Mon Mar 25 20:37:31 1996
From majordom Mon Mar 25 20:37:31 1996
Return-Path:
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4)
id AA24390; Mon, 25 Mar 1996 20:37:31 +0500
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 1996 20:34:40 -0500 (EST)
From: Maurice Robinson
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Subject: Re: Mt 6:13
In-Reply-To:
Message-Id:
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Length: 5740
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
On Mon, 25 Mar 1996, James R. Adair wrote:
> I agree that the Lukan form of the Lord's Prayer can be ignored for the
> purposes of this variant. Burgon and Scrivener may have answered this
> question, but not well, in my opinion. Scribes omitted the ending
> because the laity did not say it?
You will notice from the UBS apparatus (at least) that the Lectionaries in
the aggregate have the doxology present, yet the laity do not recite that
specific text in the liturgy. When the lectionary passage is quoted,
however, the lector could read what normally only the priest would say.
During the liturgical service, however, the laity (which would include
monks and catacheumens) would themselves leave off at precisely the point
of the doxology. Why then should the suggestion that _some_ few scribes
might choose to omit the passage based on their known familiarity with the
text through repeated liturgical practice seem strange? It seems far
stranger to me to think that the UBS editor's suggestion that the doxology
was added to harmonize with 1 Chr 29:11-13 is a likely explanation!
To put it into perspective, in this variant unit we are not even talking
of the Alexandrian texttype as a whole here: UBS lists only _six_ Greek
MSS, of which the primary are Aleph B and D, followed by the later f1 and
the 5th/6th century 0170 plus a meaningless single lectionary of the 12th
century. Based upon what I see frequently in Aleph, an omission of this
length is no more surprising than its original scribe's omission of
Mt.24:35 for no good reason, supported by no other MS whatever. That B or
even D might follow suit in such an omission is similarly not surprising,
though it should be more surprising in D, which usually does not have the
shorter text.
I do note that a LARGE contingent of the Old Latin MSS and Latin Fathers
omit the doxology, which makes me suspect that the omission originated in
the Western regions and not in the Greek-speaking regions. Gregory of
Nyssa also omits the reading, yet his Greek text is thoroughly Byzantine
-- Gregory's omission here can only be liturgically-based, and not
reflective of the Byzantine Textform.
> If this had been an Alexandrian
> reading and such an argument had been offered, would Byzantine priority
> folks have accepted it? I don't think so (I hope no Alexandrian-leaning
> eclectics would have, either!).
By reversing the situation of the external evidence, you are really
asking me how I would defend the omission of the doxology had it been the
Byzantine text which had the shorter reading. My answer would probably
be that it _was_ a liturgical insertion of some sort, but this would be
arguing on the assumption that the monks and catacheumens actually KNEW
what the priest may have been saying in a whisper, and so knowing, felt
bound to add it to the text to round it out.
But again, the issue is tied to the external evidence: I would no more
accept the sole reading of Aleph B and D (f1 and 0170 and the single
lectionary not being significant) as original in such a reversed case
than I would as the case now stands. Although "number" is not primary
within a Byzantine-priority hypothesis, it still carries weight against a
collection of non-representative (in the present case) Alexandrian MSS
and a coalition of Old Latin sources, where such a reading had to have
had its origin in order to spread precisely as it did.
On a similar basis I can immediately reject the united testimony of Aleph
B C L 1010 in regard to the insertion at Mt.27:49 -- yet in that place
the leading representatives of the Alexandrian text are _all_ united,
though _all_ in utter error. There the Byzantine "omission" is original,
while the Alexandrian "addition" is false. I think that should serve as
a clear example of how to proceed with the evidence reversed, and that
evidence being even stronger on the Alexandrian side in Mt.27:49.
> If the presumption of Byzantine priority
> is laid aside, the doxology doesn't have any feet to walk on. Can any
> other arguments be offered in favor of the doxology?
I think the doxology is alive and well and walking. One of the STRONGEST
reasons for accepting the doxology as original is one which you dismissed
out of hand: the non-appearance of the doxology in the Lukan form of the
Lord's prayer. Yet, in that same Lukan version (assuming the Alexandrian
critical text to the the original reading for the sake of argument), the
Byzantine MSS there "harmonized" either to Matthew or to the liturgical
use in the church by adding specifically the words and phrases (using the
familiar English liturgical wording):
"Our"
"which art in heaven"
"thy will be done on earth as in heaven"
"but deliver us from evil"
--- and yet in such a supposedly "harmonizing" passage where the
Byzantine "harmonizers" were working overtime, why did they _fail_ to
finish the harmonization by adding in the doxology, especially if they
were harmonizing to either Matthew (Byztxt) or liturgical practice?
Basically you can't have it both ways. There is not one rule of
harmonization for Matthew and another for Luke to which scribes would be
expected to adhere. I find the solution easier by far to presume
Byzantine authenticity in both Matthew and Luke than to have the
Byzantine scribes do such a poor job of harmonization when trying to
conform the passages to each other.
_________________________________________________________________________
Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Assoc. Prof./Greek and New Testament
Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Back