Matthew 26:28
της καινης διαθηκης: A C D W Maj
της . . . διαθηκης 𝔓37 𝔓45vid א B L Z GK 0298 33; NA28
Numerous commentators follow Metzger who
writes, “The word καινης has apparently come from the parallel passage in Luke
(22.20); if it had been present originally, there is no good reason why anyone
would have deleted it. But this argument, as Royse and Gurry note, misses the
obvious: homoioteleuton.
France argues that “it is most unlikely that
the adjective would be dropped.” However, the transcriptional evidence we have
seen in this study shows the opposite. Scribes tended to accidentally
disharmonize in one-word variation units, as here. Adjectives were also among
the most heavily omitted words by scribes. And an obvious reason for accidental
omission presents itself too: homoioteleuton. Thus, on purely transcriptional
grounds, the longer reading is more likely original.
Although the
manuscript support for the shorter reading here is strong, it is largely
restricted to Alexandrian manuscripts (apart from 𝔓45 and Θ,
which have a textually different genetic strain), and its versional support is
also virtually nonexistent—even the main Coptic versions include the word “new.”
Reading the verse without the word “new,” the saying harks back to
Exod 24:8 where Moses sprinkled blood on the people and said, “Behold the blood
of the covenant which the Lord has made with you.” This would mean that Jesus
was here reminding his disciples of the continuing validity of the Mosaic
covenant be reechoing its words. This makes little sense, for Jesus’s
presentation in Matthew’s Gospel as the new Moses means he would not be merely reinforcing
or repeating what Moses did but instead surpassing him. By contrast, the
inclusion of the word “new” means that Jesus, in his typically iconoclastic
way, was instead inaugurating a covenant to supersede the old Mosaic covenant.
Thus, whether implicitly or explicitly, the saying here either
suggests (or requires) a new covenant. Jeremah’s prophecy heralding the coming
of just such a “new covenant” is therefore the more likely allusion, and this
is confirmed by the additional words here in Matthew “for the forgiveness of
sins” (also in Jer 31:34). Seeing that Jesus is referring to Jeremiah’s
prophecy, why would he not use Jeremiah’s word and explicitly state that this
is a new covenant? What purpose would it serve to confuse matters by
omitting it, as if appearing to be content with continuing under Moses’s old
covenant? Thus, intrinsically, it is likely that Jesus himself used this word
and that Matthew’s Gospel originally contained it. (Andrew W. Wilson, Scribal
Habits in Greek New Testament Manuscripts [Text-Critical Studies 17; Atlanta:
SBL Press, 2026], 252-54, emphasis in original)
