[doi 10.1484%2FJ.APOCRA.2.300956] --

8/20/2019 [doi 10.1484%2FJ.APOCRA.2.300956] --

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/doi-1014842fjapocra2300956- 1/7

JamesKeith ELLIOTT

Universityof Leeds

THE INFLUENCE OF THE APOCRYPHA

ON MANUSCRIPTS

OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

Cettecontribution pose a question si les textesapocryphesont influen-

ce la tradition manuscrite du Nouveau Testament. ncontestablement es

Epftres pastorales ont cite a deux reprises les Actes de Paul et Thecle.

Partout ailleurs oil un parallele entre une variante neotestamentaire t un

texte apocryphe peut etre etabli il est plus probable que ce soient les

manuscritsneotestamentaires ui ont influence Ie texte apocryphe.

This article asks f we can ind traces of apocryphal material in the NT

manuscript tradition. There are two unambiguous references o the Acts

of Paul and Thecla in manuscripts of the Pastoral Epistles. Elsewhere

whenever here are links betweena variant form in the NT manuscript

and an apocryphal parallel it is more likely that the direction of nfluen-

ce is away rom the NT towards the apocryphal text than vice versa.

Various examplesare given and discussed.

We know that the church fathers were aware of the existence

of what we now call apocryphal texts. Clement of Alexandria

Origen Eusebius Epiphanius and Jerome quoted from gospels

of a Jewish-Christian character. We also know that Serapion of

Antioch discovered that the church in Rhossos was using the

Gospelof Peter. Often the fathers refer to an apocryphal work in

order to condemn its use. Similarly the 6th century Gelasian

Decree the 9th century Stichometry of Nicephorus and the 7th

century List of the Sixty Books were drawn up to indicate the

demarcation line between what was approved and what was dis-

puted or condemned. Our purpose in rehearsing these well

known facts is merely to emphasize the obviously widespread

use and knowledge of many of these texts over severalcenturies.

I accept the generally held scholarly consensus hat the apoc-

ryphal texts are secondary to the canonical that many of the

apocryphalgospels n particular were composedwith the canoni-

8 1997 p. 265-271

8/20/2019 [doi 10.1484%2FJ.APOCRA.2.300956] --


266

K. ELLIOTr

cal gospels in mind, and that the authors of these texts used,

expanded, and even tried to correct the canonical material. My

question now is to ask if scribes of New Testament manuscripts

were influenced by the wording, form or even the context of the

secondary,derivative, apocryphal texts as they were copying and

reproducing a New Testament text. In other words: Is the apoc-

ryphal tradition reflected in textual variation in the NT manu-

script tradition? Are there any variants in our NT manuscripts

that are due to the influence of the apocrypha?

I make this enquiry because of my own twin research

interests: (a) the textual tradition of the Greek NT and (b) the

NT apocrypha. My interest in a possible overlap was awakened

many years ago when I was at work on the Pastoral Epistles

where NT cursives 181 and 460 make extensive additions to the

text of 2 Timothy 3 : 11; 4: 19; Titus 1: 9.11. In two places the

additions reflect the Acts of Paul and Thecla:

At 2 Timothy 3 : 11181 adds a ota tllv 0t.KAav E7ta9EVfter tv

'AVttOXEta (There is some support from uncial K.)

At 2 Timothy 4 : 19 181 and 460 add At.KtpaV tllv yuVatKa au-

to\) Kat ~t~atav Kat Ztlvrova tOUC; 10UC;uto\) after' AKuAav.

Unfortunately my interest has lain dormant. Now I raise the

question about the influence of the apocrypha on NT manu-

scripts. My answer to the question, however, is in general nega-

tive -namely that, despite the apparent popularity of many of

the apocrypha, their texts seem not to have significantly influ-

enced NT scribes. That negative conclusion might itself be of

significance.

But first let us look at some of those places where it may be

possible to detect an influence. One of the most important is the

voice from heaven at Jesus' baptism in the Gospel of the

Ebionites, as cited by Epiphanius2. The message here includes

«You are my beloved Son ...today have I begotten you » which

approximates to the Western text, specifically the text of Codex

Bezae (D), at Luke 3: 22. Bart Ehrman in his recent book3 has

argued that this text is original to Luke and that the reading of

our printed editions: «You are my beloved Son, in whom I am

well pleased» is what he brands as an orthodox corruption of

1. J. K. ELLIO1T, The Greek Text of the Epistles to Timothy and Titus

(Studies and Documents 36), Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press,1968.

2. Adv. Haer. 30, 13.

3. B. D. EHRMAN,The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, New York and

Oxford: Oxford University Press,1993,p. 62-67.

8/20/2019 [doi 10.1484%2FJ.APOCRA.2.300956] --


267

rn INFLUENCE ON MANUSCRIPTS OF mE NT

Scripture -here the changing of Luke s words to that found in

the Marcan parallel. Ehrman sees his change as part of a pat-

tern found in severalplaces to avoid adoptionist understandings

of Jesus baptism. If the D text is original to Luke then of course

the Gospelof the Ebionites is a witness to that reading and may

be listed alongside he patristic witnesses which support D, such

as Origen, Methodius and others. If the adoptionist reading does

not go back to Luke we have two possibilities: either the Gospel

of the Ebionites knew the NT reading that survives in D, or that

the non-canonical Gospel originated that reading. If the latter

were the case, then one could conclude that the Gospel of the

Ebionites had influenced D.

Epiphanius also claims4 hat the Gospel of the Ebionites cites

the passageknown to Mark 3 : 31-5 and parallels. There is no

mention of Jesus sisters n the parallel to v. 32 although they are

mentioned in the parallel to Mark v. 35. Variants in manuscripts

at v. 32 add Kat ai uoEA,<pairou bracketed in the text of the 27th..

edition of Nestle-Aland [=NA27]). If this longer text were origi-

nal to Mark, then the shorter text could have arisen through

homoeoteleuton, or by harmonization to the parallels in

Matthew and Luke (which do not refer to «sisters» at this

point). If the shorter text were original to Mark, then the expan-

sion could have developed out of v. 35. All this means s that the

Gospelof the Ebionites s closer o the shorter text in Mark 3: 32.

We would be perverse to argue that the short text of Mark 3 : 32

has been nfluenced by the Gospel of the Ebionites.

The so-called Fayyum fragment seems o parallel Mark 14: 27-

30. If so, it omits v. 28 (the prophesy that Jesus will lead the dis-

ciples to the Galilee after his Resurrection) unless of course this

fragment represents a pre-Marcan form of the pericope. No NT

manuscripts omit verse 28 from the text of Mark. However, the

Fayyum Fragment agrees with the variant in Mark that refers to

the twofold cockcrow. If oiC;s not original to Mark then, again,

should we consider that the direction of change is for manu-

scripts of Mark to have added it out of their knowledge of the

apocryphal expansion of the canonical account? As far as other

similarities between the Fayyum fragment and the synoptic ver-

sion are concerned, the words (but not the order) «in this

night» agree with the v.I. adding the words in Mark 14: 27

(through assimilation to Matthew). The order ta 7tp6I3a taOta-

OlCop7ttcrOilcrov tatn the Fayyum fragment agreeswith the text of

Adv. Hael:30,14.

8/20/2019 [doi 10.1484%2FJ.APOCRA.2.300956] --


268

K. ELLIO"IT

~B in Mark. The Majority text at Mark 14: 28 has the word

order 3, 1, 2 -probably reflecting assimilation to the order

found in Matthew. The Fayyum fragment seems to support cr1'1~E-

pov in Mark 14: 30. Some manuscripts of Mark omit cr1'1~EpOV,

which is the first of two consecutive time expressions in Mark -

those manuscripts therefore agree with Matthew. Again, our

question about the possible influence of the apocryphal text on

some manuscripts of Mark still applies, but my reaction is that it

is unlikely that there has been any influence on the manuscripts

of Mark other than the usual tendency of scribes to harmonize

synoptic parallels.

The Western addition to John 5: 39 by the Old Latin manu-

scripts a and b and, in part, ff together with the Curetonian

Syriac, noted in the apparatus to NA27, seems to have support

from Egerton Papyrus 2: EV aic; u~E1C;ooKEltE ~ro1'\v ,;XElV:

EKElvat Elcrlv a\ ~apt\)poucral 1tEpt E~OU.One would need strong

evidence before one could argue that the early versions had

been influenced by the form of the wording known to us in the

Egerton manuscript.

It could be considered that it is in the area of the logia of Jesus

where we could expect a different version of a saying popular-

ized from one of the apocrypha to have influenced the NT scribal

tradition. By looking at the Greek logia parallel to the Gospel of

Thomas in the Oxyrhynchus fragments, we note that logion 26

reproduces the saying in Matthew 7 :3-5 = Luke 6:41-43. P. Oxy.

1 reads: ...Kat tOtE olaJ3AE"'ElC; EKJ3aAElv to KUPi pOC;o EV

6<l>eaA~~ OU aoEA<t>ourO\). f we were to add P. Oxy. 1 to the NT

apparatus it would be in support of Luke in reading to EV t~

6i peaA~~ (v. I. by D in Luke harmonizes to Matthew's EK tOU

6<l>eaA~ou)and in support of Matthew's position of EKJ3aAElv v.

I. in manuscripts of Luke repositioning EKJ3aAElvs a harmoniza-

tion,to Matthew). As far as influence is concerned, I would argue

that P. Oxy. 1 harmonizes Matthew and Luke -but if we wish to

keep open every possibility one could perhaps consider that to

EV ~ 6<l>eaA~~and that EKJ3aAElv fter olaJ3AE"'ElC;n the major-

ity of manuscripts of Luke came from the apocryphal text.

Logion 4b in P. Oxy. 654 is close to Matthew 19 : 30 (cf. 20: 16)

= Mark 10 : 31 = Luke 13 : 305. P. Oxy. 654 has 0\ before l,;crxatOl,

an addition not found in the usual printed synoptic text although

S. The other relatively complete logia are logion 5 in P.Oxy. 654 which

seems close to Matthew 10:26 = Mark 4:22 = Luke 8: 17/12:2 and

logion 36 in P. Oxy. 655 (= Matthew 6: 25), but these do not deviate

from the canonical counterparts.

8/20/2019 [doi 10.1484%2FJ.APOCRA.2.300956] --


269

E INFLUENCE ON MANUSCRIPTS OF mE NT

v. I. by BC adds o't in Mark. Is the omission of the article in Mark

due to harmonization to Matthew 19: 30 or the addition due to

harmonization to Matthew 20 : 16 or even from P. Oxy. 654? P.

Oxy. has the sequence 1tpro't01 -EO"xa't01, l .O"xa't011tpro't01. In

Matthew 19: 30 ~L and others invert the order of the words

1tpro't01 -l .O"xa't01 and l .O"xa't01 1tpro't01. Our printed texts

usually have Matthew 19: 30 and Mark 10: 31 in agreement but if

one accepts the text of ~L as original to Matthew 19 : 30, one may

argue along other lines. It is a sound principle to accept a variant

that has the effect of preserving differences between parallels,

especially here where Matthew's preferred order is clear from

20 : 16, the text of which is firm in the manuscripts. One would

then argue that P. Oxy. 654 is following Mark; it is unlikely that

P. Oxy. 654 has influenced the majority of manuscripts at

Matthew 19 :30.

The text of ~* at Matthew 6: 28 seems to be: ou ~al VOtJ0"1

OUOf. 1l90tJ0"1V UOf. O1t1ro0"1V,reading reflected in P. Oxy. 655,

according to the reconstruction by T. C. Skeat in ZNW 37 (1938)

p. 211-214, which is a't1va ou ~alvE1 OUOf.V1l9E1.The original

form of the logion (possibly preceding the version in Q) had

«carding» not «growing ». The primitive ~alvE1v was changed

to au~avE1v in all witnesses of Matthew except ~*. One conclu-

sion may be that the original scribe of Sinaiticus found this

(authentic) form in a non-canonical gospel like P. Oxy. 655.

In the Acts of Pilate 14: 1 there is an important witness to part

of the longer ending to Mark, particularly 16: 15-18: «Go into

all the world and preach the gospel to the whole creation. He

who believes and is baptised will be saved, but he who does not

believe will be condemned. And these signs will accompany

those who believe: in my name they will cast out demons; they

will speak in new tongues; they will pick up serpents, and if they

drink any deadly thing, it will not hurt them; they will lay their

hands on the sick and they will recoyer.» Apocryphal texts

obviously found the statements about poison and snakes rele-

vant to their interests, but the version of this text in the Acts of

Pilate omits Kat tv 'talC; Xf.p0"1V,an omission found as a v. I. in

ADW fam. 13 and others in Mark 16 : 18. Could it be that the

Acts of Pilate has influenced that reading? Again I think it most

improbable. The influence is likely to be in the opposite direc-

tion.

The Berlin papyrus 11710 includes the confession O"UEi <>J'tOC;

'tou 9EOU.There is a v. I. by p66 and 1241 at John 1: 49 adding

<lA,1l9roc;o this phrase, an addition which is also found firmly

established in the version of the proclamation in Matthew 14 : 33.

It is unnecessary and unwarranted to look to a single manuscript

8/20/2019 [doi 10.1484%2FJ.APOCRA.2.300956] --


270

J. K. ELLIOTT

of the text represented by the Berlin papyrus 11710 for the ori-

gin of the text without aAllero<;.That would be to put the cart

before the horse: the Berlin fragment is likely to be quoting the

normal, i. e. shorter, reading of John 1: 49. P. Berol. 11710 s not

a NT manuscript and cannot be used as a text supporting om.

aAllero<; t John 1 : 496.

Many of the examples above can be explained within the

context of the NT manuscript tradition without any reference to

deviations in the apocryphal sources. In many ways it is the lack

of influence that is striking: P. Oxy. 1224quotes a passageclose

to Matthew 9: 10-13 = Mark 2: 15-17 = Luke 5: 27-32. In P.Oxy.

1224 there is a mention of priests in the verse parallel to Mark

2: 16: «And the scribes and the Phariseesand priests, when they

saw him were angry...». This version is not to be found in any of

the manuscripts of the NT gospels. (Mark speaksof « the scribes

of the Pharisees », Matthew: «the scribes », Luke: «Pharisees

and scribes ».) The apocryphal reading is on its own.

Similarly one may point to the later christian additions of

names to persons who are nameless in the NT -the magi, or

the 72 disciples, for example. Some additions are found in our

apocryphal literature, notably the names of the two criminals

crucified alongside Jesus (named as Dysmas and Gestas in the

Acts of Pilate) or the centurion guarding Jesus tomb (Petronius

in the Gospel of Peter). These additions seem not to have pene-

trated the manuscripts of the Greek NT itself.

Additional stories found in part of the NT manuscript tradi-

tion of the canonical gospels, such as the longer and shorter

endings to Mark, the logion in D found after Luke 6 : 4, or the

pericope about the adulterous woman, as well as certain other

textually uncertain sayings, are more likely to be floating oral

stories about Jesus and so-called «agrapha» that eventually

found literary expression in the NT manuscript tradition. There

is no need to suspect that any of these originally came from a

« lost » apocryphal gospel.

6. W. L. PETERSENs wrong in his review of the IGNTP Luke volumes

(Journal of Biblical Literature 107 [1988], p. 758-762) to expect the

Gospel of Thomas or any other apocryphal text in the critical apparatus

of the Greek NT. In such an apparatus one should find only witnesses,

Greek or versional, that are copies of the NT text itself, or patristic wit-

nesses hat are citing the NT text. In NA27 t is wrong to cite P. Eg. 2 in

the apparatus to John 5 :39 : the Fayyum Fragment cited in the 26thedi-

tion at Mark 14 28 has been abandoned in the 27thedition.

8/20/2019 [doi 10.1484%2FJ.APOCRA.2.300956] --


271

HE INFLUENCE ON MANUSCRIPTS OF THE NT

We have been suggesting hat the NT tradition and the apoc-

ryphal material are significantly independent. However when an

apocryphal text is not on its own and has a close or identical

wording to a synoptic parallel the direction of change is likely

always to be that the New Testament has influenced the apocry-

phal writing rather than that an apocryphal text has nfluenced a

scribe of the NT. Only where we find an occurrence of a long

addition that comes from an apocryphon is there no ambiguity.

Such an occurrence s rare.

If any reader knows or discovers any examples of NT manu-

scripts betraying an influence from an apocryphal source com-

parable to my opening examples of the text of the Acts of Paul

and Thecla within manuscripts of the Pastoral Epistles I would

be grateful for such information. In the absence of such addi-

tional evidence I think we must accept my general conclusion

that the apocryphal texts have not influenced scribes of the New

Testament.