Luke 23:34 How would you preach it

Status
Not open for further replies.

MarquezsDg

Puritan Board Freshman
Long time brothers and sisters Hope everyone is well. I have a question with Good Friday approaching and so many Pastors preaching on this verse. I have a question If it was inserted and not original isn't wrong for us to call this scripture and preach on it as Gods Word? Not saying the Lord didn't utter these words but my question is more how do you approach this as a Pastor. If this was the only verse you preached on would you say "Lets open to Gods Word " or explain this might be a story but not scripture. Please help me understand this? thanks!
 

Fogetaboutit

Puritan Board Freshman
The "ancient" manuscripts they are refering to in the footnotes of new versions are Vaticanus (B) and Beza (D), two of the most "corrected" known manuscripts expecially Beza (D), it was reviewed by Theodore Beza (where it got it's name) the editor of the 5th edition of the textus receptus (1598) and deemed useless because of it's many "corrections". Vaticanus pretty much has the same issues, it has many "corrections" and it's existence was known by the editors of the Textus Receptus but they chose to ignore it. Why the editor of the critical texts a few hundred years later differ from the reformers who edited the TR makes absolutely no sense.

Luke 23:34

"Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do" is bracketed by Ne, questioned in the margins of the NIV, NKJV, RSV, GN and double bracketed by the NWT.

Burgon (14) p 83-5, states that the words are found in every known uncial except B, D, in every known cursive except 38, 435, a, b, d and in every ancient version except one of the Egyptian texts. Burgon also cites: 2nd Century: Hegesippus, Irenaeus; 3rd Century: Apostolic Constitutions, Clementine Homilies, disputation of Archelaus with Manes, Hippolytus, Origen, Tatian; 4th: Century: Acta Apostt. (Syrian Acts of the Apostles), Acta Philippi, Acta Pilati, Ambrose, Athanasius, Augustine, Basil, Chrysostom, Dionysius Areopagus, Ephraem Syrus, Ephraim, Eusebius, Gregory Nyssa, Hilary, Ignatius (c), Jerome, Justin Martyr (c), Theodorus; 5th Century: Cyril of Alexandria, Eutherius, Theodoret; 6th Century: Anastasius Sinaita, Hesychius; 7th Century: Andreas Cretensis, Antiochus the monk, Maximus; 8th Century: Amphilochius (c), Chrysostom (c), John Damascene. See also Fuller (32) p 139. Hills (3) p 132, (38) p 74, states that the words are omitted by Papyrus 75, B, D, W, Theta, 38, 435, some copies of the Old Latin, the Sinaitic Syriac and the Coptic versions but retained by the vast majority of Greek manuscripts, including Aleph, A, C, L, N, certain manuscripts of the Old Latin, the Curetonian, Peshitta, Hardean and Philoxenian Syriac. Berry's Greek text supports this passage.

I know I'm completely comfortable with that verse and do not doubt it.
 
Last edited:

MarquezsDg

Puritan Board Freshman
Im sorry. Im at work so I should wait until I get home to understand it better. So are you saying it is found in our earliest manuscripts? I appreciate the info just at work but I will read it once I get home.
 

Jake

Puritan Board Junior
Most Bible translators even of the Critical Text didn't see a need to remove it. In fact, the only translation which I have on hand that calls the passage into question is the NRSV, which still leaves it, though it is bracketed.

Also, the concepts in the verse are supported by other parts of Scripture:
-Isaiah 53:12 says that he "interceded for the transgressors." (NASB)
-I Corinthians 2:8 supports the part about knowing not what they did: "None of the rulers of this age understood this, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory." (ESV)
 

Fogetaboutit

Puritan Board Freshman
It is found in some of the earliest manuscripts yes. It's even in Sinaiticus (Aleph) which supposedly is dated from the 4th century, which seem like a contradiction to me since Vaticanus is supposedly dated in the 4th century also and Codex Bezae is dated from the 5th century. It is also present in many early father quotations and early translated versions. I see absolutely no reason to doubt this verse, it seem much more plausible that the verse was omitted from the manuscripts that do not contain it that it would have been added in the majority that do contain it.
 

MarquezsDg

Puritan Board Freshman
I must have completely then misunderstood the rersources I was reading then. I thought White, and Wallace were saying that this was a scribal insert and not from the author of Luke Gospels. hmm. Gotta do more reading thanks
 

Fogetaboutit

Puritan Board Freshman
I must have completely then misunderstood the rersources I was reading then. I thought White, and Wallace were saying that this was a scribal insert and not from the author of Luke Gospels. hmm. Gotta do more reading thanks
They probably did, I know James White makes a lot of assertions which once you double check them are not as black and white as he seem to portray them, he often makes his opinions sound like verifiable facts, unfortunately most peope don't question these assertions and don't make their own research. I highly recommend "The Revision Revised" by John Burgon, he addresses most if not all of these assertions by the proponents of the critical text with compelling evidences.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top