Subject: I Thess. 1:1

From: [email-masked] (Carlton L. Winbery)
Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 17:06:00 +0400

I would like to ask tc-list participants to comment on the variation at I
Thess. 1:1.  In the face of the byz tradition plus Aleph, A, 33, and the
Bohairic, internal evidence (harmonizing with every other Pauline letter)
convinces me that the text of UBS & N-A27 is correct (omitting APO QEOU
PATROS hHMWN KAI KURIOU IHSOU XRISTOU).

This appears to me to be one place where a byz scribe probably would have
gone with the longer reading even if he knew of mss that had the omission.
Also as the minor variations in other sources show, this is likely a
harmonization that would have been made by several scribes in different
places independent of each other.

Carlton L. Winbery
Fogleman Professor of Religion
Louisiana College

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1996 11:33:20 -0400 (EDT)

Since Carlton has finally brought up 1 Thess.1.1 on the tc-list, I will
share basically what I have sent him on this matter via private mail,
since it obviously reflects some praxis within my methodology. 

Carlton L. Winbery wrote in private mail on Sat, 13 Apr 1996:

>...I intended to ask you on tc-list to comment on the
>variation at I Thess. 1:1.  In the face of the byz tradition plus
>Aleph, A, 33, and the Bohairic, internal evidence (harmonizing with
>every other Pauline letter) I think that the text of UBS & N-A27 is
>correct.  Would you go with the Byz here also?

Quite obviously, since my theory is indeed Byzantine-priority, I would
be going with the Byzantine in 1 Thess.1.1 as might be expected,
although I am well aware of the internal arguments in support of the
critical text with its omission of what appears to be a redundancy as
well as a "harmonization" to (at least) 2Thess.1.2.  

I would note, however, that the parallel is not so finely drawn with 
the other Pauline epistles, since the variations in precise wording in 
the other epistles differ significantly enough to preclude any 
suspicion of true harmonization or assimilation to those more remote 
parallels.  This in fact is the case with even 2Thess.1.2, since even 
in the final clause there some MSS (B D P 0111 33 1739 1881) omit HMWN 
(bracketed in N27), which omission, should it be considered original by
any eclectic, would eliminate the direct harmonization in 1Thess.1.1

My reasons for concluding that the Byzantine text in fact did _not_
harmonize in 1Thess.1.1 is evidenced by the fact that, if they were
attempting to harmonize, they did not do the job well.  

In the opening phrases of both 1Thess.1.1 and 2Thess.1.2 we find
virtually identical words stating basically: "Paul and Silas and Timothy
to the church of (the) Thessalonians in God the Father and (in the)
Lord Jesus Christ....."  

Note, however, that 2Thess.1.1. differs in reading "in God OUR Father" 
while 1Thess.1.1 omits HMWN -- though the harmonization _is_ present in 
a very few MSS (A 81 (629) pc, plus it-a it-r vg sa-mss).  If the 
Byzantine MSS as a whole had a bent toward harmonization, and if one 
alleges that they took such pains to harmonize the closing clause of 
1Thess.1.1, it becomes very peculiar that they did such a poor job in
regard to harmonizing the first half of that verse in like manner.

Further, in 1Thess.1.1, the fact that witnesses from texttypes and 
traditions as diverse as Aleph 33 (Alexandrian) and (D) I (Western) [D 
omits HMWN here], plus the ancient marginal readings of the sy-h, as 
well as the Coptic Bohairic clearly establish that this reading is 
indeed ancient and not peculiar to or typical of the Byzantine
Textform.  The omission of the passage has B and Psi among the
Alexandrian witnesses in its favor, but the remaining witnesses for
omission (F G 629 reflect a more aberrant Western tradition than does D
or I; 1739 1881 reflect the later Caesarean tradition which may in the
case of 1739 stem from Origen, but in most cases likely not).

Normally, I strongly argue for transcriptional considerations and 
accidental causes of variation before I would move to deliberate 
alteration as a cause (in this I follow Hort rather than Ehrman).  
Certainly, some variants are clearly tied to deliberate stylistic or 
theological manipulation.  In the present case, however, I see no need 
to posit deliberate excision so as to produce the critical text, nor
for deliberate expansion or harmonization to create the Byzantine text.
Rather, I see a simple transcriptional cause as the likely culprit.

Omission by homoioteleuton or homoioarcton is not possible, but there
_is_ a possibility that omission of one or more lines by simple
parablepsis could have produced the omission in a remote archetype of
the remaining Western or Alexandrian witnesses, e.g. (allowing for
nomina sacra):

  1       PAULOSKAISILOUANOSKAI     (allowing a reasonable length
  2       TIMOQEOSTHEKKLHSIAQES     of 19-21 letters per line; letter
  3       SALONIKEWNENQWPRIKAI      widths of course would vary, and I
  4  ->   KWIUXWXARISUMINKAIEI      would not insist on this precise
  5       RHNHAPOQUPRSHMWNKAI       model, though it clearly makes the
  6  ->   KUIUXUEUCARISTOUMEN       intended point)
          k.t.l.

Were this the text of the exemplar, the scribe's eye could easily have
skipped from KW IU XW in line 4 to the occurrence of the quite
similar-appearing KU IU XU in line 6.  Add to this that the previous line
in each case ends with KAI, and the chances for such accidental omission
by parablepsis are dramatically enhanced. This seems to me to offer an
extremely adequate explanation for the omission of a 2-line segment in a
minority of witnesses, regardless of whether there might be
stemmatic/genealogical connections among those witnesses or whether
independent accidental omission may have resulted. 

>This appears to me to be one place where a byz scribe probably would
>have gone with the longer reading even if he knew of mss that had the
>omission.

I of course would agree about the probability, but only if the majority 
of the known evidence supported the longer reading.  If the predominant 
amount of extant MS evidence in the scribe's own day were favorable to 
the shorter reading, I do not think the majority of subsequent scribes 
would adopt such.

Scribes simply did _not_ en masse expand or harmonize the text, as even 
the cited example of the missing HMWN in the _first_ half of 1Thess.1.1 
demonstrates.  Taken to its logical conclusion, such a presumption 
would expect _no_ instances of "Jesus" appearing without "Christ" 
attached, or vice versa; plus no instances of "Jesus Christ" or "Christ 
Jesus" without "the Lord" attached; plus no instances of "the Lord 
Jesus Christ" without "our" attached, etc. etc.  The Byzantine scribes 
simply were _not_ in the business of wholesale textual expansion or
harmonization, even if _some_ of them -- a slight minority at
all times -- may have from time to time engaged in the practice.

I hope this helps clarify my position somewhat, and that you will see 
that I usually do have sufficient internal grounds for preferring the 
Byzantine reading, in accord with my transmissional history 
reconstruction hypothesis.

_________________________________________________________________________
Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D.           Assoc. Prof./Greek and New Testament
Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary     Wake Forest, North Carolina
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~