Subject: Re: Theories of trans. (#2)

From: [email-masked] (William L. Petersen)
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1996 14:24:46 -0400

Thanks to the list members for their comments on my question.  I'll try to
give quick responses to the most obvious points, and then end with an
example for your consideration.

1) Jim West noted:

>As I have understood it, use of the Fathers is hazardous because we do not
>know exactly their habits of citation.  Do they cite from manuscript or
>memory?  Since we do not know, it seems that using them as primary sources
>for textual reconstruction is a bit risky.

This is indeed the general supposition, but it is false in some instances,
and I hate to make generalizations unless I have investigated EVERY citation
in an author, and examined EVERY possible parallel (and, yes, that means
taking all 5 volumes of Biblia Patristica, and looking up EACH reference for
a verse...).  A quick example.  The "apparently" odd (= non-standard)
citations of the gospels by Justin were variously attributed to lapses of
memory (so Semisch in 1848), use of extra-canonical gospels (so Credner in
1832), use of pre-synoptic traditions (so Bousset in 1891), dependence upon
a post-synoptic harmony (so von Engelhardt in 1878), etc.  The conclusion
from all of these dismissive statements was that "Justin's text need not be
taken seriously."  I beg to differ.  As the work of Smit Sibenga on Justin's
OT citations has shown, what were dismissed at an earlier stage of
scholarship as "lapses of memory" or "careless citations" because they
agreed with NEITHER the LXX NOR with the MT are now seen as accurate
citations from the "Old Greek" which has echoes in some of the Qumran
documents.  Ditto for Justin's gospel citations, as investigated by
Bellinzoni.  Sometimes they MAY be "loose," but in other instances, they are
repeated by Justin as many as three times, and in precisely the same
deviating fashion, AND THEY HAVE PARALLELS IN OTHER SECOND AND EARLY THIRD
CENTURY SOURCES.  This suggests to me that Justin was citing a tradition
know to him in his day, and that he was doing so with great accuracy.  (I'll
end this post with an example from Justin...)

2) Vincent Broman noted:
>I think the 2d-3d cent. evidence is well-trod ground that we are all taking
>for granted.  It is useful, but substantially biased as a sample, and
>it doesn't solve the problem of explaining the history of the text.

He then goes on to give a hypothetical, which I will not repoduce here.

I am not sure how "well-trod" this is, for many contemporary scholars seem
to have no idea of what has been done by people like Alfred Resch, Bousset,
Schmidtke and others in the last century.  Permit me to quote F.C. Burkitt:

"[Clement of Alexandria's gospel citations] cut off the only channel by
which we might have thought to connect the 'non-Western' text, as an organic
whole, with apostolic times.  With Clement's evidence before us we must
recognise that the earliest texts of the Gospels were fundamentally
'Western' in every country of which we have knowledge, even in Egypt.  If we
have any real trust in antiquity, any real belief in the continuity of
Chrisitan tradition, we must be prepared to admit many 'Western' readings as
authentic, as alone having a historical claim to originality."

The quotation is from Burkitt's "introduction" to Barnard's study (TaS V.5
[1899], pp. xvii-xviii) of "Clement of Alexandria's Biblical Text."
Kenyon's studies led him to the same conclusion (see his evaluation of the
text of Justin, Marcion, Irenaeus, and Clement of Alexandria in his _The
Text of the Greek Bible_ 3rd rev. ed. with A. Adams [1975], p. 169).  More
recently, M. Mees' exhaustive study of Clement's text (_Die Zitate aus dem
Neuen Testamen bei Clemens von Alexandrien_ [1970]), in which the results of
his verse-by-verse study were summarized on a book-by-book basis, reached
similar conclusions.

I know that these empirical findings clash with the pet theories of the
Westcott-Hort crowd, as well as the Byzantine crowd...on the other hand,
facts are facts.

As for the Fathers being a "biased sample," I cannot see how they are any
more biased than the preserved manuscripts.  Both have been selectively
preserved (not a fragment of the Judaic-Christian gospels survives, nor does
a fragment of Marcion--all we have are quotations...), selectively revised
and edited, etc.

3) Bob Waltz wrote:

>First, most authors did not cite precisely. This is particularly true of
>the earliest: Ignatius, Justin, etc. But Tertullian wasn't overly precise,
>either. And even Origen suffered occasional lapses of memory.

We've already handled that;  see #1 above, and we'll close with a concrete
example.  Note also:  we only charge "loose citation" when the Father
("particularly...the earliest"!!) doesn't agree with OUR text;  do the later
Fathers cite "more accurately" because they actually cite more accurately,
or just because they have a text which is closer to ours?  (This is too cute
a circular argument:  let the evidence be your guide.)

>Second, the writings of these authors are often badly preserved. Irenaeus
>and Origen, for instance, wrote in Greek but are preserved primarily in
>Latin. And in the case of Origen, at least, Rufinus's translation was more
>than a little biased.

This too is a common supposition, and is undoubtedly true in SOME instances.
However, I remember a paper in the NT TC seminar at the SBL some 5 or 7
years ago, in which F. Stanley Jones compared Rufinus' Latin translation of
the Pseudo-Clementine "Recognitions" with the Syriac of the same, and found
that Rufinus was a VERY ACCURATE translator, all things considered (Syriac
grammar vs. Latin grammar, idioms, etc.).

>And even when we possess the texts in the original language, our *manuscripts*
>are generally recent, and often thoroughly corrupt.

My concluding example should shed light on this matter.

>For these problems, I refer you to Fee's essays in Epp & Fee. I'm not sure
>I like Fee's solutions, but it shows the magnitude of the problem.

I know Gordon's analysis well;  I did one of the jacket blurbs for that book
for Eerdmans.  Gordon's approach and Fathers he deals with are a bit later
than the area I cover, and so I'll leave all that for another afternoon.

4) Now to an example (Matt 19.17/Mark 10.18/Luke 18.19):

A) JUSTIN:  Dial. 101.2 (Justin dies 163-167;  the Dial. is probably from
the 140s or 150s;  we have two VERY late MSS, one from 1346 and one from 1541):

        "One is good, my Father in the heavens."

Since we "know" [ ;-)] Justin was a "sloppy" scholar, who had early-onset
Alzheimers, and worked from VERY early but VERY corrupt manuscripts, and
since we "know" that Justin often took liberties with the text, the phrase
"my Father in the heavens" must be his own expansion, a lapse of memory, his
own addition for clarity, or one too many glasses of Chianti, right?  It
CANNOT be part of the Ur-text, because none of the "big" MS or traditions
(Alexandrian, Byzantine, etc.) have it.  And if that is not the case, then
it is clear that these LATE MSS of Justin have been corrupted in their long
history of transmission, right?  If we had a 4th cent. MS of Justin, "my
Father in the heavens" wouldn't be there, right?

B) EPHREM:  Commentary on the Diatessaron, XV.9, in BOTH the original Syriac
and the Armenian (2 MSS) reads:

        "One is good, the/my Father who [is] in the heaven."

Gee.  Ephrem died in 373, and the Syriac MS of the Commentary is FIFTH
century!!!  And Tatian, of course, composed the Diatessaron (the gospel
harmony upon which Ephrem was commenting) about 172, on the basis of the
gospel texts current then.  And this citation agrees PRECISELY with
Justin's, allowing for the differences in Syriac and Greek.  Justin's
"heavens" is plural, and Ephrem's is singular, but otherwise...

C) IRENAEUS:  Haer. V.7.25 (pre-185):

        "One is good, the/my Father in the heavens."

Gee.  Back in the West, Irenaeus, that bastion of orthodoxy, cites the
passage in PRECISELY the same form as Justin, save that Justin tucks a "mou"
in after "pater".  Hmmm.  Do I see a trend forming???

D) HIPPOLYTUS: Haer. V.7.25 (pre-222):

        "One is good, the/my Father in the heavens."

This heresy-fighter agrees EXACTLY with Irenaeus' version of the passage,
even down to the lack of a "mou."  With Irenaeus and Justin, "heavens" is
plural.

E) CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA:  Strom. V.10.63 (composed c. 207):

        "One is good, the/my Father."

A relief isn't it?  At least we are rid of that awkward "in the heavens"
stuff, which only exists in the very earliest witnesses. But we are still
saddled with a vestige of Justin's text:  FATHER.

F) PSEUDO-CLEMENTINE HOMILIES:  XVI.3.4 (c. 260 for the Ur-text):

        "For one is good, the/my Father in the heavens."

Oops!  Still the full text, a la Justin, surviving, with the plural
"heavens."  The Pseudo-Clementines, incidentally, are thought to be of
Syrian origin...

G) VETUS LATINA MS e (apud Matthew, V cent.):

        "Unus est bonus, pater."

Gee.  At least this second-most-ancient manuscript (only "a" is older, and
it is chock full of Western-text readings, and "Justinisms"--such as the
light at the baptism of Jesus....) doesn't have the "in the heavens" stuff,
but it still has that pesky "Father."  When WILL we be rid of it?  "Out,
out, damn Father!"

H) VETUS LATINA MS d (apud Luke, V cent.):

        "Nemo bonus nisi unus Deus pater."

Well, what CAN we expect of the Latin column of Bezae?!  Of COURSE it must
be corrupt, right?  Note that not only is the pesky "Father" still around,
but, in place of "in the heavens," we now have "God"--so it is "God the
Father" who is good, not the Son, right???  Just as in Justin and the
earlier texts, it was the "Father in the heaven(s)" who is good, not the guy
Jesus, standing before you.

----

I rest my case.  Note:

= Anyone have an EARLIER version of this passage, from ANY source?

I'm waiting....

= Are the manuscripts of Justin, Irenaeus, Ephrem, etc., accurately
transmitting the text?

Because of their agreement--in some cases VERBATIM agreement--there seems to
be no doubt but that the manuscripts ARE transmitting the text of Justin,
Irenaeus, Ephrem, the Pseudo-Clementines, etc., accurately.

= Are the Fathers citing inaccurately, from memory, carelessly, through a
wine-clouded haze?

The agreement of ALL these EARLIEST sources suggests not.

= Why does this reading, the earliest we possess (ALL of the sources cited
are fifth cent. and earlier, with MOST of them pre-250), and one which is
widely disseminated geographically (from Lyons to Alexandria, from Edessa to
Carthage, from Rome to the Levant), why does this reading fade from the
manuscript tradition?

The reason is that it highlights--even more sharply than the present
canonical text does--a point which was theologically unacceptable in later
times:  Jesus was not "God" or to be identified with the "Father-God" in the
heavens.  If you doubt this, compare Mark 10.17-18 with Matthew 19.16-17.
Mark's "good" no longer modifies "teacher," for that is what causes the
embarrassing reply from Jesus;  Matthew moves it to modify "deed."  Notice
that Mark's "call me" has been transformed into "ask me."  It is clear that
Christological sensitivities have been ruffled in this passage, and we see
even more evidence of that in the variant "the/my Father in the heaven[s]".

This example is one of many I have stumbled across by combing the earliest
Fathers verse by verse (some others are in "What Text Can NT Textual
Criticism Ultimately Reach?" in _New Testament Textual Criticism, Exegesis
and Church History_, edd. B. Aland and J. Delobel [1994]).  It is hard,
tiring work.  But occasionally the results are gratifying.  It seems to me
we have the earliest recoverable version of this passage before us, one
which dates back to the time of Justin:  the middle third of the second century.

Finally, two comments on two points raised by M. Robinson in his two posts
in response to my original post.  First, on Clement of Alexandria:

>...the quotation of Mk.10 in Clem.Alex's "Who is the Rich Man that will be 
>saved?" is a case in point -- a direct quote, but so corrupted that it is 
>hard to believe any MS read the same as Clement gives, even within the 
>worst of the western tradition...

Hmmm.  First, I don't know for sure if it is corrupted, for I would have to
check all the early Fathers, as I did for "one is good..."  (I gave it a
cursory look years ago, and I seem to recall some vague hints that Clement
was not the only one with some such variant here--the variants were not as
neatly grouped as the example I have given above, but Clement was not, if I
recall correctly, a "one-off".)  Second, let us assume for the sake of
discussion, however, that Clement IS the only Father or MS with this
citation, and that Justin was a drunk, and that Origen cited sloppily, and
that Ephrem was constantly retouching the text, and that Ignatius had
Alzheimers.  I must confess that I find it odd that this "careless" handling
of the text, this "freedom" with which the Fathers are accused (such as
Clement here in QDS), is NEVER assumed to have affected the MS tradition of
the NT--when it seems to me it clearly did (e.g.:  the "non-interpolations,"
the pericope adulterae [Jn. 8], the 4 "endings" of Mark, John 21, etc.,
etc., etc.).  I will be the first person to state it:  THE FATHERS CANNOT BE
FOLLOWED BLINDLY, FOR THEY OFTEN *DO* CITE CARELESSLY OR DELIBERATELY ALTER
THE TEXT FOR THEIR OWN PURPOSES.  Having said that, I must also state that
MS SCRIBES APPEAR TO HAVE DONE SO AS WELL, and NEITHER THE FATHERS *NOR* THE
MSS ALWAYS CITE/TRANSMIT CARELESSLY.

To Robinson's second point: 

>I agree on this point, but I should mention that I would be quite content 
>to have a NT text constructed from the consensus (majority) testimony of 
>the fathers of the first five centuries, since I have no doubts regarding 
>the texttypical nature of an edition constructed on that basis.  It might 
>not be purely Byzantine, but it would come close.

I ALWAYS "have doubts" over what I will find--as the above case of Justin,
Irenaeus, Ephtem, Hippolytus, Clement of Alexandria, the Pseudo-Clementines,
and two Vetus Latina MSS demonstrates--until I have done the work.  As Conan
Doyle had Holmes remark:  "It is a capital mistake to theorize before
collecting all the evidence."  To that I will say "Amen."

--Petersen, Penn State Univ.

---

From: "Larry W. Hurtado" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 1996 09:42:48 -0500 (CDT)

A very interesting piece from Wm. Petersen on early citations of Mt 
19:17.  Thanks to Bill for taking time to log all the 
citations/references.  
	I do, however, want to log a much more modest contribution of my 
own, by way of a hesitation to accept right away Bill's proposal for the 
cause/meaning of the variation twixt some of the early Fathers and the 
majority of surviving mss evidence.  First, I fail to see how the 
variation between "God" and "my Father in heaven" reflects any major 
christological variation, Bill.  I think your shooting at shadows here.
	I do,however, find it interesting that the latter variant is 
simply the *well known* opening address of the Paternoster, with the 
substituion of "mou" for "hemon".  Seems entirely likely to me that 
Justin, et alia, simply (and freely) preferred that more familiar 
liturgical phrase, thus making their piety/usage more directly connected 
with Jesus' own.  And this esp. in the Dial. 101 context, where Justin's 
point is to emphasize Jesus' humility (citing Ps 21/22 extensively).

Larry Hurtado, Religion, Univ. of Manitoba

---

From: Alan Repurk <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 1996 11:24:23 -0700

> Larry Hurtado, Religion, Univ. of Manitoba

Gentlemen

First of all I would like to say that I thought that the citations
were extrordinary, and ask under what circumstances the citations
could be quoted, aside from looking up all the references myself,
which I just may do.

Also, in answer to your statement, Larry, that you don't see much
theological significance between the two renderings I would like to
relate that on more than one occasion I have used these passages
to attempt to show that Jesus was correcting the person that called
Him good to show that the title of 'good' was not to be applied to
himself, but only to His Father. In spite of what I think is very
clear language I could not get the other individual to agree to this
meaning.  Part of the reason is that the language as we have received
it is just ambiguous enough to allow for more than one interpretation.

I do not think this would be the case with the quotes that William
supplied.

-lars

---

From: "Larry W. Hurtado" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 1996 09:42:29 -0500 (CDT)

> I do not think this would be the case with the quotes that William

Well, I really can't say what your chances of apologetic/evangelistic 
success would be with this or that contemporary and this or that textual 
variant.  I don't really think that's relevant.  The issue I was speaking 
to was Wm. Petersen's suggestion that the "my father in heaven" variant 
was suppressed/replaced with "God" in the interests of high christology.  
My reasons for demurring are (1) with either variant one easily gets the 
impression of Jesus expressing some distinction between him being called 
"good" and calling "God/the Father" good.  That is, either way some level 
of distinction is there twixt Jesus &  . . . the Father/God, whatever.
(2) Second, and a bit more telling for me, the variant which Bill 
suggests might have been seen as problemmatic christologically is freely 
used by Fathers (e.g., Justin, Irenaeus, etc.) whose christological views 
are commonly (and, I think, correctly) seen as "high" christology, 
involving some kind of real divinity of Christ (with the corollary of 
worship of Christ).  So, if the variant would have been seen as 
problematic for high christology, why would it have been used/favored in 
these passages by these fathers?

Larry Hurtado

---

From: Alan Repurk <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 1996 09:00:47 -0700

> these passages by these fathers?

  It is true that I see plenty of ambiguity in quotes from the Church Fathers.
I have not had the oportunity to study them in depth, but I do plan to spend
some time doing so.  I do get the feeling that their writings have been
compromised by centuries of Christological battles, yet there are quotes by some
Fathers which remain from the time period which William refered which lead me to
believe that some understood the nature of Christ to be a created being,
not equal to His Father.  Of course by the fourth century those with
that viewpoint were not popular, likely to be persecuted, and certainly their
writings have been largely destroyed.  So what we have to remember them by are
comments from their critics which certainly can not be taken as unbiased.

  Therefore, because of the evolution of thought from the time that the apostles
were alive up to the time of the fourth century when the Trinitarian Creeds were
fully developed I think that statements like 'only the Father in Heaven is good.'
may have been completely acceptable in say the second century and somewhat
embarrassing in the third century and completely unaceptable in the fourth century.

Just a lay person's, uneducated opinion,
-lars

---

From: [email-masked] (Ulrich Schmid)
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 96 19:33:34 +0100

After returning to Muenster I found some highly interesting examples from early 
Christian literature brought forth by William L. Petersen (Wed 12 Jun + Fri 14 
Jun). The issue was the testimonies of (Gospel) quotations in patristic writings 
and their reliability. Concerning the MSS tradition of these writings I totally 
agree with W.L. Petersen. Usually their text is faithfully transmitted; the 
examples from "One is good, my/the father in heaven" (Matt 19.17/Mark 10.10/Luke 
18.19) give abundant evidence. And I too am convinced that we have to consider 
church father testimonies seriously. However, I may express some hesitations 
concerning the case presented by W.L. Petersen. On Wed, 12 Jun 1996, he wrote:

>Permit me to quote F.C. Burkitt:

>his verse-by-verse study were summarized on a book-by-book basis, reached

I may express some doubts wether M. Mees really "reached similar conclusions" 
(i.e. Burkitt-Barnard like). Permit me to quote from Mees (p. 106): "Dennoch 
duerfte die Burkitt-Barnard-These vom westlichen Charakter der Clemenszitate aus 
den Evangelien nicht mehr in der damals aufgestellten Form zu halten sein." At 
least Mees found nothing in Clement's Gospel citations that justifies the label 
"fundamentally 'Western'".

[quoting Waltz:]

>grammar vs. Latin grammar, idioms, etc.).
 
Rufin may turn out to be a RELATIVELY ACCURATE translator when compared to the 
Syriac translation of Pseudo-Clementine literature. But, comparing Rufin's 
translation of the (Pseudo-Origen) 'Dialog des Adamantius' with the Greek text 
reveals some striking differences in the renderings of the Pauline citations 
within this text (occasional droppings, interference of Rufin's Old-Latin text, 
etc.).

W.L. Petersen further wrote:

>Now to an example (Matt 19.17/Mark 10.18/Luke 18.19):

>Father in the heavens" wouldn't be there, right?

Nice. 

>in after "pater".  Hmmm.  Do I see a trend forming???

Well, Irenaeus, "that bastion of orthodoxy", cites this passage not from his 
own, but from a Marcosite (heresy!!!) source!!! Do I see another trend 
forming??? (BTW--- the source is misprinted, it should be read Haer. I.20.2)

>even down to the lack of a "mou."  With Irenaeus and Justin, "heavens" is

Well, the only thing one can expect from a heresy-fighter is fighting heresy. 
Therefore, nobody will be surprised finding the quotation given above as 
stemming from the Naassenes (heretics of the worst kind). (BTW--- another small 
misprint, it should be read Haer. V.7.26). The heresy trend is going on...

>saddled with a vestige of Justin's text:  FATHER.

Well, as we all know, Clement is one of the most erudite Christian teachers. 
Therefore, we might expect the full text. And there it is: "One is good, my 
father IN THE HEAVENS" (Paed. I.72.2). But, what about the heresy trend? Well, 
the most erudite Clement will not let us down. In Strom. II.114.3-6 Clement 
cites from a letter of Valentinus (the latter commenting/alluding to Matth. 
19.17): "hEIS DE ESTIN AGAQOS...[...]...hO MONOS AGAQOS PATHR".

To take it more serious, I may conclude that in fact our earliest sources for 
the FATHER (IN HEAVEN) are at least contemporary to Justin, but partly 
antedating him: Marcosites, Naassenes, Valentinus. I may add to the "heretic" 
chain the well known Marcion (definitely before 150 AD). Epiphanius testifies 
that the Marcionite Gospel read "One is good, THE FATHER". 

The "heretic" chain to my mind gives interesting hints to detect the possible 
source of this reading. The above mentioned (at least Marcion and Valentinus) in 
fact were Christian teachers heavily dependent on the separation of the one and 
only GOOD God revealed through Jesus Christ from the inferior creator God. The 
latter could be by no means called GOOD, but God. This is definitely true for 
Marcion. He deeply opposed the creator God (i.e. the God of the "Old" covenant, 
i.e. OT) and relied solely on the GOOD God revealed through Christ. Both, 
Valentinus and Marcion, teached _docetic_ HIGH-CHRISTOLOGY of the highest level. 
Jesus definitely was no human being, he descended from the highest realm of the 
GOOD God previously unknown to mankind. In this type of theology the sharp 
qualitative difference was NOT between Jesus (not good, not God) and God the 
FATHER (only God), but between the ONE AND ONLY *GOOD* God revealed through 
Christ and the creator God to whom the OT testifies. The text: "One is good, 
the/my father in heaven" seen in this context is the definite Gospel proof-text 
for all who wish to identify a GOOD God apart from a creator God. If then the 
one and only GOOD God of Matth 19,17parr was not identified with the heavenly 
father of Christ, the passage remained at least ambiguous to those teaching 
dualistic concepts. They must feel the need to clarify the passage and 
presumably they added the gloss FATHER (IN HEAVEN).

>= Anyone have an EARLIER version of this passage, from ANY source?

No, definitely not. But, most probably earlier SOURCES, indicating that this 
earliest version of this passage presumably was created within the context of 
dualistic theology. Therefore, though the earliest version attested in time and 
space, to my mind it cannot be judged "original", but clearely secondary. 

Ulrich Schmid, Muenster