Subject: Re: MT 23.32-34 in four text-types

From: Jean VALENTIN <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 97 23:45:36 +0200

Ulrich, I think there are many good points in the answers you wrote to my 
remarks concerning the passage in Mt 23.

>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.
By "awkward", do you mean the imperative is a lectio difficilior?

>
>>(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_?
>
>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.
By limitation, I meant that the preaching would have been rejected by 
those to whom it was (at least in the perspective suggested by this 
reading) destined. This would be a way to point to the responsibility of 
those who rejected the gospel. Sorry if I wasn't clear.
I agree that the omission of PROS YMAS can be due simply to a graphical 
oversight. BUt it makes many graphical accidents and I want to remain 
oepn to the other alternative, viz. that there would be an intention in 
the supposed changes made by D. Though, it's true, your argument 
shouldn't be too quickly rejected. The alternative is between a series of 
accidents in D and a delibarate intention in B. As I work more in the 
Arabic mss than in the early history of the Greek text, I consider that 
the last word oin this shouldn't belong to me...
>
>>(1.3) In those two cases then, it would that, seen against D, it's B that
>>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.
A very good point indeed. I ask myself if I haven't been typically 
Belgian here. When we make humour about our country's politics, we say : 
"Why make it simple if it can be complicated?". This is probably the 
reason why such a small country has three communities, four regions and 
five governments... To some extent, there's probably been such a thing in 
my way of reasoning about these verses...
 
>
>>(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). 
>
>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).
There are also some synoptic passages and I didn't want to make a firm 
decision here...
The fact that there are harmonizations in every ms is a very important 
point for method though. No text-type or no ms should be blindly followed 
when we realize this.

>>(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.
>
>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"? 
Not really, but making the "catalogue" more complete may show an 
intention in the mind of a redactor, or if not, at least, a tendency 
towards more anti-semitism in the Church, which tendency can have 
influenced the transmission of the text. Of course, these are conclusions 
that should be made only after a much broader study than this.
>
>>(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.
Interesting! Of course, here we have to do again with graphical 
accidents, in my opinion the case of E* is much clearer than that of D a 
b. If I understand you, the copyist that produced D was not very careful?

>
>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. 
This is prbably where you differ from me : you explain each reading 
"individually" while I try to find a more global approach (Is it in some 
way the difference between the German and French schools?). I want to 
remain open for both, but once again, I find I must listen to you because 
you are more specialized in Greek texts than I am!
>
>>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.
>
>Learned but remote scholarly guesswork in my view, at least on the basis 
>of Mt 
>23.29-36.
That's what I think also! I didn't mean to produce global conclusions 
based on this sole passage. 

>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:
>
>(...)
>
>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".
This raises another question, on which I do not think I have the answer : 
is it possible to reconstruct an archetyp of the Alexandrian text in such 
a case? What would be your method? When I consider such passages, I have 
the impression that categorizing each witness in a "text-type" is 
oversimplistic. Is this why the Alands use other categories in their 
textbook? And, when somebody like me who works in the versions wants to 
describe them in a short way so as to be accessible to text-critics that 
work in Greek, how are we to describe the kind of text that we study in 
order to give you an idea as to its place relative to Greek mss - in 
other words, how can we be describe our texts in a way that's useful to 
you?

>
>>I'm probably going too far in my analysis, 
>
>Indeed, you did, in my view.
CF. higher my remarks on the belgian proverb!
>
>>but still I ask : any comments?
>
>See above. (No offense intended, its just fun)
It was nice to read your remarks, and I appreciate the sobriety of your 
method. I'll try to learn from this. Thank you!

________________________________________________________________
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.

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 97 15:13:46 +0100

On Fri, 25 Apr 1997, Jean Valentin wrote (inter alia:)

>By "awkward", do you mean the imperative is a lectio difficilior?

Well, interpreting the imperative in Mt 23:32 within the context of the whole 
passage forces us to think twice, for most likely this imperative has to be 
understood as ironical; the background seems to be prophetic judgement rhetorics 
(cf. Amos 4,4), which by the way is very much to the point (in Mt 23). However, 
since you have to think twice, the imperative appears to be the reading most 
likely not to be introduced lateron. BTW -- If you miss the irony, you might 
even think Jesus is urging them to go on the way their fathers did. Is this 
really nicer than simply predicting or stating it? 

[snip]
>the last word oin this shouldn't belong to me...

I really don't know what actually happens in Arabic MSS. However, I assume that 
even there you happen to stumble across defects simply due to accident. The more 
I look at real MSS, the more I'm inclined to think that we somehow underrate the 
possibility of accidental defects, strange "nonsense in context readings", 
stupidity of scribes that make you laugh or your face pale or red. I think it 
would be worth just mentioning two or three of them: The famous Codex 
Alexandrinus reads the following at James 2.16: QERMAINESQE KAI ORGAZESQE (just 
consult Liddle-Scott, s.v. ORGASMOS). In the course of the *Teststellen* 
collations here at the Muenster Institut probably the most offending reading to 
traditional christology was unearthed at Luke 10.38: The 15th century MS 2692* 
reads MARQA hYPEDEKSATO AYTON EIS TON _KOLPON_ AYTHS. Long since a lot of 
remarkable "scholars" (e.g., Baigent/Leigh) assumend that Jesus hat a girl 
friend. Maria of Magdala usually is the first joice, but, thanks to a confused 
(celibatary?, kidding?, brave?) monk at Meteora (where the MS happened to be 
found), we now know that it actually was Martha. And, indeed, what we would have 
expected, really happened, a zelous, orthodox abbot (or boss of the scriptorium) 
corrected it, in fact, "corrupted" it.  

[snip]
>point for method though. No text-type or no ms should be blindly followed 

It was never assumed, as far as I can see, that "blindly following" is a 
scientific method.

[With respect to the alleged harmonization at Mt 23.34]
>that should be made only after a much broader study than this.

Indeed, completeness is a motive that really is detectable. You might look, 
e.g., at Luke 11.2, where D adds Mt 6.7 to make the introduction to the Lord's 
Prayer more complete with respect to the Mattheian version. 

[Concerning the alleged parablepsis at Mt 23.34 D]
>b. If I understand you, the copyist that produced D was not very careful?

Just consider the randomly chosen chapter Luke 9 in D. At verse 15 the second 
KAI colon is missing, at 48 the second relative clause up to DEXETAI is missing, 
and at 46 a whole line (EISHLQEN...AYTOIS) is missing with no graphical 
indicator leaving the text virtually senseless. Now, what do you think? Is it 
possible to ascribe a certain coherent meaning to these omissions (or 
additions)? Or should we prefer the hypothesis that either the scribe of the 
actual MS (or someone prior to him) was careless at times?  

>you are more specialized in Greek texts than I am!

I don't know, if there is a German school. But scholars like Boismard, 
Lamouille, Prigent, and Amphoux, not to mention Hubert Pernot really tend to 
global approaches. No doubt their work is stimulating, but usually too much 
focussed on selected passages. If you wish, I could substantiate this broad 
statement especially with reference to Christian-Bernard Amphoux. By the way why 
solely looking at the "French school"? What about Joel Delobel and Frans 
Neirynck?  

[snip]
>other words, how can we be describe our texts in a way that's useful to 

I'm not focussed on reconstructing, e.g., an archetype of the Alexandrian text, 
for the sole reason that I do not know enough about individual witnesses, in 
order to execute this job. Up to now, I only know that each and every witness 
and each and every postulated text-type seems to contain secondary readings when 
compared to other witnesses/text-types. There are other issues that make me 
pause when dealing with text-types. Firstly, I do not think that we use to 
adequately deal with hypothesis concerning the archetype of our extant textual 
transmission (collection verus individual writing). Secondly, I think there is a 
tendency towards somehow naively extrapolating from findings (of text-types) 
within the Gospels to other parts of the NT (some are looking for the "Western" 
text of the Catholic epistles, because there seems to be one in the Gospels, the 
same goes for the Caesaren text, etc.). Thirdly, what could be considered as 
text-types varies considerably with respect to intra-text-type relationships 
(e.g., MSS belonging to the Byzantine text show markedly higher agreements among 
each other, than so-called Alexandrian MSS). This seems to be somehow related to 
different periods within textual transmission. However, employing somehow 
unified text-type definitions throughout the whole time span could be 
anachronistic to some extent, not to mention all of the greatly varying and 
often interfering concepts of how text-types came into being (recensension?, 
carefully worked out?, Alexandrian philological tradition?, popular missionary 
text?, etc.).
With respect to versions I think you should make first of all somehow sense of 
the versional transmission itself. If you compare versional evidence with Greek 
evidence, after all you have to rely on readings and shared readings with 
witnesses. (BTW -- Consider the really fantastic finding of descendents of the 
Harklensis-Vorlage in some misuscules). If you want to make overall descriptions 
with respect to text-type relations, you should consult the manuals and make 
your own decision, what framework to follow. Personally, I will not care too 
much about overall descriptions. When dealing with versions (and MSS), I will 
always look at the readings.

[snip]
>method. I'll try to learn from this. Thank you!

dito

Ulrich Schmid, Muenster