The Westcott/Hort Nine
Matthew 27:49b

Text

27:46. And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, Eli, Eli, Lama sabachthani? That is, My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?

27:47. And some of the bystanders hearing it said, This man is calling Elijah.

27:48. And one of them at once ran and took a sponge, filled it with vinegar, and put it on a reed and gave it to him to drink.

27:49. But the others said, Wait, let us see whether Elijah will come to save him. And another took a spear and pierced his side, and out came water and blood

27:50. And Jesus cried again with a loud voice and yielded up his spirit.

Commentary

The questioned passage is not taken further in the next verse, which without it continues acceptably, if abruptly, as a consecutive narrative. The questioned passage does nothing to reduce the abruptness of the narrative, but rather adds a further element of what looks like gratuitous violence to the previous atmosphere of mockery.

M'Neile 423 notes that the sword (he might have added, also the vinegar) have a smoother narrative context in John: "The bracketed passage is probably an adaptation of Jn 19:34 in an early marginal note, the order "water and blood" being due to Jn 5:6. Its position before "Jesus again cried with a loud voice" must have been due to the carelessness of a scribe, who carried it into his text from the margin, mechanically making allos to follow immediately upon eis (v48). The passage is rightly omitted in "Western" authorities."

So also, in essence, Metzger Commentary 59 ad loc: "Although attested by [Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Ephraemi Rescriptus, Regius, et al], the words allos de labwn logchn enuxen autou thn pleuran, kai exhlqen udwr kai aima must be regarded as an early intrusion derived from a similar account in Jn 19:34. It might be thought that the words were omitted because the represent the piercing as preceding Jesus' death, whereas John makes it follow, but that difference would only have been a reason for moving the passage to a later position (perhaps at the close of v50 or 54 or 56), or else there would have been some tampering with the passage in John, which is not the case. It is probable that the Johannine passage was written by some reader in the margin of Matthew from memory (there are several minor differences, such as the sequence of "water and blood"), and a later copyist awkwardly introduced it into the text." This is substantially the view of M'Neile, many years earlier, and is no less sensible as here restated. It is interesting to compare this rather rational handling of the Matthew passage with the same Committee's treatment of the eight Luke passages in this set.

The present scribal error scenario separates this one Matthew "Non-interpolation" from the others, all of which are in Luke, and all of which, as we shall presently see, have theological or narrative improvement as their probable motive.

That Matthew should seem to have a puzzlingly abrupt narrative which only John clarifies need not mean that Matthew is a confused recollection of the earlier and better John; it may be that John is a later smoothed and rationalized version, one more fully intelligible to new readers, of a Matthean precedent which may have been more a mnemonic than a strictly informative text. An opera is easier to follow if you already know the words, or at least the outline of the plot. A similar comparison can be made at many points as between Mark and Luke. Among other things, Luke and John are concerned to produce a satisfactory narrative; the first few words of Luke openly state this intention. It has often been remarked that Luke is the first historian among the Evangelists. His work (and a fortiori that of John) may mark the transition from the Gospel genre to the history genre in the early New Testament writings.

Nolland Luke 3/1041 note c (about Lk 22:19-20): "The text belongs to a context where it may be assumed that everybody knows how to complete the missing words." This type of argument is perilous as a general principle, since it too easily legitimates narrative gaps of all sorts, but that does not mean that it may not have valid particular applications.

Conclusion

Omit as unnecessary and inconsecutive, and explain, with M'Neile, as an incorporated marginal gloss, in effect an accidental contamination of the text of Matthew with that of John. It is not a Western (Bezae) omission but an inadvertent change made in the main line of descent, at some point after the separation of the Western text line from that main line.

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