The Issue:
The question here is whether or not the phrase “and of a
honeycomb [kai apo melissiou keriou]”
should be included. The traditional text
includes the phrase, while the modern critical text omits it. Compare (emphasis added):
KJV Luke 24:42 And they gave
him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an
honeycomb.
NIV Luke 24:42 They gave him a piece of broiled fish,
External evidence:
The traditional text is
supported by the following Greek manuscripts:
K, N, Gamma, Delta, Psi, family 1, 33, 565, 700, 892, 1241, 1424, and
Lectionary 2211. It also is the reading
if the majority of extant Greek manuscripts.
In addition, the close alternate traditional reading with the final noun
in the accusative rather than the genitive case [kai apo melissiou kerion] is found in Theta, family 13, and Lectionary 844.
As for
the versions, it appears in the Vulgate and some Old Latin mss., the Syriac
(Curetonian, Peshitta, Harklean * *). In
addition, the reading is found in the Church Fathers Cyril of Jerusalem and
Epiphanius of Contantia.
The modern critical text, on
the other hand, is supported by the following seven Greek manuscripts: p75,
Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, D, L, W, and 579. It is
also found in the following versions: Latin
manuscript e (5th century), Syriac Sinaiticus, Coptic Sahidic, and
some Coptic Bohairic. It is also the
reading found in Clement of Alexandria.
Internal evidence:
In his
Textual Commentary, Metzger concludes
that the witnesses for the traditional text, occurring in the “later
manuscripts,” are “an obvious interpolation, for it is not likely that they
would have fallen out of so many of the best representatives of the earlier
text-types” (pp. 187-188). He then adds
the speculation that the phrase might have been included due to the use of
honey “in parts of the ancient church” in its Eucharistic and baptismal
liturgy, adding, “copyists may have added the reference here in order to
provide scriptural sanction for liturgical practices” (p. 188). Again, Metzger is a master of introducing
speculative possibilities which “may” have happened and which justify the
editorial decisions of the modern critical text.
There
are, however, at least two other credible possibilities:
First,
the omission could have occurred due to an unintentional parablepsis as the eye of the copyist skipped from the kai of the opening phrase in question
to the kai which begins b. 43: kai
labon enopion auton ephagen (“And taking before them he ate”).
Second,
the omission might have occurred due to the unique mention of honey. This might have come from docetic tendencies
to minimize the risen Jesus’ eating of food or from an effort to harmonize the
text with John 21:9, 13, which describes the risen Jesus eating fish and bread,
but not honey. One might also turn
Metzger’s speculation on its ear and suggest the phrase was removed by those in
the ancient church who did not use honey in their Eucharistic and baptismal
liturgy.
Conclusion:
The phrase “and of honey” is omitted in seven
Greek manuscripts, including codex A, which typically supports the Majority
reading. It clearly has origins in
ancient times, however, and became the dominant reading in the Greek manuscripts
and in the versions.
There
is no conclusive, non-speculative internal evidence that rules out inclusion
and many reasonable, though speculative, reasons to explain how and why
omission might have occurred.
The
fuller reading of Luke 24:42 was accepted as the authoritative reading of the traditional
text, as reflected in its appearance in the majority of Greek manuscripts. There is no compelling or convincing reason
to remove it.
