peter 3:6 και μη φοβουμεναι omitted by harl
• 1 Peter 3:13 και τις omitted by p z dubl Augustine
• 1 Peter 4:11 των αιωνων omitted by 𝔓⁷² 5 206 429 614 623 1175 1243 1518 1611 1739 1852 pm p r am ful hark
• 2 Peter 3:9 ως τινες βραδυτητα ηγουνται omitted by Ψ 048 am bam ful harl leg sanger sangall val Pelagius
• 2 Peter 3:10 και γη και τα εν αυτη εργα ευρεθησεται (or similar) omitted by Ψ 1891 am bam ful harl sangall Pelagius Hilary
• 1 John 5:17 ου omitted by 33 1243 1852 2492 l t am ful sanger hark sa Tertullian
• Jude 21 προσδεχομενοι το ελεος του κυριου ημων ιησου χριστου εις ζωην αιωνιον omitted by am ful juv leg mon sangall sanger (but not s t bam val)
• Jude 25 δια ιησου χριστου του κυριου ημων omitted by K P 049 056 0142 35 38 206^supp 223 256 263 330 424 429 459 522 642 1175 1243 1319 pm s (but not t vg); possibly an h.t. error

Note that many of these are omitted by the vulgate rather than a pure Old Latin, and many have support from witnesses other than the Latins; it's just that the longer reading is found in most of the Alexandrian witnesses. Few of them strike me as particularly convincing, and the handful that are most important are often the ones that are supported only by a few Vulgate witnesses or that are most likely to be scribal errors. The only one that really tempts me, at least, is 1 Peter 4:11, which is well-supported by non-Western witnesses.