Subject: tc-list The James M. Robinson debate about Matt. 6:28

From: "Bruce Prior" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 17:01:17 PDT

TCers --
    There appears to be enough interest from tc-list people to join the 
debate stemming from James M. Robinson's recent article, in which he claims 
to have found a scribal error in Q.  So, I have consolidated my files on the 
debate so far.  If I have missed anybody, please accept my apology, and feel 
free to jump in again.

J. Bruce Prior

Colleagues –

In the absence of an active tc-list, I thought I’d throw out some thoughts 
to an abbreviated list of worthies who might be interested in a discussion.  
If you wish to reply, you may do so to all those who are receiving this 
e-mail.  If you receive the message without the list attached, just send it 
to me and I’ll forward it to the group.

James M. Robinson has written a provocative, but well-argued article in the 
Harvard Theological Review, 1999, volume 92, number 1, pp. 61-77, "A Written 
Greek Sayings Cluster Older than Q:  A Vestige."

Note: in the following P = Pi, X = Xi and W = Omega and U = Upsilon.

Robinson argues that evidence from P. Oxy. 655 and Codex Sinaiticus suggests 
that PWSAUXANOUSIN or pws auxanousin should actually read PWSOUXANOUSIN or 
pws ou xanousin.  So, instead of speaking about ‘living’, the text is 
referring to ‘not carding’ or ‘not combing’ some fiber, such as wool.  This 
is especially interesting to me, since I can’t think of any hand-work stage 
in fabric processing which epitomizes drudgery better than carding.

Since a version of the passage is Q 12:27, Robinson claims to have found, 
through the transformation of an Omicron to an Alpha, a scribal error in Q, 
proving the common theory that Q was a written text.

I’d like to hear (or rather read) reactions.  Is Robinson convincing?  If 
so, should Matthew 6:28 be revised, and perhaps Luke 12:27 as well?  If the 
error precedes Q, how could the "correct" text have fallen into the hands of 
the original Codex Sinaiticus scribe?

I wait with skepticals mounted and quill dipped .... (8=})

J. Bruce Prior, PhD in Blaine, Washington
[email-masked]

------------------------------------------------------------------

>James M. Robinson has written a provocative, but well-argued article in the
>Harvard Theological Review, 1999, volume 92, number 1, pp. 61-77, "A
Written
>Greek Sayings Cluster Older than Q:  A Vestige."

Dear Dr. Prior (and to one and all),
    I have not access to Robinson's article, but he is known as a reputable
scholar. The issues at hand here are not new: in the BAGD lexicon (s.v.
xainw [page 547]), we note the basic argument from earlier days. Robinson's
twist is that he attempts to (apparently) use this variant for a premise in
an argument for the existence of a "Q" or a written "Q". To me this twist is
a very desperate foray.

>Robinson argues that evidence from P. Oxy. 655 and Codex Sinaiticus
suggests
>that PWSAUXANOUSIN or pws auxanousin should actually read PWSOUXANOUSIN or
>pws ou xanousin.  So, instead of speaking about 'living', the text is
>referring to 'not carding' or 'not combing' some fiber, such as wool.
This
>is especially interesting to me, since I can't think of any hand-work
stage
>in fabric processing which epitomizes drudgery better than carding.

    The variant as proposed by Robinson (which would read the "they card")
is attractive and can fit the style and context. However, before one changes
the basic text of Matthew 6:28 (and or Luke 12:27) more evidence is truly
needed. Using the myth of a "Q" is totally invalid here, that aside the P.
Oxy 655 reading does support his hypothesis, but not as a support for an
anterior reading prior to Sinaiticus. We are comparing apples to oranges
here, P. Oxy 655 is not a Biblical text, Sinaiticus is.
    According to Robert Grant and David Noel Freedman (The Secret Sayings of
Jesus, page 49), it was H.-C. Puech who first recognized that this fragment
is a part of the Gospel of Thomas, page 49 in the Fontana paper back
edition. This "Q" issue here is to me a non-issue.

>Since a version of the passage is Q 12:27, Robinson claims to have found,
>through the transformation of an Omicron to an Alpha, a scribal error in
Q,
>proving the common theory that Q was a written text.
>
>I'd like to hear (or rather read) reactions.  Is Robinson convincing?  If
>so, should Matthew 6:28 be revised, and perhaps Luke 12:27 as well?  If
the
>error precedes Q, how could the "correct" text have fallen into the hands
of
>the original Codex Sinaiticus scribe?

    If other NT Greek witnesses supported Sinaiticus here, then we may have
a case, but the variant should still be seen as a minor variant, one
probably based upon a phonetic error. In several places we note an  a/o
interchange in Codex 01 (Sinaiticus). The interchanges in this scribe's hand
should be completely investigated before we jump to a conclusion here. Most
of the other changes are well supported by other Greek witnesses, this one
here is very questionable, a poor support for his theory.
    It seems that most critic's are following some opinion about an erasure
here in 01's text. Did Tischendorf state that there was an erasure? And if
so, what was erased? A good high quality image of the text in question is
needed before I dare follow the reading as suggested by Robinson here. The
apparatus to Nestle/Aland seems faulty here. I am not sure what Swanson
follows here, he has a good film of 01, (and in it no original "o" is seen!)
but he seems to simply print what the N/A apparatus suggests. Here is a low
resolution shot of the text in question: please see the attachment to this
note. (a jpg shot titled    Mvc-003f.jpg)  So now open the attachment and
view it before proceding.
    In this image we can see   ...pwsauxa   which continues on to the next
line as the plural form.
>From the source of this low resolution shot, I note that the "x" and the "a"
following the "x" are different, they were written in over a good erasure
(vid).  The alpha following the omega, has been "repaired" its lower bowl
stroke is a bit deformed, but the upper backstroke appears strong and
original, though with a slighly odd curve, but definitely not part of an
"o". The upsilon seems original. The letters on the next line appear
original. The palaeographical issue here is: was there an "original" omicron
beneath the alpha? From my film, and even from this low resolution shot, it
appears not. However, infrared photography or ultraviolet light may disclose
otherwise.
    This is foundational to Robinson's argument here, if 01 does not support
his argument then he
is totally awash. Without seeing his article, which you cite, I have no idea
of his palaeographical preparation. How well did he examine the passage here
in 01? Or did he just follow the herd? The reading in 01 needs a better
reviewing before I would declare Swanson and the N/A editions correct. To me
this is the issue here, the reading in P Oxy 655 "may" actually contain a
variety of  01 original's text, but the evidence in 01 does not readily
support this.  At this stage I would say that the phonetic similarities
between P Oxy 655 and 01 here is just a coincidence. If an erasure occurred
in 01, it seems to be a minor one in which the scribe corrected something
under the "xa" NOT under the first alpha following the "pws". The little
"dot" after the "x" may have a bearing as well, but it seems that he began
writing the normal "au..." and then made an error after the "au" erased it
and wrote in the "xa". This is my conclusion from my film, which is a
tentative conclusion. Send me a nice sharp close-up color image!  :)   Until
then keep your paws off of the standard text of Matthew 6:28.

at your service,
Mr. Gary S. Dykes
email      [email-masked]

NOTE: Mr. Dykes attached an image of the relevant page of Sinaiticus, which 
did not transfer properly.  Perhaps he would be kind enough to post it to 
tc-list.
_________________________________________

Bruce,I read Robinson's piece (a German version appeared also just prior
to the HTR version) some time ago and so I now have only a
general memory of it, and, in the midst of trying to finish a chapter
of a book myself, can't now take time to re-read it.  But my
memory is that it presents what is in principle a plausible scenario,
though I personally think that the odds are against it.  Not against
Q being a written source, and not against there being versions of Q
and Q having had its own copying/textual history likely.  But
against the attendant argument that Aleph can be played with the
POxy text to argue that GosThom is closer to the earliest Jesus-
stratum than the canonicals.  Odds are against it, because it's
difficult to account for the overwhelming preference of the other
reading, and because the presence of the reading in Aleph can
more easily be accounted for by assuming the scribe knew the
other reading and preferred it.  Moreover, I simply don't see the
alleged difficulty of sense/meaning of the more familiar reading.
Seems to me to fit fine with the larger statement.

Larry

L. W. Hurtado
University of Edinburgh,
New CollegeMound Place
Edinburgh, Scotland EH1 2LX
Phone: 0131-650-8920
Fax: 0131-650-6579
E-mail:  [email-masked]

----------------------------------------------------

Robinson cites two MS evidences:
a) Sinaiticus: Robinson says that the reading has been seen by T.C. Skeat
under an UV lamp and that Skeat sent Robinson a photograph of this find. No
other reference is given, unfortunately. But we should believe these highly
respected scholars that it is correct.b)POxy 655:
According to the Editio Princeps POxy 655 reads:7  ........[POL]LW KREI[S
8  SON]ES [ESTE] TWN [KRI9  NWN ATI[NA A]UXA[10 NEI OUDE N[HQ]EI
I have looked at the plate and there is nothing of a letter before the U
visible. Even the U is slightly damaged. The X is clearly there, but from
the following A one can see only one small stroke. I would place at least a
dot under this A (from looking at the plate).Robinson (and others) have:
7  ........[POL]LW KREI[S8  SON]ES [ESTE] TWN [KRI9  NWN ATI[NA O]U XA[I
10 NEI OUDE N[HQ]EI
What Robinson cites as evidence is a conjecture only. They base it on the
Greek grammatical construction OU - OUDE (neither - nor). It is very
possible, but is is a conjecture, not evidence.
If one accepts this as evidence, then one can say: Yes, there was a variant
OU XAINEI in the 3rd cent.
But if it's the original reading is at least debatable. At least it is not
the harder reading.
I personally don't know what to make of the Synoptic Problem, but I find
this whole "Q-industry" rather alarming.Best wishes    Wieland      <><
--------------------mailto:[email-masked]
http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/
PS: My mail program has problems with sending to so many people. So please
accept my apologies, if there appears a "multi"-posting.

----------------------------------------------
I am of course pleased that you want to engender discussion of my HTR
essay, which I do think reports on an important finding (actually made by
T.C. Skeat in 1938, but thoroughly ignored). Let me for the moment only
speak to mechanics of a superficial kind: My e-mail address has changed.
The one you use is out of date, and we are at Claremont Graduate University
in a grace period during which it still works, but that will soon
terminate, and the new address is hence needed (unfortunately the AAR/SBL
1998 Membership Directory  has the old address). So please ask people to
send email to me from now on to [email-masked]. Second, the HTR
essay is the third I have published on this topic, cast in a more
popularizing vein (an SBL talk at Orlando). For the more detailed, fully
documented information please see the following two essays:
"Zeugnisse eines schriftlichen, griechischen vorkanonischen Textes: Mt
6,28b Sinaiticus, P.Oxy. 655 I,1-17 (EvTh 36) und Q 12,27." With Christoph
Heil. Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 89 (1998): 30-44.
This essay was written with a Q-Project member at Bamberg who conducted
together with me a seminar there on Q and Thomas. He might well be added to
your mailing list: [email-masked]. The fullest
presentation is in my essay "The Pre-Q Text of the (Ravens and) Lilies: Q
12:22-31 and P. Oxy. 655 (Gos. Thom. 36)." Eds. Stefan Maser and Egbert
Schlarb. Text und Geschichte: Facetten theologischen Arbeitens aus dem
Freundes- und Schülerkreis. Dieter Lührmann zum 60. Geburtstag, Marburger
Theologische Studien 50. Marburg: N. G. Elwert, 1999. Pp. 143-180. To your
concluding question, Skeat thinks the scribe of Sinaiticus was (like Skeat
himself) an ingenious textual critic who conjectured the text he was
copying was a scribal error so himself introduced the (correct) emendation.
I think the Gospel of Thomas was common enough at the time to have
influenced the scribe (4 copies of it are attested, which compares well
with the number of copies attested for the canonical gospels at the time).
Since the error was already in Q, I do not think the text of Q, Matthew and
Luke are to be corrected. The Novum Testamentum Graece and translations
report what Matthew and Luke wrote (as best we can), and both of them
seemed to have written the scribal error that was already in Q. It is even
unclear whether it should be corrected in the Critical Edition of Q (on
which I am now working full-time), since the Q we are reconstructing itself
may have copied from its source the mistake. It is the copy of Q that is
the shared ancestor of the copies of Q used by Matthew and Luke that we
seek to reconstruct, and that copy of Q had the error.

Sincerely your Jim Robinson 
_______________________________________________________________
 > I’d like to hear (or rather read) reactions.  Is Robinson convincing?  If
>so, should Matthew 6:28 be revised, and perhaps Luke 12:27 as well?  If the
>error precedes Q, how could the "correct" text have fallen into the hands 
>of
>the original Codex Sinaiticus scribe?
I don't really understand your questions, Bruce.
Is Robinson arguing that PWSOUXANOUSIN is the *Urtext* of Mt 6:28 (and Lk
12:27)? Only in that case do we have to contemplate revising the pertinent
texts. The "original" reading of "Q" is irrelevant to this case, for it is 
only
available through MT/Lk (if "Q" ever existed).
I've not seen Robinson's article, probably I miss something here...
------------------------------------------Dr. Ulrich Schmid
[email-masked]

------------------------------------------

>REPLY FROM JAMES M. ROBINSON:>
> >I am of course pleased that you want to engender discussion of my HTR
> >essay, which I do think reports on an important finding (actually made by
> >T.C. Skeat in 1938, but thoroughly ignored).
In my copy of Walter Bauer's *Griechisch-Deutsches Woerterbuch..., 5th ed. 
1971*
I find the entry *XAINW*, reporting Skeat's idea expressed in his 1938
ZNW-article.[...]> Skeat thinks the scribe of Sinaiticus was (like Skeat
> >himself) an ingenious textual critic who conjectured the text he was
> >copying was a scribal error so himself introduced the (correct) 
>emendation.
> >I think the Gospel of Thomas was common enough at the time to have
> >influenced the scribe (4 copies of it are attested, which compares well
> >with the number of copies attested for the canonical gospels at the 
>time).
Let's sum up:
1) We are dealing here with a conjectural emendation by the scribe of 01 (in
Skeat's view) plus a conjecture made by Skeat to fill in a lacuna in P.Oxy. 
655
(as part of the Gospel of Thomas = GT).
2) Correct me, if I'm wrong. But, out of the four copies of GT only one 
gives us
a hint to speculate about the XAINW-reading. Oddly enough, the hint is a
dammaged portion of text. Would you call that substantial evidence that GT 
ever
contained the reading under discussion?
3) Let's assume for a moment that one copy of GT might have given the
XAINW-reading. How likely is ist to assume that the mentioned reading was
transmitted faithfully within the textual transmission of GT, considering 
(a)
the dramatically unstable textual transmission of GT when compared to Mt, 
Mk,
and Lk, and (b) the clear signs of influence from the canonical Gospels on 
GT
(by the fourth century GT was already transmitted with the title borrowed 
from
the canonical Gospels = Gospel _according_ to Thomas)?
I'm left with puzzling questions: Is there undisputable evidence that GT 
exerted
any other influence on fourth century scribes of Gospel manuscripts (by now 
we
have only evidence of the reverse)? Is there any chance that a possible
XAINW-reading at some point within the fluid textual transmission of GT 
might go
back to a written source anterior to GT's initial composition?
------------------------------------------Dr. Ulrich Schmid
[email-masked]

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com