Note on Western Non-Interpolations
One of the features of the Western text is the occasional omission of words and passages that are present in other types of text, including the Alexandrian. How should one evaluate such omissions from a form of text which is generally much fuller than other text-types? According to one theory, popularized at the close of the last century by Westcott and Hort1 such readings, despite their being supported by the generally inferior Western witnesses, ought to be preferred rather than the longer readings, though the latter are attested by the generally superior manuscripts, B and א. Nine such readings were designated by Westcott and Hort as “Western non-interpolations,”2 on the assumption that all extant witnesses except the Western (or, in some cases, some of the Western witnesses) have in these passages suffered interpolation.
In recent decades this theory has been coming under more and more criticism. With the acquisition of the Bodmer Papyri, testimony for the Alexandrian type of text has been carrided back from the fourth to the second century, and one can now observe how faithfully that text was copied and recopied between the stage represented by P75 and the stage represented by codex Vaticanus. Furthermore, scholars have been critical of the apparently arbitrary way in which Westcott and Hort isolated nine passages for special treatment (enclosing them within double square brackets), whereas they did not give similar treatment to other readings that also are absent from Western witnesses.3
With the rise of what is called Redaktionsgeschichte (the analysis of the theological and literary presuppositions and tendencies that controlled the formation and transmission of Gospel materials), scholars have begun to give renewed attention to the possibility that special theological interests on the part of scribes may account for the deletion of certain passages in Western witnesses. In any case, the Bible Societies’ Committee did not consider it wise to make, as it were, a mechanical or doctrinaire judgment concerning the group of nine Western non-interpolations, but sought to evaluate each one separately on its own merits and in the light of fuller attestation and newer methodologies.
During the discussions a sharp difference of opinion emerged. According to the view of a minority of the Committee, apart from other arguments there is discernible in these passages a Christological-theological motivation that accounts for their having been added, while there is no clear reason that accounts for their having been omitted. Accordingly, if the passages are retained in the text at all, it was held that they should be enclosed within square brackets. On the other hand, the majority of the Committee, having evaluated the weight of the evidence differently, regarded the longer readings as part of the original text.
Westcott and Hort, The New Testament in the Original Greek, the Text Revised by Brooks Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort; [vol. II] Introduction [and] Appendix (Cambridge and London, 1881; 2nd ed., 1896).
1 B. F. Westcott and J. F. A. Hort, The New Testament in the Original Greek, [vol. II] Introduction [and] Appendix (Cambridge and London, 1881; 2nd ed., 1896), pp. 175–177.
B
|
ms. nr. |
*B 03 |
|
saec. |
IV |
|
bibliotheca |
Città del Vaticano, Bibl. Vat., Vat. gr. 1209 |
|
cont. |
eap (vac 1T-Phm; H 9,14-fin.) |
75
|
ms. nr. |
*P75 |
|
saec. |
III |
|
bibliotheca |
Cologny, Bibl. Bodmer., P. Bodmer XIV. XV |
|
cont. |
L 3,18-22; 3,33-4,2; 4,34-5,10; 5,37-6,4; 6,10-7,32. 35-39.41-43; 7,46-9,2; 9,4-17,15; 17,19-18,18; 22,4- fin.; J 1,1-11,45.48-57; 12,3-13,10; 14,8-15,10 |
3 E. g. Mt 9.34; Mk 2.22; 10.2; 14.39; Lk 5.39; 10.41–42; 12.21; 22.62; 24.9; Jn 4.9. In all these passages the consensus of textual opinion (including that of Westcott and Hort) is almost unanimous that the Western text, though shorter, is secondary.
Comments