‘Father Forgive Them’ – The Variant in Luke 23:34a

THGNT Blog: Variants in the Passion Narrative (6)

This is the last of a series of blog post [2018] on some of the textual variants found in the Passion narratives. The series discusses the rationale behind the text adopted in the Greek New Testament as Produced at Tyndale House in (1) Mt 27:16,17, (2) Mt 27:49, (3) Mk 14:30, 49, 72a, 72b, (4) Lk 22:31, (5) Lk 22:43-44, (6) Lk 23:34.

The previous variant that we discussed (Lk 22:43-44) was substantial and important. It makes quite a difference how Jesus is portrayed by Luke whether or not the episode of the strengthening angel and the sweat like drops of blood is present. The final variant of this series is, in my view, even more important and one with considerable theological ramifications. Come to think of it, I am not sure if there are many variants that have a bigger impact on New Testament Christology than Luke 23:34a.

It concerns the presence or absence of the following words

ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς ἔλεγεν· πάτερ, ἄφες αὐτοῖς· οὐ γὰρ οἴδασιν τί ποιοῦσιν.
And Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.”

None of the other evangelists has any reference to Jesus prayer of forgiveness for those who are crucifying him; the presence of these words make a unique contribution, their omission changes Luke’s narrative considerably. And just to draw the modern battle lines: the THGNT has these words as part of the main text, though signalling the problems with a diamond in the apparatus. NA26-28 has these words in white square brackets, claiming that these words are certainly not part of the original text of the gospel but have been inserted at an early stage.

Here is the Greek evidence, and as far as the omission goes I believe it is complete:

omit P75 ℵ^2a B D* W Θ 070 579 1241
text ℵ* ℵ^2b A C D³ K L N Q Δ Ψ 0211 f¹ f¹³ 33 158 700 713 892 1071 l844 Maj

[IGNTP-Luke mentions 0124, but that witness is now combined with 070.]

There are at least two similarities between this textual variant and Lk 22:43-44, the angel and the sweat like drops of blood.
The first is found in the supporting evidence. This was the evidence for the omission of Lk 22:43-44

omit 22:43-44 P75 ℵ^2a A B N R T W 0211 f¹³(but adds after Mt 26:39, as does a later corrector of C) 158 579 713 1071* l844.

The witnesses that omit at both places are P75 ℵ^2a B W 579. The ones that omit in 22:43-44 and not at 23:34a are A N 0211 f¹³ 158 713 1071 l844 (R and T are only extant at the first place) and those that omit 23:34a but not 22:43-44 are D Θ 1241 (070 only extant at 23:34a). The five witnesses that omit at both places form something of a solid core, it is not remarkable to see P75 B W 579 together (and on their combined testimony alone I am prepared to consider any reading quite seriously).

A second similarity is the nature of the longer reading. Neither in 23:43a or in 22:43-44 is there a clear source of influence. Yet there are plenty of thematic links with the Lukan corpus. Stephen’s words in Acts 7:60 (κύριε, μὴ στήσῃς αὐτοῖς ταύτην τὴν ἁμαρτίαν ‘Lord, do not hold this sin against them’) convey a similar sentiment as 23:34a but the wording is quite different. We have a shared theme rather than a source of harmonisation. The same is true for the shared notion of ‘not knowing what they are doing’ in 23:34a and Acts 3:17 (κατὰ ἄγνοιαν πράξατε ‘you acted in ignorance’). One could even argue that Acts 3:17 presupposes something like Luke 23:34a. Yet again, it seems unlikely that Acts 3:17 provided the wording that we find in our passage.

So what are the arguments for or against?

• The main argument against the originality of 23:34a is that it is left out in a part of the earliest evidence.
• If these words were original, there does not seem to be a good motivation for leaving it out.
• A reconstructed background is that the words in question may be an agraphon (Metzger’s Commentary) which is subsequently made part of the gospel-tradition for numerological reasons as it brings the number of sayings on the cross up to seven (Whitlark and Parsons).

The arguments in favour of printing the passage are:

• The shorter text can be explained as a harmonization, this time by omission. And there are parallels elsewhere in the early manuscripts, and especially so in the Passion narratives. We have seen harmonization in the early witnesses in Matthew 27:49, and harmonization by omission in the variants in Mark 14, and I believe also in the two earlier discussed variants in Luke 22. And for those who accept the reading ‘Jesus Barabbas’ in Matthew 27:16, 17 (which I don’t) there is another example of harmonization by omission.
• Thematically and theologically it fits the Lukan writings.
• Metzger in his Textual Commentary mentions the destruction of Jerusalem as an event that seems in contradiction to Jesus’ prayer for forgiveness. One could go one step further and suggest that the omission is an anti-Jewish variant (in the sense that they should not be forgiven). However, as with many attempts to find a social or theological background to a textual variant, such reconstruction is rather speculative and perhaps more indicative of our desire to have a story behind a textual variant than that it provides us with a real argument. Admittedly, anti-judaism is not a strange sentiment in early Christianity (see Eubank who unpacks this line of argument).

For these reasons the Tyndale House Edition presents the text ‘Father forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing’ as part of the original text of Luke. There seems to be enough going on in the P75 B-03 group to throw some doubt over their testimony in the big variants in the Passion narratives. The omission has – what I would call – strong external support. But this is exactly why textual criticism cannot be reduced to choosing an algorithm or preferred group of manuscripts. The reality of historical transmission is more complex and messier than any simple solution.

Some literature

Nathan Eubank, “A Disconcerting Prayer: On the Originality of Luke 23:34a”, Journal of Biblical Literature 129 (2010): 521-36

Jason A. Whitlark, and Mikeal C. Parsons, “The ‘Seven’ Last Words: A Numerical Motivation for the Insertion of Luke 23.34a”, New Testament Studies 52 (2006): 188-204 (see a discussion of this article on the ETC blog here)

Luke 23.34 in NA27

The other day in class we were looking at Luke 23 and a student mentioned that v34a was not present in all the manuscripts. Good for her, I thought - even first years need to get their heads into such issues. Then I took a look at my NA27 and found the apparatus a little confusing, I think because it uses the term txt in the apparatus for witnesses supporting the reading of v34a, BUT this is not really the txt because it is enclosed in double square brackets - meaning that the editors DO NOT think it is the text of Luke. The NA27 txt is to omit the half verse.

I had a quick look at some other double square bracketed passages (Luke 22.43f; John 7.53-8.11; Mark 16.9-20) and these are treated quite differently, and a little more clearly. The double square brackets themselves form the link to the apparatus (in Luke 23.34 it is the little square); and then we are given the witnesses which don't have the passage and those which do (none are designated as txt).

I suppose Luke 23.34 may have been treated a little differently because it is only half a verse; but my modest recommendation would be that this is revised in NA28 so that txt is not used in such a confusing way.

Someone with a computerised-thingy could probably identify all the double square brackets in NA27 and see whether Luke 23.34 is alone in this treatment.

Whitlark and Parsons on Luke 23.34a

NB. Up-date. The authors of the article criticised in the following post, have had their say. There is an up-date to this post which incoporates more of the argument of the article, and Mikael Parsons is addressing some of the issues raised (most recently by Ulrich Schmid) in the comments to this post. I shall just up-date the date to keep this post current.

Re: Jason A. Whitlark & Mikael C. Parsons, ‘The “Seven” Last Words: A Numerical Motivation for the Insertion of Luke 23.34a’ New Testament Studies 52 (2006), 188-204.

In this article the authors argue that the saying ‘Father forgive them for they know not what they do’ (Luke 23.34a) was most likely not original to Luke; but was added, as the four Gospels were collected together, because of ‘numerical motivation’ - a desire that Jesus would speak seven rather than six last words from the cross.

They argue that the shorter reading (lacking the phrase) is attested in early representatives of the Alexandrian, Western and Byzantine text-types which also exhibit geographical diversity (there is a lack of detail in this argument, but it is not the original part of the study). The longer reading has early attestation ‘almost exclusively’ within Western witnesses, and only later (post 4th Cent) in other types of witness. This suggests an originally short text, which ambiguous internal evidence cannot over-rule: ‘the logion is a secondary reading added to the text in the late second century’ (p. 194).

The new argument developed here is that the foundational motivation for the secondary inclusion of this logion was ‘a numerically symbolic one’. The basic idea being that (following Stanton and Hengel) ‘by the mid-second century, the mainstream of Christendom was working with a four-gospel collection’ (p. 195). Once collected together it would have been apparent that Jesus spoke six words from the cross, but the number six carried a negative connotation in early Christianity (e.g. Rev 13.18; John 2.6; 19.14; Luke 23.44), while seven was clearly positive and significant (various evidence cited on p. 198-201). Thus:

• ‘When the four Gospels were formed into a single collection early on and the narratives read together, the problem of six sayings from the cross emerged and created the “need” for a seventh saying.’ (p. 201)

To me this argument is interesting, even somewhat clever, but not actually convincing. To be fair I don’t accept the starting point about the four-gospel collection, so never really get on board with the basic assumptions, but for me the whole approach seems a little problematic. Basically to accept this argument you have to be able to envisage a scribe in the mid-to-late second century, familiar with a four-gospel collection, interested in counting the sayings of Jesus, finding something problematic in the resultant numbr six, having access to a “floating” saying (perhaps through the Diatessaron) and adding this in order to make up the number to seven, not after the other six but at this point in Luke. I find most of these steps fairly problematic myself. They certainly haven’t shown any evidence that a scribe is likely to count sayings like this.
The authors think that on this view the seventh word ‘gives a gratifying sense of completion’ when Jesus says ‘It is finished’ in John 19.30. But if Luke 23.34a was added first in the Western textual tradition then the order of the gospels would most likely have been Matt - John - Luke - Mark (as it is in Western witnesses)!
Am I being too harsh? Should ‘scribal numerology’ be added to our list of scribal habits
Up-date: the authors respond (ever so lightly edited):
We were given notice that our article was being discussed in this forum; we hope you don’t mind us joining the fray! It is, of course, all authors’ hope that their work will be read and discussed in the marketplace of ideas, and we are grateful to Peter Head for bringing our article to the attention of this group. It is not clear to us, however, that any of the other commentators have actually read the piece, and this is lamentable given the fact that the essay is relatively accessible for NTS subscribers here.
Furthermore, we think Dr Head has given a truncated and weakened version of our argument; this in and of itself is not unusual. In fact, it’s the way most of us score academic points, but such a truncated summary leads naturally, if not inevitably, to the judgment (by someone else) that what we have produced is “piffle” (we don’t know whether or not to be offended by this; we hear a LOT of words in Texas don’t understand, but piffle is not one of them!). As we understand it, Dr Head’s objections to the argument consist in

1. not accepting an early date for the four-fold collection of the gospels;
2. finding it implausible that a scribe would be ‘numerically motivated’ to add a seventh saying to the collected cross sayings.

Perhaps we have truncated his objections, but surely Peter will rebut if we have! In response to #1, Peter simply asserts, without argumentation, that he doesn’t accept the Stanton (/Hengel) hypothesis for an early date for the collection. Fair enough since we assert, without argumentation, that we do accept the hypothesis. We can argue the merits of this thesis if one wishes, but we don’t think our argument rests solely, or even mostly, on this point. Equally, if not more, important is the Diatessaronic evidence, at least as we read it. We don’t wish to repeat the entire argument (again, we encourage commentators to read the piece in toto), but let us reiterate that evidence (201-203 , sans footnotes ).
BEGIN QUOTATION

Tatian’s Diatessaron is our earliest extant witness (c. 170) to the words of Jesus from the cross collected together in a single narrative, and it also attests to the secondary nature of Luke 23.34a.[1] Tatian’s order of sayings reads: (1) Luke 23.43, (2) John 19.26-27, (3) Mark 15.34/Matt 27.46, (4) John 19.28, (5) John 19.30a, (6) Luke 23.34a, and (7) Luke 23.46a. What is notable about Tatian’s order (at least according to the Arabic witness) is that the sayings from John and the two undisputed sayings in Luke maintain their original canonical narrative order. Only Luke 23.34a is out of place:[2]
Luke John
23.43 (1) 19.26-27 (2)
23.34a (6) 19.28 (4)
23.46a (7) 19.30a (5)
Important witnesses to Diatessaronic readings, the Syriac versions c and s, also attest to the secondary nature of the logion in the Third Gospel. These manuscripts are believed to be from the fourth-fifth century. The texts, however, are thought to go back to the early second and third century. Syrs is thought to be older than syrc—even pre-Tatian. Interestingly, syrs does not contain the logion, ‘Father forgive them’ while, on the other hand, syrc, which is post-Tatian, has the logion (‘Father forgive them’) in its version of Luke.[3] In these two Syriac versions we see the transition from the logion’s absence in the text of Luke in the early second century to its appearance in the text of Luke in the early third century. This is the same time frame suggested below for the logion’s addition to the Third Gospel.
Ephraim’s fourth-century commentary on the Diatessaron has some correspondence to the Arabic witness.[4] Chapters 20-21 are an account of the passion narrative and death of Jesus. Ephraim cites all but the Johannine sayings in this account. He cites Luke 23.43 (20.24-25) first, then Mark 15.34/Matt 27.46 (20.30), Luke 23.46a (21.1) and only at the end in corollary discussions does he quote Luke 23.34a (21.3, 8). What is the significance of these observations? These witnesses attest to the fact that early on the logion, ‘Father, forgive them,’ was not fixed in the text of Third Gospel but was a ‘floating tradition.’ Either it was located in various places in the text or omitted altogether. Such floating traditions are sure indicators that the traditions we are dealing with are secondary to the earliest form of the text.[5]
In addition, what do we find concerning the order of sayings in later Diatessaronic witnesses? The Middle-English Pepysian gospel harmony has the following order: (1) Luke 23.34a, (2) John 19.26-27, (3) Luke 23.43, (4) Mark 15.34/Matt 27:46, (5) John 19:28, (6) John 19.30, and (7) Luke 23.46a. In the ninth-century Saxon Heliand, songs 66-67 share an almost identical order minus John 19.30 (unless the end of song 67 is an allusion to this saying).[6] The Persian Diatessaron records the sayings from the cross in the following order: Luke 23.34a, John 19.26-27, John 19.28, John 19.30, Luke 23.43, Mark 15.34/Matt 27.46, Luke 23.46a.[7] Also, the common modern homiletical order of the sayings is (1) Luke 23.34a, (2) Luke 23.43, (3) John 19.26-27, (4) Mark 15.34/Matt 27:46, (5) John 19:28, (6) John 19.30, and (7) Luke 23.46a.[8]
In all these later examples, after the logion had been fixed in the canonical text of Luke, the logion, ‘Father forgive them’, is the first logion and maintains the canonical narrative integrity of the sayings of Jesus from the cross in the Gospel of Luke. In fact, the preponderance for starting with Luke 23:34a in the later traditional homiletical order of the seven sayings as well as in other subsequent gospel harmonies makes sense after this logion finds its place in the Gospel of Luke. Putting it first maintains the canonical integrity of Luke’s order of sayings and maintains the logical chronological sequence when all the canonical Gospels’ cruicifixion accounts are read together since this saying is immediately given after the Roman soldiers nail Jesus to the cross.
All this suggests that at the time Tatian wrote his Distessaron (ca. 170 c.e.), this logion had not yet secured its place in the text of Luke. This logion was most likely added to a gospel harmony or harmonized collection of sayings of Jesus on the cross before it was added to the text of Luke.
END QUOTATION
With regard to point #2, namely that we “certainly haven’t shown any evidence that a scribe is likely to count sayings like this”, we would beg to differ. In a later comment, Dr Head admits that we have some evidence for scribal interest in “seven.” In addition to the use of seven as a structural principle at the compositional level (see also François Bovon’s SNTS presidential address in NTS [‘Names and Numbers in Early Christianity’, NTS 47 (2001) 267-88.), we mentioned also the following (200-201):
BEGIN QUOTATION
These previous examples indicate the influence of seven at the compositional level of the New Testament writings and traditions. ‘Seven’ also influenced the post-publication editorial collection of some New Testament texts as well as some non-canonical collections of early Christian texts. The original collection of the letters of Ignatius, written as he was traveling to Rome to be martyred, is a collection of seven letters.[9] When the catholic letters are finally collected together there are seven (1 and 2 Peter; 1, 2, and 3 John; James; Jude). More important to our discussion are the various collections of Paul’s letters by the end of the first century. Likely the oldest collection of Paul’s letters was the seven churches edition when letters to the same communities were counted together (Romans, Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Thessalonians).[10] The significance of a collection of Paul’s letters addressed to seven churches was not lost upon the early church. The Muratorian fragment contains this interesting statement:

• Since the blessed apostle Paul himself, following the order of his predecessor John, but not naming him, writes to seven churches in the following order: first to the Corinthians, second to the Ephesians, . . . Philippians, . . . Colossians, . . .Galatians, . . . Romans. But although [the message] is repeated to the Corinthians and Thessalonians by way of reproof, yet one church is recognized as diffused throughout the world (emphasis added).[11]

The Muratorian fragment reflects the significance attached to a seven-church edition of Paul’s letters, namely that the church universal was addressed through these occasional documents. Moreover, this collection of letters addressed to the seven churches presumably goes back to the earliest time (c. 100 C.E. or slightly earlier) when the letters were collected and edited together. Here, then, is evidence of post-publication shaping of a collection of materials by the earliest Christians according to the number seven. Additionally, when the letters to individuals were added to the collection of letters to the seven churches by 100, Hebrews is routinely added to this collection (e.g., p46, B, ) , D, 06).[12] By so doing a thirteen-letter collection is made a fourteen-letter (7X2) corpus.
END QUOTATION
This argument tracks well with Mike Holmes’ comment in the blog of the Muratorian fragment and the need for evidence from the second century.
At any rate, thanks again to Peter for bringing attention to our article. We hope it will prompt more discussion (and perhaps even a few more actually to read). We look forward (we think!) to the continuing exchange.
Cheers,
Mikeal Parsons and Jason Whitlark