southwestern baptist theological seminary school of theology ... - Lorin

EVALUATION OF EXTERNAL EVIDENCE
1. Date.
Reading 1 is well attested among the Alexandrian manuscripts. Reading 4 is present in the
Diatessaron (II) and the Boharic Coptic (IV) which are also early readings. Reading 2 has one
early reading in goth (IV).
The canon of date favors Reading 1 in number of manuscripts but Reading 4 has the earliest
manuscript in the Diatessaron.
2. Geographical Distribution.
The geographical distribution favors Reading 2.
44
3. Textual Relationships.
Reading 1 has the attestation of the best Alexandrian mss., a and B. Reading 4 also has one
early Alexandrian witness in cop bo while Reading 2 and Reading 3 both have late Alexandrian
witness. Reading 2 is favored in the unreliable Byzantine witnesses. In addition f 1 and f 13 point
to a local text.
Summary of the External Evidence
The external evidence favors reading one with early attestation and strong textual relationship (a
and B).
EVALUATION OF THE INTERNAL EVIDENCE
1. Transcriptional Probabilities, i. e. what scribes likely did when copying the N. T.
(1) Shorter/Longer Reading.
Preference should be given to Reading 1 which is the shortest reading.
(2) Reading Different from Parallel.
Reading 1 is different from the parallel in Matthew 4:4. Readings 2-4 may be attempts to
harmonize with Matthew or the LXX.
(3) More Difficult Reading.
Reading 3 is the most difficult but could represent an attempt to smooth out the Greek (ejn
instead of ejpi.
(4) Reading Which Best Explains Origin of Other (s).
Reading 1 best explains the origin of 2-4. A scribe is unlikely to have shorted a longer reading,
especially if this would destroy the parallel to Matthew and the LXX. Rather, the other readings
are most likely attempts to harmonize Luke with Matthew and/or the LXX.