Luke 1-3

 Luke 1-3

] It seemed good to me also, having carefully investigated everything from the beginning, to write an orderly account to you, most excellent Theophilus, 4so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught. [

The old and modern Gothic versions add the addition ( and the Holy Spirit ahmin weihamma ) in Luke 1-3, so the text becomes:

] I also saw, and the Holy Spirit, having carefully investigated everything from the beginning .....[, and some ancient Latin manuscripts from the fifth and sixth centuries, and some Vulgate manuscripts add the phrase ( and the Holy Spirit et spiritu sancto ).

The purpose of the addition is to emphasize that Luke was writing under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, that is, inspired by God, and that the phrase “I also saw” does not mean that the writing was a purely personal decision of Luke far from heaven, but rather that he was writing and collecting information through his human effort and formulating it in his human style while being infallible through the Holy Spirit.

• Objective of the article:

Providing a model that proves that some copyists deliberately distorted the text for doctrinal reasons to serve a certain belief, and discrediting the manuscripts that committed this deliberate forgery, and proving the possibility of the spread of distortion.

• Addition in the Latin tradition:

Some old Latin manuscripts, as well as some Vulgate manuscripts, add the phrase ( and the Holy Spirit et spiritu sancto );

• Codex Veronensis (b) from the fifth century: adds the phrase ( and the Holy Spirit et spiritu sancto ); the following is a transcript of the text of the manuscript :

• Codex Monacensis from the 7th century (q):- adds the phrase ( and the Holy Spirit et spiritu sancto ); but it wrote the word Spirit s an c t o in the sacred abbreviation style called Nomina Sacra where the first, middle and last letters of the word are written, like this S C O. 

Also, the addition is found in 3 manuscripts of the Vulgate :

• Codex Bodleianus from the 8th century.

• Codex Sangermanensis from the 9th century.

• Codex Bigotianus from the 8th century.

Image of the beginning of the Gospel of Luke from the Bogtian manuscript, the addition is highlighted in yellow and written in the sacred abbreviation Nomina Sacra [SPUI SCO] with a line above the two words:-

• Addition in the Gothic tradition:

In the first translations of the New Testament into the Gothic language, which were made in the fourth century by the evangelist Welfilia and the subsequent Gothic versions of the New Testament, and in the famous Gothic Argenteus manuscript from the sixth century AD, called the Silver Manuscript because it was written in silver ink, and also called the Purple Manuscript because it was written on papers colored in this color, and other Gothic manuscripts, there is this addition ( and the Holy Spirit ahmin weihamma )

• Wulfila's version:

Wolfilia the Goth, a Gothic missionary of Greek origin, was the first to translate the New Testament from Greek into Gothic in the fourth century AD. Wolfilia in Gothic means a small wolf.

Text from Wolfilia's version :

Luke 1:3 CA galeikaida jah mis [ jah ahmin weihamma ] from anastodeinai allaim glaggwuba afarlaistjandin gahahjo þus meljan, batista Þaiaufeilu.

One of the editions of Wolflea:

Second edition of Wolflea:

 

You can also browse the version on the Biblia Gothica website :

Luke 1-3

• Electronic version of the Gothic New Testament under the supervision of Kiev University :

Luke 1-3

3 galeikaida jah mis [ jah ahmin weihamma ] fram anastodeinai allaim glaggwuba afarlaistjandin gahahjo þus meljan, batista Þaiaufeilu,

• Meaning of the word ahmin:

Meaning (spirit)

 

Gothic Bible Dictionary :

]ahma from the Greek word pneuma , soul[

[wolverine Mn pneuma spirit ]

• Meaning of the word weihamma :

Its meaning is (Holy)

• The text in the Argentius manuscript:

Transcription of the Argentine manuscript Luke 1-3 :-

1:3 [CA] galeikaida jah mis [ jah ahmin weihamma ] from anastodeinai allaim glaggwuba afarlaistjandin gahahjo þus meljan, batista Þaiaufeilu

Images of the Argenteus manuscript :

Zoom in:

• An improved version of the Argentius manuscript :

• Some critics' comments:

Dr. Carla Falluomini, Professor of Old Gothic Language at the University of Turin, says :

] The Gothic translation adds jah ahmin weihamma, as do the Old Latin b and g 1 and the Vulgate manuscripts B, G, and O [.

[The Gothic version adds jah ahmin weihamma, with the Old Latin mss. b/4, g1/7, q/13 and the Vulgate mss. B, G, O]

 She says:

] The Gothic Bible uses some readings found exclusively in the Old Latin witnesses. For example, Luke 1:3 + and the Holy Spirit jah ahmin weihamma , manuscript b "and the Holy Spirit et spiritui sancto ", manuscript q "and the Holy Spirit et spirituo sancto ".[

[ the Gothic Bible shows some readings shared only with old Latin witnesses.examples include Luke 1:3, +jah ahmin weihamma: the Holy Spirit (b)/ the Holy Spirit (q ) ]

In his doctoral dissertation entitled “The Meaning of the Word ‘Cathexis’ in Luke 1-3” under the supervision of Northwest University, Benjamin Fang says :

]Some Old Latin manuscripts (Veronensis it b and Monacensis it q and some Latin manuscripts add “and the Holy Spirit et spiritui sancto” after “I saw ἔ δοξε κ ἀ μ ο ὶ ”…Metzger (2002: 108) sees the passage as being “I also saw and the Holy Spirit…to write to you respectively.”[

[Some Old Latin manuscripts (itb and itq) and some Vulgate manuscripts have “et spiritui sancto” after ἔδοξεκἀμοὶ... As suggested by Metzger (2002:108), the phrase would be translated as “it seemed best to me and to the Holy Spirit…to write to you in an orderly account.”]

From Wordsworth's famous critical edition of the Vulgate we read the following:

] I + the Holy Spirit, manuscripts B, G, O, manuscript b, q, and the Gothic manuscripts [

[ to me+and the holy spirit BGO bq goth ]

This means that the mentioned manuscripts add the phrase (the Holy Spirit) after the word (I).

Philip Comfort says :

 ] A few old Latin manuscripts (it b+q ) add to the text the phrase "it seemed good to me and to the Holy Spirit." [

[ Borrowing from Acts 15: 28, a few Old Latin manuscripts(itb,q)expand the text to read,"it seemed good to me and the Holy Spirit."]

• Why did the addition happen?

Let us leave the Catholic interpreter George Haydock to explain the reason to us himself without realizing it! He says in his interpretation of Luke 1-3 :

] We see here that, although the Holy Spirit guided the pen of the holy writers so that they would not make mistakes, they still used human means to investigate and search for the truth of the things they mentioned .[

[Here we see, that although the Holy Ghost regulated the pen of the holy writers, that they might not err; they still employed human means to search and find out the truth of things they mentioned.]

The interpreter George Haydock found it necessary and urgent to point out that the phrase (I also saw, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning) does not negate the role of the Holy Spirit in guiding the copyist and protecting him from error, so he was keen to mention that, and this is the same reason that prompted the copyists to add the phrase ( and the Holy Spirit ) to Luke 1-3, which is to point out the doctrine that the copyists wrote while being guided by the Holy Spirit, and the word “I saw” does not negate that the copyist was guided.

In turn, I say that the word (I saw) negates the driving, as the infallible effort is valid after the decision to write, not in it, meaning that I can accept the idea (the copyist was striving to discover the facts, scrutinize them, and search for them by the sweat of his brow, and if he made a mistake, the Holy Spirit would alert him, and the mistake would be corrected), but this does not apply to the origin of the decision to write in general, meaning that it is not correct for Luke’s decision to write to be from himself and not by divine assignment, rather there must be a clear and direct assignment from the Holy Spirit to Luke to write and then after that he uses the sweat of his brow to obtain information and the Spirit guides him, but that he originally began the book by a decision of his own head, this severs any connection between it and the driving, so why do we stick it to it? What did he say to reveal its driving? Nothing, rather he only revealed to us that the decision was by personal effort.

We can also infer the reason for the addition from the commentary of the famous interpreter and church historian Philip Schaff , who says :

] Luke 1:3. I also. He put himself on the same level as these “many,” but the following texts show the superiority of his work. He did not claim, but certainly did not deny, inspiration. Some old Latin manuscripts add here “and the Holy Spirit.” [

[Luke 1:3. To me also. He thus places himself in the ranks of the ‘many,’ but in what follows indicates his superior qualification for the work. He does not claim, but certainly does not disclaim, inspiration. Some old Latin manuscripts add here: et spiritui sancto, ‘and to the Holy Spirit;]

The reason can be derived from Philip Schaff’s statement in his interpretation of Luke 1-3, in which he says that the author (did not claim inspiration), since he did not say that he wrote by inspiration, so it was necessary to add that, and the phrase (I and the Holy Spirit saw) is sufficient to prove inspiration.

I would like to comment with surprise on Chave's statement (certainly he did not deny it)! How is that, and the man was not ordered by heaven to write? Did Luke know about this driving? Did he know that he was writing led by the Holy Spirit? Luke's confirmation that the decision to write was a personal decision similar to the decisions of many, and that his method of knowing the information is similar to the method of investigative critics negates the existence of any relationship between heaven and driving, because when would he be driven if not at the beginning of the decision to write or during the writing? He did not mention driving in these two matters, so when would he mention it? His silence about that and his mention of the normal method of writing is certainly a denial of driving. The personal vision in the origin of the decision to write negates driving.

The same reason that we can understand from Philip Schaff's commentary, which led some copyists to make the addition of the phrase (and the Holy Spirit), we can see in many commentators who were very keen to emphasize that the text does not deny inspiration and the influence of the Holy Spirit, and that the decision to compose was a personal vision of Luke, like many others, and that he was following the method of investigation, this does not negate the fact that Luke was writing under inspiration, according to their claim.

Benjamin Fang says :

] The manuscripts that added the sentence may have been influenced by Acts 15:28 (For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us…), perhaps the copyists who added the sentence wanted to emphasize that the Gospel of Luke was inspired by the Holy Spirit .[

[The witnesses having the insertion are probably affected by Acts 15:28 (“For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us…”), and the scribes who made the insertion probably wanted to emphasize that the Gospel of Luke is inspired by the Holy Spirit.]

• Conclusion:-

The beginning of the Gospel of Luke was a concern that troubled many, which led them to deliberately distort it. After that, a Christian has no right to use manuscripts in textual problems:  

- Codex Veronensis from the 5th century.

- Codex Monacensis from the 7th century.

- Codex Bodleianus, 8th century.

- Codex Sangermanensis from the 9th century.

- Codex Bigotianus from the 8th century.

- Codex Argenteus from the 6th century.

- Gothic manuscripts.

This is because she deliberately forged it, and since this situation exists in all manuscripts! The Christian has become in a real problem, yes all manuscripts, there is no manuscript that has not been proven to have used deliberately forged readings for theological and doctrinal motives. I am not talking about spontaneous errors, and the addition that was made in Luke 1-3 is only one example among hundreds if not thousands of examples.

It is not correct to say, "If the manuscripts agree on a reading, then it is the correct one." This is a phrase that needs to be modified to become, "If the forged manuscripts agree on a reading, then we are forced to accept it because of the trick we have." There is no manuscript that has not been proven to have been deliberately forged in many models. Therefore, their agreement means the agreement of a group of forgers, and we are forced to accept it because if we reject it, we will not find an alternative to it. This is what critics do. We must take into account that they do not consider the agreed-upon reading to be a correct reading in the sense that the author wrote it. They do not have proof that what the manuscripts agreed upon was written by the author, since perhaps all the manuscripts were taken from one copy, and this one is the one that was taken from the original. We do not know whether it was taken from it faithfully, or with some minor distortions, or with many distortions, or whether it was thrown away and replaced! We do not know whether the comparison between the manuscripts is a comparison between copies of the original or copies of that first copy (the Initial Text) that stands between the original and the available manuscript tradition.

The spread of forgery in Gothic copies, both ancient and modern, proves that a distortion made by a handful of manuscripts can spread widely and be relied upon in later periods by an entire church (the Gothic-speaking one).

Praise be to God, Lord of the Worlds