The Westcott/Hort Nine
Luke 24:5b

Text

24:4. While they were perplexed about this, behold, two men stood by them in dazzling apparel,

24:5. and as they were frightened and bowed their faces to the ground, the men said to them, Why seek you the living among the dead? He is not here, but has risen.

24:6. Remember how he told you, while was still in Galilee, . . .

Commentary

The addition merely makes clear the implication of the Empty Tomb: that Jesus has risen from the dead. This prevents the inference that the body has been moved elsewhere (or, as some Jews were later to claim, has been stolen by his disciples). The added line makes it definite that a miracle has occurred. It might well have been added for just that reason. See further the argument on the Summary page.

Metzger Commentary 157 (ap Lk 24:6a, which is the alternate numbering of the passage in question): "A minority of the Committee preferred to follow the evidence of [Bezae and several other manuscripts] and to omit the words ouk estin wde, alla hgerqh as an interpolation (see the note following 24:53), derived from Mt 28:6 and/or Mk 16:6, and cast into antithetic form ( . . . alla . . .). The majority of the Committee, on the other hand, interpreted the antithesis as evidence of independence of the Lukan formulation from that of Matthew and Mark (which lack alla). In any case, the reading of [Ephraemi Rescriptus and other manuscripts, which also lack alla, but otherwise agree with Vaticanus et al] is obviously a scribal assimilation to the Synoptic parallels."

The chief argument here turns on whether the Synoptics are independent or mutually involved. There are many instances in the Nine passages here considered of what looks like later cross-contamination between the Gospels. That is what is here proposed by the minority opinion, and we confess we cannot see how it is invalidated by a claim of relative independence between the Gospels, or at any rate less mutual influence among the Gospels, at an earlier period. The majority argument thus does not seem to void the minority argument, and we consider that the minority argument accordingly stands.

Conclusion

Omit as a later interpretive emphasis and safeguard.

25 May 2006 / Contact The Project / Exit to Biblica Page