Twentieth Century, Authentic, Phillips, NEB, New Berkeley, NAB and Jerusalem overtly state that the sun was eclipsed. While versions such as NASB, TEV and NIV avoid the word "eclipse", the normal meaning of the eclectic text that they follow is "the sun being eclipsed."1

Mark 6:22

"autes tes Hrodiados" ([the daughter] herself of Herodias) - A, C, E, G, H, K, M, N, S, U, V(W,q)U, G, P, S, F, W, f(1)13, 33, Byz, Lect, lat, (syr,cop,Diat)

autou ... Hrodiados (his [daughter] Herodias) - Aleph, B, D, L, D

Problem: UBS in Mark 6:22 contradicts UBS in Matthew 14:6

Discussion: Matthew 14:6 states that the girl was the daughter of Herodias (the former wife of Philip, King Herod's [Herod Antipas] brother, who was then living with Herod). Here UBS makes the girl out to be Herod's own daughter, and calls her "Herodias". Metzger defends the choice of the UBS Committee with these words: "It is very difficult to decide which reading is the least unsatisfactory" (p. 89)! The modern versions, usually identifying with UBS, part company with this rendering.

 Matthew 5:22

eikh (without a cause) - 01c, D, E, K, L, M, S, U, V, W, D, q, P, S, 0233, f1,13, 33, Byz, Lect, it, syr, cop, Diat

(missing!) - P67, Aleph*, B, 045, vg

Problem: A contradiction is introduced - cp. Eph.4:26, Psa.4:4, etc. Anger is to be controlled and properly directed, but not absolutely forbidden (as the UBS reading does, in effect). Discussion: Anger is ascribed to Jesus (Mk.3:5) and to God, repeatedly. Again Metzger appeals, in effect, to the "harder reading": "it is much more likely that the word was added by copyists in order to soften the rigor of the precept, than omitted as unnecessary" (p.13). Are there not other reasons why it might have been omitted? The external evidence against the omission is massive, as well as being the earliest. Most modern versions join UBS in this error.

 1 Corinthians 5:1

onomazetai (is named) - P68, 01c, 044, Byz, syr

(missing) - P46, Aleph*, A, B, C, D, F, G, 33, lat, cop

Problem: It was reported that a man had his father's wife, a type of fornication such that not even the Gentiles spoke of it. Notwithstanding, the UBS text affirms that this type of incest did not even exist among the Gentiles - a plain falsehood.

Discussion: Strangely, such evangelical versions as NIV, NASB, Berkeley and LB propagate this error. Interestingly, versions such as TEV, NEB and Jerusalem, while following the same text, avoid a categorical statement.2

1 Arndt and Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1957), p. 242. Metzger dismisses the reading of the vast majority of the MSS as "the easier reading" (p. 182).

2 The UBS apparatus gives no inkling to the user that there is serious variation at this point; Metzger also doesn't mention it.

150


continued...