Sat Apr 13 16:54:02 1996
From majordom Sat Apr 13 16:54:02 1996
Return-Path:
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4)
id AA23786; Sat, 13 Apr 1996 16:54:02 +0500
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 1996 16:51:08 -0400 (EDT)
From: Maurice Robinson
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Subject: Gergesenes and tc
Message-Id:
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Length: 4160
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
In response to Don Wilkins' comment of 4 Apr 96:
After spending much time tilting on other topics, I finally can address
the Gergesene/Gadarene/Gerasense problem in the gospel text from the
pro-Byzantine perspective. Lest anyone presume that the "majority
text" or Byzantine-priority viewpoint claims to offer a complete
solution to interpretative problems, I note the following:
In Mt.8:28 the Byztxt reads Gergesenes, Lect reads Gergesenes
In Mk.5:1 the Byztxt reads Gadarenes, Lect reads Gergesenes
In Lk.8:26 the Byztxt reads Gadarenes, Lect reads Gadarenes
The critical text in each case differs from the Byzantine/Majority
reading, giving the following minority preferences:
In Mt.8:28 N27 reads Gadarenes, it-pl read Gerasenes
In Mk.5:1 N27 reads Gerasenes , Aleph-c L Delta Theta al read Gergesenes
In Lk.8:26 N27 (P75 B D it) read Gerasenes; however, UBS3 (following
Aleph L X Theta Xi) had read Gergesenes.
Certainly the Byzantine text in each parallel does not resolve the
problem, and indeed, textual criticism seems unable to determine which
reading should be correct in any given case, regardless of the theory
underlying each approach. Further, when the Lectionaries differ from
the continuous-text Byzantine MSS as in Mk.5:1, the problem is
compounded still further.
While the actual geographical location is problematic, there are two items
which appear most puzzling:
(1) in the Byzantine Text of the respective parallels there was _no_
harmonization of names to produce a common locality as is commonly
alleged against Byzantine-era scribes;
(2) that a similar place-name confusion remains within the minority
readings as well as in the critical editors' decisions, but in every
case the Alexandrian or Western witnesses preferred a name variation
differing from the Byzantine text.
While localized dialects, lack of geographical knowledge, and other
factors certainly would have caused confusion regard to proper names (cf.
place names like Bethzatha/ Bethsaida), it is puzzling that the
non-Byzantine witnesses unitedly seem opposed to the Byzantine reading
(and vice versa) in every case, even though it is precisely the same
combination of names (Gadarenes/Gergesenes/Gerasenses) which are being
tossed about in haphazard combinations. I admit perplexity over this
situation and what transcriptionally may have caused such ever to come
about.
Specifically to William Petersen: can you help us sort out the specific
reading chosen by Tatian for the Diatessaron? I would assume that the
event and the place name only occur once in that work, since it harmonized
all the parallels; yet according to UBS3, "Diatessaron-a" agrees with Byz
in Lk, "Diatessaron-p" agrees with Byz in Mk, but in Mt there is an apparent
split between a general "Diatessaron" favoring the critical text and
"Diatessaron-e" there reading with the Byz txt. Please help us sort this
out, especially if the Diatessaron only recorded this event once.
To Don Wilkins, who wrote:
>I accept (by faith) the accuracy of the autographs and prefer the
>criteria of sound textual criticism (as stated by Metzger et al.) to
>the arguments of Burgon and Hodges, so I am left with a more difficult
>problem.
I only can ask, Don, in this case, what real difference does it make,
or what benefit is derived from following one text-critical theory over
another?
The problem of different terms being used in the parallels remains in any
case, though it certainly would be tempting to resolve the whole thing by
preferring the N27 text in Matthew, and the Byztxt in Mk. and Lk., which
would make ALL parallels read "Gadarenes"! Of course, neither I nor the
critical editors would do such a thing within the perspectives of our own
theories, but all of us would probably have been pleased had the scribes
simply done so centuries ago.
_________________________________________________________________________
Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Assoc. Prof./Greek and New Testament
Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Back