Tue Apr 9 15:49:28 1996
From majordom Tue Apr 9 15:49:28 1996
Return-Path:
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4)
id AA00707; Tue, 9 Apr 1996 15:49:28 +0500
Message-Id: <199604091945.PAA31380@r02n05.cac.psu.edu>
X-Sender: wlp1@email.psu.edu
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 09 Apr 1996 15:45:52 -0400
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
From: wlp1@psu.edu (William L. Petersen)
Subject: Re: Syriac + it-k
Content-Length: 10619
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
In response to Maurice Robinson's post of yesterday (8 Apr, at 14:37):
Since it is so long, I shall not reproduce his text (or my text to which he
was responding), save in quotations for reference. This response addresses
only what I see as our main points of disagreement.
(1) As to whether Robinson begins with an _a priori_ assumption, that I
leave to the readers of the list. His assertion, to which I took exception,
was that "versional and patristic evidence certainly can be of
significance,...but such should never become primary evidence or even
suggested to be such, in view of the quantity and quality of the Greek MS
evidence we possess."
There are ONLY two ways I can see of arriving at a conclusion that one
"should never" use certain evidence as primary. One is by having examined
every version at every variant, and having found NO single instance where
they might preserve a text superior to extant Greek witnesses. Has this
been done? If not, then the assertion is an _a priori_. The second way in
which one might arrive at this conclusion is by doing a sampling, and then,
finding none, conclude that NOWEHRE in these traditions is there a reading
superior to the Greek. This second way is obvious fallible, and is, to my
way of thinking, still an _a priori_. The equivalent would be to say that
the Byzantine text should _never_ be used to reconstruct the most ancient
version of a text; I would call that an _a priori_ as well--and one with
which I would disagree--for here and there it _might_.
Quite frankly, since Robinson has several other _a prioris_ later in his
post ("My previous exclusion of conjectural emendation also reflects such an
application of my own principles", and at #3 below), I don't see why he
should claim his absolute rejection of the evidence of the versions
("never") should not also be read as an _a priori_.
(2) Robinson states that the idea of a single MS preserving the original is
"absurd in the extreme." He holds up for ridicule the idea that "all or
nearly all Greek MSS at a given point have 'lost' the original reading, but
somehow a single version or perhaps two (e.g., sy + it-k) mysteriously
escaped the otherwise universal corruption." The problem is that textual
criticism is full of examples where one MS has preserved the "original"
reading, while the many have erred. While this cannot be demonstrated on
the basis of the Biblical text (for no one knows what the original text
was--_pace_ those who think they do...), it can be observed in Classical and
other texts by looking at any apparatus. I offer a single example, from the
Diatessaron. At Lk. 24.37, the canonical text reads "pneuma". We can,
however, reconstruct the reading of Tatian's Diatessaron through the
conjunction of Eastern and Western witnesses. In the East, Romanos the
Melodist and the Persian Harmony read the equivalent of "fantasma", as does
MS R of the Venetian Harmony (in Middle Italian). What is striking,
however, is that MS R is the ONLY MS of the 26 extant MSS of the Venetian
Harmony which reads "fantasima". The other 25 read the canonical "spirito".
Only MS R--that is 1 MS out of 26--has preserved the Diatessron's reading.
The empirical evidence shows that the phenomenon of a single MS offering the
original text DOES occur.
(3) Robinson's logic appears faulty--and appears to err in a manner which is
self-serving--in the following, which I reproduce directly. My original
text is first, followed by Robinson's reply:
>>Souter put it thus in an article on Hebrews 10.29 in _The Expositor_ 23
>>(1922), p. 135: "...there is a salutary lesson for all those who
>>neglect the early versions. _A reading may be right, even if no single
>>extant Greek MS. contains it_" (Souter's italics).
>
>Since Souter can be dogmatic in his stance without being faulted, then
>I too should be allowed to be just as dogmatic, declaring Souter to be
>dead wrong in light of the converse: "A reading _cannot_ be right if it
>is not contained in any single extant Greek MS." Dogmatism cuts both
>ways, and is entirely dependent upon the theory being espoused.
>
The parallel Robinson seeks to create, and the charge of "dogmatism" he
levels against Souter, do not withstand examination. Note: Souter said, "A
reading MAY be right, even if no single extant Greek MS. contains it." He
does not claim exclusivity (that ONLY readings in the versions, or SUPPORTED
by the versions, are "right"). Yet this is what Robinson would attribute to
him when he attempts to offer the "converse" of Souter: "A reading _cannot_
be right..." But, dear readers, that is NOT the "converse" of what Souter
said! If one WERE to posit the converse of what Souter said, then one would
have to write, "A reading MAY NOT be right if it is not contained in any
single extant Greek MS." That statement--like Souter's original
statement--is one to which I can assent. (Souter is NOT dogmatic or
exclusivist; whence comes this dogmatism in the inversion of his
statement??? It certainly doesn't come from Souter--or myself... "Cannot"
and "never" are not found in my or Souter's statements...)
(3) Robinson continues with another _a priori_: "...the quantity of Greek
MS evidence we possess remains eminently suitable for establishing the text
of the NT." In general, I tend to agree, but would not exclude either the
Fathers or the versions, as Robinson would. Note--lest I be treated as
Souter--I do not claim that the original text IS ALWAYS in the Fathers or
versions, much less ONLY in the Fathers or versions. I say only that one
errs if one _commences_ by saying that they can "never" provide evidence
anterior to the extant Greek MSS.
(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!
(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. (If one
subscribes to Byzantine priority, then it is all q.e.d.). 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"). There are two points which--and here I
am not at all dogmatic--commend the reading _to me_. First is its obvious
"roughness", harkening back to a Semitism. This, then, is later replaced
with the "standard" Greek expression. It seems to me (but perhaps not to
others...) that the rough, non-standard, Semitic diction precedes the
normal, standard expression. The inverse seems highly unlikely. 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. Because of the large numbers of "tri-lateral"
agreements (Greek, Syriac, Latin), the theory that the IDENTICAL variant
should have popped up "spontaneously" and "independently" in each, seems
very unlikely--at least to me. This suggests to me that _in this instance_
the Syriac and Latin (and three Greek MSS) have preserved the most ancient
version of this passage, and that it has been lost in the vast majority of
Greek MSS.
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). 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. Those who know me, know that I have a general preference
for the shorter reading. That is one thing which hobbles me from embracing
this variant. Nevertheless, two reasons give me pause, and leave me
uncertain: First, the reading occurs in diverse, early sources. The
likelihood that the identical variant arose "spontaneously" and
"independently" in the Diatessaronic tradition and MS _a_ seems unlikely.
If it stood in the Diatessaron, as the evidence of Romanos, the Pepysian
Harmony, and the _Vita Rhythmica_ suggests, then 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. Second, it was
precisely during this period that immerson was the standard form of baptism
(see, e.g., the _Didache_ 7). (N.B.: Incidentlaly, 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....) Now, while I am most certainly not a
Baptist, and while immerson was NOT the standard for the main Christian
tradition after this early period (until the Reformation, when it reasserted
itself in certain circles), I am not surprised to read in an early Christian
text that someone would have "no part in" Jesus, unless their "whole body"
were washed. This fits with the historical practices of primitive
Christianity, NOT later Christianity; 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 (I think it is the
so-called "Living Bible" which translates John 1.1 as "In the beginning was
Christ, and Christ was God..."). Might the same have happened here? I
think it is possible--but, because of the fragile nature of the evidence, I
would not give this reading the same weight I would the
"kenson"/"epikephalaion" reading.
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.
Petersen--Penn State University
Back