Subject: no messages from tc-list?

From: "James R. Adair" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 1996 11:13:40 -0500 (EST)

I have gotten several messages over the past few days from people 
wondering why they are not receiving any messages from the tc-list.  The 
answer is simple: no one has been contributing to the list!  As of this 
morning we have 166 subscribers to the list.  Surely someone has one or 
more topics he or she would like to discuss on the subject of textual 
criticism.  Let me encourage anyone who is interested to start a thread 
of discussion, or two!

Jimmy Adair
Manager of Information Technology Services, Scholars Press
    and
Managing Editor of TELA, the Scholars Press World Wide Web Site
---------------> http://scholar.cc.emory.edu <-----------------

---

From: "Stephen C Carlson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 1996 12:49:07 -0500 (EST)

James R. Adair wrote:
>            Let me encourage anyone who is interested to start a thread 
>of discussion, or two!

OK, here are some questions that have been bothering me for quite a
while.  I'll ask a general and a specific question.

To what extent does the textual critic take into account the possibility
that the reading in one of the synoptic gospels may have been harmonized
to another?  Which of the synoptics is more prone to harmonization than
the others?

Specifically, I have a question about Mt19:20 --

EFULACA
	{A} 01* B L Theta f1 579 900 it.aur,ff1,g1,l vg Jermoe etc.
EFULACA EK NEOTHTOS (see Lk18:21)
	(01.d NEOTHTOS MOU) D it.d
EFULACAMHN EK NEOTHTOS MOU (see Mk10:20)
	C W Delta f13 28 33 etc. Byz

Although the EFULACAMHN ... reading is attributed to harmonization to
Mark in my UBS4 apparatus and is not found in the best manuscripts,
what about the fact the middle voice presents a more difficult reading
(it seems to be a Semiticism/LXXism; good literary Greek calls for the
active voice)?  Finally, vv16, 17, 20 in many MSS (esp. Byzantines)
show a harmonization to Mark (and Luke).  Is this typical?  I would
thing that, given the importance of Matthew, that the harmonization
would go the other direction.

Stephen Carlson
-- 
Stephen C. Carlson, George Mason University School of Law, Patent Track, 4LE
[email-masked]              : Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs
http://osf1.gmu.edu/~scarlso1/     : chant the words.  -- Shujing 2.35

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 1996 17:21:21 -0500 (EST)

On Mon, 29 Jan 1996, Stephen C Carlson wrote:

> Which of the synoptics is more prone to harmonization than
> the others?

There is no question that Matthew, being the most popular gospel in teh 
early church, was the target for harmonization.  However,  the matter of 
harmonization is somewhat overblown, since a study of individual MSS' 
copying habits (using singular readings as a guide) will evidence that 
harmonization did not occur on a scale as wide as usually argued by 
eclectic critics.  Neither is harmonization specifically a characteristic 
of the MSS comprising the Byzantine Textform more than the MSS of other 
texttypes.  Wisselink's book on "Assimilation" makes some very good 
points in this regard.

> Mark in my UBS4 apparatus and is not found in the best manuscripts,

Both of those claims are subjective judgments.  I would question both of 
them from my own text-critical perspective.

> active voice)?  

The middle voice is "more difficult" more because it differs from the other 
readings. Since Mark does have the middle voice without significant 
variation, I would not make a specific judgement on it being more 
difficult in context, even in Matthew.  

I would suggest that the reading of Aleph B L Theta etc. is more likely to
reflect an accidental line omission of 16 letter (following the Byzantine
Text) than to have been the original reading, specifically due to the 
extremely limited and not even texttype-specific support that reading 
possesses.  The reading of D, being basically unique to itself, is not 
unusal in this case, being a typical sloppy omission of various 
characters from the Byzantine reading.

> Finally, vv16, 17, 20 in many MSS (esp. Byzantines)

The question is primarily whether those other MSS which harmonize are in 
a significant numerical quantity, or whether they are merely isolated 
cases which happen to go that direction.  In almost all cases, 
harmonization among individual MSS is observed to head for Matthew.

=========================================================================
                       Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D.
            Associate Professor of Greek and New Testament
              Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary
                      Wake Forest, North Carolina
                   <[email-masked]>
=========================================================================

---

From: Jim Deardorff <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 1996 17:36:36 -0800 (PST)

Also in response to James Adair's request, here's a topic initiated by a
scholar of the 1920s, H. G. Jameson, who's argument pointing out an
apparent Marcan editing formula has not been refuted or even discussed
since in the literature, as far as I know.  This is in his book, "The 
Origin of the Synoptic Gospels" (1922). 

Upon allowing that the writer of Mark could have copied from Matthew,
while having various reasons for abbreviating Matthew and making minor
alterations, Jameson found the following "editing formula."  One finds
some 9 spots in Mark where its writer, without any apparent cause, breaks
in upon the speech he found in Matthew and inserted the clause, "And he
said to them." 

The writer of Mark did this in the inserted verse of Mk 2:27 while he had
apparently been following along Mt 12:1-5 but then omitted Mt 12:6-7.
There was no need for his text to have been written with this
interruption, which is unlike the same clause just preceding in Mk 2:25
where the text changes from one speaker (Pharisees) to another (Jesus) and
the clause could be appropriate. 

He did it again in the inserted verses of Mk 4:13-14 when he had been
following along Mt 13:1-13 (the inserted Markan verses imply that the
Jewish disciples were extra uncomprehending).  (Note: external evidence
suggests that the writer of Mark was in Rome, and hence writing his gospel
for gentiles.)  Again there was no need for a continuing speech of Jesus
(Mt 13:11-23) to be interrupted by the narrator saying "And he said to 
them." 

He did it again in Mk 4:21 where its parallel verse, Mt 5:15, was
borrowed and placed in the wrong order.  And again in Mk 4:24, which
borrows Mt 7:2 and places it out of order.  And he did it again in Mk 7:9
just after he had inserted verse Mk 7:8.  And again in Mk 7:20 just after
where he had inserted the (parenthetical) explanation of Mk 7:19b, not in
Matthew. 

Again Mk 6:10 has the clause just following where Mt 10:10 was edited into 
the Markan version of the Mission instructions.  (Here the editing left 
behind the inane instruction of "stay there until you leave...")  Again 
there was no need to say concerning Jesus:  "And he said to them," 
since he had already been talking to them and continues to talk to them.

Again Mk 9:1 has the clause just following Mk 8:38, which is an edited or 
distant parallel to Mt 16:27b.  

Again Mk 4:9 has a needless: "And he said" just after the verse where
Matthew's order of 100-60-30 is reversed.  (Notice that Mark's order seems
to make the most sense -- an improvement.)

So it seemed evident to Jamson that this clause is an "editing formula" 
used by the writer of Mark to try to hide any discontinuity of thought
caused by his editing.  The writer of Mark then appears to have been not 
particularly skillful or comfortable with editing of this nature.

This doesn't seem to be an easily reversible argument.  For if the writer
of Matthew had been copying from Mark and eliminating these superfluous
clauses: "And he said to them," while adding much else, he would not seem
to have had reasonable motivation to have chosen those very spots to also
make alterations in Mark's text. 

I'm most interested, of course, in comments on this from others who may
see much merit in the older position of Matthean priority over Mark, and
who recognize the argumentation in support of Mark-Q priority to be the
more easily reversible. 

My own research indicates that the switch-over from Matthean to Markan 
priority developed in the 19th century due to mounting pressures to avoid 
the embarrassing implications of the writer of Mark having omitted so 
much of value from Matthew, plus several other embarrassing 
considerations.  Although Jameson himself appears to have been 
theologically committed to the extent of assuming that the Gospel writers 
were the same as the men whose names are attached to the Gospels, and 
perhaps also towards preserving the traditional order of Gospels stemming 
from Irenaeus, Origen and Augustine, these did not explicitly enter into his 
argumentation for the preceding Marcan editing formula.

Jim Deardorff
Oregon State University

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 1996 21:51:08 -0500 (EST)

> Origin of the Synoptic Gospels" (1922). 

Assuming Matthean priority, and literary dependency, Jameson's case 
appears to be very strong.  I suspect it has been ignored (much as 
Baird's "Audience Criticism and the Historical Jesus") merely because it 
would reverse the direction of NT studies away from Markan priority, the 
Two-Source Hypothesis, and the then-ongoing Quest of the Historical Jesus.

Of course, current traditions need continually to be challenged and 
reexamined, and Jameson gives one direction for valuable pursuit.

---

From: "James R. Adair" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 1996 01:39:06 -0500 (EST)

> harmonization among individual MSS is observed to head for Matthew.

A study of the Synoptic parallels of this pericope in Aland's _Synopsis 
Quattuor Evangeliorum_ shows that the Byzantine text tends to add 
material in all the gospels to make them conform _somewhat_ to the 
others.  There is no conscious effort to harmonize; rather, it seems that 
isolated words (AGAQH in Mt 19:16, SOU in Lk 18:20, MOU in Lk 18:21) are 
supplied from one or another gospel (cf. also the addition of ARAS TON 
STAURON from another context in Mk 10:21 Byz; also TI ME LEGEIS AGAQON; 
OUDEIS AGAQOS EI MH O QEOS from Mk and Lk in Mt 19:17 Byz).  What appears 
to have happened is that various scribes over time, as they copied their 
mss, occasionally changed them somewhat in the direction of another, 
usually fuller, version.  Without any indicator of parablepsis, 
accidental omission of 16 letters seems unlikely.  The argument about a 
"significant numerical quantity" carries no weight when the history of 
the development of the text of the NT over 1500 years or so is taken into 
account.

Jimmy Adair

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 1996 19:52:00 -0500 (EST)

On Wed, 31 Jan 1996, James R. Adair wrote:

> others.  

I would note that for this statement to hold, an _a priori_ assessment of 
the Byzantine Textform as both "late" and "secondary" must exist.  From a 
Byzantine-priority standpoint, one merely finds parallel agreements from 
which MSS of other textual traditions happen to vary (as they do frequently).

The only sure guide to determining how prone any given MS, version or 
Father might be toward assimilation/harmonization is from an analysis of 
that witness' singular readings (of which Aland's Synopsis provides a 
good number of examples, though by no means exhaustive). 

Readings held in common by witnesses of a given textual tradition are not
automatically "harmonizing" or "disharmonizing" unless and until a deeper
analysis of the witnesses comprising such a tradition has been made and a
determination as to whether such a tendency was sufficiently great to
affect the tradition as a whole.  From various tests made upon MSS of the
Byzantine tradition (cf. Wisselink), the tendency appears to be minimal. 

> There is no conscious effort to harmonize; rather, it seems that 
> OUDEIS AGAQOS EI MH O QEOS from Mk and Lk in Mt 19:17 Byz).  

I would agree with the primary claim that there is no conscious effort to 
harmonize, either among the Byzantine MSS or the Alexandrian MSS as a whole.
I would not accept the texttype-specific examples given above, however, 
since I also fully agree that it is only "isolated words" which tend to 
become harmonized, and that basically occurring in "isolated MSS" and not 
texttypes as a whole.  I see a key methodological error (which began with 
Westcott and Hort) in attributing to entire texttypes elements which 
properly concern only individual elements of that texttype, and then only 
in "isolated case" examples.

> What appears 
> usually fuller, version.  

Agreed.  I would not minimize accidental or deliberate omission for
whatever various reasons, however (which omission may also "harmonize" 
one gospel to another).  But addition or substitution would remain the
primary harmonizing tools. 

> Without any indicator of parablepsis, 
> accidental omission of 16 letters seems unlikely.  

But which MSS are we talking about?  Not a large number, but also not all
genetically (texttype) connected; this is of some significance. 

Aleph*, however, is corrected by a near-contemporary scribe in this place,
which could maximize the possibility of accidental line-omission in the
case of that MS (line-omission is known frequently to occur in Aleph). 

Nevertheless, the fact that strong Alexandrian MSS such as B and L agree
on this reading clearly indicates that it goes back to a texttype-specific
reading in a nonextant exemplar. Similarly with the strong Caesarean
witnesses Theta f1 579 and 700*.  Cyprian and part of the Latin tradition
may also reflect a common origin which links into a primitive archetype
which underlies both the Alexandrian and Caesarean texttypes.  

If so, then I would consider the shorter text here either as coming from a
primitive line omission which occurred in a MS that served as a source for
both the Alexandrian and Caesarean texttypes, or -- and possibly more
appealing -- that the shorter text was a result of a deliberate editorial
decision on the part of the scribe or scribes of that archetypal MS. 

However, from my own studies of Alexandrian variants, my suspicion would
remain with accidental error in an archetype MS, which error resulted in a
"sensible" reading, and thus became perpetuated within the various
localized texts which in their own ways stemmed from that archetype (I
also would see some sort of loose genealogical connection between the
Alexandrian and Caesarean texttypes). 

> The argument about a 

As Scrivener pointed out over a century ago, the mere multiplication of
witnesses does nothing to bolster authority beyond a certain point.  For
Scrivener, that point (for some very good reasons) happened to be the 10th
century.  Basically Scrivener dismissed the vast mass of later MSS from
the 11th-16th centuries on what appear to be reasonable grounds.  I would
be perfectly willing to adopt the same cutoff point as Scrivener for
similar reasons. Such a cutoff limit does not, however, eliminate the
basic issue of either the Byzantine Textform or the question of a
"significant numerical quantity" as an issue. 

While number does not and cannot decide anything in textual criticism
(taken as an isolated criterion), the matter of providing a satisfactory
history of transmission which fully takes into account the numerical
amount of attestation for the various readings being evaluated MUST remain
a factor.  It has been all too easy for textual critics since Westcott and
Hort to both minimize and deprecate "number" as some sort of automatic
evil, even though number in itself comprises a definite element and
component part of transmissional history. 

It should not be forgotten that Burgon himself urged SEVEN quite
responsible "notes of truth" in his methodology, and a careful and honest
examiner will never say (as did Fee) that those seven criteria are merely
seven different ways of claiming that number rules everythin and thus
Byzantine-priority advocates are merely engaging semantics over a
"nose-counting" exercise.  I would urge the interested reader to obtain a
copy of my ETS paper delivered at Chicago 1994 which responded directly to
Fee's "two test passages" in Mark in order to see how a Byzantine-priority
defense of such passages proceeds, almost without mention of number except
when attempting to determine transmissional history.