Wed Jan 31 19:54:38 1996
From majordom Wed Jan 31 19:54:38 1996
Return-Path:
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4)
id AA27048; Wed, 31 Jan 1996 19:54:38 +0500
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 1996 19:52:00 -0500 (EST)
From: Maurice Robinson
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: 6408
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
On Wed, 31 Jan 1996, James R. Adair wrote:
> 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.
I would note that for this statement to hold, an _a priori_ assessment of
the Byzantine Textform as both "late" and "secondary" must exist. From a
Byzantine-priority standpoint, one merely finds parallel agreements from
which MSS of other textual traditions happen to vary (as they do frequently).
The only sure guide to determining how prone any given MS, version or
Father might be toward assimilation/harmonization is from an analysis of
that witness' singular readings (of which Aland's Synopsis provides a
good number of examples, though by no means exhaustive).
Readings held in common by witnesses of a given textual tradition are not
automatically "harmonizing" or "disharmonizing" unless and until a deeper
analysis of the witnesses comprising such a tradition has been made and a
determination as to whether such a tendency was sufficiently great to
affect the tradition as a whole. From various tests made upon MSS of the
Byzantine tradition (cf. Wisselink), the tendency appears to be minimal.
> 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).
I would agree with the primary claim that there is no conscious effort to
harmonize, either among the Byzantine MSS or the Alexandrian MSS as a whole.
I would not accept the texttype-specific examples given above, however,
since I also fully agree that it is only "isolated words" which tend to
become harmonized, and that basically occurring in "isolated MSS" and not
texttypes as a whole. I see a key methodological error (which began with
Westcott and Hort) in attributing to entire texttypes elements which
properly concern only individual elements of that texttype, and then only
in "isolated case" examples.
> 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.
Agreed. I would not minimize accidental or deliberate omission for
whatever various reasons, however (which omission may also "harmonize"
one gospel to another). But addition or substitution would remain the
primary harmonizing tools.
> Without any indicator of parablepsis,
> accidental omission of 16 letters seems unlikely.
But which MSS are we talking about? Not a large number, but also not all
genetically (texttype) connected; this is of some significance.
Aleph*, however, is corrected by a near-contemporary scribe in this place,
which could maximize the possibility of accidental line-omission in the
case of that MS (line-omission is known frequently to occur in Aleph).
Nevertheless, the fact that strong Alexandrian MSS such as B and L agree
on this reading clearly indicates that it goes back to a texttype-specific
reading in a nonextant exemplar. Similarly with the strong Caesarean
witnesses Theta f1 579 and 700*. Cyprian and part of the Latin tradition
may also reflect a common origin which links into a primitive archetype
which underlies both the Alexandrian and Caesarean texttypes.
If so, then I would consider the shorter text here either as coming from a
primitive line omission which occurred in a MS that served as a source for
both the Alexandrian and Caesarean texttypes, or -- and possibly more
appealing -- that the shorter text was a result of a deliberate editorial
decision on the part of the scribe or scribes of that archetypal MS.
However, from my own studies of Alexandrian variants, my suspicion would
remain with accidental error in an archetype MS, which error resulted in a
"sensible" reading, and thus became perpetuated within the various
localized texts which in their own ways stemmed from that archetype (I
also would see some sort of loose genealogical connection between the
Alexandrian and Caesarean texttypes).
> 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.
As Scrivener pointed out over a century ago, the mere multiplication of
witnesses does nothing to bolster authority beyond a certain point. For
Scrivener, that point (for some very good reasons) happened to be the 10th
century. Basically Scrivener dismissed the vast mass of later MSS from
the 11th-16th centuries on what appear to be reasonable grounds. I would
be perfectly willing to adopt the same cutoff point as Scrivener for
similar reasons. Such a cutoff limit does not, however, eliminate the
basic issue of either the Byzantine Textform or the question of a
"significant numerical quantity" as an issue.
While number does not and cannot decide anything in textual criticism
(taken as an isolated criterion), the matter of providing a satisfactory
history of transmission which fully takes into account the numerical
amount of attestation for the various readings being evaluated MUST remain
a factor. It has been all too easy for textual critics since Westcott and
Hort to both minimize and deprecate "number" as some sort of automatic
evil, even though number in itself comprises a definite element and
component part of transmissional history.
It should not be forgotten that Burgon himself urged SEVEN quite
responsible "notes of truth" in his methodology, and a careful and honest
examiner will never say (as did Fee) that those seven criteria are merely
seven different ways of claiming that number rules everythin and thus
Byzantine-priority advocates are merely engaging semantics over a
"nose-counting" exercise. I would urge the interested reader to obtain a
copy of my ETS paper delivered at Chicago 1994 which responded directly to
Fee's "two test passages" in Mark in order to see how a Byzantine-priority
defense of such passages proceeds, almost without mention of number except
when attempting to determine transmissional history.
Back