Thu Apr 11 00:10:57 1996
From majordom Thu Apr 11 00:10:57 1996
Return-Path:
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4)
id AA08745; Thu, 11 Apr 1996 00:10:57 +0500
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 00:08:04 -0400 (EDT)
From: Maurice Robinson
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Subject: Re: Syriac + it-k
Message-Id:
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Length: 10885
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
[long -- continued from part 1]
William L. Petersen continued writing on 9 Apr 1996:
>(4) Later, Robinson makes a statement with which I, in general,
>agree--although it contradicts his own "never" assertion. He states "I
>only contend that, when the versions read something apart from the
>Greek MS data, the presumption is that they are UNLIKELY to be correct,
>and thus that their influence becomes virtually nil at such points."
>His word "unlikely" shows what I consider appropriate caution:
>"unlikely" does not mean "never" or "cannot", and, indeed, allows that
>possibility that they MAY. Thank you for the concession!
I do not consider it a concession at all. If one for the sake of
argument begins with that presumption, but after examining the
versional and patristic evidence and finding it wanting in regard to
any significant examples of such, the matter of "becoming nil" takes
precedence, and from then on functions as the working principle.
A dogmatic opposition to the likelihood of versional or patristic
testimony being original when opposed entirely to the Greek evidence is
merely a logical conclusion which follows from testing the original
hypothesis.
I am still waiting to see the _first_ versional or patristic readings
which _must_ be considered original in opposition to the united
testimony of the Greek MSS, just as I am waiting to see the first
conjecture which _must_ be original in a similar situation. In every
case yet proposed, I still see a more reasonable explanation in support
of readings found in Greek MSS as opposed to the isolated versional,
patristic, or conjectural testimonies. The "uncertainty principle"
might appear nice in theory, but it is severely wanting in practice.
>(5) As to the examples I gave, of course Robinson must disagree that
>any one of them might preserve the most ancient form of the text.
I did disagree, but so do all other Greek text editions; therefore it
is NOT a matter of merely "subscribing to Byzantine priority" and
having all else follow "Q.E.D." Rather, at each of those points my own
position merely falls into line with what most modern eclectics
themselves would state in the given situation. The particular reading
of the Byzantine Textform is not the issue in such places, but the
reading of virtually _all_ Greek NT MSS of all texttypes at a given
point versus some isolated versional, patristic or conjectural
readings.
>Of the three, as I indicated, I would be inclined to argue only one as
>having greater antiquity and "authenticity" than our present text, and
>that is the third reading (re: Mk. 12.14, over "kenson" ["tribute/tax"]
>versus "epikephalaion"/"kespha de-resha").
That reading also is the only one which possesses Greek support (D
Theta 565 besides it-k sy) and therefore is not properly illustrative
of the point under debate, viz., instances where versional and
patristic testimony have NO Greek MS support. I still reject there the
minority reading (as do the UBS/Nestle editors), but on grounds other
than my "dogmatic" rejection of versional or patristic testimony when
standing alone.
>There are two points which...commend the reading _to me_. First is its
>obvious "roughness", harkening back to a Semitism.
The seeming semitism of course may have been _created_ within the
Syriac version. EPIKEFALAION is a common Greek term for poll-tax or
head-tax, seen in the Oxyrynchus papyri and elsewhere (cf. Liddell and
Scott or Moulton/Milligan), and no necessary suggestion of a semitism
should be made for the reading of the Greek witnesses (D Theta 565) in
such a case.
That the Syriac could render the phrase as it did _may_ indicate that
EPIKEFALAION was the reading in the Greek MS used as the basis of that
version, but this is not necessarily the case, since, as I mentioned
before, the Syriac phrasing may simply reflect a translator's
interpretation of KHNSON, just as I suspect occurred independently in
the case of D on the one hand and Theta 565 on the other hand.
>Second is that I cannot imagine how this IDENTICAL variant should show
>up in Greek, Latin, and Syriac sources of the 4th cent. UNLESS it were
>part of a primitive Greek tradition.
Were the reading EPIKEFALAION widespread among the Greek MSS and
versions, I would acknowledge some genealogical connection. For it to
appear so infrequently among our extant data and among witnesses which
cannot otherwise be demonstrated to have true genealogical connections,
I cannot help but suspect independent creation of such a variant rather
than any intimate link.
I obviously do not think there is a sufficient quantity of tri-lateral
agreements between Greek, Syriac, and Latin, beyond what normally
appears within the bulk of the text itself. The Greek-Syriac-Latin
principle of course somewhat reflects Hoskier's thesis, viz. that the
autographs (or initial "canonical forms" of such) were originally
tri-lingual: this according to Hoskier would then explain what I and
others may see as "coincidences" as due to cross-contamination rather
than genealogy or descent; I don't buy Hoskier's hypothesis either.
>I would also be inclined to view _sympathetically_ the second of the
>readings I presented (re: Jn. 13.9, "+ and the whole body"). Here I am
>not quite as inclined to write it off simply as an "obvious gloss," as
>Robinson would (indeed, as he must, for otherwise Greek and Byzantine
>priority goes out the window).
Once more I object that in this case also my view merely accords with
that of the UBS/Nestle editors and most modern eclectics. There is no
need to object that a conclusion here is biased merely due to a
Byzantine-priority viewpoint. Only in those cases where there is a
distinct difference between the Byzantine and Alexandrian texttypes
will my particular transmissional views and theoretical application
differ from that of most modern eclectics.
>The reasons I am "sympathetic" to this variant are not tied up in any
>grand scheme of NT textual priority, but are based on the history of
>the early church and the variants offered in this single variation
>unit.
And I and most eclectics oppose the reading on the same historical
basis as being what appears to be an obvious gloss, typical of orthodox
pious expansion.
>The likelihood that the identical variant arose "spontaneously" and
>"independently" in the Diatessaronic tradition and MS _a_ seems
>unlikely.
I do not doubt that the reading had its origin in some Old Latin
"western" MSS like it-a; nor do I doubt that the Diatessaron was
strongly influenced by "western" readings (its text had to come from
somewhere!). I would not argue independent development in the
Diatessaron in this particular case, though I perhaps suspect that the
added words might merely have been floating around in oral or sporadic
liturgical tradition.
>we can date the variant to c. 170. Its presence in MS _a_ shows that
>it circulated in the canonical text, and that it must have been known
>before the 4th cent.
No problem with the dating, nor with a supposition that it was likely
present and circulating apart from the Diatessaron during the second
century, just as Colwell claimed for most all sensible readings, being
created before AD 200.
>Second, it was precisely during this period that immersion was the
>standard form of baptism (see, e.g., the _Didache_ 7).
We Baptists have no problem agreeing with that *;-)
>(N.B.: Incidentally, this passage is frequently cited in association
>with baptism by the early Fathers...THEY understood it as being linked
>with baptism; I am not concerned with what we might think of such a
>link today....)
Tertullian appears to be the only ante-Nicene father who cites Jn.13:9,
where it does make up part of a baptismal discussion (_De Bapt_.11).
Peter desires to be "thoroughly bathed," and Tertullian makes the point
that John the Baptist's original baptism of Peter was sufficient.
However, 13:9 with its Greek text mention of washing the hands and head
in addition to the feet is specifically contrasted to the following
verse (13:10) which speaks of those who have been _thoroughly_ bathed
not needing to wash again. I suspect that the wording of Jesus'
response in 13:10 may itself readily account for why a scribe or two
might think it necessary for Peter himself to request a washing of his
_complete_ body rather than stopping only with the head. In other
words, I see this as a very "logical" gloss, as well as an obviously
secondary reading, regardless of whether baptism in any form might here
be in view by any interpreters (and I note also the distinction in
13:10 between LOUW and the preceding uses of NIPTW, which might open
the door for such interpretation).
>I am most certainly not a Baptist, and while immersion was NOT the
>standard for the main Christian tradition after this early period
>(until the Reformation, when it reasserted itself in certain circles),
And some of us got hung out in cages in Munster (how ironically fitting
within the context of this discussion!) for asserting such.
>the excision of this phrase, however, agrees with later Christian
>practice. Texts are always being "massaged" (read, "corrupted") by
>well-intentioned people often seek to bring them into conformity with
>the theology/practices of their own time
In view of the more likely situation of the statement being thought
necessary by one or two scribes as a logical consequence of Jesus'
remarks concerning the "whole body" in 13:10, I totally fail to see the
plausibility of this reconstruction. What the various modern eclectics
saw as they constructed the UBS/Nestle or other critical texts, I do
not know, but certainly they and I are on the same side in regard to
the rejection of this variant.
>(I think it is the so-called "Living Bible" which translates John 1.1
>as "In the beginning was Christ, and Christ was God...").
The infamous "Living Bible" which is not fit for either the church or
the refuse heap as a decent paraphrase or representation of the word of
God (IMHO), renders John.1.1-2 as a unit, and far _worse_ than what you
quoted:
"Before anything else existed, there was Christ, with God. He has
always been alive and is himself God." [Ouch! to the rendering]
>The text of the NT is a mysterious, complex beast which, in my
>experience (but perhaps not in that of others...) defies quick,
>dogmatic solutions. And certainty is the rarest of commodities in this
>endeavor.
Believe it or not, I completely agree with that statement.
_________________________________________________________________________
Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Assoc. Prof./Greek and New Testament
Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Back