Text Note: Luke 14:5

There are at least two significant textual variations:

First:  Should the participle “answering [apokritheis]” be included in the text along with the verb “he said [eipen]”?

The traditional text includes the participle and the modern critical text excludes it.  This is reflected in modern translations (emphasis added):

KJV [traditional text] Luke 14:5 And answered them, saying, Which of you shall have an ass or an ox fallen into a pit, and will not straightway pull him out on the sabbath day?

Note on KJV:  Interestingly, the translators make the participle the finite verb and the finite verb the participle.  A literal rendering of the Greek would be:  “And answering, he said….”

NASB [modern critical text] Luke 14:5 And He said to them, "Which one of you shall have a son or an ox fall into a well, and will not immediately pull him out on a Sabbath day?"

External evidence:  The inclusion of the participle has peculiarly strong external support, including the original hand and the second corrector of Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, Theta, Psi, family 13, and the vast majority of manuscripts.

The omission of the participle, on the other hand, is supported by p 45, p 75, the first corrector of Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and family 1, among others.

This is another place where Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are not clearly on the same side.

Internal evidence:  Metzger apparently sees this difference minor enough as not to warrant analysis in his Textual Commentary.  An obvious reason why some might have omitted the verse is the fact that in context Jesus has not been asked anything.  Quite the contrary, it is Jesus who is asking a question.  Why then would Luke say that Jesus was answering?  On the other hand, this makes the inclusion of the participle the more difficult reading.  Luke assumes a context of back and forth conversation over the sabbath meal at the Pharisee’s house, though he does not include all the dialogue.

Conclusion:  The inclusion of the participle apokritheis has ancient and widespread manuscript support.  It provides a more difficult reading.  We can understand why some might have wanted to remove it, but it is less easy to understand why it would have been inserted if not originally there.  The traditional reading, therefore, should be upheld.

Second, and most significant (and much more complicated), is whether or not the text should read “ass [onos]” or “son [huios].”

The Textus Receptus reads “ass” and the modern critical text reads “son.”  Interestingly, the Byzantine text also reads “son.”  This difference is reflected in modern translations (emphasis added):

KJV [traditional text] Luke 14:5 And answered them, saying, Which of you shall have an ass or an ox fallen into a pit, and will not straightway pull him out on the sabbath day?

NASB [modern critical text] Luke 14:5 And He said to them, "Which one of you shall have a son or an ox fall into a well, and will not immediately pull him out on a Sabbath day?"

External evidence:  The reading of the Textus Receptus is supported by Sinaiticus, K, L, Psi, family 1, family 13, and others.  The reading of the Majority Text, in this case followed by the modern critical text, is supported by p 45, p 75, Vaticanus, W, and the vast majority of Byzantine manuscripts.  Codex D reads probaton, “sheep.”

This is another example of lack of agreement between Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.

Internal evidence:  Metzger says, “The oldest reading preserved in the manuscripts seems to be huios e bous” (Textual Commentary, p. 164).   He adds that because “the collocation of the two words appeared to be incongruous” copyists altered either the word “son” (harmonizing with Luke 13:15) or “sheep” (harmonizing with Matt 12:11).  He notes that several witnesses (Theta, 2174, and syr c) conflate all three words (“son, ass, sheep”).  The alleged harmonization with Matthew 12:11, however, seems somewhat overblown since only one cited manuscript D, reads probaton.

One might easily see how confusion could emerge between the words onos and huios which both end with the typical second declension masculine nominative singular ending  –os.  They key question is which reading makes most sense within context.  Jesus is castigating the Pharisees who forbade healing on the sabbath as a form of medical work.  If the reading is “ass” he would then be drawing a contrast between care for animals and care for human beings.  In this manner he draws an analogy from the lesser to the greater.  If one cares for animals on the sabbath is it not much more needful to care for human beings on the sabbath?  The same type of argument is, indeed, made in Luke 13:15-17.  If the reading “son” is accepted then the sophisticated “lesser to greater” argument is disrupted.  It appears that the TR reading of Luke 14:5 is less a verbal harmonization with Luke 13:15 than it is a consistent use of a similar rhetorical argument.

Analysis:  The reading of the TR has ancient and widespread support, though it is not the reading of the Byzantine Majority.  Most importantly, the TR reading seems to fit best the context and is crucial to sustain the consistency of the argument that is being presented by Jesus to justify healing on the sabbath.