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.

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 their tendencies, the significance of this reading is increased. 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.

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 -- allos de labwn logchn enuxen autou thn pleuran, kai exhlqen udwr kai aima (This is not a true non-interpolation; the reading -- derived from John 19:34 -- is found in B C L U G 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 D Q S Byz it am cav ful hub tol cur pesh hark sa bo arm geo)
• Luke 22:19b-20 -- to uper umwn didomenon... ²⁰to uper umwn ekcunnomenon 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 -- tou kuriou Ihsou omitted by D a b d e ff² l r¹ (579 1071 1241 cur sin pesh have tou Ihsou but omit kuriou)
• Luke 24:6 -- ouk estin wde, all(a) hgerqh 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 -- kai legei autois eirhnh umin omitted by D a b d e ff² l r¹
• Luke 24:40 -- kai touto eipwn edeixen autois tas cairas kai tous podas omitted by D a b d e ff² l r¹ sin cur
• Luke 24:51 -- kai kai anefereto eis ton ouranon omitted by * D a b d e ff² l (hiat r¹) sin (hiat cur) geo¹
• Luke 24:52 -- proskunhsantes auton 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 -- ta paraptwmata autwn omitted by 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 -- h ti pihte (vl kai ti pihte) omitted by 1-1582 22 892 l2211 a b ff¹ k l vg cur pal sa^mss arm^mss (hiat D e sin)
• Matt. 9:34 -- oi de farisaioi elegon en tw arconti twn daimoniwn ekballei ta daimonia omitted by D a d k sin Hilary (hiat e cur)
• Matt. 13:33 -- elalhsen autois 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 -- kai ths paroyidos (found in B C L W 33 Byz cop but omitted by UBS/GNT) omitted by D Q 1-118-209-1582 700 a d e ff¹ r¹ sin geo Irenaeus^lat Clement (hiat b cur)
• Mark 2:22 -- alla oinon neon eis askous kainous omitted byD 2427 a b d e ff² i r¹ t bo^ms (hiat k cur)
• Mark 10:2 -- proselqontes Farisaioi (or proselqontes oi Farisaioi; word order varies) omitted by D a b d k r¹ sin (sa^mss) (hiat e cur)
• Mark 14:39 -- ton auton logon eipwn 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 merimnas kai qorubzh peri polla, oligwn de estin creia h enos ⁴² Mariam gar the Westcott-Hort margin reads qorubazh Mariam with (D has Maria) (a b d e ff² i l r¹ sin Ambrose omit qorubazh)
• Luke 12:19 -- keimena eis eth polla anapauou fage pie omitted by D a b c e (ff²)
• Luke 12:21 -- entire verse omitted by D a b d
• Luke 12:39 -- for egrhgorhsen an kai ouk (found in ** A B E L Q W Q 33 Byz aur f l q) the Westcott-Hort margin (followed by UBS/GNT) reads ouk an with P⁷⁵ * (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 -- apo tou mnhmeiou omitted by D a b c d e ff² l r¹ arm geo
• John 3:31 -- epanw pantwn estin (omitted in the Westcott-Hort margin, with additional variations in verse 32) omitted by P⁷⁵ * 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 -- ou gar suncrwntai ioudaioi samareitais omitted by * 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. 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 which do not have support from the major uncial witnesses P⁴⁶ A B C or from the Byzantine text. If B is omitted from this list, we find a few other candidates, e.g. Rom. 5:2, Eph. 6:1).

• Rom. 1:7 -- en rwmh omitted by G g 1739^margin (hiat D F (but in D^abs)); cf. Rom. 1:15
• Rom. 6:16 -- eis qanaton 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 -- kai antilegonta omitted by F G g Ambrosiaster Hilary
• Rom. 16:20 -- h caris tou kuriou hmwn ihsou (Cristou) meq umwn 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 -- o kai parelabon omitted by b Ambrosiaster Irenaeus^lat Tertullian?
• 1 Cor. 15:15 -- eiper ara nekroi ouk egeirontai omitted by D a b r bam ful** harl* kar mon reg val* pesh Ambrosiaster Irenaeus^lat Tertullian?
• 2 Cor. 10:12-13 -- ou suniasin ¹³ hmeis de omitted byD* F G a b d f (429? s am cav dem ful hub tol val omit ou suniasin only) Ambrosiaster (h.a. ?)
• Eph. 4:13 -- tou uiou omitted byF G b f? g Clement^part Lucifer (h.a. ?)
• Eph. 4:16 -- kat energeian omitted by F G b d f g arm Irenaeus^lat Ambrosiaster Lucifer
• Col. 1:28 -- panta anqrwpon omitted by D* F G 0278 33 88 330 614 629 b d f ful mon reg tol (pesh) Clement Ambrosiaster
• Col. 4:2 -- en eucaristia omitted by D* d Ambrosiaster Cyprian?
• 1 Tim. 3:14 -- pros se 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 -- ektos ei mh epi duo h triwn marturwn omitted by b Ambrosiaster Pelagius Cyprian?
• Titus 3:10 -- kai deuteran omitted by b 1739 Irenaeus^lat Tertullian Cyprian Ambrosiaster Speculum (D Y 1505 1881 hark include the words after nouqesian)