Mon Jun 17 17:03:36 1996
From owner-tc-list Mon Jun 17 17:03:36 1996
Return-Path:
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id RAA26205; Mon, 17 Jun 1996 17:02:23 -0400
Message-Id: <199606172059.QAA98110@r05n01.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: Mon, 17 Jun 1996 16:59:03 -0400
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
From: wlp1@psu.edu (William Petersen)
Subject: Re: Theories of trans.--continued
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
content-length: 7206
Thanks to Dr. Hurtado for their comments. A couple quick replies (I am away
for a week commencing Wednesday, so carry on...):
Re Hurtado:
1) Thanks, Larry, for pointing out the variant "theos" in the NA apparatus
(I was working from memory when I wrote). My point still remains, however:
the earliest reading with this variant (if one ignores Justin et al.) is MS
C, which is 5th cent., then MS W, f-13, and later... If I understand your
suggestion correctly, it is that (1) this text--first attested in the 5th
cent.--was extant in Justin's time (c. 150), that (2) Justin knew it, and
that (3) Justin substituted "pater mou ktl." for "theos". Since there is no
attestation (at least in NA or elsewhere--at least as far as I know) for
"theos" before MS C, this scenario seems to me highly unlikely. (Anything
is possible in this business, but I would take your suggestion more
seriously if there were earlier evidence for the variant--which is clearly a
confltion with the Marcan and Lucan parallels...)
2) Some years ago, we discussed a similar situation on IOUDAIOS, Larry, and
I still don't buy it. The situation is, to my mind, much more complex than
you suggest. Note carefully: Justin denies that "the Father-" God in
heaven has EVER appeared on earth, in ANY form. He (the "Father-"God in
heaven) never has and, apparently, never will. Rather, he uses a _created
being_ (cf. Philo, Origen, etc.), his "Son"--Justin also speaks of this Son
as "the Angel" (Dial. 127.4)--to do his bidding. This "Son" or "angel" is
"the power...which is called Glory"--terminology which comes from
intertestamental Judaism.
The key texts here are Ex. 7.1, in which Moses (a mortal man) is made "God"
(or "a God" to pharoah), and Ex. 23.21, in which the Jews, heading into the
wilderness, are warned to offer the angel "no defiance; he would not pardon
such a fault, FOR MY NAME IS IN HIM." (Cp. Justin's discussion of the
passage in Dial. 75: Jesus is an angel, he is the "name" of God, but he is,
one concludes, NOT the "Father-God" in the heavens, who alone is "good".)
The idea that angels, humans, subsidiary "godlings" (such as the "logos")
can bear the name "theos" is the central point--one which is affirmed as
orthodox Christian belief by the orthodox Christian father Aphrahat. It is
echoed in the quotation I provide from the Ep. Apost., and elsewhere (e.g.,
in Epiphanius' descriptions of Judaic-Christian groups...). No, Justin's
Christology is not explicitly "adoptionistic"--although he certainly has
overtones of that in his gloriously archaic baptism (the light in the
Jordan; "this day I have begotton you")--but he certainly is not "orthodox"
by Trinitarian standards. The line Justin is toeing is precisely that
expressed by Aphrahat, the Ep. Apost., and by some of the Judaic Christians
(as described by Epiphanius): Jesus was an "angel," the "son of god," a
"man," the "logos"; he BEARS THE TITLE/NAME of "god" (the Father in the
heavens), but HE is not "God" (the father in the heaven).
But this all is an argument over what I merely conjectured to be the genesis
of the variant; since I am sure Dr. Hurtado will admit that there are
Christological variations (already discernible in the redactional
differences among the synoptics--I provided examples) in the very earliest
layers of the gospel tradition, I will not belabour the point further. This
seems to me to be one more of them; if Dr. Hurtado disagrees, fine. But
this passage is--and here we reach the Lord's prayer matter--not, at least
in my mind, a mere slip of Justin's pen, or a "spontaneous" change on his
part. The reason is that such an argument ignores the continuous, VERBATIM
citation of the IDENTICAL variant for at least the next century or more.
The original issue was: Do the fathers offer _some_ material which is
reliable for use in TC? I say yes, and here is the evidence. I would note
that no one has yet offered earlier citaions from any source--not to
mention, multiple citations...--which rival these from Justin, Irenaeus,
Hippolytus, and the Ps.-Clementines for antiquity.
To the comments of Rev. Don Wilkins:
1) Wilkins writes:
>In many "citations" a textual variation seems
>to be nothing more than a paraphrase of the autograph and hardly worthy of
>being considered a true variant. The substitution of nous for kardia
>strikes me as an obvious example of this, so that its occurrence even in
>early authors can probably be written off as coincidence.
This is precisely the issue which precipitated this thread. The problem is
that in _some_ cases, the "paraphrase" crops up again and again and again,
across the centuries, across languages, and in VERBATIM form. Now, when
does that cease to be a "paraphrase" and become a textual tradition worthy
of consideration. I suggest looking back at my original example, in my post
of 6/12/96 "Theories of transmission (#2)" for the example. Are ALL of
these sources paraphrasing? (That strains even my great credulity...)
The subtext here is our predisposition to regard ANYTHING which doesn't
agree with our "pet" text (Byzantine, Alexandrian, etc.), as a "loose"
citation, paraphrase, etc., and to ignore it. Consider the quote from
Burkitt given in that post: we consistently find excuses to ignore the
oldest evdience we possess. It is shocking.
2) Continuing:
>It appears, first of all, that Justin's "lampsato de
>humon ta kala erga" (with or without "de") occurs nowhere else. Granted,
>one can find variations on Matthew's "humon ta kala erga" with lampsato
>elsewhere, but the more paraphrastic the form in the fathers, the more
>tenuous the reference.
This is true, except that it ignores the fact that these fathers all are
very early (if the variant is TRULY a happenstance, TRULY a coincidence, a
"spontaneous" occurrence in each source, then why doesn't the "happenstance"
continue throughout the ages? why don't later fathers make the same
"slip"?), and come from the same age (Justin is the earliest at c. 150;
Clement, Tertullian, and Origen are all rough contemporaries; Eusebius had
access to Origen's library in his youth, via Pamphilius. There is, then, a
chronological as well as, in the one instance (Origen-Eusebius) a LIVING
link between these witnesses. That I, for one, am reluctant to write off as
insignificant: a slip of the pen, a foggy memory, etc.
As for my comment that Clement was "consistent," I was not inferring that
all his citations were identical; rather, since he cites the same passage
in a deviating form more than once, it is hard to say this was just a "slip."
To close with another example: Justin cites a binary version of the Shema
THREE TIMES in EXACTLY the same deviating form: "heart"-"power" (at Dial.
93.2, 93.3 and Apol. 16.6: all "kardias...ischuos"). A slip? A
paraphrase? Oddly enough, the same binary Shema in Aphrahat (there seems to
be an Aphrahat-Justin link, both textually and theologically???), some
Diatessaronic witnesses, and in Vetus Latina MS k ("toto corde tuo et de
totis viribus tuis."). Something is going on here, and we are remiss if we
don't pay attention to it.
Cheers!
--Petersen, Penn State Univ. (not proofed)
Back