Mon Oct 28 23:04:18 1996
From owner-tc-list Mon Oct 28 23:04:18 1996
Return-Path:
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id XAA01936; Mon, 28 Oct 1996 23:03:12 -0500
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 22:59:22 -0500 (EST)
From: Maurice Robinson
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Subject: Re: Versional variants
In-Reply-To:
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
content-length: 6509
On Tue, 29 Oct 1996, Jean Valentin wrote:
> Mt 1.18 omission of "Marias". Represented in ms B of the armenian version
> of Ephrem's commentary, and in a hebrew version from Spain (XV century)
Recognizing that you do not claim these variants to be original, as well
as that there was no "conspiracy" to place variants such as these in such
widely-separated sources, do you nevertheless consider that there
supposedly is _some_ genealogical connection in a case like the above
rather than mere coincidence in accidental (or even deliberate) error?
If there really were connections in the cases cited, one would expect to
find some "variant trail" which would point to the connection and thereby
establish both antiquity and genealogy. As it stands, I see little more
than mere coincidence in reading.
> Mt 1.19 Joseph isn't called "her husband". This variant is well known as
> diatessaric. We find it in: Ephrem, syc, the Liege diatessaron (middle
> dutch), the persian harmony published by Messina, the same hebrew version
> from Spain and an inedit persian tetraevangelion that I noticed in the
> brussels Royal Library (I don't know enough persian to launch its
> publication, so if one of you feels like beginning it, I can give the
> references).
This one I will concede has sufficient evidence to be claimed as a
reflection of the original Diatessaron. William Petersen can comment more
authoritatively on that point than myself, however.
> Mt 1.20 "As he was thinking about this": add "in his heart": the same
> hebrew version from Spain and one of the oldest Georgian mss (D= the Jruch
> ms). These are really two extremities of the world! How do you explain such
> a coincidence except by the image of the stone thrown into water (see one
> of my earlier posts).
I would explain this as harmonizartional coincidence, probably brought
about by the Lukan comment about Mary keeping all these things and
pondering them in her heart. I certainly see _no_ valid connection between
a 15th century Hebrew version (even if one other of its readings may have
Diatessaric connections) and the Georgian version, any more than I see a
connection between that Hebrew MS and the Armenian version of Ephraem's
commentary. Widely separated individual scribes and translators -- even
among the Greek MSS -- may end up with identical readings, but no
genealogical connection is postulated in most of those cases by any
textual critics. I see no need to do anything more here.
> Mt 1.20 omit. "idou". The same georgian ms, this time with another hebrew
> version coming from Italy (Paris hebrew 132, XV/XVIth century) and several
> armenian citations (for armenian citations my reference is Leloir's
> Citations du NT dans l'ancienne tradition armenienne).
It would have certainly helped the case if the same _Hebrew_ MS were
repeatedly agreeing with the Georgian or the Armenian of Ephraem's
commentary; but here the same Georgian now has a different coincidental
agreement with a _different_ Hebrew MS......I fail to see how this helps
your contention.
> Mt 1.20 omit "kyriou": the spanish hebrew version, the italian hebrew
> version, and again armenian citations.
This again is more likely to be attributed to mere coincidence than
anything genealogically substantial; however, it may be the case that the
two Hebrew versions in question may have further genealogical ties, but
this says nothing about the supposed Armenian connection.
> Mt 1.22 As is well known, the name of the prophet is added by codex Bezae,
> many old latin witnesses and the early father Ireneus. To these we should
> add the italian hebrew version and the Armenian vulgate (ed. Zohrab).
> This example is a bit different because of the presence of a greek ms: D.05
This reflects a clear Western variant, with or without Codex Bezae. Both
the Armenian and the Hebrew version in question here reflect the more
ancient Western reading, and this seems unquestioned. There still may be
a Diatessaric connection here, but I am uncertain. The difference in this
case lies in the multiplicity of evidence in favor of this reading. Had
it merely possessed the Armenian and Italian Hebrew version, I would not
attempt to make the connection.
> Mt 1.24 apo tou hypnou: add a possessive and say: "from _his_ sleep":
> sys.c.p, the georgian Jruch ms (geoD), the arabic Diatessaron and the
> persian harmony of Messina. To these we must add again, the two hebrew
> versions from Italy and Spain. This is a case where we have several remote
> geographical areas representing the same text.
This may be coincidence or Diatessaric. However, the addition of the
possessive in such a case is what any scribe might think to be "normal",
and thus add consciously or unconsciously. I would not make much of the
connection in this instance.
> Mt 2.2 om "gar": the spanish hebrew version, the arabic diatessaron, two
> old dutch mss of the diatessaron: the Liege and Haaren mss.
Diatessaric connection appears likely, though unless that Spanish Hebrew
version can be shown to have more Diatessaric readings which could _not_
have occurred by mere coincidence, I would be wary of making much out of
such an agreement.
> Mt 2.2 kai elthomen: two versions add "with gifts" (spanish hebrew) and
> "with importan gifts" (dutch Haaren diatessaron).
Since they did present gifts, this may be harmonization to the following
context. I am not even certain that Petersen would claim the Dutch
Diatessaron here standing virtually alone as genuinely Diatessaric.
> Mt 2.3 "herod the king": om. "the king": the spanish hebrew version and
> several armenian citations. Again, these are two extremities.
Again I suspect likely coincidental.
> Mt 2.3 Hierosolyma: replaced by "the inhabitants of Jerusalem" in the
> spanish hebrew version and in armenian citations.
If so, is this reading the term as Ierosolymiths or as something else? I
suspect the Armenian version altered the text here for clarity of
expression in their own language. The Hebrew version may have done
similarly, but independently.
I will leave the remainder of the citations for others to deal with, since
this post probably has run its course from my side far too much.
_________________________________________________________________________
Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament
Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Back