Subject: Early history of Lk 7.47

From: Jean VALENTIN <[email-masked]>
Date: Dim, 1 Jun 97 22:10:44 +0200

Lk 7.47 is an interesting verse when we study it from the perspective of 
the history of the text. There are short, long and intermediary forms of 
the text. I'd like to present you those and have your reactions as to 
what seems to you the most probable reconstruction of the history of the 
development of this text (mine being just an hypothesis, it's worth what 
it's worth).

1/ D has the shortest form:
D: ou charin de legw soi afewntai auth polla.
That's all, and it's the shortest form that we find in the mss. Without 
applying mechanically the canon "lectio brevior, lectio potior", this has 
to be noted.

2/ Irenaeus.
Interestingly, Irenaeus, who usually testifies of the D-text, quotes a 
fragment of the verse that is absent from D.
Ir III.20.2: cui enim plus dimittitur plus diligit.
I found an English translation of irenaeus on the internet, so here is 
the whole context:
2. This, therefore, was the [object of the] long-suffering of God, that 
man, passing through all things, and acquiring the knowledge of moral 
discipline, then attaining to the resurrection from the dead, and 
learning by experience what is the source of his deliverance, may always 
live in a state of gratitude to the Lord, having obtained from Him the 
gift of incorruptibility, that he might love Him the more; for "he to 
whom more is forgiven, loveth more:" and that he may know himself, how 
mortal and weak he is...
We must note that the sentence is not introduced by any formula of the 
genre "for it is written that". We can't be sure from Irenaeus that the 
sentence he uses comes from a Gospel text. May be it's an aphorism that 
was circulating in his time (whether or not it went back to Jesus), and 
that he found suited to his argument. Or, maybe he is himself the author 
of it!

3/ Tatian (probably?)
We have two witnesses that have a longer form of the text, fusioning what 
we find in D and what we find in Irenaeus: the vetus latina afra (codex 
e) and the commentary of Ephrem on the Diatessaron (10.9). This 
conjunction of the old latin with Ephrem makes me think it is reasonable 
to suppose that Tatian might be the author of the fusion of the two 
elements: the early, short text of codex D and the oral tradition found 
in Irenaeus. By the way, he knows the second element in a form slightly 
different from that used by Irenaeus: while the bishop of Lyons says "he 
to whom _more_ is forgiven, loveth _more_", the author of the Diatessaron 
has: "he to whom _less_ is forgiven, loveth _less_". This might be 
another evidence for the fact that it comes from an oral, a little 
inconstant tradition.
e: propter quod dico tibi, remittentur illi peccata multa.
Ephrem: w-meTul hono shbiqin loh Hatoheyh sagiye, lhaw geyr d-qalil shbiq 
leh z(ur maHeb.

4/ The Egyptian texts.
P75 is the earliest witness to the current text of this verse. it is 
followed by most greek manuscripts, whether Alexandrian, Palestinian or 
Byzantine.This text is also found already in the old syriac versions, the 
other old latin mss, etc...
This form of the text is now in three parts: "for she loved much" is 
inserted between the two elements that we have already mentioned.
P75, B, Byz: ou charin legw soi afewntai ai amartiai auths ai pollai, OTI 
HGAPHSEN POLU. w de oligon afietai, (B + kai) oligon agapa.
Several small variants are found in other mss, but they are all 
characterized by this threefold form of the text, so I won't quote them 
by large.

5/ Secundary and longuer texts.
There are more forms of the texts, probably secundary but deserving 
attention:

a/ Cyprian (as quoted in the apparatus of Tischendorf)
"Inquit: cui plus dimittitur plus diligit, et qui minus dimittitur 
modicum diligit".
The "inquit" seems to show that Cyprian has the intention to quote Jesus. 
The way he does it fusions the aphorism of Irenaeus and its inverted 
form, the one known to the author who inserted it in the gospel tradition 
(probably Tatian). This shows that, besides what is now the gospel 
"text", the aphorism of Irenaeus is still circulating. The same can be 
said of the Armenian version:

b/ The Armenian version:
vasn oroy asem khez: thogheal litsin sma meghkh iwr bazowmkh,
zi yoyzh sireats.
zi orowm shat thoghowtsow, shat sire,
ew orowm sakaw, sakaw.
Translation: "because of which I say to you, her many sins are forgiven 
to her, for she loved much. For he to whom much is forgiven, loves much, 
and he to whom few, few".
Let us note that we have the same order as in Cyprian: first "much-much", 
then "few-few".

Much later are the last two forms of the text:

c/ The persian harmony:
"For this reason I say to you that the sins of this lady are forgiven, 
for she did much, she deserves much. And who did few, deserves few 
things, and few shall be forgiven to him".
The persian harmony seems to be nothing more than a quite paraphrastic 
rendering of the current text.

d/ The venetian harmony:
"And for this I say to you that her sins are remitted to her, for she has 
loved much".
This harmony seems to be the only witness to the presence of only the two 
first elements of the current text.

____________________________________________

Of course, you must distinguish between the facts themselves, and my 
analysis. My analysis leads me to give a priority to the western text, 
the other forms of the text being amplifications by the addition of an 
oral tradition (Tatian) and a theological (?) expletive sentence (the 
egyptian texts). At least, my analysis is an attempt to account for the 
development and amplification of this verse. Though I admit I have 
generally a little preference for western-priority hypotheses, I admit 
this reconstruction can be challenged, and the data arranged in another 
"chronological" sequence. How can we, for example, reconstruct the 
history of this text from an alexandrine-priority point of view? We would 
then have to account for the _deletion_ of several phrases of the text. A 
theological analysis, informed of the doctrinal developments of, say, the 
first three centuries, would be necessary to confirm or to challenge my 
reconstruction, and I'm aware I don't have all the resources for this.

An interesting point in the analysis would be this: the paradox inherent 
to the interaction between love and forgivenness in this passage. In what 
direction does the influence go: is the woman forgiven because she loved, 
or does she love because she was forgiven? The several forms of the text 
seem to give slightly different answers to this question:

In the text of D, the answer seems to be more stricktly paulinian than in 
other texts. The short text of D sees the actions of the woman (perfuming 
Jesus, washing his feet etc...) as reflecting her faith, as v. 48 comes 
after the short v.47 without elaboration. She is saved by the faith that 
she showed in welcoming Jesus.

The other texts seem to have a more nuanced answer: if the woman is saved 
by her faith because she welcomes Jesus, her actions are attributed to 
love - a love that precedes forgivenness: her sins are forgiven _because 
she loved_, says the text. Paradoxically, the text adds also that the one 
who has been forgiven will love: love is both the source and the 
consequence of forgivenness. The theology of the alexandrian text seems 
more elaborate, its logic - may be - less simple than the D-text...

A possible documentation about these theological discussions can be found 
in a text of the 1st letter of Clement, bishop of Rome:
"Blessed are we, beloved, if we keep the commandments of God in the 
harmony of love; that so through love our sins may be forgiven us". (I 
Clement, L, 5)

I don't think I am at the end of my reasoning about this verse, but I 
thought that at this point it might become interesting to share it with 
you... Any thoughts?

Jean V.

_________________________________________________
Jean Valentin - Bruxelles - Belgique
_________________________________________________
"Ce qui est trop simple est faux, ce qui est trop complexe est 
inutilisable"
"What's too simple is wrong, what's too complex is unusable"
_________________________________________________

---

From: [email-masked] (William L. Petersen)
Date: Sun, 01 Jun 1997 22:51:03 -0400

>development of this text (mine being just an hypothesis, it's worth what 

[sinp]

This verse and the variants (not all of which are given in Jean's post) have
a long history in research.  A variant form was noted by Th. Zahn over a
century ago in the bilingual Codex Sangallensis (Latin-OHGerm);  much later,
Walter Henss published his reconstruction of the history of the verse in a
book titled *Das Verhaeltnis zwischen Diatessaron, christlicher Gnosis und
"Western Text"*, BZNW 33 (Berlin 1967).

I discuss the verse, the history of research, and offer additional evidence
on pp. 264-269 of *Tatian's Diatessaron*.

--Petersen, Penn State University.

---

From: Jean VALENTIN <[email-masked]>
Date: Mar, 3 Jun 97 21:06:36 +0200

Thanks to Mr Petersen for referring me to the pages of his book 
concerning the variant in Lk 7.47. I will take the time to consider how 
it affects my ideas about the transmission of this verse. Very 
stimulating!

Jean V.