Matt 9:13

Matthew 9:13 (KJV1611 Edition):
But goe ye and learne what that meaneth,
I will haue mercy and not sacrifice:
for I am not come to call the righteous,
but sinners to repentance.

The Holman Christian Standard Bible
Matthew 9:13 (HCSB = Chistrian Standard Bible /Holmank, 2003/ ):
Go and learn what this means:
I desire mercy and not sacrifice.
For I didn't come to call the righteous,
but sinners.*

Translator Footnote:
*others mss add: to repentance

Frequently using two or more translations of the Bible
will help bring better understanding of the scripture.

 

• No theological difference between the two.
• There is a parallel passage that contain the full saying in both the NIV and the KJV.

King James Version But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance. (AV1873)

Πορευθέντες δὲ μάθετε τί ἐστιν, Ἔλεον θέλω, καὶ οὐ θυσίαν· οὐ γὰρ ἦλθον καλέσαι δικαίους, ἀλλὰ ἁμαρτωλοὺς εἰς μετάνοιαν.
(Matthew 9:13, Byzantine Majority text)

Found in these manuscripts:

Alex: L copsa copbo(pt)
Alex/Byz: C
Cæs: f13
Cæs/Byz: 700
West: itc itg1 syrs copmae
Byz: Θ Byz syrh(mg) ς ND Dio


New International Version But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’ For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.

English Standard Version Go and learn what this means, ‘I desire mercy, and not sacrifice.’ For I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.

πορευθέντες δὲ μάθετε τί ἐστιν· ἔλεος θέλω καὶ οὐ θυσίαν· οὐ γὰρ ἦλθον καλέσαι δικαίους ἀλλὰ ἁμαρτωλούς.
(Matthew 9:13, NA27)

Found in these manuscripts:
Alex: א B Δ 33 copbo(pt) NR CEI Riv TILC Nv NM
Cæs: f1 22 174 565
West: D W vg
Byz: N Γ* 0233 372 pc syrp syrh

*****Comment: Note that the earliest texts (the Coptic manuscripts [cop]) have both readings.
This is considered a case of harmonization.
Scripture was memorized by the early Christians since Bibles were not as commonly available as they are today.
The phrase, “to repentance” was probably borrowed from Luke.

See the parallel passages:
Mark 2:17
When Jesus heard it, he saith unto them, They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance. (AV1873)

On hearing this, Jesus said to them, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.” (NIV)

Luke 5:31, 32
And Jesus answering said unto them, They that are whole need not a physician; but they that are sick. I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance. (AV1873)

And Jesus answered them, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I have not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance.”" (ESV)

Jesus answered them, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.” (NIV)

Rob

 

BTW, the phrase Jesus asked the Pharasees to learn the meaning of: “But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice” comes from Hosea 6:6.

"For I desire steadfast love and not sacrifice, the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings." (Hosea 6:6, ESV)

Question for thought, Did Jesus quote it incorrectly?

Rob

 

Since the Holy Spirit was the author of Scripture, Jesus could quote the passage as it was truly intended. He was not bound by the limitations of mankind.

There is a definite parallel in that there were various versions of the Scriptures in Jesus' time just as there are various versions of Scriptures in these modern times. Just because the wording in one version is a bit different than the wording in another version doesn't mean that one of them has to be wrong. As long as the meaning of the Scripture is there, the words themselves are of secondary importance.

 

Some MSS also omit "to repentance" in Mk 2:17, so one could argue that a harmonization occurred at Mt 9:13 to conform it to Mk 2:17. But even if such is the case, one must ask why "to repentance", if original in Mt 9:13 or Mk 2:17 or both, went missing in part of the MS tradition. Hey, it appears Jonah wasn't the only one with a bad attitude!

 

ELEOS QELW KAI OU QUSIAN (Mt 9:13)
ELEOS QELW KAI OU QUSIAN (Hos 6:6 LXX)

Nope. Word for word, brother. Can you quote the LXX that well?

 

I think Jesus was just pointing out were they were in error, the true way is a matter of the heart and not Law.

God has fully declared in Jesus that His Grace is sufficient for us all. Men who do not know that Grace will continue to strive to find peace and a righteous stance with Him.

Jesus often intimidated the religious people of the day, He did it righteously.

David

 

The manuscript evidence for the omission of “to repentance” in Mark 2 is overwhelming.

Reasons of the omission in Matthew and Mark:

• not originally in the text.

or

• The charge: “The Bible doctrine of repentance is one that men would like to do away with.”

If the second choice was the reason why in the world would it be included in Luke?

No, I can't! ...but that's beside the point.
It's uncannily similar, :applause: but follow the rest of the quote!

Rob

 

Of course this is your opinion. Funny that your "overwhelming" doesn't include fact that more uncials (the older MSS) include "to repentance" than those that don't, including the 3rd oldest MS we have for the passage! And that the miniscules (the later MSS which are copies of earlier MSS) in fact "overwhelmingly" support the inclusion of the words!

When oppression breaks out, as it did in the first few centuries, it would be human to desire that the oppressors not repent but go on to their just reward (e.g. Jonah), or even just to think it is enough to make the mind slip and writing hand to leave it out. And once it's out in one MS the tendency and tenacity of it to multiply itself in copies is well known.

I suggest this may have been a motive for early omission of the words to some MSS which only affected part of the MS tradition, and such is all that needs to be suggested to give a reason for the MS evidence we see. And as is frequently the case in synoptic textual problems, variants or motives that affect one or two of the passages many times do not affect the third. Take a look at any synoptic passage in any critical edition except a hand-held edition and you'll know what I mean.

 

Most textual variants have very little impact on the meaning or the message of the NT.

But the variants are present, and are historically documented.

Christians often take the easy road saying that if a variant or disputed passage is supportive of some Christian doctrine of one type or another, then it must be original.
I believe this is intellectually dishonest.

Blue, as you have done in the past, you have provided a thoughtful counterpoint to consider. One should weigh the evidence.
Biblical scholars have been doing this for millennia and while it frightens some, it is not a modern phenomena.

IMHO, removing the words, “to repentance” from Mark 2 and Matthew 9 would do nothing to change the essential meaning of the gospel of Jesus Christ where repentance from sin is so prominently proclaimed.

“…Jesus came into Galilee, proclaiming the gospel of God, and saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.”
(Mark 1:14,15 ESV)

Rob

 

The evidence indeed should be weighed. Which is why I cannot accept that Jesus commanded his disciples to raise the dead in Mt 10:8, no matter how good it sounds theologically, which explains why some scribes furthermore were dying to add it to the text, but it simply wasn't there originally. Neither was the heavenly witness part of 1 Jn 5:7-8. Nevertheless, because every original word is inspired, I will fight for every original word according to all the relative MS evidence preserved by God, regardless of the opinion of some as to whether they are important words or not. I deem any word breathed by God, if indeed he breathed it, important enough. Such includes the words in question in the OP here.