Subject: Luke 3.10-14 in B and D

From: Jean VALENTIN <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 97 01:57:47 +0200

Dear TC-ers,

Here is an interesting text in which I find there might be something in 
favour of Amphoux's theory for the priority of D. I just would like to 
have your opinion about this:

Lk 3.10-14 B

10 kai ephrwtwn auton oi ocloi legontes
ti oun poihsomen;
11 apokriqeis de elegon autois
o ecwn duo citwnas metadotw tw mh econti,
kai o ecwn brwmata omoiws poieitw

12 hlqon de kai telwnai baptisqhnai,
kai eipon pros auton didaskale, ti poihsomen;
13 o de eipen pros autous
mhden pleon para to diatetagmenon umin prassete.

14 ephrwtwn de auton kai strateuomenoi legontes
ti poihswmen kai hmeis;
kai eipen autois
mhdena diaseishte mhde sukofanthshte,
kai arkeisqe tois opswniois umwn

Lk 3.10-14 D

10 kai ephrwthsan auton oi ocloi legontes
ti poihsomen ina swqwmen;
11 apokriqeis de legei autois
o ecwn duo citwnas metadotw tw mh econti,
kai o ecwn brwmata omoiws poieitw

12 hlqon de kai telwnai omoiws baptisqhnai,
kai eipan pros auton didaskale, ti poihsomen ina swqwmen;
13 o de eipen autois
mhden pleon prassete para to diatetagmenon umin prassein.

14 ephrwthsan de kai strateuomenoi legontes
ti poihswmen ina swqwmen;
o de eipen autois
mhdena diaseishte mhde sukofanthshte,
kai arkeisqe tois opswniois umwn

If we compare these two texts we find quite a lot of small variants. 
There are a couple of times where B has more "classical" verbal forms as 
against D (ephrwtwn vs. ephrwthsan in v. 10, eipon vs. eipan in v. 12). 
But this is not my point, though it might show that B attempts to use a 
more litterary greek - an argument in favour of its recensional nature.

Here's what interests me in this passage: D has three times the question 
TI POIHSWMEN INA SWQWMEN. Exactly the same words, while B has variation.
Now, Amphoux has pointed in several studies to passages in D where 
rhythmical elements are present, that could point to oral transmission of 
the Gospel transmission. Also, the fact that this question appears THREE 
times (an important number in biblibal symbolism) should also attract the 
attention to anybody acquainted with Amphoux's theories, as the French 
master considers the D-text to be some kind of wisdom or hermetic 
literature, where rhythmical and numerical elements are transmitted as 
hints to interpretation of the text (see, for example, his studies on the 
Lord's prayer), while B revises that text to make it more accessible for 
popular audience. Though I never heard him speak about this passage, I 
had the impression that this could be a good example...

As to other witnesses. D seems to be the only one with the triple 
occurrence of this question in the same words. For the first occurrence 
though (v.10), it is followed by several versional mss. What's 
interesting is that they translate : "what shall we do in order that we 
_live_" (quid faciemus ut vivamus in b and q). The use of "to live" 
instead of "to be saved" is a syriacism! And indeed, it is found in syc 
(sys has the shorter text). Would there be any direct influence of the 
old syriac, or of aramaic usage, on the old latin texts, or is Tatian 
behind all this?

A little further (3.16), there is also this variant :
D epignous ta dianohmata autwn eipen
B apekrinato legwn pasin o Iwannhs
In D, John has the gift of reading in the hearts. Could it be that B 
eliminates this qualification because, in its christology (perhaps under 
the influence of later NT books like the revelation where Christ is 
kardiognwsths) it is not suitable to attribute it to any other than Jesus?

I'd be interested knowing what other interpretations have been proposed 
for these variations.

________________________________________________________________
Jean Valentin - 58/7 rue Van Kalck - 1080 Bruxelles - BELGIQUE
________________________________________________________________
email : [email-masked]   ***   netmail : 2:291/780.103
________________________________________________________________
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.
Wat te eenvoudig is, is verkeerd; wat te ingewikkeld is, is onbruikbaar.