Subject: Re: Question on Canaanite or Cananaean

From: "Matt Bell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 09:30:20 +0100

MATT
Hi all

I am new to both Textual Criticism and this list so hope you will forgive
the simplicity of my initial post which I hope is relevant to this list.

I need the following information:

The AV/KJV in Matthew 10:4 and Mark 3:18 translates the Gk. word
Kananites/Kananiten as 'Canaanite'. Modern versions however translate this
as Cananaean. Is one more correct than the other? What are the reasons for
the change from Canaanite to Cananaean? Is the AV mistaken in it's use of
'Cananite'?

ROBERT
There are two possible problems here, textual and translational. The
textual one is relevant. :-)

I'll give Matthew 10:4 the full treatment, and then summarize Mark 3:18.

The reading "Canaanite" (Greek KANANITHS), as found in the AV, is
supported by the clear majority of manuscripts, including
Aleph W Delta Theta Family 13 28 565 579 700 Byz hark.
The reading "Cananaean" (KANANAIOS) occurs in most early manuscripts:
B C (D CANANAIOS) L N Family 1 33 892 ol vg

Thus "Cananaean" is the reading of the Alexandrian and "Western" texts
(plus probably the "Caesarean" if it exists); "Canaanite" is
Byzantine. Most would agree that the evidence of the manuscripts supports
"Cananaean."

MATT
If "The reading "Canaanite" (Greek KANANITHS), as found in the AV, is
supported by the clear majority of manuscripts"  then why is it that 'Most
would agree that the evidence of the manuscripts supports "Cananaean?" Is
this an 'earlier=better' conclusion or is there more substantive reasons?

ROBERT
But you'll notice that I didn't cite much versional evidence here. I
believe a few versions have something like "Judas of James," but the
reason is that the reading "Cananaean" is difficult; many translators
must have been tempted to render it "Canaanite." Thus we cite only
the Harklean Syriac (which is very literal) as supporting "Canaanite."

MATT
Could you expand on why 'the reading "Cananaean" is difficult?' and also
why ' many translators must have been tempted to render it "Canaanite"?'

ROBERT
Modern translators might be tempted to do the same thing. I suspect
that all modern translations, except the NKJV, actually have a text
that renders "Cananaean." But some may have interpreted this as
"Canaanite."

The situation is similar in Mark. Here we find the following:
Canaanite (KANANITHN) supported by
   A Theta fam1 fam13 28 892 Byz hark
Cananaean (KANANAION) supported by
   Aleph B C D Lvid (W) Delta 33 565 579 1241 1342 2427 ol vg bo

Although it's possible that the "Caesarean" text has shifted to
supporting "Canaanite" here, the evidence still points to
"Cananaean" as original. (Though I would consider the matter
much less certain; it is possible -- though hardly likely --
that the two texts originally differed, and were conformed.
In this case, it is more likely that Matthew originally
read Cananaean and Mark read Canaanite.)

I hope this helps.

MATT
Thanks for the information so far - forgive the supplemntaries :)

Thanks

Matt

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 13:00:40 -0500 (CDT)

On Sun, 21 Sep 1997, "Matt Bell" <[email-masked]> wrote,
in part (and quoting me in part):

[ ... ]

>this an 'earlier=better' conclusion or is there more substantive reasons?

I guess we just established that you really *are* a textual beginner.
(No harm in that, but it would appear that you haven't read any of
the standard manuals. I will try to summarize, but remember that there
are whole books devoted to what I am going to try to say in a few
sentences.)

The New Testament exists in many thousand manuscripts. All of these, of
course, ultimately descend from what the New Testament authors originally
wrote. But these manuscripts, of course, do not all agree. If they
did, we wouldn't be having this problem. :-)

It is generally agreed that some manuscripts are more closely related
than others. The most closely related, obviouslym are those that are
copied from each other. Others, less closely related, are descended
from common ancestors, and so on. (This is simplistic, since manuscripts
can suffer various forms of mixture and deterioration, but it will do
for now.)

If we proceed from the most closely related to the most distantly related,
the most distantly related sort of grouping is the "text-type." These
are manuscripts which are not copied from each other, and perhaps not
even descended from a common ancestor, but which seem to have experienced
some degree of common influence. (The exact definition of a text-type
is a matter of debate, but we can leave *that* aside, too. If you feel
like being really bored, I have a 90K article about it on my web site. :-)

In the gospels, all critics concede at least two text-types (Alexandrian
and Byzantine), most also recognize a "Western" type, and some recognize
a fourth, the "Caesarean." Of the witnesses listed above, Aleph B 33 579
892 are purely or largely Alexandrian, D ol are "Western," and Theta family 1
family 13 565 700 are (mixed) "Caesarean."

You'll notice that most of these names are geographical. That's because
the Alexandrian text was popular in Egypt, while the Byzantine text
was used in Byzantium. This doesn't mean that they originated there,
but they were used there.

As it happens, manuscripts of the Byzantine text outnumber manuscripts
of the other types by about ten to one. Thus the Byzantine text represents
the majority type.

But before we anoint it as correct, we should note that, outside
Byzantium, the Greek New Testament had more or less ceased to be
used after the fourth century. The west used Latin translations,
Egypt used Coptic translations or was converted to Islam, etc.
Thus the numerical majority of the Byzantine text derives mostly
from the fact that only Byzantium was still using Greek in the
later centuries.

If we go back to the period of the third to sixth centuries,
Byzantine texts are much rarer. The earliest Greek manuscript of
the type is A, from the fifth century. Whereas the Alexandrian
text was in existence before the end of the second century.
So age figures in here. (Although, be it noted, all of our
oldest evidence comes from Egypt, which may bias things.)

There is another reason that scholars dislike the Byzantine
text, and that is its quality. Most scholars find it to be
full of glosses and explanatory readings and simplifications.

Combining the seemingly late date of the text with what appears
to be its "smoothed out" quality, most scholars declare the
Byzantine text, which contains the majority of manuscripts,
to be late and inferior. (There are, of course, exceptions,
most but not all of them Americans.)

[ ... ]

>why ' many translators must have been tempted to render it "Canaanite"?'

Do *you* know what a "Cananaen" is? Does it mean "Canaanite?" "Resident 
of Cana"? Something else? (I know, Jack Kilmon gave us an explanation,
but how many ancient scribes would know that?)

Suppose you were copying something, and you came across a phrase
that read something like "Cain kijjed his brother Abel." Since you
presumably don't know what "kijjed" means (I hope you don't, anyway,
since I just made it up :-), you would very likely, even unconsciously,
change it to something more reasonable, like "killed." It's the
same phenomenon.

Next question? :-)

-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-

                        Robert B. Waltz
                     [email-masked]

Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism?
Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn
(A site inspired by the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism)