Father, Forgive Them

1. Textual Overview & Critical Apparatus

Target Verse

“Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.” — Luke 23:34a, KJV

• Greek: ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς ἔλεγεν· πάτερ, ἄφες αὐτοῖς, οὐ γὰρ οἴδασιν τί ποιοῦσιν. Transliteration of the prayer: Pater, aphes autois; ou gar oidasin ti poiousin. The prayer occurs within the crucifixion narrative, before the division of Jesus’s garments. Novum Testamentum Graece, 28th ed., Luke 23:34.
• Verbal aspect: ἔλεγεν (elegen) is the imperfect active indicative, third-person singular, of λέγω: “he was saying.” “He kept saying” is a possible iterative interpretation; the imperfect does not by itself prove repeated utterance. ἔλεγον (elegon) would be first-person singular or third-person plural and is not the form printed here.
• Petition and rationale: ἄφες (aphes) is an aorist active imperative of ἀφίημι, requesting forgiveness; οἴδασιν (oidasin) is perfect in form with present meaning, “they know.” Ignorance supplies the stated ground for intercession; the request for forgiveness still presupposes wrongdoing.

Manuscript Evidence: NA28/UBS5 Double Brackets

• Editorial status: NA28 and UBS5 place the saying in double brackets: an editorial judgment that it is a secondary addition, retained because of its antiquity and importance. This is stronger than marking ordinary uncertainty with single brackets; it neither settles the scholarly debate nor determines whether Jesus historically spoke the words. The following is a selective witness summary, not a facsimile of either printed apparatus. NA28 text; NET textual note on Luke 23:34.
• Omission witnesses: P75 (Papyrus Bodmer XIV–XV); Codex Vaticanus (B); the cancelling correction in Codex Sinaiticus conventionally cited as א¹; Codex Bezae’s original Greek hand (D*); Codex Washingtonianus (W); Sinaitic Syriac; Sahidic Coptic. Other witnesses include Θ, 070, 579, and 1241. NET textual note.
• Inclusion witnesses: Codex Sinaiticus’s original hand (א*) and subsequent restoration, conventionally א²; Codex Alexandrinus (A); Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus (C); corrected Codex Bezae, conventionally D²; the Majority/Byzantine tradition; substantial Old Latin support; Curetonian Syriac; and the Vulgate. Corrector labels here follow the NET note; numbering differs among apparatuses. NET textual note.
• Qualifications: Inclusion does not imply identical wording: A substitutes εἶπεν (“said”) and omits πάτερ (“Father”). “Old Latin” is a versional tradition, not a unanimous manuscript vote. Original and corrected states of one codex must not be counted as independent manuscripts. Transcriptions of A, B, א, and D.
• Early reception: Irenaeus cites the prayer in Against Heresies III.18.5 and alludes to it in III.16.9, providing evidence for its circulation by the late second century, conventionally c. 180 CE. Patristic attestation establishes early reception, not automatically its presence in Luke’s initial text. III.16.9; III.18.5.

Scribal & Historical Motivations

• Omission hypothesis: Scribes who understood “them” as Jesus’s Jewish opponents could find the prayer difficult to reconcile with interpreting Jerusalem’s destruction in 70 CE as divine punishment. Anti-Jewish polemic and concern that Jesus’s prayer appeared unanswered provide plausible motives for deletion. Origen’s Contra Celsum IV.22 illustrates the punitive interpretation of Jerusalem’s fall; it does not document an act of textual alteration. A proposed second-century omission remains a reconstruction, not an observed or precisely dated scribal event. Origen, Contra Celsum IV.22; Nathan Eubank, “A Disconcerting Prayer: On the Originality of Luke 23:34a,” Journal of Biblical Literature 129.3 (2010), 521–536, especially 526–536, DOI.
• Insertion/harmonization hypothesis: A scribe could have supplied a prayer fitting Jesus’s enemy-love teaching in Luke 6:27–36 and Stephen’s prayer in Acts 7:60. The prayer’s absence from early, diverse witnesses gives this proposal weight. Conversely, the same correspondences may be deliberate Lukan characterization: Jesus practices what he teaches, and Stephen imitates his Lord. Acts 7:60 is a thematic parallel rather than a word-for-word source. NET textual note; Eubank, 524–526.
• Assessment: Literary fitness cannot alone distinguish original composition from an intelligent interpolation; manuscript antiquity cannot alone exclude early omission. The evidence warrants presenting both explanations. Ancient claims that Jewish people collectively deserved punishment belong to the history of Christian polemic; they are not adopted here as an explanation of Roman violence or as grounds for assigning transhistorical collective guilt.

2. Patristic Exegesis & Theological Synthesis

Irenaeus of Lyons — Against Heresies III.16.9; III.18.5–6

• Command enacted: III.18.5 explicitly connects the crucified Jesus’s prayer with the command to love enemies and pray for persecutors (Matthew 5:44). Mercy is demonstrated while suffering, rather than merely prescribed for others. Against Heresies III.18.5.
• Anti-separationist and anti-Docetic argument: III.16.9 insists that the one who suffers, intercedes, rises, and reconciles humanity to God is the same Jesus Christ. III.18.5 opposes a heavenly Christ who supposedly departed before suffering; III.18.6 expressly rejects merely apparent suffering. His patience has exemplary force because his wounds and humanity are real. III.16.9; III.18.5–6.
• Continuity with Israel’s God: III.16.3–7 identifies this incarnate Son with the one promised through Israel’s Scriptures. Read within that argument, the prayer displays the mercy of the same Father and Word, rather than the intervention of a different deity. The specific connection with the divine long-suffering of Exodus 34:6–7 is a theological synthesis, not an explicit exposition of that passage in III.18.5. III.16.3–7.

Origen of Alexandria — Homilies on Leviticus II.1.5; Commentary on Matthew XIV.13; Contra Celsum IV.22

• Ignorance and culpability: The securely located direct exposition is Homilies on Leviticus II.1.5, preserved in Rufinus’s Latin translation. Discussing Leviticus 4:13, Origen cites Luke 23:34 to show that a whole congregation can sin through ignorance. His preceding discussion distinguishes this from the responsibility of a teacher who should know better. Ignorance permits an appeal for mercy without turning the act into innocence. Homilies on Leviticus II.1.4–5, Latin and English.
• Biblical comparison: Acts 3:17–19 places ignorance beside a summons to repentance; 1 Corinthians 2:8 connects the crucifixion with the rulers’ failure to recognize divine wisdom. These are interpretive parallels, not identical definitions of ignorance, and are supplied here as canonical cross-references rather than attributed to Origen’s paragraph.
• Forgiveness and moral response: Commentary on Matthew XIV.13, interpreting Matthew 18:23–35, warns that receiving forgiveness does not exempt a person from forgiving others or from judgment. It supplies context for Origen’s account of moral responsibility; it is not a direct commentary on Luke 23:34a. This passage cannot by itself settle the larger question of Origen’s views on universal restoration. Commentary on Matthew XIV.13.
• Judgment and historical tension: In Contra Celsum IV.22, Origen interprets Jerusalem’s destruction as punishment connected with Jesus’s death. His estimate of forty-two years is his own chronology, not a secure modern interval between the crucifixion and 70 CE. This passage exposes the tension between intercession and punitive interpretation; it does not explicitly explain the prayer as postponing judgment until repentance. Contra Celsum IV.22.
• Attribution boundary: Reading the prayer as opening time for repentance is a possible synthesis with Luke 13:6–9 and Acts 3:17–19. Its fulfillment in the Pentecost conversions is explicitly developed by Chrysostom below. That argument should not be assigned to Origen’s Commentary on Matthew or Contra Celsum without a corresponding passage.

John Chrysostom — Homilies on Matthew 79.3–4; De Cruce et Latrone I (PG 49:399–400, 405–406)

• Priest, offering, and intercessor: De Cruce et Latrone (On the Cross and the Thief) I (PG 49:399–400) presents Christ as both priest and sacrifice, with the cross as altar; its later exposition (PG 49:405–406) depicts him praying for his executioners. Together these support a high-priestly reading of the prayer. Isaiah 53:12, particularly the Hebrew text’s intercession for transgressors, supplies a canonical correspondence; compare Luke 22:37 and Hebrews 7:25; 9:14. Chrysostom explicitly cites the “numbered with transgressors” clause in the opening section; the intercession linkage is the synthesis offered here. Homily I, Patrologia Graeca 49:399–400.
• Repentance and Pentecost: In the same homily (PG 49:405–406), Chrysostom associates forgiveness with willingness to repent and appeals to Paul, the three thousand, the five thousand, and subsequent Jewish believers (Acts 2:41; 4:4; 21:20). These conversions show, in his reading, that the prayer bore fruit. This is a patristic interpretation of Luke–Acts, not an explicit statement by Acts that every convert personally participated in the execution. Homily I, Patrologia Graeca 49:405–406.
• Practical discipleship: Homilies on Matthew 79.3–4 makes the crucified Jesus’s mercy an argument against retaliation and the recollection of injuries as fuel for hostility. The target is μνησικακία (mnēsikakia), grudge-bearing: disciples must actively relinquish vindictiveness, including pleasure in an opponent’s punishment. The passage calls for imitation of Christ’s goodness; Matthew 5:44–45 and Luke 6:35–36 make the corresponding connection with divine likeness. Homilies on Matthew 79.3–4.

The Practice Under Examination

• Direction of attention: The victim addresses the Father on behalf of those harming him. Intercession interrupts the expected movement from suffering to retaliation.
• Interpretive generosity: Jesus’s prayer names a limitation in his opponents’ understanding without declaring their conduct harmless. Mercy and recognition of wrongdoing coexist.
• Imitation and scope: Prayer for enemies is commanded independently in Matthew 5:44 and Luke 6:27–28; its authority does not depend solely on resolving this textual variant. The narrative portrays goodwill initiated before any recorded apology. It does not, by itself, settle every question about repentance, reconciliation, or final salvation.

Source and Editorial Note

Biblical references are supplied for comparison; patristic arguments are paraphrased. Greek wording was checked against the publisher’s NA28 text; the selective witness list follows the NET textual note, with manuscript-transcription qualifications. Primary passages were checked in the linked editions, including the Greek of De Cruce et Latrone I (PG 49:399–400, 405–406). Modern textual-critical argument is attributed to Eubank rather than presented as consensus. Verified 1 October 2026.