"Jesus" in Mt 8:29

CBS: “Tertullian, Origen, and Cyprian all quote Matt. 8:29 without the name of Jesus.”

Cyprian: Treatise XII Three Books of Testimonies Against the Jews: “Also in the Gospel according to Matthew: "What have we to do with Thee, Thou Son of David? why art Thou come hither to punish us before the time?"

Tertullian, Ad. Praxeas 26: “accordingly, the devils also acknowledge Him to be: "we know Thee, who Thou art, the Holy Son of God.”

Citing Old Latin Fathers to establish a Greek reading doesn’t work, particularly when the old Latin MSS are themselves divided on this reading. OL MSS a b c d f g1 h q _include_ the name “Jesus”, while OL MSS ff1 k l m _exclude_ the name “Jesus”.

Tertullian and Cyprian both being North African Latin speakers and writers from the same town (Carthage), it is no surprise that they follow and cite the African branch of the Old Latin (ff1 k l m) and not the European branch of the OL that would stand in contrast to them. Their testimony thus proves nothing regarding the original form of the Greek, but only that the African Latin OL text was prevalent in their region in the 3rd century.

In addition, Tertullian’s quote *differs* from both the Byzantine and Alexandrian reading, since he adds “Holy” before “Son of God” and reads “we know thee” when the Greek says only “What is there to us and to you, [Jesus] Son of God” -- even the Ante-Nicene Fathers (CCEL) footnote suggests that Tertullian’s quote is a *mixture* from Mk 1:24 (“Jesus Nazarene...I know who you are, the Holy One of God”) and Matth 8:29, and thus not a very secure witness in any case.

Likewise, Cyprian’s quote differs from *both* the Byzantine and Alexandrian traditions by reading “Thou Son of David” when the Greek MSS of either texttype read “Son of God.” The level of trust that can be assigned to either of these witnesses in regard to inclusion or exclusion of “Jesus” is thus quite minimal.

Origen: Commentary on Matthew Book XI -- no surprise that the foremost Father using the Alexandrian text would quote the Alexandrian reading which was current in his home locality and which was very likely brought with him to
Caesarea, where he continued to use an Alexandrian text.

I note once more that the omission of “Jesus” is supported by *all* the leading Alexandrian witnesses here (Aleph B C* L 33 892, along with the Egyptian Coptic version, which likewise should be no surprise) while *all* other texttypes -- Western, Caesarean, Byzantine -- support the inclusion, along with the Syriac, Armenian, Gothic, and Ethiopic versions.

The omission still appears to be accidental, primarily localized to the Egyptian type of text and the African branch of the Old Latin.

 

CBS cited quotes from Edward Hobbs and Mark O'Brien.

CBS, are *you* either one of these two people? Do you know either of them? If not, where is the source (the “list”) from which you clipped and pasted, and from what date?

Are you aware that current ongoing investigations regarding scribal habits in papyri, uncials, and minuscules have *continued* to demonstrate that Colwell, Royse, and Head are indeed correct in their assessment that “scribes were more likely to omit than to add to the text”?

And Hobbs (whoever he might be -- you don’t tell us) is himself quite incorrect when he states, “The ONLY one of them who argued that scribes tended to [omit rather than add] was my student Jim Royse.”

Royse began his work on the basis of Colwell’s identical findings regarding omission being more prevalent than addition. Even Colwell (“Scribal Habits in Early Papyri [1965], p.112) quotes Dain’s textbook from 1949 that “states that the most frequent scribal errors are (1) the leap from the same to the same (homoeoteleuton and homoeoarcton) and (2) the omission of short words.” And Colwell’s findings bore out this assumption in regard to the three papyri he examined (p45, p66, p75): “p66 should not be cited as evidence for the omission of a short word” (124); “as an editor the scribe of p45 wielded a sharp axe” (118); “all three scribes omit articles more often than they add them. p45 and p75 omit more conjunctions than they add” (120), etc.

So if Hobbs is correct that “Colwell was my teacher,” he didn’t pay much attention to Colwell’s study and conclusions. Makes me feel sorry for Royse (whose work is now well-received and its conclusions accepted and confirmed by subsequent study) if Hobbs sat “on his dissertation committee” and yet considered Royse’s findings “nonsense.” Obviously no one else has done so, and even one current scholarly journal (Biblica) has a new article by Head (one of several he has written exploring this same subject), in which he examines even more MSS, and *continues* to establish the same conclusion.

Royse, in the meantime, has also published several subsequent studies, each continuing to confirm his original findings. The latest was in the volume _The Text of the NT in Contemporary Research_, which is a collection of essays by the leading NT textual critics of today. Royse’s chapter there is “Scribal Tendencies in the Transmission of the Text of the NT” (pp.239-252). Worth taking a look.

Hobbs also said: “If several dozen more dissertations on the issue, studying some uncials, above all post-300CE uncials, were to show the same, we would have to rethink this question.”

There is at least one dissertation that I know of, done at the same time as that of Royse, which *did* examine post-AD300 uncials and minuscules, and also came to the same conclusion. Add to that the various separate independent studies that all show scribal omission to be more prevalent than addition, and the case seems certain, and Hobbs is wrong.

Hobbes quoted Housman: "To do textual criticism, you must have brains, not pudding, in
your head."

Absolutely correct. Unfortunately there seems to be more than one Puddinghead Wilson around.

 

CBS: "It appears to me that your argument that the “*real*” reason for the “omission” of “Jesus” in Matt. 8:28 hinges upon the notion that in the earliest manuscripts containing this verse the Greek word for Jesus was abbreviated “(IU).” Please list these manuscripts for us so that we can evaluate them, and in turn the argument that you are making."

This point should be indisputable, since the sacred names are abbreviated in virtually *all* MSS, from the earliest papyri to the latest minuscules. This is merely a matter of common knowledge.

If you want to see copious examples, consult Comfort and Barrett's _The Text of the Earliest NT Greek Manuscript_ (Tyndale House, 2001), and try to find any examples of sacred names such as "Jesus" or "God" written in full as opposed to being abbreviated; if they are there, the full form is rare indeed. As an example: the 2nd century papyrus p66 in Jn 3:3, 5, 10, 22 abbreviates "Jesus"; in 3:2, 3, 5, 16, 17, 18, 21, 33, 34, 36 abbreviates "God"; in 3:5, 6, 8, 34 abbreviates "Spirit". And the story is much the same within the other existing early papyri.

Also, consult Swanson's _NT Greek Manuscripts: Variant Readings arranged in Horizontal Lines against Codex Vaticanus_" (Sheffield, 1995), where the precise text in Mt 8:28 and abbreviations are covered on p.67, note B. The collated MSS that include "Jesus" in abbreviated form are E K M S U W Delta Theta Pi Omega f13 2 124 157 565 579 700 788 1071 1424.

In the case of Mt 8:28 in particular, we have *no* papyri that contains that passage (all papyri are fragmentary, so this is no surprise). One therefore has to examine other locations in early papyri to get an idea of how they abbreviated as part of their regular scribal practice.

But if one is still looking for "early," the ancient versions that contain the name "Jesus" that previously were cited serve to establish the point, at a time that would have been concurrent with the earliest papyri. These include the Syriac, Armenian and Gothic versions, as well as the European Old Latin tradition (and, BTW, the OL MSS similarly abbreviate the sacred names, rendering "Jesus" as IHS and "God" as DNM etc.).

 

CBS: “In other words, there are ZERO very early manuscripts of Matt. 8:29 that support your position.”

Absolutely wrong. *Every* early papyrus can be cited to demonstrate the use of sacred name abbreviations. Almost every, if not every MSS that actually has the name “Jesus” present in Mt 8:29 likewise abbreviates the sacred name.

And tit for tat, there are ZERO very early Greek manuscripts of Mt 8:29 that support the contrary position (and why you would argue against the use of sacred name abbreviations which everyone else accepts as a general practice, I know not).

CBS: Tertullian and Cyprian, who pre-date all of the versions that you reference above, omit the name "Jesus."

Already discussed. Doubtful that they predate the Old Syriac or Coptic, and the Old Latin versions predate them. See earlier post regarding African Old Latin versus European Old Latin coupled with the gross *inaccuracy* of quoting by both Tertullian and Cyprian in that very passage. These two fathers supply *no* reliable data regarding inclusion or exclusion of "Jesus" due to their overall inaccuracy when quoting or alluding to the phrase in question, and at most they merely reflect the type of OL text dominant in their region as opposed to that which dominated in Europe.

>And not only that, the vast majority of New Testament scholars very strongly disagree with your opinion. Perhaps a person in such a position should be considerably more humble and substantially less dogmatic

The editors of the NA27/UBS4 edition certainly differ, and they do so on the basis of their eclectic approach which imbues the primary Alexandrian witnesses with almost oracular power (see Kent Clarke’s _Textual Optimism_ book for a clear demonstration of such). As I pointed out in the parallel passage Lk 8:28, another minority group of MSS omits (by similar apparent accident) the phrase “of God” following “Son” -- yet the NA27/UBS4 editors choose to reject that omission, but why? I suggest that the answer can be summed up in the typical overriding principle: because Aleph and B read otherwise.

BTW, I cited the evidence from NA27 wrongly in regard to the Lk 8:28 parallel: MSS p75 (a close cousin of Vaticanus). D f1 579 al actually omit “Jesus” -- which then calls even more into question the omission of the name by two of those same witnesses (f1 579) in the Mt 8:29 parallel.

The omission of “of God” following “Son” in Lk 8:28 is supported by MSS D Xi f1 892 1424 2542 pc -- a different group, but one which also involves two of the MSS that omit “Jesus” in Mt 8:29 (f1892).

The point is that scribal tendencies and habits need to be taken into consideration, and considered in light of the fact that accidental omission is far more prevalent and likely than deliberate or accidental addition. Whether the “majority of NT scholars” disagree or not is not the issue. They don’t merely “count noses” among the MSS, and we should not merely “count noses” among the scholars. Of course, those scholars who favor the Byzantine or majority text tradition would offer a different perspective, but no need to count them either. This is not a popularity contest. Why do you have such a compulsion to argue against what is arguably the easier explanation concerning the origin of this variant based on known scribal habits and tendencies? If Colwell, Royse, and Head are correct (and the evidence continues to mount showing that they are, as I noted), it is very possible that the "majority of scholars" will eventually change their opinion, or at least should do so in light of more current information (although I'm not holding my breath).

To put it another way: if I were defending a MV reading as opposed to one that appears in the KJV (and I am not KJVO by any means) would this discussion even be taking place?

 

Ziggy: "BTW, I cited the evidence from NA27 wrongly in regard to the Lk 8:28 parallel: MSS p75 (a close cousin of Vaticanus). D f1 579 al actually omit “Jesus” -- which then calls even more into question the omission of the name by two of those same witnesses (f1 579) in the Mt 8:29 parallel."

My bad. I once more miscited the evidence in Mt 8:29. MS 579 reads the abbreviated name IU at that point. Also, MS D in Mt 8:29 is lacking that portion of the page, but the Old Latin side of D (it-d) *does* include IHU as an abbreviation for "Jesus", so it is probably likely that the Greek side similarly included the name. So *only* f1 is implicated in both places regarding omission of the name "Jesus" (if I read everything correctly this time).

 

Somewhere in all this discussion, the main point has consistently been overlooked. The original intent was to demonstrate

(a) that there was no satanic or Jesuit or "Alexandrian cult" conspiracy involved in the absence of the name "Jesus" in Mt 8:29 or in all the other places so alleged;

(b) that the issue is *solely* one of textual variation among the MSS; and

(c) that differing scholarly positions *can* offer reasons for favoring one or the other reading without having to resort to the usual KJVO invective.

I chose to demonstrate in particular a proper line of argument that *could* in this instance be utilized to defend the KJV/TR/Byzantine/majority reading in this passage, based on a standard working principle that variation caused by accidental error is more likely than deliberate alteration. I would suggest that 90% of all textual variants likely result from similar accidental causes, and this can be demonstrated simply by examining the variant readings so clearly laid out in Reuben Swanson's volumes covering Mt-1Co and Gal. -- a veritable encyclopedia of typical error-based variation for those who will do the digging.

CBS: Your suggested dating of the Old Syriac is off by at least 50 years.

And since no one has a precise date when any of the early versions were made (see Metzger, Early Versions of the NT for detailed discussion), most scholars will give a date with a +/-50 years, and sometimes even more. So this point is not relevant. Further, the Old Syriac exists in two MSS of 4th and 5th century date, just as the Old Latin MSS exist in codices of the 4th and later centuries. This does not stop scholars from recognizing that both sources contain what appears to be a second-century text.

CBS: We do not know for sure that Tertullian or Cyprian quoted inaccurately, although it would appear that at least one of them did, but only in references to the original manuscript of Matthew (if such a thing ever existed).

Neither of them were referring to the original manuscript of Matthew when they quoted (or, more probably, alluded) to Mt 8:29. But both of them clearly altered the text significantly, whether by mingling in portions of the parallel passage in Mk 1:24 or adding in "Thou Son of David" from another parallel. Their inaccuracy at this point within the same close context does *not* suggest any degree of confidence in their non-inclusion of the name "Jesus" at such a point, although as I noted, the African Old Latin would tend to support this reading. But Tertullian and Cyprian are *not* good witnesses for such, whereas the African Old Latin MSS are clearly superior in this regard. Yet even so (as I also clearly noted) this does not mean much within the Old Latin tradition since the entire European Old Latin tradition *includes* the name "Jesus".

CBS: The reading used in the KJV is of no consequence to me. However, the reading followed by the editors of the NA27/UBS4 texts does, especially when, as in this case, they express very little doubt, if any, as to the correctness of their reading.

So you simply *assume* their authority and don't evaluate the individual readings on the basis of the various internal and external grounds? Sorry, but I don't. Even the editors of NA27 state in their preface that their text is presented as tentative, and that other scholars are free to differ with their assessments. The problem seems to be that very few wish to investigate the matter for themselves, but simply follow the herd.

Do you *really* (for example) agree with the NA27/UBS4 in Mt 1:7, 10 where "Asaph" and "Amos" are Judean kings in the royal line of Christ? Or do you exercise independent judgment and reject them in favor of the correct readings "Asa" and "Amon"? Even Metzger in his Textual Commentary admits these readings are erroneous, but nevertheless are preferred by the NA27/UBS4 editors because of the particular favored MSS that happen to support those readings.

Ziggy: The editors of the NA27/UBS4 edition certainly differ, and they do so on the basis of their eclectic approach which imbues the primary Alexandrian witnesses with almost oracular power (see Kent Clarke’s _Textual Optimism_ book for a clear demonstration of such).

CBS: From my point of view, this is extremism, and has no place in academics.

Tell that to Kent Clarke. He wrote the book (published by Sheffield Academic Press), and it is a severe criticism of the value judgments of the NA27/UBS4 editors.

CBS: If the use of the precise abbreviation that you are arguing for—and of course no other abbreviation would support your argument—is as common as you are suggest it is...

It is...why do you continue to question this point? Look at the sources I cited, Comfort/Barrett or Swanson, and see that nearly all MSS at all times abbreviated the sacred names. This is also discussed in Metzger's Text of the New Testament. Why is this a problem for you? "Jesus" in the genitive (IHSOU) simply becomes IU (or in some rare cases IHU) in nearly all MSS at nearly all times.

CBS: ... that fact alone would virtually prove that the abbreviation was never present in the earliest manuscripts of Matt. 8:29. Only if it was an uncommon abbreviation would the scribes view it as a probable error and omit it.

Excuse me? You are suggesting that it was *deliberately* excised by some scribes who may have thought it to be an error? That is not at all what I said. Go back and reread my posts.
What I said quite clearly was that the name "Jesus", being in abbreviated form (IU) and immediately following SOI and preceding UIE would result in SOIIUUEI. This double duplication of the letters II and UU could easily lead a scribe to skip over the name by accident, leaving only SOIUIE in its place. Accidental error is more common than deliberate alteration (another solid fact borne out by the various studies on scribal habits), and this in particular when a small minority of MSS, localized to one particular texttype, happen to be the ones making the omission.

CBS: Upon casual reading and careless thinking, your posts would seem to support your argument...

IMHO, I would argue that they do, and do it better than any contrary defense of the reading favoring omission. To argue the contrary, you have to either opt for accidental dittography by several scribes, and *double* dittography at that, to move from SOIUIE to SOIIUUIE (either way a relatively rare occurrence within scribal habits, as has been documented), OR you have to argue deliberate harmonization to the parallel passages in Mk and Lk, which, while possible, would then also require an explanation as to why Matthew in recounting the same story would have originally left out the name of Jesus (not beyond the realm of possibility, but a definite topic for Synoptic Criticism discussion).

However, this scenario of deliberate harmonization, although *possible*, is called into serious question by the fact of similar erroneous omissions in the Lk parallel, whether of the name "Jesus" there, or the "of God" phrase, particularly with some of the *same* MSS involved in those omissions as happen to omit the name "Jesus" in Mt 8:29 (I note that in the Lk parallel the NA27/UBS4 editors apparently recognize the omissions as accidental, since their main text retains the words).

CBS: ...but upon critical reading and careful thinking, your posts tend to refute your position.

I would suggest not. The only position they tend to refute is the one that argues in favor of omitting the name in this instance.

CBS: Furthermore, your posts appear to me to strongly suggest a passionate bias in favor of the Byzantine text type, a bias than has led more than one potential scholar into serious error.

If one holds *any* textual theory, one already has a bias. Whether passionate or not is in the eye of the beholder. I would suggest that your attachment to the NA27/UBS4 text at apparently all costs is equally passionate and biased.

But on the contrary, it is not a sin nor an error to favor a particular texttype, so long as there are legitimate scholarly reasons that can be adduced for such. I do not consider myself biased according to your apparent definition. I was taught reasoned eclecticism by eclectic scholars; I freely accepted and used the modern critical texts without question until one teacher (himself a reasoned eclectic) suggested that blind acceptance of editorial authority in text-critical matters was not exactly healthy. He made me look at all variants afresh, one by one, and made me weigh *all* the evidence -- internal, external, transcriptional, etc. -- without appeal to existing editorial decisions, and only then to make final decisions on readings on the basis of the evidence itself. The collective opinion of various scholars became a non-issue (and he suggested that a prevailing scholarly consensus is often wrong, since there is such a thing as "scholarly agreement in error" that has a tendency to persist over many generations).

Sorry if you think that this means bias, whether in favor of the Byzantine text type or any other. To me, bias would be saying _a priori_ that the Byzantine (or Alexandrian, or Western, or Caesarean, or Latin Vulgate, or TR or KJV, etc.) text is automatically right and all others wrong, and that there is no need to examine the evidence or the possible reasons for the variant readings in any particular case. Since my training did not lead me to approach the text from that position, I would reject any label regarding bias.

OTOH, since you appear simply to accept without question the NA27/UBS4 readings in every case, would this not suggest bias on your part? I know from my earlier situation that my prior approach was definitely biased, since I had to be led out of that and guided into a direction that required independent thinking and judgment. Thankfully I got over my biases long ago, and am now free to make my own decisions throughout the NT.

Since I think all pertinent matters have been covered and rehash is starting to set in, I will end the discussion at this point.

 

One last thing before I go to bed, in light of Craig's irenic note:

Another major point that I failed to mention and which might easily be overlooked is that this particular variant reading does *not* affect doctrine in any manner.

Inclusion or exclusion of the name "Jesus" in this context is *not* heretical, does *not* in any maner weaken the deity, person, or work of Christ, and in practical effect does *not* make or break any translation that includes or omits this particular word merely because the translators happened to follow a particular type of text.

The overall teaching in this passage remains the same, whether in the KJV,KJV21/TMB, NKJV, which retain the name, or in the various MVs which omit the name. Such is typical of most variant readings found among the MSS, and these are generally undeserving of the scorn that tends to be heaped upon any that differ from the KJV or its underlying TR.

Over and out...I'm off to bed.