When Luke 10:1 was originally written, do you think it had: seventy? seventy-two?
Luke 10:1 (HCSB)
After this, the Lord appointed 70[a: Other mss read _72_] others,
and He sent them ahead of Him in pairs to every town and place where He Himself was about to go.
As of A.D. 175, the text had "70":
Diatesseron 15:15
And after that, Jesus set apart from his disciples other seventy,
and sent them two and two before his face to every region and city whither he was purposing to go.
The original Aramaic of the Peshitta has "70":
Luke 10:1 (Younan)
After these things, Yeshua appointed seventy from his other students
and sent them two by two before his face to all regions and medintha [cities] that he was about to go (to).
Luke 10:1, 17 and the Traditional Text of Scripture
http://www.jeffriddle.net/2009/05/luke-1...xt-of.html
The Question: Did Jesus send out seventy (traditional text) or seventy-two (modern critical text) disciples in Luke 10:1, 17?
The traditional text, as reflected in translations like the AV and NKJV, reads "70." The modern critical text’s use of "72" is an example of an unnecessary change in the traditional text.
I. External Evidence:
The pivotal question is the inclusion or omission of one word, duo. Include the word, and it reads "72." Exclude the word, and it reads "70."
1. Greek manuscripts that include duo (Luke 10:1):
P75 B (Vaticanus) D (Bezae) 0181
In addition, this reading is supported by a few Old Latin manuscripts, the Sinaitic Syriac, the Curetonian Syriac, the Sahidic, and a single Bohairic manuscript. In the Church Fathers, it is found in some manuscripts of Origen (d. 254 AD) and in Adamantius (c. 300-350 AD).
2. Greek manuscripts that exclude duo (Luke 10:1):
Aleph (Sinaiticus) A C L W Theta Psi family 1 (1, 118, 131, 209, 1582) family 13 (13, 69, 124, 174, 230, 346, 543, 788, 826, 828, 983, 1689, 1709) and the Majority of extant manuscripts.
In addition, the traditional text is supported by the Syriac Peshitta, the Syriac Harclean, and the Bohairic. It is also supported by quotations in the Church Fathers including Irenaeus (2nd cen. AD); Clement (c. 95 AD); and Tertullian (c. 220 AD).
3. Evaluation:
One will notice that the two manuscripts most prized by modern critical scholars are divided in their reading. Vaticanus supports the non-traditional reading and Sinaiticus the traditional reading. There are only four Greek manuscripts that support the non-traditional reading.
The external evidence appears overwhelmingly to support the traditional text of Scripture. Metzger, however, can somehow say, "The external evidence is almost evenly divided" (this and all other quotes below are from Bruce Metzger, ed. A Textual Commentary on the New Testament [UBS, Corrected ed., 1975]: pp. 150-51). The attestation to the traditional text is ancient and widespread.
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
When the Lukan Lord's Prayer was originally written, do you think it was: a long rendition? or a short rendition?
The Peshitta has a long rendition:
Luke 11 (based on Younan)
2. Yeshua said to them,
"When you pray, be speaking as such:
Our Father in heaven
hallowed be your name.
Your Kingdom come,
Your will be done
as in heaven so on earth.
3. Give us the bread of our need everyday.
4. And forgive us our sins
for we also forgive all who have offended us.
And lead us not into trial
but save us from the evil one."
5. And he said to them,
"Who among you who has a friend....
Thoughts on the text of the Lukan Lord's Prayer: Luke 11:2-4
http://www.jeffriddle.net/2013/07/though...rayer.html
The issue:
A comparison of the NKJV (based on the traditional text) and the NIV (based on the modern critical text) illustrates the differences (disputed inclusions in bold and underlined):
NKJV:
Luke 11:2 So He said to them, "When you pray, say:
*Our* Father *in heaven,*
Hallowed be Your name.
Your kingdom come.
*Your will be done On earth as it is in heaven.*
3 Give us day by day our daily bread.
4 And forgive us our sins, For we also forgive everyone who is indebted to us.
And do not lead us into temptation, *But deliver us from the evil one."*
NIV:
Luke 11:2 He said to them, "When you pray, say:
"'Father, hallowed be your name,
your kingdom come.
3 Give us each day our daily bread.
4 Forgive us our sins, for we also forgive everyone who sins against us.
And lead us not into temptation.'"
External evidence:
When I examined the external evidence in the critical apparatus, I was surprised to see the strength of the manuscript support for the traditional reading. Take the opening phrase in v. 2: hemon pater ho en tois ouranois [“Our father which art in heaven” KJV]. This traditional reading is supported by codices A, C, D, W, Theta, family 13, and the vast majority of Greek manuscripts. The truncated reading pater of the modern critical text is supported by only five early Greek manuscripts (though they include the “big two” Sinaiticus and Vaticanus): p75, Aleph, B, 1, 700. Similar results (with some variety) are found when the other contested passages are examined.
....
Evaluation:
The external evidence in support of the traditional reading is surprisingly early (A, for example, is typically dated c. 5th century, putting it on par with the “big two”) and widespread, while the evidence supporting the modern critical reading is, correspondingly, surprisingly weak.
What are we to make, however, of Metzger’s confident assertion that the traditional reading is simply the result of accommodation or harmonization to the Matthean Lord’s Prayer (Matt 6:9-13) based on the extensive liturgical use of the latter? There seems to be an obvious logical problem with this assumption. If the scribes wanted to accommodate Luke’s text to Matthew’s the effort was not entirely successful. While the traditional text of the Lukan Lord’s Prayer is substantially like the traditional text of the Matthean Lord’s Prayer, the two are not exactly the same. For example, in Matthew 6:12 it reads, “Forgive us our debts [ta opheilemata hemon] as we forgive our debtors,” but the parallel passage in Luke 11:4 reads, “And forgive us our sins [tas hamartias hemon], as we also forgive everyone that is indebted to us.” If the scribes were driven to assimilation, why did they not harmonize this part of Luke’s prayer with Matthew’s? Most striking is the fact that there does not appear to have been an effort to insert the Matthean doxology (Matt 6:13) into the text of the Lukan Lord’s prayer at v. 4. At least the 27th ed. of the N-A apparatus does not cite any evidence of this.
The conclusion we must reach is that the scribes did not see the need to make Luke’s Lord’s Prayer conform exactly to Matthew’s, though it is very similar.
Luke 10:1 (HCSB)
After this, the Lord appointed 70[a: Other mss read _72_] others,
and He sent them ahead of Him in pairs to every town and place where He Himself was about to go.
As of A.D. 175, the text had "70":
Diatesseron 15:15
And after that, Jesus set apart from his disciples other seventy,
and sent them two and two before his face to every region and city whither he was purposing to go.
The original Aramaic of the Peshitta has "70":
Luke 10:1 (Younan)
After these things, Yeshua appointed seventy from his other students
and sent them two by two before his face to all regions and medintha [cities] that he was about to go (to).
Luke 10:1, 17 and the Traditional Text of Scripture
http://www.jeffriddle.net/2009/05/luke-1...xt-of.html
The Question: Did Jesus send out seventy (traditional text) or seventy-two (modern critical text) disciples in Luke 10:1, 17?
The traditional text, as reflected in translations like the AV and NKJV, reads "70." The modern critical text’s use of "72" is an example of an unnecessary change in the traditional text.
I. External Evidence:
The pivotal question is the inclusion or omission of one word, duo. Include the word, and it reads "72." Exclude the word, and it reads "70."
1. Greek manuscripts that include duo (Luke 10:1):
P75 B (Vaticanus) D (Bezae) 0181
In addition, this reading is supported by a few Old Latin manuscripts, the Sinaitic Syriac, the Curetonian Syriac, the Sahidic, and a single Bohairic manuscript. In the Church Fathers, it is found in some manuscripts of Origen (d. 254 AD) and in Adamantius (c. 300-350 AD).
2. Greek manuscripts that exclude duo (Luke 10:1):
Aleph (Sinaiticus) A C L W Theta Psi family 1 (1, 118, 131, 209, 1582) family 13 (13, 69, 124, 174, 230, 346, 543, 788, 826, 828, 983, 1689, 1709) and the Majority of extant manuscripts.
In addition, the traditional text is supported by the Syriac Peshitta, the Syriac Harclean, and the Bohairic. It is also supported by quotations in the Church Fathers including Irenaeus (2nd cen. AD); Clement (c. 95 AD); and Tertullian (c. 220 AD).
3. Evaluation:
One will notice that the two manuscripts most prized by modern critical scholars are divided in their reading. Vaticanus supports the non-traditional reading and Sinaiticus the traditional reading. There are only four Greek manuscripts that support the non-traditional reading.
The external evidence appears overwhelmingly to support the traditional text of Scripture. Metzger, however, can somehow say, "The external evidence is almost evenly divided" (this and all other quotes below are from Bruce Metzger, ed. A Textual Commentary on the New Testament [UBS, Corrected ed., 1975]: pp. 150-51). The attestation to the traditional text is ancient and widespread.
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
When the Lukan Lord's Prayer was originally written, do you think it was: a long rendition? or a short rendition?
The Peshitta has a long rendition:
Luke 11 (based on Younan)
2. Yeshua said to them,
"When you pray, be speaking as such:
Our Father in heaven
hallowed be your name.
Your Kingdom come,
Your will be done
as in heaven so on earth.
3. Give us the bread of our need everyday.
4. And forgive us our sins
for we also forgive all who have offended us.
And lead us not into trial
but save us from the evil one."
5. And he said to them,
"Who among you who has a friend....
Thoughts on the text of the Lukan Lord's Prayer: Luke 11:2-4
http://www.jeffriddle.net/2013/07/though...rayer.html
The issue:
A comparison of the NKJV (based on the traditional text) and the NIV (based on the modern critical text) illustrates the differences (disputed inclusions in bold and underlined):
NKJV:
Luke 11:2 So He said to them, "When you pray, say:
*Our* Father *in heaven,*
Hallowed be Your name.
Your kingdom come.
*Your will be done On earth as it is in heaven.*
3 Give us day by day our daily bread.
4 And forgive us our sins, For we also forgive everyone who is indebted to us.
And do not lead us into temptation, *But deliver us from the evil one."*
NIV:
Luke 11:2 He said to them, "When you pray, say:
"'Father, hallowed be your name,
your kingdom come.
3 Give us each day our daily bread.
4 Forgive us our sins, for we also forgive everyone who sins against us.
And lead us not into temptation.'"
External evidence:
When I examined the external evidence in the critical apparatus, I was surprised to see the strength of the manuscript support for the traditional reading. Take the opening phrase in v. 2: hemon pater ho en tois ouranois [“Our father which art in heaven” KJV]. This traditional reading is supported by codices A, C, D, W, Theta, family 13, and the vast majority of Greek manuscripts. The truncated reading pater of the modern critical text is supported by only five early Greek manuscripts (though they include the “big two” Sinaiticus and Vaticanus): p75, Aleph, B, 1, 700. Similar results (with some variety) are found when the other contested passages are examined.
....
Evaluation:
The external evidence in support of the traditional reading is surprisingly early (A, for example, is typically dated c. 5th century, putting it on par with the “big two”) and widespread, while the evidence supporting the modern critical reading is, correspondingly, surprisingly weak.
What are we to make, however, of Metzger’s confident assertion that the traditional reading is simply the result of accommodation or harmonization to the Matthean Lord’s Prayer (Matt 6:9-13) based on the extensive liturgical use of the latter? There seems to be an obvious logical problem with this assumption. If the scribes wanted to accommodate Luke’s text to Matthew’s the effort was not entirely successful. While the traditional text of the Lukan Lord’s Prayer is substantially like the traditional text of the Matthean Lord’s Prayer, the two are not exactly the same. For example, in Matthew 6:12 it reads, “Forgive us our debts [ta opheilemata hemon] as we forgive our debtors,” but the parallel passage in Luke 11:4 reads, “And forgive us our sins [tas hamartias hemon], as we also forgive everyone that is indebted to us.” If the scribes were driven to assimilation, why did they not harmonize this part of Luke’s prayer with Matthew’s? Most striking is the fact that there does not appear to have been an effort to insert the Matthean doxology (Matt 6:13) into the text of the Lukan Lord’s prayer at v. 4. At least the 27th ed. of the N-A apparatus does not cite any evidence of this.
The conclusion we must reach is that the scribes did not see the need to make Luke’s Lord’s Prayer conform exactly to Matthew’s, though it is very similar.