Subject: Synoptic source criticism

From: [email-masked] (Richard K. Moore)
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 1996 08:05:46 +0800

Writing re. the Longer Ending of Mark, Maurice Robinson (7 April 1996:
tc-list digest IV # 48 2/2) remarked that he was taking us off the track of
textual criticism.

Certainly this list ought not to degenerate into mere theorizing concerning
textual criticism and needs to keep concrete cases before it both for their
own value and as illustrative of the nature of the data.

Let us not forget, however, that by their own admission, one of the
principles guiding the editors of the NA26/NA27 text in the decisions they
took for the Gospels was a commitment to Marcan priority.

Richard K. Moore,
Head of New Testament Department, Baptist Theological College of Western
Australia;
Lecturer, Murdoch University.

---

From: "Stephen C Carlson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 1996 09:59:40 -0400 (EDT)

>took for the Gospels was a commitment to Marcan priority.

I'm curious to know whether Markan priority affected the determination any
particular reading.  Does anyone have an example?

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, 8 Apr 1996 11:28:41 -0400 (EDT)

> particular reading.  Does anyone have an example?

The modern critical texts will have a tendency to claim more
harmonizations of Mark to Matthew, which are attributed to a presumption 
of Markan priority as well as to the fact that Matthew was the most 
popular gospel in the early church.  The real reflection of the Markan 
hypothesis would be seen in their internal evidence decision to follow a 
non-Matthean or non-Lukan reading in Mark whenever the choice presents 
itself.

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

---

From: Don Wilkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 08 Apr 1996 15:27:51 +0000

> particular reading.  Does anyone have an example?

I did a quick-and-dirty browse of Metzger's commentary and came 
up with POLLA in Matt 9.14, which is absent from the Markan 
parallel (2.18). The question was whether POLLA was added by 
Matthew or by subsequent copyists, and the committee preferred 
the first option, while granting that POLLA does not occur  in Aleph 
(original hand) or B. Without the assumption of Markan priority, it 
would appear that the committee would have selected the second 
option.

---

From: "Stephen C Carlson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 14:57:39 -0400 (EDT)

>would appear that the committee would have selected the second 

Thanks for the example.  Upon reading this over, I just don't understand
how Markan priority fits into this.  The issue, it seems, that Aleph
and B are alone in lacking POLLA against the witness of the Byzantine,
Italic, Syriac, etc.  In order words, it looks like one of those places
where the joint testimony of Aleph and B could be wrong.  What I can't get
is how the assumption of Markan priority helps to confirm this over the
other option that everyone else is incorrect.

Furthermore, I noticed that Lk5:33 has a synonym, PUKNA.  What about the
possibility that it could be some kind of a harmonization to the meaning
of Luke?  If POLLA is original to Matthew, then the presence of PUKNA in
the Lukan parallel would tend to undercut one of the foundational arguments
for Markan priority: that Matthew and Luke do not know each other in Triple
Tradition except through Mark.  POLLA // PUKNA could be a counter-example.

Stephen Carlson

---

From: "Stephen C Carlson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 15:08:58 -0400 (EDT)

>non-Matthean or non-Lukan reading in Mark whenever the choice presents 

If this is true, then I don't see why Markan priority (as opposed
to harmonizing tendencies) would be a good reason.  If we *knew* that
Mark was first, how does that help us establish which competing claim
to the text of Mark is stronger?  What Matthew may or may not have
changed is not relevant, because we don't know if Matthew followed or
departed from Mark in the first place.

Stephen Carlson

---

From: Don Wilkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 09 Apr 1996 17:31:10 +0000

Stephen C Carlson wrote:
> where the joint testimony of Aleph and B could be wrong.  

While the committee's view of the weight of Aleph and B against 
the numbers of other mss has certainly shifted (it now seems to be 
politically incorrect to say anything good about Westcott and Hort), 
they still assign a very high value to the Aleph/B combination. So 
when you say "it looks like one of those places..." you are still 
suggesting a pretty remote possibility; indeed, that is why POLLA is 
bracketed.

>What I can't get

I'm not sure who you mean by "everyone else," but you may be 
misunderstanding me if you are referring to the group that includes 
the byz mss. The committee is cautiously preferring this group and 
conceding that Aleph/B may be wrong. This means that in the 
committee's reasoning (given the basic assumption that POLLA was 
"added"), it is more likely that Matthew is adding POLLA than later 
copyists, and therefore Matthew is choosing to modify Mark's text. 
One could of course argue that this reasoning begs the question of 
Markan priority by favoring it either way--since if Matthew agrees 
with Mark (and does not "add" POLLA) he is merely copying 
Mark--but then the reply will probably be that Markan priority has 
previously been established, so the logic used in determining the 
reading here is legitimate.

> Tradition except through Mark.  POLLA // PUKNA could be a counter-example.

As tempting as it would be to me to make such an argument, the 
fatal flaw is in your phrase "some kind of a harmonization". While 
PUKNA is somewhat synonomous, it is an unexpected word for the 
context and far too different from POLLA to be termed a 
harmonization at this level.  If Matthew is really trying to agree 
with Luke, he should use Luke's vocabulary.

---

From: "Stephen C Carlson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 10:44:56 -0400 (EDT)

Thank you so much for your patient response.  I hope you (or someone else)
will indulge me one more time, because I'm still finding it difficult to
understand how Markan priority fits into Mt9:14.

Don Wilkins wrote:
>the byz mss.

What I meant by "everyone else" is the plethora or witnesses for
POLLA as opposed to its absence, according to my UBS4 is only 01*
B, a Coptic, a Georgian, and Cyril.  The POLLA reading is supported
by Byzantines, the Western text, the Syriacs, some Old Latins, and
families f1 and f13.

>             The committee is cautiously preferring this group and 

Here's the point I don't get: if POLLA stood in the autograph of
Matthew, then it is not "added": it was always there.  It would be
"omitted" by 01* and B.  If, on the other hand, POLLA did not stand in
the autograph, then it was added by almost every other witness.

>reading here is legitimate.

To me, Markan priority is of almost no help in establishing the text
of Matthew, because by definition Mark, being prior, does not know
the text of Matthew.  Perhaps, Markan priority can establish typical
Matthean redactions of its text, but POLLA in Mt9:12 does not appear
to be one of them.  POLLA is generally a Markan feature (almost 2/3
of the occurrences in the synoptics).

The assumption of Markan priority would seem to be the most useful
in establishing the text of Mark, for Matthew and Luke can be
considered two additional witnesses to it.  Except for modifications
that can be determined on redaction critical grounds, one doesn't
know whether a Matthean (or Lukan) reading in Mark is due to harmonization
(not original) or to Markan priority (original).

>> of Luke?

I noticed last night that the first corrector to Aleph has PUKNA in
Mt9:12 as well as some Old Latins (how they can differentiate between
Greek synonyms or translation variants is beyond me).  I was surprised
that the apparatus to my UBS4 did not indicate any possible harmonization
to the Lukan parallel in the case of Aleph 1.

Stephen Carlson

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 00:15:16 -0400 (EDT)

> departed from Mark in the first place.

Which from my perspective is a good reason not to make too much of either
Matthean or Markan priority principles as I approach the text.  Presumed
literary dependence can be a bane rather than a blessing, as the
contradictory claims of various two-source scholars come to the forefront. 

Those who postulate a Mk + Q source for both Mt and Lk presumably will
view certain variants in light of their hypothesis to the exclusion of
others, and their text-critical decisions at certain points will 
therefore reflect those underlying hypotheses.