Depending on which variant you look at, in Lk 22:64 either Jesus� face is covered, or his eyes are (blindfolded). With
apologies for any mistakes in my understanding of the Greek, this appears to be solely due to the following difference.
Either: �kai perikalypsantes autou to pros�pon�,� or �kai perikalypsantes auton.� In the second case, if Jesus is then
hit after he is blindfolded, he is hit on the face (etupton autou to pros�pon), which suggests that the reference to
Jesus� face is a piece of �floating� text, indicative of (possibly) a scribal error. The parallel at Mk 14:65 has Jesus�
face being covered, leading me to suspect that being hit on the face was not the original form.
There is another, perhaps more interesting, point regarding Lk 22:63-64, which is whether Jesus was hit before or after
either his face or eyes were covered. If he was only hit before the covering then he would have had no need to prophesy
regarding who hit him � he would have seen who it was. However, this is what we see in NA27, and a number of Syriac and
other mss. The same would apply if neither his face nor eyes were covered, as in the parallel at Mt 26:67-68. There is
then the Byz variant (as seen in the KJV) in which Jesus is hit both before and after his face or eyes were covered. I�m
finding it hard to understand how all these variations could have occurred (especially those where Jesus would have seen
his attackers), but to my way of thinking the only sensible starting point is Mk 14:65.
Does anyone see anything here that would help me understand what is going on here?
David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]