Wed Apr 10 10:47:50 1996
From majordom Wed Apr 10 10:47:50 1996
Return-Path:
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4)
id AA04526; Wed, 10 Apr 1996 10:47:50 +0500
Message-Id: <9604101444.AA04812@osf1.gmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Synoptic source criticism
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 10:44:56 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Stephen C Carlson"
In-Reply-To: <316A9EDE.457C@ucr.campus.mci.net> from "Don Wilkins" at Apr 9, 96 05:31:10 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 3679
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Thank you so much for your patient response. I hope you (or someone else)
will indulge me one more time, because I'm still finding it difficult to
understand how Markan priority fits into Mt9:14.
Don Wilkins wrote:
>Stephen C Carlson wrote:
>>What I can't get
>> is how the assumption of Markan priority helps to confirm this over the
>> other option that everyone else is incorrect.
>
>I'm not sure who you mean by "everyone else," but you may be
>misunderstanding me if you are referring to the group that includes
>the byz mss.
What I meant by "everyone else" is the plethora or witnesses for
POLLA as opposed to its absence, according to my UBS4 is only 01*
B, a Coptic, a Georgian, and Cyril. The POLLA reading is supported
by Byzantines, the Western text, the Syriacs, some Old Latins, and
families f1 and f13.
> The committee is cautiously preferring this group and
>conceding that Aleph/B may be wrong. This means that in the
>committee's reasoning (given the basic assumption that POLLA was
>"added"), it is more likely that Matthew is adding POLLA than later
>copyists, and therefore Matthew is choosing to modify Mark's text.
Here's the point I don't get: if POLLA stood in the autograph of
Matthew, then it is not "added": it was always there. It would be
"omitted" by 01* and B. If, on the other hand, POLLA did not stand in
the autograph, then it was added by almost every other witness.
>One could of course argue that this reasoning begs the question of
>Markan priority by favoring it either way--since if Matthew agrees
>with Mark (and does not "add" POLLA) he is merely copying
>Mark--but then the reply will probably be that Markan priority has
>previously been established, so the logic used in determining the
>reading here is legitimate.
To me, Markan priority is of almost no help in establishing the text
of Matthew, because by definition Mark, being prior, does not know
the text of Matthew. Perhaps, Markan priority can establish typical
Matthean redactions of its text, but POLLA in Mt9:12 does not appear
to be one of them. POLLA is generally a Markan feature (almost 2/3
of the occurrences in the synoptics).
The assumption of Markan priority would seem to be the most useful
in establishing the text of Mark, for Matthew and Luke can be
considered two additional witnesses to it. Except for modifications
that can be determined on redaction critical grounds, one doesn't
know whether a Matthean (or Lukan) reading in Mark is due to harmonization
(not original) or to Markan priority (original).
>> Furthermore, I noticed that Lk5:33 has a synonym, PUKNA. What about the
>> possibility that it could be some kind of a harmonization to the meaning
>> of Luke?
>
>As tempting as it would be to me to make such an argument, the
>fatal flaw is in your phrase "some kind of a harmonization". While
>PUKNA is somewhat synonomous, it is an unexpected word for the
>context and far too different from POLLA to be termed a
>harmonization at this level. If Matthew is really trying to agree
>with Luke, he should use Luke's vocabulary.
I noticed last night that the first corrector to Aleph has PUKNA in
Mt9:12 as well as some Old Latins (how they can differentiate between
Greek synonyms or translation variants is beyond me). I was surprised
that the apparatus to my UBS4 did not indicate any possible harmonization
to the Lukan parallel in the case of Aleph 1.
Stephen Carlson
--
Stephen C. Carlson, George Mason University School of Law, Patent Track, 4LE
scarlso1@osf1.gmu.edu : Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs
http://osf1.gmu.edu/~scarlso1/ : chant the words. -- Shujing 2.35
Back