The Dividing Line, September 4, 2008

And good afternoon, welcome to the dividing line on a Thursday afternoon as I have mentioned on the blog. What we're going to do today is look at a textual variant at Luke 23 34. I'm not sure how long this will take might take the whole hour might take 20 minutes.

I don't know sort of hard to say. So we might be continuing on with the examination of the solo scriptura Debate from 1993. We might not don't know. We'll we'll find out all depends if other folks Participate or you know, whatever else it might be.

We will see. But I am joined today online by Alan Kirshner. Hi Alan. How you doing? Good. How are you doing? Doing pretty good. Folks might know you from that lovely caricature of of you on our blog. Alan is one of the team of Paula Guillaume you may have seen a lot of his blogs have to do with textual critical issues.

The King James only folks just love Alan and Probably like turrets and fan today. There was a Roman Catholic who identified him as one of my minions. He has now been elevated to minion status. So I would imagine is probably some King James only folks out there that have elevated you to minion status as well.

Which is always good argumentation, you know when when people approach things that way.

But the reason I asked Alan to join me today is by the way, I think this might be in my initiation to the.

The Alexandrian cult. Oh, yes, the Alexandrian called. Yes. Did you get your robe and the the purple toga? I know but I have a feeling after this show. I might. Well, we thought we had rushed the purple toga to you fast enough, but if it didn't get there.

I'm sorry about that but anyway, I Am looking at a certain paper that Alan wrote. This would have been last year or.

What is this? Yeah, but I think about two years ago I I took a New Testament textual critical course that or textual criticism course at a Harvard Divinity with Eldon up and We had to lose one variant.

For a major paper though. I chose right now. I guess that would have been section 1884.

It says Harvard Divinity School 1884. I was going boy you you've aged well.

Yeah, the course number there.

Now I put on the blog for people who wanted to see this I gave the text and it is a very very familiar text. But Jesus was saying father forgive them for they do not know what they are doing and they cast lots dividing up his garments Among themselves.

This is one of the sayings of Jesus from the cross now. I admit that I oh, I don't know how long it was before I Recognize that there is even a variant here, but I know I did not realize there was a variant when I first wrote The Potter's Freedom for example, because when I dealt with this text and Norman Geisler's use of it I made no reference to it and I pretty clearly remember Realizing this at some point at a later time and I believe you actually said you First note footnote referenced me For bringing this variant to your attention.

So evidently it would have been after the same same time that I ran across this particular variant.

Yeah, I think I think it was maybe three or four years ago you brought that to my attention and I knew I was gonna be taking a course in textual criticism and Back my mind, you know the dedication on it then so.

Yeah, now it's interesting. Someone might ask how in the world. Could you look at a text very often without noticing? And it's pretty simple. The primary Bible program I use is Bible works and Unfortunately up to this point in time Bible works still doesn't have the textual data that you can get the Tischendorf stuff.

Finally, but generally as you're just looking at The text on the screen and you're you're utilizing that cutting and pasting and looking at the Greek and things like that. There's no there's no critical text that does does accordance have the critical text material.

Accordance. Does not. In fact, I believe Bible works and accordance. They have a third party. That's the German Stuttgart. Correct. Yeah, that provides the the textual data in the NA 27 that actually it's libronics.

That has the Stuttgart electronic study Bible Bible works still still doesn't there they were going to have it in 7 .0 but the projects way behind, you know, how textual critics are and so it hasn't been hasn't been completed yet.

But that's coming out of a completely different group so as I was looking at the text in in Bible works, there's no indication the variance and I Forgot to look I said, I'm not sure if you may have looked but have you ever run across an English translation?

That made note of the variant because I I am unaware of. Well, it's interesting that you mentioned that because I've looked at other you know, how some modern English translations will have. If there's a small handful of verses that they regulate to the the footnotes, right now look at some of those, you know, the the weight of the external evidence and some of them are very similar to To this one except some of them will have elephant and Vaticanus together and whatnot.

And and but very similar and it's interesting that you know I kind of find a little inconsistent inconsistency when it comes to this variant now some you know. You know and say, you know some early manuscripts will do not have this or else.

In fact, I think the NET Bible the net Bible puts it in a bracket actually in the text book. Interesting but as for the variance with the you know, the the drops of Jesus blood is and I'm not mistaken.

I think that's that regulated to the footnote or not. I have to look at that again, but but the. But yeah, in fact, I was looking at some commentator like Bach, you know with his comment Terry on Luke and Marshall and it seems like they I don't know.

It just seems like they don't go in and both of them, of course believe that it is original, you know, right? Yeah well, certainly.

We could say that The the provision of English footnotes and whether you relegate something to the footnote or something like that Is not exactly an exact science in most translations and The standards that are used as to whether a notes could be inserted or not are not overly overly uniform.

But all I know is I was probably in my 40s or close to my 40s before I even Recognized this and I don't think that I I don't think that I saw that in reading commentary and like that. It just I just happened to see it in the in the textual Material which means this text is normally discussed without any reference to the fact that there is a rather major textual variance.

Let's explain what that is for folks. Because a lot of folks get a little bit nervous when we start talking about this particular subject. And so on the blog I have provided a scan from Swanson and you you included Swanson's work New Testament Greek manuscripts.

There's. Have they expanded beyond acts. Because I have Matthew Mark Luke John and acts.

The last have but I could be mistaken on that. Yeah, I've got I've got those. I forget where I got them from but.

Ruben Swanson's the editor for people who are interested in looking at this. It's a different way of providing the Textual information. Sometimes it's a little bit easier for people to visualize what the variants are by putting it in this Table format that we have on the blog and that you also reproduced in in your paper.

And it is a nice bird. See something real quick versus that may be the na27 And I mean albeit it is just the Greek witnesses.

But still and it doesn't take that much effort to figure out what the Greek witnesses are. So people who are looking at the blog and if you're listening to this at a later time. You can go back to the blog for September 4th 2008 to see this particular graphic if you want to see it.

My recollection is that Swanson collates against Vaticanus if I recall correctly so the very first line you see 34 then o M stands for omit and. Therefore there's nothing beyond that except for the list of witnesses which includes Vaticanus which is B then P75 which I believe is the earliest Papyri manuscript for this section of Luke that we have in our possession.

Right then we have the olive with a C next to it. Now then down below at the bottom line. You also have a lot an olive with an asterisk next to it. Why don't you explain to folks what the difference between those two is?

The green yeah, the Greek witnesses here, we're looking at Swanson olive with a C and olive with an asterisk.

Why would all of be be listed twice? Oh, right. Well, the Oprah Swanson, you know, there's different nomenclature for the NA 27 here, but yeah, the asterisk would be That this is a Referring to a corrector, that's what it is.

Yeah, it's referring to a corrector and actually was corrected again with the The inclusion of it Originally saying that it it has it and then the corrector came along and You know Expunged it sponge and then another corrector came by and then I added as well.

So and that's actually what the graphic the large graphic below. That is is exactly that you can see The text there and how it has been altered in that particular point that actually is Sinaiticus Codex Sinaiticus, which is coming online.

I don't think Luke Has been put online yet. I forgot to check before the program to see if if Luke had been added, but Eventually people be able to grab hold of those particular graphics themselves and look very very carefully and then we have D with the same type of asterisks and we can see down below.

There's a Correction of that The correct except this time. It's like the the corrector who added it in Correct at a late later point in time then interesting codex W, which is a primarily Byzantine Witness.

Now, I know we're throwing some stuff out here and some folks are going what in the world you people.

Yeah, actually maybe reassure the readers here, you know, obviously a pun intended to spin it sound like Greek. But you know once we get into I think some of the internal evidence I think they'll be able, you know be able to follow that a lot more.

So obviously in textual criticism for those who don't know you go to the the external evidence first as they are more objective and. And then you are agents against the external evidence. No, right.

So we have we have these unseal manuscripts unseal meaning Magiscules. They're written in a particular form. They're the earlier manuscripts W is not B and all if are considered what are called Alexandrian primarily Alexandrian manuscripts.

Sinaiticus as I believe you noted in your paper has some Western influence at some points in it, but Primarily Alexander and p75 and Vaticanus the two those are the two premier Alexandrian manuscripts vilified many many times by.

Advocates but for no particularly decent reason and then when you have p75 papyrus 75 combined with with Vaticanus B. That's very weighty. That's considered to be very weighty by most modern critical scholars.

That's right.

So W however is not in the Alexandrian family. So to have it in this particular list is rather intriguing. It's something that you address and we'll look at that a little bit later on in in your comments then theta and and and others in essence Likewise do not have this particular phrase then it's found in the following forms and with the small difference of for example Codex a Alexandrinus had does not have the word potter which means father and.

Then you have some minor differences. For example, the corrector of D has Instead of T for what they are doing has the definite article T which probably has to do with the Latin the fact it's a Influenced by the Latin probably more than anything else described probably just wasn't paying close attention there.

Then we have interesting enough Manuscript 33 which is a very important minuscule manuscript that most people feel is a copy of a much earlier Exemplar which has a slight difference in the tense of Of the verb, but one of the things that you noticed that you noted in all of these is that aside from very minor form variations all of everything that's that's a part of this text all the way down to the bottom of the line where you have the the original Sinaiticus Sinaiticus you have C you have There's what looks like it's called a frac tour M which means the majority text which is the entire Byzantine manuscript tradition L and Q many others family family 13 the the vast bulk of Greek manuscripts do contain this but of course the vast bulk of Greek manuscripts come from At least eight nine hundred thousand years after the time of Christ.

So the the Byzantine manuscript tradition Clearly contains this particular Phraseology this is a variant that clearly comes up from from the second century, but What you pointed out, and I think it's very important is there isn't much variation amongst these Witnesses as to what's being said here and you you brought up a very important point and and that was.

If someone was trying to just modify this try to sort of change it a little bit. They would they might want to just change one word. They might want to make it very specific who Jesus was praying for etc. Etc.

They don't do that. They're right. There's no meaningful theological difference between any of the variants that are listed here.

Yeah, I know I was gonna discuss a little bit about that, you know in the when we right consider some of that internal Evidence because yeah, you would think it is an anomaly I think that you don't theological variation within the within the clause itself.

In other words the witnesses, you know, they're either being omitted or intact for the most part. I think most textual critics would see that as a demonstration that this is an interpolation and not a.

Decision right. So let's let's let's make sure people understand that. And an interpolation is Where something and this is a fairly lengthy variant? I mean most variants are only a word or some word order or something like that.

This is a pretty decent logion that we're looking at here. You You either decide that it has been excised that is it was there originally and it has been pulled out or it's an insertion. It has been put in where it wasn't before and that really is the question that faces The textual scholar at this particular issue.

And of course, that's just another way of saying did Luke write it originally or did he not write it originally? Does this reflect the apostolic text. Does it. Does it not and I think you know now that I'm thinking back for just a moment I think that the reason I started looking at this or I was brought to looking at this Had to do with the fact that when I looked at the synoptic gospels I think that's now that I'm thinking about I think this is what brought it about.

I was looking at the parallels and At this point Luke is alone in having this material. Mark and Matthew do not have Anything like this at this particular point in time and I think that's what brought my attention to it initially as I recall It wasn't a commentary like that.

It was something like that. So In essence, could we summarize? Let's summarize the external evidence and let's start talking about how at least modern scholarship approaches subjects like this.

Well, I was gonna say the you know, it is interesting that you mentioned W Freeneus Codex Freeneus because that's a variegated text and it's a very the Luke I think Luke isn't teen there and that's where our variant is, so.

Actually we have. And not to mention you have the the earliest of the three versions that this is interesting to you I know you haven't touched on this yet, but the three Syriac Latin and Coptic all of those three for example Syriac the the earliest Syriac manuscript there is fanatic.

Which most critics to say is one of the best and earliest ones. Does not contain this reading, right? The. The headache. As well, it does not contain that and part of the Boheric as well. Yeah, and a bear and well some some Boheric do but some don't it's part reading, right?

But that's a later that would be a later Coptic coming after a headache. I think most most critics would see this the headache a little bit earlier than that and then when you look at the the Latin One of the best Latin old Latin text, by the way when I meant Syriac that's old Syriac as well though and as far as the old Latin you have.

You know the which is the old Latin. One of the best ones but one of the best earlier ones is a the small letter a Symbolizes this particular manuscript and which is one of the earliest ones and you see here you have three ancient Dr. White and where the ones that do not contain this really going back for the second century would not have this reading so I think that have being a Western repeat the Latin have Alexandrian great in with 75 and consider a theta Tesseraean right three and test although, you know, that's a little bit later, but still young the codex W so obviously, um, well, let's let's explain why that's convincing it a.

Reading that has a support that comes from a wide variety of Families and witnesses Is more likely to represent a broader geographical distribution rather than one that has only one family in support of it.

Because if you only have one family, it's not found anywhere else in any of the translations. The other translations I like that if you have it only in one then you may be looking at an entire family that had a very early exemplar that had a Variant in it and that variant does not represent what went into other places in in the early centuries of the distribution of this text.

And so when you have a reading that has that wide distribution that Is a a weighty thing. You you said scholars viewed that as having more weight. Well, that's where the weight is coming from at that particular point, right?

Yes. And I would corroborate corroborate that with the genealogical relationship as well because you know it's been known that Alice does have Western influence and some of these other manuscripts that would include this reading some Boheric as well as that Western influence as well and that's where we find this reading in a singular tradition right in the Western.

In fact it balance it does go back to the second century. There's that would Have this reading sometime in the second century but once again We see that this is in a singular tradition in the geographical.

As you mentioned the geographical distribution is Very compelling and would suggest that this reading was introduced in the Western Transmission sometime during the second century. We can and now you're looking at the na -27 information here.

Which is where it also indicates to us the Sinaiticus both the original and the second corrector Contained have the text in it. This is one of the places where a fuller text like Swanson is more useful because it really doesn't give us the same type of level of information that That's Allen doesn't give the same level of information as Swanson.

But basically what you're saying is the the witnesses that have this text are primarily within one Textual family one tradition whereas the witnesses that do not have a much wider distribution and hence Just as we summarize the external information.

Then that external information from your perspective would point more to the The idea this is not original that that phraseology is not original with Luke just simply on the external. We haven't looked at the internal stuff yet, right?

Right and that's that's been seen. External evidence. Why. Distribution. Geographical distribution. Tested by from the best quality early manuscripts not to mention junior. Genealogical relationship. Really have to keep that in mind.

Because. External evidence is not you know, you have. It's not equal to internal evidence. In other words, if you have very weighty external evidence, and then you have ambiguous internal evidence, which we'll see I think we have an internal ambiguous internal evidence.

Okay, so with that then and and by the way, this is this kind of type of information. You didn't have to go through any special ceremonies to be able to get access to it. You could buy these books online.

You know sometimes people think that we're somehow hiding this from folks that I just pause long enough to say that not only could our King James only Friends obtain this kind of information, but our Muslim friends could find this information as well.

We openly Present this stuff to the world and say here's the data. Here's the information. We have confidence in these things. Here's why we do that. So I just mentioned that in Passing. Now, let's look at the internal Considerations and this is where quite honestly Alan Things for a lot of folks start sounding just a tad bit not only confusing but a little bit on the subjective side.

And I think that's gotten to be more so over the couple decades Since I wrote the King James only controversy. And and we'll see why initially When you began looking at into the internal considerations the first thing that you made reference to is That there really isn't anything in this text that immediately jumps out at a person and says ah This was a scribal situation where Inadvertently there is a Deletion of a line because of such things as homo I tell you tan or parablepsis or homo arcton or whatever else it might be weren't why don't you?

Explain to folks if you could why you started with with that observation.

Yeah, there's internal evidence you look at transcription I've been the actual product what the thought process like, you know and Unintentional mistakes as well as you mentioned. And then there's intrinsic with vocabulary the context and it is the larger unit looking at like a single being although you know that's happened in the past, but.

But normally but normally when it does happen, it's because of fairly easily recognizable Situations. The example I've used in the past when you have something called home I tell you it's on similar endings is if we put this in English if you have a word that ends in ING and You're typing this out even today as we're copying something from a book or something like that.

We type ING or TIO when a common ending to a word our eyes go back to the original. Or as scholars referred to it the exemplar and when our eyes go back we find ING around the same spot on the page That we expected to find it or a TIO n and we continue on from there.

The problem is we found it one line lower than where we actually ended. And if we're not really paying close attention. And especially if it doesn't result in pure gibberish We've just accidentally Deleted a phrase a word sometimes an entire sentence.

This happened in first John 3 1. Where and such we are was deleted in an early exemplar by home or tell you ton so when scholars see that and there is something in the text where you've got similar endings at the beginning in the end of this particular Phrase or sentence as we have here.

Then that weighs very very heavily on. The determination of the text will variant itself, but what you're pointing out in their paper was there's nothing like that here. There's there's nothing that makes a scholar go.

Ah this is how a scribe could have inadvertently By errors of sight and errors of thought Deleted this particular this particular text. Yeah, correct. It's.

Yeah, there's no. This is a month compared to reading. You know, you've mind. Is often taken into great can smooth out something that's difficult in their apparent mind. But here that's not the case for that.

We're dealing with a theological statement.

Now you had a quote. I'm assuming you have your paper with you. Yeah, good. Yeah, you had a quote on on page seven. And I will confess. Is it Joel? The Lobel. Yeah, the Lobel is the name and He makes the the following comment on this particular text he says the presence or absence of a complete logion of Considerable length and striking content.

However can hardly be attributed describable carelessness. Addition or omission of this kind constitutes a deliberate change to the model. It is clear the product of one particular scribe. Given that there is little change that several scribes in different times and places would have introduced a chain.

I'm sorry little chance. There is little chance that I would have to point that out. Wouldn't I. Yeah. Yeah. But there is little chance that several scribes in different times and places would have introduced a change of this nature in exactly the same Lucan verse.

Independently from one another so what he's saying is and and it makes perfect sense this goes back to one point in time it either an insertion or a Removing of it the idea that that's when we special like we look at Swanson.

That you have one scribe in Codex Alexandria is putting in his version and then another scribe for D putting in his and other scribe for 33 putting in his his All putting him in in the same form at the same place independently of one another just simply is about as likely as you know Lightning striking you 14 times at the same point or something.

That's right. It's just it's just not really gonna not really gonna happen in that way so now. Maybe we can summarize What do most scholars say about the internal evidence looking at The scribes and what's going on this has become one of the big things and this is where you are right now.

You're taking classes from these folks. You mentioned that you were taking a class from Eldon J Up for the folks watching or who will be watching on video as long as our video is functioning correctly today, hopefully.

Oh good. I fact I don't you told me about this book and but I don't think you have it. At least from what you said you didn't seem to indicate because you're a poor seminary student Perspectives on New Testament textual criticism by Epp.

I mean this thing if you whacked somebody with this thing, you might go to jail for assault with a deadly weapon. It is humongaloid almost eight about 850 Pages and I would assume these are collected essays 1962 to 2004 by your professor for this particular class.

He's been at this for quite some time it is a massive tome and he is one of the Leaders in developing this idea of looking at the cultural and theological settings of the scribes. Would that be a fair.

Statement to to make along those lines. Yeah, I would I would say that is, you know, his specialty is a codex Bayesian and theological tendencies and acts he's written quite a bit on and another book as well and.

So the idea there is you look at especially the Theological and cultural issues that are quote-unquote hot at the particular point in time where it seems a variant arises and you analyze these in reference to What the tendency of the scribe would have been and so what in essence in essence is the the primary?

Argumentation being put forward in regards this variance by textual scholars today based on internal evidence.

Intrinsic evidence we're looking at an author's really Very subjective. I mean Vocabulary take two letters that you've written in your life and that's the pool of your vocabulary. That's the extent of your vocabulary and not even taking consideration context or what you wrote, you know, and I mean subjective but some of the Some who would argue that this is you for the longer reading that this reading is part of Luke.

They would even said they would adduce that I've come across one. Is that if it's a Luke and theme of forgiveness and ignorance 27 the problem with that. That's fine. Okay, it's kind of a double-edged sword, you know.

Because one could turn around and say well, how do you know that scribe was looking for a motif and and and looked for some Floating the Dominical logion out there. You know a thing and wanted to looking for a theme that would be comport with Luke and style.

Legitimate in some context, but in this I don't think so. Another argument is parallel with Stephen, you know, Stephen is, you know being Percy could say well, it's a synopsis, you know I don't want to minimize.

Given the amount of time that we have a second argument. It would be would say that was evidence that you know The Jews were not forgiving so scribes do not want to appear that Jesus prayer went unanswered.

So they you know, they expunged that what once again the problem with that is you kind of doing that quote is a scribe you're not that you what's the probability of. Several scribes that you know different times in different places that is going to excise right that really I mean.

So I don't go back to one one original person who did that. Let me read real quickly what Bruce Metzger says and then we can sort of bounce us around a little bit. In his textual commentary says the absence these words from such early and diverse witnesses as the ones we already went over Is most impressive and can scarcely be explained as a deliberate excision by copyists.

Who? Considering the fall of Jerusalem to be proof that God had not forgiven the Jews. Could not allow it to appear at the prayer of Jesus had remained unanswered at the same time. The Logion though probably not a part of the original gospel of Luke bears self-evident tokens of its Dominical origin let me translate that Dominical From the Lord coming from the Lord and was retained within double square brackets in his traditional place.

Where it had been incorporated by unknown copyists relatively early in the transmission of the third Gospel, it sounds very similar to what he said about John 7 53 3 8 11 as well In regards to having an origin with Jesus, but not having been part of the original itself.

That's what what he says now. I don't remember if you looked at this in your paper, but Bart Ehrman in his works and in fact one of the more recent ones. This is another Brill publication studies in the textual criticism of the New Testament pages 384 and 385.

This is what he has to say. It is interesting to consider the manuscript tradition of Luke 23 in light of these issues. Let me back this up just a little bit. I jumped way way too far and back up to page 384.

I've already mentioned one of the passages that creates some uncertainty among modern exegetes over the question of Luke's view of the culpability of the Jews and the death of Jesus. Luke 23 34 We're being crucified Jesus praise father Forgive them if they don't know what they are doing.

Modern readers may think Jesus is praying for the Romans who are responsible for crucifying Him but should be remembered that in Luke Pilate delivered Jesus up to their will that is the will the Jews and that they then Let him off to be crucified.

Moreover in the book of Acts becomes quite clear that it was the Jewish people who are responsible for Jesus death even though they acted out of ignorance in any event. We know from comments made by Christian fathers that this is how the passage is read in the early church as a prayer that God Forgive the Jews for their involvement in the death of Jesus.

But what were early Christians to make of this prayer for as I've already intimated in my comments on Barnabas and Milito Sardis There was a decided movement away from thinking that God would or should forgive Jews for what they did as Christians became Increasingly inclined to think of Jews as Christ killers.

We know from other sources the second and third centuries that Christians began blaming the destruction of Jerusalem by the Roman armies in 70s CE. On the Jews themselves not for a foolish uprising against the power of Rome.

But for killing Christ whose death was avenged by the destruction of the city in the slaughter of its inhabitants. What were such Christians to make of the fact that Jesus had prayed for the forgiveness of the Jews clearly?

They had not been forgiven. Was Jesus prayer not heard. Or maybe he had never uttered the prayer in the first place. It is interesting to consider the manuscript tradition of Luke 23 in light of these issues for as it turns out There is a textual problem with verse 34 the prayer of forgiveness.

Starting with our earliest surviving manuscript the third century Pyrrhus called p75 and continuing with some other best of our best known and most important witnesses the prayer in fact is completely omitted by some manuscripts and These witnesses Jesus never asked God to forgive the Jews for what they are doing.

When confronted with a textual situation like this scholars, of course need to decide what Luke's gospel originally said in some manuscripts Jesus prays the Jews to be forgiven and others He does not.

What which is the original reading and which is the altered reading. In this case some scholars have argued that it is The shorter text without the prayer of forgiveness that is actually original and the scribes have added the prayer to Luke's account.

But why would they do so the most popular explanation is a bit complicated? But it goes something like this in the book of Acts the first Christian martyr Stephen who is stoned to death for his proclamation of His faith in Jesus immediately before he dies.

Stephen prays Lord to not hold the sin against them. Stephen Jesus follower was forgiving toward his executioners. Would Jesus himself be any less. So according to this theory scribes who wanted to heighten the parallel between Jesus death and Stevens added and Stevens added the prayer to Luke 23.

That's why it's found in some manuscripts, but not in others. This is a clever argument, but there are compelling reasons. I'm so reading airmen to reject it for one thing as interpreters of Luke and acts have long observed the many parallels between Jesus and the gospel and his followers and acts were put there by Luke himself.

Jesus receives the Spirit of his baptism. So to his followers Jesus is empowered by the Spirit to claim God's Word. So are his followers. Jesus heals the sick cast out demons raised the dead and so to his followers Jesus is largely rejected by the Jewish people.

So are his followers. Jesus opposed by the Jewish leaders, etc, etc, sir. And so it seems likely that is he who was has adduced a prayer on behalf of the executioners both by Jesus and Luke 23. And by Stephen act 7.

I do find interesting that he clearly holds to a Lukan authorship early authorship of both these works. Moreover, it is worth noticing that when Luke creates such parallels He typically does so not by repeating the words of his gospel in the book of Acts but by expressing the parallels in other words.

This matters because Stephen does not utter the same prayer as Jesus, but a differently worded one with similar meaning. What about scribes? You know the early Christian scribes often harmonized different accounts in the New Testament with one another.

That is to say when they ran across the same story in different places. They would make them word for word the same for example Lord's Prayer in Luke which scribes changed that read exactly like the Lord's Prayer in Matthew.