Wed Jan 31 01:39:14 1996

From majordom  Wed Jan 31 01:39:14 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4)
	id AA23727; Wed, 31 Jan 1996 01:39:14 +0500
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 1996 01:39:06 -0500 (EST)
From: "James R. Adair" 
X-Sender: jadair@scholar
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Subject: Re: Synoptic Harmonization
In-Reply-To: 
Message-Id: 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Length: 3332
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu

On Mon, 29 Jan 1996, Maurice Robinson wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 29 Jan 1996, Stephen C Carlson wrote:
> 
> > Specifically, I have a question about Mt19:20 --
> > 
> > EFULACA
> > 	{A} 01* B L Theta f1 579 900 it.aur,ff1,g1,l vg Jermoe etc.
> > EFULACA EK NEOTHTOS (see Lk18:21)
> > 	(01.d NEOTHTOS MOU) D it.d
> > EFULACAMHN EK NEOTHTOS MOU (see Mk10:20)
> > 	C W Delta f13 28 33 etc. Byz
> > 
> > Although the EFULACAMHN ... reading is attributed to harmonization to
> > Mark in my UBS4 apparatus and is not found in the best manuscripts,
> 
> Both of those claims are subjective judgments.  I would question both of 
> them from my own text-critical perspective.
> 
> > what about the fact the middle voice presents a more difficult reading
> > (it seems to be a Semiticism/LXXism; good literary Greek calls for the
> > active voice)?  
> 
> The middle voice is "more difficult" more because it differs from the other 
> readings. Since Mark does have the middle voice without significant 
> variation, I would not make a specific judgement on it being more 
> difficult in context, even in Matthew.  
> 
> I would suggest that the reading of Aleph B L Theta etc. is more likely to
> reflect an accidental line omission of 16 letter (following the Byzantine
> Text) than to have been the original reading, specifically due to the 
> extremely limited and not even texttype-specific support that reading 
> possesses.  The reading of D, being basically unique to itself, is not 
> unusal in this case, being a typical sloppy omission of various 
> characters from the Byzantine reading.
> 
> > Finally, vv16, 17, 20 in many MSS (esp. Byzantines)
> > show a harmonization to Mark (and Luke).  Is this typical?  I would
> > thing that, given the importance of Matthew, that the harmonization
> > would go the other direction.
> 
> The question is primarily whether those other MSS which harmonize are in 
> a significant numerical quantity, or whether they are merely isolated 
> cases which happen to go that direction.  In almost all cases, 
> harmonization among individual MSS is observed to head for Matthew.

A study of the Synoptic parallels of this pericope in Aland's _Synopsis 
Quattuor Evangeliorum_ shows that the Byzantine text tends to add 
material in all the gospels to make them conform _somewhat_ to the 
others.  There is no conscious effort to harmonize; rather, it seems that 
isolated words (AGAQH in Mt 19:16, SOU in Lk 18:20, MOU in Lk 18:21) are 
supplied from one or another gospel (cf. also the addition of ARAS TON 
STAURON from another context in Mk 10:21 Byz; also TI ME LEGEIS AGAQON; 
OUDEIS AGAQOS EI MH O QEOS from Mk and Lk in Mt 19:17 Byz).  What appears 
to have happened is that various scribes over time, as they copied their 
mss, occasionally changed them somewhat in the direction of another, 
usually fuller, version.  Without any indicator of parablepsis, 
accidental omission of 16 letters seems unlikely.  The argument about a 
"significant numerical quantity" carries no weight when the history of 
the development of the text of the NT over 1500 years or so is taken into 
account.

Jimmy Adair
Manager of Information Technology Services, Scholars Press
    and
Managing Editor of TELA, the Scholars Press World Wide Web Site
---------------> http://scholar.cc.emory.edu <-----------------

Back