Re: Luke 23:34a

mcdonald@teleport.com (Daniel J. McDonald) quoted and commented as follows:

>> Luke 23:34a is among those passages that are not supported by the best
>>manuscript evidence, but are included as part of the Nestle (and UBS) text
>>because of their antiquity, their dignity and their influence in the
>>of the church.

>Well, if being missing from 2 manuscripts indicates lack of support, I guess

>that's that.  I would have thought that UBS would have classified it as {A} 
>text, because it was in the first hand of Sinaticus, which UBS generally 
>values very highly (much more than I do.)  Its presence in Alexandrinus in a

>slight variation (o de Ihsous eipen afes autois ou gar oidasin ti toiousin) 
>certainly attests to the antiquity of the text.

	It does seem odd that the editors qualified v. 34a a {C} and still put it in
double square brackets.  One would expect that if they felt fairly sure it
was not part of the original text, they would have classified it with a {D}.
 Bruce Metzger explains in _A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament_
that the passage was put in double square brackets mainly because of the
early nature, and diversity of the evidence against its inclusion.

	BTW, I think both P75 and B are considered more reliable than Aleph (in the
case of B, especially so in the Gospels).

David Moore