Subject: MT 23.32-34 in four text-types

From: "Jean Valentin" <[email-masked]>
Date: 23 Apr 97 17:59:55 +0200

My dear friends of the TC-list,

After all these harsh posts about "academic imperialism", let's come back
to our studies and keep our humour!

At http://scholar.cc.emory.edu/scripts/TC/extras/Mt_23:32-34.gif you will
find a synopsis of a few verses in Mt 23 (D-B-Theta-TR) about which I would
like to have some comments.

Some time ago, one of you mentioned the problem of theological perspective
in Codex Bezae (alias D 05), and specially of its supposed anti-judaism. Mt
23 might be an interesting place for a comparison, as its content is
polemical against pharisaism. Of course, it is only one passage and I'm
aware that we shouldn't too quickly infer general conclusions from this.

(1) How do you understand the changes in the tenses in verses 32 and 34?
(1.1) In verse 32, D has an aorist. B has a future. Theta and TR have an
imperative. Would you agree with me that B (which is totally isolated, the
other Alexandrian witnesses don't follow it) is the harshest of all, since
it seems to exclude any future change in judaism's rejection of Jesus? In
this case then, the hardest polemics against judaism would be found in B
and not in D.
(1.2) In verse 34, how do you understand the change in the tense : D has a
future while the other texts have a present _and_ the addition of PROS YMAS
"to you". Is B (and Theta and TR) more limitative as to those to which the
Apostles will be sent, this being again a way to underline that the
apostolic preaching was rejected by _judaism_?
(1.3) In those two cases then, it would that, seen against D, it's B that
has the hardest tone against judaism.

(2) Just a remark about harmonizations : in verse 34, the phrase KAI EX
AUTWN MASTIGWSETE EN TAIS SYNAGWGAIS UMWN is omitted by D / added by the
other texts. (2.1) It's interesting because these words are probably an
harmonization (perhaps from Mt 10.17). In this case, D is the only one that
doesn't harmonize - for once, a derogation to its supposed harmonistic
character. In the hypothese that B is earlier than Theta and D and is the
source for their reading (though probably Maurice wouldn't agree with this
hypothese, but it's the most accepted one and we just want to test it),
this would, for once, be a case where B also shows an harmonistic tendency.
(2.2) If it's an addition in the other texts, then a possible reason for
this is to add even more "sins" to the behaviour of judaism. So once again,
B would be harsher than D in what concerns its supposed anti-judaistic
tone.
(2.3) Of course, we could say that the source for the omission in D is
homeoarkton (KAI... KAI) but if all three variants seem to be related by a
theological (or, let's say, ideological) intention, a project in the plan
of some recensor/revisor, then perhaps we should prefer to examine all
three together instead of recurring too easily to some graphical accident.

So if I'm right, for once (a) D is less anti-judaistic than its
counterparts, and especially B, (b) B is harmonisitc while D is not, (c) we
would have an example of a redactor at work in B. If B is later than D,
this anti-judaistic bias could be explained by a still growing gap and
hostility between judaism and the early church, and B would harden the tone
as the break has now become irreversible.

And also, we have a case where B, supposed to be the best representative of
the Alexandrian family, goes its own way! Quite an a-typical passage, isn't
it?

I'm probably going too far in my analysis, but still I ask : any comments?

---------------------------------------------------------
Jean Valentin - Brussels - Belgium
---------------------------------------------------------
"Ce qui est trop simple est faux, ce qui est trop complique est
inutilisable"
---------------------------------------------------------

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 1997 16:35:32 -0700

On 23 Apr 97, "Jean Valentin" <[email-masked]> wrote:

[Most of the variants mentioned here are of a rather technical nature --
meanings of verb tenses and the like -- so I will confine my comments to
those areas I consider myself to know something about: text-types.]

>it seems to exclude any future change in judaism's rejection of Jesus?

As noted, I leave that to theologians. I'm going to list supporting
witnesses. :-)

Future:     B* lect844 e sa-ms
Aorist:     D H 544 1604 1775 al
Imperative: Aleph B** C E K L W Delta Theta fam1 fam13 33 579 892 Byz

This brings out a point I brought up once before, and got hooted down
for: There seems to be at least some separation in the Alexandrian
text between a "B group" (p75 B T sa) and an "Aleph group" (Aleph
Z bo, probably most of the minuscules). Here L joins Aleph, but that
is probably Byzantine mixture rather than a departure from B.

Since B* has the support of at least one Sahidic manuscript, we may
speculate that this is a reading of the B sub-text-type.

[ ... ]

>character.

We should remember that all manuscripts harmonize at least occasionally.
But I wouldn't make too much of this particular "non-harmonization."
Again checking the witnesses, we find the phrase omitted only by D a
Lucifer. The phrase is found in b e ff2 and the rest of the Latins,
as well as in the Old Syriac (sin, anyway; hiat cur). So this is not
necessarily a "Western" reading. Just something to keep in mind....

***

I doubt this answers the questions anyone wanted answered (since
the questions were more about interpretation), but I wanted to
be sure that the facts were available for all you interpreters
out there. :-)

Bob Waltz
[email-masked]

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 97 18:51:28 +0100

>this case then, the hardest polemics against judaism would be found in B

In my judgement the future tense (B*) and the aorist (D) are both smoothings of 
the somehow awkward imperative. The whole section (29-33) culminates in the 
indirect (self-)testimony of the Pharisees that they "_are_ sons of those who 
killed (aorist participle) the prophets. In 34 it is said that _they_  _will_ go 
on (future tenses in 34b) killing, crucifying, etc. prophets, etc.. Therefore, 
the future of B* in 32 is due to the logic of the immediate context. In my view 
the whole woe-section 29-36 is harsh to the extreem. The future in 32 hardly 
adds more fuel to the fire.

>apostolic preaching was rejected by _judaism_?

The future tense in my view is indicative of either extending the future tenses 
of 34b to 34a or a simple error, since in D the first verb in 34b is presumably 
also a mistake (APOKT_EI_NEITE), thus, indicating some confusion in D at that 
point.
The omission of PROSYMAS before PROFHTAS, in my view, is simply due to oversight 
of two very similar sets of letters. BTW -- I do not really understand what the 
alleged "limitation" may consist of. To me this interpretation seems so remote 
that I would not consider it as adding more fuel to the fire. 

>has the hardest tone against judaism.

To me the tone with respect to so-called antijudaism within the whole section 
sounds so overwhelmingly harsh both in B and in D (apart from the readings in 
question) that I would consider your interpretation remote. 

>harmonization (perhaps from Mt 10.17). 

Harmonizations are found in every MS. However, why do you add "_perhaps_ from Mt 
10.17"? Are there other possible passages to be considered? Or are you simply 
not sure, because the alleged parallel (Mt 10.17) appears to be remote to some 
extend? I think you should be more precise on the that (IMHO).

>In this case, D is the only one that

Again, your interpretation with respect to the alleged "anti-judaistic tone" is 
remote in my view. Does "slapping" really add something to "killing" and 
"crucifying"? 

>(2.3) Of course, we could say that the source for the omission in D is
homeoarkton (KAI... KAI) 

This seems to be the safest conclusion, as far as I can see. Note, there is even 
more that favours this explanation: The parataxis in 34b (D) runs as follows:
_KAI_ EX AYTWN...KAI...<KAI EX AYTWN...>KAI... The parablepsis is favoured, if 
you consider the MT text KAI placed in front of the first EX AYXTWN in D. 
Furthermore, you find, apart from latin a d omitting the same portion of text as 
D, MS E* omitting only KAI EX AYTWN MASTIGWSETE, which results in the strange 
expressinon "you will crucify in your synagogues". This may be indicative of an 
independent parablepsis caused through having twice the expression KAI EX AYTWN 
within the verse.

>but if all three variants seem to be related by a

The intention, not to mention "a project", simply disappears in my view. The 
alleged indicators are too remote within the context of 29-36 and the individual 
readings can be accounted for in a way that fits "usual" TC reasoning. 

>as the break has now become irreversible.

Learned but remote scholarly guesswork in my view, at least on the basis of Mt 
23.29-36. 

>the Alexandrian family, goes its own way! Quite an a-typical passage, isn't

If we take three of the most prominent representatives of the Alexandrian family 
(Early/Late Alexandrian doesn't bother), Aleph, B, and 33, comparing them at the 
five readings under discussion we find the following:

32	PLHRWSATE  Aleph 33
	PLHRWSETE  B

34(1)	APOSTELLW  Aleph B
	APOSTELW  33 (!!!)

34(2)	PROS YMAS Aleph B 33

34(3)	no KAI before the first EX AYTWN Aleph B 33

34(4)	KAI EX AYTWN MAST(E)IGWSETE  B 33
	EX AYTWN KAI MASTIGWSETE  Aleph*

At 34(2+3) they are all united, whereas otherwise each of Alexandrians takes its 
brake individually, or to use your words "goes its own way".

>I'm probably going too far in my analysis, 

Indeed, you did, in my view.

>but still I ask : any comments?

See above. (No offense intended, its just fun)

Ulrich Schmid, Muenster

---

From: mbruffey <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 1997 18:08:09 -0400

Hi!

I have a question about the texts as presented in the *.gif file.  My
question is not meant to undermine the main points of the discussion but
arises from personal curiosity concerning presentation of electronically
produced texts.

In comparison with _New Testament Greek Manuscripts_ : Matthew, ed R.
Swanson, pub Sheffield Ac Pr, 1995, I note a few variations:

	(1) Swanson has	FUGETAI for FUGETE, D, v33

	(2) 		OFIS for OFEIS, B,THETA, v33

	(3)		APOKTEINEITE for APOKTENEITE, D, v34

	(4)		MASTEIGWSETE for MASTIGWSETE, B, v34

Again, I ask these questions for the purpose of learning, since I am
clearly no expert in either text criticism or orthography.  Is it the
illegibility of the original texts from which such variations arise?  Is
Swanson's NTGM to be regarded with caution as to its accuracy?  Are
there errors in Jean Valentin's text?  What other factors are at work
here?

NB  It appears that Swanson does not list these four in his orthographic
apparatus.

Thank you,

L. Mark Bruffey
[email-masked]