Majority Text Society

In the 1953 Hollywood film classic "The Robe," the Roman tribune Marcellus Gallio (played by Richard Burton) is assigned crucifixion duty on the day Jesus is executed. As he stands under the cross, Jesus' blood drips on Marcellus' hands and he hears Jesus' only words in the whole movie, "Father forgive them for they know not what they do" (Luke 23:34). Unfortunately, in my view, what Hollywood has gotten right, our critical Greek text has gotten wrong.

The verse is included in the critical Greek text in double square brackets and according to the Nestle-Aland introduction, "double brackets in the text indicate that the enclosed words, generally of some length are known [italics mine] not to be a part of the original text." Bruce Metzger's textual commentary takes a more cautioned position giving the case for the critical text omission a "C" rating, which means there is a considerable degree of doubt. He concludes that though the text was probably not part of the original gospel of Luke it " bears self-evident tokens of its dominical origin" (Metzger, Textual Commentary, 180).

In short, Majority Text supporters and those wishing to give it a greater say in textual decisions should feel confident that the Majority Text has preserved the original and authentic reading in Luke 23:34

The Majority Text includes this text as original to Luke and authentic to Jesus. In addition to the vast number of Byzantine manuscripts, the original hand of the Uncials Aleph, C, L, and Psi, 0250 support the Majority Text. Also, in regard to the early versions, the vast bulk of the Latin and Syriac translation contain the disputed text. A Latin text from the second century church father Irenaeus also supports inclusion of the reading. For omission, supporting the critical text is p75, a corrector of Aleph, B, D, W, Theta and 070. The early versional support of the critical text includes one or two old Latin manuscripts and one Syriac manuscript and most of the Coptic.

Those who advocate the Majority Text and those who wish to give it a greater voice in textual decisions are probably content enough with the external evidence to give Jesus' profound statement of forgiveness a supportive nod for inclusion and authenticity. Both traditions have early support into the second and third centuries A.D., and of course the Majority Text would have far superior numerical support. The two major uncials of the Alexandrian texts a and B are split in their testimony. The Western tradition is split (D and Latin), while the Majority/Byzantine text is united.

For those who are unsure of what manuscripts should be given priority or even have an Alexandrian priority position it is generally the internal evidence that convinces many commentators and critical text Bible translations (e.g., NIV, NASB) that the passage is authentic. In Acts 7:70, the first Christian martyr Stephen echoes Jesus' prayer as he is being stoned "Lord do not charge them with this sin" (NKJV). It would seem obvious that Stephen is merely imitating Jesus' statement and attitude of forgiveness at His crucifixion. In addition the church historian Eusebius records that Jesus' "half-brother" James uttered the following when he was being stoned by the Jewish authorities: "I entreat thee, O Lord God and Father forgive them, for they know not what they do" (Eus. Ecclesiatical History, 2.23). Again, imitation of Jesus' words is the likely reason for James' final prayer.

Another hesitation Alexandrian text proponents have in accepting the critical text double brackets is the lack of parallels in other gospels by which one could make a claim of assimilation. In fact it is difficult to come up with a reason why the disputed text would be included in Luke if not original and authentic. However, in support of the statement's authenticity, some have reasonably proposed that Jesus' statement was intentionally omitted by some scribes since it communicates an extremely gracious position of forgiving the Jewish (and/or Roman) authorities for their unjust act. This graciousness may have been untenable for some. Also, in view of the destruction of the Temple and the Roman squashing of the Jewish revolt in 70 A.D. it may have been considered by some scribes that Jesus' prayer went unanswered (i.e., judgment came instead of forgiveness). Both of these possibilities offer a more reasonable explanation for intentional omission than an a case for intentional addition.

In short, Majority Text supporters and those wishing to give it a greater say in textual decisions should feel confident that the Majority Text has preserved the original and authentic reading in Luke 23:34. Alexandrian priority supporters who also support inclusion of the passage have to recognize that a case of intentional revision has worked its way into the oldest Greek manuscripts. And they should not be so quick to claim in other textual cases that these manuscripts are necessarily "the oldest and the best." I would further add that under most circumstances a p75 alignment with B in the gospels is considered extremely strong evidence in Alexandrian priority theory and practice. If such an alignment is wrong in this case it can be wrong in others also.

Those who reject the passage as original and authentic are missing out on one of the greatest examples of forgiveness in the Bible. If Jesus could forgive them He can also forgive us. Jesus' prayer on the cross is a reflection of our Lord's heart of deep graciousness, mercy, and pardon. He was falsely accused and judged, and unjustly put to death. He had committed no crime. Most would have called for God's vengeance for such an atrocity or been too consumed with the pain to pray for the welfare of others. Jesus lived just as He taught. He loved His enemies; He blessed those who cursed Him; He did good toward those who hated Him; and He prayed for those who persecuted Him (Matt 5:44).

Comments on Logos 21 the Gospel of John from some readers:

Indeed it is a very inspiring and spiritually building book for the 21st Century
-- Joel Khoza, South Africa

I sincerely appreciate your work on this text called Living Water. I use this opportunity to encourage you in your work . . . .
-- N. C. Enyinnaya, Nigeria