Wed Jun 12 14:29:55 1996
From owner-tc-list Wed Jun 12 14:29:55 1996
Return-Path:
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id OAA06413; Wed, 12 Jun 1996 14:28:52 -0400
Message-Id: <199606121824.OAA16684@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: Wed, 12 Jun 1996 14:24:46 -0400
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
From: wlp1@psu.edu (William L. Petersen)
Subject: Re: Theories of trans. (#2)
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
content-length: 14390
Thanks to the list members for their comments on my question. I'll try to
give quick responses to the most obvious points, and then end with an
example for your consideration.
1) Jim West noted:
>As I have understood it, use of the Fathers is hazardous because we do not
>know exactly their habits of citation. Do they cite from manuscript or
>memory? Since we do not know, it seems that using them as primary sources
>for textual reconstruction is a bit risky.
This is indeed the general supposition, but it is false in some instances,
and I hate to make generalizations unless I have investigated EVERY citation
in an author, and examined EVERY possible parallel (and, yes, that means
taking all 5 volumes of Biblia Patristica, and looking up EACH reference for
a verse...). A quick example. The "apparently" odd (= non-standard)
citations of the gospels by Justin were variously attributed to lapses of
memory (so Semisch in 1848), use of extra-canonical gospels (so Credner in
1832), use of pre-synoptic traditions (so Bousset in 1891), dependence upon
a post-synoptic harmony (so von Engelhardt in 1878), etc. The conclusion
from all of these dismissive statements was that "Justin's text need not be
taken seriously." I beg to differ. As the work of Smit Sibenga on Justin's
OT citations has shown, what were dismissed at an earlier stage of
scholarship as "lapses of memory" or "careless citations" because they
agreed with NEITHER the LXX NOR with the MT are now seen as accurate
citations from the "Old Greek" which has echoes in some of the Qumran
documents. Ditto for Justin's gospel citations, as investigated by
Bellinzoni. Sometimes they MAY be "loose," but in other instances, they are
repeated by Justin as many as three times, and in precisely the same
deviating fashion, AND THEY HAVE PARALLELS IN OTHER SECOND AND EARLY THIRD
CENTURY SOURCES. This suggests to me that Justin was citing a tradition
know to him in his day, and that he was doing so with great accuracy. (I'll
end this post with an example from Justin...)
2) Vincent Broman noted:
>I think the 2d-3d cent. evidence is well-trod ground that we are all taking
>for granted. It is useful, but substantially biased as a sample, and
>it doesn't solve the problem of explaining the history of the text.
He then goes on to give a hypothetical, which I will not repoduce here.
I am not sure how "well-trod" this is, for many contemporary scholars seem
to have no idea of what has been done by people like Alfred Resch, Bousset,
Schmidtke and others in the last century. Permit me to quote F.C. Burkitt:
"[Clement of Alexandria's gospel citations] cut off the only channel by
which we might have thought to connect the 'non-Western' text, as an organic
whole, with apostolic times. With Clement's evidence before us we must
recognise that the earliest texts of the Gospels were fundamentally
'Western' in every country of which we have knowledge, even in Egypt. If we
have any real trust in antiquity, any real belief in the continuity of
Chrisitan tradition, we must be prepared to admit many 'Western' readings as
authentic, as alone having a historical claim to originality."
The quotation is from Burkitt's "introduction" to Barnard's study (TaS V.5
[1899], pp. xvii-xviii) of "Clement of Alexandria's Biblical Text."
Kenyon's studies led him to the same conclusion (see his evaluation of the
text of Justin, Marcion, Irenaeus, and Clement of Alexandria in his _The
Text of the Greek Bible_ 3rd rev. ed. with A. Adams [1975], p. 169). More
recently, M. Mees' exhaustive study of Clement's text (_Die Zitate aus dem
Neuen Testamen bei Clemens von Alexandrien_ [1970]), in which the results of
his verse-by-verse study were summarized on a book-by-book basis, reached
similar conclusions.
I know that these empirical findings clash with the pet theories of the
Westcott-Hort crowd, as well as the Byzantine crowd...on the other hand,
facts are facts.
As for the Fathers being a "biased sample," I cannot see how they are any
more biased than the preserved manuscripts. Both have been selectively
preserved (not a fragment of the Judaic-Christian gospels survives, nor does
a fragment of Marcion--all we have are quotations...), selectively revised
and edited, etc.
3) Bob Waltz wrote:
>First, most authors did not cite precisely. This is particularly true of
>the earliest: Ignatius, Justin, etc. But Tertullian wasn't overly precise,
>either. And even Origen suffered occasional lapses of memory.
We've already handled that; see #1 above, and we'll close with a concrete
example. Note also: we only charge "loose citation" when the Father
("particularly...the earliest"!!) doesn't agree with OUR text; do the later
Fathers cite "more accurately" because they actually cite more accurately,
or just because they have a text which is closer to ours? (This is too cute
a circular argument: let the evidence be your guide.)
>Second, the writings of these authors are often badly preserved. Irenaeus
>and Origen, for instance, wrote in Greek but are preserved primarily in
>Latin. And in the case of Origen, at least, Rufinus's translation was more
>than a little biased.
This too is a common supposition, and is undoubtedly true in SOME instances.
However, I remember a paper in the NT TC seminar at the SBL some 5 or 7
years ago, in which F. Stanley Jones compared Rufinus' Latin translation of
the Pseudo-Clementine "Recognitions" with the Syriac of the same, and found
that Rufinus was a VERY ACCURATE translator, all things considered (Syriac
grammar vs. Latin grammar, idioms, etc.).
>And even when we possess the texts in the original language, our *manuscripts*
>are generally recent, and often thoroughly corrupt.
My concluding example should shed light on this matter.
>For these problems, I refer you to Fee's essays in Epp & Fee. I'm not sure
>I like Fee's solutions, but it shows the magnitude of the problem.
I know Gordon's analysis well; I did one of the jacket blurbs for that book
for Eerdmans. Gordon's approach and Fathers he deals with are a bit later
than the area I cover, and so I'll leave all that for another afternoon.
4) Now to an example (Matt 19.17/Mark 10.18/Luke 18.19):
A) JUSTIN: Dial. 101.2 (Justin dies 163-167; the Dial. is probably from
the 140s or 150s; we have two VERY late MSS, one from 1346 and one from 1541):
"One is good, my Father in the heavens."
Since we "know" [ ;-)] Justin was a "sloppy" scholar, who had early-onset
Alzheimers, and worked from VERY early but VERY corrupt manuscripts, and
since we "know" that Justin often took liberties with the text, the phrase
"my Father in the heavens" must be his own expansion, a lapse of memory, his
own addition for clarity, or one too many glasses of Chianti, right? It
CANNOT be part of the Ur-text, because none of the "big" MS or traditions
(Alexandrian, Byzantine, etc.) have it. And if that is not the case, then
it is clear that these LATE MSS of Justin have been corrupted in their long
history of transmission, right? If we had a 4th cent. MS of Justin, "my
Father in the heavens" wouldn't be there, right?
B) EPHREM: Commentary on the Diatessaron, XV.9, in BOTH the original Syriac
and the Armenian (2 MSS) reads:
"One is good, the/my Father who [is] in the heaven."
Gee. Ephrem died in 373, and the Syriac MS of the Commentary is FIFTH
century!!! And Tatian, of course, composed the Diatessaron (the gospel
harmony upon which Ephrem was commenting) about 172, on the basis of the
gospel texts current then. And this citation agrees PRECISELY with
Justin's, allowing for the differences in Syriac and Greek. Justin's
"heavens" is plural, and Ephrem's is singular, but otherwise...
C) IRENAEUS: Haer. V.7.25 (pre-185):
"One is good, the/my Father in the heavens."
Gee. Back in the West, Irenaeus, that bastion of orthodoxy, cites the
passage in PRECISELY the same form as Justin, save that Justin tucks a "mou"
in after "pater". Hmmm. Do I see a trend forming???
D) HIPPOLYTUS: Haer. V.7.25 (pre-222):
"One is good, the/my Father in the heavens."
This heresy-fighter agrees EXACTLY with Irenaeus' version of the passage,
even down to the lack of a "mou." With Irenaeus and Justin, "heavens" is
plural.
E) CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA: Strom. V.10.63 (composed c. 207):
"One is good, the/my Father."
A relief isn't it? At least we are rid of that awkward "in the heavens"
stuff, which only exists in the very earliest witnesses. But we are still
saddled with a vestige of Justin's text: FATHER.
F) PSEUDO-CLEMENTINE HOMILIES: XVI.3.4 (c. 260 for the Ur-text):
"For one is good, the/my Father in the heavens."
Oops! Still the full text, a la Justin, surviving, with the plural
"heavens." The Pseudo-Clementines, incidentally, are thought to be of
Syrian origin...
G) VETUS LATINA MS e (apud Matthew, V cent.):
"Unus est bonus, pater."
Gee. At least this second-most-ancient manuscript (only "a" is older, and
it is chock full of Western-text readings, and "Justinisms"--such as the
light at the baptism of Jesus....) doesn't have the "in the heavens" stuff,
but it still has that pesky "Father." When WILL we be rid of it? "Out,
out, damn Father!"
H) VETUS LATINA MS d (apud Luke, V cent.):
"Nemo bonus nisi unus Deus pater."
Well, what CAN we expect of the Latin column of Bezae?! Of COURSE it must
be corrupt, right? Note that not only is the pesky "Father" still around,
but, in place of "in the heavens," we now have "God"--so it is "God the
Father" who is good, not the Son, right??? Just as in Justin and the
earlier texts, it was the "Father in the heaven(s)" who is good, not the guy
Jesus, standing before you.
----
I rest my case. Note:
= Anyone have an EARLIER version of this passage, from ANY source?
I'm waiting....
= Are the manuscripts of Justin, Irenaeus, Ephrem, etc., accurately
transmitting the text?
Because of their agreement--in some cases VERBATIM agreement--there seems to
be no doubt but that the manuscripts ARE transmitting the text of Justin,
Irenaeus, Ephrem, the Pseudo-Clementines, etc., accurately.
= Are the Fathers citing inaccurately, from memory, carelessly, through a
wine-clouded haze?
The agreement of ALL these EARLIEST sources suggests not.
= Why does this reading, the earliest we possess (ALL of the sources cited
are fifth cent. and earlier, with MOST of them pre-250), and one which is
widely disseminated geographically (from Lyons to Alexandria, from Edessa to
Carthage, from Rome to the Levant), why does this reading fade from the
manuscript tradition?
The reason is that it highlights--even more sharply than the present
canonical text does--a point which was theologically unacceptable in later
times: Jesus was not "God" or to be identified with the "Father-God" in the
heavens. If you doubt this, compare Mark 10.17-18 with Matthew 19.16-17.
Mark's "good" no longer modifies "teacher," for that is what causes the
embarrassing reply from Jesus; Matthew moves it to modify "deed." Notice
that Mark's "call me" has been transformed into "ask me." It is clear that
Christological sensitivities have been ruffled in this passage, and we see
even more evidence of that in the variant "the/my Father in the heaven[s]".
This example is one of many I have stumbled across by combing the earliest
Fathers verse by verse (some others are in "What Text Can NT Textual
Criticism Ultimately Reach?" in _New Testament Textual Criticism, Exegesis
and Church History_, edd. B. Aland and J. Delobel [1994]). It is hard,
tiring work. But occasionally the results are gratifying. It seems to me
we have the earliest recoverable version of this passage before us, one
which dates back to the time of Justin: the middle third of the second century.
Finally, two comments on two points raised by M. Robinson in his two posts
in response to my original post. First, on Clement of Alexandria:
>...the quotation of Mk.10 in Clem.Alex's "Who is the Rich Man that will be
>saved?" is a case in point -- a direct quote, but so corrupted that it is
>hard to believe any MS read the same as Clement gives, even within the
>worst of the western tradition...
Hmmm. First, I don't know for sure if it is corrupted, for I would have to
check all the early Fathers, as I did for "one is good..." (I gave it a
cursory look years ago, and I seem to recall some vague hints that Clement
was not the only one with some such variant here--the variants were not as
neatly grouped as the example I have given above, but Clement was not, if I
recall correctly, a "one-off".) Second, let us assume for the sake of
discussion, however, that Clement IS the only Father or MS with this
citation, and that Justin was a drunk, and that Origen cited sloppily, and
that Ephrem was constantly retouching the text, and that Ignatius had
Alzheimers. I must confess that I find it odd that this "careless" handling
of the text, this "freedom" with which the Fathers are accused (such as
Clement here in QDS), is NEVER assumed to have affected the MS tradition of
the NT--when it seems to me it clearly did (e.g.: the "non-interpolations,"
the pericope adulterae [Jn. 8], the 4 "endings" of Mark, John 21, etc.,
etc., etc.). I will be the first person to state it: THE FATHERS CANNOT BE
FOLLOWED BLINDLY, FOR THEY OFTEN *DO* CITE CARELESSLY OR DELIBERATELY ALTER
THE TEXT FOR THEIR OWN PURPOSES. Having said that, I must also state that
MS SCRIBES APPEAR TO HAVE DONE SO AS WELL, and NEITHER THE FATHERS *NOR* THE
MSS ALWAYS CITE/TRANSMIT CARELESSLY.
To Robinson's second point:
>I agree on this point, but I should mention that I would be quite content
>to have a NT text constructed from the consensus (majority) testimony of
>the fathers of the first five centuries, since I have no doubts regarding
>the texttypical nature of an edition constructed on that basis. It might
>not be purely Byzantine, but it would come close.
I ALWAYS "have doubts" over what I will find--as the above case of Justin,
Irenaeus, Ephtem, Hippolytus, Clement of Alexandria, the Pseudo-Clementines,
and two Vetus Latina MSS demonstrates--until I have done the work. As Conan
Doyle had Holmes remark: "It is a capital mistake to theorize before
collecting all the evidence." To that I will say "Amen."
--Petersen, Penn State Univ.
Back