Tag Archives: Luke

αὐτοῦ versus ἑαυτοῦ in Luke’s Gospel

I am now fully annoyed by the recurring variant in the gospel of Luke between αὐτοῦ and ἑαυτοῦ.  The UBS and RP texts alternate sides back and forth.

The latest is Luke 15:5, ἐπὶ τοὺς ὤμους ἑαυτοῦ (BYZ) or ἐπὶ τοὺς ὤμους αὐτοῦ (UBS).  He places it upon his shoulders.  The KJV does not render this “his OWN shoulders” as do some recent translations of the BYZ text.  There is no real reason to.

15:26 πατέρα ἑαυτοῦ v. πατέρα αὐτοῦ (BYZ)
Again, there is no reason to render this “his OWN father.”

14:27 σταυρὸν ἑαυτοῦ (UBS) v. σταυρὸν αὐτοῦ (BYZ)
His OWN cross v his cross, this one may be meaningful.

15:20 πατέρα ἑαυτοῦ (UBS) vs πατέρα αὐτοῦ (BYZ)

Complicating this, and perhaps explaining the rise of this, is the contraction of ἑαυτοῦ which is αὑτοῦ. Note the rough breathing mark, which is the only thing that distinguishes it from αὐτοῦ.  The early papyri and uncials may not show this, so they could read either way.

Luke 2;15 Textual Variant

Luke 2:15a txt οἱ ποιμένες ℵ B L W Θ Ξ 1 565 700 1071 1582* it-a,aur,b,β,e,f,ff²,l,r¹ vg syr-s,p,pal copsa,bo arm geo Or-lat Eus NA28 ‖ καὶ οἱ ἄνθρωποι οἱ ποιμένες A D E F G H K M P S U Y Γ Δ Λ Ψ Ω 053 ƒ¹³ 2 28 33 118 157 892 1009 1010 1079 1195 1216 1230 1241 1242 1344 1424 1546 1582c 2148 2174 ? Lect-m it-(e),d,q syr-h Diatess-a,n,t TR RP ‖ καὶ οἱ ποιμένες 579 1365 ‖ lac ?⁴⁵ ?⁷⁵ C N Q T Π

This variant was footnoted with a [D] rating of certainty in the UBS3, and now in the UBS5 is not footnoted at all.

The Byzantine text presents an odd style, which the UBS commentary says is Lukan.  The biggest difficulty with the Byz reading is the word και.  Most of the translations from the Byz text translate και as “that,” (a Semitism?) while the KJV did not translate it at all.  The other major difference is the addition of οι ανθρωποι.  The main translations treat οἱ ἄνθρωποι οἱ ποιμένες as a pleonasm and translate it simply as “the shepherds.”  This latter is indeed Lukan style.  But και as “that,” not so much Lukan style.  I’ve seen it in John.

First the UBS text and translation:

Καὶ ἐγένετο, ὡς ἀπῆλθον ἀπ’ αὐτῶν εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν οἱ ἄγγελοι, οἱ ποιμένες ἐλάλουν πρὸς ἀλλήλους

DRP: And it came about that when the angels had departed from them into heaven, the shepherds were saying to one another

Now the Byz text and some translations thereof:

Καὶ ἐγένετο, ὡς ἀπῆλθον ἀπ’ αὐτῶν εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν οἱ ἄγγελοι, καὶ οἱ ἄνθρωποι οἱ ποιμένες εἶπον πρὸς ἀλλήλους

MLV: And it happened, as the messengers went away from them into heaven, and the men, the shepherds, said to one another,

ALT: And it happened, when the angels departed from them into heaven, that the men, the shepherds, said to one another

Geneva: And it came to passe whe the Angels were gone away from them into heauen, that the shepheards sayde one to another,

EMTV: So it was, when the angels had departed from them into heaven, that the shepherds said to one another,

KJV: And it came to pass, as the angels were gone away from them into heaven, the shepherds said one to another,

Download the Luke document containing this data in a footnote.

Simon the Zealot or Canaanite?

In Mark 3:18 and Matthew 10:4, the the King James Bible has Simon as a Canaanite.  However, in Luke 6:15 and Acts 1:13, the KJV has Simon as a Zealot.  These are not really compatible to be mutually co-existent, since Jesus would not have appointed a Gentile to be one of the Twelve, or one of the names on the twelve foundations of the New Jerusalem in Revelation 21:14.  In teh Matthew passage, in the very next verse, Matt. 10:5, Jesus tells the twelve not to go down any Gentile road, but to go “only to the lost sheep of Israel.”  Jesus surely would not tell a Gentile that.  Moreover, since the KJV admits that Simon was a zealot, this is also unlikely, that a Gentile would be a Zealot, one of the factions of Judaism.  The earliest manuscripts of Matthew and Mark say Simon was a καναναῖος, which word was derived from the Aramaic word for Zealot.  And the Textus Receptus and the Byzantine text have Simon a Κανανίτης.  Strong’s Concordance for this word, G2581, says this word also is derived from קנּא kan-naw’, “Jealous.” Canaan in Greek consistently starts with the letter Χ :

Canaan (ie., Genesis 13:12) Χανααν; Canaanite: Χαναναίων (Genesis 10:18) Χαναναίους (Genesis 15:21)  And in the NT, for the Canaanite woman, Matt 15:22, Χαναναία

BDAG Lexicon: “Κανανίτης, ου, ὁ man from Cana, Cananite. Acc. to Strabo 14, 5, 14 one of the two Stoics named Athenodorus received this name to distinguish him fr. the other Ath.; ἀπὸ κώμης τινός (Cana near Tarsus) was added. Numerous mss. replace the apparently unintelligible Καναναῖος with this term.” Under Κανά it says the home of, “according to many, also of Simon, Mt 10:4 (s. Καναναῖος). – Heinz Noetzel, Christus und Dionysus ’60. – EDNT.BBHW II 926. M-M.”

The bottom line is that both variants apparently mean the same thing: someone from Cana.  The KJV saying Canaanite is simply rendered incorrectly in English.

I have updated my footnotes on the pertinent passages in Matthew and Mark.  They are linked for downloading.