Subject: Caesarean text and migrations

From: "Roderic L. Mullen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 01:05:09 -0400

Regarding the ongoing discussion between Vincent Broman and myself on the
nature of the text of Mark in Palestine, one further point of clarification
about Broman's article of August 3.
        Broman wrote "It sounds like we have some impediments to
communication tripping us up.  One is the word 'Caesarean.'  After careful
reading I still see Mullen arguing (effectively) in his book that within the
Gospel of Mark, Theta + 565 + Orig + Eus + (700 + CyrilJ) are in fact
related to each other.  The traditional name for this grouping is either
"Caesarean" or "family Theta," without wanting to buy into all of Streeter's
theories..."
        On this score, Broman has interpreted my argument as to the
groupings correctly.  I personally would prefer to speak of "Group Theta" or
if necessary the "Caesarean Group" for the ms witnesses Theta, 565, 700.  To
my mind, the group is not substantial enough to be called a text-type in the
sense that we speak of the "Alexandrian text-type," for example.  At the
same time, I would prefer not to use the word "family" to refer to the
conglomeration of Theta / 565 /700 but would reserve the word family for
very close-knit collocations such as Family 1, Family 13, Family Pi, and
Family E.
        As to how the text of Mark attested by Origen, Eusebius, and to a
lesser extent by Cyril of Jerusalem, came to be found in Ms Theta
(discovered in what is today the Republic of Georgia, 565 (an apparent
production from asia minor for Theodora, wife of the Byzantine Emperor Leo V
the Armenian), and 700 (can anyone supply information on the geographical
origin of 700?), a question alluded to on p. 328 of my *The New Testament
Text of Cyril of Jerusalem*, let me note that there seems to have been a
fairly heavy pilgrimmage traffic early on back and forth between Palestine
and Asia Minor & Armenia.  Early (5th/6th century) Armenian mosaics have
been found in Jerusalem, and the earliest attestation of Cyril in a
sanctoral calendar comes in an Armenian lectionary (see p. 7 of my book).
To that I would now add the following comment from Krikor H. Maksoudian, ed,
VARK' MASHTOTS'I (Delmar, NY:  Caravan Books, 1985), p.xi "Medieval writers
and modern scholars attribute to Koriwn [the celebrated Armenian translator
who lived in the 5th century-- RLM] several literary works.  In a late
medieval composition, the "List of Rituals" it is stated that the
translators Koriwn and Ardzan who were in Jerusalem, brought with them a
work of St. Cyril of Jerusalem, a treatise that "interdicted the penitents
and absolved them on Holy Thursday."  The work refered to is probably the
"Catecheses" of Cyril of Jerusalem, the Armenian version of which was
translated in the first half of the fifth century and is still extant.  It
would be very tempting to attribute the translation to Koriwn , but the
"list of rituals" is notoriously untrustowrthy source and the style of the
Armenian version of the "Catecheses" is very different from that of the life
of Mastots'."  Thus far Maksoudian, who references a work entitled
"Eranelwoyn Kiwrghi Erusaghemay Hayrapeti koch'umn entsayut'ean" [the
Catecheses of the Blessed Patriarch Cyril of Jerusalem] (Vienna, 1832).
        If a Palestinian author such as Cyril was being translated into
Armenian in the early fifth century (whether by Koriwn or someone else) and
if translators were thought to be bringing books (may we assume biblical mss
as well as catecheses?) from Palestine at about the same time, it seems that
this is a highly likely explanation not only for the character of Mss Theta
& 565, but also for the presumed "Caesarean" affinities of the Armenian
version.  Erroll Rhodes or Joe Alexanian, are you available for comment?
I'd be interested to hear your or others' comments.
--Rod Mullen