Subject: Ehrman presidential address

From: "James R. Adair" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Apr 1997 09:30:48 -0500 (EST)

Bart Ehrman, president of the Southeastern SBL region this year, presented
a paper at the recent meeting of the group in Macon.  His paper, entitled
"The Neglect of the Firstborn in New Testament Studies," is a plea for the
necessity of engaging in textual criticism as the first step in exegesis.
In his paper he explores the variants in Luke 22:19-20 to illustrate his
point.  Since his audience had very few text critics in it (there was at
least one!), his remarks were designed to communicate to a less
specialized group and are thus accessible to the broad range of biblical
scholars and students.  Ehrman's address is now accessible on TELA at
http://scholar.cc.emory.edu/scripts/TC/extras/ehrman-pres.html, and it has
been added to the TC-Links page
(http://scholar.cc.emory.edu/scripts/TC/TC-links.html). 

Jimmy Adair
Manager of Information Technology Services, Scholars Press
    and
Managing Editor of TELA, the Scholars Press World Wide Web Site
---------------> http://scholar.cc.emory.edu <-----------------

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 5 Apr 1997 14:57:19 -0500 (EST)

Continuing Ulrich's examples...

>Then we have a second type of assimilation where more than the article
>is involved, e.g. the various forms of AFIENTAI SOU AI hAMARTIAI in Mat
>9:2.5 parr.  Here the examination with respect to assimilation might
>produce more solid results. However, the possibility can not be ruled
>out, that in this case some assimilations might have been produced
>independently.

This example is extremely complex (and I hope everyone will forgive the
lengthy discussion, but it is due to the complexity involved), and the
variants affect not only Matthew but the direct synoptic parallels in Mark
and Luke as well.  _All_ of these have to be considered together in order
to see the differences, and it should not be forgotten that numerous other
items which might reflect harmonization/assimilation also occur in the
immediate context, not merely the one phrase you have selected. 

It first will be well to set forth in horizontal-line format (a la
Swanson) the parallel passages in the Byzantine Textform, followed by
the same passages in the NA26/27 text. Spacing and underscores (_ _)
indicate differences among the gospels within each edition:

Byzantine parallel texts:

Matt 9:2b kai idwn    o ihsous thn pistin autwn _eipen_ _tw paralutikw_
Mk   2:5      idwn de o ihsous thn pistin autwn _legei_ _tw paralutikw_
Lk   5:20 kai idwn             thn pistin autwn _eipen_ _autw_

Matt qarsei _teknon_    afewntai soi ai amartiai sou
Mk          _teknon_    afewntai soi ai amartiai sou
Lk          _anqrwpe_   afewntai soi ai amartiai sou

Note that the Byzantine text within those parallel passages does _not_
harmonize totally among its own majority readings. This in itself
should indicate that the tendency toward harmonization was itself rare
and sporadic among MSS of the Byzantine type.

Nestle-Aland parallel texts:

Matt 9:2b kai idwn    o ihsous thn pistin autwn _eipen_ _tw paralutikw_
Mk   2:5  kai idwn    o ihsous thn pistin autwn _legei_ _tw paralutikw_
Lk   5:20 kai idwn             thn pistin autwn _eipen_

Matt qarsei _teknon_    _afientai sou_ ai amartiai
Mk          _teknon_    _afientai sou_ ai amartiai
Lk          _anqrwpe_   _afewntai soi_ ai amartiai sou

Note that in the first line the NA text has harmonized the kai/de
interchange  which remained different in Byz. In the second line the
uniform Byzantine "afewntai" has become "afientai" in Mt/Mk, and the
uniform "soi ai amartiai sou" of the Byzantine synoptics now remains
only in Luke, while Mt/Mk concur in the simpler "sou ai amartiai".
Otherwise only the "autw" of Luke in the Byz is missing from the
parallels in NA.

Overall, both texts are relatively non-harmonized, and retain the
identical differences among the various synoptic parallels. The only
major changes which might be charged as harmonizations here deal with
the "afewntai/afientai" difference and the closing phrase itself.

As you mentioned, the influence (in whatever direction) from the later
close-context parallels (Mt 9:5b; Mk 2:9; Lk 5:23) also need to be
considered, and their respective readings in general context are given
next:

Byzantine parallel texts:

Matt 9:5b eipein               afewntai sou ai amartiai     h eipein
Mk   2:9  eipein tw paralutikw afewntai sou ai amartiai     h eipein
Lk   5:23 eipein               afewntai soi ai amartiai sou h eipein

Matt egeirai                            kai peripatei
Mk   egeirai kai aron sou ton krabbaton kai peripatei
Lk   egeirai                            kai peripatei

Nestle-Aland parallel texts:

Matt 9:5b eipein               afientai sou ai amartiai     h eipein
Mk   2:9  eipein tw paralutikw afientai sou ai amartiai     h eipein
Lk   5:23 eipein               afewntai soi ai amartiai sou h eipein

Matt egeire                            kai peripatei
Mk   egeire kai aron ton krabbaton sou kai peripatei
Lk   egeire                            kai peripatei

Without even looking at the external evidence, one can see that the
final phrase "soi ai amartiai sou" of Byz in Mt 9:2/Mk 2:5/Lk 5:20,
although identical in those parallels, does _not_ harmonize with the
close-context parallels in Mt 9:5/Mk 2:9 which read "sou ai amartiai";
only the Lukan context retains the "soi ai amartiai sou" in both
places.

On the other hand, when looking at the Nestle-Aland parallels, one sees
the initial phrase "sou ai amartiai" in Mt 9:2/Mk 2:5 harmonized
_directly_ to the close context NA parallels in Mt 9:5/Mk 2:9, while
the Lukan close-context parallels continue to remain identical, as with
Byz ("soi ai amartiai sou").  If anyone has harmonized/assimilated in
this case, it seems to be the NA witnesses and _not_ the Byzantine; and
the harmonization was once more to the close context. It is also 
possible that the NA reading may be that which is "smoother" 
stylistically and grammatically, since it removes what might be 
perceived as a too-redundant occurrence of two pronouns when only one 
will suffice.

As for the "afewntai"/"afientai" difference, I suspect this is not so
much a matter of harmonization or assimilation as a homonymic
variation, in which case the similar sounds of both words could cause a
scribe to read one word, sound it out in his mind, and write the other
word, still "making sense" in the context.  According to Swanson, we
also find the forms "afiontai", "afionte", "afeontai", "afeonte",
"afaiontai" and "afaiwntais" beyond the normal "afewntai" and
"afientai" in the MSS he collated.

The primary "sensible" change, however, affects the tense, switching
(in Mt/Mk, all occurrences) from the Byzantine perfect passive to the
NA present passive. Luke alone retains the perfect passive in _both_
Byz and NA, for whatever reason (though according to Swanson, Theta
reads "afientai" in Lk 5:23).

While either Byzantine perfect or the NA present passive could fit in
either context, the present passive "afientai" clearly would seem to be
the "easier" reading, since it would "fit" the time frame within which
the forgiveness would have been made, while the perfect passive would
raise theological questions as to _when_ in the past such forgiveness
had been made which was being declared at the then present. So the
alteration here I suspect as being homonymic, but also with a tendency
toward the "easier" reading in the NA text.

There is still more which needs to be said regarding these parallel
variant units, however, since merely utilizing the NA text could lead to
false inferences regarding the amount and degree of the external
support for each variant. The external evidence provides some
interesting information:

Regarding the Byz "afewntai" vs the NA "afientai", and looking at NA
and Swanson's evidence supporting the non-Byzantine reading in Mt/Mk
(Lk remained identical to Byz, so is not listed):

Verse/Reading  Support

Mt 9:2

"afientai"    Aleph    B                   pc lat Ir
"afionte"                 D
"afewntai"    Byz

Mk 2:5

"afientai"             B  28 33 565 1342 2427 pc lat
"afiontai"                Delta
"afiwntai"                   Theta
"afeontai"                     124     1424
"afewntai"    Byz

Mt 9:5

"afientai"    Aleph-c  B                      pc lat
"afiontai"    Aleph*      D
"afeontai"                     f13       1424
"afewntai"    Byz

Mk 2:9

"afientai"    Aleph    B  28    565 1342 2427    lat
"afeontai"                   69          1424
"afaiwntais"                       579
"afaiontai"                             1071
"afewntai"    Byz

It will be noted that the only _consistent_ witnesses for this change
are B and lat; all others vary to differing degrees.  From a
Byzantine-priority perspective, this is not unusual or unexpected,
since sporadic departures from the Byzantine standard are only to be
expected, especially such might be based on phonetic confusion, and
especially if such change produces a theologically "easier" reading.
The reading of B lat could have a common archetype, or could have
arisen from independent occurrences of the same phonetic error or a
similar desire to create the theologically simpler reading.

I return to consider the closing clause, in which the NA text of Mt
9:2/Mk 2:5/(Lk 5:20) harmonizes to the close-context readings of Mt
9:5/Mk 2:9/(Lk 5:23). As mentioned, this may be due to close-context 
harmonization or may be due to a desire to simplify and smooth out the 
text by removing a redundant pronoun ("sou/soi").

What should be noticed in the external evidence is once more the wide 
inconsistency of harmonization/assimilation among the MSS here as well 
as in the "afewntai"/"afientai" context.  Once more MS B appears to be 
the _only_ thread holding the NA critical text together on this point 
(where B or any major MS is not cited, it agrees with Byz; the evidence 
is all according to Swanson), and this calls into question precisely 
_what_ "harmonizations" or "assimilations" are occurring, _which_ MSS 
they occurred in, and _why_ they occurred. Regardless of explanation, 
the Byzantine text in this passage comes out looking _far_ better and 
less "harmonized" than any of the other witnesses cited.

Note that, for whatever reason, NA breaks up the variants for the
Markan passages into _separate_ units rather than taking all as a
whole; this is far more confusing, especially since the "txt" support
is not given for those readings. Rather than perform extrapolation from
the constant witnesses to see the support, I opted for the easier and
quicker route and simply used Swanson for the Markan evidence. I think the
divergence among the MSS is itself exemplary enough to demonstrate
precisely which sources harmonize and in which direction.

Verse       Reading        Support

Mt 9:2

"sou ai amartiai"   Aleph B C*   W Delta*   f1 33 205    892 pc
"sou ai amartiai sou" M Omega
"soi ai amartiai"              D   Delta-c                  pc k vg-mss
"soi ai amartiai sou" Byz

Mk 2:5

"sou ai amartiai"   Aleph B D G L W Delta Theta f1 33 69 565 579 1424
"soi ai amartiai"         C*
"sou ai amartiai sou"   M* Omega f13 28 124 1071
"soi ai amartiai sou" Byz

Mt 9:5

"soi ai amartiai"        G L N S U Delta Pi f13 1 33 118 124 1346 1582
"soi ai amartiai sou"                                          1424
"sou ai amartiai" = Byz

Mk 2:9

"soi ai amartiai"         A C    S  Delta                 1071
"soi ai amartiai sou"                      f13
"sou ai amartiai" = Byz

Lk 5:20

"sou ai amartiai"     Aleph   D W      Theta           579 1071
"sou ai amartiai sou"                    Omega
"soi ai amartiai sou" Byz

Lk 5:23

"sou ai amartiai"     Aleph   D W
"sou ai amartiai sou"       C    Lambda           33         1346
"soi ai amartiai"              N      Psi
"sou ai amartiai sou" Byz

And here this portion of the discussion ends....more to come regarding 
Ulrich's remaining point in a later post...

_________________________________________________________________________
Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D.           Professor of Greek and New Testament
Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary     Wake Forest, North Carolina
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~