Subject: Versional variants

From: [email-masked] (Jean Valentin)
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1996 03:14:55 +0100

Hello tc-listers!

As some of you have said, it is better to work on examples than to embark
in long discussions about principles. So here are a few examples. If you
like the exercise, more will follow. I didn't put Arabic this time, as my
favorite ms has a lacuna here :-( Next time maybe...

I propose to your reflexion a few variants which I haven't met in greek
texts. Which doesn't mean they don't exist in greek mss, simply after
having consulted the most important greek (NA27, Tischendorf, WH, Soden,
Merk, TR, Hodges-Farstad, Legg, Scrivener's codex Bezae, Loch's Vaticanus -
but is this last one reliable? etc...) editions, I haven't found them to be
known in greek.

What's striking for some of them is that we find them in parts of the world
that are very remote, for example Spain and Caucasus, or the Low Countries
and Persia. This excludes most probably a late origin, especially as two or
three geographical areas with no contact whatsoever cannot have
"conspirated" to produce these variants. I do not pretend these variants to
be "original", but this is more to show you what can happen if you look at
the versions.

Examples are taken from Mt 1.18-2.12

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)

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).

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). Of course, only one case doesn't prove anything, but
the recurrence of such phenomena begins to attract attention.

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).

Mt 1.20 omit "kyriou": the spanish hebrew version, the italian hebrew
version, and again armenian citations.

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

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.

Mt 2.2 om "gar": the spanish hebrew version, the arabic diatessaron, two
old dutch mss of the diatessaron: the Liege and Haaren mss.

Mt 2.2 kai elthomen: two versions add "with gifts" (spanish hebrew) and
"with importan gifts" (dutch Haaren diatessaron).

Mt 2.3 "herod the king": om. "the king": the spanish hebrew version and
several armenian citations. Again, these are two extremities.

Mt 2.3 Hierosolyma: replaced by "the inhabitants of Jerusalem" in the
spanish hebrew version and in armenian citations.

Mt 2.5 "it is written" is replaced by "it is said" in some old latin mss (b
c q), the dutch Haaren diatessaron, the Italian hebrew version and... the
syropalestinian version! This lesson is represented both east and west.

Mt 2.7 "ton chronon tou phainomenou asteros": add "to them" (the time when
the star appeared _to_them_): most of the old latin mss, vg, sys.c.p,
sypalA, hebrew-spain and hebrew-italy. Quite a broad attestation, I'm
puzzled at not finding a greek manuscript. Do you have one?

Mt 2.8 "eipen": add "to them": Liege diatessaron (dutch), arabic
diatessaron, Pepys harmony (old english, but quite paraphrastic, i wouldn't
make too much of it for such a detail), hebrew-spain and again the georgian
jruch ms (geoD).

Mt 2.9 This is puzzling. greek "epano" means "above". Now, some versions
have not "above": sys has "at the place where", as also (again) the
georgian Jruch ms (geoD). Hebrew-spain has "in front of the place where",
and Hebrew-italy has (difficult to translate - is it a conflation?) "above
in front of" (mimma`al minneged).

Mt 2.10 This has nothing to do with our subject, as the syropalestinian is
here alone. But it's worth reading. "They rejoiced of a very great joy"
reads:
w-HaDu HeDwa raba laHDa - thrice the consonants heth and dalath. Nice
assonance! Would sypal re-translate correctly into aramaic (for those who
are seeking semitic originals to the gospels :-)

Mt 2.11 The "treasures" become "bags" in: hebrew-spain, arabic diatessaron,
persian harmony. Epiphanes and the James Protevangelium (how damn is it
called in english?) are also mentioned. What would you make of something
like this?

Mt 2.12 Some versions reintroduce the angel in this verse, though not all
at the same place. Hebrew-spain, hebrew italy and georgian-Jruch (geoD)

Mt 2.12 anechoresan: one verb. Hebrew-italy and geoD use two: they went and
returned.

_____________________________

That's all. I don't mean to prove with this that versions are "superior" to
the greek mss! My only intention is to awake your attention to several
facts:

(1) It happen sometimes, as you can see it from the above examples, that a
same reading is preserved in areas that are very remote geographically.
This gives to that reading a chance to be very ancient. In such cases, we
should ask ourselves whether this is not a case of an old text surviving
only in the periphery because they were eliminated in the center by later
greek (and versional) recensions.

(2) Some of the mss and versions I quoted are definitely late: the Brussels
persian tetraevangelion is from the XVII century, but has old syriac
readings (though I quoted it here only once, it's not the only case). The
hebrew version from Spain begins to be transmitted in complete mss in the
XV century (there would be, according to its publisher, earlier traces in
several citations). The Jruch georgian ms is from the IX century. The dutch
mss begin appearing with the Liege diatessaron in the XIII century. Etc,
etc... "Classical" textual criticism would not even open these mss and
classify them as irrelevant. One just needs to read a few lines from them
to be surprised by phenomena as those above.

Of course, some coincidential scribal clarifications, interpretations and
the like must never be excluded at first sight. But the _recurrence_ of
such agreements is quite impressive, whatever be our general textual
theory.

Comments? And, of course, if you have met some of these variants in greek
witnesses, I'm very interested to know it! Also, I would like to get your
impressions as to why hardly anything of this all appears in textbooks and
editions of the NT. Versions make the whole thing much more complicated and
subtle than the alexandrian-western-byzantine debate :-)

What's too simple...

Peace to all,

Jean V.

shlomo w-shayno!

Jean Valentin - Brussels - Belgium

Ce qui est trop simple est faux, ce qui est trop complique est inutilisable.
What's too simple is wrong, what's too complicated is unusable.

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 22:59:22 -0500 (EST)

> 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.

> publication, so if one of you feels like beginning it, I can give the

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.

> 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.

> 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.

> 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.

> 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.

> 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.

> 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.

> "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.

> several armenian citations. Again, these are two extremities.

Again I suspect likely coincidental.

> 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
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~