Subject: tc-list Biblical Cruxes

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 10:26:13 -0500 (EST)

Dear TC-er's:

I am an English professor preparing to teach a course in the Bible as
Literature for the first time.  In sending this message, I am jumping brashly
into unfamiliar territory, so please forgive my ignorance of things you take
for granted--for starters, knowledge of Greek and Hebrew.

At any rate, William Barclay wrote, "It has been calculated that in the Greek
manuscripts of the New Testament there are 150,000 places in which there are
variant readings.... Of the 150,000 fewer than 400 affect the sense, fewer than
50 are of any importance, and there is no case in which an article of faith or
a precept of duty is left in doubt."  (_Introducing the Bible_, 25th
Anniversary Edition, p. 154.)

I would like to know some of the 50 important variant readings to which Barclay
refers, and I'd also be interested in important variant readings in the OT.  I
wish to use these to illustrate to undergraduates some of the issues
translators and readers confront.  The only example I now have is I Thess. 4:4,
where, apparently, the Greek original meaning "vessel" may be rendered either
"body" or "wife."

Is there a single source, appropriate for a layman, that would help here?  If
not, could you mention either on this list or by direct e-mail a couple of your
favorites?

Thanks,

Robert A. White
English Department, The Citadel
[email-masked]

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 10:25:33 -0600

On Fri, 22 Jan 1999, [email-masked] wrote:

[ ... ]

>where, apparently, the Greek original meaning "vessel" may be rendered either

The example you describe is not a textual issue; it is an issue of translation.
That's a matter for another group. :-)

In what follows, I'm going to talk mostly about the New Testament. There
are textual problems with the Old Testament -- lots of them! -- but they
are of a different sort, and often relate at least in part to difficulties
in understanding the text.

I'm afraid Barclay's numbers are a bit low. The estimate of 150,000 variants
in the text is rather out-of-date, but tolerable. However, many more than 400
affect the sense, as the footnotes to the United Bible Societies' critical
edition show. 400 might represent his notion of the number of *significant
readings adopted by one scholar or another,* though even that sounds
a little low (as witness the number of textual footnotes in the NRSV
New Testament, below).

I would also argue that part about the "precept of duty."
How about the sacrament of baptism? Sure, baptism was a common activity
in the early church -- but to my (admittedly liberal) eyes, the only place
in the Bible that *requires* baptism is Mark 16:16 -- a passage most
textual scholars consider spurious, or at least non-Markan.

>not, could you mention either on this list or by direct e-mail a couple of your

The easiest way for a lay person to do this is simply to get a Bible
translation and read the footnotes. In the New Revised Standard version,
for instance, textual variants have footnotes which begin "other
ancient authorities read...." I count 463 variants which involve the
text (this is a casual count; it's the number of places where I
added manuscript listings to the footnotes. And *no*, I can't reproduce
this, folks; it's in my personal Bible, not on the computer.) These
are all textual variants. And some of them are quite substantial --
e.g. the inclusion/omission of Matt. 16:2-3, Mark 16:9-20, John 7:53-8:11.

I don't have precise figures on this (I would guess someone has studied
this, but I don't know who). But my spot checks revealed that that
Greek text of the _Textus Receptus_, which was used to create the King
James Bible, is about 2% longer than the Westcott-Hort text which has
influenced every twentieth century translation except the New King
James version.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-

                        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)

---

From: "William L. Petersen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 13:43:30 -0500

Barclay's statement is a half-truth, congenial from his point of view.

A good source for examining variants (in English) is B.H. Throckmorton's
*Gospel Parallels* (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1992 [NRSV text;  ISBN
0-8407-7484-2]);  it is a required text in all my NT and early Christianity
courses here at Penn State.

An example of the problem is at Matt 1:16, where some MSS speak of Joseph
as the "husband" of Mary;  here on the TC-list, I noticed that just today
the vast (unanimous?) consensus was that Mark 16:9+ were not original.

Before you teach your course, you should read Bart Ehrman's recent (and
very well-received) book *The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture* (Oxford,
1993).  It provides a good overview of the development of textual variants
in the early church, and is accessible to the non-specialist.

But there is another problem, which is more critical:  the real problem is
not just textual variants, but the synoptic parallels.  Dependence among
the synoptic gospels (Matt, Mark, Luke) is accepted by critical
scholarship.  Therefore, the gospels themselves, when compared, show us
what editing was going on *before* the manuscripts were copied which are
preserved today.

An example:  Take Throckmorton, and read the parallel passages of the
"Cursing of the Fig Tree" (Matt 21:18-22;  Mark 11:12-14, 20-25).
According to Mark, Jesus is a rather ignorant fool (and certainly not a
divinity with foreknowledge), while Matthew has omitted precisely the two
statements from Mark which make Jesus' "non-divine" status obvious (Mark
11:13:  "he went to see whether perhaps he would find anything on it";
idem:  "for it was not the season for figs").  Luke (perhaps embarrassed by
the whole thing?) omits the whole story.

Another example is the story of the "Rich Young Man/Ruler" (Matt 19:16-30;
Mark 10:17-31;  Luke 18:18-30).  Here again, Mark's text (Mark 10:18)
clearly states that Jesus is not God:  "Why do you call *me* [Jesus] good?
No one is good but God alone."  In the parallel in Matt (Matt 19:16-17),
the offending words (in Mark 10:17:  "Good Master...") have once again been
changed (Matt 19:16:  "Teacher, what *good deed*..."), so as to remove the
"problem."

The so-called "comma Ioanneum" (I John 5:7-8) is a clear example of
tampering with the text, this time regarding the Trinity (see B. M.
Metzger, *The Text of the New Testament* [Oxford: OUP, various editions],
pp. 101-102).  The most "ancient" evidence for the reading now found in the
King James Version is a theological treatise from the fourth century;
Metzger gives a good reprise of the history of the insertion of this text
into I John (it doesn't appear in any Vulgate MSS until the 8th cent., etc.).

The ending of the Gospel of Matthew--the "Great Commission"--is also
clearly not "authentic" (it may be part of the oldest text of Matthew, but
it is clearly an invention of the second-century church, and never spoken
by Jesus), because nowhere in the early and heated controversies between,
on the one hand, James' "party of the circumcision" and, on the other hand,
Paul and the Pauline Christians, is the "Great Commission" ever cited.
Indeed, Peter and the ancient church in Jerusalem know nothing of it (cp.
Acts 10-11;  note that in Acts 10:48, Peter even acts contrary to the
"Great Commission" by baptizing "in the name of Jesus Christ"--he does not
baptize in the name of the Trinity, as his Lord Jesus ordered him to do in
what were [according to Matt, at least] Jesus' last words on earth).  Paul
and the apostles also know nothing of the "Great Commission" at the
Apostolic Council in Jerusalem in the year 49 or 50 (cp. Acts 15;  Gal. 2).
 Indeed, had Jesus ever actually spoken the "Great Commission," then the
entire controversy over circumcision and missionary work with Gentiles is
completely inexplicable.  Conclusion:  the "Great Commission" is a fraud.
Historically, our first text with the Trinitarian formula is either the
*Didache* or Irenaeus.  On the other hand, its theology perfectly agrees
with the later (= second-century), evolving, Gentile church, which rejected
the party of James.  (This illustrates the importance of knowing the
history of the early church, when these documents were put into the form in
which they have come down to us.)

Hmmm.  Those two texts (I John 5:7-8 and Matt 28:16-20) are the only two
references to the Trinity in the whole NT, and the one is textually
rejected (the RSV, etc., all omit it), and the other can be demonstrated on
historical grounds to be an invention....  Yet you quote Barclay as
asserting:  "there is no case in which an article of faith or a precept of
duty is left in doubt."  I conclude, therefore, that the Trinity was not an
article of faith for Barclay....

Nonsense similar to that of Barclay comes from F.F. Bruce, and many others.
 It is pious gibberish to placate the ignorant; in no way does it comport
with the empirical facts determinable from an examination of the
manuscripts, parallels among the gospels, and the earliest citations of the
NT (in apocryphal and patristic sources).  Before you teach your course,
take a look at my review of a book by P.W. Comfort (*The Quest for the
Original Text of the New Testament*);  the review appeared in the *Journal
of Biblical Literature* 113 (1994), pp. 529-531.  For whatever reasons,
demonstrably untrue statements are frequently made in matters theological
and religious.  These statements include the citation of non-existent
sources (both ancient and modern) to "prove" one's point;  assertions which
are simply, empirically false;  illogical arguments (illogical if one knows
the history and texts);  and emotion-laden appeals.  The moral:  Beware of
the sources you use.  Barclay was not a textual scholar;  he was a pious,
conservative churchman, making the case for his particular brand of
Christianity.  You might as well ask a mullah whether the Qur'an was
dictated to Mohammed by Allah:  you know the answer before you ask the
question--and that means it is not scholarship.

--Petersen, Penn State Univ.

---

From: Bart Ehrman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 13:52:06 -0500 (EST)

In my opinion Barclay is far too conservative in his estimation of
places of significant variation in the NT (and far too conservative on the
number of variations that actually exist).  But he was driven, I think, by
apologetic concerns -- wanting his readers to know that we can trust the
NT.

   There is a difference between translation issues and textual issues
(the business in 1 THessalonians is the former: it has to do with what a
Greek word means in its ancient context).  Here I'll mention some textual
ones (this is Barclay's concern; the issue has to do with the problem that
among our ca 5400 Greek, not to mention other kinds of, MSS, there are
many many thousands of differences; and the question is what the oldest
form of the text said and how/why it came to be changed)

   Among my list of personal favorites to talk to non-specialists about
are the final twelve verses of Mark (they aren't original) and the story
of the woman taken in adultery in John 7-8 (also not original).  Others
that are not *quite* so well known outside of the sphere of the
specialists (but thrashed about a good deal from inside!) are the
following (these are ones just from the Gospels, and ones that I've dealt
with in my book _The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture_, and so I'm just
throwing them out off the top of my head; there are lots of others that
might appeal to others on the list): 

	-- Mark 1:1 (does the Gospel begin by calling Jesus the "son of
God"?)
	-- Mark 15:34 (does Jesus' question why God has mocked him?)
	-- Luke 2:33, 48 (is Joseph called Jesus' father?)
	-- Luke 3:22 (does the voice suggest that God has "adopted" Jesus
to be his son?)
	-- Luke 22:19-20 (does Jesus talk about his death as salvific?)
	-- Luke 22:43-44 (does Jesus sweat blood?)
	-- Luke 24:12 (does Peter see the empty tomb?)
	-- John 1:18 (is Jesus called the "unique God"?)

   Plenty here for thought!

-- Bart D. Ehrman
   University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

---

From: Mike Logsdon <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 13:44:02 -0600

>what editing was going on *before* the manuscripts were copied which are

Supposed and theorized editing!

>the whole thing?) omits the whole story.

OR it is possible that Mark added to Matthew, and that the entire pericope
was outside the larger scope of Luke who certainly had a larger body of
material to draw from than simply Mark and Matthew (See Luke 1:1-4). That
he was embarrassed at all is a purely psychological conjecture! 

>changed (Matt 19:16:  "Teacher, what *good deed*..."), so as to remove the

Again, it is possible that Mark altered Matthew's text . . . 

	In response to the larger question at hand, however, and since, at the
present, I am studying in a seminar on John, the so called purpose
statement of John 20:31 contains a variant worthy of mention since one's
choice can actually alter the way the entire Gospel is read, evangelistic
or edification. Additionally, The Woman Caught in Adultery pericope (John
7:53-8:11) is perhaps the most well known from the larger textual variants.

	Like others I would recommend Metzger's Textual Commentary Supplement to
the UBS 3d and 4th editions as a beginning point for the rational behind
the choices made in the UBS text about each of these textual variants.

Mike Logsdon
PhD Student 
Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary

---

From: "William L. Petersen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 15:31:25 -0500

Re: Mike Logsdon's comments:

>Supposed and theorized editing!

???  I don't follow you.  We *know*, from comparison of the synoptic
parallels and from the patristic citations of the NT that editing occurred.
 How is that "supposed and theorized"?

>he was embarrassed at all is a purely psychological conjecture! 

(1) You fail to address the two crucial points:  (a) an omniscient divinity
would "know" whether or not there were figs on the tree *without* going to
see if there were [and this is precisely what Matt omits];  (b) Mark paints
Jesus a not only *not* a divinity, but also dumber than the average
peasant, for, according to Mark's text, Jesus doesn't even know when the
season for figs is [and Matt also omits this unflattering detail].
(2) It is possible that--as you suggest--"Mark added to Matthew".
Whichever way you look at it, however, you are acknowledging that there is
editing going on, contrary to your remark above about editing being
"supposed and theorized"....
(3) If one accepts your scenario, then you must explain to me how Matthew's
earlier, theologically acceptable tale would have been taken over by a
*later* writer (Mark, in your reconstruction), who would have inserted
theologically *unacceptable* details, which depict Jesus as just plain dumb
(he's so ignorant of common knowledge that he wonders if there are figs on
trees--when it isn't even the season for figs...) and lacking omniscience
(he doesn't know whether there are figs on the tree or not, and need to
approach it to determine this...).
As a general principle, we do *not* find texts becoming *less* in tune with
later theology the later we go in church history;  quite the contrary, as
the *comma Ioanneum* shows, the tendency has always been to move the text
in the direction of contemporary beliefs.  An example from the 1990s is the
*Living Bible* at John 1:1:  "In the beginning was Christ, and Christ was
God."  (LOGOS and CHRISTOS are two different words in Greek;  how can they
even venture such a translation?  Well, they are "correcting" the theology
of John, and "protecting" it from the misinterpretation of people who might
have read Plato or Philo...)
(4) I try to write carefully, so please read carefully.  You say that "That
he [Luke ] was embarrassed at all is a purely psychological conjecture!"
Indeed it is, as I clearly indicate, by prefacing the words with "perhaps"
and not even making it a statement, but a question:  "perhaps embarrassed
by the whole thing?"

>Again, it is possible that Mark altered Matthew's text . . . 

Indeed.  But then comments #2 and 3 above obtain here:  (2) you are
admitting editing takes place among the gospels--that Matthew is being
revised and substantially changed on theological points by Mark, or the
reverse.
(3) What about the theological difference between the two--whichever way
you wish to have the dependence?  And does not both logic and the evidence
of texts everywhere (even the *Living Bible*) suggest that the
theologically *unacceptable* text is earlier (= Mark) and the theologically
more palatable text (= Matthew) is later?

>7:53-8:11) is perhaps the most well known from the larger textual variants.

Indeed, there are theological issues associated with the *pericope
adulterae*;  although it doesn't focus on them, you might enjoy looking at
my textual study of the origins of the *per.ad.* in *Sayings of Jesus:
Canonical and Non-canonical*, Supp. Novum Testamentum 89 (Brill, 1997), pp.
191-221.

---

From: "Stephen C. Carlson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 16:56:13 -0500

>>Again, it is possible that Mark altered Matthew's text . . . 
[...]
>more palatable text (= Matthew) is later?

Peter M. Head, CHRISTOLOGY AND THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM: An Argument for
Markan Priority (Cambridge: University Press, 1997), has devoted
considerable attention to this pericope, concluding:

   "The common assumption that Matthew's alteration of Jesus'
   response to the man (Matt. 19.17) is a redactional evasion
   of the christological implications of Mark 10.18 does not
   cohere with the positive emphasis within Matthew's version
   of the account or with comparison of later preferences in
   the manuscripts and Tatian."  [p.64]

Earlier on page 60, Head states that Tatian chose the Markan/Lukan
version over the Matthean version [Arabic 28.42-51, Ephraem XV.1f;
Persian II.39].  Furthermore, there are wide number of MSS that
harmonize the already more palatable text of Matthew to the
unacceptable text of Mark or Luke: e.g. C W Delta fam.13 syr:p
cop:sa Byz [E F G H].  Typically, however, harmonization goes
the other direction.

Have you been able to consider Head's analysis?

Stephen Carlson
--
Stephen C. Carlson                        mailto:[email-masked]
Synoptic Problem Home Page   http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/
"Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words."  Shujing 2.35

---

From: Bart Ehrman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 17:10:12 -0500 (EST)

BTW, a terrific little book that would be ideal for you would be David
Parker's _Living Text of the Gospels_ -- written for the non-specialist
but showing how the differences among the manuscripts have significant
affects on the meaning of the texts (with references to the
analogous problems, e.g., in Shakespeare) (though w/o benefit of Tom
Stoppard's suggestions :-)).

-- Bart Ehrman

---

From: Jim Deardorff <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1999 12:56:45 -0800 (PST)

> approach it to determine this...).

At the risk of adding to a debate that may then be considered off-topic
for tc and more appropriate for those more interested in the synoptic
problem, let me contribute the following here, since the two fields do overlap.

There is an interesting and plausible alternative that allows the writer
of Mark to have expanded upon Matthew at times, even in the above example,
while abbreviating away portions he deemed unnecessary or anti-gentile or
non-understandable. In the above example, the writer of Mark wished to
split Matthew's miracle of the fig-tree withering into two pieces a day
apart. So he invented the phony sounding intro of Mk 11:11 where Jesus
does nothing more than walk into the temple, look around, and walk out
again, so as to allow a first encounter with the fig tree to occur in the
morning. Then after a full day had elapsed, he allowed the withered tree
to be observed. Thus he avoided Matthew's abrupt withering. Why? It seems
quite plausible to me that the writer had heard objections to Matthew at
this point, to the effect that anyone knew a tree could even be uprooted
or chopped down yet its leaves wouldn't look withered right away. So he
was just improving upon Matthew's miracle here to make it more acceptable
to his gentile audience. It would still be a miracle even if it took up to
a day for its leaves to wither. 

As for Jesus being dumb here, I would contend that the writer of Mark
needs to be blamed for this, and for not being a careful editor. In his 
desire to make changes for the sake of change, so that his gospel would be
more than a mere abbreviation of Matthew, he thought he could safely add
"for it was not the season for figs." (He did the same elsewhere, e.g.,
the "green" grass of Mk 6:39 occurring over a large area yet in a
desert or deserted region, with Mt 14:19 not mentioning "green.")

> in the direction of contemporary beliefs.

There are quite a few examples of Mark being an upgrade of Matthew. Like
in Mk 1:1 where "Son of God" would not then have been a later scribal
alteration. In Mk 1:7 Jesus is upgraded relative to John by having John be
unworthy even to touch the thong of Jesus' sandals, let alone carry them. 
(Mark's omission of practically all of Mt 11:1-14, with its praise for
John, is consistent with this.) Mk 6:29-31 avoids the implication that
Jesus withdrew because he was afraid, which Mt 14:13 allows. Mark has
greater emphasis upon the gospel as a written account (e.g., Mk 1:1,
8:35). Mk 11:3 has the promise that Jesus would send the colt back
immediately; this avoids Matthew's implication that the colt was usurped
(the writer of Mark emphasized the right of ownership, as in Mk 10:19 and
its "Do not defraud"). Mk 10:17 has "Good teacher" while Mt 19:16 simply
has "Teacher;" Mk 10:20 has "Teacher" while Mt 19:20 just leaves it as
"him," and the same with Mk 10:35 vs Mt 20:20. 

Equally  important, however, is to bear in mind that with the tradition
that Matthew came out first, written in a Semitic tongue, that its
translator did not translate it into Greek likely until after both Mark
and Luke had appeared. At that time, numerous small alterations and
upgrades could or would have been emplaced within Matthew, such as
replacing Mark's "Teacher" with "Lord" here and there. 

> >Again, it is possible that Mark altered Matthew's text . . . 

But in this instance the analysis of Lamar Cope seems quite viable. In
Matthew, the "Good" had referred to the Torah. That's why its discussion
goes on to discuss the commandments. But the writer of Mark, along with
many of us today, did not understand this, so he tried to resolve the
apparent ambiguity in Matthew by explaining what "Good" applied to, but
succeeded only in generating his own problem. Also, note again that it is
Mark that has "Good Teacher" while Matthew has only "Teacher."

Jim Deardorff
Web Page: http://www.proaxis.com/~deardorj
(See section on "Evidence that Mark is secondary to Matthew")

---

From: M A Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1999 17:25:17 EST

On Fri, 22 Jan 1999 13:43:30 -0500 "William L. Petersen" <[email-masked]>
writes:

>here on the TC-list, I noticed that just today the vast (unanimous?)
consensus was >that Mark 16:9+ were not original.

Although the response was related to the question about the English
bible, there are indeed some (few) of us who hold Mk. 16:9-20 as
original. I didn't chime in with the recent question since I had already
discussed my position on that passage during last Fall's discussion. I
only speak now because I don't want to get lumped in summarily by
"(unanimous?)" with a position which I would not espouse.

As for two of the other texts mentioned, even though I obviously concur
with Petersen in regard to the inauthenticity of 1 Jn. 5:7, since the
textual evidence there is strong and clear, I would strongly demur in
regard to Mt. 28:19-20 (and other references cited which have no textual
variants among the known MS base); such reflects a judgment made from
higher critical praxis and assumptions regarding the pre-transmissional
development and stages of the NT documents before there exists
text-critical evidence. Petersen also espouses a higher-critical approach
which I do not happen to share, and we would have serious differences of
interpretation of the identical evidence; but there is no need to discuss
such in this forum, since it strays off-topic from tc in particular.

However, I would like to ask Petersen this: why Throckmorton and not the
Aland "Synopsis of the Four Gospels"?  Aside from an English presentation
of text-critical variant readings in Throckmorton versus English Bible
version variants in Aland, do you see a greater benefit in Throckmorton's
layout or pericope arrangement, or are there other benefits which I
haven't necessarily noticed? (I have used both in NT Introduction classes
during the past 15 years, but I settled on Aland's Synopsis about 7 years
ago, primarily due to the low cost factor, since it can be obtained at a
very reasonable price from the Bible Society).

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

---

From: "William L. Petersen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 10:27:52 -0500

At 05:25 PM 1/23/99 -0500, Maurice Robinson wrote:

[snip]

>very reasonable price from the Bible Society).

There are four main reasons for my preference for Throckmorton.

(1) The editions of Aland's English *Synopsis* (RSV text) which I have seen
(mine is 1985 printing of the 1st edition) give NO manuscript evidence.
The apparatus consists primarily of readings from *English
translations*--hardly a satisfactory way to educate students about
manuscripts and the radically different readings present in the MSS.  One
of my aims is to educate students about the manuscript tradition of the NT
and to make them (painfully) aware of the enormous range and variety among
the MSS and versions.  Aland's *Synopsis* is useless for this purpose.
(There are--but only very occasionally--references to sources in the notes
at the bottom of the page [I am loath to call it an apparatus], but these
are useless:  e.g.:  "other ancient authorities omit *in his day*".  But
Aland does not tell you *what* ancient authorities, or in what languages,
"omit *in his day*"--and most pages are entirely devoid of *any* references
to MS variants.

Therefore, for many students, who enter university with the defective and
empirically incorrect notion that we "have" the "original text" of the NT,
or that their English Bibles are all translations of the *same* Greek
manuscript (!!), Aland is misleading by tacitly encouraging that view.
Throckmorton does not.

Aland's (English) *Synopsis* is, in my view, bizarre, for it wastes up to a
quarter of the page sometimes giving nothing more than variants between the
KJV, the RSV and the 1881 English Revised Version.  Look at p. 268, for
example.  Of what use is this to teaching about the text of the NT?  It may
be useful for comparing English translations, but it is of no help is
showing the textual chaos what was the first centuries of Christianity.

(2) Throckmorton (RSV text in older editions;  the NRSV in the most recent
edition) has an extensive introduction, describing all the major
manuscripts of the NT (including the papyri), in addition to providing a
description of the major "families" of the NT MSS (Alexandrian, Western,
Koine, etc.) and even the Versions (!) and non-canonical sources (!!).
Furthermore, he offers a brief overview of the copying of MSS and the
materials (papyrus, parchment, etc.), and even the Fathers (who was Clement
of Alex., etc.).  I assign this as reading, for I know of no NT Intro
textbook (Bart, yours may, but I don't remember at the moment...) which
provides such a detailed and extensive overview of the MS tradition of the
NT, papyri, fathers, codices, and copying practices.

(3) Throckmorton gives a rather extensive set of *quotations*--the actual
texts--from Patristic and non-canonical sources in his apparatus.  If you
look at Aland, there is not a *single* reference to the *Gospel of Thomas*
in it (as far as I can see).  Is it really possible to do synoptic textual
and source criticism without taking *Thomas* into consideration?  Can one
really study the "Parables of the Salt and Light" (Matt 5:13-16) with just
the canonical gospels in front of one?  I say one can, but that is not
scholarship.  At this passage, Throckmorton provides an English translation
of P.Oxy. 1 and Thomas log. 32 (they differ slightly);  in the next verse
(Matt 5:17) he provides English translations of the Gospel of the Ebionites
and the Gospel of the Egyptians (as cited by Clement Al., Misc. II.9.63
[Throckmorton even gives you the reference in the Father...]).  I do NOT
want to artificially limit the perspective of my students;  I want them to
see the full breadth of evidence available, in Thomas, in P.Oxy. 1, and the
Fathers.  Conclusion:  Throckmorton offers more information--more *useful*
information for the scholar--than Aland.

(4) The setup of Throckmorton is easier on the eyes:  the type is bigger
(even though the volume is thinner), the headers, layout and typography are
better than Aland.  Throckmorton also provides useful tools, including a
cross-index between all of his non-canonical sources and the appropriate
passage in the gospels (pp. xxvii to xxxi:  5 pages!), which guides the
student to where certain sources (e.g. Thomas, of the Gospel of Peter)
offer parallels.  While Throckmorton does not present all the parallels
from these sources, he gives *much* more info than any other source.

That is why I vastly prefer Throckmorton to Aland.  Any questions?

--Petersen, Penn State University.

---

From: "William L. Petersen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 11:59:54 -0500

>Have you been able to consider Head's analysis?

No.  I've seen the title, but not had time to look at the book;  also, I
don't have time to muck about in the Diatessaronic materials at the moment.
 Two observations, however.

(1) One must always be concerned about the use of the Diatessaron, even by
specialists, for it is a very complex, difficult beast.  We have no text of
"the" Diatessaron;  it must be reconstructed from various sources, which is
a difficult, time-consuming and painstaking task.  Ephrem cannot be assumed
to be the text of the Diatessaron;  we know that Eprhem knew not just the
Diatessaron, but also the Vetus Syra as well as the "Greek" (he cites it as
such several times [ 7 or so, I think] in his Commentary.  Also, Ephrem's
*own* text appears to have been revised in its transmission history.

(2) Head's comments (at least as you quote them) are a bit vague:  what,
for example, is the "the positive emphasis within Matthew's version"?  I,
for one, don't know what a "positive emphasis" is.   I can assume what he
means by the "later preferences in the manuscripts [and Tatian]"?  I've
already pointed out that we don't have "Tatian"--and we'd certainly have to
do a much more extensive analysis to reconstruct Tatian's text.  As for the
MSS (C, the Koine, etc.,--see your apparatuses, folks) which interpolate
the "good" into the salutation in Matt, and also substitute Jesus' Marcan
answer for the Matthean answer, it is, indeed, a puzzling picture.  But
*none* of these MSS (at least so far as my Aland Greek Synopsis shows)
delete the distinctively Matthean "AGATHON POIHSW" in Matt 19:16.  And it
is *this* change which, in B and aleph and a few other early sources, is
the key to circumlocuting the Christologically objectionable reading of Mark.

The problem here is simple:  If the Christologically "orthodox" version (=
Matt, in B, etc.) were the earliest version of the passage, then how can
one account for the incredible theological "mucking up" this entirely
"acceptable" passage gets at the hands of Mark?  Ditto for the parallel
case in the "Cursing of the Fig Tree" episode:  why would Mark interpolate
into an acceptable text (Matthew's version) items which are objectionable,
and make Jesus out to be a dolt?  (Examples of such "improvements" in Matt
are legion:  cp. the omission in Matt 27:54 of the word "man/anthropos",
which is in the Marcan parallel [15:39].)  We know that, as time goes on,
"theological corrections" are made in the text:  Augustine says the
*pericope adulterae* was excised in areas he knew because people thought it
was too "liberal" a story (so much for the "reverence" accorded "received
text" of the gospels in the fifth century...);  John "corrects" (even
acknowledging its corrections) synoptic events/sayings in John 2:19-22 and
John 21:21-23;  what editors now often set in brackets (Mark 7:19)
certainly must come from a time late in or after the apostolic era, for
Peter and the rest certainly don't know they can eat anything in Acts 10
&11--and, indeed, the Acts version of the Apostolic Decree (Acts 15:20)
does *not* allow Christians to eat anything...  Etc., etc.

To the frustration of some of my colleagues, I am an agnostic about
synoptic relationships;  I think it needs to be decided on a case-by-case,
reading-by-reading basis, not "en bloc" (= Matt is *always* using Mark, or
the reverse).  My point in introducing these examples was *not* to become
embroiled in a discussion of the precise synoptic relationships, but to
provide some examples for the faculty member at the Citadel, who was
looking for text-critical cruxes.  These certainly exist (and he now has a
goodly handful of them from numerous members of the list);  what I also
wanted to draw his attention to (he is a professor of English, if I recall)
is that there is modification going on *among* the gospels as well--and
that these changes *among* the parallel passages are (1) often significant,
(2) sometimes have *theological* significance (recall that the Citadel
prof's original query was about Barclay's bold assertion that no variants
touched on points of doctrine...), and--most importantly for students to
understand--that (3) these differences must reflect either (a) a deliberate
rewriting of the text which came into the author's (or later revisor's)
hands ("Mark" revised by "Matthew"--or, also possible, "Matthew" revised by
"Mark," or later redactors revising one or the other or both), or (b) a
version of "Mark" (or "Matthew") in manuscript form which is no longer
preserved for us in the surviving manuscript tradition.  (This is nothing
new:  the so-called "minor agreements" are an example of this.)  While item
(a) is not directly of interest to textual criticism--although it may well
be of significance, as shown by harmonization and assimilation...), item
(b) is (or should be...) of direct interest to all textual critics.  This
is especially so when such readings are buttressed by early Patristic,
versional, or non-canonical evidence.

---

From: M A Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 22:15:39 EST

>That is why I vastly prefer Throckmorton to Aland.  Any questions?

Good answer, Bill. I think you are probably on target, especially in
regard to the matter of the wasted space in the Aland Synopsis with all
those (generally) irrelevant citations of readings from older English
versions when they could have made a more concerted effort by dumping
those and including English translations of all the patristic and
extra-biblical quotations which they do include in their Greek Synopsis.

I would hope that maybe someone from Muenster or the Bible Societies is
listening to that complaint, since it seems that it could be rectified in
future editions and they could strive to produce a synopsis in English
which has the patristic and extra-biblical material in English as well.
It will not do to suggest that one purchase the (overpriced) combined
version of the Greek Synopsis Quattuor Evangeliorum plus the English
Synopsis of the Four Gospels, since that still would leave NT
Introduction students without any means of understanding the Greek
patristic and extra-biblical quotes.

My reasons for using the Aland Synopsis were threefold: (1) as mentioned
already, price was a primary factor (it is obviously a bargain from the
Bible Societies); (2) but in addition I wanted to use it because it also
included all the Johannine gospel text (which Throckmorton gives only
small samples of when parallel, and even omits long portions when
parallel); (3) also, the arrangement of the pericopes is identical with
that found in the SQE, and this made a good transitional bridge for those
students moving on to comparative work in Greek once they learned the
language since the format would be not only familiar but identical.

On balance, I still will stay with the Aland Synopsis as the main
required text, not because it is best, but because of those three factors
noted.  I only wish that the Aland English Synopsis would similarly
include English translation of major variant readings with MS evidence
like Throckmorton and (especially) bring in the patristic and
extra-biblical parallel quotation in English like Throckmorton.  The
Muenster staff has the power and the resources to do this, and if not,
certainly the Bible Societies.

Otherwise, I still tend to feel quite comfortable (more so) in having the
text of all four gospels in complete form rather than a partial citation
of John (and that not even partial where the parallels are lengthy). Yet
there are very good reasons for retaining Throckmorton as an recommended
text in addition, or maybe allowing the students to pick whichever one
they prefer as their required text (though this would not make the
bookstore people very happy when we request an indeterminate number to be
 
>edition) has an extensive introduction, describing all the major
manuscripts of the >NT (including the papyri), in addition to providing a
description of the major >"families" of the NT MSS (Alexandrian, Western,
Koine, etc.) and even the Versions >(!) and non-canonical sources (!!).
Furthermore, he offers a brief overview of the >copying of MSS and the
materials (papyrus, parchment, etc.), and even the Fathers >(who was
Clement of Alex., etc.). 

This also is a plus with Throckmorton which the Aland Synopsis does not
come close to matching.

>(3) Throckmorton gives a rather extensive set of *quotations*--the 
>actual texts--from Patristic and non-canonical sources in his apparatus.
 If 
>you look at Aland, there is not a *single* reference to the *Gospel of 
>Thomas* in it (as far as I can see).  Is it really possible to do
synoptic 
>textual and source criticism without taking *Thomas* into consideration?

And yet the entire GTh is included in Coptic and English within SQE (!)
when they probably should have reproduced at least the full English text
as an appendix to SFG.(Of course, so should Throckmorton; instead we only
get clips of GTh where parallels occur, and this is also a weakness).

>I do NOT want to artificially limit the perspective of my students;  I
want 
>them to see the full breadth of evidence available

This also is a good point, and one which SFG misses by wasting space with
all the English versional translation differences instead of what really
matters.

>(4) The setup of Throckmorton is easier on the eyes:  the type is 
>bigger (even though the volume is thinner), the headers, layout and 
>typography are better than Aland.  

The volume is thinner because John is not included. So why does the price
go up as the pages decrease? :-)

However, I do happen to like the style of type in SFG as opposed to the
oversized type in Throckmorton (the older editions of Throckmorton were
about the same size type as SFG) -- I just wish SFG were about 2-3 points
larger (which it could be if 1/4 of the page had not been given over to
those English versional differences).

My conclusion thus is still to prefer Aland, but also to recommend
Throckmorton.  Thanks for your input, Bill. It was helpful.

---

From: "Stephen C. Carlson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 23:12:12 -0500

Seeing how this thread is about to diverge from textual criticism, I
will thank William Petersen for this thoughtful and thought-provoking
reply, forego the usual point-by-point response, and just touch on a
few issues.

At 11:59 AM 1/25/99 -0500, William L. Petersen wrote:
>"acceptable" passage gets at the hands of Mark?  
[...]
>looking for text-critical cruxes.  

In looking for text-critical cruxes, Mt19:17 might be one such example
just in terms of the difference between the TR (+ C W f13 33 Byz f q
sy:p sy:h sa and bo:mss) and the modern critical text (01 B, etc.).
If the Mt19:17[TR] (along with Mk10:18=Lk18:19) is "theologically
unacceptable" then the variation with 01 and B features an important
difference in meaning.

Mt19:17 also brings up an interesting text-critical issue: shouldn't
the "theologically unacceptable" TR variant be the harder reading,
despite 01, B and the synoptic harmonization?  I think that there
are two answers:
	(1) The theological unacceptability is overstated. Mk10:18
clearly affirms uniquely God's goodness, which not controversial for
most of Christianity, but it is a best an iffy inference -- if one
does not detect irony -- that Jesus is not God.
	(2) Mt19:17 then is actually the harder reading, because of
its obscurity.  (What does hEIS ESTIN hO AGAQOS really mean?)

My last point is on its application to synoptic source criticism. It is
important to remember the time and place of theological acceptability.
Even if Mk10:18 clearly means that Jesus is not God, which is arguable,
who is to say that *first century* writers would be so troubled by it?

Stephen Carlson

---

From: "William L. Petersen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 10:09:19 -0500

At this risk of causing several list members to keel over with heart
attacks, I agree with M. Robinson's agreement with me on the virtues/vices
of Aland's English Synopsis vs. Throckmorton.

Indeed, were the apparatus and a goodly dash of non-canonical and Patristic
parallels added to the Aland English Synopsis, it would be a very good
alternative to Throckmorton.  The problem, however, is that they are *not*
included, and undergrad students rarely have Greek--at least at a standard
good enough to use the Aland Greek Synopsis.

As for Aland having John, yes, it would be beneficial to have it included
in Throckmorton, but the advantage of having the Thomas and Patristic and
MS evidence there outweighs the lack of John.  I assign Throckmorton and a
Bible;  I could assign Aland and a Bible--but then students would somehow
also have to get Thomas, the Patristic info, plus the MSS--and I know of
*no* English source other than Throckmorton which gives such an extensive
apparatus.  In short:  John is easy to get hold of;  the information *in
English* given in Throckmorton's apparatus is *not* easy to get hold of.

>go up as the pages decrease? :-)

The answer:  The publisher of Throckmorton, Thomas Nelson, is a commercial
(= profit-making) enterprise (they used to be a NASDQ-listed stock;  I
think they were bought out by another commercial house about 3 years ago);
the Bible Societies enjoy bequests, endowments, subvention from churches,
and are *not* profit-making.

---

From: "William L. Petersen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 11:24:50 -0500

>who is to say that *first century* writers would be so troubled by it?

I agree:  it is something of a puzzle.  But note your presupposition:  that
the Matthean text we now have is "first century".  (1) We have no evidence
for this claim;  (2) it is, therefore, open to debate.  I'd have to look
(and I don't have the time to do so now), but my guess is that the Matthean
parallel to Mark 10:18 is first evidenced in the late 2nd cent (at the
earliest!), in the Fathers (Justin?  Origen?  Clement?  Irenaeus?).  The
Alands' chart of the papyri in their 1st English ed. of *The Text of the
NT* shows--interestingly enough--*no* evidence in the papyri for Matt
19:16-17 (P25 gives part of Matt 19, but is defective for these verses;
P71 apparently has vv. 17-18 [whether it includes the beginning of 17,
which is our focus, is unclear from Aland], but P71 is *fourth* century!);
therefore our earliest MS evidence would be aleph, B, etc.

I am, therefore, reluctant to assume that these "theological changes"--if
that is what they are--were made in the "first century," as you submit.
Rather, they could have been made at any time between the first
and--what?--late second or third century...  We simply don't know when the
changes were made, by whom, or for what purposes.  All we know is that
someone mucked about with the Young Man's question and Jesus' answer;
depending on your view of synoptic dependence, Matt changed Mark's
(theology appears the most likely reason), or Mark changed Matt's (for
which I can find no explanation).  As to the "when", we have no evidence;
as to they "why" we must intuit--and to my mind, theology seems to scream
out here, as it does in other, similar changes (the Fig Tree, the
Centurion's Confession, etc., etc.).

Another well-known example of this same phenomenon is Mark 6:5 ("And
[Jesus] could do *NO* deed of power there") vs. Matt 13:58 ("And [Jesus]
did not do *MANY* deeds of power there").  Mark qualified his "no" later in
the verse ("..except that he laid  his hands on a few sick people and cured
them"), but Matt, in the same pattern we have seen elsewhere, makes it
impossible to quote *his* (Matt's) gospel as saying "Jesus could do no deed
of power" in a certain place:  according to Matt, Jesus was bloody well
capable of doing miracles anyplace he bloody well pleased.  Note also the
subtle shift in the onus as to *why* Jesus didn't do more miracles in
Nazareth:  in Mark, it is KAI OUK *EDUNATO* EKEI POIHSAI OUDEMIAN DUNAMIN
("and he *COULD not  do* there *no/any* powerful deed"), while in Matt it
is KAI OUK *EPOIHSEN* EKEI DUNAMEIS POLLAS ("and *he DID not do* there
*many* powerful deeds").  In Mark, the reason is clear:  Jesus can only
work miracles if the people have faith;  in Matthew, Jesus *chose* not to
work miracles *because* (DIA) they didn't have faith.  So we see it is not
just the "no/any" miracles of Mark vs. the "many" miracles of Matthew--it
is much more subtle and complex.  Ladies and gentlemen:  this is theology,
and it is clearly influencing the text of the gospels--and Mark's "bad"
theology (from the standpoint of later orthodoxy) appears to be corrected
at these points by Matthew.  Elsewhere in the gospels it may be different;
perhaps there are places where Mark corrects Matthew's "bad"/low theology.
But at the points listed above, I suggest Mark is earlier, and Matthew (or
a later redactor of Matthew) has clearly cleaned things up.  And someone
has been mucking about with the text they received.

---

From: Yuri Kuchinsky <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 14:27:34 -0500 (EST)

Thanks for your informative post, William.

On Mon, 25 Jan 1999, William L. Petersen wrote:

> synoptic relationships;  I think it needs to be decided on a
> case-by-case, reading-by-reading basis, not "en bloc" (= Matt is
> *always* using Mark, or the reverse).

I will wholeheartedly agree with you on this. This is my own attitude as
well. Unfortunately all too many commentators, both of conservative and of
liberal tendencies, still consider the Synoptic problem as something that
can be solved in one fell swoop, i.e. either Mk is the earliest, or some
other gospel is the earliest.

The truth seems to be far more complicated. In my view, writing and
editing of all four canonical gospels continued well into the 2nd century.
So, although I do believe Mk is the earliest _for the most part_, still
many large parts of it seem to have been based on the other gospels, and
added later.

Best wishes,

Yuri. 
                                                         
Yuri Kuchinsky || Toronto
                                
http://www.trends.net/~yuku/bbl/bbl.htm                  
                                                         
The goal proposed by Cynic philosophy is apathy, which is
equivalent to becoming God -=O=- Julian

---

From: "Stephen C. Carlson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 23:22:29 -0500

At 11:24 AM 1/27/99 -0500, William L. Petersen wrote:
>the Matthean text we now have is "first century". [...]

First century changes are, of course, presupposed in "synoptic source
criticism", to which I took the trouble to explicitly confine this one
remark of mine.  The omitted reminders about text critical issues are
therefore beside the point.

>that is what they are--were made in the "first century," as you submit.

Actually, what I had submitted is that the commonly assumed, christological unacceptability of Mk10:18 is, frankly, overstated.

Stephen Carlson